Category Archives: Armeno-Turkish Manuscripts

Reading Persian Advice Literature in Armeno-Turkish: Some Notes on the ‘Pearl-Adorned Pendnāme’

Armeno-Turkish Manuscripts, Mekhitharist Library, Uncategorized,

Tobias Sick (University of Münster)

The reception of Persianate literature in the form of translations in the Ottoman Empire as a field of study has gained more traction in recent years; however, studies pertaining to such translations in the context of Armeno-Turkish have hitherto not featured prominently in the literature.[1] Yet, there are examples that attest to the transmission of translated Persian literature in Armeno-Turkish already during the eighteenth century, attesting to the reception of such works in Armenian-speaking strata of Ottoman society as well. One case in point is the manuscript held under the shelf-mark Ms. no. 19 in the library of the Mekhitarist Congregation in Vienna, which contains a Turkish translation of the Persian poetic advice treatise Pandnāma-yi ʿAṭṭār in the Armenian script, and constitutes the focus of the following passages.[2]

The so-called Pandnāma-yi ʿAṭṭār or ʿAṭṭār’s Book of Wise Counsel (from here on Pandnāma) forms an important part of the tradition of Persian advice literature as featured in the mas̱navī form. While most likely not penned by its eponym, the Persian Sufi figure Farīd al-Dīn ʿAṭṭār (d. 618/1221), this poetic advice treatise was employed as a didactic textbook in a vast space that is largely congruent with the notions of the Persianate world or Shahab Ahmed’s Balkans-to-Bengal complex.[3] Its reception and transmission was particularly pronounced in the Ottoman Empire, where it was employed mostly in educational contexts throughout the early modern period, namely for the study of Persian (poetics), moral instruction, as well as a more accessible source for the supposed mystical thought of ʿAṭṭār.[4] Within this continuous reception, the Pandnāma was translated into Turkish in numerous instances, with at least one dozen verse translations (terceme/tercüme) and a multitude of commentaries (şerḥ) attested for the work, featuring various ways of rendering the contents of the source text in Turkish (as well as Arabic) and different formats of visual display in the respective manuscript corpora.[5]

The most popular of the verse translations is the Terceme-i Pendnāme-i ʿAṭṭār penned by the sixteenth-century divan poet Emre,[6] which is a Turkish rendition of the Pandnāma that was produced in the year 964/1556 in a courtly environment, namely on request of Prince (şehzāde) Bāyezīd during the reign of his father, Sultan Süleymān I (r. 926–974/1520–1566).[7] In the preface to the translation (titled “Der sebeb-i terceme şöden-i īn nāme”, On the Reasons for Translating this Book), the translator narrates the request of the prince as follows:[8]

Table 1: Excerpt from the translator’s preface of Emre’s translation (verses 41-42).

41دیدی ترکی ایله بوکا جامهٔطوتمش الده اشبو زیبا نامهٔ
42جلوه قلسون قوم رومه دمبدمرومی خلعتده بو محبوب عجم

He held in his hand this beautiful book, / said: ‘make for a Turkish garment’.

This beloved of Persia, in a Rūmī robe, / shall entice the people of Rūm perpetually.

Taking up this request, Emre produced a translation consisting of 65 chapters and 957 verses (distichs), which subsequently came to be the most popular of the many verse translations of this work (judging from the extant manuscript corpora).[9] This translation also includes, beyond the contents of the Persian source text, a Persian prelude, a translator’s preface, and a concluding chapter (all three of which were produced solely by the translator). In terms of the style of translation, the Turkish (Türkī) version of the Pandnāma exhibits several characteristics that are typical for Ottoman translations of Persian mas̱navī works at the time: While generally adhering to the structure and contents of the source text, the translation includes large portions of Arabic and, in particular, Persian words and phrases also included in the original,[10] and, with respect to the contents, occasionally exhibits instances of elaboration, disambiguation, and omission, as well as changes in the chapter structure (some of which might also stem from variants in the manuscripts used for translating).

As a fully substitutive translation work, in its manuscript corpus this translation presents only the Turkish rendering of the Pandnāma’s contents (in contrast to some of the other translations), and was likely created to be employed in a fashion similar to the Persian original, namely in educational contexts, especially for the instruction of adolescents, as Emre suggests at the end of the work himself:[11]

Table 2: Excerpt from the concluding chapter of Emre’s translation (verse 953).

953بونی ازبرلتدر اکا ای سعیدگر دلرسك اوله فرزندك فرید

If you want your child to be one of a kind, make them memorise it, oh happy one.

In recent years, the translation of Emre has been edited in the Latin script several times and was discussed in several publications and unpublished doctoral dissertations; however, the existence of an Armeno-Turkish rendition of the Pandnāma and, in particular, the very translation of Emre has not been discussed previously.

The manuscript in question, MS no. 19 held in the library of the Mekhitarist Congregation in Vienna, features 56 folios altogether with the text presenting a consistent 21 lines per page.[12] According to the title of the manuscript, the contained work is the Pearl-Adorned Pendname  (Mücevher Pendname, Միւճէվհէր Փէնտնամէ) of ʿAṭṭār, which is located between fols. 3a and 54a.[13] The codex measures 215×155 millimetres (the text 160×100) and is bound in paper with a leather book spine. The text itself is held mostly in the Notrgir script,[14] rendered in both black and red ink (mainly for headings and the initials opening a distich), and exhibits large decorative and, at times, zoomorphic initials at the beginnings of the individual chapters. On the first page, the copy features a coloured headpiece with a floral pattern but no title, as the title phrase is given below (fig. 1).

Fig. 1: Opening page of the work on f. 3a.

Comparing the beginning and final sections of the work, especially the preface, it becomes clear that the present text is not a novel, Armeno-Turkish translation of the Persian Pandnāma but an Armeno-Turkish rendering of the translation of Emre from 964/1556. Apart from the prelude and translator’s preface, even the final verses of Emre’s translation, which feature the date as well as the nome de plume of the translator, were transferred into this rendition (figs. 2 and 3).

