É. Apor (ed.): Codex Cumanicus. Ed. by Géza Kuun with a Prolegomena to the Codex Cumanicus by Lajos Ligeti. (Budapest Oriental Reprints, Ser. B 1.)
L. Ligeti: Prolegomena to the Codex Cumanicus
PROLEGOMENA TO THE CODEX CUMANICl'S 29 Here too, Genoa and Venice were both present. ViaTrapezunt the former and through Cyprus the latter, both could reach Iran easily and establish settlements there. Which of them needed the Persian language more ? No doubt the aim of the interpreters' handbook was not to facilitate their communication with the Ilkhans, for this would not have necessitated the inclusion of the Coman language. The handbook was apparently prepared for a region where Persian was necessary in addition to Coman. It is hardly possible to prove the crucial need for Persian in Kaffa or Solchat. Significant material indications suggest Tana where the major trade route described by Pegolotti started, leading to Sarai and further to the East. In this region both languages were indispensable. This possibility must have priority over all other hypotheses. It is, however, not totally proved due to chronological snags cropping up around the primacy of the Genoans and Venetians, and also due to the lack of a background against which such a work could have been created. It is beyond doubt that the Codex did not come about to satisfy a nonrecurrent need. This is borne out by the fact that the extant material is a copy, most probably one of the several copies lost. The existing manuscript copy is indicative of other things as well. It shows quite plainly that of the two Oriental languages, Persian was more important for those who ordered the work. Persian stands right next to Latin, preceding Coman. The Persian language lost its domination when the second part, which contains no Persian, was attached to the first part. Only then could the trilingual manuscript, headed by the Persian language, be correctly called the Codex Cumanieus. The presently known first part is a copy (if not the copy of a copy). When it was completed, the role of the Persian tongue was still predominant. A scribe who was ignorant of the language could have hardly made it into such a serviceable work. There is only one technical question which still intrigues the researchers of the first part. A concensus of opinion holds that the copier first put down the Latin column, then the Persian, and lastly the Coman. This method explains the errors arising from the horizontal line shifts in the columns; The shifting affects the Persian and Coman columns in the first place. Rarely was the Latin column also affected (see the mentioned shifted lines of december — muharrá). The question is, what was the original like ? On the basis of the copy, it appears likely that the Latin column was put down first according to some model. This ready list (probably a draft with insertions, corrections, and cancellations) was completed horizontally by the «author» on the basis of oral information supplied by an interpreter with a knowledge of Persian and Coman. Do the items of both languages derive from the same interpreter, or were the Persian and Coman linguistic data dictated by separate interpreters ?
