Achtung: Um die in diesem Text erscheinenden Sonderzeichen auf Bildschirm und Drucker sichtbar zu machen, muá das TITUS-Fontpaket Oriens Christianus installiert sein. Attention: The non-ASCII characters as contained in this page can only be displayed and printed by installing the TITUS font package Oriens Christianus.

Achtung: Dies ist eine Internet-Sonderausgabe von Gippert (1993b). Sie sollte nicht zitiert werden. Zitate sind der Originalausgabe zu entnehmen. Attention: This is a special edition of Gippert (1993b). for the internet. It should not be quoted. For quotations, please refer to the original edition.



Towards an automatical analysis

of a translated text and its original:


The Persian epic of V¨s u R¦m¨n and the Georgian Visramiani

Jost Gippert



0. In the field of Oriental studies, computers have not yet been as widely accepted as in other disciplines as a means of linguistic and literary analysis. In the present paper1, I shall discuss the facilities the computer offers when applied for the special purpose of comparing two texts that have an internal relationship with each other in that one of them is a translation of the other. As I intend to show, this relationship cannot be established "automatically" by just entering the two texts; instead, it requires a lot of additional information that can only be handled manually.
1. The romance of V¨s and R¦m¨n as versified by the 11th century writer GurgÀnÒ is regarded as one of the most important literary products of Persia. The text has hitherto seen four scholarly editions, the first of which appeared in Calcutta 18652. Only the latest of these editions which was prepared by Magali Todua and Alexander Gwakharia from the Georgian Academy in Tbilisi3 has taken into account the fact that there exists a Georgian version of the text dating back as early as the end of the 12th century. This is the so called Visramiani which was introduced to the European scholarly world through the English translation from 1914 by Oliver Wardrop4. Of its four Georgian editions, only the one prepared by Alexander Gwakharia and Magali Todua5 considers the relationship between the Visramiani and its Persian model.
1.1. What then can a thorough comparison of the two texts aim at? In my view, such a comparison can have at least six aims. The first one consists in establishing the actual relationship between the two texts, viz. whether the Georgian text is indeed a translation of the Persian original (as most scholars believe today) or whether it is only a free adaptation (as has sometimes been claimed). The second aim lies in establishing the wording of the Persian text as present when it was translated into Georgian; it must have been still very close to the original wording at that time because the Persian text is believed to have been written only two centuries earlier (between 1040 and 1054). This aim was kept in mind by Gwakharia / Todua when they prepared their edition, and only by a new comparison can this edition be evaluated (and, eventually, improved). The third aim would consist in establishing the original wording of the Georgian version as one of the most important literary monuments preserved in this language. This, too, may be done with respect to criticizing the existing editions. As a fourth aim of a comparison, I think of analyzing the translation method as used by the translator, esp. with respect to consistency in rendering key words. As a fifth aim, I expect it to reveal the information the Persian original offers as to the Old Georgian language, esp. with respect to words otherwise unknown and to the etymology of words, and as the sixth and perhaps most important aim I hope it to bring out new information as to the sound system of New Persian at the time of the translation.
1.2. A short depiction of the phenomena involved may be necessary here to show why I consider the effort of a comparison worth undertaking.
1.2.1. As was said before, most scholars nowadays believe that the Georgian Visramiani is a close translation of GurgÀnÒ's VÒs u RÀmÒn epic although it is in prose, not a metrical text like its Persian model. The close relationship becomes obvious just by comparing the sequence of chapters and confronting their names as in the synoptical table given as appendix 1 at the end of this paper: although the partitioning disagrees to a certain extent and although some chapter titles have no equivalents, the plot of the story is visibly maintained without changes6. And within chapters it can easily be demonstrated as well that the translator intended to keep as close to the original as possible, just by arranging the Georgian text according to the metrical units of the Persian; cp. the synoptical presentation of the beginning of chapter 24 given as appendix 2 below. Maia Mamacaêvili who devoted a whole monograph to the question of the relationship between the Georgian and the Persian text7 came to the same conclusion; she drew our attention to the fact that some of the manuscripts preserving the Visramiani contain otherwise unknown punctuation marks which coincide with bayt or half-bayt boundaries in the Persian text.
1.2.2. What information the Georgian text offers with respect to the original wording of GurgÀnÒ's epic can be illustrated with some passages where Todua / Gwakharia's edition differs from MahÍób's. E.g., in his chapter 40, MahÍób reads the following bayt (40, 37)8:
tu g©y§ ø¨r-i man rªb¦hÆ gaøt-ast
w-az-¨n saxt¨ rux-am تn k¦hÆ gaøt-ast
This is translated by Morr. (77-78) in the following way:
"It is as if the lion of my soul is become a fox
and my cheeks become like straw from this suffering."
In TG, we read instead (25, 107):
tu g©y§ ø¨r-i man rªb¦hÆ gaøt-ast
az-¨n saxt¨ u k©h-am k¦hÆ gaøt-ast
With the usage of k©h-am "my mountain" instead of rux-am "my cheek(s)" this is nearer to the Georgian version (GT 16: 75, 17-19):
lomisa msgavsi ýali Øemi gamelebula
da øeÅirvebisagan mta Øemi gavaÖebula
This was rendered by Ward. in the following way (66):
"From the strength of a lion I am reduced to that of a fox,
and by sorrow my mountain is become a valley".
A word-by-word translation would run as follows:
"My strength, equal to (that) of a lion, has become (like the one of) a fox,
and from grief, my mountain (i.e. the mountain which is me)
has become a valley."
An opposite case is TG 25, 42, where we read
hanªz-aø bªdÆ puøt-i lab Øu mulâam
lab-aø تn angab¨n u b¦da dar ham
 "Yet was the `back' of his lip like silk cloth,
his lip like honey and wine (mixed) in one".
as against MahÍób's wording (40,8)
hanªz-aø bªdÆ rux تn l¦la xurram
lab-aø تn angab¨n u b¦da dar ham
which was rendered by Morr. (75):
".. his cheek was as yet splendid as the tulip,
his lip like honey and wine mixed".
Here, the Georgian seems to support MahÍób's text (GT 16: 73,15-16):
bageni lalsa ugvandes.

".. his lips were like ruby" (Ward. 64)

Although we have only one sentence as an equivalent to the two half-bayts in question here, we may assume that the translator chose the word lal- "ruby" because it sounded similar to the Persian l¦la "tulip".
1.2.3. The way in which the Persian text can be used for establishing the original wording of the Georgian version, can be demonstrated in an equal manner.
In the 1938 edition (BI±), we find the following clause (8: 24,7-8):
guloansa åiri broÂeulisa çuavilsa uguandis
da þabansa siçuitlita - ÝrianÖalsa.
This wording is in accordance with all manuscripts and is easily understandable, as Wardrop's translation shows (28):
"The face of the brave was like the flower of a pomegranate;
of the cowardly, like a scorpion with yellowness."
With Gwakharia/Todua, however, we have to conject a different reading (GT 8: 49, 27-28)
guloansa åiri broÂeulisa çuavilsa uguandis
da þabansa siçuitlita - drahÖansa.
which would mean

For only this wording would agree with the Persian text (TG 16,29):
yak-§-r¦ gªna øud hamrang-i d¨n¦r
yak-§-r¦ Øihra øud m¦nand-i gul-n¦r
"The cheek of the one was the color of a d¨n¦r;
the face of the other like the pomegranate blossom." (Morr. 43)

A litteral translation would run as follows:
"Of the one, the cheek became equal in colour to a d¨n¦r (coin),
of the (other) one, the face became similar
to the pomegranate blossom."
The restitution of the Georgian text with the name of the coin drahÖan-i instead of ÝrianÖal-i "scorpion" is unproblematical from a palaeographical point of view; cp. the two words 
drahÖani
and 
ÌrianÖali
in (modern) Mxedruli script. And that Georg. drahÖan-i would be the normal equivalent of Persian d¨n¦r can be seen in TG 24, 56 = GT 15: 71,12-13 where both words are confronted. Besides, we may compare Lk. 20,24 where Georgian drahÖan-i renders Greek ÚÝäÿèßoä, the immediate etymon of Persian d¨n¦r.
From a plentiful list of similar cases we may quote, e.g., BI± 13: 42,13 with Georgian 
niêani
niøani "sign" (in accordance with all mss.) which would have to be expected as the equivalent of Persian 
*?**?**?**?*
niø¦n only as in GT 23: 65,13 = TG 23,16, whereas GT (13: 63,39) have the correct 
niêaïi
niøaüi as the counterpart of Persian 
*?**?**?**?*
niø¦ü "merriment" (TG 22,10); and BI± 16: 52,15 has Georgian 
dasÂavlebuli
dasÂavlebuli "learned, instructed" (in accordance with a majority of mss.) as against GT 16: 72,6 with 
dasaÂçlebuli
dasaÂçlebuli "pitiful, deplorable" which is the correct equivalent of Persian 
*?**?**?**?**?*
mahjªr "lost, forlorn". For the case of GT 15: 70,18 = TG 24,32 cp. below.