Fig. 2: The final verse featuring the date of Emre’s translation on f. 54a.

AT transcript: տիտիլէր թարիխիտէ էյ մէրտիքեար / տիտիմ իշտէ նիւհի սատ շ[ա]ստիւ չիհար

AT transliteration:Didiler tariḫide ey merdikyar / dedim işde nühi sad ş[a]sdü çehar.

Translation: They said, ‘tell [us] the date, oh man of deeds’, / thus, I said ‘nine hundred and sixty and four’ (964/1556–1557).

Fig. 3: The taḫalluṣ of Emre on f. 54a.

AT transcript: էյ գամու տիւշմիւշլէրէ սէն տէսթիրէս / պօյի աֆֆըն էմրէի կիւմրահէ պէս.

AT transliteration: Ey ḳamu düşmüşlere sen destires / Boyi affın Emrei gümrahe bes.

Translation: Oh, for many fallen ones you reach / the fragrance of your forgiveness suffices for erring Emre.

The manuscript also features a colophon succeeding the final verse of the translation on f. 54a, which consists of a concluding phrase and the date 1224/1775. Due to the absence of any other information, it is unclear when precisely this new rendition was produced and whether the manuscript at hand is a copy or perhaps its single textual witness. In any case, the colophon attests to the existence of an Armeno-Turkish version of Emre’s terceme more than two hundred years after the completion of the work.

In terms of its structure, this new rendition features almost all parts of Emre’s work, including also the translator’s preface and conclusive passage attesting to the completion of the translation in 964/1556, making clear the relation between the two texts.

Table 3: Contents of the manuscript.

Fols.Section
3a–4aPrelude
4b–6aTranslator’s preface
7a–54aChapters 1–53
54aConclusion

Indeed, even the Persian prelude created by Emre was rendered into the Armenian script, constituting effectively an Armeno-Persian passage of 21 verses. In doing so, the Armenian alphabet was employed in a fashion similar to the Turkish passages, including the rendering of the Persian iżāfa (“ի”) also used in Ottoman genitive constructions, an apostrophe-like symbol to signify the letter ʿayn in the Arabic alphabet (see fig. 4), and the presence of mouillé consonants (such as “քեամ / kyam” in the Persian word “kām-bakhsh”).[15] As becomes clear from the vowels featured in this passage, the Persian was apparently read and, therefore, written in a Turkified pronunciation.[16] Compare the first four hemistichs of both versions (fig. 5):[17]

Fig. 4: Rendering of the Arabic-script letter ʿayn in the passage cited below.

Fig. 5: Opening verses of Emre’s prelude in Armeno-Turkish (f. 3a).

Table: 4: Comparison of a passage from the Persian prelude of Emre’s translation.

Transcript ATTransliteration ATTransliteration PTranscript P
Իպթիտա քէրտէմ պէնամի ան քէրիմibtida kerdem benami an kerimibtidā kardam bi-nām-i ān karīmابتدا کردم بنام آن کریم
միւպտիի’ քէվնէյն սուլդանի գատիմmübdiʿi kevneyn sulṭani ḳadimmubdiʿ-i kawnayn sulṭān-i qadīmمبدع کونین سلطان قدیم
փատիշահի միւհեիեի ա’զմի րէմիմpadişah-i mühyiyi ʿazmi remimpādishāh-i muḥyī-yi ʿaẓm-i ramīmپادشاه محیی عظم رمیم
քեամիճան պախշիւ տիլիւ ճանի եէթիմkyamican baḫşü dilü cani yetimkām-bakhsh u kām-kār-i har yatīmکام بخش و کامکار هر یتیم

In this fashion, all verses of the Persian prelude are presented in this copy, in addition to the Turkish translator’s preface, which is also given in full. The following chapters of the translation proper are then introduced via longer titles (which are to my knowledge not present in the extant copies of Emre’s work in the Arabic script), offering a description of their contents as is the case, for instance, in the title of the first chapter (fig. 6):

Fig. 6: Title of the first chapter (f. 7a).

AT transcript: Պիրինճի Պապ/ Պու պահըր մուսաննըֆըն համտիւ շիւքր իթմէքլինկի պէեանինտէտիւր.

AT transliteration: Birinci bab / bu bahır musannıfının hamdü şükr itmeklingi beyanindedür.

Translation: First chapter: This part is on the author’s praise [of God].

All of the 53 chapters apparently were to carry titles such as the one above, even though some were not inserted in this copy. The main difference in the number of chapters when compared to copies of the Arabic-script version of Emre’s work is due to the combination of several chapters in the Armeno-Turkish version, such as chapter 46, which combines chapters 53 and 54 (in the edition of Bilgin).[18] Apart from such fusions of chapters, which are present in part of the manuscript corpus of the Arabic-script version as well, the present rendition adheres rather strictly to the contents of Emre’s translation, both with respect to the verse numbers within the individual chapters as well as the precise wording of the verses. Thus, the Armeno-Turkish rendition cannot be considered a proper case of tradaptation, as it faithfully renders the Turkish of the source into Armenian letters.[19] As an example of the contents of the work, consider the following example from chapter 10:

Fig. 7: Beginning of chapter 10 on f. 13b.

Table: 5: A passage from the Armeno-Turkish version of Emre’s translation.

Transcript ATTransliteration AT
Աֆիեէթ իսթէրսէն էյ եարի ա’զիզAfiyet istersen ey yari ʿaziz,
արա անի չար չիզ իչինտէ թիզara çar çiz içinde tiz.
Պիրի էյմէնլիք պիրի նի’մէթ տիւրիւրbiri eymenlik biri niʿmet dürür
պիրի սըհհաթ պիրի ազատ տիւրիւրbiri sıhhat biri azad dürür

If well-being is what you seek, oh dear, look for it in four things, quickly.

