Anton Pritula (St. Petersburg)

Syroturcica:A Bilingual Poem from the Mongol Time

Among the large number of academic publications by Professor Martin Tamckethere are some dealing with the Christianization of the Mongols and the role ofChristianity during the Mongol rule.1 With the present article in honour of Profes-sor Tamcke, I want to stimulate the conversation about our joint field of interest bybringing to attention a bilingual poem from the Mongol time which has not beenedited so far.

The text is uncommon and peculiar in many respects, and thus several scholarsalready have taken notice of it. First, it was mentioned by Alphonse Mingana in hisstudy of the spread of Christianity in the Central Asia.2 A more detailed descrip-tion was offered by Wilhelm Heffening.3 In an article on the Syro-Turkic liturgicaltexts, based mainly on the manuscript Mingana Sir. 51 (though he mentioned theCambridge mss. Add. 2041, Add. 2820, Add. 2055 as well), he suggested a briefanalysis of the linguistic and metrical features of the poem.4 Later, several scholarsdealt with this text in their studies.5

In the manuscripts, the poetic text being published below is always connectedwith the name of Ḫāmīs bar Qardāḫē, an East Syrian poet from the Arbela literarycircle of late 13th / early 14th century. The heritage of this outstanding literate didnot receive much interest of scholars until recently; however, in the last decadeseveral articles dealing with different aspects of his works were published.6

1 M. Tamcke, “Der Gebrauch der Bibel bei den nestorianischen Mongolen”, in Bibelauslegungund Gruppenidentität, ed. H.-O. Kvist (Åbo: Åbo Akademis Forlag, 1992), 136–149. 2 A. Mingana, “The Early Spread of Christianity in Central Asia and the Far East: A New Docu-ment”, Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 9, no. 2 (1925): 338.3 W. Heffening, “Liturgische Texte der Nestorianer und Jakobiten in Süd-TürkischenMundarten”, Oriens Christianus 11 [33] (1936): 232–235.4 Ibid., 233.5 P.G. Borbone, Un ambassadeur du Khan Argun en Occident: Histoire de Mar Yahballaha III et deRabban Sauma (1281–1317) (Paris: L’Harmattan, 2008), 55; A. Mengozzi, “The History of Garshunias a Writing System: Evidence from the Rabbula Codex”, in Camsemud: Proceedings of the 13thItalian Meeting of Afro-Asiatic Linguistics, ed. F.M. Fales & G.F. Grassi (Padova: Sar-gon, 2010), 297–304, 297, n. 1 & 2.6 D. Taylor, “‘Your Sweet Saliva is the Living Wine’: Drink, Desire, and Devotion in the Syriac

The most detailed review of the existing manuscripts of the poems, ascribed toḪāmīs, was published by Alessandro Mengozzi, according to whom this text col-lection appeared in the 14th century.7 In his article, Mengozzi also mentions themanuscripts of the work under discussion: Vatican Borg. Syr. 33 (f. 240v–242v),supposedly from the 15th cent., and Cambridge Add. 2041, from the 18th cent.; Add.2820, from 1882; Add. 2055, and also Birmingham Mingana Sir. 51. The scholarpoints out that in most of the manuscripts this text is placed in the section ofsōgītās of Ḫāmīs’ book.

All the Syriac stanzas, in the form of quatrains, are composed here in 7-7-8-8meter. Each of them has its own internal rhyme, in a constant scheme, i.e. in everyfirst, second and last verse (ааха). In the Turkic stanzas the verses have an irregu-lar meter variation from eight up to ten syllables. The rhyming is arranged here inthe mode ааbb, except for stanza 10, which, still, could be a scribal error.

In the Turkic translation of the Syriac original, one can meet a lot of Syricisms,such as br marym (‘the son of Mary’), a stable phrase used in the texts. To the samecategory the abbreviation wšar for the Syriac wšrkʾ (etc.) may be added, as well asʿwōšaʿn (‘palm twigs’). Besides, in the refrain, typical for Syriac, the particle d isused, in this case as a subjunctive conjunction. Such a broad use of borrowings,both in vocabulary and syntax, is common for translated texts of religious charac-ter, in particular for liturgical ones, where the closeness to the original might havebeen of great importance.