1.2.4. As to the translation method as used by the Georgian translator, we have already stated that his general outline must have been to keep as close to the original as possible. For deviations from this rule, we may suggest the following reasons:
1.2.4.1. One main reason may be styled as "ideological": The translator had to "convert" the text from GurgÀnÒ's Islamic background to the Christian background prevailing in Georgia. As a main effect, this conversion resulted in the omitment of the first two chapters as well as the last one, all of which are devoted to the praise of AllÀh and MuÐammad in the original, and in a radical shortening of the introduction (chapters 3-7), which deals with the proper Islamic-Persian environment in which GurgÀnÒ's opus was accomplished. Within the "conversion" phenomena, we may note the interesting substitution of Persian darw§ø by Georgian glaxa- meaning "poor man, beggar" (e.g. TG 23,79 = GT 14: 67,16 or TG 24,56 = GT 15: 71,13), or of the Islamic paradise guardian, RiÙw¦n, and of fairies, par¨, by Georgian kaþi "monster" (TG 25,53 = GT 16: 73,27 / TG 25,131 = GT 16:76,6).
1.2.4.2. A similar effect is often produced by the necessary adaptation of specific elements of the Persian natural environment to the Georgian "reader" not familiar with them. This may be observed mainly in the areas of fauna and flora, but also with respect to Persian geographic names, month names, star names and the like; cp. the following sample list:












Esp. interesting in this respect is the frequent substitution of P. m¦h "moon" by G. mze "sun" (or mze da mtvari "sun and moon", e.g. TG 15,25 = GT 7: 48,24 mah > mze da mtvari; 22,1 = 13:63,23: m¦h-e m¦h¦n "the moon of the moons = VÒs" > mze-vita Visi "Vis, the sun-like"; 25,48 = 16: 73,21: s¨mb¦r m¦h "silver moon" > sulieri mze "sun endowed with a living soul"; but cp. 25,45 = 16: 73,18: m¦h-i j¦nvar "moon endowed with a living soul" > mtvare gavsili "full moon"), and the treatment of the name of the river Jeyh©n (Oxus): This is taken over as a borrowing in the form þeon-i in TG 24,52 = GT 15:71,7 where it is further explained as r©d-¨ Marv "the river of Marv" = Maravisa Âçal-i "the water of Marv"; it is simply omitted in 15,20 = 7: 48,19-20, but rendered by MüÖvari, the name of the main river of Georgia, the Kura, in 23,4 = 14: 65,1 and 25,181 = 16: 77,37.
Here of course, conclusions can only be drawn when the whole material has been collected, for we may always be misled by single cases. Contrast, e.g., TG 24,57 = GT 15: 71,14 where Georgian Öanþari "wild ass" renders Persian naxj¨r "prey (animal)" with TG 25,140 = GT 16: 76,18 where Georgian nadiri "prey (animal)" stands for Persian g©r "wild ass".
1.2.4.3. One important reason for deviations from the original is the addition of explanations for textual clarity. This may be illustrated by passages such as TG 24,32-35:
pas ¦ngah r©y u mis har dª bi-¦vard
üilism-i har yak-§-r¦ ÷ªrat-§ kard
ba ¦han har duv¦n-r¦ bastÆ bar ham
ba afsªn band-i har dª kardÆ muâkam
ham§ t¦ basta m¦nd§ band-i ¦han
ze band-aø basta m¦nd§ mardÆ bar zan
w-agar band-aø kas-§ bar ham øikast¨
ham¦n gah mardum-§ basta bi-rast¨
 "Then she brought brass and copper,
described the talisman of each party;
then tied them together with iron,
sealed the fastening of both with a spell.
So long as the iron clasp should be fastened
would a man remain spellbound and impotent with a woman.
But should anyone break its clasp,
there and then the spellbound male would be released."
(Morr. 71-72)

This is rendered in the Georgian text as follows (GT 15: 70,18-24):
merme ýiýaman såilenýi da rvali moiÝo
da grýnebita rayt-me üilismi øekmna:
ori Moabadis saxe da erti Visisi;

øeuloca ra-meda rÖinita ertman-ertsa zeda magrad øeaÅedna.
ýiýa magalitad grýneuli iço da ese ori Øxibi asre vita-me øekmnili iço,

romel vi-re-mca igi ertgan daÅedili içvnen,
Moabad Vissa zedan øeÖruli iços
da tu vin gaqsnida, mas-ve Âamsa gaisqneboda.
"Then the nurse took copper and bone,
and with some sort of enchantment made a talisman;
two in the likeness of Moabad, and one of Vis;

she uttered some charm,
firmly welded them upon another with iron.
The nurse was a rare sorceress,

and these two bonds were made in such a manner,

that as long as they were welded together,
Moabad should be bound with regard to Vis,
and if anyone undid these,
at this moment he (Moabad) would be unbound." (Ward. 59)

Note that the edition Wardrop had at hand read 
ýuali
ýuali "bone" instead of 
ruali
ruali "bronze" = Persian 
*?**?**?*
r©y. Between ori "two" and Moabadis we should expect erti "one": "two, [namely] one in the likeness of Moabad, and one of Vis".

A similar case is TG 25,128:
ba har â¦l-§ ba baxø¦yiø saz¦y-am
ke تn¨n dar dam-¨ surx-a¹dah¦y-am
"By any standard I am worthy of mercy,
caught as I am in the jaws of a fierce dragon!" (Morr. 78)

Here, the Georgian translator felt it necessary to motivate the "red" colour (surx) of the "fierce dragon" a¹dah¦ in the following way (GT 16:76,2-4):
(.. me var ..) çovlita sakmita sabralo,
amit romel Âitlisa gvel-veøaåisa,
Öacisa sisxlisa msmelisatvis, daåçrobil var.
"(I am ..) in everything to be pitied,
for I am enthralled by a red dragon
which drinks men's blood." (Ward.67)

1.2.4.4. On the other hand, the translator has sometimes felt free to omit passages which seemed unnecessary or excessive to him. So, e.g. he dismissed nearly all of chapter 37 (of the earlier editions = TG 23, 109-134) which contains a detailed description of VÒs as arrayed by her nurse. Instead we read the following lines which we may take as an apology (GT 14: 68, 20-22 / Ward. 56):


1.2.4.5. For the purpose of better understandability, e.g. in order to avoid a hysteron-proteron etc., the translator sometimes rearranged sentences or verses as in TG 16,27:
bas¦ asp-¨ siy¦h u mard-i burn¦
ke gaøt az gardÆ xing u p§rÆ-s¨m¦
"Many were the black horses and young men
who became white and hoary because of the dust." (Morr. 42-43)

which he rendered as follows (GT 8: 49,24-26):
mravali çrma Öaci daberebul içvis
da øavi cxeni gaÅarmagebul içvis.
"Many youths became like old men,
and black horses grew white." (Ward. 28)

1.2.4.6. One major source of deviations is the poetic skill of the translator who seems to have been trained in recognizing alliterations, figurae etymologicae, plays on words etc. and to have endeavoured to reproduce them in his translation. Under this aspect we may understand why he chose the following words (GT 65: 249,4-6):
tu me daberebul var, miþnuroba Øemi ar damberebia:
axali qma ýuelisa ýalisagan ØamoiÖrvis.
"Though I may be old, my love has not aged;
a new tune may be struck from an old string." (Ward. 318)

when rendering TG 82,5:
tan-am gar p¨rÆ øud, mihr-am na-øud p¨r,
nav¦-yi nou tuw¦n zad bar kuhan z¨r
"Though my body has grown old, my love has not -
`one can play a new tune on an old fiddle'." (Morr. 293)

Obviously, the alliteration to be seen in ýuel-i "old" and ýal-i "string" was introduced as an image of the alliteration found in Persian nav¦ "tune" and nou "new".
The same explanation may hold true for the wording in GT 16: 74,11-12:
da, tu-ca bedman Øemman me gamÂira,
bednierobisa bedi mas-mca nu moeøorebis.
"Though my fortune has forsaken me,
may the good fortune of happiness never abandon her." (Ward. 65)

Here, the translator may have looked for an equivalent of the threefold alliteration b... b... b... as present in TG 25,70:
w-agar-Øe baxtÆ b¦ man xordÆ z§nh¦r
mar-©-r¦ baxtÆ farrux b¦d u b§d¦r
"Though fortune has broken faith with me,
may glorious fortune be afoot for her!" (Morr. 76)

Sometimes he may even have added poetic devices of his own, such as the alliteration using bed-i "fate, fortune" and bedit-i "unfavourable, wretched" in GT 16: 71,30-31:
ra gul-Âarsrulsa Ramins gauýnelda sakme da uÝono ikmna,
gaubeditda miþnurobisagan bedi,
"When the matter had grown irksome to Ramin, the bereft of heart,
and he became resourceless,
and his fate waxed wretched through love ..." (Ward. 62)

Here, the Persian original has no stylistic equivalent (TG 25,1):
Øu bar R¦m¨n-i b§-dil k¦rÆ øud saxt
ba %iøq andar mar-©-r¦ xw¦rÆ øud baxt
"When the plight of the brokenhearted RÀmÒn grew more,
his fortunes in love declined." (Morr. 73)

Incidentally, however, such poetical figures may have developed by chance, in that the translator had no choice as to the words to be used. The problem is to decide which words can be regarded as "normal" correspondences. Cp., e.g., the cooccurence of mtuare- "moon" and müuer-i "dust" in GT 7: 48,20-22:
mati müueri asre amaÝlda,
romel hgvanda, tu mtuare da müueri xuaøiadsa iüçuian ertgan.
"Their dust rose so high
that it seemed as if the moon and the dust were holding
provey converse." (Ward. 25)

