Sharing Myths, Texts and Sanctuaries in the South Caucasus: Apocryphal Themes in Literatures, Arts and Cults from Late Antiquity to the Middle Ages 9789042947146, 9042947144

Table of contents :
Cover
Title Page
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Abbreviations
Notes on Contributors
Preface
Introduction
I. The Holy Cross of Aparank‛
II. Beyond the Canon
III. The Old Georgian Version of the Miracle of St George, the Princess and the Dragon
IV. Through the Eyes of Armaz
V. The Protevangelium of James in Georgian
VI. The Tradition and The Cult of Saint Stephen in Armenia
VII. A Possible History
VIII. Saint Thecla
IX. The Admonitory Exhortations of Dawit̔ of Ganjak (†1140)
X. Note on the Sanctuaries Shared by Yezidis and Armenians in the Armenian Highlands
XI. The Wall of Iskandar in the Medieval Muslim Tradition in the East Caucasus
XII. Apocryphes et partage
Postscript
Select Prosopographical Index

Citation preview

Sharing Myths, Texts and Sanctuaries in the South Caucasus Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha (19)

Apocryphal Themes in Literatures, Arts and Cults from Late ­Antiquity to the Middle Ages IGOR DORFMANN-LAZAREV (ed.)

PEETERS

Sharing Myths, Texts and Sanctuaries in the South ­Caucasus: Apocryphal Themes in Literatures, Arts and Cults from Late Antiquity to the Middle Ages

Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha Edited by J.N. Bremmer (editor-in-chief), J.E. Spittler and T. Nicklas Advisory Board: I. Czachesz, P. Duncan, M. Pesthy, L. Roig Lanzillotta and L. Vuong Recent years have seen an increasing interest in so-called apocryphal literature by scholars in early Christianity, ancient history, the ancient novel and late antique/Byzantine literature. New editions and translations of the most important texts have already appeared or are being prepared. The editors of Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha welcome contributions, be they proceedings of conferences or monographs, on the early texts themselves, but also their reception in the literary and visual arts, hagiography included.  1. The Apocryphal Acts of John, J.N. Bremmer (ed.), Kampen 1996  2. The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla, J.N. Bremmer (ed.), Kampen 1996  3. The Apocryphal Acts of Peter: Magic, Miracles and Gnosticism, J.N. Bremmer (ed.), Leuven 1998  4. The Acts of John: a Two-stage Initiation into Johannine Gnosticism, P.J. Lalleman, Leuven 1998  5. The Apocryphal Acts of Andrew, J.N. Bremmer (ed.), Leuven 2000  6. The Apocryphal Acts of Thomas, J.N. Bremmer (ed.), Leuven 2001  7. The Apocalypse of Peter, J.N. Bremmer and I. Czachesz (eds.), Leuven 2003  8. Commission Narratives: A Comparative Study of the Canonical and Apocryphal Acts, I. Czachesz, Leuven 2007  9. The Visio Pauli and the Gnostic Apocalypse of Paul, J.N. Bremmer and I. Czachesz (eds.), Leuven 2007 10. The Pseudo-Clementines, J.N. Bremmer (ed.), Leuven 2010 11. The Ascension of Isaiah, J.N. Bremmer, T.R. Karmann and T. Nicklas (eds.), Leuven 2016 12. Thecla: Paul’s Disciple and Saint in the East and West, J.W. Barrier, J.N. Bremmer, T. Nicklas and A. Puig i Tàrrech (eds.), Leuven 2017 13. Figures of Ezra, J.N. Bremmer, V. Hirschberger and T. Nicklas (eds.), Leuven 2018 14. Ringen um Israel. Intertextuelle Perspektiven auf das 5. Buch Esra, V. Hirschberger, Leuven 2018 15. The Dormition and Assumption Apocrypha, S.J. Shoemaker, Leuven 2018 16. The Protevangelium of James, J.N. Bremmer, J.A. Doole, T.R. Karmann, T. Nicklas and Boris Repschinski (eds.), Leuven 2020 17. The Apostles Peter, Paul, John, Thomas and Philip with their Companions in Late Antiquity, T. Nicklas, J.E. Spittler, J.N. Bremmer (eds.), ­Leuven 2021 18. The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles in Armenian, V. Calzolari, forthcoming

Sharing Myths, Texts and Sanctuaries in the South Caucasus: Apocryphal Themes in Literatures, Arts and Cults from Late Antiquity to the Middle Ages IGOR DORFMANN-LAZAREV (ed.)

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT 2022

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. © 2022, Uitgeverij Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, 3000 Leuven ISBN 978-90-429-4714-6 eISBN 978-90-429-4715-3 D/2022/0602/47 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

Contents

List of Figures

vii

List of Abbreviations

xiii

Notes on Contributors

xv

Prefacexix Map of the Caucasus

xxi

Introduction1 I.

Abraham Terian, The Holy Cross of Aparank̔: The Making of a Legend and the Creation of Sacred Space as Narrated by Gregory of Narek13

II.

Lilit Mikayelyan, Beyond the Canon: Archaic and Polyethnic Traditions in the Sculpted Images of Fabulous Creatures in Armenia and Georgia (Tenth–Fourteenth Centuries)28

III. Kevin Tuite, The Old Georgian Version of the Miracle of St George, the Princess and the Dragon: Text, Commentary and Translation60 IV. Nicolas Preud’homme, Through the Eyes of Armaz – Pagan and Mazdean Traces in the Narratives About the Conversion of the Iberian King to Christian Faith95 V.

Jost Gippert, The Protevangelium of James in Georgian122

vi

contents

VI. Valentina Calzolari, The Tradition and the Cult of Saint Stephen in Armenia: A Preliminary Assessment167 VII. Irma Karaulashvili, A Possible History: the Abgar Legend in the Armenian National Context202 VIII. Zaruhi Hakobyan, Saint Thecla: the Iconographical Tradition and the Witnesses of Her Veneration in Early Medieval Armenia249 IX. Igor Dorfmann-Lazarev, The Admonitory Exhortations of Dawit̔ of Ganjak (†1140): The Armenian-Kurdish Contacts in the Kur Valley and the Birth of the Armenian Legal Tradition277 X. Tereza Amryan, Note on the Sanctuaries Shared by Yezidis and Armenians in the Armenian Highlands322 XI. Alikber K. Alikberov, The Wall of Iskandar in the Medieval Muslim Tradition in the East Caucasus331 XII. Jean-Pierre Mahé, Apocryphes et partage  : Inculturation des mythes et légendes bibliques parmi les nations du Caucase. Postface345 B. George Hewitt, Postscript354 Select prosopographical index

360

List of Figures1

Map – The South Caucasus in June, source: ‘Visible Earth’, NASA. The toponyms are indicated by the editor of the volume. II.1 – II.2 – II.3 – II.4 – II.5 – II.6 – II.7 –

II.8 – II.9 –

Church of the Holy Cross, Ałt̔amar, east façade, 915–921, Lake Van, historical Armenia, present-day Turkey, photo: H. Hawk Khatcherian. Protome of mouflon, church of the Holy Cross, Ałt̔amar, easte façade, photo: H.H. Khatcherian. Višap: stone stela, Karmir Sar, Mt Aragac, Armenia, second millennium BC, photo: A. Bobokhyan and P. Hnila. Ram-bird: church of the Holy Cross, Ałt̔amar, south façade, photo: the author of the paper. Cycle of the prophet Jonah: church of the Holy Cross, Ałt̔amar, south façade, photo: author. Senmurv: Sasanian silk fabric, seventh century, Victoria and Albert Museum, London, after: M. Cheibi, History of Persian Costume (Tehran, 2006) fig. 254. Annunciation: Marṭvili cathedral, east façade, tenth century, Georgia, after: N. Aladašvili, Монументальная скульптура Грузии: Фигурные рельефы V–ХI веков [Monumental Sculpture of Georgia. Figurative Reliefs of the 5th–11th Centuries] (Moscow, 1977) fig. 49. Senmurv-like fantastic creatures: church at Niḳorcminda, southern gallery, 1010–1014, Georgia, after: T. Dadiani et al., Medieval Georgian Sculpture (Tbilisi, 2017) fig. 433. Fantastic creatures carrying lion cubs: Xcisi, church of St John the Baptist, east façade, 1002, Georgia, after: T. Dadiani et al., Medieval Georgian Sculpture, fig. 450.

  The transliteration of Georgian in the List follows the norms of the Thesaurus Indogermanischer Text- und Sprachmaterialien (TITUS). 1

viii

list of figures

II.10 – Siren: church of the Holy Cross, Ałt̔amar, west fronton, photo: author. II.11 – Siren: the cathedral church of St John the Baptist, Ganjasar, south side of the drum, 1216–1238, Republic of Arc‛ax, photo: Z. Hakobyan. II.12 – Sphinx: church of the Holy Cross, Ałt̔amar, south façade, photo: author. II.13 – Sphinx: church at Vanstan, the front part of the bema, 1212–1227, Armenia, courtesy of RAA. II.14 – Double-bodied sphinx: church at Nor Varagavank‛, portal’s tile, 1224–1237, Armenia, courtesy of RAA. II.15 – Sphinx: the Ōrbēleans’ caravanserai, portal, 1332, Armenia, photo: author. II.16 – Sirens: church of St Gregory (Tigran Honenc‛), south façade, 1215, Ani, historical Armenia, present-day Turkey, photo: D. Grigoryan. II.17 – Siren: main church of the Makaravank‛ monastery, the front part of the bema, thirteenth century, Armenia, courtesy of RAA. II.18 – Snakes and a female face: church of Sts Paul and Peter, monastery of Tat‛ew, east façade, 895–906, Armenia, photo: author. II.19 – Dragons: church at Vanstan, lintel (lost), 1212–1227, Armenia, photo: A. K̔alant̔ar’s Archive, courtesy of RAA. II.20 – Dragons: church of St Gregory (Tigran Honenc‛), south façade, 1215, Ani, photo: D. Grigoryan. II.21 – Intertwined dragons: church at Vanstan, the front part of the bema, 1212–1227, Armenia, courtesy of RAA. IV.1 – IV.2 –

Censer in the shape of a temple surmounted by a pinecone, Zġuderi, ca 250 CE, Simon Janashia Georgian National Museum of Tbilisi, photo: the author of the paper. Figurine of a woman in prayer (2nd–3rd cc. CE), Mount Ḳarsnisxevi, Mcxeta, from: N. Vačeišvili et al. (eds), დიდი მცხეთის სახელმწიფო არქეოლოგიური მუზეუმნაკრძალი [The Great Mtskheta State Archaeological Museum-Reserve] (Tbilisi, 2010).

VIII.1 – Thecla and the Apostle Paul: the Ēǰmiacin cathedral, north façade, ca 400, Armenia, photo: Armen Kazaryan.



list of figuresix

VIII.2 – Thecla and the Apostle Paul: wall painting, the Peace Chapel, El-Bagawat, Egypt, 5th c. After M. Zibawi, L’oasi egiziana di Bagawat. Le pitture paleocristiane (Milan, 2005) 122–24, fig. 42. VIII.3 – Thecla and the Apostle Paul: ivory plaque, 5th c., British Museum. After K.Weitzmann (ed), Age of Spirituality. Late Antique and Early Christian Art, Third to Seventh Century (New York, 1979) 507–508. VIII.4 – Thecla among beasts: limestone roundel, Oxyrhyncus (?), 5th c., Nelson-Atkins Museum, Kansas City. Website: https://nelson-atkins.org/collection/ancient/ VIII.5 – Thecla among beasts: ampulla, Palestine, 7th c., Louvre. After A. Semoglou, Η Θέκλα στην αυγή του Χριστιανισμού: εικονογραφική μελέτη της πρώτης γυναίκας μάρτυρα στην τέχνη της Υστερης Αρχαιότητας [Thècle à l’aube du christianisme. Une étude iconographique de la première femme martyre dans l’art de l’Antiquité tardive] (Thessaloniki, 2014) fig. 37b. VIII.6 – Thecla among lions and Daniel in the den of lions: twosided wooden comb, Panopolis (Achmim), 5th–6th cc., Bode Museum, Berlin. After Semoglou, Thècle à l’aube du christianisme, fig. 19. VIII.7 – Thecla among lions: a fragment of stela from Avan [Awan], Armenia, 7th c., photo: Grigor Grigoryan. VIII.8 – Daniel in the den of lions (?): a fragment of stela from Ełvard [Ełuard], Armenia, 7th c., photo: G. Grigoryan. VIII.9 – Daniel in the den of lions: a fragment of stela from Haṙič, Armenia, 7th c., Museum of the History of Armenia, photo: the author of the paper. VIII.10 – Thecla among lions: a fragment of stela from Mak‛eneac‛ vank‛, Armenia, 7th c. After J. M. Thierry and P. Donabédian, Les Arts Arméniens (Paris, 1987) figs. 192, 194. VIII.11 – Thecla among lions: a fragment of stela from Keč‛ror, historical Armenia, present-day Turkey, 7th c., courtesy of RAA. VIII.12 – Thecla among lions: a fragment of relief from Erznka/ Erzincan (lost), historical Armenia, present-day Turkey, 7th c. After B. Aṙak‛elyan, Հայկական պատկերաքանդակները IV–VII դդ. [Armenian Sculpted Images from the 4th to the 7th Century] (Yerevan, 1949) 48.

x

list of figures

VIII.13 – Thecla among lions: Coptic relief, 5th c., Brooklyn Museum, New York. After J. Beckwith, Coptic Sculpture, 300–1300 (London, 1963) fig. 121. VIII.14 – Thecla among lions: Syriac relief, 6th c., Damascus Museum. After M. Zibawi, Orients chrétiens entre Byzance et l’Islam (Milan, 1995) ill. 24, pl. 20. VIII.15 – Daniel in the den of lions: wooden console beam, Bawit, Egypt, 6th c., Bode Museum, Berlin. After Beckwith, Coptic Sculpture, fig. 45. VIII.16 – Daniel in the den of lions: church of the Holy Cross, Ałt‛amar, north façade, photo: Astłik Maxsudyan. VIII.17 – Daniel in the den of lions, or Thecla among lions: a relief of the arcosolium, the mausoleum of the Aršakuni kings, Ałc‛k‛, Armenia, 5th c., photo: A. Maxsudyan. VIII.18 – Thecla with a lioness: a fragment of stela from Mastara (lost), Armenia, 7th c., archive photo. After G. Grigoryan, Հայաստանի վաղ միջնադարյան քառանիստ կոթողները [Early Medieval Four-Sided Stelae in Armenia] (Yerevan, 2012) fig. 146 (1). VIII. 19 – Thecla with a lioness: a fragment of stela from Zeda Ṭmogvi, Ǯavaxeti, Georgia, 7th c. After N. Tschubinaschwili, Хандиси [Xandisi] (Tbilisi, 1972) ill. 79. VIII.20 – Daniel in the den of lions (?) and the Apostle Paul, Thecla and Theoklia: a fragment of stela from Brdajor/Brdaʒori, Kvemo Kartli, Georgia, 7th c., Museum of Georgian Art, Tbilisi, photo: Patrick Donabédian. VIII.21 – The Apostle Paul, Thecla and Theoklia: wall painting, grotto of St Paul, Ephesus, 5th–6th cc. After N. Zimmermann, ‘Die spätantike und byzantinische Malerei in Ephesos’, in Byzanz – das Römerreich im Mittelalter (Mainz, 2010) 644, ill. 25. VIII.22 – Thecla among lions: relief above the entrance of the fortress, Çem kalesi, Kaderli, Turkey, photo: H.H. Xacherian. IX.1 –

‘District of Ganjak’: map drawn by Vardan Mirzoyeanc‛, Tiflis 1899 (60 x 45 cm; scale 1: 500 000). Reproduced in Rouben Galichian, History of Armenian Cartography Up to the Year 1918 (London/Yerevan, 2017) 85. The ancient sites are indicated in transcription by the author of the paper.



list of figuresxi

IX.2 –

The crag with the fortress P‛aṙisos watched from the east; photograph taken by late Samvel Karapetyan (ca 1980) and used with kind permission. IX.3 – The fortress P‛aṙisos seen from the north-west; photo: S. Karapetyan (ca 1980), used with permission. IX.4 – Baku, the Inner City: a seventeenth-century Armenian church with the adjacent caravanserai; photo: Geçmişten Günümüze Ermeniler. IX.5 – Baku, the Inner City: the Armenian church destroyed (2020); photo: Geçmişten Günümüze Ermeniler. XI.1 –

The construction of a rampart by the righteous ‘Two-Horned’ and jinns helping the Muslims: illustration in the ‘Book of Presages’ (Fāl-nāma); manuscript executed at the order of the Safavid shah Ṭahmāsp I (d. 1576). Chester Beatty Library, Dublin, used with kind permission.

Postscript.1 – Hunter’s home, Svaneti, from: Douglas Freshfield, Exploration of the Caucasus vol. 1 (1896; 19022), 237. Postscript.2 – Ačandara shrine in N.W. Abkhazia, the guardian Zaur Chychba preparing to deliver his customary address (2015), photo: the author of the paper. Postscript.3 – Ačandara shrine, the guardian Zaur Chychba delivering his customary address (2015), photo: author.

List of Abbreviations

AB BHG BHL BHO CANT CPG DA DOP HE PO RAA RÉArm

Analecta Bollandiana Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina Bibliotheca Hagiographica Orientalis Clavis Apocryphorum Novi Testamenti Clavis Patrum Graecorum Doctina Addai Dumbarton Oaks Papers Historia Ecclesiastica of Eusebius Patrologia Orientalis Research on Armenian Architecture Revue des Études Arméniennes

Notes on Contributors

Alikber K. Alikberov directs the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow. Born in 1964 in the village of Kug, Dagestan, he graduated in 1986 from the Dagestan State University, studied at the graduate school of Leningrad State University and the St Petersburg branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies (1987–1991). His academic interests encompass the study of Arabic historiography of the seventh–fourteen centuries, Medieval Arabic epigraphy, the studies of mediæval Islam and Caucasian Studies. He is the author of over 120 published works amongst which is The Era of Classical Islam in the Caucasus (in Russian), Moscow, 2003. Tereza Amryan teaches Persian and Kurdish (Kurmanji) at the Department of Iranian Studies, Yerevan State University. She is currently elaborating a textbook of this extremely rarely taught language. In 2014 Amryan defended her PhD thesis on the Yezidi religious world outlook. She has published on Sufi elements and on the role of women in the Yezidi religious world. In 2015–2019 she conducted anthropological field research on sectarian proselytising activities among Armenia’s Yezidis and has published the results of her work. She is now planning to study ancient Armeno-Persian manuscripts in the Matenadaran. Valentina Calzolari teaches Armenian Studies in the Univerity of Geneva and is a corresponding member of the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. After completing her studies of Classics in the University of Bologna and of the history of Christianity in the University of Lausanne, she received her PhD in Armenian Studies at the Catholic University of Milan. Since 1993 she is the speaker of the Centre de recherches arménologiques of the University of Geneva. Amongst her numerous publications are three monographs on Armenian apocrypha: Les apôtres Thaddée et Barthélemy. Aux origines du christianisme arménien (Brepols, 2011); Acta Pauli et Theclae, Prodigia Theclae, Martyrium Pauli (Brepols, 2017); The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles in Armenian (Peeters, in print).

xvi

notes on contributors

Igor Dorfmann-Lazarev, PhD (2002) and Habilitation (2009) at ÉPHÉ – Sorbonne, teaches Armenian language and history in the University of Aix-en-Provence. He is interested in the interaction of religions across pre-modern Eurasia. In his recent publications he has focused on the role of apocrypha in the shaping of the idea of kingship in mediæval Armenia, as expressed in texts and visual arts. He is the author of Christ in Armenian Tradition: Doctrine, Apocrypha, Art (Sixth–Tenth Centuries) (Peeters 2016) and the editor of Apocryphal and Esoteric Sources in the Development of Christianity and Judaism: The Eastern Mediterranean, the Near East, and Beyond (Brill 2021). Jost Gippert studied Comparative Linguistics in Marburg and Berlin (Freie Universität). He earned the degree of Philosophical Doctor in 1977 with a thesis on the infinitive syntax of Indo-European languages; and the Habilitation in 1991 with a study on Iranian loanwords in Armenian and Georgian. Since 1994 he was the chair of Comparative Linguistics at Goethe University Frankfurt, and is at present a visiting Professor at Hamburg University. In 1987 Gippert founded, and has since directed, the TITUS project. He was also the speaker of the research units ‘Digital Humanities Hesse’ (2011–2014) and ‘CEDIFOR’ (2015– 2019). He has conducted extensive studies on Caucasian languages and textual sources in Georgian, Armenian and Caucasian-Albanian. Zaruhi A. Hakobyan teaches Art History in Yerevan State University, at the UNESCO Chair of the History and Theory of Armenian Art. Her research is concerned with medieval Armenian painting and sculpture and with Armenian-Byzantine and Armenian-Georgian contacts in art. Her latest papers are devoted to the Armenian mosaics of Jerusalem, to the genesis of tetrahedral stelae and memorial columns in early medieval Armenia and to the confessional aspect of the frescoes in the church of St Gregory in Ani (the famous church of Tigran Honenc̔ ). She is currently working on a monograph that investigates the seventh-century Armenian sculpture. Brian George Hewitt, born in 1949, MA, PhD (Cantab), FBA 1997–. Professor of Caucasian Languages, SOAS, London University, 1996– 2015. Member Board of Management of the Wardrop Fund 1983–. First President of the Societas Caucasologica Europaea 1986–88 & 1988–90. Honorary Member of the International Circassian Academy of Sciences 1997–. Honorary Fellow of the Abkhazian Academy of



notes on contributorsxvii

Sciences 1997. Honorary Professor of the Abkhazian State University 1998–. Author of articles and books on Georgian and Abkhaz linguistics and of works on the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict, e.g. Discordant Neighbours. A Reassessment of the Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-South Ossetian Conflicts, 2013. Most recently edited ­Ab­khaz translations of the Gospels and a Children’s Bible. Irma Karaulashvili teaches the history of Christianity at the Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Ilia State University of Tbilisi, Georgia. She started her research career at Central European University in Budapest with studies on various versions of the Abgar Legend. Presently her research is mainly focused on the relationships of ancient Georgian and Armenian narrative sources to the Eastern Christian literature. She has conducted her research at the Institute for Hellenic Studies of Princeton University, at École Pratique des Hautes Études in Paris, at the Oxford School of Global Area Studies in Oxford University and at Paul Valéry University of Montpellier. Her publications include studies on the Abgar Legend and on the Armenian and Georgian narratives of the Christianisation of the South Caucasus. Jean-Pierre Mahé, born in 1944, member of the Institut de France since 2001, has since long nourished interest in myths, legends, ­apocrypha, accounts, enigmas and proverbs of the Christian East. Amongst his numerous publications are: La Caverne des trésors (version géorgienne), CSCO 527, Leuven (Peeters) 1992; La Sagesse de Balahvar, une vie christianisée du Bouddha, Paris (Gallimard) 1993; Écrits gnostiques. La Bibliothèque de Nag Hammadi, Paris (­Gallimard, Bibliothèque de la Pléiade) 2007; Hermès Trismégiste, tome V. Paralipomènes (grec, copte, arménien), collection des Universités de France, série grecque, Paris (Les Belles Lettres) 2019. He is currently analysing the Sinai manuscripts relating to the conversion of Georgia. Lilit Mikayelyan teaches Art History in Yerevan State University at the UNESCO Chair of History and Theory of Armenian Art. In here publications she investigates early medieval Armenian art, in particular in connection with the artistic traditions of Sasanian Iran and Islamic world. She is now completing her PhD thesis which takes into examination the indebtedness of Armenian sculpture of the fourth-tenth centuries to Sasanian figurative models. Her recent articles analyse animal images in Armenia, and especially the images of fantastic animals.

xviii

notes on contributors

Nicolas Preud’homme is a historian, a former pupil of the École Normale Supérieure of Lyon and a graduate of the National Institute of Oriental Languages and Civilisations (INALCO) in Paris. In 2019 he received his PhD degree in the Sorbonne, Paris. His thesis takes into examination the figures of kings and the idea of kingship in ancient Caucasian Iberia. His recent publications are concerned with Iberian epigraphy and the political and religious changes that affected the South Caucasus during Late Antiquity. Another field of his research regards the eighteenth-century French sources on Iran. Abraham Terian is Professor Emeritus of Armenian Theology and Patristics at St. Nersess Armenian Seminary, New York, before which he was for twenty years Professor of Inter-testamental and Early Christian Literatures at Andrews University, Michigan. He has published extensively on Hellenistic, early Christian and Armenian theological literature. His most recent publications include: From the Depths of the Heart: Annotated Translation of the Prayers of St. Gregory of Narek (2021); Moralia et Ascetica Armeniaca: The ‘Oft-Repeated Discourses’ (Yačaxapatum Čaṙk̔), (The Fathers of the Church; 143) (2021); and The Life of Mashtotsՙ by His Disciple Koriwn (translation, introduction and commentary) (forthcoming). Kevin Tuite teaches anthropology at the Université de Montréal. He has been conducting ethnological and linguistic fieldwork in Georgia since 1985, when Georgia was still a Soviet republic. His recent publications include Sacred Places, Emerging Spaces: Pilgrims, Saints and Scholars in the Caucasus (edited with Tsypylma Darieva and Florian Mühlfried, 2018) and On the Origin of Kartvelian Version (2021). His current research interests include a four-year project on vernacular religion in Soviet Georgia (funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada), and a grammar of the Svan language.

Preface

This book has its origin in the international conference ‘Sharing Myths, Texts and Sanctuaries in the South Caucasus: Apocryphal Themes in Literatures, Arts and Cults from Late Antiquity to the Middle Ages’ which was convened in February 2020 at the Centre for Advanced Studies ‘Beyond Canon’, Universität Regensburg. The same Centre of Studies also generously funded the conference. The rich exchange of ideas that took place between the participants at our reunion owes much to that rare intellectual atmosphere which has been created in the Centre by its directors, the Professors Tobias Nicklas, Andreas Merkt and Harald Buchinger, as well as their colleagues. I would like to express my especial gratitude to Dr Stephanie Hallinger, the Academic Coordinator of the Centre, for her help in the organisation of this event. The conference assembled scholars coming from numerous nations, and it would have been difficult to put this book together— edited in English almost in its entirety—had we not received the precious stylistic advice from Dr Peter Phillips (SOAS, University of London). Dr Phillips has generously revised all the papers providing important comments to each. I thank him for his inexhaustible interest in matters apocryphal and for his unfailing help. I should also like to record the precious advice offered me by Professor Charles Lock (University of Copenhagen) and Professor George Hewitt (SOAS, University of London). I am most grateful to Professor Jan Bremmer (University of Groningen), the editor of the series Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha, for his critical comments on the first draft of the present volume. I am indebted very much to Mrs Charlotte von Schelling from the Centre ‘Beyond Canon’, who has never spared her energy in offering me invaluable technical assistance with the layout of the volume. I thank my children, Suren and Agata, for their ideas and their patient help in elaborating the map of the Caucasus. Igor Dorfmann-Lazarev

Simignano, July 2021

Map – The South Caucasus in June, source: ‘Visible Earth’, NASA. The toponyms are indicated by the editor of the volume.

Introduction

By the South Caucasus we imply the vast region that stretches from the Black Sea in the west to the Caspian Sea in the east and that, from the southern slopes of the Greater Caucasus, extends southwards towards Lake Van. At its centre rises Mount Ararat which in mythology, in Biblical exegesis, in popular etymology, in the shaping of sacred space and in visual arts has, since antiquity, been associated with the universal flood and with the resting site of Noah’s ark. Over millennia, numerous peoples that have inhabited the South Caucasus have preserved, or have gradually acquired, profound cultural affinities. This region may thus even be regarded as an organic cultural space. In order to investigate the ties uniting different Caucasian peoples, our book focuses on three ancient Christian cultures of the region, Armenian, Caucasian Albanian and Georgian, without forgetting, however, about the relations of the Biblical religious world with Islam and Yezidism, also enrooted in the Caucasus. It can hardly be overstated that the Christianisation of these three South-Caucasian peoples was deeply entangled. Without taking into consideration the enduring contacts existing between them one cannot account, for example, for the almost simultaneous rise of their literatures at the beginning of the fifth century. Furthermore, only a synoptic approach to their cultures, and to the region as a whole, can enable us to explain some of the most remarkable developments in the South-­Caucasian artistic traditions, such as the simultaneous shaping across the entire region, between the end of the sixth and first half of the seventh century, of the famous style in church architecture known as ‘cross-­octagon’. Although the South Caucasian languages have diverse, and sometimes very remote origins, they are often close phonetically and share numerous roots, lexemes, syntactical structures and phraseology. The Caucasian peoples’ oral traditions, rites, poetry and visual arts often resort to common images and symbols, although diverging in numerous important nuances which frequently elude the external observer. Attempts to account for this shared cultural repository, and for its numberless regional and national shades, have seldom been ­undertaken.

