100
The Chronological Canon of James of Edessa.
(ZDMG. 53, 261 ff.)
By E. W. Brooks.
.With Dr. Fraenkel's interesting and instructive notes on my
text of the Canon of James of Edessa (ZDMG. 53, 534 ff.) I am
almost completely in accord and only ask to make some remarks
on a few small points in connexion with thern. With regard to
not only do I gladly accept Dr. Fraenkel's interpretation of
the word, but I can supply another instance of its use. In the
so-called Zachariah of Mitylene (Land, Anecd. Syr. 3, p. 219, 1. 4)
occurs the phrase ^^vn^ ^ OOO) ^jQJtJ ^V»J )Q->iJo , where in
the translation by Dr. Hamilton and myself Dr. Hamilton with
my concurrence proposed to substitute ^ix^j ^) ; but in the light of
Dr- Fraenkel's note I now see that this is wrong, and that the word,
as in James of Edessa, represents diuQiov^).
As to Jfc^aaV/, I never thought that any others than widows
in the ecclesiastical sense were meant, but I did not think it
necessary to state the fact. With regard to JJ,ov^J)^3 I should have
explained that I derived the supplement from Michael, who has
■.',«\jn c>)i|^^ . As to the form of the word , Castle
gives it, though without citing any authority.
Passing on to the Arabic passage, though I have clearly fallen
into blunders with regard to and ^)J/, Dr. Fraenkel has mis¬
understood me altogether in supposing that I thought the persons
questioned to be James and Moses. I can see now that a reader
might easily take it so, but, by 'them' I meant the natural philo¬
sophers"). Dr. Fraenkel however fails to note one result which
1) 'p. 171 note 2.
2) Since writing the above I have seen the translation of Dr. Ahrens, where the riüht interpretation is given.
3) This might have been inferred from the fact tbat I was giving the passage as a citation from James.
1 1
Broolcs, The Chronological Canon of James of Edessa. 101
follows from the correct interpretation of the passage, and that is
that the extract does not come from the Chronicle of James at
all, but from some work on natural phenomena"), possibly the
Hexaemeron, though I cannot find it in the text of M Martin
(Journ. Asiat. 1888, p. 426 ff.), and should therefore not have been
included in my publication at all. This was indeed suggested to
me by M Nau before my article appeared, but I could not then
reconcile it with which my non-observance of the fact that
introduces the oratio recta compelled me to understand in a
forced meaning.
I 4o not quite understand the force of the objection to mj
rendering of »^»-^ since I never thought that
in this expression did anything more than introduce an explanation
of an unusual word, but, as the English 'or', and, I suppose, the
equivalents in all other languages, often have the same meaning,
I saw no reason for any but a literal rendering.
Of the rest of Dr. Fraenkel's criticisms some are, I think,
due to ignorance of the fact (which, not having access to the MS,
he could not know) that the Arabic Michael is written in a strange
Syriac-Arabic jargon which is not recognised by dictionaries. While
engaged upon my translation of 'Zachariah' I frequently had occasion
to compare long documents word for word with Michael, and con¬
stantly found that the Syriac word was simply transferred to the
Arabic with little regard to its meaning in the language of the
Mohammedan Arabs. In many other cases also Arabic words seemed
to be used in unusual senses. This, I think, removes the objection
to the rendering of )0^|.V and explains by which the
translator in accordance with the meaning of the Syriac .-n^ ^
merely meant 'were blown about', though perhaps I should have
rendered it so instead of using the idiomatic 'shot'.
I tak^ this opportunity of stating that since the appearance
of my article M Nau has called my attention to a passage in
Michael, which, so far as it goes, tells against the identification of
James of Edessa and James Jl>r>> )o*.i. Our chronicle distinctly
assigns 7 months to Jovian, whereas Michael, while stating that
some authorities gave him 7 months or 1^ 7°>, says that James
of Edessa assigned him a full year. I cannot however think th^t
this is any thing but an error on the part of Michael*).
I am glad that Dr. Fraenkel withdi-aws his objection to the
statement about the Syrians in the Chronicle of 846, which I cannot
1) The record of the fact is of course on this interpretation quite distinct from the citation from James and Moses which follows.
2) Not of the Arabic translator, for M Nau saw the passage in the Syriac MS at Paris.
102 Brook», The Chronological Canon of Jame» of Edessa.
but think was somewhat unreasonable. I do not however think it
likely that the Arabs took the trouble to examine the assessment-
lists : more probably the Syrians formed a separate community
distinct from their Greek neighbours. Such wholesale transferences
of population were common in these times; thus we have a 'city
of the Slavs' by Mt. Tauros, a colony of Syrians was settled in
Thrace by Constantine Kopronymos"), and the people of Germani¬
keia were transferred to Al Ramla in Palestine by the Arabs''),
not to mention the well-known instance of the Mardaites. The men
here mentioned may have been Mardaites ; but more probably they
were Syrians who had been carried olf during the invasion of
Syria in 690*). I of course withdraw the suggestion that they
may have been in the districts traversed by the invaders on their
march : I was thinking of the celebrated inroad of Maslama in
716 and omitted to notice that the chronicler here states that the
Arabs came by sea.
1) Theoph. AM 6237.
2) Theoph. AM 6262. The mention of All Ramla I take from Michael.
For other such transferences see Theoph. AM 6183, 6247, 6254.
3) Recorded by Al Tabari and Al Balädhuri. This of course does not exclude tbe supposition that some of tbem may have been voluntary refugees, who would naturally join the existing Syrian communities.
103
Persica.
Von R. T. Stackelberg.
I. Kanbadän DiL
y> ^O^jJS heisst im DaqlqTstück des Schahname eine Feste"),
in welche König Gu^täsp seinen Sohn Isfandijär einschliessen lässt.
Die Forra ganbadän (in dem VuUers'schen Lexikon gunbadän)
verdankt ihren Ursprung wohl volksetymologischer Anlehnung an
np. J<.jS »Kuppel" 2). Im Folgenden soll der Nachweis versucht
werden, dass hierfür kanbadän (für eigentliches *kanbandän) zu
lesen ist.
Tabari I, p. 677, Z. 11—12 berichtet, Gustasp habe den
Isfandijär in einem Schlosse gefangen gesetzt, in welchem sich ein
Gefängnis für Frauen befand'). Dem arabischen iL*wüt ,ji*jc>- des
fabari würde ein persisches *kanbandän diz oder *dize kan-
bandän entsprechen , welches der Dichter in kanbadän verkürzt
hätte, da eine Form *kanbandän mit drei langen Silben in das
Metrum des Schahname nicht hinein passte*) Gebildet ist kanban-
1) Im Schahname p. 1550, v. 956: y> ^,ftX.uS; ibid. Anm. q (nach P) y^; ebenso hat p. 1552, v. 980: ^.,!i.\aäJ', wofür die Var. da»
blasse ijitXÄJ j ^liAijJ haben. Die Stelle p. 1565, v. 1194 — weicbe dem Daqiqi nicht mehr angehört — hat ^\iXjjS jJ.
2) Vgl. den Plur. ^.Jj^juS bei Daqiqi Schahname p. 1498, v. 60. Über das Wort vgl. Nöldeke, Pers. Stud. II, p. 41.
3) tLwJÜ! ^'-••«^ >^ l5'-^' o*'^ ^ "j**^ s —
4) Ähnliche Verkürzungen sind ^jjij^s (für farvardin) Fird. 156, 500;
317, 35; 1105, 696; ebenso >._.^.«»-ixf 451, 295; 859, 1631 für guSnasp. Vgl.
Köldeke, das iranische Nationalepos § 54.
1 1 «