Here, the Persian text has x¦k "earth" and m¦h "moon" (TG 15,22):
ham§ raft az zam¨n bar ¦sÆman gard
tu guft§ x¦kÆ b¦ mah r¦zÆ m§-kard
"The dust went right up from earth to heaven;
you would have sworn the earth exchanged secrets
with the moon." (Morr. 41)

From the material investigated so far it seems that Persian x¦k otherwise is most frequently translated by Georgian miÂa- "earth" or nacar-i "ashes"; but the final decision whether the translator intended a play of words using müueri beneath mtuare must be left open until the whole text has been worked through.
A similar case may be seen in GT 14: 66,5-7 where vecxlisa vaøli "apple of silver" translates TG 23,41 s¨b-i s¨m¨n "idem", given that Persian s¨m(¨n) is represented by Georgian lari (< Persian l¦r¨ "from the province of LÀr") in GT 14: 69,7 = TG 23,153.
1.2.4.7. One set of divergences between the two texts can only be explained by assuming either that the translator misunderstood the original or that he used a manuscript model with variants today unknown. One such example is GT 13: 64,15-17 where only the Georgian text speaks of "casting lots":
igi zogþer dedisa siøorisatuis üirodis
da zogþer Viroys siçuarulisatvis, da Âilni çarnis:
"Sometimes she wept because of separation from her mother,
and sometimes on account of Viro's love,
and she cast lots". (Ward. 51)

Here the Persian text has n¦la zade "lamented" (TG 22,25):
gah-§ bi-gr¨sÆt§ bar y¦d-i ¸ahr©
gah-§ n¦la zad§ bar dard-i V¨r©
"Now she wept at the memory of Shahró,
now lamented in grief for VÒró." (Morr. 64)

But it becomes conceivable that the translator read qur'¨ zad§ instead of n¦la zad§ if we compare GT 16: 72,27-29:
da Âilni çarnis moçvrisa saxelsa,
tu bolosa ¹amsa Øemi da misi sakme vit ertgan ikmnebis-o?
"(Sometimes he ...) cast lots in the name of his beloved,
and said: Shall her lot and mine be united at last?" (Ward. 63)

with TG 25,23:
gah-§ qur'¨ zad§ bar n¦m-i y¦r-aø
ke b¦ © تn buwad farj¦m-i k¦r-aø
"Now he told lots using his lover's name,
to see how his fortunes would end with her." (Morr. 74):

Another example may be seen in GT 16: 73,12-13 where in the Georgian text RÀmÒn's face is compared with a garden in spring:
gazapxul ÂalÖoüi tu-ca ÖeÖluci-a,
Raminis åiri atas-þer mas uüurpe iço.
"Although the garden is charming in spring,
Ramin's face was a thousandfold more lovely." (Ward. 64)

The Persian text uses a "rose" for the comparison instead (TG 25,39):
gul ar-Øe saxtÆ n§k© bªd u barb¦r
rux-¨ R¦m¨n n§k©tar bªdÆ ÷ad b¦r
"However passing fair and luxuriant a rose might be,
RÀmÒn's cheek was a hundred times fairer." (Morr. 75)

For an explanation, we could think of a misreading yielding bah¦r "spring" instead of barb¦r = purb¦r "rich (in blossoms)"; but we have to be aware that bah¦r would not fit metrically in the given position.

A third example is met with in GT 16: 75,12-13 where the Georgian text compares a "mattress" (sagebel-i) with a "snake" (guel-i):
missa tualsa dÝe nateli bnel içuis
da mas kueøe süavrisa amo sagebeli vita gueli içuis.
"Daylight was as darkness to his eyes.
The pleasant couch of brocade under him was like a serpent."
(Ward. 62)

Here the Persian text speaks of "thorns" (x¦r) instead (TG 25,14):
ba Øaøm-aø r©z-i r©øan t¦rÆ bªd§
ba z§r-aø xazz u d§b¦ x¦rÆ bªd§
"The bright day was dark in his eyes,
silk and brocade thorns under him." (Morr. 73)

In this case, two explanations are possible: Either Georgian guel-i "snake" was chosen because the Persian model had m¦r "snake" instead of x¦r "thorn(y)"; or the translator aimed at presenting a rhyme, viz. bnel içuis vs. guel(i) içuis.
An obvious example is TG 25,48 = GT 16: 73,21 where Georgian miÂa "earth, ground" seems to be used as an equivalent of Persian zam¦n "time, world" for which we have to posit zam¨n "earth, ground".
The reason for such deviations cannot always be stated with certainty, though. Thus we find an unexpected Åino- "owl" in GT 16: 75,1-2:
magra misi siamovne simÂarisa þupti-a
da misi simxiarule Åinosaebr bediti-a.
"But his pleasure is the twin of bitterness,
and his merriment is wretched as an owl's." (Ward. 66)

The corresponding Persian verse contains the word xum¦r "aftereffect" (TG 25,93):
kuj¦ xwaøø¨-øÆ b¦ talx¨-øÆ y¦r-ast
Øun¦n k-aø xurram¨ juft-¨ xum¦r-ast
".. its sweetness is the companion of its bitterness,
as its delight matches its aftereffect." (Morr. 77)

The most appropriate solution would consist in presuming a misreading of juft "pair, match" by juÝd "owl"; but juft is present in the Georgian text in the form of þupt-i, an obvious borrowing of the Persian word. So we must either assume that the translator played with the Persian words intentionally, or that he tried to mediate between different models.

Still less clear is the usage of "pure crystal" in the following context (GT 16: 77,6-7):
øenisa üanisagan Øemi broli uüalao-ada øenisa saubrisagan
"From thy form is my pure crystal,
and from thy conversation ..." (Ward. 69)

Here, the Persian text speaks of y¦sm¨n "jasmine" instead (TG 25,159):
ze and¦m-¨ tu b¦øad y¦sÆm¨n-amze guft¦r-¨ tu b¦øad ¦fÆr¨n-am
"your eyes (be) as jasmine (for me),
your words as blessings .." (Morr. 79)

The expected equivalent of Georgian broli "crystal" would be Persian bolur(¨n) which can hardly be assumed in the position of y¦sm¨n.
1.2.4.8. It should be noted in this context that there are unexpected convergences, too, between the two texts which again show that the translator tried to keep as close to his model as possible. In this respect we may note, e.g., the rendering of a Persian bahuvrÒhi-composite by a Georgian "inverted" bahuvrÒhi as in the case of xasta-dil "broken-hearted" in TG 23,20:
Øu V¨s-¨ xasta-dil-r¦ d¨dÆ d¦yaze ø¦d¨ gaøtÆ j¦n-aø n§kÆ-m¦ya
"When the nurse saw Vis brokenhearted,
her soul grew full of happiness." (Morr. 65)

which is translated by Georgian gul-daÂçlulebul-i, lit. "heart-wounded" (GT 14: 65,19-20):
ra gul-daÂçlulebuli Visi naxa ýiýaman,
misisa naxvisa sixarulita aivso.
"When the nurse saw the heart-wounded Vis,
she was filled with gladness at the sight." (Ward. 52-53)

Another such case is the Persian figure tu guft§ "you('d) say", frequently occurring as in TG 16,31:
tu guft§ n¦gah¦n dª k©h-i p©l¦d
dar ¦n ÷aâr¦ ba yak-d¨gar dar-uft¦d
"You would have sworn two steel mountains
clashed on that field." (Morr. 43)

Lit.: "You'd say, suddenly two mountains of steel
fell on one-another in that steppe."
This figure is often rendered by Georgian tu stkva "as if you('d) say" (GT 8: 49,29-30):
tu stkva, orni mtani basrisaniertman-ertsa øeeüaÖnes-o.
"(The two armies met) like two mountains of steel
falling together." (Ward. 28)

Lit.: "(The two armies met,) you'd say, two mountains of steel
crashed on one-another".
Although Georgian 
tu
tu is a conjunction meaning "(as) if" and does not correspond grammatically to Persian tu "you", it seems to have been preferable for the translator because of its similar sounding.

