CODEX
C U M A N I C U S
BUDAPEST 1981
C O D E X C U M A N I C U S
SERIES
B 1
EDITORS: E. S H Ü T Z - É . APOR
CODEX
CUMANICUS
EDITED BY G. KUUN
W I T H THE PROLEGOMENA TO THE CODEX CUMANICUS
BY
LOUIS LIGETI
BUDAPEST 1981
Körösi Csorna Society — Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences
L. Ligeti's "Prolegomena" reprinted from Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hung.
XXXV ( 1 9 8 1 ) , pp. 1 - 5 4 .
Edited by É. Apor
ISBN 9 6 3 7301 47 X
Count G . K U U N 1 8 3 8 - 1 9 0 5
C O N T E N T S
L. Ligeti, Prolegomena to the Codex Cumanicus pp. 1 - 5 4 .
C O D E X C U M A N I C U S pp. (2), CXXXIV, 395.
Marginal numbers refer to the pagination of the manuscript
PROLEGOMENA TO THE CODEX CUMANICUS
BY L O U I S L I G E T I
I t has been over a hundred years now since Géza Kuun published the complete text of the Codex Cumanieus, together with a lengthy introduction, ample footnotes, several indices, and even an «Addenda et Corrigenda». Géza Kuun addressed non-Hungarian readers in Latin because in those days the Hungarian Academy did not publish foreign language works. Latin, of course, did not number among foreign tongues, since it had been the official language of the country for centuries.
Few books have had such a lasting and profound influence. Several aca- demic generations considered and reconsidered the problems raised by the Codex, criticized and disputed Géza K u u n ' s views, accepted many of his asser- tions, and repeated t h e m without mentioning his name. Each succeeding gene- ration contributed valuable partial monographs, yet there remains a lot to be explored. Some details have been superficially handled, if not completely neglected.
A reprint edition of Géza K u u n ' s Codex Cumanieus will soon appear in a series of the Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and the Csoina de Kőrös Society (Budapest Oriental Reprints, Series B 1). This gave me the opportunity to make a few remarks concerning the general problems of the Codex hitherto explained in an unsatisfactory way and to comment on some of the details connected with these problems. The results of my research are put forward in the present study.
Count Géza K u u n was born in Nagyszeben (Hermannstadt. Sibiu) in Transylvania, in 1838, and died in Budapest in 1905. He was elected to the Academy of Sciences in 1867 and filled the post of vice president of the Aca- demy between 1901 a n d 1904.
H e studied classical philology and Semitic languages at the University of Pest, and later he improved his knowledge of the latter in Göttingen. With a firm knowledge of Hebrew and Svriac. he next took u p the study of Arabic, Persian and the Turkic languages. Oriental studies were, however, only a part of his wide range of interests. Since he was not a linguist. he relied on the metho-
dology used in classical philology when dealing with Oriental philological questions.1
His Oriental studies focus on two major subjects. The first is t h e history of the early Hungarians as revealed in Muslim sources. One study, the Rela- tionvm Hungarortim . . . história antiquissima was written in Latin, while the rest of his works, the text editions, translations and comments of t h e .Arabic and Persian sources concerning early Hungarian history were written in Hun- garian.3 He used a similar method to elaborate Gardezi's description of the Turks.4 The other part of K u u n ' s Oriental studies focuses on the problems of t h e Coman people and language. These include his study «Data on the History of the Crimea».5 Two other of his writings were prompted by critical reviews of his publication of the Codex Cumanicus, one responding to the comments of E . Teza, and t h e other, «On the Language and Nationality of t h e Comans»,6
answering I. Gyárfás' paper entitled «The Coman Language of t h e Petrarca Codex.»7
Géza K u u n ' s edition of the Codex Cumanicus created a stir among a group of Hungarian historians who maintained t h a t the Comans spoke the Finno-Ugric Hungarian language from the earliest times on. The eminent historian, G. P r a y (1723 — 1801) and also the renowned researcher of the Jazvgs and Comans, I . Gyárfás (1822 1883) shared this misconception.
1 Goldziher, I., Emlékbeszéd Gróf Kuun Géza fölött. [A Commemorative Address to Count Géza K u u n ] , Budapest 1906, Emlékbeszédek X I I I , 4.
* K u u n , Comes Géza, Relalionum Hungarorum cum Oriente gentibusque orientális originis história antiquissima. Vol. I —II, Claudopoli 1892, 1895.
3 K u u n , C o u n t Géza, Keleti kútfők [Oriental Sources]. Edited, t r a n s l a t e d and an- n o t a t e d by —. I n : Gy. Pauler — S. Szilágyi, A magyar honfoglalás kútfői [Sources of the H u n g a r i a n conquest], Budapest 1900, p p . 137—184.
4 K u u n , d r . count Géza, Gurdèzi a törökökről [Gurdézi on the T u r k s ] : Keleti Szemle (Revue Orientale) l i (1901) 1 - 5 , p p . 1 6 8 - 1 8 1 , 2 6 0 - 2 7 0 ; I I I (1902), p p . 3 2 - 4 4 , 8 1 - 9 4 , 2 5 3 - 2 6 1 ; TV (1903), pp. 1 4 - 4 0 , 1 2 9 - 1 4 1 , 2 5 7 - 2 8 7 .
' K u u n , Count Géza, Adalékok Krim történetéhez [ D a t a on t h e H i s t o r y of t h e Crimea], B u d a p e s t 1875.
• K u u n , Count Géza, Ujabb adatok a kún Petrarca-Codexhez [New D a t a on t h e Coman Petrarca-Codex], in: M. T. Ak. Értekezések az I. Oszt. köréből IV, 12, Budapest 1892. K u u n , C o u n t Géza, A kúnok nyélvéről és nemzetiségéről [On t h e L a n g u a g e and Na- tionality of t h e Comans], Budapest 1885, in: Értekezések az J. Oszt. köréből X I I , 11. Upon t h e publication of t h e Codex see H u n f a l v y , Pál A Kún- vagy Petrarka-Codex és a kúnok [The Coman or P e t r a r c a Codex a n d t h e Comans], in: Értekezések az I. Oszt. köréből I X , N o . 5, Budapest 1881; in German: Der Komanische oder Petrarca-Codex und die Kumanen, in: Ungarische Revue, Leipzig 1881, pp. 602 — 632. I n his basically positive review H u n - falvy criticized K u u n for t h e casualness of his L a t i n and justly complained of t h e clum- siness of t h e L a t i n index.
7 Gyárfás, I., A Petrarka Codex kún nyelve [The Coman language of t h e P e t r a r c a Codex], in: Értekezések a I I . Oszt. köréből X , 8, Budapest 1882.
PROLEGOMENA TO T H E CODEX CUMANICl'S 3
Basically, Géza K u u n ' s edition of t h e Codex Cumanicus was favourably received in Hungary. The role of the Comans in the history of Hungary was clear, not even I. Gyárfás denied it. I t was a well-established fact t h a t King Béla IV c f Hungary allowed 40 000 Coman families who were headed by K u t h e n (Kulàn) and in flight from the Tatars, to settle in the country. The Hungarian population, however, received the numerous alien nomads with apprehension, and before long regarded them as spies of the Tatars. An incited mob finally killed K u t h e n , upon which the Comans left the country, plundering and mur- dering as they went.8
After the Mongol invasion, Béla IV called in the Comans again (joined by a part of the Jazygs9), and attempted to bring them over to his side by granting them various privileges, and arranging royal marriages with them.
Cornali influence reached its climax during the reign of Ladislaus IV, called the Coman (his mother was the Coman princess Elisabeth). Their privileges were confirmed by several laws enacted in 1279.10 After the murder of Ladis- laus IV, however, their role diminished, and they gradually merged with the Hungarians. By the end of the 18th century even their language had died out, and all that w as left of it to posterity was a distorted version of the Coman Lord's prayer, and some other prayers consisting only of a few words. Later scientific examination of mediaeval Coman personal and place names revealed their Turkic origin (Gcmboez, Ráeonyi). More recently, interest has been turned
8 R . Grousset, The Empire oj the Steppes. A History of Central Asia, New Brun- swick 1970, p . 264. C. d'Ohsson, Histoire des Mongols depuis Tchinguiz-khan jusqu'à Timour Bey ou Tamerlan II, A m s t e r d a m 1862, p p . 135—241.
