An Old Amharic poem from northern Ethiopia: one more text on condemning glory

Abstract This article presents a publication and translation (with linguistic and philological commentaries) of a recently discovered piece of Old Amharic poetry, possibly dating to the first half/middle of the seventeenth century. The published text bears the title Märgämä kəbr (“Condemnation of glory”), but its content differs from that of several other Old Amharic poems (not entirely independent from each other) known under the same title. It is only the general idea and the main topics that are shared by all Märgämä kəbr poems: transience of the earthly world, the inevitability of death and of God's judgement, and the necessity of leading a virtuous life. One can thus speak of Märgämä kəbr as a special genre of early Amharic literature, probably originally belonging to the domain of oral literature and used to address the Christian community with the aim of religious education and admonition of laymen.

liturgical texts used in the Mass. Some of the constituent parts of the Ethiopic Missal (e.g. some of the Anaphoras) have been extensively studied, 9 but the text organization and material structure of the text carriers, as well as individual Missal-manuscripts, have rarely been discussed in scholarly works dedicated to Geez literature. However, the Missals are omnipresent in the ecclesiastical libraries and comprise a significant part of the Ethiopian manuscript heritage.
MS MKL-008 belongs to the group of pre-eighteenth-century Missals recorded by the project team. 10 Originally a good quality book, MKL-008 was used intensively and is thus in poor condition. The text in question (referred to here as MärKL) is an added text contained on two folia, ff. 141-2. MKL-008, previously unknown and undescribed, is a very complex manuscript. Its description below is intended to help in estimating more correctly the age and the function of both the main text and MärKL, and their relation to each other.
Binding: The codex has the typical Ethiopian binding. It was originally composed of two wooden boards covered with reddish-brown tooled leather. The front board is now missing; it has been replaced with an improvised construction made of recent newspaper and schoolbook. The back board is split and repaired with wire; it is decorated with a recent, crudely carved cross. Only the tooled turn-ins remain from the leather covering, on the inner side of the back board. The volume is sewn on two pairs of sewing stations.
Almost all the surviving regular text quires of MKL-008 are "quinions" composed of bifolia; no single leaves were used except for quire XV (see below). In the current condition of the manuscript, at least one quire at the beginning is missing (see below, "Content"). The original place of quire XV, which contains the text under scrutiny, is unclear. In the present condition, it is composed of only one bifolio (ff. 141-2, leaves i and ii) and one singleton (f. 143), crudely attached with wire. Both the bifolio and the singleton could have been inserted at the end of the volume later, and put at their present place by chance, as the result of damage and improper handling of the manuscript. Probably for the same modified accordingly. The names of languages (Geez, Tigrinya) are given in conventional English orthography (rather than in transcription). 9 See, e.g., Hammerschmidt 1987, and more recent overviews in Fritsch 2001 andBausi 2010. 10 The Ethio-SPaRe project team has recorded a few hundred Missals, of which 93 are described in the project's database. Of these, there are some 11 Missals which are considered to be of pre-eighteenth-century date; the oldest of them, AKM-009 (ʾAmbäsät Kidanä Mǝḥrät), has been provisionally dated to the first half of the seventeenth century. Layout: two columns (quires I-XIV, XVI-XVII) [one column for ff. 141-2, quire XV]. Written area (cm): 9.5 (h) × 11.5 (w). Palaeography: The script dates to the first half of the seventeenth century or slightly later; 11 the writing was executed by a well-trained, very careful scribe (see Figure 1). The script is tall, rounded, very slightly slanted to the right. The tops of the letters መ, ወ, ጦ, ሠ are slightly and uniformly slanted to the left. The vertical strokes strive to be parallel, but the legs of በ or ሰ are slightly convergent (the bend of the left leg is slightly more pronounced).
The "feet" of the letters are rectangular, sometimes with very short hairlines.
For some of the Anaphoras, indications concerning the celebration dates (names of the feasts) have been added in the upper margin. Musical notation signs have been added above the lines for a large part of the main text, most probably somewhat later, in a different hand.
