Jews in Ancient and Medieval Armenia:

First Century BCE - Fourteenth Century

CE Michael E. Stone
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/jews-in-ancient-and-medieval-armenia-first-century-b
ce-fourteenth-century-ce-michael-e-stone-2/
Jews in Ancient and Medieval Armenia
Jews in Ancient and Medieval
Armenia
First Century bce to Fourteenth Century ce
MICHAEL E. STONE AND ARAM TOPCHYAN
 Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the
University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing
worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and
certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.
© Oxford University Press 2022
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing
of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms
agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning
reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition
on any acquirer.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Stone, Michael E., 1938- author. | Topchyan, Aram, author.
Title: Jews in ancient and medieval Armenia : first century BCE
to fourteenth century CE / Michael E. Stone and Aram Topchyan.
Description: New York : Oxford University Press, [2022] |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2021058954 (print) | LCCN 2021058955 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780197582077 (hardback) | ISBN 9780197582091 (epub)
Subjects: LCSH: Jews—Armenia (Republic)—History.
Classification: LCC DS135.A83 S76 2022 (print) | LCC DS135.A83 (ebook) |
DDC 947.560492/4—dc23/eng/20220210
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021058954
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021058955
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197582077.001.0001
 Contents

Preface
Acknowledgments
Introduction
Abbreviations

1. “Ararat” and Armenia in the Bible and Associated Traditions

1.1 Genesis 8:4
1.2 Isaiah 37:38
1.3 Jeremiah 51:27
1.4 Concerning a City Built after Exit from the Ark
1.5 “Land of Ararat” in a Document of the Late First Century CE
1.6 The Ark in Apamea
2. Jews in Armenia in the Ancient Period (First Century BCE to Fifth
Century CE)
2.1 Introductory Remarks
2.2 The Oldest Evidence in Armenian Literature: Jews
Deported from Armenia by the Persians (368/9 CE)
2.3 The Historical Background: The Events of 363–368/9
2.4 The Information on the Conquest of the Cities: Accurate or
Legendary?
2.5 P‘awstos Buzand, 4.55
2.6 What Do the Numbers Indicate and What Might “Jews”
(հրեայք) in P‘awstos Buzand Mean?
2.7 How Did the Jews Come to Armenia?
2.8 Greco-Roman Sources on Tigran’s Deportations
2.9 The Countries from Which Tigran Could Have Expatriated
Jews
2.10 The Eight Armenian Cities with Armenian-Jewish
Populations
2.11 Herod the Great’s Descendants on the Throne of Armenia
 2.12 Information on the Jewish Origin of Armenian Princely
Families in Movsēs Xorenac‘i
2.13 Jews Converted to Christianity in Armenia
2.14 Linguistic Issues: Possible Hebrew Words in Armenian
2.15 The Word for “Jew” in Armenian
2.16 Concluding Remarks
3. The Middle Ages
3.1 The Main Routes of Medieval Armenia
3.2 Jews in the Capital Dvin (Seventh through Ninth Centuries)
and the “Jewish Singers” in the Region of Vaspurakan
(Ninth Century)
3.3 Jews in Kapan (Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries) and a
Jewish Physician at the Monastery of Geret‘in (Thirteenth
Century)
3.4 Jews in Vayoc‘ Jor (Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries)
3.4.1 The Seljuk Attack and the Vayoc‘ Jor District
3.4.2 The Results of Ōrbelean Policy
3.5 The Cemetery
3.5.1 The Village of Ełegis
3.5.2 The Tombstones
3.5.3 The Inscriptions and the Character of the
Community
3.5.4 The Decoration
3.5.5 Persian Origin of the Jewish Community
3.5.6 Conclusions
3.6 Why Do the Jews Disappear from Our Sources
(Supposedly, in the Fourteenth Century)?
3.6.1 The Inscription of the Church Spitakawor Astuacacin
as Additional Evidence
4. Other Armenian-Jewish Connections
4.1 Armenian Pilgrims and Pilgrimage to the Holy Land
4.1.1 Pilgrimage
4.1.2 Pilgrims between the Fourth Century and the
Muslim Conquest
4.1.3 Pilgrim Graffiti
4.1.4 Pilgrimage in the Sixth to Eighth Centuries
 4.2 References to Armenia in Ancient Jewish Literature
4.2.1 Possible References in Talmud
4.2.2 Identifications of Armenia in Medieval Jewish
Sources
4.2.3 Later Jewish Identifications of Ashkenaz
4.2.4 Later Jewish Information about the History of
Armenia
4.2.5 Medieval Jewish Identifications of and Traditions
about Armenia
4.3 A List of Armenian Cities in Judeo-Arabic
4.4 Armenia in the Khazar Documents

Notes
Bibliography
Index of Personal, Ethnic, and Geographical Names
 Preface

The genesis of this volume lies in the activity stimulated by the

discovery of the Jewish cemetery in Ełegis and its inscriptions, work
carried out by Michael Stone and the late David Amit in cooperation
with the Institute of Archeology and Ethnography of the Armenian
Academy of Sciences and its late director, Aram Kalantaryan, with
the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and with the Israel Antiquities
Authority. That discovery stimulated research into the Jews in
Armenia in which Aram Topchyan took a most significant and active
part. Subsequently, Stone and Topchyan decided to continue
working on this subject, which resulted eventually in the present
book.
The various chapters and sections were written by Stone and
Topchyan as follows:

Stone: Chapter 1; Chapter 2, Sections 2.1 and 2.14–15; Chapter

3, Sections 3.4–5; Chapter 4.
Topchyan: Chapter 2, Sections 2.2–2.13 and 2.16; Chapter 3,
Sections 3.1–3 and 3.6.

Each author bears responsibility for his contribution.

The maps have been prepared by Mitia Frumin. Maps 1 and 2 are
based on B. H. Harut‘yunyan and V. G. Mxit‘aryan, Հայաստանի
պատմության ատլաս Atlas of the History of Armenia, 2 vols.
(Erevan: Macmillan Armenia and Manmar, 2004, 2015), 1.26–27 and
80–81.
Biblical quotations are taken from the NRSV. Transliteration of
Armenian follows the system of the Revue des études arméniennes.
Armenian manuscripts are assigned sigla according to the system
endorsed by the Association Internationale des Études
Arméniennes. Abbreviations for biblical, apocryphal, and
pseudepigraphical books follow the SBL Handbook of Style, 2nd
edition, except that all apocrypha and pseudepigrapha are italicized.
Translations of Armenian sources are by the present authors, unless
otherwise noted.
 Acknowledgments

Deep thanks are expressed to Dr. David and Jemima Jeselsohn,

who generously supported this project. Their support was
instrumental in the book coming to fruition.
We are grateful to Maria Ushakova and Matthew Wilson, our
research assistants, both of whom assisted us greatly, particularly in
the course of the finalization of the work.
A special debt of gratitude is owed to Dr. David Sklare for drawing
our attention to relevant material in the Cairo Geniza manuscripts.
He guided us and made his own learning available to us.
 Introduction

It has long been accepted that, unlike neighboring Georgia, Armenia

has not had a sustained Jewish minority over the centuries. This
popular wisdom seemed to be strikingly challenged by the discovery
in 1997 of a medieval Jewish cemetery with Hebrew and Aramaic
inscriptions in the region of southern Armenia called Vayoc‘ Jor.1
Stimulated by this discovery, the authors sought further evidence in
Armenian and Jewish sources for Jewish settlement in Armenia.
These efforts bore some fruit, and it is these results that are
presented here.
It is, indeed, impossible at present to write a continuous history of
Jewish presence in Armenia, since there is no evidence of sustained
Jewish settlement in the Land of Ararat. Nonetheless, there are
episodic sources existing in Armenian, Arabic, Hebrew, and other
languages that attest the presence of Jews there. If we think of the
history of Jews in Armenia as a dark tunnel, then the extant sources
cast light upon patches of the tunnel, without illuminating it to all its
length. It is to the elucidation of these patches of illumination that the
present book is dedicated. As so often in historical writing, the
statements made here are presently the most plausible way of
accounting for the surviving data. New finds, documentary,
archaeological, or epigraphic, may engender modification of some
statements, and in adding to our knowledge may force us to modify
our assertions. As an outcome of the varied and different data and
considerations adduced in this book, the Jewish presence in
Armenia is now a factor to be considered by all studying the history
of the region.
In the last chapter, information about Armenia and Armenians
garnered from Jewish sources from Late Antiquity and the Middle
Ages is presented, as well as some information about Armenian
pilgrims to the Holy Land, two subjects that illuminate other
dimensions of Armenian-Jewish interface and contacts. These data
do not show anything directly about the presence of Jews in
Armenia, but they do reflect the ongoing contacts between the two
communities as well as illustrating knowledge (or the lack thereof)
about Armenia among Jews in the Diaspora and in the land of Israel.
 Abbreviations

ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary

AJ Josephus Flavius, Antiquitates Judaicae (Antiquities of the Jews)
BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon
(Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1906; repr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson,
1997)
BJ Josephus Flavius, Bellum Judaicum (War of the Jews)
CUP Cambridge University Press
DSD Dead Sea Discoveries
EJ Encyclopedia Judaica
GCS Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller
HATS Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies
HUAS Hebrew University Armenian Series
HTR Harvard Theological Review
IDB Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
JANES The Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JE Jewish Encyclopedia
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies
JPS Jewish Publication Society of America
Jub Book of Jubilees
JRS Journal of Roman Studies
JSAS Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
LCL Loeb Classical Library
LXX The Septuagint, Greek translation of the Old Testament
MT The Masoretic Hebrew text of the Old Testament
m, t, b, y (in references): Mishnah, Tosefta, Babylonian Talmud, Palestinian
Talmud
n.a. no author
n., nn. note, notes
NBHL G. Awetik‘ean, X. Siwrmēlean, and M. Awg‘erean, Նոր բառգիրք
հայկազեան լեզուի New Dictionary of the Armenian Language, 2 vols.
(Venice: St. Lazzaro, 1837)
NRSV New Revised Standard Version, English translation of the Bible
OLA Orientalia Louvainiensa Analecta
OUP Oxford University Press
PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly
p., pp. page, pages
PPTS Palestine Pilgrim Text Society
RB Revue Biblique
REArm Revue des études arméniennes
SBL Society of Biblical Literature
SBLEJL Society of Biblical Studies Early Jewish Literature
SBLSBS Society of Biblical Literature Sources for Biblical Study
SGFWJ Schriften der Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaft des
Judentums
s.v. sub vocem, under the entry
SVTP Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha
UPATS University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts & Studies
 1
“Ararat” and Armenia in the Bible and Associated
Traditions

The examination of ancient Jewish sources starts with the Bible.1

The first and most famous reference to Armenia is inferred from the
mention of the “Mountains of Ararat” in Genesis 8:4, talking of the
resting place of Noah’s Ark after the flood. The biblical sources show
us what knowledge of Armenia was current in ancient Israel, even if
they do not ultimately provide information about Jews settled in
Armenia.

1.1 Genesis 8:4

The biblical text in Genesis 8:4 reads:
And in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came
to rest on the Mountains of Ararat (‫)טררא הרי‬.

