Armenian Philology in the Modern Era Handbook of Oriental Studies Handbuch Der Orientalistik

Home , Bernard Coulie, Holy See of Cilicia, Matthew of Edessa, Movses Khorenatsi, San Lazzaro degli Armeni

Armenian Philology in the Modern Era Handbook of Oriental Studies Handbuch der Orientalistik

section eight Uralic and Central Asian Studies

Edited by

Nicola Di Cosmo

VOLUME 23/1

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ho8 Armenian Philology in the Modern Era

From Manuscript to Digital Text

Edited by

Valentina Calzolari

With the Collaboration of

Michael E. Stone

LEIDEN | BOSTON Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Armenian philology in the modern era : from manuscript to digital text / edited by Valentina Calzolari ; with the collaboration of Michael E. Stone. pages cm — (Handbook of Oriental studies = Handbuch der Orientalistik. Section eight, Uralic & Central Asia ; volume 23/1) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-25994-2 (hardback : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-90-04-27096-1 (e-book) 1. Armenian philology. I. Calzolari, Valentina, editor of compilation. II. Stone, Michael E., 1938–

PK8002.A75 2015 491’.992—dc23 2014009260

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual ‘Brill’ typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, ipa, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 0169-8524 isbn 978-90-04-25994-2 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-27096-1 (e-book)

Copyright 2014 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Global Oriental and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change.

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Contents

Foreword ix List of Contributors x Introduction xi Sigla xv

Part ONE

Manuscripts, Inscriptions, and Printing

The Archaeology of the Armenian Manuscript: Codicology, Paleography, and Beyond 5 Dickran Kouymjian

Collections and Catalogues of Armenian Manuscripts 23 Bernard Coulie

On the Historical and Literary Value of the Colophons in Armenian Manuscripts 65 Anna Sirinian

Armenian Epigraphy 101 Tim Greenwood

Armenian Publishing and the Quest for Modernity (16th–19th Centuries) 122 Raymond H. Kévorkian

The Methodology of Textual Edition

Text Editing: Principles and Methods 137 Bernard Coulie

Digital Techniques for Critical Edition 175 Tara Andrews vi contents

Linguistics, Normative Grammar, Dialectology, and Philology

Connections between Linguistics, Normative Grammar, and Philology 199 Moreno Morani

Manuscripts and Dialects 214 Jos J.S. Weitenberg

Part Two Case Studies

Bible and Apocrypha

The Armenian Bible: Status Quaestionis 231 Claude Cox

The Armenian Apocryphal Literature of the Old Testament in the Twentieth Century 247 Michael E. Stone

The Editing of Christian Apocrypha in Armenian: Should We Turn Over a New Leaf? 264 Valentina Calzolari

Patristics, Historiography, Hellenizing School and Philosophical Literature, Medieval Poetry

The Church Fathers in Armenia and the Armenian Fathers 295 Bernard Outtier

The Major Works of Armenian Historiography (Classical and Medieval) 303 Robert W. Thomson

The Hellenizing School 321 Gohar Muradyan contents vii

Philosophical Literature in Ancient and Medieval Armenia 349 Valentina Calzolari

Medieval Poetic Texts 377 Theo M. van Lint

Modern and Contemporary Periods

Philology, Documentary Research, and Channels of Cultural Diffusion from the Seventeenth to the Nineteenth Century 417 Paolo Lucca

The Publication of Western Armenian Literature in the Twentieth Century (1920–2000) 466 Harout Kurkjian

Literary Production in Twentieth-Century Armenia: From Stifling State Control to the Uncertainties of Independence 504 Myrna Douzjian

Towards a “Discourse on Method” in Armenian Studies: A Survey of Recent Debates with Special Regard to the Problem of Textual Hermeneutics 532 Boghos L. Zekiyan

Index codicum et papyrorum 559 General Index 562

Foreword

This volume Armenian Philology in the Modern Era: From Manuscript to Digital Text is the first of a series sponsored by the International Association for Armenian Studies (Association Internationale des Études Arméniennes – AIEA), in the framework of the “Armenian Studies 2000” project. Launched at the turn of the twentieth century by the then President, Professor Michael E. Stone, and Secretary of the Association, Professor Jos J.S. Weitenberg, with the scientific guidance of Professor B. Levon Zekiyan, this AIEA project has two chief aims:

i. to present an in-depth state of the art in the main fields of Armenology; ii. to indicate new perspectives and desiderata for further research.

The “Armenian Studies 2000” project is organized so as to produce seven volumes dedicated to the major fields of Armenian Studies:

1) Philology 2) Linguistics 3) Literature 4) History: Ancient and Medieval Eras 5) History: Modern and Contemporary Eras 6) Religious and Intellectual history 7) Art and Architecture

With this scientific and editorial enterprise, the AIEA committee wishes to foster new methodological approaches and to promote new interest for Armenian Studies. It is our hope that these volumes will pave the way for new directions and new fields of research. As scholarly reference works, these volumes are addressed not only to the Armenological readership, but also to scholars and students from broader areas of the Oriental Studies. Acknowledgments are due to the Editorial Board of the Handbook of Oriental Studies for welcoming this project in their collection, and especially to Ms Patricia Radder and Mr Albert Hoffstadt for their effective assistance. A heartfelt thank is due to the anonymous referee of the present volume for his/her careful reading of the manuscript and numerous relevant suggestions. We also wish to express our gratitude to all editors and contributors of the “Armenian Studies 2000” volumes.

Valentina Calzolari AIEA President Geneva, July 2013 List of Contributors

Tara Andrews Universität Bern Valentina Calzolari Université de Genève Bernard Coulie Université catholique de Louvain Claude Cox McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, Ontario Myrna Douzjian Temple University Tim Greenwood University of St Andrews Raymond H. Kévorkian Université de Paris VIII Dickran Kouymjian California State University, Fresno Harout Kurkjian Athens Paolo Lucca Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia Moreno Morani Università di Genova Gohar Muradyan Mashtotsʿ Institute of Ancient Manuscripts (Matenadaran), Yerevan Bernard Outtier CNRS, Paris Anna Sirinian Alma Mater Studiorum–Università di Bologna Michael E. Stone The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Robert W. Thomson University of Oxford Theo M. van Lint University of Oxford Jos J.S. Weitenberg † Universiteit Leiden Boghos L. Zekiyan Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia Introduction

Philology is doubtless one of the most investigated fields of Armenian studies. Since the impetus given by the Mekhitarist Fathers in the nineteenth century and up to the present, textual criticism, and philological studies in general, influenced a large part of the Armenian researches and partially oriented the academic curricula. Modern textual criticism was developed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries chiefly by classical and biblical scholars. This statement is true for Armenian philology also. Amongst the most developed areas, one may mention, for example, the numerous studies dealing with the ancient Armenian translations from classical Greek literature as well as from Greek and Syriac patristic and exegetical works, aiming to assess the value of the Armenian witnesses for the critical restoration of the Greek or Syriac texts themselves. At the turn of the twentieth century, it was important to provide an overview of the main achievements of philology when applied to Armenian sources and on the methodological approaches implemented in this field till now. This is the aim of the present publication on Armenian Philology in the Modern Era: From Manuscript to Digital Text. This volume is the first in a projected series of seven to be hosted in the Handbook of Oriental Studies. It was therefore confronted with the difficult task of defining the guidelines and the nature of the enterprise. In the frame of the “Armenian Studies 2000” project launched by the AIEA (Association Internationale des Études Arméniennes – International Association for Armenian Studies),1 different specialists were requested to assess the achievements in their respective fields of study, to describe the methodological approaches that have been tested and to identify possible fruitful directions and subjects for further researches in the future. The various contributors wrote a chapter, in somes cases two, answering the questions they had been asked from the perspective of their own expertise. As is usual in humanities and social sciences, length of the chapters may depend on many factors, including the prolixity or the conciseness of the authors. It has not been deemed necessary to reduce the works of the authors to a “one size fits all” model; it has been judged more appropriate to let the analyses express the diversity of views and of characters, keeping alive the involvement of the scholars in their field of study.

1 See Foreword, p. ix. xii introduction

Structure and Content of the Volume

This volume contains two main parts. Part I focuses on the questions related to the material aspects of philology: the manuscript as an object and its circulation (codicology, palaeography, binding, collections), the inscriptions, and the study of Armenian printings. The catalogues of manuscripts and the colophons, which have an important place in the Armenian tradition, are also presented in two separate chapters. The second section of Part I is devoted to methodological approaches and practices. Special attention is paid to the traditional methods of textual edition, as well as to the digital tools and the methodology issued from phylogenetics, which are currently applied to textual criticism. This is a new world in continuous expansion which definitely has its place in a volume intending to open new directions for further research. The third section of Part I has an interdisciplinary character and explores the interface between linguistics, normative grammar, dialectology, and philology. Case studies form the core of Part II. This part does not pretend to be comprehensive, an impossible challenge for such broad a field as philology. Nevertheless, we hope that the main areas are duly covered in this overview. The different chapters of Part II follow both a thematic and a chronological order: Bible and Apocrypha, Patristics, Classical and Medieval Historiography, Hellenizing School, with a special chapter on the Ancient and Medieval Philosophical Literature, Medieval poetic Texts. A look at the history of the philological studies reveals that scholarly attention was mostly focused on the Ancient and Medieval periods, neglecting the modern age. We wished to fill this gap and provide an assessment on the modern and contemporary periods also. An extensive chapter offers an overview on the seventeenth-nineteenth centuries. Besides, two in-depth articles are devoted to the editing and the conditions of the circulation of the literary production in the twentieth century, both in Western and Eastern Armenian. We hope that the two chapters on the contemporary era will pave the way for further systematic inquiries into the textual criticism and the conditions of circulation of the contemporary Armenian literature. Up to the present, almost none of the literary works in modern Armenian has received a critical edition. Very little is known about the transmission and the preservation of autographs. Often first published in newspapers and magazines, before being collected in separate volumes, authors’ copies have rarely been kept. But when they were, we have most often times lost track of them and no one knows where they are hidden. In some cases, they are preserved in private archives and still await systematic cataloguing. This is particularly true of modern Western Armenian literature, which has to face the vicissitudes of its difficult transmission in Diaspora. This is also true for Eastern Armenian literature, and especially for the works written during the epoch of the great purges in Soviet Union. Studying introduction xiii and thereby preserving this literature is not only a scientific priority; it is also a duty in term of conservation of mankind’s heritage. In the same context, the digitalization of the autographs is a pressing desideratum, and the launching of academic programs, within scientific and international networks, to this purpose should be strongly supported. Being a collection of scholarly papers, this volume is like a multispectral approach to Armenian philology. It would not have been appropriate to try to reduce this multi- plicity of approaches to a single conclusion. Instead, the reader is presented with a last paper, an essay, discussing some recent debates in Armenian Studies and offering some considerations dealing with the problem of “textual hermeneutics”, especially in the field of the Armenian historiography.

Transliteration of Armenian Words

According to the guidelines given by the board of the Handbook of Oriental Studies, Armenian quotations and bibliographical references in Armenian are given in transliteration, based on the system established by H. Hübschmann, A. Meillet and É. Benveniste (see Revue des Études Arméniennes). Names of Armenian modern scholars are quoted in the Hübschmann-Meillet-Benveniste system of transliteration for the references published in Armenian (e.g. Połarean), or with the spelling they adopted in their publications in other languages (e.g. Bogharian), with cross references. In the two chapters devoted to contemporary literature, names of Armenian modern writers (after 1850) are given in the Library of Congress transliteration system (see Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies), following respectively the Eastern or the Western pronunciation. On first occurrence, the Hübschmann-Meillet-Benveniste transliteration is given between brackets, in order to provide transparency as to the spelling of these names in Armenian. The same system is adopted for the quotations and bibliographical references in modern Western Armenian, in order to preserve the current pronunciation of the words. In this case, the Library of Congress transliteration is given, according to the Western pronunciation, followed by the Hübschmann-Meillet- Benveniste transliteration between brackets. For some well known titles of journals, toponyms, or personal names – such as Haratch, Beledian, Kurkjian, Nichanian, Tölölian, etc. –, we follow the common conventions rather than the Library of Congress system. Russian names are also given in transliteration according to the system followed by the Revue des Études Arméniennes. As scholarly reference works, the volumes of this AIEA projected series are addressed not only to the Armenological readership, but also to scholars and students from broader areas of Oriental Studies. English translations are therefore also added to all Armenian and Russian titles. xiv introduction

Acknowledgments

We wish to express our deepest gratitude to Professor Michael E. Stone, who took part to the elaboration of the scientific conception of the volume from the very beginning. He read and carefully revised all the texts contained in this volume, giving numerous precious suggestions and paying a patient attention especially to the English redac- tional aspect. We wish also to thank Professor Alessandro Orengo (University of Pisa), who read the manuscript before publication and provided numerous relevant suggestions. Professor Bernard Coulie (Université catholique de Louvain) was a precious advisor in several phases of the realisation of this book, and we wish to express to him our gratitude. Special thanks are due to the translators of the articles, Dr Cynthia J. Johnson, Mr Joel Hooper (University of Durham, School of Modern Languages & Cultures), and Dr Emilio Bonfiglio (University of Geneva), to Ms Isabelle Jaillard- L’Herbette, who reviewed a number of the articles at the initial stage of the editorial process, and to Ms Sévane Haroutunian (University of Geneva) for her accurate assistance in the preparation of the index. This volume would not have been possible without the financial support of the Swiss National Fund for Scientific Research (SNF); the University of Geneva – and especially the Département des langues et des littératures méditerranéennes, slaves et orientales (MESLO), the Faculty of Humanities, and the Société académique de Genève; the Fondation Armenia and the Fondation des Frères Ghoukassiantz, both in Geneva. It is our pleasure to express here our deepest gratitude to all of these institutions for supporting this scientific and editorial project. Thanks are due to the editorial board of the Handbook of Oriental Studies, for accepting this volume in their collection and for giving a significant financial help in order to ensure the realisation of the translations in English. A heartfelt thank is due particularly to Ms Patricia Radder and Ms Gera van Bedaf for their perfect assistance in each step of the realisation of this book.

Valentina Calzolari Geneva, July 2013 Sigla

CCSA Corpus Christianorum. Series Apocryphorum CIArm Divan Hay Vimagrutʿyan/Corpus Inscriptionum Armenicarum, 8 vols, Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi hrata- rakčʿutʿyan tparan (vol. I–VI); HH Gitutʿyunneri Azgayin Akademia Gitutʿyun hratarakčʿutʿyun (vol. VII–VIII) CSCO Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium DPhA Dictionnaire des Philosophes Antiques HATS Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies HThR Harvard Theological Review HUAS Hebrew University Armenian Studies IAA Index of Armenian Art, http://armenianstudies.csufresno.edu/ iaa_miniatures/, n.d. JSAS Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies MH Matenagirkʿ Hayocʿ/Classical Armenian Authors, Antelias, Lebanon: Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia, 15 vols to date. NBHL Awetikʿean, G., Siwrmēlean, X. & Awgerean, M., Nor baṙgirkʿ haykazean lezui [New Dictionary of the Armenian Language], 2 vols, 1836–1837, i Venetik: S. Łazar (repr. Erevan: Erevani Hamalsarani Hratarakčʿutʿyun, 1979). OCA Orientalia Christiana Analecta REArm Revue des Études Arméniennes UPATS University of Pennsylvania Text and Studies WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament part one

∵

Manuscripts, Inscriptions, and Printing

‥

The Archaeology of the Armenian Manuscript: Codicology, Paleography, and Beyond

Dickran Kouymjian

The term “archaeology of the book” has become a catch phrase to describe the study of manuscripts as physical objects independent of their texts. It encompasses a number of sub-disciplines: codicology, paleography, binding technique, but also writing surface and method of illustration. Codicology includes ruling, the number of text columns, quire size, recalls (custodes), aspects of parchment and paper, and so forth. The major handbooks on Armenian paleography by Yakob Tašean, Garegin Yovsēpʿean, Ašot Abrahamyan, and our own Album of Armenian Paleography did not treat such matters. Fortunately, Armenian manuscript catalogues, beginning with Tašean’s model-setting massive 1895 volume of the Vienna Mekhitarist collection and continuing with those of Venice, Jerusalem, and Yerevan of the past century, have consistently included much of the information mentioned above. In the last 25 years specialized studies moved Armenian codicology forward, particularly Sylvie Merian’s work on Armenian binding technique, my own on the decoration of bindings, Thomas Mathews’ study of miniature painting pigments, and the work of Michael Stone, Henning Lehmann, and myself on Armenian script analysis in the Album of Armenian Paleography. The compilers of the master catalogues of the Matenadaran, seven volumes (1984, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2012) covering nos. 2400 of the 11,077 manuscripts1 in the collection, have carefully noted among other things quire organization and watermarked paper as has Raymond Kévorkian in the recent catalogue of the Bibliothèque nationale de France. Nira and Michael Stone have given extensive information of this type in their Catalogue of the Additional Armenian Manuscripts in the Chester Beatty Library, Dublin.2 The Matenadaran and Antelias catalogues have also systematically provided reproductions of the script for every manuscript and so has the BnF catalogue, but selectively. The majority of the 31,000 Armenian manuscripts have found their way into a catalogue; Bernard Coulie’s Répertoire with its three supplements, a work

1 A third volume was published of the résumé catalogue of all manuscripts in the Matenadaran after a long hiatus, volumes I and II having appeared in 1965 and 1970 covering MSS 1–10408: Malxasean & Tēr-Stepanean 2007, MSS 10409–11077. 2 Stone & Stone 2012.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��4 | doi ��.��63/9789004270961_��2 6 Kouymjian sponsored by our Association, is an excellent guide to them.3 A masterlist of Armenian manuscripts, a project initiated by Michael Stone and Bernard Coulie, waits to be completed, but even more pressing is the continued publication of the Master Catalogue of the Matenadaran collection. More discour- aging, despite the heroic work of the late Fr. Sahak Čemčemean, who prepared volumes 4–8 (1993–1998) of the Venice catalogue, more than 2,000 manuscripts in the collection wait publication with no one available to do the work. Nevertheless, with well over 20,000 manuscripts already listed in published catalogues, including the majority of manuscripts from the second largest collection at the Armenian Patriarchate in Jerusalem,4 serious work on Armenian codicology can move forward.

1 From Roll to Codex

The early history of the Armenian codex, that is the manuscript with folded pages, is obscure and may remain so. Our oldest dated manuscripts are the Venice Mlkʿē Gospels of 862 and the Łazarean Gospels of 887 in the Matenadaran. Claims that certain not-specifically-dated manuscripts in the Matenadaran are even earlier are not convincing, though some of the 3,000 fragments, mostly recycled as guard leaves, are credibly earlier.5 Many of these fragments have been studied philologically, but few codicologically. The Armenian case is remarkable because we know with certainty that the first manuscripts were produced between 404–6, but is confounding due to the hiatus of 450 years between the invention of the alphabet and the first surviving dated codices. We are certain that hundreds of texts were copied and recopied thousands of times in scores of scriptoria in this “empty” period simply because those texts

3 Coulie 1992; idem 1995; idem 2000; idem 2004. Though I have embraced Coulie’s figure of 31,000 Armenian codices, I have pointed out in a recent study based on a statistical analysis of a select group of manuscripts that we must add 8 to 12 % to the number of individually bound codices to account for volumes that contain more than one complete manuscript, thus, the figure should be between 32,000 and 34,000 individual manuscript: see Kouymjian 2012, 19. A much older study pointed out the value of statistical analyses of the data contained in published manuscript catalogues, see Kouymjian 1984; both articles are available at http://armenianstudies.csufresno.edu/faculty/kouymjian/articles/index.htm. 4 Połarean 1966–1991, MSS 1–2573. 5 Reservation on the antiquity of these fragments has also recently been expressed, Mouraviev 2010, Annex VI: “45–52. Calligraphie libraire antérieure au XIe siècle?”, 164–184. However, recent palimpsest studies, especially that of Gippert 2010, reveal clearly underwriting before the ninth century. The Archaeology of the Armenian Manuscript 7

have survived to our day through such transmission. It is hard to imagine that the technique of producing books remained static for four and a half centuries. What was the evolutionary process in the structure of the Armenian codex and the changes in such things as the script form and size? We do not know. All Armenian manuscripts are parchment or paper codices, except for phy- lactery rolls (hmayil) from later centuries. The unique Armeno-Greek papyrus, to be discussed shortly, is an anomalous object. The philologist Charles Mercier, following an accepted notion borrowed from Latin paleography, wondered whether the evolution from an upright erkatʿagir to a slanted one might be due to the passage from the papyrus roll to the codex.6 In neighboring Georgia codices of papyrus interleaved with parchment survive from the tenth century.7 Did Mesrop and his group first use rolls before codices? There are no Armenian papyrus manuscripts and no mention of any in the sources. Nevertheless, the large number of clay seals, seemingly originally attached to rolls of papyrus or parchment, found at Artaxata suggests a familiarity with this form.8 The codex triumphed over the roll in the fourth century. Therefore, it is likely that when Maštocʿ devised an alphabet in the fifth century, Armenians used the codex right from the start without a transition from the roll.9 If Mesrop worked in the royal chancellery he would have been familiar with the writing culture on rolls, because archives were conservative institutions. The memory of the roll passed into the medieval period, because in some Armenian Gospel portraits of the Evangelists as scribes, they are seen copying an exemplar of a roll instead of the expected codex. This feature was probably borrowed from Byzantine manuscripts, which used the author portraits of classical texts as models for the Evangelists, and these pre-Christian texts were indeed written on papyrus rolls. The first Armenian appearance of this anachronism is in the early eleventh-century Trebizond Gospels, which was strongly influenced by Byzantine iconography with both Mark and Luke copying codices from rolls

6 Mercier 1978–1979, 51–58, especially 52 and 57: “. . . passage de la droite à la penchée. On a avancé que ce passage aurait accompagné l’emploi du codex au lieu du volumen”. 7 These manuscripts were probably produced on Mt. Athos. 8 Thousands of clay seals were found in two “archives” at Artashat in a first-century context. These must have been attached to written documents, either papyrus or parchment, of which there is no trace. See the articles by Khachatrian 1996, and Manoukian 1996. 9 Tašean 1898, 93, had confirmed this notion a hundred years ago: “there is no trace that it (the papyrus) was ever used as a medium for writing among the Armenians”. 8 Kouymjian on their lecterns.10 Yet, the tradition of the roll survives well into the Cilician period and curiously is also found among provincial manuscripts that owe nothing to the Byzantine tradition in either style or iconography.11

2 Codicology: Structure of Manuscripts – Size, Support, Quires

Size. The earliest manuscripts were very large. Those of the ninth and tenth centuries, mostly Gospels, are on average 34 × 27 cm (by comparison, an A4 sheet is 29 × 21 cm.). Eleventh-century manuscripts remain quite large, 31 × 24, until the last two decades when they drop in size to less than A4. There are also in the eleventh century at least two very small manuscripts, both now in Venice, signaling a future trend: a Gospel of 1001, 18 × 14 cm, and one of the tini- est books, a Gospel of St. John dated 1073, measuring just 6.4 × 4.7 cm, much smaller than a credit card. Afterward, the size drops dramatically: twelfth- century manuscripts are about 28% smaller, 23 × 16 cm, than eleventh century ones and more than a third smaller than those of the ninth-tenth centuries. In part this is explained by the text and the writing surface; Gospels and Bibles and other liturgical texts were always larger, and parchment manuscripts were a bit bigger than paper ones so with the increase both of the variety of texts and the use of paper, overall size was reduced. Furthermore, the twelfth century was a difficult moment for Armenia, kingless and under Seljuk occupation, yet, the next century was the high point in Armenian book culture. Manuscript production had increased in quantity and dramatically improved in quality; paper had become the dominant medium, and though manuscripts were smaller in size than in the ninth to the eleventh centuries, 28 × 18 cm, they were nearly 20% larger than those of the twelfth century. Nevertheless the trend was moving toward a smaller, more conveniently manipulated book, as was the case in Byzantium and Europe where manuscripts became more portable as a larger public became literate. Eventually there was a size standardization from the

10 Venice, Mekhitarist Library, V1400, St. Mark, fol. 101v, St. Luke fol. 299v; color ills., Kouymjian IAA, http://armenianstudies.csufresno.edu/iaa_miniatures/manuscript.aspx? ms=V1400G. 11 For instance, four Evangelists pictured together in an Armenian Gospel of 1224 hold rolls where one would expect codices: Halle University Library, Arm. MS no. 1, fol. 4v, Kouymjian 2011, 134, fig. 24. The Archaeology of the Armenian Manuscript 9 fourteenth through the nineteenth centuries, roughly 20 × 14 cm, about half the size of the earliest manuscripts, two-thirds the size of an A4 sheet.12 Support. So too in time there was a major shift in the writing surface. Virtually all Armenian manuscripts to the twelfth century were made of parchment, even though the oldest paper manuscript dates to 971 or 981.13 The oldest Koranic manuscript on paper was copied just nine years earlier in 972, while in the West, although the oldest manuscript on paper is from the early eleventh century, its use only became widespread in the thirteenth century.14 In Armenia, however, already by the twelfth century, the majority of manuscripts, about 56%, were made from paper, no doubt supplied from such centers as Baghdad, where paper manufacture, assimilated after the Arab campaign in Central Asia around 751, was flourishing.15 By the fourteenth century, two- thirds of all Armenian codices were of paper and in the next century nearly 80%. From about 1500 on paper was the exclusive medium for manuscripts and the rare exception was for Gospels or Bibles. This respect for tradition is a common phenomenon; when papyrus gave way completely to parchment after the Arab conquest of Egypt, it was still used for papal, imperial, and private

12 These figures are based on a random sampling of 282 dated manuscripts from various libraries with the following results: Century Nr. dated MSS sampled Height Width

9–10th 12 34.4 26.7 11th 08 31.3 24.1 12th 18 22.6 16.2 13th 60 26.0 19.0 14th 39 20.2 14.2 15th 23 23.1 16.2 16th 35 18.7 13.5 17th 32 18.3 13.2 18th 37 22.3 14.9 19th 18 19.6 14.4 For more details see Kouymjian 2007b, 42. 13 Erevan, M2679, formerly Ēǰmiacin 102, a religious Miscellany; it is dated 971 or 981 depending on the reading of the second digit of the colophon; Stone, Kouymjian, Lehmann 2002, Nr. 11. For a tenth-century manuscript it is one of the smallest, 28 × 19 cm. 14 The oldest known paper document made in the West is the Missal of Silos in the Monastery of Santo Domingo of Silos near Burgas date usually to the eleventh century; its paper was probably produced in Muslim Spain. By the mid-thirteenth century paper was being manufactured in Italy. 15 Bloom 2001, 42–45 for details; for the early history of the use of paper in the Near East before the late tenth century, see 47–89. 10 Kouymjian documents until the tenth century. Jewish usage is still to write the Pentateuch and the Book of Esther for ritual use on parchment scrolls. This is a striking case of conservatism both of morphology and of material. It is worth remembering that parchment is said to have been invented in Pergamum in the second century B.C. and that the word derives from the name of the city. It enabled the development of the large codex, though the earliest codices are single quires of papyrus tied often at the top, inner corner (see above for very late usage in Georgia). Paper was cheaper and strong enough to make large codices. Quires. The codex is made up of folded pages called bifolia, each comprising two folios or four pages. The structural use of quires or gatherings is clear to anyone who has tried to fold in half ever increasing numbers of sheets of paper; after a certain quantity not only is it difficult to fold the bundle, but the inside sheets have a tendency to get pushed out; the pack is not neat. By keeping the number of folded sheets or bi-folios between four and eight, depending on the thickness of the paper or parchment, folding was made easy. Diagrams illustrating this quire structure are now standard in monographs on individual manuscripts.16 Nearly all Armenian manuscripts to the mid-thirteenth century were made of 8-folio quires, even though almost all manuscripts have some inconsistent gatherings of random sizes from one to seven bi-folios. In the last years of the twelfth and the first of the thirteenth century one encounters 10-folio quires, but these never became popular. In Cilicia starting early in the thirteenth century, the 12-folio quire took hold and became the standard for Armenian books until the end of the scribal tradition. To insure that the lines of text are uniformly rendered, Armenian manuscripts are consistently ruled with a dry point, and in later centuries in ink. The process of pricking or punching holes along the margins of folios as guide lines for ruling has been well described by Sylvie Merian in the catalogue for the exhibit Treasures from Heaven17 and need not be repeated here. There has been no comparative study of either ruling or pricking, however, among Armenian manuscripts.

3 Paleography

In the recently published Album of Armenian Paleography we tried to present an up-to-date study-manual of the discipline. In a long chapter, I tried to

16 Mathews and Sanjian 1991, 32–42. 17 Merian, Mathews, Orna 1994, esp. 125–128. The Archaeology of the Armenian Manuscript 11 cover in elaborate detail almost everything important on the development of Armenian manuscript writing.18 Nevertheless, there are still questions and problems confronting Armenian paleography. First there is the terminology used to describe the various scripts: erkatʿagir, bolorgir, nōtrgir, šłagir. The name erkatʿagir, iron letter or letters, has perplexed almost all paleog- raphers. In its most majestic form, the script is found in all early Gospel books; it is a grand script in all capitals similar to the imposing uncials of early Latin manuscripts. The Nor baṙgirkʿ of 1836–7 defines erkatʿagir as “written with an iron stylus” with the derivative meanings “old manuscript”, “capital letter”.19 The dictionary attributes its earliest use to Mxitʿar Aparancʿi, known as Fra Mxitʿaričʿ, a Unitore father who wrote in the early fifteenth century.20 A much older reference, however, is found in a short marginal colophon in a Gospel manuscript, generally dated to the tenth century, in the Mekhitarist library of Venice.21 “This erkatʿagir is not good, do not blame me. In the y[ear] 360 (= 911)]”.22 To explain the sense of iron letters, two theories have been proposed: the use of an iron stylus to write the letters or the use of iron oxide in the characteristic brownish ink of early manuscripts. Neither of these explanations is satisfactory. The preferred writing instrument for papyrus – the earliest light- weight writing surface – was a split reed from Egypt, the calamus, Armenian kalam. Even before the Arabs conquered Egypt, cutting off the unique source

18 Kouymjian 2002, 5–75. 19 NBHL 1836–7, I, 686b; Bedrossian 1985, 166, gives “written with a style (read stylus) or large needle, capital; capital letter”, Ciaciak 1837, 470: “written with an iron pen [on?] paper, parchment, or, written with capital letters, scritto colle lettere majuscole; the oldest text or manuscripts written with capital letters, códice scritto a carátteri majúscoli; léttera majúscola”. 20 NBHL 1836–7, 588; the full quotation is given more clearly under the definition for (grčʿagir): “Written with a pen (gričʿ), especially boloragir or nōtragir. The entire Psalter is not uniform; in order to be clear erkatʿagir and (also) (grčʿagir = boloragir), and other means. Histories of parchment and of paper, erkatʿagir and grčʿagir”. It has been suggested that grčʿagir in this period is synonymous with bolorgir. Bedrossian 1985, gives the meaning, “written, manuscript” for grčʿagir. Malxasyan 1955–1956, vol. 1, 587, raises doubt about the meaning: “1. written with an iron pen (?), manuscript written with erkatʿagir. 2. the old form of Armenian letters”. 21 Venice, MS 123, fol. 4; cf. Kouymjian 2002, 67. Sargisean 1914, 544, the author is not sure what the four letters of the second marginal notation on the same page mean, but if թ equals the traditional symbol of “in the year”, then the following letters represent the date, namely 911; cf. Matʿevosyan 1988, no. 64, 50. Yovsēpʿean 1951, does not include this colophon in his collection. 22 Ays erkatʿagirs čē ałēk, mi meładrēkʿ. I Tʿ [uakanin] YK. (= 911). 12 Kouymjian of papyrus, the Byzantines and Europeans had already turned to parchment as the favored material for book manuscripts and adopted the penna, the feather pen, for writing on it. Metal styluses were used in antiquity, but for durable materials such as clay tablets or waxed boards, the precursors of the codex. As for ferrous inks, many early Armenian manuscripts employed brown ink containing an iron oxide, rather than the black ink of Indian or Chinese origin. But the same brown ink is found in bolorgir manuscripts, so a thesis based on ink seems less convincing than the metal stylus theory. How then do we explain the name iron letters? If the tenth century mention of erkatʿagir in the Venice Gospels refers to the type of script used, we may associate it with two biblical passages in which the term iron is used in conjunction with writing or engraving. In both, the expression is, grčʿaw erkatʿeaw, “written with a stylus of iron”. They are Job 19:23–24 (“Oh that my words . . . were graven with an iron pen in lead or on the stone as eternal witness”)23 and Jeremiah 17:1 (“The sin of Judah is written with a pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond: it is graven upon the tablet of their heart, and upon the horns of your altars”).24 In both passages an iron stylus is used on hard surfaces. Movsēs Xorenacʿi, History (I, 16) also describes engraving on the rock of the Van fortress by Semiramis: “And over the entire surface of the rock. Smoothing it like wax with a stylus, she inscribed many texts”.25 The term erkatʿagir, therefore, probably refers rather to writing made by instruments of iron, that is lapidary inscriptions, the letters of which were in form the same as the majuscule used for Gospels, thus associating the “iron letters” with the Old Testament tradition of writing the holy text with a stylus of iron. If the term originated with the scribes of early Gospel manuscripts, one could speculate that the initial meaning of erkatʿagir was simply the equivalent of “scriptural writing”. Bolorgir26 or minuscule, the ancestor of modern Armenian type fonts, dominated scribal hands from the thirteenth to the sixteenth centuries, and continued on into the nineteenth. Its use for short phrases and colophons and even

23 Zōhrapean 1984 (1805), 482. 24 Zōhrapean 1984 (1805), 567. 25 Thomson 1978, 101; Movsēs Xorenacʿi 1991, 54, “On each side of the stone, rather like level- ing wax with a stylus, many letters were written on it”. 26 The anonymous BnF manuscript of 1730 uses the term boloragir in parallel with erkatʿagir, so too do some late eighteenth, early nineteenth century scholars; for a detailed discussion see Kouymjian 2002, 69–73. The Archaeology of the Armenian Manuscript 13 for copying an entire manuscript is attested as early as the tenth century.27 But it appears even earlier, or at least some of the bolorgir letter forms are found in the sixth or early seventh century Armenian papyrus and certain inscriptions and graffiti from the same paleo-Christian period.28 Like medieval Latin and Greek minuscule, bolorgir uses majuscule or erkatʿagir for capitals, creating for some letters quite different shapes for upper and lower case. Most authorities argue that the spread of bolorgir was due to time and economics: it saved valuable parchment because many more words could be copied on a page and conserved time because letters could be formed with fewer pen strokes than the three, four, or even five needed for erkatʿagir.29 The earliest reference I could find for bolorgir dates to the late twelfth century. Mxitʿar the scribe, probably writing in Greater Armenia, asks in a colophon: “. . . remember, in your holy prayers, Mxitʿar the drawer of this bolorgir and our parents. . . ”.30 What is interesting about the reference is not just that it is centuries older than those quoted in earlier literature, but that it is from a manuscript written in transitional or mixed erkatʿagir-bolorgir script, which for Mxitʿar was bolorgir. Because bolorgir is angular with few letters that can be described as rounded, the term has troubled specialists, perhaps in part because they have interpreted its meaning as “rounded letters”. In the earliest seventeenth- century Western sources the Latin equivalents have been orbicularis (Rivola, Galano) and rotunda (Schröder). This may have had the sense of lower-case, the Latin rotunda for minuscule rather than a description of the shape of the letters. In Armenian, bolor does not only mean “round” or “rounded”; it has an older and stronger sense of “all” or “whole”, that is “complete”. Thus, scribes when using the term may have just as well meant “whole script”, one with both

27 The oldest paper manuscript, M2679, a Miscellany of 971 or 981 is a mixed erkatʿagir, bolorgir script. See above note 13 for a general discussion. 28 Mouraviev 2010, collected in Annex VI; on the papyrus see below. 29 Mercier 1978–9, 53: “Is it not also possible that bolorgir, used at first informally, was elevated to formal status because of considerations of time and expense?” 30 Yovsēpʿean 1951, 661–662, no. 299, from a manuscript of Commentaries formerly in the collection of the Monastery of the Holy Cross (Surb Nšan) of Sebastia, Gušakean 1961, 101; cf. Matʿevosyan 1988, 326, no. 338. 14 Kouymjian upper and lower case letters, like a standard minuscule and unlike majuscule or erkatʿagir, which had no real capital letters, rather it used the same letters just written bigger. The other major paleographical problem can be popularly stated as: what letters did Mesrop Maštocʿ use? Most scholars hold that Mesrop invented and used a large, upright rounded majuscule, similar to that found in early lapidary inscriptions, and thus call it Mesropian erkatʿagir. It is further argued that this script eventually went through various changes – slanted, angular, small erkatʿagir – and eventually evolved into bolorgir, and in time into nōtrgir and šłagir. Doubt about such a theory started quite early; Tašean himself, the pioneer of the scientific study of Armenian paleography, hesitated and Garo Łafadaryan in 1939 even maintained that bolorgir already existed in the time of Mesrop.31 It was also once believed that minuscule gradually developed from earlier Latin and Greek formal majuscule found in inscriptions and the oldest manuscripts. But the late nineteenth-century discovery in Egypt of thousands of Greek and Roman papyri forced scholars to abandon this notion. The roots of Greek cursive of the ninth century can be traced back to the informal cursive of pre-Christian papyri. Latin minuscule is evident already in third-century papyri.32 Is it possible that along with majuscule erkatʿagir some form of an informal cursive script, which later developed into bolorgir, was available in the fifth century?33 Uncial was used in the West for more formal writing: Gospels, important religious works, and luxury manuscripts. The data gathered for the Album of Armenian Paleography point to a similar pattern. The earliest bolorgir manuscripts appear chronologically anomalous until one notes that they are philosophical or less formal texts rather than Gospels. Examination of pre-Christian Latin papyri shows the origins of Caroline script (similar to Armenian bolorgir) in earlier cursive minuscule found in them. The invention of the Armenian alphabet in the early fifth century

31 Details in Kouymjian 2002, 70–71. 32 Bischoff 1985, 70. 33 Mercier 1978–9, 57, seemed inclined toward such an hypothesis: “Si, dès le 10e s., on trouve capitale et minuscule, on nʾen peut conclure que ces deux écritures ont toujours coexisté . . ”. On the other hand, there are 500 years between the invention of the Armenian alphabet and the tenth century, plenty of time for an evolution to bolorgir. The Archaeology of the Armenian Manuscript 15 precludes any pre-Christian antecedents.34 Both Greek and Syriac,35 the languages which most influenced Maštocʿ in creating the Armenian alphabet, used cursive and majuscule in that period. It is difficult to imagine that Mesrop and his pupils, as they translated the Bible, a task that took decades, would have used the laborious original erkatʿagir for drafts as they went along. The use of the faster-to-write intermediate erkatʿagir seems more than probable, yet it was not a minuscule script, nor cursive. Unfortunately, except for the papyrus, no written documents in Armenian except codex manuscripts have survived before the thirteenth century.36 Deciding between a theory of evolution of bolorgir versus the notion that erkatʿagir and more cursive scripts co-existed from the fifth century will not be easy.37 The development and use of later cursive scripts, nōtrgir and the modern every day script with attached letters, šłagir are discussed in detail in the Album of Armenian Paleography.38

3.1 Armeno-Greek Papyrus The Armeno-Greek papyrus, once thought lost but rediscovered in the Bibliothèque nationale de France during research for the Album of Armenian Paleography, is a key document for the study of the evolution of Armenian writing.39 It was brought to Paris from Egypt in the late nineteenth century; it provoked Tašean in the 1890s to write his study of Armenian paleography, even though he and subsequent scholars relied on a photograph of only a part of one side of the papyrus. Since the text is entirely in Greek, but written with the letters of Mesrop, it has been suggested that its author was either an Armenian merchant or an Armenian soldier in the Byzantine army trying to learn Greek. Its Greek contents have been thoroughly analyzed and published by James Clackson.40 Whether it is of the early seventh, the sixth or even the fifth

34 Indeed, we have no Armenian manuscript writing of a certain date before the ninth century, though some scholars claim that an undated manuscript (M11056) is older and some fragments in Erevan are from the fifth century. 35 Here the reference is probably to Estrangelo, used for lapidary inscriptions, which Kaplan 2008, refers to as monumental Syriac in her doctoral dissertation. 36 The earliest Armenian chancellery documents are from the Cilician court (thirteenth century) and by then minuscule bolorgir was already the standard bookhand. 37 Łafadaryan 1939, believed a minuscule script existed from Maštocʿ’s time not in the form of bolorgir, but as nōtrgir or notary script; see his conclusions, p. 71. 38 Kouymjian 2002, 73–75. 39 Kouymjian 2002, 59–65, for its importance to Armenian paleography and how I stumbled upon the papyrus in the BnF and references to my earlier articles of 1996, 1997, 1998. 40 Clackson 2000. 16 Kouymjian century, it is the oldest surviving, extensive, non-lapidary Armenian writing. Most of the letters have the form of angular or slanted erkatʿagir with some letters looking more like bolorgir and others even like šłagir with attached letters. The overall look is of a cursive script, unlike our earliest dated manuscripts all of which are copied centuries after the papyrus, thus, one can argue that the forms in the papyrus ante-date those of the Mesropian erkatʿagir of the early Gospels, or stated differently, was this the kind of script used in Mesrop’s time?

4 Binding

Binding structure has been very well studied by Sylvie Merian: the use of grecage, the v-shaped notches used for sewing bifolios and consolidating quires, the distinctive Armenian headband sewing, the method of attaching the book block to wooden boards, the use of textile linings or doublures to cover the board attachments (but not their artistic analysis).41 My own interest has been in the decoration of the leather through the study of inscribed and dated bindings42 and the localization and analysis of the New Julfa school of binding motifs of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.43 However, no serious attempt has been made to present the basic decorative features of earlier bindings. The traditional motifs of these bindings are fashioned almost exclusively of tooled rope work or guilloche bands. I have classified them into three groups, each within an outer frame of braiding: 1) a braided cross on a stepped pedestal, 2) a rectangle filled with braided tooling, and 3) an intricate geometric rosette.44 The majority of early Armenian manuscripts are Gospels. Their decoration follows a rather consistent program. On the upper cover is a stepped or Calvary cross and on the lower a braided rectangle. (The geometric design is usually employed on other religious texts: hymnals, miscellaneous collections, even Bibles.) Later, among the hundreds of silver bindings of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, a Crucifixion, that is Christ on the cross, replaced the plain cross of leather bindings and the Resurrection, the rectangle on the lower cover, thus dispelling the mystery by equating it with the Resurrection. In some

41 In particular her doctoral dissertation, Merian 1993; see also Merian, Mathews, Orna 1994, 130–134. 42 Kouymjian 1992, 403–412; idem 1993, 101–109, pls. 1–5; idem 1998, 259–274; idem 2007a, 236–247. 43 Kouymjian 1997, 13–36. 44 See now, Kouymjian 2008b, 169, fig. 7. The Archaeology of the Armenian Manuscript 17 bindings, however, the Virgin appears on the lower cover. Their binders either moved away from the earlier tradition, or simply failed to understand it.45 The cross in general, especially the braided cross on a pedestal, had a very prominent place in early Armenian gospel illumination. A full page cross often appears either at the beginning of the initial illuminated quire of Gospels or at the end before the text proper. It is tempting to seek the source in Armenian xačʿkʿars. The stone cross is a symbol of the Crucifixion but does not show it. Furthermore, while all stone crosses depict the “living cross”, characterized by branches or leaves growing out of their bases, none of the braided crosses, whether painted or on leather, are flowering. The style of those on tooled Gospel bindings comes from a source other than xačʿkʿars. Still the use of this powerful motif of Christ’s sacrifice on the very book that recounts His Passion and on xačʿkʿars of the dead whose souls will also be resurrected, explains its long persistence. As far as I know the braided rectangle, almost exclusively found on the lower panel of leather Gospel bindings, was first explained in a footnote I wrote some years ago.46 Recently I devoted a monograph to the subject.47 If the Crucifixion is represented by a cross on the upper cover of Armenian bindings, then logically on the lower cover there should be the Resurrection, or some symbol for it. On silver bindings the predominant image on the upper face is the Crucifixion, a real Crucifixion with Christ on the cross. The majority of these bindings portray the Resurrection on the underside. What relationship does the rectangle on the lower cover of leather Armenian Gospels (the device is unknown on silver covers) have with any of the standard iconographies of the Resurrection? One thinks immediately of the doors of Hell knocked down and trampled upon by Christ in the Anastasis or Descent into Hell.48 The rectangle represents the door to Satan’s domain opened by redemption through the Savior. But the Byzantine Anastasis, was essentially a foreign intrusion in Armenian iconography when Armenian nobility and clergy had close relations with the Greeks. Thus, choosing such an important symbol from a non- indigenous iconographic source seems improbable. Another element, however, from the iconography of Resurrection presents a better explanation. It is

45 Kouymjian 2008a, 212–214. 46 Kouymjian 1998, 262, n. 1: “Je pense que ce rectangle symbolise la Résurrection comme la croix symbolise la Crucifixion. J’espère préparer, dans un proche avenir, une étude sur ce sujet”. 47 Kouymjian 2008a, illustrated with examples from paleo-Christian models, xačʿkʿars, and of course binding covers. 48 Abundant discussion of the iconography of this seen can be found in Kartsonis 1986. 18 Kouymjian also a door or rather a stone slab, the one used to close the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea in which Christ was buried. It is often depicted in paleo-Christian representations of the Resurrection showing the Holy Women at the Empty Tomb. In Armenian painting the door appears only rarely in the scene and was not retained as an important element in the rendering of the Women at the Empty Tomb, reducing greatly the possibility that the binding rectangle was borrowed from earlier and now lost Armenian Gospel miniatures. On the other hand, if the rectangle represents the tomb itself, open and empty, then it fits perfectly with that feature seen in earliest Armenian miniatures of the eleventh century. One often reads in the more provincial manuscripts the word gerezmann, “the Tomb”, written within the rectangle as witnessed in two miniatures of the eleventh century from Melitene.49 If this hypothesis is correct and the rectangle served as the inanimate symbol for the Resurrection as the cross was the inanimate symbol of the Crucifixion, then later when the Anastasis was accepted as the image of Resurrection in certain Armenian Gospels, the doors, in this case of Hell, would have only rein- forced the perception of the already existing rectangular device. In later centuries, the rectangle must have lost its meaning to the binders, because in some codices, the rectangle was used on the upper cover or on both covers and even on non-Gospel manuscripts. When the meaning of the rectangle became obscure, some binders simply replaced it with a visually clearer and more easily understood image of the Resurrection to match what by then had become a very iconic Crucifixion in place of the barren braided cross.50 If the above is not a correct interpretation of this enduring rectangular shape, then there is no other option except to follow earlier scholars and pass on the motif in silence.

49 For example the Gospel of 1045, Erevan, Matenadaran, M3723, f. 3; Izmailova 1979, 80, fig. 39, with other eleventh century examples, passim; details given in Kouymjian 2008a, 213. See now Kouymjian 2014, 85-86 and Fig. 6, available at http://armenianstudies .csufresno.edu/faculty/kouymjian/articles/index.htm. 50 This phenomenon is particularly evident in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century silver bindings of Armenian manuscripts, Kouymjian 2008a, pl. 4, Gospel manuscript of 1769, Antelias, Cilician Museum, no. 50. The most common substitute for the rectangle on the lower cover of silver bindings, the Virgin and Child, must have represented to those responsible for this arrangement the Incarnation, thus the reverse pair, Incarnation and Resurrection, which on some bindings, for instance in the collection of the Cilician Museum in Antelias, shows the Madonna and Child on the upper cover and the Crucifixion on the lower in proper chronological sequence. The Archaeology of the Armenian Manuscript 19

Bibliography

Bedrossian, M. 1985. New Dictionary Armenian-English, Venice: San Lazzaro, 1879, reprint Beirut: Librairie du Liban. Bischoff, B. 1985. Paléographie de l’Antiquité romaine et du Moyen Âge occidental, translated by H. Atsma & J. Vezin, Paris: Picard. Bloom, J.M. 2001. Paper before Print. The History and Impact of Paper in the Islamic World, New Haven & London: Yale University Press. Ciakciak, E. 1837. Dizionario Armeno-Italiano, Venezia: Tipografia Mechitaristica di San Lazzaro. Clackson, J.P.T. 2000. “A Greek Papyrus in Armenian Script”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 129, 223–258. Coulie, B. 1992. Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits arméniens, Turnhout: Brepols. Coulie, B. 1995. “Supplément I”, Le Muséon 108, 115–130. Coulie, B. 2000. “Supplément II”, Le Muséon 113, 149–176. Coulie, B. 2004. “Supplément III”, Le Muséon 117, 473–496. Dashian, J. (Tašean, Y.) 1895. Cʿucʿak hayerēn jeṙagracʿ Matenadaranin Mxitʿareancʿ i Vienna / Catalog der armenischen Handschriften in der Mechitharisten-Bibliothek zu Wien (Mayr Cʿucʿak hayerēn jeṙagracʿ hratarakeal i Mxitʿarean Miabanutʿenē, i Awstria 2/Haupt-Catalog der armenischen Handschriften herausgegeben von der Wiener Mechitharisten-Congregation, Bd. I. Die armenische Handschriften in Österreich, 2), Wien: Mechitharisten-Buchdruckerei. Galano, C. 1645. Grammaticae et Linguae Logicae Institutiones Linguae Literalis Armenicae, Romae: Propaganda Fide. Gippert, J. 2010. The Armenian Layer, vol. 3 of Gippert, J., Schulze, W., Aleksidze, Z. & Mahé, J.-P., The Caucasian Albanian Palimpsests of Mount Sinai (Monumenta Palaeographica Medii Aevi: Series Ibero-Caucasica, 2/3), Turnhout: Brepols. Gušakean, Tʿ. 1961. “Cʿucʿak hayerēn jeṙagracʿ S. Nšani vanucʿ i Sebastia” [Catalogue of Armenian Manuscripts in the Monastery of the Holy Cross in Sebastia], Handēs amsōreay (1929), 349–359, reprinted in Tʿ. Gušakean, Katalog der armenischen Handschriften des Klosters sourb Neschan in Sebaste (in Armenian with German title), Vienna: Mxitʿarean tparan. IAA. See Sigla in the present volume. Izmailova, T. 1979. Armyanskaya miniatiura XI veka [The Armenian Miniature of the XIth Century], Moskva: Iskusstvo. Kaplan, A. 2008. Paléographie syriaque. Le développement d’une méthode d’expertise sur la base des manuscrits syriaques de la British Library (Ve–Xe s.) (unpublished PhD thesis, Université Catholique de Louvain). 20 Kouymjian

Kartsonis, A.D. 1986. Anastasis, The Making of an Image, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Khachatrian, Z. 1996. “The Archives of Sealings Found at Artashat (Artaxata)”, in M.-F. Boussac & A. Invernizzi (eds), Archives et Sceaux du monde hellénistique. Bulletin de Correspondence Hellénique, Supplement 29, Paris: Broccard, 365–370. Kouymjian, D. 1984. “Dated Armenian Manuscripts as a Statistical Tool for Armenian History”, in T. Samuelian & M. Stone (eds), Medieval Armenian Culture (UPATS, 6), Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 425–439 (http://armenianstudies.csufresno.edu/faculty/ kouymjian/articles/index.htm). Kouymjian, D. 1992. “Dated Armenian Manuscript Bindings from the Mekhitarist Library, Venice”, Atti del Quinto Simposio Internazionale di Arte Armena – 1988, Venezia: San Lazzaro, 403–412. Kouymjian, D. 1993. “Inscribed Armenian Manuscript Bindings: A Preliminary General Survey”, in H.J. Lehmann & J.J.S. Weitenberg (eds), Armenian Texts, Tasks and Tools, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 101–109, pl. 1–5. Kouymjian, D. 1997. “The New Julfa Style of Armenian Manuscript Binding”, JSAS 8, 13–36. Kouymjian, D. 1998. “Les reliures de manuscrits arméniens à inscriptions”, Recherches de codicologie comparée. La composition du codex au Moyen Âge, en Orient et en Occident, in Ph. Hoffman (ed.), Paris: Presses de l’École normale supérieure, 259–274. Kouymjian, D. 2002. “History of Armenian Paleography”, in Stone, Kouymjian & Lehmann, 5–75. Kouymjian, D. 2007a. “Les reliures à inscriptions des manuscrits arméniens”, in C. Mutafian (dir.), Arménie: la magie de l’écrit (La Vieille Charité, Marseille, 27 avril–22 juillet), Paris & Marseille: Somogy & Maison arménienne de la jeunesse et de la culture, 236–247. Kouymjian, D. 2007b. “La structure et l’illustration des manuscrits arméniens”, in V. Calzolari (dir.), Illuminations d’Arménie. Arts du livre et de la pierre dans l’Arménie ancienne et médiévale (Fondation Martin Bodmer, Cologny-Genève, 15 septembre–30 décembre 2007) Genève: Fondation Martin Bodmer. Kouymjian, D. 2008a. “The Decoration of Medieval Armenian Manuscript Bindings”, in G. Lanoë (ed.), La reliure médiévale: pour une description normalisée. Actes du colloque international (Paris, 22–24 mai 2003) organisé par l’Institut de recherche et d’histoire des textes (CNRS), Turnhout: Brepols, 209–218. Kouymjian, D. 2008b. “Post-Byzantine Armenian Bookbinding and Its Relationship to the Greek Tradition”, in N. Tsironis (ed.), Vivlioamphiasts 3. The Book in Byzantium: Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Bookbinding (Proceedings of an International Conference Athens, Greece, October 13–16, 2005), Athens: Foinikas Publications, The Archaeology of the Armenian Manuscript 21

163–176. (http://armenianstudies.csufresno.edu/faculty/kouymjian/articles/index .htm). Kouymjian, D. 2011. “L’art de l’enluminure / The Art of Miniature Painting”, in D. Kouymjian & C. Mutafian (eds), Artsakh Karabagh. Jardin des arts et des traditions arméniens / Garden of Armenian Arts and Traditions, Paris: Somogy, 104–137. (http://armenianstudies.csufresno.edu/faculty/kouymjian/articles/index.htm). Kouymjian, D. 2012. “Notes on Armenian Codicology. Part 1: Statistics Based on Surveys of Armenian Manuscripts”, Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies Newsletter 4, 18–23 (http://armenianstudies.csufresno.edu/faculty/kouymjian/articles/index .htm). Kouymjian, D. 2003. “The Melitene Group of Armenian Miniature Painting in the Eleventh Century”, in R. Hovannisian (ed), Armenian Kesaria/Kayseri and Cappadocia, Historic Armenian Cities and Provinces, Costa Mesa: Mazda, 79-115 (http://armenianstudies.csufresno.edu/faculty/kouymjian/articles/index.htm). Łafadaryan, G. 1939. Haykakan gri skzbnakan tesaknerǝ, hnagrakan-banasirakan usumnasirutʿyun [The Original Types of Armenian Letters. Paleographic- Philological Study], Erevan (repr. 1953). Malxasyan, A. & Tēr-Stepanyan, A. 2007. Cʿucʿak jeṙagracʿ Maštocʿi anuan Matenadarani [Catalogue of Manuscripts of the Mashtots Matenadaran], vol. 3, Erevan: Erevani Hamalsarani Hratarakčʿutʿyun (in Arm. with title pages in English and Russian). Malxasyancʿ, S. 1955–1956. Hayerēn bacʿatrakan baṙaran [Descriptive Dictionary of Armenian], 4 vol., Erevan: 1944–1945, reprint Bēyroutʿ: Sevan. Manoukian, H. 1996. “Les empreintes d’Artachate (antique Artaxata)”, in Marie- Françoise Boussac & Antonio Invernizzi (eds), Archives et Sceaux du monde hellénis tique. Bulletin de Correspondence Hellénique, Supplement 29, Paris: Broccard, 371–373. Matʿevosyan, A. 1988. Hayeren jeṙagreri hišatakaranner (V–XII dd.) [Colophons of Armenian Manuscripts, Vth–XIIth Centuries], Erevan: Matenadaran. Mathews, Th.F. & Sanjian, A.K. 1991. Armenian Gospel Iconography. The Tradition of the Glajor Gospel, Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Mercier, Ch. 1978–9. “Notes de paléographie arménienne”, REArm 13, 51–58. Merian, S. 1993. The Structure of Armenian Bookbinding and Its Relation to Near Eastern Bookmaking Traditions (unpublished PhD thesis, Columbia University). Merian, S.L., Mathews, Th.F. & Orna, M.V. 1994. “The Making of an Armenian Manuscript”, in Th.F. Mathews & R.W. Wieck (eds), Treasures in Heaven. Armenian Illuminated Manuscripts, New York: Pierpont Morgan Library. Mouraviev, S. 2010. Erkat‘aguir ou Comment naquit l’alphabet arménien, Annexe VI: “Ébauche de paléographie arménienne des Ve–VIIe siècles”, Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag. 22 Kouymjian

Movsēs Xorenacʿi. 1991. Patmutʿiwn Hayocʿ [History of the Armenians], critical text, M. Abełean & S. Yarutʿiwnean, facsimile of the Tiflis edition of 1913, Erevan: HH GAA Gitutʿyun Hratarakčʿutʿyun. NBHL. See Sigla in the present volume. Połarean (Bogharian), N. 1966–91. Mayr cʿucʿak jeṙagracʿ Srbocʿ Yakobeancʿ [Master Catalogue of Manuscripts of Saint James], 11 vols., Erusałēm: Tparan Srbocʿ Yakobeancʿ. Rivola, F. 1624. Grammaticae Armenae Libri Quattuor, Mediolani: ex typographia Collegii Ambrosiani. Sargsean, B. 1914. Mayr cʿucʿak hayerēn jeṙagracʿ matenadaranin Mxitareancʿ i Venetik [Master Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts of the Mekhitarist Library in Venice], vol. 1, i Venetik: S. Łazar. Schröder, J.J. 1711. Thesaurus Linguae Armenicai, antiquai et hodiernai, Amsterdam: [Vanandecʿi]. Stone, M.E., Kouymjian, D. & Lehmann, H.J. 2002. Album of Armenian Paleography, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press (Armenian trans., Erevan, 2006). Stone, M.E. & Stone, N. 2012. Catalogue of the Additional Armenian Manuscripts in the Chester Beatty Library, Dublin (HUAS, 12), Leuven: Peeters. Tašean, Y.: see Dashian, J. Thomson, R.W. 1978. Moses Khorenats‘i. History of the Armenians, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Yovsēpʿean, G. 1951. Yišatakarankʿ jeṙagracʿ [Colophons of Manuscripts (From the Fifth to the Eighteenth Century)], vol. 1: E. daricʿ minčʿew 1250 tʿ. [From the Fifth Century to 1250], Antʿilias: Tparan Katʿołikosutʿean Hayocʿ Meci Tann Kilikioy. Zōhrapean, Y. 1984. Astuacašunčʿ matean hin ew nor ktakaranacʿ [Bible Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments]. A Facsimile Reproduction of the 1805 Venetian Edition with an Introduction by C. Cox (Classical Armenian Text Reprint Series), Delmar, NY: Caravan Books. Collections and Catalogues of Armenian Manuscripts

Bernard Coulie

Few cultures attach as much value to manuscripts as the Armenians. For them, a manuscript book is much more than a simple tool of transmission. It has a double value in Armenian eyes: that of the texts it contains, which are preserved and disseminated as a result, but it also has its own intrinsic value as a manuscript book, as an object that has become the symbol of a culture and identity. The vicissitudes of Armenian history play a key role in this process. Armenians have often been dominated by foreign powers and have had to seek affirmation of their identity in non-political elements: religion, language, writing, and attachment to ancestral lands have been the main vectors of Armenian cultural identity. These vectors also reflect a culture that is very much oriented towards intellectual endeavours, where reference to texts is extremely important, whether these be biblical or patristic texts that are central to Armenians’ religious and spiritual life, or other material such as historiographical texts. It is therefore not surprising that manuscripts have been held in such high esteem by Armenians. Another reason lies in the continual enrichment of the manuscript by Armenian artists, whose illuminations and decorations represent one of the highest achievements of Armenian art. Manuscripts continued to be produced long after the invention of printing, even though printing allowed Armenian works to reach a wider audience more quickly.1 These factors certainly explain the relatively large number of Armenian manuscripts that have survived, compared with manuscripts in Greek, Latin or Georgian. Based on data from library catalogues, we can put the number of Armenian manuscripts at a little over 30,000, perhaps even 31,000. This may seem a low figure, but anyone who is familiar with Armenian history and the succession of destroyed towns and monasteries – not forgetting the tragic events of 1915 – will regard the figure of 30,000 as almost miraculous. It is

1 See Kévorkian & Mahé 2005 for a good summary of the history of Armenian books, from manuscript to printing; see Kévorkian 1986, and in particular the preface by Jean-Pierre Mahé, pp. VI–XXXII, for information on the beginnings of Armenian printing, its historical context and its cultural and religious aspects. – The author would like to thank Valentina Calzolari, Dickran Kouymjian, and Michael Stone for their advice and comments in the preparation of this chapter.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��4 | doi ��.��63/9789004270961_��3 24 Coulie particularly impressive when we consider, for example, that around 55,000 Greek manuscripts have survived, along with 300,000 Latin manuscripts2 and 12,000 Georgian manuscripts. Armenian manuscripts thus constitute an extremely significant cultural heritage and show the vitality and creativity of a culture in contact with the Latin West, Byzantium, and the Iranian world, which fed on the works of classical antiquity and was eventually able to produce its own treasures. The description and catalography of manuscripts is part of the discipline of codicology (the study of manuscript books);3 these activities are also an important branch of library science. There have been significant developments in the catalography of manuscripts since the mid-twentieth century, and standards of description have been raised. This is because various groups are interested in manuscripts: philologists, palaeographers, codicologists, and art historians; one scholar may want to obtain information from colophons, while another is interested in the bindings, watermarks, parchment, paper, ink or rulings. Nowadays, a catalogue must do more than simply state the age and contents of the manuscript. Every user expects to find the information he needs, making the catalographer’s task more and more difficult. This trend has given rise to considerable debate on the limits of catalography, on the tools that should be used to help it progress, and on how to specify the expectations of each user group. Various ideas have been put forward and tried out in the field of Latin (and to a lesser extent Greek) manuscripts. Readers can get a good idea of this process from the website of the Gazette du livre médiéval (www.palaeographia.org). As Alphonse Dain rightly points out, “l’inventaire des manuscrits est [ . . .] la tâche essentielle des codicologues, tant que ne sera pas achevée complète- ment pour toutes les bibliothèques de manuscrits la confection de catalogues scientifiques”.4 Inventory, catalogue . . . Descriptions of manuscripts can indeed take several forms depending on the aim in view; specialists will want to have tools that are ideally matched to their area of research:

– catalogues of catalogues; – catalogues of libraries, collections, holdings; – catalogues of types of manuscripts (dated or illustrated manuscripts, palimpsests, catalogues of fragments, etc.);

2 Some scholars even talk of 500,000 to 600,000 Latin manuscripts . . . 3 Dain 1997, 77. 4 [“Creating an inventory of manuscripts is [ . . .] the vital task of codicologists, until such time as scientific catalogues have been produced for all manuscript libraries”], Dain 1997, 78. Collections and Catalogues of Armenian Manuscripts 25

– thematic catalogues (by author, literary genre, copying centre, etc.); – specialised catalogues (catalogues of copyists, illuminators, etc.); – other tools.

This is the outline that will be followed below.

1 Catalogues of Catalogues

Following the example set for Greek manuscripts by Marcel Richard (1907– 1976),5 and more recently for Syriac by Alain Desreumaux6 and for Ethiopian ones by Robert Beylot and Maxime Rodinson,7 a Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits arméniens [Handlist of libraries and catalogues of Armenian manuscripts] was published in 1992.8 It covers all libraries, classified in alphabetical order of the cities in which they are located, holding one or more Armenian manuscripts, and indicates the current state of catalography for each of them, i.e. it presents a list of catalogues and descriptions of Armenian manuscripts. The Répertoire also lists collections that have been lost and attempts to identify the current location of surviving manuscripts from these former collections. The work is supplemented with information about various other tools, such as collections of colophons, and exhibition and sale catalogues. Since its publication, three supplements have been published in the journal Le Muséon, in 1995, 2000, and 2004.9 A fourth instalment of the supplement and a second edition of the Répertoire, incorporating bibliographical data from the supplements and also recent publications, are in preparation. The Répertoire thus offers access to the entire corpus of Armenian manuscripts for the first time.

2 Catalogues of Libraries, Collections, Holdings

The most common and widely used tools in manuscript catalogues are catalogues that describe a library, a collection or a holding of manuscripts. In the field of Armenian studies, the main holdings are currently kept at Yerevan

5 Last edition: Richard 1995, which replaces Richard 1948 and 1958. 6 Desreumaux 1991. 7 Beylot & Rodinson 1995. 8 Coulie 1992. 9 Coulie 1995, 2000, and 2004. 26 Coulie

(Matenadaran), Jerusalem (Armenian Patriarchate), Venice (Mekhitarist Library), and Vienna (Mekhitarist Library). Behind this leading quartet, which between them account for almost two-thirds of all Armenian manuscripts that still survive today, there are several important collections that hold over a hundred Armenian manuscripts. The list below gives a snapshot of the main collections, in decreasing order of the number of manuscripts held (where no complete catalogue exists, numbers have been rounded off or estimated):

Yerevan, Matenadaran 11,10010 Jerusalem, Armenian Patriarchate 3,89011 Venice, Mekhitarist Library approx. 3,000 Vienna, Mekhitarist Library approx. 2,800 New Julfa, Monastery approx. 1,700 Bzommar, Monastery Library approx. 1,50012 Etchmiadzin, Catholicosate approx. 600 (?) Istanbul, Armenian Patriarchate approx. 50013 Saint-Petersburg, Institute of Oriental Manuscripts 44114 Paris, National Library of France 348 Tbilisi, National Centre of Manuscripts 31115 Antelias, Catholicosate approx. 240 Cluj, State and University Archives 218 London, British Library approx. 200 Oxford, Bodleian Library approx. 140 Vatican approx. 140 Rome, Armenian College approx. 120

10 The Matenadaran collection, which is regularly enriched by donations, currently com- prises just over 11,100 Armenian manuscripts “strico sensu”, in addition to several hundred fragments, prayer rolls or other documents. 11 The Patriarchate website mentions “4,000 illuminated manuscripts”, which must be an optimistic estimate; cf. http://www.armenian-patriarchate.com (consulted 11/03/2014). 12 Figure indicated at www.bzommarvank.com (consulted 11/03/2014). 13 A figure of approx. 800 manuscripts is given by the Hill Monastic Library website (http:// www.hmml.org [consulted 11/03/2014]), but this mixes manuscripts and printed books, but this mixes manuscripts and printed books. 14 Cf. www.orientalstudies.ru [consulted 11/03/2014]). 15 Although the website of the Centre gives the figure of 300 manuscripts (www.manuscript. ge [consulted 11/03/2014]). Collections and Catalogues of Armenian Manuscripts 27

The Matenadaran at Yerevan has over 14,000 Armenian documents, including fragments and prayer scrolls (hmayil).16 This library alone therefore holds almost a third of all surviving Armenian manuscripts, and fewer than fifteen libraries hold five-sixths of the entire stock. The rest are scattered among a vast number of collections. Most of these collections have been the subject of detailed catalogues, all of which are presented in the Répertoire and its supplements. Particular attention must be given to the Matenadaran collection in Yerevan: a summary presentation of manuscripts 1 to 10,408 was published in two volumes in 1965 and 1970;17 a third volume followed in 2007, covering manuscripts 10,409 to 11,077, which were acquired between 1969 and 1998.18 The journal Banber Matenadarani regularly publishes lists of latest acquisitions. The Matenadaran has started publishing a detailed catalogue. Seven volumes have already appeared, going up to no. 2,400.19 The content of these seven volumes is also available on the library’s website (www.matenadaran.am).20 Work on publishing all the detailed catalogues of the Armenian manuscripts held in the Matenadaran is continuing, and is one of the priorities for the directors of this prestigious institution. The same applies to the collection held by the Mekhitarist Library in Venice, which has still not been described in full. Recent catalogues, such as those produced in Paris, Yerevan or Venice, fully meet modern expectations with regard to manuscript catalography and are in no way inferior to those published for other languages. They contain thorough descriptions of the manuscripts, taking account of their material properties as well as their content, the history of each manuscript is described and the colophons are edited. Illustrations often reproduce a sample of the writing or the main illuminations. Until such time as the Matenadaran manuscripts have been fully catalogued, scholars can visit the library to consult unprinted catalogues, which are older but sometimes also more comprehensive than the two-volume

16 Situation in 2006, according to Tēr-Vardanean 2006, to be updated with data provided in recent issues of the journal Banber Matenadarani. 17 Eganyan, Zeytʿunyan & Antʿabyan 1965 and 1970. 18 Malxasean 2007. 19 Vol. I: Eganyan, Zeytʿunyan & Antʿabyan 1984; vol. II: Eganean, Zēytʿunean, Antʿabean & Kʿeōškerean 2004; vol. III: Eganean 2007; vol. IV: Kʿēōškerean, Sukʿiasean & Kʿeōsēean 2008; vol. V: Eganean, Kʿeōsēean, Łazarosean, Šahē hayr., 2009; Vol. VI: Tēr-Vardanean 2012a; Vol. VII: Tēr-Vardanean, 2012b. 20 Last consulted 11/03/2014. 28 Coulie catalogue of Eganyan.21 The most important of these are the catalogues prepared by Mesrop Magistros Tēr-Movsisean (1865–1939).22 It is also worth mentioning catalogues specific to a particular country. Gabriella Uluhogian recently published a catalogue of Armenian manuscripts held in Italy; in it, she gives a detailed description of the manuscripts held in Italian libraries other than the Mekhitarist Library in Venice, the Pontificio Collegio Armeno in Rome, and the Vatican Library.23

3 Catalogues of Types of Manuscripts

Besides catalogues of collections, Armenian manuscripts can also be presented in specific catalogues according to the type of manuscript considered, such as dated manuscripts, illustrated manuscripts, palimpsest manuscripts, colophons, etc.

3.1 Dated Manuscripts As in Greek and other languages, manuscripts are the basis of palaeography; lists of dated manuscripts are therefore to be found in works of palaeography, in particular the recent Album of Armenian Paleography.24 In this work, Michael Stone presents in detail almost 200 manuscripts ranging in date from 862 to 1895. Collections of colophons also constitute lists of dated manuscripts.25 Dickran Kouymjian has shown that Armenian manuscripts include a particularly high number of dated documents (around 59%). Manuscripts where the date of composition can be estimated by means of colophons should be added to this.26

21 See, for example, the experience related by V. Calzolari on the subject of apocryphal texts in Calzolari 1999, 55–58. 22 On the life and catalogues of Tēr-Movsisean and other unprinted catalogues of the Matenadaran, see Tēr-Vardanean 1999. In some cases, descriptions published while manuscripts were still kept in Etchmiadzin can be useful, cf. Coulie 1992, 67–69 for a list of these catalogues. 23 Uluhogian 2010. 24 Stone, Kouymjian & Lehmann 2002. 25 See later in this chapter, and also the chapter by A. Sirinian on colophons elsewhere in this volume. 26 Kouymjian 1983. Collections and Catalogues of Armenian Manuscripts 29

3.2 Illustrated Manuscripts Many publications, including exhibition catalogues, have been devoted to illustrations in Armenian manuscripts, because of their number and significance. Not all of these publications can be addressed in this chapter. See the Répertoire and its supplements for a list of publications.27 These publications can take many forms. They may be works containing a description of all or some of the illustrated manuscripts in a particular collection, like those of the Matenadaran,28 the Catholicosate of the Great House of Cilicia,29 or the manuscripts of Isfahan30 or of the Mekhitarist Library in Vienna.31 They may also present manuscripts from a particular region or copying centre or a given period of history, which are now scattered among various collections, such as the illustrated manuscripts of Cilicia,32 Artsakh (Arcʿax),33 Vaspurakan,34 and the Crimea.35 Finally, an art historian’s attention may be drawn to a particular type of text, such as the Gospels, which have a particularly strong tradition of illumination in Armenia.36 Nor is it unusual to see a work devoted entirely to a particular manuscript, such as the Glajor Gospel,37 the Lemberg (Lviv) Gospel,38 the Yakob’s Gospel,39 the illustrated manuscript of the Alexander Romance held in Venice,40 or the lectionary of king Hetʿum IId.41 Sirarpie Der Nersessian has published several studies on illustrated manuscripts, some of which were collected in a book published in 1973.42

27 Coulie 1992, 3–5; Coulie 1995, 116–117; Coulie 2000, 152; Coulie 2004, 474–475. 28 Armenian Miniatures 2009. 29 Agémian 1991. 30 Der Nersessian & Mekhitarian 1986. 31 Buschhausen 1976. 32 Der Nersessian 1993. 33 Hakobyan 1990a and 1990b. 34 Leyloyan-Yekmalyan 2009. 35 Buschhausen & Korchmasjan 2009. 36 See, among many other works, Nersessian 1987, devoted to the illustrated gospel books of the British Library. 37 Mathews & Sanjian 1991; Mathews & Taylor 2001. 38 Prinzing & Schmidt 1997. 39 Greenwood & Vardanyan 2006. 40 Traina 2003. 41 Drambyan 2011. 42 Der Nersessian 1973. Add to that the archives described in Agémian 2003. 30 Coulie

A particular mention has to be made of the volume devoted to the Armenian ornamental script, where samples of various decorative letter designs are presented, along with lists of manuscripts displaying these letters.43 Websites, like that of Dickran Kouymjian,44 also contain presentations of illustrated manuscripts. Many libraries now display photographs of illuminated manuscripts from their collections.

3.3 Palimpsest Manuscripts (krknagir) The European “Rinascimento virtuale” [Virtual Renaissance] project, which ran from 2001 to 2004, provided the opportunity to draw up an inventory of Greek and Oriental Christian palimpsest manuscripts and develop methods allowing inferior texts to be recovered.45 During the Bratislava symposium in 2002, A. Banouchyan gave a presentation on the problems associated with Armenian palimpsest manuscripts held in the Matenadaran.46 Two recent studies, one on the palimpsest manuscript of Graz (manuscript GR2058) and the other on the palimpsest manuscript of Agatʿangełos’ History (manuscript W505), show the value of these particular documents.47 In the latter case, A. Topchyan concludes that a new critical edition of the work is necessary, based on all surviving manuscripts and including information drawn from the palimpsest. There is as yet no complete list of Armenian palimpsest manuscripts, regardless of whether the Armenian text was written on the lower layer or the upper layer. However, Michael Kohlbacher has already identified several palimpsest manuscripts with Armenian text written on the lower layer.48 The following palimpsest manuscripts can be added to the aforementioned manuscripts held in Graz and Vienna:

– Athens, National Library, 637: Greek liturgical manuscript, 14th c.; text written on the lower layer: čašocʿ, in Armenian uncials;49

43 Kyurkchyan & Khatcherian 2012. 44 http://armenianstudies.csufresno.edu/arts_of_armenia/miniatures.htm (consulted 11/03/2014). 45 Presentation of the project: http://www.rinascimentovirtuale.eu (consulted 11/03/2014). 46 Banouchyan 2002. 47 Palimpsest of Graz: Renhart 2009; Coulie 1992, 83; palimpsest of Agat‘angełos: Topchyan 2009. 48 Kohlbacher 2009, 304–305. 49 Coulie 1992, 30. Collections and Catalogues of Armenian Manuscripts 31

– Beuron, Abbey Library: Arabic manuscript; Armenian text written on the lower layer: fragments of the Epistles of Saint Paul, 7th–8th c.;50 – Birmingham, Mingana Collection, Ming. Chr. Arab. Add. 124; same codex as that of Beuron;51 – Caesarea: Gospel book copied in Caesarea in 1672; lower layer: Armenian, 10th c.?; current location unknown;52 – Caesarea: hawakʿacoy, 14th–15th c.; manuscript destroyed in 1944;53 – Chartres, Municipal Library, 1573–1574: Greek manuscript; writing on lower layer: Armenian?;54 – Goslar, Town Hall (Rathaus), S 11 and S 13: Syriac fragments; Armenian text written on lower layer: Commentaries on the Psalms by St. John Chrysostom, 7th–8th c.;55 – Leiden, University Library, Or. 14.236: Syriac psalter; Armenian text written on the lower layer: homilies of St. John Chrysostom;56 – Moscow, State Historical Museum, 3677: čašocʿ, 16th c.; Armenian text written on the lower layer: Gospel book;57 – Saint-Petersburg, Saltykov-Shchedrin Public Library, N.S. 14;58 – Sinai, Saint Catherine’s Monastery, N Sin 13 and N Sin 15: two Georgian manuscripts; part of the under layer contains texts in Armenian;59 – Sinai, Saint Catherine’s Monastery, Sparagma 12: folios belonging to the same codex as Leiden, University Library, Or. 14.236;60 – Sinai, Saint Catherine’s Monastery, Sparagma 76: Syriac folio; Armenian text written on the lower layer;61 – Sofia, Saint Cyril and Saint Methodius Serdicensis Library: palimpsest manuscript;62

50 Coulie 1992, 36. 51 Brock 1965; Coulie 2000, 154–155. 52 Coulie 1992, 50. 53 Coulie 1992, 50; Coulie 2000, 156. 54 Coulie 1992, 51. 55 Coulie 1992, 82. 56 Coulie, 1992, 105 and 109. 57 Renoux 1989, 105. 58 Van Esbroeck 1980. 59 Gippert 2010. 60 Coulie 2000, 170. 61 Coulie 2000, 170. 62 Coulie 1995, 127. 32 Coulie

– Strasbourg, National and University Library, 3762: Greek manuscript; Armenian text written on the lower layer, 8th c.;63 – Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. syr. 623: two bifolios with Armenian text written on the lower layer;64 – Venice, Mekhitarist Library, 2061;65 – Vienna, Mekhitarist Library, 505.66

3.4 Manuscript Colophons67 Colophons are a specific feature of Armenian manuscripts because of their frequent use and the richness of their content. They can be regarded as historical sources in their own right. Several collections of Armenian colophons have been published and are listed below in chronological order of the relevant manuscripts:

– G. Sruanjteancʿ, Tʿoros ałbar, Hayastani čambord (Brother Thoros: a traveller in Armenia), 2 vol., Kostandnupolis, 1879–1885: approx. 350 colophons from eastern Turkey. – Garegin Catholicos Yovsēpʿean, Yišatakarankʿ jeṙagracʿ (Manuscript colophons), I. From 5th c. to 1250, Antelias, 1951: 472 colophons; only volume published of the four planned, devoted to 5th–18th c. colophons. – A.S. Matʿevosyan, Hayeren jeṙagreri hišatakaranner V–XII dd. (Colophons of Armenian manuscripts, 5th–12th c.), Yerevan, 1988 (357 entries). – A.S. Matʿevosyan, Hayeren jeṙagreri hišatakaranner, XIII dar (Colophons of Armenian manuscripts, 13th c.), Yerevan, 1984: colophons of 832 manuscripts from 1201 to 1300. – L.S. Xačʿikyan, XIV dari hayeren jeṙagreri hišatakaranner (Colophons of Armenian manuscripts, 14th c.), Yerevan, 1950. – A.K. Sanjian, Colophons of Armenian Manuscripts, 1361–1480. A Source for Middle Eastern History, Selected, Translated and Annotated, Cambridge, Mass., 1969. – Ł. Pʿirłalemean, Nōtarkʿ Hayocʿ (Armenian Documents), Constantinople, 1888: colophons dating from 1393 to 1467; only volume published of a cor-

63 Coulie 1995, 128. 64 Coulie 2004, 494. 65 Čemčemean 1966. 66 Abełean & Yarutʿiwnean 1991, 408. 67 A detailed presentation of Armenian colophons, with bibliography, is given by Anna Sirinian in this volume. Collections and Catalogues of Armenian Manuscripts 33

pus that was to bring together colophons dating from 887 to 1596; the author’s unpublished notes are kept in the archives of the Matenadaran. – L.S. Xačʿikyan, XV dari hayeren jeṙagreri hišatakaranner (Colophons of Armenian manuscripts, 15th c.), I. 1401–1450, Yerevan, 1955; II. 1451–1480, Yerevan, 1958; III. 1481–1500, Yerevan, 1967: publication of extracts of colophons, taken from 2,133 manuscripts, deemed of historical interest. – V. Hakobyan, Hayeren jeṙagreri XVII dari hišatakaranner (Colophons of Armenian manuscripts, 17th c.), I. 1601–1620, Yerevan, 1974; II. 1621–1640, Yerevan, 1978; III. 1641–1660, Yerevan, 1984: publication of extracts of colophons.

Several studies have been devoted to the historical value of colophons, such as:

– A.K. Sanjian, “The Historical Significance of the Colophons of Armenian Manuscripts”, Le Muséon 81 (1968), 181–195. – M.E. Stone, “Colophons in Armenian Manuscripts”, in Scribi e colofoni. Atti del Seminario di Erice. X Colloquio del “Comité international de Paléo graphie latine” (23–28 sett. 1993), a cura di E. Condello & G. De Gregorio, Spoleto, 1995, 463–471. – G. Dédéyan, “Les colophons de manuscrits arméniens comme sources pour l’histoire des Croisades”, in J. France & W.G. Zajac (eds), The Cru sades and their Sources: Essays Presented to Bernard Hamilton, Aldershot, 1998, 89–110.

4 Thematic Catalogues

4.1 Catalogues by Author Introductions to critical editions generally contain a presentation, in varying degrees of detail, of the manuscripts that preserve the edited work. Sometimes the preparatory work leads to the publication of a catalogue of a particular author’s manuscripts, as in the case of the Armenian version of the Discourses of Gregory of Nazianzus.68 Articles have been devoted to the manuscripts of a particular author, such as Athanasius of Alexandria,69 Evagrius Ponticus,70 and Nersēs Šnorhali.71

68 Lafontaine & Coulie 1983. 69 Casey 1931. 70 Muyldermans 1955. 71 Bogharian 1976. 34 Coulie

In the case of texts translated from Greek, Armenian manuscripts are sometimes referred to in catalogues of Greek authors. For example, the Bibliotheca Basiliana universalis compiled by P.J. Fedwick often mentions Armenian manuscripts of the works of the Bishop of Caesarea.72

4.2 Catalogues by Literary Genre Among catalogues by literary genre, we must mention the catalogue of Armenian manuscripts of the Bible published by Chahé Adjémian in 1992.73 In this, the author describes 294 manuscripts containing complete or partial versions of the Bible held in various libraries; unfortunately, the catalogue simply provides a list of texts with no codicological or bibliographical data. New Testament manuscripts had already been catalogued by E.F. Rhodes in 1959,74 and Andranik Zeytʿunyan had also prepared a list of 228 Bible manuscripts containing at least two books of the Bible, excluding Gospel books and Psalters. He completed this list when the critical edition of the Book of Genesis was published, taking the total to 245 manuscripts.75 Introductions to volumes containing the critical edition of books of the Bible also contain lists of the manuscripts used, such as the edition of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers by Andranik Zeytʿunyan in 1992,76 199377 and 1998,78 that of the Book of the Maccabees by H. Amalyan in 1996,79 and that of the Book of Job by Claude Cox in 2006.80 The same occurs in the edition of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs by Michael Stone in 2012.81 Among the books of the New Testament, the Acts of the Apostles have been studied and edited, in their Armenian version, by Joseph Alexanian, who gives a list of the manuscripts.82 Identification of manuscripts containing certain types of texts, such as collections known as čaṙǝntir, can also be made easier using the resources in the unprinted catalogues of the Matenadaran of Yerevan.83 Similarly, catalogues

72 Fedwick 1999–2004. 73 Adjémian 1992. 74 Rhodes 1959, which lists 1,244 manuscripts, classified by country. 75 Zeytʿunyan 1977 and 1985. 76 Zeytʿunyan 1992, 9–36 and 40–42. 77 Zeytʿunyan 1993, 10–37. 78 Zeytʿunyan 1998, 12–44. 79 Amalyan 1996, 53–68. 80 Cox 2006, XIV–XVIII. 81 Stone 2012, 29–36. 82 Alexanian 2012, 87–88. 83 See above footnotes 21 and 22. Collections and Catalogues of Armenian Manuscripts 35 of collections that have been lost can sometimes provide valuable information either about lost manuscripts or manuscripts that have survived but that are described in less detail in their current location. The Répertoire mentions a large number of these old catalogues and gives the current location of the manuscripts in question, where this is known. Gevorg Tēr-Vardanean’s study completes this work.84 Some instances of thematic catalogues are worth mentioning:

– apocryphal texts: a project to create a catalogue of Armenian manuscripts containing Christian apocryphal texts has been mentioned by Val- entina Calzolari;85 – lectionaries (čašocʿ): Charles Renoux has drawn up an inventory of 344 manuscripts of the Lectionnaire de Jérusalem, classified first by country and by library, then in chronological order, and finally by type of surviving čašocʿ;86 – discourse on the Assumption of the Virgin: Tʿamar Dasnabedean has produced a catalogue of the manuscripts of these texts;87 – amulets (prayer scrolls): Frédéric Feydit has described in detail 27 manuscripts containing Armenian prayers and spells;88 – medical texts: the old catalogues of medical manuscripts published by Vahram Tʿorgomian in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century have now been replaced by the masterly work of Stella Vardanyan, who identified 265 medical manuscripts;89 – legal texts: Hubert Kaufhold has produced a list of Armenian manuscripts containing legal texts, translated from Byzantine legal treatises.90

4.3 Catalogues by Copying Centre Manuscripts can also be presented according to where they were copied. Numerous articles in various journals, and several monographs, have examined the output of Armenian scriptoria.

84 Tēr-Vardanean 2004. 85 Calzolari 1999. 86 Renoux 1989, 487–538. 87 Dasnabedean 1991. 88 Feydit 1986, 19–75. 89 Vardanyan 1999, 363–376; the articles by V. Tʿorgomian are listed on pp. 392–396. On Vahram Tʿorgomian, see also Kévorkian 2007, which contains a list of the articles on the manuscripts on pp. 362–365. 90 Kaufhold 1997, 20–45, and classification of the manuscripts into groups on pp. 45–72. 36 Coulie

For a full list of scriptoria, see the Répertoire des monastères arméniens by Michel Thierry, who draws up an inventory of most of the known Armenian monasteries, classified by country and by province. This work contains a wealth of information on manuscript-copying workshops and their periods of activity.91 The work done by Hamazasp Oskean is still extremely valuable in relation to studies on particular scriptoria. He published a series of studies containing a great deal of information on copying centres and manuscripts from various regions of Armenia in the Azgayin Matenadaran collection, in particular volumes 90: Karin; 149: Vaspurakan I; 151: Vaspurakan II; 154: Sebastia; 155: Vaspurakan-Van III; 167: Upper Armenia; 174: Tarōn-Turuberan; 175: Arcʿax; 183: Cilicia; 188: Gugarkʿ; and 193: Sivas, Xarberd, Diarbekir, Trapezunt. This work, though somewhat dated, is still useful and contains information that is sometimes hard to find elsewhere. A number of other references can be mentioned as examples (this is not an exhaustive list):

– Ani: two articles, one by A. Matʿevosyan, the other by G. Tēr-Vardanean, discuss the copying work of the intellectual centres of Ani and Širak.92 – Cilicia: the activities of the many Cilician scriptoria are mentioned by S. Manoukian.93 In view of the importance of the illumination traditions in Cilicia, art history works dealing with Cilicia also contain information about manuscripts; the work of Sirarpie Der Nersessian remains central in this respect.94 – Crimea: the monumental work of Heide and Helmut Buschhausen and Emma Korchmasjan takes stock of the Armenian manuscripts from Crimea and identifies almost 500 surviving manuscripts.95 Information about the Armenian scriptoria in Crimea and a summary list of the manuscripts is also provided by Nira Stone in her study of Jerusalem manuscript 285.96 – Glajor: the output of the Glajor scriptorium was examined by A. Łaza rosyan in two articles published in 1984, and more recently by Avedis K. Sanjian. The latter author corrected the list produced by A. Łazarosyan

91 Thierry 1993. 92 Matʿevosyan 1984; Tēr-Vardanean 2001. 93 Manoukian 1996; see also Coulie 2008. 94 For example Der Nersessian 1993. 95 Buschhausen & Korchmasjan 2009, 57–107. 96 Stone 1997, 191–193. Collections and Catalogues of Armenian Manuscripts 37

and provides a list of 69 manuscripts that either came from Glajor or can be attributed to this copying and illustration centre;97 – Hoṙomos: study by A. Matʿevosyan.98 – Mecopʿ: study by Mesrop Hayuni.99 – Sari vankʿ: study by A. Matʿevosyan, who identifies 14 surviving manuscripts produced by the scriptorium of the Saint George monastery of Sari in the 14th and 15th centuries.100 – Sivas/Sebastia: a study of the production of manuscripts in the various monasteries of Sebastia/Sivas led to a list of over 150 manuscripts dating from the 11th to the early 20th century.101 – Skewṙa: Hasmik Badalyan describes the 75 surviving manuscripts from this monastery, 27 of which are now in the Matenadaran.102

5 Specialised Catalogues

A few more specialised tools also contain lists of manuscripts, such as the three catalogues of authors, copyists and illustrators compiled by Norayr Połarean, whose nom de plume was Norayr Covakan and who is also the author of the catalogues of the Library of the Armenian Patriarchate in Jerusalem.103 To this we must now add the Bibliography of Armenian illuminators of the 9th to the 19th centuries and the Bibliography of anonymous Armenians illuminators of the 9th to the 17th centuries by Astłik Gēorgean. For each of the 464 artists included in the first volume, the author gives the list and description of the manuscripts created by each of them and now held in the Matenadaran; the second volume examines 903 manuscripts from the same library.104 Many articles devoted to illuminated manuscripts or schools of miniaturists contain lists of manuscripts that have been or may be attributed to various artists, such as the scribes and miniaturists of Vaspurakan in recent studies by Anna Leyloyan-Yekmalyan.105 Edda Vardanyan has published a catalogue of manuscripts of the painter Minas (15th c.).106 Almost all of the bibliography

97 Łazarosyan 1984a and 1984b; Sanjian 1991, with bibliography on p. 197. 98 Matʿevosyan 1984. 99 Hayuni 1984. 100 Matʿevosyan 1962. 101 Coulie 2004. 102 Badalyan 2001. 103 Połarean 1971, 1989, and 1992. 104 Gēorgean 1998 and 2005. 105 Leyloyan-Yekmalyan 2003 and 2009. 106 Vardanyan 1998. 38 Coulie relating to the history of Armenian illumination is relevant to the study of manuscripts.

6 Other Tools

Finally, some technical tools can also be helpful when studying manuscripts, as they contain lists of exemplars, such as collections of incipits. Armenian studies are poor in incipitaria, in contrast to Greek and especially Latin studies. It is for this reason that Tʿ. Dasnabedean created a catalogue of incipits of Antelias manuscripts.107 Some studies have also examined endpapers. Many Armenian manuscripts contain endpapers or flyleaves, called pahpanak in Armenian, taken from older, sometimes palimpsest, manuscripts. Examination of these sheets often makes it possible to find very old versions of texts. Bernard Outtier has published several articles on this subject, particularly on flyleaves written in Georgian but surviving in Armenian manuscripts, in Bzommar (Lebanon)108 and Jerusalem.109 He also identified the Armenian endpapers of the psalter kept at Tours (France),110 and a series of endpapers currently in fifteen different manuscripts but originally from a single manuscript, which may date back to the tenth century.111 The study conducted by S. Kolandjian on fragments of Cyril of Jerusalem remains a model of reconstruction of an ancient manuscript from endpapers.112 Norayr Połarean has published a list of the flyleaves in the collection of Armenian manuscripts of the Library of the Armenian Patriarchate in Jerusalem, in the 11th volume of his catalogue.113 Fragments of manuscript also deserved a lot of attention. Lousiné Goutschan has studied the fragments of Latin manuscripts surviving in the Armenian manuscripts in the Matenadaran,114 while Rose Varténi Chétanian has done the same for the Greek fragments.115 The seven volumes of the detailed catalogue of this library that have been published to date (Mayr cʿucʿak) contain

107 Dasnabedian 1992. 108 Outtier 1975. 109 Outtier 1986. 110 Outtier 1972. 111 Outtier 1983. 112 Kolandjian 1960; analysis in Stone, Kouymjian & Lehmann 2002, 52–54. 113 Połarean 1991, 467–469. 114 Goutschan 1998. 115 Chétanian 2009. Collections and Catalogues of Armenian Manuscripts 39 lists, at the end of each volume, of manuscripts with endpapers. More recently, Gohar Muradyan and Aram Topchyan published a catalogue of the Armenian manuscript fragments of the Mekhitarist Library in Vienna.116 This is part of a larger project devoted to the inventory and description of manuscript fragments, in various languages and suggesting the creation of open access databases for these fragments.117 Finally, a number of works have been published on bindings, especially metallic bindings, and these contain information about manuscripts or lists of exemplars. The most important studies have been carried out by Berthe van Regemorter, B. Aṙakʿelyan, Sirarpie Der Nersessian, H. Ter Łewondean, Sylvie Merian and Dickran Kouymjian.118

7 Internet Resources

An increasing number of library websites now offer information about manuscripts. For example, the website of the Yerevan Matenadaran (www.matenadaran. am) contains the full version of the seven volumes of the detailed catalogue (manuscripts 1 to 2,400). The catalogue of Armenian manuscripts held in the National Library of France, published by Raymond Kévorkian and Armen Ter- Stépanian in 1998,119 can be consulted on the library’s website (http://www. gallica.bnf.fr). The catalogue of the Bzommar Monastery Library, published by Mesrop Keschischian in 1964,120 and that of the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia, published by A. Daniēlean in 1984,121 can be found on the website of the Hill Musem and Monastic Library (www.hmml.org). The Hill Museum and Monastic Library, Saint John’s University, Collegeville, Minnesota (http://www.hmml.org), holds a collection of over 1,300 microfilms

116 Muradyan & Topchyan 2012. The content of this book is also available on the web site of the Vestigia Project, see footnote 117. 117 Vestigia Project: www.vestigia.at (consulted 11/03/2014). 118 A bibliography on this subject is given in Coulie 1992, 7; Coulie 2000, 151–152; the following works may be added: Der Nersessian 1967; Ter Łewondean 1984; Kouymjian 1991; Malxasyan 2008. D. Kouymjian presents the state of the art on bindings in his chapter on the archaeology of the Armenian manuscript in this volume. 119 Kévorkian & Ter-Stépanian 1998. 120 Keschischian 1964. 121 Daniēlean 1984. 40 Coulie of Armenian manuscripts and offers a brief description of them along with digital reproductions. The Matenadaran manuscripts are currently being digitalised, which will make the texts kept in this library’s various holdings easier to access and will improve their conservation.122 Lists of digitized Armenian manuscripts are being prepared and made available on the Internet on various websites.123

8 Current Circulation of Manuscripts

Over the centuries, the movement of manuscripts has been one of the main drivers of the expansion and promotion of Armenian culture. Manuscript books have been passed from hand to hand, copied and recopied, a process that has contributed greatly to a wider knowledge of the richness of Armenian traditions. Current catalogues might give the impression that this movement has ceased. Although manuscripts no longer travel as much as they once did, except for exhibitions, some still find new owners as a result of either dona- tion or sale. The manuscript collections of the Yerevan Matenadaran are constantly being enriched thanks to a variety of donors; introductions to recent catalogues contain some information about these. Sales also demonstrate the interest of libraries and collectors in Armenian manuscripts. It is not unusual to see an Armenian manuscript, or even just a few pages, being offered to enthusiasts in London, Paris or New York.124 Sales catalogues usually contain very detailed descriptions of these items. Some of these descriptions can be consulted on the websites of salerooms, such as that of Sotheby’s: www.sothebys.com. The Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits arméniens and its supplements endeavour to scrutinise some of these catalogues; nowadays, the content of major sales can be found on the Internet.

122 AIEA Newsletter, 43, December 2007, 56–57; see also the Vestigia Project website, at http:// www.vestigia.at/mesrobmashtots.html (consulted 11/03/2014). 123 Such as www.armenica.org, http://haybook.wordpress.com/manuscripts/. 124 See, for example, Outtier 2002 on the origin and fate of two manuscripts sold in Paris in 1991 and 1995. Collections and Catalogues of Armenian Manuscripts 41

Conclusions

Until the end of the 20th century, new catalogues of manuscripts were published at a regular but quiet pace, due to the huge amount of knowledge and of time required for the completion of such books. In the last years, the development of the Internet has paved the way for a more rapid increase in available data. Most libraries now display online versions of their catalogues, and many of them have also started digitizing valuable documents and putting them on display on the web. Electronic bibliography now requires regular updates, and it was not the intention of this paper to present the reader with a full view of the available information. Manuscripts constitute one of the still-beating hearts of the Armenian tradition. They are the subject of particular attention on the part of curators and catalographers, philologists, palaeographers, art historians, and anyone with an interest in the Armenian nation. They are presented and analysed in publications relating to these various disciplines, and specialists in Armenian studies sometimes have considerable difficulty in bringing these scattered pieces of information together. Although completing a detailed description of the major collections of Armenian manuscripts is a priority, creating a bibliographical database has also become essential. Computer-based tools now enable this to be done. It remains to be hoped that the value of the manuscripts will generate the enthusiasm and energy needed for this work.

Bibliography

Abełean, M. & Yarutʿiwnean, S. 1991. Movsēs Xorenacʿi, Patmutʿiwn Hayocʿ [Movses Khorenatsi, History of the Armenians], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Adjémian, Ch. (Ačēmean, Š.) 1992. Cʿucʿak Astuacšunčʿ mateani hayerēn jeṙagirnerun [Grand Catalogue of the Armenian manuscripts of the Bible] (Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation Armenian Library), Lisbon: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. Agémian, S. 1991. Manuscrits arméniens enluminés du Catholicossat de Cilicie, Antélias: Éditions du Catholicossat arménien de Cilicie. Agémian, S. 2003. Archives Sirarpie Der Nersessian. Catalogue, vol. 1 (Bibliothèque arménienne de la Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian), Antélias: Éditions du Catholicossat arménien de Cilicie. Alexanian, J.M. 2012. The Ancient Armenian Text of the Acts of the Apostles (CSCO, 643. Scriptores Armeniaci, 31), Leuven: Peeters. 42 Coulie

Amalyan, H.M. 1996. Girkʿ Makabayecʿwocʿ. Kʿnnakan bnagir [Book of Maccabees. Critical Text], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Armenian Miniatures 2009. Armenian Miniatures from the Matenadaran Collection, Erevan: Nairi. Badalyan, H. 2001. “Skewṙayi vankʿǝ 12–14-rd. darerum ew mez hasacʿ jeṙagrakan žaṙan- gutʿyunǝ” [The Skewṙa monastery during the 12th–14th c. and the manuscript heritage until us], Ēǰmiacin 4, 81–91. Banouchyan, A. 2002. “The Armenian and Greek Fragments and Palimpsests of the Matenadaran Collection”, Rinascimento virtuale. Digitale Palimpsestforschung (Berichtband der Konferenz des Netzwerks, 28.–29. Juni 2002, Bratislava), Bratislava, 90–93. Beylot, R. & Rodinson, M. 1995. Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manus crits éthiopiens, Paris & Turnhout: Éditions du CNRS & Brepols. Brock, S. 1965. “An Early Armenian Palimpsest Fragment of Hebrews”, REArm 20, 129–134. Buschhausen, H. & Buschhausen, H. 1976. Die illuminierten armenischen Handschriften der Mechitharisten-Congregation in Wien, Wien: Mechitharisten-Buchdruckerei. Buschhausen, H., Buschhausen, H. & Korchmasjan, E. 2009. Armenische Buchmalerei und Baukunst der Krim, Erevan: Nairi. Calzolari Bouvier, V. 1999. “Un projet de répertoire des manuscrits arméniens con- tenant les textes apocryphes chrétiens”, in V. Calzolari Bouvier, J.-D. Kaestli & B. Outtier (eds), Apocryphes arméniens. Transmission, traduction, création, icono graphie. Actes du colloque international sur la littérature apocryphe en langue arménienne (Genève, 18–20 septembre 1997) (Publications de l’Institut romand des sciences bibliques, 1), Lausanne: Zèbre, 53–70. Casey, R.P. 1931. “Armenian Manuscripts of Athanasius of Alexandria”, Harvard Theological Review 24, 43–59. Chétanian, R.V. 2009. Catalogue des fragments et manuscrits grecs du Matenadaran d’Erevan, Turnhout: Brepols. Coulie, B. 1992. Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits arméniens (Corpus Christianorum), Turnhout: Brepols. Coulie, B. 1995. “Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits arméniens. Supplément I”, Le Muséon 108, 115–130. Coulie, B. 2000. “Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits arméniens. Supplément II”, Le Muséon 113, 149–176. Coulie, B. 2004. “Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits arméniens. Supplément III”, Le Muséon 117, 473–496. Coulie, B. 2004. “Armenian Manuscripts and Scriptoria of Sebastia”, in R.G. Hovannisian (ed.), Armenian Sebastia/Sivas and Lesser Armenia (UCLA Armenian History and Collections and Catalogues of Armenian Manuscripts 43

Culture Series. Historic Armenian Cities and Provinces, 5), Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 171–206. Coulie, B. 2008. “Manuscripts and Libraries: Scriptorial Activity in Cilicia”, dans R.G. Hovannisian & S. Payaslian (eds), Armenian Cilicia (UCLA Armenian History and Culture Series. Historic Armenian Cities and Provinces, 7), Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 261–274. Cox, C. 2006. Armenian Job. Reconstructed Greek Text, Critical Edition of the Armenian with English Translation (HUAS, 8), Leuven, Paris & Dudley, MA: Peeters. Dain, A. 1997. Les manuscrits (Collection Pergame), Paris: Diderot Multimédia. Daniēlean, A. 1984. Mayr cʿucʿak hayerēn jeṙagracʿ Meci Tann Kilikioy katʿołikosutʿean [Grand catalogue of the Armenian manuscripts of the Catholicosate of the Great House of Cilicia] (Haykakan Matenašar Galust Kiwlpēnkean Hratarakčʿutʿean), Antʿilias: Tparan Katʿołikosutʿean Hayocʿ Meci Tann Kilikioy. Dasnabedean, Tʿ. 1991. “Cʿucʿak S. Astuacacni verabereal hay čaṙeru” [Catalogue of Armenian homilies on the Assumption of the Mother of God], Hask 60, 123–131, 252–257, 412–416. Dasnabedean, Tʿ.1992. “S. Astuacacni jeṙagirnerǝ Antʿiliasi mēǰ cʿucʿak sksuacneru” [Manuscripts of the Mother of God in Antilias. Catalogue of incipits.], Hask 61, 447–455. Der Nersessian, S. 1967. “Notes sur quelques reliures du XVIe–XVIIe siècle”, REArm 4, 121–124. Dasnabedean, Tʿ. 1973. Études byzantines et arméniennes/Byzantine and Armenian Studies, 2 vol. (Bibliothèque arménienne de la Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian), Louvain: Imprimerie orientaliste. Dasnabedean, Tʿ. 1993. Miniature Painting in the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia from the Twelfth to the Fourteenth Century, jointly prepared for publication with S. Agemian, with an Introduction by A. Weyl Carr, 2 vol. (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 31), Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Der Nersessian, S. & Mekhitarian, A. 1986. Miniatures arméniennes d’Ispahan, Bruxelles & Antʿilias: Les Éditeurs d’Art Associés & Tparan Katʿołikosutʿean Hayocʿ Meci Tann Kilikioy. Desreumaux, A. 1991. Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits syriaques, Paris: Éditions du CNRS. Drambyan, I. 2011. Hetʿum II arkʿayi čašocʿǝ (1286 tʿ. haykakan nkarazard matyanǝ) [The lectionary of King Hetum IId (illuminated Armenian book of the year 1286)], Erevan: Nairi. Čemčemean, S. 1966. “Krknagir arcatʿapat maštocʿ mǝ” [A palimpsest ritual and its silver binding], Bazmavēp 124, 172–174. 44 Coulie

Eganean, Ō. 2007. Mayr cʿucʿak hayerēn jeṙagracʿ Maštocʿi anuan Matenadarani [Grand catalogue of the Armenian manuscripts of the Maštocʿ Matenadaran], vol. 3, Erevan: Magałatʿ. Eganean, Ō., Kʿeōšēean, Y., Łazarosean, A. & Šahē hayr. 2009. Mayr cʿucʿak hayerēn jeṙagracʿ Maštocʿi anuan Matenadarani [Grand catalogue of the Armenian manuscripts of the Maštocʿ Matenadaran], vol. 5, Erevan: Nairi. Eganyan, Ō., Zeytʿunyan A. & Antʿabyan, Pʿ. 1965. Cʿucʿak jeṙagracʿ Maštocʿi anvan Matenadarani [Catalogue of the manuscripts of the Maštocʿ Matenadaran] vol. 1, Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Eganyan, Ō., Zeytʿunyan A. & Antʿabyan, Pʿ. 1970. Cʿucʿak jeṙagracʿ Maštocʿi anvan Matenadarani [Catalogue of the manuscripts of the Maštocʿ Matenadaran] vol. 2, Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Eganyan, Ō., Zeytʿunyan A. & Antʿabyan, Pʿ. 1984. Mayr cʿucʿak hayerēn jeṙagracʿ Maštocʿi anuan Matenadarani [Grand catalogue of the Armenian manuscripts of the Maštocʿ Matenadaran] vol. 1, Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Eganean, Ō., Zēytʿunean, A., Antʿabean, Pʿ. & Kʿēōškerean, A. 2004. Mayr cʿucʿak hay erēn jeṙagracʿ Maštocʿi anuan Matenadarani [Grand catalogue of the Armenian manuscripts of the Maštocʿ Matenadaran], vol. 2, Erevan: Nairi. Fedwick, P.J. 1999–2004. Bibliotheca Basiliana universalis. A Study of the Manuscript Tradition of the Works of Basil of Caesarea, 9 vol. (Corpus Christianorum), Turnhout: Brepols. Feydit, F. 1986. Amulettes de l’Arménie chrétienne (Bibliothèque arménienne de la Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian), Venise: Saint-Lazare. Gēorgean, A. 1998. Hay manrankaričʿner matenagitutʿiwn IX–XVIIdd. [Bibliography of Armenian illustrators of the 9th–19th c.], Gahirē: Matenadaran. Gēorgean, A. 2005. Ananun hay manrankaričʿner matenagitutʿiwn IX–XIXdd. [Bibliography of anonymous Armenian illustrators of the 9th–17th c.], Gahirē: Matenadaran. Gippert, J. 2010. The Caucasian Albanian Palimpsest of Mount Sinai, III. The Armenian Layer (Monumenta Palaeographica Medii Aevi. Series Ibero-Caucasica, 2–3), Turnhout: Brepols. Goutschan, L. 1998. “Les fragments des manuscrits latins dans les manuscrits arméniens”, Scriptorium 52, 196–198. Greenwood, T. & Vardanyan, A. 2006. Hakob’s Gospel. The Life and Work of an Armenian Artist of the Sixteenth Century, London: Sam Fogg. Hakobyan, H. 1990a. Arcʿax-Utikʿi manrankarčʿutʿyunǝ XIII–XIV dd. [Illumination of Arcʿax-Utikʿ in the 13th–14th c.], Erevan. Hakobyan, H. 1990b. “The miniature painting of Artsakh-Utik (13th–14th c.)” [in Russian], Lraber 1990, 3, 3–15. Collections and Catalogues of Armenian Manuscripts 45

Hayuni, M. 1984. “Mecopʿavankʿi matenadaranǝ” [The library of the monastery of Mecopʿ], Handēs Amsōreay 98, 463–510. Kaufhold, H. 1997. Die armenischen Übersetzungen byzantinischer Rechtsbücher, I. Allgemeines; II. Die “Kurze Sammlung” (“Sententiae Syriacae”), herausgegeben, übersetzt und erläutert (Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte, 21), Frankfurt-am-Main: Löwenklau Gesellschaft. Kʿēōškerean, A., Sukʿiasean, K. & Kʿeōsēean, Y. 2008. Mayr cʿucʿak hayerēn jeṙagrac‘ Maštocʿi anuan Matenadarani [Grand catalogue of the Armenian manuscripts of the Maštocʿ Matenadaran], vol. 4, Erevan: Nairi. Keschischian, M. 1964. Cʿucʿak hayerēn jeṙagracʿ Zmmaṙi vankʿi matenadaranin [Catalogue of the Armenian manuscripts of the library of the monastery of Bzommar] (Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation Armenian Library), Vienna: Mxitʿarean tparan. Kévorkian, R.H. 1986. Catalogue des “incunables” arméniens (1511/1695) ou chronique de l’imprimerie arménienne. Préface de J.-P. Mahé (Cahiers d’Orientalisme, 9), Genève: Patrick Cramer. Kévorkian, R.H. 2007. Vahram Torkomian, mémoires d’un médecin stambouliote, 1860– 1890, traduit de l’arménien par S. Denis-Torkomian, édité par R.H. Kévorkian, Paris: Centre d’histoire arménienne contemporaine. Kévorkian, R.H. & Mahé, J.-P. 1985. Le livre arménien à travers les âges, Marseille: Maison arménienne de la jeunesse et de la culture. Kévorkian, R.H. & Ter-Stépanian, A. (avec le concours de B. Outtier et de G. Ter- Vardanian). 1998. Manuscrits arméniens de la Bibliothèque nationale de France. Catalogue, Paris: Bibliothèque nationale de France & Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian. Kohlbacher, M. 2009. “Palimpseste als Geschichtsquelle. Geschichte im Spiegel der Textüberlieferung am Beispiel von Palimpsesten”, in Somers 2009, 263–319. Kolandjian, S. 1960. “Norahayt pataṙikner Kyureł Erusałemacʿu IX. dari mi grčʿagricʿ” [New palimpsest fragments of Cyril of Jerusalem from the 9th c.], Banber Matenadarani 5, 201–237. Kouymjian, D. 1983. “Dated Armenian Manuscripts as a Statistical Tool for Armenian History”, in T.J. Samuelian & M.E. Stone (eds), Medieval Armenian Culture (UPATS, 6), Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 425–439. Kouymjian, D. 1991. “Haykakan jeṙagreri makagrutʿyunnerov kazmerǝ” [Inscribed bindings of Armenian manuscripts], Patma-banasirakan handes 12, 137–146. Kyurkchyan, A. & Khatcherian, H.H. 2012. Armenian Ornamental Script, Yerevan: Craftology. Lafontaine, G. & Coulie, B. 1983. La version arménienne des Discours de Grégoire de Nazianze. Tradition manuscrite et histoire du texte (CSCO, 446. Subsidia, 67), Louvain: Peeters. 46 Coulie

Łazarosyan, A.H. 1984a. “Glajori hamalsaranum ǝndorinakuac jeṙagrer” [Manuscripts copied at the university of Glajor], Ēǰmiacin 11–12, 56–59. Łazarosyan, A.H. 1984b. “Glajori hamalsarani gričʿnerǝ ev jeṙagrerǝ” [Scribes and manuscripts of the university of Glajor], Lraber 3, 58–66. Leyloyan-Yekmalyan, A. 2003. “De Simēon Arčisecʿi à Zakʿaria Ałtʿamarcʿi. Un modèle de transmission des traditions”, REArm 29, 235–258. Leyloyan-Yekmalyan, A. 2009. L’art du livre au Vaspurakan, XIVe–XVe siècles. Étude des manuscrits de Yovannēs Xizancʿi (Bibliothèque de l’INALCO, 10), Paris & Louvain: Peeters. Malxasean, A. 2007. Cʿucʿak jeṙagracʿ Maštocʿi anuan Matenadarani [Catalogue of the manuscripts of the Maštocʿ Matenadaran], vol. 3, Erevan: Erevani Hamalsarani Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Malxasean, A. 2008. “Matenadarani jeṙagreri kazmeri arjanagrutʿyunnerǝ [Inscriptions of bindings of manuscripts of the Matenadaran]”, Banber Matenadarani 18, 259–282. Manoukian, S.S. 1996. “L’art du livre en Cilicie et les traditions byzantines”, in L’Arménie et Byzance. Histoire et culture (Byzantina Sorbonensia, 12), Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 127–134. Matʿevosyan, A. 1962. “Mokacʿ Sari S. Georg vankʿi grčʿutʿyan kentronǝ XIV–XV darerum” [The copy centre of the Saint George monastery of Sari of Mokkʿ during the 14th–5th c.], Banber Matenadarani 6, 197–218. Matʿevosyan, A. 1984. “Nšmarner Ani kʿałakʿi grčʿutʿyan ev manrankarčʿutʿyan” [Glimpses of Armenian writing and illumination of the city of Ani], Banber Matenadarani 14, 106–134. Matʿevosyan, A. 1984. “Histoire du centre de copie d’Hoṙomos” (in Armenian), Ēǰmiacin 41, 45–49. Mathews, T.F. & Sanjian, A.K. 1991. Armenian Gospel Iconography. The Tradition of the Glajor Gospel (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 29), Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Mathews, T.F. & Taylor, A. 2001. The Armenian Gospels of Glazor. The Life of Christ Illuminated, Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Museum. Muradyan, G. & Topchyan, A. 2012. Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscript Fragments of the Mekhitarist Library in Vienna, bilingual Armenian-English Edition, Graz & Erevan: Vestigia. Manuscript Research Centre & Ankyunacar. Muyldermans, J. 1955. “Les manuscrits arméniens d’Évagre le Pontique à Jérusalem”, Bazmavēp 113, 72–78 et 108–114. Nersessian, V. 1987. Armenian Illuminated Gospel-Books, Londres: The British Library. Outtier, B. 1972. “Les feuilles de garde onciales du psautier arménien de Tours”, REArm 9, 107–112. Collections and Catalogues of Armenian Manuscripts 47

Outtier, B. 1975. “Fragments onciaux du lectionnaire géorgien”, Bedi Kartlisa 33, 110–118. Outtier, B. 1983. “La version arménienne du Commentaire des psaumes de Théodoret. Nouveaux témoins de la tradition directe”, REArm 17, 241–248. Outtier, B. 1986. “Les feuilles de garde géorgiennes des manuscrits du Patriarcat arménien Saint-Jacques de Jérusalem. Rapport préliminaire”, Revues des Études Géorgiennes et Caucasiennes 2, 67–73. Outtier, B. 2002. “Haykakan jeṙagreri hetkʿerov” [Chasing Armenian manuscripts]”, Ēǰmiacin 6–7, 118–121. Połarean, N. 1971. Hay grołner V–XVII dar [Armenian writers of the 5th–17th c.], Erusałēm: Tparan Srbocʿ Yakobeancʿ. Połarean, N. 1976. “Manuscrits des oeuvres de S. Nersēs Šnorhali à la bibliothèque du monastère arménien Saint-Jacques de Jérusalem”, Ēǰmiacin 33, 41–43. Połarean, N. 1989. Hay nkarołner (XI.–XVII. dar) [Armenian painters (11th–17th c.)], Erusałēm: Tparan Srbocʿ Yakobeancʿ. Połarean, N. 1991. Mayr cʿucʿak jeṙagracʿ Srbocʿ Yakobeancʿ [Grand catalogue of the manuscripts of Saint James], XI, Erusałēm: Tparan Srbocʿ Yakobeancʿ. Połarean, N. 1992. Hay gričʿner (IX.–XVII. dar) [Armenian scribes (9th–17th c.)], Erusałēm: Tparan Srbocʿ Yakobeancʿ. Prinzing, G. & Schmidt, A. 1997. Das Lemberger Evangeliar. Eine wiederentdeckte arme nische Bilderhandschrift des 12. Jahrhunderts (Sprachen und Kulturen des Christlichen Orients, 2), Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag. Renhart, E. 2009. “Eine armenische Palimpsesthandschrift an der Universitätsbibliothek Graz (UBG, ms. 2058/2)”, dans Somers 2009, 215–232. Renoux, C. 1989. Le lectionnaire de Jérusalem en Arménie, le čašocʿ, I. Introduction et liste des manuscrits (Patrologia Orientalis, 44, fasc. 4, Nr. 200), Turnhout: Brepols. Rhodes, E.F. 1959. An Annotated List of Armenian New Testament Manuscripts (Annual Report of Theology. Monograph Series, 1), Tokyo: Rikkyo University. Richard, M. 1948. Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits grecs (Publications de l’Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes, 1), Paris: Éditions du CNRS. Richard, M. 1958. Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits grecs, 2e éd. (Publications de l’Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes, 1), Paris: Éditions du CNRS. Richard, M. 1995. Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits grecs, 3e édition entièrement refondue par J.-M. Olivier (Corpus Christianorum), Turnhout: Brepols. Sanjian, A.K. 1991. “The Manuscripts Executed at Glajor”, dans Mathews & Sanjian 1991, 197–205. 48 Coulie

Somers, V. (ed.) 2009. Palimpsestes et éditions de textes: les textes littéraires. Actes du colloque tenu à Louvain-la-Neuve (septembre 2003), (Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain, 56), Louvain-la-Neuve: Institut orientaliste de l’Université catholique de Louvain. Stone, M.E. 2012. An Editio Minor of the Armenian Version of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (HUAS, 11), Leuven, Paris & Walpole, MA: Peeters. Stone, M.E., Kouymjian, D. & Lehmann, H. 2002. Album of Armenian Paleography, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Stone, N. 1997. The Kaffa Lives of the Desert Fathers. A Study in Armenian Manuscript Illumination (CSCO, 566. Subsidia, 94), Louvain: Peeters. Ter Łewondean, H. 1984. “Erevani Matenadarani metałeay jeṙagrakazmeru cʿucʿak” [Catalogue of the metallic bindings of the Yerevan Matenadaran], Handēs Amsōreay 98, 281–320 and English summary, 321–334. Tēr-Vardanean, G. 1999. Mesrop Magistros Arkʿepiskopos Tēr-Movsisean. Kensagor cunēutʿiwnǝ, “Ǝndhanur cʿucʿak hayerēn jeṙagracʿ”, matenagitutʿiwn [Archbishop Mesrop Magistros Tēr-Movsisean. Life and works, “General catalogue of Armenian manuscripts”, in bibliography], Erevan: Magałatʿ. Tēr-Vardanean. 2001. “Les centres intellectuels et scriptoria du Širak au temps des Bagratides d’Ani (IXe–XIe siècles)”, in R.H. Kévorkian (dir.), Ani, capitale de l’Arménie en l’an mil, Paris: Musées, 236–243. Tēr-Vardanean. 2004. “Hayerēn jeṙagregri korsuac hawakʿacuneri cʿucʿakneri hratarak- man xndirǝ. Naxnakan hałordum: Lim anapati 1282 tʿuakan veragtnuac Nor Ktakarani aṙitʿov” [The problem of editing catalogues of lost collections of Armenian manuscripts. First communication on the occasion of the rediscovery of the New Testament of the Lim monastery of the year 1282], in V. Calzolari, A. Sirinian & B.L. Zekiyan (eds), Bnagirkʿ yišatakacʿ /Documenta memoriae. Dall’Italia e dall’Ar menia, studi in onore di Gabriella Uluhogian, Bologna: Dipartimento di Paleografia e Medievistica, Università di Bologna, 97–115. Tēr-Vardanean. 2006. “Matenadarani jeṙagreri ačǝ 1993–2006 tʿvakannerin” [The increase in manuscripts of the Matenadaran during the years 1993–2006], Banber Matenadarani 17, 343–351. Tēr-Vardanean, 2012a. Mayr cʿucʿak hayerēn jeṙagracʿ Maštocʿi anuan matenadarani [Grand catalogue of Armenian manuscripts of the Maštocʿ Matenadaran], vol. VI, Erevan: Nairi. Tēr-Vardanean, 2012b. Mayr cʿucʿak hayerēn jeṙagracʿ Maštocʿi anuan matenadarani [Grand catalogue of Armenian manuscripts of the Maštocʿ Matenadaran], vol. VII, Erevan: Nairi. Thierry, M. 1993. Répertoire des monastères arméniens (Corpus Christianorum), Turnhout: Brepols. Collections and Catalogues of Armenian Manuscripts 49

Topchyan, A. 2009. “The Vienna Palimpsest of Agathangelos’ History”, dans Somers 2009, 233–243. Traina, G., Franco, C., Kouymjian, D. & Veronese Arslan, C. 2003 . Storia di Alessandro il Macedone. Codice armeno miniato del XIV secolo (Venezia, San Lazzaro, 424) (Helios, 5), Padova: Bottega d’Erasmo. Uluhogian, G. 2010. Catalogo dei manoscritti armeni delle biblioteche d’Italia (Indici e cataloghi, nuova serie, 20), Roma: Libreria dello Stato. Van Esbroeck, M. 1980. “Leningradi M.E. Saltikov-Ščʿedrini anvan hanrayin gradarani hayeren krknagirǝ (nor šarkʿ, Nr. 14)” [The Armenian palimpsest of the M.E. Saltykov-Chtchedrin Public Library of Leningrad (new series Nr. 14)], Banber Matenadarani 13, 271–274. Vardanian, S.A. 1999. Histoire de la médecine en Arménie de l’Antiquité à nos jours (traduction de l’arménien par R.H. Kévorkian), Paris: Union médicale arménienne de France. Vardanyan, E. 1998. “Catalogue des manuscrits du peintre Minas (XVe siècle)”, REArm 27, 359–378. Zeytʿunyan, A.S. 1977. “Astvacašnčʿi hayeren tʿargmanutʿyan jeṙagrakan miavorneri dasakargman masin” [On the classification of manuscript units of the Armenian translation of the Bible], Banber Matenadarani 12, 295–304. Zeytʿunyan, A.S. 1985. Girkʿ Cnndocʿ. Kʿnnakan bnagir [Book of Genesis. Critical Text], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Zeytʿunyan, A.S. 1992. Girkʿ Elicʿ. Kʿnnakan bnagir [Book of Exodus. Critical Text], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Zeytʿunyan, A.S. 1993. Girkʿ Lewtacʿwocʿ. Kʿnnakan bnagir [Book of Leviticus. Critical Text], Antʿilias: Tparan Katʿołikosutʿean Hayocʿ Meci Tann Kilikioy. Zeytʿunyan, A.S. 1998. Girkʿ Tʿuocʿ. Kʿnnakan bnagir [Book of Numbers. Critical Text], Antʿilias: Tparan Katʿołikosutʿean Hayocʿ Meci Tann Kilikioy. 50 Coulie Appendix

List of Codes Used to Designate Armenian Manuscripts

The purpose of the list of codes is to provide researchers with a single, common system for designating all Armenian manuscripts. It follows the order of presentation of locations, libraries, collections and holdings used in the Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits arméniens,125 which is why it also uses French written forms and names. The fundamental structure of the code is made up of the following elements:

1) One or more letters indicating location: the letters used try to reproduce the initials or elements referring to the location as found in the Répertoire, e.g.: AD = ADmont, AG = AGulis, BAL = BALtimore, BG = BirminGham, SAB = Saint- Petersburg, etc.

These codes adhere strictly to the alphabetical order of the Répertoire; the only exception is for the four most important collections of Armenian manuscripts, which are designated by a single letter for the sake of convenience:

J = Jerusalem, Armenian Patriarchate; M = Yerevan, Matenadaran; V = Venice, Mekhitarist Library; W = Vienna (Wien in German), Mekhitarist Library.

2) One or more letters indicating the library, collection or manuscript holding: the letters employed use an element by which the library, collection or holding can be identified. Private collections, many of which are often held in a single location, are shown by the letters C or P: here, the code must be followed by the name of the collector, e.g. PC Fringhian = Paris, Fringhian Collection. 3) If necessary, an asterisk (*) is used to indicate that the collection is no longer at the site indicated as a result of transfer, dispersion, destruction or sale. Old collections have been incorporated into the list of codes where experience shows that the bibliography still refers to these manuscripts according to their old catalogues, e.g. VAS* = the Vaspurakan manuscripts recorded in the catalogue drawn up by E. Lalayan. Asterisks are also used to indicate salerooms.

125 Coulie 1992, 1995, 2000, and 2004. Collections and Catalogues of Armenian Manuscripts 51

Most of these codes will be used rarely, unlike those that refer to the major collections. However, having a full list for all holdings is a useful tool for individuals wishing, for example, to keep a bibliography of Armenian manuscripts up to date, as the author of this article does. This is because codes allow data to be classified easily regardless of the manuscript’s identification.

Location Library, collection, holding Code

ADMONT Monastery Library (Stiftsbibliothek) AD AGULIS* AG* AIX City Library (Bibliothèque Méjanes) AIX AKHALKALAKI* AKA* AKHALKTSIKHE* AKE* AKHURIAN Private Collections AKU ALBA JULIA ALB ALEP Private Collection (formerly P. Sbath) ALC ALEP Church of the Forty Martys and private ALQ collections (Eglise des Quarante Martyrs) AMASYA Saint James Church AMJ AMASYA Church of the Mother of God AMM AMASYA Church of Saint Nicolas AMN AMSTERDAM City council archives AMR AMSTERDAM University Library (Universiteitsbibliotheek) AMS ANCONE City council Library (Biblioteca Comunale) ANC ANKARA* ANK* ANKARA* Red monastery (Karmir vankʿ) ANKK* ANKARA* Archeological Museum ANKM* ANN ARBOR University Library ANN ANTELIAS Catholicosate of the Great House of Cilicia ANT ANTELIAS Armenian Theological Seminary ANTS APARAN Private Collections AP ARABKIR AR ARGHANA* Monastery Library ARG* ARMACHE* Monastery Library ARM* ARTAZ* Saint Thaddaeus Monasterey ART* ASTRAKHAN Armenian School (Ecole arménienne) ASE ASTRAKHAN Church of the Mother of God ASM ATHENES Benaki Museum (Benaki Mouseion) ATB (Continued) 52 Coulie

Table (Continued)

Location Library, collection, holding Code

ATHENES Gennadeion Library ATG ATHENES National Library (Ethnikè Bibliothèkè) ATN AUTUN Library (Bibliothèque d’Autun) AU AYDIN AY

BAGDAD BAD BAGREWAND* BAG* BAKOU Nizami Museum BAK BALTIMORE Walters Art Gallery BAL BANANCʿ* Church of Saint Gregory the Illuminator BAN* BARCELONE University Library BAR BASRA Church of the Virgin BAS BAYBURT BAY BERGEN OP ZOOM Collection A. Ten Kate BE BERKELEY University of California, Bancroft Library BEB BERLIN Private Collection BEC BERLIN Museum of Islamic Art BEI BERLIN National Library (Staatsbibliothek) BER BEURON Monastery Library (Bibliothek der Erzabtei) BEU BEYROUTH Monastery of the Capuchins (Couvent des BEV Capucins [Saint-Louis]) BEYROUTH Private Collections BEW BEYROUTH Near East School of Theology BEY BEYROUTH Saint Jospeh University, Oriental Library BEZ BIRMINGHAM Selly Oak College BG BITLIS* Monastery Library BIT* BLOIS Castle Museum BL BLOOMINGTON Indiana University, Lilly Library BLO BOLOGNE University Library (Biblioteca universitaria) BO BOLOGNE Library of the Archiginnasio (Biblioteca BOA comunale dell’Archiginnasio) BOSTON Boston Public Library BOB BOSTON Private Collections BOC BOSTON Museum of Fine Arts BOM

(Continued) Collections and Catalogues of Armenian Manuscripts 53

Table (Continued)

Location Library, collection, holding Code

BOSTON Boston University, Mugar Library BOU BRUXELLES Royal Library (Bibliothèque royale) BR BRUXELLES Private Collections BRC BUCAREST Library of the Romanian Academy (Biblioteca BU Academiei Române) BUCAREST Armenian Library BUA BUCAREST National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a BUB Romaniei) BUCAREST Private Collections BUC BUCAREST Armenian Bishopric (Evêché arménien) BUE BURGAS Church of the Holy Cross BUR BURSA BUS BZOMMAR Monastery Library BZ BZOMMAR Monastery Library, “Antonian” Collection BZA

CAMARILLO St. John’s Seminary, Doheny Collection C CAMBRIDGE Corpus Christi College CBC CAMBRIDGE Fitzwilliam Museum CBF CAMBRIDGE Queen’s College, Collection H. Bailey CBH CAMBRIDGE University Library CBU CAMBRIDGE Harvard University, Houghton Library CD CAMBRIDGE Harvard University Art Museum, A. Sackler CDS Museum CASSEL University Library (Gesamthochschul- CEL Bibliothek = Universitätsbibliothek) CAVA DEI TIRRENI City Library (Biblioteca Comunale) CEM CESAREE (various holdings) CES CHARTRES City Library (Bibliothèque municipale) CHA CHICAGO University of Chicago Library, Goodspeed CHG Collection CHICAGO Newberry Library CHN CHICAGO University of Chicago Library, Pye Collection CHP CHILLICOTHE Ross County Historical Society, McKell CHT Collection (Continued) 54 Coulie

Table (Continued)

Location Library, collection, holding Code

CLUJ State Archives (Arhivele Nationale ale CLA României) CLUJ University Library CLU COLORADO Collection D.M. Daub COL COPENHAGUE Royal Library (Kongelige Bibliotek) COP COUCHES Private Collection COU CRACOVIE Jagiellonian Library (Biblikoteka Jagiellonska) CRJ CRACOVIE National Musem (Biblioteka Czartoryskich) CRM

DAMAS National Museum DA DARMSTADT University Library (Hessischer Landes- und DAR Hochschulbibliothek) DETROIT Private Collection DEC DETROIT Detroit Public Library DED DETROIT St. John’s Armenian Church: see SOUTHFIELD DIA DIARBAKIR Church of Saint Kirakos DIVRIGI* DIV* DOUAI City Library (Bibliothèque municipale) DO DUBLIN Chester Beatty Library DU DUBLIN Trinity College DUC DUMBRAVENI Armenian Catholic Church (Eglise DUM arméno-catholique) DURHAM University Library, Oriental Studies DUR DURHAM Duke University, Perkins Library DUU

EDIMBOURG Edinburgh University Library ED EREVAN Private Collections ERC EREVAN History Museum of Armenia (Hayastani ERH Patmutʿyan Tʿangaran) EREVAN Matenadaran M ERFURT Angermuseum ERI ERLANGEN University Library (Universitätsbibliothek) ERL ERNDJAK* Saint Karapet Monastery ERN* ERZERUM* Arznian School ERZA*

(Continued) Collections and Catalogues of Armenian Manuscripts 55

Table (Continued)

Location Library, collection, holding Code

ERZERUM* Sanassarian Institute ERZS* ETCHMIADZIN Catholicosate (Holy See) ET EVANSTON Northwestern University Library EV

FEODOSIJA FEO FLORENCE Laurentian Library (Biblioteca Medicea FLL Laurenziana) FLORENCE National Library (Biblioteca nazionale) FLN FLORENCE Riccardian Library (Biblioteca Riccardiana) FLR FLORENCE Berenson Library FLZ FRANCFORT/MAIN University Library (Stadt- und FM Universitätsbibliothek) FRESNO California State University, Armenian Studies FN Program FRESNO Private Collections FNC FRESNO Church of the Holy Trinity FNT FRIBOURG University Library (Bibliothèque de l’université) FR FRNUZ Saint Karapet Monastery FRZ FRUMOSA FUA FULDA University and State Library (Hochschul- und FUL Landesbibliothek)

GANDZASAR* Monastery Library GA* GAZIANTEP* GAZ* GDANSK Academy Library (Polska Akademia Nauk GD Biblioteka Gdanska) GENES State Archives (Archivio di Stato) GE GENEVE Bodmer Library (Bibliothèque Bodmer) GEB GENEVE Library of the Saint Gregory the Illuminator GEF Foundation (Bibliothèque de la Fondation Saint-Grégoire l’Illuminateur) GENEVE Geneva Library (Bibliothèque de Genève, GEP ancienne Bibliothèque publique et universitaire)

(Continued) 56 Coulie

Table (Continued)

Location Library, collection, holding Code

GETACHEN* GET* GHEORGHIENI Armenian Catholic Library (Bibliothèque de la GH paroisse arméno-catholique) GHERLA* Church of the Holy Trinity and State Museum GHE* (Eglise de la Sainte-Trinité et Musée d’Etat) GLASGOW Glasgow University, Hunterian University GL GNIEZNO Archdiocesan Archive (Archiwum GNZ Archidiecezjalne) GOSLAR City Hall (Rathaus), Collection Adam GOS GÖTTINGEN University Library (Universitätsbibliothek) GOT GÖTTWEIG Monastery Library GOW (Benediktinerstiftsbibliothek) GRAZ University Library (Universitätsbibliothek) GR GRIGORIOPOL Church of Saints Peter and Paul GRI

HAGHBAT* Monastery of the Holy Cross HAB* HALLE University Library (Universitäts- und HAL Landesbibliothek) HALLE University Library (Universitäts- und HAM Landesbibliothek), Bibliothek der DMG HAMBOURG Christianeum HB HARITCH* HR* HARTFORD Hartford Seminary Foundation, Case Memorial HT Library HAVERFORD Haverford College Library HV HAWARDEN Saint Deiniol’s Library HW HELSINKI University Library (Helsingin Yliopiston HX Kirjasto) HOLLYWOOD Western Diocese of the Armenian Church HY

IENA University Library (Universitätsbibliothek) IE IJEVAN* IJ* IOWA CITY University Library IO ISKENDERUN Private Collection ISK

(Continued) Collections and Catalogues of Armenian Manuscripts 57

Table (Continued)

Location Library, collection, holding Code

ISPAHAN Library of the Archaeological Musem ITA ISTANBUL Library of the Armenian Patriarchate ITB ISTANBUL Topkapi Museum ITM ISTANBUL Topkapi Museum, Sultan Ahmed III Library ITN (Enderûn Kütüphanesi) ISTANBUL Private Collections ITP ISTANBUL* Balat, Church of the Archangel ITR* ISTANBUL Galata, Armenian National Library ITT ISTANBUL Galata, Church of Saint Gregory the Illuminator ITU ISTANBUL Gartʿal, Church of the Holy Sign ITV ISTANBUL* Ortaköy, Antonine Library ITZ* IZMIT IZ

JERUSALEM Armenian Patriarchate (Saint James Monastery) J JERUSALEM Chief Rabbinate JC JERUSALEM National and University Library JL JERUSALEM Greek Orthodox Patriarchate JO JOHANNESBURG Private Collection JS

KARLSRUHE Badische Landesbibliothek KA KAZAN University Library KAZ KIEV Library of the National Academy of Sciences of KI Ukraine KINGSTON Queen’s University Archives, Douglas Library KN KISHINEV Private Collections KV KÜTAHYA* KY

LA HAYE State Archives (Nationaal Archief) L LE CAIRE Library of the Armenian Prelacy LC LE CAIRE Franciscan Centre Mouski LCM LEEDS University, Library of the Dpt of Semitic Studies LD LEIPZIG University Library (Universitätsbibliothek) LE LEIPZIG* Hiersemann LEH* LEYDE University Library (Universiteitsbibliotheek) LEY

(Continued) 58 Coulie

Table (Continued)

Location Library, collection, holding Code

LILLE University Library (Bibliothèque de l’université) LI LINZ Monastery Library (Klosterbibliothek) LIA LISBONNE National Library (Biblioteca Nacional) LIB LISBONNE Gulbenkian Foundation LIG LIVOURNE* LIV* LOM Private Collection LM LONDRES Bible House Library LO LONDRES British Library (+ collections) LOB LONDRES* Christie’s LOBC* LONDRES Private Collections LOC LONDRES* Sam Fogg LOF* LONDRES Lambeth Palace Library LOL LONDRES London Library LON LONDRES School of Oriental and African Studies LOO LONDRES* Sotheby’s LOS* LONDRES Victoria and Albert Museum LOV LONDRES Wellcome Institute LOW LOS ANGELES Private Collections LS LOS ANGELES Philosophical Research Society LSP LOS ANGELES University of California, Special Collections LSU LOS ANGELES University of Southern California, Doheny LSV Library LUCQUES Biblioteca Statale LU LWOW (former collections) LW LWOW Library of the Academy of Sciences LWA LWOW History Museum LWM LWOW University Library LWU LYON City Library (Bibliothèque municipale) LY

(M) EREVAN Matenadaran M MADRID Archivo Ducal de Medinaceli MAA MADRID Escorial Library (R. Biblioteca de El Escorial) MAE MADRID National Library (Biblioteca nacional) MAN MALIBU J.P. Getty Museum MB

(Continued) Collections and Catalogues of Armenian Manuscripts 59

Table (Continued)

Location Library, collection, holding Code

MANCHESTER Private Collections MC MANCHESTER John Rylands Library MCR MANHASSET Private Collection MET MARBOURG Westdeutsche Bibliothek MG MARSEILLE City Library (Bibliothèque municipale) MLB MARSEILLE Private Collections MLC MILAN Ambrosian Library (Biblioteca Ambrosiana) MN MODENE University Library (Biblioteca Estense MO Universitaria) MONTPELLIER Archives (Archives départementales et MP municipales) MONTREAL Musée des Beaux-Arts / Museum of Fine Arts MRM MONTREAL McGill University Library MRU MOSCOU Russian State Library = Lenin Library MSB (Publicnaja Biblioteka im. Lenina) MOSCOU Private Collections MSC MOSCOU* Lazaref Institute of Eastern Languages MSL* MOSCOU State Historical Museum (Gosudarstvennyj MSM Istoriceskij Muzej) MOSCOU Shtchukin Museum MSS MUNICH Bavarian State Library (Bayerische MU Staatsbibliothek) MUNSTER/WESTF. Bible Museum (Bibelmuseum) MUB MUSH* Monastery of the Holy Apostles MUSA* MUSH* Monastery of Saint Karapet MUSK*

NAPLES State Library (Biblioteca nazionale) NA NEW HAVEN Yale University Library, Beinecke Library NH NEW YORK American Bible Society NKA NEW YORK American Museum of Natural History NKB NEW YORK Private Collections NKC NEW YORK Columbia University, Butler Library NKCU NEW YORK Diocese of the Armenian Church of America NKD NEW YORK* Kraus NKK*

(Continued) 60 Coulie

Table (Continued)

Location Library, collection, holding Code

NEW YORK Metropolitan Museum of Art NKM NEW YORK New York Public Library NKN NEW YORK Pierpont Morgan Library NKP NEW YORK Union Theological Seminary NKT NICOSIE* NN* NOUV. DJOULFA (+ collections) NOJ NOVO-BAYAZET* (+ collections) NOZ* NUREMBERG Public Library (Stadtbibliothek) NU

OLOMOUC City Library (Knihovna Mešta Olomouce) OL ORLANDO Van Kampen Collection ORL OSLO OS OSNABRÜCK Gymnasium Carolinum OSN OTTUMWA Foster Library OT OXFORD Balliol College OXB OXFORD Bodleian Library OXL OXFORD New College OXN OXFORD Wadham College OXW

PALERME Comunity Library (Biblioteca Comunale) PAM PARIS National Library of France (Bibliothèque P nationale de France) PARIS Bibliothèque des Antonins PBA PARIS INALCO Libary (Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des PBE langues orientales vivantes = Institut national des langues et civilisations orientales) PARIS Library of the Institut de France PBI PARIS Library of the Institut de France, Condé PBIB Museum (Musée Condé) PARIS Library of the Institut Catholique de Paris PBIC PARIS Bibliothèque provinciale franciscaine PBP PARIS Private Collections PC PARIS* Drouot PD* PARME Palatine Library (Biblioteca Palatina) PE

(Continued) Collections and Catalogues of Armenian Manuscripts 61

Table (Continued)

Location Library, collection, holding Code

PAVIE University Library (Biblioteca universitaria) PF PEROUSE Chapter Library (Biblioteca capitolare) PG PHILADELPHIE Free Library, Lewis Collections PHF PHILADELPHIE Philadelphia Museum of Art PHM PLEVEN Dimitrov Library PLE PLOESHTI Art Museum of the City PLS PLOVDIV PLV PLOVDIV Private Collections PLVC POUGHKEEPSIE Vassar College Library POU PRAGUE National Library (Národní knihovna České PRB republiky) PRAGUE Lanna Collection PRL PRAGUE Museum of Czech Literature (Památník PRM Národního Písemnictví) PRINCETON University Library PRU

RACINE Private Collection RA RECKLINGHAUSEN Ikonen-Museum RAK RIMINI Biblioteca Gambalunga RBG ROCHESTER University of Rochester, Memorial Art Gallery RCH ROME Biblioteca Angelica ROA ROME Biblioteca Casanatense ROC ROME Armenian College (Collegio Leoniano Armeno) ROL ROME National Central Library (Biblioteca Nazionale RON Centrale) ROUEN City Library (Bibliothèque municipale) ROU ROVIGO Concordi Library (Biblioteca dell’Accademia dei ROV Concordi) RUSE RU

SAINT-FLORIAN Monastery Library (Augustiner SAA Chorherrrenstiftsbibliothek) SAINT-PETERSBOURG Saltykov-Chtchedrin Public Library SABB

(Continued) 62 Coulie

Table (Continued)

Location Library, collection, holding Code

SAINT-PETERSBOURG State Hermitage Museum (Gosudarstvennyj SABE Ermitaz) SAINT-PETERSBOURG Institute of Oriental Manuscripts = Institute of SABO Oriental Studies SALONIQUE Anatolia College SAC SAN FRANCISCO Private Collections SAF SAN MARINO Huntington Library SAM SARUSHEN Church of the Holy Savior SAR SATLIEL* SAT* SAULIEU Caucasus Library (Bibliothèque du Caucase) SAU SCUTARI SC SEATTLE Seattle Art Museum SEA SEBASTE* Monastery of the Holy Sign SEB* SEGOVIE Alhóndiga (City Archives) SEG SENKUS* Monastery Library SEN* SEVAN* Monastery Library SEV* SHEMAKHA* SHE* SHIRAZ Armenian Church SHI SHUSHA* Dadean Collection SHU* SIENNE City Library (Biblioteca communale) SIE SIMANCAS Archives of Castille (Archivo General de SIM Simancas) SINAI Monastery of Saint Catherine SIN SIS* Monastery Library SIS* SLIVEN Church of Saint Stephen SLI SOFIA SS. Cyril and Methodius National Library SO SOFIA Collections privées SOP SOUTHFIELD Private Collection SOT SOUTHFIELD Saint John’s Armenian Church SOU STEPANAKERT Historical Museum STA STETTIN Marienstiftsgymnasium STE STOCKHOLM National Library of Sweden (Kungliga STO Biblioteket) STRASBOURG University Library (Bibliothèque nationale STR et universitaire) (Continued) Collections and Catalogues of Armenian Manuscripts 63

Table (Continued)

Location Library, collection, holding Code

STUTTGART Württembergische Landesbibliothek STU SUBIACO Monastery Library (Monasterio di Santa SUB Scolastica) SUCEAVA* SUC* SUMEN SUM SVISTOV SV

TABRIZ* (+ collections) TA* TABRIZ* Melikʿ-Tʿangean Museum TAB* TALLAS TAL TATHEW* Monastery Library TAT* TBILISI Central Historical Archives TBA TBILISI Private Collections TBC TBILISI Institute of manuscripts = National Centre of TBI Manuscripts TBILISI* Nersissian Seminary TBN* TCHARMAHAL TC TEHERAN TE TOKAT TK TOURS City Library (Bibliothèque municipale) TO TUBINGUE University Library (Universitätsbibliothek) TU

UPPSALA University Library (Universitetsbiblioteket) UP UTRECHT University Library (Universiteitsbibliotheek) UT

VENISE Mekhitarist Library (Biblioteca dei Padri V Mechitaristi = San Lazzaro degli Armeni) VENISE Mekhitarist Library, Kurdian Collection V, Kurd. VARNA VA VARSOVIE Central Archives of Historical Records VAA (Archiwum Główne Akt Dawnych) VARSOVIE National Library (Biblioteka Narodowa) VAB VARSOVIE University Library (Biblioteka Universytetu) VAC VASPOURAKAN* (Lalayan Catalogue) VAS*

(Continued) 64 Coulie

Table (Continued)

Location Library, collection, holding Code

VATICAN Vatican Library (Bibliotheca Apostolica VAT Vaticana) (+ collections) VENISE Marcian Library (Biblioteca Marciana) VEB VENISE San Michele in Isola Library VEI VENISE Correr Museum (Biblioteca del Museo Civico VEM Correr) VERONE Chapter Library (Biblioteca Capitolare) VER VICENCE Biblioteca Civica Bertoliana VIC VIENNE National Library (Österreichische VIN Nationalbibliothek) VIENNE Schottenstift VIS VIENNE Mekhitarist Library (Mechitaristen Bibliothek) W VILLANOVA Private Collection VV

WASHINGTON Catholic University of America, Hyvernat WAA Collection WASHINGTON Private Collection WAB WASHINGTON Library of Congress WAC WASHINGTON Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and WADO Collection WASHINGTON Smithsonian Institution, Freer Gallery of Art WAF WATERTOWN Armenian Library and Museum of America WAT WEST-HARTFORD Private Collection WH WITTENBERG Luther House and Museum (Lutherhalle) WIT WROCLAW Ossolineum WRO WROCLAW University Library (Biblioteka Uniwersytecka) WRU

ZAHLE Private Collection ZA ZURICH Collection Jeselsohn ZU

On the Historical and Literary Value of the Colophons in Armenian Manuscripts

Anna Sirinian

Anyone who has come into contact, however briefly, with the world of Armenian manuscripts will know that they contain not only eloquent texts and the images that often accompany these texts, but also their colophons. In its own right a rich channel of communication about the past, the Armenian colophon – as with other book-cultures, but possessing some distinctive traits – was usually written by the scribe towards the end of the book so as to leave a record of himself and his work for posterity. There is a special place reserved within a manuscript for the colophon (in Armenian yišatakaran, literally the “place of memory” or the “memorial”), usually marked off by a frame, or by some blank lines, or placed on a fresh page, or written in a distinct style of script, using smaller letters, for example, or by some other special sign. In this sometimes lengthy concluding section – which completes the manuscript – the scribe addresses the reader directly, placing his “signature” on the work he has carried out and thereby furnishing important information concerning the manuscript’s co-ordinates in space and time. It is not rare, moreover, that the scribe does not confine himself to indicating only his name, the place and date of writing, together with other details of the microcosm that surrounds him – the name of the monastery, of its abbot, of the person who commissioned the manuscript and sponsored it, of some of the brethren or of his family –, but he also lifts his eyes to comprehend the political and cultural macrocosm that formed the background to his act of copying: he mentions the political and religious authorities of his time, he records invasions or current wars, natural disasters, or simply details of daily life, and he formulates prayers, thanksgivings, exhortations, curses and so on. In a civilization such as the Armenian, which has developed for most of its long history without reference to an established power of state that could guarantee the preservation through archives of the nation’s historical events, and given the dispersion suffered even by those documents gathered within the archives produced during the sorrowful history of Armenia, it is in manuscript colophons that we can still find the substance through which to reconstruct many aspects of the political, cultural, civic and social history, as well as the daily life of the Armenian people. The first famous and systematic corpus of Armenian colophons, entitled Yišatakarankʿ jeṙagracʿ (= Manuscript

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��4 | doi ��.��63/9789004270961_��4 66 Sirinian colophons), was published in Antelias in 1951 by the catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia, G. Yovsēpʿean, who remarked in his introduction:

Without recourse to the colophons, it is impossible to get a precise idea of the history, literature, art and culture – or even of the economy – of Armenia, Cilicia and the colonies. Indeed, the colophons also shed much light on the wars and other relations between Armenians and neighbouring countries.1

In order to present the fullness of the significance of the yišatakarankʿ and the value of their rich data, one may compare them with those in manuscripts from an adjacent cultural area, that of Byzantium, in which even the scribe’s name often remains unknown: colophons, where present, are short and mention few facts, such as the scribe’s name and a date, if at all. For this reason, Byzantine palaeography and codicology have also developed as disciplines seeking to provide criteria by which to clarify a manuscript’s provenance and dating.2 It is not so for Armenian manuscripts, which contrast with the Greek reti- cence by their loquacious character, maintaining in this way the information placed in them through centuries of history and significant geographical dislo- cations. One need not underline the great advantage deriving from this expan- siveness provided to the spheres of Armenian philology and history, especially when one considers that, besides the autograph colophon written by the scribe at the end of the manuscript, one also often finds a plurality of notes added on various pages by successive owners, restorers and readers of the manuscript, each desirous to place a personal memento on the book.3 It is thanks to the

1 Garegin I Katʿołikos 1951, XIV. 2 On further comparison with Byzantine manuscripts, see also the considerations below in this article. Approximately, one may calculate the relative frequency of colophons according to the following proportions: on average, eight out of ten Armenian manuscripts contain a colophon (and the lack of a subscription often coincides with a material lacuna in the codex); whilst for Byzantine manuscripts, one in ten may display a subscription. 3 One should note the use of the word yišatakaran in Armenian manuscript catalogues to indicate not only the scribal colophon, but also other non-scribal notes (such as notes of possession and so on), with the following distinctions: glxawor yišatakaran (= main colophon), or yišatakaran grčʿutʿean žamanaki (colophon contemporary with the creation of the codex), and yišatakaran yetagayi (= colophon added subsequently); by gałapʿar yišatakaran or yišata- karan naxagałapʿar ōrinaki is designated the main colophon in the model which has been transcribed in the apograph by the following scribe (“copied colophon” or “colophon of the model”). In the terminology adopted in this essay the word “colophon” designates the The Value of the Colophons in Armenian Manuscripts 67 latter that one may be able to reconstruct the tortuous after-life of the artefact, which has often travelled to a destination far distant in respect of its original place of copying. Conscious of the special physiognomy of the Armenian colophons, and of their belonging – as we shall see below – to a specific literary genre, we will describe their characteristics in detail after having presented the instrumenta studiorum through which it is possible to approach the study of these texts. It is our aim to make available in this fashion to the non-specialist the wealth of material contained in these compositions, widespread amongst Armenians. In conclusion, some further avenues of research will be pointed out, consisting especially of further comparisons with other cultural and linguistic areas. The possibilities of research through colophons are still much under-exploited.

1 Brief Status Studiorum: Collections of Armenian Colophons Up to the 1980s4

Armenian medieval historians, as is known, already appreciated the value of colophons and manuscript memorials. Among them we can remember Stepʿanos Ōrbelean (XIIIth cent.)5 and, later, Aṙakʿel Dawrižecʿi (XVII cent.),6 who used colophons as sources for their histories. The initiator of modern Armenian historiography, the Mechitarist Father M. Čʿamčʿean, also used colophons as sources in his three-volume History of Armenia published in Venice in 1784–1786.7 Coming up to the nineteenth century, Father Ł. Ališan, another distinguished member of the Mechitarist order, also appreciated the value of colophons as sources in his works on Armenian history, for example in his

subscription written by the scribe or by another craftsman involved in the production of the codex (illuminator, binder), while in the other cases, such as owners’ notes, we use vaguer terms, such as “memorial notes”, “notes of possession” or simply “memorials”. 4 A more detailed history of the cataloguing process can be found in Garegin I Katʿołikos 1951, 16ff., Xačʿikyan 1950, xxi–xxv, Sanjian 1968, 183–187 and Sanjian 1969, 3–6. See also Matʿevosyan 1998, 27–33. 5 At the end of the first chapter of his History of the Province of Siwnikʿ, Ōrbelian declares that manuscript colophons and inscriptions in churches are among the sources that he has used: Abrahamyan 1986, 69. 6 Brosset 1874, 476 (Aṙakʿel, Livre d’Histoires, xxxi), where the historian declares that he has taken into account the colophon information in order to draw a list of the Armenian catholicos from Nersēs Šnorhali to his times. 7 Čʿamčʿean 1784–1786. 68 Sirinian fundamental study of Armenian Cilicia.8 Lastly we may here mention the twentieth-century art-historian, S. Der Nersessian (1896–1989), who considered carefully the information in colophons as an extremely precious tool at the basis of historical and art-historical considerations, so that she published the original text and translated a number of these as appendices to her work.9 The early work of gathering colophons into repertories was begun at the close of the nineteenth century by vardapet Ł. Pʿirłalēmean (1830–1891), who travelled extensively in the Ottoman Empire looking for manuscripts in monastic or private libraries, so that he could briefly describe them and specifically transcribe their yišatakarankʿ; Pʿirłalēmean, however, only succeeded in publishing a portion of his notes in a collection evocatively entitled Nōtarkʿ Hayocʿ (= Armenian notaries), printed in Constantinople around 1888, while the rest of his notebooks remains unpublished, deposited in the Matenadaran (Library and Institute of Ancient Manuscripts) at Yerevan.10 Thus, Pʿirłalēmean is not only remembered as a pioneer of colophon studies,11 but it is also thanks to him that much information about manuscripts and their colophons is still extant, given the destruction of many codices he had seen in the tragic vicissitudes in Armenia between the end of the nineteenth and the early twentieth century. The first really systematic collection of yišatakarankʿ is due to the abovementioned catholicos, G. Yovsēpʿean, who had planned a four-volume publication including colophons from the fifth to the eighteenth century. The work was only partly achieved: only the first volume, containing colophons up to the year 1250, was eventually published in Antelias in 1951, but the author’s death shortly afterwards put an end to the continuation of the project. At almost the same time, however, a systematic effort of publication of chronological collections of colophons was undertaken by the joint efforts of the Institute of History of the Armenian Academy of Sciences and of the Matenadaran. The first volume to be published contained fourteenth-century colophons edited by the director of the Matenadaran, L. Xačʿikyan (1950). A further three volumes by the same author were published between 1955 and 1967, this time dedicated to fifteenth-century colophons. Seventeenth-century

8 Alishan 1899. 9 See, for example, the beginning of the introduction to her Catalogue of the Armenian manuscripts in the Chester Beatty Library (Der Nersessian 1958) or her descriptions of the Armenian manuscripts in the Freer Gallery of Art, where colophons are transcribed in the appendix (Der Nersessian 1963). 10 MSS. Yerevan, Matenadaran, n° 6273, and its second part, n° 4515. 11 However, when copying the colophons, Pʿirłalēmean has often abridged and summarized the text: Pʿirłalēmean 1888 ca, 206 n. 2; Xačʿikyan 1955–1967, I, LVIII–LIX. The Value of the Colophons in Armenian Manuscripts 69 colophons also required a further three volumes published in the decade between 1974 and 1984 by V. Hakobyan and A. Hovhannisyan. The collection of thirteenth-century colophons was then published in 1984 by A. Matʿevosyan, who also undertook the publication of the earlier material (V–XIIth cent.) in part on the basis of Yovsēpʿean’s work, and completed it in 1988.12

These collections, from G. Yovsēpʿean’s down to the more recent publications, are extremely precious. They make available real treasure-troves of data, which have been gradually used in subsequent studies, facilitated by the presence of indices of proper names and places. In addition, the editors have appended a list of subjects related to daily life (aṙarkayakan cʿank or list of realia), on topics such as the art of writing, units of measurement, coinage, taxation, earthquakes, foundations of churches, and so on. Since the descriptive catalogue of Armenian manuscripts in the Matenadaran is still in progress,13 these collections of colophons often constitute the only way to arrive at the information that they contain. It is nevertheless useful to point out the limitations of such collections, which can be presented under two principal categories: a) they present only a selection of colophons, determined by the practical availability of manuscripts or their descriptions at the time of study. An example will serve to clarify. The collection of fourteenth-century colophons assembled by Xačʿikyan was published in 1950. Since that time important advances have been made in the cataloguing of Armenian manuscripts. Additional catalogues have been compiled, such as those for the collections of Jerusalem and Venice due to the work of Archbishop N. Połarean and the Mechitarist Father S. Čemčemean respectively.14 Further accessions and acquisitions have been

12 The chronological list of the Yerevan publications in order of appearance is as follows: Xačʿikyan 1950; Xačʿikyan 1955–1967; Hakobyan and Hovhannisyan 1974–1984; Matʿevosyan 1984; Matʿevosyan 1988. 13 This catalogue (Mayr Cʿucʿak hayerēn jeṙagracʿ Maštocʿi anuan Matenadarani or Comprehensive Catalogue of the Armenian manuscripts of the Matenadaran) began in 1984; its seventh volume appeared in 2012 edited by G. Tēr-Vardanean, totalling a description of 2,400 manuscripts. When one considers that the Armenian manuscripts preserved in the Matenadaran are over 14,000–14,106 in the August 2006 estimate, including prayer rolls (hmayil) and fragments, according to Tēr-Vardanean 2006–, one may conclude that only about one-sixth of the total has been analytically catalogued so far. 14 Regarding the vast number of catalogues of Armenian manuscripts, see Coulie 1992, with three updates, Coulie 1995 [= Supplément I]; Coulie 2000 [= Supplément II]; Coulie 2004 [= Supplément III]. 70 Sirinian made by large and minor collections alike. So, for example, the Matenadaran has been engaged in an extensive campaign to purchase manuscripts.15 Likewise, there have been accessions to the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana subsequent to the publication of Tisserant’s catalogue,16 and there have been new finds at the Pontifical Armenian College in Rome.17 Lastly, recent studies of single codices from minor collections have been presented to scholarly attention.18 It is therefore practically certain that none of the published volumes of colophons is fully comprehensive with respect to the known extant colophons. Other gaps include sixteenth-century colophons, colophons of the last portion of the seventeenth century (the relevant volume ends at 1660), and of further interest would be the publication of recent material, comprising the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; b) the editorial conventions should be brought up to date. For example, three slashes (///) are used to indicate lacunae in the Matenadaran editions, irrespective of the extent of each of them. When the editor decides to omit a section, the three suspension dots are employed (. . .), again without any more specific quantification of the omitted material.19 When more than one memorial note is transcribed, no palaeographical evidence indicates whether the hands change, and their relative datings, with the result that the context is difficult to reconstruct.20

15 Between 1993 and 2006, 166 Armenian manuscripts (242 if prayer rolls and fragments are included) were added to the collection of the Matenadaran: Tēr-Vardanean 2006, 343. 16 Twelve manuscripts whose description is currently being prepared by B. Coulie; further information can be found in Sirinian 2011; see also Sirinian 2004. 17 Sirinian 2003. 18 See Gabriella Uluhogian’s recently published catalogue of Armenian manuscripts in minor Italian collections (excluding the Vatican, the Library of the Mechitarist Fathers at San Lazzaro-Venice and the Library of the Pontifical Armenian College in Rome): Uluhogian 2010, and Stone and Stone 2012. 19 Privileged victims to such omission are the long opening doxologies, considered to be lacking in interest because devoid of historical data (Xačʿikyan 1955–1967, I, LXIII–LXIV); however, these professions of faith synthesize what turn out to be important passages in the history of Armenian theology, pace A.K. Sanjian, who holds them “so standardized that they are of little value, even from the standpoint of tracing the historical development of the Armenian theological and Christological position” (Sanjian 1968, 187). 20 Particularly appropriate is the judgement of Gérard Garitte, which is worth citing in full: “De minimis curat palaeographus; en paléographie, certains détails à première vue sans importance peuvent avoir une signification et jeter une lumière, parfois inattendue, sur l’histoire des manuscrits, voire sur la culture du milieu où vivaient les copistes. Les sous- criptions peuvent receler des détails de ce genre; elles devraient toujours être fidèlement reproduites in extenso dans toute description de manuscrit” [Garitte 1962, 389]. The Value of the Colophons in Armenian Manuscripts 71

In conclusion, while there is still much work to be done in enlarging and completing the existing repertories, these remain the principal available sources for the consultation of colophons. In addition to these specialized collections, mention should be made of the manuscript catalogues, in the most complete of which the texts of colophons are reported in their entirety.21

2 Digitalization

Between 1994 and 1997 ran a project entitled “Accessing Armenian Colophons” sponsored by INTAS, and involving two Armenian institutions, the Matena daran and the Academy of Sciences, beside two European ones, the University of Aarhus and the University of Leiden. Its aim was to digitize all the colophons in the repertories and to publish some specific studies on these.22 Unfortunately, the resulting database has not been made available to scholars, even if publication was planned.23 Another project dedicated to the digitization of Armenian texts (Armenian Digital Library) has been running for several years now in Yerevan, carried out by a group of scholars under the leadership of M. Karapetyan.24 This project includes the publication of printed colophons also, but the resulting database has not yet been made public either. The advantages of a digital library of colophons are evident, so it is much to be hoped that the results will soon be made available, however partial and “in progress” this repertory might be. Some of the advantages would be immediately felt in research on names, demography, and in social, political, economic, artistic and linguistic fields. Some thematic paths that could be explored are:

– literary genres of colophons, their description and evolution; use of formulae, etc. (see below);

21 Beginning with Dashian 1895, which is universally considered the model for cataloguing Armenian manuscripts, and continuing with Połarean 1966–1991 and Kévorkian & Ter-Stépanyan 1998, to cite but a couple of subsequent examples. 22 Hovsepʿyan 1997; JahukyanÌ 1997; Matʿevosyan 1998. See also the review of the latter by Th.M. van Lint in JSAS 13 (2003–2004), 141–144. 23 This is what Prof. J.J.S. Weitenberg (†) kindly communicated to me in 2009. Prof. B. Coulie recently informed me that the database, according to Weitenberg’s wishes, is now in the course of lemmatisation at the Université Catholique de Louvain. 24 Http://www.digilib.am. I am thankful to Dr. Karapetyan for letting me have a digital copy of thirteenth-century colophons. 72 Sirinian

– cultural centres and scriptoria; teachers and learners;25 – scribes and their cultural as well as technical formation;26 – the art of writing and book production;27 – manuscript illuminators and art schools;28 – patronage: the status of patrons, lay, religious and royal patronage;29 – monastic and ecclesiastical foundations;30 – personal names as the result of linguistic and cultural exchanges;31 – family structures; – manuscripts as merchandise: sales, circulation, costs of materials and manufacture; – authorial colophons, in particular of well-known writers in Armenian literature; – categories of scribes, including laypeople, women, and so on.

3 Literary Value

So far we have considered colophons as repositories of data of different kinds: dates, personal names, toponyms, information about events that is useful not only for Armenian history, but also for the history of the neighbouring peoples.32 This principal aim has informed the collections of colophons gathered in Yerevan, leading to the omission of parts of the text that did not provide such information. Already the pioneer Pʿirłalēmean, similarly guided by

25 On the use of data from colophons for the study of the activity of Armenian scriptoria we can highlight, for example, the work by H. Oskean on monasteries in Vaspurakan, in the Tarōn, in Cilicia, etc. These were published in 1940–1960 in the Vienna series Azgayin Matenadaran; cf. also Matʿevosyan 1997, and, yet more recently, the contribution by Coulie 2004. In the latter article, citations are made from a source which provides brief but precious descriptions of manuscripts from monastic foundations, and is therefore useful in reconstructing the history of medieval Armenian monasteries as cultural centres: Sruanjteancʿ 1879–1885. 26 Much information concerning the scribes is available in the five-volume onomastic and prosopographical lexicon by Ačaṙean 1942–1962; see also the collection by Covakan (Połarean) 1992. 27 Matʿevosyan 1998, 45–76. 28 Gēorgean 1998. 29 Sanjian 1969, 9–12. 30 Matʿevosyan 1998, 105–113; Matʿevosyan & Łazarosyan 2005. 31 Weitenberg 2005. 32 See, for example, Sinclair 1998–1999, Dédéyan 1998, and Sirinian 2010. The Value of the Colophons in Armenian Manuscripts 73 strict historical principles, abbreviated his entries to this scope. Therefore little attention has until now been paid to the text in its entirety, looking at questions of overall structure and development. We shall now turn to an integral reading of these documents, paying due consideration to the form as well as the contents, to the outward appearance and even ornamentation of the vessel into which the information is stored. It is certain that the wide diffusion of this “memorial” technique among the Armenians justifies the theory that colophons in fact constitute a separate genre within the panorama of Armenian literature.33 The serial quality of colophons has indeed impressed upon them specific characteristics: a fixed structure and a specific rhetorical style, comprising vocabulary choices as well as formulaic statements and imagery. This genre has had its own history, evolution and end. According to Yovsēpʿean, the custom of writing colophons established itself increasingly, beginning in the tenth century, but developing further in length and detail from around the middle of the twelfth century onwards. H. Baxčʿinyan suggests a close analogy to epigraphy at the very beginning of the history of colophon writing, and, in concord with Yovsēpʿean’s opinion, also considers an evolution from a simple record of the book completion to the lengthy compositions characteristic of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.34 Just as in the West the manuscript subscription is the ancestor to the printed colophon, so in the Armenian world the “colophon genre” survived through the transition to print, appearing also in the printed book.35 Moreover, in Armenia the practice of handwritten books continued long beyond the advent of the printing press, and not only as a sideline production: these manuscripts continued to be provided with colophons. Only towards the end of the nineteenth/beginning of the twentieth century do we witness this genre’s decline and finally its demise.

4 The Evolution of the Genre

Initial research could aim at identifying the characteristics of the earliest dated witnesses to this genre, so as to highlight the traits of its evolution in form and content more accurately. As well as being shorter and less structured in their various parts, the more ancient colophons are sometimes placed at the

33 Avedis Sanjian, in his book (Sanjian 1969), often repeats this conviction, and even opens his introduction by using the phrase “the Armenian literary genre of colophon writing”. 34 Garegin I Katʿołikos 1951, XIV; Baxčʿinyan 1973. 35 See Galayčean 1967–1972. 74 Sirinian beginning or elsewhere than at the very end of the book. For example, as is well known, two of the most ancient colophons of the Gospels, that of Walters Art Gallery ms. W 537 dating to AD 966 and that of Cłrutʿ/Cułrutʿ (Georgia) dating to 976, are both situated at the beginning of their manuscripts; moreover, they display very close formal similarities that merit further study.36 To resume, the structure of the colophon was enriched at a later date and set in ways that became ever more widely used: the text became longer and more articulate, and even the formulaic stock has been enlarged and crystallized through the centuries.

5 Differentiation into Types

Another possible path is that of differentiating typologies within this genre. Colophons change according to the type of text to which they are attached: Gospel colophons, for instance, are composed of special parts and present recurrent formulae (e.g. the praise of the Evangelists, and an emphasis on the number four – the four corners of the world, the four rivers of Paradise, the four symbols of the Evangelists – according to an established and well-researched symbolism);37 in these we also find frequently the theme of the Last Judgement, sometimes reflected in the accompanying illustrations (including the wise and foolish virgins of the parable, scenes of the Last Judgement, the punishments of sinners and so on). Colophons written in hymn books, on the other hand, often contain metaphors from the world of music: for example, in them the book is called ełanakawor taṙs or kočʿi Šaraknocʿ (= this melodious book called Šaraknocʿ or hymnal); a special formula attesting the book’s “authenticity” is also found, witnessing to the fact that the texts contained go back to the famous musician Grigor Xul, who lived under Lewon the Magnificent, king of Armenian Cilicia (1187–1219).38 Colophons in liturgical books such as synaxaria and lectionaries often contain requests for intercessory prayers by the saints, and so on.

36 Stone, Koumjian & Lehmann 2002, tab. 6 (128–129 = Walters W 537) and tab. 8–9 (132–135 = Gospels of Cułrutʿ); Der Nersessian 1973, 1–5, 85 and tab. 4; Kʿotʿanǰyan 2006. 37 Hannick 1993; Ajamian 1994. 38 The formula i law ew yəntir awrinakē Səsoy aṙaǰi varžapetin ew kʿaǰ kʿartułarin Grigori makanun Xul kočʿecʿeloy “(copy made) from a trustworthy model chosen by the first master and skilful scribe Grigor of Sis called Xul” appears, for example, in many hymn books at the Mechitarist Library in Venice (e.g. nn°. 469/584, 471/809, 486/390): Čemčemean 1993, cols. 111, 120, 188. According to the traditional story, the nickname Xul (= deaf) was earned by Grigor because he would stop his ears with wax in order not to listen to profane music: Navoyan 2002. The Value of the Colophons in Armenian Manuscripts 75

Thus we can see that to an extent the colophons are closely adapted to the content of the book they conclude, according to themes and appearances that one might study with profit both in greater detail and across a wider sample.

6 Structure

What is most apparent in a survey of colophons is the stereotypical character of their structure and formulations, something which has discouraged scholars from treating these compositions as having any literary and rhetorical value in their own right. Admittedly, in writing his colophon, the scribe takes the reader through a pre-established path with the help of formulaic expressions and repeated formulae, drawn from tradition and previous models. However, the scribe displays his personal abilities and originality in the way in which he orders and arranges them, invariably adding some innovative element: the result is that no colophon (of reasonable length) is identical to another one. The most classical way to begin an Armenian colophon is by the word Pʿaṙkʿ (Glory), which marks the beginning of a prayer to the Holy Trinity that has enabled the scribe to carry out his task of transcription to completion, on a certain date, in a certain monastery, in the specified region, under the religious authority of that man and the political jurisdiction of another. The manuscript was written by the unworthy scribe called X upon the request of Y, pious and saintly, who dedicated the work of copy to his own memory and to that of his family members and to his brethren. The work had taken place in some evil and bitter times . . . (here is the place for a historical digression where it exists). The scribe then begs those who might chance upon this book, “to read it, listen to it or copy it”, to remember him, an inexperienced and unworthy scribe (here a number of idiomatic expressions of tapeinotēs or humility may be used), as well as for his brethren (if, as in the overwhelming majority of cases, he is a monk) and for his family, without blaming him for the faults of his calligraphy, for such was his ability. “And God in his great goodness will remember those who have remembered”. To sum up, the backbone of Armenian colophons is made up of the following elements:

Opening doxology Date39 Place

39 On this important question and on the system/s of dating in Armenian colophons, see the paragraph “The Calendrical Systems Used in the Colophons”, in Sanjian 1969, 34–41. 76 Sirinian

Religious authority Secular authority Name of scribe Name of donor Request of prayers from the readers for the donor, his brethren and/or his family Request of prayers from the readers for the scribe, his brethren and/or his family Reassurance that divine mercy will provide a reward

Many additional details can be present: praise for other people in some way connected with the manufacture of the codex or to the scribe’s education: for example, the name of the person who polished the writing surface, of the person who lent the model, of the person who decorated or bound the volume, of the scribe’s master, of the people who have looked after the scribe’s well-being during his work (but occasionally also blame for those who have not performed this function well!); laments on the wickedness of the times, at times connected to other information and historical digressions, or on the difficulties in collecting the necessary prime supports for the book; exhortations for a correct use of the tome, curses against potential thieves, and much else besides.40

7 Formulae

Each of these structural elements is in turn composed of set phrases and stock formulae with some internal lexical variations. The initial doxology is usually formulated as Pʿaṙkʿ amenasurb Errordutʿeann (“Glory to the most holy Trinity . . .”). Next, the conjunction ard marks a transition to the segment containing date and name of the scribe: Ard grecʿaw sa jeṙamb (“And this [book] was copied by the hand of . . .”), followed by a series of epithets designating the scribe’s tapeinotēs; the name of the church or monastery where the manuscript was copied is introduced by the phrase ǝnd hovaneaw (“under the protection of . . .”); the name of the donor is introduced by i xndir or i xndroy (“by request of . . .”) or alternatively as (Y) cʿankacʿoł ełew (“[Y] began to wish for . . .”). Here is a short list of the most recurrent formulae:41

40 Some examples in Sirinian & Uluhogian 2003. 41 Here and in the following references, for each of the examples given we will only indicate one occurrence in the manuscripts, although it is often the case that multiple similar The Value of the Colophons in Armenian Manuscripts 77

Pʿaṙkʿ amenasurb Errordutʿeann yawiteans, amēn42 (“Glory to the most holy Trinity for all centuries, amen”)

Šnorhiw Astucoy sksay ew ołormutʿeamb norin katarecʿaw43 (“By the grace of God I have begun and through his mercy [this copy] was completed”)

Ew grecʿaw jeṙamb . . . mełapart ew pʿcʿun grčʿi44 (“And this [book] was written by the hand of scribe [X] sinner and worthless”)

meławkʿ meṙeal45 (“dead because of his sins [as epithet of humility]”)

i xndroy patuakan sarkawagi . . .46 (“by request of the most honourable deacon . . .”)

i yardar vastakocʿ iwrocʿ47 (“[this donor] with his rightful earnings [commissioned the present book]”)

i yišatak hogwoy iwroy ew cnołacʿ iwrocʿ48 (“to his memory and that of his parents [he had this book written]”)

yeress ankeal ałačʿem jez49 (“I beg you by prostrating myself to the ground . . .”)

expressions occur frequently. To quote the three main collections used, we shall henceforth refer to them with the following abbreviations: M(13) = Matʿevosyan 1984. X(14) = Xačʿikyan 1950. X(15) = Xačʿikyan 1955–1967. 42 M(13), n° 37, 74. 43 M(13), n° 224, 275. 44 M(13), n° 1, 13. 45 M(13), n° 221, 273. 46 X(14), n° 47, 36. 47 M(13), n° 29, 61. 48 M(13), n° 440, 538. 49 M(13), n° 638, 801. 78 Sirinian

yišołacʿd ew yišelocʿs50 (“for you who remember and us who have been remembered”)

i piłc ew i daṙn žamanaki51 (“in this foul and bitter time”)

vasn zi kar mer aysčʿapʿ ēr52 (“since our abilities were limited”)

i yǝntir ew i law awrinakē53 (“[this book was copied] from a choice and valid model”)

li beranov ew bolorov srti54 (“with a loud voice and with all my heart [I beseech you]”)

yišesǰikʿ i makʿrapʿayl yaławtʿs jer55 (“please remember in your pure prayers . . .”)

Within these set patterns, the scribe can engage in variatio by substituting some elements for others, or by adding phrases to amplify the effect. We may consider the following examples:

Pʿaṙkʿ amenasurb Errordutʿeann yawiteans, amēn56 (“Glory to the most holy Trinity forever, amen”)

Pʿaṙkʿ amenasurb Errordutʿeann ew mi astuacutʿeann yawiteans yawi tenicʿ, amēn57 (“Glory to the most holy Trinity and only Godhead forever and ever, amen”)

Pʿaṙkʿ amenasurb Errordutʿeann, Hawr ew Ordwoy ew Hogwoyn Srboy, ayžm ew mišt ew yawiteans yawitenicʿ, amēn58

50 M(13), n° 114, 159. 51 M(13), n° 585, 723. 52 M(13), n° 586, 725. 53 M(13), n° 85, 126. 54 M(13), n° 152, 197. 55 M(13), n° 98, 137. 56 M(13), n° 67, 107. 57 M(13), n° 74, 115. 58 M(13), n° 53, 91. The Value of the Colophons in Armenian Manuscripts 79

(“Glory to the most holy Trinity, to the Son and the Father and the Holy Spirit, now and forever and forever and ever, amen”)

Pʿaṙkʿ amenasurb Errordutʿeann ericʿ anjin ew mioy tērutʿeann Hawr ew Ordwoy ew Hogwoyn Srboy ayžm ew yawiteans yawitenicʿ, amēn59 (“Glory to the most holy Trinity of the Three Persons and sole power of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Spirit, now and forever and ever, amen”)

Pʿaṙkʿ ew erkrpagutʿiwn, patiw ew gohutʿiwn hamagoy surb Errordutʿeann ew mioy astuacutʿeann Hawr ew Ordwoy ew Surb Hogwoyn60 (“Glory and worship, honour and thanksgiving to the consubstantial Holy Trinity and only Godhead of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Spirit”)

Pʿaṙkʿ anełi, anmahi, anhasi, anbawi, ankʿnneli, anbažaneli miasnakan Surb Errordutʿeann yawiteans yawitenicʿ, amēn61 (“Glory be to the uncreated, immortal, unreachable, immense, unfathomable, indivisible consubstantial Holy Trinity, for ever and ever, amen”)

Amenasurb Errordutʿeann pʿaṙk, ew erkrpagutʿiwn ew mec gohutʿiwn yamenayn araracocʿ yerknaworacʿ ew yerkraworacʿ, ew i mermē yanaržan beranocʿ awrhnutʿiwn ew pʿaṙabanutʿiwn ayžm ew yawiteans yawitenicʿ, amēn62 (“To the most Holy Trinity glory and worship and thanksgiving from all creatures in heaven and on earth, and from our unworthy mouths blessings and praise now and forever and ever, amen”)

Pʿaṙaworescʿukʿ ew mekʿ zAstuac63 (“Let us also glorify God”)

Šnorhiw Astucoy sksay ew ołormutʿeamb norin katarecʿi64 (“by the grace of God I have begun and through his mercy I finished [this copy]”)

59 M(13), n° 205, 255. 60 M(13), n° 275, 334. 61 M(13), n° 530, 653. 62 M(13), n° 530, 653. 63 M(13), n° 72, 113. 64 M(13), n° 86, 127. 80 Sirinian

Šnorhiw Astucoy sksay ew ołormutʿeamb norin yawartumn aceal katarecʿi65 (“by the grace of the Lord I have begun and through his mercy I have completed to the very end [this copy]”)

Šnorhiw Teaṙn sksay ew jeṙntuutʿeambn norin katarecʿi66 (“by the grace of the Lord I have begun and through his support I have finished”)

Šnorhiw ew ołormutʿeamb amenaxnam Astucoy yank ełeal katarecʿaw67 (“by the grace and mercy of God most bountiful having reached the end [this copy] was completed”)

Šnorhiw ew ołormutʿeamb Hawr, ew nerołutʿeamb Ordwoy ew awgna kanutʿeamb Surb Hogwoyn sksay ew katarecʿi68 (“by the grace and mercy of the Father, and with the consent of the Son and the aid of the Holy Spirit I have begun and I have finished [this copy]”)

grecʿaw girkʿs ays . . . jeṙamb anaržan ew anarhest grčʿi69 (“this book was written . . . by the hand of the unworthy and inexperienced scribe”)

grecʿaw . . . taṙs jeṙamb bazmameł ew anaržan sutanun kʿahanayi Sarksi70 (“this book was written . . . by the hand of the sinner and unworthy Sarkis who is falsely called priest”)

grecʿaw . . . jeṙamb imov anaržan ew mełsatʿawal, pʿanakʿi ew anarhest grčʿi71 (“[this book] was written . . . by my hand, the unworthy and sin-ridden, contemnible and inexperienced scribe”)

grecʿaw sa . . . jeṙamb amenatʿšuaṙi Dawtʿi, žantates grov ew bazmašpʿotʿ mtawkʿ72

65 M(13), n° 49, 87. 66 M(13), n° 218, 268. 67 M(13), n° 308, 390. 68 M(13), n° 529, 652. 69 M(13), n° 363, 449. 70 X(14), n° 305, 243. 71 X(14), n° 306, 244. 72 X(14), n° 304, 243. The Value of the Colophons in Armenian Manuscripts 81

(“this [book] was written . . . by the hand of the most wretched Dawitʿ, whose writing is crooked and whose mind is very confused”)

Grecʿaw jeṙamb anaržani ew anerkełi, or Nersēs anun kočʿi, stunganoł patuirani ew yancʿawor Teaṙn awrini, sutanun abełayi ew meławor amenayni73 (“[this book] was written by the hand of the unworthy and impudent [scribe] called Nersēs, who disobeyed the commandments and trespassed the precepts of the Lord, who is falsely called monk and a sinner in everything”)

sosk anuamb krawnawor74 (“religious only by name”)

anuamb kʿahanay ew gorcov očʿ75 (“priest in words and not in deeds”)

anuamb ewetʿ ew očʿ ardeamb ew ēutʿeamb76 (“only by name, but not because of worthiness or in actuality”)

vardapet anuamb ew jewov miayn, ew očʿ ardeamb77 (“ . . . master by name and only in appearance, but not because of his real worth”)

or anuamb ew jewov miayn erewi mardkan ew gorcovkʿ meṙeal78 (“[unworthy priest] who alone by name and in appearance seems [thus] to men, but in reality is as dead”)

73 X(14), n° 338, 273. Although written in prose, the whole colophon is marked by rhymes ending in -i. 74 M(13), n° 434, 530. 75 X(15), II, n° 266, 220. 76 M(13), n° 544, 667. 77 M(13), n° 458, 557. 78 M(13), n° 112, 155. 82 Sirinian

yiwr halal vastakocʿ79 (“with his honest earnings” [referring to the expense disbursed by the donor who sponsors the writing or the illumination of a book])

i halal ardeancʿ iwrocʿ80 (“with his honest income”)

yardar goyicʿ iwrocʿ81 (“with his rightful wealth”)

yardar ǝnčʿicʿ iwrocʿ82 (“with his rightful possessions”)

i halal ǝnčʿicʿ ew yardar vastakocʿ iwrocʿ83 (“with his honest possessions and rightful earnings”)

yeress ankeal ałačʿem84 (“I beg [you] by prostrating myself to the ground . . .”)

yeress ankeal lalagin artasuawkʿ haycʿem85 (“prostrated to the ground and crying uninterruptedly I beseech [you]”)

yeress ankeal artasuatʿor dimawkʿ ałačem86 (“prostrated to the ground, my face wet with tears, I beg [you]”)

yeress ankeal artasualicʿ małtʿanawkʿ ew mecaw yusov ałačem87 (“prostrated to the ground, our faces full of tears and with great hope, we beg [you]”)

79 M(13), n° 559, 691. One may note that the word halal = “honest”, very often used in this type of formula in Armenian colophon, is of Arabic origin. 80 M(13), n° 98, 137. 81 M(13), n° 543, 667. 82 M(13), n° 80, 120. 83 X(15), II, n° 397, 316. 84 M(13), n° 222, 275. 85 M(13), n° 531, 658. 86 M(13), n° 659, 824. 87 M(13), n° 602, 751. The Value of the Colophons in Armenian Manuscripts 83

i yǝntir ew i law awrinakē88 (“[and this book was copied] from a choice and valid model”)

i yǝntir ew i stoyg awrinakē89 (“[this book was copied] from a choice and certain model”)

i stoyg ew yǝntir ew i law awrinakē90 (“[this book was copied] from a certain, choice and valid model”)

i xndroy srbasēr kʿahanayin91 (“by request of the priest who loves holiness . . .”)

i xndroy srbasneal krawnawori92 (“by request of the religious who was raised in piety . . .”)

i xndroy astuacapatiw ew aṙakʿelašnorh arhiepiskoposin93 (“by request of the archbishop honoured by God and partaker of the Apostolic graces . . .”)

ałačʿem . . . yišel yaržanawor yaławtʿs jer94 (“I beg you to remember in your worthy prayers”)

ałačʿem . . . yišesǰikʿ i surb yaławtʿs jer95 (“I beg you . . . remember in your holy prayers”)

ałačʿem . . . yišesǰikʿ i makʿrapʿayl yaławtʿs jer96 (“I beg you . . . remember in your luminous prayers”)

88 M(13), n° 85, 126. 89 X(14), n° 702, 561. 90 M(13), n° 7, 24. 91 M(13), n° 142, 186. 92 M(13), n° 218, 269. 93 M(13), n° 126, 170. 94 M(13), n° 695, 863. 95 M(13), n° 72, 114. 96 X(14), n° 478, 398. 84 Sirinian

ałačʿem . . . yišesǰikʿ i surb ew makʿrapʿayl yaławtʿs jer97 (“I beg you . . . remember in your holy and luminous prayers”)

ałačʿem . . . yišesǰikʿ i makʿrapʿayl ew i srbamatoycʿ yaławtʿs jer98 (“I beg you . . . remember in your luminous prayers saintly offered”)

ałačʿem . . . yišesǰikʿ i mełsakʿawičʿ aławtʿs jer99 (“I beg you . . . remember in your prayers that lighten us from sin”)

ałačʿem . . . yišesǰikʿ yerknagnacʿ yaławtʿs jer100 (“I beg you . . . remember in your prayers that reach up to the sky”)

ałačʿem . . . yišesǰikʿ yerknatʿṙičʿ yaławtʿs jer101 (“I beg you . . . remember in your prayers that fly upwards to heaven”)

yišecʿēkʿ yerknabacʿik ew yastuacamerj yaławtʿs jer102 (“remember in your prayers that open heaven and are close to God”).

