The Discourse of Wärqe

Full text

ETHIOPIAN STUDIES
IN HONOUR OF
AMHA ASFAW
Getatchew Haile
New York 2017

© 2017 by Getatchew Haile, New York, New York
All Rights Reserved
Ethiopian Studies In Honour Of Amha Asfaw
ISBN: 0970666381
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017909150
Cover: IES 74, Addis Ababa



This volume contains a collection of articles, written over a period of ten
years, which address different aspects of the literary tradition of the Ethio-
pian Orthodox Church. Most are editions of texts and their translations.
These include new sources on the continuous controversy surrounding the
meaning of Christ’s Unction, a lengthy study on symbolism in the
Church’s ritual, the Vision of Baruch, and a compilation of different
sources on Priest Yared the Musician and his works. In addition, several
of the articles are the author’s original contributions to the ongoing discus-
sions of important issues in the field, such as the authorship of the Ethio-
pic anaphoras and the
Ḥ
atäta “Discourse” of Zar’a Ya‘ǝqob.

The Discourse of Wärqe
The Discourse of WärqeThe Discourse of Wärqe
The Discourse of Wärqe
Commonly Known as
Commonly Known as Commonly Known as
Commonly Known as Ḥatäta zä
Ḥatäta zäḤatäta zä
Ḥatäta zä-
--
-Zär
ZärZär
Zär
’
’’’
a Ya
a Yaa Ya
a Ya‛ǝqob
‛ǝqob‛ǝqob
‛ǝqob
Introduction
IntroductionIntroduction
Introduction
It might seem strange to take up the Ḥatäta zä-Zär
’
a Ya‛ǝqob,
or “Treatise of the ‘Aksumite’ Zär’a Ya‛ǝqob,” at this time. Af-
ter all, it has been over 100 years since the distinguished Enno
Littmann edited and published the text
1
as a rare philosophical
treatise by an Ethiopian, and almost as many years since the
equally distinguished Conti Rossini subsequently convinced the
scholarly world that the treatise was a hoax by an Italian Jesuit
missionary monk who was pretending to be an Ethiopian.
2
It
has been over forty years since I stopped using it as a text for
the Gǝ‛ǝz classes I taught for over ten years, during which time
I advised Alemayehu Moges on his often quoted BA disserta-
tion on the subject. And I do not have any new sources that
might shed new light on a subject that has been exhaustively
discussed by those who supported the findings of Conti Ros-
sini, including Eugen Mittwoch
3
and those who insisted that
Zär’a Ya‛ǝqob was an Abyssinian thinker no matter how much
of a loner, einsamer,
4
he may have been.
5
The reason I am returning to this subject is because the more I
read the Ḥatäta, the more I become uncertain about the iden-
1
Littmann (1909. 1962).
2
Conti Rossini (1920), 213-23.
3
Mittwoch (1934).
4
Littmann (1916).
5
Sumner (1976, 1981); Sumner (1994), 230-88; Dawit Worku Kidane (2012); and
Luam Tesfalidet (2007).

52 Ethiopian Studies In Honour Of Amha Asfaw
tity, including the nationality, of its author. Unlike other Ethio-
pian scholars of the traditional school, the author starts his in-
vestigation by questioning the existence of a supernatural being
(ḥǝllawe). He writes, “On one of the days, [after my prayer] I
thought and said, ‘Who am I praying to? Is there a God who
hears me?’” His point of departure is his belief that the things
he could see, living and non-living, existed because they were
created (fǝṭur) by a creator (fäṭari). Starting with man, he theo-
rized that man did not create himself because in order to create
himself, he must first exist. Using this logic, he concluded that
there must be an uncreated creator (fäṭari). This ability or at-
tribute is what qualifies this being as a god (amlak) or God
(Ǝgzi
’
abher). He posited worship as the relationship between
the created and the creator, and maintained that man should
express to God his indebtedness for creating him by worship-
ping him. He defined worship as sǝgdät (repeated prostration to
the ground before the invisible creator), ṣälot (prayer, begging
the Creator), sǝbḥat (glorying Him), and a
’
ǝk
w
ǝto or akk
w
ätet
(thanksgiving), which each person could perform on his own.
He dismissed the existing religious traditions, śǝr
’
atat and
ḥǝggägat, which recommend, among other things, communal
worship, as having been designed by men to control others.
Many scholars have examined on the extent to which the author
of the Ḥatäta was an independent thinker among the liqawǝnt,
“doctors of the Church,” who hardly doubted the existence of
God—at least not in the open—and who are dedicated to up-
holding the Ethiopian Orthodox Church traditions. These schol-
ars have focused, adamantly, on the identity of the author of the
treatise and on the text as presented by Enno Littmann, even
after Boris Turaiev subsequently produced a better edition.
6
At
this time, I am inspired to reexamine the text by Luam
Tesfalidet’s thorough examination of the arguments regarding
6
Turaiev (1905), 1-16.

