The Dispute of the Months in Sureth and Its East-Syriac
Vorlage
Alessandro
Mengozzi
Università degli Studi di Torino
TEI XML encoding by
James E. Walters
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
2019
Volume 22.2
For this publication, a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International license has been granted by the author(s), who retain full
copyright.
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/article/hv22n2mengozzi
Alessandro Mengozzi
The Dispute of the Months in Sureth and Its East-Syriac
Vorlage
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol22/HV22N2Mengozzi.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute, 2019
vol 22
issue 2
pp 319–344
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies is an electronic journal
dedicated to the study of the Syriac tradition, published semi-annually (in
January and July) by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute. Published since 1998,
Hugoye seeks to offer the best scholarship available in the field of Syriac
studies.
Neo-Aramaic
Sureth
East Syriac
Translation
Poetry
File created by James E. Walters
Abstract
In 1896 Lidzbarski published a Sureth (Christian North-Eastern
Neo-Aramaic) version of the Dispute of the Months, as preserved in the ms.
Berlin 134 (Sachau 336). The text is here republished with an English
translation and compared with its Classical Syriac Vorlage. For the purpose of
comparison, a provisional critical edition of the East-Syriac text in the
classical language has been prepared on the basis of five manuscripts. The
East-Syriac (and Sureth) version contains fewer references to Biblical and
Christian culture than the West-Syriac text, as published by Brock in 1985, and
appears to be a folk ballad with a few Christian motifs rather than a liturgical
hymn. The text was attributed to the late 13th-century poet Khamis bar Qardaḥe
and has been preserved in a couple of manuscript witnesses of the second part of
his Diwān.
Witnesses
In 1896 Lidzbarski published a Sureth (Christian North-Eastern
Neo-Aramaic) version of the Dispute of the Months. Mark Lidzbarski,
Die neu-aramäische Handschriften der Königlichen
Bibliothek zu Berlin (Weimar: Emil Felber, 1896), vol. 1, 442–6
(Sureth text and Arabic transl. by J. Shamir), vol. 2, 344–7 (German
transl.). In the present paper I intend to republish this
text with an English translation and with a provisional edition of its
East-Syriac Vorlage.
The Sureth text is preserved in a miscellaneous multilingual
manuscript of the Berlin Sachau collection (Berlin 134, Sachau 336), Eduard Sachau, Verzeichniss der syrischen Handschriften der
Koniglichen Bibliothek zur Berlin (Berlin: A. Asher & Co.,
1899), 437–42. A digital copy of the manuscript is available on the
website of the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz
(Germany): Sammlung von Gedichten, Hochzeitsliedern und Geschichten,
1883. written in 1883 by the copyist Fransi (Francis) Mērī of
Telkepe, a major Chaldean center near Mosul. The same copyist wrote a number of
other Sureth manuscripts of the Sachau collection, which bears witness to the
interest of Eduard Sachau in the languages spoken in northern Iraq and
south-eastern Turkey. Berlin 134 is a good example of Sachau’s choices in
collecting texts. On Sachau’s preferences and criteria in collecting Neo-Aramaic texts,
see Francesca Bellino and Alessandro Mengozzi, “Geographical ‘Aǧāib in a Neo-Aramaic Manuscript of the London
Sachau Collection.” (Le Muséon 129:3-4 [2016]), 423–8 and Alessandro
Mengozzi, “D’Ahiqar au tapis volant du roi Salomon, des mirabilia
géographiques à Sindbad le marin en araméen moderne : adab et recherche
orientaliste à la fin du XIXème siècle,” in Actes du
colloque international « Ladab, toujours recommencé : Origines,
transmission et métamorphoses » (Paris, IISMM et INALCO, Jeudi
1er -Samedi 3 décembre 2016), ed. Francesca Bellino, Catherine
Mayeur-Jaouen, and Luca Patrizi. It contains:
a Kurdish Garshuni erotic poem; On Kurdish Garshuni, see George Anton Kiraz,
Tūrrā
ṣ
Mamllā. A Grammar of the Syriac Language, vol. 1 Orthography (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press,
2012), 306-9, based on a text in serṭo
script. On Kurmanji Kurdish in East-Syriac script, see Mustafa
Dehqan, “A Kurdish Garshuni Version of Mem û Zîn” (Gerdûn 11
[2016]), 5-10 and Idem, “Sachau 204: A Kurdish Garshuni Poem”
(Manuscripta Orientalia 22 [2016]), 68-70.
Sureth erotic triplets; Fabrizio A. Pennacchietti, “Zmiryata d-rawe:
“stornelli” degli aramei kurdistani,” in Scritti
in onore di Giuliano Bonfante (Brescia: Paideia), vol. 2,
647–8 is still the most precise description of this genre and its
Sitz im Leben. An up-dated bibliography
can be found in Alessandro Mengozzi, “‘That I might speak and the
ear listen to me!’: On Genres in Traditional Modern Aramaic
Literature” (Journal of Semitic Studies 57:2 [2012]),
327-9.
the famous Sureth poem by David the Blind on the Virgin Mary (b-shemmā d-bābā w-bronā), which is a kind of national
anthem for the Chaldeans of the plain of Mosul; Alessandro Mengozzi,
“Religious Poetry in Vernacular Syriac from Northern Iraq,” in Idem,
Religious Poetry in Vernacular Syriac from
Northern Iraq (17th-20th Centuries). An Anthology, CSCO,
Scriptores Syri 241 (Leuven: Peeters, 2011), xv.
the Story of Aḥiqar On versions and fortune of Aḥiqar, see
Riccardo Contini and Cristiano Grottanelli (eds.), Il saggio Ahiqar: Fortuna e trasformazione di uno scritto
sapienziale. Il testo più antico e le sue versioni
(Brescia: Paideia, 2005). An up-dated bibliography on the various
Neo-Aramaic versions can be found in Alessandro Mengozzi, “D’Ahiqar
au tapis volant du roi Salomon”. and
Aesopic fables in Classical Syriac;
Sureth poems:
6.a The Dispute of the Months,
6.b The Dispute of Gold and Wheat,
6.c The Girl Māmoy Loved by a Bishop in
Azerbaidjan,
6.d The Dispute of Cup, Jar and
Wineskin,
6.e Satan and the Sinful Woman,
Alessandro Mengozzi, “A Neo-Aramaic Version of the Soghitha
of the Sinful Woman and Satan,” in Malphono w-Rabo d-Malphone. Studies in Honor of
Sebastian P. Brock, ed. George Anton Kiraz
(Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2008).
6.f Simon Magus and Simon Peter,
Alessandro Mengozzi, “Simon Magus and Simon Peter in Rome.
The Sureth Version of a Late East-Syriac Hymn for the
Commemoration of Saints Peter and Paul” (Kervan 22 [2018]),
65-90.
6.g The Cherub and the Thief, The
text was published by Eduard Sachau, “Über die Poesie in der
Volksprache der Nestorianer” (Sitzungsberichte der
königlich-preussischen Ak. der W. zu Berlin XI:8
[1896]),179-215 and re-published, together with two other
Sureth versions, by Fabrizio A. Pennacchietti, Il ladrone e il cherubino. Dramma
liturgico cristiano orientale in siriaco e
neoaramaico (Torino: Silvio Zamorani, 1993). On the
fortune and Sitz im Leben of this
text see Alessandro Mengozzi and Luca Basilio Ricossa, “The
Cherub and the Thief on YouTube: An Eastern Christian
Liturgical Drama and the Vitality of the Mesopotamian
Dispute,” (Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli 73
[2013]), 49-65.
6.h Mary and the Gardener; An
Arabic translation of this Sureth story, by Jeremiah Shamir
(see n. 14, below), can be found in the ms. Berlin 133
(Sachau 200), 58b-63b. A more recent and elaborate Sureth
version is added at the end of a manuscript collection of
hagiographic texts, dated 1937 (ms. 135 of the Chaldean
Church of the Sacred Heart of Telkepe, near Mosul: QACCT 135
in the database of www.hmml.org), where it is entitled Story of Sayf al-Masīḥ, son of the king of
Rumia, and Eǧubatnām, daughter of the King of
France. The ms. contains 21 lives of martyrs and
saints and the last two texts are the stories of Aḥiqār and
Sayf al-Masīḥ. 13 of the other 19 texts were copied from
Paul Bedjan, Vies des saints en langue
chaldéenne moderne (Paris-Leipzig: Harrassowitz,
1912).
the prose story of a Duenna (kahrāmānā) and a Young
Prince. Alessandro Mengozzi, “A Sureth Version of the
East-Syriac Dialogue Poem of Mary and the Gardener” (Kervan, forthcoming).