Wine songs of Khāmīs bar Qardāhē”, in The Syriac Renaissance, ed. H.G.B. Teule, C.F. Tauwinkl,B. ter Haar Romeny & J.J. van Ginkel (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 31–52; A. Mengozzi, “The Kṯāvā ofKhamis bar Qardahe: Preliminary Remarks on the History of the Text”, in Syriac Encouters, theproceedings of the Sixth North American Syriac Symposium. Duke University, Durham, North Caroli-na, June 26–29, 2011 (forthcoming); A. Barotto, P. Riberi, M. Volpicelli & A. Mengozzi, “La veritàvisibile nella natura e nella scrittura. Sul baco da seta di Khamis Bar Qardaḥe (fine del XIII seco-lo)”, Kervan: Rivista Internazionale di studii afroasiatici 13/14 (2011): 47–55; A. Mengozzi, “PersischeLyrik in syrischem Gewand: Vierzeiler aus dem Buch des Khamis bar Qardaḥe (Ende 13. Jh.)”, inGeschichte, Theologie und Kultur des syrischen Christentums. Beiträge zum 7. Deutschen Syrologie-Symposium in Göttingen, Dezember 2011, ed. M. Tamcke & S. Grebenstein (Wiesbaden: Harras-sowitz, 2014), 155–176. I express my gratitude to Alessandro for sharing his unpublishedworks. — Of my own works, I may mention the following titles: А.Д. Притула, “Xāмӣс барḲардāxē, восточносирийский поэт конца XIII в.” Cимвол 61. (2012): 303–317; “Ḵāмӣс барḲардāxē (кон. XIII в.) и арбельский литературный круг”, Христианский Восток 6 [XII](2013), 216–243; “Бар ‛Эбрōйō, Xāмӣс бар Ḳардāxē: из Ниневии в Фарс”, in Сборник в честь В.А. Лившица (forthcoming); “Zwei Gedichte des Ḫāmīs bar Qardāḥē: Ein Hochgesang zu Ehrenvon Bar ʿEbrōyō und ein Wein-Gedicht für die Khan-Residenz”, in Geschichte, Theologie und Kul-tur des syrischen Christentums, ed. Tamcke & Grebenstein, 315–328.7 Cf. Mengozzi, “The Kṯāvā of Khamis bar Qardahe” (see above, n. 6).

346 Anton Pritula

Nevertheless, some terms used in the Turkic version testify an opposite tenden-cy: a strong adaptation of the text to the cultural tradition of the language intowhich it is translated. An example of such an approach is also provided by transla-tions of the Holy Scriptures into Persian, made in the Mongol time.8 Therefore, it isnot amazing that the name Jesus is rendered in the Turkic text in a usual Islamicway: ʿĪsā (ʿyīsʾā ), which is used as some kind of refrain in the last verse of eachstanza. In the Syriac version, nevertheless, it corresponds not to the name, butrather to the word messiah (Syr. mšīḥā, Ar. masīḥ ). The Arabic šayṭān (šāyṭān ) inthe Turkic version (stanza 3), used in the Islamic sphere, corresponds to the Syriac

ـ!ܐ *ܨKـ?ـــ1

(‘slanderer’). The word kalīsā (klyīsʾā ), also found in the Turkic version

(stanza 11), is a typical term for designating а сhurch in Persian. It is this word thatRašīd al-Dīn used to describe an East Syrian chapel found by Duquz Hkatun, Hu-lagu Khan’s wife, in the Ilkhanids’ summer residence on the mount of Ālā-Ṭāq inIranian Azerbaijan.9 This church still existed after the death of its founder (1265),and at least until 1291 liturgy with participation of the patriarch of the East SyrianChurch were taking place there. In such churches, royal liturgies might have takenpalce, as it follows from his verses.10

Toponyms such as Bethlehem (stanza 1) and Jordan (stanza 2), present in theSyriac text, are omitted in the Turkic one, probably because they were not familiarfor the Turkic audience. A strong discrepancy with the Syriac original is notablealso in the refrain, which, probably, was also adapted to the taste of the Turkic au-dience. It is very simple, expressiv, with a division, emphasizing a rhythmic repeti-tion: zeh marym. pāk marym. nwūr marym. šāhmarwāryīd dmrym dwōḡmyīš. The Per-sian word šāhmarwāryīd (‘King perl’) is an image commonly used in the poetic tra-dition of the Iranian circle, and the first part of this composit (šāh ) used to meannot necessarily an attribute of a king, but rather an extraordinary quality of an ob-ject, for instance šāhkār (‘masterpiece’, literally ‘king’s work’).

No less discrepancies with the Syriac original can be found in the ‘Stanzas ofthe Church’ (stanza 11): in the third verse instead of “body and blood, bestown tothe Church” reads: nāmāz qyīlmyīš krmatlr gwōrsatmyīš (“You did namaz and demon-strated miracles”). Both terms were in use in Islamic circles: nāmāz for ‘prayer’ and

8 Cf. А.Д. Притула, “Христианство и персидская книжность XIII–XVIIвв.”, ПравославныйПалестинский сборник 38 [101] (2004): 15, 28, 37.9 P.G. Borbone & A. Orengo, “Stato e chiesa nell’Iran Ilkhanide. La chiesa alla corte di Arghonnelle fonti siriache e armene”, Egitto e Vicino Oriente XXIX (2006): 325–337, 335.10 See Taylor, “‘Your Sweet Saliva is the Living Wine’”, 48; Mengozzi, “The Kṯāvā of Khamis barQardahe”; Притула, “Ḵāмӣс Бар Ḳардāхē (кон. XIII в.) и арбельский литературныйкруг”, 224–225.

