Introduction: Pseudo-Gregory of Nyssa’s Contra Manichaeosin medieval Armenian tradition

In medieval Armenian literature, a number of philosophical and theological writings have been attributed to the 5th–6th century philosopher David the Invincible, a representative of the Alexandrian Neoplatonic school.1 One of these writings is a brief treatise on good and evil,2 linked in Greek tradition with the names of the fourth-century Church Fathers Gregory of Nyssa [Gregorius Nyssenus 1863], Didymus the Blind [Didymus Alexandrinus 1858], and the sixth-century author John of Caesarea (the Grammarian) [Richard, Aubineau 1977: liv–lviii(for the text, see 131–133)].3 In Armenian manuscripts it appears without a title,4 with the incipit “Every evil is punishable” (Ամենայն չար տանջելի / Amenayn chʻar tanjeli) (hereafter: Amenayn chʻar),5 and is attached to David the Invincible’s major philosophical work, Definitions of Philosophy.6 The Definitions is the Armenian translation of David’s Prolegomena philosophiae — a general introduction to philosophy, similar to the prolegomena of other Neoplatonist authors. David provides six definitions of philosophy, presents his reflections on the existence, nature, and distinctive qualities of philosophy. He divides philosophy into the theoretical and the practical.7 The Definitions of Philosophy was a basic philosophical treatise taught in medieval Armenian schools and universities.8 Therefore, the pseudepigraphical writing Contra Manichaeos/Amenayn chʻar became very popular in medieval Armenian literature due to its attribution to David, and, in particular, its position as the final chapter of his Definitions.

The prominent medieval Armenian author Catholicos Nersēs Shnorhali (1102–1173) wrote a commentary on the Amenayn chʻar at the request of Bishop Stepʻanos (see [Melkonyan 2024: 498–501]). Describing the Amenayn chʻar as “very small in quantity, but very great in quality” the author believed it to have been written by David as the final chapter of the Definitions [Nersēs Shnorhali 2022: 574].9 The mid-fourteenth-fifteenth century theologian Aṛak‘el Siwnets‘i composed an extensive commentary on the Definitions, including the Amenayn chʻar, at the request of his students and spiritual brothers [Aṛak‘el Siwnets‘i 1797: 147].10 In addition to these two commentaries, an anonymous interpretation,11 appended to the scholia on the Definitions, was identified in the manuscripts. This paper presents the editio princeps, an English translation and an analysis of this anonymous interpretation. The manuscript context of the text will be discussed, based on three manuscripts from the Mashtots‘ Matenadaran. In order to identify the source(s) and method of composition of the anonymous author, some passages will be compared with the relevant sections in the commentaries by Nersēs Shnorhali and Arakʻel Siwnetsʻi.

The manuscript context of the anonymous interpretation

Three manuscripts containing the scholia on the Amenayn chʻar have been identified at the Mashtotsʻ Matenadaran.12 These are M55, M1931 and M2220. M55, the earliest example (copied in 1489, in the Saint Yakob monastery in Erznka), is a collection of commentaries, causes and scholia on Basil of Caesarea’s, Dionysius of Areopagite’s, Gregory of Nyssa’s, Nemesius of Emesa’s, Pseudo-Aristotle’s works.13 It also contains scholia on grammar.14 The scholia on Gregory of Nyssa’s On Virginity are followed by an interpretation of David the Invincible’s Definitions of Philosophy (fol. 369r–405r), entitled “Definitions said by David the Philosopher” (Սահմանք ասացեալ ի Դաւթէ փիլիսոփայէ, Sahmankʻ asatsʻeal i Dawtʻē pʻilisopʻayē)15. In M1931 (15th century, the place of copy is unknown), which contains causes and scholia on grammar, on Porphyry, Pseudo-Aristotle, Philo, Cyril of Alexandria and Gregory of Nazianzus, the scholia on the Definitions follow the scholia on Grammar.16 M 2220 (copied in 1789–1790, in Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin by Deacon Zakʻaria) is a miscellany containing scholia and commentaries on biblical pericopes and philosophical works, as well as sermons, homilies, the sayings of philosophers, and ecclesiastical canons.17 The scholia on David’s Definitions and the Amenayn chʻar follow the commentary on Aristotle’s Analytica by the 18th-century Armenian theologian, Archbishop Petros Berdumean.