9 The J a z y g s enjoyed t h e same privileges as t h e Comans. The mediaeval L a t i n diplomas of H u n g a r y refer t o t h e m as Jazones or Philistei. They retained some of their privileges, like t h e Comans, u p t o 1848, and t h e i r administrative area, established with t h e Comans u n d e r t h e n a m e • Jászkún-kcirzet» [Jazygian-Coman district] was abolished in 1867. According to an earlier view, they spoke t h e Coman language when t h e y settled in H u n g a r y , as t h e y had lived together with t h i s Turkish people for a Jong time prior t o their arrival. Recently it h a s come t o light t h a t at t h e time of settling in H u n g a r y , t h e J a z y g s spoke their own I r a n i a n tongue which was related t o Osset, and Alan. This is evidenced by t h e Jazygian personal names of I r a n i a n origin in t h e L a t i n diplomas, and above all by a Jazygian—Latin word-list f r o m t h e 15th century found in the B u d a p e s t National Archives in 1957. Cf. Z. Gombocz, Csseten-Spuren iti Un garrì : Gomboez Zoltán összegyűjtött művei [The Collected Works of Z. Gombocz] I, Budapest 1938, p p . 7 8 - 83.
Idem, Ossètes et Yazyges: op. cit., p p . 91 — 95. J . Németh, Eine IV örterliste der J assert, der unyarlàndischen Alanen: ADWB, Berlin 1959. I d e m , Spisok slov na jazyke jasov, vengers- kich alati. P e r e v o d s nemeckogo i primecanija V. I. Abaeva, Ordzonokidze 1960. The H u n g a r i a n J a z y g s also abandoned their n a t i v e Iranian tongue for t h e H u n g a r i a n lan- guage.
10 B. Spuler, Die Goldene Horde, die Mongolén in livssland, 1223— 1502, Leipzig 1943, p p . 67 — 68. H ó m a n — Szekfű, Magyar történet [Hungarian H i s t o r y ] I, B u d a p e s t 1935, pp. 537 — 543; I I (1936), p . 10 sqq. J e a n R i c h a r d , La Bapavté et les missions d'Orient au Moyen Age, R o m e 1977, p p . 31 — 33.
to the words of Coman origin in the Hungarian dialects of present-day Coman regions (Mándoky). I t is easy to see why Hungarian Turcologists devote spe- cial attention to the problems of Coman history and language.
As is well known, the first mention of the Codex was made by Tomasini in 1656. Leibnitz discovered the manuscript in the catalogue of the Venice Library in 1768. I n 1769 Daniel Cornides of Hungary, secretary to Count József Teleki sought out t h e Codex Cumanieus in Venice and copied its first 22 pages. Later, in Hungary he informed P r a y about the manuscript with reference to t h e on-going controversy concerning the Coman Lord's prayer.1 1
Finally, through Tomasini, Klaproth re-discovered the manuscript, managed to obtain a copy of the first part of it, and in 1826 edited the copied text. This touched off a series of scientific examinations of the Codex Cumanieus. Despite its deficiencies, G. Kuun's edition constitutes a significant step forward from Klaproth's pioneering edition. Its publication marks the beginning of research on the manuscript itself, together with analyses of its contents.
From Tomasini's time until recently, t h e Codex Cumanieus was called the Petrarca-Codex, on the basis of the belief t h a t it was one of Petrarca's
books left to Venice.
G. Gyürffy has closely studied the manuscript and its background in Venice, and has arrived at several significant conclusions.12
11 The topic in question is treated by K u u n in detaiJ, (pp. I —XIV). Only t h e sec- tion on Cornides needs some elucidation. According t o K u u n , and a f t e r him, G y á r f á s (op. cit., p. 13), Cornides and József Teleki visited Venice in 1770. They determined t h i s d a t e from Cornides' letter t o György P r a y . According t o D ó r a F . Csanak (in her book
«Két világ h a t á r á n » [On t h e F r o n t i e r of Two Worlds], in press), t h i s visit took place in May, 1769. T h e t e x t (draft) of t h e letter addressed t o P r a y can be found almost u n a l t e r e d in t h e previously mentioned ( K u u n , p. X) m a n u s c r i p t , entitled Commentatiuncula, k e p t in t h e Manuscript D e p a r t m e n t of t h e H u n g a r i a n A c a d e m y of Sciences (Tört. 2° 164).
The part copier! f r o m Cornides begins with the f i r s t word of t h e Codex (Audio: Mesnoem esiturmen] he t h o u g h t t h e f i r s t t w o words were a single Coman word), and ends w i t h equità — Atlan, which is on p. 22 instead of 23. T h e copy m a d e in Venice soon went a s t r a y , as he himself wrote in a letter: «aduersaria mea in Transilvania reliqui». If not definitively lost, it must lie hidden somewhere there (perhaps in Szeben, Sibiu).
12 G. Györffy, Autour du Codex Cumanieus, in: Analecta orientalia memoriae Ale- xandra Csorna de Kőrös dicata. Bibliotheca Orientális Hungarica V, B u d a p e s t 1942, p p .
110 — 137. G y ö r f f y ' s a r g u m e n t was accepted b y A . v. Gabain, Komanische Literatur, in Fundamenta I I , pp. 243 — 244. Referring to G a b a i n , Louis Bazin, Les calendriers turcs anciens et mediévaux, Paris 1974, p. 625 reiterated G y ö r f f y ' s view. G y ö r f f y ' s s t u d y is a bibliographical rarcty, as Vol. V of BOH came o u t in a very limited n u m b e r of copies d u e t o the d e v a s t a t i o n s of t h e war. Dagmar Driill, in her doctoral dissertation entitled Der Codex Cumanieus, Entstehung und Bedeutung, S t u t g a r t 1980 (Geschichte und Gesell- srhaft, Band 23, Klett-Cotta), re-examined t h e d a t e , place, and circumstances of origin of t h e Codex. Miss Driill saw a n d studied t h e Codex itself, h a d exports examine t h e water- m a r k s again, a n d thoroughly analyzed the p a p e r used for t h e Codex. All her research confirms G y ö r f f y ' s findings in essentials.
PROLEGOMENA TO THE CODEX CUMANICl'S 5
To start with, he has established that the name Petrarca Codex, was an inveterate error. This Nolhae also pointed out in a book published in 1892, but which passed completely unnoticed by Turcologists. Petrarca did indeed leave his books to Venice in his will, but they never arrived there since he lived near P a d u a at the t i m e of his d e a t h in 1374, and the adversities between the two towns prevented the book collection from ever reaching Venice. Nolhae, incidentally, studied each of t h e 17 manuscripts in the San Marco Library allegedly belonging t o the Petrarca collection, including the Codex Cumanicus, and maintained t h a t none of them could have come from the Petrarca library.
This is certainly t r u e of the Codex Cumanicus, whose paper (not parchment) pages and leather binding from t h e 18th century did not blend in at all with the rest of the bibliophile Petrarca's books.
Györffy examined the pages of the manuscript, their water marks, and the former fascicules of the manuscript now bound in one volume.
H i s research led him to conclude t h a t the manuscript originally consisted of t h r e e fascicules. B o t h Teza and Györffy stress this fact, which means more precisely t h a t the Codex was written on three types of fascicules, the first two of which were of e q u a l size, and contained the same watermark. The third fascicule, however, w a s larger and apparently clipped round at the time of stitching or binding, which damaged the writing on a few pages. The water- marks of the latter differ from t h o s e of the other two types of paper. Apart from t h i s proof, a view had earlier evolved to the effect t h a t the Codex had two p a r t s , a «German» and an «Italian» part.