Commissioners and donors: The name of the commissioner appears in the supplication formula on f. 33vb, but it is half-erased, only the second part being readable: <. . .> [Mä]dḫən. There is no further indication concerning the identity of this person.
Dating: The dating for MKL-008 can be established on the basis of internal evidence. Several historical personalities are referred to in the book. Marqos, mentioned as the patriarch of Alexandria (see ff. 113ra, 144vb, etc.), is Mark VI, in tenure from 1645 to 1660; and Mikaʾel, the metropolitan of Ethiopia, was in office from 1650 to 1663 (see ff. 13rb, 15vb, 113ra). King Fasilädäs, mentioned on f. 13rb, reigned 1632-67. The resulting copying date of the manuscript is 1650-60.
Concerning the dating of ff. 141-2: The bifolio containing MärKL is worn, dirty and bears traces of wax, and is in some parts hardly readable. It is accommodated in a single column, the layout pattern being different from that of the main text. The irregular form of the leaves, and some disparate (erased) writing upside-down on f. 142v, may indicate that remainders of parchment (not good enough for regular text leaves) were utilized for the bifolio. The physical consistency of the parchment used for the bifolio appears somewhat different from the parchment of the textblock leaves. 22 The palaeographical evidence from the manuscript turns out to be essential. If one looks closely at the hand of MärKL and the hand of the main text, one notices some differences in the general appearance 23 and in the quality of the script execution. 24 However, these can be at least partly explained though the "auxiliary" character of MärKL, which was of lower status in comparison with the main text and hence permitted scribal work of an inferior quality. It is difficult to find substantial and persistent differences in individual 20 The reconstruction seems to be confirmed by the condition of leaf viii-verso (f. 145v), very worn and dirty, indicating that it might have been the outer leaf of the quire. 21 See Mäṣḥafä qəddase 1962: 42-3, § §186-7. 22 Cf. the traces of blood vessels in the parchment clearly discernible in the (lower) margins, absent in the regular text leaves. 23 The script of MärKL looks less elegant; the height of the letters is slightly less and some letter shapes are broader (esp. መ); the tops of the letters are parallel to the lower ruled line; the vertical lines are upright; there is a tendency to rectangularity. "Hairlines" are strongly articulated. 24 The lines of the hand in MärKL are frequently hesitant, some letters are slightly misshapen, some vertical lines are bent, there is no rubrication, the serifs are executed less clearly and are rather "flagged", not forked, etc. letter-shapes which would clearly demonstrate that the texts were written by two different scribes. 25 To the contrary, it appears quite possible that both texts were executed by the same scribe. If this assumption is correct, the relationship between MS MKL-008 and MärKL can be represented as follows. The scribe copied the main text of MS MKL-008 around 1650-60; the same scribe could have copied MärKL on a separate bifolio which was later added to the textblock of MKL-008. The composition of the original text of MärKL could have taken place in the first half or around the middle of the seventeenth century (see III.8).

II. The poem in Old Amharic
The text under study is a poem in Old Amharic entitled Märgämä kəbr, "Condemnation of glory" (hence MärKL), an appellation that has become known thanks to two recent publications of Getatchew Haile. 26 Below, the text is reproduced exactly as it appears in the manuscript (cf. photos in Figures 2, 3, and 4), and supplied with a tentative translation (some passages still remain obscure or ambiguous).
In the Amharic text column, subscripted small numbers in square brackets refer to the physical written lines; the arrangement of the Amharic text and the numbers in the translation column refer to the editors' division of the text into verses. The square brackets in the Amharic text indicate the editors' reconstruction of barely discernible letters (a dot under the letter means complete illegibility and physical destruction of the sign). Triangular brackets mark the editors' reconstruction of letters/words omitted by the scribe. Dashes above and below an erroneously written letter indicate the scribe's immediate correction. Curly brackets mark letters inserted interlinearly.  Here the word nägär is used in the most common sense ("matter, thing, affair", cf. Kane 1990: 1061). 28 cp. Ps. 143:4; Job 8:9, 14:2. 29 On the form ሽመት cf. III.6.1. 30 It is not clear which sense of the word nägär is intended here: either more general "matter, thing, affair" (as above, cf. n. 27), or the specific "court case, dispute" (cf. Kane 1990: 1061). 31 The translation of lines 4-5 (verses 11-12) is very uncertain; the text is possibly corrupt.
