The Origin of the Naxarar System

NICHOLAS ADONTZ

ARMENIA
IN THE PERIOD OF JUSTINIAN

THE POLITICAL CONDITIONS
BASED ON THE NAXARAR SYSTEM

TRANSLATED WITH PARTIAL REVISIONS
A BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

AND

APPENDICES

EY

Niva G. GARSOLAN
PROFESSOR OF ARMIENLAN STUDIES
COLUMBRTLA THIYRRSITY

Chapters 9-15 (pages 165-371), their Notes (pages 433-529).
Appendices 1-ν (pages 1*-246*), and full Bibliography
(pages 24/*-303")}

CALOUSTE GULBEENEIAN FOUNDATION
LISBON

197}

ΒΟΙΤΟΒΡΒΒΒΑΘΗΝ

For more than half a century since its publication in 1908, Nicholas
Adontz’s monumental thesis on Armenia in the Period of Justinian
has proved to be both a landmark and a guidepost in the field of
Armenian studies although its general inaccessibility, either from the
rarity of procurable copies, or from linguistic difficulties, has made
of it far too often a semi-legendary document rather than a useful
tool, Perhaps as the result of this fortuitous isolation as well as of
external circumstances, Adontz’s first and probably greatest work
did not lead to an immediate proliferation of studies along the lines
that he had traced. He, himself, was to develop a number of them
in later works such as his articles on the Armenian Primary History,
Mesrop Ma8st’oc, Koriwn, P’awstos Buzand, and Movsés Xorenaci;
on the date of the Christianization of Armenia; on the Iranian aspects
of Armenian society ; and, as late as his postumously published History,
on pre-Achaemenid Armenia}, But it is only relatively recently
that the works of such distinguished contemporary armenologists
as Gérard Garitte, Cyril Toumanoff, and the late Hakob Manandian
have developed a number of problems in mediaeval Armenian history
significantly beyond the point reached by Adontz at the turn of the
century, and these scholars have not failed to acknowledge their
indebtedness even where they have outstripped him? Not even a
Marxist presentation which of necessity challenged many of Adontz’s
premises and interpretations prevented A.G. Sukiasian from admitting
that ‘‘... the admirable work of N. Adontz ... remains to this day one
of the most authoritative works on Armenian feudalism”, Such
tributes are all the more impressive if we remember that they are
addressed to the first major work of a young scholar composed at a
time when a number of crucial studies on Late-Roman, Byzantine,
and Iranian history as well as on the historical geography of eastern
Anatolia were still to be written,

The scope of Adontz’s encyclopaedic work is not conveyed adequately
by even a full quotation of his title, since, far from restricting himself
to the reign of Justinian, or to an investigation of the nayarar system,
he went on to scrutinize nearly every aspect of ancient and mediaeval

1 A bibliography of Adontz’s works can be found in the commemorative article in
HA, LXI (May, 1947), pp. 313-318, and in 47PHO, IV (1936), pp. 991-993.

2 H.g., Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 108. See also below τι. 4.

3 Sukiasian, Armenia, Ὁ. 36. Also YuzbaSyan’s recent article in PBA (1962).

XVI EDITOR’S PREFACE

Armenia — geographical, political, religious, administrative, social,
and intellectual — while giving simultaneously an extensive analysis
of all the available sources. Perhaps the clearest index of the breadth
of Adontz’s information is the all too clear incompetence of a single
individual to edit his work; a team of specialists — historians, geo-
graphers, archaeologists, philologists, anthropologists, and ethno-
graphers — would have been necessary to do it justice.

The value of Adontz’s work for a new generation of scholars 15 not,
however, limited to being a source of rare information to be exploited
for reference; his methods and insights into the crucial problems of
early Armenian history may yet prove more useful than even the
enormous material accumulated by him. His application of critical
scholarly methods to Armenian studies, and particularly his recognition
of the dangers inherent in purely literary sources, have led to consid-
erable work on the re-evaluation and re-dating of many Armenian
historical documents, a task in which he continued to participate
energetically, and which is by no means completed. His simulta-
neous use of the techniques of varied disciplines while stressing the
maintenance of the historian’s rigorous chronological criterion, and
his comparative method of juxtaposing the information of all relevant
sources, Classical, Armenian, and Oriental, provided a workable
blueprint for attacking the difficulties characterizing Armenian
historiography. His ground breaking qualitative and quantitative
analyses of Armenian social structure, reaching beyond superficial
generalities, provided us with some of the first detailed information
and with a framework for further research.

Particularly iJumimating is Adontz’s constant refusal to be led
astray by the conscious or implicit assumptions of his sources that
ancient Armenia was a simple, undifferentiated, and unchanging
entity, rather than the complicated aggregation of varied components
whose geographic, political, and even religious particularism must
be recognized even in periods of seeming unification, and whose
characteristics and interests must be accounted for and balanced
anew in each successive period. On numerous occasions Adontz’s
hypotheses have required development or rectification, but his basic
conclusions repeatedly reached beyond the theses then current to
what would prove to be the crux of a problem: beyond the familar
division of Armenia between the Graeco-Roman and Iranian worlds
to the paramount importance of the elaborate nexus of family traditions

EDITOR’S PREFACE XVIT

and loyalities, ‘ dynastic’ as well as “feudal”, as shown in Tou-
manoff’s recent Studies; beyond the double strain of Armenian Chris-
tianity, Syriac as well as Hellenic, to the relationship of the ecclesi-
astical hierarchy to the nayarar structure, and its influence on the
political evolution of the country, as I hope to demonstrate in a
forthcoming work. Professor Garitte already observed the value of
Adontz’s inspired guesses when his own publication of the new Greek
version of the Life of St. Gregory repeatedly vindicated Adontz’s
hypothetical corrections of Marr’s readings in the Arabic version's.

It is self evident that a book written more than sixty years ago
should now be superseded in a number of instances: Armenian
archaeology was all but non-existent at the time, so that the Urartian
aspects of Armenian history were perforce ignored, though Adontz
himself rectified a considerable part of this lacuna in his Histoire
d’ Arménie; new epigraphic material both in: Armenia and in Iran has
added significantly to our knowledge of both countries, and new
editions of Iranian texts have altered a number of etymological
derivations ; the Erwandian-Orontid dynasty identified by Manandian 5
has altered radically our knowledge of the Hellenistic period; the
lengthy survey of Diocletian’s administrative reforms while perhaps
still useful to Adontz’s Russian contemporaries, now seems superfluous ;
and a number of his conclusions as to the «feudal» nature of the
Armenian nazarar system rest on antiquated enter preusuOns of
European feu-dahsm.

The entire book bears the marks of hasty publication, whether’i m
the more superficial details of faulty proofreading, insufficient and
often exasperatingly inadequate references, as well as the absence
- of the indispensable map, whose omission was regretted by the author,
or in the far more fundamental aspects of occasionally confused,
repetitive and contradictory organization, dubious etymologies,
overstatements, and premature conclusions. The involutions of
Adontz’s style in a language not native to him add nothing to the
clarity of the presentation.

Yet Adontz himself anticipated much of the criticism which must
attend a pioneer venture by disclaiming any pretension to a definitive
study. “... in publishing this work we are very far from any illusion
as to its perfection. Armenian philology is still at a stage where the

4 Garitte, Agathange, pp. 351-353.
5 See below Chapter XIV, n. 1.

XVOI EDITOR’S PREFACE

presentation of any interpretation or theory as unchallengeably correct
is out of the question. Students of Armenian antiquity can only
grope their way toward many historical problems by way of more or
less successful hypotheses; some of these may be corroborated at a
later date, others will fall by the way. .... Our clarification of the
nayarar systema should bring a ray of hght into the darkness which
hangs over the Armenian past ... and should prove a starting point
for a scholarly analysis of the extensive subsequent period of Armenian
history ...”? ®& On these terms, the value of his work has diminished
but little in the intervening half-century, notwithstanding the necessary
alterations. Τὺ remains a mine of information for the specialist, and
a source of seminal ideas for those re-interpretations and further
investigations the author had requested. As such it is a fitting
reminder that in every generation it behoves dwarfs to take advantage
of the shoulders of the giants who have preceded them.

* *

The instinct of every translator running the ominous gaunilet
between the Charybdis of inaccuracy and the Scylla of unreadabihty
is to open with his own apologia. This temptation is all the stronger
in the case of Armenia wm the Perrod of Justinian, since, as I have
already indicated, Russian was not Adontz’s native language. Unlike
Armenian, which has three steps in the demonstrative-relative system
(hic, iste, alle), Russian shares with most European languages a two
step system. As a consequence of Adontz’s shift from the one to
the other, his writing abounds with cases of ambiguous antecedents,
not all of which can readily be resolved from the context, His
complicated and often awkward sentence structure is particularly
foreign to Enghsh usage; the paragraphing is often erratic. Never-
theless the text has been consistently respected, and alterations held
down to a minimum even where some awkwardness ensued. Aside
from the introduction of occasional elucidations such as “ Xosrov I
of Armenia” for “ Xosrov”’, the subdivision of unmanageable sen-
tences, the clarification of antecedents, and the correction of minor
misprints, no liberties have been taken with the original.

The only significant difference between this edition and the Russian
one hes in the realm of quotations from primary sources. Following
the fashion of the day, Adontz often gave lengthy paraphrases rather

6 Introduction pp. 6 and Chapter XY, p. 371.

EDITOR’S PREFACE SIX

than direct quotations. In several instances where this method
seemed awkward or unnecessary, the original quotation has been
re-introduced, each case being duly recorded in the notes. To facilitate
the reading, all extensive quotations in foreign languages have been
shifted from the text to the notes and replaced by their English
translations. Since so much of the value of Adontz’s work hes in
his vast collection of sources, many of which still remain extremely
scarce even for the specialist, it has seemed useful to include in the
notes the texts of a number of passages to which Adontz merely
referred, all such additions being set off by square brackets. Further-
more, a series of Appendices containing 7m extenso, or in their relevant
portions, the main documents, Classical and Armenian, used by
Adontz, has been added to this edition to allow the reader to draw
his own conclusions from the material.

In many instances the editions used by Adontz were either super-
seded or, in the case of some Armenian documents, unobtainable;
these have been replaced by more recent or accessible ones. All such
substitutions have been noted in the Bibliography. Similarly, the
English versions of Classical sources found in the Loeb Classical Inbrary
have been used wherever possible for the sake of convenience, but
any significant differences between their translations and the ones
given by Adontz have been recorded. Additional notes by the editor
are indicated by letters as well as numbers eg. la.

A full scale re-edition of Adontz’s book to bring its manifold aspects
im line with their modern scholarship would have entailed a major
re-writing of the book, and would consequently le well beyond the
scope of this edition and the competence of its editor. Consequently
it has seemed best to leave Adontz’s text substantially as he composed
it, adding only, wherever possible, some indication in the notes as
to the agreement or disagreement of subsequent investigators, new
material, need for rectification, or corroborative evidence. The new
Bibliographical Note attempts to provide some, albeit cursory, indica-
tion of the relevant works published since 1908. Finally, it is hoped
that the Bibliography, which follows Adontz’s lead in reaching beyond
the lhmits of Justinianic Armenia to include a number of problems
imphleit or explicit in his text, will provide still more comparative
material and criteria for a further re-evaluation of some of his conclu-
s10nS,

All those who have had the occasion to experience it will readily

XX EDITOR’S PREFACE

recognize the eternal nightmare of inconsistency in transliteration,
especially in the case of proper names which have reached us in multiple
versions. In the kaleidoscopic world of eastern Asia Minor is a locality
to be identified: by its Classical, Armenian, Persian, Syriac, Arabic,
or Turkish name? Which is the preferable transliteration system
to be used for the name of an author writing both in Armenian and in
Russian? The most that this edition can hope to claim is an attempt
to bring a little order into what can only be called Adontz’s systematic
inconsistency. Wherever possible, Armenian terms have been given
according to the prevailing Hiibschmann-Meillet system, Arabic ones
according to the spelling of the Encyclopedia of Islam, the Persian
ones according to Christensen’s L’ Ivan sous les Sassanides, 2nd edition
(Copenhagen, 1944) with minor alterations, Russian ones according to
the system of the U.S. Library of Congress, Georgian ones according
to Toumanoft’s Studies in Christian Caucasian History (Georgetown,
1963), and Turkish toponyms according to the Office of Geography,
.Department of the Interior, Gazetieer No. 46: Turkey (Washington,
1960). Hor the sake of convenience, author’s names have been given
a single form, e.g. Manandian, irrespective of the alterations required
by the diverse languages in which they wrote, the form selected being
wherever possible the one more generally familiar. In all cases of
ambiguity alternate versions have been given. For Armenian topo-
nyms, the Armenian form has generally been preferred for localities
in Persarmenia, and the Classical (preferably Greek rather than Latin)
for the western section of the country which was part of the Eastern
Roman Empire, except in the case of familiar names where such a
procedure would entail unwarranted pedantry. Tor all the occasions
on which these guide lines have failed, as they needs must, I can only
appeal to the sympathetic indulgence of my colleagues.

The precious geographical sections of the book carry their own
particular series of problems. The map envisaged by Adontz was
never published, and nearly every locality in eastern Anatolia has
experienced at least one name change since 1908. Consequently
Kiepert’s and Lynch’s maps to which Adontz normally refers are of |
but limited value to the modern reader, sincé no concordance of
earlier and contemporary names exists to my knowledge. The
identification of many ancient sites remains controversial in spite
of the extensive investigations of Markwart, Honigmann, Eremyan,
and many others. In Appendix V some attempt has been made to

EDITOR’S PREFACE XXI

coordinate the information on toponyms, giving where relevant and
possible their ancient Classical and/or Armenian name, the modern
equivalent, the coordinates given in the U.S. Office of Geography,
Gazetieer No, 46, and a reference to the appropriate sheet of the USAF
Aeronautical Approach Chart (St. Louis, 1956-1958) and the Turkish
General Map. Where this has proved impossible, the available
information will be found in the relevant notes. |

Finally, I should lke to express my thanks to my imends and
colleagues, professors Seeger Bonebakker, Associate Professor of
Arabic Studies, Tibor Halasi-Kun, Professor of Turkic Studies, Karl
H. Menges, Professor of Altaic Philology, and Ehsan Yar-Shater,
Hagop Kevorkian Professor of Iranian Studies, all of Columbia Uni-
versity, aS well as professors Gérard EH. Caspary, Associate Professor
of Mediaeval History at Smith College, Wendell 8. Johnson, Associate
Professor of English Literature at the University of the City of New
York, and Norma A. Phillips, Assistant Professor of Enghsh Literature
at Queens College of the City of New York, for their help and patience
on the many occasions when I was forced to turn to them for assistance.
1 am most grateful to Professor Emeritus Sirarpie der Nersessian of
the Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, both for her
suggestion that I undertake this edition and for the help and encou-
ragement she has so often given me. To my constant advantage,
I have also benefited from the vast knowledge and inexhaustible
kindness of Monsieur Haig Bérbérian of the Revue des Hiudes Armé-
miennes. Finally, my thanks are also due to Dr. Robert Hewsen for
his help with questions of Armenian geography, and to my students
Dr. Linda Rose, Messers, Krikor Maksoudian and Jack Vartoogian
for the endless hours they spent in the thankless tasks of verifying
references, hunting out copies of rare works, and proofreading. For
the many flaws which such an edition must perforce still contain, the
responsibility remains of course mine alone. |

| | Nina G. Garsoian.
New York, July 3, 1967.

ABREVIATIONS

Acia Sanctorum Bollandiana (Brussels).

Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin.

Analecia Bollandiana (Brussels).

Abhandlungen der bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschafien zu Miinchen.
Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, Schwartz, Εἰ. ed. (Berlin, 1914).
Annuaire de V Ecole des Hautes Biudes (Paris).

Annuaire de PInstitut de philologie et ἃ’ histoire orientales et slaves (Brussels).
American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures (Chicago).
Abhandlungen der kiniglischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschafien zu Géitingen.
Acta Orientalia (Copenhagen).

Armenian Quarterly (New York).

Académie Royale de Belgique. Bulletin Classe des Lettres (Brussels).
Abhandlungen der stichsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften.

Byzantion (Brussels).
Bulletin arménologique.
Berytus (Beirut).
Bibliotheca geographorum arabicorum, de Goeje, M.J. ed. (Leiden).

Bulletin de Vinstitut Marr (Tbilisi).

Bedi Karthhisa, Revue de Karthvélologie (Paris).

Banber Maienadarant (Erevan).

Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbiicher (Berlin).

Bulletin de la Société Innguistique de Paris.

Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies (London).
Byzantinische Zetischrift (Leipzig).

Caucasica (Leipzig).

Cambridge Ancient History.

Collection @historiens arméniens, Brosset, M.F. ed. (St. Petersburg, 1874-
1876).

Collection @historiens anciens et modernes de l Arménie, Langlois, V. ed.
(Paris, 1967-1869).

The Catholic Historical Review (Washington).

Corpus Inscriptionum Graecorum.

Corpus Inseriptionum Latinorum.

Corpus Juris Civilis, Mommsen, T., Kriiger, P., et al., edd. (Berlin).
Cambridge Medieval History.

Codex Theodostanus, Mommsen, T., et al., edd. (Berlin).

Classical Philology (Chicago).

Classical Review (London-Oxford).

Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orienialium (Louvain).

Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae (Bonn, 1828-1897).

Dictionnaire d Histoire et de Géographie Ecclésiashque (Paris).

Mélanges de PUniversité de Saint-Joseph (Beirut).

ABREVIATIONS XXII

Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique (Paris).
English Historical Review (London).
Encyclopaedia of Islam (Leiden, 1913-1948).
Eichos @ Orient (Paris).

Fragmenia Historicorum Graecorum, Muller, C. ed. (Paris, 1841-1883).
Georgica (London).

Office of Geography, Department of the Interior, Gazetteer No. 46 : Turkey
(Washington, 1960).

Geograph Graect Minores, Muller, C. ed. (Paris, 1855-1861).

Handés Amsorya (Vienna).

lzevestia Armianskogo Filiala Akademi Nauk SSSEH (Erevan).

Jzvestiia Akademi Nauk Armianskot SSE (Erevan).

lavesivia Akademi Nauk SSSR (Moscow).

Javestiia Kavkazskogo Istoriko-Arkheologicheskogo Instituta (Tbilisi).
Istoricheskie Zapiski (Moscow).

Journal Astatique (Paris).

The Journal of Ecclesiastical History (London).

Journal of Hellenic Studies (London),

Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain (London).

Journal of the Royal Geographic Society (London).

Journal of Roman Studies (London).

Klio. Betirége zur alien Geschichte (Leipzig).

Kratkie Soobshchentie Instituta Narodov Azit Akademit Nauk SSSR (Mos-
cow).

Khristianskit Vostok.

Loeb Classical Inbrary (Cambridge, Mass.-London).

Leatkon fiir Theologie und Kirche (Freiburg i/B).

Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio. Migne, J.B. ed. (Floren-
ce - Venice, 1759-1798). New edition (Paris, 1901).

Mémoires de l’ Académie Impériale des Sciences de St. Péersbourg.
Monatsberichte der berlianischen Akademie der Wissenschafien.
Morgenlandische Darstellung aus Geschichte und Kultur des Ostens (Berlin).
Mitteilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft.

Nord Tidsskrift for Sprogviden (Oslo).

Oriens Chrisiianus (Leipzig).

Orientaha Suecana (Uppsala).

Pazmaveb (Venice).

Proceedings of the British Academy (London).

Paima-banasirakan Handés (Erevan).

Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeco-latina, Migne, J.P. ed. (Paris,
1857-1866).

Patrologiae cursus completus. Series latina, Migne, J.P. ed. (Paris, 1844-
1855).

Pairologia Orientalis, Graffin, R. and Nau, F’, edd. (Paris, 1903).

La Parola del Passato. Rivisia dt Studi Classict (Naples).

Palestinskit Sbornik (Moscow).

Real-encyclopddie der classischen Aliertumswissenschaft, Pauly, A., Wisso-

New edition (1954-).

XXIV

LVS

ABREVIATIONS

wa, G., and Kroll, W. edd. (Vienna, 1837-1852).
1893).

Revue des Etudes Arméniennes (Paris, 1920-1932). New series (Paris,
1964-).

Revue des Ftudes Anciennes (Bordeaux).

Revue des Etudes Byzantines (Paris).

Revue des Htudes Indo-Européennes.

Revue Historique (Paris).

Revue @ Histoire Heclésiastique (Louvain).

Revue de lV Histoire des Religions (Paris).

Revue de POrient Chrétien (Paris).

Recuetls de la Société Jean Bodin (Paris).

Syria (Paris).

Sttzungsberichie der philologisch-historische Classe der katserlachen Akademie
der Wissenschaften (Vienna).

Stlzungsberichie der bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschafien zu Miinchen.
Studia Instituit Anthropos (Vienna).

Sak’artvelos Muzeume Moambe (Tbilisi).

Sovetskoe Vostokovedente (Moscow).

Traditio (New York).

USAF Aeronautical Approach Chart (St. Louis, 1956-1958).

Uchennye Zapiski Leningradskogo Universiteta.

Verhandlungen der berlinischen anthropologischen Gesellschaft.

Vesinik Drevnet Istorts (Moscow).

Voprosy Istort: (Moscow).

Voprosy lazykoznaniia (Moscow).
Vizantiiskit Vremmenik (St. Petersburg,
1947).

Wiener Zettschrift fiir die Kunde des Morgenlandes.

Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlindischen Gesellschaft (Leipzig).

New edition (Stuttgart,

1894-1928). N.S. (Leningrad,

_ Lettschrift fiir Hihnologie.

Zapiski Klassicheskago Otdelenisa Imperatorskago Russkago Arkheologi-
cheskago Obshchesiva (St. Petersburg).

Lhurnal Ministersitva Narodnago Prosveshchentia (St. Petersburg).
Zeitschrift fiir neutestamentliche Wissenschaft.

Lapiski Vostochnago Otdeleniia Imperatorskago Russkago Arkheologicheskago
Obshchestva (St. Petersburg).

Zeitschrift fiir vergleichende Sprachforschung.

HASTERN ARMENIA

ΙΧ

ARMENIA — THE MARZPANATE

Eastern or Pers-Armenia as the homeland of the nayarars — The nayarar system
as a factor in Armenian history — The position of EHastern Armenia in the Persian
Empire — The administrative system of the Sasanian monarchy: the kusiaks and the

Sahrs — Eastern Armenia as one of the sahrs of the Caucasian kusiak — Eastern
Armenia as a Marzpanate — Her relations with the neighbouring lands and the boun-
daries of Marzpan-Armenia — Comparison of the territory of Warzpan and Arsacid

Armenia — The appearance of the border districts — The division of Marzpan-
Armenia according to the Armenian Geography — The origin of Siwnik‘,’ Tayk‘, and
Mokk‘ as given in the Armenian Geography — The central provinces: the Tanuiér
Jands and Vaspurakan until 591 — The Iranian gunds and the Byzantine themes —
The origin of the provincial divisions adopted by the Armenian Geography.

The Eastern or Persian portion of Armenia differed markedly from
the Western as a result of its position and importance in the history
of the Armenians. It played the dominant role in the development
and preservation of the innermost foundations and principles which
sustained the historical life of Armenia. All of Armenia had been
drawn from antiquity into the political world of the Persian states
and had shared for centuries in the cultural sphere of Iran. From the
time that the Arsacids seized Persia while their younger branch
consolidated itself in Armenia, the traditional relations of the two
countries had drawn even closer. Jt is in this period of Arsacid
domination that the nayarar system, the socio-political pattern emi- |
nently characteristic of -Ancient Armenia, developed. It is true that
the nayarar system evolved from the core of pre-Armenian society,
and that its root le deep in the ethnic and geographical setting peculiar
to the country. Nevertheless, the fal shaping of its pecular cha-
racter unquestionably took place in the Arsacid period.

The nayarar system is such a characteristic and such an amazingly
stable institution that no serious understanding or interpretation of
Ancient Armenian life and history is possible without it. Although

106 CHAPTER 1X

modified in some of its aspects, this system survived in Armenia
until the fall of the Bagratids, and its final destruction came only
with the Mongol invasions*. During the whole of this lengthy period,
the nayarar system was an important factor and one might even say
the moving force in Armenian history. Scattered throughout the
country, it provided the cradles of political liberty. Its significance
is derived from the fact that 10 provided the means for reconciling
external subjection with imternal independence, and thus for the
preservation of the individual character of the country.

It is well known how often religion is mentioned as the outstanding
factor in the history of Armenia. Some scholars have even been
wiling to reconstruct the entire historical life of Armenia on this
basis. ‘This approach, inherited from our ancestors, is one of the most
hackneyed ones in Armenian historiography, and it originated in the
period following the disappearance of the nayarar pattern in the
country. It is correct insofar as it reflects the situation of a later
period; it is incorrect when archaized and applied to earlier times
as well. As long as the nayarar system functioned in Armenia,
the Church was important only imsofar as it adapted itself to the
nayarar pattern. The bitter struggle for the nationalization of the
Church in Armenia was in reality for its nayararization, for the transfer
of nayarar customs into the ecclesiastical sphere. The nayarar
pattern was so deeply ingrained as a mode of life, and so reinforced
by the complicated setting in which Armenia found herself, that
any new system was acceptable only on the inflexible terms that it
be compatible with the existing nayarar structure. Wherever the
Church was successful in accomplishing this, it became nayarar-
national, but in the parts of the country where, under the influence
of Imperial policy, it failed or did not see the necessity of adapting
to local forms, the Armenian Church remained a part of the common
ecclesiastical structure. This political framework for ecclesiastical
events is a fundamental factor in the isolation of the Armenian Church
from the Catholic Church, regardless of dogmatic principles or dis-
agreements. In the nayarar period, the importance of the Church
must be measured not by its Christian content, as many have thought,
or very little by it, but rather by its feudal or nayarar structure.

Given the importance of the nayarar institution, it is evident that
a detailed knowledge of it is indispensable for an interpretation of
the vast period of Armenian history which precedes the Mongol

ARMENIA — THE MARZPANATE 167

invasions. This institution, which was born under the Arsacids,
continued to develop throughout their possessions even after their
downfall. Primarily from the time of Justinian, Western Armenia
began to lose her nayarar aspect, but this pattern persisted for a long
time in the eastern part of the country. The information about
nayarar principalities preserved in Armenian historical works refer
almost exclusively to Eastern Armenia, hence the main focus of a
study of the constant features found in this part of the country must
concentrate on the nayarar structure. Oriental Armenia is usually
called Persarmenia by Byzantine historians, Together with the
provinces of Iberia, Atbania, and Atrpatakan, 1t formed one of the
large administrative units of the Sasanian Empire. Under the
Sasanians, the Persian realm was divided into four parts: east, west,
south, and north, the k’ust 1 Xordsdn, Xorwaran, Némroj, Apaytar }.
The northern quarter was more often called kust-ak 1 Kapkoh, the
name used by the Armenians, or, after its central province, kust-ak 1
᾿ς Airpatakan. As for the name Apaytar, it was used for the Scythian
or Sarmatian tribes living further to the north who made their presence
known through frequent raids on Persian and Roman possessions.

Some scholars attribute this division to Xusrd [Khusrd] I Andsarvan
(531-579). They believe that up to his time Persia was spht into
many provinces whose satraps or governors were directly subject
to the crown; but because of the difficulties in supervision entailed
by this multitude of subordinates,

[Xusr6] conceived the plan of forming four great govern-
ments, and entrusting them to four persons in whom he had
confidence, whose duty it should be to watch the conduct
of the provincial satraps to control them, direct them, or report
their misconduct to the crown 3. 3

This opinion 18 not altogether correct. Xusrd 1 can hardly be
the initiator of the administrative division. The Arab historian
Tabari, who had valuable Pehlevi material at his disposal, and who
had, incidentally, made use of the Khudhay Nameh, the prototype
of the famous Sahnadmeh, relates that when Xusrd Andsarvan
mounted the throne, “‘ he sent letters to the four padhghospan who
ruled the four regions of Persia’’; one of which was addressed to
“ Zadhoé Nakhvéraghan, pddhghospdn of Aderbaygan, Armenia and
the neighbourmg lands” 8, These four pddhghospan were the heads

168 CHAPTER IX

of the four kusiaks, and Zadhdé was the governor of the kusiak of
Atrpatakan, or of the Caucasian border. Judging from this infor-
mation, the divisions of Persia must have existed before Xusr6
Andsarvan, and cannot be attributed to him.

The same historian relates that,

Before the accession of Xusr6 the office of spdhbadh that
is to say of commander in chief was held by a single man for
the whole empire. Xusrd, however, as soon as he became
king divided this office among four persons, the spahbadh
of the Orient, 2.6. of Khorrasan and the neighbouring lands,
the spahbadh of the Occident, the spahbadh of Nimruz, 1.6. of
Yemen, and the spahbadh of Aderbayjan and the neighbourmg
lands, 1.6. of the country of the Khazars 4.

The only thing attributed to Xusrd, therefore, 1s the placing of a
military commander (spahbadh) in the four regions or kusiaks, side
by side with the padhghospan. The reform consisted in the separation |
of military and civilian power, the padhghospdan serving as the instru-
ment of civilian authority, and the spaéhbadh of the military 5.

According to the Armenian sources, the division of the army ito
four groups dates not from the period of Xusr6d but from that of his
esrandson Yazdgard, the last of the Sasanians [sic] 58, Under him,
says Sebéos,

... the Persian armies were divided into three parts of which
one corps was toward Persia and the Orient, and another
corps of Xoream toward Asorestan, and one corps in the
province of Atrpatakan. But the seat of his kingdom was
in Tizbon [Ctesiphon] and all together honoured him in common
agreement 5,

Persia (Fars), the main province of the southern region, is used here
instead of the entire kusiak as pars pro toto. In reality, therefore,
the Armenian historian also distinguishes four armies, evidently
having the four spaéhbadhs in mind. The Armenian writer sees in
their creation merely the weakening of the royal power under Yazd-
gard, while, according to the information of the Arab author cited
above, this was an important reform inaugurated by Xusrd I Ané-
Sarvan, the grandfather of Yazdgard. Neither version is apparently
correct, and the four spahbadhs as well as the four padhghospans
existed in Persia long before either Xusr6 1 or Yazdgard 58,

ARMENIA — THE MARZPANATE 169

We know that according to ancient Iranian cosmology, the entire
heavenly sphere was also: divided among four spahbadhs: the star
Tistar watched over the Hast, Sataves, over the West, Vanand, over
the South, and Haptoring, over the North’. Τῦ is true that the book
of Bundahisn, from. which we obtain this information, has reached
us in a version not older than the end of the Sasanians, but its origin
goes back to more ancient times. There is no doubt in this case
that these cosmological concepts of the Persians were a direct reflection
of the administrative divisions of Persia, of its division into four
commands.

The offices of pddhghospan and spahbadh may in effect be compared
to those of praefectus praetorio and magisier νέην in the Roman
Empire, Originally the praetorian prefects also held both full civilan
and military powers, and it was only in the fourth century that the
military command was put under a Separate authority. We have
seen that four prefects, standing at the heads of the four prefectures
into which the Empire was divided were known to the Romans.
Two of these belonged to the eastern part of the Empire, and two
to the western. There were as many military commanders [magisira
militwm): of the Orient, Illyria, Thrace, and Gaul, if we do not count
the four court commanders [ praeseniales], two to each court in the two
capitals. Such a similarity between the divisions of the Roman and
Persian Empires can hardly be fortuitous; there is evidently some
connexion. Unfortunately, the problem of the genetic interrelations
of political institutions in the two neighbouring realms has not been
touched by scholars, who evidently cannot conceive that proud Rome
borrowed anything from a barbarian state 7*, Perhaps this is true,
and if so, the borrowing was on the Persian side. In any case, there
is no doubt that the Persian kusts or kusiaks are as ancient as the Roman
prefectures,

The prefectures were divided into dioceses, which in turn were
subdivided into provinces. The Persian kusiaks, however, were
directly split into smaller units, according to the historical development
of territorial or ethnic conditions. Hach of these units was a more
or less independent country, a Jahr with a historical past. According
to the Armenian Geography, the Caucasian kust consisted of thirteen
such countries or gahrs: —

170 CHAPTER IX

1, Atrpatakan 8. Gelan

2, Armn 1.6. Armenia [9. Sanéan]

3. Varjan 1.6. Iberia 9. Dimunk'‘

4, Rani.e. Alovania =. 10. Dmbawand
5, Balasakan 11. Taprostan
6. Sisakan 12. Rwan

7. Aré 13, Aml 8,

In the shorter version of the same work, only ten countries are
indicated, only Atrpatakan being given in the first column, while
the entire second column is lsted with the following alterations,
Mukan is given instead of Santan, and Amadan, which is lacking in
the first version but undoubtedly belonged here, has been added.
It is curious that Arab sources also occasionally leave the Caucasian
countries out of their description of the Northern region of the Sasanian
Empire °.

One of the early and well informed Arabian geographers confirms
that,

Djarbi or the countries of the North form the fourth part
of the Persian Empire under the rule of a spahbadh who is
known under the name of Adarbayjan-spahbadh, this quarter
includes in itself Armenia, Adarbayjan, Rey, ... Alania and
others 10,

The same author, speaking of the titles of the kings, says that Ardasir
honoured the following kings with the title of sah: “ Buzurg-Armenan
Sah, Adarbayjan Sah, Alan Sah, who is in Mukan, Balasakan Sah, and
Sisajan Sah’’?41, There is no need to take these words literally;
their meaning is that the countries named enjoyed the rule of their
own kings, a situation associated here with the name of the founder
of the Sasanian dynasty, but which prevailed in general throughout
the period of its rule. Perhaps the relative independence of these
countries explains their omission from the list of the provinces in the
Caucasian kustak which we have already noted. Royal power did
in fact exist in Buzurg-Armenia, 1.6. Greater Armenia, and in Arran-
Atbania; but the Arab author also lists as kingdoms, Sisajan and
Balasakan, provinces which in reality belonged to Greater Armenia.
What we obviously find reflected here are the conditions existing
between the sixth and the eight centuries, when these provinces
were separated from Armenia. As for the absence of Iberia, it is
to be explained by the fact that the author included it in Armenia,
as was the custom among Mushm writers.

ARMENIA — THE MARZPANATE 171

In the last chapter of the Chronicle of Zacharias of Mitylené, the
following passages is added to a brief survey of countries according
to Ptolemy,

And besides these there are also in this northern region five
beheving peoples, and their bishops are twenty-four, and their
Catholic lives at D’win, the chief city of Persian Armenia.
The name of their Catholic was Gregory, a nghteous and a
distinguished man.

Further Gurzan, a country in Armenia, and its language is
like Greek; and they have a Christian prince, who is subject
to the king of Persia.

Further the country of Arran in the country of Armenia,
with a language of its own, a believing and baptized people;
and it has a prince subject to the king of Persia.

Further the land of Sisagan, with a language of its own, a
believing people, and there are also heathens living in it.

The country of Bazgun, with a language of its own, which
adjoins and extends to the Caspian Gates and the sea, the
Gates im the land of the Huns. And beyond the Gates are
Bulgarians ... 22.

At first glance, it might seem as though there were five christian
peoples in addition to the five countries listed further on, but, in
reality, these christian peoples are the Armenians, Gurzan, 1.6. Iberia,
Arran, 2.6. Albania, Sisakan [Siwnik’], and Bazgun. The last name
is usually identified with Abasgia. But Abasgia, the present Abkhazia,
hes, as is well known, on the shore of the Black Sea, while Bazgun
according to its description adjoins the Caspian Sea and the Caspian
Gates. There are no grounds for taking Abasgia in a broad political
sense to include all the territories to the Caspian Sea, especially since
this broader sense was given to Lazika on the Black Sea during the
sixth century, to which this description belongs. The rise of Abasgia
on the political scene was to come at a slightly later date. We believe,
therefore, that Bazgun is a deformation of Barasakan or Balasakan
(bazgun for ba(ra)zgan), a province closer to the countries listed than
is Abasgia. Balasakan lay in Atrpatakan between the cities of
Berzend and Vardana-kert. Berzend still exists at present and stands
on one of the tributaries of the Bolgara cay on the Russo-Persian
frontier; from this the position of Balasakan on the lower Araxes can
be determined. Vardan, the Vardanakert of Armenian writers,
whose position is not exactly known, 15 next to it, and 15 given in the

172 CHAPTER IX

list of district in the province of Paytakaran, and obviously Batasakan
was also numbered among them#, Balasakan is also found in
Koriwn together with Siwnik‘, Armenia, Albania, and ‘Iberia; these
are the countries covered by Mesrop in the course of his evangelizing
activity 138,

According to one indication, the separation of Sisakan from Armenia,
occurred in the period of the Armenian rebellion and of the murder
of the marzpan, the Stirén in the year 571,

. @ little before this rebellion the «szan of Siwnik’, named
Vahban, separated himself from the Armenians and asked
Xosrov, king of Persia, to shift the diwan of Siwmk’ from
Dwin the capital of Armenia to the city of P’aytakaran and
to put this city in the sahrmar of Atrpatakan so that in the
future the name of Armenians should no longer be given to
them 18)

The country of Sisakan was again reunited with Armenia after the
fall of the Sasanians 14, In the description of Zacharias of Mitylené,
Sisakan is already given as a country separate from Armenia and on a
par with Albania and Iberia in 555. Should we, therefore, suppose
that it was already separated from Armenia at that time? Because
of geographic and ethnic circumstances, Sisakan stood a little apart
from Armenia, and this division may sometimes have given the
impression of a completely autonomous country. Procopius too
thought that the Suniton 7.e. Siwnites were a nation separate from
the Persarmenians 15.

Sisakan, together with Paytakaran, and, therefore, with Balasakan
belonged, according to Sebéos, to the Sahrmar of Atrpatakan. We
would expect Sisakan and Batasakan also to have had their own
Sahrmar, as independent units of the Caucasian kustak, but apparently
they were not considered the equals of Armenia and Atrpatakan from
an administrative point of view. Sisakan belonged to the Sahrmar
of Armenia, and Balasakan to that of Atrpatakan. Similarly, they’
did not have marzpans but were ruled by their own princes. The
Armenian provinces of Atjnik’ and NoSirakan held approximately
the same position in the western Kustak. The first of these apparently
belonged to the sahrmar of Arabastan, and the second to that of
Adiabené or Nohadra, according to the Armenian Geography, but
they enjoyed a certain independence since they were still ruled by

/

ARMENIA --- THE MARZPANATE 173

local titular princes called bdesws, In the Geography both provinces
are listed in the western region as independent Sahrs similar to Sisakan
and Batasakan 16,

Thus, the administrative units equivalent to Armenia seem to have
been Iberia, Atbania, Atrpatakan Adiabené and Arabastan. With
the fall of the Sasanians the territorial relations of Armenia to these
countries were significantly altered. We must therefore determine
what these alterations were, in other words, how the Armenia of the
royal period differed from the Armenia of the Marzpanaie, from a
geographical point of view.

We speak of Marzpan Armenia since after the Arsacids a represen-
tative of the Persian king called marzpan had his seat in the country 37.
His capital was the city of Dwin, which had the same significance for
Oriental Armenia as did Theodosiopolis, the residence of the Count
of Western Armenia, which served at the same time as an international
center for Asia 18, In the north, Marzpan Armenia stretched to Kan-
gark*. According to the narrative of Lazar P’arpeci, king Vayt‘ang of
Iberia sent a messenger to Armenia saying

. a powerful Persian detachment has reached the land of
Iberia, and 1, seeing that I was unable to withstand them,
have put my hope in the Armenian mountains, near the bor-
der of Iberia, and I await you.

Vahan Mamikonean set out to Vayt‘ang’s assistance and “the Ar-
menian army came to the Iberian king and camped in a locality in the-
district of Kangark*”’, where Vayt‘ang assured the Armenians that
the Persians had returned home?®. From all this we see that the
Armenian mountains bordering Iberia, in which Vayt‘ang was hiding,
were near or even in Kangar. Moreover, since Kangar was considered
to be in the southern corner of the province of Gugark’, the latter
must have stretched beyond the hmits of Armenia. Further south,
the province of Tayk’ bordered on Iberia, and its northenmost district
was named Kol, Tayk’, itself, remained entirely within Armenia 39,

On the Albanian side, the Kura had ceased to be the frontier,
as it had been under the Arsacids. The frontier line shifted from the
river to the city of Xatyat, which Lazar P’arpeci places in Albania
and Eh8é calls the winter residence of the Atbanian kings. Xalyal
stood on the right bank of the Kura, since the Persian army on its
way from Albania to Xaiyal was foreed to cross the river. After

174 CHAPTER IX

the battle of Xalyal, the Armenian cavalry was conveyed across
the river, to move toward the Albanian gates 2, It 15 entirely possible
that the modern Tartar village of Xilyil on the Zegam river is indeed
the ancient Xalyat. The latter lay in Uti, and since it is called an
Afbanian city by Lazar P’arpeci, we must conclude that Uti was
considered to be part of Albania at that time 2}, Faustus of Byzan-
tium knows of Haband, with the village of Amaraz where the Atbanian
Kat’ohkos Gregory, the grandson of St. Gregory the Illuminator,
had been buried, as of a border province between Armenia and Atbania.
The position of Haband is not precisely known. The Armenian
Geography lists two Habands, one in Siwnik’ and the other in Arcay.
Movsés Xorenaci, in transmitting Faustus’ story replaces Haband
by Lesser Siwnik’ 22, by which he means the whole of Arcay, or perhaps
— which is less hikely — one of its districts which bears in the Armenian
Geography the Persian name of Sisakan 1 kotak, Lesser Sisakan.
Haband of Arcay must have adjoined Siwnik’, forming part of Siwnian
Haband and belonging to Albania together with all the districts of
Arcay 228,

Armenia was separated from the territory of Atrpatakan by the
province of Her and Zarewand on the northern shore of Lake Urmiah,
between Salamas and Xoy. The Persians carried on operations
against the Armenians from this impregnable base at the time of the
rebellion of the fifth century. Having heard of the arrival of the
Persian host in Her and Zarewand, Vardan Mamikonean hurried
to meet it, thinking that,

ἐν matters might be settled there, in Her and Zarewand,
and no one would be left to hinder the Persian army from
reaching the land of Armenia to strike and harm it with murder
and captivity.

Similarly, when, Vahan Mamikonean, received the news that the
Persian army had entered Her and Zarewand, he gathered his forces
and set out to strike against them in those parts “... so as not to
allow the Persian army to move into Armenia’”’. When the Persians
thereupon decided to settle peacefully with Vahan, and sent the
ambassador Niyor with that purpose “... he came to Armenia and
could not make up his mind to penetrate into the Armenian territory,
but remained in the province called Her’ 28. The region of Her and
Zarewand, with which we are concerned, later formed, together with

ARMENIA — THE MARZPANATE 175

the adjoining distincts, the province called Parska-hayk‘, that is to
say Persarmenia, in the Armenian Geography, and the examples just
cited demonstrate that this region did not enter into Marzpan Armenia.