Syroturcica: A Bilingual Poem from the Mongol Time 347

karamat to designate miracles done by prophets. It is evident that the text beingdiscussed is addressed to a community that lived in the Islamic surrounding.

The simplicity and a somehow primitive style of the Turkic part is quite no-table. It is also relevant to the Syriac original, which was probably specificallycomposed to be translated. Nevertheless, this fact does not let me doubt the au-thorship of Ḫāmīs, whose works are sometimes of extreme complexity and refine-ment. In the period being discussed (late 13th to early 14th cent.), the Syriac poetryreached a level in which the genre tasks were determining the style that was to bechosen. Thus, the liturgical pieces by this author, composed for a Church choir, arein strong contrast to his elite works. Sometimes, they surpass in simplicity eventhe samples of this genre composed by earlier poets. One could suppose that theauthor aimed to, or even got an order to, compose a hymnological piece corre-sponding to the taste of the Turks. Generally, the quatrains on different subjects,indisputably a Persian influence, reflect the mainstream of the poetic fashion of theperiod; in the book of Ḫāmīs, they count up to several sections.11

It is not known whether the author of the Syriac text was at the same time thetranslator. It seems more likely that this work was made by another writer, of Tur-kic origin, possibly, being in contact with Ḫāmīs. The text might have been per-formed in both languages. Using the refrain br marym (‘the son of Mary’) at theend of each verse seems to be ingenious for this purpose – the combination, beingreproduced in Turkic, creates an impression of the textual unity of both parts. Evi-dently, each stanza forms a troparion, i.e. it had to be performed by the choir ondefinite holidays in both languages in turn.

We will try to define, based on linguistic data, to which regional subgroup ofthe Turkic family the addressees of this text could belong. Heffening, who studiedthe manuscript Mingana Syr. 51, supposed that the text had been composed inAzerbainjani language /dialect (Azeri );12 however, he did not explain how he cameto this conclusion. I would try to list some linguistic features, mentioning in ad-vance that my conclusions support Heffening’s suggestion:

1) The numeral qyīrḫ (‘forty’) is written with the rukkāḵā sign, indicating spi-rantization in this word, which is a feature of Azeri. Chagatai (old Uzbek) has a fi-nal occlusive,13 and Uiguric would have a reduction of r in this word.14

11 These quatrains are published in Mengozzi, “Persische Lyrik in syrischem Gewand” (see n. 6).12 Heffening, “Liturgische Texte der Nestorianer und Jakobiten in Süd-Türkischen” (n. 3), 232.13 А.М. Щербак, Грамматика староузбекского языка (Изд-Во Академии Наук СCCP,1962), 137.14 Этимологический словарь тюркских языков: Общетюркские и межтюркские основы на

348 Anton Pritula

2) The verbs with g in the anlaut are impossible, for instance, in Chagatai,15 buttypical for Azeri.

3) Furthermore, typical for Azeri is the dative with a flexion -а/ǝ meaning thefinal point of movement (see, for instance, stanza 4: qwūdsʾā gyīrmyīš, ‘he came toJerusalem’).16

Undoubtedly, it is not correct to speak about a linguistic ‘separation’ of Azeri insuch an early period; it is accepted that this happened in the 16th century. Never-theless, there are some reasons to suggest that the Turkic part of the text being dis-cussed was written in a dialect within the South-Western (Oghuz) group of theTurkic languages, to which modern Turkish, Azeri and Turkmani belong. The mainclassifying feature of its western, Oghuz-Seljuq subgroup, is spirantization of q.17

The variation qïrq~qïrḫ is noted already in the Oghuz language of 10th to 11th cen-turies.18 One more feature of this group is the already mentioned dative ending -а.19

The migration of the western Oghuz subgroup to the Near East and Anatoliafrom Central Asia took place in the 11th to 13th centuries. By that time, they adapt-ed Islam, which resulted in a penetration of their language by Arabic and Persianloan words. Therefore, it is not amazing that it was actively used in the text. Proba-bly, some parts of those migrants were Christians, presumably converted from Is-lam at the Ilkhanids’ time when conversion was possible. For the mentioned rea-sons, the “famous one” referred to in the title of the poem should rule out from thepossible addressees’ circle the famous Christians from the East-Turkic area, likeDoquz Khatun, Hulagu’s wife,20 or patriarch Jahbalaha III (1281–1317), Uighur byorigin. The Turkic cliff-climbers qayāčī, that were used by the Ilkhanid to stormmountain fortresses, were a Christian group based in Arbela, the native town ofḪāmīs;21 its infidelity to the administration lead to the massacre of the Christiansin this city in 1310. But if the evidence of the contemporaries is correct, they came