L e t it be noted here that the Codex today consists of 164 pages. This subse- quent, modern pagination was used b y G. Kuun, A. v. Gabain, Grönbech (in his dictionary) and Monchi-zadeh. We will also adhere to this pagination, as the ar- bitrary mediaeval paging seems gratuitous and anachronistic, using 82 r-v folios.
T h e «Italian part» comprises pages 1 110, which simply means t h a t the Italians left pages 111 118 of the second fascicule blank. This is how the next owners obtained the Codex. According to this conception, the new owners started adding their notes on page 119, and continued through to page 164 of the t h i r d fascicule. This part, therefore, contains only their material.
T h e first, or Italian part, offers several chronological clues, first at the very beginning of the manuscript : t h e date June 11th, 1303 apparently refers to the manuscript f r o m which the present Codex was (either directly of in- directly) copied. This work was undoubtedly not an autograph one, as amply evidenced by the mistakes arising f r o m copying.
G y ö r f f y has pinned down the d a t e of copying by showing t h a t the paper was of N o r t h Itaian origin, the watermark dating around 1330. This may be considered the copying date of the e x t a n t Italian part.
Earlier an older chronological clue was thought to have been discovered, in the names of the m o n t h s in Latin, Persian and Coman in the Codex. The
L a t i n names of t h e Christian calendar, contrasted with the Persian names of Arabic origin, outline the Muslim calendar. The sequence of the Christian and Muslim months in the Codex correspond only cyclically. Disregarding the ear- lier (1259 - 1261) and later (1324 1326) concordances, the lists of the months in the Codex coincide only in the years 1292 -1294.1 3 Through various com-
13 The correspondence b e t w e e n t h e Latin a n d Persian n a m e s of m o n t h s listed on p . 72 of the Codex points to t h e y e a r 1294, Samojlovic suggests (Doklady Ak. Nauk 1924, p p . 86 - 8 8 ) ; Malov ( I z v . dfc. Nauk SSSR 1930, p p . 3 4 7 - 3 4 9 ) placed this d a t e a t 1 2 9 5 - 96. (The questions of the Coman calendar were studied by Kowalski, Zu den türkischen Monatsnamen: Archív Orientálni I (1930), pp. 3 — 26, especially p p . 17 — 26, and by K . Grönbech, Wörterbuch, pp. 30 — 31). The d a t e 1294 — 95 inferred f r o m t h e Muslim chro- nology is a t t r a c t i v e but, as s t a t e d above, not convincing. I n t h e course of copying, ihe list of months g o t mixed up, as seen in the Coman column. I t is also obvious t h a t the copier noticed this, and tried t o j o i n the horizontal correlations b y adding dashes. The n a m e s of the C o m a n column are, in a n y case, perplexing. Why, for example, is J u n e an a u t u m n m o n t h ? W h y are throe s u m m e r months missing? Other curiosities were referred t o b y Kowalski along with possible explanations. Ba/.in devoted a whole c h a p t e r of his b o o k to the Coman calendar (pp. 624 — 650), and t h e deficiency of t h e list did not escape h i s attention e i t h e r . H e ascribed it t o tho careless copier. Ba/.in tried t o overcome t h e difficulties by reconstructing t h e Coman calendar with 16 m o n t h s (pp. 642 — 643), in t h e following m a n n e r : one year s t a r t s with November and ends with October, t h e n the next y e a r starts with November again, b u t ends with F e b r u a r y ( t h a t ' s all t h e list of 16 can p r o v i d e for). T h e period November — December of t he 16-item list falls in 1293, J a n u a r y — December in 1294, and J a n u a r y F e b r u a r y in 1295. This seems t o bolster u p the hypo- t h e s i s of the 1294 — 95 date. Tho problem is, however, t h a t Bazin's cleverly reconstructed list of 16 m o n t h s can in no way b e verified. A n o t h e r proof of t h e delicacy of t h e Coman c a l e n d a r is t h e f a c t t h a t erroneous copying can be clearly shown in t h e Persian column containing t h e Moslem m o n t h - n a m e s in distinct Arabic forms. Lot us s t a r t f r o m a tangible p o i n t : április — gimediaual ( B a z i n : Jumàdà I, mai); madius — regep gimedielachel (B:
Jumàdà II, mai). T h e copier left t h i s out, and realized his mistake only a f t e r he had p u t d o w n regep. H e corrected t h e e r r o r b y inserting it a f t e r w a r d s (B: Rajab, juin). F r o m this point on, the list is one line off, m a r k e d by t h e additional dashes of the copier (the dashes a r e hardly visible in the facsimile, b u t much clearer in Kowalski's facsimile); junius — saab'im (B: Sa bán, juillet); julius - ramadá (B: Ramadàn, aoüt); augustus — saugal ( B : Sawwal, septeinbre); septemb(e)r — 6il chaade (B: Dü'l qa'da, oetobre); octub(e)r — dilchia (B: Dü'l hijja, novembre) noue(m)ber — mugarà (B: Muharram, décembre); de- cemh(e)r — t h e s p a c e for t h e P e r s i a n word is blank here. If t h e word regep is fitted in its right place, t h e lacuna of D e c e m b e r disappears in t h e Persian column. Bazin's Muslim chronology involves only t h e y e a r 1294 (excluding 1295). His proposed interpretation of t h e Persian c a l e n d a r of the Codex basically agrees with Samojloviő's. B o t h of them n a m e 1294 as the d a t e in question, a n d both exclude t h e years 1295 — 96 suggested by Malov f o r the date of origin of the c a l e n d a r . In fact, t h e d a t e now generally accepted, 1294. is not so convincing, a s there are t h r o e successive y e a r s in which tho m o n t h safar correlates with J a n u a r y , a n d muharrarn w i t h December: 23. 1. 1292 (Wednesday) — 12. 12. 1293 (Friday); 11. 1. 1293 (Tuesday) — 2. 12. (Wednesday); 1. 1. 1294 (Friday) - 21. 12.
(Tuesday). I n t h e Moslem c a l e n d a r : H 6 9 1 - 1 2 9 1 / 2 ; H 692 - 1293/4, H 693 - 1293/4.
Cf V. V. Cybuljskij, Sovremennye kalendari stran Bliínego iSrednego Vostoka, Sinchronis- ticeskle tablicy i pojasnenija, M o s k v a 1964, p. 66. Ba/.in chose t h e last of t h e possible three.
It is hard t o toll how this Moslem d a t e found its way into t h e Codex, and whether or not
PROLEGOMENA TO T H E CODEX CUMANICl'S 7
binations with Coman calendars, this agreement seems to point to the year 1294. In m y opinion, t h e value of this date is disputable, though a number of eminent Turcologists accept it. It suggests t h a t the date of the original Co- dex was 1294, its first copy was made in 1303, and t h e existing copy dates
around 1330.
The «German part» much more eludes chronological dating. Györffy detected a different kind of paper with three watermarks, but only two of these can be dated more or less precisely. On the basis of the paper and the water- marks, Györffy suggested t h a t this part of the Codex was written between 1340 and 1356. An earlier conception maintained t h a t this part was not a copy, b u t rather a collection of original texts, glosses and insertions, which were added continuously in the course of a relatively long time. However, it is not difficult to prove t h a t a part of these texts are copies of previous texts, or were written down after dictation. At a n y rate, the «German part» was compiled later t h a n the Italian, which was earlier believed to have reached German Franciscan friars, accounting for t h e additional German glosses inserted in the Italian part. The manuscript changed hands again, ending u p in Italy. This makes it clear how t h e Codex, now stitched, got to Venice (and not Genoa) without Petrarca's mediation.
The place of origin of the Codex is not independent of the chronology of its separate parts.