2

introduction

In order to take a few steps in this direction and to allow for a comprehensive approach to the South Caucasus—and especially for the sake of transcending formal religious boundaries dividing the South Caucasian nations—as our starting point we have chosen apocryphal and mythological themes in texts, in worship and in visual arts. In the Christian East, and notably in Armenia and in Georgia, the boundaries of the Biblical Canon have never been as precise as in the Latin West, and Biblical codices often included texts which in the West were rejected and forgotten. Apocrypha thus became an important medium of cultural transmission far beyond the perimeters of Churches’ normative traditions. The references to national heroes and to mythological and sacred topography present in apocrypha make this literature a particularly convenient lens through which to observe cultural interaction and blending. Divergent versions of the same legends and hagiographic accounts have been preserved in Armenian, in Georgian and in other languages of the South Caucasus; Christian sanctuaries have been attended and venerated in different ways by Muslims or Yezidis. Numerous apocryphal texts have enjoyed high popularity for centuries; some versions of their accounts were transmitted orally in local dialects even until the early modern period. Most of these sources, written or oral, have never been verified by any formal authority; consequently, the beliefs and the ideas that they convey, while preserving faithfully certain original elements, sometimes underwent important regional transformations between their first introduction into the South Caucasus during Late Antiquity and early modern times. A number of apocryphal motifs in texts and in visual arts reflect ancient myths shared by peoples belonging to different religious traditions; other apocryphal motifs were transmitted from Christianity to Islam. Therefore, whilst focusing on Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, we shall incidentally extend our enquiry to later times in order to apprehend the amplitude of the religious and anthropological phenomena to which apocryphal sources give voice. Apocryphal traditions allow us not only to study the endurance of various motifs in time, but also to build bridges across linguistic, religious and territorial divides of the South Caucasus. Such bridges are indispensable for giving a comprehensive account of the life of its inhabitants. Indeed, from remote antiquity and until recent times the South Caucasus was characterised by a highly discontinuous settlement of diverse ethnic, linguistic and religious groups across its expanses. Such territorial disruptions were further accentuated by the Islamic



introduction3

c­ olonisation of the region that began towards the end of the seventh century. Zoroastrians, Christians and Muslims; Abkhazians, Armenians, Caucasian Albanians, Georgians, Kurds and Turkic peoples lived in close proximity to each other and to multiple, numerically smaller, peoples of the Caucasian highlands. With a remarkable steadiness, various peoples occupied adjacent defiles or even inhabited diverse climatic zones within a single valley, as well as building neighbouring quarters in towns and cities. They often venerated the same holy places and paid homage to the same holy men. Multilingualism, close familiarity with the neighbours’ traditions and the ability to negotiate with those neighbours were essential features of the South Caucasians. Today, however, this region is intersected by multiple state borders, some of which remain permanently closed. Over the last thirty years the number of militarised borders has risen. They divide nations that during the twentieth century largely lost their multi-ethnic and multilingual ­character. As a consequence, autarkic and nationalist perspectives on philology and historiography have often prevailed in the national schools. Sometimes, the autarkic historiographical traditions shaped during the Soviet period are even put at the service of military conquests and of ethnic and cultural cleansing, of which we were reminded seven months after our conference in Regensburg: in the course of the war unleashed against Artsakh (Nagornyj Karabakh) and Armenia on Sunday 27 September, 2020, civilian populations were bombed, elderly refugees hiding in woods were attacked from the air with chemical weapons and Armenian monuments were destroyed. In the West, as in a mirror, neighbouring cultures of the South Caucasus have often been treated independently from each other. The political and cultural history of the Soviet Union, Turkey and Europe during the twentieth century still impinges on our perception of the South Caucasus and Anatolia. In 1968, Claude Cahen (1909–1991) was discussing the scholarship of Turkey during the pre-Mongol period in these terms: To a mind accustomed to the totalitarian mental categories of the twentieth century it is somewhat difficult to conceive how, in Asia Minor in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the convictions and behaviour of ghāzīs [i.e. fighters against the infidels] could co-exist with a religious tolerance superior to anything found elsewhere in Islam.1   The first edition of this seminal work was published in the English translation of J. Jones-Williams: C. Cahen, Pre-Ottoman Turkey. A general survey of the material and spiritual culture and history c. 1071–1330 (New 1

4

introduction

The imprint left on scholarship by the past century also distorts our comprehension of other instances of contact between diverse cultures of the region. A true advance in the study of the South Caucasus and Anatolia, which would even make possible a change of historiographical paradigms, can only be achieved if the extant compartmentalisation of the exploration of this region is overcome. We hope that our scholarly undertaking may help to establish a closer cooperation between the academic worlds of South-Caucasian nations and, thus, also to contribute to their mutual understanding. Mindful of the South Caucasian countries’ debt to the Aramaic- and Syriac-speaking Mesopotamia and its venerable cultural centres, as well as their links to the Holy Land, to its sanctuaries, monastic tradition, scriptoria and liturgical celebrations, ancient and mediæval Armenian and Georgian writers referred to Armenia, Georgia and Caucasian Albania as ‘The Northern countries’. And so, we begin with two papers focusing on the south of these countries, i.e. the region of Lake Van which was the closest to the ancient hearths of Syriac Christianity. One of the most important gateways from Caucasus to Mesopotamia and to the Holy Land crossed a mountain pass west of the lake. Thence we shall proceed northwards, to the chain of the Greater Caucasus, then eastwards, to the pre-Caspian lowlands, in order to conclude in Derbent, i.e. ‘The Barred Gate’, one of the few passes allowing a traveller, or an invader, to cross the Greater Caucasus from the north. The Postscript will allow us to catch a glimpse of the extreme north-west of the region, i.e. Abkhazia in Georgia. Abraham Terian, in his article ‘The Holy Cross of Aparankʽ: The Making of a Legend and the Creation of Sacred Space as Narrated by Gregory of Narek’, analyses the historical encomium written by the Armenian mystical poet Gregory of Narek (ca 945–1003). Gregory tells a story about a relic of the True Cross, which was brought from Constantinople to Aparank̔ south of Lake Van. The poet’s detailed description of the reliquary allows Terian to observe the similarity existing between this reliquary and the golden and enamelled cross with a relic of the Cross which was presented in the late ninth or early tenth century York, 1968) 203 (Part Three: Society and Institutions in Turkey Before the Mongols; 5. The Non-Muslims); the expanded French edition was published and printed twenty years later in Turkey: C. Cahen, La Turquie pré-ottomane (Istanbul, 1988) 163.



introduction5

by an imperial envoy to the metropolitan of Marṭvili in Mingrelia (Western Georgia),2 a member of the Georgian branch of the Bagratuni/ Bagraṭioni dynasty, and kept in the monastery of Marṭvili. This relic shows that in spite of the schism that had divided the Armenian and the Georgian Churches since the beginning of the seventh century, an analogous perception of sacred objects persisted in the two countries for centuries. Lilit Mikayelyan’s reflection has its departure point in the region of Lake Van, in the church of the Holy Cross built on the islet of Ałt̔amar (915–921). In her paper ‘Beyond the Canon: Archaic and Poly­ethnic Traditions in the Sculpted Images of Fabulous Creatures in Armenia and Georgia (Tenth–Fourteenth Centuries)’, she analyses the semantics of fabulous animals in the mediæval iconography of the South Caucasus. Sculpted on the outer walls of numerous churches, such animals represent, according to Mikayelyan, an artistic phenomenon of pan-Caucasian dimension, acquiring a particular prominence in the South Caucasus in the tenth century. The author lingers over the church of Niḳorcminda (1010–1014) in Western Georgia where, rather exceptionally, the names of fantastic animals are inscribed, thus providing us with keys for interpreting their analogous representations not only in Georgia but also in Armenia. According to Mikayelyan, these creatures mark the boundary of the celestial sphere embodied by the sanctuary, representing at the same time its guardians. The reliefs on the outer walls of the South Caucasian churches can be understood against the background of the artistic tradition, vivid both in Armenia and in Georgia from the fifth century, of placing sculpted animal heads on the walls of shrines. Mikayelyan contends that this tradition has its roots in the pre-Christian custom of preserving and displaying the heads of sacrificial animals and hunting trophies by attaching them to the walls of shrines and secular buildings. The web of associations observed by the authors of these two papers thus take us north: it is on Georgia, therefore, that the next three contributions focus. Kevin Tuite, in his study ‘The Old Georgian Version of the Miracle of St George, the Princess and the Dragon: Text, Commentary and Translation’, investigates hagiographic   Here and elsewhere in the Introduction, the transliteration of Georgian follows the norms of the Thesaurus Indogermanischer Text- und Sprachmaterialien (TITUS). 2

6

introduction

t­raditions concerning Saint George. This saint was a prominent figure across the entire South Caucasus, and Tuite notices that the iconographic pattern of a rider directing his spear at a figure with human appearance is common to a relief at Ałt̔amar and, more than five hundred kilometres to the north, to the tenth–twelfth centuries iconography of churches in Upper Svaneti, a region approaching the summits of the Greater Caucasus. Although the name ‘Georgia’ is etymologically unrelated to the saint’s name, his figure has enjoyed exceptional popularity in that country, being especially venerated there as the patron saint of the military aristocracy. It is in St George’s honour that the Svans raise the third cup, following the toasts drunk in honour of God and the head of the heavenly hosts. Over the centuries, miracle narratives have accreted to the St George cycle. One of the most famous miracles, painted and sculpted numerous times in various part of Christendom, recounts George saving the daughter of a pagan king, who is about to be devoured by a dragon. It is an eleventh-century Georgian manuscript that preserves for us the oldest known attestation of the story known all over the world. This manuscript had once belonged to the monastery of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem, which for centuries was a major site of Georgian monasticism and scribal activity. This recension recounts two miracles, ‘The Princess and the Dragon’ and ‘The Overcoming of the Demon’, the only two miracles relating to St George’s lifetime. Tuite presents the editions of the miracle narratives that rely mainly on that ancient manuscript. Nicolas Preud’homme, in his study ‘Through the Eyes of Armaz – Pagan and Mazdean Traces in the Narratives About the Conversion of the Iberian King to Christian Faith’, analyses references to ancient ancestral cults and to Mazdaism in the accounts of Georgia’s conversion to Christianity. He shows that the evocation of trees, gardens, precious gems, as well as a saint’s power over the natural elements, represent references to the pre-Christian religious world of Georgia. A ninth-century Georgian chronicler, in order to demonstrate the victory of Christianity over Mazdaism at a time when this religion had long since died out in the South Caucasus, suggests the depth of the mark left by that ancient tradition on Georgian culture. Jost Gippert, in his study ‘The Protevangelium of James in Georgian’, analyses Georgian recensions of the Protevangelium of James. Amongst numerous features characterising this linguistic tradition of the Protevangelium, Gippert stresses the peculiarity of the



introduction7

recension preserved in a manuscript of the last quarter of the tenth century, which admittedly stems from Mt Olympus in Bithynia. The author notices that a part of the title of the work has been erased, and notably the phrase ‘from the secret (or hidden) mysteries’. This indicates that the text was considered apocryphal already in the late tenth century. Some of the singular features of this recension have parallels in the tenth-century hymnography springing from the region of ṬaoḲlarǯeti, the Armenian-Georgian marchlands lying south-east of the Pontic mountains. Some of these features are also shared by an Armenian recension of the Protevangelium. This allows Gippert to hypothesise that both were shaped in that western region which, besides, knew intense interactions between Georgian and Armenian theologians in the ninth and the tenth centuries. These contributions on Georgian hagiography are followed by three studies analysing early Armenian hagiographical traditions in text and in figurative arts. Valentina Calzolari, in her article ‘The Tradition and the Cult of Saint Stephen in Armenia: A Preliminary Assessment’, takes into examination an unedited Armenian account of the martyrdom of Saint Stephen. Diverse Armenian recensions of the Greek Lectionary of Jerusalem, witnessing the stationary liturgy celebrated in Jerusalem in the middle of the fifth century, when juxtaposed with other sources, and especially with the fifth-century Georgian Lectionary, allow us to reconstruct the development of the saint’s cult in the Holy City. Calzolari’s analysis of the Armenian reception of Stephen’s martyrdom enables her to investigate the reception of the hagiography of Stephen by Armenian authors and in Armenian figurative arts. One of the crucial instances of the imprint left by Stephen’s martyrdom on the shaping of the Armenians’ cultural consciousness can be found in Ełišē writing in the fifth or sixth century. Recounting the Armenians’ resistance against the imposition of Zoroastrianism by the Sassanid king Yazdegerd II in the middle of the fifth century, Ełišē evokes the figure of Saint Stephen: during the last night, spent in vigil and prayer, six Armenian prisoners, who would be put to death, heard a voice from on high, which encouraged them to resist as martyrs. The author concludes his exhortation with a reference to the protomartyr, being confident that the Armenian prisoners’ deaths will render them ‘partakers of ­Stephen’s crown’. Irma Karaulashvili, in her study ‘A Possible History: the Abgar Legend in the Armenian National Context’, discusses the legend of

8

introduction

the king of Edessa, Abgar, Jesus’s correspondent according to the tradition and the first heathen king to embrace Christianity. Apart from the Syriac and Greek versions, the Armenian recension of this legend is its most important rendition. It is, furthermore, the earliest evidence of the legend’s various transformations on national grounds, which we also encounter in its Georgian transmission. In Georgia— Karaulashvili explains—the legend was chiefly construed as the story of Christ’s image which is not made by human hands and which, upon reaching Georgia, grants a special benevolence and divine protection to its king. In the Armenian adaptation, Abgar is made the king not only of the Syrians but also of the Armenians. This may be related to the fact that during late antiquity Edessa and Osrhoene indeed had significant Armenian populations. According to Karaulashvili, the main concern of both the Armenian version of the Acts of Thaddaeus and the Epic Stories ascribed to P̔awstos Buzand is the apostolicity of the Armenian Church. As for Moses of Khoren’s History (which draws on a fifth-century source and which must have acquired its final form in the first half of the eighth century CE), it was the concept of the first Christian ruler chosen by God that defined his recourse to the Abgar legend. Zaruhi Hakobyan, in her study ‘Saint Thecla: the Iconographical Tradition and the Witnesses of her Veneration in Early Medieval Armenia’, analyses the early pictorial witnesses of the veneration of the saint in Armenia. Her iconography relies on the second-century Acts of Paul and Thecla. This apocryphon was one of the earliest texts to be translated into Armenian from Syriac in the first half of the fifth century. On the territory of historical Armenia, Hakobyan identifies numerous depictions of an orant figure on stelae datable to the sixth–­ seventh centuries—as far southwest as Erznka in the western bow of the Euphrates and as far northeast as Mak̔enis south-east of Lake Sewan—in which St Thecla may be recognised. Moreover, similar stelae are also known from southern Georgia, and especially from the territory of the ancient Armenian province of Gugark̔. This spread may reflect the role played by the saint’s image in the formation of hagiographical cycles of the first female saints of Armenia, venerated throughout the South Caucasus, and especially Hṙip̔simē and Sanduxt. Looking at the map of the South Caucasus, we can perceive a distinct geographical divide between the easternmost spurs of the Lesser



introduction9

­ aucasus, known in mediæval Armenian historiography as The EastC ern Regions, and the lowlands thence stretching eastwards to the Caspian shore. Unlike the mountainous Armenia and Georgia, these lowlands, where the heart of Caucasian Albania had once lain, were largely Islamised by the eighth century. This divide has until today remained an important cultural frontier. From the first half of the tenth century, this flat country was colonised by the Kurds who were reaching it from their original homeland south-east of Lake Van via the neighbouring Ād͟harbāyd͟jān (south of the river Araxes). Whilst nominally Muslim, the Kurdish population of the Kur valley maintained syncretic religious practices, which created numerous occasions of exchange with the local Christians. These contacts even became a paradigm of the relationships between Christians and Muslims in Eastern Caucasus during the subsequent centuries. Igor Dorfmann-Lazarev, in his study ‘The Admonitory Exhortations of Dawit̔ of Ganjak (†1140): The Armenian-Kurdish Contacts in the Kur Valley and the Birth of the Armenian Legal Tradition’, examines a learned cleric’s reaction to the assimilation of Armenians in a city governed by Islam in the first half of the twelfth century. By absorbing in their midst numerous Caucasian Albanians and the Armenians inhabiting the former Albania, the Kurds inherited from them rudiments of Christian rites, pious practices and the attendance of Christian sanctuaries. Consequently, they were not perceived by the Armenians as an utterly foreign population. This facilitated intermingling between the two societies and the Islamisation of Armenians. In order to enhance the boundaries of his community, Dawit̔ highlights the separation between clean and unclean. The theoretical ground for such a distinction the author finds however not in Leviticus but, rather surprisingly, in the history of Creation. According to the account of apocryphal origin, which the author sets out as a preamble to his Exhortations, Adam had not only given the names to each living being but had also distinguished between edible and inedible animals. God accepted the distinction introduced by Adam within his creation, even declaring it to be a law. It is upon this distinction that Dawit̔ intended to elaborate a system of prescriptions which would enable his contemporaries to protect the boundaries of the Armenian society of the former Caucasian Albania. Armenian churches were frequented not only by Muslims but even by Yezidis whose religion has not yet been sufficiently explored.

10

introduction

Tereza Amryan, in her ‘Note on the Sanctuaries Shared by Yezidis and Armenians in the Armenian Highlands’, describes several A ­ rmenian shrines which have been frequented by Yezidis in Armenia during the past decades. These syncretic practices can reflect those documented already during the previous centuries. Numerous Yezidis abandoned the cradle of their civilisation between the Upper Tigris and its western tributary the Great Zab (today, in Northern Iraq), because of Muslim persecutions. In the nineteenth century, during the Russo-Turkish Wars, many of them settled on the slopes of Mt Aragac, whereas during the First World War still others migrated to the Ararat Valley. Amryan stresses that the churches attended by Yezidis are mostly immersed in wild nature: the very setting of these sanctuaries evokes ancient beliefs relating to natural elements, highlighting the universal character of religious devotion. The Christian symbols present in these shrines do not obstruct Yezidis from finding in them, and in their environment, foci of their ritual life. The last paper of the volume takes us further east, to Darband/ Derbent, i.e. the ‘Barred Gate’ of the South Caucasus: the city is situated at the entrance to the narrow pass between the last foothills of the chain of the Greater Caucasus and the Caspian Sea. Until the ­middle of the sixth century, the see of the Catholicos of Caucasian Albania was situated close to this strategic centre. Alikber K. Alikberov, in his study ‘The Wall of Iskandar in the Medieval Muslim Tradition in the East Caucasus’, discusses the legend of Gog and Magog (Ezek. 38–39) in Koranic interpretation. In the Bible, Gog and Magog were associated with ‘the Latter Years’: they would arrive ‘out of the uttermost parts of the north’, or ‘out of the remotest gorges of the northern [mountains]’ (‫רכתי ָצפו̇ ן‬ ֵ ַ‫מי‬, Ezek. 38.15; 39.2; cf. Joel 2.20). Numerous Muslim authors identified the rampart built, according to the Koran, by the righteous ‘Two-Horned’ in order to protect the believers from Gog and Magog, with the wall of Alexander the Great. Ṭabarī (d. 923) claimed that the wall of Alexander was situated in the extreme north-east of the Caucasus, on the frontier of the Islamic realm. Nizami Ganjavi, a Persian poet from Gandja/Ganjak in Arran (the former Caucasian Albania), is however the first known author to connect Alexander not merely with the Caucasus but specifically with Derbent. Yet Nizami abstains from identifying the fortifications of Derbent with the wall of Alexander. Nevertheless, archæological data may confirm that such a tradition did exist in Derbent and its environs from an early date. This is notably reflected in the fact that the narrowest gate in the



introduction11

northern defence wall of the city, erected in the middle of the sixth century, was known as the Gate of the Judgement Day. We shall probably never know whether this tradition had been inherited by the Muslims of Arran from the Biblical topography once upheld by the Caucasian Albanians because the Albanian literature has almost completely vanished. However it may be, in the eleventh– twelfth centuries, during the Seldjukid period, the urgent need to defend the northern frontiers from the nomads could have raised interest in the legend of Alexander who had allegedly built an iron wall against Gog and Magog, and led to its recognition precisely in the wall of Derbent.

I. The Holy Cross of Aparank‛: The Making of a Legend and the Creation of Sacred Space as Narrated by Gregory of Narek Abraham Terian

The “History of the Holy Cross of Aparank‛”1 is a historical encomium written in prose by Gregory of Narek (ca 945–1003). In it he tells quite a story of how a relic of the True Cross was brought from Constantinople to Aparank‛ and how it was received after all the preparations for its reception were in place. The story is laden with mythic elements, detailing the making of a legend and the creation of sacred space with its essential art and architecture. The story does not lend itself to historical-literary criticism for validation, but rather to phenomenological analysis for a better understanding and appreciation. After reviewing the story, I shall concentrate on the consciousness it creates in the experience of those concerned through the objects involved. Whether or not Gregory was an eyewitness to his narrative of the Cross of Aparank‛ cannot be determined with certainty, given the fact that medieval monks hardly ever left the place where they took their vows — except when the rules allowed it under certain circumstances, such as for a monk to become the abbot of another monastery or when invited to teach elsewhere. Yet what Gregory describes in the historical encomium on the Cross of Aparank‛ pertains to an event that had   Text in H. Tamrazyan (ed.), Matenagirk‘ Hayoc‘ (Armenian Classical Authors) 12 (Antelias, 2003–) 913–29; A. Terian (transl.), The Festal Works of St. Gregory of Narek: Annotated Translation of the Odes, Litanies, and Encomia (Collegeville, MN, 2016) 223–43. The cross discussed here is not to be confused with the ninth-century “Cross of Aparan,” a processional cross discovered in 1951 in a field near Aparan, Armenia, and kept in the History Museum of Armenia (inventory N° 1894).

1

14

abraham terian

just happened, probably in 983, some 40 kilometres southwest from where he lived.2 The encomium was commissioned by Step‛anos Bishop of Mokk‛ (Gk. Moxoene; Syr. Bēth Moksājē, a district in the Khizan region south of Lake Van in Greater Armenia), the same bishop who also commissioned Gregory to write the encomia on the Holy Cross and on the Blessed Virgin, and of whom Gregory speaks admirably in a rather extensive colophon appended to the encomium on the Blessed Virgin.3 The bishop is also the likely author of a hymn, composed on the occasion of this event (more on the hymn later). Regardless of the mythical elements in the narrative, the people and places named in the encomium on the Cross of Aparank‛ provide a historical basis for the story. In fact, the narrative opens with a historical context and is replete with elements of the material culture of the tenth century. The author begins with a lengthy adulation of Emperor Basil II Porphyrogenitus, nicknamed the Bulgar Slayer (r. 976–1025), and his brother Constantine, and their joint exploits and conquests, seen as an expansion of the empire that represents Christendom (1–7 [1–30]).4 This is designed to show why an Armenian man of noble birth, from the district of Mokk‛, would journey to Constantinople to enlist in the military service of the Byzantine emperor.5 To introduce this man (who remains anonymous throughout),6 Gregory begins with the man’s paternal uncle: the bishop of the district whose name was David, a saint in life and in death, whose grave has miracle-working powers (8–9 [31– 37]). The same anonymous man is the maternal uncle of bishop Step‛anos who sponsored Gregory to write this ­historical encomium. Bishop Step‛anos, a saintly man himself, succeeded bishop David, and 2   See J.-M. Thierry and N. Thierry, Monuments Arméniens du Vaspurakan (Paris, 1989) 424, placing the site on the southwestern slope of Vankin Dağ, over Namran Çay, a tributary of the Müküs Çay. 3  Terian, The Festal Works, 367–69. 4   On this subject, see J.-P. Mahé, ‘Basile II et Byzance vus par Grigor Narekac‘i’, Travaux et Mémoires 11 (1991) 555–73. 5   Historical factors behind the enthusiasm may also be cited: e.g. the emperor’s Armenian descent, according to the anonymous Continuato Theophanis, and the large Armenian contingents in the Byzantine army. For more, see J.-C. Cheynet, ‘Les Arméniens dans l’armée byzantine au Xe siècle’, in A. Mardirossian et al. (eds), Mélanges Jean-Pierre Mahé (Paris, 2014) 175–92. 6   See the extended n. 8, below.



the holy cross of aparank‛15

became head of a monastic community associated with the bishopric. Gregory introduces his patron with these words: Now, as God allowed, after his (David’s) death a saintly young man, the son of his niece,7 a good fruit from that well-blossomed genealogical tree, tutored by the saint himself and reared through the ranks corresponding to those of angels and ordained as priest by the same God-reaching hands, was installed as superior of the monks. He emulated thoroughly the extraordinarily beautiful example (of the saint), following in the footsteps of the forefathers. He welcomed cordially scholars versed in the Apostles and familiar with the Prophets, and who were heirs to the Gospel; and other intellectuals. (9 [38–40])

Before leaving for Constantinople, the unnamed uncle of Step‛anos takes with him a handful of soil from David’s miracle-working grave for no other reason than to fight the pangs of homesickness (10 [41]). Not long after his arrival in the Byzantine capital, however, the power of that soil which happened to contain a relic of the deceased bishop becomes manifest to all around, including the emperor, the entire imperial court, and even to foreign dignitaries. For this much coveted relic the Byzantines promise to give anything the Armenians back home wish to have in return, and through a courier Bishop Step‛anos asks for a relic of the True Cross. Touched by this “spiritual” request, the ­Byzantines oblige, sending the relic in a compartmentalized golden reliquary with other gifts,8 while the Armenian bishop undertakes the restoration of an old church dedicated to the Holy Bearer of God (Surb Astuacacin) and the   Lit., “the son of his (David’s) brother’s daughter.” The lines of kinship are easily traceable, as follows: 7

Bishop David

Son

Soldier/ Daughter Bearer of relic Bishop Step‘anos 8   “Also the censer of aromatic life, so sparkling, filled with frankincense, fashioned by the great Manglōt, the selfsame artisan (of the symbol) of the mystery. These gifts of goodwill were sent to the land of Armenia, to the eastern regions, to the mountains of Korduk‛, to the district of Mokk‛. They were brought over by him (David’s nephew) under covers made of precious and golden threads and beautiful linens, and were placed with overwhelming joy next to the revered resting place of the miracle-working, living bones of

16

abraham terian

construction of a new church dedicated to the Forerunner (Surb Karapet) wherein to house the precious gift. In much of the rest of the encomium Gregory describes the artwork of the reliquary and the architectural details of these churches’ interior and exterior. These parts of the encomium are pertinent to the history of medieval Armenian art. The importance of this tenth-century literary work for the art historian is immense, for it gives a glimpse of a largely neglected category to which Ernst Kitzinger draws attention: namely, the documentary side of art history, which merits the same close inspection as the monuments and artifacts.9 Before carrying on with that subject, a little must be said about the relics of the True Cross. There is no need to detail the early accounts of the discovery (or “Invention”) of the True Cross in 326 by Helena, the mother of ­Constantine the Great, as reported by fourth and fifth-century church historians. Curiously, Eusebius of Caesarea (d. 339), who in his Life his paternal uncle, who was acknowledged to be the primary cause for this inheritance.” (14 [62–63]) There seems to be a textual problem at this juncture, the possible loss of a name due to a scribal error of either homoioarchton or homoioteleuton, thus leading to confusion between the craftsman of the reliquary (named) and its bearer (unnamed). The named person is identified as the yardaroł, “craftsman” or “artisan” (cf. yardarel [to embellish] in 16 [73], and the synonymous aruestaworel [to craft] in 16 [74]). Obviously, one would expect the artisan’s name in conjunction with the mention of the artifact; whereas the bearer remains anonymous throughout, from his introduction at 10 [41] onwards. Norayr Połarian and others earlier have identified “the great” Manglōt as the bearer of the gifts, the hitherto unnamed nephew of bishop David (G. Narekac‛i, Nerbołner [Jerusalem, 1995] 15; M. Č‛amčeanc‛, Patmut‛iwn Hayoc‛ [Armenian History], 3 vols [Venice, 1784–1786] 2:854–55). This is rather questionable, for one would expect the naming to coincide with the introduction of the person. The reason for the bearer’s anonymity is clear: none of the glory highlighted in this encomium belongs to him. It belongs to bishop Step‛anos, in whose praise the encomium is written — albeit shared with the miracle-working grave of his predecessor, bishop David. Moreover, Manglōt is not an Armenian name (not found in H. Ačaṙyan, Հայոց անձնանունների բառարան [Dictionary of Armenian Personal Names], 5 vols [Yerevan, 1942– 1962]). The closest name is that of Mangnos, from Lat. magnus = «մեծ» (3:197–98), a word which in our text is but an adjective preceding the name of the “master” craftsman. 9   E. Kitzinger, Byzantine Art in the Making: Main Lines of Stylistic Development in Mediterranean Art, 3rd–7th Century (Cambridge, MA, 1980).



the holy cross of aparank‛17

of Constantine tells about the rediscovery of the tomb of Jesus and the construction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, is silent about the discovery of the Cross. However, his late contemporary, Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386), has this to say in the Catechetical Lectures delivered in 347/8 in the courtyard of the Holy Sepulchre and in full view of Golgotha: “He was truly crucified for our sins. For if you would deny it, the place refutes you visibly, this blessed Golgotha, in which we are now assembled for the sake of Him who was here crucified; and the whole world has since been filled with pieces of the wood of the Cross” (iv. 10). Cyril is a witness to the fact that soon after the discovery of the True Cross its wood was cut into small relics and scattered throughout the Christian World. Cyril’s nephew Gelasius, bishop of Caesarea Maritima (367–373, 379–395), whose works have come down to us in fragmented form, must have expanded the story (e.g. the inclusion of the discovery of nails) — judging from subsequent works dependent on him:10 by Rufinus (d. 411) and especially Socrates Scholasticus (d. ca 440). The latter’s account was repeated with further expansions by Sozomen (d. ca 450) and Theodoret of Cyrrhus (d. ca 466), according to whom Helena took the nails with her to Constantinople. Theodoret adds: “She had part of the Cross transferred to the palace. The rest was enclosed in a silver covering and committed to the care of the bishop of the city, whom she exhorted to preserve it carefully, in order that it might be transmitted unharmed to posterity” (Ecclesiastical History, xvii). It was this encased piece of the Cross which the Sasanian king of kings Khosroes II (r. 590– 628) carried away to Persia when he conquered Jerusalem and destroyed the edicule of the Holy Sepulchre in 614, and which was returned to Heraclius (r. 610–641) upon the murder of Khosroes by his son Kavad II in 628, in Ctesiphon. The Cross was purportedly restored to Jerusalem on March 21, 629, in the still-sealed reliquary, after a procession taking it through the Empire.11   Cf. Gelasius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, eds M. Wallraff et al., transl. N. Marinides, Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte N.F. 25 (Berlin, 2017) 120–30 (F15a–c). 11   For a comprehensive coverage of the legends concerning Helena and the True Cross, see J.W. Drijvers, Helena Augusta: The Mother of Constantine the Great and the Legend of Her Finding of the True Cross (Leiden, 1992); S. Heid, ‘Der Ursprung der Helenalegende im Pilgerbetrieb Jerusalems’, Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 32 (1989) 41–71. 10

18

abraham terian

Critical of this narrative and with good reason, some modern scholars have gone so far as to suggest that the True Cross was actually lost (if it ever reached the Sasanian capital Ctesiphon) and that the wood brought to Jerusalem by Heraclius was a fake, a hoax designed to rehabilitate the emperor’s image.12 Be that as it may, little need to be said about the many churches which possess relics alleged to be those of the True Cross. Such relics were widespread in Europe by the eleventh century, and more so in the thirteenth century, following the capture and sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204. But long before then, since the Middle Byzantine period, countless legends developed concerning the Constantinopolitan provenance of most relics, many of which were gifted by the imperial Church and State as emblematic of their centralized power. Perhaps because of the many pieces in existence,13 the legend evolved in the East that the True Cross was made from three different types of wood: cedar, pine, and cypress, on the basis of Isaiah 60:13: “The glory of Lebanon shall come to you, the fir tree, the pine tree, and the cypress, together to beautify the place of my sanctuary, and I will make the place of my feet glorious.” The link between this verse and the Crucifixion lies in the words “the place of my feet”, which is interpreted as referring to the suppedāneum (footrest) on which Jesus’ feet were nailed. Whereas in the West, where the relics were more abundant, tradition holds that the Cross was made from four different kinds of wood: the vertical piece was of one kind, the horizontal piece of another, the placard at the top was of another kind, and the wooden socket or shaft in which the Cross stood of yet another. So, we read in the Legenda aurea (The Golden Legend) by Jacobus de Varagine, archbishop of Genoa (d. 1298): “there were four manners of trees: that is of palm, of cypress, of cedar, and of olive” (Book iii. “Of the Holy Cross”; trans. W. Caxton). He then   C. Zuckerman, ‘Heraclius and the Return of the True Cross’, in idem (ed.), Constructing the Seventh Century (Paris, 2013) 197–218. 13   John Calvin’s exaggerated lines from his Treatise on Relics are oftquoted: “If we were to collect all these pieces of the true cross exhibited in various parts, they would form a whole ship’s cargo. The Gospel testifies that the cross could be borne by one single individual; how glaring, then, is the audacity now to pretend to display more relics of wood than three hundred men could carry!” (233, transl. V. Krasinski). 12



the holy cross of aparank‛19

goes on to embellish the story of the discovery in 326. No less interesting are his embellishments on the period of the captivity of the Cross by Khosroes II of Persia and its restoration to Jerusalem under Heraclius, with further miracle stories involving the sign of the cross (Book v. “Here Followeth the Exaltation of the Holy Cross”). Two points should suffice to sum up the stories. By the fifth century the accounts were enriched by having more details about the discovery, with various helpers emerging to direct Helena to find the object of her quest, and then the identification of the True Cross among others. Accounts ranged from a sick woman being healed when touched by it to a dead youth being resurrected when placed on it; and by the eighth century the accounts were enriched by including legendary details describing the history of the wood of the Cross before it was used for the Crucifixion. The relic of the True Cross brought to Aparank‛ was by no means the first in Armenia or within the Kingdom of Vaspurakan,14 which at this time included much of the region around Lake Van. Altogether, we know of nine monasteries in medieval Armenia with claims to have a relic of the True Cross, and six others in Armenian Cilicia.15 14   N. Covakan (Połarian), Haykakan Xač‛er [Armenian Crosses] (Jerusalem, 1991); L. Jones, ‘Medieval Armenian Identity and Relics of the True Cross (9th–11th Centuries)’, Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies 12 (2001–2002) 43–53 (the author is unfamiliar with Gregory of Narek’s work discussed here). T‛ovma Arcruni, a contemporary of Gregory of Narek, remarks on relics of the True Cross in Armenia: History of the House of the Artsrunik‛, 3.27, 29; 4.12; Eng. transl. R.W. Thomson, Thomas Artsruni, History of the House of the Artsrunik‛ (Detroit, 1985). On Varag, see N.G. Garsoïan, ‘Introduction to the Problem of Armenian Monasticism’, RÉArm 30 (2005–2007) 177–236, here on 186 n. 40 esp. 15  Covakan, Haykakan Xač‛er, lists them chronologically, following the traditional claims, and with brief histories: 1. Ałberku Surb Xač‛ (henceforth S. X.), of Ałberik Monastery in Muš; 2. Kensaber S. X., of the Kamrǰajor Monastery in the district of Likandon of Lesser Armenia; 3. Varagay S. X., of the Monastery of Varag near Van; 4. Getargel S. X., so called since it was used by Catholicos Petros Getadarj (in office 1019–1054) in performing the miracle of reversing the flow of the Pyxites near Trebizond with a relic said to have been given to the Illuminator by Pope Sylvester and which was passed on to Armenian Catholicoi since then (now in the Ēǰmiacin museum); 5. Hac‛uneac‛ S. X., given by Emperor Heraclius to Lady Biwreł of Siwnik‛ for her supporting the troops, after the rescue of the cross from Persia;