букву “Қ”, ed. Л.С. Левитская, А.В. Дыбо & В.И. Рассадин (Москва: Наука, 2000), 236–237.15 Щербак, Грамматика староузбекского языка, 81.16 М.Ш. Ширалиев & Э.В. Севортян (ред.), Грамматика азербайджанского языка. фонетика,морфология и синтаксис (Баку: Элм, 1971), 45–46.17 Э.А. Грунина, “Огузский язык X–XI вв.”, in Языки мира. Тюркские языки, ed.Э.Р. Тенишев (Москва: Индрик, 1997), 85.18 Ibid., 87.19 Н.З. Гаджиева, “Тюркские языки”, in Языки мира. Тюркские языки, ed. Тенишев, 20, n. 16.20 Although she was Kerait, i.e. originated from a Mongol tribe, the extend of Turkization of thisgroup probably was very high. 21 P.G. Borbone, “Syroturcica 3. Hülegü’s Rock-climbers: a Short-lived Turkic Word in 13th–14thCentury Syriac Historical Writing”, in Studies in Turkic Philology. Festschrift in Honour of the 80thBirthday of Professor Geng Shimin, ed. Z. Dingjing & A. Yakup (Beijing: Minzu, 2009), 290–291.

Syroturcica: A Bilingual Poem from the Mongol Time 349

to the Near East together with the Mongols from Eastern Turkestan and were es-caping contacts with Muslims, which they treated hostile. Such a text would havebeen totally incomprehensive, at least its vocabulary.

Beside the text published below, a number of Christian liturgical texts of West-Turkic circle (Turkish Garshuni) are known,22 which should be distinguished fromEast-Turkic texts (East Turkestan, in particular the Bulaik monastery). To comparethe text with the contemporary group of Syro-Turkica from the Eastern Turkestan,one could define the following features in common: In both groups two oppositetendencies may be traced – on the one hand, the influence of the Syriac original,going sometimes as far as the syntax; and on the other hand, an attempt of adjust-ment to the local religious tradition. In the case of the Turkestan texts it is Bud-dhism which is reflected in the religious terms used in the Christian texts.23

One more important difference of those two groups is that the Turkestani Syro-Turkic texts were created in the outskirts of the Syriac tradition, and by the middleof the 14th century demonstrate loosing the connection to it. That resulted in agreat number of mistakes in the Syriac words, as demonstrated by Mark Dickens.24

The western group in turn existed in the center of this tradition and was just acompliment in the Syriac liturgical manuscripts. And it was the Turkic part thatwas very often not comprehensible for the scribe. This could be a possible explana-tion of the subtitle in Mongolian ( Z ــ+ /)ــ 1 Bــ ــ 0ــ ). The group of people being the ad-dressee of the text was probably at the Ilkhanid’s service, but the details were not

22 Such as several hymns in the manuscripts Mingana 520, Mingana 184, Mingana 469 (cf.Heffening, “Liturgische Texte der Nestorianer und Jakobiten in Süd-Türkischen”, 232). See alsoH. Younansardaroud, “Die türkischen Texte aus dem Buch ‘Manuel de Piété’ von Paul Bedjan(1893)”, in Studia Semitica et Semitohamitica. Festschrift für Rainer Voigt anläßlich seines 60.Geburtstages am 17. Januar 2004, ed. B. Burtea, J. Tropper & H. Younansardaroud (Münster: Ugar-it, 2005), 489–525. Besides, the bibliography on this text group can be found in the article by Men-gozzi: “The History of Garshuni as a Writing System”, 297, n. 2 (see above, n. 5). Different tradi-tions of garshuni are also being discussed in an issue of the journal Hugoye : M. Dehqan & A.Mengozzi, “A Kurdish Garshuni Poem by David of Barazne (19th Century)”, Hugoye 17, no. 1(2014): 53–79; H. Takahashi, “Armenian Garshuni: An Overview of the Known Mater-ial”, Hugoye 17, no. 1 (2014): 81–117.23 M. Dickens, “Syro-Uigurica II: Syriac Passages in U338 from Turfan”, Hugoye 16, no. 2 (2013):309; P. Zieme, “Notes on a bilingual prayer book from Bulayık”, in Hidden Treasures and Intercul-tural Encounters: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia, ed. D.W. Winkler &L. Tang (Wien: Lit, 2009), 167–180.24 M. Dickens, “Multilingual Christian Manuscripts from Turfan”, Journal of the Canadian Socie-ty for Syriac Studies 9 (2009): 22–42. See esp. 33: “This text demonstrates that the monks at a laterstage of the community were far more comfortable with Uyghur script than Syriac script, so theytransliterated the Psalter and other liturgical texts from the latter into the former.”