1.2.5. Looking for the explanatory value the Persian text offers with respect to the Georgian language as used in the Visramiani, we may first of all think of misunderstandable or otherwise unknown words. One such case is GT 14: 67,21-22, where the word øarux-i appears:
Âavida igi ¹ami da dÝe,
odes ertman Öuman ori øaruxi dasces.
Wardrop's translation (55) seems to be tentative, and it makes hardly any sense:
"That time and that day are past
when a tortoise overcame two nightingales".
In a footnote, Wardrop wonders whether the word is "P[ersian]" and whether it could be a "proper name". He seems not to have realized that it had first been treated by the 17th century Georgian lexicographer, Sulxan-Saba Orbeliani, who did not claim to be able to explain it: ÅadraÖis mÝerisa ars, tu sxva, ar vici "It is from the game of chess, or something else, I don't know". In the present edition of his lexicon9 we are referred to the bird name Øaxrux-i "nightingale" again, a notice that may have been influenced by the Georgian lexicographer of the 19th century, Davit ¨ubinaêvili; according to his Georgian-Russian dictionary10 øaruxi was "Persian" ("såars[uli]") as well, and it denoted a "bulbulis msgavsi mprinveli, éæãæÙÜà", i.e. a "bird similar to the nightingale". This meaning alone is recorded once again in the eight volume "Explanatory dictionary of the Georgian language"11: øarux-i "bulbulis msgavsi prinveli". The correct meaning of the verse in question and of øarux-i is now presented in the new German translation, however (Leipzig, 63):
"Vorbei ist die Zeit, da ein L„ufer zwei Trme f„llte."
That this is really a metaphor taken from the game of chess (as Saba presumed), becomes clear at once if we compare the Persian text (TG 23,83):
øud ¦n r©z ª øud ¦n hang¦m-i farrux
ke bi-tw¦n¨stÆ zad p¨l-§ du øah-rux
"That day and that fortunate time are gone
when a bishop could take two castles." (Morr. 67)

While øarux-i, revealing itself as a loan from Persian øah-rux here, seems no longer to have been used in Georgian, Öu "tortoise" has been preserved until nowadays as the equivalent of Persian p¨l "elefant" = "bishop in chess".
A second field where we can expect the Persian text to have an explanatory value for the Georgian, is the etymology of Georgian words. So, e.g., Georgian ÖaÖabi "partridge" appears in GT 25,144 as an equivalent of Persian kabk "idem", and it becomes at once plausible to derive the Georgian word from the Persian (assuming a metathesis of stops).

1.2.6. The main explanatory value of the Georgian text for the Persian original will consist in establishing the phonetics of 12th century Persian with the help of Persian elements (loans) in the Georgian text. There is a general problem, however, in that it is not always easy to decide whether a Persian word was taken over just at that time (and it is only in this case that the Visramiani can help us) or whether it was borrowed into Georgian earlier. So for every single word, an investigation of its own is necessary, as the following short hand list may illustrate:




































One main point of interest in this respect will be the question whether there are indications that the distinction between © and ª and between § and ¨ was still perceivable. In this respect we may note Georgian kos-i and buÖ-i as equivalents of Persian 
*?**?**?*
k©s "drum"14 and 
*?**?**?*
bªq "trumpet", appearing several times side by side in TG 16,3-11 / GT 8: 48,35-49,10. It may be intesting to note as well that Persian -q is represented as a velar stop in buÖ-i.
1.2.6.2. Additional problems are met with in this connection with proper names. The general question is, whether they were taken over from spoken or from written Persian. Besides, we have to be aware that they must have always been highly liable to corruption during the manuscript transmission within Georgian. For this we may compare, e.g., the name of the river Oxus, Jeyh©n, which is now and then rendered as þeon- with a variant reading þoen-. The whole set of difficulties can be illustrated by two passages containing several names. The first one is TG 15,4, where we are offered the following list:
ze ›zarb¦yÆg¦n u Rayy u G§l¦n
ze Xªzist¦n u Istarx u Sip¦h¦n
"(nobles) from ›zerbaijÀn, Reyy, and GÒlÀn,
from KhózistÀn, Istarkh, and IsfahÀn." (Morr. 40)

In the Georgian version, we read the following names (GT 7:48,5-7):
adrabadaganelni, raelni, gelanelni,
xuzisüanelni, asüabaxrelni, asåaanelni.
"(nobles) from Adrabadagan, Ray, GÉlÀn,
XózistÀn, Istaxr, IsfahÀn".
For most of them, there exist some more or less divergent variants such as adrabaginelni, darbadaganelni, adrabaganelni; ranelni; asüarabatelni, asüarabasranelni, asüarabatelni, asürabarelni, asüarxanelni; isåaanelni. So it is understandable why Wardrop proposed to connect the second entry erroneously with the name of the province Ran, i.e. the Old Georgian name of today's KarabaÌ (25):
"(nobles) from Adraba[da]gan, Ra [? Ran], Gelan,
Khuzistan, Astabakhar (var. Astabar or Astabasran), Aspa[a]n".
The -b- in the name of the city of Istaxr cannot be explained palaeographically within any Georgian script (cp. 
asïabaxr
, 
*?**?**?**?**?**?**?**?*
, and *?**?**?**?**?**?**?**?*); but it may be due to a confusion with AstarÀbÀd, the other name of the author's home GurgÀn (so Faxr ud-dÒn GurgÀnÒ himself was called As%ad al-AstarÀbÀdÒ, too). For the name of IsfahÀn, the variants asåa(a)n- and isåa(a)n- occur side by side elsewhere within Georgian tradition.
As a second example we may quote the list of beautiful women present at Vis's wedding (TG 8,65-74):
Øu ¸ahr© m¦hÆduxt az M¦hÆ-¦b¦d
Øu ¦darb¦dag¦n¨ sarv-i ¦z¦d
ze Gurg¦n AbÆn©ø-i m¦hÆ-peykar
ham§dªn az Dehist¦n N¦z-i dilbar
ze Ray Din¦rÆg§s u ham Zar¨ng§s
ze bªm-i k©hÆ ¸¨r¨n u Farang§s
ze I÷f¦h¦n du but تn m¦h u xwarø§d
xujasta ›bÆn¦z u ›bÆn¦h§d
ba gouhar harduw¦n duxt-¨ dab¨r¦n
..

Gul¦b ª Y¦sÆman duxt-¨ waz¨r¦n
ham§dªn N¦z u ›dargªn u Gulgªn
ba rux تn barf u bar-© r¨xÆta xªn
Sah¨ n¦m ª sah¨ b¦l¦ zan-¨ ø¦h
tan az s¨m ª lab az n©ø ª rux az m¦h
¸akarlab N©øÆ az bªm-¨ Hum¦war
saman rang ª saman b©y u samanbar
 "Like ¸ahrã, daughter of Media, from MÀh-›bÀd,
like a free cypress from ›zarbaijÀn,
from GurgÀn ›bnãê, with the form of the moon,
at the same time from DehistÀn charming NÀz,
from Ray DÒnargÉs and ZarÒngÉs,
from the foot of the mountain ¸ÒrÒn and FarangÉs,
from IsfahÀn two idols like moon and sun,
fortunate ›bnÀz and ›bnÀhÉd
by descent both daughter(s) of scribes, ..
GulÀb and YÀsaman, daughter(s) of viziers,
as well NÀz and ›zargón and Gulgón,
with a cheek like snow with blood sprinkled on it,
SahÒ by name and `upright' by stature, the ¸Àh's wife,
her body of silver, her lip of nectar, her cheek (like) the moon,
¸akarlab Nãê from the land of HumÀvÀr,
jasmine (her) colour, jasmine (her) scent, jasmine-wearing."
These names are rendered by the Georgian tradition in the following way (GT 2: 35,37-36,5):
¸ahro Mahduxü adrabadaganeli,
Abanoø {v.l. manoø, monao, man mo} gurganeli
{v.l. aspburganeli, aspuraganeli, aspagur},
Naslakit dehisüaneli,
Dinarges {v.l. dinigruz, dinarguz, danirges} da Zaringes
{v.l. zargines, zarnisges};
mtis-ýirelni ¸irini da Gurgesi {v.l. gergesi, gurgen}
asåaanelni {v.l. asåaaneli, asåaneli, isåanelni}, orni mzisebrni
ÖeÖlucni: Abanozi {v.l. abanozni} da Abanoed
{v.l. abaned, abanod} -
orni ÖeÖlucni kalni mÂignobarta asulni;
¿ulabi {v.l. þalabi} da Iasaman {v.l. diasaman, diasman}
- vazirisa {v.l. vezirisa} asulni {v.l. asuli};
¸akarlab Noø {da Abanoø} eraçeli;
iço: Nazi {monazi mss.}, Adraguni da Gulgunoi {v.l. gulguni}
øirazelni {v.l. øarazneli},
Sainam {v.l. øainam, øainaø} da Saibala {v.l. saibla da, sibla}
- ¸ahi Moabadis colni.
"¸ahro Mahduxï,from Adrabadagan,
Abanoê from Gurgan,Naslakit from Dehistan,
Dinarges and Zaringes;
¸irin-i and Gurges-i from the foot of the mountain,
from IsfahÀn, two sun-likebeauties: Abanoz-i und Abanoed,
two beautiful women, daughters of scribes;
Gulab-i and Iasaman, a vizier's daughters;
¸akarlab Noê from Eraç;
there were: Naz-i, Adragun-i and Gulgun-ifrom ¸ÒrÀz,
Sainam and Saibala,¸ah Moabad's wives.
An especially interesting feature of the Georgian text in this respect is that the author himself, Faxr ud-d¨n Gorg¦n¨, is called Paxpur here which would correspond to the Persian title faÝfªr "emperor of China" (1: 34,18); and that his client for whom he composed the epic is called Ibdal-Meliki-vaziri (1: 34,12) instead of Abu-l Fatâ Muûaffar.