The dominant medieval Armenian tradition identifies “the Mountains

of Ararat” of the Bible with the two-peaked mountain that, down to
the present day, the Armenians call or Sis and Masis. Among other
factors, the twin peaks were understood to account for the plural
“mountains” in the text of Genesis. Noah’s Ark is thus reputed to
have landed in Historical Armenia on the higher peak (5,165 meters)
of Mount Masis’s two peaks, or else on, or better between both of
them.2 As we shall see, the identification of the “Mountains of Ararat”
in Late Antiquity was more complicated.3
It is generally accepted that the biblical name “Ararat” is
connected with the name “Urartu,” designating a pre-Armenian
people of the Armenian Highlands, who had a large empire in the
late second and first millennia BCE. “Urartu” is the form of their name
in Assyrian.4 In addition, in a subsidiary remark, Garsoïan interprets
the variant reading hwrrṭ “Hūrarat” for “Ararat” in Isaiah 37:38, which
occurs in the Qumran Isaiah scroll designated 1QIsaa, as “showing
quite indubitably” that the biblical reference is to Urartu—presumably
because of the long ū or ō in the first syllable.5 The central region of
the Urartian Empire was in the area of Lake Van, in Historical
Armenia.
The Septuagint translation of Genesis (third century BCE) renders
the Hebrew as ἐπὶ τὰ ὄρη τὰ ’Αραρατ “on the Ararat mountains,”
transliterating the name of the mountain. This adds no information to
the text of the Hebrew Bible, and, because they used this
transliteration, the Greek translators did not express any specific
geographical identification for “Mountains of Ararat.” In the
Hexaplaric tradition, however, the reading preserved by the witness
οἱ λ´(= οἱ λοιποί reliqui) is Ἀρμενίας “of Armenia.” This variant
reading shows an explicit relation of the Mountains of Ararat to
Armenia, though it does not identify the mountain specifically, nor
does it indicate which area is designated Armenia.
The connection between Ararat and Armenia is also to be found
in the writings of the pagan rhetor Apollonius Molon of the first
century BCE. He is quoted as saying that “the man who survived the
flood left Armenia with his sons, having been expelled from his
native place by the inhabitants of the land. Having traversed the
intermediate country, he came to the mountainous part of Syria,
which is desolate.”6 It is clear, then, that, in the first century BCE in
the Hellenistic world and also in the Jewish Hellenistic world, the
Mountains of Ararat were thought to be in Armenia. This is also the
view of the well-known Jewish historian Josephus Flavius, who lived
from 37/38 to 100 CE (Josephus, AJ 1.90 and 1.92).7
The attempt to identify the “Mountains of Ararat” more specifically,
as we have noted, raises problems. Early in the Christian era, the
Aramaic Bible translation called Targum Onqelos reads ‘l ṭwry qrdw
“on the mountains of Qardo,” that is, Gordyene, modern Kurdistan. In
addition, the Palestinian Targum Neofiti evidences the same
tradition, and it has the spelling qrdwn “Qardon.”8 There is reason to
think that in many matters Targum Onqelos reflects a Babylonian
tradition.9 The name “Qardo/u” that Targum Onqelos gives also
occurs in certain Hexaplaric witnesses to the Septuagint of Genesis,
which attribute the reading καρδι to “to hebraikon” and “hē syrē.”
Thus, all these witnesses identify the Mountains of Ararat with
Qardu, that is, with Korduk‘ or Gordyene and, therefore, with
southern mountains of present-day Kurdistan.10 This name is also
known to Midrash Genesis Rabba 33:4, which glosses “on
Mountains of Ararat” as ‘al ṭûrê qardoniya “on the mountains of
Qardoniya.”11 Berossus says that the land where Xisouthros’s ship
came to rest was “the land of Armenia”12 and that a small part of the
ship remains in “the mountains of the Cordyaeans in Armenia.” This
material, which is drawn from Berossus’s Chaldaica, is transmitted
by the eighth-ninth-century Byzantine chronographer George
Syncellus.13 Most likely, Berossus or the retailers of Berossus were
influenced by the biblical narrative. For Berossus, as Syncellus
recounts, the Mountains of Ararat are the Mountains of Gordyene,
and they are in Armenia. This means that the southern extent of the
area designated by “Armenia” varied with the vicissitudes of
history.14 This variation provided an opening for harmonization of the
various traditions.15
The identification of the Mountains of Ararat with mountains south
of Lake Van was old in Armenian tradition as well. In the fifth century,
the historian P‘awstos (3.10) knows the name Sararad. Some have
considered this name to be the result of a misreading of his
Armenian phrase i lerins Araratay as i leṙin Sararaday (i.e., “on the
Mountains of Ararat” is misread as “on the mountain of Sararad”),16
though the context in P‘awstos, and especially the second reference
to the same name in that chapter, weighs against such an overly
simplistic explanation.17 One wonders whether it is likely that a well-
known name from the Bible would be corrupted, by whatever textual
process, to an otherwise unattested form. Regardless, in his
Historical Atlas, Robert Hewsen marks a mountain named Sararad
(with a variant Ararad) on his map 110 E4, but this name, he informs
us, is based on P‘awstos.18
 Josephus cites yet a third tradition, this time from Berossus, who
says, “It is said, moreover, that a portion of the vessel still survives in
Armenia on the mountain of the Cordyaeans, and that persons carry
off pieces of the bitumen, which they use as talismans” (Josephus,
AJ 1.93).19 Thus he identifies the “Mountains of Ararat” with
Gordyene, and that in turn concords with the views of Targum
Onqelos and of the Hexaplaric variant called reliqui. The attribution
of this tradition to the Babylonian historian Berossus may confirm its
eastern origin. Moreover, Gordyene is easily accessible from
Mesopotamia. From all this it is clear that “the Mountains of Ararat”
were connected with Armenia.20
According to the second-century BCE Book of Jubilees 5:28, the
specific mountain on which the Ark rested was named Lubar, and it
was “one of the Ararat mountains.” In Jubilees 5:28 we read the
following: “Noah planted vines on the mountain on which the Ark had
rested, named Lubar, one of the Ararat Mountains.” The same name,
Lubar, for the mountain recurs in Jubilees 7:1, 7:17, and 10:15.
Jubilees was written at the latest in the second century BCE. The
name Lubar is also mentioned in the extract from Jubilees 10 that is
preserved in the Hebrew medieval work Book of Asaf the
Physician.21 Independent additional witness to the name Mount
Lubar occurs in other texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls, namely 1Q20
(1QGenesis Apocryphon) 12:13, 4Q244 (4Q pseudo-Danielb) frag.
8:3, and 6Q8 (6QGiants) frag. 26:1. Jubilees is written in Hebrew,
the other three documents are written in Aramaic, but all are Jewish
and are preserved in manuscripts written around the turn of the era.
We have found no further occurrences of the name Lubar, but
according to the pre-Christian Jewish tradition in Jubilees and in
these Qumran documents, it was the name of the mountain of Ararat
upon which the Ark rested and also had other connections with
Noah. Nothing indicates in which land the mountain was situated,
and so, as far as we know today, this intriguing tradition supports
neither the tradition that the “Mountains of Ararat” were Masis nor
that the location of these mountains is in the very south of Armenia,
in Gordyene.
It is striking, but not surprising, that texts having a connection with
Mesopotamia (i.e., Targum Onqelos, Berossus, and the Syriac
documents mentioned earlier) tend to identify the mountain in the
region of Qardo, that is Gordyene, relatively close to Mesopotamia.
As we noted, Hewsen regards this identification to be of Semitic
origin, though what that implies is unclear. In the Palestinian
(Jerusalem) Targum, which stems from the first part of the first
millennium CE and from the Land of Israel, we read the following
translation of Genesis 8:4: “And the Ark rested in the seventh month,
that is the month of Nisan, on the seventeenth day, on the mountains
of Qardon [qrdwn]. The name of one mountain was Qardoniya
(qrdny’) and the name of the other mountain was Armeniya (’rmny’).
And here the city of Armeniya (’rmny’) was built, in the eastern
land.”22
The Palestinian Targum mentions two mountains in connection
with the Ark, and thus it explains the plural in the biblical text in
Genesis 8:4. In its gloss here, then, the Palestinian Targum conflates
the tradition that Ararat was in Armenia with the tradition of its
location in Qardo-Gordyene. The text does know a tradition relating
one mountain by name to Armenia, which it distinguishes from the
other, connected with Qardo or Gordyene. Both, it says, are in “the
mountains of Qardon.” Yet it is not clear that earlier, in Hellenistic
times, such a distinction existed. In addition, there is variation about
which territory the name “Armenia” designates. The Palestinian
Targum likely reflects a later, post-Hellenistic geographical tradition.
The specific location of Mount Armeniya is not clear, and it might well
be the result of a conflation involving the Masis tradition. The
building of a city called Armeniya “in the eastern land” after the
descent from the Ark is not mentioned in the Bible, but Armenian
sources know of the building of a city at that time, as is discussed
later.23 This evidence may be taken to mean that in Palestine and
elsewhere in the Hellenistic East, by the first century BCE Ararat was
known to be in Armenia, whether it was localized as Masis or
Mountains of Gordyene or Judi Dag, and this tradition was
transmitted further.24
In the fifth century CE, P‘awstos Buzand offers a specific
identification when he says that “Mountains of Ararat” designates
Mount Sararad in Gordyene. This specific identification has few
Armenian parallels, none of which is clearly independent of this fifth-
century author himself. Moreover, in the first century CE in 4 Ezra, if
our resolution of the mysterious verse 13:45 is accepted, the land of
Ararat was understood to be to the north of Mesopotamia.25 The
Palestinian Targum adds some knowledge of the geographical
realities of Armenia to this information. Its understanding that there
were two mountains may well have been inspired by reports of the
two-peaked Masis mountain.26 Several centuries earlier, however,
Jubilees and three Aramaic documents found at Qumran call the
mountain on which the Ark lodged Mount Lubar. “This (P‘awstos
Buzand’s statement) would bespeak the Armenian Christian
tradition’s familiarity with Jewish traditions, conceivably conveyed
through Syriac/Aramaic sources known to early Armenian writers.”27

1.2 Isaiah 37:38

As he was worshipping in the house of his god Nisroch, his sons
Adrammelech and Sharezer killed him with the sword, and they escaped
into the land of Ararat. His son Esar-haddon succeeded him.

For this verse the Septuagint has:

καὶ ἐν τῷ αὐτὸν προσκυνεῖν ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ Νασαραχ τὸν παταχρον αὐτοῦ,
Αδραμελεχ καὶ Σαρασαρ οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπάταξαν αὐτὸν μαχαίραις, αὐτοὶ δὲ
διεσώθησαν εἰς Ἀρμενίαν· καὶ ἐβασίλευσεν Ασορδαν ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ἀντ᾿ αὐτοῦ.

The Greek Bible, which in Genesis simply represented “Ararat” by a

transliteration, in this instance translates Hebrew “land of Ararat” with
“Armenia.” Of course, the translations of Genesis and Isaiah were
not made by the same individual, but the Greek of the Pentateuch
did have a great influence on subsequent translators, so that
occurrence of Armenia has some significance. “Armenia,” as we
noted, is the translation of “Ararat” in certain Hexaplaric witnesses to
Genesis 8:4. A doublet of Isaiah 38:38 appears in 2 Kings 19:37: the
verse is identical in the two Hebrew texts, and the LXX of Kings is
very similar to that of Isaiah, except that where the Greek of Isaiah
37:38 reads “Armenia,” the Greek of 2 Kings 19:37 reads the
transliteration Ἀραρατ. This neither helps nor hinders our
investigation, and it serves to confirm that the Jewish Greek tradition
knew “Ararat” to refer to “Armenia.”
When we examine the Aramaic Targums of the phrase “they
escaped into the land of Ararat” in Isaiah 37:38 and 2 Kings 19:37,
however, we see that they read ‫“ ואנון אשתזבו לארעא קרדו‬and they
(i.e., the two sons of King Sennacherib) took refuge in the land of
Qardo.” Here the same tradition known to Berossus and Targum
Onqelos in Genesis 8:4 again comes to the fore, and “Ararat” is
linked with Qardo, Gordyene. In Isaiah 37:38 and 2 Kings 19:37,
however, the texts speak of a land and not of a mountain. In the
Targums of Isaiah there is no hint of the tradition of two mountains
found in the Palestinian Targum of Genesis 8:4.
Referring to the same incident as Isaiah and 2 Kings that we just
quoted, the Book of Tobit 1:21 states that they fled to τὰ ὄρη Αραρατ,
“the Mountains of Ararat.” 4Q196, the Aramaic text of the Book of
Tobit, frag. 2.4 translating Tobit 1:21, refers to the same incident, and
there we find ṭȗrē ’Araraṭ “Mountains of Ararat.” As noted, elsewhere
the Aramaic fragments of Tobit name the mountain “Lubar.”28 This
reference exhausts three of the four instances of “Ararat” in the
Hebrew Bible and the Apocrypha.

1.3 Jeremiah 51:27

The fourth occurrence of the name “Ararat” in the Hebrew Bible is in
Jeremiah 51:27. This verse includes “the kingdom of Ararat” in a list
of nations. We shall seek to elucidate the understanding of these
nations’ names in the Second Temple period and later.
 Raise a standard in the land,
blow the trumpet among the nations;
prepare the nations for war against her,
summon against her the kingdoms,
Ararat, Minni, and Ashkenaz (’rrṭ mny w’šknz),
appoint a marshal against her,
bring up horses like bristling locusts.

In the Septuagint we read:

Ἄρατε σημεῖον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς,

σαλπίσατε ἐν ἔθνεσιν σάλπιγγι,
ἁγιάσατε ἐπ᾿ αὐτὴν ἔθνη,
παραγγείλατε ἐπ᾿ αὐτὴν βασιλείαις
Αραρατ παρ᾿ ἐμοῦ καὶ τοῖς Ασχαναζαίοις,
ἐπιστήσατε ἐπ᾿ αὐτὴν βελοστάσεις,
ἀναβιβάσατε ἐπ᾿ αὐτὴν ἵππον ὡς ἀκρίδων πλῆθος.