350 Anton Pritula

known to the scribe. In fact, this text has nothing to do with Mogolistan, despiteMingana’s suggestion,25 as the West-Turkic features are evident here.

Unfortunately, at the present stage most of the existing manuscripts, mentionedabove, were not available to me; thus, a critical edition of this text is not possiblefor now. For this publication, I have used Borg. Syr. 33.

While rendering the Turkic part in this publication, I have emloyed a transliter-ation, although the original vocalization is retained and placed in the lower regis-ter of the line. Such combining of transcription and transliteration was reasonedby uncertainty of the Syriac vocalization system, in particular for Turkic.

A special grapheme č /c in the Turkic stanzas is retained in the (ܜ) andtranscribed as č. Other additional sounds found in that part of the text are ܟ ḫand.ḡ ܓ

25 Mingana, “The Early Spread of Christianity in Central Asia and the Far East”, 338, n. 2.

Syroturcica: A Bilingual Poem from the Mongol Time 351

Edition

RU+ ܢ*- ,L/

+.! I/B([ Kܬ(F*

+O-܀ ܕ EO/7S0 ܕLV1Z9 w/Z! 0QL- 0 ܀

SܪX+ 0)ܪH/0 ܬ

Sܪ ܘܬ

0/1B(Z+ 0/F(Sܘ *+ RH*- *+ RH*-

*+ KJ9ܬ ܐO1Hܕ RH*- ܀܀܀

[f. 240v] In the name of our Lord we are writing a sōgītā about the famous one, composed by the late teacher Ḫāmīs. One stanza in Syriac, and one stanza in Mongolian; and a refrain: Son of Mary, Son of Mary! Son of God, born by Mary!

0Sܬܪ EO1H܀ ܕ

0/Hܪ(X+

O1ــــHـــ* 9ــ, ܐܬ+ RـــــH*

- .

(Aـــ+ ./+ RQ9ـ * + RــH*- .

ܘ 0 ܘܐܬ

4(Aــ- *?HPܬܗ 9ـOA[ .

0Y1

*HــR ܕO1Hܬ -0Q/U ܕ-

- .

m8ܐ *+ RH*- 0!* ܘ4

0/1B(Z+

Lــ0Bܕܘ l/ZBܕܘ * + RــH*

- .

6Hܢ ܐ(B l/ZAH * + RH*- .

*1L! *1

A+ *

1B l/ZF(!(H ܐ

gZL ! 0X/S RH*-ܕ l/ZBܕܘ .

0/F(S ܙܗ RH*- `b RH*- ܪ(F RH*-.

OHܪ*ܘ-J

4 R/-ܕ l/ZB

ܕܘ

[1] Stanzas of Christmas

In SyriacThe Son of Mary was born for us in Bethlehem, Son of Mary.And the mages came with respect and worship / to Christ the King, born by Mary.

Followed by: Son of Mary etc. …

In Mongoliandwūḡānʾ dwōḡmyīš br marym.ēl gūn yeḡmyīš br marym.ḫānlār baglr ʾāḡlār ywūkwūnmyīš.ḫānmez ʿyīsʾā dmrym dwōḡmyīš.

Refrain: zeh marym. pāk marym. nwūr marym. / šāhmarwāryīd dmrym dwōḡmyīš.

352 Anton Pritula

0S0 ܬܪQF܀ ܕܕ

0/Hܪ(X+

OZـS Kܗܘ ,Fܪܕ*RH +* +ـ/)

- .

L, -ــ, 3ــــــ*RH +ـــ* Hـــ)

- .

)n ܘFـQ.ܬ . ܕ8)ܕ04 ܪܘS 03ـ1

0Y1

*HــR ܕO1Hܬ -0Q/U ܕ-

- .

*+ RH*- *4ܘ

0/1B(Z+

,L3(H 0

Bl/Z1 ܐ

B *+ RH*

- .

OZـــS l/Z

1H*HـــR +ـــ* ܐ

- .

E*1Fܘ(

ܪ!ܠ ܐ

-/H lـ)

.ܪ](B .

gZL! 0

X/ـS RـH*-ܕ l/ZB

. ܕܘ

* -*RH ܙܗܘ4

[2] Stanzas of Epiphany

In SyriacThe Son of Mary was baptized in Jordanby John – Son of Mary –,and the Holy Spirit descended [f. 241r] on Christ the King, born by Mary.Son of Mary etc. …

In Mongolianywōḥānn ʾāḡʾā galmyīš br marym.ʿmād ʾaylāmyīš br marym.ʾārkāwūwūnālrʾ ywōl gwōrsatmyīš.ḫānmez ʿyīsʾā dmrym dwōḡmyīš.zeh marym wšar.