In the south, Armenia ended with the provinces of Albak, Anjewacik‘
and Mokk‘*. The rebellions of the fifth century against the Persians
arose exclusively within the lhmits of Marzpan Armenia, and these
provinces seem to be the southernmost ones whose representatives
took part in the rebellion. Atbak occupied the upper course of the
river Zab, and the neighbourhood of Bagkale still bears this name.
West of it lay the district of Anjewacik‘, at the source of the Bohtan-su,
in it stood the settlement of Kangowar and the monastery of Hogeac-
vank’. Still further west, beyond Anjewacik‘, lay Mokk‘, the present
Moks or Mokus, also in the valley of the Bohtan-su. Beyond Mokk*‘,
stretched Atjnik‘, which already belonged to the Western quarter,
to the kusiak of Xorwaran and was consequently excluded from
Marzpan Armenia, though it adjoined it at Balaleison (Armenian
Batés) the present Bitlis 34,

Within these limits, Marzpan Armenia was noticeably smaller than
the Armenia of the royal period. A strip of royal border provinces
remained outside the later frontier, namely: 1.) Gugark‘, 2.) Uti,
3.) Arcay, 4.) Paytakaran-Balasakan, 5.) Parskahayk’-Persarmenia,
6.) Koréék‘, and 7.) Amik‘. The Armenian Geography includes these
provinces in Armenia but notes that Gugark‘ had been taken from
the Armenians by the Iberians, Uti and Arcay, by Albania, and
Pfaytakaran by Atrpatakan [Atropatené]. It is not difficult to guess
that the same fate befell Persarmenia and Koréék‘ 242. The separation
of these lands from Armenia dates from the period of the downfall
of Argsak JJ, m the second half of the fourth century. According to
the testimony of Faustus of Byzantium, the following lands fell away
from Armenia at that time: 1.) the bdesy of Aljnik’, 2.) the bdesy of
Nogirakan, Mahkert-tun, Niyorakan and Dasn, 3.) the bdesy of Gugark’,
4.)the prince of Gardman, 5.) the province of Arcay, 6.) the land of
Korduk‘-Tmorik*-Kordé, 7.)the domains of the Armenian kings
adjoming Atrpatakan, 8.) the land of the Mar, 9.) the land of Kaspé 24»,
Under Pap, the son and successor of Argak II, an attempt was made
to win back the lost territories, and the following were recovered,
according to Faustus 35: 1.) the possessions of the Armenian king in
Atrpatakan, 2.) the country of Nosirakan, 3.) the province of Korduk‘-
Kordé-Timorik‘, 4.) the land of the Mar, 5.) the land of Arcay, 6.) the

176 | CHAPTER IX

provinces of Uti, Sakaxén, Gardman, Kolt‘ — “ and the Kura river
as before was made the frontier between the land of Atbania and
theirs [Armenia] ” 25+ —, 7.) Kaspé, with the city of P‘aytakaran,
8.) Gugark* — and there too “the ancient boundary between the
Jand of Armenia and the land of Iberia, which was the great Kura
river itself, ... was restored ᾿ 25> —, and finally, 9.) Aljmk‘. In short,
* precisely the nine provinces which had been lost under Arsak II.
After the treacherous murder of king Pap. the kingdom of the Arsacids
declined irreversibly to its destruction, and the division of Armenia
between the two pretenders Arsak JIT and Xosrov III followed soon
thereafter. “‘In their time”, complains the historian, “many
provinces were gnawed away and cut off here and there, and only
an unimportant part of the country remained in the hands of the two
kings” 26, This “unimportant part”? made up the Armenia of the
post-Arsacid, Marzpan period.

The Armenian Geography, in agreement with Faustus, acknowledges
the falling away of the Armenian border provinces; but it disagrees
with the historian in that 1t does not mention among them “the
royal district in Atrpatakan”’ and the lands of NoSgirakan. The
repeated assertions of Faustus that Ganjak was the frontier of Armenia
on the side of Atrpatakan and that the guard of the Armenian king
stood there 2’, testify to the fact that the Armenian crown did possess
great domains in Atrpatakan. Ganjak of Atrpatakan, not to be
confused with the Armenian city of the same name, lay south-east
of Lake Urmiah, Maragha and Zenjan, on the ruins of Tayt-i Sulaiman,
and was a very important religious center in the epoch of the -‘Sa-
sanlans 38,

At the time of the restoration of the Arsacids, at the end of the
third century, the city of Zintha was considered to be the border
point between Armenia and Persia, according to the treaty of 298.
One of the clauses proclaims, “the border of Armenia shall be the
fortress of Zintha lying on the frontier of Media” 2°. Unfortunately,
the position of Zintha is not known; might one perhaps associate it
with the modern city of Sinna south of Tayt-i Sulaiman 29*? Accord-
ing to Armenian accounts, the Persian king Sahpuhr ceded Atrpatakan
to the Armenians. He also promised that, as a reward for the help
given him by the Armenians in his war against the Emperor, “he
would give him [Ar’ak II] a great territory, of such size that in going
from Armenia to us [Persia] he should ride continually over his own

ARMENIA — THE MARZPANATE 177

land all the way from Armenia to Ctesiphon”’ °°, These words,
despite their legendary coloration, confirm the treaty of 298 as to
the lmits of Armenia on the side of Atrpatakan.

The frontiers of Armenia also stretched far to the south. The
provinces of NoSirakan, Mahkert, Dasn, and Niyorakan were all
subject to the Armenian Arsacids. These lay south of the Armenian
province of Korduk*, on the border of Adiabené. The city of Alk,
which is still in existence, lay in Kordé or Tmorik‘, one of the districts
of Korduk‘ 31, Consequently, the provinces just listed lay south
of Alki in the valley of the Khabitir, which empties into the Tigris
below the city of Jazirah-ibn-‘Omar. Nof&irakan is listed among the
provinces in ecclesiastical relations with the Armenians under the
Kat‘oltkos Bagben, and is given as part of the province of Nineveh 83,
Nineveh was one of the five Nestorian eparchies more often known
to the Syrians under the name of Hedayab, the ancient Adiabené.
Six dioceses were counted in Adiabené besides the metropolis of
Arbela: Bed N ohddré, Βεθ Bagas, Be) Dasen, Remmonin, Bed Mahgert,
Dabarinos( 1) . Strangely, NoSirakan is not listed among them,
as it is m the Armenian sources. We must suppose that NoSgirakan
was a secondary name for one of the Syrian districts above, which was
current primarily among the Armenians, most likely for the one which
bordered on Armenian territory. Nohadré occupied the left bank
of the Khabir river, up to the ruins of Eski-Mosul, north of the city
of Mosul, the ancient Nineveh. Baga lay along the Zab between
Zerran and Diza and seemingly coincided with the present Gever 384"
Dasn lay in the neighbourhood of the city of Amadia, in the vicinity of
Djelu and Baz. A Yezidi tribe known under the name of Tasani
or Dasani is known in the sanjak of Hakkari. The province of
Mahgert, the land of the Kurds, called al-mayardan by Arab writers,
was to be found in the same region. Hence these provinces lay south
of the Koréék‘ and Lesser Atbak of the Armenian Geography, along
the southern limits of the present sanjak of Hakkari.

The fourth district in which we are interested, Niyorakan, lay further
east, closer to Lake Urmiah. The Armenian. Geography mentions
the mountains of Niyorakan (koht Nthorakan) as a spur of the Taurus
in Atrpatakan*4*, Arab writers are acquainted with the locality of
diyerrakan (1.e. deh Naxytrakan) the present Deh Xargan, on the eastern
shore of the lake south of Tabriz 840,

The Armenian Geography lists Nohatra, Sirakan, and Arzdn-ostan
among the lands of Xorwaran, or the Western quarter, adjoining

178 CHAPTER IX

Armenia **, According to Syrian ecclesiastical divisions, Arzén
together with Qardi, Zabdé, Rehimé, and Moksajé, made
up the eparchy of Arabastan, next to Hedayab #4 The
Armeman Geography apparently takes Aljn to mean the whole
of Arabastan. Similarly, Nohatra and Sirakan are equated with
Hedayab. Moreover, it is altogether possible that Sirakan is the Ar-
menian synonym for Nohatra and that is has been introduced into
the Armenian Geography to clarify the name Nohatra, untamilar
to Armenians. However, according to Faustus of Byzantium, Nogi-
rakan, Mahkert, Niyorakan, and Dasn were under the authority of
a single bdeSy 35», Since Niyorakan lay on the other side of the lake,
it is more probable that Nosirakan was a political term designating
the districts subjects to the Arsacids on the frontier of Adiabené,
while Niyorakan was a similar general term for their possessions in
Atrpatakan.

The territories listed mark the maximum limits of the Arsacid
realm. The memory of this was still alive among the Armenians
in the Seventh century. In order to win the Armenian princes over
to his side, the famous Vahram Tchobén swore to them that in the
case of his victory and the overthrow of the Sasanians, he would re-
establish the Armenian kingdom and would give to the Armenians,

... all of the Armenian land to Kapkoh and to the Albanian
gates, and on the side of Syria — Arabastan and Nor-Sirakan
to the frontier of the Tatik*, which belonged to them also in
the days of their forefathers, and on the western side [every-
thing] as far as Caesarea of Cappadocia 3°.

Armenian accounts assert that the territories of Adiabené and Atzro-
patené fell away from Armenia at the same time as the other boundary
provinces. If this 15 the case, it is not understandable why some are
attributed to Armenia in the Armenian Geography, and others are not.
The lands of Nosirakan and Niyorakan, which are not included in
the description of Armenia, must have fallen away earlier; they were
lost forever after the imprisonment of Argak II. The successors
of Arsak ruled over the whole of the districts which the Armenian
Geography gives as part of Armenia; they were the ones which made
up the Arsacid realm par excellence. The subsequent division of
Armenia between two pretenders, and after that, between two king-
doms, was accompanied by a new curtailment of the border lands.

ARMENIA — THE WMARZPANATE 179

As a result, Armenia was reduced to the limits of the Marzpanate.
These two periods explain to us the origin of the border districts:
Gugark*, Uti, Arcay, P‘aytakaran, Pers-Armenia, Koréék‘ and Atjnik‘,
in the form in which they appear in the Armenian Geography. We
are not speaking, of course, of the names themselves, which are very
ancient, many of them being of pre-Armenian origin, but of the terri-
torial content of these terms according to the Armenian Geography.
The frontiers of these provinces were determined from without by
the boundaries of Armenia in the royal period, from within, by the
boundary line of Marzpan Armenia. The belt of territories found
between these hmits produced the provinces of Gugark‘, Uti, Arcay,
P‘aytakaran, Pers-Armenia, Koréék‘, and were distinguished from
one another by the fact that they belonged to different administrative
units: Gugark’ to Iberia, Uti and Arcay to Albania, P‘aytakaran
and Pers-Armenia to Atrpatakan, and finally, Koréék‘ and Atnik‘
to the kusiak of Xorwaran, one to Hedayab and the other to Arabastan.
Consequently we must admit a politico-administrative rather than
an ecclesiastical origin for the border provinces, as might have been
expected. Their population was always of mixed composition:
Armeno-Iberian, Armeno-Albanian, Armeno-Persian, Armeno-Syrian,
Armeno-Koréék‘ (Kurdish), so that the indicated division into provinces
was also justified on an ethnic basis.

As a result of its loss of the periphery, Marzpan Armenia kept
a territory subdivided into six countries, according to the Armenian
Geography: Ayrarat, Taruberan, Vaspurakan, Siwnik’, Tayk‘ and
Mokk*. On what was this division based? The last three provinces
are distinguished from the first three in that they were subject to
single princely families: Tayk‘ to the Mamikonean, Siwnik‘ to the
princes of Sisakan, and Mokk‘ to the princes of Mokk‘, while Ayrarat,
Taruberan and Vaspurakan were fragmented among numerous princely
houses 888, Jt is probable that the Armenian Geography means by
Siwnik‘’ and Mokk‘ the territories of the corresponding princely houses
in its period, in other words, that their origin was based on landed
property. Taruberan was separated from Vaspurakan along the
new line of demarcation between Roman and Persian Armenia esta-
blished by the treaty of .591. In fact, the same line divided Ayrarat
from Vaspurakan. Taruberan and Ayrarat had the same sort of
origin as Fourth and Upper Armenia. The last two provinces sprang
from the territories assigned to the Empire at the time of the division

180 CHAPTER IX

of Armenia in 387, while Taruberan and Ayrarat came from the new
territorial acquisitions of the Empire in 59] 36»,

Up to 591, that part of Persian Armenia in which so-called Tanuter
custom prevailed was occasionally called by the Armenians the Tanwiér
Land (Tanutérakan tun). After that date, part of the Tanuiér land
was parcelled off to the Empire. In the time of troubles at the
Persian court, when the legitimate heir, Xusrd 11 asked for the help
of the Emperor Maurice to regain his father’s throne, he promised
mm. return,

.. to cede him the Syrian region, all of Arwastan to the city
of Nisibis, and from the Armenian lands, the land of Tanutér
power to Ayrarat and the city of Dwin to the shores of the
Lake of Bznunik‘ (2.6. Van) and the city of Afest.

When Xusrd had: consolidated his position on the throne with the
Emperor’s help, he fulfilled his promise,

... he gave him all of Arwastan to Nisibis and the Armenian
lands which were under his power: the Tanutérakan tun all
the way to the Hurazdan river with the district of Koték‘ up
to the village of Gafni and to the sea of Banunik‘, and the town
of Atest, and the district of Gogovit to Haciwn and to Maku.
While the region of the gund of Vaspurakan remained under
the domination of the Persian king ?”,

The boundaries of the lands ceded by the Persians are very clearly
indicated in these words. All of western Pers-Armenia went over
to the Empire. Garni i Koték’ marked the upper point of the line
of division, Atest on the shore of Lake Van, the lowest poimt, and
Haciwn and Maku on the side of Kogovit, the middle points. This
means that the frontier lme passed from Gafni through Haciwn and
Maku to Azest. West of this line lay the Tanuter land, east of it
the gund of Vaspurakan, and the historian seems to be opposing
these two terms. The true meaning of the word Vaspurakan appears
in the expression Vaspurakan hamarakar, “‘ the reckoner of Vaspura-
kan ” or the “ collector of tribute ”, where Vaspurakan means Persian.
The members of the great Persian families were known as Vdspuhrs,
and it seems to us that Vaspurakan might replace, the more ordinary
expression Persian in a high flown style 375, It is, however, also
possible that Vaspurakan used in relation to the Armenian territory

ARMENIA — THE WARZPANATE 18]

is the Iranian equivalent of the Armenian term Tanutérakan. All
of Pers-Armenia had in fact been Tanutér land up to 591 and was
evidently so called. With the abandonment of part of the Tanutér
land to the Romans, Vaspurakan designated that part of Armenia
which had remained Persian as opposed to the Roman share 38,

The Tanuiér lands are sometimes called a gund as was Vaspurakan.
The gund corresponds in fact to the Byzantine Theme (θέμα) and
designates a particular division of military forces. The origin of the
Theme organization in Byzantium cannot be considered as finally
clarified even after the detailed investigations of Diehl and Gelzer 89,
Historical tradition traces the origin of the Themes to the period of
the Emperor Heraclius, while some scholars suppose that the initial
period of this institution was the creation of the Exarchates of Italy
and Africa by the Emperor Maurice. We believe that the Themes
as a military system replacing a civilian administration must be
studied in relation to the analogous institution of the gunds in Persia.
According to scholarly studies, the word θέμα designated both the
district and the army corps stationed within it; moreover, it was
unquestionably attached to the corps before it began to be used to
indicate the province 4°, In this double meaning the word θέμα can
also be compared to the Persian gund. Muslim wniters testify that
a system of military encampments existed in Persia and that the
might and mihtary glory of the Persians was based on them. These
were called Gundjargah or Ramm. According to some authors,
there were five such stations for the gunds, according to others four 4,
The gunds were obviously those forces which stood under the command
of the spdhbadhs. The military encampments survived in Persia
up to the time of the Mongol invasion which destroyed them first
in order to bring final destruction to the power of the Persians. Scho-
lars do not deny that the beginnings of the Theme organization were
already visible in the sixth century although it reached its full ex-
pression only under Leo III (716-741) 15. The gund in the sense of
an army division, a regiment, is a common word in Ancient Armenian
documents; in its geographical meaning it appears for the first time
in Lazar P‘arpeci, and after him in Sebéos, who are authors of the
sixth and seventh centuries. This date also points to the affimty
of the Theme and the gund.

The Tanuiér and Vaspurakan lands probably served as stations for
certain army corps, either Armenian or Persian, and, therefore,

182 CHAPTER IX

likewise bore the name of gund. Traces of the over-all administrative
pattern are often visible in the structure of Armenia, and in general
in that of the lands under Persian domination.

The Tanutér Lands consisted of two parts which were called,
according to their main provinces; Ayrarat and Taron or Taruberan.
Vaspurakan or Sepuhrakan was also divided into the districts of Vas-
purakan in a narrower sense and Mardpetakan. The probable cause
for the division of the provinces was the re-organization of Roman
Armenia. Justinian’s Armenia IV underwent alterations in 591
as a result of the acquisition of new territory. With the shift of
Arzanené to the Empire, Sophanené, was joined to it and to the
district of Amida, to form a new province under the name of Upper
Mesopotamia or Armenia IV, while the former Armenia IV, together
with Chorzané and Muzuroén, districts drawn from Interior Armenia,
formed an eparchy called Justiniana, or the Other Armenia IV. The
metropolis of the former was Amida, that of the latter Dadimon.
This division has been preserved in the work of George of Cyprus 43,
In the Armenian Geography, Armenia IV is different from the province
given the same name by George of Cyprus, in that Muzuron is not
included in it. In the Geography Armenia IV or Upper Mesopotamia
bears the name of its chief district Arzanené [Aljnik*]. Furthermore,
all of Sophené is not included in it, but only the part lyig on the
left bank of the Tigris and called Np‘ret; the mght bank of the Tigris
to Bnabet is excluded. All of these alterations and differences found
in the Geography as against George of Cyprus occurred in Armenia
after 591.

This is the form in which the genesis of the provincial divisions
given by the Armenian Geography appears to us. Its final establish-
ment belongs to the period following the sixth century. Up to that
time Armenia consisted of a network of larger and smaller districts
conforming to natural boundaries and other conditions. All of them
together formed a single administrative unit from the point of view
of the Persian state: Marzpan Armenia. Its interior divisions derived
from the existence of a dominant politico-social structure in the
country — the nayarar system.

x

A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE NAXARARDOMS

Limits of the problem under consideration — Historical and literary sources dealing
with the number of naxarar houses — The belief in the existence of 900 or 400 houses,
and its lack of foundation — Actual evidence concerning the naxarar dynasties, the
data in Conciliar Insts and their comparison. The Throne Inst, or Gahnamak, and the
Military Inst, evidence relating to them in ancient sources — Their literary analysis
— The content of the Gahnamak collated with that of the Mihiary Inst — Variants
in the Gahnamak and their significance — Information concerning the naxarars in
Movsés Xorenaci — Evidence of his familiarity with them — Historical analysis of
the documents — Hierarchical precedence as the social basis for the Gahnamak, its
existence in the VII century before the downfall of the Sasanians — Military service
and the resultant census of Armenian cavalry before the begining of the VIII century
as the social basis of the Mtlitary Inst — The basic features of the Lisi, its points of
contact with the Histories of Zenob Glak and Movsés Xorenaci — Historical evidence
concerning the size of the Armenian cavalry — General conclusions: The literary origin
of the analyzed documents, the sources of the Gahnamak, the Military List and the
Ramakan nama.

The nayarar system existed in Armenia from antiquity until the
Mongol invasions. Like any institution developing in accordance
with conditions of place and time, the nayarar system often changed
in character and passed through several phases. But nayarar customs
once developed in the period of the Arsacids, continued to function
generally unaltered in the era of the Sasanians as well as in that of
Justinian®. The process of disintegration of the nayarar system of
Arsacid type began with the transfer of a significant part of Marzpan
or Tanutér Armenia to the power of the Emperor, that is to say,
from 628, when the Persians finally renounced it, The stern, and at
first hostile, attitude of the Arabs toward the nayarars contributed
to this disintegration. The catastrophe of Nayijewan in 702 [sie] struck
the nayarars like a bolt of lightning and destroyed the flower of
Armenian nobility on the gallows and at the stake. This blow marks
an absolutely decisive moment in the history of the weakening of the
nayarars, and can probably be compared only to the ravages of the
Turk, Bula, the Arab governor of the mid-ninth century.

184 CHAPTER X

The History of Movsés Xorenaci belongs to the period of the dis-
integration of Arsacid norms in the nayarar system, as is evident
from the nature and content of the problems which plague the author ὃ,
The History of Armenia is the first attempt to present a history of
the nayarars. It differs from other historical documents primarily
because of the subjective attitude of the author toward his theme.
AXorenaci is not a simple narrator guilelessly recounting the evenis
of days long past, he is above all a critic and an investigator. He
not only relates events, he tries to understand and interpret them,
not always avoiding exaggerations and extraneous philosophizing
in the process. Yet in his role as historian of the nayarars he looks
upon the problem with perspective, seeking to discover their genealogies
in the hght of a historical past.

Events and institutions nead no systematization or interpretation
while they are still alive or capable of life, but they inescapably become
the subject of research when have outlived their time, when they
begin to fade from life and memory, gradually moving backward
to become the property of the past. Thus, the critical attitude of
the author of the History of Armenia indicates a period of decay,
when the bases of nayarar life tottered and historical practices dis-
integrated and passed from living reality into the realm of legend and
reminiscences, This stage is truthfully described by Xorenagi,
himself. Through the lips of the first Arsacid ruler, the historian asks,

.. whence originate the nayarar estates which exist here in
Armenia? No order can be discerned here, and it is not
known who is the first among the leaders of the country, and
who is the last. Nothing is established, but everything is
in disorder and disorganized 1,

According to this passage, these were the conditions found in Armenia
by the founder of the Arsacid dynasty when he decided to famiharize
himself with the country entrusted to him, and with the nayarar
customs prevailing init. Naturally, what we have here is not the desire
of the royal newcomer, but the curiosity of the historian himself, and
the situation depicted in no way belongs to the time of the Arsacid
accession ; it is an exact picture of the reality contemporary with the
historian. In view of the close relation between the History of Ar-
menia and the period which we have set as a limit for the present
study of the nayarars, its evidence could serve as our startimg pomt

A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE NAXARARDOMS 185

in the solution of this problem, and we shall see later how the author
of the History answers his own questions. But first we shall attempt
to answer them independently and without his help, on the basis
of material unknown to him. Let us, therefore, first consider the
concrete side of the problem: the number of nayarar houses, and their
distribution through the country.

Some scholars have supposed that there were up to 900 princely
families m Armenia at the time of the Arsacids. This opinion is
based on a misunderstanding, or on an insufficient grasp of the his-
torical evidence. Faustus of Byzantium writes that when Argak IT
ascended his father’s throne, he began to put the country im order
and to revive the life of the state which had been shaken under his
predecessor. Thanks to his activity, the country seemed to be reborn
and to recover its former aspect, “‘ the magnates again found them-
selves each on his throne, the officials each in his rank” 1%, The
responsible function of hazarapet was entrusted by the king to the
house of Gnuni, and that of sparapet to the Mamikonean, Here are
the words of the historian exactly translated,

... and the others of these houses (2.6. of the nobility such as
the Gnuni and the Mamikonean) and of the lesser ones, who
in their quality of gorcakal sat before the king on cushions with
a diadem on their heads. Not counting the great nahapets
and tanutérs, only those who were gorcakals made up the 900
cushions which were brought out at the hours of the invited
palace feasts, this without counting the persons from the same
gorcakal service who remained standing on their feet 3,

The historian distinguishes the nahapeis and ianuters from the gorcakals
(1.6. the servants or officials), The Gnuni and Mamikonean princes,
having accepted the functions of hazarapet and sparapet, became as
a result, gorcakals, or officials in the bureaucracy. There were then
900 such goreakals with cushions at the court of Arsak, in addition
to those who remained standing. It is true, as is obvious from the
words of the historian, that these officials were selected from the
nobility, and that one and the same person could be simultaneously
a nahapet and a gorcakal, but it does not follow from this that there
were aS many gorcakal — officials as there were nayarar famihes,
since several officials might be drawn from the same family. In

186 CHAPTER X

such an interpretation of the historian’s words, the hypothesis of the
existence of 900 princely families loses all foundation 38,

Another important Armenian literary document is the Infe of
St. Nersés, which, if it is not an extract from the work of Faustus
of Byzantium, is directly derived together with Faustus from a common
source. The Zafe differs from Faustus in giving the leading role not
to Arsak 11, but to the patriarch Nersés I, Arsak’s contemporary
and opponent, around whom it groups the events. In the 1276 of
St. Nersés, the revival of the nayarar gahs is, therefore, attributed,
as we might expect, to the patriarch Nersés, and only 400 individual
cushions are mentioned instead of 900, “‘ Nersés established the
following 400 cushions at the table of king ArSak” 3. At this point
the author of the 1226 attempts to give a list of all the gahs, but having.
listed 132 names (and 13 names outside the gahs), he breaks off with the
excuse that “there are many more gahs but it is hard for him to list
them all”; though he then affirms again that,

they were altogether 400 in number ... they were re-esta-
blished by king Argak ... at the order of the Great Nersés 34,

Stephen Orbelean, a relatively late writer of the thirteenth century,
is also familiar with the 400 cushions, but, according to his information
the initiator of the system was not Nersés but Gregory the Illuminator,

He ordered to Trdat the Great that he should put his realm
in order according to the example of the Greek emperors and
grant to the princes gah and paivw on the right and left side
according to their rank; and the admirable custom was esta-
blished that four hundred princes should sit on cushions at
the royal table 4.

A curious remark is found in the History of Tovma Arcruni. Tovma
relates that king Smbat Bagratuni granted to one of the princes of
Vaspurakan,

the title of marzban according to the regulation of the ranks
of cushions established by the Armenian kings and particularly
by king Trdat the Great 5.

From this reference we can conclude that even in this time, 2.6. m the
tenth century, the origin of the list of cushions, or Gahnamak, was
still associated with the name of king Trdat.

A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE NAXARARDOMS 187

It would seem likely, therefore, that we are dealing here with an
ancient tradition to which attention should be given. In reality,
however, all of it is founded on a misunderstanding. The historian
Zenob Glak relates that in the days of Trdat, the king of the North
made a raid on Iberia and devastated the entire land to Karin. At
the request of the Iberians, Trdat sent to their assistance a contingent
of Armenians who defeated the enemy and chased away the moun-
taimeers. At the same time the Armenians captured three princes
and four hundred nobles, whom they brought to the king. The
prisoners were put into the fortress of Otkan, and when Trdat set out
from Tarén to Apahunik’,

... he took thither with him the captive princes, and ordered
to include the four hundred men into the state diwan 6.

From a careless reading of this passage, the words of the historian
might be understood to mean that all four hundred prisoners had
been raised to princely rank, and from such a conclusion it is but a
step to the legend of the four hundred cushions and of king Trdat as
their origmator Such a misunderstanding is ποὺ surprising.
The historical development of Armenia was subject to such interrup-
tions due to foreign invasions, that even the next generation occasion-
ally found itself as helpless before many questions of its immediate
past as we are now. Interpretations and commentaries became
necessary, and in such work errors and omissions are not only possible
but unavoidable. Thus the question of the 900 or 400 nayarar clans
vanishes altogether. These figures are not supported by any other
data as to the number of nayarar famihes in Armenia 58.

The Arab writer Yaqtibi, who lived in the ninth century, relates
that the number of principalities in Armenia reached 113. Although
Yaqtibi was a native of Isphahan, he says himself that he “ had lived
a long time in Armenia and was even the secretary of many kings
and rulers there” *. Hence, his information acquires a particular
value, although we must remember that Armenia for Mushm authors
meant not only Armenia proper but likewise Arran and Iberia. For
instance, Yaqtibi includes the principality of Sahib-as-Serir, between
the Alans and Bab-al-Abwab into his 113 principalities, and Arran
is hsted as the first principality of Armenia 8. The number of prin-
cipalities which were found in Armenia proper remains open to discus-
sion. In any case, the figure 113 must be reduced when applied to
Armenia alone.

188 CHAPTER X

This indication of Yaqitibi is very close to the truth. We are
convinced of this by the concrete aspects of the subject, 2.6, by the
study of the evidence found in historical materials which are drawn
primarily from works of history and from special documents such
as the Gahnamak [Throne Insti]. The first rank among these must
be given to the works of Lazar P‘arpeci and of HhS8é which contain
a wealth of material on nayarar nomenclature. Several lists of
princes are found in the History of Lazar, to wit:

1. The participants in the Council of 450 summoned to
compose an answer to the Persian king Yazdgard 1[19..
IJ. The personages summoned to Yazdgard’s court 2°,
III. The supporters of prince Vasak of Siwnik’ 4)
IV. The supporters of Vardan Mamikonean fallen at the
battle of 451 22,
V. The participants in the rebellion captured by the Per-
slans 18,

All these lists, with the exception of the first, are also found in the
History of Ehsé, and this with such precision that even the order
in which the names follow each other coincides im both histories.
HhSsé hkewise appends a special list of the adherents of Vardan which is
lacking in Lazar 4, and also gives a second listing of the partisans
of Vasak of Siwnik‘ according to a different version 15, We should
note in passing that these variants, as against the text of Lazar,
are of the utmost importance for the critique of the text of Ehsé.
For a summary of the material given, let us take as a basis Lazar’s
first list, and complement it with the remaining catalogues:

1. The prince [lord] of Siwnik’ Vasak

Prince Arcruni NerSapuh
» Matyaz Viiv
» Mamikonean Vardan. [sparapet of Armenia]
5B. » Vahewuni Giwt
» Mokk’ Artak
» Anjewaci Smawon
» Apahuni Manéé
» Vanand Arawan
10. » ArSaruni Argawir
» Amatuni Vahan
» Gnuni Atom
» Paluni Varaz8apuh

δ Asoc Hrahat

A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE NAXARARDOMS 189

15. » Dimak’sean Hmayak
δ Abetean Gazrik
» Atawelean P’ap’ag
» Jiwnakan Vrén

All the most famous princely houses are listed here, although the
representatives of the R&tuni and of the Bagratuni are missing. These
were not present at the Council of 450 because they did not support
the movement. The R&tuni are mentioned in the list of princes

summoned to Persia:

Prince R&tuni Artak
From the third list we obtain:
20. Prince Bagratuni Tiroce
» (G)abelean Artén 16
» Ure Nerséh
From the fourth list:
Prince Gnduni Taéat 17
» K’ajberunt Nersés
25. » Wneayni Arsén
» Srwanjit Garegin
From the last lst: 18
The prince of Tasir Vrén
Prince Arcruni II Aprtsam

» Mandakuni
30. » Rop’sean

From the independent lists of Ehsé: 19

Sahak and P’arsman

Babik and Yohan

The prince of Aké Hnjul
Prince Sahatuni Karén
» Slkuni Ayruk

» Kolean
35. » Trpatuni

ε-..

In addition to the names common to both lists, the following are also
mentioned in the History of Vahan Mamikonean by Lazar P‘arpeci: 39

190 CHAPTER X

Prince Erwanduni Nersés

» Artakuni Pap

» Arsamuni Aurs

δ Atawenean K’ ont’
40. » Yovsepean Ners

» kArk‘ Vasawurt

δ Atbewrik Atawan

» Mardpetakan Paéok

The following apparently also belong among the nayarars: 31

Prince Argakan, Atrormizd
45. » Zandatean =
» ayorapet —

The protocols of the Councils of the sixth century and the historical
work of Sebéos, in the seventh, contain considerable data on the
patronymics of the nayarars, and several new families can be added
to our lst. The Protocol of the Council of 505, held under the presi-
dence of the kat‘ohkos Babgen I, has preserved the names of fourteen
princes, among whom the following should be noted 22:

Prince DaStakaran Varagnerseh

At another, more widely attended Council, held under the kat‘otikos
Nersés I] in 555, thirty-two princes were present, among those men-
tioned for the first time are: 58

Prince h-Awenuni Astwacatur
» Varaznuni Hmayeak .
50. » Spanduni Manuel

From a rather large cirele of naxyarar houses found in the History
of Sebéos, the ones missing from the above list are: 24

The prince of Tayk‘ Sargis
The prince of Golt‘n Vram,
Prince Abrahamean. K’ristap’o

The prince of Basean --

"

We should also note the family of the

55. Princes Mehnuni —

A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE NAXARARDOMS 191

mentioned by Znob Glak 355, since ‘its spiritual representatives
were present at the two Councils mentioned. The bishops of Bznunik‘
and Zarehawan were also invited to the Councils, hence the princely
houses of that name must unquestionably have existed:

56. The prince of Banunik‘ —
57, The prince of Zarehawan —

Thus, according to the trustworthy evidence of Armenian historical
documents, we can count up to half a hundred princely houses of
greater or lesser renown 355,

The so-called Gahnamaks [or Throne Lists], ἘΠῚ are a sort of cata-
logue of noble ranks. have a direct relevance to our problem. Because
of their outwardly unpretentious appearance which has not inspired
confidence, they have not received sufficient attention from scholars.
They present, however, a great historico-literary interest, and in view
of their limited size we think 1t proper to give them 7n extenso: 35>

GAHNAMAK

(I Sa)hak sought from the court of king Artasés, that which
was spoken in Tispon, the *amakan. nama of Artagir which
I saw in the diwan (on the 17th day of the month Kato).
And to Viam, King of Kings and Benefactor, I wrote a letter,
I Sahak, Kat’otikos, [saying] let Your Beneficence give the
order to make for Your dzwan a list of the Armenian freemen,
and magnates, just as it was formerly in the Armenian nation,
so that henceforth the gahs of the Armenian freemen and
magnates be known. Likewise, at the order of Nerséh, King of
Kings, I also (Sa)hak, Kat’olikos of. the Armenians, signed
[sealed] the Gahnamak, and we affixed the seal of the King
of Kings and our own, and thus it is correct and true.

(The first Prince of the Armenians and Maytaz [szc])

. The Prince [lord] of Siwnik’
. The Aspet

. Prince Arcruni

. Matyaznuni) [Matyacuni]

. Prince Mamikonean
Sahapn Prince of Cop’k’

. The Prince of Mokk® =

. Prince R&tuni

. Prince Vahuni

. The Prince of Kaspé

τῷ COD OUP 99 bo μι

192

CHAPTER X

. Prince Anjawaci

. Prince Apahuni

. The Kamsarakan

. Another Apahuni

. Of the Vanandean

. Prince Amatuni

. Prince Golt’n

. Prince Guuni

. Another Anjawaci

. Of the Tayk*

. The Judge of Basean
. Prince Gut’uni

. The Varjawuni

. The Prince of Gardman
. The Sahatfuni

. Prince Gabetean

. Prince Abetean

. Siwnik’ IT

. Arcrun II

. Arcruni ITI

. Mamikonean 11

. The Rop’sean

. The ASocean

. The Dimak‘sean

. The Buya Dimak’sean
. Another Abetean

. Another Dimak’sean
. The Paluni

. The Atawatean

. The ASahmarean

. The HambuZean

. The Varaspakean

. The Jiwnakan

. The Akéaci

. The Zarehawanean

. The Hncayeci

. The Mandakuni

. The Stkuni

. The Taygrean

. The Ermant‘uni

. The Spanduni

. The Atawenean

. The Truni

. The Mamberaci [Tamberae1]
. The Hawnuni

. The Bznuni

. The K’ajberuni

A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE NAXARARDOMS

58. The Mehnuni

59. The Nayéeri

60. The Keeper of the Royal city
61. The Keeper of the Royal hunt
62. The ArtaSesean.

63. Vanandean 11

64. The Cul

65, The Vizanu(ni)

66. Ak‘aci

67. The Dimak‘sean of Sirak

68. The Gaznkan

69. Prince) Maravean

70. The Vaagraspu(n) 38

193

We possess another document which, although it too is called
Gahnamak by one of the ancient historians, differs in content from
the first. This is a list of nayarar families having next to each name
the size of its cavalry contingent. According to the form of this
Insi, all the nayarars were divided into four armies to defend the
country from the north, south, east, and western sides, or, as the
document expresses it, gates. To distinguish this document from

the Gahnamak, we shall call it the Military Inst 28,

MILITARY LIST

Western Gate:

1, Angeltun . . . .
The Bdesy of Aljnik‘ .
Boznunakan ae
Manawazean

5. Bagaratuni
Aoryorunl .

Cop‘aci .
Vahuni .
Apahuni
10. Gnuni
Basenaci
Paluni .
dneak‘'.
Mandakuni .
15. Satkuni
Varaznunl .
Aycenakan .
Atwenean .
Varznunean

3,400
4,000
3,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
500
600
300
4,000
300
300
300
100
300
100

194 - CHAPTER X
Span(d)uni ; 800
21. Rap’sean 100
‘Hastern Gate:

1. Siwni : 19,400
Amaskoni . 200
Awacacl 200
Varjawuni . 200

5. Tamraraci . 100
Mazazaci 100
Colkepan 100
Grztuni 50
Vainuni 50

10. Bak‘an . 50
Kéruni . 50
Gukan . 50
Patsparuni . 50

! Gazrikan δ0᾽

15, Vizanuni 50
Zandatan 50
Sodaci . 50
Ak‘aceci 50
AséSnean. 50
Kinan . 50

21, Tagrean 50

Northern Gate:

1. The Bdesy of ahaa SS A ee ewe 4,600
Kamsarakan δ a iy oS δ ἃ 600
Kaspéci. 3,000
Utéaci . 1,000

5. Cawdéaci 1,000
.Tayecl .. 1,000
Mamikonean 1,000
Vanandaci . 1,000

τς Gardmaneci 1,000

10. Orduni : 700
Atweteank’‘. 500
ASocean 500
Dimak’sean 800
Gont*unl 300

16. Boyayeci 300
Gabelean 300
Abelean 300
Hawnuni 300
Saharuni 300

A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE NAXARARDOMS 195

20. Jewnakan . . ΜΜὈΗὈΘΠ[ΡΕΡ-ΗοΗΡΗΡΡΗἬΉΕ 300

ASyadatean 2... τῳ ee 100
22. Varazartikean. . . . ° . .. . 100
Southern Gate:

1. Kadméach . . . . ww .eSSSC«Sd, 2200
Kordwaci . . . . . . . . . «~~ 4,000
Arcruni yn ow 4 & ὦ & ᾧ καὶ « “D000
Rostuni . . .... . . . . 1,000

De Μοίδοι. .s a2 =< & »« & » # «& ~3000
Golt‘necl . . . . ° wee 500
ADJOWACL ac . ck G&S Roa Oe 500
Harngean . . . ww we 100
ΤΡ ει ςτὸν a a we ὡς ὦ 100

10. Mehnuni. ...... . Ct 100
Aes. 4. 4 © & % wa. e 3 300
γα . . . . eee 300
Er(wjant'uml . 2... wee 300
Hamastunean . . . . . . he 100

15. ArtaSesean. . τ . . .ehOeO 300
Sagratuml . . . . . eee 100
Abrahamean . . . . .. . ς 100
GNM, Go dees κ᾿ ὦ ῳ τῷ “{΄ Ἂ ἀξι αἱ 300
Buzgum. Ὁ « 2 « & # = w & « 200

20/6. 8) DCIURL ss . a Kk. @ w SY gd. 100
ΒΟΉΝ: « ὁ «© & % & &. & @# 3 100

22. Muracan . . . . 1 ee le ls 300

... and certain others occupied in other lands; and the number
of men from the nations [clans] was 84,000 besides those who
serve the royal court, that is the Ostan, who go forth to war
with the king, and the Mardpetakan, who are the inner guard
over the queen and the treasure, and in all the number of the
Armenian forces is one hundred and twenty thousand 2’.

~ Both documents are known from single highly incorrect manuscripts,
they are full of inaccuracies and errors, some of the names are distorted
beyond recognition. The opening note, “ wamJAh fpfuml Gayng δι
Hufunwyh” should be taken as an example of the inaccuracies in the
Gahnamak. The first name listed is that of the prince of Siwnik’,
the list then continues accurately to μᾳ (23), then jumps from 23 to
μ (25) leaving out fy (24). It seems to us that this omission of a single
number occurred because the principality of Malyaz had originally
had a place in the list, but, for one reason or another, it had later
been put at the head of the lst instead of within 1t. Τῦ would be reason-

196 CHAPTER X

able to suppose that the missmg number 24 was precisely the pomt
at which the Malyazuni were hsted, but other evidence, of which
we will speak later, compels us to give a higher position to the Matyaz
clan.

This hypothesis which was orginally purely a priors in character,
was demonstrated when we came across an interesting passage hitherto
overlooked by scholars in the history of Uytanés of Urha. The
Gahnamak was known to Uytanés, since he says that Vatarsak, in his
address to Arsak, asked him specifically to “seek out in the diwan
of the Persian kings the Gahnamak of the Armenian nayarars”’.
Argak opened the royal dewan before Maraba, and the latter found
the Gahnamak which he brought to Vatarsak. Guiding himself by
the Gahnamak, the king set up the nayarar clans, granting to each of
them,

a gah [cushion] and a patww [honour], and according to the
cushion the power corresponding to his dignity.

Repeating the words of Movsés Xorenaci, Uytanés relates that
the king rewarded prince Bagarat in particular, then continues as
follows,

he established also other nayarar clans and gave them names:
first: the prince of Siwnik‘
second the aspet Bagratuni
third: the Arcruni
fourth: the Matyazuni
fifth: the Mamikonean, and others likewise the king appointed
and confirmed each in his principality 38,

We see from this passage that Uytanés was acquainted with and
made use of the Gahnamak, His words bring an important correction
into the text which has reached us, by showing the original place of
the Maiyaz in the hst. Moreover, the survival of the Gahnamak
to the tenth century, when it was used by Uytanés, is demonstrated,
and the historian’s tracing of the Gahnamak to the days of Valarsak
shows that even in the tenth century a respectable antiquity was
attributed to it.

Information on the other document, that is to say on the Miliary
Inst does not go further back than the thirteenth century. The
historian Stephen Orbelean, speaking of the nayarar ranks established

A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE NAXARARDOMS 197

by king Trdat, adds that the same king appointed four military
commanders for the army and the country. On the eastern side,
the Prince of Siwnik* was appointed with twenty-one princes, on the
north, the Bdesy of Gugark‘ with twenty-two princes, on the west,
the Prince of Korduk‘ with twenty-one princes, and on the south,
the Prince of Angettun with twenty-two princes. The historian
notes,

this we found in this form in the Gahnamak of the Armenian
princes which was written by Lewond and which is also more
briefly indicated in the Gahnamaks of Agat’angelos and Ner-
sés 29,

From these valuable words of the historian we learn that the document
with which we are concerned was attributed to a Lewond who must
be identified with the well-known historian and author of The Arab
War, not only is he the only historian named Lewond, but the fact
that the brief reference of Stephen Orbelean presupposes a common
knowledge of the Lewond cited supports our hypothesis; only Lewond
the historian could be so considered, This circumstance raises the
insufficiently studied problem of the defective character of our version
of Lewond’s History. Judging from the full title of the manuscript,
the work of Lewond presumable began with the appearance of Mu-
hammad, but at present it opens with a narration of the events follow-
ing the death of the prophet 3°, The opening of the work, lacking
the preface customary among Armenian historians, gives the impression
of a defective and incomplete text.

Even if we admit that the beginning of Lewond’s work has been
lost, the attribution of the Gahnamak to 1ῦ can hardly be taken as
definite, for what, in fact, can be the relation of a list of Armenian
naxarars to the lost section of a history which dealt with the life of
the prophet? To be sure, Armenian literature does provide the
example of a compilation of fragments in the fusion of the Anonymous
History with the History of Heraclius by Sebéos 305, and the Gahnamak
may have similarly been put in front of the work of Lewond in con-
nexion with some sort of historical preface. It is also possible that
the Gahnamak was an accidental addition to the version of Lewond
used by Stephen Orbelean, and that the later historian took it to
be an authentic part of Lewond’s work, while in reality it bore the
same relation to Lewond as the Anonymous History has to Sebéos,

198 CHAPTER X

in some scholars’ opinion: Simeon of Aparan, an Armenian author
of the sixteenth century, made use of a version of the History of
Lazar P’arpeci to which was added an Original History of Armenia;
Simeon took this to be Lazar’s work, but it 15 evident from his retelling
that this is the very same history that has reached us as an addition
to Sebéos #1, This example serves as a warning that something of
the kind may have happened in Orbelean in relation to the Gahnamak
as an addition to the History of Lewond, hence the evidence of Orbelean
unfortunately adds nothing positive to our knowledge of the fate
of the document which concerns us.