Even on the basis of this first, summary survey of examples – which do not do justice to the wide range of expressive choices of the various scribes –, one might gain the impression that the colophon was constructed in a mechanical manner. However, it must be stressed that in longer colophons, aside from displaying a command of standard rhetorical devices, the scribe shows himself also able to abandon fixed schemes and to use his own creativity, especially in the passages containing historical or even autobiographical digressions. The study of the riches of formulaic expressions in Armenian colophons, together with that of their evolution over time and according to geography, is to our mind one of the principal areas for further research in this field, besides other avenues that we shall point to below. One could perhaps usefully follow in the Armenian case the blueprint of L. Reynhout’s work on formulae in Latin

97 M(13), n° 392, 479. 98 M(13), n° 125, 169. 99 Tēr-Vardanyan 2002, n° 70, 91 (AD 1651). 100 Ibidem, n° 43, 78 (AD 1526). 101 X(15), I, n° 232, 216. 102 X(15), I, n° 128, 128. The Value of the Colophons in Armenian Manuscripts 85 manuscripts.103 His work was based on statistical data from 6,500 manuscripts, distinguishing 29 basic types of colophon formulae and subsequently providing an analysis of variations within each of these types. He also points out the geographical and temporal range of use of these formulae (that is, the creation, life-span and death of a specific formula in a specific time and place), as well as the significance of the connection with the work contained in the manuscript, and hypothesizing a certain origin for each formula. In the final analysis, Reynhout is able to sketch a panorama of the use of the various formulae, linking it to the different cultural and religious conditions throughout Western Europe. A close relationship can thereby be established between the choice of a specific formula, and the mentality, not particularly of the single scribe (whose individual feelings are not best represented by formulae in any case), but more generally of the collective ensemble of the class of medieval ecclesiastics who have chosen such formulaic expression to their beliefs.104 The possibility of reconstructing the history of the education of scribes and of its evolution through time is in fact one of the most attractive avenues that can be pursued by the means of studying formulae in colophons.

8 Style

In so far as it constitutes a separate literary genre, the colophon possesses a distinct style. As regards its formal structure, it can be written either in prose or in verse (tending to rhyme and to have a standard number of syllables), or both. A special characteristic of the Armenian style of colophons is the widespread use of composite adjectives, of which we have already encountered some instances. Very common is the use of the negative prefix an-, used for example in the initial Trinitarian doxology Pʿaṙkʿ amenasurb Errordutʿeann anełi, anmahi, anhasi, anbawi, ankʿnneli “Glory to the most Holy Trinity, uncreated, immortal, unreachable, immense, unfathomable”. These composites often occur in pairs linked together by the conjunction “and”, thereby forming strings sometimes amounting to several lines of text. Another characteristic is the use of parallelisms reminiscent of the poetic style of the Bible, of which we give some examples here following:

103 Reynhout 2006; this scholar makes use of, and expands, a repertoire previously gathered by the Bénédictins du Bouveret, Colophons de manuscrits occidentaux des origines au XVIe siècle, 6 vol., Fribourg 1965–1982 (Spicilegii Friburgensis Subsidia, 2–7). 104 Reynhout 2006, 18–19. 86 Sirinian

yaheł datastanid ew yankašaṙ atenid105 “in the terrible judgement-day and at the incorruptible tribunal”

čʿarčʿaril marmnov, ardaranal hogwov106 “suffering in the body, becoming righteous in spirit”

bazum ǰaniw ew xandałakatʿ sirov107 “with much pain and visceral love”

i bant ew i kapans, i covu ew i cʿamakʿi108 “in prison and in chains, over the sea and on land”

očʿ orpēs vayel ēr xndrołacʿ, ayl ǝst kari merum ew ǝst pʿanakʿi ew tkar mtacʿ merocʿ109 “[we wrote this book] not as it would have been fitting for those who have requested it from us, but according to our ability and according our puny and weak intelligence”

The following examples show a taste for antithesis and oxymoron:

kendaneacʿ ew nnǰecʿelocʿ110 “of the living and of the dead”

zhogewor ew marmnawor111 “spiritual and physical”

i zgalis ew yimanalis112 “for material and intelligible things”

anmoṙacʿ yišmamb113 “with unforgettable memory”

105 M(13), n° 220, 271. 106 M(13), n° 274, 332. 107 X(14), n° 31, 27. 108 X(14), n° 140, 107. 109 X(14), n° 141, 108. 110 M(13), n° 52, 91. 111 M(13), n° 53, 91. 112 M(13), n° 70, 110. 113 M(13), n° 551, 678. The Value of the Colophons in Armenian Manuscripts 87

yišatak hogoy, ew vayelkʿ marmnoy114 “memory for the soul and delight for the body”

ov okʿ karascʿē patmel anpatmeli vištn115 “who could ever tell the ineffable disgrace”

diwrašarž i mełs, džuarašarž yardarutʿiwn116 “quick to sin, slow to justice (formula of tapeinotēs)”

zis, zyetins i kargs krawnaworacʿ ew zaṙaǰins i dass meławoracʿ117 “I the last in the ranks of the religious the first in the ranks of sinners”

anyusicʿ yoys ew anawgnakanin awgnakan118 “hope for the despairing and aid for whoever is helpless”

Etymologies, word-play and allitteration:

kecʿucʿičʿn kendanutʿiwn tacʿē kendaneacʿ119 “He who gives life will give life to the living”

kʿristosasēr kʿristoneay120 “a Christian lover-of-Christ”

awetalur awetaber Awetaran121 “The Gospel of good news that brings the good news”

čʿaracin čʿarikʿ122 “evil begetting evil”

114 M(13), n° 551, 678. 115 M(13), n° 304, 379. 116 M(13), n° 236, 287. 117 X(15), II, n° 386, 301. 118 Tēr-Vardanyan 2002, n° 2, 25 (AD 1480). 119 M(13), n° 220, 271. 120 M(13), n° 489, 603. 121 M(13), n° 246, 298. 122 M(13), n° 198, 245. 88 Sirinian

ałačʿem . . . očʿ baṙnal zyišatak banis, ayl grel yamenayn girs orkʿ grin i smanē123 “I beg . . . not to subtract the memory of these words (i.e. not to erase the colophon), but to write it in all the texts that will be written from this [model] . . . (= to copy it in all the subsequent apographs of the present manuscript)”

Chiasmus:

anspaṙ ktaks ew zganjs ankołopteli124 “inexhaustible testament and treasure that-can-never-be-looted”

ztkarutʿiwn i bacʿ edeal ew apawineal yays surb uxts u i surb ełbarcʿs yaławtʿs125 “fighting back weakness, both in this holy religious order and in the saintly prayers of the brethren taking refuge”

Chiasmus with antithesis:

(i bazmanal mełacʿ merocʿ) pʿakecʿaw duṙn ołormutʿean Astucoy, ew patuhankʿ barkutʿean bacʿan126

“(because of the increase of our sins), the door of God’s mercy has closed and now there have opened the windows of his wrath”.

9 Images, Concepts and Commonplaces

Next to style, we may now consider the imagery in its ensemble, that is, the stock of images, concepts, similes and metaphors that an Armenian colophon carries within itself. Very often these concepts are linked to recurrent or stereotypical expressions, some of which we have already cited above, such as the expressions of tapeinotēs, namely of the unworthiness and inexperience of the scribe.

123 M(13), n° 219, 269. 124 M(13), n° 155, 199. 125 X(14), n° 141, 108. 126 X(15), I, n° 231, 215. The Value of the Colophons in Armenian Manuscripts 89

The following list offers some examples of what could be a much lengthier catalogue:

Inexperience/unworthiness of the scribe (“tapeinotēs”) Old age/weakness/faulty eyesight Hand/finger of the scribe going to dust contrasting the permanence of the script Haste, cold temperatures and poor quality of the materials127 Sea of sins Day of Judgement Act of writing of the book as expiation for sins The book as a treasure, a gem, a pearl, a garden, food, spring or fountain, army, lyre, spiritual son,128 door to heaven, etc. The book of life: inscription into this book/erasure from it Value of prayer/request for remembrance He who remembers will be remembered Praise of the evangelists and symbolism of the number four Careful use of the manuscript enjoined and curses on whoever abducts it (may he have the punishment of Cain, of Judas, of those who crucified Christ).129

As is the case with the Latin colophons, those in Armenian also offer a rich repertoire of topoi that could be explored to test their origin, and see whether this can be led back to biblical writing, literary tastes or whether it springs out of religious and liturgical mores. The following considerations on the passage of imagery across cultures should be also taken into account in this discourse.

10 Comparison with other Areas of the Middle East and the Caucasus

The reflection on the formal characteristics and on the contents of the Armenian colophons leads us to compare this rich literary tradition with that of neighbouring oriental cultures, i.e. Christian, Jewish and Muslim. In 1993, the Comité international de paléographie latine organized a colloquium

127 Examples in Sanjian 1969, 19–29 (The conditions under which manuscripts were copied). 128 On the book as an adoptive child for those who have not had any children: ibidem, 13–14 (Motives for Reproduction of Manuscripts, 12–14). 129 Ibidem, 29–33 (Injunctions regarding Use of Manuscripts and Anathemas Against Violators). 90 Sirinian entitled “Scribes and Colophons. Scribal subscriptions from the origins to the advent of printing”. The meeting made space for a session on non-Latin manuscripts (Greek, Slavonic, Armenian, Persian and Hebrew).130 On the wave of this first colloquium and as a development to it, it would now be interesting to widen the circle of investigation with comparative studies involving other areas also, such as Coptic, Syriac, Georgian and Ethiopian, and to address thereby more specifically certain issues, such as the following:

– marking common lines of evolution across time; – the terms indicating “colophon” in each geographical area; – their presence in manuscripts (statistics); – their palaeographical characteristics; – their structure; – formulaic elements and style; – images and commonplaces; – system/s of dating.

A stimulating work along comparative lines may be represented by the well- known article by G. Garitte entitled “Sur une formule des colophons de manuscrits grecs (Ἡ μὲν χεὶρ ἡ γράψασα)” and published in 1962.131 In this article, Garitte drew a list of approximately fifty Greek manuscripts (from between the tenth and the nineteenth centuries) which carried the variant of a colo- phonic formula, the dodecasyllable verses Ἡ μὲν χεὶρ ἡ γράψασα σήπεται τάφῳ· γραφὴ δὲ μένει εἰς χρόνους πληρεστάτους (“The hand that wrote will decompose in the tomb, but the writing will remain to the fullness of time”: Ambros. B 56 sup., AD 1022), or the shorter version ἔγραψα χειρὶ· σήπεται· γραφὴ μένει (“I have written with [my/this] hand: it will decompose. The writing will remain”: Crypt. B.α.IV, before AD 991). In researching the origin of this formula, after in vain surveying the possibility of classical sources,132 Garitte found relevant comparative material in Coptic inscriptions and colophons (from the tenth to the eighteenth century), and he hypothesized that the formula derived

130 Condello & De Gregorio 1995; in particular, I note here the contribution by Stone 1995. On other non-Latin and non-Greek areas contemplated in the collection, see the articles by Golob 1995; Piemontese 1995; Beit-Arié 1995. Another two articles dedicated to yet other areas in the Levant are included in Déroche and Richard 1997: Şeşen 1997 and Troupeau 1997. See also Piemontese 1985 and 1989. 131 Garitte 1962; see also for completeness Rudberg 1966; Treu 1970; Eleuteri 1980; Atsalos 1991. 132 “L’image macabre de la main qui pourrit dans le tombeau n’est pas de celles où pouvait se complaire l’esprit grec”, Garitte 1962, 383. The Value of the Colophons in Armenian Manuscripts 91 from the Copt to the Byzantine world through the intermediary of Southern Italy, given the fact that the most ancient Greek manuscript witnesses were at that time attributed to Southern Italy. An additional note at the end of his article mentioned further manuscript witnesses: two Syriac (sixteenth- and twentieth-century respectively) and one Islamic (sixteenth-century), all with similar mottos: the hand decomposes, the script remains. One may also note that some Greek variants mention the word “dust” (κόνις), for example:

Ἡ μὲν χεὶρ ἡ γράψασα τὴν τῆδε βίβλον σαπήσεται‚ φεῦ, καὶ γενήσεται κόνις· γραφὴ δὲ αὕτη εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας μένει.

“The hand that wrote this book will decompose, alas, and will become dust, but this script will remain across the centuries” (Pal. gr. 223: AD 1495).

If Garitte’s comparative survey spanned the Greek, Coptic and Syriac worlds, a first look into the Armenian examples has shown the expansion of this topos across this area also. On one hand, the expressions of humility of the scribes lament the return of the body to dust (Gen. 3, 19; Ps. 102, 4), as in the following examples:

im isk mełsamakartʿ jeṙamb ew hołacʿeal matamb sksay . . . grel133 “with my hand steeped in sin and with my fingers of earth I began . . . to write”

es meławkʿ meṙeal hogis anpitan ew hołs Yosepʿ pʿilisopʿa . . .134 “I, Joseph the philosopher, my soul dead because of sin, am wretched and I am earth . . .”

es anaržan hołs ew pʿoši surb garšaparacʿ jerocʿ ałersem135 “I, unworthy earth and dust for your holy heels, I beseech you”.

We may also observe in Armenian manuscripts the poetic juxtaposition of the hand/finger that becomes dust against the permanence of the script:

133 M(13), n° 228, 281. 134 M(13), n° 606, 758. 135 X(15), I, n° 114, 113. 92 Sirinian

jeṙkʿs pʿti u i hoł daṙnay, girs yišatak aṙ jez mnay136 “this hand will putrify and will be turned into earth; this book will remain to you as a memory”

jeṙkʿs pʿttʿi ew hoł daṙnay girs aṙ jez yišatak mnay137 “this hand will putrify and will become earth this book will remain to you as a memory”

jeṙkʿs ertʿay daṙnay i hoł girs mnay yišatakoł138 “this hand will die and will become earth this book remains in memory”.

Following Garitte’s example, one may extend comparisons between the Armenian and the Byzantine worlds, in search of similarities. Although, as was said earlier, Greek manuscripts have very reticent colophons in comparison to the loquaciousness of their Armenian counterparts, it is nevertheless possible to trace some common roots.139 The most evident similarity is that concerning the most widespread form of scribal signature in the Greek world, as follows:

Ἐγράφη ἡ παροῦσα θεόπνευστος βίβλος χειρὶ τοῦ ταπεινοῦ καὶ εὐτελοῦς καὶ ἀναξίου ἱερέως Συμεών140 (Scor. Ω.I.16, AD 1292) “This divinely inspired book was written by the hand of the wretched, lowly and unworthy priest Simeon”

Grecʿaw surb ew astuacayin taṙkʿ barjraban surb awetarančʿacʿn jeṙamb anaržan ew yetnord kʿahanayi, or Serobē anun kočʿi141 “The holy and divine book of the holy eloquent evangelists was written by the hand of the unworthy and base priest called Serobē.

136 X(15), I, n° 464, 430 (AD 1432). 137 Tēr-Vardanyan 2002, n° 50, 76 (AD 1619). 138 Ibidem, n° 73, 94 (AD 1661). 139 For an interesting case of the co-presence of two Armenian colophons with a Greek one in a Greek Gospel-book, see Korobeinikov 2009. 140 On this and other examples from the Greek world that would easily find correspondence in Armenian: Wendel 1950. 141 X(14), n° 99, 73. The Value of the Colophons in Armenian Manuscripts 93

Another example of a subscription showing a close affinity between the two linguistic areas is the following:

Μισθòς τῷ γρᾴψαντι, ἔλεος τῷ δωρησαμένῳ, χάρις τῷ ἀναγινώσκοντι, εἰρήνη τοῖς ἀκούουσιν

“Compensation for the scribe, mercy for the donor, grace to the reader, peace to the listeners” (Athous Laur. Γ 112, AD 1013)

The corresponding Armenian phrase reads as follows:

Awrhnutʿiwn or karday, govutʿiwn or lsē, pʿaṙkʿ tuawłin ew yišatak grčʿis142 “Blessings on the reader, praise for the listener, glory to the donor and recollection of this scribe”

Awrhnutʿiwn or karday, govutʿiwn or lsē, pʿaṙkʿ surb Errordutʿeann143 “Blessings on the reader, praise for the listener, glory to the Holy Trinity”

Pʿaṙkʿ pʿrkčʿi ew yišatak grčʿi144 “Glory to our Saviour and memory for the scribe”

Pʿaṙkʿ pʿrkčʿi ew yišatak mełucʿeal grčʿi145 “Glory to the Saviour and memory for the scribe, a sinner”.

It is worth comparing yet another wide-spread phrasing in Greek colophons:146

ὥσπερ ξένοι χαίρουσιν ἰδεῖν πατρίδα καὶ οἱ θαλαττεύοντες ἰδεῖν λιμένα, οὕτω καὶ οἱ γράφοντες βιβλίου τέλος

“Just as the wayfarers rejoice in seeing their fatherland and the seafarers in seeing a port, so also the scribe [in seeing] the end of the book” (Vindob. Theol. Gr. 149: AD 1290).

142 M(13), n° 563, 694. 143 M(13), n° 2, 14. 144 M(13), n° 719, 883. 145 M(13), n° 580, 720. 146 Treu 1977; Eleuteri 1980; Manfredini 1984. 94 Sirinian

Zi orpēs nawavarin yapʿn covun hasaneln xndutʿiwn ē, noynpēs ew grčʿi yetin gics147 “Just as for the sailor it is a joy to reach the shore, so for the scribe, the last line”

Zi zor ōrinak uraxutʿiwn ē nawavari hasanel i nawahangsti iwrum, ayspēs ē grčʿi yoržam hasanē i yetin gicn148 “Just as for the sailor it is a joy to come back to port, so it is for the scribe when he reaches the last line”.

In a manuscript of the thirteenth century (AD 1292) this same image appears enlarged. The scribe uses it at the beginning of his colophon to introduce the contemporary turbulent reality that he experienced: the Mameluke siege of the fortress of Hṙomklay, which was situated along the Euphrates and the seat of the Katholikos of the Armenian Church:

Orpēs pʿapʿakʿen čanaparhordkʿ yawtʿewans žamanel ew cʿankan nawavarkʿ i nawahangistn ankanel, manawand yoržam dipescʿi nawun ankanel i mēǰ alēkocutʿean cpʿmancʿ ǰurcʿ covun ew tʿē licʿi zercanel nawun i cʿamakʿ ank- ani nawavarn eress aṙaǰi Astucoy ew mecapēs gohanay zAstucoy, or aprecʿoycʿ zinkʿn ew zors i nawin, handerj nawawn ew ehan yandorr: Ayspēs ełew ew inj mełucʿeloys i grel surb matenis, zi jeṙn i gorc arki grel i yapahov awurs, ew yoržam mxecʿay i girs, yarean i veray mer paterazmunkʿ ew xṙovutʿiwnkʿn amenayn ustekʿ ew šurǰ ełen zmeawkʿ erkunkʿ mahu: Ew pašarecʿin zmez tʿšnamikʿ mer ew nełēin zmez yamenayn kołmancʿ (. . .)149

“As the wayfarers long to reach their shelter, so also the mariners desire to arrive at port, especially when it so happens that the ship is in the midst of a storm of the crashing waves of the waters of the sea; and, if the ship is dragged to safety onto the shore, the captain kneels in prayer before God and greatly magnifies the Lord because he has saved him and the other mariners aboard together with the vessel itself, and now they are in safe and sound; so it has happened to me, a sinner, in writing this book, because I had started writing it in times of safety, but when I was in the

147 Garegin I Katʿołikos 1951, n° 103, col. 225 (AD 1046). 148 Kévorkian & Ter-Stépanyan 1998, n° 180, col. 650 (AD 1316). 149 M(13), n° 558, 687. The Value of the Colophons in Armenian Manuscripts 95

midst of writing wars and commotions have arisen against us on all sides, and we were surrounded by the pains of death.150 And in fact our enemies had surrounded us and were pressing from all sides (. . .)”

Equally important is the continuation of this nautical imagery in Syriac and Latin manuscript colophons, marking a significant overlap in scribal mentality across East and West.151 In conclusion, the colophon’s diffusion in Armenia, to such an extraordinary extent that it may be considered a literary genre in its own right, would amply justify further research both from the quantitative point of view – using statistical analysis with special reference to formulae – and from the viewpoint of exegesis. Comparative materials from other cultures, whether Christian or non-Christian, with which Armenia has closely interacted through its history, would be relevant to these topics: thus, one might single out common or more specific motivations for scribal choices, attempt to reconstruct the origins of the formulae and of their various modes of expansion and reception, thereby building up a sense of the exchanges between the different cultural identities, made up of their common values as well as of their distinct characteristics and sensitivities.

Bibliography

Abrahamyan, A.A. 1986. Stepʿanos Ōrbelyan. Syunikʿi patmutʿyun [History of Siwnikʿ], Erevan: Sovetakan Groł. Ačaṙean, H. 1942–1962. Hayocʿ anjnanunneri baṙaran [Armenian Anthroponyms], Erevan: Petakan Hamalsarani Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Ajamian, S. 1994. “The Colophon of the Gospel of Hethum ‘Bayl’”, in S. Ajamian & M.E. Stone (eds), Text and Context: Studies in the Armenian New Testament (UPATS, 13), Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1–13. Alishan, Gh. (Ališan, Ł.) 1899. Sissouan ou l’Arméno-Cilicie, Venise: Saint-Lazare. Atsalos, B. 1991. “Die Formel Ἡ μὲν χεὶρ ἡ γράψασα . . . in den griechischen Handschriften”, in G. Cavallo, G. De Gregorio & M. Maniaci (eds), Scritture, libri e testi nelle aree pro- vinciali di Bisanzio. Atti del Seminario di Erice (18–25 settembre 1988), vol. 2, Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 691–750. Baxčʿinyan, H.G. 1973. “Jeṙagrakan hišatakaranneri zargacʿman əntʿacʿkʿ” [The evolution of the colophons in Armenian manuscripts], Lraber 6, 83–91.

150 Ps. 17,5; 114,3. 151 Brock 1995, 195–202 and Reynhout 2006, I, 29–30, 85–94 (sicut navigantibus portus . . .). 96 Sirinian

Beit-Arié, M. 1995. “Colophons in Hebrew Manuscripts: Source of Information on Book Production and Text Transmission”, in Condello & De Gregorio 1995, 496–504 and tabs. I–V. Brock, S.P. 1995. “The Scribe Reaches Harbour”, in S. Efthymiadis, C. Rapp & D. Tsouga rakis (eds), Bosphorus. Essays in Honour of Cyril Mango (Byzantinische Forschungen, 21), Amsterdam: Hakkert, 195–202. Brosset, M. 1874. Collection d’historiens arméniens, vol. 1, St. Pétersburg: Imprimerie de l’Académie impériale des Sciences. Čʿamčʿean, M. 1784–1786. Patmutʿiwn Hayocʿ, I–II, i Venetik: S. Łazar. Čemčemean, S. 1993. Mayr Cʿucʿak hayerēn jeṙagracʿ Matenadaranin Mxitʿareancʿ i Venetik [Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts at the Library of the Mechitarist Fathers at San Lazzaro, Venice], IV, i Venetik: S. Łazar. Condello, E. & De Gregorio, G. (eds). 1995. Scribi e colofoni. Le sottoscrizioni dei copisti dalle origini all’avvento della stampa. Atti del seminario di Erice. X colloquio del Comité international de paléographie latine (23–28 ottobre 1993), Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo. Coulie, B. 1992. Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits arméniens (Corpus Christianorum), Turnhout: Brepols. Coulie, B. 1995. “Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits arméniens. Supplément I”, Le Muséon 108, 115–130. Coulie, B. 2000. “Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits armé- niens. Supplément II”, Le Muséon 113, 149–176. Coulie, B. 2004. “Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits arméniens. Supplément III”, Le Muséon 117, 473–496. Coulie, B. 2004. “Armenian Manuscripts and Scriptoria of Sebastia”, in R. Hovannisian (ed.), Armenian Sebastia/Sivas and Lesser Armenia, Costa Mesa, California (UCLA Armenian History and Culture Series. Historic Armenian Cities and Provinces, 5), 171–206. Covakan, N. (Połarean, N.). 1992. Hay gričʿner (Tʿ.-ŽĒ. Dar) [Armenian Scribes, IXth– XVIIth cent.], Erusałēm: Tparan Srbocʿ Yakobeancʿ. Dashian, J. (Tašean, Y.). 1895. Cʿucʿak hayerēn jeṙagracʿ Matenadaranin Mxitʿareancʿ i Vienna / Catalog der armenischen Handschriften in der Mechitharisten-Bibliothek zu Wien (Mayr Cʿucʿak hayerēn jeṙagracʿ hratarakeal i Mxitʿarean Miabanutʿenē, I, Awstria 2/Haupt-Catalog der armenischen Handschriften herausgegeben von der Wiener Mechitharisten-Congregation, Bd. I. Die armenische Handschriften in Österreich, 2), Wien: Mechitharisten-Buchdruckerei. Dédéyan, G. 1998. “Les colophons de manuscrits arméniens comme source pour l’histoire des croisades”, in J. France & W.G. Zajac (eds), The Crusades and their sources: essays presented to Bernard Hamilton, Aldershot, Hampshire-Brookfield, VT: Ashgate, 89–110. The Value of the Colophons in Armenian Manuscripts 97

Der Nersessian, S. 1958. The Chester Beatty Library. A Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts with an Introduction on the History of Armenian Art, 2 vol., Dublin: Hodges Figgis. Der Nersessian, S. 1963. Armenian Manuscripts in the Freer Gallery of Art, Washington: Smithsonian Institution. Der Nersessian, S. 1973. Armenian Manuscripts in the Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore: The Trustees of the Walters Art Gallery. Déroche, F. & Richard, F. (eds). 1997. Scribes et manuscrits du Moyen-Orient, Paris: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Eleuteri, P. 1980. “Altri manoscritti con i versi Ἡ μὲν χεὶρ ἡ γράψασα . . ., Ὥσπερ ξένοι χαίρουσι . . .”, Codices manuscripti 6, 81–88. Galayčean, A. 1967–1972 Cʿucʿak ew yišatakaranner Erusałēmi Giwlpēnkean Matena darani hay hnatip girkʿeru (1512–1800) [Catalogue and Colophons of Old Armenian Printed Books of the Gulbenkian Library of Jerusalem (1512–1800)], Sion 41–46. Garegin I Katʿołikos (Yovsēpʿean). 1951. Yišatakarankʿ jeṙagracʿ (E daricʿ minčʿew 1250 tʿ.) [Manuscript colophons, 5th cent.–1250 AD], Antʿilias: Tparan Katʿołikosutʿean Hayocʿ Meci Tann Kilikioy. Garitte, G. 1962. “Sur une formule des colophons de manuscrits grecs (ἡ μὲν χεὶρ ἡ γράψασα)”, in Collectanea Vaticana in honorem Anselmi M. Card. Albareda a Bibliotheca Apostolica edita, vol. 1, Città del Vaticano : Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (Studi e Testi, 219), 359–390. Gēorgean, A. 1998. Hay manrankaričʿner. Matenagitutʿiwn, IX–XIX dd./Bibliographie des enlumineurs arméniens des IXe–XIXe siècles, Gahirē: Matenadaran. Golob, N. 1995. “A few Comments on Glagolic Colophons (14th and 15th Centuries)”, in Condello & De Gregorio 1995, 449–461. Hakobyan, V. & Hovhannisyan, A. 1974–1984 Hayeren jeṙagreri ŽĒ dari hišatakaranner [Colophons of Armenian manuscripts of the XVIIth century], 3 vol., Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿeancʿ Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Hannick, Ch. 1993. “Bibelexegese in Armenischen Handschriftenkolophonen”, in C. Burchard (ed.), Armenia and the Bible. Papers presented to the International Symposium held at Heidelberg, July 16–19, 1990 (UPATS, 12), Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 79–86. Hovsepʿyan, L. 1997. ŽG dari hayeren jeṙagreri hišatakaranneri lezun [The language of the colophons in thirteenth-century Armenian manuscripts], (Accessing Armenian Colophons, 2), Erevan: HH Gitutʿyunneri Azgayin Akademia Mesrop Maštocʿi anvan Matenadaran. Jahukyan,̌ G. 1997. Barbaṙayin erevuytʿner haykakan hišatakarannerum [Evidence for dialects in Armenian colophons], (Accessing Armenian Colophons, 1), Erevan: HH Gitutʿyunneri Azgayin Akademia Mesrop Maštocʿi anvan Matenadaran. 98 Sirinian

Kévorkian, R.H. & Ter-Stépanyan, A. (avec le concours de B. Outtier et de G. Ter- Vardanian). 1998. Manuscrits arméniens de la Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris: Bibliothèque nationale de France & Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian. Korobeinikov, D. 2009. “A Greek Orthodox Armenian in the Seljukid Service: the Colophon of Basil of Melitina”, in More i berega. K 60–letiju Sergeja Pavloviča Karpova ot kolleg i učenikov / Mare et litora. Essays Presented to Sergei Karpov for his 60th Birthday, Otvetstvennyj redaktor R. Šukurov [Shukurov], Moskva: Indrik, 2009, 709–722. Kʿotʿanǰyan, N. 2006. Cłrutʿi Avetaranə 974 tʿ. / Cgrutskoe Evangelie 974 g. / L’Évangile de Tzeghrout de 974, Erevan: “Anahit” Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Manfredini, M. 1984. “Ancora un codice con la formula Ὥσπερ ξένοι . . .”, Codices manuscripti 10, 72. Matʿevosyan, A.M. 1984. Hayeren jeṙagreri hišatakaranner ŽG dar [Colophons of Armenian manuscripts, XIIIth cent.], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Matʿevosyan, A.M. 1988. Hayeren jeṙagreri hišatakaranner E-ŽB dd. [Colophons of Armenian manuscripts of the Vth–XIIth centuries], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Matʿevosyan, A.M. 1997. Mecopʿavankʿi grčʿutʿyan kentronĕ (ŽB-ŽE dd.) [The scriptorium at Mecopʿavankʿ, XIIth–XVth cent.], Ēǰmiacin: Mayr Atʿoṙ S. Ēǰmiacin. Matʿevosyan, A.M. 1998. Hayeren jeṙagreri hišatakarannerə miǰnadaryan hay mšakuytʿi usumnasirutʿyan skzbnałbyur [Armenian manuscript colophons as sources for the study of medieval Armenian culture], (Accessing Armenian Colophons, 3), Erevan: HH Gitutʿyunneri Azgayin Akademia Mesrop Maštocʿi anvan Matenadaran. Matʿevosyan, A.† & Łazarosyan, A. 2005. “Jeṙagreri hišatakarannerə hušarjanneri masin” [The Armenian colophons about monuments], Ēǰmiacin 61/2–3, 136–143. Navoyan, M. 2002. “Grigor Xul”, in Kʿristonya Hayastan Hanragitaran [Encyclopedia of Christian Armenia], Erevan: Haykakan Hanragitarani Glxavor Xmbagrutʿyun, 235–236. Piemontese, A.M. 1985. “Motti tradizionali di copisti persiani”, Scrittura e civiltà 9, 217–237. Piemontese, A.M. 1989. “Devises et vers traditionnels des copistes entre explicit et colophon des manuscrits persans”, in F. Déroche (ed.), Les manuscrits du Moyen-Orient. Essais de codicologie et de paléographie. Actes du Colloque d’Istanbul (Istanbul, 26–29 mai 1986), Istanbul & Paris: Institut français d’études anatoliennes & Bibliothèque nationale de France, 77–87. Piemontese, A.M. 1995. “Colophon persiani fioriti e illustrati”, in Condello & De Gregorio 1995, 473–493 and tabs. I–VIII. Połarean, N. 1966–1991. Mayr Cʿucʿak jeṙagracʿ Srbocʿ Yakobeancʿ [Catalogue of Armenian manuscripts of Saint-James], 11 vol., Erusałēm: Tparan Srbocʿ Yakobeancʿ. The Value of the Colophons in Armenian Manuscripts 99

Reynhout, L. 2006. Formules latines de colophons, 2 vol. (Bibliologia. Elementa ad libro- rum studia pertinentia, 25A–B), Turnhout: Brepols. Rudberg, S.Y. 1966. “Note sur une formule des colophons de manuscrits grecs”, Scriptorium 20, 66–67. Sanjian, A.K. 1968. “The Historical Significance of the Colophons of Armenian Manuscripts”, Le Muséon 81, 181–195. Sanjian, A.K. 1969. Colophons of Armenian Manuscripts, 1301–1480. A Source for Middle Eastern History, Selected, Translated and Annotated by A.K. Sanjian, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Şeşen, R. 1997. “Esquisse d’une histoire du développement des colophons dans les manuscrits musulmans”, in Déroche & Richard 1997, 189–221. Sinclair, T. 1998–1999 [2000] “The Use of the Colophons and Minor Chronicles in the Writing of Armenian and Turkish History”, JSAS 10, 45–53. Sirinian, A. 2003. “Le nuove accessioni manoscritte armene del Pontificio Collegio Armeno di Roma: un primo report”, Le Muséon 116, 71–90. Sirinian, A. 2004. “Da Drazark a Roma: una pagina di storia ciliciana nel colofone del manoscritto Arch. Cap. S. Pietro B 77”, in V. Calzolari, A. Sirinian & B.L. Zekiyan (eds), Bnagirkʿ yišatakacʿ/Documenta memoriae. Dall’Italia e dall’Armenia, studi in onore di Gabriella Uluhogian, Bologna: Dipartimento di Paleografia e Medievistica, 67–95. Sirinian, A. 2010. “I Mongoli nei colofoni dei manoscritti armeni”, in M. Bais & A. Sirinian (eds), I Mongoli in Armenia: storia e immaginario. Atti del Seminario Internazionale (Bologna, Dipartimento di Paleografia e Medievistica, 26-27 novembre 2009), Bazmavep 168/3-4, 481-520. Sirinian, A. 2011. “Vaticani armeni”, in F. D’Aiuto & P. Vian (eds), Guida ai fondi manoscritti, numismatici, a stampa della Biblioteca Vaticana, 2 vol. (Studi e testi, 466–467), Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana 2011, I, 564–568. Sirinian, A. & Uluhogian, G. 2003. Forme di comunicazione nel Medioevo: copisti e minia- tori armeni, Bologna: Dipartimento di Paleografia e Medievistica. Sruanjteancʿ, G. 1879–1885. Tʿoros Ałbar, Hayastani Čambord [Brother Tʿoros, Armenian traveller], 2 vol., Kostandnupolis: Tpagrutʿiwn E.M. Tentesean. Stone, M. 1995. “Colophons in Armenian Manuscripts”, in Condello & De Gregorio 1995, 463–471. Stone, M.E., Koumjian, D. & Lehmann, H. 2002. Album of Armenian Paleography, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Stone, M.E. & Stone, N. 2012. Catalogue of the Additional Armenian Manuscripts in the Chester Beatty Library (HUAS, 12), Leuven: Peeters. Tēr-Vardanean, G. 2002. Cʿucʿak hayerēn jeṙagracʿ i Kesariay, Zmiwṙniay ew i šrǰakays nocʿin. Nkaragrecʿ T. Episkopos Palean [Catalogue of Armenian manuscripts in 100 Sirinian

Kayseri, Smyrna and neighbouring places by Bishop T. Palean], Erevan: Kʿnnasēr Hratarakčʿutʿiwn. Tēr-Vardanean, G. 2006. “Matenadarani jeṙagreri ačǝ 1993–2006 tʿvakannerin [The increase in manuscripts at the Matenadaran between 1993 and 2006]”, Banber Matenadarani 17, 343–351. Treu, K. 1970. “Weitere Handschriften mit der Schreiberformel Ἡ μὲν χεὶρ ἡ γράψασα”, Scriptorium 24, 56–64. Treu, K. 1977. “Die Schreiber am Ziel. Zu den Versen Ὥσπερ ξένοι χαίρουσι . . . und ähn- lichen”, in Studia codicologica, in Zusammenarbeit mit J. Dummer, J. Irmscher und F. Paschke hrsg. von K. Treu (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der alt- christlichen Literatur, 124), Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 473–492. Troupeau, G. 1997. “Les colophons des manuscrits arabes chrétiens”, in Déroche & Rihard 1997, 223–231. Uluhogian, G. 2010. Catalogo dei manoscritti armeni delle Biblioteche d’Italia (Indici e Cataloghi, nuova serie XX), Roma: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, Libreria dello Stato. Weitenberg, J.J.S. 2005. “Cultural Interaction in the Middle East as Reflected in the Anthroponomy of Armenian 12th–14th Century Colophons”, in J.J. van Ginkel, H.L. Murre-van den Berg & T.M. van Lint (eds), Redifining Christian Identity. Cultural Interaction in the Middle East since the Rise of Islam (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 134), Leuven, Paris & Dudley, MA: Uitgeverij Peeters-Departement OOsterse Studies, 265–273. Wendel, C. 1950. “Die ταπεινότης des griechischen Schreibermönches”, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 43, 259–266. Xačʿikyan, L.S. 1950. ŽD dari hayeren jeṙagreri hišatakaranner [Colophons of Armenian manuscripts of the XIVth century], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Xačʿikyan, L.S. 1955–1967. ŽE dari hayeren jeṙagreri hišatakaranner [Colophons of Armenian manuscripts of the XVth century], I–III, Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Armenian Epigraphy

Tim Greenwood

Armenian inscriptions have proved to be important resources for a broad spectrum of scholarly disciplines within Armenian studies. They allow palaeographers to reach back in time beyond the oldest dated manuscripts, and explore earlier phases in the development of the Armenian script.1 For philologists, they contain great linguistic potential, affording concrete expression to morphological or phonetic variants whose particular features may not have survived the process of manuscript transmission.2 For architectural historians, inscriptions can provide a secure date for the construction of a building as well as any later extensions or alterations; they can also reveal who commissioned the building and why.3 Finally historians have appreciated the contribution that inscriptions can play, both as stable independent controls against which to compare contemporary literary sources and as sources of unique information.4 They bear witness to the widespread movement of Armenians across time and space, speaking on behalf of remote, and sometimes vanished, diaspora communities.5 In many ways, this cross-disciplinary character is very encouraging. Far from being marginalised, Armenian epigraphy has been integrated into a wider intellectual discourse. Inevitably these different disciplines have exploited the large corpus of Armenian inscriptions in particular ways, privileging

1 Abrahamyan 1973, 80–88; see now Stone 1982, 1990–91, 1997a, 1997b and 1997c. 2 See J.J.S. Weitenberg, “Manuscripts and Dialects” in the present volume. 3 Tʿoramanyan 1942–48; Maranci 2006. 4 For literary comparison, see Greenwood 2004, 62–70. For the social and economic potential of a single inscription (commercial activity in Ani and the exactions levied and exempted), see Mahé 2002a. For a unique political insight, see Kostaneancʿ 1913, 17–18, an inscription at Xckōnkʿ dated 1033. This confirms that Smbat šahanšah had adopted “the beloved boy Sargis”, thereby designating him as his successor, and that Sargis had received high imperial titles, implying Byzantine approval. The contested succession at the death of Yovhannēs- Smbat III Bagratuni may have had less to do with Byzantine machinations and more to do with Yovhannēs-Smbat simply changing his mind in favour of his nephew Gagik. 5 See for example Uluhogian 1981. Professor Uluhogian revisited this field at a conference on the Armenian communities of Iran, held in May 2004 at UCLA in the series Historic Cities and Provinces of Armenia. Her paper was titled “Epigraphic Documents as a Source for Studies on Socio-Political life of the Armenians in northern Iran (XVII–XIX Centuries)”. The proceedings of this conference have not yet been published.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��4 | doi ��.��63/978904270961_��5 102 GREENWOOD certain groups or categories or specific features or elements. In their eager- ness to bridge the gap of four and a half centuries between the traditional date of the creation of the Armenian alphabet and the earliest dated manuscripts, palaeographers have, quite understandably, studied the letter forms preserved in the oldest securely-dated inscriptions. As the number of dated manuscripts available for study increases century by century, however, interest in Armenian inscriptions, even those contemporary with the manuscripts, has tended to taper off.6 Philologists too have been attracted to the earliest inscriptions for their morphological and lexicographical particularities. Architectural historians have naturally concentrated upon individual inscriptions which illuminate the history of a building. Conversely historians have begun to study inscriptions collectively, looking for similarities and noting differences across groups which are proximate in date or location. These will inform future research into the social and economic history of medieval Armenia. Inscriptions have also been used to trace patterns of Armenian pilgrimage and settlement beyond the boundaries of historic Armenia.7 It is clear therefore that significant progress has been made in what may be termed applied epigraphy, in other words the contribution which inscriptions can make to research in other disciplines. This has not been accompanied by similar strides in the field of pure epigraphy, that is, the methodical investigation and publication of inscriptions in their own right, irrespective of date, location, content or language, without discrimination or selection on the basis of some general principle or for some particular purpose. This is not to down- play the importance of those studies which have utilised Armenian inscriptions as part of a wider project, for as illustrated below, such publications sometimes provide the only witness to inscriptions which have since been eroded, damaged or destroyed. Nevertheless such publications were never intended to be comprehensive catalogues of Armenian inscriptions, compiled in line with recognised epigraphic standards – although this is how they have sometimes been regarded. In light of the wide range of approaches to selection, transcription and publication, it shall be argued that the full potential of Armenian inscriptions – particularly in the fields of philology and history – has yet to be realised, and that this admittedly ambitious goal requires the rigorous reappraisal of previously published inscriptions. In other words, it is now time to return to, and revive, the discipline of pure Armenian epigraphy. This will in

6 Stone, Kouymjian & Lehmann 2002, 78, assert that their palaeographical survey is limited to manuscript writing. Nevertheless they also include illustrations of a selection of the earliest inscriptions as supplementary evidence; see ills. 2 and 3 and 112–115. 7 For pilgrimage, see Stone 1982, 1990–91 and 1997b. For inscriptions in Jerusalem attesting settlement, see the appendix to Sawalaneancʿ 1931, Stone 1997a and 2002. armenian epigraphy 103 turn both underpin and extend the value, and the use, of inscriptions in other academic disciplines in the future.

Past and Present Studies

There are strong grounds for treating the late thirteenth-century metropolitan and historian Stepʿannos Ōrbelean as the “father of Armenian epigraphy”. No other medieval historian recorded and exploited inscriptions in such depth and with such precision, to the extent that it is still possible to compare his readings with surviving inscriptions, notably at Tatʿew.8 As P. Muradyan has recently demonstrated, it was in the opening decades of the nineteenth century that Armenian inscriptions began to receive sustained attention, prompted and encouraged by Catholicos Nersēs Aštarakecʿi.9 The first studies were usually conducted within wider surveys. Bishop Yovhannēs Šahxatʿuneancʿ examined inscriptions in the course of his research into the Cathedral of Ēǰmiacin and five neighbouring districts of Ararat whilst M.-F. Brosset’s interest in epigraphy is revealed both through his description of his travels in 1847–8 and more particularly in his subsequent study of Ani.10 Vardapet Sargis Jalaleancʿ̌ published a two-volume account of his travels across Greater Armenia and this was followed by N. Sargisean’s painstaking topographical research, conducted across Lesser and Greater Armenia, and published in 1864.11 One can see that from the middle of the nineteenth century, more narrowly focused regional and site- specific studies began to emerge. The masterly topographical surveys undertaken by Ł. Ališan, in respect of Širak, Ayrarat, Sisakan and Sisuan (Cilician Armenia), illustrate this trend.12 They merit special mention for the wealth of epigraphic material that they contain and for the clarity with which that material is presented.

8 CIArm II (1960), ed. S.G. Barxudaryan, nos. 1 and 11. 9 Muradyan 2007, 190. Unfortunately Muradyan’s biography of Nersēs Aštarakecʿi, published in 2004 and subtitled “the Founder of Armenian Epigraphy”, was not available to me and I was unable to locate a full reference. 10 Šahxatuneancʿ 1842; Brosset 1849–51, whose twelve reports focus largely upon Georgia and Georgian inscriptions, although Armenian and Arabic inscriptions are included; Brosset 1860, which is dominated by epigraphic transcriptions. 11 Jalaleancʿ̌ 1858; Sargisean 1864. Kostaneancʿ 1913 draws heavily upon both works. Surprisingly there are instances where Kostaneancʿ does not repeat the full reading published in the earlier work; compare, for example, the incomplete inscription dated 1057 from Tatʿew, at Kostaneancʿ 1913, 24, with the full transcription, at Jalaleancʿ̌ 1858, 303. See now CIArm II, no. 48. 12 Ališan 1881; 1885; 1890; 1893; 1993. 104 GREENWOOD

Thus far, nineteenth-century scholars had utilised and incorporated Armenian inscriptions in wider scholarly enterprises. In 1890, N. Marr began his excavations at Ani. Three years later he published a series of newly-discovered inscriptions.13 In the course of this publication, he argued forcefully for a more scientific approach to the analysis and publication of inscriptions, thereby ensuring the accuracy of the reading and the proper recording of its linguistic, lexicographical and palaeographical features. Subsequently a series of meetings were convened at which guidelines for the regular publication of inscriptions were finally established and accepted. Marr entrusted one of his pupils, Y. Orbeli, with the task of collating and published seventh-century inscriptions.14 Later he charged him with the responsibility for publishing all the epigraphic evidence from Ani. As will be familiar to some, a significant portion of this evidence, including Marr’s own notebooks and many presses and photographs, was lost in transit from St Petersburg to Tiflis, rendering Orbeli’s task that much harder.15 Furthermore the Architecture and Epigraphy museum established by Marr at Ani for the collection and preservation of excavated finds was ransacked in 1918 and its contents were smashed or stolen.16 At the same time, the archives, survey notes and photographs assembled during the course of Marr’s excavations were destroyed. Although the corpus was completed in the 1920s, it was only published in 1966 as volume 1 of the Divan Hay Vimagrutʿyan (or Corpus Inscriptionum Armenicarum, here- after “CIArm”), the corpus of Armenian inscriptions envisaged by Marr three- quarters of a century before.17 More shall be said about this series below. In addition to the pioneering research conducted by Marr, the last decade of the nineteenth century also witnessed a significant contribution to the field of palaeography with the appearance in 1898 of Tašean’s Aknark mǝ hay hnagrutʿean vray [An Overview of Armenian Palaeography: A Study of the Art of Writing of the Armenians]. Tašean devoted an entire section of his study to inscriptions, arguing strongly for the inclusion of photographs in future publications.18 Although his own work for the most part lacked illustrations, this was remedied fifteen years later with the publication in 1913 of Yovsēpʿean’s Kʿartēz hay hnagrutʿean [An Album of Armenian Palaeography], which offers little in the way of analysis but reproduces no fewer than 95 plates

13 Marr 1893. 14 These were eventually collected and published in a single volume: Orbeli 1963. 15 Muradyan 2007, 196. 16 Marr 1921, 409–410. 17 CIArm I (1966), ed. H.A. Ōrbeli. 18 Tašean 1898, 126–157. armenian epigraphy 105 and 150 illustrations, including thirty-one inscriptions.19 Although he did not state as much, his evident acceptance of Tašean’s analysis indicates that the two volumes complement one another and ideally should be used together.20 Yovsēpʿean’s album remains an important collection of early photographs of inscriptions. By contrast, the dedicated study of inscriptions by Kostaneancʿ, which appeared in the same year, is not illustrated.21 This was the first published collection of Armenian inscriptions to be arranged in strictly chronological order. It remains an important reference work for historians, illustrating the wealth of detail recorded and preserved by inscriptions. However Kostaneancʿ had an unfortunate tendency to abbreviate long inscriptions.22 He also used earlier published readings, whose precision can sometimes be challenged, rather than rechecking each inscription. His study is therefore of limited use from a philological perspective and of no value whatsoever for palaeographers. Historians too should beware. The general profile of publications across the twentieth century has followed the outline established at the end of the nineteenth century. The corpus of Armenian inscriptions, inspired by Marr and finally published by S.G. Barxudaryan and his team, remains the most significant contribution to the discipline. To date, eight volumes of CIArm have appeared, containing approximately 7000 inscriptions. The first volume catalogues the results of Marr’s sustained studies at Ani; the next five volumes, clustered between 1960 and 1982, record inscriptions from within the borders of the present-day Republic; the two most recent volumes, which appeared in 1996 and 1999, cover Ukraine and Moldova and the Russian Federation respectively.23 These are complemented by a host of individual studies, reflecting many different points of departure. Yovsēpʿean’s extended history of the Xałbakid (Prošean) princes of Vayocʿ Jor included a wealth of epigraphic material.24 Muradyan published

19 Yovsēpʿean 1913. 20 Stone, Kouymjian & Lehmann 2002, 25 and 32–33 which refers to Yovsēpʿean 1912. 21 Kostaneancʿ 1913. 22 Inscriptions which end with two or three points of ellipsis, indicating intentional omission, are found with surprising frequency throughout Kostaneancʿ 1913. 23 CIArm I (1966), ed. H.A. Ōrbeli (Ani); CIArm II (1960), ed. S.G. Barxudaryan (Goris, Sisian and Łapʿan); CIArm III (1967), ed. S.G. Barxudaryan (Vayocʿ Jor: Ełegnajor and Azizbekov); CIArm IV (1973), ed. S.G. Barxudaryan (Gełarkʿunikʿ: Kamo, Martuni and Vardenikʿ; CIArm V (1982), ed. S.G. Barxudaryan (Arcʿax); CIArm VI (1977), ed. S.A. Avagyan, H.M. Janpʿoladyaň (Iǰevan); CIArm VII (1996), ed. G.M. Grigoryan (Ukraine and Moldova); CIArm VIII (1999), ed. G.M. Grigoryan (Russian Federation). 24 Yovsēpʿean 1928–43. 106 GREENWOOD a two-volume catalogue of Armenian inscriptions in Georgia.25 Karapetyan recorded Armenian inscriptions from historic Ałuankʿ.26 Łafadaryan published dedicated monographs on the monasteries of Yovhannavankʿ, Sanahin and Hałbat and their inscriptions.27 Avagian conducted linguistic and lexicological research using epigraphic evidence whilst Abrahamyan followed in the long tradition of palaeographers in utilising inscriptions in his research.28 Barxudaryan, Azaryan and Šahinyan, among others, have published studies into xačʿkʿars (Armenian funerary crosses), the majority of which carry legible and sometimes dated inscriptions.29 Gevorgyan analysed lapidary poetry.30 Furthermore there has been a welcome extension of the definition of “Armenian epigraphy” to include inscriptions in other languages located within Armenia, hence Muradyan’s catalogue of Georgian inscriptions and Xačatrian’s catalogue of Arabic inscriptions.31 Finally Kalantar’s catalogue of inscriptions from the monastery of Vanstan, completed in the second decade of the twentieth century, was finally published eight decades later, in 1999.32 The twenty-first century has seen further important advances. At the time of writing, four volumes of Ayvazyan’s extended study of the epigraphic heritage of Naxiǰewan have appeared.33 Karapetyan’s description of Armenian monuments in Karabakh, subsequently translated into English (Karapetyan 2001), includes a study of their inscriptions, as do his recent studies of Arcʿax and Javaxkʿ,̌ whilst Harutʿyunyan has supplied a more detailed study of the city of Šuši.34 Gnel Grigoryan has collected and republished the inscriptions recording original and subsequent donations to the churches and monasteries of Ani.35 Sałumyan has collated the inscriptions from Aštarak and Totoyan-Baladian

25 Muradyan 1985, 1988. 26 Karapetyan 1997. 27 Łafadaryan 1948, 1957, 1963. 28 Avagyan 1973, 1978; Abrahamyan 1973. 29 Barxudaryan 1963; Azaryan 1969, 1973; Šahinyan 1984. 30 Gevorgyan 1989. 31 Muradyan 1977; Xačʿatrian 1987. 32 Kalantar 1999, 2001. 33 Ayvazyan 2004 (Juła); 2005 (Agulis); 2007 (Gołtʿn); 2008 (Ernjak Gawar). 34 Karapetyan 1999, 2001; Harutʿyunyan 2002. See also Karapetyan 2007 (Northern Arcʿax) and Karapetyan 2008 (Javaxkʿ).̌ Two future studies in the same series (Research on Armenian Architecture Scientific Research Series) appear to be of great significance for Armenian epigraphy. One is provisionally entitled The Lapidary Inscriptions of Western Armenia and the other The Lapidary Inscriptions of Arcax. See http://www.raa.am/ Magazine/Activity/FR_set_E_Activity.htm. 35 Gn. Grigoryan 2002. For a translated selection of Ani inscriptions, see Uluhogian 1992. armenian epigraphy 107 has re-examined the inscriptions at Karmirvankʿ.36 Grigor Grigoryan’s introduction to Armenian epigraphy and epigraphers contains a very useful bibliography.37 Mahé’s exemplary publication and commentary of the inscriptions of Hoṙomos merits attention.38 Finally G. Sargsyan won an award in 2005 from the Armenian National Science and Education Fund to prepare the ninth volume in the CIArm series, to cover the inscriptions of the district of Kotayk. Its publication is awaited. This bibliographical survey scarcely does justice to the considerable achievements of past generations of scholars for it fails to mention, let alone engage with, the numerous articles which contemplate and reassess individual inscriptions. If however one takes a step back from the mass of publications, several challenges to the study of Armenian epigraphy present themselves. In many respects, the most immediate challenge arising from the above survey concerns the availability of the publications. It is striking that so many nineteenth and early twentieth-century works continue to have such a significant role. Very few libraries however hold these works of reference. Yet those studies which contain photographs of inscriptions which no longer exist or whose condition has deteriorated retain particular importance. Nor is the issue of availability confined to historic publications. Relevant studies and findings have been, and continue to be, published under the auspices of different series and across a bewildering range of academic journals. Monographs and journals alike often have small print runs and can prove difficult to obtain. Despite the best intentions of Marr and others, there is no single corpus of Armenian inscriptions, no definitive catalogue equivalent to the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum or the Inscriptiones Graecae, both started in the nineteenth century but still expanding today. CIL presently extends to 70 volumes and around 180,000 inscriptions whilst IG runs to 49 volumes and some 50,000 inscriptions. The CIArm series currently extends to eight volumes and 7000 inscriptions but it is worth noting that Ayvazyan’s recent catalogue, in four volumes, has not been published within this series. Nor is there a dedicated journal of Armenian epigraphy for reporting new finds, for publishing revised readings or new interpretations, or even for supplying a bibliography of recent epigraphic publications in other academic journals and essay-collections.39 Anyone who comes to the field of Armenian epigraphy is therefore faced with the daunting

36 Sałumyan 1998; Totoyan-Baladian 2005–07, 315–332. 37 Gr. Grigoryan 2000. 38 Mahé 2002b. 39 This is certainly not to say that Armenological journals have ignored epigraphy. To select two of several, both Patmabanasirakan Handēs and Revue des Études Arméniennes have 108 GREENWOOD prospect of having to track down references scattered across a wide range of publications, recent and historic, some of which will prove hard to locate. This provides a context for the second challenge. A century ago, Marr and his colleagues devised a series of general principles according to which Armenian inscriptions were to be catalogued and published. These were retained when CIArm finally appeared some fifty years later. In the intervening period – specifically in September 1931 – the Leiden Convention was devised for marking up and reproducing the text of an inscription in a consistent manner.40 It distinguishes what is physically present from what is an editorial addition, interpretation or conjecture. Whilst Marr’s guidelines may have been best practice in at the start of the twentieth century, there are good grounds for arguing that the Leiden Convention, used internationally by the vast majority of epigraphers, should have been adopted in CIArm. One of the attractions of the Leiden system of representing inscriptions is that it enables the editor of the text to employ dots beneath those letters which are not complete or clear. Admittedly it does not permit the editor to indicate within the transcription the degree of confidence or otherwise in the proposed reading, thereby introducing a subjective element to the transcription. Nevertheless this continues to be the most widely used system for marking up printed texts of inscriptions. A third challenge stems from what may be termed “implied certainty”. It is very common for transcriptions and readings of inscriptions to be republished in more recent studies. Indeed it is often possible to trace chains of republished inscriptions, whereby scholar C is found to have derived his reading from scholar B who in turn relied upon the reading originally proposed by scholar A.41 Ideally when scholar D comes to use the reading of scholar C, he or she should also check the two previous readings to confirm that the transcription is consistent. Furthermore, it may be possible to compare the original transcription with a photograph or impression of the inscription and this may confirm the precision of scholar A’s reading. Scholar D will be taking at least three risks, however, in reproducing scholar C’s transcription without making these preliminary checks. The first is that minor errors may have crept into the transcription at some point along the chain, errors which are then perpetuated. The second is that although the chain of transmission is faultless, the original reading was mistaken. The third is less obvious but no less significant, that

regularly published such articles. It is simply to observe that presently there is no regular process of bibliographical collation and/or summation of relevant publications. 40 Van Groningen (1932) and Hunt (1932) which form part of the proceedings of the XVIIIe Congrès International des Orientalistes, held at Leiden. 41 For the prevalence of such chains, see Greenwood 2004, Appendix I, 79–91. armenian epigraphy 109 postulated or conjectured readings come to be accepted as confirmed or secure. Of course, most publications lack photographs or impressions to accompany the reading of every inscription, for the cost of reproducing black and white plates has always been prohibitive. It is for this reason that epigraphic conventions emerged, permitting scholars to read the inscription as if the original were in front of them. They are then free to interpret it accordingly. Returning to the concrete example, what if scholar A turns out to have offered an approximate reading of the original inscription, an estimation of what it might once have read or perhaps a corrected version of what it did state, with lexicographical, morphological or phonetic peculiarities set aside and replaced with more typical forms, all without comment or acknowledgement? This reading may continue to hold meaning for an historian but its value to the philologist will have been diminished substantially. In summary, the fragmented and scattered character of Armenian inscriptions is mirrored in their publication record. Armenian inscriptions were first discovered and published by historians, archaeologists, palaeographers and wandering antiquarians. The need for a systematic publication of Armenian inscriptions emerged only later on and was delayed by the tragic events at the start of the twentieth century for a further fifty years. In the interim, anthologies of inscriptions and studies which used inscriptions appeared but these were isolated and intermittent. Eventually when a specific series did begin, it followed its own principles of transcription rather than the accepted standard, the Leiden convention, which had been devised in the interim. Whilst CIArm itself contains many excellent plates, the drawings are of less value, as they cannot be considered to be independent from the transcription placed alongside. Catalogues and collections continue to be published outside this series, not least of Georgian and Arabic inscriptions located on structures in present-day Armenia. The thorny problem of republication has also surfaced, with readings deemed to be secure rather than confirmed as such. Whilst the impact may be minimal for architectural historians or philologists, it may be decisive for a philologist. Overall, Armenian inscriptions have attracted a good deal of scholarly attention over the last two centuries and that is a considerable achievement. It should be noted however that this attention has not been lavished equally. A small group of inscriptions – especially those early medieval inscriptions with palaeographical significance – have been privileged and studied repeatedly.42 With some notable exceptions, the majority of inscriptions lan- guish in relative obscurity and isolation. Another way of approaching the

42 See Tašean 1898, 126–157; Abrahamyan 1973, 80–88; Manučʿaryan 1977, 48–106. 110 GREENWOOD corpus of Armenian inscriptions is to think less about how they have been exploited or the degree of scholarly interest in them and instead to examine them from a purely epigraphic angle, and specifically in terms of the accuracy and precision of transcription. Even a cursory study is sufficient to reveal that this varies considerably, largely depending upon when and by whom the original reading was made. Some readings can be compared against the inscription itself or a photograph of it. Others remain incapable of such corroboration; they have been preserved only via a transcription made by a travelling scholar who was inspired to sketch or note down what he saw. In the light of what has been achieved in the field of Armenian epigraphy by previous generations of scholars, what should be the priorities for future research?

Future Directions

The above survey demonstrates not only that the study of Armenian inscriptions has a long history but also that it continues to be an active theatre of academic research, with a number of scholars involved in a series of projects which have generated substantial and significant publications over the course of the last decade. It might therefore seem somewhat presumptuous for someone who has not been engaged in those projects to be outlining the way ahead for the field as a whole. The following should be treated as suggestions; they are certainly not intended to be prescriptions. They range from clearly defined, smaller scale but realistic projects, which could be completed within a fixed time period, to one more ambitious, more complex – and inevitably more expensive – project, which would be open-ended and on-going. Despite their obvious differences, collectively they seek to address the two principal challenges articulated previously, namely accessibility of publication and accuracy of transcription. One of the ways in which the challenge of accessibility could be addressed would be to establish a website containing digital versions of relevant historic publications. As noted previously, many of these publications are rare and most library collections are incomplete. By scanning these publications and uploading them onto an open free-to use website, they would become widely available to all who wished to consult them. Priority should be afforded to those publications which contain photographs or impressions of the inscriptions. This will enable comparison to be made with both original transcriptions and subsequent republications. It should be acknowledged that many of these publications are already available commercially, on microfiche from the Inter Documentation Company. Issues of copyright would therefore armenian epigraphy 111 need to be resolved beforehand. Ideally this process of digitization should be extended to all those publications which comprise catalogues or anthologies of Armenian inscriptions. This would therefore include the existing eight volumes of CIArm as well as the most recently-published catalogues, again on condition that the necessary consents from the holders of the copyright had been obtained. It could also include photographs from unpublished archives.43 As presently envisaged, this project would create a digitized corpus of Armenian inscriptions, assembled on the basis of existing publications. The key question is: what next? In many ways, the obvious next step would be create and store meta-data about the inscriptions – including the date of the inscription, its content, its location – thereby enabling the database to become fully searchable. Such an exercise however would be based on the presumption that all the published transcriptions and readings were of equal precision. Unfortunately it is not possible to make that assumption. Creating a searchable database by relying upon existing publications alone would be effectively to republish the old readings yet again, this time in electronic form, without differentiating between precise and vague or mistaken transcriptions. To expend further time and resources on such a database beyond scanning the relevant publications would not be prudent, for it would not address the second challenge, namely confirming or repudiating the accuracy of a transcription. An alternative approach will be outlined below. If the above attempts to resolve the problem of availability of past publications, a separate initiative is needed for recent and future publications. Catalogues and anthologies need to be available for research libraries and specialists to acquire. One solution would be to have a webpage devoted to new and recent publications in the field, listing catalogues, journal articles and relevant publications in related disciplines. This would need to be updated regularly and include details of how such publications might be obtained. More generally, it would be extremely helpful if future catalogues of inscriptions could be folded into CIArm, in the sense of being allocated a specific volume number within the series. Although more difficult to accomplish, it might also be possible to do the same for historic catalogues as well. This would have the effect of consolidating all the catalogues into a single series. Admittedly this would produce inconsistencies in terms of transcription between the individual volumes, but the same is also true of IG and CIL. The webpage would be a natural location for this process of incorporation to occur, enabling a virtual

43 Those of Josef Strzygowski, Nicolai Marr and Tʿoros Tʿoramanyan for example; see Maranci 2001, vii and 74 n. 87 and Baladian 2002. 112 GREENWOOD series number to be allocated whilst at the same time allowing past and newly published volumes to be differentiated. It should also be recognised that the corpus of Armenian inscriptions is continuing to expand. Not all structures across historic Armenia have been surveyed with equal rigour, as the surprising discovery in 2007 of at least three new, unpublished inscriptions at the very well-known church at Ptłni illustrates.44 These finds may be indicative of a hitherto unrecognized need, to re-examine even familiar sites from a strictly epigraphic perspective.45 Future studies of historic sites should include an epigraphic reassessment, exploring the state of those inscriptions which have previously been published and taking photographs of them in their present condition, and searching for otherwise unknown inscriptions whose existence has previously been overlooked. These new finds too could be posted on a discussion board on a website, to which access could be limited to members of a group of epigraphers. All three projects outlined above – the scanned historic publications; the advertisement of new publications; the discovery and deciphering of newly- found inscriptions – involve web-based publication. It would therefore make greatest sense for all three elements to be combined on a single website, con- ceivably bearing the title “Epigraphica Armeniaca”.46 Unfortunately there is already a page on the photo-sharing site Flickr bearing the title “Epigraphie Arménienne – Armenian Epigraphy”.47 This offers an eclectic array of images but lacks any commentary or analysis. The second principal challenge is centred upon establishing the accuracy or every transcription. This of course is a much bigger task. It would require a close study of every published inscription with a view to confirming the existing reading, suggesting appropriate corrections or acknowledging that the transcription is no longer capable of corroboration following the disappearance of the original inscription and in the absence of any photographic record. One could envisage the corpus of Armenian inscriptions being devised not on chronological or regional grounds, as previously, but rather on the basis of the

44 Private communications between the author and Dr Jasmine Dum Tragut between 29 July and 1 October 2007; and between the author and Dr Christina Maranci between 17 and 20 September 2007. 45 See Stone & Van Lint 1996–97 and Stone 2006 for previously unpublished inscriptions from Noravankʿ. 46 The author acknowledges the influence of the series of ten articles published by Stone and others in REArm which bear the similar title “Epigraphica Hierosolymitana Armeniaca”; see Stone 2005–07 and Ervine & Stone 2005–07 for the two most recent studies. 47 See http://www.flikr.com/groups/710019@N25. armenian epigraphy 113 precision or otherwise of the transcription. Admittedly this would be a very ambitious project but it could provide the impetus as well as the justification for an entirely new corpus of Armenian inscriptions. If one were to start again from scratch, what form would that new corpus take? It is obvious that such a large volume of data is best suited to an electronic environment. Conventional volumes of inscriptions are very expensive to print and are not commercially attractive. Moreover they are singular publications which can take many years to complete. By contrast, a digital epigraphic corpus can be rolled out progressively, in stages, as separate sections of the overall project are completed. Publication is therefore gradual, cumulative and ongoing, not a single definitive event. Furthermore, a digital database of inscriptions permits easy revision and/or addition, thereby avoiding the need for later supplements which are often isolated from the original publication. What features should a digital database of Armenian epigraphy possess? Ideally it should be a freely accessible, flexible and searchable archive, in which every inscription receives similar scholarly treatment. Every entry should comprise an edited text, which has been marked-up using an internationally-regarded convention. The entry should also include a description of the location of the inscription, an English translation of the text, a scholarly commentary highlighting particular features and properties of the text, a history of the discovery, study and interpretation of the inscription, a bibliography and a photograph, all with sufficient meta-data to enable comparison across the corpus. More broadly the database should be compatible with other published standards. It should employ a platform-independent language suitable for delivering content over the web. It should seek to avoid high maintenance costs or, more seriously, the risks of obsolescence and incompatibility. At first glance, this would appear to be a wildly overambitious proposal, beset with considerable technical challenges which would need to be overcome. It is not hard to envisage a situation in which funding is secured but then exhausted before a single inscription is entered into the database. In the alternative, one could imagine a mass of data being inputted before the construction of the database is complete, resulting in an electronic resource which is never fully functioning. Neither is an attractive proposition. It is therefore with considerable relief that one finds that similar challenges have already been encountered in Greek and Latin epigraphy and successfully overcome using the EpiDoc principles, techniques and tools.48

48 See http://epidoc.sourceforge.net/ for a full definition of EpiDoc, its past history, its present projects and the EpiDoc resources and tools available for download. 114 GREENWOOD

EpiDoc is an abbreviation for Epigraphic Documents in Extensible Markup Language (XML) along the guidelines established in the Text Encoding Initiative (TEI). XML is a software-independent and platform-independent language which means that it is ideal for archive storage, and web and database publication. EpiDoc emerged originally in response to a manifesto issued by a meeting of the Association Internationale d’Épigraphie Grecque et Latine convened in Rome in May 1999 which recommended “the establishment of an on-line free and unrestricted database of all surviving Greek and Latin epi- graphical texts produced down to the end of Antiquity”. This commitment to free and unrestricted access is enshrined as one of five general principles which have governed the growth and development of EpiDoc from the outset:

EpiDoc and its tools should be open and available to the widest possible range of individuals and groups; therefore all documents and software produced by the EpiDoc Community are released under the GNU General Public License.49

In other words, the software and tools are already freely available and accessible but only on the condition that the databases which are constructed through them are equally open and available. This tallies with one of the desiderata outlined above, that the proposed corpus should not be for profit and no subscription should be levied. This general survey of Armenian epigraphy is not the place to rehearse the technical specifications of EpiDoc in meticulous detail. Nevertheless at this stage some general observations may be advanced which collectively support the proposition that any future electronic corpus of Armenian inscriptions should adopt EpiDoc. Most importantly, EpiDoc has been designed by epigraphers and computer programmers for epigraphers.50 It is not a modified version of an earlier framework intended for another use. Rather it operates as “a mechanism for the creation of complete digital epigraphic editions and cor- pora”. The guidelines for marking up texts in TEI reveal meticulous attention to detail whilst the resources and tools necessary for the formation, distribution and proper functioning of an EpiDoc project are carefully explained and easily downloaded. Secondly, far from being merely an aspiration or even a work in progress, EpiDoc has been tried and tested already, through fourteen separate projects based in universities and research institutes across Europe and the

49 See http://epidoc.sourceforge.net/ for the five principles, of which this is the first. 50 Several articles on the technical aspects of EpiDoc have been published, most recently Bodard 2008. armenian epigraphy 115

United States. Several of these, including the Inscriptions of Aphrodisias (IAph) project located at Kings College London, have been completed.51 Others are in the course of preparation. These include the Etruscan Texts Project located at the University of Massachusetts Amherst; the Latin Inscriptions of Albania project located at the Kommission für Alte Geschichte und Epigraphik of the Deutches Archäologisches Institut in Munich; and the Pandektes project located at the Institute of Greek and Roman Antiquity within the National Hellenic Research Foundation.52 EpiDoc workshops and so-called “sprints” have also been organised, the latter being events for intensive collaborative computer programming and/or content development.53 This commitment to dissemination and development is impressive. Thirdly EpiDoc is clearly at the cutting edge of present research in the fields of Greek and Latin epigraphy. It represents best practice. The fourteen projects mentioned above have attracted funding from a wide range of sources, each of which has been satisfied by the advantages claimed by the EpiDoc community. EpiDoc therefore holds out to the field of Armenian epigraphy the exciting prospect of constructive engagement and integration with the fields of Greek and Latin epigraphy. It offers an opportunity for scholars of Armenian epigraphy to introduce Armenian inscriptions to the wider epigraphic community and to participate in an international collaborative enterprise at a formative stage. Finally, although no Armenian inscription has yet appeared in an EpiDoc project, the development of Armenian Unicode in 2004 with funding from UNESCO has ensured that a digital corpus of Armenian inscriptions is now feasible.54

Conclusion

This brief survey suggests that much has been done with Armenian inscriptions in the last two centuries; perhaps less has been done for Armenian epigraphy. It is currently undergoing something of a revival, with major publications from a number of scholars. In many ways the discipline is at a cross-

51 Project website at http://insaph.kcl.ac.uk/iaph2007. 52 See respectively http://etp.classics.umass.edu; http://www.dainst.org/abteilung_271_de .html; http://www.eie.gr/nhrf/institutes/igra/index-gr.html. 53 There have been thirteen EpiDoc workshops held in Europe and the United States between 2005 and 2012 and six more workshops are scheduled to run between April and October 2013, with nine others proposed under consideration. See http://wiki.digital classicist.org/EpiDoc_Summer_School. 54 See also Telfeyan 2008 for a timely introduction to Armenian Unicode. 116 GREENWOOD roads familiar across the humanities: to digitize or not to digitize and if so, how? Unlike many fields, however both the theoretical guidelines and the necessary software have already been generated and, almost without precedent, are freely available. Given this open invitation, the only substantive question is who should seize this opportunity and assume responsibility for a digital corpus of Armenian inscriptions.

Bibliography

Abrahamyan, A.G. 1973. Hayocʿ gir ev grčʿutʿyun [The Letters and Writing of the Armenians], Erevan: Erevani Hamalsarani Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Ališan, Ł. 1881. Širak, Tełagrutʿiwn patkeracʿoycʿ [Širak. An Illustrated Topography], i Venetik: S. Łazar. Ališan, Ł. 1885. Sisuan, Hamagrutʿiwn haykakan Kilikioy ev Levon Mecagorc [Sisuan. A Documentary Study of Armenian Cilicia and Lewon the Great], Venise: Saint- Lazare; French edition in 1899, Sissouan, ou L’Arméno-Cilicie: description géographique et historique, Venise: Saint-Lazare. Ališan, Ł. 1890. Ayrarat bnašxarh Hayastaneacʿ [Ayrarat. Heartland of the Armenians], i Venetik: S. Łazar. Ališan, Ł. 1893. Sisakan, Tełagrutʿiwn Siwneacʿ ašxarhi [Sisakan. The Topography of the Province of Siwnikʿ], i Venetik: S. Łazar. Ališan, Ł. 1993. Arcʿax, Erevan: Erevani Hamalsarani Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Avagyan, S.A. 1973. Vimakan arjanagrutʿyunneri hnčʿyunabanutʿyun (X–XIV dd) [The Phonetics of Stone Inscriptions (10th–14th cc.)], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Avagyan, S.A. 1978. Vimakan arjanagrutʿyunneri barakʿnnutʿyun [The Lexicology of Stone Inscriptions], Erevan: Erevani Hamalsarani Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Ayvazyan, A. 2004. Naxiǰewani vimagrakan žaṙangutʿiwnǝ I Juła [The Epigraphic Inheritance of Naxijewan. Vol. 1 Juła], Antʿilias: Meci tann Kilikioy Katʿołikosutʿiwn. Ayvazyan, A. 2005. Naxiǰewani vimagrakan žaṙangutʿiwnǝ II Agulis [The Epigraphic Inheritance of Naxijewan. Vol. 2 Agulis], Antʿilias: Meci tann Kilikioy Katʿołikosutʿiwn. Ayvazyan, A. 2007. Naxiǰewani vimagrakan žaṙangutʿiwnǝ III Gołtʿn [The Epigraphic Inheritance of Naxijewan. Vol. 3 Gołtʿn], Erevan: HH GAA Gitutʿyun Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Ayvazyan, A. 2008. Naxiǰewani vimagrakan žaṙangutʿiwnǝ IV Ernjak Gawar [The Epigraphic Inheritance of Naxijewan. Vol. 4 The District of Ernjak], Erevan: Gasprint. Azarian, L. 1969. Khatchkar (Documenti di architettura armena, 2), Milano: Ares. armenian epigraphy 117

Azarian, L. 1973. Haykakankʿ Xačʿkʿarer [Armenian Khachkars], Ēǰmiacin: Mayr Atʿor Surb Ēǰmiacin. Baladian, A.T. 2002. “Toros Toramanian” and “Les planches de Toros Toramanian”, in Baladian, A.T. & Thierry, J.-M. (avec une contribution de J.-P. Mahé), Le couvent de Hoṙomos d’après les archives de Toros Toramanian (Monuments Piot, 81), Paris: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, 16–19 and 21–145. Barxudaryan, S.G. 1963. Miǰnadaryan hay čartarapetner ev kʿargorc varpetner [Medieval Armenian Architects and Master Stonemasons], Erevan: HSSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Bodard, G. 2008. “The Inscriptions of Aphrodisias as electronic publication: A user’s perspective and a proposed paradigm”, Digital Medievalist 8 [http://www.digital medievalist.org/journal/4/bodard/]. Brosset, M.-F. 1849–51. Rapports sur un voyage archéologique dans la Géorgie et dans l’Arménie: exécuté en 1847 et 1848, 3 vols., St. Pétersburg: Imprimerie de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences. Brosset, M.-F. 1860. Les Ruines d’Ani, capitale de l’Arménie sous les rois Bagratides, aux Xe et XIe S. Histoire et description. Ie� re partie: Description, avec un atlas de 24 planches lithographiées, St. Pétersburg: M.M. Eggers & C. & Imprimerie de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences. CIArm. See Sigla in the present volume. Ervine, R.R. & Stone, M.E. 2005–07. “Epigraphica Armeniaca Hierosolymitana X. An Inscribed Candlestick and Inscribed Lamps from Holy Archangels Church Jerusalem”, REArm 30, 359–399. Gevorgyan, S. 1989. Hay vimagir banastełcutʿyune (XVIII–XIX dd) [Armenian Epigraphic Poems (18th–19th cc.)], Erevan: Haykakan KhSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Greenwood, T.W. 2004. “A Corpus of Early Medieval Armenian Inscriptions”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 58, 27–91. Grigoryan, Gn. 2002. Nviratvutʿyunner Anii ekełecʿinerin u vankʿerin (X–XIV dd) [Donations to the Churches and Monasteries of Ani (10th–14th cc.], Surb Ēǰmiacin: Mayr Atʿor Surb Ēǰmiacin. Grigoryan, Gr.M. 2000. Haykakan vimagrutʿyun: hamarot jeṙnark buheri patmutʿyan ev banasirutʿyan fakultetneri hamar [Armenian Epigraphy: A Short Guide to University Faculties of History and Philology], Erevan: Zangak-97. Harutʿyunyan, H. 2002. Šuši: norahayt nyutʿer kʿałakʿi patmutʿyan masin [Šuši: New Evidence about the History of the City], Erevan: Noyan Tapan. Hunt, A.S. 1932. “A note on the transliteration of papyri”, Chronique d’Égypte 7, 272–274. Jalaleancʿ,Ì S. 1858. Čanaparhordutʿiwn i Mecʿn Hayastan [A Journey through Greater Armenia], Tpʿxis: Tparan Nersisean hogewor dprocʿi Hayocʿ. 118 GREENWOOD

Kalantar, A. 1999. The Medieval Inscriptions of Vanstan, Armenia (Civilisations du Proche-Orient. Séries 2 – Philologie, vol. 2), Neuchâtel: Recherches et Publications. Karapetyan, S. 1997. Bun Ałvankʿi hayeren vimagrerǝ [Armenian Epigraphic Inscriptions of Ałuankʿ] (RAA Gitakan Usumnasirutʿyunner, 1), Erevan: HH GAA Gitutʿyun Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Karapetyan, S. 1999. Hay mšakuytʿi hušarjannerǝ Xorhrdayin Adrbeǰanin brnakcʿvacʿ šrǰannerum [Armenian Cultural Monuments in the Occupied Regions of Soviet Azarbayjan] (RAA Gitakan Usumnasirutʿyunner, 3), Erevan: HH GAA Gitutʿyun Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Karapetyan, S. 2001. The Armenian Cultural Monuments in the Region of Karabakh (Research on Armenian Architecture Scientific Research Series, 3), Erevan: Gitutyun Publishing House of the NAS RA. Karapetyan, S. 2007. Northern Arcʿax (RAA Scientific Research Series, 6), Erevan: Gitutyun Publishing House of the NAS RA. Karapetyan, S. 2008. JavaxkʿÌ patmakan hušarjannerǝ [Historical Monuments of Javaxk]Ì (RAA Gitakan Usumnasirutʿyunner, 9), Erevan: HH GAA Gitutʿyun Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Kostaneancʿ, K. 1913. Vimakan taregir. Cʿucʿak žołovacʿoy arjanagrutʿeancʿ Hayocʿ [A Chronicle in Stone: Catalogue of Collected Armenian Inscriptions], St Petersburg: Tparann gitutʿeancʿ čemarani kayserakani. Łafadaryan, K.G. 1948. Hovhannavankʿǝ ev nra arjanagrutʿyunnerǝ [Hovhannavankʿ and its Inscriptions], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Łafadaryan, K.G. 1957. Sanahni vankʿǝ ev nra arjanagrutʿyunnerǝ [The Monastery of Sanahin and its Inscriptions], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Łafadaryan, K.G. 1963. Hałbat: čartarapetakan karucʿvackʿnerǝ ev vimakan arjanagrutʿyunnerǝ [Hałbat: Architectural Monuments and Stone Inscriptions], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Mahé, J.-P. 2002a. “Ani sous Constantin X d’après une inscription de 1060”, Mélanges Gilbert Dagron (Travaux et Mémoires, 14), Paris: De Boccard, 403–414. Mahé, J.-P. 2002b. “Les inscriptions de Hoṙomos”, in Baladian, A.T. & Thierry, J.-M. (avec une contribution de J.-P. Mahé), Le couvent de Hoṙomos d’après les archives de Toros Toramanian (Monuments Piot, 81), Paris: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, 147–214. Manučʿaryan, A.A. 1977. Kʿnnutʿyun Hayastani IV–XI dareri šinararakan vkayagreri [A Study of Armenian Martyria from the fourth to the eleventh centuries)], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Maranci, C. 2001. Medieval Armenian Architecture: Constructions of Race and Nation (HUAS, 2), Leuven: Peeters. armenian epigraphy 119

Maranci, C. 2006. “Building Churches in Armenia: Medieval Art at the Borders of Empire and the Edge of the Canon”, The Art Bulletin 88/4, 656–675. Marr, N.J.A. 1893. Novye materīaly po armianskoĭ ėpigrafikie: Ani, Alamn, Mren, Bagaran, Brovandakert, V Talyn [New Armenian Epigraphic Documents: Ani, Alaman, Mren, Bagaran, Ervandakert, Talin], Sanktpeterburg: Tip. Imp. Akademīi nauk. Marr, N.J.A. 1921. “Ani: La ville arménienne en ruines d’après les fouilles de 1892–1893 et de 1904–1917”, REArm 1.4, 395–410. Muradyan, P.M. 1977. Hayastani vracʿeren arjanagrutʿyunnerǝ: ałbyuragitakan kʿnnutʿyun [The Georgian Inscriptions of Armenia: A Preliminary Investigation], Erevan: Erevani Hamalsarani Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Muradyan, P.M. 1985. Armjanskaja ėpigrafika Gruzii: Kartli I Kaxeti (Vrastani hayeren arjanagrutʿyunnerǝ) [The Armenian Inscriptions of Georgia: Kartli and Kaxeti], Erevan: Izdatel’stvo AN armjanskoj SSR. Muradyan, P.M. 1988. Armjanskaja ėpigrafika Gruzii: Tbilisi (Vrastani hayeren arjanagrutʿyunnerǝ [The Armenian Inscriptions of Georgia: Tbilisi], Erevan: Izdatel’stvo AN armjanskoj SSR. Muradyan, P.M. 2007. “Le patrimonie épigraphique arménien”, in Mutafian 2007, 190–199. Mutafian, C. (ed.) 2007. Arménie, la magie de l’écrit, Paris: Paris & Marseille: Somogy & Maison arménienne de la jeunesse et de la culture. Orbeli, I.A. 1963. Izbrannye trudy [Selected Works], Erevan: Akademija nauk Armianskoĭ SSR. Šahinyan, A. 1984. Hayastani miǰnadaryan kotʿołayin hušarjannerǝ: IX–XIII dareri Xačʿkʿarerǝ [Armenian Medieval Memorial Monuments: Khachkars from the ninth to the thirteenth centuries], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Šahxatʿuneancʿ, Y. 1842. Storagrutʿiwn katʿułikē Ēǰmiacni ev hing Gawaracʿn Araratay [Description of the Cathedral of Ejmiacin and the Five Districts of Ararat], Ēǰmiacin: Katʿułikē Ēǰmiacin. Sałumyan, S. 1998. Aštarak: Patmakan ancʿkʿer hušarjanner vimagir arjanagrutʿyunner [Aštarak: Historical Events, Monuments, Stone Inscriptions], Erevan: HH GAA Gitutʿyun Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Sargisean, N. 1864. Tełagrutʿiwn i Pʿokʿr ev i Mec Hays [A Description of Lesser and Greater Armenia], i Venetik: I Tparani Srboyn Łazaru. Sawalaneancʿ. T. 1931. Patmutʿiwn Erusałēmi [History of Jerusalem], Erusałēm: Tparan Srbocʿ Yakobeanʿ. Stone, M.E. 1982. The Armenian Inscriptions from the Sinai (HATS, 6), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 120 GREENWOOD

Stone, M.E. 1990–91. “Armenian Inscriptions of the Fifth Century from Nazareth”, REArm 22, 315–332. Stone, M.E. 1997a. “The new Armenian inscriptions from Jerusalem”, in N. Awde (ed.), Armenian Perspectives, 10th Anniversary Conference of the Association internationale des études arméniennes (Causasus World), Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press, 263–268. Stone, M.E. 1997b. “The Oldest Armenian pilgrim inscription from Jerusalem”, Sion 71, 340–350. Stone, M.E. 1997c. “Three Observations on Early Armenian Inscriptions from the Holy Land”, in R.W. Thomson & J.-P. Mahé (eds), From Byzantium to Iran: Armenian Studies in Honour of Nina Garsoïan, Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 417–424. Stone, M.E. 2002. “A Reassessment of the Bird and the Eustathius Mosaics”, in R.R. Ervine, M.E. Stone & N. Stone (eds), The Armenians in Jerusalem and the Holy Land (HUAS, 4), Leuven: Peeters, 203–220. Stone, M.E. 2005–07. “Epigraphica Hierosolynmitana Armeniaca IX”, REArm 30, 339–357. Stone, M.E. 2006. “Further Armenian Inscriptions from Noravankʿ”, in M.E. Stone, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and Armenian Studies, vol. 2, Leuven: Peeters, 813–859. Stone, M.E., Kouymjian, D. & Lehmann, H. 2002. Album of Armenian Paleography, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Stone, M.E. & Van Lint, T.M. 1996–97. “Two Unnoticed Armenian Inscriptions from Noravankʿ”, REArm 26, 447–450. Tašean, Y. 1898. Aknark mǝ hay hnagrutʿean vray. Usumnasirutʿiwn Hayocʿ grčʿutʿean aruestin [An Overview of Armenian Palaeography: A Study of the Art of Writing of the Armenians], Vienna: Mxitʿarean tparan. Telfeyan, R. 2008. “Unicode Typography Primer”, AIEA Newsletter 44, 4–24. Tʿoramanyan, Tʿ. 1942, 1948 Nyutʿer haykakan čartarapetutʿyan patmutʿyani: ašxatutʿyunner žołovacu [Materials for the History of Armenian Architecture: Collected Works], Erevan: Armfani Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Totoyan-Baladian, A. 2005–07. “Karmirvankʿ, Le couvent rouge”, REArm 30, 301–337. Uluhogian, G. 1981. Silloge delle epigrafi armene di S. Stefano di Giulfa (Ricerca sull’architettura armena, 22), Milano: Centro studi e documentazione della cultura armena & Politecnico, Facoltà di Architettura. Uluhogian, G. 1992. “Les églises d’Ani d’après le témoignage des inscriptions”, REArm 23, 393–417. Van Groningen, B.A. 1932. “Projet d’unification des systèmes de signes critiques”, Chronique d’Égypte 7, 262–269. Xačʿatrian, A. 1987. Korpus Arabski nadpiseĭ Armenii VIII–XVI vv. (Divan hayastani ara- beren vimagrutʿyun VIII–XVI dd) [Corpus of Arabic Inscriptions of Armenia, 8th– 16th cc.], Erevan: Izd-vo AN Armjanskoĭ SSR. armenian epigraphy 121

Yovsēpʿean, G. 1912. “Hayocʿ gri glxawor tesaknerǝ” [The Main Types of Armenian Writing], Taraz 10, 168–173. Yovsēpʿean, G. 1913. Grčʿutʿean aruestǝ hin Hayoc mēǰ. Kʿartēz hay hnagrutʿean (hay gri giwti 1500 ameaki artʿiw) [The Art of Writing among the Ancient Armenians. An Album of Armenian Palaeography (On the occasion of the 1500th anniversary of the invention of the Armenian Script)], Vałaršapat: Tparan Ēǰmiacni. Yovsēpʿean, G. 1928–43. Xałbakyankʿ kam Prošeankʿ Hayocʿ patmutʿyan mēǰ: patmagita- kan usumnasirutʿyun [The Xałbakeans or Prošeans in Armenian History: Historical Studies], Vałaršapat: Pethrat. Armenian Publishing and the Quest for Modernity (16th–19th Centuries)

Raymond H. Kévorkian

In only a few decades, the mastery of typography and the use of the printed book made knowledge available to a much larger group of people – knowledge that had previously been confined to small, limited circles. In this way, therefore, the printing press powerfully stimulated intellectual life, revo- lutionized the status of authors, and allowed the laity to enter the closed world of scholars. In the Armenian world, the potential of the printing press, as a tool for spreading ideas, seems to have been perceived from a very early date. From the beginning of the sixteenth century, steps were taken to master and use typographic techniques in order to use them to renew and modernize Armenian society. We owe it to Fr. Nersēs Akinean for the first studies on the intellectual circles and major figures responsible for this revival, which is intimately connected to the epic story of Armenian printing. Yet currently, we only know the external manifestations of this process – the efforts undertaken in the field of printing – without yet having understood the intellectual foundations of that renewal. However, we do know quite a good deal about the political context that led to the creation of printing presses and determined the choices that were made by clergymen who gave themselves the task of rousing Armenian society out of its torpor by opening it to the teachings of the West. Certainly, the political upheavals that have regularly followed upon each other in Armenia since the thirteenth century – raids by Mongols and Turkmen, incursion by nomadic peoples, forced “symbiosis” with Kurdish tribes, depor- tations organized by Shah Abbas, and the Turkish-Persian wars – changed the demographic balance of the region, its economic conditions, and its cultural practices. According to accounts from that time period, many monasteries, the traditional repositories of cultural heritage, were in ruins and the general condition of the few establishments still in operation indicates a decline in the level of education of the clergy and in monastic discipline, hinting at the lam- entable spiritual and intellectual state of the non-nomadic population. In order to initiate the cultural revival that began in sixteenth-century Armenia, the primary goals of the ecclesiastical circles were to look into the past and to revive that past by using contributions from outside Armenia.

The arrival of the first French missionaries in the Ottoman Empire and the development of Armenian trade with Europe provided food for thought for the Armenian elite and allowed them to get a sense of the potential contributions of the European Renaissance to their movement. Concerned about reforming the education system, they deployed the resources needed in order to master typographic techniques. Indeed, this tool for reproducing and distributing books appeared to them to be essential to that goal, especially since the scriptoria that were reborn at that time could not meet the need. However, since the use of the printing press was punishable by death in the Ottoman Empire, Armenian printers were forced to set up their printing workshops in Europe for nearly two centuries, from 1511 to 1695. The ephemeral establishment of a publishing house in Constantinople, from 1567 to 1569,1 and the first printing workshop in Persia, in Nor Juła,̌ a suburb of Isfahan, active from 1636–1647,2 are the exceptions that prove the rule. It is therefore clear that the conditions were not yet ripe for the establishment of lasting workshops in the East. Instead, the Armenian colonies in Europe provided the perfect setting for establishing printing presses. The printer-publishers there found Armenian merchants willing to help them financially and to provide them with well- honed distribution circuits. These circuits allowed them to easily send their print production to the Levant, first at Smyrna, where middlemen then took over and distributed their books throughout Armenia.3 Thus printers flourished in Venice, Lviv, Livorno, Marseilles, and Amsterdam. At first, the goal was to conduct large print runs of the most needed books, including Psalters, Bibles, breviaries, missals, synaxariums, religious calendars, abecedariums, and other Church books – 72% of the production of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.4 The remainder consisted of works by medieval historiographers, which contributed to a reappropriation of the national past, as well as trade manuals and maps that opened Armenian society, and particularly the merchant class that was also developing at that time, to the outside world. There were also texts of astrology and imprecatory medicine, grammar books, and Latin-Armenian or Armenian-Italian dictionaries. After 1650, the fields covered by the printed book widened considerably at the expense of the manuscript book, which nevertheless continued to disseminate texts necessarily intended for smaller circles.

1 Kévorkian 1986, 111–113 and notices 88–92. 2 Kévorkian 1986, 114–119 and notices 93–97. 3 Kévorkian 1986, 11–12. 4 Kévorkian 1982, 348–351. 124 KéVORKIAN

Other than the originality of establishing Armenian printing workshops in Europe, it is important to note that all of the printer-publishers were ecclesiastics, sent to the West by the high clergy, and, most often, by the Catholicos of Armenia in person. At the same time, the Armenian Church was in the process of negotiating closer political and religious relations with Rome. Moreover, the Catholicos” delegate was responsible both for diplomatic relations with the Pope as well as the establishment of a publishing house.5 As these publishers mainly printed Church books, Roman censorship could not remain indiffer- ent and often sought to control the orthodoxy of Armenian books, considered “heretical.” To this effect, Roman censorship often used Armenian clerics trained in Rome, such as Sultʿanšah, the son of Abgar Ewdokiacʿi, rector of Armenian monastery of St. Mary the Egyptian under the name Fr. Bartolomeo Abagaro of 1584–1623,6 or Barseł Kostandnupolsecʿi, who was the appointed translator-censor of the papacy for more than twenty years, from 1670 to 1693.7 But it was not until 1637, under the impetus of Fr. Yovhannēs Ankiwracʿi, that a commission of theologians, trained by the Board of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, was charged with revising the Armenian version of the Bible to bring it into conformity with the Vulgate before authorizing its publication.8 The lack of results, however, prompted the Armenian clergy to go around the commission and to establish a special workshop in Amsterdam in 1658 for publishing the first edition of the Armenian Bible. Despite the religious freedom of that country, the publisher and Bishop Oskan Erewancʿi had to suffer the wrath of the Catholic Inquisition and especially the Apostolic Nuncio, Bishop van Neercassel, who was responsible for overseeing printing and preventing the dissemination of “heretical” publications.9 These same Roman circles were not content merely to censor Armenian publications. They also undertook, at the end of the sixteenth century, to publish the books needed for religious propaganda led by the missionaries in the Ottoman Empire and Persia. It was in 1584, thanks to the Armenian characters engraved by Robert Granjon, that the first Armenian book was published in

5 In particular, Abgar Ewdokiacʿi, who was ordered by the Catholicos Mikʿayēl Sebastacʿi with Pope Pius IV: see Akinean 1917-1918, col. 141–154; Hovhannisyan 1959, 7–60. 6 Kévorkian 1986, 152–155. 7 Born in Constantinople around 1635, he arrived in Rome in 1660 and studied theology there with the Theatine Clément Galano. He died March 8, 1693: see Amatuni 1976, 175–178; Ṙoškʿa 1964, 187. 8 He died in Milan in June 1643 without accomplishing his goals: see Čemčemean, 54. 9 Amatuni 1976, 152–155, letter to the Board of the SCPF. armenian publishing and the quest for modernity 125 that town: an Armenian version of the famous Gregorian Calendar.10 Several dozen Armenian books were then published in Rome during the seventeenth century, especially after the founding of the multilingual printing house of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith.11 On a technical level, the major difficulty that the clergy-printer-publishers faced was engraving Armenian punch cutters. In fact, they had to find craftsmen capable of engraving the thirty-eight letters of the Armenian alphabet following calligraphic models. In this difficult task, engravers from Venice and Amsterdam – including the famous engraver of Elzevier, Christoffel van Dijck12 – proved to be the best by far, as were Robert Granjon and Jacques Sanlecques,13 who respectively, created the characters used by Rome and by the printer of the king of France. The abundance of engravings that illustrated books, often of a religious nature, was the work of European engravers.14 Thus, the Armenian book was close, in form, to Western books and really only differed in the characters, fron- tispieces, margin decorations, and borders, which were directly inspired by the decorative traditions used in Armenian manuscripts. In this case, it is possible to use the term “technology transfer”, facilitated by the know-how that the clerics had acquired before arriving in Europe. Trained in Armenian monasteries, they had grown up in an environment in which everyone was able to revise a text, to make paper or inks, and to bind a book. At the beginning of the eighteenth century, Ottoman legislation eased and since the situation for its subject nations improved, some of the production centers for Armenian books left Europe to concentrate in Constantinople. The creation of the order of Mekhitarist Fathers, which was established in Venice from 1715, however, allowed the West to maintain steady production. Both were now becoming indispensable to the Armenian renaissance which was underway. The establishment of printer-publishers in the Ottoman capital made it possible for the local intelligentsia to disseminate new ideas to the population, sometimes using a language accessible to the general public. For their part, the Mekhitarists quickly appropriated the achievements of the West

10 A work of 66 ff., published following the translation by Yovhannēs Tērzncʿi and Sultʿanšah Tʿoxatcʿi and printed by Domenico Basa. 11 Kévorkian 1983, 589–599. 12 See Nersēs Šnorhali, Yisus Ordi, Amsterdam 1660, final colophon. 13 Vervliet 1981, 12–16 ; Bernard 1867, 46–47. 14 Such as Christoffel van Sichem I, whose woodcuts illustrating the Biblia Sacra appeared in 1646 in Amsterdam, were bought by Oskan Erewancʿi and used in an edition of the Armenian Bible of 1666, as well as in later publications. See Kévorkian 1986, 49a sq. 126 KéVORKIAN and distilled them among Armenians in the form of abridged translations or teaching summaries. They did not, however, forget Armenian national heritage. Thus, they began by publishing a monumental Haygazian pararan [Armenian dictionary], forty-thousand words long (1752), in which foreign words had been carefully rooted out. Later in the century, one of them, Fr. Mikʿayēl Čʿamčʿean, published the first Patmutʿiwn Hayocʿ [History of Armenia] (1783–1786) using major historiographical sources. All this, along with renewed prosperity, contributed greatly to the revival of national consciousness and the formation of an elite lay intelligentsia.

1 Venice

Popular since the thirteenth century among Armenian merchants and clerics, and the location of a colony since the fall of the Cilician Kingdom of Armenia, Venice was very early a city familiar to Easterners.15 Its strong printing tradition and its proximity to the Ottoman Empire strengthened its appeal. It was therefore natural that the first Armenian printer, Yakob Mełapart, would set up his workshop there in 1511 and publish five works.16 Hampered by the system of privileges granted to Venetian printing workshops,17 he worked in the shadows and would only sign his last book, without indicating which city the book was from. Thus, we know almost nothing about him. Next, three other cleric-printers sent by the Armenian Church succeeded him in Venice in 1565, 1585, and 1642,18 but their production remained limited and tightly controlled by Roman censorship. Discouraged by this pressure, the following printers avoided this port-city on the Adriatic and set up shop in Amsterdam. It was not until 1685 that a new generation of Armenian printer- publishers reappeared in Venice,19 close to Roman Catholic circles, who left them to work in peace.

15 For the history of the Armenian colony, situated in the neighborhood of San Giuliano, see Ališan 1896. 16 Urbatʿagirkʿ [Book of Friday], Venise, impr. D.I.Z.A., [1511], Ałtʿarkʿ ew Astłabašxutʿiwn [Horoscopes and astronomy], Venise, impr. D.I.Z.A., [1511], Parzatōmar Hayocʿ [Simplified calendar of Armenian feast days], Venise, impr. D.I.Z.A., [1512], Tałaran [Hymnal], Venise, impr. D.I.Z.A., [1513] and an Armenian Missal, Venise, impr. D.I.Z.A., 1513. 17 Fulin 1882, p. 53, doc. 82, dated June 15, 1498, and p. 98, doc. 188, dated May 31, 1513, granting the privilege of printing books in Armenian for a period of twenty years. 18 Kévorkian 1986, 26–38. 19 That is, the workshops created by the patrons Nahapet Agulecʿi and Gaspar Šehrimanean. armenian publishing and the quest for modernity 127

Finally, the establishment of the Mekhitarist order on the island of San Lazarro, in the Venetian lagoon in 1717, allowed the city to maintain its intense publishing activity, which has continued to today. As for the rest, the role that the Mekhitarists played as a bridge and place of exchange between Armenia and the West is well-known, as well as how they revealed the richness of Armenian patristic literature to European Orientalists.

2 Amsterdam

In the second half of the seventeenth century, the flourishing of Armenian trade in Amsterdam and the freedom to publish granted by local authorities to publishers hunted down by Rome led the Catholicos of All Armenians to create the publisher of the Holy See of Ēǰmiacin there, with the financial assistance of Armenian merchants who had trading posts in the city.20 It is in this context that the first edition of the Armenian Bible was published in 1668 after several failed attempts in Italy. Active in 1658, the Surb Ēǰmiacin workshop was nevertheless transferred to Livorno in 1669 by its director, Bishop Oskan Erewancʾi. The new indignities he suffered from Roman censorship there, however, encouraged his friend and successor, Archbishop Tʿōmas Vanandecʿi, to move the workshop back to Amsterdam in 1685.21 Assisted by his nephews Łukas and Mikʿayēl Nuriǰanean, and his cousin Mattʿēos Yovhannēsean, its publishing activity lasted until 1718, publishing books on history, philosophy, the sciences, trade, and geography, as well as the first Armenian planisphere.22

3 Livorno

Livorno counted only two Armenian printers throughout the seventeenth century, and the one founded there by theologian Yovhannēs Jułayecʿ̌ in 1642 was the first printing establishment in this Tuscan port city.23 In addition, its creation – at the request of the Archbishop and Armenian elites of Isfahan – coincided with the establishment of dozens of Armenian trading posts in the city. The absence of any previous experience with printing in Livorno, while being a handicap, ultimately proved very profitable for Fr. Yovhannēs Jułayecʿǐ

20 Amatuni 1976; Kévorkian 1986, 39–40. 21 Grigorian 1969. 22 Grigorian 1969, 80–81 and notices 54 to 81. 23 Chiappini 1937, 33–47; Mostra 1964, 241–247; Orengo 1996. 128 KéVORKIAN who thus escaped Roman censorship for more than two years. However, this was enough time for him to carry out his mission, which consisted of obtaining all the necessary equipment (punch cutters, sets of matrices, illustrations, various decorations) and to do some test prints before returning to Persia. The second typographical workshop in Livorno, named Surb Ēǰmiacin, was transferred from Amsterdam in 1669 after ten years of activity by Bishop Oskan Erewancʿi. He wanted to locate the workshop in a port city closer to Asia Minor to reduce the time and the cost of transporting his print production to Smyrna. He also hoped, thanks to his relations in Rome and in particular the archbishop of Naxiǰewan, Paul Piromalli, to avoid the hassles of censorship. Yet in the end, he was only allowed to publish four books in three years. In the spring of 1672, he moved his workshop once again to Marseilles.24

4 Marseilles

The idea of establishing the printing workshop of Surb Ēǰmiacin in Marseilles was not new. Bishop Oskan Erewancʾi had met with the French King Louis XIV on August 11, 1669 in order to obtain permission to set up premises in the kingdom.25 He writes, “I explained the situation to the Most Christian King . . . who gave me a royal decree authorizing me to settle in France, wherever I wanted.”26 This precious authorization allowed him to establish his printing workshop behind the town hall of Marseilles, close to the port. From July 25, 1672, he began work on printing the Psalter. Despite the distance, the Congregation for the Propaganda of the Faith continued to monitor the Armenian workshop. It even appointed a censor, Fr. Yovhannēs Kostandnupolsecʿi, who took a benevolent attitude towards printing because he published his own works and his translations, some of which are not without interest, such as his Arhest hamarołutʿean [Book of practical arithmetic] or Hamaṙotutʿiwn čartasanakan Arhesti [Treatise on rhetoric].27 During the year 1673 alone, no fewer than four editions were published: a breviary, the Girkʿ ałōtʿicʿ [Book of prayers] of Grigor Narekacʿi, and a calendar. The last work, a Psalter, was never completed, because the bishop died on February 14, 1674. A lawsuit brought against his heir

24 Amatuni 1976, 167. 25 BNF, collection Anisson-Dupperon, ms. fr. 22071, f° 123, decree of August 11, 1669 pronounced at Saint-Germain-en-Laye. 26 Amatuni 1976, 199–200. 27 Kévorkian 1986, 71–72, notices 42 and 44. armenian publishing and the quest for modernity 129 and successor, his cousin Sołomon Lewonean, resulted in a judgment of the court of Provence, dated November 4, 1676, ordering the replacement of the censor assigned to the workshop, Fr. Yovhannēs, by another Armenian priest trained in Rome, Tʿōmas Hayrapet.28 These upheavals were the work of the Vicar General of Marseilles, Philippe de Beausset, also the founder of a branch of the Propaganda Fide in Provence. From that point in time, Catholic censorship proved relentless and prohibited any new books for seven years (1676– 1683). Armenian diplomats present at Louis XIV’s court, Šahmurat Bałišecʿi and Yovhannēs Tʿiwtʿiwnci, managed nevertheless to intercede on Lewonean’s behalf.29 In May 1683, the printing press reopened, but the death of Sołomon Lewonean in 1686 led to the workshop being taken over by one of the town’s Armenian merchants, “Simon Georgi”.30 The seizure in 1694, at Smyrna, of a “quantité de livres arméniens hérétiques imprimez sans la permission du Roy”, in turn provoked the requisition of all the books, presses, and tools found in the workshop at Marseilles. 31 However, the books published by Simon Georgi bore false addresses for the press, a method that his successors in Constantinople continued to use after the transfer of the printing press to the Ottoman capital in 1695.32

5 Constantinople

Since the beginning of the sixteenth century, Constantinople had been the location most conducive to Armenian publishing; there was no lack of projects or attempts to establish printing houses. However, publishers there had to face several difficulties. The first printer, Abgar Ewdokiacʿi, managed to publish a few books following his return from Venice, between 1567 and 1569, but his workshop was closed by the Ottoman authorities.33 In 1587, Fr. Yovhannēs Tērzncʿi, also a printer in Venice, contemplated moving to Constantinople, as did Fr. Yovhannēs Ankiwracʿi in 1645, but both projects came to naught. In 1677,

28 BNF, ms. arm. 310, which contains the documents relating to the trial (ff. 16–41) published by F. Macler : Macler 1907, 99–100. 29 Anasyan, 1961, 172–173. 30 Kévorkian 1986–1987, 521–526, following the municipal archives of Marseille concerning a lawsuit brought against Marguerite Chave and Simon Georgi by “Marcara de Carripian,” over a debt contracted by the late S. Lewonean. 31 Archives nationales, Affaires étrangères, B1 1042, f° 309 r° and Archives nationales, Marine, B7 61, f° 690v°, B7 64, f° 6r°. 32 Kévorkian 1981, 401–411. 33 Refik 1935, 32 (doc. Nos. 46–47) and 33 (n. 48). 130 KéVORKIAN another attempt had greater success. The scholar Eremia Kʿēōmiwrčean managed to found a workshop and publish two books of rather mediocre quality.34 It was, however, the transfer of the publisher Surb Ēǰmiacin from Marseilles to Constantinople in 1695 that marked the real beginning of concentrating Armenian printing in the Ottoman capital. In 1701, there were already four printing workshops, run by true craftsmen. Two centuries of exile of Armenian publishing to the western Mediterranean had finally come to an end.

6 History of the Printed Book and Bibliography: The State of Research

After the pioneering work of Garegin Zarphanalean,35 and outstanding research by Ṙafayel Išxanyan,36 the history of the book from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries is now fairly well known. Considerable work remains to be done, however, especially on the history of collections, which are indispensible for drawing conclusions about the intellectual tastes of the educated elite of the time. Although it is now known that the first Armenian printer, established in Venice in 1511, acted in anonymity to escape the system of privileges, his identity remains a mystery that no source has yet helped us to solve. Concerning inventories of early Armenian publications, in addition to work conducted in Europe, the National Library of Armenia has published two absolutely essential volumes, in Armenian, for researching early bibliographical references. The first, covering the years 1512–1800,37 also gives colophons in their original language of all the editions that are listed, and has many useful and precious indexes. Its coverage is complemented by an older and abridged publication covering the period 1801–1850.38 While it does not identify every work produced during that time, and it only gives titles, it is nevertheless important that it exists and it enables researchers to have some idea of the intellectual production of those years. Recently, thanks again to the National Library of Armenia, we also have a fairly complete inventory of Armenian printing production for the years 1851–1900.39 The work lists more than 8,500 titles, albeit abridged, sometimes

34 Kévorkian 1986, pp. 120–121. 35 Zarphanalean 1895. 36 Išxanyan 1977. 37 Oskanyan et al. 1988. 38 Davtʿyan 1967. 39 Oskanyan et al. 1999. armenian publishing and the quest for modernity 131 referring to contemporary bibliographies such as those by the Mekhitarist monks Garegin Zarphanalean and Arsen Ǧazikean, when the editions in question are not available in the Armenian collections. It is worth noting the importance of indexes and tables carefully prepared by the compilers of this volume, thanks to which one can quickly see the broad orientations of Armenian publishing during this period of cultural renaissance and profound social change, as well as changes in the modern language. The latest work by the National Library of Armenia inventories 7,684 titles.40 It identifies the production of a pivotal period in the history of Armenian literature, which was in some ways the culmination of the intellectual Renaissance which had gradually taken root during the previous centuries. This period is also an expression of modernity, drawing largely on the West; this process was brutally halted with the extermination of Armenian elites during the 1915 genocide. I can not emphasize enough the extent to which colophons, most often published at the end of a volume, at least until the mid-nineteenth century, are rich in factual elements that can foster research on the history of the book, the economics of printing, and more generally on philological practices and intellectual life in major centers such as Venice, Constantinople, or Tbilisi.41

Translated from the French by Cynthia J. Johnson

Bibliography

Akinean, N. 1917–1918. “Azatutʿean šaržumǝ ŽE-ŽZ darerum Hayocʿ mēǰ” [The liberation movement among Armenians in the 15th and 16th centuries], Handēs Amsōreay 31, 141–154. Ališan, Ł. 1896. Hay i Venēt [Armenians in Venice], i Venetik: Mxitʿarean tparan. Amatuni, K. 1976. Oskan vardapet Erewancʿi ew ir žamanakǝ [Oskan Vardapet Erewancʿi and his time], i Venetik: Mxitʿarean tparan. Anasyan, H.S. 1961. XVII dari azatagrakan šaržumnern Arevmtyan Hayastanum [Liberation movements in Western Armenia in the 17th century] Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Bernard, A. 1867. Histoire de l’imprimerie royale du Louvre, Paris: Imprimerie impériale.

40 Gyulumyan 2007. 41 See the article by Anna Sirinian on colophons in this volume. 132 KéVORKIAN

Chiappini, G. 1937. “Il primo tipografo di Livorno fu un sacerdote armeno”, Liburni civi- tas anno X/fasc. 1, 33–47. Čemčemean, S. 1989. Hay tpagrutʿiwnǝ ew Hṙom (ŽĒ dar) [Armenian Printing and Rome in the 17th century], i Venetik: Mxitʿarean tparan. Davtʿyan, H. 1967. Hay girkʿǝ 1801–1850 [The Armenian book, 1801–1850], Erevan: HSSH Kulturayi Ministrutʻyun, A.F. Myasnikyani Anvan Hanrapetakan Gradaran. Fulin, R. 1882. “Documenti per servire alla storia della tipografia Veneziana”, Archivio Veneto 23, 84–212. Grigorian, M. 1969. Nor niwtʿer ew ditołutʿiwnner Vanandecʿi hratarakicʿneru masin [New Materials and observations on the publishers of Vanand], Vienna: Mxitʿarean tparan. Gyulumyan, O. et al. 2007. Hay girkʿǝ 1901–1920 tʿvakannerin [The Armenian book in 1901–1920], Erevan: Girkʿ Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Hovhannisyan, A. 1959. Drvagner hay azatagrakan mtkʿi patmutʿyan [Episodes relating to the history of Armenian liberationist thought], vol. 2, Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Išxanyan, Ṙ. 1977. Hay grkʿi patmutʿiwn [History of the Armenian Book], vol. 1: Hay tpagir girkʿǝ 16–17-rd darerum [The Armenian printed book in the 16th and 17th centuries], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Kévorkian, R.H. 1981. “L’imprimerie Surb Ēǰmiacin et Surb Sargis Zōravar et le conflit entre Arméniens et catholiques à Constantinople (1695–1718)”, REArm 15, 401–411. Kévorkian, R.H. 1982. “Livre imprimé et culture écrite dans l’Arménie des XVIe et XVIIe siècles”, REArm 16, 348–351. Kévorkian, R.H. 1983. “Livre missionnaire et enseignement catholique chez les Arméniens entre 1583 et 1700”, REArm 17, 589–599. Kévorkian, R.H. 1986. Catalogue des incunables arméniens ou Chronique de l’imprimerie arménienne (1511–1695), Genève: Patrick Cramer éditeur. Kévorkian, R.H. 1986–1987. “Du nouveau sur l’activité de l’imprimerie Surb Ēǰmiacin et Surb Sargis Zōravar à Marseille (après 1681)”, REArm 20, 521–526. Macler, F. 1907. Mosaïque orientale, Paris: Librairie Paul Geuthner. Mostra 1964. Mostra dellʾeditoria livornese (1643–1900). Catalogo (1964), Livorno: Casa della Cultura. Orengo, A. 1996. “Tipografie e stampatori armeni a Livorno: una sintesi”, in B.L. Zekiyan (ed.), Ad limina Italiae – Aṙ druns Italioy. In viaggio per l’Italia con mercanti e monaci armeni (Eurasiatica, 37), Padova: Editoriale Programma, 157–190. Oskanyan N. et al. 1988. Hay girkʿǝ 1512–1800 tʿvakannerin [The Armenian book, 1512– 1800], Erevan: HSSH Kulturayi Ministrutʿyun, Al. Myasnikyani Anvan Zhoghovurdneri Barekamutʿyan Shkʿanshanakir HSSH Petakan Gradaran. armenian publishing and the quest for modernity 133

Oskanyan N. et al. 1999. Hay girkʿǝ 1851–1900 tvakannerin [The Armenian book, 1851– 1900], Erevan: Girkʿ Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Refik, A. 1935. 16. asirda Istanbul Hayati [Life at Istanbul in the 16th century], III, Istanbul: Devlet Basimevi. Ṙoškʿa, S. 1964. Žamanakagrutʿiwn [Chronicle], Vienna: Mxitʿarean tparan. Vervliet, H.D.L. 1981. Cyrillic and Oriental Typography in Rome at the End of the Sixteenth Century. An Inquiry into the Later Work of Robert Granjon (1578–1590), Berkeley: Poltroon Press. Zarphanalean, G. 1895. Patmutʿiwn Haykakan Tpagrutʿean skzbnaworutʿenēn minčʿew aṙ mez (1513–1895) [History of Armenian printing from its origins to the present (1513–1895)], i Venetik: Mxitʿarean tparan.

Online: http://nla.am/arm/meghapart/Arm/frame1.htm

The Methodology of Textual Edition

‥

Text Editing: Principles and Methods1

Bernard Coulie

“Nos méthodes de recherche, désormais dûment élaborées, gagneraient à être appliquées au domaine de l’Orient. Aussi bien l’examen d’un manuscrit syriaque, arménien, copte ou arabe ne diffère-t-il aucunement de celui d’un manuscrit grec ou latin.”2 This comment by Alphonse Dain in the preface to the 1963 edition of his treatise on manuscripts is still relevant today. Although manuscripts in different languages have different features, and can offer specific literary and artistic wealth, the methods used to analyse manuscripts and texts are basically the same regardless of the language of the material. This is also true for philology and text editing. Editors will always face the same difficult task, have to avoid just as many pitfalls, and display just as much patience and humility irrespective of whether their text is in Greek, Latin, Armenian or any other language. Alphonse Dain’s observation raises the question of what a “text” is in philological terms. For a philologist, a text is usually a work that is, or is considered by its author to be, of a literary nature, the conscious product of an act of composition or writing; in most cases, the work reflects a task of composition that places it in the category of formal expressions, which are generally the subject of literary histories. Sometimes, texts of a scientific, administrative or documentary nature, which are also studied by philologists, have fewer literary pretensions and are closer to colloquial usage and spoken language. Recent research has shown that inscriptions, which are studied by epigraphists, or even captions of illustrations or mural frescoes, which are analysed by art historians, or what are generally referred to as “public texts”, raise interpretation and editing problems that are sometimes, mutatis mutandis, similar to those of actual texts.3 As Linda Safran rightly observes, manuscript colophons can

1 The author would like to thank Valentina Calzolari, Dickran Kouymjian, Véronique Somers and Michael Stone for their useful comments, corrections and suggestions concerning this chapter. 2 [Our research methods, now duly elaborated, would benefit from application to Oriental studies. There is no difference between examining a Syrian, Armenian, Coptic or Arabic manuscript and examining a Greek or Latin manuscript], Dain 1997, 8. On Alphonse Dain, see Irigoin 1965. 3 Safran 2009, in particular p. 246: “Or, les livres ne sont pas les seules sources textuelles médiévales, si bien que les historiens de l’art qui ne sont pas spécialistes des manuscrits peuvent également prendre part à des discussions sur les questions d’ecdotique. La prise en

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��4 | doi ��.��63/978904270961_��7 138 COULIE sometimes be similar to certain types of inscriptions and “des textes juridiques sont ponctuellement introduits dans les textes publics”.4 Two conclusions are inescapable. Since some of the problems encountered in the study of manuscripts are at least partially the same regardless of language, Armenian philology cannot claim to be a discipline in its own right, separated from its Latin, Greek, and other neighbours. And since textual interpretation is not purely a philological exercise, but also touches on art history and disciplines generally described as auxiliary historical sciences, Armenian philology will also not attempt to present itself as a unique species that can disregard questions and answers from other disciplines.5 This article will attempt to bear these two precautions in mind, presenting the current state of the methodology used to edit ancient and mediaeval Armenian texts in the context of philology in general and in relation to other disciplines that may be relevant to Armenian studies, such as palaeography, codicology, literary history or history in the broadest sense. The progress of editorial projects in various sectors of Armenian literature will be discussed in other chapters of this book. We will first focus on the philological process itself, reminding ourselves of the nature and aims of critical editing. We will then examine the character-

compte des textes du “domaine public” – c’est-à-dire des textes accessibles à une assistance pouvant excéder une poignée de personnes – élargit notre compréhension de la culture écrite au Moyen Âge. Dans la mesure où ils ont été conçus par et pour un groupe plus étendu d’individus, on pourrait même avancer que ces textes publics permettent une meilleure com- préhension des attitudes “métalinguistiques” médiévales que les textes des manuscrits. [. . .] La plupart des questions concernant la lecture et l’interprétation – autrement dit l’édition – des textes publics de la région [i.e. Salento] sont également celles que se posent ceux qui, ailleurs en Italie, travaillent à l’édition de textes issus de médias plus traditionnels.” [Art historians who are not manuscript specialists also have something to contribute to a discussion of editorial problems, because books were not the only repositories of medieval texts. A consideration of texts in the “public domain” – in other words, regularly available to more than a handful of viewers – expands our understanding of medieval textual culture. One might even argue that such public texts offer greater insight into medieval “metalinguistic” attitudes than do manuscript texts, because they were created by and for a much wider range of individuals. [. . .] many of the challenges inherent in reading and interpreting, that is to say editing, the region’s public texts [i.e. Salento] are familiar to those who work in more traditional editorial media elsewhere in Italy.] 4 [quasi-legal materials is also occasionally employed in public texts], Safran 2009, 249. 5 See, for example, the close links between philology and linguistics presented by M. Morani in this volume. The risks of considering Armenian studies in isolation are significant, as demonstrated by Brutian in 2002, and this approach was rightly condemned by Dadoyan in 2008. text editing: principles and methods 139 istics of Armenian editing in the light of this nature and these aims. What is text editing and how can a critical text be established? What is the status of Armenian editing with regard to these rules?

1 Text Editing

What is text editing? A brief reminder of history is essential to place the various answers that have been given to this question in their respective contexts. Text “editing” is an ancient problem, but one that has raised successive questions, showing the progress made by what was to become the discipline of philology. For the ancient world, and especially the Greco-Roman, then Byzantine and even Renaissance worlds, manuscripts were already regarded as critical copies, as is shown for example by the presence of signs in the margins and various annotations. These signs and notes demonstrate a concern to reflect the authoritative text, and to distinguish in the text what is original from what was added subsequently. For the ancients, the first problem was to find authoritative texts; this was therefore a heuristic question, and it was in this context that philology would emerge. It is useful to briefly remind ourselves of how the philological process came about. It happened over two thousand years ago, with the creation and development of the library at Alexandria, when Ptolemy, Alexander the Great’s former general, became satrap and then king of Egypt in 306–305 BC. He decided to create a sanctuary for the Muses, the “Mouseion”, to which he attached a library. Ptolemy and his successors were to enrich this library with books from around the world known at that time, sometimes purchased at great expense; these were kept in the “Mouseion” and looked after by librarians. Comparing different copies of the same work allowed textual variations to be analysed, leading to the production of a critical text. Within the space of fifty years, Alexandria’s librarians and scholars would offer critical texts of the entire body of ancient Greek literature: Homer’s epics, tragedy, comedy, and lyric poetry.6 The criticism undertaken in Alexandria laid the foundations of philology.7

6 Irigoin 2001, 29–31; Reynolds & Wilson 1986, 4–12; Blanck 1992, 138–145. 7 Pfeiffer 1968 (1971); German translation: Pfeiffer 1978. Completed by Pfeiffer 1976. On the history of ancient books and the birth of philology, see also, for example, Reynolds & Wilson 1986; Blanck 1992. On the library at Alexandria, see, for example, Canfora 1992; Canfora 1986, and French translation: Canfora 1988. 140 COULIE

As a result of the work of Renaissance scholars, a vital new step was taken in the seventeenth century when Protestant theologians truly invented the concept of critical editing and applied it to the Bible, especially the New Testament. A valid discussion of biblical questions, leading to conclusions as to the theological content of the texts, is only possible on the basis of the “best” text, i.e. a text that is beyond question so that the theological conclusions drawn from it cannot be challenged. This was the birth of emendatio, textual criticism in the true sense. So religious controversy around the Bible was the source of modern critical editing. This is also explained by the manuscript tradition of biblical texts, a tradition that is represented in a large number of exemplars, whereas only a small number of ancient manuscripts of many Classical texts survive. Exegeticists went a step further in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.8 They started to compare manuscripts with one another, to group them and classify them in “families”, in order to trace the history of the text right back to the original; they also suggested that the connections between the manuscripts could be visualised in the form of a kind of family tree, known as the stemma codicum. This was the start of what would come to be called “stemmatics”. The desire to reconstruct the original was the driving force behind the philologists of this time (Bekker, Lachmann). But how could they find a critical, scientific (i.e. objective and verifiable) method to lend this approach credibility? Philologists would carry out a small-scale Copernican revolution of their discipline, proposing a move away from a method concentrating on the “authority” of manuscripts towards a method that emphasised the “origin” of the exemplars. Previously, philologists had described manuscripts on the basis of an internal analysis (based on aspects such as the quality of the language, syntax, and style). Henceforth they would try to trace the text back in time, passing through surviving exemplars, to reach the text as it left the author’s pen. Most twentieth-century philologists take the same approach and apply various techniques to improve the critical method, including the most recent development, the use of automated techniques. The philological process that leads to a critical edition is always based largely on these three fundamental stages: inventory of exemplars, or heuristics;

8 As summarised very well by Reynolds & Wilson 1986, 208: “Le travail des théologiens alle- mands du XVIIIe siècle sur le Nouveau Testament a été bien étudié par Pasquali 1934, 9–12 et surtout Timpanaro 1963, 14–26.” [The work of eighteenth-century German theologians on the New Testament has been studied by Pasquali 1934, 9–12, and especially by Timpanaro 1963, 14–26]. text editing: principles and methods 141 examination and classification of exemplars, or recensio; textual criticism and establishment of the text, or emendatio. It is interesting to note that “modern” philology evolved as positivism was developing in the late nineteenth century, when scholars were endeavouring to construct a scientific and methodical approach to the subject they were examining. Science then seemed to be the surest way of finding truth and reconstituting the starting point of any object, for example any natural species. The development of the natural sciences was in fact a direct model for the progress of philology. Just as zoologists attempt to identify the ancestor of an animal species, so too do philologists strive to find the original of a text: what did the author himself write? What was the original form of the text? These questions are particularly relevant in the case of the Bible, where the aim is to go back to the source of the inspired Word.9 Influenced by the natural sciences, this new approach immediately led to definite views on a text and its history: just as each animal species can have only one origin, so, in the eyes of these early philologists, can there be only one author and one primary text; consequently, the other texts can only be deteriorations, corruptions of this primary text. The errors observed in manuscripts are direct proof of the fact that they are corruptions. The evolutionary principle that descendants are inferior was therefore the guiding light for early developments in philology. In philology, this is reflected in the idea that the initial text is the “right” text, transmitting the “real”, “true”, “correct” reading, and that forms derived from it are “less right”, “bad”, “erroneous”. This is one of the fundamental, and often simplistic, concepts of philology, according to which a copy is only the reproduction of a model, which introduces errors or variations, intentionally or otherwise. The use of the term “error” to designate changes that occur as a text is copied does therefore have a historical explanation in the light of the context in which philology developed, but it is pejorative and casts aspersions on the work of copyists, to the extent that a “good” copyist would be one who recopied even the “errors” in his model without ever correcting them.10 What a paradox! The term copy “accident” (or “variation”) would be more appropriate, used in its etymological sense of “what happens, what occurs” during copying.

9 To characterise this development of philology in the nineteenth century, Bernard Cerquiglini uses the expression “religion du texte” [religion of the text], Cerquiglini 1989, 17. 10 Dain 1997, 16–18. 142 COULIE

The concept of error is itself quite relative, allowing for different points of view about the text. For example, although the philological view is that fidelity to the original is the rule, and that errors are variations that alter this original, the linguistic view holds that the rule is to respect what is accepted as “standard” grammar (“classical” grammar, textbook grammar, the grammar that is particular to an author, a period of history, a genre, a social class, accepted standard spelling, etc.). What is regarded as error in one field is not necessarily so regarded in another . . .11 This problem is particularly acute in the field of Armenian studies, where the phase of development of the Armenian language known as “classical Armenian” is itself difficult to identify.12 From its inception, philology therefore followed an approach focused on the source of the text, going back in time and through various versions of a text to reach the original, which was regarded as the only “correct” text. From this fundamental concept, philology developed three main types of text editing:

– reconstruction of the archetype/original; – publication of the best manuscript; – studying and editing the manuscript tradition.13

1.1 Reconstruction of the Archetype/Original 14 The German philologist Karl Lachmann (1793–1851) studied the New Testament and the work of the Latin poet Lucretius,15 and established a rule according to which editing is the art of reconstructing the original text from extant manuscripts, and involves two successive stages:

– recensio, the heuristics of exemplars, reading (collating) them and comparing individual exemplars with one another in order to classify them;

11 On this topic, see the comments infra in this article. 12 See Adalian 1992 for a good summary of the problem of classical Armenian: in this work, the author explains how a phase of development of a classical language, regarded as free from dialect corruptions and outside influences, was highlighted by the Mekhitarist Fathers. 13 Cf. van Reenen & van Mulken, VII–XVI. 14 The notion of “original” raises problems, as it is a modern idea that cannot easily be applied to the situation in antiquity or the early mediaeval period. Authors often collected their notes on “papers”, which they or listeners or assistants then tidied up into a continuous text. This version was then often revised by the author. So the “original” in the modern sense was, initially, a process rather than a state, and this process could itself lead to alterations of the text. 15 On the method, see Timpanaro 1963. text editing: principles and methods 143

– emendatio, i.e. reconstructing the original on the basis of notions of archetype and proto-archetype, and of what is known about the language of the original; this is a comparative task, involving finding the most plausible hypothesis for each word.

Karl Lachmann was the first to attempt to reconstruct lost exemplars. The archetype is “le plus ancien témoin de la tradition où le texte d’un auteur se trouve consigné dans la forme qui nous a été transmise”.16 In some cases, the archetype may be the original. Sometimes, however, various pieces of information, drawn in particular from the indirect tradition or from translations, allow us to go back beyond this archetype and identify an older version of the text, which is then called the pre-archetype. Archetypes have not always survived, but can be reconstructed from the exemplars that are their descendants. Alphonse Dain takes the view that the archetype is a kind of ancient “editing” process, and is no mere coincidence. In contrast, the “plus proche com- mun ancêtre de la tradition” [closest common ancestor of the tradition] is the result of chance; a manuscript, copied at a particular point in the text’s history, giving rise to an identifiable line of descent. This common ancestor is often referred to as the sub-archetype. In principle, philologists must endeavour to reconstruct the archetype, and then try to go further back until the author is reached. In practice, they are often unable to progress further than the closest common ancestor of the tradition.17 The journey back in time from surviving manuscripts to the original that the philologist is attempting to reconstruct is made largely on the basis of the principle that a common error is regarded as an indication of a relationship between exemplars. Using errors as an indication of a relationship and of the manuscript’s place in the history of the textual tradition is the innovation introduced by Karl Lachmann, which is why it is often called the “common- error method”. To this he added the requirement that a philologist must first understand the entire history of a text before being able to decide on which variant readings should be retained or rejected when establishing the critical text. This method leads to a classification of manuscripts, visualised by the stemma codicum, which expresses the genealogical and chronological order of the copies.18 This visualisation is not an end in itself; the purpose of the

16 [The oldest exemplar of the tradition in which the text of an author is preserved in the form in which it has come down to us], Dain 1997, 108. 17 Dain 1997, 122–123. 18 K. Lachmann systematises use of the stemma, although this had already been proposed by J.N. Madvig (1804–1886) in his edition of Cicero’s work, in 1839, and by F. Ritschl, in his 144 COULIE stemma is to underpin a reasoned choice between the variant readings of the manuscripts. However, the common-error method implies a certain circularity, as an error can only be recognised if the philologist already knows the original that he is attempting to reconstruct! Intuition therefore has a role to play in the editing process, and we can describe Karl Lachmann’s approach as one based on an intuitive method. Furthermore, he claimed to reconstruct the original based on an analysis of the errors that occurred during the transmission of the text. This was a risky undertaking, as Dom Henri Quentin rightly observed. In response to Karl Lachmann’s method, Quentin suggested working on variants in addition to errors, and that the aim should simply be to try to edit the archetype rather than the original. This attitude was partly due to the nature of the texts that he was editing, those of the Latin Vulgate of the Bible: in this textual tradition, errors are constantly corrected on the basis of other exemplars (Latin, Greek, and Hebrew) and are therefore not limited to a vertical tradition going from the ancestor to the descendant.19 Taken at face value, Karl Lachmann’s method gave rise to what was called an “intentionalist” movement, represented mainly by the English-speaking school of philology. The proponents of this movement believe that by analysing errors, styles, and contexts it is possible to trace the author’s actual intention when composing his text. And as the author himself can make a mistake when writing down his text (which anyone who reads a newspaper can confirm), the editor can suggest what the author meant to write even before the first error is committed.20 In fact, Karl Lachmann never explained his method fully, but he applied it in the various editions he produced, and it is these editions that we would need to examine in order to access his “thinking”. Alternatively, we can look at the work of Paul Maas (1880–1964), who formally presented and updated his predecessor’s theory, introducing two new concepts:21

edition of Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ work, in 1838. On the place of K. Lachmann among other contemporary philologists, see inter alia Glucker 1996. On the first stemma, see also Reynolds & Wilson 1986, 144. 19 Quentin 1926. Dom Quentin’s method was criticised by Jacques Froger: Froger 1968. 20 Tanselle 1990; see also the information and links on the Textual Scholarship website (www.textualscholarship.org). 21 Maas 1927 (1950, 1960); English translation: Maas 1958; summarised in Reynolds & Wilson 1986, 145. text editing: principles and methods 145

– the concept of “Trennfehler” [separative errors], or errores separativi (AB/C): if two manuscripts, A and B, both share a reading that is not found in manuscript C, and if this reading is incorrect, AB can be excluded from all the “proto-archetype” manuscripts; – the concept of “Bindefehler” [conjunctive errors], or errores coniunctivi (AB/CD): if two manuscripts, A and B, both share a reading that is not found in manuscripts C or D, and if this reading is incorrect, it follows that this variant groups the manuscripts together and AB can be excluded.

Paul Maas’ method is a step forward, but as it is still based on the concept of error it suffers from the same limitations as that of Karl Lachmann. Many scholars reacted against the Lachmann-Maas method, in particular Giorgio Pasquali (1885–1952). He accused his predecessors of starting from the supposition that every textual tradition must descend from a single copy in which errors are already present, this copy being referred to as the archetype of the tradition. However, despite his criticisms, Giorgio Pasquali emphasised even more clearly in the third edition of his Storia della tradizione e critica del testo in 193422 the link between the history of texts and textual criticism, which is after all at the heart of the editing process. He also reaffirmed the human dimension both of the textual tradition and the editing task: “Io sarò pago se chi avrà letto questo libro, rimarrà convinto che a ricostruire di sui manoscritti il testo originario di uno scrittore antico occorre fin da principio esercitare il giudizio e che questa facoltà non può essere sostituita da alcuna regola meccanica, e non crederà più a chi, in buona o mala fede, gli vuol dare a intendere che meccanica sia l’attività dell’editore critico.”23 Giorgio Pasquali summed up his conclusions in a list that he himself called a “decalogue” even though it contains twelve points:24

1. the mediaeval tradition of Greek and Latin texts does not always go back to an archetype that is itself mediaeval or dates from the end of antiquity, but is often influenced by ancient editions;

22 Pasquali 1934 (1962). 23 [I shall be satisfied if the reader of this book will be convinced that reconstructing the original text of an ancient author on the basis of the manuscripts implies in the first place showing sound judgment and that such faculty cannot be replaced by any mechanical rule, and if this reader will not trust anymore he who sincerely or not tries to make him believe that the task of the critical editor could be mechanical], Pasquali 1934, XI. 24 Pasquali 1934, XV–XIX. 146 COULIE

2. since many manuscripts have been lost, a tradition does not often go back to a surviving archetype, and caution is then essential before undertaking an eliminatio codicum descriptorum; 3. for the same reason, a recent exemplar may be more useful than an old exemplar, giving the rule recentiores non deteriores; 4. recensions by humanists and old printed editions may also contain important information about the history of the text; 5. recent exemplars, recensions by humanists and printed editions must be analysed carefully, unless all their sources have been preserved; 6. the tradition of an ancient text is rarely mechanical and in this case the simplest palaeographic conjecture is rarely the most likely; 7. the tradition of a text is not purely vertical, but also has horizontal contaminations; 8. as the oldest versions of texts are preserved for longest in peripheral areas, agreement between two exemplars from two different peripheral areas guarantees the authenticity of a reading; 9. variants can be older than the manuscripts in which they appear; 10. papyri and ancient quotations show that there were already different “editions” of texts in antiquity; 11. for the Greek tradition, there is no certain example of an archetype belonging to antiquity; 12. very specific variants (such as variants of proper nouns) sometimes go back to the actual author.

The key feature of Giorgio Pasquali’s response to the Lachmann-Maas method is that his main aims are to rehabilitate all the versions of a text and urge editors to examine all sources carefully and thoroughly rather than taking an excessively mechanical approach. The “neo-Lachmannian” method is a more recent development, illustrated by the work of Benedictus Salemans among others.25 His alternative to the traditional approach of the concept of error is to divide the work into two distinct stages: firstly, establishing relationships between the exemplars; only then should a decision be taken as to the originality of the variant readings, i.e. the “orientation” of the variants. The drawback in this method is that philologists decide in advance which type of variant will reveal a relationship in the manuscript tradition. However, the advantage is that it allows manuscripts to be placed in groups without considering what is the original reading: the key point is first to construct the “chain”, and only then attempt to anchor it; or, to

25 Explained, for example, in a recent study: Salemans 1996. text editing: principles and methods 147 return to the family tree metaphor, the characteristics of the tree (its branches) must be identified before trying to retrace the entire tree to its root. A further benefit of this approach is that it puts the stemma back in its proper place: it does not claim to reflect the entire tradition of a text, but only what can be known of it, as it represents a hypothesis based on part of a tradition. With this refinement, Benedictus Salemans restores to the stemma at least some of the value that it had been denied by the opponents of Karl Lachmann and Paul Maas.

1.2 Publication of the Best Manuscript It was as a reaction against Karl Lachmann’s method – its reliance on intuition and the circular reasoning – that Joseph Bédier (1864–1938) introduced a new method in the early twentieth century.26 While working on the mediaeval text of the Lai de l’Ombre, he observed that it was impossible to reconstruct the original, and decided just to edit the best manuscript. His view was that editing could simply consist of full editing of the best surviving exemplar, known as best-text editing. Joseph Bédier’s approach is based on a qualitative method, in contrast with the Lachmannian tradition. But how can the editor know which is the best manuscript without having arrived at a clear view of the entire tradition and consequently of the relationships between individual manuscripts? Joseph Bédier and Karl Lachmann were faced with the same problem here, but responded in different ways: the German philologist was prepared to introduce several alterations to the surviving exemplars of a text in order to reproduce what he thought was the original, while his French counterpart preferred to edit the text that would require the fewest alterations. Joseph Bédier’s view is clearly also linked to the nature of the text that he was editing: a mediaeval text handed down by oral transmission with significant variants, giving rise to a textual tradition in which each manuscript is itself a new version of the text. Furthermore, it is a text that constructs language as it is written down.27 Modern philology is in fact based on an approach to the text that assumes that the process of printing brings the act of writing to an end and confers authority on it, even though philology usually deals with texts that are the

26 The fact that most of the editions that, until then, had used Lachmann’s method tended to produce bipartite stemmata also made J. Bédier sceptical. 27 Cerquiglini 1989, 62, and particularly 49: “Les manuscrits français, qui ont pour tâche moins de conserver des informations et des références que de faire advenir une langue . . .” [French manuscripts, the task of which is less to preserve information and references than to create a language . . .]; an interesting parallel can certainly be drawn here with Armenian. 148 COULIE expression of a manuscript culture. In mediaeval culture, the text remains open and is a place where authors can be creative, but also – and without being contradictory – the site of imitation, translation, or even plagiarism. The Roman tradition, formalised by Quintilian, had restricted the work of gram- marians to the art of correct expression and commentary on poetry; mediaeval authors inherited this approach in which the differences between interpretation and invention, between imitation and originality, between translation and poiesis, between one text and another, become difficult to determine. For the mediaeval author, writing was often regarded as a textual intervention.28 This was also the problem facing Joseph Bédier. The main drawback of Joseph Bédier’s method is that it does not allow the philologist to see the content of other exemplars: in other words, editing does not show the forms in which the text was available at different times. The rem- edy to this shortcoming was synoptic editing, a precursor of modern electronic editing. Valentina Calzolari showed that some apocryphal Armenian texts present a similar situation to that encountered by Joseph Bédier. In the case of the Martyrdom of Paul, for example, the manuscripts are not so much the same text with textual variants, but successive reworkings resulting from a process of continual rewriting typical of mediaeval literature. Drawing from suggestions made by Bernard Cerquiglini, she argues in favour of an editing process that reproduces all the various reworkings that the text has undergone in the form of a multi-column synopsis or, in the case of more complex textual traditions, of multiple windows on a computer screen.29 In fact, many ancient texts were, usually without this being stated or perhaps even known, edited by means of a hybrid approach, between reconstruction of the original and best-text editing. The work of Peter Robinson in particular has opened up a new path more recently.30 This approach, called “New Stemmatics”, allows new tools to be applied to knowledge gained in the past. These new tools can handle very large numbers of manuscripts and variants, and are able to classify them according to a variety of search criteria. The phylogenetic approach appears to be the most promising of these methods at present.31

28 On this topic, see Bruns 1980. 29 Calzolari 2007; cf. Cerquiglini 1989, and the chapter by V. Calzolari in this volume. 30 The advances made in philology, particularly Armenian philology, thanks to statistical methods and computer tools are explored in a chapter by Tara Andrews in this volume. 31 Several studies in van Reenen & van Mulken 1996, and van Reenen, den Hollander & van Mulken 2004. A good example of the phylogenetic approach is provided in the work of text editing: principles and methods 149

Philology developed in tandem with the advance of the natural sciences in the nineteenth century. Today, the cladistic approach is based once again on our growing understanding of the evolution and discovery of certain laws gov- erning the emergence and disappearance of species. These parallels between the natural sciences and philology are welcome, as they give rise to new questions and undoubtedly unexpected answers. They also support a breaking down of boundaries between disciplines, including philology.

1.3 Editing the Manuscript Tradition The third type of editing is that which, on the basis of a complete analysis of the manuscript tradition, attempts to produce an edition that reflects the history of the text. Here, all the surviving manuscripts need to be identified according to the version of the text that they present. These textual versions then need to be classified into a kind of family tree showing all the branches of the textual tradition. Some branches have remained alive throughout the history of the text, leading from the original to the surviving exemplars; other branches have died off over the centuries without leaving any recent descendants. Here, philological value no longer lies in the number of manuscripts in which a particular type of text is preserved: the type of text that exists in the largest numbers is not necessarily the most faithful to the original; similarly, the oldest manuscripts do not necessarily contain the “best” text; and finally, what may appear to be a “best” text in the light of the canons of a particular era is not necessarily the one that is most faithful to the original, and so on. A detailed study of the history of the text allows the philologist to avoid the biases of both the intuitive method and the qualitative method. The history of philology, and the necessarily hesitant course along which it has evolved, go some way towards explaining what Alphonse Dain called “idées fausses” [false ideas].32 He challenged the following ideas:

– the right manuscript: for Alphonse Dain, there is no “right” manuscript since the quality of the manuscript does not provide any information about the value of the reading; – the ancient manuscript: the age of a manuscript does not of itself lend any value to a reading;

Caroline Macé on the Greek text and oriental versions of Gregory of Nazianzus: Macé & Sanspeur 2000; Macé & Schmidt 2001; Baret, Dubuisson, Lantin & Macé 2003; Macé, Baret & Lantin 2004. 32 Dain 1997, 169–177. 150 COULIE

– the base manuscript: editing must not give preference to a base manuscript, except in the case of a text that has been handed down via a single manuscript; – all manuscripts: it is not always useful to reproduce the readings of all manuscripts in the apparatus, as the “leading” (head of families) manuscripts are the significant ones; – respecting the tradition: philologists sometimes need the courage to depart from the surviving text to suggest corrections; – ultimate accuracy: editing must show only the textual readings, not the way in which these readings are noted in the manuscript (abbreviations, accentuation, spelling, punctuation, etc.).

These are the views of Alphonse Dain drawn from his experience as an expert in Greek texts. They are certainly not equally relevant to all types of texts, but do contain truths that must not be forgotten. In conclusion, to quote Bernard Cerquiglini, “l’édition est un choix: il faut trancher, et savoir les raisons du geste qui récuse” [editing is a choice: the editor has to decide and to know the reasons for rejection].33 Consequently, it is essential to know how a text was edited if we are to use the edition properly. When faced with a text we must always ask what the editor wished to edit:

– an original that he does not have, but that he reconstructs according to explicit or implicit rules and assumptions; in this case, has the editor explained these rules? – a specific exemplar, which may be distant from the original in time or space, but also in terms of phase of development of the language? – a combination of the two? – the text of a base manuscript, with the variants of other exemplars noted in the critical apparatus?

33 Cerquiglini 1989, 43, who continues: “L’éditeur choisit de donner à entendre ce qu’il juge la spécificité de l’œuvre, ce qui est pour lui sa vérité; on comprend dès lors que toute édi- tion se fonde sur une théorie, souvent implicite, de l’œuvre. La méthodologie éditrice, quelque œuvre qu’elle traite, est toujours la mise en pratique d’une théorie littéraire.” [The editor chooses to present what he regards as the specific nature and truth of the work; we therefore understand that editing is always based on a theory of the work, which is often implicit. The methodology of editing, regardless of the work to which it is applied, is always the practical application of a literary theory]. text editing: principles and methods 151

– a composite text, which is not preserved as such in any exemplar and which combines the readings of the various exemplars or groups of exemplars without any systematic rule? – the text of an archetype, fairly close to the original, resulting from a genuine history of the text (the ideal but rare case)?

All these editions exist, implicitly more often than explicitly, because editors do not always specify, for example in an introduction, the nature of their work. Readers must be alert to this, however, as the edited text does not always aim to reflect the text as written by the author. The significance of the conclusions that can be drawn from a reading of an edited text in terms of linguistics, history of language, style, vocabulary or spelling vary according to whether the edition reproduces a specific exemplar, a branch of the tradition, or claims to go back to the original text written by the author. Similarly, a philologist will consider and treat variants differently according to the type of editing work he is undertaking.

1.4 Analysis of Variants The typology of “errors” or textual variations that can affect the transmission of a text is well known.34 In general, the history of a text is always a combination of two contradictory tendencies: conservatism and innovation. On the one hand, a copyist is driven by the desire to reproduce the model as accurately as possible, especially in the case of literary texts and even more so in the case of sacred texts such as those of the Bible or those written by great authors regarded as canonical or authoritative; on the other hand, his own intentions notwithstanding, the copyist cannot escape a certain tendency towards innovation, reflected in the notorious copying “errors”. Nowadays we all know that this notion of error covers a wide variety of situations: error caused by a lack of attention on the part of the copyist, intervention by the copyist (in the form of correction, contamination, classicisation,35 insertion of marginal glosses in texts, explanations, etc.) or even interpretation by the copyist, as when he attempts to complete a fragment of text that is incomplete in the model from which he is working; the environment (dialect, spelling, phonetics, language development, etc.) also affects the copyist’s interventions.

34 For example, Havet 1991; West 1973, 15–29; Kenney 1974, 21–46. 35 A good example of this classicisation phenomenon can be found in the Yerevan Matenadaran manuscript, cod. 1500, collection of Mxitʿar Ayrivanecʿi copied in 1282: Coulie 1994a, XXV–XXVI. 152 COULIE

There are several ways in which alterations related to the act of copying can be classified. The philologist Alphonse Dain followed earlier colleagues in defining four stages, or four “opérations fondamentales” [fundamental operations] in the act of copying:36

– reading the model, which can cause one letter or word to be misread for another, etc.; – text retention: in attempting to retain an excessively long portion of text, a copyist sometimes commits errors “où intervient l’influence psy- chique des concepts familiers” [caused by the mental influence of familiar concepts],37 or replaces a word with a term that is more common, more frequent, simpler, and closer to his everyday reality; – interior dictation: the scribe, dictating in his own mind the text that he is going to write, retranscribes it with his own phonetic peculiarities and his own accent; this is how, for instance, errors due to the phenomenon of iotacism in Greek arise, as well as leaps between identical letters; – handwork: the suppleness and habits of individual copyists vary, and some copyists have trouble writing certain words.

The first stage has been analysed in more depth to take account of the type of reading (silent or out loud), although Alphonse Dain believes that dictation does not fundamentally change the problem since “interior dictation” produces the same effect as dictation out loud.38 In the Armenian field, several studies have examined the typology of variants. This typology is the same as in Greek or Latin and includes the same categories (haplography, dittography, homeoarcton, homeoteleuton, incorrect word division, correction, graphical confusion, etc.), each of which needs to be applied to the graphical peculiarities of Armenian. The research carried out by Michael Stone is still fundamental in this area.39 His work is complemented by a recent study by Claude Cox, who established a typology of copyist errors corrected by the first hand, i.e. by the scribe himself: dropping one or more letters or a word as a result of parablepsis (skipping between identical letters) or for phonetic reasons (because of the preceding and/or following

36 Dain 1997, 41–46. The various aspects of the act of copying were analysed in Sirat, Irigoin & Poulle 1990. 37 Dain 1997, 44. 38 Dain 1997, 21. Regarding oral reading practices in mediaeval times, a bibliography is provided in Safran 2009, 249 n. 22. 39 In particular Stone 1993. text editing: principles and methods 153 letters), assimilation with a contextual element (changing the tense of a verb so that it matches that of a nearby verb, changing between singular and plural, etc.), confusion between letters with a similar shape ( y/cʿ, n/m, etc.), dittography, confusion between the active and the mediopassive voice, confusion between singular and plural, abbreviation of nouns ending in -utʿiwn, transposition (change in word order), confusion between the active voice and the subjunctive mood; the author draws a distinction between errors that appear in all languages and those that are peculiar to Armenian because of the shapes of Armenian letters.40 Particular studies have analysed the case of variants in the texts of translations,41 and others have looked at what information can be obtained from variants about the history of the language and the evolution of dialects; Jos Weitenberg’s research has made the greatest contribution to the latter field.42 A text evolves over time, and so the aim of the critical edition is to go back in time, i.e. to identify all the alterations that have been made to the text, to reveal the process of these alterations to the text and their orientation and significance, and by this method to reach the oldest possible version of the text. Philologists are interested in significant variants, i.e. variants that provide information about the history of the text. These are the only variants that should be noted in the critical apparatus of an edition. In most cases, philologists therefore attach little or no importance to aspects that are of interest to linguists (phonetic variants, differences in spelling, etc.), and do not note them in their apparatus. Conversely, the apparatus should not be transformed into a collection of all textual alterations without any classification or criticism; the reader must always be able to draw conclusions about the history of the text from the apparatus, and it is not the reader’s task to reconstruct the history of the text by trying to untangle the web of the critical apparatus. This is the editor’s job, as his role is to help the reader. The editor’s task is particularly complex when he attempts to take account of the type of work, its literary genre, the author, his historical period or environment. And there is a definite risk of the editor becoming embroiled in a not necessarily virtuous circle: how can a text be edited taking account of the linguistic usage of a period or place if it is through editing that this usage is known? How can an author’s usus scribendi be reflected if the text is being

40 Cox 2008. 41 For example Coulie 1994b. 42 For example Weitenberg 1993, Weitenberg 1994, and the chapter by the same author in this volume. 154 COULIE edited specifically from the point of view of style? Some works, such as hagiographical texts, lend themselves more readily than others to successive interventions by copyists; the great Byzantinist Karl Krumbacher had already commented, regarding these texts, that “quot codices, tot recensiones”.43

1.5 Ecdotics, Palaeography, Codicology Examination of variants is part of what is generally called internal criticism. However, while analysing variants the philologist must not neglect other aspects of the manuscript, the study of which has given rise to specific, and even unfortunately autonomous, disciplines, particularly palaeography and codicology.44 The use of these methods comes under what is known as external criticism. Although ecdotics and palaeography are two separate disciplines, the latter has a significant impact on the former, as many textual variations are the result of misreading, letter confusion, phenomena arising from scriptio continua, etc. Knowledge of writing and its evolutions is therefore a vital tool for the philologist. In the field of Armenian studies, the investigation of handwriting has long been neglected and has not developed in the same way as Greek palaeography. This may be due to the fact that many Armenian manuscripts are dated, by colophons in particular, which has made the task of identifying handwriting less necessary. The publication of the monumental album of Armenian palaeography has filled a gap and raised Armenian palaeography to the level of its Greek and Latin counterparts.45

43 Krumbacher 1907, cited in Van Den Ven 1954, 20. 44 The scope of these disciplines is not always clearly defined. For Dain 1997, 77, codicology is the history of manuscripts, the history of collections of manuscripts, research at the actual sites of manuscripts, problems of cataloguing and handlists of catalogues, trade in manuscripts and their use; palaeography, on the other hand, is the study of handwriting and the material and methods with which writing was produced, the production and illustration of books. Nowadays, the study of “manuscript books” is more in the field of codicology, with palaeography being limited to the study of writing in the strict sense, and it is in this way that it is understood in Armenian studies. See the article by D. Kouymjian in this volume for more information about Armenian codicology and palaeography. For links between palaeography and codicology, see inter alia Canart 2006, especially p. 165 and n. 21. 45 Stone, Kouymjian & Lehmann, 2002. The first part, written by D. Kouymjian, presents a very detailed history of palaeographic studies on Armenian and features a complete bibliography; in the second part, M.E. Stone analyses the evolution of written forms, letter by letter, working from dated manuscripts. text editing: principles and methods 155

Analysis of the actual manuscript, an aspect of codicology, is also important to the philologist, as the history of the manuscript provides vital information to the editor about the circulation and reception of the texts that it contains. No summary of Armenian codicology has yet been produced; Dickran Kouymjian has published several extremely valuable contributions on the subject, including his chapter in this volume. Situated at the interface between palaeography, codicology and ecdotics, the history of manuscript-copying centres (scriptoria) is also important, as very few manuscripts are still kept where they were copied. In the field of Armenian studies, the work of Hamazasp Oskean is still useful though somewhat dated.46 It is complemented by more recent publications, especially the catalogue of Armenian monasteries produced by Michel Thierry47 and studies on the copying centres at Sebastia and Cilicia.48 In this field, the history of art and in particular the history of Armenian illuminations can also provide philologists with a great deal of additional information.

2 Armenian Editions

Armenian philology developed as an extension of “classical” philology, i.e. philology devoted to Greek and Latin texts, which is itself closely connected to biblical philology. Two factors strengthened this influence: firstly, the importance of the Bible in Armenian culture, which meant that editions of the Bible were a high priority in Armenian philology for a long time (Zōhrapean’s 1805 edition of the Bible is one of the first Armenian editions);49 secondly, the importance of literature translated into Armenian, which meant that many specialists of Greek studies, for example, became interested in Armenian authors and applied classical philology methods to their work. Nevertheless, Armenian philological productions do have specific features that it would be useful to highlight by means of a few examples. It is of course impossible to mention all the Armenian editions that have been published

46 H. Oskean published a series of studies containing a great deal of information on copying centres and manuscripts from various regions of Armenia in the Azgayin Matenadaran collection, in particular volumes 90: Karin; 149: Vaspurakan I; 151: Vaspurakan II; 154: Sebastia; 155: Vaspurakan-Van III; 167: Upper Armenia; 174: Tarōn-Turuberan; 175: Arcax; 183: Cilicia; 188: Gugarkʿ; and 193: Sivas, Xarberd, Diarbekir, Trapezunt. 47 Thierry 1993. 48 Coulie 2004; Coulie 2008. 49 Zōhrapean 1984 (1805). 156 COULIE over more than two centuries in the following pages. We first need to draw a few observations from examining the corpus of what are referred to as classical or ancient Armenian authors (experience tends to show that this choice is representative of the Armenian philological method in general); looking at a number of editions of biblical texts and editions of Armenian versions of Greek texts will then allow us to describe the methods used by the editors.

2.1 Corpus of Ancient Armenian Authors The corpus of ancient Armenian authors (Eznik, Koriwn, Ełišē, Łazar Pʿarpecʿi, Movsēs Xorenacʿi, Agatʿangełos, Sebēos) is particularly interesting from this point of view. The historical work by Ełišē, Vasn Vardanay ew Hayocʿ Paterazmin (History of Vardan and the Armenian War), was edited by Ervand Tēr-Minasean in 1957.50 The edition gives priority to the manuscripts held at the Yerevan Matenadaran; the editor examined 19 manuscripts containing all or part of the work, and 31 manuscripts of čaṙǝntir (collections) that contain extracts from the work. However, the editor refers to some manuscripts held at other libraries but did not use them to produce his edition (for example, manuscripts 308 and 310 of the Library of the Armenian Patriarchate in Jerusalem, which were copied in 1616 and 1649 respectively). There are, however, other manuscripts in which Ełišē ‘s work is preserved but which the editor did not examine, such as manuscripts J1117 (17th c.), V200 (1660), V1530 (1671), V2496 (1820–1823).51 The edition does not offer any classification of the manuscripts used, or a stemma; no explanation is given of the criteria applied to select the variant readings. The edition of the History of the Armenians (Patmutʿiwn Hayocʿ) by Agatʿangełos is based on ancient exemplars, the oldest complete manuscript of which dates back to the late twelfth century, and on fragments, some of which are older than the complete manuscripts. The introduction presents the manuscripts and offers a history of the text and a partial stemma.52 The treatise written by Eznik of Kołb was edited, under the title De Deo, by Louis Mariès and Charles Mercier in 1959,53 from manuscript M1097, which is also the source of all modern printed editions. This exemplar, dated 1280,

50 Tēr-Minasean 1957. 51 The codes used for the manuscripts follow the list of codes suggested by the International Association of Armenian Studies (available on the Association’s website: http://aiea.fltr .ucl.ac.be/). An updated list features as an appendix to the chapter on manuscript catalogues in this volume. 52 The edition, published in Tiflis in 1909, is reproduced in Thomson 1980. 53 Mariès & Mercier 1959. text editing: principles and methods 157 preserves the Armenian text but with second- and third-hand corrections; it is different from the lost base manuscript of the editio princeps, which was published in Smyrna in 1762, but belongs to the same family. The text that has been preserved already contains gaps, indicating that even at this stage it had a long history that would be difficult to trace in detail.54 The edition of the famous History of the Armenians (Patmutʿiwn Hayocʿ) by the “father of Armenian historiography” Movsēs Xorenacʿi offers a detailed presentation of the exemplars that have been preserved, divided into four groups, and offers a true history of the text, summarised in various stemmata.55 It should be noted that no complete exemplar of this work dating back earlier than the sixteenth century has survived. The case of the Pseudo-Pʿawstos (Buzandaran Patmutʿiwnkʿ) is even more problematic, as it is still awaiting a critical edition worthy of the name. The reference text is the edition published by K. Patkanean in Saint-Petersburg in 1883.56 The oldest exemplar is dated 1599. The reference edition for the work of Łazar Pʿarpecʿi is still that of Tiflis in 1904.57 Fortunately, critical editions of two other authors have been published more recently. The reference text of the Life of Maštocʿ (Varkʿ Maštocʿi) by Koriwn is the edition published in 1941,58 and the History by Sebēos (Patmutʿiwn i Herakłn) in an edition published in 1979, containing a history of the text from the oldest manuscript until more recent recensions.59

2.2 Manuscript Dates One point must be made at the outset: the texts of these fifth- to seventh- century authors are known only from much more recent manuscripts; the oldest date back to the twelfth century, but for some works the oldest manuscripts preserving the complete text are from the late sixteenth century or the seventeenth century. The table below summarises the information.

54 Minassian 1973. 55 Abełean & Yarutʿiwnean 1991, which reproduces the edition published in Tiflis in 1913; see pp. XXXV, XXXVI and XXXIX for the stemmata. 56 Reproduced in Garsoïan 1983. 57 Reproduced in Kouymjian 1985. 58 Reproduced in Maksoudian 1985, pending the new critical edition prepared by J.-P. Mahé. 59 Abgaryan 1979, and outline of the history of the text on p. 35. 158 COULIE

Date of the oldest complete Date of the oldest surviving surviving manuscript fragment

Ełišē (5th–6th c.) 1174 Agatʿangełos (5th c.) Late 12th c. Eznik (5th c.) 1280 Movsēs Xorenacʿi (5th c.?) 16th c. Pʿawstos 1599 1224 Koriwn (5th c.) 1672 Łazar (5th c.) 1672 10th–11th c.? Sebēos (7th c.) 1672

This table illustrates quite a common situation in Armenian studies, where there is a long gap between the dates when the works were written and the dates of the oldest surviving manuscripts. This can be explained by the very nature of Armenian history, over the course of which several libraries and monasteries were destroyed; the destruction of manuscripts linked with the Armenian genocide of the early twentieth century must also be noted. Although it is impossible to determine for certain that Armenian manuscripts suffered a worse fate than Greek or Latin manuscripts, for example, it is nevertheless true to say that this state of affairs makes the work of philologists more complex. The number of lost exemplars, and what is after all the recent date of the oldest surviving exemplar, mean that it is often impossible to establish a stemma codicum in the classic sense, and that it is difficult to reconstruct the history of the text. In addition, and this is also true for other languages, there is no correlation between the importance of a text in terms of cultural, religious or philosophical history and the number of surviving manuscripts. Often, apart from the special case of biblical manuscripts, the texts that appear today to be the most important were copied the least. This is true for ancient Armenian authors, especially Armenian historiographers, very few exemplars of whose work still exist, in contrast to patristic writings, for example, where the manuscript tradition is vast. The same contrast is also seen in Latin and Greek. This shows the profound impact that Christianity had on the transmission of ancient texts and the different attitudes to ancient literary sources in the mediaeval period and in modern times: what is deemed valuable today is not necessarily what was regarded as valuable a few centuries ago. This situation has consequences for philology, as text editors often tend to fall back on approaches that avoid the problem by choosing to edit a single text editing: principles and methods 159 manuscript, often the oldest exemplar, sometimes what is regarded as the “best” exemplar, or to establish a critical text on the basis of a selection of manuscripts when they cannot reconstruct the entire history of the text.

2.3 Importance of the Matenadaran The disappearance of several exemplars, and the recent date of surviving manuscripts, have another consequence for philology, reflected in a tendency for editors to focus on manuscripts held in the Yerevan Matenadaran (or, previously, on the Etchmiadzin collection) and to restrict their analysis of exemplars to those held at Yerevan. This is not an accusation against editors: this tendency needs to be explained in the light of two factors, one political and the other philological. Firstly, the political situation in Armenia has often made it difficult for Armenian philologists to leave Armenia to visit other libraries; secondly, the catalographic condition of Armenian manuscript holdings has meant that until recently it has not been possible to obtain a clear idea of the wealth of material kept outside the Matenadaran. It was only in the last quarter of the twentieth century that major Armenian holdings outside Yerevan were catalogued in detail: the final volume of the catalogue of the Mekhitarist Library in Vienna was published in 1983, the final volume of the Library of the Armenian Patriarchate in Jerusalem appeared in 1991, and the final volume of the Mekhitarist Library in Venice came out in 1998, the same year in which the new catalogue of the Armenian holding in the National Library of France was published. This is paradoxical, as there is still no published detailed description of the full holding of the Yerevan Matenadaran. Along with this catalographical shortcoming, there is certainly a kind of statistical illusion: since the Yerevan Matenadaran holds almost a third of all Armenian manuscripts in the world, it might be hoped that it constitutes a representative and sufficient sample. Statistics never offer any guarantee, however.

2.4 “Cultural” Context The priority given to Matenadaran manuscripts, beyond questions of accessibility and catalographical condition, should perhaps be seen in the light of an attitude that has been firmly established in Armenian philology since its inception. Nina Garsoïan’s historiographical analysis is entirely relevant here: “Jusqu’à une époque récente, les études arméniennes ont été considérées par la plupart des historiens occidentaux comme d’un intérêt principalement local ou, tout au plus, marginal pour la compréhension du monde médiéval, même dans le cas plus spécialisé de l’Empire byzantin. Ce manque d’attention touche surtout le domaine de l’histoire, car les linguistes ont noté, depuis longtemps, l’importance de l’arménien classique comme une langue indo-européenne sui 160 COULIE generis et non comme faisant partie d’une des familles indo-européennes déjà connues. De même, les spécialistes de la patristique ont reconnu la nécessité de consulter les versions arméniennes de la Bible, ainsi que les oeuvres tels le De Jona de Philon d’Alexandrie, la Chronique d’Eusèbe de Césarée ou la Réfutation du concile de Chalcédoine du patriarche monophysite d’Alexandrie Timothée Aelure, dont les textes originaux grecs ont disparu. En dépit de cette longue indifférence des savants, l’étude de l’histoire arménienne s’impose aujourd’hui de plus en plus, tant comme une branche de l’histoire byzantine ou de l’Église paléochrétienne, que particulièrement pour toute reconstitution de la société iranienne, sassanide ou surtout parthe.”60 The author goes on to claim that “à la fin du XIXe siècle, l’historiographie arménienne nʾavait guère dépassé une interprétation étroitement traditionnelle, exclusivement chrétienne et euro- centrique de son passé”61 and that “la première partie du XXe siècle apporta un accroissement fondamental des instruments de travail à la disposition des savants. En 1901 parut à Tiflis la première édition, bien que défectueuse, de la correspondance officielle de l’Église arménienne connue sous le titre de Livre des Lettres. Plus utile encore fut la série d’éditions critiques des sources historiques entreprises également à Tiflis dans les années précédant la première guerre mondiale. Difficilement trouvables à cause des bouleversements poli- tiques de la Transcaucasie de l’après-guerre, ces éditions furent remplacées et suppléées par celles de savants travaillant principalement à Erevan depuis la seconde guerre mondiale.”62

60 [Until recently, Armenian studies were regarded by most Western historians as being mainly of local, or at best marginal, interest to the understanding of the mediaeval world, even in the more specialised case of the Byzantine Empire. This lack of attention mainly affects the field of history, since linguists have long been aware of the importance of classical Armenian as a unique Indo-European language that does not belong to one of the Indo-European families that are already known. Similarly, specialists in patristics have recognised the need to consult Armenian versions of the Bible, as well as works such as De Jona by Philo of Alexandria, the Chronicle of Eusebius of Caesarea and the Refutation of the Council of Chalcedon by Timothy Aelurus, the monophysite patriarch of Alexandria, the original Greek texts of which have disappeared. Despite this long neglect by scholars, the study of Armenian history is becoming ever more pressing, both as a branch of Byzantine or palaeochristian history and more particularly as a tool in the reconstruction of Iranian, Sassanid and especially Parthian society], Garsoïan 2001, 7. 61 [By the late nineteenth century Armenian historiography had scarcely developed beyond a very traditional, exclusively Christian and eurocentric interpretation of its past], Garsoïan 2001, 12. 62 [In the early part of the twentieth century, the resources available to scholars grew significantly. The first – albeit imperfect – edition of the official correspondence of the Armenian Church was published in Tiflis in 1901 under the title Book of Letters. Even more useful was the series of critical editions of historical sources that were also published in text editing: principles and methods 161

The aim of the first Armenian editions was not so much to be critical ones as to record; the primary objective was to provide documents on the history of Armenia, its traditions and identity. Critical philology was not yet a major concern. The progress of philology in the nineteenth century, the German school in particular, served as a model for the Vienna Mekhitarists, especially Yovsēp Gatʿǝrǰian (1820–1882), in their “reinvention” of classical Armenian, i.e. the “pure” phase of development of the language used by the first Armenian writers. Gatʿǝrǰian had three aims: to encourage the emerging sense of national identity through pride in heritage; to bring Armenian learning in line with nineteenth century trends; and finally to introduce a more secular approach to these questions by choosing a non-Christian cultural model, that of ancient Greece, and presenting this as the ideal. In the spirit of the times, the latter two aims went hand in hand, as scholarly objectivity and the secular approach were regarded as connected.63 Though we should emphasise the immense contribution that all these philologists have made to Armenian studies over the past two centuries, working tirelessly to conserve the treasures of Armenian culture and bring them first to a specialist audience and then to broader attention, the comments made by Nina Garsoïan also show the significant progress that has been made in this area in the past fifty years or so, even if the dangers of drift have still not been entirely overcome.

2.5 Editions of Armenian Translations The important role of literature in translation, from Greek, Syriac and later from Latin, within Armenian literary output has repercussions for the application of philological methods in Armenian since the editors of these translations were often trained in the classical Greco-Latin school of philology. Nevertheless, among these editions we still find all the aforementioned types, ranging from diplomatic editing or editing of the base manuscript to editing of the manuscript tradition. Biblical texts provide the first source in the form of Armenian versions of Greek texts. Claude Cox clearly set out the history of the first editions in a series of articles, which also include a bibliography on the study of the Bible

Tiflis in the years leading up to the First World War. Difficult to find because of the political upheavals in post-war Transcaucasia, these editions were replaced and supplanted by those of scholars working mainly in Yerevan after the Second World War], Garsoïan 2001, 13. 63 Adalian 1992, 59. 162 COULIE in Armenian.64 The author takes stock of editions of books of the Bible and the various methodological approaches that have been taken since the early 1980s, highlighting the work of Michael Stone, Peter Cowe and the author himself, suggesting guidelines,65 discussing the classification of manuscripts66 and analysing individual types of variants.67 Biblical sources open up one of the most important areas of Armenian philology, and one that has also led to the greatest advances in thinking in this field. Another name that needs to be mentioned is that of Andranik Zeytʿunyan, who has written several works used in the preliminary stages of editing and has himself edited several books of the Bible. The guidelines that he put forward in a summary article published in 1994 reflect an approach in which the comprehensive nature of the critical apparatus compensates for the fact that it is difficult or impossible to classify manuscripts.68 He suggests noting marginal glosses and corrections made by scribes in the critical apparatus, along with all variants of grammar, phonetics, and spelling, as well as variants in punctuation that reflect a different understanding of the text. A final recommendation made by Andranik Zeytʿunyan should be followed by those involved in the editing of books of the Bible in Armenian, and that is to adopt a standard method and identical rules of editing and presentation for all books, as was done, for example, in the Göttingen edition of the Septuagint. In editions containing Armenian versions of Greek texts, another criterion is used in addition to that of variant reading selection: this criterion is specific to this type of text and relates to correspondence with the Greek text. It is this correspondence that helps the editor choose the right variant reading,69 and sometimes even to propose a conjecture.70

64 Cox 1982; Cox 1984a: the introduction contains a bibliography up to 1984; Cox 1994: reproduction of the 1984 introduction with a bibliography updated up to 1993; Cox 2005. 65 Stone & Cox 1982. 66 Cox 1984b; Cowe 1984. 67 Cowe 1993; Stone 1993. 68 Zeytʿunyan 1994. 69 Uluhogian 1993, LV: “Nella restituzione del testo, oltre la valutazione della credibilità dei testimoni, basata sui criteri estrinseci sopra ricordati, ho ritenuto elemento fondamentale il confronto col testo greco: è proprio l’aderenza a questo che può decidere della bontà o meno di una variante armena.” [When reconstructing the text, along with the assessment of the value of the witnesses based on the aforementioned external criteria, I have selected as as fundamental element the comparison with the Greek text: it is precisely the correspondance with this text that can determine the correctness or not of an Armenian reading]. 70 Coulie 1994a, XXIV: “Le texte des manuscrits n’est corrigé que lorsqu’il est possible dʾidentifier le processus de la corruption à l’intérieur de la tradition arménienne et que le text editing: principles and methods 163

Since comparison with the Greek original – whether surviving or lost – is one of the aims of editing an Armenian translation, editors generally decide to note in the apparatus only significant variants rather than orthographical or phonetic readings, which may be presented in the introduction. Editions of the Armenian version of the Rules of Basil of Caesarea by Gabriella Uluhogian,71 of the works of Dionysius the Areopagite by Robert Thomson,72 and of the Discourses of Gregory of Nazianzus73 are examples that illustrate this position. The edition of the Progymnasmata of Aelius Theon is an interesting example: the Greek edition uses exemplars of the Armenian version, which even replaces the Greek text where it is missing.74 However, even in the case of work on Armenian versions of Greek texts, the idea of critical editing sometimes remains poorly defined, and the editor then adopts his own particular method, which he believes meets his aims or is appropriate given the nature of the text that he is examining, as in the case of the recent edition of Physiologus by Gohar Muradyan.75

2.6 Types of Armenian Editions Armenian editions published in the last few decades reflect the various methods described in this article, sometimes also adopting hybrid approaches. Alongside introductions in which editors set out their methods, the critical apparatus is the best indicator of editors’ choices or hesitations. It is always difficult to decide what should be included and to adopt a position that ranges between two extremes: either to note everything, as Andranik Zeytʿunyan did for the Bible editions referred to above, or to mention only the few significant variants that can be used to classify manuscripts. It must be remembered that the apparatus may take a positive form, noting the reading that has been retained followed by variant readings and the list of exemplars confirming them, or a negative form, noting only the variant readings and their exemplars.

texte grec permet de conjecturer la leçon arménienne initiale.” [The text of manuscripts is only corrected when it is possible to identify the corruption process within the Armenian tradition and when the Greek text allows a conjecture to be drawn as to the initial reading in Armenian]. 71 Uluhogian 1993. 72 Thomson 1987, XIV–XV. 73 Coulie 1994a, XXII–XXIV; Sirinian 1999, XXXI; Coulie & Sirinian 1999, X and 94–95; Sanspeur 2007, 72. 74 Patillon & Bolognesi 1997; see, for example, CXXVIII and CXLV for the Greek and Armenian stemmata. 75 Muradyan 2005, 46: “So, being diplomatic, our edition is not a pure example of such, but a sort of ‘revised diplomatic edition’.” 164 COULIE

Many combinations between these two extremes are possible. The editions demonstrate this astonishing diversity. Sometimes an editor is unable to decide and may even create two separate critical apparatuses, one containing the significant readings and the other describing the characteristics of each manuscript.76 Several editions use the base manuscript method, determining the text from a base exemplar and largely reproducing its text, while noting any variants of other exemplars in the apparatus.77 The base manuscript method is not always clearly distinguished from what is known as the diplomatic method, which involves reproducing the text of a manuscript and noting the variant readings of any other exemplars in the apparatus. The diplomatic method is often used for official legal or administrative documents, regarded as single exemplars, but is rarely the best choice in the case of literary texts with a multiple tradition. Specific features of a tradition may justify this method, as in the case of the edition of the Theological Discourses by Mxitʿar Sasnecʿi, where the editor wrote: “A (Ms J414) was selected to serve as the base text for this diplomatic edition . . .”.78 The choice of the Jerusalem manuscript as the base manuscript is, however, readily understandable in this case because of its geographical and chronological proximity to the author of the work (the manuscript was copied in Mecopʿ in 1334), and because, according to the colophon, the author, Mxitʿar, is thought to have corrected the manuscript himself, making it almost an autograph exemplar. The diplomatic method is also suitable for editing texts that have had a tradition with a very small number of exemplars. It has explicitly been used, for example, in commentaries on Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy attributed to Ephrem the Syrian.79 It is unusual for Armenian texts to have a stemma, i.e. an attempt to classify the manuscripts and display them in the form of a family tree; it is interesting to note that such editions are almost always devoted to Armenian translations of Greek works produced by editors trained in the classical school of philology. Armenian editions of works by Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus are good examples of this,80 as are the editions of Dialogues on the Holy Trinity

76 For example La Porta 2008, 2; the position adopted by the editor may be influenced by the use of Collate software. 77 For example Chétanian 2004, LXI. 78 Cowe 1993a, IX. 79 Mathews 1998, XII–XIII, and Mathews 2001, VIII. 80 Uluhogian 1993, XLV–LII, partial diagrams but with no complete stemma; Coulie 1994a, xxi–xxii. text editing: principles and methods 165

IV and V by Pseudo-Athanasius, prepared by Alessandro Capone. The latter is a particularly interesting case, as the author edited the Greek text as well as the Armenian and Latin versions.81 When editing Discourse VI by Gregory of Nazianzus, Clothaire Sanspeur used the multidimensional scaling method to represent the degrees of proximity of the manuscripts.82 Stemmatics is often used to edit books of the Bible in Armenian, mainly because this method allows the editor to classify not only manuscripts but also the types of text that have been preserved. Michael Stone and Claude Cox had already drawn attention to the need to catalogue and analyse all manuscripts containing a biblical text, i.e. editors should not restrict themselves to biblical manuscripts in the strict sense but should also include lectionaries, liturgical manuscripts, commentaries, and quotations found in patristic writings, for example.83 Manuscripts can then be classified according to the forms of texts that they preserve; in this case, stemmatics is specifically applied to these forms of texts, as Claude Cox suggests, for example, in the case of Deuteronomy and the Book of Job.84 For Deuteronomy, Claude Cox collates three passages in the 99 manuscripts available to him. This allows him to identify five groups of manuscripts, each of which corresponds to a particular type of text. He then classifies the variants in each group, enabling him to identify the best manuscript in the best group; this exemplar is then used as the base manuscript for his edition. This edition is described by the author as diplomatic because it relies on a base manuscript, but this manuscript was chosen after a comprehensive examination of the tradition, during which text forms were classified. This method, which combines the stemmatic approach and the diplomatic approach, was also used by Peter Cowe to edit the Books of Daniel and Ruth,85 and was further refined by Claude Cox.86 As the latter states, the use of a stemmatic approach to classify types of texts is what distinguishes the aforementioned editions from, for example, the edition of the Book of Genesis produced by Andranik Zeytʿunyan.87 For New Testament texts, groups of manuscripts are identified using the Claremont Profile Method developed for Greek manuscripts by Ernest Colwell and his colleagues at the University of Chicago and Claremont Graduate

81 Capone 2011. 82 Sanspeur 2007, 44–71, and see the preparatory studies in Macé & Sanspeur 2000. 83 Stone & Cox 1982, 52. 84 Deuteronomy: Cox 1981; Job: Cox 1993. 85 Daniel: Cowe 1992. 86 Cox 1993, and especially p. 39 for background on the studies relating to this method. 87 Cox 1988–1989. 166 COULIE

School of Theology. The originality of this method is that it does not require a collation copy. In traditional methods, each manuscript is collated with reference to a base text, chosen by the editor according to various criteria (the oldest, most legible or most complete manuscript, prior edition, etc.); so collations only note variations from a given text. The Claremont method introduces the concept of variation units: collation pinpoints all the places where variants appear, regardless of any relationship to a collation copy, and records all the forms in which the text appears at these places. The method also allows for faster data processing by the use of computers. This is the method used by Joseph Alexanian in his preparatory work before editing the Armenian version of the Acts of the Apostles.88 The use of IT tools and software to collate and edit critical apparatuses is increasingly popular among editors of texts in Armenian and other languages. Sergio La Porta used the Collate program produced by Peter Robinson to create the text and apparatus of the Scholia on Dionysius the Aeropagite’s Heavenly Hierarchy.89 The only Armenian edition that has so far been produced using this software alone for collation, establishing the text and apparatus, and for the stemmatic classification of exemplars is the Anonymous Philosophical Treatise attributed to Pseudo-Zeno, created by Michael Stone and Manea Erna Shirinian.90 Tara Andrews is preparing an edition of the Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa using a different program, which allows users to record variants and classify exemplars by cladistic and text-establishment methods. Currently, philology draws on the conclusions and methods of other disciplines, especially biology, the study of species and their evolution: cladistics and phylogenetics have thus become new lines of research for computer-assisted philology. Most research is being done on Latin and Greek texts, or mediaeval texts, and sometimes also on modern authors.91 Editors of Armenian texts can easily gain from the progress that has been achieved.