53
The Discourse of Wärqe
the author’s identity in her 2007 M.A. thesis: Rezeptions-
geschichte der Ḥatäta Zär
’
a Ya‛ǝqobs und Wäldä Ḥǝywät.
7
The Story of Wärqe
The Story of Wärqe The Story of Wärqe
The Story of Wärqe
To begin from the beginning, the Ḥatäta is its author’s autobi-
ography, the autobiography of a scholar who claims to hail
from an undisclosed place in the neighborhood of Aksum. One
of the two known manuscripts calls it a gädl “hagiography.” He
was called Wärqe at birth (on 25 Näḥe, 1592 = August 28,
1600), and Zär’a Ya‛ǝqob at Christian baptism. He studied the
Holy Scriptures first from the Catholics (Franğ or Franği) and
then from “the teachers of our country.” It should be remem-
bered that the Jesuits had the upper hand in Ethiopia when
Wärqe came back from school and took a teaching position “in
Aksum.”
The trouble that triggered Wärqe’s philosophical investigation
brewed when he began teaching. He said his friends hated him
“because there was no love of friends in the country and be-
cause envy has consumed them since I was by far better than
them in education and love of friends. I used to agree with all
people, with the Franğ/i as well as with the Egyptians.
8
When I
interpreted the Scriptures, I said, ‘The Franğ/i say such and
such, and the Egyptians say such and such.’ I did not say, ‘This
one is good, but the other one is bad.’ I rather said, ‘All this is
good, if we are good.’ Therefore, all hated me because to the
Egyptians I looked a Franğ/i and to the Franğ/i I looked an
Egyptian.” In fact, one of the Aksumite clergymen went twice
to Emperor Susǝnyos (1607-32), who was by then a devout prose-
lyte Catholic, to accuse him of being anti-Catholic. The author’s
7
Luam Tesfalidet (2007.
8
By “Egyptians” he means either the Copts or Ethiopian teachers, who are often
referred to as “Copts.”

54 Ethiopian Studies In Honour Of Amha Asfaw
first appearance before the king went in his favor. But the second
time, fearing possible negative consequences, he fled before the
messenger arrived to summon him. Going to Shoa, he crossed the
River Täkkäze. For two years, until the king’s death, he hid himself
in a cave. This period of solitude, we are told, was when Wärqe
developed his theological philosophy. With nothing to do after
having prayed with his Psalter, Dawit, he spent his days in specu-
lations and thoughts.
As I read these passages today, my thesis is that the Ḥatäta Zär
’
a
Ya‛ǝqob is a historical novel—rather than a pure and truthful auto-
biography—in which the true identity of some people and localities
are changed or not revealed.
The Sources
The Sources The Sources
The Sources
(MS D'Abbadie 215 and MS D'Abbadie 234)
(MS D'Abbadie 215 and MS D'Abbadie 234)(MS D'Abbadie 215 and MS D'Abbadie 234)
(MS D'Abbadie 215 and MS D'Abbadie 234)
There are only two known Gǝ‛ǝz copies of the Ḥatäta Zär
’
a
Ya‛ǝqob, both housed at the Paris National Library. These are
identified as MS D'Abbadie 215 and MS D'Abbadie 234. They
were catalogued by Antoine D’Abbadie
9
and later by Conti Ros-
sini.
10
In my opinion, as I explain below, neither is faithfully
copied from the original. As versions rather than copies of the
original text, these two manuscripts cannot give us an accurate
understanding of the author’s philosophy. Nevertheless, any
serious study of the philosopher’s views must give equal atten-
tion to both manuscripts.
11
It would be a mistake to ignore ei-
ther, as Enno Littmann and Claude Sumner did, under the mis-
taken assumption that one (MS D'Abbadie 234) is a copy of the
other (MS D'Abbadie 215)—which it is not.
12
9
d’Abbadie (11859), 212.
10
Conti Rossini (1913), 23-4.
11
The librarians are very cooperative people. Also Mittwoch has published them as
photocopies.
12
Sumner (1976, 1982); Sumner (1994), 230-88.

55
The Discourse of Wärqe
These two manuscripts were sent to the famous French ex-
plorer, Antoine D’Abbadie, from Däbrä Tabor in February 1853
by a Jesuit Missionary called Father Justo da Urbino (“P. Juste
d’Urbin”).
13
This means that Antoine D’Abbadie, who criss-
crossed Ethiopia toward the end of the Zämänä Mäsafǝnt—the
era of the unruly provincial sovereigns—and subsequently
brought to Paris the largest collection of Ethiopian manuscripts
in Europe, did not obtain any copy of Ḥatäta zä- Zär
’
a Ya‛ǝqob
while he was in Ethiopia. Other European explorers, colonial-
ists and manuscript collectors had a similar experience—they
did not encounter these manuscripts or their copies during their
time in Ethiopia.
As a result, the studies conducted on the philosophical treatise
of Zär’a Ya‛ǝqob were based on these two manuscripts, and
these two manuscripts only. Initially the focus was on MS D’
Abbadie 215, beginning with its publication by Littmann. Later
13
Conti Rossini (1913), 24. The details have been exhaustively presented by Luam
Tesfalidet in her (2007) M.A. thesis. See also the important information on the
history of the text in 1.Aïssatou Mbodj-Pouye et Anaïs Wion,“L’histoire d’un
vrai faux traité philosophique (Ḥatatā Zar’a Yā‘eqob et Ḥatatā Walda Ḥeywat).
Introduction: Enquête sur une enquête,” Afriques [online], Débats et lectures,
mis en ligne le 22 février 2013, consulté le 23 février 2014. URL: http://
afriques.revues.org/1060; “L’histoire d’un vrai faux traité philosophique (Ḥatatā
Zar’a Yā‘eqob et Ḥatatā Walda Ḥeywat). Épisode 1: Le temps de la découverte.
De l’entrée en collection à l’édition scientifique (1852-1904); Anaïs Wion,
“L’histoire d’un vrai faux traité philosophique (Ḥatatā Zar’a Yā‘eqob et Ḥatatā
Walda Ḥeywat). Épisode 1: Le temps de la découverte. De l’entrée en collection
à l’édition scientifique (1852-1904),” Afriques [online], Débats et lectures, mis
en ligne le 22 février 2013, consulté le 23 février 2014. URL: http://
afriques.revues.org/1063; idem., “L’histoire d’un vrai faux traité philosophique
(Ḥatatā Zar’a Yā‘eqob et Ḥatatā Walda Ḥeywat). Épisode 2: Le temps de la
démystification et la traversée du désert (de 1916 aux années 1950);” idem.,
“L’histoire d’un vrai faux traité philosophique (Ḥatatā Zar’a Yā‘eqob et Ḥatatā
Walda Ḥeywat). Épisode 2: Le temps de la démystification et la traversée du
désert (de 1916 aux années 1950),” Afriques [online], Débats et lectures, mis en
ligne le 04 novembre 2013, consulté le 23 février 2014. URL: http://
afriques.revues.org/1316. These online sources were gratefuly provided to me
by Professor Manfred Kropp.