One is safety, one is happiness; one is bodily health, and another one, freedom.[20]

Yet, there are also some parts of Emre’s translation which were not transferred into the Armeno-Turkish version and constitute a modification or adaptation. While these changes do not pertain to any of the characteristic passages that make possible the identification of Emre’s translation, they concern another set of chapters, namely the second and third chapters of the translation, which contain altogether 17 verses with praise for the Prophet Muḥammad, the first four caliphs, and the some of the founding figures of the Sunni religious schools.[21] Thus, the transfer of the work into Armeno-Turkish entailed the preservation of the largest portion of the work’s admonishing contents, including those parts which ensured the visibility of the original translator, whereas the distinctly Islamic passages of the translation were omitted.

As for its production, the manuscript (and, thus, the Armeno-Turkish rendition itself) bears no marks attesting to the specific context of its creation. Concerning its circulation, the manuscript bears – apart from the stamp attesting to its presence in the current library – only a small note on f. 2a stating that it was gifted to the Mekhitarist Congregation in Trieste on 1 February 1808 by a certain Philippus Tatarian Arynthiants.[22] Thus, the copy’s creation and whereabouts before 1808 remain unclear; however, it still serves to evidence yet another layer of transmission of the Pandnāma in the Ottoman context and, perhaps, one that is not related to settings of Islamic education.

On the usage of the Pandnāma in its Armeno-Turkish variety, not many historical accounts can be found. Yet, it is likely that it was produced to be employed in educational contexts, as was the case with the Persian original and Emre’s translation in the Arabic script as well. In terms of authors making mention of the work in contexts pertaining to Armenian or Armeno-Turkish, the Pandnāma is referenced, for instance, in the Armeno-Turkish primer to the Ottoman Turkish language and orthography titled Miftāhü’l-ʿulūm (Key to the Sciences) by Hagop Paşayan (published in 1873). In the preface to the book, the author mentions the “Counsels of ʿAṭṭār” (Pend-i ʿAṭṭār) among other famous works of Persian advice literature, such as the Gulistān of Saʿdī (d. 691/1292) or Nakhshabī’s (d. 751/1350) Ṭūṭīnāma, as being employed typically for the teaching of the “Ottoman language”.[23] Given the application of the Persian original and the translation of Emre in such contexts and the awareness of later authors such as Paşayan on this didactic applicability, the Armeno-Turkish rendition of the work might have been conceptualised for such an application as well. Even though Paşayan’s book appeared roughly a century after the manuscript at hand was produced, this educational usage of the Pandnāma in the Ottoman Empire persisted between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries and, thus, appears to have reached another important stratum of Ottoman society in its Armeno-Turkish form. Indeed, perhaps the intrinsic structure of the Pandnāma, namely its direct approach in giving advice, its linguistic accessibility, and the absence of passages on distinctly Islamic historical figures outside of the second and third chapters made it seem especially suitable to be rendered into another alphabet to be used in a non-Islamic context of moral or linguistic instruction.

Constituting thus an important albeit single witness to the reception of the (translated) Pandnāma within Armenian-speaking strata of Ottoman society during the eighteenth century, the present manuscript further serves to show the invariances and changes that the transfer into the Armeno-Turkish included for such instances of translated Persian literature. Yet, many questions remain in absence of more detailed contextual information, and, likely, further instances of this and other versions can be found, as there are some indications for other copies of the Pandnāma in the Armenian script.[24] However, after this brief discussion, the blog entry must end, and it does so with the Armeno-Turkish colophon on f. 54a of the manuscript, reading:

Fig. 8: Colophon of the work on f. 54a.

Թէմէթթիւլքիթապ պի ա’վնիլլահիլ մէլիքիւլ վէհհապ.

Temettül kitab bi ʿavni’llahil melikül vehhab.

Completed is the book with the help of God, the ever-bestowing King.

References

Ambros, Edith Gülçin, Hülya Çelik, and Ani Sargsyan: “Intertwined Literatures: Karamanlı, Armeno-Turkish, and Regular Ottoman Versions of the Köroğlu Folktale”, in: Evangelia Balta (ed.): Literary and Cultural Crossroads in the Late Ottoman Empire (Istanbul: Boyut, 2024), pp. 1–54.

Bilgin, Azmi: Terceme-i Pendnâme-i ‘Attâr (Istanbul: Enderun Kitabevi, 1998).

Çelik, Hülya and Ani Sargsyan: “Introducing Transcription Standards for Armeno-Turkish Literary Studies”, in: Diyâr, 3/2 (2022), pp. 161-189.

Dashian, Jacobus: Catalog der armenischen Handschriften in der Mechitharisten-Bibliothek zu Wien (Wien: Mechitaristenbuchdruckerei, 1895).

Emre, Terceme-i Pendnāme-i ʿAṭṭār, MS Süleymaniye Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi, İzmir 612.

Der Matossian, Bedross: “The Development of Armeno-Turkish (Hayatar T‘rk‘erēn) in the 19th Century Ottoman Empire”, in: Intellectual History of the Islamicate World, 8/1 (2020), pp. 67-100.

Drkić, Munir and Ehsan Reisi: “Dalāyil va ās̱ār-i ravāj-i Pand-nāma-yi mansūb ba ʿAṭṭār dar Būsnā” (The Causes and Effects of the Spread of the Pandnameh of Attar in Bosnia), in: Gawhar-Gūyā,14/2 (2021), pp. 151-170.

Kirakosyan, Hasmik: “The Orthographic Rules of the Eighteenth Century Armeno-Persian Gospels of the Matenadaran”, in: Iranian Studies, 53 (2020), pp. 295-330.

Kirakosyan, Hasmik and Ani Sargsyan: “The Educational Role of the Late Medieval Persian-Ottoman Turkish Bilingual Dictionaries”, in: Turkic Languages, 22/2 (2018), pp. 167-174.

