OLD ARMENIAN AND CAUCASIAN CALENDAR SYSTEMS
2. ARMENIAN hor̂i AND sahmi0
Jost Gippert
Freie Universität Berlin
0.1. A comparison of the Armenian and Georgian calendar
must not neglect the names of the second and third months of the
Armenian year,
hor̂i and
sahmi, for these names have for long been
etymologized by deriving them from the Georgian cardinal numbers
ori and
sami meaning “two” and “three.”
1 This etymology,
tempting as it is, was never discussed with due rigidity in
Armenology nor were the arguments that Georgian scholars contributed taken notice of. There are three main questions that have
to be dealt with: First, are there any traces of a “numerical monthnaming system” in Georgian tradition;
2 second, is it probable that
cardinal numbers were used in Georgian to denote the position of
a month; third, can
hor̂i and
sahmi be equated formally with the
Georgian
ori and
sami or their predecessors? All these questions
were treated in an extensive article by P’. Ingoroq’va in 1932, the
results of which can be summarized as follows.
3
0.2. As for the first question, Ingoroq’va points to the text of
the “Conversion of Georgia” which contains several data using
“numerical” month names such as “the first month,” “the fourth
month.” Although it is the ordinal numbers that appear, Ingoroq’va
takes them as indicators of an ancient numerical month-naming
system in Georgian, because the text is one of the oldest original
texts in that language. As for the second question, Ingoroq’va
refers to the Old Georgian way of denoting the days of the month.
Here, data using ordinal numbers such as
meore dġe and data
using cardinal numbers such as
ori dġe, both meaning “the second
day (of a month),” are met with side by side; according to the
author's opinion, the latter mode of expression is the autochthonic
one.
4 Further on, Ingoroq’va discusses the names of the days of
the week. As in Greek, these are built analogous to the Semitic
principle by counting from the “Sabbath,” but differently from
Greek, the cardinal numbers are used once again; cp.
ori šabattay with Greek δευτέρα σαββάτων ‚the second day of the week
= Monday.' As for the last question, Ingoroq’va interprets the
forms
hor̂i and
sahmi as representing older
*yor̂i and
*saymi;
these forms would be identical with the Kartvelian ancestors of
Georgian
ori and
sami to be reconstructed by comparison with its
sister languages, Svan, Mingrelian, and Laz. Ingoroq’va's
argumentation cannot be maintained like this, however. As will be
shown, too many details deserve additional remarks or corrections
so that we have to take up the discussion again.
1. The “Conversion of Georgia,”
Mokcevay kartlisay, has come
down to us in two redactions preserved in one manuscript each. The
older one of them, the so called “Šat’berd” version, has to be
dated into the second half of the X century which gives us a
terminus ante quem for the genesis of the text.
5 The “Conversion”
must indeed be called “original” inasmuch as no exact model for
the complete text, Greek or Armenian, has been found. It can be
shown, however, that it was compiled by using different sources
available at that time. The major part of the text is dedicated to the
life of St. Nino, the legendary missionary of Georgia.
1.1. The “Conversion” contains four datings that operate with
months denoted by ordinal numbers. They appear in two successive
chapters of that part of St. Nino's vita, which according to the text
was written dewn by one “Salome from Užarma” after the words
of St. Nino herself. The first two datings are of Armenological interest, too, because here, St. Nino tells us how she came from
Jerusalem to Armenia together with St. Ripsimē and St. Gaianē.
First, the chronological background is sketched:
“Then the Lord took part of Greece, and Constantine
the Emperor and his mother and all his court adopted
faith in him and confessed Christ in the year 5444
since creation and in (the year) 311 since the
resurrection of Christ. And all Greece was converted to
Christianity. (And) in the year was the Council of
Nicaea, and in the eighth year we fled from Greece.”6
The text continues with the following details:
“Ripsime the queen and Gaiane the nurse and 50 souls,
we marched off in the first month, on the fifteen(th
day) and came to the territory of Armenia, to the
gardens of Trdat‛ the King. There they died in the first
month, on the thirt(ieth day), a Friday. But I kept
(hidden) in the thorns of the roses, for rose and almond
were blooming at that time.”