56 Ethiopian Studies In Honour Of Amha Asfaw
some attention was given to MS D’Abbadie 234 when Boris
Turaiev collated it in an edition that made D’Abbadie 215 the
base.
For the sake of convenience, I will designate MS D’Abbadie
234 with A
AA
A and MS D’Abbadie 215 with B
BB
B. Labeling MS D’
Abbadie 234 with A
AA
A gives prominence to the copy that Litt-
mann did not even bother to review. But this is important be-
cause a cursory comparison of the two copies reveals immedi-
ately that D’Abbadie 234 (A
AA
A) is not a copy of D’Abbadie 215
(B
BB
B) and that A
AA
A is possibly closer to the original copy than B
BB
B. I
believe, therefore, that Littmann and later Turaiev, should have
made A
AA
A the basis of their edition. Most, if not all, of the copy-
ing errors in B
BB
B that Littmann corrected, depending on context
and his knowledge of the Gǝ‛ǝz grammar, are correctly copied
in A
A A
A (though A
AA
A, of course, has its own errors). For example, A
AA
A
has ተሰመይኩ which Littmann corrected so B
BB
B’
’’’s
s s
s ተሰየምኩ (B
BB
B,
fol. 1v); A
AA
A has ፳ which he corrected so B
BB
B’s ፩ (B
BB
B, fol. 28v).
These scholars assumed that B
BB
B was original because it was cop-
ied by an Ethiopian
by an Ethiopianby an Ethiopian
by an Ethiopian copyist—who did not reveal his name—and
on parchment
on parchmenton parchment
on parchment, while A
AA
A was an attempt by Justo da Urbino
by Justo da Urbinoby Justo da Urbino
by Justo da Urbino to
prepare on paper
on paperon paper
on paper the text in B
BB
B for publication. As Turaiev and
Mittwoch found out later, this was not what happened. True, da
Urbino’s hand and his marginal notes obviously support half of
the assumption. That is, that he prepared the text for publica-
tion is believable. However, he did not prepare it from B
BB
B or
from the manuscript that the copyist of B
BB
B used as his exemplar,
but from another manuscript copied by a certain Wäldä Yosef
for Wäldä Gäyorgis. In other words, there were two manu-
scripts, each containing a slightly different version of the
Ḥatäta. MS A
AA
A was copied from one of them and MS B
BB
B from the
other.

57
The Discourse of Wärqe
Why were there two sources—one from which A
AA
A was prepared
preparedprepared
prepared
and another from which B
B B
B was copied
copiedcopied
copied—about a single work,
and where are these two original sources now? Also, where is
the original from which they were bifurcated? Until it or an
authentic copy is located, the pure contents of the original
Ḥatäta and the identity of its author may remain a mystery. For
now, however, by comparing the two versions, we can surmise
that da Urbino had access to both versions and how the original
came to be bifurcated.
Whether or not this could be the case here, it is common
knowledge in textual studies that, when a shorter and a longer
version of a text are found, the shorter version—in this case
A
AA
A—is closer to the original than the longer one—in this case B.
B. B.
B.
This is because some copyists of a later date often feel obliged
to add elucidations to expressions they think are obscure in
their exemplar. They also tend to change archaic forms of
words and taboo phrases to fit the language and ethics of their
time. These acts of reworking a text may be called Moderniza-
tion. This problem is very much evidenced in our copies of the
Ḥatäta. The language in B
BB
B has been modernized and the attack
on Christianity has been narrowed down to focus on the faith
and the faithful of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.
Taking into account what I have written so far about the origi-
nal versions of this text and the impact of modernization, I am
now firmly inclined to believe that the original Ḥatäta is the
work of an Ethiopian däbtära who lived, as he claimed, during
the era of the Catholics (reign of Emperor Susǝyos, 1607-32). I
also believe that the original was tampered with by da Urbino
(in A
AA
A) and the Ethiopian Catholics his mission converted (in B
BB
B).
As da Urbino’s friend and convert to the Catholic faith, Abba
Täklä Haymanot, noted, da Urbino was taken by the philosophy
the text contained, which the Abba calls “a heretical work.”
This means da Urbino was not responsible for the production of