0S0܀ ܬܪ

ܕܨܘ-

0/Hܪ(X+

*E ܗܘK ܨܡ+OZـــ* +ـ+ RـــH*

- .

,/T/, ܐܪ+

*HـــR +ـــ* Hــــ)-

- .

Vـــ6/ــÄ ܘ4

ܙ!*ܨK ܘ

!1ــ?

P9ــ .

0Y1ــ

- 0Q/Uܬ -ـO1Hܕ RــH*

- .

*+ RH*- *4ܘ

0/1B(Z+

ــــ/01Å lــ*-ــ/ـ

B *ـــ+ RـــH*

- .

*HـــR +ـــ* ܕܘ:B l/Z)ܢ 8/*ܟ- .

ـــl/Z ܗܜZH CL

Mــ/

4 l/Zܐܘ:ـ .

gZــL! 0

X/ــــS RـH*ܕ-ـ l/ZـB

. ܕܘ

* -*RH ܙܗܘ4

[3] Stanzas of the Lent

In SyriacThe Son of Mary fastedforty days, Son of Mary,And the hater was overcome and defeat-ed by / Christ the King, born by Mary.Son of Mary etc. …

In Mongolian člāyā garmyīš br marym.qyīrḫ gwūn dwūṭmyīš br marym.heč yēmāmyīš šāyṭānyī ʾwūṭmyīš.ḫānmez ʿyīsʾā dmrym dwōḡmyīš.zeh mrym wšar.

Syroturcica: A Bilingual Poem from the Mongol Time 353

0S0܀ ܬܪLT

ܕܐܘ4

0/Hܪ(X+

a!ـ6 ܪS 01/S *ـــ+ RـــH*- .

ܪR14 ܘSـ6*HـــR +ـــ* P9ܘ

- .

n(X1ـــEf7 ܘ8

4 Ä/

LTܘ4ـPـــ+ .

0Y1ـ

Z9 0Q/Uܬ -ـO1Hܕ RــH*

- .

*+ RH*- *ܘ4

0/1B(Z+

0L*HـــR +ـــ* -ــ/l/ZL 8ـــ)9

- .

0*HـــR +ـــ* Bــ/*-ـ/l 8ـــ)ܕ]

- .

lH *1L1B

ܐܘ

.LـT4 . -ـ/AÅl* ܐܘ

gZــL! 0

X/ــــS RـH*-ܕ l/ZـB

. ܕܘ

* -*RH ܙܗܘ4

[4] Stanzas of Palm Sunday

In SyriacThe Son of Mary saddled a jennetand entered Jerusalem, Son of Mary,and the children glorified Him with palm twigs, / Christ the King, born by Mary.Son of Mary etc. …

In Mongolianqwūlānā meyīnmyīš br marym.qwūdsʾā gyīrmyīš br marym.yāš ʾwōḡlānlār ʾwōšaʿnt čḡrmyīš.ḫānmez ʿyīsʾā dmrym dwōḡmyīš.zeh mrym wšar.

0S03܀ ܬܪ<bܕ

0/Hܪ(X+

ــ* b>3ــ0 ܐ!ـــــ6+ RـــH*

- .

RS nܘOـ/Z9ـــ* ܬ+ RـــH*- . R14

Ab 0ZQ*ܗ ܘܐ

1+ E*Z . ܘ3

0Y1ـ

- 0Q/Uܬ -ـO1Hܕ RــH*

- .

*+ RH*- *ܘ4

0/1B(Z+

*ܝ9O/Z9

*HـــR +ـــ* l/ZAH ܬ

- .

>ܚb ܝ

(: l/Z

1Hـــ* ܐ+ RـــH*

- .

CFܙ0 ܐܘ

1/+

ܕ, ܐ

UV)ܪ-/l 8)ܪ+

: .

gZــL! 0

X/ــــS RـH*-ܕ l/ZـB

. ܕܘ

* -*RH ܙܗܘ4

[5] Stanzas of Pesach26

In SyriacThe Son of Mary ate Pesach,with His disciples, Son of Mary,[f. 241v] and His body / in bread and wine was / delivered by Christ the King, born by Mary.Son of Mary etc. …

In Mongoliantalmyīdlāryī yeḡmyīš br marym.paṣḥ ṭwōy ʾyīlāmyīš br marym.ʾwōznyī ʾādābyīlʾā qwūrbān ṭapšwūrmyīš.ḫānmez ʿyīsʾā dmrym dwōḡmyīš.zeh mrym wšar.