This Greek translation raises a number of interesting text-critical

issues that lie beyond our discussion. Its rendering of the list of
nations, however, is crucial for the present inquiry. In English, based
on the Hebrew, we find, “Ararat, Minni and Ashkenaz,” and it is
commonly accepted that Ashkenaz designates the Scythians.29 For
example, according to The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, “the
association of Ararat, Minni, Ashkenaz and Medes (Jer 51:27–28)
recalls the military situation of the early sixth century B.C., when
Urartu, Manneans, Scythians, and Medes were all active preceding
the fall of Babylon.”30 In his detailed commentary on Jeremiah,
Holladay remarks, “The Minni were the Manneans, Assyrian
Mannay; this people was centered just south of Lake Urmia in what
is now northwest Iran.”31 The LXX transliterates the first and third
terms as Αραρατ and τοῖς ’Ασχαναζαίοις, giving a gentilic form for
Ashkenaz, that is, Ashkenazians. The Greek translator rendered
Hebrew mny, which occurs only here in the Bible, not as an ethnic or
even a place name but as an affixed form of the preposition mn
“from,” reading παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ = “from me.”
In the Aramaic Targum’s translation of Jeremiah 51:27 we find,
once more, an intriguing tradition: “kingdom of the land of Qardo
(corresponding to Ararat), the dwelling place of Hūrmȋnȋ
(corresponding to Minni), Adiabene (ḥdyb: corresponding to
Ashkenaz).” Observe that the Targum translates mny, taken by the
Greek translation to mean “from me,” as “Hūrmȋnȋ,” an alternative
form of Harmȋnȇ or Hārmȋnē. That is a place name that occurs in
Targum Amos 4:3 and Targum Micah 7.12 as translation of the MT
‫ַה ַה ְר ֖מ ׄו ָנה‬, which the NRSV English translates as “into Harmon.”32
Undoubtedly, the Targum at least partly reflects a later political
situation than that of the biblical books. The suggestion has been
raised that this Targumic form “Hūrmȋnȋ” should be related to the
name “Armenia,” and this is made more plausible by Targum Micah
7:12, which according to the Targum, prophesies the ingathering of
those exiled to “great Hūrmȋnȋ.”33 This, Jastrow proposes, might
translate “Armenia Maior,” but that idea remains in the realm of
speculation.34 In Amos 4:3 we find in Hebrew ‫ִה ְשׁ ַל ְכ ֶ֥תּ ָנה ַה ַה ְר ֖מ ׄו ָנה‬. This
is translated by NRSV as “and you shall be flung out into Harmon,”
while JPS translates “And flung on the refuse heap.” There is clearly
a linguistic problem here in the word haharmȏnȃ, which is listed by
BDB with the notation “meaning dubious.”35 The LXX give εἰς τὸ
ὄρος τὸ Ρεμμαν “to the mountain of Rhemman,” which interpretation
is based on separating the word into two, har “mountain” + rmȏnȃ.
Intriguingly, the Targum also separates this word into two parts. It
translates the first part and then copies the whole word, producing
ṭȗrē harmȋnȋ “mountains of Harmȋnȋ.” This evokes Genesis 8:4,
“Mountains of Ararat.”
From these two readings we might be led to conclude that Ha/
ūrmȋnȋ is taken by the Targum of the Prophets to refer to Armenia,
though this is not certain. It is obviously a wordplay, whose repeated
use shows the importance of Armenia in the early Christian period.
Therefore, these ancient interpretations reflect the idea that Armenia
is associated with Ararat and mountains.36 Although perhaps of
interest to the student of ancient geography, none of these
occurrences in Isaiah, Kings, and Jeremiah offers anything at all for
our particular research, beyond the basic association of Ararat with
Armenia. Armenia is on the map for those ancient translators of the
Bible, which is not in the least surprising.37 Nonetheless, the
confirmation is welcome.
1.4 Concerning a City Built after Exit from the Ark
In an interesting tradition preserved in Josephus, AJ 1.92, the
historian says, “The Armenians call that spot (i.e., the site of the
Ark’s actual resting and Noah’s descent) the Landing-place
(Apobaterion), for it was there that the ark came safe to land, and
they show the relics of it to this day.”38 Professor Hewsen has
remarked on the striking similarity of this information with the
Armenian tradition that identifies Naxiǰewan as the place of descent.
This, he says, “sounds like a folk etymology for Naxiǰewan, whose
modern name is derived from an earlier ‘Nakhjawan’ apparently from
the same folk etymology.39 This identification may actually be very
old and may have been made by Jews in the old Armenian capitals
(Armawir, Artašat) from which Mt. Ararat is clearly visible.”40 If
Hewsen’s view is accepted, and it is only hypothetical, then the
connection of the “Mountains of Ararat” with Masis might indeed be
old, as also was the onomastic midrash associated with the descent
from the Ark.41
It is hard to know precisely what another tradition preserved by
Josephus in the name of Nicolaus of Damascus (first century BCE)
witnesses: “There is above the country of Minyas in Armenia a great
mountain called Baris, where, as the story goes, many refugees
found safety at the time of the flood, and one man, transported upon
an ark, grounded upon the summit, and relics of the timber were for
long preserved; this might well be the same man of whom Moses,
the Jewish legislator, wrote” (Josephus, AJ 1.95, citing Nicolaus of
Damascus Book 96).42 This pre-Christian, pagan author from Syria
clearly thought that the mountain of the flood was in Armenia, though
he did not specify exactly where in Armenia. We can make no
suggestion as to the origins of the name Baris.43
A number of Armenian sources share the tradition discussed by
Hewsen that Noah, on descending from the Ark, built a city whose
name means “descent” (Iǰewan). According to Josephus, the place at
which Noah and his sons descended from the Ark was named
Apobaterion. That name also means “descent,” like the later attested
Armenian name Iǰewan. The Armenian idea that Noah built a city
when he left the Ark may be related distantly to the information
known to Jubilees (second century BCE), according to which, after
leaving the Ark, Noah’s sons each built a city and each named his
city after his wife (Jub 7:14–16).44 Both these are quite distinctive
ideas, not attested elsewhere in ancient sources.
1QGenesis Apocryphon 12.8–9, which was written several
centuries before Josephus recorded the tradition about city building
in AJ 1.95, tells a similar tale more briefly.45 Conveying Noah’s direct
speech, it reads, “] the ark settled [on] one of the mountains of
Hurarat (10.12).” Unfortunately, the ensuing context is somewhat
damaged, but Machiela’s reconstruction of the lacunose text that
follows is: “After this I descended to the base of this mountain, my
sons and I, and we built a ci[ty], for the devastation of the earth was
great.”46 His reconstruction seems likely, and so in this document
also the reestablishment of civilization starts with the building of a
city. Mount Ararat’s connection to Armenia is quite clear in
1QGenesis Apocryphon, and the building of a city most plausibly
goes with it. Josephus knows that the name of the place of descent
from the Ark was Apobaterion but does not mention a city name.
Genesis Apocryphon mentions only Mount Lubar; likewise, it does
not mention the names of the other mountains known to the
Palestinian Targum, Armeniya and Qardoniya.
This particular tradition, the idea that building a city was part of
establishing civilization, is shared by a number of sources.47
According to the Hebrew Bible, Cain built a city (Gen 4:17), and the
men of the generation of the Tower of Babel (Gen 11:4) another one.
Cain’s city in Genesis 4:17 is named after the Cainite Enoch, not
after his wife. The sons of Noah founded cities and called them after
their wives according to Jubilees 7:14–16. In addition, Genesis
10:10–11 relates that Nineveh and three other cities were built by
Ham’s descendant Nimrod. None of these acts of city-building
seems to fit with the particular tradition that Noah or his sons built a
city after leaving the Ark and descending Mount Ararat.48
Another tradition about a city built after leaving the Ark was
touched upon earlier. To recap: this tradition, preserved by the
Palestinian Targum to Genesis 8:4, says about the Mountains of
Ararat, “The name of one mountain was Qardiniya and the name of
another mountain was Armeniya. And there the city of Armeniya was
built, in the eastern land.” The tradition about postdiluvian city-
building is much older than the Palestinian Targum. We have already
observed its occurrence in Genesis Apocryphon and in Jubilees, a
second-century BCE work that reads, “And Shem dwelt with his father
Noah, and he built a city close to his father on the mountain, and he
too called its name after the name of his wife Sedeqetelebab”
(7:16).49
In the Syriac work The Cave of Treasures we read that Noah and
his sons “built a city and called the name thereof Themânôn, after
the . . . eight souls who had gone forth from the Ark.”50 The same
tradition occurs in the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius, a writing
that survives in Greek as well as the original Syriac. The following
traditions encountered elsewhere also resemble those discussed
earlier.
1. D. de Bruyne gives the following fragment, from page 290 of the eighth-
century manuscript he is studying. Clearly, it preserves a material close to
Jubilees, for the cities are each named after the founder’s wife, but this text
makes no mention of the connection with Armenia.51

Uel propinquam sororem fas esse non alienam sicut fili noe post transactum
cataclysmum respexerunt / 290 / sibi loca in qua aedificarent sibi civitates,
nuncupantes eas in nomine uxorum suarum, quorum similitudinem et isti
iugati consumant.
Now, it is not lawful for a closely related sister to be estranged: just as the
sons of Noah, after the passing of the flood, sought out places for themselves
in which they could build cities for themselves, naming them in the name of
their wives, so that those married to their sister also use the sameness of the
places’ [names].52
 2. In an Armenian apocryphal retelling of the early history of humankind, we
read that Masis was the mountain upon which the Ark rested. “55 And Noah,
after receiving God’s blessing, descended the mountain and dwelt in Akoṙi.
56 When his seed multiplied, they went down to Iǰewan and 57 they filled the
first dwelling [nax iǰewan], and in such a way they filled the earth. 58 And the
name of the place was called Naxiǰewan, and that is Noah’s tomb. 58 Such it
is until today.”53 Here, biblical events are connected with Armenian
geography; Armenian names are used and distinct onomastic etiologies are
invoked. Thus, the name Իջեւան Iǰewan is connected with the Armenian
word իջանեմ “to descend” combined with avan “village” or even with
ōt‘ewan “lodgings,” meaning “dwelling of descent,” while Naxiǰewan, a
different place, is understood to embody նախ “first,” and so “dwelling of the
first descent.”54 Moreover, the place of their initial descent is identified as a
site in Armenia called Akoṙi, at the foot of Mount Ararat. According to the
Armenian tradition, thence they moved to Naxiǰewan, which city actually still
exists. So, though the immediate building of a city is not mentioned explicitly,
a well-known city is said to be the first place in which Noah’s family dwelled
permanently upon leaving the Ark, which idea is buttressed by a popular
etymology.55

The particular variant of the city foundation tradition preserved in

this Armenian source differs from some of the earlier Jewish
materials in that it has Noah and his sons founding one city, which
bore the name “dwelling of the first descent,” while Jubilees
mentions three cities, named after Noah’s sons’ wives. Of the place
on Mount Ararat where the Ark stopped, Josephus says that the
Armenians call that spot the Landing-place, “for it was there that the
ark came safe to land” (AJ 1.92). Writing in the first century CE,
Josephus apparently knew some form of the etiological tradition of
the toponym Iǰewan that is witnessed in Armenian in much later
sources. This etiological tradition, in turn, resembles the tradition
reported in the Palestinian Targum of Genesis, and we propose that
the Targumic passage includes the reworking of a tradition ancestral
to that included in the later Armenian text Good Tidings of Seth
reported earlier. Because of the double peak and the naming of the
city, both of which occur in these two sources, it is even possible that
the information shared by these two texts derives from information
reflecting immediate knowledge of Masis’s geographical
configuration. Could such familiarity with traditions specific to the
Armenian telling of the Noah story have been gained by Jews
directly from Armenians? It is impossible to know. Regardless, it
does bespeak some direct or indirect contact, the more so when the
Jewish tradition that resembles the Armenian occurs in a Palestinian
text. Intriguing as are the Jewish-Armenian cultural connections that
this Ararat tradition exhibits, nonetheless it does not yield any
information on Jews living in Armenia.

1.5 “Land of Ararat” in a Document of the Late

First Century CE
The expression “land of Ararat” is biblical, occurring in 2 Kings 19:37
and the parallel text in Isaiah 37:38.56 It also occurs in Jubilees
10:15 and 19. With this in mind, I shall examine Inscription no. 17 in
the Medieval Jewish cemetery in Ełegis, Armenia. I do so at this
point because of a remarkable coincidence, and I emphasize:
coincidence.57 This inscription is on a tombstone dated to 1266 CE
and occurs on the circular end of the tombstone, which bears the
shape of a recumbent pillar. The inscription on that end starts some
distance from the right-hand edge but is crowded up to the left-hand
edge. It is clearly the work of a relatively unskilled mason, for he did
not calculate the length of the line of writing against the space
available.58
In the initial publication of the inscription, Dr. David Amit read
‫בארזיארת‬, which does not mean anything.59 This reading was
included in our joint article, cited in n. 59. On occasion of a further
visit to the site, however, Dr. Amit read the signs that he formerly
deciphered as the letters ‫ זי‬as a final ṣadē‫ץ‬, thus yielding the reading
‫ארת ץראב‬. He interpreted this as a writing of ‫“ בארץ אר[ר]ט‬in the land
of Ara<r>at,” with a single reš instead of the doubled one and an
error of taw for ṭeṭ (see Figure 1.1). This is an acceptable reading
and interpretation of the Hebrew letters, which are nearly all
complete. Upon renewed examination of the stone, the reading of
final ṣadē seems to me quite certain.60
In 4 Ezra, a Jewish apocalypse written in Hebrew in the last decade
of the first century CE, the following passage exists. Unfortunately, its
Hebrew original has perished, and the book survives only in
daughter versions of a lost Greek translation. Quite independently of
the inscription from Ełegis, describing the exile of the Ten Tribes, 4
Ezra says:61
13:43 And they went in by the narrow passages of the Euphrates river, 13:44
for at that time the Most High performed wonders for them, and stopped the
springs of the river until they had passed over. 13:45 To that region there was
a long way to go, a journey of a year and a half; and that country is called
Arzareth.

The name of the land is written “Arzareth” in most Latin manuscripts.