58 Ethiopian Studies In Honour Of Amha Asfaw
any of the exemplars. First the story of manuscript B
BB
B, the
longer text: Its introduction indicates that its source was a
manuscript prepared by Wäldä Ḥǝywät, the disciple Zär’a
Ya‛ǝqob, who had also written a book similar to the one written
by his teacher. Da Urbino gave this longer version to an Ethio-
pian copyist to produce copy B
BB
B for him. As Mittwoch noticed,
da Urbino corrected the copying errors in B
BB
B against this longer
version. At least one important mistake betrays the copyist’s (or
the modernizer’s) ignorance of Ethiopian history: as shall be
explained, he was unaware that there was before his time an
Ethiopian king called Fasilädäs. So he changed wä-nägśä
wäldu Fasilädäs “And his son, Fasilädäs, was crowned” to wä-
nägśä Wäldä Fasilädäs “And Wäldä Fasilädäs was crowned.”
This ignorance cannot be Wäldä Ḥǝywät’s who lived when
Fasilädäs was crowned.
A
AA
A’s story is shorter but quite interesting. As noted above, da
Urbino himself copied A
AA
A from a manuscript that a certain
Wäldä Yosef copied for Wäldä Gäyorgis. In general, da Urbino
was a careful copyist. Only one difference between A
A A
A (da
Urbino’s copy) and B
BB
B may have a valuable story to tell: At a
certain point in time, A
AA
A had “Monday, Tǝqǝmt 10, 1631” (fol.
25r) where B
BB
B had “Monday, Tǝqǝmt 11, 1631” (fol. 24v). B
BB
B is
correct: Tǝqǝmt 11, 1631, is Monday. For Monday to fall on
Tǝqǝmt 10, the year would have to be 1851, or two years before
da Urbino sent the two manuscripts to Paris in 1853. This
shows that da Urbino changed the year, as he was, apparently,
unable to see that Monday and Tǝqǝmt 11 could come together
in the year he prepared A
AA
A. The copy shows that he tried to
change the author’s Sänuy “Monday” to perhaps Śälus
“Tuesday,” which would fall on Tǝqǝmt 11. So, if da Urbino is
to be suspected of anything, it is of having changed the mes-
sage of the author, not for hiding his own identity. This change
points to the conclusion that the text in A
AA
A is not da Urbino’s
original composition.

59
The Discourse of Wärqe
Da Urbino knew Gǝ‛ǝz but not well enough to use it without
the help of an editor or co-author. He is responsible for the
translation of an exchange between a Jesuit priest and a Muslim
Mufly in Carthage (Tunisia) from French into Gǝ‛ǝz. The
Gǝ‛ǝz text has not been found but its Amharic version was pub-
lished by Mittwoch.
14
It is the similarity of the description of
Islam in it and in the Ḥatäta that led Mittwoch to support Conti
Rossini’s position. But, as Luam Tesfalidet has argued, the
author’s knowledge of Islam could have come from any source,
not necessarily from the Die amharische Version der Soirée de
Carthage. However, it is fair to add one more note of support to
Mittwoch’s observations: it is striking that the rare word, bǝḥer, in
the meaning of “section,” “paragraph,” of a text, appears in both
works, once in the Ḥatäta and several times in Die amharische
Version der Soirée de Carthage. Still, if this addition is da Urbino’s,
I see it as a part of his tampering of Zär’a Ya‛ǝqob’s Ḥatäta, and
not as evidence that he authored the original.
The Arguments in Support of Wärqe
The Arguments in Support of WärqeThe Arguments in Support of Wärqe
The Arguments in Support of Wärqe’
’’’s
s s
s
(
((
(Zär
ZärZär
Zär’
’’’a Ya
a Yaa Ya
a Ya‛ǝqob
‛ǝqob‛ǝqob
‛ǝqob’
’’’s) Authorship
s) Authorships) Authorship
s) Authorship
As we now know it from these two versions, the Ḥatäta is a
creation or a rework of someone perhaps wishing to undermine
the Christian faith of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. At pre-
sent, it is a text much favored by Catholic and Protestant teach-
ers. If the copies we have contain the original speculations of
the author, which are highly critical of Ethiopian Christianity,
we can suspect that he was a däbtära who converted to Catholi-
cism. If the author’s views are, on the other hand, not accu-
rately reproduced, then he was likely a real independent thinker
whose work was tampered with by da Urbino and his group of
Catholic däbtäras. At least two points support the latter thesis:
14
Mittwoch (1934).

60 Ethiopian Studies In Honour Of Amha Asfaw
1. Although the Ḥatäta at hand rejects all established relig-
ions—Christianity, Islam, and Judaism—, its general
criticism of Christian religions is clearly diverted to focus
on the Christianity the author inherited from the Ethio-
pian Orthodox Church. This is done by changing, for ex-
ample, “haymanot” (“faith” or “religion,” a remnant in A
A A
A
of the original essay), to “haymanotǝnä” (“our faith,” as
changed to in B
BB
B), or “säb
’
” (“people,” as seen in A
AA
A), to
“säb
’
a bǝḥerǝnä”
(“people of our country,” as in B
BB
B). Here
are the examples:
(a)
(a)(a)
(a)
A
AA
A “When I realized that religion is a prostitute or a
lie I was saddened.”
B
BB
B “When I realized that my religion is a prostitute or
a lie I was saddened.” (fol. 13v)
(b)
(b)(b)
(b)
A
AA
A “In this era people destroyed the love (taught by)
the Gospel.”
B
BB
B “In this era people of our country destroyed the
love (taught by) the Gospel.” (fol. 13v)
(c)
(c)(c)
(c)
A
A A
A “I realized that (my son) was doing wrong with his
body by spilling semen for the pleasure he gets from
it.”
B
BB
B “I realized that (my son) was doing wrong, not
knowing the sin that signals to the need for sex.”
(fol. 28v).
2, The author of the present Ḥatäta was impressed by the
knowledgeability of the Franği teachers (AB
ABAB
AB, fol. 19r). He
was encouraged by Emperor Susǝnyos to abandon his vac-
illation in favor of decidedly advocating the Emperor’s and
his Franği
’
s position. The treatise witnesses that its author’
s sympathy ultimately did go to the Catholics, condemning
with the harshest of words Ethiopian Orthodox Christians
and Emperor Fasilädäs, who is highly regarded by the