20

abraham terian

Chronologically speaking, the Cross of Aparank‛ is the eighth of them, without counting the famed Church of the Holy Cross on the Island of Ałt‛amar, built during the years 915–921, and so named not only for its cruciform layout,16 but also possibly for housing a relic of the True Cross. In the same south-eastern region of Lake Van, in the south-eastern outskirts of the city of Van, was the famed Monastery of Varag (Varagavank‛) and its Church of Surb Nšan (of the “Holy Sign”) with its very special relic and peculiar story. Without ruling out medieval rivalry for relics, and with it competition for pilgrims to help sustain the monasteries, I shall briefly tell the story about the Cross of Varag, chronologically the third such relic in Armenia, and show its difference from other such relics.17 6. Cicaṙneac‛ S. X., given by Heraclius to the bishop of Caesarea, John, after a thief was caught running with it; sold by the bishop and twice stolen thereafter, it was given by Vahan Kamsarakan-Mamikonean (thrived in the first half of the 7th cent.) to the bishop of Arǰk‛ in Tarōn; 7. Xotakerac‛ S. X., in the district of Šahapunik‛ in Siwnik‛ (now in the Ēǰmiacin museum); 8. Aparanic‛ S. X., as narrated here by Gregory of Narek; 9. T‛ri S. X., once kept in the monastery of Ałǰoc‛ near the village of Gaṙni, was lost during the raids of Shah Abbas I (r. 1588–1629); 10. Vankoy S. X., in Armenian Cilicia, once kept in Hṙomklay and then in Sis; 11. Skevrayi S. X., in Armenian Cilicia, near Lambron; 12. Kensakir S. X., from the bowl in which Jesus was bathed, kept in the Yesuanc‛ monastery “near the capital Antioch” (sic); 13. Paterazmi S. X., first kept in Mšakavank‛ monastery in Gugark‛ in the 13th cent., then in Arckē in the 15th cent., and in Nor J̌ułay (Isfahan) in the 17th cent.; 14. Karmirakn S. X., in the monastery of Argelan or that of “Yusik’s Son”; 15. Jorovanic‛ S. X., in the vicinity of Sis; 16. Vasil T‛agawori S. X., in the C‛ipnay monastery, neither king nor locus specified; 17. Sk‛anč‛elagorc S. X., in Arckē, possibly the same as N° 13, given the colophonic dates; 18. Aklay S. X., in the village of Akl, possibly near the city of Amida (Diyarbakir). 16   See the recent studies in Z. Pogossian et al. (eds), The Church of the Holy Cross of Ałt̔amar: Politics, Art, Spirituality in the Kingdom of Vaspurakan (Leiden, 2019) 16–26, figs. 1.1–10; 126–206. 17   It was to this monastery that Queen Mĕlk‛ē, wife of King Gagik Arcruni of Vaspurakan (r. 904–937/943), gifted the famous Gospel, copied before 862, now in the library of the Mkhit‛arist brotherhood of Venice. In 943 the abbot of the monastery, Anania of Mokk‛, was elected catholicos (d. 965). The monastery was levelled by the Turkish army on 30 April, 1915, at the height of the Armenian genocide and just when it had become a hub of cultural renaissance near the end of the 19th century, thanks to the efforts of Catholicos Mkrtič‛ Khrimian, better known as “Hayrik” (in office 1893–1907). On the Holy Cross of Varag, see also V. Calzolari’s contribution below.



the holy cross of aparank‛21

As tradition has it, the Hripsimian Virgins18 fleeing the Diocletian persecution had brought with them a fragment of the True Cross from the West. As they sought refuge on Mount Varag, St. Hṙip‛simē, a leader of the group of virgins, hid the relic — part of her necklace — among the rocks before continuing to Vałaršapat. Some 350 years later, in 653, a hermit named T‛odik found the hidden cross by following a bright light on the mountainside (an expansion of the story has two hermits, Hovel and T‛odik). The light led to an altar where the relic was found, and the light kept shining for twelve days thereafter. To commemorate the event, Catholicos Nersēs III (the Builder, in office 641– 661) established the Feast of the Holy Cross of Varag and composed a beautiful hymn for the occasion, “By the Sign of Your All-Victorious Cross, O Christ” (Nšanav Amenayałt‛ Khač‛iwd k‛o K‛ristos).19 That this tradition is quite ancient is further substantiated by the fact that the Holy Cross of Varag is the only True Cross relic in Armenia that has its own feast day in the Armenian liturgical calendar, just two weeks after the feast of the Encaenia, the dedication of the Constantinian edifice in Jerusalem on 13 September 335, with the exhibition of the Holy Cross the day following (also considered the day of its Invention in 326). What sets the story of Aparank‛ apart, however, is the fact that we have a detailed, contemporary narrative — and that by a distinguished author — about the creation of a myth and the founding of a sacred space. Gregory of Narek is punctilious when describing the artifacts and the architecture involved in the story: the preparations undertaken by both the Byzantine hosts of the Armenian soldier and by bishop Step‛anos, the soldier’s nephew. The Byzantines are credited for the craftsmanship of the reliquary and the Armenians for the architecture to house the artifact. The detailed description of the reliquary is worth presenting in its entirety: They then quickly formed and made ready a four-winged artifact cast in gold, in the shape of the divine Cross, (and) placed in it a piece cut from the life-giving Wood of the glorious Lord’s seat.20 And to heighten   Foremost martyrs in the History of the Armenians by Agathangelos (Eng. transl. R.W. Thomson [Albany, NY, 1974]). 19  In Šarakan Hogewor Ergoc‛ Surb ew Ułłap‛aṙ Ekełec‛woys Hayastaneayc [Hymnal of Spiritual Songs of the Holy Orthodox Armenian Church] (Jerusalem, 1936) 671–75. 20  The  suppedāneum or foot rest; Arm. bazmakan. 18

22

abraham terian

its glory they adorned it with relics from objects related to the torture of Jesus and (his) life-giving death, such as the sponge with which he tasted (the vinegar), the towel with which he was girded, the thorn with which he was crowned, the nail with which he was firmly nailed, and the cloth with which he was wrapped like a homeless being on the day he was born. All these desirable relics, with that of the Cross, were formed into a whole, neatly arranged in the spaces of the two opening compartments which enclosed the symbol of Light, tightly secured within the latched edges, from end to end. Moreover, expectations laden with hope21 were mixed into it (14 [58–61]).22

The reliquary’s Byzantine manufacture, its conception and design, compel a look at known specimens of its kind from this period of renaissance during the Macedonian dynasty. The described reliquary has considerable resemblance to the shape of the Byzantine cloisonné enamelled reliquary cross (with Crucifixion and Virgin with saints), the Beresford Hope Cross, possibly from Constantinople and dated to the latter part of the ninth century.23 While our text is clear about receptacles within the reliquary in two compartments, it is short on describing the decoration. But it is hard to visualize the object without some decoration — possibly enamelled decoration. Nonetheless, we can visualize a golden cruciform reliquary, with flaring arms and with two hinged compartments filled with an assortment of relics to the very edges. The author goes on to mention the linen cloth embroidered with golden and other precious threads, with which the reliquary was wrapped. The Constantinopolitan origin of the artifacts and their Armenian reception is one further illustration of the fusion of material culture between the two singular yet connected Christian neighbours.24 Here I should also mention some possible semblance to  Joining յուսոյ (hope) with the preceding լուսոյ (light).   Arm. text at 14 [61] reads: «Զայս ամենայն մասունս ըղձականս ընդ խաչին հիւսեալ` միատարրեցին. եւ պատեհ պատրաստութեամբ ի ստեղն ծխոյ բացուստ ի բաց ի ծագս եզերացն ի ներքոյ ըռնկացն դրանց երկբացիկ սենեկացն պարագրողաց արձանացուցեալ ի հանգիստ նշանին լուսոյ:» 23   Fig. 64 in R. Cormack, Byzantine Art (Oxford, 2000) 113; cf. the cloisonné enamelled and compartmentalized rectangular reliquary, the Fieschi-Morgan staurotheke from the same period; fig. 65, p. 116. 24   Of special interest is the comparative study of the flaring arms of sixth and seventh-century Byzantine and Armenian crosses (the “Divriği crosses”, the “Narsess cross” and the “Aparan cross” among others) by T. Greenwood, ‘A Corpus of Early Medieval Armenian Silver’, DOP 69 (2015) 115–46. 21

22



the holy cross of aparank‛23

the golden and enamelled cross with a relic of the True Cross ­presented in the late ninth or early tenth century by an imperial envoy to the metropolitan of Martvili, a member of the Georgian branch of the Bagratid dynasty (kept in the monastery of Martvili, Georgia).25 Embellished with pearls and precious stones, the obverse is decorated with enamelled depictions of the Crucifixion with the Virgin and St. John, and the archangels Michael and Gabriel. The reverse features an enamel image of the Virgin.26 After praising the glorious ancestry and personal decorum of bishop Step‛anos (15 [64-69]), Gregory turns his attention to the architecture. Here too, the paragraph is to be quoted in its entirety: This same person had an attractive, wonderful (structure) built creatively,27 almost like a beautifully constituted heaven made on earth. He had the mightily erected, cherub-inhabited altars aptly constructed in the form of the blessed Sign, replicating in a most attractive way the seraph-inhabited courts of Zion. And he had it raised quite high… And over the high arches he positioned the round dome with architectural precision. He also embellished with artful objects the holy nuptial chamber: the inspiring, spacious, and uplifting church (named) after the Mother of God, where he gathered the whole assembly of the firstborn in one group.28 And he beautified it gorgeously, like a city built by God for the living of whom Jesus spoke;29 the mother of pure children,30 fit for the chosen bridesmaids waiting at the nuptial chamber, the singing dancers to meet the Groom.31 And he covered the broad entrance to this impregnable bastion of heavenly hosts with a curtain. And the unspeakable mystery of the altar of the testimony, with its ringing bells, fabric of muslin and silk, and whitish and reddish medley — beautifully symbolizing the blood32 — he 25   On the monastery of Martvili see also L. Mikayelyan’s contribution below. 26   A. Frolow, Les Reliquaires de la Vraie Croix (Paris, 1965) 164. For other comparable examples, see O.M. Dalton, Byzantine Art and Archaeology (Oxford, 1911) 509, fig. 305: reliquary cross with cloisonné enamels on gold from the Sancta Sanctorum at the Lateran, now in the Vatican Library; and figs. 306–07 (pp. 549–50): front and back of the jewelled gold cross of Justin II (r. 565–74), in St. Peter’s at Rome, among others. 27   Lit., “by recreation.” 28   Allusion to Hebrews 12:23. 29   Allusion to John 14:1–3. 30   Allusion to Galatians 4:26. 31   Allusion to Matthew 25:1–13; cf. Prayer 7.3.25–32. 32   Allusion to John 19:34.

24

abraham terian

publicly declared much less shadowy than the Mosaic (tabernacle).33 And he rendered the dwelling like the graceful construction of the house by (King) David’s son, with its non-decaying, laurelled buttresses. He raised up stone walls upon bedrock foundations and adorned them masterfully with many colourful, gem-like blocks. And he transformed Ezekiel’s imaginative vision into a tangible reality.34 And he made the whole building held together beautifully like a seamless robe (16 [70–80]).

The author goes on to describe the building’s exterior and interior. The dressed stones are like muslin covers (17.83). The carvings around the entrances and the frieze all around are “like the floral and clean garments and gown of a beautiful bride on her way to the nuptial chamber” (17 [84]). “The door panels decorated with smooth, reddish wood, ivory, and diverse, multi-coloured pictures” (17 [85]). The bema is “like a heavenly watchtower” (17 [87]); the curtains “embellished with graceful patterns: Egyptian, flecked, multiform, golden, and flaming… beautified with colourful threads and fabrics, in sky-blue and purple from the sea isles of Elim…,”35 the altar “resembling the holy of holies” (17 [88–89]). The straps holding the curtains were studded with “precious gems from Ethiopia and Babylon: sparkling emeralds in the beauty of the spring season, starlit pearls, dark-blue aquamarines, joined together in several even rows. These he attached to the holy altar like a queen’s crown… ” (17 [90]). “As for the lofty, solid dome, (it is) like… the head of a great empress” (17 [91]). There is also a clear statement about restoration of frescoes: “As for the beautiful, ornate, and faded images of old, then invisible to the eye, he made them sharply visible, (like living) beings possessing breath and sense perception” (17 [92]). But this is not all. Though our author does not mention it, we know that on that special occasion bishop Step‛anos composed a touching hymn on the Cross: “You have bestowed your holy Cross, the holy of holies, upon your church, O Lord” (Sĕrbut‛iwn srboc‛ šnorhec‛er ekełec‛woy surb ĕzxač‛ k‛o Tēr). The hymn cuts both ways as it does both mystify and demystify the event. In the closing stanza of the hymn, where one expects the usual invocation of the Blessed Virgin and St. John the Baptist, often called the Forerunner, the invoked F ­ orerunner   Allusion to Exodus 26:1–37; cf. Colossians 2:17; Hebrews 8:5; 10:1.   Allusion to Ezekiel 40–41. 35   A Sinai location, near the Red Sea (Exodus 15:27; 16:1, second stop after crossing the Red Sea, during Israel’s exodus from Egypt). 33 34



the holy cross of aparank‛25

is none other than the manifestation of the Holy Cross, heralding the second coming of Christ — an apocalyptic reflection on eschatological expectations near the end of the first millennium.36 I will here attempt a qualitative, phenomenological interpretation of the story, to try to understand it better. The composition of a hymn to mark the installation of a relic of the True Cross in a chapel or church specifically built to house it, seems to be a topos — as we have seen in the case of the Cross of Varag. Similar topoi are seen also in the West.37 Capped with the composition of a hymn, the story is phenomenologically significant when it comes to the creation of sacred space, a place which has and gives the kind of experience that is often called the “spirit of place” or genius loci, a combination of qualities with which one identifies.38 Sacred space is the most meaningful space, and the site of most intense indwelling according to Heidegger.39 This is what others describe as quality without name.40 The “spirit” is present when the physical characteristics, location, and other features of the place — its art and architecture — converge with one’s personal and cultural meaning-systems and relationships into a totality that one experiences as a meaningful place. Such a place helps affirm one’s own existence within the larger universe. The idea of sacred space is beautifully described by Mircea Eliade in his little book Sacred and Profane. Sacred space provides a fixed point, a centre to which everything else is related. But that  In Šarakan Hogewor Ergoc‛, 650–52. «Սըրբուհւոյ աստուածածնին բարեխօսութեամբ ընկալ տէր ըզմաղթանըս մեր, յորժամ յարեւելից լուսածագիս անճառ հրաշիւք, կարապետ առնելով զյաղթական սուրբ նըշանն» (“Accept our petitions, O Lord, through the intercession of the Holy Bearer of God, when you rise with light from the east, in ineffable wonder, having the victorious and holy sign as forerunner”) 652. 37   The bringing of the True Cross relic to Poitiers, sent by Justin II in 567 to Holy Cross Monastery, was the occasion for the composition of the great hymn “Vexilla Regis prodeunt” (“The royal banners forward go”) by Venantius Fortunatus (565–605). 38   C. Norberg-Schulz, Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture (New York, 1980); first published in Italian: Genius loci – paesaggio, ambiente, architettura (Milano, 1979). 39   M. Heidegger, ‘Building Dwelling Thinking’ (Bauen Wohnen Denken), in idem, Poetry, Language, Thought, transl. A. Hofstadter (New York, 1971) at 143. 40   C. Alexander, The Timeless Way of Building (New York, 1979) 19. 36

26

abraham terian

c­ entre is something beyond self and the humdrum of everyday experience; i.e. it points to the transcendent. Making a centre brings order out of disorder and thus, according to Eliade, “is the equivalent of the creation of the world” because it organizes space for a religious person.41 Thus, the sacred is a form of power that is world-creating, transforming all that extends out from the centre. To be sure, there are elements of lore in the story, or the whole story is a lore, with its own power. By this I mean there are unique particulars attached to persons, places, and things that set the story apart. Moreover, along with the event or the story, there is the power of the telling and the unique way Gregory of Narek tells it. The idiosyncrasies of the event and the teller afford the power to draw listeners into the experience. These characteristics are common knowledge to folklorists, but what is overlooked is the otherness of the power of lore — an element shared with the sacred. An element of mystery is present in every aspect of the story. Lore and the sacred share a participation in the archetypal, timeless and powerful themes, such as the salvation history associated with the True Cross, making the reader or hearer of the story “dwell” in it, as also in the monumental place — both of which are considered genius loci. Art as a means of existential expression has psychic implications, more so religious art expressed in symbols. The same holds true for architecture, defined as a “concretization of existential space” that gives humans an “existential foothold”.42 Art and architecture tend to create a basic relationship between people and their immediate environment. So too the implications of the hymn associated with the place, which makes us recall a curious title used by Heidegger, “… Poetically Man Dwells…,”43 itself inspired by Friedrich Hölderlin’s poem “In lieblicher Bläue”, which begins: “In lovely blueness blooms the steeple with metal roof….” More than the art and architecture, and the mythic story as well, the most significant thing in the story is the relic of the True Cross. Of course, a relic rightly or wrongly considered part of the True Cross is not just a “thing” — a word of Germanic origin that meant “meeting” or “gathering” (related to German Ding). The Armenian word for a thing is ban, the Greek equivalent of which is logos, which in   M. Eliade, Sacred and Profane (New York, 1959) 22, 64–65.  Norberg-Schulz, Genius Loci, 5–6. 43  Heidegger, Poetry, Language, Thought, 213–29. 41 42



the holy cross of aparank‛27

Stoic thought is the all-permeating divine element that concretizes everything, ta panta. The meaning of anything consists in what it gathers or assembles. Thus Heidegger, stoicising, I suppose, could say: “A thing gathers world.”44 How much more a relic of the True Cross, a part that represents the whole and which makes one recall the words of the Logos in John 12:32: “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all (pantas — things and people alike) unto myself.” Or, as Gregory has it: “With these relics attached to it, this God-bearing four-winged (cross) as a whole is like the treasure of life, the freely given gift of salvation” (25.139). Indeed, the author has earlier proclaimed, perhaps suspecting the authenticity of the relic, that it is not the piece of the Wood, but the sign of the cross that is truly potent: This Sign with its great miracles is much more efficacious than its many constituent parts, since those that were distributed and ended up in the four corners of the world were simply pieces of the life-giving Wood; but this God-made and life-bestowing Sign of the new order of good things (stands) as though it were the very cross of the crucifixion itself, having the glory of the One who was lifted up (25 [135–137]).

The notion that myths are devoid of truth, or that they are expressions of primitive minds, has been strongly rejected in the last fifty years. Some have gone so far as to question analysing the constituent parts of a myth or scrutinizing the logical system behind the narrative, fearing that over-analytical treatment may actually destroy important elements of the truth contained in the mythic story.45 Analytic methods generally lead to an impoverished understanding of myth: turning into chaos the order created, fragmenting the wholeness achieved. While some critical methods may not necessarily be valid ones for mythology, we can, nonetheless, exegete the culture revealed in this narrative of historical yet mythic nature.

  Cited by Norberg-Schulz, Genius Loci, 5.   J. Campbell, Myths to Live By (New York, 1972); idem, Transformations of Myth through Time (New York, 1990); idem with B. Moyers, The Power of Myth, ed. B.S. Flowers (New York, 1988). 44 45

II. Beyond the Canon: Archaic and Polyethnic Traditions in the Sculpted Images of Fabulous Creatures in Armenia and Georgia (Tenth–Fourteenth Centuries) Lilit Mikayelyan

A number of animal images appearing in Christian art cannot be directly explained by references to Christian sources (either canonical or apocryphal). Many of such motifs were inherited from the local pre-­Christian artistic traditions, while some of them were borrowed from non-­ Christian neighbouring cultures as a result of protracted contacts. For Armenia, Georgia and some other Eastern Christian countries the role of such a reservoir was primarily played by Sasanian Iran, first directly and during the tenth–fourteenth centuries through the mediation of Islamic artistic traditions. One of the best examples of this is the image of the so-called senmurv in Armenia and Georgia. While certain fantastic animals, such as the dragon-serpents, the sphinges and the sirens, are presented in medieval sources as symbols of evil forces and sin, in the sculptural decoration of Armenian churches they acquire a positive sense, e.g. as guardians of the heavens or symbols of Paradise. This positive meaning is suggested by the place they occupy in architectural compositions and by their iconographic features. A unique example of combination of heterogenous artistic traditions is the church of the Holy Cross (915–921) on the island of Ałt̔amar in lake Van (in the south of historical Armenia, the present-day Turkey). Some of the fantastic animals sculpted on the walls of this church are the earliest examples encountered not only in Armenia but also elsewhere in Christian art. As numerous scholars have stressed, this was a representative palatine church of the king Gagik Arcruni (904/8–943), whose ambitious plans of a united Armenian



fabulous creatures in armenia and georgia29

kingdom largely determined its artistic programme. Therefore, on the one hand its decoration was connected with the secular theme of authority and power, but on the other with the concept of an ideal kingdom protected by the person of the king, as Paradise is protected by angels and other supernatural beings. These themes and motifs are expressed with recourse to revived mythological figures. It should be noted that, with the fragmentation of the Caliphate in the later part of the ninth century, the revival of archaic themes became characteristic not only of Armenia, but also of other East Christian countries, as well as of Iran. The resistance to the Arabs is reflected in the Armenian epic poem Dawit̔ of Sasun, whose important narrative strata belong to the eighth–tenth centuries; in its original form, the Byzantine epic poem about Digenis Akrites was composed in the tenth century; in 976–1011 Ferdowsi wrote his poem Shahnameh; the ninth– tenth centuries were also very significant in the history of the Georgian literature. The appeal to national past and to archaic images can therefore be observed over vast expanses. By that time, Christianity, which had already achieved a mature stage in the development of its doctrines, had adopted a more lenient attitude to such retrospective appeals to the pre-Christian past. The church at Ałt̔amar embodies the main cultural trends of the time and, in a narrower sense, the artistic tastes of King Gagik. In order to investigate its figurative decoration, of a particular significance for us is the last part of the History of the House of the Arcrunik̔, which was written by an anonymous continuator of Thomas Arcruni who was writing under Gagik’s patronage. The Continuator describes King Gagik’s life, the palatine complex built by the king on the island of Ałt̔amar and the church itself. We can observe in this text an appeal to ancient mythological traditions and even perceive in it a certain poetic deviation from the Christian tradition. In some passages of his history, the Anonymous Continuator, eloquently praising the valour of King Gagik, his brother prince Ašot and their father prince Derenik, compares them with an invincible dragon, or а sleeping dragon (Arm. višap),1 who is always prompt to protect the country and the people from evil: He retired for sweet sleep at night to golden chambers like a dragon. The awe of his might spread over the whole of Armenia; like an   On the dragons (vešap) in Georgian tradition, see K. Tuite’s contribution below. 1

30

lilit mikayelyan

i­mpregnable wall of bronze he preserved [Armenia] from fear and from the secretly fired arrows of her enemies. Over his neighbours and his subjects he was a shade of secure defence, and swift… Նա ի սենեակս ոսկեզարդս երեկօթիցն քաղցրանինջ քնով ղուղեալ իբրև զվիշապ, և ահ հզօր զօրութեան նորա շրջապատեալ զբոլոր Հայաստանեօքս՝ իբրև զպարիսպ պղնձի անմերձենալի պահէր յերկիւղէ և ի գաղտաձիգ նետից թշնամեաց: Նա ի վերայ դրացեաց իւրոց և իւրոց հնազանդելոց հովանի ամրապահեստ, և արագ…2

Here we may already observe elements contrasting with the predominant Christian tradition, in which a dragon most often appears as a symbol of hell and the Devil (cf. Revelation 12; 20.1-2). In the widespread iconography of the Baptism of Christ or the Descent into Hell, Christ was often depicted as trampling a dragon, and holy warriors were represented in a similar fashion. Indeed, on the north façade of the church at Ałt̔amar, St Theodore is portrayed killing a snake – an equivalent of a dragon in these scenes. However, from the tenth century, along with these canonical compositions, another theme of the dragon as a guardian being develops in Armenian art: dragons appear as guardians of sacred space, echoing the text of the Anonymous Continuator. Before turning to the fantastic animals at Ałt̔amar, we should consider some images of the bas-reliefs’ belt of the church – the most enigmatic of all. Iosif Orbeli made the most accurate descriptions of the church reliefs in 1912, when many of them were in a better condition. Therefore, we often have to rely on his descriptions and on a number of archival photographs. Orbeli mentions two damaged protomes, presumably of dragons, on the south and east façades of the church (fig. 1), not excluding however that these could be camels.3 And on one archival photograph of the east façade, on which the animal’s head is still preserved, it does indeed resemble a herbivore. While Orbeli considers these two images (as well as other animal bas-reliefs) to be imitations of hunting trophies,4 S. Mnac̔ akanyan

2   R.W. Thomson (ed.), Thomas Artsruni and Anonymous, History of the House of the Artsrunik (Detroit, 1985) IV, ch. 11(12), 367. 3   I. Orbeli, ‘Памятники армянского зодчества на острове Ахтамар’ [Monuments of Armenian Architecture on the Island of Ałt̔amar], in idem, Select Papers (Moscow, 1968) 17–204, here on 192–93. 4   Ibid., 188–204.



fabulous creatures in armenia and georgia31

identifies them as dragons,5 considering all the representations of animals in this belt to be apotropaic images.6 Another well-known interpretation of this series was proposed by S. Der-Nersessian, according to whom the animals depicted are those to whom Adam gave names in Paradise.7 This interpretation is based on the bust of Adam in the centre of the east façade and the corresponding inscription from the book of Genesis (2:20). And one of the newest and noteworthy theories about this belt was expressed by I. Dorfmann-Lazarev who, with reference to an Armenian homily ascribed to Epiphanius of Salamis and a number of para-Biblical sources, considers the animal figures carved on the outer surface of the church walls as allegorically representing not only the creatures to which Adam gave names, but also those saved in Noah’s Ark. According to him, even the church itself could be associated with Noah’s Ark, also with regard to its topography.8 Fully accepting the possibility of such an artistic analogy between Noah’s Ark and the church at Ałt̔amar, I would like to present some arguments which in our opinion contradict the theories of Der-Nersessian and Dorfmann-Lazarev. The forty-two figures of the bas-reliefs’ belt are executed by means of four different artistic techniques and following fundamentally different iconographic principles. They do not create the impression of a single artistic conception as does, for example, the vine frieze. Secondly, some of the animals – mouflon, leopard, deer, bear, eagle and others – are repeated five or six times, which would not be logical had we accepted the theory of Adam or Noah. Thirdly, a single human head on the south façade of this belt does not exactly support the idea that the original intention was to show animals in Paradise or in Noah’s Ark.   S. Mnatsakanyan, Աղթամար [Ałt̔amar] (Yerevan, 1983) 108–09, 111, 119.   Ibid., 115–18. 7   S. Der Nersessian, Aght‛amar. Church of the Holy Cross (Cambridge, 1965) 20. 8   I. Dorfmann-Lazarev, ‘Kingship and Hospitality in the Iconography of the Palatine Church at Alt‛amar’, Rivista di Storia e Letteratura Religiosa 52 (2016) 479–516, here on 487–488, 513; idem, ‘Adam in the Church at Ałt̔ amar (915–921) and in a Pseudepigraphal Homily on Genesis: the Creator’s Companion, a King and a Herald of the Things to Come’, in C. Böttrich et al. (eds), Von der Historienbibel zur Weltchronik. Studien zur Paleja-­ Literatur (Leipzig, 2020) 306–32, here on 308–12. 5 6

