Book of Prayers

the obscurity that is in it by means of common language, I deem appropriate. And [I shall address] who among those who came before us were involved in the clarification of the text, and in what manner they labored, and again, what this current clarification of ours is, which the order of progression and circumstances may have determined.

A small fleur-de-lis ornament is placed above the heading.

"The obscurity of writings is spoken of in a twofold manner by David the Philosopher," (in Commentary on the Prolegomena, chapter 6), meaning: of words and of concepts. But according to our own way of thinking, I believe it should be defined more precisely as threefold: meaning of words, of phrases, and of concepts or meanings. This threefold obscurity seems to cover the entire Narekian book, like the earth at the beginning of creation being invisible, and darkness upon the depths of its profound sayings (Genesis 1:1). And the blessed author himself, in my opinion, appears to follow the example of David, having retreated into the dark mountain and the gloomy land, out of fear of the intense severity of God’s justice (1 Samuel 23:14).

The obscurity of words is seen not only in difficult and unfamiliar terms, such as daganigh, indjeghj, anastvatseli undecipherable/ungodly, etc., but also in those used with unusual meanings, such as anpart used instead of the word invincible, lruti instead of hearing, mankuti instead of cunning/guile, etc. Let alone the allegorical voices, which mean one thing on the surface and another according to the intention. This first obscurity, even if it is frequently found in the book... [Fragmentary: for one or two... the word, to which the word...]

The second obscurity, which [concerns the] phrases, has its own darkness. Since even if... yet according to unusual usage, the style is highly elevated, dark in... appearing more frequently... not difficult to relate for those whose training is in the poetic arts.

... [in the commentary it signifies] ... [evil?] ... the words, ... [in return?] ... but

But the third, the obscurity of concepts, is very laborious and distressing to the mind. This is where, even in familiar words and simple phrasing, the meanings often escape. The connection of the subsequent phrase to the preceding ones is obscured; the logical sequence of the cause to the inquiry, the agreement of the example to the exemplified, remains hidden. Especially since often the phrase seems to war against phrase, cause against inquiry, example against the exemplified, until through long investigation one reaches the beautiful harmony found in the depths. There are times, again, where the reader thinks he has grasped the meanings, but not according to the author's thoughts. And in some places the meanings are clearly stated, but the cause of their truth is hidden. And in other places, the external form of the phrase is apparent, but not sound, which is why the correct one must be sought.