SAINT EPHREM the SYRIAN ARMENIAN DISPUTE HYMNS BETWEEN VIRGINITY and CHASTITY By

SAINT EPHREM THE SYRIAN ARMENIAN DISPUTE HYMNS BETWEEN VIRGINITY AND CHASTITY by

EDWARD G. MATHEWS, JR. Tunkhannock, PENNSYLVANIA USA

Competition, contention, and debate have been part of human culture almost since its very beginning. J. Huizinga, now already a half century ago, demonstrated how contest or competition, friendly and otherwise, is at the root of civilization — the very warp and woof, as it were, of human interrelationship1. This integral element of human nature has nat- urally left its clear and predominate mark on human culture, but finds its most intellectual manifestation in the realm of literature, already in the oldest surviving remnants. This competition, or contention, is an element found in various genres and literatures, and the development of these various genres are almost certainly connected, though these connections have yet to be traced out. But one type in particular is devoted almost specifically to this theme: the dispute poem, also known as the prece- dent poem, which is closely related to the debate poem, or the dialogue poem, which is somewhat less contentious. Because dispute poems are found over such a wide variety of literatures and over such a vast expanse of time, scholars are not yet able to trace out a detailed, single ‘definition’, or structural format for the dispute poem. Nonetheless, the main features are relatively discernible, particularly the general format and the general content. They are nearly always poetic in form, with two (though occasionally more) antagonists engaged in a debate or dialogue, where each proclaims his or her merit or virtues. This debate is then followed by a conclusion, or resolution, which can be left as self-evident, or determined either by a concession of one party or by the decision of a third party, who need not necessarily be the narrator. Thus, the basic components can be summarised as follows2:

1 HUIZINGA, 1949. 2 Abridged from VANSTIPHOUT, 1990, and MURRAY, 1995.

REArm 28 (2001-2002) 143-169. 144 E. G. MATHEWS

I. introduction of disputants II. subject matter of the dispute III. the dispute itself IV. verdict While the length of each section is quite varied, it is clearly category III that normally occupies the largest part of the poems. There exist, of course, many other variations within these four categories, and there are many exceptions to this pattern, but this little schema serves for the majority of the examples, as well as for the examples treated below. As for the identity of the disputants, in most of the extant examples, they are far more likely to be non-human figures who have been personified for the purpose of the debate. These may be such things as animals, plants, seasons, months, foodstuffs, tools, etc. Particular examples of non-human disputants found in extant dispute poems include Summer and Winter, The Bird and The Fish, Silver and Copper, The Crane and The Raven, Wheat and the grain God Nisaba, The Willow and The Lau- rel, The Tamarisk and The Palm, the Goat and the Date-Palm, as well as such group disputes as the Dispute of the Months, the Dispute of the Trees, and the Dispute of the Alphabet, to provide but a sampling. There are, of course, examples of dispute poems where the combatants are human figures, but these are almost exclusively confined to great historical figures or gods; it is generally only in the case of later, Jewish- Christian, examples, where these are found, and the disputants here, of course, are primarily the great biblical figures. Since the seminal study of M. Steinschneider, nearly a century ago3, the genre of dispute poem has attracted a great deal of scholarly interest, particularly in recent decades4. Scholarly diligence has produced numerous examples beginning already in the earliest, Sumerian, literature, which goes back to the early second millenium BC, as well as in nearly all other ancient Near Eastern literatures5. The genre of dispute poem has then continued to prosper vertically in “an unmistakable formal line from the earliest compositions”6 to other Near Eastern and Mediter-

3 STEINSCHNEIDER, 1908. 4 See the studies collected in REININK, 1991. 5 In addition to the studies just mentioned, see, for example, KRAMER, 1961, LAMBERT, 1960, ALSTER, 1990, VANSTIPHOUT, 1990, 1992, VOGELZANG, 1991, VAN DER TOORN, 1991. 6 REININK, 1991, p. 3. The term “vertical” also comes from this work; it refers to the chronological development of the genre, while the term “horizontal” refers to other related literary genres of debate. ARMENIAN DISPUTE HYMNS BETWEEN VIRGINITY AND CHASTITY 145 ranean literatures: numerous examples exist in Egyptian7, Hebrew8, Ara- bic9, Persian10, and Greek11. And from these, the dispute poem found its way into such medieval literatures as Old Norse12, Provencal13, Old Irish14, Latin15, Dutch16, German17, French18, Spanish19, and Italian20. These few can no doubt be vastly expanded by scholars in other fields. In Syriac Christian literature, one finds numerous examples of the dispute poem21. Less than half a century ago it was Pierre Grelot who first noted that its ancient Mesopotamian roots were still discernible22. This line of development of the dispute poem from Mesopotamian literature to Syriac literature has been traced out more recently and more fully by Robert Murray23. But, it has been largely due to the efforts of Sebastian Brock that so many examples of this genre in Syriac literature are now available in modern editions and translations24. Brock has himself gath- ered together a collection of more than fifty examples of various Syriac dialogue poems, from as early as the fourth century to medieval examples, and even some modern examples, many of which he has published or is in the process of editing25. The dispute poem in Syriac can be found in all three of Syriac’s primary poetical forms: the mêmrâ, pl. mêmrê; the madrasâ, pl. madrasê; and the sugîtâ, pl. sugyatâ, though this last is probably the most common. As it is of great importance for the development of early Christian literature, mention should be made here that

7 MASPERO, 1886. 8 VAN BEKKUM, 1991. 9 LITTMANN, 1951, MASSÉ, 1961, WAGNER, 1962, MATTOCK, 1991. 10 ETHÉ, 1882, KUIPER, 1960, MASSÉ, 1961. 11 WERHAHN, 1953. 12 WIDDING, 1959. 13 KNOBLOCH, 1886, SELBACH, 1886, KÖHLER, 1959. 14 DATTIN, 1902. 15 WALTHER, 1984, SCHMIDT, 1991. 16 AXTERS, 1943. 17 JANTZEN, 1896, KASTEN, 1973. 18 KNOBLOCH, 1886. 19 KRAEMER, 1956, FIORE, 1966. 20 STIEFEL, 1914. For more general, comparative, studies, see REISS, 1969, FROLEYKS, 1973, and BOSSY, 1976, and the general bibliography in REININK, 1991, pp. xi-xx. 21 For a long time, scholars knew primarily only of those attributed to the fifth-century Eastern Syrian writer Narsai; see NARSAI, 1896, but cf. Murray, 1995, pp. 180-184, for a brief review of others. 22 GRELOT, 1958. 23 MURRAY, 1995; see also BROCK, 1979, 1989. 24 BROCK, 1979, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1989, 1991. 25 Many were first published in BROCK, 1982. A list of both published and unpub- lished examples can be found in the various footnotes in BROCK, 1984; this list is now updated in BROCK, 1991, pp. 117-119. 146 E. G. MATHEWS the Syriac sugîtâ almost certainly constitutes the primary source of the Byzantine kontakion26. Brock has on more than one occasion discussed the various types of these Syriac dispute poems, which he tends to refer to as dialogue poems, and has divided the Syriac examples into five basic types on the basis of the evenness of the dialogue and the intervention of any narrative into the dialogue. His classification can be briefly summarized in the following schema27: I. Formal dialogue with alternating stanzas II. Dialogue without alternating stanzas III. Dialogue with narrative framework. More than two interlocutors possible. IV. Narrative containing speeches [ exclusively mêmrê ] V. Introduction of author into narrative [ exclusively mêmrê ] As with the more ancient examples, Syriac dispute poems also reveal a rich variety in the disputants; here too, personifications are more numerous and Brock lists such examples of surviving disputants as the Body and the Soul28, Gold and Wheat, the Jordan and the Pishon, Grace and Justice, as well as one example of a Dispute between the Months29. But in Syriac one also finds a good number of examples in which the disputants are biblical figures. For example, Brock lists surviving disputes between Cain and Abel, Abraham and Isaac, Joseph and Potiphar’s wife, Mary and Gabriel, and even Joseph and Mary. One also finds dis- utes between non-biblical, historical, persons, such as found in the disputes between Nero and Peter, King Shapur and the Martyrs, Helena and the Jewish People, and Cyril and Nestorius. Certain others involve groups of people, such as in the disputes between John the Baptist and the Crowd, Christ and the Pharisees, and Christ and the Synagogue. Not a few of these dialogue poems that have survived in Syriac are ascribed to the greatest of the Syrian poets, Ephrem the Syrian, who lived in Nisibis and Edessa in the fourth century (c.309 — 373) of the