The scholia on Definitions contain brief explanations of individual words and expressions from the Definitions, sometimes with the chapter number in the margins.18 First, the anonymous commentator provides the corresponding lemma (a word or a phrase), and then presents his explanation, often using the conjunction “that is” (այսինք, aysinkʻn) to introduce it. Sometimes, he just rephrases the reference in simpler terms. Thus, the first expression explained in the scholia on Definitions is “sane ecstasy”19 (ողջախոհ մոլութիւն / oghjakhoh molutʻiwn) — from the incipit:

Those who have once been fired with love for philosophical discourse, even if they have savoured its sweet delights with but the tip of a finger, are impelled towards them by sane ecstasy and bid farewell to all earthly cares [Arevshatyan 1960: 2].20

The following passages explain and annotate other words, expressions and even proper names from the Definitions, for example: eghjiwrakʻagh (եղջիւրաքաղ), and aralez (արալեզ) from the following phrase:

For some things, the goat-deer and aralez, for example, have no existence (except) so far as they are the product of our thought, while other things do have existence [Ibid.: 2].21

To explain the meaning of the word aralez (արալեզ), the commentator recounts the famous legend of King Ara Geghetsik (the Beautiful) and the legendary Assyrian queen Shamiram (the Semiramis of Greco-Roman sources), known from the History of Armenia by Movsēs Khorenats‘i [2003: 1793–1795]. According to the legend, when Shamiram mourns her beloved Ara’s death, the gods gather and inform her that they know of an animal that can lick him and bring him back to life. This animal was said to constantly lick the earth’s soil. However, ultimately, the commentator reveals that this is a myth: the animal only existed in name, not in reality [Muradyan 2014b: 748].

The final term to be explained in this section is “imagination” (երեւակայութիւն/erewakayut‘iwn) from the 24th chapter of Definitions: “Reason, reflection and opinion are rational, and sensation and imagination are irrational” [Arevshatyan 1960: 156].22 This term has been described as:

Imagination bears in mind what has been forgotten, and makes it reappear in the mind, which in irrational animals exists as anger or desire [Muradyan 2014b: 759].

At the very end, the expression “Thrice great David” (եռամեծն Դաւիթ / eṛametsn Dawitʻ) from the final section of the Definitions (“Thus end the prolegomena of philosophy by the thrice great and invincible philosopher David...” [Arevshatyan 1960: 158]23) is explained as follows:

The thrice great David, who had the natural, the acquired and the God-given grace: [all] three. The natural grace was one he had from childhood, and the acquired [grace] was that he worked hard, suffered and studied philosophy very well, and then God gave him another grace and made him successful, so he won everyone over [Muradyan 2014b: 759] (cf. M55, fol. 45r).

In the three manuscripts under consideration (M55, M1931 and M2220) the scholia on the Amenayn chʻar24 follow immediately after this explanation, without a separate title. The first phrase, the introductory part, in all three manuscripts is marked in red.25

The anonymous scholia and the commentaries on the Amenayn chʻar by Nersēs Shnorhali and Aṛakʻel Siwnetsʻi

As mentioned above, there are two other commentaries on the Amenayn chʻar, by Nersēs Shnorhali and Aṛakʻel Siwnetsʻi, in medieval Armenian literature.26 In the preface to his commentary, Nersēs Shnorhali raised two questions.

1. Why did the philosopher write about good and evil?

2. What are good and evil and whence is their cause?

Nersēs provides the following explanation in answer to these questions:

For in ancient times a certain sophist named Pyrrho and those who followed him, said that philosophy, which is a divine gift down from heaven to humans, does not exist. Moreover, some have written that evil is uncreated [lit: an uncreated state] and is inherent in those who possess it. But the most wicked ones said that both good and evil are influenced by God in people’s hearts. For this reason, the true-thinking philosopher, who was Armenian by nationality and homeland, and was like the Greeks by education, felt compelled to write this work against this issue, so that people would not be misled by this terrible deception of Satan and believe that evil is uncreated or created by the uncreated God [Nersēs Shnorhali 2022: 575].