2. Let us return to the question now in which way we may think of applying computers to the given task. From the examples discussed above it may have become clear that there is hardly any field of investigation that can be supported by automatical analyses without a lot of preparatory work to be done before. In my view, there are at least three essential stages:
2.1. The first step consists in bringing both texts into an electronic form ("encoding"). This step has now been fulfilled for the Georgian part: I read it in 1992 using an optical scanner and corrected it manually afterwards. As for the Persian text, this too exists in electronic form. It was entered as a basis for Emiko Okada's and Kazuhiko Machida's study called "Perusha bungaku. Bunka-no dÉtabÉsu-ka - josei-no seikatsu to shikã-o chóshin-ni" ("Persian literature. Transformation of culture into a database. With emphasis on women's thought and life") which appeared in three parts in Tãkyã 1991. This study contains a type list with frequency, i.e. an alphabetical list of all word-forms occuring in the text, with their frequency; a frequency list of the types, i.e., a list of the word-forms arranged according to their frequency (part I); a type concordance, i.e. an index of the occurrences of all wordforms, without context (part II); and the whole text (part III; it is identical with the one as edited by MahÍób). For several reasons, however, I decided to start a new encoding of the Persian text: Firstly, the text as entered in Japan was simply not yet available to me. Secondly, it contains all Persian material in the original script, which bears the disadvantage that it is ill suited to linguistic (esp. phonetic) investigations as it is. Besides, it seems to provide no material for grammatical analysis and no hints for distinguishing between homographs, and it obviously does not reveal any information about the position of words within the verse, esp. with respect to metrics and rhymes. So it would have to be reorganized anyway for the present purposes. Instead, I am glad to be supported by Soraya Divshali who has been engaged with typing in the Persian text (according to Todua / Gwakharia's edition) in transcription for some time now, and we hope to finish this stage within another year's time.
2.2. The second stage will consist in preparing both texts for a complete indexation as to occurences of words and word forms. Such an indexation can easily be achieved using programs such as the "WordCruncher" (Brigham Young University); the only preparation necessary for it is providing the texts with indexation marks such as, for the Persian text, chapter and verse numbers or, for the Georgian text, page and line numbers. The resulting indexes will be useful as an aid for the main task, which is the third stage:
2.3. This stage consists in preparing both texts for an automatic comparison, i.e., for joint indexation with respect to all points of investigation as discussed above. Here we have to be aware that from the beginning we should aim at integrating as much information as possible, in order to facilitate analyses on all levels of linguistic and philological interest. Let me illustrate what I mean using four different arrangements of the beginning of chapter 15 (TG / 7 GT).
2.3.1. The least informative encoding would just consist in a synoptical marking of verse units, which would mean to arrange the Georgian text according to the Persian original:

|l1a Øu az ø¦h ¦gah¨ ¦mad ba V¨r©
|l1b ke ham z-© k¨na d¦rad ham ze ¸ahr©
|l2a ze har øahr-§ u az har j¦yÆg¦h-§
|l2b ham§ ¦mad ba darg¦h-aø sip¦h-§

"When news of the king reached VÒró,

how he was in feud against him and Shahró,

    from every city and every place

an army came to his court." 		|l1a cna Viroman ambavi ¸ahi Moabadisi,
|l1b vita mas-ca emüerebis da ¸ahrosa-ca
|l2a da çovlisa kveçanisa
    |l2b didebulni da laøkarni mivides missa da øeçrilan

    "At that time when Viro learnt the tidings of Shah Moabad,

    how he was become an enemy to him and to Shahro also,

and had collected from every land
magnates and soldiers ..."
It goes without saying that the information retrievable from such an arrangement is scanty; the only result we could produce by this would be a "synoptical" word index.

2.3.2. If we aim at retrieving information about the interdependency of words in both texts, we need at least an additional marking of keywords:

|l1a Øu az ø¦h1 ¦gah¨2 ¦mad3 ba V¨r©4
    |l1b ke5 ham z-©6 k¨na7 d¦rad8 ham ze ¸ahr©9

|l2a ze har10 øahr-§11 u az har12 j¦yÆg¦h-§13
|l2b ham§ ¦mad14 ba darg¦h-aø15 sip¦h-§16 		|l1a cna3 Viroman4 ambavi2 ¸ahi1 Moabadisi,
|l1b vita5 mas-ca6 emüerebis7+8 da ¸ahrosa-ca9
|l2a da çovlisa12 kveçanisa13
    |l2b didebulni da laøkarni16 mivides14 missa15 da øeçrilan

Here, all words that have a counterpart in the other text are marked with a unique number so that their equivalents can be searched for automatically. This marking is not satisfying yet, either, because it may turn out necessary to retrieve information about syntactical relations, too, which do not become transparent like this at all. So we could think of marking syntactical units instead as in the following way:

    |l1a [Øu]1 [az ø¦h]2 [¦gah¨]3 [¦mad]4 [ba V¨r©]5

    |l1b [ke]6 [ham z-©]7 [k¨na d¦rad]8 [ham ze ¸ahr©]9

    |l2a [ze har øahr-§]10 [u]11 [az har j¦yÆg¦h-§]12

    |l2b [ham§ ¦mad]13 [ba darg¦h-aø]14 [sip¦h-§]15
    |l1a [cna]4 [Viroman]5 [ambavi]3 [¸ahi Moabadisi]2,

    |l1b [vita]6 [mas-ca]7 [emüerebis]8 da [¸ahrosa-ca]9

|l2a da [çovlisa kveçanisa]12

    |l2b didebulni da [laøkarni]15 [mivides]13 [missa]14 da øeçrilan

This method, too, has a disadvantage in that it does not allow for an internal analysis and that grammatical phenomena cannot be searched for. So we would need at least a combined encoding of keywords and of grammatical units as in the following way:

    |l1a [Øu1]1 [az2 ø¦h3]2 [¦gah¨4]3 [¦mad5]4 [ba6 V¨r©7]5

    |l1b [ke8]6 [ham9 z10-©11]7 [k¨na12 d¦rad13]8 [ham14 ze1 ¸ahr©16]9

    |l2a [ze17 har18 øahr19-§20]10 [u21]11 [az22 har23 j¦yÆg¦h24-§25]12

    |l2b [ham§26 ¦mad27]13 [ba28 darg¦h29-aø30]14 [sip¦h31-§32]15
    |l1a [cna5]4 [Viroman7]5 [ambavi4]3 [¸ahi3 Moabadisix]2,

    |l1b [vita8]6 [mas11-ca9]7 [emüerebis12+13]8 da14 [¸ahrosa16-ca14]9

    |l2a [da21]11 [çovlisa23 kveçanisa24]12


      |l2b didebulnixx daxxx [laøkarni31]15 [mivides27]13 [missa30]14 daxxxx øeçrilanxxxxx