The first, or Italian, part is t o d a y believed to have been made in the Crimea. K u u n firmly attributed this part to a Genoan author. B rati ami (1929) shared this view. Some researchers (Rasovski, Györffy) named Solkhat as the place of origin. Miss Drüll tried to confirm the theory of the Genoan origin by eliminating all other possibilities.
t h e Christian terminology c o n t r a s t e d with it is correct; correcting either of t h e m with t h e Coman chronology is too r i s k y a venture. Let. us consider one example: a f t e r the pre- viously mentioned emendation, t h e curbá bará ay ( = qurban bayram ày) of t h e Coman column corresponds to düghia in t h e Persian; this name did indeed denote (Dü'1-hijja) November in 1292 or 1293. I n 1294 the C o m a n name of N o v e m b e r ( = muharram) in Bazin's «corrected» list is sor) küz ay, «the last m o n t h of autumn». Sor) küz ay and qurban bayram ay of t h e Coman c o l u m n refer t o t w o different innths. Bazin a t t e m p t e d t o eli- m i n a t e t h e contradiction w i t h t h e 16-item list, while Kowalski (op. cit., p. 25), a f t e r much hesitation, t e n d e d to regard qurbàn bayram ày as a special n a m e for «the last month of autumn». I n such circumstances, t h e Coman calendar of t h e Codex cannot be considered a firm chronological ba6e, a n d t h e d a t a inferred f r o m t h e P e r s i a n column of t h e Moslem calendar are a t best shaky hypotheses. Monchi-zadeh's d a t e of 1358 (p. 13), based on t h e legend of t h e Petrarca-Codex, is totally u n w a r r a n t e d . Relying on t h e corrected third edition of Mahler—Wüstenfeld, Vergleichungstabellen 3., Miss Drüll tried t o modify Ma- lov's dating b y identifying t h e calendar of t h e Codex with t h e period of 1292 — 95, in h a r m o n y with t h e Muslim chronology. We h a v e come back t o t h e former dating; 1295 was commonly disregarded as i t s last two m o n t h s extend over t o 1296; t h e «emendations»
can be ignored as they only affect days.
The 1303 variant is believed to have been made in the Monastery of St.
John near Sarai. No a t t e m p t s what so ever were made to establish the place of origin of t h e extant (cc. 1330) copy. The second, «German» part was allegedly compiled b y the native German friars of a Franciscan monastery in South Russia (Gabain).
There is no denying t h a t the first p a r t was composed in an Italian setting for other t h a n religious purposes.
The idea entertained from time to time t h a t the author was a friar can be discarded. I t is indeed conspicuous t h a t a number of substantives denoting certain groups of subjects, are absent from the text. Bràtianu (Recherches, p.
231, note 5) also remarked t h a t certain words unbecoming a friar are detect- able (Codex p. 68: bordellum, rofiana, meretrix; p. 99: rofianus, castratura).
It cannot be questioned t h a t the first part of the codex had a secular function. I t certainly played a significant, though not exclusive, role in pro-
moting commercial interests. Even Gyárfás emphasized t h a t the trilingual parts had a commercial purpose. To fortify his argument, he cited 89 names of spices, 70 words denoting commercial articles, 17 names of precious stones, and 91 t e r m s connected with office work from the glossary classified by sub- jects. Regardless of the accuracy of those figures, we must admit t h a t Gyárfás got to t h e core hinting to questions well worth elaborating.
At this point, a passing remark should be devoted to the role of the Mo- nastery of St. John, mentioned in the 1303 copy, since it seems to contradict the conclusion drawn from the lack of clerical terms.14 This seeming contradic- tion can be somewhat resolved if we consider the fact t h a t it is not an original manuscript, but rather a copy whose second part is indisputably of ecclesiastic- al origin and purpose. The only way to resolve definitively the apparent con- tradiction is to clear up t h e relationship between the extant (and lost) copies.
The question originally raised by Gyárfás and later reiterated by others,
11 W . B a n g directed a t t e n t i o n t o t h e role of t h e Monastery of St. J o h n (Über die Ilerkunjt des Codex Cumanicus: SPA IF 1913, p p . 244 — 245). I n his opinion, the m o n k s of this m o n a s t e r y began t o write t h e Codex Cumanicus here in 1294/5. T h e Monastery of St. J o h n w a s one of the 17 monasteries n o r t h of t h e Black Sea. According to a text d a t i n g from 1314 t h e monastery was located n e a r Sarai. Bang based his opinion on t h e last line of the invocation which c o n t a i n s t h e name of t h e saint (Ad honorem dei et B(ea)ti St(ephan)- is euangelifte). Györffy rightly argued t h a t this invocation was inserted a t t h e head of t h e text later, d u r i n g copying. Strangely enough, t h e name of St. J o h n does n o t occur at a n y other place in t h e Codex. R a t h e r , a passage on t h e death of St. Stephen can be read a m o n g the Coman t e x t s of the second p a r t , cf. Codex, p . 122; K u u n , pp. 159 — 160; Drimba, Syntaxe cornane, pp. 228 - 2 3 0 (De la m o r t de Saint Étienne), which contains t h e Coman text, its F r e n c h translation a n d t h e relevant p a r t of «The Acts of t h e Apostles» in L a t i n . St. Stephen w a s the only saint whose s t o r y t h e friars t h o u g h t w o r t h y of including in t h e Codex. I t would lead us t o o f a r t o search f o r t h e causes of this, b u t it should not be for- gotten. I t is advisable t o check whether t h e r e was a m o n a s t e r y with t h i s name among t h e 17.
PROLEGOMENA TO T H E CODEX CUMANICl'S 9
should now be worded in t h e following w a y : With which Oriental peoples did the Italian colonists settled along the northern fringe of the Black Sea trade ? W h a t routes did t h e Italians use for this t r a d e ? W h a t commodities were involved in the exchange? In what sort of offices was the Persian-Coman dictionary used?
The answer to the first question is seemingly pat. Yet only seemingly, as the definition of the Italian colonists itself presents a problem. W h a t sort of Italian colonists have t o be reckoned with? No doubt the Genoans played a significant role in the region, yet t h e more modest b u t no less active Vene- tians cannot be bypassed either. So far the aim of research has been to establish in which colony the Codex was written. This question should, however, be extended: were the original and the copies used only in one colony or in both?
The Genoans and Venetians had a wide mediating role in the trade of this region (Pisa and Florence cai 1 be disregarded here, since their role was comparatively insignificant). We will leave out of account the radiation of this widespread trade towards the West and North Africa, and will concentrate on the L e v a n t , or more precisely, on the Persia of the Ilkhans, the Golden Horde, and, through t h e latter, on Central and East Asia.
As for the exchanged commodities in this huge area, detailed information can be drawn from the e x t a n t lists of goods which indicate t h a t a wide range of natural resources and products of h u m a n activity was involved, including slaves in some places.
Two of the trading routes are of special importance. One led to the Levant with a branch leading to Persia via Trapezunt. This latter demands greater attention in our context. This route being widely known, requires little elabo- ration here. The same cannot be said of t h e other route which led through the capital of t h e Golden H o r d e to Central Asia and Peking. We owe our descrip- tion of this route to the 14th century author, Pegolotti.
The starting point of this remarkable trade route was Tana (today Azov).
The first leg of the journey ending in Astrakhan (Gintarchan) could Ite made in 25 days in an ox-cart, or 12 days in a horse-drawn cart. Highwaymen also used this stretch of road, so it was rather dangerous. A one-dav waterway followed to Sarai (Sara), then another 8 days sailing to Saraichik (Saracanco) (on the river Ural). A camel-drawn cart covered the next leg from Saraichik to Urgenj (Organci) in 20 days. Travelling merchants found a flourishing market in this town. 35 40 days were needed to travel from Urgenj to Otrar. Those travelling without cargo avoided Otrar and reached the next station, Almalik (Armalec) in 50 days. T h e travellers were then carried by pack donkeys along a road which was also full of highwaymen, t o Kanchou (Caexu) in Chinese territory.