Lidzbarski published the Sureth texts of the three dispute poems:
The Dispute of the Months, The
Dispute of Gold and Wheat and The Dispute of Cup, Jar
and Wineskin, the latter preceded by a short Classical Syriac dialogue
poem of a new friend who asks to be admitted to a company of drinkers. Mark Lidzbarski,
Die neu-aramäische Handschriften, vol. 1,
442–57 (Sureth text and Arabic transl.), vol. 2, 344–56 (German
transl.). He copied en face the Arabic
translation by Jeremiah Shamir, who was the key figure for Sachau’s activities
as a collector of texts and purchaser of manuscripts in northern Iraq. See Rifaat
Ebied, “A collection of letters in Syriac and Arabic addressed to Eduard
Sachau (1845-1930)” (ARAM 21 [2009]), 79–105 and Rifaat Ebied and
Nicolas Al-Jeloo, “Some further letters in Syriac, Neo-Aramaic and
Arabic addressed to Eduard Sachau by Jeremiah Shāmīr” (Journal of
Assyrian Academic Studies 24 [2010]), 1–45. Shamir’s translation of the
disputes is preserved in the ms. Sachau 343, 14b-16b.
In a footnote at the beginning of his German translation of the
disputes, Lidzbarski observes that this kind of Wettstreite appear to be rather popular among the East Syrians, whom
he called the “Nestorians”, and that they also occur in Arabic literature, where
the Dispute of Pen and Sword appears to be one of the
favorite themes. Mark Lidzbarski, Die neu-aramäische
Handschriften, vol. 2, 344. On the problem of the origin of the
Classical Arabic munāẓara as a learned literary
genre, see John N. Mattock, “The Arabic Tradition: Origin and
Developments,” in Dispute Poems and Dialogues in the
Ancent and Mediaeval Middle Near, ed. Gerrit Jan Reinink and
Herman L.J. Vanstiphout (Leuven: Peeters, 1991), 153–63. A more popular
form of poetic dispute would seem to be, in modern times, a vernacular
genre cultivated in oral traditions throughout the Middle East and the
Arab World: Henri Massé, “Du genre littéraire ‘Débat’ en arabe et en
persan” (Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale 4 [1951]), 144–147; Urbain
Bouriant, Chansons populaires arabes en dialecte du
Caire (Paris: Leroux, 1893) and Enno Littmann, “Neuarabische
Streitgedichte,” in Festschrift zur Feier des
Zweihundertjährigen Bestehens der Akademie der Wissenschaften in
Göttingen, II Philologisch-historische Klasse (Berlin:
Springer, 1951), 26–66 (Egyptian Arabic); Clive D. Hole, “The Rat and
the Ship’s Captain: A dialogue poem from the Gulf, with some comments on
the social and literary-historical background of the genre” (Studia
Orientalia 75 [1995]), 101–20; Idem, “The Dispute of Coffee and Tea: A
debate-poem from the Gulf,” in Tradition and Modernity
in Arabic Language and Literature, ed. J.R. Smart (London:
Curzon Press, 1996); Idem, “The Debate of Pearl-Diving and Oil Wells: A
poetic commentary on socio-economic change in the Gulf of the
1930s” (Arabic and Middle Eastern Literatures 1 [1998]), 87–112; Mark
Wagner, “The Debate Between Coffee and Qāt in Yemeni Literature” (Middle
Eastern Literatures 8 [2015]), 121–49; see also the playful, almost
childish, Sureth dialogue poem of The Boys and the
Tea-Kettle: L. Yaure, “A Poem in the Neo-Aramaic Dialect of
Urmia” (Journal of Near Eastern Studies 16 [1957]), 73–87 and Alessandro
Mengozzi, “Neo-Aramaic Dialogue and Dispute Poems. The Various Types,”
in the proceedings of the international conference Disputation Poems in the Near East and Beyond. Ancient and
Modern, held in Madrid 12-13 July 2017, ed. Enrique Jiménez
(Berlin: De Gruyter, forthcoming).
Thanks to numerous studies and text editions by Sebastian Brock,
hymns that have the structure of dialogue or dispute poems form one of the
best-known genres in Classical Syriac literature. See, e.g., Sebastian P.
Brock, Soghyāthā Mgabbyāthā (Glane: Monastery of
St. Ephrem, 1982); “Dialogue Hymns of the Syriac Churches” (Sobornost.
Eastern Churches Review 5:1 [1983]), 35–45; “Syriac Dialogue Poems:
Marginalia to a Recent Edition” (Le Muséon 97 [1984]), 29–58; “Syriac
Dispute Poems: The Various Types,” in Dispute Poems
and Dialogues in the Ancient and Mediaeval Near East, ed.
Gerrit Jan Reinink and Herman L.J. Vanstiphout (Leuven: Peeters,1991),
109–19; “The Dispute Poem: From Sumer to Syriac” (Journal of the
Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 1 [2001]), 3–10. An up-dated list of
Syriac dialogue and dispute poems can be found in Sebastian P. Brock,
Mary and Joseph, and other dialogue poems on
Mary (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2011), 97–104.
In 1985, Brock published and translated into English a number of Classical
Syriac and Jewish Aramaic poems concerning the months of the year. Sebastian P.
Brock, “A Dispute of the Months and Some
Related Syriac Texts” (Journal of Semitic Studies 30:2 [1985]), 181–211.
A short version (A dispute arose) and a complete
Dispute of the Months (All
months gathered, with the same opening formula of the Syriac
Dispute) from the Cairo Genizah were
published by Alphons S. Rodrigues Pereira, Studies in
Aramaic Poetry (c. 1000 B.C.E. – c. 600 C.E.) (Assen: Van
Gorcum, 1997), 310–2 (Aramaic text), 392–5 (English transl.). Six Jewish
Palestinian Aramaic disputes of the months are listed in Michael Rand,
“An Aramaic Dispute between the Months by Sahlan ben Avraham” (Melilah:
Manchester Journal of Jewish Studies 9 [2012]), 102–4, with a
bibliography, which, however, does not include Rodrigues Pereira. Some
of these poems are now translated into English by Laura Suzanne Lieber,
Jewish Aramaic Poetry from Late Antiquity
(Leiden: Brill, 2018), 126–42, among other texts on the months and the
primacy of Nisan. For a comparison of the disputes of the months as
attested in Classical Syriac and Jewish Palestinian Aramiac, see
Alessandro Mengozzi, “Syrische Streitgedichte als mündliche Dichtung,”
in the proceedings of the 10. Deutscher
Syrologentag (Berlin, 30/05-2/06 2018), ed. Shabo Talay,
forthcoming. Among them we find the Dispute
of the Months and the Dispute of Gold and Wheat.
For the Dispute of Gold and Wheat, Brock had at his
disposal only the late East-Syriac version preserved in the manuscript Cambridge
Add. 2820 and the Sureth free poetic adaptation published by Lidzbarski. For the
Dispute of the Months, Brock chose as the base text
for his edition the ms. Add. 17141 of the British Library (henceforth A; dated
to the eighth-ninth century on paleographic grounds). This manuscript is one of
the earliest West Syriac collections of madrāshā and soghithā hymns, which are intended for liturgical use but
are not yet ordered according to the liturgical calendar. Brock collated the
text of A with three other versions of the Dispute. The
first six-and-a-half verses of the poem are quoted by Anton of Tagrit (9th
century) in his handbook of rhetoric as an example of personification (R). As
for the Dispute of Gold and Wheat, Brock had at his
disposal the late East Syriac (B) and the Sureth (S) versions of the Dispute of the Months.
When they are available, the variants of the quotation by Anton of
Tagrit (R) are often preferable to the text preserved in the West-Syriac version
of A. In some cases, the text of R corresponds to the late East Syriac version
(B). The East-Syriac version is meanwhile known from witnesses other than B,
which was the only East-Syriac manuscript available to Brock. For the present,
provisional edition of the East-Syriac text, I collated four manuscripts and the
text of an early 20th-century Alqosh manuscript as published by Shleymon Ḥoshaba
in his 2002 edition of the Book of Khamis bar
Qardaḥē.
Baghdad Church of the East 6 (1719), 214-6
Baghdad Church of the East 10 (19th cent.?), 226-32 The manuscripts of the
Archbishopric of the Church of the East in Baghdad were photographed
in the context of a 2005 project for the preservation and
documentation of Syriac manuscripts: Hubert Kaufhold, “Über einige
Projekte der Digitalisierung syrischer Handschriften” (Oriens
Christianus 90 [2006]), 210–6. Since the folios of this manuscript
are not numbered, I refer to page numbers as given in the jpeg file
names.