In the current version, we consider the word ዓለም (with an attribute ተናጋሪት) as the subject of the verbal form ታሳይሐለቺ. 32 Kane 1990: 2149: ṭäbt "defensive and offensive weapons" (see Guidi 1889: 65, song XI, line 2;Littmann 1943: 498; cf. also Mersha Alehegne 2011: 678). 33 Kane 1990: 2183: ṭəggät "milk cow (which has milk, is not dry)" (cf. III.3.2). 34 On the form ወቶት cf. III.6.2. 35 Kane 1990: 824: qeǧo or qäǧo "straw vessel used for milking or for fetching water". 36 Kane 1990: 931: bəzzət "cotton or wool which has been fluffed"; cf. also Gez. bəzzət "linen, wool" (Leslau 1987: 118 fig. 144b). 54 The verse alludes to a constituent element of the funeral ritual of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the "greeting of the tabot by the deceased" (on the tabot, the consecrated stone or wooden slab sometimes described as "altar tablet" and present in each individual Ethiopian church, see Heldman 2010: 802-4 and Fritsch 2010: 804-7). According to the contemporary version of the Mäṣḥafä gənzät ("Book of the Funeral Ritual"), after the funerary procession has passed all seven "stations" (məʿraf), the body is to be brought to the church and then introduced inside (this is the last, eighth "station" of the ritual). If the deceased was a priest or deacon, the dead body should be brought into the sanctuary (mäqdäs, the sacred area where access is absolutely prohibited to the layman, cf. Fritsch 2007: 765-7) and placed near the "altar", i.e. the tabot (or, rather, a special chest where the tabot is usually accommodated). At that moment, a special "prayer of greeting" (ṣälotä ʾəmmaḫe) should be read. But those who are neither priests nor deacons should be placed only outside of the church, at an entrance (ʾafʾa betä krəstiyan) (see Dobberahn 1997, I, 46, 242-3;II, 873, 1007-8). The poem does not specify who are those brought in to the tabot, possibly meaning equally all the dead without distinction. 55 Kane 1990: 1040: nät "mat of tanned oxhide". Cf. also Gez. nät "scarlet; scarlet garment" (Leslau 1987: 406-7). 56 On the obscure form ስበት cf. III.6.7. 57 On the separate writing of አይ cf. III.2.5.

III. Orthography and language of the poem
The text under scrutiny is characterized by a number of peculiarities. While some of these are to be discarded as scribal errors, others are to be explained in terms of palaeographic or orthographic variation, and still others reflect the phonological, morphological and syntactic features of Old Amharic. In the context of a discourse on Trinitarian theology the term ʾakal is conventionally rendered as "person"; the term mänbär (verse 99) does not seem to be typical. The well-known Amharic treatise ʾAmməstu ʾaʿmadä məsṭir explains that ʾakal (person), gäṣ (face) and mälk (image) are perfect and distinct for each member of the Trinity; as to the "person", the treatise explains that ʾakal is (everything) "from the hair of the head to the toenails" (сf. ʾAmməstu ʾaʿmadä məsṭir 1952 AM: 12-3; on the terminology, see Ayala Takla -Hāymānot 1974: 117-30). MärKL speaks about the "person" only for two members of the Trinity. Contemporary theologians of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church employ the term ʾəstənfas (breath) and not ḥəywät, e.g., Habtä Maryam Wärqənäh 1963 AM: 61-6=3 (drawing upon Geez works, in particular the compendium Haymanotä ʾabäw, stressing the co-equality of all members of the Trinity). The formula employed in MärKL appears incomplete and deficient, perhaps as a result of mistakes and text corruption, or because of difficulties in the exact Amharic wording of the theological concepts, or perhaps because it represented a kind of local theological stance. In f. 141r, l. 9, the third order of ሺ in the form የሚሺት (instead of the expected የሚሸት) may be the result of erroneous repetition of the third order marker of ሚ (but cf. III.6.3).