This was a 70-day trip. Then came a 75-day journey on horseback to the city of Hangchou (Cassai), by a «great water». Here silver coins had to be exchanged for Chinese notes. The trip» from Hangchou to Peking (Cambalec) took 30 days.
Pegolotti added to his record of t h e journey: I t is advisable for the mer-
chant to take two skilful Coman interpreters with him, and a Coman-speaking woman interpreter might come in handy too.15
Of interest for us in Pegolotti's itinerary are the chapters on the journey up to Almalik, and on the Coman language and interpreters.
Mention should be made of Gyárfás' «office vocabulary» as well.
What kind of offices used the Persian—Coman dictionary of the Codex Cumanicus? The Cedex itself provides the answer, notably its chapter «No- bilitas hominum et mulierum» (p. 90). As is known, the Genoans as well as t h e Venetians called their senior official in the Black Sea colonies (and elsewhere like in Tebriz) consul. The corresponding words in the Codex are: P qadi [chadi]
«judge», C Seriyat [seriat]. I n the same chapter also see: L potestas, P Sana [saana], C yaryvci [yarguzi] «Biirgermeister»; L torcimanus, P kalamaöi [ta-
15 The t e r m s of «office activities» in the Codex contain an intriguing material g r o u p ;
«N(om)i(n)a arti(um) et que per(ti)ne(n)t eis» (p. 80). The Persian a n d Coman equivalents of L scriba can be found here. T h e chapter m a k e s it clear t h a t t h e t a s k of t h e «scribe» or
«notary» was t o execute t h e documentation of t r a d i n g activities: it is preceded by «money»
(pecunia) and followed by «debtors» and «creditors» (depitores, creditores), «ledgers» (ma- nuale), ink, touchstone» (lapis auri), «business paper» (litera) and «writing paper» (papirum) The chapter is headed by I t a l o - L a t i n bancherius, t h e Coman equivalent of which (saraf)
Grönbech interpreted inaccurately as «Geldwechsler». As for c o m m o d i t y goods, t h e L a t i n - Persian-Coman list of t h e Codex deserves a small monograph (including t h e careful inter- pretation and etymology of each word). The Florentine Francesco Balducci Pegolotti was neither a m e r c h a n t nor a traveller, b u t he carefully collected information from t h e m . H i s work La Pratica della Mercatura h a s long been in t h e focus of a t t e n t i o n . For an up-to- d a t e t r e a t m e n t of this subject see Sir Henry Yule, Cathay and the Way Thither I I I , L o n d o n
1914, pp. 1 3 7 - 1 7 3 . Cf. also H . Cordier, Histoire de la Chine I I , P a r i s 1920, pp. 430 — 432.
The latest edition of Pegolotti's work: Allan E v a n s , Francesco Balducci Pegolotti, La Pratica della Mercatura, ed. b y —. Cambridge Mass. 1936. Cf. also R . S. Lopez, Venezia e le grande linee espansione commerciale nel secolo X I I I , in: La civiltà veneziana del secolo di Mano Polo, Florence 1952, pp. 39 — 82. Let m e add here t h a t in Pegolotti's book, t h e name of the Chinese paper m o n e y baleS was referred t o by Pelliot in T'oung Poo X X V I I , pp. 190 -192. H e asserts here t h a t baleé is identical with t h e distorted form of T u r k i s h yastuq, mentioned by missionaries visiting t h e Mongols. B o t h words originally m e a n t
«cushion». Let me stress t h a t t h e prime meaning of balii is not «paper money», cf. P bàliS
«a cushion, a pillow; a weight of gold (eight miskáls and two dànaks)» (Stg.). On t h e role of Tana, see Elene C. S k r i i n s k a j a , Storia della Tana, in: Studi veneziani X (1968), p p . 3 -46. \V. H e y d ' s Histoire du commerce du Levant au Moyen Age I I , Leipzig 1885, p p . 555 -711 is very instructive on t h e commodity goods of t r a d e in t h e Levant. Compre- hensive studies h a v e often referred t o t h e export and import goods of Black Sea t r a d e ; cf. Bratianu, Pecherches, p. 247 (with f u r t h e r references), Spuler, Die Goldene Horde, p. 407 sqq. D. Drüll used her findings t o explain t h e «business» words of t h e Codex (pp.
39 -92). A relatively late goods list is of special importance (E. Schütz has d r a w n a t - tention to it): Devon Khachikian, Le registre d'un marchand arménien en Perse, en Inde et au Tibet (1682 — 1692), in: Annales 1967 (Paris), p p . 231 - 278. This s t u d y was t r a n s l a t e d f r o m English into French, b u t retains the original English spelling of t h e names of articles taken from t h e native tongue. This list also contributes interesting d a t a on t h e P e r s i a n names of t h e Codex.
PROLEGOMENA TO THE CODEX CUMANICl'S 11
lamaci], C tilmac [ t i l m a ^ «Dolmetscher». The commercial aspects of office activities will be discussed later.
The connections between the Italian colonies and the Golden Horde deserve much more attention, since the Golden Horde was more than just a trading partner to the Genoans and Venetians of the Black Sea region.
On several occasions the two Italian rivals concluded written treaties with the central, or more frequently, with the local, representatives of t h e Golden Horde. These pacts were generally bilingual, with the original d r a f t in Turkish, and the translation, done by an interpreter, into Latin or Italian.
Let me refer to some of these documents t h a t are already familiar to researchers.
During the reign of özbeg (1312 1340) the Venetians signed a contract with Kutluctemir in 1333, and gained thereby the right to build in certain areas near Tana. The agreement was worded in the Coman language, and trans- lated into Latin by Dominicus Polonus (de Cumanico in Latinum). In 1358, the Venetians concluded a treaty with Berdibek himself, «the Lord of the Mon- gols and Comans» (1357— 1359), which confirmed their trading privileges ori- ginally granted in the conventions of 1338 and 1346.
Though the Genoans preceded the Venetians in colonization, their docu- ments date back to later times. One of their pacts is dated 1380, the time of Toqtamis (1380— 1395). Upon the order of the Genoan consul of Kaffa, t h e treaty was translated from the original «ugaresca» into Latin by a scribe named Julianus Panicarius, with the help of an interpretor. The Genoans signed an- other pact with the delegates of Toqtamis in 1387. The original of this treaty, written in «ugeresca», was translated into Latin by Franciscus Gabelete.
The Turkic texts of the cliploms have been lost, but it can be argued t h a t the «ugaresca» script of the latter two documents denotes the Uighur script, in which the famous yarli'q of Toqtamis was written. It can hardly be doubted that both the language and the script were identical. The source does not re- veal in what language the Venetian contract of 1358 (and the two previous ones) was written, b u t it is certain that the 1358 document was drafted in Coman. I do r.ot doubt that this Coman language is identical with the Coman tongue of the first, Italian part. The first document shows clearly that the Ve- netians did not only use the Coman language for commercial purposes but also in their diplomatic contacts.16
16 For a detailed analysis of t h e diplomas of t h e Golden H o r d e see I. Vásáry, Chan- cellery of the Oolden Horde (BOH, in press). Gyárfás, op. cit., pp. 16—17. H a m m e r - P u r g - stall, Geschichte der Gohlenen Horde, P e s t h 1840, p. 250. H a m m e r also disclosed t h a t ac- cording t o a document issued by T e m ü r Qutluy t h e Venetians were g r a n t e d three p o r t s in t h e Crimea, and their consul resided in Tana. G. K u u n dealt with a document d a t i n g 1387 in his Adalékok Krím történetéhez [ D a t a on t h e H i s t o r y of t h e Crimea] (cf. supra, note 5). H e mentioned t h r e e documents (dating 1380, 1381 and 1387), giving only a sketchy translation of t h e last written in vulgar Genoan. The d a t e of t h e first document is H 782, t h e last d a y of Sa'ban (28), i.e. November 28th, 1380 (op. cit., p. 43). These t w o
dates are congruent. Tlie L a t i n translation of this t e x t d a t e s f r o m J u l y 28tli, 1383; its Genoan dialectal variant was most likely w r i t t e n in this same year. The document of 1387 fared badly, a s Kuun had no t i m e to copy (and edit) the whole t e x t . Acting upon t h e ad- vice of A. V á m b é r y , < ié/.a K u u n explored t h e muterial of t h e Genoan archives, which had also been in P a r i s for a t ime during Napoleon's reign, searching for documents in Uighur script, but h e found none. It is worth n o t i n g t h a t the use of t h e Italian language did not figure a m o n g t h e privileges of the Genoans. I t s dialectal properties are striking, e.g.