The introduction by the anonymous author reads as follows:

Some people said that evil is uncreated and inherent in those who possess it. They also said that both good and evil are influenced by God in the people’s hearts. For this reason, the philosopher David was compelled to demonstrate that evil is not uncreated, inherent in or imposed upon man , nor is it given to people by God.27

Clearly, the anonymous author based his introduction on Nersēs Shnorhali’s preface. It should be noted that Aṛakʻel Siwnetsʻi himself followed Nersēs, but he added some details. Of particular importance was his mention of Mani, the Persian founder of Manichaeism:

Secondly, [he wrote] against those who said that evil is an uncreated state and the nature of those who possess it — that is, against Manik‘os (= Mani. — A. M.) — who said that the world has two beginnings: one good-uncreated, which is God; and one evil-uncreated, as if there were another evil god... (M1849, fol. 114v).

I suppose that the anonymous author had both the commentaries by Nersēs and Aṛakʻel at his disposal. For instance, when he is explaining the expression “all the contraries”, he follows Aṛakʻel’s examples rather than Nersēs’s. In his commentary, Nersēs provides the following explanation:

This is according to nature, because cold and heat, humidity and dryness are opposite to each other and destroy each other [Nersēs Shnorhali 2022: 581].

The anonymous commentator provides different examples for the things to be opposite: “life to death, darkness to light, white to black, good to evil”. These examples, therefore, are more similar to those provided by Aṛakʻel Siwnetsʻi:

What does it mean when he says that all contraries destroy each other? Answer: things such as illness and health, death and life, evil and good, corruption and incorruptibility, light and darkness, warmth and cold, humidity and dryness, and so on (M1849, fol. 117v).

While it is possible that the anonymous commentator simply provided his own examples independently, it seems that in this passage he followed Aṛakʻel’s logic rather than that of Nersēs.28 This does not mean that the scholia are merely a compilation of previous commentaries. In some passages, the anonymous author also developed his own ideas and used terms and explanations that differ from those of the two commentators. For example, for explaining the expression “the mutable good” (փոփոխելի բարին / pʻopʻokheli barin), the author uses the term “dissembling/false good” (կեղծաւոր բարին / keghtsawor barin) to describe the good that humans possess, as opposed to God’s good. He compares this to а short garment. Nersēs Shnorhali offered a different interpretation of “the mutable good”. According to him, since created beings are mutable, the good in them is also mutable. The mutable good is defeated by evil not because evil is powerful and good is weak, but because the person with good gives way to evil of his own free will and choice. In this way, good flees from evil and is defeated, just as light is driven out by darkness [Nersēs Shnorhali 2022: 581]. Aṛakʻel Siwnetsʻi also discusses how good can be defeated by evil. However, he does not focus on the term “mutable good”, as Nersēs and the anonymous commentator did.

In conclusion, in the three manuscripts studied, which are collections of interpretations, scholia, causes on theological, philosophical and grammatical works, the anonymous scholia on Pseudo-Gregory of Nyssa’s Contra Manichaeos / Amenayn chʻar continue the scholia on the Definitions of Philosophy by the philosopher David the Invincible. This reflects the medieval Armenian tradition, according to which the Contra Manichaeos / Amenayn chʻar was attributed to David and attached to his Definitions. The scholia on Amenyan contain concise explanations of individual words and expressions, such as: “Every evil is punishable”, “an accident”, “all the contraries”, “the mutable good” etc. A comparison of some passages shows that the anonymous author made extensive use of the commentaries on the Definitions / Amenayn chʻar by Nersēs Shnorhali and Aṛakʻel Siwnetsʻi. However, the author also provided examples and considerations that differed from them. The scholia in question most likely served a practical and educational purpose, being used as auxiliary material for studying the Amenayn chʻar and its commentaries. A more complete understanding of this writing and its anonymous author can be achieved by considering it alongside the scholia on the Definitions — that is the first part of the text — just as these two works were perceived in medieval Armenian tradition. More broadly, examining the scholia and the medieval collections in which they appear would deepen our understanding of the interpretative genre, particularly with regard to the supplementary materials and methods employed in the study of philosophical, theological, and grammatical writings.