Cambridge Add. 2820 (Telkepe 1881), 98a-99b (B; collated by Brock)
Chaldean Monastery 921 (Alqosh 1906) Shleymun I. Ḥoshaba (ed.), Khamis bar
Qardaḥē, Mêmrē w-mušḥāthā (Nuhadra: Prisatha
da-Nṣivin, 2002), 195.
Trichur 25 (19th-20th cent.?), 86a-b
The East-Syriac dispute poems were included in two types of
manuscript collections of soghyāthā: in books of soghyāthā ordered according to the liturgical calendar
(Baghdad 6) and in late manuscripts that preserve the second part of the Book of Khamis (Baghdad 10, Chaldean Monastery 921,
Trichur 25). In this second type of manuscripts, the disputes are thus
implicitly attributed to the late 13th-century East Syriac poet Khamis bar
Qardaḥe.
The second part of the Book of Khamis contains
soghyātha (series of quatrains of seven
syllable lines, often linked by aphabetic acrostic), monorhyme poems (in
the late East-Syriac manuscripts they are called mēmrē) and quatrains (called tar’ē). It
is preserved only in a few manuscripts. Anonymous poems and poems by
other authors were added in both parts of the Book. On its structure and history, see Alessandro Mengozzi,
“Persische Lyrik in syrischem Gewand. Vierzeiler aus dem Buch des Khamis
bar Qardaḥe (Ende 13. Jahrhundert),” in Geschichte,
Theologie und Kultur des syrischen Christentums. Beiträge zum 7.
Deutschen Syrologie-Symposium in Göttingen, Dezember 2011, ed.
Martin Tamcke and Sven Grebenstein (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2014),
155–76 and Idem, “The Book of Khamis bar Qardaḥe: History of the Text,
Genres and Research Perspectives,” in Syriac
Encounters. Papers from the Sixth North American Syriac Symposium,
Duke University, 26-29 June 2011, ed. Maria Doerfler, Emanuel
Fiano, and Kyle Smith (Leuven: Peeters, 2015), 415–36.
Cambridge Add. 2820 is somewhat in between the two types of manuscripts, in that
it contains soghyāthā for liturgical use as well as a
number of poems of the Khamis collection.
The East-Syriac copies most likely derive from a common archetype
and there is very little, almost exclusively orthographic variation among them.
The Sureth version clearly reflects a text similar to the East-Syriac archetype.
The translator renders the seven syllable lines of the original in lines of
seven or eight syllables, possibly compatible with the melody according to which
the hymn was sung. However, in accordance with the taste of Late Syriac and
Modern Aramaic poetry, he stabilizes as AAAA the rhyme that in the original
occurs sparsely and in rather irregular patterns (1b-1d, 3a-3b-3d, 4a-4b-4c,
6a-6b, 7a-7b, 7c-7d, 15b-15d. 16a-16b).
The scribe of the Sureth version uses the customary phonetic
rather than phonological spelling of northern Iraqi manuscripts. For example, he
interchangeably uses e and ē, a and ā: compare, e.g., 12a pleṭlē ... tamoz with 14a tāmoz
plēṭlē. One remarkable feature of this text is the hypercorrect use of
the linea occultans for matres
lectionis such as y in ܟܸܡܩܵܪܹܝ݇ܠܸܐ (12c) and ܡܸܪܹܝ݇ܠܹܐ (12d). In ܛܸܐ݇ܡܵܐ for
ܛܲܥܡܵܐ ‘taste’ and ܟܝܵܐ݇ܒܼܝܼ for ܟܝܵܗ݇ܒܼܝܼ ‘they
give’ (13b) the system of historical spelling and linea
occultans clearly seizes up. The word ܟܼܵܘܿܪܹܗ (15a) seems to be an odd combination of the vowels of
the historical spelling (ܚܵܒܼܪܹܗ) and the
phonetic rendering of the actual pronunciation (ܟܼܘܿܪܹܗ).
Syriac Dispute Poems as Oral Poetry
If we compare the East-Syriac version of the Dispute of the Months, including its Sureth poetic adaptation, with
the West-Syriac text (A) published by Brock, Sebastian P. Brock, “A Dispute of the
Months”, 189–93. See also Sebastian P. Brock,
Soghyāthā Mgabbyāthā (Glane: Monastery of St. Ephrem, 1982),
108–10. we find a higher degree of textual variation, as is
typical of oral tradition.
In both versions, the Syriac Dispute of the
Months appears as a complete calendar in verses, inserted in the
incomplete frame of a Mesopotamian dispute. See Enrique Jiménez, The
Babylonian Disputation Poems (Leiden: Brill, 2017) on the
Mesopotamian dispute and its incredible diffusion in literary traditions
that have been directly or indirectly in contact with the ancient
Mesopotamian civilization. The format of the Mesopotamian dispute is
characterized by the following features: 1. poetic form, 2. tripartite
structure (introduction, disputation proper, and conclusion), 3. few or
no narrative portions, 4. usually inanimate disputants, 5. supremacy or
precedence as main matter of debate. The deity who plays the
role of arbiter and judge in the Mesopotamian dispute is here replaced by the
personification of the year, who sits among the months to judge their case (v.
1). However, the prologue in heaven is not closed at the end by the epilogue,
where the winner is usually proclaimed in the Mesopotamian dispute.
As is typical for oral poetry, the poetic language of the text is
formulaic. The term “formula” is here intended in the technical sense that has
been developed and refined in the context of the study of oral traditions. The definition
of the formula as “a group of words employed under the same metrical
conditions to express a given essential idea” (John M. Foley, Traditional Oral Epic. The Odyssey, Beowulf, and the
Serbo-Croatian Return Song [Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1990], 2, n. 3) and consequently the description of its function
as a metrical filler, a mnemotechnic device and a tool for
improvisation, go back to the studies of Milman Parry (1902-1935) and
Albert Lord (1912-1991) on ancient Homeric and modern Serbo-Croatian
epics. From the point of view of cultural anthropology (orality vs.
literacy) and literary criticism, more recent studies on oral tradition
have highlighted other and more important functions of formulas in the
aesthetics and social meanings of oral texts, i.e. texts that are orally
composed (improvised) and transmitted and preserved — at least partly —
by memory. Oral texts may be composed and preserved in written form, but
they are nevertheless supposed to be performed orally, by a human voice.
See, e.g., the anthropological and philosophical approach of Marshall
McLuhan’s pupil Walter Jackson Ong, Orality and
Literacy. The Technologizing of the Word (New York: Routledge,
1982) and the cultural and literary approaches in a miscellaneous volume
such as Alger N. Doane and Carol Braun Pasternack, Vox
Intexta. Orality and Textuality in the Middle Ages (Madison,
WI: University of Wisconsis Press, 1991), largely inspired by the
studies of Paul Zumthor (1915-1995) on medieval European
literatures. Formulas and, more generally, repetition create
a rhythmical text that is easy to memorize, recite, and improvise for a vocal
performer and easy to be decoded and understood by the audience. The Dispute of the Months is built on formulas that make the
structure of the text transparent. They mark the rotation of characters on
stage, introduce the name of the month that is going to speak, and repeat the
name of the month that is leaving the scene. Moreover, the months usually start
their speech using formulas that contain the semiotic pair “to speak, tell” and
“to give ear, listen” that verbalizes and stylizes the poet-audience interaction
in oral/aural transmission: Paul Zumthor, La lettre et la
voix. De la “littérature” médiévale (Paris: Éditions de Seuil,
1987), 42 : “L’emploi du couple dire-ouïr a pour fonction manifeste de
promouvoir (fût-ce fictivement) le texte au statut de locuteur et de
désigner sa communication comme une situation de discours in praesentia.” e.g., “Nisan went out
and Iyyar came in to say these words: “... Come, give ear and listen!” (v.
5). I
suspect that the formula ܘܩܵܠܹܗ ܪܵܡ
‘and his voice raises (raising his voice > loudly)’ (2a in the
East-Syriac version and 2a and 5a in the West-Syriac version of the Dispute of the Months) does not have a
descriptive content, but it is used as a metrical filler, pretty much as
the famous Homeric formula ἔπεα
πτερόεντα ‘winged words’, that introduces all kind of
speech: George Miller Calhoun, “The Art of Formula in Homer” (Classical
Philology 30 [1935]): 215–27 and Milman Parry, “About Winged Words”
(Classical Philology 32 [1937]): 59–63.
.
The West-Syriac version has also a refrain, construed with the
combination of formulas occurring elsewhere in the text: ‘Come and listen to
what the months have to say and give praise to their Creator!’ (transl. by Brock
1985). The refrain points to a choral performance of the text in the context of
liturgy, which is a very specific performance arena of oral poems: no matter how
they are composed and preserved, hymns are supposed to be performed vocally.
