Remerciez-le!

Remerciez @Admin pour avoir partagé cet document gratuitement, de la manière la plus simple, en partageant sur les réseaux sociaux.

BRU. L Iran and the Caucasus Í7 {2013) g-25 Armenian Demonology: A Critical Ove

BRU. L Iran and the Caucasus Í7 {2013) g-25 Armenian Demonology: A Critical Overview' Garnik Asatrían Yerevan State University Abstract The paper is a critical study of the Armenian demonic nomenclature of the ancient and later periods, covering the Classical and Middle Armenian texts and modem dialects, in- cluding Westem Armenian traditions, which were alive until the first decades of the 20th century among the population of the Armenian provinces of the Ottoman Empire. The author presents a full list of the Armenian demons of different periods, critically revising the origin of their names and functions on a comparative background. Keywords Armenian Demons, Iranian Demons, Armenian Folk-Beliefs, Armenian Mythology, Iranian Folk-Beliefs ARMENIAN DEMONS OF THE CLASSICAL PERIOD The Classical Armenian demons are generally well-known and have been examined many times in the relevant literature in relation to the Iranian material or separately (see, e. g., Stakel'berg 1900: 18 ff.; Aliäan 1910; Sahaziz 1902: 45-57; Xostikean 1917; Têr-Polosean 1929; Garamanlean 1931; Ishkol-Kerovpian 1986; Russell 1987; Asatrian 1995; etc.) There are 21 names attested in Classical literature, denoting various kinds of malefi- cent beings: devk', k'ajk', cark', tirés, satana, Azazel, Béeizebui (in modern dialects Vehevui, Behebuh, Pekeon), visap, druz, aysk', payk', sidark', ci- waik', Sahapetk', Sadayel, Belial/r, hambaru, parik, yuskaparik, nhang, and heëmak (in the compound hesmakapastk' "worshippers of heSmak" in Ez- The enlarged version of the paper presented at the intemational conference Ad ulte- riores gentes: The Christians in the East (ist-7th c), organised by the University of Rome "La Sapienza", Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome, and IsIAO, Rome (March 13-14,2009, Rome). I am grateful to Martin Schwartz for his comments and valuable suggestions on this study. © Koninklijke Brill NV. U-idcn, 2(113 1)01:1U.11G3/1573384X.2U130103 10 G. Asatrian / ¡ran and the Caucasus 1 7 (2013) 9-25 nik, as a synonym oï satana). Most of those terms are transparent, being either of Iranian or Semitic origin. There are only a few genuine Armenian forms. The Semitic names are the so-called learned or literary words coming mainly from the Bible: satana, Azazel, Béelzebul, and BeliaL\ sidar(k') is probably from Syriac satar "crazy, stupid" (as suggested by Aèaryan 1977: 615-616; otherwise, see Russell 1987: 411)» and Sadayel, a later form meaning "Satan", but without a convincing interpretation.' The names of Iranian origin prevail by number and belong probably to the spoken language. Some of them can be easily identified with their Ira- nian parallels: dev{k^—with dév; hesmak (Georg, hesmaki)—from an un- attested MPers. *hésmak, Pahlavi xésm, Parthian ¿smag (cf. also Av. aés- ma- "wrath", also "demon of wrath"); parik—from MPers. parïk (Av. pairikä-, lengthily discussed by Bivar 1985; see, however, a more substanti- ated view in Schwartz 2008); and nhang "an aquatic monster"—from a MPers. *n¿hang (NPers. nahang "crocodile".^ For visap "dragon" compare Av. Azi Visäpa; hrës "monster"—from Iran. *Jras- (the -é- is due to a sec- ondary reference to hrèstak); and druz "a harmful dev"—from Parth. druz "demon" (Av. druj-, MPers. druz). However, the rest of the ostensibly Ira- nian forms require additional comments. Arm. sahapet (attested in Agathangelos and Eznik) denoted a class of supernatural beings, probably spirits of cultivated lands (sahapet vayrac% vineyards or even guardians of tombs; they are associated with aquatic and terrestrial reptiles, particularly with serpents, and appear mostly in the shape of snakes. Hübschmann (1897: 208-209), pointing to Av. söiSra- "homestead", söi$rö-päna- and Vedic ksétra- "living place" (ksétrapati- "guardian spirit of households"), reconstructed for Sahapet a hypothetic Avestan form, *sôi$ra-paUi-, meaning "ruler of a homestead" (see also Ish- kol-Kerovpian 1986:136; Schmitt 1976: 383-84; Russell 1987: 329 ff.). How- ever, as convincingly shown recently by M. Schwartz (2009), Arm. sahapet, as a chtonic figure, can only be derived from Olran. *xSa$rapat¿- "Lord of the (underworld) City/Realm" modelled (calqued) after Nergal, ' The Armenian Dictionary of Venice {Nor bargirk' haykazean lezui) explains it from satan + -el by analogy with other angelic names ending with this element (apud Afiaiyan, ibid.: 153). ^ In New Iranian, to my knowledge, this word as a term for "demon, monster" or yùl is preserved only in the dialects of the Kashan area {see Asatrian 2011: s.v.). G. Asatrian /Iran and the Caucasus 77 (2013) g-25 11 the Mesopotamian netherworld god, whose name goes back to a Sume- rian phrase "Lord of the Great City". It refers to a durable Mesopotamian conception of the realm of the dead as a large urban settlement. This god, Schwartz (ibid.: 149) says, "Patently non-Zoroastrian, would have been brought to Persia by the Magians as part of their old religion. Thus, Khshathrapati would have come to Persia from the Magian homeland. Media, and specifically Media Atropatene. This provenience would suit the northern Mesopotamian history of the Nergal cult, and the origin of the Armenian sakapef. It seems, the former theory of Bivar (1999: i6ff.) regarding Mithra as *xsa$rapati- "lord of the kingdom", should be aban- doned now. Linguistically, too. Arm. sahapet can be fairly traced back to Olran. *x§a9ra-pati-. It is supported also by the New Iranian data. Among the Gurans, Lurs, and Laks, there is a demon, sort of a succubus, which is called respectively sue, soy, and süvilsawa. It appears at night, usually to sleeping young men, in the appearance of a beautiful woman and causes pollution or, sometimes, suffocation (Asatrian, apud Yusefvand 2008: 279). Phonetically all these names can also be derived from the same Olran. etymon, *xsa9rapati-. However, the semantic side seems to be de- ficient, although it must be the result of a secondary reference to "night", as the Olran. *xsapa- in these dialects has similar phonetic outcomes. Nonetheless, we now have a more genuine form, sè/avé (mère éé/avè) in Kurmanji Kurdish, which I recorded some years ago from an old man in Diarbekir (Turkey). It denotes a tall human-like being, covered by thick hair and totally black, which betrays its chthonic nature. This demon lives in the fields and appears to people during cattle-plague and pestilence, or, rather, its very emergence causes these disasters.^ I have never met this name in any Kurmanji vocabulary or text published since M. Garzoni's Grammatica e vocabolario delta lingua kurda in 1787. Only in the ethno- graphical description of the Armenians of the Van Lake basin by a native pundit (Movsisyan 1972: 61), there is a short inter alia note on this imagi- nary being. The author says that it was the Kurdish name of "a very tall demon or spectre who frightened people"; nothing else. In any case, it is beyond doubt that these New Iranian demonic names must be genuine forms, having common origin with Arm. sahapet. How- ' Folk-etymologically, it is understood in Kurdish as mere Save "night-man". 12 G. Asatrian /Iran and the Caucasus ij {2013) g-25 ever, I should anticipate the examination of a later Arm. demon with re- gard to its alleged relation to êahapet. Some authors (see, e.g., Russell 1987: 329 ff.) describe them even together. I mean ssvod (or savot), the name of a class of evil beings persisted mainly among the Western Armenians, who believed they were invisible creatures living in houses, haylofts, and cattle-sheds during the winter. On the last day of February, the Armenians struck the walls or columns of the house and shouted: Savodi durs, martn i ners, i.e. "Out with the hvod and in with March", or "Éavod go out, March come in". There was a belief that savods often chose cats, especially the black ones as their mediums. The Savods seem to have been the personifi- cations of house spirits with dual nature—noxious and benign: at least nothing is reported about their harmful functions, although the Armenian folk beliefs categorise them as demons par excellence. Usually, house spir- its are personified by snakes, called sometimes dovlat', or barak'aV "wealth, welfare", or tnapan "protector of the house". Such a demon— with almost the same characteristics—called sißt (sißtes) is recorded also among the Cappadocian Greeks," taken probably from Armenian. Inci- dentally, in the beliefs of the Armenians of New Nakhijevan (Rostov on Don), ¿dvods (figuring there as zivots) have a quite different function: they are evil beings who become wheels, chase people and torture them (Sahaziz 1902:53). Anyway, the view that hvod is a shortened form oï sahapet, proposed by Rüssel, for instance (see ibid.: 333), leaving aside the semantic aspect of such identification, is also unacceptable by reasons of the inner-Armenian phonetic developments: Classical Arm. sahapet, had it been preserved, would sound in modern dialects something like *hpet (or *sdbed), not sdvod/t. Therefore, sovod must be, indeed, as rightly suggested by Aiaiyan (1977: 537), a loan-word from NPers. subät/t "February", itself a borrowing from Syriac Sabät A dialectal variant of the same lexeme, sißt, is pre- served in Classical Persian in the meanings of "a human-like demon" and "a maniac"; possibly this form may be the ultimate source of the Arm. " Cf. 'Aaíjiwv xpuTTroftevoç eiç xàç Staçopouç y^^viaç xat xà ÄSuxa xïjç oixiaç xctl ßXa7txuv ç xoùç èv aùx^, elxe Stà xu<pX(i)ff£wç i| x^Xucreuç, £Ïxe Sî àTïctycuYÎiç î) àXXayiîç 7rai8t»)v, Eixe 8Î à(j&EV£Îaç uploads/Geographie/ armenian-demonology.pdf