The edition below is based on M55, fol. 405rv (A) in comparison with M1931, fol. 97rv (B) and M2220, fol. 63rv (C). The complete syllogisms from which the interpreted phrases are derived are presented in the footnotes and are marked with an asterisk (*). English translation: [Contin 2019: 85–86].

Abbreviations

NBHL = Awetik‘ean, G., Siwrmēlean, Kh., & Awgerean, M. (1836). Nor Baṛgirk‘ Haykazean lezui [New Dictionary of the Armenian Language] (Vol. 1). I Tparani Srboyn Ghazaru.

1 There have been numerous studies written about the life and work of David the Invincible. For a general overview, see [Chʻaloyan 1980; Mahé 1990; Contin 2017: 33–57]. For information on the attribution of different writings, see [Melkonyan 2012, Muradyan 2014a].

2 “Every evil is punishable. Nothing subjected to suffering/punishment is uncorrupted. 2. Nothing corruptible is uncreated, and as evil is corruptible, then evil is not uncreated. 3. Nothing is evil by nature, and because evil is an accident and no accident is substance, and consequently evil, too, is no substance...” For the English translation of the entire text, see [Contin 2019: 85–86].

3 A thorough lexical and textual analysis has been carried out by Benedetta Contin, who compared the Armenian text with the Greek versions published under the names of Gregory, Didymus and John of Caesarea, see [Contin 2019, 84–97].

4 See [Zarbhanalean 1889: 373–374; Muradyan 1993: 50–53]. For more about the manuscript tradition see [Melkonyan 2026, forthcoming].

5 All Armenian names and words are transliterated according to the Library of Congress 2022 system https://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/armenian.pdf. All translations from Classical Armenian are my own, unless otherwise indicated.

6 This manuscript tradition is reflected in the editio princeps of the Definitions of Philosophy in Constantinople in 1731, where the Definitions is followed by the Amenayn chʻar, as well as in the Madras edition of 1797, and two editions of David’s works in Venice (in 1833 and 1932). The Amenayn chʻar was not included in the critical text edited by Sen Arevshatyan in 1960.

7 For more about the Armenian version of David’s Prolegomena Philosophiae and its relationship with the Greek text, see [Calzolari 2009].

8 For the teaching and learning of the Definitions in the Middle Ages, see [Calzolari 2022: 121–124; Alpi 2022: 166–167].

9 There is also a Latin translation by G. Cappelletti [Nersetis Clajensis 1833: 13–32].

10 The chapter on the Amenayn chʻar is missing from this edition. There is an Eastern Armenian translation of this work, see [Aṛak‘el Siwnets‘i 1996], which includes a Classical Armenian text at the end [Ibid.: 60–91]. However, this is not a scholarly edition, and it lacks a critical apparatus. As the editors mentioned, it was published purely for pastoral purposes. I am currently working on a new edition. In this paper I will refer to Ms M1849 (copied in 1440) for Aṛak‘el Siwnets‘i’s commentary. The siglum M stands for the Matenadaran — Mesrop Mashtots‘ Institute of Ancient Manuscripts (Yerevan).

11 The title does not specify whether these are scholia or a commentary. Generally, a commentary refers to a treatise as a whole, while the scholia are usually shorter and only explain some of the more obscure words, phrases and expressions within the treatise. Therefore, in comparison with other similar writings, I have characterised it as scholia. The Armenian word for scholia is lutsmunk‘ (լուծմունք, plural nominative of lutsumn, լուծումն ‘solution’, ‘dissolution’) and has been used in a variety of senses. The verb լուծանեմ (lutsanem ‘untie’, ‘break’, ‘loose’, ‘decide’, ‘analyse’, cf. Greek λύω, διαλύω, Latin solvo, dissolvo) is also widely used in Armenian medieval literature. As a technical term “to explain”, “to interpret” an issue, the verb is attested already in the 5th century, see [NBHL 1836: 894–895]. For an analysis of the formation and development of the interpretive genre in medieval Armenian literature, see [Shirinian 2005: 132–157].