Seventy nayarar clans are listed in the Gahnamak, and eighty-six
in the Military Inst. Since the original text of the Gahnamak consists
of a single sheet covered to the very end, the problem of a defective
text remains open, but the comparison of the two documents shows
that this defect, if it exists, is altogether negligible. The Gahnamak
lacks thirty-two names as against the Military Inst, but, on the other
hand, it has a few additional names not found in the latter. From
the sense of the introductory words of the Gahnamak in which the
document is connected with the Kat‘ohkos Sahak I (7 459), the
following thirty-two clans could not have been part of it:

1. Bzynuni
2. Manawazean
3. Orduni,

from a purely chronological point of view since these houses had
already disappeared at the beginning of the fourth century;

. Angettun
Atjnik‘

. Gugark*
Uti

. Cawdéaci
. Kadméaci
. Korduk’,

SOONA OH

μ᾿

because these lay outside the boundaries of Persian Armenia ;

11. (Amaskoni) 83
12. Awacaci

13. Cotkepan

14, Varnuni

15, AséSnean

16. Kinan

A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE ΝΑΧΑΠΑΒΌΟΝΒ 199

17. Aycenakan
18, Hamastunean
19, Sagratuni;

these 9 names are found nowhere else and are apparently badly distorted.
There are occasional references to the remaining names among the

missing thirty-two:

20. Bak‘an
21. Kéruni
22. Gukan,
23, Patsparuni
24, Boduni,

all districts in Vaspurakan ;
25. Mazazaci,
a, district in Ayrarat; 324

26, Varaznuni
27. VarZnunean,

districts respectively in Vaspurakan and Ayrarat; 32>

28. Zandaian,

in the list of ostantk’ of Lazar P‘arpeci; 380
29. Sodaci,

from Sodk‘, a district in Siwnik*; 8538
30. ASyadarean,

from ASyadar, the name of the father-in-law of Trdat III m Movsés
A orenaci 335, 7

31. Trpatuni
32. Abrahamean

known from Sebéos 22,

200 CHAPTER X

The additional names found in the Gahnamak as against the Mihtary
Inst, are ten repeated names — the junior lines of certain famous
families :

Siwnik’ I]

Areruni II

Arcruni IIT
Mamikonean 11
Anjewaci 11
Apahuni II

Abetean 11
Dimak‘sean, II
Dimak‘sean of Sirak*
Vanand 11

Finally there are six names which are distortions with one or two
exceptions :

ASahmarean = AS8yadarean
Nayéeri

Vaagraspuni
The Keeper of the royal city
The Keeper of the royal hunt 38,

These names make up the dubious element which has discredited
our document. Only with the discovery of a new lst can we hope
to clear it of doubt. The Pseudo-Gahnamak preserved in the Infe
of Nersés suffers from still greater defects and is not suitable for this
purpose. Nevertheless, it is instructive to compare it with our
document. We give it in extenso, italicizing the names also found in
our Gahnamak 3 ;

ANONYMOUS PSEUDO-GAHNAMAK

1. Haykaznik’
Part’eweank’
Ayrarateank’
Bagratunik’
Trdatunik’

Aspetunik’
Mayazunik’
A oryorunik’
Arcrunik*
10. Mamikoneank’

A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE NAXARARDOMS

20.

30.

40.

50.

Srwnecrh’
Amatuntk’
Angeleank’
Vracik’
Cop’k’
Varaznuntk’
Mardpetunik’
Vahewuntk’
Pahlawunik’
Kazbk’
Sisaneank’
Kadmeank’
Manawazeank’
Kideseank’
Gamreank’
Benuntk’
Sasaneank’
Gisonk’
Eketeank’
K’awpetunik’
Anjteayk’
Sebasteank’
A&stisateank’
Srwanjteayk*
Anjawacik'
Aspagnunik‘
Rstunik'
Vahanunik‘
Aljneank'
K‘oteank‘
Kazbunik‘ |
Kamsarakank'‘
Mokacvk*
Stkuntk'
K‘ni‘untk'
Airpatuntk*
Goti‘neayk*
Gazrikank‘
Jotkertk‘
Mayazeank’
Mrowunik*
Razmunik‘
Gabeteank'
Sparunik’
Vahunek'
Vronjunik*

201

202 CHAPTER X

Sureank‘
Dimakseank‘
Srunik‘

60. Darbandeank‘
Aragaceank‘
Kogovteank*

Apahumk’*

Ancaynock'

Hark‘ eank‘
Kordowayk‘

Afaweteank'
Hasteank‘
Vreank‘

70. Vanandeank‘

P‘araéunik‘
Tasracok*
Urceayk'
Mandakunik‘
Tayk*

Meliteank‘
Dastkarink‘
Basenk'

Catkunik‘

80. Mamikonean II
P‘eréZunik‘
Tlk‘eank‘
Bagwank‘

A§(t)oceank‘
A betunik'

Aatteank’
Saharunik'
Asyagoreank'
Gnunik'

90. Hamazgunik‘
Akeayk'
Vizunrk*
Afop‘suntk'

ahorapetk*

Cayt‘iwnik‘
(Za)naycorapetk’
Varazatakeank‘
Ancayentk'

Mirunik‘

100. Arsunik‘
K‘ateank‘
Mardateank‘
Lekandeank‘

A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE NAXARARDOMS 203

AX orjenik'
Jiwnakank'
Hamuceank*

᾿ς Kort‘eank‘ |

Ktundik‘

Zarewhank'
110. Turberaneank‘
— Béeunak*

Tp‘ yunik’
Mehrunk* —
K‘atak‘apetk’ [Keeper of the city]

Kayuseank*
Spanduntk*

Artasateank’ |
Orsapetk‘ [Keeper of the hunt]

. Ark‘acoe teark’

120. Rap‘seank*
Bagraspumk'
a Parspunik‘
, 1298. A brahameank' 38,

This long list presented by the author as the Gahnamak of King
Ariak II, or of his contemporary the Kat‘ohkos Nersés I, is in reality
nothing but a late and poor version of a Gahnamak. Led astray by
the literary tradition of the existence of 400 gahs under Argak II,
the anonymous chronicler tried to stretch the Gahnamak found in the
literary sources up to the corresponding number. This attempt
proved beyond the powers of the author because of his scant knowledge
of his native literature. He was so ignorant that he introduced
indiscriminately into his list of gahs a series of geographical names,
The repetitions of the clans of the Bagratuni-Aspetuni, Xotyoruni-
Matyazuni, Kazbé (se. Kaspé)-Kazbuni, etc., must also be attributed
to his lack of knowledge. Whatis important for us is that the unknown
author undoubtedly had a copy of our Gahnamak before him as he
carried out his task, A clear proof of this is to be found in the very
characteristic listings which are common to both documents:

Mamikonean II Uudflatp Ephpapy
The Keeper of the city Pfuqupuuhu

The Keeper of the hunt = Ipumuylin

Nayéeri τς Gmfudiph
(Za)naycirapet* Qu fn fudfh puoybn

204 CHAPTER X

The Gahnamak has Vahunik’ [Ywémhf p] instead of Vah[ew]unik‘
Yuf[fijmtfp|, this accidental error has been included in the list
in spite of the fact that Vahewunik’ [4 μιζίμι πεῖ, Ρ], in the correct
form is also found there, listed separately.

Traces of the Gahnamak are also found in the famous Account of
the Armenian Monasteries in Jerusalem. A description, or rather
a list, of the churches of Jerusalem supposedly built by Armenian
princes composed by the monk Anastasius at the request of Prince
Hamazasp Kamsarakan, who intended to visit the Holy Land 339, A
total of seventy churches are given in this List, a number which
immediately brings to mind a possible influence of the Gahnamak
and compels us to look for a relation between these churches and
the seventy gahs. [Ὁ 15 unfortunately impossible to verify the version
in which the Gahnamak was taken over into the work of Anastasius,
since not all the churches bear the family names of the princes who
founded them in the surviving text of the Jerusalem Account; in many
cases, they are listed under the name of the saint to which they were
dedicated 3. The account is unquestionably legendary, although
it is not devoid of some authentic archaic traits. [Ὁ must date in a
period preceding the History of Atbania since the work of Anastasius
is mentioned in the History and the passages referring to the Albanian
churches have been included in it 85,» The particular significance for
us of this document, as of the preceding one, lies in its demonstration
that the Gahnamak was a common document familar to Armenian
writers.

Of the seventy names of the Gahnamak, only the following ten
are missing from a place in the variant of it just given:

Varjawuni Atawenean
Gardman Truni
Paluni Hawnuni
Taygrean K’ajberuni
Hrmant uni Cul

In comparison with the Military List, however, more than thirty out
of eighty-six listings are missing in the variant; the anonymous
author evidently did not have it at his disposal. He unquestionably
made use of the Gahnamak, however, and the points of difference
between them, are to be explained by inaccuracies either in our version
or in the one used by him. This aspect is clarified in some degree

A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE NAXARARDOMS 205

by a comparison of the Gahnamak with the information of Movsés
Aorenaci. At present, the History of Armenia is the touchstone for
determining the date and, in general, the significance of monuments
of ancient Armenian literature. The parallel between the two Gahna-
maks and the nayarar names found in Movsés Xorenaci demonstrates,
therefore, the historico-literary value of the documents under investi-
gation.

Movsés Xorenaci devotes the seventh and eighth chapters of his
second book to a survey of nayarar families and of their origin. The
circle of nayarar clans known to him is as follows:

1. Bagratum Apahuni
Gut‘uni Manawazean
A oryoruni Bznuni
Varaznuni Sikuni

5. Gabetean 30. Mandakuni
Abetean Vahnuni
Areruni Atawenean
Gnuni Aarehawanean
Spanduni Adjn

10. Hawnuni 35. Mokaci
Jiwnakan Kordwaci
Mardpet Anjewaci
Muracean [ Akéaci]
Kadméayn R&tuni

15. Sisakan 40. Goltneci
Utéaci Vanand
Gardmanaci Dimak‘sean
Sodeaci Truni
Gargaraci Amatuni

20. ASocean 45. Arawelean
Tasir Rop‘sean
Gugark* [bdesy] Mamikonean
Orduni Kamsarakan
Anget-tun 49. ASyadarean 858

25. Οορ΄ Κ΄

Comparing this list with the Gahnamak, we find that all the names
here are also found in the Gahnamak with the exception of twelve:

Kadméayn Angeltun
Utéaci Ahn
Sodeaci Orduni

Gargaraci Manawazean

206 CHAPTER X

Tasir Bznuni
Gugark*‘ Kordowaci

Moreover, the VarazZnuni of Movsés Xorenaci is equivalent to the
Keeper of the royal hunt (Npummkn mppmih) in the Gahnamak;
as for the Mardpet, as we shall see, he belongs to one of the two secon-
dary branches of the Arcruni. Xorenaci, however, lacks twenty-two
familes, not counting duplications as against the Gahnamak:

1. Kaspé Tamberaci
Tayk‘ Bznuni
Basean. K‘ajberuni
Varjawunl 15. Mehnuni

5. Saharuni Nayéeri
Paluni ArtaSesean,
Hambuzean Vizanuni
Varaspatean Cul
Ancayech 20. Ak‘aci

10. Taygrean Gazrikan |
Ermant‘uni 22. Vaagraspuni

The Gahnamak includes only Marzpan Armenia; 1% is, therefore,
understandable that the twelve nayarar clans indicated should be
missing from it; of them, one had ceased to exist before the period
in question, while the others lay outside the boundaries of Marzpan
Armenia. The one exception is the principality of Kaspé, which
is included in the Gahnamak, though it did not belong to Marzpan
Armenia but was part of the Satrapy of Cop‘k‘ 3»,

As for the nayarar clans which are missing from Xorenaci ἴῃ compa-
rison with the Gahnamak, even there we find a connexion between
Xorenaci and the Gahnamak. A careful study reveals the familiarity
of Xorenaci not only with the Gahnamak but with the Mihiary Inst
as well, Let us give the Gahnamak once again, but now with the
indication of the number of knights belonging to each family according
to the Mrhiary Insti:

1, The Prince of Siwmik® . . . . . . = . 19,000
The Prince Aspe? . . . . . . . . 21,000
Prince Arerumil . . . . . . . 4,000

» Malyazuni . . . . . . 1,000

δ, » Mamikonean. . . . . . 1,000
» Copk®e . . . . . ) . ) . 1,000

» Mokk. . . . . . . . 1,000

A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE NAXARARDOMS

» R&tuni
» Vahuni

10. The Prince of Kaspé

15.

20

25,

30.

90.

40,

45.

50.

55.

Prince Anjewaci .

» Apahuni .
» Kamsarakan .
» Apahuni II

δ Vanandean
δ΄ Amatuni.

» Gott’n

» Gnum. . .

» Anjewaci ll .
Tayk* . :

"The Judge of Basean

Prince Gnt‘uni

» Varjavuni

δ Gardman.
Prince Saharuni .

» Gabetean .

» Siwn ll .

» Areruni II
Prince Areruni 111 :

» Mamikonean II .

» Rop‘sean .

δ ASocean .

» Dimak‘sean .

Prince Dimak‘sean of Buya

» Abelean IT

» Dimak‘sean ITT .

» Paluni

» Arawelean
Prince ASyadarean .

» Hambuzean .

» Varaspaian.

» Jiwnakan.

» Akéaci
Prince Zarehawan
» tneayeci .
» Mandakuni
» Stkun.
» Taygrean

» Ermant‘uni .

» Spanduni

» Atawenan

» run.

» Tamberaci
Prince Hawnuni .

1,000
1,000
3,000

1,000
600

1,000
500
500
500

207

208 CHAPTER X

» Banuni .. .... . 200
» K‘ajberuni . . . . . . 100
» Mehbnumi. ..... . 100

» Nayéerr . . . . . . —
60. The Keeper of the royal city

The Keeper of the royalhunt . . . . . 300
Prince ArtaSésean . . . . . . 300

» VanadeanlI. . ... . —

mW ee ee ce wet ae. ee ἃ --

65. Prince Vizanu(ni) . . . . .. 50
» Ak’ack . 2... 50

» Dimak‘sean of Sirak —

» Gazrkan. . . . .. ., 50

» Maracean. . . . .. . 300

70. » Vaagraspuni. . . . . . 100

It 1s not difficult to see that mibtary power has been taken as the
basis of the Gahnamak. The nayarar clans have been listed in descend-
ing order, according to the number of knights at their disposal. This
is the circumstance which first sugggested to us that the Malyazuni
were not in their proper place, as later proved to be the case. The
variations from this order are probably to be attributed to the defec-
tiveness of our version. A comparison with Movsés Xorenaci shows
that some of the errors go back to earliest antiquity, that 18 to say
to a period earher than his History of Armenia. The nayarar clans
missing from Xorenaci, as against the Gahnamak are precisely those
which interrupt the proper sequence of gahs or those whose contingent
numbered less than 300 knights. Among the former are the princes of:

Kaspé o & & a ἀ & ue Hae Ὁ & ὦ 00
Tayké 2. ee ee ee ee 600
The Judge of Basean. . . . . . . . . ~~ 600
Prince qneayeci= Anjay . . . . . . . 4,000

Among the latter are the lords of:

Varjavull. . 4 # « * & » «» # « « 200
Hambuzean . . . ... .. . 100
Varaspalan 2. 6 6 6 8 wee Oe OE OU 100
TOYSTCaW: 4-2 τ a oe ὦ a a oe. Hs 50
WamDeraelc- ὦ Ὡ wh. w τῷ Bo al Se & ὦ x 100
Bann: ᾿ς ὦ & ον. & & ὦ & ὰκ a #.«. MOD

Κρ . . 8 ῳς 100

A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE NAXARARDOMS 209

Mehnuil- ¢ «.6¢ ~% A «= = ἀρ ἃ @ we ὦ 100
Vigenunl, 4. a, «a a Ἢ @ «© e ἐν τὰς τ 50
ΣΙ; & (28 ΤᾺΣ, of ὡς ae ΝΣ ate ἃ ee «ἃ 50
{πεν 1 ἢ», g@ 40. 4 oh om ὰ ἢ τὰ sk ᾧ ἀξ ἐς δ0
Vaagraspuni = Sagratumi . . . . . . . 100

The exceptions are the princes Rop’sean and AS8yadarean, who are
mentioned by Xorenaci, although they have but 100 knights apiece,
and on the other hand, the lords Sahatuni, Paluni, ArtaSésean and
Erwant‘uni, who have 300 knights each but have been left out by the
historian. We have already seen that Paluni and Erwant’uni were
not mentioned in the version of the Gahnamak included in the Pseudo-
Gahnamak of Nersés I. It is possible that they were also missing
from the version of Xorenaci. The silence of the historian on the
lords Sahafuni and ArtaSésean may also be attributed to the defec-
tiveness of the list used by him 85, :

The particular attention given by Xorenagi to the houses of Rop’sean
and A8yadarean is to be explained by their exalted origin. According
to the information of the historian, the Rop’sean were descended
from queen Rop’i, the wife of king Tigran, while the Asyadarean
were the descendents of the father of queen A8yen, the wife of king
Trdat ITI, Concerning the elevation of the Rop’sean to the dignity
of nayarars at the time of Tigran, Xorenaci makes a few comments
which shed light on his relation to the Gahnamak:

[Tigran] also established other minor clans which were found
here or in the region of Koréék‘. These were people of no
importance because of the imsignificance of their forces, but
they had signaled themselves by their actions and had fought
against the Greeks for the liberation [of Tigran]. Part of
them came from Koréék‘ and some from our side, they were
from the close descendants of the original inhabitants, and
from the family of the Haylkids, and some were newcomers
from outside. We will not call them by name, partly because
there are some things which we do not know, partly because
we avoid wearisome investigations, and finally because the
lack of certainty about many (clans) would compel us to in-
vestigate them from all sides. Because of this we will say
nothing about those nayarar clans which were created by the
last Tigran, although thou hast insistently asked us to do so,
but we will speak only of the subsequent events which we
know with certainty. Insofar as possible we have avoided
superfluous or elaborate tales and all that would give the
impression of a doubtful account or Judgement; we have

210 CHAPTER X

striven, msofar as we had the strength, toward the true and
the authentic, whether this was derived from others or from
ourself. Following the same goal here, as well, I lead my tale
away from all that is unsuitable and all that might awaken
disbelief 3”,

The remarks of Xorenagi are significant. He seems to have the
Gahnamak before him and to be giving a detailed account of his
attitude toward it. He is omitting those nayarars “ app ἥϊμιδημ ἣ
ufimgghp thi fi ifuom”, t.e. who had insignificant forces at their
disposal — less than 300 knights. About some he has no knowledge,
oul poynh ns pphkjay skg”. Others, although known, require an
investigation burdensome to the historian. This may be a hint at
the secondary branches of certain nayarar clans, and also at those
nayarar houses possessing 300 knights which are not mentioned by
him, Finally, many names are either incredible or uncertain. The
explanations given by the historian for his omission of the minor
naxyarar houses corresponds exactly to the numbers left out by him
as against the Gahnamak, and are justified both singly and as a whole.
It is also true that some of these nayarar clans originated from Koréék’,
and some from other districts.

Aorenaci likewise did not overlook the fact that the mighty houses
of the Kamsarakan and the Amatuni occupy far from honoured places
in the Gahnamak. The Kamsarakan are given the thirteenth place,
and the Amatuni the sixteenth. The forces of the former are given
as 600 knights, while the Amatuni are not even listed in the Military
Inst. Tiven if we admit that Amaskoni or Hamastunean is a corruption
of Amatuni, the forces of or 200 or 100 knights assigned to them do
not correspond to the might and renown of the Amatuni®?*. In the
opinion of the Armenian historian, the Kamsarakans, as descendents
of the house of the Pahlawuni, deserved an incomparably more honour-
able gah among the nayarars. The insult to the Kamsarakans was
felt all the more by the historian that the Mamikoneans, whom he
dislikes, have been assigned the fifth place. The perplexity of Xorenaci
and his solution is reflected in the following of his tales:

After the death of the Aspet Sahak Bagratuni, the Kat‘ohkos
Sahak 1 tried to have his son-in-law, Hamazasp Mamikonean appointed
in his place. Giving in to the prayers of his daughter, he journeyed
to the Persian court with this goal in mind, and petitioned king ArdaSir
II, the successor of Sahpuhr II, the Long Lived; at the same time he

A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE NAXARARDOMS 211

begged the king to lighten the lot of the princes Kamsarakan and
Amatuni who were in disgrace. The king received the kat’ohkos
most cordially and acceeded to his request

concerning his son-in-law Hamazasp and also concerning
the families of the guilty princes Kamsarakan and Amatuni.
He granted their children their lives and ordered the return
of the estates of both princes, which had been confiscated
by the fisc. Only, he did not confirm them in the gah of their
fathers, but lowered them below many nayarar to a place
among the minor ones. As for the house of Hamazasp, that
is to say the Mamikonean, it was raised so that it would have
the right to the fifth gah among the Armenian nobles, and this
was to be written down in his diwan 88.

The historian meant to allay his doubts by the recognition that the
Kamsarakan and Amatuni princes were in a position due to their
disgrace. He goes on to tell us the source of their guilt. When the
Persians seized the Armenian king, Xosrov, they also took with them
to Persia the powerful prince Gazawon Kamsarakan, who was an
Arsacid through his mother. The brother of Gazawon, allied with
prince Amatuni, and at the head of 700 men, lay in wait on the road
of the Persian caravan and fell upon it with the intention of freeing
Aosrov. This bold attempt was unsuccessful, however, since the
king being laden with chains was unable to escape, and the two princely
houses paid for their audacity with their estates which were confiscat-
ed 89, For this reason the Kamsarakans and the Amatunis were
out of favour with the king and lost their family gahs; and in spite
of the intercession of Sahak I, were not reinstated in their dignities
but transferred to the rank of minor nayarars. As for the Mami-
konean, according to the explanation of Xorenaci, they obtaimed
a more honourable position, not because they deserved it, but merely
thanks to the intercession of the kat‘ohkos Sahak.

Critics have already noted that the remark of the Armenian historian
concerning the Mamikonean gah is based on his knowledge of the
Gahnamak, where the Mamikonean are specifically listed in the fifth
place 4°. Concerning the Mamikonean gah and to clarify the problem
it presents, the historian speaks of traditions supposedly existing at
the Persian court. These considerations are unquestionably suggested
to him by the opening words of the Gahnamak itself. According to

212 CHAPTER X

the Persian custom, says the historian, when a new king ascended
the throne, the coims found in the treasury were immediately re-cast
and stamped with his likeness; the diwan was transcribed in the name
of the new king with slight alterations, but without obliterating the
name of the old king. If, however, the king remained in power
a long time, and a new transcription was made, the older one was
set aside so that the king’s name should appear only in the new one 4,
Ardasir II, because of the shortness of his reign, did not have the
time to have a new transcription made, consequently he had all these
matters, 2.6. all that concerned the disgrace of the Kamsarakans and
the elevation of the Mamikonean gah, added to the old transcription
which he had had transferred from the name of his precedessors to
his own. At the same time, the Persian king wrote a letter to the
Armenian king VramSapuh ordering him to do the following,

... appoint Hamazasp sparapet of the army and grant to his
house the fifth gah among the nayarar dignities. And allow
them to have the villages and estates granted to their fathers
by thy ancestors. Likewise release the estates of the guilty
houses confiscated by the treasury to their children as their
inheritance without prejudice, but do not honour them with
the gah of their house 4, |

Ardasir IT died soon afterwards, leaving the throne to Vahram
TV #18, Xorenaci then has Sahak I address the latter with the same or.
a similar request. Summoned to court over a matter concerning
the patriarchal see, the kat‘ohkos, seizing an opportune moment,
begged the king to,

.. grant him the gah of the Armenian nayarars as it was
instituted by ArdaSir, and order that as the matter had stood
hitherto so it should continue in the future, and that the Persian
Marzpans should not dare to alter the gahs at will by promul-
gating independent orders about this.

At the same time the kat‘ohkos begged him to return to Hrahat,
the son of Gazawon, his father’s estates and to include him in the
hst on the same basis as the other nayarars, granting him, if not his
own rank, then at least some other one pleasing to the king. As for
the Amatunis deprived of their ancestral dignity, he should assign
them at least a place among the lesser ranks 42.

A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE NAXARARDOMS 213

In this passage, Xorenaci is directly indebted to the Gahnamak
and to its Preface which is rather confused in content and awkward
in style. The account of Xorenaci is an attempt to interpret the
confusion of the Preface, whose defects in the version which has
reached us were unquestionably already present in the copy used by
the historian, if they do not go all the way back to the original version.
Translated literally, the Preface states,

(I Sa)hak sought from the court of king ArtaSes that which
was spoken of in Tispon [Ctesiphon], the ¢amakan nama of
Artasir which 1 saw in the diwan (on the 17th of the month
Katoc). And to Viam King of Kings and Benefactor, I wrote
a letter, I Sahak, Kat‘olikos [saying], let Your Beneficence
give the order to make for your dwwan a list of the Armenian
freemen [azatk‘] and magnates [tanuierk‘] just as it was formerly
in the Armenian nation, so that henceforth the gahs of the
Armenian freemen and magnates should be known. Likewise,
at the order of Nerséh, King of Kings, 1 also, (Sa)hak, Kat’ohkos
of the Armenians, signed [sealed] the Gahnamak, and we
affixed the seal of the King of Kings and our own, and thus
it 1s correct and true 43.

It is not difficult to see the existence of a close connexion between
these words and the references of Xorenaci to or about the Gahnamak
in the passages where Sahak 1, Ardasir and Vahiam make their appear-
ance. First, we must decide who is the Artasés at whose court the
Kat‘otikos sought the Gahnamak, and who is the ArtaSir m whose
diwan he saw it or whose Ramakan nama he had seen. Possibly
one and the same person is intended, namely the Armenian king
ArtaSés, and for this reason Xorenaci warns us that the Persians had
altered the name of the Armenian king ArtaSés to ArtaSir 44, It is
also likely, however, that the ArtaSir with whose name the Ramakan
nama is connected was the king of Persia, a possibility admitted by
Aorenaci, as can be seen from his commentary about some sort of
traditions of the Persian court. He acknowledges the existence
of a transcription made inthe name of Ardasir IT. The request of Sahak 1
to Viam mentioned by Xorenaci also has our Preface as its source,
The difference between them is that in the Preface Sahak mquires
about the existence of the list, whereas Xorenaci’s story concerns
the ratification and Jegahzation of the Gahnamak of Arta8ir.

Thus, in our opinion, Xorenaci unquestionably made use of the
Gahnamak. The opposite conclusion, 2.6. that the author of the

214 CHAPTER X

Gahanamak relied on Xorenaci, is impossible, first of all because there
was no need to concoct such a sorry work as the Gahnamak after
Aorenacgi and the work be had already accomplished. After the
appearance of the Hvstory of Armenia, in which all the problems
concerning the nayarur system had found an authoritative answer,
the necessity for any further re-working disappeared of its own
accord.

The conclusion which we have reached significantly increases the
value of the Gahnamak as a historical document. In the present
state of the problem concerning Xorenaci, however, now that the re-
jection of the traditional pomt of view has removed him from the
ranks of the first enlighteners of Armenia, and until his position in
the subsequent two or three centuries is established, his familiarity
with the Gahnamak unfortunately provides no conclusions as to its
date or degree of reliability 44*, Consequently, the problem of the origin
and rehabilty of the documents under consideration: the Gahnamak
and the Miltary Last, first requires the investigation and determination
of the historical setting in which such documents developed. We
must become familar with the specific historical raison d’étre of these
documents, and this information brings out, among other evidence,
important aspects of nayarar life.

The historical or actual basis for the Gahnamak is the institutionalized
concept of hierarchy, without which the appearance of such a document |
is impossible. The existence of a hierarchy among the Armenians
is beyond question; it was accepted at the court of the Armenian
Arsacids, as at that of the Persian kings, as evidenced by the national
historians. Faustus repeatedly speaks of princes, “‘ senior according
to gah, senior according to cushion "ἡ, at the royal court; he hkewise
speaks of the nine hundred cushions intended for the nobility at the
table of Argak IJ. To thank Arsak for his services, the Persian king,
Sahpuhr II, showered him with great honours, and among others,
νον, seated him on the same gah as himself during a banquet” 45.
Soon, however, these friendly relations turned to enemity; Arsak
was summoned by the king, but when the time came for supper,
contrary to

. the custom whereby the Armenian and Persian kings
were seated on the same gah, that day, gahs were first placed
for the other kings who were present and then a place was set

A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE NAXARARDOMS 215

for Arsak below all the others. ... first all were seated, each
at the place to which he was entitled, and only then was Arsgak
brought in and seated 46,

The hierarchy of the nayarars established by the Arsacid dynasty
outlived their rule and was observed at the Sasanian court. In the
History of Lazar P*arpeci, Vardan Mamikonean, in a speech before
Yazdgard II, excuses himself on the pretext that among the princes
of the three countries, Armenia, Iberia and Aibania, who are present,
‘there are many persons who are senior to him in gah and age and
a sufficient number who are inferior’. The historian Hhsé also
knows something of the hierarchic customs: the Persian king now
allowed the Christian princes to take their places at his table, and now
deprived them of this right 47, Smbat Bagratuni, the Marzpan of
Vrkan [Hyrcania], was showered with honours by Xusrd Il Abharvéz
for his victory over the Hephthalites and “‘ was ranked as the third
naxarar at Xusrd’s court” 48,

The famous story of the quarrel between one of the Armenian
princes and the Persian king over a gah is particularly interesting
for this problem. In it we are told that the Persian king Sahpubr
desired to verify

which nations and languages have cushions and honours
(pupd &. wunfx), He arranged a magnificent banquet for
all the nobles from (the seven) 49 clans of the ancient Persian
nayarars. Designating all according to their gah, he wel-
comed each of them with a cup and branch *®, The Mohbadh
of Mohbadhs was honoured with the highest dignity at the
royal table. Taking council with his nobles, the king said,
I am thoroughly famihar with the Persians and Parthians
who are native Pahlawis 51, and with the ranks of free men,
but the noble houses of the Armenians and their ranks we were
unable to discover either from the kings our ancestors or from
writers. Consequently you Armenian nayarars must expect
one of two things: either to show us the ancient document
on the rank and dignity of each house, and to be showered
by us with still greater honours, or, if you cannot show the
order of your cushions before our eyes, we, who are the assembly
of the Aryans, we shall bestow your honours, estates, earth,
water, and all your possessions on members of the Persian
nobility. The princes of Greater Armenia immediately con-
sulted among themselves and presented to the king the desired
History of Agat’angetos. He ordered it read and translated
into the Persian script and language. Having learned that

210 | CHAPTER X

the book began with his own ancestor ArtaSir, the king rejoiced
still more, he praised the book, and moved to tears raised
it to his eyes. He found in it the listing of seventeen cushions
and began to apportion the seats at the royal table according
to it. The fourteenth place was assigned to Andok, prince of
Siwnik’. But Andok sulked and refused to eat. The king
was informed of this but paid no heed to it.

Later on we are told that Andok, having quarreled with Sahpuhr
abandoned his country and went over to the service of the Emperor.
His son Babik, upon his father’s death, wished to return to his native
land. He set out for the Persian court and once there displayed
such valour that he made the king forget the imsult once inflicted
by his father, and was rewarded with great honours. For his services,
the Persian king returned his native principality to him and gave
him the right to honours equal to those of the Bagratids and the
Mamikonean. This tale is primarily interesting as a picture of life
in nayarar society, as such it does not lose its importance even if it
should prove to be pure fiction. Furthermore, and from a factual
point of view, the story is not devoid of interesting elements ana-
chronistically fused together.

The hero of the story, Andok, is the famous prince of Siwnik* known
to Faustus. He is the father of the fair P‘atanjem, and he really
lived in the period of king Sahpuhr I]. Made famous by the romantic
fate of his daughter, Andok provoked a quarrel on her account between
Arkak II and Sahpuhr II, and, together with Argak, he waged extensive
wars against the Persians. The fundamental motif of the quarrel
between Andok and Sahpuhr has been preserved in the tale cited above,
but it has been transferred to a different setting and another period 52,
Babik is also a historical figure. In this episode he is presented as
the son of Andok though in reality he was not his son but his close
descendant. We can identify Babik with the famous contemporary
and supporter of Vahan Mamikonean, the personage to whom the
historian Lazar P‘arpegi refers with great praise, calling him an “ excel-
lent man’ 52, He belongs among the princes gathered around the
kat‘olikos Giwt and Vahan Mamikonean, who held steadfastly to the
beliefs of the dedicated heroes of Avarayr, and followed in their steps.
Amidst the general despondency and despair which seized the country
after the war of the Vardananians, they maintained a valiant spirit
and did not lose hope of a better outcome for the still persisting struggle
against the Persian oppressors. Following the example of their

A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE NAXARARDOMS 217

predecessors they sought help from the Christian Emperor, and with
this aim sent repeated embassies to the Emperor Leo I. Itis
altogether possible that Babik was one of the member of the embassy
and that he had spent some time in the Byzantine capital together
with this mission. Because of his outstanding qualities and services,
his compatriot, Bishop Peter of Siwnik* dedicated a special panegyric,
tohim. This work has not yet been found in the manuscript collections
and we owe our knowledge of it to Stephen Orbelean who refers
several times to the work of Peter of Siwnik‘ as the source from which
he took the history of Babik. In one of the references he notes that
the Panegyric of Bishop Peter was dedicated to the vahant Babik
whom the Persians called excellent in their own language (1.6. veh =
law) 58, Here Babik is given the very name with which Lazar P‘arpeci
honours the Babik contemporary with Vahan. This fact is the best
possible demonstration of our hypothesis of the identification of the
two Babiks, the hero of the tale, and the contemporary of Vahan.

Orbelean attributes to Peter’s pen not only the history of Babik,
but also the episode concerning Sahpuhr. Peter lived in the first half
of the sixth Century and was present at the Council of Dwin of 555 582,
hence, the span of time separating him from Babik was brief, and his
concern with the latter’s action is almost that of a contemporary.
On the other hand, it is impossible that a man so close to Babik in
time should have been guilty of the anachronism of combining the
fates of Babik, who was his older contemporary, with those of Andok
and Sahpuhr, figures belonging to the fourth century. The tale of
Babik and Andok, in the version which has reached us, cannot be
attributed to Peter in its entirety. It must be taken as a popular
reworking of subjects taken from Faustus and Peter of Siwnik‘ and
its appearance in Armenian literature must be set down in a period
subsequent to that of Peter, 1.6. in one subsequent to the sixth century.

The nature of the reworking of the tale is important for our present
purpose. According to Faustus, the incident with Andok occurred
as a result of the Persian king’s wish to marry his daughter to king
Argak II, who was already married to Andok’s daughter P‘atanjem. .
The offended father decided to defend the honour of his daughter.
For this purpose he destroyed the friendship of Argak and Sahpuhr and
succeeded in bringing about a war between them 58>, In the tale, how-
ever, the incident has been shifted to a different setting, one of disputes
over rank, and the conflict with Sahpuhr is presented as the result of

218 CHAPTER X

the injured pride of prince Andok, displeased with the gah assigned
to him in the nayarar hierarchy.

Quarrels and dissatisfaction over gah and rank must have become
more frequent with the weakening of the Arsacid tradition and the
corresponding increase in influence of the Persian authorities. After
the fall of the Armenian Arsacids, matters of hierarchy came under
the supervision of the Persians, who transferred gahs according to
the interests of their court. Movsés Xorenaci is not idly emphasizing
the danger threatening the nayarar hierarchy from the arbitrariness
of the Persian Marzpans, in the words which he attributes to the
kat‘olikos Sahak 1. The danger was felt particularly in the period
of the revolts of Vahan Mamikonean, as is evident from azar P‘ar-
peci’s description of princely society. Nayarar relations must have
become especially strained in the sixth and seventh centuries, when
Marzpans of exclusively Persian origin were appointed in Armenia.
Consequently, documents such as the Gahnamak, insofar as they
answer actual needs, can have appeared in Armenian literature only
up to the fall of the Sasanian monarchy, since the institutionalzed
hierarchy kept its significance throughout this period. After that,
the appearance of such documents can have no other motive than
an interest in the past.

As for our other document, namely the Miltary Lnsi, works of
this type should be taken as closer reflections of society than the
Gahnamak. Whereas the significance of the latter decreased with
the fall of the kingdom and of the royal court, the same cannot be said
about the Miltary Inst. The historian Ehsé says that after the
destruction of royal power In Armenia, “... the ruling power was
transferred to the Armenian nayarars’’, and with it the duties of the
Armenian crown toward the King of Kings. One of the main features
of Armenian subjection to Iran was the supply of military aid, as
represented by the Armenian cavalry *4. New conditions changed
nothing here, As. before, an accurate list of the cavalry forces, which
the nayarars, singly and jointly, were required to keep and furnish
at the command of the King of Kings, was a primary necessity. The
cavalry was the main reason for the census which the Persian autho-
rities took from time to time. DenSapuh, the Persian agent sent to
Armenia before the national rising of 451, had instructions from the
King to carry out a census in the entire country of Armenia, “... to

A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE NAXARARDOMS 219

remit taxes and to lighten the burden of cavalry”. Although the
historian treats the mission of the Persian official with suspicion,
the Marzpan Atrormizd did, in fact “... remit the tribute and tempo-
rarily reduce the cavalry force supplied to the King” 55. soon after
the rebellion because of the destruction to the district,

Cavalry regulations were inherited by the Arabs together with
a number of other Sasanian practices. The historian Lewond relates
that the Arab governor in 705, Mahmet [Mu‘hammad ibn-Marwan],
“νον summoned the Armenian nayarars with their cavalry to Nayijewan,
as though to include them in the official register and to distribute
payments” 56, The important point here, of course, is not the
validity of the historian’s suspicions or the sincerity of the Arab
governor’s actions, but rather the indication that the Arabs took
over the custom of keeping a list of the Armenian princes, and of
paying them. The distribution of subsidies to the nayarars was
also an inheritance from the Sasanians. Historians of the Sasanian
period often speak of the pay (ππόῤἠ) received by the Armenian princes
from the Persian king. After the defeat of Zarehawan, Yazdgard II
forgave the emprisoned princes and, “... began again to give them
their previously suspended maimtainance’’, He acted in the same
manner toward the captive nayarars who had been the ringleaders
of the revolt of 4515’, Even before the partition of Armenia, Musel
Mamikonean, foreseeing the gathering storm, considered the establish-
ment of a permanent subsidy from the Hmpire for the Armenian
nobility to counteract Persian inclinations 58, According to Faustus
the Emperor received MuSel’s suggestion altogether favourably and
promised to put it into effect. If this is not an echo of later practices,
we must conclude that both of the powers about to divide Armenia
relied on a system of distributing subsidies to the Armenian nobles
and army, both to ingratiate themselves by this method, and to obtain
a ready army. ὁ

This tradition was still alive in the seventh century. At the time
of his expedition against the Arabs in 653, the Emperor Constantine
[Constans II], invited the Armenian princes to Karin to plan their
joint action against the enemy, and at the same time, he “ ... promised
them aid in the form of subsidies” *®, The Persians wooed the
Armenians with similar backing. At the time of the rebellion of some
of the Armenian princes against the Persians, King Xusré IT imvited
the princes who had remained loyal to him to his capital, honoured

220 ᾿ CHAPTER X

them in all ways, and “.., assigned them a salary from the royal
treasury ὁ 8°,

In 724, the first year of the reign of the Caliph Hisham, the Arabs
made a general census in Armenia, “... to increase the oppressive
yoke of tributary obligations” © according to Lewond’s comment.
Soon afterward Prince ASot presented himself before the Caliph and
petitioned for a hghtening of his country’s heavy lot. He complained,
among other things, that, “... for the last three years the official
maintenance given to the Armenian princes and their cavalry had
been withheld” 85, Presumably the discontinuance of the subsidy
paid yearly be the treasury was one of the unpleasant results of the
recently taken census. In answer to the request of ASot, Hisham
ordered that three years arrears be paid to him, calculating 100,000
for each year 8, After Hishém’s death (7 743), a new decree was
promulgated under his immediate successor, the Caliph ‘Abd Allah
(750-775) 82, According to this,

ὦν the flow of silver pouring yearly from the treasury for
the benefit of the Armenian army was henceforth to be halted.
The princes were ordered to furnish cavalry in specified num-
bers and were required to maintain their forces at their own
expense 8, .

As long as these regulations concerning the Armenian cavalry were in
effect, accurate information on the number of Armenian princes and
their forces was indispensable. Because of this necessity, relevant,
official or other, written documents similar to the Military Inst with
which we are concerned, had perforce to exist. After its abolition
by as-Saffah, the military subsidy was never renewed. There is no
mention of financial assistance given to the nayarars by the Arabs
in such later historians as John the Kat‘oltikos and Tovma Arcruni.
With the abolition of this custom the need to keep of the nayarars
and of their cavalry by means of a periodic census disappeared, and
the census of 724 connected with the frightful catastrophe which had
occurred in Armenia a short time before may be said to be the last
taken for this purpose.

The Arabs looked with disfavour upon the ruling princes of con-
quered lands and persecuted them from the beginning. Thus, for
example, hardly had they entered Gilan in 654 before they destroyed
the local nobility and their cavalry * In Armenia they pursued
a similar goal. Already under ‘Abd-al-Malik (685-705), according

A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE NAXARARDOMS 22)

to Lewond, the Arab governor of Armenia, “... had conceived the evil
plan of destroying the estate of noble families in the land of Armenia
together with their cavalry’, but had met with a powerful rebuff
fromthe Armenians. According to the same historian, ‘Abd-al-Mahk’s
successor, the Caliph al-Walid (705-715), “‘... plotted in the first
year of his reign to uproot the nayarar families and their cavalry
from the land of Armenia” %, Pursuant to this plot of the Arab
authorities, the Armenian princes with their troops were summoned,
as for a census, to the city of Nayijewan, the residence of the Arab
governor, and were treacherously emprisoned, some in the church
of Nayijewan, and some in the nearby locality of Xram. The signal
was then given for their total anihilation. The Byzantine histonan
Theophanes also mentions this event, though in his opimion the cause
of the disaster was the rebellion of the Armenian princes against the
Arabs 57, This cruel reprisal cost many nayarar lives. The Lewond
laments,

I have not the strength to list them one by one. Having
taken them all from this life, they bereft the land of its
naxarars ... The land of Armenia has been emptied of nayarar
houses and the people are left like lambs among wolves ὅ8.

This event took place in 705, the first year of al-Walid; the general
census of 724 followed shortly thereafter. The crime of 705 dealt
a severe blow to the Armenian nobility; it marks one of the most
sorrowiul moments in the history of the. nayarars.

From all that has just been said, we can deduce that the need
for a Miltary Inst disappeared after ‘Abd al-Malhk’s abbrogation
of the Sasanian regulations governing the nayarar cavalry, just as
the downfall of the Sasanians in the mid-seventh century destroyed the
institution providing a foundation for the Gahnamak *8*, Now that
the time span within which this institution functioned has been
determined, we can raise the question of the relation between the
documents under consideration and the institution itself: were they
created as historical documents from the start, or did they first appear
in some other setting? The answer to this question is to be found
in an analysis of the internal evidence of the documents.

The Miltary Inst shows many signs of contrivance. Its charac-
teristic trait 1s the division of the entire nayarar cavalry into four
groups each containing twenty-one or twenty-two houses. This

222, CHAPTER X

division shows no sign of logic or of any criterion such as, for instance,
a territorial one. For example, the Bagratuni and the Princes of
Basean are listed together in the army of Angettun, the Prince of
Kaspé 15 listed in the army of Gugark‘, the Prince of Gott‘an in that
of Kadmé, etc. In addition, the Zvst includes nayarar families such
as the Orduni and the Manawazean, who ceased to exist before the
appearance of this document. All of these circumstances point to
a literary origin.

The division of Armenia into four armies does not correspond to
historical reality and is not justified by the evidence which we have
on this subject. There is, for instance, no mention whatsoever of
such a division in our earliest document, the History of Faustus of
Byzantium ®°. During the royal period, the army fought under a
single leader, the Sparapet, or commander in chief. This title was
hereditary in the warlike house of the Mamikonean. Under King
Aosrov II of Armenia, the Sparapet was Vacé’s son Artawazd: Under
Argak 11, the famous Vasak gained renown in this office, and under
Pap, the no less valorous MuSel. Pap’s successor, Varazdat, an
imperial appointee, wished to weaken the mighty Mamikonean princes,
by killing Mu&el and transferring the office of Sparapet to Bat from
the house of the Sahatuni; but the Mamikonean heir, Manuel, succeeded
in defending the rights of his family and seized once again the office
of Sparapet, which then passed to his son Artasir 7°, In the period
of the Marzpanate, this title was still born by the Mamikonean in
the person of the famous princes, Vardan, Vahan, Vard, etc.