Compared to the 23 verses of the West-Syriac version (A), the
seventeen verses of the East-Syriac version appear to have or, perhaps, to have
preserved the character of a simpler folk ballad, rather than a liturgical hymn
concerned with Biblical references or theological and exegetical matters. In the
East-Syriac version we do not find vv. 8 and 21-23 of A, that contain explicit
references to Mary, Jesus, John the Baptist, and his mother Elisabeth and are
thus possibly added to a text that otherwise speaks of seasons, fruits,
peasants’ life, the economy, even war (sickles as swords), and the power of a
king.
The only Christian themes preserved by both versions are Christmas
and Jesus’ Baptism in the closing verses and the cross carried by the months Ab
and Illul (August and September) on their shoulders (v. 14 in the East-Syriac
and v. 16 in the West-Syriac text), as a possible allusion to the feast of the
Holy Cross, celebrated respectively on September 13th and 14th by the East and
West Syrians.
The absence in the East-Syriac version of the Christian characters
mentioned in the West-Syriac text and the fast pace of its shorter text make the
dispute, in which every month praises itself, a kind of prelude for a Christmas
carol. The increasing tension of the discussion focuses all the attention on the
final verse, in which December and January defend themselves from the other
months’ mockery and reply that precisely in them, which are sterile and
seemingly insignificant for agriculture and human economy, Jesus was born and
was baptized. “By His birth He made all things rejoice”: Divine economy reverses
the fortunes of the winter months that cannot let people rejoice with their
flowers and fruits.
The differences in wording and text character of the two versions
of the Dispute of the Months can be perfectly understood
in the context of the oral and mixed (written and oral) traditions in which they
have been produced, preserved, and transmitted. Textual variation should be
interpreted not so much in the negative sense of alteration, contamination, or
distortion of an original, but as a product of the creative process typical of
oral poetry. Each version of an oral text differs from the other, not only
because songs are continuously reshaped by the skills of the performers (memory,
improvisation, free recombination of formulas, motifs, stylistic, rhythmical and
melodic figures, virtuosity...) but also because they are adapted to different
audiences, listeners, and performance arenas. A traditional repertoire of themes
(description of nature and human society or references to the Bible in our
dispute) are combined in calendars in which the religious elements come more or
less to the fore according to the type of texts that the author wants to bring
into play, in balance between the needs and preferences of liturgy and
pedagogical entertainment. Alessandro Mengozzi, “Syrische Streitgedichte als
mündliche Dichtung”.
The West-Syriac text is more clearly a hymn, whereas the
East-Syriac text and its Sureth poetic translation seem to reduce explicit
references to Christian culture, so as to preserve themes and atmosphere of more
archaic folk ballads, not necessarily Christian, and highlight, by contrast, the
final verse on Christmas. It is difficult to say which version of the text is
earlier. Both ultimately derive from the same oral tradition.
The East-Syriac Text
Another poem on the months
ܐ݇ܚܪܹܬܼܵܐ ܕܝܲܪ̈ܚܹܐ ܕܫܲܢ݇ܬܵܐ
The months of the Year gather together
to tell the story of their products.
The Year is seated like a lord
to listen to the case that came up among them.
ܝܲܪ̈ܚܲܝ ܫܲܢ݇ܬܵܐ ܡܸܬܼܟܲܢܫܝܼܢ.ܠܡܸܬܼܢܵܐ
ܫܲܪܒܵܐ ܕܥܲܠ̈ܠܵܬܼܗܘܿܢ.ܘܝܵܬܼܒܵܐ ܫܲܢ݇ܬܵܐ ܐܲܝܟ ܡܵܪܬܵܐ
Trichur 25: ܡܲܪܬܵܐ..ܕܬܸܫܡܲܥ ܕܝܼܢܵܐ
ܕܒܲܝܢܵܬܼܗܘܿܢ܀
1
Nisan came in and raised his voice
to say these words:
‘The Year is not as pleased with you all,
months, as he is with me.
ܥܲܠܼ ܠܹܗ ܢܝܼܣܵܢ Baghdad 10, Cambridge 2820:
ܢܝܼܣܵܢ, wherever
it occurs. ܘܩܵܠܹܗ ܪܵܡ.ܘܡܸܠܹ̈ܐ ܗܵܠܹܝܢ
ܐܸܡܲܪ ܗ݇ܘܼܵܐ.ܕܠܵܐ ܦܨܝܼܚܵܐ ܫܲܢ݇ܬܵܐ ܡܼܢ ܡܬܼܘܿܡ
Cambridge 2820: ܡܼܢ
ܡܸܡܬܘܿܡ..ܒܟܼܠܗܘܿܢ
ܝܲܪ̈ܚܹܐ ܐܲܟܼܡܵܐ ܕܒܼܝܼ܀
2
In me new things take place
and good tidings are announced.
In me the Lord adorns the mountains
like candles when they give light.
ܒܝܼ ܚܲܕ̈ܬܼܵܬܼܵܐ ܡܸܣܬܲܥܪ̈ܵܢ. Baghdad 6:
ܚܲܕ̈ܬܼܵܬܼܵܐ ܒܝܼ
ܡܸܣܬܲܥܪ̈ܵܢ.ܘܒܼܝܼ
ܣܲܒܼܪ̈ܵܬܼܵܐ ܡܸܣܬܲܒܿܪ̈ܵܢ.ܘܒܼܝܼ ܛܘܼܪܹ̈ܐ ܡܨܲܒܸܿܬܼ
Cambridge 2820: ܡܨܲܒܹܿܬܼ. ܡܵܪܝܵܐ.ܐܲܝܟ
ܩܲܢܕܹ̈ܝܠܹܐ ܡܵܐ ܕܢܵܗܪܵܢ܀
3
In me the cycles of the sun extend
and the hours of the day grow longer.
In me swallows sing
melodies of sweet notes.’
ܓܝܼ̈ܓܼܠܲܝ Cambridge 2820: ܓܸܓܼܠܲܝ̈. ܫܸܡܫܵܐ
ܒܝܼ ܡܵܬܼ̈ܚܵܢ.ܘܫܵܥܲܝ̈ ܝܵܘܡܵܐ ܒܝܼ Baghdad 10,
Trichur 25, Ḥoshabba (2002: ms.): ܒܹܗ.
ܝܵܪ̈ܟܼܵܢ.ܘܲܣܢܘܿܢ̈ܝܵܬܼܵܐ ܒܝܼ ܠܵܥ̈ܙܵܢ.ܩܵܠܹ̈ܐ ܚ̈ܠܲܝܵܐ
ܕܢܸܥ̈ܡܵܬܼܵܐ܀
4
Nisan went out and Iyyar came in
to say these words: ‘Go, Nisan! You are not better than
me. Stop your chatter! Come, give ear and listen!
ܢܦܲܩܼ ܠܹܗ ܢܝܼܣܵܢ ܐܝܼܵܪ ܥܲܠܼ.ܘܡܸܠܹ̈ܐ ܗܵܠܹܝܢ
ܐܵܡܲܪ ܗ݇ܘܼܵܐ.ܕܙܹܠ Ḥoshabba (2002): ܕܙܸܠ. ܢܝܼܣܵܢ ܠܵܐ
ܛܵܒܼ ܐܲܢ݇ܬܿ ܡܹܢܝ.ܫܠܸܡ Cambridge 2820: ܫܠܹܡ, wherever it
occurs. ܡܸܠܲܝ̈ܟ ܬܵܐ ܨܘܼܬܼ
ܘܲܫܡܲܥ܀
5
In me bloom much-desired roses, in me sweet
scents send forth their fragrance. In me a crown of the Year is
woven and the hearts of labourers rejoice.
ܘܲܪ̈ܕܹܐ ܪ̈ܓܼܝܼܓܹܐ ܒܝܼ ܦܵܩܚܝܼܢ.ܘܣܵܘ̈ܩܲܝ
Ḥoshabba (2002): ܘܣܲܘܩܲܝ̈. ܪܹܝܚܵܐ ܒܝܼ ܒܵܣܡܝܼܢ
Baghdad 6: ܒܲܣܡܝܼܢ..ܘܲܟܠܝܼܠ ܫܲܢ݇ܬܵܐ ܒܝܼ
ܡܸܬܼܓܿܕܸܠ Cambridge
2820: ܓܵܕܼܠܝܼܢ ‘they
weave/one weaves’..ܘܚܵܕܹܐ ܠܸܒܵܐ
ܕܦܲܠܵܚܹ̈ܐ܀
6
In me the ears of corn grow tall in the field,
blades grow thick and tall, when beards grow on the tips of the
ears at the command of the Lord their Maker.’