26 In the East Syrian tradition certainly the Great Thursday is meant, which is to be distin-guished from the holiday of the Lord’s Resurrection.

354 Anton Pritula

0S0܀ ܬܪ

U 3

0/Hܪ(X+

k1[ 0V/8g . -*HـــR +ـــ* 9ܕ0H -ـ,

. -*HـــR +ـــ* HـــJܘ

R14 ܪ4ـJ ܘܐܪ!, . ܪܘJ3 ܘܐ

0Y1

- 0Q/U- ܬO1Hܕ RH*- . *+ RH*- *

ܘ4

0/1B(Z+

* . -*HـــJÅ l/Z1AH *+ *+ Rܘܕ9

0Ç Bܨ-ـــ/ــــl ܐ

. -ـــ*HـــR +ـــ* ܐ

ܝB lـ)ܢ ܐ

F(B

IB . :)B l/Z9ـ)

gZــL! 0

X/ــــS RــH*-ܕ l/ZـB

. ܕܘ

* -*RH ܙܗܘ4

[6] Stanzas of Passion

In SyriacThe Son of Mary ascended the crossbecause of the Jews, Son of Mary,laid His head and delivered His spirit, Christ the King, born by Mary.Son of Mary etc. …

In Mongoliančhwūdlār yeḡlmyīš br mrym.ʾāḡāčʾā ʾāṣmyīš br mrym.ʾāy gwūn gwūnāš gwūgtʾā dwūṭwūlmyīš.ḫānmez ʿyīsʾā dmrym dwōḡmyīš.zeh mrym wšar.

0S܀ ܬܪ

IZ/8ܕ

0/Hܪ(X+

R/[ܬE*7 ܐܬ

ـ* +ـ?

ـ . -*RH +ـ

Iـ, ܬ9ـ/*HـــR +ـــ* Hـ)-

- .

RـJ/Z/8 ܘ8

+C1 9ـPܕܡ ܘܐ

. ܕ

0Y1

- 0Q/U- ܬO1Hܕ RH*ـ- . *+ RH*- *

ܘ4

0/1B(Z+

09ـــــ)-

*-/l ܐܘ

B *ـــ+ RـــH*

- .

*HـــR +ـــ* B l/ZMHــ)ܢ ܐܘܜ - .

ܦ-C ܗ

ܕܢ ܐ

OFOFܙܘ l/Z9(:8)ܪ .

gZــL! 0

X/ـــS RــH*-ܕ l/ZـB

. ܕܘ

* -*RH ܙܗܘ4

[7] Stanzas of Resurrection

In SyriacSon of Mary was laid in a grave for three days, Son of Mary, and He arose and raised the decrepit Adam, / Christ the King, born by Mary.Son of Mary etc. …

In Mongolianʾwōlwūmʾā garmyīš br marym. ʾwūč gwūn yaṭmyīš br marym.hāp ʾādāmyī zwūndāndān qwūṭwūlmyīš.ḫānmez ʿyīsʾā dmrym dwōḡmyīš.zeh mrym wšar.

Syroturcica: A Bilingual Poem from the Mongol Time 355

0Sܕ])9?0܀ ܬܪ

0/Hܪ(X+

k10 ]ــــ/ZUـ* 9ــ . -ـ*RH +ـ

ܬJ3 9ـــ)

1ــ)

. -*RH +ـــ* 4, ܘHــــ.ܒ

ــ0L/Z -ــــ, ܬ- H .

0Y1

- 0Q/Uܬ -ـO1Hܕ RH*ـ- . *+ RH*- *

ܘ4

0/1B(Z+

I:(9(+ l/-ــ* ܐܘ:)ܪ+ RH*ـ- . 0Bـ* ZY/Åـــ/ـB lــــ)

ـ . -ـ*RH +ـ

CZ! *

1!P1ـــ

- 0L/

Bl/Z1 ܐܘ

B .

gZــL! 0

X/ــS RــH*-ܕ l/ZـB

. ܕܘ

* -*RH ܙܗܘ4

[8] Stanzas of Ascension

In SyriacThe Son of Mary ascended the heaven[f. 242r] to the One sent Him, Son of Mary, / and sat there on the right, Christ the King, born by Mary.Son of Mary etc.

In Mongolian bwūlūṭtā ʾwūṭwūrmyīš br mrym.gwōgʾ čyḫmyīš br mrym.ḫāmyī mālʾyklār ʾwōgyīnʾ galmyīš.ḫānmez ʿyīsʾā dmrym dwōḡmyīš.zeh mrym wšar.