In f. 141r, l. 14, one finds the form ነገራቸ instead of the expected ነገራቾ 64 or ነገራቸው (cf. modern Amharic ነገራቸው). The actual presence of a form አይኖራቸው in the text (f. 141v, l. 13) suggests that the 3 pl. object index was spelled as -aቸው in this text, and that the final ው in the form under scrutiny was omitted through negligence.
Finally, in f. 141r, l. 11, the form ታሳይሐለት appears instead of the expected ታሳይሐለች (cf. modern Amharic ታሳይሃለች). The same word form in f. 141r, l. 4 (ታሳይሐለቺ) clearly shows palatalization of the final consonant. Thus, the absence of palatalization in f. 141r, l. 11 is likely due to scribal error.
III.2. Orthographic and palaeographic peculiarities III.2.1. ከ and ክ, ኸ and ኽ The kink which marks the sixth order in ክ and ኽ is not always easy to discern (see above, n. 25, on the same phenomenon in the main text of the manuscript). Note especially the form of ክ in the words አይ፡ መክት (f. 141v, l. 8) and አምላክ (f. 142r, l. 6); cf. also ክርስቶስ (f. 141r, ll. 13-4), where, however, the entire word, including the first letter, is hardly discernible. Likewise, the kink of ኽ in በዜኽ in f. 142r, l. 12 is difficult to descry.
In the 2 sg. masc. subject and object index and in the sg. masc. demonstrative, no kink is discernible at all, and consequently, the reading ኸ has been preferred (cf. III.4.1, III.4.3).

III.2.2. ኀ and ኅ
A distinct ኅ occurs twice (f. 141r, l. 9, l. 11) and has the classical shape (the vertical stem with a kinkgraphically nothing but ነ [nä]and a short curved line above, directed to the left, downwards).

III.2.3. ቸ instead of ች
A distinct ች appears in the very first line of the text. Having the form of the sign ት with a dash above, it differs clearly from the first order ቸ. Yet in three cases ቸ is attested instead of the expected ች: f. 141v, ll. 1-2; f. 141v, l. 14: ትላለቸ (cf. modern Amharic ትላለች); f. 142r, l. 1: አታከማቸ (cf. modern Amharic አታከማች).
The employment of the first order ቸ instead of the sixth order ች has been observed in other Old Amharic texts (Geta[t]chew Haile 1969-70: 70, n. 10;Strelcyn 1981: 73;cf. also Cowley 1974: 602, where it is noted that ቸ and ች are barely distinguished in the text).
Such use of ቺ and ሺ (as well as the use of the third order instead of the sixth order for some other palatal consonants) is well attested in Old Amharic texts (cf. Getatchew Haile 1979a: 234;1983: 158;Strelcyn 1981: 73).
III.2.5. Separate writing of some particles or prefixes As already noted in editions of other Old Amharic texts, some particles and affixes can be written as separate words in Old Amharic, unlike modern Amharic (cf. e.g. Richter 1997: 550, Strelcyn 1981. In the present text, the relevant example is f. 141v, l. 8: አይ፡ መክት (cf. modern Amharic አይመክት).
Various texts show various degrees of loss of historical gutturals. Notably, R. Cowley observes that in the so-called Tract about Mary Who Anointed Jesus' Feet and in Təmhərtä Haymanot, the reflexes of *ʾ and *ʿ are dropped wordmedially and sometimes word-finally, while the reflexes of *h, *ḥ, and *ḫ are spelled out in all positions in the word (Cowley 1974: 605-6;1983b: 21).
Note that the spelling ያአንተን does not reflect the underlying form {yä-antä-n}, but rather is the result of vowel assimilation across the guttural: *yä-ʾantä-n > ya-ʾantä-n.