ܫܸܒ̈ܠܲܝ ܚܲܩܠܵܐ ܒܝܼ ܝܵܪ̈ܒܵܢ.ܘܫܵܘ̈ܚܵܢ ܣܵܠܩܵܢ̈ ܐܦ
ܪ̈ܵܒܼܝܵܢ.ܟܲܕ ܚܲܣܠܵܣܹ̈ܐ Cambridge 2820: ܚܲܣ̈ܠܵܬܼܐ.
ܒܪܹ̈ܫܲܝܗܹܝܢ.ܒܦܘܼܩܕܵܢ ܡܵܪܝܵܐ ܥܵܒܼܘܿܕܼܗܹܝܢ܀
7
Iyyar went out and Ḥaziran came in to say these
words: ‘Go, Iyyar! You are not better than me. Stop your
chatter! Come, give ear and listen!
ܢܦܲܩܼ Trichur 25: ܢܦܼܵܩ. ܠܹܗ ܐܝܼܵܪ ܚܙܝܼܪܵܢ
ܥܲܠܼ.ܘܡܸܠܹ̈ܐ ܗܵܠܹܝܢ ܐܵܡܿܪ ܗ݇ܘܼܵܐ.ܕܙܹܠ ܐܝܼܵܪ ܠܵܐ ܛܵܒܼ
ܐܲܢ݇ܬܿ ܡܹܢܝ.ܫܠܸܡ ܡܸܠܲܝ̈ܟ ܬܵܐ ܨܘܼܬܼ ܘܲܫܡܲܥ܀
8
All creatures gather together in me and come
forth as from the bridal chamber. Like servants before their
master they bow down in the fields.
ܟܠܵܗܿ ܒܪܝܼܬܼܵܐ ܡܸܬܼܟܲܢܫܵܐ.ܘܐܲܝܟ ܕܡܼܢ ܓܢܘܿܢܵܐ
ܒܝܼ ܢܵܦܩܵܐ.ܘܒܲܕܡܘܼܬܼ ܥܲܒܼ̈ܕܹܐ ܩܕܼܵܡ ܡܵܪܗܘܿܢ.ܒܓܼܵܘ
ܚܲܩ̈ܠܼܬܼܵܐ ܡܸܬܼܓܲܗܢܝܼܢ܀
9
The beauty of their sheaves shines like
glittering swords. The heart of the widow rejoices whose
house is full of provisions.
ܡܲܨܡܲܚ ܫܘܼܦܪܵܐ ܕܡܲܓܿܠܲܝܗ̈ܘܢ.ܒܲܕܡܘܼܬܼ ܣܲܝ̈ܦܹܐ
ܕܡܲܒܼܪܩܝܼܢ.ܘܚܵܕܹܐ ܠܸܒܵܐ ܕܐܲܪܡܲܠܝܬܵܐ.ܕܡܲܠܝܵܐ ܒܲܝܬܵܗܿ
Baghdad 6: ܒܲܝܬܵܐ. ܣܲܝܒܲܪܬܵܐ܀
10
Sheaves are piled high in me heap on heap in
the granaries, whence the poor may eat, be satiated and
glorify their Creator.’
ܓܕܼܝܼܫܹ̈ܐ ܪ̈ܵܡܹܐ ܒܝܼ ܡܸܬܼܒܿܢܹܝܢ.ܬܸܠܝܼ̈ܢ ܬܸܠܝܼ̈ܢ
ܒܓܼܵܘ ܐܸܕܪܹ̈ܐ.ܕܢܹܐܟܼܠܘܼܢ ܡܸܣ̈ܟܹܿܢܹܐ ܘܢܸܣܒܿܥܘܼܢ.ܘܢܲܣܩܘܼܢ
ܫܘܼܒܼܚܵܐ ܠܒܼܵܪܘܿܝܗܘܿܢ܀
11
Ḥaziran went out and Tammuz came in to say
these words: ‘Go, Iyyar! You are not better than me. Stop
your chatter! Come, give ear and listen!
ܢܦܲܩܼ ܠܹܗ ܚܙܝܼܪܵܢ ܬܲܡܘܼܙ Trichur 25:
ܬܵܡܘܼܙ.
ܥܲܠܼ. ܘܡܸܠܹ̈ܐ ܗܵܠܹܝܢ ܐܵܡܿܪ ܗ݇ܘܼܵܐ.ܕܙܹܠ ܚܙܝܼܪܵܢ ܠܵܐ ܛܵܒܼ
ܐܲܢ݇ܬܿ ܡܹܢܝ.ܫܠܸܡ ܡܸܠܲܝ̈ܟ ܬܵܐ ܨܘܼܬܼ ܘܲܫܡܲܥ܀
12
Sweet bunches grow ripe in me, they give the
taste of their sweetness, quinces, pomegranates, grapes,
and all of them with innumerable fruits.’
ܣܓܼ̈ܘܿܠܹܐ ܚ̈ܠܲܝܵܐ ܒܝܼ ܒܵܫܿܠܝܼܢ Baghdad 6:
ܒܲܫܠܝܼܢ..ܘܝܵܗ݇ܒܿܝܼܢ ܛܲܥܡܵܐ
ܕܚܲܠܝܘܼܬܼܗܘܿܢ.ܣܦܲܪ̈ܓܿܠܹܐ ܘܪ̈ܘܼܡܵܢܹܐ ܘܥܸܢ̈ܒܹܐ.ܘܟܼܠܗܘܿܢ
ܦܹܐܪܹ̈ܐ ܕܠܵܐ ܡܸܬܼܡܢܹܝܢ܀
13
Tammuz went out and Ab and Illul came in, two
months together. They bore a cross on their shoulders.
They came and bowed before the Year.
ܢܦܲܩܼ Cambridge 2820: ܢܦܲܩܘ݇. ܬܲܡܘܼܙ
ܐܵܒܿ Cambridge 2820: ܐܲܒܿ; Trichur 25: ܐܵܒܼ. ܘܐܝܼܠܘܿܠ
ܥܲܠܼܘ.ܝܲܪ̈ܚܹܐ ܬܪܲܝܗܘܿܢ ܫܲܘܝܵܐܝܼܬܼ.ܨܠܝܼܒܼܵܐ ܛܥܝܼܢܝܼܢ ܥܲܠ
ܟܲܬܼܦܗܘܿܢ Baghdad 10: ܟܲܬܼܦܬܗܘܿܢ..ܘܐܸܬܼܵܘ ܩܘܼܕܡܹܝܗܿ
ܕܫܲܢ݇ܬܵܐ ܣܓܸܕܼܘ܀
14
The two Teshris pressed the wine, the pure oil
of their produce, whence the poor may eat, be satiated and
glorify their Creator.
ܬܸܫܪܝܼܢ ܘܬܸܫܪܝܼܢ ܚܲܡܪܵܐ ܥܨܲܪܘ.ܡܸܫܚܵܐ ܕܲܟܼܝܵܐ
ܕܥܲܠ̈ܠܵܬܼܗܘܿܢ.ܕܢܸܐܟܼܠܘܼܢ ܡܹܣ̈ܟܹܢܐ
ܘܢܸܣܒܿܥܘܼܢ.ܘܲܢܫܲܒܿܚܘܼܢܵܝܗܝ Trichur 25: ܘܲܢܫܲܒܿܚܘܼܢܲܝܗܝ.
ܠܒܼܵܪܘܿܝܗܘܿܢ܀
15
Then the months began to pour scorn on the two
Kanuns and said: ‘Barren and desolate months, what do you
have to say?’
ܫܲܪܝܼܘ ܝܲܪ̈ܚܹܐ ܕܲܡܚܲܣܕܼܝܼܢ.ܠܟܼܵܢܘܼܢ ܘܟܼܵܢܘܼܢ
ܟܲܕ ܐܵܡܪܝܼܢ.ܝܲܪ̈ܚܹܐ ܥܲܩܪܹ̈ܐ ܘܲܡܫܵܘ̈ܚܕܹܐ.ܡܵܢܵܐ ܐܝܼܬܼ ܠܟܼܘܿܢ
ܕܐܵܡܪܝܼܬܿܘܿܢ Baghdad 10, Trichur 25: ܕܐܿܡܪܝܼܢ
ܐ݇ܢܬܿܘܿܢ.܀
16
In reply they said: ‘Our Lord’s birth happened
in us, He was born in one and baptized in the other, and
by His birth He made all things rejoice.’
