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 25 linguistic and literary relations, presented the Persian material on the basis of his thorough knowledge of linguistic history. 2 9 The two editions were completely independent, though Monchi-zadeh's book preceded Bodrogligeti's by two years. Linguistically, Bodrogligeti's work offers more profound insight, but Monchi-zadeh's hook, reflecting a specific Persian view, cannot be neglected. How does the Persian part contribute to the solution of the problems surrounding the history of the Codex ? We have seen that the Persian calendar supports the hypothetical date 1294, a date which is of disputable meaning and value. How does the purpose of the Persian grammar-dictionary bear upon this date? Monchi-zadeh's view that it was made for the Comans can he wholly discarded. 3 0 It is beyond doubt that similarly to the Coman part, the Persian material was made by appointment to the Black Sea Italian colonies for interpreters. That it appeared together with the Coman part can hardly be a coincidence. The secular (non-missionarv) purpose of the entire Italian part is unquestionable. It is also reasonable to assume that the Italian colonies needed multi-lingual interpreters for their commercial activities. A knowledge of the Coman language was necessary, above all, in the region north of the Black Sea, up to Sarai or beyond, where Comans lived. It was also needed when Turks, whose mother tongue or second language was Coman, arrived at (or were brought to) the Italian colonies. It has been demonstrated that communication with local representatives of the Mongol authorities who licensed the Italian colonies, had to be (or could be) conducted in Coman, both in speaking and writing. It would he an oversimplification to assert that the Persian language was only used in trade with the Persian Ilkhans. It should not be forgotten that in this period and region not only was Persian known and indispensable around the Levant and Persia, but it also constituted a sort of «lingua franca» 2 3 A. Bodrogligeti, The Persian Vocabulary oj the Codex Cumanicus, Budapest 1971 (Bibliotheca Orientális Hungarica XVI). After the Introduction, the book comprises the following chapters: Orthography (pp. 21 — 39), Phonology (pp. 40 — 63), Morphology (pp. 63—90), Syntax (pp. 89-92), Word Foimation (pp. 92-96), Lexicon (pp. 96-105). This is followed by the actual word-list (Glossary, pp. 105- 211), ami an English Index (pp. 212-239). It ends with the Bibliography (pp. 233-235). 3 0 According to Monchi-zadeh, op. cit., p. 14 1his Persian language was spoken by the Comans: «Das von Fremden (Kcmanen) gesprochene und von Fiemden (Italienern) niedergeschriebene Persiseli». His hypothesis on how the Ccmans learned the Peisian togue is even more starting: «Hat man idle diese Tatsachen vor Augen, wild man zu dem Sc"luB gelangen, daB die Komanen ihr Schulpersisch (sic !) in thorasanischen Traditionen lernten — was bei einem türk. Volk selbstverst ándlieh sclieint — aber das Umgangpersische entweder in den kaspisclien Provinzen — von Baku (vielleicht nocli weiter nach Norden) bis Masenderan — oder bei den persischen KauOeuten und Mullas aus denselben Gebieten lernten.»