Note also the form በአራት in f. 141v, l. 4, where, however, the preservation of አ at least in the written form is characteristic of modern Amharic as well.
Note also ተብዙኅ (f. 141r, ll. 8-9), ብዙኅ (f. 141r, l. 11; ብዙ in modern Amharic, going back to *bzḫ, cf. Leslau 1987: 117), which, however, in both contexts is followed by a Geez lexeme and can itself be a Geez insertion (cf. III.7). At the same time, the text contains five certain cases of lost *h, *ḥ or *ḫ (despite the existence of Geez equivalents containing the guttural): Thus, the evidence for preservation/loss of h in the text is inconsistent. One may suspect that the examples of the preserved gutturals are due to archaic orthography (which may have been in use not only for lexemes having transparent Geez counterparts, but also for the specifically Old Amharic forms of the verb "to see" and of the numeral "one") and do not reflect the actual pronunciation.
The 3 sg. masc. object index -əው attached to the verb አሰኘ (but not to other verbs in Getatchew's text) was recorded in Getatchew Haile 1986: 235 (alongside the 1 pl. object index -əኝ). While Getatchew Haile tends to ascribe these forms to the graphic confusion between ኘ and ኝ, the existence of a parallel in MärKL suggests rather a genuine morphological feature of Old Amharic.

III.4.3. Demonstrative pronouns
The text contains the following forms of the 3 sg. masc. independent demonstrative pronoun, once as a bare form, and three times with three different enclitics: The spelling ይ[ ܼ ህ]ስ, where ህ, although not quite clear, is still discernible under the blot, indicates that we are dealing with a form identical to ይህ in modern Amharic. The form yəhä, which occurs in the rest of the attestations, finds parallels both in modern Amharic (mostly before suffixes and enclitics, cf. Leslau 1995: 62-3, but cf. also Girma Awgichew Demeke 2014 and in an Old Amharic text published by Getatchew Haile (1986: 239, example 4.1.c.: ይኸስ, ይኸት; note that in both cases, the vowel ä appears before an enclitic).
The combination of the demonstrative with a preposition clearly lacks a final vowel: በዜኽ (f. 142r, l. 12).
This phenomenon is known from other Old Amharic texts, e.g. Getatchew

III.4.8. Prepositions
In the sequence of paired nouns on f. 141r, ll. 4-11, the comitative preposition is mostly ተ-; only twice is ከemployed with the same function.

III.5.2. Agreement
In Getatchew Haile 1986: 236, lack of number agreement is mentioned as a specific Old Amharic feature. In two of three examples quoted by Getatchew Haile, the verb is marked as singular while its subject is represented by two coordinate nouns. In the text under scrutiny, this phenomenon can be observed in the following two phrases: ሰማይ፡ ምድር፡ ሲፈጠር (f. 142r, l. 11); ሰማይ፡ ምድር፡ ከኀለፈም (f. 142r, l. 12).
On the passive stem from the same root, ተሸመ, attested in another Old Amharic text, see Appleyard 2003: 115 (where modern Amharic ሹመት "office, appointment", ሾመ "to appoint" and ተሾመ "to be appointed" are correctly explained as back-formations from ሹም).