Paşayan, Hagop: Miftāhü’l-ʿulūm (Istanbul: Aramyan Matbaası, 1873).

Strauss, Johann: “What was (Really) Translated in the Ottoman Empire? Sleuthing Nineteenth-century Ottoman Translated Literature”, in: Marilyn Booth (ed.): Migrating Texts, Circulating Translations around the Ottoman Mediterranean (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2019), pp. 55-94.

Johann Strauss, “Who Read What in the Ottoman Empire (19th–20th Centuries)?”, in: Middle Eastern Literatures, 6/1 (2003), pp. 39–76.

Yazar, Sadık: Anadolu Sahası Klâsik Türk Edebiyatında Tercüme ve Şerh Geleneği, Ph.D. dissertation (Istanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi, 2011).

Zweng, Kandida: “Pandnama: Kritische Textausgabe und Übersetzung der Urduinterpretation des klassischen persischen Lehrgedichtes Pandnama”, in: Acta Orientalia, 61 (2000), pp. 23-144.

[1] I want to thank Ani Sargsyan for making me aware of this manuscript and for her help with some of the readings. Moreover, this contribution was made possible through the Andreas Tietze Memorial Fellowship in Turkish Studies of the Department of Near Eastern Studies of the University of Vienna, and I am deeply grateful for the support and research opportunities I received in Vienna during September and October 2024. Furthermore, the research was conducted within the framework of the Emmy Noether Junior Research Group TRANSLAPT (uni.ms/translapt). Then, I want to also express my gratitude towards the Mekhitarist Congregation in Vienna and especially the librarian, P. Simon Bayan, for granting me access to the manuscript at hand. For studies addressing the proliferation and reception of (translated) Armeno-Turkish literature (primarily during the nineteenth century), see Ambros/Çelik/Sargsyan: “Intertwined Literatures: Karamanlı, Armeno-Turkish, and Regular Ottoman Versions of the Köroğlu Folktale”; Strauss: “What was (Really) Translated in the Ottoman Empire?”; idem: “Who Read What in the Ottoman Empire?”; Der Matossian: “The Development of Armeno-Turkish (Hayatar T‘rk‘erēn) in the 19th Century Ottoman Empire”. While not translations in the literary sense, the role of Persian-Turkish dictionaries in educational contexts have been discussed by Kirakosyan/Sargsyan: “The Educational Role of the Late Medieval Persian-Ottoman Turkish Bilingual Dictionaries”.

[2] For the entry in the physical catalogue, see Dashian: Catalog der armenischen Handschriften in der Mechitharisten-Bibliothek, p. 18.

[3] On the notion of the Persianate world, see Green: “Introduction: The Frontiers of the Persianate World”; on the Balkans-to-Bengal complex, see Ahmed: What is Islam?, pp. 73-75. For the early modern period, this vast transmission and reception is indeed attested in a space between the Ottoman Balkans and the Indian Subcontinent, as becomes evident from both manuscript sources and printed editions. To give only two examples, for a discussion of the reception and translation of the Pandnāma in the Balkans, see Drkić/Reisi: “Dalāyil va ās̱ār-i ravāj-i Pand-nāma-yi mansūb ba ʿAṭṭār dar Būsnā”; for a discussion of a translation into Urdu, see Zweng: “Pandnama: Kritische Textausgabe und Übersetzung der Urduinterpretation des klassischen persischen Lehrgedichtes Pandnama”.

[4] On different modes of reading for such Persian classics in the Ottoman context, see İnan: “Ottomans Reading Persian Classics”.

[5] For overview of the translations and commentaries produced on the basis of the Pandnāma, see Yazar: Anadolu Sahası Klâsik Türk Edebiyatında Tercüme ve Şerh Geleneği, pp. 376-397.

[6] On the attribution to this author, see Bilgin: Terceme-i Pendnâme-i ‘Attâr, pp. 17-18.

[7] On the date of completion, see ibid, 19.

[8] ​​Cited from MS Süleymaniye, İzmir 612, f. 2b. For the Latin-script edition, see Bilgin: Terceme-i Pendnâme-i ‘Attâr, p. 24.

[9] ​​While there are certain variations in the manuscript corpus of the work, these are the numbers as given by Azmi Bilgin in her Latin-script edition. For an overview of the chapters, see Bilgin: Terceme-i Pendnâme-i ‘Attâr, pp. 21-24.

[10] Bilgin: Terceme-i Pendnâme-i ‘Attâr, p. 21.

[11] Cited from MS Süleymaniye, İzmir 612, f. 29b. For the Latin-script edition, see Bilgin: Terceme-i Pendnâme-i ‘Attâr, p. 128.

[12] For the catalogue entry of the manuscript, see Dashian: Catalog der armenischen Handschriften in der Mechitharisten-Bibliothek, p. 18.

[13] The transliteration scheme employed in this blog entry conforms with the standards outlined in Çelik/Sargsyan: “Introducing Transcription Standards for Armeno-Turkish Literary Studies”.

[14] The titles are rendered in the Bolorgir or cursive script.

[15] On the usage of “ե” (y) after consonants in Arabic and Persian words in the Armeno-Turkish script, see Çelik/Sargsyan: “Introducing Transcription Standards for Armeno-Turkish Literary Studies”, pp. 175-176 and Ambros/Çelik/Sargsyan: “Intertwined Literatures: Karamanlı, Armeno-Turkish, and Regular Ottoman Versions of the Köroğlu Folktale”, pp. 31-32.

[16] Cf. the present orthography to the one found in Armeno-Persian works as presented in Kirakosyan: “The Orthographic Rules of the Eighteenth Century Armeno-Persian Gospels of the Matenadaran”.

[17] Cited from MS Süleymaniye, İzmir 612, f. 1b. For the Latin-script edition, see Bilgin: Terceme-i Pendnâme-i ‘Attâr, p. 29. The second hemistich of the second verse here constitutes a variant.