This Latin text, like all the ancient versions of this work, is a
translation of a no longer extant Greek text, itself translated from the
lost Hebrew original.
The readings of the other versions seem to derive from an
alternate Greek ΑΡΖΑΦ / ΑΡΣΑΡΘ.62 This first conjectured Greek
reading seems not to be supported by the inner-Latin variants, which
can all derive from “Arzareth.” I venture to take up again Violet’s
suggestion that “Arzareth” of the Latin version of 4 Ezra 13:45 is not,
as often assumed, a corruption of ‫“ אחרת ץרא‬another land,” an
expression derived from Deuteronomy 29:28.63 Indeed, I myself
implied this reading in a note on this passage written in 1990.
Instead, as Violet proposed, I now suggest that it goes back to a
transliteration of ‫“ אררט ץרא‬Land of Ararat.” If so, then 4 Ezra would
attest that at the end of the first century CE the view was current that
the remote area, the “Land of Ararat” across the Euphrates, is the
domicile of exiled Israelites, apparently the so-called Lost Tribes
exiled by the Assyrians in 720 BCE.
The Euphrates River rises in the Armenian Highlands. The first
part of its channel is north of the River Tigris, and then it swings
around, flows south and eventually southwest, beyond the Tigris to
the south and into the Persian Gulf. We should note that the text
refers to the “springs” and the “narrow passages” of the
(presumably) Euphrates River. This might mean its headwaters and
its upper sections, before it grew into the great waterway that it is for
most of its length.64
 The mention of the narrow passages of the Euphrates and the
consciousness of the remoteness of this land would fit very
appropriately with this interpretation. It is still possible that the
geography implied by this text is completely fantastic, but it is also
possible that it reflects information known in the Land of Israel at the
end of the first century CE concerning Jewish communities north of
Babylon, across and beyond the Euphrates River.
The falling together of the two “r”s of Ararat in 4 Ezra 13:45 is not
particularly problematic; another instance of it is the Ełegis tomb
inscription I cited earlier. Thus, this first-century CE text might be
based on knowledge of the presence of Jews beyond the
headwaters of the Euphrates, in a somewhat ill-defined region north
of Mesopotamia that was designated by the name “land of Ararat.” If
so, it would lend support not just to the view that Tigran II the Great
(reigned 95–55 BCE) indeed took Jews to Armenia in the first century
BCE65 but also to the idea that Jews had settled there, perhaps
descendants of exiles of earlier centuries. It is, of course, only a
coincidence, though a striking one, that a similar corruption might
have taken place in the original of Latin 4 Ezra as that which we
observed a millennium later in Inscription No. 17 from Ełegis.

1.6 The Ark in Apamea

In Late Antiquity, another place vied with Armenia for recognition as
the site on which Noah’s Ark landed. This was the city of Apamea in
Pisidia (Asia Minor), which claimed to be the location of Mount
Ararat. This second identification is preserved alongside the tradition
of the Ark’s connection with Armenia. As examples, we quote Sextus
Julius Africanus, cited by George Syncellus: “But when the water
receded, the Ark came to rest on the Mountains of Ararat, which we
know to be in Parthia, but some say it is Kelainai in Phrygia.”66
Similarly, the sixth-century Byzantine chronographer John Malalas
says in Book 1.4:
 After the flood had ceased and the waters had abated, the Ark was found to
have settled on the Mountains of Ararat in the province of Pisidia, whose
metropolis is Apamea. Its timbers are there to the present day, as Pergamos
the Pamphylian has written. Josephos and Eusebios Pamphyliou and other
chroniclers have stated that the Mountains of Ararat are near Armenia,
between the Parthians, the Armenians and the Adiabenoi, and the Ark settled
there.67

The role of Apamea in stories about the Ark is discussed in some

detail by Ruth Clements in a fine paper on the iconography of Noah’s
Ark.68 The tradition tying the Ark to this particular city is well attested,
and it is a rival of the Armenian Mount Ararat.
 2
Jews in Armenia in the Ancient Period (First
Century BCE to Fifth Century CE)

2.1 Introductory Remarks

“It is most unlikely,” J. Russell writes, “that there were no Jews in
earliest Armenia, since the exilic communities1 were well established
in Syria, northern Mesopotamia, and Media . . . for centuries. Nor
need we suppose that it was impossible that some of them married
Urartians and Armenians.”2 This statement seems plausible, and
one could add to it the possibility that some Jews came to Armenia
from the neighboring kingdom of Adiabene, whose royal house
converted to Judaism in the first century CE. Yet no evidence
supporting either of these suppositions has survived in known
sources that might provide us with documented connections to or
information about such exiled Jews who took up residence in
Armenia. Two further possibilities have been raised and will be
discussed and refined in the present study: first, that Jews were
brought to Armenia by the renowned king Tigran II in the framework
of his policy of synoecism;3 second, that in Armenia there had
developed a considerable number of Judaizers who were often
reckoned with the Jewish community.4
The preserved evidence for Jews in Armenia is both scattered
and episodic. The following chapters discuss the attestations known
to us to their presence there during the Ancient and Medieval
periods. The most prominent early historical reports relate to the
Hellenistic-Roman period, such as those retailed by P‘awstos
Buzand and Movsēs Xorenac‘i,5 and from different perspectives by
Josephus Flavius and Plutarch. They relate that Tigran II the Great
settled Jews in Armenia in the first century BCE. Such direct reports
are few and rare, but when they exist they are very good evidence,
though of course subject to the critical reading that is demanded for
the utilization of all historical sources.
In Armenian sources dating from the fifth and later centuries CE,
there is considerable information about Jews in Armenia, or more
precisely, the settlement of Jews in Armenia and the later expulsion
of Jews from certain Armenian cities. Here we discuss this
information in detail. Once assessed critically, this evidence makes it
quite clear that there were Jews in Armenia, first attested in the first
century BCE and clearly present by the fourth century CE.

2.2 The Oldest Evidence in Armenian Literature:

Jews Deported from Armenia by the Persians
(368/9 CE)
The first ancient Armenian literary source to mention Jewish
population in Armenia is the History of Armenia ascribed to P‘awstos
Buzand,6 probably composed in the third quarter of the fifth century
CE.7 The long passage (4.55) that refers to multitudes of Jewish
families living in Armenian cities concerns one of the most disastrous
and fateful events in the history of Armenia, namely the invasion and
ravaging of the country by Persian troops circa 368/9.8 As a
consequence of that invasion, almost all significant Armenian cities
were ruined and devastated, and their inhabitants, who, according to
P‘awstos, were exclusively Armenians and Jews, were captured and
taken to Persia. The historian speaks of more than ninety-five
thousand Jewish families that were settled in seven Armenian cities:
Artašat, Vałaršapat, Eruandašat, Zarehawan, Zarišat, Van, and
Naxčawan. This campaign by the Persian king Shāpūr II (reigned
309–379) formed the completion of a series of strenuous diplomatic
and military actions. He directed these actions toward the subjection
of the disobedient country following the peace agreement he
concluded with the Roman emperor Flavius Jovian (363–364) in 363.
 2.3 The Historical Background: The Events of
363–368/9
To clarify the context in which the Jewish families are mentioned, we
must present briefly the sequence of events leading up to the
Persian conquest of these Armenian cities. The most reliable
description is by a contemporary eyewitness, the Roman historian
Ammianus Marcellinus (ca. 330–395 CE).9 He relates that the
emperor Julian (361–363 CE) crossed the river Euphrates and
campaigned against Persia;10 King Arsaces of Armenia (Aršak II, ca.
350–368/9 CE) was Julian’s ally (23.2). The Romans subjugated
several towns and strongholds on their way (24.1, 2, 4, 5) and
reached Ctesiphon, the winter capital of the Persian kings (24.6).11
However, although here Julian’s army won a brilliant victory, the
Roman emperor and his generals decided not to besiege the city,
regarding that as a “rash and untimely” undertaking, and so they
retreated (24.7). Julian was killed in a subsequent battle (25.3),12
and, “as if by the blind decree of fortune,” Flavius Jovian, “a slothful,
weak man,” was chosen as emperor.13 Under the pressure of the
starving and exhausted Roman soldiers, Jovian concluded a thirty-
years’ “shameful treaty” (ignobile decretum) with Shāpūr II, ceding to
the Persians five provinces west of the Tigris and the cities Nisibis
and Singara (25.7). Then Ammianus indicates what this agreement
stipulated regarding Armenia (25.7.12).
Based on this agreement, some time later (in about 368/9)
Shāpūr’s army destroyed the seven Armenian cities and moved their
Armenian and Jewish inhabitants to Persia. “To these conditions,”14
Ammianus writes, “there was added another which was destructive
and impious, namely, that after the completion of these agreements,
Arsaces, our steadfast and faithful friend, should never, if he asked
it, be given help against the Persians. This was contrived with a
double purpose, that a man who at the emperor’s order had
devastated Chiliocomum15 might be punished, and that the
opportunity might be left of presently invading Armenia without
opposition.”
 The same events, Julian’s campaign, the Romans’ retreat,
Julian’s death, and the conclusion of the peace treaty between
Jovian and Shāpūr II, are also described in detail in the Nea Historia
(3.12–31) of the early sixth-century Byzantine author Zosimus.16 He
says (3.31.2) that, according to the treaty, “the Persians also took
away most of Armenia, allowing the Romans to keep only a small
part,” but this concerns more the aftermath of the truce than the
agreement itself.
P‘awstos Buzand, too, knows about the fatal treaty (4.21): “When
peace came between the Greek king17 and Šapuh king of Persia,”
he writes, “the Greek wrote a letter of covenant, sealed it, and sent it
to the king of Persia. . . . ‘I give you,’ he said, ‘the city of Mcbin,18
which is in Aruestan, and Syrian Mesopotamia. And I am
withdrawing from the Armenian Midlands. If you are able to attack
and subject them, I shall not support them.’ ” P‘awstos also states
that the Roman emperor had to send such a letter to the king of
Persia because he was in a difficult situation.
Further, P‘awstos narrates that Shāpūr II waged war against
Aršak II, king of Armenia. According to Hakob Manandian, this
happened in the year 364 CE, and for four years the Armenians were
able to resist the attacks of the powerful Persian army.19 Finally, as
Ammianus witnesses, after deceitfully summoning Aršak to Persia
and executing him,20 Shāpūr conquered most of Armenia, including
the royal stronghold Artogerassa (Artagers).21 Thus, the destruction
of the seven cities and the capture of Armenians and Jews, to which
chapter 4.55 of P‘awstos’s History of Armenia bears witness, should
be viewed in the context of this last and victorious incursion of
Shāpūr’s armed forces into Armenia.

2.4 The Information on the Conquest of the

Cities: Accurate or Legendary?
P‘awstos Buzand’s work is a very important source for the history of
fourth-century Armenia.22 However, scholars have concluded that
the book is largely based on oral traditions rather than on any written
account,23 and that it contains many inaccuracies and fabulous
stories. Consequently, before dealing with the ethnicity and numbers
of the deported inhabitants, we must first determine whether or not
the main substance of P‘awstos’s testimony is rooted in reality. In
other words, is it true that, in the fourth century, the cities of Artašat,
Vałaršapat, Eruandašat, Zarehawan, Zarišat, Van, and Naxčawan
were seized and destroyed by the Persians and their citizens taken
captive?
Ammianus Marcellinus provides valuable information which,
although for the most part lacking specific details, in general
corroborates P‘awstos’s words. According to Ammianus, the result of
the peace treaty “was that later . . . Arsaces was taken alive, and
that the Parthians24 amid various dissensions and disturbances
seized a very great tract of Armenia bordering on Media, along with
Artaxata” (25.7.12). Artaxata (Artašat) is the first of the seven cities
listed by Buzand, and the “very great tract of Armenia” (Armeniae
maximum latus) might well have included the other six.
Later, after his reference to Arsaces’s (Aršak’s) execution
(27.12.3), Ammianus tells about the same encroachment of Shāpūr’s
troops into Armenia (368/9), resulting in the seizure and destruction
of the royal fortress Artogerassa (27.12.11–12): “Sapor . . .
mustering greater forces began to devastate Armenia with open
pillage. . . . After burning the fruit-bearing trees and the fortified
castles and strongholds that he had taken by force or by betrayal, he
blockaded Artogerassa with the whole weight of his forces and after
some battles of varying result and the exhaustion of the defenders,
forced his way into the city and set it on fire, dragging out and
carrying off the wife and the treasures of Arsaces.”
Ammianus confirms the capture of Artaxata in the first passage
cited earlier (25.7.12), and by “the fortified castles and strongholds”
(castella munita et castra), which Shāpūr burned (27.12.12), he may
have also meant Vałaršapat, Eruandašat, Zarehawan, Zarišat, Van,
and Naxčawan. As to the deportation, ethnicity, and numbers of the
inhabitants, one has to rely, as far as it is reasonable, on P‘awstos
Buzand’s and, additionally, on Movsēs Xorenac‘i’s information.25
 2.5 P‘awstos Buzand, 4.55
Then26 Šapuh (Shāpūr) king of Persia sent two of his princes . . . against the
realm of Armenia. . . . They came to the great city of Artašat and took it. They
destroyed its wall, carried off the hoarded treasures that were there, and
captured the entire city. And they carried off from the city of Artašat nine
thousand Jewish households who had been taken prisoners by King Tigran
Aršakuni out of the land of Palestine, and forty thousand Armenian families,
whom they took from the city of Artašat. . . . They . . . destroyed every building
in the city to its foundations . . . emptied it of all its population.27