III.6.6. አኝቶኸ In f. 141v, l. 4, the form አኝቶኸ appears, which is the 3 pl. (cf. III.4.4) converb (with the 2 sg. masc. object index) from the verb አኛ "to cause or to assist one to lie down" (cf. Getatchew Haile 1983: 160), itself a causative to *እኛ (cf. እኛለሁ "I sleep", etc.) attested in Geta[t]chew Haile 1969-70: 71. On other Old Amharic attestations of this root, as well as on its cognates in other South Ethio-Semitic languages cf. Bulakh and Kogan 2016: 285-6. III.6.7. ስበት The lexeme ስበት in f. 141v, l. 5 might be a derivative from the verb ሳበ "to draw, pull, pull tight" (Kane 1990: 513; however, the meaning "gravity, gravitation" adduced in Kane 1990: 514 for səbät hardly fits the present context). Possibly it relates to some technical details in the Ethiopian seventeenth-century funeral ritual (cf. the references in notes 53-4 and Pankhurst 1990: 196-9). Could ስበት in the present context refer to something like ropes (the method of transporting the dead body has been already referred to above, see verse 55; cf. traditional depiction of lowering the body, wrapped in a mat or cloth, into the grave by means of ropes, Chojnacki 1983: 324, fig. 144c)? Alternatively, the word can be seen as a derivative from säbbätä "to break the soil with the plough" (Kane 1990: 524; cf. also səbät "first furrow", ibid.), perhaps metaphorically referring to the instruments for digging the grave. Admittedly, both interpretations are highly speculative. A deeper historical study of the funeral practices of the Ethiopian Christian highlands might shed light on this passage, a task going beyond the scope of the article.

III.8. Linguistic traits and the dating of the text
On the basis of the linguistic evidence one can draw conclusions as to the time of creation of the text. Among other things, the text demonstrates the following archaic features: preservation of some gutturals (cf. III.3.1), right-branching syntax employed side-by-side with head-final structures (cf. III.5.4), non-obligatory status of the postpositional element -ም in negative main clauses (cf. III.4.5), possibility of employing the simple imperfect in main clauses (cf. III.5.1). According to Girma Awgichew Demeke (2014: 3), these features are typical of pre-eighteenth-century Amharic (cf. also above, I). The estimated time of the composition of MärKL could possibly be the first half or middle of the seventeenth century.  75 It is very close to text J, so we have assigned to it a provisional siglum "J 1 ". 76 MärKL, presented above, is a fifth Märgämä kəbr text. It is different from any of the published or accessible texts, and we can assume, at least for the moment, that MärKL is an independent composition. An archetype text of the Märgämä kəbr could have existed, being the source of some or all known Märgämä kəbr poems, but the chance that it may ever be discovered is very small. One may hypothesize how the circulation of the Märgämä kəbr poems took place. We can consider several possibilities. The great differences between the texts might have resulted from: 1) wide circulation and transmission through many copies; 77 2) the great liberty which the scribes took while copying those textsusing only a certain portion of the exemplar, readily diverging from it, introducing many additional verses, etc. As a result, the differences between the texts are so substantial that in effect each one represents a different recension of the poem, or is a nearly independent work. But the straightforward copying of the poems took place as well (as we observe on the example of J and J 1 ); 3) the important role of the oral tradition in the creation and circulation of the poems (cf. below, V).

V. Märgämä kəbr poems and early Amharic literature
The published poems mentioned in section IV share not so much the text passages but primarily the poetic form of expression and didactic mood. They all convey, of course, one essential religious idea: one should reject the temptations The text is accommodated on the end-leaves but is incomplete (at least one text folio is missing). The text is divided into 12 parts by the word məʿraf "chapter" (the same in text J), partly accompanied by a number and in four cases followed by the sentence ደግ፡ ነው፡ መጽሐፍ። "(This) book is good!" In six cases, the chapter ends with the sentence ምን፡ ይተርፋል፡ ዘእንበለ፡ ፃዕር "What remains except the agony (of death)!" (with some variations). 77 Which would imply that most of those copies have been lost or have not yet turned up.