88 Among the author’s many publications, see in particular Alexanian 1993, which describes the origin of the method and its application in the Armenian Acts of the Apostles; for the edition: Alexanian 2012. 89 La Porta 2008. 90 Stone & Shirinian 2000. 91 Macé, Baret, Bozzi & Cignoni 2006 present the proceedings of a symposium held in Louvain-la-Neuve in 2004, which gave a thorough overview of the application of life sciences methods to the field of philology. text editing: principles and methods 167

Conclusions

The challenges facing Armenian philology include, but are not limited to, the rigorous application of philological methods. Experts working in this field also need tools that are not at present available to them, for example a complete description and publication of Armenian manuscript holdings; ideological positions must be swept away so that the field can remain a place where specialists in different languages can exchange views, as this is the best way for Armenian philology to progress. Editors must give accurate descriptions in their introductions of the manuscripts that they have examined, which will be a useful addition to Armenian manuscript catalography. Reproducing and translating colophons would also be useful, as they are so helpful in dating and classifying exemplars; in this way, editors will contribute to enlarging collections of colophon editions. Manuscripts should also be referenced by the scriptoria from which they came, in order to complete our understanding of the cultural history of Armenia. The usus scribendi of each copyist must be carefully identified and placed in its chronological and geographical context; this information will assist Armenian palaeographical, linguistic and dialect studies. As a result, Armenian philology will come to be regarded less as a discipline in its own right than as a methodology capable of contributing to the development of many areas of Armenian studies. We need to remember a paradox here: the lack of critical editions of Armenian texts has never prevented anyone from commenting on the history of the language or producing literary analyses of a particular author, or studies of Armenian thinking, theology or culture. Though doubt may sometimes be cast on the validity of the conclusions of these studies, it is also a lesson in humility for philologists to observe that they are not as indispensable as they sometimes tend to believe. Philology must be put in its correct place; it is not an end in itself, but has as its aim the creation of tools and the provision of materials that are as reliable as possible. Philology will then respond to a wish expressed by Alphonse Dain, who called for a reconciliation between the vertical approach, describing the history of the text from the author to the present day, and the horizontal approach, identifying the attitudes of individuals at each period in the text’s history and placing these attitudes in their context.92 This is because in each period the

92 Dain 1997, 99. It is appropriate here to recall the words of John Neville Birdsall, based on his long experience working on the Georgian versions of the New Testament: “We find 168 COULIE text is alive, and it is this life that the philologist must try to bring to light. “Éditer un texte, c’est essentiellement retrouver une tradition” [Editing a text is essentially re-finding a tradition].93

Bibliography

Abełean, M. & Yarutʿiwnean, S. 1991. Movsēs Xorenacʿi, Patmutʿiwn Hayocʿ [Moses Khorenatsi, History of the Armenians], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Abgaryan, G.V. 1979. Patmutʿiwn Sebēosi [Sebeos’ History], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Adalian, R. 1992. From Humanism to Rationalism. Armenian Scholarship in the Nineteenth Century (UPATS, 10), Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Ajamian, S. & Stone, M.E. 1994. Text and Context. Studies in the Armenian New Testament. Papers Presented to the Conference on the Armenian New Testament, May 22–28, 1992, ed. by S. Ajamian and M.E. Stone (UPATS, 13), Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Alexanian, J.M. 1993. “The Profile Method and the Identifying of Textual Groups within the Armenian MS Tradition”, in Lehmann & Weitenberg 1993, 44–58. Alexanian, J.M. 2012. The Ancient Armenian Text of the Acts of the Apostles (CSCO, 643. Scriptores Armeniaci, 31), Louvain: Peeters. Baret, Ph., Dubuisson, M., Lantin, A.-C. & Macé, C. 2003. “Experimental Phylogenetic Analysis of a Greek Manuscript Tradition”, Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 89, 117–124. Birdsall, J.N. 1983. “Georgian Studies and the New Testament”, New Testament Studies 29, 306–320. Blanck, H. 1992. Das Buch in der Antike, München: Verlag C.H. Beck. Bruns, G.L. 1980. “The Originality of Texts in a Manuscript Culture”, Comparative Literature 32, 113–129.

ourselves obliged, before we can ply our trade effectively, to become linguists, philologists, historians of thought and of material and social culture, and much besides: only then can we even start to elucidate the value of this or that version for the history of the text and for the restitution of its original form. For those of us who are possessed of this noble Madness, this is a wonderful and exhilarating adventure: but sometimes it is borne home to us that our journeys appear to our colleagues to be the journeys through a distant terra omnino incognita. They believe it occupied by seductive mermaids or by devouring dragons and they fear that it involves us in needless perils and in wasteful detours.” Birdsall 1983, 306–307. 93 Dain 1997, 184. text editing: principles and methods 169

Brutian, G. 2002. “Armenology: The Subject Matter and Methods of Study”, The Armenians in Jerusalem and the Holy Land, Ed. by M.E. Stone, R.R. Ervine & N. Stone (HUAS, 4), Louvain: Peeters, 19–31. Calzolari, V. 2007. “La transmission des textes apocryphes chrétiens ou de l’ ‘excès joy- eux’ de la ‘variance’: variantes, transformations et problèmes d’édition (l’exemple du Martyre de Paul en arménien)”, Poussières de christianisme et de judaïsme antiques. Études réunies en l’honneur de J.-D. Kaestli et É. Junod par A. Frey & R. Gounelle (Publications de l’Institut romand des sciences bibliques, 5), Lausanne: Éditions du Zèbre, 129–160. Canart, P. 2006. “La paléographie est-elle un art ou une science?”, Scriptorium 60, 159–185. Canfora, L. 1986. La biblioteca scomparsa, Palermo: Sellerio editrice. Canfora, L. 1988. La véritable histoire de la bibliothèque d’Alexandrie, traduit de l’italien par J.-P. Manganaro et D. Dubroca, Paris: Éditions Desjonquères. Canfora, L. 1992. La Bibliothèque d’Alexandrie et l’histoire des textes, Liège: CEDOPAL. Capone, A. 2011. Pseudo-Atanasio, Dialoghi IV e V sulla santa Trinità, testo greco con traduzione italiana, versione latina e armena (CSCO, 634. Subsidia, 125), Louvain: Peeters. Cerquiglini, B. 1989. Éloge de la variante. Histoire critique de la philologie, Paris: Seuil. Chétanian, R.V. 2004. La version arménienne ancienne des homélies sur les Actes des Apôtres de Jean Chrysostome. Homélies I, II, VII, VIII (CSCO, 607. Scriptores Armeniaci, 27), Louvain: Peeters. Coulie, B. 1994a. Sancti Gregorii Nazianzeni opera. Versio armeniaca, I. Orationes II, XII, IX (Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca, 28. Corpus Nazianzenum, 3), Turnhout: Brepols. Coulie, B. 1994b. “New Testament Quotations and Textual Criticism in the Armenian Version of Gregory Nazianzus”, in Ajamian & Stone 1994, 23–33. Coulie, B. 2004. “Armenian Manuscripts and Scriptoria of Sebastia”, Armenian Sebastia/ Sivas and Lesser Armenia, Ed. by R.G. Hovannisian (UCLA Armenian History and Culture Series. Historic Armenian Cities and Provinces, 5), Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 171–206. Coulie, B. 2008. “Manuscripts and Libraries: Scriptorial Activity in Cilicia”, Armenian Cilicia, Ed. by R.G. Hovannisian & S. Payaslian (UCLA Armenian History and Culture Series. Historic Armenian Cities and Provinces, 7), Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 261–274. Coulie, B. & Sirinian, A. 1999. Sancti Gregorii Nazianzeni opera. Versio armeniaca, III. Orationes XXI, VIII, VII (Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca, 38. Corpus Nazianzenum, 7), Turnhout: Brepols. Cowe, S.P. 1984. “A Typology of Armenian Biblical Manuscripts”, REArm 18, 49–67. Cowe, S.P. 1992. The Armenian Version of Daniel (UPATS, 9), Atlanta, GA, Scholars Press. 170 COULIE

Cowe, S.P. 1993a. Mxitʿar Sasnecʿi’s Theological Discourses (CSCO, 542. Scriptores Armeniaci, 21), Louvain, Peeters. Cowe, S.P. 1993b. “Problematics of Edition of Armenian Biblical Texts”, in Lehmann & Weitenberg 1993, 26-37. Cox, C. 1981. The Armenian Translation of Deuteronomy (UPATS, 2), Chico, CA: Scholars Press. Cox, C. 1982. “Biblical Studies and the Armenian Bible, 1995–1980”, Revue Biblique 89, 99–113. Cox, C. 1984a. See Zōhrapean 1984. Cox, C. 1984b. “Manuscript Groupings in the Text Tradition of the Armenian Bible”, JSAS 1, 69–77. Cox, C. 1988–1989. “A Review of Zeytʿunyan’s Edition of Genesis from the Standpoint of Septuagint Criticism”, REArm 21, 87–125. Cox, C. 1993. “Text Forms and Stemmatics in the Armenian Book of Job”, in Lehmann & Weitenberg 1993, 38–43. Cox, C. 1994. “The Zohrab Bible”, Studies in Classical Armenian Literature, ed. by J.A.C. Greppin, Delmar, NY: Caravan Books, 227–261. Cox, C. 2005. “Biblical Studies and the Armenian Bible, 1980–2002”, Revue Biblique 112, 355–368. Cox, C. 2008. “Scribal Errors Corrected by the First Hand”, Between Paris and Fresno. Armenian Studies in Honor of Dickran Kouymjian, Ed. by B. Der Mugrdechian (Armenian Studies Series, 13), Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 219–239. Dadoyan, S.B. 2008. “A Phenomenology of Armenian Studies: the Discipline and the ‘National’ Meta-Polis”, Le Muséon 121, 213–229. Dain, A. 1997. Les manuscrits (Collection Pergame), Paris: Diderot Multimédia. Froger, J. 1968. La critique des textes et son automatisation (Initiation aux nouveautés de la science, 7), Paris: Dunod. Garsoïan, N.G. 1983. Ps. Pʿawstos, Buzandaran Patmutʿiwnkʿ (The Epic Histories), also known as Patmutʿiwn Hayocʿ (History of Armenia) Attributed to Pʿawstos Buzandacʿi. A Facsimile Reproduction of the 1883 St. Petersburg Edition, with an Introduction (Classical Armenian Text Reprint Series), Delmar, NY: Caravan Books. Garsoïan, N.G. 2001. “Évolution et crise dans l’historiographie récente de l’Arménie médiévale”, Revue du monde arménien moderne et contemporain 6, 7–27. Glucker, J. 1996. “Lachmann’s Method – Bernays, Madvig, Lachmann and Others”, in Jacob Bernays. Un philologue juif, édité par J. Glucker & A. Laks, Villeneuve – d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion, 45–56. Havet, L. 1911. Manuel de critique verbale appliquée aux textes latins, Paris: Hachette. Irigoin, J. 1965. “Alphonse Dain, 1896–1964”, Annuaire de l’École Pratique des Hautes Études, IVe Section: sciences historiques et philologiques, 49–59. text editing: principles and methods 171

Irigoin, J. 2001. Le livre grec des origines à la Renaissance, Paris: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Kenney, E.J. 1974. The Classical Text. Aspects of Editing in the Age of the Printed Book, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London: University of California Press. Kouymjian, D. 1985. Łazar Pʿarpetsʿi, History of the Armenians and the Letter to Vahan Mamikonian. A Photographic Reproduction of the 1904 Tiflis Edition with a New Introduction and Critical Bibliography (Classical Armenian Text Reprint Series), Delmar, NY: Caravan Books. Krumbacher, K. 1907. “Miszellen zu Romanos”, Abhandlungen der K. Bayer. Akademie der Wissenschaften, I. Kl., Band 34, Abteilung 3, 65–78. La Porta, S. 2008. Two Anonymous Sets of Scholia on Dionysius the Areopagite’s Heavenly Hierarchy (CSCO, 623. Scriptores Armeniaci, 29), Louvain: Peeters. Lehmann, H. & Weitenberg, J.J.S. 1993. Armenian Texts: Tasks and Tools (Acta Jutlandica, 69, 1. Humanities Series, 68), Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Maas, P. 1927. Textkritik (Einleitung in die Altertumswissenschaft, 1), Leipzig – Berlin: Teubner (2. verbesserte Auflage, Leipzig: Teubner, 1950; 4. Auflage, Leipzig: Teubner, 1960). Maas, P. 1958. Textual Criticism, translated from the German by B. Flower, Oxford: Clarendon. Macé, C., Baret, Ph., Bozzi, A. & Cignoni, L. 2006. The Evolution of Texts: Confronting Stemmatological and Genetical Methods. Proceedings of the International Workshop held in Louvain-la-Neuve on September 1–2, 2004 (Linguistica Computazionale, 24–25), Pisa & Roma: Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionali. Macé, C., Baret, Ph. & Lantin, A.-C. 2004. “Philologie et phylogénétique: regards croisés en vue d’une édition critique d’une homélie de Grégoire de Nazianze”, Linguistica computazionale, XX–XXI. Digital Technology and Philological Disciplines, ed. A. Bozzi, L. Cignoni & J.-L. Lebrave, Pisa & Roma: Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionali, 305–341. Macé, C. & Sanspeur, C. 2000. “Nouvelles perspectives pour l’histoire du texte des Discours de Grégoire de Nazianze: le cas du Discours 6 en grec et en arménien”, Le Muséon 113, 377–416. Macé, C. & Schmidt, Th. 2001. “Le classement des manuscrits par la statistique et la phylogénétique: les cas de Grégoire de Nazianze et de Basile le Minime”, Revue d’histoire des textes 31, 241–273. Maksoudian, K.H. 1985. Koriwn, Varkʿ Mashtotsʿi [Koriwn, Life of Mashtotsʿ]. A Photoreproduction of the 1941 Yerevan Edition with a Modern Translation and Concordance and with an Introduction (Classical Armenian Texts Reprint Series), Delmar, NY: Caravan Books. Marichal, R. 1961. “La critique des textes”, L’histoire et ses méthodes, sous la direction de Ch. Samaran (Encyclopédie de la Pléiade), Paris: Gallimard, 1247–1366. 172 COULIE

Mariès, L. & Mercier, Ch. 1959. Eznik de Kołb, De Deo, édition critique du texte arménien (Patrologia Orientalis, 28, 3), Paris: Firmin-Didot. Mathews, E.G., Jr. 1998. The Armenian Commentary on Genesis Attributed to Ephrem the Syrian (CSCO, 572. Scriptores Armeniaci, 23), Louvain: Peeters. Mathews, E.G., Jr. 2001. The Armenian Commentaries on Exodus-Deuteronomy Attributed to Ephrem the Syrian (CSCO, 587. Scriptores Armeniaci, 25), Louvain: Peeters. Minassian, M. 1973. “À propos d’un passage d’Eznik”, Le Muséon 86, 341–363. Muradyan, G. 2005. Physiologus. The Greek and Armenian Versions with a Study of Translation Technique (HUAS, 6), Leuven: Peeters. Pasquali, G. 1934. Storia della tradizione e critica del testo, Florence: Le Monnier (se- conda edizione con nuova prefazione e aggiunta di tre appendici, Florence: Le Monnier, 1962). Patillon, M. & Bolognesi, G. 1997. Aelius Théon, Progymnasmata. Texte établi et traduit (Collection des Universités de France), Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Pfeiffer, R. 1968. History of Classical Scholarship from the beginnings to the end of the Hellenistic age, Oxford: Clarendon Press (second edition: 1971). Pfeiffer, R. 1976. History of Classical Scholarship from 1300 to 1850, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pfeiffer, R. 1978. Geschichte der klassischen Philologie. Von den Anfängen bis zum Ende des Hellenismus, 2. Auflage, München: Verlag C.H. Beck. Quentin, H. 1926. Essais de critique textuelle (Ecdotique), Paris: Picard. Reynolds, L.D. & Wilson, N.G. 1986. D’Homère à Erasme. La transmission des classiques grecs et latins, nouvelle édition revue et augmentée, traduite par C. Bertrand et mise à jour par P. Petitmengin, Paris: Éditions du CNRS. Safran, L. 2009. “Cultures textuelles publiques: une étude de cas dans le sud de l’Italie”, Cahiers de civilisation médiévale 52, 245–264. Salemans, B.J.P. 1996. “Cladistics or the Resurrection of the Method of Lachmann. On Building the Stemma of Yvain”, in van Reenen & van Mulken 1996, 3–70. Sanspeur, C. 2007. Sancti Gregorii Nazianzeni opera. Versio armeniaca, IV. Oratio VI (Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca, 61. Corpus Nazianzenum, 21), Turnhout: Brepols. Sirat, C., Irigoin, J. & Poulle, E. 1990. L’écriture: le cerveau, l’œil et la main (Bibliologia, 10), Turnhout: Brepols. Sirinian, A. 1999. Sancti Gregorii Nazianzeni opera. Versio armeniaca, II. Orationes IV et V (Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca, 37. Corpus Nazianzenum, 6), Turnhout: Brepols. Stone, M.E. 1993. “Variants in Armenian Manuscripts and their Assessment”, in Lehmann & Weitenberg 1993, 15–25. text editing: principles and methods 173

Stone, M.E. & Cox, C. 1982. “Guidelines for Editions of Armenian Biblical Texts”, Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 15, 51–59 (= REArm 17, 1983, 627–633). Stone, M.E., Kouymjian, D. & Lehmann, H. 2002. Album of Armenian Paleography, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Stone, M.E. & Shirinian, M.E. 2000. Pseudo-Zeno, Anonymous Philosophical Treatise (Philosophia Antiqua, 83), Leiden: Brill. Tanselle, G.T. 1990. Textual Criticism and Scholarly Editing, Charlottesville, Va: University Press of Virginia. Tēr-Minasean, E. 1957. Ełišēi Vasn Vardanay ew Hayocʿ paterazmin [Ełishe, History of Vardan and the Armenian War], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Thierry, M. 1993. Répertoire des monastères arméniens (Corpus Christianorum), Turnhout: Brepols. Thomson, R.W. 1980. Agathangelos, Patmowtʿiwn Hayotsʿ (History of the Armenians). A Facsimile Reproduction of the 1909 Tiflis Edition with an Introduction (Classical Armenian Texts Reprint Series), Delmar, NY: Caravan Books. Thomson, R.W. 1987. The Armenian Version of the Works Attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite (CSCO, 488. Scriptores Armeniaci, 17), Louvain: Peeters. Timpanaro, S. 1963. La genesi del metodo del Lachmann, Firenze: Le Monnier. Timpanaro, S. 1971. Die Entstehung der Lachmannschen Methode, 2. erweiterte und überarbeitete Auflage, Hamburg: Helmut Buske. Timpanaro, S. 2005. The Genesis of Lachmann’s Method, Edited & Translated by G.W. Most, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Uluhogian, G. 1993. Basilio di Cesarea, Il Libro delle Domande (Le Regole), (CSCO, 536. Scriptores Armeniaci, 19), Louvain: Peeters. Van Den Ven, P. 1954. “Erreurs de méthode dans la correction conjecturale des textes byzantins”, Byzantion 24, 19–45. van Reenen, P. & van Mulken, M. (eds) 1996. Studies in Stemmatology, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. van Reenen, P., den Hollander, A. & van Mulken, M. (eds) 2004. Studies in Stemmatology II, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Weitenberg, J.J.S. 1993. “On the Interpretation of Postclassical Armenian Linguistic Data”, in Lehmann & Weitenberg 1993, 65–74. Weitenberg, J.J.S. 1994. “Text Chronological Aspects of the Use of the Article -s and -d in Gospel Manuscripts M and E”, dans Ajamian & Stone 1994, 97–113. West, M.L. 1973. Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique applicable to Greek and Latin Texts, Stuttgart: Teubner. 174 COULIE

Zeytʿunyan, A. 1994. “Some Principles for the Edition of a Critical Text of the Bible”, in Ajamian & Stone 1994, 115–122. Zōhrapean, Y. 1984. Astuacašunčʿ matean hin ew nor ktakaranacʿ [Bible. Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments]. A Facsimile Reproduction of the 1805 Venetian Edition with an Introduction by C. Cox (Classical Armenian Text Reprint Series), Delmar, NY : Caravan Books.

There is a website dedicated to problems of text editing: http://www.textu alscholarship.org/, which contains a wealth of information and useful links, but has not been updated since 2007. Nowadays, the website of the European Society for Textual Scholarship (http://www.textualscholarship.eu/) is a better resource. The Society for Textual Scholarship (http://www.textual.org/) was founded in 2005. See also the websithe of the Comparative Oriental Manuscripts Studies program (http://www1.uni-hamburg.de/COMST/). In the absence of systematic bibliographical tools in the field of Armenian studies, “Armenian” philologists will benefit from consulting the sections on text criticism and editing methods in the Année Philologique and Byzantinische Zeitschrift, which are published annually and frequently review publications in the Armenian field. Digital Techniques for Critical Edition

Tara Andrews

Anyone who has ever prepared a critical edition of any text from more than one or two manuscripts, whether in Armenian or any other language, will be familiar with the vast amount of laborious, repetitive, and careful work it requires. The texts must be transcribed, taking care not to introduce the sorts of copying errors that make critical editions necessary to begin with. A “base” text must be chosen, and subsequent texts compared with it; the granularity of the comparison, and the consequent quality of the eventual edition, is the direct result of a scrupulous attention to detail at this stage that taxes the abilities of almost all editors. Next, the transcribed and collated texts must be analyzed for their relationships to each other and subjected to critical analysis. Here the editor must again display prodigious attention to detail and find a way to ensure consistency in his or her editing decisions throughout a process that may stretch over months or years. Somewhere along the way, the discovery of a new manuscript or the sudden realization that one text is rather more or less important than previously assumed will inevitably compel the editor to review, revise, or completely re-do some portion of this painstaking work. When this happens, the editor must accept his or her fate, taking care to ensure that no new errors creep in through frustration or impatience. Little wonder that so many scholars, having sent away the final proofs of a critical edition for publication, promise themselves “Never again!” It need not be like this. If there is any advantage to living in the age of computers, it is that there should be ever less need for repetitive and codifiable tasks to be undertaken by human scholars. In this chapter we will examine computational methods that are helpful to the philologist, indicating what is possible today as well as promising directions for the future. Greetham (1992) describes two “apparently mutually exclusive” schools of text-criticism methodology: that which attempts to reproduce the presumed intention of the original author, and takes a belletristic approach to the task, and that which regards editing as a task partially dependent on verifiable scientific principles. The debate has usually been framed as a competition between editorial taste and scientific method as the preferred way to arrive at a “best” text from the available evidence. Digital philology, with the prominence of computer programs and mathematical methods, would seem to belong to the latter camp, and has indeed been treated with suspicion by scholars who reject the notion of a machine-produced edition (Robinson 2004). In fact, there is

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��4 | doi ��.��63/978904270961_��8 176 ANDREWS no such thing as a machine-produced critical edition, and this is not the goal of digital philology. Any method of text edition, no matter the school, has an element of the meticulous and repetitive about it. The aim of digital methods is to assume the burden of these repetitive and predictable tasks, leaving the human editor free to apply his or her interpretation and judgment to the substantial, and more interesting, questions that remain. By far the primary advantage of the digital age is that rigorous, codifiable, and repetitive work may be delegated to the computer, which after all does not become bored or careless in its work. There is a great deal of such repetitive work in the process of text critical edition. To take full advantage of the computer’s capacity for handling the codifiable tasks, the steps of creating a digital edition must be separated into those that are necessarily manual and those that can be automated. An emerging “digital” method of text criticism is best broken into several distinct steps, as suggested by Robinson (2004): • Transcription • Collation • Analysis (e.g. stemmatic analysis) • Edition • Publication All of these must be done for any text edition; traditional methods, however, usually combine transcription and collation, and stemmatic analysis has often been attempted before transcription even begins. In our sequence of steps in digital philology above, transcription refers to the process of replicating the content of a manuscript text into a computer file for later manipulation and display. This is possibly the most important step in the process, as an accurate set of transcriptions is the basis for a good critical edition. Collation is the process of reconciling these transcribed texts, finding the correspondences and variations between them. Analysis refers to the use of computer programs to help the editor draw conclusions about the transcribed and collated text. Several forms of analysis may be appropriate at this stage, such as linguistic analysis or stylistic analysis for author attribution; here we will focus particularly on stemmatic analysis. This is the creation of a hypothetical “family tree” to describe the relationships between the extant manuscript texts. Edition is the step during which the collated texts are reviewed for their correspondences and differences, and the editor applies his or her scholarly judgment to the question of what, from the various alternatives (including, on occasion, emendation), the best text is. Publication is the final product – a printed book digital techniques for critical edition 177 or an online presentation of the edited text, the apparatus criticus that displays the attested variants, and any commentary or notes that the editor chooses to include. There are a number of editions of Armenian texts that have been produced with computational assistance, the first of which was published in the early 1970s (Stone & Busharia 1971). Computers have long been useful for the production of concordances and the collation of variant texts. In recent years, versions of the “digital” workflow outlined above have been used, for example in the recent editions of Pseudo-Zeno (Stone & Shirinian 2000) and of Pseudo- Dionysius (La Porta 2008). The aim of this chapter is to describe this emerging workflow in more detail, and to discuss the possibilities for further and more sophisticated automation within each step, with occasional reference to an edition in progress of the Chronicle of Mattʿēos Uṙhayecʿi (Andrews 2012) that follows a “digital” workflow as fully as emerging technology allows.

1 Transcription

The transcription of manuscript texts is an indispensable first step for any critical edition. Traditionally, only the text selected as a base was to be transcribed entire, and each word of each subsequent text would be compared to the base (West 1973). The most striking change seen in digital methodology, and one that can initially seem intimidating to many editors, is that each text is recorded in its entirety rather than being compared with a base. This is an essential pre-requisite for the subsequent steps of digital collation, analysis, and publication. It is always tempting for a transcriber to lessen the work involved by omitting to record variation that seems unlikely to be significant, but this temptation must be resisted. One of the best means of resisting short- cuts is to avoid any direct text comparison at this stage. Whether transcribing for the purpose of digital text criticism, or whether into a computer file for more traditional methods of text criticism, the editor must find a way to represent digitally each of the relevant features of the text – abbreviations, short- hand symbols, line and page divisions, annotations, and the like. When digital methods for edition first began to emerge, the problem of transcription and representation of Armenian was fraught with difficulty. The widespread acceptance of the Unicode standard for text encoding has mitigated most of this difficulty; the letters of the alphabet, most punctuation marks, and certain ligatures (և, ﬓ, ﬔ, ﬕ, ﬖ, ﬗ) are represented. More difficult to transcribe are abbreviation symbols such as those for erkir/erkin, 178 ANDREWS aregakn, and so on. The best solution at present is for the transcriber to choose a representation, document the choice, and be consistent about its use. Although the full transcription of every text seems initially to involve a great deal more time and effort than the traditional “running-comparison” method of simultaneous transcription and collation, this is often not the case. A surprising amount of mental effort is required for the comparison and side-by- side reconciliation of two texts, as compared to straight reproduction of a single text. The transcription file itself, containing a single text rather than a set of running parallel texts, is much simpler to check against the manuscript exemplar and correct if necessary. Most fruitfully, the individual transcriptions allow the editor to publish each text, perhaps together with full digital images of the original manuscript, in its own right.1 There is a widespread hope among text scholars that the tedious process of manuscript transcription might be replaced in future with sophisticated optical character recognition (OCR) technology. Although OCR software has seen massive improvements over the last several years in its accuracy and ability to work with a variety of printed texts in a wide range of languages,2 automated recognition of manuscript texts has only just begun to be attempted (e.g. Wüthrich et al. 2009) and has yet to approach sufficient accuracy to be useful to most editors. The fundamental obstacle to manuscript OCR is the lack of mechanical regularity in scribal practice. Even in very formal scripts produced by a single scribe, the shapes of letters can show significant variation. Deletions, insertions, annotations, and other alterations of a text can occur in a wide variety of ways, and the reading of any manuscript text is an act of interpretation on the part of the reader (Robinson 2013). Until OCR algorithms become sophisticated enough to engage in the semantic interpretation necessary to produce an accurate transcription, their use will be confined to printed texts. Even this limited application can be of use to an editor, however: if there exists a printed version of the text to be edited in a suitably modern font, OCR is a quick and relatively painless way to produce an initial “basis” text that can be used as a starting point for transcription of each of the manuscript texts.

1 The only publication of an Armenian critical edition including full manuscript transcriptions of which I am aware is the edition in progress of the Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa (Andrews 2012). More possibilities of digital publication may be seen at http://www.hrion line.ac.uk/onlinefroissart/index.jsp [last accessed 20 March 2014] or http://www.vangoghletters .org/ [last accessed 20 March 2014]. Samples of other publications, particularly of collated medieval texts, may be found at http://www.sd-editions.com/ [last accessed 20 March 2014]. For more information on publication of digital editions see below. 2 At the time of writing, this includes both classical and modern Armenian. digital techniques for critical edition 179

Since the basis text will be copied and modified in each case to match the contents of the manuscript, and will not be preserved for use in the eventual edition, there is not as much need for manual correction of the OCR output as there would otherwise have been. The original basis text can then be discarded when a sufficient corpus of manuscript transcriptions has been produced. There remains the problem of how best to represent the details of manuscript texts – abbreviations, corrections, and the like – in digital form. The question of “markup language” for the purpose of text scholarship remains a hotly debated one (Schmidt 2010). A number of markup schemes were created by editors of texts and authors of collation software; these were generally custom schemes that never gained widespread use. The most widely-adopted standard to date for digital representation of scholarly texts is the eXtensible Markup Language (XML) schema produced by the Text Encoding Initiative consortium, generally known as TEI.3 There are several advantages to using TEI. The transcriber has a rich vocabulary for the description of features of the text; this pre-existing vocabulary leads to a more regular and detailed transcription than might otherwise be produced. The TEI guidelines include a facility for the representation of symbols that do not exist in Unicode, which can be important for editors of Armenian texts. Most importantly, the status of TEI as a widely- used standard should allow the editor of encoded texts to take advantage of existing software for text edition and display. There is nevertheless discontent among some editors over the dominance of TEI. The guideline specification is huge, meant to encompass all forms of text and speech transcription. There is little consistency to date in how the guidelines are applied in practice from project to project; the practical consequence is that very little existing software can be used without extensive configuration or even modification. More problematically, XML is by its nature a hierarchical markup language, and manuscript features cannot always be represented in a clean “tree” hierarchy. At present, however, there are few real alternatives. Proposed solutions have included LMNL, or Layered Markup Annotation Language (Tennison & Piez 2002) and MVD, or Multi-Version Documents (Schmidt & Colomb 2009); it is possible that one or both of these, or another solution to the problem, will gain some traction in the coming years. A practical disadvantage of nearly any comprehensive markup solution is that its very richness makes it a complex data format, and one that is prohibi- tively difficult to create and edit by hand. A scribal correction in a typical manuscript, as for example a correction of the word hayocʿ to an abbreviated form of the word hoṙomocʿ shown here, must be transcribed in a rather onerous

3 Cf. http://www.tei-c.org / [accessed 20 March 2014]. 180 ANDREWS

հ այ ոռոմ ոց

Figure 1: TEI transcription of scribal correction fashion. The example of TEI given in Figure 1 is a relatively simple rendition of the necessary syntax (even this could be elaborated substantially, depending on the level of detail required by the transcriber or the extra tagging that might be required by certain applications.) Whatever the markup standard adopted, there is a pressing need for a transcription tool with a graphical user interface and support for the simultaneous display of the manuscript image being transcribed, that allows the transcriber to mark the features of the text and produces standards-compliant output files, without requiring the transcriber to become an expert in XML syntax. Over the last few years a number of online tools have emerged that have greater or lesser support for TEI markup. Perhaps the first tool to provide a graphical interface to transcription was the Huygens Institute’s eLaborate;4 at the time of writing, that tool has only limited support for marking features of a manuscript text, and it does not produce output that conforms to a standard beyond HTML. More recently another tool known as T-PEN (Transcription for Palaeographical and Editorial Notation) has been released by the Center for Digital Theology at St. Louis University, funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.5 Like eLab- orate, the T-PEN tool is free to all scholars. It performs automatic line recognition on the manuscript image to be transcribed, so that the transcription text itself can be associated line-by-line with the relevant region of the scanned page. It is possible to apply TEI markup tags to the transcription, although at the time of writing TEI transcriptions cannot be directly exported. Although both these tools are relatively new and by no means yet mature, the fact of

4 Cf. https://www.elaborate.huygens.knaw.nl/ [last accessed 20 March 2014]. 5 Cf. http://www.t-pen.org/ [last accessed 20 March 2014]. digital techniques for critical edition 181 their availability is already a major improvement on the situation before 2012, when scholars who wish to create TEI transcription files had no choice but to work with a standard XML editor (e.g. oXygen, XMLspy, or XML Studio) which eases the task of direct XML input but still requires some level of XML markup expertise. However, those who wish to explore other options such as LMNL or MVD have even fewer tools at their disposal. Over time, the transcription burden on the editor ideally will lighten as universities, libraries, and other institutional repositories enhance their own digital collections to include images and even transcriptions of their manuscript holdings. It is also possible to envision a large-scale project for the “crowdsourcing” of text transcriptions, drawing upon a pool of volunteers each to contribute a small amount of work, although the available pool of those with the skills necessary to transcribe medieval Armenian texts is unavoidably smaller than that for languages such as English, French, or even Latin. At present, the most important thing that the text scholar must bear in mind is that it has never been easier to share the transcriptions he or she has made, and so the choices made today about transcription methods will have much more far- reaching effects through digital publication than they were ever likely to have when noted only in the apparatus criticus of a printed edition.

2 Collation

With full transcriptions of the manuscript texts in hand, the vast majority of the editor’s drudge work should be over and the computer can begin to come into its own. The core task in which digital editing proves its value is that of collation of digitally transcribed texts, whether created by the scholar’s own effort or accessed from a digital repository or library. The collation of a text requires recognition of both simple matches (exact and near-exact coincidences of words) and matches that depend on linguistic context (the decision, given multiple plausible options, of which particular words should be aligned with each other in a pair of texts). Although a human collator is naturally more skilled at the latter sort of match, a computer is much faster at the former. The ideal solution is therefore to allow the computer to perform the initial task of collation, including any fine-tuning that can reasonably be expressed in computer code, and to have a human review any problematic subset of alignments. As long as the computer can be made to achieve a high degree of collation accuracy, and the task of human review and correction can be kept to a minimum, collation becomes the work of minutes rather than days or months. One of the peculiar difficulties with computer collation, however, is that despite its longevity as a pursuit there is at present no collation program that meets all the 182 ANDREWS criteria an editor might wish for: ease of use, simultaneous collation of multiple texts without reference to a base, and ongoing software support. Here we will review briefly the history and current state of the art in collation software. The idea of automatic collation of manuscript texts is not new. One of the first successful computer programs for the scholarly processing of texts, TUSTEP (TUebingen System of TExt-processing Programs),6 developed beginning in the late 1960s and still under active development today, includes a limited facility for the automatic comparison of text. Given a collection of witnesses, TUSTEP can compare each of the versions to a selected “base” text, noting all of the deletions, additions, and replacements of words between the “base” and the text under comparison. It can then collate these results, producing a table of texts aligned with the selected base. Although the TUSTEP method of collation has been used successfully by many editors of scholarly texts, it has three primary weaknesses. First, the comparison relies on exact word matches – TUSTEP will detect no relation, for example, between the words bnakutʿiwn and bnakutʿiwnn. Second, TUSTEP does not detect transpo- sitions of text; given the phrases aṙ vardapetn hayocʿ and aṙ hayocʿ vardapetn, the program will report simply that hayocʿ is a replacement for vardapetn and vice versa, without indicating that the two instances of the words are identical. Third, TUSTEP will not detect similarities between the other versions of the text where there is a gap in the “base” text. The first computer collation program that handled all three of these cases was COLLATE, a Macintosh program written in the late 1980s and maintained throughout the 1990s (Robinson 1989). This was the standard in the field of text criticism for many years afterward, and has been used in a number of editions of Armenian texts.7 COLLATE was initially written to assist in the production of a critical edition of an Icelandic text with a large and complex manuscript tradition, in which no single “base” text was satisfactory. As a result, the program was designed to perform “baseless” collation of every text with every other text. Medieval Icelandic orthography is not particularly standardized, and so COLLATE also included a feature that allows the scholar to specify variant spellings of individual words as they appeared. These variant spellings were then used to align the texts more accurately. Unfortunately, the program must now be considered obsolete. New development ceased in the late 1990s,

6 Cf. http://www.tustep.uni-tuebingen.de/ [last accessed 20 March 2014]. 7 See in particular the introduction to the edition of the text of Pseudo-Zeno (Stone & Shirinian 2000) and Stone’s discussion of work (Stone 1994) on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Stone 2012). Another Armenian edition produced with the help of COLLATE is that of Pseudo-Dionysius (La Porta 2007). digital techniques for critical edition 183 before Unicode was widely used on personal computers and before any standard for text markup and representation had emerged. Support for its computer operating environment was withdrawn in stages between 2005 and 2007. Although it was still used as late as 2013 in some departments on increasingly elderly computers kept for the purpose, COLLATE is no longer a feasible solution for text collation. A newer collation program, Juxta,8 emerged in the mid-2000s. Like TUSTEP, Juxta does not handle “baseless” collation; unlike TUSTEP, it can handle non- exact word matches and transposition of texts. The core features of Juxta are its ease of use and its ability to provide analytic visualizations of the differences between two texts. It has a growing community of users among scholars of modern literature, and is therefore likely to remain under active development and support for some time yet. Its style of comparison and its visualizations are very well suited to the examination of successive drafts of a work by a single author. Juxta has a limited facility to export its collation results for use in subsequent analytical tools, but that is not the primary purpose of the software. Since the demise of COLLATE, the editor of medieval texts has lacked a good solution. Some scholars who had the necessary computer programming expertise were able to create a custom collation tool (e.g. Andrews 2009, Finney 1999). The shortcomings of such an ad-hoc approach are all too clear, however – the user interface is idiosyncratic, extensive documentation is unlikely to exist, the scholar cannot afford the time needed to support his or her own software for use by others, and as a result no one else can take advantage of such a “home-grown” program without software expertise of their own. Only since 2011 has a collation tool suitable for medieval texts begun to emerge: this is CollateX,9 originally conceived as a successor to COLLATE. CollateX was developed initially under the auspices of the European COST action Interedition (2008–12), hosted at the Huygens Institute for the History of the Netherlands.10 Unlike TUSTEP, CollateX handles non-exact matching; unlike COLLATE, this “fuzzy” matching can be done without explicit intervention from the scholar. Texts are collated without reference to a base, and the results are as far as possible unaffected by the order in which the texts are collated, which is an important criterion for accuracy (Spencer & Howe 2004). The one shortcoming of CollateX, at the time of writing, is the lack of a suitable user interface or online service for scholars at large. This is in part a

8 Cf. http://www.juxtasoftware.org/ [last accessed 20 March 2014]. 9 Cf. http://collatex.net/ [last accessed 20 March 2014]. 10 Cf. http://www.interedition.eu/ [last accessed 20 March 2014]. 184 ANDREWS design decision. CollateX was designed as a “microservice” according to the principles of interoperability as set forth by Interedition (Dekker & Middell 2011) – one should, for example, be able to collate a set of texts with CollateX, visualize the results using Juxta, and publish the eventual edition using a system such as SDPublisher (see below, Publication). As such the tool is published as a Java software library that can be embedded in larger applications and workflows, and a REST-compliant web service that can be set up within a project. It is possible that a full-featured online service with CollateX at its core will appear in future, but that remains some way off.

3 Stemmatic Analysis

The next stage of a critical edition is usually the creation of a stemma – the manuscript “family tree”. The traditional method of stemma creation for classical and medieval texts (Maas 1958) relies on the editor’s ability to distinguish “correct” (i.e. original) readings from erroneous ones, and on the circumstantial evidence contained in the individual manuscripts (e.g. identification of copyist and date, tracing of colophons, or the specification of an exemplar). This method is usually sufficient for texts that survive in only a few manuscripts, relatively short texts, or texts whose manuscripts preserve a good deal of information in their colophons; it also requires that there be little to no contamination (that is, manuscripts copied from more than a single exemplar). For many medieval Armenian texts, none of these conditions are true. The problem is slightly different for critical editions of the works of modern authors, in which almost all changes are presumed to be intentional and, the desired object is often the “final” version of the text rather than the “original” or archetype. The problems inherent in the chronological ordering and interdependence of successive drafts of a work nevertheless have some similarities. Sometimes the drafts are dated; often they are not. In both cases, computational methods allow a level of statistical analysis that has not traditionally been feasible, and it is with the help of this analysis that a stemma may be recovered. These statistical methods rely on the similarity between manuscript “family trees” and biological ones. Phylogenetic analysis methods for manuscript texts, borrowed from the field of evolutionary biology, were first described in the 1970s (Platnick & Cameron 1977) and applied with a great deal of success throughout the 1990s (Robinson 1996) up to the present day. There are several algorithms for phylogenetic stemma construction that might be applicable depending on the nature of the manuscript tradition under examination (Howe et al. 2012); probably the most common means takes advantage of a statistical method used by evolutionary biologists called digital techniques for critical edition 185 maximum parsimony, or simply “parsimony”.11 The principle is straightforward. Each biological organism has a genetic identity coded by the base nucleotide sequence of its DNA. Comparison of these sequences permits analysis of the evolutionary relations between species. In general, if fewer differences occur in the sequences of two species as compared to another set of species, they are assumed to be more closely related. A phylogenetic “family tree” may be recovered through several statistical methods, including parsimony; this particular method looks for the tree that would require the fewest evolutionary changes to accommodate the variations across the entire set of species. The same principle may be applied to manuscript texts as soon as they have been collated. Rather than sequences of nucleotides, the texts can be expressed in sequences of readings – in the simplest case, sequences of individual words. Two manuscripts that are close to each other in a stemma should have more “text-genealogical” readings in common than two manuscripts on distant branches – that is, they should share readings that cannot be explained by dialect variation among scribes, or by scribal correction of a transparent and easily rectifiable error in the exemplar (Salemans 1996; Schmid 2004). Although the true historical manuscript situation for a given text may be irretriev- ably complex and essentially unknowable – just as with evolutionary family trees – best practice in stemma construction requires that an unknown number of indistinguishable common ancestors be abstracted into a single postulated ancestor, thus creating a working model that minimises the number of hypothetical lost copies of a text (West 1973). A similar simplification is the point of the principle of maximum parsimony that lies behind phylogenetic analysis. Although the conversion of a set of collated manuscript texts to a dataset suitable for processing by a parsimony analysis tool (such as the software pack- age PAUP or an online service such as Mobyle)12 is a simple task for a scholar with computer scripting skills, tools with a user interface suitable for use by a wider range of text scholars are only beginning to be developed. Until these tools come to fruition, the best option for any editor who wishes to explore phylogenetic methods of stemma creation is to consult an evolutionary biolo- gist or a statistician. It is important to stress here that the phylogenetic method of stemmatic analysis does not produce a final result, to be accepted as “right” or discarded as “wrong.” How then does the scholar move from a phylogenetic tree to a true stemma? This is a question for which there is not yet a clear answer; although there has been a great deal of discussion in recent years about how best to apply

11 The following explanation is taken from Howe 2004. 12 Cf. http://mobyle.pasteur.fr/cgi-bin/portal.py?form=pars [last accessed 20 March 2014]. 186 ANDREWS phylogenetic methods to manuscript stemmatology, there remains a need for a more formal theoretical understanding of the transmission of texts and the place of statistical analysis in the discovery of that transmission. Scholars who use phylogenetic methods are often advised to assign weights to their variants depending on their perceived importance – for example, to assign little or no weight to variation in spelling or orthography, and to assign a much greater weight to semantic variation that makes sense in context (Salemans 1996) – but these weightings have been shown to have little effect on the outcome of the tree (Howe et al. 2004). Empirical analysis of a diverse set of artificial traditions and medieval texts has confirmed the finding that these variants traditionally held to be “insignificant” are often anything but (Andrews & Macé 2013). Further research to establish an empirical basis for statistical methods would be very welcome in the field.

4 An Example of Stemma Construction for the Chronicle of Mattʿēos Uṙhayecʿi

As an example of how phylogenetic data may currently be used for manuscript stemma construction, we may use preliminary work on the Chronicle of Mattʿēos Uṙhayecʿi. Fifteen of the available manuscripts, along with the printed Jerusalem edition of 1869, were transcribed in part and collated using the custom tool invented for the purpose (Andrews 2009). Subjected to parsimony analysis, the manuscript data produced the tree given below (manuscripts listed by library, shelfmark, and date; “Jerusalem 1869” refers to the edition.) The statistical model never postulates an explicit root or archetype; this becomes perhaps the first task of the editor. In this example, the characteristics of the manuscripts (colophons, dates, and para-textual features) led to a preliminary placement of a root at the point from which the larger branches appear to originate. This point is marked on the figure by a large black dot. The length of each line represents its “evolutionary” distance from this hypothetical root and from its nearest neighbour; in this model, manuscripts Matenadaran 1896, Matenadaran 1767, and Bodleian Arm e.32 are closest to that root. One of the peculiarities of parsimony analysis, which arises from the fact that it was developed for living biological species whose evolutionary ancestors are by definition extinct, is that the model assumes that no extant manuscript can be directly descended from any other extant manuscript.13

13 This limitation is overcome in a more recent algorithm known as Semstem, developed specifically for the analysis of text collations (Roos & Zou 2011). That algorithm, released digital techniques for critical edition 187

Bzommar 449 /

V Y

enice 887 /

enice 913 /

V V Jerusalem 1869 Chapter numberings Mat appear V enadaran 3519enice / 91 1731 / F 7 / Z Matenadaran D London Or Venice 901 / . 5260 / L X 1768 / H J enadaran Bodleian MS Arm e.32 / Mat Mat W Mat 69 / I enadaran 17 enadaran 5587 / 4 / enadaran 1896 / Mat 176 7 / B enadaran

Vienna 57 Mat Chronicle text truncated A

Figure 2: Parsimony tree of selected manuscripts of the Chronicle

The editor must look for manuscripts that appear on relatively short branches, such as Matenadaran 1768, Matenadaran 5587, Venice 887, and Matenadaran 1731; these short branches indicate a likelihood that the manuscripts on longer branches extending from them (in this case, London Or. 5260, Matenadaran 1769, Venice 913, and Venice 901 respectively) may have been directly copied from them. This hypothesis can be accepted, or rejected, by the editor based on a more traditional direct examination of the two manuscripts. Another piece of information that is not used or expressed by the statistical model is the relative ages of the manuscripts. The branch lengths within a phylogenetic tree for biological species give an indication of the time necessary for a given species to have diverged from its ancestor to the suggested extent; it is based upon a calculation of the speed at which evolutionary changes may happen. That calculation has very little to do with the rate at which textual variation can be introduced into a manuscript – there is no reason to suppose that two manuscripts copied in the same year must show a similar level of

too recently to have been used in stemmatic analysis of the Chronicle, is nevertheless very promising. 188 ANDREWS variation from the hypothetical root. As such, in the context of stemmatology, the length of the line is a rough guide to the magnitude of variation, and has nothing to do with the relative dating of the manuscripts. In our example above, the manuscripts divide from a central point into a few distinct clusters. When these manuscripts are examined for their general features, we find that the cluster to the left includes all manuscripts whose text is truncated near the midway point of the Chronicle; the cluster to the upper right includes manuscripts with a distinctive series of chapter numberings in the margins. These clusters within the tree nicely match the analysis produced from a preliminary grouping based on word sequences, and provide additional suggestions about the specific interrelationships of manuscripts within the clusters that was all but opaque to the editor at the outset. A third peculiarity of phylogenetic analysis concerns manuscript conflation, here represented by the manuscript Matenadaran 3519. Manuscripts that were copied from more than one exemplar have no real analogue in evolutionary biology, and as a result their placement in a parsimony tree can be unpredictable.14 In this case, M3519 has been grouped with the manuscripts which have truncated text. Its text is also incomplete, but carries on to a later point than the other manuscripts in the cluster; additionally, it carries the chapter numberings that are characteristic of the other identifiable cluster. Examination of the manuscript reveals that the scribe was using a “truncated” exemplar up to the expected point. He left a note to that effect within the manuscript, then carried on with another exemplar on the following page. Parsimony analysis on a portion of text that appears after this “truncation point” shows a clear affinity between M3519 and the “chapter numberings” cluster, and the scribe seems thus to have added chapter numberings retrospectively to his earlier text, following the new exemplar. This is a relatively straightforward case of conflation, easily handled in the analysis. Some research has been done on how statistical methods can be used for more complex cases (e.g. Mink 2004). A full analysis of the phylogenetic data, together with the circumstantial evidence of the manuscripts, allows the editor to construct a stemma as seen below. In a sense, the derivation of the stemma has become a problem in reverse. Traditional methods of textual criticism recommend the creation of a stemma, by which the editor may safely exclude certain manuscripts from consideration for a critical edition, before beginning the full collation and eventual edition. This is not a good option for the Chronicle, or for any text with similar charac-

14 This problem can to some extent be mitigated through use of the NeighborNet algorithm; see Howe et al. (2012) for more details. digital techniques for critical edition 189

α Non-fragmentary manuscript omitted: Paris 191, 200 Jerusalem 3651 gaps appear Matenadaran 2855, 2899, 3380, 6605, 8159, 8232, 8894 Rome 25 Vienna 243, 246 β chapt

ε te

xt truncat er divisions appear F (1617)

B (1623) ed X (1669)

A (1689) γ δ Matenadaran 3520 (17th c.) O (ca. 1702)

W (1601) Matenadaran 2644 (1844) V (1590‒1600) J (1617) D (1647) (Jerusalem 1869 edition*) H (17th c.) Z (17th c.)

Y (17th c.) K (1699)

I (1664) L (1660) Matenadaran 3071 (1651‒61) Bzommar 644 (1775‒1805)

Venice 986 (1830‒35) *Based on Jerusalem mss. 1051, 1107

Figure 3: Stemma of selected manuscripts of the Chronicle 190 ANDREWS teristics that lacks trusted authoritative version to distinguish archetypal readings from “errors”. The number of manuscripts and the lack of obvious clues concerning their provenance would have resulted at best in a very tentative stemma, in which very little confidence could be placed. Must the editor then transcribe all manuscripts, in full, of a large textual tradition before any work toward building a stemma can be done? The phylogenetic analysis described requires an accurate transcription of all texts to be considered, but this need not be a complete transcription of every text. A representative sample, preferably taken from several points in the text, is often sufficient for parsimony analysis and initial stemma creation. This sample need not be large; it need only be large enough for a statistical analysis to produce a single possible tree. The entire Chronicle is approximately 80,000 words; the excerpts upon which the analysis was based totalled 3500 words. The resulting stemma is based on much more thorough analysis of the available data, and is consequently of much more use, than the tentative stemma that could be produced through traditional analysis of limited data. The editor will almost certainly wish to revisit any conclusions that were reached as work progresses and more transcribed text becomes available, but the early orientation within a text tradition can be invaluable for understanding the phenomena therein.

5 Edition

So far, the process of text criticism has not yet called upon the editor to make a decision about the “correctness” or “error” of any portion of the text. Having reserved all judgment concerning the value of any particular manuscript and its readings, the editor nevertheless has a full collation and a reliable stemma for the text. This is the point at which critical edition begins. Within the context of this digitally-assisted workflow of text criticism, “edition” refers specifically to the stage during which an editor must review the collated manuscript texts, consider the available alternative readings, and use his or her editorial judgement to select the “best” reading. Any computer program for text edition must therefore accomplish several tasks. It must maintain a running display of the text that has already been edited. It must, for the current position in the text, present the surrounding context and the available alternative readings, including any punctuation that may appear in the manuscripts. The editor must have the ability not only to select a lemma from the available readings, or even to emend the text, but also to record editorial notes and other information. This includes information about the relationship between various readings that should be incorporated into the editing process. For example, if digital techniques for critical edition 191 the editor is presented with a choice between the words Haocʿ and Hayocʿ, he or she will probably wish to record that one is a variant spelling of the other. If the editor has indeed chosen to normalize spelling within the critical edition, the program should “remember” which spelling is to be treated as canonical, and should thereafter automatically select that spelling as the lemma text when presented with that particular choice of readings. Such an explicit and likely recurrent editorial decision should only be required once. Digital assistance of this form allows a much greater degree of editorial consistency than is usually possible otherwise. Since collation and edition are now two separate operations, the editor need run the collation program only once on a large set of texts, re-running it only if a new manuscript becomes available or if, for whatever reason, the transcription of an included manuscript changes substantially. He or she may then process the collation results – that is, edit the text – in one session or in several, saving the work as it progresses. A computer interface could also spare the editor a vast amount of work: typing the selected text, footnoting the variants, and ensuring the typographic accuracy of the apparatus criticus. There has as yet been no digital tool made available for the critical edition of a pre-existing text collation, apart from a rudimentary one created for the edition of Uṙhayecʿi’s Chronicle (Andrews 2009); as tools for the collation and analysis of text variants become more widely available, a computer interface for text edition that uses the results of automatic collation must also appear. At the time of writing, one possibility lies in the suite of tools used by the Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung for their ongoing Editio Critica Maior of the New Testament;15 this “virtual manuscript room” environment was opened to the public in 2013 for the study of New Testament texts.

6 Publication

In theory, once an edited text is set out in a file format such as TEI XML, it may easily be published. One of the core advantages of XML in particular is its well- defined form and vocabulary; programmatic re-formatting of the data therein is a simple task. One powerful means of XML translation comes in the form of the eXtensible Stylesheet Language (XSL). Through XSL transforms (XSLT), an XML file may be easily re-written into any format a user desires. These formats can include the HyperText Markup Language (HTML) for online publication

15 http://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/[last accessed 20 March 2014]. 192 ANDREWS and interactive display, and a number of formats for word processing or typesetting in print – rich text format (RTF), Microsoft Word XML format (.docx), or TeX (a well-known typesetting and publishing format) and its variants. Unfortunately, the question of online publication remains a complicated one. A variety of tools do exist for the online publication of critical editions and text variants via XSLT; one relatively simple tool is the Versioning Machine (Schreibman et. 2003). Given a TEI XML file, the Versioning Machine allows parallel display of all available manuscript texts within a web browser. Another possibility is SDPublisher by Scholarly Digital Editions,16 a more comprehensive XML-based publication system for text critical editions. In practice, however, almost all digital critical editions up to the present time have been bespoke productions, as discussion continues within the field about the ideal form and function of a digital edition and the capabilities it should possess (e.g. Pierazzo 2011, Rosselli del Turco 2011, Van Zundert & Boot 2011, Robinson 2013). All of these pieces of software require the editor to find a stable location for online hosting of the manuscript, and at present it is very rare for such online self-published works to receive critical scholarly attention. There is a great need for a publication solution, preferably in cooperation with academic publishers or major libraries, that will allow editors and readers to take full advantage of the dynamic display capabilities of Web-based software, and to garner critical attention, without resorting to the vicissitudes of self-hosting and ad hoc publication.

Conclusion

It is evident that digital methods of text criticism hold a great deal of promise, but remain frustratingly out of reach of scholars who are not already computer experts. A number of initiatives, most notably the Interedition project hosted at the Huygens Institute, have sought to fill this gap; the information given herein on available computer programs is thus subject to rapid change. The more chronologically distant reader, having the benefit of tools that do not exist at the time of writing, may be most interested in the reasoning and methodology behind those tools. It has been the aim of this article to set out the compelling reasons for digital critical edition, and to give an overview of how the traditional process and methods of critical edition may best be altered in order to take full advantage of computational capabilities.

16 http://www.sd-editions.com/SDPublisher/index.html [last accessed 20 March 2014]. digital techniques for critical edition 193

Bibliography

Andrews, T.L. 2009. Prolegomena to a Critical Edition of the Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa, with a Discussion of Computer-Aided Methods Used to Edit the Text (University of Oxford, Oriental Institute, Ph.D. Diss.). Andrews, T.L. 2012. Excerpts from the Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa (Mattʿēos Uṙhayecʿi), online at http://byzantini.st/ChronicleME/ [last accessed 20 March 2014]. Andrews, T.L. & Macé, C. 2013. “Beyond the Tree of Texts: Building an Empirical Model of Scribal Variation through Graph Analysis of Texts and Stemmata”, Literary and Linguistic Computing. Dekker, R.H. & Middell, G. 2011. “Computer-Supported Collation with CollateX: Managing Textual Variance in an Environment with Varying Requirements”, in B. Maegaard (ed.), Supporting Digital Humanities, Copenhagen 17–18 November 2011: Conference Proceedings. Finney, T.J. 1999. The Ancient Witnesses of the Epistle to the Hebrews: A Computer- Assisted Analysis of the Papyrus and Uncial Manuscripts of PROS EBRAIOUS, Murdoch University, Ph.D. Diss. Greetham, D.C. 1992. Textual Scholarship: an Introduction, New York: Garland Publishing. Howe, C.J. et al. 2004. “Parallels Between Stemmatology and Phylogenetics”, in P.T. van Reenen, A. den Hollander & M. van Mulken (eds), Studies in Stemmatology, vol. 2, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 3–11. Howe, C.J. et al. 2012. “Responding to Criticisms of Phylogenetic Methods in Stemmatology”, Studies in English Literature 1500–1900 52(1), 51–67. La Porta, S. 2007. Two anonymous Sets of Scholia on Dionysius the Areopagiteʾs Heavenly Hierarchy (CSCO, 623. Scriptores Armeniaci, 29), Leuven: Peeters. Maas, P. 1958. Textual Criticism, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Mink, G. 2004. “Problems of a highly contaminated tradition: the New Testament: Stemmata of variants as a source of genealogy for witnesses”, in van Reenen, den Hollander & van Mulken 2004, 127–143. Pierazzo, E. 2011. “A Rationale of Digital Documentary Editions”, Literary and Lingustic Computing 26(4), 463–77. Platnick, N.I. & Cameron, H.D. 1977. “Cladistic Methods in Textual, Linguistic, and Phylogenetic Analysis”, Systematic Zoology 26, 380–385. Reynolds, L.D. & Wilson, N.G. 1991. Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Robinson, P.M.W. 1989. “The Collation and Textual Criticism of Icelandic Manuscripts (1): Collation”, Literary and Linguistic Computing 4(2), 99-105. 194 ANDREWS

Robinson, P.M.W. 1996. “Computer-Assisted Stemmatic Analysis and ‘Best-Text’ Historical Editing”, in P.T. van Reenen, M. van Mulken & J.W. Dyk (eds), Studies in Stemmatology, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 71–103. Robinson, P.M.W. 1997. “New Directions in Critical Editing”, in K. Sutherland (ed.), Electronic Text: Investigations in Method and Theory, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 145–171. Robinson, P.M.W. 2004. “Making electronic editions and the fascination of what is difficult”, in A. Bozzi, L. Cignoni & J.-L. Lebrave (eds), Digital Technology and Philological Disciplines (Linguistica computazionale, 20-21), Pise & Rome: Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali, 415–438. Robinson, P.M.W. 2013. “Towards a Theory of Digital Editions”, Variants 10, 105–32. Roos, T. & Zou, Y. 2011. “Analysis of Textual Variation by Latent Tree Structure”, in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, December 11–14, 2011, Vancouver. Rosselli del Turco, R. 2011. “After the Editing is Done: Designing a Graphic User Interface for Digital Editions”, Digital Medievalist 7. Salemans, B.J.P. 1996. “Cladistics or the Resurrection of the Method of Lachmann”, in van Reenen, van Mulken & Dyk 1996, 3–70. Schmid, U. 2004. “Genealogy by Chance! On the significance of accidental variation (parallelisms)”, in van Reenen, den Hollander & van Mulken, 127–143. Schmidt, D. 2010. “The inadequacy of embedded markup for cultural heritage texts”, Literary and Linguistic Computing Advance Access, 25(3), 337–356. Schmidt, D. & Colomb, R. 2009. “A data structure for representing multi-version texts online”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 67(6), 497–514. Schreibman, S. et al. 2003. “The Versioning Machine”, Literary and Linguistic Computing 18(1), 101–107. Spencer, M. & Howe, C.J. 2004. “Collating Texts using Progressive Multiple Alignment”, Computers and the Humanities 38(3), 253–70. Spencer, M. et al. 2004. “Phylogenetics of Artificial Manuscripts”, Journal of Theoretical Biology 227, 503–511. Stone, M.E. 1994. “Eight New Manuscripts of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs”, in S. Ajamian & M.E. Stone (eds), Text and Context : Studies in the Armenian New Testament, Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 75–82. Stone, M.E. & Busharia, Z. 1971. Concordance and texts of the Armenian version of IV Ezra, Jerusalem: Israel Oriental Society. Stone, M.E. (with the collaboration of Hillel, V.). 2012. An Editio Minor of the Armenian Version of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (HUAS, 11), Leuven: Peeters. digital techniques for critical edition 195

Stone, M.E. & Shirinian, M.E. (with the collaboration of J. Maansfeld & D.T. Runia) 2000. Pseudo-Zeno: Anonymous Philosophical Treatise (Philosophia Antiqua, 83), Leiden: Brill. Tennison, J. & Piez, W. 2002. “The Layered Markup and Annotation Language”, in Proceedings of Extreme Markup Languages. West, M.L. 1973. Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique: Applicable to Greek and Latin Texts, Stuttgart: Teubner. Wüthrich, M. et al. 2009. “Language Model Integration for the Recognition of Handwritten Medieval Documents”, Proceedings of the IEEE 10th International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition, 211–15. Van Zundert, J.J. & Boot, P. 2011. “The Digital Edition 2.0 and the Digital Library: Services, Not Resources”, in C. Fritze et al. (eds), Digitale Edition und Forschungsbibliothek (Bibliothek und Wissenschaft 44), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 141–52.

Linguistics, Normative Grammar, Dialectology, and Philology ‥

Connections between Linguistics, Normative Grammar, and Philology

Moreno Morani

The question of the connection between linguistics and philology began to be addressed in a problematic way since the first quarter of the 19th century, from the moment when the two disciplines stopped being considered as two parts of the same, larger science, encompassing in itself the study of all forms of literary expressions, and from the time when linguistics refined its working methods and became fully aware of its identity and aims. In 1984 the members of the Sodalizio Glottologico Milanese organized an international congress in Milan dedicated to the connections between linguistics and philology. On that occasion many specialists discussed the issue in detail, from different perspectives. The results were brought together in a substantial volume of Acts.1 I will just mention some aspects of the two most important papers. In fact, even though they were not dealing directly with problems of Armenian philology and linguistics, they were read by two linguists who devoted a considerable amount of their scientific activity to the study of Armenian. These are: “Linguistica e filologia”, by my late master Giancarlo Bolognesi,2 and “Filologia, grammatica, linguistica”, by Walter Belardi, professor at the University of Rome.3 Bolognesi observed that linguistics originated from philology at the beginning of 19th century, thus stressing that the connections between the discipline mother and her daughter were never straightforward. Historical and comparative linguistics were often a rebellious daughter and philology a despotic mother: “Nel contrasto generazionale tra genitori e figli non sempre le ragioni stanno da una sola parte e le colpe dall’altra: se la nuova linguistica storico-comparativa si comportò come una figlia infedele e ribelle, la filologia si mostrò a volte, forse, una madre eccessivamente auto- ritaria o repressiva”. In his turn Belardi observed that the history of the connection between the two disciplines was a complex history of marriage and divorce, even though the exchange of information between the two was continuous and always fruitful.

1 Bolognesi & Pisani 1987. 2 Bolognesi 1987. 3 Belardi 1987.

The need of collaboration between the two disciplines had already been pointed out in a very neat way by another great specialist of Armenian linguistics, Antoine Meillet, who wrote in 1921: “Pour déterminer les états de langue du passé, le linguiste doit se servir de la philologie la plus exacte, la plus pré- cise: et chaque progrès dans la précision philologique permet un progrès nouveau pour le linguiste. (. . .) Pour les langues anciennes le linguiste doit recourir à une philologie de précision: on s’est parfois imaginé que le linguiste peut se contenter d’à peu près philologiques; il a besoin tout au contraire de tout ce que les méthodes philologiques les plus exactes permettent de précision ou de rigueur. (. . .) Il va de soi que, pour toutes les langues anciennes, les faits se laissent observer seulement à l’aide des textes. C’est sur des documents écrits qu’on observe l’attique ou le gothique, l’arménien ou le vieux slave. Interprétés avec critique, ces documents donnent beaucoup, et l’on peut souvent avoir une notion précise de certains états de langues anciens (. . .) L’examen des textes n’est qu’un substitut de l’observation directe devenue impossible”.4 As we know, Meillet worked in the field of Armenian simultaneously as a linguist and a philologist. He is the author of a comparative grammar of Armenian which even nowadays, seventy years after its publication, remains the fundamental reference text for all those who devote themselves to the study of Armenian from the point of view of historical linguistics and comparative Indo-European.5 At the same time he is the author of a very detailed and carefully written descriptive grammar of ancient Armenian.6 Meillet wrote some essays of capital importance for the advancement of Armenian linguistics, but also studied the texts of the ancient Armenian literature from the philological point of view. He thus examined the manuscripts, often challenging texts and readings, as well as suggesting improvements to the current editions. By means of this work, Meillet opened up new perspectives in the study of syntax. By joining philological to linguistic competence, Meillet showed us an ideal path which every specialist, not only within the field of Armenology, should follow. However, is this working method still possible today? The huge expansion of our knowledge has made such a collaboration extremely problematic. The problem is that both philology and linguistics have increased the scope of their activity in an extraordinary way. Philology is no longer only the study of texts and individual expressions, but also the study of the historical background of texts and authors, the study of facts and literary trends in their social aspects. As A. Momigliano very clearly stated, philology has become a field of learning

4 Meillet 1925, 7, 11, 110. 5 Meillet 1936. 6 Meillet 1913. linguistics, normative grammar, and philology 201 belonging not only to literary studies, but also (and perhaps especially) to historical studies: “Il tramonto della filologia e dell’antiquaria come scienze separate dalla storia non implica il loro assorbimento nella storia come tra- dizionalmente intesa, ma la costituzione di un nuovo metodo storico di gran lunga più complicato di quello che i nostri predecessori ebbero proprio”.7 In its turn, linguistics is not only the study of linguistic forms and the evolution of languages, but today is the study of language in all its potentialities and social, individual, psychological, and ethnological implications. Because of that, linguistics invaded also the fields of mathematics, statistics, physics, natural sciences, and informatics. As a consequence of the expansion of the horizons of the two disciplines, among the scholars there is an overgrowing specialization. The problem does not concern only the fact that scholars specialize in one area of linguistics and that one cannot master all ancient and modern languages with which Armenian had contacts over the course of its history. Even if we confine ourselves to considering an Armenologist in the strictest sense of the term, a scholar of classical Armenian must be also a specialist of Medieval Armenian or Modern Armenian, and such a scholar is not bound to deal with the language from a sociological perspective rather than from a historical, dialectological, etc. one. In this, so to speak “explosion” of the two disciplines, there are by now areas of linguistics which do not need any longer the aid of philology. Inversely there are whole sectors of philology that do not have reasons for addressing and facing linguistics. In sum, collaboration between linguistics and philology encompasses only a more or less marginal zone, i.e. the zone where current scientific interests of the two disciplines meet, a zone which is often peripheral if compared to the core of the two disciplines themselves. It is possibile or even necessary to establish a collaboration, especially when our studies consider linguistic acts as concrete and individual, as parole to quote Saussure, whereas the need of explanatio verborum, i.e. the desire to understand texts in a fuller and more precise way (acts of parole), forces us to investigate these acts by evoking the coherent system of signs where these acts are, i.e. the langue, a system where everything holds together. In a word, we will have then the higher level of collaboration between the philologist, who examines the texts, and the linguist, who deals with the history and the comparison of the languages. However, even if we define the domain of collaboration in such way, what is the contribution that the linguist may ask of the philologist? First of all, the study of the texts, which allows us to establish an older form of a given word, will be very important for linguistics. If one of the aims of historic linguistics

7 Momigliano 1960, 476. 202 MORANI is to go back to the prehistoric forms, it is reasonable that linguistics aims at reaching the most ancient form of a word or paradigm. It is certainly possible that an ancient form is not attested in the most ancient texts, and that it is found in the late or modern documentation, dialects included. There, it is often a matter of an oddity of the instance, of a coincidence that may occur in all languages. As specialists of Romance languages know well, we often find some ancient forms surpassing the age of Romanization of this or that country in medieval and modern texts, and even in dialects. Similar cases occur also in the area of Indian linguistics. As far as Armenian is concerned, this issue is particularly complex. In ancient Armenian the group of words of Indo- European origin (what Hübschmann called Echtarmenisch) is represented by some hundred words, and it is only through this small group of words that we can establish the phonetic laws of Armenian language. It often happens that in order to establish a phonetic law one can only take advantage of one or two sure examples. In such conditions, the possibility of determining precisely which is the most ancient form is already an important aid for the specialist. I would like to provide a small example of this argument. In the continuations of the phoneme I.E. *l, in Armenian one finds either l or ł. The existence of a graphic distinction leads us to suppose that at the time when the orthography of Armenian was fixed, the two graphemes were not two different realizations of the same phoneme. Here we have two distinct phonemes. The care and linguistic experience of the people who created the Armenian alphabet was such that this conclusion is almost obligatory. Moreover, there are such minimal couples as gol “to be” ~ goł “thief” or kal “air” ~ kał “lame”. According to the most widespread opinion, l (“liwn” l) represented the dental lateral [l] and ł (“łat”, ł) a velar lateral [ł]: “a dark l, not unlike the American l in life, ball, etc.”8 However, it looks highly probable that at a date preceding the creation of the alphabet, these two varieties of “liquid” were not distinct phonemes, but two allophones, i.e. two realizations in complementary distribution of a unique phoneme: l was found at the beginning of a word and between vowels, ł inside a word before a consonant. Thus, in Armenian we have a situation similar to that of archaic Latin, where the realisation of [l] was conditioned by the phonetic context, and there are two different realizations (palatal and velar), that in any case are to be considered as varieties of a uniform phoneme.9 This prehistoric state of Armenian has been perturbed by the complex and often not clear evolution of the phonological system of this language. In many cases, in certain groups of consonants with ł we can observe assimilation, and after-

8 Godel 1975, 6. 9 Morani 2000, 161–162. linguistics, normative grammar, and philology 203 ward, since Armenian does not allow redoubled consonants, simplification. As a consequence, in words of Indo-European origin ł can be found inside the word between vowels or at the end of a word exactly like l. Thus there are forms of I.E. origin where l and ł interchange freely, at least from a synchronic point of view. One could recall dełin “yellow” and dalar “green”, if, as I think, are both the continuation of the same Indo-European root *dhel-, which can be found, for instance, in Gr. θάλλω, θαλερός, etc.10. ł is not admitted only at the beginning of a word. But this last restriction disappeared when words of Iranian, Syriac, and Greek origin came into Armenian. Initial ł can be found in loan words from these languages, as in łambar (from Greek via Parthian), łepton (from Greek), łek (or łeak) “rudder” (from Syriac),11 etc. At this point the evolution of [ł] into a phoneme is completely finished. Since it is ł which almost always corresponds to l of Iranian, Semitic, and Greek, one has to conclude that until this moment ł was realized, from a phonetic point of view, as a dental lateral, and has thus to posit a palatalized lateral pronunciation for l. In the Armenian translation of Dionysius Thrax, the Armenian consonants ł m n r are the correspondents of the Greek “liquids” (ἀμετάβολα, i.e. λ μ ν ρ). This definitely shows, I think, that at the time of this translation, ł was still closer to Greek λ than l. Thus we have to suppose that in the prehistory of Armenian the relation between l and ł was that between a palatalised variety (or at least pre-palatal) and a non-palatalised variety. There are no obstacles against the hypothesis that I.E. l yeilded [ʎ] in Armenian (or rather [lʾ]), and that [l] remained only if the original phoneme was followed by a consonant, for similar cases are well attested in other linguistic traditions. One could mention the case of Catalan, where all the l of Latin gave ll (i.e. [ʎ]) at the beginning of a word, as in lluna “moon”, llet “milk”, llengua “lingua”. In a subsequent phase of the linguistic history there was a growing gap between the two varieties. Ł was realized as a voiced velar fricative [ɣ], similar to γ in Medieval and Modern Greek, and l came to take the place that was reserved to ł. The shift to [ɣ] is already completed in the documentation of Cilician Armenian, as the transcription of γ of certain Greek nouns with ł shows very well, while λ is by now transcribed with l: liładon < λεγατόν.12 Ł finally becomes the voiced correspondent

10 Pokorny 1958, 234. On the issues concerning these words see for instance also Olsen 1999, 51; Meillet 1977, 208; Ačaṙean 1971, vol. 1, 647; Wodtko 2008, 84. In Arm. dełin one could see a derivation from deł “grass” (from which the current meaning “medicament” later derived), which in its turn could derive from something like *dhel-n- (cf. gr. θαλλός < *-lno-). 11 Hübschmann 1897, 310; Meillet 1977, 157. 12 Karst 1901, 34 et 99. 204 MORANI of the voiceless velar fricative (“xê”), and sometimes there is confusion between the two sounds in voiceless contexts, e.g. tʿuxtʿ for tʿułtʿ, “letter” in Cilician Armenian.13 Moreover, ł is often made voiceless in x in some modern dialects. In Jensen’s Altarmenische Grammatik ղ ł is not listed among the “liquids”, but among the Fricative Laute together with x,14 which however is a not correct definition, at least as far as the most ancient phase of the language is concerned, where the realisation of l and ł was closer than that it is today. Since the graphic realization of the two phonemes was often erratic, investigation of the manuscripts can give us precious information. The presence in a word of ł in the most ancient epoch of the language leads us to suppose the existence of a group of consonants in the original form of this word. For instance ałam, “I grind”, derived certainly from the same root as Gr. ἀλέω, but it cannot be directly confronted to the Greek form, and Frisk’s conclusion that the Armenian form would have a different thematic vowel is not precise.15 In ałam we can observe a formation of the present with nasal, and we need to go back to *al-nā- (or *al-nǝ-), as also does Rix.16 On the contrary, a form with l is alewr, “flour”, whose correspondence with Gr. ἄλεαρ (ἄλεϝαρ), ἄλευρον is perfect. Moreover, such a form as tʿołum, “I take away”, cannot go back simply to I.E. *tol-u-mi, but we are obliged to suppose a formation of the present with a suffix beginning with nasal, as in Lat. tollō < *tol-nō, or in Irish tlenaid, or in Toc. B tallam.17 A direct derivation of the root can be inferred for the adjective tʿoyl, “languid, faint, feeble, weak”, which is used also in the expression tʿoyl tal, “to allow, to tolerate”. But this state of affairs is not so simple. If tʿołum derives from *tol-nu- and, thus, the presence of ł can be considered as legitimate, in the aorist forms tʿołi etʿoł and in the participle tʿołeal the forms with ł have been substituted by analogy for the forms with l which we expect according to the phonetic rules,18 and the same argumentation will be used for such derivations as tʿołacʿucʿanem, “I permit”, or tʿołanam, “I am allowed, I decrease”. Concerning the forms derived directly from tʿoyl the preferable spelling is that with l: tʿulanam and tʿulacʿucʿanem. However, for these verbs there is a further complication. In fact, in addition to these spellings we also find forms with ł, tʿułanam and tʿułacʿucʿanem. Moreover, next to tʿoyl one finds also such forms

13 Karst 1901, 99. 14 Jensen 1959, 17 (ł is considered as the voiced counterpart of x). 15 “Mit anderem Vokal in Stammauslaut” (Frisk 1953, vol. 1, 70). 16 Rix 2001, 277 (the word would be a derivation from a root *h2leh1-). 17 Rix 2001, 622; Klingenschmitt 1982, 243; De Lamberterie 1978, 266–269; Aliffi 2002, 105–106. 18 For Klingenschmitt 1982, 277, the aorist is “neugebildet”. linguistics, normative grammar, and philology 205 as tʿoył and even tʿoł. It would be difficult, therefore, to explain the relationship among all forms definitively. Vacillation between l and ł is very widespread in the manuscripts, and even well attested forms such as ayl do not escape this uncertainty. But in this cir- cumstance there is a peculiarity. Meillet noted that in several ancient manuscripts there is a diacritical sign on ł when this was preceded by y, e.g. aył. Meillet observed that “l’emploi de ’ł n’a malheureusement jamais été étudié en détail. [. . .] Dans la mesure où il s’agit de mots indigènes, le ’ł ne s’est pas main- tenu comme ł, mais comme l, et l’on écrit toujours ayl dans les éditions actu- elles qui reposent non sur les graphies des plus anciens manuscrits, mais sur les habitudes graphiques du Moyen Age”.19 Later on, the spelling tradition fixed very clear rules, which in vast majority of cases were coherent with the origin and the history of the word. Thus, ał, “salt”, with ł, must have started from *sals, and the position of the lateral before consonant gives ł. On the contrary, in sal, “anvil”, there is ‑l, because one has to start from *k͂l ̥ā (see ancient Indian śilā). Later on, the word was transferred into the themes in -i- (gen. pl. salicʿ). If elanem, “I go out” (ἀνέρχομαι), and ełanim, “I become” (γίνομαι), go back to the same I.E. root, as has been suggested and seems plausible, it would be difficult to recognise the reasons of the alternation between the two phonemes in the two forms.20 Moreover, alongside these forms one also finds eluzanem, “I make to go out”. It could be suggested that in similar instances the common language accepted (and maybe specialized) two dialectal varieties, as in It. prezzo and pregio, both going back to Lat. pretium, but with two different evolutions of the Lat. group -ty-. Alternatively, it has been suggested to distinguish two forms deriving from the same root, whose meaning progressively moved away. As far as personal nouns are concerned, the issue is even more complex. In the editions of the NT one finds Galilea with l, but in the vast majority of Latin or Greek names λ of the original text is represented by ł, e.g. Piłatos, Łazaros. In Matthew 2:22, we find Galilea with l and Arkʿełaos with ł. But when Joseph heard that Archelaus was ruling over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And after being warned in a dream, he went away to the district of Galilee (i kołmans Galileacʿwocʿ). It is important to note that the most ancient manuscripts had Gałiłea. It is possible that the form with l was established at a later stage, when the phonetic transformation of ł into [ɣ] made unrecognizable the form of the geographical noun in comparison to its primitive or local form. It is probable that after the 11th century ł was abandoned

19 Meillet 1977, 151–154 (first redaction of the article, in 1911). 20 Pokorny 1959, 306. 206 MORANI and substituted by l, as it occurs for instance in the noun Constantinople, Kostantinupolis, which is attested in a 1035 inscription. In well-known and widespread geographical nouns, the need to maintain the form of the noun and assure a correspondence at least approximate between the Armenian form and the local (and current) form led to the modification of the official or usual spelling of the same noun. In any case, the issue is even more complex when one deals with personal nouns of people. In the Gospel of Matthew 1:8, Zohrab (Zōhrapean)21 has the correct reading Yovram corresponding to Greek Ἰωραμ. Since the pronunciation of y- had become h- at the beginning of a word, and the initial aspiration has always been weak in Armenian and tended to disappear, Zohrab rightly corrected his main manuscript, which had ovram. In case of doublets, the possibility to establish which form is the most ancient has important consequences for the linguist. In such a form as hun, “passage”, it would be important to establish if the ancient use admits only the genitive form hni, as the dictionary of Ciakciak22 states, or also huni, the only form given by Miskgian.23 Since the Armenian noun goes back to an I.E. form *pon(t)-, in hni one should postulate a passage from o to u before nasal, and after the fall of u, as it normally happens in pretonic position. On the contrary, if the second form, huni, is the most ancient, we have a passage of o to u which is subsequent to the phase in which u fell in pretonic syllables. The solution to this problem would be important in order to establish a relative chronology of the phonetic switches of Armenian. Does the shift o > u before n precede or follow the fall of pretonic u? Solutions to some philological problems become simple, if we recall the phonetic evolution of the Armenian language. If such a form as hogoy is attested in the manuscripts next to hogwoy, “of the spirit”, it does not mean that these forms are to be considered both legitimate. The appearance of hogoy is due to the fact that in certain dialects the internal part of the word -o- was written -wo-.24 This means that if the form hogoy is found in the text of an ancient author, one has to correct the manuscript or the manuscript tradition.

21 Zōhrapean 1984 (1805). 22 Ciakciak 1837. 23 Miskgian 1887. 24 Karst 1901, 152: “Nur ausnahmsweise und mehr in nachklassischer Litteratur erscheint dafür die Form hog-oy mit i- schwund. Letztere für die klassische Sprache anormale Form, die vielleicht auf altdialektischen Ursprung zurückgeht, ist in Kilikischen die normale und ausschließliche”. linguistics, normative grammar, and philology 207

In choosing the readings it will always be necessary to find a balance among the reasons of linguistics, the reasons of philology, and the norms of linguistics as they have been consecrated by common usage. If the spelling tradition has imposed a form considered as the only correct one, it will be necessary to prefer this form, even if the reasons of science object to this choice. The editor of texts will have to hold Cicero’s saying, cum extorta mihi veritas esset, usum loquendi populo concessi, scientiam mihi reservavi.25 The substantive for “tongue” is lezu, that substituted a preceding form lizu,26 that remained in some dialects.27 Moreover lezu influenced the corresponding verb lizem to such a point that sometimes one finds lezem in the manuscripts. For instance, in Luke 16:21 one reads “even the dogs would come and lick his sores” (ew lizuin zvērs nora), with the variant lezuin found in some ancient manuscripts. In such cases, linguistics helps us to establish the best form and explain the appearance of the secondary form. However, since the title of this paper contains a reference also to the “normative grammar”, I would like to ask an even more radical question: is it possible to set absolute rules for ancient Armenian? It seems clear to me that rules would be useful especially (or maybe only) for those wishing to write in grabar. The question should be asked in a much stricter way: what is ancient Armenian? Should we consider this expression as implying a state of the language (just to quote once again an expression of Saussure), or is ancient Armenian a classical language in the sense that one usually gives to this word in linguistics, i.e. a language which has been submitted to a work of normalization and selection which served as model for the following epochs? This question usually receives a positive answer. This perspective has been embraced in an almost definitive way by Meillet, who wrote in his Esquisse: “Comme le gothique et le slave, l’arménien a été dès l’abord fixé par un lettré qui a constitué une grammaire régulière et un vocabulaire [. . .]. Il y a donc eu dès l’abord une langue pourvue d’une grammaire exacte et d’un vocabulaire précis, et notée par un alphabet bien adapté au phonétisme de la langue. Les particularités propres aux écri vains taxés de vulgarisme, comme Łazar de Pʿarpi, sont surtout lexicales; dans la mesure où elles sont grammaticales, il n’est nullement certain qu’elles soi- ent attribuables aux auteurs, et il est toujours possible qu’elles proviennent d’innovations dues à des reviseurs et à des copistes, car les manuscrit de ces auteurs, assez rares d’ailleurs, datent tous du Moyen Age [. . .]. La seule langue que la grammaire comparée indo-européenne ait à considérer est donc la

25 Cic., Orator 160. 26 Meillet 1936, 55. 27 And also in the Armenian spoken in Poland: Hübschmann 1897, 452. 208 MORANI langue classique, le grabar (langue écrite).”28 This idea has been accepted by the vast majority of Armenologists. The very fact that the language of the first century of literature has been labelled oskedarean lezu “language of the Golden Age” shows how common and ancient this opinion is. The only disagreement among specialists concerns the canon of the authors to be considered classics. On this point the Schools of Vienna and Venice are in disagreement, for the first is more rigorous and admits in the canon of the Golden Language only the authors of the first half of the 5th century, while the School of Venice includes in this definition authors who are a little later. Among the opponents of this opinion, I mention Walter Belardi who, in a recent book, L’armeno aureo, radically rejects Meillet’s thesis: “La grammatica di una lingua ‘modello’, ‘normaliz- zata’, ‘pura’ (!), non presenterebbe mai tante alternative quante ne presenta la grammatica dell’armeno aureo scritto. [. . .]. I vari paradigmi flessionali dell’armeno aureo solo in parte rappresentano, nel loro alto numero, ciascuno una configurazione obbligante. Spesso sono ciascuno una possibilità, una probabilità, alquanto impredicibile, dato che un alto numero di nomi ricorre nei testi presentandosi in più formazioni tematiche.”29 Frédéric Feydit, in an essay on the Système de la déclinaison en arménien classique which appeared in 1976 in the journal Bazmavēp, also wrote: “Il n’en est pas moins vrai que, dès que l’on veut énoncer des règles de grammaire précises pour l’arménien du Ve siècle, on se trouve fort gêné par le nombre des exceptions et des variantes phonétiques ou morphologiques, qui résultent vraisemblablement non seulement d’un phénomène évolutif normal mais aussi de l’existence de dialectes dans lesquels des auteurs de telle ou telle région ont puisé inconsciemment des « provincialismes » qu’ils ont introduit dans leur ouvrage [. . .] L’arménien du Ve siècle, langue vivante, est non seulement en évolution, mais même dans le cours, – un cours d’un aspect calme fort trompeur, – d’une « révolution réactionnaire ». [. . .] Des écrivains différents pouvaient décliner le même mot suivant des déclinaisons différentes.”30 First of all it could be said that the answer to our question is conditioned by the mediocre knowledge we have of the formation of the language. The thesis of Meillet, who attributed the oscillation of the Armenian spelling and grammar to the copyists’ errors and imprecisions, seems extreme. As a matter of fact, these oscillations are too widespread to think of simple errors of copy or of readings introduced by copyists at a later stage. To hold this opinion one must assume such a vast number of errors in the manuscripts as to condition

28 Meillet 1936, 10. 29 Belardi 2003, 35. 30 Feydit 1976, 4–5 et 10, note 9. linguistics, normative grammar, and philology 209 the later evolution of the language. All this seems, in my opinion, not very realistic. Varieties, doublets, and incoherencies must have already existed in the golden age of the language. The selection was thus not complete and absolute. However at the same time it would be impossible to deny that, beyond these variations, more or less occasional, ancient Armenian presents itself to us as a very uniform language, with a rigorous and solid structure. We know that the reassuring schemes provided in the grammars of ancient French and ancient German do not correspond to the reality of facts, and when one studies the texts and the manuscripts notably different cases are found that sometimes puzzle scholars. As far as Armenian is concerned, this impression of spelling or linguistic fluctuation is certainly less noticeable. Ancient Armenian is not a classical language like Cicero’s Latin or Sanskrit, but it cannot be compared to the language still in movement of the Veda or Homer, or to that of the texts in High German or Old English. It is possible to define Armenian as a mysterious object, a “unicum” for linguistics. Specialists who observe the formation of the most important languages of civilization, ancient and modern, from Greek to Latin, Italian, Russian, Sanskrit, etc., first of all note that the formation of a classical language is very slow and takes place over several centuries. As far as ancient Armenian is concerned, there is no such a pattern. The language of the first century after the invention of the scripture is already the golden language. It is a language completely formed, in which the developments leading to the constitution of paradigms are almost completed. It is normal to think that in Armenia dialectal varieties had to exist in the 5th century, yet in a vast territory where communication was not always easy, it is impossible that there was a perfectly uniform language. But in grabar there is virtually no trace of these varieties. The thesis, now outdated, of Karst, supposing to see in Cilician Armenian the continuation of a different variety than that from which grabar would derive,31 has been rejected and considered erroneous by specialists since Hübschmann32 and Meillet’s33 reviews on Karst’s book. In 1976, L. Ovsepian stated that already

31 Karst 1901, 5 (“das Kilikische ist die mittelarmenische Fortsetzung und Weiterentwicklung des der altarmenischen Schriftsprache entsprechenden Vulgäridioms, welch letz- teres bereits in altarmenischer Zeit nicht unmerklich von der mehr künstlich zurech- tgemachten, früh erstarrten altarmenischen Literatursprachen abgewichen haben muss”). 32 Hübschmann 1976, 390–398: original redaction of the review in Anzeiger für indogermanische Sprach- und Altertumskunde, Beiblatt zu den Indogermanische Forschungen 12, 1901, 46–63. 33 Meillet 1977, 114–124 (especially 120–121): the original redaction had the following title “Remarques sur la grammaire historique de l’arménien de Cilicie”, Zeitschrift für armenische Philologie 2, 1904, 18–28. 210 MORANI in Hellenistic epoch the needs of trade and cult led to the appearance of a uniform language, where the different dialectal varieties had merged.34 It seems difficult to me to posit that the constitution of a common language (or at least of a very uniform Armenian) could go back to an epoch so much earlier than the creation of the scripture. However, leaving aside chronological conclusions that seem quite reckless, Ovsepian’s hypothesis can represent a starting-point for a more precise study. Evidence of the existence of dialectal varieties in prehistoric Armenian could consist in the fact that sometimes in Armenian one finds two different continuations of the same I.E. phoneme. For instance *ĝ generally become c in Armenian, as in bucanem, “I feed” < *bheuĝ -, but sometimes the same phoneme also yields t, as in the word but, “pasture- land”, which belongs without any doubt to the same root of bucanem, or as in art, “field”, which has to go back to the same I.E. form *aĝro- from which Lat. ager, Ind. ajra-, Gr. ἀγρός, Goth. akrs, etc. derive.35 Yet, the idea that this development stopped in the Hellenistic epoch seems excessive. It is very probable that Armenian became a uniform language (or almost uniform) already before the invention of the scripture, but it seems to me more probable that the initial impetus for this evolution dates to the epoch of the conversion to Christianity. It is at this time that Armenia felt the need of a common language in a neat and definitive way, a language which could be spoken and understood all over the country, beyond the different varieties which certainly existed. The activity of preaching the Bible and the Christian doctrine helped the diffusion of this common language, which had been taking shape already before the invention of the alphabet. Sahak and Mesrop did not choose a dialectal variety and did not invent a language, because it already existed, or, at least, it was already on the point of consolidating. The translation of the Bible was also facilitated by the fact that a translation of the most important and noteworthy passages of the Bible already circulated in oral form. The relation between grabar and the dialectal varieties was more or less similar to that between the koiné and the Greek dialects. The common language spread throughout all the territory and the dialects finally were absorbed in the national language and died almost completely. This does not imply that ancient forms could not survive and appear in later documents, but these were few exceptions, and all in all the appearance of grabar determined the end of the dialects, and later, the appearance of new dialectal varieties.

34 Ovsepian 1976, 369–376. 35 Concerning art see also Pedersen 1982, 130, and Meillet 1977, 25 (“avec un t mystérieux au lieu de c”). linguistics, normative grammar, and philology 211

The fact that fragments of the epic tradition preceding the conversion quoted by the historians do not witness important archaisms shows that a policy of normalization was taking place and had touched also the texts of the previous age by bringing them to the current linguistic form. A second consideration is the following. Many processes of grabar have parallels in other I.E. traditions. Sometimes the declension of a noun exhibits incoherencies or oscillations whose origins are, at first, difficult to understand. For instance, the noun for “moon”, lusin, is declined in part following the themes in -i-, in part according to the themes in -o-, in part those in -a-. But these incoherencies are common to many Indo-European traditions. It is not rare that in archaic Latin, as well as in the texts of Homer or the Veda, the same noun can be declined according to different thematic types. The same verbal root can have at the same time several themes of present or aorist. The subsequent phases (Cicero’s Latin, classical Greek, Sanskrit) present more regularity, with the creation of clearly defined paradigms. The word for “goat”, ayc, which has a perfect correspondence in Greek αἴξ αἰγός, has an instrumental ayciw. Moreover, the almost perfect correspondence between otiwkʿ < *pod-i-b- and pedibus shows that in the prehistory of Armenian there was the same tendency to replace the ancient consonantal declensions with the declension in -i-, as happens in Latin and Balto-Slavonic. Surely it is a question of an ancient tendency which goes back to the Indo-European epoch, as the existence at an ancient date of a theme *nocti- (and also *noctu-) next to *noct- clearly shows. The noun “fire”, hur, has the instrumental hurb, formed according to the type of consonantal themes, otherwise we have a theme in -o- (hroy etc.). The tendency to eliminate themes in consonants and replace them with themes in -o- or -ā- is common to all Indo-European traditions. In sum, Armenian was fixed at an epoch where the language was still evolving and went through transformations which are common and normal almost everywhere in the ensemble of the Indo-European linguistic domain. Armenian of the first century after the invention of the scripture is a uniform language, which has features almost completely defined, but in some areas it is still in the process of taking on its definitive features. However, it is impossible to define the language of this epoch as a classical language, for the moment of codification had not yet come. The first consideration of the language and its categories happened some centuries later. In this paper I exposed more problems than solutions. I presented especially the linguist’s viewpoint, in a pro domo mea perspective. I believe that a descriptive grammar of ancient Armenian, a complete and satisfactory grammar where linguistics and philology meet and work together has not been written yet. Those who work in the domain of ancient Slavonic benefit from 212 MORANI such grammars as those by Vaillant or Paul Diels,36 in which the description of the forms and paradigms is always confirmed by the manuscript evidence. Armenologists do not have in their hands or in front of their eyes a similar instrument yet. All this requires a thorough study of the manuscript collections, the use of concordances or sound editions, and especially a full collaboration between two disciplines, philology and linguistics, which today tend more to ignore each other than collaborate.

Translated from the French by Emilio Bonfiglio

Bibliography

Ačaṙean, H. 1971–19792. Hayerēn armatakan baṙaran (= HAB) [Etymological Dictionary of Armenian], 4 vol., Erevan : Erevani Hamalsarani Hratarakčʿutʿyun (1st edition, 7 volumes: 1926–1935). Aliffi, M.L. 2002. I verbi in -num dell’armeno classico, Palermo: Fenicia Edizioni. Belardi, W. 1987. “Filologia, grammatica, linguistica”, in Bolognesi & Pisani 1987, 37–60. Belardi, W. 2003. Elementi d’armeno aureo, vol. 1, Roma: Calamo. Bolognesi, G. 1987. “Linguistica e Filologia”, in Bolognesi & Pisani 1987, 13–36. Bolognesi, G. & Pisani, V. (eds). 1987. Linguistica e filologia. Atti del VII Convegno Internazionale di Linguisti tenuto a Milano nei giorni 12–14 settembre 1984, Brescia: Paideia. Ciakciak, E. 1837. Dizionario Armeno-Italiano, Venezia: Tipografia Mechitaristica di San Lazzaro. De Lamberterie, Ch. 1978. “Armeniaca I–VIII: études lexicales”, Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 73, 245–285. Diels, P. 1989. Altkirchenslavische Grammatik, Heidelberg: C. Winter-Universitätsverlag. Feydit, F. 1976. Le système de la déclinaison en arménien classique, Venise: Padri Mechitaristi (= Bazmavēp 1976, 74–85; 341–375). Frisk, Hj. 1953. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (= GEW), vol. I, Heidelberg: Winter. Godel, R. 1975. Introduction to the Study of Classical Armenian, Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. Hübschmann, H. 1897. Armenische Grammatik. Erster Theil: Armenische Etymologie, Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel (reprint 1992 Hildesheim, Zürich, New York: Olms). Hübschmann, H. 1976. Kleine Schriften zum Armenischen, hsgg. von R. Schmitt, Hildesheim: Olms.

36 Vaillant 1950–1977; Diels 1989. linguistics, normative grammar, and philology 213

Jensen, H. 1959. Altarmenische Grammatik, Heidelberg: Winter. Karst, J. 1901. Historische Grammatik des Kilikisch-Armenischen, Strasburg: Trübner (reprint 1970 Berlin: De Gruyter). Klingenschmitt, G. 1982. Das altarmenische Verbum, Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. Meillet, A. 1913. Altarmenisches Elementarbuch, Heidelberg: Winter. Meillet, A. 1925. La méthode comparative en linguistique historique, Oslo: H. Aschehoug. Meillet, A. 1936. Esquisse d’une grammaire comparée de l’arménien classique2, Vienne: Imprimerie des PP. Méchitaristes. Meillet, A. 1977. Études de linguistique et de philologie arméniennes (Bibliothèque de la Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian), vol. II, Lisbonne & Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste. Miskgian, I. 1887. Manuale Lexicon Armeno-Latinum ad usum scholarum, Romae: ex Typographia polyglotta S. Congr. de Propaganda Fide (repr. Louvain: Institut Orientaliste 1966). Momigliano, A. 1960. Secondo contributo alla storia degli studi classici, Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. Morani, M. 2000. Introduzione alla linguistica latina, München: Lincom Europa. Olsen, B.A. 1999. The Noun in Biblical Armenian, Berlin & New York: Mouton & De Gruyter. Ovsepian, L.S. 1976. “K voprosu o vzaimootnošenii drevnearmjanskogo literaturnogo jazyka i dialektov v V veke” [On the Question of the Interrelation between the Ancient Armenian Literary Language and the Dialects in the Fifth Century], in Lingvističeskaja geografija, dialektologija i istorija jazyka, Erevan: Izdatel’stvo AN armjanskoj SSR, 369–376. Pedersen, H. 1982. Kleine Schriften zum Armenischen, hsgg. von R. Schmitt, Hildesheim: Olms. Pokorny, J. 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (= IEW), Bern: Franke. Rix, H. (ed.) 2001. Lexicon der indogermanischen Verben (= LIV2), Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. Vaillant, A. 1950–1977. Grammaire comparée des langues slaves, Paris: IAC. Wodtko, D.S., Irslinger B. & Schneider C. 2008. Nomina im indogermanischen Lexicon, Heidelberg: Winter. Zōhrapean, Y. 1984. Astuacašunčʿ matean hin ew nor ktakaranacʿ [Bible Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments]. A Facsimile Reproduction of the 1805 Venetian Edition with an Introduction by C. Cox (Classical Armenian Text Reprint Series), Delmar, NY : Caravan Books. Manuscripts and Dialects

† Jos J.S. Weitenberg1

1 Introduction2

The linguistic research into dialectal aspects of Armenian manuscripts is related to manuscript grouping and may be approached from various angles.

A. Traditionally one identifies non-standard isolated elements in manuscript material and, ideally, assigns it to a dialect feature within Armenian. From this there results an insight into the place of origin and geographical spread of a single manuscript (and its copies). If the manuscript is dated, the dialectal feature on its turn may be fitted into a detailed absolute chronology. Such dialect features are most easily found within colophons where a scribe expresses himself freely. A systematic approach to such features in the colophons has been made by JahukyanÌ (1997). An overview over deviant linguistic features in the earliest texts and their general dialectal context is given by Gyulbudałyan (1973), Muradyan (1982) and, for the inscriptions, Avagyan (1973). This way of tracing a manuscript tradition through the dialectisms it contains is rather straightforward. However, there are more complicated ways in which linguistics is involved in manuscript grouping. B. The textual tradition may be defined by studying the use of previous, now obsolete, standardization applied to a text. This regards the manuscripts that show traces of the standard established by Aristakēs Hṙetor. Such knowledge may seem to be superfluous. As a rule, the editor aims at restoring the original (in most cases 5th century) situation of a text and is less interested in later accruements. Below I shall adduce instance in which such knowledge may be crucial, however, both from the point of view of linguistics and of manuscript grouping. C. In a larger sense, manuscripts, or rather manuscript groups, may themselves act as dialects: their textual tradition may be defined by a combination of linguistic and geographical criteria. This approach is very much related to the activity of manuscript grouping in general; but the arguments adduced for

1 Chapter revised by Alessandro Orengo. 2 Abbreviations used in this paper: GE: the Eǰmiacin Gospel manuscript M2374 anno 989; GL: the Lazarean Gospel M6200 anno 887 (Künzle 1984). NBHL: see Sigla in the present volume. Pal. Agat: the Agatʿangełos Palimpsest (9th c., Galemkʿearean 1911).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��4 | doi ��.��63/9789004270961_�1� Manuscripts and Dialects 215 grouping are the presence of fifth century linguistic isoglosses. In section 3 I intend to explore this approach.

2 Aristakēs Hṙetor

Manuscripts may have gone through an identical normalization stage. Identifying such a group has a linguistic value and may be of relevance for the textual tradition. Thus, one may define a feature “presence / absence of influence of the rules of Aristakēs Hṙetor”. This 12th–13th century scholar formulated a number of orthographic rules. He states his sources (in discussing the orthography of awł, oł) as “in agreement with the holy translators, the choicest teachers”.3 The standardization proposed by Aristakēs Hṙetor has been replaced by the current standard that is based on the work of Meillet.4 However, knowledge of the older rules still is relevant for text edition.

2.1 A still relevant instance of Aristakēs’s rules concerns the orthography of the suffixes awł and oł: Aristakēs addresses the monophthongization of aw and the ensuing confusion between aw and original o within a context of vowel alternation. He lists the following as correct: (p. 241): govawłk̔ – govołac “praising, praiser”; gočʿawł – gočʿołi “calling, crying, -er”; ašxatawł – ašxatołi “working, -er”. From this listing the following rule may be deduced: substantive/adjectives with awł, oł should be written as awł in the strong cases (NASg., NomPl., AccLoc.Pl.) but as oł in the other, weak, cases.5 The “correctness” of this rule is not our main concern here;6 what matters is its impact. One of such manuscripts certainly is V1508 (anno 1319), the text of the Zōhrapean Bible7 (see section 2.2). Another manuscript in which

3 Xačʿeryan 1962, 241; ibid. 227–286 for the edition of the text; JahukyanÌ 1956, 230–239 for comments. 4 On Meillet’s role in the standardization process of Classical Armenian see De Lamberterie 2006, 173–179. The view that current editorial practice is based on a standard provided both by Meillet and the NBHL (Cowe 1992, 101) confuses two different standards. 5 This rule does not agree with the distribution in GE; there one finds: cnawłkʿ, cnawłacʿ and karoł, karołacʿ which is currently considered a more original pattern. For a more detailed discussion see Weitenberg 2011. 6 The rule was rejected already by Awetikʿean 1815, 296. 7 Zōhrapean 1805 (repr. Zōhrapean 1984). 216 weitenberg these rules are followed is V873 (anno 1299) that among others contains the Commentary on Genesis by Eusebius of Emesa. The editor should be aware of the existence of these antiquated rules and, ideally, allow the user to get acquainted with their presence in a given manuscript. The mere fact that a manuscript belongs to the group of manuscripts that used these rules is of interest for the history of the textual tradition. The manuscript variants of the type awł and oł are frequently not listed in editions. In the case of the Eusebius of Emesa text, in the 1980 edition the traces of Aristakēs’s rule have been obliterated.8 However, the critical apparatus allows to follow the editorial interventions. In other editions this is not possible; the Erevan edition of the Bible as a policy does not mention awł, oł variants at all (Zeytʿunyan 1985: 84). Twentieth century research has shown that this orthographic difference is relevant in the 5th century;9 thus, a valuable tool to study the distribution of this much-debated feature is lost.

2.2 Pseudo-Archaisms in the Manuscript Tradition Sometimes the scholarly occupation with standardization creates non-existent forms. An example of such a pseudo-archaism is the treatment of the diph- thongs ew and iw in words of the type ewł, iwł “oil”, bewr, biwr “ten thousand”, tʿewr, tʿiwr “twisted”. The 5th century situation is reconstructed as follows:10

In stressed position one finds ew (ewł, bewr, tʿewr), in unstressed position iw (iwłaber, biwrowcʿ, tʿiwrem). This view is based on an analysis of the oldest manuscript material combined with etymological considerations.

In addition, the fifth century knew at least one word with stable iw: erkiwł, erkiwłi “fear”: in this word overall i-vocalism is assured by its etymological connection with the verb erknčʿim, erkeay (erki-wł – *erki-nčʿ-im – *erki-ay). However, already around the 9th century this distribution was disturbed and forms with iw were generalized in stressed position, too. Thus, next to a

8 The 1980 edition by Yovhannēsean standardized the text according to a different (in casu the Viennese Mekhitarist) standard that requires o throughout: where the manuscript offers aw, the edition changes this to o. Manuscript zǝntʿercʿawłs (edition – ołsn 3.57) – ǝntʿercʿołacʿn (2.34, 6.61) “readers”; manuscript cnawłkʿn (edition cnołkʿn 71.648) – cnołacʿn (73.720); see Petit, van Rompay and Weitenberg 2011. 9 De Lamberterie 1982, 37–45. 10 Meillet 1903 = Meillet 1977, 307–311; Meillet 1913, 18 §26. Further details and discussion Weitenberg 2010. Manuscripts and Dialects 217 regular pair bewr – biwrawor in GE GL one finds both (“irregular”) NomAcc.Sg. biwr and (“regular”) Acc. Pl. bewrs in the Pal. Agat. The textual tradition does not allow to decide on the orthographic priority of other similar doublets: hariwr, harewr “hundred”, hiwr, hewr “guest”, miws, mews “other”. Wherever available, first millennium data write iw: hariwr, miws, miwsoy (GE GL). The postclassical situation caused confusion on the correct orthography of such words. Aristakēs Hṙetor11 prescribed the use of ew in stressed, and of iw in unstressed position (ewł – iwłaber etc.) without any further qualifications. This rule was followed in manuscript V1508 and thus in Zohrap’s edition. As a consequence, in this text there appears at least one pattern that never existed: erkewł – erkiwłi. Uncertain is the linguistic reality of patterns like mews, harewr, hewr – miwsoy, hariwroy, hiwroy. In this way the rule of Aristakēs created pseudo-archaisms: forms that never existed in the fifth century or any stage of the spoken language.12 It is possible to group manuscripts according to the use or absence of such pseudo forms.

3 Competing Forms that Elude Standardization

In some cases, we discover traces of the existence of competing linguistic forms in the fifth century already. Such doublets escape standardization and are of extreme value for our insight in text transmission. If such a feature can be related to a specific group of manuscripts one may speak of a manuscript (group) as a dialect. This will be illustrated with the inflection of the name Movsēs and with the archaic aorist subjunctive forms of the type ekecʿes for ekescʿes.

3.1 The Inflectional Type Movsēsi, Movsesi, Movsisi Within Classical Armenian, a group of names of Greek and Iranian origin whose final syllable contains ē may show two or three types of inflection: they

11 Xačʿeryan 1962, 241, 268. 12 The Venice 1860 (so-called Bagratuni) Bible does not follow the rule and prefers iw in all positions, except for the orthography geawł “village” (Zōhrapean gewł); in this, Bagratuni follows the orthography of Aristakēs (p. 241) who lists geawłkʿ as correct; this form will not be discussed here; it continues gewł and goes back to the 6th century at least. The 1895 Constantinople Bible prefers ew in stressed position in all relevant instances. 218 weitenberg may preserve ē as a learned rendering of Greek η, they may show regular vowel alternation ē: i, they may show an alternation ē: e. Thus:13

Movsēs Movsisi Movsesi Movsēsi Μωΰσης Nersēs Nersisi Nersesi Νερσής

The Armenian ē in the NomAcc. forms is a rendering, or rather a transposition, of Greek η. Casus obliqui with unstressed ē (Gen.Sg. Movsēsi etc.) are mere learned orthographies. We find this situation in the GE:

EǰmGospel ed. 1805 ed. 1860 Asēra Lk 2:36 Aseray Ἀσήρ Daniēłi Mt 24:15 Daniēli Δανιήλ Małałeēłi Lk 3:37 Małałayeli Μαλελεήλ Movsēsi passim Movsisi Μωϋσῆς Movsēsē passim Movsisē Movsēsiw Mk 9:4 Movsisiw (Mk 9:3) Yovsēpʿay passim Yovsepʿay Ἰωσήφ Yovsēpʿu passim Yovsepʿu Yovsēkʿay Lk 3:26 Yovsekʿeay Ἰωσήχ Ovbēday Lk 3:32 Ovbeday Ὠβήδ Sałatʿiēłi Lk 3:27 Sałatʿieli Σαλαθιήλ Sētʿay Lk 3:38 Sētʿay Σήθ ed. 1860 Setʿay Sēmay Lk 3:36 Sēmay Σήμ ed. 1860 Semay Pʿanuēłi Lk 2:36 Pʿanueli Φανουήλ

The actual fifth century pronunciation of Greek η is twofold:14

1. On the one hand it is a non-alternating open [ε] which is reflected in the orthography Movsesi. Thus, the types Movsēsi and Movsesi represent the same linguistic reality.

13 Čʿalǝxean 1885, 13, allows both Movsēsi and Movsisi. Meillet 1913, 19 and Jensen 1959, 21, accept Movsesi and Movsisi. The Iranian material (e.g. Zawēn, Zawinay, Zawenay) is not treated here as it requires a different explanation than the Greek data. 14 See the discussion, with further literature, in Weitenberg 2006. Manuscripts and Dialects 219

2. On the other hand, a more rare and probably older reflex of Greek η in Armenian is an alternating ē: kēt, kʿartēs – kiti, kʿartisi “whale, card”. Biblical names that show this reflex (Movsisi) belong to this layer.15 They are not known to the Armenian language from Bible translation exclusively; they are rooted in actual language usage.16

Therefore, both the types (non-alternating) Movsesi and (alternating) Movsisi belong to the earliest layers of Classical Armenian.

3.1.1 Manuscript Distribution In our current context we are interested in the actual distribution of these types in the manuscripts. For a comparison I use the text of Deuteronomy:

1. manuscript Venice 1007, written in the year 1338 in Glajor that was selected by Cox (1981) for his diplomatic edition of Deuteronomy; 2. manuscript Venice 1508 (dating to 1319) that is the basis of the 1805 Zōhrapean edition; 3. the data from the 1860 Venice Bible (Bagratuni) edition, whose manuscript basis is not known to me;17 4. from the Eǰmiacin Gospel (manuscript M2374 anno 989) those names that also occur in Deuteronomy, and the name Zorobabēl.18 msV1007 msV1508 ed.1805 ed.1860

Amałēk Deut 25:17 Amałēk Amałēk Ἀμαληκ Amałekay Deut 25:19 Amałekay Amałekay

15 Hübschmann 1897, 327. 16 This linguistic background agrees with the characterizations of Hübschmann 1897, 327, and Marr 1903, 39, who consider the type Movsēsi, -esi as cultivated, and the type Movsisi as more popular. 17 This edition may well be “fundamentally the same” as the 1805 Zōhrapean edition (Cowe 1992, 7), but a deeper insight into its editorial principles remains a desideratum. 18 The form Zawrobabili is prescribed by Aristakēs Hṙetor (p. 268). 220 weitenberg

Aser Deut 27:13 Aser Aser Ἀσήρ Aseray Deut 33:24 Aseray Aseray Asēra GE Lk 2:36 Aseray Aseray

Aroyer Deut 2:29 Aroēr Aroyēr Ἀροηρ Aroyeray Deut 2:36 Aroeray Aroyeray (Deut 2:35) (Deut 2:35)

Kadēs Deut 1:46 Kadēs Kadēs Καδης Kadēsay Deut 33:2 Kadēsay Kadesay

Movsēs Deut passim Movsēs Movsēs Μοϋσῆς Movsēsi Deut 29:01 Movsisi Movsisi Movsēsi Deut 32:48 Movsisi Movsisi Movsēsi Deut 34:08 Movsisi Movsisi Movsēsi Deut 34:09 Movsisi Movsisi

Movsēsi GE passim Movsisi Movsisi Movsēsē GE passim Movsisē Movsisē Movsēsiw GE Mk 9:4 Movsisiw Movsisiw (Mk 9:3) (Mk 9:3)

Yovsēpʿ Deut 27:12 Yovsēpʿ Yovsēpʿ Ἰωσήφ Yovsepʿay Deut 33:13 Yovsepʿay Yovsepʿay Yovsepʿay Deut 33:16 Yovsepʿay Yovsepʿay

Yovsēpʿay GE passim Yovsepʿay Yovsepʿay Yovsēpʿu GE passim Yovsepʿu Yovsepʿu

Ṙobēn Deut 27:13 Ṙubēn Ṙubēn ῾Ρουβην Ṙobēn Deut 33:6 Ṙubēn Ṙubēn Ṙobeni Deut 3:12.16 Ṙubini Ṙubeni Ṙobeni Deut 4:43 Ṙubini Ṙubeni Ṙobeni Deut 11:06 Ṙubini Ṙubeni Ṙobeni Deut 29:8 Ṙubini Ṙubeni

Kʿorēb passim Kʿorēb Kʿorēb Χορηβ Kʿorebay Deut 1:2.19 Kʿorebay Kʿorebay

Zorobabēłi GE Lk. 3:27 Zorobabili Zorobabeli Ζοροβαβέλ Manuscripts and Dialects 221

The table shows that for the names Ṙubēn and Movsēs there exists a clear distribution between manuscripts V1007 (Cox 1981) and V1508 (the Zohrap edition). Manuscript V1007 accepts the pattern ē – i where it exists.19 This manuscript distribution can be mapped geographically: manuscript V1007 is a member of a group of manuscripts that is characterized as “an early group of mss and consistently (having) its origin in Armenia proper” (Cox 1981:47). The manuscript V1508 is based on a Cilician type of text.20 Thus, with due reservation, the inflection of the names Movsēs and Ṙubēn may be an instance in which geographical distribution and manuscript grouping fall together. The differentiation is, among others, based on a linguistic feature that already existed in the fifth century. In this sense manuscript (groups) may be considered as dialects, separated by a dialectal isogloss, the inflection of specific names.

3.2 Archaic Subjunctives Archaic aorist subjunctives of the type ekecʿes are found next to, and to a large extent were replaced by, the standard fifth century form of the type ekescʿes etc. Like the variant inflection forms of Movsēs they are both “correct” for fifth century texts21 and therefore escape standardization. From a geographical point of view, they may point to the Northern, Bagratuni, area: one finds them in the Hoṙomos inscriptions:22

Me1: “After my death” . . . xapʿanel mi okʿ išxecʿē i banēn AY ew mi okʿ vayra- par hamarēcʿi zgrealss “let no one dare to hinder (from) the word of God and let no one consider these commands as idle” Mi1: ew orkʿ zkni jer gan zjez yišecʿen “and those who come after you, may/ will remember you”.

19 Absence of this pattern in other names indicates that they remained foreign elements (Amałēk, Aser, Aroyer, Kadēs, Kʿorēb) that were not integrated into common language usage. In the case of Yovsēpʿ an inflected form *Yo(v)sipʿay etc. never developed; this may be due to influence of the Syriac Iausef. 20 The editorial policy of the Venice 1860 Bible edition seems to obliterate this manuscript distribution. 21 According to Meillet 1903 (= Meillet 1977), 319–321, the type ekecʿes occurs frequently in Gospel manuscript M3793 (old Ejm.363) anno 1053 (Sandłkay Vankʿ), and, side by side with the type ekescʿes, in among others GE (Noravankʿ), GL (Vanand?) and the miscellany M2679 (old Eǰm.102) anno 981. One finds hangucʿe Gen. 5:29 for Zōhrapean hanguscʿē in the flyleaves of manuscript SABB NS14, 9th–10th cc. (Van Esbroeck 1980, 273). 22 Text according to Mahé 2002, 170–172. 222 weitenberg

Here the archaic subjunctive forms išxecʿē, hamarēcʿi, yišecʿen are found instead of išxecʿē, hamarescʿi, yišescʿen; there is no need to correct them.23 Again, we are able to link a fifth century isogloss, and a manuscript tradition, to a geographic area.

3.3 At manuscript level the distribution of the subjunctives of the type ekecʿes points to the north; the distribution of the type Movsesi points to “Armenia proper”;24 the type Movsisi is linked to a “Cilician” type of manuscripts. As such they are elements to establish a manuscript tradition in the sense of Cowe (1992: 25–57). But they are more than that:

From a linguistic point of view the manuscript groups themselves here act as dialects: they allow us to define a fifth century isogloss in geographical terms. It is difficult to link the evidence found so far to specific dialects that are known to us from traditional approaches. In particular one would like to know whether the manuscript distribution of the types Movsesi, Movsisi is related to any dialectal distribution pattern with respect to vowel alternation.25

4 Outlook

The type of research described here is dependent on the extensive availability of data from different manuscripts. With critical text editions, one consults the apparatus. There is no principal objection against using a traditional apparatus where all variants are recorded at the place where they occur; it just is time consuming to collect such variants and to obtain a general overview over their distribution. Manuscript descriptions that intend to alleviate the burden of enumerating recurrent variants in the apparatus by providing general descriptions of the type “this manuscript confuses ew and iw”, frequently do not offer the necessary detail. Therefore, the most useful presentation of variant data is

23 Mahé 2002, 171 note 6, corrects to yišescʿen. Of course, hamarēcʿi stands for hamarecʿi. 24 This distribution finds support in the evidence of the form Gen. Sg. Grēgori in the early 7th c. Hṙipʿsimē Church inscription (Ararat region) for regularGrigori (Greenwood 2004: A.2.1. line 3). The Greek form of this name is Γρηγόριος. 25 The variant type lezu (Muš – Van region) – lizu (Ararat region) seems to be of a different nature from the type Movsesi – Movsisi. Manuscripts and Dialects 223 the one given e.g. in Cowe (1992) and Cox (2006) where variations are catego- rized and presented together outside of the body of the edition. No edition can be expected to cater for whatever problem (some will say “whim”) that is brought up by its users. What is required is a grammatical description in which variants are systematically described and placed within their proper chronological and dialectal perspective. Such a description would span the 5th–11th centuries, that is, the Classical period up to (early) Middle Armenian times. This would be a reference tool for handling and judging text transmission in the earlier stages of the tradition.

Bibliography

Avagyan, S.A. 1973. Vimakan arjanagrutʿyunneri hnčʿyunabanutʿyun (X–XIV dd.) [The phonetics of stone inscriptions (10th–15th cc.)], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Awetikʿean, G. 1815. Kʿerakanutʿiwn Haykakan [Armenian grammar], i Venetik: S. Łazar. Čʿalǝxean, V. 1885. Kʿerakanutʿiwn haykaznean lezui [Grammar of the Armenian language], Vienna: Mxitʿarean tparan. Cowe, S.P. 1992. The Armenian Version of Daniel (UPATS, 9), Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Cox, C.E. 1981. The Armenian Translation of Deuteronomy (UPATS, 2), Chico, CA: Scholars Press. Cox, C.E. 2006. Armenian Job. Reconstructed Greek Text, Critical Edition of the Armenian with English Translation (HUAS, 8), Leuven, Paris & Dudley, MA: Peeters. De Lamberterie, Ch. 1982. “Poids et force: reconstruction d’une racine verbale indo-européenne”, REArm 16, 21–55. De Lamberterie, Ch. 2006. “La place de l’arménien dans la vie et l’oeuvre d’Antoine Meillet” in G. Bergounioux & Ch. De Lamberterie (eds), Meillet aujourd’hui (Collection Linguistique publiée par la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 79), Leuven & Paris: Peeters, 147–189. Galemkʿearean, G. 1911. “Agatʿangełosi krknagir bnagirǝ/Agathangelos-Text nach dem Wiener Palimpsest”, in Huschardzan. Festschrift aus Anlass des 100jährigen. Bestandes der Mechitaristen-Kongregation in Wien (1811–1911) und des 25. Jahrganges der philologischen Monatsschrift “Handes Amsorya” (1887–1911), Vienna: Mxitʿarean tparan, 67–160. Gyulbudałyan, S.V. 1973. Hayereni ułłagrutʿyan patmutʿyun [History of the orthography of the Armenian language], Erevan: Erevani Hamalsarani Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Hübschmann, H. 1897. Armenische Grammatik. Erster Teil. Armenische Etymologie, Leipzig: Breitkof & Härtel. 224 weitenberg

Jahukyan,Ì G.B. 1997. Barbaṙayin erevoytʿner Haykakan hišatakarannerum [Dialect Features in Armenian Colophons] (Accessing Armenian Colophons, 1), Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Jensen, H. 1959. Altarmenische Grammatik, Heidelberg: Winter. Künzle, B.O. 1984. Das altarmenische Evangelium Teil I. (Europäische Hochschulschriften Reihe XXI. Linguistik und Indo-Germanistik, 33), Bern, Frankfurt am Main, Nancy & New York: Peter Lang. Mahé, J.-P. 2002. “Les inscriptions de Hoṙomos”, in A.T. Baladian & J.-M. Thierry (avec une contribution de J.-P. Mahé), Le couvent de Hoṙomos d’après les archives de Toros Toramanian (Monuments Piot, 81), Paris: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles- Lettres, 147–214. Marr, N. 1903. Grammatika drevnearmjanskago jazyka. Ėtimologija [Grammar of the Ancient Armenian Language. Etymology ](Izdanija fakul’teta vostočnyx jazykov imperatorskago S.-Peterburgskago universiteta, 11), St. Petersburg: Tipografija imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk’. Meillet, A. 1903. “Anciens manuscrits de l’évangile arménien”, Journal Asiatique X/2, 487–507. Reprinted in Meillet 1977, 301–321. Meillet, A. 1913. Altarmenisches Elementarbuch, Heidelberg: Winter. Meillet, A. 1977. Études de linguistique et de philologie arméniennes II, Leuven: Imprimerie Orientaliste. Muradyan, H.D. 1982. Hayocʿ lezvi patmakan kʿerakanutʿyun I. Hnčʿyunabanutʿyun [Historical Grammar of Armenian I. Phonetics], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Petit, F., Van Rompay, L. & Weitenberg, J.J.S. 2011. Eusèbe d’Émèse. Commentaire de la Genèse. Texte arménien de l’édition de Venise (1980), fragments grecs et syriaques, avec traductions (Traditio Exegetica Graeca, 15), Leuven: Peeters. Van Esbroeck, M. (Mišel van Ēsbrok). 1980. “Leningradi M.E. Saltinov-Ščedrini anvan hanrayin gradaranin hayeren krknagirǝ (Nor Šarkʿ, No. 14) [French summary, p. 274: Le palimpseste arménien de la collection de la bibliothèque publique Saltykov- Chédrine de Leningrad (Nouvelle Série No. 14)]”, Banber Matenadarani 13, 271–274. Weitenberg, J.J.S. 2006. “Aspects of Classical Armenian orthography: Armenian e, and the Greek names in the Gospels” in A. Krasnowolska, K. Maciuszak & B. Mękarska (eds), In the Orient where the Gracious Light . . . Satura Orientalis in Honorem Andrzej Pisowicz, Kraków: Księgarnia Akademicka, 215–228. Weitenberg, J.J.S. 2010. “Notes on the Classical Armenian closing diphthong ew”, in S. Vanséveren (ed.), Calliope. Mélanges de linguistique indo-européenne offerts à Francine Mawet (Lettres Orientales, 14), Leuven: Peeters, 247–257. Weitenberg, J.J.S. 2011. “Note on the Classical Armenian suffixes oł and awł” in J. Dum Tragut & U. Bläsing, (eds), Cultural, Linguistic and ethnological interrelations in and Manuscripts and Dialects 225

around Armenia (Acts of the Workshop, Michaelbeuern, July 4–7, 2007), Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 183–195. Xačʿeryan, L.G. 1962. “Grčʿutʿyan arvesti” lezvakan-kʿerakanakan tesutʿyunǝ miǰnadaryan Hayastanum (Usumnasirutʿyun ew bnagrer) [The linguistic-grammatical theory of the Art of Writing in medieval Armenia. Study and Texts], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Yovhannēsean, V. 1980. Ewsebios Emesacʿi. A. Mekʿnutʿiwnkʿ utʿamatean grocʿ astuacašnčʿin [Eusebius of Emesa, Commentary on the Octateuch] (Matena- grutʿiwnkʿ Naxneacʿ [Works of the Fathers]. Bibliothèque de l’Académie Arménienne de Saint Lazare, 56), Venetik: S. Łazar. Zeytʿunyan, A.S. 1985. Girkʿ Cnndocʿ. Kʿnnakan bnagir [The Book of Genesis. Critical Text], (Hay hnagoyn tʿargmanakan hušarjanner [Monuments of the most Ancient Armenian Translations], 1), Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Zōhrapean, Y. 1805. See Zōhrapean 1984. Zōhrapean, Y. 1984. Astuacašunčʿ matean hin ew nor ktakaranacʿ [Bible. Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments]. A Facsimile Reproduction of the 1805 Venetian Edition with an Introduction by C. Cox (Classical Armenian Text Reprint Series), Delmar, NY: Caravan Books.

part TWO Cases Studies

∵

Bible and Apocrypha

‥

The Armenian Bible: Status Quaestionis

Claude Cox

It is now almost four decades since an initiative was advanced to produce a critical edition of the Armenian Bible.1 Perhaps it is worthwhile to assess what has been achieved thus far. On the one hand, it is easy to be discouraged because the results in terms of critical editions of texts are rather small; on the other hand, quite a lot has been achieved and it is on this that I would like to place the focus. From the outset I should admit that my interests are in the editions of texts of the classical Armenian Bible, and not so much in modern Armenian translations that might be based upon them. The Armenian Bible is a translation of the Bible in its own right. That is, in one sense, it stands alone and has been the spiritual centre of the Armenian Church for some sixteen hundred years. However, it is also a “version”, in that it is a translation; indeed, for the Old Testament it is a “sub-version”, because it is a translation of a translation, having been translated from Greek or Syriac which, in turn, are translations of the Hebrew original. Many of us who work on the Armenian translation of the Bible come to it as text critics of the Greek or Syriac Bibles, as patristic scholars, as historians, as theologians, i.e., we come from elsewhere in the sense that we use the Armenian Bible as a resource in other, related disciplines. The Armenian “version”, or “sub-version”, is a significant version of the biblical text for several reasons. First, there are historical sources that relate the story of the translation of the Bible into Armenian. The Armenian translation is virtually unique in this regard, except perhaps for Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. The most important historical source is Koriwn’s Life of Maštocʿ (Abełyan 1941). Though Koriwn tantalizes us with what he does not tell us, what he does tell us preserves invaluable information about the development of the Armenian alphabet and, immediately thereafter, the undertaking of a translation of the Bible into Armenian. Second, the early date of the Armenian version, i.e., early 5th century, makes the version a significant witness, especially for the Old Testament, where there are fewer early papyri extant than is the case for the New Testament. We know that the Armenian is closely related to certain types of Greek witnesses and that there is a Syriac component still present for some books of the Bible. Third, there is a wealth of manuscript resources

1 I refer here to the 1969 Synod of Bishops’ decision to undertake the preparation of a critical edition of the Armenian Bible: see Ajamian 1976, 8–12.

available. For example, there are some 135 manuscripts extant for the book of Job, and, while many of these are late medieval, it is the case that late manuscripts sometimes preserve early forms of text. So, that manuscripts are “late” should not necessarily discourage us.

1 What has been Done Since 1969

It was in 1973 that M. Stone published his seminal article on the selection of a base text for an edition of Isaiah (Stone 1973). This “pilot study” set forth a methodology whereby a manuscript for a “base text” could be selected from a large number, in this case, some 70, about half those extant. Two years later, in his article already cited, Ajamian reported that he had collated 65 manuscripts, from which twelve would be used in a critical edition. His intended base text was Jerusalem 1930 or Matenadaran 4113, dating from 1323 and 1384, respectively. Archbishop Ajamian moved on to other endeavours and the edition was never finished. In 1979 the first critical edition of a biblical book appeared with the publication of Stone’s edition of 4th Ezra, an apocalyptic book that had been printed in an appendix to Zōhrapean’s Bible.2 I would like to return to that and begin my survey with the canonical Old Testament, and continue through the Apocrypha, New Testament and Pseudepigrapha.

2 Old Testament

The Armenian Translation of Deuteronomy was a University of Toronto doctoral thesis (director: J.W. Wevers) and was published in 1981. Eight manuscripts were selected on the basis of sample collations of 99 manuscripts. The base text is Venice 1007 (date: 1338). Four text groups were isolated. Of course, V1007 is drawn from the purest of the four groups, namely group a; J1925 belongs to the same group, as does the British and Foreign Bible Society (London) manuscript, witnesses later used in my critical edition of Job. A collation of the text against the Septuagint and Peshitta reveals that the parent text of the Armenian is a Byzantine Greek text, i.e., a fairly developed type of text, influenced by Origen’s Hexapla. There are at the most a handful of contacts with the Peshitta, but these might not be textual in nature; rather they may be coinci- dental or reflect a shared exegetical approach.

2 Zōhrapean 1984 (1805). The Armenian Bible: Status Quaestionis 233

The books of the Pentateuch have appeared in “critical” editions, edited by A. Zeytʿunyan in Yerevan. The first volume, Genesis, appeared in 1985; the last, Deuteronomy, appeared in 2002.3 The Genesis volume was a product of the Soviet period and the other volumes share the same template. The number of manuscripts extant in each case is over 100 – for Genesis it is 106 – so Zeytʿunyan employs a cut-off date of the 16th century, which reduces the number by more than half. The base text is not specified. No stemmatic relationships are worked out in any of the volumes, and he employs an idiosyncratic system of sigla, so the apparatus offers the user strings of manuscripts designated by an English capital letter plus a number (subscript in Genesis). The editions of the Pentateuch do enjoy the inclusion of fragments of manuscripts, lectionaries, and citations found in commentaries. I find the volumes difficult to use. P. Cowe’s 1983 doctoral thesis was published as The Armenian Translation of Daniel (Cowe 1992). This valuable piece of research presents a fine, diplomatic edition of the text; it uses Matenadaran 287 (date: 1258) as a base text and presents in an apparatus the variant readings of the other 14 manuscripts employed for the edition. These fifteen manuscripts were selected from a collation of sample passages in some 120 manuscripts that resulted in the identification of five text groups. Among his important conclusions, Cowe says that the Armenian translator of Daniel used the Syriac Peshitta and a “Lucianic” Greek text simultaneously, so that the pre-Ephesus (i.e., before 431) Armenian 1 translation is a hybrid. The later, post-Ephesus Armenian 2 revision represents a second Greek contact that produced a second, more literal stratum in the translation. Cowe even attempts at placing the various text groups into their geographical provenance, so that his work is immensely stimulating. H. Amalyan’s edition of the Twelve Prophets, published in 2000, also comes out of the Yerevan “critical edition” series.4 I have not seen it. For many years I have worked on a critical edition of the Armenian translation of Job. This appeared in 2006 from Peeters (Cox 2006). Some 135 manuscripts are extant and these can be placed into four text groups. From those groups Jerusalem 1925 was selected as the base text; the other group a manuscripts fully collated are M1500 and the (London) British and Foreign Bible Society manuscript. Group b manuscripts are Venice 841 and the British Library MS; group c manuscripts are Jerusalem 1934 and Matenadaran 2587; group d manuscripts are Venice 280 and Zōhrapean’s text (= Venice 1508). The critical text is accompanied by a retroverted Greek text and an English

3 Zeytʿunyan 1985, 2002; on Genesis, see Cox 1988. 4 Amalyan 2000. Bernard Outtier informed me of this publication in a letter dated Nov. 15, 2005. He indicates that he had not seen it in bookshops, not even the one at the Matenadaran. 234 cox translation. It is clear that the parent text of Armenian Job was a Lucianic Greek text that includes the hexaplaric additions that make the text the same length as the Hebrew. There is no evidence of a Syriac presence in the text, not even of a scarce, residual nature.5

3 Apocrypha

The so-called “Apocrypha” was part of the Old Testament in Greek, so we may expect that very early its varied contents were translated into Armenian.6 So far only two critical editions have been devoted to the apocryphal books. The first is M. Stone’s edition of IV Ezra; the second is the edition of Maccabees prepared by H. Amalyan. The latter volume is the only book apart from Zeytʿunyan’s Pentateuch and Amalyan’s Twelve Prophets (Amalyan 1996) to come out of the “critical edition” initiative launched in 1969. Stone’s edition of IV Ezra (Stone 1979) has the distinction of being the first biblical book in Armenian to receive a critical edition. Published with an English translation, it shows considerable advancement beyond the pilot study devoted to Isaiah. For example, all available witnesses, save one, a total of twenty-one, are collated regardless of date, divided into textual families, and presented in terms of stemmatic relationships. This volume pointed the way ahead for setting up a critical edition of an Armenian text. As for Maccabees, there are 76 extant copies of Maccabees and they fall into four text groups. Of these 76 manuscripts, Amalyan selected 32, dating up to the 17th century, for use in the edition. To these he added eight more of “the best” witnesses – what “best” means is not explained – for a total of 40.7 The 40 manuscripts appear to be, simply, forty of the oldest: the first 20 oldest of the 38 manuscripts of Group I; the first five of the 19 manuscripts of Group II; the second and third of the seven manuscripts of Group III; the first nine and the eleventh manuscript of the eleven witnesses in Group IV.8 Oddly Yerevan 2627, his G3, appears in both Group I and Group IV. It is Amalyan’s conclusion that the first three of the four text groups were translated from three different foreign sources; in the case of the first two it is

5 There are some Syriac tidbits extant in the translation of Psalms: see Cox 2002. 6 This may be the place to mention M. Stone’s series of articles in the Armenian canon lists, the most recent of which is Stone 2001. 7 Amalyan 1996, 41. 8 Compare the manuscripts listed on p. 40 as belonging to the four groups with the list of forty manuscripts described briefly on 53–68. The Armenian Bible: Status Quaestionis 235 not possible to say which is from Greek and which is from Syriac – if I understand him correctly. The fourth group is connected to the first, and the third he places in the post-Ephesus period. Three manuscripts of Group III, namely, Venice 1508, Venice 1634, and St. Petersburg B1, he says, are not clearly connected to the other manuscripts of that group. So it is odd, again, that Amalyan chooses as the base text for his edition Zōhrapean, who printed V1508. That is, the base text, Zōhrapean, is not representative of any of the text groups that Amalyan has defined. It seems to me that this work on the text groups in Maccabees needs further exploration and reflection.9 The text itself is nicely set up, but it leaves the textual groupings behind with the introduction and gives us again, in the apparatus, strings of manuscripts identified by Zeytʿunyan’s idiosyncratic sigla. Helpfully, there are more than forty pages of notes that accompany the text. The edition itself stretches to some 528 pages, so it was a major undertaking. The appearance of Maccabees after Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus in the “critical text” initiative reflects the importance of the books of Maccabees in Armenian history and thought.10

4 New Testament

No critical edition exists for any book of the New Testament. Joseph Alexanian has worked on Luke and is involved in producing a critical edition of Acts for the International Project on the Text of Acts.11 Provided here is the conclusion of his 2005 Etchmiadzin paper, where he summarizes his work on Acts.

We have identified nine groups of manuscripts, prepared group profiles for each and have explored the relationships between groups, and have suggested a broad and tentative picture of the development of the Armenian text of Acts. Guided by the manuscript and group profiles, we will be able now to choose a few manuscripts to represent the several

9 While I am pointing out some difficulties, or at least points that require clarification, Amalyan notes, on p. 47, that some fourteen manuscripts preserve Origenian asterisks and obeli – but these signs must have some other function than they did for Origen because Origen did not work on the books of Maccabees: 2–4 Maccabees, having been authored in Greek, have no Hebrew parent text for comparison, and the Hebrew parent text of 1 Maccabees was long ago lost. 10 Thomson 1975. 11 Alexanian 2012. 236 cox

groups and the development of the text for the critical apparatus of the published edition of Armenian Acts. [. . .] If we are to choose a manuscript for our base text, it must be one that preserves the pre-Cilician text of Greater Armenia and that is as free as possible of errors, singular readings, and minor readings, that is, readings found in only a few manuscripts. It should have as many of the majority readings as possible. Clearly the manuscript must come from Groups A, B, D, or I. These requirements suggest either MS Chicago 229 (XIII) [. . .], or MS Erevan 352 (XIV) [. . .]. In conclusion, we have found that the Armenian text of Acts is most closely aligned with the Alexandrian text-type and that agreement with the Western text is very weak. Occasional Western readings may be rem- nants of the original translation of the New Testament from Syriac into Armenian (Arm 1), or may have entered the text during the centuries of copying the revised translation (Arm 2) through contact with Western readings in Greek or Syriac biblical manuscripts or patristic sources. These results will become part of the text-critical evidence used to establish and publish a critical edition of the Greek text of the Acts of the Apostles [i.e., Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior].12

Alexanian says that he plans to finish the critical edition of Acts in two years. We can hardly wait! This first critical edition of a New Testament book will represent a major contribution to Armenian biblical and textual studies. C. Burchard has produced several valuable, foundational studies of the book of James in Armenian; these await someone to carry them forward into a critical edition.13 It seems that interest in the Armenian NT has waned from what it once was, perhaps because of its textual complexity and the fact that, with the discovery of early papyri in Greek, its witness is not regarded as holding the same importance for New Testament textual criticism as it once enjoyed. At the same time there is interest in NT apocryphal materials, particularly in connec-

12 My thanks to Joe Alexanian for sending me this part of his paper by e-mail. For the entire presentation, see “The Ancient Armenian Text of the Acts of the Apostles and its Importance for New Testament Textual Criticism” presented at “1600 Years of Praying, Studying, Teaching and Celebrating the Word of God in Armenia: An International Conference on the Armenian Bible under the Auspices of His Holiness Karekin II, Catholicos and Supreme Patriarch of All Armenians, Etchmiadzin, Republic of Armenia, Oct. 6–9, 2005”. The papers from this symposium are to be edited for publication by Fr. Vahan Hovhanessian. 13 For bibliography, see the notes in Burchard 1997, 9–19. The Armenian Bible: Status Quaestionis 237 tion to issues of canonical status. V. Hovhanessian has dealt both with the Rest of John and with Third Corinthians at recent Armenological symposiums.14 In the latter case he has made a strong argument for regarding Third Corinthians as having canonical status in the Armenian tradition.

5 Pseudepigrapha

Both “Apocrypha” and “Pseudepigrapha” are really misnomers. The former refers to that group of books that circulated with the Old Testament in Greek, but which did not become part of the Hebrew, Jewish canon; “Pseudepigrapha” refers to those books, biblical in nature, which eventually were regarded as standing at an even greater distance from canonical status. Armenian texts which are biblical in nature might be called “apocryphal” and at the same time belong in translation to the Pseudepigrapha according to the groups of texts just outlined, i.e., Hebrew canon, Old Greek with Apocrypha, and Pseudepigrapha. Finally, there are apocryphal works in Armenian, composed in Armenian, where “apocryphal” means biblical and non-canonical. There has been a very active group of scholars working on pseudepigraphical-type literature, either works extant in Armenian translation or works composed in Armenian. M. Stone has been responsible for stimulating much of this interest, which saw his own early publication of the Testament of Levi,15 and which has continued through his publication of works related to the Adam traditions in Armenian.16 For his part, C. Burchard has made important contributions to the study of Joseph and Aseneth, including

14 “The Armenian Version of the Repose of the Blessed John and the Apocryphal Acts of John: A Non-Gnostic Reading”, at “1600 Years of Praying, Studying, Teaching and Celebrating the Word of God in Armenia . . .”; and “The Reading is From Third Corinthians – A Glance at the Lectionary of the Armenian Church” presented at “The Armenian Bible: Celebrating the 1600th Anniversary of the Discovery of the Armenian Alphabet and the Translation of the Bible into Armenian”, organized by the Western Diocese of the Armenian Church, Burbank, CA, Feb. 25, 2006. The papers from the second symposium are to be edited by Barlow Der Mugrdechian. See also, Hovhanessian 2000. 15 Stone 1969. See also the critical editio minor of the Armenian version of Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs based on 11 manuscripts by M.E. Stone with the collaboration of V. Hillel: Stone 2012. 16 For example, History of the Literature of Adam and Eve, Stone 1992. For a survey of the function of apocryphal literature in the Armenian religious and literary tradition, see “Apocrypha and the Armenian Tradition”, in “1600 Years of Praying, Studying, Teaching and Celebrating the Word of God in Armenia . . .”. 238 cox a critical editio minor.17 It remains to mention, in this brief survey, the amaz- ingly rich volume that came out of the 1997 colloquium convened in Geneva, devoted to apocryphal and pseudepigraphical literature in Armenian. This book reflects a maturity of scholarship and, at the same time, reveals what a fruitful area of research Armenian apocryphal literature has become.18 Some of these apocryphal Armenian texts are of great interest to the field of biblical studies generally. For instance, A. Hultgård’s contribution to the Geneva volume is devoted to the Vision of Enoch the Just, an early 8th century apocalyptic text that has received virtually no attention. The text, he says, shows affinities with the Byzantine apocalyptic tradition; it deals with the conflict between the Byzantine Empire and the Caliphate. A critical edition and commentary on this text are to follow and these will be of interest well beyond Armenian studies.

6 The State of the Question

This brief review shows what has been done in the last forty years or so of research and publication on the text of the Armenian Bible. On the one hand, it does not seem like very much: only a handful of critical editions, and these are of uneven quality; on the other hand, a great deal has been accomplished. Let me offer a short list of major developments and contributions. 1. Manuscripts remain inaccessible without catalogues. Archbishop N. Bogharian (Połarean) completed the cataloguing of the Jerusalem Patriarchate manuscripts (Połarean 1991); this, together with the already-completed catalogues of the other collections, principally in Yerevan and Vienna and the half-completed catalogue of Venice which contains all its biblical manuscripts, are the basis for Ajamian’s useful catalogue of biblical manuscripts.19 2. The editions that have appeared thus far have given us an insight into the development of the Armenian biblical text. That is, the textual groupings that have emerged in editing the Testament of Levi, 4th Ezra, Deuteronomy, (the Pentateuch), Daniel, Job, and Maccabees, reveal to us the textual character of individual witnesses and of the textual groupings of which they are a part.

17 See recently Burchard 2003; Burchard 2010. 18 Calzolari Bouvier et al. (eds) 1999. My positive review of this collection: Cox 2002b. 19 Adjémian 1992. The Armenian Bible: Status Quaestionis 239

For example, Jerusalem 1925 has long been regarded as of great interest textually. Let us look at what we have learned about this manuscript in the last almost forty years. First, there are the catalogues of Bogharian and Ajamian, noted above, where there are descriptions of the manuscript and its contents. Before either of these appeared, M. Stone in 1969 offered a description of J1925 and its scribal characteristics in his edition of Armenian Levi, where he finds that J1925 contains a text superior to all other manuscripts of recension βετα. For his edition of βετα he uses J1925.20 In 1972 B. Johnson, based on a limited collation of manuscripts of 1 Samuel, was able to establish the existence of three text groups there: Jerusalem 1925, he finds, belongs to his first text group along with manuscripts M345 M1500 V841 V935 W14 and J1153.21 In 1981 The Armenian Translation of Deuteronomy appeared (Cox 1981). There J1925 is revealed to belong to group a, the first of four text groups and the one preserving the purest form of text. It was fully collated in the apparatus as a representative of group a, along with the (London) British and Foreign Bible Society manuscript. Next, in 1985 Zeytʿunyan published his edition of Genesis. He does not delin- eate text groups, but on p. 95 he offers a description of J1925, his B3, where he notes that in Genesis the manuscript is related to manuscripts M7753 (12th century) and V1311 (12th–13th) and to lectionaries M168(a) (11th–12th), M1623 (11th–12th), J2148 (10th). J1925 is fully collated in his edition of Genesis, as it is in Exodus-Deuteronomy. Cowe’s 1983 Hebrew University dissertation was published in 1992. Here he delineates five text groups, ABCD and E. Jerusalem 1925 and M1500 are found to constitute a sub-group of group C, and therefore designated C1; J1925 is fully collated in his edition as the representative of group C1, along with M9116, a 14th century Cypriot manuscript.22 At a Septuagint symposium in Göttingen in 1997, I presented a paper that analyzed Zōhrapeanʿs edition of Psalms. At the centre of this analysis is a detailed collation of Pss. 10–20 over against the Old Greek; included in the collation are J1925 and M1500. Here we find – it was surprising to me – that Zōhrapean’s base text, i.e., V1508, is at least as reliable as J1925 or M1500 for Psalms and that, further, they read together sufficiently often that the three Armenian witnesses may belong to the same text group.23 I suggested that

20 See Stone 1969, 13–14, 19–25; the frontispiece plate and plate 2 are of J1925. The reference to a superior text is found on p. 30. 21 Johnson 1972; see also Cox 1984. 22 Brief descriptions of J1925 and M9116 in Cowe 1992, 97–98. 23 Cox 2000, 233. 240 cox a collation of Zōhrapean’s edition, supplemented by J1925, might suffice to represent the Armenian in a new, critical edition of the Old Greek Psalms.24 Finally, J1925 serves as base text for the critical edition of Job (Cox 2006), where it belongs to group a; M1500 and the (London) British and Foreign Bible Society manuscript belong to the same group and were fully collated. J1925 does not contain Maccabees or 4th Ezra. Aside from its text, J1925 is an excellent source for the preservation of Origen’s hexaplaric signs. Hexaplaric Signs Preserved in the Armenian Version appeared in 1986. J1925 was one of 35 manuscripts from which the asterisks, obeli and metobeli were gathered. (J1925 preserves no obeli or metobeli, though sometimes it has an asterisk where an obelus should be placed.) It is the earliest and one of the most important manuscripts so employed.25 A separate such analysis was devoted entirely to J1925 and the preservation of its hexaplaric signs in the entire Old Testament. It happens that J1925 preserves no such signs for the Pentateuch, probably indicating that the copy of the Books of Moses from which the manuscript was copied preserved no such signs there. Its witness is especially strong in Job and Jeremiah.26 In addition to Origen’s hexaplaric signs – the indicators of his text critical work – some Armenian manuscripts also preserve in their margins other hexaplaric materials, namely, words and phrases that derive from the three ancient translations connected with the names of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Armenian manuscripts turn out to be an excellent repository of such readings, preserving some 181 of them, in 69 cases uniquely. In Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion in Armenia, these readings from “the Three”, as they are known, are drawn from some thirty-nine manuscripts, including J1925. It happens that J1925 is not one of the better sources for such readings, though once, at 3 Reigns 2:4, it appears to preserve a reading uniquely among Armenian manuscripts.27 On occasion I used J1925 to help establish the original text of the Armenian, as at 2 Reigns 23:10.

24 Cox 2000, 246. 25 Cox 1986. J1925 was used for Josh., Judg., 2 Sam., 1 Ki., 2 Ki., Job, Isa., Jer., and Amos. Only one sign is preserved in Armenian for Amos – by J1925 alone among manuscripts I have studied. 26 Cox 1990. In this article I observe that the shape of the asterisk in J1925 is unique among the Armenian manuscripts, namely “+” with four dots in the quadrants rather than “x” with four dots. This is the form of the asterisk in the Syro-Hexapla. I had hoped that someone might pursue this issue: did J1925 derive its asterisks from a Syriac source? 27 Cox 1995. For 3 Reigns 2:4 see 125–127. The Armenian Bible: Status Quaestionis 241

While my interest is in texts, we should note that before any of the studies cited here appeared, S. Der Nersessian had written an article about the manuscript’s miniatures.28 We see that a great deal of work has been done on Jerusalem 1925 and it is just one manuscript among quite a few manuscripts that have received serious attention. In the process of doing this text critical work we are gaining an understanding of the shape of the manuscript tradition and an insight into the history of the transmission of the biblical text in Armenian. 3. A workshop on Armenian Philology which was held at the University of Geneva in 2006 as a preliminary step to this volume is just one of many that has produced congenial relationships among scholars working in Armenology generally and on the Armenian biblical tradition in particular. Texts were copied by scribes whose modern equivalent is those people who now do the minute analysis of those texts: reliable, printed editions plus their text-critical, linguistic, grammatical, historical, and theological examination. So it is right to pay tribute to those organizations, universities, professional societies, patrons, and Armenian Church authorities who call us together from time to time. Scholars, scattered around the world, have the opportunity at these meetings to see how their work fits into a bigger picture.

7 The Way Ahead

At the end of this presentation I would like to make a few suggestions for our work on the Armenian Bible. Perhaps not of necessity, these nevertheless reflect some of my own interests and perspectives, and, someone might say, limitations! 1. It is going to be a very long time before we have a critical edition of the entire Armenian Bible. As the time since I was a graduate student gets longer and longer, I recognize more clearly that the edition of Zōhrapean is the tour de force that it really is. The Göttingen critical edition of the Old Greek is still incomplete; lacking are Joshua, Judges, Samuel-Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes. The edition of Psalms, a provisional edition of which was printed in 1926, is to be redone. It seems to me that those books not yet finished in Göttingen should receive priority when it comes to critical editions of the Armenian so that the Armenian critical text can be collated in the critical edition of the Old Greek.

28 Der Nersessian 1973, vol. 1, 603–09. This study was reprinted and translated from Eǰmiacin, 1966, fasc. 11–12, 28–29. 242 cox

A critical edition of an Armenian Gospel is much needed. Work on Luke has been done by J. Alexanian but, whether it is Luke or one of the other Gospels, serious work on the text of the Gospels awaits a brilliant mind that will not be put off by complexity. Dr. P. Robinson’s “Collate!” program will enable the researcher to deal with a mass of manuscripts. I would like to see an edition of Hebrews, because F.C. Conybeare long ago provided a list of instances where he believed the Peshitta stands behind the Armenian text.29 Hebrews is a relatively short book, permitting one, within a reasonable period of time, to prepare an edition and do an analysis with respect to the Syriac and Greek. 2. The issue of the Syriac element in the Armenian translation continues to intrigue us. M. Jinbachian presented a paper on Jeremiah at a recent gathering in Burbank in 2006 that makes further study of that book of particular interest. Among other things he pointed out that the Armenian text follows the Syriac order after 25:13, not the order of the Old Greek.30 Jinbachian’s work on Genesis also uncovers connections to the Syriac.31 From the standpoint of Septuagint studies, any Syriac-based elements in the Armenian must be set aside before one can determine how the Armenian is related to the Old Greek. For Syriacists the interest may be precisely the opposite! For those of us who work on the Armenian text at all “the Syriac issue” is a major concern. And I have only touched on the New Testament and Syriac parent texts. 3. Future critical editions of the Armenian biblical texts need to be, apart from the text of course, in a European language (English, French, or German) so that biblical scholars can use them. We cannot expect future editors of Göttingen editions to be able to deal with editions entirely in Armenian; nor can we expect historians or theologians to be competent in Armenian beyond, perhaps, an acquaintance with the classical language. At the same time, editions of texts need to be available for specialists to purchase.32

29 Conybeare 1897; reprinted in Nersessian (ed.) 2001, 128–145. The reference is to page 135. Independently some years ago Abraham Terian suggested to me that it would be interesting to look at Hebrews because it reads “differently” – I do not recall his exact words. 30 “The Armenian Jeremiah” presented at “The Armenian Bible: Celebrating the 1600th Anniversary of the Discovery of the Armenian Alphabet and the Translation of the Armenian Bible”, February 25, 2006. 31 Jinbachian 1998. The question of a critical edition is not resolved with Zeytʿunian’s text which Jinbachian says is more justifiably called a “diplomatic text” (Jinbachian 1998, 15). 32 For example, if A. Zeytʿunian and H. Amalyan had not personally given me their editions of Genesis and Maccabees, respectively, I would not own them. While we appreciate our colleagues’ generosity, this is not the answer to the scholar’s need for resources. It would The Armenian Bible: Status Quaestionis 243

4. Finally, an on-line bibliography relating to the Armenian Bible is now possible. Together with that development we need to envision rare materials transferred to a CD-ROM format. I have in mind, first, the Arapkercʿi concordance, an essential tool that is out of print and, therefore, unavailable.33 It is not possible to work without such essential tools.

Conclusion

This brief examination of the status quaestionis of the Armenian Bible shows that much has been done since 1969, when the intention to prepare a critical edition of the Armenian Bible was first officially set out. The international dimension of this project really has not happened as envisaged, yet individual scholars such as Stone and Cowe have made major contributions that will continue to be built upon in the years to come.34

Bibliography

Abełyan, M. 1941. Koriwn. Varkʿ Maštocʿi [Koriwn, Life of Mashtotsʿ], Erevan: Haypethrat. Adjémian, S. [Ačēmean, Š.]. 1992. Cʿucʿak Astuacašnčʿi Mateani hayerēn jeṙagrerun / Grand Catalogue des manuscrits arméniens de la Bible (Bibliothèque arménienne de la Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian), Lisbonne: Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian. Ajamian, S. 1976. “Deux projets concernant la Bible arménienne”, in M.E. Stone (ed.), Armenian and Biblical Studies, Jerusalem: St. James Press, 8–12. Alexanian, J.M. 2012. The Ancient Armenian Text of the Acts of the Apostles (CSCO, 643. Scriptores Armeniaci, 31), Leuven: Peeters. Amalyan, H. 1996. Girkʿ Makabayecʿwocʿ. Kʿnnakan bnagir [The Books of Maccabees. Critical Text)] (“Matenadaran”. Hay Hnagoyn Tʿargmanakan Hušarjanner

be helpful if a major international bookseller, such as Blackwells, were a distributor of titles that interest us out of Armenia. 33 Arapkercʿi 1895. 34 For bibliography on the Armenian Bible since 1980, see Cox 2005; for more detail on various parts of the presentation in this paper: “The Armenian Translation of the Bible”, and “A Critical Edition of the Armenian Bible: A Progress Report”, in K. Bardakjian (ed.), Proceedings of the conference “Where the Only-Begotten Descended: The Church of Armenia Through the Ages”, convened at Ann Arbor, Apr. 1–4, 2004 (forthcoming; see http://micro5. mscc.huji.ac.il/~armenia/index.html (accessed March 2014). See also Leloir 1960. 244 cox

[“Matenadaran”. Monuments of the most Ancient Armenian Translations]), Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Amalyan, H. 2000. Girkʿ Erkotasan Margarēicʿ [Book of the Twelve Prophets], Erevan: Magałatʿ. Arapkercʿi, Tʿ. A. 1895. Hamabarbaṙ Hin ew Nor Ktakaranacʿ [Concordance of the Old and New Testaments], Erusałēm: Tparan Srbocʿ Yakobeancʿ. Burchard, C. 1997. “A Further Glimpse at the Armenian Version of the Epistle of James”, in N. Awde (ed.), Armenian Perspectives, 10th Anniversary Conference of the Association internationale des études arméniennes (Causasus World), Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press, 9–19. Burchard, C. 2003. Joseph und Aseneth, kritisch herausgegeben von Christoph Burchard, mit unterstützung von Carsten Burfeind und Uta Barbara Fink (Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece, 5), Leiden & Boston: Brill. Burchard, C. 2010. A Minor Edition of the Armenian Version of Joseph and Aseneth (HUAS, 10), Leuven, Paris & Walpole, MA: Peeters. Calzolari Bouvier, V. et al. (eds). 1999. V. Calzolari Bouvier, J.-D. Kaestli & B. Outtier (eds), Apocryphes arméniens. Transmission, traduction, création, iconographie. Actes du colloque international sur la littérature apocryphe en langue arménienne (Genève, 18–20 septembre 1997) (Publications de l’Institut romand des sciences bibliques, 1), Lausanne: Zèbre. Conybeare, F.C. 1897. “The Growth of the Peshitta Version of the New Testament Illustrated from the Old Armenian and Georgian Versions”, The American Journal of Theology I/4, 883–912 (Reprinted in Nersessian 2001). Cowe, S.P. 1992. The Armenian Translation of Daniel (UPATS, 9), Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Cox, C.E. 1981. The Armenian Translation of Deuteronomy (UPATS, 2), Chico, CA: Scholars Press. Cox, C.E. 1984. “Manuscript Groupings in the Text Tradition of the Armenian Bible”, JSAS 1, 69–77. Cox, C.E. 1986. Hexaplaric Signs Preserved in the Armenian Version (Society of Biblical Literature. Septuagint and Cognate Studies, 21), Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Cox, C.E. 1988. “A Review of Zeytunyan’s Edition of Genesis from the Standpoint of Septuagint Criticism”, REArm 21, 87–125. Cox, C.E. 1990. “Origen’s Hexapla and Jerusalem Armenian Manuscript 1925”, JSAS 5, 49–54. Cox, C.E. 1996. Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion in Armenia (Society of Biblical Literature. Septuagint and Cognate Studies, 42), Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Cox, C.E. 2000. “The Armenian Version and the Text of the Old Greek Psalter”, in A. Aejmelaeus & U. Quast (eds), Der Septuaginta-Psalter und seine Tochter übersetzungen (Symposium in Göttingen 1997) (Mitteilungen des Septuaginta- Unternehmens, 24), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 174–247. The Armenian Bible: Status Quaestionis 245

Cox, C.E. 2002a. “The ‘Songs of Zion’ in Armenian”, in M.E. Stone, R.R. Ervine & N. Stone (eds), The Armenians in Jerusalem and the Holy Land (HUAS, 4), Leuven: Peeters, 33–59. Cox, C.E. 2002b. Review of Calzolari Bouvier et al., in Bibliotheca Orientalis 59, 615–17. Cox, C.E. 2005. “Biblical Studies and the Armenian Bible, 1980–2002”, Revue Biblique 112, 355–68. Cox, C.E. 2006. Armenian Job. Retroverted Greek Text, Critical Edition of the Armenian with English Translation (HUAS, 8), Leuven: Peeters. Der Nersessian, S. 1973. “La Bible d’Erznka de l’An 1269: Jérusalem No. 1925”, in Études byzantines et arméniennes/Byzantine and Armenian Studies (Bibliothèque arméni- enne de la Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian), vol. 1, Leuven: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 603–609. Hovhanessian, V. 2000. Third Corinthians. Reclaiming Paul for Christian Orthodoxy (Studies in Biblical Literature, 18), New York, Washington, DC/Baltimore, Boston, Bern, Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Brussels, Vienna & Oxford: Peter Lang. Jinbachian, M.M. 1998. Les techniques de traduction dans la Genèse en arménien classique (Bibliothèque arménienne de la Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian), Lisbonne: Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian. Johnson, B. 1972. “Fünf armenische Bibelhandschriften aus Erevan”, in J. Schreiner (ed.), Wort, Lied und Gottespruch, Festschrift für Joseph Ziegler, Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 67–72. Leloir, L. 1960. “Versions arméniennes”, Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplément, vol. 6, 810–818. Nersessian, N.V. (ed.) 2001. The Armenian Church: Heritage and Identity. Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare, New York: St. Vartan’s Press. Połarean, N. 1991. Mayr cʿucʿak jeṙagrac srbocʿ Yakobeancʿ [Grand Catalogue of St. James Manuscripts], vol. 11 (Haykakan Matenašar Galust Kiwlpēnkean Hratarakčʿutʿean), Erusałēm: Tparan Srbocʿ Yakobeancʿ. Stone, M.E. 1969. Testament of Levi. A First Study of the Armenian MSS of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in the Convent of St. James, Jerusalem, with Text, Critical Apparatus, Notes and Translation, Erusałēm: Tparan Srbocʿ Yakobeancʿ. Stone, M.E. 1973. “The Old Armenian Version of Isaiah: Towards the Choice of the Base Text for an Edition”, Textus 8, 107–125. Stone, M.E. 1979. The Armenian Version of IV Ezra (UPATS, 1) Missoula, MT: Scholars Press. Stone, M.E. 1990. “Armenian Canon Lists V – Anonymous Texts”, Harvard Theological Review 83, 141–161. Stone, M.E. 1992. A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve (Society of Biblical Literature. Early Judaism and Its Literature, 3), Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. 246 cox

Stone, M.E. 2012. (with the collaboration of Hillel, V.), The Armenian Version of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Edition, Apparatus, Translation and Commentary, (HUAS, 11), Leuven: Peeters. Thomson, R.W. 1975. “The Maccabees in Early Armenian Historiography”, Journal of Theological Studies 26, 329–341. Zeytʿunyan, A. 1985. Girkʿ Cnndocʿ. Kʿnnakan Bnagir [The Book of Genesis. Critical Text], (“Matenadaran”. Hay Hnagoyn Tʿargmanakan Hušarjanner [“Matenadaran”. Monuments of the most Ancient Armenian Translations] 1), Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Zeytʿunyan, A. 2002. Girkʿ Erkrordumn Ōrinacʿ. Kʿnnakan Bnagir [The Book of Deuteronomy. Critical Text], Ēǰmiacin: Mayr Atʿoṙ S. Ēǰmiacin. Zōhrapean, Y. 1984. Astuacašunčʿ matean hin ew nor ktakaranacʿ [Bible. Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments]. A Facsimile Reproduction of the 1805 Venetian Edition with an Introduction by C. Cox (Classical Armenian Text Reprint Series), Delmar, NY: Caravan Books. The Armenian Apocryphal Literature of the Old Testament in the Twentieth Century

Michael E. Stone

The present chapter will discuss the study of the Armenian apocryphal literature of the Old Testament during the last century. Prior to the last decade of the nineteenth century the Armenian Old Testament apocrypha were not studied at all, indeed scarcely even published.1 As in so many fields of Armenian studies, however, it was the Mekhitarist fathers who laid the systematic foundations and, in 1896, Fr. S. Yovsēpʿeancʿ published the first collection of such works in his Ankanon Girkʿ Hin Ktakaranacʿ [Non-canonical Books of the Old Testament]. This collection was followed in the subsequent decades by two complementary publications, Fr. B. Sarghissian’s (Sargsean) Usumnasirutʿiwnkʿ Hin Ktakarani Anvawer Grocʿ vray [Studies on the Uncanonical Books of the Old Testament] in 1898 and in 1901 by Fr. J. Issarverdens’ The Uncanonical Writings of the Old Testament found in the Armenian Manuscripts of the Library of St. Lazarus which was reprinted in 1934. Sarghissian’s Studies and Issaverdens’ Uncanonical Writings were both based on Yovsēpʿeancʿ’s collection. During the latter part of the nineteenth century interest in the apocryphal literature in various languages grew, basically stimulated by New Testament studies, and in particular by the attempt to understand Jesus’ life and preaching in its historical context. This movement of scholarship culminated in the publication of major collections of Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in German translation by E. Kautzsch (1900) and in English by R.H. Charles (1913). It is in this context that Yovsēpʿeancʿ’s collection of texts, Sarghissian’s Studies and Issaverdens’s English translation should be viewed.2 This same movement led to other studies of the Armenian apocryphal literature, particularly by British and French Arménisants, such as Conybeare and Macler. The work of the Mekhitarist fathers during the nineteenth century bore

1 One of the oldest publications was the Testaments of Reuben, Simeon and Levi printed from a Calcutta manuscript in the first Armenian journal, Azgasēr Araratean (Calcutta) 3 (1850), 446–448, 454–456, 469–472 and 478–480. Of course, there is a question as to what is an apocryphon. The Epistle of Jeremiah was published, with Sirach (which is certainly canonical in Armenian Apostolic usage) in 1878. I do not list the undisputed books of the Armenian Old Testament that do not occur in Hebrew. 2 The collection was endowed by M. Emin of Moscow; cf. James 1897, 158.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��4 | doi ��.��63/9789004270961_�12 248 stone fruit as non-Armenian scholars worked on these Armenian texts. Armenian scholars wrote little on apocryphal texts at that time, though some works will be noted below. A further factor that stimulated and enriched the study of the Armenian apocrypha was the publication of catalogues of Armenian manuscript collections. This had started much earlier, but the magistral work of J. Dashian, the first volume of the catalogue of the library of the Vienna Mekhitarists published in 1895, spurred a movement that is still underway.3 Since Dashian gave incipits as well as references to published works, students of the Armenian apocrypha had many sources available. The catalogues prepared by Macler (1908) of the Bibliothèque nationale in Paris, by Conybeare (1913) of the British Museum, by Baronian and Conybeare (1918) of the Bodleian Library in Oxford, by Finck and Gjanscherzian (1907) of the Tübingen University Library, by Sarghissian (1914, 1924) of the Venice Mekhitarists and others contributed to this movement.

1 Categories and Issues

The very terminology used for the literature was also problematic. Protestants readily called all books that were in the Vulgate and not in the Hebrew Bible by the name “Apocrypha” and all broadly similar books dealing with Old Testament themes or heroes “Pseudepigrapha”. The apocrypha were called “deutero-canonical” by the Latin Church and were mostly included in the biblical canon, though the Council of Trent (1545–63) excluded one or two works.4 The scriptural canon of the Armenian Apostolic Church is much less firmly defined but includes most of the so-called deutero-canonical works. This matter was studied by Ter Movsesean (1902) in his Russian History of the Armenian Bible where he published a number of Armenian lists of canonical works, and by Th. Zahn in his great Studies of History of the New Testament Canon (1893). The Mekhitarist treatment of the canon was governed by the principles of the

3 This was not the earliest of Armenian manuscript catalogues, but its strict method, size and detail made it a yardstick for all subsequent works. Armenian manuscript catalogues are listed most recently by Coulie 1992. A number of earlier lists exist, such as those in Anasyan 1959 and Stone 1968, 456–460. Since 1992, Coulie has published some supplements to his list in Le Muséon. In addition, further volumes of the Venice and Matenadaran catalogues have been published since 1992. 4 Notably 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh. Armenian Apocryphal Literature of the Old Testament 249

Church of Rome, and so Zōhrapean’s Bible of 1805 was structured according to the decisions enunciated at Trent.5 The present study does not treat the deutero-canonical works that are part of the Armenian Bible. Thus I do not discuss the studies of Durean (1927) or Bogharian on Sirach (1936), or Bévenot (1934), Kogean (1923), Thomson (1975), and Amalyan (1996) on Maccabees6 and a few others.7 The discussion of these belongs properly in the ambit of the study of the Armenian Bible. Yet, the borders of the Armenian canon remain somewhat unclear, and to this day there is no modern printing of the Ancient Armenian Bible, officially sanctioned by the Armenian Apostolic Church.8 Thus the matter of Canon remained rather confused for most of the twentieth century. Between 1973 and 2001, six articles presenting Armenian Canon lists with English translations were published and a seventh is currently in press.9 These provided the beginning of a sounder basis for studying the issue. In the context of a consultation on the New Testament canon, I attempted to formulate some principles characterizing chief categories of apocryphal literature as they were reflected in the canon lists.10 The catalogue of Armenian biblical manuscripts published by the late Archbishop S. Ajamian (Adjémian 1992) greatly contributed to achieving a clearer and more detailed view of the relationship between the works listed in Armenian canon lists and the actual contents of the manuscript Bibles. Ajamian’s catalogue lists in full all the contents of Armenian biblical manuscripts and so gives a detailed picture of the books that they include. The Armenian Church has rarely turned its official attention to the issue of Canon and Apocrypha. The issue was of interest to medieval scholars and is reflected at some points in the liturgy, but only once was the subject of an Armenian conciliar decision, at the Council of Partaw in 768, and the list approved there was, in any case, translated from Greek (Stone 1973b).

5 Zōhrapean 1984 (1805). 6 Thomson 1975, 329–341 is one of the few works that trace the influence of such writings on Armenian literature. See Thomson 1995, 233–238, for some further references. 7 See the bibliography listed in Thomson 1995. He includes studies of a number of deutero- canonical works in his section entitled “Apocrypha”. 8 On the editions of the Armenian Bible, see Ter-Petrosyan 1985, 69–78. On the contents of the Armenian biblical canon, see Stone 2005a, 283–95. 9 Stone 1973b, 479–486; 1975a, 253–260; 1976, 289–300; 1979a, 237–244; 1990a; 2001, 477–491. The author has copies a number of further texts he intends to publish in the future. Moreover, certain printed canon lists, such as the poetic list composed by Aṙakʿel of Siwnikʿ in the fifteenth century, have never been translated. 10 Stone 2005a, 281–296, which gives a more synthetic view of the issue. 250 stone

At the present juncture the most useful categories are heuristic:

1. Works closely associated with the biblical corpus. These works occur mainly or exclusively in biblical manuscripts, but are almost never included in Armenian canon lists or canonical usage. Such books are Joseph and Asenath, Fourth (Third) Ezra, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Lives (Deaths) of the Prophets, Psalm 151.11 Other works occur occasionally in Bible manuscripts, but their status is more or less tenu- ous. Thus History of Joseph is not infrequently associated with Joseph and Asenath.12 2. Apocrypha translated from other languages into Armenian but not included in the above category. An example of such a work is Questions of the Queen and Answers of King Solomon, of which the Syriac original was discovered some years ago.13 3. Apocryphal works composed in Armenian on Old Testament themes, which take their structure, form and character from the tradition of apocryphal narratives.14 4. Associated works that are related to the scholarly study of the Bible, as it was cultivated among the Armenians. Such works are predominantly lists related to the biblical text and also elenchic works in which apocryphal traditions are embedded.15

2 Yovsēpʿeancʿ

Yovsēpʿeancʿ’s collection included works that occurred in Armenian biblical manuscripts, such as Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and 4 Ezra; translated works such as The Questions of the Queen and the Answers of King Solomon and

11 Murad 1905–1911 studied the interesting question of which works are read in the Armenian lectionary. Šamlean’s article 1966, 83–87 contains nothing new. 12 Serjuni 1973, 26–37, 137–144; Burchard 1969, 16; 2010, 9; Geerard 1974, 2: 389–390. 13 This writing occurs in Yovsēpʿeancʿ 1896, 229–232. The Syriac was published by Brock 1979, 331–345. 14 The author has published a number of such works in various forums, including several books. See, for example, Stone 1982; Stone 1996a. 15 The various types of writings are discussed in further detail in Stone 1996b, 611–646. R. Ervine (2000, 417–428) has discussed parts of one elenchic work. See further Stone 1999, 295–300, which also relates to elenchic traditions. Stone 1982 and 1996 also contain a number of such lists, and many more exist. Another study of such a list is Hultgård 1992, 51–55. Armenian Apocryphal Literature of the Old Testament 251

Paralipomena Ieremiou; and works that were in all likelihood composed in Armenian, such as Short History of Elijah. The collection was far from exhaustive, but it was most significant and had considerable impact. In 1899, the English scholar, M.R. James, for example, discussed it at some length in his collection called Apocrypha Anecdota, vol. 2, 158–165, while the German scholar Preuschen studied the corpus of Adamic apocrypha, translated them into German, and characterized them (mistakenly) as Gnostic (Preuschen 1900, 163–252; and separatim). F.C. Conybeare, a formidable scholar, also turned his attention to the apocryphal literature. He wrote articles on the Armenian versions of such apocrypha as Apocalypse of Moses (1894–95, 216–235) and Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (1895, 375–398). R.H. Charles included data from Armenian manuscripts in the apparatus of his editio maior of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (1908). The early work of the French armenologist F. Macler (1895) included a number of writings devoted to the apocryphal Daniel literature. This list of early scholars of the Armenian Old Testament apocrypha could be expanded, but not very extensively, as a consultation of R. Thomson’s Bibliography (1995, 233–238) shows.16 The only work devoted to an edition and translation of and notes on an apocryphal apocalypse is Kalemkiar’s see below edition and German translation of the Seventh Vision of Daniel.17

3 Summary

After the work of the end of the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century little was done in the study of the Armenian apocrypha until after the middle of the century. The first half of the century had taken up only

16 Some works were published in Russian in the late nineteenth century on Armenian apocrypha, see DiTommaso 2001 under the sections for different works. Notable is the work of A. Chachanov in the 1890’s. As for other early studies of Armenian apocrypha, the following list contains the main works. The Wisdom of Ahiqar in Armenian was published by Conybeare, Harris and Smith 1913 (second edn of a work of 1898); the Armenian version of Paralipomena Ieremiou was published by Tēr Mkrtčʿean 1895, 81–82 and Appendix 1–8, and The Short History of Elijah the Prophet is also discussed in Schermann 1907, 6–7, 53. On 4 Ezra, see Ewald 1865, 504–516; Petermann 1869, 378–443; and the Appendix in Zōhrapean 1984 (1805). Carrière 1886, 471–511, 490–498, published a study of the Armenian of Joseph and Asenath. Russian works on Joseph and Asenath include Emin 1897; and Marr 1891, 1894; Palean 1896 on which see Burchard, 2010, 22. 17 Kalemkiar 1892, 109–136, 227–240; and separatim. See also Macler 1896, 37–53, 163–176, 288–319, 288–309; 1895, 56–88. 252 stone part of the challenge extended by the work of the three Venice Mekhitarists, Yovsēpʿeancʿ, Sarghissian, and Issaverdens. Certain of those apocrypha close to the biblical corpus were objects of some attention. This was particularly true of Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the short Armenian recension of which Charles had claimed to be more original than the surviving Greek.18 Similarly, the Adam books had been studied, in particular the text of the Book of Adam (Apocalypse of Moses) by Conybeare (1894–95). Of the works composed in Armenian, only two were studied, The Apocryphal Adam Books by Preuschen and Lütke, and the Seventh Vision of Daniel by Kalemkiar.

4 The Second Half-Century

There has been a notable change in the study of the Armenian apocrypha of the Old Testament during the past half century. This change reflects a very considerable advance on the first fifty years’ work, but the advance that has been made is still far from responding to all the questions raised about the field. Scholars of apocryphal literature in general very often come from biblical studies and that is frequently the case as regards the Armenian apocrypha as well. This benefitted in particular the standards and methods of textual editions. In addition, some interest has arisen in the growth and development of apocryphal traditions within the Armenian literary and religious tradition, and biblical scholars were not always the best equipped to pursue this line of enquiry.

5 Editions and Techniques

Very striking is the work that has been done on the editions of texts and the high level of that work. Scholars have undertaken sophisticated critical and carefully planned editions of a number of the apocrypha that are closely related to the biblical corpus. These editions are either already completed or presently underway, and have been prepared by Burchard and Stone. They are of three works: Joseph and Asenath, 4 Ezra and Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Burchard published a number of articles and has now he has published a critical editio minor of the Armenian version of Joseph and Asenath.19

18 See the discussion in de Jonge 1953, 28–31; Stone 1969, 3–4. 19 Burchard 2010. See also 1979, 1–10; 1983, 207–240; 1990–1991, 65–80; 1996, 139–159; 1999, 1–26; 2005, 83–96. His edition is Christoph Burchard (2010), A Minor Edition of the Armenian Version of Joseph and Aseneth, (HUAS, 10, Leuven: Peeters). Armenian Apocryphal Literature of the Old Testament 253

He bases it on a careful study of all the manuscripts available and on the collation and preparation of an apparatus criticus. Burchard carried out this work alongside his study of the Greek text of Joseph and Asenath, and was thus able to place the Armenian within the context of the overall textual tradition of that work. These characteristics of Burchard’s work also typify the study of other apocrypha (see below) and of some of the editions of biblical texts published at the same time. Here is a meeting between the tradition of biblical textual scholarship and that of the Armenian apocrypha, which has made the study of the Armenian apocrypha part of modern textual studies.20 In the late 1960’s Stone had begun work on the text of two apocrypha, 4 Ezra and Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. His work on Armenian 4 Ezra, undertaken in connection with a major commentary he was preparing on that work, resulted in three books. The first was a computer-generated concordance, which has the distinction of being the first computer-assisted study of any Armenian text (Stone 1971b). His critical edition of 4 Ezra, based on all but one of the known manuscripts, appeared in 1979 (Stone 1979b). This was the first fully critical text of an Armenian apocryphon and paved the way for further critical studies. In 1990 he published his Textual Commentary on the Armenian Version of IV Ezra in which work, assembled in the course of the preparation of the edition, he set forth the basis of the textual decisions made in the latter. As far as the Armenian edition of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs is concerned, the work progressed in fits and starts. After the work of Conybeare and Charles at the turn of the century (1894–95 and 1908), in the late 1960’s Burchard wrote an overview of the textual situation of Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs that actually grew out of his work on Joseph and Asenath (Burchard 1969, 1–29).21 This article related the textual tradition of Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs to that of Joseph and Asenath. A little earlier, the work of M. de Jonge of Leiden on the Armenian text showed that the preceding view of the primacy of the short Armenian recension, espoused by R.H. Charles and

20 In Old Testament studies, the works of Cox (1990–1991, 53ff) and Cowe (1992, 1993) should be mentioned especially. The labours of A. Zeytʿunyan (1993, 306–312; 1985) and H. Amalyan (1996) in particular have been less attentive to the place of Armenian in the textual tradition of the book they studied, though they have made a major contribution by the collation and presentation of the textual evidence. Earlier studies, such as those of Murad on Revelation 1905–1911, Oskean on the Song of Songs (1895–1968, 1924), and even earlier works such as Xalatʿeancʿ (1899) on Chronicles (compare Cowe’s 1990–1991 paper) have contributed to an understanding of the complexity of the textual situation of the Armenian Bible. In particular, Murad’s book on Revelation assembled a rich and, for its time, a most sophisticated body of textual and related material. 21 Burchard also noted, but did not study in depth, another associated work, the History of Joseph, of which a Syriac form was discovered. See note 11 above. 254 stone others, was not valid (1953, 31–34).22 Based on his conclusions, I have worked on and off for many years on the preparation of an edition, publishing preliminary texts of Testament of Levi in 1969 and Testament of Joseph in 1975. A number of articles over the decades set forth the methodology used for selection of manuscripts to serve as the basis of an editio minor of the whole work, as well as a continued updating of the list of manuscript copies.23 The editio minor of the Armenian text, with critical apparatus, translation and commentary was published in 2012. It was prepared with the collaboration of V. Hillel.24 The discovery of an epitome of Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in a manuscript of the year 981 took the direct witness to the Armenian translation back to a rather early date.25 In addition, some further witnesses to and collations of the works already published by Yovsēpʿeancʿ were assembled. L. Lipscomb in his doctoral thesis re-edited the Adamic literature that Yovsēpʿeancʿ had included, adding new manuscripts and a translation (Issaverdens’ translations should be treated gin- gerly). In his introduction he dealt with a number of substantial issues of this corpus to texts, which Stone had previously studied as well.26 In the earlier part of the century Lüdtke (1919) had shown that this group of Armenian apocrypha (which, in my opinion, were probably composed in Armenian) was also translated into Georgian. In 2004, Stone and Kazazian published one of the homiletic pieces that are found in some manuscripts of these writings. In a paper published in 1978, Lipscomb discussed an Armenian text that may ultimately have derived from Jubilees. In the study of Yovsēpʿeancʿ’s Adam books, which had much earlier caught Preuschen’s interest, we see a beginning of the study of Armenian apocrypha which were not associated with the transmission of the Bible. Were we to catalogue all the texts that have been discussed in the past thirty or forty years, and to list those whose existence is known but which have not yet been studied, the rest of the space allotted to this paper would be filled to

22 See Stone 1969, 3–4. Further works are listed in DiTommaso 2001, 921–923. Hultgård 1981 dealt at many points with the Armenian text, based, however, on “pre-de Jonge” views of textual development. 23 Stone 1970, 24–35; 1975c, 207–214; 1971a, 211–217; 1977, 94–107; 1994, 75–82; 1998–2000, 93–97. 24 Stone and Hillel 2012s. 25 Stone 1986–1987, 69–107; 1988–89, 497–499; 1995, 265–277. After this lecture was delivered, yet another 14th century manuscript was discovered in the Matenadaran. It turns out to have no text-critical significance and a report on it was published in Stone 2011. 26 Lipscomb 1990. See also Lipscomb 1982, 102–112. Compare earlier, Stone 1981, 2: 460–471, and more recently, Stone 1982, 1992. Armenian Apocryphal Literature of the Old Testament 255 overflowing. Some of this labour has now been done and other aspects of it remain for the future. Instead, I wish to make a number of points that have arisen from the admittedly still inadequate study of the apocrypha composed in Armenian, or from the reworkings of apocrypha translated into Armenian. The editorial work done on Joseph and Asenath, on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and on 4 Ezra has really addressed issues in the general study of the Old Testament apocrypha, and particularly of their Greek texts. These issues are significant and, moreover, these works form part of the basis of Armenian literature, since they are closely associated with the biblical corpus. It is most desirable that the labour of textual edition continue and be refined. I myself found P. Robinson’s program “Collate!” to be most helpful in this work, which is, by nature, painstaking and time-consuming.27 The standards of edition set by the editors of Old Testament texts in particular, should continue to be extended to the apocrypha. By the way, it may be remarked that more methodological self-consciousness in editorial techniques would be most desirable.28 There are, without any doubt, further translated apocrypha that should be studied and edited. As desiderata I must include definitive editions of Lives of the Prophets29 and of Questions of the Queen and Answers of King Solomon. In the course of the study of Armenian manuscripts even more such writings may be discovered. These works, known and still unknown, will make a considerable contribution to the overall study of the apocrypha of the Old Testament and a very worthwhile one.

6 The Apocrypha in the Armenian Tradition

A project undertaken in recent years relating to the Adam literature has, however, been the realization of another aspect of Armenian apocryphal studies.

