NERSES SHNORHALI AND THE PATRONS OF HIS COMMENTARIES

The patrons of medieval Armenian writings (historical, theological, grammatical, etc.) played an important role not only in the creation of the treatise, but also in its nature, structure and content. The patron was essentially the first and main addressee of a treatise, at the same time the representative of the spiritual, educational, socio-cultural environment, thanks to whom or on whose initiative this or that treatise was penned. This article is dedicated to the patrons of Nerses Shnorhali’s commentaries, to their cooperation with the author in the creation of this or that work. It is known that Shnorhali wrote his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew at the behest of his elder brother, Catholicos Grigor III Pahlavuni. The commentary on the “Definitions of Philosophy” of David the Invincible (actually on the Syllogisms against the Manichaeans by Pseudo-Gregory of Nyssa, in Armenian tradition attributed to David the Invincible and attached to his major philosophical work) was written at the request of Bishop Step‘anos, who served in the Catholicosate of Hromkla, was the abbot of the Barsegheants‘ monastery on the Black Mountain, later moved to Vaspurakan. At the request of the same Stepʻanos, who is mentioned in the sources as “Philosopher”, Nerses Lambronats‘i wrote his Commentary on the Dormition of Saint John, and Samuel Anets‘i produced his Interpretation on Calendar. In collaboration with Vardan Haghbatets‘i, another prominent vardapet and scholar of the time, the Interpretation of the Encomium on the Holy Cross by David the Invincible Philosopher was written. Vardan himself wrote a Cause of the Encomium. The interpretation of the Canon Tables was probably also the result of a collaboration between Shnorhali and Haghbatets‘i. Based on literary sources, this paper attempts to show when and under what circumstances the medieval vardapets and the Catholicos Grigor III Pahlavuni requested Shnorhali to interpret the works in question. By examining the prefaces and the content of the commentaries, I touch on the portrayal of the patrons reflected in them.