    2.4. Of course, I do not regard the methods of encoding additional information in the way as presented here (using brackets, numbers and the like) as practicable in any way; they are meant just as an illustration of the problems involved. What we need instead is a thorough morphological analysis of the single words in both texts (just as it was procured for many biblical texts or the like in other projects) plus detailed information about the interdependencies between the two texts and the words contained in them. Only then will the computer be able to help extending our knowledge in the present field of investigation, in that it will allow for a quick and complete search under different topics through two texts of about 150 pages length at a time. As for the way how it will be best prepared for this purpose, I have as yet no final solution.
    Georgian text:
    Title (according to Ward.)Ward.LeipzigSaunþeBI±GT*?*.
    The beginning of the story of Vis and Ramin1-319-2017-183-433-341
    The story of Vis and of Ramin, and his eldest brother Shah Moabad4-721-2418-215-734-372
    (Vis's and Ramin's birth and youth)8-1024-2621-228-937-383
    The letter written by the nurse of Vis to Shahro, the mother of Vis11-1526-2722-2410-1138-404
    .. They bring Vis from Khuzistan into the City of Hamian13-1528-2924-2512-1340-415
    Here the wedding of Vis and her brother Viro and the coming of Moabad's16-2430-3825-3214-2041-486
    Here Shah Moabad sets forth to fight Viro25-2638-3932-3321-22487
    Here is the great battle between Moabad and Viro27-3139-4333-3623-2648-528
    The investment of Viro's castle by Moabad, and the discourse of Vis32-4043-5036-4227-3352-589
    Moabad's letter to Shahro41-4451-5442-4434-3658-6010
    Viro learns of the abduction of his wife and his mourning thereat45-4654-5544-4537-3860-6111
    Ramin becomes enamoured of Vis47-4955-5845-4739-4161-6312
    Here is the wedding of Moabad and Vis50-5158-5947-4942-4363-6413
    The lamentation and weeping of the nurse for the carrying away of Vis52-5759-6549-5344-4864-6914
    The binding of the virility of Moabad by Vis and the nurse58-6165-6853-5649-5169-7115
    The story of Ramin's love62-7368-8056-6552-6171-8016
    The parting of Ramin from the nurse and her coming before Vis74-8180-8765-7062-6780-8517
    The nurse's second visit to Ramin82-8987-9470-7568-7386-9118
    The nurse parts from Vis and sees Ramin for the third time90-9394-9775-7874-7691-9419
    Vis sees Ramin in Moabad's throne-room and becomes enamoured of him94-9698-9978-8077-7894-9520
    The nurse goes to Ramin97-100100-10380-8379-8196-9821
    The union of Ramin and Vis101-106103-10883-8782-8698-10222
    Moabad learns of the love of Ramin and Vis107-113108-11587-9287-92103-10823
    Moabad takes away Vis and comes to Marav and Khurasan114-116115-11792-9493-94108-10924
    Vis's parting from Moabad117-120117-12194-9795-98109-11325
    Ramin goes to Vis121-122121-12397-9899-100113-11426
    Moabad learns that Ramin has gone to Vis123-129123-13098-103101-106114-11927
    Moabad lights a fire for Vis to swear by130-136130-136103-108107-112119-12428
    Moabad's wanderings in search of Vis137-139136-138108-110113-115124-12629
    Moabad comes to Marav and learns tidings of Vis140-145139-143110-114116-120126-13030
    Ramin brings Vis to Marav, and the rejoicing and banquet of Moabad146-156144-154114-123121-129130-13831
    Moabad's campaign against Greece, and his committal of Vis and her nurse157-163154-161123-128130-136139-14432
    Vis's lament for Ramin's absence164-166161-164128-130136-138144-14633
    Ramin goes from Marav to Ashkap'hut'hidevan to be united to Vis167-174164-172130-136139-144146-15234
    Moabad learns that Vis and Ramin are together175-184172-180136-142145-151152-15935
    Shahro's lament and weeping for Vis185-197181-193142-152152-161159-16836
    Moabad learns of the meeting of Vis and Ramin198-204193-199152-157162-166168-17337
    Moabad invites Shahro and Viro and makes a banquet205-207199-201157-158167-168173-17438
    Bego's good counsel to Ramin208-213201-206158-162169-172174-17839
    Shah Moabad's advice, instruction, and command to Vis214-217206-210162-165173-176178-18140
    Vis and Ramin part in anger218-225210-216165-170177-182181-18641
    Ramin falls in love with Gul226-231217-222170-174183-188186-19142
    The wedding of Ramin and Gul-Vardi232-234222-224174-176188-189191-19343
    Ramin's letter abandoning Vis235-238224-227176-178190-192193-19544
    Vis receives Ramin's letter239-247228-235178-185193-199195-20145
    Vis falls sick through grief248-249236-237185-186200-201201-20246
    Vis's conversation with Mishkin250-251237-238186-187202-203203-20447
    The first letter of Vis to Ramin252-256239-242187-190204-207204-20748
    The second letter of Vis to Ramin257-259243-245190-192208-209207-20949
    The third letter of Vis to Ramin260-262245-247192-193210-211210-21150
    The fourth letter of Vis to Ramin263-265247-250193-195212-214210-21251
    The fifth letter of Vis to Ramin266-268250-252195-197215-216212-21452
    The sixth letter of Vis to Ramin269-271252-255197-199217-219214-21653
    The seventh letter of Vis to Ramin272-274255-257199-201220-221216-21854
    The eighth letter of Vis to Ramin275-277257-260201-203222-224218-22055
    The ninth letter of Vis to Ramin278-280260-262203-204225-226220-22256
    The tenth letter of Vis to Ramin281-286262-267204-209227-231222-22657
    Ramin thinks on Vis287-292267-273209-213232-236226-23058
    Rap'hed informs his daughter of Ramin's desertion293-299273-279213-218237-242231-23559
    Ramin sees Adina300-301280-281218-219243-244236-23760
    Ramin's letter to Vis302-306281-286219-223245-248237-24061
    Ramin comes to Marav307-312286-288223-227249-253241-24562
    Vis's answer313-315292-294227-230254-256245-24763
    Vis's further discourse316-317294-296230-231257-258247-24864
    Ramin's reply318-319296-298231-232259-260248-25065
    Vis's answer320-321298-300232-234261-262250-25166
    (Ramin's answer)322-324300-302234-235263-264251-25367
    (Vis's answer)325-326302-303235-236265-266253-25468
    (Ramin's answer)327-328303-304236-237267-268254-25569
    (Vis's answer)329-330305-306237-238269-270255-25670
    (Ramin's answer)331-332306-307238-239271256-25771
    (Vis's answer)333-334307-308239-24027225772
    (Ramin speaks again)335-336308-309240-24127325873
    (Vis's answer)337-338309-310241-242274-275258-25974
    (Ramin's answer)339311242-242276259-26075
    (Vis's answer)340-346311-318242-242277-282260-26576
    (Ramin's answer)347-349318-321248-250283-285265-26777
    (Vis's answer)350-351321-322250-251286-287267-26878
    (Ramin's answer)352-353322-323251-252288-289268-26979
    (Vis's answer)354-356324-326252-254290-292269-27180
    The union of Ramin and Vis357-362326-331254-258293-297271-27681
    Moabad goes to the chase363-367332-336258-262298-301276-27982
    (The nurse thinks on Vis)368-371336-340262-264302-304279-28283
    Vis's letter to Ramin372-376340-343264-268305-308282-28584
    Ramin's soliloquy (Here Vis's letter comes to Ramin)377-378344-345268-269309-310285-28785
    Ramin comes to Marav379-381346-348269-271311-313287-28986
    Ramin slays Zard382-385348-352271-274314-316289-29187
    Shah Moabad is slain by a boar386-388352-354274-275317-318291-29388
    The accession of Ramin389-396354-360275-280319-324293-29889