32

lilit mikayelyan

Some of the bas-reliefs in this belt are so different from traditional Christian iconography that some authors even suggested that they represent spolia of a pagan monument.9 To support this h­ ypothesis, these authors cite the story of the Anonymous Continuator about the destruction by King Gagik of an enemy’s fortress and the transfer of its slabs to ​​ Ałt̔amar for the construction of the church.10 However, the idea of spolia, while interesting in itself because confirming the strikingly archaic impression with which the reliefs leave the observer, cannot be accepted. First, the texture and the colour of the stones of these reliefs are identical to the main masonry of the church. Secondly, their treatment has obvious analogies with images of animals in other series of images found on the church, a fact also emphasized by Mnac̔ akanyan.11 For example, the hooves on the protomes of a mouflon and a hornless sheep with hanging legs on the east façade – the bas-reliefs that are mostly associated with pagan spolia – are executed similarly to the goats’ hooves on the other reliefs of the church. The inlaid eyes preserved on some bas-relief heads are identical to the eyes of other animals etc. Finally, as we shall see, such heads in bas-reliefs are found not only on earlier monuments of Armenia but also on Georgian and other South-Caucasian churches of the same period, which speaks of a certain general artistic phenomenon proper to the region in the tenth century, and does not corroborate the idea of an exceptional presence of spolia in Ałt̔amar. These images can be understood against the background of the artistic tradition, vivid both in Armenia and in Georgia, of placing sculpted animal heads on the walls of churches and other buildings, which dates back to the fifth century. Examples of this practice are the ram heads at the corners of the bases of four stelae from Berdašēn (Arc̔ ax)12, the heads of bulls on the capitals of the baptistery of ­­Bolnisi Sion (478–493, Georgia) and on the fifth-century spolia in the façade   A. Mnatsakanyan, ‘Հեթանոսական ժամանակների քանդակներ Աղթամարի Սուրբ Խաչ վանքի որմնաշարվածքում’ [Sculptural monuments of pagan period on the walls of the monastery of the Holy Cross], in Herald of the Social Sciences 2 (1983) 83–93; L. Durnovo, Очерки изобразительного искусства средневековой Армении [Essays on the Fine Arts of Medieval Armenia] (Moscow, 1979) 73. 10  Thomson, Thomas Artsruni and Anonymous, IV, ch. 8(9), 359–61. 11  Mnatsakanyan, Աղթամար, 112. 12   H. Petrosyan, Խաչքար. ծագումը, գործառույթը, պատկերագրությունը, իմաստաբանությունը [Khachkar: the Origins, Functions, Iconography, Semantics] (Yerevan, 2008) 64, fig. 61–63. 9



fabulous creatures in armenia and georgia33

of the Sveti c’xoveli Cathedral in Mc’xet’a (eleventh century, ­Georgia)13 etc. Finally, a unique monument of the sixth/seventh ­centuries has been preserved in Armenia – a mausoleum in Barekamavan, with a cornice decorated with animal heads, mostly of bulls (twenty-four of them are preserved), but also a ram, a bear and, admittedly, two dogs, with garlands and an acanthus between them.14 This motif was certainly borrowed from ancient architecture – it is found, for eample, on the Bukranion friezes made of bull heads or skulls with garlands, ribbons and trophies as decoration of temples, mausoleums and sarcophagi, such as in the mausoleum of Caecilia Metella in Rome (first century BC), on the so-called Caffarelli marble sarcophagus (around 40 AD) from the Old Museum in Berlin, on ossuaria of the first/second century from the Dresden Sculpture Collection etc.15 The origin of such architectural decorations can be sought in the prehistoric tradition of preserving and displaying the heads of hunting trophies or sacrificial animals by attaching them to the walls of shrines or other buildings. The most prominent sacrificial animals were bulls and rams and, accordingly, their heads can most often be found in the Bukranion friezes and on the Christian monuments listed above. But on the frieze in Ałt̔amar the range of animal heads is much wider, and among them we find three animal protomes on the east façade: a mouflon (fig. 2), a leopard and a hornless wild sheep with drooping legs. Orbeli pointedly drew our attention to the fact that these animals are depicted, so to speak, as dead, like effigies. It was these protomes that first gave Orbeli the ground to consider the bas-reliefs of this belt to be a reproduction of hunting trophies in stone, which, according to the descriptions of the Anonymous Continuator, decorated the interior of Gagik’s palace at Ałt̔amar.16 It is hard to accept Orbeli’s hypothesis that trophies of hunting could be represented on a church façade, especially on the east façade.   T. Dadiani et al., Medieval Georgian sculpture (Tbilisi, 2017) 12–13, fig. 3, 9–10. Here and elsewhere in the study, the transliteration of Georgian follows the norms of the International Standards Organization 9984. 14   G. Karakhanyan, ‘Ancient Armenian cupola memorial’, in B.L. Zekiyan (ed.), Atti del Quinto Simposio Internazionale di Arte Armena (Venezia, 1991) 225–28. 15   H. Feldbusch, ‘Bukranion’, in Reallexikon zur Deutschen Kunstgeschichte III (München, 1950) 81–84. 16   Orbeli, ‘Памятники армянского зодчества’, 192–94. 13

34

lilit mikayelyan

The protomes in Ałt̔amar, especially on the east façade of the church, possess a rather archaic character: we reach this conclusion by comparing them with the depictions of bulls’ heads and skin in the low reliefs carved on various višaps, i.e. stelae of III–II mill. BC found in high mountain areas of historical Armenia.17 The representations of sacrificial bulls on višaps reflected primordial rituals relating to the cult of water.18 (fig. 3) Thus, on monuments so distant from each other in time, and certainly without direct continuity, we observe comparable artistic approaches in the iconography of animals, clearly demonstrating the relevance of these archaic motives for church decoration. The evocative force that such archaic symbols continued to possess in Christian Armenia prompted the artists to adopt them in Ałt̔amar. The heads of leopards in this belt often inspire terror as, for example, the two heads on the east façade, with bared teeth. They are aimed at driving away evil forces. On the basis of their most ancient iconographic patterns we may assume, following Mnac̔ akanyan, that such heads and protomes were markers of sacred space, encompassing the church and its surrounding territory. This assumption is confirmed by the presence of six similar heads, including the unique head of an elephant – symbols of power and, at the same time, apotropaic images – on the throne gallery inside the church.19 The Ałt̔amar bas-reliefs examined are in many respects unique, yet analogous examples can be identified. We may first think of the stucco bas-reliefs representing animal heads that adorned palaces in Sasanian Iran. Thus, a fairly realistic mouflon head adorned the sixth– seventh century Palace I at Kish (present-day Iraq);20 protruding lion   Mnatsakanyan, ‘Հեթանոսական ժամանակների քանդակներ’, 85, tabl. II.   L. Abrahamian, ‘Архетип вертикали и каменные вишапы’ [The Archetype of the Vertical and the Stone Vishaps], in A. Petrosyan et al. (eds), The Vishap Stone Stelae (Yerevan, 2015) 121–35, here on 128–31; M. Storaci and A. Gilibert, ‘Les poissons muets. Fish-shaped Vishaps and Cult of Water in Prehistoric Armenia’, in A. Bobokhyan et al. (eds), Vishap on the Borderline of Fairy Tale and Reality (Yerevan, 2019) 528–45, fig. 14. 19  Mnatsakanyan, Աղթամար, 112, fig. 50; Dorfmann-Lazarev, ‘Ադամը, (Նոյը) և թագաւորութեան գաղափարը Աղթամարի եկեղեցու պատկերային ծրագրում’ [Adam, (Noah) and the Idea of Kingship in the Iconographic Programme of the Church at Ałt̔amar], in A. Bozoyan (ed.), Արևելյան Աղբյուրագիտություն 2 (Yerevan, 2020) 111–27 and 434–38, here on 123. 20   A. Pope, ‘Sāsānian stucco. B. Figural’, in idem et al. (eds), A Survey of Persian Art from Prehistoric Times to the Present: Architecture, the ceramic 17

18



fabulous creatures in armenia and georgia35

heads adorned the entrances of a fifth-century palace in Tepe-Hisar near Damgan (Iran).21 A number of such sculptural animal heads and protomes are also known from the church decor of Georgia in the tenth–eleventh centuries. Thus, in the interior of the tenth–eleventh century church of Sts Peter and Paul in Bza we find the protomes of a lion and another, no longer distinguishable, animal; ungulate animals’ heads are also placed on the east façades of the tenth-century churches at Nakip’ari and Ip’xi; two heads of bulls and a lion’s head are depicted on the tenth-century church at Ĵeget’i; in the interior of the tenth-century church in Zemo Krixi bas-reliefs of the heads of rams are preserved; the protomes of a ram, a bull and а lion are embedded on the north façade of the tenth/ eleventh-century church in Kursebi (Zenobani).22 Therefore, the inclusion of archaising heads and protomes of animals in the decor of churches was a widespread phenomenon from the beginning of the tenth century both in Armenia and Georgia. Reinterpreted in the Christian context, the ancient image of a bull or a ram slain could express the idea of Christ’s saving sacrifice, just as the ancient oriental motive of a predator stabbing a herbivore was reinterpreted, becoming an allegory of Christ’s sacrifice and the Eucharist23. Another aspect of the extra-Biblical art of the church at Ałt̔amar is its relation to the art of Sasanian Iran, particularly with regard to fantastic animals. Тwo of them are to be found on the south façade: a griffin and a bird with the head of a ram flank the images of Sts Sahak and Hamazasp – the sanctified ancestors of King Gagik, who were captured by Arabs and martyred in 786. The griffin, as an ancient symbol of royalty, reflects here the idea of ​​the might of Gagik’s kingdom, and of his family. The griffin is often found in Christian art as a vigilant arts, calligraphy and epigraphy 2: Text, Sāsānian Period (Tehran, 1964–65) 631–45, here on 637, fig. 213. 21   S. Rasool and M. Eghbal, ‘Animal Figures of Sasanian Stucco in Tepe Hissar’, Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences 2/2 (2013) 32–45, here on 33, fig. 1–2. 22  Dadiani et al., Medieval Georgian sculpture, 117–118, fig. 290–97, 301–08. 23   Z. Hakobyan, ‘Скульптурное убранство южного входа главной церкви монастыря Хахý. Символика изображений’ [The Sculptural Decor of the Main Church Portal of the Xaxu Monastery. The Symbolism of the Images], in eadem et al. (eds), Historical Tayk‛. History, Culture, Confession (St Eĵmiacin, 2016) 335–65, here on 351–52.

36

lilit mikayelyan

guard, a symbol of nobility and power. In Ałt̔amar, however, it is noteworthy that the griffin is presented according to Sasanian iconographic models; its tail has the form of a half-palmette, while identical palmettes are found on its body, which reflects Sasanian representations.24 Griffins, marked by the influence of Sasanian iconography, are also depicted on the main entrance of the church in Xaxu/Xaxuli (the end of the tenth century, the historical Armenian-Georgian province of Tayk̔/Tao, in the present-day Turkey), on the east façade of the church in Samt’avisi (1030, Georgia) and on the vault of the south gallery of the church in Nikorcminda (1010–1014, Georgia). In all these instances the animals are decorated with pearl belts or necklaces, which were a characteristic feature of late Sasanian and post-Sasanian art. In Armenian and Georgian architecture, griffins are usually found on the cathedral churches erected by leading princely families.25 Another fantastic image at Ałt̔amar – the ram-bird – presents a unique iconographic example (fig. 4), which is unknown from other Christian monuments. Yet its exact analogy may be found on Sasanian seals.26 In addition, on a number of Iranian images the protomes of a ram or a goat are enveloped from below by paired wings, as on the stucco tablet of the sixth/seventh century from ancient Kiš (now in the Field Museum of National Heritage, Iraq)27, which also resembles the Ałt̔amar relief. The symbolism of these animals in Sasanian culture is well known from the texts of Avesta and Kār-Nāmag ī Ardašīr ī Pābagān (‘The Book of the Deeds of Ardašir, Son of Papak’).28 A ram,   L. Mikayelyan, ‘«Расцветшие» животные в искусстве Сасанидского Ирана и средневековой пластике Армении X−XIV вв.’ [“Flourished” Animals in the Art of Sasanian Iran and Medieval Sculpture of Armenia in the 10th−14th Centuries], Actual Problems of Theory and History of Art: Collection of articles 7 (2017) 256–68, here on 256–59. 25   Z. Hakobyan and L. Mikayelyan, ‘The Senmurv and Other Mythical Creatures with Sasanian Iconography in the Medieval Art of Armenia and Transcaucasia’, in M. Compareti (ed.), Fabulous Creatures and Spirits in Ancient Iranian Culture (Bologna, 2018) 39–75, here on 48–50. 26   Orbeli, ‘Памятники армянского зодчества’, 113–16; M. Compareti, ‘Teratologia fantastica in Subcaucasia. La migrazione di motivi decorativi tra l’Iran e il Caucaso’, in A. Ferrari et al. (eds), Al crocevia delle civiltà. Ricerche su Caucaso e Asia Centrale (Venezia, 2014) 11–50, here on 23–24, fig. 8–10. 27   Pope, ‘Sāsānian stucco’, 637, fig. 214. 28   C. Cereti, ‘Kār-Nāmag ī Ardašīr ī Pābagān’, Encyclopædia Iranica XV (2011) 585–88. 24



fabulous creatures in armenia and georgia37

or a mountain goat, was one of the incarnations of Farn (Avest. Xvarənah, from which, tellingly, the Armenian word փառք, ‘glory’, derives29) – the deity of luck, heavenly protection and royal glory.30 In his History of Armenia, Xorenac̔ i rather condescendingly mentions the Iranian legend about the predetermined victory of Ardašir I, the founder of the Sasanid dynasty, over the Iranian Arsacids, evoking only a few episodes and protagonists of this legend, including the goat: This is not the place for us now to repeat the fables concerning the dream of Papag, the eruption of the twisting fire from Sasan, (…) the stupid discourse of the magus’s daughter concerning the billy goat, and so on. Քանզի անտեղի է մեզ այժմ երկրորդել զառասպելսն յաղագս երազոյն Փափագոյ, արտադատութեան հրոյն մանուածոյ՝ որ ի Սասանայ, (…) եւ անմիտ հանճարաբանութիւն մոգին դստեր վասն նոխազին, եւ որ ինչ այլն ամենայն.31

In the Kār-Nāmag and the Shahnameh, this animal – a large and beautiful ram – quite realistically and visibly accompanies Ardašir as a warrant and the divine sign of his certain victory and reign. Xorenac̔ i’s ironic attitude to this legend – as a Christian author and, at the same time, a supporter of the Armenian Arsacids – is understandable. However, it is noteworthy that several centuries later, the Anonymous Continuator describes in detail the pious reign of Gagik Arcruni and his personal holiness.32 And accordingly, as an expression of these ideas, in Ałt̔amar, precisely on the south wall of the church, next to the image of St Hamazasp and the royal gallery, we find a representation of a winged ram, the well-known symbol of royal fortune and the legitimacy of power. Another fantastic creature in Ałt̔amar is associated with both Sasanian iconography and para-Biblical literature. This is the image of a sea monster (ketos) in the scene of the prophet Jonah on the   H. Acharian, Հայերեն արմատական բառարան [Armenian Etymological Dictionary] IV (Yerevan, 1979) 482–83; R. Ajello, ‘Armeno “p‛ark”, avestico “xvarənah”’, Studi Iranica (1977) 25–33. 30   M. Shenkar, Intangible Spirits and Graven Images: The Iconography of Deities in the Pre-islamic Iranian World (Leiden, 2014) 131–140. 31   R.W. Thomson (ed.), Movsēs Xorenac‛i, History of the Armenians II (Cambridge, MA, 1978) ch. 70, 217. 32  Thomson, Thomas Artsruni and Anonymous, IV, ch. 11(12). 29

38

lilit mikayelyan

south façade (fig. 5), in which we recognise the iconography of the so-called senmurv – the famous Iranian winged creature with the protome of a dog and the tail of a peacock, which in our case is replaced by that of a fish. Its etymology and its functions in Sasanian culture are not entirely clear because of the lack of written sources. According to recent studies, a senmurv, like a ram or a goat, was one of the incarnations of the same Farn – the divine grace and the royal glory.33 On the relief of the story of Jonah, the ketos iconographically repeats a number of Sasanian images of the senmurv found on fabrics, which are datable to the sixth–seventh centuries (fig. 6) and metal works.34 In our opinion, such a contextualisation of the senmurv indicates a positive perception of the ketos, although the three-day stay of the prophet in the monster’s belly was allegorically interpreted as Christ’s descent into hell and his resurrection on the third day. In the Jewish tradition, in the Haggadah notably, as well as in the treatise of Pseudo-Philo of Alexandria ‘On Jonah’, which is only preserved in a fifth-century Armenian translation, the ketos was the saviour of Jonah. The passage in Pseudo-Philo reads as follows: …whilst [Jonah] considered the sea-monster [to be] a beast bringing death, it was in fact a [beast] of salvation and a guardian of salvation. And while the prophet was swimming, the sea-monster drew [him] within itself like breath: it bore [him] inside itself, within [its] belly, for this was the house of the drowned prophet, [I mean] the sea-monster’s belly, whereas [its] faces [were] the mirror of the outer visible [world], and the movement of its flippers like [those of] a king’s chariot.

  H.-P. Schmidt, ‘Simorḡ’, Encyclopaedia Iranica (2002), online edition https:// iranicaonline.org/articles/simorg (last accessed on 15 January, 2021); M. Compareti, ‘The So-Called Senmurv in Iranian Art: A Reconsideration of an Old Theory’, in P.G. Borbone et al. (eds), Loquentes linguis. Studi linguistici e orientali in onore di Fabrizio A. Pennacchietti (Wiesbaden, 2006) 189–204. 34   In details, about the scene of the prophet Jonah and the sea-monster image on the Ałt̔amar church see: L. Mikayelyan, ‘Աղթամարի Սբ. Խաչ եկեղեցու Հովնանի պատմության տեսարանների պատկերագրությունը. վաղքրիստոնեական, հուդայական, սասանյան ակունքները և նորարարական լուծումները’ [The Iconography of the Story of Jonah in the Church of the Holy Cross at Ałt̔amar. Early Christian, Jewish, Sasanian sources and new interpretations], Vem: Pan-Armenian Journal 3 (63) (2018) 182–204. 33



fabulous creatures in armenia and georgia39

…կետոս. զոր նա գազան սատակօղ կարծեաց. իսկ նա փրկութեան՝ և պահապան փրկութեան էր: Եւ մինչ դեռ ղօղէր մարգարէն, ձգեաց յինքն իբրու զշունչ կետոսն, ՛ի ներքս յիւրում՝ յորովայնի յղացավ կենդանի. քանզի էր ընկղմեցելոյ մարգարէին տուն՝ որովայն կետոսին. իսկ երեսք՝ արտաքին երևեցելոցն հայելի. և թևոցն շարժումն՝ իբրև կառք իմն թագավորի).35

And in Haggadah we read: ‘He was so large that the prophet was as comfortable inside of him as in a spacious synagogue. The eyes of the fish served Jonah as windows, and, besides, there was a diamond, which shone as brilliantly as the sun at midday, so that Jonah could see all things in the sea down to its bottom’.36 In these texts the ketos acts as an animal-mediator, transporting the prophet through the depths of the sea and linking the two worlds. In this way, both Pseudo-Philo and the Haggadah reflect the ancient idea according to which sea monsters were the riding animals of sea gods or the guides of souls. It is no coincidence that they were often depicted on Etruscan and Roman sarcophagi. In his History Thomas Arcruni mentions Philo of Alexandria several times,37 and it is thus conceivable that the treatise on Jonah was familiar to both king Gagik and the artists active in Ałt̔amar. The church decoration represents, therefore, a remarkable combination of non-canonical traditions of Jewish origin with Sasanian iconography. Similarly to sea monsters in Jewish traditions, in the Iranian culture the senmurv was a being that mediated between worlds, bringing down glory and grace from the divine sphere. At the same time it was a sign of royalty, which also possessed an apotropaic function. We may detect each of these acceptations on Christian monuments. Without enumerating all the known instances of this image in the art of Armenia and Georgia, which we have recently examined in a separate   M. Awgereanc̔ (ed.), Փիլոնի Եբրայեցիոյ մնացորդք ʼի հայս: Յաղագս Յովնանու [Philonis Judaei paralipomena armena. De Jona] (Venice, 1826) 578–612, here on 587–88; translated by I. Dorfmann-Lazarev. 36   L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews II (Philadelphia,1925) 1033. 37   V. Vardanyan (ed.), Թովմա Արծրունի և Անանուն. Պատմություն Արծրունյաց տան [Thomas Arcruni and Anonymous; History of the House of the Arcrunik] (Yerevan, 1985) 23–25, 33–35; O. Vardazaryan, Филон Александрийский в восприятии армянского средневековья. К вопросу об истоках традиции [The Reception of Philo Alexandrinus in the Armenian Middle Ages. On the Source of Tradition] (Yerevan, 2006) 116, 125, 131. 35

40

lilit mikayelyan

study,38 we should like to point only to a few significant examples, which can help us to understand the symbolism of the senmurv in Christian art and, in particular, in Ałt̔amar. The earliest depiction of a senmurv in Christian art is the relief on the north capital of the drum of the Ēĵmiacin Cathedral (Armenia), which can be dated to the 620s, i.e. contemporary with the classical Sasanian senmurvs datable to the sixth–seventh centuries. The image is at the level of the medallions with busts of the twelve Apostles under the decorative arcade symbolising the heavenly Jerusalem.39 The very location of the senmurv suggests that it could be associated with a higher, heavenly sphere and with the grace descending upon the Apostles, in accordance with the symbolism of the Sasanian Farn as divine glory and grace. In the central part of the apse frieze of the tenth-century church in Martvili (Georgia) we see a scene of the Annunciation with the Virgin enthroned.40 At her right is an angel, whereas at her left we see a senmurv which, like the angel, faces her (fig. 7). In this case, the angel and the senmurv are compositionally equivalent, and we have to assume that the latter, corresponding to the Iranian Farn, denotes the divine providence. The function of the senmurv as a mediator and a guardian of the sacred space can also be found in the images of this animal on the wooden door of the eleventh-century church in the village of Č’ukuli in Georgia,41 on the fresco above the entrance of the south pastophory of the church of St Gregory (Tigran Honenc‛,   L. Mikayelyan, ‘К интерпретации образа так называемого «Сэнмурва» на примере армянских и восточнохристианских памятников (VII–XIII вв.)’ [Towards an Interpretation of the Image of the So-called “Senmurv” according to the Armenian and Eastern Christian Monuments (VII–XIII)], Transactions of the State Hermitage Museum 77 (2019) 159–69. 39   A. Kazaryan, Кафедральный собор Сурб Эчмиадзин и восточнохристианское зодчество IV–VII веков [The Cathedral of Holy Ejmiacin and the Eastern Christian Architecture of the 4th–7th Centuries] (Moscow, 2007) 89–110, fig. 60, 86. 40   N. Aladashvili, Монументальная скульптура Грузии: Фигурные рельефы V–ХI веков [Monumental Georgian Sculpture. Figurative Reliefs of the 5th–11th centuries] (Moscow, 1977) 52, fig. 49. 41   N. Chubinashvili, Грузинская средневековая художественная резьба по дереву (перелома X–XI вв.) [Georgian Мedieval Аrtistic Woodcarving (the turn of the 10th–11th cc.)] (Tbilisi, 1958) tabl. 22–27. 38



fabulous creatures in armenia and georgia41

1215) in Ani42 (historical Armenia, present-day Turkey) and elsewhere. By examining the depictions of the senmurv in Iranian and Christian culture we are facing the difficulty of identifying some images resembling a senmurv, yet divergent from its classic representations. Thus, on the vault arches of the south gallery in the church at Nikorcminda in the region of Rača (Georgia) we find heraldic griffins, fantastic birds with bestial ears, winged lions, as well as figures resembling a senmurv, yet displaying not canine but rather leonine protomes covered with scales43 (fig. 8).44 These beings, as well as two other heraldic compositions in Nikorcminda, are accompanied by inscriptions, which is extremely rare for the depictions of fantastic animals in medieval sculpture. The first inscription in Old Georgian reads as ‘hen-dragon’, the second inscription means ‘griffins’, and the third one, placed above birds with long necks, is explained as ‘ostrich’. From these inscriptions we thus learn that the first being, iconographically resembling a senmurv, was perceived as a winged dragon. All these images are located at the base of the richly decorated vault with a relief of a cross at the centre. This vault of the gallery, as well as the main dome of the Nikorcminda church, undoubtedly embodied the image of heaven, according to the established symbolism of the church domes in eastern Christian architecture. The very location of these supernatural beings and their iconography (wings, necklaces) gives us the right to consider them to be creatures denoting the boundary of the celestial sphere embodied by the church building and, accordingly, its guardians. Various winged monsters resembling a senmurv are also known from Sogdian art, closely associated with native Iranian culture. On a Sogdian silver vase ​​from the Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg, instead of a dog’s protome we find that of a camel.45 On the eighth-century frescoes from Panjikent (in the present-day Tajikistan) we see images of sea monsters with the heads of a lion, a horse and a camel, flying over the portraits of kings and heroes as 42  Hakobyan et al., ‘The Senmurv and Other Mythical Creatures’, 45–46, fig. 11. 43   In Iranian art we encounter images of senmurv covered with scales which indicate that it dwells in the sea, as the sea monster at Ałt̔amar. 44  Dadiani et al., Medieval Georgian sculpture, 194, fig. 429–34. 45   Ibid., 82, fig. 4.

42

lilit mikayelyan

their patrons.46 Similarly, in the art of the South Caucasus griffins and senmurvs can be found in different variations, as we have observed on the reliefs at Nikorcminda. This iconographic diversity itself also shows that these images do not explicate a Biblical text and, therefore, that they could receive a much freer artistic interpretation than canonical images.47 On the east façade of the single-naved church of St John the Baptist at Xc՚isi (1002), Georgia, we find a unique relief, on which two winged fantastic creatures carry two lion cubs sitting on the tails of monsters (fig. 9). Тhe latter have eagle beaks, but at the same time rounded ram horns are visible on their heads. V. Ĵobaje calls these animals senmurvs48, while T’. Xundaje mentions them as ‘griffin-like creatures’49, but it would be equally right to call them winged rams on account of the shape of their heads and horns. Be it as it may, the Xc̓ isi images must have been possessed of a symbolic meaning analogous to the contemporary winged beings on the walls of Ałt̔amar, Nikorcminda, the church in Ošk/Oški (963-973, Historical Tayk̔/Tao, present-day Turkey) and several others. Another question is posed by the interpretation of the plot. As the relief is placed on the east façade, i.e. behind the altar, we can assume that it is related to the idea of salvation or the ascension of the righteous souls. However, we may not exclude the possibility that the composition was also possessed of a certain solar-astrological meaning. The next group of fantastic animals that we shall consider here are a sphinx, a siren and a dragon, which are mentioned in the Bible, in the medieval Physiologus and are reflected in Armenian theological literature, but predominantly with a negative connotation. The siren was considered to be the embodiment of unbelief and heresy, luring people into the arms of the devil (Isaiah, 13.21; 34.13; 43.20; Jeremiah 27(50).39; Micah 1.8). This overlaps with ancient Greek  Shenkar, Intangible Spirits and Graven Images, 139, fig. 132.   In the case of the culture of Iranian-Zoroastrian milieu we also face the lack of interpretations of animal images in religious texts. Therefore the essential part of their interpretation belongs to the iconographic analysis, as in Christian art. 48   W. Djobadze, ‘Observation on the Architectural Sculpture of Tao-Klarjet’i Churches Around One Thousand A.D.’, in F. Deichmann et al. (eds), Studien Zur spätantiken und Byzantinischen Kunst 10 (Mainz, 1986) 81–100, here on 91–92. 49  Dadiani, et al., Medieval Georgian sculpture, 195, fig. 450. 46 47



fabulous creatures in armenia and georgia43

mythology, in which sirens were demoniac creatures, muses of another world. Although during the classical period they also received a positive interpretation and Plato even associated them with the eight heavenly spheres, responsible for the harmony of the cosmos (Plato, Resp., X 617 b), this is not reflected directly in Christian texts. Yet we may not exclude the possibility that Platonic ideas inspired Christian artists. In Armenian medieval texts sirens were associated not only with the image of a fallen woman and debauchery but also with folk festivals, theatrical performances and dances. These manifestations themselves were considered devilish, and the Church fought against them as remnants of paganism.50 The sphinx was sometimes perceived in Greek mythology as a demon of death, while it does not find any specific symbolic interpretation in Christian sources. Nevertheless, beginning from the tenth century we find a number of depictions of sphinges as guardians of the sacred space in Armenian church decoration. The remote origins of this archaic function of sphinges lie in the arts of the Hittites and the Hurrians, the ancient inhabitants of Asia Minor and Upper Mesopotamia, and particularly in the Urartian art of the Armenian plateau, on which sphinges were the guardians of gates and the protectors against evil forces. Crowned sphinges with female heads appear on the thrones of Urartian kings. Bronze statuettes of sirens adorned the Urartian ritual cauldrons and were possessed of solar symbolism.51 Sphinges with male heads are also known from the arts of the Achaemenids, later reproduced on Sasanian seals.52 On the façades of the church of the Holy Cross we have some of the earliest sculpted examples of sirens in Christian art. One of them is to be found in the main belt of the north façade, below the scene with the youth killing a lion,53 with which this fabulous being has no   K. Muratova, The Medieval Bestiary (Moscow, 1984) 92−93, 190; H. Hayrapetyan, ‘Հուշկապարիկի գաղափարը հայ միջնադարյան հավատալիքներում’ [The notion of “Hushkaparik” in the medieval Armenian Beliefs], Herald of the Social Sciences 7 (1990) 53−61; J. Russell, ‘The Mother of All Heresies: A Late Mediaeval Armenian text on the Huškaparik’, RÉArm 24, (Paris, 1993) 273–93. 51   B. Piotrovsky, История и культура Урарту [History and Culture of Urartu] (St Petersburg, 2011) 212, 297, 328, fig. 10, 114, 140. 52   E. Baer, Sphinxes and Harpies in Medieval Islamic Art. An Iconographical Study (Jerusalem, 1965) 20–22, fig. 36–38. 53   Orbeli, ‘Памятники армянского зодчества’, 116–117, tabl. XXVI. 50

44

lilit mikayelyan

evident compositional link. The siren has a gentle female face, magnificent plumage and an expressive collar on its neck – the typical attribute of sacredness of animal images in Sasanian and later also Armenian and South-Caucasian art.54 These iconographical and stylistic parallels suggest that the siren at Ałt̔amar is a positive personage. The second siren is depicted below the cornice of the west fronton, within the series of running animals (fig. 10). It is represented frontally, reflecting a rare iconographic pattern: its wings spread are depicted in the form of paired wings, known from Sasanian art, from which wide ribbons emerge. Also the ribbons, which in Iran denoted royalty and glory, are fashioned according to a distinctly Iranian tradition. Two magnificent sirens are also carved on the southern side of the drum of the church of John the Baptist in the Ganjasar cathedral (1216–1238, Republic of Arc̔ ax). They are carved in a similar frontal position as in Ałt̔amar and are situated above the bas-reliefs of two female figures represented in the attitude of prayer – admittedly, the church’s donators (fig. 11). Тhe sirens have nimbi and widespread wings, and they create the impression of angels hovering over the two women. They must embody the angelic guardians of the donators’ souls, guiding the righteous to heaven. Two remarkable sirens and a sphinx are also carved on the frame of the wooden door surviving from the monastery of the Holy Apostles in Muš (1134, Museum of the History of Armenia, Yerevan). They are represented side by side with other animals amidst curly shoots – an allegorical image of Eden. The figures on the church door thus could symbolise the beings leading the faithful to eternal life. Beneath the east cornice of the south façade of the Ałt̔amar church we find a winged sphinx with a dragon-head tail (fig. 12). According to the inscription, this part of the masonry, including the sphinx and the palm tree on the left, refers to the restoration of the church in 1325.55 The iconography certainly reflects the models of the thirteenth–fourteenth centuries. Particularly the dragon’s tail was characteristic of that period, as we can conclude by observing the 54   L. Mikayelyan. ‘The Attributes of Sacredness of Animals on the Reliefs of Armenia and Georgia (6th–14th centuries)’, in P. Donabédian (ed.), Arménie et Géorgie médiévales. Études d’art et d’archéologie (Aix-en-Provence, 2021) (in print). 55   Orbeli, ‘Памятники армянского зодчества’, 161–62.