26 The first lengthy study was that of GROSDIDIER DE MATONS, 1977. His negative conclusion was quickly countered by DE HALLEUX, 1978, PETERSEN, 1985, and BROCK, 1985. More recently, however, caution has been urged about deciding in either direction in such a biligual milieu; see CAMERON, 1991. The kontakion certainly has classical roots as well; see KARAVITES, 1993. 27 Summarized from BROCK, 1987, 1991. 28 In addition to BROCK, 1995, see DRIJVERS, 1991. 29 A complete, revised listing in BROCK, 1991, pp. 117-119. ARMENIAN DISPUTE HYMNS BETWEEN VIRGINITY AND CHASTITY 147

Christian era30. From Brock’s publications, however, it is clear that most of the dispute poems that claim Ephrem’s authorship are of later prove- nance. Ephrem is known in his native tradition as the “Harp of the Holy Spirit,” for the beauty of his various poetic works which the fifth-century church historian Sozomen numbered at 3,000,000 verses31. Most of these verses of Ephrem do not come under the category of the dispute poem, but those few of unquestioned genuiness are the dispute poems that are found in his collection of the Hymns on Nisibis32. In this collection are 9 hymns, Hymns on Nisibis 52-57, 65 and 68, that are disputes between Death and Satan. Murray in particular has also noted that sev- eral other of Ephrem’s Syriac works, including the intervening Hymns on Nisibis 58-64, 66-67, while not dispute poems in the strict, formal sense, are nonetheless closely related to the formal genre33. In addition to these dispute poems in the Hymns on Nisibis, there are only three other poems that may be considered genuine Ephremic dispute poems. These survive, however, only in Armenian translations found within a collection of fifty-one Armenian hymns, Arm. kwÇrd≤. As with the case of the Old Testament commentaries that have come down in Armenian under the name of Ephrem, there are no surviving Syriac originals to any of the hymns in this collection34. These fifty-one hymns, edited by Mariès and Mercier35, constitute a very disparate collection of hymns on various biblical, ascetical, and sacramental themes. The collection includes, among other subjects, hymns on themes in Exo- dus, two on Elijah and the Ravens, five on the Eucharist36, and one on

30 For more detailed information on the life of Ephrem, see BROCK, 1992, and MATH- EWS, 1994, pp. 12-56. 31 SOZOMEN, 1960, III.16. 32 EPHREM, 1963, which supersedes the old edition of EPHREM, 1866. An old unreli- able English translation by J. Stopford, based on old manuscripts, exists in GWYNN, 1976, pp. 167-219; the translation of the dialogue poems in question begins on p. 193. 33 MURRAY, 1995, pp. 174-176. See also his translation of Ephrem’s ninth Hymn on the Church, in MURRAY, 1980. 34 Only the Armenian Commentary on Genesis appears to have a Syriac Vorlage, but the Armenian is not at all a translation of the genuine Syriac text, but is rather a very dif- ferent commentary; cf. EPHREM, 1998. 35 The complete collection of these hymns was first published in Akinian, 1953-56. These were later published together in EPHREM, 1957. The text was reproduced with Latin translation and notes in EPHREM, 1961. To my knowledge, only three of the hymns from this collection have been translated into English: Hymn XLIX in BROCK, 1985) 80-82; Hymn XLVI in MURRAY, 1989, 65-68, and Hymn IX, see note 41, below. There are French translations of Hymn XLVIII in MARIÈS, 1954, of Hymns XIV and XV in MARIÈS, 1957 and of Hymns II-IX in Graffin, 1961. 36 See MARIÈS, 1954. 148 E. G. MATHEWS the occasion of the consecration of a Virgin37. This entire collection is generally considered to have been translated not long after Ephrem’s death. General scholarly consensus is that there is no reason to doubt the attribution of these hymns to Ephrem38. Language, style, and the themes treated in these poems clearly reflect those found in the genuine Syriac hymns of Ephrem. Most important for present considerations, there is among these fifty- one hymns a small sub-collection, Hymns II-IX, in the numbering of Mariès and Mercier, which all treat, in some manner or other, the subject of virginity39. It is in this sub-collection that one finds the three examples of formal dispute poems. Unlike other disputes in which the contes- tants are persons or personified objects, these have personified states of life as foes40. Hymn IX is a dispute poem between Marriage (Arm. amÇsnÇ¯iun, for Syr. sawtapûtâ) and Chastity. This hymn is a rather short poem which belongs to category III in Brock’s schema, set out above. After a long argument by Marriage, she is vanquished by Virgin- ity in a mere four lines. This hymn has already been translated else- where41. Hymns IV and V, with which this article is concerned, are both dispute poems42 between Virginity (Arm. kÇsÇ¯iun, for Syr. b’tulûtâ) and Chastity (Arm. srbÇ¯iun, for Syr. qaddisûtâ), a concern of particular importance to Ephrem but a concern widespread throughout early Syrian Christianity as well43. In these hymns, there is a sustained dialogue between the disputants, each given alternating four lines, with a clear introduction and conclusion. Therefore, both of these hymns fall rather into category I. That the translation of each hymn has preserved the response, Syr. ‘unîtâ, suggests that the Syriac originals were both sugîtê. Brock has noted that most of these Syriac dispute sugîtê are acrostics but