After seeing an angel's vision, St. Nino leaves Armenia:
“And I went off and came to Ulup’oreta, and I spent
the winter with great sufferings. And in the fourth
month I went to the mountains of J̌avaxeti in order to
know. where Mcxeta was.”7
The fourth dating in question is given some pages later, after
St. Nino reports how she observed the Georgian king Mirian
worshipping his (Zoroastrian) god Armaz
8 and how the idols were
destroyed by a thunderstorm that she had caused by praying:
“And when the storm calmed down, I went off .. And
there was a beautiful acacia tree, high and with many
twigs. I went under that tree and I marked it with the
sign of Christ's cross. And I prayed there for six days.
When you came up, a crowd of people, and looked for
the gods that brought forth suffering, and you didn't
find them, then I was there, for it was the sixth day of
the (sixth) month, when Evmanoel showed the Father's
image to the heads of the living and to the heads of the
dead.”9
1.2. As the Georgian scholar K’. K’ek’elije pointed out, the
datings as presented above admit of a coherent interpretation which
emanates from the details contained in the last passage mentioned.
Here, the text is obviously referring to the miracle of the “Lord's
Transfiguration” revealed in the New Testament.
10 As this miracle
led to the institution of a Christian festival on August 6th, we may
assume that this date is meant by the “sixth day of the sixth
month.” Thus, we arrive at the month of March to be equated with
the “first month” of the “Conversion.” By the same reckoning, the
“fourth month” converges with the month of June. This
interpretation agrees with other information contained in the text
such as the rose and almond blooming at the end of the “first
month.” It is further supported by some evidence from outside the
“Conversion:” There are some later, “metaphrastic” versions of St.
Nino's legend, the most important of which is the one ascribed to
the XI century bishop Leont’i Mroveli; it forms part of the great
Georgian chronicle,
Kartlis cxovrebay.
11 Here, the first two datings
are omitted; the “fourth month,” however, is glossed by the phrase
“which is June.”
12 Thus, a Georgian year beginning with the
month of March and denoting the months by ordinal numbers
seems in fact to have existed.
13
1.2.1. There is another testimony, however, which renders this
conclusion rather doubtful. This is the Armenian translation of the
Georgian chronicle,
Patmowt‛iwn Vrac‛. As the oldest manuscripts
of the Georgian text have to be dated as late as the XV century,
the Armenian translation, which was probably accomplished some
three centuries before, is a witness of utmost importance for
establishing the original wording. As for the legend of St. Nino,
the Georgian and the Armenian versions diverge to a considerable
extent. The latter does not reflect the “metaphrastic” vita of
Leont’i Mroveli bot an older text standing closer to the
“Conversion” inasmuch as it is told in the first person.
14 If we
now compare the passages in question we are struck by the fact that
it contains but one of the datings, viz., the third one, and that the
month is not denoted by the ordinal number here:
Ew im yarowc‛eal eki yOwrbanis hayoc‛, ew jmereal
and, ew i yownis amsean eki i lear̂n J̌awaxet‛ic‛ “and
I got up and went to the (town of the) Urbans (in the
land) of the Armenians, and I spent the winter there,
and in the month (of) June I went to the hills of
J̌avaxeti.”
The attestation of the “Transfiguration Day” is rendered as follows:
Ew im .. eki ar̂ car̂ovn br̂nč‛i .. ew aławt‛ec‛i and
zvec‛ awr. Ew yawowr meci Gownap‛oxowt‛ean
Tear̂n, yoržam ec‛oyc‛ Tērn zpatkern hawr glxaworac‛
ar̂ak‛eloc‛ ew margarēic‛n .. “And I .. went to the
acacia tree .. and I prayed there for six days. And on
the great day of the Lord's Transfiguration, when the
Lord showed (his) Father's image to the main apostles
and prophets ...”15
These details suggest, that the version standing behind the
Armenian text is anterior to both Leont’i Mroveli's and the one of
the “Conversion” and that the latter also bears some additional
adornments.