27 Dr T. Andrews (University of Leuven) is at present developing a new set of tools for automatic collation of transcribed texts and for presentation of the text variants for editorial review. These are designed to fulfill a function similar to Collate! which, unfortunately, runs on an obsolete operating system. See her paper in the present volume. 28 Heightening such consciousness was the purpose of a workshop of the Association Internationale des Études Arméniennes held in Sandbjerg, Denmark, in 1989, the results of which were published in Lehmann and Weitenberg 1993. 29 The Armenian texts of this work are published on various textual bases in Yovsēpʿeancʿ 1896, 207–227 and Stone 1982b, 129–173. An English translation of Yovsēpʿeancʿ’s text is to be found in Issaverdens 1901. See also Stone 1973a for a Vita of Moses and 1982 for the Vitae of Nathan, Elijah, Elishah, Zechariah (1), Eli, Joad, Moses, The Three Children, and Zechariah (2). 256 stone

I made a sustained attempt to assemble all works in Armenian devoted to Adam and Eve. The reasons for this undertaking were: (i) part of this literature had already received attention from Yovsēpʿeancʿ, Preuschen and Lipscomb; (ii) other works were known by name or incipit and I desired to get a fuller picture of the Armenian creativity in this respect; (iii) the number of Armenian documents relating to Adam and Eve ran to over 50, which is in itself, a substantial literature; (iv) these apocryphal interpretations of the Adam and Eve stories had had a major influence on theological thought and on literary productivity. I was convinced that the stories of Adam and Eve were normally read by Armenians not as tales of the first human couple or simply through the perspective of the historia sacra leading from the first Adam to the Last Adam, but also typologically, presaging the life of Christ, His Passion, and salvation through him. Here we touch on an important point, and one that should be stressed. Once the apocrypha became part of Christian literature, and this happened very early, from the perspective of their functioning in the context of Christianity, distinctions between Jewish apocrypha and Christian, between Old Testament apocrypha and New Testament apocrypha, had no real relevance. The whole is understood as part of the history of salvation through Christ and of redemption. Even works that were originally Jewish were understood in this way.30 The tracing of the influence of the Adam apocrypha in Armenian led to study of a series of aspects of Armenian culture. On the one hand, mediaeval authors like Yovhannēs Tʿlkurancʿi and Yovhannēs Erznkacʿi retold Adam tales using elements drawn from the apocryphal traditions.31 A major work of Armenian medieval literature, the Adamgirkʿ by the fifteenth century Armenian poet Aṙakʿel Siwnecʿi, incorporates many elements from the Adam apocrypha.32 Retellings of biblical history and popular traditions, such as those recorded about certain holy places in Jerusalem by M. Aławnuni (1936) and others, all incorporate ideas, images and even specific details drawn from the Adam apocrypha. It is possible to explicate even more the ways in which this apocryphal literary tradition has penetrated Armenian culture. The apocrypha composed

30 A most significant meeting on this topic was held under the aegis of the Association Internationale des Études Arméniennes (AIEA) and the Association pour l’Étude de la Littérature Apocryphe Chrétienne (AELAC) in Geneva in 1997, its results being published in Calzolari Bouvier, Kaestli & Outtier 1999. 31 Compare Stone 2000, 167–214; 2005b. See further Madoyan 1970, 198–207, although his article is uncritical in its use of the apocryphal books. 32 Recently translated into English in Stone 2007. Armenian Apocryphal Literature of the Old Testament 257 in Armenian, taking their start from the biblical text, developed under the influence of more ancient apocryphal works that were domesticated in the Armenian tradition. The perception of this rich heritage makes the task of uncovering it, learning it and tracing of the highest priority.33

Selected Bibliography

[n.a.]. 1878. Imastutʿiwn Yesuay ordwoy Sirakʿay ew Tułtʿ Eremiay margarēi aṙ Gereals i Babelon [The Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach and the Epistle of the Prophet Jeremiah to the Exiles in Babylon], i Venetik: S. Łazar. Adjémian, C. (Ačēmean, Š.). 1992. Cʿucʿak Astuacašnčʿi Mateani hayerēn jeṙagrerun/ Grand Catalogue des manuscrits arméniens de la Bible (Bibliothèque arménienne de la Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian), Lisbonne: Fondation Gulbenkian. Aławnuni, M. 1936. Surb erkri srbavayreru awandatʿiwnnerǝ [Traditions of the Holy Places in the Holy Land], Erusałēm: Tparan Srbocʿ Yakobeancʿ. Amalyan, H.M. 1996. Girkʿ Makabayecʿwocʿ. Kʿnnakan bnagir [The Books of Maccabees. Critical Text] (“Matenadaran”. Hay Hnagoyn Tʿargmanakan Hušarjanner [“Matenadaran”. Monuments of the most Ancient Armenian Translations], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Anasyan, H.S. 1959. Haykakan Matenagitutʿyun E–ŽƎ dd [Armenian Bibliology, 5th– 18th Centuries], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Assemanus, J.S. 1743. Sancti patris nostri Ephraem Syri opera omnia quae exstant Graece Syriace Latine. Romae. Baronian, S. & Conybeare, F.C. 1918. Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bévenot, H. 1934. “The Armenian Text of Maccabees”, Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 14, 268–283. Brock, S. 1979. “The Queen of Sheba’s Questions to Solomon: A Syriac Version”, Le Muséon 92, 331–345. Burchard, Ch. 1969. “Zur armenischen Überlieferung der Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen”, in W. Eltester (ed.), Studien zu den Testamenten der Zwölf Patriarchen (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fuer die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der aelteren Kirche, 36), Berlin: Töpelmann, 1–29. Burchard, Ch. 1979. “Joseph und Aseneth 25–29 armenisch”, Journal for the Study of Judaism 10.1, 1–10.

33 Two conferences have been held in recent years on Armenian apocalypses (Proceedings forthcoming, edited by Bardakjian and La Porta). 258 stone

Burchard, Ch. 1983. “Zur armenischen Übersetzung von Joseph und Aseneth”, REArm 17, 207–240. Burchard, Ch. 1990/91. “More about the Armenian Text of Joseph and Aseneth”, JSAS 5, 65–80. Burchard, Ch. 1996. “Neues von Joseph und Aseneth auf Armenisch”, in Id., Gesammelte Studien zu Joseph und Aseneth, Leiden: Brill, 139–159. Burchard, Ch. 1999. “Zum Stand der Arbeit am Text vom Joseph und Asenath”, in M. Becker & W. Fenske (eds), Das Ende der Tage und die Gegenwart des Heils: H.-W. Kuhn FS, Leiden: Brill, 1–26. Burchard, Ch. 2005. “The Text of Joseph and Asenath Reconsidered”, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 14.2, 83–96. Burchard, Ch. 2010. A Minor Edition of the Armenian Version of Joseph and Asenath (HUAS, 10), Leuven: Peeters. Calzolari Bouvier, V., Kaestli, J.-D. & Outtier, B. (eds). 1999. Apocryphes arméniens. Transmission, traduction, création, iconographie. Actes du colloque international sur la littérature apocryphe en langue arménienne (Genève, 18–20 septembre 1997) (Publications de l’Institut romand des sciences bibliques, 1), Lausanne: Zèbre. Carrière, A. 1886. “Une version arménienne de l’histoire d’Asséneth”, in Nouveaux mélanges orientaux (Publications de l’École des langues orientales vivantes, 19), Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 471–511, 490–498. Charles, R.H. 1908. The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Charles, R.H. (ed.). 1913. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 2 vol, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Conybeare, F.C. 1894–95. “On the Apocalypse of Moses”, Jewish Quarterly Review 7, 216–235. Conybeare, F.C. 1895. “On the Jewish Authorship of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs”, Jewish Quarterly Review 5, 375–398. Conybeare, F.C. 1913. A Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts in the British Museum, London: British Museum. Conybeare, F.C., Harris, J.R. & Smith, A.L. 1913. The Story of Aḥiḳar from the Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Old Turkish, Greek and Slavonic Versions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coulie, B. 1992. Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits arméniens (Corpus Christianorum), Turnhout: Brepols. Covakan (Bogharian), N. 1936. “Sirakʿay hin hay tʿargmanutʿiunnerǝ” [The Ancient Armenian Translations of Sirach], Sion 150–153. Cowe, S.P. 1990–91. “The Two Armenian Versions of Chronicles, Their Origin and Translation Technique”, REArm 22, 53–96. Armenian Apocryphal Literature of the Old Testament 259

Cowe, S.P. 1992. The Armenian Version of Daniel (UPATS, 9), Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Cowe, S.P. 1993. “Problematics of Edition of Armenian Bible Texts”, in H.J. Lehmann & J.J.S. Weitenberg (eds), Armenian Texts Tasks and Tools (Acta Jutlandica, 69.1. Humanities Series, 68), Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 26–37. Dashian, J. (Tašean, Y.) 1895. Cʿucʿak hayerēn jeṙagracʿ Matenadaranin Mxitʿareancʿ i Vienna/Catalog der armenischen Handschriften in der Mechitharisten-Bibliothek zu Wien (Mayr Cʿucʿak hayerēn jeṙagracʿ hratarakeal i Mxitʿarean Miabanutʿenē, I, Awstria 2/Haupt-Catalog der armenischen Handschriften herausgegeben von der Wiener Mechitharisten-Congregation, Bd. I. Die armenische Handschriften in Österreich, 2), Wien: Mechitharisten-Buchdruckerei. DiTommaso, L. 2001. A Bibliography of Pseudepigrapha Research 1850–1999 (JSP Supplement Series, 39), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Durean, E. 1927. “Noragiwt gluxner Sirakʿay hin tʿargmanutʿean” [Newly Discovered Chapters of the Ancient Translation of Sirach], Sion, 246–250. Ervine, R. 2000. “Antecedents and Parallels to Some Questions and Answers on Genesis in Vanakan Vardapet’s Book of Questions”, Le Muséon 113, 417–428. Ewald, H.G.A. 1865. “Über die alte armenische Übersetzung des viertens Ezrabuches”, Nachrichten of the Königliche Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, 504–516. Finck, F.N. & Gjanscherzian, L. 1907. Verzeichniss der armenischen Handschriften der Könglichen Universitätsbibliothek (Systematisch-alphabetischer Hauptkatalog der Köninlichen Universitätsbibliothek zu Tübingen), Tübingen: A. Asher. Geerard, M. 1974. Clavis Patrum Graecorum (Corpus Christianorum), Turnhout: Brepols. Hultgård, A. 1981. L’eschatologie des Testaments des Douze Patriarches (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis Historia Religionum, 7), Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell. Hultgård, A. 1992. “The Twelve Precious Stones and the Twelve Tribes – A Note on an Ancient Armenian List”, Acta Jutlandica 56, 51–55. Issaverdens, J. 1901. The Uncanonical Writings of the Old Testament found in the Armenian Manuscripts of the Library of St. Lazarus, i Venetik: S. Łazar (Repr. 1934). James, M.R. 1897. Apocrypha Anecdota, Second series. (Texts and Studies, 5.1), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jonge, M. de. 1953. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. A Study of their Text, Composition and Origin, Assen: van Gorcum. Kalemkiar, G. 1892. “De siebente Vision Daniel’s: Armenischer Text mit deutscher Übersetzung”, Weiner Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 6, 109–136, 227–240. Kautzsch, E. (ed.). 1900. Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments, Tübingen: Mohr. Kazazian, N. & Stone, M.E. 2004. “The Commentary on the Cycle of Four Works”, Journal of Armenian Studies 8, 46–51. 260 stone

Kogean, H.S. 1923. Makabayecʿwocʿ erkrord grkʿin hayerēn tʿargmanutʿiwn [The Armenian Translation of 2 Maccabees], Vienna: Mxitʿarean Tparan. Lehmann, H. & Weitenberg, J.J.S. 1993. Armenian Texts, Tasks, and Tools (Acta Jutlandica 69/1. Humanities Series, 68). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Lipscomb, W.L. 1978. “A Tradition from the Book of Jubilees in Armenian”, Journal of Jewish Studies 29, 149–163. Lipscomb, W.L. 1982. “Foreign Influences on the Armenian Apocryphal Adam Books”, in T.J. Samuelian (ed.), Classical Armenian Culture (UPATS, 4), Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 102–112. Lipscomb, W.L. 1990. The Armenian Apocryphal Adam Literature (UPATS, 8), Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Lüdtke, W. 1919. “Georgische Adam-Bücher”, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaf 38, 155–168. Macler, F. 1908. Catalogue des manuscrits arméniens et géorgiens de la Bibliothèque nationale, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Macler, M. 1895. Les Apocalypses apocryphes de Daniel, Paris: Charles Noblet. Macler, M. 1896. “Apocalypses apocryphes de Daniel”, Revue de l’Histoire des religions 33, 37–53, 163–176, 288–319, 288–309. Madoyan, A. 1970. “Aṙakʿel Syunacʿu ‘Adamgirkʿ’ ew Anvaverakannerǝ” [Aṙakʿel of Siwnikʿ’s “Adambook” and the Uncanonical Writings], Banber Erevani Hamalsarani 3, 198–207. Murad, F. 1905–1911. Yaytnutʿean Yovhannu hin hay tʿargmanutʿiwn [The Old Armenian Translation of the Revelation of John], Erusałēm: Tparan Srbocʿ Yakobeancʿ. Oskean, H. 1924. Erg ergocʿi aṙaǰin ew erkrord tʿargmanutʿiwnǝ. Usumnasirutʿiwn ew bnagir [The First and Second Translations of Song of Songs: Study and Text] (Azgayin Matenadaran, 107), Vienna: Mxitʿarean tparan. Palean, T. 1896. Awrhnutʿiwn xostovanutʿean Asanetʿay [Prayer of the Confession of Asenath], on which see Burchard 2010, 22. Petermann, J.H. 1869. “Ezras propheta armenius”, in A. Hilgenfeld (ed.), Messias Judaeorum, Leipzig: Reisland, 378–443. Preuschen, E. 1900. “Die apokryphen gnostischen Adamschriften, aus dem Armenischen übersetzt u. untersucht”, in W. Diehl et al. (ed.), Festgruß B. Stade, Giessen: Ricker, 163–252. Sarghissian, B. (Sargsean) 1914, 1924. Grand Catalogue des manuscrits arméniens de la Bibliothèque des PP. Mekhitaristes de Saint-Lazare, i Venetik: Mxitʿarean tparan. Schermann, T. 1907. Prophetarum Vitae Fabulosae, Leipzig: Teubner. Serjuni, A.H. 1973. “St. Ephraem’s ‘On the Seven Vahangs (?) of Joseph’ ”, Sion 47, 26–37, 137–144. Šamlean, D. 1966. “S. Grocʿ kanonakan ew erkrdordakanon girkʿerǝ” [The Canonical and Deutero-Canonical Books of Scripture], Sion 40, 83–87. Armenian Apocryphal Literature of the Old Testament 261

Stone, M.E. 1968. “Catalogues of Armenian Manuscripts and Associated Works in American Libraries”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 8, 456–460. Stone, M.E. 1969. The Testament of Levi: A First Study of the Armenian Manuscripts of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in the Convent of St. James, Jerusalem, Erusałēm: Tparan Srbocʿ Yakobeancʿ. Stone, M.E. 1970. “The Jerusalem Manuscripts of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs – Samples of Text”, Sion 44, 24–35. Stone, M.E. 1971a. “Methodological Issues in the Study of the Text of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha”, Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 211–217. Stone, M.E. 1971b. Concordance and Texts of Armenian IV Ezra (Oriental Notes and Studies), Jerusalem: Israel Oriental Society. Stone, M.E. 1973a. “Three Armenian Accounts of the Death of Moses”, in G.W.E. Nickelsburg (ed.), Studies on the Testament of Moses (Septuagint and Cognate Studies, 4), Cambridge, MA: Society of Biblical Literature, 118–121. Stone, M.E. 1973b. “Armenian Canon Lists, I: The Canon of Partaw (768 C.E.)”, HThR 66, 479–486. Stone, M.E. 1975a. “Armenian Canon Lists II: The Stichometry of Anania of Shirak (c. 615– c. 690 C.E.)”, HThR 68, 253–260. Stone, M.E. 1975b. The Armenian Version of the Testament of Joseph (Texts and Translations Pseudepigrapha Series, 6), Missoula, MT: Scholars Press. Stone, M.E. 1975c. “The Armenian Version of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs –Selection of Manuscripts”, Sion 49, 207–214. Stone, M.E. 1976. “Armenian Canon Lists III – The Lists of Mechitar of Ayrivankʿ (c. 1285 C.E.)”, HThR 69, 289–300. Stone, M.E. 1977. “New Evidence for the Armenian Version of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs”, Revue Biblique 84, 94–107. Stone, M.E. 1979a. “Armenian Canon Lists IV: The List of Gregory of Tathew (14th Century)”, HThR 72, 237–244. Stone, M.E. 1979b. The Armenian Version of 4 Ezra (UPATS, 1), Missoula, MT: Scholars Press. Stone, M.E. 1981. “Report on Seth Traditions in the Armenian Adam Books”, in B. Layton (ed.), The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, Leiden: Brill, vol. 2, 460–471. Stone, M.E. 1982. Armenian Apocrypha Relating to Patriarchs and Prophets. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences. Stone, M.E. 1986–87. “The Epitome of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs”, REArm 20, 69–107. Stone, M.E. 1988/89. “Two Further Notes on the Epitome of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs”, REArm 21, 497–499. Stone, M.E. 1990a. “Armenian Canon Lists V – Anonymous Texts”, HThR 83.2, 141–161. 262 stone

Stone, M.E. 1990b. Textual Commentary on the Armenian Version of IV Ezra (Society of Biblical Literature. Septuagint and Cognate Studies, 34), Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Stone, M.E. 1992. A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve (Society of Biblical Literature. Early Judaism and Its Literature, 3), Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Stone, M.E. 1994. “Eight New Manuscripts of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs”, in M.E. Stone & S. Ajamian (eds), Text and Context: Studies in the Armenian New Testament (UPATS, 13), Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 75–82. Stone, M.E. 1995. “The Textual Affinities of the Epitome of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in Matenadaran No. 2679”, Le Muséon 108, 265–277. Stone, M.E. 1996a. Armenian Apocrypha: Relating to Adam and Eve (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha, 14), Leiden: Brill. Stone, M.E. 1996b. “The Armenian Apocryphal Literature: Translation and Creation”, in Il Caucaso: Cerniera fra Culture dal Mediterraneo alla Persia secoli IV–XI) (Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 43), Spoleto: Presso la Sede del Centro, 611–646. Stone, M.E. 1998–2000. “Another Manuscript of the Armenian Version of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs”, REArm 27, 93–97. Stone, M.E. 1999. “The Document called ‘Question’ ”, in R.B. Finazzi & A. Valvo (eds), La diffusione dell’eredità classica nell’età tardoantica e medievale: Il “Romanzo di Alessandro” e altri scritti, Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 295–300. Stone, M.E. 2000. “Selections from On the Creation of the World by Yovhannēs Tʿlkurancʿi: Translation and Commentary”, in G. Anderson, M.E. Stone & J. Tromp (eds), Literature on Adam and Eve: Collected Essays (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha, 15), Leiden: Brill, 167–214. Stone, M.E. 2001. “Armenian Canon Lists VI – Hebrew Names and Other Attestations”, HThR 94, 477–491. Stone, M.E. 2005a. “L’étude du canon arménien”, in G. Aragione, E. Junod & E. Norelli, Le Canon du Nouveau Testament, Genève: Labor et Fides, 283–295. Stone, M.E. 2005b. “John of Tulkuran On the Creation of the World”, St. Nersess Theological Review 10, 51–75 Stone, M.E. 2007. Adamgirkʿ: The Adam Book of Aṙakʿel of Siwnikʿ, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stone, M.E. 2011. “Yet Another Manuscript of the Armenian Version of The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs”, REArm 33, 13–17. Stone, M.E. 2012. (in collaboration with V. Hillel), The Armenian Version of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Edition, Apparatus, Translation and Commentary (HUAS, 11), Leuven: Peeters. Ter Mkrtčʿean, K. 1895. “Eremiay margarēi i grocʿn Barukʿ [Of Jeremiah the Prophet from the Books of Baruch]”, Ararat 27, 81–82 and Appendix, 1–8. Armenian Apocryphal Literature of the Old Testament 263

Ter Movsesean, M. 1902. History of the Armenian Version of the Bible, St. Petersburg: Pushkin Press (in Russian). Ter Petrosyan, L. 1985. “Introduction”, in A. Zeytʿunyan, Girkʿ Cnndoc’. Kʿnnakan Bnagir [The Book of Genesis. Critical Text] (Hay Hnagoyn Tʿargmanakan Hušarjanner 1 [Monuments of the most Ancient Armenian Translations, 1]), Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun, 69–78. Thomson, R.W. 1975. “The Maccabees in Early Armenian Historiography”, Journal of Theological Studies 26, 329–341. Thomson, R.W. 1995. A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 A.D. (Corpus Christianorum), Turnhout: Brepols. Xalatʿeancʿ, G. 1899. Girkʿ Mnacʿordacʿ ǝst hnagoyn hay tʿargmanutʿean [The Book of Chronicles according to the Oldest Armenian Translation], Moskva. Yovsēpʿeancʿ, S. 1896. Ankanon Girkʿ Hin Ktakaranac’ [Uncanonical Books of the Old Testament], i Venetik: Mxitʿarean tparan. Zahn, T. 1893. Forschungen zur Geschichte des NT Kanons, V Teil, 1 (Paralipomena), Erlangen: Andreas Deichert. Zeytʿunyan, A.S. 1985. Girkʿ Cnndoc’. Kʿnnakan Bnagir [The Book of Genesis. Critical Text] (“Matenadaran”. Hay Hnagoyn Tʿargmanakan Hušarjanner 1 [“Matenadaran”. Monuments of the most Ancient Armenian Translations, 1]), Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Zeytʿunyan, A.S. 1993. “Réponse à Claude Cox sur l’édition critique de la Genèse”, REArm 24, 306–312. Zōhrapean, Y. 1984. Astuacašunčʿ matean hin ew nor ktakaranacʿ (Bible. Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments). A Facsimile Reproduction of the 1805 Venetian Edition with an Introduction by C. Cox (Classical Armenian Text Reprint Series), Delmar, NY: Caravan Books. The Editing of Christian Apocrypha in Armenian: Should We Turn Over a New Leaf?

Valentina Calzolari

1 Christian Apocryphal Literature: Between Traditional Interpretations and New Directions of Research

Christian apocryphal literature in Armenian language constitutes a field of study that remains largely unexplored. After the first studies, carried out predominantly by the Mekhitarist Fathers between the end of nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, last decades have witnessed a new impulse to this vast domain of research. A great deal of work, however, remains to be done, especially in the domain of philology, as we will try to show below. Before presenting the status quaestionis it is necessary to set the limits of this survey. First of all, it is important to make some preliminary observations in order to define what “Christian apocrypha” are.

1.1 Closing of the Canon and Christian Apocryphal Literature The notion of apocrypha is closely related to the constitution of the canon of the New Testament books, which was the result of a long process of selection that each eastern and western Christian community elaborated in its own way.1 Although it is difficult to say anything more specific concerning the various phases of this development, by the fourth century there seems to be a con- sensus about the contours of the New Testament collection in most Christian

This chapter is dedicated to the memory of Dom Louis Leloir. 1 Concerning the formation of the New Testament canon, see the classical and still founda- mental work of Zahn 1888–1898, 1890–1892, as well as Metzger 1987. Among the most recent scholarship are worth mentioning the studies collected by Aragione et al. 2005; Auwers & De Jonge 2003; McDonald 2007; Norelli 2004. See also Bovon & Norelli 1994, 525–540; Le Boulluec 2004.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��4 | doi ��.��63/9789004270961_�13 The Editing of Christian Apocrypha in Armenian 265 communities,2 with the exception of some texts which remain of uncertain status, such as the Apocalypse of John, and certain Epistles.3 The closing of the canon caused very old texts, which until then were regarded with authority, to take second place or, in certain cases, to be rejected. For instance, this is the case of the Acts of Paul (second century) or the Gospel of Peter.4 As soon as the works of the canonical collection imposed their authority as the only authentic accounts of the words of Christ and early Christianity, apocryphal texts started to be progressively disregarded, being considered either forgeries, questionable or even heretical products.5 Even though the term “apocrypha” is well attested before the fixing of the canon,6 it becomes charged with a pejorative character and an ideological connotation only after the closing of the New Testament canon.7 This hostile attitude towards apocryphal literature had consequences for the textual transmission of these works.8 Without the protection of the ecclesiastical institution, i.e. without being fixed by ecclesiastical usage that could guarantee these texts some form of stability,9 certain apocrypha simply

2 By the end of the second century a canon of the four Gospels already existed. On the Gospels, see Koester 1989, 361–381; Koester 1990; Stanton 1997; Stanton 2003. 3 Jakab 2004. On the transmission and the status of the Apocalypse of John in Armenia, see Murad 1911. 4 Junod 1988. 5 On this point, see for instance Eusebius of Caesarea’s testimony. In his Ecclesiastical History III, 25, Eusebius makes a distinction among books “commonly accepted” (the tetrad of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of Paul, the First Epistle of Peter and the First Epistle of John); the books “disputed” but accepted by the majority of Churches (Epistle of James, Epistle of Judah, Second Letter of Peter, Second and Third Letter of John); the “illegitimate” books (gr. νόθα), sometimes read in the Churches (the Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Didache, and, for some, also the Gospel of the Hebrews; the Apocalypse of John would belong, according to some, to the category of inauthentic books, for others to that of received books); the “fictions of heretics”, which are “in disagreement with the veritable orthodoxy” and which one has to “reject as entirely absurd and impious” (the “Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles”, the Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthias): see Baum 1997; Kalin 2002; Le Boulluec 2002. 6 In the Gospel of Thomas, for instance, the Greek expression logoi apocryphoi refers to Jesus’ “secret” or “hidden words”: see Kaestli 20072b. 7 On the history of the term “apocrypha”, see Mimouni 2002, 13–17. On the word “canonical”, see Metzger 1987, 289–293. 8 We can find witnesses in the Fathers of the Church. For an overview, see Junod & Kaestli 1982. 9 See Junod 1991, 404. 266 calzolari disappeared,10 or survived only in a fragmentary form.11 Furthermore, other texts became subject to the opprobium of censorship, thus being corrected to such an extent that it is now difficult to recover their primitive content. Alterations can also be the result of copyists who, without any intention to modify the text, nevertheless departed from it, often aiming at ameliorat- ing their exemplar by making it clearer or more responsive to the audience’s expectations. This program of “purging” or, more simply, reworking of these texts did not take place in a homogeneous way among the different communities.12 As a matter of fact, the ancient oriental versions,13 including the Armenian ones, sometimes preserve a state of the text that is closer to the original than that preserved in the Greek manuscripts.14 Thus, the ancient translations constitute first class witnesses for the reconstruction of the primitive text.

1.2 Is it Possible to Speak of Christian Apocryphal Literature after the Fourth Century? The above observations invite us to briefly go back to the definition of the term “apocrypha”. Traditionally only those works that were not retained in the process of selection that led to the formation and closing of the New Testament canon are considered to be apocryphal. Consequently, here, only works preceding the fourth century have been included in this group. Other approaches go as far as to establish a relationship of constitutive dependence between canonical works and apocryphal works, and believe these latter, in addition

10 This is the case of the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles mentioned by Origen and other Church Fathers. 11 See Gospel of the Nazarenes, Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Ebionites, in use in Judeo- Christian milieus. 12 The role played by monastic circles in the preservation of apocryphal works was very important: see Bovon 1981, 157. On the diffusion in private circles, see also Lequeux 2007. 13 Without opening the question of the New Testament canon in the East, it is worth mentioning that certain oriental Churches, and especially the Ethiopian Church, granted a greater honour to certain books considered apocryphal by the Greek and Latin Churches: see Piovanelli 1993. For some time, the Armenian Church, as well as the Syriac Church, considered canonical the Apocryphal Correspondence between Paul and the Corinthians: see Hovhanessian 2000. 14 This is the case of encratite passages of the Martyrdom of Andrew, which were lost in Greek, but which we were able to recover thanks to the Armenian version: Calzolari 2000; Prieur 1989, 265–270, 321–326; see also Calzolari 1998. On the Armenian Acts of Andrew and the Acts of Andrew and Matthew, see also Leloir 1975–1976; Leloir 1978; Leloir 1986 & 1992, 191–265; Leloir 1991. The Editing of Christian Apocrypha in Armenian 267 to titles and specific terms, actually borrow their literary models from the New Testament sources. Furthermore, the very aim of apocrypha, according to this New Testament-centred viewpoint, was to compete with works already canonized or on the way to being canonized. This New Testament point of view of apocryphal literature leads its partisans to consider the apocrypha, in their genesis and development, as fundamentally depending on the normative corpus.15 While from a theological perspective it is possible to explain the concept of “apocryphal” as supposing that of “canonical”,16 a historical approach cannot admit Schneemelcher’s hypothesis, i.e. that apocrypha were produced in order to imitate, complete, correct, or compete with canonical writings – with the exception of a very small number of texts.17 Accepting such a hypothesis would signify neglecting the extreme diversity of apocryphal traditions, disregarding their origins and the circumstances of their transmission. The use of the criterion of form is equally misleading. A number of apocrypha bearing the titles, often in themselves secondary – such as “Gospel”, “Acts”, or “Apocalypse” actually differ, on a formal level, from the New Testament works with the same titles. Additionally, certain titles may add further confusion to the general picture. The most obvious example is The Ascension of Isaiah, the title of which might lead one to expect an Old Testament apocryphon, while its content is undoubtedly Christian.18 In addition, the fourth century chronological limit is also questionable, for it does not take into consideration the creation and transmission of apocryphal books among the different western and eastern communities in later epochs. Many texts presenting features in common with the most ancient apocrypha were in fact compiled after the canon was closed. This fundamental criticism of W. Schneemelcher’s position was formulated by É. Junod who, in 1983, proposed the following formula:

Textes anonymes ou pseudépigraphes d’origine chrétienne qui entre- tiennent un rapport avec les livres du Nouveau Testament et aussi de l’Ancien Testament parce qu’ils sont consacrés à des événements racon- tés ou évoqués dans ces livres ou parce qu’ils sont consacrés à des évé- nements qui se situent dans le prolongement d’événements racontés ou évoqués dans ces livres; parce qu’ils sont centrés sur des personnages

15 See Hennecke & Schneemelcher 19593, 6. 16 For a theological understanding on these two concepts, see Gisel 1996; Mimouni 2002. 17 See Junod 1991, 404. 18 On Ascension of Isaiah, see Norelli 1994. 268 calzolari

apparaissant dans ces livres, parce que leur genre littéraire s’apparente à ceux d’écrits bibliques.19

In reaction to this criticism, in the new edition of his work, published in 1987, Schneemelcher softened his 1959 definition,20 but maintained the fourth century chronological criterion and concerned himself with establishing a precise demarcation between apocryphal and hagiographical works – a question that remains highly complex today. According to Schneemelcher only the texts excluded from the canon and earlier than its closing can be called apocryphal. In opposition to the argument of the chronological limit as well as that of the interdependence between the literary models of the canonical works and the apocryphal works, in 1992 Junod again stressed the artificial character of the designation “New Testament apocrypha” and proposed to substitute it with the formula “Ancient Christian apocrypha”,21 which we adopt here.22 In a certain academic tradition, the title “New Testament apocrypha” actually not only refers to the primacy granted to the canon as central element for determining analysis and comprehension of apocryphal texts, but also suggests that next to the self-contained New Testament corpus there is a corresponding unified category of parallel texts, which can be put together in one circumscribed and homogenous corpus, open to be studied in itself.23 On the contrary, because of its flexible nature, apocryphal literature is not at all suited for the constitution of closed collections. In fact, as already stressed, every apocryphal text is the product of its epoch and place of origin. These works

19 Junod 1983, 412. 20 Schneemelcher 19875, 52. 21 Junod 1992. On the topic, see also Bovon 1983; Kaestli 20072a; Nicklas 2007; Picard 1999; Rordorf 1993. 22 This is the formula chosen by the Association pour l’Étude de la Littérature Apocryphe Chrétienne (AELAC), whose aim is to promote the knowledge of apocryphal literature by means of editions, translations, and commentaries of apocrypha, including writings written after the fourth century. 23 One of the first collections was prepared by Fabricius (Fabricius 1703), who gathered a large number of apocryphal texts grouping them according to the categories of the New Testament works (Gospels, Acts, Epistles, Apocalypses) and choosing titles that underlined the link between apocryphal writings and canonical works. Although Fabricius’ aim was to put works considered dangerous from a doctrinal point of view in a better light, he nevertheless acknowledged them to be of interest as documents for the knowledge of heretical movements in Antiquity. Besides ideological intentions, Fabricius’ collection had the merit of considering apocryphal texts as an object of study. On this topic, see Poupon 1981; Picard 1990. The Editing of Christian Apocrypha in Armenian 269 may have complex connections not only with the New Testament and with other apocryphal texts, but also with many other ones. They may be contemporary with them, or precede them, while their origins may be Christian, and sometimes Jewish or even pagan.24 Only an approach that takes into account the diversity of these factors and their interactions allows us to understand these texts in their own context and nature. This is all the more so, especially in view of what they can still teach us about the memory of Christian origins as each community pictured it at different moments of its own history.25

2 The Christian Apocrypha in Armenian

We should stress that the chronological criterion adopted by Schneemelcher, the limitations of which were noted above, would oblige us to exclude all apocryphal literature in Armenian language from the field of Christian apocrypha. After all, the Armenian alphabet was invented only at the beginning of the fifth century. However, Armenians took a keen interest in apocryphal literature from the beginning of the fifth century, translating from Greek and Syriac,26 and creating their own versions. To exclude this body of work by applying Schneemelcher’s chronological criterion would seriously distort the overall picture of the field. Although we do not intend to offer an exhaustive list of apocryphal Christian works written in Armenian here,27 first of all it is important to recall that Armenians manifested much interest in the apostolic traditions. Almost all the most ancient apocryphal Acts (second – third century) were known and translated, at least partially.28 The text that has often been preferred is the final section of such Acts, i.e. the Martyrdom (or the Dormition, in the case of the Acts of John), because being shorter it was easier to exploit them for liturgical purposes. This was certainly well suited to be read on the day of the commemoration of each apostle. Therefore, in Armenian we have at our disposal

24 The Acts of Andrew, just to make an example, have been influenced by hermetism, middle- Platonism, and other texts of the pagan Greek literature, while Scriptural allusions are rare: see Junod 1992, 41–43; Prieur 1989, 372–379, 409–412, et passim. It is Flamion 1911, 145– 177 who was able to identify the influence of philosophical texts on the Acts of Andrew, and Festugière 1954, 227–231, who showed the influence of the hermetic literature. 25 See Introduction to Bovon & Geoltrain 1997; Bovon 1981. 26 On the Armenian translations from Syriac, see Calzolari 2005b. 27 A list of Armenian apocrypha, with a bibliography can be found in Anasyan 1959, 903-913; Voicu 1983; see also Voicu 2000 and different entries in Geerard 1992. 28 Acts of Andrew, Acts of John, Acts of Thomas, Acts of Paul, Acts of Peter. 270 calzolari the translation of the Martyrdom of Andrew, the Martyrdom of Thomas, the Martyrdom of Paul, the Martyrdom of Peter, as well as the Dormition of John. The Acts of Paul and Thecla and the apocryphal Correspondence between Paul and the Corinthians, which were two sections of the Acts of Paul, were also translated. Of the apostolic traditions, the Acts of Andrew and Mathew and the Acts of Thomas, were translated from Syriac; the Acts of John by Prochorus and the Acts of Peter and Paul, from Greek. Several Lists of Apostles and other later Histories, such as the History of the preaching of James the Minor in Spain, or the History of James and John were also translated. Texts dealing with the apostlic founders of the Armenian Church occupy a special, prominent place: Thaddaeus (and his pupil Sanduxtʿ) and Bartholomew, which seem to have been compiled directly in Armenian.29 Closely connected with the Thaddaeus cycle, the legend of king Abgar of Edessa also found an important place in the ancient Armenian literature, probably already in the fifth century. Among the apocrypha related to Jesus’ coming to earth and passion, the Armenian tradition preserves the works that deal with Jesus’ birth and infancy, such as the translation of the Greek Protoevangelium of James (whose real title we now know was Nativity of Mary)30 and the late Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus, which exists only in Armenian.31 The Passion cycle includes first of all the Gospel of Nicodemus (or Acts of Pilate), as well as the Letter of Pilate (i.e. the Anaphora Pilati, followed by the Paradosis Pilati).32 The Marian cycle includes, among others, the Dormition,33 the Epistle of pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite to Titus,34 the Apocalypse of Mary,35 as well as other Panegyrics and Homilies.36 In addition to the Apocalypse of Mary, the apocalyptic genre includes the Apocalypse of Paul,37 and an apocryphal Apocalypse of John.38 Among the epistles, undoubtedly the most important are those that form the Correspondence between Paul and the Corinthians, which, for a certain period of time, must have been canonical in Armenian, under the influence of the Syriac canon.39

29 Calzolari 2011a, 43–44, 106, 120–121. 30 De Strycker 1961. 31 Peeters 1914, who supposed a Syriac origin. 32 Tayecʿi 1898, 313–345; Conybeare 1896; see also below, note 105, 107 and 108. 33 Vetter 1902. 34 Vetter 1887; edition in Sruanjteanc’ 1874. 35 Tayecʿi 1898, 383–401 (versions A and B); Tayecʿi 1898, 402–417 (versions C, D, E, F, G). 36 On the apocrypha of the Virgin, see Dasnabedean 1997–1998. 37 Leloir 1980; Vetter 1906b; Vetter 1907; Rosenstiehl 1984. 38 Indicated in Rosensthiel 1984. 39 See above, note 13. The Editing of Christian Apocrypha in Armenian 271

Although the list given here is not exhaustive, it leads us to formulate a first desideratum, i.e. the preparation of a Clavis Apocryphorum Armeniacorum, whose data would complete those contained in Maurice Geerard’s Clavis Apocryphorum Novi Testamenti.40 The wealth of works translated into or written directly in Armenian represents an impressive fact and raises a question which goes beyond the limits of this presentation: why did Armenians concerned themselves with uncanonical literature, even though their literature began after the closing of the canon? Certainly there are many answers possible: different text most likely responded to different needs, which can only be clarified, if at all, by specific studies.41 In general, the Armenian Church did not adopt a normative attitude towards this literature, as the absence of canonical decisions implicitly shows. As observed by M. Stone, the Armenian lists of canonical and uncanonical works actually have to be considered as reflecting a scholarly interest rather than the issue of normative decisions: “la tradition érudite arménienne accorde un plus grand intérêt aux listes canoniques que ne le fait la loi canonique arménienne. [. . .] Ces listes n’ont été compilées ni en fonction du contenu de manuscrits bibliques arméniens ni en fonction de l’usage arménien des Écritures [. . .]”.42 A philological inquiry into the conditions of transmission of apocryphal works may also yield useful information as to how Armenians regarded this literature in ancient and medieval times.

3 Collections of Apocryphal Texts

The main manuscript collections preserving apocryphal texts are those belonging to the category of čaṙǝntirs (“chosen-discourses” or “choice of discourses”), in other words medieval compilations containing biblical readings, panegyrics, saints’ martyrdoms and lives, including the ancient versions of apocryphal texts.43 In the thirteenth century the versions of the texts contained in

40 Geerard 1992. 41 Calzolari Bouvier 1999a. 42 Stone 2005, 289–290. On the connections of canonical and uncanonical works, see also below. 43 Compiled and arranged by Gregory the Martyrophile in the eleventh century, they include several ancient versions, especially of apocryphal works. On the collections of Armenian manuscripts, see B. Coulie’s chapter on “Collections and Catalogues of Armenian Manuscripts” in this same volume. 272 calzolari the čaṙǝntirs contributed towards the formation of the Armenian Synaxarion.44 Channelled by the compendia preserved in the Synaxarion, apocryphal works have often fuelled Armenians’ devotion and gained their own place in the celebrations scheduled in the Armenian Church’s liturgical calendar. Some of the manuscripts preserving apocryphal works have already been described and studied. This is the case of manuscripts 110, 120, and 121 of the Bibliothèque nationale de France,45 and manuscripts 941, 993, 1524, and 7729 of the Matenadaran in Erevan.46 Additionally, many observations on these collections of manuscripts were published by Dom L. Leloir in his introduction to the second volume of his translations of apocryphal writings on the apostles, to which we shall return later. In particular Leloir studied the čaṙǝntirs reflecting the ancient collection of the tōnakan of Makenocʿ, which dates back to the eighth century.47 In the introductory pages of the same work, Leloir mentioned several unedited manuscripts, which he identified thanks to the catalogues of the manuscript collections of Venice, Vienna, Paris,48 and Erevan. As far as the Matenadaran manuscripts are concerned, Leloir was able to exploit only the old catalogue that appeared in two volumes in 1965 and 1970. This is an abridged index, in which apocryphal works are often hidden behind the simple marker Varkʿ “Life”, Vkayabanutʿiwnkʿ “Martyrdoms” or Patmutʿiwnkʿ srbocʿ “Histories of Saints”, or are not mentioned at all. This very succinct information can be completed thanks to the full description of the collections of čaṙǝntirs compiled by M. Ter-Movsisyan,49 still unpublished.50 The catalogue gives a detailed description of the main čaṙǝntir manuscripts (ca. fifty) not only of Erevan, but also of Jerusalem, Venice, Vienna, and Paris. A survey of the manu-

44 On the Armenian Synaxarion, see Adontz 1924; Akinean 1957; Avdalbegyan 1982; Der Nersessian 1950; Mécérian 1953; Peeters 1911; Sarkissian 1949; Zanetti 1987. 45 Muyldermans 1961; Muyldermans 1964. 46 Zanetti & van Esbroeck 1977; van Esbroeck 1984a; van Esbroeck 1984b; Matevosyan 1969; Calzolari Bouvier 1999b (offering a list of the apocryphal works contained in MSS 941 and 1524). 47 On this collection, see van Esbroeck 1984a; van Esbroeck 1984b. 48 His data are based on Macler 1908, for at that time the new catalogue by Kévorkian & Ter- Stépanyan 1998 was not published yet. 49 Ter-Movsisyan s.d. Other useful information can be found in the thematic catalogue of the Lives and Martyrdoms of Saints, which is entitled Varkʿ–Vkayabanutʿiwnkʿ. It is organized alphabetically by the saints’ names. The catalogue of čaṙǝntirs by Xačikian, Lalafaryan & Melikʿ-Baxšyan 1945 is also useful. 50 According to some information received orally during a research stay at the Matenadaran, Ter-Movsisyan worked on this catalogue from the end of the nineteenth century until 1939, the year of his death. The Editing of Christian Apocrypha in Armenian 273 scripts described by Ter-Movsisyan allowed us to establish that the indications given are sometimes imprecise. Thus, inspection of each manuscript remains indispensible. As we pointed out in an article published in 1999, until the publication of the detailed catalogue of the manuscripts of the Matenadaran is completed, it would be useful to compile a thematic list of the apocryphal texts described in the catalogue of Ter-Movsisyan, after the necessary verifications.51 This is a long-term enterprise, the success of which depends upon teamwork, i.e. on collaboration with specialists of the Matenadaran who could undertake their research in situ on an ongoing basis. The realization of such a project remains a desideratum. It is also important to stress that the lack of exhaustive descriptions of the manuscripts of the Matenadaran deprives us not only of the knowledge of witnesses which could prove more trustworthy than those known so far, but also of unedited texts. For instance, B. Outtier recently identified two unedited apocryphal narratives: the Dialogue of the Paralytic with Christ,52 and another text belonging to the cycle of Abgar.53 By means of an investigation in situ, we ourselves were also able to identify an unedited text on saint Thecla.54

4 The Scholarly Work of the Mekhitarist Fathers in the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century

The first and, in most cases, the only editions of Christian apocryphal texts in Armenian language are due to the Mekhitarist Fathers of Venice, starting from the end of the nineteenth century. In that epoch the rediscovery of texts of the Christian apocryphal literature fell within the enterprise of valorisation of the patrimony of the past, which characterized the scholarly activity of the Mekhitarists at the time of the Zartʿōnkʿ (Awakening), that is of Armenian Romanticism. This activity contributed to the process of the formation of the Armenian nation. It is therefore not surprising that among the works they published first, there are apocryphal writings dealing with the tradition of the apostolic origins of the Armenian Church. In 1853, in volume 8 of the collection of the Sopʿerkʿ Haykakankʿ [Armenian Writings], Father Ališan edited the Thaddaeus cycle, which includes the Martyrdom of the Apostle Thaddaeus and his disciple Sandukht (Sanduxtʿ) – as well as its abridged version (History of

51 Calzolari Bouvier 1999b. 52 Outtier 1997; Outtier 2005. 53 Outtier 1999. 54 Calzolari 1996–1997. 274 calzolari

Thaddaeus and Sandukht) –, a Passion of Sandukht, and the narration of the discovery of the relics of Thaddaeus and his disciples, including Sandukht.55 The following year (1854), in the same collection of the Sopʿerkʿ, we find the edition of the Martyrdom of Bartholomew. In 1868 Father Ališan also edited the Letter of Abgar attributed to Labubna, i.e. the Armenian translation of the Syriac Doctrine of Addaï, which is also associated with the cycle of Thaddaeus.56 In the same year a second edition of the Letter appeared in Jerusalem. In 1874 Father Ališan edited the collection of the Varkʿ ew vkayabanutʿiwnkʿ srbocʿ [Saints’ Lives and Martyrdoms] in two volumes, which, alongside hagiographical works, also included such apocryphal writings as the Martyrdom of St. Timothy the Apostle, the Martyrdom of St. Titus the Apostle, the Martyrdom of St. Bartholomew the Apostole, and the Life of St. Thecla, the disciple of the Apostle Paul.57 The borders between hagiographical literature and apocryphal literature are currently being debated; the association of apocryphal and hagiographical texts is thus not surprising in a collection published in 1874. It is only in 1898 that a work entirely dedicated to Christian apocrypha appeared with the title of Ankanon girkʿ nor ktakaranacʿ [Uncanonical Books of the New Testament].58 This work was the second volume of the series Tʿangaran haykakan hin ew nor dprutʿeancʿ [Museum of Ancient and New Armenian Literature], which was preceded by the publication of the Ankanon girkʿ hin ktakaranacʿ [Uncanonical Books of the Old Testament], in 1896.59 In 1904 a third volume dedicated to the apostolic legends was published, the Ankanon girkʿ aṙakʿelakankʿ [Uncanonical Books on the Apostles], edited by Father Kʿ. Čʿrakʿean.60 The publications of these collections explicitly dedicated to ankanon “non canonical” books was an important step in the history of the studies on apocryphal literature. In fact, for the first time in the field of Armenian studies, it specifies apocryphal literature as a distinct field of study. To realize the significance of such an observation one may note that in 1991 É. Junod published an article entitled: “La littérature apocryphe chrétienne constitue-t-elle un objet d’études?”,61 in which the author offered observations about the development of the studies on apocryphal literature as an independent field.

55 [Ališan] 1853. 56 [Ališan] 1868b. 57 [Ališan] 1874. 58 Tayecʿi 1898. 59 Yovsēpʿeancʿ 1896. 60 Čʿrakʿean 1904. 61 Junod 1991. The Editing of Christian Apocrypha in Armenian 275

Having established this preliminary clarification, it is worth examining the borders of the corpus of apocryphal texts published in Venice in order to see more clearly which texts have been chosen and in which order were they published. We shall note that the two volumes of Christian ankanon [uncanonical] writings begin with the accounts of the infancy of Mary and Jesus and continue with the cycle of Pilate, i.e. with narratives that are close to the genre of the canonical Gospels. The last part consists of other works on the Virgin, i.e. the Apocalypse (or Vision of the Theotokos) and the Dormition, viz. texts that complement the narrative of the birth of Mary. Finally, the second volume dedicated to the Christian apocrypha includes the writings on the apostles, i.e. texts similar to the canonical Acts. Thus, the order of the New Testament writings seems to underlie the order chosen by the Mekhitarist Fathers. The Mekhitarists thus followed a trend evident in the first collection of apocryphal texts, edited in 1703 by Johannes Fabricius.62 From then onwards, up to the most recent period, collections of apocryphal texts usually follow the plan of the New Testament. This choice implicitly presupposes that, as a clearly defined collection of canonical texts exists, in the same way a parallel category of texts that could be grouped into a circumscribed and homogenous group should exists as well. This approach, as we have seen, is misleading. In the two volumes of the Ankanon girkʿ, we may also note a second criterion, i.e. a thematic grouping organized around the figures of Jesus, Mary, the individual Apostles and, finally, the lists of Apostles. Among the writings on the apostles, along with the most ancient apocryphal texts, we sometimes find the abridged versions of the apocryphal stories preserved in the Synaxarion. Later texts, such as the account of the discovery and the translation of the relics of Thomas to Armenia (tenth century) have also been added. The edifying purpose of this interest in the apostolic figures is probably the basis for such an enlarged choice of texts.63 Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that the contours of the apocryphal collections stemming from the Mekhitarist printing house in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century is determined by an enlarged notion of apocrypha, which is less rigid than that of Schneemelcher.

4.1 The Editions of Paul Vetter If the Mekhitarists’ editions had unparalleled merits for the preservation of apocryphal texts, they also had an involuntary dissuasive effect. Towards the end of the nineteenth century the German scholar P. Vetter had also begun a project of edition of apocryphal texts, basing his editions essentially on

62 See note 23. 63 Leloir 1986 & 1992, vol. 2, xxxvi. 276 calzolari manuscripts of the Bibliothèque nationale de France. Unlike the Ankanon girkʿ collections,64 Vetter’s volumes were enriched by the translations and, sometimes, the Greek retroversions of the Armenian works.65 As explicitly stated in the 1906 edition of the Acts of Peter and Paul, Vetter considered it useless to continue his editorial work, having heard about the parallel enterprise begun by the Mekhitarists.66

5 Translations

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, few texts were translated. The following translations may be mentioned (the list is not exhaustive):

– the abridged French translation of the Letter of Abgar by J.-B. Émine, which appeared in V. Langlois’ Collection des historiens arméniens;67 – the French translation of the Letter of Abgar by Ł. Ališan;68 – the English translation of the Martyrdom of Thaddaeus and the Martyrdom of Bartholomew by S.C. Malan;69 – the German translation of the Passion of Sandukht by M. Schmid;70 – the German translation of the Epistle of the Pseudo-Dionysius to Titus, the Dormition of Mary, the short recension of the Acts of Peter and Paul, and the Apocalypse of Paul by P. Vetter;71 – the English translation of the Acts of Thecla72 and the first six chapters of the Infancy Gospel by F.C. Conybeare;73 – the Latin translation of the Protoevangelium of James by H. Quecke, the Martyrdom of Bartholomew by G. Moesinger, and the Dormition of John by J. Catergian;74 – the French translation of the Book of the Infancy by P. Peeters;75

64 But see Issaverdens 1901. 65 Vetter 1887; Vetter 1890; Vetter 1894; Vetter 1901a–b; Vetter 1902; Vetter 1903; Vetter 1905; Vetter 1906a–b; Vetter 1907. 66 Vetter 1906a, 162. 67 Émine 1867. 68 [Ališan] 1868b. 69 Malan 1868; see also below, note 81. 70 Schmid 1901. 71 Vetter 1887; Vetter 1902; Vetter 1906a; 1906b; Vetter 1907. 72 Conybeare 1894 (18962); see also Calzolari forthcoming for the Italian translation. 73 Conybeare 1897. 74 De Strycker 1961; Moesinger 1877; Catergian 1877. 75 Peeters 1914; see also below, note 82. The Editing of Christian Apocrypha in Armenian 277

– the French translation of the apocryphal Correspondence between Paul and the Corinthians by A. Carrière and S. Berger;76 this text was also translated into German by Vetter.77

During the ’80s of last century, an important scientific and editorial enterprise resulted in the publication of two tomes containing the French translation by L. Leloir of the writings edited in the collection of the Ankanon girkʿ aṙakʿelakankʿ. The two volumes appeared in the collection of the Corpus Christianorum. Series Apocryphorum, sponsored by the Association pour l’Étude de la Littérature Apocryphe Chrétienne (AELAC) and contributed to fostering new interest for Christian apocryphal literature in Armenian language. Within the domain of translations and, once more, following an enterprise sponsored by the AELAC, it is also important to mention the recent publication of two volumes of the Écrits apocryphes chrétiens in the Bibliothèque de la Pléiade.78 For the first time, Armenian texts entered this prestigious collection: the Dialogue of the Paralytic with Jesus, translated by B. Outtier,79 and the Martyrdom of Thaddaeus and Sandukht, translated by the present writer.80 Additionally, the paperback collection of the AELAC (“Apocryphes”) now hosts an Armenian volume dedicated to the stories of the apocryphal cycle of Thaddaeus and Bartholomew.81 In the English-speaking world, the publication of the English translation of the Armenian Infancy Gospel and the Protoevangelium of James by A. Terian should be mentioned.82

6 Critical Works Carried Out Since the End of the Twentieth Century

Dom Leloir’ translations went together with an important critical work that formed a necessary preliminary to the enterprise of editing Christian apocryphal texts sponsored by the AELAC. In the “Avertissement au lecteur” of the first two volumes of translations one reads:

76 Carrière & Berger 1891. 77 Vetter 1890; see more recently Hovhannessian 2000 (English translation). 78 Bovon & Geoltrain 1997; Geoltrain & Kaestli 2005. 79 Outtier 2005. 80 Calzolari 2005c. 81 Calzolari 2011a. 82 Terian 2008. 278 calzolari

La présente publication doit permettre aux savants qui ne lisent pas l’arménien d’avoir accès dès maintenant à ces documents. De plus cette version française va amorcer et stimuler une entreprise d’édition critique. [. . .] La traduction de Dom Louis Leloir comble une grave lacune, puisque l’édition de Chérubin Tchérakian n’a jamais été traduite dans une langue moderne. Elle s’impose d’autant plus que ces documents armé- niens, jusqu’ici négligés, jouent un rôle considérable dans l’histoire de la tradition des légendes relatives aux apôtres. Pour ne prendre qu’un exemple, c’est la version arménienne qui permet de reconstituer la forme primitive du Martyre d’André que corrigent tous les témoins grecs en leurs diverses recensions.

To each translation a list of unedited manuscripts was added and, in some cases, an evaluation of the critical value of the Armenian witness for the establishment of the original Greek or Syriac text. Introductions of historical- literary nature are generally brief, with some exceptions. Thus, in the introduction to the translation of the Acts of Andrew and Matthew and the Apocalypse of Paul, Dom Leloir set forth the results of previous research concerning the theological orientation of these writings.83 This double approach, at the same time philological and historical-literary, has characterized more recent works on apocryphal literature. We may mention the works of M. van Esbroeck on the traditions of the Virgin, as well as on the Apostles Thaddaeus and Bartholomew;84 those of Tʿ. Dasnabedean on the Marian traditions,85 of B. Outtier on the Evangelium Nicodemi,86 and, more recently, of A. Terian and I. Dorfmann-Lazarev on the Gospel of the Infancy.87 The author of the present article has worked on the Acts of Paul and Thecla and the Wonders of Thecla,88

83 Voir Leloir 1975–1976; Leloir 1978; Leloir 1980. Other studies by Leloir of philological, but also historical and theological nature appeared independently in several specialized journals: Leloir 1991; Leloir 1993. 84 Van Esbroeck 1962; van Esbroeck 1972; van Esbroeck 1983a; van Esbroeck 1983b; van Esbroeck [1988]; van Esbroeck 1995. 85 Dasnabedean 1997–1998. 86 Outtier 2010. 87 Terian 2008; Dorfmann-Lazarev 2010. 88 Calzolari 1996; Calzolari 1996–1997; Calzolari 1997b; Calzolari 1997c; Calzolari 2005a. A new critical edition, with an Italian translation and a study of the development of the cult and the literary legend of St. Thecla from the fifth until the fourteenth century is presented in Calzolari forthcoming. The Editing of Christian Apocrypha in Armenian 279 the Martyrdom of Paul,89 the Martyrdom of Andrew,90 the Martyrdom and the Discovery of the relics of Thaddaeus,91 the Martyrdom and the Discovery of the relics of Bartholomew by Maroutha,92 and, secondarily, the Recognitions of pseudo-Clement,93 the Martyrdom of Philip,94 and the Infancy Gospel.95 Here the importance of the study of apocryphal texts as useful sources for a better understanding of the history of ancient Armenian Christianity should also be stressed.96 For example, the Armenian translations of the Martyrdom of Philip and of the apocryphal texts about Andrew offer interesting evidence concerning the diffusion of encratite practices and doctrines in Armenia, in particular as preached by Eustathius of Sebaste, whose doctrine was condemned by the Armenian Church.97

7 The Editorial Methods and Practices Adopted by the Mekhitarist Fathers

The editorial methods and practices adopted by the Mekhitarist Fathers are based on principles that are very easy to sum up: the choice of a base manuscript, called the bnagir, and the conservative editing of a single MS text (best text method); the preparation of a very succinct apparatus offering imprecise indications of readings of auxiliary manuscripts (ōrinak mǝ “an exemplar”, miws ōrinak “another exemplar”); and a study almost exclusively of the manuscripts of the easily accessible Venice collections.98 Among the favoured manuscripts, it is clear that priority was granted to V653, which is a copy of the famous homiliary of Muš, compiled in the nineteenth century by Father B.V. Sarghissian. Even though the tōnakan of Muš is undoubtedly notable for its age

89 Calzolari 2004a; Calzolari 2007. A new critical edition, with Italian translation and a comparative study of the Armenian with the Greek text and the other translations, is to be found in Calzolari forthcoming. 90 Calzolari 1998; Calzolari 2000. 91 Calzolari 1997a; Calzolari 2010; Calzolari 2011a. 92 Calzolari 2010; Calzolari 2011a. 93 Calzolari 1993. 94 Calzolari 2004b; Calzolari 2013. 95 Calzolari 2011b. 96 On the relations between apocrypha and historiography, see Calzolari 1997c; Calzolari 2005a; Calzolari 2010; Calzolari 2011a. 97 Concerning apocryphal texts as sources for the history of encratism in Armenia, see above, note 14; see also Calzolari 2004b; Calzolari 2013; Leloir 1978. 98 See also the following paragraph. 280 calzolari and history, it does not always represent the best critical witness, as we have already been able to verify while studying the Martyrdom of Andrew, the Acts of Thecla and the Martyrdom of Paul.99

8 Editing Apocryphal Texts: Should We Turn over a New Leaf?100

Even though the enterprise of the Mekhitarist Fathers does not meet the rigorous requirements of modern textual criticism, their pioneering work was immense and saved a whole corpus of Armenian literature from oblivion. Nonetheless, today these texts should be re-edited using modern principles of text edition. A study of the textual traditions that characterize Christian apocryphal texts shows the difficulties that editors often have to face. Sometimes such difficulties can be compared to those faced by editors of Medieval texts and stem from the conditions of transmission that are typical of apocryphal texts. The lack of institutional supervision, which we have mentioned earlier – a supervision that was in contrast sometimes applied to canonical texts, concerning which not even a jot could be changed –, allowed extremely unstable transmission of western and oriental apocryphal texts. Confronted with the “movable” nature of this literature, an editor of texts should not ignore the recent results of the “Nouvelle critique littéraire”, and especially its new approaches to such concepts as “text”, “author”, “authority”, and “authorship”.101 Often, apocryphal writings have developed multiple textual forms through processes of abridgement, expansion, paraphrase and other editorial rewrit- ings. It is essential to appreciate their textual fluidity, for which the fixity of the printed page is a poor representation.102 This phenomenon may also be observed in the transmission of other medieval texts, whose inner instability has been called “variance” by Bernard Cerquiglini.103 Which attitude should be embraced when confronting such reworkings? How should such texts be edited? At least two approaches are possible. We can

99 Calzolari 1998; Calzolari 2004a. 100 This paragraph summarizes some of the observations already published in Calzolari 2007. 101 In French: “text”, “auteur”, “autorité”, “auctorialité”. 102 Calzolari 2007, 150. 103 In the case of medieval works this variety was due, among other reasons, to the “appropriation joyeuse par la langue maternelle (le vulgaire)” of the writing, which appears by means of meticulous variants or phenomena of macroscopic rewriting: Cerquiglini 1989, 57, developing the concept of “mouvance” formulated by Zumthor 1972. The Editing of Christian Apocrypha in Armenian 281 aspire to identify and edit only the most primitive version of the text. However, if we choose not to edit later reworkings, we deprive ourselves of important witnesses to the transmission history and the reception of the text, as well as of their implications for our understanding of the history of Christianity. On the other hand, we can regard each recension as an interesting witness and decide to edit as many stages of the text as is feasible. However, the number of recensions and their textual variants will sometimes make the inclusion of an apparatus impractical. Should we edit each recension independently? This is the option sometimes adopted by the Mekhitarists. In the case of the Martyrdom of Philip and the Gospel of Nicodemus, two recensions have been published on the same page, one above the other.104 In the case of the Anaphora Pilati, the Mekhitarists adopted the principle of synoptic columns.105 This is the system we adopted for the final section of the Armenian Martyrdom of Paul, which is known in multiple families of manuscripts in different, interpolated forms. The Mekhitarist Fathers have sometimes chosen to publish different recensions of a given text one after the other: e.g. the Apocalypse of Paul (four recensions),106 the Protevangelium of James (three recensions),107 and the Infancy Gospel (two recensions).108 In itself, a separate edition could be a diplomatic (diplomatic-interpretative) one, and on this topic it is worth recalling Cerquiglini’s caveat about what he called “tentation fac-similaire”.109 This option corresponds to a stepping away from interpretation and choice, which should be the foundations of an edition.110 A critical edition gives us the benefit of the editor’s skill and learning; but on the other hand, not every text is transmitted in such a way that a critical edition can be presented. A century later, in order to solve such editorial issues, are we better equipped than the scholars who lived between the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century? Without entering in the current debate between supporters and opponents of the “New Philology”, we quote once more the words of Cerquiglini and thus recall his exhortation to “tourner la page”, not only in a metaphorical, but also in a concrete sense of the term. Cerquiglini suggested turning to computer tools, which with their memory and resources might be

104 Čʿrakʿean 1904, 300–320; Tayecʿi 1898, 313–345, esp. 315–332. 105 Tayecʿi 1898, 359–378. 106 Čʿrakʿean 1904, 62–84, 85–100 (two texts, one above the other), 101–109. 107 Tayecʿi 1898, 237–250, 250–264, 264–267. 108 Tayecʿi 1898, 1–126, 127–235. 109 Cerquiglini 1989, 43. 110 Cerquiglini 1989, 43 et passim. 282 calzolari more capable of reproducing the variability of medieval works. In particular, Cerquiglini suggested turning to what he called “disposition écranique”, which would allow visualizing the different textual forms of a given text by means of several, simultaneous screens, as well as consulting data belonging to different groups in a collective action, by means of windows. This operation would be feasible thanks to the huge possibilities of data storage and the varied possibilities of presentation. Cerquiglini also stressed the benefit of exploiting zoom effects, immediate approaches, moves in the text(s). These are all actions able once more to show the dynamic nature of a continuously evolving writing.111 Could this approach prove fruitful also in the case of apocryphal literature? Is Armenian philology ready to face the challenges of the new digital epoch? This is a good question and the beginning of a new page of history to write in the third millennium.

Translated from the French by Emilio Bonfiglio

Selected Bibliography

Adontz, N. 1924. “Notes sur les synaxaires arméniens”, Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 24, 211–218. Akinean, N. 1957. “Yovsēpʿ Kostandnupolsecʿi tʿargmaničʿ Yaysmawurkʿi (991)” [Joseph of Costantinople, Translator of the Yaysmawurkʿ (991)], Handēs Amsōreay 71, 1–12. [Ališan, Ł.]. 1853. Vkayabanutʿiwn ew giwt nšxaracʿ S. Tʿadēi aṙakʿeloy ew Sandxtoy kusi [Martyrdom and Discovery of the Relics of St. Thaddaeus the Apostle and St. Sandukht the Virgin] (Sopʿerkʿ Haykakankʿ [Armenian Writings], 8), i Venetik: i Tparani Mxitʿareancʿ. [Ališan, Ł.]. 1868a. Labubneay diwanagir dpri Edesioy, Tʿułtʿ Abgaru [Labubna, Scribe and Archivist of Edessa, Letter of Abgar], i Venetik: Mxitʿarean tparan. [Ališan, Ł.]. 1868b. Lettre d’Abgar, Venise: Imprimerie mékhitariste de Saint-Lazare. [Ališan, Ł.]. 1874. Varkʿ ew vkayabanutʿiwnkʿ Srbocʿ hatǝntir kʿałealkʿ i čaṙǝntracʿ [Saints’ Lives and Martyrdoms. Anthology gathered from the čaṙǝntirs], 2 vols, i Venetik: Mxitʿarean tparan. Anasyan, H.S. 1959. Haykakan Matenagitutʿyun E-ƎŽ dd [Armenian Bibliology, 5th-18th Centuries]. Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Aragione, G. et al. (eds). 2005. Le canon du Nouveau Testament, Genève: Labor et Fides. Auwers, J.-M. & De Jonge, H.J. (eds). 2003. The Biblical Canons (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 163), Louvain: Peeters & Presses de l’Université.

111 Cerquiglini 1989, 112–116. The Editing of Christian Apocrypha in Armenian 283

Avdalbegyan, M. 1982. “Yaysmawurkʿ žołovacunerǝ ev nrancʿ patmagrakan aržekǝ” [The Yasmawurkʿ collections and their historiographical value], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Baum, A.D. 1997. “Der neutestamentliche Kanon bei Eusebios (Hist. eccl. III, 25, 1–7) im Kontext seiner literaturgeschichtlichen Arbeit”, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 73, 307–348. Bovon, F. & Geoltrain, P. (eds) 1997. Écrits apocryphes chrétiens (Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, 442), vol. 1, Paris: Gallimard. Bovon, F. & Norelli, E. 1994. “Dal kerygma al canone. Lo statuto degli scritti neotesta- mentari nel secondo secolo”, Cristianesimo nella storia 15, 525–540. Bovon, F. 1981. “La vie des apôtres. Traditions bibliques et narrations apocryphes”, in F. Bovon et al. (eds), Les Actes apocryphes des apôtres (Publications de la Faculté de théologie de l’Université de Genève, 4), Genève: Labor et Fides, 141–158. Bovon, F. 1983. “Vers une nouvelle édition de la littérature apocryphe chrétienne”, Augustinianum 23, 373–378. Calzolari Bouvier, V., Kaestli, J.-D. & Outtier, B. (eds) 1999. Apocryphes arméniens. Traduction, création, transmission, iconographie. Actes du colloque international sur la littérature apocryphe en langue arménienne (Genève, 18–20 septembre 1997) (Publications de l’Institut romand des sciences bibliques, 1), Lausanne: Zèbre. Calzolari Bouvier, V. 1999a. “En guise d’introduction: quelques reflexions sur le rôle de la littérature apocryphe dans l’Arménie chrétienne ancienne”, in Calzolari Bouvier, Kaestli & Outtier 1999, 9–18. Calzolari Bouvier, V. 1999b. “Un projet de répertoire des manuscrits arméniens conte nant les textes apocryphes chrétiens”, in Calzolari Bouvier, Kaestli & Outtier 1999, 53–70. Calzolari, V. 1993. “La tradition arménienne des Pseudo-Clémentines: état de la question”, Apocrypha 4, 263–293. Calzolari, V. 1996. “Notes sur la traduction arménienne du texte syriaque des Actes de Thècle”, in D. Sakayan (ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Armenian Linguistics (McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. May 1–5, 1995), Delmar, NY: Caravan Books, 233–243. Calzolari, V. 1996–1997. “Un nouveau texte arménien sur Thècle: les Prodiges de Thècle (Présentation et analyse linguistique)”, REArm 26 (1996–1997), 249–271. Calzolari, V. 1997a. “Réécriture des textes apocryphes en arménien: l’exemple de la légende de l’apostolat de Thaddée en Arménie”, Apocrypha 8, 97–110. Calzolari, V. 1997b. “La trasmissione dei testi apocrifi cristiani in armeno: l’esempio degli Atti di Paolo e Tecla”, in A. Valvo (ed.), La diffusione dell’eredità classica nell’età tardoantica e medievale. Forme e modi di trasmissione (Atti del Seminario Nazionale, Trieste, 19–20 settembre 1996), Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 45–58. 284 calzolari

Calzolari, V. 1997c. “De sainte Thècle à Anahit: une hypothèse d’interprétation du récit de la mort de l’empereur Valens dans les Buzandaran Patmutʿiwnkʿ”, in N. Awde (ed.), Armenian Perspectives. (10th Anniversary Conference of the Association Internationale des Études Arméniennes. SOAS, London), Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press, 39–49, 371–377. Calzolari, V. 1998. “La versione armena del Martirio di Andrea e il suo rapporto con la tradizione manoscritta dell’originale greco”, Le Muséon 111, 139–156. Calzolari, V. 2000. “La version arménienne du Martyre d’André”, in J.N. Bremmer (ed.), The Apocryphal Acts of Andrew, Leuven: Peeters 2000, 149–185. Calzolari, V. 2004a. “Il rapporto della versione armena del Martirio di Paolo con l’originale greco: nuovi contributi sulla base di undici testimoni armeni inediti”, in V. Calzolari, A. Sirinian & B.L. Zekiyan (eds), Bnagirkʿ yišatakacʿ/Documenta memoriae. DallʿItalia e dall’Armenia studi in onore di Gabriella Uluhogian, Bologna: Dipartimento di Paleografia e Medievistica, Università di Bologna, 23–43. Calzolari, V. 2004b. “Hayerēn kʿristonēakan ankanon grutʿiwnnerǝ ew irencʿ aržēkʿǝ ibr ałbiwr hay hin kʿristonēutʿean patmutʿean vray (S. Pʿilipposi Vkayabanutʿean enkratakan vardapetutʿiwnǝ)” [The Christian Apocryphal Writings in Armenian and their Value as Sources on the History of the Ancient Armenian Christianity. (The Encratite Doctrine of the Martyrdom of Philip)], in Hayagitutʿyan ardi vičakǝ ev zargacʿman heṙankarnerǝ/Armenian Studies Today and Development Perspectives, Erevan: Tigran Mec, 565–572. Calzolari, V. 2005a. “Une traduction latine médiévale de la légende arménienne de Thècle et la translation du bras de la sainte de l’Arméno-Cilicie à Tarragone en 1321”, Analecta Bollandiana 123, 349–367. Calzolari, V. 2005b. “La transmission et la réception des apocryphes syriaques dans la tradition arménienne”, in M. Debié et al. (eds), Les apocryphes syriaques (Études syriaques, 2), Paris: Geuthner, 169–195. Calzolari, V. 2005c. “Le Martyre de Thaddée arménien”, in Geoltrain & Kaestli, 661–696. Calzolari, V. 2007. “La transmission des textes apocryphes chrétiens ou de l’‘excès joy- eux de la variance’: variantes, transformations et problèmes d’édition (L’exemple du Martyre de Paul arménien)”, in A. Frey & R. Gounelle (eds), Poussières de christianisme et de judaïsme antiques. Etudes réunies en l’honneur de Jean-Daniel Kaestli et Éric Junod (Publications de l’Institut romand des sciences bibliques, 5), Lausanne: Zèbre, 129–160. Calzolari, V. 2010. “ ‘Je ferai d’eux mon propre peuple’: les Arméniens en tant que peuple élu selon la littérature apocryphe chrétienne en langue arménienne”, Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 90, 179–197. The Editing of Christian Apocrypha in Armenian 285

Calzolari, V. 2011a. Les Apôtres Thaddée et Barthélemy. Aux origines du christianisme arménien (Apocryphes, 13), Turnhout: Brepols. Calzolari, V. 2011b. “Les récits apocryphes de l’enfance dans la tradition arménienne”, in C. Clivaz, A. Dettwiler, L. Devillers & E. Norelli (eds), avec la collaboration de B. Bertho, Infancy Gospels. Stories and Identities (WUNT, I 281), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 560–587. Calzolari, V. 2013. “La version arménienne du Martyre de Philippe grec: passages encra tites et manuscrits inédits”, Apocrypha 24, 111–137. Calzolari, V. forthcoming. Apocrypha Armeniaca (CCSA), Turnhout: Brepols. Carrière, A. & Berger, S. 1891. “La correspondance apocryphe de saint Paul et des Corinthiens”, Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie 24, 333–351. Catergian, J. [Yovsēpʿ Gatʿǝrčean]. 1877. Ecclesiae Ephesinae de obitu Joannis Apostoli narratio ex versione Armeniaca saeculi V nunc primum Latine cum notis prodita, Vindobonae, [s.n.] [Mxitʿarean tparan], 32–51. Cerquiglini, B. 1989. Éloge de la variante. Histoire critique de la philologie, Paris: Seuil, 1989 (English translation by B. Wing, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999). Conybeare, F.C. 1894 (18962). The Armenian Apology and Acts of Apollonius and other Monuments of Early Christianity, London & New York: Swan Sonnenschein & Macmillan. Conybeare, F.C. 1896. Acta Pilati (Studia biblica et ecclesiastica, 4), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 59–132. Conybeare, F.C. 1897. “Protevangelium Jacobi”, The American Journal of Theology 1, 424–442 (reprint in N.V. Nersessian, The Armenian Church: Heritage and Identity. Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare, New York, NY: St. Vartan Press, 356–370). Čʿrakʿean, Kʿ. 1904. Ankanon girkʿ nor ktakaranacʿ [Uncanonical books on the Apostles] (Tʿangaran haykakan hin ew nor dprutʿeancʿ [Museum of Ancient and New Armenian Literature], 3), i Venetik: Mxitʿarean tparan. Dasnabedean, Tʿ. 1997–1998. Tiramayr [Mother of Lord] (Haykakan Matenašar Galust Kiwlpēnkean Hratarakčʿutʿean), 3 vols, Lizpon, Pēyroutʿ & Antʿilias: Galust Kiwlpēnkean Hratarakčʿutʿiwn. Der Nersessian, S. 1950. “Le synaxaire arménien de Grégoire VII d’Anazarbe”, Analecta Bollandiana 68 (Mélanges Paul Peeters II), 261–285 (reprint in Ead., Études byzantines et arméniennes/Byzantine and Armenian Studies [Bibliothèque arménienne de la Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian], vol. 1, Louvain: Imprimerie orientaliste, 417–435). De Strycker, É. 1961. La forme la plus ancienne du Protévangile de Jacques. Recherches sur le papyrus Bodmer 5, avec une édition critique du texte grec et une traduction annotée. 286 calzolari

En appendice les versions arméniennes traduites en latin par Hans Quecke (Subsidia Hagiographica, 33), Bruxelles: Société des Bollandistes. Dorfmann-Lazarev, I. 2010. “La transmission de l’apocryphe de l’Enfance de Jésus en Arménie”, in J. Frey & J. Schröter (eds), Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienüberlieferungen (WUNT), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 557–582. Émine, J.-B. 1867. “Leboubna d’Édesse, Histoire d’Abgar et de la prédication de Thaddée”, in V. Langlois, Collection des historiens anciens et modernes de l’Arménie, vol. 1, Paris: Firmin Didot Frères, 313–321. Fabricius, J.A. 1703. Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti, Hambourg: Benjamin Schiller. Festugière, A.J. 1954. La Révélation d’Hermès Trismégiste, vol. 4: Le Dieu inconnu et la gnose, Paris: J. Gabalda et Cie (nouvelle édition des 4 volumes en un tome, Paris: Belles Lettres, 2006). Flamion, J. 1911. Les Actes apocryphes de l’apôtre André. Les Actes d’André et de Matthias, de Pierre et d’André et les textes apparentés, Louvain: Université de Louvain, Bureau du recueil. Geerard, M. 1992. Clavis Apocryphorum Novi Testamenti, Turnhout: Brepols. Geoltrain, P. & Kaestli, J.-D. (eds). 2005. Écrits apocryphes chrétiens (Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, 516), vol. 2, Paris: Gallimard. Gisel, P. 1996. “Apocryphes et canon: leurs rapports et leur statut respectif”, Apocrypha 7, 225–234. Hennecke, E. & Schneemelcher, W. (eds). 19593. Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung, vol. 1, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Hovhanessian, V. 2000. Third Corinthians. Reclaiming Paul for Christian Orthodoxy (Studies in Biblical Literature, 18), New York, Washington, D.C., Baltimore . . .: Peter Lang. Issaverdens, J. 1901. The Uncanonical Writings of the Old Testament found in the Armenian Manuscripts of the Library of St. Lazarus, i Venetik: S. Łazar (reprint 1934). Jakab, A. 2004. “Réception et canonisation des textes chrétiens: le cas de l’Apocalypse de Jean”, in Norelli 2004, 133–145. Junod, É. & Kaestli, J.-D. 1982. L’histoire des Actes apocryphes des apôtres du IIIe au IXe siècle (Cahiers de la Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie, 7), Genève, Lausanne & Neuchâtel: Droz. Junod, É. 1983. “Apocryphes du NT ou apocryphes chrétiens anciens?”, Études Théologiques et Religieuses 58, 409–421. Junod, É. 1988. “Eusèbe de Césarée, Sérapion d’Antioche et l’Évangile de Pierre”, Rivista di Storia e Letteratura Religiosa 24, 3–16. Junod, É. 1991. “La littérature apocryphe chrétienne constitue-t-elle un objet d’études?”, Revue des Études Anciennes 93, 397–414. The Editing of Christian Apocrypha in Armenian 287

Junod, É. 1992. “ ‘Apocryphes du Nouveau Testament’: une appellation erronée et une collection artificielle”, Apocrypha 3, 17–46. Kaestli, J.-D. 20072a. “Les écrits apocryphes chrétiens. Pour une approche qui valorise leur diversité et leurs attaches bibliques”, in J.-D. Kaestli & D. Marguerat (eds), Le mystère apocryphe. Introduction à une littérature méconnue (Essais bibliques, 26), Genève: Labor et Fides, 29–44 (1st edition: 1995). Kaestli, J.-D. 20072b. “L’Évangile de Thomas. Que peuvent nous apprendre les ‘paroles cachées de Jésus’?”, in J.-D. Kaestli & D. Marguerat (eds), Le mystère apocryphe. Introduction à une littérature méconnue (Essais bibliques, 26), Genève: Labor et Fides, 73–93 (1st edition 1995). Kalin, E.R. 2002. “The New Testament Canon of Eusebius”, in L.M. McDonald & J.A. Sanders (eds), The Canon Debate: On the Origin and Formation of the Bible, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 386–404. Kévorkian, R.H. & Ter-Stépanian, A. 1998. (avec le concours de B. Outtier et de G. Ter- Vardanian), Manuscrits arméniens de la Bibliothèque nationale de France. Catalogue, Paris: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Koester, H. 1989. “From the Kerygma-Gospel to Written Gospels”, New Testament Studies 35, 361–381. Koester, H. 1990. Ancient Christian Gospels. Their History and Development, London & Philadelphia: SCM Press & Trinity Press International. Le Boulluec, A. 2002. “Écrits ‘contestés’, ‘inauthentiques’ ou ‘impies’? (Eusèbe de Césarée, Histoire ecclésiastique, III, 25)”, in S.C. Mimouni (ed.), Apocryphité (Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études. Sciences religieuses, 113), Turnhout: Brepols 153–165. Le Boulluec, A. 2004. “Le problème de l’extension du canon des écrits aux premiers siècles”, Recherches de science religieuse 92, 45–87. Leloir, L. 1975–1976. “La version arménienne des Actes apocryphes d’André, et le Diatessaron”, New Testament Studies 22, 115–139. Leloir, L. 1978. “Rapports entre les versions arménienne et syriaque des Actes apocryphes des apôtres”, in F. Graffin & A. Guillaumont (eds), Symposium Syriacum 1976 (OCA, 205), Roma: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 137–148. Leloir, L. 1980. “L’Apocalypse de Paul selon sa teneur arménienne”, REArm 14, 217–280. Leloir, L. 1986 & 1992. Écrits apocryphes sur les apôtres (CCSA, 3–4), 2 vols, Turnhout: Brepols. Leloir, L. 1991. “Les Actes apocryphes d’André”, in A. van Tongerloo & S. Gieversen (eds), Manichaica Selecta. Studies Presented to Professor Julien Ries on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday (Manichaean Studies, 1), Leuven & Lund: International Association of Manichean Studies Center of the History of Religion, 191–201. Leloir, L. 1993. “Les citations évangéliques dans la version arménienne des Actes apocryphes”, in R. Gryson (ed.), Philologia sacra. Studien zu Bibel und Kirchenvätern für 288 calzolari

H.J. Frede und Walter Thiele zu ihrem siebzigsten Geburtstag (Vetus Latina, 24/2), Freiburg: Herder, 364–377. Lequeux, X. 2007. “La circulation des Actes apocryphes des apôtres condamnés par Photius, jusqu’à l’époque de Nicétas le Paphlagonien”, Apocrypha 18, 87–108. Macler, F. 1908. Catalogue des manuscrits arméniens et géorgiens de la Bibliothèque nationale, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Malan, S.C. 1868. The Life and Times of S. Gregory the Illuminator the Founder and Patron Saint of the Armenian Church, London, Oxford & Cambridge: Rivingtons. Matevosyan, A. 1969. “Erb ew orteł ē grvel Mšo tōnakan čaṙǝntirǝ” [When and where was the tōnakan čaṙǝntir of Muš written?], Banber Matenadarani 9, 137–162. McDonald, L.M. 2007. The Biblical Canon. Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Mécérian, J. 1953. “Introduction à l’étude des synaxaires arméniens”, in Bulletin armé- nologique, deuxième cahier (Mélanges de l’Université Saint Joseph, 30), 99–188. Metzger, B.M. 1987. The Canon of the New Testament. Its Origin, Development, and Significance, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Mimouni, S.C. 2002. “Le concept d’apocryphité dans le christianisme ancien et médiéval. Réflexions en guise d’introduction”, in S.C. Mimouni (ed.), Apocryphité (Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études. Sciences religieuses, 113), Turnhout: Brepols, 1–21. Moesinger, G. 1877. Vita et Martyrium sancti Bartholomaei apostoli, ex sinceris fontibus Armeniacis in linguam latinam conversa, Salisburgi: Typographia Zaunrithiana. Murad, F. 1911. Yaytnutʿeann Yovhannu Hin Hay tʿargmanutʿiwn [The Ancient Armenian Translation of the Apocalypse of John], Erusałēm: Tparan Srbocʿ Yakobeancʿ. Muyldermans, J. 1961. “Les manuscrits arméniens 120 et 121 de la Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris”, Le Muséon 74, 75–90. Muyldermans, J. 1964. “Note sur le Parisinus arménien 110”, REArm 1, 101–120. Nicklas, T. 2007. “Ecrits apocryphes chrétiens: ein Sammelband als Spiegel eines weit- reichenden Paradigmenwechsels in der Apokryphenforschung”, Vigiliae Christianae 61, 70–95. Norelli, E. 1994. L’Ascensione di Isaia, Bologna: Centro Editoriale Dehoniano. Norelli, E. 2004. Recueils normatifs et canons dans l’Antiquité (Publications de l’Institut Romand des Sciences Bibliques, 3), Lausanne: Zèbre. Outtier, B. 1997. “Paralytique et ressuscité (CANT 85 et 62). Vie des apocryphes en armé- nien”, Apocrypha 8, 111–119. Outtier, B. 1999. “Une forme enrichie de la Légende d’Abgar en arménien”, in Calzolari Bouvier, Kaestli & Outtier 1999, 129–145. Outtier, B. 2005. “Dialogue du paralytique avec le Christ”, in Geoltrain & Kaestli 2005, vol. 2, 63–74. The Editing of Christian Apocrypha in Armenian 289

Outtier, B. 2010. “The Armenian and Georgian Version of the Evangelium Nicodemi”, Apocrypha 21, 49–55. Peeters, P. 1911. “Pour l’histoire du synaxaire arménien”, Analecta Bollandiana 30, 5–26. Peeters, P. 1914. Evangiles apocryphes, vol. 2: L’Evangile de l’enfance, Paris: Auguste Picard. Picard, J.-C. 1990. “L’apocryphe à l’étroit; notes historiographiques sur les corpus d’apocryphes bibliques”, Apocrypha 1, 69–117. Picard, J.-C. 1999. Le continent apocryphe, Turnhout: Brepols. Piovanelli, P. 1993. “Les aventures des apocryphes en Éthiopie”, Apocrypha, 197–224. Poupon, G. 1981. “Les Actes apocryphes des Apôtres de Lefèvre à Fabricius”, in F. Bovon et al., Les Actes apocryphes des apôtres (Publications de la Faculté de théologie de l’Université de Genève, 4), Genève: Labor et Fides, 25–47. Prieur, J.-M. 1989. Acta Andreae (CCSA, 5), Turnhout: Brepols. Rordorf, B. 1993. “Terra incognita. Recent Research on Christian Apocryphal Literature, especially on some Acts of Apostles”, Studia Patristica 25, 142–158. Rosenstiehl, J.-M. 1984. “Notes sur la première Apocalypse apocryphe de Jean et d’autres apocryphes arméniens”, REArm 18, 599–603. Sarkissian, G. 1949. “Grégoire d’Anazarbe, écrivain”, Pazmaveb 17, 58–66. Schmid, M. 1901. “Geschichte des Apostels Thaddaeus und der Jungfrau Sanducht”, in F.N. Finck, E. Gjandschezian & A. Manandian (eds), Zeitschrift für armenische Philologie, Erster Band, erstes Heft, Marburg: N.G. Elwertʿsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 67–73. Schneemelcher, W. (ed.) 19875. Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung, vol. 1, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Sruanjteancʿ, G. 1874. Hnocʿ ew norocʿ patmutʿiwn vasn Dawtʿi ew Movsēs Xorenacʿwoy [Of Old Things and New. History of David and Movses Khorenatsi], Kostandnupolis: Tpagrutʿiwn E.M. Tentesean. Stanton, G.N. 1997. “The Fourfold Gospel”, New Testament Studies 43, 317–346. Stanton, G.N. 2003. “Jesus Traditions and Gospels in Justin Martyr and Irenaeus”, in Auwers & De Jonge 2003, 354–366. Stone, M.E. 2005. “The Study of the Armenian Canon”, in G. Aragione et al. (eds), Le canon du Nouveau Testament, Genève: Labor et Fides, 283–295. Tayecʿi, E. 1898. Ankanon girkʿ nor ktakaranacʿ [Uncanonical books of the New Testament] (Tʿangaran haykakan hin ew nor dprutʿeancʿ [Museum of Ancient and New Armenian Literature], 2), i Venetik: Mxitʿarean tparan. Terian, A. 2008. The Armenian Gospel of the Infancy with three early versions of the Protevangelium of James, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 290 calzolari

Ter-Movsisyan, M. (Magistros) s.d. Mayr cʿucʿak hayerēn jeṙagracʿ. čaṙǝntir [Grand catalogue of the Armenian manuscripts: čaṙǝntir] (Unprinted catalogues of manuscripts, 133), Erevan: s. d. Van Esbroeck, M. 1962. “Chronique arménienne”, Analecta Bollandiana 80, 423–445. Van Esbroeck, M. 1972. “Le roi Sanatrouk et l’apôtre Thaddée”, REArm 9, pp. 241–283. Van Esbroeck, M. 1983a. “La naissance du culte de saint Barthélemy en Arménie”, REArm 17, 171–195. Van Esbroeck, M. 1983b. “The Rise of saint Bartholomew’s Cult in Armenia from the seventh to the thirteenth Centuries”, in Th.J. Samuelian & M.E. Stone (eds), Medieval Armenian Culture (UPATS, 6), Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 161–178. Van Esbroeck, M. 1984a. “Description du répertoire de l’homéliaire de Muš (Maténadaran 7729)”, REArm 18, 237–280. Van Esbroeck, M. 1984b. “La structure du répertoire de l’homéliaire de Mush”, in Miǰazgayin hayerenagitakan gitaǰołov (Erevan, 21–25 Septemberi, 1982 tʿ.)/ International Symposium on Armenian Linguistics (Yerevan, September 21–25, 1982), Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun, 282–303. Van Esbroeck, M. [1988]. “L’apôtre Thaddée et le roi Sanatruk”, in M. Nordio & B.L. Zekiyan (eds), Atti del II Simposio Internazionale «Armenia-Assiria». Istituzioni e poteri all’epoca Il-Khanide (Venezia, 30 maggio–2 giugno 1984) (Eurasiatica. Quaderni del Dipartimento di Studi Eurasiatici, Università Ca’ Foscari di Venezia, 8), Padova: Editoriale Programma, 83–106. Van Esbroeck, M. 1995. Aux origines de la Dormition de la Vierge. Études historiques sur les traditions orientales, Aldershot: Variorum. Vetter, P. 1887. “Das Apokryphe Schreiben des Dionysius des Aeropagiten an Titus über die Aufnahme Mariä aus dem Armenischen Übersetzt”, Theologische Quartalschrift 69, 133–138. Vetter, P. 1890. “Der apokryphe dritte Korintherbrief neu übersetz und nach seiner Entstehung untersucht”, Theologische Quartalschrift 72, 610–639. Vetter, P. 1894. Der apokryphe dritte Korintherbrief, Wien: Mechitaristen Buchdruckerei (= Einladung zur akademischen Feier des Geburtsfestes Seiner Majestät des Königs Wilhelm II von Württemberg auf den 25. Febr. 1894 im Namen des Rectors und akademischen Senats der Königlichen Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Beigefügt ist eine Abhandlung: Der apokryphe dritte Korintherbrief von P. Vetter). Vetter, P. 1901a. “Mitteilungen. Armenische Apostelakten”, Oriens Christianus 1, 168–170. Vetter, P. 1901b. “Die armenischen apokryphen Apostelakten. I. Das gnostiche martyrium Petri”, Oriens Christianus 1, 217–239. Vetter, P. 1902. “Die armenische Dormitio Mariae”, Theologische Quartalschrift 84, 321–349. The Editing of Christian Apocrypha in Armenian 291

Vetter, P. 1903. “Die armenischen apokryphen Apostelakten. II. Die Akten der Apostel Petrus und Paulus”, Oriens Christianus 3, 16–55, 324–383. Vetter, P. 1905. “Rezensionen: Die armenischen Apokryphen”, Theologische Quartal schrift 87, 608–610. Vetter, P. 1906a. “Die armenischen apokryphen Apostelgeschichten. I. Die Petrus- und Paulus-Akten”, Theologische Quartalschrift 88, 161–186. Vetter, P. 1906b. “Die armenische Paulus-Apokalypse”, Theologische Quartalschrift 88, 568–595. Vetter, P. 1907. “Die armenische Paulus-Apokalypse”, Theologische Quartalschrift 89, 58–75. Voicu, S.J. 1983. “Gli apocrifi armeni”, Augustinianum 23, 161–180. Voicu, S.J. 2000. “Testi patristici in armeno (secc. V–VIII)”, in A. Di Berardino (ed.), Patrologia, vol. 5, Torino: Marietti, 575–607; English translation: Patrology: The Eastern Fathers from the Council of Chalcedon (451) to John of Damascus († 750), translated by A. Walford, Cambridge: James Clarcke and Co, 2006, 571–604. Xačikian, L., Lalafaryan, S. & Melikʿ-Baxšyan, S. 1945. Oułecʿoycʿ cʿucʿak čaṙǝntrerum ełoł nyutʿeri [Thematic Catalogue of the čaṙǝntirs], Erevan (unprinted). Yovsēpʿeancʿ, S. 1896. Ankanon girkʿ hin ktakaranacʿ [Uncanonical Books of the Old Testament] (Tʿangaran haykakan hin ew nor dprut’eanc’ [Museum of Ancient and New Armenian Literature], 1), i Venetik: Mxitʿarean tparan. Zahn, Th. 1888–1898 & 1890–1892. Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und altkirchlichen Literatur, 2 vols, Erlangen-Leipzig: A. Deichert’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung Nachf. (Georg Böhme). Zanetti, U. & van Esbroeck, M. 1977. “Le manuscrit Érévan 993. Inventaire des pièces”, REArm 12, 123–167. Zanetti, U. 1987. “Apophtegmes et histoires édifiantes dans le synaxaire arménien”, Analecta Bollandiana 105, 167–199. Zumthor, P. 1972. Essai de poétique médiévale (Collection Poétique), Paris: Seuil.

Patristics, Historiography, Hellenizing School and Philosophical Literature, Medieval Poetry

‥

The Church Fathers in Armenia and the Armenian Fathers

Bernard Outtier

If you open the precious “Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 AD” by R.W. Thomson1 and you separate the works of the Fathers of the Church from the works of historians, philosophers, or lay scholars, you will see that 75% of Armenian literature is patristic. S.J. Voicu, in his valuable “Patristica nella letteratura armena (V–X sec.)” [Patristics in Armenian Literature, 5th– 10th centuries], writes, “Moltissime sono le opere d’interesse patristico tradotte in armeno, soprattutto da modelli greci o anche siriaci”.2 Nevertheless, it is clear that when Armenian printing was born, patristics was no longer at the forefront of printers’ concerns – they were focused primarily on practical or entertaining works. This was true to such an extent that the publication of Varkʿ harancʿ [The lives of the fathers] in New Julfa in 1641 was an exception and should probably be understood as the publication of a book for teaching rather than patristics. Yet politics, coupled with more frequent travel to the East, would change this state of affairs. Biblical studies grew in the eighteenth century and for this purpose, knowledge of the Armenian translation of the Holy Scriptures was considered useful. In particular, the kings of France wanted to establish the perpetuity of the faith to counter the Protestants, and sought to do so using the accounts of the Eastern Churches, as they were consistent with that of the Roman Catholic Church. It is in this context that we should understand the French project to purchase manuscripts in the Ottoman Empire from 1728– 1730: one hundred and thirty-four Armenian manuscripts were purchased in less than two years! The author of the first description of the collection, the abbot Guillaume de Villefroy, brilliantly highlights its interest:

Parmi les événements les plus remarquables et les plus intéressants pour la République des Lettres, nous pouvons compter comme un des plus avantageux l’acquisition que sa Majesté Louis XVè du nom a fait de manuscrits grecs et Arméniens venus d’Orient en 1730 . . . que n’a-t-on pas a espérer des Manuscrits Arméniens ? . . . (Ils) nous offrent un nouveau

1 Thomson 1995. 2 Voicu 1989, 661.

monde littéraire où jamais aucun européen n’a pénétré de manière à en développer les richesses aux yeux du public.3

Shortly after, the Mekhitarist Fathers in Venice sought to introduce Armenian patristic treasures to the West, particularly with their collections Matenagrutʿiwnkʿ Naxneacʿ [Works of the fathers, 62 volumes], Sopʿerkʿ haykakankʿ [Armenian writings, 24 volumes], and Tʿangaran hin ew nor dprutʿeancʿ [Museum of ancient and new Armenian literature, 8 volumes]: these were patristic translations, but above all covered the entire Armenian tradition: Eznik, Movsēs Xorenacʿi, Grigor Narekacʿi, etc. This momentum continued to grow: the number of patristic texts would be nearly doubled by translations into Western European languages, thus making the content of these works accessible to non-armenologists. There were such a large number of publications that, at the end of the golden age for patristic publications by the Mekhitarist Fathers at Venice (the nineteenth-century), Fr. B. Sarghissian could already publish “Dei tesori Patristici e Biblici, conservati nella letteratura armena [Patristic and Biblical treasures preserved in Armenian literature]”.4 In 1969, in his rich article “Les Arménistes et les Mékhitaristes [Armenologists and Mekhitarists]”, Fr. M. Djanachian devoted fifty pages (396–445) to literature in translation, primarily patristic literature. It is certainly not irrelevant to borrow a few lines from him, which show that enthusiasm had not waned since the eighteenth century:

Les traducteurs du Ve siècle ne se sont pas limités seulement à leur siècle, mais ils ont jeté leurs regards sur toutes les productions des siècles pré- cédents, pour recueillir tout ce qu’on pourrait trouver de beau, d’intéres- sant et d’utile à la vie ecclésiastique et culturelle de la nation. Cet esprit international qui les animait a été préservé scrupuleusement aussi aux époques postérieures, de telle façon que les Arméniens, par leur vaste vue d’ensemble, ont pu produire une littérature tellement riche que même aujourd’hui, après tant de pertes et de dévastations, on reste émerveillé à la vue du nombre des trésors conservés.

Fr. Djanachian added:

Pour terminer: afin que les études arméniennes entrent dans une phase nouvelle d’épanouissement, il est nécessaire que soit réalisé un catalogue

3 Villefroy, III 1735. 4 Sarghissian 1897. The Church Fathers in Armenia and the Armenian Fathers 297

général de tous les manuscrits qui se trouvent dans les Bibliothèques nationales et étrangères (Matenadaran, Venise, Vienne, Jérusalem, Oxford, Paris, USA, et ailleurs, ainsi que chez les particuliers), après les éditions des catalogues spéciaux de chacune, car les matériaux divisés par auteur et matière et catalogués par ordre alphabétique donnent une certaine facilité pour une vue d’ensemble. Deuxièmement il faut réim- primer les textes des auteurs de la littérature arménienne classique, ainsi que toutes les versions exécutées sur le grec et le syriaque, suivant la technique et les exigences modernes. Troisièmement, il nous semble nécessaire de réimprimer les ouvrages des arménistes anciens, depuis longtemps épuisés, et qui certainement pourraient aider au progrès des études dans le sens de la continuité des travaux.5

I will return to these prospects for future research below, but since other contributors to this volume will address publishing methods, I will not go into further detail here. Many inventories have been made since that by J. Muyldermans6 – which basically answered, ahead of time, Fr. Djanachian’s first request. Of them, it is worth noting the one by M. Geerard (Clauis Patrum Graecorum),7 where an attempt was made to include Armenian translations of the Greek Fathers as well as the Greek Ephrem. I have already mentioned the inventory made by R.W. Thomson,8 which refers both to translations and original Armenian texts. Both were also included in the most complete inventory, Haykakan matenagitutʿyun [Armenian bibliology] of the late H. Anasyan, which indicates, for each work, all known manuscripts, editions, and studies. Unfortunately, his immense undertaking only reached the letter G.9 Before coming to directions for future research, it is worth mentioning the significant centers of publishing activity. First, since the fall of the Soviet system in the U.S.S.R. and therefore in Armenia, there has been a prodigious development of patristic publishing in Yerevan. In addition, patristic texts have appeared in periodical publications such as Ganjasar, which publishes texts and / or translations of works of the Church Fathers and Armenian theologians. Finally, there are collections such as the Astvacašnčʿi grkʿeri hay

5 Djanachian 1969, 444–445. 6 Muyldermans 1934. 7 Geerard 1973–1998. 8 Thomson 1995; Thomson 2007. 9 Volume 3, published in 2004, contains from Bžškagitakan niwtʿer [Medicine in Armenia] to Germanos vkay [Germanos martyr] and adds indexes. 298 outtier meknutʿyunneri gradaran [Armenian commentaries on Books of the Bible], which have been published at Ēǰmiacin. As for the Bible Society, they have published very useful reference works, such as the Catalogue des commentaires bibliques [Catalogue of Biblical commentaries],10 or the Répertoire de citations du Nouveau Testament [Inventory of New Testament citations].11 The Matenadaran, of course, has not been left out; in particular, they have resumed publication of detailed manuscript catalogues,12 and the publication of a critical edition of the Bible continues as well.13 In Lebanon (the Holy See of Cilicia) the “paper” version of the Armenian Digital Library has now been published (under the direction of Karapetyan, see below), under the title Matenagirkʿ Hayocʿ or Classical Armenian Authors (MH). Sixteen large quarto volumes have been published solely of literature written in Armenian, from its origins to the tenth century. Also from Lebanon, thanks to the tireless activity of Tʿ. Dasnabedean, we have many editions of patristic texts, primarily Christological and Marian, including both Armenian original texts as well as those translated into Armenian.14 Finally, the new collection “Hebrew University Armenian Studies” has enabled Thomson to publish the text and the translation of the Commentary on the Book of Proverbs by Hamam Arewelcʿi15 as well as the translation of the Commentary of the Revelation of Saint John by Nersēs of Lambron.16

Avenues for Future Research

As we have seen, therefore, there has been intense publishing activity over the past two centuries. Yet, the fundamental work has been, and remains, creating manuscript catalogues.17 I mentioned above with joy the fact that publication of the Great Catalogues of manuscripts of Matenadaran in Yerevan has resumed. The lack of an overall description of Armenian manuscripts remains problematic, however. Should we first wait for all the copies of a given text to

10 Petrosyan & Ter-Step’anyan 2002. 11 Malxasyan 2005. 12 Eganean, Zēytʿunean, Antʿabean & Kʿēōškerean 2004; Eganean 2007; Kʿeōškerean, Soukʿiasean & Kʿeōsēean 2008; Eganean 2009; Ter Vardanean 2012. 13 Amalyan 2000; Zeitʿunyan 2002. 14 Dasnabedean 1997a–c; Dasnabedean 1997–1998. 15 Thomson 2005. 16 Thomson 2007. 17 For manuscript catalogues, see the article by Bernard Coulie, “Collections and Catalogues of Armenian manuscripts”, in this volume. The Church Fathers in Armenia and the Armenian Fathers 299 be known? Or should a provisional book be published now, albeit temporary? Another issue affects fundamental reference works: is it necessary to complete the publication of the Haykakan matenagitutʿyun begun by Anasyan? Or would it be better to compile a similar kind of inventory? Should we not perhaps consider creating manuscript catalogues by type: biblical, liturgical, or patristic, similar to the one compiled by Monsignor Chahé Adjémian for Bible manuscripts,18 but, if possible, more comprehensive? The need to spend money publishing texts that have already been published but without a critical edition is also considerable. Fortunately, some have already begun this task, of which I will mention one: the work underway by Matthews as part of the CSCO of Old Testament commentaries attributed to Ephrem the Syrian.19 It will be remembered, perhaps, that the one and only edition of these commentaries dates from 1836 (Venice, San Lazzaro, the first of four volumes of the works of St. Ephrem, without translation). In addition, the issue concerning bibliography has become much more difficult to resolve since the multiplication of editions, sometimes as a private or confidential printing, especially in the former U.S.S.R. We are grateful to M.E. Shirinian for his initiative to publish summaries of publications by armenologists from Armenia.20 Concerning the publication of digital versions, one would expect, of course, that the text selected is the one that can claim to be as close as possible to the original. Here, the intervention of a philologist is absolutely necessary. For example, for the collection of homilies known as Yačaxapatum (Stromateis), we should be aware that the oldest extant manuscript is not the one with the oldest text. In this regard, moreover, we must mention another avenue for future research: there is still much to be done to establish a convincing dating of certain texts. For the collection which has just been cited, as well as for the homilies attributed to Yovhannēs Mandakuni, there are implicit quotations of texts that were not translated into Armenian before the sixth century (Basil, Books of Questions; Hermes Trismegistus). Thus, there is still an area of research that should be explored more carefully by patrologists. In this, it is neccessary to make use of broader studies by historians, such as the work of Garsoïan on the Armenian seventh century (see his Studies on the Formation of Christian Armenia, Variorum reprints 2010).

18 Adjémian 1992. 19 Matthews 1998; 2001. For more information on recent editions of patristic texts, see the article by Bernard Coulie, “Text Editing: Principles and Methods” in the present volume (with bibliography). 20 Armeniaca 2002, 2006 and 2007. 300 outtier

Thus, the scope of work to be done is vast: descriptions of manuscripts, editions of texts, translations (and I have not yet discussed the extent to which establishing translations was essential to ensuring a wider audience for this literature), as well as a better understanding of the stages of development of the Armenian language. The irritating problem of dating the Hellenizing School obviously comes to mind; information technology should give us additional tools to be able to see more clearly.21 Perhaps is it also necessary to consider making a new Thesaurus – probably in this case also in digitized form. The creation of freely accessible computerized databases, such as the Titus project at the Goethe University of Frankfurt, headed by Gippert, is obviously a boon for researchers. The field created by Armenian authors, translators, and copyists for over a millennium provides quite enough material to occupy our energies. As one who has personally devoted many long years to studying the subject, I can tell you that this subject is certainly fascinating and rewarding.

Translated from the French by Cynthia J. Johnson

Bibliography

Adjémian, S. (Ačēmean, Š.) 1992. Cʿucʿak Astuacašnčʿi Mateani hayerēn jeṙagrerun / Grand Catalogue des manuscrits arméniens de la Bible (Bibliothèque arménienne de la Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian), Lisbonne: Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian Amalyan, H. 2000. Girkʿ Erkotasan Margarēicʿ [Book of the twelve Prophets], Yerevan: Magałatʿ. Anasyan, H.S. 2004. Haykakan Matenagitutʿyun E-ŽƎ dd. [Bibliology of Armenian literature, 5th–18th centuries], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun /Zangak-97. Dasnabedean, Tʿ. 1997a. Ałōtʿkʿner Astuacacnin [Prayers to the Theotokos], Antʿilias: Tparan Katʿołikosutʿean Hayocʿ Meci Tann Kilikioy. Dasnabedean, Tʿ. 1997b. Meknutʿiwn Tesleann Mariamu ǝst jeṙ. Matenadaran N° 740 žołovacu (1696 թ.), ēǰ 29a–37a [Commentary on the Vision of Mary, according to Matenadaran manuscript n. 740 Mélanges (1696) p. 29a–37a], Antʿilias: Tparan Katʿołikosutʿean Hayocʿ Meci Tann Kilikioy. Dasnabedean, Tʿ. 1997c. Astuacacni barekamin pʿokʿrik tałaranǝ [Small collection of poetry by the friend of Theotokos], Pēyroutʿ (edition not stated).

21 On the Hellenizing School, see the article by Gohar Muradyan in the present volume (with bibliography). The Church Fathers in Armenia and the Armenian Fathers 301

Dasnabedean, Tʿ. 1997–1998. Tiramayr [Mother of the Lord], 3 vol.: vol. I, Lizpon: Galust Kiwlpēnkean Hratarakčʿutʿiwn; vol. 2, Pēyroutʿ: Sipan; vol. 3, Antʿilias (edition not stated). Djanachian, M. 1969. “Les Arménistes et les Mékhitaristes”, in Armeniaca Mélanges d’études arméniennes publiés à l’occasion du 250e anniversaire de l’entrée des Pères Mékhitaristes dans l’île de Saint-Lazare (1717–1967), Venise: Saint-Lazare, 383–445. Eganean, Ō., Kʿeōšēean, Y., Łazarosean, A. & Šahē hayr. 2009. Mayr cʿucʿak hayerēn jeṙagracʿ Maštocʿi anuan Matenadarani [Great Catalogue of Armenian Manuscripts of the Library at Maštocʿ], vol. 5, Erevan: Nairi. Eganean, Ō., Zēytʿunean, A., Antʿabean, Pʿ. & Kʿeōškerean, A. 2004. Mayr cʿucʿak hayerēn jeṙagracʿ Maštocʿi anvan Matenadaran [Great Catalogue of Armenian Manuscripts of the Library at Maštocʿ], vol. 2, Erevan: Nairi. Eganean, Ō. 2007. Mayr cʿucʿak hayerēn jeṙagracʿ Maštocʿi anvan Matenadarani [Great Catalogue of Armenian Manuscripts of the Library at Maštocʿ], vol. 3, Erevan: Magałatʿ. Ganjasar. 1992–. Ganjasar. Hay Aṙakʿelakan Ekełecʿu Arcʿaxi tʿemi astuacabanakan handēs [Ganjasar. Theological Review of the Armenian Apostolic Church of the Diocese of Arcʿax], 7 vol. Geerard, M. 1973–1998. Clavis Patrum Graecorum, Turnhout: Brepols. Kʿēōškerean, A., Sukʿiasean, K. & Kʿeōsēean, Y. 2008. Mayr cʿucʿak hayerēn jeṙagracʿ Maštocʿi anuan Matenadarani [Great Catalogue of Armenian Manuscripts of the Library at Maštocʿ], vol. 4, Erevan: Nairi. Malxasyan, A. 2005. Astvacašunčʿ, Ǝst hay matenagrutʿyan (Hay ink’nuroyn grakanut’yun 5–12 dd.) [The Bible according to Armenian Bibliography (Original Armenian Literature, 5th–12th Centuries)], Ēǰmiacin: Hayastani Astvacašnč’ayin Ǝnkerutʿyun. Mathews, E.G. 1998. The Armenian Commentary on Genesis attributed to Ephrem the Syrian (CSCO, 572–573), Louvain: Peeters. Mathews, E.G. 2001. The Armenian Commentaries on Exodus-Deuteronomy attributed to Ephrem the Syrian (CSCO, 587–588), Louvain: Peeters. Muyldermans, J. 1934. “Répertoire de pièces patristiques d’après le catalogue arménien de Venise”, Le Muséon 47, 265–292. Petrosyan, E. & Ter-Step’anyan, A. 2002. S. Grkʿi hayeren meknutʿyunneri matena gitutʿyun [Bibliography of Armenian commentaries on the Holy Scriptures], s.l. [Ēǰmiacin]: Hayastani Astvacašnč’ayin Ǝnkerutʿyun. Sarghissian, B. [Sargsean]. 1897. Dei tesori Patristici e Biblici, conservati nella letteratura armena, Venezia: San Lazzaro. Tēr Vardanean, G. 2012. Mayr Cʿucʿak hayerēn jeṙagrac’ Maštocʿi anuan Matenadarani, vol. 6, Erevan: Nairi. Thomson, R.W. 1995. A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 AD, Turnhout: Brepols. 302 outtier

Thomson, R.W. 2005. Hamam, Commentary on the Book of Proverbs (HUAS, 5), Louvain: Peeters. Thomson, R.W. 2007. “Supplement to A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 AD: publications 1993–2005”, Le Muséon 120, 163–223. Thomson, R.W. 2007. Nerses of Lambron, Commentary on the Revelation of Saint John (HUAS, 9), Louvain: Peeters. Villefroy, G. de. [s.d.]. Notices des manuscrits Arméniens de la Biblioth: du Roy aportés de Constantinople en l’année 1730 (manuscript). Voicu, S.J. 1989. “La patristica nella letteratura armena (V–X sec.)”, in A. Quacquarelli (ed.), Complementi interdisciplinari di Patrologia, Roma: Città Nuova, 657–696. Voicu, S.J. 2000. “Testi patristici in armeno (secc. V–VIII)”, in A. Di Berardino (ed.), Patrologia, vol. 5, Genova: Marietti, 575–607; English translation: Patrology: The Eastern Fathers from the Council of Chalcedon (451 to John of Damascus († 750), translated by A. Walford, Cambridge: James Clarcke and Co, 2006, 571–604. Zeytʿunyan, A. 2002. Girkʿ Erkrordumn Ōrinacʿ. Kʿnnakan Bnagir [The Book of Deuteronomy. Critical Text], Ēǰmiacin: Mayr Atʿoṙ S. Ēǰmiacin.

Digital Texts www.digilib.am (M. Karapetyan) http://www.sd-editions.com/LALT/home.html (J.J.S. Weitenberg) www.titus.uni-frankfurt.de (J. Gippert) The Major Works of Armenian Historiography (Classical and Medieval)

Robert W. Thomson

Within the parameters of “Armenian Philology” the present chapter attempts a “critical assessment of results achieved up to now” in the field of “Armenian works of historiography, both ancient and medieval”. My presentation offers “a panorama of the challenges and perspectives of research”, in accordance with the instructions received. First the good news. If we compare the state of Armenian studies in this area with that of our colleagues in the Islamic Near East, we are far ahead. Instead of the tiny percentage of works written in Arabic that are available in printed editions, let alone translations, the majority of Armenian historical texts have been published over the last two hundred years. This does not mean, of course, that they can all be easily found. But that is a different question. Works of history have been privileged in this regard, reflecting primarily the interest of scholars in using Armenian texts for the wider study of the Near Eastern world. A survey of Armenian texts in other areas would reveal a much larger proportion of unpublished texts. This is especially true of the vast commentary literature, philosophical as well as biblical and theological. If we define Historiography as the literary art of writing histories, then this is an area in which Armenians certainly excelled. Of course, works of historiography are not identical with texts of interest to historians. Others have already addressed topics such as colophons and inscriptions, which the historian will find indispensible. And one could easily add to the list of neglected texts others of historical value, which perhaps do not count as historiography – collections of letters, for example. Those in the Book of Letters, the Girkʿ Tʿłtʿocʿ, have certainly attracted attention, and parts of the collection have been translated.1 But the formation of that collection as a whole requires further study. The recently published second edition of the Letters also raises a question of editorial policy which is not irrelevant to historiography: is it legitimate to break up the order of individual letters according to modern understanding of their chronological order; or should such collections be studied as a whole, reflecting the concerns of their original compilers? The twelfth century correspondence

1 Most recently in Garsoïan 1999. For details of the Armenian texts cited see the Bibliography below.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��4 | doi ��.��63/9789004270961_0�5 304 thomson between Greeks and Armenians on ecclesiastical matters has been much studied, but no comprehensive edition has appeared.2 A translation would also be valuable. As for the Letters of Gregory Magistros, so far their obscure style has deterred any translation or study of them as a whole; only single letters have been translated here and there. There has been a similar dearth of studies of historical texts translated from Greek or Syriac into Armenian, especially those which have only survived in their Armenian guise. It still surprises me that the Armenian version of the Chronicle of Eusebius has not been re-edited within the last two centuries, and that the most recent translation remains Karst’s 1911 German rendering. But despite the importance of that text and of Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History for Armenian historians, these texts do not themselves fall within the category of Armenian historiography. On the other hand, several such translations were adapted, either in the original version or a subsequent reworking. These texts could thus be regarded as relevant for the study of Armenian historical attitudes. I have in mind the adaptation from Greek of Socrates Scholasticos’s Ecclesiastical History, to which the legendary Life of Silvester was attached; from Georgian the rendering of the Georgian Chronicles, known in Armenian as the work of Juanšēr;Ì and Vardan Arewelcʿi’s reworkings of the Syriac Chronicle of the Patriarch Michael the Syrian. But here we shall concentrate on original works in Armenian.3 How, then, has historiography fared? We might begin with a look at the editing of texts in the last sixty years. Somewhat arbitrarily I have selected 27 Armenian historians, writing between the fifth and the fourteenth centuries, on which to base the following generalisations.4 By no means do we have critical editions of all, even most, of these Histories. But what is more striking is the remarkably small number of editions produced since the Second World War, despite the increasing development of Armenian studies in the West and

2 There is a recent comparison of the Greek and Armenian documents in Bozoyan 1995. 3 There are recent translations of the Armenian Socrates, the Life of Silvester, and the Georgian Chronicles. The Armenian version of the Chronicle of Michael the Syrian was published (in 1868) before the Syriac was edited. For the relationship of the two Armenian texts see Schmidt 1996. 4 These 27 are the following (in alphabetical order): Agatʿangełos, Aristakēs Lastivertcʿi, Asołik (or Stepʿannos Tarōnacʿi), the Buzandaran (or Pʿawstos Buzand), Ełišē, Grigor Akanecʿi, Kirakos Ganjakecʿi, Koriwn, Łazar Pʿarpecʿi, Łewond, Mattʿēos of Edessa (or Uṙhayecʿi), Movsēs Kałankatuacʿi (or Dasxurancʿi), Movsēs Xorenacʿi, Mxitʿar Anecʿi, Mxitʿar Ayrivanecʿi, Mxitʿar Goš (Chronicle), Samuēl Anecʿi, Sebēos, the Seventh-Century Chronicle, Smbat Sparapet, Stepʿannos Ōrbelean, Tʿovma Arcruni, Uxtanēs, Vahram Ṙabun, Vardan Arewelcʿi, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertcʿi, Zenob (or Yovhannēs Mamikonean). the Major Works of Armenian Historiography 305 the activity of the various institutions affiliated to the Academy of Sciences in Armenia. To the best of my knowledge we have in chronological order:

Blake and Frye’s Grigor Akanecʿi in 1949 Ter-Minasyan’s Elišē in 1957 Melikʿ-Ōhanǰanyan’s Kirakos Ganjakecʿi in 1961 Yuzbašyan’s Aristakēs Lastivertcʿi in 1963 Abgaryan’s Sebēos in 1979 Arakʿelyan’s Movsēs Kałankatuacʿi in 1983

One could add editions that are not fully critical, of Smbat Sparapet by Agelean in 1956, and of Mxitʿar Anecʿi by Margarean in 1983. The recent edition of Koriwn by Ananean, Venice 1998, is based on Abełean’s 1941 edition, taking into account the idiosyncratic text produced by Akinean in 1949. Nine new editions for 27 authors is not a particularly impressive percentage. Of course other important texts have been produced in Yerevan: the two volumes of Lesser Chronicles by V. Hakobyan [1951, 1956], for example, and his notable two volumes of the Kanonagirkʿ [Canon-Law] Tʿorosyan’s edition of the Datastanagirkʿ [Lawcode] by Mxitʿar Goš is another impressive achievement. But these are not works of historiography. The critical editing of historical texts has thus progressed at a rather disappointing rate, and serious desiderata remain. For example:

The Buzandaran, or Pʿawstos Buzand The Seventh-Century Chronicle Yovhannēs Drasxanakertcʿi Łewond Uxtanēs Asołik Mattʿēos of Edessa Vardan Arewelcʿi Stepʿannos Ōrbelean Tʿovma Arcruni is perhaps an exception, since only one manuscript survives.5

For three of the most famous historians we still remain indebted to the pre-World War I Tiflis series:

5 I disregarded fragments and later copies. See now Ter Vardanean 2009, 25–28. 306 thomson

Agatʾangełos – to which I shall return. Łazar – with Kouymjian’s recent study of the manuscripts.6 Movsēs Xorenacʿi – with Sargsyan’s recent addition of new collations.7

On the other hand, there are translations of varied quality in English or French for nearly all my 27 Histories, most of which have appeared in the last 60 years. Some of these contain extremely valuable historical and literary commentaries: N.G. Garsoïan for the Buzandaran, for example, G. Winkler for Koriwn, the Mahés for Movsēs Xorenacʿi, J. Howard-Johnston for Sebēos; and we have studies in both French and English for Yovhannēs Drasxanakertcʿi. Macler’s version of Asołik’s Book III goes back to 1920; while for the Histories of Kirakos Ganjakecʿi and of Stepʿannos Ōrbelean we have to rely on Brosset’s translations of 1870 and 1864 respectively. Only the Seventh-Century Chronicle and Mxitʿar of Ani have not been translated at all, to my knowledge. Mxitʿar Ayrivanecʿi is available in Patkanean’s 1869 Russian version-though “available” does not mean “easily accessible” even in university libraries. Equally interesting for our present theme is the question whether new perspectives of approach have been applied in recent times. There has certainly been a move away from earlier tendencies to regard Armenian histories as depositories of factual information, towards a more sophisticated attempt to understand them as compositions of often multi-layered sources, yet reflecting the concerns of their own time and their own authors or compilers.8 Of course, this begs a number of questions. The dating of most of the earlier works remains controversial, to say the least; indeed, the concept of authorship itself in some cases is fuzzy. Recent work on a number of different Histories has emphasized various problems in this regard, so I would like to approach the general via the more specific. If we disregard the histories and other works written in Greek by king Artavazd, which Plutarch says were still extant in his time but of which no trace survives,9 the first historical work supposedly written by an Armenian is the account of the conversion of the country attributed to a certain Agatʿangełos. A century ago it was still debated whether this could have been written by the secretary of king Trdat, as claimed. The Armenian script having been invented only in the fifth century, was this History written in Greek and later translated?

6 See Bibliography, Armenian Text, Łazar Pʿarpecʿi. 7 See Bibliography, Armenian Text, Movsēs Xorenacʿi. 8 Some recent general studies of early and medieval Armenian historiography include: Mahé, 1992a, Thomson, 1996. Modern trends in interpretation are assessed in Garsoïan, 2001. 9 Plutarch, Life of Crassus, 33. the Major Works of Armenian Historiography 307

To my knowledge the idea that it was written in Armenian in Greek script was not proposed. Likewise the Buzandaran was once considered to be a fourth century composition in Syriac, later translated. As for Agatʿangełos, thanks in large measure to the publications of G. Garitte building on Marr’s earlier work, it has long been accepted that what survives as the Armenian text is not the original from which a series of versions in Greek, Arabic and other languages were adapted. Rather, the Armenian belongs to an undetermined stage in the development of written accounts based on oral tradition. The idea of an author in the usual sense thus becomes moot. To date we have editions of all the major versions of this complex work, but how they all fit together still remains a problem. In other words, the chronological development of the traditions surrounding Saint Gregory remains to be worked out.10 Of course, Agatʿangełos is a special case, since no other Armenian History exists in such a plethora of versions in different languages. Saint Gregory the Illuminator’s heroic labours and the conversion of king Trdat were, in a more or less literal sense, international “best-sellers”. Furthermore, some of these versions were not made from the Armenian History as it has come down to us, though they do ultimately derive from an unknown Armenian text or texts. But insight into the problematics of authorship where such complexities of variant traditions exist has not been rigorously applied elsewhere. The compilation of the traditions that form the History of the Ałuankʿ attributed to Movsēs Kałankatuacʿi, or Dasxurancʿi, for example, poses not dissimilar problems. (For the moment I include this writer among Armenian historians. To what extent Ałuan traditions received written form in the Ałuan script, which is only now being deciphered, I leave to future investigation). As with Agatʿangełos, so with the Buzandaran it has recently been shown that the known text was put together in Armenian from a complex of oral traditions.11 To what extent these were coherent in themselves, and whether they were refashioned in the process of redaction, remain unclear. Somewhat different is the problem of the re-editing or rewriting of works by known authors. Koriwn is a good example, for two recensions of the Life of Maštocʿ are known. That the original, longer version was penned by the historical Koriwn has never been seriously challenged, though the text as it has survived poses problems to which I shall return. Nor has the influence on the shorter version of Koriwn of the later History by Movsēs Xorenacʿi been controverted. But the

10 For a schematic presentation of the different recensions and bibliographical details of the various editions see Winkler, 1980, and for translations, Thomson 2010. 11 See the Introduction to Garsoïan, The Epic Histories (Bibliography, Armenian Texts, Buzandaran). 308 thomson date and purpose of this revision of the Life of Maštocʿ have not been clarified, which leads to two further points:

The first is the undoubtedly overwhelming impact of Movsēs Xorenacʿi’s History on later Armenian writers. In recent decades more has been written on Movsēs than on any other Armenian author of the early and medieval periods.12 This is not surprising, given the comprehensive character of his book, which records most of what little we know about pre-literary Armenian traditions. Yet despite all that, the impact of his History on later Armenian historiography still needs a full investigation. The second point arising from Koriwn is that other Armenian Histories also exist in more than one version. In the case of Łazar Pʿarpecʿi a different recension was discovered only recently, casting doubt on the authenticity of the standard Armenian text.13 In the case of Mattʿēos of Edessa, the reason for two divergent editions has not been clarified. As regards the Chronicle of Smbat the Constable, the earlier printed editions turn out to be based on an abbreviated text, but the reasons for the changes are not yet elucidated. Somewhat different is the double rendering of Michael the Syrian’s Chronicle, for it has now been shown that Vardan Arewelcʿi was responsible for both.14 In more general terms, it seems fair to say that the study of the transmission of Armenian texts has not yet been pushed far enough. Another problem which has attracted attention in recent studies of Armenian historiography is the question of archival sources, in particular letters which are assumed to have been kept in some official depository. Among the documents quoted by the historian known as Sebēos are letters sent to Armenia by Byzantine emperors and Iranian shahs. In some cases it can be shown that the content matches information from Byzantine sources.15 But it is difficult to assess the extent of Sebēos’s own redactorial activity, in particular as regards the long defence of Armenian orthodoxy.16 Such theological documents are, of course, common in Armenian Histories even if sometimes the provenance of the text quoted is unclear. Are the letters in the Histories of Ełišē and Łazar compositions of the authors or authentic documents? There seems less reason to doubt the authenticity of the long exposition of Armenian

12 See the bibliographies in Thomson 1995 and Thomson 2007. 13 See Połarean 1967, Sanspeur 1973–1974, Dowsett 1976. See further below, p. 000. 14 See Schmidt 1996. 15 See Howard-Johnston’s commentary in The Armenian History attributed to Sebeos (see Bibliography, Armenian Texts, Sebēos). 16 For the Letter see Thomson 1998. the Major Works of Armenian Historiography 309

Christology in Asołik. In the case of Agatʿangełos the theological exposition known as The Teaching of Saint Gregory is longer than the “historical” part, but it is essential for the picture of Gregory as founder of the Armenian theological tradition. But in Łewond’s History, for example, does the Leo-Umar correspondence discussing iconoclasm fall into a similar category? It is not originally an Armenian composition, but its relevance to Armenian concerns has not been clarified;17 nor is the date of composition of Łewond’s History universally agreed. In the case of Uxtanēs, who quotes extensively from the ecclesiastical correspondence between Armenians and Georgians, it might seem more straightforward to examine whether contemporary concerns caused him to doctor his material, since an earlier form of the letters exists in the collection known as the Book of Letters. We have a valuable contribution to that investigation by J.-P. Mahé.18 But as already noted, the development of the Book of Letters has not been charted, and the manuscripts on which to base an edition are certainly not earlier than Uxtanēs. The later Stepʿannos Ōrbelean quotes archives and inscriptions extensively. Exactly 140 years ago Brosset published his detailed Introduction to Ōrbelean’s History of Siwnikʿ, quoting many of the inscriptions surviving on the walls of the numerous monasteries in that province. Here is a subject where further collaboration between philologists and epigraphists is most desirable. How much of the material published by Brosset still survives on the ground, I do not know.19 One area where recent work on non-historical sources has proved valuable for historiography is that of folklore and oral epic. In that regard the History of Movsēs Xorenacʿi has attracted most attention, for it records most of what we know about old Armenian epic. Here the insights of J.R. Russell have been influential.20 A good deal of work has also been done on the Greek sources integrated by Movsēs into his narrative. It is still debated to what extent Movsēs knew all of these sources at first hand.21 Nor is it clear how he became familiar with the foreign texts he undoubtedly did know, primarily in Armenian translation. Where were these translations made, and where were they kept? I shall return later to translations into Armenian.

17 See Gero 1973, 153–171, and Hoyland 1994. The authenticity of the correspondence is upheld by Mahé in Mahé 1996b. See now Greenwood 2009 and 2012. 18 See Mahé 1996a. 19 See also Yovsēpʿean 1929–1943 and CIArm 1967 (Vayocʿ Jor). 20 See Russell 2004, and the numerous articles cited in the Additional Bibliography to Thomson, Moses Khorenatsi, 383 (see Bibliography, Armenian Texts, Movsēs Xorenacʿi). 21 See Topchyan 2006. 310 thomson

In writers of the tenth and later centuries another question arises. It became usual for historians to give a brief summary of earlier Armenian history before embarking on a more expansive account of events closer to their own time. Kirakos, for example, gives a summary history of the Armenian Church covering some eight hundred years. Others list their predecessors. Already the author of the Buzandaran saw his work as a brick in a larger edifice.22 But Asołik is perhaps the first to go back to the origins of Armenian historiography and record a list of the names of historians stretching back over the previous five centuries. Furthermore, in the case of Vardan Arewelcʿi we have the interesting feature that because he had access to numerous Armenian histories of earlier date, on various occasions he combined several successive descriptions of the same major event to create a new version.23 So what was the relative weighting of these sources in his eyes? To what extent Armenian historians offered different interpretations of the past, and how these were reconciled, are themes worth further investigation. Advances in the study of Armenian historiography cannot be divorced from new approaches elsewhere. The most important I would consider to be the investigation of linguistic trends, much advanced in recent times through the study of translations, notably the so-called “Hellenophile” texts.24 But I do not think that the problem of equating style of translation with date of translation has yet been fully resolved. Linguistic analysis can also help when authors are credited with other texts in addition to Histories. Fr. Zekiyan, for example, has investigated the relationship of the numerous homilies attributed to Ełišē with the famous and influential History of Vardan and the Armenian War.25 Also of value for the philology of Armenian historical texts has been the preparation of concordances. In the first place come those produced under the auspices of the late Academician Łaribyan, former director of the Linguistic Institute in Yerevan. These were based on the Card Index held by the Academy of Sciences. What has become of the mass of linguistic information in that Index, I do not know. But those concordances were reproduced from typewritten copies in runs of only 200 each. Such labour intensive work is no longer possible under present conditions. Luckily, the development of electronic methods has revolutionised such endeavours. For the non-specialist, changes in grammatical

22 Buzandaran, III 1. 23 See the commentary to the translation in Thomson, “The Historical Compilation” (see Bibliography, Armenian Texts, Vardan Arewelcʾi). 24 There is a large bibliography on this subject. See the numerous works cited in Thomson 1995, 22–27, and Thomson 2007, 167–169. Other papers in this book deal more directly with that question. 25 See Zekiyan 1997. the Major Works of Armenian Historiography 311 structure are more obvious, even if precise dating and geographical location remain uncertain. But it would be very advantageous for the dating of texts by unknown authors, Łewond, for example, not to mention more controversial figures, to have a clearer idea of syntactical variations across time. The cataloguing of manuscripts and the study of codicology and palaeography have also seen great advances recently, as we have already heard. This brings me back to the investigation of manuscripts as the conclusion to my present remarks. Many of the uncertainties we face in interpreting the famous Histories of early and medieval Armenia drive from the lateness of the manuscript witnesses compared to the date of the original composition. Koriwn’s Life of Maštocʿ is a prime example, for the oldest surviving complete manuscript is Matenadaran 2639, which was written at Bitlis in 1672.26 The various attempts of twentieth century scholars to bring order to the confused chronology of events in Koriwn remain disputed in the absence of a more secure textual base.27 Likewise all known copies of the full text of the History by Łazar Pʿarpecʿi derive from the same manuscript, though earlier fragments indicate that a different recension existed by the end of the twelfth century.28 As for Sebēos, a sixteenth century copy used in the first edition has now disappeared, and our surviving witness is that same seventeenth century manuscript from Bitlis. Associated with the History attributed to Sebēos are several other texts. How they all came to be combined remains unclear.29 Furthermore, Sebēos’s History was a prime source for Tʿovma Arcruni; but in those passages where the latter closely follows the former, there are noticeable additions. Was the text of Sebēos available in the tenth century different from that which survived to be copied in 1672? We know that the exemplar used for that manuscript was in erkat’agir and had already lost some pages. So how reliable are the texts of Sebēos and of the other Histories in the seventeenth century copy? The text of Asołik also poses problems. Again a new study and edition are definitely required. I was asked to address “the challenges” which face us in the subject of Armenian historiography. It seems clear enough that much remains to be done in the areas of textual investigation, linguistic analysis, and source criticism before we can claim to have a reliable idea of the development of Armenian historical writing. The momentum of scholars before the First World War who

26 For the manuscripts copied in Bitlis see Thomson 2001. 27 See Mahé 1994–1995, and for the long preface in Koriwn, Mahé 1992b. 28 See above at n. 7. 29 See the introduction to the translation of Sebēos by Thomson (see Bibliography, Armenian Texts, Sebēos). 312 thomson produced printed editions of so many Armenian historians, as well as translations into Russian or French, has not been maintained. On the other hand, I am not sure that that is not true of other areas in the study of Near Eastern texts, due perhaps in part to a general decline in the esteem and support of academic studies, at least in British circles. My remarks today have addressed only the philological aspects of Armenian historiography, and I have ignored the whole question of modern interpretation of those early and medieval texts. To what extent strictly scholarly concerns have recently become embroiled with political issues is not my concern here. But problems have arisen in the more public attention given to Armenia, especially on the other side of the Atlantic. The reasons for that go beyond my present remit.

Bibliography

Armenian Texts Here only critical editions and recent translations (when available) are noted. For fuller details of editions of texts, translations into various languages, and secondary literature see Thomson 1995 and Thomson 2007. See also the collected texts in Matenagirkʿ Hayocʿ or Classical Armenian Authors (MH).

Acta Silvestri: Armenian text in Socrates Scholasticos. Translation, R.W. Thomson, “The Armenian Versions of the Life of Silvester”, JSAS 14 (2005), 55–139 (both versions).

Agatʿangełos: Patmutʿiwn Hayocʿ [History of the Armenians]. Critical edition, G. Tēr-Mkrtčʿean & S. Kanayeanc’, Tiflis: Aragatip Mnacʿakan Martiroseancʿ 1909; reprinted Delmar, NY: Caravan Books 1980, Erevan 1983. Translations, V. Langlois, “Histoire du règne de Tiridate et de la prédication de Saint Grégoire l’Illuminateur”, Collection des historiens anciens et modernes de l’Arménie, vol. 1, Paris: Firmin Didot et Cie, Imprimeurs de l’Institut 1867 (reprint Lisbonne: Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian 20012), 97–194; omits the “Teaching”. R.W. Thomson, Agathangelos: History of the Armenians, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press 1976 (Armenian and English on facing pages); omits the “Teaching”. R.W. Thomson, The Teaching of St. Gregory: An Early Armenian Catechism (HATS, 3), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1970; second edition (AVANT-Treasures of the Armenian Tradition, 1), New Rochelle, NY: St Nersess Armenian Seminary 2001. R.W. Thomson, The Lives of Saint Gregory: The Armenian, the Major Works of Armenian Historiography 313

Greek, Arabic, and Syriac Versions of the History attributed to Agathangelos, Ann Arbor MI: Caravan Books 2010.

Aristakēs Lastivertcʿi: Patmutʿiwn [History]. Critical edition, K. Yuzbašyan, Erevan: HH GAA Gitutʿyun Hratarakčʿutʿyun 1963. Translation, M. Canard & H. Berbérian, Récit des malheurs de la nation arménienne (Bibliothèque de Byzantion, 5), Bruxelles: Peeters 1973.

Asołik (or Stepʿannos Tarōnacʿi): Patmutʿiwn tiezerakan [Universal History]. Ed. S. Malxasean, St. Petersburg: Académie impériale des Sciences 1885. Translation, Parts I and II of the History, E. Dulaurier, Étienne Acoghig de Daron. Histoire Universelle, Paris: E. Leroux 1883. Part III of the History, F. Macler, Étienne Asolik de Taron. Histoire Universelle, Paris: Imprimerie nationale 1917, 1920; also published in Publications de l’École des langues orientales vivantes, 1e série, tome 18 bis, Paris: Imprimerie nationale 1920. English translation by T. Greenwood, Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming.

Book of Letters (Girkʿ Tʿłtʿocʿ): Girkʿ Tʿłtʿocʿ. Ed. Y. Izmireancʿ, Tiflis: Tparan Ṙōtineancʿ 1901; ed. N. Połarean, Erusałēm: Tparan Srbocʿ Yakobeancʿ 1994.

Buzandaran (or Pʿawstos Buzand): Patmutʿiwn [History]. Ed. Kʿ. Patkanean, St. Petersburg: Académie impériale des Sciences 1883; reprinted Delmar, NY: Caravan Books 1984. Translation, N.G. Garsoïan, The Epic Histories attributed to Pʿawstos Buzand (Buzandaran Patmutʿiwnkʿ), (HATS, 8), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1989. G. Uluhogian (dir.), Pʿawstos Buzand, Storia degli Armeni [Armeniaca Italica, 2], Milano: Mimesis 1997.

Canon-Law: Kanonagirkʿ Hayocʿ [Canon-Law of the Armenians]. Ed. V. Hakobyan, 2 vols., Erevan: HH GAA Gitutʿyun Hratarakčʿutʿyun 1964, 1971.

Ełišē: Ełišēi vasn Vardanay ew Hayocʿ Paterazmin [Ełishē, History of Vardan and the Armenian War]. Critical edition, E. Ter-Minasyan, Erevan 1957. Translations, V. Langlois, “Histoire de Vartan et de la guerre des Armeniens”, Collection des historiens anciens et modernes de l’Arménie, vol. 2, Paris: Firmin Didot et Cie, Imprimeurs de l’Institut 1869 (repr. Lisbonne: Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian 20012), 177–252. R.W. Thomson, Ełishē. History of Vardan and the Armenian War (HATS, 5), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1982. R Pane, Storia di Vardan e dei Martyri Armeni, Roma: Città Nuova 2005. 314 thomson

Eusebius of Caesarea: Chronicle: J. Aucher, Eusebii Pamphili Caesariensis Episcopi, Chronicon Bipartitum/ Žamanakakankʿ erkmasneay, 2 vol., i Venetik: Mxitʿarean tparan 1818. Translation, J. Karst, Die Chronik des Eusebius aus dem armenischen übersetzt (Grieschischen christlichen Schriftsteller, 20), Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung 1911. Ecclesiastical History: A. Čarean, Patmutʿiwn ekełecʿwoy Eusebiosi Kesracʿwoy [Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History], i Venetik: Mxitʿarean tparan, 1877.

Georgian Chronicles: Critical edition: I. Abuladze, Kʿartʿlis Cʿxovrebayi kam Vracʿ Patmutʿean hin hayerēn tʿargmanutʿiwnǝ. Vracʿerēn bnagirǝ ew hin hayerēn tʿargmanutʿiwnǝ [The Old Armenian Translation of the Life of Kʿartʿli, or History of the Georgians. Georgian Text and Old Armenian Translation], Tiflis 1953 (Georgian title: Kʿartʿlis Cʿxovrebis jveli somxuri tʿargmani). Hamarōt Patmutʿiwn Vracʿ ǝncayeal JuanšēriÌ patmčʿi [Abbreviated History of the Georgians attributed to the Historian Juanšēr],Ì ed. A. T’iroyean, i Venetik: Mxitʿarean tparan, 1884. Translations, M.-F. Brosset, Histoire de la Géorgie. Additions et Eclaircissements, St. Pétersbourg: Académie impériale des Sciences 1851, 1–61: “La Chronique armenienne”. R.W. Thomson, Rewriting Caucasian History. The Medieval Armenian Adaptation of the Georgian Chronicles. The Original Georgian Texts and the Armenian Adaptation (Oxford Oriental Monographs), Oxford: Oxford University Press 1996.

Grigor Akanecʿi: Patmutʿiwn azgin Netołacʿ [History of the Nation of the Archers]. Critical edition, R. Blake & R. Frye, “History of the Nation of the Archers (the Mongols) by Grigor of Akanc’ ”, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 12 (1949), 269–399; also printed separately, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1954 (Armenian text and English translation).

Grigor Magistros: Tʿłtʿerǝ [Letters]. Ed. Kʿ. Kostaneancʿ, Alexandropol: Tparan Gēorg Sanoyeancʿ 1910; new critical edition by Gohar Muradyan, in MH, vol. 16 (2012).

Kirakos Ganjakecʿi: Patmutʿyun Hayocʿ [History of the Armenians]. Critical edition: K. Melikʿ-Ōhanǰanyan, Erevan: HH GAA “Gitutʿyun” Hratarakčʿutʿyun 1961. Translation, M. Brosset, “Histoire de l’Arménie par le vartabed Kiracos de Gantzac”, in M. Brosset, Deux historiens arméniens, St. Pétersbourg: Académie impériale des Sciences 1870, 1–194.

Koriwn: Varkʿ Maštocʿi [The Life of Mashtots]. Critical editions, M. Abełean, Erevan: Haypethrat 1941. Text with modern Armenian translation; reprinted, Cairo: Tparan Husaber 1954; Erevan 1981; Delmar NY: Caravan Books 1985. N. Akinean, “Koriwn. the Major Works of Armenian Historiography 315

Patmutʿiwn Varucʿ Surb Maštocʿ Vardapeti. Kʿnnutʿiwn ew Bnagir ew Canotʿutʿiwnner” [Koriwn. History of the Life of St Mashtots vardapet. Critical edition and Annotations], Handēs Amsōreay 63 (1949), Mechitar-Festschrift, 171–320; also printed separately, Vienna: Mxitʿarean tparan 1950. Varkʿ Maštocʿi [Koriwn, Vita di Maštocʿ], ed. with Introduction and Armenian notes by P. Ananean, and Italian translation and notes by Y. Ashrafian (Bibliotheca Armeniaca, 4), Venezia: Casa editrice armena 1998. Translation, G. Winkler, Koriwns Biographie des Mesrop Maštocʿ, Übersetzung und Kommentar (OCA, 245), Roma: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1994. J.-P. Mahé, “Koriwn, La Vie de Maštocʿ ”, REArm 30 (2005–2007), 59–97.

Łazar Pʿarpecʿi: Patmutʿiwn Hayocʿ ew Tʿułtʿ aṙ Vahan Mamikonean [History of the Armenians and Letter to Vahan Mamikonean]. Critical edition, G. Tēr-Mkrtčʿean & S. Malxasean, Tiflis: Aragatip Mnacʿakan Martiroseancʿ 1904; reprinted Delmar, NY: Caravan Books 1985, with Critical Bibliography by D. Kouymjian; updated in T. Guymčyan, Łazar Pʿarpecʿi, Matenagitutʿyun [Łazar Pʿarpecʿi, Bibliography] (Surb Mesrop Maštocʿ dpratan matenašar, 4), Erevan: np 1999. Translations, S. Ghesarian, “Histoire d’Armenie”, in V. Langlois, Collection des historiens anciens et modernes de l’Arménie, vol. 2, Paris: Firmin Didot et Cie, Imprimeurs de l’Institut 1869 (reprint Lisbonne: Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian 20012), 253–368. R.W. Thomson, The History of Łazar Pʿarpecʿi (Columbia University Program in Armenian Studies. Suren D. Fesjian Academic Publications, 4), Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press 1991.

Lesser Chronicles: V. Hakobyan, Manr Žamanakagrutʿyunner, XIII–XVIII dareri [Short Chronicles, 13th–18th cc.], 2 vol., Erevan: HH GAA “Gitutʿyun” Hratarakčʿutʿyun 1951, 1956.

Łewond: Aršawankʿ Arabacʿ i Hays, arareal Łewond Vardapeti Hayocʿ [Arab Invasions in Armenia, by Łewond, the Vardapet of the Armenians], ed. G. Shahnazarian, Paris 1857. Łewond Erēcʿ, Patmutʾiwn [History], ed. K. Ezean, St. Petersburg 1887. Translations, G. Chahnazarian, Histoire des guerres et des conquêtes des Arabes en Arménie, par l’éminent Ghevond Vartabed arménien, écrivain du huitième siècle, Paris: Librairie de Ch. Meyrueis et Cie 1856. Z. Arzoumanian, History of Lewond, the Eminent Vardapet of the Armenians, Philadelphia, PA: St. Sahag and St. Mesrob Armenian Church 1982.

Mattʿēos of Edessa (Uṙhayecʿi): Patmutʿiwn Mattʿēosi Uṙhayecʿwoy [The History of Matthew of Edessa], Erusałēm: Tparan Srbocʿ Yakobeancʿ 1869. Patmutʾiwn, ed. M. Adamean & N. Tēr-Mikʿayelean, Vałaršapat 1898. Translations, E. Dulaurier, Chronique de Matthieu d’Edesse (962–1136) avec la Continuation de Grégoire le Prêtre jusqu’en 1162, Paris: Durand 1858. A. Dostourian, 316 thomson

Armenia and the Crusades, 10th to 12th Centuries: The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa, Lanham, MD: University Press of America 1993.

Michael the Syrian: Mixayeli Patriarkʿi Asorwoy Žamanakagrutʿiwn [The Chronicle by Patriarch Michael the Syrian], Erusałēm: Tparan Srbocʿ Yakobeancʿ 1870; Žamanakagrutʿiwn ew Yałags kʿahanayutʿean Teaṙn Mixayēli Asorwocʿ Patriarkʿi [The Chronicle and On Priesthood by Lord Michael, Patriarch of the Syrians], Erusałēm: Tparan Srbocʿ Yakobeancʿ 1871. Translation, V. Langlois, Chronique de Michel le grand, patriarche des syriens jacobites, traduite pour la première fois sur la version arménienne du prêtre Ischok, Venise: Académie de Saint-Lazare 1868.

Movsēs Kałankatuacʿi (or Dasxurancʿi): Patmutʿiwn Ałuanicʿ Ašxarhi [History of the Land of the (Caucasian) Albanians]. Critical edition, V. Aṙakʿelyan, Erevan: HH GAA “Gitutʿyun” Hratarakčʿutʿyun 1983. Translation, C.J.F. Dowsett, The History of the Caucasian Albanians by Movses Dasxurançi (London Oriental Series, 8), London: Oxford University Press 1961.

Movsēs Xorenacʿi: Patmutʿiwn Hayocʿ [History of the Armenians]. Critical edition, M. Abełean & S. Yarutʿiwnean, Tiflis: Aragatip Mnacʿakan Martiroseancʿ 1913; reprinted Delmar, NY: Caravan Books 1981. Facsimile edition with additional collations by A.B. Sargsean, Erevan: HH GAA “Gitutʿyun” Hratarakčʿutʿyun 1991. Translations, R.W. Thomson, Moses Khorenatsi, History of the Armenians (HATS, 4), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1978; second edition, revised, Ann Arbor, MI: Caravan Books 2007. A. & J.-P. Mahé, Histoire de l’Arménie par Moïse de Khorène, Paris: Gallimard 1993.

Mxitʿar Anecʿi: Matean ašxarhavēp handisarancʿ [Book of Universal Events]. Critical edition, H.G. Margaryan, Erevan: HH GAA “Gitutʿyun” Hratarakčʿutʿyun 1983.

Mxitʿar Ayrivanecʿi: Patmutʿiwn Hayocʿ [History of the Armenians], ed. N. Emin, Moskva 1860; K. Patkanean, Moskva 1867. Translations, K. Patkanov, “Mxitʿar Ayrivanecʿwoy Patmutʿiwn” [Mxitʿar Ayrivanecʿi’s History], Trydi Vostochago Otdeleniya Imperatorskago Russkago Arkheologicheskago Obschestva, Pt. 14, Sanktpeterburg: Tip. Imp. Akademīi nauk 1869, 224–418; Armenian text and Russian translation. M. Brosset, “Histoire Chronologique par Mkhithar d’Aïrivank, XIII S”, Mémoires de l’Academie impériale des Sciences de St. Pétersbourg, Ser. 7, vol. 13, no. 5, St. Pétersbourg: Académie impériale des Sciences 1869. the Major Works of Armenian Historiography 317

Mxitʿar Goš: Chronicle. C. Dowsett, “The Albanian Chronicle of Mxitʿar Goš”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 21 (1958), 472–90. Lawcode. H. Tʿorosyan, Mxitʿar Goš, Girkʿ Datastani, Erevan: HH GAA “Gitutʿyun” Hratarakčʿutʿyun 1975. Translation, R.W. Thomson, The Lawcode (Datastanagirkʿ) of Mxitʿar Goš (Dutch Studies in Armenian Language and Literature 6), Amsterdam & Atlanta, GA: Rodopi 2000.

Samuēl Anecʿi: Hawakʿmunkʿ i grocʿ Patmagracʿ [Historical Compilation]. Ed. A. Tēr-Mikaēlean, Eǰmiacin 1893. Translation, “Tables chronologiques”, in M. Brosset, Collection des historiens arméniens, vol. 2, St. Pétersbourg: Académie impériale des Sciences 1876. Translation, A. Mai, Samuelis Presbyteri Aniensis, Temporum usque ad suam aetatem Ratio, in Patrologia Graeca, ed. J.-P. Migne, vol. 19, 601–740.

Sebēos: Patmutʿiwn Sebēosi [Sebeos’ History], Critical edition, G. Abgaryan, Erevan: HH GAA “Gitutʿyun” Hratarakčʿutʿyun 1979. Translation, The Armenian History attributed to Sebeos (Translated Texts for Historians, 31), translation by R.W. Thomson, historical commentary by J. Howard-Johnston, assistance from T. Greenwood, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press 1999.

Seventh-Century [Anonymous] Chronicle: Ananun Žamanakagrutʿiwn, xmbagir yōrineal y’Ē daru [Anonymous Chronicle], ed. B. Sargsean, i Venetik: Mexitʿarean tparan 1904.

Socrates Scholasticos: M. Ter-Movsesean, Sokratay skʿolastikosi “Ekełecʿakan Patmutʿiwn” ew Patmutʿiwn varucʿ srboyn Siłbestrosi episkoposin Hṙovmay [The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus and the Life of St. Sylvester, Bishop of Rome], Eǰmiacin 1897. Translation, R.W. Thomson, The Armenian Adaptation of the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus (HUAS, 3), Leuven: Peeters 2001.

Smbat Sparapet: Taregirkʿ [Chronicle]. Ed. S. Agelean, i Venetik: Mxitʿarean tparan 1956. Translations, S. Der Nersessian, “The Armenian Chronicle of the Constable Smpad or of the ‘Royal Historian’ ”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 13 (1959), 143–168; reprinted in her Études byzantines et arméniennes, Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste 1973, vol. 1, 353– 377. G. Dédéyan, La Chronique attribuée au Connétable Smbat, Paris: Paul Geuthner 1980. 318 thomson

Stepʿannos Ōrbelean: Patmutʿiwn nahangin Sisakan [History of the Siwnikʿ]. Ed. K. Šahnazareancʿ, Paris 1860; reprinted Tiflis: Aganeancʿ 1910. Translation, M. Brosset, Histoire de la Siounie par Stéphannos Orbélian, St. Pétersbourg: Académie impériale des Sciences, Histoire 1864, Introduction 1866.

Tʿovma Arcruni: Patmutʿiwn Tann Arcruneacʿ [History of the House of the Artsrunikʿ]. Ed. Kʿ. Patkanean, Peterburg: Tparan Skoroxodov 1887; reprinted Tiflis 1917, and Delmar, NY: Caravan Books 1991. Translations, M. Brosset, “Histoire des Ardzrouni”, in his Collection des historiens arméniens, vol. 1, St. Pétersbourg: Académie impériale des Sciences 1874, 1–266. R.W. Thomson, Thomas Artsruni. History of the House of the Artsrunikʿ, Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press 1985.

Uxtanēs: Patmutʿiwn Hayocʿ [History of the Armenians], Vałaršapat 1871. Translations, M.-F. Brosset, Deux historiens arméniens, Kiracos de Gantzac; Oukhtanès d’Ourha, St. Pétersbourg: Académie impériale des Sciences, 1870–71. Z. Arzoumanian, Bishop Ukhtanes of Sebastia. History of Armenia. Part I. History of the Patriarchs and Kings of Armenia, Fort Lauderdale, FA: np 1988; Part II. History of the Severance of the Georgians from the Armenians, Fort Lauderdale, FA: np 1985.

Vahram Ṙabun: Nšxarkʿ naxneacʿ Vahram Vardapeti [Vahram Vardapet’s, Ancestral Antiquities]. Jerusalem 1875. Translation, E. Dulaurier, “Chronique rimée des rois de la petite Arménie”, Receuil des historiens des Croisades. Documents arméniens, vol. 1, Paris: Imprimerie nationale 1869; reprinted Farnborough: Gregg 1967, 491–535 (Armenian text and French translation).

Vardan Arewelcʿi: Hawakʿumn Patmutʿean Hayocʿ [Compilation of Armenian History]. Ed. Ł. Ališan, i Venetik: Mexitʿaran tparan 1862; reprinted Delmar, NY: Caravan Books 1991. Translation, R.W. Thomson, “The Historical Compilation of Vardan Arewelcʿi”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 43 (1989), 125–226.

Yovhannēs Drasxanakertcʿi: Patmutʿiwn Hayocʿ [History of the Armenians], ed. M. Emin, Moskva 1853; reprinted Tiflis: Ēlekʿratip Ałaneancʿ 1912; Delmar, NY: Caravan Books 1980. Translations, K. Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertcʿi. History of Armenia, Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press 1987. P. Boisson-Chenorhokian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertcʿi, Histoire d’Arménie (CSCO, 605. Subsidia 115), Leuven: Peeters, 2003. the Major Works of Armenian Historiography 319

Zenob (or Yovhannēs Mamikonean): Patmutʿiwn Taronoy [The History of Taron]. Ed. A. Abrahamyan, Erevan 1941. Translation, L. Avdoyan, Pseudo-Yovhannēs Mamikonean: The History of Taron, Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press 1993. New edition in MH, vol. 5 (2005).

Secondary Literature Bozoyan, A.A. 1995. Hay-byuzandakan ekełecʿakan banakcʿutʿyunneri vaveragrerǝ (1165– 1178 tʿtʿ) [Documents on Armeno-Byzantine ecclesiastical negotiations], Erevan: HH GAA “Gitutʿyun” Hratarakčʿutʿyun. CIArm. 1967. Divan Hay Vimagrutʿyan/Corpus Inscriptionum Armenicarum, vol. 3, Erevan: Haykakan SSR Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi hratarakčʿutʿyan tparan. Dowsett, C.J.F. 1976. “The newly discovered fragment of Łazar of Pʿarp’s History”, Le Muséon 89, 97–122. Garsoïan, N.G. 1999. L’Église arménienne et le grand schisme d’Orient (CSCO, 574. Subsidia, 100), Leuven: Peeters. Garsoïan, N.G. 2001. “Évolution et crise dans l’historiographie récente de l’Arménie médiévale”, Revue du monde arménien moderne et contemporain 6, 7–27. Gero, S. 1973. Byzantine Iconoclasm during the Reign of Leo III (CSCO, 346. Subsidia, 41), Louvain: Peeters. Greenwood, T. 2008. “New Light from the East: Chronography and Ecclesiastical History through a Late Seventh-Century Armenian Source”, Journal of Early Christian Studies 16, 197–254. Greenwood, T. 2009. “The Letter of Leo III in Ghewond”, Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History, vol. 1 (600–900), ed. D. Thomas & B. Roggema, Leiden: Brill, 203–208. Greenwood, T. 2012. “A Reassessment of the History of Łewond”, Le Muséon 125, 99–167. Hoyland, R. 1994. “The Correspondence between Leo III (717–41) and ‘Umar II (717– 20)”, Aram 6, 165–177. Mahé, J.-P. 1992a. “Entre Moïse et Mahomet: Réflexions sur l’historiographie arméni- enne”, REArm 23, 121–153. Mahé, J.-P. 1992b. “Une légitimation scripturaire de l’hagiographie: La Préface de Koriwn (443) à la Vie de Maštocʾ, inventeur de l’alphabet arménien”, De Tertullien aux Mozarabes. Mélanges offerts à Jacques Fontaine (Collection des Etudes Augustiniennes. Série Antiquité, 132), Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, tome I, 29–43. Mahé, J.-P. 1994–95. “Quatre nouvelles publications (1990–1994) sur Koriwn”, REArm 25, 417–428. Mahé, J.-P. 1996a. “La rupture arméno-géorgienne au début du VIIe siècle et les réécri- tures historiographiques des IXe–XIe siècles”, Il Caucaso: Cerniera fra Culture del Mediterraneo alla Persia (Secoli IV–XI) (Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di 320 thomson

Studi sull’alto Medioevo, 43), Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 927–961. Mahé, J.-P. 1996b. “Le problème de l’authenticité et de la valeur de la Chronique de Łewond”, L’Arménie et Byzance (Byzantina Sorbonensia, 12), Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 119–126. MH. See Sigla in the present volume. Połarean, N. 1967. “Noragyut hatvac Łazar Pʿarpecʿu Hayocʿ Patmutʿean” [The newly discovered fragment of Łazar of Pʿarp’s History of the Armenians], Banber Matenadarani 8, 263–274. Russell, J.R. 2004. Armenian and Iranian Studies (HATS, 9), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sanspeur, C. 1973–1974. “Le fragment de l’Histoire de Lazare de Pʿarpi, retrouvé dans le Ms. 1 de Jérusalem”, REArm 10, 83–109. Schmidt, A.B. 1996. “Die zweifache armenische Rezension der syrischen Chronik Michaels des Grossen”, Le Muséon 109, 299–319. Thomson, R.W. 1995. A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 AD, Turnhout: Brepols. Thomson, R.W. 1996. “The Writing of History: the Development of the Armenian and Georgian Traditions”, Il Caucaso: Cerniera fra culture dal Mediterraneo alla Persia (Secoli IV–XI) (Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano sull’alto Medioevo, 43), Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 493–520. Thomson, R.W. 1998. “The Defence of Armenian Orthodoxy in Sebeos”, in I. Ševčenko & I. Hutter (eds), ΑΕΤΟΣ. Studies in Honour of Cyril Mango, Stuttgart: B.G. Teubner, 329–341. Thomson, R.W. 2001. “Bitlis and Armenian Histories”, Armenian Baghesh/Bitlis and Taron/Mush, ed. R.G. Hovannisian (UCLA Armenian History and Culture Series. Historic Armenian Cities and Provinces, 2), Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda, 105–117. Thomson, R.W. 2007. “Supplement to A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 AD: Publications 1993–2005”, Le Muséon 120, 163–223. Topchyan, A. 2006. The Problem of the Greek Sources of Movsēs Xorenacʾi’s History of Armenia (HUAS, 7), Leuven: Peeters. Winkler, G. 1980. “Our Present Knowledge of the History of Agatʾangełos and its Oriental Versions”, REArm 14, 125–141. Yovsēpʿean, G. 1928–1943. Xałbakyankʿ kam Prošeankʿ Hayocʿ patmutʿyan mēǰ: patmagi- takan usumnasirutʿyun [Khaghbakids or Prʿoshids in the history of the Armenians: Historical Study], Vałaršapat: Pethrati araǰin Tp. Zekiyan, B.L. 1997. “Quelques observations critiques sur le ‘Corpus Elisaeanum’ ”, in R.F. Taft (ed.), The Armenian Christian Tradition (OCA, 254), Roma: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 71–123. The Hellenizing School

Gohar Muradyan

1 General

In Old Armenian translations from Greek the same Greek words and expres sions could be rendered in considerably different ways. Here are examples of Classical and Hellenizing translations of the same Greek texts (Bible, and bibli cal citations in Philo of Alexandria and Timothy Aelurus):1

1) ἐπίσκοπος (Acts 20:28) – tesučʿ // veraditoł (Tim. 58) – Greek prefix ren dered by a prefix existing in Classical Armenian; 2) καταβήσεται (Rom. 10:7) – iǰanicʿē // storekescʿē (Tim. 306) – Greek prefix rendered by a newly invented prefix; 3) ἀκροτόμου (Deut. 8:15–16 = LA 2.84) – apaṙaž // katarataš (Pʿil. aylab. 169) – Greek compound with two roots rendered by an existing equiva lent in the Bible and with a neologism (i.e., literally) in Philo; 4) εἰρηνοποιήσας (Col. 1:20) – arar zxałałutʿiwn // xałałagorceal (Tim. 313) – Greek compound with two roots rendered by a neologism (literally) in Philo and with an expression made of the same lexical components in the Bible; 5) Οὐ καλὸν εἶναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον μόνον (LA 2.1 = Gen. 2:18) – očʿ ē barwokʿ mar doyd miayn linel // očʿ barwokʿ gol zmardn miayn (Pʿil. aylab. 142) – “accu sative with the infinitive” rendered by “dative with the infinitive” in the Bible and literally in Philo; the verb of being omitted in the Greek, restored in the Bible; 6) μία αὐτῶν . . . καὶ μία αὐτῶν (Deut. 21:15–16 = LA 2.48) – i nocʿanē min . . . ew miwsn // mi sacʿa . . . ew mi sacʿa (Pʿil. aylab. 157) – feminine forms of demonstrative pronouns, partitive genitive in Philo and partitive ablative in the Bible; 7) τοῦ ἐν ἐμοὶ λαλοῦντος Χριστοῦ (2 Cor. 13:3) – zKʿristosi, or inews . . . xawsi // zʿyisn xawsołi Kʿristosi (Tim. 211) – the participle used attributively,

1 Pʿil. aylab. = Philo 1892, 33–103; LA = Philo 1962, 61–169: Legum allegoriae; Tim. = Timothaeus Aelurus 1908. Armenian equivalents following the dash are from the Armenian version of the Bible which belongs to the earliest, Classical group of translations; those following the dou ble slash are from the translations of the Hellenizing (or Helle nophile) School. For a detailed comparative study of biblical citations in Philo, see Murayan 2011.

rendered by relative sentence in the Bible and by present participle in Timothy; ἐν ἐμοὶ rendered literally in Philo and by sense in the Bible; 8) πατρὸς τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτόν (Gal. 1:1) – horʿ or yaroycʿ zna // hawrn yaru cʿawłin zna (Tim. 310) – the participle used attributively, rendered by rela tive sentence in the Bible and by present participle in Timothy; direct object with the present participle; 9) ἐκ . . . ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας (1 Cor. 10:4) – i . . . vimēn, or ertʿayr zhet nocʿa // i . . . hetewecʿeloy vimēn (Tim. 307) – the participle used attributively, rendered by relative sentence in the Bible and by past participle in Timothy; different lexical units in the two versions; 10) ὁ δοὺς ἑαυτόν (1 Tim. 2:6) – or et zanjn // tuičʿ zinkʿn (Tim. 98) – the parti ciple used attributively, rendered by relative sentence in the Bible and by nomen agentis with the suffix ičʿ in Timothy; direct object with the nomen agentis.

The examples could be multiplied. The most general conclusion drawn from this comparison is that the translators of the Classical period regarded the whole sentence as a unit of translation, whereas the Hellenizing translators tried to translate word by word, sometimes even morpheme by morpheme. Why did translators change their techniques so considerably? One of the reasons is that later, Hellenizing translations were mainly texts with sophis ticated, often scientific contents (grammar, philosophy), which required very accurate, literal translation. This became obvious after Manan dean’s famous book, in which he defined three periods of the development of the Hellenizing school and showed that the Grammar of Dionysius was the first translation of the school.2 This scheme was in general accepted by further scholars (Akinean, Ačaṙyan, Abełyan, Jahukyan,Ì Mercier, A. Murad yan, Arevšatyan, Bolognesi, Ter-Petrosyan3 and others). Only A. Terian, following Akinean’s later opinion that all translations of the School were made in Constantinople between 590 and 610, placed them after 570, distinguishing just the fourth group of transla tions made in the first third of the 6th century, the majority of which have relation to Stepʿanos Siwnecʿi and his companions. He also mentioned that the Greek influence on syntax in the group of translations usually considered as the third is less marked than in earlier groups. He pointed to differences

2 Manandean 1928. Weitenberg (Weitenberg 2000, 449) is sure that “the translation of the Grammar does not belong to the early period of the philellene translations.” See also Weitenberg 2001. 3 Akinean 1932; Ačaṙyan 1952; Abełyan 1953; JahukyanÌ 1954; Mercier 1978; Muradyan A. 1971; Arevšatjan 1973; Bolognesi 2000; Ter-Petrosyan 1982. the hellenizing school 323 in syntax between the Armenian versions of Aristotelian (second group) and pseudo-Aristotelian writings (third group). He also noticed that the syntax of the versions of David the Invincible and Nonnus is closer to the translations of the second group, than of the third group to which they are stated to belong.4 S. Arevšatyan on the contrary, elaborating on Abełyan’s arguments, stressed the importance of resorting to the disciplines which were current in contem porary Byzantine schools between the 50’s and the 70’s of the 5th century, when the whole Christian world was occupied in religious debates which fol lowed the council of Chalcedon and required serious theoretical training.5 The thesis about the scholarly character of the texts translated by the Hellenizing School is partly right. Many writings among them, however, cannot be characterized as such and have theological contents. The technical charac ter of the most important texts translated could indeed have stimulated the striving to standardize the vocabulary and a more literal approach in general. And this became a literary fashion corresponding to the mentality of more eru dite readers than those at the dawn of Armenian literary activity. Typological parallels can be drawn with Syriac translations from Greek: as witnessed by S.P. Brock, the translations of the 4–5th centuries which were aimed at bring ing the Greek original to the reader are opposed to those of the 6–7th centu ries aimed at bringing the reader to the understanding of the Greek original, and characterized by Greek linguistic influence.6 The situation with the Old Slavonic translations from Greek was similar. The language of the translations made by the second generation of translators was much more influenced by Greek than of those made by Cyril and Methodius.7 However, our impression is that the change in the contents of the texts translated and the general pattern in the literary process demonstrated with the help of typological parallels com plement each other, but maybe one could search for further explanations.8

4 Terian 1982. 5 Arevšatjan 1973, 141–142. 6 Brock 2001, 422. 7 Vereščagin, E.M. 1982. Dividing the lexical meaning into two semantic sections, “concep tional section” (ponjatijnaja dolja) and “non-conceptional section” – “lexical background” (neponjatijnaja dolja – leksičeskij fon) (p. 110), the author explains the term “mentalization” (mentalizacʿija) as passing from the first to the second, more complicated level; he character izes it as an element of the art of translation (p. 112). Later lexical borrowing and endowing common words with terminological meaning (“transposition”, the transfer of lexical ele ments from the universal language to a group language) became more widespread methods of term formation. These are elements not of the art, but of the translation technique (p. 111). 8 As the one proposed by Mahé, according to which the shift to the new translation paradigm, aimed at precise mirroring of the source, reflects the change in exegetical outlook from 324 muradyan

2 Date

Controversies concerning the date of the beginning of the School’s activity are based on different approaches to dating the Refutation of the Chalcedonian Creed by Timothy Aelurus. Manandean declared it to be the first translation of the second group of the School, made in the period between 552 and 564, on the occasion of the second council of Dwin in 554 when the Chalcedonian creed was officially rejected by the Armenian Church. Consequently the first period of the School’s activity must have begun several decades before this date. The starting point for Manandean’s calculations is the synchronistic calendar data present in the text of the translation, but he corrected the manuscript reading, thus changing the date.9 His dating was supported by E. Tēr-Minasean10 and N. Akinean.11 The earlier dating, namely 480–484, derives from calculations based on the same calendar data by G. Tēr-Mkrtčʿean12 (unlike Manandean, he did not revise the mentioned dates). In both cases Timothy’s translation is regarded as terminus ante quem for the translations of the first group of the School (most important of this period are the Grammar by Dionysius, the treatises by Philo of Alexandria, the trans lated parts of the Book of Chreia). On the other hand, the dating of the Histories of Ełišē and Movsēs Xorenacʿi to the second half of the 5th century, as they themselves claim, or to the 6th or later centuries, according to a more critical approach, is closely related to the dating of the mentioned first group of trans lations, since the Armenian version of Philo is a well-known source for both historiographers. Besides accepting Tēr-Mkrtčʿean’s or Manandean’s version of the interpre tation of the calendar data in Timothy’s text, the two mentioned schools of scholars adduce speculations on the historical conditions which might have created more probable grounds for the translation of Timothy’s Refutation or for the origin of the Hellenizing School in general, in a particular period of time. These speculations often lack concrete philological confirmation.

factual Antiochene to allegorical Alexandrian, the latter requiring the availability of pre cise textual renderings (Mahé 1988). “The Alexandrian influence in turn is chronologically related to the religious disputes leading to the final rejection of the doctrine of Chalcedon by the Armenian Church on the Second Council of Dvin in 555. Mahé’s perspective is culturally well embedded and therefore preferable to the alternative view, according to which the new paradigm rather originated in Constantinople around 570 (Terian 1982, 183)” (Weitenberg 2000, 447). 9 Manandean 1928, 100–101. 10 Tēr-Minasean 1960. 11 Akinean 1932. 12 Tēr-Mkrtčʿean 1908. the hellenizing school 325

More realistic is Terian’s approach. He demonstrated that traces of the hel lenizing translations in original writings appear starting with the 7th century: Irenaeus is cited in Yovhan Karnecʿi and Vrtʿanēs Kʿertʿoł (604/5); Sebēos and Dawitʿ Harkʿacʿi (mid 7th century) were familiar with the Book of Chreia; for the Dionysian Grammar he mentions its Armenian commentators, among whom Dawitʿ (identifying him with the late 6th–early 7th centuries author Dawitʿ the Invincible) and Movsēs Kʿertʿoł (about the same time); for Aristotle, Anania Širakacʿi who exhibits the influence of his Armenian version.13 In search for more concrete philological facts we have managed to find some neologisms and a couple of syntactical grecisms in Łazar Parpecʿi’s History written at the turn of the 5th century and in his letter to Vahan Mamikonean written earlier, which could have been borrowed from Philo’s Armenian ver sion and other translations belonging to the first group.14 This is an argument, although not very strong, in favor of dating the first group before the late 5th century. Important here seems the method of the careful reading of a certain translation in comparison with its original and revealing syntactic features and especially lexical items which could be constructed while translating this particular text. Besides this comparison and collation, some knowledge of not only the data contained in the Nor Baṙgirkʿ Haykazean Lezui, but also of other translated texts is needed. This is a difficult task requiring great efforts.

3 Pre-Hellenizing Translations

There is one more group of translated texts now called pre-Hellenizing transla tions (naxayunaban). This term is equivalent to “pre-hellénophile” proposed by Lafontaine and Coulie for the sermons of Gregory of Nazianze.15 Akinean had called them “translations of the Silver Age”,16 Ačaṙyan, translations of the “post-Mesropian period.”17 Weitenberg has used another characterization, early Hellenophile texts.18 G. Uluhogian added Basil’s Asceticon19 to this group and, together with S. Mancini Lombardi, the Alexander Romance.20 V. Calzolari has characterized one of the units in the Armenian corpus of Athanasius of

13 Terian 1982. 14 Muradyan 1990. 15 Lafontaine & Coulie 1983, 137. 16 Akinean 1932. 17 Ačaṙyan 1952, 107–113. 18 Weitenberg 2001–2002. 19 Uluhogian 1993 (Introduction to the translation), ix–xxi. 20 Mancini Lombardi & Uluhogian 1992, 107–113. 326 muradyan

Alexandria as pre-Hellenizing, or even Hellenizing.21 We have proposed to rank here the rest of the Athanasian corpus, Basil’s sermons (few were pub lished by K. Muradyan, many others, prepared by him for publication, were available for us in typewritten form),22 sermons of Gregory of Nyssa and some canonical groups in the Kanonagirkʿ hayocʿ.23 The Grecizing style of these texts is expressed mainly in the syntax, and it is noteworthy that here one comes upon the oddest syntactical grecisms. Word-calquing, semantic calquing and creating new words were widespread too, but words with prefixes are often rendered by “semi-calques.” There are very rare occurrences of some types of morphological grecisms. Lafontaine and Coulie have demonstrated Greek pas sages rendered in different ways in a pre-Hellenizing (sermons of Gregory of Nazianze) and in a Hellenizing translation (citations from Gregory in Timothy’s Refutation): ἀνερχόμενον – ertʿeal // hambarjeal; ἐξ οὐρανῶν – yerknicʿ // yerk- nust; θεοφανία – astucoy yaytnutʿean tawn // astuacayaytnutʿiwn; τὸ μὲν ὤν . . . τὸ δέ – or ērn . . . zi // zmin elov . . . isk miwsn; ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν – or baṙnayin zmełs // barjołn zmełs; τῇ κακοδοξίᾳ – čʿar karceawkʿ // čʿarapʿaṙutʿeamb; νενεκρωμένον – meṙeald // diaknacʿeald ; προσδιδόμενον – matneal // aṙmatneal; ἥξοντα – or galocʿn ē // gal handerjeal; περιτμήθητι – tʿlpʿatecʿir // paratecʿir; τὸ ἀπὸ γενέσεως κάλυμμα – or i cnndenē cackoytʿn ēr // zʿi cnndenēn cackoytʿ; λιθάσθητι – kʿarkocecʿir // kʿararkecʿir.24 In the complete list of translations compiled by Arevšatyan25 and repeated by L. Ter-Petrosyan,26 which does not recognize this group intermediary between the Classical and Hellenizing translations, these texts are listed among the first group. It is obvious that the further study of the translations considered Classical will reveal new pre- Hellenizing texts. Possibly, such studies can also contribute to our understand ing of the reasons for the serious shift in the translation technique within a comparably short period of time.