[18] Bilgin: Terceme-i Pendnâme-i ‘Attâr, p. 103.

[19] On this notion in the context of Armeno-Turkish translations and Chrisitan juvenile literature, see the blog post by Hülya Çelik and Ani Sargsyan titled “Christoph von Schmid in the Ottoman Literary Landscape: Armeno-Turkish Translations and the Shaping of Christian Juvenile Literature” in this blog.

[20] In the edition, āzādī instead of āzād is given. See ibid., p. 49.

[21] The chapters are given in Bilgin: Terceme-i Pendnâme-i ‘Attâr, pp. 37-39.

[22] Dashian: Catalog der armenischen Handschriften in der Mechitharisten-Bibliothek, p. 18. The entry in the catalogue also mentioned two small writings (on fols. Ib and 55b) mentioning the name “Giovanni” and “Giovantov”.

[23] Paşayan: Miftāhü’l-ʿulūm, p. 2.

[24] The study of the present manuscript and a survey of further Armeno-Turkish and Armenian versions of the Pandnāma is ongoing and more insights in this respect are to be published in the near future.

Unlocking Centuries-Old Medical Wisdom: Armeno-Turkish Selected Manuscripts from the 18th-19th Centuries

Armeno-Turkish Manuscripts, ,

A person’s health is under his teeth (Armenian proverb)

Lusine Khachatryan (Yerevan State University)

The purpose of this study is to explore Armeno-Turkish medical manuscripts, which are Turkish texts written in Armenian script, collected from the Matenadaran (Institute of Ancient Manuscripts, Yerevan) from the eighteenth to nineteenth centuries. including religious-philosophical treatises with sections on human physiology, drug books known as akhrapatin (ախրապատին), medical works and translations by both renowned and unknown authors, dictionaries in Turkish written with Armenian script, and practical manuals.

Most of these texts lack clear indications of their origin or time of compilation. Despite a recent surge of interest in Turkish manuscripts written in Armenian script (hereafter Armeno-Turkish), studies related to medical manuscripts have been largely overlooked by researchers. Limited information about these manuscripts is available only in the Matenadaran catalogues and in Hasmik Stepanyan’s bibliography.[1] Although Hakob Anasyan has explored the codicological features of Armenian medical manuscripts[2] his detailed analysis covers only four specific manuscripts from the Matenadaran.[3] Therefore, instead of exploring the codicological peculiarities of the manuscripts[4] this paper will focus on examining the main corpus of these codices, outlining the primary motivations of the authors and translators, and identifying the readership that had access to this translated and transcribed medical knowledge.

There are over thirty Armeno-Turkish medical manuscripts housed at the Matenadaran. These codices exhibit a wide variety of both content and linguistic styles. Notable[5] works include Ms 4026, which focuses on anthropology and includes a glossary of medicinal substances, and Ms 9559, a less decorated copy of Ms 4026 with consistent content but minor spelling differences​​. Ms 8102 is a translation and transcription of Dr. Zeyn al-Din al-Abidin’s work on nutritional therapy, highlighting the importance of diet in Ottoman medicine​​. Ms 10244, titled “Human Physiology,” is a translation of Abusaid’s work, intertwining Armenian and Turkish languages, and includes marginal annotations​​. Additionally, there are practical advisory manuals for everyday life, such as Ms 10346, which provides methods for obtaining oils and improving reproductive functions, and Ms 5538, an irregular mixed pharmacopoeia. These manuals, along with prescriptions for various diseases, offer useful household advice, such as methods for removing ink marks from clothes and recipes for making ink. The volume of unstudied material is substantial, making it challenging to provide exhaustive answers to all questions within a single article.

For instance, Ms 4026 lacks any reference to the author or translator, and the period and place of writing are unknown. The content focuses on anthropology and includes a glossary of medicinal substances derived from herbal, mineral, and animal origins. Judging by the degree of elaboration of the language, one assumes that it is transcribed from (Ottoman-) Turkish. The pages are decorated with ornaments, indicating a meticulous approach to its presentation (see illustration 1).

Illustration 1, Ms 4026 f. 001r

The pages of the copy of the same manuscript, Ms 9559, are less decorated (see illustration 2); the content remains consistent with the original, apart from a few spelling differences that may be attributed to transcription errors (see table below)​​.

Illustration 2, Ms 9559, f. 001v
MS 4026MS 9559Translation
Müḳaddema ilmi   tıb mevzui ve tarifi beyaninde dürMüḳaddema ilmi   tıb mevzui ve tarifi beyaninde dirintroduction of medical science and description  
Ve bu ilmi tıbıñVe bu ilmi tıbınand this knowledge   of medicine
Ve bu ilmi tbbnñmevzui eşref  maḫluḳat olan ınsanñ bedeni Ve bu ilmi tbbnñmevzui eşref  maḫluḳat olan ınsanñ bedeni and this medicine the subject along with the noble creature human body
Table 1: Ms 4026 and MS 9559 in comparison

Although no information about the author or the place of compilation of Ms 9559 has been preserved, the existence of a copy suggests its significance and popularity at the time. This indicates that the manuscript was likely widely circulated. Additionally, the text of this manuscript is very similar in both content and style to the texts of other notable manuscripts, such as Ms 8102, which covers nutritional therapy by Dr. Zeyn al-Din al-Abidin, and Ms 10244, which is titled “Human Physiology” and combines Armenian and Turkish languages with marginal annotations.