16 And we have good reasons to believe that just the
“numerical month-naming system” contained in the “Conversion”
is due to such additions. Taking the model that has to be assumed
for the Armenian text as the primary source, we can suppose the
following development: At first, only one month dating occurred in
St. Nino's report, viz., the month of “June.” This would match
other parts of St. Nino's legend as contained in the “Conversion,”
where the Latin month names of July, March, and May appear.
17
The other datings, howover, originated in marginal notes, which
later penetrated into the text.
1.2.2. This assumption can be motivated as follows. According
to the Armenian tradition manifested in Agathangelos's history, St.
Ripsimē and St. Gaianē came to death on the days of 26 and 27
hor̂i, resp. These dates were rendered as 26 and 27 September in
the Greek version of the “History,” and the Old Georgian
translation gives 26 and 27
stulisay.
18 There has been, however, a
secondary arrangement in the Greek ecclesiastical calendar by
which the holy women together with St. Gregory the Illuminator
became associated with the 30th of September.
19 This association
spread into the Georgian tradition, too, as can be seen by the fact
that the Old Georgian version of the Martyrology of St. Ripsimē
and St. Gaianē is headed in the manuscripts with the date of
ttuesa
sek’denbersa L ,“in the month of September, 30(th).”
20 As
September was the first month of the Byzantine “indictional” year,
it is this date of a “30th of the first (‚a') month” which might have
been added as a marginal gloss to the model of St. Nino's legend as
contained in the “Conversion.” Thus, the “first month” can only
secondarily have been equated with the month of “March.” And
indeed, it is only the “Conversion” which speaks of “rose and
almond blooming at that time;” cf., however, the Armenian
Patmowt’iwn:
Ew mnac‛i es i nerk‛oy vardeneac‛, or oč ēr
całkeal “And I kept (hidden) amidst the rose trees, which were
not
blooming.”
21 The assumption that the martyrdom of St. Ripsimē
and her companions should have taken place in an autumn month
rather than the month of March, further agrees with the fact
mentioned in all versions that St. Nino after hiding in the roses
went to the town of Urbnisi and spent the
winter there.
1.2.3. A marginal gloss of different character can be responsible
for the “fifteenth of the first month” being given as the date of the
Saints' flight only in the Šat’berd text of the “Conversion.” If we
presume that the “first month” is due to an adaption to the date of
the “martyrdom” (= September), the number “fifteen” may have
been introduced as an emendation of the “eighth year after the
conversion of Greece.” There is indeed a contradiction in the
datings noted in the text: The adoption of Christianity by
Constantine the Great might well have been in 311 AD; the
Council of Nicaea, however, did not take place seven years but
fourteen years after this event, viz., in 325. It was for this reason
that the later (Č’eliši) variant of the “Conversion” changed the
year of 311 into 318.
22 As the Saints' flight is said to have happened one year after the Council of Nicaea, we exactly arrive at a
space of fifteen years counting from 311.
1.2.4. As for the mention of the “Transfiguration Day” on the
“sixth day of the sixth month,” we first have to note that it is only
the Č’eliši version which explicitely states the number of the
month, the Šat’berd text speaking of the “sixth day of
the month”
only.
23 If we further compare the “metaphrasis” of Leont’i
Mroveli, we are led to the assumption that the “sixth month” is due
to a perseveration of the number “six:” Here, we are even told that
the event took place in the “sixth hour” of the “sixth day and this
month.”
24 And it is the Armenian Patmowt‛iwn again which
suggests that the original text contained the number just once, viz.,
in the statement that St. Nino “prayed for six days.” In any case, a
later marginal gloss naming the “6 August” as the date of the
“Transfiguration Day” is likely to have penetrated into the text in
a corrupted form to give the attested indications.
25 And it is
equally probable, now, that the equation of the month of “June”
with the “fourth month” became necessary as an adjustment after
the “first month” and the “sixth month” had been introduced into
the text.