4 The Textological Aspect

Hellenizing translations have also aroused scholarly interest from textological aspect. Conybeare collated the Greek originals of Aristotle’s writings with their

21 Calzolari 2000. 22 The volume has finaly seen light: Basil of Cesarea 2008. 23 Muradyan 2004. 24 Lafontaine & Coulie 1983, 114–137. 25 Arevšatjan 1993, 186–188. 26 Ter-Petrosyan 1982. the hellenizing school 327

Armenian versions, G. Bolognesi and V. Calzolari dedicated a series of articles to the textological problems of the rhetorical Progymnasmata by Aelius Theon, A. Tessier has written articles about Aristotle’s Greek text in the light of its Armenian translation, M.E. Shirinian, an article about the texto logical value of the Armenian version of Socratesʼ Ecclesiastical History, M. Olivie ri, an article about Philo of Alexandria’s De providentia. R. Sgarbi, a book about Philo’s De Vita Contemplativa. According to Tessier, Aristotle’s Armenian translations are very important for restoring their Greek originals. The Armenian readings have been taken into account by M. Morani in his critical edition of De natura hominis by Nemesius of Emesa and by G. Hansen in his critical edition of Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History; his collaborator for the Armenian was M.E. Shirinian.27 Our own work has led us to the conclusion that the Armenian rhetorical handbook called Book of Chreia (Girkʿ pitoyicʿ) which Manandean had listed among the Hellenizing translations of the first group consists of translated def initions of various types of exercises, and exercises composed originally, many of them imitating Greek models; that its translated passages can help to recon struct an earlier stage in the text history of the Progymnasmata by Aphthonius of Antioch; the oldest recension of the Armenian Baroyaxōs is a very faithful witness of one of the early recensions of the Greek Physiologus (this is a trans lation of the Classical period, not of the Hellenizing school); the Armenian ver sions of David the Invincible’s writings display serious discrepancies from the Greek original, and in some cases it is possible to state that it is the Armenian that has preserved the original reading.28

5 Influence on Original Authors

Not much has been done on the study of the linguistic influence of the transla tions on original Armenian authors. S. Malxasyancʿ, V. Aṙakʿelyan and in more detail A. Topchyan have elucidated syntactic grecisms in Xorenacʿi (Topchyan also has written about morphological grecisms),29 we have pointed to various

27 Morani 1987 (ed.); Hansen & Širinjan 1995 (eds). Studies dedicated to the use of Armenian translations in editing their Greek originals are: Bolognesi 1962; Bolognesi 1969; Bolognesi 1976; Calzolari 1989b; Calzolari 1993; Calzolari 1999; Conybeare 1892; Morani 1973; Muradyan 19962; Olivieri 1996; Sgarbi 1992; Tessier 1979; Tessier 1984; Širinjan 1984; Shirinian 2001. 28 Muradyan 2009. See also the articles of V. Calzolari, E.M. Shirinian and A. Topchyan collected in Calzolari & Barnes 2009. 29 Malxasyancʿ 1968, 37; Aṙakʿelyan 1975; Topchyan 2001–2002. 328 muradyan types of grecisms in a series of original writings,30 J. Weitenberg has expressed some general considerations concerning the degree of such influence.31

6 General Studies on the Hellenizing Language

The language of the Hellenizing translations itself deserves attention, and not only as an instrument for drawing philological or historical conclusions. A lot has been done in this field. Adoncʿ in his study of the Dionysian Grammar was the first to speak about the method of the Hellenizing translations calling it “materialʿnyj” which can be translated as “servile.” He made only a short mention of “syntactical and other peculiarities”, while his main point of interest was the specific lexicon following the Greek pattern, under which he meant the practice of finding Armenian equivalents for Greek prefixes or creating them artificially. He made a list of Greek-Armenian corresponding prefixes in the Grammar: προσ – aṙ, ἐκ – ap, art, συν – bał, pʿał, šał, šar, ǰok, ἀπο – bacʿ, ὑπερ – ger, ἀντι – der, pʿox, ὑπο – entʿ, stor, ὁμο32 – hom, ham, ἐπι – mak, mat, παρα – yar, προ – nax, ἐν – ner, περι – par, bak, ἀνα – ver, παρα – tar, δια – tram.33 For Manandean too the use of words with prefixes was the most important feature of the Hellenizing translations. His periodization of the School’s pro duction is based mainly on the use of particular prefixes on particular stages of its activity. The important translations of the first group were mentioned above; the core of the second group includes Aristotle’s Categories, On Interpretation and Porphyry’s Isagoge; of the third group, the Armenian version of David the Invincible’s writings.34 Although the picture drawn by Manandean seems in general realistic and it has been accepted by the majority of later scholars, it lacks precision in details. Besides, he did not use Greek originals of many trans lations discussed. His philological method was criticized by T. Avdalbegyan35 and A. Terian.36 We found further inaccuracies in his word lists. Besides words with prefixes, Manandean also points to specific words characteristic of each

30 Muradyan 2001–2002. 31 Weitenberg 2001–2002. 32 ὁμο- is not a prefix, but the stem of the attribute ὁμός (“the same”), the first component of many compounds. 33 Adoncʿ 1915. 34 Manandean 1928. 35 Avdalbegyan 1969. 36 Terian 1982. the hellenizing school 329 of the three periods.37 The general impression from Manandian’s study is that in the course of time the lexicon of the translations became more and more influenced by Greek. Applying the same method, Arevšatyan attributed some more translated texts to certain periods, for example, according to him, Plato’s Armenian ver sion belongs to the third period, but it precedes the translations of David the Invincible. Arevšatyan also mentioned that the language of the third period was simpler and more understandable.38 Very briefly Manandean also spoke about some grammatical innovations of the Hellenizing translations: feminine forms of demonstrative pronouns, sē, nē, occurring only in the first period and the earliest translation of the second period, in Timothy’s Refutation; the preposition ǝn/n in the first and second groups (for ἐν, but in Dionysius, also for rendering ἐκ, ἀπο).39 Ačaṙyan too considered words with prefixes the most striking feature of the Hellenizing translations. He counted 1793 such words in the Nor Baṙgirkʿ Haykazean Lezui. He also spoke about artificial compounds with two roots that were used instead of the classical equivalents of corresponding Greek words; according to him, words with the first component džuar- (as equivalent for the Greek pre position δυσ-) became widespread and the synonymous equivalent džox- was invented; words with the first component erekʿ - became frequent and forms starting with eṙ- were created. Ačaṙyan studied some grammatical peculiarities of the Hellenizing transla tions: feminine forms of demonstrative pronouns, sē, dē, nē, and their oblique cases (sara, sacʿa); the forms ez (masculine) and mu (neutral) of the numeral mi (feminine);40 dual forms in Dionysian Grammar; newly-invented forms of ordinal numerals: erkir, erir, čʿorir41 (instead of erkrord, errord, čʿorrord); newly-invented adverbs: serk, hibar, orgon, and prepositions: tʿarcʿ; the geni tive endings oǰ, oyr and the dative ending um; prepositions ǝn, n of the loca tive and ablative cases; creation of new verbal tense-forms imitating the Greek

37 Manandean 1928, 108–111, 127–128, 159–160. 38 Arevšatjan 1973, 218–227. 39 Manandean 1928, 130–131, 151–152, 169–170, 234–235. 40 In different texts the mentioned forms correspond to different genders: in Timothy mu is feminine, mi is neutral: ez Tēr, mu hawat, mi mkrtutʿiwn (311) – εἷς κύριος, μία πίστις ἓν βάπτισμα (Ephes. 4:5) – mi tēr, mi hawat, mi mkrtutʿiwn ; in Dionysius mu is masculine (Adoncʿ 1915, 21.23 – εἷς), ez is neutral (11.1 – ἕν) and feminine (39.3 – μία), mi is neutral (8.10, 11.5 – ἕν) and feminine (10.4 – μία). 41 M. Minasean points to the use of erkir, erir, čʿorir in the classical translations, regarding as hellenizing the forms hingerir, vecʿerir, tasnerir, see Minasean 1996, 37. 330 muradyan conjugation (of the verb kopʿem in the Grammar by Dionysius). He also men tioned in brief such syntactic grecisms as following the Greek word order and cases of objects, the frequent agreement of attributes and participles.42 The linguistic peculiarities which according to Ačaṙyan were not charac teristic of the translations of the “Mesropian” period, in fact are also grecisms noticed by him: words with the negative prefix an and the suffix eli (anšarže li, instead of anšarž); frequent use of participles ending in oł and eal, instead of clauses of the type or šaržē, or šaržin (in fact, relative sentences); the infinitive of the verbs in im ending in il (not in el); compound verbs with the second component trem and abstract nouns from them with the suffix utʿiwn ; negative attributes starting with an (anhas) instead of expressions with aṙancʿ (aṙancʿ hasaneloy).43 After the comprehensive study of the Hellenizing Armenian by Ačaṙyan, words with prefixes still remained the focal point of scholarly interest. JahukyanÌ considered prefixes to be instrument for creating scientific and philosophical terms. As to the origin of the prefixes, he characterized them as artificial constructions or as a result of the mass use of some prefixes that occurred in Armenian, especially in dialects. He also spoke of the extremeness in the blind imitation of Greek originals.44 A. Muradyan demonstrated the importance of prefixes in creating Armenian grammatical terminology. After the detailed study of the origin and use of each prefix, she concluded that their main source was Classical Armenian: 1) classi cal Armenian prefixes: aṙ, ǝst, ǝnd, adverbs: nax, vał, yar, stor, roots of adverbs: art, bacʿ, ner, ver, 2) classical Armenian roots: bał, ger, hak, mat, šał, šar, par, tram, pʿox,45 3) classical Armenian roots with phonetic changes: entʿ- < ǝnd-, hom- < ham-, pʿał- < bał-, pʿar- < par-, bag- < bak-, or semantic changes: the root šał (“connection, tie”) became a prefix equivalent to σύν. The prefixes ger-, entʿ-, ham-, mak-, tram- too are a result of certain semantic change. She also spoke about semantic calquing of the Greek prefixes.46 In a later article JahukyanÌ elaborated on the sources of the prefixes: 1) extended use of rare prefixes: aṙ, ǝnd, ǝst, 2) roots: art < arta kʿoy, artakʿs, ner (< i nerkʿs, i nerkʿoy, nerkʿs, 3) dialect variants of prefixes: entʿ (parallel with ǝnd),47

42 Ačaṙyan 1952, 143–155. 43 Ačaṙyan 1952, 87–88. 44 JahukyanÌ 1954, 47–48. 45 Already Abełyan spoke about the relation of these Hellenizing prefixes with classical roots, see Abełyan 1970, 170–178. 46 Muradyan A. 1971, 138–152. 47 Cf. Ačaṙyan 1971–1979, vol. 2, 27, s.v. entʿ: the variant ǝntʿ too is mentioned, with a note that both derive from the preposition ǝnd; vol. 4, 55, s.v. par-, pʿar- is mentioned as variant the hellenizing school 331

4) initial components of words: mušt, zov, gaw, 5) common words: kʿoł, xun, unǰ, bak.48 Arevšatyan considered the composition of words with artificial prefixes the main means of creating philosophical terminology. He stressed the fact that, while translating the Grammar by Dionysius, not only important scien tific terms were created, but principles of term-construction were established. On the other hand some grammatical terms had also philosophical semantic, hence they were successfully used later, while translating philosophic texts.49 Arevšatyan accepted Manandean’s periodization of the Hellenizing transla tions, supplementing his list with many other texts and adding a fourth group to them, characterizing its language as free of odd grecisms (Arevšatyan’s list50 is dependent on the list compiled by N. Akinean in 1932).51 The famous article by Ch. Mercier is the first systematic study of Hellenizing Armenian. Unfortunately, like Ačaṙyan, he did not mention the sources of the examples presented, or confined himself to just mentions, like “1st group”, “2nd group.” Mercier divided the innovations into vocabulary and syntax. Vocabulary: loan-words; creation of new sense (in fact, semantic calques); use of prepositions and prefixes for creating new words (different meanings of Greek prefixes were ignored and they were rendered by the same equiva lents); forming new verbs from: 1) present stems of classical verbs: bacʿa gor cem, 2) aorist stems of classical verbs: vercanem, 3) non-verbal stems tr and dr: yaratrel, tramadru tʿiwn,52 4) stems with changed thematic vowel: haka kayim instead of hakakam, 5) verbs in im (passive in am). Before passing to the syntax, under various subtitles Mercier discussed some more lexical and morphological grecisms: new verbal stems ending in

of par. In vol. 3, 445, s.v. nerboł, on the occasion of deriving this word from the supposed *ner-pʿołocʿ, the following parallels are mentioned: ǝnd- > entʿ-, bał- > pʿał-, apadarj > apatʿarcʿ. 48 JahukyanÌ 1993. 49 Arevšatjan 1993, 156–158. 50 Arevšatjan 1993, 186–188. 51 Akinean 1932. 52 But these are the imperative stems of the verbs dnem and tam. A. Meillet mentions these stems among the compounds, the second component of which is verbal noun: uxtadir, tʿagadir, awrinadir, astuacatur, kʿałcʿratur, see A. Meillet 1913. Among word-formative verbal stems in Grabar L. Hovsepʿyan mentions the stems coinciding with the singular second person of the imperative, of which the most widely used were dir (dnem), lur (lsem), tur (tam), see Hovsepʿyan 1987, 81. Meillet’s examples are attributes (some are used substantively). One could assume that the creation of verbs with drem and trem was preceded by an intermediate “concealed word-formative step” (gałtni baṙakazmakan kʿayl in Hovsepʿyan 1987), *yaratur, *tramadir. 332 muradyan

-ocʿ-; rendering the meaning of prefixes by adverbs and prepositions; feminine forms of the demonstrative pronouns; expressing the lexical nuances of Greek words with two or more synonyms. The section “Syntax” includes the frequent use of the article, the use of the preposition z as equivalent of the Greek article, the partitive genitive, the use of the dative case with the adjective (rather pronoun?) noyn, the use of the plural subject with the singular predicate, consecutive sentences formed with minčʿ zi + infinitive, the detailed study of rendering Greek participles and infinitives. In her summarizing article on the Hellenizing School V. Calzolari dedicated a chapter to linguistic peculiarities. She mentions that, besides technical terms, the Hellenizing School has created abstract vocabulary in general, and it is thanks to this that today Armenian is able to express any modern conception.53 In his article “Hellenophile Syntactic Elements in Armenian Texts” J.J.S. Weitenberg writes that he believes that a text should meet two requirements in order to be rightly termed “Hellenophile”: it should be characterized by the well-known transposition of Greek syntax and it should show the presence of the specific type of word-formation. According to him, the typical morpho logical features of Hellenophile texts require historical and dialectological type of approach. Focusing on syntactical grecisms, Weitenberg has made a list of 21 peculiarities mentioned by various scholars, dividing them into two main groups. 1–14 are features that have developed exclusively as imitation of Greek syntax; 15–21 are features that can be understood from expanding or stretching existing features within Armenian.54

7 Studies of the Language of Particular Translations

Besides general studies, there exist surveys of specific translations. One could mention Manandean’s remarks on the translation technique of Theon’s Progymnasmata and the Definitions for Asclepius by Hermes Trismegistos, in

53 Calzolari 1989a. 54 Weitenberg 2001–2002. The second group contains two arguable points: the translation of the Greek genitive partitive with kʿan z + accusative (17), and the rendering of the substantivized participles with relative sentences (20) are both “classical” elements of translation. The reason for such an inaccuracy is the fact that they were also used in hellenizing translations and are recorded in their existing descriptions on which Weitenberg’s conclusions are based, but their authors have not specially mention their classical character, perhaps considering it obvious. the hellenizing school 333 the introductions to his editions;55 Mercier’s studies of the method of Philo’s translator.56 Terian57 remarked upon the copying of Greek word order, the use of the verb after the subject and of the attribute before the substantive, which resulted in the use of the accusative prefix z- with nouns in genitive, and the frequent use of auxiliary verbs. He also noticed that the Greek influence on the syntax in the third group of translations is less considerable than in earlier groups. He pointed to differences in syntax between the Armenian versions of Aristotelian and pseudo-Aristotelian writings. He also noticed that the syntax of the versions of David the Invincible and Nonnus is closer to the translations of the second group, than of the third group to which they belong). One should mention also Sgarbi,58 Paramelle59 (separation of the prefix and the word-root: ἐπιφάνεια – i veroy erewumn, ὑπεξαιρετέον – i bacʿ haneli [in fact semi-calques of words with prefixes]; descriptive rendering of words with prefixes: pateacʿ pʿa keacʿ – περιέβα-λε, genitive partitive: iwrakʿančʿiwr okʿ masancʿn – ἕκαστον τῶν μερῶν; literal rendering of the plural neutral subject by the singular predicate: ayskʿ . . . andamkʿ bṙnadateal aceal ē – τὰ . . . μέλη βεβίασται; literal rendering of ὡς + infinitive: ibru tʿē bunanal ariwn – ὡς . . . ἐκνενεοττευκέναι αἷμα; accusative with the infinitive; nominative with the infinitive; substantivized use of parti ciples: sermanealn – τὸ σπαρέν; genitive absolute; extended use of the infinitive in the ablative for rendering Greek participles; preposition z with the genitive for rendering the article: zkerakroyn amans – τὰ τῆς τροφῆς ἀγγεῖα, etc.), and a recent article by Mancini Lombardi;60 the study of the method of Irenaeus’ translator by Froidevaux61 (passive infinitives in il; passive 3rd pers. sing. end ing of the imperfect iwr; odd infinitives like lino cʿel, linocʿil, ełocʿil; preposi tive use of polysyllabic attributes; expressions like ayspēs unel [οὕτως ἔχειν], znoyn naxastełcelumn zmarmnutʿiwn [τὴν αὐτὴν τῷ πρωτοπλάστῳ σάρκωσιν]; the rule τὰ ζῷα τρέχει [two cases]; genitive absolute [eleven cases]; rendering this clause by participles without case endings and nouns in the genitive [five cases]; frequent use of the instrumental of the infinitive [twenty five cases of aselov against ew asē, in seven cases it renders the genitive absolute]; the Greek future with μέλλειν rendered by handerjeal + infinitive [13 cases], while the

55 Manandean 1938, Manandean 1956. 56 Mercier 1979 (Introduction). 57 Terian 1981, 10–12. 58 Sgarbi 1989. 59 Paramelle 1984, 67–69, n. 36, 38. 60 Mancini Lombardi 2004. 61 Froidevaux 1971 (Introduction). 334 muradyan analytic future with the participle in -ocʿ is very rare; translation of ὥστε + infin itive by minčʿ zi + infinitive [instead of finite verbal forms common for classi cal translations]; generalized use of the preposition z- for rendering the Greek article [not only in the accusative], also before other prepositions. Froidevaux asserted that the lexicon is thoroughly classical, referring to the four-language word-list compiled by Reynders62 [παραδέχομαι and προσλαμβάνω are rendered by aṙnum and ǝndu nim]); Conybeare’s article proving the fact that it was the same person who translated Philo and Irenaeus,63 and additional similarities pointed to by A. Vardanean;64 Lafontaine’s study of the method of the transla tor of the Categories by Aristotle65 (words with prefixes; morphological gre cisms: saycʿn, instead of socʿa , yorumēn, instead of yormēn, anunagorcel for rendering ὀνομα το-ποιεῖν [the first component is the genitive of a noun], etc.; syntactical grecisms: prepositions bacʿ, n, ǝn, mak; genitive with the adjective uroyn; genitive partitive with iwrakʿančʿiwr; comparative genitive; adding two case endings to the same word [i veroykʿn]; substantivization of word com binations “noun with preposition” [aṙǝnčʿicʿn]; repetition of z [zǝst anuann zaṙasutʿiwn]; declension of the preposition i veray [i veraycʿ]; applying the rule τὰ ζῶα τρέχει; substantivization of verbal forms [nstiǝn]; minčʿ zi followed by infinitives [la proposition consécutive]; “genitive absolute”; frequent use of participles; the non-declined form of the infinitive with the preposition vasn, rendering the Greek τῷ + infinitive; accusative with the infinitive; nominative with the infinitive; artificial adverbs: hibar , hizan, hipēs, hikēn, orgēn, orgovn, orbar, orkēn, orzan, orpak [= οἷον]); Xačʿikyan’s remarks on thechnical terms in Zeno’s De natura, which allowed him to consider its translation contemporary to that of David the Invincible’s Definitions;66 the new edition of this text by M. Stone and E. Shirinian, which contains some remarks on the translation technique;67 Sgarbi’s books and an article on the method of the translators of Dionysius the Thrax and Porphyry;68 Shirinian’s articles about the method of

62 B. Reynders 1954. But there are many words with prefixes (aṙarkem, bakjajem, bałajayn, bałdatem, bałkanam, bacʿadrutʿiwn, geradrutʿiwn, entʿadrutʿiwn, entʿakam, hakačaṙutʿiwn, hamagoy, yara kay , naxakrtʿem, nergorcutʿiwn, nerparunakakan, šałapatem, šarunak, veragrem, taralsem, tarawrēn, tramadrutʿiwn, pʿoxaberutʿiwn) and other lexical grecisms (goṙozabar, diwrahawanem, ǝnddimabanutʿiwn, mardararutʿiwn, miǰawrē, unakutʿiwn, anełutʿiwn, etc.) in the same list. 63 Conybeare 1911. 64 Vardanean 1921. 65 Lafontaine 1983. 66 Xačʿikyan 1949. 67 Stone & Shirinian 2000. 68 Sgarbi 1972; Sgarbi 1990; Sgarbi 2004. the hellenizing school 335 the translators of Socrates Scholasticus and pseudo-Aristotelian On Virtues and Vices;69 some linguistic features of the Armenian version of Dionysius the Areopagite noticed by R. Thomson.70

7.1 Doublets A specific question related to the translation technique is the use of doublets, pairs of synonyms for rendering one Greek word. This method, common for the translations of the Classical period (Bible,71 Physiologus,72 “Nicaean canons”,73 Eusebius’ Chronicle74), became extremely elaborate and frequent in the Armenian version of Philo of Alexandria’s writings.75 Among various types of doublets used by his translator, there are just pairs of synonyms (xrat hančaroy [Pʿil. bagn. 216] – παιδεία [Ph. Spec. 1.336], oro šeal ew zatucʿeal (Pʿil. tes. 25) – διανενέμηται [Ph. Cont. 69.1]), but the central role belongs to the type when one word is rendered by a common equivalent existing in the classical language and also by a neologism calquing the structure of the Greek word: e. g. šaru nakutʿiwn yačaxu tʿean (Pʿil. imast. 81) – συνέχεια (Ph. Abr. 188.5), šaraj aynutʿiwn miabanutʿean (Pʿil. aylab. 130) – συμφωνία (Ph. LA 1.72), nerbołean ew govu tʿiwn (Pʿil. bagn. 216) – ἐγκώμιον (Ph. Spec. 1.336), etc.a76 This phenomenon occurs in other hellenizing translations too, although not so frequently. Did the translators display their skill by doing so? Another possible expla nation follows the small but very interesting study undertaken by P. Pontani.77 In support of the suggestion by previous scholars (Terian, Paramelle, Finazzi) that the translators of the Hellenizing school could have used bilingual

69 Shirinian 1995; Shirinian 1996; Shirinian 2001. 70 Thomson 1987 (Introduction to the translation). 71 Kogean, 1923, 9–14; Minasean 1996, 468–471, e.g. anmṙunčʿ anbarbaṙ (B Mk G 29) – ἄφωνος (2Ma 3:29), kʿałcʿrutʿeamb, hezutʿeamb ew xałałutʿeamb (BMk B 22) – μετὰ . . . ἐπιεικείας (2Ma 2:22), kay mnay (Sał. Tʿ 8) – μένει (Ps. 9:8), andēn vałvałaki (Mk. E 30) – εὐθύς (Mk. 5:30), žamaneacʿ, ehas (Ezd. G 1) – ἔφθασεν (Esd. 3:1), etc. 72 Muradyan 2005 (ed.), 64–66, e. g. tʿołutʿiwn apašxarutʿean – μετά νοια (Phys. 7.11), gełecʿik ew zardarun – ὡραῖος (Phys. 19.4), pʿaxear zercar – ἐξέφυγες (Phys. 21.8), etc. 73 E.g. tełi kam gawaṙ (Nik. Ǝ 123.3) – τόπον (Nic. VIII. 31.1), patiw mecutʿean (Nik. Z 121.2) – τὰ πρεσβεῖα (Nic.VI. 29.2), i žołov kam žołovurd (Lawod. X 237.13) – εἰς σύνοδον (Laod. XL. 76.24), uxtecʿaw ew awcaw (Ant. IA 219.10) – ἐκληρώθη (Ant. XXI. 49.1), etc. 74 E.g. miašurtʿn hamalezu – ὁμόγλωσσος (Ews. kʿr. a 52), yardarel y rinel – διατάξαι (Ews. kʿr. a 25), etc. 75 Mercier 1979, 26–28; Terian 1981, 10–12; Sgarbi 1989, 109, 112, 115, 121, 129, 134, 137, 142, 144, etc., 227 (conclusion). 76 Muradyan 19961. 77 Pontani 1997. 336 muradyan lexicons,78 she points to cases of non-literal translation in Philo’s De Abrahamo («Keankʿ imastnocʿ»), which find justification in the Greek lexicon of Hesychius, the Suda and the Onomasticon of Pollux (these lexicons resume the previous lexicographical tradition and bear the influence of Greek exegetical sources),79 among which there are the following doublets: φθονεῖν (the exact equivalent is naxanjel) – naxan jel ew čʿaraknel, cf. in Hesychius: φθονεῖς: ζηλοῖς, βασκάνεις (the biblical equivalent of the last word is čʿaraknel);80 πρεσβύτατον – eri cʿa goyn ew patuakan (Pontani calls this “non-synonymic doublet”), cf. Hesychius: πρεσβυτάτη: ἐντιμοτάτη (Suidas contains a similar explanation).81

8 New Grecisms in Armenian

Our personal study of the language of the translations covers the following. We have compiled Armenian-Greek word-lists for the Book of Chreia (Girkʿ pitoyicʿ): one for its translated passages, and another list of neologisms bor rowed in the original sections of the same book from earlier Helle nizing and pre-Hellenizing translations.82 A similar list of lexical grecisms borrowed from translated texts has been compiled for the History by Movsēs Xorenacʿi.83 The detailed study of the translation technique in the introduction to our recent edition of the Armenian Physiologus has led us to the conclusion that it is not a Hellenizing translation, as is maintained in Arevšatyan’s list, but a very early translation of the Classical period.84 Our forthcoming bilingual edition of the Commentary on Porphyry’s Isagoge by David the Invincible will include exten sive bilingual word-lists and a profound study of the translation technique, i.e., not just searching for grecisms in a translated text, but an attempt to describe exhaustively the various renderings of certain Greek linguistic peculiarities,85

78 She considers that there could be also Greek to Greek dictionaries, adding elsewhere that Armenian equivalents could be added in them. 79 R.B. Finazzi has written about the penetration of scholia into the text of the translation (Finazzi 1990), on the base of examples from Plato’s Laws: εὐφήμει is renderd lṙea ew mi aser zanpatkans, which is explained by the scholium: σιώπα μὴ; ἀκαιρολόγει. 80 Pontani 1997, 193. 81 Pontani 1997, 195. 82 Muradyan 1993 (ed.), 321–346. 83 Muradyan 1993. 84 Muradyan 2005 (ed.), 58–70. 85 Muradyan (forthcoming). the hellenizing school 337 as, for example, G. Uluho gian has studied the different renderings of the geni tive absolute in Basil’s Asceticon.86 Let us present some of our specific observations:87

1. Greek words with prefixes were not only calqued or translated periphras tically. Other procedures also existed. Two types of semi-calques were cur rent (not only in the pre-Hellenizing, but in the Hellenizing translations too), which means that the structure of the Greek words was reflected, but not as accurately, as in the case of calquing. The second component which is the root was translated by a corresponding Armenian root, whereas the meaning of the prefix was rendered not by an Armenian prefix, but in two standard ways: a) by another root with similar lexical meaning, which led to forming a compound with two roots (προκείμενος – aṙaǰikay, ἀντίθεσις – ǝnddimadrutʿiwn), b) by an adverb, so the equivalent of the Greek word was a word combination: ἐκβολή – i bacʿ hanumn, συνέχω – i miasin unim. It is possible to make a list of roots (ἀντι – andr, zug, ǝnddim, hakaṙak, pʿoxanak, κατα – vayr, δυσ – džuar, džox, προ – aṙaǰ, aṙaǰi, vał, παρα – merj, yandiman, περι – šurǰ, συν – kicʿ [the last root is postpositive; it was current already in the translations of the classical period: σύνεργος – gorcakicʿ, σύζυγος – lcakicʿ, σύμβουλος – xorhrdakicʿ, σύνοδος – ułekicʿ ]) and adverbs (ἐκ – artakʿs, ἀπο, ἐκ – i bacʿ, ἀνα – i ver, ἀντι – ǝnddēm, συν – miangamayn, παρα – yandiman, προ – yaṙaǰagoyn, παρα – yar, συν – i miasin, εἰσ – i nerkʿs, περι – šurǰ – , κατα – i vayr, ἀνα, ἐπι – i veray) which may be char acterized as more or less standard equivalents for Greek prefixes. If an adverb is used not with a verb, but with a verbal noun (ἐκβολή – i bacʿ hanumn), this is already violation of Armenian grammar. A few words with prefixes were rendered by prepositions with nouns in oblique cases: ἐπιλό-γῳ – i veray baniw, ἐπίλογος – zʾi veray banin, ἐφύμνια – zʾi veray awrhnutʿeann, ὑπ-άληλα – ǝndmimeambkʿn. The structure of the Greek word is expressed by means of syntax, which is a very odd type of grecisms. On the contrary, Greek syntactical phrases, if substantivized, could be rendered by single words: πρὸς τί ἔχον – aṙinčʿunak, τὸ τί ἐστι – zinčʿēn , τὸ ὁποῖόν τι ἐστι – orpisiinčʿēn, τὸ εἰ ἔστιν – zetʿēēn.

86 Uluhogian 1989. 87 Muradyan 1993 (ed.), 251–252, 257–259; Muradyan 19992. Our study summarizing all our linguistic observations (Grecisms in Classical Armenian) has recently been published, see Muradyan 2010, and the English version: Muradyan 2012. The book is a sort of a systematic grammar of Hellenizing Armenian, which could become a supplement to M. Minassian’s systematic grammar of Classical Armenian (Minasean 1996). It is based on a thorough philological study of a certain number of Hellenizing and pre-Hellenizing translations. 338 muradyan

2. The majority of new words made after the Greek pattern are compounds with two roots (bard baṙer). Such neologisms were normal for Armenian, and sometimes it is not easy to judge, is the word ełbay raspan created when trans lating the Bible for rendering ἀδελφόκτονος, or it was used as an already existing equivalent. Similar cases may be pointed in Hellenizing translations too. But there are categories of compounds which can be characterized as grecisms, as neologisms without any doubt:

1) cases when a compound renders a Greek word which already has a Classical equivalent not reflecting its structure: εὐλογία – orhnutʿiwn / barebanutʿiwn; 2) if the words in question are technical terms: beranun, erkamanak, kisa- jayn, hayranun (grammatical terms), 3) if the structural calquing is accompanied by calquing of the specific semantic connotation of the Greek compound or one of its components: ἀνθρωποπαθεῖν (“to have human feelings”) – mardakir linel; ὄντως (“actu ally”, adverb from the participle ὤν from the verb εἰμί) – ēapēs (from the 3rd p. sing. ē which also rendered the participle ὁ ὤν); nahatakadir – ἀθλοθέτης (“one who awards the prize”), naha takadrem – ἀγωνοθετέω (τίθη μι literally means “to put”, also “to award”); šnakan – κυνικός; tesakan – θεωρητικός (θεωρέω means not only “look”, but also “contemplate”); ułła pʿaṙutʿiwn (lit. “right glory”) – ὀρθοδοξία (lit. “right opinion”, δόξα means both “opinion” and “glory”), this Greek word was translated in a similar manner into Syriac, its Slavonic equivalent, pravoslavnyj too literally means “right glory.”

3. Grecisms with suffixes also deserve attention. Those made with the help of productive Armenian suffixes (first of all, -utʿiwn and -akan) and endowed with terminological semantics, are indeed neologisms: grammatical: ǝndunelutʿiwn (“participle”), xonarhutʿiwn, anuanakan, aṙakʿakan, arakan, ezakan, erkakan, ǝłjakan, tʿuakan, igakan, haycʿa kan, hramayakan, cʿucʿakan, ułłakan , pʿałakʿša kan; rhetorical: drutʿiwn, banakan, baroyakan, hražarakan, yordorakan, trt- makan, kʿałakʿakan; philosophical: mardutʿiwn, anhawastutʿiwn , annšanakan, ananǰatakan, cicałakan, kendanutʿiwn, jiutʿiwn, banaworutʿiwn , masnakan, nša nakutʿiwn, ditaworutʿiwn, pitanacʿu, anǰatakan. There are also neologisms which do not fit common word-formative pat terns; so they are artificial words: αὐξητικός – ačecʿakan (adjective from the aorist verbal stem; tesakan was formed in similar way); στηλιτεύω (“inscribe on a stele”) – arjanakem (from a non-existent adjective *arjanak); neologisms with suffixes -ut and -eł: ὀφιώδης (“like a serpent”) – awjut; philosophical the hellenizing school 339 terms: οὐσιώδης (“substantial”) – ełut , goyeł, goyełut, ἐπουσιώδης (“post- substantial”) – makełut, maka goyeł , maka goye łut; grammatical terms: βακχεῖος – haweł, παλιμβακχεῖος – awarteł, ὀξύτατος . . . βραδύτατος – arageł . . . yamreł, ἰδιαίτατα – yatkeł. The translators of the Hellenizing School especially favoured the use of the nominal suffix ak; its use in the Classical language was quite restricted. The new words were:

1) Nomina agentis from verbal and pseudo-verbal stems: ἀσκητής – krtʿak (from krtʿem), μύστης – xorhrdak (from xorhrdem), σοφίστης (from σοφίζομαι) – imastak (from *imas tim), χορευτής (from χορεύω) – para wo rak (from *paraworem), ἀναβάτης (from ἀναβαίνω) – verelak (from *verel- anem), cf. the Classical gitak, gtak; 2) adjectives from verbal stems: δεκτικός – ǝndunak (from ǝndunim), πλανήτης – molorak (from molorim), ποιητικός – gorcak (cf. gorcem), cf. the Classical xndrak, 3) adjectives from nouns and adjectives: διπλοῦς – krknak, ἀφιλόσοφος – animastasirak, ἐπίπεδος – makardak, cf. the Classical sxalak, 4) nouns meaning objects: εἶδος, ἰδέα (from the aorist stems εἰδ and ἰδ of ὁράω) – tesak (from the aor ist stem of tesanem), προαίρεσις – axoržak (from axoržem), τὸ ὄν – ēak (from ē), ζῳδιακός – kendanak (from kendani), πλίνθιον (diminutive from πλίνθος, with a new lexical meaning) – ałiw sak (from ałiws), cf. the Classical awerak, hasak, 5) nouns from adverbs and pronouns: ποῖον – orak (from or), πόσον – kʿanak (from kʿani), 6) nouns from numerals, quantitative words (such words are more common with the suf fix eak): μονάς – miak, δυάς – erkak, τριάς – eṙak, but τετράς – čʿorreak, kʿaṙeak, δεκάς – tasneak.

The translators of the Hellenizing School formed a vast number of adverbs from adjectives with the help of suffixes -bar and -pēs. In the Classical language these suffix es were non-productive. 4. As to morphological grecisms, it is obvious that they were an attempt to create equivalents to Greek forms and even grammatical categories absent in Armenian (gender, dual number), to distinguish the synonymous genitive and dative singular, the active and passive infinitives, etc. The artificial preposi tions ger, yar, nax, ner and stor are identical with the corresponding prefixes, as it is in Greek (cf. ὑπερ, παρα, προ, ἐν, κατα); the preposition i ner was a com bination of two elements: the Armenian preposition i and the artificial ner; i nerum has also the dative ending um, since the corresponding Greek ἐν is used with the dative case. In the series n/ni/ǝn, n and ǝn (in some cases nǝ) are obvi ously phonetic variants: n was used before vowels (ἐν οὐρανοῖς – nerkins) and ǝn 340 muradyan before consonants (ἐν συγκρίσει – ǝn bałdatutʿean). They seem to result from an attempt to borrow the Greek preposition ἐν. The variant ni could be a combina tion of n and the regular Armenian i. Probably the use of this preposition with the dative case in local sense (and also with the accusative case designating direction) was original, whereas the ablative semantics for rendering ἀπό and ἐκ may have originated by analogy with the similar polysemy of the Armenian preposition i. The passive ending of the imperfect, 3rd pers. sing. was -iwr, while in the Classical language the active and passive endings of the imperfect were syn onymous. The translator of the Grammar by Dionysius the Thrax invented numerous artificial forms while translating the paradigm of the verb kopʿem attached to the Grammar. For example the Imperfect Indicative passive (sahmanakan kraworakan yaṙaǰgakani) forms, with omission of the dual, are: kopʿii, kopʿiir, kopʿiwr, kopʿiakʿ, kopʿiikʿ, kopʿiin. The ending -iwr is the only one used by later translators. 5. There are some morphological grecisms not noticed by previous scholars (or mentioned just in brief): 1) the artificial infinitive of the verb of being em: el, eloy, elov; 2) the artificial present ełanim (ełanil, ełaniwr), made from the aorist stem eł of the verb linim, with the suffix an, regular for making pres ent stems; 3) the present participle from the present stem of verbs of the a conjugation: zlanoł, imanoł (instead of the regular zlacʿoł, imacʿoł, form the aorist stem); 4) an attempt to create the past participle with passive meaning with the suffix icʿeal: gricʿealn (γεγραμμένα), cnicʿeal (τὸ γεννώμενον), canicʿealkʿ (γνωσθέντες), storogicʿeal (κατηγορούμενον), as opposed to active participles in -ecʿeal; 5) causative verbs from non-verbal stems: μεμού σω κε – era žštacʿoycʿ, ἐδικαίωσε – irawacʿoycʿ; 6) passive forms with the thematic vowel i not only from verbs of the e, but also of the a and u conjugations: ἐπέχεται – argelani ὑπερέχει καὶ ὑπερέχεται – aṙawelu ew aṙawelani. 6. Revealing syntactical grecisms in translated texts is the most difficult task. It requires careful reading of long passages, comparing them with the Greek originals. Moreover the syntax of classical Armenian is described in less detail than the morphology. So we cannot be sure that in a series of texts studied we have managed to notice all the existing syntactical grecisms. Nevertheless to syntactic grecisms mentioned by previous scholars it is pos sible to add: 1) endowing cases with semantics of Greek cases: genitive of char acterization: τοῦτο ἐστι πλουσίου – ays ē pʿartʿamin, genitive of comparison: τὸ τρίτον τοῦ δευτέρου ἐπιφανέστερον – errordn erkrordin (instead of kʿan zerkrordn) yaytnagoyn, genitive of distinction: προτερεύει ὁ Σωφρονίσκος τοῦ Σωκράτους – yaṙaǰagoyn ē Sopʿroniskos Sokratay (instead of kʿan zSokratēs), ethical dative: νοήσεις μοι τὸν ἀνδριάντα – imas cʿis inj zayrajewn; 2) following the government the hellenizing school 341 of Greek verbs and prepositions: λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσι – xawsecʿaw harancʿ (instead of xawsecʿaw ǝnd harancʿ), κατὰ τὴν ἐκκλίνειν ἀπὸ κακοῦ -ǝst xotorel i čʿarē (instead of ǝst xotoreloy), αἱ κατ᾽ αὐτάς – ǝst sosaykʿn (instead of the geni tive, the Armenian preposition has taken accusative, besides a nominative plu ral ending is added to the accusative form, reflecting the Greek substantivizing article); 3) direct object with the present participles and with nomina agentis in ičʿ: ἑωρακὼς ἐμέ – tesanawłn zis, ὁ δοὺς ἑαυτόν – tuičʿ zinkʿn, 4) endowing the future participle (verbal adjective) in eli with active meaning and the use of direct object with it: ἐγκωμιαστέον δὲ πρόσωπα – nerbołeli ē zdēms; 5) infinitive in the sense of impe rative: μὴ προσδέχεσθαι – mi ǝndunel; 6) sentences with omitted copula: δυνατόν σοι μισῆσαι αὐτόν – kareli kʿez atel zna; 7) rendering ἔστι + infinitive (“it is necessary”, “it is possible”) by ē + infinitive: μέχρι νῦν ἐστιν ἰδεῖν – minčʿew cʿaysor ē tesanel ; 8) parenthetic clauses introduced by asem (“that is, I mean”), following the similar use of the Greek λέγω: patčaṙkʿ . . . vna sakarutʿeancʿn ełen, kʿinun asem ew atelutʿeann; 9) the indefinite pronoun omn used in enumerations not only for persons, but also for things: τῆς δὲ γνώμης τὸ μέν ἐστι προτρεπτικόν, τὸ δὲ ἀποτρεπτικόν – xratus omn ē bacʿasakan . . . ew omn` hražarakan; 10) substantivized infinitive with preposition, but without regular case ending: περὶ τοῦ πατρίδα . . . καταλιπεῖν – yałags zgawaṙn . . . lkʿanel tʿołul (instead of yałags . . . lkʿaneloy tʿołloy), and other particular grecisms. The desiderata in the field in question include edition of inedited translated texts, new editions of texts already published without collation with their orig inals, compilation of bilingual word-lists, more detailed studies of the transla tion technique, examination of the Hellenizing style of original writings, etc.

Bibliography

Abełyan, M. 1953. Hayocʿ hin grakanutʿyan patmutʿyun [History of Old Armenian Literature], vol. 1, (Collected Writings, 3), Erevan: Hayastani GAA hratarakčʿutʿyun. Abełyan, M. 1974. Hayocʿ lezvi tesutʿyun [A Survey of the Armenian Language], (Collected Writings, 6), Erevan: Hayastani GAA hratarakčʿutʿyun (first edition 1931). Ačaṙyan, H. 1951. Hayocʿ lezvi patmutʿyun [History of the Armenian language], part 2, Erevan: Hayastani GAA hratarakčʿutʿyun. Abełyan, M. 1971–1979. Hayeren armatakan baṙaran [Etymological Dictionary of Armenian], in 4 volumes, Erevan: Erevani hamalsarani hratarakčʿutʿyun. Adonc, N. 1915. Dionisij Frakijskij i armjanskije tolkovateli [Dionysius the Thrax and His Armenian Commentators], Petrograd: Imperatorskaja Akademia nauk (for the Armenian translation of the study by O. Vardazaryan and the reproduction of the texts, see Adoncʿ 2008, ix–clxxxiii, 1–305). 342 muradyan

Adonc, N. 2008. Erker hing hatorov, Gʿ Hayerenagitakan usumnasirutʿyunner [Works in five volumes, 3: Armenological Studies], Erevan: Erevani hamalsarani hratarakčʿutʿyun. Akinean, N. 1932. Dasakan hayerēnə ew Viennakan Mxitʿarean dprocʿə [Classical Armenian and the Viennese Mchitarean School], Vienna: Mxit‘arean tparan. Arevšatjan, S.S. Formirovanije filosofskoj nauki v drevnej Armenii (V–VI vv.) [The Formation of the Philosophical Science in Ancient Armenian (5th–6th cc.)], Еrevan: Izdatel’stvo AN ArmSSR. Aṙakʿelyan, V. 1975. “Xorenacʿu lezun ew očə” [The Language and Style of Xorenacʿi], Patma-banasirakan handes 2, 105–120. Avdalbegyan, Tʿ. 1969. “Xorenacʿu Patmutʿyan lezun hunaban dprocʿi šrǰanneri kapakcʿutʿyamb” [The Language of Xorenacʿi’s History in Connection to the periods of the Hellenizing School], in Tʿ. Avdalbegyan, Hayagitakan hetazotutʿyunner [Armenological Studies], Erevan: Hayastani GAA hratarakčʿutʿyun, 113–131. Bartʿikyan, H. 1964. “Aratos Solacʿu Διοσημεῖα kam Προγνωστικά ašxatutʿyan hin hayeren tʿargmanutʿyunə” [The Old Armenian Translation of Διοσημεῖα or Προγνωστικά of Aratus of Soli], Banber Matenadarani 7, 331–363. Bartʿikyan, H. 1977. “Aratos Solacʿu ew Pōłos Ałekʿsandracʿu astłabašxakan erkeri hin hayeren tʿargmanutʿyunə” [The Old Armenian Translation of Astronomical Works by Aratus of Soli and Paul of Alexandria], Banber Matenadarani 12, 148–157. Basil of Caesarea. 2008. S. Basil of Cesarea, Girkʿ pahocʿ [Book of Fasting], ed. By K. Muradyan, Ēǰmiacin: Holy Ēǰmiacin Press. Bolognesi, G. 1962. “La traduzione armena di Elio Teone”, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Rendiconti della Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche, serie VIII, 17, fasc. 3–4, 86–125; fasc. 5–6, 211–257. Bolognesi, G. 1969. “Nuovi contributi allo testo armeno dei progym nasmata di Elio Teone”, Athenaeum 47, 32–38. Bolognesi, G. 1976. “La tradizione manoscritta del Yałags čartasanakan krtʿowtʿeancʿ alla luce di uno nuovo documento”, Handēs Amsōreay, 319–343. Bolognesi, G. 2000. “Traduzioni armene di testi greci. Problemi di critica testuale e di interpretazione linguistica”, in G. Bolognesi, Studi e ricerche sulle antiche traduzioni di testi greci, Alessandria: Edizioni dell’ Orso, 117–190. Brock, S.P. 2001. “Greek into Syriac and Syriac into Greek”, in S. Brock, Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity, Aldershot, Burlington, USA, Singapore & Sydney: Ashgate, 1–17. Calzolari, V. & Barnes, J. (eds). 2009. L’œuvre de David l’Invincible et la transmission de la pensée grecque dans la tradition arménienne et syriaque (Commentaria in Aristotelem Armeniaca. Davidis Opera, 1) (Philosophia antiqua, 116), Leiden & Boston: Brill. Calzolari, C., Sirinian A. & Zekiyan B.L. (eds). 2004. Bnagirk‛ yišatakac‛/Documenta memoriae. Dall’Italia e dallʼArmenia, studi in onore di Gabriella Uluhogian, Bologna: Dipartimento di Paleografia e medievistica, Università di Bologna, 349–357. the hellenizing school 343

Calzolari, V. 1989a. “L’école hellénisante”, in M. Nichanian (ed.), Age et usage de la langue arménienne, Paris: Entente, 110–130. Calzolari, V. 1989b. “La versione armena di Theon, Progymn. IV Spengel”, Rendiconti dell’Istituto Lombardo. Accademia di Scienze e Lettere (Classe di Lettere e Scienze Morali e Storiche) 123, 193–219. Calzolari, V. 1993. “Particolarità sintattiche e lessicali della versione armena del Martirio di Andrea, messa a confronto con Teone Armeno”, Le Muséon 106, 267–288. Calzolari, V. 1999. “Tradizione indiretta di autori greci nella versione armena di Teone: Menandro, frr. 152 e 294 Koerte”, Lexis 17, 247–258. Calzolari, V. 2000. “La version arménienne du Dialogue d’Athanase et Zacchée du Pseudo-Athanase d’Alexandrie. Analyse linguistique et comparaison avec l’original grec”, Le Muséon 113, 125–147. Conybeare, F. 1892. A Collation with Ancient Armenian Versions of the Greek Text of Aristotle’s Categories, De interpretatione, De mundo, De virtutibus et vitiis, and of Porphyry’s Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Conybeare, F. 1911. “The Age of the Old Armenian Version of Irenaeus”, Huschardzan: Festschrift aus Anlass des 100jährigen Bestandes der Mechitharisten-Kongregation in Wien (1811–1911) und des 25 Jahrganges der philologischen Monatsschrift “Handes amsorya” (1887–1911), Vienna: Mxitʿarean tparan, 183–202. Donabédian, A. & Ouzounian, A. (eds). 2001–2002. Actes du Sixième Colloque interna tional de Linguistique arménienne (Slovo 26–27). Finazzi, R.B. 1990. “Versioni armene di testi greci: problemi di lessicologia”, in F. Fiaccadori (ed.), Autori classici in lingue del vicino e medio Ori ente, Roma: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, 171–177. Froidevaux, L.M., 1971. Irénée de Lyon, Démonstration de la Prédication apostolique, nouvelle traduction de l’arménien avec introduction et notes par L.M. Froidevaux (Sources chrétiennes, 62) Paris: Éditions du Cerf. Hansen, G.Ch. & Širi njan, M. (eds). 1995. Sokrates Kirchengeschichte, Herausgegeben von G.Ch. Hansen, Mit Beiträgen von M. Širinjan (GCS. Neue Folge 1), Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Hovsepʿyan, L. 1987. Grabari baṙakazmutʿyunə [Word Formation in Grabar], Erevan: Hayastani GAA hratarakčʿutʿyun. Jahukyan,Ì G. 1954. Kʿerakanakan ew ułłagrakan ašxatutʿyunnerə hin ew miǰnadarean Hayastanum [Grammatical and Orthographical Works in Ancient and Medieval Armenia], Erevan: Erevani hamalsrani hratarakčʿutʿyun. Jahukyan,Ì G. 1993. “Hunaban dprocʿi hayerenə ew nra mšakacʿ naxacancʿneti hamakargə” [The Armenian of the Hellenizing School and the System of Prefixes Developed by It], Patma-banasirakan handes 1–2, 7–14. Kogean, S. 1923. Makabayecʿwocʿ B grkʿin hayerēn tʿargmanutʿiwnə [The Armenian Version of the Second Book of Maccabees], Vienna: Mxitʿarean tparan. 344 muradyan

Lafontaine, G. & Coulie, B. 1983. La version arménienne des discours de Grégoire de Nazi anze, tradition manuscrite et histoire du texte (CSCO, 446. Subsidia, 6/2), Louvain: Peeters. Lafontaine, G. 1983. “La traduction arménienne des Catégories dʼAristote par David lʼInvincible”, Le Muséon 96, 133–144. Malxasyancʿ, S. 1968. Movses Xorenacʿi, Hayocʿ patmutʿyun [History of Armenia], trans lated into modern Armenian, Erevan: Hayastan. Manandean, Y. 1928. Yunaban dprocʿə ew nra zargacʿman šrǰannerə [The Hellenizing School and the Periods of Its Development], Vienna: Mxitʿarean tparan. Manandean, Y. 1938. (ed.) Tʿeovneay Yałags čartasanakan krtʿutʿeancʿ [Theon’s on Rhetorical Exercises], with the parallel Greek original, Erevan: Hayastani Patmutʿyan ew grakanutʿyan institut. Manandean, Y. 1956. “Hermeay Eṙameci aṙ Askłepios sahmankʿ” [Hermes Trismegistosʼ Definitions to Asclepius], Banber Matenadarani 3, 288–313. Mancini Lombardi, S. & Uluhogian, G. 1992. “Due redazioni per il Romanzo di Alessandro armeno: tessere di un mosaico perduto?”, in R.B. Finazzi & A. Valvo (eds), La diffusione dell’eredità classica nell’età tardoantica e medievale. Il “Roman zo di Alessandro” e altri scritti. Atti del Seminario internazionale di studio (Roma-Napoli, 25–27 settembre 1992), Alessandria: Edizioni dellʼOrso, 157–174. Mancini Lombardi, S. 2004. “La traduzione dei composti greci nella versione armena del Legum allegoriae di Filone Alessandrino”, in Calzolari, Sirinian & Zekiyan 2004, 285–295. Meillet, A. 1913. “De la composition en arménien”, Mémoires de la Société de linguistique, 18, 245–270. Mercier, Ch. 1978. “L’école hellénistique dans la littérature arménienne”, REArm 13, 59–75. Mercier, Ch. 1979. Philo Alexandrinus, Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin, e versione armeniaca. Introduction, traduction et notes par Ch. Mercier (Les œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie, vol. 34A), Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 26–28. Minasean, M. 1996. Dasakan hayerēni nkaragrakan kʿerakanutʿiwn [Descriptive Grammar of Classical Armenian], Žnew: Łukaseancʿ ełbayrneri hastatutʿiwn. Morani, M. 1973. Contributo per un’ edizione critica della versione armena di Nemesio (Memorie dell’Istituto Lombar do – Accademia di Scienze e Lettere. Classe di Lettere e Scienze morali e storiche, 33, fasc. 3), Milano Morani, M. 1987. (ed.) Nemesii Emeseni De natura hominis, Leipzig: B.G. Teubner Verlagsgesellschaft. Muradyan, A. 1971. Hunaban dprocʿə ew nra derə hay kʿerakanakan terminabanutʿyan stełcman gorcum [The Hellenizing School and Its Role in the Creation of the Armenian Grammatical Terminology], Erevan: Haykakan SSH GA hratarakčʿutʿyun. the hellenizing school 345

Muradyan, A. 1990. “Xorenacʿu erku ałbiwri tʿvagrman šurǰə” [On the Date of Two Sources of Xorenacʿi], Patma-banasirakan handes 4, 94–104. Muradyan, A. 1993. “Movsēs Xorenacʿu Patmutʿean lezvi hunaban šertə” [The Hellenizing Layer of the Language of Movsēs Xorenacʿi’s History], Patma- banasirakan handes 1–2, 100–114. Muradyan, A. 1993. (ed.) Girkʿ pitoyicʿ [Book of Chreia], Erevan: Hayastani GAA hratarakčʿutʿyun. Muradyan, A. 19961. “Some Lexicological Characteristics of the Armenian Version of Philo Alexandrinus”, in D. Sakayan (ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Armenian Linguistics (McGill University, Montreal, May 1–5, 1995), Delmar, NY: Caravan Books, 279–291. Muradyan, A. 19962. “The Original and Complete Collection of Aphthonius’s Progymnasmata and the Armenian Book of Chreia”, in I. Ševčenko, G.G. Litavrin & W.K. Hanak (eds), Acts of the XVIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Selected Papers. Moscow 1991 (vol. 4: Literature, Sources, Numismatics and History of Science), Shepherdstown, WV: Byzantine Studies Press, 81–187. Muradyan, A. 19991. “Dasakan ew yunaban tʿargmanutʿyunneri bałdatutʿean pʿorj” [An Attempt of Comparison of Classical and Hellenizing Translations], Handēs Amsōreay, 187–216. Muradyan, A. 19992. “Notes on Some Linguistic Characteristics of the Hellenizing Translations”, Le Muséon 112, 65–71. Muradyan, A. 2001–2002. “Le style hellénisant des Progymnasmata arméniens dans le contexte d’autres écrits originaux”, in Donabédian & Ouzounian 2001–2002, 83–94. Muradyan, A. 2004. “Pre-Hellenizing Translations”, in Calzolari, Sirinian & Zekiyan 2004, 297–315. Muradyan, A. 2005. “Hunareni azdecʿutʿyunə dasakan šrǰani tʿargma nutʿyunnerum” [Greek Influence in the Translations of the Classical Period], Patma-banasirakan handes 2, 189–209. Muradyan, A. 2005 (ed.) Physiologus, the Greek and Armenian Versions with a Study of Translation Technique (HUAS, 6), Leuven, Paris & Dudley, MA: Peeters. Muradyan, A. 2009. “David the Invincible’s Commentary on Porphyry’s Isagoge. A Collation of the Greek and Armenian Versions” in Calzolari & Barnes 2009, 67–88. Muradyan, A. 2010. Hunabanutʿyunnerə dasakan hayerenum [Grecisms in Ancient Armenian], Erevan: Nayri. Muradyan, A. 2011. “The Armenian Version of Philo Alexandrinus. Translation Technique, Biblical Citations”, in S. Mancini Lombardi & P. Pontani, Studies on the Ancient Armenian Version of Philo’s Works, Leiden & Boston: Brill, 51–85. Muradyan, A. 2012. Grecisms in Ancient Armenian (HUAS, 13), Leuven, Paris & Dudley, MA: Peeters. 346 muradyan

Olivieri, M. 1996. “Note critico-testuali al Providentia di Filone Alessandrino alla luce della traduzione armena”, Eikasmos 7, 167–178. Paramelle, J. 1984. (avec la collaboration de E. Lucchesi), Philon d’Alexandrie, Questions sur la Genèse II, 7, texte grec, version arménienne, parallèles latins (Cahiers d’orientalisme, 3), Genève: Patrick Cramer. Philo. 1962. Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt, vol. 1, 61–169: Legum allegoriae libri I–III, ed. L. Cohn, Berlin: De Gruyter. Philo. 1962. 1892. Pʿiloni Hevrayecʿwoy čaṙkʿ tʿargmanealkʿ i naxneacʿ merocʿ orocʿ hellen bnagirkʿ hasin aṙ mez, Venice: Mxitʿarean tparan. Pontani, P. 1997. “A Contribution to the Specification of the Greek Lexicons Used by the Translators of the Yownaban dprocʿ”, Armenian Perspectives, 10th Anniversary Confe rence of the Association Internationale des Études Arméniennes, Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press, 191–200. Reynders, B. 1954. Lexique comparé du texte grec et des versions latine, arménienne et syriaque de l’Adversus Haereses de saint Irénée (CSCO, 141–142. Subsidia, 5–6), Louvain: Peeters. Sakayan, D. (ed.) 1996. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Armenian Linguistics (McGill University, Montreal, May 1–5, 1995), Delmar, NY: Caravan Books. Sgarbi, R. 1972. “Osservazioni sul testo e sulla lingua della versione armena dell’ ‘Isagoge di Porfirio’”, Memorie dellʼ Istituto Lombardo – Accademia di scienze e lettere. Classe di lettere – Scienze morali e storiche, 31, fasc. 5, 367–382 (calchi linguistici), 472–476 (Indice dei calchi lessicali). Sgarbi, R. 1989. “Analisi linguistico-filologica dell’ interpretazione armena della trat tazione greca filoniana intorno all’altare”, Memorie dell’ Istituto Lombardo – Accademia di scienze e lettere, classe di lettere – scienze morali e storiche 29, fasc. 3, 97–228. Sgarbi, R. 1990. “Tecnica dei calchi nella versione armena della γραμματικὴ τέχνη attri buita a Dionisio Trace”, Memorie dell’ Istituto Lombardo – Accademia di scienze e lettere, classe di lettere – scienze morali e storiche 39, fasc. 4, 233–369. Sgarbi, R. 1992. “Problemi linguistici e di critica del testo nel De Vita Contemplativa di Filone alla luce della versio ne armena”, Memorie dell’ Istituto Lombardo – Accademia di scienze e lettere, classe di lettere – scienze morali e storiche, 40, fasc. 1, 5–48. Sgarbi, R. 2004. “Problemi lessicali legati alla terminologia della versione armena dell’Ars dionisiana”, in Calzolari, Sirinian & Zekiyan 2004, 349–357. Shirinian, M.E. 1995. “Notes on Some Syntactic, Lexicological and Morphological Particularities of the Armenian Translation of Socrates Scholasticus’ Ecclesiastical History (the Longer Socrates)”, Le Muséon 108, 79–84. Shirinian, M.E. 1996. “Rendering of the Greek Participial Phrases in the Armenian Version of Aristotle’s Virtues and Vices”, in Sakayan 1996, 293–297. the hellenizing school 347

Shirinian, M.E. 2001. “Translations from Greek in Armenian Literature”, Eikasmos 12, 229–240. Širinjan, M.E. 1984. “Tekstologičeskoje značenije drevnearmjanskogo perevoda Cerkovnoj istorii Sokrata Sxolastika” [“The Textological Significance of the Old Armenian Version of Socrates Scholasticus’ Ecclesiastical History”], Kavkaz i Vizantija 4, 172–186. Stone, M.E. & Shirinian, M.E. 2000. Pseudo-Zeno, Anonymous Phylological Treatise, translated with the colla boration of J. Mansfeld & D.T. Runia (Philosophia Antiqua, 83), Leiden, Boston & Köln: Brill Tēr-Minasean 1960. “Timotʿeos Kuzi Hakačaṙutʿiwn aṙ sahmanealsn i žołovoyn Kʿałkedoni erki tʿargma nutʿyan žamanakə” [The Date of the Translation of the Refutation of the Decisions of the Coucil of Chalcedon by Timothy Aelurus], Banber Matenadarani 5, 279–291. Tēr-Mkrtčʿean. 1908. “Timotʿēos Kuzi Hakačaṙutʿean hay tʿargmanutʿean žamanakə” [The Date of the Armenain Translation of the Refutation of Timothy Aelurus], Ararat, 564–589. Ter-Petrosyan. 1982. “Pʿorj hay hin ew miǰnadaryan tʿargmanakan grakanutʿyan parberacʿman” [“An Attempt of Periodization of the Old and Medieval Armenian Translated literature”], Ēǰmiacin 4, 45–52. Terian, A. 1881. Philonis Alexandrini De animalibus, Chico, CA: Scholars Press. Terian, A. 1882. “The Hellenizing School. Its Time, Place and Scope of Activities Recon sidered”, in N.G. Garsoïan, Th.F. Mathews & R.W. Thomson (eds), East of Byzan tium, Syria and Armenia in the Forma tive Period, Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 175–186. Tessier, A. 1979. Il testo di Aristotele e le traduzioni armene (PROAGONES. Collezione di studi e testi. Studi, 17), Padova: Editrice Antenore. Tessier, A. 1984. “Some Remarks about the Armenian Translation of Greek Texts”, in T. Samuelian & M. Stone (eds), Medieval Armenian Culture (Armenian Texts and Studies, 6), Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 415–424. Thomson, R.W. 1987. (Introduction to the translation) The Armenian Version of the Works Attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite (CSCO, 488–489. Scriptores Armeniaci, 17–18), Leuven: Peeters. Timothaeus Aelurus. 1908. Timotʿeosi episkoposapeti Ałekʿsandreay hakačaṙutʿiwn aṙ žołovn Kʿałkedoni [Refutation of the Council of Chalcedon by Timothy Archbishop of Alexandria], Ēǰmiacin: Holy Ēǰmiacin Press. Topchyan, A. 2001–2002. “Les hellénismes dans l’Histoire de Moïse de Khorène” in Donabédian & Ouzounian 2001–2002, 73–82. Uluhogian, G. 1975. “Technica della traduzione, particolarità lessicale, calchi sintattici della versione armena dell’ Asceticon di Santo Basilio”, Handēs Amsōreay, 406–422. 348 muradyan

Uluhogian, G. 1989. “Teaṙn aselov. Hunareni bacʿarjak seṙakani tʿargmanutʿyunə Barseł Kesaracʿu hayeren bnagrum” [Teaṙn aselov. The Translation of the Greek genitiv absolute in the Armenian Version of Basil of Caesarea], Patma-banasirakan handes 1, 167–176. Uluhogian, G. 1993. (Introduction) Basilio di Cesarea, Il libro delle Domande (CSCO, 536–537. Scriptores Armeniaci, 19–20), Louvain: Peeters. Vardanean, A. 1921. “Lezuakan nmanutʿiwnner Pʿiloni ew Irēniosi hay tʿargmanu tʿiwnneru mēǰ” [Linguistic Similarities Between the Armenian Versions of Philo and Irenaeus], Handēs Amsōreay, 443–452. Vereščagin, E.M. 1982. “U istokov slavjanskoj filosofskoj terminologii: mentalizacija kak prijem termi notvorčestva” [The Origin of the Slavonic Philosophical Terminology. “Mentalization” as a Term-Making Method], Voprosy jazykoznanija 6, 105–114. Weitenberg, J. 2000. “Greek Influence in Early Armenian Linguistics”, in S. Auroux, E.F.K. Koerner, H.-J. Niederehe & K. Versteegh (eds), History of the Language Sciences. An International Handbook on the Evolution of the Study of Language from the Beginnings to the Present, vol. 1, Berlin & New York: De Gruyter, 447–450. Weitenberg, J. 2001. “On the Chronology of the Armenian Version of Dionysius Thrax”, in R.B. Finazzi & A. Valvo (eds), Pensiero e istituzioni del mondo classico nelle culture del Vicino Oriente, Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 305–314. Weitenberg, J. 2001–2002. “Hellenophile Syntactic Elements in Armenian Texts”, in Donabédian & Ouzounian 2001–2002, 64–72. Xačʿikyan, L. 1949. “Zenoni Yałags bnutʿean erki hin haykakann tʿargmanutʿyunə” [The Armenian translation of Zeno’s De natura], Banber Matenadarani 2, 63–98. Philosophical Literature in Ancient and Medieval Armenia

Valentina Calzolari

Philosophical literature in the Armenian language includes both works in translation and works directly written in Armenian.1 It is undoubtedly the former which has received the most attention from scholars, whose studies have followed a primarily philological and linguistic approach. A survey of the development of philosophical literature in Armenia should also take into consideration Armenian works that are not specifically philosophical, but that presume, among other things, knowledge of Greek thought. Indeed, it is in large part Greek philosophy which influenced the birth and the development of philosophical enquiry in ancient and medieval Armenia.2 This corpus of texts is more difficult to define, but is nevertheless important for understanding the conditions of the diffusion of Greek philosophical reflection in Armenia; one such example is the theological treatise by Eznik, from the classical age of Armenian literature.3

1 Translations

The rise of philosophical enquiry in ancient Armenia was closely linked to the activity of translators from the Hellenizing School (Yunaban Dprocʿ), which developed from the late fifth and early sixth century to the eighth.4 Thanks to the activity of these translators, the works necessary for learning the disciplines (artes) of the first cycle of the encyclopedic cursus – the trivium (grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic) – were introduced into Armenia.

1 This chapter does not seek to give exhaustive bibliographical references on the subject, but rather to provide a critical overview of the history of research. For additional bibliographic information, consult Thomson 1995 and Thomson 2007. On the Hellenizing School, see the chapter “The Hellenizing School” by Gohar Muradyan in the present volume, which can also be consulted for bibliographical references on this period in Armenian literature; for works from the Hellenizing School, see also Zuckerman 2001. 2 The question of possible contacts with Arabic philosophy is beyond the scope of the present chapter, although it is important to underscore its importance and its relevance. 3 See below, § 4. 4 See above, note 1.

The introduction of the third liberal art, namely dialectic and more generally, philosophy, was largely due to translations of the writings of Aristotle and Porphyry, as well as the commentaries by David on Aristotle and Porphyry. This corpus of texts reveals the considerable debt that Armenian philosophical enquiry owes to the Neo-Platonist Greek heritage, and in particular, the Alexandrian heritage.

1.1 The Neo-Platonist Heritage Transmitted to Armenia through the Translations of Greek Philosophical Texts As I have discussed elsewhere, part of the corpus of philosophical texts translated into Armenian by the translators of the Hellenizing School corresponds with the programs used in the schools of Neo-Platonist philosophy, particularly in the school of Alexandria in the fifth and sixth centuries.5 The complete Neo- Platonist curriculum called for learning Aristotelian logic, followed by the study of the works of Plato. Comparing this curriculum with the corpus of Armenian translations from the Hellenizing School reveals several similarities, especially with the Aristotelian curriculum. In fact, the Aristotelian curriculum called for a general introduction to philosophy (Introduction to Philosophy), the reading of and commenting on Porphyry’s Isagoge, the introduction to the biography of Aristotle, and the reading of and commentary on Aristotle’s Categories, the De interpretatione, and the Prior Analytics, in that order.6 If we look at the philosophical works translated into Armenian, we find precisely Porphyry’s Isagoge, Aristotle’s Categories and De Interpretatione, David’s Introduction to Philosophy as well as his commentaries on the Isagoge, the Categories and Prior Analytics.7 There are also two anonymous commentaries respectively on the De Interpretatione and the Categories, as well as a second anonymous commentary on the Categories, of which only a fragment is extant.8 The Armenian Platonic corpus is composed of the Armenian translation of the Euthyphro, the Apology of Socrates, Minos, Laws, and Timaeus. Unlike the Aristotelian corpus, this group is quite different from the Platonic curriculum of the Greek schools,9 with the exception of Timaeus. However, some scholars posit that the translations of Plato’s works did not result from the activ-

5 Calzolari 2009a, 16–20. 6 Hadot 1990, 46–47. 7 The attribution of the Commentary on the Categories to David is debated; see below, note 34. 8 In the eleventh century, Grigor Magistros alludes to the existence of the Armenian translation of “a book by Olympiodorus that mentions David”, but this information is not confirmed by any other source. 9 On the Platonic cursus, see Hadot 1990, 44–45; see also Tarrant 1998, 11–15. philosophical literature in ancient and medieval armenia 351 ity of the Hellenizing School,10 but were only done in the tenth and eleventh centuries by Grigor Magistros (990–1058).11 The dating of different versions of Plato remains an open question to this day. If this later dating can be verified, it would explain the discrepancy between the two corpus, Alexandrian and Armenian. In this regard, it should be noted that the Syriac philosophical corpus, which was created at the same time as that of the Hellenizing School, does not include the translation of the works of Plato.12 More generally, a comparison of Armenian and Syriac philosophical “collections” reveals several similarities, especially concerning the Aristotelian curriculum;13 this can be seen as evidence of the circulation of an ensemble of common texts in these two Eastern areas at the same time (sixth to eighth centuries).14 Returning to the Armenian tradition, it is important to note that the philosophical corpus of the Hellenizing School included the De Mundo and the De Virtutibus by the Pseudo-Aristotle, an anonymous collection of philosophical definitions, the Apophthegmata philosophorum,15 writings from the Corpus hermeticum, and an anonymous philosophical treatise traditionally known as the De Natura and attributed to Zeno.16 The works (both authentic and pseudo- epigraphic) of Philo of Alexandria also played an important role: Quaestiones et Solutiones in Genesim et in Exodum, De Providentia I–II, De Animalibus, Legum Allegoriae I–II, De Abrahamo, De Vita Contemplativa, (Pseudo-Philo), De Jona, and De Sampsone.17

10 Attributing the Armenian versions of Plato’s works to the translators of the Hellenizing School comes from Sen Arevšatyan, on the basis of unpublished writings of L. Xačʿikyan: Arevšatyan 1971, followed by Mahé 1998, 1131 and Terian 1982, 183. According to Arevšatyan, these versions of Plato are thus prior to versions of David. 11 Leroy 1935; Nicoll 1966; Solari 1969; Dragonetti 1986, following Grigor Magistros who, in a letter, said he had translated the Timaeus and Phaedo into Armenian. More recently, see Saffrey 2007. Conybeare’s position was more reserved (1889, 340); he did not exclude the hypothesis of a pre-existing translation. On the Armenian translation of the Timaeus, see also Calzolari 2009b, 64–65; Tinti 2012; Tinti 2013. 12 Contrary to the Armenian tradition, however, Plato’s dialogues were not known in Syriac. Hugonnard-Roche, 2009, 154. 13 On the Syriac corpus, see Hugonnard-Roche, 2009. 14 On the circulation of the Neoplatonists’ libraries, see the collected articles in D’Ancona, 2007. 15 Van Esbroeck, 1986. 16 This list is not exhaustive. For the translation of philosophical works in Armenian, see Zuckerman 2001. See also Mahé 1998; Stone & Shirinian 2000, 7–15. 17 Terian 2001, 443–448; see also below, note 56. 352 calzolari

It is important to remember that the corpus of Greek philosophical writings translated into Armenian also included Proclus’ Elements of Theology. However, this work was not translated from the Greek, but rather was translated by Simēon Gaṙnecʿi based on an older Georgian version.18

2 The History of Research on Ancient Armenian Translations of Greek Philosophical Texts

2.1 The Scholarly Activity of the Mekhitarist Fathers A review of research conducted to date on ancient Armenian translations of Greek philosophical texts has identified a few major phases in the history of research. First and foremost, the important scholarly activity of the Mekhitarists the nineteenth century must be mentioned. It is thanks to the work of the Mekhitarist Fathers of Venice that the first editions of Armenian translations of Greek philosophical texts (Plato, Aristotle, Porphyry, David, Philo) came into being. This fact is not surprising; in the nineteenth century, the scholarly activity of the Mekhitarists developed in two directions: recov- ering the monuments of the Armenian past, with the goal of identifying the roots of the emerging Armenian “nation,” and secondly, turning attention to the great works of Western culture, both ancient and modern. In publishing the works of Philo, Plato, Aristotle and their commentators (Porphyry and David), the Mekhitarists implicitly recognized Armenia’s debt to Greek thought and, ultimately, the Western roots of Armenian culture. In this regard, it should be noted that already in 1825, Fr. P.S. Somal (Somalean) had compiled a list of ancient Armenian versions of Greek authors, in Italian.19 The choice of the Italian language for this book is evidence that Fr. Somalian was targeting the non-Armenian public. In fact, the learned activity of Mekhitarist Fathers sought to draw the attention of Western audiences, not only the scholarly public, to the one-thousand year history of contacts between Armenia and the Greek world.20 In this context, I should mention Fr. J.-B. Aucher’s (Awgerean) efforts in publishing and making known the works of Philo in 1822 and 1826,21 and in particular, the texts for which the Greek original is now lost. Aucher translated these works into Latin to make them available to the scholarly

18 Zuckerman 2001, 438. 19 [Somal] 1825; see also Zarbhanalean forthcoming. 20 Regarding this, see Calzolari forthcoming. 21 Aucher 1822; Aucher 1826. philosophical literature in ancient and medieval armenia 353 community.22 I should also mention the publication of Plato’s works by Frs. A. Sukʿrean and K. Zarbhanalean, respectively in 1877 and 1890.23 We will return to examine the case of the corpus attributed to David the Invincible below. Concerning the ecdotic criteria used by Mekhitarists when editing these works, we find the same principles that have been discussed elsewhere about the editing of apocryphal Christian texts:24 choosing a base manuscript (the bnagir), having a very succinct reference apparatus, with vague indications on variants in auxiliary manuscripts (ōrinak “a copy”, miws ōrinak “another copy”), and the nearly exclusive study of manuscripts from Venetian collections, which were more accessible. It should also be noted that, as new comparative analyses between the Greek and Armenian texts have demonstrated, Fr. Sukʿrean often adapted the published text to the Greek, disregarding the manuscript evidence.

2.1.1 The Corpus Davidicum Among the Mekhitarist publications, one volume in particular deserves to be discussed in greater detail, namely the collection of the so-called complete works of David the Invincible, published in Venice in 1833, and reprinted in 1932.25 It includes, in order, the following works:26

– a Panegyric to the Holy Cross, preceded by an introduction and an epistolary exchange which was supposed to have occurred between David and Giwt Arahezacʿi, Catholicos from 461 to 478 – the translation of David’s Prolegomena philosophiae – Five Sayings (aṙackʿ) – a text On Division – a translation of Porphyry’s Isagoge – a translation of David’s Commentary on the Isagoge – a translation of Aristotle’s Categories – a translation of David’s Commentary on the Categories – a translation of Aristotle’s De Interpretatione – a Commentary on the De Interpretatione attributed to David

22 Towards the end of the 19th century in 1892, a new anonymous edition appeared of a part of these texts. 23 Sukʿrean 1877; Zarbhanalean 1890. 24 See the chapter by this author, “The Editing of Christian Apocrypha in Armenian: Should We Turn a New Leaf?” in this volume. 25 David the Invincible 1833; David the Invincible 19322. 26 Based on the reprinting in 19322. 354 calzolari

– a translation of David’s Commentary on Prior Analytics – the scholia On Grammar – a translation of the De Mundo attributed to Aristotle – a translation of the De Virtutibus attributed to Aristotle

The choice of texts collected and edited in this book is very interesting, in the sense that it reflects the (partly legendary) evidence of the medieval Armenian tradition on the figure of David, which merits closer analysis. Despite the many contradictions that characterize medieval Armenian sources, they all agree that David was a scholar of Armenian descent27 who, thanks to his excellent knowledge of Greek, contributed in an essential way to introducing the arts of the trivium into Armenia, particularly grammar and dialectic (logic). Seeking to establish links between the founding figures of Armenian cultural and religious identity, the Armenian tradition created a kin relationship between David and the pater historiae Movsēs Xorenacʿi, with whom David was supposed to have stayed while studying in Athens.28 In this city, famous for its school of rhetoric, David distinguished himself by his remarkable mastery of Greek, a talent he would later put to use in his work as a translator.29 However, the collection of works published in Venice attributed several translations to David, not only of the commentaries that are usually attributed to him, but also works by Aristotle and Porphyry. In addition to the philosophical texts, there are also scholia on grammar, the first art of the trivium. Moreover, medieval Armenian sources established a spiritual filiation between David and the creator of the Armenian alphabet, by counting David as one of the disciples of Maštocʿ, whose early disciples were responsible for the first translations of religious works into Armenian. The figure of David also served as a kind of bridge, responsible for both the transmission of Christian theological knowledge (associated with the activity of Maštoc’s circle), as well as the dissemination of secular sciences, transmitted into Armenia at the time of the second generation of translators (the Hellenizing School). This was probably too much for just one person!30 Moreover, the Armenian medieval tradition made David

27 Concerning the identity of David, a number of scholars have discussed this: see below, note 50. 28 According to one branch of the tradition, represented by the Book of Beings, David would have been a classmate of Basil of Caesarea and Gregory Nazianzus. Yet this information is based on a blatant anachronism, since these latter two authors lived in the fourth century. On this, see Calzolari 2009a, 24–25; van Esbroeck 1994–1995; van Esbroeck 1996–1997. 29 Calzolari 2009a, 24–25. 30 Moreover, in an attempt to save this tradition, Early Modern scholars granted David remarkable longevity. This is the case for example, with S. Arevšatyan (Arevšatyan 1981, 34–35), for whom David was born around 475, was a student of Olympiodorus and, after philosophical literature in ancient and medieval armenia 355 the emblematic figure of the intersection between revelation and secular sciences, by considering him a scholar who knew how to use his knowledge of philosophy and rhetoric in doctrinal disputes in order to defend the positions of the Armenian Church. The tradition also attributes various religious books to David, including the Panegyric to the Cross, which was included at the beginning of the Venetian collection.31 Finally, in the most famous manuscript preserving his works, David is represented with the iconographic traits of an evangelist, with a nimbus; reed and ink in hand, he works at preparing his Prolegomena, a work devoid of any Christian content! Concerning the Venice edition, it should be noted that more recent studies, paying great attention to the content of published works as well as the language and translation techniques that characterize them, have shown that attributing all of the texts included in the collection of 1833 (19322) to a single author is impossible. Thus, the scholia On Grammar cannot be attributed to David because they are inconsistent with the content of the Prolegomena.32 Moreover, attributing the translation of the works of Aristotle and Porphyry to the same translator (translators?) of David’s Commentaries has also been rejected by H. Manandean (see below), based on linguistic features that differentiate these texts.33 Today, the majority of scholars agree in considering David a student of the Neo-Platonist school in Alexandria at the time of Olympiodorus and Elias (sixth century), where he in turn was charged with teaching. A corpus of three works has been generally considered to be attributed to him, in Greek and Armenian (Prolegomena, the Commentary on the Isagoge, and the Commentary on the Categories, although with reservations about the authorship of the latter from some scholars).34 To these is added a fourth work, attested only in Armenian.35

his return to Armenia “at an advanced age,” was directly involved in translating his works into Greek towards the mid-sixth century. 31 In addition to the Panegyric of the Cross (Nersoyan 1986), he is also supposed to have written a Commentary on the Psalms (Ajamian 1993), an Encomium for the Feast of the Transfiguration (ms. 866 Matenadaran), an Encomium for the Feast of St. Stephen the Protomartyr (ms. 118 of the Bibliothèque nationale de France), and a collection of patčaṙkʿ [causes, reasons] (scholia) of the Bible (ms. 1398 Matenadaran). 32 Adontz 1970, cxxiv. 33 Manandean 1928, 161, 183, 190–191, 197 and passim. 34 The question is summarized in Calzolari 2009a, 29–333; see also Mahé 1990, which summarizes the main points of Arevšatyan 1969. 35 Unless we recognize his model in the fragmentary Greek text of the Commentary on Prior Analytics by Elias, identified in the 1960s. The question is debated: Papazian 2009; Sweeting 2009; Topchyan 2009; Topchyan 2010. 356 calzolari

2.2 The Twentieth Century: The Development of Scholarly Research in Armenia In the twentieth century, studies of Armenian philosophical literature in translation experienced a new impetus in Armenia (or thanks to Armenian scholars), particularly concerning the first systematic studies of the Hellenizing School. Special mention should be made of the classic work by H. Manandean (published in 1928 in Vienna), which paid particular attention to the Corpus Davidicum as it was defined by the Mekhitarists. This Armenian academician focused his study on the authorship of the commentaries on the Categories and the Prior Analytics, which had not been fully clarified since the Mekhitarists, as well as on the comparison of linguistic features of the translated works they attributed to David.36 In the 1950s, additional research was conducted on philosophical collections. In 1956, the results of an inventory of Matenadaran manuscripts was published by L. Xačʿikyan and S. Lalafaryan, in issue 3 of the journal Banber Matenadarani.37 This inventory showed that many manuscripts were – and remain – unpublished.38 In this regard, it should be noted that recently, a description of the Matenadaran manuscripts with philosophical content was completed by A. Melkonyan, as part of a research project led by the University of Geneva (see below). This study, so far unpublished, examined more than 310 manuscripts. The renewed interest in philosophical collections that characterized the 1950s led to several codicological discoveries, which enabled the publication of new editions, including works which were previously unknown. It is therefore necessary to note the following publications:

– The editio princeps, by L. Xačʿikyan, of the treatise De natura attributed to the philosopher Zeno, who has sometimes been identified with the pre- Socratic philosopher, sometimes with the Stoic philosopher. It fact, it is an anonymous treatise that presupposes, among other things, knowledge of David’s Introduction.39

36 For the sake of completeness, it should be recalled that the first study was published in 1904 (Manandean 1904) and that in 1911, Manandean published once again the Armenian Commentary on the Categories (Manandean 1911). 37 Xačʿikyan & Lalafaryan 1956. 38 Stone & Shirinian 2000, 11–12 and notes 40–42. 39 Xačʿikyan 1950; new edition by Stone & Shirinian 2000. philosophical literature in ancient and medieval armenia 357

– The editio princeps, by S. Arevšatyan, of two short philosophical texts preserved in a late compilation known as the Rhetorician, De Natura and Philosophical Definitions.40 – The new edition by V.K. Čʿaloyan and S. Lalafaryan of the anonymous Commentary on the Categories, previously published in the Venetian collection of the works of David (p. 487–553).41 In a manuscript in the Mekhitarist Library of Vienna (W 112), the work is attributed to a certain “Amelawxoys”, or “Amelaxos”, a name in which it was believed that a distortion from the Greek ᾽Ιάμβλιχος, “Iamblichus” could be seen.42 The editors of the Commentary have withdrawn the authorship of David and of Amelaxoys/ Iamblichus and consider the work to be anonymous. – The new edition in several volumes of David’s works by S. Arevšatyan, who proposed a new delimitation of the Corpus Davidicum (Prolegomena, Commentary on the Categories, Commentary on Prior Analytics, Commentary on the Isagoge),43 based on considerations outlined in a preliminary article published in 1969.44

As a general remark, we can see that the majority of the studies conducted by Armenian scholars in the twentieth century were mainly philological and linguistic; commentary and philosophical analyses still remain to be done.

2.2.1 The First Volumes on the History of Armenian Philosophy Published in Armenia In the second half of the twentieth century, the first comprehensive works on the history of Armenian philosophy began to appear in Armenia, such as the four volumes by H. Gabrielyan Hay pʿilisopʿayakan mtkʿi patmutʿyun [the History of Armenian philosophical thought] in 1956 and the work of G. Grigoryan on Armenian medieval philosophy.45 In 1973 and 1980, a general introduction to ancient and medieval Armenian philosophy by Arevšatjan was

40 Arevšatjan 1960. 41 Čʿaloyan & Lalafaryan 1961. 42 On this question, see Mahé 1989, 160; Zuckerman 2001, 425. 43 Arevšatyan 1960; Arevšatyan 1967; Arevšatyan 1976; edition of four volumes without critical apparatus, Arevšatyan 1980; Russian translation, Arevšatjan 1975; translation into modern Armenian, Arevšatyan 1980. 44 Arevšatyan 1969, 7–22. 45 Gabrielyan 1956–1965; Grigoryan 1977; Grigoryan 1979; Grigoryan 1987. Additional bibliographical information on these authors and others can be found in Thomson 1995, 285–286. 358 calzolari published in Russian, in two volumes.46 In 1975, the Hayocʿ pʿilisopʿayutʿyan patmutʿyun (Hin ew miǰin darer) [History of Armenian philosophy. (Antiquity and the Middle Ages)] by V.K. Čʿaloyan was published in Armenian and in Russian.47 In 1980, on the occasion of the 1500th anniversary of the alleged birth of David, a conference was organized in Yerevan and resulted in the publication of a collective volume, containing some papers that took a historico- philosophical approach.48 At the same occasion, UCLA undertook a similar initiative, which resulted in a collection of studies, also including some that were historico-philosophical.49 Synthetic works seeking to untangle the complex mix of information on the biography of David have also emerged.50 Three volumes of the Hay žołovrdi mtavor mšakuytʿi zargacʿman patmutʿyun [History of the development of the intellectual culture of the Armenian people] by A.G.A. Aṙakʿelyan were also published in 1959, 1964, and 1975. In the first volume, Aṙakʿelyan devotes several pages to the development of philosophy in Armenia from the fifth century to the Middle Ages. In terms of the history of the reception of texts, it would be interesting to study the influence of Marxist thought on Aṙakʿelyan’s analyses and to see how the categories of materialism, idealism, or atheism may have been applied to ancient Greeks authors. To cite just one example, according to Aṙakʿelyan, the study of Epicurus (an atheist and materialist ante litteram) was prevented by the powerful Armenian Church.51 While such an examination might add nothing to our knowledge of the development of Greek thought in ancient and medieval Armenia per se, such an analysis is, however, important for studying the history of ideas in Armenia and the various socio-cultural contexts that have influenced their development. Although such a study is beyond the scope and more specifically philological content of this paper, it is nevertheless worth mentioning.

46 Arevšatjan 1973. Among recent scholarship on the subject, see Arevšatyan & Mirumyan 2007. 47 Čʿaloyan 1975. 48 Brutyan et al. 1983. 49 Sanjian 1986. 50 Čʿaloyan 1980 (summarized in Mahé 1990), which can identify at least six, if not seven different people named David. Before Čʿaloyan, the question was addressed by Akinean (Akinean 1959), who distinguished only two individuals named David (the Alexandrian philosopher of the sixth century and David Harkacʿi Hypatos from the seventh-eighth century). Note the articles by Muradyan 1982, Rapava 1982, and Petrosyan 1991, as well as the introduction by Kendall & Thomson 1983; from previous work on the figure of David, see among others Neumann 1829, Manandean 1904, and Khostikian 1907. This issue was also addressed in Terian 1982 and Calzolari 2009a; cf. Calzolari 2012. 51 Aṙakʿelyan 1959–1975. philosophical literature in ancient and medieval armenia 359

2.3 The Approach of Western Armenology: Philological and Linguistic Studies of Philosophic Texts An important step in the research on Armenian translations of Greek philosophical texts has been led by G. Bolognesi and his students, in addition to other researchers of the Italian school.52 These studies are primarily philological and linguistic. Armed with dual training in Armenian studies and in classical studies, these scholars have directed their attention to the question of the relationship between the Armenian versions and underlying Greek models, in order to evaluate the contributions of Armenian for reconstituting the Greek originals. In certain cases, the Armenian evidence is essential, especially when the Greek original is lost, as is the case with some of the writings of Philo and Pseudo-Philo. While several articles dealing with this issue could be cited, I will limit myself to mentioning the monograph by A. Tessier on the Armenian versions of works in the Aristotelian and Pseudo-Aristotelian corpus (see below), or essays by R. Sgarbi on the Armenian version of Porphyry’s Isagoge and the works of Philo.53 This same philological-linguistic approach applied to Greek and Armenian was adopted by other scholars, such as M. Leroy, who was particularly interested in Plato’s works (see above); G. Lafontaine, who analyzed the Armenian translation of Aristotle’s Categories;54 and F. Siegert, who has studied the Philo corpus.55 In addition, the progress of research on the Philo corpus owes much to research by A. Terian.56

2.4 The Approach of Classical Philologists Armenian philology thus lends its services to classical philology. Its role is important, but has not been fully recognized by Western textual criticism. In this regard, it should be noted that in the first half of the nineteenth century, scholars from the Royal Society of Science, meeting in Göttingen, expressed the wish to create a list of ancient translations of Greek works into Eastern languages, including Armenian. This wish was then carried out by scholars such as J.G. Wenrich, for example, in his De auctorum Graecorum versionibus et commentariis Syriacis, Arabicis, Armeniacis, Persicisque commentatio, published in Leipzig in 1842 (reprint 2012). In his research, he collected a great deal

52 Overview in Finazzi 2012. 53 Tessier 1979; Sgarbi 1972; Sgarbi 1989; Sgarbi 1991 [1992]. 54 Lafontaine 1983. 55 Siegert 1980. 56 See for example the collected articles in Terian 2008 and the bibliography therein. On Armenian versions of the Philo corpus, see the collective volume recently published by Mancini Lombardi & Pontani 2011. 360 calzolari of information about the ancient Armenian translations of Aristotle, Porphyry, Plato, and David the Invincible, while recalling the value of these versions as evidence for reconstituting the original Greek. Wenrich was also able to consult the ancient catalog of Oriental manuscripts in the Bibliothèque royale de France, as well as other studies in Western languages,57 including publications by the Armenian Fathers of the Mekhitarist Congregation of Venice. The work of the Mekhitarists in Venice helped Italian scholars such as A. Mai58 and G. Leopardi 59 discover the ancient Armenian translations of the Greek texts of Eusebius and Philo, on which they could then apply their philological acumen. The heritage of ancient Armenian translations also attracted the interest of the Oxford scholar, F.C. Conybeare, who as both a scholar and a patron, even financed the publication of some editions of ancient Armenian versions, on which he conducted his own philological research. He is the author of various studies on the Armenian translations of Philo, Plato, Aristotle, Porphyry, and David, in which he seeks to identify the critical value of Armenian in relation to the Greek.60 Of course, the work of the érudits of the nineteenth century needs to be completed, even corrected. However, these studies are important evidence of an interest in the literature of Armenian translations, which later did not attract many followers in the Western academic world. Although Conybeare was both an Orientalist and a Hellenist, things were different with specialists in Greek Studies, who, when studying philosophical texts, took into account research carried out by Armenologists on Armenian evidence. In this group, we can include W.L. Lorimer, the editor of De Mundo, who included Armenian variants in the apparatus of his edition based on the work of Conybeare.61 The results of collating the Armenian text with the Greek text of the Categories and De Interpretatione62 carried out by Conybeare later served as the basis for a new Greek edition by L. Minio-Paluello in 1949.63 The turn of the millennium saw the beginning of a new momentum in this field that hopefully will prove fruitful for years to come. In recent work devoted to Greek philosophical texts, evidence from the Armenian versions

57 Sevin 1739; Saint-Martin 1818. 58 Mai 1816; Mai 1818. 59 Leopardi 1823. On the philological writings of Leopardi, see Bolognesi 1998; Pacella & Timpanaro 1969; Timpanaro 1964. 60 Conybeare 1889; Conybeare 1892; Conybeare 1893; Conybeare 1895. 61 Lorimer 1933; on the limitations of this edition, see Tessier 1979, 46–49; new critical apparatus useful for restituting the Greek can be found in Tessier 1979, 53–122. 62 According to Waitz 1844. 63 Minio-Paluello 1949. philosophical literature in ancient and medieval armenia 361 has been analyzed. This was the case with the edition of De Interpretatione by E. Montanari and the Categories by R. Bodéüs as well as the translation with commentary by J. Barnes of Porphyry’s Isagoge.64 An interest in the corpus of Armenian works by David can also be seen in the work of I. Hadot, director of a research project on the Greek work of Simplicius,65 or of R. Goulet, Director of the Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques.66 Another recent article, by Fr. H.D. Saffrey, seeks to reconstruct the itinerary of the famous Greek manuscript A of Plato’s works (Parisinus gr. 1807) from Alexandria and Byzantium to the Italy of Petrarch, taking into account a possible stop in Armenia at the time of Grigor Magistros.67 Closer collaboration among experts from both subject areas constitutes a strong desideratum for the future.

2.5 New Projects: For a Collaboration between Armenologists and Historians of Greek Philosophy Recent projects have helped pave the way for interdisciplinary research, based on the realization that, for such a complex field of study, bringing together a group of scholars with complimentary skills is the only way to obtain meaning- ful results. A pioneering role has been played by the team formed around the treatise by the Pseudo-Zeno, which was created in 1997–1998 (after several years of gestation) by M.E. Stone, with the collaboration of J. Mansfeld and D.T. Runia, historians of ancient philosophy, and M.E. Širinian from the Matenadaran in Yerevan. This research has led to the publication of a new edition and English translation of this text in 2000.68 More recently, a long-term project on the works of David the Invincible has been coordinated by the Centre d’études arménologiques at the University of Geneva, under the direction of this author, in collaboration with two experts in the history of ancient philosophy, J. Barnes and D. O’Meara. This collaboration has been extended to include Matenadaran scholars (M.E. Shirinian, G.

64 Montanari 1984; Bodéüs 2001; Barnes 2003. 65 Hadot 1990. 66 Goulet 2000. Concerning the issue of the authorship of the Commentary on the Categories, he mentions the need to resort to “la prise en compte systématique de la tradition arménienne” (p. 65). 67 Saffrey 2007, but see Tinti 2012, 255–267. 68 It is also important to remember the collaboration between M.E. Shirinian and D. Hutchinson on the Greek and Armenian texts of the Pseudo-Aristotelian treatise, De Virtutibus. See Širinjan [Širinyan] 2002. 362 calzolari

Muradyan, and A. Topchyan, with the help of S. Arevshatyan), and in the first phase of the project, the Yerevan State University (A. Stepanyan). The project has resulted in the creation of an editorial program, the Commentaria in Aristotelem Armeniaca, within the collection Philosophia Antiqua.69 The project has been designed with two complementary parts, one philological and the other historical-philosophical. The first consists in the comparative analysis of the Greek and Armenian versions of David’s works, aiming to clarify the position of indirect Armenian evidence within the textual tradition of the original Greek. A second aspect of this analysis, inseparable from the first, is to clarify the criteria that guided the translator (or translators) in his (their) translation work, in order to assess not only the Armenian contributions for reconstituting the Greek, but also the strategies for adapting the Armenian version to its new audience. The convergence or, on the contrary, the deviation, of Armenian versions compared to the dominant characteristics of the Greek continuous commentary genre do indeed offer reference points or indications that are interesting for understand the ways in which Greek heritage was transmitted outside the milieu of its production. Although Armenian philology can and should put itself in the service of classical philology, as stated above, it is also important that the Armenian translations be studied in their own right, along with the characteristics that are specific to them. Deviations from the original text, which are numerous, are much more interesting than faithfulness verbum de verbo for understanding the conditions of the reception of Greek thought in Armenia. Such an analysis would provide results that would advance our knowledge of the context in which original Greek works were transmitted and received in non-Greek milieu. The importance of a comparative perspective on the works of David and, more generally, on Greek philosophical works, should be stressed. While it is desirable that the historians of philosophy and classical philologists turn their attention to the evidence of ancient Armenian versions of Greek texts, as stated above, it should be emphasized with the same force the need for Armenologists to benefit from the results of recent studies by historians of Greek philosophy, in order to conduct research methodologically based on the development of Armenian philosophy, especially its origins. Thus, a proper study of the works of David, which are the very foundation of Armenian philosophical enquiry, must be conducted in a broader perspective and not only an intra-Armenian one. Such research must necessarily take into account recent

69 Two volumes have now appeared (a third volume is forthcoming): Calzolari & Barnes 2009; Topchyan 2010. The project of the Commentaria in Aristotelem Armeniaca is presented in Calzolari & Barnes 2009, xi–xiv and in Topchyan 2010, ix–x. philosophical literature in ancient and medieval armenia 363 results on Neo-Platonist Greek literature that have provided a clearer understanding of the mutual relations maintained by these works, and in particular the works from the lineage Ammonius–Olympiodorus–Elias–David–Pseudo- David (or pseudo-Elias)–Stephanos.

3 Philosophical Texts Written Directly in Armenian: Commentaries on Logic in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period

Aristotelian logic, when it entered Armenia borrowed from Greek philosophy, was quickly assimilated by Armenians and led to some new and original thought. For example, the seventh century scholar Anania Širakacʿi seems to have based his monumental encyclopedic work, the Kʿnnikon, on subdivisions of parts of philosophy as formulated by David.70 The work of David, moreover, already known thanks to Anania Širakacʿi, served as the basis for several medieval Armenian commentaries. Among these works, the Introduction in particular was commented upon, notably by Yovhannēs Sarkawag Imastasēr († 1129),71 Nersēs Šnorhali († 1173),72 and Aṙakʿel Siwnecʿi († 1410).73 Even in the seventeenth century, the Introduction was the mandatory introductory textbook for learning philosophy.74 In addition, the lists of works studied in medieval Armenian monastic schools (Glajor, Tatʿew, Sanahin, etc.) show that the main texts of the Aristotelian part of the Neo-Platonist curriculum were included in the cursus.75 The history of the development of philosophical literature is thus closely linked to the history of medieval “Hamalsarankʿ” (Universities) about which we have some knowledge (at Glajor, Sanahin, Narek, and Tatʿew), but systematic or in-depth study remains to be done.76 The development of Alexandrian continuous commentary, introduced in Armenia through translations of the works of David, is attested by original commentaries in Armenian on the works of Aristotle and Porphyry written

70 Mahé 1998, 1135; Mahé 1990, 203 and note 60; see also Sanjian 1986, 11. 71 Madoyan & Mirzoyan 2004; see also Sanjian 1986, 12 and note 27. 72 Preserved, for example in the mss. 227, 437, 739 of the Matenadaran. 73 Aṙakʿel Siwnecʿi 1797; see also Sanjian 1986, 12 and note 32. 74 See the evidence of Aṙakʿel de Tabriz: Kendall & Thomson 1983, xxi. 75 Reading of the Prolegomena was followed by that of Porphyry. In addition to David and Porphyry, among “external” (pagan) works, students read the Categories, De Interpretatione, De Mundo, and De Virtutibus. We have an interesting account of the training received from the monastery of Tatʿev in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: see Arevšatyan & Matevosyan 1984, 27. 76 Abrahamyan 1983. 364 calzolari during the Middle Ages. Among these, I would point out the commentaries on the Isagoge, the De Interpretatione, the Categories and De Mundo by Vahram Rabuni (thirteenth century).77 Other texts deserving mention are the commentaries on the Categories and De Interpretatione as well as the Explanations of Difficult Questions In Porphyry (1315–1388), by Yovhannēs Orotnecʿi from the monastic school of Glajor.78 To these are added exegetical works on the Isagoge and De virtutibus, as well as Summary Explanations of David’s Treatise (tesutʿiwn – gr. θεωρία) by Grigor Tatʿewacʿi (1344–1409), the superior of the Tatʿew School, a work which, to the best of my knowledge, remains unpublished to this day.79

3.1 Aristotelian Logic and the Dogmas of the Church Thanks to logic, the argumentation needed for countering the positions of one’s opponent became more precise. This was of vital importance at a time when the Armenian Church had to seek to maintain its doctrinal independence from the Latin Church. This danger became more “concrete”, so to speak, in the first half of the fourteenth century, during the missionary activity of the Dominican preachers sent by Pope John XII. These preachers were acolytes, particularly in the monastery of Kṙna, whose Armenian clergy adopted the Dominican Rule and translated Latin Scholastic works.80 In what way did Aristotelian logic support the positions and the work of the fiercest Armenian theologians in their defense of the dogmatic independence of the Armenian Church against Latin and Greek influence? A systematic study of the reception and the use of Aristotelian logic by the Fathers of the medieval Armenian Church remains to be done. The texts themselves are still largely unknown, even unpublished. As they have never been translated, they have gone largely unnoticed by historians of medieval philosophy who do not know Armenian. A study of the implications and the relationship between theology and Aristotelian logic undoubtedly deserves to be done and in a systematic way. In the same vein, it would be useful to do a thorough study of the Armenian translations of the works of the Latin West, particularly the work of Thomas Aquinas, and more generally Scholastic texts.

77 Grigoryan 1967; see also Xacikjan & Lalafarjan 1956, 402–404; for additional bibliography, see Sanjian 1986, 13, note 29 and Thomson 1995, 209. 78 Čʿaloyan 1956; see also Xačʿikjan & Lalafarjan 1956, 424–426; Grigoryan 1980; for additional bibliography, see Sanjian 1986, 13, note 30 and Thomson 1995, 226. 79 Xačʿikjan & Lalafarjan 1956, 407–409; Sanjian 1986, 13, note 31 and Thomson 1995, 134–136. 80 The works of Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinus, Bartholomew of Bologna, Peter of Aragon: see van Oudenrijn 1955; van Oudenrijn 1960. philosophical literature in ancient and medieval armenia 365

3.2 Aristotelian Logic in the Early Modern Period The interest in Aristotelian logic, which was inherited from the Alexandrian school and introduced to Armenia in translation, continued until the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. During this period, the writings of David, including the Prolegomena, continued to exert an important influence on Armenian writers such as Simēōn ÌJułayecʿi († 1657),81 Stepʿanos Lehacʿi († 1689),82 and Yovhannēs Mrkʿuz JułayecʿiÌ (1643–1715).83 It was also during this century of the Enlightenment that first editions of the works of David were published in Constantinople and Madras, the two most active Armenian communities of the time, which played a key role in the development of Armenian political thought.84 These works are not sufficiently known within the scholarly community. There are few specialists who have taken an interest in them – with the exception of Armenian scholars, and particularly H.Ł. Mirzoyan who, since the 1980s, has conducted research on the history of Armenian philosophy in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and in particular, on the work of Yovhannēs Mrkʿuz Jułayecʿi.Ì 85

4 The Influence of Greek Thought in Armenian Literature

The third area of research mentioned at the beginning of this presentation is more difficult to define. It covers works written directly in Armenian that,

81 Authors of a Book of Logic [Girkʿ tramabanutʿean], published in Constantinople in 1728 (Simēōn JułayecʿiÌ 1728), which was translated into Georgian, as well as a Commentary on Proclus; additional bibliographical references can be found in Bardakjian 2000, 504. 82 Author of several translations of philosophical texts, from Latin or Polish, such as Aristotle’s Metaphysics (Girkʿ bnazancʿanacʿ Aristoteli), translated from Latin in 1657; the Celestial Hierarchy by the Pseudo-Dionysus the Areopagite (Yałags erknaynocʿn kʿahanayapetutʿean), translated from Latin in 1662; the De Anima by Thomas Aquinus (Yałags hogwoy banakani), translated from Latin in 1671. He is also the author of an original work, the Bankʿ imastasirakankʿ ew astuacabanakankʿ [Philosophical and theological Discourses], which constitutes his masterpiece; see Hacikyan et al. 2002, 827–831. 83 Author of a Summary of grammar and logic which is the construction of words and an exercise in discourse published in Amsterdam in 1711 (Yovhannēs Mrkʿuz JułayecʿiÌ 1711) see Mirzoyan 2001; for additional bibliography, see Bardakjian 2000, 567–568. 84 The first edition of the Prolegomena was printed in Constantinople in 1731, and was followed by a new edition published in Madras in 1797 (David the Invincible 1797). In 1793, the commentary on the Isagoge was in turn published, again in Madras (David the Invincible 1793). For the history of Armenian philosophy in the seventeenth century, see Mirzoyan 1983a and Mirzoyan 1983b. 85 Mirzoyan 1983a; Mirzoyan 1983b. 366 calzolari while not specifically philosophical, presuppose or may presuppose traces of the influence of Greek philosophy in Armenia. The list of writings that could be mentioned is far too long to reproduce in the limited space of these pages, but I will mention a few examples, starting with the Treaty Against Sects [Ǝnd ałandocʿ] by Eznik. One section of this treatise is directed against “outside” philosophers, that is, the pagan philosophers, and more specifically the Pythagoreans, Peripatetics, Stoics, and Epicureans. Eznik’s refutation is written particularly against Plato who, according to the Armenian theologian, “appeared to the Greeks as the most pious of all philosophers”, but who, more than any other, sinned in impiety (§ 357). Although Eznik provides information on the philosophical currents mentioned above, it should nevertheless be noted that extracts from his treatise on the Greek philosophers appear to rely heavily on Greek patristic sources such as the Anakephalaiosis, included in the Panarion by Epiphanius of Salamis († 403).86 It is not possible to establish with certainty whether the Armenian author had direct knowledge of the philosophical works that he refutes. Nevertheless, it is clear that the argumen- tative style followed by Eznik in his treatise seems to be inspired largely by Greek philosophy, if not directly Aristotelian logic; this is one area of research that deserves to be examined further.87 In his works, we find for the first time in Armenian literature certain ideas that were prevalent in the ancient world, such as the theory of the four elements (earth, air, fire, water), or lamps that revolve around fixed paths, returning each day to mark the passage of time. The reception of philosophy and more generally of Greek thought in ancient Armenian historiography is thus an area for further research.88 The influence of Neo-Platonism on medieval poetry, for example, on Grigor Narekacʿi89 and on later poets, is also a major field that demands investigation.

Concluding Remarks

Several avenues of research have been described in the preceding lines, and this is not the place to review them in detail. Philological and linguistic studies, which have a long-standing tradition, probably still have a secure future ahead

86 Orengo 1996, 17–19. 87 See Contin 2005. 88 Stepanyan 2009. 89 Tʿamrazyan 2004: see also Calzolari forthcoming, 388 and note 2. One should also study the influence of philosophical thought on the Church Fathers or theologians translated into Armenian, such as Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and Gregory of Nyssa. See among others, La Porta 2007 and 2008; Thomson 1987; Vardanyan 2008. philosophical literature in ancient and medieval armenia 367 of them. Indeed, several texts are waiting to republished using proper methodology, some are still waiting to be identified in the manuscripts of the Matenadaran. Philological research should not be dissociated from the history of Greek thought and from the progress of research in this field. At the same time, reliable textual bases, obtained through philological efforts, should be the necessary point of departure for analyzing the philosophical aspect of these Armenian works, an aspect of research that undoubtedly needs to be developed. I will conclude this overview by insisting, once again, on the fact that in order to have precise interpretations and to understand the real value of Armenian philosophical writings, the only proper methodological approach is an interdisciplinary one.

Translated from the French by Cynthia J. Johnson

Selected Bibliography

Abrahamyan, A. 1983. Glajori hamalsaran [The University of Gladzor], Erevan: Izdatel’stvo Erevanskogo Universiteta. Adontz, N. 1970. Denys de Thrace et les commentateurs arméniens (Bibliothèque armé- nienne de la Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian), Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste. Ajamian, S. 1993. “An Introduction to the Book of Psalms by David Anhaght”, in C. Burchard (ed.), Armenia and the Bible. Papers Presented to the International Symposium Held at Heidelberg, July 16–19, 1990 (UPATS, 12), Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 15–21. Akinean, N. 1959. Dawitʿ Harkʿacʿi Anyałtʿ Pʿilisopʿay. Keankʿn ew gorcerǝ/David Harkazi Unbesiegter Philosoph. Leben und Wirken (Azgayin Matenadaran/Nationalbibliothek, 186), Vienna: Mxitʿarean tparan. Aṙakʿel Siwnecʿi. 1797. “Lucmunkʿ Yałags Sahmanacʿ Dawtʿi Anyałtʿ pʿilisopʿayi” [Analysis of Definitions of David the Invincible], in Girkʿ Sahmanacʿ srboyn Dawtʿi Anyałtʿ pʿilisopʿayiʿ Hayocʿ imastasiri [Book of Definitions of St. David, the Invincible philosopher of the Armenians], Madras, 147–650. Aṙakʿelyan, A.G. 1959–1975. Hay žołovrdi mtavor mšakuytʿi zargacʿman patmutʿyun [History of the development of the intellectual culture of the Armenian people], 3 vols., Erevan: Hayastan Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Arevšatjan, S.S. 1960. “Dva drevnix filosofskix fragmenta – Ritor, o prirode i Filosofskie opredelenija” [Two ancient philosophical fragments – Rhetor, on Nature, and Philosophical Definitions], Banber Matenadarani 5, 371–392. Arevšatjan, S.S. 1973. Formirovanije filosofskoj nauki v drevnej Armenii (V–VI vv.) [The formation of philosophical science in ancient Armenia (5th–6th centuries)], Erevan: Izdatel’svo AN ArmSSR. 368 calzolari

Arevšatjan, S.S. 1975. David Anaxt, Sočinenija [David Anakht, Works], Moskva. Arevšatjan, S.S. 1960. Dawtʿi Eṙameci ew Anyałtʿ pʿilisopʿayi ǝnddēm aṙarkutʿeancʿn čʿoricʿ Pihṙoni imastaki Sahmankʿ ew Tramatutʿiwnkʿ imastasirutʿean [Definitions and Divisions of the philosophy of philosopher Trismegistus and David the Invincible, against the sophistic refutations of Pyrrho], Erevan. Arevšatjan, S.S. 1967. Dawitʿ Anyałtʿ, Meknutʿiwn i Verlucakann Aristotēli [David the Invincible, Commentary on Aristotle’s Analytics], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Arevšatjan, S.S. 1969. “Dawtʿi Anhałti žaṙangutʿyunǝ nor lusabanutʿeamb” [The legacy of David the Invincible in a new light], Banber Matenadarani 9, 7–22. Arevšatjan, S.S. 1971. Platoni erkeri hayeren tʿargmanutʿyan žamanakǝ [The Period of the Armenian translation of the works of Plato], Banber Matenadarani 10, 7–20. Arevšatjan, S.S. 1976. Dawitʿ Anyałt, Verlucutʿiwn Neracutʿeann Porpʿiwri [David the Invincible, Commentary on Porphyry’s Isagoge], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Arevšatjan, S.S. 1980. Dawitʿ Anyałt, Erkasirutʿiwnkʿ pʿilisopʿayakankʿ [David the Invincible, Philosophical Works], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Arevšatjan, S.S. 1981. “David lʼInvincible et sa doctrine philosophique”, REArm 15, 33–43. Arevšatyan, S.S. & Matevosyan, A. 1984. Glajori hamalsaranǝ miǰnadaryan Hayastani lusavorutʿyan kentron [The University of Gladzor, Center for the study of medieval Armenia], Erevan: Hayastan Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Arevšatyan, S.S. & Mirumyan, K.A. 2007. Hayocʿ pʿilisopʿayutyan patmutʿyun. Hin šrǰan ev vał miǰnadar [History of Armenian philosophy. Antiquity and early Middle Ages], Erevan: Lusabacʿ Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Aucher, J.-B. 1822. Philonis Judaei sermones tres hactenus inediti: I et II de Providentia et III de animalibus, i Venetik: Mxitʿarean tparan. Aucher, J.-B. 1826. Philonis Judaei Paralipomena Armena: libri videlicet quatuor in Genesin, libri duo in Exodum, sermo unus de Sampsone, alter de Jona, tertius de tribus angelis Abraamo apparentibus, i Venetik: Mxitʿarean tparan. Bardakjian, K.B. 2000. A Reference Guide to Modern Armenian Literature. 1500–1920, Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Barnes, J. 2003. Porphyry, Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bodéüs, R. 2001. Aristote, Catégories, Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Bolognesi, G. 1998. Leopardi e lʼarmeno, Milano: Vita e Pensiero. Brutyan, G. et al. (eds). 1983. Dawitʿ Anyałtǝʿ hin Hayastani mec pʿilisopʿan [David the Invincible, the great philosopher of ancient Armenia], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Čʿaloyan, V.K. & Lalafaryan, S.P. 1961. Ananun meknutʿiwn Storogutʿeancʿn Aristotēli [Anonymous commentary on Aristotle’s Categories], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ philosophical literature in ancient and medieval armenia 369

Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun (followed by a translation into Russian by S.S. Arevšatyan). Čʿaloyan, V.K. 1956. Yovhannu Orotnecʿwoy, Verlucutʿiwn Storogutʿeancʿ Aristotēli [Yovhannēs Orotnecʿi, Analysis of Aristotle’s Categories], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Čʿaloyan, V.K. 1975. Hayocʿ pʿilisopʿayutʿyan patmutʿyun (Hin ew miǰin darer) [History of Armenian philosophy. (Antiquity and Middle Ages)], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Čʿaloyan, V.K. 1980. Dawitʿ Anyałt banasirakan aknark [David the Invincible. Philological Overview], Patma-banasirakan-handes 1, 52–62. Calzolari, V. & Barnes, J. (eds). 2009. Lʼœuvre de David lʼInvincible et la transmission de la pensée grecque dans la tradition arménienne et syriaque (Commentaria in Aristotelem Armeniaca. Davidis Opera, 1) (Philosophia Antiqua, 116), Leiden & Boston: Brill. Calzolari, V. 2005. “Du pouvoir de la musique in la version arménienne des Prolegomena de David le platonicien (Orphée et Alexandre le Grand)”, in A. Kolde, A. Lukinovich & A.-L. Rey (eds), Κορυφαίῳ ἀνδρί. Mélanges en lʼhonneur dʼAndré Hurst, Genève: Droz, 417–431. Calzolari, V. 2007. “Aux origines de la formation du corpus philosophique en Arménie: quelques remarques sur les versions arméniennes des commentaires grecs de David”, in DʼAncona 2007, 259–278. Calzolari, V. 2009a. “David et la tradition arménienne”, in Calzolari & Barnes 2009, 15–36. Calzolari, V. 2009b. “La version arménienne des Prolegomena philosophiae de David et son rapport avec le texte grec”, in Calzolari & Barnes 2009, 39–65. Calzolari, V. 2012. “The ancient Armenian translations of Greek philosophical texts: the works of David the Invincible”, Scripta & e-Scripta. The Journal of interdisciplinary Mediaeval Studies, vol. 10–11, 131–146. Calzolari, V. forthcoming. “Sciences sacrées et sciences profanes dans la littérature arménienne. Les “racines” culturelles de lʼArménie ancienne et médiévale entre Orient et Occident”, in M. Delgado, C. Méla & F. Möri (eds), Orient-Occident. Racines spirituelles de lʼEurope. Enjeux et implications de la translatio studiorum dans le judaïsme, le christianisme et lʼislam de lʼAntiquité à la Renaissance (Actes du colloque scientifique international 16–19 novembre 2009), Paris: Cerf, 369–395. Contin, B. 2005. “Alle origini del pensiero filosofico armeno. Eznik di Koghb e Dawith lʼInvincibile”, Annali di Caʼ Foscari 14/3, 69–78. Conybeare, F.C. 1889. “On the Ancient Armenian Versions of Plato”, The Classical Review 3, 340–343. Conybeare, F.C. 1892. A Collation with the Ancient Armenian Versions of the Greek Text of Aristotle’s Categories, De Interpretatione, De Mundo, De Virtutibus et Vitiis and of 370 calzolari

Porphyry’s Introduction (Anecdota Oxoniensia, Classical Series, I, 6), Oxford: Oxford University Press. Conybeare, F.C. 1893. “Aristotēli yałags ǝndōrinakutʿean ‘Yałags Astucoy’” [A manuscript of Aristotle’s De Deo], Handēs Amsōreay 7, 227–232. Conybeare, F.C. 1895. Philo about the Contemplative Life, or the Fourth Book of the Treatise Concerning Virtues, Oxford: Oxford University Press. DʼAncona, C. (ed.). 2007. The Libraries of the Neoplatonists (Proceedings of the Meeting of the European Science Foundation Network “Late Antiquity and Arabic Thought. Patterns in the Constitution of European Culture”, Strasbourg, March 12–14, 2004) (Philosophia Antiqua, 107), Leiden & Boston: Brill. David the Invincible. 1731. Girkʿ sahmanacʿ Dawtʿi anyałtʿ pʿilisopʿayi ew astuacaban vardapeti [Book of definitions by David the Invincible, philosopher and Vardapet theologian], i Kostandnupōlis kʿałakʿi. David the Invincible. 1793. Girkʿ Porpʿiwri or kočʿi Neracutʿiwn, yorum parunakin vercanutʿiwnkʿ amenimast Dawtʿi Anyałtʿ pʿilisopʿayi ew lucmunkʿ Neracutʿean Srboyn Grigori Tatʿewacʿwoy [Work by Porphyry called Introduction, in which are contained the readings by the very learned philosopher David the Invincible and the analysis of the Introduction by Grigor Tatʿewacʿi], Madras. David the Invincible. 1797. Girkʿ Sahmanacʿ srboyn Dawtʿi Anyałtʿ pʿilisopʿayiʿ Hayocʿ imastasiri [Book of Definitions by St. David the Invincible philosopher of the Armenians], Madras. David the Invincible. 1833. Koriwn Vardapeti, Mambrē Vercanołi ew Dawtʿi Anyałtʿi Matenagrutʿiwnkʿ [Works of Koriwn vardapet, Mambrē the Reader and David the Invincible], i Venetik: i Tparani Srboyn Łazaru. David the Invincible. 19322. Dawtʿi Anyałtʿ pʿilisopʿayi matenagrutʿiwnkʿ ew Tʿułtʿ Giwtay katʿołikosi aṙ Dawitʿ [Works by David the Invincible philospher and Letter from the Catholicos Giwt to David], i Venetik: i Tparani Srboyn Łazaru [reprinting of David the Invincible 1833]. Dragonetti, M. 1986. “La traduzione del Timeo. Rapporti tra il ms 1123 e lʼedizione a stampa”, Rendiconti dellʼIstituto Lombardo. Classe di Lettere e Scienze morali e storiche 120, 3–33. Fiaccadori, F. (ed.). 2001. Autori classici in lingue del Vicino e Medio Oriente, Roma: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato. Finazzi, R.B. 2012. “Cinquantʿanni di ricerche sulle antiche traduzioni armene di testi greci”, in Baffioni, C., Finazzi, R.S., Passoni DellʼAcqua, A. & Vergani, E. (eds), Gli studi orientalistici in Ambrosiana nella cornice del IV centenario (1609–2009). Primo Dies Academicus 8–10 novembre 2010 (Accademia Ambrosiana. Orientalia Ambrosiana, 1), Milano: Bulzoni, 144–170. Gabrielyan, H. 1956–1965. Hay pʿilisopʿayakan mtkʿi patmutʿyun [History of Armenian philosophical thought], 3 vols, Erevan: Haypethrat. philosophical literature in ancient and medieval armenia 371

Goulet, R. 2000. “Elias”, in R. Goulet (dir.), DPhA, vol. 3, Paris: Éditions du CNRS, 57–66. Grigoryan, G.H. 1967. Vahram Rabuni, Lucmunkʿ Storogutʿeancʿ Aristotēli [Vahram Rabuni, Analysis of Aristotle’s Categories], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Grigoryan, G.H. 1977. Hasarakakan-pʿilisopʿayakan mitkʿǝ Kilikyan haykakan patmutʿyan mēǰ XII darum [Socio-philosophical thought in Armenian Cilician history in the twelfth century], Erevan. Grigoryan, G.H. 1979. Hasarakakan-pʿilisopʿayakan mitkʿǝ haykakan Kilikiayum (XII dari erkrord kes) [Socio-philosophical thought in Cilician Armenia (second half of the the twelfth century)], Erevan. Grigoryan, G.H. 1980. Hovhan Orotnecʿu pʿilisopʿayakan usmunkʿǝ [Philosophical studies of Yovhan Orotnecʿi], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Grigoryan, G.H. 1984. Miǰnadaryan hay pʿilisopʿayutʿyan bnutʿagrman harcʿi šurǰǝ [On the question of the characterization of medieval Armenian philosophy], Erevan. Grigoryan, G.H. 1987. Miǰnadaryan hay pʿilisopʿayutʿyan hangucʿayin harcʿeri šurǰǝ [Central questions of Armenian philosophy], Erevan. Hacikyan, A.J. et al. 2002. The Heritage of Armenian Literature, vol. 2: From the Sixth to the Eighteenth Century, Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Hadot, I. (dir.) 1990. Simplicius, Commentaire sur les Catégories, 2 vol., fasc. 1 (Philosophia Antiqua, 50), Leiden, New York, Købnhaven & Köln: Brill. Hugonnard-Roche, H. 2009. “La tradition gréco-syriaque des commentaires dʼAristote”, in Calzolari & Barnes, 153–173. Kendall, B. & Thomson, R.W. 1983. Definitions and Divisions of Philosophy, by David the Invincible Philosopher. English Translation of the Old Armenian Version with Introduction and Notes by B. Kendall & R.W. Thomson (UPATS, 5), Chico, CA: Scholars Press. Khostikian, M. 1907. David der Philosoph (Berner Studien, 58), Bern: Drugulin. Lafontaine, G. 1983. “La traduction arménienne des Catégories dʼAristote par David lʼInvincible”, Le Muséon 96, 133–144. La Porta, S. 2007. Two Anonymous Sets of Scholia on Dionysius the Areopagite’s Heaveny Hierarchy (CSCO, 623–624. Scriptores Armeniaci, 29–30), Leuven: Peeters. La Porta, S. 2008. The Armenian Scholia on Dionysius the Areopagite. Studies on their literary and philological Tradition (CSCO, 625. Subsidia, 122), Leuven: Peeters. Leopardi, G. 1823. “Annotazioni sopra la Cronica dʼEusebio pubblicata lʼanno MDCCCXVIII. in Milano dai dottori Angelo Mai, e Giovanni Zohrab scritte lʼanno appresso dal Conte Giacomo Leopardi a un amico suo”, Effemeridi letterarie di Roma n° 10, 101–115, 167–182, 362–387; n° 11, 117–123, 304–322; n° 12, 263–381 (collected in one volume, published in Rome in 1825 [1823 according to the date printed in the volume]). 372 calzolari

Leroy, M. 1935. “Grégoire Magistros et les traductions arméniennes dʼauteurs grecs”, Annuaire de lʼInstitut de Philologie et dʼHistoire Orientales 3 (Mélanges Jean Capart), 263–294. Lewy, H. 1936. The Pseudo-Philonic de Jona. Part I: The Armenian Text with a Critical Introduction (Studies and Documents, 7), London: Christophers. Lorimer, W.L. 1933. Aristotelis qui fertur libellus De mundo, Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Madoyan, A.G. & Mirzoyan, H.Ł. 2004. Yovhannēs Sarkawag Imastasēr, Lucmunkʿ Sahmanacʿ grocʿ [Yovhannēs Sarkawag Philosopher, Analysis of the Definitions], Erevan: Erevani Hamalsarani Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Mahé, J.-P. 1989. “Amelaxos”, in R. Goulet (ed.), DPhA, vol. 1, Paris: Éditions du CNRS, 160. Mahé, J.-P. 1990. “David lʼInvincible dans la tradition arménienne”, in Hadot 1990, fasc. 1, 189–207. Mahé, J.-P. 1998. “Du grec à lʼarménien”, Encyclopédie philosophique universelle, vol. 4 (notice n° 64): Le discours philosophique, Paris: Presse Universitaire de France. Mai, A. 1816. De Philonis Iudaei et Eusebii Pamphilii scriptis ineditis aliorumque libris ex armeniaca lingua convertendis dissertation, Mediolani: Regiis Typis. Mahé, J.-P. 1818. Eusebii Pamphili Chronicorum canonum libri duo: opus ex Haicano codice a Johanne Zohrabo collegii Armeniaci Venetiarum alumno, Mediolani: Regiis Typis. Manandean, J. 1911. Meknutʿiwn Storogutʿeancʿn Aristotēli ǝncayeal Ēliasi imastasiri / Commentarii in Aristotelis Categorias Eliae Commentatori Adscripti Versio Armenica (Bibliotheca Armeno-Georgica, 1), Petropoli: Sumptibus Academiae Imperialis Scientiarum. Manandean, Y. 1904. Dawitʿ Anyałtʿ xndirǝ nor lusabanutʿeamb [The question of David the Invincible in a new light], Vałaršapat: Tparan Mayr Atʿoroy S. Ēǰmiacni. Manandean, H. 1928. Yunaban dprocʿǝ ew nra zargacʿman šrǰannerǝ [The Hellenizing School and the phases of its development], Vienna: Mxitʿarean tparan. Mancini Lombardi, S. & Pontani, P. (eds). 2011. Studies on the ancient Armenian version of Philo’s work (Studies in Philo of Alexandria, 6), Leiden & Boston: Brill. Mercier, Ch. 1978–1979. “Lʼécole hellénistique dans la littérature arménienne”, REArm 13, 59–75. Minio-Paluello, L. 1949. Aristotelis Categoriae et Liber de Interpretatione, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mirzoyan, H.Ł. 1983a. XVII dari hay pʿilisopʿayakan mtkʿi kʿnnakan verlucutʿyun [Critical analysis of Armenian philosophical thought in the 17th century], Erevan: Hamalsarani Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Mirzoyan, H.Ł. 1983b. “Davitʿ Anhałtʿǝ ev XVII d. hay pʿilisopʿayakan mitkʿǝ” [David the Invincible and armenian philosophical though in the 17th century], in Brutyan et al. 1983, 510–523. philosophical literature in ancient and medieval armenia 373

Mirzoyan, H.Ł. 2001. Hovhannes Mrkʿuz JułayecʿiÌ [Hovhannes Mrkʿuz from Julfa], Erevan: Hamalsarani Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Montanari, E. 1984 & 1988. La sezione linguistica del Peri hermeneias di Aristotele: vol. 1: Il testo, vol. 2: Il commento (Studi e testi, 5 & 8), Firenze: Dipartimento di Scienze dellʼAntichità “Giorgio Pasquali”. Muradyan, A.N. 1981. “Davitʿ Anhałtʿi anjnavorutʿyan, žamanaki ev gitakan žaṙangutʿyan harcʿi šurǰǝ” [The issue of the personality, the period, and the scientific legacy of David the Invincible], Patma-banasirakan handes 1 (92), 194–216. Muradyan, G. 2009. “David the Invincible’s Commentary on Porphyry’s Isagoge. A Collation of the Greek and Armenian Versions”, in Calzolari & Barnes, 67–88. Nersoyan, H.J. 1986. “ʿAn Encomium of the Holy Cross of Godʼ by David the Invincible Philosopher”, in Sanjian 1986, 81–100. Neumann, C.F. 1829. “Mémoire sur la vie et les ouvrages de David, philosophe armé- nien du Ve siècle de notre ère”, Nouveau Journal Asiatique 3, 49–86, 97–157. Nicoll W.S.M. 1966. “Some manuscripts of Plato’s Apologia Socratis”, The Classical Quarterly 16, 70–77. Orengo, A. 1996. Confutazione delle sette (Ełc ałandocʿ) (Progetti linguistici, 2), Pisa: ETS. Pacella, G. & Timpanaro, S. 1969. G. Leopardi, Scritti filologici (1817–1832) (Scritti di Giacomo Leopardi inediti o rari), Firenze: L.S. Olschki. Papazian, M.B. 2009. “The Authorship of an Armenian Commentary on Aristotle’s Prior Analytics”, in Calzolari & Barnes 2009, 105–118 (1st edition: Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies 10, 55–62). Petrosyan, G.B. 1991. “Davitʿ Anhałtʿ žaṙangutʿyunǝ nor lusabanutʿyan mi pʿorji masin” [About an attempt to clarify once again the heritage of David the Invincible], Patma-banasirakan handes 1/132, 176–184. Rapava, M. 1982. “Traditions et innovations dans lʼÉcole néo-platonicienne dʼAlexandrie (Ammonius Hermias et David lʼInvincible)”, Bedi Kartlisa 40, 216–227. Saffrey, H.-D. 2007. “Retour sur le Parisinus graecus 1807, le manuscrit A de Platon”, in DʼAncona 2007, 3–28. Saint-Martin, A. 1818. Mémoires historiques et géographiques sur lʼArménie, 2 vols, Paris: Imprimerie Royale. Sanjian, A.K. 1986. David Anhagtʼ, the “Invincible” Philosopher (Studies in Near Eastern Culture and Society, 7) Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Sevin, F. 1739. Catalogus Codicum Manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Regiae, vol. 1, Parisiis: e Typographia Regia. Sgarbi, R. 1972. “Osservazioni sul testo e sulla lingua della versione armena dellʼ “Isagoge” di Porfirio”, Memorie dellʼIstituto Lombardo. Accademia di Scienze e Lettere. Classe di Lettere, Scienze morali e storiche 31, fasc. 5, 365–477. 374 calzolari

Sgarbi, R. 1989. “Analisi linguistico-filologica dellʼinterpretazione armena della trattazio- ne greca filoniana intorno allʼaltare”, Memorie dellʼIstituto Lombardo. Accademia di Scienze e Lettere. Classe di Lettere. Scienze Morali e Storiche 39, fasc. 3, 97–228. Sgarbi, R. 1991 [1992]. “Problemi linguistici e di critica del testo nel De Vita Contemplativa di Filone alla luce della versione armena”, Memorie dellʼIstituto Lombardo. Accademia di Scienze e Lettere. Classe di Lettere. Scienze Morali e Storiche 40, fasc. 1, 5–48. Shirinian, M.E. 2009. “The Armenian Version of David the Invincible’s Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories”, in Calzolari & Barnes, 89–102. Širinjan [Širinyan], M.A. 2002. “Armenian Translation of [Aristotle’s] De Vitiis et Virtutibus”, Verbum: Aristotel i srednevekovaja metafizika, vol. 6, Sankt-Peterburg, 166–171. Siegert, F. 1980. Drei hellenistisch-jüdische Predigten, I: Übersetzung aus dem Armenischen und sprachliche Erläuterungen (Wissenschaftlitche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 20), Tübingen: Mohr. Simēōn Jułayecʿi.Ì 1728. Girkʿ Tramabanutʿean Simēōni JułayecʿwoyÌ Gerimast Vardapeti Arareal [Book of Logic of the great wise vardapet Simēōn Jułayecʿi],Ì i Kostandnupōlis kʿałakʿi: i Hayrapetutʿean Srboyn Ēǰmiacin. Solari, R. 1969. “La traduzione armena dellʼEutifrone di Platone”, Rendiconti dellʼIstituto Lombardo. Classe di Lettere e Scienze morali e storiche 103, 477–499. [Somal, P.S.]. 1825. Quadro delle opere di vari autori anticamente tradotte in Armeno, Venezia: Dalla Tipografia Armena di San Lazzaro. Stepanyan, A. 2009. “On the Basic Idea of the History of the Armenians by Moses Khorenatsi”, in Calzolari & Barnes 2009, 181–196. Stone, M.E. & Shirinian, M.E. 2000. Pseudo-Zeno, Anonymous Philosophical Treatise (Philosophia Antiqua, 83), Leiden, Boston & Köln: Brill. Sukʿrean, A. 1877. Płatoni imastasiri tramaxōsutʿiwnkʿ, Ewtʿipʿṙon, Paštpanutʿiwn Sokratay ew Timēos [The Dialogues of the philosopher Plato, Euthyphro, the Apology of Socrates and Timaeus], i Venetik: i Vans Srboyn Łazaru. Sweeting, C. 2009. “The Relationship between the Armenian Translation of the Commentary on Aristotle’s Analytics of David and the Greek Text of the Commentary on Aristotle’s Analytics of Elias”, in Calzolari & Barnes 2009, 137–150. Tʿamrazyan, H. 2004. Grigor Narekacʿin ev Norplatonakanutʿyunǝ [Grigor Narekacʿi and the Neoplatonism], Erevan: Nairi. Tarrant, H. 1998. “Introduction”, in Olympiodorus, Commentary on Plato’s Gorgias. Translated with full Notes by R. Jackson, K. Lycos & H. Tarrant. Introduction by H. Tarrant (Philosophia Antiqua, 78), Leiden, Boston & Köln: Brill, 1–52. Terian, A. 1982. “The Hellenizing School. Its Time, Place and Scope of Activities Reconsidered”, in N.G. Garsoïan, Th.F. Mathews & R.W. Thomson (eds), East of Byzantium. Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period, Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 175–186 (= St. Nersess Theological Review 13, 2008: Opera Selecta Teriana. A Scholarly Retrospective, 25–44). philosophical literature in ancient and medieval armenia 375

Terian, A. 2001. “Appendix: The Armenian Translation of Philo”, in Fiaccadori 2001, 425–448 (1st edition, Jerusalem 1995). Terian, A. 2008. Opera Selecta Teriana (St Nersess Theological Review, Special Number 2008). Tessier, A. 1979. Il testo di Aristotele e le traduzioni armene (PROAGONES. Collezione di studi e testi. Studi, 17), Padova: Editrice Antenore. Tessier, A. 2001. “Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare e le versioni armene da Aristotele”, in Fiaccadori 2001, 133–138. Thomson, R.W. 1987. The Armenian Version of the Works attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite (CSCO, 488–489. Scriptores Armeniaci, 17–18), Leuven: Peeters. Thomson, R.W. 1995. A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 AD (Corpus Christianorum), Turnhout: Brepols. Thomson, R.W. 2007. “Supplement to A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 AD: Publications 1993–2005”, Le Muséon 120, 163–223. Timpanaro, S. 1964. “Le tre redazioni delle “Annotazioni sopra la Cronica dʼEusebio” di Giacomo Leopardi”, Giornale storico della letteratura italiana 141, 38–50. Tinti, I. 2012. “On the Chronology and Attribution of the Old Armenian Timaeus: A Status Quaestionis and New Perspectives”, EVO. Egitto e Vicino Oriente 35, 219–282. Tinti, I. 2013. Essere e divenire nel “Timeo” greco e armeno. Studio terminologico e indag- ine traduttologica, Pisa: Pisa University Press. Topchyan, A. 2009. “Remarks on David the Invincible’s Commentary on Aristotle’s Prior Analytics. Its Structure, Contents, Language, and the Problems of Translator and Authorship”, in Calzolari & Barnes 2009, 119–135. Topchyan, A. 2010. Commentary on Aristotle’s Prior Analytics: Old Armenian Text with an English Translation, Introduction and Notes (Philosophia Antiqua, 122. Commentaria in Aristotelem Armeniaca, 2), Leiden & Boston: Brill. van Esbroeck, M. 1986. “Les sentences morales des philosophes grecs in les traditions orientales”, in M. Pavan & U. Cozzoli (eds), Lʼeredità classica nelle lingue orientali, Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, p. 11–23. van Esbroeck, M. 1994–1995. “Movsēs Xorenacʿi et le Girkʿ Ēakacʿ”, REArm 25, 109–124. van Esbroeck, M. 1996–1997. “Les métamorphoses du Girkʿ Ēakacʿ ”, REArm 26, 235–248. van Oudenrijn, M.A. 1955. Eine alte armenische Übersetzung der Tertia Pars der Theologischen Summa des Hl. Thomas von Aquin – Einl. nebst Textproben aus den Hss Paris Bibl. nat. Arm. 134, Wien Mech. 332, Leiden Univ. Bibl. Or. 5494 u. Vatikan Borg Arm. 45, Bern: Francke Verlag. van Oudenrijn, M.A. 1960. Linguae Haicanae Scriptores, Bern & München: Francke Verlag. Vardanyan, S. 2008. S. Grigor Niwsacʿi, Tesutʿiwn i mardoyn kazmutʿiwn (Yałags kazmutʿean mardoy)/St. Gregory of Nyssa, On the making of man (Ekełecʿakan 376 calzolari

Matenagrutʿiwn/Church Fathers, 3), Erevan: Mayr Atʿoṙ Surb Ēǰmiacin Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Waitz, T. 1844. Aristotelis Organon Graece, Lipsiae: Sumptibus Hahni (reprint: Dubuque: W.C. Brown Repr. Library, s.d. [1962?]). Xačʿikyan, L. & Lalafaryan, S. 1956. “Filosofskie trudy v Armjanskix rukopisjax Matenadarana” [Works of Armenian philosphical manuscripts at the Matenadaran], Banber Matenadarani 3, 387–457. Xačʿikyan, L. 1950. Zenoni Yałags bnutʿean erki haykakan tʿargmanutʿyunǝ [The Armenian version of Zeno’s De natura], Erevan. Yovhannēs Mrkʿuz Jułayecʿi.Ì 1711. Hamaṙōt kʿerakanutʿiwn ew tramabanutʿiwn or ē kʿertʿutʿiwn baṙi ew krtʿutʿiwn bani [Summary of grammar and logic which is the construction of words and an exercise in discourse], Amsterdam. Zarbhanalean, G. 1889. Matenadaran haykakan tʿargmanutʿeancʿ naxneacʿ (dar D-ŽG) [Library of ancient Armenian translations (4th–13th centuries)], Venetik: Mxitʿarean tparan. Zarbhanalean, G. 1890. Płatoni tramaxōsutʿiwnkʿ. Yałags Ōrinacʿ ew Minovs [Dialogues of Plato, Laws and Minos], i Venetik: i Vans Srboy Łazaru. Zuckerman, C. 2001. A Repertory of Published Armenian Translations of Classical Texts, in Fiaccadori 2001, 425–448 (1st edition, Jerusalem 1995). Medieval Poetic Texts

Theo M. van Lint

Introduction

In The Gardens of Silihdar, Zabel Essayan’s lyrical description of her youth, there is among the male family members an uncle whose warmth and liveliness always attracted the little girl. She remembers Gangan, as she called uncle Dikran fondly, not only for these traits, but also for the songs he used to perform as an ašuł. She still possessed the text of some of his songs when she wrote her memoir. The poetic and musical strand of the travelling bard ran in the family: her great-grandfather Širin and his brother Farhad, who led cara- vans to Baghdad, Persia and India, were ašuł and meddah or storyteller. Her grandfather Hagop was perhaps the most renowned, and subject to the drive that sometimes made an ašuł into a somewhat problematic person for mother or wife. Every once in a while he would disappear, unannounced, and stay away for several weeks, only to reappear as unexpectedly as he had left. It transpired that he had temporarily abandoned his everyday work, taken his saz, and lived the life of an ašuł instead, travelling from village to village and singing his songs, which he composed in Turkish, writing them down in Armenian script. This must have been around the middle of the nineteenth century, around the time when Armenian scholars began to assemble songs and poems from all over the area where Armenians lived.1 The fate of Širinoğlu Hagop’s ašuł activities was not unique: upon his death his wife destroyed his instrument and burnt all his papers with his poems.2 Essayan’s memoir may thus be the only record of these ašułakan erger that ever existed. Who knows whether they were taken up by other ašułs and found their way into their davtʿars, or were recorded by one of the scholars engaging in this work at the time. In this chapter a brief, by no means exhaustive survey of philological work carried out on the Armenian poetic legacy up to the eighteenth century will be

I would like to thank Prof. M.E. Stone for his valuable suggestions after reading the manuscript version of this chapter. 1 Esayean 1987, at 193–194 (Hagop) and 204 (Dikran). For a translation into French, see Essayan 1994. 2 A similar event is related by Axverdean in the introduction to his publication of Sayatʿ Nova’s poems, Axverdean 1852, 2–3. The objection lies not so much in the songs, but in the fact that these ašułs (temporarily and unpredictably) abandoned house and hearth.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��4 | doi ��.��63/9789004270961_�18 378 van lint given, preceded by a consideration of the place of oral transmission as compared with the written, and the consequences of this for the method of editing of Armenian poetry. Finally, the composition of a repertorium of Armenian poems in the form of an easily accessible database will be proposed as one of the means to advance the field.3

1 Poetry and Performance: Modes of Existence and Scholarly Presentation

The earliest publication of Armenian poetry is a product of the first Armenian printing house, set up by Yakob Mełapart in Venice, where he published five known works, between 1511 and 1513. The last of these is the Tałaran, more fully entitled Tałaran ē say hogoy ew marmnoy “This is a book of tałs of the soul and of the body”. It contains works by Grigor Narekacʿi (c. 945–c. 1003), Nersēs Šnorhali (1102–1173), Frik (1230s–c. 1315), Yovhannēs Tʿlkurancʿi (c. 1320–1400), Mkrtičʿ Nałaš (c. 1400–c. 1469) and others.4 In at least one case the printed version of a poem is its oldest attestation, while manuscript versions of a later date do exist.5 It is clear that this is not a publication adopting philological principles based on the comparison of available manuscripts, but it shows that from the beginning of Armenian book publishing there was an interest in printing works containing poetry. It seems reasonable to assume that these books were made for merchants.6 While one cannot restrict philology to printed editions without thereby overlooking the considerable care that copyists and patrons of manuscripts on many occasions gave to the comparison of the quality of the available exemplars, I will not be able to dwell on this aspect of textual transmission here. We know from Koriwn’s Life of Maštocʿ that Eznik brought “good

3 Bibliographical references in this chapter are not exhaustive. The reference works that should be consulted for fuller listings of published works are Thomson 1995; Thomson 2007; Bardakjian 2000. 4 See Kévorkian 1986, 23 and 25; Mahé in Kévorkian 1986, VIII–XI; Lane 2012, 20–26. Cf. also the facsimile of the urbatʿagirkʿ and the tałaran, in Čʿugaszean 1974. The 500th anniversary of the inception of Armenian printing has given rise to a series of publications. 5 This is the poem entitled: “I Nałašē asacʿeal vasn unaynutʿean ašxarhis” [Recited by Nałaš about the Vanity of this World], with the opening line Eraz ē u sut ełbayrkʿ, ašxarhis banern i lman [Just a dream and a lie, brothers, are the things of this world], Xondkaryan 1965, 123– 126, 218–20. 6 As do Mahé and Kévorkian, see Kévorkian 1986; espec. X–XI, where Mahé quotes Mkrtičʿ Nałaš’s poem Nałaši asacʿeal ē vasn łaripayn [Recited by Nałaš about the Exile] (Poem no. 14, ll. 61–64 and 74–76 in Xondkaryan 1965, 174–175). medieval poetic texts 379 manuscript copies” of the Bible in Greek from Constantinople, which were taken as the basis for a revision of the extant translation. In another case an eleventh-century copyist states that the Vorlage of his exemplar, which belongs to the tenth century, dates back to Maštocʿ himself.7 Moreover, in the transmission of poetic texts, it is often very hard to make the case for a preference of the oldest version of a poem to the exclusion of all later variants. Poems, whether transmitted orally, in written form, or both, may undergo deliberate changes as well as unintended ones – in length, through additions or abbreviations, in the order of lines and stanza’s, in language or dialect – that make the new product into a verse worthy to be preserved on its own.8 The song of the Birth of Vahagn may serve an as example.9 It is preserved in Classical Armenian only, but given the discrepancy between its period of recording and its antiquity, it must be assumed that it existed in earlier forms of the language as well, as it evolved over time.10 While it is certainly often worthwhile to seek for the original composition of a poetic work, the development or branching out of a particular text through additions, changes of rhyme words, transposition of stanzas and other means can be seen as an enrichment of that text rather than as deterioration from an original enjoying the status of unassailability.11 Indeed, the transformation of an existing poetic text is part of the creative process by which a corpus of poetic texts in a particular language – and sometimes in more than one language – is built up.12 These changes can be felt most strongly perhaps when poetry is performed, either recited or sung – there is no need to make distinctions of principle here, although difference in genre and therefore in ways of transmission and of performance do exist and do matter. An example from a contemporary Armenian bard (a term from the Russian tradition of songs commenting on daily life and its peculiarities in the Soviet Union) may illustrate this. Ruben Haxverdyan, a well-known poet-singer from Yerevan, who accompanies himself on the gui- tar, has been performing for several decades now. In one of his songs which

7 Matʿevosyan 1998, 11, referring to M10434, f. 285a; see Malxasyan 2007, 71. 8 On the complexities involved in transmission, e.g. in that of the Gilgamesh epic, see Carr 2005, 17–46. 9 Abełyan 1991, I.31; Thomson 2006, I.31. 10 An example of the careful reconstruction of an earlier form of the poem on the Birth of Vahagn is Ivanov 2011. 11 Such an approach throws fresh light on the merits and limitations of the Lachmannian method. See Coulie’s “Text Editing: Principles and Methods” in the present volume, though he does not deal with the peculiarities of poetic texts. 12 This brings to the fore questions concerning the concept of authorship; for the ancient period, cf. Carr 2005; van der Toorn 2007, 27–49. 380 van lint comments on domestic happiness, a line occurs that runs “menkʿ unenkʿ pʿokʿrik orn arden xosum ē”, “we have a child [a little one] that can already speak”. The public know the song very well – be it in Paris, Yerevan or Moscow, places where he has lived, or elsewhere in Armenia or the Diaspora, where he has regularly given concerts. In a rendering of the song during a concert in Moscow in November 2005 he sang instead: “menkʿ unenkʿ tʿornik orn arden xosum ē” “we have a grandchild that can already speak”, to rapturous applause from the audience, which immediately recognised the change in wording, and the change in generation.13 Such a change, minimal as it is, carries multiple meanings. These include the success of fatherhood and the even more advanced one of grandparenthood, next to the maximum effect obtained by the felicitous replacement of a mere three consonants, a technical accomplishment no less appreciated by the audience. Such a change ought not to be edited out of the text as a deviation, but deserves at least a footnote registering the change, and a note explaining its occurrence, if not a place on a page of its own as a doublet, sung by the poet later in life.14 Indeed, the possibility of registering the performance ought to be taken full advantage of. This example is deliberately taken from a performance, a mode of transmission of great importance to poetry from its very beginning. Epic poetry has been the laboratory for the establishment of a poetics of orality, and this element of much of medieval Armenian poetry must be taken into consideration in the preparation of text editions.15 The most striking example is no doubt the collection of variants of Sasna Cṙer, the Daredevils of Sasun, which are rightly all published on an equal footing, with indication of the teller, his or her age and provenance. Ideally a similar undertaking would have to be made in the case of each poem that has come down to us, insofar as the available data allow. This does not mean abandoning the principle of valuing a source as source, but on the contrary of elevating the status of works that can be derived from this

13 Haxverdyan 2006. 14 Osip Mandelʼštam (1891–1938) created different, equivalent realizations of a poem almost simultaneously; occasionally they were composed at a distance in time, see e.g. Struve & Filippov 1967, nos. 267–69, 275–76, 289–291, 292–93, 308–309, 324–26, 330–31, 346–48, 378–79. 15 There is now a vast literature on the subject of orality in poetic traditions, from Lord 1960 (revised edition, Lord 2000) to the work carried out by John Miles Foley (1947–2012) and others. An interesting body of material and interpretation is gathered in the on-line journal (though so far lacking contributions on Armenian poetry) Oral Tradition at http:// journal.oraltradition.org. Cf. further, by way of example, Foley 2002 and Bakker 2005. On the differences between reading silently and reading aloud in the Medieval period, see e.g. Carruthers 2008, 195–233, esp. 212–217. medieval poetic texts 381 source to that of works to be valued in their own right, while such compositions that cannot be neatly assigned a place in a stemma are not reduced to a status of unreliable witnesses. They too have to be given full rights as compositions, whether they have a proven pedigree or not. The quest for origins makes many victims on the way: such an understanding of the philologist’s task does not yield the full harvest of a poetic, or other “literary” tradition.16 Above, the ašułs, their performances, including poetic and verbal contests, and their davtʿars17 or notebooks were mentioned.18 Their work was transmitted in the same way, either both written and orally, or just orally, like the epics and the songs of the modern bards and folk songs. These poets often wrote in more than one language, in addition to Armenian, either in Persian or Turkish, or Georgian to mention the most important ones. It would be desirable to have their production published in all the languages in which they wrote, in order to obtain reliable instruments for further study not only of the works themselves, but also of the context in which these poets performed. Here much work remains to be done.19 Comparable to these to a certain extent are the works of the tałasacʿner, the lyrical poets who continued to develop the tałs, shorter poems, as Narekacʿi had started to write them, together with their sequels, which have a higher paced rhythm, and are even more emotionally expressive than the tałs, the yordorak, pʿox, and mełedi, or standing alone. Many of these poets were ecclesiastics both humble and of elevated rank, which may have eased the transmission of many of their works in manuscripts. Among these poems one finds many variants as well, which indicate that they were often recited or sung and changed shape as other poets integrated them in their repertoire. Sometimes these changes can be clearly traced, as in the case of a poem by Kostandin Erznkacʿi, written in the second half of the thirteenth or in the early fourteenth century. It appears, transformed, in the work of the

16 For a treatment of textual clusters not reducible to a common origin, see Stone 2011, 151–171, with further literature. 17 Arabic daftar from Greek diftéra. 18 For an example of such a davtʿar, see the facsimile of Sayatʿ Nova’s book, Baxčʿinyan 2005. 19 A good example is Eganyan 1960, which gives a critical edition of the Turkish text occurring in Nahapet Kučʿak’s work, with an Armenian translation; the publication is meant to help dispel the idea that Kʿučʿak’s name had to be associated with many hayrens that have come down to us, brought into circulation by Tevkancʿ 1882. Unfortunately, apart from those in the two facsimile editions (Čʿugaszyan & Muradyan 1963; Baxčʿinyan 2005), to the best of my knowledge only recently some of Sayatʿ Nova’s Turkish poems have been published in the original in Yerevan, with Armenian translation; see Stepʿanyan 2006. A trilingual edition, published in Tbilisi, with translations into Georgian of the Armenian and Turkish poems, is Medulašvili 2005. 382 van lint fifteenth century poet Mkrtičʿ Nałaš, who was mentioned above.20 While here we have a case of a poem taken as the point of departure for another poem by means of applying the same metre, rhyme pattern, stanza structure and two identical stanzas in its opening part, rather more often we find that poems dedicated to a recurring theme, such as the allegorical use of flowers, tend to present themselves in various orders, with one particular stanza now preceding, now following another, and of considerably different length, sometimes with a variation in theme as well. All these need to be carefully related to each other and the differences from earlier examples indicated. The different variants ought ideally to be introduced into a database in their integrity. This could be done for all types of poetry, including the laments, which in the Armenian tradition are often longer poems bewailing the fall of a city, as well as for those poems that may be less susceptible to greater variety by oral transmission, such as the šarakans, and the other poetic texts that are used mostly in the liturgy, such as the ganj.21 Several types of poems share themes with works in prose, such as colophons and saintsʼ lives, and the kafa’s that accompany and comment on stories told in prose, such as the Alexander Romance or the Legend of the City of Bronze.22 A philologically responsible presentation ought to reflect whatever classification the Armenians themselves made over the course of time into genres, styles, and types of collections. These may vary in space and over time. While at least four main external influences can be discerned in the course of time, beginning with Greek and Syriac models, followed by Arabic, Persian and Turkish ones, it is also possible to distinguish stylistic levels. Here one

20 See Xondkaryan 1965, 79–81 and Cowe 1988–1989, for a consideration of several of Nałaš’s poems that bear the mark of his predecessor’s style and wording. The closest imitation of Kostandin’s work is found in Nałaš’s poem Tał harsaneacʿ ev uraxutʿean mardkan [Tał on Wedding and Joy for Mankind], which is “based upon” Erznkacʿi’s Tał gaṙnan ev uraxutʿean [Tał on Spring and Joy]. 21 For historic laments and elegies, see note 58. For a classification and study of the development of ganj genre, see Kʿyoškeryan 1981, 21–51; Kʿēōškēryan 2008; Dewrikean’s Foreword in MH, vol. 13, 9–25. A review of Kʿyoškeryan 1981, summarising the various types of poems and their functions in the context of the ganj is given in Mahé 1982. Further material is published in MH, vol. 13 and MH, vol. 14, Kʿyoškeryan 1987 and Harutʿyunyan 2005. 22 The first to draw attention to kafa’s were Ališan 1885 and Tašean 1892. A critical edition of the Armenian versions of the Alexander Romance is Simonyan 1989; a study of the kafa genre, Simonyan 1975. There is no “critical” edition yet of the Tale of the City of Bronze; future research might want to take the implications of its double transmission, both oral and written, and its context in performance, into consideration; cf. Russell 1984; Thomson 1995, 41; Thomson 2007, 171. medieval poetic texts 383 acknowledges differences between works that were only read or recited, from a second group that might or might not be recited under the accompaniment of a musical instrument, and a third one consisting of poems that were usually performed under musical accompaniment. We have a clear indication of this in a collection of songs made by Xačʿgṙuz in the Crimea in the first half of the seventeenth century, where a high, middle and low style are distinguished. It is however not clear to what extent this reflects a generally accepted classification or rather a local, restricted one, nor whether this was a time-honoured classification or a recent set of criteria.23 Furthermore, the distinction between poetry as text on a page or strings of sound pronounced by a performer, with or without musical accompaniment, is not the only one that has to be made in assessing a poem’s context. Often poems occur within larger stories, such as the Alexander Romance mentioned above, or in tales of more recent coinage, where they perform particular roles. It is impossible to disregard this context, which was the usual one for a storyteller, a role ašułs often assumed. The siravēp is a romance or love-epic in which particular moments of the story are expressed in poetry, sung to a tune played on the saz. Research on the siravēp is a desideratum in Armenian studies.24 An important aspect of the repertoire of ašułs, as was already seen in the opening paragraph of this chapter, is its bilingual, and sometimes multilingual character. The consequences of this situation have not been studied in detail by means of the various scholarly approaches that can be fruitfully brought to bear upon it. Closely related is the field of Armeno-Turkish literature, Turkish texts written in Armenian characters (hayataṙ tʿurkʿerēn) for the benefit of a variety of audiences, in which poetry has its place as well. A case in point is the story of The Jewish Bride, of which a Greek version exists, as well as an Armenian one and one in Turkish, written in Armenian script, both of the latter composed by the seventeenth century Constantinople Armenian intellectual Eremia Čʿēlēpi Kʿēōmiwrčean.25 Over the past decades research in medieval poetry in general has embraced the insights gained into the character of oral tradition, in particular where both

23 See Mnacʿakanyan 1971a; Cowe 1995; Cowe 2005; Bardakjian 2000, 70–71. 24 See the collection of some twenty of them in four volumes, Kʿotʿanǰyan 2004 (volume four non vidi). They continue to raise the interest of storytellers: at the moment of writing V. Gulbenkian is undertaking the publication in English of ašuł J̌ivani’s late nineteenth- century translation from Turkish of Asli and Kʿearam (J̌ivani 1888), and she performs (parts of) this siravēp in her capacity as professional storyteller. 25 On The Jewish Bride, see Sanjian & Tietze 1981; on Armeno-Turkish literature, see Berbérian 1964; Stepʿanyan 2001, 2005. 384 van lint the oral and the written are constituents of a tradition. The insights gained by these approaches to “literature” have yet to be fully integrated into work on Armenian poetry.26 The following pages contain a brief chronological survey of the main periods and the most important scholarly, or otherwise, views informing the choice for the edition of particular Armenian poetic works.

2 Survey: Periodization of Publishing, Motives, Orientation, Ideology

2.1 Before the Era of Philology: Early Printed Works The history of Armenian philology reflects the various interests and priorities of the editors. While the first printers of Armenian books werenʼt necessarily philologists, it is still important to acknowledge the poetic works published before the modern era of philology began. Above Yakob Mełapart and the Tałaran were mentioned.27 Some of the better-known works of Armenian poetry, and central texts in the Armenian ecclesiastical tradition were printed from very early on. One of these, Grigor Narekacʿi’s Matean Ołbergutʿyan [Book of Lamentation], known simply as the Narek, was not presented as a work of poetry until 1948 with Bishop Trapizoni’s edition, which gave a translation into Western Armenian facing the Classical Armenian original.28 Despite the clear choice to follow Abełyan in accepting the text as a poem, made in the critical edition by Łazinyan and Xačʿatryan (1985), its precise status remains a matter of dispute, because the underlying prosodic principle still has not been fully understood.29 The earliest publication of the Narek dates from 1673, and took place in Marseille. In the eighteenth century it was printed eleven times, nine times in Constantinople, and twice in Venice. In the nineteenth century it was published no less than forty times. Another early print was the Hymnal

26 Cf. notes 8, 12, and 15. 27 For excellent surveys of early Armenian printed works, see Kévorkian 1986 (1511–1695), Oskanyan et al. 1988 (1512–1800); Davtʿyan 1967 (1801–1850); Oskanyan et al. 1999 (1851–1900). 28 Trapizoni 1948. Bishop Trapizoni’s Western Armenian translation was first published in Istanbul in 1926. 29 For a discussion of this subject, see Beledian (Pəltean) 1983, 181–186; Beledian (Pəltean) 1985; Beledian (Pəltean) 2008. In the latter work the author considers it neither poetry, nor prose, nor a mixture of the two, but a third type of speech, in between the two, the predominant characteristic of which is “to be rhythmic” – kšṙutʿawor əllal (2008, 29); Zekiyan 1999, 68; Mahé and Mahé 2000, 163–64 and 191–95. medieval poetic texts 385 or Šaraknocʿ, which saw the light in Amsterdam in 1664–1665. Šnorhali’s long poem Yisus Ordi (Jesus the Son) was first published in Venice in 1643, followed by another edition also in Venice in 1660, and in Amsterdam in 1660–1661. In Constantinople the work was first published by Eremia Čʿēlēpi Kʿēōmiwrčʿean in 1677, followed by another edition in Venice, in 1686. Further editions were published in 1702, 1724–25 and 1746, all in Constantinople.30 The Šaraknocʿ, Yisus Ordi and Narek are all religious works, the former in constant use in the liturgy, while the latter two were immensely popular works of personal devotion.

2.2 The Mekhitarist Brotherhood During the eighteenth and much of the nineteenth century the most important editors of Armenian texts were the Mekhitarist Fathers. Mekhitar of Sebastia’s goals, adopted by the Brotherhood both in Venice and in Trieste, and later in Vienna, were the education of the Armenian people and its spiritual elevation. The armenological work they carried out in order to realise these goals was not in the first place concerned with producing critical editions of poetic texts, although some works that fitted the brotherhood’s aims well were published, such as the large collection of Nersēs Šnorhali’s compositions, Bankʿ čʿapʿaw [Poetic works, 1854], followed in 1868 by Grigor Magistrosʼ Tałasacʿutʿiwnkʿ Grigor Magistrosi Pahlawunwoy [The Poems of Grigor Magistros Pahlawuni]. The Mekhitaristsʼ journals, Bazmavēp and Handēs Amsōreay,31 occasionally carried poems, which were often transcripts from one of the manuscripts in their possession, and not the product of a philological analysis of all copies of a poem available in the library at San Lazzaro or in Vienna, or the result of wider efforts at collation. In the middle of the nineteenth century Father Ł. Ališan published a selection of folk-poetry together with his own English translation, and at the beginning of the twentieth century Father M. Poturean (not without the promptings of A. Čʿōpanean, himself a poet) published further full volumes of Armenian poetsʼ works.32

30 See Oskanyan et al. 1988; Kévorkian 1986. 31 E.g., some of Kostandin Erznkacʿi’s poems were published in Bazmavēp as early as 1848 (NN 1848), and e.g. in 1866 (NN 1866a–d). 32 Ališan 1852; Poturean 1905 (Kostandin Erznkacʿi) and Poturean 1907 (Aṙakʿel Siwnecʿi). A critical edition of Siwnecʿi’s Adamgirkʿ is Madoyan 1989. A French translation of extracts from Siwnecʿi’s Adamgirkʿ was published in Tchobanian 1918, 71–113; an integral translation in English, with study is Stone 2007. 386 van lint

2.3 The 19th Century Revival Several impulses were of importance for philological study of poetry, which apart from the Mekhitarist Brotherhood was furthered by the establishment of Armenian educational centres in the Russian Empire, such as the Lazarev Institute in Moscow (1815) and the foundation of chairs in Armenian at the country’s most prominent universities. This gained momentum in the last third of the nineteenth century and lasted up to the First World War.33 Among those engaged in this work were M. Abełyan, Bishop K. Sruanjteancʿ, A. vardapet Tevkancʿ, and Komitas vardapet, to name but some of the better known among them.34 Perhaps the earliest work in this vein was G. Axverdean’s Sayeatʿ-Nōvay, the first volume in a projected series called Gusankʿ [Gusans], which gives forty-six of the poet’s Armenian poems, with explanations after each poem of difficult words and terms, and is preceded by a forty page grammar of the Armenian dialect of Tiflis. The introduction of twenty-five pages explains that the author had set out to write a History of the Armenian People and had started by collecting its songs and poems. Written in Tiflis, the work was published in 1852 in Moscow. One important motive for work of this type was provided by the Romantic Movement, which led to a greater consciousness of the value of the folk tradition next to the learned one. It was also inspired by the sense of a regained Armenianness, that expressed itself through a strong emancipatory movement, followed towards the end of the century by the formation of political parties, and an equally powerful desire to know one’s own tradition more thoroughly through education and the collection of its various elements. In this period we see the beginnings of more or less systematic cataloguing of Armenian manuscripts as well as the composition of collections of colophons, excerpted from them.35 Further work was done through the publication in anthropological or folklore journals, such as Azgagrakan Handes, of which the first volume was published in Suši in 1895, followed by twenty five more volumes, which all saw the

33 For the early philological efforts of the Hellenistic school of Alexandria, interesting for the way in which it sought to fix an oral tradition in writing, and those of Renaissance scholars, see Reynolds & Wilson 1991, 1–43 and 122–63. 34 Sruanjteancʿ’s (1840–1892) best known works, such as Grocʿ u Brocʿ ev Sasuncʿi Davitʿ kam Mheri duṙ [Written and Non-Written and David of Sasun or Mher’s Door], Mananay [Manna], Hamov – Hotov [Tasty and Fragrant] and Tʿoros ałbar [Brother Tʿoros] were collected in two volumes in the soviet period: Srvanjtyancʿ 1978 and 1982. 35 On the development of Mekhitarist scholarship, see Adalian 1992. medieval poetic texts 387 light in Tiflis. Here many folk songs were published, sometimes systematically as in E. Lalayan’s publications, with an indication of their provenance.36 In the period up to the First World War and the Armenian Genocide several collections with works by ašułs were published, among others by Tēr Gēorgean-Yovhannisean (1855–59), Miansareancʿ (1868), Lewonean (1892) and Brutean (1895, 1897, 1901; 1986, 2002). Between 1892 and 1903 K. Kostaneancʿ, now best known for his edition of Grigor Magistrosʼ Letters (Ałexandrapol 1910), published the works of three tałasacʿ poets, Grigoris Ałtʿamarcʿi, Mkrtičʿ Nałaš and Yovhannēs Tʿlkurancʿi, as well as four volumes of various poems.37 The first two of these contained work by ašułs. A further survey of ašuł poetry was published by Palean in two volumes in Smyrna in 1911 and 1914 under the title Hay ašułner, žołovrdakan hay ergičʿner ew tałasacʿkʿ [Armenian ašułs, Armenian folk-singers and poets].

2.4 Massacres, Genocide and the Impact of Commemorations The importance of the patient and often difficult work of collecting and publishing was tragically emphasised by the tidal wave of the genocide of 1915 that destroyed the habitat of the Armenians, leaving in some cases only these collections as witnesses of their existence. It is therefore not surprising that after the massacres of 1894–1896, and even more after the great catastrophe that began in 1915, work of a philological nature was driven by motives that surpass those of a purely academic interest. It was placed at the heart of the nation’s self-definition. There was an urge to collect and preserve, by presenting the heritage of the Armenian people in a scholarly manner. These works were held up as witnesses of the level of civilisation that the Armenians had reached before the calamities that befell them towards the end of the 19th and in the early 20th century. A striking example of this trend is the work by A. Tchobanian, who published editions of Armenian poetry in his literary journal Anahit, and in his Hay ēǰer [Armenian Pages. The Poetry and Art of our Ancestors, 1912]. He translated Armenian poetry in several attractive volumes, from Les trouvères armé- niens in 1906 through the monumental three volume La Roseraie dʼArménie (1918–1929), where manuscript illumination and poetry bear witness to the subtlety and the high accomplishments of Armenian culture, up to his collection Hayrenneru burastanǝ [The Fragrant Garden of hayrens] of 1940.

36 See for the first two volumes of a planned five-volume collection of his work, containing also unpublished material, Lalayan 1983 (J̌avaxkʿ) and Lalayan 1988 (Arcʿax). 37 Kostaneancʿ 1892a, 1892b, 1892c, 1896, 1898a, 1898b, 1903. 388 van lint

Another reaction to the genocidal events in the Ottoman Empire was the initiative of V. Brjusov to present the Armenian poetic tradition to the Russian people in a work of high quality translations by well-known Russian poets. Like Tchobanian, Brjusov wrote an extensive critical introduction in which he assessed the place of Armenian literature within the whole of world literature.38 The fifteen hundredth anniversary of the invention of the Armenian alphabet at the beginning of the fifth century, and the four-hundredth anniversary of the first printed Armenian book in 1912–1913 led to plans for celebrative commemorations, which were only partially carried out due to the threat and then onset of the World War I, with its catastrophic consequences for the Armenian people and its cultural heritage. Some initiatives touched upon literary works. In particular, plans were made for the production of facsimiles of the earliest Armenian printed books, which had become a focus of scholarly attention since Ališan’s study in Bazmavēp in 1865, but these plans were realised only much later.39 In recent times, facsimiles have been made of various outstanding works of Armenian manuscript production, such as the Ēǰmiacin Gospels, the Alexander Romance manuscript Venice 424, and the oldest Armenian manuscript on paper, A Book of Knowledge and Belief by Priest David (Matenadaran 2673, dated 981).40

2.5 20th Century Post Genocide: Soviet Armenian Philology With the establishment of Soviet power in Armenia, materialism and Marxism came to dominate scholarship. One of its consequences was felt in texts that were eligible for critical editing and study. Education of the Armenians in a new spirit of internationalism and power of the masses brought along a move away from ecclesiastical texts, and an emphasis on texts perceived to be elu- cidating class struggle and atheist or secular tendencies. In poetry this meant that a strong emphasis was placed on songs that came from among the common people, and as such the gusans or ašułs were much favoured.41 Both the folk song and the ašułsʼ perceived secular songs lent themselves well for an interpretation of Armenian literary history along Marxist lines. Several

38 Brjusov 1916. Renowned painters collaborated: Saryan designed the cover illustration; Sureneancʿ the frontispice; the volume was reprinted in 1987. 39 Čʿugaszean 1996, VII–VIII. Cf. note 3. 40 Codex Etchmiadzin 2000; Alexander Romance: Traina et al. 2003; Priest David: Matʿevosyan 1995. 41 This notwithstanding the fact that also scions of the noble naxarar families were trained in the minstrel tradition as part of their education, as transmitters of the oral epic tradition. See Garsoïan 1989, 529, with literature. medieval poetic texts 389 collections of gusan and ašuł poetry were published in the Soviet period. One of these is Tʿarverdyan’s Hay ašułner. Antip yergeri žołovacu. A [Armenian ašułs. Collection of Unpublished Songs. I], published in 1937 and dedicated to ašuł poetry proper (ranging from the 17th to the 20th century) and containing examples of work by more than three hundred ašułs. It was edited, with an introductory essay by G. Levonyan, one of the most prominent scholars of ašuł poetry and the son of ašuł J̌ivani, who himself played an important role in committing to paper and promoting the performance of Armenian versions of many siravēps, or epic love tales, circulating in Turkish.42 In 1957 a further volume compiled by Tʿarverdyan was published, entitled Hay gusanner [Armenian gusans], although the poems included in it are the work of ašułs who flourished between the 17th and 20th century. In his Postface the editor, A. Nazinyan remarks that the designations gusan and ašuł are used interchange- ably by some, although others maintain the historical difference between the earlier gusans who (also) performed epic works as vipasans. He also describes ašuł poetry, which is sometimes transmitted only orally, sometimes also in written form, as oscillating between unwritten folk-poetry and the written work of the tałasacʿ poets.43 H. Sahakyan rightly reverts to the use of the designation ašuł for the 17th and 18th century poets she presents, together with a study of the genre and its subcategories.44 An anthology based on geographical criteria is K.G. Durgaryan’s Širaki hay ašułner [Armenian ašułs from Širak].45 The poet who was most favoured in the 1930s and early 1940s, was doubtless the tałasacʿ Frik, whose dispute with God about his fate, his suffering from Mongol oppression and the crass injustice this often led to, could be portrayed well within the world view of class struggle, atheism, and individual suffering caused by an oppressive, feudal society.46 A similar, albeit more heroic struggle was depicted in Sasna Cṙer [The Daredevils of Sasun], the epic carried by a multitude of storytellers from different parts of the Armenian world, and usually divided in several groups of transmission, from the regions of Tarōn – Muš, Mokkʿ, and elsewhere. The somewhat arbitrarily chosen 1000th birthday of the epic in 1939 was the occasion for the publication of a multivolume edition of its variants, giving a wealth of information which was to be mined for decades, and for the establishment of a unified version, arrived at by a committee pre- sided over by H. Orbeli and of which M. Abełyan was a member. After the

42 Cf. note 24. 43 Tʿarverdyan 1957, 275. 44 Sahakyan 1961. 45 Durgaryan 1986. 46 See e.g. Frik 1937, Mkryan and Tʿorosyan 1941. 390 van lint publication of two volumes in three parts containing variants from various areas of historic Armenia in 1936, 1944 and 1951, a third volume, with newly recorded variants followed in 1979, and a fourth one, containing six registra- tions from the nineteen twenties and thirties and eleven more recent ones, in the independent Republic of Armenia in 1999. The unified version was first published in 1939, with an extensive introduction by Ōrbeli, which was reprinted in 1961 and in 2000, while a new version, taking into account the variants transcribed after 1939 was published in 1993. Volumes of articles published separately in Russian and in Armenian, as well as translations into Russian singled the epic out as a national treasure, and marked the Armenians as carriers of a rich and ancient cultural tradition among the peoples of the Soviet Union.47 The fame of Nahapet Kʿučʿak, the sixteenth century ašuł to whom a great collection of hayrens was erroneously ascribed in 1882 by Tevkancʿ in his Hayerg [Armenian Song] grew from the 1950s onward, and he became through the poems that were ascribed to him, one of the most famous exponents of Armenian literature, as a figure representing the people. Many publications and translations of hayrens appeared, sometimes in a sympathetic format with an attractive, colourful jacket (e.g. Mkrtčjan 1975). The same can be said of the Lament over the Death of Prince JevanširÌ , a seventh century abecedarian poem contained in Movsēs Dasxurancʿi’s History of the Albanians that was translated in many languages and published in a similar volume (Mkrtčʿyan 1986). The combination of a secular subject and an accomplished poem made this into one of the most popular works used to promote a certain image of Armenia and Armenianness through its literature. The secularising interpretation underpinned the publication of critical editions of tałasacʿner such as Kostandin Erznkacʿi (c. 1240–c. 1310),48 Yovhannēs Tʿlkurancʿi, Mkrtič Nałaš, Grigoris Ałtʿamarcʿi (c. 1480–1544) and others, where emphasis was laid on their treatment of natural phenomena, while less attention was given to the allegorical implications of such poems, often despite clear indications provided either by the poems themselves, or by titles

47 For the three-volume edition (vols. 1, 2a, and 2b) of the different variants of the epic, see Abełyan & Melik-Ōhanǰanyan 1936, 1944, 1951. Further variants are recorded in Harutʿyunyan & Sahakyan 1979 (vol. 3) and 1999 (vol. 4). The unified version is given in Ōrbeli 1939 (reprinted in 1961 and 2000); a Russian translation of this version is Orbeli 1939, a French one Feydit 1964, and an English one Shalian 1964; cf. Mkrtčjan 1982. Terteryan 1939 is the celebratory volume issued on the occasion of the 1000th anniversary of the epic; for the Russian one see Bibliography, under N.N. Grigoryan 1993 gives the second unified version. A recent study is Yeghiazaryan 2008; cf. Ełiazaryan 1999. 48 Three editions of his work were made, with studies of the poems: Poturean 1905; Srapyan 1962; van Lint 1996. medieval poetic texts 391 provided in all likelihood by scribes. In these works the ecclesiastical ballast that had allegedly hindered so much of Armenian literature before its perceived Renaissance – a term that is not unproblematic itself – with Grigor Narekacʿi and his school in the tenth century, was gradually shed. As an example of this a poem by Yovhannēs Sarkawag Imastasēr (c. 1050–1129) describing a dialogue between a blackbird and a vardapet was allotted paradigmatic status.49 In whatever way these works were presented, the fact that they were made available in critical editions that took into consideration the extensive collection of the Matenadaran and as much as possible also the manuscripts kept in other large Armenian collections in Jerusalem, Venice, Vienna and occasionally elsewhere was an important achievement.50 This extended to the tałs and ganjs of Grigor Narekacʿi, in which affinity with folksongs and motives recurrent in folktales are detectable. Two important publications by A. Kʿyoškeryan drew attention to the poetic genre of the ganj with its accompanying tałs, as inaugurated by Narekacʿi (1981) for ecclesiastical feast days, and developed further in subsequent centuries by a number of poets, such as Nersēs Šnorhali (1987).51 The poetic work of the latter was likewise published widely, with the exception of Jesus the Son (the epic poem on living faith continuing Grigor Narekacʿi’s prayer-conversation with God – on which below), a bilingual edition of which was published by V. Łazaryan in 1991, and his important contribution to the hymns of the Armenian Church, the šarakans.52 Study of the latter, and of the whole tradition of hymns stretching over a millennium, and containing examples of highly accomplished poetry became possible only later in the Soviet period. While articles written by G. Hakobyan appeared at first incidentally in 1964, then more regularly in the 1970s in Ēǰmiacin, the journal of the Mother See of the Armenian Church, followed by two monographs in 1978 and 1980, a Russian translation with commentary was published by S. Zoljan and H. Tagmizjan in Yerevan in 1990.53

49 The poem was edited together with Yovhannēs Sarkawag’s other works in Abrahamyan 1956. The most thorough exposition of the Soviet position of an Armenian Renaissance beginning in the tenth century is Čalojan 1963 (in Russian); Čʿaloyan 1964 (its Armenian version). For an encompassing assessment of the Soviet interpretation of Armenian literature, see Cowe 1994–1995. 50 An anthology stressing the secular character of this poetry is Mkryan 1938. 51 Cf. note 21. 52 Łazaryan 1991 gives the Classical Armenian text based on a comparison by A. Bozoyan of the editions published in St Petersburg (1785) and in Constantinople (1824), to which is added a partial comparison (for the colophon) of M4207, dated 1284. 53 A first translation, with Introduction was published by Ēmin in Moscow in 1879; for the second edition, edited by Kostaneancʿ which saw the light in 1914, Kostaneancʿ wrote a preface (Ėmin 1914). 392 van lint

The publication in 1985 by P. Xačʿatryan and A. Łazinyan of the critical edition of Grigor Narekacʿi’s Book of Lamentation was a highpoint in Soviet Armenian philology. The Soviet interpretation of his ninety-five “discourses with God from the depths of the heart” assigned him a position in Armenian literature as one of the initiators of a Renaissance in which humanity is perceived to assume a more central position. A further reason for the work’s high status was the profound resonance his language found in its audience, whether understood or not – a fascination the work has continued to inspire for over a millennium. Within the Soviet Union’s pantheon of outstanding writers of the constituent Republics the traditionally high status of Narekacʿi among Armenians was galvanised into that of Armenia’s greatest author, and of one with a universal, humanist appeal. He was the individual “renaissance” figure who stood on a par with the folk epic on Sasna Cṙer [The Daredevils of Sasun], and with Nahapet Kučʿak, the poet of the hayrēns, as representatives of Armenia’s literary legacy. Several publications in book-form presenting parts of the Narek (as the Book of Lamentation was commonly known) in the modern Eastern Armenian translation by V. Gevorgyan were followed by his complete translations of the Narek and Narekacʿi’s tałs (1979).54 Narekacʿi’s high status was supported by translations into Russian, such as the partial renderings by N. Grebnev, culminating in a separate fuller, yet not complete, bilingual edition with Grebnev’s translation facing the classical Armenian original, accompanied by an introductory essay by L. Mkrtčjan and presented with some expressive illustrations.55 These found wide resonance, as Čitaja Narekaci [Reading Narekacʿi, Mkrtčjan 1974] a collection of short essays and poems by authors from the various Soviet Republics shows. The Narek’s status was further enhanced with Darbinjan-Melikjan and Xanlarjan’s scholarly Russian translation (1988). A perceptive essay by S. Averincev, one of the Soviet Union’s leading Byzantinologists, accompanied the translation, published by the Academy of Sciences of the USSR in the prestigious series Pamjatniki Pisʿmennosti Vostoka [Monuments of the Literature of the Orient]. Much editorial work in the field of Armenian poetry was carried out by A. Mnacʿakanyan, varying from editions in Banber Matenadarani of Vardan Aneʿci’s Poem on the Four Living Creatures (vol. 10, 1971) and Stepʿanos Siwneʿci’s newly discovered tałs (vol. 11, 1973)56 to volumes dedicated to individual poets,

54 E.g. Gevorgyan 1970 and 1979. Gevorgyan’s complete translation of the Narek was reprinted in 2005, dedicated to the 1000th anniversary of Narekacʿi’s death. 55 See Mkrtčjan 1972, 145–194 and Mkrtčyan 1977. 56 Mnacʿakanyan’s edition of Stepʿanos Siwnecʿi’s tałs was reprinted in 2007 in MH, vol. 6 (2007), 594–597. In the same volume three works by Sahakduxt Siwnecʿi, Kcʿurd cnndean (Troparion on the Nativity), Kcʿurd pʿoxman Astuacacni (Troparion on the Ascension of medieval poetic texts 393 such as Nałaš Hovnatʿan (1951, 1983), or to Armenian Folksongs (1956), culminating in his posthumously published edition of Hayrens (1995), after independence was regained.57 Another scholar who for decades published editions of Armenian poetry was H. Sahakyan, from a collection of 17th and 18th century ašułs (1961), to her two volume Fundgrube dedicated to 16th and 17th century poets, entitled Uš miǰnadari hay banastełcutʿyunǝ [Late Medieval Armenian Poetry], published in 1986–1987, which followed up on her identically entitled monographic study of the period that had appeared in 1975. P. Xačʿatryan devoted a study with critical edition to the genre of the late medieval historical lament. They built on the example set by Nersēs Šnorhali’s Ołb Edesioy [Lament over the Fall of Edessa], written a year after the event, in 1145, followed by Grigor Tłay’s Ban ołbergakan vasn aṙmann Erusałemi [Poem of Lamentation on the Capture of Jerusalem], which likewise represented an immediate reaction, completed in 1189 after the city’s fall in 1187.58 Several editions of migrant worker’s songs appeared in this period as well.59 The dissemination of medieval Armenian poetry was actively promoted by the production of several anthologies, some for use in institutions of middle and higher education, some for a wider readership.60 Building on the critical editions of medieval poets that were gradually becoming unavailable, a series of

the Mother of God), Šarakan (Hymn) are found (601–605); two poetics works ascribed to Movsēs Xorenacʿi are placed here as well (985–986). 57 Begun in 1940, the gathering of material for this work, which aims to be a complete collection of hayrens, continued after the interruption of World War II, and was substantially completed at the editor’s death in 1983. However, A. Kʿyoskeryan undertook an overall check of the texts and their variants, and added a dictionary of Turkish, Arabic, Persian and Middle Armenian words. The Turkish lines in the poems were checked by Ō.S. Eganyan, the Arabic ones by D.G. Kertmenǰan. 58 The Lament over Edessa was first printed in 1810 in Madras. Mkrtčʿyan 1973 is a critical edition, with introduction by P. Xačʿatryan. For a study and English translation, see van Lint 1999a and 1999b, cf. the French translation in Kéchichian 1984. Grigor Tłay’s Poem of Lamentation was published in Mnacʿakanyan’s critical edition of the catholicos’s poetic legacy (Mnacʿakanyan 1972, 244–333); studies in Calzolari 2012 and van Lint 2002. For later laments, see Xačʿatryan 1969; Sanjian 1976. 59 Xačʿatryan 1969; Mkrtčʿyan 1961 and 1979. 60 Mkryan 1938 covers the 13th to 18th centuries (see note 50). Examples anthologizing the whole period under consideration are Hakobyan et al. 1971, the first volume in a three volume survey; Madoyan & Ananyan 1979, one of a series of literary anthologies encompassing prose, literary criticism, and poetry for use in higher education, explicitly stating that both religious and secular poetry are included; and Mkrtčʿyan 1986, a two volume publication with marginal illuminations copied from medieval manuscripts, which reminds one of the combination of poetry and art favoured by Tchobanian in his Roseraie dʼArménie. An identically formatted Russian translation is available as well. 394 van lint attractive small volumes under the title Hay kʿnarergutʿyun Matenašar [Armenian Lyrical Poetry. Series] was published in the 1980s, which came to a halt with the collapse of the Soviet Union. By 1990 at least ten volumes had appeared. Among those who had enjoyed an Armenian secondary and higher education and those who had an interest in older Armenian poetry this part of the Armenian heritage was available in a variety of forms, and this has continued to be the case since independence.61 All these works have greatly enriched our insight in the scope and variety of medieval Armenian poetry. In the first half of the 20th century ethnographic fieldwork was continued by M. Tʿumačyan, a student of Komitas and a member of his famous choir, “Gusan”. He gathered a rich collection of songs and folklore material in Bulgaria in the 1920s, then in Paris and in the 1930s and 1940s among the Armenian community in the United States. These were published in Yerevan under the title Hayreni erg u ban, divided according to geographical area and into songs and folklore material. The first three volumes were published in the Soviet period jointly by the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography and the Institute of the Arts, both of the Academy of Sciences (1972, 1983, 1986), while after an almost twenty-year interval the fourth and final volume was published, this time by the Institute of Art alone (2005).62 More ethnographic material and folklore continues to be published in the now more than twenty-five volumes of the series edited by Arakʿelyan and others under the title Hay azgagrutʿyun ew banahyusutʿyun [Armenian ethnography and folk-lore].63 The same can be said about the works of Komitas, edited since 1960 by R. Atʿayan, lately aided by G. Geodakyan, of which so far eleven volumes have appeared. Since 2005, a new series of his works is being published.64 The former works relate to one end of the spectrum of poetic works, namely the folksong – which in not a few cases may represent adap- tations of poems composed by ašułs or tałasacʿner. In Komitasʼ case we find the whole spectrum of musical compositions. Further research combining

61 E.g. Hakobyan & Miriǰanyan 1981 (poetry up to the 8th century); Miriǰanyan 1982 (Nerses Šnorhali); Łanalanyan 1982 (Frik); Mnacʿakanjan 1983 (Nałaš Hovnatʿan); Avdalbegyan 1984 (Grigoris Ałtʿamarcʿi); Doluxanyan 1985 (Nerses Mokacʿi); Nazaryan 1985 (Pałtasar Dpir); Erznkacʿi-Srapyan 1986 (Hovhannes Erznkacʿi); Doluxanyan 1988 (Xačʿatur Kečʿaṙecʿi); Nazaryan 1990 (Petros Łapʿancʿi). 62 In the Introduction to volume four (p. 7) it is stated that among the material Tʿumačyan had gathered were also about 300 songs in other languages, study of which was begun in the 1970-s by Matʿevos Muradyan, and which were planned to be published in a fifth volume. I do not know what has come of this plan after Muradyan’s untimely death. 63 By mid 2009, 26 volumes had appeared. 64 Gasparean & Mušełean 2005, 2007. medieval poetic texts 395 poetry and music was carried out by N. Tʿahmizyan, who devoted his life to musicological research of the Armenian poetic tradition in its various aspects, authoring among many others, works on Šnorhali as composer (1973) and on Narekacʿi and the development of Armenian music (1985). He moved to the United States where he continued his research. Research into this important field continues worldwide, for example through the work of A. Arevšatyan.65

2.6 Philological Publications in Armenia after 1991 The fall of the Soviet Union resulted among other things in an ideological reorientation. The Armenian Apostolic Church regained a central position. Many books that had been kept in portfolio could now be published, and projects for others along lines that would have been hard to realise in Soviet times could be carried out. Despite years of tremendous hardship, book publishing in the Independent Republic gradually resumed and by 1995 a steadily growing number of scholarly and literary works was appearing. The balance could now be redressed in the choice of material to edit and in the way this would be interpreted. More work along the lines of the remarkable book on Anania Narekacʿi (c. 910–c. 985), published in 1986 by the young poet and scholar H. Tʿamrazyan, can now be expected. Tʿamrazyan re-interpreted the poetic tradition of the school of Narek along religious lines, and continued to do so in his subsequent works, The School of Narek (a substantial collection of articles, often previously published, (1999) and more recently the large study Grigor Narekacʿi and Neo-platonism (2004). These works will spark off further research and new editions. Examples are the volume containing Anania Narekacʿi’s literary legacy, edited by H. Tʿamrazyan in the important editorial endeavour of the Matenagirkʿ Hayocʿ or Classical Armenian Authors (MH) and a critical edition of Mxitʿar Ayrivanecʿi’s ganjs and tałs, continuing the format of Kʿeoškeryan’s pioneering editions.66 The circumstances arising after independence also provided opportunities for deepened co-operation between the diaspora and the Republic. An example of these is the series just mentioned, Matenagirkʿ Hayocʿ, a major initiative in editing and publishing jointly undertaken by diaspora organisations

65 Arevšatyan 1991; Arevšatyan 2001–2002; Arevšatyan 2003. Dr Arevšatyan is also the editor of the musicological journal Manrusum, which is devoted to the history, theory, and aesthetics of sacred music. So far, three volumes have appeard (2002, 2005, 2009). 66 For Anania Narekacʿi, see MH, vol. 10 (2009), 309–657; for Mxitʿar Ayrivanecʿi, Harutʿyunyan 2005. Yovsepʿeancʿ 1931 signals the importance of Ayrivanecʿi’s contribution, and contains the text of two of his ganj. Further discussions of his contribution as ganjasacʿ (composer of ganj) are given in Harutʿyunyan 1985, 146–197 and Kʿēōškērean 2008, 179–201. 396 van lint and institutions in the Republic of Armenia. Begun in 2003, it unites the Armenian Church, Academia and patronage through the initiative of the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation in Lisbon, The Armenian Catholicosate of the Great House of Sis in Antelias, Lebanon, the Matenadaran and Yerevan State University, both in Yerevan. It has offered the opportunity for editions of material published before, sometimes revised, as well as of hitherto unpublished material. H. Tʿamrazyan is also responsible for the volume dedicated to the works of Grigor Narekacʿi (MH vol. 12, 2008). It contains among Narekacʿi’s other works the critical edition of the Matean as published by Xačʿatryan and Łazinyan (1985); this is followed by a section entitled Ganjtetr [Book of Ganjs], edited by A. Kʿēōškērean, who in 1981 had published the critical edition of his tałs and ganjs, in two sections, separating the former from the latter. This edition restores the disposition of the poems as they are found in the manuscripts, where the – not always present in its entirety – arrangement would be that of a ganj followed by a tał, which may be followed by further poems called pʿox (ʻchangeʼ) or yordorak (ʻexhortationʼ) and mełedi (melody), thus more closely reflecting the context in which these poems were placed and allowing a view of the total composition, dedicated to a feast in the Church calendar. Two volumes in the Matenagirkʿ Hayocʿ are dedicated to the Ganjaran (MH, vols. 13–14, 2008), which represent the largest ever publication of these collections, and mark a large step forward in our knowledge of the genre, first critically presented and interpreted by A. Kʿyoškeryan (1981, 1987).67 The first of the two volumes contains a historical and typological introduction by its editor, V. Dewrikean, which together with the study on the development of the genre by A. Kʿēōškērean (2008) provides important tools for further research. Regained independence and the changed situation in Nagorno-Karabagh, now referred to by its Armenian name of Arcʿax made possible the establishment of a theological journal by the Episcoposate of Arcʿax, entitled Ganjasar after its main monastic centre. Eight volumes appeared between 1992 and 2010. It published many religious texts, but few medieval poetic texts were among these.68 However, further study and a reinterpretation of the šarakans were carried out in two articles by X. Balean, under the titles “Armenian Spiritual Chant in the Fifth Century”69 and “Armenian Spiritual Chant in the Seventh–

67 See above. 68 Edited texts do appear in this journal, but they are usually of a polemic-apologetic character, such as Anania Sanahncʿi’s work against the Dyophysites. 69 Balean 1992a. medieval poetic texts 397

Eighth Centuries”,70 and in a study by Y. Kʿeosean entitled “The Theology of the Armenian Church in šarakans and tałs”.71 A diplomatic edition is given of a panegyric of the Mother of God, written by Grigor Cerencʿ Xlatʿecʿi.72 A separate volume in the Matenagirkʿ Hayocʿseries, entitled Šarakan [Hymnarium] is dedicated to šarakans.73 Based on the edition published in Jerusalem in 1936, it takes into account also the rich collection of unofficial or para-canonical [anvaverakan or parakʿanon] hymns which take up close to a third of the volume. These are the hymns that remained out of the hymnal over the course of time, including the very few that were rejected by the Church on doctrinal grounds, such as the hymns on St Benedict and on Pope Leo composed by Geōrg Skewṙacʿi in the thirteenth century.74 A. and G. Madoyean published an Eastern Armenian translation of the Hymnarium (2001), while G. Madoyean offered a study with texts of the hymns composed by the thirteenth century Catholicos Grigor Anawarzecʿi (2001). Outside Armenia, a large study and complete translation of the hymns of the Armenian Apostolic Church has been undertaken by A. Drost-Abgaryan and H. Goltz in Halle-Wittenberg. A critical edition of the Šaraknocʿ remains a desideratum, and involves the incorporation of data from some eight hundred manuscripts.75 New editions of separate ašułsʼ works, such as that of Gusan Covyan and Šahen, both including text and melodies, as well as collections of love-epics were published.76

70 Balean 1992b. 71 Published in two instalments in Kʿeosean 1993. 72 Matʿevosean 1994, 16–22. 73 MH, vol. 8 (2007), published in 2007. 74 MH, vol. 8, pages 9 and 657–665. Sometimes šarakans are published twice, in the Šarakan volume (MH, vol. 8) and elsewhere. Minor discrepancies in text and punctuation can be discerned between the edition of Šarakan Hamamay [Hamam’s Hymn] in MH, vol. 8, 599 and MH, vol. 9 (2008), 554. 75 Communication Dr A. Drost-Abgaryan, AIEA Workshop on Armenian Literature, University of Oxford 25–27 September 2009. Further recent examples of interest in the šarakan tradition shown by Diaspora scholars are the two articles on a much appreciated šarakan, Anjinkʿ nuirealkʿ [Devoted Souls], composed by Catholicos Komitas in 618, both published in St. Nersess Theological Review; see Terian 2007 and Pidedjian 2007. 76 Gusan 2001; Šahen 2006; Sołomonyan 1992, with Introduction and notes by Š. Grigoryan, a well-known scholar of ašuł poetry (3–24), and Kʿotʿanǰyan 2004, also with an Introduction by Grigoryan, now also as President of the Armenian Union of Ašułs (7–24). 398 van lint

Large projects in the field of digitization of Armenian literature such as undertaken by M. Karapetyan and others in Yerevan are matched by similar projects in Western scholarly institutions, such as the Leiden-Jerusalem Armenian Database, set up by J. Weitenberg and M. Stone. The latter database contains many of the works of the tałasacʿner as well as of Šnorhali and Narekacʿi.77

2.7 Twentieth Century Western and Diaspora Scholarly Productions The collections of Tʿumačan and Komitas form inspiring examples of cooperation of Western and Eastern Armenians, the former of which had become part of the Diaspora, with the aim of the preservation of the Armenian poetic heritage. In the West the Mekhitarists continued to publish editions of individual poetsʼ works or separate poems. Among these are Akinean’s editions of Grigoris Ałtʿamarcʿi (1958) and his pupil Zakʿaria Gnunecʿi (1910), as well as of other tałasacʿ-poets (1921, 1938, 1968), and Oskean’s work on a seventeenth and three eighteenth century tałasacʿ-poets (1966). Yet, the number of text editions of poetic works published by scholars in the West is limited. The poet Karapet Sital published his Eastern Armenian retelling of the orally transmitted epic Kašti kʿaǰer [The Heroes of Kasht], in the United States in 1942, in the Progessive Book Series with the publishing house of the communist American-Armenian Progressive Union. In 2000 J. Russell published an English translation of Sital’s work, with a study and a reprint of the original 1942 edition. Further notable exceptions are Trapizoni’s publication of the Narek in Buenos Aires in 1948, mentioned above, the Divan of Frik, published in 1952 in New York by archbishop Tirayr, Sanjian’s edition and translation of Stepʿanos Ōrbelian’s Elegy on the Cathedral of Ēǰmiacin (1976), and, more recently, Dasnabédian’s study, with edition and translation of Narekacʿi’s Panegyric to the Mother of God.78 The integral translation into English of Yovhannēs Tʿlkurancʿi’s poems with study and commentary encompassing the whole of medieval Armenian poetry and its wider context, by J. Russell, gathered together in one volume the poet’s works earlier published in three different places.79 An extensive two-volume anthology of Armenian poetry to 1800 (with the notable exception of Sayatʿ

77 For the Leiden Armenian Lexical Textbase (LALT), see Weitenberg 2008. 78 Dasnabédian 1995, 142–53, gives a survey of the manuscripts and printed editions of the panegyric, but, as stated p. 153, bases her translation on the 1827 edition, which she tran- scribes in its “forme rythmique, afin de mieux rendre compte des effets de style et de rimes.” Cf. Awetikean 1827, 69–85. Translations of Armenian literary works into western languages will be mentioned in the forthcoming volume on Literature in this collection. 79 Russell 1987; Tʿlkurancʿi 1938; Covakan 1958; Pivazyan 1960. medieval poetic texts 399

Nova) with Western Armenian translation on the facing page was published by the poet Zulal Gazančʿean (1995 and 1998). In a marked expression of the view that much of the ancient historical literature is either based on or is in fact folk-tale (azgayin-žołovrdakan patum) Gazančʿean includes in the frst volume excerpts from Movsēs Xorenaciʿ’s History of the Armenians, from Agatʿangełosʼ History, and from the Buzandaran Patmutʿiwnkʿ. The work is envisaged for all interested in Armenian poetry, and in particular as a teaching aid in the Western Armenian speaking diaspora. A valuable addition to the study of the Šaraknocʿ is Tʿorikean (2013).