fabulous creatures in armenia and georgia45

sphinx images on the bema of the church at Vanstan (1212–1227, Armenia), on the church portal of Nor Varagavank̔ (1224–1237, Armenia) and above the portal of the Ōrbēleans’ Caravanserai (1332, Armenia) (fig. 13-15), as well as a number of sphinx depictions on the Seljuk monuments dating to the end of the twelfth–thirteenth centuries. The dragon tail with its open, deterrent jaws reflects certainly the apotropaic function of the monsters. At Ałt̔amar the sphinx is facing the palm tree, which was one of the iconographic prototypes of the Tree of Life, the symbol of Paradise. The sphinx can be interpreted as a guardian of the heavenly realm. Similar symbolism can also be detected in the image of two confronted sphinges with a Tree of Life above the portal of the Döner Gümbed mausoleum in Kayseri (Cæsaræa, second half of the thirteenth century).56 Sirens and sphinges are also known from the decoration of the thirteenth-century secular buildings in Dvin [Duin] and Ani, such as the plaster decor of a niche with confronted sphinges in Dvin and other stucco fragments found during the excavations of the city, as well as on an underglaze-painted ceramic object of that period.57 The same creatures were very popular on decorative glazed tiles, in the applied arts of the Islamic world,58 which iconographically are close to the Armenian examples. In the Islamic arts we may observe an analogous discrepancy between orthodoxy and the literary, mythological tradition relating to fabulous beings. Аs we know, because of its strict iconoclasm, Islam forbade the depictions of living beings, including fantastic animals. However, such figures did appear on Islamic secular monuments, in private spaces and in the applied arts but rarely in the decor of mausoleums or madrassahs. The surviving literary sources provide very little information which would allow us to explain the symbolism of these figures in Islamic art. The image of a sphinx, as in the case of   K. Otto-Dorn, ‘Figural Stone Reliefs on Seljuk Sacred Architecture in Anatolia’, Kunst des Orients 12, 1/2 (1978/1979) 103–49, here on 140–42. 57   K. Ghafadaryan, Դվին քաղաքը և նրա պեղումները I [The City of Dvin and its Excavations I] (Yerevan, 1952) 129−42, 223−29. 58  Baer, Sphinxes and Harpies, 10–15, fig. 14–29; V. Darkevich, Художественный металл Востока VIII−XIII вв.: Произведения восточной торевтики на территории европейской части СССР и Зауралья [The Decorative Metal of the East of the 8th−13th Centuries. The Works of Eastern Toreutics on the Territory of the European Part of the USSR and the Trans−Ural] (Moscow, 2010) 29–30; 47–49, tabl. 29; 37, 9; 43, 1–3. 56

46

lilit mikayelyan

the Christian written sources, is not mentioned in Muslim medieval literature.59 Sirens are described in a number of works of the thirteenth–seventeenth centuries, accompanied by miniatures, mostly as creatures living outside the inhabited world, which can even harm a person who falls in their domain. Such an image of sirens is also reflected in Syriac and Armenian versions of the Romance of Alexander, where on his journey to distant worlds the commander meets miraculous speaking men-birds.60 In Armenian folklore the popular speaking bird – hazaran-bəlbul (հազարան-բլբուլ) in late mediæval Armenian vernacular – lives in a similar transcendental world but has a supernatural ability to help people.61 In the applied arts of the Muslim world these figures were very popular: on precious vessels, candelabra and ceramics sirens, sphinges and dragons are accompanied by inscriptions wishing their owners prosperity, glory, success and happiness.62 These beings were often depicted in the palaces of Seljuk rulers since they were considered to be endowed with magical capacities of protecting them from enemies, evil forces or diseases.63 In the Seljukid arts, sirens and sphinges are often depicted crowned, which emphasises their special status and power. Crowns were also a characteristic detail of their iconography in the Armenian art of the thirteenth–fourteenth centuries. The same fantastic beings we also find on Byzantine applied artefacts. For example, sirens and sphinges are depicted on two twelfth-century silver gilded bowls preserved in the Hermitage.64 They are presented in confronted poses, set among plant shoots, sometimes with half-palmettes adorning their bodies – all these are

 Baer, Sphinxes and Harpies, 29.   Ibid., 35–38, fig. 46–53. 61   T. Hayrapetyan, Արքետիպային հարակցուﬓերը հայկական հրաշապատում հեքիաթներում և վիպապատմական բանահյուսության ﬔջ [Combination of Archetypes in Armenian Magic Tales and Epos] (Yerevan, 2016) 235–250. 62  Darkevich, Художественный металл Востока, 142. 63  G.  Ӧney, ‘Reflection of Ghaznavid Palace Decoration on Anatolian Seljuk Palace Decoration’, Journal of Archaeology and Art History 3 (1984) 133–41, here 138, fig. 11–15. 64   V. Darkevich, Светское искусство Византии. Произведения византийского художественного ремесла в Восточной Европе X−XIII в. [Byzantine Secular Art. Works of Byzantine art craft in Eastern Europe in the 10th–13th Centuries] (Moscow, 1975) 14, 24, 30, 48, 54. 59 60



fabulous creatures in armenia and georgia47

characteristic features of both Islamic and Armenian artefacts of the twelfth–fourteenth centuries.65 This shared cultural milieu was largely determined by the development of trade and crafts on the territory of the Seljuk Empire, through the migration of craftsmen, which resulted in an artistic exchange with the active participation of Armenians.66 During the period of cultural flourishing under the rule of the Zak̔arean dynasty in the thirteenth and the first half of the fourteenth centuries, we observe a special interest in fabulous creatures, by that time largely associated with folk traditions. The new themes in the applied arts left their traces on monumental architecture. One of the most eloquent examples is the Burt̔elašēn church (1339) in Amału-Noravank̔ (Armenia). On its west façade paired sirens and sphinges are crowned and are arranged against an elegant floral background, almost merging with it.67 Sirens upon a floral background are also to be found on the south façade of the church of St Gregory (Tigran Honenc̔ ) in Ani (fig. 16). Following an established artistic pattern (cf. the grape friezes in Zuart̔noc̔ near Ēĵmiacin and Ałt̔amar, a plant belt with animals on the wooden door of the Muš monastery), in the frieze above the blind arcade of Tigran Honenc̔ ’s church we find figures of animals and birds as an allegory of Paradise.68 Accordingly, the sirens are its inhabitants, the symbols of saved souls.69 On the altar elevation of the thirteenth-century church of the Mother of God in Makaravank̔ (Armenia), we see sirens inside eight-pointed stars (fig. 17), two single sphinges and one composition with paired sphinges, all of them crowned. The winged sphinx on the portal of the gawit̔ in Makaravank̔ is likewise adorned with a high headdress. Crowned sphinges also appear on the east façade of the church of the Mother of God in Harič (1201, Armenia), in the altar elevation decor of the church at Vanstan (fig. 13) and in a thirteenth-century tomb cut in rock in Gełardavank̔ (Armenia). Crowned sirens and sphinges are also widely represented   Mikayelyan, ‘«Расцветшие» животные’, 261–62.   Otto-Dorn, ‘Figural Stone Reliefs’, 104–06. 67  Petrosyan, Խաչքար, fig. 334, 335. 68   Z. Hakobyan, ‘Զվարթնոցի խորհրդաբանական կերպարը (Պատկերաքանդակների մեկնաբանման հարցի շուրջ)’ [The Symbolic Meaning of Zuart̔nots and the Interpretation of the Reliefs], Eĵmiacin 6 (2006) 76–85, here on 82. 69  Petrosyan, Խաչքար, 228. 65 66

48

lilit mikayelyan

in the decoration of Armenian manuscripts, often on the title pages. As a rule they are depicted in heraldic compositions, have sumptuous plumage and, in some cases, also nimbi.70 To conclude, we shall briefly examine the images of dragons. In various astrological systems dragons were associated with the movement and the eclipse of the sun and the moon. Dragons were also perceived as invincible guardians.71 As we have pointed out, with the arrival of Christianity, the semantics of the representations of dragons change. On the north façade of the Ałt̔amar church, St Theodore is portrayed killing a snake – an equivalent of a dragon in these scenes. From the tenth century, however, along with these canonical compositions, we may observe a partial rehabilitation of the archaic, multifaceted meaning of the image of dragon in Armenian art.72 On various churches a dragon (or a snake) possesses an apotropaic meaning, as on the façades of the church of Sts Paul and Peter (895–906) in the Tat̔ew monastery (Armenia), (fig. 18). Here two snakes flank female faces above each of the east niches: in our opinion, they can symbolise the heavenly luminaries. Another composition is the paired dragons with bull heads in the middle on the thirteenth-century towers of the fortress of Ani. Unlike the single dragon trampled by Christ or by saints, in these examples the dragons, or the snakes, usually form a heraldic pair: this was a common archaic scheme of guardian beings.73   L. Chookaszian, ‘The Motif of the Sphinx in the Decoration of Manuscripts Illuminated by Tʻoros Ṙoslin’, in B. Der Mugrdechian (ed.), Between Paris and Fresno. Armenian Studies in Honor of Dickran Kouymjian (Costa Mesa, 2008) 65–90; Hakobyan et al., ‘The Senmurv and Other Mythical Creatures’, 44–45, 52–53, fig. 8; 25–26; A. Gevorkian, Armenian Miniature. Zoomorphic Ornamentation (Yerevan, 1996), tabl. 12, 27–29, 32, 39, 59–60. 71   S. Kuehn, The Dragon in Medieval East Christian and Islamic Art (Leiden, 2011) 51–56. 72   A. Bobokhyan, ‘Խորենացու վկայությունը Պաղատի սրբազան տարածքի մասին և վիշապաքարերի խնդիրը’ [Xorenac‛i’s Evidence Concerning the Sacred Landscape of Pałat and the Problem of the Višapak‛ars], Archeology in Armenia 3, Ancient and Medieval Armenia and its neighbours (2017) 32–51, here on 44. 73   See in details: L. Mikayelyan, ‘Վիշապ-օձի կերպարը Հայաստանի X–XIV դդ. քանդակում. պատկերագրությունը և խորհրդաբանական եզրերը քրիստոնեական մշակույթի համատեքստում’ [The Image of Dragon-serpents in the Armenian Sculpture of 10th–14th cc.: Iconography and Symbolic Perceptions in the 70



fabulous creatures in armenia and georgia49

The compositions of apotropaic dragons on Armenian churches reveal interesting parallels with the images of dragons on Islamic monuments of the Near East: as a rule, the creatures have their jaws open wide and their bodies interlaced with loops and knots. The latter iconographic detail was so well-established that even the dragon tails of the sphinges were depicted in such a manner (fig. 15). According to S. Kuehn, the knots on their bodies were associated with defensive magic rites and denoted the concentration of power.74 In Armenia we find expressive dragons depicted above the entrance of the church at Vanstan (fig. 19), (the relief is now lost)75, in one of the niches of the south façade of Tigran Honenc̔ ’s church (fig. 20) and on the lintel of the fifteenth-century fortress door in Aṙinǰ.76 On the high altar in the church at Vanstan, we see two intertwined dragons with their mouths open wide (fig. 21), and next to them a sphinx with the tail of a dragon (fig. 13). On the portal of the church at Nor Varagavank̔ we see pairs of confronted dragons with intertwined bodies, and under them a crowned sphinx with a single head and а twined body with tails of dragons (fig. 14). This image reminds us of the two-bodied and oneheaded lions well-known in the Seljuk art of Anatolia (e.g. in the twelfth-century fortress of Silvan; on the portal of the thirteenth-century caravanserai Alay Han).77 At the same time, it also reminds us of the portal of St Demetrius’s cathedral (1194–1197) in Vladimir. This fabulous creature has ancient Eastern prototypes, and we can already find it in Achaemenid art, on the golden medallion and vessel dating to the fifth century BC78. In Armenia two-bodied sphinges with a single male head were often portrayed on the higher, most sacred layers of the ­ ontext of Christian Culture], in A. Bobokhyan et al. (eds), Vishap on the C Borderline of Fairy Tale and Reality (Yerevan, 2019) 396–410. 74  Kuehn, The Dragon in Medieval East, 159–68. 75   H. Melkonyan and G. Sargsyan, ‘Վանստանի վանքը’ [The Monastery of Vanstan], in A. Kalantar, Armenia: From the Stone Age to the Middle Ages, Selected papers (Yerevan, 2007) 101–27, here on 101–104, tabl. XV. 76   A. Kyurkchyan and H. Hawk Khatcherian, Armenian Ornamental Art (Yerevan, 2010) 54–55. 77   G. Öney, ‘Lion Figures in Anatolian Seljuk Architecture’, Anatolia 13 (1971) 43–67, here on 52, fig. 57–58. 78   L. Lelekov, Искусство Древней Руси и Восток [The Art of Ancient Russia and the East] (Moscow, 1978) 43–47, fig. 11–13.

50

lilit mikayelyan

­sixteenth–seventeenth centuries xač̔k̔ars of Old Juła (the Armenian region of Naxiǰewan in the present-day Naxçıvan, Azerbaijan, destroyed in the late 1990s – early 2000s). They are often depicted flanked by angels, with cross-shaped nimbi and similar dragon tails. According to H. Petrosyan, they could symbolize the guardians of Paradise or be connected with the symbolism of the Last Judgement.79 * * * In the medieval sculpture of Armenia and Georgia we have thus observed a series of images and themes, such as dragons, sirens, sphinges or senmurv, whose direct references are not the Bible or para-Biblical traditions. These fantastic beings had mainly been adopted from the local pre-Christian and Iranian traditions, symbolising divine protection of sacred space and the sacredness of royal power. In the Christian arts of Armenia and Georgia they mainly appear between the tenth and the fourteenth century. The church at Ałt̔amar marks the turning moment. An analogous rehabilitation of mythological representations may also be observed in the Byzantine sculpture of the tenth–twelfth centuries, in the West European architecture of the Romanesque period and as far north as the sculptural decoration of the Vladimir-Suzdal Rus’. A comparative study of these traditions can unearth important currents of the intellectual and artistic history of Christendom.

79

 Petrosyan, Խաչքար, 229–231.



fabulous creatures in armenia and georgia51

Fig. 1 – Church of the Holy Cross, Ałt̔amar, eastern façade, 915-921, lake Van, Historical Armenia, present-day Turkey (photo: H. Hawk Khatcherian).

Fig. 2 – Mouflon protome, church of the Holy Cross, Ałt̔amar, eastern façade (photo: H. Hawk Khatcherian).

52

lilit mikayelyan

Fig. 3 – Višap stela, Karmir Sar, Mount Aragac, Armenia, II mill. BC (photo: A. Bobokhyan, P. Hnila).

Fig. 4 – Ram-bird, church of the Holy Cross, Ałt̔amar, southern façade, 915-921, lake Van, Historical Armenia, present-day Turkey (photo: Author).



fabulous creatures in armenia and georgia53

Fig. 5 – Story of the prophet Jonah, church of the Holy Cross, Ałt̔amar, southern façade, 915-921 (photo: Author).

Fig. 6 – Senmurv, Sasanian silk fabric, seventh century, Victoria and Albert Museum (after: M. Cheibi, History of Persian Costume, fig. 254).

54

lilit mikayelyan

Fig. 7 – Annunciation, Martvili cathedral, eastern façade, tenth century, Georgia (after: N. Aladašvili, Monumental Georgian Sculpture. Figurative Reliefs of the V–ХI centuries, fig. 49).

Fig. 8 – Senmurv-like ­creatures, the Nikorcminda church, southern gallery, 1010-1014, Georgia (after: T. Dadiani et al., Medieval Georgian sculpture, fig. 433).

Fig. 9 – Fantastic creatures carrying lion cubs, the Xc’isi church, eastern façade, 1002, Georgia (after: T. Dadiani et al., Medieval Georgian sculpture, fig. 450).



fabulous creatures in armenia and georgia55

Fig. 10 – Siren, church of the Holy Cross, Ałt̔amar, western fronton (photo: Author).

Fig. 11 – Siren, church of John the Baptist, Ganjasar monastery, south side of the drum, 1216-1238, Republic of Arc‘ax (photo: Z. Hakobyan).

56

lilit mikayelyan

Fig. 12 – Sphinx, church of the Holy Cross, Ałt̔amar, southern façade (photo: Author).

Fig. 13 – Sphinx, the Vanstan church, the front part of the bema, 1212–1227, Armenia (photo: RAA).

Fig. 14 – Double-­ bodied sphinx, the Nor-Varagavank‘ church, portal’s tile, 1224–1237, Armenia (photo: RAA).



fabulous creatures in armenia and georgia57

Fig. 15 – Sphinx, the Ōrbēleans’ caravanserai, portal, 1332, Armenia (photo: Author).

Fig. 16 – Sirens, church of St. Gregory (Tigran Honenc‘), southern façade, 1215, Ani, Historical Armenia, present-day Turkey (photo: D. Grigoryan).

58

lilit mikayelyan

Fig. 17 – Siren, the Makaravank‘ church, the front part of the bema, thirteenth century, Armenia (photo: RAA).

Fig. 18 – Snakes and female face, the church of Sts Paul and Peter, Tat‘ew monastery, eastern façade, 895-906, Armenia (photo: Author).

Fig. 19 – Dragons, the Vanstan monastery, lintel (lost), 1212-1227, Armenia (photo: Archive of A. Kalantar, courtesy of RAA).



fabulous creatures in armenia and georgia59

Fig. 20 – Dragons, church of St Gregory (Tigran Honenc‘), southern façade, 1215, Ani (photo: D. Grigoryan).

Fig. 21 – Intertwined dragons, the Vanstan church, the front part of the bema, 1212–1227, Armenia (photo: RAA).

III. The Old Georgian Version of the Miracle of St George, the Princess and the Dragon: Text, Commentary and Translation Kevin Tuite

1.  The miracle of St George in Georgia The frequently repeated assertion that the land of Georgia and its people were named after St George goes back at least to the time of the Crusades.1 The etymology, despite its appeal, is inaccurate: the alloethnonym Georgian and its West-European equivalents are derived from Persian Gurj-.2 At the same time, it cannot be doubted that the figure of St George enjoys exceptional popularity among Georgians. Jacques de Vitry, the 12th-century Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, noted that the medieval Georgian military aristocracy revered George as their “patron and standard-bearer”,3 and perhaps the most   E.g. W. Haubrichs, Georgslied und Georgslegende im frühen Mittelalter. Text und Rekonstruktion (Königstein, 1980); S. Riches, St George. Hero, martyr and myth (Stroud, 2000) 1; G. Morgan, St George (Harpenden, UK, 2006) 10. 2   J. Assfalg, ‘Georgien’, Theologische Realenzyklopädie 12 (1984) 389–93; E. Khintibidze, ‘A New Theory on the Etymology of the Designations of the Georgians’, in W. Bublitz et al. (eds), Philologie, Typologie und Sprachstruktur: Festschrift für Winfried Boeder zum 65. Geburtstag (Frankfurt, 2002). 3   “There is also in the East another Christian people, who are very warlike and valiant in battle …. These men are called Georgians [Georgiani nuncupatur], because they especially revere and worship St. George, whom they make their patron and standard-bearer in their fight with the infidels, and they honour him above all other saints” (Jacques de Vitry, Historia orientalis, ca 1180; D.M. Lang [transl.], Lives and legends of the Georgian saints [New York, 1976] 11). 1



the miracle of st george in georgian61

emphatic confirmation of the special honour accorded to this saint is the number of Georgian churches dedicated to him. In his mid-18thcentury “Geographical description of the Kingdom of Georgia”, Vaxusht’i Bagrat’ioni declared that “there are no peaks or high hills upon which there have not been built churches to St George”.4 This can scarcely be deemed an exaggeration: out of a sampling of over two thousand Orthodox churches from all regions of Georgia, over a third were dedicated to St George.5 More Georgian kings were named after him than any other saint, and Georgian royals were depicted invoking his intercession.6 Mirroring the immense popularity of George as patron saint of the military aristocracy is the role played by figures bearing his name in the vernacular religious systems of Georgia and adjacent regions. In this paper, my focus will be one well-known episode from the life of St George, and the Old Georgian manuscript which contains its oldest known attestation. The earliest texts referring to St George, dating back to the 5th c., describe his martyrdom, and the long sequence of torments to which he is subjected by a king named Dadianos or Diocletian.7 Not long   V. Bagrat’ioni, Aɣc’era sameposa Sakartvelosa [Description of the Kingdom of Georgia], in S. Q’auxchishvili (ed.), Kartlis cxovreba IV (Tbilisi, 1973) 40. Here and elsewhere in the study, the transliteration of Georgian follows the norms of the National System of Romanisation of Georgia (2002). 5   Only Mary, the Mother of God, has comparable popularity, the two of them together accounting for a majority of the church names recorded in my database. In the much shorter list of Georgian churches compiled by M.F. Brosset, Description géographique de la Géorgie, par le tsarévitch Wakhoucht (St Petersburg, 1842) 484–87, George and Mary likewise make up the majority of patrons, although Mary outnumbers George (79 to 52, vs. 114 others). 6   Several Georgian royals, including Queen Tamar, are portrayed praying to George in a fresco at Betania (A. Eastmond, Royal imagery in medieval Georgia [University Park, PA, 1998] 163). King David the Builder is depicted alongside the saint in a 12th-century icon at the St Catherine’s monastery in Sinai (D. K’ldiašvili, ‘L’icône de Saint Georges du Mont Sinaï avec le portrait de Davit Aɣmašenebeli’, Revue des Études Géorgiennes et Caucasiennes 5 [1989] 107–28; N. Ševčenko, ‘The Representation of Donors and Holy Figures on four Byzantine Icons’, Δελτίον XAE 17 [1994] 157–66), and George is also said to have appeared to him at the Battle of Didgori in 1121 (Kartlis cxovreba I, 341). 7   D. Detlefsen, ‘Über einen griechischen Palimpsest der k. k. Hofbibliothek mit Bruchstücken einer Legende vom heil. Georg’, Sitzungsberichte der phil.hist. Classe der kaiserl. Akademie der Wissenschaften 27 (1858) 383–404; 4

62

kevin tuite

a­fterwards, no later than the 6th-7th c., George is portrayed as an aggressor rather than a victim, spearing a dragon or serpent.8 On the outer wall of the Armenian church of the Holy Cross at Ałt̔amar (built 915-921), George is represented alongside two other mounted military saints, but his spear is directed at a man-like figure rather than a dragon. The motif of George killing a man in royal dress, sometimes identified as the emperor Diocletian, subsequently appeared in icons, frescoes and bas-reliefs throughout Georgia. One frequent variant of this motif pairs George slaying a king with a facing figure of St Theodore spearing a dragon, on either side of the church entrance, e.g., on the façade of Nik’orc’minda in Rach’a (c. 1010-1014); and the rear inner walls of churches in Lat’ali (c. 1140) and Ipari (10th-11th c.) in Upper Svaneti. Over the centuries, miracle narratives are added to the St George cycle. The best-known of these, however, emerges comparatively late.9 From the 12th century onward, the story of George saving the daughter of a pagan king, who is about to be eaten by a dragon, is attested in Greek manuscripts. Not long afterwards, the miracle of the princess and the dragon appears in Latin — including the celebrated Legenda aurea — and numerous other languages.10 The oldest known attestation of this narrative, however, is in an 11th-century Georgian manuscript now held in the library of the Greek Patriarchate of Jerusalem, under the catalogue number Jer Geo 2. Haubrichs, Georgslied; W. Haubrichs, ‘Georg, Heiliger’, Theologische Realenzyklopädie 12 (1984) 380–85; H. Delehaye, Les légendes grecques des saints militaires (Paris, 1909); K. Krumbacher, Der heilige Georg in der griechischen Überlieferung (München, 1911); S. Riches, ‘St George as a male virgin martyr’, in S.J.E. Riches et al. (eds), Gender and Holiness: Men, Women, and Saints in Late Medieval Europe (Routledge, 2002) 65–85. 8   Early representations of a mounted, dragon-slaying St George from the South Caucasus include the reliefs on the Brdadzori and Xožori stela in Georgia, both dated to the 6th or 7th c., cf. N. Iamanidze, ‘The Dragon-Slayer Horseman from its Origins to the Seljuks: Missing Georgian Archaeological Evidence’, in N. Asutay-Effenberger et al. (eds), Double Headed Eagle – Byzantium and the Seljuks between the late 11th and 13th Centuries in Anatolia (Mainz, 2014) 111–27; N. Iamanidze, Saints cavaliers. Culte et images en Géorgie aux Ive–XIe siècles (Wiesbaden, 2016). 9  Delehaye, Les légendes grecques, 74–75; Krumbacher, Der heilige Georg, 295–301. 10   E.g., Church Slavonic by the 13th–14th c; A.V. Rystenko, Legenda o Sv. Georgij i Drakon v vizantijskoj i slavjanorusskoj literaturax (Odessa, 1909) 23–26.



the miracle of st george in georgian63

In their respective studies of the legend of St George and the dragon, the Russian scholars Aleksandr Veselovskij and Aleksandr Rystenko attributed its emergence to a synthesis of Christian representations of the triumph of Good over Evil, and the ancient Iranian motif of a hero battling a dragon, expressed in the language of Byzantine hagiography by a monastic author.11 Drawing upon contemporary descriptions of the St George cult in the Caucasus—in church art as well as vernacular belief—Veselovskij and Rystenko identified Georgia, situated at the interface of the Byzantine and Iranian cultural zones, as a probable site of emergence of the princess-and-dragon narrative. This intriguing but speculative hypothesis received important support from the art historian Ekaterina Privalova, author of a monographic study of the frescoes in the 12th-c. church at Pavnisi in central Georgia.12 Privalova’s interpretation of scenes from the life and martyrdom of St George, as depicted at Pavnisi and other Georgian churches from the 11th to the 13th century, was guided by her familiarity with the hagiographic literature, including Jer Geo 2, to which she accords special attention. Several phrases from the manuscript are quoted in her analysis of the illustrations of George, the princess and the dragon, and she also provides a Russian summary of the narrative in Jer Geo 2.13 Privalova’s work took pride of place in Christopher Walter’s discussion of the princess-and-dragon miracle, which includes an English translation of Privalova’s summary.14 Sara Kuehn’s recent work on the same motif draws on both Privalova and Walter, leading her to reinforce the hypothesis sketched out by Veselovskij and Rystenko over a century ago.15 After discussing the “iconographic semantics of the equestrian dragon-fighter … in its heroic as well as saintly incarnation, [which] owe much to ancient prototypes that   A.N. Veselovskij, Razyskanija v oblasti russkix duxovnyx stixov, II. Sv. Georgij v legende, pesne i obrjade (St Petersburg, 1880) 70–71; and Rystenko, Legenda, 456–74. 12   E.L. Privalova, Pavnisi (Tbilisi, 1977). 13  Privalova, Pavnisi, 73. 14   C. Walter, ‘The Origins of the Cult of Saint George’, Revue des Études Byzantines 53 (1995) 295–326; C. Walter, The Warrior Saints in Byzantine Art and Tradition (Oxford, 2003) 140–41. 15   S. Kuehn, The Dragon in Medieval East Christian and Islamic Art (Leiden, 2011) 109–10; S. Kuehn, ‘The Dragon Fighter: The Influence of Zoroastrian Ideas on Judaeo-Christian and Islamic Iconography’, Zoroastrianism in the Levant, ARAM 26, 1/2 (2014) 65–101. 11

64

kevin tuite

g­ erminated in the syncretistic melting pot of the great Near Eastern religions”, Kuehn concludes that “it is therefore very possible that the miracle narrative of Saint George and the dragon originated in the Transcaucasian region, probably in Georgia, from where his cult and his fame spread throughout the Near East, as well as Europe”.16 In view of the significance of the earliest known textual witness of the princess-and-dragon miracle for investigations into its origins, I will discuss the Old Georgian text from Jer Geo 2 here, as well as provide a transcription and translation. In upcoming work on vernacular and elite representations of St George in Transcaucasia, I intend to address the question of the site of origin of the narrative. 2.  The composition of the Old Georgian narrative of the miracle of St George, the princess and the dragon Before its transfer to the Patriarchate library, the manuscript belonged to the nearby Monastery of the Holy Cross, which for centuries was a major locus of Georgian monasticism and manuscript production, especially after the rebuilding of the monastery in the 11th century.17 The manuscript Jer Geo 2 has been inspected and described on several occasions.18 It is a parchment codex of 268 folios, inscribed in the ecclesiastical nusxuri script, with numerous abbreviations (karagma),

  Kuehn, ‘The Dragon Fighter’, 71. See also M. White, ‘The rise of the dragon in middle Byzantine hagiography’, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 32/2 (2008) 149–67; 152, and P. Armstrong, ‘Ethnicity and Inclusiveness in the Development of Religious Cults: Saint Christopher the DogHeaded and Saint George,’ in K. Durak et al. (eds), Identity and the other in Byzantium (Istanbul, 2019) 71–82, 76. 17   L. Menabde, dzveli kartuli mc’erlobis k’erebi, 2: dzveli kartuli mc’erlobis k’erebi sazɣvargaret [Centers of ancient Georgian literary activity abroad] (Tbilisi, 1980) 69–139; Y. Tchekhanovets, Gruzinskaja cerkov’ na Svjatoj Zemle (Moscow, 2012); Y. Tchekhanovets, The Caucasian Archaeology of the Holy Land. Armenian, Georgian and Albanian communities between the fourth and eleventh centuries (Leiden, 2018) 208. 18   Notably by A. Cagareli, ‘Pamjatniki gruzinskoj stariny v Svjatoj Zemle i na Sinae’, Pravoslavnyj Palestinskij Sbornik 10 (1888) 172; N.J. Marr, ‘Žitie Sv. Grigorija Xandztijskago’, Teksty i Razyskanija po Armjano-Gruzinskoj Filologii VII (1911) XXXVIII–LXX; and R.P. Blake, ‘Catalogue des manuscrits géorgiens’, Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 23 (1923) 1–157: 357–62. 16



the miracle of st george in georgian65

ascribed by Blake to the 11th c.19 The text comprises 23 sections, mostly saints’ lives, including the biography of Grigol Xandzteli.20 The second-to-last segment, on folios 238r-244r, consists of three miracle narratives featuring St George: the princess and the dragon (BHG 687), the overcoming of a demon (BHG 687k-m), and the tale of Theopistos and his lost oxen (BHG 689).21 The narratives of the first two miracles — the only ones ascribed to St George during his lifetime — form a continuous text in Jer Geo 2, as well as several Greek manuscripts;22 according to the texts, the demon miracle took place immediately after that of the princess-and-dragon, as George was on his way home. The Theopistos miracle, attributed to St George after his martyrdom, is, on the other hand, preceded by an introduction (“Hear, o brothers, another wondrous miracle of the glorious arch-martyr George …”) similar to that introducing the princess-anddragon narrative. Because of the narrative and textual continuity of the princess-and-dragon and demon miracles, both will be discussed and translated here, although the primary focus will be on the first of the two. I intend to examine the Old Georgian recension of the Theopistos miracle in a separate paper. In the following sections, segments of the princess and dragon miracle, and also that of the demon, will be referenced by their line numbers in the appended texts. 2.1.  Characteristics of the Old Georgian version (1) Proximity to other Georgian versions. I have compared several later attestations of the princess-and-dragon miracle narrative in the Old Georgian corpus to that in Jer Geo 2. The edition of the narrative prepared by Q’ubaneishvili, on the basis of three mss from the 13th-14th cc. (Q-762, H-600, H-1760), follows Jer Geo 2 almost word for word: the handful of divergent readings are insignificant, except   Ascribed by Blake, ‘Catalogue des manuscrits géorgiens’, 357 to the 11th c., a dating accepted by Z. Sarjveladze, kartuli salit’erat’uro enis ist’oriis šesavali [An introduction to the history of the Georgian literary language] (Tbilisi, 1984) 598; and E. Gabidzashvili, kartuli natargmni hagiograpia (Tbilisi, 2004) 365. A photographic reproduction of Jer Geo 2 is available at the Library of Congress web site (https://www.loc.gov/resource/amedmonastery.00271072235-jo/, last accessed on 15 January, 2021) 20   Edited by Marr, Žitie Sv. Grigorija. 21   F. Halkin (ed.), BHG I (Brussels, 1957) 217–18. 22   J.B. Aufhauser, Das Drachenwunder des Heiligen Georg (Leipzig, 1911) 26. 19

66

kevin tuite

for two cases where I believe the Q’ubaneishvili edition preserves readings I would attribute to the antecedent of Jer Geo 2.23 One of these serves to correct a misspelling, and the other involves a lexical replacement (vedrebay “plea” for qmay “voice” in #81; see below). The text of the miracle in Sabinin is more divergent, and includes an extensive interpolation after #34, at the end of the king’s lament.24 The morphology and orthography conform to the style of 18th- or early 19th-century written Georgian, but in most respects the text is very close to Jer Geo 2 and the Q’ubaneishvili and Gabidzashvili editions. (2) Intertextuality: As Rystenko had surmised with respect to the Greek version, the Old Georgian narrative of the princess-and-dragon miracle emerged in a context of monastic literacy.25 The text abounds in references to the Old and New Testaments, and possibly other ecclesiastical sources. Some such scriptural echoes could have been commonplaces used without reference to their source, e.g., the description of the grief-stricken king dressing his daughter “in royal purple” (p’orpiri sameupoy; cf Song of Songs 7:6) and “adorning her like a bride” (šeamk’o igi vitarca sdzali; cf. Isaiah 61:10). The overall distribution of the Biblical quotations within the narrative, especially the most explicit ones, strongly implies however that the author deployed these references strategically, in order to signal the Christian identity and holiness of the principal character. The Biblical references are concentrated in the words put in the mouth of St George, especially in the following two scenes: (i) George’s prayer to God for help subduing the dragon (##7381). After interrogating the princess about her identity and the deities worshipped by her people, George addresses a prayer to God, much of which consists in direct or near-direct citations from the Old   S. Q̣’ubaneišvili, dzveli kartuli lit’erat’uris krest’omatia I (Tbilisi, 1946). An edition of the miracle narrative also appears in E. Gabidzashvili, c’minda giorgi dzvel kartul mc’erlobaši (Tbilisi, 1991) 75–83, based on the mss Jer Geo 2, Q-762 and H-600. Wherever there is a divergence, however, Gabidzashvili almost invariably follows the later mss rather than Jer Geo 2. 24   G. Sabinin, sakartvelos samotxe: sruli aɣc’eray ɣwac’lta da vnebata sakartwēlos c’midata (St Petersburg, 1882) 59–62; K’. K’ek’elidze, ‘godebis žanri da glovis c’esi dzvels kartuls lit’erat’uraši’, TSU Šromebi 33 (1948) 73–106. 25  Rystenko, Legenda, 456–57. 23



the miracle of st george in georgian67

­ eorgian translations of the Scriptures. Exact or near-exact quotations G are marked with a double underline, whereas close but not exact citations are marked with a single underline. Georgian miracle narrative

translation

scriptural source

translation

და აღიხილნა თუალნი თჳსნი წმიდამან გიორგი ღმრთისა მიმართ და თქუა:

And saint George raised his eyes toward God and said:

ღმერთო რომელი ჰზი ქერაბინთა ზედა და ჰხედავ უფსკრულთა

God, you who sit above the cherubim and look at the abyss,

Daniel 3:55 კურთხეულ ხარ შენ, რომელი ჰზი ქერობინთა და ჰხედავ უფსკრულთა

Blessed are you, who sit with the cherubim and look at the abyss

რომელი-ეგე ხარ და ჰგიე ჭეშმარიტი ღმერთი,

you who are and remain the true God,

Heirmologion (ms A603) რომელი იყო, არს და ჰგიეს მარადის უცვალებელად, დიდებული სამებაჲ

Who was, is and remains always unchanging, the glorious Trinity

შენ თავადმან უწყნი გულის ზრახვანი კაცთანი

you yourself know the heart-thoughts of men,

Lk 9: 47 ხოლო იესუ იცნოდა გულისზრახვანი მათნი

But Jesus knew their heartthoughts

ძალნი აჩუენენ სასწაულნი საკჳრველნი მონისა შენისა მოსეს მიერ, აჩუენე ჩემზედაცა წყალობაჲ შენი,

you showed power and miracles and wonders through your servant Moses, show your mercy through me also,

და ყავ ჩემთანა and make a good სასწაულ კეთილ miracle with me.