1.3. Thus, Ingoroq’va's and K’ek’elije's assumption of an Old
Georgian “numerical month-naming system” revealing itself in the
“Conversion of Georgia” can hardly be maintained. In particular,
the attestations do not allow for the conclusion that the method of
denoting months by (ordinal) numbers was an archaic feature of
Georgian. They cannot be used for arguing in favor of the
hypothesis that the Armenian
hor̂i and
sahmi should have been
borrowed from Karlvelian stock.
2.1. As long as no authentic usage of numbers for denoting the
months of the year has been attested in Old Georgian, we cannot
decide with any certainty, of course, whether cardinals or ordinals
would have been used for this purpose in any Kartvelian language
loaning
hor̂i and
sahmi to Armenian. In this connection, we are
indeed left alone with Ingoroq’va's arguments cited above, which
referred to the mode of naming the days of the week and of
expressing the day of a month in Old Georgian. As for the latter
feature, however, Ingoroq’va's opinion that the usage of cardinal
numbers is the autochthonic one cannot be taken for granted. If we
take as examples the attestations of the old month names within
hagiographical literature, datings operating with ordinals and
datings using cardinals are met with in nearly equal quantities.
26
There is a preponderance, however, according to the value of the
number in question: Ordinals seem to be preferred with numbers
below ten, cardinals with higher numbers.
27 Before trying to
evaluate this remarkable fact, we have to consider that nearly all the
hagiographic texts must be traced back to Greek models. Bearing
this in mind, the disproportion can be motivated by the following
suggestions: In Greek, it was the ordinal numbers that were
commonly used. They were not written explicitely in every case,
though; with higher numbers, the “symbolic” writing using letters
such as κα' for “21” was preferred. The translators who endeavored to keep near to the original wording retained the ordinals
as they were. Wherever they came upon a “symbolic” denotation,
they were free, however, to use their own mode of expression.
Thus, Ingoroq’va's assumption that the cardinals reflect the proper
Georgian diction has a good deal in its favor.
28 But, of course, it
is not a decisive argument for
hor̂i and
sahmi being loans from
Kartvelian.
2.2. Lastly, the hypothesis is problematical with regard to the
sound equivalences involved. If we want to identify the Armenian
month names
hor̂i and
sahmi with the Georgian numerals
ori and
sami, we have to cope with the most significant difference between
them, which consists in the sound
h occurring in the Armenian
forms only. As Old Georgian possessed a
h- sound of its own, there
is no reason why the Georgian numerals should not contain this
sound, too, if they really were the models for the Armenian names.
In this connection, we have to deal with the proposal made by Ingoroq’va, again, that the borrowing had taken place in ProtoKartvelian times. Ingoroq’va's assumptions match the
communis
opinio inasmuch as the number “two” must be reconstructed as
*yori.
29 Some caution is necessary, however, in the case of
“three,” which he reconstructs as
*saymi. The attested forms of this
numeral are
sami in Georgian,
sumi in Mingrelian and Laz, and
semi in Svan. Here, we have the crucious correspondance of
Georgian
a and Svan
e, which is opposed to the more regular
correspondance of Georgian
a and Svan
a or
a, reflecting a ProtoKartvelian
*a. As the conditions that led to a Svan
e in cases like
semi have not yet been stated with certainty,
30 Ingoroq’va's
reconstruction of a word internal “diphthong”
ay can be regarded
as a possible solution of the problem.
31 There would even be some
evidence in favor of this solution if Ingoroq’va's assumptions made
for the Armenian
hor̂i and
sahmi would prove correct. It is hardly
tenable, however. that these forms replace older
*yor̂i and
*saymi. In the former case, this would presuppose that the Middle
Armenian change of
y- to
h- should have manifested itself in a
word occurring as early as, e.g., in Agathangelos's history.
32 In the
case of
sahmi, attested in Agathangelos as well,
33 Ingoroq’va
assumes a development of
-ay- to
-ah- for which no parallel
whatever has thus far been attested. ln other words, we should
expect the Armenian names to appear as
*yor̂i and
*saymi if they
were really borrowed from the Proto-Kartvelian forms as proposed
by Ingoroq’va. As long as such attestations are wanting, any
attempt of deriving
hor̂i and
sahmi from Georgian or from a
previous stage of this language remains undemonstrated.
NOTES