2.8 The Twenty First Century: New Directions? The opening years of the twenty-first century saw a series of commemorations and celebrations.80 Various initiatives in editing and publishing poetic texts were taken in the contexts of these celebrations. Many books bear the imprint “Dedicated to the 1700th Anniversary of the Proclamation of Christianity as State Religion in Armenia”. Among these is Xačʿatryan’s Ganjaran hay hin banastełcutʿyan [Treasury of Ancient Armenian Poetry, 2000], an annotated anthology with glossary and introductory sections of Armenian poetry to 1800. The millennium commemorations of the death of Grigor Narekacʿi’s in 2003 led to several reprints, in various formats of his Matean Ołbergutʿean [Book of Lamentation], and of several of his other works.81 The Matenagirkʿ Hayocʿ forms part of a larger publishing initiative dedicated to the 1600th anniversary of the invention of the Armenian alphabet by Mesrop Maštocʿ. Looking ahead, the question what is most urgently needed can only be answered here in a general way. Critical text editions of the material that still lies locked in manuscripts are much needed and deserve preferential treatment. Such editions, accompanied by studies may be expected to significantly advance our insight in the development of Armenian poetry.

80 These include the 1700th anniversary of the adoption of Christianity as state religion in 2001, the Grigor Narekacʿi millennium commemorations in 2003, followed in 2005 by the 1600th anniversary of the invention of the Armenian alphabet by Maštocʿ. Arménie mon amie was the name given to the year of Armenia in France in 2007, during which a series of exhibitions were organised for which catalogues were published. The twentieth anniversary of Armenian independence was celebrated in September 2011, while the 500th anniversary of Armenian printing was the occasion for celebrations with exhibitions and attendant publications in 2012 and 2013. The 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide in 2015 will be commemorated throughout the world. 81 Trabizoni 2003; Aznavuryan 2003; cf. also Tʿrtʿṙean 1986; Gevorgyan 2005. 400 van lint

Modern digital media provide us with a wealth of possibilities in the field of philology and text editions.82 For several years now the poet and artist Lola Koundakjian has maintained a website on which Armenian poetry as well as poetry treating Armenian subject matter in various languages is made available, adding new poems on a regular and frequent basis.83 In particular for Armenian studies one might think of a Repertorium of Armenian Poetry, which brings together all verse that is now on record in manuscript, print, or fixed on other carriers. Apart from all variants of a poem, information would be made available on provenance, copies, variants, ascriptions, patrons or per- formers, poets-authors, and a full bibliography of where a particular poem is mentioned – along the lines of a census of Armenian manuscripts with a bibliography for each manuscript. This offers possibilities of trans-national cooperation and funding, and provides an infrastructure for teaching facilities, in different fields. These would comprise codicology, palaeography, manuscript illumination, musical notation (and performance), and philological skills necessary to make a critical edition. To these one could add training in the specific skills pertaining to the registration of a performance of poetry in its various forms, through recitation or in song, accompanied by musical instruments. This would need to be integrated with the capacity to produce a digital end product, e.g. in the form of a large database, assessable from a password pro- tected website.

Bibliography

Abełyan, M. & Melikʿ Ōhanǰanyan, K. 1936, 1944, 1951. Sasna Cṙer [The Daredevils of Sasun], vols. 1, 2a, 2b, Erevan: Petakan Hratarakčʿutʿyun.

82 Several large projects are underway in English literature, such as The Piers Plowman Electronic Archive directed by H.N. Duggan at the University of Virginia (http://www.iath. virginia.edu/seenet/piers/), which gives digital access to all the manuscripts that contain the text, as well as the printed editions, which began to appear in the sixteenth century. Another large-scale project is the Skaldic Poetry of the Scandinavian Middle Ages (http:// skaldic.arts.usyd.edu.au/db.php). Both projects involve scholars from a number of universities in different countries, and encompass a variety of disciplines. Progress in insight in the character of the 13th century mystical poet Hadewijch’s work has led to a new title of her “strophic poems”, which are now more aptly called “songs” (liederen), and to a presentation of a critically edited text with four cd’s containing recitation and song according to the melodies that have been recovered. (Fraeters & Willaert 2009, the first volume of a complete critical edition of Hadewijch’s work). 83 Koundakjian 2006. medieval poetic texts 401

Abełyan, M., Harutʿiwnean, S. & Sargsean, S.B. (eds) 1991. Movsēs Xorenacʿi. Patmutʿiwn Hayocʿ [Movsēs Xorenacʿi. History of the Armenians]), Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Abrahamyan, A.G. 1956. Hovhannes Imastaseri matenagrutʿyunə [The Works of Hovhannes Imastaser], Erevan: Erevani Hamalsarani Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Adalian, R.P. 1992. From Humanism to Rationalism. Armenian Scholarship in the Nineteenth Century, (UPATS, 10), Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Akinean, N. 1910. Zakʿaria ep. Gnuneacʿ ew iwr tałerə [Bishop Zakʿaria Gnunecʿi and his Poems], Vienna: Mxitʿarean tparan. Akinean, N. 1921. Hing panduxt tałasacʿner [Five tałasacʿ-poets], Vienna: Mxitʿarean tparan. Akinean, N. 1938. Matenagrakan hetazōtutʿiwnner. Kʿnnutʿiwn ew bnagir. Hator D [Literary Studies. Criticism and Sources. Volume 4], Vienna: Mxitʿarean tparan. Akinean, N. 1958. Grigoris Ałtʿamarcʿi ew iwr tałerə. Bnagir ew kʿnnutʿiwn [Grigoris Ałtʿamarcʿi, and his Poems. Text and Study], Vienna: Mxitʿarean tparan. Akinean, N. 1968. Tałasacʿner ew tałer [Tałasacʿ-poets and tałs], Vienna: Mxitʿarean tparan. Ałavaleancʿ, S.C. 1810. Nersēs Šnorhali. Ołb Edesioy [Nersēs Šnorhali. Lament over Edessa (contains also other works)], Madras: Ałavaleancʿi tparan. Ališan, Ł. 1852. Hayocʿ ergkʿ ṙamkakankʿ. Armenian Popular Songs. Translated into English by the Rev. Leo M. Alishan D.D., i Venetik: Surb Łazar. Ališan, Ł. 1885. Sisuan, Venise: Saint-Lazare. Arevšatyan, A. 1991. “Maštocʿ” žołovacu orpes hay miǰnadaryan eražštakan mšakuytʿi hušarjan [The “Maštocʿ” Collection as a Monument of Medieval Armenian Musical Culture], Erevan: Hayastani Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Arevšatyan, A. 2001–2002. “La typologie du genre des šarakan dans le système de lʼhymnographie chrétienne orientale”, REArm 28, 215–23. Arevšatyan, A. 2003. Hay miǰnadaryan “jaynicʿ” meknutʿyunner [Armenian Medieval Commentaries on Modes], Erevan: Komitas. Arevšatyan, A. 2002, 2005, 2009 (ed.). Manrusum. Hogevor eražštutʿyan patmutʿyan, tesutʿyan ew gełarvestakan harcʿer. Miǰazgayin eražštagitakan taregirkʿ [Manrusum. Problems in the History, Theory and Aesthetics of Sacred Music. International Musicological Review], 3 vols, Erevan: private publ. (vols. 1–2); Limuš (vol. 3). Atʿayan, R. 1960. Komitas. Erkeri Žołovacu [Komitas. Collected Works], vols. 1–11, Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Avdalbegyan, M.Tʿ. 1984. Grigoris Ałtʿamarcʿi. Tałer [Grigoris Ałtʿamarcʿi. Poems], Erevan: Sovetakan groł. Awetikean, H.G. 1827. Srboy hōrn meroy Grigori Narekacʿwoy erkrord matean čaṙicʿ [The Second Book of Discourses of our Saintly Father Grigor Narekacʿi], i Venetik: S. Łazar. 402 van lint

Axverdean, G. 1852. Gusankʿ A. Sayeatʿ-Nōvay [Gusans I. Sayeatʿ-Nōvay], Moskow: I tparani Vladimiray Gotiē. Aznavurean, Z. 2003. S. Grigor Narekacʿi. Matean ołbergutʿean ew ayl erkasirutʿiwnkʿ. Hazarameaki hratarakutʿiwn [St. Grigor Narekacʿi. The Book of Lamentation and other works. Millenium edition], Antʿilias: Tparan Katʿołikosutʿean Hayocʿ Meci Tann Kilikioy. Bakker, E.J. 2005. Pointing at the Past. From Formulae to Performance in Homeric Poetics, Cambridge, MA: Center for Hellenic Studies, Harvard University Press. Balean, X. 1992a. “Hay hogevor ergǝ V darum” [The Armenian Spiritual Chant in the Fifth Century], Ganjasar 1, 327–52. Balean, X. 1992b. “Hay hogevor ergǝ (Should be: ergǝ) VII–VIII darerum” [The Armenian Spiritual Chant in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries], Ganjasar 2, 308–27. Bardakjian, K.B. 2000. A Reference Guide to Modern Armenian Literature, 1500–1920. With an Introductory History, Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Baxčʿinyan, H. (ed.). 2005. Sayatʿ-Nova. Davtʿar (Nmanahanutʿyun) [Sayat-Nova Davtar (Facsimile)], Erevan: Grakanutʿyan ew arvesti tʿangarani hratarakčʿutʿyun. Beledian, K. (Pəltean, G.). 1983. “Grigor Narekacʿi lezui sahmannerun mēǰ” [Grigor Narekacʿi within the Limits of Language], Bazmavēp (141), 175–213. Beledian, K. 1985. Grigor Narekacʿi lezui sahmannerun mēǰ [Grigor Narekacʿi within the Limits of Language] (Hayagitakan Matenadaran “Bazmavēp” 22), i Venetik: S. Łazar. Beledian, K. 2008. Erkxosutʿiwn Narekacʿii het [Dialogue with Narekacʿi], Erevan: Sargis Xačʿencʿ. Berbérian, H. 1964. “La littérature arméno-turque”, in P.N. Boratav (ed.) Philologiae tur- cicae fundamenta, vol. 2, Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 809–819. Brjusov, V. 1916. Armjanskaja poėzia s drevnejšix vremen do našix dnej [Armenian Poetry from the Oldest Times to Our Days], Moskva: Izdanie moskovskago armjanskago komiteta. (Reprint: Erevan: Sovetakan groł, 1987). Brutyan, A. 1895, 1897, 1901 Ṙamkakan mrmunǰner. Žołovrdakan erger ew parerger. [Folk melodies. Folk Songs and Dancing Songs], Ałēkʿsandrapol: Tparan Geworg Sanoyeancʿi. Brutyan, A. 1986, 2002. Ṙamkakan mrmunǰner, [Folk melodies,], 2 vols.; Erevan: Sovetakan groł (vol 1); Erevan: Amrocʿ Grup (vol. 2). Čalojan, V.K. 1963. Armjanskij renesans [Armenian Renaissance], Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSSR. Čʿaloyan, V.K. 1964. Haykakan ṙenesans [Armenian Renaissance], Erevan: Haypethrat. Calzolari, V. 2012. “Les villes en deuil. Mise en miroir de la Lamentation sur la prise de Jérusalem de Grigor Tghay avec la Lamentation sur la prise dʼEdesse de Nersēs Šnorhali”, JSAS 21, 53–97. Carr, D.M. 2005. Writing on the Tablet of the Heart. Origins of Scripture and Literature, Oxford: Oxford University Press. medieval poetic texts 403

Carruthers, M. 2008. The Book of Memory. A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Second, revised edition; first edition, 1990). Codex Etchmiadzin 2000. Facsimile, Erevan, Mashtots Matenadaran, Cod. 2374, Graz: Akademische Druck und Verlag Anstalt http://www.adeva.com/faks_detail_en. asp?id=15. Čʿōpanean, A. (See also Tchobanian, A.) 1912. Hay ēǰer. Mer naxneacʿ banastełcutʿiwnn u aruestə. Yisnerku patker. [Armenian Pages. The Poetry and Art of our Ancestors. (With) Fifty-two Images], Paris: Tpagrutʿiwn K. Nersēsean. Čʿōpanean, A. 1940. Hayrēnneru burastanə. Siroy erger, panduxti erger veragruac Nahapet Kʿučʿak varpet ašułin ew ir hetewordnerun. Xratakan, aylabanakan ew krōnakan tałer veragruac Nahapet Kʿučʿakin, Yovhannēs Pluzin, Frikin, Piwlpiwl vardapetin. Aknay hayrēnner. Hamaxmbecʿ ew i luys əncayecʿ kʿnnakan usumnasirutʿeamb mə ew canōtʿagrutʿiwnnerov Aršak Čōpanean. [The Fragrant Garden of the Hayrēns. Love Songs, Emigrant’s Songs Ascribed to the Master Ašuł Nahapet Kʿučʿak and his Followers. Exhortatory, Allegorical and Religious Poems ascribed to Nahapet Kʿučʿak, Yovhannēs Pluz, Frik, and Bülbül vardapet. Hayrēns from Akn. Gathered and Given into the Light with a Critical Study and Notes by Aršak Čōpanean. Covakan, N. Eps. 1958. Xew Yovhannēs Tʿlkurancʿi. Tałagirkʿ [Mad Yovhannēs Tʿlkurancʿi. Book of Tałs], Yerusałēm: Tparan Srbocʿ Yakobeancʿ. Cowe, S.P. 1988–89. “An Allegorical Poem by Mkrtichʿ Naghash and its Models”, JSAS 4, 143–56. Cowe, S.P. 1994–1995. “Armenological Paradigms and Yovhannēs Sarkawag’s ‘Discourse on Wisdomʼ – Philosophical Underpinning of an Armenian Renaissance?”, REArm 25, 125–156. Cowe, S.P. 1995. “Models for the Interpretation of Medieval Armenian Poetry”, in J.J.S. Weitenberg (ed.), New Approaches to Medieval Armenian Language and Literature, Amsterdam & Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, 29–43. Cowe, S.P. 2005. “The Politics of Poetics: Islamic Influence on Armenian Verse”, in J.J. van Ginkel, H.L. Murre-van den Berg & Th.M. van Lint (eds), Redefining Christian Identity. Cultural Interaction in the Middle East since the Rise of Islam, Leuven: Peeters, 379–404. Čʿugaszean, B. (ed.) 1974. Urbatʿagirkʿ ew Tałaran: Nmanahanutʿiwn hayerēn aṙaǰin tpagir grkʿeri (1512–1513) [Urbatʿagirkʿ and Tałaran. Facsimile of the first Armenian Printed Books] i Venetik: S. Łazar. Čʿugaszean, B. 1996. Parzaytumar (1513) [The Parzatumar. 1513. Facsimile Series of the First Armenian Printed Books]. Erevan: Gind. 404 van lint

Čʿugaszyan, B.L. & Muradyan, P.M. (eds) 1963. Sayatʿ-Nova. Xałer. Nmanahanutʿyun [Sayatʿ-Nova. Poems. Facsimile], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Darbinjan-Melikjan, M.O. & Xanlarjan, L.A. 1988. Grigor Narekaci. Kniga skorbnyx pes- nopenij. Vstupitelʿnaja statʿja S.S. Averinceva [Grigor Narekaci. Book of Poems of Sorrow. Introductory article by S.S. Averincev], Moskva: Nauka. Dasnabédian, Th. 1995. Le panégyrique de la Sainte Mère de Dieu de Grigor Narekacʿi, Antélias: Édition du Catholicossat arménien de Cilicie. Davtʿyan, H. 1967. Hay Girkʿǝ 1801–1850 tʿvakannerin. Matenagitutʿyun [The Armenian Book in the years 1801–1850. Bibliography], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Kulturayi Ministrutʿyun & A.F. Myasnikyani anvan Hanrapetakan Gradaran. Doluxanyan, A.T. 1985. Nerses Mokacʿi. Banastełcutʿyunner [Nerses Mokacʿi. Poems], Erevan: Sovetakan groł. Doluxanyan, A.T. 1988. Xačʿatur Kečʿaṙecʿi. Tałer [Xačʿatur Kečʿaṙecʿi. Poems], Erevan: Sovetakan groł. Durgaryan, K.G. 1986. Širaki hay ašułner [Armenian ašułs from Širak], Erevan: Sovetakan groł. Eganyan, Ō. 1960. “Nahapet Kʿučʿaki hayataṙ tʿurkʿeren tałerǝ” [Nahapet Kʿučʿak’s Turkish Poems in Armenian Script], Banber Matenadarani 5, 465–81. Ełiazaryan, A. (See also Yeghiazaryan, A.). 1999. “Sasna cṙer” eposi poetikan [The Poetics of the Epic of the “Daredevils of Sasun”], Erevan: Gitutʿyun. Ėmin, N. 1914. Šarakan. Bogoslužebnye kanony i pesni armjanskoj vostočnoj cerkvi, [Šarakan – Hymnal. The Liturgical Canons and Songs of the Armenian Oriental Church], Moskva: Tipogafija M.O. Attaja i Ko. Marosejkina. (1st ed. 1879). Erznkacʿi-Srapyan, A. 1986. Hovhannes Erznkacʿi. Bankʿ čʿapʿav [Hovhannes Erznkacʿi. Poetic Works]. Esayean, Z. 1987. Silihdari Bardēznerǝ [Silihtari partēznerǝ. The Gardens of Silihdar], in Erker [Works], vol. 1, Antʿilias: Tparan Kilikioy katʿołikosutʿean, 185–308. Essayan, Z. 1994. Les Jardins de Silihdar. Traduit de lʼarménien par P. Ter-Sarkissian. Paris: Albin Michel. Feydit, F. 1964. David de Sassoun. Épopée en vers. Traduit de lʼarménien avec une introduction et des notes par Frédéric Feydit. Préface de Joseph Orbéli, Paris: Gallimard. Foley, J.M. 2002. How to Read an Oral Poem, Urbana & Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Fraeters, V. & Willaert, F. 2009. Hadewijch. Liederen [Hadewijch. Songs], Groningen: Historische Uitgeverij. Frik. 1937. Frik. (Žołovacu) [Frik. Collection]. Erevan: Petakan hratarakčʿutʿyun. Gasparean, G. & Mušełean, M. 2005, 2007. Komitas Vardapet. Usumnasirutʿiwnner ew yodvacner. [Komitas vardapet. Articles and Studies.], 2 vols. Erevan: Sargis Xačʿencʿ. medieval poetic texts 405

Garsoïan, N.G. 1989. The Epic Histories Attributed to Pʿawstos Buzand (Buzandaran Patmutʿiwnkʿ), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gazančean, Z. (Kazandjian, Z.). 1995–1998. Hatəntir hay hin banastełcutʿean. Hator A-B. Anthologie de la poésie arménienne ancienne Tome I–II [Anthology of Ancient Armenian Poetry. Volumes 1–2], Venice: Surb Łazar. Gevorgyan, V. 1970. (transl.) Grigor Narekacʿi. Matyan ołbergutʿyan. Całkakʿał [Grigor Narekacʿi. The Book of Lamentation. Anthology], Erevan: Hayastan. Gevorgyan, V. 1979. (transl.) Grigor Narekacʿi. Matyan ołbergutʿyan. Tałer [Grigor Narekacʿi. Book of Lamentation. Tałs], Erevan: Sovetakan groł. Gevorgyan, V. 2005. (transl.) Grigor Narekacʿi. Matyan ołbergutʿyan. [Grigor Narekacʿi. Book of Lamentation], Erevan: Nairi (Reprint of Gevorgyan 1979, without tałs). Grigoryan, G. 1993. Sasuncʿi Davitʿ. Hamahavakʿ bnagir [David of Sasun. Unified Text], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Gusan, C. 2001. Covyann em Sevkʿarecʿi [I am Covyan from Sevkʿar], Erevan: Paruyr Sevak. Hakobyan, G.A. 1978. Šarakanneri žanri patymutʿiwn [History of the Genre of Hymns], Erevan. Hakobyan, G.A. 1980. Šarakanneri žanrě hay miǰnadaryan grakanutʿyan meǰ [The Genre of Hymns in Medieval Armenian Literature], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi hratarakčʿutʿyun. Hakobyan, G.A., Devrikyan, G.X. & Miriǰanyan, L.V. 1971. Margaritner hay kʿnarergutʿyan. Hator aṙaǰin. Hnaguyn šrǰanicʿ minčʿev ŽĔ dar. [Pearls of Armenian Lyrical Poetry. Volume One. From the Oldest Period until the 18th Century], Erevan: Hayastan. Hakobyan, G. & Miriǰanyan, L. 1981. Antik šrǰanicʿ minčʿev Ĕ dar [From the Ancient Period to the 8th century], Erevan: Sovetakan groł. Harutʿyunyan, Ē.H. 1985. Mxitʿar Ayrivanecʿi. (Kyankʿn u stełcagorcutʿyunǝ) [Mxitʿar Ayrivanecʿi. Life and Work], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Harutʿyunyan, Ē. 2005. Mxitʿar Ayrivanecʿi. Ganjer ev tałer [Mxitʿar Ayrivanecʿi. Ganjs and tałs], Erevan: Nairi. Harutʿyunyan, S. & Sahakyan, A. 1979, 1999. Sasna Cṙer [The Daredevils of Sasun], vol. 3, Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun; vol. 4, Erevan: Gitutʿyun. Haxverdyan, R. 2006. DVD: Ėksljuzivnij concert Rubena Axverdjana 08 nojabrja 2005, CDX, Moskva [Ruben Hakhverdyan’s Exclusive Concert of 8 November 2005, Central House of the Arts, Moscow], Moscow, NĖŠ studija. Ivanov, V.V. 2011. “A Probable Structure of a Protoform of the Ancient Armenian Song of Vahagn” Aramazd 6, Issue 1, 7–23. 406 van lint

JivaniÌ A. (Ašěg Jivani).Ì 1888. Kʿearami ew Aslii hekʿiatʿǝ handerj ergerov [Kearam and Asli’s hekaye, with songs. Translated from Turkish]. Ałēkʿsandrapol: Tparan Gevorg S. Sanoeancʿi. Kéchichian, I. 1984. Nersēs Šnorhali. La complainte dʼEdessa, Venice: Surb Łazar. Kʿeosean, Y. 1993. “Hay ekełecʿu astuacabanutʿyunǝ šarakannerum ev tałerum” [The Theology of the Armenian Church in Hymns (šarakans) and Poems (tałs)], Ganjasar 3, 89–119 and Ganjasar 4, 109–131. Kʿēōškērean, A. (See also Kʿyoškeryan, A.). 2008. Ganjaranayin mšakuytʿ. Skzbnaworum ew zargacʿum (Ž–ŽG darer) [The Heritage of the Gandzaran. Origin and Development (10th–13th centuries)], Erevan: Eason. Kévorkian, R.H. 1986. Catalogue des « Incunables » arméniens (1511/1695) ou chronique de lʼimprimerie arménienne. Préface par J.-P. Mahé (Cahiers dʼOrientalisme, 9), Genève: Patrick Cramer éditeur. Kostaneancʿ, K. 1892a, 1892b, 1896, 1903. Nor žołovacu: miǰnadaryan hayocʿ tałer ew otanaworner. Prak A. [New Collection: Medieval Armenian tałs and Poems.], 4 vols.; vols. 1–2, Tpʿxis: Tparan Yovhannēs Martirosyancʿi (vols. 1–2); Tpʿxis: Tparan M. Šarajei (vol. 3); Vałaršapat: Tparan S. Ēǰmiacni (vol. 4). Kostaneancʿ, K. 1892c. Yovhannēs Tʿulkurancʿi ew iwr tałerǝ [Yovhannēs Tʿulkurancʿi and his Poems], Tpʿxis: Tparan Yovhannēs Martirosyancʿi. Kostaneancʿ, K. 1898a. Grigoris Ałtʿamarcʿi ev iwr tałerǝ. Yaweluac Ałēkʿsandri patmutʿean kafanerə [Grigoris Ałtʿamarcʿi and his Poems. Augmented with kafas from the History of Alexander]. Tpʿxis: Tparan M. Šarajei. Kostaneancʿ, K. 1898b. Mkrtičʿ Nałaš ew iwr tałerǝ. Yaweluac miǰnadarean tałer łariputʿean vray [Mkrtičʿ Nałaš and his Poems. Augmented with Medieval Poems about Exile], Vałaršapat: Tparan S. Ēǰmiacni. Kʿotʿanǰyan, L.V. 2004. Arevelyan siravēper [Oriental Love-Epics], 4 vols., Erevan: private printing. Koundakjian, L. 2006–. Armenian Poetry Project: http://armenian-poetry.blogspot. co.uk. Kʿyoškeryan, A. (See also Kʿēōškērean, A.). 1981. Grigor Narekacʿi. Tałer ev ganjer [Grigor Narekacʿi. Tałs and ganjs], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Kʿyoškeryan, A. 1987. Nerses Šnorhali. Tałer ev ganjer [Nerses Šnorhali. Tałs and ganjs], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Lalayan, E. 1983, 1988. Erker Hing Hatorov. [Works in Five Volumes.], vol. 1, K.V. Melikʿ- Pašayan, A.M. Nazinyan (eds); vol. 2, D.S. Vardumyan (ed.), Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun (2 vols. published to date). Łanalanyan, A.T. 1982. Frik. Tałer, Erevan: Sovetakan groł. Lane, J. 2012. The Diaspora of Armenian Printing 1512–2012. Haykakan gratputʿyan spʿyuṙkʿĕ, Amsterdam – Yerevan: Bijzondere Collecties Universiteit van Amsterdam & Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Armenia. medieval poetic texts 407

Łazaryan, V. 1991. Nerses Šnorhali. Hisus ordi [Nerses Šnorhali. Jesus the Son], Erevan: Apolon. Lewonean, G. 1892. Hay ašułner [Armenian ašułs], Ałekʿsandrapol: Tparan Geworg Sanoeancʿi. Lord, A.B. 20002. The Singer of Tales, (Cambridge, MA & London: Harvard University Press, rev. ed.) Original publication: Cambridge, MA & London: Harvard University Press & Oxford University Press, 1960. Madoyan, A. (ed.). 1989. Aṙakʿel Siwnecʿi. Adamgirkʿ [Aṙakʿel of Siwnikʿ. The Adam Book], Erevan: Erevani Petakan Hamalsarani Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Madoyan, A.G. & Ananyan, G.G. 1979. Hayocʿ hin ev miǰnadaryan banastełcutʿyan kʿrestomatiya [Anthology of Ancient and Medieval Armenian Poetry], Erevan: Erevani Hamalsarani Hratarakčutʿyun. Madoyean, G. 2001. Grigor Anawarzecʿin šarakanagir [Grigor Anawarzecʿi, Composer of Hymns], Erevan: Erevani Hamalsarani hratarakčʿutʿyun. Madoyean, A & Madoyean, G. 2001. Šarakan. [Hymnarium. Eastern Armenian translation], Erevan. Mahé, A. & Mahé, J.-P. 2000. Grégoire de Narek. Tragédie. Matean ołbergutʿean. Le Livre de Lamentation (CSCO, 584. Subsidia, 106), Louvain: Peeters. Mahé, J.-P. 1982. “Grégoire de Narek. Poète liturgique”, REArm 16, 464–67. Malxasyan, S. 2007. Cʿucʿak jeṙagracʿ Maštocʿi anuan Matenadarani Hator G [Catalogue of the Manuscripts of the Maštocʿ Matenadaran, vol. 3], Erevan: Erevani Hamalsarani Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Matʿevosyan, A. 1994. “Grigor Cerencʿ Xlatʿecʿi. Druat govutʿean i Surb Astuacacinn” [Grigor Cerencʿ of Xlatʿ. Panegyric of the Holy Mother of God], Ganjasar 5, 16–22. Matʿevosyan, A. 1995. Matean gitutʿean ew hawatoy Dawitʿ kʿahanayi. Hayerēn tʿłtʿea hnagoyn jeṙagir. 981. Nmanahanutʿyun [A Book of Knowledge and Belief by the Priest David. The Oldest Armenian Manuscript on Paper. 981. Facsimile] Erevan: Matenadaran-Nairi. Matʿevosyan, A. 1998. Hayeren jeṙagreri hišatakarannerǝ miǰnadaryan hay mšakuytʿi usumnasirutʿyan skzbnałbyur [Colophons in Armenian Manuscripts as Primary Sources for the Study of Medieval Armenian Culture. Accessing Armenian Colophons 3], Erevan: Hayastani Hanrapetutʿyan Gitutʿyunneri Akademia & Mesrop Maštocʿ anvan Matenadaran. Medulašvili, Z. 2005. Sayatnova. Sayatʿ nova. Sayat Nova, Tbilisi: Kʿavkʿasiuri saxli. MH. See Sigla in the present volume. Miansareancʿ, M.M. 1868. Kʿnar haykakan [Armenian Harp], S. Petersburg: Tparan O.I. Baksti. Miriǰanyan, L. 1982. Nerses Šnorhali. Erger. Edesiayi ołbə [Nerses Šnorhali. Songs. Lament over Edessa], Erevan: Sovetakan groł. Mkrtčjan, L. (ed.). 1972. Armjanskaja srednevekovaja lirika [Medieval Armenian Lyrics], Leningrad: Sovetskij pisatelʼ. 408 van lint

Mkrtčjan, L. (ed.). 1974. Čitaja Narekaci [Reading Narekacʿi], Erevan: Ajastan. Mkrtčjan, L. (ed.). 1975. Naapet Kuchak. Sto i odin ayren [A Hundred and One Hayrens], Erevan: Ajastan. Mkrtčjan, L. (ed.). 1977. Grigor Narekacʿi. Matean ołbergutʿean. Grigor Narekaci. Kniga skorbi [Grigor Narekacʿi. Book of Lamentation. Grigor Narekacʿi. Book of Sorrow], Erevan: Sovetakan grox. Mkrtčjan, L. (ed.). 1982. “David Sasunskij” Armjanskij narodnij ėpos [“David of Sasun”. Armenian National Epic], Leningrad: Sovetskij pisatelʼ. Mkrtčjan, L. (ed.). 1986. Dawtʿak Kʿertoł. Ołbkʿ i mahn JewanširiÌ meci išxanin, Erevan: Sovetakan groł. Mkrtčʿyan, L. 1986. Hay dasakan kʿnarergutʿyun. Hator I. Hin šrǰan. Miǰin darer (V–XII dd.) Hator II. Miǰin darer (XIII–XVIII dd.) [Armenian Classical Lyrical Poetry. Volume 1. Ancient Period. Middle Ages (Vth–XIIth c.); Volume 2. Middle Ages (XIIIth–XVIIIth c.)], Erevan: Sovetakan groł. Mkrtčʿyan, M. 1961. Hay žołovrdakan pandxtakan erger [Armenian Folk Migrant Songs], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Mkrtčʿyan, M. 1973. Nersēs Šnorhali. Ołb Edesioy [Nersēs Šnorhali. Lament over Edessa], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Mkrtčʿyan, M. 1979. Hay miǰnadaryan pandxtutʿyan tałer (XV–XVIII dd.) [Armenian Medieval Migrant tałs, XVth–XVIIIth c.], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Mkryan, M. 1938. XIII–XVIII dareri ašxarhik grakanutʿyun [XIIIth–XVIIIth Century Secular Poetry], Erevan: Erevani Hamalsarani Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Mkryan, M. & Tʿorosyan, E. 1941. Frik. Banastełcutʿyunner [Frik. Poems], Erevan: Armfan. Mnacʿakanyan, As. 1956. Haykakan miǰnadaryan žołovrdakan erger [Medieval Armenian Folk Songs], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Mnacʿakanyan, As. 1971a. “Miǰnadaryan siro ergeri norahayt andranik žołovacun ew hayrenneri harcʿǝ” [The Recently Discovered First Collection of Medieval Love Songs and the Question of the hayrens], in V.B. Barxudaryan (ed.), Eǰer hay žołovrdi patmutʿyan ew banasirutʿyan [Pages in the History and Philology of the Armenian People], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun, 96–126. Mnacʿakanyan, As. 1971b. “Anii banastełc Vardan Anecʿin ev nra nerbołǝ” [The Poet from Ani Vardan from Ani and his Panegyric], Banber Matenadarani 10, 261–94. Mnacʿakanyan, As. 1972. Grigor Tła. Banastełcutʿyunner ew poemner [Grigor Tłay. Shorter and Longer Poems], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. medieval poetic texts 409

Mnacʿakanyan, As. 1973. “Stepʿanos Siwnecʿu norahayt tałerǝ” [The Recently Discovered tałs by Stepanʿos Siwnecʿi], Banber Matenadarani 11, 275–90. Mnacʿakanyan, As. 1983. Nałaš Hovnatʿan. Tałer [Nałaš Hovnatʿan. Tałs] (Hay kʿnarergutʿyun. Armenian Lyric Poetry). Erevan: Sovetakan groł. Mnacʿakanyan, As. 1995. Hayrenner [Hayrens], Erevan: Nairi. Mnacʿakanyan, As. & Nazaryan, Š. 1951. Nałaš Hovnatʿan. Banastełcutʿyunner [Nałaš Hovnatʿan. Poems], Erevan. (reprinted 1961). Nazaryan, Š. 1985. Pałtasar Dpir. Tałikner [Pałtasar Dpir. Poems], Erevan: Sovetakan groł. Nazaryan, Š. 1990. Petros Łapʿancʿi. Banastełcutʿyunner [Petros Łapʿancʿi. Poems], Erevan: Sovetakan groł. N.N. 1848. “Kostandin Erznkacʿi. Bankʼ yałags čʿar ənkeracʿ [A Poem About Evil Friends]”. Bazmavēp 6, no. 14, 209–210. N.N. 1866a. “Kostandin Erznkacʿi. Sēr ew aṙawōt. [Love and the Morning]”, Bazmavēp 24, 170–171. N.N. 1866b. “Kostandin Erznkacʿi. I lusn aregakan. [In the Light of the Sun]”, Bazmavēp 24, 206–207. N.N. 1866c. “Kostandin Erznkacʿi. Bankʼ yałags ancʿawor mēcutʿean [A Poem About Passing Greatness]”, Bazmavēp 24, 233–236. N.N. 1866d. “Kostandin Erznkacʿi. Yałags angitacʿ [About the ignorant]”, Bazmavēp 24, 368–370. N.N. David Sasunskij. Jubilejnyj sbornik posvjascshennyj 1000-letiju ėposa, Erevan: Armfan. Ōrbeli, H. 1939. Sasuncʿi Davitʿ. Haykakan žołovrdakan ēpos [David of Sasun. Armenian Folk Epos], Erevan: Haypethrat. Russian translation: I.A. Orbeli, David Sasunskij. Armjanskij narodnij ėpos [David of Sasun. Armenian Folk Epos], Moskva-Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1939. Oskanyan, N., Korkotyan, K. & Savalyan, A. 1988. Hay girkʿǝ 1512–1800 tʿvakannerin [The Armenian Book 1512–1800], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Kulturayi Ministrutʿyun & Al. Myasnikyani anvan Žołovurdneri Barekamutʿyan Škʿanšanakir Haykakan SSH Petakan Gradaran. Oskanyan, N., Savalyan, A., Sołomonyan, M., Gyulumyan, Ō., Sahakyan, A. & Tʿadevosyan, S. 1999. Hay girkʿǝ 1851–1900 tʿvakannerin [The Armenian Book 1851– 1900], Erevan: Girkʿ. Oskean, H. 1966. Čʿors hay tałasacʿner ew nrancʿ tałerə [Four Armenian tałasacʿ-poets and their Poems], Vienna: Mxitʿarean tparan. Palean, T. Epis. 1911–1914. Hay ašułner. Žołovrdakan hay ergičʿner ew tałasacʿkʿ, [Armenian ašułs, Armenian Folk Singers and tałasacʿ Poets], 2 vols., Zmiwṙnia: Tpagr. Matʿewos Mamuryani (vol. 1) & Tpagr. Kʿešišeani (vol. 2). Pəltean, G.: see Beledian, K. 410 van lint

Pidedjian, K. 2007. “A Musicological Study of the Hymn to St. Hṙipʿsimē and Her Companions, Anjinkʿ Nuirealkʿ”, St. Nersess Theological Review 12, 83–139. Pivazyan, Ē. 1960. Hovhannes Tʿlkurancʿi. Tałer, Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi haratarakčʿutʿyun. Poturean, H.M. 1905. Kostandin Erznkacʿi: ŽD daru banastełc ew iwr kertʿuacnerǝ [Kostandin Erznkacʿi. A 14th Century Poet and his Works], i Venetik: S. Łazar. Poturean, H.M. 1907. Arakʿel Siwnecʿi. Adamgirkʿ [Aṙakʿel of Siwnik. The Adam Book], i Venetik: S. Łazar. Reynolds, L.D. & Wilson, N.G. 19913. Scribes and Scholars. A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Russell, J.R. 1984. “The Tale of the Bronze City in Armenian”, in Th.J. Samuelian & M.E. Stone (eds), Medieval Armenian Culture, Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 250–261. Russell, J.R. 1987. Yovhannēs Tʿlkurancʿi and The Medieval Armenian Lyric Tradition, Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Russell, J.R. 2000. An Armenian Epic: The Heroes of Kasht (Kašti kaǰer). Assembled from Oral Sources and Retold by Karapet Sital. Edited and Translated with an Introductory Essay by James Russell, Ann Arbor, MI: Caravan Books. Sahakyan, H. 1961. Hay ašułner XVII–XVIII d.d. [Armenian ašułs of the 17th and 18th Centuries], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Sahakyan, H. 1975. Uš miǰnadari hay banastełcutʿyunǝ (XVI–XVII dd.) [Late Medieval Armenian Poetry. XVI–XVII Centuries (Study)], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Sahakyan, H. 1986–1987. Uš miǰnadari hay banastełcutʿyunǝ (XVI-XVII dd.) [Late Medieval Armenian Poetry. XVI–XVII Centuries (Anthology)]. 2 vols., Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Sanjian, A.K. 1976. “Stepʿanos Orbelian’s “Elegy on the Holy Cathedral of Etchmiadzin”: Critical Text and Translation”, in M.E. Stone (ed.), Haykakan ew S. Grayin usumnasirutʿyunner. Armenian and Biblical Studies, Erusałēm: Tparan Srbocʿ Yakobeancʿ, 237–282. Sanjian, A.K. & Tietze, A. (eds). 1981. Eremya Chelebi Kömürjian’s Armeno-Turkish Poem “The Jewish Bride”, Wiesbaden: Otto Harassowitz. Shalian, A. 1964. David of Sassoun. The Armenian Folk Epic in Four Cycles, Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press. Simonyan, H. 1975. Hay miǰnadaryan kafanerǝ [Medieval Armenian Kafa’s], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Simonyan, H. 1989. Patmutʿyun Ałekʿsandri Makedonacʿwoy [The History of Alexander of Macedonia], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Sołomonyan, Ṙ. 1992. Ašuł Łarib, Kʿyor-Ōłli, Amrah ev Salvi, Ałvan ev Ōsan [Ašuł Łarib, Kʿyor-Ōłli, Amrah and Salvi, Ałvan and Ōsan], Erevan: Zartʿonkʿ-90. Srapyan, A. 1962. Kostandin Erznkacʿi. Tałer [Kostandin Erznkacʿi. Poems], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. medieval poetic texts 411

Srvanjtyancʿ, G. 1978–1982. Erker [Works], 2 vols., Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Stepʿanyan, H.A. 2001. Hayataṙ tʿurkʿeren grakanutʿyunǝ (ałbyuragitakan hetazotutʿyunǝ) [Turkish Literature in Armenian Script (A Study of Sources)], Erevan: Erevani Petakan Hamalsarani Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Stepʿanyan, H.A. 2005. Hayataṙ tʿurkʿerēn grkʿeri ew hayataṙ tʿurkʿerēn parberakan mamuli matenagitutʿyunǝ. Ermeni harfli türkçe kıtaplar ve süreli yayınlar bibliografyası. Bibliographie des livres et de la presse arméno-turque (1727–1968), İstanbul: Turkuaz. Stepʿanyan, I. 2006. Sayatʿ-Nova. Hayeren ev tʿurkʿeren xałer [Armenian and Turkish Poems]. Erevan: Private printing. Stone, M.E. 2007. Adamgirkʿ. The Adam Book of Aṙakʿel of Siwnikʿ, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stone, M.E. 2011. Ancient Judaism. New Visions and Views, Grand Rapids, MI & Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans. Struve, G.P. & Filippov, B.A. 1967. Osip Mandelʼštam. Sobranie sočinenij v trex tomax. Tom Pervyj. Stixotvorenija. [Osip Mandelʼštam. Collected Works in Three Volumes. Volume One. Poetry], Washington: Meždunarodnoe Literaturnoe Sodružestvo. Šahen, Ē. 2006. Šahen. Gusan Hayastani. Žołovacu [Šahen. Gusan of Armenia. A Collection], Erevan: Lusakn. Tʿahmizyan, N.K. 1973. Nerses Šnorhali ergahan ev eražišt [Nerses Šnorhali. Composer and Musician], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Tʿahmizyan, N.K. 1985. Grigor Narekacʿi ev hay eražštutʿyunǝ V–XV dd. [Grigor Narekacʿi and Armenian Music 5th–15th Centuries], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Tʿamrazyan, H. 1986. Anania Narekacʿi. Kyankʿǝ ev matenagrutʿyunǝ [Anania Narekacʿi. Life and Literary Works], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Tʿamrazyan, H. 1999. Narekyan dprocʿǝ [The School of Narek], Erevan: Hayastan. Tʿamrazyan, H. 2004. Grigor Narekacʿin ev norplatonakanutʿyunǝ [Grigor Narekacʿi and Neo-platonism], Erevan: Nairi. Tʿarverdyan, G. 1937. Hay ašułner. Antip yergeri žołovacu. A [Armenian ašułs. Collection of Unpublished Songs. I], Erevan: Petakan Hamalsarani Tparan. Tʿarverdyan, G. 1957. Hay gusanner [Armenian gusans], Erevan: Haypethrat. Tašean, H. 1892. Usumnasirutʿyunkʿ Stoyn Kalistʿenya Varucʿ Ałekʿsandri [Studies in the Life of Alexander by Pseudo-Callisthenes], Vienna: Mxitʿarean Tparan. Tchobanian, A. (See also Čʿōpanean, A.). 1906. Les Trouvères Arméniens, Paris: Société du Mercure de France. Tchobanian, A. 1918, 1923, 1929. La Roseraie dʼArménie. Tome Premier. Arakel de Sunik. Pages choisis. Visions de lʼEnfer et du Ciel. Le Livre dʼAdam. Traduction française précédée dʼune étude et suivie de notes. Ouvrage illustré de 29 hors texte et de 26 gra- vures; Tome Second. Poèmes. Traduction précédée dʼune introduction et accompagnée 412 van lint

de notices. Ouvrage illustré de nombreuses reproductions dʼoeuvres dʼart arménien; Tome Troisième. Pages choisies des meilleurs poètes du moyen âge et de la période suivante. Vieux chants anonymes. Traduction précédée dʼune introduction et accom- pagnée de notices. Ouvrage illustré de nombreuses reproductions de vieille miniatures et dʼautres specimens dʼart arménien, Paris: E. Leroux. Tēr Gēorgean-Yovhannisean, O. 1855–1859. Nor kʿnar hayastani [The New Harp of Armenia]. Moskva: Tparan Vladimir Gotʿiei. Terian, A. 2007. “The Poetics of a Church and the Structure of a Hymn: The Sharakan Anjinkʿ Nuirealkʿ by Catholicos Komitas”, St Nersess Theological Review 12, 141–160. Terteryan, A. 1939. Sasuncʿi Davitʿ 1000 [David of Sasun 1000], Erevan: Petakan Hamalsarani Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Tevkancʿ, A. vardapet. 1882. Hayerg: mełedikʿ, tałkʿ ew ergkʿ [Armenian Song: mełedis, tałs, and songs], Tpʿxis: Tparan Yovhannēs Martirosyancʿi. Thomson, R.W. 1995. A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 AD, Turnhout: Brepols. Thomson, R.W. 20062. Moses Khorenatsʿi. History of the Armenians, Ann Arbor, MI: Caravan Books. Thomson, R.W. 2007. “Supplement to A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 AD: Publications 1993–2005”, Le Muséon 120, 163–223. Tirayr arkʿepiskopos. 1952. Frik. Divan. New York: Hratarakčʿutʿiwn Hay Baregorcakan Ǝndhanur Miutʿean Melgonean Himnadrami. Tʿlkurancʿi, Yovhannēs. 1938. “Yovhannēs Tʿlkurancʿi. Van stełcman ašxarhi” [Yovhannēs Tʿlkurancʿi. On the Creation of the World], Bazmavēp, 189–198. Traina, G., Franco, D., Kouymjian, D. & Veronese Arslan, C. 2003. La Storia di Alessandro il Macedone: Codice miniato armeno del secolo XIV (Venezia, ms. San Lazzaro 424), Padova: Bottega d’Erasmo. Trapizoni, G. episkopos. 1926. Narek Ołbergutʿiwn S. Grigor Narekacʿii [Narek. The Lamentation of St Grigor Narekacʿi], K. Polis: Y.M. Sētʿean. Trapizoni, G. 1948. Narek, Matean ołbergutʿean Surb Grigor Narekacʿii [Narek. The Book of Lamentation of Grigor Narekacʿi], Puēnos Ayrēs: Tpagrutʿiwn St. Tēōkʿmēčean. Trapizoni, G. arkʿepiskopos Xačʿaturean. 20033. S. Grigor Narekacʿi. Narek. Matean ołbergutʿean ew hamabarbaṙ [St. Grigor Narekacʿi. Narek. Book of Lamentation and Concordance], Aleppo: Haykakan Matenašar Galust Kiwlpēnkean Himnarkutʿean. Tʿorikean, Ž. 2013. Venetiki (1907) ew Erusałemi (1936) - Ant‘iliasi (1997) šaraknoc‘neru šarakanneru skzbnatołeru c‘uc‘ak / Incipitaire des hymnes des hymnaires arméniens de Venise (1907) et Jérusalem (1936; Antélias 1997). ‘Incipit-Tables’ of the Anthems of the Armenian Hymnaries of Venice (1907) and of Jerusalem (1936; Antelias 1977), Erevan: Actual art. Tʿrtʿṙean, A. arkʿepiskopos. 1986. Matean ołbergutʿean Grigori Narekacʿwoy Narekay vanicʿ vanakani [The Book of Lamentation of Grigor Narekacʿi Monk of the Monastery of Narek], Antʿilias: Tparan Katʿołikosutʿean Hayocʿ Meci Tann Kilikioy. medieval poetic texts 413

Tʿumačyan, M. 1972, 1983, 1986, 2005. Hayreni erg u ban [Armenian Folk Songs], 4 vols.; Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun (vols. 1–3); Zangak 97 (vol. 4). van der Toorn, K. 2007. Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. van Lint, T.M. 1996. Kostandin Erznkacʿi. An Armenian Religious Poet of the XIIIth–XIVth Century. Armenian Text with Translation and Commentary, Leiden (PhD thesis). van Lint, T.M. 1999a. “Seeking Meaning in Catastrophe: Nersēs Šnorhali’s ‘Lament over Edessa’”, in V. van Aalst, K. Ciggaar and H. Teule (eds), East and West in the Crusader States II: Cultural and Religious Crossroads, Leuven: Peeters, 1999, 29–47. van Lint, T.M. 1999b. “Lament on Edessa by Nersēs Šnorhali. Translated and annotated by Theo M. van Lint”, V. van Aalst, K. Ciggaar and H. Teule (eds), East and West in the Crusader States II: Cultural and Religious Crossroads, Leuven: Peeters, 49–105. van Lint, T.M. 2002. “The Poem of Lamentation over the Capture of Jerusalem written in 1189 by Grigor Tgha, Catholicos of All Armenians”, in The Armenians in Jerusalem and the Holy Land, Leuven: Peeters, 2002, 121–143. Xačʿatryan, P. 1969. Hay miǰnadaryan patmakan ołber (ŽD-ŽĒ dd.) [Armenian Medieval Historic Laments, XIVth–XVIIth c.], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Xačʿatryan, P. 2000. Ganjaran hay hin banastełcutʿyan [Treasury of Ancient Armenian Poetry], Erevan: Hayagitak. Xačʿatryan, P.M. & Łazinyan, A.A. 1985. Grigor Narekacʿi. Matean ołbergutʿean [Grigor Narekacʿi. Book of Lamentation], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Xondkaryan, Ēd. 1965. Mkrtičʿ Nałaš, Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Weitenberg, J.J.S. 2008. LALT Leiden Armenian Lexical Textbase: http://www.sd- editions.com/LALT/index.html. Yeghiazaryan, A. (see also Ełiazaryan, A.). 2008. The Daredevils of Sasun, translated by S.P. Cowe, Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers. Yovsepʿeancʿ, G. arkʿepiskopos. 1931. Mxitʿar Ayrivanecʿi. Noragiwt arjanagrutʿiwn ew erker [Mxitʿar Ayrivanecʿi. Newly discovered inscription and works], Erusałēm: Tparan Srbocʿ Yakobeancʿ. Zekiyan, B.L. 1999. La spiritualità armena. Il libro della lamentazione di Gregorio di Narek (La spiritualità Cristiana orientale, 2) Roma: Studium. Zoljan, S. & Tagmizjan, H. 1990. Šarakan. Iz armjanskoj poėzii V–XV vv. [Šarakan. From the Armenian Poetry of the Vth–XVth Centuries], Erevan: Sovetakan groł.

Modern and Contemporary Periods

‥

Philology, Documentary Research, and Channels of Cultural Diffusion from the Seventeenth to the Nineteenth Century

Paolo Lucca

The purpose of this contribution is not to focus on any single literary genre, but rather to examine a precise (although broad) time period in the history of Armenian culture and thought. This article will document the period covered in chronological order, setting out, in particular, the progression of scholarly and philological efforts (understood in the widest sense of the term), and the expressions of Armenian cultural life that occurred from the seventeenth to the nineteenth century. At the same time, it will highlight which of these elements have received greater attention in recent studies on the period, and which areas deserve new and further exploration by philologists, linguists, and modern historians.

1 The Rumblings of the Armenian Rebirth

After the fall of the kingdom of Cilicia, the Armenian people lost their last form of state self-government. The age of Turkmen domination (fifteenth century) and the period that lasted throughout the sixteenth century, in which the Safavid and Ottoman empires were engaged in continual conflicts, were one of the darkest eras for Armenia.1 It was only in the provinces of Siwnikʿ and Łarabał that the Armenians managed to preserve a relative level of independence, or at least attempted to resist Safavid and Ottoman control, by way of armed struggle. Centres of self-government and resistance were formed around several of the major noble families, including the family of Siwnikʿ, the house of Pṙošean in Vayocʿ-Jor, the house of Ōrbelean, and the princes of Artaz. Other districts that retained varying levels of independence included Hamšēn, Sasun, the fortresses of Zeytʿun and Hačʿn, and Vaspurakan, where the Arcruni were the princely house.2

I wish to thank Professor Boghos Levon Zekiyan, who contributed with his valuable suggestions and insightful remarks to the drafting of this essay. 1 Kouymjian 2007b, 377. 2 Hewsen & Zekiyan 2007, 414–424.

1.1 From the Μanuscript to the Printed Book The 50-year period from 1500 to 1550, which saw Sultan Selim’s Eastern military campaigns and the wars of Süleyman, represented the least productive time of the Armenian scriptoria since the 9th century. Nevertheless, in the years between 1511/1512 and 1513/1514, the first Armenian books were printed.3 A century later however, many xoǰa were still patronizing manuscript production. The art of printing would continue to compete with that of the handwritten text throughout the seventeenth century, and would only definitively establish itself around the middle of the eighteenth century. Even then, either for purely aesthetic reasons or because of religious pietas, many texts continued to be hand-copied up until the time of the First World War. While the collection of Armenian manuscript colophons, gathered together in three volumes and edited by V. Hakobyan and A. Hovhannisyan (1974–1984), remains fundamental to the study of the codices copied in this period, more recent research specifically focusing on the techniques of manuscript binding and more generally on Armenian manuscripts during their long trajec- tory from codex to printed text has been published by S.L. Merian (1993, 1994, 1996) and D. Kouymjian (2006; 2007a; 2008a; 2008b). There still has not been, however, a thorough and comprehensive analysis which has addressed, from a socio-historical perspective, the relationships between manuscript and printed book and those between authors, publishers, printers, and readers, between the sixteenth century and the beginning of the 19th century. By drawing on the numerous studies dedicated to the individual Armenian printing houses spread across Europe, the Ottoman Empire, Persia, and Russia, such an analysis would address, for example, when and how, in Armenian culture, the two media first started to be considered as separate products, when libraries began to differentiate between them, etc.4

1.2 Documents on the Armenian Merchant Network Although Armenian settlements outside the homeland had existed for more than a millennium, the conquering and pillaging by Turkmen and Ottoman forces gave the Armenian people a further stimulus to move away. It was, in fact, during this period that the relationships between the Armenian colonies were strengthened, and cultural and commercial activity began to

3 Kouymjian 1997, 44–45. On the history of the studies on the Armenian printing, see the essay of R. Kévorkian included in this volume. 4 In this perspective, a study such as D. McKitterick’s volume on the changes produced by the printing revolution in Europe (McKitterick 2003) could serve as model and inspiration. (Cowe's essay on print capital in Early Modern Armenian society was published in Le Muséon 126/3–4 [2013], 319–368 only after this contribution was finished). philology, documentary research, & cultural diffusion 419 gravitate towards particular locations within the Diaspora: in Italy (Rome, Genoa, Venice, and Livorno), in France (Marseilles and Paris), in India (Calcutta and Madras), in the Ottoman Empire (Constantinople and Smyrna), and in Persia (New Julfa).5 The colony in New Julfa flourished and prospered after many Armenians were deported there by shāh ʿAbbās and remained throughout the seventeenth century as the central hub of the vast Armenian trade network, which was an important contributing element to the initial triggering and subsequent development of Armenian Rebirth. The geographical range in which Armenian merchants traded was consolidated and expanded, leading to the rise of a new Armenian capitalism. Although the information available on the world of the so-called xoǰa, the wealthy Armenian notables and merchants, was researched to some extent over the course of the nineteenth century (see, for example, T. Tēr Yovhaneancʿ 1880–1881 and Ališan 1893), it was not until the twentieth century that it became the subject of more in-depth studies. Xoǰayakan kapitalǝ, written by Lēō in 1934, is a sui generis monograph in which the scholar, consistent with his Marxist orientation, presents an analysis which, although thorough, aims above all to offer a socio-political reflection on the consequences that the “dependence” (according to Lēō) of the diasporic Armenian capital on European capitalism had on the Armenians of the homeland. Beginning in the 1960s, the number of studies dealing with the subject increased, initially mainly by Soviet Armenian researchers in the pages of Patma-banasirakan handes. The scholar who deserves more credit than anyone for having revived interest in the history of Armenian commercial trade in the Pre-Modern era is L. Xačʿikyan, who wrote two articles on the subject of the ledger belonging to the 17th-century merchant Yovhannēs JułayecʿiÌ (Xačʿikyan 1966 e 1967), and who later, in collaboration with H. Pʿapʿazyan, published its critical text, preceded by a lengthy introduction (Xačʿikyan & Pʿapʿazyan 1984).6 During the 1960s, other texts were edited, including the law code of the Armenian community in Astrakhan, which contains a large section dealing with commercial law (Połosyan 1967), and a selection of letters written by the merchant Ełia Kaṙnecʿi, which are preserved in a Moscow archive (Abrahamyan 1968). New material was brought to light in the 1980s with the reprinting and Eastern Armenian translation of the History of New Julfa at Isfahan by Tēr

5 Hewsen & Zekiyan 2007, 435. 6 For other studies dating from the 1960s and the 1970s, see also Zulalyan 1962, Podgraskaja 1968, Bayburtyan 1969, Gulbenkian 1970, Bournoutian 1971 and 1972; on the Armenian community of New Julfa, see Gregorian 1974; for a more general view on the Armenian commerce, see Dauvillier 1974; Ferrier 1970 and 1973; Kévonian 1975. 420 lucca

Yovhaneancʿ which was edited by P. Petrosyan (1980–1981) and accompanied by notes, printed separately, by L. Minasean (1980). In addition, studies by Š. Xačʿikyan7 demonstrated how the widespread belief in the existence of an “Armenian Trade Company” of New Julfa, something that was generally held to be true by all the major Soviet-Armenian historians of trade, including Lēō, was in fact due to an error in the Russian translation of an agreement signed in 1667–1673 by representatives of the Armenian community with the tsar. In fact, the plural form kupanekʿ attested in the Armenian version of the agreement and meaning “companies” in the dialect used by the Armenians of Julfa was expressed using the singular form in the Russian version (Xačʿikyan 1980, 271; 1988, 27). Over the last 20 years, analysis of archive documents that were previously neglected or overlooked has given a further boost to research on the Armenian trade network in the Pre-Modern era. In particular, the work carried out by E. Herzig, K. Kévonian, and I. Baghdiantz McCabe has led to the re-examination of the commercial techniques and the coordination of the merchants of New Julfa on their routes through Asia and Europe.8 The account book belonging to the eighteenth-century merchant Sarhad, a text of considerable interest to historians of commercial trade, was published in 1994 by Xačʿikyan.9 Using the critical texts prepared respectively by Tʿ. Avdalbegyan and N. Akinean in the 1930s (Ter-Avetisian 1938a, published posthumously, and Akinean 1936), G.A. Bournoutian published the English translations of the Ōragrutʿiwn by Zakʿaria Agulecʿi (Bournoutian 2003),10 and the Ułegrutʿiwn by Simēon Dpir Lehacʿi (Bournoutian 2007), the diaries of two seventeenth- century Armenian travellers.11 To this day, the most exhaustive and comprehensive study of the rise and fall of the merchant class of New Julfa is the recent monograph by S. Aslanian, grounded in extensive archival research, including account books, promis- sory notes, commendas, and other documents, the majority of which have never been studied before (Aslanian 2011).12 At the time when this chapter was

7 Xačʿikyan 1980, 1988. See also Curtin 1984; Aghassian & Kévonian 1988. 8 Herzig 1990, 1991, 1996, 2004, 2008, 2012; Baghdiantz McCabe 1994–95, 1996–97, 1999, 2005, 2008; Aghassian & Kévonian 1999. See also Pʿapʿazyan 1990, Bayburdean 1996, Baladouni & Makepeace 1998, xiv–xxxv, Chaudhury 2005, Danielyan 2011, and – in general – the essays included in Chaudhury & Kévonian 2008. For information on Armenian trade in the Ottoman Empire during the second half of the 19th century, see Der Matossian 2007. 9 Xačʿikyan 1994. See also Xačʿikyan 2012. 10 For the Russian translation of Zakʿaria’s Diary, see Šaxnazaryan 1939. 11 The Ułegrutʿiwn by Simēon Dpir Lehacʿi has also been translated in Tukish (Andreasyan 1964) and in Russian (Darbinjan 1965). 12 On the trade network of the Armenian merchants from New Julfa, see also Aslanian 2006a, 2006b, 2007 and 2008, Bhattacharya 2005 and 2008, and Bekius 2012. philology, documentary research, & cultural diffusion 421 being written, Aslanian was planning to work on an annotated translation of Vasn nōrahas mankancʿ ew eritasardacʿ vačarakanacʿ xrat (better known as Ašxarhažołov), a manual written in the 1680s by Kostand Jułayecʿi,Ì teacher and manager of the Armenian trade school of New Julfa.13 However, numerous documents and manuscripts are yet to be published. These include, for example, the manual on the use of mathematics for commercial purposes by Catur Yakobdǰanean Jułayecʿi,Ì written in 1753 in Astrakhan and preserved in the 9284 MS in the Matenadaran institute in Erevan.14 Furthermore, the publication of annotated translations of the Hamajaynutʿiwn15 and the Ganj16 by Łukas Vanandecʿi, alongside new editions of their Armenian texts, produced by comparing their printed editions with extant handwritten copies, would be of invaluable use for historians of trade, in particular for those who are not Armenologists.

1.3 The First Signs of Cultural Renewal The rise of the Armenian merchant class over the course of the seventeenth century was accompanied by an initial period of cultural renewal, characterized in particular by the desire to revive ancient monastic, ecclesiastical, and literary traditions. The three major centres were Ēǰmiacin, New Julfa, and Bałēš (Bitlis). The Catholicoi of Ēǰmiacin Movsēs III Tatʿewacʿi (1629–1632), Pʿilippos I Ałbakecʿi (1633–1655), and Yakob IV JułayecʿiÌ (1655–1680) were the central figures of the Armenian ecclesiastical history in this period, as they reformed the institutions, redefined the cursus studiorum of the monastic education system, and renovated the buildings of the patriarchate, churches, and monasteries. Thanks to the economic support of the wealthy merchants in New Julfa, the monastery and the school of Surb Amenapʿrkičʿ produced several of the leading intellectuals of that era. These included Xačʿatur Kesaracʿi (1590–1646),

13 Ms. 64 in the library of the Surb Amenapʿrkičʿ monastery in New Julfa; mss. 10704 and 5994 in the Matenadaran of Erevan; and ms. F14 in the Bodleian Library (see Aslanian 2008, 145, 153). A translation of some excerpts of this work is published in Aghassian & Kévonian 1988. Aslanian’s translation project is currently on hold, but not suspended. 14 A translation of two excerpts of this work is included in Aghassian & Kévonian 1988, 173– 177. Xačʿikyan 1960 features a selection of manuscripts held in the Matenadaran and dealing with the history of the Armenian commerce. For a general survey on the documents and files scattered throughout European and Eastern archives, see the bibliographical apparatus in Aslanian 2011. 15 Łukas Vanandecʿi 1698. 16 Łukas Vanandecʿi 1699. See Kévonian 1975 and Aghassian & Kévonian 1988 for an introduction to the Ganj čʿapʿoy and for a translation of some excerpts of this work. 422 lucca who in 1636 founded the first active printing house in the Persian Empire,17 the grammarian, philosopher and logician Simēon JułayecʿiÌ (1600–1657), and the theologian and grammarian Yovhannēs JułayecʿiÌ (1643–1715). Such diverse disciplines as theology, grammar, philosophy, arithmetic, music, miniature art, and painting, all underwent a period of intensive creative development.18 Of the four Armenian monasteries in Bałēš, two particularly stood out: Xndrakatar in the sixteenth century, and Amrtol in the seventeenth century. The latter, which was renovated by the vardapet Barsēł Ałbakecʿi (d. 1615), saw its most productive period under Vardan Bałišecʿi (d. 1705), whose line of disciples includes such names as Yovhannēs Bałišecʿi Kolot (patriarch of Constantinople between 1715 and 1741), and Grigor Širuancʿi Šłtʿayakir (patriarch of Jerusalem from 1717 to 1749). The members of the school of Bałēš primarily devoted their efforts, to the collection, restoration, and copying of ancient manuscripts, and excelled in particular as chroniclers.19 To this day, the most in-depth studies on the writers and prominent figures that came from the monasteries of Bałēš remain those written between the 1940s and 1950s by H. Oskean and N. Akinean.20 More recently, in the volume Armenian Baghesh/Bitlis and Taron/Mush, which was edited by R.G. Hovanissian and appeared in the UCLA series dedicated to the Historic Armenian Cities and Provinces, R.W. Thomson considers the major role that the monastery of Amrtol played in the transmission of the most important Armenian historiographical texts.21 As stated in the previous section, from the 1930s onwards the economic history of Armenia in the seventeenth century has been the subject of increasingly in-depth studies, undertaken both by scholars from Soviet Armenia and by exponents of the Armenian Diaspora, and, in more general terms, by western scholars. Due to clear ideological-political reasons, the majority of publications issued during the twentieth century which dealt with this initial period of renewal within the Armenian religious and cultural institutions or focused

17 For further information on the Armenian print house in New Julfa, see Minasean 1972. Carmelite friars had already established a printing press in Isfahan in 1629, using equipment received from Rome. However, since we don’t know whether the Carmelite press printed any volume before 1642, the first print house which is known to have published a book in the Persian Empire is the Armenian one (Bloom 2004, 28). 18 Kévonian 1975, 217. On miniature and writing in New Julfa see Minasean 1991; on the practice of patronage in the Armenian community of that city, see Minasean 1997. 19 Bardakjian 2000, 47. 20 Oskean 1940–47, vol. iii, 896–914; Akinean 1952 (see also Macler 1916). 21 Thomson 2001, 105–117. See also Kohoutkova (2009, 2010), on the perception of the other in the works by the the Armenian chroniclers of Bitlis. philology, documentary research, & cultural diffusion 423 on individual figures at the centre of this reform process were authored by researchers living and working outside the Armenian SSR. In particular, we can recall the contributions of three Mekhitarist fathers: the aforesaid H. Oskean and N. Akinian, and K. Amatuni, the last of whom authored a series of studies on the main Catholicoi and vardapetkʿ of the seventeenth century which were published between the 1970s and 1990s.22 H. Mirzoyan has extensively studied the philosophical, logical, and grammatical speculations of Simēon JułayecʿiÌ and Yovhannēs Jułayecʿi,Ì as well as the seventeenth-century Armenian philosophical output in general.23 However, many philosophical texts from the era have in some cases never been published, or, if printed copies do exist, the editions used by scholars as sources of reference for their own research are still the editiones principes, which do not always represent the original form of the texts preserved in the manuscripts, having sometimes been altered by the first editors or printers.24 Studies on the lexicographic and grammatical works of the seventeenth century resulted in the publication, in 1975, of the critical edition of the first explanatory Armenian dictionary, the Baṙgirkʿ Hayocʿ by Eremia Mełrecʿi (editio princeps: Livorno 1698; reprinted in Constantinople in 1728, along with the Geography by Vardan Ašxarhagir), edited by H. Amalyan and preceded by a series of studies by the same author on the Armenian dictionaries produced between the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries.25 Over the last 20 years, A. Orengo has studied the Grammar Books by Oskan Erewancʿi, investigating their origins, particularly with regards to their relations with the Grammaticalia by Tommaso Campanella.26 Orengo also authored some studies on sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Italian dictionaries and grammar books written in Armenian.27

22 Akinian 1936; Amatuni 1975, 1984, and – posthumous – 1992, 1992–1993. 23 Mirzoyan 1971; 1983; 2001. 24 Think, for example, to the intricate publishing history of Simēon Jułayecʿi’sÌ Logic, which was composed in 1650 and, before being printed, circulated in manuscript for nearly eighty years. Its editio princeps dates from 1728, in Constantinople, by Baghdasar Dpir (Simēon JułayecʿiÌ 1728), who added his own observations on its sources; the second edition (Constantinople 1794) shows a slightly different textual form. Still unpublished is Simēon Jułayecʿi’sÌ Commentary on Proclus’ Elements of Theology (Bardakjian 2000, 64). 25 Amalyan 1966; 1971a; 1971b. Eremia Mełrecʿi’s Hamaṙōt gumarumn ew lucumn baṙicʿ yAstuacašunčʿ grocʿ [A Brief Lexicon of the Books of the Bible] is still unpublished. On it, see Sanjian 1999, 287–289, and the “Introduction” in Amalyan 1975. 26 Orengo 1991; 1994; 2003; 2004a; 2006. On the “latinatip” Armenian grammars, see also Weitenberg 1990 and 1995b, and, more recently, Hambarjumyan 2010. 27 Orengo 1995; 1997; 2004b. 424 lucca

The rediscovered ethno-national awareness fostered by some cultural expressions of the Diaspora and of merchant life revealed itself over the course of the seventeenth century also in the form of a renewed historiographical interest. Despite their dependence on pre-Modern stylistic conventions and methods, among the most significant historical works of the period mention must be made of the accounts produced by Grigor Daranałcʿi (1576–1643) and Aṙakʿel Dawrižecʿi (m. 1670).28 These works are rich in information on monasteries and religious centres, demographic changes caused by forced migration, and key figures of Armenian ecclesiastical and intellectual life in the seventeenth century. The accounts by Yovhannēs Kamenacʿi (sixteenth–seventeenth century), Xačʿatur Kafayecʿi (c. 1592–1659?), Yakob Karnecʿi (1618–?), Dawitʿ Bałišecʿi (d. 1673) and Zakʿaria Kʿanakʿeṙcʿi (1627–c. 1699), should also be mentioned. The historiographical tradition of this century has deserved more attention from researchers than the religious and philosophical writings of the same period have generally received so far. With the exception of Zakʿaria Kʿanakʿeṙcʿi (the reference edition of whose Chronicle dates back to 1870), modern editions of the works of all of the aforementioned authors are available, the oldest of which is that of Grigor Daranałcʿi’s Chronology, dating to 1915.29 During the Soviet era, many of these authors were translated into Russian, demonstrating an interest motivated by the fact that the historians in question had primarily dealt with events that had taken place in historical Armenia and in regions once under the control of the Russian Empire and that subsequently became part of the USSR. In some cases, such as that of the text by Zakʿaria, the translation was accompanied by critical notes recording the variants exhibited by the Armenian manuscripts;30 in other cases, Russian and Eastern Armenian translations were published before the edition of the original Armenian text.31 Some of these works, along with other chronicles, were made available for the first

28 Aṙakʿel Dawrižecʿi 1669 (for the critical edition of the text, see Xanlaryan & Abgaryan 1990). 29 Nšanean 1915. 30 Darbinjan & Melikjan 1969. 31 See, for example, the History of the War of Khotyn by Yovhannēs Kamenacʿi, which Anasyan translated first in Russian and then reedited in Armenian (Anasyan 1958; 1964); think also to the case of Aṙakʿel Dawrižecʿi’s History, translated in Russian by L. Xanlaryan (Xanlaryan 1973) and in Eastern Armenian by G. Aṙakʿelyan (Aṙakʿelyan 1988), before the publication of its critical text in 1990 by Xanlaryan and Abgaryan (Xanlaryan & Abgaryan 1990). philology, documentary research, & cultural diffusion 425 time in the two volumes of the Chronica minora (Manr Žamanakagrutʿyunner), published in Erevan in 1951 and 1956 by V. Hakobyan.32 Outside of Armenia, over the last decade, G.A. Bournoutian has been working on the English translations with commentary of the works of various historians of this period,33 and K.B. Bardakjian is currently working on an annotated English translation of Grigor Daranałcʿi’s Chronology. The case of the History by Aṙakʿel Dawrižecʿi offers an example of the problems that scholars are often forced to deal with when editing Armenian texts from this period, when the manuscript and the printed book were still in competition with one another. Aṙakʿel completed his work in 1692 but the vardapet Oskan, who was the editor of the first printed edition of his History (published in Amsterdam in 1669), made several alterations to the style and content of the text. In fact, he omitted several passages and added two new chapters that he himself had written, inserting a large number of spelling errors in the process.34 Later on, Aṙakʿel resolved to edit his own text, either alone or with the assistance of a scribe, as clearly shown by a number of additions attested by two codices of the manuscript tradition. As a result, the second printed edition of the History, which was published in 1884 and reissued in 1896, contains many variants to the 1669 edition. When preparing his critical edition of Arakʿel’s History, Xanlaryan sifted through all the extant codices and, having chosen four of them to be the manuscript basis of his critical text, he also resolved to put the most significant readings attested in the two printed editions in the apparatus, choosing not to include the two chapters attributable to Oskan, whilst accepting as genuine the later, post-1667 additions attested by two of the four manuscripts. Xanlaryan’s edition is a good example of the Continian “variants criticism” (or “filologia d’autore”, according to D. Isella’s definition)35 as applied to a seventeenth-century Armenian text, and is a model that should in general be followed when editing Armenian texts from this period whose

32 This is the case of the chronicles of Xačʿatur Kafayecʿi (Hakobyan 1951/56, vol. 1, 205–236) and Dawitʿ Bałišecʿi (Hakobyan 1951/56, vol. 2, 300–365), and both of Yakob Karnecʿi’s Chronicle (Hakobyan 1951/56, vol. 1, 237–244) and Topography (Hakobyan 1951/56, vol. 2, 548–582), the latter previously published in 1903 (Kostaneancʿ 1903). 33 Bournoutian 2003; 2004; 2007; 2010. 34 According to some scholars, Oskan didn’t have at his disposal the final version of Aṙakʿel Dawrižecʿi’s History (Bardakjian 2000, 69). 35 On the development of the “variants criticism” and the “filologia d’autore” and their practical applications, see Italia & Raboni 2010. 426 lucca extant early printed editions often show some kind of textual disagreement with one another or only partially reflect the original manuscript.36

2 The Eighteenth Century

2.1 The Mekhitarist Order At the beginning of the eighteenth century, the first centre of the Order of the Mekhitarists was established in Constantinople. Its founder was Mxitʿar Sebastacʿi (1676–1749), who had become unsatisfied by the cultural inadequacy of the Armenian religious institutions, which at the time were almost exclusively committed to preserving their own intellectual heritage. It was probably his meeting with a Jesuit priest in Erzerum in 1691 that inspired his decision to turn to the West and to found a religious order modeled on those in the West,37 thus beginning a movement of religious reform and cultural renewal that, according to the historian Lēō, marked the beginning of a completely new era in the history of Armenian cultural and spiritual development.38 Paving the way for linguistic and grammatical research that other illustrious figures of the Order were to go on to further develop, in particular during the 19th century,39 Mxitʿar published a grammar book for classical Armenian in 1730, and, in 1733, a new edition of the Armenian Bible.40 In 1749 and in 1769, the two volumes of the Baṙgirkʿ haykazean lezui were published posthumously,

36 Think for example to Yovhannēs Jułayecʿi’sÌ Srbaznagorcutʿiwn, whose printed edition (Madras 1812) represents less then half the original manuscript (Bardakjian 2000, 65; see also Mirzoyan 1980). 37 Zekiyan 2004, 182–183. 38 Lēō 1946, 483. 39 Nurikhan 1914, 339. 40 Its text was founded upon the edition published by Oskan in Amsterdam in 1666 and, quoting from the title page, it was supplied “with more careful amendments”, as a result of comparing Oskan’s Bible with the Paris Polyglot and the Armenian manuscripts collected by Mekhitarist monks in Middle East (Nurikhan 1914, 331). Thence, the result was not (and could not be, neither culturally nor historically) a critical edition, while not missing any rare corrections in the margins and some comments concerning the origin of the errors (obscure Vorlage, translators’ inability or copyists’ inattention or ignorance; see Uluhogian 2002, 10). In an age when in both classical and religious philology the textus receptus was still revered as “the tradition”, the corrections made to it were mostly ope codicum than ope ingenii, and the awareness of the need for a systematic recensio was still emergent (Timpanaro 2005, 59, 64, and, in general, ch. 2: The Need for a Systematic Recensio in the Eighteenth Century), Mxitʿar’s edition techniques were not therefore too dissimilar from those of most of his contemporaries, at least in the Catholic world. philology, documentary research, & cultural diffusion 427 which were of great importance, both in terms of the lexicographic material they gathered together (more than 50,000 entries), and for the methodological rigour and insight on display in their opening pages.41 Over the course of the twentieth century, numerous studies on the subject of Mxitʿar were published,42 focusing on both his work and his personality. The majority of these, however, are either purely biographical in their nature, or present a theological analysis of Mxitʿar’s ideas and reforming vision, while often leaving in the background his literary and scholarly output.43 Many of the studies that proved useful in conducting as definitive as possible a census of Mxitʿar’s writings and in producing an overall critical evaluation of the significance of his work within a wider literary and linguistic context were published in Bazmavēp and Handēs Amsōreay, and most notably, in the two monographic issues of 1949 on the occasion of the bicentenary of the founder’s death. In 1977, N. Tēr-Nersēsean edited a bibliography of the volumes published by Mxitʿar, which was followed in 1980 by a study of Mxitʿar’s publishing activity, edited by Čemčemean. Between 1977 and 1981, Tēr-Nersēsean wrote a series of articles that appeared in Bazmavēp, in which he offered an appraisal of Mxitʿar’s contribution to the evolution of modern Armenian, accompanied by the publication of the text of the Kʿerakanutʿiwn ašxarhabar lezuin Hayocʿ, which remains, to my knowledge, the most recent edition of an unpublished work attributed to Mxitʿar.44 Lexicography and biblical philology remained among the main interests of the Order, even after the death of the founder. The two volumes of the Nor

41 Uluhogian 2002, 10–11. 42 We could list, among others, Nurikhan 1914 (English translation 1915; French translation 1922), the articles published in Bazmavēp 107/7–12 (1949), Amadouni 1978. On the Mekhitarist Order in general and both on its Venetian branch and Viennese branch, see Bardakjian 1976, Amadouni & Gianascian 1978, Inglisian 1978, Adalian 1992, Zekiyan 1993, Bezdikian 1999. On the single branch of Vienna, see Akinean 1932 and Arat 1990. 43 It seems to me that, in this perspective, Zekiyan (1977, 1978 and 2004) and Nichanian (1999) grasped more than others the originality of Mxitʿar’s thought. See also Cowe 1994– 95, 125–131, for a methodological reflection on the application of Western and Eurocentric categories – such as that of “Renaissance” – in the interpretation of (Middle-)Eastern history and institutes. 44 See Tēr Nersēsean 1977–81. Among the material still unpublished and of special interest to the historians of language, suffice here to mention the Hamaṙōtʿutʿiwn Čartasanutʿean, an handbook of rhetoric written by Mxitʿar in 1733 and attested in several manuscripts, 23 of which at the Matenadaran, 3 at the Mekhitarist Library of Vienna, and 1 at the UCLA Library (Sanjian 1999, pp. 292–293). 428 lucca baṙgirkʿ haykazean lezui45 were published between 1836 and 1837. They were reprinted in facsimile by the publishing house of the Erevan State University in 1979 and 1981 respectively; then, in 1990, they were the subject of an interesting publishing venture by M. Minassian, who edited a limited edition of a copy of the Dictionary preserved in the Gothenburg University Library containing the notes and observations written by Norayr Biwzandacʿi (Minassian 1990).46 Of the two editions of the Bible, published in 1805 and 1860 and edited by Yovhannēs Zōhrapean (1756–1829) and by Arsēn Komitas Bagratuni (1790– 1866) respectively, it is the former that has had the most success among Biblical philologists over the course of the twentieth century. In fact, a modern critical edition does not exist for many books of the Armenian Bible and the readings in the 1805 edition appear in the critical apparatus of the Göttingen edition of the Septuaginta. The Zōhrap version was reprinted in facsimile in 1984, accompanied by an introduction by C. Cox. Although the later edition by Bagratuni is less useful for the purposes of textual criticism,47 it nevertheless deserves a more in-depth study than has been given it in the last century, and one which focuses particularly on its editor’s linguistic choices. An analysis of the variants between this edition and that by Zōhrapean could prove to be useful in gaining

45 Awetikʿean, Siwrmēlean & Awgerean 1836–37. The Nor baṙgirkʿ was the outcome of fifty years of work. Its authors dedicated it to Mxitʿar and designed it as a continuation of his Dictionary. In its introductory pages a first periodization of the Armenian literary production is given: from the fifth century (already regarded as the “golden century”) to the twelfth century, and from the thirteenth to the eighteenth century (an age where barba- risms abound; see Uluhogian 2002, 11, who notes how the authors of the Nor baṙgirkʿ recognized with deep critical intelligence the importance that should be assigned to codices recentiores). 46 In 1991, H. Palandjian compiled a reverse index of the entries of the Nor baṙgirkʿ that appeared as the first volume in the Lexicographia Orientalis series (Palandjian 1991). A new anastatic reprint of the New Dictionary is forthcoming for Gorgias Press, in the Gorgias Historical Dictionaries series. Worthy corollary of the Nor baṙgirkʿ and a milestone of the grammatical and syntactical studies of the classical Armenian language was the Armenian Grammar by A.K. Bagratuni, published in Venice (Bagratuni 1852). In addition to Bagratuni’s Grammar, it is also worth mentioning the Dizionario armeno-italiano (JaxǰaxeanÌ 1837), that is still very commonly used by Western philologists and armenologists, and the Handy Dictionary of the Armenian Language (Awgerean 1846), whose second edition (1865) contained over 5000 new entries (Hausmann 1991, 2368). Both Jaxǰaxean’sÌ Dizionario and Awgerean’s Handy Dictionary are founded upon the Nor baṙgirkʿ. 47 However, Bagratuni’s edition appears beside Zohrap’s one at least in the apparatus of the critical edition of the Greek Sirach by J. Ziegler (Göttingen 1980). philology, documentary research, & cultural diffusion 429 a better understanding of the Mekhitarists’ project to restore the classical language to which they devoted themselves since the foundation of the Order.48 The Venetian Mekhitarists completed their philological investigations with a thorough historical and documentary study. The key figure in this field was Mikʿayēl Čʿamčʿean (1738–1823), with his History of the Armenians, which was published in three volumes between 1784 and 1786 (Čʿamčʿean 1784–86) – a work remarkable for the vast quantity of sources used, and for the considerable effort required to produce a valid periodization in Armenian history.49 Čʿamčʿean’s process of selecting, evaluating, and making use of the sources mirrors that of Mxitʿar when he compiled his dictionary (and that which was to be used again at a later time by the authors of Nor baṙgirkʿ), and clearly fits in with the unifying project envisioned by the founder of the Order. Mxitʿar saw in grabar, i.e. in the written word, the fundamental element that had the power to rem- edy the fragmentation experienced by the Armenian people in the eighteenth century.50 Čʿamčʿean’s History was reprinted in facsimile in Erevan in 1984 and still deserves to be studied, especially in regards to how its author made use of his sources, as demonstrated in particular by the works of A. Utʿuǰyan.51 An identical, “universal” perspective also governed the other areas of study and research to which the Mekhitarist monks devoted their time. Father Łukas Inčičean (1758–1833) and Father Minas Bžškean (1777–1851) devoted themselves to the study of Armenian geographical archaeology, a discipline that evolved over the first two decades of the 19th century. Their efforts were vital to the establishment of modern Armenian language and literature, and their contributions could, and indeed should, be considered to belong to the field of philology, since they were intended to aid the recovery and reconstruction of the recent and (more often) distant past of Armenian history and territory.52 Apart

48 On the Armenian Bible, see the article by Claude Cox in the present volume. On Bagratuni’s edition of the Bible, see Tēr Nersēsean 1966. On Bagratuni’s linguistic and philological views, see Tʿevosyan 1966 and Adalian 1992, 25–28. 49 Uluhogian 2004, 225–226. 50 Nichanian (1999, 95, 120–121) notes how such a totalizing project, aimed to counter the dispersion of the Armenian people by the creation of a universal and all-embracing dictionary and history, was also, and above all, possible thanks to the position of geographical and ideological marginality from which Mxitʿar and his monks operated. Indeed, the Mekhitarist Order, as a Catholic Order installed on the island of St. Lazar, represented an intellectual center external in all senses to the Armenians they were addressing. 51 See Utʿuǰyan 1975, 1976. 52 Inčičean edited the 5th and the 6th volumes of the Universal Geography composed by Abbot Stepʿanos Agoncʿ (Agoncʿ & Inčičean 1802–06). Among his works, the Description of Ancient Armenia (Inčičean 1822) and the Archeology of Geographic Armenia, published 430 lucca from the critical edition of Bžškean’s music manual by A. Kʿerovbyan, after it had remained unpublished for one and a half centuries,53 the work of the two scholars remains an area in which little research has been carried out. This is particularly the case regarding the use of vernacular Armenian in some of their works, and their influence on the subsequent production of Armenian literature. For some preliminary thoughts on this issue, one can refer to Nichanian (2007, 121–139).54

2.2 The Armenian Colonies in India From the second half of the eighteenth century, the Armenian colonies in India, in particular those of Madras and Calcutta, underwent a period of intellectual and cultural development which ran parallel to and complemented that of the Mekhitarists. It was to last for nearly a century and gave rise to the beginnings of Armenian political thought. If Mxitʿar and his order were, as has been seen, the expression of Armenian Humanism, the Armenian colonies in India, as a result of their contact with the English, absorbed the ideas and theories of the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century.55

posthumous (Inčičean 1835) should be remembered. Inčičean’s Preface to the Description of Ancient Armenia is highly significant from a methodological perspective: the author informs the readers about the development of his project, recalling the days spent in consulting the manuscripts used as sources, and telling the readers that he had came to the conclusion that “in philological undertakings, when a work comes to an end, it’s then that it actually starts” (Inčičean 1822, unnumbered fourth page of the Preface). 53 Kʿerovbyan 1997. 54 All of the most significant writings in vernacular Armenian published between 1790 and 1820 were written or inspired by Inčičean and Bžškean (Nichanian 2007, 121). Inčičean was the author of the Concise Study of Old and New Geography (Inčičean 1791), a handbook of geography addressed to the pupils of the Mekhitarist Order which happens to be the first publication in vernacular Armenian after Mxitʿar’s Catechism, published in 1727. Likewise, also Bžškean’s translation of Robinson Crusoe (Bžškean 1817), the first in vernacular Armenian and founded upon the French version of Defoe’s novel, was driven by an educational purpose. 55 Ferrari 2003b, 105. For information on the origins, growth and history of the Armenian colonies in India, see Seth 1895 e 1937, Gušakean 1941, Alpōyačean 1961, 294–423, Ałayan & Xačʿikyan 1972, 337–347. On the role these colonies played in the Armenian Veracnund, see also Oshagan 1999, 165–176, Ghougassian 1999, 241–265, and Zekiyan 1997, 61–66. On the contributions of the Madras group to the Armenian movement of national liberation, see Libaridian 1987, 55–68. Still uninvestigated are the reasons for which the theoretical attempts of the Armeno-Indians wield no influence on the nineteenth-century Armenian political thought, which, albeit expressing itself by novels, pamphlets, and review articles, was unable to form an overall vision of social and political issues (Zekiyan 1997, 65). philology, documentary research, & cultural diffusion 431

The Nor tetrak or kočʿi Yordorak is considered to be the first work of a political nature in modern Armenian culture56 and the first Armenian book to deal predominantly with national liberation.57 It was printed in Madras in 1772 in the print shop of Šahamir Šahamirean (a merchant born in New Julfa, 1723–1797) and his two sons Yakob and Ełiazar, yet its authorship remains uncertain. For over 140 years this work was attributed to Yakob Šahamirean. However, following the publication of the Yišatakaran by Simēon Erewancʿi in volume 8 of the Diwan Hayocʿ patmutʿean, the editor, Ałaneancʿ, encouraged scholars to examine an excerpt from this work which read “[. . .] this book was written by the wise Movsēs”.58 The Movsēs in question was identified as Movsēs Bałramean, a priest from Łałabał who had collaborated with Yovsēpʿ Ēmin between 1763 and 1768, and who acted as a tutor to Šahamirean’s sons between 1769 and 1770.59 Nevertheless, the debate remains open. In 1962, A. Mnacʿakanyan published a study that aimed to reconfirm the commonly held view that Šahamirean had written the work, giving as one of his key points of evidence an acrostic in the third chapter, which reads as “[By] Yakob Šahamirean”.60 Despite this, Bałramean continues to be listed as the author of the Nor tetrak, even in the Eastern Armenian annotated translation of the work, published in Erevan in 1991 and edited by P.M. Xačʿatryan. Another important volume produced by the Madras group and published in 177361 was the Girkʿ anuaneal Orogaytʿ pʿaṙacʿ, whose origins were studied by Ṙ. Hambarjumyan (1999). An edition of the work, with an accompanying annotated translation in Eastern Armenian, was published in Erevan in 2002, edited by P. Xačʿatryan and G. Safaryan.62 At the turn of the century, the colony of Calcutta also saw a period of cultural bloom. One of the key figures of this community was Mesrop Tʿałiadean (1803–1858). Originally from Erevan, between 1845 and 1852 he edited two journals in Calcutta (Azgasēr [Patriot] and Azgasēr araratean [Patriot of Ararat]), translated works by, among others, John Milton, John Locke, Alexander Pope,

56 Ferrari 2003b, 113. 57 Panossian 2006, 92–93. 58 Ałaneancʿ 1893–1917, vol. 8, 576. 59 Ghougassian 1999, 250–251. 60 Mnacʿakanyan 1962, 138. 61 The Orogaytʿ pʿaṙacʿ was probably written by Šahamirean. Other scholars think of Bałramean as its author, albeit with the assistance of other members of the Madras group (see, for example, Zekiyan 1997, 64). On the actual date of publication of the Orogaytʿ pʿaṙacʿ – possibly in the 1780s – see Ghoukassian 1999, 254. 62 On the Orogaytʿ paṙacʿ, see also Tololyan 1989 and Tʿeluncʿ 2008. 432 lucca and George Gordon Byron, and was the author of two books considered to be among the earliest examples of the modern Armenian novel.63 The didactic and realist style used in the two books, which straddled both classicism and realism (chronologically as well as stylistically), inspired and deeply influenced a number of Armenian authors of the 19th century.64 During the second half of the last century, Ṙ. Nanumyan began to collect and annotate Tʿałiadean’s work. Following an initial introduction to the life and work of the author (Erevan 1947), he published his works in a series of volumes, beginning with the literary material (Erevan 1965), and then his journals, articles, and other documents (Erevan 1975). Further material (diaries, documents, and unpublished letters) featured in the collection edited by M. Aščean, which was published in New Julfa in 1979, and reprinted in Erevan in 1993.

2.3 The Ottoman and Eastern Communities During the years that witnessed both the extensive cultural production of the Mekhitarists and the very beginnings of Armenian political speculation in India, other centres of activity made their own contributions to the Rebirth movement. While the monasteries and schools of Ēǰmiacin, Bałēš and New Julfa reduced and slowed down their output, the community of Constantinople achieved a position of pre-eminence, particularly under the patriarchy of Yovhannēs Bałišecʿi Kolot (1715–1741), who, in 1715, founded the city’s first Armenian school, located in the Üsküdar quarter. One of his disciples, Yakob Nalean (1706–1764), was in turn patriarch of the city between 1741 and 1749, and between 1752 and 1764. As Kolot’s successor, he helped to strengthen and consolidate the authority of the Armenian apostolic Church.65 Over the course of the eighteenth century, the community of Constantinople stood out for its publishing activity. The Armenian print shops of the city published around 365 volumes, surpassing by about 50 the number of titles published by the Mekhitarists of Venice during the same period.66 Alongside the production of a substantial amount of literary works of a poetic and historiographical nature, the theological and philosophical tradition continued, particularly in the works of Nalean and Xačʿatur Ērzrumecʿi (1666–1740), while

63 Namely, the Vēp Vardgisi (Tʿałiadean 1846) and the Vēp Varsenkan (Tʿałiadean 1847). The first is an adaptation of Heinrich Zschokke’s Abällino, der grosse Bandit; the latter is based on a traditional Middle-eastern tale (Bardakjian 2000, 134). 64 Oshagan 1997, 147. On Tʿałiadean and his influence on the Armenian nationalist thought, see Tololyan 1999, 79–102. 65 Oshagan 1997, 144. 66 Bardakjian 2000, 85. philology, documentary research, & cultural diffusion 433 authors such as Łazar JahkecʿiÌ (d. 1751), Manuel Dpir Kostandnupolsecʿi, and Geworg Mxlayim issued publications written in defence of the Armenian doctrine, in a polemic with the Catholic Church. The Armenians who lived in Transcaucasia and in the territories located in the Russian Empire (with the exception of those in Crimea) also started to come into contact with modernity in the last quarter of the eighteenth century, through both the influx of the Armenian colonies in India, and the Russian influence. This cultural renewal was initially very similar to that which was experienced by other Armenian communities.67 Following the same pattern seen in the West, printing provided a natural channel of distribution for the spreading of these new ideals. In 1781, under the auspices of the bishop Arłutean, the merchant Grigor Xaldarean opened an Armenian printing house in Saint Petersburg,68 the first to be set up within Russian imperial territory. The volumes published by the circle of Armenian intellectuals in Saint Petersburg included Xaldarean’s Armenian-Russian Dictionary (which was completed by his wife following his death, and was published in 1788), the Russian translation of the second part of Orogaytʿ pʿaṙacʿ by Šahamirean, edited by Varlaam Vaganov (Vaganov 1786), and the Girkʿ or kočʿi Banali gitutʿean (Sarafean 1788). The forms of poetic and literary expression used by the Eastern Armenians during this period remained, in general, still heavily influenced by medieval stylistic conventions. In Transcaucasia, one of the most popular poetic genres was that of the ašułakan, the tradition of Armenian troubadour poetry, of which the famous Sayeatʿ-Nōvay (1722?–1795) was the leading representative. He was active in Tiflis within the Georgian royal court, and was the author of compositions written in Armenian, Georgian, and Azerbaijani, bringing together Islamic and Armenian poetic traditions to form a highly personal and inimitable style of his own.69 The ašułakan genre continued to produce artistically important figures during the 19th century, but the increasing influence of European models nonetheless led to its eventual decline and artistic marginalization.70 The tendency of scholars during the last century was to place greater importance on the secular output of the period, over the production of religious and

67 Ferrari 2000, 62–63. 68 Ivi, 64–65. 69 Bardakjian 2000, 85. Among the immense literature on the life and works of Sayeatʿ- Nōvay, see, for example, Tʿumanyan 1945, Baxčinyan 1988, Dowsett 1997. 70 Ferrari 2005, 146–147. 434 lucca philosophical works.71 Nalean had eight of his works published during his lifetime, yet many of them still remain unavailable (including a work of moral philosophy, a Commentary to Our Father and a Commentary on the Book of Sirach). His Commentary on Gregory of Narek, published in 1745, was translated into Eastern Armenian in 2008 by A. Petrosyan.72 Apart from the poetic output, which has been studied most notably in Soviet Armenia, the majority of texts dating from the eighteenth century to the beginning of the 19th century that were published during the twentieth century relate to works such as historiographical accounts, chronicles, and diaries. During the last quarter of the 19th century, the Patmutʿiwn by Manuēl Kiwmiwšḥanacʿi (1768–1843), the Žambṙ by Simēon Erewancʿi, and the Patmutʿiwn Parsicʿ by Xačʿatur JułayecʿiÌ 73 were all published in Vałaršapat, and each one deserves a new edition, prepared according to more rigorous and modern editorial techniques. The Yišatakaran by Erewancʿi,74 which contains the written correspondence between the seat of the Catholicosate and the Armenians within the Diaspora and throughout the colonies, and the autobiography of Manuēl Kiwmiwšḥanacʿi, which documents its author’s life up until 1836,75 were both published in the volumes of the Diwan Hayocʿ patmutʿean edited by G. Ałaneancʿ. Over the course of the nineteenth century, in particularly during the second half, both scholars of Soviet Armenia and researchers working in the West were involved in the publication of historical works from the eighteenth-nineteenth centuries. A Chronicle ascribed to Pałtasar Dpir76 was published in the first volume of the Manr Žamanakagrutʿyunner (edited by V. Hakobyan), and, in 1973, N. Łorłanyan prepared the critical edition and Russian translation of the Patmutʿyun by Abraham III Kretacʿi (Łorłanyan 1973a, 1973b), a text that had originally been published in Calcutta (1796) and in Vałaršapat (1870). In Vienna, the Mekhitarist H. Oskean oversaw the publication of the Ecclesiastical Chronicle by Stepʿanos Ṙōškʿa (1670–1739), which was followed by a study on the non-Armenian sources used by its author (Oskean 1964; 1968). The text of

71 On the history of the eighteenth-century Armenian Church and on the lives and works of its major personalities, still valid are Kiwlesērean 1904, Bampukʿčean 1981 and 1984. In 1988, S. Čemčemean published on Bazmavēp two unpublished letters by Yovhannēs Kolot. 72 Petrosyan 2008. On Yakob Nalean as commentator on Grigor Narekacʿi, see also Nazarean 1991. 73 Vałaršapat 1871, 1873, 1905. 74 Ałaneancʿ 1893–1917, vols. 3 (1894), 8 (1908), 11 (1913). 75 Ałaneancʿ 1893–1917, vol. 12 (1917). 76 Hakobyan 1951/56, vol. 1, 333–349. philology, documentary research, & cultural diffusion 435 the Vipagrutʿiwn Kostandnupolis mayrakałakʿin by Sargis Dpir Yovhannēsean (c. 1735–1805) was published in 1967, while other unpublished material by the same author had already been published by Kʿiwrtean (Kʿiwrtean 1952). At the monastery of St. Lazarus in Venice, two works were published in 1977 and 1978 by S. Čemčemean and S. Aramean respectively: the Patmutʿiwn paterazmacʿn by Abraham Erewancʿi (Čemčemean 1977)77 and the Patmutʿiwn Łapancʿwocʿ (Aramean 1978), i.e. the history of the wars of Dawitʿ Bēk, which was probably written by the Mekhitarist monk Łukas Sebastacʿi Stepʿanosean, and was based on the accounts of Stepʿan Šahumean and Tēr Awetikʿ, who were collaborators of Dawitʿ Bēk. The works that have been translated into English include the Žamana kagrutʿiwn, written in the Armenian dialect of New Julfa by Petros di Sargis Gilanencʿ (d. 1724) and edited by C. Minasian (Minasian 1959). Its original text was published in 1863 in the journal Kṙunk hayocʿ ašxarhin, and has never been reprinted since. G.A. Bournoutian edited the English annotated translations of the Patmutʿiwn paterazmacʿn by Abraham Erewancʿi (Bournoutian 1999), the Žambṙ by Simēon Erewancʿi,78 and, from the 1868 Jerusalem edition, the Patmutʿiwn hamaṙōt Ałuanicʿ erkri by Esayi Hasan Jalalean (Bournoutian 2009b). An Armenian annotated version of this text was published by A. Martirosyan in 2007.79

77 This edition also includes the linguistic and stylistic editing of the original manuscript carried out by the Mekhitarist monk Mattʿēōs Ewdokiacʿi Garagašean (1691–1772). The Patmutʿiwn paterzamacʿn was first published in 1938 by Tēr Avetisyan (Ter-Avetisyan 1938b) and translated in Russian the subsequent year; however, the text of Tēr Avetisyan’s edition was probably “based on a copy made by the historian Lēō of an altered copy of the original manuscript” (Bardakjian 2000, 88). 78 Bournoutian 2009a. The Russian and the Eastern Armenian translations (Malxasjanc & Arutjunjan 1958; Hambarjumyan 2003), as well as Bournoutian’s one, are founded upon the text edited in Vałaršapat in 1873. 79 This work was translated for the first time in a Western language in Brosset 1876, vol. 2, 193–220. In 1989, after the eruption of tensions in Nagorno Karabakh, Zija Bunjatov published for the Institute of History of the Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences a strongly reworked Russian translation of Esayi Hasan Jalalean’s History (Ter-Grigoryan & Bunjatov 1989), with the aim of proving that the Nagorno Karabakh territory wasn’t originally Armenian, and claiming that his translation relied on an unpublished edition of the Armenian text prepared in 1940 by Armenian scholar Tigran Ter-Grigoryan, who worked at the Azerbaijani Institute of History (see Bournoutian 2009b, 12 ff.). 436 lucca

3 The Nineteenth Century

Between the 1830s and 1840s, a new phase in the process of adopting, absorbing, and reworking the principles of modernity began within the Armenian communities. In Armenian historiography, this period is known as the Zartʿōnkʿ, or “Awakening”. The achievements of the Rebirth were no longer just the privilege of the elites, becoming the heritage of the majority of the Armenian people through the creation of new structures and means of cultural diffusion.80 While the first generation of intellectuals in this period, who came to prominence between 1830 and 1840, originated almost entirely from the rich bourgeoisie, the steady development and expansion of the scholarly network that came about in the last quarter of the eighteenth century rapidly contributed to the creation of a more socially stratified intelligentsia, which included many from poorer backgrounds.81 This second period of openness to Western ideas, in which the new leading figures of Armenian cultural life embraced the ideals of the Enlightenment (ideals which were subsequently integrated with socialist and positivist ideas), profoundly affected the Armenian sense of identity. The religious element was scaled down in favour of a more territo- rial and linguistic dimension.82 This gave the movement a mostly national and revolutionary character, which was inspired first and foremost by the French revolution, as well as by the Greek War of Independence, and by the Italian Risorgimento.83 The translations of Greek and Latin classical texts and European literature, which deeply influenced the tastes of the secular intelligentsia, were vital in the formation of a new literary awareness and the creation of modern Armenian literature. The two primary centres of translation were the island of St. Lazarus, where the Mekhitarist monks produced versions of texts that were mainly

80 Zekiyan 1986, 61–62. 81 Ter Minassian 2007, 501. On the Armenian education system, see Sarafian 1930 (ch. 14–15 on the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire; ch. 17–18 on the Armenians in the Russian Empire). 82 Ferrari 2000, 151. 83 Ter Minassian 2007, 502. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that this secularization process was brought about mostly by clerics, through their schools (Zekiyan 1997, 68). Indeed, the spiritual dimension and the sense of the sacred, being two fundamental hall- marks of Armenian cultural expressions, albeit somehow reinterpreted in a political more than a spiritual way, continued to exist along with the cause of national liberation, individual dignity and freedom (Ferrari 2003c, 213–214). philology, documentary research, & cultural diffusion 437 translated into grabar,84 and the city of Smyrna, where texts were rendered into modern Armenian (ašxarhabar). It was in Smyrna that Yarutʿiwn Dedeyan set up a publishing house and founded a school of translators, who, for the first time, were paid for their work. Over a period of 40 years, the Dedeyan brothers’ print shop published more than 150 translations, particularly of French texts.85 Furthermore, the nineteenth century witnessed the grammatical standardization of both the classical language and the vernacular (particularly thanks to the research carried out by the Mekhitarists of Vienna), the definitive adoption of the ašxarhabar, and the birth of modern Armenian literature, accompanied by the extensive publication of periodicals and a renewed interest in popular and folk culture.

3.1 Archaeology, Folklore, and Popular Culture The influence of Romanticism ignited among the Armenian intellectuals an interest in other forms of cultural and literary expression, particularly those related to oral traditions and folk music. Meanwhile, new technical expertise and the development of new theories within the field of archaeology encouraged excavations in the territory of Armenian homeland. In the wake of the works published by Father Bžškean, who, as a traveller- philologist, had looked for traces of the emigration of Armenians from Ani to the villages of the Pontus, in Crimea, Transylvania, and Poland between the ninth and fourteenth centuries,86 beginning from 1850 the first Armenian ethnographic and folkloric studies began to appear, starting with the publication of the Vēpkʿ hnoyn Hayastani by Mkrtič Ēmin’ (1815–1890; Ēmin 1850), which was followed, several decades later, with the collection of folk tales edited by Tigran Nawasardean (Nawasardean 1882–1903). Two years after the publication of the Vēpkʿ by Ēmin, the Ṙamkakan ergkʿ Hayocʿ by the Mekhitarist Łewond Ališan (Ališan 1852) were published, accompanied by an English translation. Ališan was also the author of a series of

84 Between 1825 and 1850 the Mekhitarists monks translated some 130 works of Greek, Latin, Italian, French, and English literature (Oshagan 1997, 156–157). For a preliminary linguistic and stylistic analysis on the Mekhitarist translations of Greek and Latin epic and of classic and modern drama, see Mildonian 2004. 85 On the Dedeyan brothers’ press and the translators of Smyrna, see especially Oshagan 1973. For more recent studies, see Dédéyan 2010 and Nichanian 2010, in Revue de littérature comparée 336, where one could find also a list of the translations published by Dedeyan brothers between 1853 and 1880. 86 See Nichanian 2007, 124, 136. 438 lucca articles that appeared in Bazmavēp between 1894 and 1895 and were subsequently collected together in a posthumous volume (Ališan 1910), which explored ancient Armenian beliefs. Both of these works were later republished in 2002, the former with an introduction and new notes by A. Nercessian (Oxford 2002), the latter by A. Abrahamyan and V. Barsełyan, with an annotated index of the author’s published and unpublished works (Erevan 2002). The work carried out by Garegin Sruanjteancʿ (1840–1892), who is considered to be the father of Armenian folklore studies and published five collections of stories, poems, and riddles,87 was of fundamental importance. His research was the starting point for the Armenian intellectuals who dedicated themselves, sometimes exclusively, to autoethnographic investigation over the subsequent 40 years.88 This period of activity resulted, in 1885, in the founding of Azgagrakan handēs (Ethnographic Review, 1895–1916) by Eruand Lalayan (1864–1931),89 and in 1901, the establishment of the Armenian Ethnographic Society, whose honorary members included the Catholicos of the Armenian Church and N. Marr.90 With the turn of the twentieth century, the influence of the German tradition of comparative mythology began to be felt, as can be most clearly detected in the work of Manuk Abełean (1865–1944).91 Of the major scholars working in this field around this period, the orientalist and professor at the Lazarev Institute Grigor Xalatʿeancʿ (1858– 1912) clearly stands out. He translated Armenian folk stories and some sections of the Sasuncʿi Dawitʿ92 into Russian and German, and studied the epic elements in the Patmutʿiwn by Movsēs Xorenacʿi (Xalatʿeancʿ 1896).

87 Grocʿ u brocʿ (Sruanjteancʿ 1874a), Hnocʿ ew norocʿ (Sruanjteancʿ 1874b), Manana (Sruanjteancʿ 1876), Tʿoros Ałbar (Sruanjteancʿ 1879–84), Hamov-hotov (Sruanjteancʿ 1894). All of them are collected in Sruanjtʿeancʿ 1978–82. For an introduction to the life and works of Sruanjteancʿ, see Kostandyan 2008. 88 Nichanian 2007, 77. 89 On Azgagrakan handēs see Mouradian 1990, in particular 298–304. 90 Avakian 1994, xxii. 91 Nichanian 2007, 143, 145–146. Among the most significant studies published by Abełean on Armenian ethnography and folklore, should be mentioned Der armenische Volksglaube, his Inauguraldissertation at the University of Jena (Abełean 1899), and the series of articles appeared between 1906 and 1908 in Azgagrakan handēs and dealing with the Armenian epos, in particular with the Sasuncʿi Dawitʿ, later collected in volume form (Abełean 1908). 92 G. Xalatʿeancʿ, Märchen und Sagen, Leipzig 1887; Id., “David Sasunskii”, in Aa.Vv. 1898, 59–81 (which includes a translation of some excerpts of the epos, 67–81). philology, documentary research, & cultural diffusion 439

In addition, he was the author of what can possibly be considered the manifesto of Armenian ethnographic studies, namely his volume entitled Cnagir hay azgagrutʿean (Xalatʿeancʿ 1887), in which, alongside a section dedicated to folkloric legal practices, he set out a detailed organisational plan for folklore studies, enumerating the data on which scholars ought to focus their research. The last quarter of the nineteenth century also saw the rediscovery of Armenian folk music. The composer Kʿristapʿor Kara-Murza (1853–1902)93 was one of the first researchers to devote himself to the recovery of folk songs and music not only of Armenian, but also of Kurdish, Russian, Ukrainian, and Georgian origin. During the same period, his near contemporary Makar Ekmalean (1855–1905) revised old Armenian liturgical melodies according to polyphonic principles, using the European musical notation system, and in 1896 published the scores of the chants of the Armenian liturgy harmonized for three male voices, four male voices, and four mixed voices (Ekmalean 1896).94 Between 1890 and around 1913, Father Komitas (Sołomon Sołomonean, 1869–1935),95 collected together thousands of pieces of Armenian, as well as Turkish and Kurdish, folk and liturgical music, during the course of his research.96

93 Among the forerunners of the research and the study on the Armenian music tradition should be mentioned Yambarjum Limončean (1769–1839), who – around 1815 – invented a new system of notation for the Armenian music to which both Kara Murza and Komitas owed much. On Limončean and on the fortune and interpretations of his notation system, see Hiwrmiwzean 1986–87, Chabrier 1986–87. 94 Ṙ. Atʿayan edited an annotated collection of Kara-Murza melodies (Atʿayan 1978); in 2006, A. Tʿadewosyan and M. Navoyan published a collection of documents, letters and articles of Ekmalean, on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of his birth (Tʿadewosyan & Navoyan 2006). 95 On Komitas, see especially Azatean 1931, Tayean 1936, Tʿeymurazyan 1957 and Poladian 1972. Komitas also wrote some articles in French and in German dealing with the Armenian liturgical and folk music and with its system of notation (see, for example, Komitas 1899 and 1907), which are now collected in Komitas 1998, along with other Komitas’ studies originally written in Armenian. 96 Poladian 1972, 84. Komitas’ observations on the traditional Armenian neumes – albeit recovered only partially – had led to an almost complete deciphering of this notation (ivi, 83). One of the most notable merits of Komitas is to have directed his attention to the the anthropological, sociological, and historical aspects of the then emergent comparative musicology (ivi 84), studying and describing the role of music in its social and cultural context, discovering and classifying the common musical patterns and features on which folk melodies rely (ivi 92–93). 440 lucca

Although little work was carried out on them by Western researchers during the twentieth century,97 ethnography and folklore proved to be two of the most popular areas of study for Soviet Armenian scholars. After 1936, Naumann’s theory, whereby folklore originally descended from the elites to the lower eche- lons of society, was blacklisted for being anti-Marxist, and folklore was deemed “a reflection and a weapon of class conflict”, and a living expression of proletarian ideals.98 In 1959, the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography was founded, and the same year also saw the first issue of the Hay žołovrdakan hekʿiatʿner series (Armenian Folk Tales), including information about the narrator and the place and date of transcription for each featured folk tale.99 In 1970, the first issue of the Hay azgagrutʿyu ev banahyusutʿyun series (Armenian Ethnography and Folklore) was published, which has now reached 26 volumes, while 1972 saw the publication of the first of the four volumes of Hayreni erg u ban (Native Folk Songs and Folk Sayings), in which M.Tʿ. Tʿumačyan (1890– 1973) carried on Komitas’s research to compile an extensive anthology of folk songs collected between the 1920s and the 1940s.

3.3 Periodical Literature At the beginning of the 19th century, the Armenian periodical press, whose origins date back to the Madras group,100 experienced a phase of considerable development. It was given its initial impetus by the Mekhitarist monks,101 whose initiatives predated the first experiences of the Ottoman com-

97 See, for example, the collection of 100 Armenian Tales, published in 1966, which includes the tales narrated to Susie Hoogasian by ten immigrant Armenians living in the Detroit area (Hoogasian Villa 1966), and the classified bibliography of the studies on Armenian folklore by Anne M. Avakyan (Avakyan 1994). 98 Dorson 1972, 17. The rise of interest in “Soviet” folklore in the 1930s finds its explanation in this perspective. In Soviet folklore, traditional legends and tales were the narrative foundation on which stories inspired by propaganda leaders and heroes were built. In this regard, the volume Lenin in Armenian folklore should be mentioned (Tʿarverdyan & Łanalayan 1936; see Avakyan 1994, xxiii–xxiv). 99 The 15th and final volume of the series was published in 1998. 100 In Madras, on the 16th October 1794, the first number of Azdarar (Monitor, October 1794–February 1796) was issued (see Karinyan 1956/60, vol. I, 192–227). Published in grabar (albeit including also several articles and letters written in the local vernacular Armenian), Azdarar monthly featured not only useful information to the merchants of the community, but also local and international political and social news, poems, scientific articles, tales, and historical texts (Oshagan 1999, 174). 101 During the early nineteenth century, the aforementioned Łukas Inčičean published the periodical newspapers Taregrutʿiwnkʿ (Annals, 1799–1802) and Ełanak biwzandean (Byzantine Season, 1800–1820); Grigor Gaparačean, Matatʿeay Pʿiwskiwlčean and Manuēl philology, documentary research, & cultural diffusion 441 munities by several years. Then, in 1832, an Armenian vernacular translation of the official newspaper of the Ottoman Empire, Le Moniteur Ottoman, began to be published in Constantinople, and in 1846 the first daily Armenian newspaper was established. This was the patriarchy’s official organ of information and was originally known as Surhandak Kostandnupolsoy (The Constantinople Messenger), before changing into Hayastan (Armenia), and, when Karapet Utʿuǰean took over as director in 1852, again into Masis, until its publication ended in 1908.102 The list of periodicals printed in Smyrna included the popular newspaper Štemaran (Warehouse, 1839–1854), which was edited by Armenian American missionaries and was of a mainly religious nature, the weekly Aršaloys araratean (Dawn of Ararat, 1850–1887), and the monthly Arewelean mamul (Eastern Press, 1871–1901).103 Among the dozens of newspapers that were published during the second half of the nineteenth century within the Western Armenian communities and which included contributions from the key representatives of the Awakening, particular mention should be made of three highly significant titles. Firstly, the two dailys in whose launching the writer Arpʿiar Arpʿiarean (1852–1908) played a major role, which were Arewelkʿ (East, 1884–1915, around which the core group of realist writers was formed),104 and Hayrenikʿ (Fatherland, 1891–1896, 1909–1910),105 and lastly, the more conservative-leaning Biwzandion (Byzantium, 1896–1918), set up by Biwzand Kʿēčʿean (1859–1827/1828).106 In the Russian and Transcaucasian communities, the publication of periodical literature properly began in the 1840s. This was slightly later than in the

JaxǰaxeanÌ oversaw the publication of the journal of political information Ditak biwzandean (The Byzantine Observer, 1812–1817). These three periodicals, written in vernacular Armenian, spread very soon in Constantinople and through the other Armenian colonies and the homeland. They contributed to the progress and the subsequent imposition of the ašxarhabar over the grabar (Zekiyan 1997, 66). The most popular and famous Mekhitarist journals are, however, the magazine of armenological studies Bazmavēp (Polyhistory, 1843–present), edited by the Venetian monks, and, in Vienna, the monthly historical and philological reviews Ewropa (1847–1863) and Handēs Amsōreay (Monthly Review, 1887–present). 102 Hacikyan, Basmajian, Franchuk & Ouzounian 2005, 56–57; Ferrari 2000, 152. 103 Hacikyan, Basmajian, Franchuk & Ouzounian 2005, 56. 104 Hacikyan, Basmajian, Franchuk & Ouzounian 2005, 453. 105 Addressed to the progressive intellectuals, Hayrenikʿ was suppressed by sultan Abdül Hamid because of its democratic ideas. 106 Hacikyan, Basmajian, Franchuk & Ouzounian 2005, 57–58. 442 lucca

Western communities, and it was initially less wide-ranging in its nature.107 Excluding the short-lived weekly Arewelean canuncʿmunkʿ (Eastern Herald, January–July 1816) that came out in Astrakhan (a translation of the Russian periodical Vostočnye izvestija (1813–1816)), and the journal published by students at the Lazarev Institute in 1829,108 the first Armenian journal published in the Russian Empire was in fact Kovkas (1846–1849). The journal, which was written in grabar and was set up in Tiflis by Gabriēl Patkanean (1802–1889), was distributed as the Armenian language section of the Russian weekly Kavkaz.109 In the year following the closure of Kovkas, Patkanean began publishing a new journal, Ararat (1850–1851), which was the first to be printed in Eastern Armenian and was of an essentially conservative nature, like Kovkas.110 From the second half of the 1850s, there followed a period of extraordinary development in Eastern Armenian periodical literature, partly thanks to the liberal tendencies of Tsar Alexander II. Between 1857 and 1869, more than 147 journals were established, and between 1858 and 1866, Russian censorship allowed the distribution of more than ten Armenian periodical publications.111 These included the monthlies Hiwsisapʿayl (Aurora Borealis, 1858–1862, 1864),112

107 From 1840 to 1847, 9 Armenian periodicals were established in Constantinople; during the same years, the Armenian journals published in the territories of the Russian Empire were only 4 (Khachaturian 2009, 22). 108 Khachaturian 2009, 22; Ferrari 2000, 179; Mxitʿarean 1986. 109 Ferrari 2000, 179. 110 Despite its short existence, Ararat had the great merit of stressing the importance of a common modern language which could overcome the linguistic incomprehension that originated in the use of several dialects. The journal contributed to the formation of the new Eastern Armenian literature throughout the publication of stories, tales and poems. (Uluhogian 1985, 69–71). 111 Ferrari 2000, 180. 112 The journal was established in Moscow by Stepʿanos Nazarean (1812–1879) and Mikʿayēl Nalbandean (1829–1866). The first was an exponent of the liberal wing and put forward a gradual approach to the social changes; the latter used the pages of his journal to spread his radical and anticlerical views and his refusal of the grabar in favour of an altogether modern spoken and written language that wasn’t subjected in any way to the spirit and the influence of the ancient Armenian idiom. Nalbandean’s role in Hiwsisapʿayl was also significant in a literary and critical perspective. The journal was forced stop publication at the urging of the Armenian Church, which regarded Hiwsisapʿayl as dangerous for the cohesion between the Armenian community and its religious institutions (Ferrari 2000, 182–183). philology, documentary research, & cultural diffusion 443

Čṙakʿał (Pearl, 1858–1862),113 and Kṙunk Hayocʿ ašxarhi (Crane of the Armenian World, 1860–1863),114 the first two published in Moscow, the third in Tiflis. After the first studies appeared as early as the end of the 19th century (Levonyan 1895), a systematic process of research on the Armenian periodical literature began in the mid to late 1950s, particularly in Soviet Armenia, with the publication of the Essays on the History of the Armenian Periodical Press by A. Karinyan (1956/60). From that time up until the present day, systematic research on both Eastern and Western Armenian periodical literature has resulted in numerous studies in this area, carried out in particular by the initiatives of the Department of Armenian Periodicals and Public Mind in the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences, created in 1960. Ever since then, the members of the Department have been developing their research in two different directions: the first focused on drafting out the history of the Armenian periodical press, which also included cataloguing and categorising all of the articles that had featured in the main journals, while the second was devoted to a socio-political investigation on the impact those publications had among the Armenian intellectual classes and on the Armenian community in general. The first volume of The History of the Armenian Periodical Press, published in 2006 and edited by A. Xaṙatyan, M. Mxitʿaryan, and L. Geworgyan, covers the period from the eighteenth century to the nineteenth century.115

113 Čṙakʿał, published by Mser Msereancʿ, was one of the most conservative Armenian journals; indeed, the publication language chosen by its editor was the grabar, which, in spite of the support given both by the Russian authorities and the Armenian Church, probably contributed to the end of its publication, because of the limited number of potential readers. (Ferrari 2000, 185). 114 During the three years of its existence, Kṙunk, established by Markʿos Ałabekean, an Armenian from Smyrna who had been educated at the Mekhitarist school in Paris, featured the writings of some of the most eminent Eastern Armenian authors, including an unfinished novel – published posthumous – by Abovean (Uluhogian 1985, 74–76). 115 Among the studies dealing with single journals one might mention Mxitʿaryan 1958 (Hiwsisapʿayl), 1976 (Ararat), 2002 (Haykakan ašxarh), Bałseryan et al., 1976 (Arewelean mamul), Nersisyan & Išxanyan 1978 (Hiwsisapʿayl), Aa.Vv. 1980 (Arewelkʿ and Arewmutkʿ), Gevorgyan 1982 (Murč), Hakobyan & Cerunyan 1983 (Całik), Bałseryan et al., 1984 (Kṙunk), Xaṙatyan 2003 (Mełu). For literature on the history of the Armenian periodical press in particular geographical areas or cities, see Hakobyan 1984 and 1987 (Smyrna), Nazaryan 1986 (Erevan), Mxitʿaryan 1994 (Eastern communities), Minasean 1994 (Armeno-Persian periodical press). In 1970 the Gulbenkian Foundation reprinted in two volumes all the issues of Azdarar, the first Armenian periodical. In 2000, A. Ghazaryans edited for the Armenian Cultural Foundation a Bibliography of the Armenian Periodicals, Monographic Series, and Reference Materials which is currently out of print. 444 lucca

Conclusions and Perspectives

A reflection on this outline of the development of Armenian cultural production in the seventeenth-nineteenth centuries and on the relevant scholarly studies would seem to point to two main trends within twentieth-century research on the subject. Firstly, excluding research on Armenian belles-lettres (which is not the subject of this article), documentary sources and historical writings have enjoyed more attention than theological, philosophical, philological, and generally “scientific” works. Secondly, in many cases, particularly when dealing with printed texts, scholars have tended to rely on the textus receptus in their research. Nevertheless, as the publishing history of Aṙakʿel Dawrižecʿi’s History and Simēon Jułayecʿi’sÌ Logic illustrates, early printed editions (and the editiones principes in particular) should not necessarily be considered as superior to any extant manuscript of the text they reproduce. They should instead be studied in order to better understand the editorial procedures behind their publication, their relationship to the manuscript tradition, and their editorial success compared to that of subsequent editions. Mutatis mutandis, with regard to eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Armenian texts, originally written with publication in mind, in particular in the case of those works which underwent multiple editions or reprints,116 it would be useful to carry out a study of the existing copies before a work is published, in order to categorise all of the variants (including, if existing, the “internal” ones, i.e. those variants that entered into the text during the print run, by stop-press corrections) which may be due either to errors by the typesetter or to emenda- tions by the same author or the editor.117 There have been various recent initiatives to digitize Armenian old printed books, journals, etc., and among these mention should be made of the project carried out by the Fundamental Scientific Library of the National Academy of Sciences of Armenia, which has by now digitized some 240 volumes published between 1512 and 1800, and over 230 books published between 1801 and 1850, all of them available in Flash and PDF format and in open access.118 These

116 Think, for example, of the case of Mikʿayēl Čamčean Grammar, which underwent at least ten editions in four different locations over half a century (Bardakjian 2000, 94). 117 See Sorella 2008, 9. 118 The plan is to digitize also the volumes published between 1851 and 1920. At the moment of this writing, the Internet site hosts about 120 books published in that period. All the digitized works are accessible on the Internet page http://www.flib.sci.am/arm/node/72. HathiTrust.org (http://www.hathitrust.org/) and the Internet site of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (https://opacplus.bsb-muenchen.de/) also host several Armenian texts digitized by various universities, many of them accesible without authentication. philology, documentary research, & cultural diffusion 445 initiatives could prove to be highly useful to Armenian philologists if they did not limit themselves to keeping a record only of a single edition of a work or its editio princeps, but instead aimed to recover the highest number of editions possible, in order to offer the most exhaustive overview of a tradition. In the future, it is also possible to envisage a digital archive containing the journals published from the beginning of the eighteenth century up to the early years of the twentieth century that could be consulted online in a similar fashion to the Compact Memory project for German-Jewish periodical literature, which has gathered together more than a hundred titles of Jewish journals that were published between 1806 and 1938, and is completely open access.119 In an intricate field such as the transmission of printed texts, the Lachmannian, or neo- (or post-)Lachmannian stemmatics do not always prove to be effective.120 In this sense, editors of Armenian texts should resort to textual bibliography, that is “those activities which take place at the interface between two separate disciplines, analytical bibliography [. . .] and textual criticism”, according to C. Fahy’s definition of the discipline as applied to Italian Renaissance printed texts.121 Indeed, although they may appear obvious or trite now, the three basic questions that, according to F. Bowers, all of Shakespeare’s editors should ask themselves in order to “penetrate the veil of print and recover the characteristic of the lost manuscript”122 seem to be still well worth asking (and worth at least trying to answer) in the context of Armenian studies: (1) “What was the nature of the lost manuscript which served as printer’s copy?”, (2) “What was the nature of the printing process itself, and what can be gathered from this to shed light on the transmission of the text from the lost manuscript to the derived printed document with which the editor must work?”, and (3) “What is the relation between all preserved examples of the text, in printed or in manuscript form, and what are the degrees of authority, both specific and general, in these examples?”123

Translated from the Italian by Joel Hooper

119 http://www.compactmemory.de/. 120 Fahy 1995, 41. On the difficulty of drawing a stemma (in the Lachmannian sense of the word) of a printed tradition, see Botta 2008, 112–117, who offers some interesting observations on the etchings present in the edited contents (a case not infrequent in Armenian printed books) and on the necessity of assigning an ecdotic significance to them as well, including them in the critical edition (ivi, 116). 121 Fahy 1995, 40. 122 Bowers 1966, 18. 123 Bowers 1955, 8. 446 lucca

Bibliography

Aa.Vv. 1898. Bratskaja pomoščʼ postradavšim v Turcii armjanam [Brotherly Aid for the Armenian Victims in Turkey], 2-oe izdanie, Moskva: I.N. Kyšnerev i Ko. Aa.Vv. 1950. Mxitʿar, yušarjan lusanorog Mxitʿar Abbayi mahuan erkrord daradarjin (1749–1949), bacʿaṙik “Bazmavēp”i, Yulis-Dektember, 1949 / Mékhitar, numéro spécial de la Revue arménienne Pazmaveb publié à l’occasion des Célébrations Commémoratives du Deuxième Centenaire de la mort du Vén. Abbé Mekhitar (1749–1949), i Venetik: S. Łazar (= Bazmavēp 107/7–12, 1949). Aa.Vv. 1980. “Arewelkʿ” (1855–1856) ev “Arewmutkʿ” (1859, 1864–1865) handesneri anotacʿvac matenagitutʿyun [Annotated Bibliography of the Journals Arewelkʿ (1855–1856) and Arewmutkʿ (1859, 1864–1865)], Erevan: Hayastani Hanrapetutʿyan Gitutʿyunneri Azgayin Akademia, Patmutʿyan Institut. Abełean, M. 1899. Der armenische Volksglaube, Leipzig: Druck von W. Drugulin. Abełean, M. 1908. Hay žołovrdakan vēpǝ [The Armenian Folk Epic], Tpʿxis: Elekʿtrašarž tparan ōr. N. Ałaneani. Abrahamyan, A.G. 1968. Ełia Karnecʿu Divanǝ [The Diwan of Ełia Karnecʿi], Erevan: Mitkʿ. Adalian, R.P. 1992. From Humanism to Rationalism: Armenian Scholarship in the Nineteenth Century, (UPATS, 10), Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Aghassian, M. & Kévonian, K. 1988. “Le commerce arménien dans l’Océan Indien aux 17e et 18e siècles”, in Aubin & Lombard 1988, 155–181. Aghassian, M. & Kévonian, K. 1999. “The Armenian Merchant Network: Overall Autonomy and Local Integration”, in Chaudhury & Morineau 1999, 74–94. Agoncʿ, S. & Inčičean, Ł. 1802–06. Ašxarhagrutʿiwn čʿoricʿ masancʿ ašxarhi: Asioy, Ewropoy, Apʿrikoy ew Amērikoy [Geography of the Four Parts of the World: Asia, Europe, Africa and America], 12 vols., i Venētik: i vans Srboyn Łazaru. Akinean, N. 1932. Dasakan hayerēnǝ ew viennakan Mxitʿarean dprocʿǝ [Classical Armenian and the Vienna Mekhitarian School], (Azgayin matenadaran, 134), Vienna: Mxitʿarean tparan. Akinean, N. 1936. Movsēs iii Tatʿewacʿi ew ir žamanakǝ: npast mǝ Hayocʿ ekełecʿwoy patmutʿean 1577–1633 šrǰani hamar [Movsēs iii Tatʿewacʿi and His Time: A Contribution to Armenian Ecclesiastical History in 1577–1633], (Azgayin matenadaran, 139), Vienna: Mxitʿarean tparan. Akinean, N. 1936. Simēon Lehacʿi. Uregrutʿiwn, taregrutʿiwn ew yišatakarankʿ [The Travel Diary, Chronicle and Colophons of Simēon Lehacʿi], (Azgayin matenadaran, 141),Vienna: Mxitʿarean tparan. Akinean, N. 1952. Bałēši dprocʿǝ 1500–1704: npast mǝ Hayocʿ ekełecʿwoy patmutʿean ew matenagrutʿean [The School of Bałēš 1500–1704: A Contribution to Armenian Ecclesiastical History and Literature], (Azgayin matenadaran, 172), Vienna: Mxitʿarean tparan. philology, documentary research, & cultural diffusion 447

Ałaneancʿ, G. 1893–1917 (ed.) Diwan Hayocʿ patmutʿean [Diwan of Armenian History], 13 vols., Tʿiflis: tp. T.M. Ṙōtineancʿ. Ałayan, C. & Xačʿikyan, L. et al., (eds) 1972. Hay žołovrdi patmutʿyun, ht. iv. Hay žołovurdǝ feodalizmi vayrēǰkʿi žamanakašrǰanum: xiv–xviii dd. [History of the Armenian People, vol. 4. The Armenian People during the Period of Decline of Feudalism: 14th–18th Centuries], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Azgayin Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Ališan, Ł. 1852. Armenian Popular Songs / Ṙamkakan ergkʿ Hayocʿ, Venice: S. Lazarus. Ališan, Ł. 1893. L’Armeno-Veneto. Compendio storico e documenti delle relazioni degli Armeni coi Veneziani, Primo periodo (secc. XIII–XIV), Venezia: Stab. Tip. Armeno, San Lazzaro. Ališan, Ł. 1910. Hin hawatkʿ kam hetʿanosakan krōnkʿ Hayocʿ [The Ancient Beliefs or Pagan Religion of the Armenians], Venetik: S. Łazar (1st ed.: Venetik: S. Łazar, 1895). Alpago-Novello, A. et al., 1986. Gli Armeni, Milano: Jaca Book. Alpōyačean, A. 1961. Patmutʿiwn hay gałtʿakanutʿean [History of Armenian Emigration], vol. 3, Gahirē: Nor Astł. Amadouni, G. & Gianascian, M. 1978. “Mechitaristi, di Venezia”, in Pelliccia & Rocca 1978, 1117–1120. Amalyan, H.M. 1966. Miǰnadaryan Hayastani baṙaranagrakan hušarjannerǝ (V–XV dd.) [Lexicographical Monuments of Medieval Armenia, 5th–15th centuries], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Amalyan, H.M. 1971a. Miǰnadaryan Hayastani baṙaranagrakan hušarjannerǝ (XVI– XVII dd.) [Lexicographical Monuments of Medieval Armenia, 15th–17th centuries], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Amalyan, H.M. 1971b. “Eremia Mełrecʿu baṙaranǝ hay banasirutʿyan meǰ” [Eremia Mełrecʿi’s Dictionary in Armenian Philology], Banber Matenadarani 10, 251–258. Amalyan, H.M. 1975. Baṙgirkʿ Hayocʿ [Armenian Dictionary], Erevan: Gitutʿyunneri Azgayin Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Amatuni, K. (Amadouni, G.) 1975. Oskan vrd. Erewancʿi ew ir žamanakě: lusawor ēǰ mě XVII daru hay ekełecʿakan patmutʿenen [Oskan Vardapet Erewancʿi and His Time: a Luminous Page from the Ecclesiastical History of the 17th Century], (Hayagitakan matenašar Bazmavēp, 9), i Venetik: S. Łazar. Amatuni, K. (Amadouni, G.) 1978. “Mechitar”, in Pelliccia & Rocca 1978, 1108–1117. Amatuni, K. (Amadouni, G.) 1984. Minas vrd. Amdecʿi patriarkʿ Erusałemi (1630–1704) [Minas Vardapet Amdecʿi Patriarch of Jerusalem], (Azgayin matenadaran, 227), Vienna: Mxitʿarean tparan. Amatuni, K. (Amadouni, G.) 1992. Movsēs III Tatʿewacʿi katołikos Ēǰmiacni [Movsēs III Tatʿewacʿi Catholicos of Ēǰmiacin], (Hayagitakan matenašar Bazmavēp, 36), Venetik: S. Łazar. ———. 1992–93. “Yakob IV JułayecʿiÌ katołikos Ēǰmiacni” [Yakob IV JułayecʿiÌ Catholicos of Ēǰmiacin], Bazmavēp 150 (1992), 31–43; 151 (1993), 33–49. 448 lucca

Anasyan, H.S. 1958. “Istorija Xotinskoj vojny Ioannesa Kameneckogo” [Yovhannēs Kamenacʿi’s History of the War of Khotyn], Patma-banasirakan handes 1958/2, 258–286. Anasyan, H.S. 1964 (ed.), Yovhannēs Kamenacʿi: Patmutʿiwn paterazmin Xotʿinu [Yovhannēs Kamenacʿi. History of the War of Khotyn], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Andreasyan, H. 1964. Polonyalı Simeon’un Seyahatnâmesi: 1608–1619, İstanbul: Baha Matbaası. Aṙakʿel Dawrižecʿi, 1669. Girkʿ patmutʿeancʿ [Book of Histories], yAmstʿēlodamum [Amsterdam]: Tparanum Srboyn Ēǰmiacni ew Srboyn Sargsi Zōravari; 2nd ed. 1884 (= 1896): Patmutʿiwn Aṙakʿel vardapeti Dawrižecʿwoy [History of the Vardapet Aṙakʿel Dawrižecʿi], Vałaršapat: tparan Mayr Atʿoṙoy Srboy Ēǰmiacni (Russian translation: Xanlaryan 1973; East. Armenian translation: Aṙakʿelyan 1988; Critical edition: Xanlaryan & Abgaryan 1990). Aṙakʿelyan, G.V. 1988. Aṙakʿel Davrižecʿi: Patmutʿyun [Aṙakʿel Davrižecʿi. History], Erevan: Sovetakan Groł. Aramean, S. (ed.) 1978. Dawitʿ Bēk kam Patmutʿiwn Łapʿancʿwocʿ [Dawitʿ Bēk or History of the Wars of Łapʿan], (Hayagitakan matenašar Bazmavēp, 12), Venetik: S. Łazari tparan. Arat, K.K. 1990. Die Wiener Mechitaristen, Armenische Mönche in der Diaspora, Wien- Köln: Böhlau. Arcamone, G. (ed.) 2006. I nomi nel tempo e nello spazio. Atti del XXII Congresso Internazionale di Scienze Onomastiche (Pisa, 28 agosto–5 settembre 2005), Pisa: ETS. Aščean, M. (ed.) 1979. Diwan, Mesrop D. Tʿałiadean. Antip ōragrutʿiwnner, erker ew kʿertʿuatsner, vaweragrer, namakner [Diwan of Mesrop D. Tʿałiadean. Unpublished Diaries, Works, Poems, Documents and Letters], Nor Juła:Ì Minas Aščean; New York: distributed by the Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America; repr. 1993, Erevan: Erevani Petakan Hamalsarani tparanum. Aslanian, S. 2006a. “Social Capital, ‘Trust’ and the Role of Networks in Julfan Trade”, Journal of Global History 1/3, 382–402. Aslanian, S. 2006b. “Hndkahay vačarakanutʿyan patmutʿyunicʿ (XVIII d. skizb)” [From the History of Indo-Armenian Trade (Beginning of the 18th Century)], Patma- banasirakan handes 171, 254–271. Aslanian, S. 2007. “The Circulation of Men and Credit: The Role of the Commenda and the Family Firm in Julfan Society”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 50/2, 124–171. Aslanian, S. 2008. “‘The Salt in a Merchant’s Letter’: The Culture of Julfan Correspondence in the Indian Ocean and Mediterranean”, Journal of World History 19/2, 127–188. philology, documentary research, & cultural diffusion 449

Aslanian, S. 2011. From the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean. The Global Trade Networks of Armenian Merchants from New Julfa, Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press. Atʿayan, Ṙ. (ed.) 1978. Kara-Murza. Xmberger [Kara-Murza’s Songs], Erevan: Hayastan Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Aubin, J. & Lombard, D. (eds) 1988. Marchands et hommes d’affaires asiatiques dans l’Océan Indien et la Mer de Chine, 13e–20e siècles, Paris: Éditions de l’EHESS. Avakian, A.M. 1994. Armenian Folklore Bibliography, Berkeley, Los Angeles & London: University of California Press. Awde, N. (ed.) 1997. Armenian Perspectives. 10th Anniversary Conference of the Association Internationale des Études Arméniennes, Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press. Awetikʿean, G., Siwrmēlean, X. & Awgerean, M. 1836–37. Nor baṙgirkʿ haykazean lezui [New Dictionary of the Armenian Language] 2 vols., i Venetik: i tparani Srboyn Łazaru (repr. Erevan: Erevani Hamalsarani Hratarakčʿutʿyun, 1979; forthcoming facsimile repr.: New Dictionary of the Armenian Language / Nor Parkirk Haygazian Lezvi, (Gorgias Historical Dictionaries, 19), Piscataway, NY: Gorgias Press). Awgerean, M. (Aucher) 1846. Aṙjeṙn baṙaran haykazean lezui [Handy Dictionary of the Armenian Language], Venetik: i Surb Łazar (2nd ed.: Venetik: i Surb Łazar, 1865). Azatean, Tʿ. 1931. Komitas vardapet: ir keankʿn u gorcunēutʿiwnǝ [Komitas Vardapet: His Life and Work], Kostandnupolis: Hratarakčʿutʿiwn “Komitasi Ōr”uan Polsoy Hanjnaxumbi, Tpagrutʿiwn “Kiwtʿemperk”. Bacqué-Grammont, J.-L. & Dumont, P. (eds) 1983. Économie et société dans l’Empire ottoman (Fin du xviiie–début du xxe siècle) (Colloque internationales du CNRS 601, Strasbourg 1er–5 juillet 1980), Paris: Éditions du CNRS. Baghdiantz McCabe, I., Harlaftis, G. & Pepelasis Minoglou, I. (eds) 2005. Diaspora Entrepreneurial Networks: Four Centuries of History, Oxford: Berg. Baghdiantz McCabe, I. 1994–95. “Silk and Silver: The Trade and Organization of New Julfa at the End of the XVIIth Century”, REArm 25, 389–415. Baghdiantz McCabe, I. 1996–97. “The Socio-Economic Conditions in New Julfa Post- 1650. The Impact of Conversions to Islam on Armenian Eurasian Trade”, REArm 26, 367–396. Baghdiantz McCabe, I. 1999. The Shah’s Silk for Europe’s Silver: The Eurasian Trade of the Julfa Armenians in Safavid Persia and India (1530–1750), Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Baghdiantz McCabe, I. 2005. “Global Trading Ambitions in Diaspora. The Armenians and Their Eurasian Silk Trade, 1530–1750”, in Baghdiantz McCabe, Harlaftis & Minoglou 2005, 27–50. Baghdiantz McCabe, I. 2008. “Caucasian Elitesand Early Modern State-building in Safavid Iran”, in Chaudury & Kévonian, 91–102. 450 lucca

Bagratuni, A.K. 1852. Hayerēn kʿerakanutʿiwn i pēts zargacʿelocʿ [Armenian Grammar for the Use of the Erudite], i Venetik: i vans Srboyn Łazaru. ———. 1860 (ed.), Girkʿ Astuacašunčʿkʿ Hin ew Nor Ktakaranacʿ [Bible. Old and New Testaments], i Venetik: i vans Mxitʿareancʿ i Surb Łazar. Baladouni, V. & Makepeace, M. 1998. Armenian Merchants of the Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries. English East India Company Sources, Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society. Bałramean, M. 1772. Nor tetrak or kočʿi Yordorak [New Booklet Entitled Exhortation], Madras: Tparan Yakobay Šahamirean (East Arm. translation: Xačʿatryan 1991). Bampukʿčean, G. 1981. Yakob Patriarkʿ Nalean (1706–1764): keankʿǝ, gorcerǝ ew ašakertnerǝ [Patriarch Yakob Nalean: Life, Works and Disciples], Stanpul: Murad Ofset. Bampukʿčean, G. 1984. Yovhannēs Patriarkʿ Kolot (1678–1741) ew ir ašakertnerǝ [Patriarch Yovhannēs Kolot and His Disciples], Stanpul: Murad Ofset. Bardakjian, K.B. 1976. The Mekhitarist Contributions to Armenian Culture and Scholarship, Cambridge, MA: Harvard College Library. Bardakjian, K.B. 2000. A Reference Guide to Modern Armenian Literature, 1500–1920, Detroit, MI: Wayne University Press. Barsełyan, H. et al., 1976. “Arewelyan mamul” handesi matenagitutʿyun (1871–1909) [Bibliography of the Journal Arewelean Mamul, 1871–1909], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hasarakakan Gitutʿyunneri Gitakan Informacʿiayi Kentron. Barsełyan, H. et al., 1982. “Kṙunk Hayocʿ ašxarhi” ew “Haykakan ašxarhi kṙunk” kam “Haykakan ašxarh” amsagreri matenagitutʿyun [Bibliography of the Journals Kṙunk Hayocʿ ašxarhi and Haykakan ašxarhi kṙunk or Haykakan ašxarh], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hasarakakan Gitutʿyunneri Gitakan Informacʿiayi Kentron. Baxčinyan, H. 1988. Sayatʿ-Nova. Kyankʿǝ ev gorcǝ [Sayatʿ-Nova, Life and Works], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Bayburdean, V. 1996. Hamašxarhayin aṙewturǝ ew iranahayutʿiwnǝ XVII darum [The International Trade and the Armenians of Iran in the 17th Century], Tʿehran: The author (English translation: International Trade and the Armenian Merchants in the Seventeenth Century, New Delhi: Sterling Publishers, 2004). Bekius, R.A. 2012. “The Armenian Colony in Amsterdam in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries: Armenian Merchants from Julfa before and after the Fall of the Safavid Empire”, in Floor & Herzig 2012, 259–283. Bertoli, B. (ed.) 1993. La Chiesa di Venezia nel Settecento, Venezia: Studium Cattolico Veneziano. Bezdikian, H. 1999. “Mxitʿar vrd. Sebastacʿi ew Mxitʿareanneru npastǝ hay mšakoytʿin” [The Contribution of Vardapet Mxitʿar Sebastacʿi and the Mekhitarists to the Armenian Culture], Bazmavēp 157, 94–143. philology, documentary research, & cultural diffusion 451

Bhattacharya, Bh. 2005. “Armenian European Relationship in India, 1500–1800: No Armenian Foundation to a European Empire?”, Journal of the Social and Economic History of the Orient 48/2, 277–322. Bloom, J.M. 2004. “The Great Mongol Shahnama in the Qajar Period”, in Hillenbrand 2004, 25–34. Bloom, J.M. 2008. “Making Money at the Blessed Place of Manila: Armenians in the Madras-Manila Trade in the Eighteenth Century”, Journal of Global History 3/1, 1–20. Botta, P. 2008. “Problemi filologici di un testo a stampa”, Tipofilologia 1, 113–117. Bournoutian, G.A. 1971. “The Armenian Community of Isfahan in the Seventeenth Century (Part i)”, The Armenian Review 24/4, 27–45. Bournoutian, G.A. 1972. “The Armenian Community of Isfahan in the Seventeenth Century (Part ii)”, The Armenian Review 25/1, 33–51. Bournoutian, G.A. 1999. Abraham of Erevan: History of the Wars 1721–1836/38, annotated translation with introductory notes, (Armenian Studies Series, 3), Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers. Bournoutian, G.A. 2003. The Journal of Zakʿaria of Agulis, annotated translation with commentary, (Armenian Studies Series, 4), Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers. Bournoutian, G.A. 2004. The Chronicle of Deacon Zakʿaria of Kʿanakʿeṙ, annotated translation and commentary, (Armenian Studies Series, 6), Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers. Bournoutian, G.A. 2007. The Travel Accounts of Simēon of Poland, (Armenian Studies Series, 10), Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers. Bournoutian, G.A. 2009a. Katʿoghikos Simeon of Erevan: Jambr, introduction and annotated translation, (Armenian Studies Series, 14), Cosa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers. Bournoutian, G.A. 2009b. Katʿoghikos Esayi Hasan Jalaleantsʿ: A Brief History of the Aghuankʿ Region, introduction and annotated translation (Armenian Studies Series, 15), Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers. Bournoutian, G.A. 2010. Aṙakʿel of Tabriz: Book of History, introduction and annotated translation from the critical text, (Armenian Studies Series, 16), Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers. Bowers, F. 1955. On Editing Shakespeare and the Elizabethan Dramatists, Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Library. Bowers, F. 1966. Textual and Literary Criticism (The Sandars Lectures in Bibliography 1957–58), Cambridge: University Press. Brosset, M. 1874/76. Collection d’historiens arméniens, 2 vols., S.-Pétersbourg: Imprimerie de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences. Bžškean, M. 1817. (tr.), Patmutʿiwn Ṙopēnsoni Kʿṙiwzōē [Story of Robinson Crusoe], i Venetik: i vans Srboyn Łazaru. Bžškean, M. 1819. Patmutʿiwn Pontosi or ē Seaw Cov [History of Pontus, that is the Black Sea], i Venetik: i vans Srboyn Łazaru (Turkish translation: İstanbul: Çiviyazıları, 1998). 452 lucca

Bžškean, M. 1830. Čanaparhordutʿiwn i Lehastan ew yayl kołmans bnakeals i haykazancʿ serelocʿ i naxneacʿ Ani kʿałakʿin [Journey to Poland and to Other Regions Populated by the Armenian Descendants of the Ancient Inhabitants the City of Ani], i Venetik: i vans Srboy Łazaru. Bžškean, M. 1997. Eražštutʿiwn. Or ē hamaṙōt tełekutʿiwn eražštakan skzbancʿ elewēǰutʿeancʿ ełanakacʿ ew nšanagracʿ xałicʿ [Music. Brief Information on the Musical Principles of Scales, Modes, and Notations], ed. A. Kʿerovbyan, Erevan: Girkʿ. Calzolari, V., Sirinian, A. & Zekiyan, B.L. (eds) 2004. Bnagirkʿ yišatakacʿ/Documenta Memoriae. Dall’Italia e dall’Armenia, studi in onore di Gabriella Uluhogian, Bologna: Dipartimento di Paleografia e Medievistica, Università di Bologna. Čʿamčʿean, M. 1784–86. Patmutʿiwn Hayocʿ i skzbanē ašxarhi minčʿew cʿam Teaṙn 1784 [History of the Armenians from the Beginning of the World to the Year of Our Lord 1784], 3 vols., i Venētik: vols. 1–2: i tparani Petrosi Vałvazeancʿ [Pietro Valvaziani]; vol. 3: i tparani Yovhannu Piacʿeancʿ [Giovanni Piaci]. Čemčemean, S. 1977. Abraham Erewancʿi. Patmutʿiwn paterzamacʿn 1721–1736 tʿui [Abraham Erewancʿi. History of the Wars in the Years 1721–1736], (Hayagitakan matenašar Bazmavēp, 11), Venetik: S. Łazari tparan. Čemčemean, S. 1980. Mxitʿar Abbahōr hratarakčʿakan aṙakʿelutʿiwnǝ [The Editorial Mission of Abbot Mxitʿar], (Hayagitakan matenašar Bazmavēp, 16), i Venetik: S. Łazar i tparan. Čemčemean, S. 1988. “Yovhannēs patriarkʿ Koloti norayayt namaknerǝ” [New Letters of Patriarch Yovhannēs Kolot], Bazmavēp 146, 175–191. Chabrier, J.-C.C. 1986–87. “Remarques sur l’interprétation du système de Limončean par Komitas Vardapet”, REArm 20, 507–520. Chaudhury, S. 2005. “Trading Networks in a Traditional Diaspora: Armenians in India, c. 1600–1800”, in Baghdiantz McCabe, Harlaftis & Minoglou 2005, 51–72. Chaudhury, S. & Kévonian, K. (eds) 2008. Les Arméniens dans le commerce asiatique au début de l’ère moderne, Paris: Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme. Chaudhury, S. & Morineau, M. (eds) 1999. Merchants, Companies and Trade. Europe and Asia in the Early Modern Era, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cowe, S.P. 1994–95. “Armenological Paradigms and Yovhannēs Sarkawag’s ‘Discourse on Wisdom’ – Philosophical underpinning of an Armenian Renaissance?”, REArm 25, 125–155. Curtin, Ph.D. 1984. Cross-Cultural Trade in World History, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Danielyan, E.L. 2011. “Civilizational Factors of Armenian Sea Trade Development and the International Competition in the 17th Century”, 21st Century, 1/9, 46–53. Darbinjan, M. 1965. Simeon Lekhaci. Putevye zametki, Moskva: Nauka. Darbinjan-Melikjan, M. 1969. Zakarij Kanakerci Xronika [The Chronicle of Zakʿaria Kʿanakʿeṙcʿi], Moskva: Nauka. philology, documentary research, & cultural diffusion 453

Dauvillier, J. 1974. “Les Arméniens en Chine et en Asie Centrale au Moyen Age”, in Mélanges de sinologie offerts à M. Paul Demiéville, vol. 2, Paris: Presses Universitaire de France, 1–17. Dédéyan, G. (ed.) 2007. Histoire du peuple arménien, nouv. éd. remaniée et enrichie, Toulouse: Privat. Dédéyan, G. 2010. “Les “traducteurs de Smyrne” : une ambiance comparatiste?”, Revue de Littérature Comparée 336, 411–419. Der Matossian, B. 2007. “The Armenian Commercial Houses and Merchant Networks in the 19th Century Ottoman Empire” Turcica 39, 147–173. Dorson, R.M. 1972. Folklore and Folklife: An Introduction, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dowsett, Ch. 1997. Sayatʿ-Nova: an 18th-century Troubadour. A Biographical and Literary Study, (CSCO, 561. Subsidia, 91), Leuven: Peeters. Ekmalean, M. 1896. Ergecʿołutʿiwnkʿ Srboy Pataragi Hayastaneaycʿ aṙakʿelakan Ekełecʿwoy/Gesänge der heiligen Messe der armenisch-apostolichen Kirche, Leipzig: Breitkopf u. Härtel. Ēmin, M. 1850. Vēpkʿ hnoyn Hayastani [Epic Tales of Ancient Armenia], Moskva: i tparani Vladimiray Gotiē. Eremia Mełrecʿi. 1698. Baṙgirkʿ Hayocʿ [Armenian Dictionary], I Yalikōṙna [Livorno]: [Sargis Ewdokiacʿi Sahetʿči]; repr. Kostandnupolis: Astuacatur Kostandnupolsecʿi. Esayi Hasan Jalalean. 1868. Patmutʿiwn hamaṙōt Ałuanicʿ erkri [A Brief History of the Ałuankʿ Region], Erusałēm, i tparani Aṙakʿelakan Atʿoṙoy Srbocʿ Yakovbeancʿ (French translation: Brosset 1874/76, vol. 2, 193–220; Russian translation: Ter- Grigoryan & Bunjatov 1989; English translation: Bournoutian 2009b). Evans, H.C. & Merian, S.L. 1994. “The Final Centuries: Armenian Manuscripts of the Diaspora”, in Matthews & Wieck 1994, 104–123. Fahy, C. 1995. “Preaching to the Half-Converted: The Bowers Legacy in Italian Studies”, in Greetham & Speed Hill 1995, 37–52. Ferrari, A. 2000. Alla frontiera dell’Impero. Gli armeni in Russia (1801–1917), Milano: Mimesis. Ferrari, A. 2003a. L’Ararat e la gru. Sudi sulla storia e la cultura degli armeni, Milano: Mimesis. Ferrari, A. 2003b. “L’eccentrico illuminismo armeno. Le colonie dell’India nella sec- onda metà del xviii secolo”, in Ferrari 2003a, 103–125. Ferrari, A. 2003c. “Pensiero e letteratura religiosa (secoli xii–xx)”, in Ferrari 2003a, 199–217. Ferrari, A. 2005. “La cultura russa e il Caucaso. Il caso armeno”, Studi slavistici 2, 137–156. Ferrier, R.W. 1970. “The Agreement of the East India Company with the Armenian Nation, 22nd June 1688”, REArm 7, 427–443. 454 lucca

Ferrier, R.W. 1973. “The Armenians and the East India Company in Persia in the Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries”, The Economic History Review 26/1, 38–62. Floor, W. & Herzig, E. 2012. Iran and the World in the Safavid Age, (International Library of Iranian Studies, 2), London – New York: I.B. Tauris. Gevorgyan, L. 1982. “Murč” amsagirǝ, Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Ghougassian, V.S. 1999. “The Quest for Enlightenment and Liberation. The Case of the Armenian Community of India in the Eighteenth Century”, in Hovannisian & Myers 1999, 241–264. Greetham, D.C. & Speed Hill, W. (eds) 1995. Text. Transactions of the Society for Textual Scholarship, vol. 8, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Gregorian, V. 1974. “Minorities of Isfahan: the Armenian Community of Isfahan 1587– 1722”, Iranian Studies 7/3–4, 652–680. Gulbenkian, R. 1970. “Philippe de Zagly, marchand arménien de Julfa, et l’établissement du commerce persan en Courlande en 1696”, REArm 7, 361–462. Gušakean, Tʿ. 1941. Hndkahaykʿ [The Armenians of India], Erusałēm: Tparan Aṙakʿelakan Atʿoṙoy Srbocʿ Yakovbeancʿ. Hacikyan, A.J., Basmajian, G., Franchuk, E.S. & Ouzounian, N. 2005. The Heritage of Armenian Literature, Volume 3: From the Eighteenth Century to Modern Times, Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press. Hakobyan, M. 1984. Zmyuṙnahay parberakan mamulǝ (1839–1860) [The Armenian Periodical Press in Smyrna (1839–1860)], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Hakobyan, M. 1987. Zmyuṙnahay parberakan mamulǝ (1861–1880) [The Armenian Periodical Press in Smyrna (1861–1880)], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Hakobyan, M. & Cerunyan Ž. 1983. “Całik” (1861–1867) handesi matenagitutʿyun [Bibliography of the Journal Całik, 1861–1867], Erevan: [Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hasarakakan Gitutʿyunneri Gitakan Informacʿiayi Kentron]. Hakobyan, V. (ed.) 1951/56. Manr žamanakagrutʿyunner XIII–XVIII dareri [Minor Chronicles of the 13th–18th Centuries], 2 vols., Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Hambarjumyan, Ṙ. 1999. Orogaytʿ paṙacʿ: akunkʿnerǝ, ayžmeakanutʿyunǝ ew aṙanjnahatkutʿyunnerǝ [Orogaytʿ paṙacʿ: Sources, Relevance and Peculiarities] Erevan: Nžar Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Hambarjumyan, V. 2003. Simeon Katʿołikos Erevancʿi. Žambṙ [Catholicos Simēon Erewancʿi. Archival Chamber], Erevan: Mułni Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Hambarjumyan, V. 2010. Latinaban hayereni patmutʿyun (14–18-rd dd.) [History of the “Latinaban” Armenian (14th–18th c.)], Erevan: Nairi. philology, documentary research, & cultural diffusion 455

Hausmann, F.J. 1991. Wörterbücher: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Lexikographie, vol. 3, Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. Herzig, E. 1990. “The Iranian Raw Silk Trade and European Manufacture in the 18th and 17th Centuries” Journal of European Economic History 19/1, 73–89. Herzig, E. 1991. The Armenian Merchants of New Julfa: A Study in Premodern Asian Trade (Ph.D. dissertation, Oxford University). Herzig, E. 1996. “The Rise of the Julfa Merchants in the Late Sixteenth Century”, in Melville 1996, 305–322. Herzig, E. 2004. “Venice and the Julfa Armenian Merchants”, in Zekiyan & Ferrari 2004, 141–164. Herzig, E. 2008. “On the Brink of the Modern: the Julfa Armenians and their World”, paper presented at the xiéme Conférence Générale de l’Association internationale des Études Arméniennes, Paris, September 10–12 2008 (PDF full text downloadable at http://aiea2008paris.free.fr/papers/Herzig.pdf; date of visit: March 20th, 2014. Herzig, E. 2012. “Borrowed Terminology and shared techniques in New Julfa Armenian Commercial Documents”, in Floor & Herzig 2012, 447–455. Hewsen, R.H. & Zekiyan, B.L. 2007. “Débris de l’indépendance nationale et Diaspora (des origines au xviiie siècle)”, in Dédéyan 2007, 413–446. Hillenbrand, R. (ed.) 2004. Shahnama: the Visual Language of the Persian Book of Kings, Edinburgh: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Hiwrmiwzean, Ē. 1986–87. “Note sur la vie de Baba Hambarjum Limončean”, traduit de l’arménien par Léon Ketcheyan, REArm 20, 493–496. Hoogasian Villa, S. 1966. 100 Armenian Tales and Their Folkloristic Relevance, Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press. Hovanissian, R.G. (ed.) 1997. The Armenian People From Ancient to Modern Times, Volume ii: Foreign Dominion to Statehood. The Fifteenth Century to the Twentieth Century, New York: St. Martin’s Press. Hovanissian, R.G. 2001. (ed.), Armenian Baghesh/Bitlis and Taron/Mush, (UCLA Armenian History and Culture Series, 2) Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers. Hovannisian, R.G. & Myers, D.N. (eds) 1999. Enlightenment and Diaspora: The Armenian and Jewish Cases, Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Inčičean, Ł. 1791. Tesutʿiwn hamaṙōt hin ew nor ašxarhagrutʿean [Concise Study of Old and New Geography], [Venetik: S. Łazar]. Inčičean, Ł. 1822. Storagrutʿiwn hin Hayastaneaycʿ [. . .] Mec Haykʿ [Description of Ancient Armenia [. . .] The Greater Armenia], i Vēnētik: i vans Srboyn Łazaru. Inčičean, Ł. 1835. Hnaxōsutʿiwn ašxarhagrakan Hayastaneaycʿ ašxarhi [Archeology of Geographic Armenia], 3 vols., i Venetik: i tparani Srboyn Łazaru. Inglisian, I. 1978. “Mechitaristi, di Vienna”, in Pelliccia & Rocca 1978, 1120–1123. Jaxǰaxean,Ì M. 1837. Baṙgirkʿ i barbaṙ hay ew italakan [Armenian-Italian Dictionary], 2 vols., i Venetik: i tparani Srboyn Łazaru. 456 lucca

Karinyan, A. 1956/60. Aknarkner hay parberakan mamuli patmutʿyan [Essays on the History of the Armenian Periodical Press], 2 vols., Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Kévonian, K. 1975. “Marchands arméniens au xviie siècle. A propos d’un livre arménien publié à Amsterdam en 1699”, Cahiers du monde russe et soviétique 16/2, 199–244. Kévorkian, R.H. 1999. “Le livre imprimé en milieu arménien ottoman aux XVIe–XVIIIe siècles”, Revue des mondes musulmans et de la Méditerranée 88–89, 173–185. Khachaturian, L. 2009. Cultivating Nationhood in Imperial Russia. The Periodical Press and the Formation of a Modern Armenian Identity, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Kiwlesērean, B. 1904. Kolot Yovhannēs Patriarkʿ: patmagrakan ew banasirakan usumnasirutʿiwn [Patriarch Yovhannēs Kolot. Historiographical and Philological Study], (Azgayin matenadaran, 46) Vienna: Mxitʿarean tparan. Kʿiwrtean, Y. 1952. “Kanonkʿ ew sahmankʿ Palatʿu sb. Hreštakapetacʿ ekełecʿwoyn (1778ēn noragiwt vaweragrutʿiwn mǝ Sargis dpir Saraf Yovhannēseanē)”, Sołakatʿ 1, 112–116. Kohoutkova, P. 2009. “Obrazy Jiných v arménských historických pramenech 16.-18. století” [Image of Other in Armenian Historical Sources of the 16th–18th Centuries], Český lid: Etnologický časopis 96/2, 113–130. Kohoutkova, P. 2010. L’image de l’Autre dans les chroniques arméniennes: Les chroniques Mineures de l’Arménie occidentale—la vie quotidienne des Arméniens dans les provinces frontalières de l’Empire ottoman, Sarrebruck: Éditions universitaires européennes. Komitas (Sołomon Sołomonean) [Gomidas] 1899. “Die armenische Kirchenmusik”, Sammelbände der Internationalen Musikgesellschaft 1/1, 54–64. Komitas (Sołomon Sołomonean) [Gomidas] 1907. “La musique rustique arménienne”, Le Mércure musical, 472–488. Komitas (Sołomon Sołomonean) [Gomidas] 1998. Armenian Sacred and Folk Music, translated by E. Gulbekian, E.; introduction by V.N. Nersessian, Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press. Kostandyan, Ē. 2008. Garegin Srvanjtyancʿ: kyankʿǝ ew gorcuneutʿyunǝ, Erevan: [Hayastani Hanrapetutʿyan Gitutʿyunneri Azgayin Akademia, Patmutʿyan Institut]. Kostaneancʿ, K. (ed.) 1903. Yakovb Kaṙnecʿi. Tełagir verin Hayocʿ [Topography of the Upper Armenia], Vałaršapat: tparan Mayr Atʿoṙoy Srboy Ēǰmiacni. Kouymjian, D. 1997. “Armenia from the Fall of the Cilican Kingdom (1375) to the Forced Emigration under Shah Abbas (1604)”, in Hovanissian 1997, 1–50. Kouymjian, D. 2006. “Armenian Bookbinding from Manuscript to Printed Book”, Gazette du livre médiéval 49, 1–14. Kouymjian, D. 2007a. “Le manuscrit arménien après l’imprimerie (XVIe–XIXe siècles)”, in Mutafian 2007, 173–177. philology, documentary research, & cultural diffusion 457

Kouymjian, D. 2007b. “Sous le joug des Turcomans et des Turcs Ottomans (xve–xvie siècle)”, in Dédéyan 2007, 377–411. Kouymjian, D. 2008a. “From Manuscript to Printed Book: Armenian Bookbinding from the Sixteenth to the Nineteenth Century,” in Sadgrove, 13–21, 276–297. Kouymjian, D. 2008b. “Post-Byzantine Armenian Bookbinding and its Relationships to the Greek Tradition”, in Tsironis 2008, pp. 163–176. Lēō (Babaxanean, A.) 1934. Xoǰayakan kapitalǝ yev nra kʿałakʿakan-hasarakakan derǝ hayeri meǰ [Khoja Capital and Its Socio-political Role among the Armenians], Erevan: Petakan Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Lēō (Babaxanean, A.) 1946. Hayocʿ patmutʿyun [History of the Armenians], vol. iii, Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Levonyan, G. 1895. Hayocʿ parberakan mamulǝ. Patmakan tesutʿiwn skzbicʿ minčʿew mer ōrer (1794–1894) [The Armenian Periodical Press. Historical Survey from the Beginnings until Our Days (1794–1894)], Alekʿsandrapol: tparan Abraham M. Malxaseancʿi. Libaridian, G.J. 1987. The Ideology of Armenian Liberation: The Development of Armenian Political Thought before the Revolution (1639–1885) (Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA). Łorłanyan, N. (ed.) 1973a. Abraham III Kretacʿi. Patmutʿyun [Abraham III Kretacʿi. History], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Łorłanyan, N. (ed.) 1973b. Abraam Kretaci. Povestvovanie [Abraham Kretacʿi. Narration], Erevan: Izdatelʿstvo AN Armjanskoj SSR. Łukas Vanandecʿi. 1698. Hamajaynutʿiwn hngetesak amsocʿ Hṙomayecʿwocʿ, Azariayi, Hayiocʿ, Hrēicʿ ew Takčacʿ [Comparative table of the Months According to the Roman, Azarian, Armenian, Hebrew and Tajik Calendars] yAmstērdam: Tʿōmay vardapet [Vanandecʿi] (repr. i Vēnētik: i tparani Antōni Pōṙtʿōli [Antonio Bortoli] 1748). Łukas Vanandecʿi. 1699. Ganj čʿapʿoy, kšṙoy, tʿwoy ew dramicʿ bolor ašxarhi [Treasure of the Measures, Weight, Numbers and Coins of the Whole World], yAmstērdam: Tʿōmay vardapet Vanandecʿi. Macler, F. 1916. Notre-Dame de Bitlis, Paris: Imprimérie nationale (= Journal Asiatique 11/6 [1915], 357–444). Magarotto, L. & Scarcia, G. (eds) 1985. Georgica I, Roma: Arti grafiche Scalia. Malxasjanc & Arutjunjan. 1958. Simeon Erevanci. Žambr [Simēon Erewancʿi. Archival Chamber], Moskva: Izdatelʿstvo vostočnoj lit-ry. Martirosyan, A. (ed.) 2007. Patmutʿiwn hamaṙōt Ałuanicʿ erkri [A Brief History of the Ałuankʿ Region], Stepʿanakert: Dizak plyus. Matthews, Th.F. & Wieck, R.S. (eds) 1994. Treasures in Heaven: Armenian Illuminated Manuscripts, New York: Pierpont Morgan Library; Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. McKitterick, D. 2003. Print, Manuscript and The Search for Order, 1450–1830, Cambridge, UK & New York: Cambridge University Press. 458 lucca

Melville, Ch. 1996. Safavid Persia: The History and Politics of an Islamic Society, London: I.B. Tauris. Merian, S.L. 1993. The Structure of Armenian Bookbinding and Its Relation to Near Eastern Bookmaking Traditions (Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University). Merian, S.L. 1994. “The Final Centuries: Armenian Manuscripts of the Diaspora”, in Mathews & Wieck 1994, 115–123. Merian, S.L. 1996. “From Venice to Isfahan and Back: The Making of an Armenian Manuscript in Early 18th-Century Persia”, in J.L. Sharpe 1996, 280–291. Mildonian, P. 2004. “Autori e traduttori mechitaristi”, in Zekiyan & Ferrari 2004, 239–267. Minasean, L.G. 1972. Nor JułayiÌ tparann u ir tpagrac grkʿerǝ [The Press at New Julfa and its Printed Books], Nor Juła:Ì Tparan S. Amenapʿrkičʿ vankʿi. Minasean, L.G. 1980. Canōtʿagrutʿiwnner Nor JułayiÌ Patmutʿean [Notes on the History of New Julfa], Nor Ĵuła: Tparan S. Amenapʿrkičʿ vankʿi. Minasean, L.G. 1991. Grčʿutʿean arvestǝ Nor JułayumÌ [The Art of Writing in New Julfa], Nor Juła:Ì Tparan S. Amenapʿrkičʿ vankʿi. Minasean, L.G. 1994. Iranahay parberakan mamulǝ, hay aṙaǰin mamuli “Azdarar”-i 200 (1794–1994) ew iranahay aṙaǰin mamuli “Šawił”-i 100 ameaki (1894–1994) aṙtʿiw [The Persian-Armenian Periodical Press, on the Occasion of the 200th Anniversary of the First Armenian Periodical Azdarar (1794–1994), and the 100th Anniversary of the First Persian-Armenian Periodical Šawił (1894–1994)], Nor Juła:Ì Tparan S. Amenapʿrkičʿ vankʿi. Minasean, L.G. 1997. Baregorc u mekenas JułayecʿinerÌ [New Julfa’s Benefactors and Patrons], Nor Juła:Ì Tparan S. Amenapʿrkičʿ vankʿi. Minasian, C.O. 1959. The Chronicle of Petros di Sarkis Gilanentz: Concerning the Afghan Invasion of Persia in 1722, the Siege of Isfahan, and the Repercussions in Northern Persia, Russia, and Turkey, Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian. Minassian, M. 1990. Nor baṙgirkʿ haykazean lezui/Nouveau dictionnaire d’armenien ancien, revu et augmenté par Norayr N. Buzandatzi, Genève: Fondation des Frères Ghoukasssiantz. Mirzoyan, Hr. 1971. Simēon JułayecʿiÌ , Erevan: Erevani Hamalsarani Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Mirzoyan, Hr. 1980. “Hovhannes JułayecʿuÌ Girkʿ srbaznagorcutʿean erki trapgrutʿyan šurǰǝ” [On the 2nd Edition of Hovhannēs Jułayecʿi’sÌ Girkʿ srbaznagorcutʿean], Banber Erevani Hamalsarani 1980/3, 58–68. Mirzoyan, Hr. 1983. XVII dari hay pʿilisopʿayakan mtkʿi kʿnnakan verlucutʿyun [A Critical Analysis of the Armenian Philosophical Thought of the 17th Century], Erevan: Erevani Hamalsarani Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Mirzoyan, Hr. 2001. Hovhannes Mrkʿuz JułayecʿiÌ , Erevan: Erevani Hamalsarani Hratarakčʿutʿyun. philology, documentary research, & cultural diffusion 459

Mnacʿakanyan, A. 1962. “Ov ē ‘Nor tetrak, or kočʿi Yordorak’ grkʿi hełinakǝ” [Who is the Author of the “New Booklet Entitled Exhortation”?], Patma-banasirakan handes 1962/2, 131–142. Mouradian, C. 1990. “La revue ethnographique arménienne Azgagrakan handes. Chouchi-Tiflis, 1895–1916”, Cahiers du monde russe et soviétique 31/2–3, 295–316. Mutafian, C. 2007. Arménie : la magie de l’écrit, Paris & Marseille: Somogy & Maison arménienne de la jeunesse et de la culture. Mxitʿar Sebastacʿi. 1730. Kʿerakanutʿiwn grabaṙi lezui haykazean seṙi [Grammar for the Classical Language of the Armenian Race], i Vēnētik: i tparani Patʿista Alpṙicʿi JēṙōlimōiÌ [Battista Albrizzi]. Mxitʿar Sebastacʿi. 1733. (ed.), Astuacašunčʿ Girkʿ Hnocʿ ew Norocʿ Ktakaranacʿ [Bible of the Old and New Testaments] i Vēnētik: i tparani Antōni Pōṙtʿōli [Antonio Bortoli]. Mxitʿar Sebastacʿi. 1749/69. Baṙgirkʿ haykazean lezui [Dictionary of the Armenian Language] 2 vols., i Vēnētik: i tparani Antoni Pōṙtʿōli [Antonio Bortoli]. Mxitʿaryan, M. 1958. “Hyusisapʿayl” amsagir, Erevan: Erevani Hamalsarani Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Mxitʿaryan, M. 1976. “Ararat šabatʿertʿ” [The Weekly Ararat], Lraber 4, 24–34. Mxitʿaryan, M. 1986. “Arevelahay aṙaǰin parberatʿertʿǝ (Arevelyan canucʿmukʿ šabatʿatʿertʿi hratarakutʿyan 170-amyaki aṙtʿiv)” [The First Eastern Armenian Journal (On the 170th Anniversary of the Weekly Arevelyan canucʿmukʿ)], Patma- banasirakan handes 4, 53–72. Mxitʿaryan, M. 1994. Arevelahay mamuli skzbnavorumǝ ew lusavorakan šaržumǝ XIX dari aṙaǰin kesin [The Origins of the Eastern Armenian Press and the Movement for Enlightenment in the First Half of the 19th Century], Erevan: Gitutʿyun. Mxitʿaryan, M. 2002. Xoren Stepʿanei “Haykakan ašxarh” amsagir [Xoren Stepʿanē’s Journal Haykakan ašxarh] Erevan: Kʿnnaser. Nanumyan, Ṙ. 1947. Mesrop Tʿałiadyan: Kyankʿǝ ew gorcǝ [Mesrop Tałiadyan, Life and Works], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Nanumyan, Ṙ. 1965. (ed.) Mesrop D. Tʿałiadyan / Gełarvestakan erker Mesrop D. Tʿałiadyan's [Literary Works], Erevan: Hayastan Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Nanumyan, Ṙ. 1975. (ed.) Mesrop D. Tʿałiadyan / Ułegrutʿyunner, hodvacner, namakner, vaveragrer [Mesrop D. Tʿałiadyan’s Diaries, Articles, Letters and Documents], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Nawasardean, T. 1882–1903. Hay žołovrdakan hekʿiatʿner [Armenian Folk Tales], 10 vols., Ēǰmiacin, Erevan & Tpʿxis. Nazarean, Š. 1991. “Yakob Patriarkʿ Nalean Narekagētǝ” [Patriarch Yakob Nalean, a Specialist of Narekacʿi], Bazmavēp 149/3–4, 418–450. Nazaryan, S. 1986. Erevani parberakan mamulǝ (1880–1917) [The Periodical Press in Erevan, 1880–1917], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. 460 lucca

Nersisyan, E. & Išxanyan, Ṙ. 1978. “Hyusisapʿayl” amsagir 1858–1864. Matenagitutʿyun [Bibliography of the Journal Hiwsisapʿayl, 1858–1864], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Al. Miasnikyani anvan Petakan Ṙespublikakan Gradaran, Informacʿyayi ew Matenagitutʿyan Bažin. Nichanian, Marc. 1999. “Enlightenment and Historical Thought”, in Hovanissian-Myers 1999, 87–123. Nichanian, Marc. 2007. Entre l’Art et le Témoignage. Littérature Arméniennes au XXe Siècle: ii. Le deuil de la philologie, Genève: MetisPresses. Nichanian, Mikael. 2010. “Les traducteurs arméniens de Smyrne : un cosmopolitisme littéraire”, Revue de Littérature Comparée 336, 421–426. Nšanean, M. (ed.) 1915. Žamanakagrutʿiwn Grigor vardapeti Kamaxecʿwoy kam Daranałcʿwoy [Chronology of Grigor vardapet Kamaxecʿi or Daranałcʿi], Erusałēm: Tparan Aṙakʿelakan Atʿoṙoy Srbocʿ Yakovbeancʿ. Nurixan, M. [Nurikhan] 1914. Il servo di Dio abate Mechitar. Sua vita e suoi tempi, Roma- Venezia: San Lazzaro (English translation: 1915, The Life and Times of the Servant of God Abbot Mechitar, Venice: St. Lazarus’ Island; French translation: 1922, Le serviteur de Dieu abbé Mékhitar de Sébaste. La vie et son temps (1670–1750), Venise: St. Lazare). Orengo, A. 1991. “Tommaso Campanella in armeno: la fonte latina dei Kherakanowthean Girkh (‘Libri di grammatica’) di Oskan vardapet”, Studi e Saggi Linguistici 31, 125–144. Orengo, A. 1994. “I Kherakanowthean Girkh (‘Libri di grammatica’) di Oskan vardapet Erewantsi fra tradizione ed innovazione”, Studi e Saggi Linguistici 34, 51–110. Orengo, A. 1995. “Les Principes de grammaire italienne (Skzbownkʿ italakani lezowi) publiés à Marseille en 1675”, in Weitenberg 1995a, 179–189. Orengo, A. 1997. “Le grammatiche e i dizionari della lingua italiana, compilati in armeno, stampati durante i secoli XVII e XVIII”, in Awde 1997, 201–214; 399–403. Orengo, A. 2003. “Oskan Erewantsi traduttore dei Grammaticalia di Tommaso Campanella”, Rassegna armenisti italiani 6, 9–13. Orengo, A. 2004a. “Una nuova redazione della traduzione armena dei Grammaticalia di Tommaso Campanella”, in Calzolari, Sirinian & Zekiyan 2004, 317–336. Orengo, A. 2004b. “Grammatiche e dizionari dell’italiano, scritti da armeni fra Sei e Settecento”, Rassegna armenisti italiani 7, 17–21. Orengo, A. 2006. “La traduction des noms propres dans les Kerakanowtʿean Girkʿ (Livres de grammaire) de Oskan Erewancʿi”, in Arcamone 2006, 549–559. Oshagan, V. 1973. “L’École des Traducteurs Arméniens de Smyrne au XIXe siècle”, Haygazian. Armenological Review 4, 199–217. Oshagan, V. 1997. “Modern Armenian Literature and Intellectual History from 1700 to 1915”, in Hovanissian 1997, 139–174. Oshagan, V. 1999. “From Enlightenment to Renaissance: The Armenian Experience”, in Hovanissian & Myers 1999, 145–180. Oskean, H. [Oskian] 1940–47. Vaspurakan-Vani vankʿerǝ [The Monasteries of Vaspurakan-Van], (Azgayin matenadaran, 151), 3 vols., Vienna: Mxitʿarean tparan. philology, documentary research, & cultural diffusion 461

Oskean, H. 1964. Stepʿanosi Ṙōškʿay Žamanakagrutʿiwn kam tarekankʿ ekełecʿakankʿ [Stepʿanos Ṙōškʿa’s Chronicle and Ecclesiastical Annals], (Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation Armenian Library), Vienna: Mxitʿarean tparan. Oskean, H. 1968. I. Stepʿanos V. Ṙōškʿa, II. Mattʿēos V. Jułayecʿi (Azgayin matenadaran, 202), Vienna: Mxitʿarean tparan. Palandjian, H. 1991. Rückläufiger Wortindex zum “Venediger Wörterbuch” der armenische Sprache von G. Awetikʿean, H.X. Siwrmelean, H.M. Awgerean, (Lexicographia orientalis, 1), Hamburg: Buske. Panossian, R. 2006. The Armenians: From Kings and Priests to Merchants and Commissars, New York: Columbia University Press. Pʿapʿazyan, V. 1990. Hayastani aṙewtrakan ułinerǝ miǰazgayin aṙewtri olortum XVI–XVII dd. [The Trade Routes of Armenia in Relation to International Trade, 16th–17th Centuries], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Pelliccia, G. & Rocca, G. (eds) 1978. Dizionario degli Istituti di Perfezione, vol. V, Roma: Paoline. Petrosyan, A. 2008. Girkʿ meknutʿean surb Grigori Narekacʿu hreštakakan vardapeti ałōtʿacʿ ew nerbołinacʿ [Commentary on the Prayers and the Panegyrics of the Angelic Vardapet S. Grigor Narakacʿi], Erevan: VMV-Print. Podgraskaja, A. 1968. “Moldavahay gałtʿōǰaxnerǝ ew nrancʿ derǝ aṙewtrakan kaperi zargac‘man gorcum XVI–XVII dd.” [The Armenian Communities in Moldavia and Their Importance in Promoting Trade Relations in the 16th–17th Centuries], Patma- banasirakan handes 1968/3, 209–218. Poladian, S. 1972. “Komitas Vardapet and His Contribution to Ethnomusicology”, Ethnomusicology 16/1, 82–97. Połosyan, F.G. 1967. Datastanagirkʿ Astraxani Hayocʿ [The Lawbook of the Armenians of Astrakhan], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Sadgrove, Ph. (ed.) 2008. Printing and Publishing from the Middle East, Papers from the Second International Symposium on the History of Printing and Publishing in the Languages and Countries of the Middle East, Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, 2–4 November 2005, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Šahamirean, Š. 1773. Girkʿ anuaneal Orogaytʿ pʿaṙacʿ [Book Entitled Snare of Glory], i [. . .] Madras: i tparani Yakobay Šahamireancʿ (East Arm. translation: Xačʿatryan & Safaryan 2002). Šahamirean, Š. 1783. Tetrak or kočʿi Nšavak [Booklet Called Guideline], i [. . .] Madras: i tparani Yakōbay Šahmreancʿ. Šamirov Jа. & Vaganov, V. 1786. Kratkoe istoričeskoe i geografičeskoe opisanie carstva Armenskogo, v Sanktpeterburge: J.K. Šnor [Schnorr]. Sanjian, A.K. 1999. Medieval Armenian Manuscripts at the University of California, Los Angeles, with contributions by Alice Taylor and Sylvie L. Merian; and the assistance of Peter Cowe, (University of California Publications: Catalogs and Bibliographies, 14), Berkeley, Los Angeles & London: University of California Press. 462 lucca

Sarafean, K. 1788. Girkʿ or kočʿi Banali gitutʿean [Book Called Key to Knowledge], i Sanktpetrburg: i tparani Xaldareancʿ. Sarafian, K.A. 1930. History of Education in Armenia, LaVerne, CA: Press of the LaVerne Leader. Šaxnazarjan, A. 1939. Dnevnik Zakarja Akulisskogo, Erevan: Armfan. Seth, M.J. 1897. History of the Armenians in India from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, London: Luzac & Co. (= Calcutta: The author, 1895; repr. 2004, Piscataway, NY: Gorgias Press). Seth, M.J. 1937. Armenians in India from the Earliest Times to the Present Day: a Work of Original Research, Calcutta: The author (repr. 2005, New Delhi & Chennai: Asian Educational Services). Sharpe, J.L. (ed.) 1996. The Compleat Binder: Studies in Book Making and Conservation in Honour of Roger Powell, Turnhout: Brepols. Simēon JułayecʿiÌ 1728. Girkʿ tramabanutʿean [Book of Logic], i Kostandnupōlis: [Astuacatur Kostandnupolsecʿi]; 2nd ed. Kostandnupōlis: i tparani Yōhannisi ew Pōłosi, 1794. Smoczyński, W. (ed.) 1995. Analecta Indoevropaea Cracoviensia Ioannis Safarewicz memoriae dicata, Cracoviae: Universitas Iagellonica. Sorella, A. 2008. “Presentazione”, Tipofilologia 1, 9–10. Sruanjteancʿ, G. 1874a. Grocʿ u brocʿ ew Sasuncʿi Dawitʿ kam Mheri duṙ [The Written and the Spoken and David of Sassun or Mher’s Door], Kostandnupolis: Tpagrutʿiwn E.M. Tntesean. Sruanjteancʿ, G. 1874b. Hnocʿ ew norocʿ. Patmutʿiwn vasn Dawtʿi ew Movsēsi Xorenacʿi [Of Old and New. History on Dawitʿ and Movsēs Xorenacʿi], Kostandnupolis: Tpagrutʿiwn E.M. Tntesean. Sruanjteancʿ, G. 1876. Manana [Manna], Kostandnupolis: Tpagrutʿiwn E.M. Tntesean. Sruanjteancʿ, G. 1879/84. Tʿoros Ałbar, Hayastani čambord, [Brother Tʿoros, Traveller of Armenia], 2 vols., Kostandnupolis: Tpagrutʿiwn E.M. Tntesean. Sruanjteancʿ, G. 1884. Hamov-hotov [With Taste and Aroma], Kostandnupolis: Tpagrutʿiwn E.M. Tntesean. Sruanjteancʿ, G. 1978/82. Erker [Works], 2 vols., Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Suny, R.G. & Kennedy, M.D. (eds) 1999. Intellectuals and the Articulation of the Nation, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press 1999. Tʿadewosyan, A. & Navoyan, M. (eds) 2006. Makar Ekmalyan. Vaveragrer, namakner, hušer, hodvacner [Makar Ekmalyan: Documents, Letters, Memoirs, and Articles], Erevan: Amrocʿ grup. Tʿałiadean, M. 1846. Vēp Vardgisi [The Story of Vardgēs], i Kalkatʿa: i tparani Araratean Ǝnkerutʿean. Tʿałiadean, M. 1847. Vēp Varsenkan [The Story of Varsenik], i Kalkatʿa: i tparani Araratean Ǝnkerutʿean. philology, documentary research, & cultural diffusion 463

Tʿarverdyan, G. & Łanalayan, A. 1936. Leninǝ hay folklori meǰ [Lenin in Armenian Folklore], Erevan: Pethrat. Tayean, Ł. (Dayan) 1936. Komitas Vardapet. Usumnasirakan tesutʿiwn [Komitas vardapet. A Critical Study], Venetik: S. Łazar. Tʿeluncʿ, M. 2008. Šahamir Šahamiryani iravakʿałakʿakan hayacʿkʿnerǝ ew “Orogaytʿ pʿaṙacʿ” [Šahamir Šahamirean’s Legal-Political Views and the Orogaytʿ pʿaṙacʿ], Erevan: Čartaraget. Ter-Avetisyan, S. 1938a. Zakʿaria Agulecʿu Oragrutʿyunǝ [The Diary of Zakʿaria Agulecʿi], Erevan: ArmFAN-i Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Ter-Avetisyan, S. 1938b. Abraham Erewancʿi. Patmutʿiwn paterzamacʿn 1721–1736 tʿ. [Abraham Erewancʿi. History of the Wars, 1721–1736], Erevan: ArmFAN-i Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Ter-Grigoryan, T. & Bunjatov, Z. 1989. Kratkaja istorija strany Albanskoj 1702–1722 gg. [A Brief History of the Albanian Region, 1702–1722], Baku: Ēlm. Ter Minassian, A. 2007. “L’Arménie et l’éveil des nationalités (1800–1914)”, in Dédéyan 2007, 475–521. Tēr Nersēsean, N. 1966. “H. Arsēn Bagratuni Astvacašunčʿi mec vastakołǝ” [F. Arsen Bagratuni, the Great Cultivator of the Bible], Bazmavēp 124, 344–346. Tēr Nersēsean, N. 1977. “Matenagitutʿiwn Mxitʿar Sebastacʿi-i hratarakčʿutʿeancʿ” [Bibliography of the Publications of Abbot Mxitʿar], Bazmavēp 135/1–2, 365–371. Tēr Nersēsean, N. 1977–81. “Mxitʿari npaštǝ ašxarhabari kazmutʿean” [Mxitʿar’s Contribution to the Formation of Ašxarhabar], Bazmavēp 135/3–4, 482–542; 136/3–4, 302–327; 137/1–4, 183–261 (includes introduction and text of Mxitʿar’s Kʿerakanutʿiwn ašxarhabar lezuin Hayocʿ, 195–261); 139/1–2, 95–127. Tēr Yovhaneancʿ, Y.T. 1880/81. Patmutʿiwn Nor JułayiÌ aṙ yAsbahan [History of New Julfa at Isfahan], 2 vols., Nor Juła:Ì Tparan Amenapʿrkčʿean Surb Vanacʿ [East Arm. translation 1980/81 by P. Petrosyan, Nor Juła:Ì Tparan Surb Amenapʿrkičʿ vankʿi]. Tʿevosyan, A. 1966. “Arsen Bagratunu lezvagitakan hayacʿkʿnerǝ” [The Linguistic Views of Arsen Bagratuni], Patma-banasirakan handes 1966/1, 217–224. Tʿeymurazyan, N. 1957. Komitas (Sołomonyan Sołomon Geworgi). Bibliografia, Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ Al. Miasnikyani anvan Petakan Ṙespublikakan Gradaran. Thomson, R.W. 2001. “Bitlis and Armenian Histories”, in Hovhannisian 2001, 105–117. Tololyan, Kh. 1999. “Textual Nation: Poetry and Nationalism in Armenian Political Culture”, in Suny & Kennedy 1999, 79–102. Tololyan, M. 1989. “Shahamir Shahamirian’s Vorogait Parats”, The Armenian Review 42/2, 25–35. Tsironis, N. (ed.) 2008. The Book in Byzantium: Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Bookbinding (Vivlioamphiastis 3), Athens: The Hellenic Society for Bookbinding. Tʿumanyan, H. 1945. Sayatʿ-Nova, Erevan: Haypethrat. Uluhogian, G. 1985. “La pubblicistica armena a Tiflis intorno alla metà del xix secolo”, in Magarotto & Scarcia 1985, 67–81. 464 lucca

Uluhogian, G. 2002. “Note sull’attività filologica e linguistica dei Mechitaristi di San Lazzaro”, Rassegna armenisti italiani 5, 9–13. Uluhogian, G. 2004. “Tra documentazione e filologia: le scuole mechitariste di Venezia e Vienna”, in Zekiyan & Ferrari 2004, 223–237. Utʿujyan, A. 1975. “Grigor Daranałecʿin M. Čʿamčʿyani Patmutʿyan ałbyur” [Grigor Daranałecʿi as a Source of Čʿamčʿean’s History], Lraber 1975/2, 81–89. Utʿujyan, A. 1976. “Hovhannisik Carecʿin (XVI dar) orpes Mikʿayel Čʿamčʿyani Patmutʿyan ałbyur” [Hovhannisik Carecʿin as a Source of Mikʿayel Čʿamčʿean’s History], Banber Erevani Hamalsarani 1976/2, 195–200. Weitenberg, J.S. 1990. “XVII dari latinatip kʿerakanutʿiwnǝ” [The Latinizing Grammar of the 17th century], Patma-banasirakan handes 1990/4, 31–38. Weitenberg, J.S. 1995a. (ed.), New Approaches to Medieval Armenian Language and Literature, Amsterdam & Atlanta, GA: Rodopi B.V. Weitenberg, J.S. 1995b. “La grammaire arménienne “latinatip” du XVIIe siècle”, in Smoczyński 1995, 461–472. Xačʿatryan, P. (ed.) 1991. Nor tetrak or kočʿvum ē Hordorak [New Booklet Entitled Exhortation] Erevan: Erevani Hamalsarani Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Xačʿatryan, P. & Safaryan, G. (eds) 2002. Orogaytʿ pʿaṙacʿ [Snare of Glory], Erevan: Hayastan Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Xačʿikyan L.S. 1960. “Tntesakan gorcarkʿneri masin grarumnerǝ hayeren jeragreri meǰ ev nrancʿ ałbyuragitakan nšanakutʿyunǝ”, Banber Matenadarani 5, 21–41. Xačʿikyan L.S. 1966. “The Ledger of the Merchant Hovannes Joughayetsi”, Journal of the Asiatic Society 8, 153–196. Xačʿikyan L.S. 1967. “Le registre d’un marchand arménien en Perse, en Inde et en Tibet (1682–1693)”, Annales : Économies, Sociétés, Civilisations 22/2, 231–278. Xačʿikyan, L.S. & Pʿapʿazyan, H.D. 1984. Hovhannes Ter-Davtʿean JułayecʿuÌ Hašvetumarǝ [The Accounting Ledger of Yovhannēs Ter-Davtʿean of Julfa], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Xačʿikyan, Š. 1980. “1667 tʿ. hay-rusakan arevtrakan paymanagirǝ ev Nor JułayiÌ inkna- var marminnerǝ” [The Armenian-Russian Commercial Agreement and the Autonomous Organizations of New Julfa], Haykazean Hayagitakan Handes/ Haigazian Armenological Review 8, 259–288. Xačʿikyan, Š. 1988. Nor JułayiÌ hay vačaṙakanutʿyunǝ ev nra aṙevtratntesakan kaperǝ Ṙusastani het XVII–XVIII darerum [The Armenian Merchants of New Julfa and their Economic and Commercial Relations with Russia in the 17th–18th Centuries], Erevan: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Xačʿikyan, Š. 1994. Šahvelu ordi Sarhadi hašvematʿyanǝ, Erevan: Gitutʿyun. Xačʿikyan, Š. 2012. “Sarhad’s Account-Book as a Source for Studying the Commercial Activities of New Julfa Merchants in the Eighteenth Century”, in Floor & Herzig 2012, 285–290. philology, documentary research, & cultural diffusion 465

Xalatʿeancʿ, G. 1887a. Märchen und Sagen, (Armenische Bibliothek, 4) Leipzig: Verlag von Wilhelm Friedrich. Xalatʿeancʿ, G. 1887b. Cragir hay azgagrutʿean ew azgayin iravabanakan sovorutʿiwnneri [Plan for Armenian Ethnography and Ethnic Judicial Customs], Moskva: Tparan Ō. Hērbēki. Xalatʿeancʿ, G. 1896. Armjanskij epos v Istorii Armenii Moiseja Xorenskogo, Moskva: tip. Varvary Gatcuk. Xalatʿeancʿ, G. 1898. “David Sasunskij”, in Aa.Vv. 1898, 59–81. Xanlaryan, L. 1973. Kniga istorij/Arakel Davrižeci [Book of History/Aṙakʿel Dawrižecʿi], Moskva: Nauka. Xanlaryan, L. & Abgaryan, G. 1990. (eds), Aṙakʿel Dawrižecʿi. Girkʿ patmutʿeancʿ [Aṙakʿel Dawrižecʿi. Book of Histories], Erevan: Haykakan XSH GA Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Xaṙatyan, A. 2003. “Mełu” handesi (1856–1865) matenagitutʿyun” [Bibliography of the Journal Mełu, 1856–1865], Erevan: Nahapet. Xaṙatyan, A., Mxitʿaryan, M. & Geworgyan, L. 2006. Hay parberakan mamuli patmutʿyun. XVIII–XIX darer [History of the Armenian Periodical Press. The 18th– 19th Centuries], Gahirē: Nubar. Yovhannēs Jułayecʿi.Ì 1812. Girkʿ or kočʿi Srbaznagorcutʿiwn [Book Called Religious Ceremony], Madras: Sargis Catur Ałavalyancʿi. Zakʿaria Kʿanakʿeṙcʿi. 1870. Zakʿareay sarkawagi Patmagrutʿiwn [Chronicle of the Deacon Zakʿaria], 3 vols., Vałaršapat: tparan Srboy Katʿołikē Ēǰmiacni (Russian translation: Darbinjan & Melikjan 1969). Zekiyan, B.L. 1977. Mechitar di Sebaste rinnovatore e pioniere, Venezia: S. Lazzaro. Zekiyan, B.L. 1978. “Mékhitar de Sébaste”, in Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, vol. X, Paris, 940–950. Zekiyan, B.L. 1986. “Il popolo armeno: richiami storici”, in Alpago Novello et al., 1986, 47–88. Zekiyan, B.L. 1993. “Il monachesimo mechitarista a San Lazzaro e la rinascita armena del Settecento”, in Bertoli 1993, 221–248. Zekiyan, B.L. 1997. The Armenian Way to Modernity, Venezia: Supernova. Zekiyan, B.L. 2004. “La visione di Mechitar del mondo e della Chiesa: una Weltanshauung tra teologia e umanesimo”, in Zekiyan & Ferrari 2004, 177–200. Zekiyan B.L. & Ferrari, A. (eds) 2004. Gli Armeni e Venezia. Dagli Sceriman a Mechitar: il momento culminante di una consuetudine millenaria, Venezia: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti. Zōhrapean, Y. (ed.) 1805. Astuacašunčʿ Matean Hin ew Nor Ktakaranacʿ [Bible. Old and New Testaments], 4 vols., i Venētik: i gorzarani Srboyn Łazaru. Zulalyan, M.K. 1962. “Ē. Čʿelebou ‘Seyahetʿ-name’-n orpes XVII dari Arevmtyan Hayastani socʿial-tntesakan patmutʿyan ałbyurnericʿ mekǝ” [Ē. Čʿelebi’s “Seyahet- Name” as a Source of the Socio-economic History of Western Armenia in the 17th Century], Patma-banasirakan handes 1962/4, 129–142. The Publication of Armenian Literature in the Twentieth Century (1920–2000)

Harout Kurkjian

1 The Situation of Armenians at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century

The first decade of the twentieth century found the Armenian population in the paradoxical situation of insecurity and emerging at the same time: concentrated in historical Armenia in both its western and eastern sectors, as the “Armenian provinces” of two Empires separated by the international Russo- Turkish border; subject in the west to quasi-medieval Ottoman oppression and in the east, to tsarist colonization which meant a soft, slow Russification. Yet, they were also established, and sometimes had been for a long time, in metropolitan centers such as Constantinople and Smyrna on the one hand and, on the other hand, in Tbilisi, Baku and to a lesser extent in provincial centers such as Shusha and Alexandrapol-Gyumri (now respectively in the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh and northwestern Armenia). In addition, there were what we might call “proper” diasporic centers such as in Nor Nakhitchevan-on-the- Don, Moscow, and St. Petersburg in Russia, and Venice and Vienna in Europe. There were also colonies and groups of intellectuals established in Egypt, the Balkans, and elsewhere. It was in these urban centers both near and far that the awakening of Armenian national identity had been triggered a century earlier, echoing the “Enlightenment” and the reawakening of European nationalities. Accompanied by an activation of historical memory and cultural values, it was immediately followed by the renewal of the language (creation of modern Armenian in two branches, “Western” and “Eastern”), the foundation of schools, publishers, a periodical press (admittedly fairly basic at the beginning, but lively and varied), and modern literature. Founded and led by pioneers, publishing activity, though somewhat dispersed due to the geopolitical and cultural situation of the Armenians, expressed a strong tendency for communication and bringing people together, crossing over the imposed boundaries that extended towards the population of the “Country” itself and the provinces. This undertaking met with very little success, especially on the Ottoman side, oppressed under the double burden of socio-economic under-development and of ethnic

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��4 | doi ��.��63/978904270961_�2� the publication of western armenian literature 467 persecution, while the Russian sector enjoyed sufficient conditions of security and development. In Europe, before the beginning of the century, pre-diasporic footholds already existed, from the time of the first great massacres (1895–1896). This was the case of France in Western Europe, of Bulgaria in the Balkans, and of Egypt in the Middle East, not to mention Venice and later Vienna, with their communities of Mekhitarist Fathers whose influenced lasted for two centuries. Moreover, we cannot forget the Armenian presence in Switzerland, in Geneva and Lausanne, all stopping-off places for students and revolutionary activists. In Paris, the writer Arshag Chʿōbanian (Aršak Čʿōpanean) had already had, for a quarter of a century, a frenetic literary activity: publication of the literary magazine Anahid (Anahit) and works of commentary or literary analysis, as well as translations and writings presenting popular Armenian literature.1 The eve of the First World War was a period of relative renaissance in Western Armenia, thanks to the proclamation of the Ottoman Constitution of 1908. These years were characterized by an unprecedented cultural flourishing, marked among other things by the celebration of the 1500th anniversary of the invention of the Armenian alphabet and the 400th anniversary of printing in the Armenian language in 1912–13, especially in Constantinople. Moreover, for the first time, provincial cities such as Van, Sivas, Karin (Erzurum), and Kharput (Harput, Elâzığ) found themselves with publishers, a periodical press, and their first publications, unfortunately also destined to be their last. Such was the context in which Armenian publishing experienced its first boom in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, before the outbreak of the First World War. Yet, the geopolitical and cultural map of the Armenian world just described would suffer irreparable upheavals during and after the First World War: the annihilation of the majority of the population of historical Armenia as a result of the genocidal project of the Ittihadist government; the temporary

1 As, for example, the Tiwan [Diwan, Collection] of the medieval poet Nahapet Kʿučʿak, in 1902 (later, from 1918, Chʿōbanian would publish it in French, under the title La Roseraie d’Arménie); the work of the poet Mgrdichʿ Beshigtʿashlian with a preface and commentary (1904); a biographical and literary study of the work of the same M. Beshigtʿashlian (1907); a collection of his own poems, Kʿertʿvadzneru havakʿadzo [Kʿertʿuacneru hawakʿacoy, Collection of poems], in 1908; Naghash Hovnatʿan ashoughĕ ew Naghash Hovnatʿan ngarichʿĕ [Nałaš Hovnatʿan ašułǝ ew Nałaš Hovnatʿan nkaričʿǝ, The Troubador and painter Naghash Hovnatʿan] in 1910; Hay ēcher [Hay ēǰer, Armenian pages], an anthology of medieval poets (1912), etc. Moreover, he translated into Armenian and then published works by A. de Vigny, G. Flaubert, Th. de Banville, and A. France. 468 kurkjian withdrawal of Russia from the Caucasian scene; and the proclamation of an independent Republic between 1918 and 1920, which was then Sovietized by the forceful return of the Red Army. Meanwhile, the large communities in Baku, Tbilisi, and Russian cities were more or less reduced to silence and withered away, while Yerevan – the provincial town that had already become the capital of the independent Republic in 1918 – assumed the role of cultural capital for Eastern Armenians. To the west, the Constantinople community, as the sole survivors of Ottoman Armenia after a final jolt between 1918 and 1922, was silenced by the Kemalist occupation of the ancient capital of the empire. Western Armenian culture, cruelly decimated and uprooted, in order to survive was condemned to a crippled survival between that city (which had previously been the cradle of its adoption, but was constantly fertilized by the humus of a land with a multi-millennial history) and a new dispersion, which was even more radical than before, and perhaps past the point of no return. As for the panorama of editions from this period, two facts may help us to get an idea of the chaos of the period 1914–1922. First, it is important to recall that in January 1920, Nikol Aghbalian (Nikol Ałbalean), Education Minister of the still-independent Republic of Armenia, founder of the first university in Armenia (in Alexandrapol, in January 1920) and illustrious literary critic, in a conference presentation, hailed the work of a poet hitherto unknown, Yeghishē Chʿarentsʿ (Ełišē Čʿarencʿ). He had seen the first collections of Chʿarentsʿ’ work in Baku few years before. This great critic, also known for his commitment to brilliant new talent, apologized for this delay in reporting on new authors, attributing it, with good reason, to critical historical developments and the need for him to participate in them.2 Another case, truly tragic, is that of the publication in 1921 in Constantinople of the posthumous collection the Song of Bread by poet Taniēl Varuzhan (Daniēl Varužan), murdered with hundreds of his colleagues during the summer of 1915 by special squads of the Ittihadist regime. The manuscript had been preserved by pure chance in the basement of a police station in the capital and was returned to his widow and friends just after the Armistice.3

2 Ałbalean 1959. 3 Hatsʿin yerkĕ [Hacʿin ergǝ, The Song of Bread], Taniēl Varuzhan, by the association Navasart (Nawasard), Constantinople, 1921. This collection would be reprinted several times in the Diaspora and in Armenia, most often as part of the complete works of the poet, but also as a separate publication. One of the last to date, that of Istanbul in 2003, is also a first for Armenian editions in Turkey, where Varuzhan was taboo for a long time. the publication of western armenian literature 469

2 From Constantinople to the Great Diaspora (1920–1990)

2.1 Literary Activity in Constantinople from 1918–1922 Before attempting to present the work of publishing within the Armenian Diaspora, one fundamental point must be addressed: it is nearly impossible for any serious researcher to compile a complete inventory. There are hardly any exhaustive inventories of books published in the twenty centers of the community scattered throughout the countries of Europe, America (North and South), and the Middle East, nor a complete list of the printers who published them.4 This present panorama, without ambition of completeness, inevitably suffers from the flawed condition of those preliminary studies. To this approximate panorama of publishing in the major centers of the Diaspora, I will add an overview and assessment of the relationship between the Diaspora and Armenia (especially Soviet Armenia). In conclusion, we will find that there has been a relative normalization of these relations after Armenia’s new independence in the 1990s, and their connections have become somewhat closer, even though at first, Armenia was temporarily in a state of quasi-diasporic confusion or worse, resulting from anarchy and deprivation. As noted above, the “proper” Diaspora period, mainly involving Western Armenians,5 was preceded in Constantinople by an attempt at renewing publishing activity: newspapers and periodicals started up as well as printing houses. Despite the atmosphere of desolation and grief, the will was there to try to overcome the terrible bloodbath. Among the newspapers, Jagadamart [ÏJakatamard, Frontal Fight], direct heir of the now defunct Azadamart [Azatamard, Freedom Struggle], was led by Shavarsh Misakʿian (Šavarš Misakʿean), straight out of the Ittihad jails where he survived torture, not to mention suicide attempts.6 Vahan Tʿēkʿēian (Tʿēkʿēean)6 and Hagop Ōshagan

4 There are more studies on the periodical press, on those newspapers and magazines that became centers for both publication as well as dissemination of works (of historical-political content but also often literary). Although they are not exhaustive, they are of much better quality, thanks to the contribution of philologists such as Ardashēs Dēr Khachʿadurian (Artašēs Tēr Xačʿaturean) and Zhirayr Taniēlian (Daniēlean). For the latter, see Panasiragan voronumner [Banasirakan oronumner, Philological Researches], Beirut, 1996. 5 The Armenians of Iran are today considered as part of that Diaspora, regardless of the fact that their exodus (which was a forced exodus, like that of the Western Armenians) happened four centuries ago and that they are more Eastern Armenian; they are still included in this Diaspora because of their geo-political status as an ethnic minority living far away from their homeland. 6 The dailies Azadamard, Jakadamard, as well as the journalist Misakʿian himself, were part of the FRA, the Armenian Socialist Party Dashnaktsʿutʿiwn (Dašnakcʿutʿiwn). Tʿēkʿēian, poet 470 kurkjian

(Yakob Ōšakan) were also surviving writers, the first thanks to his absence during the arrests, due by pure chance to an administrative mission that had kept him in Palestine and Egypt, the second thanks to being smuggled to Bulgaria, after months of nightmarish flight from one hiding place to another in the attics of the capital. Backed by Kostan Zarian (Kostan Zarean),7 they published the journal Partsravankʿ [Barjravankʿ, The Monastery seen from the top], while teaching in Constantinople secondary schools. In a very short period of time, they were able to train a group of young students, or at least cultivate an interest in them for writing. Some of these students would be among the brightest or most productive of the generation of the years 1930–1940: Nigoghos Sarafian (Nikołos Sarafean), Zareh Vorpuni (Zareh Orbuni), his real name Ēōkʿsiwzian (Ēōkʿsiwzean), and Aram Haygaz (Aram Haykaz), his real name Chʿekʿemian (Čekʿemean), among others. It is this in period that the posthumous book The Song of the Bread by Taniēl Varuzhan († 1915), as well as the consecutive collections by the young post- war poet Mattʿēos Zarifian (Mattʿēos Zarifean) and the work of poetic prose by Hagop Ōshagan, mentioned above, were published.8 The latter, a literature teacher at the central Secondary School Getronagan [Kedronakan, Central], invited two of his senior year students to compose a laborious master’s thesis of literary analysis, based on psychology, of the personality and the work of Yeghia Dēmirjibashian (Ełia Tēmirǰipašean), the “cursed poet” of the previous generation. The thesis was immediately published in a fairly large volume with well-furnished appartus, which shows a commitment to survival

and editor of literary journals, but also editor of activist papers of political information, belonged to the liberal party (in Armenian known as the Ṙamgavar [Ṙamkavar] Party, Liberal Democrat). However, his militant convictions are barely visible in his work (which is pure poetry, with symbolic resonance), except for his patriotism which was vibrant yet discreet. 7 Kostan Zarian, born in Transcaucasia (1884), was educated in Europe and returned to Armenia as an adult (in the linguistic sense, this means he learned Armenian literature at the Mekhitarist convent of St. Lazare in Venice). His literary activity was in full swing before the outbreak of war in Constantinople Mehian [Mehean, Pagan Temple, 1914). His means of expression are a curious synthesis in which Eastern Armenian and Western Armenian mutually enrich each other. During the post-war years, he published Ōreri Bsagĕ [Ōreri psakǝ, The Crown of Days], a collection of poems. 8 The second and final collection by M. Zarifian, Gianki ew mahvan yerker [Keankʿi ew mahuan erger, Songs of Life and Death], dates from 1922, as does the work of poetic narratives by Hagop Ōshagan, Khorhurtneru mehian [Xorhurdneru Mehean, Temple of Mysteries]. the publication of western armenian literature 471 and cultural and pedagogical self-affirmation.9 Often, these kinds of publications result from the initiative of little-known publishing houses. At the same time, they show the intention to launch new series which, although destined to have an ephemeral existence, are nonetheless evidence of the same kind of desire for resurrection and reveal a relative optimism.10 The same vitality is also expressed by reprinting out-of-print works by authors from the previous generation, both Constantinopolitan and Eastern Armenian.11 The Kemalist occupation would deal the deathblow to this growing renaissance, causing a new exodus of a large number of intellectuals to Egypt, the Balkans and Western Europe. Henceforth, the community of the former capital would only be able to keep a minimum of cultural activity alive, tolerated precisely because of its status as an urban minority community. Even in this position, deprived of their own homeland and therefore totally “harmless”, for decades this community would suffer segregation and cultural repression by the quasi-military fascist regime. However, their situation was enviable compared to the few surviving groups in Anatolia, forced into a completely underground existence, even forced Turkification – in other words, conditions in which any collective cultural activity was strictly inconceivable. The cultural life of the Armenians in Constantinople after 1922 will be discussed further below. Here, I will now turn to describing in detail the activity of this large Diaspora, starting with the West.