37 See MURRAY, 1989. 38 See TER PETROSEAN, 1978, BROCK, ooooo, and MURRAY, 1995. 39 MURRAY, 1995, p. 177, notes that some of these are also closely related to formal dispute poems. 40 For a Greek example, see WERHAHN, 1953. 41 See MATHEWS, 1999. 42 That they are intended to be serious disputes is clear from the language used in the introductory sections of the hymns; Hymns IV and IX refer to the dispute as a pater- azm, lit., a war, while Hymn V employs the Armenian verb ma≤a®el, to contend. 43 For Ephrem, see particularly his own Hymns on Virginity; see MCVEY, 1989. For general background on this phenomena, see especially, MURRAY, 1975, 11-17, MURRAY, 1974, and especially MURRAY, 1995, pp. 177-178, where he notes similar concerns in the Manichean literature. For these terms and related vocabulary in early Syrian asceticism, see GREGOIRE, 1970. ARMENIAN DISPUTE HYMNS BETWEEN VIRGINITY AND CHASTITY 149 this of course can not be verified in the case of these two hymns as the originals do not survive. There was clearly no attempt even to retain the original meter. It is also the case that the tune, Syr. qalâ, usually accom- panies each sugîtâ; it is unclear here whether it did not exist in the original, or whether the translator simply omitted it. Each of the hymns is nearly the same length as the other; in Hymn IV, Virginity and Chastity go back and forth for seven stanzas each, and then Virginity concludes, in 19 lines — not with a victory but with an appeal that perhaps neither Chastity nor Virginity herself should boast of God’s gifts; instead, they should simply be grateful. In Hymn V, the format is the same but Vir- ginity receives an eighth stanza, after which she responds with another nine lines, this time claiming her superiority but concluding with a prayer for those who fall away from their original commitments. In both of the hymns translated here, Virginity and Chastity each invoke the great biblical figures as evidence of their respective superiority. And each does so in such a sequence that the two hymns clearly belong together and may even have once constituted a single poem. Hymn IV invokes solely Old Testament figures, Virginity invoking Adam, Joshua, and Elijah, while Chastity invokes primarily Noah and Moses. In Hymn V Virginity begins with invocations of Elijah and Elisha, but then proceeds to the New Testament figures of John, Paul, and Mary; Chastity likewise invokes the Old Testament prophets Ezekiel and Daniel, but later invokes the Apostle Peter in her defense. As mentioned above, scholarly consensus counts these hymns as genuine compositions of Ephrem. While the entire collection still awaits serious study, it should be noted here that these two dispute poems lack the paradox and profound, meditative approach to the biblical text that one usually associates with genuine Ephremic compositions44. While Ephrem often makes extensive use of the narratives concerning the biblical figures just mentioned, it is not his customary style to do so with such straight forward, almost monotonous, allusions to the biblical text. I would suggest, therefore, a certain caution in counting these two hymns as being genuine compositions of the great Syrian poet45. The following translation has been made on the basis of the critical text published by Fr. Louis Mariès and Charles Mercier, cited above; Hymn IV is found on pp. 42-48, and Hymn V on pp. 48-56. The Armen- ian translator has clearly made no attempt to preserve the meter of the

44 See BROCK, 1992, MURRAY, 1976. 45 A translation and study of this entire collection is currently being undertaken. 150 E. G. MATHEWS underlying Syriac text, and I have therefore followed suit. I have done no more than to set out the lines as accurately as I am able, following all my predecessors in attempting to render these hymns into an idiomatic English which, at the same time, tries to reflect the Armenian text as closely as possible46. The editors of the Armenian text apparently failed to see the four line structure of the dialogue, so I have taken the liberty of restoring, in brackets, the headings when there is a change of speaker. Unless otherwise noted, the biblical citations refer to the Revised Stan- dard Version.

Armenian Hymn #4 [ Refrain: ] Blessed is the Lord of Chastity and Virginity, the exalted ones47. Blessed is the Bridegroom48 who by his coming exalted virginity. Both Virginity and Chastity held a contest49 for me so that their marvelous deeds might be recounted. The two of them pressed me that they might be brought forth and that from my lips they might be heard in the churches of the peo- ples50. First Virginity spoke and then Chastity; Virginity began by saying, I was created beforehand at the beginning of the first world51. I was clothed in glory52; I also set down the names53.

46 I would like to thank here Dr. Roberta Ervine, who read over the entire translation in earlier drafts and saved me from making an even greater number of errors. 47 The refrain, Syriac ‘ûnîtâ, is a common feature in Syriac poetry, both in madrasê and in sugyatâ. 48 This title is already in the New Testament, see Matthew 9:15, John 3:29. 49 Arm. xa®nel zpaterazm, lit. ‘to join, engage in battle’. 50 That is, the nations or the gentiles; see note 83, below. 51 Cf. Genesis 1:26; Adam the first human being was, of course, a virgin when he was created. 52 This expression stems from the Peshitta of Psalm 8:6; the Hebrew and Greek both read “crowned with glory”. The nature of the original nature of man, particularly as it pertains to the restoration of man in Christ, is an important concept not only for Ephrem, but for early Syriac theology in general; see BROCK, 1981. 53 Cf. Genesis 2:19. For Ephrem, the granting of names was a great gift from God; see EPHREM, 1955, p. 31: “God gave Adam not only rule over everything, which had been promised to him, but He also allowed him to bestow names [on the animals], which had not been promised to him. If then God did for Adam even more than he had expected, how could God have deprived Adam of these things unless Adam had sinned? For someone to give a few names to be remembered is not a great thing, but it is too large ARMENIAN DISPUTE HYMNS BETWEEN VIRGINITY AND CHASTITY 151

I received authority over all things, in the sea and on dry land54.

CHASTITY I have overtaken you, O Virginity, for Noah was the beginning of the second world55. He preserved me in the midst of the ark56; he was delivered by the ark. He was delivered from the deluge, the beasts were subject to him. By the sign of the rainbow that [God gave to [Noah], [God] withheld a deluge on all generations57.

{ VIRGINITY } Mine was the chastity of Noah before you came into existence; He kept you for one year only, whereas he preserved me for 500 years58. It was not during that year he preserved you that he surpassed the holy ones, but he surpassed them in greatness because he preserved me for so many years, even amidst a licentious generation59.

and too great a thing for any human being to bestow thousands of names in a single moment, without repeating any. It is possible for someone to bestow many names on many kinds of insects, animals, beasts, and birds, but never to name one kind by the name of another belongs either to God or to someone to whom it has been granted by God.” Translation from MATHEWS, 1994, 103-104. See also EPHREM, 1955, 62.1. 54 Cf. Genesis 1:26. According to the genuine Syriac Commentary on Genesis, “It is the dominion that Adam received over the earth and over all that is in it that constitutes the likeness of God who has dominion over the heavenly things and the earthly things.” Ephrem, 1955, p. 23, translation from MATHEWS, 1994, p. 94. This notion was also typi- cal of early Antiochian exegesis; for summary, see Alexandre, 1988, pp. 175-188, esp., 184. 55 Cf. Genesis 8:17-19. 56 The fact that Noah preserved his virginity while upon the ark was an important idea for Ephrem; see Hymns on Nativity I.22, Hymns on Virginity I.10, Hymns on Nisibis I.4. Cf. also, Commentary on Genesis VI. English translation in MATHEWS, 1991, pp. 134- 144. 57 Cf. Genesis 9:12-17. 58 I.e., the one year that Noah was upon the ark. The five hundred years were those before he had his three sons; cf. Genesis 5:32. 59 Cf. Genesis 6:1-8. The Commentary on Genesis is almost identical: “During this entire time Noah was an example to his sons by his virtue, for he had preserved his virginity fo five hundred years among those of whom it was said, All flesh corrupted its path.” See EPHREM, 1950, VI.1, MATHEWS, 1994, p. 134. 152 E. G. MATHEWS

{ CHASTITY } Lo, Moses by his chastity, gave life to a dead piece of wood60. He destroyed living fish61, he produced gnats that were not alive62. The locusts that came, he destroyed63, he changed water into blood64. He multiplied the frogs from the river65, he increased the boils on humans66.

