The Life of Mashtots

...are the [life]... I also agree with the already known hypothesis that the passages, grammatical idioms, words, and styles occurring in Agathangelos, which are identical and similar to the language of the Life of Mashtots original: "Մաշթոցի Վարքագրութեան", are not borrowings from a foreign writer but products of the same author’s pen.”

St. Malkhasyan 56 expressed himself against this opinion: “We think it is more probable that Koriwn himself may have been one of the sources for Agathangelos.”

N. Adonts 57 tends toward the old theory, acknowledging Koriwn as a compiler: “We are forced to admit that the epilogue (of Koriwn) belongs to Agathangelos and was adapted later or simultaneously to the life of Mashtots. It must be admitted that many of those passages considered to have passed from Koriwn to Agathangelos, the section on the Conversion of Salvation original: "Դարձ փրկութեան", are more in their place in Agathangelos than in Koriwn. In any case, the two works, even if they were from one and the same pen, are still complex in their mutual relationship. It is premature to insist on the primacy of the Life of Mashtots in all points.”

To complete the series of various experiments performed on this issue, I also bring forward the following, which bears my own signature 58:

“The extensive and minor passages, which are seen identically in Koriwn, Agathangelos, and Pavstos, seem to me to be from the pen of one and the same author, namely Koriwn; who, having three new editions of writings under his hand at one and the same time, placed them equally into one and the other, as ready-made thoughts, to determine their true place during the final editing. Certainly, the authors of the three writings—if we assume for a moment they are different persons—did not lack vocabulary or thought to desire the fruits of another’s orchard. And yet, if they allowed themselves verbal borrowings, there was a secret there unknown to us. There are passages that seem like income in the Life of Mashtots, and there are others that seem borrowed from it. A broader place is suitable for the resolution of this problem” (Handes Amsorya 1932, 229–230). M. Abeghyan 59 judged more correctly, and following Tashian’s opinion, he writes: “It is now certain that the one using [the source] is not Koriwn, but the editor of Agathangelos. In Koriwn’s writing, such passages are in their natural place, with meaningful connection, suitable to the actual history, whereas in Agathangelos they are often placed in unsuitable places and are generally disconnected with respect to the following and preceding parts, and contradictory to what is said elsewhere. Besides that, the styles of Koriwn and Agathangelos’s writing are fundamentally different. Even if there are a few identical words...

⁵⁶ Mshak 1897, No. 21.
⁵⁷ Handes Amsorya 1928, pp. 88–90.
⁵⁸ Ibid., 1932, pp. 229–230.
⁵⁹ History of Ancient Armenian Literature, I, 59.