    Persian text:
    *?*.TGLees*?*.MinowÒMahÍóbMorr.Title (according to Morr.)
    11-61-611-61-51-4(Praise to God)
    27-1026-95-74-6Praise of MuÐammad
    310-1539-157-116-10Praise of Sultan Abó ºalÒb ºughrilbeg
    416-18415-1711-1310-12Praise of KhvÀjeh Abó Naír Ibn Maníór ibn MuÐammad
    518-21517-2113-1612-14The taking of IsfahÀn by the sultan
    621-267-9621-2416-1814-16Praise of %AmÒd Abó'l-FatÐ Muþzaffar
    726-309-12724-2818-2116-19The Sultan leaves IsfahÀn; account of the author
    831-3813-19828-3121-2319-21The story of VÒs and RÀmÒn begins
    931-3324-2521-23The beauties of moonlike face look on at King Moubad's banquet
    938-4119-221033-3625-2723-25Moubad asks Shahró's hand in marriage and she makes a compact with him
    1042-451136-3827-2925-27VÒs is born to her mother
    123929-3027VÒs and RÀmÒn are brought up in KhózÀn at the nurse's side
    1146-4822-251340-4230-3227-29The nurse writes a letter to Shahró who sends an envoy to fetch VÒs
    1248-5025-261442-4432-3329-31Shahró gives VÒs in marriage to VÒró but both fail to gain their desire
    1351-6226-281544-4934-3731-34Zard comes to Shahró as messenger
    28-301650-5237-3935-36VÒs questions Zard and hears his answer
    30-341752-5539-4136-38Zard returns from VÒs to Moubad
    1462-6434-361855-5741-4338-40News reaches Moubad of VÒró's taking VÒs in marriage
    1564-6636-501957-5943-4440-41VÒró learns of Moubad's coming to do battle
    1666-732059-6445-4941-45The battle between Moubad and VÒró
    2165-6649-5045-46ShÀh Moubad is routed by VÒró
    1774-762266-675046-47Moubad sends an envoy to VÒs
    2367-685147-48
    1876-842468-7151-5448-50VÒs replies to King Moubad's messenger
    2571-7254-5550-51ShÀh Moubad's envoy returns from VÒs
    2673-7655-5751-53Moubad consults his brother about VÒs
    1984-9150-522777-7858-5953-55Moubad writes a letter to Shahró and subverts her with riches
    2879-8059-6055Description of the goods sent by Moubad to Shahró
    52-542980-8360-6356-58How Shahró surrendered VÒs to ShÀh Moubad; the sinister aspect of that night
    30846358-59Moubad enters the castle and brings out VÒs
    2092-9354-553185-8663-6459VÒró receives tidings that the king has carried off VÒs
    2193-9755-603286-9064-6760-62RÀmÒn sees VÒs and falls in love with her
    2297-993390-9268-6963-64Moubad brings VÒs to Marv the royal abode
    2399-10860-633492-9669-7264-67The nurse learns of the plight of VÒs and goes to Marv
    6335967267VÒs replies to the nurse
    63-673697-9972-7467-68The nurse replies to VÒs
    3799-10274-7669-70The nurse arrays VÒs; her description
    24109-11267-6838102-10676-7970-73The nurse puts a spell on ShÀh Moubad to render him impotent with VÒs
    25113-13069-8739106-10879-8173-74RÀmÒn walks in the garden and laments his love for VÒs
    40108-12481-9375-85RÀmÒn meets the nurse in the garden and tells her his plight
    26130-14087-8941124-13493-10085-92The nurse wins VÒs over to RÀmÒn by stratagem
    27140-15389-9342134-147100-11092-102The nurse returns to RÀmÒn in the garden
    93-100
    28153-157100-10643148-151111-113102-105VÒs sees RÀmÒn and falls in love with him
    29157-16044152-155114-116105-107The nurse goes once more to VÒs with news
    30160-167106-11245155-161116-120107-111VÒs and RÀmÒn come together
    46161-162121111-112VÒs and RÀmÒn go to KóhistÀn to join Moubad
    31168-176112-11847162-171122-128112-117Moubad discovers the secret of VÒs and RÀmÒn
    32176-179118-12148171-174128-130117-120ShÀh Moubad returns from KóhistÀn to KhurÀsÀn
    33180-185121-12649174-180130-135120-124VÒs goes from Marv the royal abode to KóhistÀn
    34186-188126-12850180-182135-137124-125RÀmÒn goes to KóhistÀn after VÒs
    35188-194128-13051182-187137-140125-129Moubad discovers RÀmÒn's visit to VÒs, complains to his mother, and writes a letter
    130-13352188-189141129-130Moubad goes from KhurÀsÀn to HamedÀn
    36195-198133-13653189-192142-144130-132VÒró sends a reply to Moubad
    37198-208136-14054193-195144-146132-134Moubad chastises VÒs
    140-14455195-202146-152134-139Moubad goes to the fire temple; VÒs and RÀmÒn flee to Reyy
    38208-211144-15156202-205152-154139-141ShÀh Moubad wanders the world in search of VÒs
    39211-21857206-208154-156141-142RÀmÒn writes a letter to his mother
    58208-213156-160142-145Moubad's mother gives him news of VÒs and RÀmÒn and writes a letter to RÀmÒn
    40218-233151-16859213-229160-171146-156Moubad sits at the banquet with VÒs and RÀmÒn, and RÀmÒn sings of his plight
    41233-23860229-233171-175156-159Moubad receives tidings of the roman emperor and goes to war
    42238-243168-17261233-238175-179160-164King Moubad takes VÒs to the castle of Ishkaft e DÒvÀn
    43243-247173-17562239-241179-181164-166VÒs laments RÀmÒn's departure
    44247-259175-18563242-253181-189166-174RÀmÒn comes to VÒs at the castle of Ishkaft e DÒvÀn
    45259-270185-19464253-264190-198174-182King Moubad comes from Rome and goes to VÒs at the castle of Ishkaft e DÒvÀn
    46270-279194-20165264-271198-203182-187Shahró laments before Moubad
    66271-273203-205187-188Moubad replies to Shahró and speaks of the beating of VÒs and the nurse
    47279-28202-20967273-282205-211189-195Moubad entrusts VÒs to the nurse; RÀmÒn comes into the garden
    48289-299209-21768282-292212-219195-202The king receives news of RÀmÒn, and goes into the garden
    49299-302217-22069292-295219-221202-204Moubad holds a banquet in the garden and the songster minstrel sings a song
    50303-310220-22670295-302221-226204-209Bihgó counsels RÀmÒn
    51310-312226-22871302-304226-228209-210Moubad counsels VÒs
    52312-316228-23072304-307228-230210-212VÒs replies to Moubad
    53316-324231-23673307-315230-236212-218RÀmÒn goes to GórÀb and becomes exiled from VÒs
    54324-332236-24474316-324236-243218-224RÀmÒn goes to GórÀb, sees Gul, and falls in love with her
    55332-337244-24875324-327243-245224-226RÀmÒn marries Gul
    76327-328245-246226-227Gul takes offense at RÀmÒn's words
    56337-342248-25877329-339246-254227-235RÀmÒn writes a letter to VÒs
    57342-349
    58349-353258-26178339-346254-259235-240The nurse goes to RÀmÒn at GórÀb
    59353-357261-263
    264
    60357-363264-26979346-383259-286240-263VÒs writes a letter to RÀmÒn and begs a meeting
    61363-366269-271352-354263-265243-245First letter
    62366-369271-274355-357265-267245-247Second letter
    63369-372274-276358-360268-270247-249Third letter
    64372-375276-278361-363270-272249-251Fourth letter
    65375-378278-281364-366272-274251-253Fifth letter
    66378-381281-283367-369274-276253-255Sixth letter
    67382-384283-286370-372276-278255-256Seventh letter
    68385-387286-288373-375278-280257-258Eighth letter
    69387-390288-290376-378280-282258-260Ninth letter
    70390-394291-293379-380283-286260-261Tenth letter
    71394-397293-29680383-386286-288263-265VÒs sends ›zÒn to RÀmÒn
    72397-402296-29981386-390288-291265-268VÒs laments her separation from RÀmÒn
    73402-409299-30582390-397291-296268-272RÀmÒn regrets his marriage with Gul
    74409-417305-31083397-404296-302273-277Gul learns of RÀmÒn's regretfulness
    75417-419311-31284404-406302-303278-279›zÒn comes to RÀmÒn from VÒs
    76419-422312-31585407-409304-306279-281RÀmÒn sends a fair to VÒs
    77422-426315-31786410-413306-308281-283VÒs learns of the coming of RÀmÒn
    78426-429318-32087413-447308-334283-306RÀmÒn comes to VÒs at Marv
    79429-434320-324416-421310-314285-289RÀmÒn replies to VÒs
    80434-438324-329421-427314-319286-289VÒs replies to RÀmÒn
    81438-440
    82440-442329-331427-429319-320
    83443-444331-332429-431320-322
    84445-448332-335431-434322-324296-306RÀmÒn replies to VÒs
    85448-450335-336434-436324-325
    86450-452337-338436-437325-326
    87452-453338-339437-439327-328
    88453-454339-340439-440328301
    89455-456340-341440-441328-329
    90456-458341-342441-443329-330
    91458-459342-343443-444331-332
    92459-461343-344444-445332-333
    93461-464345-346445-447333-334
    346-34788447-449334-335307-308VÒs grows angry, leaves her vantage point, and shuts the doors on RÀmÒn
    94465-467347-34989449-451335-337308-309VÒs repents of what she has done
    95467-471349-35290451-464337-347309-318VÒs sends the nurse after RÀmÒn and follows
    96471-475352-355455-459340-343312
    97475-477355-357459-460343-344315
    98477-479357-358460-462344-345316
    99479-486358-360462-464345-347
    100482-486360-36391464-468347-350319-321VÒs turns from RÀmÒn in anger; he follows her
    101486-489364-36692469-472350-352322-324RÀmÒn makes his appearance before ShÀh Moubad
    102489-496366-37193472-485352-355324-326The king goes to the chase from the old castle in the season of spring
    371-37494475-478355-357326-328ShÀh Moubad goes to the chase and takes RÀmÒn with him
    103496-499374-37795478-482357-360329-331VÒs laments RÀmÒn's departure and appeals to the nurse for remedy
    104500-507377-37996482-486360-363331-334VÒs writes a letter to RÀmÒn
    37997486-488363-365334-335RÀmÒn receives the letter of VÒs
    105597-510379-38298489-494365-369335-339RÀmÒn enters the castle by a stratagem; the death of Zard
    106510-513382-384
    107513-515384-38699494-496369-370339-341RÀmÒn carries off Moubad's treasure and flees to DailamÀn
    108515-516386-387100496-497370-371341Moubad learns that RÀmÒn has absconded with the treasure and VÒs
    109517-520387-390101497-500371-374342-344Moubad meets his end without battle or bloodshed
    110520-528390-396102501-506374-378344-348RÀmÒn sits on the royal throne
    111528-530396-398103506-508378-380348-349The death of VÒs
    112530-534398-500104509-512380-382349-352RÀmÒn sets his son on the throne and haunts the fire temple to his dying day
    113534-542500105512-520383-388352-357Conclusion

    24. andar bastan-¨ d¦ya mar ø¦h-i Moubad-r¦ bar V¨s

    1a Øu d¦ya V¨sÆ-r¦ تn¦n bi-¦r¦st
    1b ke xwarø§d az rux-¨ © nªrÆ m¨-xw¦st
    2a du Øaøm-¨ V¨sÆ az girya nay-¦sªd
    2b tu guft§ har zam¦n-aø dardÆ bi-fzªd



    3a nih¦n az har kas-§ mar d¦ya-r¦ guft
    3b ke baxt-¨ øªr-i man b¦ man bar-¦øuft
    4a dil-am-r¦ s¨rÆ kard az z¨ndag¦n¨
    4b w-az-© bar kandÆ b¨x-¨ ø¦dÆm¦n¨
    5a na-d¦nam ئra-§ juz kuøtan-¨ xw§ø
    5b ba kuøtan rasta gardam z-¨n dil-¨ r§ø
    6a agar tª mar ma-r¦ ئra na-j©y§
    6b w-az-¨n and¨øa j¦n-am-r¦ na-ø©y§
    7a man ¨n ئra ke guftam zªdÆ s¦zam
    7b bad-© kªtah kunam ranj-§ dir¦z-am
    8a kuj¦ har gah ke Moubad-r¦ bi-b§nam
    8b tu g©y§ bar sar-¨ ¦taø naø§nam
    9a Øe marg ¦yad ba p§ø-¨ man Øe Moubad
    9b ke r©z-aø b¦dÆ ham-تn r©z-i man bad
    10a agar-Øe dil ba ¦b-¨ ÷abrÆ øust-ast
    10b hav¦y-¨ dil hanªz az man na-just-ast
    11a ham§ tarsam ke r©z-§ ham bi-j©yad
    11b nihufta r¦z-i dil r©z-§ bi-g©yad
    12a ze p§ø-¨ ¦n ke © j©yad ze man k¦m
    12b tu-r¦ gustardÆ b¦yad dar rah-aø d¦m
    13a ke man yak s¦lÆ na-sp¦ram bad-© tan
    13b bi-parh¨zam ze p¦d-afr¦h-i duøman
    14a na-b¦øad sªk-i Q¦ran kam ze yak s¦l
    14b ma-r¦ yak s¦lÆ b§n¨ ham bad-¨n â¦l
    15a na-d¦rad Moubad-am yak s¦lÆ ¦zarm
    15b kuj¦ ©-r¦ ze man na b¨m u na' øarm
    16a yak-§ neyrangÆ s¦z az h©øÆmand¨
    16b m-agar mard¨øÆ-r¦ bar man bi-band¨
    24.