ܦܲܢܝܼܘ ܗܸܢܘܿܢ ܟܲܕ ܐܵܡܪܝܼܢ.ܕܝܲܠܕܹܿܗ ܕܡܵܪܲܢ ܒܲܢ
ܗ݇ܘܼܵܐ.ܒܚܲܕܼ ܐܸܬܼܝܼܠܸܕܼ Cambridge 2820: ܐܸܬܼܝܼܠܹܕܼ.
ܘܒܲܐܚܪܹܝܢ ܥܡܲܕܼ.ܘܲܒܼܡܵܘܠܵܕܹܗ
Ḥoshabba (2002): ܘܲܒܼܡܲܘܠܵܕܹܗ. ܚܲܕܝܼ
ܠܟܼܠ܀
17
The Sureth Text
Another (poem) on the months of the year
ܬܘܼܒܼ ܐ݇ܚܪܹܬܼܵܐ ܕܝܲܪ̈ܚܵܝ ܫܲܢ݇ܬܵܐ
The months of the Year gathered together to
speak about their goods. They spoke to each other and
showed their love.
ܝܵܪ̈ܟܸܐ ܕܫܵܐܬܵܐ ܓ̰ܡܸܥܘܵܠܲܝ.ܘܒܵܗ݇ܣ ܕܛܵܒܼܵܬ̈ܲܝܗܝܼ
ܬܢܹܘܵܠܲܝ.ܘܟܲܒܿܪܹ̈ܐ ܠܸܟܼܕܼܵܕܸ̈ܐ ܡܹܝܪܘܵܠܲܝ.ܘܚܘܼܒܵܐ ܕܝܼܵܝܗܝܼ
ܡܒܿܘܼܝܹܢܘܵܠܲܝ܀ After v. 1 and 6, there is a
mysterious blank line in the manuscript, with a centered
rubric ܐܚܪܢܐ
’another
(poem)>’, as if it marked the beginning of a new
text.
1
Nisan came in and came near and spoke these
words: He revealed that the year is not pleased with all
his fellow months.
ܐܘܸܪܹܐ ܢܝܼܣܲܢ ܘܩܪܘܼܒܼܠܹܐ.ܗܵܠܹܝܢ ܬܘܼܢܵܝܹ̈ܐ
ܬܢܸܝܠܸܐ.ܕܠܵܐ ܟܦܲܨܟܼܵܐ ܫܲܐܬܵܐ ܡܘܼܟܼܘܹܠܸܐ.ܒܟܹܠܲܝ
ܒܟܹܠܲܝ can be read as bkēlay ‘they wept’, but that clearly
does not fit the context. More likely, it is a phonetic
rendering of bkəllay, with a
shwa-like pronunciation of the [u] of bkullay ‘in all of them’. ܝܵܪ̈ܟܹܐ
ܕܐܵܢܲܝ ܟܼܘܼܪܹܗ܀
2
“In me new things are made new and good tidings
are announced. The third plural verbal forms can be
interpreted as impersonal constructions with passive
meaning: ‘they announce good tidings’ > ‘good tidings are
announced’. In me also the mountains adorn
themselves Lit. ‘mountains
adorn’. like candles when they give
light.
ܫܘܼ̈ܠܹܐ ܟܼܵܬܹ̈ܐ ܒܓܵܘܝܼ ܟܹܡܟܼܲܬܼܝܼ. ܘܒܲܫܵܐܪܵܬܿ
ܒܓܵܘܝܼ ܟܸܡܒܲܫܪܝܼ.ܘܛܘܼܪܹ̈ܐ ܗܲܡܹܐ ܟܸܡܣܲܩܠܝܼ.ܡܸܟ ܩܸܢܕܹܝܠܹܐ
ܟܡܲܒܸܿܗܪܝܼ܀
3
In me the cycles of the sun extend and the
hours of the day grow longer. All swallows fly and prolong
sweet melodies.”
ܓܝܼ̈ܓܼܠܐ ܕܫܸܡܫܵܐ ܒܓܵܘܝܼ ܟܦܵܪܣܝܼ.ܘܫܲܝ̈ܵܬܼܵܐ
ܕܝܵܘܡܐ ܟܝܵܪܟܼܝܼ.ܘܸܨܠܵܢ̈ܝܬܼܵܐ ܟܘܼܠܵܝ ܟܸܡܦܿܲܪܟܼܝܼ.ܘܩܵܠܸ̈ܐ
ܚܲܠܘܼܝܹܐ ܟܡܲܝܹܪܟܼܝܼ܀
4
Nisan went out and Iyyar came in to say these
words: “Go, Nisan!” and he drove him away. He went and
listened to him.
ܦܠܸܛܠܹܐ ܢܝܼܣܢ ܐܝܼܵܪ ܐܘܸܪܹܐ.ܘܵܐܢ ܬܲܢ̈ܝܬܐ
ܐܝܼܡܹܪܐ.ܕܙܹܠ ܝܵܐ ܢܝܼܣܢ ܘܟܸܡܣܵܚܸܬܿܠܹܐ.ܙܸܠܹܐ ܘܐܸܠܗ
ܫܡܹܐܘܵܠܹܐ܀
5
“Much-desired roses are in me conceived Lit.
‘roses conceive, get pregnant’., and
pleasant scents appear. Woven crowns in me are carried Lit.
‘they carry, bear’. and flowers blossom
too.
ܘܵܪ̈ܕܸܐ ܡܫܘܼܗܝܸܐ ܒܓܵܘܝܼ ܟܒܲܛܢܝܼ.ܘܪ̈ܝܼܟܹܐ
ܒܲܣܝܼܡܹ̈ܐ ܟܸܡܒܲܝܢܝܼ.ܘܸܟܿܠ̈ܝܼܠܹܐ ܩܛܝܼܪܸ̈ܐ ܒܓܵܘܝܼ
ܟܛܵܐܢܝܼ.ܘܒܲܝܒܿܘܼ̈ܢܹܐ ܗܲܡ ܟܸܡܒܲܪܛܢܝܼ܀ As after v. 1,
there is a mysterious blank line in the manuscript, with a
centered rubric ܐܚܪܢܐ’another (poem)’, as if it marked the
beginning of a new text.
6
The ears of corn of the fields increase,
extend, spread and grow high. They bring forth ears of corn on
their tips. They are at the command of their creator.”
ܫܸܒ̈ܠܸܐ ܕܕܲܫ̈ܬܵܬܼܵܐ ܟܪܵܘܲܝ.ܟܦܿܲܪܣܝܼ ܘܸܟܿܪܘܿܟܼܝܼ
ܘܸܟܿܥܵܠܲܝ.ܘܣܸܢ̈ܒܹܿܠܸܐ ܒܪܹܫܲܝܗܝܼ ܟܐܵܪܲܝ.ܒܦܘܼܓܕܼܵܢܐ
ܕܟܲܠܲܩܝܗܝܼ ܟܗܵܘܲܝ܀
7
Iyyar went out and Ḥaziran came in to say these
words: “Go, Ḥaziran!” and he drove him away. “Your speech
has finished and come to an end”
ܦܠܸܛܠܹܐ ܐܝܼܪ ܘܚܙܝܼܪܢ ܐܘܸܪܸܐ.ܘܐܢ ܬܘܼܢܸܝܸ̈ܐ
ܐܝܼܡܸܪܹܝܠܹܐ.ܙܹܠ ܚܙܝܪܢ ܘܟܹܡܛܵܪܸܕܠܹܐ.ܟܼܠܸܨܠܸܐ ܬܘܼܢܵܝܘܼܟ
ܘܸܟܿܡܸܠܹܐ܀
8
“When all creation rises and goes outside in
this day, out of bliss it praises the Heights that gives
peace and welfare to the earth.
ܟܘܼܕܼ ܟܘܼܠܵܗܿ ܒܪܝܼܬܼܵܐ ܟܩܵܝܡܵܐ.ܘܟܿܦܵܠܛܵܐ
ܠܒܲܪܝܼܵܐ ܒܲܕ ܝܵܘܡܵܐ.ܡܦܸܨܟܼܘܼܬܼܵܗܿ ܟܸܡܫܲܒܿܚܵܐ
ܠܪܵܘܡܵܐ.ܕܝܼܗ݇ܒܸܠܹܐ ܬܵܐ ܐܲܪܐܵܐ ܫܲܝܢܵܐ ܘܸܫܠܵܡܵܐ܀
9
The beauty of their sickles lightens like drawn
swords. With Shamir, Lidzbarski translates
both magl-ayhi (10a) and megēlyāth-ehi (10b) as ‘their
sickles’, but a copula is missing in 10b: ‘like swords [are]
their sickles’. Alternatively, the second form maybe a
participle of the verb mgālē ‘to lay
bare, uncover’: mekh saypē mgulyāthē
(?) ‘like drawn swords’ (?), but the possessive suffix
is difficult to understand in this case.