Ancient documents speak of four bdesys, but these should not be
confused with the matter under discussion. The concept of the bdesys
as vassals of the king of Armenia whose duties were to guard the
marches 1s based on an inaccurate interpretation of the evidence 7,
According to Faustus, the bdeSys were ranked among the servants
or vassals of the Armenian king, and were distinguished from other
princes by the fact that they were, “... senior to all at the royal court
according to cushion and gah” 7°», But four persons cannot occupy
the same place of honour in the hierarchy of gahs; if one of them stands
higher than another, the preceding passage is not applicable to all
of them taken together. Furthermore, according to Faustus, the
first gah belonged to the prince of Angeltun. Presumably the bdesys
did not enter into the hierarchical framework established for the
other nayarars ; they stood, so to speak, hors ligne, in a special position,

A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE NAXARARDOMS 223

as almost the equals of the king. In this sense, each of them could
be considered as a gu4inty —a senior gah. The bdesys were lesser
kings ruling over royal territories who had originally been independent,
but who had acknowledged the hegemony of the kings of Armenia
from the time of Tigran the Great. The concept of the bdesys as
marcher lords developed much later and was, we believe, suggested
by the structure of the Persian kingdom, which was divided into
four regions under the Sasanians, We have already seen that under
Ausr6 1 the civihan rulers of the four regions were replaced by the

military spahbadhs, and the army was accordingly divided among
them 7°, This transformation also affected the Armenians’ concept
of their own past, the tale of the division of the Armenian army into
four parts is nothing more than an echo of the Persian system. In
imitation of the Persians and under their influence, the Armenians
claimed that under their kings too the military forces of the country
had been divided into four armies corresponding to the four parts
of the world, with the purpose of defending the frontiers of the realm.
Documents such as our Miliary Inst are the literary expression of this
concept. Consequently the Wehiary Inst, τὰ the version which has
reached us, belongs in the period following Xusrd 1 AndSarvan
(531-579) and cannot go back to a period earlier than the seventh
century. Living in this relatively late period when the _ historical
norms of the nayarar system were falling into decay, the author of
the Gahnamak had to rely on literary sources to carry out bis purpose.
The same literary origin is reflected in the artificial grouping of the
naxarar cavalry. At the head of the four groups stand respectively
the bdesys of Gugark‘ and Angettun, and the princes of Siwnik* and
Kadmé. Τὸ is interesting that the house of Kadmé, found in the Ano-
nymous Pseudo-Gahnamak, should be set out on a par with the ruling
house of Siwnik‘ in place of the two other bdesys who have disappeared
from the scene. The remaining nayarar houses are grouped around
these four names without any kind of principrum divisioms. _Xorenaci,
among other Armenian historians, mentions the division of the army
into four corps, and furthermore as is his custom, attributes the iitia-
tive for this to King ArtaSés. He was the one, according to the his-
torian, who divided the Armenian army into four corps: eastern,
western, northern, and southern, and entrusted their command to
his three sons and to the general Smbat 71.

Traces of familiarity with the divisions of the army can also be

224. CHAPTER X

observed in Zenob Glak. He knows that King Trdat, having
repelled the invasion of the King of the North, left there,

... ag marcher lord the Prince of Alnik’ with 4,000 men,
and before that, while awaiting battle and deploying his army,
Trdat had also left two gates as passages and appointed Prince
Bagratuni as gardian of the gates; he entrusted the nght
wing to the Prince of Siwnik, and the left one to the Prince of
Angeltun, but he kept the senior-gah princes as support for
himself 72,

The Prince of Atjnik‘, with four thousand men, and the Princes of
Angettun and Siwnik‘ in their roles of commanders of the left and
right wings of the army, are evidence of the connexion between Zenob
and our Military Inst.

Aorenaci relates that King Vatarsak established the order of the
armies: first, second, third, etc., ... 7%. The subject being considered
here is the military hierarchy, and the historian is undoubtedly referring
to a document similar to ours. It is very possible that m this case
he has the Military Inst in mind. To be sure, the period of Xorenaci,
hke that of Zenob Glak, is still controversial and cannot yet be
established with certainty, nevertheless, their familiarity with the
Inst enhances the value of the latter and permits a significant advance
toward the elucidation of the period in which it appeared.

The evidence on the size of the nayarar forces found in the list
must also be considered in any attemp to determine its date. ‘The
numerical indications of the Gahnamak are its most interesting and
original feature. There is no basis for supposing that the figures
given in it are fictitious, since in the matter of figures the Gahnamak
relies on relatively trustworthy historical materials 73,

The army corp of Siwnik* consists of 21 houses with 21,000
knights,

that of Gugark* — of 22 families with 18,000 knights,

that of Angettun — of 21 families with 24,000 knights,

that of Kadmé — of 22 families with 21,000 knights.

A total of 84,000 knights.

If, however, we do not count the princely families which lay outside
Marzpan Armenia, and restrict ourselves to the circle of nayarar
clans indicated in the Gahnamak of Sahak, we obtain:

A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE VNAXARARDOMS 225

In the first group — 7 families with 19,000 knights,

in that of Gugark‘ — 16 families with 7,800 knights (minus
the 3,000 of Kaspé),

in that of Angelttun — 13 families with 8,200 knights (minus

the 4,000 of Arcay),

in that of Kadmé — 15 familes with 6,000 knights.

A total of 51 families with 41,900 knights (exclusive of the
7,000 doubtful cases).

Although we cannot verify the numerical evidence of the Gahnamak,
insofar as we can judge from the scanty mformation scattered through
historical literature, it is not far from the truth.

According to the evidence of Agat‘angetos, the army of the Ar-
menians numbered more than 70,000 in the days of King Trdat IIT τὰ
As many men were counted under his son and successor Xosrov I,
whose general Databey took along an army of 40,000 in his campaign
against the rebellious bdesy of Atjmik*. Because of the treachery
of its commander, this army was defeated by the Persians, and King
A osrov set out against the latter at the head of 30,000 men 7. It is
of course unimportant whether all 40,000 men really perished or
whether this is an exaggeration of the author, what matters is his
estimate of the forces of the king as 40,000 plus 30,000, or altogether
70,000 men, that is to say, exactly as many as had been in the army
of Trdat. 3 |

Commanders of the Armenian army had forces of between 10 and
120 thousand men at their disposal. During his continuous wars
against the Persians, Vasak Mamuikonean attacked and defeated
innumerable hordes of the enemy with now 12 biwrk‘ (120,000) men,
now 60,000, now 40,000, now 70,000, now 30,000, and occasionally
11 or even 10,000 men at his disposal 7°, Another general, Musei Ma-
mikonean, had only 40,000 picked men. In the battle of Mount Nipha-
tes on the Euphrates, MuSet succeeded in collecting up to 90,000 men.
As many men were under his command at the battle of Ganjak. After
he had ceded part of his army to the Mardpet Gilak for the defense
of the Armenian border on the side of Atropatené, MuSel was left
with 30,000 men 7?, In the time of troubles under Varazdat, Manuel,
MuSel’s successor could barely gather 20,000 men, and on another
occasion only 10,000 78. If we compare these figures with the Gah-
namak, ἴὰ which the nayarar forces together with those of the king
and the cavalry of Mardpetakan add up to 120,000, we can affirm

220 CHAPTER X

with assurance that under the Christian Arsacids, Armenia was able
to put up to 120,000 knights in the field.

In the period of Marzpan rule, the nayarar cavalry shrank to
30,000 men. Vahan Mamikonean, in spite of Lazar P‘arpeci who
deliberately diminishes the forces of this famous warrior for greater
effect, had up to 30,000 admirably armed soldiers, as is admitted
by the more truthful Sebéos 7°. Under Xusr6 IJ Abharvéz, the
Marzpan of Armenia also disposed of 30,000 men, according to the
account of John Mamikonean 89, It is interesting to note that
in the version of Zenob, Trdat III had an army of 30,000 men as
against the figure of 70,000 given by Agat‘angelos. Here we have
evidence of the late date of composition of Zenob’s work in comparison
with that of Agat’angetos 81. According to the information of
the Byzantine historian Procopius, in 531, the Persian king Kavadh
sent against the Emperor an army which, “... was composed of
Persarmenians and Sunitae whose land adjoins that of the Alani ”’,
a.e. of forces from Siwnik‘ and other districts of Armenia 8. This
army, according to the same author, was composed exclusively of
cavalry, and numbered up to 30,000 men, of whom 3,000 were Huns.
This valuable information of a non-Armenian source serves as corro-
boration for the thesis that the cavalry forces of Marzpan Armenia
included up to 30,000 men.

In the period of Arab domination, this number was reduced
by half. At the time of the conquest of Armenia by the
Arabs, a treaty was concluded between the conquerors and
the Armenians, one of whose clauses required the Armenians
to maintain a cavalry of 15,000 men 83. The country found the
maintenance of a large cavalry force burdensome, and its reduction
by the Arabs was considered to be a concession on their part. This
obligation apparently remained in force in the subsequent periods
of Arab domination as well. According to the account of Lewond,
at the height of Marwan’s struggle for the throne in the mid-eighth
century, his enemies were defeated, when the Armenian prince ASot
Bagratuni came to Syria, the scene of the war, to see Marwan on matters
related to Armenia; this happened because the news had reached
them that, the Armenian patrician with 15,000 picked knights
had come to Marwan’s assistance 884, The size of A8ot’s cavalry
contingent was undoubtedly determined by the terms of the treaty
mentioned above. Thus, the military forces of Armenia were gra-
dually declining from the time of the overthrow of the Arsacid dynasty.

A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE NAXARARDOMS 227

Consequently, we should conclude that the Melitary Inst is a faithful
account of the conditions existing in the royal period of Armenian
history, since it reckons the forces of the country at 120,000 knighis.

We do not have sufficient evidence to check the accuracy of the
Military Insi’s apportionment of knights among the various princes.
References to small detachments under the command of this or that
prince can be found in historical sources, but such information 1s
insufficient to give us a clear picture of the subject *5. According
to Faustus, King Xosrov II οἵ. Armenia decreed after the episode of
Prince Databey that,

... the greater magnates : the nayarars who were possessors
and lords an entire province, those with 10,000 down to 1,000
men, should reside at court 88,

According to another historian, the Emperor Maurice, backing the
Persian king Xusr6 II Abharvéz, sent to his assistance an Armenian
detachment of 15,000 knights; this army was composed of nayarar
regiments from 100 to 1,000 men, each of which was a separate corp
with its own standard 87, The earliest historian, Faustus, indicates
that there were nayarars disposing of 10,000 knights, while others
had 1,000 men apiece. If we take the expression of Sebéos,
{up fipuinp, Suqmpoinp” i the same sense as Faustus (and not
in the sense of the subdivision of the army into groups of 100 and
1,000), we can take as proven the thesis that the distribution of the
naxyarar army into groups of 1,000; 100, and 50 knights, found m
the Military List, was not due to the fantasy of a literary romancer
but was based on a historical foundation.

After this discussion, we can proceed to a discussion of the docu-
ments themselves. The realistic and historically accurate features
found in them are not in themselves sufficient to prove the official
origin claimed by these documents. Let us even concede that both
documents reproduce a known historical situation, yet are they,
themselves, official documents or literary creations? The previous
discussion has already suggested the answer to this question, If
we look closely at the order of nayarar families in the Gahnamak,
we note a close resemblance between it and the listing of princes in
azar P’arpeci and Ehsé. Indeed, if we omit from the Gahnamak
the Satrap of Cop‘k‘ and the prince of Kaspé, and compare the re-

a?

228 CHAPTER X

maining list to that of the participants at the Council of 450 according
to Lazar, we observe the following pattern:

Gahnamak Lazar P’arpect
1. The Prince of Siwnik‘ The Prince of Siwnik‘
2. The Aspet — (Bagratuni)
3. Arcruni Arcruni
4. Matyaz Matyaz
5. Mamikonean Mamikonean
6. Mokagi Vahewuni
7. R8stuni Mokaci _
8. Vah(ew)uni ------- (R&stuni)
9. Anjewacl Anjewacl
10. Apahuni Apahuni
11. Kamsarakan The Prince of Vanand
12. The Prince of Vanand Argaruni = Kamsarakan
13. Amatuni Amatuni
14. Prince of Goltn
15. Gnuni Gnuni

Several names have been added at this point to Lazar’s list, but
they do not coincide with those in the Gahnamak. ‘This is to be
explained by the mcomplete state of Lazar’s list resulting from the
absence of many princes from the Council. This is likewise the
explanation for the absence of the Bagratuni and R&tuni princes
from Lazar’s list. Τίτος Bagratuni disapproved of the undertaking
and did not come to the Council, but the very fact that he is named
first in the list of renegades, however, indicates that he would have
occupied the second place at the Council had he been present 88,
Prince R&tuni was likewise absent.

Since the two colums coincide mutatis mutandis, the Gahnamak
reflects the hierarchical order of the fifth century, but it does not
follow from this that the document itself belongs to this period. The
Gahnamak right have been written on the basis of Lazar’s work.
Such an interpretation is made impossible, however, by the fact
that the Gahnamak cannot be derived from Lazar in toto; 1t contains
features which cannot be found either in Lazar or in any other literary
document 8°. It is more plausible that the author of the Gahnamak,
interested in his country’s past, composed a typical Gahnamak on
the basis of the literary materials available to him at the time, the
work of Lazar among other. Since the Gahnamak goes back to a

A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE NAXARARDOMS 229

period earlier than that of Xorenaci, 1t almost attaims the importance
of an official document as far as we are concerned.

Some help in determining the period in which the Gahnamak made
its appearance can be found in the tale of Andok cited earlier’9*, In.
this tale the name Gahnamak of Agat‘angetos is given to the list of
princes who accompanied St. Gregory to Caesarea for his episcopal
ordination. The author of the tale is not acquainted with our
Gahnamak; otherwise he would not have failed to refer to it in such
a suitable context as the inquiry of Sahpuhr about the gahs of the
Armenian princes, Consequently, should we not assume a date for
the creation of the Gahnamak later than that of the story? The
tale itself cannot be accepted as the work of Peter of Siwnik‘, in spite
of the testimony of his compatriot Stephen Orbelean, so that for
the time being it can only be interpreted in connexion with the History
of Caspian Atbania. The compilatory nature of this work is
unquestionable, hence, the question of the relation of the tale to the
History reduces itself in effect to the following point: to which stage
in the History should we assign the tale? The core and older com-
ponents of the History of Caspian Atbamia are found in the pages
treating the journey of the Kat‘ohkos Viroy to the Prince of the
Khazars in 628, which were written by an eyewitness of the events
he describes °°. These are narrated in Book II of the Hasiory, which
opens with the story of Andok. It is natural to suppose that the
᾿ tale also goes back to a period no later than the events described
in this book, 1.6. to the seventh century. The problem can also be
approached from the other side, through the identification of the list
mentioned in the story under the name of the Gahnamak of Agat‘-
angetos, Let us then determine the nature of this Gahnamak.

In the History of Agat‘angelos there is still another list which
contains the names of the princes who composed Trdat III’s retinue on
his journey to Rome 998, Both these lists can be called lists of dignities
only as the result of a misunderstanding. In the story of Andok,
the first of these lists, called Gahnamak by the author, is made up of
sixteen families. There are seventeen cushions in the story probably
because the king was also included in the list. It is surprising that
the Prince of Siwnik‘ is listed as eleventh in rank by Agat‘angelos,
while in the story he is assigned the fourteenth place. in the Arabic
version of Agat‘angelos, however, the kings of Georgia, Abkhazia,
and Aibania are listed ahead of the list, and the prices are enumer-

280 CHAPTER X

ated thereafter. If we add the three kings to the list, the prince of
Siwnik® does go down to fourteenth place. This fact suggests that
the author of the story did not use our version of Agat‘angelos, but
rather an older form of the text corresponding to the newly discovered
Arabic version 93,

The sixteen princes are listed here as follows:

Armeman and Greek Arabic Agat‘angetos: 953
Agat‘angetos: 95
1. The Prince of Angeltun The Prince of Angettun
2. The Prince of Atjnik‘, the The Prince of Alynik‘, the
Great bdesy Great bdesy 94
3. The Mardpet The Mardpet 98
4, The Aspet The Aspet 58
5. The Sparapet The Sparapet (Mamikonean)
6. The Prince of Kordovit The Prince of Kordovit 97
7. The Prince of Covp‘ The Prince of Covp‘
8. The Prince of Gargar, the The Prince of Gargar, the
other bdesy other bdesy
9. The Prince of RStunik‘ The Prince of RStunik‘
10. The Prince of Mokk* The Prince of Mokk‘ 98
11. The Prince of Siwnik‘ The Prince of Siwnik‘
12. The Prince of Cawdé The Prince of Cawdé 99
13. The Prince of Utik‘ The Prince of Κ΄
14, The Prince of Zarawand The Prince of Zarawand
and Her and Her
15. The Jfatyaz The Matyaz (Xoryorunik’)
16. The Prince of Arcrunik‘ The Prince of Arcrunik‘

The only point at which this lst coincides with our Gahnamak is
at the listing of the Mamikonean, who occupy the fifth place in both,
a coincidence which we believe to be accidental. If we look more
closely at this list, we can observe that of 16 princes, 8 correspond to
districts found in the Armenian Geography: Atjnik‘, Koréek‘, Gugark‘,
Mokk'‘, Siwnik*, Cawdk‘, or Sawdk‘ (= Arcay), Uti, Zarewand and
Her (= Parskahbayk‘) 2. The other 8 are representatives of the
central provinces known jointly as Tanutérakan. We have already
seen the subsequent partition of the Tanutér lands, but this list is
still unacquainted with these subdivisions; it merely records the
difference between Mardpetakan and Vaspurakan, in the narrow
sense, in terms of the representatives of the Arcruni and R&tuni
houses. ‘The portion of the Tanuter lands later called Taruberan is
represented here by the Mamikonean and the Xoryofuni. There

A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE NAXARARDOMS 231

are no representatives from Ayrarat; as the domain of the Arsacids —
it is represented by the king in person. Part of 1t, however, Bagre--
wand with the adjoming Kogovit, has the Bagratid prince as a repre-
sentative.

The princes hsted here reflect the situation present at the end of
the sixth century, and coincides with the divisions which had existed
in Armenia before the composition of the Armenian Geography. The
list bears a tendentious stamp; the author wished to associate it with
the ordination, and in general with the activities of the Illuminator
of most of Armenia. We learn from Faustus of other occasions on
which the princes accompanied a patriarchal candidate to Caesarea
for the same purpose, but we cannot find a similar selection among
the attendants. The composition of Agat‘angetos evidently belongs
to the period when the name of the Illuminator served as a rallying
slogan for the unification of the country under the leadership of the
Armenian Church. The use of Gregory’s name as a means of propa-
ganda began with the Council of 555, where it served anti-Nestorian
purposes, which shifted imperceptibly but logically to anti-Chalce-
donianism, and to anti-dyophisitism in general. The break in Armeno-
Iberian church relations at the turn of the sixth to the seventh centuries
marks the moment when anti-Nestorianism was transmuted into
anti-Chalcedonianism as a consequence of the altered political situation.
In 612 a Council met at the court of the Persian king Xusrd Il to
settle the quarrels of the Monophysites and the Nestorians. The
contest ended in the defeat of the latter. Representatives of the
Armenian Church, such as the future Kat‘ohkos Komitas, here Bishop
of the Mamikonean, and Mattew, Bishop. of the Amatuni, were also
present at this Council; according to an Armenian historian, “
they took with them ready for use the Book of Saint Gregory” 1°.
Hence, by this time, the version of Agat‘angelos, preserved in the
Arabic version and reflecting an anti-Nestorian attitude as against
the anti-Chalcedonian version of the Armenian Agat‘angelos that
has reached us, was already available.

The Arabic version of Agat‘angelos demonstrates that the list
of 16 princes was already found in the anti-Nestorian recension of
this work. The story of Andok in the History of Caspian Atbama
goes back to the period 628-630, thus making it possible for its author
to use the specifically anti-Nestorian version of the list. At the
same time the absence of any mention of the Gahnamak of Sahak I,

232 CHAPTER X

in this story in spite of the appropriate context, proves that this
Gahnamak was not yet known to lSiterature. Consequently the
Gahnamak which has come down to us must have been composed in
a period later than the middle of the seventh century, especially
in view of its unofficial origin.

The Mihiary inst is still later in date and hkewise unofficial in
origin. The symetrical grouping into 2] and 22 families 15 sufficient
evidence of its artificial creation. The document reproduces the
conditions of the Arsacid period in its calculation of cavalry contin-
gents, while the influence of sixth century Sasanian regulations is
reflected in its subdivision into four groups or wings. The literary
character of the Jvst is the only explanation possible for such ana-
chronisms. The relation of the Jnst to Xorenaci must also be taken
into consideration in determining the period to which it belongs.
A link connecting the imst with the Armenian historian can be seen
in his account of the marcher princes. According to Xorenaci, the
defense of the realm was one of the concerns of the Arsacid king
Vadarsak, and frontier commanders were appointed for this purpose.
In the east, “... at the limits of the Armenian language, these were
the Princes of Sisakan and Kadmé” 1; in a careful definition. the
historian places Sisakan to the east and Kadmé to the south, near
Assyria 105, Jn the north, “.,. on the side of the Caucasian moun-
tains ”’, the defense was entrusted to the mighty house of the Bdesy of
Gugark‘ 193, The commander in the west was the Prince of Angeltun
though at certain times this office was taken over by the Bagratid
princes 104, ‘The disagreement found here can be explained by the
influence of the Anonymous Hisiory which identifies Angel and Ba-
gatat. Finally the historian also mentions the mighty bdesy who is
marcher lord of the south-west, 2.6. Atjnik‘ 1%,

Similarly in the Miliary Inst the commanders of the four gates
are respectively the Princes of Siwnik*, Kadmé, Gugark‘, and Atjnik‘
— Anget— Bagarat. The similarity is beyond question, but it is
not clear whether Xorenaci is dependent on the [δὲ or, vice-versa,
the Inst reflects the influence of the historian. The words of Xorenaci
regarding the ranks present m the army (ἰμυ μη Ρ ἡβδιπιπρμηι θ bmg)
indicate that he was familiar with some document similar to our
fast, but the relation of this work to the ἰδὲ is unknown. It 18
possible that a catalogue of the nayarar cavalry was in existence,
and that this catalogue was subsequently re-worked into the Mrhiary

A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE NAXARARDOMS 233

Iast which has come down to us. Whatever the circumstances,
a military catalogue was known to Xorenaci in one form or another.

The calculation of nayarar contingents, was apparently intended
to serve as a guide in the drawing up of the Gahnamak. The criterion
of power is the lnk between the Gahnamak and the Military Last.
This criterion makes it possible to interpret the Preface of the Gahna-
mak, but what is the sense given in the Preface to the Ramakan nama
which Sahak had seen in the royal diwan, and what is the relation
between the Ramakan nama and the Gahnamak of which this is the
Preface ?

There is no basis for the hypothetical correction, vramakan for
framakan, suggested by Emin, accepted by Alan, and rightly rejected
by Professor Khalateants 1%«, He, in turn, derives famakan {πὲ διμ με)
from the Persian word 7am, Arm. eram (fpunt), meaning “ rabble,
crowd’, whence the Armenian famk (nwihl) “common people,
peasants "ἡ and the Pehlevi *amak, having the same meaning. Ac-
cording to this interpretation, the Ramakan nama was, “the list or
book of the taxable classes”’, as against the Gahnamak, which was
the catalogue of the nobility. If, on the basis of the opening words
of the Preface, we assume that the Ramakan nama is related to the
Gahnamak, the explanation of Professor Khalatiants becomes un-
acceptable, and we are more inclined to connect the Ramakan nama
with the Miltary Inst. Etymological meaning of famakan {πιμῖδμν ἢ μι)
in no way hinders this interpretation. Even without deciding a priors
whether or not eram, eram-ak (punt, Epui—wh) is of the same origin
as fam, ramik (nut, πιιδβὴ), we beleve that the meaning of tamak
is determined with sufficient precision on the basis of the Pehlevi
ramak and the Armenian eram-ak (fpmwi—ml), “herd”. The word
ramak which has the general sense of “ crowd, collection (of people
or animals) ’’, takes on the sense of a “ group of soldiers, detachment
of cavalry ’’, in the expression Ramakan nama. According to this
interpretation, the term with which we are concerned meant “ The
Book of Contingents’’’, with ramakan as the genitive plural of ramak
rather than an adjective derived from fam; consequently, it was
the exact synonym of Xorenaci’s vast (μιμ»ιπὴ 1066.) The evolution
of meaning from famak to famk, from “ crowd” to “ people’’, is
admirably illustrated by the analogous relation of the Russian p‘lk’
to the German volk.

According to our interpretation, the Preface of the Gahnamak

294 CHAPTER X

now becomes pertectly understandable: Sahak knew of the existence
of a Ramakan nama, i.e. of a catalogue of nayarar contingents, and
he petitioned for the regularization of the hierarchy of Armenian
gahs, that is to say for the drawing up of a Gahnamak or Throne List
which would presumably correspond to the data in the earller document
which was the Military Inst.

ΧΙ
TERRITORIAL ANALYSIS OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM

The nayarardom as a territorial unit — Nayarar lands in general — Patronymic
and toponymic nomenclature in the survey of the principalities —- The border princi-
palities — The distribution of nayarar houses in the central provinces — Ayrarat
in the Armenian Geography: — The origin of territorial divisions and the development
of naxarardoms — Basean, Sirak, Ayrarat par excellence, and Bagrewand as the posses-
sions of the houses of Basean, Kamsarakan, Argakuni, and Bagratuni — Minor princi-
palities within the sphere of influence of the Kamsarakans, and on the territory of the
Arsacids: their locations — Bagrewand and Kogovit — Taruberan in the Armenian
Geography — Its principal divisions: Tarén and Tayk‘ — The transfer of Tardn to
the Mamikonean — The adjacent principalities: Arsamunik‘ and the Arsamids, Aspa-
kuneae jor and Xoyt’ — Hark‘, the possession of the Manawazean — The princi-
palities of Apahunik‘, Xoryorunik‘, and Bznunik‘, and their relation to Hark‘ — Other
minor principalities — Vaspurakan in the Armenian Geography — Critical note on
its composition — Position of the 18 original gawars — Additional subdivisions —
Chief princely houses: RStuni in Tosp, Arcruni in the Albak, Wardpets in Mardastan —
The connexion of the Mardpets and the Arcruni — The Amatuni in Artaz — The
grouping of the remaining principalities around the leading houses.

Wherever the nayarar system had spread in it, Armenia consisted
of a network of independent territorial units or separate principalities.
After our study of nayarar houses, an investigation of the corresponding
territorial units is equally imperative, since land was the main basis
of the nayarar system. The setting of boundaries of the nayarar
holdings and the determination of their locations and interrelations
should be considered an indispensable step toward the understanding
of the nature and complicated genis of the nayarar system. In the
strict sense, Nayarar Armenia corresponded to Arsacid Armenia.
Although nayarar customs survived in both parts of Armenia even
after the partition of the Arsacid realm, they were preserved better
and longer in the Persian portion as a result of the prevailing political
conditions; at least the information which has reached us is fuller for
this part of Armenia. Hven Xorenaci, the first historian of the
naxarars, studied primarily the nayarardoms within the limits of
Eastern or Marzpan Armenia, 1.6. within the teritory bounded by
Gugark’, Aljnik’, Siwnik’, and Kadmé. Our quantitative study of
naxarar clans was also limited in the main to Marzpan Armenia.

236 CHAPTER XI

A comparison of the toponymy with naxarar patronymics shows a
close connexion between the two. The princely houses either bore
regional names. or, on the contrary, gave the family name to their
district. A parallel study of geographic and nayarar names supplies
important data for the classification of nayarar clans according to
their hereditary evolution 5.

The border provinces of Marzpan Armenia: Siwnik’, Mokk’, and
Tayk’, were in the hands respectively of the pricely houses of Siwnik’,
Mokk’ and Mamikonean. The remaining clans were scattered over
the territory bound by these provinces. According to the Armeman
Geography, this territory was split into three large units: Ayrarat,
Taruberan, and Vaspurakan. Although this division was estabished
after the period which is of immediate interest to us, we will make
use of it for convenience in presenting the material.

In Ayrarat, the Armenian Geography lists sixteen districts or gawars :

1 Basean [Bagsen]
Gabeteank‘
Abeteank‘
Hawunik‘
5 Arsarunik‘
Bagrewand
Catkunik* [Catkotn]
Vanand
Sirak
10 Aragacotn (the foothills of Aragac)
Nig
Kogovit (the valley of Kog)
The Armenian Ostan [Ostan Hayoe]
Urcajor (the cleft of Ure)
15 Arac
arur },

Ancient authors were not acquainted with Ayrarat in the same sense
as the Armenian Geography. It is very importaxt to clarify the
genesis of the geographical divisions, since these divisions were deter-
mined by the development of the nayarardoms and consequently
shed hght on the rise and fragmentation of the nayarar houses.
Classical authors are familiar with Phasiané-Basean, Sirakené-Sirak,
Bagravandené-Bagrewand, and the Plain of the Araxes ("Apafnvor
πεδίον), by which name we should understand the Plain of the Araxes
in the narrower sense of the word 2. Armenian documents older than

TERRITORIAL ANALYSIS OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 237

the Armenian Geography, usually give the name of Ayrarat to the
eastern half of the later Ayrarat, from the valley of the Ayurean
[Arpa cayi] to the Plain of Sarur. The ᾿Αραξηνὸν πεδίον corresponds
literally to the Armenian Erasyajor, which is the given to the part of
the Araxes valley bordering on Sirak and later re-named ArSarunik’.

Faustus, the historian of the royal period, mentions Vanand and
Argarunik’ in addition to the four districts already named 35. Vanand
was formerly part of Basean and was called Upper Basean, as 1¢ still
is by Xorenaci, but in the Arsacid period it separated from Basean
to form a separate principality. In the same way, ArSarunik’ was
formed from the border strip of the Araxes which was formerly included
in Ayrarat and Sirak. All these division were not only geographical
but also political units in the royal period, and were under the rule
of autonomous princely families. Basean, Vanand, Sirak, and Arga-
runik’ were ruled respectively by princes bearing the same name,
Ayrarat, within the limits indicated, was the domain of the Arsacids par
excellence, while Bagrewand, we are told, belonged to the Bagratids 2».
At a later date, Sirak passed to the Kamsarakan princes. The house
of Kamsarakan was descended from the Arsacids, and probably
established itself first m Erasyajor, which was called ArSarunik’,
presumably after its first ruler ArSawir, from that time on; subse-
quently, the family extended its power over neighbouring Sirak as
well2se, Part of Sirak belonged to a branch of the princely house of
the Dimak‘sean known as the Dimak‘sean of Sirak to distinguish it
from the other branch of the family, the Dimak‘sean of Buya, who
came from the district of Buya near Vanand 24,

Sirak occupied the valley of the Ayurean between Vanand and
Ayrarat, and is now called Soragyal [Siiregel] from the Armenian
Sirak-gawar or Sirak-awan. Basean, now Pasen, lay on the upper
courses of the Araxes as far as the ancient Salk’ora, 2.6. almost
to the present [1908] Russo-Turkish frontier*. According to the
description of the Armeman Geography, the principalities of Abeleank’,
Hawnunik’, and Gabeteank* lay along the Araxes between Basean
and Arsarunik’, of these, the first two lay on the left bank of the
river, and the third on the right *®, According to the geographi-
cal location, these principalities are to be identified primarily with
Argarunik’. The three districts with their center Kalzwan [Kasgiz-
man], the ancient Kaizwan, still form a separate district called Caldiran,
similarly the former Basean, Vanand and Sirak now make up the separate
districts of Pasin[ler], Taytin, and Siiregel 3».

238 CHAPTER XI

Faustus, the historian of the Arsacids, never mentions the prin-
cipalities of Abeleank*, Gabeleank‘, and Hawnunik’, which are well
known from subsequent sources. Should this not mean that in
the royal period these small principalities were unknown, and that
their lands entered into the composition of Argarunik’ politically as
well as territorially? In such a case, they must be considered as
branches of the mighty house of Kamsarakan, and their emergence
and political emancipation must date from the troubled period of
the disintegration of royal power in Armenia. We can see that the
influence of the Kamsarakans grew toward the Araxes in the direction
of Basean from the fact that the castle of Bot in Basean belonged to
them in the sixth century®». The principality of ASock* also adjoined
the possessions of the Kamsarakans; it occupied the northern corner
of Sirak in which the source of the Ayurean is located 4.

Ayrarat was the domain or Osian of the Arsacids [Arsakuni]. It
was composed of the following gawars [districts]: Aragacotn, Nig,
Varaznunik’, Mazaz, Kotayk’, the Ostan of Dwin, Ure, Arac, Sarur,
Cakatk’, and Maseacotn 4%. Of these, the last two lay on the southern
bank of the Araxes between Kotb (now Kulp) and the summit of
Mt. Ararat. The other gawars were located on the northern bank,
and their position was determined by the course of the tributaries of
the Araxes. The upper course of the K’asat river formed Nig, now
Abaran [Aparan], the rest of the river and the foothills of the Aragac
[Alagéz] belonged to Aragacotn (literally the foot of Aragac). Varaz-
nunik’ (now Darachichak) lay at the source of the Hrazdan-Zanga ;
lower along the same river was Kotayk’ (now Zangi-bazar). The upper
course of the Azat-Garni river was occupied by Mazaz (now Garni-
bazar); lower down lay the osian of Dwin. Ure and Arac were found
along the Vedi river, and beyond them the Plain of Sarur stretched
all the way to the limits of Nayijewan 4». Many of these subdivisions
of Ayrarat are not mentioned in the ancient sources before the Ar-
menian Geography ; it would be rash, however, to see in this an argument
for their late origin. Kotayk’, for example, was already known to
Ptolemy, but the first reference to it in Armenia is found in Sebéos,
in the seventh century 45. There can hardly be any doubt that the
other names also go back to a period earlier than that of Sebéos.
The reason for their absence in the older documents must be sought
in the fact that these divisions, devoid of any political significance,
were purely topographical in character, whereas the Armenian writers

TERRITORIAL ANALYSIS OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 239

of the Marzpan period speak primarily of those geographical divisions
of Armenia which were simultaneously political and nayarar units.

The province of Ayrarat, within the limits given, was the domain —
of the Arsacids, and was therefore a single unit from the political
point of view. The appearance of small nayarar houses in Arsacid
Ayrarat must be assigned to the period following the fall of the Arsacids,
Among these, Ure and Arac already emerge as separate principalities
in Hhsé 44, Prince Varaznuni is mentioned at the Council of 555.
According to Xorenaci the possessions of the princely house of Varaz-
nuni were to be found along the Hrazdan river, the present Zanga,
consequently the historian derives the Varaznuni family from a
descendent of Garnik, the son of Gelam, who was the ancestral founder
of the adjacent province of Gelark’unik’®. According to these

indications, VaraZnunik’ coincides with the plain of the upper branch
of the Zanga river, and corresponds to the modern Darachichak (the
Flowering Plain), which is a translation of its middle-Armenian name,
Catkunik* 5, :

According to the same author, the Princes Gnt’uni lived near the
VaraZnuni, not far from the Lake [Sevan] ἢ. The inscription of a
certain prince Gregory Gnt’uni has been discovered in the ruins of
an, ancient church on the banks of the Kasai mver in Abaran. On
the basis of this inscription, we must admit that Abaran, the ancient
Nig, was the patrimony of the Gnt’uni nayarars 8.

South of Abaran, in the valley of the same KaSat river still stands
the historic village of OSakan, which was ruled by the princes Amatuni.
hazar P’arpeci notes that this village belonged to the Amatuni 9.
Xorenaci asserts that OSakan had passed to this family under king
Aostov II Kotak, who gave it to Vahan Amatuni as a reward for his
valiant repulse of the mountaineer bands of King Sanésan, but Faustus
does not mention the presentation of OSakan to prince Amatuni in
his account of these events. Xorenaci considers the Amatuni to
have been immigrants from the Hast, i.e. from Persia, and places
their appearance in Armenia under King Artasés, but he leaves us
in ignorance as to the home of the Amatuni family in the period
between Artasés and Xosrov Kotak 2°, We shall see that the Amatuni
first Lived in the district of Artaz and subsequently moved from it to ~
OgSakan. By Xorenaci’s time OSakan was already in the possession
of the Amatuni, and the historian, guessing a posteriori, set the origin
of their ownership in the period of Sanésan’s raid, which he knew
from the History of Faustus 195,

240 CHAPTER XI

An inscription has been preserved on an ancient church of the
village of Mastara, at the foot of the Aragac, on the border of Sirak.
This inscription states that the church was built in the days of Bishop
Theodore Gnt’uni4'. Its existence clarifies a reference found in the
Life of Si. Nersés, according to which the Gnuni were to be numbered
among the nayarars of Sirak 12, and proves beyond doubt the connexion
of the Gnuni house with the localities situated at the foot of the
Aragac. We know from Thomas Arcruni that in his time the Gnuni
were living in Ah-ovit, on the shores of Lake Van. Thomas calls
Arée8, the chief city of the district, « ... the city of the gawar of the
Gnunik’ 2», Xorenaci, on the other hand, points out that Sahapivan
had formerly belonged to the Gnuni, but later passed to the Arsacids 14,
Sahapivan is located within the boundaries of Kogovit and seems to
have been a temporary stopping place in the move of the Gnumi from
the shores of Lake Van to Ayrarat, or possibly in the opposite di-
rection. According to Xorenaci, the Gnuni served as butlers at
court, and had to live close to the royal court, namely in Ayrarat,
to perform their duties. Consequently, from Xorenaci’s point of view,
the problem of the priority of Gnuni establishments is resolved in
favour of Ayrarat 145,

According to Xorenagi, court functions were also incumbent upon
the nayarardoms of the Spanduni and the Jiwnakan, and these should
be sought in the vincinity of the royal ostan. In his attribution of
hereditary offices at the Arsacid court to nayarar families, the historian
seems to derive these offices from the etymology of the family names.
The opposite conclusion seems more valid, however, namely that
evidence of the geographical closeness of a given nayarardom to the
court had an unquestionable influence on etymological associations
and derivations. If, for example, the Gnuni had lived very far from
the Arsacid osian, Xorenaci would hardly have derived the name
Gnuni from gini « wine», in order to bestow upon that house the
honorific office of royal butler, or supplier of choice wines. Xorenaci’s
etymologies are unacceptable in most cases, but they are none the
less interesting since they reflect to some degree the territorial relations
between the nayarardoms and the osian or royal domain 15.

Sebéos also mentions the Atawelean and the Atawenean together
with the Varagznuni, Gnt’uni, and Spanduni among the nayarars
living within the borders of Ayrarat. According the Xorenaci, the
Avawenean were descended from the ancient kings, and the Atawelean

TERRITORIAL ANALYSIS OF THE NAXSARAR SYSTEM 241

from the Alan relatives of the Princess Sat‘enik, who had come to
Armenia with her, and had been listed among the nayarars. Whatever
its accuracy, this explanation proves that the two families lived in
the royal ostan of Ayrarat, though we lack exact information as to
the precise locations 15,

The possessions of Prince Saharuni were also found im Ayrarat,
on the border of Sirak. The village of Sahatunik’ is mentioned in
an inscription of the Bagratid king Smbat SahinSah [Yovhannés-
Smbat, 1030-1040], dating from 1037. The inscriptions proclaims
that the king gave this village to the monastery of Hotomos, the
ancestral burial place of the Bagratids1’. In addition to this, we
know that David Saharuni, Curopalates of the Imperial portion of
Armenia at the time of the Emperor Heraclius (+ 641), built a church
at Mren 18, It is evident that at that time Mren belonged to the
Sahatuni house. The village of Sahartunik’, the ostan of the princes
of the same name, was probably located between Mren and Hotomos.

Adjoiming Ayrarat from the south, lay Bagrewand, Catkotn, and,
or Kogovit 188, Bagrewand occupied the basin of the two main origi-
nal branches of the Arsanias. The source of the right branch, that is to
say the foothills of the Ala dagi range (ancient Catké) which was called
Caiké-otn, the foot of Caiké 19, Next to it lay Kogovit, on the Maku
river, which is a tributary of the Araxes on the right side 198. One
of the important sites in Bagrewand was the city of Bagawan, where
the Monastery of St John the Baptist [the Precursor], Surb Karapet
now stands 2°, In Kogovit stood the famous fortress of Dariwnk’, now
Bayazet’ [Dogubayazit] 2°, In Catkotn were to be found the fortress
of Angel and the mineral springs of VarSak 21; the springs still exist
near Diyadin, the ancient Tatednk’, but Ang! should apparently be ἡ
sought nearer to the Ala-dagi 22, Faustus is not familiar with
Caikotn; he puts the city of Zarehawan into Bagrewand, together
with Bagawan, while in all the other sources Zarehawan is a city of
Catkotn #8, The latter district probably was not a political unit
and was part of Bagrewand.

In the royal period, Kogovit belonged to the Arsacids, and the
royal treasure was kept there in the fortress of Dariwnk’ 24. In the
seventh century and thereafter, we find Kogovit in the hands of the
Bagratid [Bagratuni] princes; the famous stronghold of Dariwnk’ was
held to be their ostan, and the burial place of the family 35, We do notknow
exactly when the Arsacid possessions passed to the Bagratids. In

242 | CHAPTER XI

Faustus the Bagratid ancestral domain is the district of Sper 35,
Since the Bagratids in the person of Prince Tiroe took part in the
rebellion of the fifth century, albeit on the side of Vasak of Siwnik’,
and since all the participants in this movement were from the Persian
part of Armenia, we must presume that, in addition to. Sper which
lay in Roman Amenia, the Bagratids had another principality in
Persian Armenia, and that Tiroe was the repressentative of the Pers-
armenian Bagratids. Itis possible that the family was already in pos-
session of the district of Kogovit, with the fortress of Dariwnk’, which
had passed to them after the fall of the Arsacids. There is even
some basis for supposing that the Bagratids had lived from ancient
times in these districts, and, if we accept a connexion between Bagrata
and Bagra-vanda, Bagrewand will have to be acknowledged as the
original patrimony of the Bagratids 37, According to some theories
which we shall present when we discuss the origin of the nayarar
houses, the Bagratid dynasty sprang from the borderland of Armenia
adjoming Iran or Atrpatakan. The recognition of Bagrewand as
the original home of the Bagratids agrees with this thesis, since this
district is not far removed from Atrpatakan.

With the spread of Christianity, and the triumph of the cross at
Bagawan, Bagrewand with its shrimes passed to the Church, or
rather to the patriarchal house of St, Gregory the Illuminator.
azar P’arpeci never refers to Bagawan in other terms than as the
house (2.6. the estate of St. Gregory. Although the Kat’olikos Sahak I
died at Valarsapat, he was buried in the village of Blur in Bagrewand,
which evidently belonged to his house 375, In any case, Sper is not
acceptable as the original province of the Bagratids, it is rather an
intermediate point in their move from Armenia to Iberia,

The second province, Taruberan, also consisted of 16 gawars ac-
cording to the Armenian Geography : |

1 Xoyt®
Aspakunik‘ [Aspakuneac jon
Taron
A(r)smunik‘
5 Mardah
Dasnawork* [Gastavor]
Towaracatap‘
Dalat
Hark!
10 Vaznunik‘

TERRITORIAL ANALYSIS OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 243

Bznunik‘
Hréwark‘
Ahovit
Apahunik‘

15 (Kor)
(Xoryorunik’) 28,

Of these, the most outstanding for its antiquity and importance was
Taron, which was already known to classical writers as regio Taurau-
nitium 29; the extent of its fame is attested by the fact that even in
the Armenian Geography Taruberan is identified by a reference to it 2°,

In the period with which we are concerned, Tarén was ruled by
the powerful house of the Mamikonean, whose real province was
Tayk’, as 15 evident from Faustus, who repeatedly calls 1¢ the land of
the Mamikonean 24. The latter then was the ancestral home of the
Mamikonean, but we will speak of this later. We do not know exactly
when the Mamikonean came to Tarén, but we are certain that they
were already there in the fourth century. According to Faustus, the
impregnable fortress of Olakan, on the banks of the Euphrates,
belonged to them, and was the seat of MuSel, the famous Mamikonean
general of King Pap. The same historian says that during the
reign of Argak II, the Mamikonean princes, angry at the king for his
brutal massacre of the princely houses of the Arcruni and Ré&tuni,
left him, and, adds the historian, « ... abandoning their other province
[house],» withdrew to their Sisteios of etd 33, _ Here, «the other
province», must refer to Tarin. Ὁ Bas

Taron also contained ecclesiastical ΠΝ ine he nee visited the
holy places at ASti8at, the Prince Mardpet was enchanted by the
picturesque setting of the residence of Kat’olikos Nersés I, and out of
envy, he began to rebuke King Trdat ΠῚ bitterly because, in Faustus’
own, words, «he had given such lands to people wearing female garb
(2.e. to the clergy) #4», Consequently, one part of Tardn with Olakan
belonged to the Mamikonean, and the other with AStiSat to the
Church, or rather to the family of the kat’ohkos.