0S0܀ ܬܪM[(

?MLbܕ

0/Hܪ(X+

ـــــــOܪ . -ــ*RH +ـــ* ܪܘ3ــ0 4

ـ* bـــــ*8ـــــM/1ـ0ـ . -ـ*RH +ـ

/S EOـــــ6Z9ܬ R

Y ܢ ܘ3

(Fܐ .

0Y1

- 0Q/Uܬ -ـO1Hܕ RH*ـ- . *+ RH*- *

ܘ4

0/1B(Z+

ܢ-/B lـــ)ܢ ܐܘ

. -ـ*RH +ـــ* ܐܘܬ

ܪ8ـــ/6 . -ـ*RH +ـــ* ܐHــــl/Z1 ܐ

*1F(+

0 ܐ

LXHܪܘ3?)ܕܣ ܐ l/ZF

(8 .

gZــL! 0

X/ــS RــH*-ܕ l/ZـB

. ܕܘ

* -*RH ܙܗܘ4

[9] Stanzas of Pentecost

In SyriacSon of Mary sent the Spirit,the Consoler – Son of Mary, on the disciples, and instructed them, Christ the King, born by Mary.Son of Mary etc. …

In Mongolianʾwōn gwūn ʾwūtmyīš br mrym.ʾarqyīl ʾylmyīš br mrym.ʾbwōnālār ʾyīsnʾ rwūḥqwūds qwōnmyīš.ḫānmez ʿyīsʾā dmrym dwōḡmyīš.zeh mrym wšar.

356 Anton Pritula

0S܀ ܕܨ9/07 ܬܪ

0/Hܪ(X+

s!/Xـ0 ܐ4ــــــ.

. -ـ*RH +ــ* 8

Kـــ* ܕܨ9ـــ/ـ7ــــ)ܬ+ RـــH*ـ- . *XـS.9.ܠ +ـــــ

(1HPــ*03 +ــH .

0Y1

. -ـ*RH ܕO1Hܬ -ـ0Q/U ܕ-

*+ RH*- *ܘ4

0/1B(Z+

0Lــܘܢ ܗ9

.! l/ـZ1ـ

B *ـ+ RH*ــ- .

CÇـ! l/ــZــVــ

. -ــ*RH +ـــ* :

ـ-1Lܬܘ ـ *ـ

6ـ-

ـBܐܘ

EـLـ/O

ـBܕ

. ـ-/ lـ ـ*+

RH*- .gZــL

ــ0 !

X/ــS RـH*ܕ-ـ l/ZـB

. ܕܘ

* -*RH ܙܗܘ4

[10] Stanzas of the Cross

In SyriacThe tree was found, Son of Mary, of the crucifixion, Son of Mary,on the thirteenth [day] of the month Elul,27– / the one of Christ the King, bornby Mary.Son of Mary etc. …

In Mongolianhēlānʾā ḫātwūn galmyīš br mrym.kāčyī ṭapmyīš br mrym.twūmānlār māl ʾwōgyīndʾā dāḡtmyīš.

ḫānmez ʿyīsʾā dmrym dwōḡmyīš.zeh mrym wšar.

0Sܬܪ K

܀ ܕOSܬ

0/Hܪ(X+

. -ـــــ*RH +ـــ* OSܬB J9 Kــ07,- 6! ,/Z

ZS *ـــ+ RH*ـــــ- . ܘHـــJܒ

J9 ܗ*Ab J0 ܘܕ-ــ/ 3 .

0Y10 -ـــQ/Uܬ -ـO1ـHܕ RH*ـ- .

*+ RH*- *ܘ4

0/1B(Z+

*9O/Zܬ9ـ l/Z1AH *ـــ+ RH*ـــــ- .

6! 0X/1! l/-ـــ* 8)ܪ+ RH*ـــــ- .

gZF l/Z1/8 *

9.-*

! l/-

. . B)ܪ]

gZــL! 0

X/ــS RــH*ܕ-ـ lـــ/ZـB

. ܕܘ

* -*RH ܙܗܘ4

[11] Stanzas of the Church28

In Syriac[f. 242v] Son of Mary chose the Church of all the peoples, Son of Mary, and gave it His vivifying flesh and blood,Christ the King’s, born by Mary!Son of Mary etc. …

In Mongoliantlmyīdlār yeḡmyīš br mrym.kl klyīsʾā qwūrmyīš br mrym.nāmāz qyīlmyīš krmatlr gwōrsatmyīš. ḫānmez ʿyīsʾā dmrym dwōḡmyīš.zeh mrym wšar.

27 The month of the Syriac calendar, corresponding to September.28 The holiday of the Consecration of Church is meant, which is celebrated at the end of theliturgical year.

Syroturcica: A Bilingual Poem from the Mongol Time 357