Ms. 8102 is a translation and transcription of the work by Dr. Zeyn al-Din al-Abidin, who held the position of chief physician in the hospital founded by Fatih in Istanbul during the reign of Sultan Murad IV (1623-1640). The manuscript, dating back to 1724, consists of two parts. The first part is a translation from Ottoman Turkish to Armenian, with a small head-note by the translator mentioning the source Turkish text (տաճիկ). The second part (ff. 24v-49v) contains an Armeno-Turkish transcription-translation of the work, which discusses nutritional therapy—considered one of the pillars of Ottoman medicine.[6] A great deal of attention was given to a proper diet, eating, and sleeping regime. More radical means of treatment were applied only when necessary, with surgical intervention being a last resort. Ms 8102 supports this view, with all chapters devoted to describing the nature of diets, food, and minerals, based on the paradigms of ancient Greco-Roman medicine, particularly Plato’s teaching on the four elements. The data from natural sciences and medical branches such as anthropology, pathology, pharmacology, and nutrition were also interpreted according to the principles of this theory about the cosmos (macrocosm) and man (microcosm). For example one reads Geyik eti ḫar yabis dir[7] (Venison is hot [and] dry); Taze balık rutub ve barid (Fresh fish is moist and cold); ḳuru yemişlerin tibatlerine dir (about the nature of dried fruits). [8] cevahirin tabietlerin ve ḫasselerin ve vicüdi insane mütealik fayide lerin beyan ider.[9] About the benefits of gems and patuskha (A type of very soft cotton cloth; sateen) for the human body. Like the other manuscripts here the author also refers to their predecessors, especially Galeonos (129c.-216c.), whose works, as emphasised by many researchers, formed the basis of the general concepts of Islamic and Ottoman medicine.[10]  In this manuscript, the author often refers to Galeonos and Aristotle accordingly. Thus, one reads that “[…]Calinos hakım ider layık olan bu dur ki..[11] (Calinos considers it correct; what is proper is this.); or […] emma Calinos ider. Tazesi yurei sürer.[12] (But Calinos says, the fresh one is healthy) Or […] Arastatlis ider.[13](Aristotle says that).

Ms 10244 is the translation of the work by Abusaid, titled “Human Physiology.” Abusaid, an Assyrian scholar, resided among Armenians and Greeks in Cilicia, and was known for translating ancient Greek literature into Assyrian and later into Arabic, the lingua franca of the Muslim world at the time. His work significantly contributed to the preservation and dissemination of Greek knowledge throughout the Islamic world, facilitating cross-cultural intellectual exchanges and influencing various fields of study as philosophy, science, and medicine.[14]Among Abusaid’s works, only his treatise on human composition has survived in the Armenian version. It is noteworthy that the Matenadaran houses over thirty copies of this particular work,[15] although the Armeno-Turkish version remains unstudied. Additionally, Ms 10244 contains prescriptions and a pharmacy book, which are partly in Armenian. In these texts, Armenian and Turkish languages are intertwined in a mixed form. For instance, “ve (սօղուն) soghunler ki elan denilir” (soghunler: soghun [Armenian for reptile] + ler  [Turkish suffix for plural], which translates to “soghunler that is called yilan” [Turkish for snake]. Another example is a chapter title written in Armenian:  “Vasn steghtsman srti” (“For the creation of the heart”), followed by a mixture of Armenian and Turkish: “Yaratdi alah yuregi bir padişah cami vicude sıcak ve kuru edti onu ve cami herar eti kodu vicude sıcaklik yurekden gelir ve yurekde asla durmaz…” (And God created the heart as padishah for the whole body, made it warm and dry, and heat flows from the heart and never stops…)[16].

Apart from references, the manuscript contains marginal annotations and explanations to the main text, and it is not easy to determine whether the marginalia belong to the author or the readers. Medicine, like any other science, could not develop in isolation. When discussing Ottoman medicine, it must be viewed within the broader context of Islamic medicine, which was founded on various civilizational influences (e.g., Indian, Persian, Greek, etc.). Among these, the Greco-Roman paradigms were particularly influential. While authors of medical treatises acknowledged and respected many of the great masters who came before them, Galeonos is the most frequently referenced in their works. For example, in Ms 10244, the author-scribe mentions that “The masters of old carefully and deliberately chose medical knowledge among the sciences. These ancient masters valued and heeded the wisdom of both the Greeks and the Jews”.[17] “[…] ilacların faydalığı ki ḳulandiler ustaṫ hekim ler. ḳalianos. aristotel. ṗagrad. ve bunlerden yayıdi cemi miletlere. uṙumelie bağ(d)ade. aceme hinde ve cemi dunyaye ne şekil ki hagdan verildi yogardan ve olduler ṗirer ilimdar menşur hekim. ve bunların ustağınden çoḳ ler ustaṫ oldu ve tercube etṫiler ki biri bunlerden abu sayid denilir”… ( and the benefits of medicine which the master physicians such as  Gallianus, Aristotle, and Bagrat, applied, and from them [their knowledge] spread to all nations like the Baghdad Greeks,  Persians, the Indians, and to the whole world.  In addition, it was gifted from God and they became educated and renowned doctors. And many of them from these masters became skilled gained experience and one of them was called Abusayid…)” [18]

Influence and Integration of European Medical Knowledge

Starting in the 11th century, European physicians sought out books written in Arabic. The works of Razes, Avicenna, Abul-Kasis, and El-Medjuchi were translated into Latin. However, the Arab scholars themselves were significantly influenced by and benefited from the works of Galeonos and the teachings of Hippocrates (450c.-380c. BC), Dioskorid (40c.-90c.)[19]. Although conventionally called Islamic medical paradigms had been circulating for a long time in the Ottoman environment, in the 15th and 16th centuries, the main directions of medicine gradually began to undergo changes.[20] 

As Boyar emphasised, the earliest Ottoman Turkish translations of European medical texts appeared around 1500, marking the first transcultural contacts. [21]  The turning period of the appropriation of European medical knowledge can be observed in the second half of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century in the Ottoman Empire. [22]  Manuscript Ms 9711, a bilingual Armenian and Armeno-Turkish treatise written in 1768, indicates that the Armenian readership was already somewhat acquainted with the works of European physicians. This work discusses various kinds of diseases, including mental diseases and human organ systems. For example, referring to the lymphatic system, the author uses the term “lymph” to describe it ([…] ona lınfa denir ve bu hem sulu dur hem zamgiyetli […] (it is called lymph, and it is both watery and thick…). [23]