VIRGINITY And lo, by his virginity Joshua destroyed the great Midian. He turned back rivers, he led the people across on dry land67. With a shout he brought down the wall68, but Rahab the harlot he let live69. Thirty kings he destroyed70 and he led in his people to take possession of the land71.

{ CHASTITY } In his virginity, Joshua was [but] a disciple of Moses72. He ministered to him in the Tent of worship73 and from him received the spirit74. The virginity of Joshua was unable to look on the face of the chaste Moses without the veil of a handkerchief, for he was too weak75.

{ VIRGINITY } In his virginity, Joshua was victorious and slew the army of Amalek76.

60 Cf. Exodus 7:9-10. 61 Cf. Exodus 7:21. 62 Cf. Exodus 8:16-17. 63 Cf. Exodus 10:18-19. 64 Cf. Exodus 7:20. 65 Cf. Exodus 8:5-6. 66 Cf. Exodus 9:8-12. 67 Cf. Joshua 3:14-17. 68 Cf. Joshua 6:20. 69 Cf. Joshua 6:22-25. 70 Cf. Joshua 12:9-24. 71 Cf. Joshua 11:23. 72 Cf. Exodus 24:13. 73 Cf. Exodus 33:11. 74 Cf. Numbers 27:15-23, Deuteronomy 34:9. 75 Cf. Exodus 34:35. 76 Cf. Exodus 17:13-14. ARMENIAN DISPUTE HYMNS BETWEEN VIRGINITY AND CHASTITY 153

The harlot who converted he preserved77, but Akar who was guilty of theft he stoned78. Moses remained behind and did not cross the Jordan for he was not worthy to cross the river79, so Joshua entered and took as an inheritance that land which Moses did not inherit80.

{ CHASTITY } Joshua took possession of the land with effort, let us see with whom he possessed it. Did he enter and inherit the land with angels? or with cherubim or seraphim? If he inherited it with Rahab the harlot and with those who worshipped a serpent, it is clear that it was not because of his unworthiness that Moses was deprived of it.

{ VIRGINITY } Virginity overcomes you, O Chastity, by means of its virtues. The sun without ears heard that virgin and arrested its course and the moon without hearing hearkened and arrested its route. [Joshua] arrested the two lights and astonished the entire world81.

CHASTITY The victory that the virgin Joshua took, the chaste Moses gave to him. When [Moses] raised his hands he prevailed; when he lowered his hands he was overcome82. So if [Joshua] was victorious only by the prayers of Moses, the one who caused the victory is greater than the victor. If Joshua is great by means of this victory, how much [more] should Moses, who caused the victory, be exalted?

{ VIRGINITY } The victory that Moses gave [to Joshua] was by the sign of crucifixion.

77 Cf. Joshua 6:22. 78 Cf. Joshua 7:25. 79 Cf. Deuteronomy 34:4. 80 Cf. Joshua 1:2-4. 81 Cf. Joshua 10:12-14. 82 Cf. Exodus 17:9-13. 154 E. G. MATHEWS

When [Jesus] stretched out His hands the two sides were conquered and vanquished. He vanquished the people whom [Moses] had made victorious, and He made victorious the peoples whom [Moses] had van- quished83, in order to depict the mysteries of ruin and restoration that had [now] come to all.

{ CHASTITY } Chastity overcomes you, O Virginity, by its virtues. For the son of Amram84 divided the sea85 and destroyed the first born of Egypt in the sea86. He drew back [the waters] and drowned [the Egyptians]87; the waters in the desert he made sweet88, and out of a stone he made twelve streams spring forth89.

VIRGINITY Look at Elijah, who was a virgin; he bound up the heavens and then unbound them90. By ravens he was nourished91, and in Zarephath he restored life to one who was dead92. The jug and the horn he made flow93, and he brought down fire on his offerings94. He divided the river and crossed over95, and by fiery horses he was taken away96.

83 Here is found a very common word play in the works of Ephrem, and in early Syr- iac theology: ™nI, ‘amâ, the ‘chosen people’ or the Jews, and ™nNI, ‘ammê, the peoples, or gentiles. See further MURRAY, 1975, pp. 41-68. 84 Amram is the father of Moses; cf. Exodus 6:20, Numbers 27:59, and I Chronicles 6:3. 85 Cf. Exodus 14:16-21. 86 Cf. Exodus 12:29. 87 Cf. Exodus 14:23-28. 88 Cf. Exodus 15:25. 89 Cf. Exodus 15:27, though these twelves streams did not come forth from a rock; for the rock, cf. Exodus 17:5-7. Ephrem seems to combine the two pericopes here. 90 Cf. I(III) Kings 17:1. 91 Cf. I(III) Kings 17:4-7. 92 Cf. I(III) Kings 17:17-24. 93 Cf. I(III) Kings 17:14-16. 94 Cf. I(III) Kings 18:36-38. 95 Cf. II(IV) Kings 2:8. 96 Cf. II(IV) Kings 2:11. ARMENIAN DISPUTE HYMNS BETWEEN VIRGINITY AND CHASTITY 155

CHASTITY You look at the chaste Moses, who in that dwelling saw a host of holy angels97. He saw God in the briar bush98, and he also saw [Him] on the moun- tain99. He brought down manna for the people; he also delivered quail100. By a cloud he chased away the gloom, and by a pillar he dissipated the darkness101.

VIRGINITY Certainly not by your habits are you greater than I, O Chastity. For no one would have experienced that deliverance from Egypt, [solely] by reason of that battle that Moses waged with his virtues. It was certainly not because [his] deed or his voice was great, but because the Giver was compassionate. Because [He] was about to drown the Egyptians in the sea102 and was about to destroy the kings of Canaan, to slay Og the king, and to put to death the ruler Sihon103, to overthrow Amalek and to destroy the Midianites, Therefore [God] worked miracles in Egypt, so that [Israel] might believe and not perish. He divided the sea to terrify Og and Sihon so that they not be destroyed. He worked miracles in the desert so that Amalek might fear and not fall to ruin. Although [God] thus exerted himself for their lives, they went to do battle against him. The miracles occurred for the sake of Egypt so that by the miracles He might save Egypt.

97 Mariès gives the referent here as Exodus 4:24, LXX, where an angel of the Lord met Moses, but one angel is not a host, and the angel (simply Lord in the Hebrew and the Syriac) here intends to kill Moses for his apparent failure to circumcize his sons. It is highly unlikely that Ephrem intends to invoke this pericope here. No specific passage states that Moses ever saw a “host of angels”, but it is perhaps possible to understand Ephrem as inferring that Moses often saw angels while meditating in the tent of meeting in the presence of the Lord who came down in the cloud; cf. Exodus 33:7-11. 98 Cf. Exodus 3:1-6. 99 Cf. Exodus 33:18-23. 100 Cf. Exodus 16:4-13. 101 Cf. Exodus 13:21, 14:19-20, etc. 102 Cf. Exodus 14:27-28. 103 Cf. Numbers 21:21-35, Deuteronomy 3:1-7. 156 E. G. MATHEWS

He divided the sea for the sake of Sihon so that through the sea He might save Sihon. For the sake of the Amalekites miracles occurred in the desert; they wore Moses out by miracles, for they did not believe in his Lord. Desist, henceforth, O Chastity, and do not boast in miracles. For every gift which is given by the Spirit is not for the boast of humankind, for it is not of his free will, but of Him who labors more than all.