The same happens to six other Armenian cities: from Vałaršapat

the Persians take away “nineteen thousand families,” adult men,
women, and children; from Eruandašat, they take away twenty
thousand Armenian families and thirty thousand Jewish families;
from Zarehawan in Bagrewand they take away five thousand
Armenian families and eight thousand Jewish families; from Zarišat,
in the district of Ałiovit, they take away fourteen thousand Jewish
families and ten thousand Armenian families; from Van, in the district
of Tozb, they take away five thousand Armenians and eighteen
thousand Jewish families; and from Naxčawan, they take away two
thousand Armenian families and sixteen thousand Jewish families.
Naxčawan is also the gathering place of the Persian army and of all
other captives, who are then taken to Persia, to King Shāpūr II.
Table 2.1 lists the cities and the captured inhabitants according to
P‘awstos.
Table 2.1 The Cities and the Numbers of Their Captured Armenian and Jewish
Inhabitants according to P‘awstos Buzand
City name Province Number of Number of Number of families
Jewish Armenian (ethnicity
families families unspecified)
Artašat 9,000 40,000
Vałaršapat 19,000
Eruandašat 30,000 20,000
Zarehawan Bagrewand 8,000 5,000
Zarišat Ałiovit 14,000 10,000
Van Tozb 18,000 5,000
Naxčawan 16,000 2,000
Total: 95,000 Total: 82,000

2.6 What Do the Numbers Indicate and What

Might “Jews” (հրեայք) in P‘awstos Buzand
Mean?
As is evident from Table 2.1, among the cities mentioned, Armenians
formed the large majority of those exiled only from Artašat, the most
celebrated Armenian metropolis of the ancient world. Regarding
Vałaršapat, the proportion of Jews to Armenians is not clear, for
P‘awstos gives only the total number of the citizens, without
indicating their ethnicity.28 In the other five cities the Jewish families,
in various ratios, form the majority, which is especially striking in the
cases of Van and Naxčawan. It is interesting that in the History by
the ninth-tenth-century historian T‘ovma Arcruni (1.10), the same
numbers (five thousand and eighteen thousand) of the inhabitants of
Van are given, but the number of Jews, on the contrary, is five
thousand and of Christians (not “Armenians”!) is eighteen
thousand.29
P‘awstos’s information, very likely not based on any documentary
evidence but just acquired by word of mouth, should not be accepted
at face value; no doubt, the numbers of both Armenian and
especially Jewish inhabitants are greatly exaggerated. Nevertheless,
Manandian concludes that in the days of Tigran and later on during
the Arsacid reign, not the Armenians themselves but the foreign
settlers, in the first place Jews and Syrians, played the leading role
in the country’s commercial affairs.30 Garsoїan infers that “the
Armenians of this period were not city dwellers at any level of
society,”31 and that the information provided by P‘awstos shows
“almost invariably that the Jews composed the majority of the early
Armenian urban population.”32 These conclusions based on
P‘awstos Buzand are disputable and too categorical, but we can
clearly state the following: if there were not considerable numbers of
Jews in Armenia at the time of the Persian expedition of 368/9,
P‘awstos would not have mentioned them at all, and the large
numbers, although exaggerated, indicate that the Jewish settlement
was substantial. Furthermore, one may also conjecture that even
after the removal of those tens of thousands to Persia by Shāpūr II,
Armenian Jewry had by no means become just a distant memory in
the time of P‘awstos. He was most probably led to speak of more
than ninety-five thousand Jewish families involved in the tragic
events of some hundred years before his time by the continuing
existence of their descendants as a significant part of Armenia’s
population. This becomes more apparent when one deals with
another early medieval Armenian literary source, namely the History
of Armenia by Movsēs Xorenac‘i33 (discussed later), in which Jews
often play quite a conspicuous role.
One should also suppose that the term “Jew” means both “Jews”
and “Judaizers” rather than simply the ethnos, for otherwise the large
numbers of “Jewish” captives and the odd division of the city-
dwellers into only two groups, “Jews” and “Armenians,” would be
difficult to understand.34 In this respect, the passage in Josephus
Flavius’s War of the Jews (BJ 2.462–464) describing the enmity
between the two large groups of the inhabitants of Syrian cities is
extremely interesting.35 Speaking about the events preceding the
great war against the Romans and the destruction of Jerusalem in
70 BCE, Josephus writes that “every city was divided into two camps,
and the safety of one party lay in their anticipating the other.” Those
two armies were “Syrians” (Σύρoι) and “Jews” ( Ἰoυδαῖoι). The former
were massacring the latter, but among the Ἰoυδαῖoι there were
people whom the Syrians regarded with suspicion but were not
determined to kill. Josephus calls them “Judaizers” ( Ἰoυδαΐζoντας)
and characterizes them as “ambiguous” (ἀμφίβoλoν) and “mixed”
(μεμιγμένoν), unlike those who were clearly “alien” (ἀλλόφυλoν), that
is, ethnic Jews.36 What Josephus says about the Ἰoυδαῖoι in Syrian
cities may well be true regarding the Armenian equivalent for “Jews”
in P‘awstos Buzand: հրեայք or հրէայք (հրեայ or հրէայ in singular)
should be interpreted as “Jews and Judaizers,” that is, people of
other nations, presumably non-Armenians (because the Armenians
form the other large group of the seven cities), converted to Judaism.
Needless to say, “becoming a Jew” was a widespread phenomenon
in many countries of the civilized world throughout the Hellenistic
and Roman periods.37
In scholarly literature, the various meanings of “Jew” (or “Judean”)
and “Judaizer” are stressed. We would like to mention two
comparatively new studies discussing those terms in detail. Louis H.
Feldman speaks of “God-fearers” (φoβoύμενoι τὸν θεόν) and
“sympathizers,” “those non-Jews who adopted certain Jewish
practices without actually converting to Judaism.”38 The story of the
gradual conversion of Izates, king of Adiabene, told by Josephus (AJ
20.17ff.) is a good example of how a “sympathizer” becomes a
proselyte. Shaye J. D. Cohen39 distinguishes three main meanings
for the Hebrew Yehudi, Greek Ioudaios, and Latin Judaeus: (1)
ethnic/geographic, (2) religious/cultural, and (3) political (“a citizen or
ally of the Judean state”).40 For the first meaning, he prefers
“Judean” to “Jew” in English. Notably, in Josephus’s story about the
conversion of the royal family of Adiabene, where Izates wants to be
circumcised to “be steadily a Jew” (εἶναι βεβαίως Ἰoυδαῖoς), Ioudaios
has absolutely no ethnic sense and means only “Judaizer.”41 Both of
the first two meanings mentioned by Cohen seem to be relevant to
Buzand’s հրեայք. This word is the exact Armenian equivalent of the
Hebrew Yehûdîm, Greek Ioudaioi, and Latin Iudaei.42 In addition to
“ethnic Jews” (“Judeans”), it also has the wider meaning “followers of
Judaism,” Judeans and non-Judeans, including “sympathizers,”
“God-fearers,” and proselytes.
We can cite examples from Armenian literature, starting with the
Armenian version of the famous passage in Acts 2:5–11,43 referring
to “Jews from every nation” ( Ἰoυδαῖoι . . . ἀπὸ παντὸς ἔθνoυς), listed
afterward as “Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and residents of
Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia
and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene,
and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and
Arabs.” In the Armenian Bible the Greek text is translated literally:
հրեայք . . . յամենայն ազգաց “Jews from every nation,” which is
subsequently explained as հրեայք եւ եկք նոցուն “both Jews and
proselytes” ( Ἰoυδαῖoί τε καὶ πρoσήλυτoι).
This usage of հրեայք to mean “Jews and proselytes,” together
with the oral tradition associating հրեայ with the two meanings,
ethnic and cultural/religious, and deriving from Yehûdî-Ioudaios-
Iudaeus, would have easily entered writings composed in Armenian.
A typical example of a wider, not simply ethnic meaning of the word
occurs in the History of Vardan and the Armenian War by the fifth-
century historian Ełišē.44 He mentions one of the Persian kings
(Shāpūr II or III), who, after uselessly trying to persecute Christians,
had to tolerate them as well as adherents of other religions in his
kingdom:45 “He commanded the magi and chief-magi that no one
should molest them in any way, but that they should remain
undisturbed in their own doctrines without fear—magus and Zandik46
and Jew (հրեայն) and Christian, and whatever other many sects
there where throughout the Persian Empire.” Ełišē lists religious
rather than ethnic groups, so in this passage հրեայ means “a
follower of the Jewish religion” in a more general sense and not
simply “a representative of the Jewish nation.” This religious
meaning of the word is apparent in the following usage of the
abstract noun հրէութիւն (literally, “Jewishness”), a derivative of
հրեայ/հրէայ, in the Teaching of Saint Gregory (§542), a treatise that
survives as part of the History of Armenia attributed to the fifth-
century author Agat‘angełos:47 “Paul was unknown to be a vessel of
election (Acts 9:15) in the time of his Judaism (հրէութեան
ժամանակին),” or “In the time of the priesthood of Judaism (ի
ժամանակս հրէութեան քահանայութեանն) . . . the priests took the
fire of the sacrifices and cast it into the well” (§544). Finally, as
already noted, it is remarkable that the ninth-tenth-century author
T‘ovma Arcruni, narrating that the Persians deported Armenians and
“Jews” զհրէայսն taken captive in Van,48 uses the term “Christians”
զքրիստոնեայսն instead of “Armenians.” Thus, the “Jews,”
according to T‘ovma, were a large religious group, like the
Christians.
P‘awstos explains the presence of հրեայք in Armenian cities by
the deportations of Tigran II the Great, king of Armenia, who had
taken them prisoner from Palestine. As we shall see, Tigran II
deported numerous captives not only from Palestine but also from
other countries. Part of those peoples could have been converted to
Judaism before Tigran’s campaigns, and part of them possibly
became “sympathizers,” “God-fearers,” or proselytes after being
settled, together with ethnic Jews, in Armenia.49 The Armenian
tradition reflected in P‘awstos Buzand and other early medieval
literary sources, in accordance with the general concept of the
“Jews” in the Greco-Roman world, did not clearly distinguish the
ethnos from the followers or converts: for the Armenians, all of them
were հրեայք.50

2.7 How Did the Jews Come to Armenia?

P‘awstos Buzand says (4.55), “All this multitude of Jews, who were
taken into captivity from the land of Armenia,51 had been taken in
ancient times from the land of Palestine by the great Armenian king
Tigran, at the time that he also took and brought to Armenia the
high-priest of the Jews, Hiwrakandos. And the great King Tigran
brought all these Jews in his own days, and settled them in the
Armenian cities.”52
This passage talks of two different events as if they were one,
Tigran II’s exiling of a “multitude of Jews” to Armenia and the
captivity of the high priest Hyrcanus (Hiwrakandos).53 From the
examination of this passage it becomes evident that P‘awstos
Buzand confused different events that took place at different times.54
He says that the high priest Hyrcanus was captured by Tigran II.
However, Hyrcanus was actually taken captive in the year 40 BCE, at
a time when not Tigran II but his son Artawazd II was king of
Armenia. Tigran II had died in 55 BCE; Artawazd came to the throne
in 54 and ruled until 33. Therefore, Hyrcanus could not have been
taken captive by Tigran II, who was already dead. The “multitude of
Jews,” however, were transferred to Armenia by Tigran II.55
Josephus Flavius, the main source for Hyrcanus’s captivity,
narrates the following.56 With their troops, Barzapharnes, a Parthian
satrap, and the Parthian king’s son Pacorus conquered Syria and
invaded Judea, reaching as far as Jerusalem. Lysanias, king of
Coele Syria, and Antigonus, the previous high priest and king of
Judea, promised Pacorus a thousand talents and five hundred
women if he would remove Hyrcanus from power and restore
Antigonus to the throne. The Parthians continued their military
expedition in Judea, plundering Jerusalem and besieging the coastal
towns of Tyre, Sidon, and Ptolemaïs (Acre). The inhabitants of Sidon
and Ptolemaïs yielded to the Parthians, but the Tyrians resisted
them. Hyrcanus and his companion-in-arms Phasaelus, Herod’s
brother, were persuaded to meet the Parthians for negotiations. They
left Herod in Jerusalem and went to the maritime town of Ecdippon
(Achziv). There they were perfidiously imprisoned and handed over
to Antigonus, who bit off Hyrcanus’s ears so that he could never hold
the high priesthood again, for, according to Jewish law, a priest must
be whole of limb. Phasaelus committed suicide, and Hyrcanus was
taken captive to Parthia. Later on, Josephus says, Hyrcanus, after
being brought to Parthia, was lodged in Babylon.
Scholars have stated that Josephus’s information about Hyrcanus
settling in Babylon contradicts that which is related by P‘awstos,
namely that Hyrcanus, together with other Jews, was taken as a
captive to Armenia.57 And since no one has doubted the truthfulness
of Josephus’s account, it has naturally been concluded that the
Armenian tradition is false. Let us try, however, to resolve this
contradiction, using the other important Armenian source for the
events in question, the History of Armenia by Movsēs Xorenac‘i, and
also taking into consideration the fact that Josephus does not clearly
distinguish Armenia and the Armenians from Parthia and the
Parthians.58 Furthermore, we should stress once again that,
according to Josephus, Hyrcanus was first taken to Parthia, and only
subsequently, when he was brought to King Phraates, who treated
him gently, did he receive a dwelling in Babylon. Thus, even if not
much importance is attached to the confusion of Parthia and
Armenia in Josephus, we may infer that Hyrcanus could well have
been in Armenia, at least for a short period of time, on his way to
Parthia and Phraates’s palace before settling in Babylon, and
together with him other Jews could have been brought captive to
Armenia.59
Movsēs Xorenac‘i’s report helps to explain both the anachronisms
in P‘awstos and the contradiction between Josephus and the
Armenian tradition about where Hyrcanus was brought by the
victorious troops, for he actually refers to two deportations of Jewish
population to Armenia. According to Movsēs (2.14), the first
deportation took place before Tigran II’s conquest of the Phoenician
town Ptolemaïs in 70 BCE. “He (i.e., Tigran II) attacked Palestine,”60
and, Movsēs writes, “took many captives from among the Jews and
besieged the city of Ptolemaïs.” Then he narrates (2.16) that those
Jews were settled in two Armenian cities: “The king of Armenia,
Tigran, after settling the Jewish prisoners in Armawir and in the city
of Vardges . . . marched to Syria against the Roman army.” Armawir
was the ancient capital of Armenia.61 Thus, in addition to the seven
cities mentioned by P‘awstos Buzand,62 Movsēs Xorenac‘i witnesses
to Jewish settlers in Armawir, although, as he further reports (2.49),
those Jews were later moved by King Eruand the Last63 to his new
capital, Eruandašat, and, subsequently, King Artašēs I made his
celebrated capital city Artašat their home.64 Furthermore, in 2.65
Movsēs reports that “the city of Vardges” was Vałaršapat, which had
been fortified by King Vałarš: “Vardges . . . built this town. Here the
middle Tigran . . . settled the . . . colony of Jewish captives, and it
became a commercial town. Now this Vałarš surrounded it with a
wall . . . and called it Vałaršapat.” Finally, in 3.35 Movsēs describes
the devastation of Armenian cities by Shāpūr’s army (ca. 368/9):
 Gathering many troops . . . he (Shāpūr) attacked Armenia. They came and
invested the castle of Artagerk‘. . . . [T]he garrison of the fortress . . .
surrendered willingly. . . . Taking them captive with the treasures and Queen
P‘arandzem they brought them to Assyria. And there they massacred them. . .
. At the same time there arrived a command from King Shapuh that they
should destroy and raze the fortifications of all cities and bring the Jews into
captivity including those Jews living by the same Jewish law in Van Tosp
whom Barzap‘ran Ṙshtuni had brought there in the days of Tigran. . . . They
also took into captivity the Jews in Artašat and Vałaršapat whom the same
king Tigran had brought there.65