Their widows thanks to me rejoice and their orphans thanks to
me are nourished.
ܟܡܲܒܿܪܹܩ ܫܘܼܦܪܵܐ ܕܡܲܓܿܠܲܝܗܝܼ.ܡܸܟ ܣܲܝ̈ܦܸܐ
ܡܸܓܹܠܝܵܬܸܗܝܼ.ܘܸܟܿܦܲܨܟܼܝܼ ܒܝܼ ܐܸܪ̈ܡܹܠܝܵܬܼܵܝܗܝܼ.ܘܸܟܿܥܲܝܫܝܼ
ܒܝܼ ܝܲܬܘܼܡܲܝܗܸܝܢ܀
10
Sheaves are piled high in me and threshing
floors are full. The poor receive their food and raise
glory to God.”
ܓܕܼܝܼܫܹ̈ܐ ܪܵܒܸܹܐ ܒܓܵܘܝܼ ܟܒܵܢܲܝ.ܘܒܿܘܼܕܪ̈ܬܼܵܐ
ܟܘܼܠܵܝ ܟܡܵܠܲܝ.ܘܡܸܣܟܸܿܢܹ̈ܐ ܕܲܒܿܪܵܝܗܼ ܟܐܵܪܲܝ.ܘܫܘܼܒܼܚܵܐ ܬܵܐ
ܐܲܠܵܗܐ ܟܡܲܥܠܲܝ܀
11
Ḥaziran went out and Tammuz came in to say
these words: “Go, Ḥaziran!” and called him poor. “Bow and
genuflect in front of me!” He said to him.
ܦܠܸܛܠܹܐ ܚܙܝܼܪܵܢ ܬܲܡܘܿܙ ܐܘܹܪܸܐ. ܘܐܸܢ ܬܘܼܢܵܝܸ̈ܐ
ܡܹܪܸܝܠܹܐ.ܣܵܝ ܚܙܝܼܪܢ ܒܨܝܼܪܐ ܟܸܡܩܵܪܹܝ݇ܠܸܐ.ܟܘܿܦ ܘܸܣܗܘܿܕ ܛܵܠܝܼ
ܡܸܪܹܝ݇ܠܹܐ܀
12
“Vines in me ripen, and offer [their] sweet
taste, grapes and quinces give pleasure to all mouths that
taste them.”
ܕܵܠܝܵܬܼ̈ܐ ܒܓܵܘܝܼ ܟܒܲܫܠܝܼ.ܘܛܸܐ݇ܡܵܐ ܕܚܹܠܝܘܼܬܼܵܐ
ܟܝܵܐ݇ܒܼܝܼ.ܥܸܢ̈ܒܸܐ ܘܸܣܦܲܪ̈ܓܿܠܹܐ ܟܸܡܒܲܣܡܝܼ.ܟܠ ܟܸܡܵܡܹ̈ܐ
ܕܐܲܢܗܝܼ ܟܛܲܡܐܝܼ܀
13
Tammuz went out and Ab and Illul came, two
months together Lit. ‘the two months were similar to
each other’.. They bore a cross on their
shoulders. They glorified the creator of the year.
ܬܵܡܘܿܙ ܦܠܹܛܠܹܐ ܘܐܒܿ ܘܐܝܼܠܘܿܠ ܐܝܼܬܹܝܠܲܝ.ܬܪܸܝܢ
ܝܲܪܟܸܐ ܒܸܟܼ̈ܕܼܵܕܸܐ ܡܣܘܹܝܠܲܝ.ܨܠܝܼܒܼܵܐ ܠܪܘܼܫܲܝܗܝܼ
ܛܐܹܢܘܵܠܲܝ.ܘܸܠܒܲܪܵܝܐ ܕܫܵܢ݇ܬܵܐ ܡܫܘܼܒܸܚܘܵܠܲܝ܀
14
Teshri and his fellow came forward. They showed
the oil of their presses and they provided for the needy.
The two Kanuns rebuked them.
ܬܸܫܪܝ ܘܟܼܵܘܿܪܹܗ ܡܩܘܼܕܹܡܠܲܝ.ܡܸܫܚܵܐ ܕܸܥܨܵܪܲܝܗܝܼ
ܡܘܼܟܼܘܹܠܲܝ.ܘܠܸܣܢܝܼܩܹ̈ܐ ܡܘܼܣܘܹܘܵܠܲܝ.ܘܟܵܢܘܿܢ ܘܟܵܢܘܿܢ
ܡܠܘܼܘܹܡܘܵܠܲܝ܀
15
When they were speaking so they called them
sterile months. They despised them greatly. “What do you
have?” They said to them.
ܟܘܼܕ ܗܵܕܟ ܐܵܡܪܝܼܘܵܠܲܝ.ܝܵܪ̈ܟܹܐ ܥܵܩܪܹ̈ܐ
ܩܵܪܵܘܵܠܲܝ.ܟܲܒܿܝܼܪܵܐ ܬܵܘܪܝܼܘܵܠܲܝ.ܡܵܢܐ ܐܝܼܬܼ ܠܟܼܘܿܢ
ܐܵܡܪܝܼܘܵܠܲܝ܀
16
In reply they said to them that Our Lord’s
birth happened in them and he was baptized in the second of
them. By his birth he made all creatures rejoice from the
first of them With Shamir, Lidzbarski translates mḥad diyāyhen as ‘to the extreme
limit (from Arabic ḥadd)’. I prefer
to read it as ‘from one (from Aramaic ḥaḏ) of them’, which forms a kind of hysteron
proteron with the preceding lines: ‘He was baptised in the
second of them [the second Kanun, i.e., January]. By his
birth he made all creatures rejoice from the first of them
[the first Kanun, i.e., December]’. Admittedly, ‘first’
should be qāmāyā rather than xā (< ḥāḏ). , so that they yell all with
their voices glory to their creator. Amen amen!
ܡܓ̰ܘܸܒܿܠܲܝ ܡܹܪܵܝ ܛܵܠܲܝܗܸܝܢ.ܕܝܲܠܕܹܗ ܕܡܵܪܢ ܗܘܹܠܸܐ
ܒܓܲܘܲܝܗܹܝܢ.ܘܸܥܡܸܕܠܸܐ ܒܐܘܿܟܲܪܵܝܐ ܕܝܼܝܵܗܸܝܢ.ܘܒܸܗܘܵܝܹܗ
ܡܘܼܦܸܨܟܼܠܹܐ Sic for ܡܘܼܦܨܸܟܼܠܹܐ or as a phonetic rendering of a
different syllabic structure of the
form..ܠܟܿܘܼܠܵܝ ܒܸܪ̈ܝܵܬܼܵܐ ܡܚܲܕ
ܕܝܼܝܵܗܸܝܢ.ܕܸܡܥܵܝܛܝܼ ܟܘܼܠܵܝ ܒܩܲܠܵܝܗܹܝܢ.ܫܘܼܒܼܚܵܐ ܬܵܐ
ܒܲܪܲܝܵܝܗܹܝܢ.ܐܡܝܢ ܘܐܵܡܹܝܢ܀
17
Bibliography
Bedjan, Paul. Vies des saints en langue
chaldéenne moderne. Paris-Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1912.
Bellino, Francesca, and Alessandro Mengozzi. “ Geographical ‘A
ǧ
āib in a Neo-Aramaic Manuscript of the London Sachau
Collection.” Le Muséon 129:3-4 (2016): 423–56.
Bouriant, Urbain. Chansons populaires arabes en
dialecte du Caire. Paris: Leroux, 1893.
Brock, Sebastian P. Soghyāthā Mgabbyāthā.
Glane: Monastery of St. Ephrem, 1982.
Brock, Sebastian P. “Dialogue Hymns of the Syriac Churches.” Sobornost. Eastern Churches Review 5:1 (1983): 35–45.
Brock, Sebastian P. “Syriac Dialogue Poems: Marginalia to a Recent
Edition.” Le Muséon 97 (1984): 29–58.
Brock, Sebastian P. “A Dispute of the Months and Some Related
Syriac Texts.” Journal of Semitic Studies 30:2 (1985):
181–211.
Brock, Sebastian P. “Syriac Dispute Poems: The Various Types.” In
Dispute Poems and Dialogues in the Ancient and Mediaeval
Near East, ed. Gerrit Jan Reinink and Herman L.J. Vanstiphout. Leuven:
Peeters,1991.