According to the evidence of Xorenaci, AStisat had formerly be-
longed to the priestly family of the Vabnuni, but later 1t was taken
from the pagan clergy, so that AStiSat passed to the fisc 85,9 The
truth of the matter is that after Christian shrines had been erected
on the sites of pagan temples, the ancient temple: estates, AStisat
among them, became the property of the Church. The accuracy of

244 CHAPTER XI

this conclusion is also supported by the words of the Mardpet we
have just cited, since he places the transfer of AStiSat to the Church
in the reign of Trdat III, who was the first Christian Arsacid on the
Armenian throne. Xorenaci also asserts that Olakan was originally
the possession of the princes Stkuni. This family was disgraced as
the result of their conspiracy with the Persian king against Trdat III.
The Mamikonean overcame the Stkuni at the order of the Armenian
King, and received their ancestral lands as a reward 86,

It is surprising that Xorenaci does not know that the Mamikonean
possessed Tayk’. In his account of the legendary migration of the
family to Armenia under King Trdat, he does not indicate the place
where they settled. According to his information, Trdat 111 did not
aasign any particular lands to them, but, having received them with
benevolence, «... he gave them a place and the means of life, and he
moved them from place to place for many years, » 2.6. until the episode
with the Stkuni when they inherited the possessions of the latter 57.
In view of the obvious ignorance of the historian concerning the native
province of the Mamikonean, his information as to the date of their
consolidation in Tardn does not inspire particular confidence. It is
possible that the Mamikonean acquired Tardn under Trdat’s son
Aosrov II as part of the estates bestowed by this king on the Sparapet |
Vacté after his vahant defeat of the invasion of King Sanésan 88,
After the death of the Kat’ohkos Sahak 1, the Mamikonean also
inherited the patriarchal holding in Tardn in accordance with his
will 89. The western border of Tardn where it adjoined HaSteank*
was occupied by the princes Paluni 4°.

Adjoining Tar6n were the gawa‘s of Arsamunik’ and Aspakumik’,
which had originally been part of Tardn. Faustus still considered
Argamunik’ a part of Tardn, while in the History of Lazar P’arpeci
it has emerged as a separate district “4. The name of the district is
derived from an Ar’am, who is probably to be connected with the
founder of the city of Arsamosata. An inscription found quite
recently on a column in the Nimrud-dag [Nemrut dag] mountains
in eastern Tardn, likewise mentions a certain king ArS8am 42. The
princely dynasty of the ArSamids apparently ruled im antiquity m
the valley of the Euphrates, and their descendents maintained them-
selves relatively late in the foothills of the Bingél, 2.6. in the region
which has preserved their name. In ancient Armenian literature
Argamunik’ appears exlusively as a géographical term; the house of

TERRITORIAL ANALYSIS OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 245

the Argamids had already died out, and by the fifth century its pos-
sessions were in the hands of the princely house of the Mandakumi 43,

The sources have likewise failed to preserve any knowledge of the
princes of Aspakunik’, Like ArSamunik’, Aspakunik’ is merely a
geographical term and is in fact called « Aspakuneac jor (the valley of
Aspakunik’)» in the Armenian Geography 435. tis one of the mountain
valleys in the vicinity of Xoyt’, and les on the left bank of the Kara-su
(the ancient Met) in the Khandosh [Hagres daglari] mountains opposite
Sasun, Xoyt’ was distinguished from Tardn and from the other regions
of Armenia because of its notoriously barbarous customs and speeches,
and it formed an autonomous district 44,

Another district of Taruberan as important as Tardn was Hark’,
with its center at Manazkert 45; this region was the hereditary pos-
session of the Manawazean house 4585, The adjacent districts of Apa-
hunik’, Xoryorunik’ and Bznunik’ had originally also belonged to the
- province of Hark’, but had later separated from it as the possession
of princes bearing the same names. This evolution is evident from
the National Epic which gives Manawaz, Xor, and Baz, the putative
founders of these houses, as related among themselves : the first two
being the brothers of Hayk, while Baz was the son of Manawaz, and
_Tuling house of Apahunik’ likewise claiming a Haykid origin 46, In
addition to these principalities, Apahunik’ also contained the domain
of the Abrahamean, princes 453,

The Manawazean disappeared without trace as a result of an inter-
necine war against the Ordunis in the reign of King Xosrov II. Both
houses were exterminated at the order of the king, the lands of the
Manawazean were granted to bishop Albianos of Manazkert, and those
of the Orduni to the bishop of Basean 4”. The house of Bznuni came
to an end at the same time with the death of prince Databey, who
was executed for treason. His possessions were confiscated by the
fisc, and seem to have passed subsequently to the bishop of Bznunik’ 48,

According to Faustus, Apahunik’ lay at the foot of a large mountain
named Masik’, and the village of Atorsk’ was located in this dis-
trict 45, The reference here is not to Mount Ararat [Masis], but to
the mountain called Ney Masik‘ m the Armenian: Geography, the
present Sip’an [ρθη dagi]*°, Bznunik’ stretched to the west of
this mountain along the shore of the lake [Van], with Apahunik’ to
the north, and Ahovit to the east. According to the Armenian
Geography, « ... the Aracani [Arsanias] passed through all of Apabunik’

246 CHAPTER XI

to the border of Bznunik’ 5°*», The two gaways were therefore con-
tiguous. Apahunik’ occupied the course of the Arsanias as far as
its westward bend at Manazkert, while Bznunik’ lay south of the river
all the way to Lake Van. Since Manazkert (the present Malazgirt)
stood on the border of Apahunik’ and Hark’, it was consequently
placed by historians now in Apahunik’ and now in Hark’ 5,

The district of Kor was, strictly speaking, a division of Bznunik’,
just as Ahovit was a part of Apabumk’. Below Manazkert the
Kor su empties into the Arsanias on the left out of the small lake of
Bulam; ancient Kor was probably to be found here. Xoryorunik’
lay in the same district now called Bulaney [Bulamik], between Bznunik’
and Kor, in the vicinity of Lake Nazik. The positions of Kor and
Aoryorunik’ remain doubtful, since there is no information about them
in the Armenian Geography 55.

Of the remaining districts, Erewark’ lay along the southern shore
of the Lake [Van] in the neighbourhood of Aljmk’. Mardahk* took
in the sources of the Araxes on the northern slopes of the Bingdl.
East of it stretched in succession Dasnawork’, Towraca-tap’, and
Dalat, above VarazZnunik’ and Hark’, which stretched as far as the
Arsanias. According to this description, Dasnawork’, in the valley of
the Araxes, was next to Mardahk’, Towaraca-tap’ corresponded to the
present Karayazi, Dalat — to the valley of the Elmah, VarazZnunik’ —
to Xnus [Hinis] on the upper course of the tributary of the Arsanias
which flows out of the Bingél, and Hark’ next to it stretched along
the Arsanias 58, The first three contiguous districts apparently
formed the domain of the bishop of Mardahk*‘, historical hterature
knows of no princes from these districts, whereas Varaznunik* was
a principality *4,

The land of Vaspurakan, the third of the central provinces, consisted
of 35 gawars according to the Armenian Geography, though only 32
names are listed 542, There are more gawa/'s 1n it alone than in Ayrarat
and Taruberan taken together. The author of the Geography 15 not
equally informed as to the position of the distmcts; the first 18 are
more familiar to him than the rest. It must be noted that the descrip-
tion of the Armenian provinces found in the Georgaphy is generally
uneven. Of the 15 provinces mentioned, only Ayrarat, Taruberan,
Armenia IV, and Tayk’ are described in detail, the other provinces
are merely listed together with their subdivisions, without any indi-
cation of the position of the latter. This very unevenness can be

TERRITORIAL ANALYSIS OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 247

seen in the description of Vaspurakan. The double treatment is
evidently to be explained by the fact that the author of the Geography
was not equally familiar with all the places he described. The central
provinces are presented incomparably better than the borderlands.
In the short version of the Geography, the uneveness of the description
is not evident because only the names of the districts in each province
are given without the explanatory comment.

In the description of the first 18 gawars, the Armeman Geography
keeps to a definite pattern, The listing is from south to north in
three parallel territorial strips ὅν), The first begins with RStunik’ in the
south and ends with Garni, adjacent to Kogovit at the base of Mt.
Ararat, in the north:

Rstunik*

Tosp

Bodonik‘ [Bodunik*‘]
Artigahovit

Atberani

Garni up to Kogovit *e,

The second strip parallels the first on the eastern side:

Buzunik*

Ainoy-otn, 55
Anjewacik‘
Trpatunik’
Erwandunik*
Mardastan

Artaz up to Kogovit.

The third strip still further to the east but keeping the same pattern :

Aké

Great Atbak

Anjayi-jor

Tontawan

Cowarg-rot up to the Araxes.

The position of these districts is known for the most part. R&tunik’
is the south-eastern shore of Lake γι, with its center at Ostan.
Tosp is the region around the city of Van. AréiSahovit, the valley of
the Arti8ak, lay north of Van in the region of the small Lake Aréak

248 CHAPTER XI

[Hrgek golii] and of the Marmet river which flows past 10 56, Abetan,
more correctly Arberani lay in the northern corner of the lake, along
the Bendimahi gayi, and was later called after its main city Berkn
[Bargiri = Muradiye]. The upper courses of the same river extended
to Garni at the foot of the T’ondrak [Tendiirek dagi] and Gure moun-
tains, which separated Garni from Kogovit, 7.e. from the district of
Bayazet’ 57,

The first districts of the second row: Buzunik’ and Anjewacik’ lay
on the upper course of the Bobtan cayi or Eastern Tigris, where the
present district of Norduz is to be found; furthermore, Anjewacik’
occupied the vicinity of the city of Kangowar, now Kangever and
of the monastery of Hogeac vank’. South of it lay Buzgunik’ and
Atnoyotn, while to the north lay Trpatunik’ and Erwandunik’ on
the upper courses of the XoS8ab [Hogap] river whose valley was known
as the Armenia Gorge, Hayoc Jor 58, Further to the north stretched
Mardastan, from Lake Ergek to Artaz. According to Xorenaci, Artaz
lay to the south-east of Masis-Ararat, and was called Sawargan or
Sawargakan in ancient times. The village of Etind, where Vahan
Mamikonean’s camp had stood at the beginning of his negotiations
with Niyor [VSnaspdat], was in Artaz; it still exists, a few miles
from Maku and is now called Erind [Rint]. Haysun (the ancient
Haciwn) is also found in that district. The position of Artaz, with
Maku as its center, along the Ak-cgay (the ancient Timut), can be
determined from these indications 59.

The third territorial strip runs from the sources of the Zab to the
Araxes. Albak is the present [1908] kaza of Hlbak [Baskale], with
‘the town of Bagkale. South of it lay Aké, and to the north, Anjayi-
jor, on the Kotur gayi (the ancient Kotor), with the city bearimg the
same name as the river. Next to this district and west of Kotor,
lay T’ontawan, with the fortress Nkan, now called Nagan. Sewan,
another historical fortress, which stood in the gorge of the Limb
[Lumb], was also found here. Sewan is to be identified with the -
present Seyvan on the Mehmetik river, which flows into Lake Ergek;
the village of Lim, which is unquestionably to be identified with the
ancient Limb, is still found in this district °°, The plain of Xer [Her],
Aerakan dast, stretched beyond the Anjayijor, and still further lay
Cowat8-rot, where stood Marakan, the winter residence of the princes
of Vaspurakan. Xerakan is to be identified with the district
of the city of Xer, now Xoy, and the lower course of the Kizil gayi

TERRITORIAL ANALYSIS OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 249

(the ancient Karmir get) is now called Xar dast, The village of Mara-
kend, with the same position as Marakan is found on the riverbank ®,

If they were really part of the original version of the Armenian
Geography, the questionable 13 districts would have formed a fourth
territorial strip, with the end-points Kréumk’ and Marand. The
settlement of Kurucan, north of Kotor, may be identified with Kréu-
nik’, and Marand is a well known city in Azerbaijan 585, The remaining
districts should consequently have been found between Xoy and the
Araxes, But, of the 13 districts given, Gokank’ and ArtaSésean are
found in the basin of Lake Van; the first one is to be connected with
the ancient Gokank’ in R&tunik’, and the second with the settlement
of ArtaSésean, not far from Van ®, It is evident, therefore, that
not all 13 districts lay in the area of Xoy, and consequently the hypo-
thesis that they formed the fourth territorial strip must be abandoned.
As a result, our doubt as to the authenticity of their inclusion in the
hist is all the greater ®4, In fact the questionable districts consist for
the most part of small sections or perhaps subdivisions of familiar
districts, and, consequently, are of httle importance for our study.

Thomas Arcruni, the historian of Vaspurakan par excellence, who
was very well informed about the topography of this province, gives
a list of the districts of Vaspurakan when he speaks of the division of
lands between the two brothers Gagik and Gurgen [Arcruni], and at
the same time divides these districts into two groups: north-western
and south-eastern. Concerning the first group, the share of the older
brother Gagik, the historian says that, « ... these famous districts once
made up the possessions of the so-called Prince Mardpet *», The
indication found here that part of Vaspurakan bore in antiquity the
name of the Wardpet, whether or not this part really coincides with
the share of Gagik, which is merely the result of an accidental par-
tition in the ninth century, is very valuable. Here, then, is the land of
Mardpetakan. This name is at times alternately used with the term
Sep’akan, as geographically synonymous. Thus one and the same
person is called bishop of either Mardpetakan or Sep’akan 88, Sep’-
akan, from sepuhr - akan is a relatively newer form of the ancient
va-spuhr-akan. Their simultaneous use in documents must be
explained by the fact that they are not equivalent geographical units ;
one of them is related to the other as a part to the whole 888,

As we shall see, Mard-pet originally meant the head of the Mardians,
that is to say, of the people who inhabited Mard-asian. Later,

250 CHAPTER XI

Mardpet became a family title similar to Aspet, Mayaz, and Sparapet.
With the suppression of the princely house of the Mards, this title
passed to the neighbouring house of the Arcruni, while Mardpetakan
became merely a geographical term ὅν, The Mardpet princes had been
great enemies of the Arcruni their neighbours. Under King Tiran
[Tigran ITI], one of the Mardpeis attempted to exterminate the entire
Arcruni house; only one infant, Sawasp, who later inherited his father’s
possessions, was saved from the slaughter. The Arcruni were slow
to recover from this blow, and, as Faustus remarks, they took no
part in the affairs of the country for a long time &’, It is true that
Savasp avenged himself on the man guilty of his family’s catastrophe
by. killing him *, but the feuds and mutual hatred continued and
resulted in the destruction of the Mardpet’s house, so that it had
ceased to exist by the fifth century. The victors inherited the Mard-
pet’s title together with his possessions. In fact, the historian Lazar
P’arpeci calls Prince Mihr-Sapuh, the Arcruni’s representative in the
rebellion of the fifth century, Prince Arcruni and Mardpet; at the
same point in his History, Hhsé merely gives him the name of Prince
Arcruni ®°, According to Lazar, a «... detachment of military ca-
valry from Mardpetakan», among others, went together with Vardan
Mamikonean, to meet the Persians in Albania, while in the corres-
ponding place in HHS6, mutatis mutandis, appears Prince NerSapuh, 1.6.
the same Mihr-Sapuh Arcruni, presumably at the head of the cavalry
from Mardpetakan 7°, From this equivalence, and from the definite
indication of Lazar, it 15 evident that Mardpet had become the title
of the. Arcruni house.

-. From ancient times, Atbak was held to be the native district of the
Arcruni. Their residence or osian was Hadamakert 71, probably on
the site of the modern town of Bagkale. Lazar and Hhgé distinguish
two branches of the Arcruni family. Ner- or Mihr-Sapuh represented
one of these in the fifth century rebellion, while the representative
of the other was Aprsam. It is reasonable to suppose that one of the
branches ruled Altbak, and uae other Mardpetakan, the inheritance
the Mardpet 7.

The vast province of i assuniee belonged primarily to three or
four noble families : the. Arcruni in Albak, the Mardpeis (se. Arcruni)
in Mardpetakan, the RStuni in the district of the same name and
probably in Tosp 18, and the Amatuni in Ατῦδ 14... Around these
were grouped the smaller principalities: Anjewacik’, Trpatunik’,

TERRITORIAL ANALYSIS OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 251

Erwandunik’, probably Varjawunik’, Gokank’, ArtaSéseank’, and
possibly also Palunik’, and Trunik’ 75, The princes Krkéuni and
Anjayeci (= Anjay) were in the sphere of influence of the Mardpet.
South of Aibak were the districts of Aké and Buzunik. The Boduni
were along the shore of Lake Van, and the Gnuni in Berkni 55, The
httle known principalities of Bak’an, Patsparumk*, Gaznkan, Vizanunik*
or Vaznunik’, CwarSean, Taygrean and others probably lay for the
most part along the border of Atrpatakan 76, These families could
not lay claim to great antiquity; most of them belong to the period
of the kingdom of Vaspurakan. We must also note that we meet
families definitely known to have hved in portions of Armenia lying
outside Vaspurakan, among the princes of Vaspurakan listed by
Thomas Arcruni?7’, These cases should be explained in terms of
the growing political importance of Vaspurakan which drew to it
many princely familes which sought the protection of its rulers, the
Arcruni princes.

τ ΧΠ

THE NAXARAR SYSTEM AND THE CHURCH

I. The Church in the naxarar system — National traditions on the number of bishops
and ecclesiastical provinces in the period of the Illuminator — Absence of foundation
for these traditions — The evidence of Uxtanés Uthaeci and of the Arabian version
of Agat’angelos — Reliable data found in the Coneiliar Acts of 451, 505, and 555 —
Their collation and analysis — Composition of the clergy in the mid-VI century —
The Concihar Lists of 607 and 644 — Analysis of the list of bishops in Uytanés, compa-
rison of this list with the signatures of the Council of 726 — Analysis of the list of
bishops in the Arabian Agat’angelos — Its confessional background, the list cannot
be earlier than the beginning of the VII century.

JI. Factual information on Armenian ecclesiastical hierarchy: the Atbianids and the
Gregorids — The two families as representatives of different Christian traditions:
the southern Edessene, and the northern Caesarean — Historical elements in the rele-
vant legends — Rivalry of the two families — Policy of the Church — Adhesion
of the Gregorids to the Imperial tradition —- Structure of the Imperial Church — Its
relation to the administrative system — Metropolitan and patriarchal authority and
their interrelation — The hierarchical tie between the Armenian and Imperial Churches
— The breaking of this tie — Nationalization of the Armenian Church — Its nayarar
features.

1

An examination of the nayarar system is impossible without a study
of ecclesiastical organization, since the Armenian Church developing
In a naxarar setting inevitably reflected its influence. Even though
this fact is obvious and fully understandable a priori, 16 would still
seem worthy of further investigation, yet scholars interested in the
history of the Armenian Church either ignore this aspect or dismiss
it with generalizations thus taking a position totally divorced from
Armenian reality in their attempt to clarify the history of the Church’s
origin and nationalization. Consequently, many fundamental problems
remain unsolved, despite the numerous studies dedicated to Armenian
ecclesiastical history. ven such a seemingly simple feature as the
national character of the Church is not yet beyond doubt. For one
scholar,

284 CHAPTER XII

... the Armenian Church from its very origin was an inde-
pendent national church in a completely different political
and cultural setting from that of the great Orthodox Imperial
Church 1.

Another claims, on the contrary, that the Armeman Church in its
«...self-determination, over-estimated and over-emphasized its own
national character 15. Such diametrically opposed views also exist on
other aspects of Armenian ecclesiastical life. They are for the most
part to be attributed to a disregard of proper historical method in
the study of problems connected with place and time. Before at-
tempting any synthesis, it will be indispensable to determine with
precision the historical period and the section of Armenia to which
the evidence discussed is relevant.

Historically, Armenia was neither a cultural nor a political unit,
and the fate of each section must be considered in 1ts own surroundings.
The Armenian Church in one part of Armenia is not at all the same as
in another part, as a consequence of the political setting in which it
found itself. Whenever the political aspect of the country was
altered, the Church changed accordingly to adapt to the new con-
ditions 1», Nor did literary documents escape the common lot in this
changing pattern of life. Historical literature underwent repeated
revisions and re-workings to bring it into agreement with the spint
and demands of the period. Consequently, the literary heritage, too,
is by no means free from tendentious colouring both in the presentation
of material and in the fusion of the true with the false. In order to
uncover the true development of the Church, therefore, it will be
necessary first of all to demolish these tendentious structures, some
of them ancient and long-standing, and to present the actual facts,
free from alterations and accretions. At present, we are interested
exclusively in the external structure of the Church, and in its hierarchi-
cal system. Leaving aside the internal life of the Church, and all
that relates to its dogmatic aspect, we shall examine it only externally ;
we select, so to speak the architecture of its organization. That 15 to
say the characteristic of this organization, as against those of the
Church in general, which turned it into a national institution.

Agat’angelos, the historian par excellence of the life and preaching
of St. Gregory the IJuminator, affirms that the founder of the Armenian
Church ordained more than four hundred bishops for the various
localities of Armenia ?. In another place, however, the same historian

THE NAXARAR SYSTEM AND THE CHURCH 255

says that there were only twelve persons found worthy of the episcopal
dignity and ordained by the Illuminator; these he lists by name 3.
The discrepancy here is due to the compilatory nature of Agat’angetos’
work and must be attributed to the sources from which our version
of the Lnfe of the Illuminator has been drawn. At the end of the
listing of the 12 bishops by name, there is a rather unclear note,
whose general sense 18 that even with the best intentions it 1s im-
possible to give the names of the remaining bishops, and whose purpose
is to link the two statements in some way and reconcile their dis-
crepancy *.

The words of Agat’angelos about the 400 bishops are repeated by
the historian Uytanés of Urha. However, since Uytanés possessed
from another source the information that the Illuminator had esta-
tablished only 30 episcopal sees, he stated, when giving the lst of
30 bishoprics that St. Gregory had also ordained 370 additional
bishops. Moreover, again with the intention of smoothing out contra-
dictions, he seems to have accepted a difference between bishops
with and without sees®, According to yet another historian, the
Illuminator had established not 30 but 36 sees. Stephen Orbelean
relates that

... Gregory established the ecclesiastical hierarchy (2,6. the
gahs and pativw of the bishops); he allowed 36 bishops having
thrones and gold embroidered cushions to sit with him, eighteen
on the night and eighteen on the left. [The first on the nght
was the bishop of Hark’]; the first place on the left was alloted
to the bishop of Basean, whereas he alloted the seventh place
on the right to the bishop of Stwnik‘. And all this is attested
by Samuél Kamrjajoreci 5.

The author to whom Orbelean refers, was the Abbot of the monastery
of Kamurjajor in Argarunik’, the philosopher Samuel of whom Asolk
also speaks, calling him « ...well versed in the Holy Seriptures and in
psalmody 7». Samuel lived at the end of the tenth century, and ©
was a contemporary of Uytanés and of the Kat’ohkos Xaéik I at whose
order Uytanés wrote his History ®. Since Xatik, before his elevation
to the patriarchate, had been bishop of ArSarunik’, that is to say of
the province in which the monastery of Kamurjajor was located, it
is reasonable to suppose that Uytanés and Samuél derived their
information as to the number of bishops from the same source, namely
from the tradition of the community of Kamurjajor. As we shall

256 CHAPTER XII

see presently, the seventh place in Uytanés’ list is assigned to the
bishop of Siwnik’, and this agrees with what Orbelean has to say
about Samuél’s list. However, the latter gives the bishop of Basean
in first place, rather than the bishop of Hark" listed in Uytanés:
furthermore, one list has 30 bishops and the other 36. Should we
not attmbute these variants from Uytanés’ work simply to the particu-
lar manuscript of Samuél’s work available to Orbelean? Samuél’s
hst probably did not differ from that of Uytanés. As for the division
into right and left, 10 should be considered Orbelean’s own invention,
since he says the same thing about the princes.

The story of the existence of 400 bishops must naturally be rejected
wn toto. It is found together with the account of 400 princely gahs
which we have already shown to be without any historical value.
It is noteworthy that the sentence concerning the 400 bishops is missing
from the Arabic version of Agat’angelos. Evidently it was put into
the Armenian version after the story of the 400 princes, based on an
incorrect interpretation of Zenob Glak, had been elaborated 9,
This circumstance brings the last version of the Armenian Agat’angelos
down to a period later than that of the hypothetical Zenob 19,

Not only is the figure 400 fictitious, but the far more modest number
given by Uxytanés is also unsuported by evidence 4. Among literary
sources, the most valuable evidence is to be found in Uytanés and
in the data of the Arabic version of Agat’angelos, since it is not com-
posed of mere assertions but is supported by the relevant
material. U-ytanés lists the 30 episcopal sees supposedly established
by the Wluminator. Not counting the Kat’ohkos, there are 30 bishops
in all:

1 The bishop of Hark‘ 16 The bishop of Apahunik*
a: > » Ostan » » » Argarunik‘
» » » Tayk* ) δ » Gnunik’

» > » Mardatk‘ » » » Gottn

δ» » » Argsanunik‘ 20 » > » Gardman

» » » Arerunik’ » » » Aké

» » » Siwnik‘ » » » Bazunik’

> » » R&stumk* > » » Rotak [Erutak]

> » » Mokk* > >» » Syria
10» δ Amatunik’ 25. δ » Anjewacik'

» » » Basean » » » Palunik‘

» » » Mamikoneank‘ » » » Mebnunik‘

» » » Bagrewand > » » Bk

> » » Xoryorunik* > » » Zarehawan

15» » » Vanand 30 » » » theOther Syria?

THE NAXARAR SYSTEM AND THE CHURCH 257

The Arabic version of Agat’angelos brings fundamental additions
to the Armenian text, giving more precise limits for the spread of
Christianity under the Illuminator. The Armenian Agat’angetos is
satisfied with the general indication that Christianity,

.. spread out over all of Armenia from end to end. From
the city of Sataia to Xaltk, to Katarj, to the far limits
of Moschia, to the gate of the Alans, to the border of
Kaspé mn Paytakaran, a city of the kingdom of Armenia.
And from Amida, past the city of Mcbin, alongside the border
of Syria, to the countries of NorSirakan and Korduk‘, to the
getim country of Media, to the domain of the prince of
Mahk’ert, and all the way to Atrpatakan 18.

The additions brought here by the Arabic version consist in the listing
by name of the countries and districts where bishoprics had been
established. St. Gregory sent bishops not only to the Armenian
lands, but also to Georgia, to the country of the Durzuks, and of the
Alans. Ibir-b-z-yua was sent to Georgia, Sophronios to Abkhazia,
and Thomas to Albania. Furthermore,

... he sent bishops to the countries of Angettun, to Aljnik’ 14
to Greater Cop‘k‘, to Lesser Cop‘k‘, to HaSteank’, to Siwnik‘
to Mokk‘, and to Mardpetakan; and thus to every place where
the ruler was well disposed 148,

Gregory also hastened to send bishops to the remaining provinces
of Armenia 14? ;

Albianos — to Bagrewand, and to all the inhabitants of the
the banks of the Euphrates

Huthalos — to Basean

Bassos — to Kol 18

Movsés — to Ekeleac and Derjan

Eusebios — to Daranalik‘

John — to Karin

Habib — to Sper

Albios [Agapios] — to Tarén and Bznunik‘

Artites — to the country of the Malyaz

Arsikios — to Sirak

Antiochos — to Korduk*‘

Tyrichios — to Atrpatakan

Kyriakos — to Arsamunik‘.

258 CHAPTER XII

In spite of its value, this evidence cannot be used without a preliminary
discussion because of the controversial state of the problem of the
origin and versions of Agat’angelos. We have, however, reliable
sources which describe the state of the Armenian hierarchy in the
fifth and sixth centuries, fairly clearly. Starting from the situation
discribed in them, we may go on to draw conclusions about the fourth
century, which was the first century of the Armenian Church; it will
then be possible to determine the credibillty and reliability of Agat’-
angelos’ and Uxytanés’ statements on the composition of the Church
hierarchy in the time of the [luminator.

The surviving Coneiliar Acis are our main source for the description
of the hierarchy in the fifth and sixth centuries. We have chosen
here three important Councils: that of ArtaSat, on the eve of the
Armenian. rebellion in 451, that of Dwin, under the Kat’olikos Babgen I
in 505, and the Second Council of Dwin, under the Kat’oltikos Nersés ΠῚ
in 555. The representatives of the following sees or ecclesiastical
provinces were present at these councils :

Council of 555 19

Counerl of 450 17 Council of 505 18
Kat’ ohkos | Kat’ohkos Kat’ ohikos
Joseph [Yovsép’] Babgen Nersés IT
1 Bp. of Ayrarat Bp. of Ayrarat Bp. of Ayrarat 1
» » Siwnik' » » Mamikoneank’ » » Tardn
» » Arerunik‘ » » Mardpetakan » » Sep‘akan
» » Taron » » Hark‘ » » Hark’
5 » » R&tunik’ » » Bzanunik‘ » » Bagrewand 65
» » Manjkert » » Basean » » Basean
» » Bagrewand » » Arsarunik‘ » » Mardahk‘
» » Bznunik‘ » » Xoryorunik‘ » » Arsamunik‘
» » Basean » » Tayk' » » Siwnik‘
10 » » Mardastan » » Arsamunk' » » Arcrunik’ 10
» » Vanand » » Rstunik' » » (Bznunik‘)
[Bagrewand]
» » Mokk* » » Mokk* » » Xoryorunik‘
» » Anjewaciké » » Arerunik’ » » Apahuniks .
» » Tayk* » » Amatunik' » » Syria
15 » » Tar(ujberan » » Palunik' » » Vanand 15
» » Mananah » » Gnuntk » » Arsaruntk’
>» » [Mardahk‘] » » Zarehawan » » Palunik‘
» » Amatunik® » » LPmorik* » » Goltn
19 » » Apabunik‘ » » Anjewacik* » » Mehenunik‘
» » Mehnunik* » » Amatunik’ 20
» » (Siwnik*) » » Rstunik’

THE NAXARAR SYSTEM AND THE CHURCH 259

» » (Mardahk‘) » » Mokk*
» » (Vanand) » » Anjewacik‘
» » (Apahunik‘) » » Aké
» » Zarehawan 25
» » Benunck'
» » (Tayk‘)
» » (Gnunik*‘) 28

These lists give us an understanding of Armenian hierarchy and of
its evolution. The most complete of them is the lst of 555. The
imcrease in ecclesiastical provinces manifests itself partly through
the division of already existing sees, and partly through the appearance
of new ones. In the mid-fifth century there were 18 episcopal sees;
these are all found in the lst of 505, with a few purely superficial
variations. The Mardastan of 450 1s called Mardpetakan in the lst
of 505, and Sep’akan and Mardpetakan in that of 555; we have already
seen that these expressions are equivalent19*. The see of Manazkert is
also called that of Hark’, according to the name of the province in
which Manazkert was located. Bagrewand and ArSarumk’ taken
together formed one eparchy whose head bore the title of bishop of
Bagrewand in Lazar [450], but of bishop of Arsarunik’ in the list of
505; by 555 ArSarunik’ had been removed to as a separate see. The
adjacent provinces of Apahunik’ and Gnunik’ were probably in the
same situation, but if we admit that the bishop of Apahunik’ was
absent from the Council of 505, we must assign the appearance of
the bishop of Gnunik’ to that date.

The bishop of Arberan, or more correctly Taruberan, as he is called
by EhsSé, cannot be found in the later lists, but we have several extra
bishops in them as against those found in Lazar, One of these un-
questionably corresponds to the bishop of Taruberan, and in our
opinion, it is the bishop of Xoryotunik’. The princes Xoryoruni,
the noble Matyazs, whose representative at the Council of 505 bore
the imposing title of Malyaz of Armenia, were among the nayarars of
oldest lineage, and it is unlikely that they lacked a bishop of their
own in the fifth century. Although we cannot accept as correct the
statement found in the Arabic version of Agat’angetos, that the creation
of the bishopric of the Xoryoruni dated back to the time of the 1]-
luminator, it testifies nevertheless to the antiquity of this see», We
believe that Taruberan was the geographical term used for the province
which was otherwise called Xoryorunik’, after the name of its ruling

260 CHAPTER XII

house. Later, the term Taruberan acquired a wider connotation as
the name of one of the fifteen provinces of Armenia; at that time it
was composed of Xoryorunik’ and of the districts surrounding it,
Taron and Bagrewand 199,

In the provinces of Armenia bordering on the Empire, ecclesiastical
authority was apportioned in various ways. In 450 there were bishops
in Vanand, Basean, and Mardahk‘, while m 505 two bishops from
Basean and one from ArSamunik’ make their appearance, without
any mention of the bishops of Vanand and Mardahk’. Basean had
formerly included Vanand, and this is the sense in which it is used
here; apparently one of the two bishops was meant for Vanand.
As for the bishops of ArSamunik’ and Mardahk*, since they alternate
(1,6. where one is listed the other is absent), we might conclude that
the two provinces were under the jurisdiction of one bishop who
correspondingly bore two names, but their geographical positions
precludes this hypothesis. Divided from each other by the moun-
tainous mass of the Bingdl-Srmane, one of them adjoied Basean and
the other Tardn. According to Faustus, ArSamumik’ was part of
Tarén, and it unquestionably was subordinated to Tar6dn in ecclesi-
astical matters1%, Under Kat’ohkos John II Gabelean the successor
of Nersés II, Mardahk* was listed as part of the bishopric of Basean.
Under Nersés IJ, the bishop of Basean had been called Gregory, and
that of Mardahk’, Nersés, but after Nersés IJ both provinces are found
under the authority of a bishop Ners(és). This latter is unquestionably
the bishop of Mardahk‘* to whom Basean had passed after the death
of its bishop, Gregory 2°, The reverse occurred in 505. The absence
of the bishop of Mardahk* from the Council held that year is to be
explained by the fact that his district, in its turn, was temporarily
subject to the bishop of Basean Just as Mardahk’ emerged out of
“Basean, so ArSamunik’ separated itself from Tardn. In 555 both
districts are represented at the Council together with the sees of
Basean and. Taron.

Thus by 505 five new bishoprics had been added to the 18 found
in 450, namely the bishops of ArSamunik’, Gnunik’, Palunik’, Zare-
hawan, Mehenunik’, and Tmorik’, the last of whom corresponds to
the bishop of the Orthodox Syrians in the list of 555. By 555, the
circle of bishops had been increased by four more eparchies, Goltn,
Aké, Bznunik’, and Argarunik’, which had replaced Bagrewand in
505. Consequently, by the middle of the sixth century, the Armenian
Church included up to 27 episcopal sees.

THE NAXARAR SYSTEM AND THE CHURCH 261

Jt is rather difficult to trace the development of the ecclesiastical
hierarchy any further, for with the end of the sixth century we enter
the period of dogmatic unrest and dissentions, the country was split
into factions, and as a result, the Councils of the period do not represent
the entire ecclesiastical hierarchy because many of the Church re-
presentatives refrained from attended them, for one reason or another.
Ecclesiastical quarrels persisted right up to the beginning of the eighth
century, and several Councils were held for a variety of reasons during
this period : in 607, 644, and 726 208, John 11 Gabelean ascended the
patriarchal throne after Nersés IJ, and was succeeded in turn by
Movsés IT [574-604]. After Movses’ death, a Council was summoned
for the purpose of electing his successor as well as dealing with other
matters. According to one testimony, 50 bishops and 390 priests
were presumably present at this Council, but the names of only 12
bishops are given #1, The election of the kat’ohkos did not take
place, and the bishops consequently assembled once more at the
request of Smbat Bagratuni, Marzpan of Vrkan [Hyrcania], and elected
Abraham 1 bishop of RStunik’. On this occasion, the same bishops
who had attended the first Council were again present, except fore
Theodore, bishop of Mardpetakan, and John, bishop of Arcrunik’ 35,
Having ascended the patriarchal throne, the newly elected kat’olikos
again called a new Council in 607, primarily to assure himself of the
orthodoxy of the bishops from the provinces recently transferred to
the Empire according to the terms of the treaty of 591 #8, The names
of only 15 bishops can be found in the Acts of this Council 24; among
them, the names of Yohannik, bishop of Eh, and Thaddeus, bishop
of Aini, the representatives of Armenian sees on the border of Atr-
patakan occur for the first time 35,

The Council of Dwin of 644, under the Kat’ohikos Nersés ΠῚ and
the Emperor Constantine [Constans IT], likewise failed to attract many
bishops. Only 16 bishops appeared at the summons of the Emperor,
most of them from the provinces won back under Maurice, which
had remained definitely in the Empire after 628, All of them repre-
sented sees already familiar to us 39,

The study of Conciliar material leads us to a conclusion which may
serve as a basis for evaluating the information relating to earlier
times. By now it should be altogether clear that the account from
the monastery of Kamufjajor as to the foundation of 30 or 36 bishoprics
by the Illuminator is very far from the truth. If we look more closely

202 CHAPTER XII

at this Inst of sees, which we have already cited as given by Uytanés,
and compare it with the results obtained from our analysis, of the
Conciliar Lisis, we find that the only two unfamiliar bishops in Uytanés’
list are, strictly speaking, those of Rotek 51 and Synia I]. It is true
that of the bishoprics already studied by us, the one from Mardpetakan
seems to be missing, but it is, in fact included in the see which is
called Ostan by Uytanés, At the Council of 644, as we have seen,
both provinces had been represented by a single bishop, who was
called the bishop of Ostan and Mardpetakan 3175, Similarly the see
of Aini found in the 607 lst unquestionably belongs in the neigh-
bouring see of Hii, Of the two unfamiliar sees, that of Rotak already
existed in the second half of the seventh century, since we know that —

Sahak III of Jorap’or was bishop of Rotak before his elevation to
the patriarchal throne in 68028, As for the bishop of Syria II, he is
mentioned for the first time in the Kamurjajor Inst. Consequently,
this Inst which was identified with the founder of the Armenian Church
cannot be assigned to a period earlier than the end of the seventh
century. | | 3
A few particulars of Uytanés’ Last support the hypothesis that it
is in fact the protocol of a Council which took place in Armenia
after the date just given. One of the most important and popular
of the Councils of the subsequent period was that held at Manazkert
in 726 under the Kat’olikos John IV of Ojun. In the Armenian
Acis of this Council, the names of only eight of the more important
participants are given. Fortunately, a complete listing of the signature
has been preserved in Syrian literature, specifically im the Chronicle
of the Jacobite Patriarch, Michael the Syrian. We give here his list
an extenso as well as the parallel signatures which have survived in
the Armenian version :

Syrian Armenian
Iwannés, Kat’otikos of Armenia |
1 Halphai, ep. Arkiws Aip’éos of Hark’
Theodoros, ep. Armn T’adéos of Ostan
Sahak, ep. Mamikonean Sahak Mamikonean
(Rsqw), ep. Basean ~ Yesu of Basen
5 Sargis, ep. Ditpis Sargis of ΤΥ Κ΄
Theodorios ep. Beznunis T’éodoros of Bznunik*
Theodoros of ASamunis Grigoris, chorep. of Arsarunik*

Grigorios of ASarunis

THE NAXARAR SYSTEM AND THE CHURCH 263

Nwzwn of Asibw{[gn]
10 Habel of Amatunis
David of Erestunis
Iowsép of Artsrunis
Grigor of Wanand
Narkisos of Khorkhorunis
15 Esayi of Golt‘n
Iwanés of Gnunis
Gorgi of Rotakay
Towsép of Bakratunis
Mik‘ayél of Bagrewand
20 Eremia of Apahunis
Solomon of Mrina
Gabriel of Arzin
Khosrov, doctor
David of Suphrin
25 Solomon, monk of Mak‘enis
Raphaél, monk
Simeon, doctor
Iwanés, chorepiscopos
Grigor of Taraun
30 Sahak, chorepiscopos of Matnis
Sargis, ep. Sanasnayé, and other priests and monks 39,

In plus of the kat’ohkos, 31 representatives of various eparchies
attended the Council, whereas in Uytanés’ Inst we count 30 eparchies,
the one additional representative at the Council of 726 being that of
the bishop of Asibw(r)gn, 1.6. Sep’ukan or Sep’akan, otherwise known
as Mardpetakan. At the Council of 644 this province had shared
one representative with the Ostan; evidently Uytanés likewise included
it in the Ostan 9°, In exactly the same fashion, Bznunik* and Tarén
also formed one eparchy, which was the see of the Mamikonean as
given by Uytanés. But in 726, the bishops of Bznunik* and of the
Mamikonean are hsted separately. Itis very hkely that Bznunik‘ was
given instead of Bznunik‘, or more correctly Bazunik’, and that the
representative of this see, bishop Theodore, was the Theodore called
Bazen by Stephen the Philosopher bishop of Siwnik’ 81,

If we compare the list of bishops present at the Council of 726
with the list of eparchies in Uytanés, we find that of 30 names, 20
coincide completely, while 10 differ. There are numerous errors in
the 726 list; some of which have been corrected satisfactorily by its
editor, while others can easily be given a proper reading through
comparison with Uytanés’ Thus Mrina or Mrdin, Kazwn [sic], Suphrin,

264. CHAPTER XII

and Mainis are distorted and incorrect forms of Mardahk’, Zarehawan,
Palunik’, and Mehnunik*. The learned monk Khosrov, called the
doctor (2.e. vardapet) of Armenia, attended the Council as the repre-
sentative of Mokk’ (or Anjewacik’), while Sargis, bishop of Sanasnayé,
corresponds to the bishop of Syria in Uytanés’ 128 815,

In the Conciliary Inst of 726 the bishops of Aké, Anjewacik’, and
Syria = Tmorik’ are missing. The priests Solomon, Simeon, and
Iwanés, who are listed among the participants without indication of
place, probably represented these three eparchies. The representatives
of Gardman and Eli = ΑΥ̓ΤῚ are also missing, but bishops of Bkrtunis
(var. Srtwnis) and Taron are listed. Since the bishop of the Bagratum
was also bishop of Bagrewand, but the latter had already been listed
and similarly the bishop of Tardn was bishop of the Mamikonean,
and had likewise been listed earlier, should we not see in the names of
the bishops of Bkrtunis and Tarén distorted forms of b-Gardman and
t-Atan ?

The corrections offered here are based in the main on a comparison
of the two lists. The Armenian names have been so distorted im the
Syrian version that a variety of readings is possible, and our inter-
pretat.ons should not be seen as unduly strained. A demonstration
of complete agreement between the two lists is not actually demanded
by the fundamental aspect of our problem, nor is there any need to
insist upon it. It is sufficient for us that the two lists coimcide in
the main. The Council of Manazkert was one of fundamental im-
portance, and it inaugurated a new era in the history of the Armenian
Church. The belief (whether correct or incorrect is another matter),
that Armenian ecclesiastical tradition, presumably stemming from the
INuminator but interrupted and forgotten in the Chalcedonian trend
of the seventh century, had been restored, was identified with this
Council. This is the reason for which the lst of bishops participating
in the Council of Manazkert was subsequently archaized and attributed
to the time of the [luminator 1»,

The list of eparchies found in Agat’angelos’ History is equally
unpromising from the point of view of historical authenticity and
arouses our skepticism. But the Arabic version of the work provides
a key for the discovery of the nature and real origin of the list it
attributes to the Jlluminator®*, The’ first interesting point is the
classification of countries and provinces. Three groups are distin-
guished here. Iberia, Abkhazia, and Al(v)ania are mentioned im

THE NAXARAR SYSTEM AND THE CHURCH 265

the first ; the eight Armenian provinces given in the Acis of the Council
of 726 quoted.above, in the second; and in the third, thirteen other
Armenian provinces, or more exactly sees are given. The separation
of the first group from the body of Armenia is understandable, but how
can one explain the grouping of the Armenian provinces? Why are
the autonomous Satrapies together with Siwnmk’, Mokk’ and Mard-
petakan separated from the other parts of Armenia to form a special
group? The key to the date of composition of the Arabic version
of Agat’angetos is hidden in the answer to these questions.

There can of course be no question here of an association on political
grounds. The only link capable of tying together such scattered
districts as Angettun, Anjit, Cop‘k’ and HaSteank’, on the one hand,
and Siwnik’, Mardpetakan, and Mokk’ on the other, was confessional
unity. The Arabic version evidently goes back to a period of quarrels
between these provinces and the other central districts of Armenia
based on confessional disagreements, Such a moment came in the
second half of the sixth century when the sources show Siwnik’,
Mardpetakan, and Mokk’ leaning toward Nestorianism. The general
success of the Nestorian doctrine in Armenia can be seen from its
penetration to the very heart of the country and from its establishment
at Dwin, residence of the patriarchate. The Kat’ohkos Nersés Π
was forced to use very harsh measures in his struggle against it, and
the Council of 555 was summoned for this specific purpose. The
kat’ otikos, in a special letter, to certain bishops, summoned them in
particular to the Council, threatening them with excommunication if

they failed to attend. These are the bishops of Arcrunik’, R&tunik’,
Mokk’, and other nearby provinces, whose sees lay along the Syman
border and had apparently been the ones most affected by Nestorian
influence #2, The Acts of the Council bear the signatures of the bishops
of Arcrunik’, Palunik’, and Mebhnunik’, but the others apparently did
not answer the summons of the kat’olikos, because of their Jack of
sympathy with the Council 881, After the Council, Nersés IT found
it necessary to address himself once again to the bishops of Arcrunik’
and Mardpetakan; although they had been present at the Council,
he reminded them once more of its decrees and urged them to take
special measures against the followers of Nestorims 23. Nersés’
successor, John 11, wrote to Vrtanés bishop of Siwnik’ informing him
of the presence of numerous Nestorians, who must be repressed, in
his see, and reminding him of the precepts of the [lumimator as well

266 CHAPTER XII

as of his labours for the land of Siwnik’ 84. The same points were
repeated in his Letier to the Church of Atbania 85.