Armenian Hymn #5

[Refrain]: Blessing to Christ the King from [His] Virgins and Chaste Ones. Let the discerning give ear to the contest that took place on earth. Virginity contended against Chastity, its yoke-mate, that they might demonstrate to their hearers which is the greater and the more blessed – not in conduct or in deeds, but in the gifts of the Holy Spirit. It is evident that Virginity labors much, and great too is Chastity, which turned and spit on this earth after tasting it104. Hear the words of Virginity, and after her [those] of Chastity.

VIRGINITY Look upon the virgin Elijah who put Ahab to death and who gave Jezebel to the dogs to eat105. [Ahab]’s sons he put to the sword106, and he called down destruction on the people107. With fire he destroyed hundreds of men108 and with his own hands 800 false prophets109.

104 I do not find here any specific referent for this curious phrase; it is perhaps simply meant to describe the renunciation of the world by one who chooses an ascetic lifestyle. 105 Cf. I(III) Kings 21:1-24. 106 Cf. I(III) Kings 21:21. 107 Cf. I(III) Kings 17:1. 108 Cf. II(IV) Kings 1:9-12. 109 Cf. I(III) Kings 18:19, 40, although the actual total of eight hundred fifty is pre- sumably rounded down for metrical reasons, though it should nonetheless be noted that the Peshitta here reads nine hundred. ARMENIAN DISPUTE HYMNS BETWEEN VIRGINITY AND CHASTITY 157

CHASTITY But Ezekiel, the chaste prophet, journeyed to Sion in his vision110; he revealed hidden designs and he put those sun-worshippers to shame111. When he went up to the summit he saw chaste ones entering into the fire112. He handed the city over to destruction113 and for his kin he apportioned captivity114.

VIRGINITY Renowned is the virgin Elisha, for he received a double spirit115. He multiplied bread for the hungry116; he made water flow in the desert117. He changed water into olive oil118, and he put an end to death by the copper kettle119. He plunged wood into the water and and on it raised up and drew out the iron120.

{ CHASTITY } It is clear that the son of Buzi121, after that one who had the desire of his pupils taken away from him122, saw the cherubim [who were] joined together123. He saw the Son above the chariot, and God in the appearance of fire124. He united the scattered bones and with his voice brought the dead back to life125.

110 Cf. Ezekiel 8:3. 111 Cf. Ezekiel 8:16-19. 112 Cf. Ezekiel 10:1-8 113 Cf. Ezekiel 12:20. 114 Cf. Ezekiel 12:8-15. 115 Cf. II(IV) Kings 2:9-12. 116 Cf. II(IV) Kings 4:42-44. 117 Cf. II(IV) Kings 3:16-20. 118 Cf. II(IV) Kings 4:1-7. 119 Cf. II(IV) Kings 4:38-41. 120 Cf. II(IV) Kings 6:1-7. 121 I.e., Ezekiel, cf. Ezekiel 1:3. 122 I.e., Elisha; cf. II(IV) Kings 2:9-12. 123 Cf. Ezekiel 1:4-14. 124 Cf. Ezekiel 1:26-28. 125 Cf. Ezekiel 37:1-10. 158 E. G. MATHEWS

VIRGINITY It is clear that the virgin Elisha cured the contaminated waters126. He blessed Jericho in her descendants127, while the boys of Bethel he destroyed128. He purified Naaman the leper129; the clean Gehazi he turned into a leper130. In his life he brought a child to life131, and in his death he raised up a corpse132.

CHASTITY This is clear, [my] brothers, that Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, in her chastity recognized the Son whom the people did not recognize in the holy Temple. She took him in her bosom and when she embraced him received the Spirit. She prophesied and proclaimed him fearlessly before His crucifiers133.

VIRGINITY Since Daniel in his virginity was great in Babylon, where he interpreted the dream of the king134, and he explained a second dream135. He read the writing on the wall136, and became worthy of a vision of the Spirit137.

126 Cf. II(IV) Kings 2:19-22. 127 Cf. II(IV) Kings 2:22. 128 Cf. II(IV) Kings 2:23-24. 129 Cf. II(IV) Kings 5:1-14. 130 Cf. II(IV) Kings 5:20-27. 131 Cf. II(IV) Kings 4:18-37, or 4:8-17. The referent here depends on the precise sense of kewoyw here; if it means ‘give life’ then the latter referent, where Elisha promised a child to the Shunammite woman, is to be preferred; if it means ‘restore life,’ then the former referent, where Elisha restores the life of that same child who had died, is to be preferred. 132 Cf. II(IV) Kings 13:20-21, pace Mercier who cites II Kings 4:26-37. 133 Cf. Luke 2:36-38. 134 Cf. Daniel 2:36-45. The verb here, gitem, reflects the semitic idiom ‘to know a dream’ which is used of interpreting a dream. 135 Cf. Daniel 4:19-27. 136 Cf. Daniel 5:17-28. 137 Cf. Daniel 7:1-28. ARMENIAN DISPUTE HYMNS BETWEEN VIRGINITY AND CHASTITY 159

With his own eyes he saw an angel138; into the pit of lions he fell, yet he came out139.

{ CHASTITY } Now who can recount the virtues of Paul, who was chaste? He was found worthy of the Apostolate and became worthy of a revela- tion140. In a vision he entered Paradise; the blessed one141 went into heaven142. He raised to life a dead youth143 and preached the Gospel to the Gen- tiles144.

{ VIRGINITY } Who is capable of recounting those things that befell the virgin John who received the Spirit in the womb and who proclaimed his Lord within his mother?145 He granted remission of debts in the baptism with which he baptized146. He was worthy to baptize his Lord147 and he saw the descent of the Spirit148.

CHASTITY Let us take note of that which occurred to Simon in his chastity. For He made him the foundation of His church and appointed him to hold authority. He set him up as head of the Apostles and presented to him the keys of souls. He appointed him to pasture His flocks149 and He granted him to bind and loose150.

138 Cf. Daniel 8:15-17, 9:21-22, 10:5-6. 139 Cf. Daniel 6:16-23. 140 Cf. Acts 9:1-22, 22:6-21, 26:12-23, and cf. also, Galatians 1:1,15-17. 141 A very common title in Syriac for Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles. 142 Cf. II Corinthians 12:1-4. 143 Cf. Acts 20:9-12. 144 Cf. Acts 9:15, 22:21, 26:23, and Galatians 1:16, et al. 145 Cf. Luke 1:41-44. 146 Cf. Luke 3:3, and parallels. 147 Cf. Matthew 3:13-17 and parallels. 148 Cf. John 1:32. 149 Cf. John 21:15-17. 150 Cf. Matthew 16:17-19. 160 E. G. MATHEWS

VIRGINITY Come, look at virginity, how precious it was in John151, who, when the other disciples were trembling, laid himself on the breast of the Son, so that from Him Chastity152 might learn what had been hidden from him. Then at dinner He revealed to him who would betray Him153.

CHASTITY Rather than looking at the virginity of John who was caressed, look at the chaste Simon, for he walked upon the water154. He brought back to life the dead Tabitha155, and put to death the living Ananias156. He brought cures to the sick by his shadow157 and by his belt158.