Brock, Sebastian P. “The Dispute Poem: From Sumer to Syriac.” Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 1
(2001): 3–10.
Brock, Sebastian P. Mary and Joseph, and other
dialogue poems on Mary. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2011.
Calhoun, George Miller. “The Art of Formula in Homer.” Classical Philology 30 (1935): 215-27.
Contini, Riccardo and Cristiano Grottanelli (eds.). Il saggio Ahiqar. Fortuna e trasformazione di uno scritto
sapienziale. Il testo più antico e le sue versioni. Brescia: Paideia,
2005.
Dehqan, Mustafa. “A Kurdish Garshuni Version of Mem û Zîn.” Gerdûn 11 (2016): 5–10.
Dehqan, Mustafa. “Sachau 204: A Kurdish Garshuni Poem.” Manuscripta Orientalia 22 (2016): 68–70.
Doane, Alger N. and Carol Braun Pasternack. Vox
Intexta. Orality and Textuality in the Mddle Ages. Madison, WI:
University of Wisconsis Press, 1991.
Ebied, Rifaat. “A collection of letters in Syriac and Arabic
addressed to Eduard Sachau (1845-1930).” ARAM 21 (2009):
79–105.
Ebied, Rifaat and Nicolas Al-Jeloo. “Some further letters in
Syriac, Neo-Aramaic and Arabic addressed to Eduard Sachau by Jeremiah Shāmīr.”
Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies 24 (2010):
1–45.
Foley, John M. Traditional Oral Epic. The
Odyssey, Beowulf, and the Serbo-Croatian Return Song. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1990.
Holes, Clive D. “The Debate of Pearl-Diving and Oil Wells: A poetic
commentary on socio-economic change in the Gulf of the 1930s.” Arabic and Middle Eastern Literatures 1 (1998): 87–112.
Holes, Clive D. “The Dispute of Coffee and Tea: A debate-poem from
the Gulf”. In Tradition and Modernity in Arabic Language and
Literature, ed. J.R. Smart. London: Curzon Press, 1996.
Holes, Clive D. “The Rat and the Ship’s Captain: A dialogue poem
from the Gulf, with some comments on the social and literary-historical
background of the genre.” Studia Orientalia 75 (1995):
101–20.
Ḥoshaba, Shleymun I.
(ed.). Khamis bar Qardaḥē, Mêmrē w-muš
ḥ
āthā.
Nuhadra: Prisatha da-Nṣivin,
2002.
Jiménez, Enrique. The Babylonian Disputation
Poems. Leiden: Brill, 2017.
Kaufhold, Hubert. “Über einige Projekte der Digitalisierung
syrischer Handschriften.” Oriens Christianus 90 (2006):
210–6.
Kiraz, George Anton. Tūrrā
ṣ
Mamllā. A
Grammar of the Syriac Language, vol. 1 Orthography. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2012.
Lidzbarski, Mark. Die neu-aramäische
Handschriften der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin. Weimar: Emil
Felber, 1896.
Lieber, Laura S. 2018. Jewish Aramaic Poetry from
Late Antiquity. Leiden: Brill.
Littmann, Enno. “Neuarabische Streitgedichte.” In Festschrift zur Feier des Zweihundertjährigen Bestehens der Akademie der
Wissenschaften in Göttingen, II Philologisch-historische Klasse.
Berlin: Springer, 1951.
Massé, Henri. “Du genre littéraire ‘Débat’ en arabe et en persan.”
Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale 4: 137–47
Mattock, John N. “The Arabic Tradition: Origin and Developments.”
In Dispute Poems and Dialogues in the Ancent and Mediaeval
Middle Near, ed. Gerrit Jan Reinink and Herman L.J. Vanstiphout.
Leuven: Peeters, 1991.
Mengozzi, Alessandro. “A Neo-Aramaic Version of the Soghitha of the
Sinful Woman and Satan.” In Malphono w-Rabo d-Malphone.
Studies in Honor of Sebastian P. Brock, ed. George Kiraz. Piscataway,
NJ: Gorgias Press, 2008.
Mengozzi, Alessandro. “Religious Poetry in Vernacular Syriac from
Northern Iraq.” In Religious Poetry in Vernacular Syriac from
Northern Iraq (17th-20th Centuries). An Anthology, CSCO, Scriptores
Syri 241, ed. Alessandro Mengozzi. Leuven: Peeters, 2011.
Mengozzi, Alessandro. “‘That I might speak and the ear listen to
me!’: On Genres in Traditional Modern Aramaic Literature.” Journal of Semitic Studies 57:2 (2012): 321-46.
Mengozzi, Alessandro. “Persische Lyrik in syrischem
Gewand.Vierzeiler aus dem Buch des Khamis bar Qardaḥe (Ende 13. Jahrhundert).”
In Geschichte, Theologie und Kultur des syrischen
Christentums, ed. Martin Tamcke and Sven Grebenstein. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 2014.
Mengozzi, Alessandro. “The Book of Khamis bar Qardaḥe: History of the Text, Genres
and Research Perspectives.” In Syriac Encounters. Papers from
the Sixth North American Syriac Symposium, Duke University, 26-29 June
2011, ed. Maria Doerfler, Emanuel Fiano, Kyle Smith. Leuven: Peeters,
2015.
Mengozzi, Alessandro, “Simon Magus and Simon Peter in Rome. The
Sureth Version of a Late East-Syriac Hymn for the Commemoration of Saints Peter
and Paul.” Kervan 22 (2018): 65-90
Mengozzi, Alessandro. “A Sureth Version of the East-Syriac Dialogue
Poem of Mary and the Gardener.” Kervan, forthcoming.
Mengozzi, Alessandro. “D’Ahiqar au tapis volant du roi Salomon, des
mirabilia géographiques à Sindbad le marin en araméen moderne : adab et
recherche orientaliste à la fin du XIXème siècle.” In Actes du
colloque international « L’adab, toujours recommencé : Origines,
transmission et métamorphoses » (Paris, IISMM et INALCO, Jeudi 1er -Samedi 3
décembre 2016), ed. Francesca Bellino, Catherine Mayeur-Jaouen, and
Luca Patrizi, forthcoming.
Mengozzi, Alessandro. “Neo-Aramaic Dialogue and Dispute Poems. The
Various Types.” In the proceedings of the international conference Disputation Poems in the Near East and Beyond. Ancient and
Modern, held in Madrid 12-13 July 2017, ed. Enrique Jiménez. Berlin: De
Gruyter, forthcoming.
Mengozzi, Alessandro. “Syrische Streitgedichte als mündliche
Dichtung.” In the proceedings of the 10. Deutscher
Syrologentag (Berlin, 30/05-2/06 2018), ed. Shabo Talay,
forthcoming.
Mengozzi, Alessandro and Luca Basilio Ricossa. “The Cherub and the
Thief on YouTube: An Eastern Christian Liturgical Drama and the Vitality of the
Mesopotamian Dispute.” Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di
Napoli 73 (2013): 49–65.
Ong, Walter Jackson. Orality and Literacy. The
Technologizing of the Word. New York: Routledge, 1982.
Parry, Milman. “About Winged Words.” Classical
Philology 32 (1937): 59–63.
Pennacchietti, Fabrizio A. “Zmiryata d-rawe: ‘stornelli’ degli
aramei kurdistani.” In Scritti in onore di Giuliano
Bonfante. Brescia: Paideia, 1976.
Pennacchietti, Fabrizio A. Il ladrone e il
cherubino. Dramma liturgico cristiano orientale in siriaco e
neoaramaico. Torino: Silvio Zamorani, 1993.
Rand. Michael. 2012. “An Aramaic Dispute between the Months by
Sahlan ben Avraham,” Melilah: Manchester Journal of Jewish
Studies 9: 101–13.
Rodrigues Pereira, Alphons S. Studies in Aramaic
Poetry (c. 1000 B.C.E. – c. 600 C.E.). Assen: Van Gorcum, 1997.
Sachau, Eduard. “ Über die Poesie in der Volksprache der
Nestorianer.” Sitzungsberichte der königlich-preussischen Ak.
der W. zu Berlin 11:8 (1896): 179–215.
Sachau, Eduard. Verzeichniss der syrischen
Handschriften der Koniglichen Bibliothek zur Berlin. Berlin: A. Asher
& Co., 1899.
Wagner, Mark. “The Debate Between Coffee and Qāt in Yemeni
Literature.” Middle Eastern Literatures 8 (2005):
121–49.
Yaure, L. “A Poem in the Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Urmia.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 16 (1957): 73–87.
Zumthor, Paul. La lettre et la voix. De la
“littérature” médiévale. Paris: Éditions de Seuil, 1987.