This evidence shows that the grouping of ecclesiastical provinces
reflects the dogmatic pattern of Armenia in the sixth century. Hence
the list of bishoprics is of the same origin as the list of princes studied
above and belongs to the turn of the sixth to the seventh century.
If the ecclesiastical isolation of Siwnik’ is in any way related to the
political separation of this province from Armenia in 591, the Inst
and the composition of Agat’angeios must belong to the period between
591 and the year 612 noted above 358, Inthe Armenian Agat’angelos
not only Iberia, Aibania and Abkhazia, but even the eight Armenian
districts leaning toward Nestorianism have been passed over in silence.
In this version only twelve bishops are listed by name, without the
corresponding mention of their provinces, though the fact that« ... there
also were other bishops whose names, with the best intentions, could not
be written down » 8580, 1s not concealed. The sense of this comment can
be explained through a comparison with the Arabic version; it was
evidently a reference to the bishops of the eight provinces whose
names had not been given. ‘The Armenian compiler was more inter-
ested in the bishops than in their sees, and since his source, namely
the Armenian original of the present Arabic version, had not given
the names of the bishops of the first group (1.6. of those who adhered
to Nestorianism), he was satisfied with the passing comment that
for all his good imtentions he was unable to provide their names,

The Armenian original of the Arabic version was used during the
composition of the surviving text of Agat’angetos, but even this
original does not seem to have been the first version of Agat’angelos, 859
The unevenness of the composition noted in the episcopal Last is great
enough to warrant the conclusion that the work was a compilation,
and a re-working of a still older Infe of St. Gregory. The repetition
of the name of bishop Atbianos in the Last points mm the same direction.
According to the Arabic Agat’angetos, St. Gregory had sent Albianos
as bishop to Bagrewand and to all the inhabitants of the banks of the
Euphrates, while he sent bishop Albios to the country of the Sparapet
- Mamikonean, that is to say to Tarén and Bznunik*. But the figure
of Albios cannot be found in the Armenian version, and only Atbianos
is mentioned. Unquestionably the two names refer to one and the
same person, namely the well known bishop Albianos**4, The division
of the person of Atbianos results from the fact that the compiler used

THE NAXARAR SYSTEM AND THE CHURCH 267

different sources, with the name Aibianos given by one and that of
Albios, by another. Under the influence of the contemporary situ-
ation, in which Tardn with Bznunik’, and Bagrewand with its neigh-
bours, formed different eparchies, the author mistook Atbianos and
Albios for two different persons. All of this evidence suggests that
the Arabic version went back to an earlier text as does the present
Armenian version which is a re-working of this same text 38,

It is very difficult to trace the pattern of accretions and to separate
the relatively ancient elements in the text from the more recent ones.
One thing is certain, that the episcopal Jast which interests us was
not a part of the Armenian version, and hkewise could not have been
a part of the original version. There can be no doubt about the eight
Nestorianizing provinces, Of them the see of Siwnik’, for example,
was instituted by St. Mesrop according to the testimony of his disciple
and consequently could not have figured in the original version among
the sees established by St. Gregory2#*, A study of the composition of
the next 12 bishoprics leads to a similar conclusion. These were
bishops intended for Bagrewand and the lands bordering on the
Euphrates: Basean (Vanand), Hk‘eteac-Derjan, Daranahk’, Karin,
Sper, Tarén, Bznunik’, Xoryotunk’, Arsgamunik’, Sirak, and also
Korduk‘ and Atrpatakan. With the exception of the last two, these
districts lay in the Imperial part of Armenia according to the division
of 591. As we have already said Xusré 1] Abharvéz ceded an important
part of Persian Armenia to the Empire after having regaimed his
father’s throne with the help of the Emperor Maurice. As a result,
out of the central provinces of former Eastern Armenia only part of
Ayrarat and all of Vaspurakan remained Persian. The provinces
which were still Persian are precisely the ones not represented in
Agat’angelos’ Inst of bishops.

The political break of 591 was accompanied by religious dissentions
in the history of Armenia. Already im 572, at the time of the disorders
arising from the murder by the Armenians of the Surén who was the
Persian Marzpan, the Kat’otikos John 111 and Vardan I] Mamikonean,
the instigator of the rebellion, had gone to Byzantium to ask for
help against Persian reprisals, While they were there, they accepted,
in one form or another, the Chalcedonian doctrine. According to
contemporary testimony, this betrayal of the national tradition pro-
voked discontent among the population of Armenia 35. Soon after,
Persia also found itself mm a period of difficulties over the succession

268 CHAPTER XII

to the throne. The Armenians under the leadership of MuSel, hkewise
a member of the Mamikonean house, supported Xusré 11 against the
usurper Vahram Chobén, nevertheless, the valant MuSelt did not
escape the persecutions of Xusré II and was forced to take refuge in
the Byzantine capital, following the example of Vardan 38, According
to one account, the Emperor Maurice also proposed to this prince to
abandon, his native Church and adhere to the Imperial one. MuSel
excused himself on the grounds that certain disputed points first
had to be cleared. For this purpose he advised the summoning of
the kat’otikos and of other representatives of the Church to a Council
in the capital, The Kat’ohkos Movsés 11 categorically rejected the
Hmperor’s invitation, The bishops of the country of Aspurakan,
which was under the authority of the Persians, similarly refused point-
blank, But the bishop of Tardn, and others who lived under the
authority of Rome, set out for Constantinople and there agreed with
the Emperor in all things 89, |

The bishop of Vaspurakan is precisely the one missing from Agat’an-
gelos’ Last together with his neighbour from Mokk’ : and only Imperial
Armenia is represented in it. The content of the Inst is clearly
Chalcedonian in its colouration and corresponds to the pomt of view
of the last decade of the sixth century. The grouping of the eight
bishoprics belongs to the same period. It seems as though these
provinces were put into the lst of countries christianized by St.
Gregory im order to fill gaps in this lst. Although Atrpatakan, by
which Persian Armenia in general was probably meant, had been
included in the list, the absence from it of the provinces of Mardpetakan,
Mokk’, Siwnik’, and the Satrapies, must still have struck the eye.
Consequently they were the ones added to the list. It 1s also very
hkely that confessional ties were taken into consideration, so that
the list of Christianized lands carried a partly Chalcedonian and partly
Nestorian stamp. Up to the seventh century two contflctimg currents
existed in the Armenian Church. The national party fighting against
Nestorianism unintentionally fell under the influence of Chalcedo-
nianism, which also condemned Nestorian doctrine?°*, By the mid-
seventh century Chalcedonianism took the upper hand m Armenia
and became the dominant doctrine. It was only at the beginning of
the eighth century that the Armenians succeeded In renouncing
Chalcedonianism and in working out a national religious policy;
Agat’angelos was then re-worked once again to conform with the
change.

THE NAXARAR SYSTEM AND THE CHURCH 269

I

The present analysis has demonstrated the total uselessness of the
evidence of Agat’angeios for our task of clarifying the ecclesiastical
hierarchy under the Illuminator. Tor the early history of the Arme-
nian Church, the History of Faustus must still remain the most ancient
and the most reliable source 28>, In the period described by this histo-
rian, there were very few bishops in the Armenian Church. Two houses
are very familiar to Faustus, that of St. Gregory the Illuminator, and
that of bishop Albianos. The bishop of Basean is mentioned once,
and the name of bishop Faustus, who ordained St. Nersés I as deacon,
is also given 4°, At the end of his work, Faustus presents a survey of
bishopries in the reign of King Xosrov III of Armenia, but here too,
besides the representative of the family of Albianos, he mentions
only the same, now aged, bishop Faustus, the bishops of Basean (Zort’,
Artit’, Tirik, and Movsés), Kirakos of Tayk’, Zort’ual of Vanand,
and a certain bishop Aaron“, If at the end of the century only a
few bishops made up the entire hierarchy, it evidently must have
been far smaller still under St. Gregory the [luminator at the beginning
of the century. With his great concern for the clergy, the historian
would not have forgotten to mention other bishops had they existed.

In the first century of its existence the hierarchy of the Armenian
Church consisted in, fact of two families, that of bishop Albianos
and that of the Iluminator, and these were rivals for the first place
in the land. Their rivalry played a certain part in the establishment
of the forms of ecclesiastical organization, and we think it necessary
to pause over the origin and nature of this competition.

Historical scholarship does not deny the existence of Christian
communities in. Armenia earlier than the mission of the UWuminator.
Here as everywhere, the beginnings of Christianity are lost in the
dimness of legendary accounts. National traditions distinguish three
branches in the spread of Christianity to Armenia; these are identified
with the names of apostles Thaddeus, Bartholomew, and with St.
Gregory. No matter how legendary, the tales of the apostolic mission
to Armenia still contain some elements of truth and prove that Ar-
menian Christianity went back to the Apostolic period. We may
question whether any of the apostles or of their disciples came to
Armenia, but there are no grounds for denying that Armenia belongs

270 CHAPTER XII

among the earliest countries illuminated by the new doctrine. Next
to the Armenian lands, Syria with its capital Antioch was one of the
centers of apostolic activity; from there waves of the new movement
could easily have reached Armenia. At first, Christianity spread
rapidly and won important victories in the East in the period of
Parthian rule. But with the rise in Persia of the Sasanian dynasty
with its anti-Christian policies, the results of two centuries were
reduced to naught. All that remained from that period were dim
memories which, mixed with later ones, formed the mass of varied
legends preserved in ancient sources. Historical criticism has not
yet mastered the legends of Thaddeus and Bartholomew and cleared
them of various accretions, nor has it clarified their relation to the
analogous Syrian legends of Addai and his disciple Mari, the apostle
of the provinces of pre-Atropatené. What has been done already in
this domain gives us grounds for regarding the legends of Thaddeus
and Bartholomew as echoes of Christian worship in Armenia in the
pre-Sasanian period 418,

The three cycles of legends grouped around the names of Thaddeus,
Bartholomew, and Gregory, mark three periods in the penetration of
Christianity into Armenia. The traits common to all of them indicate
that they were successive periods. The new proselytism revived dim
memories and put on them the seal of identity. The mission of Thad-
deus and Bartholomew came from the south. The intermediary
country between apostolic Antioch and Armenia was Osrhoené, with
its capital Edessa. Edessa played a leading role in the diffusion of
Christianity in the Persian Hast, and Armenian legends are also
connected with this city. The appearance of an organized Christian
community in Armenia is consequently inadmissible before the con-
sohdation of the Christian Church in Edessa.

With the successful analysis of the legend of Abgar scholars have
accepted the identification of this famous ruler of Edessa who had
embraced Christianity with Abgar IX, a historical figure who
lived at the end of the second century; the legend shifted authentic
historical events backward to the beginning of our era and attri-
buted them to another historical personage, Abgar V, a contempo-
rary of Christ. Hence, there is no reason to admit the existence of a
Christian Church at Edessa before the end of the second century.
As for the earliest mention of a Church in Armenia, it must be put in
the middle of the third century, at which time we have a reference

THE NAXARAR SYSTEM AND THE CHURCH 271

to a bishop Meruzan [Meruzanes] of the Armenians who was in corre-
spondence with bishop Dionysios of Alexandria (248-265) 42, It has
been supposed that this Meruzan was one of the bishops of Lesser
Armenia, probably of Sebasteia, but Gelzer raised an objection to
this hypothesis on the basis of the bishops’ characteristic name, and
sought him within the limits of Greater Armenia. He considered
him, entirely correctly, to be a scion of the Arcruni in whose house
the name Meruzan was very common. Gelzer was mistaken only in
placing Meruzan in Vaspurakan 42, As we shall see, the original
province of the Arcruni was Sophené, so that it 15 more correct to
identify the seat of bishop Meruzan with Sophené.

The question of a genetic,link between the church of Meruzan and
that of Hidessa naturally presents itself. The orientation toward an
Edessan tradition of Armenian legends dealing with early Christianity
derives from this historical fact. According to the evidence of one
Syrian document, the apostle Addai had suffered a martyr’s death in
the land of Sophené at the castle of Agel, Armenian Angel, while
other documents are either silent about his death or place it at Edessa 4
This legend reflects the fact that Angel was the residence of bishop
Meruzan, the pastor of an Armenian Church which was a daughter of
Addai’s church in Edessa. The existence of a Christian church in
the border Armenian province of Sophené in the mid-third century
should now be accepted as a fact no longer open to doubt. From
there Christianity was able to penetrate Into Armenia. Just as the
EHdessene Church had given birth to the one in Sophené. so after the
further development of the latter, a bishopric also appeared in the
province of Tardn adjoining Sophené.

The church ruled by the house of bishop Albianos was created in
the same way, in our opinion. In the Arabic version of Agat’angelos,
Bagrewand and the banks of the Euphrates were given to bishop
Albianos, while Tardn with Bznunik’ went to Albios. We have
already seen that only one person was meant. From Faustus we
learn that the possessions of bishop Aibianos had greatly increased
under king Xosrov II, for upon the destruction of the house of Mana-
wazean, the possessions of the dead princes had been transferred to
the church of Atbianos, and in particular, «... Manazkert and the
neighbouring territory along the Euphrates τῆνον 4», These are the
very lands to which Agat’angetos refers as being along the banks of
che Euphrates, but they were given to Albianos only under St. Gre-

272 CHAPTER XII

gory’s second successor, Vrt‘anés, and not in Gregory’s own lifetime,
as Agat’angelos indicated. Faustus tells us nothing about the original
church of Atbianos, or about the location of his church before the
possessions of the Manawazean passed to him. Nevertheless, Agat’-
angetos’ reference to Tardn and Bznunik’ as the portion of Albianos
is apparently not entirely devoid of historical foundation. The
repeated assertions of Faustus concerning the precedence of the church
of Tarén and its position as the leading church among those in
Armenia, rest primarily on his knowledge of its priority in point of
time, of the fact that the church of Tarin traced its foundation all
the way back to the period of St. Gregory. 442

The legend of the mission of Thaddeus or Addai, beginning in Edessa
and ending in Artaz, the legend in which the fate of the Edessene
King Abgar is interwoven with that of the Armenian king Sanatruk,
also points to the progress of the Christian faith from Edessa, through
Sophené and Tardn, to Artaz. The Sanatruk of the legend is a
historical figure, he is the king Sanatruk of Armenia, whom the
Hmperor Caracalla (211-217) summoned, supposedly to reconcile
him with his rebellious sons, but in fact to deprive him of his crown
and to turn Armenia into a Roman province as had already . been
done with Osrhoené, when Caracalla had treacherously seized king
Abgar 4. The actors in the legend, Sanatruk and Abgar, were
contemporaries in reality, and were connected by their similar fates.
In the legend both kings are shifted from the beginning of the third
century to the period of Christ. This parallel in the development of
the subject, together with the Armenization of the story of the king
of Edessa, who is presented as the uncle of Sanatruk, can be explained
_ only on a religious basis, as a reflection of the genetic relation of the
Armenian Church to that of Edessa, These memories of the origin
of Christianity in Armenia and the tradition of the first Christian
church connected with the Syrian world, subsequently grew dim and
all but disappeared, lost in the second and more powerful current
of Christianity under St. Gregory the Wuminator.

At the end of the third century, great changes took place in the
history of Armenia. The wars between the Persians and the Romans
over Armenia ended in-a Roman victory and, under the terms of
the treaty of 298, Armenia came under the protectorate of the Empire.
Royal power was restored in Armenia and Trdat IIT, the descendent
of the Arsacids assumed the throne of his fathers, having obtainec.

THE NAXARAR SYSTEM AND THE CHURCH 273

his rights with the help of a Roman army. This political transfor-
mation was accompanied by the entrance of Christianity into Greater
Armenia from the neighbouring lands of Lesser Armenia. At that
time, the Empire was passing through a period of violent struggle
between the old religious tradition and the Christian teachings, and
it was on the eve of the victory of the new doctrine. Spreading
throughout the Empire, Christianity had already had time to gain a
secure place for itself in many areas, and it won its officially recognized
victory in the beginning of the fourth century.

Among the portions of the Empire which were thoroughly Christi-
anized at an early date were the lands both of Cappadocia and Lesser
Armenia, The church of Caesarea [of Cappadocia] had enjoyed great
renown from the third century, since it had been ruled by bishops
Alexander (ca. 200) and Firmilianus (} 269), the friends of the great
fathers of the Alexandrian church, Clement and Origen. Thanks to
Firmilianus, Caesarea had become a center of theological instruction 46,
and Melitené, the capital of Lesser Armenia, was no less important
as a center of Christianity. The Christian elements there were so
powerful that the frequent revolutionary uprisings which occured in
the city were attributed to them 4’.

The development of Christianity in the provinces of Lesser Armenia
and Cappadocia and its influence explain why the new faith was pro-
claimed as a state religion in neighbouring Greater Armenia before this
was done in the Empire #78, With the subjection of Arsacid Armenia
to the superior protection of the Empire, the political obstacles to a
close relationship between the Armenian population of Lesser and
Greater Armenia, two divided portions of a single ethnic whole, were
removed, and Christianity poured from the nght bank of the Kuphrates
to the left one. The apostle of this Christianity was St. Gregory the
Tiuminator. To distinguish this branch from the earlier Syrian or
Hidessene Christianity, we will call it Lesser Armenian or Caesarean.
It is important for our study to distinguish these two paths in the
spread of Christianity in Armenia. |

The Christianity stemming from the lands of Lesser Armenia first
occupied the provinces immediately adjoining it, namely Daranahk’,
Hkeleac, Derjan, and others. Faustus underlines repeatedly the
allegiance of Daranatik’ and Ekeleac to the house of the [luminator.
Gregory and Vrt’anés were buried in T’ordan and Aristakés in Til.
Though he died in Sophené, Yusik was brought back and buried in

974 CHAPTER XII

T’ordan in the burial place of his family 48. In the same way the
earlier current of Christianity coming from the side of Sophené had
first permeated the neighbouring districts of Tardn and Bznunik’.
Under the sons of St. Gregory the chorepiscopus Damiél, a Syrian
by birth, had stood at the head of the church of Tardn 49, To this
church also belonged P’aren, the successor of Yusik in the kat’ohkosate.
He in turn was succeeded by Sahak, from the family of bishop Atbianos,
who ressembled P’aren according to Faustus. It 1s possible that all
these figures, Daniél included, were of the same origin. The miracles
and halo of sainthntlness which surround Daniél’s name in Faustus’
History bear witness to the fact that he was an unusual personnage,
and that he played an important part in the life of the Armenian
Church *°,

In spite of the fact that all of Faustus’ sympathies are on the side
of the descendents of the [Juminator, he cannot hide the fact that
the representative of the church of Atbianos, mm the person of Daniél,
enjoyed a great influence, and that in the struggle for the patriarchal
throne the representatives of this house undoubtedly had precedence
over that of St. Gregory 5°. Later, when the cult of St. Gregory
had triumphed, only dim memories remained of the original Syrian
church. The more authoritative representatives of this church, such
as Daniél and Atbianos, were represented in the later tradition as
disciples of St. Gregory.

The true inter-relationship between the two currents of Christianity
in Armenia is presented in the admirable legend which relates how
the parents of St. Gregory, at the time of their fight from Persia
to Armenia, stopped in Artaz near the grave of the holy apostle
Thaddeus and, «... here took place the conception of the mother of
the great and holy Illuminator and, therefore, having received the
grace of this same apostle, he who was conceived near his tomb com-
pleted his unfinished spiritual task 81». The legend in itselfis devoid
of true foundation, but it is correct as the symbolic expression of the
belief that the activity of the Iuminator had found a ground already
made fertile by the martyrdom of St. Thaddeus, and that the work
of St. Gregory was the continuation of the mission of the apostle.
An entire century of struggle raged before the total merging of
the two currents which we have observed and the creation of a single
Church. In the course of this struggle the principle of nationalism
in church organization was worked out.

THE NAXARAR SYSTEM AND THE CHURCH 275

If we follow carefully the alternation of the descendents of Gregory
and Aibianos on the patriarchal throne, we can observe a certain
coincidence between it and the successive political superiority of the
two states on which Armenia depended. The rule of the Gregorids
coincides with the ascendant influence of the Roman Empire, and
that of the Atbianids with that of Persia. The protectorate of the
Empire over Armenia, consolidated by the treaty of 298, remained
officially undisturbed until 363. During this period, the Persians
attempted several times to intrude into Armenian affairs, and they
were finally successful in 338 when dissentions arose among the heirs
of Constantine after the emperor’s death. The king of Armenia at
this time was Tiran [Tigranes VII], and it is precisely in his reign
that the Atbianids, P’aren and Sahak, ascend the patriarchal throne
after Aristakés, Vrt’anés, and Yusik. The son and successor of
Tiran, Arsak II was considered to be an imperial apointee. Nersés I,
the descendant of St. Gregory, was summoned to the kat’ohkosate
together with Arsgak. As soon as the friendly relations between
Argak and the Emperor turned to enmity ὅ5, and the Armenian king
concluded an alliance with the Persian king Sahpuhr II, Nersés I found
himself removed from his see and replaced by a bishop Cunak, probably
from the house of Atbianos *8, Argak soon quarreled with the Persians
and ended his hfe tragically after he had been emprisoned by them.
His son, Pap, came to power with the help of a Roman army; the
deposed kat’olikos, Nersés, found himself once again at the head of
the Church *4. The friendship with the Emperor did not last long,
however, and Pap turned away from the Empire to join the Persians 5.
This is the point at which the murder of Nersés occured, and the
appointment in his place of Yusik, one of the descendents of Albianos 5.
Finally after the division of Armenia, the patriarchal see remained in
the Persian portion and was occupied successively by the Atbianids,
Zawén, Sahak and Aspurakés 57.

In this manner, the heads of the Church changed in accordance
with political influence. The Gregorids came forward as supporters
of the imperial policy, while the Atbianids sympathized rather with
the Persians, and their alternation reflects the genetic difference
between the two currents of Christianity, the Greek and the Syrian,
‘ which they represented. The policy of the Albianids was basically
that of the Arsacids, and it became national as it came to serve as the
foundation for the organization of an Armenian Church 578, The

276 CHAPTER XII

process of development and gradual nationalization in the Armenian
Church becomes clearer and more understandable if we compare τὖ
with the evolution of ecclesiastical organization in the Empire in
general,

From the very first period of its appearance, Christianity displayed
a natural tendency toward organization. Struggling against a hostile
environment, it was obliged to marshall its forces, both for the mainte-
nance of positions already occupied and for further advances, as well
as for the formation of communities, and the establishment of common
ties among them in order to keep up with the increase and widening
of the circle of the faithful. The clergy : bishops and priests standing
at the head of separate communities, formed the first connecting link.
Several bishops next joined together and formed an administrative
unit under the leadership of one among their number. The unification
of communities and the grouping together of their bishops followed
the lines elaborated in the political structure. The evolution of the
ecclesiastical hierarchy followed in the steps of administrative or-
ganization. Imperceptibly, the Church adapted itself to the adminis-
trative structure of the Empire, its own divisions paralleling those
of the state. The work of organization in the Church had already
reached a measure of completion by the time of the Council of Nicaea
in 325, which consecrated the then existing order. This order was a
faithful reflection of the imperial machinery which had taken a clearly
defined form of its own at an earlier date 57»,

The Church responded rapidly to the new administrative divisions
created by Diocletian at the end of the third century, and by 325

it had already found the time to make the corresponding alterations

in its own hierarchy, so that it coincided fully with the new system.
We have already seen the main aspects of the reform of Diocletian.
On the one hand, existing provinces were broken up into smaller,
administratively autonomous, units, on the other, several of the
new provinces were joined together to form larger administrative
units, the dioceses, in a hierarchical pattern of authority. The
Asiatic possessions of the Empire formed three dioceses: Asiana,
Pontica, and Oriens, to which Egypt also belonged. At their head
stood vicars, 1.6. substitutes for the Praetorian Prefect of the East,
while at the head of the provinces were found governors or praesides
subordinated to their vicars.

Kieclesiastical authority was distributed in exactly the same way

THE NAXARAR SYSTEM AND THE CHURCH 217

and in the same framework. A province was simultaneously an
ecclesiastical unit — an eparchy — and in each eparchy a metropolitan
bishop, equal in rank to the praeses of the civilan administration,
likewise had his seat. Similarly, the dioceses simultaneously took on
the sense of ecclesiastical units in which bishop-patriarch corresponded
to the vicars. Just as in each province one of the bishops, namely
the bishop of the provincial capital who ranked as metropolitan,
stood out from the rest, so in each diocese one of the metropolitans
occupied the leading position of patriarch or head metropolitan.
The metropolitan of Ephesus held this rank in the diocese of Asiana,
the metropolitan of Antioch, in that of Oriens, and the metropolitan
of Caesarea [of Cappadocia] in that of Pontica 575,

Certain discrepancies raise the question of the date at which these
relationships were established. Some scholars believe that the system
of metropolitans was first established at the Council of Nicaea and
that of patriarchates at the Council of Constantinople I. Others
concede that the formation not only of the metropolitanates, but even
of the patriarchates antedated the Council of Nicaea and that this
Council merely sanctioned a situation already in existence at the time ;
for this they rely on Canons IV and VI of the Council. The first of
these deals with provincial bishops and their relations with their
metropolitans. This canon marks a perfectly clear stage im the
development of the metropolitan sees. <A similar stage in patriarchal
organization was reached in 381, and this point is marked by the πθοῦδα
Canon of the Council of Constantinople, which states,

Bishops of a diocese should not extend their authority over
churches outsides its boundaries, nor should they mingle
churches. But according to the canons, the bishop of Alexan-
dria should concern himself only with what is in Egypt, the
bishops of Oriens should care for the Hast, with due respect
for the seniority of the Church of Antioch, according to the
canons of the Council of Nicaea. As for the bishops of Asiana,
they should concern themselves only with the affairs of Asia,
the bishop of Pontica with the affairs of Pontus, and the bishop
of Thrace with those of Thrace 58,

According to the opinion of some scholars, diocesan divisions patter-
ned on the political system were first established in the Church as a
result ofthis Canon. Others, on the contrary, suppose that the Council
merely clarified a system which had existed before 381 and which

278 CHAPTER XII

was already accepted in principle at the Council of Nicaea, as evidenced
by its sixth Canon, which prescribes that,

... Lo preserve the ancient custom whereby the bishop
of Alexandria enjoys the highest authority in Egypt, Libya,
and the Pentapolis .... Similarly with regard to Antioch,
and the other eparchies, the right of seniority must be observed
for these churches 59,

According to one interpretation, the words ἐξουσία and τὰ πρεσβεῖα
refer to metropolitan prerogatives, while according to another, the
matter under discussion is the supra-metropolitan or patriarchal
authority. In our opinion both hypotheses are incorrect; the question
will appear in its proper light if we remember the fundamental principle
according to which ecclesiastical hierarchy was patterned, and if we
use our knowledge to clarify these problematic stages in its develop-
ment 592,

As a result of the reform of Diocletian, the number of provinces
was increased, while their size was reduced. Thus, for example, before
Diocletian, Cappadocia had included Lesser Armenia, Galatia, and
Pontus Polemoniacus; Mesopotamia had consisted of the later Meso-
potamia, and Osrhoené; Syria of Syria, Phoenicia, Palestine, etc...
After Diocletian the fragmentation went even further: Cappadocia
was spht into Cappadocia I and IJ, Armenia I and 11, Syria was
subdivided into seven provinces (Huphratensis, Syria I and IJ,
Phoenicia I and 11, Palestinia 1 and IT), Egypt into five provinces,
Asia into seven ®. How was ecclesiastical power to be altered as a
result of these changes ?

The eparchies were subdivided together with the provinces and new
metropoleis made their appearance. Asa result of Diocletian’s reform,
a whole series of new metropolitan sees arose around Antioch, Caesarea,
and Alexandria. Did the new sees maintain some sort of subordination
to their former metropolitans, or were they legally considered to be
their equals? For instance, Caesarea had been the metropolis and
the center of political life in the province of Cappadocia before Dio-
cletian ; for this reason the bishop of Caesarea had necessarily occupied
the position of a metropolitan. When Lesser Armenia was separated
from Cappadocia, the bishop of Sebasteia, its capital, became the
metropolitan of the newly created province. Were the relations with
the former metropolis at Caesarea consequently broken? In short,

THE NAXARAR SYSTEM AND THE CHURCH 279

when a bishop was elevated to metropolitan rank, what determined
his relations to his former metropolitan ?

We believe that the answer to this question is given by Canon VI of
the Council of Nicaea cited above. The fathers of this Council assumed
that existing traditions should not be abbrogated and that the centers
indicated should preserve their rights of seniority. According to this
classification, Antioch, Ephesus, Caesarea, and Alexandria, which had
already reached a superior position before Diocletian, should continue
to enjoy the same status after him, whether or not the Church adapted
itself to the diocesan pattern. When the Church subsequently did
accept the diocesan divisions, nothing was altered thereby in the
position of these centers, since they became diocesan capitals. The
Council of 381 consohdated and gave a clear formulation to a situation
which had been established earlier. The metropolitans of diocesan
capitals became superior metropolitans, each within the boundaries
of his diocese. The patriarchal authority of Antioch, Caesarea [810],
and Ephesus, which were diocesan capitals began and developed in
thisfashion. LHgypt, although a part of the diocese of Oriens, remained
a separate unit because of its location; consequently Alexandria, as
the capital of an antonomous country, was assimilated to a diocesan
capital from the ecclesiastical point of view, and its metropolitan was
considered to be a patriarch. Hence, the diocesan division merely
hmited the sheres of influence of the senior metropolitans to the
boundaries of their particular territory, 1.6. the diocese, and conse-
crated the patriarchal authority which had developed before and
outside the diocesan system 2,

With the appearance of the parallel between the ecclesiastical and
civilian organizations, it becomes possible to discuss the rivalries of
the patriarchs for a position of primacy in terms of their desire to
create for themselves a hierarchical rank equivalent to that of praetori-
an prefect. One of the patriarchs had to become the first, so that
the others should be subordinated to him as the vicars or, governors
of dioceses, were subordinated to the prefect. The Praetorian Prefect
of Oriens lived for the most part at Antioch, especially at first; later
he ruled the Hast while residing normally in the Imperial capital.
As a result it is understandable that the see of Antioch was the most
successful in the struggle for primacy, until the contest was settled in
favour of the patriarch of the imperial capital ον, The later evolution
of the hierarchy followed a path of centralization, to the detriment

280 ; CHAPTER XII

in the first place of the patriarchs of Ephesus and Caesarea, and
the infringement of their rights. In this sense, the Council of Chal-
cedon marked the victory of the Church of Constantimople in 451.
At the Council of 451, the holy fathers reviewed the decisions of the
earlier cecumenical council as to the pre-eminence of the Church of
Constantinople, sppngred it, and went still further in Canon XXVIII,
which proclaims,

ὡς the metropolitans of the dioceses of Pontica, Asiana, and
Thrace, and also the bishops of the barbarians who reside in
the aforesaid dioceses, shall be ordained from the aforesaid
most holy see of the most holy Church of Constantinople. The
metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops
of their eparchy, shall ordain bishops for the eparchy, in accor-
dance with the holy canons, but the metropolitans of the
dioceses [as has been said] shall be ordained by the archbishop
of Constantinople 52,

As a consequence of this canon the patriarchal prerogatives of the
sees of Ephesus and Caesarea were lost and they lost their importance
forever. The negative attitude of the Armenians toward the Council
of Chalcedon derives from this fact. The schism came about on a
basis of hierarchy and not over dogma, as implied by later sources.
The patriarch of Constantinople did not halt at this stage, but also
strove to subordinate the other patriarchates, and to advance the pri-
macy of his see. In 558 [sic] John the Faster'assumed the pompous
title of Oecumenical Patriarch. Thus the Church did not lag behind
the secular powers, impregnated with the same autocratic tendencies,
it achieved the concentration of its powers in the person of the patriarch
of Constantinople in the very moment of the triumph of absolutism,
the period of Justinian 519,

This outline of the development of the Imperial Church allows us
to draw two conclusions and to set down two prerequisites for a survey
of the evolution of the Armenian Church. First its external relations,
ἃ.6, its relations with the Imperial Church, must be clarified in relation
to the political situation; in other words, the subordination of the
Armenian Church had to be equivalent to the dependence of the country
on the Empire. Second, the Armenian Church had to correspond to
the local secular pattern in its internal development just as the Imperial
Church had adapted itself to the administrative structure of the
Empire,

THE NAXARAR SYSTEM AND THE CHURCH 281

We have already seen that the Armenian lands did not present a
politically unified whole but were divided into several portions with
different political aspects. Consequently, we cannot speak of-a-single
ecclesiastical organization for the whole of the Armenian territory.
Lesser Armenia, organically bound to the Empire, was also subject
to the general pattern in ecclesiastical matters. First, as a part of
Cappadocia, it had belonged to the eparchy of the metropolitan of
Caesarea; then, having been made into a separate province, 1+ had a
metropolitan of its own at Melitené. With the division of Lesser
Armenia into two provinces, Melitené became the metropolis of
Armenia 11, and Sebasteia that of Armenia I 6, Both these metro-
polis recognized the seniority of their former metropolis, the see of
Caesarea; finally at the time of the Council of Chalcedon of 451, they
were put under the direct jurisdiction of the patriarch of Constantinople.

Greater Armenia vacilated in ecclesiastical matters because of its
political instability, now leaning toward the Empire and now away
from it, according to the political situation. In the first century of
the existence of the Armenia Church, from St. Gregory to the partition
of the country at the end of the fourth century, Armenia was in the
main under the protectorate of the Empire and therefore, their eccle-
siastical relations were likewise very close. Consecrated at Caesarea,
St. Gregory, seemed an ordinary bishop, like the bishops of Melitené,
Sebasteia, and other cities, in his relations with Caesarea, with the
only difference that the subordination of Gregory, who was the bishop
of an independent nation, under imperial protection, was purely
formal in character 88,

Gregory might have been ordained as bishop by the nearest metro-
politan, for imstance that of Melitené, since the ancient tradition
clarified by the fourth canon of the Council of Nicaea gave to each
metropolitan the right to ordain bishops in his eparchy. Since Gregory
addressed himself to Caesarea, his ordination must go back to the
period preceding the reform of Diocletian in 296, which turned Lesser
Armenia into a new province with a separate metropolitan. To be
sure even after this reform the successors of Gregory went to Caesarea,
but this can be explained by the natural desire to preserve the tra-
ditional link with the former. leading center of ecclesiastical life and
to avoid becoming dependent on a metropolitan who had formerly
been subordinate to the see of Caesarea on a par with the bishop of
Armenia. The relationship of the Illuminator to Caesarea was that

282 CHAPTER XII

of a bishop to his metropolitan, while his successors, or those of them
who received their consecration at Caesarea, behaved with regard to
it as metropolitans to a patriarch.

This situation continued with certain interruptions until the partition
of Armenia, These interruptions were the results of Persian interference,
and with the increase of their influence, the Armenians showed a
tendency to end their ecclesiastical dependence on the Empire and
to create an autonomous church. We have seen that the spokesmen
of the two trends in ecclesiastical policy were the representatives of
the houses of Gregory and Aibianos. The division of Armenia into
two kingdoms provided a solution for its dual ecclesiastical policy;
the two currents withdrew into their respective boundaries: the
Imperial one into western Armenia, and the national one into eastern
Armenia. From the time of the partition, eastern Armenia entered
resolutely upon a policy of nationalization by means of autonomous
hierarchical institutions, while western Armenia remained in a position
of dependence on the Imperial Church.

The nationalization of the Church meant its nayararization or
feudalization. Since the political regime in Armenia was feudal in
character and the power was divided among many princely houses,
ecclesiastical authority likewise had to assimilate itself to the existing
society and adopt the forms which were ready to hand. The process
of nayararization in the Church began with the break in its relations
with the Imperial Church during the reign of king Pap. After the
murder of bishop Nersés I, Pap appointed bishop Yusik, from the
house of Atbianos in his place. On hearing of the king’s wilful decision,
taken without his knowledge or permission, the patriarch of Caesarea
was preatly displeased. A synod of bishops from the eparchy of
Caesarea met on this matter, and sent a wrathful letter to King Pap
in which according to the words of the historian,

... they took away the authority of the kat’ohkosate and
(decreed) that the persons chosen as patriarchs [of the Ar-
menians] should have only the right to bless the royal table,
but should not presume hereafter to consecrate bishops for
the Armenians as had been the custom before. Thereafter,
“continues the historian”, the right of ordaining bishops
was taken from the Armenians, and those designated as bishops
for the various provinces and lands of Armenia journeyed
to Caesarea and were consecrated as bishops there, since from
that time, “the historian repeats’’, the Armenians did not

THE NAXARAR SYSTEM AND THE CHURCH 283

dare to ordain bishops, but whoever was the senior bishop of
all sat above the others at the royal table and blessed the
king’s bread *,

The reliability of faustus’ account is supported by the fact that Basil
the Great, who was the bishop of Caesarea refered to, also mentions a
clash between himself and Pap in his Letters. Basil rejected Pap’s
request to consecrate Faustus, the bishop sent by the ling, and
proposed in his stead his own candidate, a certain Cyml. The Arme-
nians then by-passed Basil and having addressed themselves with the
same request to Basil’s rival Anthemios of Tyana, Metropolitan of
Caappadocia II, obtained their wish 65, The Faustus mentioned here
should be identified with the bishop of the same name, who is
said to have ordained Nersés I and to have lived until the period
of King Xosrov III, according to Armenian historian 6+, The account
of Basil the Great does not quite agree with the Armenian evidence;
they can be reconciled only if we admit that first King Pap supported
the candidacy of Faustus, and only afterward broke with tradition
and appointed his own candidate because of Basil’s refusal to acceed
to his request.

The concept of the Armenian historian we have just cited as to
the nature of the kat’ohkos’ authority can be seen from his account.
This authority consisted primarily in the right of episcopal ordination,
and with its loss, the position of kat’ohkos was reduced to that of
court bishop. Whether the bishops of Armenia in this period bore the
title of katohkos, and whether they had the nght of ordination is still
a debatable question *>, The influence of the somewhat later period,
when the position of the kat’ohkos had been established, can be felt
in the historian’s words, As for his assertion that after the incident
with Pap the Armenian bishops were consecrated at Caesarea, it
should be taken as correct, but only for the Imperial or western
portion of Armenia. We know that after the partition there was no
kat’ohkos in the Imperial part of the country, and that the bishops of
this portion were no longer subject to the kat?ohkos who resided in
Persian Armenia. None of the bishops from western Armenia
participated in the rebellion of the fifth century.

We do not know the state of ecclesiastical affairs in Imperial Armenia
after the partition. Judging from certain sources, its Church con-
formed to the political regime found in each of its component parts.
We see from the signatures of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 that the

284 CHAPTER XII

representatives of the autonomous Satrapies : the bishops of Sophené,
Anzitené, Angelené, Sophanené, and Martyropolis, were present at the
Council and made up the eparchy of Mesopotamia under the metzo-
politan authority of the bishop of Amida 66, After the separation
of Osrhoené, Nisibis had become the metropolis of Mesopotamia, and
after the transfer of this city to the Persians in 363 1t was replaced
by Amida. The bishops of the Satrapies were as autonomous as
their ruling princes. Just as these princes received the insignia of
their rank from the Imperial authorities, so the bishops received their
consecration at the hands of the nearest Imperial metropolitan; they
attended the Council of 451 in this position of ecclesiastical subordi-
nation.

The status of the Church in Imperial Interior Armenia is less definite ;
no representative came from it to the Council of Chalcedon. Gregory,
bishop of Justinianopolis, is mentioned at the Fifth Council of 553 6,
At the time of the schism in the kat’ohkosate at the end of the sixth
century, bishop Theodore, who was considered the instigator of the
troubles, had his seat at Theodosiopolis 6. Koriwn mentions a
bishop of Derjan, while Theodore, bishop of Eketeac or Justinianopolis,
and George of Daranahk* or Kemah, are mentioned among the parti-
cipants at the Council of 680. This same George was also present
at the Council of 692, together with bishop Marianos of Kitharizin 89.
Consequently in the sixth and seventh centuries bishoprics existed in
the main provinces of Interior Armenia: Karin, Derjan, Hkeleac, and
Daranatik’. The date and order of appearance of these bishoprics
is not as clear. Interior Armenia did not become a Roman province
in the strict sense of the term after its reunion with the Empire, but
kept its internal nayarar structure to the time of Justinian. For this
reason, in the ecclesiastical sphere as well it was not a separate me-
tropolitan see, but each province, as an autonomous principality had
its own bishop, and all the bishops were the subordinates of the
Imperial Church since they were ordained by it. At the Council of
Chalcedon it was decreed that, «... heareafter the bishops of the
barbarians shall be consecrated by the most holy see of the most holy
Church of Constantinople » 5898, on a par with the metropolitans of the
dioceses of Pontica, Asiana, and Thrace. Before that time Armenian
bishops had been ordained by the nearest higher see, namely that of the
church of Caesarea, but thenceforth, under the terms of the canon
just cited, they were put under the direct jurisdiction of the patriarch
of Constantinople.

THE NAXARAR SYSTEM AND THE CHURCH 285

The real sense of Faustus’ statement that the Armenian bishops
were consecrated exclusively at Caesarea after the clash between the
patriarch of Caesarea and King Pap becomes clear from what has
just been said. We see in his assertion a reflection of the state of
affairs found in the Imperial portion of Armenia, whose bishops were
indeed the subordinates of the see of Caesarea, According to Armenian
tradition, an attempt was made to create a separate kat’ohkosate for
Imperial Armenia in the period of troubles which followed the partition
of the country 7. It is possible that the patriarchal authority was
also divided at the time of the division of the realm between the two
brothers who had inherited the throne, one of whom ruled in Persian
and the other in Roman Armenia. In that case, the reference of the
historian to the kat’oltikos’ loss of his power of ordination and to
his degradation to the rank of court bishop should be applied specifi-
cally to the holder of the rank of kat’olikos in Imperial Armenia 705,
_ The same statement may in fact also be apphed to the Armenian

kat’olikos before the partition of the country. The solution to the
problem of his right of ordination will be found in the actual number
of bishops found in the Armenian Church at that time. According
to the decision of the Council of Nicaea, ordination to the episcopate
was to be carried out with the agreement of all the bishops of a given
eparchy. Should it prove difficult for all of them to assemble, the
actual presence of at least three bishops and the written approval of
those absent was indispensable, and the decision was then to be sent
for approval to the metropolitan 7, We know that all the Armenian
kat’ohkoi from St. Gregory to the time of Pap were consecrated at
Caesarea; only Aristakés was ordained by his father. If this is
the case, the consecration of Aristakés probably occurred before the
Nicaean Council, at a time when such a right had perhaps been conceded
to individual bishops. Had even three bishops existed in Armenia,
the ordination of the kat’otikos would have taken place there, and
only then have been sent to Caesarea for confirmation. Faustus tells
us that after the deposition of Nersés I, King ArSak I] summoned the
Armenian bishops to consecrate a certain Cunak, but all refused,
with the exception of the bishops of Aljnik’ and Korduk’, who came
and carried out the king’s wish 72. The true facts here are that there
were no Armenian bishops, and that Argsak was consequently forced
to address himself to the representatives of neighbouring provinces
who were in fact considered to be members of the Church of Syria.