The second part of the work analyses pathology in detail. Apart from the translation of Islamic medical works mentioned above, this work introduced European medical knowledge to its Armenian and Turkish speaking Armenian recipients. At the end of the text, the colophon provides details about the work as the following: “the work is translated into Ottoman Turkish by the great Spanish physician Julia from Latin language by the request of a doctor from Costandnopolis Karapet, then it was proofread by Manuel the priest, and the priest Georg appreciated doctor Karapet that he wrote this medical book both in Armenian and Turkish (տաճկեվար) for the benefit of my nation.”[24]

The several annotations on later owners (doctor Mkhitar from Kesaria, doctor Movses) as well as a verse quatrain in Armeno -Turkish dedicated to incurable diseases approve the wide circulation of the manuscript. It is clear from the manuscript’s text that this medical school already employs entirely different concepts and terminology compared to its predecessors, which are closer to our understanding of modern medicine. This evolution in medical knowledge warrants further investigation from the perspective of medical history.

Another example of reflection of the Ottoman – European medical transcultural contacts is the Ms 9583, entitled Ḫamsetu l-Hayati (Quintet of Hayati) and translated in 1772. According to the Armenian colophon of the translator and the scribe Nikolaios, it is Armeno-Turkish transcription (տաճկական տառից ի հայկական տառս փոխարկել) of the well-known work by Mustafa Ḫayatizade or Mustafa Feyiz. Additionally, Nikolaios mentioned that he provided “two-three” copy of the same work, which in its turn shows the demand and practical meaning of the work. Then he adds the following: “I could barely finish my book called Ḫamsetu l-Hayati, with great difficulty [and] I compiled Arabic and Persian dictionary according to alphabetical order especially for inexperienced [people]”[25].  Furthermore, he mentions that he dedicated his work to Doctor Jacob” and to the whole Armenian (Haikazian) nation.[26]   

It is noteworthy that the glossary contains not only Arabic and Persian loanwords but also Latin equivalents and herbal names as the followings: Ali esphagos oti, yani diş oti Ali espagos / (It means toothwort, (plumbago europaea); Alleriḳ. Acḳarnıne dimek dür[27] (That is what they call hunger).

Moreover, the work obviously drew upon Latin texts authored by various European writers from the sixteenth century and the first half of the seventeenth centuries and discusses diseases like syphilis and plague, which were newly discovered during this period and whose treatments were not readily found in the earlier treatises of renowned physicians.[28]

Folk Medicine and Practical Compendiums

The manuscripts mentioned above represent examples of medical treatises that were known and circulated throughout the Ottoman Empire. Օne should not ignore the fact that a significant segment of the population lacked access to the healthcare facilities. To fully understand Ottoman medicine, it is crucial to study the branch of folk medicine, which combines practical herbalism, mysticism, and superstition. Rhoad Murphey highlighted the limited sources available for studying this topic, emphasising the importance of medical notebooks, diaries, and prescription books.[29] These seemingly inconsequential, small-scale edicts and charms played a crucial role for individuals lacking access to courtly literature. The prevalence of compendiums catering to folk medicine suggests their extensive utilisation. These compendiums, along with their prescriptions, incorporated elements of superstition and mysticism, as evidenced by the manuscripts under discussion. Among the manuscripts, there are those containing astrological charms as well as prescriptions. The Ms 9906, for example is a collection of prescriptions in several languages: Armenian, Armeno-Turkish, Persian and Arabic (illustration 3, 4).  

llustration 3, Ms 9906 f.  007v           Illustration 4, Ms 9906, f.008v

Ms 10183 contains medicinal names and translations of plant names in Armeno-Turkish, as well as magical words in a secret language and horoscopes. The stylistic composition of this manuscript differs from others, as it includes both prescriptions and incantations written in a secret language and Armenian script (illustration 3, 4, 5) Ms 5538 is an irregular mixed pharmacopoeia with a handwritten statement in Armenian. The second page (f. 001v) is titled “Chemistry,” but it discusses more about a prescription describing a method of obtaining a substance.

Illustration 5, Ms 10183 f.005r

Ms 10346 is a similar bilingual manuscript, written in 1856 in Urfa (in the Armenian part of the manuscript named it as Edesia). According to the colophon, the work was compiled by the priest Petros as a gift to the son of surgeon Grigor (Cerrah Grigor): The works ranges from various prescriptions and methods for obtaining oils described in either Armenian or Armeno-Turkish, or a mixture of both languages. For example, there is an entry “yağ ğırınfili” (clove oil) and its recipe[30]. Sometimes lexical mixed Armenian and Armeno-Turkish clarifications are provided in the texts, such as in the following:  […] as mormeni kokın, vor tach’ikn boghurtlan kasi/ (here is the root of blackberry (rubus), which Turks would say boğurtlan).[31]

Moreover, these brief collections of prescriptions provide more insight into practical domestic medicine than works that resemble religious-philosophical treatises in their meaning.

Thus, one can see that manuscripts written in Armeno-Turkish contributed to the proliferation and popularisation of Turkish as a scientific language of medicine for the time. The authors, through their supplementary dictionaries and marginal notes, sought to make the content as accessible as possible to both Armenian-speaking and Turkish-speaking members of the Armenian community, specifically noting in the records that “writing in two languages serves the benefit of the people.” These manuscripts were instrumental in disseminating knowledge throughout the multicultural and multiethnic Ottoman Empire, reaching beyond major educational hubs to even the peripheries. They played a crucial role in establishing Turkish as a scientific language of medicine. The inclusion of dictionaries, commentaries, and annotations by translators made this knowledge accessible to a broader audience. Despite their significant impact, these medical manuscripts have been largely overlooked by researchers and warrant in-depth, comprehensive study. Furthermore, discovering equivalent originals and performing comparative analyses would offer valuable insights into the evolution and cross-cultural exchanges in medical knowledge.