consoro (consul) and Sorchat (Solchat). H a m m e r edited t h e Italian t e x t s of t w o contracts signed with t h e Venetians (op. cit.. pp. 517 — 522). One was endorsed by Janibek (1340
1357), d a t i n g : Dado in Gulistan sette cento quarant otto in lo mese de Ramadan die venti dol.
in lo anno de porcho. The y e a r 1347 was indeed the year of t h e pig 1 a m a f r a i d Ba/.in was too r a s h in his judgment, asserting t h a t t h e Comans h a d n o knowledge of t h e animal cycle of 12 years. It is t r u e t h a t the Codex provides no t r a c e of the animal cycle, but this is simply because the a u t h o r of the Codex s t a i t e d out f r o m Latin, and not vice versa.
I n those d a y s t h e calendar of t h e animal cycle was known b y t h e Mongols, Turks, and even the Persians. The m o n t h n a m e l'amadan in the Persian column of t h e Codex denotes August, n o t F e b r u a r y . T h e other diploma comes from Herdibek (1357—1359), d a t e d 1358. In I t a l i a n : Dado in Lordo in Accuba (read Acluba) alii otto di della luna in mese de Siwal, eorando lo anno de Can anni sette cento cinquanta nove. 1356 was t h e y e a r of t h e dog;
t h e Venetian Can also m e a n s «dog». The m o n t h Rival corresponds t o September, as is recorded in t h e corrected Persian calendar of t h e Codex Cumanicus. The correspondence is also confirmed by informations from k n o w n concordances. Gulistan was a place f a m o u s for its m i n t ; of. Spuler, Die Goldene Horde, p . 544. Spuler (op. cit., p. 99 sqq) misspelled t h e name of Janibek as Jambek. On the correct főim, Jani. bek, see Pelliot, Notes sur l'His- toire de la Horde d'Or, Paris 1949, pp. 9 8 - 101. it is lead Janibek b y B. IX G r e k o v - A . J u . J a k u b o v s k i j , Zolotaja Orda i ee padenie, M.-L. 1950, p. 451. H e y d (Hintuire du commerce du Levant I I , p . 181) refers t o a decree forbidding t h e Genoan citizens t o spend t h e winter in Tana or t o b u y houses t h e r e . He also t o u c h e s upon a diploma dating f r o m 1332, t h e year of t h e m o n k e y (the correspondence is faultless), which p e i m i t t e d t h e Venetians t o build a residential area there. This d a t e falls in t h e early reign of Özbeg (1312—1340), t h e predecessor of J a n i b e k . T h e question is, h o w does this diploma compare with t h e docu- ments of similar content d a t i n g f r o m 1333 (the year of t h e h e n ) ? T h e d o c u m e n t s of 1342 and 1357, w h i c h renewed t h e diploma of 1332. show that t h e Genoans were banned from Tana. F r o m a b o u t 1322 on Venetian galleys f r o m Trape/.unt regularly p u t in at this p o r t . Later Venetian t r a d e agencies were set u p iu t h e town, and all t h i s was done in agreement with the T a t a r lords of t h e c i t y . Delegations of t h i s character are often mentioned between 1293 and 1303. Heyd gives a lengthy account of t h e Venetians' settlement and arrange- ments in T a n a , as well as of t h e i r traile and other relations with t h e Muslim leaders in t h e area. Difficulties gradually arose villi t h e i r T a t a r overlords, and these were aggravat- ed by the G e n o a n s living on o t h e r parts of T a n a . Eventually bloody clashes took place between t h e T a t a r s , Venetians and Genoans, resulting in t h e expulsion of t h e Venetians from T a n a for a while. Only in 1347 did t h e y once again o b t a i n permission f r o m J a n i b e k t o settle in t h e t o w n (on this diploma see above). Heyd (1 L p. 198, note) p o i n t s out t h a t tlie month of t h e d a t e is incorrect. H e t h i n k s t h a t t h e 22nd d a y of Ramadan corresponds t o December 26th, and not t o F e b r u a r y . Modern concordances also confirm his position, b u t far-reaching conclusions cannot be d r a w n f r o m this divergence, since t h e d a t e of February is f o u n d in t h e s h o r t Latin introduction, and not in t h e Italian t r a n s l a t i o n . On t h e diplomas of t h e khans of t h e Golden H o r d e concerning t h e privileges of t h e Francis- cans, from t h e t i m e of Müngka-Tcimür (1267— 1280), see J . R i c h a r d , La Papuaté et les missions d'Orient, p. 92. s q q .
PROLEGOMENA TO T H E CODEX CUMANICl'S 13
All this leads us to believe t h a t the former conception which contributes t h e origin of the Codex to the Genoans, should probably be revised. The more urgent this revision appears since the hypothesis was based on the «Petrarca Codex» theory. The final answer seems to be within reach.
I t seems highly likely t h a t the codex was written and compiled b y Italian lay persons, perhaps by the scribes of consuls or merchants, for the use of inter- preters. The role of merchants in writing of the Codex should not be exaggerat- ed. Their business was trading with the help of interpreters, not tinkering with the compilation of C o m a n - Persian data.
The views regarding the place of origin of t h e «German part» have been mentioned earlier. Let me add here t h a t the Codex was probably not used in a single missionary monastery. The fact t h a t at times Latin dominates besides the German glosses proves this claim. Consequently, non-German Franciscans must have contributed to the writing of the second p a r t of the Codex.
Gabain maintains (Fundamenta I I , 244) t h a t the Codex in its present form was purchased from German (and other) Franciscan friars b y Italian merchants (I cannot prove this hypothesis). Anyway, there is no room for d o u b t t h a t these Italians were Venetians (even if earlier Genoans might have been somehow involved) and that the Codex eventually reached Venice through their offices.
As for the contents of the Codex, it has been discussed almost exclusively in terms of the second part. So far the notion has prevailed t h a t this part was written during a lengthy period, and contains mostly religious t e x t s in prose a n d verse. I t was not compiled by a single person, b u t by several tireless German (and other ?) Franciscans. As curios were the riddles included, priceless remnants of Coman folklore and folk literature, however damaged they may be. The word- lists, and grammatical glosses were included to aid the friars in improving their knowledge of the Coman tongue.17
17 Gabain, Fundamenta I, p. 46; I I , p . "245. E v e n more instructive a r e t w o passages q u o t e d b y G y ö r f f y (op. cit., p. 130), one of t h e m (121) a b o u t a priest who tells his flock t h a t he does n o t know their language, a n d h a s no i n t e r p r e t e r (til bilmen tolmac yoy). H e asks t h e m t o p r a y t o God t h a t he might be able t o learn their tongue easily. The other passage (125) speaks of a f r i a r ignorant of t h e local language, who is forced t o hear con- fessions with t h e help of a n interpreter. T h e i n t e r p r e t e r is also obliged t o observe t h e seal of confession. I t was a long way f r o m t h e Franciscan f r i a r hearing confessions through i n t e r p r e t e r s t o t h e excellent Coman t r a n s l a t o r of t h e L a t i n h y m n (it is not impossible t h a t he was a native Coman). I n a n y case, several persons of varying levels of Coman know- ledge h a v e t o be reckoned with. Turkish b a r b a r i s m s resulting f r o m t h e servile translation of Persian expressions should be judged in a different w a y : e.g. binale etileni, Persian card muxadufi «cultellù», more precisely «cobbler's knife» (86: 5). Compound verb forms like yar) et- «to spend» ( P yar) kardan), peáman boi- «to repent» ( P pèSman bùdan) belong t o a n o t h e r category. The latter t y p e of c o m p o u n d s is limited in number, t h e ones cited here were n o t created b y t h e influence of t h e Persian expressions of t h e Codex. I t is remark-
To date there has been no ambitions investigation of the contents and the authorship of t h e first part of t h e Codex. It contains a grammar and word- list arranged by subjects. There have been suggestions t h a t the anonymous author created his work with the help of a single interpreter who spoke both Coman and Persian. If this indeed was the case, the interpreter, was of medi- ocre ability, failing now in one, now in the other language, frequently attribut- ing a single word t o both.