286 CHAPTER XII

The Armenians could not ordain bishops or a kat’olikos for themselves
without asking for the co-operation of the nearby churches. When
Faustus says that the bishop of Caesarea had deprived the Armenians
of their right of ordination, he is incorrectly attributing to a single
period the conditions prevailing in the Armenian Church up to that
time 722,

It would not be incorrect to say that the Armenian ecclesiastical
hierarchy, which had consisted only of the houses of St. Gregory and
Atbianos, began its development in the period of the kat’ohkosate of
Nersés I. In his description of the prosperity of the Church under
Nersés, Faustus asserts, that, « ... he [Nersés] increased the number of
clerics [in all the localities of his diocese] ... and appointed bishops in
all the districts», The historian’s further comment that, «... the
honours of the father-bishops grew in all the provinces correspondingly
to their merits, 7?» has the same meaning. The time of troubles after
Pap must have benefitted the development and increase of clerical
powers. The gradual dechne of royal authority weakened the po-
sition of the king as a restraining element and created conditions
which favoured the spread of feudal power throughout the nation.
The brief reign of Pap’s successor Varazdat, who was the imperial
candidate, was followed by the regency of Manuét Mamikonean, who
devoted the seven years of his rule primarily to the regularization of
the nayarar system 74. This is the starting point in the adaptation
of the ecclesiastical organization to the nayarar pattern. Licclesiasti-
cal authority began to be parcelled out among the more powerful
princely houses through the creation of separate bishoprics for each
one of them. The system of metropolitans was not found here;
there was no territorial basis for the delimitation of ecclesiastical
provinces 75, The ecclesiastical administrative unit coincided exactly
with the district of the princely house to which it belonged irrespective
of its size. In the period preceding the fall of the Arsacids, the
ecclesiastical hierarchy expanded to such a degree that by 451 there
were 18 bishops representing the leading princely familes of the
country. |

Among these bishops, one bore the title of kat’olikos (καθόλικος) 75,
and occupied with regard to the others the same position as the king
to the princes, 2.6. he was primus inter pares. The bishops were
called iér (mfp) [lord] like the princes, and just as they were the
ecclesiastical representatives of the principalities, so the kat’obkos

THE NAXARAR SYSTEM AND THE CHURCH 287

was seen primarly as the bishop of the royal province, specifically
of the Arsacid domain of Ayrarat. Hence the statement of the
historian already cited, that the kat’ohkos was the bishop of the
royal court and blessed the royal table, is absolutely correct 77.

Spiritual rank and authority, just like that of the secular prices,
was the hereditary prerogative of certain familes. This was a strange
and incomprehensible phenomenon to the Imperial Church, and was
a subject discussed at the Council «in Trullo» of 692. Canon XXXIIT
of this Council decreed that,

Having heard that in the land of Armenia only persons of
clerical descent are accepted into the church, im imitation of
Jewish custom ... we decree that henceforth, 1f anyone desires
to enter the clergy, family shall not be taken into consideration,
his worthiness for the spiritual vocation shall be proven accord-
ing to the requirements laid down by the holy canons, and
he shall then be consecrated, whether or not he be the descen-
dent of servants of the church 78,

Several Armenian bishops were present at this Council, among them
Marianos, bishop of Kitharizin. The above information had un-
doubtedly been provided by them, and the problem must have been
brought up for discussion at the Council at their suggestion. Conse-
quently, there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the evidence
furnished to the Council. There was no question in this case of
imitating Old Testament practices as the fathers of the Council
supposed. If any similarity between the two existed, it must be
explained by the fact that the Armenian hierarchy, just lke the Old
Testament priesthood, had developed in a society where family ties
prevailed. Hereditary succession and other points of similarity
between them were the results not of imitation, but only of the identical
social conditions under which the Armenian Church and the bibbcal
priestly caste had developed 7°.

The patriarchal authority was likewise hereditary, and it stayed
in the house of the Illuminator as long as the corresponding political
power remained in the hands of the Arsacids. At the moment of
the fall of the Arsacids at the beginning of the fifth century, the
question of the deposition of the patriarch Sahak I was simultaneously
raised, After this plan had been carried out, the patriarchal throne
remained in an equivocal position. Just as the bishops were the
ecclesiastical representatives of the various principalities, so the
patriarch depended on the king and was appointed by the Arsacids
to his position as court bishop. After them, this prerogative passed

288 CHAPTER XII

to the Persian king. However, neither the Persian appointees:
bishops Surmak, BrkiSoy, and Smovel, nor the close disciples of
Sahak 1, Mesrop and Yovsép’, all of whom ruled over the Church,
were ever considered to be kat’olikoi, but only substitutes. The
reason for this is unquestionably to be found in the fact that ecclesi-
astical society was dominated by hereditary succession, and that the
question to whom the throne should pass in the absence of legitimate
heirs was still open and awaiting a solution. We can now see why
the forgotten but honourable house of Albianos came once more to
the fore at this point, and why its bishops, Melité and Movsés ascended
the patriarchal throne 88, This attempt to solve the problem his-
torically was not successful, and bishop Giwt’ from the Mamikonean
province of Tayk’ took over the patriarchal dignity from the Atbianids,
probably as a result of the patronage of Vahan Mamikonean. The
position of the Church was consolidated by the favourable outcome
of the rebellion at the end of the fifth century and the importance of
the clergy began to grow. The problem of patriarchal authority
was resolved in favour of an elective basis as a result of rivalries among
bishops, and possibly also as a consequence of the influence of neigh-
bourimg Churches with whom. relations were tightened in this period.

The bishop of the Mamikonean held the leading position in the
Church after the patriarch, or kat’ohkos; the influence of the nayarar
system is obvious in this case. Just as the hereditary Mamikonean
sparapets stood at the head of the nayarars under the Arsacids and
even later, so in ecclesiastical affairs, the chief administrator found
at the side of the kat’otikos was the representative of the same house.
The leading role played in the ecclesiastical affairs of the sixth century
by Nergapuh, bishop of the Mamikonean, is well known.

If our hypothesis of a nayarar foundation for the ecclesiastical
organization is correct, some relationship between princely houses and
ecclesiastical representation must have existed; we should expect the
more important princely houses to have their own bishop, and vice-
versa, And indeed, on comparing the list of bishops with the lst
of principalities, we find that all the powerful houses have ecclesiastical
representatives. The best index of the relative might of the principa-
lities we have investigated is found in their territorial relationships’
Unimportant principalities are those whose possessions were included
in large princely territories. With few exceptions, the former are
the very principalities which lack representatives in the ecclesiastical
hierarchy.

THE ORIGIN OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM
XIII

PRELIMINARY EXCURSUS

Definition of the problem and methods employed for its solution — Positive and
constructive elements in the study of the problem — The basis of the state in the Hast
— Tribal organization as the basis of the state — Σύστημα μεῖζον — The Iranian
tribal system and its features: tawma, vid, zantu, dahyu zana — Clan life and the abi-
caris-bazar-éAevBepa ἀγορά — ‘The disappearance of tribal institutions in the Parthian
period — The structure of the Arsacid Empire.

In order to determine the nature of the nayarar system as a historical
institution, the formulation of the problem is of the greatest im-
portance. Since our immediate purpose here is to outline the position
of the nayarars in the century of Justinian, which is our concern,
a study of the qualitative aspects of the nayarar system must likewise
be made within these limits, 1.6. within this span of time, but is it
possible to carry out such an undertaking from a strictly scholarly
point of view 2?

In the period under consideration, the nayarar system was passing
through certain alteration as it entered a new phase in its development.
This evolution of the nayarar system, like every other aspect of Ar-
menian life, did not follow a straight line in either time or space.
The evolution of life was far from uniform throughout the country;
at a time when a particular situation was barely making its appearance
in one section, it was already dying out and obsolete in another.
Varying topographical conditions and uneven degrees of contact with
the general political life of the country created socially and culturally
dissimilar areas. In one section ancient forms of life were still alive
and the traditions of a very distant past were occasionally still preser-
ved, while in the same span of time, other sections altered their social
structure several times.

Historical literature is unable to reproduce this social scene in all
its variety. Writing made its appearance in the period of disinte-
gration of the Arsacid system, and the sources relating both to this

290 CHAPTER XIII

and to a slightly later period are not political in nature. It is true
that these sources contain very valuable information on this or that
aspect of nayarar customs, but m general they are insufficient for a
definition of the entire pattern. This is all the more true because
we are often unable to grasp their real value and consequently lose
ourselves in conjectures, A correct interpretation of the technical
terms found in the sources should uncover the fundamental aspects
of the nayarar past, but any attempt to establish their exact meaning
by means of textual comparison is doomed to failure. One and the
same term can be used by a single author in completely different
senses, and the assumption of stylistic defects or textual errors in
such cases 15. not always warranted. It is true that the sources were
reworked, and that the replacing of one term by another is altogether
possible, but the lack of uniformity in technical terminology and its
variations in meaning cannot always be explained in this manner.
Many terms were inherited from a distant past, had taken on new
shades of meaning corresponding to new relationships as they passed
from century to century, and had finally emerged as complicated
concepts with an elaborate content in the period of literacy. To
uncover the historical layers accumulated in each term, it will be
necessary to trace once again the genetic evolution of the nayarar
system.

The surviving lterary sources on the history of the nayarar system
do not give us a complete understanding of it. Using the simile of a
famous investigator of feudalism in Western Europe, we can say that
the nayarar system seems like an ancient tree. At best, the sources
display before our eyes the leaves and the top of the tree, but its
roots remain hidden from our sight, and to reach them we must dig
far into the ground?. For such a purpose, a purely philological
method based on the study and comparison of texts is not sufficient,
and it will not produce the results desired. Some guiding concept
leading to the hidden roots is indispensable. To be scientifically
tenable, such a concept must be drawn from the historical context in
which the Armenians were living. The nayarar system is a socio-
political institution, hence its roots must be sought in the common
political and social conditions of the Iranian states. These were the
conditions under which Armenian life developed, and it was-necessarily
formed under the influence of political and legal concepts and norms
similar to those of Iran. Once we have characterized the bases of

THE NAXARAR SYSTEM — PRELIMINARY EXCURSUS 291

the Iranian state, we shall have a foundation allowing us to tie together
our scattered material on the nayarars and to weld it into a whole.

The state as a legal system was understood and formed in a different
manner in the Hast and in the West. In the West urban organization
played the leading part in the development of the concept of the
state; in the Hast, the same role was assigned to family associations.
Experts have characterized the Roman Empire as an association of
city states, whereas they see the Persian Empire as the highest mani-
festation of the tribe as a political unit 2. In the subsequent develop-
ment of political hfe in Iran, family: relations remained the basic
generative principle of political hfe, regardless of the supreme power
which was passed from one dynasty to another. 35

At the time of their appearance on the historical scene, the Persians
were composed of numerous tribes, as were their neighbours the Medes.
Deioces the Mede, having gained the leadership of the Median tribes,
destroyed the power of the Assyrians, while Cyrus, having united
the scattered Persian tribes, led them against the Medes and laid the
foundation of the Achaemenid Empire. Alexander of, Macedon in
turn destroyed the power of the Achaemenids, and his successors
ruled until they were forced to give way before the greater Parthian
threat. Through all these dynastic changes, the Iranian Empire
remained a loose tribal confederation (σύστημα μεῖζον), united
voluntarily or often also. by forcible means. At the head of the
confederation stood the closest knit or best organized tribe such as
that of the Pasargadae, whence sprang the Achaemenids, who looked
upon the kingship as the possession of their clan or iauma. Darius
never speaks otherwise than in the name of his clan and it is evident
from his many statements that family or clan interests motivated
his policy 8. The struggle culminating in the suppremacy of the
Achaemenid house was carried on first, against the Median Magians
and subsequently, against other tribes which sought to break away.
As a result of this constant struggle, the Achaemenids succeeded in
uniting the tribes and in creating a single powerful confederation
(σύστημα μεῖζον), according to the formula of ancient authors 4.

The Persian authorities recognized several dozen countries with
different peoples. These countries were called dahiu [dahyu], and
their heads, dahyu-parti. Dehyu is the Iranian form of the Sanscrit
dast, «an enemy » or «a slave», and designated the countries of enemies
or slaves4 5, This characteristic term renders correctly the attitude of

202 CHAPTER XIII

the ruling clan toward the other tribes. The dahyu formed a morte
or less uniform ethnic group, a so-called zana. On his inscriptions
the Persian king is called « ysayaftya dahytinéin vispazandnaim», or
« puravzaninam, » 1.6. the dahyu with various or numerous zana,
« peoples» ὅ, Zana is the ethnic form of the concept whose territorial
equivalent is the dahyuw.

The subjection of the various countries or dahyw was demonstrated
by their payment ofa given tribute, bajim abaranid. In its function as
a provincial unit or tax district, the dahyu was known as a Satra [ysabra]
and its head as a ysa@rapa or Satra-pati[?]. In other words, the unit
ealled dahyu from the point of view of tribal possession became a
ysabra according to politico - administrative divisions. The two
units did not always comcide in size: occasionally several dahyus
made up one ysa0ra. Under the Achaemenids there were 23 to 28 dahyus
while, according to the division of Darius, the whole Empire was
spht up into 20 satrapies. The dahyus varied in importance and size;
some of them were even autonomous kingdoms whose rulers were
entitled ySadya0ia = Sah, and-in relation to them the king of Persia
became ysdyahianam — ysayaia, 1.6. Sahansch. Persia, Media,
Parthia, Armenia, Babylonia, and others were dahyus of this type 55.

The dahyu or zana was the largest autonomous unit included in
the Empire. The zana had 105 own interior organization: it was
subdivided into separate tribes and the latter were split into larger or
smaller clans. Thus, for example, the Persians and the Medes were
dahyus, the former having 10 tribes, and the latter 6 * One of then
Persian tribes was that of the Pasargadae, and one of the subdivisions
of the Pasargadae was the clan of the Achaemenids. Herodotus calls
the Pasargadae, γένος, and the Achaemenids, φρήτρη. In the in-
scriptions of Darius, the clan of the Achaemenids is designated by the
term. tawma; consequently, as a social concept, tawmd is equivalent to
φρήτρη.. The zantu [*daniu] was the next step in the social grouping,
corresponding to the Greek γένος. One of the Median tribes is called
ἀριζάντοι, 1.6. «the noble zaniu or tribe»; hence we may conclude
that zantu is the name of each of the 8 [5710] units or γένεα. Since
the Persian tribes were social units of the same rank as the Median
ones, the term zaniu is also applicable to them. Thus, the whole
Persian nation formed one zana, the Pasargadae as one of the tribes of
that zana were a zantu, and the Achaemenids as one of the clans
composing the zantu were a tawmd 558,

THE NAXARAR SYSTEM — PRELIMINARY EXCURSUS 293

In the inscriptions we also find the terms υἱθ and kara. Side by
side with the expression mand taumaya or amayam taumayad we find
vvbam tyam amadyam, 1.6. «our taumad, our 119». Kara refers to the
entire nation Persian or Median, «hkdra Parsa hya wibapatiy
kava Mada hya vibdpatiy (1.e «the people of Persia living
according to νὐθ-5, the people of the Medes living according to 126-s»).
From these expressions it is evident that the kara was spht into vs.
The relations of these terms to the tawmd and the zana is not clear.
They might be taken as intermediary steps in the social grouping,
but it seems more likely that 19 was the territorial expression of the
ethnic concept iaumd, just as dahyu was the equivalent of zana. As
for kara, « powerful», it is rather a military term and designated the
active element of the zana, the element fit a war, whence comes its
secondary meaning of « army»?

_ In the hterature of the Avent, the feria: néemana [nmdna], vis,
zantu, dahhu \dahyu] are often found for different levels of social
groupings made up of men related by blood. According to relatively
late scholia, the nmana was composed of five couples of men and women,
the vis of 15 couples, the zantu of 30 couples, and the dahyu of 50
couples. The important part here is found not in the numerical fig-
ures, which should be taken with reservations, but in the hierarchy of
the groups indicated by these figures. The nmdna is given as the first
step of association, designating the sum of individuals living under
one roof. Several similar nmdnas formed a vis, several vis a zantu,
and several zanitu made up one dahyu or people, 2.6. a zana. The
members of these groups were called nmdanya, visya, zantuma, dahyuma,
and their heads, nmdno-paitt, vis-pai, zantu-pai, and dahyu-paiti 8.
The term tawmda, which is already familiar to us, is not found here;
it seems to be replaced by nmana, which is given in the inscriptions
of Darius in the form mdniya, But we have already said that tawma
is the ethnic counterpart to the territorial vis; it is, therefore, more
likely that nmdna, as a social term, belongs to a late period and
corresponds to the family derived from the tawma.

_ Among tribal terms, some indicate blood relationships (éermina
genirs), namely tauma, zantu, zana; others point to a common territory
(termini loci), namely nmana, ‘vid, dahyu. It is difficult to establish
correspondences between the terms of these two categories; with the
passage of time certain terms supplanted others, a territorial term
takes on an ethnic connotation, etc...° Itis important to determime

294 CHAPTER XIII

the links in the tribal organization. The last of these is the dahyu,
above which comes only the association into a political group and an
administrative unit under the leadership of the supreme ruler.

From the point of view of the internal life of the tribe, the wid
should be considered the most active lnk. The starting point for
the history and law of the Aryan peoples was not the family but the
clan, gens. This was the original form of human association, and
from it developed the subsequent, more complicated units; similarly,
the patriarchal family was derived from it by way of the disintegration
of the clan into smaller groups. The υὴθ apparently was such a
starting point in Iran. Darius I, in his inscriptions, often speaks of
the vi and stresses its interests. The Medes and the Persians were
divided into vi8s, vibdpainy. The king proclaimed that he had rebuilt
the dyadana destroyed by the usurper Gaumata and had taken from
him the abicars, garbamea maniyamca vidbis-cad. It is evident from
this that the institutions listed were also divided according to vis,
Finally, even the gods were called by the name of wifs, bagarbis
vvbarbig ©, This pot is very important, since υδθ, as well as other
terms, was preserved, with very interesting alterations, in Armenian
nayarar terminology, as we shall see later.

Interesting information on Persian tribal hfe is found in Xenophon.
It is true that the Greek writer’s account is somewhat tendentious,
but it is essentially truthful and throws a good deal of hght on certain
aspects of Persian life. The historian relates that,

They have their so-called “ Free Square”, (ἐλευθέρα ἀγορά)
where the royal palace and other government buildings are
located .... This square, enclosing the government buildings,
is divided into four parts; one of these belongs to the boys,
one to the youths, another to the men of mature years, and
another to those who are past the age for military service.
And the law requires them to come daily to their several
quarters — the boys and the full grown men at daybreak;
but the elders may come at whatever time it suits each one’s
convenience, except that they must present themselves on
certain specified days. But the youths pass the night also
in hight armour about the government buildings — all except
those who are married; no inquiry is made for such, unless
they be especially ordered in advance to be there, but it is not
proper for them to be absent too often.

5. Over each of these divisions there are twelve officers,
for the Persians are divided into twelve tribes. To have

THE NAXARAR SYSTEM — PRELIMINARY EXCURSUS 295

charge of the boys, such are chosen from the ranks of the elders
as seem likely to make out of the boys the best men; to have
charge of the youths, such are chosen from the ranks of the
mature men as seem most likely on their part to develop the
youths best; to preside over the mature men, those are selected
who seem most likely to fit them best to execute the orders
and requirements of the highest authorities; and of the elders
also chiefs are selected who act as overseers to see that those
of this class also do their duty.

The historian then pauses to consider the Persian system of education,

... they learn to shoot and to throw the spear.

This, then, is what the boys do until they are sixteen or
seventeen years of age, and after this they are promoted from
the class of boys and enrolled among the young men.

9. Now the young men in their turn live as follows: for ten
years after they are promoted from the class of boys they
pass the nights, as we said before, about the government
buildings. This they do for the sake of guarding the city and
of developing their powers of self-control; for this time of life,
it seems, demands the most watchful care. And during the
day, too, they put themselves at the disposal of the authorities,
if they are needed for any service to the state. Whenever it
is necessary, they all remain about the public buildings. But
when the king goes out hunting, he takes out half the garrison ;
.. [12] .... And of the youths who remain behind, the autho-
rities employ any that they may need, whether for garrison
duty or for arresting criminals or for hunting down robbers,
or for any other service that demands strength or dispatch.

Such then, is the occupation of the youths. And when they
have completed their ten years, they are promoted and enrolled
in the class of mature men. 13. And these, in turn, for twenty-
five years after the time they are there enrolled, are occupied
as follows. In the first place, ike the youths, they are at the
disposal of the authorities, if they are needed in the interest
of the commonwealth in any service that requires men who
have already attained discretion and are still strong in body.
But if it is necessary to make a military expedition anywhere,
those who have been thus educated take the field, no longer
with bow and arrows, nor yet with spears, but with what are
termed ‘“‘ weapons for close conflict’? —a corselet about
their breast, a round shield upon their left arm (such as the
Persians are represented with in art), and in their nght hands
a sabre or bill. From this division also all the magistrates
are selected, except the teachers of the boys.

And when they have completed the five-and-twenty years,
they are, as one would expect, somewhat more than fifty

296 CHAPTER XIII

years of age; and then they come out and take their places
among those who really are, as they are called, the “ elders ”’.

14. Now these elders, in their turn, no longer perform military
service outside their own country, but they remain at home
and try all sorts of cases, both puble and private. They
try people indicted for capital offenses also, and they elect
all the officers. And if any one, either among the youths or
among the mature men, fail in any one of the duties prescribed
by law, the respective officers of that division, or any one else
who will, may enter complamt, and the elders, when they
have heard the case, expel the guilty party; and the one who
has been expelled spends the rest of his life degraded and
disfranchised.

15, Now, that the whole constitutional policy of the Persians
may be more clearly set forth, 1 will go back a little; for now,
in the light of what has already been said, it can be given in a
very few words. [Ὁ is said that the Persians number about
one hundred and twenty thousand men; and no one of these
is by law excluded from holding offices and positions of honour,
but all the Persians may send their children to the common
schools of justice. Still, only those do send them who are
in ἃ position to maintain their children without work; and
those who are not so situated do not. And only to such as
are educated by the public teachers is it permitted to pass
their young manhood in the class of the youths, while to those
who have not completed this course of training it is not so
permitted. And only to such among the youths as complete
the course required by law is it permitted to join the class of
mature men and to fill offices and places of distinction, while
those who do not fmish their course among the young men
are not promoted to the class of the mature men. And again,
those who finish their course among the mature men without
blame become members of the class of elders 13,

According to Xenophon, his hero Cyrus passed through all the
classes. What the historian is apparently attempting to present here,
is an ideal Persian system of education so that the details are probably
exaggerated, but in the main his account corresponds to reality.
One of the ancient institutions of tribal life, the free square (ἐλευθέρα
ἀγορά) is described ; this is the common gathering place, the institution
which is called abicaris on the inscriptions, and the one over which
Darius struggled with the impostor Gaumata. Abicaris coincides
phonetically and semantically with the Sanserit sabhdéara (from
sabhda, « gathering» and éara, «to go») which means « an assembly».
Among the Indians, the assembly of communities living in villages,

THE NAXARAR SYSTEM --- PRELIMINARY EXCURSUS 297

grama, under the rule of an elder, grémani, was called sabha. The
sabhé was summoned together for the discussion of public affairs
as well as for festivals and common entertainment. These assemblies
had so much importance that men were sometimes evalued according
to their usefulness in assembly : a man was prized as sabheya 15,

The representatives of the twelve Persian tribes met in the common
square. Up to ten thousand men were found in each tribe so that
there were altogether 120 thousand Persians (incidentally, this is a
staggeringly low figure for a nation wielding such fearful might).
This institution supports our hypothesis that the Persian Empire
was founded on a basis of confederation. The explanation of Xeno-
phon that, only the rich assembled in the common square, even though
all the members of the tribe were entitled to do so, proves that the
ancient tribal institutions were losing their true nature, and shows
the fashion in which an institution based on the equality of its members
was becoming a source of class differentiation and inequality. The
former simple assembly was transmuted into a sort of military school
intended in reality for the wealthy classes of the society; the poor
had no means of access to such an institution. Cyrus in his speech
to the soldiers comments in passing, «...12 our own country you did
not enjoy equal privileges with us, not because you were excluded
from them by us, but because you were obliged to earn your own
living 185, In this fashion, the free square or abicaris served as a
means for the subdivision of society into strata; it created a class of |
privileged individuals and secured for them the leading positions and
the exlusive right to govern the country. Among the thirty thousand
warriors of. Cyrus, only one thousand belonged to the rank of the
privileged, or, as he calls them, of the omotimor 14.

Xenophon asserts that all commerce was forbidden in the free
square 142, Nevertheless, both the New-Persian bdazdr, « market»
and the Armenian vader (iuréun) are derived from abicaris4; conse-
quently the earlier institution obviously degenerated at a later date
into a market for the exchange of goods. As a term, abicaris hved
through three stages of development, passing from. a tribal institution
to a military-aristocratic and eventually to a middle class one, The
abicaris led to the formation of a class of omoitmot within which lay
concealed the seeds of the future noble estate. The square once called
free, probably in the sense of its common accessibility, subsequently
became the exclusive property of the free class. Differentiation

298 CHAPTER XIII

within the homogeneous mass points already to the disintegration of
the tribal bases of life, and is attended by the mauguration of the
process of feudalization!4*. Careful investigation of the phenomenon
known as feudalism has revealed all the complication of its nature,
and we now speak not only of medieval feudalism, but also of primitive
feudalism developing from the dissolution of tribal society. In early
periods of history, one of the means of maintaining social equilibrium
was communal land tenure. With the destruction of this form of
possession, economic inequality developed, and brought with it the
uneven distribution of political power. This is the fashion in which
one of the main components of feudalism, namely the association of
land tenure and political power makes its appearance.

It is impossible to determine the exact point at which tribal forms
turned into feudal ones. The seeds of feudalism as well as those of a
tight political structure in the Roman sense were already visible in
the Achaemenid period 148, By-passing the ethnic groups, of which
there were as many as 70, the Achaemenids first divided the whole
of the Empire into 20 administrative units, the so-called satrapies,
and separated miltary and civilian powers, entrusting the former to
phrourarchs and chiltarchs and the latter to satraps 15, IJfany periodi-
zation 1s permissible here, the period of Parthian domination is the
one to be taken as the turning point in the history of socio-political
relations in Iran. Under the Achaemenids, the political structure
rested on tribal forms of association. In the subsequent Macedonian
— Seleucid period, political bases began to gain strength under the
influence of the western conquerors. At the time of the accession of
the Parthians who were emerging from the tribal order, like other
Iranian peoples, the developing state clashed with tribal foundations.
Parthian tribal traditions had given way in the Seleucid political
milieu and acquired the characteristics of feudalism. The process of
feudalization was expressed by the fact that the Parthians, having
turned into a military class, became omotimoi with regard to the rest
of Iran. The evolution in the internal life of the Parthians, as a
separate ethnic group, inevitably led to results similar to those found
among the Persians, 1.6., their society was fragmented as had been
that of the Persians 15,

Parthia had been settled by various tribes belonging to the Iranian
family. Although called Parthian, the royal house of the Arsacids
was not descended from the Parthians themselves, but from the

THE NAXARAR SYSTEM — PRELIMINARY EXCURSUS 299

neighbouring tribe of the Dadn. The Dahi were a nomad Iranian
group pushed beyond the border of the country- parthau- and may
perhaps be related to nomads with the same name mentioned by
Herodotus 16, The former lived next to the Mardians on the Iranian
plateau; then, moving to the west, they found themselves on the
border of Iran, in the plains of present-day Turkestan. The Dahi
consisted of various tribes 17 and the new conquerors, as personified
by ArSak [Arsaces], were descended from the tribe of the Aparnoi.
In the middle of the third century [B.C.], as the result of internal
tribal dissentions, the Aparnol were compelled to abandon their lands
and attacked neighbouring Parthia, which they conquered. Thus, in
the strict sense, the Arsacids were conquerors with regard to Parthia.
A century later, having consolidated their position, they emerged on
the historical stage in the mid-second century under the guise of a
Parthian dynasty. The fact that Dahi as well as Parthian tribes
were included in the royal family is no longer questioned 375,

In Achaemenid inscriptions, Parthia is mentioned as an autonomous
dahyu. Nothing is known of its internal tribal organization, but some
information concerning its political structure in the royal period has
survived 18, A type of collegiate institution, a council called ordo
probulorum, existed under the king, and individuals were chosen
from among its members for military and civilian offices 19, In its
functions, this institutions 1s reminiscent of the class of omotimon,
or more exactly of mature men among the Persians, since they too
had been a ruling class with exclusive rights to public offices. Accor-
ding to one account, the Parthians had two such institutions. One
was composed of the relatives of the ruling dynasty, the other of the
wisemen and Magians, and the kings were selected jointly by the two
councils 2°, Historians often mention a Parthian senate on whom
depended the fate of the kings 31: the above institutions were probably
the ones refered to. If the first of these corresponds to the class of
mature men among the Persians, then the second should be equated
with the class of elders among the same Persians. Both institutions
were unquestionably descended from the tribal period and were the
ultimate development of primitive institutions. The existence of
such institutions is the best mdication of the process of social strati-
fication taking place among the Parthians.

We know that Parthian society was divided into freemen and slaves.
The number of slaves grew constantly, since the custom of manumission

300 τς δὰ CHAPTER XIII

did not exist, Because of the small number of freemen, the main
contingents of the army, in contrast to the practices of other nations,
were composed of slaves who were taught to mde and to shoot hike
free men 3185, The free men, according to their wealth, furnished a
number of knights to the ruler. Thus, at the time of the war with
Mare Antony, 400 freemen led against him a cavalry of fifty thousand
men. One of the characteristic customs of the Parthians was their
attachement to horseback riding : They almost never dismounted, and
not only fought, but also ate.and rested on their horses ; public business,
trade, and assemblies likewise took place on horseback. The outward
distinction of freemen from slaves was that the former rode, while
the slaves went on foot 22, Life on horseback, the distinguishing
custom, of nomads, serves here as an indication of the mdebtedness
of the Parthians to their nomad past. In the new political context,
the Parthians’ natural inchnation toward horsemanship turned them
_ into a superior warrior class, and this circumstance was reflected in
their administrative policy. The significance of Parthian military
customs must be taken into consideration in any explanation of the
causes which led their state toward feudalization 335,

According to Phny, the empire of the Parthians, bound by the Red
and Hyrcanian Seas, consisted of eighteen kingdoms 2%, Of these, =
eleven were called superiora and stretched from the border of Armenia
to Scythia, while the other seven made up the regna infertora. The -
historian does not give the names of these kingdoms, but they pre- ὁ
sumably were the provinces listed in the Jivnerary of Isidore of Charax*4,
The provinces described by Isidore include Parthia, Media, Assyria,
and Mesopotamia, together with their subdivisions, Whether or not
eighteen kingdoms were to be found within the boundaries of these
provinces, they must be taken as the Parthian possessions par excel-
lence.. Along their periphery lay Atropatené and Armenia in the north,
Persia-Karamania in the south, Adiabené and Osrhoené in the west;
and Bactria with Sogdiana in the east24s, In the period of uprisings
against the Seleucids, some of these lands broke away, at the same
time as the Parthians, and formed independent countries, while
others had accomplished this even earlier. This is the form in which
they were subsequently incorporated into the Parthian Empire so
that the border territories were differentiated from the central provinces
through their political status 24».

The Arsacids looked upon πεῖ ἐσηδ θεῖε as the possessions of their

THE NAXARAR SYSTEM — PRELIMINARY EXCURSUS 301

house, and consequently sought to seize the thrones of the subjected
kingdoms to apportion them among their kinsmen. They succeeded in
replacing the native dynasties by Arsacids in the kingdoms hsted
above, but the junior Arsacid lines soon identified themselves with
the countries in which they were installed and took the same hostile
attitude toward the central power as the former native dynasties.
Family claims to power were one of the obstructions which prevented
the creation of a single political organism. The Parthian Hmpire
was not a single state, but rather a conglomeration of small units
with sovereign functions.

The main Arsacid line enjoyed a position of seniority; the heads of
the component kingdoms were entitled kings, while the head of the
central power was the king of kings. This pompous title was an
inheritance from the Achaemenids, while the Achaemenids in their
turn had borrowed it from the Assyrians. Since the first Arsacids
had simply been called kings and they first took the title of king of
kings only after the great extension of their territory under Mithra-
dates I [ea. 171-138 B.C.] 4°, we must suppose that this action was
not merely an imitation of the Achaemenids, but that the new title
corresponded to the existing political situation. According to Mushm
sources which go back to Sasanian accounts, the power of the A&kuni
was acknowledged by 90 kings, who were the rulers of 90 countries 35,
According to the same source, the empire of the Parthians was a
union of kings (muluk-at-Tawa sf), 1.6. a federated empire composed
of kings from various nations and tribes. The formula σύστημα
μεῖζον is also applicable to the Parthian Empire, since it was as great
a confederation as that of the Achaemenids, with only the components
changed. The confederation was joined together on the same basis
as before : the actual dependence of the moluks or reguls was expressed
by their fulfilment of the basic duties which had characterized Iranian
kingdoms even before the Parthians, namely the payment_of a tribute
and the performance of military service 26. In such a system, the
problems and functions of the state are reduced to the minimum, and
this type of relationship of the parts to the whole is the very essence
of vassalage, one of the essential attributes of feudalism.

Faced with such a mechanism, the state obviously could not have
a profound influence on life. According to ancient concepts, power
sprang from two sources, either from the right of conquest, or from the
right of birth 2’. In the first case, the power was limited in its ac-

902 CHAPTER XIII

tivities by the narrow bounds of the existing political structure.
Power based on the pre-eminence of blood, on the other hand, included
all other ramifications and aspects of society and functioned through
the forms of tribal institutions. The rights of blood were the bases
of society, and the legal relationships derived from them were charac-
terized by a remarkable stability. This should serve as a guiding
line in the achievement of our goal: the clarification of the bases of
social life in Armenia.

AIV

THE TRIBAL BASES OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM

Two periods in the history of Armenia: the Tigranids and the Arsacids, ἡ.6. the eras
of the komarchs and the strategow —- Tribal life in the earlier period — The ethnic
structure of Armenia — The decisive moment in the creation of the Armenian nation —
Its essential characteristics — The transformation of tribal features: matyaz, aspet,
mamak, tér, through an a posteriori reconstruction — The etymology of these terms
as synonyms designating tribal leaders in different ethnic groups — The process of
social stratification Iberia and Atbania — The aristocratization of Armenia in the
time of Tigran the Great — The leading representatives of the nobility in this period:
the four bdesys, Bagadates, Mithrobarzanes, and Mankaios as the ancestors of the
princely houses of the Bagratids, Sophené < Arcruni, and Mamikonean — The Xor-
xyoruni house — The appearance of classes in other tribal groups: the Mardpet as the
leader of the Mardians, the prince of Mokk* or Moxené, the prince of the Kurtians or
Koréék, hypotheses concerning the origin of the Amatuni and Muracan — The tribal
origin of Siwnik‘-Sisakan, Sirak, and others — The completion of the social stratifi-
cation in the epoch preceding the appearance of the Arsacids in Armenia.

Armenia, aS one of the component parts of the politico-cultural
Tranian world, was destined to pass through the same evolution.
The essential phases of development, the outstanding moments in
the history of Iran, necessarily affected Armenian 1186. In this
sense, the historical periodization of Iranian life is also applicable
to that of Armenia. Parthian domination is the turning point intro-
ducing a new era in the history of Armenia as well as in that of the
Persians *, Since the Parthian dynasty was consolidated in Armenia
somewhat later than in Persia, specifically at the beginning of our
era, we should begin our reckoning of the Arsacid period of Armenian
history from this date. The period preceding the appearance of the
Arsacids may be called Achaemenid, from the external point of view,
and from the internal one, Tigranid, after the dynasty to which be-
longed Artaxias [ArtasSés] and Zariadris [Zareh], as well as their
famous descendent Tigran II the Great. Socio-politically, this
epoch corresponds to the pre-Parthian period of Persian history,
and it is primarily an era of tribal relationships.

304 CHAPTER XIV

From the point of view of social evolution, these two periods in
Armenian history: the Tigranid and the Arsacid, may be called the
eras of the komarchs in the former case, and the generals [strategor]
in the latter1*, Xenophon’s description of the Armenian countryside
at the time of the retreat of the Ten Thousand (ca. 400 B.C.), gives
an adequate characterization of the social life of the country. Armenia
was composed exclusively of villages headed by chieftains, κωμάρχης
Or ἄρχων τῆς κώμης. These komarchs were members of the ad-
ministration, as were the satraps, who were the representatives of
the Persian king. From the patriarchal picture of the villages given
by Xenophon, it is easy to guess that the komarch was the head of
the particular clan settled in a given village. The characteristic
fortifications around the villages, the primitive households with
subterranean dwellings in which the animals, sheep, goats, cows, and
the domestic stock in general were housed together with human beings,
all these are part and parcel of a tribal form of community hfe. The
elder who guided the Greeks refused all that the strangers offered him,
but, «...whenever he caught sight of one of his hinsmen, he would
always take the man to his 5146 3». It is impossible to miss in this ᾿
fatherly concern the characteristic function of the father-leader of
the clan.

The picture of the country found a few centuries later, specifically
at the beginning of the Arsacid establishment in Armenia, is quite
different. By this time, Armenia was divided into 120 districts or
prefectures called strategies, among which were several former king-
doms, «...dividitur in praefecturas, quas strategias vocant, quasdam ex
his vel singula regna quondam, barbaribus nominibus CXX 8). To be
sure, the nature of these divisions 1s not very clear, and we do not
know who gave them the name of strategies, or to what local terms
this name corresponded. We will return to this problem later, but
in any case, there can be no doubt that strategia is a military term and
that as such 1t indicates that military activity was the first duty of
its head or strategos. We know that the Armenian princes were
hable to military service, and that they were obliged to present
themselves before the king, as soon as summoned, at the head of their
cavalry contingent. Consequently, we have grounds for admitting
that the strategies were ruling principalities, even if only in the initial
stage of their development.

The strategot and the komarchs stood on different steps of the social]

THE TRIBAL BASES OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 305

‘scale and were separated by four centuries. They mark two very
important pots of demarcation in the history of the growth of
social forces in the country. Our problem consists in discovering the
nature of the historical process which led from the komarchs to the
strategov, from the tribal stage to the feudal one.

A tribal pattern is acknowledged to be the indispensable stage in
the life of every people. Armenia offered a particularly favourable
environment for such a pattern because of its ethnic and geographical
setting. Set atthe crossroads of great popular migrations, she retamed
and absorbed into her own soil numerous racial strains and national
currents. The natural conditions of the country were not favourable
to fusion : tall mountain ranges blocking off the land in all directions
created a network of valleys and gorges, each of which formed an
isolated community peculiarly suited for the preservation of tribal
characteristics. A multitude of such communities led to a tribal
pattern of life and foreshadowed its conservatism 35.

Little factual data on the tribal period of Armenian history is
admissible a priori. What there is consists primarily of those terms
giving us some understanding of the social structure in the days of the
komarchs which have survived in early Armenian hterature, and of
their transformations. The most notable among these are the Iranian
terms : mn4i [iohm] tauma, ugh [azn] zana[?], the survival of 128 in the
form * yhu [vis] * Yuu [vas], uk(ymé [se(puh], fudun [vacar] abicaris,
upfumps [asyarh] ysabra, suduy [sahap] sabrapa[?], etal. Some of these
are borrowings from the Sasanian period, others go back to antiquity,
possibly to the period of the Achaemenids?». The borrowing of ad-
ministrative terms such as asyarh or sahap is understandable and
expheable as the result of the political influence of the conquerors.
But we should expect tribal terminology to have a purely Armenian
character, since it developed on the basis of native tribal relationships.
Here too, however, Iranian words are found, and with nuances which
make it impossible to consider them simple borrowimgs. These phe
nomena also occur in lexical material of different origin which links
the Armenians to their neighbours on other sides. Consequently, a
familiarity with the ethnic composition of the Armenian people is
indispensable for a classification and clarification of certain terms
which characterize and are important for our problem.

At present it is still impossible to trace the ethnic strata all the

way back to the first settlers of Armenia, but if we limit ourselves to

906 CHAPTER XIV

the portion of history accessible to us, we find that the Armenian
nation was composed of different ethnic as well as tribal components.
Under the Achaemenids the territory subsequently called Armenia
was inhabited by various peoples and made up two satrapies. The
Paktyians and the Armenians, together with their neighbours as far as
the Black Sea, formed the Thirteenth satrapy, while the Matienians,
Saspirians and Alarodians formed the Eighteenth 4. On the western
border of Armenia lived the Cilicians, and on the eastern one the
Matienians. Moreover, the Armenians were separated from the former
by the Euphrates, and from the latter by one of the tributaries of the
Tigris, probably the Zab*. Since they formed one satrapy with
the Matienians, the Alarodians and Saspirians evidently adjoined
them on the north-western side. In the expedition of Xerxes, the
Armenians fought under one standard with the Phrygians, while the
Alarodians and Saspirians were under another. Among the adjacent
peoples, the better known — the Moschians and Tibarenians, the
Makronians and Mossynoechians, the Mares and Colchidians, the Utians
and Mykians — were coupled under separate leaders, while the Medes
were under a special command 6, At the time of the retreat of the ᾿
Ten Thousand, the land of the Phasians and the Hesperites, 1.6.
Saspirians, as well as of the Taochians was already considered to be
part of Armenia and was called Western to distingush it from the
other Armenia. The ruler or satrap of one part was Tiribazos, and
of the other Orontes’. In this period, the neighbouring peoples,
namely the Karduchians, Chalybians, Chaldaeans, Makronians, Col-
chidians, Mossynoechians, Koetians, and Tibarenians were independent’.
One century later, at the time of the battle of Gaugamela, there were
again two satraps in Armenia, Orontes and Mithraustes; as for the
neighbouring Medes, they were under the leadership of Atropates,
and with them were found the Kadusians, Albanians, and Saka-
senians °.

All of these nations, in whole or in part, were settled on territorry
later occupied by Armenia. Though numbering more than twenty,
they can be reduced to a few groups through blood ties. Of the
Armenians it is said that, «... The Armenians, who are settlers from
Phrygia, were armed like the Phrygians» 98, hence similarity of weapons
may be taken as an index of relationship. Since the Utians, Mykians,
and Parikanians were all armed like the Paktyians, the Tibarenians,
Makronians, and Mossynoechians like the Moschians, the Alarodians and

THE TRIBAL BASES OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 307

Saspirians like the Colchidians, and the Medes had their own arms 90,
we can deduce that, except for the Medes and the Armenians, all the
other nations were grouped around the Paktylans, Moschians and
Colchidians. Some of these peoples have vanished, bequeathing their
names to their lands. Thus, for instance, the Alarodians, Saspirians,
Taochians, and Phasians have disappeared as peoples, but their mem-
ory has been preserved in the toponyms, Ayrarat, Sper, Tayk’ [Tao],
and Basean. The name of the Paktyians is preserved in modern
Bohtan, along the eastern Tigris; there is also a Kurdish tribe named
Bohtt. The Mykans, the Armenian Unlp [Mokk’], who were related
to the Paktyians, moved in part to the north and settled between the
Kura and the Araxes. From them are derived Unjumh - p [Muyank’], a
district in Arcay, and Mughan, the name of the famous steppe. The
Col-chidians, Mos-chians, and other peoples were also pushed northward.
These disturbances attended the formation of the Armenian nation-
ality °°,

One of the decisive moments in this formation has been recorded
by history; 16 came in the period of Zariadris and Artaxias, and
manifested itself in the formation of a single language accessible to
8110 According to reliable testimony, it was under these leaders
that Armenia, formerly a small country, grew at the expense of the
neighbouring lands. She conquered Kaspiané, Saunitis [Phaunitis],
and Basoropeda from the Medes, the foothills of Mount Paryadres
(Tayk’ and Sper), Chorzane and Gogarené from the Iberians, Karenitis
and Derxené [Xerxené] from the Chalybians and Mossynoechians,
Akihsené from the Kataonians, and Tamoritis [Taronitis] from the
Syrians 11, The process of unification sprang from two centers, the
realms of Artaxias and Zariadris, which had originally made up two
of the earher satrapies; the movement then spread and took in the
territories of the neighbouring nations in the directions of Media,
Iberia, Cappadocia, and Syria.