This cannot be completely excluded, because a large number of manuscripts from the essential collections in the relevant regions (Amharic-speaking areas of Gondär, Goğğam, etc.) are still inaccessible. of the earthly world in order to avoid eternal damnation; one should take care since one never knows when and how one's life will end. The depictions of the temptations and sins, of death, of the eternal punishment, and of the virtues constitute the main topics of the poems. Elaborating upon them, the poems partly overlap thematically but mostly use different imagery and narrative technique. 78 If we assume that MärKL is an independent composition, then it seems that its seventeenth-century author was inspired or influenced by other Märgämä kəbr poems. The one who gave it the title Märgämä kəbr (the author or copyist?) was aware of the existence of a generic group with such a "label", a few works in Amharic sharing some essential similarities. Based on the conclusions of Getatchew Haile, 79 we wonder if we should consider the Märgämä kəbr poems, which are rhymed didactic speech addressed to the community of the faithful, as a specific genre of early Amharic literature. 80 Despite a certain vagueness in their formal characteristics, the Märgämä kəbr poems as a whole are clearly distinct from other kinds ("genres") of early Amharic works. 81 Moreover, the Märgämä kəbr as a genre can be placed alongside some other Christian literary traditions pivoting on the same main topics, i.e. condemning the temptations and the luxury of the worldly life, preparing the soul for the life after death, etc. 82 78 Only accidentally do the poems coincide (in motifs rather than in exact wording). For instance, concerning MärKL and the poem in MS EMML 5483, cf. "dead body on a wooden stretcher" (Getatchew Haile 2014, verse 35; cf. verse 55 of MärKL), or "the world deceitful like a night dream" (Getatchew Haile 2014, verse 90; cf. verses 2-5 of MärKL). Parallelism is used intensively in all the poems, but for the rest the narrative technique is not always the same. Only the narrator in MärKL develops his discourse by telling about his "vision"what "he saw without being asleep". Elsewhere the narrator gives "useful advice" to his listeners (Getatchew Haile 2005, esp. ll. 3-4, 129, 159;Getatchew Haile 2014, esp. ll. 25, 71, 87-88). Formalizing the appearance of the text as a literary work was not considered necessary either. Not every poem employs the (Geez) title Märgämä kəbr, and not all have the introductory formula ("In the name of the Father, and the Son. . .") and concluding formula. 79 Cf. Getatchew Haile 2014: 445, 447 ("During the late seventeenth or early eighteenth century, there came a point when Ethiopian religious teachers developed three approaches for teaching morality and theology in Amharic. These teachings took the forms of "The Five Pillars of Mystery . . . catechism and poetry"; ". . . these texts might not be poems at all, but a third type of speech that stands between prose and poetry, a style that might be called 'Rhyming Prose' or 'Poetic Prose'"). 80 i.e. "genre" in the sense of "kind of work" or "literary type", as presented in, e.g., Cuddon 1998: 342, while "prose" and "poetry" are terms referring to the mode of language use (metrically organized compositions vs. those written in "natural", unrestricted language). 81 The Amharic "heroic praise songs" also seem to represent a distinctive genre (being even looser, from the formal point of view, than the Märgämä kəbr poems); they were composed and circulated orally, and only in rare cases written down in manuscripts (the so-called "royal songs" are the best known examples, cf. Guidi 1889; Littmann 1914; the "panegyrics" in Getatchew Haile 1979awarlike praise songs labelled by the composer as religious qəne-poemsbelong to this genre as well). 82 The Märgämä kəbr poems strongly remind us of a sizeable European literary production, in both Latin and vernacular languages, that evolved around the medieval religious concept of contemptus mundi "contempt of the world". Some of the literary devices used for The Märgämä kəbr poems were composed with the aim of direct religious education of the people, and the poetical mode of expression and the Amharic language were the appropriate means for this. The presence of MärKL specifically in the Missal manuscript MKL-008 is not at all accidental: it would have been meant as a post-liturgical edifying addition to the Missal. 83 However, it cannot be excluded that the Märgämä kəbr poems were created, memorized and circulated mainly orally. In such a form they could easily incorporateaccording to the needs, the literary skills and the background of the composer fitting motifs and images originating from works of "elevated" Geez literature on the one hand, and from everyday life and culture as reflected in oral Amharic literature, on the other. Only in some cases were such compositions fixed in written form (see above, IV). Building fluid textual tradition(s), the poems were written down and copied possibly as a kind of aide memoire, providing for users (educated ecclesiastics, preachers?) a ready selection of topics and rhymed passages. This might be one of the ways the nascent Amharic written literature developed. 84