61
The Discourse of Wärqe
Church for restoring Orthodoxy to its former place (A
AA
A, fol.
26rv; B
BB
B, fol. 26v-27r).
(a) (Emperor Susǝnyos) said to me, “You are an educated
person; you should love the Catholics, for they are
very learned people.” I said to him, “I agree,” because
I was afraid and because the Catholics were truly a
learned people.
(b) About Emperor Fasilädäs, the Ḥatäta declares that
“the king started his reign with a sound policy and
wisdom.” But he did not stay firm in goodness, and
became a violent monarch. He stayed firm in his vio-
lence and shedding of blood. And the Catholics, who
did him favors and built him castles and beautiful
houses and made his kingdom good in all deeds of
wisdom, he hated and persecuted. He paid them bad
in lieu of good. He became a criminal. He killed
countless people without due process of law. He in-
creased adultery. He executed the women with whom
he fornicated. He would dispatch his criminal army to
plunder villages and houses of the poor. For God has
given to this wicked people a wicked king. Because of
the sin of the king and the people, the scourge of fam-
ine took place. Then there was pestilence.”
(c) The historical records testify on the untold number of
lives lost resisting the imposition of the Catholic
faith. The country’s army was ordered to wage war on
the Church and the faithful. Tabots, including the one
in the church of Aksum Ṣǝyon, had to flee and hide.
Abunä Sǝm‛on, the Metropolitan of the nation, was
killed. As is stated in the Ḥatäta, Emperor Fasilädäs
was willing to tolerate the offenders, but they lured
his brother Prince Gälawdewos to overthrow him. In-
deed, there was the inevitable retaliation, including
the execution of the plotters, when the plot was dis-

62 Ethiopian Studies In Honour Of Amha Asfaw
covered. But see how the Ḥatäta exaggerates the re-
action: “First, those who accepted the faith of King
(Susǝnyos) and Abunä Alfonso persecuted their breth-
ren who did not. Later, (when the Orthodox faith was
restored) those who were persecuted took revenge on
their enemies as much as seven times worse and mur-
dered many.”
These passages and changes support the conclusion that the
Ḥatäta in B
BB
B as well as in A
AA
A are copies of a treatise written by
three authors who lived centuries—two centuries—apart, the
original author who lived during the reigns of Susǝnyos (1607-
32) and his son Fasilädas (1632-67) and the two revisionists in the
1850s. Da Urbino had access to both copies. He copied the
shorter one (A
AA
A) and had the longer one (B
BB
B) copied for him by
an Ethiopian. Da Urbino has proofread B
BB
B, correcting it with his
hand against the version that the Ethiopian copyist copied. But
the text in B
B B
B and its exemplar
might contain the compromised
philosophical views of the author. It is, unfortunately, the pub-
lished version of this copy (by Littmann) that is widely known
and quoted in the West and in Ethiopia. The edition and trans-
lation by Turaiev, even though he has collated the version in A,
A, A,
A,
did not make a marked difference on the studies made after
Turaiev.
15
Emperor Fasilädäs is commonly known as Fasil, not as
Fasilädäs, which is the name of a martyr saint of the Diocletian
persecution. This is all B
BB
B’s copyist knows. For him, there must
be someone, an Ethiopian king, by the name of ወልደ ፋሲለደስ
(Wäldä Fasilädäs), just as there are people with such compound
names, eg. ወልደ ሚካኤል (Wäldä Mika’el), ወልደ ጻድቅ
(Wäldä Ṣadǝq), etc. I believe that is why B
BB
B (fol. 22v) has
ወነግሠ ወልደ ፋሲለደስ። "And Wäldä Fasilädäs became king,”
15
See, for example, Sumner, ibid.; and Dawit Worku Kidane (2012), 363-85.

63
The Discourse of Wärqe
where A
AA
A has the correct expression ወነግሠ ወልዱ ፋሲለደስ።
"And his [Susǝnyos’s] son, Fasilädäs, became king.” This mis-
take could not have been made by the original author of the
Ḥatäta or his disciple, who copied it together with his own es-
say. They knew there was no king called Wäldä Fasilädäs in
their time.
As I said, A
AA
A is much closer to the Vorlage than B
BB
B. The exam-
ples given above support this conclusion. I give, in addition, a
few expressions from A
AA
A and B
B B
B to illustrate that those of the for-
mer are older and closer to their Vorlage than the latter.
A B
1
እም፬አብዕልተ ሀገር
“From the 4 wealthy people of the
village.”
እምአብዕልተ ሀገር (fol. 3r)
“From the wealthy people of
the village.”
2
ሴዋ ሸዋ
“(The province of) Sewa.”
ሸዋ (fol. 3r)
“(The province of) Šäwa
[Shoa].”
The first example is most telling and a decisive proof that da
Urbino is not the author of the Ḥatäta. The Vorlage must be the
Gǝ‛ǝz for “From the 1 [= one] of wealthy people of the village.”
Both copyists—that of A
AA
A being da Urbino—faced with the
problem of understanding the symbol for the number 1 [= one].
In older texts, including definitely in the Vorlage, the symbol
for number 1 (፩) looks like the modern symbol for number 4
(፬). The copyist of A
AA
A, since he is a copyist, copied it as ፬, as
he assumed it to be, while that of B
BB
B could not see a clear ፩ but
one that is closer to ፬ which did not make sense in the context
for someone who is more than a copyist. As a compromise, he
chose not to copy it at all because dropping it all together made
to him more sense than copying it as ፬ (4). Da Urbino would
have written it as ፩, if the Ḥatäta was his composition because
it is ፩. What the author had written was, most probably,