Ps 85:17 ყავ ჩემ Make a good თანა სასწაულ miracle with me. კეთილ

68

kevin tuite

და დამამორჩილე ბოროტი ესე მჴეცი ქუეშე ფერჴთა ჩემთა,

And make this evil beast submit to me beneath my feet,

რათა ცნან ყოველთა, ვითარმედ ჩემთანა ხარ!

that all will know that you are with me!

და მოიწია ჴმაჲ ზეცით რომელი ეტყოდა: გიორგი შეისმინა ვედრებაჲ შენი ყურთა ოჳფლისათა, ყავ რაჲცა გნებავს, რამეთუ მე შენთანა ვარ!

And there came a voice from above, saying: George, your plea has been heard by the ears of the Lord, do what you wish, for I am with you!

I Corinth 15: 27 რამეთუ ყოველივე დაამორჩილა ქუეშე ფერჴთა მისთა

For he made everything submit beneath his feet

Life of St Eustochius & companions: ჴმაჲ მოიწია ზეცით, მეტყველი: შეისმინა ვედრებაჲ თქუენი და გეყო თქუენ, ვითარცა ინებეთ

A voice came from above, saying: Your plea has been heard, it will be done to you as you wished

Alongside the Biblical quotations are passages attested in other genres of ecclesiastic writing.26 The characterization of God as “you who are and remain [xar da hgie] the True God” echoes the same conjunction of two verbs of being — the copula (2sg xar; 3sg ars), and a now-obsolete verb which indicated stable, perduring existence (2sg hgie; 3sg hgies) — as is found in the 10th-c. liturgical codex A603 (cf also Hebrews 7:3);27 cf. Greek ho ōn kai diamenōn in the corresponding passage in some of the manuscripts collected by Aufhauser.28 The voice from heaven is also marked intertextually. One finds a close parallel in the martyrdom narrative of St Eustochius and his   The quotation of Psalm 85 in #78 might also echo a citation of the same passage in the Life of Grigol Xandzteli (§69), which is included in the same manuscript (Marr, Žitie Sv. Grigorija). Furthermore, in this context, St George is mentioned explicitly: “Let us call on St George and all the saints, and may the Lord make a good miracle (da q’os upalman sasc’aul k’etil)”. 27   G. K’ik’nadze, Nevmirebuli dzlisp’irni (xelnac’eri A-603) (Tbilisi, 1982). 28  Aufhauser, Das Drachenwunder, 63. 26



the miracle of st george in georgian69

family,29 although the final part of the quotation has been inverted: “it will be done to you as you wished” (geq’o tkven vitarca inebet) rather than “do what you wish” (q’av rayca gnebavs). (ii) George addresses the people of Lasia after subduing the dragon (##99-101). After the princess leads the dragon on a leash into the city, George demands that the people of Lasia believe in Jesus Christ, and in return he “will cause the dragon to die”. The initial portion of his speech references the words of Moses before the miracle of the parting of the Red Sea (Exodus 14:13). This citation might well have been motivated by the earlier mention of God’s having shown “power and miracles and wonders through your servant Moses” (#77). The verb mo=v-a-k’wd-in-o in #100 is the causative of mo=k’wd-eb-i-s “dies”, and means literally “I will cause sb/sthg to die”. In the Old Testament, this verb is employed to describe execution on judicial or religious grounds (cf. English “put to death”), or the causing of death by indirect means. After the king and the people confess their faith in the Christian God, George slays the dragon with his sword, but through the marked choice of the causative mo=v-a-k’wd-in-o rather than the expected mo=v-k’l-a “I will kill”, an explicit link is made to a dragon-slaying incident from the (apocryphal) Old Testament, the tale of Bel and the Dragon (Daniel 14). Daniel causes the death of a dragon “without blades or clubs”, by feeding it cakes made of pitch and hair, but like St George, he slays it in the presence of a king and his people in order to convince them of the power of the true God. Georgian miracle narrative

translation

scriptural source

translation

ხოლო წმიდაჲ იგი ეტყოდა მათ: ნუ გეშინინ არამედ დეგით და იხილოთ მაცხოვარებაჲ ღმრთისაჲ

but the saint said to them: Fear not, rather stand and you will see God’s deliverance.

Exod 14:13 AKCS თქუა მოსე ერისა მიმართ: … დეგით და იხილოთ მაცხოვარება უფლისა მიერი

Moses said to the people: … Stand and you will see the deliverance by the Lord

  K’. K’ek’elidze, Et’iudebi dzveli kartuli lit’erat’uris ist’oriidan VI (Tbilisi, 1960) 155–59; Gabidzashvili, kartuli natargmni hagiograpia, 187–88. 29

70

kevin tuite

ჰრქუა მათ: გრწმენინ ოჳფალი ჩუენი იესოჳ ქრისტე ჭეშმარიტი ღმერთი ყოვლად ძლიერი და მოვაკუდინო ვეშაპი ესე,

He said to them: Believe in my lord Jesus Christ the all-powerful true God, and I will make the dragon die,

და არა მოიკლნეთ მის მიერ.

and you will not be killed by it

Daniel 14:25 BS ხოლო შენ, მეფეო, მომეც ჴელმწიფება და მოვაკუდინო ვეშაპი თჳნიერ მახჳლთა და კუერთხთასა.

But you, King, give me permission and I will make the dragon die, without blades or clubs

(iii) Martyrdom narratives: The author of the princess-and-dragon text was clearly familiar with accounts of the martyrdom of St George. The names of the pagan gods worshipped by the people of Lasia (Herakles, Apollo, Skamandros and Artemis, #71) also appear in the martyrdom narratives in Old Georgian, Greek, Armenian, and other languages.30 The assurance by the voice from heaven that “I am with you” (#81) might also represent an echo of the martyrdom text,31 as does the phrase (itself a reference to the song of the young men in the furnace in Daniel 3:55) “you who sit above the cherubim”.32 (iv) Secular dragon-combat narratives: Less certain, but probable, is the familiarity of the author with contemporary secular texts describing knightly heroes fighting dragons. The best known of these early chivalrous romances is the Amiran-Darejaniani, which was already in circulation at the time of Shota Rustaveli (c. 1200), and which was sufficiently popular that scenes from it were painted on the outer walls of a church in the Svanetian commune Lenjer.33 Numerous dragon-combat scenes appear throughout the Amiran-Darejaniani, as  Gabidzashvili, c’minda giorgi, 147; Krumbacher, Der heilige Georg, 6, 11, 22; P. Peeters, ‘Une Passion Arménienne de S Georges’, AB 28 (1909) 249–71. 31  Gabidzashvili, c’minda giorgi, 59; Krumbacher, Der heilige Georg, 8. 32  Krumbacher, Der heilige Georg, 25; Peeters, ‘Une Passion Arménienne’, 258. 33   E. Taq’aishvili, Arkeologiuri eksp’edicia lečxum-svanetši 1910 c’els [Expédition archéologique en Letchkhoum et en Svanéthie] (Paris, 1937) 330. 30



the miracle of st george in georgian71

do royal daughters, although they function primarily as trophies for the most valiant knights. Also of possible relevance is the Iranian epic Shah-nameh, composed by Firdawsi around the year 1000, and soon thereafter circulating among the Georgian elite. One of the key episodes of the epic is the defeat by the hero Fereidun (Geo. Pridon) of the sinister Zahhak (Geo. Zaak), who has two serpents growing from his shoulders, which feed on human brains. In both the Amiran-Darejaniani and the Old Georgian recensions of the princess-and-dragon miracle, the word designating the dragon is vešap’-;34 the same word designates Zaak’s brain-eating serpents in the Georgian versions of the Shah-nameh. The noun vešap’-, of Iranian origin, appears in the Old Testament as the equivalent of both Greek drakō (e.g. in Bel and the Dragon, and also with reference to the serpents created from ­Aaron’s staff in Exodus 7:9), and kētos (Gen 1: 21, the tale of Jonah in the belly of the whale).35 As early as the 6th–7th centuries, however, the term vešap’- is applied specifically to the serpent-like beast slain by St George, as attested in the inscription on a bas-relief from Xožorni.36 A possible Biblical source for the motif of a dragon ­threatening a woman is the passage in chapter 12 of the Book of Revelation, although it is not referenced explicitly in Jer Geo 2, as far as I can tell. 2.2.  Jer Geo 2 vis-à-vis Greek versions of the miracle Aufhauser undertook a detailed comparison and collation of twenty-five Greek attestations of the princess-and-dragon miracle, from manuscripts dating from the 12th to the 17th century.37 I obtained photographic reproductions of fourteen mss collated by Aufhauser, as well as Messina S. Salv Gr 29 (which I will label ms Ξ), and two others.38 The Georgian versions mentioned above and Aufhauser’s   On the representation of vešaps in Georgian art, see L. Mikayelyan’s contribution below. 35   J. Gippert, Iranica Armeno-Iberica. Studien zu den iranischen Lehnwörtern im Armenischen und Georgischen (Wien, 1993) 317–29. 36   Iamanidze, ‘The Dragon-Slayer’. 37  Aufhauser, Das Drachenwunder. 38   On the Messina manuscript see H. Delehaye, ‘Catalogus codicum hagiographorum graecorum Monasterii S. Salvatoris nunc Bibliothecae Universitatis Messanensis’, AB 23 (1904) 19–75; Krumbacher, Der heilige Georg, 250–51. 34

72

kevin tuite

Greek corpus are sufficiently close that one cannot reasonably doubt that they have a common source. My initial impression is that the manuscripts Ξ, U (Aufhauser’s label for Athens 838, 16 th c.), A (Paris 770, ca 1300), and W (Bologna 2702, 15th c.), are the closest to Jer Geo 2, especially Ξ and U, which at several points contains readings paralleling Jer Geo 2 which are lacking in all other Greek manuscripts studied by Aufhauser (notably, in ##10, 23, 60, 68). This being a preliminary study focused on the Georgian version of the princess-and-dragon miracle, I will leave any detailed comparison with the Greek corpus to specialists with the requisite knowledge and limit myself to pointing out some divergences between the Georgian recensions and all or most of the Greek manuscripts which might prove to be diagnostic of the textual history of this narrative. (a) The names of the city and its king. In all Georgian versions, the city where the miracle occurs is Lasia, ruled by a king named Selinos (##3-4). In the Greek corpus, the name of the city is the same, save for seven mss with variants (Lasaia, Lasiakē, Basiakē).39 The name Selinos, however, appears in none of the mss collated by Aufhauser. The most common variants are Selbos or Selbios; other mss have Eusebios, Elbios, Seulbios; that is, most Greek variants agree with the Georgian as regards the first two consonants — /s/ and /l/ — but have /b/ instead of /n/ as the stem-final consonant. Mss F, G and Ξ have Selb(i)on, and one 17th-century Greek text has Elin.40 The closest phonetic match for Selinos, as Veselovskij observed long ago based on information communicated to him by Cagareli, is the name of the city in the 13th-century Legenda aurea: Silena.41 In another Latin ms (Vatican C 129, ca 1300), the city is once again named Lasia, but the king’s name is Senius, which implies that a variant of the name with the consonant /n/ was in circulation outside of Georgia.42 There has been much discussion about the origin of the names of the city and its king, but little in the way of a demonstrated connection to known people or places, or any other convincing explanation.43  Aufhauser, Das Drachenwunder, 53.  Aufhauser, Das Drachenwunder, 128. 41  Veselovskij, Razyskanija, 73; Aufhauser, Das Drachenwunder, 203. 42  Aufhauser, Das Drachenwunder, 219. 43  Veselovskij, Razyskanija, 72–73; Aufhauser, Das Drachenwunder, 73–76; Krumbacher, Der heilige Georg, 298; D. Ogden, Drakōn: Dragon 39 40



the miracle of st george in georgian73

(b) Mention of Diocletian, and second mention of Lasia. In #42, the Georgian recensions specify that, at the instigation of God, “King Diocletian released [George] from military service” (ganut’eos mqedrobay deok’let’iane mepeman). The name of Diocletian appears in none of Aufhauser’s 25 mss, except U (apoluthēnai ton straton tou basileōs dioklētianou) and Ξ. These same mss are also alone among the Greek versions in containing a second reference to the city Lasia at #60 (upalo, ese ars kalaki lasiay “Lord, this is the city Lasia”; U Ξ Kurie, autē estin hē polis lasia).44 (c) Negotiating the conversion to Christianity. In the address to the people of Lasia mentioned in the previous section, George offers to make the dragon die if the king and the people convert (Geo. movak’wdino vešap’i ese “I will make this dragon die”; most Gk mss: apoktenō ton drakonta “I will kill the dragon”; mss VW egō apoktēnai ekhō ton drakonta). The Georgian texts add: “and you will not be killed by it” (da ara moik’lnet mis mier, #101). Only four Greek mss examined by Aufhauser have a passage paralleling this phrase.45 Manuscripts U, and the closely-related V and W, correspond well to the Georgian: U kai mē apoleisthe ex autou; VW mēdena aneleisthe hup’ autou. Mss A and and Ξ however make the intended threat explicit: ei de mēge, aphiō auton, kai aneleisthe hup’ autou “if not, then I will let it loose, and you will be destroyed by it”. (d) The dragon’s leash. The high point of the miracle narrative begins with the appearance of the dragon (#82), and culminates in its subjugation and binding with a leash (#95). In all Georgian versions, the arrival of the dragon is preceded by the shaking of the reed-bed Myth and Serpent Cult in the Greek and Roman Worlds (Oxford, 2013) 404. Aufhauser, Das Drachenwunder, 76, resigned himself to the likelihood that “in Wirklichkeit wird wohl auch der Name des Königs wie jener der Stadt aus der schöpferischen Phantaisie des ersten Verfassers des Drachenwunders stammen”. One notes the phonetic proximity of Selinos to Siluanos, who denounced George for his anti-pagan activities in some versions of the saint’s biography (Veselovskij, Razyskanija, 193; Delehaye, Les legendes grecques, 67), and Silenus/Silēnos, tutor of Dionysos and mythic drunkard (A. Hartmann, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart, 1927) 3A: 35–53). 44  Aufhauser, Das Drachenwunder, 59. 45  Aufhauser, Das Drachenwunder, 66.

74

kevin tuite

in the lake (šeirq’ia lerc’movani igi).46 None of the Greek mss, however, mention the reed-bed. Georgian mss 11-14th c.

#82-84 The reed-bed shook (šeirq’ia lerc’movani igi) and the woman cried out to George: Vaime, my lord, run away, behold, here comes the evil dragon!

#85-91 George confronted the dragon and made the sign of the cross over it: Lord, my God, make this beast submit to me. Through the intercession of the Holy Spirit and his prayer (šec’evnita sulisa c’midisayta da locvita misita), the dragon fell at his feet.

#92-93 Then George ordered the woman: Undo your belt and hand it to me (gaiqsen sart’q’eli šeni da momartw aka)

Greek mss (Aufh. 64-65)

The maiden became afraid, saying ‘Oimoi, my lord, go away, for the evil beast is coming!’

George stood before the dragon and made the sign of the cross: Lord, my God, make this beast submit to me, so that this unbelieving people will believe. Through the intercession of God and his prayer, the dragon fell at his feet.

And George said to the woman: Undo your belt and the cord of my horse and bring them to me (luson tēn zōnēn sou kai to skhoinion tou hippou mou kai phere moi ōde)

  The emergence of the dragon from a reed-filled lake is also depicted in the fresco from Ik’vi (Privalova, Pavnisi, 80–82). 46



the miracle of st george in georgian75

On the other hand, in all of the Greek versions, except for G, the maiden is instructed by George to remove both her belt, and “the cord of my horse” (to skhoinion/skēnion/doukalion tou hippou mou), with which the saint binds the dragon. He then hands the leash to the maiden, who leads the tamed beast into the city. The complementary distribution of the shaking reeds and the horse’s cord lead me to wonder if the two textual variations could be connected somehow.47 The Georgian word which I translate as “reed-bed” is lerc’movani, derived from the root lerc’am- ‘reed’ by addition of the attributive suffix –ovan-. The second component of the leash is described as a skhoiníon in all but eight of the Greek mss. In seven of the remaining ones, it is a skēnion, and ms A has doukalion. The noun skhoiníon ‘cord, rope’ is a derivative of skhoînos ‘rush, reed’. The latter noun appears only a handful of times in the LXX (e.g., Micah 6:5, Joel 3:18), whereas skhoiníon is very frequent. The question arises whether skhoînos, as a translation of lerc’movani in a Greek text anterior to those in Aufhauser’s corpus, was misread as a form of the higher-frequency skhoiníon, and moved to a context where it would make sense, a few lines further in the text. Renaud Gagné informs me that skēnion would have been homophonous, or nearly so, with skhoiníon in the Byzantine period, and thus could represent a simple misspelling, of which there are countless examples in the Greek manuscripts.48 The isolated word doukalion appears to be a borrowing from medieval Latin (ducale “rein, rope”), clearly a synonym for skhoiníon.49 (e) Innovations in Jer Geo 2. In some instances, divergences between the Georgian and Greek recensions might be attributable to innovation or loss in the former, rather than the latter. The king’s lament for the wedding banquet he fears that he will never arrange for   In the version of the miracle in the Legenda aurea, the maiden is instructed by George to throw her belt over the dragon’s neck (proice zonam tuam in collum draconis; Aufhauser, Das Drachenwunder, 205), without mention of a horse’s cord or other element. Since the source of the Legenda aurea version also contained the name Silena (see above), it might well have been distinct from the common ancestor of the Greek recensions in Aufhauser’s corpus. 48   R. Gagné, Ancestral fault in ancient Greece (Cambridge, 2013) 28; Aufhauser, Das Drachenwunder, 45–47. 49   J.F. Niermeyer, Mediae latinitatis lexicon minus (Leiden, 1976) 360; R. Gagné and P. Bonnechère, pers. comm. 47

76

kevin tuite

his daughter (#32) appears to be an abridgment of the fuller, more poetically structured passages in Greek versions such as U (“When will I light the lamps? When will I gather the choral dancers? When will I hear the melodies of the organ? When will I mix wine?”). At line #52, most Greek versions add “Get on your horse [anelthe epi tou hippou sou], and go away from here”; no Georgian versions refer to a horse at this point. I am not certain what to make of a divergence at #76. After “the (heart)-thoughts of men”, the Greek mss add “that are vain” [hoti eisin mataioi]. This in all likehood echoes I Corinthians 3:20 (“The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain”). The Georgian reading of #76 bears a closer resemblance to Luke 9: 47. It remains to be determined whether the Georgian recension reflects the loss of part of a reference to I Cor 3:20, or, on the contrary, the Greek versions reflect a copyist’s misunderstanding of which New Testament passage was being invoked. 3.  The miracle of St George and the demon Shortly after leaving the city of Lasia to return home, George encounters a demon of seemingly insignificant appearance, who addresses him by his name. He makes the sign of the cross around the demon and confines him there. The demon reveals that he is in fact second among the demons to Samael, the fallen archangel who tempted Eve and Adam in the Garden of Eden. The demon pleads for mercy, but George calls on God to throw him back into the fiery pit of eternal punishment. With another sign of the cross, George opens the face of a nearby cliff, casts the demon into hell, and orders the rock to close again. This second miracle seems distinctly anticlimactic after the high drama of the princess and dragon episode, and none of George’s military attributes are mentioned, neither horse nor weapons. There can be no doubt, however, that the two miracles were once frequently joined into a single narrative. Besides Jer Geo 2, the Messina ms Ξ and twelve Greek manuscripts in Aufhauser’s corpus — including nearly all of those that predate the 15th century — attach the demon narrative to that of the princess and the dragon, with textual indications that the former directly followed the latter. I will leave for later the search for evidence whether the two miracle stories did or did not share a common origin, but I will point out one notable feature shared by the dragon and demon narratives. The victory of St George over



the miracle of st george in georgian77

the adversary is represented as consisting in two stages. First, George subdues the dragon and demon by the sign of the cross, then shortly afterwards he employs his physical strength to finish them off, beheading the one and throwing the other into hell. One has the impression that the emphatically Christian initial stage was intercalated into an older, simpler narrative of a hero defeating a supernatural enemy by brute force. With respect to the Greek versions of the tale, some are close to the Georgian version, others somewhat longer.50 In Jer Geo 2, the demon, upon meeting the saint, “said to him calmly (dac’q’narebulad): ‘George’”. In most Greek versions, “he said to him ‘Peace to you (eirênê soi), George’”. It would appear that peace or calm is a component of the greeting in Greek, whereas it qualifies the tone of voice in Georgian; it remains to be determined which reading is prior to the other. In the Greek manuscripts, the name of the archdemon is variously given as Samaêl, Samouêl, Satana and Satanaêl, a variation also noted in the Old Testament apocrypha.51 Biblical references, such as the mention of humans as images of Himself created by God (#130, cf. Genesis 1:26), are less evident. 4.  The Old Georgian language of Jer Geo 2 Consistent with the 11th-century date of the manuscript, the language of the St George miracle texts in Jer Geo 2 is Classical Old Georgian. I will limit my comments to selected language features which might help localize the writer’s idiolect (or that of the producer of the manuscript from which the writer copied). 4.1.  Use of the letter ჱ (ē) One notable divergence from normative Old Georgian orthography is the frequent absence of the letter ჱ (ē), used to write the diphthong / ey/. As a consequence, the long-case nominative (see below) of /e/-­ final nouns is most often indistinguishable from the short-case form (e.g., mepe instead of mepē in #15). Inconsistencies in the writing of   E.g., the text from ms A reproduced by Aufhauser, Das Drachenwunder, 70–71. 51   A. Kulik, 3 Baruch: Greek-Slavonic Apocalypse of Baruch (Berlin, 2010) 190, 209–10. 50

78

kevin tuite

ჱ were also noted by Marr in other texts contained in Jer Geo 2.52 The frequent absence of the graphic representation of the diphthong /ey/ might have a phonological explanation. Diphthongs involving vowels further away from the high front articulation of /y/ are represented consistently in Jer Geo 2, e.g., sameupoy “royal” (#22), zɣuay “sea” (#7). The articulatory proximity of /e/ and /y/ could have contributed to the loss of the final glide in some varieties of 11th-century Georgian. 4.2.  Noun classes and the marking of definiteness Old Georgian common nouns could be followed by a demonstrative pronoun which functioned somewhat like the definite articles of English or French.53 In line #7, for example, the dragon is first mentioned without an article (da gamočnda vešap’i borot’i … “And there appeared an evil dragon”), whereas at the second mention in the following sentence (#8), the article is used (… mok’lvad vešap’isa mis “to kill the dragon”). Furthermore, the case endings of nouns not marked by articles have contrasting short and long forms, marking a distinction which Vogt characterized as générique/ spécifique.54 Common nouns thus have three nominative-case forms: (i) short case asul-ø “daughter”; (ii) long case asul-i “a daughter”; (iii) long case + article asul-i igi “the daughter”. In the miracle texts, the short nominative, corresponding to the bare nominal stem, occurs for the most part with predicate nominals (#125 me viq’av šemk’rebel ɣrubelta “I was gatherer of the clouds”), verbs denoting becoming or doing (#78 da q’av čemtana sasc’aul k’etil “and do a good miracle with me”), and expressions of quantity (Theopistos: ars sigrdze gzisay … ert st’adion “the length of the path is one stadion”); which is consistent with its use in other Old Georgian texts. Proper nouns, on the other hand, only appear with short case endings, whatever the context (Selinos-ø, Mariam-ø). What is of interest is the existence of a third type of nominal in the miracle texts, with respect to the use of the article, which I provisionally label ‘title’. The nominals c’mida “holy, saint” and mepe “king” are both employed as common nouns, which can be used as  Marr, Žitie Sv. Grigorija, XLIV, XLVIII.   K. Tuite, ‘Early Georgian’, in R.D. Woodard (ed.), Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages (Cambridge, 2004) 967–87. 54   H. Vogt, ‘Le système des cas en géorgien ancien’, Norsk tidsskrift for sprogvidenskap 14 (1947) 98–140. 52 53



the miracle of st george in georgian79

the head of a noun phrase, and as ­modifiers of a proper name. In the former context, however, c’mida and mepe most often appear without a definite article, even when the narrative structure would seem to require it. In line #95, for example, the saint, the woman and the dragon have all been mentioned in the preceding lines, but c’mida, unlike the other nouns, takes no article: Xolo c’mida-man šek’ra vešap’-i igi da misca kal-sa mas “Then (the) saint tied the dragon, and gave it to the woman”.

The three types of nominals, therefore, signal definiteness differently: no marking (short case) for personal names, long case only for titles, and maximal marking (long case plus postposed article) for common nouns. That being said, it should not be assumed that titles never appear with a definite article. In the princess and dragon narrative, and especially in the longer tale of Theopistos and his oxen, c’mida appears followed by a definite article at the beginning of episodes, or after a sequence of sentences with other referents as topics. When attached to c’mida and mepe the demonstrative igi and its oblique stem ma-, rather than simply marking definiteness, have resumptive force, renewing the topicality of an already-introduced referent. In the Old Georgian corpus, the treatment of mepe as a formally distinct type of noun is not rare. But the inclusion of c’mida in the class of titles is far less common. In most of the texts I examined, c’mida patterns like a common noun, with respect to the use of the definite article. The exceptions, as far as I have been able to tell, are hagiographic texts from the 10th–12th centuries, such as the lives of Sts Symeon Stylites and his mother Martha, Ephrem of Syria and John Chrysostom;55 and also a handful of attestations in the Life of Grigol Xandzteli. The morphosyntax of titles, in the sense I intend here, could be a useful clue to identifying the milieu in which the earliest Old Georgian narratives of St George’s miracles were produced. 4.3.  Rare or archaic words “corrected” in later manuscripts As mentioned above, the later Georgian editions of the princess-anddragon miracle diverge relatively little from Jer Geo 2. In some places, however, words from the older version have been replaced or modified, including some lexemes which are rare in the Old Georgian 55

 Gabidzashvili, kartuli natargmni hagiograpia, nn°1027, 751, 397, 577.