2.2 Armenian Communities in the West In discussing the period of the Great Diaspora, it is worth noting a pattern that the publishing industry often utilized: the publication of a periodical press, whether daily, weekly or monthly, would become the home for the publication of literary works, even constituting, in the case of minor communities, the only form of publishing possible. This is owed first to the understandable fact that

9 Yeghia Dēmirjibashian, ir giankʿn u kordzĕ [Ełia Tēmirčipašean, ir keankʿn u gorcǝ, Yeghia Dēmirjibashian, His Life and Work], by Kegham Fenērjian (Gełam Fenērčean) and by Hrachʿ Bedrosian (Hračʿ Petrosean), Constantinople, 1921. 10 Such as with the journal Vosdan [Ostan, Metropolis] that M. Shamdanjian republished in 1919, at the same time inaugurating a series of works, primarily reprints, before his hasty departure (he would settle in Beirut, where a new journal Hay giankʿ would last a long time); or like the bookstore Haygashēn (Haykašēn), Vaghinag Piwrad (Vałinak Biwrad) and Goshgarian (Koškarean) editions. 11 For example, the voluminous collection Panasdeghdzutʿiwnner [Banastełcutʿiwnner, Poems] by H. Tʿumanian (Tʿumanean), in 1922, by the publisher-printer Kʿēshishian (Kʿēšišean). 472 kurkjian the editor or director of the newspaper, whether a native speaker or specially convened from the outside to fill this task, was often a writer: he would publish his own works, he would gather around himself fellow writers often with similar tendencies, and he would publish their works. In addition, this periodical press had the necessarily facilities, whether partial or complete, for the technical production of books, that is a printing press (an essential tool, at least until the dawn of the computer era towards the end of the century). In addition to the periodical press, the publishing business was promoted by associations (cultural or, more properly, publishing associations) especially when the communities were considerable, as that of France. This was the case for example, with the association “Nahadag Krakēdneru Paregamner” [Nahatak Gragētneru Barekamner, Friends of Writer-Martyrs] in France.12 It is also important to remember the importance of individual patronage which, at the beginning, functioned primarily for authors who were from a more well- off, liberal-bourgeois milieu. Apart from these publications which enjoyed institutional support or benefactors, it was generally the rule that authors published at their own initiative (and their own expense, above all in France). These works are characterized by having a very limited print run and almost no market for selling them. In fact, books were often distributed in the form of signed copies and offered to friends. This was the case with the collections of N. Sarafian, Z. Vorpuni, Aharon Dadurian (Aharon Taturean), and Puzant Tʿopʿalian (Buzand Tʿopʿalean), the latter enjoying the “privilege” of owning the Araxe (Arakʿs) printing house and of typesetting his own works. Thus, literary activity was thus “overtime” work, alongside another economic activity for survival. The authors who lived by their pen, as did humorist and poet Nshan Bēshigtʿashlian (Nšan Pēšiktʿašlean), are isolated examples; in most cases writers were instead forced to personally take up selling their books, with all of the hassles involved. There were, however, in France as elsewhere, individuals who had a passion for literature or books in general and promoted themselves into independent publishers. This phenomenon, of course very common in the business world of publishing, would normally not deserve to be mentioned if the publication of literary works in the Armenian Diaspora constituted even the slightest lucrative market. Yet, this

12 This association would prepare and publish in the 1930s the works of Ṙupēn Zartarian (Ṙubēn Zardarean), Melkon Giwrjian (Melgon Kiwrčean), Arpʿiar Arpʿiarian, Krikor Zōhrab (Grigor Zōhrap), and Ṙupēn Sewag (Ṙubēn Sewak). It also published the works of Yeghia Dēmirjibashian, Yervant Ōdian (Eruand Ōtean), and anthologies by authors of the rising generation, from the Diaspora and from Armenia: Arti Hay kraganutʿiwn [Ardi Hay grakanutʿiwn, Modern Armenian Literature], in three volumes. the publication of western armenian literature 473 was hardly the case; the problems of distributing Armenian books were hardly overcome in the sense of contemporary marketing, and therefore this type of activist-editor deserves mention. As this phenomenon was more specific to communities in the Middle East, I will discuss it further below. All of this suggests that the work of publishing in the Diaspora was, with a few exceptions, not very professional, although not totally devoid of the qualities that such a level of publishing presupposes and requires.

2.3 France It was France that would, over the decades 1920–1930, become the main haven taking in the intelligentsia and young people struggling to survive, from both an economic and cultural point of view. Having left either Turkey or recently- Sovietized Armenia (in the latter case mainly intellectuals of the Armenian National Front), these groups had settled in France, for a more or less long period of time, and some permanently, in Paris, but also in Marseilles, a port and stopover on the way to the capital. Among the elder intellectuals, I should mention Lewon Shantʿ (Lewon Šantʿ), Vahan Tʿēkʿēian, Awetis Aharonian (Awetis Aharonean), Zabēl Yesayian (Zapēl Esayean), Simon Vratsian (Simon Vracʿean), and Aram Andonian (Aram Antonean). Some of them published part of their works in France during their time in that country.13 The young, future writers of the “Paris Generation” or “Paris School” were among the tens of thousands of Armenian immigrants in the 1920s who settled in these same cities. In the best case, they had a secondary school degree in hand. They lived in a fairly chaotic situation, where the Church was the primary meeting place for newcomers (of very different ages, conditions and tendencies). It was in this context that their first collections of poetry and narratives,14

13 Vahan Tʿēkʿēian lived between Cairo and Paris. In the latter city, he would publish all of his “diasporic” collections, except for Hayerkutʿiwn [Hayergutʿiwn, Songs for Armenia], which was published in Cairo in 1943. Zabēl Yesayian, however, would wander during his European years between Paris, Vienna, Sofia, Salonica, even Boston and finally Yerevan, where he would end up settling in 1933. Awedis Aharonian, one of the leaders of the fallen Republic and constantly in contact with the publisher Hayrenikʿ in Boston, published only his autobiography in two volumes in France between 1927 and 1931, Im girkʿĕ. Mankutʿiwn ew patanutʿiwn [My Book: Childhood and Adolescence]. As for Chʿōbanian, he was just as active, and exclusively in France: Dghu Hokiner [Tłu hoginer, The Souls of a Child], in 1923; Tēmker [Dēmkʿer, Figures], I and II, respectively in 1924 and 1929; Hayreni Kʿnar [Hayreni kʿnar, Lyre of the Homeland], in 1925, not to mention his production in French. 14 For example, the poetry collection Anchrbedi mĕ kravumĕ [Anǰǝrpeti mǝ grawumǝ, Conquest of a Space] by Nigoghos Sarafian, Paris, 1928; and two collections: Pʿortsĕ [Pʿorjǝ, 474 kurkjian sometimes even ephemeral journals, appeared: Nor Hawadkʿ [Nor Hawatkʿ, New Faith], Hay Kir [Hay Gir, Armenian Letter], Amrots [Amrocʿ, Fortress] and Menkʿ [Us]. The latter (1930–1933) was a collective manifestation, the expression of the temperament of this new generation (the unhappy conscience of young expatriates, mixed with a kind of fever, often rather morbid, and specific to the Roaring Twenties) and the bearer of its slogans. Sometimes, the elder writers visibly had more resources. A swarm of literary and artistic, more generally, cultural journals that were more substantial than their predecessors, and sometimes less ephemeral, appeared simultaneously or successively. I should mention, for example, the Anahid by Chʿōbanian (2nd period), Zvartʿnots [Zuartʿnocʿ, Guardian Angels] by Hrand Paluian (Hrant Baluean), and Vēm [Vēm, Rock] by Simon Vratsian. Tʿēotig (Tʿēodik), the tireless editor of the series Amenun daretsuyts [Amenun tarecʿoycʿ, The Almanac for All] in Constantinople, would publish his last volumes there before his death in 1928. The publisher and bookseller Mgrdichʿ Barsamian (Mkrtičʿ Parsamean) published his literary almanacs Giankʿ ew Arvesd [Keankʿ ew Aruest, Life and Art] in addition to his own works of monographs and essays. The bookshop Samuelian developed into a specialized Oriental bookshop. The bookseller Palouyan was especially involved in the writing and publication of his journal Zvartʿnots. But it would be the journalist Shavarsh Missakian, wea- ried by his ordeals that nevertheless did not dampen his youthful spirit and dynamism, who would very early on take the initiative to publish the newspaper Haratch [Yaṙaǰ, Onward!], a militant paper but strongly marked by the individual character of its founder. Open to elders as well as young people more broadly than the average “party” newspaper, Haratch would serve as a meeting ground between its militants, their supporters, and many uncommit- ted people. The novel Retreat without Fanfare [Nahanǰǝ aṙancʿ ergi] by Shahan Shahnur (Šahan Šahnur) was published in this newspaper in its entirety as a preview. Other works would also be published in serial form. Similarly, in 1933 the Series Haratch would be inaugurated, namely a collection of literary works.15 The general style adopted by the new (and the less new) generation was most often self-publishing: the young Luisa Aslanian (Aslanean, alias Las) published two volumes of her novel in 1936, the poet A. Dadurian published his first two

The Attempt] by Zareh Vorpuni (Marseille 1929), and Nahanchĕ aṙantsʿ yerki [Nahanǰǝ aṙancʿ ergi, Retreat without Fanfare] by Shahan Shahnur, Paris, 1929. 15 Such as the work by the young Shavarsh Nartuni: Meghetiner, meghetiner [Mełetiner, mełetiner, Melodies, melodies]. Haratch would thus publish a number of volumes over the decades and until the recent shutdown of the paper. the publication of western armenian literature 475 collections in Paris, rather late, just before the Second World War, between 1937 and 1939. N. Sarafian, after his first publication, still in Paris and still a lone wolf, published two new collections during the same decade. It was the same for the poet and prose writer Sema, alias Kegham Atmajian (Gełam Atmačean), who published his works there in conjunction with his journal Amrots before leaving to die on the Belgian front of the Second World War. Vazkēn Shushanian (Vazkēn Šušanean), another emblematic figure of the same generation, published his poems and stories in the literary press that was developing in France, particularly in journals in which he was often a founding member or editor, but also abroad, especially in Hayrenikʿ [Fatherland] in Boston. Apart from a few small volumes published during his lifetime, many of the scattered works by this popular author in the Armenian Diaspora would be grouped together in posthumous publications, published in Lebanon and elsewhere, from the 1950s (his unpublished writings, his diary, and other preserved manuscripts, were published bit by bit in Beirut or Yerevan).16 Finally, I have already alluded to the prolific N. Beshigtʿashlian, who published fifteen books in Paris (from 1927), before later turning to printers and publishers in Cairo and Beirut. With and after the Second World War, there was a gradual decline that the surviving organizations, such as the Association of Armenian men of letters, or the weekly Arewmudkʿ [Arewmutkʿ, West] or journals such as Antasdan [Andastan, Labours] (18 journals between 1952 and 1969) by the poet-printer- publisher Puzant Topalian, who was still publishing his own books in his printing house Araxe, or other printers such as Turabian (Turabean), Masis, Dēr Hagopian (Tēr Yakobean), would fail to halt. The struggle for survival, then for economic integration, had sapped two generations who very often relegated the teaching of their native language to the background. The centralizing and universalizing atmosphere of their host country did the rest. Fewer and fewer books would be created and published in Paris in Armenian, and “native” names became rare in the publishing world, at least of those born in France.17

16 This popularity echoes the paradoxical, if not contradictory, interest in Shahnur, or at least for his novel, Retreat without Fanfare, mentioned above. This popularity was ambiva- lent, coupled with outraged conscience, because the content was somewhat iconoclastic, both in moral and “national” terms. Analyzing this phenomenon is beyond the scope of the present chapter. 17 P. Tʿopʿalian, one of the youngest of that generation, continued to produce and publish throughout the 1950s and 60s: five collections, all in Paris. Z. Vorpuni, after his Antsrewod ōrer [Anjrewot ōrer, Rainy Days] in Paris in 1958, would publish there the novel Ew yeghev Mart [Ew ełew mard, And this was Man]. N. Sarafian, after a final collection in Paris in 1946, preferred to publish his last (in his lifetime) in Beirut in 1971 in the series of the journal Ahegan, whose group considered him to be the founder of diasporic literature. 476 kurkjian

This retreat of the Armenian-speaking community and culture and its relative acculturation, although not necessarily accompanied by a loss of sense of belonging, was finished at the turn of the last quarter century. Especially after the demise of the daily Gamkʿ [Kamkʿ, Will] published for a decade, Haratch, run by Arpʿik Misakʿian (Arpʿik Misakʿean) faithful to the legacy of his father Shavarsh, remained for years the sole torch bearer of Armenian daily newspapers in France, before closing in turn on May 30, 2009. The latter relied on the cultural monthly supplements Midkʿ ew Arvesd [Mitkʿ ew Arvest, Mind and Art] and promoted the publication of literary works in episodes.18 Weeklies such as Abaka [Apagay, Future], followed by Ashkharh [Ašxarh, World] in turn revealed a certain presence.19 A new wave of immigration took place, especially starting in the 1960s, from Istanbul, Aleppo and Beirut; it was less massive but still fairly substantial. Although this resulted in the establishment of a thin, although late, network of new schools, it was however not able to significantly change the state of facts, other than granting a reprieve to the general decline.20 Nevertheless, this

Whereas the posthumous publication of his prose work Vēnsēni andaṙĕ [Vēnsēni antaṙǝ, The Bois de Vincennes] first published in the journal Nayiri in Aleppo in 1948, would occur in Paris, in 1988 (series Art, led by writer K. Beledian). The poet Harutʿ Kostantian (Yarutʿ Kostantean) after a first collection in Paris in 1935, would publish his second volume in Beirut (1974), while Zulal Kʿazanjian (Zulal Kʿazančean), the youngest son of a generation, would split his publications between Paris and Venice. As an example of one of those rare “native speakers” born in France itself, one should mention Marc Nichanian, whose quality periodical publication Gam. Hantēs verludzagan [Kam. Handēs verlucakan, Gam. Analytical Review] was first published in France (the first volume in 1980), and was then transported to survivors in America, depending on the opportunities available and sometimes, too, following the peregrinations of the author- publisher, a truely diasporic figure. 18 Especially C. Shahnur’s collections of essays or quasi-biographical stories gathered from the press of the years before the war, but also new texts: from Azadn Gomidas [Azatn Komitas, Gomidas the Free] in 1970 up until Sird srdi [Sirt srti, Heart against Heart] in 1995. 19 Abaka was long run by Awedis Alikʿsanian (Awetis Alikʿsanean), a journalist and writer of Constantinople who settled in France around 1950. These newspapers were finally replaced by political news magazines, thereafter in French but with a few inserts in Armenian. 20 Regarding the teaching of the Armenian language, the Armenian section of INALCO must be mentioned, which has, over a long history of successive ebbs and flows, maintained some presence in academia as well as among the community. I should also mention the Armenian courses or departments in the University of Aix-Marseille and the Catholic University of Lyon. Within French-speaking communities, one should also note the Chair the publication of western armenian literature 477 new wave did contribute to injecting younger blood into the constellation of Armenians in the process of dying out, thanks to the arrival of new names of authors born elsewhere. These new authors had a good background knowledge of the original language and its literature, and sometimes a prestigious literary and philosophical background, to the point of creating a adequate, even harmonious language of communication with the rare “native speakers,” such as Marc Nichanian (Nšanean).21 Even those native speakers, although they lived in France, were most often published abroad: an author such as Krikor Beledian (Grigor Pǝltʿean) born and educated in Beirut and Paris, published very little in Paris, and the Armenian cultural deficiency of this formerly great center was surely no stranger to this kind of phenomenon.22 Certainly, one can not speak of a publishing desert: the first two issues of Gaykʿ [Kaykʿ, Place], the journal of the Association des gens de lettres arméniens, reconstituted during the 1980s-1990s were published in Paris.23 The Cahiers de la Quatra or the Erebuni Editions, a series of contemporary Diaspora poetry, along with some reprints of classic Constantinopolitan authors such Arpʿiar Arpʿiarian (Arpʿiar Arpʿiarean) and Indra-Diran Chʿrakʿian (Intra-Tiran Čʿrakʿean), were sometimes published by printers in Jerusalem or Beirut. Such ad hoc initiatives24 helped to maintain a minimum level of activity in the field of publishing for the last decades of the twentieth century.

2.4 Elsewhere in Europe In Italy, the Mekhitarist Congregation of St. Lazare made a remarkable contribution for nearly two centuries. Its journal Bazmavēp [Polyhistory], relates to philology and history, as was the case for most of the production of these Armenian monks. Regarding the period that interests us here, unlike their brothers settled in Vienna who tended to be more “scientific,” the congregation of St. Lazare continued to cultivate a literary vein at the same time, for

of Armenian Studies at the University of Geneva. These academic institutions have periodically manifested a presence over the years, through textbooks and linguistic or literary publications, especially in French. 21 Currently in the USA. 22 Other than the collection Vayrer [Places], 1983, Beledian published nothing in the Armenian language in France, but rather in the United States, Venice, Beirut, Aleppo and, more recently, in Yerevan – once again, an entirely diasporic situation. 23 A third issue of Gaykʿ was published in Yerevan in 1993. 24 The following authors were published in Paris, among others: Adrinē Dadrian (Atrinē Tatrean), Krikor Hampartsumian (Hambarjumean), Hilda Kalfayian (Galfayean), Garig Bazmajian, and Varteres Karagēōzian (Varderes Garakēōzean): originally from Istanbul or Jerusalem. 478 kurkjian example through works of the fathers Mesrob Janashian (Mesrop Čanašean) and Vahan Hovhannēsian (Vahan Yovhannēsean), both poets and educators who distinguished themselves by their collections of poems published after the 1950s, even more than through their school textbooks. In the field of publishing editions of literary texts for school use, the Venetians published the collection Kragan Tsolker [Grakan cʿolkʿer, Literary Reflections] in the 1950s–1960s.25 Over the last two decades of the century, in northern Italy, Switzerland, and elsewhere, in the context of universities or local institutes, we find departments or courses in Armenian studies, sometimes revealed in the publication of textbooks or periodicals (partly in Armenian). This phenomenon would serve to fill, of course only partially, the ebbing tide and the closing of schools such as Mourad-Raphaëlian (Murat-Ṙapʿayēlean) in Venice. The Balkan communities were active especially between the two world wars. In Bulgaria and Romania, editor-authors were busy working on newspapers26 such as: Armēn Sewan, alias Hovhannēs Dewejian (Yovhannēs Tewēčean), in Plovdiv and in Sofia with his monographs on Constantinople writers of the previous generation; the poet K. Kegharkʿuni (Gełarkʿuni); and the poet and above all literary critic and historian, Hagop Siruni in Bucharest.27 In Greece, in Athens as well as Thessaloniki, it was still around newspapers that cultural movements were organized: Nor Ōr [New Day), followed by Azad Ōr [Azat Ōr, Free Day], Sewan, Joghovurti Tsayn [Žołovurdi jayn, Voice of the People], and Horizon. Among the literary works, we find mainly collections of poetry, such as Dawigh Yewolian [Tawił Ewolean, Aeolian Harp] by Kēork Gaṙvarentsʿ (Gēorg Kaṙvarencʿ) or Vahaknadznunt [Vahagnacnund, The Birth

25 On the other hand, the congregation in Venice was more active in organizing its printing house, and continued to publish literary works. Authors living from France to the Balkans had recourse to this facility both before and after the war, and up till today: Zulal Kazanjian and Krikor Beledian, to mention only a few. In the small community of Milan, besides the poet Aramayis Srabian (Aramayis Srapean) who also published in Venice, one should point to the Proceedings of the ICOM and the proceedings of multilingual seminars, sometimes in Armenian, and dealing with cultural themes or more strictly literary ones, headed and published by painter and sculptor Herman Vahramian. Moreover, there is also OEMME Editions, which during the last quarter of the century distinguished themselves with several publications, including the prestigious series Documenti di Architettura Armena. Supplied with a text in Italian and English, it is often accompanied by a translation into Armenian. 26 See the weeklies, Hayastan and Masis, the literary almanacs Masis, Azad khōskʿ (Azat xōskʿ), Navasart and Nor Giankʿ, and the daily Araxe. 27 K. Kegharkʿuni (Gełarkʿuni) published a collection of poems and of stories in Venice and in Paris, before settling in Bulgaria and publishing his last works there around 1935–36. the publication of western armenian literature 479 of Vahagn] by Sōs Vani, alias Garabed Hovhannēsian (Karapet Yovhannēsean); anthologies such as Hellenagan Kʿnar [Hellenakan kʿnar, Hellenic Lyre], including Greek poets translated into Armenian by Vazkēn Yesayian (Vazkēn Esayean), himself a poet, or monographs, such as that on Arshag Chʿōbanian by Diran Alexanian (Tiran Alexanean); as well as a few volumes of the Hunahay Daregirkʿ [Yunahay Taregirkʿ, Armenian-Greek Almanac]. To this list can be added an impressive number of reprinted literary works, most often in serial form.28 All of this occurred before the war that would be particularly challenging for this community, and, with the subsequent emigration, would accelerate its decline. For the other Balkan countries, it would be worse: after the entry of the Red Army, they were imprisoned in the system of “people’s democracies”, which are very repressive for ethnic minorities. People like Armēn Sewan and Hagop Siruni, exiled to Siberia, would be silenced. From the 1960s to the end of the century, Athens retained a certain vitality, although somewhat diminished. Azad Ōr was still published there. The Armenian Editions (Haykakan Hratarakčʿakan), born from a policy initiative with a political bent, planned its publications accordingly, but left room for books with cultural, or even strictly literary, content. Also in Athens, the 1990s witnessed the development of a project preparing and printing textbooks of Armenian language and literature.29 Encompassing the entire European zone, but not limited to it, it is necessary to mention the Gulbenkian Foundation, which became an increasingly significant presence from Lisbon and especially after the 1980s, for both its publishing initiatives (alone or in cooperation with other institutions or bodies, such as the Catholicate of Cilicia in Lebanon) as well as its philanthropic work, a dual activity that gradually spread to Beirut, Aleppo, and Yerevan.

2.5 The United States Tracing out the curve of growth and decline in communities across the Atlantic is more complex. In fact, activity occurred mainly within the United States on

28 I must add to this list an impressive number of reprints of previous works, in the 1920s- 30s, by known writers such as Raffi, M. Mamurian (Mamurean), and Shirvanzadē (Širvanzadē). For the most part, at that time they consisted of serials in daily papers, printed on detachable pages, that were later bound together and would adorn the libraries of modest families. 29 The publication of Hayreni aghpiwr [Hayreni ałbiwr, Native Source], resulted from the private initative of H. Kurkjian (Kʿiwrkʿčean), and indicates another sign of the times: they were already using computerized techniques for composition and formatting. 480 kurkjian the east and west coasts. In the subject that interests us here, apart from these two important Armenian bastions, the continent has still been the scene of episodic events in Latin America for a few decades and, more recently, Canada. Already clearly visible in the pre-diasporic decades thanks to economic immigration, the Armenian community and its activities were organized on the Atlantic coast around Boston and New York. Hayrenikʿ Editions had their own publications, in addition to a newspaper of the same name (transported early on from New York to Boston and became a daily paper in 1915). I should also mention the publication of volume of the Complete Works of the poet Siamantʿō in 1910. Numerous other books have been printed by Hayrenikʿ, as well as by one or two other independent printer-publishers that still exist.30 From the 1920s, naturally, this activity took off for several decades. Hayrenikʿ, already a daily paper, under the aegis of its energetic director Ṙubēn Tarbinean (Ṙubēn Darbinean) it would be added to by the Hayrenikʿ Amsakir [Hayrenikʿ Amsagir, Hayrenik Monthly] (1922), which opened itself to a large number of authors living in America or elsewhere before publishing their works (or part of them) as books. The general list of publications, even if limited to the decades from 1920 to 1940, is far too rich to be reproduced here in full.31 Later, in 1934 and 1948 respectively, the Hayrenikʿ Weekly and the quarterly Armenian Review would be added to that newspaper group. Still in Boston, the Baykʿar [Paykʿar, Struggle] appeared, of Ramgavar-liberal tendencies. Its printing house and its cultural supplement, which appeared on a quarterly basis, formed another center for literary contact. Since 1936 and for many years after, this mission had also been fulfilled among the same circles by another literary magazine, Nor Kir [Nor Gir], founded and published by the writer Peniamin Nurigian (Beniamin Nurikean) (his own works were published from 1937), assisted by a few dedicated staff. Some other journals within this geographical area, such as the Hayasdani Gochʿnag [Hayastani kočʿnak, The Bell

30 As, for example, the anthology Koharner Hay kraganutʿian [Goharner Hay grakanutʿean, Jewels of Armenian Literature, 1916], whose publisher was a certain New York “American- Armenian Bookshop” located at Madison Square. There were also the Yeran (Eran) dic- tionnaries, whose first editions were contemporary with the titles mentioned above. 31 Hayrenik published Hamasdegh (starting in 1924); G. Zarian (1930 and 1943); Awetis Aharonian, Zabēl Yesayian, Aram Andonian (an inveterate “Parisian”); Hayrenikʿ almanacs before and after the Second World War; the popular saga Zartʿōnkʿ [Awakening] by Malkhas (Malxas), alias Ardashēs Yovsēpʿian (Artašēs Yovsēpʿean); memoires and short stories by Aram Haygaz (in book form from 1949); Hay yeghapokhagani mĕ yishadagnerĕ [Hay Ełapʿoxakani mǝ yišataknerǝ, Memoires of an Armenian Revolutionary], a series in seven volumes by Ṙubēn Tēr Minassian (1952). In reprint: novels by Dzerentsʿ (Cerencʿ) and various authors as well as translations in Armenian, for example, of W. Saroyan. the publication of western armenian literature 481 of Armenia] or Hay Sird [Hay sirt, Armenian Heart], also contributed to the creation and maintenance of this atmosphere, especially since one of them was an offshoot of the Armenian General Benevolent Union (AGBU), and the other of the Armenian Aid Union (HOM); these journals were close to funds and capital motivated towards philanthropy. The Pacific Coast was less active during this period. Asbarēz [Asparēz, Arena] which began in 1907 as a weekly, would become bi-weekly in the 1920s and remain so throughout the period. Its editors were more administrators than writers (and scholars of the Old Continent were not yet eyeing this “final frontier”). The weekly Nor Ōr, of liberal-Ramgavar leanings, was led by writers such Vahē Hayg (Vahē Hayk) and Antranig Antrēasian (Antranik Antrēasean), who promoted the publication of literary works – a fairly rare phenomenon for California in the 1920s to 1940s. For the communities of the Atlantic coast, a predictable, if not inevitable, decline was triggered after the Second World War and became more tangible in the 1950s to 1960s. As in Europe, the community was affected by the regression of Armenian-speaking communities. Authors like Hamasdegh (Hamasteł), Aram Haygaz (Aram Haykaz), and Hagop Asadurian (Yakob Asaturean), feel- ing more isolated, increasingly turned to the Middle East and its Armenian- speaking communities. Indeed some authors such as Hagop Garapents (Karapencʿ), Armand (Armant, alias Aram Antonean), Minas Tölölian (Minas Tʿēōlēōlean), Kurkēn Mkhitʿarian (Gurgēn Mxitʿarean), Garō Armēnian (Karō Armēnean) sometimes had moved there, rather suddenly.32 Production ranging from poetry to literary criticism and philology, as well as prose narratives, was established. These authors often had recourse to Middle Eastern, particularly Lebanese, publisher-printers. Their works sometimes received literary prizes or were included in collective publications. Other works (this is the case with the most recent titles) were instead sometimes composed on a personal computer and published by a non-Armenian local printer, rendering the expression “Armenian publisher” therefore meaningless. This was the case with the philological works of Vachʿē Ghazarian (Vačʿē Łazarean) and Krikor Kʿēōsēian (Grigor Kʿēōsēean), as well as collections by Harutʿiwn Berberian (Yarutʿiwn Perperean), living in Quebec. This is still the case with some works by Vahē Ōshagan (Vahē Ōšakan) which appeared after his departure from Beirut in 1975. The same Vahē Ōshagan, poet and thinker, probably holds the

32 More recently, see Jacques Hagopian (Yakobean), Vehanush Tʿekʿian (Vehanoyš Tʿekʿean), Vachʿē Ghazarian (Vačē Łazarean), and Vartan Matiossian (Vardan Mattʿēosean), the latter originally from the Armenian community in Argentina. 482 kurkjian record for “diasporicity” for both the content as well as the publishing conditions of his works.33 In the last decades of the century, the dichotomy of “political” camps and tendencies faded in places. Thus, we find a prolific writer such as Hagop Asadurian, whose production had already started around 1945, working in turn with Hayrenik and Nor Kir. More recently, the book Dar mĕ Kraganutʿiwn [Dar mǝ grakanutʿiwn, A Century of literature] by Minas Tölölian, first printed in Cairo in 1955 by “Hussaper Press”, was reprinted (also in 2 volumes) in the United States in 1980, with the support of Alec Manugian Fund (AGBU). This decline on the east coast corresponds to a period of growth for California and Canada (especially Quebec), regions that became increasingly popular desti- nations for Armenian emigration from the Middle East and Turkey, emigration that would increase after 1960–70. Alongside a considerable number from Middle Eastern countries, there was a large proportion of Armenians from Iran and Armenia, including educators, authors, and other scholars.34 The periodical press and published works (as well as the school network, which appeared late on the scene as in France, yet was quite important here) would now express this duality in the language, with a certain predominance of Western Armenian. The grandfather of newspapers, Asbarēz, became a daily and published an acclaimed literary supplement.35 From the 1980s, with continued growth in both their numbers and their potential, this Californian community witnessed an increase in its cultural outlets, namely its newspapers and publications, often of an anarchic pace and character.36 A variety of associations,

33 Although a dozen of his works published after that date mostly appeared in the eastern US, for example, those at the Vosgedar [Oskedar, Golden Age] Press, some were published in Lebanon, California, and Australia. 34 The post-war years had witnessed the first generation of Armenians settling in California whose vernacular language was Eastern Armenian: the DP, or prisoners of war, soldiers of the Soviet armies carried off to German camps, followed by citizens of the USSR or popular democracies having left these countries under various circumstances. 35 From the 1950s to 1960s, Asbarēz experienced a revival, departing from its fellow paper Nor Ōr. From that time, community authors sometimes published locally, but especially in the Middle East from where they originated, such as Puzant Granian (Biwzand Kṙanean); we even find authors among the released POWs from Armenia, such as Suren Saninian (Surēn Saninean). 36 Towards the end of the century, magazines appeared in Los Angeles Arakadz (Aragac) Navasart, Batsʿ Namag [Bacʿ Namak, Open Letter]. In Montreal, the weekly Horizon published in turn a quality monthly literary supplement, virtually the only forum for reviving interest in literature in eastern North America. Other publications, obviously related with the publication of western armenian literature 483 cultural grant funds, the Church (both the Prelacy and other bodies)37 as well as bookstores, whether individual or those of associations, became publishers. The bookstores-cum-publishers published “local” authors, as well as those living abroad – typical diasporic connections once again.38 Self-publications paid for by the author, especially for residents of the region like Vahē Berberian (Vahē Perperean), were still part of the publishing scene. In fact, this movement was not only one-directional, because some local authors, after publishing locally, still turned to the East, self-publishing in Lebanon or, after the new Armenian independence in 1991, in Yerevan.

2.6 Constantinople/ Istanbul As mentioned above, the Kemalist occupation and “atavistic” anti-minority repressive tendencies, still in force in the new republic, seriously undermined the cultural movement in the former capital. Yet, as before, the role of Constantinople (now Istanbul) as a window for the community gave it some margin of maneuver and a certain momentum, despite being reduced to the status of a local urban minority. Those such as Shavarsh Misakʿian, the Siruni, the Tʿēotig, the Andonians and their colleagues, for obvious reasons of personal security in some cases, opted for emigration in 1922. Others, sometimes having escaped the previous slaughter by miraculous chance, chose to remain, such as Hrant and Zabēl Asadur (Asatur), writers and educators; Tʿoros Azadian (Tʿoros Azatean), prolific writer, poet and essayist; Hagop Mntsuri (Mncuri), prose writer; Manuk Aslanian (Manuk Aslanean), journalist, and others.39

these magazines, also appeared, such as the abundant study by the philologist-linguist L. Khacherian (Xačʿerean) dedicated to traditional spelling (Nor giankʿ series, 1999). 37 The Prelacy, in the last decade of the century, developed and published a series of quality textbooks for primary and secondary schools, such as manuals of Armenian language and literature at the middle school level, by H. and M. Kurkjian. 38 Thus, many of the works of K. Beledian, Parisian author, or certain issues of Gam, the “Parisian” magazine of M. Nichanian, were published by Abril, in Los Angeles. Associations continued to support the publication of books, such as the funds of the AGBU or similar, the Hamazkayin funds, etc. 39 Manug Aslanian (Manuk Aslanean), a veteran journalist and sensitive to cultural repression, himself choose the path of emigration; others, younger, would do the same over time, such as the young writer-journalist Minas Tölölian, who would live in Aleppo, then Beirut, finally settling in the United States. His publications, poems, essays, and literary history, were published along his successive geographical stopping places. Another novelist Zavēn Bibēṙian (Zavēn Pipēṙean), also a journalist and moreover compromised by his extremist political activities, tried his luck in Beirut, but soon returned to his native city. Others, still motivated ideologically, would move to Armenia – sometimes well after 484 kurkjian

The Armenian-speaking community in Constantinople, the capital of ermeni millet if there ever was one, was gradually reduced to a minority, a “colony” almost like any other demographic group in the Diaspora, with the same problems: a gradual reduction in the school system, the Armenian press, and rate of Armenian speakers. Yet on the other hand, as almost everywhere, there was also a strong will for cultural survival within the active minority, a real militantism. Newspapers and magazines thus maintained a certain pace: Arewelkʿ [East], Zhamanag [Žamanak, Time], Aztarar [Azdarar, Monitor], and later Marmara; plus weeklies like Badgēr [Patkēr, Image]. T. Azadian published the journal Asdghapert (Astłapert, Star Fortress), collections of poems and studies (a monograph dedicated to the poet Misak Medzarentsʿ [Mecarencʿ]). Others would be published as books (for example reprinting collections of Medzarentsʿ by Goshgarian [Koškarean], 1924). Hayganush Markʿ (Haykanoyš Markʿ), would publish the women’s magazine Hay Gin [Hay kin, Armenian Woman]. Other publishers expressed this will to survive by continuing the publication of pre- war series. Hrand and Zabēl Asadur continued their production in the field of education (textbooks), especially from that point forward. The former students of the Central High School published the journal Mshaguyt [Mšakuytʿ, Culture] while those from the Mekhitarist school gathered together around San. These journals are, and remain, centers for the publication of works both old and new. The community of Istanbul, following the example of diasporic communities, followed thus a declining curve according to the situation and political pressure, sometimes with unexpected upheavals. In Turkey in the 1940s–1960s, new kinds of repression occurred, such as the “wealth tax,” a villainous measure directed against minorities during the Second World War, and then the pogrom of 1955–1956. The exodus continued, mainly to the West, Europe and America. The community would experience yet another exodus, similar to the previous one, of a portion of those people who had survived and remained

the massive repatriations of 1946–47, such as Kegham Sewan, who from Istanbul would end up in Yerevan after stopping in Lebanon. His works were published in these three successive locations. In addition to these cases and those authors settled in the United States and Canada, we also find writers in Latin America, like so many Robinson Crusoes isolated throughout the continent in Mexico, or Brazil (Mgrdichʿ Hajian, Varuzhan Ajemian). With Latin America, we must also mention some non-Constantinople authors such Sahag Balekjian (Sahak Balekǰean), Vartan Kēorkian (Vardan Gēorgean) and Bedros Hajian (Petros Hačean). These latter two were, a generation apart, editors of the daily Armenia. the publication of western armenian literature 485 in the “provinces” who moved towards the ancient capital of the Armenian Patriarchate. The decades 1950–1960, like the following ones, should have witnessed an ever greater reduction in cultural activity. However, a significant number of scholars remained in the city and made their presence and their desire for renewal felt. One of the leading figures of the interwar generation, Hagop Mntsuri already cited, remained active alongside another remarkable figure, Hagop Martayan, a revered academic figure (a rarity!) in the milieu of the Republic from the beginnings of Kemalist Turkey. He was the principal creator of the new Turkish alphabet and grammar, and a linguist and philologist of legendary erudition.40 As for the generation educated during and just after World War II, we must mention Artin Chiwmbiwshian (Čiwmpiwšean), alias Khrakhuni (Xraxuni), Zareh Yaldĕzjian (Zareh Yaltǝzčean), called Zahrad (Zahrat), Ētuart Simkēshian (Ēduard Simkʿēšean), Vart Shigaher (Vard Šikaher) and, more recently, Icna Sareaslan. Among the prose writers, there were Zavēn Bibēṙian (Zavēn Pipēṙean) and Robert Haddējian (Hattēčean).41 Besides the merit of producing and publishing, almost all these authors worked in the literary press even in daily newspapers, often for many years: writing, sometimes founding journals or daily literary supplements. R. Haddējian (born in 1926) was at the head of one of the two daily newspapers in Armenian, Nor Marmara. Of legendary productivity, he worked on novels, collections of short stories, drama, essays, newspaper columns: dozens and dozens of volumes, including outstanding narrative works. The other daily, Zhamanag, today over a hundred years old, has been run throughout the years by the Kochunian (Kočunean) family. Another new member of the local press (and a new phenomenon) was the weekly Agōs [Akōs, Wake], published in Turkish but with a supplement in Armenian. Today, it continues to stand out as it did before in the time of its founder-director Hrant Dink42 by taking strong positions in Turkish political life. As for the poets Khrakhuni and Zahrad, they produced abundant poetry in successive collections – almost all published in Istanbul, often at the author’s expense but also, in some cases, recognized by literary committees and awards,

40 His remarkable Hay mshaguyti badmutʿiwn [Hay mšakoytʿi patmutʿiwn, History of Armenian Culture], disseminated in the press, has just begun to be gathered together in a series of volumes thanks to an intiative by the Fondation d’instituteurs and the daily Marmara. 41 Other figures of this generation who had works published in Istanbul in the 1920s–1950s: Zohagan (H. Yarutʿiwnean), Arek Dirazan (O. Bazmajian), and Sona Dēr Markarian (Margarean). 42 Dink was assassinated in 2007 by a Turkish nationalist. 486 kurkjian or paid for by various cultural associations either local or part of a sister community from California to Beirut and Aleppo. This means that these poets are as admired, as much as possible in the present context. Magazines as well as newspapers, especially the latter and in particular Nor Marmara, functioned periodically as publishing houses. In terms of publishing, it is particularly worth mentioning Aras Press, independent, professional, and founded in the year 1990, which continues to show remarkable vitality. Its publications are in Armenian (from various cultural sectors) and in Turkish: mostly translations of works of Armenian literature, among others (such as works by the contemporary author Mgrdichʿ Margosian (Mkrtičʿ Margosean), or William Saroyan (translated from English), but more often in the field of history, especially recently.

2.7 Egypt and Palestine Armenians had been present in these two countries since the Middle Ages for Egypt and from late antiquity for Jerusalem. Regarding Egypt, focusing our attention on the period of interest here, the Armenian presence in the high administrative and financial circles as well as those of big capital would attract their compatriots and create, as mentioned above, a community in the pre- diasporic decades, with a circle of scholars grouped around journals. Cairo or Alexandria functioned primarily as a footholds, as Paris did for Europe. After the First World War and the subsequent catastrophes in the Armenian world, many intellectuals arrived. For some years, authors like Lewon Shantʿ and Nikol Aghbalian lived there. With friends, they founded the Hamazkayin (Hamazgayin) Cultural Association there in 1928, committed to a cultural vocation at the national level. The daily Husaper [Yusaber, Hope] would also be founded there, run by V. Navasartian (Navasardean). A young colleague Kurkēn Mkhitʿarian, after the ephemeral initiative of the literary magazine Nor Sharzhum [Nor Šaržum, New Movement], founded and ran the monthly Husaper. Others such as Peniamin Tachian (Tašean) continued the work of the founders after their deaths. Husaper Press launched various publications: alongside political and historiographical works, literary ones also held a considerable place in their collections. We should also note the reprints of classic authors such as Arpʿiarian, Nar-Dos, Shantʿ, Aharonian, Muratsan (Muracʿan), Gamsaragan (Kamsarakan), and Yerukhan (Eruxan), as well as the first edition of the works of contemporary authors, including Mnatsordats [Mnacʿordacʿ, Paralipomena], a saga in three volumes by Hagop Ōshagan who left Constantinople for Cyprus, before ending up in Jerusalem. I could also mention A Century of Literature by Tölölian, Interviews [Zroycʿner] by Garabed Pʿoladian (Karapet Pʿolatean), language and literature textbooks Haygaran the publication of western armenian literature 487

[Haykaran, Armeniaca] by Peniamin Tashian, and collections of poems by Arsēn Yergatʿ (Arsēn Erkatʿ) or by the young poet Jacques Hagopian. In addition, Zola, Andreev and others were translated and published. The newspapers Arew [Sun] and Chahagir, run by the poet Vahan Tʿēkʿēian and his colleagues, in turn served as a framework for publishing history books, for example by the historian and philologist Arshag Alboyajian (Alpoyačean), as well as a collection by the poet Tʿēkʿēian himself, and many other works. In Jerusalem, the convent of St. James, the Armenian home in the Holy Land since the Middle Ages, has always been a center for cultural activities in the Armenian language. In the heart of “Armenian quarter” with a considerable repository of manuscripts and a richly endowed library, at the beginning of this period the convent already had a printing company that published the magazine Sion and other publications, works of scholarship for the most part. Yet, as elsewhere, their literary publications were non-negligible: the clergy were often writers, archbishops-poets such as Yeghishē Turian (Ełišē Durean) and Yeghishē Dērdērian (Ełišē Tērtērean). Hagop Ōshagan, prolific writer and literary historian, would spend the last part of his life there teaching literature at the convent seminary, where a considerable part of his work would be published: the first five volumes of the long series Hamabadker arewmdahay kraganutʿian [Hamapatker arewmtahay grakanutʿean, Panorama of Western Armenian Literature] (between 1945 and 1956, the rest would wait to be published in Lebanon starting in the 1970s), and his textbook Armenian Literature (Hay Grakanutʿiwn), an anthology in 1947, and several monographs. Later, young authors would make their debut there: Vahram Mavian (Mavean), towards the 1950s, Garig Bazmajian (Karik Pazmačean) after 1970, and some others. But these children of the Holy Land were themselves early won over by the idea of exodus to the West: Mavian, after studying in Europe, lived in Lisbon and Bazmajian and after years of study in Yerevan, settled in Paris.43

43 V. Mavian, in addition to his production as a writer during the 1960s and 70s, became famous as administrative manager of the Gulbenkian Foundation, the Armenian division. Its cultural openness enabled him to guide the work of the foundation towards publishing (as well as the education sector). This orientation was mostly followed and expanded by his successors, such as Zavēn Yegavian (through patronage and his own initiatives). As for the young poet Garig Bazmajian, he was behind other publishing initiatives over the course of his life, which was tragically interrupted. It was in Jerusalem, again, that an unpublished collection of Kostan Zarian later appeared : Kirkʿ tiwtsʿaznerkutʿiantsʿ [Girkʿ diwcʿaznergutʿeancʿ, Book of Epics – sic], in 1978. 488 kurkjian

2.8 Syria The city of Aleppo under the Ottoman Empire counted a small Armenian community that had originated in the distant past, but had no cultural life to speak of. The town was a first concentration camp at the desert’s door after Turkey’s defeat and the armistice; the survivors would concentrate there and it would become the cradle of the great Diaspora. It was in this town, along with Lebanon (which was not yet separated from “Greater Syria”) that the first orphanages and slum-camps were located. It was also from this town that successive waves of immigrants would depart, especially to the West (those repatriated to Armenia were still few in number). One group would settle in Beirut, others would transit to the Balkans, Western Europe, and America. Towards the end of the 1920s, Aleppo witnessed the beginnings of cultural activity. In addition to Yepʿrad [Epʿrat, Euphrates], 44 one should mention the newspaper Suriahay mamul and other periodicals. Initial difficulties were mainly due to the dismal economic situation of this decimated crowd made up primarily of orphans from provincial towns of Cilicia, but also to regional cultural isolation. Publishing activity would accelerate significantly from the 1930s. The first writers, young people coming from orphanages and the first schools, having received a summary education with a literary bent, and a clear penchant for poetry, were published in newspapers, magazines and almanacs (with at least a partial literary content). Over a dozen titles were printed, such as Yergir [Erkir, Country], Mshaguyt, and Sewan, without even counting the school magazines that served as breeding grounds. The publication of collections followed in succession.45 Gradually, we begin to see more established newspapers sprout up, such as the dailies Arewelkʿ or Suria [Syria]. They published reprints of writers of previous generations and contemporaries in detachable serials or in series

44 According to an evalation dating from 1928, (Dikran Piranian [Tigran Piranean], in Suriahay darekirkʿ [Suriahay taregirkʿ, Almanac of Armenians in Syria], Beirut, 1929, 199), from the point of view of literature and publishing, Syria was characterized as a terribly stingy and barren land. With discontent and harshness, this assessment mentions the creation of Suriahay Editions, which in fact was only able to publish the bi-weekly Yepʿrad in 1927, while other projects (encouraging young authors, publication of textbooks) fell on deaf ears. Apparently, the evaluation writer failed to know about (orit was written prior to) the literary almanac Datʿev (Tatʿew) – a rather excellent publication. 45 Armēn Anush (Marashlian) (Armēn Anuš – Marašlean) published his collections in the years 1930–1940. He was also the author of a series of textbooks on the history of Armenia, first published in Aleppo (reprinted later in Beirut and elsewhere). The teacher Mgrdichʿ Mgrdichʿian (Mkrtičʿ Mkrtčʿean) prepared language textbooks (grammar), etc. the publication of western armenian literature 489 published in their printing houses of Hamasdegh, Chʿarentsʿ, and many others.46 But as for the literary atmosphere, it was mainly the journal Nayiri that must be mentioned (early 1940s) which, transcending frontiers, attracted the collaboration of writers of the first order such as Hagop Ōshagan or, among the new ones, the distant N. Sarafian.47 Its founder-editor, Antranig Dzaṙugian (Andranik Caṙukean), a talented poet and prose writer, like many of his colleagues would give in to the temptation of journalism for lack of means to continue. After two or three strictly literary books in the 1940s and 1950s, he fell into journalism as a columnist. A literary journal Nayiri would become a weekly magazine dedicated to cultural news, especially following its transfer to Beirut after 1950. Among the centers of literary activity and publishing, we must also note the local branches of Hamazkayin, cultural associations such as Tʿēkʿēian, Giligia (Kilikia), and Sevan. The school system took up the slack, with a series of language, history, and geography textbooks (although at an elementary level). The 1950s marked a serious decline in cultural activity. In addition to the repatriation to Yerevan of a number of young talents,48 the hardening of the regime in Syria encouraged an even greater exodus to Lebanon and the West. Around 1960 already, the drain of young people with a literary vocation had reached alarming proportions, and literary life went into hibernation for over a quarter century. Those who remained, preferred (or were forced) to publish their works in the printing presses of neighboring countries.49 It was not until the 1980s that the signs of a revival could be seen. It is true that the prolific author Tʿoros Tʿoranian (Tʿoros Tʿoranean) did not wait for them before starting his work, more than one hundred volumes in all including about fifteen collections of poetry; his productivity is legendary. A generation of young poets and prose writers, caught up in the movement, first appeared in the literary press which gradually came back to life and then, during the

46 Short stories of Hamasdegh: collections Kiughĕ [Giułǝ, The Village], Antsrew [Anjrew, Rain], Dasnerek badmvadzkʿner [Tasnerekʿ patmuackʿner, Thirteen Short Stories]. Girkʿ chanaparhi [Girkʿ čanaparhi, Book of the Road] by Y. Chʿarentsʿ. 47 With, it is true, almost no names among local authors except perhaps Yetvart Boyajian (Eduard Poyačean). 48 Such as Aris Shaklian (Šaklean), Stepʿan Alajajian (Stepʿan Alačačean), and Antranik Tʿerzian (Andranik Tʿerzean). 49 Such as the novelist Smpatʿ Pʿanosian (Smbatʿ Pʿanosean), isolated moreover in the small town of Lattaquieh. Or the young poet Goriwn Shahinian (Koriwn Šahinean). Those having emigrated, such as Minas Tölölian, Simon Simonian (Simonean), Kēork Ajemian (Gēorg Ačemean), and Zareh Melkonian (Melgonean), would continue their writing careers in Lebanon or futher afield. 490 kurkjian last decade of the century, their collections of poems and short stories were published.50 Publishing was thus revived: at Arewelkʿ, the weekly Kantsasar (Ganjasar) appeared, which with its literary workshop and its monthly supplement, became the breeding ground that had been missing for young people. At the publisher-bookstore Giligia, a very dynamic private initiative, publications followed one another at a remarkably fast pace, especially regarding reprints, and filled a serious gap: classical writers of previous generations,51 contemporary authors, school publications, etc. The schools themselves followed suit. I should especially mention, during the 1990s, the creation of a university-level Armenian Studies course. There were still other publishing initiatives, more ephemeral or episodic, but for whom quality was of premium importance.52 The Aleppo community made a comeback after 1990 and stands at the forefront of the cultural scene in the Diaspora, for creative writing as well as publishing.

2.9 Lebanon The Armenian community of Lebanon can be seen as a twin community with that of Aleppo, having almost the same date of birth, the same constitution, and quite similar organization. It is a typical example of an eastern diasporic community, a ghetto in certain aspects, primarily cultural (the mosaic, multi- community structure of the country even encouraged it). Moreover, there was the presence of a historical institution: the Catholicate of Cilicia established in Antelias near Beirut, and whose mode of integration into community life, beyond merely the spiritual, was defined by the application of the national Constitution, the codex of community administration inherited from the Patriarchate of Constantinople from the Ottoman Imperial era. Before 1924, apart from a few relatively well-off Beirut bourgeois, the “colony” had only orphanages and slums; libraries and printers were almost non-existent, and any kind of publishing activity was virtually inconceivable.

50 In addition to G. Shahinian, previously mentioned, the poet Kēork Tʿēmizian (Gēorg Tʿēmizean), the poet and philologist-folklorist Hagop Chʿolakʿian (Čʿolakʿean); a bit later, two women: Marush Yeramian (Maruš Eramean) and Nushig Mikʿayēlian (Nušik Mikʿayēlean). 51 Of which, very recently, reprints of the famous almanacs by Tʿēotig. 52 As was the case with Mashdots Press (Maštocʿ), which, towards the end of the 1990s, published the first edition of the short stories or novels of the “Parisian” Beledian: Semer [Thresholds], Harvadzĕ [Haruacǝ, The Blow]; or in reprints, taken from the literary press, such as the work of N. Sarafian. the publication of western armenian literature 491

These orphanages, with some extremely primitive printing equipment, nevertheless left some traces of printed paper, such as the literary periodical publication entitled Vorpashkharhi Asdghĕ [Orbašxarhi Astłǝ, The Star of the orphan world] which, inspired by a few young teacher-managers of the orphanages, in Djbeil (Byblos) and elsewhere, was published for two to three years. The year 1924 was a landmark: it was the year of the founding of the first newspaper, the bi-weekly Pʿiwnig [Pʿiwnik, Phoenix] which would be published with some irregularities until 1927, before changing its name to Aztag [Azdak, Messenger].53 Like the newspapers mentioned above, it published by means of serials with detachable pages. Throughout the following decades, dozens of novels enjoyed a wide popularity, which would thus lure people into buying the newspaper, but often the stories were not entirely devoid of literary value. The paper also published a number of translated works, primarily from European languages.54 At the same time, for a few years the editor Hayg Balian (Palean) published the Suriahay Darekirkʿ [Suriahay taregirkʿ, Syrian- Armenian Directory], as Lebanon was not yet separated from Greater Syria. Bookstores and individual initiatives were possible.55 It was a decade later that the community would see the creation of two other newspapers, Zartʿōnkʿ [Zartʿōnkʿ, Awakening] and Ararat (1937) which would gradually become dailies. The weekly Aztarar would also have a very active role.56 For several decades, the community would be served by these newspapers, which, more or less regularly through their serials, would all serve

53 Of militant tendencies (FRA), this newspaper would quickly be taken over by an energetic cultural activist, Hayg Balian (Hayk Palean) who, as a teacher in an orphanage, would turn himself into a publisher and would transform the paper into a daily with working class readership. 54 Old translations, thus reprints, but also new ones, works of foreign literature, primarily western: A. Maurois, Dostoïevski (several), Tolstoy, Steinbeck, Maugham, Camus, E.M. Remarque, Pasternak, Orwell, Sienkiewicz, Michael Naïmi, Kazantzakis, Gorki, Poë, etc. 55 In 1928, we find mention of a bookshop “Yerevan” located “in the slum-camp of Beirut.” Some others, at the same time, are better known: the bookshop Mampreh Hissarian, the bookshop Abajian (Abaǰean); the bookshop Dōnigian (Tōnikean). The latter, still prosper- ing today, was one of the first to get a printing press to promote publications, especially a long series of reprints. 56 Aztarar, a dynamic independent weekly, has already been mentioned along with its founder-publisher M. Aslanian. Zartʿōnkʿ, of Ramgavar-liberal tendencies, would be founded by the poet and veteran journalist V. Tʿēkʿēian himself, dispatched from Cairo to Beirut for this task. Ararat also had activist tendencies (the Henchakian party). From the 1940s, for a few years, the Zhoghovurti tsayn [Žołovurti jayn, Voice of the people] of communist tendencies, was also printed. Much later, in the 1950s to 1970s, a fourth daily would be added, Ayk [Ayg, Dawn]; it however was independent. 492 kurkjian as publishers. Moreover, we cannot forget the literary supplements, especially Aztag, which would in the 1940s take the form of a serious literary journal, Aztag shapatʿōriag [Azdak šabatʿōreak, Weekly Messenger]. Meanwhile, the 1930s to 1940s witnessed the development of essential cultural infrastructure. The cultural association Hamazkayin, already mentioned, delegated two illustrious emissaries, writers Lewon Shantʿ and N. Aghbalian, and sent them to Lebanon where, in 1930, they founded the Hamazkayin College. The first classes of the college, having organized themselves into an alumni association, published the magazine Agōs. In addition, with the support of the Tʿēkʿēian cultural association and the Melkonian (Melgonean) College alumni group founded in the neighboring island of Cyprus under the auspices of the AGBU, the literary journal Ani was published. Another review, the result of an individual initiative, was the Yeridasart Hayuhi [Eritasard Hayuhi, Young Armenian]. 57 All of these served as fertile breeding grounds for the emergence of writers, whose collections would be published starting in the years 1930 to 1935.58 For printers, after Aztag, it was the Hamazkayin association that led the way: from 1930, driven by Kasbar Ipʿēkian (Gaspar Ipʿēkean), the Hamazkayin printers would publish almanacs, the works of N. Aghbalian, a series of Armenian manuals prepared by Lewon Shantʿ and, later, for years, the issues of the magazine Agōs, not to mention the complete works of Lewon Shantʿ which he himself gathered together into several volumes. The quarter century after the war, until about 1970, can be characterized as a period of consolidation. The Second World War and the consecutive economic crises barely touched the country, the community did not experience the same the plight of other centers in the Diaspora. It thus avoided massive emigration (in fact, it would benefit from the exodus of Armenians from neighboring countries), and the Armenian acculturation to their host cultures that was observed elsewhere, was attenuated here by a dense network of schools (which, it is true, dispensed a culture that was quite conservative, and thus rather inefficient, characterized by the concept of hayabahbanum, hayabahba nutʿiwn (hayapahpanum, hayapahpanutʿiwn, conservation of Armenianness].

57 Created and directed respectively by the poet and educator Vahē-Vahian (Vahē-Vahean, alias Sarkis Abdalian [Sargis Aptalean]) and an energetic woman, Siran Seza. 58 Some names of authors from the 1930s and 1940s: especially M. Ishkhan (Išxan), alias Mushegh Chenderechian (Mušeł Čenterečean), with as his first publication in book form Duneru Yerkĕ [Tuneru Ergǝ, The Song of Hearths], in 1937; Vahē-Vahian, Arew-Antsrev [Arew-Anjrew, Sun and Rain], in 1933; Yetvart Boyajian, Sēr ew vishd [Sēr ew višt, Love and Pain], in 1944; Siran Seza, Badneshĕ [Patnēšǝ, The Barrier], late in 1959. the publication of western armenian literature 493

Over the years, this network would increase in density, if not in the quality of instruction.59 Alongside this network of schools, institutes of higher education were created, sometimes partially Armenian as the Haygazian University with an Armenian department and its corresponding publications,60 or courses of Armenian language and literature would be created, as would be the case later at the Hiwsisian Institute (Hiwsisean Himnarkʿ) (AGBU) or the Armenological Institute Hamazkayin (Hamazgayini Hayagitakan Himnarkʿ), with occasional publications. In short, the period in question was one of putting down roots, even growth. Moreover, the seminary of the Catholicate of Cilicia evolved and began to take off once again. These decades would also see an increase in cultural journals, and more specifically literary ones. In addition to those already mentioned, we must add the weekly Spʿiwrkʿ [Diaspora] and Nayiri (transferred from Aleppo), and the monthlies Shirag [Širak] and Pakin [Bagin, Altar-pagan]. Alongside these more traditional platforms, there was still be room for the young maverick quarterly Ahegan (Ahekan) and Ēcher kraganutʿian ew arvesdi [Ēǰer grakanutʿean ew aruesti, Pages of Literature and Art], all endowed with “circles” of writers that functioned as mediums for exchange, and sometimes literary workshops. The magazine Hasg [Hask, Spike] of the Catholicate of Cilicia responded above all to a scholarly vocation, publishing philology and theology.61 The authors sometimes came from classes of local community schools, and sometimes they had lived their early years or even received initial education elsewhere, in a neighboring country. Yet, they reached adulthood here. Almost all were founders or leaders of the literary circles and magazines already mentioned above.62

59 Under the term “Armenian schools” I mean “national” primary and secondary schools, depending on the educational council, issued from the community committee, which also involved the prelacy; the Hamazkayin schools, the AGBU, and other associations, as well as Catholic and Evangelical schools. 60 Haygazian University published the voluminous Hayakidagan hantēs [Hayagitakan handēs, Journal of Armenian Studies], which in 2000 published its twentieth issue. For a number of years, students in the Armenian department published the literary reveiw Navasart. 61 The Catholicosate, in addition to the monthly magazine Hasg, published the Hazk haya kidagan darekirkʿ [Hazg hayagitakan taregirkʿ, Hazg Annals of Armenian Studies]. 62 Vahē Ōshagan, whose first collection Baduhan [Patuhan, Window] dates from 1954, came from Jerusalem via Paris; Zareh Melkʿonian, Yes ew martik [Es ew mardik, Me and People], in 1943; Simon Simonian, Sipana Kʿacher [Sipanay kʿaǰer, The Brave of Mont Sipan], late in 1967; Kēork Ajemian, Angareli Badmutʿiwn [Ankareli patmutʿiwn, Impossible Story], in 1956; Kaṙnig Atʿtʿarian (Gaṙnik Atʿtʿarean), Badnēshin vra [Patnēšin vray, On the 494 kurkjian

Authors and journals were published by an increasingly large number of publisher-printers. While the editions of the Catholicate of Cilicia, near Beirut, were still in their infancy, and Hamazkayin (among the association publishers) had experienced a certain upswing, it was mostly private publishers (often with their own printing facilities) that thrived in the years from 1950 to 1970, such as Sevan, Shirag, Edvan, Donigian, etc.63 During the last three decades of the century, despite the horrors of the civil war raging in 1975 and a considerable demographic hemorrhage and subsequent severe economic crisis, the Lebanese Armenian community was otherwise able to maintain the same level of cultural activity, at least a respectable pace.64 The contribution of individual initiatives declined, community organizations and associations actively sought, with some success, to fill the gap – particularly by taking on the work of publishing. Daily newspapers and magazines also expressed this situation of struggle for survival: only the daily Aztag remained, and even increased its readership and its quality. 65 Others survived at the price of going down to a weekly basis. For journals, Shirag and Pakin survived, but with more or less irregularity in their publication.

Barricade], in 1954; Krikor Chahinian, Hamasteł, in 1959 (monograph); Boghos Snabian (Połos Snabean), Yeghapokhutʿian hamar [Yełapʿoxutʿean hamar, For the Revolution], in 1956. All of them had had their first experiences at about the same period, coming from Syria or Pealestine, or having stayed there. Of the journals they founded (or co-founded or collaborated in): Z. Melkonian, the magazine Shirak; S. Simonian and K. Ajemian, Spʿiwrkʿ; K. Atʿtʿarian, Haratch and Ēcher kraganutʿian ew arvesdi; K. Chahinian, Ahegan; B. Snabian, the literary almanac Michnapert [Miǰnaberd, Citadelle] and the journal Pakin, etc. 63 Hamazkayin published, in first editions but also as reprints, the short story writers Hamasdegh and A. Haygaz, the popular novelist Malkhas (Malxas), alias Ardashēs Yovsēpʿian, the poet Harutʿ Kostantian (Yarutʿ Kostantean) or the polymorphous Vahē Ōshagan. Other publishers (cited pell-mell) published or reprinted: Z. Vorpuni, V. Tʿēkʿēian, L. Aslanian, S. Simonian, H. Asadur, Siamantʿō, D. Chʿrakʿian-Indra, M. Medzarentsʿ; as well as Armenian-Eastern authors such as A. Isahakian, V. Terian, Shirvanzadē, Y. Chʿarentsʿ, B. Sewag, A. Bakuntsʿ, H. Shiraz, and M. Galshoyan (Galšoyean) – and this list is far from being complete. 64 This rather positive assessment can be explained by an organised and fairly substantial struggle against exodus and panic. 65 Aztag, which developed and improved after the 1980s and 1990s, was fairly widely distributed in neighboring Syria. It established a stronger administrative infrastructure, and its supplements and special issues were richer. More recently, like some other newspapers in the Diaspora but of a more certain quality, it has created an online version visited by readers from five continents. the publication of western armenian literature 495

In the work of publishing proper, an important role now fell to diverse initiatives that grew up around the Catholicate of Cilicia, both directly but also through philanthropy funds and the various literary prizes that it generated, inaugurated or multiplied under Catholicos Karekin II and jealously maintained ever since. Those that relate exclusively to our subject: the Melidinetsi Literary Award (Melitinecʿi), given each year, and in particular the parallel series Melidinetsi which, for more than a quarter of a century now, has experienced unprecedented growth.66 The Armenian book fair, which has been organized on the premises of the Catholicosate for almost twenty years, is fast becoming a major cultural event for both Lebanese and Syrian communities. Recently, other Armenian centers have also joined in, starting with the capital Yerevan. The other publishing initiative that was community or associative based, the Hamazkayin, faced the brunt of the crisis with the same will to resist. Besides reprinting literary works which were still important, at the time of the great economic and cultural distress ravaging Armenia, Hamazkayin created a “Publication Fund for intellectuals and writers of Armenia” and, alone or in cooperation with institutions such as Yerevan State University and the Armenian Academy of Sciences, published works of authors in Armenia. It also expanded its series of publications for children and developed a sector of new textbooks.67 Another initiative, parallel to the latter, developed around the journal Pakin, which would continue to publish literary works at the same time.68 We should

66 The series Melidinetsi constituted an unprecedented pehnomenon by the criteria of the Armenian Diaspora. As first editions: Armēn Tarian (Darean), alias A. Atʿtʿarian, Vahē Ōshagan, Krikor Beledian, Apraham Alikʿian, Yetvart Boyajian, Varant Kʿiwrkʿchian (Varand Kʿiwrkʿčean), Sarkis Sahagian (Sargis Sahakean), the Catholicos Karekin II, Marush Yeramian (Maruš Eramean), Nubar Chʿarkhudian (Čʿarxutean), etc. Their reprint series are especially phenomenal for the quantity of titles published, and sometimes, but not always, for their quality (especially regreatable are the missed oppor- tunites to publish critical editions). To give a list of published authors, still incomplete: Y. Ōshagan, K. Zarian, N. Beshigtʿashlian, N. Sarafian, T. Varuzhan, R. Sewag, Yerukhan (Eruxan), Z. Yesayian, M. Medzarentsʿ, B. Turian, K. Zōhrab, Siamantʿō, M. Zarifian, L. Pashalian, H. Baronian, M. Beshigtʿashlian, R. Zartarian. As for translations: The Prophet by Kh. Gibran; The Forty Days of Moussa Dagh by Franz Werfel. 67 Among the textbooks published by Hamazkayin: Modern Armenian Literature (Ardi Hay grakanutʿiwn) series by M. Ishkhan; Practical manual of the Armenian language (bilingual) by H. Kurkjian. 68 This activity was above all due to its editor, B. Snabian, with all the advantages and incon- venients of working alone: primarily bringing together in book form the dispersed works of Y. Ōshagan, V. Shushanian, etc. 496 kurkjian also mention Sipan, close to the Tʿēkʿēian association and, among the private companies that have survived, Shirag, Donigian and others. Finally, we should add the series of new independent publications Gaṙni and Hayorti [Hayordi, Armenian Son].69 Throughout this period of reprieve, although the situation was critical (insecurity, lack of infrastructure such as equipment and electricity) and conditions for communication with the outside world difficult, the authors of diverse communities were still able to get published in Lebanon.70 As already mentioned with Hamazkayin, this was even the case for authors from Armenia.

2.10 Iran The community of Iran holds a special position: in the great Diaspora, in itself it forms a Diaspora already three centuries old at the time of formation of the latter. In saying this, thoughts naturally turn to the root and center of influence for the community, that is to say New Julfa (Nor Juła)Ì next to Isfahan. Furthermore, the vernacular of this community in Iran is Eastern Armenian, spoken by their ancestors from Julfa (Nakhichevan region near Yerevan). That said, during the twentieth century, at the pace of globalization that was at first latent and then overt, these particular “interdiasporic” features have gradually faded. Although the 1920s which inaugurated the great Diaspora was not a founding period for this community, it still constituted a turning point. The old center of New Julfa, relatively in decline, would cede its primacy to the capital Tehran as well as other outlying areas, including Tabriz in the north, which attracted part of New Julfa’s population. The school system followed suit: it developed above all in Tehran. The isolation from other communities in the Diaspora, deficiencies in relationships and mutual knowledge, although observed a bit everywhere, here become glaringly apparent: the community in Iran, especially in the first half of the century, lived in isolation. The geo-political and geo-cultural reasons

69 Shirag Editions, a private undertaking (not to be confused with the journal of the same name), after supporting the journal Ahegan (1966–1970) and having come through years of civil war, has managed some remarkable recent publications, including French- Armenian bilingual dictionaries and manuscripts or little-known texts by the great humorist Ler Gamsar (Aram Tomazian). Donigian Editions served their audience primarily with reprints of dictionaries (sometimes over one hundred years old . . . and not renewed since!). Publishers founded more recently, such as Gaṙni or Hayorti (Hayordi), have intermittently published old or contemporary authors (for the former) and ancient or medival authors in translation from classical into modern Armenian (for Hayorti). 70 Authors from other countries published in Lebanon: K. Beledian, H. Kostantian. the publication of western armenian literature 497 for this are partly obvious. Added to this was stagnation due to the closure of Armenian schools, which, from 1935 and for ten to twenty years, would be imposed on the community by the regime and by certain provisions that harassed the business of printing and publishing. All these facts led, very early on, to the exodus of young people looking for greater possibilities.71 However, departments of Armenian studies were created and maintained at the Universities of Isfahan and Tehran. As for the press, it also experienced a concentration around the capital: the newspaper Alikʿ [Wave], a bi-weekly founded in 1930 and a daily by 1940, was the only one in the community. Alikʿ Editions were busy preparing and launching language textbooks, especially for primary education, and reprinting works of popular literature, as well as publishing the monthly supplement Lusaper [Lusaber, Illuminator] for young people. The cultural association Ararat, besides its core in Tehran, developed provincial departments with occasional publications. The authors, mostly poets, cultivated predominantly lyrical, often traditional, poetry.72 These writers were also, or would be, (co)founders and leader- collaborators of literary journals, such as Nor badkam [Nor patgam, New Message], Nor ēcher [Nor ēǰer, New Pages], and Huys [Yoys, Hope]. Starting in the 1960s and 1970s, a certain cultural openness of the country, but also a devastating war, causing an increase in the exodus to the West (and a return to Armenia, in a weaker but steady wave). However, community facilities such as schools or the press maintained themselves well. Contacts with other communities as well as with near-by Armenia multiplied and became closer. Young authors appear within the community (as well as in the ranks of the new émigrés, especially in the American West, in California). The publishing movement expanded and intensified especially from around 1980 around Alikʿ. In addition to the local authors already mentioned or others, contemporary writers of Armenia or the Western Diaspora were published or reprinted. Moreover, many works of classical authors were reprinted in abundance.73

71 We have mentioned, among others, L. Aslanian, H. Kosdantian, H. Karapentsʿ (Karapencʿ). 72 Aram Garonē (Karonē) had his first collection published in 1924); Markar Kharabekian Dew (Margar Xarapekean Dew) had his debut in 1940; Zorayr Mirzayan (Zorayr Mirzayan) and Galust Khanentsʿ (Kalust Xanencʿ) appeared a decade later. The younger ones, such as Varand Kʿiwrkchʿian, would distinguish themselves even later. 73 K. Zarian, M. Ishkhan, Malkhas for the Diaspora; Khachʿik Dachtentsʿ (Xačʿik Daštencʿ) and other authors of Armenia; Raffi, A. Aharonian (Complete Works) for the “classics”– initiatives undertaken by Varandian Editions or Armen Editions, both clearly connected to Alikʿ. 498 kurkjian

3 Attitudes in Soviet Armenia: Between a Total Vision of National Culture and Ideological Priorities

We know that Soviet Armenia, especially during the first period of its existence, had poor cultural relations with the Diaspora dictated by ideological-political motives and priorities. Only a few authors, like Zabēl Yesayian or Kostan Zarian (the latter Eastern Armenian by birth and expression) would be able to constitute a symbolic bridge between the two Armenian cultural entities, which were separated very early by a heavy iron curtain.74 During the first quarter century, Western Armenian writers would hardly be published in Armenia, where almost nothing was known of the Diaspora and its literature. This will- ful ignorance even extended to pre-war Constantinopolitan literature, with a few rare exceptions (the humorist Hagop Baronian (Paronean), for example). First contact would be made by go-between authors. Large repatriations in the 1940s would bring a number of writers to Armenia, mostly young beginners. They would settle in Armenia and, even though from that point speaking in Eastern Armenian and having to comply with Soviet or “abeghian” spelling in use in Armenia, they introduced a beginning knowledge and a taste for the cultural sphere of their origins. These repatriations of writers would continue sporadically until the 1960s.75 Authors of the Diaspora would be published in Armenia after the war, especially after 1950. A kind of ideological sorting was obvious: first came the unconditional Soviet supporters who wrote propaganda works. Then, gradually, more “neutral” authors and works were accepted.76 Yet it goes without

74 Zabēl Yesayian, in fact, would meet a tragic end in Siberia. 75 Writers repatriated in the 1940s include: Khatchʿig Amirian (Xačʿik Amirean), Antranik Terzian, Aris Shaklian, and Apraham Alikʿian. During the following decades: V. Karagueuzian, Kegham Sewan, both from Constantinople. Each one had a story: Alikʿian would settle in Moscow, ready to publish in Yerevan if necessary; more recently, he returned to Lebanon. V. Karagueuzian, from Constantinople, after long splitting his life between Yerevan and Paris, would finally settle in California. Kostan Zarian, “diasporic” and as always a special case, would go to Armenia in 1962 to live out the rest of his days. 76 For example, the following would be eliminated: Yerger [Erker, Works] of the poet V. Tʿēkʿēian published in 1958, Yegeghetsʿin Haygagan [Ekełecʿin Haykakan, The Armenian Church], a real jewel (in fact, and despite the title, the poem reflects a kind of spiritual patriotism, without nationalist fanatacism nor religious overtones). Or, Mangutʿiwn chʿunetsʿogh martig [Mankutʿiwn čʿunecʿoł mardik, Men without a Childhood] by Antranig Dzaṙugian (Andranik Caṙukean), a chapter which mentions fellow friend Harutʿiwn, an orphan like the author. The cause of the disagreement with the regime: the author made a few remarks, in fact positive and edifying, about Harutʿiwn’s later repatriation (who the publication of western armenian literature 499 saying that censorship was rampant, even for obliging authors. The “non- conformist” authors (in terms of their literary concepts, such as Z. Vorpuni, N. Sarafian, Zahrad, and Khrakhuni) would have to wait for the 1970s and 1980s to be published or even to appear in anthologies.77 For these publications,78 as for the publications of Armenian authors distributed in the Diaspora, they would still receive a warm welcome in these Armenian-speaking communities, and this despite the biased approaches mentioned above and the psychological barrier created by the “Soviet” spelling applied in Yerevan. This latter problem would only be resolved for the textbooks, circa 1960, that were prepared “for the Diaspora;” in this case the barrier would be transferred to the outdated

turned out to be the future painter of great reknown Harutʿiwn Galentsʿ! [Kalencʿ]). Here again, in Yerevan the poem Tʿughtʿ aṙ Yerevan [Tʿułtʿ aṙ Erewan, Letter to Yerevan] was totally unknown. Regarding Antranig Dzaṙugian, the poem was at its heart very “pro- Soviet Armenia”, and moreover, written during one of the great repatriations of 1946 in Eastern Armenian (an additional gesture of fraternization), but which very humbly reveals certain historical truths that disagreed with official Soviet history. Censorship caused yet another painful story relating to Kostan Zarian, whose great novel, contemporary epic we should call it, Navĕ Leran vra [Nawǝ leran vray, The Ship on the Mountain], was reprinted in Armenia after the author’s repatriation, but only after having undergone a degrading sort of “surgery”. The person responsible for this “castration”: the author- aparatchik Hrachʿia Krikorian (Hračʿeay Grigoryan) who, emboldened after a few minor concessions granted by the author, threw himself in wholeheartedly, far exceeded his limits, and “corrected” the recent national history in the text according to Soviet norms. In this context, we should hardly be surprised and even less shocked at the reaction of revolt this aroused in the Diaspora. Some downplayed the problem, or at least called for “understanding”, even attributing it to a healthy reaction to an “anti-Soviet” political stance. It suffices to read, in the lines of the diary left by Zarian and published today in fragments, his own outrage and bitterness: see Matēōsean 1998, 439–442. 77 See Gabriēlean 1981 and Gabriēlean 1984–1986. 78 An indicative list of Western-Armenian authors, and those of the Diaspora published in Armenia (not taking into account publication dates, “independents” or non-conformists having appeared late): A. Chʿōbanian, R. Zartarian, H. Ōshagan, V. Tʿēkʿēian, Z. Yesayian, K. Zarian, Sh. Shahnur, N. Sarafian, V. Shushanian, K. Atmajian, M. Manushian (Manušean), Z. Vorpuni, H. Zartarian, Vahē-Vahian, A. Dzaṙugian, Z. Yaldĕzjian (Zahrad) (Ealtǝzčean, Zahrat), K. Atʿtʿarian, V. Mavian, G. Bazmajian, H. Mentsuri, L. Aslanian, Vahē Hayg, P. Nuriguian (Nurikean), S. Seza, A. Antreasian (Andrēasean), K. Ajemian (Ačemean), H. Asadurian, K. Kuyumjian (Guyum Guyumčean), A. Alikʿsanian (Alikʿsanean), G. Sidal (Sital), A. Atʿtʿarian (Atʿtʿarean), alias Armēn Tarian (Darean), Lewon Mesrob (Mesrop), Yervant Barsumian (Eruand Parsumean), Lucie Sulahian (Sulahean), Vahakn Sarkis (Vahagn Sargis), Sona Dēr Markarian (Tēr Margarean). Some authors, politicially “cursed” or unwilling to cooperate, were banished from being published in Soviet cities for a long time, and for some until the end of the Soviet period, such as Aharonian and Hamasdegh. 500 kurkjian pedagogical concepts, even for conservative models often being used in the Diaspora.

Conclusion: On the Threshold of a New Era

The Diaspora and Independent Armenia: A More Authentic Relationship? Thus, what can we conclude, as an attempt to evaluate the present moment in literature and its publication within – or rather over the splintered surface of – this entity, the Armenian Diaspora? And what can we expect in the future? I have already mentioned the gradual decline of the Armenian-speaking community, the retreat of the language, deprived of the “natural” framework of a nation-state. In addition to the deprivation mentioned, this decline is due to a number of inherent or external causes. Obviously, the first to blame is the cultural or ideological concept, certainly latent, that the “thinkers” and the institutions of the Diaspora claim: the fundamental stereotype of the “conservation of Armenianness” [hayabahbanum] – an ideology that, especially today faced with global trends of standardization and outright assimilation of minority cultures, finds itself in a very bad position. Although I cannot develop upon and give reasons to support this assertion (as the discussion of the problem and the subsequent diagnoses are beyond the scope of this article), I cannot avoid, however, denouncing this narrow state of mind, devoid of vision, lacking major initiatives, and lacking modernization of its own cultural products, along with effective means for their distribution in the modern sense of marketing. While the publishing of the Armenian book exists, its serious and systematic distribution has never existed. This is its fundamental, perhaps fatal, flaw. A second cause or factor, no less important, although more exterior, has been the attitude of the state of Armenia vis-à-vis this fraternal culture and language. We know that in its Soviet period, Armenia and Eastern Armenian culture, while showing some interest in the Diaspora and Western Armenian culture, were not able to rid themselves of a stiff and biased attitude, attributable to its membership in the Soviet bloc and its official ideology. Today, some facts and evidence speak in favor of an improvement: the relationship between the homeland and the Diaspora (henceforth, we should rather say Diasporas, in the plural), private relationships, associative relationships, all are completely freed from constraints. Authors and associations are free to publish with the publishers (or printers) in Yerevan, which have the publication of western armenian literature 501 sometimes attained a remarkable professional quality;79 authors from the homeland, visiting the Diaspora more often and more freely, are then published there;80 shared cultural initiatives take place, often with a corresponding publications: seminars, Pan-Armenian conferences of writers, literary prizes, presi- dential awards, and others. 81 But the basic problem entirely remains: in the fight for survival of Western-Armenian culture, confronted with the challenge of globalization, what can Armenia, which has become an independent state, do? Will it be able to overcome its “homeland” egocentrism, so characteristic of states whose history and geopolitics have been given the gift of a Diaspora? Today, some facts and evidence speak in favor of an improvement, a renewal, but it remains highly problematic: classical spelling, maintained by the Diaspora (but which, belonging to the entire national literary culture and, for many, constituting the sine qua non of its authenticity and its relationship to its past heritage, does not solely belong to the Diaspora), is merely tolerated in Armenia.82 A digitization initiative of Western Armenian literature before the genocide and the contemporary Diaspora, thus an initiative creating an enormous digital library, is underway in Yerevan, but it has been undertaken by leaders of the Diaspora who are residents of Armenia and has been financed by the budgets of the Diaspora.83 A “Ministry of the Diaspora” was created recently: there have been few, at least for the moment, signs of hope of a new approach on its part, that of seriously listening to the Diaspora and its problems. Concerning the actual situation on the ground (in the Diaspora, that is), the life of literature

79 Such as Sarkis Khachentsʿ (Sargis Xačencʿ) Editions, which showed an indisputable intellectual and professional quality, both in form and content of their various collections. 80 Some examples of authors from Armenia published in the Diaspora: the poet Henrik Etoyan, philologists and literary critics such as Gēorg Jahukian (Gēorg Jahukean),Ì and Albert Sharurian (Šarurean). 81 Some remarkable cases: the symposia dedicated to N. Aghbalian (among other talents, founder of the first university in Armenia in 1919) or to the writer Lewon Shantʿ, by the Hamazkayin and Yerevan State University, in cooperation. The conference proceedings were published in Yerevan and reprinted in Beirut. 82 Tolerated alongside Soviet reformed spelling which distorts so much; it remains the official spelling. Yet claims for the re-introduction of classical spelling, for a return to the status quo for a millenia of the language (shaken in 1922 by a simple decree) are systematically rejected, even when its proponents agree to make slight adjustments. 83 The digitization project of the Western Armenian literature and the Diaspora has been launched by the President of the American University of Yerevan (an Armenian of the Diaspora) and funded by an Armenian-American committee and sponsors involved with that committee. 502 kurkjian and Armenian publishing and printing is spreading at the moment primarily in Aleppo, Beirut, and to a much lesser degree in Istanbul, Tehran and Los Angeles. Apart from the activity of reprinting well-known literary works, one can more or less observe the breakthrough of elements constituting a new literary generation. It is, of course, difficult to characterize a movement at its birth, and even more difficult to make predictions about it. Initiatives such as the Book Fair, which is held every autumn at the Catholicate of Cilicia in Antelias, give rise to a certain sense of optimism. The activity surviving in minor centers such as Paris, 84 Montreal, Boston, New York, Cairo, or New Julfa, leaves less room for future prospects, due to the absence of an Armenian-speaking generation and / or the quantitative lack of a literary atmosphere and people to work in this area. In the 2050s of this century, will we still be able to speak of Western- Armenian publications in the Diaspora? And their necessary pre-condition, a living Western-Armenian literature? The response depends on several factors, among which I have already mentioned the main ones. Some are objective, rather predisposing one to pessimism, but the human factors, which are in large measure subjective, will probably have their say in this situation of formidable challenge. The question remains open.

Translated from the French by Cynthia J. Johnson

Summary Bibliography

Note: Bibliographic references related to the numerous literary works cited can be found in the footnotes.

Ałbalean, N. 1959. Erker [Works], vol. 1, Bēyrutʿ: Collection Hamazgayin. Beledian, K. 2001. Cinquante ans de littérature arménienne en France, Paris : Éditions du CNRS. Gabriēlean, V. 1981. Spʿiwṙkʿahay banastełcutʿiwn [Poetry of the Armenian Diaspora], Erevan: Erevani Hamalsarani Hratarakčʿutʿyun.

84 Among these efforts, it is worth mentioning the activity of certain Maisons de la Culture (Paris, Alfortville, Marseilles), their exhibitions, and related publications. As for efforts particularly targeting the Armenian-speaking community, there is an exhibition of the Armenian Book at the MCA of Alfortville. Equally, where attempts are currently in progress to resurrect in a new format the daily paper Haratch, which has recently closed. the publication of western armenian literature 503

Gabriēlean, V. 1984–1986. Spʿiwṙkʿahay patmvackʿ [The Novella in the Armenia Diaspora], 2 vol., Erevan: Erevani Hamalsarani Hratarakčʿutʿyun. Eramean, M. 2006 (13–20 avril). “Uruagic Halepi hay banastełcutʿean” [The Armenian Poetry in Aleppo: an outline], Haratch. Matēōsean, V. (Matiossian). 1998. Kostan Zareani šurǰ [About Kostan Zarian], Antʿilias: Tparan Katʿołikosutʿean Hayocʿ Meci Tann Kilikioy. Tagēsean, A. & Iwrnēšlean, A. 2013. Libananahay girkʿǝ 1894–2012. Matenagitakan Cʿank [The Armenian Book in Lebanon, 1894–2012. Bibliographical List], Pēyroutʿ: Haygazian University Press. Tʿēōlēōlean, M. 19772. Dar mǝ grakanutʿiwn [A Century of literature], vol. 2: 1920–1980, New York: Armenian Apostolic Church of America (1st edition, Cairo: Hussaper Press, 1955). Literary Production in Twentieth-Century Armenia: From Stifling State Control to the Uncertainties of Independence

Myrna Douzjian

Introduction

Any chapter-length survey of the history of Eastern Armenian literature in the twentieth century can only touch upon some of the main problems and issues that affected the publications of this period.1 Because political developments heavily influenced literary production throughout the century, this overview takes a chronological approach that uses historical markers in order to catego- rize developments in literature. At the turn of the century, the spirit of the Russian Revolution brought new fervor to Armenian intellectual activity in the Caucasus, and the Armenians began to undergo a reawakening in terms of cultural and political thought. As a result of such developments throughout the empire, the tsarist government, in a feeble attempt to maintain its power, reversed some of the freedoms that the Russian Constitution of 1906 had granted. Thus, during this early period of the twentieth century, the demands of the tsarist state impacted the lives and activities of authors like Hovhannēs Tʿumanian (Yovhannēs Tʿumanean), Awetikʿ Isahakian (Awetikʿ Isahakean), and Nar-Dos. Nevertheless, Eastern Armenian literature in the two pre-Soviet decades of the century and the first decade of the Soviet era was not explicitly linked to the strictly defined ideological demands of any state.2 In general, then, literature flourished organically until the late 1920s.

1 While acknowledging Eastern Armenian writers throughout the Caucasus, especially in the early part of the century, this survey takes Eastern Armenia (the former Soviet Republic of Armenia and the present-day Republic of Armenia) as its primary geographic focus. At the same time, it makes note of some other publication centers, including the other republics of the Soviet Union, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, France, Egypt, and the United States. Due to the limited scope of the chapter, twentieth century writers who have worked or currently work outside Armenia, including Yakob Karapentsʿ (Yakob Karapencʿ), Khorēn Aramuni (Xorēn Aramuni), Karēn Karslyan (Karēn Karslean), Armēn Melikʿian (Armēn Melikʿean), and many others, fall outside its purview. 2 Luckyj 1975, 1–2.

In contrast, starting in the late 1920s and continuing on until the end of the Soviet period, the state determined the course of a vast majority of Eastern Armenian literary production. For almost three quarters of the twentieth century, writers had to follow the changing demands of the Writers Union: throughout the years, the government exercised control on the development of literature, ranging from the imposition of the strictest restrictions on freedom of expression to the allowance of a modicum of freedom to, in the later years, greater tolerance for art that was ideologically independent and even subversive. Despite the fluctuations in the limitations authors faced, state censorship remained an active part of literary life throughout the entire Soviet period. Nevertheless, and however paradoxically, state control of literary production did have a singular beneficial outcome: state funding facilitated an abundance of publications. An overwhelming number of authors published their work prolifically, and the average print run for the most popular texts was in the thousands and often in the tens of thousands. In this regard, Grakan tełekatu [A Reference Guide to Literature] serves as a vital resource: it documents all of the Armenian language literature published in Soviet Armenia from 1934 to 1974. State funding also made the frequent translation of Armenian literature into Russian and the other languages of the USSR possible.3 However, these gains are almost negligible when the entire picture is taken into account. Overall, the quality of literature suffered immeasurably, especially when it absolutely had to serve an ideological purpose. Generally, experimentation in art was stifled, and, during the worst years of the Stalinist purges a “new genocide” took place.4 In addition, when dealing with any Soviet-era text the politics of publication must be borne in mind. For example, none of the complete works of authors published during the period really include the given author’s complete oeuvre. To complicate matters further, many texts were lost or suppressed, and authors were often compelled to publish edited versions of their work in order to ensure publication. The collapse of the Soviet Union and Armenia’s emergence as an independent nation-state in 1991 marked the beginning of a new era: the state no longer directly controlled what could and could not be published and read. Authors had the freedom to experiment aesthetically, stylistically, and thematically. They began to broach formerly taboo subjects in literature, like eroticism and

3 Bardakjian lists some of the twentieth century translators of Armenian literature into Russian: Sergey Gorodetsky, Samuil Marshak, Anna Akhmatova, Boris Pasternak, Nikolai Tikhonov, Mikhail Svetlov, Arseny Tarkovsky, Ilya Selvinsky, Naum Grebnev, Evgeny Evtushenko, Vera Zvyagintseva, Maria Petrovykh, Valery Bruisov, and Maxim Gorky. 4 Gabriēlean 2006, 48. 506 douzjian the body. Some of the new literature offered socio-political critiques of the past and the present, while other works were solely concerned with aesthetic experimentation and abstract or transcendental concepts. In a word, Eastern Armenian literature produced in Armenia experienced a radical diversification in every sense – in terms of its purpose, content, and form.

1 The Turn of the Century and the First Soviet Decade

In his A Reference Guide to Modern Armenian Literature, 1500–1920, Kevork Bardakjian offers the most thorough account of the literary trends of the first two decades of the twentieth century. This resource offers detailed information about the publications of the period, by all Eastern and Western Armenian authors – major, minor, and virtually unknown. One need look no further in order to answer questions about which authors published what, where, and when from 1500 to 1920. The book includes the work of authors born before 1920 and, therefore, also covers the literature of later decades, all the way through the late twentieth century. Drawing upon Bardakjian’s work, this section presents some of the literary developments of the turn of the century and the 1920s in broad brush strokes. Poetry was the dominant genre in the first decades of the twentieth century. Poets writing in Eastern Armenian at the time included Hovhannēs Tʿumanian, Awetik Isahakian, Vahan Tērian (Vahan Tērean), Derenik Demirchian (Derenik Demirčean), Yeghishē Chʿarentsʿ (Ełišē Čʿarencʿ), Hovhannēs Hovhannēsian (Yovhannēs Yovhannēsean), Lewon Manuēlian (Lewon Manuēlean), Gēorg Abov, Kostan Zarian (Kostan Zarean), and two of the founders of the Armenian proletarian style of poetry, Hakob Hakobian (Yakob Yakobean) and Shushanik Kurghinian (Šušanik Kurłinean).5 Significantly, two of Tʿumanian’s most famous long narrative poems came out along with others in a collection entitled Banastełcutʿiwnner [Poems]: Tʿmkaberdi aṙumə [The Capture of Fort Temuk], based on historical legend, and the romantic tragedy Anuš [Anush], which uniquely captures Armenian village life. During this period, Isahakian produced his second collection of poetry, Hayduki erger [Songs of Freedom Fighters], one of the earliest representations of the Armenian freedom fighters’ movement in verse.6 The publication history of his most unique and best- known work, the long poem Abu-Lala Mahari, bespeaks its popularity: it was published in Constantinople in 1918 and 1920 and in Boston in 1922 and

5 Bardakjian 2000, 152, 179–200. 6 Most recently, Arewik Press republished the volume in Yerevan in 1990. literary production in twentieth-century armenia 507 throughout the rest of the twentieth century in Istanbul, Buenos Aires, Paris, Beirut, Cairo, and Yerevan. The poem’s eponymous hero, the tenth-century Arab poet, expresses biting pessimism with regard to society and government and the rules that control them. In 1908 Vahan Terian published a collection of poems entitled Mtʿnšałi anurǰner [Illusions at Twilight], which immediately brought him recognition as a great poet; it reappeared in a 1912 volume along with his earlier works. The poetry in these collections incorporates Romantic elements, but, for the most part, Terian’s work offers some of the best examples of Symbolism in Armenian verse.7 In this sense, Terian brought novelty to the Eastern Armenian poetic aesthetic. During WWI, Terian published a series of patriotic poems as Erkir Nayiri [Land of Nayiri]; in these poems he lamented the tragic fate of his people. Less than a decade later, the concept of “Erkir Nayiri” would resound in the work of Chʿarentsʿ – a testament to Terian’s impact on Eastern Armenian letters. Derenik Demirchian, an author who wrote in virtually all genres, published his second collection of poetry in 1912 and, in 1919, a collection of quatrains entitled Garun [Spring].8 Chʿarentsʿ wrote the long narrative poems Dantʿeakan aṙaspel [A Dantesque Legend] (1916), inspired by his experiences as a soldier during WWI, and Amboxnerə xelagaruac [The Crowds Gone Mad] (1918), which describes the feats of the Red Army during the Russian Civil War. His collection of poems Poemner [Poems] (1923) expresses his revolutionary ideas and his alignment with Marxist-Leninism. Although poetry dominated the literary scene, impressive developments in the drama made it a comparably important genre. Shirvanzadē (Širvanzadē) was one of the preeminent playwrights of the day. His realistic plays centered on the nuclear family and relationships. His Armenuhi, Morgani xnamin [Morgan’s In-law], Čʿar ogi [Evil Spirit], the one-act comedy Charlatan, and Patui hamar [For the Sake of Honor] were all highly popular in Armenia. His historical play, Arhawirkʿi ōrerin [In the Days of Disaster], takes place on the Eastern edges of Western Armenia and depicts the participation of Armenian volunteers in the Russian army at the beginning of World War I.9 Lewon Shantʿ (Lewon Šantʿ), whose literary language was a unique mix of Eastern and Western Armenian, produced his masterpiece, Hin astuacner [Ancient Gods], in 1909.10 He also wrote the historical plays Kaysrə [The Emperor] (1916), Šłtʿayuacə [The Enchained] (1918), Inkac berdi išxanuhin [The Princess of a

7 Bardakjian 2000, 184–186. 8 Išxan 1975, 376. 9 Bardakjian 2000, 188–191. 10 For detailed synopses of the play see Parlakian and Cowe 2001, xx–xxiii and Išxan 1975, 198–200. 508 douzjian

Fallen Fortress] (1918), and Ōshin Payl [Oshin Payl] (1928). Derenik Demirchian wrote well-received nationalistic plays that can be classified as Realist: the historical play Vasak (1912) depicts Vasak Syuni as a traitor in contrast to the national hero Vardan Mamikonean; another historical play, Erkir Hayreni [Fatherland], explores the theme of an armed national struggle. His satirical Kʿaǰ Nazar [Nazar the Brave], written in 1912, was the most staged play of his lifetime.11 He also published the socially conscious play Datastan [Judgment] (1916); set in Old Jugha, it depicts a love triangle that ends in tragedy because of the Armenian community’s conservative social norms. Demirchian’s Yovnan Mecanun [Hovnan the Renowned] (1919) takes place during the Genocide, when a Turkish spy bribes the play’s eponymous hero to give up his daughter- in-law in return for the protection of the rest of his family.12 Other less canonical playwrights, Vrtʿanēs Pʿapʿazian (Vrtʿanēs Pʿapʿazean) and Lewon Manuēlian (Lewon Manuēlean), produced notable works. Pʿapʿazian wrote Žayr [Rock], which was immediately well-received after its premiere in 1905; it was also popular in Yerevan during the post-World War II era. This play, in its depiction of the struggle for economic and social justice, was a precursor to much of his later work. Manuēlian wrote drama and what he called dramatic poetry. His plays, Tigranuhi, Pʿotʿorik [The Storm], Dēpi ver [Upward], and Sasuncʿi Dawitʿ ew Msra Melikʿ [David of Sasoun and Msra Melik] were staged in many cities.13 While on the decline as the center of Eastern Armenian literary activity, Tbilisi produced a substantial number of authors and important publications during this period. With his roots in Lori, Tʿumanian spent twenty years of his early adulthood in an apartment in Tbilisi, where members of the group Vernatun, Lewon Shantʿ, Derenik Demirchian, Awetikʿ Isahakian, Nikol Aghbalian (Nikol Ałbalean), Awetis Aharonian (Awetis Aharonean), and others, would meet to discuss literary matters twice a week. Anushavan Abovian (Anušavan Abovean) spent most of his life in Tbilisi and wrote about life in Armenian villages. His works include Patkerner giwłakan keankʿicʿ [Scenes of Village Life] (1906) and Levoni hēkʿiatʿə [Levon’s Fairy Tale] (1916). Stepʿan Zorian (Stepʿan Zōrean) published his first collection of short stories, Txur mardik [Sad People] in Tbilisi. His early stories depict the transition from tsarist to Soviet rule. Derenik Demirchian also had his roots in Tbilisi, where he began his career as an author. He moved to Yerevan in 1925. The conservative periodical Nor dar [New Century] and its liberal rival Mšak [Cultivator] remained the pillars of publication and literary discourse. Nar-Dos, was a regular contributor to Nor dar, while Shirvanzadē published his work in Mšak. Awetis Aharonian’s

11 For a detailed synopsis see Parlakian and Cowe 2001, xxiv–xxvi. 12 For a synopsis of Datastan and Hovnan Mecanun see Išxan 1975, 376–377. 13 Bardakjian 2000, 192–194, 410, 452–454. literary production in twentieth-century armenia 509 collection of short stories Azatutʿean čanaparhin [On the Path to Freedom], which depicted the activities of Armenian revolutionaries, was first published in Tbilisi in 1906. Other notable prose works of the period include Lēōʿs (Lēō) realistic short stories and his patriotic novel Melikʿi ałǰikə [The Melik’s Daughter], all set in Artsakh. Vrtʿanēs Pʿapʿazian wrote short stories dealing with socio-economic inequities in the Armenian provinces of the Ottoman Empire.14 He later wrote short allegorical works with Persian, Kurdish, and Armenian settings. Pʿapʿazian’s novel Emma deals with political thought among the Armenians in Transcaucasia, while Alemgir depicts the turbulent Tehran of the 1890s. Yeghishē Chʿarentsʿ’s novel from the period, Erkir Nayiri (1923), depicts life in Kars during the revolution. The 1920s were a time of artistic experimentation, when writers made attempts to forge a clear path for the purpose of literature. Chʿarentsʿ, Azat Vshtuni (Azat Vštuni), and Gēorg Abov advocated “proletarian internationalism” as a healthier alternative to the nationalist, Romantic, or Symbolist trends in the literature of the earlier period. This short-lived group sought to produce socialist literature that concerned itself with contemporary, socially relevant themes and that represented the new post-revolutionary lifestyle. In another attempt to unify the direction of literature, the Association of Proletarian Writers of Armenia was formed in 1922; it made dogmatic demands for a “universal socialist literature.” As a reaction against the rigidity of the Association, Gurgēn Mahari (Gurgēn Mahari) led an opposition group named Hoktember [October]. This group soon aligned itself with Noyember [November], a new opposition group led by Chʿarentsʿ. They insisted that the new proletarian literature had to be based on local, recognizable, national models, not abstract ideas about the international proletariat. Meanwhile, writers like Derenik Demirchian, Vahan Tʿotʿoventsʿ (Vahan Tʿotʿovencʿ), and Stepʿan Zorian joined the literary circle Ułekicʿ [Companion], in an attempt to remain on neutral ground. In 1926, the Association of Proletarian Writers of Armenia and Noyember both joined the Union of Proletarian Writers of Armenia, yet a salient dividing line remained between the two camps. These tensions did not subside even after Socialist Realism was established as state policy and the Communist Party founded the Union of Soviet Writers of Armenia in 1934.15 The creation of the Writers Union marked the end of all artistic experimentation and led to an unfortunate transition from a period of great fervor and variety in the realm of ideas to one of severe restrictions.

14 Bardakjian 2000, 193–194. 15 Bardakjian 2000, 201–204. 510 douzjian

2 The Losses of the 1930s and Beyond

The First Congress of Soviet Writers took place in 1934, and Socialist Realism was established as the aesthetic style of preference. All artists had to create positive depictions of Soviet life, exemplary heroes, and narratives that cor- responded with the state’s ideology. Eastern Armenian literature bore tremendous losses, especially in the 1930s, when Stalin’s “cult of personality strove to repress the creativity of [the Armenian] people [. . .] in the cultural and educational arenas.”16 Thus, thousands of intellectuals and writers became victims of the Stalinist purges.17 The literature of the period was distorted in that authors wrote their work under the weight of self-censorship and the prevailing ideological demands of the state. Memoirs written by victims of the Stalinist purges and literature that mentioned the Genocide were banned from publication.18 Since virtually all authors whose work had any literary merit were persecuted, the vast majority of literature and criticism published from the mid-1930s to the early 1940s defined mediocrity: it unabashedly praised Stalin and contemporary Soviet life.19 Though the purges reached their apex in 1936, censorship continued to operate under strict codes until Stalin’s death. Stalin’s reign of terror impacted the work and lives of an infinitely long list of authors. Stepʿan Zorian’s works of the period conform to Soviet ideological standards: the novel Spitak kʿałakʿə [The White City] (1932) deals with socialist construction efforts, while the collection of short stories Jmṙan gišer [A Winter’s Night] (1935) criticizes pre-Soviet life. Derenik Demirchian had an alternative response to the demands of state censorship: after his comedy Napoleon Korkotean (1934) was denounced for being critical of Soviet realities, in 1938 he wrote Erkir hayreni [Fatherland], a popular and ideologically neutral play about political life in Armenia in the eleventh century. It was impossible for Kostan Zarian to publish any of his work in Stalinist Russia:

All of his works were listed in the Soviet Index and prohibited until the early 1960s, when he returned to Soviet Armenia after a forty year exile;

16 Vikʿtʿor Hambardzumian (Vikʿtʿor Hambarjumean) qtd. in Mikirtitchian 1975, 16–17. For a thorough account that details the extent and impact of the purges in the educational, cultural, political, and literary realms with particular emphasis on repatriates see Guntakʿčean 2010. 17 Bardakjian 2000, 205 and Peroomian 2007, 101. 18 Peroomian 2007, 101. 19 Bardakjian 2000, 205. literary production in twentieth-century armenia 511

only a few were published thereafter. Many of his writings, especially those of the 1920s and 1930s appeared in installments in the periodical press and still remain inaccessible to the public at large, though quite a few have been recently disinterred.20

Thus, for example, Zarian’s long narrative poem Tatragomi harsə [The Bride of Tatragom], which depicts a love story set during the Armenian revolutionary movement of 1906–1907, was first published in Boston in 1930; it did not appear in Armenia until 1965. Similarly, his novel Nawə leṙan vray [The Ship on the Mountain] came out in the United States in 1943, but was unpublishable in the Soviet Union. According to Ēduard Tʿopchʿian (Ēduard Tʿopʿčʿean), one of the most influential editors and literary critics of the Soviet era, the novel was highly flawed in its original form: it was nationalistic; it valorized the ARF; it equated the Soviets with the Kemalists; it failed to adequately recognize the greatness of the Soviets; it undermined the power of the proletariat. The novel finally appeared in the Armenian SSR in 1963, after Zarian edited it according to Tʿopchʿian’s liking.21 Gurgēn Mahari (Gurgēn Mahari) was exiled to Stalin’s prisons from 1937 to 1954 and eventually allowed to return home.22 His cycle of short novels focuses on the impact of the Genocide on the Armenians: Mankutʿiwn [Childhood]; Patanekutʿiwn [Adolescence]; and Eritasardutʿean semin [On the Threshold of Youth], published in unfinished form a quarter of a century later. Aksēl Bakuntsʿ (Aksēl Bakuncʿ) was a less fortunate victim of the Stalinist purges. He was arrested in 1936 and put to death in 1937 for committing the crime of “bourgeois nationalism.”23 Bakuntsʿ’s first novel Karmrakʿar [Red Stone] was incomplete: only the first part was published. He later published another novel Kyores [Goris] as well as fragments of another incomplete novel dedicated to Khachʿatur Abovian (Xačʿatur Abovean). Matʿewos Darbinian (Matʿewos Darbinean) wrote short stories, plays, poetry and children’s literature. He, too, was a victim of the Stalinist purges. A collection of his work was published posthumously in Yerevan in 1959. Leṙ Kamsar (Leṙ Kamsar) was a satirist who contributed to Xorhrdayin Hayastan [Soviet Armenia] from 1921 to 1935. An author whose work was often critical of Soviet realities, he survived ban- ishment during the Stalinist purges. After having survived the Genocide, the

20 Bardakjian 2000, 198. 21 Granish (Graniš) 2010. 22 Bardakjian 2000, 221 and Suny, 1997, 363. 23 Suny 1997, 363. 512 douzjian poet Vagharshak Norentsʿ (Vałaršak Norencʿ) also survived many years of exile under Stalin. Mkrtichʿ Armēn (Mkrtičʿ Armēn) was among the intellectuals exiled to Siberia during the Stalinist purges and one of the very few to return home and write about his experiences.24 Yeghishē Chʿarentsʿ was probably the most famous Armenian author to lose his life to the purges. His work was often ideologically motivated and politically charged; it propounded themes like the October Revolution, socialism, the Genocide, Armenia, and the Armenian people. Chʿarentsʿ, initially one of the ardent supporters of the Revolution, was branded a nationalist after publishing his dissident poem “Patgam” [“Message”], which appeared in the collection of poems entitled Girkʿ čanaparhi [Book of the Road] (1933).25 The publication of his work was banned from the mid-1930s until 1954, and the collections of his poetry published posthumously outnumber those that were published during his lifetime. The recent documentary film about his life and work, Charents: In Search of My Armenian Poet (2009), demonstrates the complications that arise with regard to the publication history of his oeuvre. Many of his works remain unpublished, perhaps even lost. Others, like Girkʿ čanaparhi, included revisions that the censor forced him to make.26 Certain trends took root in the 1930s and continued to play a role throughout the entire Soviet era. With the state backing of literary publications, the standard print run was 3,000, and certain books had a print run of up to 10,000 copies. Alongside censorship imposed by the state, self-censorship became a common practice among authors throughout the entire Soviet period. In other words, authors, in anticipation of the reaction of the censors, would edit their work based on their understanding of what would be tolerated by the state. Questions about what remained unpublished and what was subject to self- censorship remain unanswered with respect to the collected works of many Soviet authors.27

24 Bardakjian 2000, 214, 222, 325, 442. 25 Suny 1997, 363 and Išxan 1975, 401. 26 Bardakjian 2000, 211. 27 To this end, several post-Soviet scholars and editors have initiated projects to uncover the unpublished and unedited versions of Soviet-era literature. For example, D. Gasparean, a late Soviet-era editor and critic of poetry, has edited and published the formerly unpublished works of Bakuntsʿ, Chʿarentsʿ, and Paruyr Sevak (Paroyr Sewak), starting in the early 1990s: Gasparean 1992; Gasparean 1996b; Gasparean 1999. literary production in twentieth-century armenia 513

3 The World War II Era

Literature of the war era served the purpose of valorizing the army’s efforts in the protection of the homeland. Accordingly, for example, Stepʿan Zorian wrote short stories like “Mayrə” [“The Mother”], “Anikə,” and “Ałavniner” [“Doves”], which depicted the physical and moral heroism of the soldiers. In a parallel attempt to ease the horrors of the war, the government also implemented a relaxing of censorship during this period. Authors were allowed to interpret the state’s push for Soviet patriotism in literature as permission to express Armenian national pride in the form of historical novels that explored the glories of the past.28 Novels that dealt with Armenia’s former statehood and national struggles for independence included Zorian’s Pap Tʿagawor [King Pap] (1943), Derenik Demirchian’s Vardanankʿ (1943), and Nayiri Zarian’s (Nayiri Zarean) Ara ew Šamiram [Ara and Shamiram] (1944). Along these same lines, historical plays of the period included Vagharsh Vagharshian’s (Vałarš Vałaršean) Ōłakʿum [Encirclement], Nayiri Zarian’s Vrež [Revenge], and Alēkʿsandr Arakʿsmanian’s (Alēkʿsandr Arakʿsmanean) Emanuel, based on the life of the 19th century intellectual, Mikʿayēl Nalbandian (Mikʿayēl Nalbandean). Awetikʿ Isahakian’s patriotic poems of the period also belong to the category of literature that concerned itself with the Armenian nation. Although the exploration of historical themes in literature was tolerated during the war era, the state censor did limit the degree of freedom authors could exercise. As a result, Hovhannēs Shiraz’s (Yovhannēs Širaz) long poem Hayocʿ Danteakan [The Armenian Dantean] (1941) was rejected by the censorship of the day. Parts of it were published in Beirut and Tehran before it appeared in the Soviet Armenian press. The work was only published in its entirety, as the author had first conceived it, posthumously in 1990.29 Such examples demonstrate that even with the loosening of restrictions, state control of literary production remained fully operational.

4 The Post-WWII Era

The end of the war also brought an end to the relative freedom afforded by the war era. Many of the works that were acceptable just a few years prior received harsh criticism:

28 Peroomian 2007, 102 and Bardakjian 2000, 206. 29 Peroomian 2007, 103. 514 douzjian

In the second congress of the Union of Soviet Writers of Armenia (1946), works dealing with the past and written in the concluding years of the war were condemned: Demirčyan’s Vardanankʿ, it was pointed out, over- emphasized the role of the church and religion in the national liberation movement; King Pap in Zoryan’s eponymous historical novel was lion- ized as a democrat; Zaryan’s Ara Gełecʿik idealized the past; and Širaz was sternly warned that he was following an extremely pernicious path by making excessive use of religious, mystical references, and imagery, and by elaborating only on national themes.30

Nationalism in literature was further suppressed by the unyielding requirements of the censor. In a second round of internment, Gurgēn Mahari, Vagharshak Norentsʿ, Vahram Alazan, and others were imprisoned or exiled because they wrote nationalistic fiction.31 As a result, literature reverted to depicting an idealized Soviet society in accordance with the demands of Soviet Socialist Realism: “The basic premises of ideology, Party, and government were believed to be faultless and were never questioned. With the exception of pro- Soviet, pro-peace praise, and anti-imperialistic propaganda, political criticism was a taboo, as was the genocide.”32 Nevertheless, the period produced some anomalies that could be read as a further development of the tradition that had begun during the war era. In 1947, Khachʿik Dashtentsʿ (Xačʿik Daštencʿ) published Tigran Mec [Tigran the Great], an historical play about Tigran II, famous for extending the boundaries of the Armenian kingdom; in 1950, he published Xodedan, a novel that depicts the fate of the Armenians during the Genocide. In 1951 Hovhannēs Shiraz wrote “Ani,” a poem in which the narrator vows to reunite the medieval Armenian capital city with Armenia. Shiraz, who consistently remained an anti-establishment poet, managed to negotiate the demands of the state with his own nationalistic beliefs. For example, he wrote poetry that praises Stalin, while simultaneously calling on him to reunite historic Armenian lands with Soviet Armenia.33 Works like his paved the way for the period of de-Stalinization and the loosening of restrictions on the topics that literature could broach.

30 Bardakjian 2000, 205. 31 Peroomian 2007, 103. 32 Bardakjian 2000, 206. 33 Peroomian 2007, 103–104. literary production in twentieth-century armenia 515

5 The Mid-1950s and the 1960s

A literary rebirth began to take shape shortly after Stalin’s death in 1953. After the Third Congress of Armenian Writers was held in June 1954, multivolume works of pre-Soviet authors, like Rafayēl Patkanian (Rafayēl Patkanean) and Raffi, were published as were the works of those who were allowed to return from exile, including Gurgēn Mahari, Vahram Alazan, Khorēn Adzhemian (Xorēn Ačemean), Vagharshak Norents, Mkrtichʿ Armēn, and Valtʿer Aramian (Valtʿer Aramean). The reputation of the victims of the Stalinist purges, Chʿarents, Bakuntsʿ, Tʿotʿovents, Matʿewos Darbinian, and many others was restored.34 The official party line even lauded Chʿarentsʿ and Bakuntsʿ as “good Communists.”35 After the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1956, the process of de-Stalinization was fully underway. The censor exhibited greater tolerance for artistic creativity and independence. As a result, the literature of the period explored a wider variety of themes, experimented with form, and demonstrated a refusal to represent reality realistically.36 Writers further developed some of the national concerns that prevailed in the texts of the war era. In 1956 Hrand Hrahan published the autobiographical novel Im keankʿi vēpə [The Novel of My Life], in which he recounts childhood memories from the Armenian Genocide and expands upon the cultural and personal losses his people bore. Paruyr Sewak (Paroyr Sewak) made the first attempt to represent the Armenian Genocide in verse in his long narrative poem Anlṙeli zangakatun [The Ever Tolling Bell Tower] (1958). After lengthy negotiations with the censor, it was published in 1959. Through its depiction of the tragic fate of Komitas, a victim of the Genocide, the poem propounds the Turkish atrocities and the Armenian armed resistance movement. Gurgēn Borian’s (Gurgēn Borean) plays, Noyn harki tak [Under One Roof] (1957) and Kamurǰi vray [On the Bridge] (1961), deal with socio-historical and contemporary themes. Vahagn Davtʿian’s (Vahagn Davtʿean) poetry of the period mourns the loss of his homeland. Serō Khanzadian’s (Serō Xanzadean) historical novel Mxitʿar Sparapet [Commander Mkhitar] (1961) and Davtʿian’s historical dramatic poem Tʿondrakecʿiner [The Tondrakians] (1960) both explore the past and extol the struggle for freedom. Tʿondrakecʿiner also conveys a sense of

34 Mikirtitchian 1975, 14–15 and Peroomian 2007, 104. 35 Suny 1997, 371. 36 Mikirtitchian 1975, 15 and Bardakjian 2000, 205–206. 516 douzjian disappointment in the Soviet regime. Both works were early steps in the development of a new literature that explored the national question.37 However, the loosening of restrictions did indeed have its bounds. Thus, when Hrand Matʿewosian’s (Hrand Matʿewosean) “Axnicor” appeared in Sovetakan grakanutʿiwn [Soviet Literature] in 1961, the Party attacked the work and had the journal’s editors removed. In 1962 restrictions imposed on literary publications began to tighten and by 1963 literary life had dulled in comparison to the early days of the Khrushchev era. Nevertheless, some writers subtly addressed the issue of political reform.38 For example, Stepʿan Alachachyan (Stepʿan Alačačean) published his autobiographical novel Pʿiwnik [Phoenix] (1962), which told of the hardships faced by a family that repatriated to Soviet Armenia. In the same year, Mahari published Lṙutʿean jaynə [The Sound of Silence], a collection of short stories that draws upon his experiences in the early Soviet period and his time in Siberia. Similarly, in 1964, Mkrtichʿ Armēn published Patuirecʿin yanjnel jez [They Asked Me To Give You This], a collection of sketches based on his experiences in exile.39 While in 1967 Mkrtichʿ Armēn was able to publish Žirayr Glencʿ, a novel about a survivor of the purges and his return home, other former exiles’ works remained unpublishable. Many such texts circulated in the form of samizdat40 until the era of perestroika. For example, Gurgēn Mahari wrote about his exile in Haykakan brigad [Armenian Brigade] in 1964; his work was not published until 1989. Similarly, Nayiri Zarian’s account of life in the prison camps, Yardagołi čamban [The Milky Way], unpublishable in 1963, came out in 1989. Gurgēn Mahari’s Całkacʿ pʿšalarer [Blooming Barbed Wire], also about the prison camps, was published in Yerevan in 1988. However, the work was published as tamizdat41 in Beirut in installments in the journal Nayiri [Nairi] between 1971 and 1972.42 Another major shift in governmental tolerance occurred in 1963, when, for the first time, public mention was made of the Armenian Genocide. On April 24, 1965 a mass commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the Genocide was held. In this context, Hrachʿia Kʿochʿar’s (Hračʿeay Kʿočʿar) Nahapet [The

37 Peroomian 2007, 105–107. 38 Mikirtitchian 1975, 16. 39 Bardakjian 2000, 221–222 and Peroomian 2007, 107. 40 Literally, “self-publication,” samizdat was a portmanteau Russian word used to designate subversive literature that circulated underground through local means. 41 Literally, “outside publication,” tamizdat was a portmanteau Russian word used to indicate subversive literature that was published abroad, but was unpublishable in the USSR. 42 Peroomian 2007, 109–110. literary production in twentieth-century armenia 517

Patriarch] and Spitak girkʿə [The White Book] are indicative of the spirit of the times: Nahapet depicts the cruelties of the Genocide, the destruction and loss of Western Armenia, and the tragic fates of refugees; Spitak girkʿə addresses contemporary social and intellectual problems.43 In contrast, although Mahari’s novel about the siege of Van, Ayruoł aygestanner [Burning Orchards], was publishable in 1966, it was burned and banned shortly after its release. Though starting in 1966, with the Brezhnev era, tighter controls were placed on literary activity, authors continued to take advantage of a small amount of leniency. In this sense, the 1960s marked the beginning of a period when writers would consistently test the limits of their freedom. Their efforts brought true novelty to the literary arts. Thus, nationalism, state building, and patriotism took center stage in Vardgēs Petrosian’s (Vardgēs Petrosean) Haykakan ēskʿizner [Armenian Sketches] (1969). Meanwhile, in their poetry, Hovhannēs Shiraz, Silva Kaputikian (Silva Kaputikean), Paruyr Sevak, Vahagn Davtʿian (Vahagn Davtʿean), and Ṙazmik Dawoyian (Ṙazmik Dawoyean) addressed the nationalist theme of the survival of the Armenian people.44 The Armenian correspondent of Komsomolskaia pravda [Komsomol Truth] criticized Grigor Tēr-Grigorian’s (Grigor Tēr-Grigorean) controversial comedy Ax, nerver, nerver [Oh, Nerves! Nerves!] (1969) for its “distortion of reality.”45 The appearance of the magazine Garun [Spring], starting in 1967, also testified to the move toward diversification in literature: this publication served as an outlet for a new, young generation of authors who were allowed to explore their creative talents freely; it also provided a forum for scholars of various literary and non- literary disciplines. Its high circulation, around 50,000 copies, was indicative of its popularity and influence.46 In this way, the period from the mid-1950s to the 1960s paved the way to the last two decades of the Soviet era – when the tendency to push the bounds of the acceptable in literature reached its peak.

6 The Last Two Decades of the Soviet Era

Brezhnev’s rise to power did not put a complete end to the relative freedom of the 1960s. On the one hand, the unexplained deaths of Paruyr Sevak in 1971, Mushegh Galshoyan (Mušeł Galšoyean) in 1980, and several others were viewed as a clear indication of a renewed set of more subtle purges. Arshak

43 Mikirtitchian 1975, 20. 44 Mikirtitchian 1975, 17–20. 45 Mikirtitchian 1975, 22. 46 Mikirtitchian 1975, 21. 518 douzjian

Giwmrian’s (Aršak Giwmrean) novel, Gnčʿuhin [The Gypsy Woman], about a nostalgic love for his homeland was denied publication in 1977. It was not published until 1995. On the other hand, however, publications of the decade that expanded the possibilities for themes in literature included Vahagn Davtʿian’s famous poem “Requiem,” inspired by his trip to Deir el-Zor, and Khachʿik Dashtents’s historical novel Ṙančʿparneri kančʿə [The Call of Plowmen], which tells the story of the Armenian freedom fighters’ movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.47 The latter first appeared in Beirut in 1977, and, only later, in Yerevan in 1979. The fact that the book could be published, however belatedly, exemplifies the tenor of the times: the coexistence of restrictions alongside some freedoms. Later, in 1981, Perch Zeytʿuntsian (Perč Zēytʿuncʿean) pushed the limits imposed by censorship further with his play Anawart menaxōsutʿiwn [Unfinished Monologue], which received a good deal of criticism for its critique of the political system. The advent of Gorbachev’s reforms, particularly perestroika and glasnost, brought new freedoms in the realm of the arts. Authors began to write about the devastating years under Stalin’s rule. Formerly unpublishable works published during the Gorbachev era included Awetik Isahakian’s collection of poetry, Hayduki erger [Songs of Freedom Fighters], in praise of the Armenian freedom fighters’ movement of the late nineteenth century and Hovhannēs Tʿumanian’s “Verǰin orə” [“The Last Day”], an ode to the Armenian volunteer regiments of 1915. Authors of the late Soviet period whose works were independent of the official Soviet line included Aghasi Ayvazian (Ałasi Ayvazean), Henrik Ēdoyan (Henrik Ēdoyean), Armēn Martirosian (Armēn Martirosean), Dawitʿ Hovhannēs (Dawitʿ Yovhannēs), Hrachʿia Sarukhan (Hračeay Saruxan), Hovhannēs Grigorian (Yovhannēs Grigorean), Perch Zeytʿuntsian, and Alvard Petrosian (Alvard Petrosean). Their work stands as a natural transition to the complete freedom of expression in literature that the era of independence would come to offer.

7 Reading Soviet Literature and Criticism Today

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the shift from the production of state- mandated literature to an open market created the possibility and need for a revaluation of Soviet literary standards and interpretations of literature. After all, just as Soviet literature was restricted by the conventions imposed by the

47 Peroomian 2007, 105, 108. literary production in twentieth-century armenia 519 state, so, too, was literary criticism. In fact, virtually all Soviet-era literary criticism or history should be read with a grain of salt. To take an example, Tʿamrazian’s (Tʿamrazean) Sovetahay grakanutʿean patmutʿiwn [A History of Soviet Armenian Literature], which was used as a university textbook for students in philology, chronicles the development of Soviet Armenian literature and includes sections on the Marxist-Leninist school of literary critics, proletarian literature, the Revolution and national poetry, and detailed entries on the life, work, and critical reception of authors like Shushanik Kurghinian, Hakob Hakobian, Chʿarentsʿ, Derenik Demirchian, Stepʿan Zorian, Gurgēn Mahari, Gegham Sarian (Gełam Sarean), Aksēl Bakuntsʿ, Nayiri Zarian, Hovhannēs Shiraz, and many others. Though the study was published late in the Soviet era, the critic’s ideological bent remains far from subtle: he clearly prefers Realism, Socialist Realism, and literature that is in line with Soviet ideology. As a result, he offers overly Marxist-Leninist readings of the works of Shirvanzadē, Hovhannēs Tʿumanian, and Vahan Terian, among others. He also makes overgeneralizations about authors that do not belong to the canon that he discusses: for example, he explains that there was only one Armenian Futurist, Kara Darvish (Kara Darviš), who was “laughably alone and of no consequence.”48 The “anti-revolutionary” oeuvre of Kara Darvish waited an entire century before critical justice was done to it with the publication of Krikor Beledian’s (Grigor Pǝltean) Haykakan Futurizm [Armenian Futurism], the first serious comprehensive scholarly work on Armenian Futurist authors, Kara Darvish, Chʿarentsʿ, Azat Vshtuni (Azat Vštuni), Gēorg Abov, and Hrand Nazariantsʿ (Hrand Nazareancʿ).49 Coincidentally, in the same year, Dawitʿ Gasparian (Dawitʿ Gasparean) published a study devoted to this artistic movement, Haykakan apagayapaštutʿiwn [Armenian Futurism]. The Soviet era produced many other colossal studies on Soviet Armenian literature, which are useful for encyclopedic information – dates, names, titles. But, again, due to the fact that they tout Soviet ideology, they are not very insightful sources of critical interpretation and analysis. For example, in cataloging the literary trends of the WWII and post-WWII eras, Sovetahay grakanutʿean patmutʿiwn. Erkrord hator (1941–1964) [The History of Soviet Armenian Literature, Volume II (1941–1964)], edited by Surēn Aghababian (Surēn Ałababean), Ēduard Topchian, Lewon Hakhverdian (Lewon Haxverdean), and Vazgēn Mnatsakanian (Vazgēn Mnacʿakanean), clearly articulates the preferences of the Soviet establishment. The editors’ biases

48 Tʿamrazean 1984, 9. 49 The latter wrote in Western Armenian. 520 douzjian are exposed when they characterize the poetry written during World War II: “Despite some unacceptable trends – insincere rhetoric, lyrical crackling, certain expressions of national limitedness, the inescapable dues paid to the ‘worship of the individual’ – [the poetry of this period] nobly accomplished its national duties, becoming a powerful force of influential didacticism and aesthetics.”50 Nevertheless, the work offers an enormous amount of information about lesser-known authors of the period; it also includes elaborate sections, however ideologically tainted, on the canonical authors, Awetikʿ Isahakian, Derenik Demirchian, Nayiri Zarian, Gegham Sarian, Hrachʿia Kʿochʿar, Hovhannēs Shiraz, Vakhtʿang Ananian (Vaxtʿang Ananean), Garegin Sewuntsʿ (Garegin Sewuncʿ), Hamō Sahian (Hamō Sahean), Serō Khanzadian (Serō Xanzadean), Silva Kaputikian, and Gēorg Ēmin (Gēworg Ēmin). In the post-Soviet era, scholars introduced new approaches to both the pre- Soviet and Soviet canons; as a result, standard understandings of Armenian literary history have been subject to revision. Articles in the literary press articulate at least two dominant and distinct approaches to the canon of Armenian literature. The first, more radical camp, suggests a complete, indiscriminate rejection of all Soviet literature as well as a complete dismantling of the traditional understanding of nineteenth and early-twentieth century Armenian literature. In support of this view, Vahram Sahakian (Vahram Sahakean) writes, “And what about Rafi’s Samuel? (Yes, I know that Rafi is spelled with two fs, but I write it with one. He’s not worth two fs, and that’s all).” In a more critically inclined, less polemical tone, Aghasi Ayvazian explains that Raffi’s work has national merit, not literary value.51 On the other hand, more moderate approaches call for an evaluation of literary works according to their historical context. For example, Sergey Sarinian (Sarinean) explains that the Soviet period produced writers whose works offer important cultural value. For Sarinian, these authors include Martiros Sarian (Martiros Sarean), Hakob Kojoyian (Yakob Koǰoyean), Gohar Gasparian (Gohar Gasparean), Vikʿtʿor Hambardzumian (Vikʿtʿor Hambarjumean) and Hrachʿia Achaṙian (Hračʿeay Ačaṙean). He argues that Socialist Realism is not an aesthetic understanding, but an historical and ideological one. As a result, these works should be evaluated both according to their aesthetic qualities (irrespective of ideology) and as historical realities that bear the mark of socialist ideology.52 As these examples demonstrate, the debates include a range of differing opinions and approaches. Undoubtedly, the post-Soviet period will

50 Ałababean et al. 1965, 41 (my translation). 51 Sahakian qtd. in Kʿalantʿarean 2006, 28 (my translation). 52 Ibid., 30–31. literary production in twentieth-century armenia 521 eventually settle on a widely accepted, contemporary understanding of nineteenth and twentieth century Armenian literature – one that offers a point of view in contradistinction to the ideologically tainted knowledge produced during the Soviet period. A comparative study of the ideas articulated in the literary press in this regard could serve to elucidate the actual impact and lasting effects of Soviet-era literature on the literary fixations of the post-1991 period. Along these same lines, post-Soviet literature and criticism has concerned itself with the need to introduce formerly silenced texts and issues. In the case of Armenian literature, scholarship has introduced and established a place for formerly banished Eastern and Western Armenian authors, such as Shantʿ, Ōshagan (Ōšakan), Hamasdegh (Hamasteł), and Aharonian. Scholars writing on the uncovering of authors’ lives, productivity, and controversies surrounding their work, include Seyran Grigorian (Seyran Grigorean) on Paruyr Sevak and Gurgēn Mahari, the late Lewon Hakhverdian on Hovhannēs Tʿumanian and Yervant Ōdian (Eruand Ōtean), and Sergey Sarinian on Lewon Shantʿ and Paruyr Sevak. Dawitʿ Gasparian has produced studies on the life and work of Chʿarentsʿ, Bakuntsʿ, and Hamō Sahian.53 Both areas of research – reevaluating the canon and revising literary history – are intense objects of study, particularly in post-Soviet Russian studies, and, thus, the field is ripe for comparative projects between the Armenian methods and processes of reevaluation and those of other national post-Soviet literatures.

8 Literature in the Post-Soviet Period and the Era of Independence

A major shift in publication trends accompanied the era of independence: gone were the days of the financial backing of literary publication by an entire empire. The average print run for a given work of fiction dropped from the thousands to 500 copies. Although anyone had the freedom to publish anything (and they certainly did), the literary market no longer enjoyed the economic stability of the past. Thus, state run censorship was replaced by self-censorship dictated by the demands of the market. Of course, ultimately, authors could choose whether or not to conform to those demands. Despite the difficulties posed by the early years of independence, there has been no shortage of literary production. Since it would be impossible to provide even a sketch of all of the trends in the literature of the period, a few general observations about the developments in poetry, prose, and drama will have to suffice.

53 See, for example, Gasparean 1996a; Gasparean 1997a; Gasparean 1997b; Gasparean 2003; Gasparean 2009a. 522 douzjian

Post-Soviet poetry was varied in its content: a number of authors wrote entirely apolitical works, while others wrote politically charged, anti-Soviet verse. Some notable publications include: Henrik Ēdoyan’s Erekʿ ōr aṙancʿ žamanaki [Three Days without Time] (2005), an open-ended, intellectu- ally challenging collection of poetry; Yusik Ara’s (Yusik Ara) Lusancʿkʿi mardik [People on the Margins] (2003) and Sewagrutʿiwnner [Drafts], collections of poetry in which the heroes are prostitutes, nomads, drunkards, and beg- gars; Garun Aghachanian’s (Garun Ałačanean) Intim [Intimate] (1999), a collection of sexually explicit poetry; Hakob Movsēs’ (Yakob Movsēs) Girkʿ całkman [The Book of Blossoming] (1992) and Armēn Martirosian’s (Armēn Martirosean) Žamergutʿiwn [Liturgy] (2001), which explore the relationship between the modern and the archaic. Other poets of this period include Hrachʿia Tʿamrazian (Hračʿeay Tʿamrazean), Arevshat Awagian (Arewšat Awagean), Gēorg Aghachanian (Gēworg Ałačanean), Yovik Yoveyian (Yovik Yoveyean), Tʿatʿul Bolorchʿian (Tʿatʿul Bolorčʿean), Artem Yarutʿiunian (Artem Yarutʿiwnean), Vaṙlēn Alēkʿsanian (Vaṙlēn Alēkʿsanean), Khachʿik Manukian (Xačʿik Manukean), Artashēs Ghazarian (Artašēs Łazarean), Dawitʿ Hovhannēs (Dawitʿ Yovhannēs), Hovhannēs Grigorian (Yovhannēs Grigorean), and Ēduard Militonian (Ēduard Militonean).54 Antipoezia [Anti-poetry], probably the most important artistic movement of the period, created a stir at the end of the twentieth century. The writers of this movement continue to lead the path in the production of thematically unrestrained and alternative poetry. Violet Grigorian’s (Violet Grigorean) long poem Kʿałakʿə [The City] (1998), Armēn Shekoyan’s55 (Armēn Šekoyean) Antipoezia (2000), Marinē Petrosian’s (Marinē Petrosean) “Kanonakan patmutʿiwnner” [“Canonical Stories”] (1998) and many other texts and authors challenged the conventions of traditional poetry, especially with regard to language, representation, and form. Violet Grigorian’s poetry, with its parodic style, broke all linguistic and thematic taboos. Her work is especially unique in that it offers a radical feminist voice that challenges patriarchal heteronor- mativity. Grigorian’s work has simultaneously received much harsh criticism and fervent acclaim. For example, Lewon Hakhverdian rejected her poetry, while Marc Nichanian praised it, asserting that the introduction of newness to Armenian poetry is inextricably tied to Grigorian’s work. Similarly, Marinē Petrosian’s poetry offers a fresh, unrestrained female perspective. In an article entitled “Antipoezia kam banastełcə čʿi pʿntrum alibi” [“Anti-poetry or the Poet Doesn’t Look for an Alibi”], Petrosian explains that Anti-poetry is a reaction

54 Kʿalantʿarean 2006, 55–94. 55 Shekoyan’s prose works are also noteworthy for their formal unconventionality. literary production in twentieth-century armenia 523 against pristine poetry or poetry that involves an escape from reality. According to her, those who do not look for an alibi, create Anti-poetry, by reflecting upon the squalid aspects of life and by using colloquial or gṙehik [vulgar] language.56 Armēn Shekoyan’s poems are, like those of the other members of this group, highly ironic and playful. The period also produced many prose works that deal with contemporary historico-political issues. Makʿsim Hovhannisian (Makʿsim Yovhannisean) published a collection of short stories and essays entitled Arčʿax im, čʿaw im [My Artsakh, My Pain] in 1998. The book draws parallels between the Armenians’ struggle in Artsakh and the Genocide of 1915. Lewon Khechʿoyan’s (Lewon Xečʿoyean) novel Sev girkʿ, canr bzēz [Black Book, Weighty Bug] (1999) deals with issues related to the Javakhk Armenians, the Karabagh War, and Armenian independence and regime change. Vahan Saghatʿelian’s (Vahan Sałatʿelean) novel Karmir mayramut [Red Sunset] (2004) deals with the earthquake, the Karabagh movement, the war, and the promises and disappointments of independence. Mkrtichʿ Sargsian (Mkrtičʿ Sargsean), Ṙubēn Yovsepʿian (Ṙubēn Yovsēpʿean), Yovik Vardumian (Yovik Vardumean), Ashkhēn Abazian (Ašxēn Abazean), and Ara Nazarētian (Ara Nazarētʿean) have also published works that deal with the Karabagh War.57 Perhaps as a direct result of the need to confront histories neglected during the Soviet period, the post-Soviet era has produced a considerable number of historical novels: Perch Zeytʿuntsian’s Gołačʿuac jiwn [Stolen Snow], Lewon Khechoyan’s Aršak arkʿay, Drastamat Nerkʿini [King Arshak, Drastamat the Eunuch] (1995), Zōrayr Khalapʿian’s (Zōrayr Xalapʿean) Vasil Mec, hay kaysr biwzandiacʿi, kam, Kčučneri tʿagavorə [Basil the Great, The Armenian Byzantine Emperor, or, The King of Jars] (1995), Artsrun Pepanian’s (Arcrun Pepanean) Alekʿsandr, ordi Ammoni: patmavep Alekʿsandr Makedonacʿu masin [Alexander, Son of Ammon: An Historical Novel about Alexander of Macedon] (2001), Kaligula [Caligula] (2003), and Ayruelu gnacʿołə [The One Going To Be Burned] (2005), Armēn Martirosian’s (Armēn Martirosean) Mazē kamurǰ [The Paper Thin Bridge] (Part I of the book was published in 1986, Parts II and III were published in 2002 and 2003), and Hovhannēs Melkʿonian’s (Yovhannēs Melkʿonean) Očiri burger [The Pyramids of Crime] (2001). The biographical novel has been a popular subcategory of this genre: Perch Zeytʿuntsian’s Verǰin arewagalə [The Last Sunrise] (1990) is about Krikor Zōhrab (Grigor Zōhrap); Haykaz Hakobchanian’s (Haykaz Yakobčanean) Aṙkaycʿ črag [The Flickering Lantern] (2004) deals with Taniēl Varuzhan’s (Daniēl Varužan) life, and his

56 Kʿalantʿarean 2006, 200–201. 57 Kʿalantʿarean 2006, 97–104. 524 douzjian

Spitak edelveysner [White Edelweisses] (1997) is about Ṙupēn Sewag (Ṙubēn Sewak).58 On the opposite end of teleological histories, postmodernist texts include Gurgēn Khanjian’s (Gurgēn Xanǰean) Hiwandanocʿ [Hospital] (1994) and Nstir “A.” gnacʿkʿə [Take the “A” Train] (2002), Varuzhan Ayvazian’s (Varužan Ayvazean) Čanči amisə [The Month of Flies] (1998), and Vahan Saghatʿelian’s Karmir mayramut [Red Sunset] (2004). In addition to developing literary styles that defy interpretation, post-Soviet prose writers have also challenged the former thematic boundaries of literature. For example, many authors have incorporated detailed descriptions of the body, grotesque scenes, and sexual taboos such as incest and bestiality. Notable examples include the works of Gurgēn Khanjian, Norayr Adalian (Norayr Adalean), and Vahram Martirosian (Vahram Martirosean). Drama remains an important and relevant genre in the contemporary period. Plays have a greater potential to reach a wider audience, as a single performance has nearly as many attendees as the number of readers for a given work of fiction with a standard print run. Post-Soviet playwrights whose work is regularly performed include Perch Zeytʿuntsian, Norayr Adalian, Karinē Khodikian (Karinē Xodikean), Gurgēn Khanjian, Nēlli Shahnazarian (Nēlli Šahnazarean), Samuēl Khalatʿian (Samuēl Xalatʿean), Vahram Sahakian (Vahram Sahakean), and the late Zhirayr Ananian (Žirayr Ananean) and Aghasi Ayvazian (Ałasi Ayvazean). The short play has been a very popular form. Some monologues from the period include: Varuzhan Nalbandian’s (Varužan Nalbandean) Cnndean taredarj [Birthday], Rafayēl Nahapetian’s (Rafayēl Nahapetean) Mardkancʿicʿ ayn kołm [Away from People], Anahit Tʿopʿchʿian’s (Anahit Tʿopʿčʿean) Menaxōsutʿiwn kžanocʿum [Monologue in the Madhouse] and Nēlli Shahnazarian’s Tʿapʿōr [Procession]. One or two-act plays with a small cast include: Dawitʿ Muradian’s (Dawitʿ Muradean) tragi-comedy, Mer hin dašnamurə [Our Old Piano], Samuēl Kosian’s (Samuēl Kosean) Keankʿə vandaki kołkʿov [Life alongside a Cage], Karinē Khodikian’s Moracʿuac ōrə [The Forgotten Day] and Čʿkrakekʿ, es ardēn spanuac em [Don’t Shoot, I’ve Already Been Killed!], and Gurgēn Khanjian’s Čepəntʿacʿə xauari mēǰ [A Brisk Walk in the Dark].59 Aghasi Ayvazian’s Biliard, Norayr Adalian’s Spanutʿean vkanerə [The Murder Witnesses] (1991), Rafayēl Nahapetian’s Pʿos [Ditch], Karinē Khodikian’s Xałi žamanakə [Play Time] (2004) and Kinə anjrewicʿ yetoy [A Woman after the Rain], Gurgēn Khanjian’s Awerakneri pahaknerə [The Guards of Ruins] and

58 Kʿalantʿarean 2006, 110–127. 59 Kʿalantʿarean 2006, 137–142. literary production in twentieth-century armenia 525

Tigran mec [Tigran the Great], Nēlli Shahnazarian’s Elir, duṙt bacʿ [Get Up and Open Your Door], and Anahit Arpʿen’s (Anahit Arpʿen) Kacʿaran [Lodgings] are all plays that deal with contemporary issues. Plays that explore national questions include Perch Zeytʿuntsian’s Odkʿi, datarann ē galis [All Rise, Court Is Now in Session] and Lrutʿean jaynə [The Sound of Silence], Aghasi Ayvazian’s Lacʿi aygin [The Vineyard of Tears], Gēorg Sargsian’s (Gēworg Sargsean) collection of plays dedicated to the Armenian freedom fighters’ movement Or spanen ēl, čʿpiti meṙnenkʿ [Even if They Kill Us, We Won’t Die], and Anna Petrosian’s (Anna Petrosean) Zuartʿnocʿ [Zvartnotsʿ Cathedral].60 Plays that blur the line between reality and the play at hand through per- spectivism include Perch Zeytʿuntsian’s Absurdist work, Cnuel ē u mahacʿel [Born and Died], Ishkhan Melkʿumian’s (Išxan Melkʿumean) Ṙežisori verǰin pʿorjə [The Director’s Last Rehearsal], and Karinē Khodikian’s Aystełicʿ yetoy [After Here]. Examples of Absurdist plays include Aghasi Ayvazian’s Dekorner [Props], Norayr Adalian’s Kinə ew tłamardə [The Woman and the Man], Artʿur Tēr Daniēlian’s (Artʿur Tēr Daniēlean) Im mahə [My Death], and Gurgēn Khanjian’s Awerakneri pahaknerə [The Guards of Ruins] and Gerezmanatan ergčʿaxumbə [The Cemetery Choir].61 With regard to post-Soviet scholarship on contemporary literature, critics tend to focus on the creation of literature and its purpose. In other words, there is a gap between the literature of the new era and the criticism of that literature.62 In fiction, we find a natural evolution: new, young writers, like Lewon Khechʿoyan, Gurgēn Khanjian, and Violet Grigorian, succeeded the voices of the 1960s. These two generations offered clearly distinct approaches to literature. However, members of the old guard, Zawēn Awetisian (Zawēn Awetisean), Sergey Sarinian (Sarinean), the late Sewak Arzumanian (Sewak Arzumanean), and others, dominated the arena of literary criticism. Many young critics, at least initially, strayed away from contemporary topics and concentrated instead on earlier periods in literature. The traditional critics began to address contemporary literature and, as a result, the scholarly debates centered on the moral value instead of the aesthetic value of literature: some examples include critics’ responses to the work of authors like Gurgēn Khanjian and Violet Grigorian. Kalantarian offers a straightforward description of the uneven development of post-Soviet Armenian literature and literary criticism: “Literary life is more varied, more multifarious than what literary criticism offers . . . In addition, oftentimes, serious literary criticism that offers

60 Kʿalantʿarean 2006, 144–48. 61 Kʿalantʿarean 2006, 151–59. 62 Kʿalantʿarean 2006, 195. 526 douzjian analysis and proof can be found printed next to criticism that judges literature based on unsubstantiated claims.”63 Most recently, six years after the publication of Kalantarian’s study, Sergey Sarinian characterizes the trends in literary criticism produced in Armenia in much the same way: “We have critics, but we don’t have criticism.”64 Though this complaint comes from a member of the old guard, it speaks to the problems that post-Soviet criticism has faced in terms of reevaluating and reorienting itself.

9 The Politics of Publication and The Digital Age

While the collapse of the Soviet Union signified the end of official censorship, the era of independence brought with it a new, complicated set of dynamics that eventuated subtle restrictions on artistic expression. The Writers Union remained intact and continues to function as an institution that also facilitates a type of censorship through the funding, although on a much more modest scale, of state-sponsored publications. In this way, although no official system of state censorship exists, the government-backed institution imposes certain restrictions on authors in order to ensure the publication of their work. In 2008, for example, a collection of Gurgēn Khanjian’s plays entitled Tʿatron 301 [Theater 301] was published. At the behest of the publisher, the Armenian Writers Union, Khanjian was compelled to make certain revisions. For example, the conclusion of Awerakneri pahaknerə [The Guards of Ruins] was dras- tically changed so that it no longer offered the haunting political critique of the original version. The book’s inside cover indicates that the governmentally funded publication includes some works that might be familiar to readers, but that “they have been rewritten and revised by the author.” The note instructs readers and directors to use only the versions in this publication. Unfortunately, while making such publications possible, the Writers Union encroaches upon authors’ artistic freedom. Violet Grigorian provides a thorough account of the workings of censorship in the era of independence:

A long time has passed since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the disappearance of state-mandated censorship. Nevertheless, censorship survived in the people’s spirit and in those who continued to govern the literary world: the institutions that remain from Soviet times (the Academy of Sciences, literature departments, publishers and Stalinesque

63 Kʿalantʿarean 2006, 204–205 (my translation). 64 Sarinean 2012, 2 (my translation). literary production in twentieth-century armenia 527

creative unions, epitomized by the Armenian Writers Union). While these replaced Soviet ideology with a national agenda and loosened the restrictions to some degree, they continued to monopolize literature by default. Added to this was the fact that the only audience for any literary publication consisted solely of the authors and their colleagues, and literature never had a chance to escape from these narrow literary circles.65

In response to this new form of censorship, some authors have resisted the establishment’s institutions by publishing their work independently. In 2000 Karinē Khodikian founded Dramaturgia [Dramaturgy], a journal that publishes plays by new and young authors as well as translations of foreign plays. This journal, which Khodikian edits, provides an independent forum for playwrights to publish their work. In 2001 Violet Grigorian and Vahram Martirosian (Vahram Martirosean) founded the print and online journal Bnagir [Original Manuscript] (bnagir.masis.am/). With these two as its editors, the journal produced nine issues until it closed down in 2004. Later, in 2005, Grigorian founded Inkʿnagir [Self-publication] (inknagir.org) to continue and further develop the tradition that Bnagir had established. The titles of both journals harken back to the Soviet concept of samizdat – the underground, self-publication of subversive works that the censorship of the day would never allow. Indeed, both journals have broken all thematic and formal taboos; they have paved the way for unrestrained novelty in literature. As a result, both have created a considerable amount of controversy: two out of five bookstores in Yerevan refused to carry the fourth issue of Bnagir, while all of the bookstores rejected the second issue of Inkʿnagir. Despite being denounced by official criticism and being the object of threats, the journals have fearlessly published works that challenge the status quo, criticize the government, reject nationalist rhetoric, and explore themes like eroticism and homosexuality. Significantly, for example, the fifth issue of Inkʿnagir features some of Yeghishē Chʿarentsʿ’s unpublished works that deal with homosexuality and homoeroticism.66 The journal continues to contribute to the liveliness of the literary scene by publishing Diaspora authors, translations of world literature, and the continually evolving examples of the most experimental and unconventional literature in Armenia.

65 Grigorian, Inknagir.org. (I have made minor revisions to the English translation that appears on the website.) 66 Inkʿnagir 5 (2008), 5–41 (published by J.R. Russell). See also Russell 2004. 528 douzjian

The nature of reading has also undergone drastic changes. In the Soviet era, literature was clearly an integral part of life for a vast majority of the population; now, with the important exception of the impressive liveliness of the dramatic arts scene, literature faces the danger of extinction. For many, the activity of skimming has replaced reading – and this, of course, is becoming more and more of a global trend. In this sense, digital forms of publication perform the highly crucial function of keeping literature relevant and accessible. In the major metropolitan centers, reading incorporates more of the intan- gible (the electronic journal, the blog post, the e-reader, the cyber world) and excludes more and more of the palpable (the book, the bookstore, the library). In this respect, Armenian literature also needs to become more accessible virtually, more portable. To date, the Kindle and Adroid-based tablet readers do not support Unicode; and electronic Armenian books are not available for purchase through Amazon. Although it is possible to download PDFs on the Kindle and other tablets, this is not enough. Not only is the availability of Armenian literature as e-text crucial for the future of Armenian literary publication, its compatibility with and accessibility on e-readers is absolutely necessary. The digitization of contemporary literature would also serve to free authors from constraints that might result from financial dependence on institutional- ized publication. In this regard, the Internet has also been a way for authors to exercise financial freedom by electronically publishing works that the government or mainstream establishments would never fund. Bnagirʿ and Inkʿnagir have been the most influential cases in point. By making the journals available online, the founders of these publications have instantaneously reached a worldwide audience. In addition to these contemporary online journals, there are a number of excellent sources of Armenian literature online: ‧ The University of Michigan and Google digitization project of the entire print collection of the University’s library includes a sizeable Armenian component: lib.umich.edu/michigan-digitization-project. The site has not yet made many twentieth century texts available in their entirety due to copyright laws. However, all of these works are searchable online: upon locating the book, even if it cannot be viewed in its entirety, search items can be entered and the system will list specific locations by page number. ‧ The Eastern Armenian National Corpus Electronic library makes 104 texts by authors who passed away over seventy years ago available in their entirety: eanc.net/EANC/library/library.php?interface_language=en. literary production in twentieth-century armenia 529 ‧ The Haybook. Armenian ebooks website offers a small selection of literature in Western and Eastern Armenian and in English translation: haybook. wordpress.com/. ‧ The Armenian Poetry Project features a wide selection of poetry in Eastern and Western Armenian and in English by both professional and amateur writers. The website is compatible with the iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad: armenian-poetry.blogspot.com/. ‧ The trilingual website armenianhouse.org offers a significant collection of authors’ works in Armenian as well as in Russian and English translation. ‧ Other worthwhile websites include: Armenianpoetry.com; granish.org/; and hy.wikisource.org. ‧ There are several blogs on which one can find postings of and discussions about Armenian literature: usum.org; akumb.am; and gisher.ru. ‧ Armenian books are available online for purchase at: books.am (an Armenian, English, and Russian website); narek.com (an English website); abrilbooks.com (a bilingual Armenian and English website); Sardarabad bookstore’s English language website, ytkw7.rcdn5.servertrust.com/; the Armenian language websitebuybook.am; and the website for Zangak-97 Publishing House, zangak.am.

In light of UNESCO’s decision to make Yerevan the 2012 Book Capital of the World, serious efforts should be made to digitize Armenian literature on a wider scale. Individual authors should also consider making their work searchable and available online by following the example of authors like the poet Ṙazmik Davoyian, who has a tri-lingual website in English, Armenian, and Russian: davoyan.name/bio.php. Consolidating all of the available electronic texts in one virtual location would also be a worthwhile endeavor for publishers to consider.

Conclusion

This brief survey of the publication trends in Eastern Armenian literature in the twentieth century has not attempted to provide readers with a comprehensive overview of all of the important writers and publications of the period. Instead, by way of some of the most canonical examples, it highlights the political issues that have affected the literature and literary production of the period. It demonstrates that the evolving demands of the state should be 530 douzjian borne in mind when studying the literature of Soviet Armenia. Furthermore, it suggests that the institution of state-mandated and state-funded literature continues to affect, however slightly and inconspicuously, the dynamics of literary production in the independent nation. Though authors freely choose their artistic content and forms of representation, the government-funded Writers Union remains the most financially stable means of publication. This institution’s decisions significantly impact the course of publications, despite the simultaneous successes of authors who have published their work independently. By largely doing away with financial considerations, the recent digitization of literature has helped move authors and their work toward greater, more complete autonomy. At the same time, digitized texts have made Eastern Armenian literature available to Armenian reading audiences worldwide. Undoubtedly, Armenian e-texts will eventually occupy center stage in considerations of publication trends in the contemporary, post-human world.

Bibliography

Ałababean, S., Tʿopʿčʿean, Ēd., Haxverdean, L., Mnacʿakanean, V. (eds) 1965. Sovetahay grakanutʿean patmutʿiwn. Erkrord hator (1941–1964) [The History of Soviet Armenian Literature, vol. 2 (1941–1964)], Erevan: Haykakan SSṘ GA Hratarakčʿutʿiwn. Anderson, S. (dir.). 2009. Charents: In Search of My Armenian Poet, South Africa, USA & Armenia: Fort Greene Filmworks. Bardakjian, K. 2000. A Reference Guide to Modern Armenian Literature, 1500–1920, Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press. Beledian, K. See Pǝltean Gabriēlean, V. 2006. Grakanutʿean mer žamanakə [The Literature of Our Time], Erevan: HGM (Hay grołneri miutʿiwn). Gasparean, D.V. 1992. Ǝntrani: erekʿ hatorov/ Paruyr Sewak [Anthology in Three Volumes: Paruyr Sevak], Erevan: Mšakuytʿi Haykakan Font “Adana.” Gasparean, D.V.1996a. Ełišē Čʿarencʿ: Hayocʿ banastełcutʿean mayrakʿałakʿə [Yeghishē Chʿarentsʿ: The Center of Armenian Poetry], Erevan: Areresun-Ani. Gasparean, D.V. 1996b. Norahayt ēǰer / Ełišē Čʿarencʿ [Newly Uncovered Verses: Yeghishē Chʿarentsʿ], Erevan: Erevani Hamalsarani Hratarakčʿutʿiwn. Gasparean, D.V. 1997a. Čʿarencʿean asoytʿner [Chʿarentsean Turns of Phrase], Bēyroutʿ: Tparan Katʿołikosutʿean Hayocʿ Meci Tann Kilikioy. Gasparean, D.V. 1997b. Čʿarenci het: yušer [With Chʿarents: Memories], Erevan: Nairi. Gasparean, D.V. 1999. Žarangutʿiwn/Aksel Bakuncʿ [Inheritance: Aksel Bakunts], Erevan: Erewani Hamalsarani Hratarakčʿutʿiwn. literary production in twentieth-century armenia 531

Gasparean, D.V. 2003. Hamō Sahean: keankʿə ew stełcagorcutʿiwnə [Hamo Sahian: His Life and Work], Erevan: Zangak-97. Gasparean, D.V. 2009a. Haykakan apagayapaštutʿiwn [Armenian Futurism], Erevan: Zangak-97. Gasparean, D.V. 2009b. Aksel Bakuncʿ: keankʿə ew stełcagorcutʿiwnə [Aksel Bakunts: His Life and Work], Erevan: Zangak-97. Granish (Graniš). 2010. “Nerkʿin graxosutʿiwn. Navə leṙan vray” [Internal Literary Criticism: The Ship on the Mountain]. . Grigorian, V. (Grigorean, V.). 2011. . 14 June 2011. Guntakʿčean, A. 2010. Hayrenadarjneri bṙnačnšumnerə Stalinean žamanakašrǰanum [The Stalin Era Repression of Repatriates], Erevan: Lusabacʿ. Išxan, M. 1975. Ardi hay grakanutʿiwn: Gełapašt šrǰan [Contemporary Armenian Literature: The Period of Aestheticism], Bēyrutʿ: Hamazgayin. Kʿalantʿarean, Ž. 2006. Uruagcer ardi hay grakanutʿean [A Sketch of Contemporary Armenian Literature], Erevan: Zangak-97. Luckyj, G.S.N. 1975. “Socialist In [sic.] Content and National In [sic.] Form”, in G.S.N. Luckyj (ed.) Discordant Voices: The Non-Russian Soviet Literatures, Ontario, Canada: Mosaic Press. Mikirtitchian, L. 1975. “Armenian Literature”, in Luckyj 1975, 13–25. Parlakian, N. & Cowe, S.P. 2001. Modern Armenian Drama: An Anthology, New York: Columbia University Press. Pǝltean, G. [Beledian, K.] 2009. Haykakan Futurizm [Armenian Futurism], Erevan: Sargis Xačʿenč. Peroomian, R. 2007. “Historical Memory: Threading the Contemporary Literature of Armenia”, in R. Hovannisian (ed.), The Armenian Genocide: Cultural and Ethical Legacies, New Brunswick: Transaction. Russell, J.R. 2004. “From an Archive of Unpublished Poems of Yeghishe Ch’arents’”, in J.R. Russell, Armenian and Iranian Studies (HATS, 9), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1365–1432. Sarinean, S. 2012. “Andradarj” [Reflections], in Grakan tʿertʿ [Literary Weekly], No. 2 (3103), 3 February 2012, Erevan: HGM (Hay grołneri miutʿiwn). Suny, R.G. 1997. “Soviet Armenia”, in R.G. Hovannisian (ed.), The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times, vol. 2: Foreign Dominion to Statehood: The Fifteenth Century to the Twentieth Century, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Tʿamrazean, Hr. S. 1984. Sovetahay grakanutʿean patmutʿiwn [A History of Soviet Armenian Literature], Erevan: Loys. Xačʿatrean, H. (ed.). 1975. Grakan tełekatu [A Reference Guide to Literature], Erevan: Hayastan. Xanǰean, G. 2008. Awerakneri pahaknerə [The Guards of Ruins], in Tʿatron 301. Piesner. [Theater 301: Plays], Erevan: HGM. Towards A “Discourse On Method” In Armenian Studies: A Survey of Recent Debates with Special Regard to the Problem of Textual Hermeneutics

Boghos L. Zekiyan

1 The Discourse on Method in History

It is useless to emphasize here once again the centrality of the principle of method in scholarly inquiry and the grave consequences of disregarding it. The three basic treatises lying at the grounds of modern science, respectively entitled Novum Organum (1620), Dialogo dei massimi sistemi (1632) and Discours de la méthode (1637), are to a great extent, even if not uniquely, treatises of methodology. Moreover, ancient wisdom had already stated the unavoidability of the question of the methodos in that the Organon of the Stagirite and the Ephodion of the Siracusan shed light upon the basic whence, through where, and how of all philosophical and scientific investigation. Among the many problems implied in the discussion on method, and belonging both to scientific research in general and to human sciences in particular, and more especially to those dealing with the study either of peculiar cultures or cultural areas, an important place is due to such questions as the definition and delimitation of the respective object, the plot and connections of interdisciplinary relations, the reference to human reality, the socio-exis- tential contextualization, and the relations of interference of para- and extra- scientific factors.