To this last account, much shorter than that in P‘awstos, Movsēs

adds notable details, not cited here, which will be discussed below.66
The second deportation is referred to in Movsēs Xorenac‘i 2.19,
which passage contains significant information and is quite important
for the study of Movsēs’s sources and his methods of using them.
Here he speaks of the Jews brought by the Armenian commander
Barzap‘ran Ṙštuni to Van. The relevant parts of his narrative
generally correspond to one of his main sources for this chapter, that
is, Josephus’s account of the Parthian incursion into Syria in 40 BCE
summarized earlier. However, what Movsēs relates differs from
Josephus at a number of points. The chief difference is that he
attributes the military campaign not exclusively to the Parthians but
to the “Armenian-Persian” (“Persian” here meaning “Parthian”) joint
army. In addition, Josephus’s Parthian satrap Barzapharnes (or
Bazaphranes) has become an Armenian named Barzap‘ran Ṙštuni.
Third, “Pacaros” (the Parthian king’s son Pacorus in Josephus) acts
as mediator between Barzap‘ran Ṙštuni and Antigonus, Hyrcanus’s
brother. Antigonus offered a thousand talents of gold and five
hundred women as a bribe in exchange for his restoration to the high
priesthood and sovereignty.
Some scholars have claimed that Movsēs Xorenac‘i simply
invented the information that has no parallel in Josephus.67 Others
have rightly regarded the participation of Armenians in these events
as quite probable, because in this period the Parthians, together with
their Armenian allies, conducted prolonged military campaigns in
Syria.68 But what other work could Movsēs have used as a source
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 NOTAS:
[7] Este artículo fué leído por su autor en una velada literario-
musical, dispuesta por el Alcalde de Santander, don Tomás C. de
Agüero, á beneficio de los pobres.
 MANÍAS