80

kevin tuite

l­iterary corpus. The verb describing George’s turning toward the lake to water his horse (#46) is mi-u-kci-a, a 3sg aorist with the preradical (or “version”) vowel -u-, which typically signals a 3rd-person indirect object.56 Later versions of this passage substitute the more common verb mi-a-kci-a, with a different preradical vowel. In the Old Georgian texts which I have examined so far, miukcia in the sense “turn toward, stop at (a place)” is attested a half-dozen times in the Old Testament, and once in the Knight in the panther’s skin. Another rare form that a later copyist felt obliged to “correct” is the verb da-m-amorčil-e “make it submit to me” in #79. Here as well it was the preradical vowel that was at issue: the vowel -a- can signal what grammarians refer to as a “superessive” object, which typically denotes the surface or site where an action takes place. In Modern Georgian and most Old Georgian attestations, including later readings of this line, the verb root morčil-, if it takes an indirect object, marks it with the beneficiary version vowel -u-. Instances of this verb with a superessive object are attested in a handful of Old Georgian texts, including the 9th-c. Sinai Mravaltavi. Two other modifications worth noting are: (i) The 3rd-person object prefix -h- in the verb še-h-č’am-d-a “was eating them” (lines ## 8 & 61), was replaced by the phonetically-conditioned allomorph -š- in later manuscripts (še-š-č’am-d-a). Shanidze considered the use of –h-, rather than a sibilant allophone, before a dental or alveolar occlusive to be an archaism harking back to pre-classical Old Georgian.57 Scattered examples of the sequence h-č’am- are attested in 9th–10th-century versions of the Gospels; and in some recensions of the Old Testament. A similar instance of -h- before an alveolar occlusive was noticed elsewhere in Jer Geo by Marr.58   On “version” in Georgian and its sister languages, see W. Boeder, ‘Über die Versionen des georgischen Verbs’, Folia Linguistica 2 (1968) 82–152; K. Tuite, On the origin of Kartvelian version (Munich, 2021). 57   A. Shanidze, ‘subiekt’uri p’repiksi meore p’irisa da obiekt’uri p’repiksi mesame p’irisa kartul zmnebši’ [The 2nd person subject prefix and the 3rd person object prefix in Georgian verbs], reprinted in kartuli enis st’rukt’urisa da ist’oriis sak’itxebi I [Issues in the structure and history of the Georgian language I] (Tbilisi, 1957) 111–263; see also Sarjveladze, kartuli salit’erat’uro enis ist’oriis šesavali, 44. 58  Marr, Žitie Sv. Grigorija, LII. 56



the miracle of st george in georgian81

(ii) The dative suffix after xut- “five” in #108: natel-sca ormeoc da xut-sa atas-sa “he baptized forty-five thousand”. In Jer Geo 2, the numeral modifying “thousand” agrees with it for dative case. In the later versions, the modifying numeral is marked by the unvarying, formally nominative suffix -i (ormeoc da xut-i atas-sa), which remains the dominant usage in Modern Georgian. 5.  Two miracles of St George from Jer Geo 2 (11th century) Here are the texts of the two miracle narratives from Jer Geo 2, in modern Georgian script, accompanied by close (but not necessarily literal) English translations. Corrections to the Jer Geo 2 text, based on comparison with later versions, are marked by (corr), and underlining of the letter or word that has been altered. Letters omitted in karagma abbreviations are set between brackets ⟨…⟩. The capital letters in the third column denote those Greek manuscripts in the corpus examined by Aufhauser (1911: 51) which come closest to the Georgian readings of the passage indicated. The letter is set in parentheses if the Greek reading is close but not a direct translational equivalent of the Georgian. Where no letter is shown, all or most Greek versions are equally close to the Georgian for a given passage. Also indicated are likely Biblical sources of passages in the text. 5.1.  The miracle of the princess and the dragon Georgian text Jer Geo 2 (11th c.)   1 ისმინეთ ძმანო ჩემნო საკჳრველი დიდი და დიდებული რ⟨ომე⟩ლი იქმნა წ⟨მიდ⟩ისა და დ⟨იდე⟩ბ⟨უ⟩ლისა და დიდისა მ⟨ო⟩წ⟨ა⟩მისა გ⟨იორგ⟩ის მ⟨იე⟩რ.

translation (KT)

parallels

Hear, my brothers, the great U and glorious wonder that was done by the holy and glorious and great martyr George.

  2 იყო ჟამთა მ⟨ა⟩თ ვ⟨იდრ⟩ეღა It was in those times while (UΞ) ბრწყინვიდა ქვ⟨ეყანა⟩სა the saint shone upon the ზ⟨ედ⟩ა წ⟨მიდა⟩ჲ იგი earth, before his martyrdom. პ⟨ირვე⟩ლ წამებისა მისისა   3 იყო ქ⟨ა⟩ლ⟨ა⟩ქი ერთი რ⟨ომე⟩ლსა ეწოდებოდა ლასია.

There was a city which was called Lasia.

82

kevin tuite

  4 და იყო ქ⟨ა⟩ლ⟨ა⟩ქსა მას ში⟨ნ⟩ა მ⟨ე⟩ფე სახელით სელინოს.

And in that city was a king (Legenda of the name Selinos. aurea)

  5 და იყო იგი უკეთურ და კერპთმსახურ და უშჯულო და ულმობ⟨ე⟩ლ და უწყალო ქ⟨რისტე⟩ს მ⟨ო⟩რწმ⟨უ⟩ნ⟨ე⟩თა ­­ მიმ⟨ა⟩რთ.

And he was wicked and an idol-worshipper and an unbeliever, and merciless and pitiless toward the believers in Christ.

  6 და მსგავსად ბოროტთა საქმეთა მისთა მიაგო მას ო⟨ჳფალმა⟩ნ

And God requited him in 2Tim 4:14 accordance with his evil deeds.

  7 რ⟨ამეთუ⟩ მახლობლად For near the city there was a AUΞ (W) ქ⟨ა⟩ლ⟨ა⟩ქისა მის იყო ტბაჲ lake filled with much water, შესაკრებელი წყალთა like a sea. მრავალთაჲ ვ⟨ითარც⟩ა ზღუაჲ.    8 და გამოჩნდა ვეშაპი ბოროტი წყალთა მ⟨ა⟩თ შ⟨ინ⟩ა ტბისათა და მარადღე გ⟨ა⟩ნვიდოდა და მოჰსრვიდა და გ⟨ა⟩ნჰლევდა და შეჰჭამდა მ⟨ა⟩თ,

And there appeared an evil dragon in the waters of the lake, and each day it went out and slaughtered and consumed and ate them.

  9 და მრავალ გზის შეკრიბა მეფემ⟨ა⟩ნ მჴედრებაჲ მოკლვად ვეშაპისა მის და ვერ უძლეს

And many times the king gathered his soldiers to kill the dragon, and they were unable to,

 10 რ⟨ამეთუ⟩ იყო იგი მძჳნვარე და დიდ.

For it was ferocious and big. (UΞ)

Then all of the city gathered,  11 მაშინ შეკრბა ყ⟨ოველ⟩ი იგი ქ⟨ა⟩ლ⟨ა⟩ქი. და and cried out to the king, and ჴმობდეს მეფისა მიმ⟨ა⟩რთ said: და იტყოდეს ვ⟨ითარმე⟩დ:  12 რაჲ ვყოთ ჵ მეფ⟨ე⟩ო,

What can we do, O king,

 13 რ⟨ამეთუ⟩ საყოფელი for our city is a fine dwellქ⟨ა⟩ლ⟨ა⟩ქისა ჩ⟨უე⟩ნისაჲ ing-place, and we are perishკეთ⟨ი⟩ლ⟨ა⟩რს. და ჩ⟨უე⟩ნ ing wretchedly. ბოროტად წარვწყმდებით,

UΞ



the miracle of st george in georgian83

 14 და შ⟨ე⟩ნ მეფჱ არა ჰზრუნ⟨ა⟩ვ ამისთჳს არცა იღუწი ვ⟨ითარც⟩ა მეფენი ყ⟨ოვლ⟩ისა ქ⟨უე⟩ყნისანი.

And you, king, do not care U (Ξ) about this, nor do you act, as do the kings of all countries.

 15 მაშინ ტკივნეულ იქმნა Then it became painful for U მეფე იგი. და უფროჲს-ღა the king, and he was more შეეშინა და ჰ⟨რ⟩ქ⟨უ⟩ა მ⟨ა⟩თ: frightened, and said to them:  16 აღწერეთ ერთი ჴელით წერ⟨ი⟩ლი

Write a document,

 17 და მისცენით შვ⟨ი⟩ლნი თქ⟨უე⟩ნნი შესაწირავად

and give your children as U (ATW) sacrifices,

 18 და ოდეს დაესრულნენ თქ⟨უე⟩ნ ყ⟨ოვე⟩ლთ⟨ა⟩ნი

and when all of yours will be U used up,

 19 არს ასული ჩემი მხოლოდ შობილი მეცა მივსცე იგი შესაწირავად ვ⟨ითარც⟩ა თქ⟨უე⟩ნ,

there is my only-begotten (UΞ) daughter, and I too will give her as a sacrifice, like you,

 20 და არა გ⟨ა⟩ნვცჳვეთ and we will not be dispersed ქ⟨ა⟩ლ⟨ა⟩ქისაგ⟨ა⟩ნ ჩ⟨უე⟩ნისა. from our city.  21 და სთნდა ყ⟨ოვე⟩ლთა სიტყ⟨უა⟩ჲ მისი. და იწყო კაცად კაცადმ⟨ა⟩ნ მიცემაჲ შვილთა თჳსთაჲ ვ⟨იდრემ⟩დის მიიწია მეფისა.

His words pleased them all, and they began to give their children, one after the other, until it came to the king.

 22 ხ⟨ოლო⟩ მეფემ⟨ა⟩ნ შეჰმოსა ასულსა თჳსსა პორფირი სამეუფოჲ

Then the king dressed his Song 7:6 daughter in royal purple,

 23 და შეამკო იგი ვ⟨ითარც⟩ა სძალი,

and adorned her like a bride, UΞ; Isa 61:10

 24 და იწყო ამბორისყოფად მისა და გოდებით და ცრემლით ეტყოდა:

and he began to kiss her, saying with lamentation and tears:

 25 წარვედ მხოლოდ შობილო Go my only-begotten, sweet და ტკბილო ასულო ჩემო daughter, to be eaten by the შესაჭმელად ვეშაპისა, dragon.  26 ვაჲმე საწადელო შვ⟨ი⟩ლო ჩემო

Alas, my dear child,

84

kevin tuite

 27 შ⟨ე⟩ნ იყ⟨ა⟩ვ ნუგეშინის მცემელ და მკჳდრ მეფობისა ჩემისა

you were the comfort-giver (UΞ) and inheritor of my kingdom,

 28 და სინათლე თუალთა ჩემთა and the light of my eyes,  29 და მოსალოდებელ ქორწილისა და სიძისა და აჰა ესერა საჭმლად მჴეცისა წარივლინები!

and expecting a wedding and UΞ a bridegroom, and behold, you will leave to be eaten by the beast!

 30 ვაჲმე, ვითარსა-ღა ქორწილსა აღვასრულებ

Alas, what kind of wedding will I make,

 31 ანუ რაბამსა სასძლოსა შეგიმზადებ,

or what size of bridal-chamber will I prepare for you,

 32 გინა ვითართა ორღანოთა და სახიობათა და ლამპართა და მოსმურთა და მეინაჴეთა აღგიმზადებ?

or what musical instruments and singing and lamps, and drinkers and banquet-guests will I prepare for you?

 33 ვაჲმე საწადელო შვილო ჩემო. რ⟨ამეთუ⟩ არღარა სადა ვიხილო პირი შ⟨ე⟩ნი. არცა ნაყ⟨ო⟩ფი მუცლისა შ⟨ე⟩ნისაჲ,

Alas, my dear child, for I Lk 1:42 will never again see your face, nor the fruit of your womb,

 34 რ⟨ამეთუ⟩ აჰა ესერა გ⟨ა⟩ნმეშორები თჳნიერ ზოგადისა სიკუდილისა!

for behold, you will take FG (UΞ) leave of me, without a common (normal, natural) death

 35 და მოექცა და ჰ⟨რ⟩ქ⟨უ⟩ა ერსა მას:

He turned and spoke to the people:

 36 მიიღეთ რავდენი გნებავს ოქროჲ და ვეცხლი და მისთანა მეფობ⟨ა⟩ჲცა ჩემი, და გ⟨ა⟩ნათავისუფლეთ შვილი ჩ⟨ე⟩მი!

Take gold and silver, as UΞX much as you wish, and with it my kingdom, and set my child free!

 37 და არავინ ისმინა მისი და And no one listened to him, არცა შეუნდო ამისთჳს, nor did they forgive him,  38 რ⟨ამეთუ⟩ მას გ⟨ა⟩ნეწესა გ⟨ა⟩ნჩინებ⟨ა⟩ჲ იგი პ⟨ირველ⟩ითგ⟨ა⟩ნ.

because he had first instituted the decree,

 39 და ვ⟨ითარც⟩ა იხ⟨ი⟩ლა მიუდრეკელობაჲ ერისაჲ მის, მიუბოძა მათ ასული თჳ⟨ი⟩სი.

and as he saw the unyield- UΞ ingness of the people, he gave them his daughter.



the miracle of st george in georgian85

 40 მაშინ შეკრბა ყ⟨ოველ⟩ი იგი ქ⟨ა⟩ლ⟨ა⟩ქი დიდითგ⟨ა⟩ნ ვ⟨იდრ⟩ე მცირემდე მათდა ხილვად ქალისა მის.

Then the entire people of the city gathered, from the old to the young, to watch the maiden.

 41 ხ⟨ოლო⟩ კ⟨ა⟩ცთმოყუ⟨ა⟩რ⟨ე⟩მ⟨ა⟩ნ და მრავალ-მოწყალემ⟨ა⟩ნ ღ⟨მერთმა⟩ნ ინება, რ⟨ათ⟩ა აჩუენოს სასწაულები წ⟨მიდ⟩ისა მოწამისა გ⟨იორგ⟩ის მ⟨იე⟩რ.

But loving and all-merciful God wished to show miracles and signs through the holy martyr George,

 42 ამისთჳსცა მათ დღეთა შ⟨ინ⟩ა განაგო რ⟨ათ⟩ა გ⟨ა⟩ნუტეოს მჴედრობაჲ დეოკლეტიანე მეფემ⟨ა⟩ნ.

therefore, during those days, (UΞ) He made it happen, that King Diocletian released him from the army.

 43 ვინაჲცა მოვიდოდა დიდ⟨ე⟩ბ⟨უ⟩ლი გ⟨იორგ⟩ი კაბადუკიისა სოფლად და თჳსად მამულად.

Thus the glorious George was coming toward the land of Cappadocia to his homestead,

 44 და მოღუაწებითა ღ⟨მრთისა⟩ჲთა მოიწია მას ადგილსა

and through the action of Col 1:25 God, he came to that place,

 45 მას დღესა შ⟨ინ⟩ა. რ⟨ომე⟩ლსა on that day, when the dragon (UΞ) შ⟨ინ⟩ა ეგულებოდა ვეშაპსა was to eat and destroy the მას შეჭმაჲ ქალისაჲ მის და woman. წარწყმედაჲ.  46 მიუქცია ტბად რ⟨აჲთ⟩ამცა And he turned toward the lake, ასუა წყალი ჰუნესა თჳსსა. to let his horse drink water,  47 და პოვა ქალი იგი and found the maiden seated AUW მჯდომარე კიდესა ტბისსა, at the edge of the lake,  48 და მწარედ მტირალი.

weeping bitterly.

 49 და ჰ⟨რ⟩ქ⟨უ⟩ა მას წ⟨მიდამა⟩ნ: დედაკ⟨ა⟩ცო რაჲსა სტირ ანუ რად ჰზი ადგილსა ამას?

Then the saint said to her: UΞ Woman, why do you weep, and why are you sitting at this place?

 50 მიუგო ქალმ⟨ა⟩ნ მ⟨ა⟩ნ და ჰ⟨რ⟩ქ⟨უ⟩ა მ⟨ა⟩ს: გხედავ შ⟨ე⟩ნ ო⟨ჳფალ⟩ო ჩემო ჰაეროვანსა და შუენიერსა ჰასაკითა

The maiden answered him and said: I see you, my lord, handsome and in the bloom of youth,

86

kevin tuite

 51 და ვ⟨ითა⟩რ მოხუედ აქა მოსიკუდიდ?

and why did you come here to die?

 52 წარვედ ამიერ

Go away from here,

 53 და მოსწრაფედ ივლტოდე!

and flee quickly!

54 ხ⟨ოლო⟩ წ⟨მიდამა⟩ნ ჰ⟨რ⟩ქ⟨უ⟩ა მას: დედაკ⟨ა⟩ცო რაჲ ხ⟨ა⟩რ შ⟨ე⟩ნ, ანუ რაჲ არს ერი ისი რ⟨ომელ⟩ი გხედავს შ⟨ე⟩ნ?

D (GUVW)

Then the saint said to her: Woman, who (lit. what) are you, and who are these people looking at you?

 55 ჰ⟨რ⟩ქ⟨უ⟩ა მას ქალმ⟨ა⟩ნ მ⟨ა⟩ნ: ო⟨ჳფალ⟩ო ჩემო მრავალ არს ჰამბავი ჩემი და გრძელ

The maiden said: My lord, my story has many parts and is long,

 56 და ვერ ძალმიც მითხრობად შ⟨ე⟩ნდა,

and I cannot tell it to you,

 57 ა⟨რამე⟩დ მოსწრაფებით ივლტოდე რ⟨ათ⟩ა არა ბოროტად მოჰკუდე!

rather, flee quickly, that you not die wretchedly!

 58 ჰ⟨რ⟩ქ⟨უ⟩ა მას წ⟨მიდამა⟩ნ გიორგი: მითხარ ყ⟨ოველ⟩ივე

The saint said to her: Tell L me everything,

 59 და შ⟨ე⟩ნ თანა მოვკუდე და არა დაგიტეო შ⟨ე⟩ნ!

and I will die with you, and not leave you!

 60 მაშინ ჰ⟨რ⟩ქ⟨უ⟩ა მას ქალმ⟨ა⟩ნ მ⟨ა⟩ნ ვ⟨ითარმე⟩დ: ო⟨ჳფალ⟩ო ესე არს ქ⟨ა⟩ლ⟨ა⟩ქი ლასიაჲ, და არს ესე კეთილ საცხორებელად კ⟨ა⟩ცთა

Then the maiden said to UΞ him: Lord, this is the city Lasia, and it is a good living-place for men,

 61 და წყალთა ამ⟨ა⟩თ შ⟨ინ⟩ა მკჳდრ არს ვეშაპი და შეჰჭამს იგი კ⟨ა⟩ცთა ამის ქ⟨ა⟩ლ⟨ა⟩ქისათა და მოსრავს ერსა.

and in the waters, there dwells a dragon, that eats the men of this city and slaughters the people.

 62 და მე ვარ ასული მეფისაჲ And I am the only-begotten მხოლოდშობილი. daughter of the king,  63 და ბრძანებაჲ დადვა მამამ⟨ა⟩ნ ჩემმ⟨ა⟩ნ,

and my father gave an order,



the miracle of st george in georgian87

 64 რ⟨ათ⟩ა მისცემდენ ყ⟨ოველ⟩ნი შ⟨ემ⟩დგომითი შ⟨ემდგომა⟩დ შვილთა თჳსთა დღითი დღედ.

that all give their children, one after the other, each day,

 65 და ვ⟨ითარ⟩ცა მოესრულნეს ყ⟨ოველ⟩ნი,

and when they all had been UΞ (DT) finished

 66 მოვიდა ხუედრი მამისა there came my father’s turn, ჩემისაჲ და წარმომავლინა and he sent me for the მე საჭმლად ვეშაპისა. dragon to eat.  67 და აჰა ესერა გითხარ შ⟨ე⟩ნ And behold I told you all,  68 წარვედ მშჳდობით!

go in peace!

AUΞW

 69 ესმა რაჲ ესე წ⟨მიდას⟩ა ჰ⟨რ⟩ქ⟨უ⟩ა მას: ამიერითგ⟨ა⟩ნ ნუღარა გეშინის, ნუცა სძრწი,

When the saint heard this, he (Z); told her: From now on, do Deut 1:21 not be afraid, and do not tremble,

 70 ა⟨რამე⟩დ მითხარ მე მამაჲ but tell me: your father and UΞ შ⟨ე⟩ნი და მისთანანი all those with him, what god ყ⟨ოვე⟩ლნი რ⟨ომე⟩ლსა do they serve? ღ⟨მერ⟩თსა ჰმსახურებენ?  71 ჰ⟨რ⟩ქ⟨უ⟩ა მას ქალმ⟨ა⟩ნ მ⟨ა⟩ნ: ირაკლის, და აპოლონს, და სკამანდროს, და დიდსა ღ⟨მერთს⟩ა არტემის.

The maiden told him: Herakles and Apollo and Skamandros and the great goddess Artemis.

 72 ხ⟨ოლო⟩ წ⟨მიდამა⟩ნ ჰ⟨რ⟩ქ⟨უ⟩ა: ნუ გეშინინ, ა⟨რამე⟩დ უშიშ და კადნიერ იქმენ!

Then the saint said to her: Do not fear, rather be fearless and bold!

 73 და აღიხილნა თუალნი თჳსნი წ⟨მიდამა⟩ნ გ⟨იორგ⟩ი ღ⟨მრთ⟩ისა მიმართ და თქუა:

And saint George raised his AUΞ eyes toward God and said:

 74 ღ⟨მერ⟩თო რ⟨ომელ⟩ი ჰზი ქერაბინთა ზ⟨ედ⟩ა და ჰხედ⟨ა⟩ვ უფსკრულთა

God, who sits above the Daniel 3:55 cherubim and looks down to the abyss,

 75 რ⟨ომელ⟩ი-ეგე ხარ და ჰგიე you who are and remain the Heirmologion true God, (ms A-603) ჭ⟨ე⟩შ⟨მა⟩რიტი ღ⟨მერ⟩თი,  76 შ⟨ე⟩ნ თავადმ⟨ა⟩ნ უწყნი გულის ზრახვანი კ⟨ა⟩ცთ⟨ა⟩ნი

you yourself know the heart- (AUW); thoughts of men, Lk 9: 47; I Cor 3:20

88

kevin tuite

 77 ძ⟨ალ⟩ნი აჩუენენ სასწაულნი საკჳრველნი მონისა შ⟨ენ⟩ისა მოსეს მიერ, აჩუენე ჩემზ⟨ედ⟩აცა წყალობაჲ შ⟨ე⟩ნი,

you showed power and miracles and wonders through your servant Moses, show your mercy through me also,

 78 და ყავ ჩემთანა სასწაულ კეთილ

and make a good miracle Ps 85:17 with me.

 79 და დამამორჩილე ბოროტი And make this evil beast I Corin ესე მჴ⟨ე⟩ცი ქუეშე ფერჴთა submit to me beneath my 15:27, Sinai Mr-tavi ჩემთა, feet, 173:18  80 რ⟨ათ⟩ა ცნან ყ⟨ოვე⟩ლთა, ვ⟨ითარმე⟩დ ჩემთანა ხარ!

that all will know that you are with me!

 81 და მოიწია ჴ⟨მა⟩ჲ ზეცით რ⟨ომელ⟩ი ეტყ⟨ო⟩და: გ⟨იორგ⟩ი შეისმინა ვედრებაჲ (corr) შ⟨ე⟩ნი ყურთა ო⟨ჳფლ⟩ისათა, ყავ რაჲცა გნებავს, რ⟨ამეთუ⟩ მე შ⟨ე⟩ნთანა ვარ!

And there came a voice from above, saying: George, your plea has been heard by the ears of the Lord, do what you wish, for I am with you!

 82 და მეყსეულად შეირყია ლერწმოვანი იგი

And suddenly the reed-bed (G) το υδωρ shook, διεταραχθη

 83 და ჴმა ყო ქალმ⟨ა⟩ნ მ⟨ა⟩ნ:

and the maiden cried out:

 84 ვაჲმე ო⟨ჳფალ⟩ო ჩ⟨ე⟩მო Alas, my lord, flee from ივლტოდე ამიერ. აჰა ესერა here, behold, the evil dragon მოვალს ვეშაპი იგი comes! ბოროტი!  85 ხ⟨ოლო⟩ წ⟨მიდა⟩ჲ გ⟨იორგ⟩ი But saint George ran to conმირბიოდა შემთხუევად front the dragon, ვეშაპისა მის. and he made the sign of the  86 და გამოსახა მის ზ⟨ედ⟩ა სახჱ ჯ⟨უარისა⟩ჲ და თქ⟨უ⟩ა: cross over it, and said:  87 ო⟨ჳფალ⟩ო, ღმერთო ჩემო,

Lord, my God,

 88 გარდააქციე მჴეცი ესე მორჩილებად

make this beast obedient to me,

 89 მონისა შ⟨ე⟩ნისა!

your servant!

 90 და ვ⟨ითარც⟩ა ესე თქ⟨უ⟩ა, შეწევნითა სულისა წ⟨მიდ⟩ისაჲთა და ლოცვითა წ⟨მიდი⟩სითა,

And as he said that, through T the aid of the Holy Spirit and the prayer of the saint,

ΑUΞVW



the miracle of st george in georgian89

 91 დაეცა ვეშაპი იგი ფერჴთა თანა წ⟨მიდ⟩ისათა.

the dragon fell at the feet of the saint.

 92 ხ⟨ოლო⟩ წ⟨მიდამა⟩ნ უბრძანა Then the saint commanded G; Legenda ქალსა მას: the maiden: Remove your aurea გ⟨ა⟩ნიჴსენ სარტყელი შ⟨ე⟩ნი belt,  93 და მომართუ აქა!

and hand it to me here!

 94 და ყო ეგრე.

And she did so.

 95 ხ⟨ოლო⟩ წ⟨მიდამა⟩ნ შეკრა ვეშაპი იგი და მისცა ქალსა მას და ჰ⟨რ⟩ქ⟨უ⟩ა:

Then the saint tied up the dragon, and gave it to the maiden and said:

 96 წარვედ ქ⟨ა⟩ლ⟨ა⟩ქით კერძო! Go toward the city!  97 იხილა რაჲ ერმ⟨ა⟩ნ მ⟨ა⟩ნ სასწაული ესე საკჳრველი შეეშინა

CE (Q)

When the people saw the wondrous miracle, they became afraid,

 98 და ენება (corr) სივლტოლაჲ and wished to flee for fear of შიშისათჳს ვეშაპისა მის. the dragon,  99 ხ⟨ოლო⟩ წმიდაჲ იგი ეტყოდა მ⟨ა⟩თ: ნუ გეშინინ ა⟨რამე⟩დ დეგით და იხილოთ მაცხოვარებაჲ ღ⟨მრთისა⟩ჲ

but the saint said to them: AΞGK; Fear not, rather stand and Exod 14:13 you will see God’s deliverance.

100 ჰ⟨რ⟩ქ⟨უ⟩ა მ⟨ა⟩თ: გრწმენინ ო⟨ჳფალ⟩ი ჩ⟨უე⟩ნი ი⟨ესო⟩ჳ ქ⟨რისტ⟩ე ჭ⟨ე⟩შ⟨მა⟩რიტი ღ⟨მერთ⟩ი ყ⟨ოვ⟩ლად ძლიერი და მოვაკუდინო ვეშაპი ესე,

He said to them: Believe in Dan 14:26 our lord Jesus Christ the all-powerful true God, and I will make the dragon die,

101 და არა მოიკლნეთ მის მიერ. and you will not be killed by UW (AΞ) it. 102 მაშინ ჴმა ყო მეფემან და დიდებულთა მისთა და ყ⟨ოვე⟩ლსა ერსათანა და თქ⟨უე⟩ს: გურწამს ო⟨ჳფალ⟩ო მამისა მიმ⟨ა⟩რთ და ძისა და სულისა წ⟨მიდ⟩ისა

Then the king cried out, along with his nobles and all the people, saying: Lord, we believe in the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

103 და მეყსეულად წ⟨მიდამა⟩ნ იჴადა ჴრმალი თჳსი და მოკლა იგი

And immediately the saint drew his sword and killed it,

104 და მისცა ქალი იგი მეფესა.

and gave the maiden to the king.

90

kevin tuite

105 მაშინ მოკრბა ყ⟨ოველ⟩ი სიმრავლე ერისაჲ და ამბორს უყოფდეს ფერჴთა წ⟨მიდ⟩ისათა და ად⟨ი⟩დებდეს ღ⟨მერთს⟩ა:

Then the whole multitude of the people gathered and kissed the feet of the saint and praised God.

106 მაშინ წ⟨მიდამა⟩ნ მოუწოდა ალექსანდრე ებისკოპოსსა, და ნათელსცა მეფესა და დიდებულთა მისთა და ყ⟨ოვე⟩ლსა სიმრავლესა ერისასა

Then the saint summoned ABUΞW the bishop Alexander, who baptized the king and the nobles and all the multitude of the people

107 ათხუთმეტ დღეს,

during fifteen days,

KTUΞZ

108 ხ⟨ოლო⟩ ნ⟨ათე⟩ლსცა and he baptized forty-five LMTX ორმეოც და ხუთსა ათასსა. thousand. 109 და იქმნა სიხარ⟨უ⟩ლი დიდი And there was great rejoic- AUΞDTW; მას ქ⟨ა⟩ლ⟨ა⟩ქსა შ⟨ინ⟩ა. ing in the city. Acts 8:8 110 მაშინ მეფემ⟨ა⟩ნ ყ⟨ოვე⟩ლსა ერსათანა აღაშენა პატიოსანი ტაძარი სადიდებელთა ღ⟨მერ⟩თსა და პატივად წ⟨მიდ⟩ისა გ⟨იორგ⟩ისა

Then the king along with all the people built a holy temple for the glory of God and to honour saint George.

111 და ვ⟨ითარც⟩ა განასრულეს ტაძარი იგი, მოვიდა წ⟨მიდა⟩ჲ გ⟨იორგ⟩ი და აჩუენა სხ⟨უა⟩ჲ საკჳრველებაჲ:

And when they completed the temple, saint George came and showed another wonder,

112 რ⟨ათა⟩ შევიდა ტაძარსა მას შ⟨ინ⟩ა და საკურთხეველსა ეკლესიისასა, და აღმოაცენა წყაროჲ კურნებათაჲ

when he went in the temple and the church sanctuary, and brought forth a healing spring,

113 და არს იგი ვ⟨იდრ⟩ე აქამომდე საკურნებელად მორწმუნეთა ქ⟨რისტ⟩ეს ღ⟨მრ⟩თისა ჩ⟨უე⟩ნისათა

which to the present is for healing believers in Christ our God.



the miracle of st george in georgian91

114 და სხუანი მრავალნი და დიდებ⟨უ⟩ლნი საკჳრველებანი აღასრულნა წ⟨მიდამა⟩ნ მ⟨ო⟩წ⟨ა⟩მემ⟨ა⟩ნ გ⟨იორგ⟩ი ღ⟨მრ⟩თისა მ⟨იე⟩რ და მისდა მოცემულთა მადლითა მ⟨იე⟩რ ქალაქსა მას შ⟨ინ⟩ა

And the holy martyr George performed many other glorious wonders in the city, through God and the grace He bestowed,

115 სახელით ღ⟨მრთ⟩ისა ჩ⟨უე⟩ნისა ი⟨ესო⟩ჳ ქ⟨რისტ⟩ესითა.

in the name of our God Jesus Christ.