2 Author’s Prior Studies

In earlier studies,1 I dealt mainly with such problems as: a) the question of commensurability of ethnic, cultural, political and religious parameters – in what sense and by what criteria such attributions can be valuable; b) the question of identities: methods and criteria to define them; c) the question of influences and interactions: principles and methods for evaluation; d) the

* The author wishes to thank his colleague Prof. Ralph Setian for his valuable suggestions regarding the English form of this paper, and Prof. Michael Stone for his relevant remarks. 1 Zekiyan 1996; Zekiyan 2008.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��4 | doi ��.��63/978904270961_�22 towards a “discourse on method” in armenian studies 533 question of various “mimeses” and “centralisms”. These studies were focused mainly on the political and cultural interactions between the peoples of Subcaucasia,2 moving within the horizon of the debates, often degenerated into virulent invectives, which animated the cultural, and consequently political, scene of Subcaucasia starting nearly from the late 19th century up to our days. I returned more recently to the same subjects specially on the occasion of two international conferences: a) “Current Advances in Caucasian Studies, Macerata, Italy 21–24 January 2010;3 b) “The Caucasus: Imagining Freedom, Negotiating Dominion”, University of St. Andrews, Scotland, 16–17 April 2010.4 A new notion, that of “model” or “pattern”,5 which I had already used in research upon single points, was introduced in the latter studies as a general theoretical tool of remarkable heuristic value, when properly used, in order to escape from

2 I use this term, in a historical perspective, to indicate the regions south of the Caucasian chain, including Greater Armenia, and to avoid at the same time the geographically and historically restricted perspective of terminology of Russian origin, fashioned in modern times, as “Transcaucasia”. “Subcaucasia” includes, indeed, the southern Caucasus, effectively corresponding to the Russian Transcaucasia, where we have today the three Caucasian Republics: Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. But besides this area, which in modern times had its own political configuration, first with the Persian and later with the Russian rule, the concept of “Subcaucasia” includes also the regions to its south and south-west, that is, North-Eastern Anatolia which formed once the most important part of “historic Armenia”, and was ruled later by the Ottoman Empire. In this sense “Subcaucasia” extends, to the south, to upper Mesopotamia and, to the west, to the upper course of the Euphrates. The advantage offered by this neologism is that, differently from other denominations such as Caucasus, South Caucasus, Anatolia, East Anatolia, etc., which do not grasp the entire historical entity of Armenia and of the Armenian Church together with medieval Iberia/Georgia and the Caucasian Albania with their respective Churches, it indicates in a comprehensive view both the South-Caucasian and the East-Anatolian areas in relation to those periods in which they formed a geo-historical entity with certain distinctive features as was normally the case, on a political ground, from Armenia’s early ages to the end of the Ottoman dominion over Southern Caucasus, and on a cultural-religious ground, till the excision of the Armenian Church from Eastern Anatolia consequent to the Armenian genocide of 1915 (See Zekiyan 1996, 433–434, 441–443). The term “Subcaucasia”, proposed by the present writer, has already been adopted in the field of Oriental, Armenian, and Caucasian studies by such scholars as G. Scarcia, J.-M. Thierry, G. Ieni, A. Ferrari, and others (See part. Scarcia 1979; Thierry 1980; Ieni 1986, 64, n. 51. On the concept of “historic Armenia”, to be intended as an ethno- cultural indicator for a given area and not as a political concept in function today’s politics, see Zekiyan 1996, 443–444. 3 Zekiyan 2011. 4 Paper read in absentia. Papers read at this conference unfortunately will not be published. 5 Zekiyan 2002; Zekiyan 2004. 534 zekiyan the blind alley in which the whole discussion, on a purely textual-philological basis as currently understood, is very often obstructed.

3 The Present Study

The present study moves within a rather different conceptual framework of debates than those which inspired the papers mentioned above, and it will not return to questions dealt with in them. Hence they must be considered as a necessary complement to the present study. The main shift between that earlier research and this present can be summed up in the following points: a) Earlier studies focused mainly on the problem of the use and application of some key notions and concepts underlying scholarly research and consequent debate in area studies with a special regard to the ethnic, national, religious or confessional dimension of historical figures and events, of artistic objects, of geographical regions and other similar realities. They dealt with the basic requirements for a methodologically correct approach to the subject of study as the definition of notions, the differences in their perception at the level both of theory and history, the processes of cultural exchange and influxes, the confusions originating from the lack of due attention to the problem of method and its requirements and so son. These earlier inquiries regarded, we may say, the epistemology of area studies in relation to some basic elements of their conceptual framework. They dealt especially with concepts, having as a main concern how to use them. The present paper does not deal with concepts. It deals, on the contrary, with texts, with the processes of their reception, evaluation and interpretation: the text which lies at the basis of scholarly information, but which can also be ignored or manipulated. This is why the main question we shall be discussing can be defined, as expressed in the subtitle of our article, as a “problem of textual hermeneutics” which becomes, consequently, a problem of “historical hermeneutics”. The topic is no doubt boundless and its challenge, a great responsibility. We aim only at giving an initial survey of how the problem appears today in the field of Armenian Studies, since a Western-style critical approach was applied to them from the mid-eighteenth century onwards. b) Another important difference between the above mentioned studies and the present inquiry is the following: the problems and debates considered in the earlier papers developed between Subcaucasian partners and eventually their Western or, in general, third party “supporters”6 and had a long history,

6 One has to remark that these latter had, and still have, sometimes an even more impetuous engagement in polemics than the parts directly involved. towards a “discourse on method” in armenian studies 535 sometimes presenting even serious implications of a generally conflicting national-political background. The debates which the present paper takes as its point of departure are of a much more recent origin, and rather regard the relations between Armenia and Armenian Studies on one side and the Western world on the other. To put it more precisely, the debates concern the conception, the method and the collocation of Armenian Studies in the West and in Armenia as seen by researchers belonging to the one or to the other area. It is clear that the text as a datum, its use, its interpretation, evaluation or eventual manipulation plays a central role in such a context. Thus these later debates differed from the former in that they did not have wide national- political implications, and did not involve likes and dislikes based on national or ethnic affiliation, even if such motivations were ascribed by some Armenian critics to their Western counterparts. However, in this article it is not my intention to draw up a circumstantial report on these debates or to go deeper into their analysis, their logical structure and motivations, and the like.7 They have simply offered me an opportunity to reflect, with a greater endeavour and care, on the problem of method in Armenian Studies in relation to textual hermeneutics. I wish to consider it not merely with regard to a specific question, but to locate it on more universal grounds, discussing it in the light of some general principles and of their various ramifications and applications in the manifold disciplines comprehended by “Armenian Studies”. Nonetheless, the object of this paper cannot be a systematic approach to the whole problem of method in Armenian Studies. That would be an enormous task, certainly beyond the capacities, today, of any single scholar. It would involve a separate consideration of the problem of method in each of the various disciplines of Armenian Studies, from linguistics to numismatics, from text edition to epigraphy, from history to anthropology, and more. Nor does this present study espouse a systematic approach of the general problem of method, analysed from an epistemological viewpoint, as applied to Armenian Studies. For such an undertaking, the following prior analyses would be indispensable: first, a general survey of the whole content of the above mentioned earlier papers, plus of the points raised in this study, and, moreover, of a number of similar issues which, for various reasons, not least of time and space, will remain out of the range of our present consideration;

7 A. Ayvazyan’s monograph (1998), republished in the USA (2002), can be considered as the work that incited the debate or, rather, gave it a new and more quarrelsome input, and remains, as to Armenia, the most representative work in the field. A later monograph, whose only the first part has appeared so far, bears even a more specific and significant title (Ayvazyan 2003). 536 zekiyan second, and at a more basic level, it is indispensable to have a general discussion of what the study of an ethnic culture means, what aims it can pursue, in which conditions it can be legitimate and what guarantees there are of a serious scholarly study. The present paper aims only at being a contribution to this general undertaking by reflecting on some discrete questions of an overall interest that arise from some recent publications. Having explained so the aim and procedure of this present paper, I want to add that I shall deal not with methodological assumptions whose inconsistency and, even, absurdity are patent. It would be pointless to deal with them, since it is hard, if not impossible, to find common platforms for constructive debate with their supporters. In fact, this question touches on the roots, indeed, the fundaments, of the whole scientific and scholarly structure, the basic axioms upon which it is built. Obviously, from an epistemological standpoint, there is no sense in discussing axioms, since it is impossible to demonstrate them. They are either accepted or not. Thus, for example, if someone supports the view that Armenian Studies must be at the service of Armenian nationhood, statehood, or security, then there is effectively nothing to discuss or to prove about such an assumption. Certainly, specific cases can exist in which single individuals can revise or change their basic axioms or assumptions. But when the issue relates to a whole community or society and there is a general, generational, or epochal trend in a given direction, it is highly improbable that these trends can change through simple discussion, reasoning, and other kinds of logical processes. In fact, in such cases we have to deal with “ideologies”, or rather “ideologized behaviours”, which are almost like religious faith, and involve broad strata of a society. They change according to the peculiar rhythms of the social, political, and cultural evolution of historical dialectics. This is quite adequately attested quite in all those epochal trends in art, in philosophy, in behaviour, in people’s social, political, economi- cal life that, like fashions, provide labels for the various eras of human history. A recent example that confirms what we are saying is offered by the collapse of the Soviet Union and all the radical changes in political and religious attitudes, in social behaviour, and so on subsequent to that. In particular, at present we are witnessing a strong expansion of some excessively nationalistic attitudes in Armenia, just as in most of the ex-Soviet and Communist countries. It is to be hoped that such attitudes will prove to be a temporary reaction to past regimes and ideologies that aimed, as a final goal, at the denial of national identities. It is also to be hoped that, through a dialecti- cal process of maturation, for which even such extremist views might be a contextually and practically unavoidable phase of transition, those countries may towards a “discourse on method” in armenian studies 537 eventually reach a sufficiently balanced perception, both of their own history and national identity, as well as of their place and relationship in the framework of their neighbouring nations and of human history in general. For analogous reasons, I shall also not deal with some typical inherent defects in Soviet scholarship, since they are no longer relevant; and most of them can be subsumed under the general categories of anachronism and of obligatory ideological interpretations: for instance, the tendency to see an anticipation of Marxist ideas and theories in some medieval authors and social phenomena, or to explain everything in Marxist categories. Finally, I would like to make one very important point definitively clear. To explain thoughts, I shall often quote, also in critical terms, passages from texts of some illustrious scholars who are also esteemed colleagues. Such criticism in no way negates these scholars’ most valuable contribution to Armenian Studies or shows any lack of respect for their professional standards.

4 Premises

I would like to begin by briefly explaining the goals and limits of this study as well as the perspective within which it moves, and the basic principles that guide it: a) As stated above, this study does not seek to present an overall discourse on “method in Armenian Studies”. In substance, it aims rather at a critical reflection on some guidelines for a balanced approach to Armenian Stud- ies. I shall present and establish some basic issues and criteria for a valid method, in view of a wider synthesis which may also integrate the pro- posals and conclusions of prior studies. b) The study moves in an interdisciplinary perspective, since lapses of method are often due to the lack of such a perspective. c) A basic principle that guides the present reflection is an effort of synthesis between a contextual reading of data on the one hand, and a contras- tive-analogical reading of the same data on the other hand. This means: i. avoiding anachronisms; ii. clarifying and explaining less known or obscure facts in the light of what is better known or more evident; iii. being constantly aware of some inevitable residue of subjectivism, in that the subjectivity of a researcher is an inseparable part of his/ her personality, no matter what kind of activity he or she engages in, including the scholarly one. This means that the subject cannot 538 zekiyan

escape his/her own subjectivity, because she/he cannot go outside her/himself. Such an awareness is a kind of “exorcism”, both of the devil of excessive subjectivism and of a bogus presumption of absolute objectivity. In fact, it moves the researcher or scholar to an attitude of mental humility and of constant vigilance upon his or her scholarly activity.

5 The Problem of Information

There is today a certain problem of information in Armenian Studies. This depends upon different factors. I shall examine this question distinctly in two paragraphs, although they are closely related to each other: a) lack of adequate information on the historical evolution of prior literature in the field in which one works; b) lack of sufficient information about contemporary bibliography. a) As to the first point, I shall quote one passage from a book of the early 1990’s, where we find the following statement: “Often directed toward an ethnic rather than a broader international or scholarly audience, Armenian historical writing has been narrowly concerned with fostering a positive view of an endangered nationality. Popular writers and activist journalists both in the diaspora and Armenia handed down an uncritical historical tradition replete with heroes and villains, and scholars who might otherwise have enriched the national historiography withdrew from a field marked by unexamined nationalism and narcissism. Criticism has been avoided as if it might aid ever-present enemies, and certain kinds of inquiry have been shunned as potential betray- als of the national cause”.8 It seems incredible that a specialist in Armenian Studies may make, so ingenuously, such a generalisation. One must suppose that the author effectively ignores the whole critical literature in the Armenian language, or produced by Armenians in other languages, starting from the 40’s of the 19th century, both in history and in philology, to mention only two main fields of Armenian Studies among many. This means that the author also ignores the fact that Armenian scholarship was in vanguard of many neighbouring cultures and peoples of the Near and Middle East and of the Caucasus in adopting relatively early – very early indeed with regard to the mentioned area – the great tradition of German critical scholarship. In fact, Armenian critical scholarship was born in Vienna, in the school of the Mekhitarist Fathers, in the heart of the Germanic world, a major early cradle of critical thought. It had as fore-

8 Suny 1993, 2. towards a “discourse on method” in armenian studies 539 runners such figures as Yovsēpʿ Gatʿrčean and Matatʿia Garagašean, and, in the following decades, produced such exceptional scholars as the Dashians (Tašean), Sibilians (Sipilean), Khalatians (Xalatʿean), Emins (Ēmin) to mention only a few in the frame of the nineteenth century who compare favourably with all critical schools, while dozens of first rank Armenian scholars flourished in the various branches of Armenian Studies. Hence the quoted statement is amazing and scarcely comprehensible! It arises because certain scholarship, alien to the living Armenian culture, ignored, or considered of little or no account, scholarship that produced in the Armenian language. This attitude was often due to a scant knowledge of the language itself, hence to the difficulty and slowness in reading it. This fact also explains why similar superficial and ill-founded statements are not rare. Thus we can read in a more recent article, by another well-known scholar, that “. . . l’historiographie arménienne est une science jeune, res- tée jusqu’au début du XXe siècle dans un état d’innocence sinon d’obscurité. Même aujourd’hui, nous sommes encore forcés, dans bien des cas, de poser les premiers jalons et d’inaugurer l’exploration d’aspects longtemps pris pour acquis par nos collègues dans des régions plus connues. Certaines données nous manquent totalement et conduisent par conséquent à des conclusions qui peuvent paraître simplistes ou évidentes dans des domaines mieux travail- lés. Ce n’est que dans les dernières années du XVIIIe siècle que le père Michael Tchamtchean (Միքայել Չամչեան [Mikʿayēl Čʿamčʿean]), appartenant à la congrégation arménienne catholique des Mekhitaristes de Venise, entreprit pour la première fois de réunir les sources nationales à sa portée afin d’en tirer une histoire globale de son pays qu’il intitula Histoire d’Arménie des origines à l’année du Seigneur 1784”.9 Once again some critical observations are obligatory. To state that Armenian historiography remained till the early 20th century “in a state of innocence, if not obscurity”, means simply to ignore completely the immense contributions made not only by the above mentioned forerunners and early representatives of the Armenian critical thought and their younger followers towards the end of the 19th century as Garegin Yovsēpʿeancʿ among several others, but also by such outstanding scholars of the great diplomatic tradition of the Mekhitarists of Venice, through the entire 19th century, as Fathers Łukas Inčičean and

9 Garsoïan 2001, 8. I shall quote sentences more than once from this article, since it offers, in recent years, the most articulated approach for a general survey of the “evolution and crisis” in Armenian Studies, even though with a basic reference to the field of historiography. Moreover, the fact that its author is one of the most remarkable names on the stage of Armenian Studies in recent decades, gives its statements a peculiar significance. 540 zekiyan

Łewond Ališan, to mention only two individual figures; it also means to ignore to a great extent the value of Čʿamčʿean’s work itself, mentioned indeed, but with a rather restrictive appreciation, not to speak. Let us consider first the latter. In my opinion, one of the best appraisals we have of this massive production is the one expressed by Marc Nichanian at the International Conference held at UCLA in 1995 on “Enlightenment in the Armenian and Jewish diasporas within a comparative perspective”. I do not consider it my task at present to sum up here Nichanian’s brilliant and deeply original analysis. I can only suggest that anyone who, from now on, might wish to speak of Čʿamčʿean’s monumental History, cannot do so without having read Nichanian’s analysis. In any case, there is a first and basic point to make which has already duly been underlined by Nichanian: Čʿamčʿean’s work is the start of a critical Armenian historiography, notwithstanding some evident critical limits which relate especially to the origins of the nation, and in general to the initial period of Armenian history. A main factor conditioning this limitation was, among others, the pre-critical state of biblical hermeneutics in which Father Čʿamčʿean had grown up and which accepted biblical chronology as an absolute truth. Having made this preliminary and necessary remark, we must however acknowledge, as Nichanian says, that: “The whole range of the available documents he used had undergone a scrutinizing examination to determine their internal validity and conformity with other documents of Armenian or foreign origin”.10 A second point, even more important perhaps from the viewpoint of a global cultural approach, is that we have with Čʿamčʿean the construction and the mature formulation of a type of historical thought in modern Armenian historiography. Naturally, it follows on the great Armenian medieval historiographical tradition, but it also decidedly opens up a totally new path within that tradition. This is especially true for its planned and significant contribution to the formation of a new Armenian self-awareness, even though it is deeply rooted in the great, centuries old tradition of Armenian identity. Čʿamčʿean’s History bears in fact all the marks of its own times, of 18th century European culture and historiography in whose spiritual and intellectual context the author received his human and religious education in Venice, one of the most advanced centres then of European humanism and the Enlightenment. But Čʿamčʿean’s History bears at the same time all the traces of a new Armenian world in utero, the symptoms of the whole ongoing process of the Armenian contact with modernity, the deep drama of the Armenian self-consciousness,

10 Nichanian 1999, 88–89. towards a “discourse on method” in armenian studies 541 facing the challenge of transformation. Therefore, it is not surprising that Čʿamčʿean has become known as the “Father of modern Armenian historiography”. Something comparable with his work, both in width of horizon and plenitude of utilized sources, only appeared some two centuries later with the eight-volume History of the Armenian People (Hay žołovrdi patmutʿiwn), in Armenian, produced by the Academy of Sciences of Soviet Armenia between the 70’s and 90’s of the twentieth century.11 Reducing Čʿamčʿean’s History to assembling “les sources nationales à sa portée afin d’en tirer une histoire globale” (emphasis added by B.L.Z) is undoubtedly a very naïve and even superficial approach to that epoch-making work, not less because the author’s aim is not to write “histoire globale”, but the history of the Armenian nation. Let us consider now the two other great names: Inčičean (1758–1833) and Ališan (1820–1901) who are not even mentioned in the quoted article. Let us start from the latter, a man of a younger generation, his literary and scholarly activity belonging to the second half of the 19th century while the former’s activity developed mainly in the last decade of the 18th and in the first decades of the 19th century. Objections can be raised that Ališan’s scholarship lacks a critical view. This is certainly true, as already in Čʿamčʿean’s case, as far as the origins and the early history of the Armenians are concerned. No doubt, the scholarly context of Ališan’s age was very different from what it was at the end of the 18th century. In the course of the 19th century, the first steps were made in the archaeology and history of East Anatolia and Armenian high plateau. It is, however, a matter of fact that Ališan, preparing his colossal volumes on the history, geography, and topography of the various Armenian regions of antiquity and the Middle Ages, such as Ayrarat, Sisakan, and Sisuan (Sissouan, in the French translation), which were published in the last two decades of the century when the author was already in his sixties, could not pay a sufficient attention to the most recent scholarly developments in the mentioned field of Anatolian studies. He also remained quite unfamiliar with the developments in comparative linguistics and in mythology. These were not, however, in any case, the main fields of his scholarly commitment. On the contrary, as an

11 Another big achievement, of a high scholarly standard, of the Soviet Armenia’s Academy of Sciences was the History of Modern Armenian Literature (Hay nor grakanutʿean patmutʿiwn), published in five volumes between the Sixties and the Seventies of the 20th century. Differently from these original achievements, as the great lexicography of grabar comes into question, the Armenian Academy, at the height of its scientific productivity in those years, could not do something better than a photostatic re-edition of Nor Haykazean of which Hračʿeay Ačaṙean said: “The most perfect dictionary of the Armenian language” (Ačaṙean 1971, “Yaṙaǰaban”, 6; See also: Ačaṙean 1935, N° 8; Ačaṙean 1939, 70). 542 zekiyan extremely polyvalent personality: poet, publisher, educator, scholar, savant in the full sense of a Renaissance culture, he dealt with the aforementioned subjects rather as an amateur, especially for purposes of wide popularization. If we must express a critical evaluation of his works like Hayastan nax kʿan zHayas- tan (Armenia before Being Armenia) or Hin hawatkʿ Hayocʿ (The Ancient Faith of the Armenians), both posthumous (respectively of 1905 and 1910), we can be guided by the wise Horatius saying of Homer: “Quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus”. It is noteworthy, however, that such a title as “Armenia before Being Armenia” is by itself a proof that the author was not guided by that uncritically nationalistic trend, gaining ground in our days, which would like to identify the Armenian ethnos with the various peoples having lived on the Armenian table-land, considering them as simply Armenians. Such cavalier attitudes ignore the elementary distinction between the process of ethnic formation and the components entering into this process on the one hand, and the ethnos having already achieved, substantially, its formation on the other hand. Having made this statement, let us now consider those works of Ališan where the lion roars, namely the trilogy of Ayrarat, Sisakan, and Sisuan, and some other basic works such as Tełagir Hayocʿ Mecacʿ (Topography of Greater Armenia), Hay-Venet and its partial Italian version edited by the author himself: L’Armeno-Veneto, Šnorhali ew paragay iwr (Šnorhali and His Context), etc. Once again, one may object that these works are uncritical because they usually do not indicate references to sources. This would be rather a serious objection, if Ališan’s inconsistency with his sources were proved, making his information unreliable. There has been to date no such demonstration. On the contrary, most scholars who have referred to his works have characterized him as being by himself a whole Academy. But let us dwell on Ališan’s relationship to his sources. Here I beg the reader’s indulgence and provide a personal account from my own scholarly experience of how Alishan behaved towards his sources. The Armenian settlements or, if you prefer, communities or colonies, in Italy during the Middle Ages and later, as well as the historical-cultural relations between Armenians and Italy, were one of the main subjects of my early research activity in Armenian Studies.12 Since Ališan’s pioneering masterly investigation, which was nearly repeated by Aršak Alpoyačean in his voluminous history of the Armenian colonies throughout the world, nothing new had appeared on the subject. Between 1978, the year of publication of my study, and 1996 when the volume Ad limina Italiae saw the light, more than one hundred twenty-five articles and one volume of collected studies were

12 Zekiyan 1978. towards a “discourse on method” in armenian studies 543 published,13 a phenomenon that is itself a witness to the current scientific interest of the subject. For my study, I had the peerless opportunity to access Fr. Ališan’s personal archives, kept at San Lazzaro in Venice. In his personal notes, Ališan gives sufficient indications for almost each of his affirmations, sufficient to identify his sources. I must confess, and I wish to reaffirm here once again what I have already said in the initial note of my above mentioned study, that without this opportunity my research could scarcely have reached the dimensions and the wealth of detail and information it did. Besides the monograph Hay-Venet, Alishan deals ex professo with the Armenians in Italy both in Sisuan (1885) and Sisakan (1893), and the pages dedicated to the subject in this latter work are by far Ališan’s widest and most detailed treatment of the Armenians in Italy and of their manifold relations with this unique country. They fill some fifteen pages in quarto, counting nearly eighty-one thousand letters: almost a monograph indeed, every three-five lines of the original text providing distinct information. As a basic premise to my research, I intended to ascertain one by one all information given by Ališan on the basis of his personal notes kept in his archives. I undertook this work by searching for the traces through hundreds of volumes, mostly old and rare editions, some even of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: books mostly lacking analytical indexes, in which Armenians are mentioned incidentally, perhaps only once or twice, in a few lines. I was able to achieve my aim, almost totally, except for some information, found in Sisakan, for which I could not find a reference in Ališan’s archives. I marvelled at the remarkable precision with regard to his sources evidenced by Ališan, that in all that enormous enterprise I could not find even one wrong or inconsistent reference. The only “error” I could discover was that of one simple figure, being the number of a page indicated as 22 instead of 23! What I am saying is witnessed by the result of this research as reflected in my study, in that almost all books earlier to 1893 mentioned in it are the product of Ališan’s personal notes kept in his archives, ascertained one by one and further completed with all available bibliographical information.14

13 Sirinian 1996. 14 This basic bibliographical information has been moreover completed, updated and critically evaluated by me in the light of more recent investigation following Sisakan’s publication up to the very days in which my study was sent to press. Hence such an affirmation as “Molte informazioni che Zekiyan desume dall’opera del padre mechitarista Łewond Ališan (XIX sec.) attendono di essere riconsiderate alla luce degli studi più recenti” (Bais 2006, 47, n. 1), is simply due to a basic misunderstanding and a rather hasty reading of the study at issue, since a more careful and thorough approach toward it would have shown that in fact its author had not stopped at the stage of information available through Ališan and his work. 544 zekiyan

Ališan was at the same time the first scholar to investigate Italian archives, and especially the Archives of Venice where he conducted research for a whole year. The result of this research was the abovementioned work Hay-Venet (1896), whose partial Italian version, under the title L’Armeno-Veneto. Compendio storico e documenti delle relazioni degli Armeni coi Veneziani (1893), containing only the first part (XIIIth–XIVth centuries), preceded the Armenian edition.15 Furthermore, Ališan consequently developed a method of getting information by correspondence from local people, scholars, archivists, librarians, and antiquarians among whom one of the most significant was his own brother, himself an antiquarian, Serovbē Ališan, not to speak of those research expeditions, especially organized by him, as in the case of the exploration of the Armenian hermitage of Santa Croce at Cava de’ Tirreni in South-West Italy.16 I have dwelt somewhat extensively on Fr. Ališan since he is one of the most emblematic figures of the whole Mekhitarist school of Venice, but also because he could, mistakenly, figure as the most vulnerable representative of this school for the mentioned formal reasons and reservations which, following our discussion, should now appear in a new light. Now let us briefly consider Inčičean’s work. He is a man who has not been given due credit, even in traditional Armenian scholarship! Among the top names of the Mekhitarian school, he is certainly the one of whom one hears least. However, besides being the forerunner of the revue Pazmaveb/ Bazmavēp,17 and of the literary use of the modern Armenian vernacular, he is the founder of Armenian geography and topography in the modern age, as well as of the study of Armenian medieval society. We do not exaggerate, I think, when we say that his contribution in these fields is comparable to the role played by Čʿamčʿean for modern Armenian historiography. It would be difficult, indeed, to conceive of Ališan’s work without the structure built up by Inčičean who had been his great mentor. Inčičean’s masterpieces, for the subjects of which we are speaking are his Storagrutʿiwn hin Hayastaneaycʿ (Description of Ancient Armenia, 1822) and Hnaxosutʿiwn Hayastaneaycʿ ašxarhi (Archeology of Armenia, 1835, in three volumes, posthumous). These works are

15 The second part of the Armenian edition covers the 15th–16th centuries, while the third part, that would have included following centuries never came to light. 16 See Zekiyan 1978, 872–73, n. 214. 17 Pazmavēb/Bazmavēp is the “Nahapet/Patriarch” of the Armenian periodic press having been published, without any interruption, since 1843, the year of its foundation. Bazmavēp figures as the oldest revue in Italy, and the fourth oldest in the world at an international level, according to data available by the Italian Encyclopaedia Treccani on the history of international periodical press. towards a “discourse on method” in armenian studies 545 especially notable for their serious and systematic treatment of the structure, the classes, the demography, the ethnic and religious composition of ancient and medieval Armenian society, its army, its crafts, its folklore, and many other similar details. In the subsequent ages of Armenian Studies, these subjects have not always received sufficient attention in comparison with the political and religious aspects of Armenian history. Even today reading those works would uncover, I think, for all involved in Armenian Studies, an exciting and surprising source of information and erudition. Therefore, I would like here to make a proposal: to plan for a translation of one of these works, at least of their most valuable and significant parts, into a modern language of wide diffusion (perhaps preferably into English) with comments and updated bibliography to make them, and especially the wide erudition they contain, accessible to the new generations of young scholars interested in Armenian Studies. I must now conclude this rather detailed disquisition on the first part of what I called “the problem of information” in Armenian Studies. This part dealt with the lack of adequate information on the historical evolution of prior literature in the field in which one works. I hope I have been able to shed some light on how important it is to have such an adequate knowledge, primarily as a duty of acknowledgement and gratitude for those who preceded us and have been our pioneers in this commonly shared and hard work; and secondly, but not to a lesser degree, to avoid the illusion of creating ex nihilo, of writing upon almost a tabula rasa, of building up a structure on a deserted island. The message of the old Wise proves always topical: “Let us now praise famous men, and our fathers in their generations” (Ecclesiasticus, 44:1). b) The second point of the problem of information regards, as I said, the “lack of sufficient information, or at least indication, of contemporary bibliography”. It is a matter of fact that most books in whatever branch of science and scholarship are today published either in the USA or, even if published elsewhere, appear in English. Publications in the USA have accustomed us to bibliographies which are mainly in English, with a relevant majority of the titles published in the USA. The same is true, at somehow lower and variant proportions however, as far as the language of quoted titles is concerned, for publications in English appearing elsewhere. This is certainly a “sign of times” to take seriously into consideration; but we cannot deny that the “sign” we have to deal with is not particularly encouraging. In fact, however deep our respect and admiration for Shakespeare’s language may be, we cannot ignore the very simple truth – which is a divine marvel – that each language is a special form and expression of the human “langage” in an inexhaustible range of nuances. Reducing scientific thought to one “langue”, even if it is currently the dominant 546 zekiyan one, could have at a long term impoverishing effects on human “langage”, and finally on human thought itself, since it would deprive mankind of this natural instrument in its exercise of variety and diversity.18 In any case, if such a trend of some linguistic homologation may be understandable in sciences like physics, chemistry, medicine, biology, and in general in the field of the natural and exact sciences, it cannot be justified at all for the human and social sciences, and for those specially which have as their proper object an ethnic, cultural, historical, artistic, religious reality, or the like. Fortunately for human thought and its “langage”, we still have a fairly rich production in a great variety of languages on these topics. It is this production, and I have in mind especially the production in the very language of the ethnic or cultural entity being the object of study, which often does not find its rightful place it deserves in current bibliographies in the major languages. Sometimes this phenomenon is accompanied also by some inconsistencies, difficult to explain. Let us provide some concrete examples. Among the studies dedicated to Sebēos that have appeared in recent decades, those by Gēorg Abgaryan (Yerevan, 1965), and Połos Ananean (Venice, 1972), in Armenian, are certainly among the most significant. Abgaryan’s work is normally quoted and discussed, perhaps for the sensational impact of his theory challenging and upsetting the traditional vision of the work. Ananean’s work, on the contrary, of no lesser basic importance than that of Abgaryan, is not even mentioned in a recent publication which seems to me to be the most relevant production of these last years in Sebēos scholarship.19 Even if one regards a scholar’s view as unproven, it should be discussed and assessed, a basic and elementary requirement of every serious philological work. If one thinks, on the contrary, that for whatever valid reason (lack of seriousness, being dated, etc.) a work does not deserve to be mentioned, this very choice is a challenge to the author. This is

18 It is surprising that such developed and philosophically cultivated languages, such as German and English, do not, in common parlance, make the distinction between “lingua/ langue/lengua” and “linguaggio/langage/lenguaje”, as expressed respectively in Italian, French, and Spanish. Once again I would like to make mention here of a personal experience. In 1999 I visited Fordham University for the first time. The Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy, a Jesuit, complained that while it was once obligatory, in the Company of Jesus, for all future teachers in Humanities to spend two years of study in Europe to learn two major European languages (other than English of course), nowadays many a young candidate to teach at Faculty was reluctant to do so. 19 See Sebēos 1999. Ananean’s absence in this volume is all the more surprising that his study on Sebēos is mentioned, even if not discussed, in the bibliography of R.W. Thomson’s translation of Xorenacʿi’s History. towards a “discourse on method” in armenian studies 547 not certainly the case with the aforementioned example. I think that we are dealing simply with a lack of attention which has become, as I have already noted – and not only in Armenian Studies –, unfortunately a rather frequent trend. Similar bibliographical lacunae occur also in studies published in Armenia, even by excellent scholars. One can presume that, in some cases, this is due perhaps to a lack of information and availability of material. However, this excuse is not the only, nor the main reason, I think, of these lacunae. There is more than one evidence to presume that similar factors as those mentioned working in Western scholarship work also, but on the opposite direction, in the Armenian scholarship. However it may be, I am convinced that a more careful attention to bibliography could help avoid quite a number of problems concerning lack of information and consequent discussion. As a conclusion I would state the following: bibliographical information seems today, for a series of contextual factors some of which have been mentioned above, to have crossed a critical threshold. This is a common phenomenon affecting many branches of science and scholarship today. Its influence can also be felt in Armenian Studies, where there probably are also, however, some special factors which have little to do with the reasons conditioning the crisis in general. Certainly, it would be foolish to pretend and to presume that we can always achieve complete bibliographies. The point I wish to make is not this! I hope that is evident enough from what has been said, and the way in which it has been said. The point is that any kind of bibliography, be it general, specialized, essential, annotated, or whatever else, must have its own internal coherence, must have a ruling principle and an internal logic. This is simply the application, in compiling a bibliography, of a general and basic principle for any sort of intellectual and scholarly activity.

6 A Criticism as an End in Itself

At a Conference organized in 2003 in Yerevan on “Armenology Today and Prospects for Its Development”, Seta B. Dadoyan, speaking at the section “Culture”, said that Armenian Studies has not yet entered the post-modern phase; they remain deeply rooted in a dated “modernity”.20 If by Armenian Studies we mean mainly philology and related classical domains, I find this statement acceptable to a large extent. On the contrary, those branches of

20 See the abstract: Dadoyan 2003, 232. 548 zekiyan human sciences, which have been applied to the Armenian domain, as anthropology, sociology, psychology, and their extensions as sociolinguistics, psy- cholinguistics, etc., developed following the trends and methodologies of the normal evolution in the respective fields of research. It is only fair to admit, however, that a new generation of scholars has breathed fresh air also into the classical domains of philology and related disciplines.21 In affirming the necessity of going some steps beyond that radical modernity to which Armenian Studies have accustomed us, the main problem seems to me to derive from the hypercritical contentiousness that characterized large sectors of Armenian Studies up to recent years. I will confine myself, in view of the necessary limits of this paper, to attempting to point out a few indications of this deep-rooted and dated modernity. Even if these indications remain somewhat superficial, they will help, I hope, to give an idea of the problems facing us in the present phase of Armenian Studies. I would like to start from the increasingly widespread and often inappropriate utilization made in recent Armenian philology of the epithet “pseudo-” in connection with the names of presumed medieval authors. Even if this seems a matter of little significance, it is a symptom, I believe, of an underlying mental attitude whose influence has certainly been of major dimensions. In a study dated 1996, I wrote the following in relation to the appellation “pseudo-Pawstos”:

Nous préférons employer pour les textes les dénominations classiques, consacrées par une tradition, souvent millénaire et devenues quasi les symboles d’une époque, d’une culture, d’une civilisation. Homère reste Homère, aussi dans le langage scientifique le plus rigou- reux, quoi qu’en puisse être les conclusions de la philologie, même la plus unanime et la plus sûre d’elle-même: non pas par simple commo- dité, mais parce qu’il est le symbole d’une entière civilisation! Toute proportion faite, pour ce qui concerne le “petit” domaine arménien, on a les oreilles presque lasses des interminables listes de “pseudo-” ou des tournures néologiques, de cette préoccupation de bourrer de philologie savante, quoique souvent discutable, même la simple signa- lisation d’une œuvre. Il va de soi qu’un tel discours ne touche pas ces cas où il faut distinguer des auteurs certainement confondus ou bien les œuvres authentiques et inauthentiques d’un même auteur, telles que

21 Just to mention a few examples among many, such are G. Traina’s and A. Topchyan’s approaches to Movsēs Xorenacʿi (Traina 1991; Topchyan 2006), C. Gugerotti’s approach to the liturgy of ordinations (Gugerotti 2001), K. Beledian’s approach to Narek (Pltean 1985). towards a “discourse on method” in armenian studies 549

“pseudo-chrysostomica” ou, pour nous reporter à un exemple arménien, “pseudo-Ojnecʿi”, etc.22

Such a complaint might seem, in the context of the mainstream of Armenian Studies in the West, to be an isolated, really an extra-chorum expression! But, probably, and fortunately indeed in the writer’s opinion, something was changing in those very years. In fact, only two years after the publication of the quoted lines, one could read, from the pen of one of the most remarkable Armenologists of our times, Robert Thomson, the following statement as to the use of the name Sebēos: “We use the name Sebeos for the author of this work without prejudice as to its correctness. “Pseudo-Sebēos” would be inappropriate, since such a title implies that the History was deliberately foisted on to an earlier author called Sebeos. For similar reasons the title “Pseudo- Movsēs” for the History of Movsēs Xorenacʿi is inappropriate, since there was no well-known person of that name whose authority could be claimed for a later composition”.23 Words of great good sense, indeed. One cannot help asking, however, was it necessary for more than a hundred of years of philological disquisition to grasp such a self-evident philological principle? But one should not wonder at such a delay, if one recalls the very intensive dose of hyper- criticism that came to pervade Armenian Studies. If one should seek a name typical of this hypercritical attitude, no other scholar, Armenian or not, could compete with Nersēs Akinean, whose odd de-constructivism is certainly not second to his extraordinary contribution to Armenian Studies for the width of his erudition and the range of his manifold interests. Another symptom of such a hypercritically de-constructive attitude, probably more frequent in Armenian Studies than in other fields of ethnic or regional studies, is an excessive emphasis on what some searchers consider as a negative trait. Let us quote again a significant passage, very indicative in this sense:

Le point de vue des sources historiques dont nous disposons augmente les difficultés de leur interprétation. . . . La mémoire de leur martyre héroïque [the question is of the celebrated battle of St. Vardanankʿ and of their martyrdom that forged definitively the Armenian Christian identity and branded it for centuries] fournit aux Arméniens un point de

22 Zekiyan 1997b, 110, n. 54. 23 Sebēos 1999, “Introduction: II. The Armenian Text”, xxxv, n. 20. Thomson ends his quoted phrase with the statement: “The Histories of Sebeos and Movsēs are by unknown persons” (ibid.). This question, however, is not the object of our present inquiry. 550 zekiyan

ralliement national . . . Par conséquent, les sources arméniennes doivent souvent être considérées, du moins partiellement, comme des miroirs déformants.24

The question rises spontaneously: is there and, indeed, can there be any historiography which is not, in a certain sense, “deforming” by its very nature? Is it ever possible for history to be a photocopy of the event? I say consciously “photocopy”, and not “photograph,” since it is a matter of fact that we can have an indefinite diversity of photographs of an object, due to technical reasons, and mainly to the subjective “eye” and skills of the photographer himself. As to the question, to which I have called attention, it has engaged, in the widest range of its applications from classical to modern and contemporary historiography, the minds of the best scholars, specialised in historical “sciences”, who have even challenged the meaning of the term “science” as applied to history.25 It is not our intention to enter the dangerous arena of the epistemological discussion on the value of our knowledge in sciences like history, philology, or philosophy. As to my personal conviction, I certainly admit the possibility, with some verifiable conditions, of basic certitudes. The point I would like to make is simply that it is not possible to have such an ingenuously Eurocentric and simplistic approach to Armenian Studies to consider the Armenian sources as “des miroirs déformants”, as if one did not face similar problems, to varying extents of course, dealing with any historical sources. It is to be welcomed that more recent trends in Armenian Studies show the way to overcome such naïve attitudes which are themselves deforming. I have already pointed to a younger generation of valuable colleagues who, in recent years, have contributed to this trend. I would like to point out that some of them have developed, previously or in parallel with Armenian Studies, a serious interest in fields of scholarship other than the study of an ethnic or

24 Garsoïan 2001, 12. 25 Finley writes (I quote from an Italian translation): “Per un verso c’è una confusione ter- minologica: il francese science, il tedesco Wissenschaft, forse meno l’inglese science non è detto che significhino più che una disciplina o campo di studi investigato in modo sistematico e con rigore. In questo senso lo studio della storia può essere incluso fra le “scienze”, ma non vedo come una tale classificazione ci possa portare molto lontano o anzi a un qualche risultato. Quando Hajo Holborn, per esempio, dice che “parlare di una scienza della storia non significa altro che affermare il modo critico e sistematico di affrontare la storia, e la validità dei risultati conseguiti in questa maniera”, elude il quesito fondamentale: come si saggia la validità dei ‘risultati conseguiti’?” (Finley 1987, cap. 4, 87–88). See also, amid a large variety of production: Momigliano 1987. towards a “discourse on method” in armenian studies 551 regional culture. I presume that this particular case has also played a certain role in that ouverture and envergure – just to give voice to those untranslatable nuances that these terms express – which led them to a new vision and a new approach toward their Armenian subjects. Going back to the few mentioned names above (n. 21), let us remind that Claudio Gugerotti has developed side by side with Armenian Studies a specialisation in theology,26 while Giusto Traina has come to Armenian Studies from a back-ground of specialization in Classical and Roman history.27 Another important contribution, in my opinion, to a deeper understanding and a more adequate evaluation of Armenian historiography that I would like to call to reader’s attention, comes from a scholar who is mainly a historian, and probably will not even consider himself as an armenologist ex professo: James Howard-Johnston. In his brilliant introduction and commentary to Sebēos’ History, he gives proof of a remarkable balance and maturity of judgement, and especially of a capacity to place and evaluate the History at issue and its author in the framework of a global vision of world history, casting light upon the author’s peculiar conception and perception both of the single events and of history in general as well. This is an approach which on the while lacked in classical Armenian Studies, especially in those of Western origin, from Carrière onwards. The balance that characterizes Howard-Johnston’s analysis is per- ceivable even in minimal details of which I would like to point out only one example that makes explicit the great difference of style of his work from a whole series of prior Armenian philological works in dealing with the subject. Classical Armenian Studies had accustomed us to hear an endless catalogue of woes, listing uniquely all real and imagined deficiencies of the Armenian

26 The “Introduction” to his Italian translation of Sebēos, the first complete translation of this not only great, but we can say, “key” historian into a European language, is one of the very first attempts in Western philology to overcome not only the obsessively mod- ernistic/hyper-critical, but also the exclusively textual-critical attitude in approaching Armenian sources and historiography. This search led to grasp better other important and basic dimensions of the text: its literary-artistic value as well as its contents, ideas, mes- sages, in one word its Weltanschauung underlying the literary expression (Sebēos 1990, “Introduzione”, 7–33). 27 He brought with him the whole stock of the sharp and long-dated epistemological and methodological debate in that field. This experience found expression in a monograph (Traina 1991) which probably marks a turning point, both in methodology and in content, in studies on Medieval Armenian historiography. See also by the same author, just to have a point of comparison beyond the field of Armenian Studies, “Introduzione”, signed jointly with R. Nicolai, to Strabone: Traina 2000, 5–30. 552 zekiyan sources and historiography, as is evident from some of the examples adduced above. Howard-Johnston, however, proceeds to give a most detailed and critical examination of his author, but at the same time also a most equitable and comprehensive picture as possible. While pointing out some trait which may sound like a criticism, he nonetheless is conscious that it is not something exclusively attributable to Sebēos, and he reminds us of that. Here is one example of such a case: “. . . Sebeos appears, unusually, to have written his introduction first rather than last, and not to have revised it subsequently. He makes it plain in his final sentence that he is presenting a plan, an account of the work which he wants to write. As happens to many authors’ plans (emphasis added by B.L.Z.), it changed radically in the course of writing”.28 We are here quite far from that kind of criticism, which conceives its own task to be that of a Public Prosecutor who presents a list of “misdeeds” attributable to the studied sources and historiography – Armenian in the given case, as more or less unreliable documents! A similar remark can be made, in relation to historiography, of the Traina’s and Topchyan’s approaches to Xorenacʿi (see n. 21). Among such works as those mentioned, and other similar ones whose number we can strongly hope may increase, it would not be venturesome to say that perhaps a new epoch in Armenian Studies is dawning, especially as far as the fields of history, documentary sources, and philology are concerned. It involves a comprehensive evaluation of those texts and documents in a contextual type of subject-object dialectics which is now becoming more common. The instance of balance, besides implying a general principle of behaviour in dealing with any question, also shows a great variety of immediate fields of application in some special questions. An area in which the issue of balance is particularly urgent is the question of the various sources of influences or the origins of the various models that worked in shaping traits of Armenian society, of Armenian identity, of Armenian Christianity. Such are, for instance, the great, unending arguments in favour of either Iranian or Hellenistic influences for the pre-Christian age, with the great question of indigenous elements suspended on the horizon of the debate; and also the matter of either Greek or Syriac influences as far as the Christian penetration into Armenia is at issue. But such questions open a new chapter in our disquisition.29

28 Sebēos 1999, Part II, 160. 29 For some preliminary remarks concerning the necessity of a balanced approach to the various components and factors at issue, see: Zekiyan 2009, in part. 83–84 and the given bibliography in the notes. towards a “discourse on method” in armenian studies 553

7 Further Questions

Before bringing the present study to an end, I cannot help but mention one peculiar problem which seems to me of particular importance, not only for a methodically sound orientation in Armenian Studies and philology, but even for the very perception of one’s own history and ethnic values. It is a matter of fact, put in evidence even in the daily or weekly Armenian press, that 1600th anniversary of the invention of the Armenian alphabet was not properly celebrated as it deserved, and in comparison with the celebration of the 16th centenary of St. Mesrop’s birth, under the Soviet regime, it passed indeed in a minor key. It is also a matter of fact that the great input for similar jubilees came, over last sixty years, from the Republic of Armenia. Input from Armenia was certainly present this time, too. However, one must concede that it was not at the same level as that devoted to the celebration of the anniversary of Mesrop’s birth and, indeed, also as to those of the birth of Komitas, of Sayat-Nova (Sayatʿ-Nova), or as to the commemoration of the Metz Yeghern (Mec Yełeṙn, that is, the Genocide). Such a situation should not surprise us if we think that a known scholar, in his enthusiasm to consider as Armenian alphabets all kinds of writing witnessed on the Armenian highland, could pride himself on the fact that he succeeded in convincing the State Television channel to speak not of the invention of the Armenian alphabet, but of the invention of the “Mesropian alphabet” (sic!). It is again a matter of fact that chauvinistic and excessively nationalistic tendencies, today menace and minimize real national values of Armenia and of the Armenians, which could form the pride of any significant nation. Mesrop Maštocʿ is one of those outstanding values to whom Armenia gave birth, of a grandeur of an absolutely world-wide level, belonging to all mankind, far beyond Armenia’s boundaries.30 Chauvinisms are, unfortunately, the major

30 One of the greatest linguists and armenologists of the 20th century, A. Meillet, considered the Armenian alphabet as an absolute masterpiece, both for its structure and phonetic perfection. However, Mesrop’s deepest intuition in creating the Armenian alphabet and his major contribution to human civilisation in general consist, I believe, in the new conception of ethnic identity that he introduced and succeeded in achieving by his further activity. Mesrop aimed at creating, contextually to the formation of the alphabet, a high level literary culture for the Armenian people, as the main ground of its national identity. He gave the basic impulse for it with Catholicos Sahak, his chief collaborator, and his brilliant pupils. Almost all the Christian culture, especially in its Oriental version, was made accessible to the Armenians in the short period of half a century and also the foundations were laid for a valuable literature in the original tongue. This literary culture became the ground of Armenian identity through the centuries. I dealt extensively with 554 zekiyan enemies of what they seek to exalt. People supporting still, against any lack of evidence at all after a century-long debate, the existence of an Armenian alphabet prior to Mesrop, look for it today either in Sisian’s pre-historical and pre-ethnic graffiti or in some Urartean hieroglyphs, or in similar petroglyphs of the pre- and proto-history of the Armenian plateau. This causes us to over- look all distinctions between the stage of the crystallized national identity and remote elements which might eventually flow, at a certain historical moment, into the formation of that identity. Since petroglyphs almost identical to those of Sisian are to be found also in Val Camonica in Italy, perhaps we might to presume that these latter were also carved by Armenians! Not to speak of those of the Sinai desert! The factors contributing to such chauvinistic attitudes have a long history. They were given a new impulse, however, by the A. Ayvazyan’s monograph on The History of Armenia as Presented in American Historiography, as I have already pointed out (n. 7). Having discussed widely and strictly from a methodological standpoint, in the above mentioned paper presented at the Conference of Spoleto in 1995 (see n. 1), both the developments of similar trends and the problem of the various phases in the process of formation of an ethnic/national identity – a process which can go on for many centuries –, I shall not come now back to these questions. As far as the origin of the Armenian alphabet is at issue, I only would like to add, that even independently from any theory on the formation process of the Armenian ethnos, Mesrop’s invention is of a phonetic alphabet, and what’s more, of a phonetic alphabet which is a masterpiece of its kind, while all prior alphabets supposed to be Armenian are not of the phonetic type. The dull celebrations for the alphabet’s invention were also due, unfortunately, among other factors, to such chauvinistic and scholarly inconsistent attitudes as those mentioned above: not a positive signal indeed, in my modest opinion, for an adequate perception of Armenian history and identity, but also raise doubts about the health of Armenian Studies, both in Armenia and in the diaspora. As I said from the very beginning, it was not the object of this study to develop a systematic approach to the whole problem of method in Armenian Studies. It aimed only at being a complement to prior studies, and a contribution toward a general survey of some topical questions on textual hermeneutics in the wider sense, accompanied by a critical reflection on what some basic requirements of a sound methodology might be with a special regard to those questions. This goal has been attained, if such a contribution has really been made.

these questions in various articles, of which I would mention here the following: Zekiyan 1997a; Zekiyan 2002; Zekiyan 2004. towards a “discourse on method” in armenian studies 555

Bibliography

Ačaṙean, H. 1935. Hayerēn armatakan baṙaran, vol. 7, “Yaweluac” [Addenda], Erevan Erevani Hamalsarani Hratarakčʿutʿyun. ———. 1939. Patmutʿiwn Hayocʿ nor grakanutʿean [History of Modern Armenian Literature], Beirut. ———. 1971. Hayerēn armatakan baṙaran, vol. 1, Erevan: Erevani Hamalsarani Hratarakčutʿiwn. Ananean, H.P. / Ananian, P.B. 1972. Sebēosi Patmutʿean grkʿi masin kʿani mə lusabanutʿiwnner / Eclaircissements sur le livre d’Histoire de Sebeos (Bibliothèque d’Arménologie «Bazmavēp», N° 1 ), Venise – St. Lazare, 1972. Ayvazyan, A. 1998. Hayastani patmutʿean lusabanum ə amerikean patmagrutʿean mēǰ (Kʿnnakan tesutʿiwn) [The History of Armenia as Presented in American Historiography (A Critical Survey)], Erevan: Artagers, republished by Grkaser Publishing House (Canoga Park, CA 2002), ———. 2003. Himnatarrer Hayastani azgayin anvtangutʿean hayecʿakargi [Essential Elements for Armenia’s National Security Doctrine], Part One, Hełinakayin Hratarakčutʿiwn [Author’s Publication], Erevan: Samark, 2nd revised and updated ed., Erevan: Lusakn, 2004. Bais, M. 2006. “Il privilegio ai siciliani di re Lewon IV (1331): una pagina delle relazioni tra gli Armeni e la Sicilia”, in D. Ciccarelli & C. Miceli (eds), Testimonianze manoscritte della Sicilia: Codici, documenti, pitture, Provincia Regionale di Palermo, Biblioteca Francescana di Palermo, 47–66. Pəltean G. (Beledian, K.). 1985. Narekacʿi lezui sahmannerun mēǰ [Narekacʿi within the Limits of the Language] (Bibliothèque d’Arménologie « Bazmavēp », 22), Venetik: S. Łazar (French résumé: 155–157). Dadoyan, S. 2003. “Conceptualizing and de-conceptualizing Armenian historic experience-subject matter. Interdisciplinary perspectives and methodology”, in Armenology Today and Prospects for Its Development. Abstracts of Papers, September 15–20, 2003, Erevan: Erevani Hamalsarani Hratarakčʿutʿiwn, p. 232. Finley, M.I. 1987. Problemi e metodi di storia antica, prefazione di A. Momigliano (Quadrante, 4), Bari: Laterza (translation from the English: Ancient History. Evidence and Models, London: Chatt & Windus Ltd., 1985). Garsoïan, N.G. 2001. “Évolution et crise dans l’historiographie récente de l’Arménie médiévale”, Revue du Monde Arménien Moderne et Contemporain 6, 7–27. Gugerotti, Cl. 2001. La liturgia armena delle ordinazioni e l’epoca ciliciana. Esiti rituali di una teologia di comunione tra Chiese (OCA, 264), Roma: Pontificio Istituto Orientale. Ieni, G. 1986. “Il problema delle arcate cieche nell’architettura monumentale del X–XI secolo. Rapporti fra Oriente e Occidente”, in M.S. Calò Mariani (ed.), L’arte geor- giana dal IX al XIV secolo, I, Galatina: Congedo Editore, 51–65. Momigliano, A. 1987. Storia e storiografia antica, Milano: Il Mulino. 556 zekiyan

Nichanian, M. 1999. “Enlightenment and Historical Thought”, in R.G. Hovannisian & D.N. Myers (eds), Enlightenment and Diaspora. The Armenian and Jewish Cases, Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 87–123. Scarcia, G. 1979. “Zurvanismo subcaucasico”, in Zurvan e Muhammad (Quaderni del Seminario di Iranistica, Uralo-Altaistica e Caucasologia dell’Università degli Studi di Venezia, 2), Venezia: Roma: Arti Grafiche Scalia, 15–21. Sebēos. 1990. Sebēos, Storia, traduzione dall’armeno, introduzione e note di Cl. Gugerotti (Eurasiatica. Quaderni del Dipartimento di Studi Eurasiatici, Università degli Studi di Venezia, 4), Verona: Editrice Mazziana. ———. 1999. The Armenian History attributed to Sebeos, Translation with notes by R.W. Thomson, Historical commentary by J. Howard-Johnston, Assistance from T. Greenwood, Part I. Translation and notes, Part II. Historical Commentary, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Sirinian, A. 1996. “Diciotto anni di studi italiani sulle relazioni italo-armene (Bibliografia storica italiana degli anni 1978–1995)”, in B.L. Zekiyan (ed.), Ad limina Italiae/ Aṙ druns Italioy. In viaggio per l’Italia con mercanti e monaci armeni, (Eurasiatica. Quaderni del Dipartimento di Studi Eurasiatici, Università degli Studi Ca’ Foscari di Venezia, 37), Padova: Editoriale Programma, 287–297. Suny, R.G. 1993. Looking toward Ararat: Armenia in Modern History, Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Thierry, J.-M. 1980. “Les tétraconques à niche d’angle (Étude typologique d’un groupe d’églises subcaucasiennes)”, Bazmavēp 158, 124–179. Topchyan, A. 2006. The Problem of the Greek Sources of Movses Xorenacʿi’s History of Armenia (HUAS, 7), Leuven: Peeters. Traina, G. 1991. Il complesso di Trimalcione. Movsēs Xorenacʿi e le origini del pensiero storico armeno (Eurasiatica. Quaderni del Dipartimento di Studi Eurasiatici, Università degli Studi di Venezia, 27), Venezia: Casa Editrice Armena. ———. 2000. Strabone, Geografia. Il Caucaso e l’Asia Minore, libri XI–XIII, Introduzione, traduzione e note di Roberto Nicolai e Giusto Traina, testo greco a fronte (Biblioteca Universale Rizzoli), Milano: Rizzoli. Zekiyan, B.L. 1978. “Le colonie armene del Medio Evo in Italia e le relazioni culturali italo-armene (Materiale per la storia deg1i armeni in Ita1ia), Bergamo 28–30 giugno 1975”, in G. Ieni & L.B. Zekiyan (eds), Atti del Primo Simposio Internazionale di Arte Armena, Venezia: San Lazzaro, 803–931 + 13 pl. ———. 1996. “Lo studio delle interazioni politiche e culturali tra le popolazioni della Subcaucasia: alcuni problemi di metodologia e di fondo in prospettiva sincronica e diacronica”, in Il Caucaso: cerniera fra culture dal Mediterraneo alla Persia (secoli IV–XI) (Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 43), Spoleto: Presso la Sede del Centro, 427–481, Discussione: 483–491. towards a “discourse on method” in armenian studies 557

———. 1997a. “Das Verhältnis zwischen Sprache und Identität in der Entwicklung der armenischen Nationalbewußtseins. Versuch einer begrifflichen Formulierung aus geschichtlicher Erfahrung”, in G. Hentschel (ed.), Über Muttersprachen und Vaterländer. Zur Entwicklung von Standardsprachen und Nationen in Europa, Frankfurt-am-M., Berlin, Bern, New York, Paris & Wien: Peter Lang, 277–297. ———. 1997b. “Quelques observations critiques sur le « Corpus Elisaeanum »”, in R.F. Taft, S.J. (ed.), The Armenian Christian Tradition. Scholarly Symposium in Honor of the Visit to the Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome of His Holiness Karekin I Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians (OCA, 254), Roma: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 71–123. ———. 2002. “Die Christianisierung und die Alphabetisierung Armeniens als Vorbilder kultureller Inkarnation, besonders im subkaukasischen Gebiet”, in W. Seibt (ed.), Die Christianisierung des Kaukasus/The Christianisation of Caucasus (Armenia, Georgia, Albania). Referate des Internationalen Symposions (Wien, 9.-12. Dezember 1999)”, Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 189–198. ———. 2004. “I processi di cristianizzazione e di alfabetizzazione dell’Armenia in fun- zione di ‘modelli’. Verso una teologia dell’etnia e della ‘Chiesa etnica’”, in R.F. Taft, S.J. (ed.), The Formation of a Millennial Tradition. 1700 Years of Armenian Christian Witness (301–2001), Scholary Symposium in Honor of the Visit to the Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome, of His Holiness Karekin II, Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians, November 11, 2000, Roma: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 161–181. ———. 2008. “Iran and the Caucasus: Unity and Diversity”, Arya International University, Yerevan, 6–8 June 2008, key-note speech: “Culture, Policy, and Scholarship in the Subcaucasian Region (Some Critical Remarks and a Methodological Survey), Iran and the Caucasus 12.2, 329–361. ———. 2009. “Armenian Self-Perception Between Ottomans and Safavids. A Historical Model of Christian-Muslim interrelation and an attempt to re-evaluate its message”, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 75, 81–117. ———. 2011. “Cultural and Political Relations in the Subcaucasus with special Regard to its Christian Heritage: Some Methodological Remarks”, in V.S. Tomelleri, M. Topadze & A. Lukianowicz (eds) with the collaboration of O. Rumjancev, Languages and Cultures in the Caucasus. Papers from the International Conference “Current Advances in Caucasian Studies” Macerata, January 21–23, 2010 (Studies on Language and Culture in Central and Eastern Europe, 16), München & Berlin: Kubon & Sagner, 177–204.

Index codicum et papyrorum

1 Index codicum a Greek MSS ATHOS, MOUNT, Megiste Laura Erevan, ‘Maštocʿ’ Institute and Library of Γ 112 93 Ancient Manuscripts (Matenadaran) (M) M168 239 Baltimore, The Walters Art Gallery M287 233 W 537 74 M345 239 M352 236 Graz, Universitätsbibliothek M941 972 2058 30 M993 972 M1097 156 Grottaferrata, Biblioteca della Badia M1500 233, 239–240 greca M1524 972 B.α.IV 90 M1623 239 M1731 187 EL ESCORIAL, Real Biblioteca M1767 186–187 Ω.I.16 92 M1768 187 M1769 187 MilanO, Biblioteca Ambrosiana M1826 186 B 56 sup. 90 M1896 187 M2374 219, 388 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France M2587 233 Gr. 1807 361 M2627 234 M2639 311 PARMA, Biblioteca Palatina M2644 189 Pal. 223 91 M2679 9, 13n27 M2855 191 WIEN, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek M2899 189 Theol. Gr. 149 93 M3071 189 M3380 189 M3519 188 b Armenian MSS1 M3520 189 BZOMMAR, Monastery Library (BZ) M3723 18n49 BZ449 187 M4113 232 BZ644 189 M5587 187 M5994 421n13 CHICAGO, University of Chicago Regenstein M6605 189 Library (CHG) M7729 972 CHG229 236

1 The codes used for the Armenian manuscripts follow the list of codes suggested by the AIEA (available on the Association’s website: http://aiea.fltr.ucl.ac.be/). 560 index codicum et papyrorum

M7753 239 Paris, National Library of France (P) M8159 189 P110 272 M8232 189 P120 272 M8894 189 P121 272 M9116 239 P191 189 M9284 421 P200 189 M10704 421n13 M11056 15n34 ROME, Armenian College (Collegio Leoniano Armeno) (ROL) Ēǰmiacin Gospels (M2673) 214n2, ROL25 189 218–219, 221, 221n21 388 Glajor Gospels 29 SAint Petersburg, Institute of Oriental Łazarean Gospels 6 Manuscripts (SABO) Lectionary of King Hetʿum II 29 SABOB1 235 Lemberg Gospel 29 Mlkʿē Gospels 6 Venice, Mekhitarist Library, Monastery of Trebizond Gospels 6–7 San Lazzaro (V) Yakob’s Gospels 29 V123 11n21 Homiliary of Muš 279 V200 156 V280 233 London, British Library (LOB) V424 29, 388 LOB Or. 5260 187 V653 279 V841 233, 239 Jerusalem, Library of the Armenian V862 6 Patriarchate (J) V873 216 J285 36 V887 187 J308 156 V901 187 J310 156 V913 187 J414 164 V935 239 J1051 189 V1007 219, 221 J1107 189 V1311 239 J1117 156 V1400 8 J1153 239 V1508 215, 217, 219, 221, 233, 235, 239 J1869 187 V1530 156 J1925 233, 239–241 V1634 235 J1930 232 V2061 32 J1934 233 V2496 156 J2148 239 J3651 189 Vienna, Mekhitarist Library (W) W14 239 New JUlfa, Library of the All Saviour’s W112 357 Monastery (NOJ) W243 189 NOJ64 421n13 W246 189 W505 32 OXFORD, Bodleian Library (OXL) W574 187 OXL Arm. e.32 186 OXL Arm. f14 421n13 index codicum et papyrorum 561 c Palimpsests See table, pp. 30–32

2 Papyri

PARIS, Bibliothèque Nationale de France Armeno-Greek Papyrus 15–16 General Index

This General Index indicates the references to subjects, to persons, both ancient and modern, and to places occurring in the text of the book. It does not include persons referred to in bibliographies at the end of the chapters and in the bibliographical references in the footnotes. We did not index the entries in the Appendix at pp. 50–64.

Aarhus, University of 71 Acts of John 265n5, 269, 269n28 Abaka: see journals Acts of John by Prochorus 270 Abazian, A. (Abazean) 523 Acts of Paul 265, 265n5, 269n28, 270 Abbas, Shah 122, 419 Acts of Peter 269n28 Abbreviations 179 Acts of Peter and Paul 270, 276, 278 Abdül Hamid, sultan 441 Acts of Pilate: see Gospel of Nicodemus Abecedariums 123 Acts of the Apostles (NT) 34, 166, 166n88, Abeghian spelling 498–499; see also Soviet 265n5 spelling Acts of Thecla, or Acts of Paul and Abełean, M. 231, 322–323, 330n45, 384, 386, Thecla 270, 276, 280 389, 438; see also Abełyan, M. Acts of Thomas 269n28, 270 Abełyan, M.: see Abełean, M. Acts, apocryphal 267, 269, 275 Abgar 270; Cycle of Abgar 273; Letter of Adalian, N. (Adalean) 524; Kinə ew Abgar 274, 276 tłamardə 525; Spanutʿean vkanerə Abgar Ewdokiacʿi (Bartolomeo 524 Abagaro) 124, 124n5, 129 Adalian, R. 142n12, 427, 429 Abgaryan, G. 305, 546 Adam, apocrypha of 237, 251; Adamic Abov, G. (Abov) 509, 519 literature 254–256 Abovian, A. (Abovean) 508; Levoni Adamgirkʿ 256 hēkʿiatʿə 508; Patkerner giwłakan Adjémian, Ch. 34, 232, 238–239, 249, 299; keankʿicʿ 508 see also Ajamian, S. Abovian, Kh. (Abovean) 443, 511 Administrative circles 486; administrative Abraham Erewancʿi, Patmutʿiwn mission 470; administrative texts 137, Paterazmacʿn 435 164 Abraham III Kretacʿi 434 Adzhemian, K. (Ačemean) 515 Abrahamyan, A.G. 5, 106, 419, 438 Aelius Theon, Progymnasmata 163, 327 Abstract, nouns 330; abstract, vocabulary Agatʿangełos 306–307, 309, 312; Teaching of 332; abstract, literary concepts 506 Saint Gregory 309 Absurdist plays 525 Agelean, S. 305 Academy of Sciences, Erevan 71; Armenian Aghachanian, G. (Ałačanean) 522; Academy, Soviet period 541 Intim 522 Ačaṙyan, H. 322, 325, 329–331, 520; see also Aghassian, M. 420–421 Achaṙian, H. Aghbalian, N. (Ałbalean) 468, 486, 492, Accident or variation 141 501n81, 508 Achaṙian, H. (Ačaṙean): see Ačaṙyan Agoncʿ, S. 429n52 Acts of Andrew 265n5, 266n14, 269n24, Agōs: see journals 269n28 Aharonian, A. (Aharonean) 473, 473n13, Acts of Andrew and Matthew 266n14, 270, 480n31, 486, 497n73, 499n78, 508–509, 521; 278 Azatutʿean čanaparhin 509 general index 563

Ahegan: see journals significance of 554; significance of for Ajamian, S.: see Adjémian, Ch. Armenian identity 553 Akinean, N. 122, 305, 322, 324–325, 331, 358, Alpōyačean, A. 430 398, 420, 422, 549 Ałuan 106, 307 Ałabekean, M. 443n114 Ałuankʿ (Albania), Armenian inscriptions Alachachyan, S. (Alačačean); Pʿiwnik 516 of 106; Latin inscriptions of 115 Ałaneancʿ, G. 431, 434 Amalyan, H. 34, 233–235, 242n32, 249, Aławnuni, M. 256 253n20, 423 Alazan, V. 514–515 Amelawxoys, Amelaxos 357 Albania: see Ałuankʿ America (North and South) 469, 476n17, Albertus Magnus 364n80 480, 482n36, 484, 484n39, 488 Alboyajian, A. (Alpoyačean) 487 Ammonius 363 Alēkʿsanian, V. (Alēkʿsanean) 522 Amrots: see journals Aleppo 476, 476n17, 477n22, 479, 483n39, Amsterdam 51, 123–128, 365n83, 385, 425, 486, 488, 488n45, 490, 493, 502 426n40 Alexander II, Tsar 442 Amulets 27, 35; see also prayer scrolls Alexander Romance 325, 382, 382n22, 383, (hmayil) 388; Venice illustrated manuscript of 29 Anahid: see journals Alexander the Great 139 Ananean, P. 305, 315, 546 Ałexandrapol 466, 468; first Armenian Anania Narekacʿi 395 University (1920) 468; see also Gyumri Anania Širakac’i 325, 363; Kʿnnikon 363 Alexandria 361, 486 Ananian, V. (Ananean) 520 Alexandrian criticism 139 Ananian, Zh. (Ananean) 524 Alexandrian heritage 350 Anaphora Pilati: see Letter of Pilate Alexandrian librarians, library 139; see also Anasyan, H. 297, 424; Mouseion Andonian, A. (Antonean) 473, 480n31 Alexandrian philosophical ‘continous’ Andreev, L. 487 commentary 363; Alexandrian Andrew W. Mellon Foundation 180 philosophical corpus 351; Alexandrian Andrews, T. 148n30, 166, 177, 178n1, 183, 186, philosophical school 350, 355, 365 191, 255n27 Alexanian, D. (Alexanean) 479 Ani 36, 101n4, 103–106, 306, 437; excavations Alexanian, J. 34, 166, 235–236, 242 at 104; Armenian inscriptions 104–105; Alikʿ: see journals monastery of 106 Alikʿ: see printing houses Ani: see journals Ališan, Ł. 67, 103, 273–274, 276, 385, 388, 419, Ankanon 274–275 437–438, 540–544; historiographic method Ankanon girkʿ 275–276 of 541, 544; reliability of Anniversary, anniversaries: 542–544; scholarly writings of 1000th anniversary of Narekacʿi’s 541–543 death 392n54 Allegory, allegorical 324n8, 382, 390, 509 1000th anniversary of the epic 390n47 Allitteration 87 100th anniversary of the Armenian Allophones 202 Genocide 399n80 Alphabet, Armenian 6–7, 14–15, 14n33, 102, 1500th anniversary of the alleged birth of 125, 177, 202, 207, 210, 231, 237n14, 269, 354, David the Invincible 358 388, 399, 467, 553–554, 553n30 1600th anniversary of the discovery of the Mesropian alphabet 553; phonetic Armenian alphabet 242n30, 399n80, alphabet 554; pre-Mesropian 554; 553 564 general index

1700th Anniversary of the adoption Apocryphal, editorial techniques 252–253, of Christianity as state religion in 280–282 Armenia 399, 399n80 Apocryphal Adam Books 252, 255 500th anniversary of the inception of Apophthegmata philosophorum 351 Armenian printing 378n4, 399n80 Apparatus criticus 150, 153, 162–164, 166, anniversary of Mesrop’s birth 553 177, 181, 191, 216, 222, 233, 235–236, 239, 251, fifteen hundredth anniversary of 253–254, 276, 281, 353, 360, 425, 428; see the invention of the Armenian also critical apparatus alphabet 388, 399, 399n80, 467 Aquila 240 fiftieth anniversary of the Genocide 516 Ara, Y., Lusancʿkʿi mardik 522; four-hundredth anniversary of the first Sewagrutʿiwnner 522 printed Armenian book 388, 467; Arabic inscriptions in Armenia 106 millennium commemorations of Aṙakʿel Dawrižecʿi 67, 424–425, 444 the death of Grigor Narekacʿi’s in Aṙakʿel Siwnecʿi 249, 256, 363, 385n32 2003 399n80 Aṙakʿelyan, A.G.A. 358 twentieth anniversary of Armenian Aṙakʿelyan, B. 39 independence 399n80 Aṙakʿelyan, V. 305, 327, 394 Antasdan: see journals Arakʿsmanian, A. (Arakʿsmanean), Antelias, Catholicosate 26, 51, 396, 490, Emanuel 513 502 Aramian, V. (Aramean) 435, 515 Anti-poetry (Antipoezia) 522–523 Arapkercʿi concordance 243 Antithesis 86, 88 Ararat: see journals Antrēasian, A. (Antrēasean) 481, 499n78 Aṙarkayakan cʿank or realia 69 Aorist 204, 211, 217, 221, 331, 338–340 Aras: see printing houses Aphrodisias, Armenian inscriptions of 115 Araxe: see printing houses Aphthonius, Progymnasmata 327 Arcʿax 29, 396; Episcoposate of 396; Apocalypse of John 265 Armenian inscriptions of 106 Apocalypse of Mary: see Vision of the Archaism, pseudo-archaism Theotokos (Armenian) 211, 216–217 Apocalypse of Moses 251–252 Archetype 142–146, 151, 184, 186 Apocalypse of Paul 276, 278, 281 Archival research 420; archival Apocalyptic, genre 270; texts 238; in the sources 308 Byzantine tradition 238 Arevšatyan, A. 395 Apocrypha 28n21, 148, 232, 234, 236–238, Arevšatyan, S.S. 322–323, 326, 329, 331, 336, 257; canonical status of 256; categories 351n10, 354n30, 355n34, 357–358, 363n75 of 250; Christian apocrypha (also NT Arew: see journals apocrypha) 35, 236, 264–282; Christian Arewelean Mamul: see journals apocrypha, chronology 266–269; Arewelkʿ: see journals Christian apocrypha, definition Arewmudkʿ: see journals 267–268; closing of the canon and ARF (Armenian Revolutionary Christian apocrypha 264–266; Federation) 511 computer assisted studies of 253, 256; Arhest hamarołutʿean 128 Old and Christian apocrypha, relation Aristakēs Hretor 214–217, 217n12, 219n18 of 256; Old Testament apocrypha 234, Aristakēs Lastivertcʿi 304n4, 305 247–257; textual studies of 253; Aristotelian corpus 350, 359; Aristotelian terminology for apocrypha 248; see also curriculum 350–351, 363; Aristotelian Armenian Christian apocrypha logic 350, 363; Aristotelian logic and the general index 565

dogmas of the Church 364; Aristotelian Armenian communities 441–442, 469n5; writings 323, 333; see also Aristotle see also Astrakhan; Egypt; Calcutta; Aristotle 325–328, 334, 350, 352, 354–355, Constantinople (Istanbul); Iran; Lebanon; 360, 363; Categories 328, 350, 353, 359; De New Julfa; Syria; USA Interpretatione or On Interpretation 328, Armenian critical scholarship 538–539 350, 353; Prior Analytics 350; Aristotle Armenian Digital Library 71, 298 (ps.), De Mundo, De Virtutibus or On Armenian educational centres in the Russian Virtues and Vices 351, 354 Empire 386; Armenian educational Arłutean, bishop 433 council (in Diaspora) 493n59 Armand (Armant) 481 Armenian Ethnographic Society 438 Armēn, M., Patuirecʿin yanjnel jez; Žirayr Armenian General Benevolent Union Glencʿ 516 (AGBU) 481–482, 483n38, 492–493, Armenia 122–123, 127, 155n46; Armenia 493n59 as independent nation-state 505, 530; Armenian language, Cilician 203–204, 209 Armenia in 15th c. 417; northwestern Armenian language, Classical 142, 160n60, Armenia 466; Upper Armenia 36 161, 201, 215, 217, 219, 231, 321, 330, 340, 379, Armenian Aid Union (HOM) 481 384, 392, 426, 428n46 Armenian Associations: Ararat 497; Armenian literature 138, 200, 249n6, 255, Association of Armenian men 270, 274, 280, 295–296, 349, 365–366, of letters 475; Giligia 489; 388, 390–392, 397n75, 398, 430, 436–437, Hamazkayin 483n38, 486, 489, 492–493, 442n110, 466–467, 470n7, 472n12, 480n30, 493n59, 494n63, 494–496; Tʿēkʿēian 489, 486, 487, 501–502, 504, 505n3, 506, 510, 492, 496 519–521, 525, 528–530, 541n11 et passim Armenian Bible 15, 34, 124, 127, 155, Armenian modernity, trends in study of 444 160, 160n60, 161–163, 165, 219, 231–243, Armenian monastic schools 363–364 249–250, 254, 428; manuscripts 34, Armenian orthodoxy 308 259, 299; Bagratuni’s edition 217n12, Armenian poetry 377–400, 522 219, 428; Erevan edition 216; Mxitʿar’s Armenian Poetry Project 529 edition 426; Oskan’s Bible 426n40; Armenian religion, ancient 438 Armenian translation from Greek, Armenian Republic 1918–1920 468 excerpts 321–322, 335, 338; Zōhrapean’s Armenian Review: see journals Bible: see Zōhrapean Armenian revolutionaries 467, 509, 511 Armenian Christian apocrypha 270–282; Armenian Studies, guidelines for 537; Armenian Christian apocrypha and the Armenian Studies, methodology of 535; scholarly work of the Mekhtarist Fathers Armenia and Armenian Studies, views in the 19th c. 273–275, 279–280; of 534 Armenian Christian apocrypha, Armēnian, G. (Armēnean) 480 collections 271–273 Armenianness (hayabahbanum) 386, 390, Armenian Christology in Asołik: see Asołik 492, 500 Armenian Church 310, 324, 355, 358, 364, Armeno-Turkish literature (hayataṙ 391, 396–397; 434n71, 438, 442n112, 443n113, tʿurkʿerēn) 383 533n2; Armenian Apostolic Church Arpʿarian, A. (Arpʿiarean) 441, 472n12, 477, 248–249, 395, 397, 432 486 Armenian communities 480–481; Arpʿen, A., Kacʿaran 525 Armenian speaking community 476, Art historians 24, 29, 41, 68, 137 500, 502n84; Ottoman and Eastern Artavazd 306 communities 432–435; Western Artificial compound roots 329 566 general index

Artsakh: see Arcʿax Averincev, A. 392 Arzumanian, S. (Arzumanean) 525 Awagian, A. (Awagean) 522 Asadur or Asadurian, H. (Asaturean) Awakening (Zartōnk) 273, 436, 441, 466 481–484, 494n63, 499n78 Awetikʿean, G. 428 Asadur, Z. 483–484 Awetisian, Z. (Awetisean) 525 Asbarēz: see journals Awgerean, M.: see Aucher Aščean, M. 432 Axioms 536 Ascension of Isaiah 267 Axverdean, G. 377n2, 386 Asdghapert: see journals Ayrarat, region 103 Ashkharh: see journals Ayvazian, Aghasi (Ayvazean) 518, 520, 524, Asia Minor 128 525; Biliard 524; Dekorner 525; Lacʿi Aslanian, L. (Aslanean, alias Las) 474, aygin 525 494n63, 497n71, 499n78 Ayvazyan, Armēn 554 Aslanian, M. (Aslanean) 483, 491n56 Ayvazian, V. (Ayvazean), Čanči amisə Aslanian, S. 420–421 524 Asołik 304n4, 305–306, 309–311; Armenian Azad Ōr: see journals Christology in 309 Azadamart: see journals Association des gens de lettres arméniens: see Azadian, Tʿ. (Azatean) 483–484; see also journals Azatean Tʿ. Association Internationale des Études Azatean, Tʿ.: see Azadian Arméniennes (aiea) 256n30 Azgagrakan Handes: see journals Association pour l’Étude de la Littérature Azgasēr araratean: see journals Apocryphe Chrétienne (aelac) 256n30, Azgasēr: see journals 266, 268n22, 277 Azgayin Matenadaran 36, 72n25, 155n46 Assumption of the Virgin 35 Aztag shapatʿōriag: see journals Aštarak, Armenian inscriptions of 106 Aztag: see journals Astrakhan, law code of 419; Armenian Aztarar (Azdarar): see journals community 419 Astrology 123 Badalyan, H. 37 Ašuł 377, 377n2, 381, 383, 387–390, 393–394, Badgēr: see journals 397; ašułakan 377, 433; Armenian Union Baghdad 9, 377 of the Ašułs 397n76 Baghdasar Dpir: see Bałtasar Dpir Ašxarhabar (Modern Armenian), Baghdiantz McCabe, I. 420 predominance of 441 Bagratuni, A.K. 428–429n48 Ašxarhažołov 421 Baku 466, 468 Atʿayan, R. 394, 439 Bakuntsʿ, A. (Bakuncʿ) 511, 515, 519, 521; Athanasius of Alexandria 33, 325 Karmrakʿar 511; Kyores 511 Athanasius (ps.), Dialogues on the Holy Balean, X. 396 Trinity IV and V 165 Bałēš : see Bitlis Atheism 358, 389 Balian: see printing houses Athens 30, 478–479; school of rhetoric Bałišecʿi, Š. 129 of 354; National Library of 30 Balkans 466–467, 471, 488 Atmajian, K.: see Sema Bałramean, M. 431 Aucher, J.-B. 352, 428; see also Awgerean, M. Bałtasar Dpir 423; Chronicle 434 Auxiliary historical sciences 138 Banber Matenadarani: see journals Auxiliary verbs 333 Banouchyan, A. 30 Avagyan, S.A. 214 Bard 377, 379, 381 Avdalbegyan, Tʿ. 328, 420 Bardakjian, K. 425, 506 general index 567

Baṙgirk haykazean lezui, dictionary Biblical 12, 23, 89, 140, 156, 161–162, 231–232, 426 237, 241–242, 271, 303; Biblical citations Baṙgirkʿ Hayocʿ, dictionary by Eremia in Philo and Timothy Aelurus 321; Mełrecʿi 423 Biblical corpus 250, 252–253, 255–257; Barnes, J. 361 Biblical hermeneutics 540; Biblical Baronian, H. (Paronean) 498 manuscripts 158, 165, 236, 238, Baronian, S. 248 249–250, 299; Biblical names 219; Baroyaxōs 327 Biblical philology 155, 236, 427–428; Barsamian, M. (Parsamean), Giankʿ ew Biblical studies 238, 252, 295 Arvesd 474 Bibliographical lacunae, Western and Barseł Ałbakecʿi 422 Armenian 546–547 Barseł Kostandnupolsecʿi 124 Bibliotheca Basiliana universalis 34 Barsełyan, V. 438 Bibliothèque de la Pléiade 277 Bartholomew of Bologna 364n80 Bibliothèque Nationale de France 5, 15, 248, Bartholomew, apostle 270, 277–278 272, 276 Bartolomeo Abagaro: see Abgar Ewdokiacʿi Bindefehler: see conjunctive errors Barxudaryan, S.G. 105–106 Binding 5, 16–18, 18n50, 24, 39, 39n118, 418 Basil of Caesarea 164, 326, 354n28; Birmingham, Mingana Collection 31 Asceticon 325, 337; Book of Birth of Vahagn 379 Questions 299; Rules 163 Bitlis 421; Bitlis, Armenian chronicles Basmajian, G.: see Bazmajian of 422; see also Bałēš Baxčʿinyan, H. 433 Biwzandion: see journals Bayburtyan, V. 419 Blake, R. 305 Baykʿar: see journals Blog post 528–529 Bazmajian, G. (Pazmačean) 441 Bloom, J.M. 422 Bazmavēp: see journals Bnagir (base manuscript) 279, 353 Bédier, J. 147–148 Bnagir: see journals Beirut 475–477, 479, 481, 486, 488–490, Bodéüs, R. 361 491n55–56, 494, 502, 517, 513, 516, 518 Bodleian Library 248 Bekker, I. 140 Bogharian, N. (Połarean) 238–239, 249 Belardi, W. 199, 208 Bolognesi, G. 199, 322, 327, 359 Beledian, K. (Pǝltʿean) 477, 478n25, 483n38, Bolorchʿian, Tʿ. (Bolorčʿean) 522 490n52, 519 Book of Adam: see Apocalypse of Moses Berberian, V. (Perperean) 483 Book of Beings 354n28 Berberian, Y. (Perperean) 481 Book of Chreia 324–325, 327, 336 Bēshigtʿashlian, N. (Pēšiktʿašlean) 467n1, Book of Daniel 165, 233, 238 472, 475 Book of James 236 Beuron, Abbey Library 31 Book of Job 34, 165, 232 Bévenot, M. 249 Book of Joshua 241 Beylot, R. 25 Book of Jubilees 254 Bezdikian, H. 427 Book of Judges 241 Bhattacharya, Bh. 420 Book of Knowledge and Belief by Priest Bibēṙian, Z. (Pipēṙean) 483n39, 485 David 388 Bible 140–141, 151, 210, 295; Bibles 8–9, 16, Book of Letters 103, 160n62, 303, 309, 313; see 123; Bible Society 298; editions of 428; also Girkʿ Tʿłtʿoc Greek Bible 379; Hebrew Bible 248; Book of Ruth 165 Paris Polyglot 426n40; see also Book of the Maccabees 34, 234–235, 238, 240, Armenian Bible 249; Maccabees in Armenian history 235 568 general index

Bookstores 471n10, 483, 491, 528; in Caesarea 31 Yerevan 527; Samuelian 474; Cahiers de la Quatra: see journals Sardarabad 529; Giligia 490 Cairo 473n13, 475, 482, 486, 491n56, 502, Boot, P. 192 507 Borian, G. (Borean), Noyn harki tak; Kamurǰi Calamus 11 vray 515 Calcutta 419, 430–431, 434; Armenian Boston 473n13, 475, 480, 502, 506, 511 community of 431 Bournoutian, G.A. 420, 425, 435 Calendar 128, 324; Church calendar 326; Bowers, F. 445 Gregorian calendar 125; liturgical Bratislava, symposium in 2002 30 calendar 272; religious calendar 123 Breviary, breviaries 123, 128 California 52, 55, 58, 481, 482, 486, 497, Brezhnev 517; Brezhnev era 517 498n75 British and Foreign Bible Society Caliphate 238 (London) 232–233, 239–240 Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation 396, British Museum 248 443n115, 479, 487n43 Brjusov, V. 388 Calzolari, V. 28n21, 35, 148, 273, 277–278, 325, Brock, S. 323 327, 332, 361 Brosset, M.-F. 103 Cameron, H.D. 184 Brutean, A. 387 Campanella, T., Grammaticalia 423 Bucharest 478 Canada 480, 482, 484n39 Buenos Aires 398, 507 Canon-law: see Kanonagirkʿ Hayocʿ Bulgaria 394, 467, 470, 478 Canon, canonical (NT) 264–270, 266n13, Bunjatov, Z. 435n79 274–275, 280; Armenian canon Burbank, gathering in 2006 242 258–259, 270–271; Hebrew (Jewish) Burchard, Ch. 236–237, 252–253 canon 237; Syriac canon 270; see also Buschhausen, Heide 36 Apocrypha Buschhausen, Helmut 36 Capone, A. 165 Busharia, Z. 177 Čaṙǝntir 34, 156, 271–272 Buzandaran (Patmutʿiwnkʿ): see Pʿawstos Carmelite friars 422 (Buzand) Carrière, A. 277, 551 Byzantine 8, 12, 91–92, 101n4, 139, 232; Čašocʿ: see Lectionary Byzantine Anastasis 17; Byzantine Catalan 203 Empire 160n60, 238, 308; Byzantine Catalography of manuscripts 5, 24, 27, 167 iconography 7; Byzantine legal Catalogue des commentaires bibliques 298 treatises 35; Byzantine manuscripts 7, Catalogues of MSS 5, 23–41, 248; 66n2; Byzantine palaeography and catalogue of the Armenian manuscript codicology 66; Byzantine schools 323; fragments in the Mekhitarist Library see also apocalyptic in Vienna 39; catalogue of types Byzantium 8, 24, 66, 361 of manuscripts 28–33; catalogues Bzommar, Monastery and Library 26, by author 33–34; catalogues by 38–39 copying centre 35–37; catalogues by Bžškean, M. 429–430, 437 literary genre 34–35; catalogues of catalogues 25; catalogues of libraries, Čʿaloyan, V.K. 357–358, 358n50 collections, holdings 25–26; catalogues, Čʿamčʿean, M. 429, 444n116, 539–541, 544; specialised 25; thematic catalogue 25 historiographic method of 429, 541 Catergian, J. 276 Čʿōpanean, A.: see Chʿōbanian, A. Catholicos 124, 127 Čʿrakʿean, Kʿ. 274 Catur Hakobǰanean Jułayecʿi 421Ì general index 569

Caucasian Studies 532 Ciakciak: see Jaxǰaxean,Ì M. 428, 440 Caucasus 89, 504, 533, 538 Cicero 207, 209, 211 Čemčemean, S. 6, 69, 427, 435 Cilicia 10, 29, 36, 39, 51, 66, 68, 72n25, 74, 155, Censorship 124, 266, 512–513, 518, 521, 479, 488, 490, 493–495, 502 526–527; Catholic censorship 129; Cilician Kingdom, fall of 417 Ottoman censorship 499; Roman Čitaja Narekaci 392 censorship 124, 126–128; self- Cladistics 149, 166 censorship 510, 512, 521; state censorship Claremont Graduate School of (Soviet) 505, 510, 526 Theology 165–166 Cerquiglini, B. 141n9, 148, 150, 280–282 Claremont Profile Method 165–166 Chʿarentsʿ, Y. (Čʿarencʿ) 68, 489, 494n63, Class struggle 388–389 506–507, 509, 512, 515, 519, 521, 527; Classical Armenian 142, 160n60, 161, 201, Dantʿeakan aṙaspel 507; Erkir 215n4, 217, 219, 321, 330, 340, 379, 384, 426, Nayiri 509; Girkʿ čanaparhi 489n466, 428n46 512; Azat Vshtuni 509; Amboxnerə Clauis Patrum Graecorum 297 xelagaruac 507; Poemner 507; Clementines, pseudo: Recognitions 279 “Patgam” 512 Cłrutʿ or Cułrutʿ 74 Chʿōbanian, A. (Čʿōpanean) 385, 387–388, Cluj, State and University Archives 26 393n60, 467, 473n13, 474, 479, 499n78; see Codicology 5–6, 8, 24, 66, 138, 154–155, 311, also Tchobanian, A. 400; codicologists 24 Chʿrakʿian, D.: see Indra Coinage 69, 383 Chahagir: see journals Collate!: see Robinson, P. Chalcedon, Council of 160n60, 323 Collation 166, 176, 181–184, 232–233, 239, 253, Chalcedonian creed 324 255n27, 306, 385; collation software 182; Charents: In Search of My Armenian Poet collation, automation of 181; collation, (movie) 512 human factor in 181; collation, value of Charles, R.H. 247, 251–253 computers for 181 Chartres, Municipal Library 31 Collection of philosophical definitions, Chétanian, R.V. 38 Anonymous 351, 357 Chiasmus 88 Colloquial usage 137 Chicago, University of 53, 165 Colomb, R. 179 Chiwmbiwshian, A. (Čiwmpiwšean): see Colonies, Armenian 66, 418, 441n101, 466; Khrakhuni in Europe 123; in India 430–432; in Christian, Christianity, 95, 158, 210, 256, Italy 542 264–265, 269, 279, 281, 323, 353–355, 552; Colophons (yišatakaran): 13, 24–25, 27–28, non-Christian 161 32–33, 65–95, 130–131, 137, 154, 167, 184, 186, Christological texts 298 214, 303, 382, 386; Armenian colophons Chronica Minora or Manr project 71; collections of 418 Žamanakagrutʿyunner 424 Colwell, E. 165 Chronicle, The Seventh-Century 305–306, Comité international de paléographie latine, 317 colloquium “Scribes and Colophons” in Chronicles (Bible) 241 1993 89–90 Chronicles 424, 434, 519; chroniclers Commentaria in Aristotelem Armeniaca 422 (Philosophia Antiqua) 362 Chronicles, Lesser 305, 315 Commentary On the Categories, Church Fathers 265n8, 295–300 Anonymous 357 Churches and monasteries, renovation Communists, communist party 509, of 421 536; Communist American-Armenian 570 general index

Progressive Union 398; Twentieth Corpus hermeticum 351 Congress of the Communist Party of the Corpus Inscriptionum Armenicarum 104–108 Soviet Union in 1956 515 Correspondence between Greeks and Comparative grammar 200; comparative Armenians on ecclesiastical matters Indo-European 200; comparative (13th c.) 303 linguistics 199, 541; comparative Correspondence between Paul and the mythology 438 (German tradition), 541; Corinthians 266n13, 270, 277 comparative musicology 439n96 Coulie, B. 5–6, 23, 70n16, 71n23, 72n25, Comparative Oriental Manuscripts Studies 248n3, 325–326 (COMSt) 174 Council of Trent 248–249 Complex textual traditions and multiple Cowe, S.P. 162, 165, 222–223, 233, 239, 243, windows on a computer screen 148, 282 427 Computers, facilitate text-edition 175–176 Cox, C. 34, 152, 161, 165, 219, 221, 223, 233, Concordances 177, 212; concordances of 239–240, 428–429 Armenian historical texts 310 Čṙakʿalʿ: see journals Conflation 188 Crimea 29, 36, 383, 433, 437 Congress of Soviet Writers, first (1934) 510; Critical apparatus; see apparatus criticus Second Congress (1946) 514 Cultural renewal, 17th century 421 Conjunctive errors (Bindefehler or errores Curtin, Ph.D. 420 coniunctivi) 145 Cyber world 528 Consonants 202–205, 211 Cyprus 486, 492 Constantinople 68, 129–130, 365, 379, Cyril of Jerusalem 38 383–385, 419, 426, 441–442; Armenian community in 432, 468–469, 471, Dadoyan, S.B. 547 483–485; Armenian Patriarchate of 485, Dadurian, A. (Taturean) 472, 474 490; Armenian printing in 123, 125, Daily papers 441 129–130, 432; Armenian school in 432; Dain, A. 24, 137, 143; Dain’s “idées Constantinople as a center of the fausses”: all manuscripts 150; ancient Hellenizing translations 322 manuscript 149; base manuscript 150; Contaminations (manuscripts) 146, 151, respecting the tradition 150; right 184 manuscript 149; ultimate accuracy 150 Conybeare, F.C. 242, 247–248, 251–253, 276, Daniel, apocrypha of 251 326, 334, 360 Daniēlean A. 39 Coptic 90–91 Danielyan, E.L. 420 Corpus Davidicum (also pseudepigrapha) Darbinian, M. (Darbinean) 420, 424, 511, 515; 353–354, 356–357, 365; Commentary see also Darbjnian, M. on Prior Analytics 350, 354; Darbinjan-Melikjan, M.-O. 392 Commentary on the Categories 350, Darbinjan, M.: see Darbinian 350n7, 353, 355; Commentary on the Daredevils of Sasun: see Sasna Cṙer De Interpretatione 353; Commentary Dashian, J. 5, 71n21, 104, 248, 539; see also on the Isagoge 336, 350, 353, 355; Tašean, J. Definitions and Divisions of Philosophy or Dashtentsʿ, Kh. (Daštencʿ) 514; Tigran Prolegomena philosophiae or Introduction Mec 514; Xodedan 514; Ṙančʿparneri to Philosophy 334, 353, 355–356; kančʿə 518 Epistolary exchange with Giwt Arahezacʾi Dasnabedean, Tʿ. 35, 38, 278, 298 catholicos 353; On Division 355; Databases 39, 71, 111, 113–114, 300, 378, Panegyric to the Holy Cross 353, 355; 382, 400; Leiden-Jerusalem Armenian Scholia On Grammar 354–355 Database 398 general index 571

David the Invincible 323, 327–329, 333, Diels, P. 212 350, 352, 354–355, 354n30, 360–363, 365; Digital editing, purpose of 176; see also different people named David 358n50; philology see also Corpus Davidicum Digitization 110–114, 444; stages of 176; Davtʿars or notebooks 377, 381 Digitization project, Western Armenian Davtʿian, V. (Davtʿean) 515, 517; literature 501, 501n83 “Requiem” 518; Tʿondrakecʿiner 515 Digitized epigraphic data base 113 Dawitʿ Bałišecʿi 424–425 Dionysius the Areopagite (pseudo) 163, Dawitʿ Harkʿacʿi 325 177, 182, 270; Scholia on Dionysius the Dawoyian, Ṙ. (Dawoyean) 517 Aeropagite’s Heavenly Hierarchy 166 De Beausset, Ph. 129 Dionysius the Thrax, Grammar 322, De Saussure, F. 201, 207 324–325, 328–331, 337, 340 De Villefroy, G. 295 Diplomatic edition 164, 219, 233, 397 De-Stalinization 513–515 Discovery of the relics of Bartholomew by Decorations 23, 125, 128 Maroutha 279 Dédéyan, G., 437 Discovery of the relics of Thaddaeus Deir el-Zor 518 279 Dekker, R.H. 184 Disjunctive errors (Trennfehler or errores Demirchian, D. (Demirčean) 506–510, separativi) 145 513, 519–520; Datastan 508; Erkir Distribution circuits (books) 123 hayreni 508; Kʿaǰ Nazar 508; Napoleon Dittography 152 Korkotean 510; Vardanankʿ 513–514; Djanachian, M. 296–297 Vasak 508–510; Yovnan Mecanun Djbeil (Byblos) 491 508; see also Demirčyan, D. Doctrine of Addaï 274 Demirčyan, D.: see Demirchian Dominican preachers 364 Dēmirjibashian, Y. (Tēmirǰipašean) 470, Donigian: see printing houses 471n9, 472n12 Dorfmann-Lazarev, I. 278 Dental lateral 202–203 Dormition of John 237, 270, 276 Dēr Hagopian: see printing houses Dormition of the Virgin 275 Der Matossian, B. 420 Drama 437n84, 485, 507–508, 521, 524, 527, Der Nersessian, S. 29, 36, 39, 68, 241 540 Dērdērian, Y. (Tērtērean) 487 Dramaturgia: see journals Desreumaux, A. 25 Drost-Abgaryan, A. 397, 397n75 Deutches Archäologisches Institut, Duggan, H.N. 400n82 Munich 115 Durean, E. 249; see also Turian, Y. Deuteronomy 164–165, 219, 232–233, 238–239 Durgaryan K.G. 389; Širaki hay Dewejian, H. (Tewēčean): see Sewan, A. ašułner 389 Dewrikean, V. 396 Dwin, Council of 324 Dialectic (logic) 349–350, 354 Dzarukian, A. (Carukean) 489, 498n76 Dialects, dialectal 151, 153, 167, 185, 202, 204–210, 214–223, 330, 379, 386, 420, E-reader 528 435 E-text 528, 530 Dialogue of the Paralytic with Christ 273, 277 Earthquakes 69 Diarbekir 36 Eastern Armenian (language) 482n34, 496, Diaspora 101, 380, 395, 418, 422, 424, 434, 498, 499n76 469–502, 527, 538, 540, 554; Diaspora Eastern Armenian, literature 398, 442, scholarly production 398–399; Diaspora, 442n110, 443n114, 504–530; Eastern cultural centres of 418 Armenian periodicals 441–442; Eastern 572 general index

Armenian translations 392, 397, 419, 424, Emendatio 140, 141, 143 431, 434 Ēmin, G. 520 Eastern Armenian National Corpus Ēmin, M. 247n2, 251n16, 437, 539 Electronic 528 Ēmin, Y. 431 Eastern Armenians 433, 468, 471; culture Encratites 266n14, 279 of 500 Encyclopedic cursus 349 Eastern Churches 295 Endpapers or flyleaves (pahpanak) 38–39 Ecclesiastes 241 English language, scholarly use of 545–546 Ecclesiastical correspondence between English-speaking school of philology 144 Armenians and Georgians, in Enlightenment 365, 430, 436, 466, 540 Uxtanēs 309 Ēōkʿsiwzian (Ēōkʿsiwzean): see Vorpuni Ecdotics 154–155 Ephrem the Syrian 164, 299 Echtarmenisch 202 Epic 139, 211, 309, 380–381, 389–390, 392, Écrits apocryphes chrétiens 277 397–398, 438 Editing method 137–168; base manuscript Epicurus 358; Epicureans 366 method 150, 157, 161, 164–165, 279, 353; EpiDoc convention and workshops 114–115 editorial conventions 70; editorial Epigraphy, Armenian, future challenges 107; practices adopted by the Mechitarist epigraphy and history 102; epigraphy Fathers 279–280; see also diplomatic and Armenian philology 102; epigraphy edition; electronic; manuscripts; and development of Armenian protestants; synoptic; translations scripts 102; future direction of 100; Ēdoyan, H. (Ēdoyean) 518; Erekʿ ōr aṙancʿ priorities in 109–110; relation to other žamanaki 522 disciplines 101; significance of 101; Education 122–123, 385–386, 388, 393, 484, status of 102 488, 493, 497, 510, 540; education minister Epiphanius of Salamis, Anakephalaiosis of Armenia 468; of the clergy 122; 366 of scribes 85; monastic education Epistemology 535 system 421 Epistle of Jeremiah 247n1 Edvan: see printing houses Epistle of pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite to Eganyan, Ō. 28, 381, 393 Titus 270, 276, 335 Egypt 9, 11, 14–15, 466–467, 470–471; Epistles, NT 265, 268n23, 270 Armenian community 467, 486–487 Eremia Čʿēlēpi Kʿēōmiwrčean 130, 383 Eǰmiacin Gospel: see Index codicum et Eremia Mełrecʿi 423 papyrorum Erevan: see Yerevan Ēǰmiacin: see Etchmiadzin Erkatʿagir 7, 11, 13–16, 311; erkatʿagir script, Ēǰmiacin: see journals meaning of name 11–12 Ekmalean, M. 439 Erkir Nayiri, literary topos 507 Elâzığ 467 Ermeni millet 484 Electronic, Armenian books 111; electronic Ernjak 106 bibliography 41; electronic editing 148; Errors 141–142, 145–146, 151–153, 175, 190, electronic journal 528; electronic 208; common-error method 143–144; resources 113–114, 310, 528–529 see also conjunctive errors; disjunctive Ełia Karnecʿi 419 errors Elias 355, 363 Ervine, R. 250n15 Eliminatio codicum descriptorum 146 Erzurum: see Karin Ełišē 156, 158, 304n4, 305; History of Vardan Essayan, Z. 377, 473, 473n13, 480n31, 498; and the Armenian War 156, 308, 310, 324 The Gardens of Silihdar 377; see also Elzevier, Christoffel van Dijck 125 Yesayian, Z. general index 573

Etchmiadzin 298, 421, 432; Catholicosate Fluidity (textual fluidity) 280 of 127, 421; cathedral of 103; see also Folk songs 381, 387–388, 391, 393–394, Ēǰmiacin 439–440 Ethiopian 25, 90 Folk tales 391, 399, 437–438 Ethnic culture, meaning of 536 Folk tradition, folklore 309, 386, 394, Ethnography, ethnographic 394, 437–440 437–440, 545 Etruscan Texts Project 115 Formulaic 73–75, 84–85, 90 Etymologies 87, 141, 216 Four elements (earth, air, fire, water), theory Europe 8, 85, 114, 115n53, 123–125, 130, 418, of 366 420, 466–467, 469, 470n7, 471, 477, 481, France 125, 128, 159, 272, 276, 295, 419, 467, 484, 486–488, 546n18 472–477, 482 European COST action Interedition 183–184 Freedom of expression 505 European Society for Textual French, translations from 437 Scholarship 174 Fricative 203–204; Fricative Laute 204 Eusebius of Emesa, Commentary on Frik 378, 389; Divan 398 Genesis 216 Frisk, Hj. 204 Eusebius, Chronicle 160n60, 304, 335; Froidevaux, L.M. 333–334 Ecclesiastical History 304 Frye, R.N. 305 Eustathius of Sebaste 279 Futurism 519 Evagrius Ponticus 33 Evangelium Nicodemi: see Gospel of Nicodemus Gabrielyan, H., Hay pʿilisopʿayakan mtkʿi Ewald, H.G.A. 251n16 patmutʿyun 357 Exegeticists 140 Gagik, nephew of Yovhannēs-Smbat III 101 Exile 130, 378n6, 510, 512, 515–516 Galano, C. 13, 124n7 Exodus 34, 164, 235, 239, 469n5, 471, 484, Galshoyan, M. (Galšoyean) 494n63, 517 487, 489, 492, 494n64, 497 Gamkʿ: see journals Experimentation, artistic 505–506, 509, Gamsaragan (Kamsarakan) 486 515–518, 522–525, 527 Ganj 382, 391, 395–396, 421; Ganjaran 396, Explanatio verborum 201 399; Ganjtetr 396 Extermination of Armenians 13; see also Ganjasar: see journals genocide Gaparačean, G. 440n101 Eznik 156, 158, 296, 349, 366, 378 Garapents, H. (Karapencʿ) 481 Ezra 241; 2 Ezra 248n4; 4 Ezra 232, 234, Garitte, G. 70n20, 90–92, 307 238, 240, 250, 251n16, 252–253, 255; Garsoïan, N.G. 159, 161, 299, 306, 539, 550 5 Ezra 250, 262, 263, 266 Garun: see journals Gaṙvarentsʿ, K. (Kaṙvarencʿ), Dawigh Fabricius, J.A. 268n23, 275 Yewolian 478 Fahy, C. 445 Gasparian, D. (Gasparean) 521; Haykakan Fedwick, P.J. 34 apagayapaštutʿiwn 519 Feydit, F. 35, 208, 390n47 Gasparian, G. (Gasparean) 520 Finazzi, R.B. 335, 336n79 Gatʿǝrǰian, Y. 161, 539 Finck, F.N. 248 Gathering: see quires Finley, M.I. 550n25 Gaykʿ: see journals Finney, T.J. 183 Gazančʿean, Z. 399 First World War or World War I Gazette du livre médiéval 24 (WWI) 161n62, 311, 386–388, 418, 467, Ǧazikean, A. 131 486, 507; pre-World War I 305 Geerard, M. 271, 297 Five Sayings (aṙackʿ), Anonymous 353 Genesis 34, 164–165, 233, 235, 239, 242 574 general index

Geneva, University of 266, 356, 361, 467, Gospel of Nicodemus 270, 278, 281; see also 477n20; workshop in 1997 238; workshop Evangelium Nicodemi; Acts of Pilate in 2006 241, 256n30 Gospel of Peter 265 Genoa 419 Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus: see Infancy Genocide, Armenian 131, 158, 387–388, Gospel 399n80, 501, 505, 508, 510–512, 514–517, 523, Gospels 8, 12, 14, 16–18, 29, 74, 242, 275 533n2 Gothenburg University Library 428 Geodakyan, G. 394 Gothique 200, 207 Geographical names, spelling of 206 Goulet, R. 361 Geography 84, 127, 489, 541, 544 Goutschan, L. 38 Geōrg Skewṙacʿi, hymns 397 Grabar 207–211, 331n52, 429, 437, 440n100, Gēorgean, A. 37 441n101, 442, 443n113, 541n11 Georgia 7, 10, 103, 533 Grakan tełekatu: see journals Georgian 90, 254, 265, 304, 309, 352, Grammar 162, 199–200, 207–209, 211, 365n81, 381, 381n19, 433, 439; Georgian 322, 349, 354, 386, 422–423; descriptive Chronicles 304n3, 314; Georgian grammar 211; grammar books 123; inscriptions 103n10; Georgian grammarian 148, 212, 422; standard inscriptions in Armenia 106, 109; grammar 142 Georgian flyleaves 38; Georgian Granjon, R. 124–125 manuscripts 23–24, 31 Graphemes 202 German 242, 276–277, 438; ancient Graphical confusion 152 German 209; High German 209; Great House of Cilicia 66, 298, 396; see also German critical scholarship, influence on Great House of Sis; Holy See of Cilicia Armenians 538; German philological Great House of Sis: see Great House of Cilicia school 161 (see also Lachmann); Grebnev, N. 392, 505n3 Germanic world 538 Grecage 16 Germany 445 Greco-Roman world 139 Getronagan, college 470 Greece 161, 478 Gevorgyan, S. 106 Greek (language) 137–139, 144–146, 150, 152, Gevorgyan, V. 392 154–156, 158, 203–206, 209, 211, 217–219 Geworgyan, L. 443 Greek, cursive script, origins of 14; Greek, Ghazarian, A. (Łazarean) 522 cursive and majuscule scripts 15 Ghazarian, V. (Łazarean) 481 Greek dialects 210 Gippert, J. 300 Greek manuscripts 23–25, 31–32, 90–91, 165, Girkʿ pitoyicʿ: see Book of Chreia 266, 361 Girkʿ Tʿłtʿoc: see Book of Letters Greek thought and Armenian Giwmrian, A. (Giwmrean), Gnčʿuhin literature 365–366 518 Greek: see also Armenian Bible; Bible; nouns; Gjanscherzian, L. 248 Hellenizing school; Lucianic Greek text; Glajor 36–37, 219, 363–364 Movsēs Xorenacʿi, Greek sources; Psalms; Glasnost 518 Septuaginta; Syriac Gnostic texts 251 Greetham, D.C. 175 Gnunecʿi, Z. 398 Gregory of Nazianzus 149n31, 164, 354n28; Gołtʿn 106 Discourses XXXIII 163; Discourse VI 165 Goltz, H. 397 Gregory of Nyssa 326, 266n89 Gorbachev, M., reforms 518 Gregory the Illuminator 307 Goslar, Town Hall (Rathaus) 31 Gṙehik [vulgar] or colloquial language 523 Gospel of Luke 242 Grigor Akanecʿi 304n4, 305 general index 575

Grigor Anawarzecʿi 397 Hakobian, H. (Yakobean) 506, 519 Grigor Cerencʿ Xlatʿecʿi, panegyric of the Hakobyan, G. 391 Mother of God 397 Hakobyan, V. 33, 69, 305, 418, 425, 434 Grigor Darabałcʿi, historian 424 Hałbat, monastery of 106 Grigor Magistros 351, 361, 385; Letters 304, Hamam Arewelcʿi, Commentary on the Book of 314, 387; Tałasacʿutʿiwnkʿ Grigor Magistrosi Proverbs 298 Pahlawunwoy 385; translations 350n8, Hamaṙotutʿiwn čartasanakan Arhesti 128 351, 361 Hamasdegh (Hamasteł) 480n31, 481, 489, Grigor Narekacʿi 128, 296, 378, 381, 494n63, 499n78, 521 391, 395, 398; Grigor Narekacʿi and Hambardzumian, V. (Hambarjumean) 435; the Neoplatonism 366, 395–396; see also Hambarjumjan, V. Girkʿ ałōtʿicʿ 128; Girkʿ ałōtʿicʿ, Y. Hambarjumjan, V.: see Hambardzumian, V. Nalean’s commentary on 434; Hambarjumyan, Ṙ. 431 Matean Ołbergutʿyan (Narek or Book of Hamšēn, region of 417 Lamentations) 363, 384–385, 392, 395, Handēs Amsōreay (Handes Amsorya): see 398–399, 548; Matean Ołbergutʿyan, bishop journals Trapizoni’s edition 384; Panegyric to the Handwork 152 Mother of God 398; tałs 392 Hansen, G. 327 Grigor Širuancʿi Šłtʿayakir, Patriarch 422 Haplography 152 Grigor Tatʿewacʿi, On the Isagoge, On De Haratch: see journals virtutibus, Summary Explanations of Harput 467 David’s Treatise 364 Harris, J.R. 251n16 Grigor Tłay, Ban ołbergakan vasn aṙmann Harutʿunyan, H. 106 Erusałemi 393 Haxverdyan, R. 379 Grigor Xul 74 Hay ēǰer 387, 467n1 Grigorian, H. (Grigorean) 518, 522 Hay Gin: see journals Grigorian, S. (Grigorean) 521 Hay kʿnarergutʿyun. Matenašar 394 Grigorian, V. (Grigorean) 522, 525–527; Hay Kir: see journals Kʿałakʿə 522 Hay Sird: see journals Grigoris Ałtʿamarcʿi 387, 390, 394n61, 398 Hayabahbanum, hayabahbanutʿiwn 492, 500 Grigoryan, Gn. 106 Hayasdani Gochʿnag: see journals Grigoryan, Gr. 107, 357 Haybook, Armenian ebooks 529 Gugarkʿ 36, 155n46 Hayg, V. (Hayk) 481, 499n78 Gugerotti, C. 551 Haygaz, A. (Haykaz), alias Chʿekʿemian Gušakean, Tʿ. 13, 430 (Čekʿemean) 470, 480n31, 481 Gusan Covyan 397 Haygazian pararan 126 Gusankʿ project 386 Haygazian University 493 Gyulbudałyan, S.V. 214 Hayrenikʿ Amsakir: see journals Gyumri: see Ałexandrapol Hayrenikʿ Weekly: see journals Hayrenikʿ: see journals Hačʿn, region of 417 Hayrenneru burastanǝ 387 Haddējian, R. (Hattēčean) 485 Hayuni, M. 37 Hadot, I. 361 Hebrew University Armenian Studies Hagiographical literature 154, 268, 274 series 298 Hagopian, J. 481n32, 487 Hellenagan Kʿnar, Anthologie 479 Hairenikʿ: see printing houses Hellenistic epoch 210; Hellenistic Hakobchanian, H. (Yakobčanean), Aṙkaycʿ influences 552; Hellenistic school of crag 523; Spitak edelveysner 524 Alexandria 386n33 576 general index

Hellenizing School 300, 321–341, 349–351, Holy See of Ēǰmiacin: see Etchmiadzin, 354, 356; date of 324–325; doublets Catholicosate in 325–336; grecisms in 336–341; Holy translators 215 influence on Armenian authors Holy Women, scene 18 327–328; Hellenizing School and ancient Homeoarcton 152 Armenian Historiography 310; language Homeoteleuton 152 of 328–332; textological aspect of the Homer 139, 209, 542, 548 Hellenizing translations 326–327; Horace 542 pre-hellenizing Translations Horizon: see journals (naxayunaban or “pre-hellénophile” or Hoṙomos, Armenian inscriptions of 107, 221 “translations of the Silver Age” or early Hovannisian, R.G. 422 Hellenophile texts) 325–326 Hovhannēs, D. (Yovhannēs) 518, 522 Heretical 124, 265, 268n23 Hovhannēsian, G.: see Sōs Vani Hermes Trismegistos, Definitions for Hovhannēsian, H. (Yovhannēsean) 506 Asclepius 332 Hovhannēsian, V. (Yovhannēsean) 478 Herzig, E. 420 Hovhannisian, M. (Yovhannisean), Arčʿax im, Hesychius, lexicon 336 čʿaw im 523 Heuristics 140, 142 Hovhannisyan, A. 69, 418 Hewsen, R.H. 417, 419 Howard-Johnston, J. 551–552 Hill Musem and Monastic Library 39 Howe, C.J. 183–184, 186 Hillel, V. 254 Hrahan, H., Im keankʿi vēpə 515 Historia sacra 256 Hṙomklay, fortress of 94 Historians, 17th century, Russian translations HTML 180, 192 of 424 Hübschmann, H. 202, 209 Historic Armenia 534 Hultgård, A. 260, 265 Historical geography 429 Hunt, A.S. 108 Historical study 429 Husaper: see journals Historiography, historiographical Hussaper or Husaper: see printing houses (Armenian) 23, 67, 123, 126, 157–160, Huygens Institute for the History of the 303–320, 366, 422–424, 432, 434, 436, 486, Netherlands 183; Huygens Institute, 538–541, 544, 550–552; historiography, eLaborate tool of 180 ethnic bias of 538 Huys: see journals History of James and John 270 Hymnal, hymns 16, 74, 384–385, 391, 397; see History of Joseph 250, 253n21 also Šaraknocʿ; šarakan History of New Julfa at Isfahan 419 History of Siwnikʿ 309 Iamblichus 357 History of Thaddaeus and Sandukht Iconoclasm 309 273–274 Identities 532 History of the Ałuankʿ 307 Ideograms 177–178 History of the Preaching of James the Minor in Ideologies 536 Spain 270 Illuminations, illuminators 23, 25, 27, 36–38, History, nature of 549–550 72, 155, 393n60, 400 Hiwsisapʿayl: see journal Illustrations 27, 29, 74, 102n6, 150, 128, 137, Hiwsisian Institute (Hiwsisean 392 Himnarkʿ) 493 Imprecatory medicine 123 Hoktember, group 509 Incarnation, scene 18 Holy Cross, Sebastia, monastery of 13 Inčičean, Ł. 429–430, 539, 541, 544 Holy See of Cilicia: see Great House of Cilicia Incipitaria 38 general index 577

Independence Era 526 Išxanyan, Ṙ. 130, 443n115 India 377, 419, 430, 432–433 IT tools and software 166 Indian linguistics 202 Italy 28, 91, 127, 361, 418, 425, 542–544, 554 Indo-European 160, 160n60, 200, 202–203, 207, 211 Jagadamart: see journals Indra, alias Diran Chʿrakʿian Jahukyan,Ì G. 214, 322, 330 (Čʿrakʿean) 477, 494n63 Jalalean,Ì Esayi Hasan, Patmutʿiwn hamaṙōt Infancy Gospel 270, 276–279, 281 Ałuanicʿ erkri 435 Inflection of proper names 217–221 Jalaleancʿ,Ì S. 103 Information, problem of 538, 545 James, M.R. 251 Inglisian, I. 427 Janashian, M. (Čanašean) 478 Ink 11; types of 12 Javakhk, Armenians of 523; Armenian Inkʿnagir (e-journal): see journals inscriptions of 106 Inquisition, Catholic 124 Jaxǰaxean,Ì M. 441n101 Inscriptions, criteria for publication Jensen, H. 204 of 104; inscriptions, undiscovered 112; Jeremiah 12, 240, 242, 247n1 inscriptions, verification of transcriptions Jerome, Latin Vulgate 231 of 108–109, 112–113 Jerusalem, Armenian Patriarchate 6, 26, Institut für Neutestamentliche 37–38, 156, 159, 238; pilgrimage to 102 Textforschung 191 Jesuit priest 426 Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Jesus 275; Jesus’ life 247; Jesus’ secret Erevan 394, 440 words 265n6; Jesus’ coming to earth Institute of the Arts, Erevan 394 and passion 270; Jesus’ birth and Institutional supervision (lack of) 280 infancy 270 INTAS 71 Jewish 10, 89, 237, 256, 269, 540 Intentionalist movement 144 Jewish Bride (The) 383 Interior dictation 152 Jinbachian, M. 242 Internal criticism /external criticism 154 Jivani 389Ì Iotacism 152 Joghovurti Tsayn: see journals Ipʿēkian, K. (Ipʿēkean) 492 Johnson, B. 239 Iran 482; Armenian community Jonge, M. de 253 of 496–497 Joseph and Asenath, editio minor 237, Iranian (language) 203 250–253, 255 Iranian influences 552 Joseph of Arimathea 18 Iranian origin of Armenian names 217 Journals, Armenian: Iranian shahs 308 Abaka 476 Iranian world 24 Agōs 485, 492 Irenaeus 325, 333–334 Ahegan 475n17, 493, 494n62, 496n69 Irish 204 Alikʿ 497 Isahakian, A. 494n63, 504, 506, 508, 513, 518, Amrots 474–475 520; Hayduki erger 506, 518; Abu-Lala Anahid 467, 474 Mahari 506 Ani 492 Isaiah 232, 234, 267 Antasdan 475 Isfahan 29, 123, 127, 496; University of 422, Ararat 442, 491 497 Arew 487 Islamic Near East 303 Arewelean Mamul 441, 443n115 Issaverdens, J. 247, 252, 254 Arewelkʿ (Constantinople) 441, 484 Istanbul, Armenian Patriarchate 26 Arewelkʿ (Syria) 488, 490 578 general index

Arewmudkʿ 443n115, 475 Lusaper 497 Armenian Review 480 Marmara 484 Asbarēz 481–482 Menkʿ 474 Asdghapert 484 Mšak 508 Ashkharh 476 Mshaguyt 484 Azad Ōr 478–479 Muséon (Le) 25, 33248n3 Azadamart 469 Nayiri 476, 489, 493, 516 Azgagrakan Handes 386, 438 Nor badkam 497 Azgasēr 431 Nor Dar 508 Azgasēr araratean 247n1, 257, 431 Nor ēcher 497 Aztag 491–492, 494 Nor Hawadk 474 Aztag shapatʿōriag 492 Nor Kir 480, 482 Aztarar 484, 491 Nor Marmara 485–586 Badgēr 484 Nor Ōr 478, 481, 482n35 Banber Matenadarani 27, 356, 392 Nor Sharzhum 486 Baykʿar 480 Patma-banasirakan handes 419 Bazmavēp (Pazmavēp) 208, 385, 388, 427, Pʿiwnig 491 438, 441n101, 477 Pakin 493–495 Biwzandion 441 Partsravankʿ 470 Bnagir 527–528 San 484 Cahiers de la Quatra 477 Sewan 478, 488 Chahagir 487 Shirag 493–494 Čṙakʿalʿ 443 Sion 487 Dramaturgia 527 Sipan 496 Ēǰmiacin 391 Spiwrkʿ 493 Gamkʿ 476 Suria 488 Ganjasar 297, 396, 490 Suriahay mamul 488 Garun 517 Suriahay Darekirkʿ 488n44, 491 Gaykʿ 477 Vēm 474 Grakan tełekatu 505 Vorpashkharhi Asdghĕ 491 Handēs Amsōreay 385, 427, 441n101 Yepʿrad 488 Haratch 474, 476, 494n62, 502n85 Yergir 488 Hay Gin 484 Yeridasart Hayuhi 492 Hay Kir 474 Zartōnkʿ 491 Hay Sird 481 Zhamanag 484–485 Hayasdani Gochʿnag 480 Zvartʿnots 474 Hayrenikʿ (Constantinople) 441 Juanšēr,Ì Georgian Chronicles 304 Hayrenikʿ (Boston) 473, 475, 480, 482 Jugha: see Julfa Hayrenik ʿ Amsakir 480 Julfa, city 106; see also Jugha Hayrenikʿ Weekly 480 Junod, E. 267–268, 274 Horizon 478, 484n36 Juxta, collation program 183 Husaper 486 Huys 497 Kʿēčʿean, B. 441 Inkʿnagir (e-journal) 528 Kʿēōmiwrčean, E. 130, 383 Jagadamart 469 Kʿeosean, Y. 397 Joghovurti Tsayn 478 Kʿēōsēian, K. (Kʿēōsēean) 481 Kantsasar 490 Kʿēōškērean, A. (Kʿyoškeryan) 396 Kovkas 442 Kʿerovbyan, A. 430 general index 579

Kʿiwrtean, H. 435 Khechʿoyan, L. (Xečʿoyean) 525; Sev girkʿ, Kʿochʿar, H. (Kʿočʿar), Nahapet 516; Spitak canr bzēz 523; Aršak arkʿay, Drastamat girkʿə 516–517 Nerkʿini 523 Kafa 382 Khodikian, K. (Xodikean) 524, 527; Kalantar, A. 106 Aystełicʿ yetoy 525; Moracʿuac ōrə 524; Kalantarian, A. 525–526 Čʿkrakekʿ, es ardēn spanuac em 524; Kalemkiar, G. 251–252 Xałi žamanakə 524; Kinə anjrewicʿ Kamsar, L. (Leṙ Kamsar), Xorhrdayin yetoy 524 Hayastan 511 Khrakhuni (Xraxuni) 485, 489; see also Kanonagirkʿ hayocʿ 305, 313 Chiwmbiwshian, A. Kantsasar: see journals Khrushchev Era 516 Kaputikian, S. (Kaputikean) 517, 520 King of France and Protestants 295 Kara Darvish (Kara Darviš) 519 Kings College, London 115 Kara-Murza, Kʿ. 439 Kirakos Ganjakecʿi 305–306, 314 Karabagh movement 523; Karabagh Kiwlesērean, B. 434n71 War 523; see also Arcʿax Kiwmiwšḥanacʿi, Manuel, Patmutʿiwn 434 Karabagh, Armenian inscriptions of 106 Kochunian (Kočunean) family 485 Karapet Sital, Kašti kʿaǰer 398 Kogean, S. 249 Karapetyan, M. 71 Kohlbacher, M. 30 Karapetyan, S. 106 Koiné 210 Karekin II 495 Kojoyian, H. (Koǰoyean) 520 Karin 36, 426, 467; see also Erzurum Kolandjian, S. 38 Karinyan, A. 443 Komitas (Sołomon Sołomonean) Karmirvankʿ, Armenian inscriptions of 107 vardapet 439 Kars 509 Komsomolskaia pravda 517 Karst, J. 209, 304 Korchmasjan, E. 36 Kaufhold, H. 35 Koriwn, Life of Maštocʿ (Varkʿ Maštocʿi) Kautzsch, E. 247 156–158, 231, 305–308, 311, 314, 378 Kazazian, H. 254 Kosian, S. (Kosean), Keankʿə vandaki Kegharkʿuni, K. (Gełarkʿuni) 478 kołkʿov 524 Kemalist 511; Kemalist occupation 468, Kostand Jułayecʿi 421Ì 471, 483; Kemalist Turkey 485 Kostandin Erznkacʿi 381, 390 Keschischian, M. (Kešišean) 39 Kostaneancʿ, K. 101n4, 103n11, 105, 387, Kévonian, K. 419–421 391n53; publications of 105 Kévorkian R. 5, 39, 418n3 Kostantinupolis, noun 206 Khalapʿian, Z. (Xalapʿean), Vasil Mec, Kotayk, region 107 hay kaysr biwzandiacʿi, kam, Kčučneri Koundakjian, L. 400 tʿagavorə 523 Kouymjian, D. 28, 30, 39, 155, 306, 418 Khalatʿian, S. (Xalatʿean) 524, 539 Kovkas: see journals Khanjian, G. (Xanǰean) 524–526; Kragan Tsolker 478 Hiwandanocʿ 524; Nstir “A.” Kṙna, monastery of 364 gnacʿkʿə 524; Awerakneri Krumbacher, K. 154 pahaknerə 524–526; Tigran mec 525; Kṙunk Hayocʿ ašxarhi: see journals Gerezmanatan ergčʿaxumbə 525; Kurdish 122, 439, 509 Čepəntʿacʿə xauari mēǰ 524; Tʿatron 301, Kurghinian, Sh. (Kurłinean) 506, 519 526 Khanzadian, S. (Xanzadean) 520; Mxitʿar La Porta, S. 166, 177 Sparapet 515 Labubna 274 580 general index

Lachmann, K. 142–147; Lachmannian Leiden convention of notation 108 method 140, 142–147, 445; Leiden-Jerusalem Armenian Database 398 neo-Lachmannian method 146, 445 Leiden, University of 71; University Lacunae (in codices) 66n2, 70 Library 31 Łafadaryan, G. 14, 106 Leloir, L. 272, 277–278 Lafontaine, G. 325–236, 334, 359 Leloyan-Yekmalyan, A. 37 Lai de l’Ombre 147 Lemberg (Lviv), Gospel of 29 Lalafaryan, S. 356–357 Lēō (Babaxabean, A.) 419–420, 426; Lalayan, E. 387, 438 Xoǰayakan kapitelǝ 419 Lament over the Death of Prince Jevanšir Ì Lēō (Lēō) 509; Melikʿi ałǰikə 509 390 Leo-Umar correspondence discussing Laments (poetry) 382, 382n21, 393n58 iconoclasm 309 Langue 201, 545 Leopardi, G. 360 Łarabał, province 417 Leroy, M. 359 Łaribyan, A.S. 310 Letter of Abgar 274, 276 Last Judgement 74 Letter of Pilate 270, 281; see also Anaphora Latin (language) 13, 137–138, 144–145, 152, Pilati 154–155, 158, 161, 166, 181, 202–203, 205, 209, Levant 90n130, 123 211, 436; Latin West 365 Leviticus 34, 235 Latin Church 248, 364 Levonyan, G. 443 Latin colophons 89, 95 Lewon the Magnificent 74 Latin cursive script, origins of 14; Łewond 304n4, 305, 311; History 309 Latin, uncial script, use of 14; Latin Lewonean, S. 129 paleography 7 Lexicography 423, 427 Latin epigraphy 113–115 Liberal arts (Artes liberales) 349 Latin manuscripts 11, 23–24, 38, 137 Life of Silvester (Acta Silvestri) 304, 312 Latin scholastic works 364; Life of St. Thecla 274 Latin texts, translations of 436 Ligatures 177 Latin translations 276, 352 Limončean, Y. 439n93 Latinatip grammar 423n26 Linguistic Institute in Yerevan 310 Lausanne 467 Linguistic isoglosses, 5th century 215 Łazar Jahkecʿi 433 Linguistics 214; linguistics and Łazar Parpecʿi 315; Letter to Vahan philology 199–212; sociolinguistics 548 Mamikonian, neologisms and syntactical Lining, textile 16 grecisms in 325 Lipscomb, W.L. 254, 256 Lazarev Institute 438 Liquid 202–204 Łazarosyan, A. 36 Lists of Apostles 270 Łazaryan, V. 391 Literary style 433 Łazinyan, A. 384, 392, 396 Liturgical books 74; see also Synaxarium; Lebanon, Armenian community 490–494 Lectionary Lectern 8 Livorno 123, 127–128, 419 Lectionary 30, 35, 74, 165, 233, 250n11; LMNL markup 179 Lectionary of King Hetʿum II 29; Loan words 203, 331 Lectionnaire de Jérusalem 35; see also Locke, J., Armenian translation of 431 čašocʿ London, British Library 26, 29n36, 58, 233 Legal texts 35, 164 Lord Byron, George Gordon 432 Legend of the City of Bronze 382 Lori 508 Lehmann, H. 5 Lorimer, W.L. 360 general index 581

Łorłanyan, N. 434 manuscript copies 143, 234, 254, 298, Los Angeles 58, 482n36, 483n38, 502 311, 378, 385, 400, 421, 444; manuscript Louis XIV 128–129 grouping 214, 221–222; relations between Lucianic Greek text 233–234 printed books and 418; size of 8; see Lucretius 142 also catalogues; Dain’s “idées fausses”; Lüdtke, W. 254 Georgian; Greek; Latin Łukas Sebastacʿi Stepʿanosean 435 Margarean, H.G. 305 Łukas Vanandecʿi 421 Margosian, M. (Margosean) 486 Lusaper: see journals Marian apocryphal cycle 270 Lviv 123 Mariès, L. 156 Markʿ, H. 484 Maas, P. 144–145, 147, 184 Markup language 179; markup, examples Macler, F. 247–248, 251, 306 of 180 Madoyean, A. 397 Marmara: see journals Madoyean, G. 397 Marr, N. 104–105, 107, 261, 307, 438 Madras 419, 426, 430, 431 Marseilles 123, 128–129, 384, 419, 473 Mahari, G. (Gurgēn Mahari) 509, 511, Martayan, H. 485 514–515, 519, 521; Ayruoł aygestanner 517; Martirosian, A. (Martirosean) 518; Mazē Całkacʿ pʿšalarer 516; Eritasardutʿean kamurǰ 523; Žamergutʿiwn 522 semin 511; Haykakan brigad 516; Martirosian, V. (Martirosean) 524, 527 Lṙutʿean jaynə 516; Mankutʿiwn 511; Martyrdom of Andrew 266n14, 270, Patanekutʿiwn 511 279–280 Mahé, J.-P. 107, 306, 309, 323n8 Martyrdom of Bartholomew 274, 276, 279 Mai, A. 360 Martyrdom of Paul 148, 270, 279–280 Makenocʿ, tōnakan of 272 Martyrdom of Peter 270 Malxasyancʿ, S. 327 Martyrdom of Philip 279 Mameluke siege 94 Martyrdom of St. Timothy the Apostle 274 Mamurean, M. 479n28 Martyrdom of St. Titus the Apostle 274 Manandean, H. 322, 324, 327–329, 331–332, Martyrdom of Thaddaeus or Martyrdom of 355–356 the Apostle Thaddaeus and his disciple Mancini Lombardi, S. 325, 333 Sanduxtʿ 273, 276–277 Manoukian, S. 36 Martyrdom of Thomas 270 Mansfeld, J. 361 Marxism and scholarship 388 Manuel Dpir Kostandnupolsecʿi 433 Marxist 358, 388, 419, 537; Marxism- Manuēlian, L. (Manuēlean) 506, 508; Leninism 507; Marxist-Leninist school Tigranuhi 508; Pʿotʿorik 508; Dēpi of literary critics 519 ver 508; Sasuncʿi Dawitʿ ew Msra Masis: see journals Melikʿ 508 Masis: see printing houses Manukian, Kh. (Manukean) 522 Maštocʿ 7, 15, 553; script of 14; see also Manuscript, as a symbol of a culture and Mesrop identity 23; as merchandise 72; Matʿevosyan, A. 11, 13, 36–37, 69 authority of 140, 147, 445; auxiliary Matʿevosyan, A.S. 32 manuscript (textual criticism) 279, Matʿewosian, H. (Matʿewosean), 353; best manuscripts (textual “Axnicor” 516 criticism) 142, 147–149, 165; Cilician Matenadaran 5–6, 26–27, 29–30, 33–34, type of manuscripts 222; copying, end 37–40, 68–71, 159, 265, 272–273, 297–298, of 418; corrections to manuscripts 179; 356, 361, 367, 391, 396, 421, 427 illustrated manuscripts 29–30; Matenagirkʿ Hayocʿ 298 582 general index

Matenagrutʿiwnkʿ Naxneacʿ 296 Methodius 323 Mathews, T.F. 5 Methodological guidelines 537; Mattʿēos of Edessa: see Matthew of Edessa methodology, treatises on 532 Mattʿēos Uṙhayecʿi: see Matthew of Edessa Metre 382 Mattʿēos Yovhannēsean 127 Miansareancʿ, M.M. 387 Mattʿēos Ewdokiacʿi Garagašean 435n77 Michael the Syrian, Chronicle 304, 308 Matthew of Edessa, Chronicle 166, 170, 190, Michigan, University of 528 305, 308, 315; see also Mattʿēos of Edessa; Middle Armenian 201, 223 Mattʿēos Uṙhayecʿi Middle East 89, 467, 469, 473, 481–482, 538 Matthews, E. 299 Militonian, Ē. (Militonean) 522; Mavian, V. (Mavean) 487 Antipoezia 522 McKitterick, D. 418n4 Milton, J. Armenian translation of 431 Mecopʿ 37, 164 Minas, painter 37 Meddah or storyteller 377 Minasean, L.G. 420, 422, 443 Medical texts, manuscripts 35 Minasian, C.O. 435 Medieval, authors 548; Medieval Armenian Minassian, M. 428 historiographers 303–312, 540, 551n27; Minio-Paluello, L. 360 Medieval Armenian philosophical Ministry of the Diaspora, Armenia 501 commentaries 363–364; Medieval Mirzoyan, H.Ł. 365, 423 Armenian Society 544–545; see also Misakʿian, A. (Misakʿean) 476 Armenian Poetry Misakʿian, Š. (Misakʿean) 469, 483 Medzarentsʿ, M. (Mecarenc) 484 Miskgian 206 Meillet, A., 200, 205, 207–209, 215, 331n52, 553 Missals 123 Mekhitar of Sebastia 385 Missionaries, French (in the Ottoman Mekhitarists 257–258, 260, 385–386, 398, Empire) 123 423, 426–430, 432, 539; Mekhitarist Library Mkhitʿarian, K. (Mxitʿarean) 481 and collection in Venice 5, 8, 11, 26–28, Mkrtčjan, L. 392 32, 159, 248, 272, 279, 296, 353; Mekhitarist Mkrtič Nałaš 390 Order, foundation of 426; Mekhitarist Mnacʿakanyan, A. 392, 431 School in Venice 208, 478, 544; see also Model or pattern, as heuristic tool 533 San Lazzaro; Vienna Modern Armenian 201, 427, 429, 431–432, Mełedi (melody) 381 436–437, 466; literary use of 544 Melidinetsi Literary Award (Melitinecʿi) 495 Modernity, radical, in Armenian Melikʿ-Ōhanǰanyan, K. 305 Studies 548 Melitene 18 Moesinger, G. 276 Melkʿonian, H. (Melkʿonean), Očiri Mokkʿ 389 burger 523 Momigliano, A. 200 Melkʿumian, I. (Išxan Melkʿumean), Ṙežisori Monasteries 36, 65, 75–76, 122, 125, 155, verǰin pʿorjə 525 309, 364, 421–422, 424, 432, 435; see also Melkonyan, A. 356 Amrtol; Ani; Bałēš; Hałbat; Kṙna; Sanahin; Menkʿ: see journals St. George (Sari); St. Mary the Egyptian; Merchants, Armenian 123, 126–127, 129, 378, Holy Cross, Sebastia; Xndrakatar; 418–421; merchant princes 419 Yovhannavankʿ Mercier, Ch. 7, 13–14, 156, 322, 331, 333 Monastic education (17th c.) 421 Merian, S. 5, 10, 16, 418 Mongols 122; Mongol oppression 389 Mesrop; see Maštocʿ Monophthongization 215 Metaphor, metaphorical 74, 88, 147, 281 Montanari, E. 361 Method, general problem of 535 Montreal 502 general index 583

Morani, M. 327 Nagorno-Karabakh 396, 466 Moscow 380, 386, 419, 466; State Historical Nahadag Krakēdneru Paregamner: see Museum 31 printing houses Mourad-Raphaëlian, College 478 Nahapet Kʿučʿak, hayrens 381n19; Turkish Mouseion 139; see also Alexandria text occurring in Nahapet Kʿučʿak’s Movsēs Dasxurancʿi, History of the Albanians work 381n19 or History of the Ałuankʿ 307, 316 Nahapetian, R. (Nahapetean) 524; Movsēs III Tatʿewacʿi, Catholicos 421 Mardkancʿicʿ ayn kołm 524; Pʿos 524 Movsēs Kałankatuacʿi: see Movsēs Dasxurancʿi Nałaš Hovnatʿan 393 Movsēs Xorenacʿi 156, 296, 304n4, Nalbandian, M. (Nalbandean) 442, 513 306, 393n56, 438, 552; History of the Nalbandian, V. (Nalbandean), Cnndean Armenians 12, 157–158, 307–309, 324, taredarj 524 399, 438, 546n19, 549; Greek sources Nalean, Y., unpublished works of 434 of 327, 336, 354 Nanumyan, Ṙ. 432 Movsēs, H. (Yakob Movsēs), Girkʿ Nar-Dos 486, 504, 508 całkman 522 Narek, school of 395 Mšak: see journals Nasal 204, 206 Msereancʿ, M. 443n113 Nation’s self-definition 387 Mshaguyt: see journals National Hellenic Research Foundation 115 Murad, F. 253n20 National Library of Armenia 130–131 Muradian, D. (Dawitʿ Muradean), Mer hin National Library of France 26, 39, 159 dašnamurə 524 National movement, result of Muradyan, A. 322, 330 secularization 436; national-cultural Muradyan, G. 39, 163, 336, 337n87, 362 anniversaries, Soviet celebration of 553 Muradyan, H.D. 214 Nationalism, nationalistic 508–509, 511–512, Muradyan, K. 326 514, 517, 527, 538, 542, 553; nationalism, Muradyan, P. 103, 105–106 Armenian 536; nationalism, extreme, in Mural frescoes 137 post-Soviet countries 537 Muratsan (Muracʿan) 486 Nativity of Mary: see Protoevangelium of Muš, homiliary of 279 James Muséon, Le: see journals Naumann, H. 440 Musical notation, European 439; musical Nautical imagery, in colophons 95 notation, Limončean 439; musicology, Navasartian, V. (Navasardean) 486 comparative 439 Nawasardean, T. 437 Muslim 89 Naxiǰewan 128; Armenian inscriptions Muyldermans, J. 297 of 106 MVD markup 179 Nayiri: see journals Mxitʿar Anecʿi 305–306, 316 Nazarean, S. 442n112 Mxitʿar Aparancʿi 11 Nazarētian, A. (Ara Nazarētʿean) 523 Mxitʿar Ayrivanecʿi 306, 316, 395 Nazariants, H. (Hrand Nazareancʿ) 519 Mxitʿar Goš, Datastanagirkʿ 305, 317 Nazaryan, Š. 443 Mxitʿar Sasnecʿi, Theological Discourses Nazinyan, A. 389 164 Near Eastern texts 312; Near Eastern Mxitʿar Sebastacʿi 426–427; world 303 biography 427; Grammar book 426 Nehemiah 241 Mxitʿar, scribe (12th c.) 13 Nemesius of Emesa, De natura hominis Mxitʿaryan, M. 443 327 Mxlayim, G. 433 Neo-Lachmannian: see Lachmann 584 general index

Neo-Platonism 366 Nouns 153, 206, 211, 333–334, 337, 339, Neo-Platonist curriculum 350, 363; 341; abstract nouns 330; geographical Neo-Platonist Greek heritage and nouns 206; Greek nouns 203; proper literature 350, 363; Neo-Platonist nouns 146, 205 philosophy 350; Neo-Platonist School in Nouvelle critique littéraire 280 Alexandria 355 Noyember, group 509 Neologisms 321, 325, 335–336, 338 NT Armenian manuscripts, catalogues 34 Nercessian, A. 438 Number four, imagery 74, 89 Nersēs Aštarakecʿi, Catholicos 103 Numbers 34 Nersēs of Lambron, Commentary of the Nurigian, P. (Nurikean) 480 Revelation of Saint John 298 Nuriǰanean, Ł. & M. 127 Nersēs Šnorhali 33, 363, 378, 385, 391, 393, 395, 398; Bankʿ čʿapʿaw 385; Yisus October Revolution 512 Ordi 385; Ołb Edesioy 393 Ōdian, Y. (Ōtean) 521 Neumes, Armenian 439n96 Old English 209 New Julfa 16, 123, 419, 421, 431–432, 435, 496, Old printed books, digitization of 444 502; Armenian community of 419n6, Old Testament, Hebrew text 231, 234; 420, 422n18; see also Nor J̌uła; see also Old Testament, Armenian translation trade of 231–234, 240, 248; Old Testament New Stemmatics 148 themes 248, 250 New Testament 34, 140, 142, 165, 191, Olivieri, M. 327 247, 264; Alexandrian text-type 236; Olympiodorus 350n8, 354n30, 355, 363 Armenian NT 34, 235–237, 242; editing On-line bibliography relating to the of 140, 142, 191; Greek manuscripts Armenian Bible 243 of 165; Greek papyri of 231 Optical character recognition 178; optical New York 40, 59–60, 398, 480, 502 character recognition, application to Nicaean canons 335 manuscripts 178; optical character Nichanian, M. 429n50, 430, 439, 477, 522, recognition, problems in 178 540 Oral, orality 309, 378–380, 30n15, 381–384, Nonnus 323, 333 388n41, 389, 398, 437 Nor badkam: see journals Ōrbelean family 417 Nor Baṙgirk haykazean lezui 325, 329 Ōrbeli, H.A. 104; see also Orbeli, I.; Nor Dar: see journals Orbeli, Y. Nor ēcher: see journals Orbeli, I. 389–390 Nor Hawadkʿ: see journals Orbeli, Y. 104 Nor Juła:Ì see New Julfa Orengo, A. 423 Nor Kir: see journals Origen, Hexapla 232, 235n9; hexaplaric Nor Marmara: see journals signs 240 Nor Nakhitchevan-on-the-Don 466 Orna, M.V. 10,16 Nor Ōr: see journals Orthodoxy 124, 265n5, 308 Nor Sharzhum: see journals Orthography 182, 186, 202, 215, 217 Nor tetrak or kočʿi Yordorak 431 Ōshagan, H. (Ōšakan) 469–470, 486–487, Noravankʿ, church of 112 489, 521; Hamabadker arewmdahay Norayr Biwzandacʿi 428 kraganutʿian 487; Mnatsordats 486 Norentsʿ, V. (Norencʿ) 512, 514–515 Ōshagan, V. (Ōšakan) 481, 493n62, Normative grammar 197–212 495n66 Notches 16 Oskan Erewancʿi 124, 127–128, 423; Notrgir script 11, 15 Grammar books 423 general index 585

Oskean, H. 36, 155, 398, 422–423, 434 498n75, 502, 507; Paris Generation’ or Paris Oskedarean lezu 208 School of writers 473 Ottoman, 417, 466–468, 488, 490; Ottoman Parole 201 Constitution 1908 467; Ottoman Parsimony 185 Empire 68, 123–126, 295, 388, 417–419, Partaw, Council of (768) 249 441, 509; Ottoman legislation 125; see Participle, participial usage 204, 321–322, also Armenian communities; censorship 330, 332–334, 338, 340–341 Outtier, B. 38, 273, 277–278 Partsravankʿ: see journals Ovsepian, L. 209–210 Pasquali, G. 145–146; Pasquali’s Oxford, Bodleian Library 26, 248 “decalogue” 145 Oxymoron 86 Patkanean, G. 442 Patkanian, R. (Patkanean) 515 Pʿapʿazian, V. (Pʿapʿazean) 508–509; Patma-banasirakan handes: see journals Alemgir 509; Emma 509; Žayr 508 Patristics: see Church Fathers Pʿapʿazyan, H.D. 419 Patrons of manuscripts 72 Pʿawstos (Buzand), or Pseudo- Pazmavēb: see journals Pʿawstos 157–158, 313, 584; Buzandaran Peeters, P. 276 (Patmutʿiwnkʿ) 157, 304n4, 305–307, 310, Pentateuch 10, 233–234, 238, 240 313, 399 Pepanian, A. (Pepanean) 523; Alekʿsandr, Pʿilippos I Ałbakecʿi, Catholicos 421 ordi Ammoni: patmavep Alekʿsandr Pʿirłalēmean, Ł. 68, 72; Nōtarkʿ Hayocʿ 32 Makedonacʿu masin 523; Ayruelu Pʿiwnig: see journals gnacʿołə 523; Kaligula 523 Pʿoladian, G. (Pʿolatean), Interviews 486 Perestroika 516, 518 Pʿox 381, 396 Pergamum 10 Pakin: see journals Peripatetics 366 Palandjian, H. 428n46 Persia 123–124, 128, 377, 418–419; Palatal 202; palatalised / non-palatalised Persian 381–382; Persian Empire 422 variation 203 Peshitta 232–233, 242 Palean, T. 387 Peter of Aragon 364n80 Paleography 5, 7, 10–15 Petros di Sargis Gilanencʿ 435 Palestine 470, 486–487 Petrosian, Alvard 518 Palimpsest manuscripts (krknagir) 30–32; Petrosian, Anna (Petrosean), Zuartʿnocʿ see also Index codicum et papyrorum 525 Palouyan, H. (Baluean) 474; see also Paluian Petrosian, M. (Petrosean) 522; Antipoezia Paluian, H.: see Palouyan kam banastełcə čʿi pʿntrum alibi 522; Pandektes project 115 Kanonakan patmutʿiwnner 522 Papacy 124 Petrosian, V. (Petrosean), Haykakan Paper (material) 5, 7–10, 24, 125; ēskʿizner 517 manufacture of 9; use of 9–10 Petrosyan, A. 434 Papyrus 7; use of 12 Petrosyan, P. 420 Paradosis Pilati 270 Pǝltean G. (Beledian, K.): see Beledian Paralipomena Ieremiou 251 Philo of Alexandria 321–322, 324–235, Paramelle, J. 333, 335 333–335, 351; De Abrahamo (“Keankʿ Parameters, ethnic, cultural, political and imastnocʿ”) 351; De Animalibus 351; religious 532 De Providentia 327, 351; De Vita Parchment 5, 7–10, 12–13, 24; use of 9 contemplativa 327, 351; Legum Paris 15, 27, 40, 60, 248, 272, 394, 419, Allegoriae 351; Quaestiones et 443n114, 467, 473, 475, 476n17, 477, 486, Solutiones in Genesim et in Exodum 351; 586 general index

pseudo-Philo, De Jona 160, 351; De Armenian, 430, 430n55, 431–432, 496, 504, Sampsone 351 509 Philology 102, 137, 139, 141–142, 144, 147, Pollux, Onomasticon 336 149, 158–159, 166, 264, 378, 384, 547–548; Połosyan, F.G. 419 Armenian philology 66, 138, 155, 159, Pontani, P. 336 162, 167, 241, 282, 303, 310, 359, 362, Pontifical Armenian College: see Pontificio 384, 429; Biblical philology 155, 427; Collegio Armeno Classical philology 155, 161, 164, 362; Pontificio Collegio Armeno 28 Digital philology 175–176, 400; Greco- Pope 124 Latin school of philology 161; “New Pope Leo 397 Philology” 281; Soviet Armenian Pope John XII 364 philology 388–395 Pope, A., Armenian translation of 431 Philosophical literature 349–367; Porphyry 328, 334, 336, 350, 352, 354–355, philosophy, Armenian, 17th century 423 360, 363–364; Isagoge 328, 353, 359, 361 Phoneme 202–205, 210 Post-modernism 524; in Armenian Phonetic, phonetics 101, 109, 151–153, Studies 547–548 162–163, 202–206, 330, 339; phonetic Post-Soviet era 520; post-Soviet alphabet 554 criticism 526; post-Soviet Phonological system of the Armenian playwrights 524; post-Soviet scholarship language 202 on contemporary literature 521–526; Photographic archives, digitization of 111 post-Soviet studies 521 Phylogenetics 148, 166, 184–190; phylogenetic Poturean, M. 385 family trees 185; phylogenetic methods, Praise of the Evangelists 74, 89 difficulties with 186 Prayer of Manasseh 248n4 Physiologus 163 Prayer scrolls (hmayil) 27, 35; see amulets Pierazzo, E. 192 Preaching the Bible and the diffusion of a Piers Plowman Electronic Archive (University common Armenian language 210 of Virginia) 400n82 Present (verb) 204, 211 Piez, W. 179 Pretonic syllables 206 Pilate, cycle of 275 Preuschen, E. 251–252, 254, 256 Piromalli, P. 128 Pricking: see ruling Planisphere, first Armenian 127 Print run 107, 123, 444, 472, 505, 512, 521, 524 Platnick, N.I. 184 Print shop in Madras 431 Plato 329, 350–353, 359–361, 366; Apology Printing 23, 73, 90, 122–131, 147, 249, 275, of Socrates 350; Euthyphro 350; 295, 299, 378, 422, 433, 443, 445, 469, 472, Laws 350; Minos 350; Timaeus 350; 479–480, 489, 491, 494, 497, 502; Armenian Platonist curriculum 350; Armenian printing, inception of 418 Platonic corpus 350 Printing houses, Armenian (see also Plovdiv 478 Constantinople; Venice): Podgraskaja, A. 419 Alikʿ 497 Poetic inscription 106 Aras 486 Poetry: see Armenian Poetry Araxe 472, 475 Pogrom of 1955–1956 484 Balian 491 Poladian, S. 439 Dēr Hagopian 475 Połarean, N. (Norayr Covakan) 37–38, 69 Donigian 494, 496 Political, criticism 514; political ideology Edvan 494 and literature 484, 504, 512, 516, 522–523; Goshgarian editions 471n10, 484 political parties 386; political thought, Hairenikʿ 473n13, 480 general index 587

Hussaper or Husaper 482, 486 Raffi 515, 520; Samuel 520 Masis 475 Ramgavar 480–481, 491n56 Nahadag Krakēdneru Paregamner 472 Readings 103, 143–146, 149–152, 156, Sevan 494 162–164, 178, 184–185, 190–191, 200, Shirag 494, 496 206–208, 233, 236, 240, 271, 279, 327, 425, Surb Ēǰmiacin printing house 130 428; “real”, “true”, “correct” readings 141 Suriahay Darekirkʿ 488n44, 491 Realism (modern literature) 507–509, Turabian 475 515 Xačʿatur Kesaracʿiʾ printing house 421 Recensio, or examination and classification Zangak-97 529 of exemplars 141–142 Proclus, Elements of Theology 352, 423n24 Recentiores non deteriores 146, 428n45 Proletarian ideals 440; proletarian Rectangle, decoration 17 internationalism 509; proletarian Red Army 468, 479, 507 literature 509, 519; proletarian style of Regional studies, emergence of 103 poetry 506; Proletarian Writers, Union Renaissance 123, 131, 139–140, 391–392, 445, of the 509 542 Pronouns 321, 329, 332, 339, 341 Renoux, Ch. 35 Propaganda 124, 498, 514 Repatriations 489, 498, 498n76 Prophets, Lives of the 255 Répertoire de citations du Nouveau Prose 85, 382, 475, 481, 483, 485, 489, 509, Testament 298 521, 523–524 Repertorium of Armenian Poetry 378, 400 Pṙošean, house of 417 Resurrection, scene 16–18 Protestants 248 295; Protestants and Revelation 253n20 critical editing of the Bible 140 Reynders, B. 334 Protoevangelium of James 270, 276–277; see Reynhout, L. 85 also Nativity of Mary Rhetoric, rhetorical style 73, 75, 84, 327, 338, Provence 129 349, 354–355, 520 Proverbs 241 Rhetorician (De Natura and Philosophical Psalms, Psalter 239, 241; Greek Definitions), Anonymous 357 Psalms 240; Psalm 151 250 Rhodes, E.F. 34 Pseudepigrapha 237–238 Rhyme 85, 379, 382 Pseudo-, epithet, exaggerated use Richard, M. 25 of 548–549 Rinascimento virtuale project 30 Ptłni, church of 112 Rivola, F. 13 Ptolemy 139 Rix, H. 204 Publishing Armenian Editions: see printing Robinson, P.M.W. 148, 166, 175–176, houses 178, 182, 184, 266; collation program Punch cutters 125, 128 “Collate!” 182–183, 242, 255 Pythagoreans 366 Rodinson, M. 25 Roll 10, 78 Quebec 481–482 Roman Catholic Church 124, 126, 295; see Quecke, H. 276 also censorship 124, 126–128 Quentin, H. 144 Roman tradition (antiquity) 148 Questions of the Queen and Answers of King Romance languages 202 Solomon 250, 255 Romania 478 Quintilian 148 Romanization 202 Quires 10 Romantic, Romanticism 273, 386, 437, Quot codices, tot recensiones 154 506–507, 509; influence of 437 588 general index

Rome 28, 418, 422; Armenian College 26, Salemans, B.J.P. 146–147, 185–186 70 Sałumyan, S. 106–107 Roos, T. 186 Samizdat 516, 527 Ṙōška, S., Chronicle 434 Samuel-Kings 241 Rosselli del Turco, R. 192 San Lazzaro, Monastery 385, 543, 435–436, Royal Society of Science, meeting in 544; see also St. Lazarus Göttingen (1830) 359 San: see journals Ruling 10, 24; ruling, dry point 10 Sanahin, monastery of 106, 363 Runia, D.T. 361 Sandbjerg 255n28 Russell, J.R. 309, 398 Sanduxtʿ 270; see also History of Thaddaeus Russian (language) 209, 312, 358, 390, 392, and Sandukht 273–274; Martyrdom of 420, 424, 439, 442, 505, 529 Thaddaeus or Martyrdom of the Apostle Russian Armenia 467 Thaddaeus and his disciple Sanduxtʿ Russian army 507 273 Russian censor 442 Sanjian, A.K. 32–33, 36, 70n19, 73n33, 398 Russian cities 468 Sanlecques, J. 125 Russian Civil War 507 Sanskrit 209, 211 Russian communities 441 Sanspeur, C. 165 Russian Constitution of 1906 504 Sarafian, N. (Sarafean) 470, 472, 473n14, 475, Russian Empire 386, 424, 433, 442 489, 499 Russian people 388 Šarakan, Šaraknocʿ 74, 382, 385, 391, Russian poets 388 396–397, 397n75; see also Hymnal Russian revolution 504, 509, 512, 519 Sareaslan, I. 485 Russian tradition of songs 379 Sarghissian, B. 247–248, 252, 279, 296 Russification 466 Sargis Dpir Yovhannēsean 435 Russo-Turkish border 466 Sargisean, N. 103 Sargsian, G. (Sargsean) 525; Or spanen ēl, Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of čʿpiti meṙnenkʿ 525 the Faith (Propaganda Fide) 124–125, 129 Sargsian, M. (Sargsean) 523 Safaryan, G. 431 Sargsyan, G. 107 Saffrey, H.-D. 361 Sarhad, account book of 420 Safran, L. 137 Sari vankʿ 37 Saghatʿelian, V. (Vahan Sałatʿelean), Karmir Sarian, G. (Sarean) 519–520 mayramut 523–524 Sarian, M. (Sarean) 520 Sahak Catholicos 210, 553n30 Sarinian, S. (Sarinean) 520–521, 525–526 Sahakian, V. (Sahakean) 520, 524 Saroyan, W. 486 Sahakyan, H., Uš miǰnadari hay Sarukhan, H. (Saruxan) 518 banastełcutʿyuně 389, 393 Sasna Cṙer (Daredevils of Sasun) 380, 389, Šahamirean, S., print shop of 431, 433 392; transmission of 389 Šahen, Ē. 397 Sasun, region of 417 Sahian, H. (Sahean) 520–521 Satan 17 Šahinyan, A. 106 Sayeatʿ Nōvay 433; Turkish poems Šahxatʿuneancʿ, Y. 103 of 381n19 Saint John’s University, Collegeville, Saz 377, 383 Minnesota 39 Scarcia, G. 533n2 Saint Petersburg 104, 157, 235, 433, 466; Schermann, Th. 251n16 Institute of Oriental Manuscripts 26; Schmid, U. 179, 185 Saltykov-Shchedrin Public Library 31 Schmidt, D. 179 general index 589

Schneemelcher, W. 267–269, 275 Shirvanzadē (Širvanzadē) 507–508, 519; Schools: Hamazkayin College 492, 493n59; Arhawirkʿi ōrerin 507; Armenuhi 507; Melkonian Institute 492 Charlatan 507; Čʿar ogi 507; Morgani Schröder, J.J. 13 xnamin 507; Patui hamar 507 Scribes 7, 12–13, 37, 65–66, 67n3, 72, 72n26, Short History of Elijah 251 74n38, 75–78, 80–81, 84–85, 88–89, 91, Shusha 466 93–94, 152, 162, 178, 185, 188, 214, 241, 391, Shushanian, V. (Šušanean) 475 425 Siamantʿō 480 Script types 11 Siberia 479, 512, 516 Scriptio continua 154 Siegert, F. 359 Scriptoria, Armenian 6, 35, 72, 123, 155, 166, Simēon Dpir Lehacʿi, Ułagrutʿiwn 420 418 Simēon Erewancʿi 431; Žambṙ 434, 435 Seals, clay 7 Simēon Gaṙnecʿi 352 Sebastia 13, 36–37, 155 Simēōn Jułayecʿi 365,Ì 422–423, 444 Sebēos 546, 549, 551; History 551–552 Simkēshian, Ē (Simkʿēšean) 485 Seljuks 8 Simon Georgi 129 Sema 475; see also Atmajian, S. Simplicius 361 Semiramis 12 Sinai, Saint Catherine’s Monastery 31 Semstem algorithm 186n13 Sion: see journals Septuagint 162, 232, 242, 428; Göttingen Sipan: see journals critical edition of 162, 239, 241–242, Sirach 259 428; Septuagint symposium in Göttingen Širak, region 36, 103, 389 in 1997 239 Siravēp (romance or love-epic) 383, 389 Seth, M.J. 430 Širinian, E.M. 177, 182; see also Shirinian, Sevan: see printing houses E.M Seventh Vision of Daniel 251–252 Siruni, H. 478–479, 483 Sewag, Ṙ. (Sewak) 524 Sisakan, region 103 Sewak, P., Anlṙeli zangakatun 515 Sisuan (Cilician Armenia), region 103 Sewan, A. 478–479; see also Dewejian, H. Sivas 36–37, 467 Sewan: see journals Siwnikʿ, region 417 Sewuntsʿ, G. (Sewuncʿ) 520 Siwrmēlean, X. 428 Sgarbi, R. 327, 333–334, 359 Skewṙa, monastery, collection of 37 Shahnazarian, N. (Šahnazarean) 524; Elir, Slavonic 90, 211, 338; Balto-Slavonic 211; duṙt bacʿ 525; Tʿapʿōr 524 Old Slavonic translations from Shahnur, S. (Šahnur) 474, 475n16; Nahanǰǝ Greek 323 aṙancʿ ergi 474, 475n16 Smbat šahanšah 101 Shantʿ, L. (Šantʿ) 473, 486, 492, 507–508, Smbat the Constable (sparapet), 521; Hin astuacner 507; Inkac berdi Chronicle 305, 308, 317 išxanuhin 507; Kaysrə 507; Ōshin Smith, A.L. 251n16 Payl 507; Šłtʿayuacə 507 Smyrna 123, 128, 157, 387, 419, 437, 466; Shekoyan, A. (Šekoyean) 522–523; Smyrna, periodicals from 441 Antipoezia 522 Socialism 512; Socialist 436; Socialist Shigaher, V. (Šikaher) 485 literature 509; Socialist Realism Shirag: see journals 509–510, 514, 519–520 Shirag: see printing houses Society for Textual Scholarship 174, 253 Shiraz, H. (Širaz) 513–514, 517, 519–520; Society, Armenian 122–123, 545, 552 “Ani” 514; Hayocʿ Danteakan Socrates Scholasticos 317, 335; Ecclesiastical Shirinian, E.M.: see Širinian, E.M. History 304, 317 590 general index

Sodalizio Glottologico Milanese, congress in Stepʿanos Siwneʿci 322; tałs 392 Milan in 1984 199 Stepanyan, A. 362 Sofia 478; Saint Cyril and Saint Methodius Stoics 366 Serdicensis Library 31 Stone slab 18 Sołomon Sołomonean: see Komitas Stone, M.E. 5–6, 28, 33–34, 152, 162, 165–166, Somal, P.S. (Somalean) 352 232, 234, 237, 239, 243, 249, 252–256, 271, Song of Songs 253n20 334, 361, 398 Sopʿerkʿ haykakankʿ 273, 296 Stone, N. 5, 36 Sōs Vani, alias Hovhannēsian, G. Storytellers 377, 383, 389 (Yovhannēsean), Vahaknadznunt 479 Strasbourg, University and Regional Sotheby 40 Library 32 Sovetahay grakanutʿean patmutʿiwn 519 Subcaucasia, definition of 533; Subcaucasia, Sovetakan grakanutʿiwn 516 interaction of peoples of 533; Soviet 233, 297, 391, 424; Soviet Armenia Subcaucasia, modern rulers of 533; 422, 434, 443, 469, 473, 498; Soviet Subcaucasia, peoples of 533 Armenian scholars 419–420, 434, 440; Subjectivity 537–538 Soviet Union 379, 390, 394–395, Suda 336 498–500; Soviet scholarship, defects of Sukʿrean, A. 353 536; see also Soviet Armenian philology Süleyman, wars of 418 Soviet spelling: see Abeghian spelling Sultʿanšah 101n4, 124 Spencer, M. 183 Surb Ēǰmiacin printing house: see printing Spiwrkʿ: see journals houses Sruanjteancʿ, G. 32, 386, 438, Tʿoros Suria: see journals ałbar 32; Hayastani čambord 32 Suriahay Darekirkʿ: see printing houses St. George, monastery of (Sari) 37 Suriahay mamul: see journals St. Lazarus: see San Lazzaro Šuši 106, 386 St. Louis University 180 Switzerland 467, 478 St. Mary the Egyptian, monastery of 124 Symbolism (in poetry) 507 St. Mary: see Virgin Symmachus 240 Stalin 510, 512; Stalin’s death 510, 515; Synaxarium, Synaxarion 74, 123, 272, 275 Stalin’s prisons 511; Stalin’s rules 518 Synoptic editing 148, 281 Stalinist purges 505, 510–512, 515–516; Syntactical graecisms 326, 332, 334, 337, 340; Stalinist Russia 510 see also Łazar Pʿarpecʿi Standardization (linguistic) 214–217, 221, 437 Syntax 200, 322–323, 326, 331–333, 337, 340 Stanzas 379, 382 Syria, Armenian community 488–490 Stemma codicum 140, 143, 158 Syriac (language) 15, 31, 90–91, 95, 161, 203, Stemma construction, example of 186–190; 263, 304, 307, 338, 382 stemmatic analysis, biological models Syriac, Armenian translations from 250, for 184; stemmatic analysis, example 269–270, 274, 278, 304 of 186–190; stemmatic analysis, Syriac Bible and Armenian translation 231, principles of 184; stemmatic analysis, 234–236, 242; see also Peshitta; canon principles of, problems 184; statistical Syriac, Estranghelo script 15n35; Syriac analysis in 184; stemmatic analysis 175, cursive and majuscule script 15 184–189 Syriac influences on Armenian Stepʿannos Ōrbelean 67, 103, 305–306, Christianity 552 309, 318, 398; Elegy on the Cathedral of Syriac MSS, Catalogue of Catalogues of 25 Ēǰmiacin 398 Syriac philosophical corpus 351 Stepʿanos Lehacʿi 365, 420 Syriac translations from Greek 323 general index 591

T-PEN markup tool 180 Tbilisi: see Tiflis Tʿahmizyan, N. 395 Tchobanian, A.: see Chʿōbanian Tʿałiadean, M. 431–432 Teaching summaries 126; book for Tʿamrazian, H. (Tʿamrazean) 395, 522 teaching 295 Tʿamrazian, H. S. 519 Tehran 496–497, 502, 509, 513; University Tʿangaran hin ew nor dprutʿeancʿ 274, 296 of 497 Tʿarverdyan, G. 389 TEI markup, advantages of 179 Tʿēkʿēian, V. (Tʿēkʿēean) 469, 473, 473n13, Tenniston, J. 179 487 Tēr Daniēlian, A. 525; Im mahə 525 Tʿeluncʿ, M. 431 Tēr Gēorgean-Yovhannisean, O. 387 Tʿēotig (Tʿēodik) 474, 483; Amenun Ter Łewondean, H. 39 daretsuyts 474, 490n51 Ter Movsesean, M. 248 Tʿiwtʿiwnci, Y. 129 Tēr Nersēsean, N. 427 Tʿōmas Hayrapet 129 Tēr Yovhaneancʿ, Y.T. 419 Tʿōmas Vanandecʿi 127 Ter-Avetisian, S. 420, 435n77 Tʿopʿalian, P. (Tʿopʿalean) 472 Tēr-Grigorian, G. (Tēr-Grigorean) 517; Ax, Tʿopʿchʿian, A. (Tʿopʿčʿean), Menaxōsutʿiwn nerver, nerver 517 kžanocʿum 524 Tēr-Grigorian, T. 435n79 Tʿopchʿian, Ē. (Tʿopʿčʿean) 511, 519 Tēr-Minasean, E. 156, 305, 324; see also Tʿoranian, Tʿ. (Tʿoranean) 489 Ter-Minasyan Tʿorgomian, V. 35 Ter-Minasyan: see Tēr-Minasean Tʿorikean, Ž. 399 Tēr-Mkrtčʿean, G. 261, 324 Tʿorosyan, H. 305 Tēr-Movsisean, M. (Magistros) 28, 28n22; Tʿotʿoventsʿ, V. (Tʿotʿovencʿ) 509, 515 see also Ter-Movsisyan, M. Tʿovma Arcruni 305, 311, 318, 417 Ter-Movsisyan: see Tēr-Movsisean Tʿumačyan, M.Tʿ. 394, 398, 440 Ter-Petrosyan, L. 322, 326 Tʿumanian, H. (Tʿumanean) 433, Ter-Stepanian, A. (Stepʿanean) 39 504, 506, 519, 521; Anuš 506; Tēr-Vardanean, G. 35, 69n13 Banastełcutʿiwnner 506; Tʿmkaberdi Terian, A. 277–278, 322, 325, 328, 333, 335, 359 aṙumə 506; “Verǰin orə” 518 Tērian, V. (Tērean) 506–507, 519; Erkir Tablet readers 528 Nayiri 507; Mtʿnšałi anurǰner 507 Taboo subjects in literature 505, 514, 522, Tessier, A. 327, 359 524, 527 Testament of Joseph 254 Tagmizjan, H. 391 Testament of Levi 237–238, 254 Tałaran 378, 384, 387, 389–390, 394, 398; Testament of Reuben, Simeon and Levi 247n1 Tałaran ē say hogoy ew marmnoy 378 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 182, Tałasacʿner 381, 398 250–253, 256 Tałs 378, 381, 391–392, 395–397 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Epitome Tamizdat 516 of 254 Tapeinotēs or humility (in the Tesutʿiwn (gr. θεωρία) 364 colophons) 75–76, 87–89 Tevkancʿ, A. vardapet 386, 390 Tarbinean, Ṙ. (Darbinean) 480 Text editions, type of work involved in 175; Tarōn-Muš 389, 422 types of 175; texts, preparation of, for Tarōn-Turuberan 36 parsimony analysis 185 Tašean, Y.: see Dashian, J. Text retention 152 Tatʿew, monastery of 103, 363–364 Textual criticism 140–141, 145, 188, 236, 280, Taxation 69 359, 428, 445 Tayean, L. 439 Textual hermeneutics 533, 535 592 general index

Textual sources, uncritical use of 542 Translations: translations and text Thaddaeus (apostle) 270, 278; Thaddeus editing 153, 161–165, 266; translations of cycle 270, 273–274; relics 274 Armenian literature in the URSS 505; Thecla, St. 273, 278n88 translations of the Greek texts by the Themes in -i- 205, 211 Mekhitarists 436; translations of Themes in –o- 211 the Western modern literature by the Theodotion 240 Mekhitarists 126; see also Armenian Thessaloniki 478 Bible; Eastern Armenian; French; Grigor Thierry, M. 36, 155 Magistros; Hellenizing school; Historians, Third Congress of Armenian Writers in 17th c.; Latin translations; Locke; Milton; 1954 515 Old Testament; Pope, A.; Slavonic; Syriac Third Corinthians 237 Transmission of poetic texts 379–382, 389 Thomas (apostle), relics 275 Trapezunt 36 Thomas Aquinus 364n80 Trdat the King 306–307 Thomson, R.W. 163, 249, 249n6, 251, 295, Trennfehler: see disjunctive errors 297–298, 422, 549 Trieste 385 Tiflis 104, 131, 386–387, 433, 442–443, 466, Trivium 349, 354 468, 508–509; Armenian dialect of 386; Tsarist Russia 504 Tiflis editorial series of 160, 305; Tübingen University Library 248 National Centre of Manuscripts of 26; Turabian: see printing houses see also Tbilisi Turian, Y.: see Durean, E. Tigran II 514 Turkey, 32, 473, 482, 484, 486n3; Timothy Aelurus 160n60, 321, 324; Kemalist 485 Refutation 160n60 Turkification 471 Tirayr, archbishop 398 Turkish 377, 381n19, 382–383, 389, 393n57, Tisserant, E. 70 439, 485–486 Titus project 300 Turkish alphabet 485 Toc. B 204 Turkish atrocities 515 Tölölian, M. (Tʿēōlēōlean) 481–482, Turkish grammar 485 483n39, 486, 489n49; Dar mĕ Turkish political life 485 Kraganutʿiwn 482 Turkish spy 508 Tōnakan, of Makenocʿ 272; of Muš 279 Turkish texts written in Armenian Topchyan, A. 30, 39, 327, 362, 552 characters 383 Topography 541–542, 544 Turkish-Persian wars 122 Topoi, poetical: dispute with God about Turkmen 122, 418; Turkmen his fate 389; fall of a city 382, domination 417 393; individual suffering caused by TUSTEP collation program 182; TUSTEP, society 389; see also Erkir Nayiri problems with 182 Totoyan-Baladian, A. 106 Twelve Prophets 233–234 Trade 123, 127, 210, 419–420; Armenian Trade Typography, typographic 122–123, 128, 191 Company 420; Armenian trade school of Tʿarverdyan, G. 389 New Julfa 421; trade manuals 123 Traina, G. 551–552 UCLA 427 Transcaucasia 160, 433, 441, 509, 533n2 Ułekicʿ, literary circle 509 Transcription 176, 177–181; transcription Uluhogian, G. 28, 101n5, 162n69, 163, 325, 337 tool, need for 180; transcription, Unicode 115, 177, 179, 183, 528 conventions need for 177; transcriptions, University of Massachusetts, Amherst 115 orthographic difficulties 177 University, first Armenian: see Alexandrapol general index 593

USA, Armenian community 394, 482, 486 Vēm: see journals Usus scribendi 153, 167 Venice 275, 418, 466–467, 540; printing Utʿuǰyan, A. 429 in 123, 125–127, 130–131, 378, 384 Utʿuǰean, K. 441 Vernatun, group 508–509 Uxtanēs 305, 309, 318 Vetter, P. 275–277 Vienna, Mekhitarist Library and collection Vaganov, V. 433 of 5, 26, 29–30, 32, 39, 159, 239; Vagharshian, V. (Vałaršean) 513; Mekhitarist School of 161, 208 Ōłakʿum 513 Vipasan 389 Vahram Rabuni, On the Isagoge 364; Virgin 17, 35, 275, 278; Virgin and Child, On De Interpretatione 364; On the scene 18; see also St. Mary Categories 364; On De Mundo 364 Virgins of the parable 74 Vałaršapat 434–435 Vision of Enoch the Just 238 Van Esbroeck, M. 278 Vision of the Theotokos 275; see also Van Groningen, B.A. 108 Apocalypse of Mary Van Neercassel, bishop 124 Vita of Eli 255n29 Van Regemorter, B. 39 Vita of Elijah 255n29 Van Zundert, J.J. 192 Vita of Elisha 255n29 Van, fortress of 12 Vita of Moses 255n29 Vardan Anecʿi 392; Poem on the Four Living Vita of Nathan 255n29 Creatures 392 Vita of Three Children 255n29 Vardan Arewelcʿi 304–305, 308, 310, 318 Vita of Zechariah (1) 255n29 Vardan Ašxarhagir, Geography 423 Vita of Zechariah (2) 255n29 Vardan Bałišecʿi 422 Voicu, S.J. 295 Vardan Mamikonean 508 Vorpashkharhi Asdghĕ: see journals Vardanean, A. 334 Vorpuni (Orbuni) 470, 472, 499; see also Vardanyan, E. 37 Ēōkʿsiwzian (Ēōkʿsiwzean) Vardanyan, S. 35 Vowel alternation 215, 218, 222 Vardumian, Y. (Vardumean) 523 Vratsian, S. (Vracʿean) 473–474 Variants (textual criticism) 143–148, Vrtʿanēs Kʿertʿoł 325 150–151, 156, 162, 162n69, 163–166, 424–425, Vshtuni, A. (Vštuni) 509, 519 428, 444, 545; analysis of 151–154; Vulgate 124, 144, 231, 248 enumerating recurrent variants 222 Variatio 78 Watermark, watermarked paper 5, 24 Varkʿ ew vkayabanutʿiwnkʿ srbocʿ 274 Weitenberg, J.J.S. 71n23, 153, 266, 322n2, 325, Varkʿ harancʿ 295 328, 332, 332n54, 398 Varuzhan, T. (Varužan) 468, 470, 523; Song Wenrich, J.G. 359–360 of Bread 468, 470 West, M.I. 177, 185 Vasak Syuni 508 Western 427n43, 436, 534–535 Vaspurakan 29, 37, 72n25, 417; Western academic world 360 Vaspurakan I 36; Vaspurakan II 36; Western Armenia 507, 517 Vaspurakan-Van III 36 Western Armenian (language) 384, 399, Vaspurakan, school of miniaturists of 37 470n7, 482, 507, 529; Western Armenian Vatican Library 26, 28, 32, 70 speaking Diaspora 399 Vayocʿ Jor, region of 104 Western Armenian communities 441– Veda 209, 211 442, 469n5; Western Armenian Velar fricative 203–204 culture 468, 500–501; Western Armenian Velar lateral 202 literature 443, 466–502, 506, 521 594 general index

Western Armenology 379, 440 Yačaxapatum (Stromateis) 299 Western audience 352 Yakob IV Jułayecʿi,Ì Catholicos 421 Western books 125 Yakob Karneci 424, 425 Western categories 427 Yakob Mełapart 126, 378, 384 Western Christian community 264 Yakob’s Gospel: see Index codicum et Western culture 352, 500–501 papyrorum Western Diaspora 497 Yaldĕzjian, Z. (Yaltǝzčean): see Zahrad Western Europe 467, 471, 488 Yarutʿiunian, A. (Yarutʿiwnean) 522 Western languages 296, 360, 398n78, 435n79 Yepʿrad: see journals Western scholarly institutions 398, Yerevan or Erevan 425, 429, 468, 475, 479, Western scholars, philologists 422, 428n46, 483, 487, 489, 495, 500–501, 507–508, 511, 547, 551n26 516, 517 et passim Western text (NT) and readings 236 Yerevan Conference on Armenology Today Western textual criticism 359 and Prospects for Its Development, Wevers, J.W. 232 2003 547 Winkler, G. 306 Yerevan State University 362, 396, 428, 495, Wisdom of Ahiqar 251n16 501n81 Wonders of Thecla 278 Yerevan UNESCO Book Capital of the World Word-play 87 (2012) 529 World War II 304, 393n57, 475, 480n31, 481, Yergatʿ, A. (Erkatʿ) 487 484–485, 492, 513, 520; post World War II Yergir: see journals 508 Yeridasart Hayuhi: see journals Writers Union 505, 509, 526–527, 530 Yerukhan (Eruxan) 486 Wüthrich, M. 178 Yesayian, V. (Esayean) 479 Yesayian, Z. (Esayean): see also Essayan Xačʿatryan, A. 106 Yordorak (exhortation) 381, 396 Xačʿatryan, P. 384, 392–393, 396, 399, 431 Yoveyian, Y. (Yoveyean) 522 Xačʿatur Ērzrumecʿi 432 Yovhan Karnecʿi 325 Xačʿatur J̌ułayecʿi, Patmutʿiwn Parsicʿ 434 Yovhannavankʿ, monastery of 106 Xačʿatur Kafayecʿi 424–425 Yovhannēs Ankiwracʿi 124, 129 Xačʿatur Kesaracʿi 421 Yovhannēs Bałišecʿi Kolot, Patriarch 422, Xačʿgṙuz 383 432, 434 Xačʿikyan, L.S. 32–33, 68–69, 334, 356, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertcʾi 305–306, 318 419 Yovhannēs Erznkacʿi 256 Xačʿikyan, Š. 420 Yovhannēs Jułayecʿi 127,Ì 419, 422–423, 426 Xačʿkʿars (stone crosses) 17, 106 Yovhannēs Kamenacʿi 424 Xalatʿeancʿ, G. 438–439 Yovhannēs Kostandnupolsecʿi 128 Xałbakian, princes 104 Yovhannēs Mandakuni 299 Xaldarean, Grigor, printing press of 433 Yovhannēs Mrkʿuz Jułayecʾi 365Ì Xanlarjan, L. 392, 425 Yovhannēs Orotnecʿi, On Categories 364; Xaṙatyan, A. 443 On De Interpretatione 364; Xarberd 36 Explanations of Difficult Questions In Xckōnkʿ, inscription of 101n4 Porphyry 364 XML markup 179; XML editor 180–181 Yovhannēs Sarkawag Imastasēr 363, 391 Xndrakatar and Amrtol, monasteries of Yovhannēs Tʿlkurancʿi 256, 378, 387, 390, (Bałēš) 22 398 Xoǰas 419 Yovhannēs Tērzncʿi 129 general index 595

Yovhannēs-Smbat III 101n4 Zartōnkʿ: see journals Yovsēpʿean, G. 5, 66, 68–69, 73, 104–105, 539; Zekiyan, B.L. 310, 532–534, 543n14 Yišatakarankʿ jeṙagracʿ 32, 68; Kʿartēz Zeno (ps.), Anonymous Philosophical Treatise hay hnagrutʿean 104 or De Natura 166, 177, 182n7, 334, 351, Yovsēpʿeancʿ, S. 247, 250–252, 254, 256 356, 361 Yovsepʿian, Ṙ. (Yovsēpʿean) 523 Zeytʿuntsian, P. (Zēytʿuncʿean) 518, 523–525; Yunaban Dprocʿ 349; see also Hellenizing Anawart menaxōsutʿiwn 518; Cnuel ē School u mahacʿel 525; Gołačʿuac jiwn 523; Yunahay Daregirkʿ 479 Lrutʿean jaynə 525; Odkʿi, datarann ē Yuzbašyan, K. 305 galis 525; Verǰin arewagalə 523 Zeytʿunyan, A. 34, 162–163, 165, 216, 233–235, Zahn, Th. 248 239, 253n20 Zahrad (Zahrat) 485, 499; see also Zhamanag: see journals Yaldĕzjian Ziegler, J. 428 Zakʿaria Agulecʿi, Ōragrutʿiwn 420 Zōhrab, K. (Zōhrap) 472n12, 523 Zakʿaria Kʿanakʿeṙcʿi 424 Zōhrapean, Y. 155, 206, 217, 221; Zōhrapean Zangak-97: see printing houses Bible 215, 217n12, 219, 219n17, 232, 233, Zarbhanalean, K. 353 235, 239–241, 249, 428, 428n47; see also Zarian, K. (Zarean) 470, 470n7, 487n43, 498, Zohrap; Zohrab 498n75, 499n76, 506, 510–511; Zola, E. 487 Nawə leṙan vray 511; Tatragomi Zoljan, S. 391 harsə 511 Zorian, S. (Zōrean) 508–510, 513, 519; Zarian, N. (Zarean) 513, 516, 519; Ara ew “Ałavniner” 513; “Anikə” 513; Ara Šamiram 513; Vrež 513; Yardagołi Gełecʿik 514; Jmṙan gišer 510; čamban 516 “Mayrə” 513; Pap Tʿagawor 513; Spitak Zarifian, M. (Zarifean) 470 kʿałakʿə 510; Txur mardik 508 Zarphanalean, G. 130–131; see also Zou, Y. 186 Zarbhanalean Zschokke, H. 432n63 Zartōnkʿ (Rebirth): see Awakening Zvartʿnots: see journals