The Italian p a r t calls for a more thorough analysis. Suffice to mention here t h a t as is presently known, it was not the brainchild of a single anony- mous person, but t h e application of a lost or so far unknown model. The core of the model is a simple and lucid grammatical outline written in Latin, con- taining verbs, adverbs, and substantives, followed by a list of substantives grouped by subjects. The verbs and adverbs are listed in alphabetic order.
Next comes a sketch of the conjugation of verbs and the declension of pro- nouns and substantives. The section on verbs starts with the full conjugation of t h e first verb (audio), while t h e rest of the verbs are represented by three forms (present, past, imperative) and one or two nomina verbalia. Subsequent- ly, between two verbs, some semantic-ally independent substantives are inserted in the alphabetical order.
Passages of a similar grammatical and lexical material can be read in the second part of the Codex. They do not constitute an entity; one tends to regard them rather as r a n d o m glosses from individual collections. The grammatical glosses on pages 127— 132 start with brief grammatical notes, eg. on the plural suffix (lar), the comparison of adjectives (asru and rac), the nomen agentis suffix (ói), the nominal suffix (lie), the interrogative particule (rnà), the pri- vative suffix (sis), etc. This, however, is succeeded by the full conjugation of intelligo - anglarman in two columns. The affirmative takes the left, the ne- gative the right column (non intelligo - anglamaman). The complete Latin - Turkish paradigms are given without a single omission. They take u p all of page 129 and part of page 130. On the same page the paradigms are followed bv Latin—Coman substantives in alphabetical order, the first five of which (referring to the seasons) being later additions. The alphabetical word-list continues or. page 131 with a sample of words beginning with b, followed by a completely chaotic list of Latin Coman words, and, from p. 132 onwards, Latin Coman expressions.
The compiler cf this grammatical material did not necessarily know the grammatical sketch of the Italian part. He may have used either its source, or a similar outline, so it is a m a t t e r of coincidence t h a t the two sets of para-
able t h a t t h e verbal compounds characteristic of P e r s i a n h a v e very simple equivalents in Coman: war kardan [uar e h a r d a m ] «to light a lamp» — yandur-; pèdo èudan [peda suden; CI. paida sudari} «to appear» — C körűn--, etc.
PROLEGOMENA TO T H E CODEX CUMANICl'S 15
digms complete each other. The second p a r t contains the Coman equivalents of each L a t i n verbal form, in contrast to the Italian part, in which the Persian and Coman equivalents of the more complex verbal forms are missing. The (fragmentary) alphabetic listing of t h e substantives in the «German» p a r t is conspicuous. I t allows for the suggestion t h a t the grammatical material of the
«German» p a r t also derives from another written text, copied or dictated. Thus, this p a r t must have had a written source just like the grammar of the Italian part had. The sources of the two parts were apparently similar b u t by no means identical; t h e author of the Italian part drew on the whole (however imperfect- ly), while t h e compiler of the second part only randomly selected from it.
The grammatical outline (and its variant), which served as a model, however, did not aim a t teaching t h e L a t i n language, since it ignored certain characteristic features of Latin like the grammatical genders, classes of verbal conjugations, and nominal declensions, etc. The obvious purpose of the sketch was to assist persons with a perfect command of Latin to learn Oriental lan- guages which lacked t h e above grammatical categories. The three-column format facilitated the orientation in t h e material.
Latin, the language of mediaeval erudition, was most probably chosen because it was also t h e written language of the Black Sea colonies of Genoa, Venice, and other Italian cities.18 Besides the Codex Cumanicus there is no other example of a polyglot Oriental grammar and dictionary compiled for
interpreters on the basis of the Latin language.
I n t h e Mongol period, primarily in the 14th century, the Arabic language had a similar function. With the triple categories of the Arabic grammar- dictionary (verb, substantive, particule) in view, scholars tried to treat the Turkish, Persian, Mongolian, and sometimes even the Armenian and Byzantine Greek tongues, either in bilingual, or in plovglot form. These works also list the verbs in (Arabic) alphabetic order, and classified the substantives (in-
cluding a chapter on adjectival antinomies) according to subjects. The group of particula includes t h e pronouns, adverbs, etc.19 I t is noteworthy t h a t their
18 G. I . Br&tianu, Actes des notaires Génois de Péra et de Gaffa de la fin du treizième siècle (1281 — 1291), Bucarest 1927. M. B a l a r d , Génes et VOutre-Mer /., Les Actes de Coffa du notaire Lamberto di Sambuceto, 1289—1290, Paris—La-Haye 1973. G. L. F r . T a f e l - G. N. T o m a s , Urkunden zur àlteren Handels- und Staatsgeschichte der Pepublik Venedig, mit besonderer Beziehung auf Byzanz und die Levante. Vom n e u n t e n bis 7.urti Ausgang des f ü n f z e h n t e n J a h r h u n d e r t s . Zweite Abteilung: Diplomat aria et A c t a X I I I —XIV (Wien 1856 — 1857). Fontes Perum Austriacarum. These L a t i n documents are n o t t o t a l l y void of Italianisms. E v e n so, t h e Genoan records spanning a very short t i m e provide a large number of idiosyncracies, good specimens of which can be found in Br&tianu, op.cit.
p p . 7 - 1 1 .
19 T h e tripartition of t h e Arabic lexicon can be found in m o s t compendia: fi'I
«verb», ism «substantive», harf «particula»; cf. J . A. H a y w o o d — H . M. N a h m a d , A New Arabic Grammar of the Written Language, London 1965, p. 327. T h e s t r u c t u r e of t h e well-
material, especially the verbs and substantives, is also arranged into columns.
However instructive these vocabularies m a y be for material research, there is a t present no proof t h a t t h e anonymous authors of t h e Italian and German parts of the Codex Cumanicus drew upon any of t h e m . The contemporary handbooks (manuscripts) of Northern Italian Latinity might offer f u r t h e r clues here.
It remains to be t h e major task to edit the complete text of the Codex Cumanicus. Despite its several defects, G. Kuun's work renders great help.
A new acceptable edition requires profound knowledge, so it is not surprising t h a t no one has dared to undertake the task during the last hundred years.
The facsimile edition of the Codex, published by K. Grönbech, is of great help20; but regrettably, it is technically of mediocre quality, and often lets researchers down, right a t the crucial points. The editor of a new edition cannot proceed without the original manuscript, no m a t t e r how good his fascimiles may be.
The manuscript was written in the black letters commonly used in the Middle Ages. This script was retained b y only a few scholars (Bang, Németh), and only for t e x t editions. K u u n replaces t h i s archaic script with Latin letters we use today. His decision cannot be objected to; several others did the same.