Afirmo que no existe, ni ha existido, un nieto de Adán sin ellas. Por

lo que á mí toca, desde luego declaro que tengo una. Por ser lo que
es y de quien es, no quiero aburrir al lector diciéndole en qué
consiste; pero, en cambio, voy á hablarle de las suyas y de las de
sus amigos y allegados, con la previa advertencia de que la palabra
manía no ha de tener aquí la única significación de locura que le da
la ciencia; yo la uso, además, en su acepción vulgar de
extravagancia, resabio, etc. Así las cosas, repito que la humanidad
entera es una pura manía. Me he convencido de ello desde que al
conocer la mía, y por el deseo de consolarme de ella, di en la de
observar las del prójimo.
Yo era de los cándidos que ven á los hombres privilegiados sólo á la
luz de su fama ó de sus relumbrones, y á los colaterales, con las
cataratas que da la costumbre de mirarlos sin reparar en ellos.
Un escritor ilustre, un pensador profundo, era á mis ojos el hombre
que veía en sus libros. Representábamele, escribiéndolos, lo mismo
que se retratan los poetas cursis: vestidos de etiqueta, arrimados al
pupitre, graves y solemnes, y observando aquella regularidad
matemática que encarga Torío que haya entre la mesa y el asiento;
rodeados de libros en pasta, unos cerrados, otros abiertos; la
cabeza alta, los ojos casi en blanco, y las ideas pasando de la
mente á la pluma con la facilidad con que bajan las cristalinas
murmurantes aguas del monte á la llanura. De una inocentada por el
estilo debe de haber nacido la admitida creencia de que Buffon
escribió su Historia Natural con guantes blancos.
Si la celebridad era del género cáustico, veíala yo igualmente
sentada á la mesa, ataviada en carácter, con cierto desaliño
artístico, la melena revuelta y ondulante, por pluma una saeta con
cascabeles, la boca sonriente y los ojos chispeantes; y éste y el
otro, y todos los hombres de su talla, escribían á todas horas y
siempre que se les antojaba. Los chistes de los unos y las
profundidades de los otros, eran tan necesarios en ellos, como la
facultad de ver en cuanto se abren los ojos. Sus cerebros estaban
en constante elaboración, sin fatigas, sin violencias, sin la menor
dificultad, y derramaban las ideas digeridas y á borbotones sobre el
papel, tan pronto como la voluntad alzaba las compuertas con la
pluma.
Á los guerreros famosos representábamelos siempre como se ven
en el teatro, con la mirada napoleónica, cargados de cruces y
alamares, y andando á paso trágico; á los diplomáticos, con la
casaca bordada, la diestra en el pecho, sentados en áureo sillón,
muchos protocolos encima de la mesa, y la izquierda mano sobre
uno de ellos; á los músicos, á los pintores, abismados en las
profundidades de su inspiración. En unos y en otros casos, nada de
prosa doméstica, nada de dolores del cuerpo, nada de
extravagancias, ni de resabios, ni de vulgar...
¡Qué candor el mío! Precisamente en esta aristocracia de la
humanidad es donde andan el desorden, las miserias, las pasiones
y las manías como Pedro por su casa; y no habría libro más
curioso... ni más triste, que el que tratara de las preocupaciones,
ridiculeces, vicios y extravagancias de los grandes hombres, y de
los que levantan una pulgada más que el vulgo de las gentes.
Desde luego puede asegurarse que no hay, ni ha habido sabio, ni
escritor de nota, que haya tenido ni tenga método, ni orden, ni
gobierno en el estudio, ni en la comida, ni para escribir; y rara es la
obra que leemos y contemplamos con admiración, que no
necesitara, como auxiliar poderoso en su nacimiento, alguna manía
prosaica y hasta grotesca.
Os dirán de un poeta célebre sus amigos, que escribe de pie y sobre
un montón de libros colocados en una silla.
Mezerai, el historiador, trabajaba con luz artificial de día, y despedía
á las personas que iban á verle acompañándolas, con la bujía en la
mano, hasta la puerta de la calle.
Á Corneille le daba por lo contrario: buscaba la obscuridad para
componer sus obras.
¿Quién no ha visto á Walter Scott retratado con un perro á su lado?
La fama dice que manoseando la cabeza de este animal, era como
mejor pensaba y escribía el célebre novelista escocés.
Malherbe era muy friático, y se ponía varios pares de medias á la
vez; por lo cual, y temiendo ponerse en una pierna más que en la
otra, las marcaba con letras. Él mismo confiesa que hubo día en que
llegó á calzarse hasta la L.
De un literato español, de reciente fecha, Zea, dice uno de sus
amigos que, mientras meditaba, se golpeaba la cabeza con una
reglilla.
Gretry, el músico, para inspirarse ayunaba rigorosamente y tomaba
café á pasto, y enardecía su musa tocando el piano sin cesar, hasta
arrojar sangre por la boca. Sólo entonces descansaba y trataba de
contener la hemorragia. Refiérelo el doctor Reveille-Parise, famoso
higienista.
Paer, mientras componía, gritaba con todas sus fuerzas y mandaba
á su mujer, á sus amigos y á sus criados que gritasen también.
Paisiello componía en la cama, y Zingarelli leyendo los clásicos
latinos y los Padres de la Iglesia.
Á Byron le envanecía más su renombre de nadador que de poeta; y
el haber pasado seis veces el Helesponto por realizar la fábula de
Leandro, le halagaba más el orgullo que el haberse vendido en un
solo día 18.000 ejemplares de su Don Juan. Tenía pasión por andar
en mangas de camisa por parques y alamedas; y antojándosele que
los transeúntes reparaban demasiado en su cojera, muy á menudo
se enredaba á sopapos con ellos. En Inglaterra fué su vida un
perpetuo escándalo que jamás le perdonó aquella encopetada
aristocracia. Teniendo miedo á la obesidad, que él llamaba
hidropesía de aceite, cuando fué á Grecia sólo se alimentó de
manteca y vegetales; y como este alimento no bastaba á su
naturaleza poderosa, entretenía el hambre, que sin cesar le
asaltaba, con una oblea empapada en aguardiente. Todas las
mañanas se medía la cintura y las muñecas. (Véanse sus
Memorias).
Edgard Poe buscaba la luz fatídica y misteriosa con que alumbra
sus portentosas investigaciones por los abismos del espíritu
humano, en el alcohol. Era un borracho contumaz: matóle el delirium
tremens, y se halló su cadáver en medio de la vía pública.
La vida de Swift, el inmortal autor de los Viajes de Gulliver, fué una
cadena de deslealtades y prevaricaciones, terminada con la locura.
Al célebre J. Jacobo le atormentaba sin cesar la duda de su final
destino. Refiérese que en sus frecuentes paseos solitarios, lo mismo
que en su habitación, solía elegir un blanco en los árboles ó en la
pared, al cual lanzaba su bastón desde cierta distancia.—«Si doy en
él, pensaba, mi alma será salva; si no le toca, se condenará».
Lichtemberg dice textualmente: «Nadie es capaz de saber lo que yo
padezco al considerar que, desde veinte años hace, no he podido
estornudar tres veces seguidas... ¡Ah! si yo consiguiera persuadirme
de que estoy bueno, ¡qué feliz, sería!».
Carlos Nodier no admitía en su biblioteca más que libros en 8.°, y
Joubert arrancaba de los que adquiría todas las hojas que no le
agradaban; y como era hombre de gusto, quedábase con poco más
que la encuadernación de cada libro.
El pintor Rembrandt se moría de hambre teniendo tesoros
amontonados en los sótanos de su miserable vivienda.
Balzac sentía verdadera fiebre especuladora, y se pasó la vida
tanteando negocios, siempre de baja estofa y desatinados, porque
tenía poco dinero y no sabía más que escribir novelas...
Y ¿á qué seguir, cándido lector, si no cabría en libros la lista de las
especies de rarezas, vicios y debilidades que tienen y han tenido los
hombres cuyas obras admira el mundo y vencerán al tiempo?
¿Qué te diré yo ahora si de esa encumbrada región descendemos al
mísero polvo de la tierra, á la masa vulgar de los mortales? Mira en
tu casa, mira en tu calle, mira en la plaza, en la tertulia, en el paseo,
y verás que cada hombre es una manía cuando no un vivero de
ellas.
Tu mujer no se cortará las uñas en menguante, ni dormirá con
sosiego después de haber derramado la sal sobre la mesa; ni tú te
pondrás á comer con otros doce, ni emprenderás viaje en martes, ni
permitirás que en tal día se case ninguno de tus hijos.
Fíjate en el primer corrillo que encuentres al salir de casa, y
observa: un prójimo no halla palabras en su boca si no echa una
mano á la corbata, á las solapas, á la cadena del reló ó á las patillas
de su interlocutor. Otro se ve en igual apuro si no tira el sombrero
hacia la coronilla, y no agarra por el brazo al mártir que le escucha.
Otro necesita girar sobre sus talones para perjeñar una frase. Otro
será derrotado en una porfía, aunque defienda el Evangelio, si no se
rasca un muslo en cada premisa, y no deduce la consecuencia
sonándose las narices; y, de fijo, no faltará uno, á quien le apeste la
boca, que deje de arrimarla mucho á la tuya para darte el más breve
recado.
No digamos nada de las muletillas, hincapiés ó apoyaturas del
diálogo. Los «¿está usted?» «¿me entiende usted?««¿me explico?»
«pues»; «¿eh?» hasta el inescribible carraspeo de los que peroran,
y los «sí, señor»; «mucho que sí»; «comprendo, comprendo»;
«justo, justo»; «claro»; «¡pues digo!» «tiene usted razón»; «¡ajajá!»
de los que escuchan, aunque no entiendan lo que se les dice, son el
alma de la retórica de corrillos y cafés.
La manía de los números es de las más corrientes. Hay hombre que
la toma con el número tres, por ejemplo, y se lava de tres chapuces,
bebe de tres sorbos, se pone la corbata en tres tiempos, come á las
tres tres cosas en tres platos, da tres vueltas en el paseo y las tres
últimas chupadas al cigarro. Si el número tres no alcanza á
satisfacer sus deseos, como le sucede en la mesa, le triplica.
Las ramas de esta familia son innumerables, y á ella pertenecen por
un costado las personas que fían el éxito de sus negocios al
resultado de una apuesta que se hace in mente, por el estilo de la
que, según queda dicho, se hacía Rousseau á cada instante.
Verbigracia: un señor, á quien yo conozco, no da un paso en la calle
sin contar un día de la semana, y al salir de casa se propone él en
que ha de llegar al fin de su jornada; advirtiendo á ustedes que al
éxito de este propósito une la suerte del negocio que va á
emprender, ó del asunto que á la sazón le preocupe. Supongamos
que compra un billete de la lotería. Al salir de la administración se
dice: «Si llego á mi casa en jueves, me toca»; y hala que te vas,
comienza á contar: lunes, martes, miércoles... á razón de paso por
día. Ganará la apuesta si, al poner el pie en el umbral de la puerta
de su casa, le toca decir jueves. Estos monomaniacos son un
tantico tramposos; pues ya la experiencia les hace conocer desde
lejos si han de faltarles ó sobrarles días, por lo cual cambian el paso
en el sentido de sus conveniencias. Pero la duda de si es ó no lícita
la trampa, les hunde en nuevas preocupaciones, de lo cual les
resulta una manía-remedio tan molesta como la manía-enfermedad.
Sigue inmediatamente á ésta la de ir siempre por el mismo camino
para llegar al mismo punto; ó, al contrario, buscar una nueva senda
cada vez que se emprende el mismo viaje; la de no volver á hacer, á
comer ni á vestir, lo que hizo, comió y vistió el aprensivo el día en
que le descalabraron en la calle ó perdió el pleito; la de no pisar
jamás la raya mientras se anda por la acera; la de no embarcarse en
días de r; la de no acostarse sobre el lado izquierdo después de
beber agua... y tutti quanti.
Pues entremos con las carreras, oficios y empleos... ¿Han conocido
ustedes algún marino que no use en los negocios terrestres el
lenguaje náutico? Para el hombre de mar, si de mujeres se trata, la
jamona es una urca; la joven esbelta, una piragua; fijarse en ella,
ponerle la proa; hablarla, atracar al costado; casarse, zozobrar, irse
á pique. El amante es un corsario: si tiene mucha nariz, de gran
tajamar; si es alto, mucha guinda.
Como el marino en tierra, hay médicos, y abogados, y curiales de
toda especie, y militares... y zapateros, que usan el lenguaje técnico
de la profesión ó del oficio, siempre que pueden, que es siempre
que les da la gana, lo cual sucede cada vez que se ponen á hablar.
¿Y los aficionados á ciertos juegos? Para un sujeto á quien yo
conozco, que veinte años hace juega diariamente á la báciga, tres
muchachas bonitas juntas son un bacigote de ases; si tiene un pleito
ganado en primera instancia, dice que salió á buenas; si es amigo
del juez, que tiene comodín, y si busca recomendación para un
magistrado, es porque quiere hacer las cuatro cosas.
Es seguro que el lector conoce á más de una docena de caballeros,
de cuyos labios no se caen jamás el albur, el elijan, los párolis y
otros análogos donaires del caló de los garitos; pintoresca y culta
manía que anda ya retozando en la literatura humorística al
menudeo, y hasta en la comedia de costumbres españolas.
Y ¿qué diremos de la manía política, si la mitad del género humano
adolece de esa enfermedad? ¡Qué horas, Dios eterno, las de los
unos devorando periódicos, tragándose sesiones de Cortes,
preámbulos de decretos y movimientos del personal! ¡Qué disputas
en plazas y en cafés! ¡Qué jurar en la autoridad de ciertos nombres,
y qué renegar de otros! ¡Qué cavilaciones, qué presentimientos, qué
sudar el quilo corriendo de esquina en esquina, y qué alargar el
pescuezo, ponerse de puntillas y encandilar los ojos para leer partes
oficiales recién pegados, y hasta bandos de buen gobierno! ¡Y éstos
son hombres de arraigo, libres, independientes, que pagan sin cesar
para que vivan y engorden esos mismos personajes que caen, y se
levantan y alternan en la política imperante, y se ríen de los
cándidos babiecas que toman esas cosas por lo serio!
¡Qué vida la de los otros! El taller, el escritorio, las cajas de la
imprenta, la buhardilla angosta, el andamio... doce horas de trabajo
penoso, poco jornal, ocho de familia, deudas indispensables,
privaciones dolorosas... Y por todo consuelo, hablar muy bajito de la
que se está armando; acudir á sitios peligrosos para oir una noticia
absurda, ó entregar el roñoso ochavo del ahorro para pagar los
gastos de un viaje fantástico al falso emisario que tiene estas
estafas por oficio; ver al tirano siempre sobre sus cabezas y en su
sombra y en todas partes; dejar la herramienta, ó saltar del lecho al
menor ruido, creyéndole anuncio de la gorda; soñar con
pronunciamientos y barricadas; desechar honrosos acomodos por
amor á la idea que ni sienten ni penetran; triunfar al cabo los suyos;
echar la gorra al aire; enronquecerse victoreándolos, y quedarse tan
tejedores, tan escribientes, tan cajistas, tan zapateros, tan pobres y
tan ignorantes y tan paganos como antes... ¡y locos de contentos!...
¡Oh manía de las manías! ¡Oh candor de los candores!
He dicho que la mitad del género humano está tocada de esas
locuras. Pues la mitad de la otra mitad tiene, cuando menos, la
manía de meterse en todo lo que no le importa: lo que tiene su
vecino, lo que come, lo que viste, lo que gasta, lo que ahorra, lo que
debe; qué empresas acomete: si son atinadas, si son locuras, si se
arruinará: si lo merece, si no lo merece, si listo, si tonto, si terco, si
cándido. La casa que se construye á la plaza: por qué es tan
grande, por qué tan chica; si alta, si baja, si huelgan los peones, si
hay muchos, si hay pocos; si avanza la obra, que «así irá ello»; si va
lentamente, que «por qué no se acaba ya?» Estas cosas quitan el
sueño á muchísimos hombres, y por ellas sudan y porfían, y no
tienen paz ni sosiego.
¿Y los que se pasan lo mejor de la vida rascando las cuerdas de un
violín, hinchando las del pescuezo para hacer sonar un clarinete, ó
recortando figuritas de papel, persuadidos de que han nacido para
ello, aunque la vecindad se amotine contra la música, y hallen en los
basureros los primores que de las tijeras pasan, por paquetes, á los
álbum de sus amigas?
Y entre estos mismos seres, al parecer exentos de toda deformidad
maniática, ¿no hay cada manía que canta el credo? ¿No es un filón
de ellas cada estación del año, amén de otras que no cito por
respecto á la debilidad del sexo? ¿Qué son, sino manías, los
estatutos de la vida elegante y las exigencias de la moda?
¿Y la manía del matrimonio, y la de la paternidad, y la de la
propaganda con tan santos fines, y la de hacer versos, y la de ser
chistoso... y la de culotar pipas?
Pues todo esto, con ser tanto y tan frecuente, es un grano de anís
comparado con la manía coleccionista, que va invadiendo el mundo
con toda su redondez. Se coleccionan sellos, se coleccionan cajas
de fósforos, se coleccionan botones, y tachuelas, y sombreros, y
tirantes, y todo género de inmundicias, y se pagan precios fabulosos
por cosas que los traperos abandonan con desdén en las
barreduras. Un plato de Talavera vale ya tanto como una vajilla de la
Cartuja, y un trapo da para una capa; y si tiene auténtica y resulta
por ella ser un pedazo del herreruelo de don Rodrigo Calderón, vale
un tesoro; y no tendrá precio si se trata de un jirón de la casa de los
Jirones, ó de un pañal de la camisa de un cortesano de Felipe II. Un
Vargueño herrumbroso, infestado por las chinches y taladrado por
las polillas, vuelve tarumba al hombre de gusto que topa con él en el
desván de su vecino, ó en los montones del Rastro; y la espada
mohosa, y la daga roída, y el morrión aplastado... ¿quién sabe lo
que valen hoy si el vendedor lo entiende y el comprador es de
casta?
Y hétenos aquí, como traídos del brazo, de patitas entre los señores
bibliómanos, la flor y nata, como si dijéramos, de las extravagancias
y de los delirios.
Este loco (y perdóneme la franqueza) no busca libros, sino
ediciones; ejemplares raros por su escasez y por su fecha. Un
incunable, ¡qué felicidad! Los de ciertos impresores, como los Aldos,
los Estéfanos, Plantinos y Elzevirios; la letra gótica ó de tortis; y si el
ejemplar es en gran papel y está intonso, ¡Virgen María!... ¡qué
efervescencia en el gremio, qué ir y venir, qué mimos al poseedor,
qué ofertas, qué debates, qué descripciones del ejemplar, qué
historias de su procedencia y vicisitudes!... Y el asunto del libro es
una chapucería escrita en bárbaro casi siempre, porque no puede
ser otra cosa. Los libros buenos se reimprimen y abundan; los malos
se imprimen una vez sola, y por eso escasean los ejemplares de los
antiguos; y precisamente porque escasean, los pagan á peso de oro
los bibliómanos, con tal que estén cabales sus folios, tengan
íntegros los márgenes y no carezcan de colofón, aunque huelan á
demonios, y la pringue no deje por donde agarrarlos: por eso, por
ser tan raros y tan viejos, son los más inútiles para el literato.
Comúnmente tratan de esgrima, de jineta, caza, heráldica, cocina,
genealogía, juegos de manos, caballerías, ó de indecencias
(Celestinas) semejantes en el fondo, no en la forma, á la famosa de
Rodrigo de Cota.
He visto á un fanático ofrecer por una de éstas, á otro que tal, un
cuadro de Goya, tres porcelanas del Retiro, no sé qué empuñadura
de Benvenuto y cuatro mil reales en dinero... ¡Y se escandalizaron
los peritos circunstantes y el venturoso poseedor, de lo mezquino de
la oferta! Conocía yo el ejemplar codiciado, y te aseguro, lector, á fe
de hombre de bien, que sus hojas, atestadas de viñetas, no mejores
que las de las coplas de ciego, arranciadas y pringosas, no pasaban
de treinta, y que por todo forro tenían un retal de pergamino
ampollado y lacerioso, con lamparones de sebo y otras porquerías;
pero era un gótico rarísimo, y ¡ahí verá usted! Y yo dije para mí,
contemplando al poseedor, al que quería serlo y á los testigos:
—«Señor, ¿para cuándo son los manicomios!»...
Asombra oir narrar á estos hombres la historia de algunas
adquisiciones de mérito. ¡Qué de viajes, de intrigas, de asechanzas,
de astucia, de dispendios! ¡Cuántas enemistades, cuántos odios á
muerte entre prójimos, antes hermanos en el corazón, por la
conquista de unos papelejos hediondos, que ni siquiera se dejan
leer, en lo cual nada se pierde, porque se ventila en ellos
insípidamente un asunto ridículo, amén de trasnochado!
De la lealtad con que muy á menudo se juega entre estos señores,
no he de ser yo quien hable aquí, sino la gente del oficio.
Recuérdese la pelea habida años ha en la prensa entre el famoso
don Bartolomé Gallardo y otro bibliófilo, muy distinguido y docto, que
se firmaba con el seudónimo de Lupián Zapata.
Aplicaba éste al primero (cuya rapacidad en materia de libros es
proverbial en la casta), después de haberle dicho de propia cuenta
más de otro tanto en variedad de metros y de prosas, las siguientes
frioleras, obra, si no recuerdo mal, del famoso Solitario, padre grave
de la Orden:

«Caco, cuco, faquín, bibliopirata,

Tenaza de los libros, chuzo, púa,
De papeles, aparte lo ganzúa,
Hurón, carcoma, polilleja, rata.
Uñilargo, garduña, garrapata,
Para sacar los libros, cabría, grúa;
Argel de Bibliotecas, gran falúa
Armada en corso, haciendo cala y cata.
Te pones por corbata una maleta,
Un Simancas te cabe en el bolsillo,
Empapas un archivo en la bragueta;
Juegas del dos, del cinco y por tresillo,
Y al fin te sorberás, como una sopa,
De libros llenas África y Europa».

