Universal History

For the first time, to compile a critical text of the Universal History by comparing several manuscripts, we have mainly chosen MM N 2865 (13th c.), N 3502 (1663), N 4584 (1668), and Venice N 869 (1683–1684), taking into account the temporal factor of their earlier copying. Of course, their content completeness was also considered important. The AGO manuscripts, in particular, are relatively complete and have preferable readings. Although manuscript C was the basis for the second printing, we also compared it because St. Malkhasyants compiled the text by comparing the first printing and especially this single manuscript. When the readings of manuscript C are finally checked against other manuscripts, the main text is compiled more reliably, and the foundations of the various readings of that manuscript become clear.

The question of the time of copying of the manuscripts was examined beforehand, and certain corrections were made in this regard.

Thus, we have found that manuscript N 2865 is not a copy from the 14th–17th centuries, but was copied in the 13th century. This is proven by the information written by the scribe in the margin of page 306a of that manuscript: "In 685 (1236) the Tatars took Ani and all the universe," the sentence states.1 After that, there were other shocking events in Ani, but the scribe’s addition ends there.

As mentioned, the date of copying of the manuscript N 3160, called "Sanahin," has been corrected (not 1633–1652, but 1646–1681),2 and the completion time of manuscript N 3502 has been determined: 1661, as well as the name of the scribe who copied the entire manuscript: Matathia Vardapet.3

When compiling the text, we also kept in mind the readings of other manuscripts. When the readings of the majority of manuscripts coincided with manuscript A, we moved them into the main text with greater confidence through examination.

When compiling the text, we had at our disposal not only the variants of the 8 mentioned manuscripts but also a photocopy of manuscript A and a xerox copy of manuscript O.

To clarify the relationships of the master manuscript N 2865 and the other manuscripts copied later, especially the groupings, we first took into account two circumstances:

1. How do manuscript N 2865 and the other manuscripts copied later coincide in terms of the completeness of the material?

2. What relationships do the original colophon of the prototype of manuscript N 2865 and the colophon of the new scribe immediately following it have?4

To clarify the first question, we identified the missing lines and expanded passages in the manuscripts of Asoghik’s book.

1 G. Manukyan, Aristakes Lastivertsi, pp. 217, 237–238. According to this correction, manuscript N 2865 is now considered a 13th-century copy.
2 Ibid., pp. 243–244.
3 Ibid., pp. 238–242.
4 Here we do not mean the other colophons added later on other pages.