64 Ethiopian Studies In Honour Of Amha Asfaw
እም፩አብዕልተ ሀገር "From one of the wealthy people of the
village.”
The second example does not require much explanation. Sewa
is older than Šäwa [Shoa].
ወለተ ጴጥሮስ (Wälättä eṭros) is mentioned in the Ḥatäta, as
the name of the daughter-in-law of Habtu, the nobleman who
gave safe haven to the fugitive author. The Ethiopian Orthodox
Church has a saint who has the same name. This saint attained
sainthood for fighting the imposition of Catholicism on the Or-
thodox Christian nation by Emperor Susǝnyos, her brother-in-
law. I cannot see why da Urbino would create a figure in his
fictitious composition and give her the name of a saint who
fought the Franği that the Ḥatäta admires, if he was, indeed,
the author of the Ḥatäta.
There are several examples in A
AA
A that show weaknesses in the
author’s knowledge of the Gǝ‛ǝz language. The errors are recti-
fied in B
BB
B. But we cannot conclude from this, as Conti Rossini
and Mittwoch did, that this happened because the author of the
Ḥatäta was da Urbino, whose knowledge of Ethiopian culture,
including its languages, is praised by one scholar and rejected
by another. These mistakes can be made by anyone, including
any Ethiopian, for whom Gǝ‛ǝz is foreign as much as it was for
da Urbino. No one claims Gǝ‛ǝz as his mother tongue. They
can be the mistakes of an Ethiopian author who, like Wärqe,
was intelligent but not a highly educated scholar. Wärqe’s
knowledge of Ethiopic literature did not go much beyond the
Psalter and the New Testament. He himself has told us that
when he fled, he took with him only his money and the Book of
Psalms of David (A
AA
A, f. 4r; B
BB
B, fol. 3r). His only other book of
the Old Testament was Ecclesiastes (A
AA
A, fol. 8r; B, fol. 7r). He
quotes even Isaiah indirectly from the Gospel (A
AA
A, fol. 27r; B
BB
B,
fol. 27v). He could not quote the Torah correctly, although he

65
The Discourse of Wärqe
criticizes Moses severely: ወሙሴሰ ይቤ ከመ ኵሉ ሩካቤ
ርኩስ ውእቱ። (wä-Muse-ssa yǝbe kämä k
w
ǝllu rukabe rǝkus
wǝ
’
ǝtu.) “But Moses says that every (sexual) intercourse is im-
pure” (A
AA
A, fol. 9v; B
BB
B, fol. 8v). Moses, a married man, cannot is-
sue such a sweeping condemnation of carnal intimacy.
Here are at least four more problems that those who speculate
that Father Justo da Urbino was the author of the Ḥatäta zä-
Zär
’
a Ya‛ǝqob must resolve:
(1) Why was da Urbino interested in writing his discourse in
Gǝ‛ǝz, if he was indeed the author of the Ḥatäta? It was
certainly not to teach Ethiopians, because he shipped both
copies out of Ethiopia. It was certainly not to teach the
Catholics in Europe, because the Ḥatäta does not contain
any philosophical concept not known or theological is-
sues not discussed in nineteenth-century Europe. The cen-
tral part of Zär’a Ya‛ǝqob’s contribution is this reasoning:
“I cannot say, ‘I created myself’ because I did not exist when I
was created. And if I say, ‘my parents created me,’ a creator
for my parents and their parents has to be posited, until one
arrives at the first who were not born like us but who came
into this world in a different way, without a begetter. If they,
too, were born, from where did the origin of their birth begin?
I do not know other than to say ‘a Being that is not created,
but lives forever, . . . created them out of nothing’” (A
AA
A, 6r; B
BB
B,
4v-5r). It is not clear why the Jesuit Claude Sumner, who
wrote a great deal on the philosophy of Zär’a Ya‛ǝqob, never
compared the thoughts of Zär’a Ya‛ǝqob with the cause and
cause and cause and
cause and
effect
effecteffect
effect of Thomas Aquinas (1225-74), the most favored
teacher by the Jesuits: “Aquinas applies the principle of cau-
sality when showing that in a series of essentially subordinate
causes one cannot proceed in infinity, but must rather come to

66 Ethiopian Studies In Honour Of Amha Asfaw
a first cause that is independent of all other causes and re-
sponsible for the causality of the entire series.”
16
(2) We all agree that A
AA
A was copied by da Urbino, editing the
text for publication with a title he created for it. Why
would he choose to edit his own original? That would
make da Urbino at one time the author and at another
time the editor of his own text. It makes more sense to
accept the claim that he has found a heretical text that, I
might add, he tampered with.
(3) The Ḥatäta was composed by someone who knew the
Ethiopic Psalter well. That would point to someone who
was a member of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church faithful,
likely a Dawit Dägami däbtära, “a cleric, who recites
daily the Psalms of David”—someone who knows the in-
dividual psalms by heart because it is his daily prayer
book. It cannot be Da Urbino who must have his Catholic
prayer book. It is impossible to think of any reason for
anyone to be obsessed with so many psalm verses, unless
the Psalter is his daily prayer book.
(4) Would da Urbino have written about the stars in the way
the text does, if he was hoping to pass as a traditional
Ethiopian? Traditional scholars maintain that God created
big and small stars. They arrived at this belief, accepting
Paul’s statement in 1Co 15:41: “Indeed, one star differs
[yǝḫeyyǝs “is better than,” or “is superior to”] from another
star in glory.” But our philosopher says, ወመኑ የአምር
ኍልቆሙ ለከዋክብት፤ ወርሕቀቶሙ ወዕበዮሙ እን ዘ
ይመስሉነ ደቂቀ በእንተ ርሕቀቶሙ። (wä-männu yä
’
mmǝr ḫ
w
ǝlqomu lä-käwakǝbt wä-rǝḥqätomu wä-‛ǝbäyomu
ǝnzä yǝmässǝlunä däqiqä bä
’
ǝtä rǝḥqätomu) “Who knows
the number of the stars, their distance, and their magni-
tude, which look to us miniscule because of their remote-
ness?” (A
AA
A, fol. 21v; B
BB
B, fol. 22r.)
16
Bonansea (1967), 551.