VIRGINITY It is a simple thing that Virginity is great and precedes Chastity, for She gave birth to the Son159, and gave Him milk to suck160. At her feet [the Son] sat, and she gave Him His baths161. She was beside Him on the cross162, and saw Him at the resurrection163.

CHASTITY Be willing to learn, O Virginity, that the virgins among the prophets

151 Hymns on Virginity 25 is devoted to John, the beloved disciple; cf. EPHREM, 1962, pp.88-94, and MCVEY, 1989, pp. 369-375. 152 I.e., Peter; cf. John 13:23-24. 153 Cf. John 13:21-27. 154 Cf. Matthew 14:29. 155 Cf. Acts 9:36-41. 156 Cf. Acts 5:1-6. 157 Cf. Acts 5:15. 158 I can find no source where Simon Peter effects a cure wrought by his belt. In both the canonical Acts of the Apostles and the apocryphal Acts of Peter, all his cures are done simply by his word. 159 Cf. Luke 2:7, and parallels. 160 Cf. Luke 11:27, and parallels. 161 Inexplicably, Mariès associates this line with Mary Magdalene, cf. EPHREM, 1961, p. 246, n.72; Ephrem is clearly referring to his mother by evoking common maternal images. 162 Cf. John 19:25. 163 Cf. Matthew 28:1-10, and parallels. ARMENIAN DISPUTE HYMNS BETWEEN VIRGINITY AND CHASTITY 161 were inferior to Moses and [that] the virgins among the Apostles were inferior to Simon, for in both Testaments the chaste ones were the virtuous ones.

VIRGINITY Why do you vaunt yourself above me!164 Read and see, O Chastity! If you are greater than I, as you suppose, then the marriage of Abraham’s descendants is greater than you. But it is not that marriage is greater than you, nor you than I, but it is by their gifts, which we have recounted, that one is greater than the other.

CHASTITY As you have just said, the chaste Paul is greater than the virgin John for he said “I have labored more than the Apostles who were before me.”165 The chaste Moses is the greatest of the prophets, Simon is the greatest of the Apostles, not in conduct or in labors, but by the gifts that they received.

{ VIRGINITY } But the labor of virginity is greater than [that of] chastity. Similarly, its recompense is greater according to that same labor. More praiseworthy is the one who preserved it with the angels and kept possession of it, while great is the woe of that one who lost it and thereby acquires eter- nal shame. If one wishes to labor with great toil, he will find it for there is nothing that is not easy for God to do, as it is written166.

Grant, O Lord, a hand to the fallen that they might rise up from their fallen state. Grant, O Lord, a remedy to the injured that their wounds might be healed. And with the hyssop of your mercy may their stains become white167.

164 Mercier rightly notes here that Virginity is here echoing the words of Psalm 35:26; cf. EPHREM, 1961, p. 55. 165 I Corinthians 15:10. 166 Cf. Luke 1:37; Genesis 18:14. 167 Cf. Psalm 51:7. 162 E. G. MATHEWS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AKINIAN 1953-56 N. Akinian, “Kc‘urdk‘ S. Ep‘remi Xorin Asorwoy [The Hymns of St. Ephrem the Syrian],” Handes Amsoreay 67 (1953) 481- 522; 68 (1954) 257-284, 449-470; 69 (1955) 1-18, 97-116, 289- 310, 449-470; 70 (1956) 1-16, 97-122. ALEXANDRE 1988 M. Alexandre, Le commencement du livre: Genèse I-V. La version grecque de la Septante et sa réception. Christianisme antique, 3. Paris. ALSTER 1990 B. Alster, “Sumerian Literary Dialogues and Debates and their Place in Ancient Near Eastern Literature,” in E. Keck, S. Søn- dergaard, E. Wulff, eds., Living Waters. Scandinavian Oriental- istic Studies Presented to Professor Dr. Frede Løkkegaard. Copenhagen. Pp. 1-16. APHRAHAT 1977-80 G. Lafontaine, ed., La version arménienne des oeuvres d’Aphraate le Syrien. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orien- talium, 382-383, 406-407, 423-424. Louvain, 1977, 1979, 1980. ASMUSSEN 1973 J. Asmussen, “A Judeo-Persian Precedence-Dispute Poem and some Thoughts on the History of the Genre,” in J. Asmussen, ed., Studies in Judeo-Persian Literature. Leiden. Pp. 32-59. AXTERS 1943 S. Axters, “Over ‘quaestio disputata’ en ‘quaestio de quolibet’ in de Middelnederlandsche Literatuur,” Ons Geestelijk Erf 17 (1943) 31-70. BOSSY 1976 M.-A. Bossy, “Medieval Debates of Body and Soul,” Compara- tive Literature 28 (1976) 144-163. BROCK 1978 S.P. Brock, “A Syriac Dispute between Heaven and Earth,” Le Muséon 91 (1978) 261-270. 1979 S.P. Brock, “The Dispute Poem: From Sumer to Syriac,” Bayn al-Nahrayn 7 (1979) 417-426. 1981 S.P. Brock, “Clothing Metaphors as a Means of Theological Expression in Syriac Tradition,” in M. Schmidt, ed., Typus, Sym- bol, Allegorie bei den östlichen Vatern und ihren Parallelen im Mittelalter. Eichstatt. Pp. 11-40. 1982 S.P. Brock, Soghyatâ M’gabyatâ. Glane/Losswer. 1983 S.P. Brock, “Dialogue hymns of the Syriac Churches,” Sobor- nost 5 (1983) 35-45. ARMENIAN DISPUTE HYMNS BETWEEN VIRGINITY AND CHASTITY 163

1984 S.P. Brock, “Syriac Dialogue Poems: Marginalia to a Recent Edition,” Le Muséon 97 (1984) 29-58. 1985 S.P. Brock, The Harp of the Spirit. 2d ed. Studies Supplementary to Sobornost. London. 1985b S.P. Brock, “Syriac and Greek Hymnography: Problems of Ori- gin,” Studia Patristica 16 (1985) 77-81. 1985c S.P. Brock, “A Dispute of the Months and Some Related Syriac Texts,” Journal of Semitic Studies 30 (1985) 181-211. 1987 S.P. Brock, Sogiatha: Syriac Dialogue Hymns. Syrian Church Series, 11. Kottayam. 1987b S.P. Brock, “Dramatic Dialogue Poems,” in IV Symposium Syriacum 1984. Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 229. Rome. Pp. 135-147. 1988 S.P. Brock, “The Sinful Woman and Satan: Two Syriac Dia- logue Poems,” Oriens Christianus 7 (1979) 417-426. 1989 S.P. Brock, “The Dispute Between Soul and Body: An Example of a Long-lived Mesopotamian Literary Genre,” Aram 1 (1989) 53-64. 1991 S.P. Brock, “Syriac Dispute Poems: The Various Types,” in REININK, 1991, pp. 109-119. 1992 S.P. Brock, The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of St. Ephrem. Rome, 1985. 2d ed., Cistercian Studies Series, 124. Kalamazoo. 1992b S.P. Brock, “A Dialogue between Joseph and Mary from the Christian Orient,” Logos: The Welsh Theological Review 1.3 (1992) 4-11. 1992c S.P. Brock, “Two Syriac Poems on the Invention of the Cross,” in N. El-Khoury, H. Crouzel, and R. Reinhardt, eds., Lebendige Überlieferung. Festschrift für H.-J. Vogt. Beirut/Ostfildern. Pp. 55-82. 1994 S.P. Brock, “Syriac Poetry on Biblical Themes 2. A Dialogue Poem on the Sacrifice of Isaac (Genesis 22),” The Harp 7 (1994) 55-72. 1994b S.P. Brock, “Les Poémes dialogués dans la tradition liturgique syriaque,” in Génie de la Messe Syriaque. Patrimoine Syriaque, Actes du Colloque II. Antelias. Pp. 11-24. 1995 S.P. Brock, “Tales of Two Beloved Brothers: Syriac Dialogues between Body and Soul,” in L.S.B. MacCoull, ed., Studies in the Christian East in Memory of Mirrit Boutros Ghali. Publications of the Society for Coptic Archaeology, North America. Pp. 29- 38. 1998 S.P. Brock, “A Syriac Dispute Poem: The River Pishon and the River Jordan,” Parole de l’Orient 23 (1998) 3-12. CAMERON 1991 A. Cameron, “Disputations, Polemical Literature and the Forma- tion of Opinion in the Early Byzantine Period,” in REININK, 1991, pp. 109-119. 164 E. G. MATHEWS