5.2.  The miracle of St George and the demon Georgian text Jer Geo 2 (11th c.) 116 და ამისა შ⟨ემდგომა⟩დ გამორაჲვიდა წ⟨მიდა⟩ჲ იგი ქ⟨ა⟩ლ⟨ა⟩ქისა მისგ⟨ა⟩ნ და აღვიდოდა თჳსად მამულად. 117 შეემთხჳა მას ეშმაკი სახითა შეურაცხითა დამდაბლებულითა, და ჴელთა მისთა უპყრა კუერთხი და ზრახვიდა მშჳდობით. 118 და ვ⟨ითარც⟩ა შეემთხჳა წ⟨მიდას⟩ა გ⟨იორგ⟩ის ჰ⟨რ⟩ქ⟨უ⟩ა მას დაწყნარებულად: გ⟨იორგ⟩ი. 119 ხ⟨ოლო⟩ წ⟨მიდამა⟩ნ მიუგო მას, ვ⟨ითარმე⟩დ: ვ⟨ითა⟩რ მიწოდე მე სახელით რ⟨ომელ⟩ი არა უწყოდე, გარნა თუ ხარ შ⟨ე⟩ნ ეშმაკი ბოროტი? 120 ჰ⟨რ⟩ქ⟨უ⟩ა მას ეშმაკმ⟨ა⟩ნ მ⟨ა⟩ნ უკ⟨უე⟩თუ ხარ შ⟨ე⟩ნ ანგელოზი ღ⟨მრ⟩თისა მიჩუენე მე ძალი შ⟨ე⟩ნი. 121 მაშინ მოწერა ჯ⟨უარ⟩ითა გარემოჲს ეშმაკისა მის და შეაყენა იგი მას შ⟨ინ⟩ა, და ჰ⟨რ⟩ქ⟨უ⟩ა, სახელითა ო⟨ჳფლ⟩ისა ჩ⟨უე⟩ნისა ი⟨ესო⟩ჳ ქ⟨რისტე⟩სითა მოვედ და შემომიდეგ მე. 122 და მეყსეულად ჴმა ყო და თქ⟨უ⟩ა, ვაჲ არს ჩემდა, გ⟨იორგ⟩ი, რ⟨ამეთუ⟩ შეგემთხვიე შ⟨ე⟩ნ.

translation (KT) And after this, the saint came out from the city and was going up toward his homeland. He encountered a demon of negligeable, lowly appearance, who held a staff in his hands and spoke peacefully. And as he (the demon) met Saint George, he said to him calmly: George. But the saint answered him thus: How could you address me by a name which you did not know, unless you are an evil demon? The demon said to him: If you are an angel of God, show me your power. Then he inscribed (a circle) around the demon with (the sign of) the cross, and set him inside it, and said: In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, come and stand by me. And immediately he cried out and said: Woe is me, George, because I met you.

92

kevin tuite

123 ჰ⟨რ⟩ქ⟨უ⟩ა მას წ⟨მიდამა⟩ნ, მითხარ მე ვინ ხ⟨ა⟩რ შ⟨ე⟩ნ.

The saint said to him: Tell me who you are.

124 მაშინ იწყო ბოროტმ⟨ა⟩ნ მ⟨ა⟩ნ ეშმაკმ⟨ა⟩ნ და იტყოდა, მე ვარ პ⟨ირვე⟩ლისა სამაელის მეორე. მე, გ⟨იორგ⟩ი, ორმეოცთა ათასთა მფლობელი ვიყავ.

Then the evil demon began to speak: I am second after Samael (who is) first. I, George, was the master of forty thousand.

125 და ოდეს იგი ღ⟨მერთმა⟩ნ კ⟨ა⟩ცი დაჰბადა და ქ⟨უე⟩ყ⟨ა⟩ნ⟨ა⟩ჲ გ⟨ა⟩ნყო და დაჰბეჭდა, მუნ ვიყავ და ძრწოლით ვხედავდი, რ⟨ა⟩ჟ⟨ამ⟩ს იგი შანთთა ელვისათა შეჰმუსრვიდა, მე ვიყავ შემკრებელ ღრუბელთა.

And when God created man, and separated the land and sealed it (stamped it with a seal), I was there and watched, trembling; when he smashed branding-irons of lightning, I was the one who gathered the clouds.

126 ჩემსა ხილვასა კაცობრივი ბ⟨უ⟩ნ⟨ე⟩ბ⟨ა⟩ჲ ვერ შემძლებელ იყო. მე ანგელოზთა გუნდნი მეშიშვოდეს და აწ ვინაჲთგ⟨ა⟩ნ გარდამოვითხიე ზეცით, დამთრგუნვენ მე ფერჴნი მიწისანი.

Human nature could not withstand my sight, legions of angels feared me; and now that I have been thrown down from above, earthly feet trample me.

127 და ვაჲ არს ჩემდა, გ⟨იორგ⟩ი, რ⟨ამეთუ⟩ შემშურდა შენდა მოცემული მადლი, და გ⟨ა⟩ნვიზრახე ცთუნებად შ⟨ე⟩ნდა გზასა ზ⟨ედ⟩ა, რა⟨ჲთა⟩მცა თაყუ⟨ა⟩ნის მეც მე, რ⟨ამეთუ⟩ მრავალნი გ⟨ა⟩ნმიშორებიან ღ⟨მრ⟩თისადა.

And woe is me, George, that I envied the grace that was given to you, and intended to deceive you on the road, so that you would worship me, just as I have separated many from God.

128 აჰა ესერა ყ⟨ოველ⟩ი მიგითხარ შ⟨ე⟩ნ გ⟨იორგ⟩ი. მოიჴსენე პ⟨ირვე⟩ლი იგი ნეტარებაჲ ჩემი და მეორე ესე უბადრუკებაჲ ჩემი და ნუ მიბრძანებ მე წარსლვად სატანჯველად საუკუნოდ.

Behold, I told you everything, George. Remember how blessed I was at first, and after that, my wretchedness; and do not order me to go to eternal suffering.

129 მაშინ წ⟨მიდამა⟩ნ გ⟨იორგ⟩ი ილოცა და თქ⟨უ⟩ა, ო⟨ჳფალ⟩ო ღ⟨მერთ⟩ო ჩემო შემუსრე არაწ⟨მიდა⟩ჲ ეშმაკი რ⟨ომელმა⟩ნ არა ყო ნებ⟨ა⟩ჲ შ⟨ე⟩ნი და არცა დაიცუნა ბრძანებანი შ⟨ე⟩ნნი, ა⟨რამე⟩დ ეგო თვისსავე ზ⟨ედ⟩ა უკეთურებასა და არა მოაქცია შ⟨ე⟩ნდა მომართ მხოლოჲსა ჭ⟨ე⟩შ⟨მა⟩რ⟨ი⟩ტისა ღ⟨მრ⟩თისა.

Then St. George prayed and said: Lord my God, destroy the unholy demon who did not do what you willed, nor respect your commands, but rather took wickedness upon himself, and did not turn toward you, the only true God.



the miracle of st george in georgian93

130 და შთააგდე იგი ადგილსა წყუდიადსა რ⟨აჲთ⟩ა იტანჯებოდის და ხატსა მას შ⟨ე⟩ნსა რ⟨ომე⟩ლი შ⟨ე⟩ნ დაჰბადე, არა გ⟨ა⟩ნსცდიდეს.

And throw him down into the dark place, so that he will suffer, and not tempt the image of yourself that you created.

131 და იყო მუნ კლდე ფ⟨რია⟩დ დიდი და გამოსახა მას ზ⟨ედ⟩ა დიდ⟨ებულ⟩მ⟨ა⟩ნ გ⟨იორგ⟩ი სასწაული ჯ⟨უარისა⟩ჲ და ესრეთ თქ⟨უ⟩ა, სახელითა ო⟨ჳფლ⟩ისა ჩ⟨უე⟩ნისა ი⟨ესო⟩ჳ ქ⟨რისტე⟩სითა გ⟨ა⟩ნეღენ კლდე ესე.

And there was at that place a very large rock, and the glorious George made the sign of the cross over it and said: In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, may this rock open.

132 და მეყსეულად განეღო კლდე იგი. მაშინ უპყრა ეშმაკსა მას და შთააგდო იგი მთხრებლსა ცეცხლის⟨ა⟩სა. და კ⟨უა⟩ლ⟨ა⟩დ უბრძანა კლდესა მას რ⟨აჲთ⟩ა იქმნას ვ⟨ითარც⟩ა იყო პ⟨ირვე⟩ლითგ⟨ა⟩ნ.

And immediately the rock opened. Then he seized the demon and threw him into the hole of fire. And once again he ordered the rock to become as it was at first.

133 და არს იგი სატანჯველსა მას შ⟨ინ⟩ა ცეცხლისასა და იტანჯვის ვ⟨იდრ⟩ე უკ⟨უნამდ⟩ე.

And he is in the fiery place of suffering, and he will suffer for eternity.

134 ესე სასწაულნი შუენიერნი დიდებულნი და საკჳრველნი აღასრულნა ფ⟨რი⟩ად ს⟨ა⟩ნ⟨ა⟩ტრ⟨ელ⟩მ⟨ა⟩ნ გ⟨იორგ⟩ი მადლისა მის მ⟨იე⟩რ მისდა მონიჭებულსა ქ⟨რისტ⟩ეს ი⟨ესო⟩ჳს მ⟨იე⟩რ ო⟨ჳფლ⟩ისა ჩ⟨უე⟩ნისა რ⟨ომლ⟩ისაჲ არს დ⟨იდე⟩ბ⟨ა⟩ჲ აწ და მ⟨არა⟩დის და უკ⟨უ⟩ნითი უკ⟨უნამდ⟩ე, ა⟨მი⟩ნ.

The very beloved George performed these beautiful, glorious and wondrous miracles through the grace granted to him by Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom is glory now and always, for ever and ever, Amen.

Acknowledgments This paper began as a presentation at the conference “Sharing Myths, Texts and Sanctuaries in the South Caucasus”, organized by the Centre for Advanced Studies ‘Beyond Canon’ at the University of Regensburg in February 2020. I would like to thank Igor Dorfmann-Lazarev and Tobias Nicklas for giving me the opportunity to participate, and to all those who provided comments and feedback on that occasion.

94

kevin tuite

Special thanks go to Nestan Chkhikvadze (Kekelidze Institute of Manuscripts, Tbilisi), Jost Gippert (Frankfurt), Renaud Gagné (Cambridge), Steve Rapp (Huntsville), Pierre Bonnechère (Montréal), Winfried Boeder (Oldenburg) and Nicolas Preud’homme (Paris) for help solving puzzles in Georgian and Greek manuscripts, astute comments, and access to sources. In addition to the images publicly available on-line, digital copies of Greek manuscripts were generously provided by the Department of Manuscripts and Facsimiles of the National Library of Greece (manuscripts Athens 278, 346, 363 and 838); the Biblioteca Regional Universitaria Giacomo Longo di Messina (S. Salv. Gr 29); and the Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana in Venice (manuscripts Gr II 42, Gr II 160, Gr VII 38). Shortly after completing this draft, I learned the sad news that Michael Silverstein, with whom I studied at the University of Chicago, passed away. The mark he has left on the fields of anthropology and linguistics will doubtless be the subject of much discussion and reminiscence in the coming days; I cannot begin to adequately assess the influence he has had on me. I dedicate this paper to his memory, and conclude with a final wish in Georgian, a language about which Michael knew a surprising amount: ნათელში იყოს მისი სული!

IV. Through the Eyes of Armaz – Pagan and Mazdean Traces in the Narratives About the Conversion of the Iberian King to Christian Faith Nicolas J. Preud’homme

Studies on the Christianisation of Caucasian societies since the development of k‛art‛velology1 in the middle of the 19th century have produced an abundant bibliography, as well in the commentary of hagiographic accounts as in the history of canon law, the analysis of Christian art and the archaeology of religious sites. However, few studies are able to remove the religious history of the Caucasus from traditional disciplinary frameworks. Counter-intuitive approaches to Caucasian Christianisation have been explored by Françoise Thelamon, eager to show the pagan logic in the spirituality and rites of the early Christians in Iberia,2 as in more recent works of Stephen H. Rapp Jr about Caucasian Christianities shaped in an Iranian and Mazdean moulding.3 These perspectives, while avoiding ethnocentrism, determinism, teleology, essentialism, cantonments of research disciplines and national histories, imply the need to be sensitive to weak signals and silences in documents, as well as to compare literary sources with archaeological data about rituals and beliefs, with a view to reconstituting the pre-Christian past revisited by Christian narratives.   Here and elsewhere in the study, the transliteration of Georgian follows the norms adopted by H. Hübschmann, A. Meillet and É. Benveniste (RÉArm). 2   F. Thelamon, ‘Histoire et structure mythique: la conversion des Ibères’, Revue Historique 247 (1972) 5–28. F. Thelamon, Païens et chrétiens au IVe siècle (Paris, 1981) 85–121. 3   S.H. Rapp Jr., ‘Iranian Heritage of Georgia: Breathing New Life into the Pre-Bagratid Historiographical Tradition’, Iranica Antiqua XLIV (2009) 645–92. S.H. Rapp Jr., The Sasanian World through Georgian Eyes (Farnham, UK, and Burlington, VT, 2014). 1

96

nicolas preud’homme

1.  Sacred trees and royal gardens in the city of Mc‛xet‛a Ancient testimonies about the cult of trees in South Caucasia can be found in Roman sources.4 The hagiography of Nino contained in the corpus K‛art‛lis C‛xovreba, drawing on a narrative material essentially composed by ecclesiastical traditions from the Catholicosate of Mc‛xet‛a, grants a considerable number of details in its topographical descriptions of the ancient capital city of Caucasian Iberia. The gardens were a fundamental part of the palaces in the Iranian world, and the vita of Nino pays particular attention to certain plants with a strong symbolic dimension. After the destruction of the idols in a storm miraculously sent by Providence, Nino came out of the crevice of the rocky precipice bordering the acropolis of Armazi on Baginet‛i Hill where she had hidden, picked up “the eye of beryl” of the shattered Armaz idol, then set out to find a new shelter. [Nino] mounted up to the far extremity of the rock where the old castle had been built. There stood an acacia tree, beautiful, tall, with many branches, where King Bartam had found shade and repose. She stepped under the tree, made the sign of Christ’s cross, and prayed there for six days.5

The identity of this King Bartam presents a problem, since this name does not appear as such in the lists of the sovereigns of K‛art‛li within the medieval corpora of Georgian chronicles Mok‛c‛evay K‛art‛lisay and K‛art‛lis C‛xovreba. The Life of the Kings certainly reveals a legendary Bartam, Mirian’s older brother, who is said to have become king of Iran. However, he does not seem to be identifiable with this Bartam who would have laid out his garden on the mountain of Armaz. The closest names to be found in the Georgian chronicles are  Tacitus, Annals XII, 47, 1; Nicolaus of Damascus in FHG, K. Müller (ed.), frag. CXXIII, 12. Silius Italicus, Punica XIII, v. 486–87. 5   Life of Nino in S. Qauxč‛išvili (ed.), K‛art‛lis C‛xovreba: ქართლის ცხოვრება 1 (Tbilisi, 1955) 9211–15  : “და წარმოვიდა წინა-კერძო დასასრულსა მის კლდისა ცხჳრისასა, სადა ყოფილ იყო ძუელი ციხე, და მუნ დგა ხე ერთი ბრინჯისა, შუენიერი, მაღალი და რტო-მრავალი, სადა-იგი ყოფილ-იყო ბარტამ მეფისა საგრილი და განსასუენებელი. და მივიდა ხესა მას ქუეშე, გამონიშნა ნიში ქრისტეს ჯუარისა და ილოცვიდა მუნ ექუს დღე.” R.W. Thomson (transl.), Rewriting Caucasian History. The Medieval Armenian Adaptation of the Georgian Chronicles (Oxford, 1996) 100–01. 4



pagan and mazdæan traces in georgian hagiography97

Bratman (Royal List I) and Bartom (Life of the Kings).6 If the function of the tree indicated here seems to concern above all leisure and moments of relaxation for the king, its presence on a high place dedicated to a Mazdean deity could nevertheless very well suggest a sacred value. The possession of an emblematic tree seems to be a feature of Iranian kingship, as reported by Themistios, according to whom Xerxes owned his own tree with a golden tent.7 Aelian reports that this same Xerxes adorned a plane tree remarkable for its beauty with necklaces, bracelets, rings and other ornaments.8 If we put aside the amenities offered by the shade of an ornamental wood for the royal garden, this previous passage from K‛art‛lis C‛xovreba could well suggest a cult of sacred trees in Caucasian Iberia. The chronicle focuses on the royal palace of Mc‛xet‛a and particularly on its garden, in which Nino would have stayed, welcomed by the gardener of the king and his wife Anasto.9 [Nino] crossed the Mtkuari and made for the royal garden — where now the column set up by God and the cathedral church are situated. […] Then St Nino saw in a dream a man, the colour of light, come and say: ‘Enter this garden; there is a small bush under the pine trees, planted for the Lord. […]’10

The mention of the pine trees as an emblematic place of the royal garden where the holy woman dwells recalls a censer which looks like a temple surmounted by a pine cone, found in Zġuderi, dated   Royal List I in I. Abulaże (ed.), Mok‛c‛evay K‛art‛lisay: ძველი ქართული აგიოგრაფიული ლიტერატურის ძეგლები, წიგნი I (V–X სს.) (Tbilisi, 1963) 8220, 30  : “ბრატმან”. Life of the Kings in Qauxč‛išvili (ed.), K‛art‛lis C‛xovreba, 30–32 et 43–44  : “ბარტომ”, Thomson, Rewriting Caucasian History, 44–45 (Bartom I, Aršakuniani) and 52 (Bartom II, Aršakuniani, diarch with K‛art‛am). 7  Themistius, Orations, XIII, 5, 166B, R. Maisano (ed.), 500–01. 8  Aelian, Histories, II, 14; Herodotus, History, VII, 31 and Plinius the Elder, Natural History, XVII, 42; P. Briant, Histoire de l’Empire perse de Cyrus à Alexandre (Paris, 1996) 246–47. 9   Life of Nino in Qauxč‛išvili (ed.), K‛art‛lis C‛xovreba, 931–14. 10   Life of Nino in Qauxč‛išvili (ed.), K‛art‛lis C‛xovreba, 938–941, Thomson, Rewriting Caucasian History, 101–02: “გამოვლო მტკუარი და მიმართა სამოთხესა მას მეფისასა, სადა-იგი აწ არს სუეტი იგი ღმრთივ აღმართებული და ეკლესია საკათალიკოზო [...] წმიდამან ნინო ჩუენებასა შინა: მოვიდა კაცი ნათლის ფერი და რქუა, ვითარმედ: ‘შევედ სამოთხესა მაგას, ბაბილო არს მცირე ნაძუთა ქუეშე, საუფლო შეზავებული [...]’ ”. 6

98

nicolas preud’homme

ca 250 CE, now conserved in Simon Janashia Museum of Tbilisi.11 This pine cone can refer to the Dionysian religion, to the mysteries of Cybele and Attis or to an attribute of the lunar god Mēn, whose worship was particularly widespread in Anatolia.12 As fruit of a tree with green leaves, the pine cone appeared as a symbol of immortality and rebirth in these various religious traditions. The association of Nino with the pines of the royal garden in Mc‛xet‛a can signify, in pagan mentalities, a Christian recovery from the old Caucasian conceptions of immortality, insofar as the saint cures the sterility of the couple by making them ingest a little soil collected from a bush situated precisely under these pines.13 See figure 1. Nino then settles down in a secluded place, outside the city walls, near a bramble bush, where she makes a cross with branches and devotes herself to her ascetic practices.14 The chronicler places this site at the cathedral church of Mc‛xet‛a, which housed the holy column.15 Georgian tradition asserts that in this cathedral was erected the Living (or Vivifying) Pillar, fashioned from the trunk of a cedar, under the aegis of King Mirian and Nino.16 This tree is said to have stood near the place where the tunic of Christ was hidden, after the Jews Elioz and Longinos brought it from Jerusalem to Mc‛xet‛a.17 The memory of these sacred spaces seems to have deeply imbued the minds of the K‛art‛velian elites and chroniclers of the Bagratid era. These various documents highlight the king’s privileged relationship   G. Gamkrelidze, Archaeology of the Roman Period of Georgia (Iberia-Colchis): Essay & Catalog (Tbilisi, 2014), 51. 12   A. Van Haeperen-Pourbaix, ‘Recherche sur les origines, la nature et les attributs du dieu Mên’, in R. Donceel et al. (eds), Archéologie et religions de l’Anatolie ancienne (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1984) 221–57, here 224–25. D. Braund, Georgia in Antiquity (Oxford, 1994) 255. D. Braund et al., The Treasures of Zghuderi (Georgia) (Tbilisi, 2009) 58–60. 13   Life of Nino in Qauxč‛išvili (ed.), K‛art‛lis C‛xovreba, 93–94, Thomson, Rewriting Caucasian History, 102. 14   Life of Nino in Qauxč‛išvili (ed.), K‛art‛lis C‛xovreba, 94, Thomson, Rewriting Caucasian History, 102–03. 15   Life of Nino in Qauxč‛išvili (ed.), K‛art‛lis C‛xovreba, 11115–22  ; Thomson, Rewriting Caucasian History, 123. 16   Life of Nino in Qauxč‛išvili (ed.), K‛art‛lis C‛xovreba, 112, Thomson, Rewriting Caucasian History, 123–24. 17   Life of Nino in Qauxč‛išvili (ed.), K‛art‛lis C‛xovreba, 100–01, Thomson, Rewriting Caucasian History, 108–09. 11



pagan and mazdæan traces in georgian hagiography99

with the greenery, and the preferential treatment which the sovereigns granted to remarkable trees with a view to rewarding them, like men, because of their good and loyal services devoted to the royal person. The hagiography of Nino thus highlights two royal gardens: one located on Baginet‛i Hill, where the acacia of Bartam was located, and the other on the left bank of the river Kura (Kur), on the city side, in Mc‛xet‛a, where Nino met Anasto and the king’s gardener. The process of Christianisation has visibly reinvested the symbolic values of the royal gardens to bring them together with the eschatological theme of eternal paradise. 2.  Magi, Mogut‛a district and Mazdean presence in K‛art‛li Like the Achaemenid kings in Persia, the Mazdean rulers of Ancient Caucasian Iberia surrounded themselves with magi for the conduct of sacred affairs as well as for the performance of rites intended for the beneficial deities in Mazdaism. The presence of magi in the Iberian capital of Armazi-Mc‛xet‛a during the reign of Mirian seems to be explained by an indication from the Life of the Kings describing the conditions for the installation of this Chosroid-Mihranid sovereign protected by the šāhān šāh K‛asre. He came to these terms with the Georgians: that all the passes, fortresses, and cities would be occupied by Persian troops, but there would be no other concentration of Persians in the land of K‛art‛li to mingle (with the Georgians), and: ‘My son will observe both religions, the fire worship of our fathers and the worship of your idols’, because he had previously given his oath for this.18

The ideal of an ethnically homogeneous K‛art‛li appears clearly in these words attributed to šāhān šāh, whose conventions insist on two points: the military occupation and the religion that his son Mirian   Life of the Kings in Qauxč‘išvili (ed.), K‘art‘lis C‘xovreba, 656–9: “და ესრეთ დამზავა ქართველთა, რათა კარნი და ციხენი და ქალაქნი ყოველნი იპყრნეს ლაშქრითა სპარსითა: და სხუა სიმრავლე სპარსთა არა იყოს ქუეყანასა შინა ქართლისასა თანა-აღრეულად; “და იყოს შვილი ჩემი ორსა-ვე სჯულსა ზედა: მამათა ჩუენთა ცეცხლისმსახურებასა და თქუენთა კერპთასა”, რამეთუ პირველ-ვე ამას ზედა მოეცა ფიცი”. Thomson, Rewriting Caucasian History, 77. 18

100

nicolas preud’homme

should follow.19 The consequences of this establishment of a Mazdean cult in its Sasanian version at the Iberian court can be seen through an episode in the Life of Nino, involving an Iranian named Xuara, “the chief Persian magus” (mogw igi mt‛avari sparsi).20 This passage from the hagiography of the saint preserved in the K‛art‛lis C‛xovreba is placed by the editor at least one year after the healing of Queen Nana, while King Mirian, instructed in the Christian faith by Nino, is, however, still in a state of indecision. After this the chief Persian magus, Xuara by name, fell ill. He was harshly beaten by the wicked demon and came close to death. He was a prince from the family of King Mirian. Then Queen Nana and the king implored St Nino. But the king viewed the matter in a somewhat ambiguous manner. He said to St Nino: ‘By the power of which god do you perform these cures? Are you a daughter of Armazi or a child of Zaden? You came from abroad and fell among (us). You direct your favour towards them, and they grant you the power of cures so that you may thereby live in a foreign land. They are glorious for ever. But you were in our presence like a nursemaid for our children, and were honoured in this city. Do not repeat that foreign speech, the religion of the erring Romans, nor desire at all to speak of it. For behold, the great gods, the masters of the world, who spread out (the rays) of the sun, who grant rain and make grow the fruits of the earth, the gods of K‛art‛li, Armazi and Zaden, who examine everything hidden, the old gods of our fathers, Gac‛i and Gaim — these are the ones for men to believe. If you now cure this prince, I shall make you rich and shall let you dwell in Mc‛xet‛a as a servant to Armazi. Even if through storm and hail destruction comes upon it, their place is invincible. This Armaz of the Georgians and It‛ruǰan, god of the Chaldaeans, are total enemies. The latter stirred up the sea from the former, and he then brought upon the other such a disaster, as is the custom for masters of the world. Let this be for you sufficient instruction from me.’21   Rapp Jr., The Sasanian World, 248.   Ibid., 112. 21   Life of Nino in Qauxč‘išvili (ed.), K‘art‘lis C‘xovreba, 1065–1073  : “შემდგომად ამისსა მოგჳ იგი მთავარი სპარსი, სახელით ხუარა, სნეულ იყო, სულითა უკეთურითა ფიცხელად იგუემებოდა, და სიკუდილსა მიახლებულ იყო, და იყო მთავარი იგი ნათესავისაგან მირიან მეფისა. მაშინ ევედრნეს წმიდასა ნინოს ნანა დედოფალი და მეფე, ხოლო მეფე იხილვიდა საქმესა მისსა მცირედ ორგულებით. ეტყჳნ წმიდასა ნინოს: ‘რომლისა ღმრთისა ძალითა იქმ კურნებასა ამას, ანუ ხარ შენ ასული არმაზისი, ანუ შვილი ზადენისი, უცხოებით მოხვედ და

19

20



pagan and mazdæan traces in georgian hagiography101

The magus Xuara is identified as a prince mt‛avari, therefore linked to the royal family of Iberia. His name refers to xwarrah, the glory that carries legitimacy in the Iranian minds. Xuara therefore had to officiate as a Mazdean priest attached to the court of King Mirian, although Nino’s hagiography insisted on his Persian identity. As some magi officiated as doctors at the court of the Persian kings,22 the Christian chronicler may have wanted to highlight the incompetence of the Mazdeans in this area. By proposing to Nino to make her become a resident (mkwdri) of Mc‛xet‛a, Mirian intended to grant her an indigenous privilege which would confer on her the right to own the land.23 The reference to the miracle of the storm sent by God at the instigation of Nino to destroy the idols seems to be reversing a შეუვრდი, და ზედა-აც მათ წყალობა შენი და მიგანიჭეს ძალი კურნებათა, რათა მით სცხოვნდებოდი უცხოსა ქუეყანასა. დიდებულმცა არიან უკუნისამდე! ხოლო შენ წინაშე ჩუენსა იყავ ვითარცა მაწოებელი ერთი შვილთა ჩუენთა და პატივ-ცემულ ქალაქსა ამას შინა. არამედ უცხოსა ამას სიტყუასა ნუ იტყჳ, ჰრომთა მათ შეცთომილთა სჯულსა, ნუ-ცა გნებავს ყოვლად-ვე თქმად. რამეთუ აჰა ესე-რა, ღმერთნი დიდნი, სოფლის-მპყრობელნი, მზისა მომფენელნი, წჳმისა მომცემელნი და ქუეყანისა ნაშობთა გამომზრდელნი ღმერთნი ქართლისანი, არმაზ და ზადენ, ყოვლისა დაფარულისა გამომეძიებელნი, ძუელნი ღმერთნი მამათა ჩუენთანი, გაცი და გაიმ, -- იგინი იყვნეს სარწმუნებელად კაცთა მიმართ. აწ უკეთუ განკურნო მთავარი ესე, განგამდიდრო და გყო შენ მკჳდრ მცხეთას შინა, მსახურად არმაზისა. დაღაცათუ ჰაერითა მით და სეტყჳთა მოიწია მის ზედა შემუსრვა მისი, არამედ იგი ადგილი უძლეველ არს. ესე არმაზ ქართველთა და ქალდეველთა ღმერთი ითრუჯან ყოვლად-ვე მტერ არიან: ამან მას ზედა ზღუა შემოადგინა, და მან ამას ზედა ესევითარი ურვა მოაწია, ვითარ აქუს ჩუეულება სოფლის-მპყრობელთა. და კმა გეყავნ ჩემგან ბრძანება ესე’.” Translation by Thomson, Rewriting Caucasian History, 115–16. See for comparison the corresponding passage in the Conversion of K‘art‘li: Abulaże, Mok‘c‘evay K‘art‘lisay, 13116–13216. 22  Briant, Histoire de l’Empire perse, 276–79. About magical powers of magi, see Plinius the Elder, Natural History, XXIV, 160, 162, 164, 165; XXXVII, 142, 147, 155, 169. Even if predictive powers, legal functions and even talents of psychiatry (ruwān-biziškīh) were attributed to the magi, the fact remains that body medicine among the Sasanians remained the prerogative of professional doctors, among whom were many Christians. 23   G.A. Melik‘išvili and O. Lordkipanidze, Очерки истории Грузии I: Грузия с древнейших времен до IV в. н. э. (Tbilisi, 1989) 1, 353–54. S. Sardshweladse and H. Fähnrich, Altgeorgisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch (Leiden, 2005) 727.

102

nicolas preud’homme

ritual of Iranian essence aimed at mastering the forces of nature, mostly by sending a beneficent rain: several testimonies thus take up the king’s cult model addressing prayers on a mountain to a god of war and storm.24 A constant in the Life of Nino lies, for S. Rapp, in the distinction made between a polytheism rooted in Iberian territory and an allogeneic Mazdaism imported from Iran.25 However, in this passage where Mirian intercedes for his mowbed Xuara, the king defends the deities of the traditional Mazdean religion, while he attributes the miraculous destruction of idols to the revenge of It‛ruǰan on Armaz. This It‛ruǰan could here either designate the Mazdean demon Druj or Drug personifying evil, or the sacred fire of the Mazdeans.26 In this context where the main deity of K‛art‛li, Armaz, is under attack, It‛ruǰan must presumably designate an evil deity. Mirian thus understates the religion of Nino as an innovation imported from abroad, as a deviation from the ancestral beliefs of the K‛art‛velians, and assimilates it to the magic associated with the evil deities of Mazdaism. The use of witchcraft appeared to be the dark side of the relationship with the supernatural. The Avesta thus opposes the power of Ahura Mazda to the might of “all magicians and witches”, associated with devas, evil   Nicolaus of Damascus, FGrHist, 90 F 66 [41], on the sacrifice of Cyrus in the courtyard of his parents’ house to obtain victory over the Medes. Polyaenus, Stratagems of War, VII, 11, 12, on the prayer of Darius to Apollo, who can be identified either with Mithra, or with the astral deity Tištryā, associated in Mazdaism with a myth narrating the liberation of waters. Herodotus I, 131: the Persians “sacrifice to the sun, to the moon, to the earth, to fire, to water, to the winds”. Photius, FGrHist 648 F 45.9 on a sword planted in the ground by the Persian king to deflect storms; to be compared to Herodotus IV, 59–62. Briant, Histoire de l’Empire perse, 251–53, about royal cult to Ahura-Mazda. About Tištryā: A. Panaino, Tištrya. Part 2. The Iranian Myth of the Star Sirius (Rome, 1995) 36–45. 25   Rapp Jr., The Sasanian World, 112–13. 26   K. Kekeliże, ‘ძველი ქართული ლიტერატურის ისტორიიდან’, republished in his ეტუდიები I (Tbilisi, 1956) 250–82, here on 266–270, associates It‘ruǰan with the Avestan word ātar and Middle-Persian ādur, “[sacred] fire”, thus inferring a connection between this It‘ruǰan and the Georgian word atrošani