67
The Discourse of Wärqe
(5) The author of the Ḥatäta says that he has no opinion re-
garding the issue whether or not observing the Sabbath
(Saturday) as a rest day is one of God’s commandments. I
suspect he raised this issue because it was an issue in his
time, as a criticism of the Portuguese Catholics against
the Ethiopian Church for observing it, so much so that
Emperor Gälawdewos (1540-59) had to defend the prac-
tice in his letter known as Confessio fidei Claudii Regis
Aethiopiae.
17
Then, who was the author of the treatise that Father Justo da
Urbino gave the title መጽሐፈ ሐተታ ዘዘርአ ያዕቆብ
Mäṣḥafä Ḥatäta zä-Zär
’
a Ya‛ǝqob, “A
AA
A Book of Inquiry of Zär
Book of Inquiry of ZärBook of Inquiry of Zär
Book of Inquiry of Zär’
’’’a
a a
a
Ya
YaYa
Ya‛ǝqob
‛ǝqob‛ǝqob
‛ǝqob”? I believe that the treatise was composed by an
Ethiopian who lived during the Third Persecution of the Ethio-
Third Persecution of the Ethio-Third Persecution of the Ethio-
Third Persecution of the Ethio-
pian Orthodox Church
pian Orthodox Churchpian Orthodox Church
pian Orthodox Church.
18
I suspect he had gone to his grave hid-
ing his identity and origins, perhaps to protect his relatives
from the shame his heresy might have inflicted upon them.
Every name he mentioned, other than those of the monarchs,
could be fictitious. He could be a son of one of the noble fami-
lies that had close ties to the palace at Dänqäz, in Dämbiya,
Sǝmen. The style of his recording of dates of events in detail
and with accuracy shows that he was in the company of the
royal chroniclers whose recording compares with his and con-
trasts with that of the monks who wrote gädlat and tä
’
ammǝrat.
For the purpose of this study, I will accept his claim that his
name was Wärqe/ Zär’a Ya‛ǝqob.
Zär’a Ya‛ǝqob’s enemy, whom he called Wäldä Yoḥannǝs, was
also a member of the kahnatä däbtära who served at the palace.
If both men lived in Aksum, it does not seem likely that he
17
See the letter’s reprint in Edward Ullendorff (1990), 64-7.
18
The First Persecution was that of Gudit/Esato which caused the fall of the Ak-
sumite Dynasty, and the Second was the revolt of Iman Ahmad Graňň in the
sixteenth century.

68 Ethiopian Studies In Honour Of Amha Asfaw
would make the long journey from Aksum to Dänqäz to accuse
Zär’a Ya‛ǝqob before the king. In fact, he could appear before
the king, as he did, the next day after he was summoned only
because he was living not far from the palace. Also it is useful
to note that Wäldä Yoḥannǝs was ultimately appointed head
over the monasteries in Dämbiya. He most likely was a palace
baläm
w
al “courtier”
as well as a native of Dämbiya, as such par-
ticular appointments traditionally were given to natives. So,
most likely, it was because they both hailed from and lived in
the same region, not very far from Dänqäz, that Wäldä
Yoḥannǝs spotted the philosopher in Ǝnfraz, where he was hid-
ing the second and final time.
Zär’a Ya‛ǝqob says he was born in one of the regions of Ak-
sum, and the he fled from Aksum to go to Sewa (Šäwa), cross-
ing the River Täkkäze, when his enemy, Wäldä Yoḥannǝs, ac-
cused him before the king in Dänqäz (in Sǝmen) of being anti-
Catholic. But some of these claims are questionable. First, he
violated the local tradition by not revealing his birth village, if
he was, indeed, from the neighborhood of Aksum. This omis-
sion is striking from a man who provides the dates of events
with perfect accuracy. Second, Aksum and Sewa are far apart,
so he would have had to cover a long distance when he fled.
However, he does not mention a single locality along the road
to Sewa. This leads me to suspect that he did not make the long
journey, but only said so to hide his movement from one region
of Dämbiya to another. Indeed, there would have been little
reason for him to flee that far, just to avoid his enemies, espe-
cially as he was no longer teaching. He said he remained in a
cave until the king died.
In this claim, Zär’a Ya‛ǝqob’s creativity failed him, as the king
would not have continued to seek his head, if he had indeed
stopped doing the thing to which the king objected. If he did