DATTIN 1902 G. Dattin, “Une version irlandaise du Dialogue du Corps et de l’Ame attribué à Robert Grosseteste,” Revue celtique 23 (1902) 1-32. DE HALLEUX 1978 A. de Halleux, “Hellénisme et syrianité de Romanos le Mélode,” Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique 73 (1978) 632-641. DRIJVERS 1991 H.J.W. Drijvers, “Body and Soul: A Perennial Problem,” in REININK, 1991, pp. 91-108. EPHREM 1834 Srboyn Efremi MatenagrÇ¯iun≤. Venice, 1834. 1866 G. Bickell, ed., Sancti Ephraemi Syri Carmina Nisibena additis prolegomenis et supplemento lexicorum syriacorum primus edit, vertit, explicavit. Leipzig. 1921 N. Akinian, Srboyn Efremi Asoruoy Meknou¯iun Gor∑ow A®a≤elow. Vienna. 1953-4 L. Leloir, ed., Saint Ephrem. Commentaire de l’évangile concor- dant, version arménienne. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 137, 145. Louvain. 1955 R.M. Tonneau, ed. Sancti Ephraem Syri in Genesim et in Exo- dum commentarii. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Oriental- ium 152. Louvain. 1955b E. Beck, ed. Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Fide. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 154-155. Lou- vain. 1957 N. Akinian, ed., Ephräm des Syrers 51 Madrasche in Armenis- cher Übersetzung. Texte und Untersuchungen der Altarmenis- chen Literature, Bd. 1.3. Vienna. 1957b E. Beck, ed. Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen contra Haereses. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 169- 170. Louvain. 1957c E. Beck, ed. Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Par- adiso und Contra Julianum. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 174-175. Louvain. 1959 E. Beck, ed. Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Nativ- itate (Epiphania). Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 186-187. Louvain. 1960 E. Beck, ed. Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Eccle- sia. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 198-199. Louvain. 1961 L. Mariès and C. Mercier, eds., Hymnes de Saint Ephrem conservées en version arménienne. Patrologia Orientalis 30.1. Paris. 1961b E. Beck, ed. Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones de Fide. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 212-213. Louvain. ARMENIAN DISPUTE HYMNS BETWEEN VIRGINITY AND CHASTITY 165

1961c E. Beck, ed. Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Carmina Nisi- bena. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 218-219, 240-241. Louvain, 1961, 1963. 1962 E. Beck, ed. Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Vir- ginitate. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 223-224. Louvain. 1963 E. Beck, ed., Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Carmina Nisi- bena. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 240-241. Louvain. 1964 E. Beck, ed. Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Ieiu- nio. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 246-247. Louvain. 1964a E. Beck, ed. Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Paschahymnen. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 247-248. Lou- vain. 1973 E. Beck, ed., Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones IV. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 334. Lou- vain. 1975 C. Renoux, ed., Ephrem de Nisibe Mêmrê sur Nicomedie. Patrologia Orientalis 37.2-3. Paris. 1998 E.G. Mathews, Jr., The Armenian Commentary on Genesis Attributed to Ephrem the Syrian. Corpus Scriptorum Christiano- rum Orientalium, 572-573. Louvain. 2001 E.G. Mathews, Jr., The Armenian Commentaries on Exodus- Deuteronomy Attributed to Ephrem the Syrian. Corpus Scripto- rum Christianorum Orientalium, 577-578. Louvain. ETHÉ 1882 H. Ethé, “Über persische Tenzonen,” in Verhandlungen des 5. internationalen Orientalisten-Congresses. Berlin. Pp. 48-76. FIORE 1966 S. Fiore, “La tenson en Espagne et en Babylonie: Évolution ou polygénese?” in F. Jost, ed., Actes du IVe congrès de l’associa- tion internationale de littérature comparée (Fribourg 1964). La Haye-Paris. Pp. 982-992. FROLEYKS 1973 W.J. Froleyks, Der AgÑn Lógwn in der antiken Literatur. Inau- gural-Dissertation. Bonn. GRAFFIN 1961 F. Graffin, “Hymnes inédites de S. Éphrem sur la virginité,” L’Orient Syrien 6 (1961) 213-242. GREGOIRE 1970 R. Gregoire, “Notes philologiques sur le vocabulaire de la vie religieuse,” Parole de l’Orient 1 (1970) 301-326. GRELOT 1958 P. Grelot, “Un poème de Saint Éphrem: Satan et la Mort,” L’Orient Syrien 3 (1958) 443-452. 166 E. G. MATHEWS

GROSDIDIER DE MATONS 1977 J. Grosdidier de Matons, Romanos le Mélode et les origines de la poésie religieuse à Byzance. Paris. GWYNN 1976 J.W. Gwynn, tr., “Selections Translated into English from the Hymns and Homilies of Ephraim the Syrian and from the Demonstrations of Aphrahat the Persian Sage” in P. Schaff and H. Wace, ed., A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. 2d Series, vol. XIII. Grand Rapids. Pp. 167-219. HUIZINGA 1949 J. Huizinga, Homo Ludens. London. JANTZEN 1896 H. Jantzen, Geschichte des deutschen Streitgedichtes im Mittelal- ter mit Berücksichtigung ähnlicher Erscheinungen in anderen Literaturen. Breslau. KARAVITES 1993 P. Karavites, “Gregory Nazianzus and Byzantine Hymnogra- phy,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 113 (1993) 81-98. KASTEN 1973 I. Kasten, Studien zu Thematik und Form des mittel- hochdeutschen Streitgedichts. Hamburg. KNOBLOCH 1886 H. Knobloch, Das Streitgedicht im Provenzalischen und Alt- französischen. Breslau. KÖHLER 1959 E. Köhler, “Zur Entstehung des altprovenzalischen Stre- itgedichtes,” Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 75 (1959) 37- 88. KRAEMER 1956 E. von Kraemer, Dos versiones castellanos de la disputa del alma y del cuerpo del siglo XIV (Mémoires de la société néophilologique 18). Helsinki. KRAMER 1961 S. Kramer, History Begins at Sumer. Philadelphia, 1961. KUIPER 1960 F.B.J. Kuiper, “The Ancient Aryan Verbal Contest,” Indo-Iran- ian Journal 4 (1960) 217-281. LAMBERT 1960 W.G. Lambert, “Fables or Contest Literature,” in Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Oxford. LEBON 1929 J. Lebon, “Les citations patristiques grecques du Sceau de la Foi,” Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 25 (1929) 5-32. ARMENIAN DISPUTE HYMNS BETWEEN VIRGINITY AND CHASTITY 167