[1] Hasmik Stepanyan, “ Ts‘uts‘ak hayeren dzeṛagreri hayataṛ turk‘eren nyuteri ev hayataṛ turk‘eren dzeṛagreri” [Catalogue of Armeno-Turkish materials of Armenian manuscripts and Armeno-Turkish manuscripts] (Yerevan: Published by the author, 2008), 245-251.

[2] All the examined manuscripts are listed under the title “Medicines” in the Matenadaran catalogues.

[3] Hakob Anasyan, “ ZhĚ  darum gruats hayatar turkeren ch‘ors bzhshkaranner”, [Four Armenian Script Turkish medical works compiled in the eighteenth century which were MSs 4026, 8102, 9711, 9583 ], Shoghakat‘ (1977): 100-10; See Haykakan matenagitut‘yun E-ZhĚ darerum,  Bzhshkagitakan nyut‘er- Germanos Kostandnopolsets‘i” [The Armenian Bibliography  in the Fifth- eighteenth century, Medical materials] Vol. 3. (Yerevan; Zangak-97, 2004), 40-45.

[4] All the examined manuscripts are listed under the title “Medicines” in the Matenadaran catalogues.

[5] The initial observations indicate that the mentioned works revolve around core concepts, conveying the author’s and/or the scribe’s own additions and ideas in a literary language characteristic of the era. These initial findings suggest that the manuscripts house important and professionally valuable works from that period, which are under the scope in the further study.

[6] Miri, Sheffer-Mossenson, Ottoman Medicine Healing and Medical Institutions, 1500-1700, (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 2009), 30.

[7] Ms 8102, Mashtots Matenadaran, Ancient Manuscripts collection (hereafter Matenadaran), f. 030v. All translations are my own unless otherwise stated.  The Armeno-Turkish transcriptions are according to the scheme suggested by Hülya Çelik and Ani Sargsyan. See “Introducing Transcription Standards for Armeno-Turkish Literary Studies”, Diyâr, 3. Jg., 2 (2022): 161–189.

[8] Ms8102, Matenadaran, f.036r.

[9] Ms8102, Matenadaran, f.041v.

[10]Arslan Terzioğlu, “Galen and his Influence on Turkish-Islamic Medicine,” in Beiträge Zur Geschichte Der Türkish-Islamischen Medizin, Wissenschaft und Technik, ed. by Arslan Terzioğlu et al., 11-17. (Istanbul: Isis, 1996).

[11] Ms 8102, Matenadaran f. 027r.

[12] Ms 8102, Matenadaran, f. 037r.

[13] Ms 8102, Matenadaran, f. 041v.

[14] Nükhet Varlık states that there were very few books in spoken Turkish in the palace library, “The overwhelming majority of titles in this section is written in Arabic—the lingua franca of medicine in the Islamicate world in the mediaeval and early modern eras. There are eighteen titles in Persian, and five in Turkish.” Varlık, Nükhet. “Books on Medicine: Medical Knowledge at Work.” In Treasures of Knowledge: Studies and Sources in Islamic Art and Architecture, Supplements to Muqarnas, An Inventory of the Ottoman Palace Library (1502/3–1503/4), Volume I, 527-557. Leiden: Brill, 2019.

[15] Stella Vardanyan, Hayastani bzhshkut’yan patmut’yun, hnaguyn zhamanaknerits minch’ev mer orerĕ, [The history of Armenian medicine from ancient times to the present day], (Yerevan: Qnnaser, 2000.), 122.

[16] Ms 10244, Matenadaran, f. 004v

[17] […]Doğru ve kikir ile seçmiş ler ilimdalar hekimlik ustalığı esḳi zaman ustaleri ve rumların ve yahudilerini bilmişler ve doymişler[…], see Ms 10244 Matenadaran, f. 002r.

[18] Ms10244, Matenadaran, f 002r.

[19] Karapet Basmadjian, Amirdovlatʿ of Amasya, Angitats Anpet: am Bararan bzhshkakan niwtʿosʿ[Ignorant useless, dictionary of medical materials], Vienna, 1926, 4.

[20]Spyros N. Michaleas, Konstantinos Laios, Gregory Tsoucalas, and Georges Androutsos, “Theophrastus Bombastus Von Hohenheim (Paracelsus) (1493–1541): The Eminent Physician and Pioneer of Toxicology”, Toxicology Reports 8 (2021): 411-414.

[21] Ebru Boyar, “Medicine in Practice: European Influences on the Ottoman Medical Habitat.” Turkish Historical Review 9 (2018): 214-215.

[22] Ebru Boyar, “Medicine in Practice: European Influences on the Ottoman Medical Habitat,” 217.

[23] Ms9711, Matenadaran, f.018v.

[24] Ms 9711, Matenadaran, f. 171r.

[25] Ms 9583, Matenadaran, f.203r-250v.

[26] Ms 9583, Matenadaran, f. 200r.

[27] Ms 9583, Matenadaran, f. 203r.

[28] Sisman Cengiz, “Transcending Diaspora: Studies on Sabbateanism and Dönme. Hayatizade Mustafa Efendi (Moshe ben Fafael Abravanel), The Physician- in-Chief of the Ottoman Palace: Marrano Legacy, Ottoman Medicine and the Sabbatean Movement, Libra (2016): 83. 

[29]Rhoad Murphey,”Ottoman Medicine and Transculturalism From the Sixteenth Through the Eighteenth Century.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 66, no. 3 (Fall 1992): 376-403.

[30] Ms 10346, Matenadaran, f. 002v.

[31] Ms 10346, Matenadaran, f.  007r.