69
The Discourse of Wärqe
leave his province for Sewa/Shoa, his province must have been
Sǝmen; and the river he crossed was likely the River ‛Abbay
(Blue Nile), not the Täkkäze.
Did Zär’a Ya‛ǝqob arrive at all of the philosophical views and
other observations in the Ḥatäta on his own? That does not
seem to be likely. One cannot avoid the plausible assumption
that he was influenced by the Jesuits as he was in his theologi-
cal thinking. He was educated by them and his way of proving
God’s existence, the core of his philosophy, reflects St. Thomas
Aquinas’s (1225-1274) reasoning of cause and effect
cause and effectcause and effect
cause and effect and the
scholastic thinking
scholastic thinkingscholastic thinking
scholastic thinking of St. Anselm (1033-1109) who “was the
most luminous and penetrating intellectual between St. Augustine
and St. Thomas Aquinas. He differed from most of his predecessor
in preferring to defend the faith by intellectual reasoning instead of
employing arguments built on Scriptural and other written authori-
ties.”
19
Also, the knowledge that stars appear small because of their
distance from us is not philosophical knowledge that could be
arrived at through sheer speculation, but actually information
unearthed by astronomers. Zär’a Ya‛ǝqob must have heard it
from his European (Catholic) teachers whom he calls—to the
surprise of da Urbino—Franğ, combining “Franc(s),” which he
heard from them and “Färänği,” which he heard from his native
teachers. It should be remembered that he learned the Scrip-
tures first from the
first from the first from the
first from the Färänği
FäränğiFäränği
Färänği
and later from
and later from and later from
and later from “
““
“the teachers of our
the teachers of our the teachers of our
the teachers of our
country
countrycountry
country”
””
” (A
AA
A, fol. 2r; B
BB
B, fol. 2r).
19
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, London (1974), p. 61. It would
have been a fruitful and educational discussion, if Sumner has not ignored bring-
ing in the arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Anselm of Canterbury for
the existence of God.

70 Ethiopian Studies In Honour Of Amha Asfaw
Conclusion
ConclusionConclusion
Conclusion
The Jesuits worked hard to convert Ethiopians to Catholicism
and had some significant successes. They succeeded in convert-
ing Emperors Zädǝngǝl (1603-04) and Susǝnyos (1607-32) and
many priests and monks, including the leadership of Däbrä Li-
banos. They influenced the thinking of many who then ques-
tioned the traditions of their Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Ac-
cordingly, it makes more sense to suspect the influence of
Catholic teaching on the thinking of Zär’a Ya‛ǝqob than to as-
cribe his Ḥatäta to da Urbino.
Bibliobraphy
BibliobraphyBibliobraphy
Bibliobraphy
Alemayyehu Moges. 1961 EC. Ḥatäta Zäzär
’
a Ya‛ǝqob, Ethiopian
Philosopher, a thesis presented at Haile Selassie I University. Ad-
dis Ababa.
Bonansea, B. M. 1967. “God,” New Catholic Encyclopedia, 6: 551.
Conti Rossini, Carlo. 1913. "Notice sur les manuscrits éthiopians de
la collection d'Abbadie." Journal Asiatique, 10, 20: 23-24.
Conti Rossini, Carlo. 1920. "Lo Hatatā Zar’a Yā‛qob e il Padre
Giuso da Urbino" Rendiconti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei,
5, 29: 213-23.
d'Abbadie, Antoine. 1859. Catalogue raisonné de manuscrits éthio-
pians appurtenant à Antoine d'Abbadie, Paris. 1859, p. 212.
Dawit Worku Kidane. 2012. The Ethics of Zär
’
a Ya‛ǝqob. A reply
to the historical and religious violence in the seventeenth century
Ethiopia (Testi Gregoriana Serie Filosofia 30). Rome.
Littmann, Enno. 1916. Zar
’
a Jacob, ein einsamer Denker in Abes-
sinien, mit einer Einleitung von Benno Erdman. Berlin.
Littmann, Enno. 1909. Philosophi Abessini, Corpus Scriptorum
Christianorum Orientaliun, script. aeth. textus series prima tomus
31, Paris. Reprint, 1962. 18, script. aeth. 1.
Luam Tesfalidet. 2007. Rezeptionsgeschichte der Ḥatäta Zär'a
Ya‛ǝqobs und Wäldä Ḥǝywät, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg.

71
The Discourse of Wärqe
Mittwoch, Eugen. 1934. "Die amharische Version der Soirée de
Carthage mit einer Einleitung: Die angeblichen abessinischen
Philosophen des 17. Jahrhunderts," Abessinische Studien, 2. Ber-
lin and Leipzig.
Sumner, Claude. 1976. Ethiopian Philosophy, 2, The Treatise of
Zâr'a Ya'eqob and of Wäldä Heywot. Text and authorship. Addis
Ababa.
Sumner, Claude. 1981. Ethiopian Philosophy, 3. The Treatise of
Zâr'a Ya'eqob and of Wäldä Heywot. An Analysis. Addis Ababa
Sumner, Claude. 1994. Classical Ethiopian Philosophy, Los Ange-
les..
Turaiev, Boris. 1905. "Hatata Zar'a Ya'èqob. Izledovaniye
Zarya Yakob. Ispoved abissinskavo Svobodnavo myslitelya
XVII veka," Imperatorskoye Russkoye Arkheologicheskoe
Obshchestvo. Zapisi Vostochnavo Otdeleniya, 16: 1-16.
Ullendorff, Edward. 1990. From the Bible to Enrico Cerulli. A Mis-
cellary of Ethiopian and Semitic Papers, (Athiopistische For-
schungen), 32. Stuttgart.
አምሳሉ አክሊሉ (ዶክተር)፥ ዘርዓ ያዕቆብ ፈላስፋው፥ ታሪክ Tarik, ga-
zette d'information archeology, no. 1 (1963), pp. 11-13.

EMML1763, Fol. 123.