Por cierto que esta moral debe de ser muy antigua y corriente entre
la gente del rebusco, porque recuerdo haber leído, con referencia á
Barthélemy, que habiéndosele preguntado una vez cómo había
podido reunir la rica colección de medallas que poseía, respondió
con el candor de un niño:
—Me han regalado algunas; he comprado otras, y las demás las he
robado.
Dicho esto, lector (que, cuando menos, tendrás la manía de ser
buen mozo, por ruin y encanijado que seas), hago punto aquí,
apostándote las dos orejas á que siendo, como te juzgo, hombre de
bien, después de meter la mano en tu pecho no te atreves á tirar
una chinita á mi pecado.
1880.
 LA INTOLERANCIA

(AL SEÑOR DON SINFOROSO QUINTANILLA)

Bien saben los que á usted y á mí nos conocen, que de este pecado
no tenemos, gracias á Dios, que arrepentirnos.
No van, pues, conmigo ni con usted los presentes rasguños,
aunque mi pluma los trace y á usted se los dedique; ni van tampoco
con los que tengan, en el particular, la conciencia menos tranquila
que la nuestra, porque los pecadores de este jaez ni se arrepienten
ni se enmiendan; además de que á mí no me da el naipe para
convertir infieles. Son, por tanto, las presentes líneas, un inofensivo
desahogo entre usted y yo, en el seno de la intimidad y bajo la
mayor reserva. Vamos, como quien dice, á echar un párrafo, en
confianza, en este rinconcito del libro, como pudiéramos echarle
dando un paseo por las soledades de Puerto Chico á las altas horas
de la noche. El asunto no es de transcendencia; pero sí de perenne
actualidad, como ahora se dice, y se presta, como ningún otro, á la
salsa de una murmuración lícita, sin ofensa para nadie, como las
que á usted le gustan, y de cuya raya no pasa aunque le desuellen
vivo.
Ya sabe usted, por lo que nos cuentan los que de allá vienen, lo que
se llama en la Isla de Cuba un ¡ataja! Un quídam toma de una tienda
un pañuelo... ó una oblea; le sorprende el tendero, huye el
delincuente, sale aquél tras éste, plántase en la acera, y grita ¡ataja!
y de la tienda inmediata, y de todas las demás, por cuyos frentes va
pasando á escape el fugitivo, le salen al encuentro banquetas,
palos, pesas, ladrillos y cuanto Dios ó el arte formaron de más duro
y contundente. El atajado así, según su estrella, muere, unas veces
en el acto, y otras al día siguiente, ó sale con vida del apuro; pero,
por bien que le vaya en él, no se libra de una tunda que le balda.
Como se deja comprender, para que al hombre más honrado del
mundo le toque allí la lotería, basta la casualidad de que al correr
por una calle, porque sus negocios así lo requieran, le dé á un
chusco la gana de gritar ¡ataja! Porque allí no se pregunta jamás por
qué, después que se oye el grito: se ve quién corre, y, sin otras
averiguaciones, se le tira con lo primero que se halla á mano.
Pues bien: á un procedimiento semejante se ajusta, por lo común,
entre los hombres cultos de ambos hemisferios, la formación de los
caracteres. No diré que sea la fama quien los hace; pero sí quien los
califica, los define... y los ataja.
Me explicaré mejor con algunos ejemplos.
Un hombre, porque tiene la cara así y el talle del otro modo, es
cordialmente antipático á cuantos no le conocen sino de vista, que
son los más.
—¡Qué cara! ¡qué talle! ¡qué levita! ¡qué aire!—dice con ira cada
uno de ellos, al verle pasar. Y si averiguan que se ha descalabrado,
por resbalarse en la acera,
—¡Me alegro!—exclaman con fruición,—porque ¡cuidado si es
cargante ese mozo!
Y si se habla de un ahogado en el baño, ó de un infeliz cosido á
puñaladas en una callejuela, ó de un desgraciado mordido por un
perro rabioso, dícense, con cierta delectación, pensando en el
antipático:
—¡Él es!
Pero llega un día en que se le ve del brazo de quien más le
despellejaba; pregúntase á éste cómo puede soportar la compañía
de un hombre tan insufrible, y responde con el corazón en la mano:
—Amigo, estábamos en un grandísimo error: ese sujeto es lo más
fino, lo más discreto, lo más bondadoso... lo más simpático que
darse puede.
Así es, en efecto, el fondo de aquel carácter que en el concepto
público, según la fama, es todo lo contrario, por lo cual se le niega la
sal y el fuego.
Ilustraré este caso con otro dato, que si no es enteramente
irrecusable, es, cuando menos, de una ingenuidad meritoria. No sé,
ni me importa saber, la opinión de que goza mi propio carácter entre
la gente; pero es lo cierto que hombres que hoy son íntimos y bien
probados amigos míos, me han dicho alguna vez:
—¡Caray, qué insoportable me eras cuando no te conocía tan á
fondo como ahora!
Jamás me he cansado en preguntarles el por qué de su antipatía.
Cabalmente la sentía yo hacia ellos en igual grado de fuerza.
—¡Qué hombre tan célebre es Diego!—dice la fama.—Es un costal
de gracias y donaires.
Y es porque Diego hace reir á cuantas personas le escuchan, y sus
burlas son celebradas en todas partes, y sus bromazos corren de
boca en boca y de tertulia en tertulia, y hasta las anécdotas más
antiguas y resobadas se le atribuyen á él por sus admiradores.
Ocúrresele á usted un día estudiar un poco á fondo al célebre
Diego, y hállale hombre vulgarísimo, ignorante y sin pizca de ingenio
ni de cultura; capaz de desollar la honra de su madre, á trueque de
hacerse aplaudir de aquellos mismos que le han colocado con sus
palmoteos en la imprescindible necesidad de ser gracioso.
Al revés de Diego, Juan es ingenioso y prudente, seco y punzante
en sus sátiras, oportuno y justo al servirse de ellas; y, sin embargo,
Juan, según dicen, es una vulgaridad antipática.
Una dama espléndida y de buen humor, reúne en su casa, muy á
menudo, una escogida sociedad. La tal señora no tiene, en buena
justicia, prenda que digna de notar sea en su persona. En terreno
neutral, sería una completa vulgaridad. Pero hay lujo en sus salones
y gabinetes, variedad en sus fiestas, abundancia en sus buffets,
novedad en sus trajes, y siempre una sonrisa en su cara. Los
asiduos tertulianos se saturan de este conjunto; siéntense repletitos
de estómago en el elegante comedor, bien divertidos en el estrado
suntuoso, hartos de música y de danza, y todo de balde y cada día.
¿Cómo, á la luz de tantas satisfacciones, no ha de parecerles
encantadora, ó por lo menos distinguidísima, la persona que se las
procura, con celo y desinterés verdaderamente maternales?
Así nace la fama de esa distinción: pregónanla las bocas de los
tertulianos donde quiera que se baila y se cena de balde, y luego en
corrillos y cafés, y cátala proverbial en todo el pueblo, y á la dama,
autorizada para enmendar la plana á la moda reinante y acreditar
caprichosos aditamentos de su invención, como prendas de gusto
superfino.
Enséñansela en la calle á usted, que no baila, y dícenle los que la
saludan:
—¡Qué señora tan elegante, tan chic... y qué talento tiene!
Ni usted la halla elegante, ni eso que los elegantes llaman chic, no
sé por qué; ni ha visto usted una muestra del ensalzado talento;
pero tanto se lo aseguran, que antes duda usted de la claridad de su
vista y de la solidez de su juicio, que de la razón de la fama.
Al mismo tiempo pasa otra señora, bella á todas luces, elegante sin
trapos raros, y discreta á carta cabal; y usted, que es sincero, dice al
punto á los otros:
—¡Esto es lo que se llama un tipo elegante y distinguido!...
—Cierto que no es enteramente vulgo—le contestan con desdén;—
no es fea, no es tonta... pero le falta, le falta... vamos, le falta...
—¡Qué canario!—digo yo:—lo que le falta es dar un baile cada tres
días y una cena en cada baile, como la otra; pues la mayor parte de
los juicios que hacemos de las cosas, dependen, según afirmó muy
cuerdamente el poeta,

del cristal con que se miran.

Demuestran los casos citados, y otros parecidos que no apunto por

innecesarios, que la señora fama no juega siempre limpio en sus
pregones, y que al inocente que se descuida le vende gato por
liebre, ó, siguiendo el símil habanero, ataja sin caridad ni justicia al
primer transeúnte que corre delante de ella, mientras el verdadero
delincuente fuma tranquilo el robado veguero dos puertas más
abajo.
Pero, al fin, estos ejemplares no mueren en el trance, y, aunque
heridos y maltrechos, llegan á curarse; y, en ocasiones, hasta
parece el ratero y lleva su merecido en la cárcel de la opinión
pública.
Donde el ataja es de muerte, y completa la perversión del buen
sentido, es en lo referente al pecado social de la «intolerancia»,
contra el que bufan y trinan los hombres y las mujeres que tienen la
manía de creerse muy tolerantes, y, lo que es peor, la de contárselo
á todo el mundo. Aquí sí que puede decirse que van los proyectiles
á la cabeza de los atajados, cuando debieran estrellarse en las de
los atajadores.
Esto es lo que vamos á ver, con clarísimos ejemplos y no con
estiradas metafísicas, que marean más que convencen, y además
no caben en la paciencia angelical de usted ni en la mía.
Como punto de partida, y para los efectos legítimos de esta
conversación, hemos de fijar el verdadero alcance que tienen la
intolerancia y la tolerancia á que me refiero.
Llámase, en el ordinario trato social, intolerante, al hombre que, de
cuanto ve á su lado, solamente aplaude lo que le agrada, ó le
parece ajustado á las leyes del buen sentido; y se llama tolerante al
que lo aplaude todo, racional y absurdo, serio y ridículo, cómodo y
molesto; al que á todo se amolda en la sociedad, menos á tolerar
con calma que otros censuren algo de ello.
Y dice usted, como deducción lógica de estas dos definiciones:
—Luego viene á quedar reducido el caso, si no es cuestión de más
ó de menos franqueza, á tener ó no tener paladar en los sesos. De
cualquier modo, pierden el pleito los señores tolerantes.
Es la pura verdad; y para remacharla, vayan ahora los prometidos
ejemplos, pues, como decía el soldado de la comedia que tanta
gracia nos hizo en cierta ocasión, «con los deos se hacen los
fideos».
Concurre usted ordinariamente, para esparcir las nieblas de mal
humor, á un punto (llamémosle H), donde halla conversación,
siquiera tolerable, lectura deleitosa, espacio para revolverse y
muelles sillones en que tender, en un apuro, el cuerpo quebrantado.
Allí no choca que usted permanezca mudo y silencioso, si el hablar
le incomoda; ni lo que se hable le molesta, porque si no es
instructivo ni risueño, tampoco es sandio. Aunque el tal
esparcimiento no es cosa del otro jueves, para quien, como usted,
no los cuenta por docenas, vale más de lo que parece. Pero un día
se ve invadido el local por una turba de gomosos, que tararean
trozos de ópera, y hablan á gritos, y se tumban sobre los muebles, y
aporrean las mesas con los bastones, y se tirotean con chistes de
rincón á rincón, y se descubren sus calaveradas del gran mundo... y
lo demás de rúbrica en tales casos y entre tales gentes. Sufre usted
con paciencia esta primera irrupción, y casi, casi, la segunda; pero
al ver en la tercera que el mal se hace crónico, renuncia usted
generosamente á sus adquiridos derechos, y no vuelve á poner los
pies en aquel centro de racionales entretenimientos.
Uno de los tolerantes que con usted concurría á él, le encuentra en
la calle andando los días.
—¿Cómo no va usted ya por allá?—le dice, abrazándole.
—Pues, hombre,—responde usted con entera ingenuidad,—porque
no se puede sufrir aquello.
—¿Lo dice usted por esos chicos?...
—Cabal.
—¡Bah!... se ahoga usted en poca agua.
—Por lo visto, ¿á usted le divierten?
—Hombre, tanto como eso, no; pero no me incomodan.
—Pues á mí, sí.
—Porque, con franqueza, amigo: es usted ¡muy intolerante!
¡Vea usted qué jurisprudencia tan peregrina! Le echan á usted de
casa; ni mata usted ni encarcela á los invasores; se larga usted á la
calle sin despegar los labios, y distrae usted su fastidio brujuleando
por donde mejor le parece, probablemente en paz y en gracia de
Dios; hay quien halla tolerables las causas de este cambio forzoso
de vida, ¡que ya es tolerar! y, al propio tiempo, no tolera que usted
diga que huye de ellas porque no las puede resistir. ¡Y, sin embargo,
usted es el intolerante, y no los que con cuatro majaderías quieren
imponerse á cuarenta personas serias, ni las que se escandalizan
de que alguien halle insoportable la imposición!
Otro caso análogo: frecuenta usted una tertulia de su gusto;
concurren á ella las pocas personas que le han quedado á uno en
limpio, del expurgo que viene haciendo durante el curso de la vida,
en el montón de amigos que le tocó en suerte á la edad de color de
rosa. Está usted allí como en su propio hogar; sabe usted de qué pie
cojea cada uno, como cada uno lo sabe de usted, y se habla y se
discurre con entera libertad y á gusto de todos, sin producir otras
desazones que las puramente indispensables en toda reunión de
amigos que, por lo mismo que lo son á prueba, rara vez están de
acuerdo unos con otros. En estas reuniones semi-públicas, nunca