    1a ra ýiýaman øeÖazma Visi,

    2a üirilisagan ar gamoisvenebdis,
    2b tu stkva, Âamsa da Âamsa Åiri moemaüeboda.

    {15. 69-71} Visisa da ýiýisagan Moabadisa mamacobisa øeÖrva

    3a merme Visi saÂutro-moÂçenilman malvit Öactagan ýiýasa utxra da
    3b "Øemi bedi mebrývis dÝe da Ýame.
    øeexveÂa:

    4a gaýÝa guli Øemi sicocxlisagan
    4b da gamqmara ýiri Øemisa sixarulisa xisa.
    5a ara vici, tu Øemi Ýone ra-Ýa-a tavisa moÖlvisagan Öide,
    5b romel nu-tu-mca siÖvdilita daveqsen Øemsa çopasa!
    6a a tu øen Øemsa Ýonesa ar eýeb
    6b da ama Åirisagan ar miqsni,
    7a me, vita mitkvams, agre adre tavsa moviÖlav,

    8a amit romel, ra Moabads davinaxav,
    8b vita-mca cecxlsa øevsdgebodi.
    9a siÖvdilisa danaxva da misi - sÂorad miØns.
    9b Ýmertman Moabadis saÂutro asre mÂare kmnas, vita Øemi.
    10a tu-ca þeret datmobisa Âçlita guli daubania
    10b da gulis-neba Øemgan ar uýebnia,
    11a amis meøinian, romel ver gaýlos
    11b da xvaøiadi damaluli gamoacxados.
    12a aÂe vi-re igi Øemgan nebasa eýebdes,
    12b øen gzasa zeda maxe dauge.
    13a ese icode, romel me ert Âlamdis tavsa ar mivscem
    13b da me tvit siÖvdilisatvis tav-ganÂiruli var.
    14a mamisa Øemisa üÖivili amisagan umcro ar egebis.
    14b munamdi me esre vikmnebi,
    15a ert Âlamdis Moabad ar damtmobs da ar-ca mimiøvebs,
    15b amit romel mas Øemgan ar-ca rcxvenian da ar-ca eøinian.
    16a a øemiÂçale, øeneburad daiurve,
    16b misi mamacoba øeÖar Øemzeda.
    1.
      My thanks are due to Michael Glnz (Berne) and Donald Rayfield (London) who read a draft version of this paper and made valuable proposals as to wording, transcription method and the like. All remaining shortcomings and errors are mine, of course. [zurck]
    2.
      W¡s o Rÿm¡n. A Romance of Ancient Persia. Translated from the Pahlawi and rendered into Verse by Fakhr al-d¡n, As'ad al-Astarabÿdi, al-Fakhri, al Gurgÿni. Edited by Captain W.N. Lees LL.D. and Munshi Ahmad Ali. Calcutta 1865. = Bibliotheca Indica, vol. 47 / N.S. fasc. 48,49,52,54,76. Reprint Osnabrck 1982 (here: Lees). [zurck]
    3.
      VÒs va RÀmÒn of Fakhr al-dÒn GorgÀnÒ. Persian critical text composed from the Persian and Georgian oldest manuscripts by Magali A. Todua and Alexander A. Gwakharia. Edited by Kamal S. Aini. Tehran 1970. = Iranian Culture Foundation, 101 (here: TG). - The other scholarly editions are: Vis and RÀmin. A Romance of Ancient Iran, Originally Written in Pahlavi and Rendered into Persian Verse by Fakhroddin GorgÀni C. 1054 A.D. Edited .. by MojtabÀ Minovi. First Volume: Text. Tehran 1935 (here: MinowÒ); Faxr ud-dÒn GurgÀnÒ, WÒs u RÀmÒn. BÀ moqaddime-yÒ mabsóï wa ÐawÀêÒ wa ta%lÒqÀt wa farhang-i wÀúehÀ wa fihristhÀ-yÒ segÀne. Ba ihtimÀm-i MuÐammad Ga%far MahÍób. TehrÀn 1959 (here: MahÍób). - The first (partial) translation into a European language was done by K.H. Graf (WŒs und RƒmŒn. In: ZDMG 23, 1869, 375-433); a complete English translation was published only recently by George Morrison (Vis and Ramin. Translated from the Persian of Fakhr ud-dÒn GurgÀnÒ. New York and London 1972; here: Morr.). [zurck]
    4.
      Visramiani. The Story of the Loves of Vis and Ramin. A Romance of Ancient Persia. translated from the Georgian Version by Oliver Wardrop. London 1914. = Oriental Translation Fund, N.S., 23 (here: Ward.). - The text has twice been translated into German, first by Ruth Neukomm and Kita Tschenk‚li (Wisramiani oder die Geschichte der Liebe von Wis und Ramin. šbertragung aus dem Georgischen und Nachwort von Ruth Neukomm und Kita Tschenk‚li. Zrich 1957) and now again by Nelly Amaschukeli und Natella Chuzischwili (Wis und Ramin. Roman einer verbotenen Liebe im alten Persien. Aus dem Georgischen. šbersetzung von Nelly Amaschukeli und Natella Chuzischwili. Herausgabe, Redaktion und Nachwort von Elke Erb. Leipzig 1991; here: Leipzig). [zurck]
    5.
      Visramiani. ºeksïi gamosacemad moamzades, gamoÖvleva da leksiÖoni daurtes Aleksandre Gvaxariam da Magali Toduam. / Visramiani. (The Old Georgian Translation of the Persian Poem Vis o Ramin). Text, Notes and Glossary by A. Gvakharia and M. Todua. Tbilisi 1962 (here: GT). - The other editions are: Visramiani, edd. Ilia ©avÅavaýe, A. Saragêvili and P. UmiÖaêvili. ºpilisi 1884; Visramiani. Al. Baramiýis, ´. Ingoroçvas da ±. ±eÖeliýis redakciit da êesavali Âerilit. LeksiÖoni I(usïine) Abulaýisa. ºpilisi 1938 (here: BI±); and Visramiani. In: ¨veni saunþe. ¾veli mÂerloba. (Our treasure. The old literature). Red. Al. Baramiýe. Tbilisi 1968, pp.17-280. = ¨veni saunþe. Kartuli mÂerloba oc ïomad. (Our treasure. Georgian literature in 20 vols.). 2 (popular edition; here: Saunþe). [zurck]
    6.
      A Turkic version of the epic which was written by the 16th century writer LƒmŒ shows much less affinity in this respect. (The text has not yet been edited, but is accessible through a manuscript preserved in the Preuáische Staatsbibliothek, Berlin). - Magali Todua is just editing the revised Persian text as accomplished by the 18th century writer NÀmÒ IsfahÀnÒ (cf. Kutaisis Universiïeïis Moambe / Bulletin of Kutaisi University, vol. 1, 1993, pp. 25-64; vol. 2, 1993, pp. 26-108). [zurck]
    7.
      Gorganis "Vis o Ramin" da kartuli Visramiani (GurganÒ's "VÒs u RÀmÒn" and the Georgian "Visramiani"). Tbilisi 1977. [zurck]
    8.
      Text passages from the Persian text are here quoted by chapters and verses, quotations from the Georgian text by chapters, pages, and lines. Translations are quoted according to pages; that a given translation is quoted, is indicated by the reference to Ward. and Morr., resp. The transcription used for the Persian as presented here is to be regarded as tentative because final decisions are being aimed at only as results of this investigation. The Georgian is transliterated in the usual manner. [zurck]
    9.
      Sulxan-Saba Orbeliani, LeksiÖoni kartuli. ¦igni 1-2. Tbilisi 1966 / Txzulebani otx ïomad, ïomi 4/1-2, Tbilisi 1965-1966. [zurck]
    10.
      Kartuli-rusuli leksiÖoni / Gruzino-russkij slovar', Sanktpeterburg 1887 / Repr., ed. by A. ¸aniýe, Tbilisi 1984. [zurck]
    11.
      Kartuli enis ganmarïebiti leksiÖoni, red. Arnold ¨ikobava, 1-8, Tbilisi 1950-1964; here vol. 7, 1962. [zurck]
    12.
      To appear in the Gedenkschrift fr Otakar Kl¡ma, Prague 1994. [zurck]
    13.
      The Georgian word has recently been dealt with by R. Bielmeier (in: Lingua restituta orientalis. Festgabe fr Julius Assfalg. Hrsg.v. Regine Schulz und Manfred G”rg. Wiesbaden 1990, S. 35). [zurck]
    14.
      Incidentally, Georgian kos-i cannot be connected with Georgian m-gosan-i "minstrel" = Persian 
      *?**?**?**?**?*
      k©s¦n / 
      *?**?**?**?**?*
      g©s¦n (GT 38: 73,20 = TG 49,15) as was proposed by Mzia AndroniÖaêvili in her monograph on Iranian-Georgian linguistic contacts (NarÖvevebi iranul-kartuli enobrivi urtiertobidan / OÄerki po iransko-gruzinskim jazykovym vzaimootnoêenijam. I. Tbilisi 1966, 308), because of the divergent stops (k- vs. g-). [zurck]

    Copyright Jost Gippert Frankfurt a/M 1996. No parts of this document may be republished in any form without prior permission by the copyright holder.