The proposed new edition m u s t be a precise transliteration, retaining abbre- viations as well as errors d u e to copying. A good m a n y examples of lapsus calami arising from copying are known. Errors due to dictation have received
known Mugaddimat al-adab also follows this p a t t e r n . Cf. I. G. Wetzstein, Samachscharii Lexicon Arabicum Persicum ex codicibus manuscriptis Lipsiensibus, Oxoniensibus, Vindo- bonensi et Berolinensi edidit a t q u e Indicem A r a b i c u m adiecit —, Lipsiae 1850. A m o n g t h e dictionaries of the Mongol period, reference should be m a d e t o I b n Muhanná's w o r k presenting t h e Turkish language of the Oyuz t y p e . I t s Turkish p a r t : P . M. Melioranskij, Arab filolog o tureckom jazyke, S t . Pbg. 1900, p p . 01—043. I t s Mongolian p a r t : P . M.
Melioranskij, Arab filolog o mongoljskom jazyke, St. P b g . 1904. T h e Persian, Turkish a n d Mongolian p a r t s were edited b y Iv. Rifat, I s t a n b u l , H 1238 — 1240. B y way of example, let us see t h e a r r a n g e m e n t of I b n Muhanna's Mongolian g r a m m a r - d i c t i o n a r y . The m a t e r i a l is divided i n t o 25 chapters following the order of t r i p a r t i t i o n . These are: 1. The n a m e of God and t h e like (I). 2. Verbs in t h e past tense, in Arabie alphabetic order; 3. G r a m m a t i c a l rules, c o n j u g a t i o n (II). 4. P a r t i e u l a s . ( I l l ) Substantives. 5. Adjectives and antinomies;
6. Parts of t h e h u m a n body; 7. Names of kinship; 8. Time a n d cycles; 9. H e a v e n a n d heavenly p h e n o m e n a ; 10. Seasons; 11. E a r t h a n d seas; 12. Places and regions; 13. Foods, drinks; 14. Trees, fruits; 15. Cereals; 10. Bed clothes, i n s t r u m e n t s , tools; 17. Clothing, jewels, precious stones; 18. Flowers, colours; 19. Animals and beasts; 20. Weapons a n d accessories; 21. Illnesses, deficiencies; 22. Birds, birds of prey; 23. Trades; 24. Counting, numerals; 25. words not included in the previous chapters.
20 K . Grönbech, Codex Cumanicus. Cod. Marc. L a t . D X L I X . I n Faksimile heraus- gegeben, m i t einer Einleitung von —. Kopenhagen 193C. (Monumenta Linguarum Asiae Maioris I.) T h e facsimile of «Ave porta paradisi» (Grönbech, p p . 137 — 144)i earlier pu- blished b y B a n g (W. Bang —J. Marquart, Osttürkische Dialektstudien, Berlin 1914, I I I — X tables) is w o r t h comparing. Undoubtedly, B a n g ' s facsimiles are technically better t h a n t h e reproductions of t h e s a m e t e x t in Grönbech's otherwise splendid volume.
PROLEGOMENA TO THE CODEX CUMANICl'S 17
somewhat less attention. Such are: borei «(person)» with a h a t in place of borcci (87:27); the absence of k in the cluster of consonants indicates t h a t the word was recorded on the basis of pronounciation. The absent-minded scribe failed to notice that he took down t h e word bore «liat» correctly in the next line.
Also, ylias ay (72:12) «the first month of spring» in place of ile yas ay.
E . Teza21 made a thorough s t u d y of K u u n ' s edition after its publication, which Kuun answered in detail. The author appreciated the loyal criticism, and readily accepted a large number of corrections. The bulk of these errors were made through oversight, and inconsistent attention to abbreviations (sometimes retained, sometimes written out). Worse errors were the omission of words, and a t times whole lines. Teza succeeded in deciphering several of t h e hardly readable Italian verses.
From time t o time, however, Teza got carried away in his zeal, imputing to K u u n the printer's errors, which had already been corrected in «Addenda et Corrigenda.» One mistake generally invites another. Let us quote a passage of the Codex (p. 95:6 17), which Kuun edited with a line-shift. He corrected the mistake at the end of his book (p. 389), but not entirely. The list also con- tains errors of t h e copier of t h e Codex. From the facsimile the following (83:6 18) can be read:
Galanga Coligiá Choligia
Ladano Ladan Ambar
Mumia imfiri imfiri
N. sarche Girdahan indù
Oleű oliue Rugan yag
Oleü sufima
0. rofatű Rugay Gul Gulaf yage
0. violatú
0. nucis Rugan yGerdohá Chox yagi
Picis Cuft Samala
Réqriciü (Gul, crossed) Buyu
Rofa Gul Chulaf
The copier's errors are: Rugay Oal, in place of Rugan yGul; Cuft (Sust in Kuun's), in place of the correct Quft (commentators on the Persian material also use this form). The second line was in fact two lines in t h e original, the first retained L Ladano and P Ladan, but the C equivalent was missing. C Am-
21 Emilio Teza, Un' altra occhiata al Codex Cumanieus, in Rendiconti della R. Aca- demia dei Lindei, Classe de Scienze Morali, storiche e filologiche V I ( R o m a 1891), p p .
315 — 327. K u u n answered Teza's critical comments in detail in his p a p e r , Ujabb adatok [New D a t a ] ; see supra, n o t e 6. K u u n introduced t h e corrections which h e accepted f r o m Teza into his own copy, which is preserved t o d a y in t h e Manuscript D e p a r t m e n t of t h e H u n g a r i a n Academy of Sciences.
bar, on the other hand, was the third item of the missing second line, whose L and P equivalents escaped the scribe's notice.
Kuun's reading errors concerning any item in t h e Codex, are easy to correct now with the help of the facsimile. Correcting K u u n ' s mistakes, how- ever, dees not mean in the least t h a t the Coman, Persian, and other material, cleared of subsequent, added mistakes, will be completely authentic. W h a t has been shown of the passage quoted above from the Italian part holds true of the second p a r t too, worsened by the fact t h a t the scribes, well-intentioned but ignorant of the language, added numerous Coman language barbarisms.
No one doubts t h a t a distinction must be made between transliteration and transcription. The latter relies on the former; it explains and elucidats it.
T h a t is why transcription contains an individual hypothetical element. I n any given case it is u p to the researcher whether he acknowledges a transliterated Persian or Coman form either as authentic, or considers it an error of t h e copier.
The explanation of the transliteration, either accepting or rejecting, is after all an explanation meant to elucidate the reading as well as explain the string of problems stemming from it.
This appears to justify Kuun's method of edition according to which the material of the Codex is published in transliteration, with the editor's trans- cription and relevant explanations given in the notes. The method used in editing the works of classical authors cannot be imitated: one cannot p u t the interpreted t e x t , as thought correct by the given editor, in the forefront and relegate the correct or erroneous forms of t h e transliterated Codex to t h e foot- note section.
Scrupulous accuracy in transliteration is naturally not an end in itself, b u t its purity must be seen to. Washing over the differences between trans- literation and transcription could result in incorrect conclusions. W . Bang, whose contribution to interpreting the texts of the Codex is most valuable, committed this mistake. Interpreting the material of the Codex on t h e basis of the transliteration, he believed the Coman language to be eastern Turkish, although there can be no doubt t h a t it belongs to the Kipchak tongues.
By way of illustration, let us compare the strophe, «Ave porta paradisi», as semi-transliterated or semi-transcribed by Bang, and as transcribed by Drimba.22
22 I n K u u n ' s edition (see p . 186), t h e u n i n t e r r u p t e d Coman text is divided into verses. H e presumed t h a t a line consisted of seven or eight syllables. Bang, t h e perceptive, severe critic, failed t o notice K u u n ' s priority in these questions. This, however, does not excuse K u u n ' s readings, poor as t h e y were already in his own time. I n his e x e m p l a r y edi- tion Drimba (op. cit., p p . 265 — 299) included t h e Coman t e x t , its French t r a n s l a t i o n and t h e Latin original, b u t also an accurate list of earlier editions and critical comments, suggested emendations, t h e transliteration of t h e Codex (where necessary), and t h e diffe- rent readings of t h e L a t i n original (pp. 295 — 299).