LITTMANN 1951 E. Littmann, “Neuarabische Streitgedichte,” in Festschrift zur Feier es zweihundertjährigen Bestehens der Akademie der Wis- senschaften in Göttingen II: Philologisch-historische Klasse. Göttingen. Pp. 36-66. MARIÈS 1954 L. Mariès, “Une Antiphona de Saint Ephrem sur l’eucharistie,” Recherches de Science Religieuse 42 (1954) 395-403. 1957 L. Mariès, “Deux Antiphonae de Saint Ephrem,” Recherches de Science Religieuse 45 (1957) 396-408. MASPERO 1886 G. Maspero, “Fragment d’une version égyptienne de la fable des membres et de l’estomac,” Études égyptiennes 1 (1886) 260- 274. MASSÉ 1961 H. Massé, “Du genre littéraire ‘Débat’ en arabe et en persan,” Cahiers de civilisation médiévale 4 (1961) 137-147. MATHEWS 1994 E.G. Mathews, Jr. and Joseph P. Amar, Selected Prose Works of Ephrem the Syrian. Fathers of the Church 91. Washington 1996 E.G. Mathews, Jr., “The Armenian Literary Corpus Attributed to Ephrem the Syrian: Prolegomena to a Project,” St. Nersess The- ological Review 1 (1996) 145-168. 1999 E.G. Mathews, Jr., “Armenian Hymn #9, On Marriage, by St. Ephrem the Syrian,” Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies 9 (1996, 1997 (1999)) 55-63. MATTOCK 1991 J.N. Mattock, “The Arabic Tradition: Origin and Develop- ments,” in REININK, 1991. Pp. 153-163. MCVEY 1989 K. McVey, Ephrem the Syrian Hymns. Classics of Western Spir- ituality. New York. MURRAY 1974 R. Murray, “The Exhortation to Candidates for Ascetical Vows at Baptism in the Ancient Syriac Church,” New Testament Stud- ies 21 (1974/1975) 59-80. 1975 R. Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom. A Study in Early Syriac Tradition. Cambridge. 1980 R. Murray, “St. Ephrem’s dialogue of Reason and Love (= Hymns on the Church, 9),” Sobornost/ECR 2 (1980) 26-40. 1989 R. Murray, “‘A Marriage for all Eternity’: The Consecration of a Syrian Bride of Christ,” Sobornost 11 (1989) 65-68. 1995 R. Murray, “Aramaic and Syriac Dispute-Poems and Their Con- nections,” in M.J. Geller, J.C. Greenfield, M.P. Weitzmann, eds., Studia Aramaica: New Sources and New Approaches. Journal of Semitic Studies, Supplement 4. Oxford, 1995. Pp. 157-187. 168 E. G. MATHEWS

NARSAI 1896 L. Feldmann, ed., Syrische Wechsellieder von Narses. Leipzig. PETERSEN 1985 W.L. Petersen, “The Dependence of Romanos the Melodist upon the Syriac Ephrem: Its Importance for the Origin of the Kon- takion,” Vigiliae Christianae 39 (1985) 171-187. REININK 1991 G.J. Reinink and H.L.J. Vanstiphout, eds., Dispute Poems and Dialogues in the Ancient and Mediaeval Near East. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 42. Louvain. 1991b G.J. Reinink, “Ein syrisches Streitgespräch zwischen Tod und Satan,” in REININK, 1991, pp. 135-152. REISS 1969 E. Reiss, “Conflict and its Resolution in Medieval Dialogues,” in Arts libéraux et philosophie au Moyen Age (actes du 4e con- grès international de philosophie médiévale). Montreal/Paris. Pp. 863-872. SCHMIDT 1991 P.G. Schmidt, “Der Rangstreit zwischen Mann und Frau im lateinischen Mittelalter. Mit einer Edition der ‘Altercatio inter virum et mulierem,” in REININK, 1991. Pp. 213-235. SELBACH 1886 L. Selbach, Das Streitgedicht in der altprovenzalischen Lyrik und sein Verhältniss zu ähnlichen Dichtungen anderer Littera- turen. Marburg. SOZOMEN 1960 J. Bidez and G.C. Hansen, eds., Sozomenus Kirchengeschichte. Grieschische Christliche Schriftsteller, n.f. Bd. 4. Berlin. STEINSCHNEIDER 1908 M. Steinschneider, “Rangstreit-Literatur,” in Sitzungsberichte der Königlichen Adademie zu Wien; Phil.-Hist. Klasse, 155. Vienna. Pp. 1-87. STIEFEL 1914 H. Stiefel, Die italienische Tenzonen des XIII. Jahrhunderts und ihr Verhältnis zur provenzalischen Tenzone (Romanistische Arbeiten V). Halle. TER-PETROSYAN 1978 L. Ter Petrosean, “Kc‘urdk‘ S. Ep‘remi Xorin Asorwoy (K‘nagrakan csgrtumner [Hymns of St. Ephrem the Syrian: Tex- tual Studies],” Handes Amsoreay 92 (1978) 15-48. 1992 L.H. Ter Petrosyan, Ancient Armenian Translations. New York. VAN BEKKUM 1991 W.J. van Bekkum, “Observations on the Hebrew Debate in Medieval Europe,” in REININK, 1991. Pp. 77-90. ARMENIAN DISPUTE HYMNS BETWEEN VIRGINITY AND CHASTITY 169

VAN DE TOORN 1991 K. van de Toorn, “The Ancient Near Eastern Literary Dialogue as a Vehicle of Critical Reflection,” in REININK, 1991, pp. 59-77. VANSTIPHOUT 1990 H.L.J. Vanstiphout, “The Mesopotamian Debate Poems. A Gen- eral Presentation: Part I,” Acta Sumerologica 12 (1990) 271-318. 1991 H.L.J. Vanstiphout, “Lore, Learning and Levity in the Sumerian Disputations: A Matter of Form, or Substance,” in REININK, 1991, pp. 23-46. 1992 H.L.J. Vanstiphout, “The Mesopotamian Debate Poems. A Gen- eral Presentation: Part II,” Acta Sumerologica 14 (1992) 339- 367. VOGELZANG 1991 M.E. Vogelzang, “Some Questions about the Akkadian Dis- putes,” in REININK, 1991, pp. 47-57. WAGNER 1962 E. Wagner, “Die arabische Rangstreitdichtung und ihre Einord- nung in die allgemeine Literaturgeschichte,” Akademie der Wis- senschaften und der Literatur in Mainz. Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 8 (1962) 437-476. WALTHER 1984 H. Walther, Das Streitgedicht in der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters (quellen und Untersuchungen zur lateinischen Philologie des Mittelalters V/2. Hildesheim. WERHAHN 1953 H.M. Werhahn, Gregorii Nazianzeni SUGKRISIS BIWN. Wies- baden. WIDDING 1959 O. Widding and H. Bekker-Nielsen, “A Debate of the Body and the Soul in Old Norse Literature,” Mediaeval Studies 21 (1959) 272-289.