History of Armenia

"at the addition—to the exclusion of Christ" (p. 191, lines 16–22). "To say this of the sin—does not miss the mercy" (p. 191, line 29–p. 192, line 3). "But mine is very—and never" (p. 193, lines 14–23). "And not again—can be pleasing to anyone" (p. 193, line 32–p. 196, line 5). "And you, Lord, this—and to the unfortunate and the darkened of the place" (p. 196, line 29–p. 197, line 25). "Those who followed after that—alas, alas, our eyes have seen" (p. 198, lines 14–24). "Lest having felt somewhere—he makes them inherit hell" (p. 198, line 34–p. 200, line 30). — This means more than one-third of the entire letter. In addition to this, this copy, in comparison with Z. the Etchmiadzin manuscript, which is already corrupted by the reordering of the leaves, has a separate arrangement of sections within the leaf ¹, which is awkward and further corrupts the source text ². In the eyes of readers, this copy, compared to Z., is severely distorted. Let us be content with bringing a few examples from the beginning and end of the leaf: "this namesake" (instead of "these," see p. 187, line 6). "received me" (=zka, p. 187, line 19). "me of this world of masters" (=me according to the masters, p. 187, line 20). "question arose" (=in visit, p. 188, line 3). "and not stranger" (=and not as a stranger, p. 188, line 4). "senseless" (=most foolish, p. 188, line 10). "according to their soul-trial" (=soul-trial, p. 188, line 13). "the handed-one of the virtuous" (=the monk, p. 203, line 11). "to find in loss" (=from destruction, p. 203, line 31). "to the glorification of God" (=glorification, p. 203, line 33). "for the sake of the good" (=the good, p. 204, line 1).

A decorative element consisting of three asterisks arranged in a triangle pointing downward.

Along with these careless mistakes, a great affinity is observed between Z. and copy V. Affinity in minor orthographic readings, uniform distortions, and uniform spelling. Examples are very numerous. Here we will bring only a few characteristic examples, inviting the reader to compare the notes of this publication for details.

Z. and V. identically have "Lord Nerses and Hrat" (p. 188, line 1). "according to the Lord from you and others" (p. 188, line 22. The B. and G. printings do not have "Lord and"). "and mine not having fought" (p. 198, line 13, =and mine not having fought). "Be well" (p. 198, line 33). "undefiled and unyielding of the nation" (p. 202, line 16). "the other translator" (p. 202, line 18). "man according to the voice of the mystery" (V. "mystery," p. 202, line 24. T.T. have "according to the voice"). "to the blessed Agha-Hay" (p. 202, line 27), etc. To these affinities, let us add these important circumstances: both Z. and V. identically omit the section after the philosopher Movses (p. 202, line 9), and they identically, with the same spelling, have a note: "one leaf is missing in this place." Both have the words of the same colophon with literal accuracy: "This book of the priest Ghazar P'arpetsi was completed by the hand of the many-sinful and unworthy priest Grigor, by the order of the holy and brave bishop Vardan, the supervisor." It is also to be remembered that V. does not have any addition that would not be in Z.; it does not have any orthographic feature that would not be expressed by Z. or by the copyist's inattention or correction.

Weighing all these circumstances, we come to the conclusion that copy V. originates directly from Z. (B), and was copied at the time when a note had already been written in Z. by a new hand, saying: "This is the beginning of the Letter of Ghazar P'arpetsi" (compare in our publication p. 186, note line 32, and p. 187, note line 1), therefore after the year 1829. But this transcription is extremely deficient and full of errors, as we have seen, and in the colophon, it has testimony that its source was copied in Baghesh in 1642; meanwhile, the part of Z. containing the History and Letter of Gh. P'arpetsi was copied after 1672. This testimony explicitly contradicts our conclusion; but this contradiction, as...