12 Further study would unearth more copies.

13 For a description of the manuscript see [Eganyan et al. 1984: 211–224].

14 For the anonymous scholia on Grammar see [Sirunyan 2022: 42–53].

15 M55, 369r. In the Manuscript Catalogues, as well as in [Muradyan 2014b: 748], this text is conventionally defined as “A Commentary on David’s Definitions” (ՄեկնութիւնՍահմանացն Դաւթի / Meknutʻiwn Sahmanatsʻn Dawtʻi).

16 For the description see [Tēr-Vardanean 2012a: 607–616].

17 For the description see [Tēr-Vardanean 2012b: 479–488].

18 See also the introductory note in [Muradyan 2014a: 623]. As Muradyan mentions, the work contains some elements of Middle Armenian; however, a linguistic analysis of the treatise is beyond the scope of this paper.

19 In [Muradyan 2014b: 748] the expression “sane ecstasy” (ողջախոհ մոլութիւն / oghjakhoh molutʻiwn) is included in the title. I suggest that this is the first phrase to be interpreted.

20 Engl. trans.: [Kendall, Thomson 1983: 3].

21 Engl. trans.: [Kendall, Thomson 1983: 3].

22 Engl. trans.: [Kendall, Thomson 1983: 159].

23 Engl. trans.: [Kendall, Thomson 1983: 159].

24 The 2014 edition does not include the scholia on the Amenayn chʻar.

25 In the manuscript catalogues [Eganean et al. 1984: 218; Tēr-Vardanean 2012a: 611; 2012b: 481], the interpretation on the Amenayn chʻar is appropriately presented as a separate work, with the incipit serving as the title.

26 I am not aware of any interpretations in other languages.

27 See the text bellow, paragraph 1.

28 Sirunyan [2022: 52] concludes that the anonymous author of the scholia on Grammar mainly used Aṛakʻel Siwnetsʻi’s grammatical commentary. It is possible that this author is the same one who created the scholia on the Amenayn chʻar.

29 C ազդեալ.

30 C իմաստասիրիս.

31 B կամ > և ոչ.

32 B +ի C չար.

33 C մարդիկքն.

34 B գործես.

35 * “Every evil is punishable. Nothing subjected to suffering/punishment is uncorrupted.”

36 C om.

37 * “Nothing is evil by nature, and because evil is an accident and no accident is substance, and consequently evil, too, is no substance”.

38 B ընդդիմակ.

39 B որպէս.

40 B սեւու.

41 B չարու.

42 B om.

43 B անեղն.

44 * “All the contraries are destructive of each other. Then, contraries are not incorruptible”.

45 C զոր.

46 BC մարդն.

47 B յաղթուի.

48 C պարտուած.

49 BC մարդիք

50 B ցանկաց

51 * “No uncreated being is mutable, and the good which is defeated by evil is liable to be changed. Good, then, is not uncreated”.

52 B + այսինքն.

53 B մարդիք C մարդիկք.

54 C մատնել.

55 C չարագործք.

56 C են.

57 See John 8:34.

58 This is not an interpretation of a specific phrase/word, but rather a rephrasing of the following syllogism: * “Then, the Divine Writings condemn to the sufferings not only what is evil, but also the liar himself. (They say that) everything which is subjected to suffering is also alterable [and] nothing which is alterable is uncreated. Consequently, nothing coming from what is evil is uncreated”.

59 C ընդդիմակք.

60 B + և ընդդիմակ.

61 C om. ի հարկէ, թէ կենդանի է մեռած չէ.

62 B + միւսն.

63 * “Realities which are wholly opposite, have no equality, because what exists by necessity in one, does not exist in the other”.

64 C փափագէ.

65 * “Everything which duly desires something, adapts its own desire to the [desired] thing, if it desires reasonably”.

66 B և.

67 B գործն.

68 C + ուրեմն.

69 * “So, if evil was uncreated, evil should subsist in it by nature. Nothing that acts according to nature, commits sins. What does not commit sins, is not subjected to reprehension, but Satan is subjected to reprehension. Therefore, Satan, too, is not uncreated”.