The Kataonians were part of the Cappadocian population ; according
to Strabo, ancient writers had considered them a people distinct from
the Cappadocians, but in his own time, they had lost their tnbal
characteristics and were similar in language and customs to the
rest of the population of Cappadocia #2. As for the inhabitants of
Cappadocia, despite their dissimilarity to it, they had originally
belonged to the Syrian world. The Greeks called them Syrians or
White Syrians [Leucosyrians] to distinguish them from the other ones 18,

908 CHAPTER XIV

It seems then, that Cappadocia was ethnically related to the Semitic
family, and, it has now been reasonably well demonstrated that the
Iberians too were related to the Semites14, Thus, an ethnically
related territory once stretched from the plain of Mesopotamia to
the Black Sea; this agrees with the testimony of Strabo that the
name of the Syrians in antiquity reached from Babylonia as far as
the Euxine Sea 15, Following Strabo, let us call the Syrian or Semitic
world Aramaean. On the basis of ancient sources, the great geographer
also included the Armenians in this world, thus contradicting Herodo-
tus, according to whom the Armenians were natives of Phrygia.
A controversy had arisen among the ancients on the subject of the
nation of the ἐρέμβοι mentioned by Homer; and Strabo supported
the opinion of Poseidonius, saying, '

But 1+ would seem that the view of Poseidonius is best, for
he derives an etymology of the words from the kinship of
the peoples and their common characteristics. or the nation
of the Armenians and that of the Syrians and Arabians betray
a close affinity, not only in their language, but in their mode
of life and im their bodily build, and particularly wherever Ὁ
they live as close neighbours. Mesopotamia, which is inhabited
by these three nations, gives proof of this, for in the case of
these nations the similarity is particularly noticeable. And
if, comparing the differences of latitude, there does exist a
greater difference between the northern and southern people
of Mesopotamia than between these two peoples and the Syrians
in the centre, still the common, characteristics prevail. And
too, the Assyrians, the Arians, and the Arammaeans display
a certain likeness both to those just mentioned and to each
other. Indeed, Poseidonius conjectures that the names of
these nations also are akin; for, says he, the people whom we
call Syrians are by the Syrians themselves called Armenians
[Arimaeans] and Arammaeans; and there is a ressemblance
between this name and those of the Armenians, the Arabians
and the Erembians, ... 18, |

Returning to the same problem at the end of his work, Strabo repeats
once more the opinion that the three peoples living next to each
other show inter-relationship and are called by similar names: some
Armenians, others Arammaeans, and the third Arabians, as though
one nation had spht into three, following climatic conditions 17,

It is evident from this valuable indication that the ancient world
saw elements common to the Armenians, the Syrians, and the Arabians.

THE TRIBAL BASES OF ΤῊΝ NAXARAR SYSTEM 309

These were reflected not only in their appearence and mode of life,
but also in their language, and these similarities were particularly
striking in those places where they lived together. The etymological
connexions of Poseidonius are based on actual facts, on the unity
and similarity of the peoples compared, and not vice versa; 2.6. the
author is not distorting reality for the sake of etymology. The cate-
goric statement that Poseidonius « derives an etymology of the words
from the kinship. of the peoples and their common characteristics »,
is very Important 18,

Side by side with the testimony on the descent of the Armenians
from the Phrygians, we have a similar testimony on the kinship_of
the Armenians with the Aramaeans. The truth of either pomt of
view can be demonstrated only through an analysis of the admirable
but complicated structure, which is the Armenian language. If by
Phrygian we are to understand Indo-European, then the words of
Herodotus are justified. Studies of Armenian from the point of view
of Indo-European phonetics have shown ties of kinship between the
Armenians and the great Indo-European family and have placed
Armenian in the western group of Indo-European languages 18,
There is no doubt that research along historical limes will uncover
the contact of the Armenians with the Aramean family as well. The
success of such a task may be taken as certain of the basis of the
lexical material already isolated.

To show the relationship of Aryan and Semitic elements in the
Armenian language, we must admit that Armenia was originally part
of an area settled by various tribal groups : Kardu-chians, Mos-chians,
Sa-spir-ians, with primarily Aramean components. The well known
invasion of the Cimmerians in the seventh century B.C. caused a
shift in the population of Asia Minor. The Phrygian Armenians,
driven out of their territory, crossed the Euphrates and drove a wedge
into the local Aramean population. Some of the latter remained im
the north, and some in the south, while the conquered middle group
mingled with the conquerors}, The core of the Armenian nation
was formed from this fusion of invading Phrygians and of natives
who were in the main of Aramean descent. The best proof of the
double composition of this core is the double name of the Armenians :
Hay to themselves, Armenios to their neighbours, one derived from
the invaders, the other from the aborigenes. The process of formation
of the Armenian nation is presented with remarkable accuracy in the

310 CHAPTER XIV

ancient Armenian legends preserved by Movsés Xorenaci and the
Anonymous History. Two eponymous figures, Hay-k (2m);—4) and
Araman-eak (Uputwh—kml) or Armen-ak (Upubi—ml) personify the two
components Indo-European and Aramaean. The name itself, armén
(mpith), Armni-k’ (Upii—fp) is derived from Aram, according to
Xorenaci, and at this pomt the Armenian account supports Posel-
donius, who compared ἀρμένιοι and ἀραμεῖοι,, but the attempts to
explain the origin of hay still remain unsuccessful 30,

Other peoples joined the original nucleus, new ethnic currents
continually flowed into it from the frontiers, from the lands of Atro-
patené, Iberia, Cappadocia and Syria. The assimilation of peoples
continued until the time of Zariadris and Artaxias, when an important
period for the Armenians came to anend. -On the eve of the creation
of the empire of Tigran the Great, tribal differentiations had been
obliterated to such a degree that the entire population spoke a single
language. The moment of synthesis of a common national language
should be taken as the end poimt for the tribal stage mm the life of a
people 2%,

The tribal pattern is the necessary and natural framework of life in
a country so rich in tribes and peoples. A man’s position in a multi-
tribal environment had to be established primarily through blood
ties to some clan. The reference of Herodotus to the Armenians as a
pastoral people is an eye-witness testimony to the stage of development
reached by the Armenians at that time 3, Our knowledge of the
life of the neighbourmg people who formed a single cultural world
with the Armenians gives us some insight into this phase. Thus,
common tribal property ruled over by the oldest member of the tribe
among the Iberlans and the Arabs, precedence of brothers over sons
and community of wives among the Arabs, characteristic administrative
institutions among the Assyrians, absence of individual inheritance
lhnked to the burial of their possessions with the dead among the
Ajbanians, the maintenance and general position of the king among
some of the peoples belonging to the same world — all these are
characteristic phenomena of the tribal stage of society 33,

Certain traits observable in the hereditary nobility of Armenia at
a later date, such as the undivided tenure of lands by an entire clan
under the leadership of its oldest member point toward the roots of
such customs. We do not know the precise forms taken by tribal
hfe in Armenia. In such a diversified tribal composition of the poptu-

THE TRIBAL BASES OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 511

lation, the forms of life could be of the utmost variety, depending on
the specific stage of development reached by a particular ethnic group.
Nevertheless, a general classification according to its major ethnic
components is possible.

Among linguistic remains, particular attention should be given to
certain terms of nayarar terminology, which were an inheritance from
a tribal way of life. Correctly interpreted, these can give us an
insight into the grouping of the main ethnic strata in the tribal period,
and into the manner of their integration of national forces at the
time of the dissolution of tribal forms. These terms are: matyaz
[dun fim), aspet [wuykm), *mamak [duniml], and tér [wfp]in their original
sense, which we will attempt to uncover. All four terms originally
designated the holder of power in various parts of the contry.

Matyaz [Umyfumq), the hereditary title of the princes Xoryorunl,
meant in general, « ruler, prince, king», from the Assyrian malyazu =
Arabian malik, The unit of rule corresponding to this title on a
smaller scale was aly [μη μὲ «clausura»], from *hayl, which has the
same origin as the Georgian saylz, «house». From the same root also
comes alayin (mymjuph), which originally meant a « person belonging
to an wyfu», and subsequently a «female attendant » 335,

The second term, aspet (muh), was also a hereditary title and
belonged to the Bagratid princes ?8, The word has been interpreted
in various ways which we consider unjustifiable. It should to be
divided into as and pet, of which the second part means « leader,
head», so that all the difficulty hes in the first syllable alone. There
are grounds for comparing this syllable with the initial syllable of
another equally important term in nayarar life, namely se-puh (ub—
wn), of which the etymology has already been traced 34, Sepuwh,
from the earher form se-puhr, is the Iranian v28a-pubra, where pulra
(—wm4) means «son», while υὴθ, as we have seen, is one of the steps
in the tribal organization; consequently, se is a contracted form of
υἱθ 24a,

The term ukuym4 has also been preserved in Armenian hterature
in the form Aspurak (Uuuympml), the name of a famous bishop in Faus-
tus’ History 4>, The presence of a pre-tonic πὲ [u] proves that this
m. stood before two consonants, 2.6. the word was pronounced Aspuhr-
ak. Spuhr, the element left after the removal of the affixes, should
be linked with sepuh in its archaic form sepuhr. The identity of the
initial syllables as- and se- is beyond doubt. It is interesting that

312 CHAPTER XIV

Unumpul [Aspurak] can also be found with an initial v, Ymauympul
[Vaspurak], but that the name of the province of Y wuympmlmth (Vas-
purakan), which is the same word, is given in non-Armenian documents
without the initial phoneme, *Acmovp<.ax>dy*, The existence of the
form vaspur next to aspur shows even more clearly the derivation
from vibapubra. Indeed, merely on a phonetic basis of the absence
of an initial νυ in Armenian, the Iranian vifapubra or vaidapuéra had
to pass into Armenian in the form isapuhr, asapuhr, or, with the
dropping of the pre-tonic a, ispuhr, aspuhr 35,

With the discovery of the identity of as-puhr and se-pubr, or of
as- and se-, the etymology of the term aspet becomes clear. Aspet 15
to be derived from v18a-pait in the same way as aspuhr was derived
from vifa-pubra. In other words, aspet means «head of a υἱθ, or
clan», and sepuh, «son ofaclan»., The word yubi[vsem], yumi [vsaml,
in its long form yuku [vseam], 1s undoubtedly the Iranian wifya-ma
and is related to vi? as zantu-ma is to zantu. Its original meaning
was, «member of a clan, clansman»; later it came to mean « noble,
outstanding [excelsus] 2? ».

* Mamak (duimh) is similar in character to the preceding term. Itis
found in historical literature as a proper name in the Mamikonean
family, but it had originally served as a hereditary title for one of
the princely houses, and subsequently become a family name, as
had the two titles already analyzed. *Suiml [mamak] or *dunlhl
[mamik] gives Uunlhlni—iwh [Mamikon-ean], as Uuwfm—nbf[Aspet-uni]
derives from, wuuykm [aspet], or Uingfuuy - mf [Moatyaz-uni] from sug fang
[matyaz]. We assume that mama-k is nothing more than the
Armenized form of the Iberian mama = «father». Consequently
this term is also derived from the tribal period and meant, « father
of the clan, clan-leader», thus being synonymous with the Georgian
mama-saxlise 38, |

It is interesting to note that the Armenian tradition likewise traces
the Mamikon-ean back to a certain Mamik. Our hypothetical ety-
mology is therefore supported by the tradition and throws new light
on the traditional origin of this great princely house. The Armenian.
tales derive the Mamikonean from the Cenk’ [Δ ἢ]. In Faustus,
History, the Marmikonean themselves proudly proclaim the descent
of their family, «... from the kings of the nation of the Cenk’ 39).
Faustus does not indicate what is meant by the country of the Cenk’,
but the Anonymous History implies that the name refers to one of

THE TRIBAL BASES OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 313

the countries east of Persia, beyond Balkh, 1.6. China. According to
the legend, the hypothetical original chieftains of the Mamikoneans,
Mamik and Konak, were the sons of a famous nobleman, who ranked
first after the king in ‘Cenastan - China. After the death of this
nobleman, the king married his widow and had by her a son named
Cenbakur, who was the heir to the throne. His half-brothers on the
mother’s side, Mamik and Konak, plotted to keep him from the throne,
but the plot failed and they saved themselves by fleeing to the Arsacid
ruler of Balkh. Cenbakur demanded the return of the fugitives, but
the Arsacid king refused, calming him with the assurance that, « he
would send them far to the west, to the end of the earth where sets
sun»; and indeed, to save them from the pursuits of Cenbakur, the
king sent them to his Arsacid kinsman in Armenia. The purpose of
the last part of the story 1s to explain the manner in which the Mami-
konean reached their hereditary district of Tayk’ from China: the
king had intentionally settled them on the edge of the world. The
legend is mistaken in its identification of the nation of the Cenk’,
In the original tradition, Cenk’ did not mean the distant Chinese
but the neighbouring Tzans, who lived not far from the Mamikonean
hereditary district of Tayk’. The Tzans are familar to the Armenians
- whether as éuh—,éuh—pl [éan-, éan-ik] in Movsés Xorenagi, or nowadays
as Canik. The family traits of the Mamikonean, hot temper and
remarkable bravery, lmk them rather to the Tzans, who were still
famous in the sixth century for their warlike character, than to the
peace-loving Chinese. In such an interpretation, the legend con-
cerning the Mamikonean acquires a historical foundation 395,

Let us note in passing that the Orbeliani princes in Georgia also
sought their ancestors in the country of the Genk’, and that Cenbakur
hkewise figured among them. The coincidence is not fortuitous; it is
obviously a survival of the Mamikonean family tradition, and can
be explained by the fact that the Orbeliani considered themselves
descendents of the Mamikonean. There is nothing surprising in this;
just as the Bagratids moved from Sper to Georgia, so the Mamikonean
may have moved to Georgia from the neighbouring Tayk’. The
hostile relations of the Orbeliani to the Georgian Bagratids seems an.
echo of the family enmity of the Mamikoneah and the Armenian
Bagratids 29»,

Tér (mfp), the last term under consideration, is a contraction of
πῇ [1-] and myp [ayr]. The second half of the compound is a familar

314 CHAPTER XIV

Armenian word meaning « person, man». S/—hhb [ti-kin], «lady» 1s
composed on the same pattern as mh—uyp [ti-ayr]. The sense of i-
is nearly beyond our reach; even its relations to wyp [ayr] and hhh
[kin] is not clear; does it modify them or is it modified by them.
The construction of these words recalls the Georgian mama [« father »]-
up’ alt and deda [« mother»]-wp’alt, of which the former is famibar in
its contracted form mep’e, from ma(m)p’a(lz). Like the Armenian ἐδγ,
the Georgian up’alt corresponds semantically and etymologically to
the Semitic baal, «lord», the name given to the gods protecting the
tribes among the Semites. This word, which had the sense of « god,
lord of heaven», among the Semites, was transferred by the Georgians
to the king, the lord of the earth. Something similar apparently
took place in connexion with the Armenian mf [#]. In phonetic and
semantic content, #2 may be derived from the Indo-Huropean root di-,
which is familiar in many languages and in various forms. The words
derived from it can be reduced to two basic forms, dz and div-; both
of which include the concept «day - lght», and «heaven - god».
Both roots exist in Armenian in the forms m/f (iw), « day», and mf—p
[i0-& ’|plur. tant., «age», literally, «days». The form ἐν, which concerns
us here, goes back to the root di. Originally mf [#], like the Latin
deus, designated the concept of a superior being or « god»; 3° subse-
quently it began to be used as a designation for the « king», and in
general for a «lord on earth, 1.6. 14 underwent the same fate as the
Georgian wp’alt. In order to set off this last meaning of mf [i], the
element — mwjp [ayr], «man» was added to it thus producing the
compound mp—mjp [ti-ayr] = mip[tér]. This mental process was interes-
tingly to be repeated once again. After the form m/—wyp [t-ayr] had
had completely replaced mf [t#], and had come to designate a lord
both on earth and in heaven, the word wyp [ayr] was suffixed a second
time to differentiate these two concepts so that the word mfp—myp
[éer-ayr] was formed as a result. In literature, this last form occurs as
a proper name, but it was unquestionably used originally in the
general sense of « lord» or « master 81).

The terms drawn from nayarar society, which we have just discussed,
are an inheritance from an ancient period of tribal organization,
according to our interpretation. They belong to the class of local
titles born by the komarchs. These komarchs needed different titles
because of the variety of their ethnic environment. The four terms
discussed should be taken as the most common ones among these

THE TRIBAL BASES OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 315

titles, and they correspond to the four major groups to which the
ethnic pattern of Armenia could be reduced grosso modo. In regions
of dominant Aramaean influence, the heads of clans were called matyaz.
On the border of Atropatené or Iran, the Iranian terminology, aspet,
sepuh, vsem was current. In the Iberian area, mamak was the
most currentterm. Finally, in localities having a Phrygian population,
ἐδ), tun, and so forth were in use. Let us stress again that this analysis
is not exhaustive; not only are the areas selected by us far from
homogeneous, and contain certain variations necessarily reflected in
their terminology, but other ethnic groups also existed. Such, for
instance, were small nations like the Mards, whose head was known
as the mard-pet (dwpywkm), and a number of others.

The period of tribal relations ended in the political ferment which
occured in Armenia in the time of Zariadris and Artaxias. The dis-
solution of tribal organization and the appearance of new social re-
lationships began in this period. The nature of the change manifested
itself in the stratification of the social mass and the emergence of
classes. The heads or leaders of clans were gradually transformed
into noblemen or lords, thus laying the foundations for future heredi-
tary principalities. Such a transformation begins at the moment when
the title of the heads of clan becomes hereditary. His descendents are
singled out thereby and occupy a special position among the other
members of society. The right of inheritance carries with it the nght
of ownership over all that had formerly come under the authority of
the clan leader. The social organism once homogeneous and equal-
tarian is split in this fashion into two socially unequal halves. On one
side are the few, the rulers, descended from the clan chieftains, on the
other the remaining majority of the population, the subjects. Once
he has become a lord, the head of a clan finds it easy to extend his
power over other clans, and, having gradually extended his sphere of
influence, to achieve the rank of king.

This process is admirably illustrated by the pattern of social strati-
fication found in Iberia. Here, according to Strabo, four clans or
castes of men were distinguished. The kings were chosen from the
first group, the priests from the second. The third was made up of
those concerned with agriculture and war, and the fourth of the
common people who were the slaves of the king, and supplied him
with the means of existence. Finally, « their possessions are held in
common by them according to families, although the eldest is ruler

516 CHAPTER XIV

and stewart of each estate 8155, The royal and the priestly castes,
that is to say the artificial ones, were descended from the man who,
as head of his clan, had consolidated behind himself the hereditary
right to this calling, and such a man came originally from the same
clan as those who later fell into slavery. In other words, the king and
his slaves had once formed a single clan unit of which he was the head,
but with the concession of hereditary power to its head, his family
began to be singled out socially from the rest of the clan; the higher
it rose, the lower the rest descended. Finally the ruling family reached
royal estate at the price of the enslavement of 108 own clan. Later it
subordinated to itself the remaiming population of Iberia, which was
᾿ divided into clans partly concerned with agriculture, and partly with
military affairs 85,

We might think that the priestly clan had the same origin as that
of the king, 1.6. that it arose on the basis of the destruction of its
own clan; but in such a case the priests too should have had slaves,
which is not the case. Strabo asserts that one of the members of the
royal clan, namely the oldest, inherited the throne, while the second
after him was entrusted with the administration of justice and with
the command of the army 835, This comment suggests the manner in
‘which the priestly caste developed. The king, having evolved out of
his earher function of clan leader, first united all functions in his own
hands; he was simultaneously ruler, war leader, judge, priest and
general overseer. The time then came when a single individual found
it difficult to perform all these duties, and one of the men close to
him, the-heir to the throne, began to assist him 88, Subsequently
one of the branches of government, religious duties and international
politics, were entrusted to him. The union of two such apparently
dissimilar functions can be explained by the fact that a religious
concept of the world joined to the great authority of the priesthood
and the existence of common cults provided the common ground on
which people of different cultures could meet. As a result of existing
conditions, priestly duties became hereditary in the family of the
second man after the king, then, another branch of the government,
namely justice and the command of the army, was also entrusted to
him. Thisis precisely the pattern found in Iberia 84, These additional
functions, like the priestly ones, were undoubtedly destined to become
the hereditary prerogative of a certain family and, in fact, this very
development took place under the Arsacids. Thus, the four groups

THE TRIBAL BASES OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 318]

of men into which the population of Iberia was divided were not
only socially but also genetically different units. The first and last,
i.e. the royal and slave clans, were derived from a single group, while
the sacerdotal clan had developed out of the royal one. These two
clans had furthermore evolved from family units and were castes
rather than clans 5,

The social process just described also took place in nearby Albania,
but since this country was composed of twenty-six tribes speaking
different languages, the process occurred at twenty-six points 86, At
first, each of these had had a king, but subsequently all came to be
united under the authority of a single ruler. The royal power de-
veloped among these tribes in the same fashion as among the Iberians;
the Atbanian king was a former clan head who had reached the rank
of ruler or prince. The need for a common defense against the raids
of mountain peoples forced the tribes to unite and form a single
political body. Among the Albanians, as among the Iberians, the
sacerdotal office was filled by the most important figure after the
king, and he ruled over vast and densly populated sacerdotal estates
and temple slaves 87, The administration of justice and the command
of the army were undoubtedly similar to those in Iberia, 2.6. they too
were entrsuted to the man who stood next after the king #8. In Ibena,
however, the supreme power was supported by an alliance of clans or
of their leaders, while in Atbania, 1+ depended on the federation of
minor kings or princes. In other words, some twenty-six small
kingdoms had first been formed, as a result of the ethnic pattern, and
only then were they united together into one.

Armenia was no less diversified than Albania, from an ethnic pomt
of view. Hence, we should expect on a basis of analogy that the
evolution of society here should have taken place in the same manner
as in Albania, 1.6. that unification inside the country should manifest
itself at first along the hnes of ethnic differentiation. Unification
should be expected initially in the major ethnic groups: around the
matyaz, the aspet, the mamak, the tér, etc... An investigation of the
scant evidence provided by the historical events supports this hypo-
thesis.

The dissolution of tribal relationships, accompanied by the rise of _
classes ruled by kings who were to be the future hereditary princes,
took place in the stormy period of Tigran the Great. The unrest of

918 ; CHAPTER XIV

formation of tribal relationships into those of classes 38. The political
might of Armenia under Tigran the Great, his vast conquests from
Mazaka of Cappadocia to Ekbatana of Media, and from Iberia and
Albania to Arabia and Palestine, show first of all that the unification
of the country had already been achieved. We lack direct historical
evidence on the organization of social groups and on the territorial
and social forms which contained them, though historians are generous
in their colorful descriptions of external events. Nevertheless, we
fortunately can find some specific indications of great importance for
our purpose in the midst of generalities about the military strength
of Armenia under Tigran.

Armenian historians depict the king surrounded by numerous
vassal - kings. In addition to Armenians and Gordyenians, the army
of Tigran included contingents of Medes and Adiabenians under the
leadership of their own kings, of Arabian tribes from the shores of
the Persian Sea, of numerous Albanians from the shores of the Caspian,
and of their Iberian neighbours, as well as of many nomads from the
banks of the Araxes. Plutarch comments,

Many were the kings who waited upon him [Tigranes], and
four, whom he always had about him like attendants or body-
guards, would run on foot by their master’s side when he rode
out, clad in short blouses, and when he sat transacting business,
would stand by with their arms crossed 89,

The Armenian princes are given here the pompous name of kings, and
the four kings in perpetual attendance upon Tigran are none other
than the four bdesys, the four marcher lords who were considered
first in rank or cushion at the Arsacid court 406, Sycophantic pane-
gyrists of Lucullus, drawing their information from his own boastful
accounts. stopped at no exaggeration in the glorification of their hero,
who had presumably overthrown so great a king. Plutarch’s raising
of the Armenian princes to royal rank in this passage stems from a
similar intention.

In addition to the bdesys, some of the figures among the Armenian
princes are mentioned by name. One of these is a certain Bagadates.
When Tigran became master of Syria, Cilicia, and all the lands as
far as Egypt, after his defeat of Antiochus, he appointed this Bagadates
strategos of the newly conquered territories. Bagadates ruled this
area for fourteen years, until the arrival of Lucullus in 70 B.C., when

THE TRIBAL BASES OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 519

he was forced to hasten to the assistance of Tigran, and Syria reverted
once again to the Seleucids “1. We likewise have mentions of Mithro-
barzanes and Mankaios. The former, with two thousand horsemen,
opposed Lucullus as he crossed the Euphrates and invaded Sophené,
while Mankaios was entrusted with the defense of Tigranokerta.
Mithrobarzanes fought Lucullus and was put to flight, while one of
Lucullus’ heutenants, Sextilius, surrounded Tigranokerta where he
besieged Mankaios 42. According to another highly embelished
account, Mithrobarzanes was a member of Tigran’s entourage, and
the one who first told him the truth when no one dared to inform
the kang of Lucullus’ advance. As a punishment for his boldness,
Tigran ordered Mithrobarzanes to move against the enemy and
bring their general back alive while exterminating the rest of his
forces. But Lucullus sent an army under the command of Sextilius
against Mithrobarzanes, who died a hero’s death in the encounter 48,
Finally, we have references to a certain Guras, who is identified
as Tigran’s own brother. He defended the city of Nisibis against
Lucullus when the latter crossed the Taurus and besieged this im-
portant strategic point after his repulse from Artaxata 44.
Thename Bayadarns is the original form ofthe Armenian Purgu — punn
(Bagarat), from Bagadata, « god-given » derived from baga and data =
Greek Θεόδοτος, before the Armenian form was affected by the law
of phonetic mutation. Tigran’s general bearing this name was unques-
tionably the ancestor of the famous dynasty of the Bag<a>ratuni
or Bag<a>ratids, and he provides the reconciliation and justification
for the two divergent Armenian accounts of the Bagratids’ origin.
According to the Anonymous History, the Bagratids were descended
from h-Ayk, the ancestor of the Armenians, but another tradition,
preserved by Xorenaci, speaks of their Jewish blood. The very name
of the dynasty, and especially its hereditary title of aspet, which we
have discussed earlier, point to an Armeno-Iranian origin. The original
home of the family apparently lay on the border of Atropatené, as
we have already noted, and we have already postulated an etymolo-
gical connexion between Bagarat and Bagrewand 45. Unless it is an
invention of Xorenaci, as has been assumed by his critics, the second
account, which traces the descent of the Bagratids from the south and
from Jewish stock, must be a distorted memory of the fact that
Bagarat had been sent south under Tigran, and had been appointed
governor of Syria, an area with a Semitic population 46. Indeed, the

890 | CHAPTER XIV

Anonymous History is also familiar with Bagratids on the southern
border of Armenia, more exactly in the province of Angeltun, which
it considers to be their hereditary domain 47. Whatever the case,
this tradition is connected with the sojourn of Bagarat in the south,
and it 1s even possible that after Tigran’s loss of Syria the defense of
Armenia’s southern frontier passed to Bagarat, and that the princely
house of Angeltun was a branch of the Bagratid family 48.

A more accurate reading of the name of the general who first met
the Roman army is Mi@poBovgarvns instead of Mi@poBaplavys = Ar-
menian Uképmdmi: (Mehruzan) 49, and this personage is none other
than the prince of Sophené. The first Armenian district threatened by
the Romans after their crossing of the Euphrates was Sophené invaded
by the legions of Lucullus. Mithrobuzanes, as ruler of the district,
set out to defend his country, but was compelled to retreat before the
onslaught of the Romans because of the insignificance of his forces.
Everything related by Plutarch about the advance of Mithrobuzanes
is nonsense intended for effect. Mithrobuzanes was forced to advance
against Lucullus because of his position as ruler of the territory, and
not because Tigran wished to punish him, as we are told by Plutarch ὅ9,
Mithrobuzanes undoubtedly belonged to the family of Zariadris, the
king of Sophené contemporary with Artaxias. The name Mithro-
buzanes was a common one in this house: Zariadris’ son, who fled
from the persecutions of Artaxias to king Ariarathes IV of Cappadocia,
and later returned with his help to his father’s throne, likewise bore
this name 51, The king of Sophéne under Tigran II was Artanes, who
perished at the hands of Tigran; 515 Mithrobuzanes must have been a
personage close to Artanes, possibly a son or a brother. The descen-
dents of Zariadris and Artanes preserved their sovereign rights in
Sophéne, although they had lost their royal rank.

The third name with which we are concerned, Mayxaios, should
read Mapxaios or Ma(pa)xaios, to correspond to the Armenian Wan
[Mamik]. - A verification of the manuscripts on this reading is of the
utmost importance since a demonstration of this hypothesis will
necessitate the shift of the appearance of the famous Mamikonean
house to the period of Tigran the Great 51»,

All the figures we have just discussed and whom Tigran raised to
outstanding positions because of the imminent war with the Romans,
namely Bagadates, Mithrobuzanes, and Mankaios, not to mention
Guras, were numbered among the kings who crowded at Tigran’s

THE TRIBAL BASES OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 321

court. Thus our fundamental premise that principalities based on a
class structure had already appeared in the time of Tigran is proved —
im essence, whatever the soundness and acceptability of our further
conclusions about the individuals themselves. Furthermore, there is
no serious basis for disputing the conclusion that these officials were
the ancestors of such subsequently distmguished princely families as
the Bagratids, the: Mamikonean, and the princes of Sophené. The
princes Arcruni must be the descendents of this last principality, as
evidenced by the names current in their family ®. Thus, three of the~
most important princely houses were already in existence under
Tigran the Great, and.were probably making their first appearance at
that time. The house of the Matyaz, which judging by its name was
even older than these families, must also have unquestionably existed
in this period 524

Despite the social stratification and the aristocratization of the
country, its ethnic diversity continued to exist. However much the
different groups may have been assimilated, their components in the
last analysis still preserved their peculiar colouration. The power of
the malyaz among the Xoryoruni, of the aspet among the Bagratuni,
of the mamak among the Mamikonean, and finally the supreme power
of the tér indicate the preponderance of the corresponding ethnic
groups during the period of general unrest. The surrounding areas
which were in direct contact with neighbouring peoples were less
lable to ‘assimilation. Because their mixed population, continually
replenished by the influx from nearby peoples, they were to some
degree isolated from the central districts. The result of this partial
isolation was the formation of four small political units on the borders
of Armenia; these were the domains of the bdesys : Gugark’, Aljnik’,
Nogirakan, and a fourth whose name is unknown. The genesis of
these units was presented altogether incorrectly in the Armenian
legends. It is true that the bdeSys guarded the frontiers of Armenia,
but they performed this duty not at the order of the Armenian king,
but as a result of their position as rulers of border districts who simul-
taneously acknowledged the suzerainty of the Armenian king >,

The ethnic diversity of Armenia was not limited to the elements or
sroups already discussed. Other tribal units were scattered throughout
the country, and principalities subsequently developed out of them in
the manner already described. Some of these groups could trace
their origin back to very early periods, while others were relatively

322 CHAPTER XIV

latecomers. These newcomers were drawn in the main from nomadic
peoples and often brought back into the country social forms which
it had long since outgrown. Consequently, more or less important
groups still leading a tribal life under their tribal chieftains could be
found side by side with more evolved principalities. Ethnic diversity
naturally brought about variations in social conditions. Hence our
periodization of Armenian history, lke all such divisions, is correct
and acceptable only for the general aspects of its evolution; anachro-
nistic elements have always found a way to survive outside the main-
stream.

Some of the newcomers, who were to be the ancestors of great
princely houses, had already arrived on the scene under Tigran II.
According to Plutarch, Tigran sent a large contingent of cavalry
against Lucullus at the time of his assault on Artaxata. Mardian
mounted archers and Iberian spearmen, who were the best hope of
the king, stood in the forefront of this army 5°. The Mardians were
the descendents of Iranian tribes scattered along the Zagros, who
lived by sheep herding and brigandage *4. When Xenophon crossed
the Kentrites or Hastern Tigris, he was attacked by Mardians as well
as Armenians. ‘The former were undoubtedly Armenian Mardians who
had moved to Armenia from Iranian territory **. In 68 A.D., the
Roman general Corbulo, a successor of Lucullus, had to cross the land
of the Mardians during his retreat from Artaxata to Tardn. At that
time the Mardians were still living by brigandage and attacked the
Romans, but hid in the mountains when they met with resistance ὅ5,
It is evident from this account that the Mardians were already occu-
pyig then the area which the Armenians later called Mardastan or
Mardoc-k’. 2.e, the land of the Mardians ὅσ, The princely house whose
representative bore the title of dupymkm (mardpet), or leader of the
Mardians, was also descended from this tribe. Subsequently this
name became a hereditary title similar to that of malyaz or aspet, and
just as the bearers of the latter titles began to call themselves Malyazuni
and Aspetuni, so the house of the mardpeis as well their possessions
came to be known as Mardpet-akan, 1.6. Mardpet-ian 57°,

According to Pliny, the Menobards and Moschena lived in the vicinity
of the Armenians. The first name should apparently be read [a7]-
menomardi, whereas the second, *mochs-ent, corresponds not to the
Moschians, as might seem likely, but to Armenian Moxené [Mokk’].
Hence, the principality of Mokk’ also had an ethnic background 58.

THE TRIBAL BASES OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 920

The Κύρτιοι (Kurtians) lived together with the Mardians between the
Zagros and the Niphates mountains. Like the Mardians, they settled
on the Armenian border, but south of the Mardians, in the region
which later bore their name: YnpdSfp (Koréék’). These Kurtians
were the ancestors of the modern Kurds and should not be confused
with the Karduchians who are a people of different origin. The
country of the latter was called ἥπμηπιρ [Korduk’] by the Armenians to
differentiate it from Ynpdtp [Koréék’], the country of the Kurtians.
In the History of Faustus, Koréék’ still designates the region of
Salamas, but later it also included the neighbouring Korduenian lands,
evidently as the result of the growing influence of the Kurds. Both
the Kurtians and the Karduchians were less influenced by the Arme-
nians than other tribes, but they nevertheless filtered imperceptibly
into the Armenian territory, and in time their lands came to be con-
sidered Armenian provinces®®, The princely house of Kadmé, 1.6. of
the Kadmeans, seems to have had very close connexions with Kor-
duené °°,

The Matiani lived at first in the land of the Kurtians and subse-
quently in their vicinity. The data of ancient writers whereby the
mati were related not only by blood, but also by name to the Madians
[Medes] (mada) has been corroborated by the findings of modern
scholars. Manda, another form of the same name, is the one given
by Assyrian inscriptions to the people ruled by Astyages. Mdda has
the same relation to manda as mats to mantis (the form found in Mar-
τιανή) a name for Lake Urmia which was undoubtedly derived from
people who once lived in the area δ, The existence of these parallel
forms is to be attributed to dialectal variations 55, The names of
the Armenian princely houses of A-mai-uni and Mand-ak-uni are
closely related to these peoples. The home of the Amatuni was in
Artaz, and Armenian legends refer to their Iranian origin ®; both
these facts support the connexion we have postulated.

The Madians [Medes] were usually known to the Armenians under
the name of Mars, where mar is also to be derived from mada. Hence,
the Armenian tradition that the principality of Muracan was descended
from the Mars does not seem altogether devoid of foundation. The
district settled by Mars must have been called* Maroc( Umpng) in
Armenian, just as the home of the Mardians was called Mard-oc.
[The former must have given Uwpny—hmi [Maroc-ean] or Umpny — mi
Maroc-an] with the Persian suffix dn, which later became Umpmguh
[Muracan] 84.

924 CHAPTER XIV

Separate tribal groups penetrated into Armenia from the lands of
Atropatené which had been settled from ancient times, together with
the shores of the Caspian Sea, by a multitude of tribes leading a
pastoral or nomadic form of life. In the period of Tigran the Great,
many of these tribes, which were moving along the Araxes, supported
the Armenian king against the Romans ®, Side by side with Gelans,
Kadusians, and Amardians. we find Οὔτοι (Utians or Uitians) to
whom the Armenian Utians are related. The Utians first lhved south
of the Araxes, but later settled north of the river; and the Araxes
was considered to be the boundary between Otené and Atropatené.
In Ptolemy, Otené is already located along the Kura and consequently
corresponds to the Armenian Uti *®, The Gelans, from whom the
Armenian 97, 2 ημ πεῖ [get, getakuni] are probably derived 57, and
the Anianoi, who provide the link between the 2mhf [Hani] of P‘ayta-
karan and Up [Ani], the city in Sirak 68, moved into the area between
the Araxes and Kura rivers together with the Utians.

Saka¥én, one of the districts of Otené, is usually identified with
the Sakasené of ancient sources, which was held to be the land of the
Saka. We are told that the Saka moved from the steppes of Central
_ Asia to the neighbourhood of Bactria, and occupied the district called
Sakastan after them, now Seistan. Some of them moved westward and
reached the Pontic shore, after having crossed Armenia. The Saka
who remained in Armenia established themselves in the very fertile
district known thereafter as Sakasené 6°, The connexion of Sakasené
to the Saka has been disputed in recent times, but without any ap-
parent justification 7°. Under Darius Codomanus, the Xaxeoivar, are
mentioned as living in the vicinity of the Albanians and of the Kadu-
sians; all three peoples were found in the Median camp under the com-
mand of Atropates 1, Irrespective of the explanation given for the
origin of the Sakesinai or for their relation to the Saka, the existence
of such a people is not in question. Siwnik’ is the best known of the
Armenian provinces bordering on Albania. It formed a single princi-
pality like Mokk’ or Tayk’, and although part of Armenia, it was
characterized by separatist tendencies. This fact must undoubtedly
be attributed primarily to the ethnic particularism of the area, and 16
is understandable that scholars have sought traces of the Saka not
only in Sakasené, but also in nearby Siwnik’ or Sisakan, as it was
called by the Persians. Attempts were even made to read Σισακάνη
for Σακασηνήῆ,, though this runs counter to the textual evidence 7,

THE TRIBAL BASES OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 325

This hypothesis is untenable also because the form Sisakan, which is
the equivalent of Siwnik’ in the opinion of Xorenaci, cannot be found
in early documents. Morphologically it is of the same period and
origin as the terms Smhinunb plats, UbujLmhnh, Y any po lyahs [Tanute-
rakan, Sephakan, Vaspurakan]. The contraction Ufumimuh πέδη [Sisakan
gund] is similar to these names. The origin of the double name is
still obscure, and it is not possible to say anything definite about the
relation of the two forms to each other or to the Saka. The only
certain fact is that Siwnik’, the Albanian borderland of Armenia,
had a population which differed somewhat from that of the central
districts of Armenia.

The tribal pecularity of Siwnik’ was supported and reinforced by
a stream of migrations from the adjacent mountains, which have left
traces in the toponymy: Thus, the ethnic origin of Pup [Batk’],
Unfep [Sovk’], Ugquétép jAlahéck’[, Qupqyup—uyhp [Gargar-acik’],
and Umjumip [Muyank’] are beyond question.

The first of these names is to be found in connexion with Baiasakan
(Puqmumlwuh), and is derived from the Puquudéh—p | Balasti-k’], a moun-
tain people already known to Faustus 78,

Sot’k’ is a district of Siwnik’ which owes its name to the Sods, Ar-
menian Qay_zt—myh [Covdé-aci], who lived in southern Aibania. This
district corresponds to the Sodukéné mentioned by ancient writers as
being next to Kolthené (Armenian Yaq/¢ [Kolt’]) in Otené 14,

The Gargarians are recorded by Faustus among the mountaineers
who poured into Armenia in the reign of Xosrov I] Kotak, together
with the Puqunépp [Batastik’]. For Xorenaci, these same Garganians
are the neighbours of the inhabitants of Uti and Gardman, as well
as of the Sodi [Covdé]. Later, ancient Uti or Otené, par excellence,
with the city of Partaw, came to be known as the Plain of Gargar 75,
One of the tributaries of the Kura near Partaw is still called Yuphup
[Karkar, Gargar] in our time. The Armenian Gargarians were evi-
dently descended from mountain Gargarians who lived in Albania in
the foothills of the Keraunian of Atbanian branch of the Caucasus 75.

Muyank’ (Umfu—wi—p), a subdivision of the district of Arcay, is derived
from the Mvxo.,, one of the peoples living alongthe Caspian Sea.
Their memory has been preserved in the name of the Muyan|Mughan]
— da&st [Umymh—nmym] Steppe, 1.6. the Steppe of the Mykans 7.

In the same manner, the Pazkan-k’ [Quq}mh—p], or more correctly
Parsakan, also in Arcay, were descended from the ΠΠάρσιοι. The

326 CHAPTER XIV

Kust-i-p’aféns [Ymun—fp—ipunfin] is perhaps to be related to the
Παρράσιοι 78.

All the ethnic groups listed, as well as others, provide the foundations
on which the corresponding princely houses later developed. The
immigration of new groups, the infiltration of separate tribes still
continued. New groups often came in from neighbouring lands and
were transformed into principalities in a similar fashion. Under these
circumstances, the aristocratization of the country cannot have been
carried out at once, and if we point to the period of Tigran the Great
as the time when tribal. institutions disintegrated and an aristocracy
of classes was-created, this must be taken as no more than a gener-
alization 78,

The result of this ferment expressed itself in the transformation of
the multiple komarchs or clan leaders into princelings. They brought
forth the one hundred and twenty strategies found in Armenia at
the accession of the Arsacids, and the formation of these strategies
may be taken as the starting point of a new legal pattern in the history
of Armenian socio-political evolution?®>».

ΧΥ

THE FEUDAL BASES OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM

I. The replacement of the Tigranid dynasty by the Arsacids — Trdat I, the founder
of the new dynasty — His personality, his historical aspect reflected in Armenian
legends — The relation of Trdat to the 120 strategies — The situation of Armenia
at the time of the appearance of the Arsacids — The feudal organization of the Parthian
Empire and its origin — The social structure of Persia under the Arsacids: sahrdéran,
vaspuhran, vuzurgadn,and adzadhain, andtheir interrelations — The Arsacid organization
of Armenia — The distribution of lands and offices: nayarar, nahang, azat — The
coalescence of tribal and administrative institutions — Reciprocal terms: fanulér and
nahapet.

IJ. The feudal aspect of Armenia — The nature of feudalism — Roman and German
antecedents in the development of west-Huropean feudalism — The naxyarar system
as part of feudalism: Luijpbbh Pp and ny pp wun ἢ εἷ p as types of land tenure similar
to allods and beneficia — Vassality: Ownmyniféfrh servitium — The characteristic
features of feudalism — The seigneurie as the fundamental institution of feudalism —
The Armenian principalities as fiefs-setgneurtes — Seigneurial legal relationships:
[anu hins-] nk pif? fbi - setgneurie, the evidence — Feudal relations in the narrower
sense: hommage, auxilia, constlium and their equivalents in Armenia — Sub-infeudation
and sepul’iwn, its origin — Ostan freedom.

111. Servile tenures — Conditions in the West — The tax system of the Parthians
Basic obligations: kharadj and jizya’, or sak and baz = cens and chevage, bahrak = cham-
part, ko*-bekar = corvées — The size of the taxes — Our conclusions compared with
the account of Movsés Xorenaci — Xorenaci as the historian of the naxarar system.

[3

In the beginning of our era, more precisely in A.D. 36, the dynasty
of the Tigranids came to an end in Armenia with the death of Tigran IV,
and a bitter struggle to seize the vacant throne began among the
surrounding powers}. The Romans acted through the Iberians and
supported the candidacy of these princes against the pretensions of
the Arsacids. Vologaesus I, who had ascended the Parthian throne
in A.D. 50, drove the Roman candidate, Rhadamistes of Iberia from
the Armenian throne and installed his own brother Trdat I as king
in approximately 53 A.D. The Roman legions under the command
of Corbulo immediately made their appearance and forced the Parthians

328 CHAPTER XV

to abandon Armenia; Tigran V, whom Nero had appointed to assume
the royal power in Armenia, arrived at the same trme®, While
Vologaesus, hampered by a war in Hyrcania, was unable to drive out
the Romans, Tigran began to act in a provocative fashion and to
devastate neighbouring Adiabené. This action was taken as an insult
by the Parthian nobles, among whom the most indignant were Mono-
bazus of Adiabené and Trdat I, who had been driven from the Armenian
throne. We are told by Tacitus that,

Tiridates, too, dethroned and exiled, carried a weight in-
creased by his silence and his restrained protests: — “ Great
empires were not conserved by inaction — they needed the
conflict of men and arms. With princes might was the -only
right [Zd... aequius quod validius]. ‘To retain its own possessions
was the virtue of a private family: in contending for those
of others lay the glory of a king”’ 8.

Influenced by these words, Vologaesus summoned a council and spoke
asfollows :

This prince, the issue of the same father as myself, having
renounced to me the supreme title upon the ground of age,
I placed him in possession of Armenia, the recognized third
degree of power; for Media had already fallen to Pacorus.
And it seemed to me that, in contrast with the old brotherly
hatreds and jealousies, I had by fair means brought order to
our domestic hearth. The Romans forbid; and the peace
which they have never themselves challenged with success,
they are now breaking to their destruction. 1 shall not deny
it: equity and not bloodshed, reason and not arms, were the
means by which I should have preferred to retain the acqui-
sitions of my fathers. If I have erred by hesitancy, I shall
make amends by valour 4.

After these words, he once again tied the diadem around Trdat’s
head, and sent him to Armenia accompanied by a contingent of cavalry
commanded by a nobleman named Monoaeses with the order to expel
Tigran V and seize the throne.

Trdat and Monoaeses manoeuvered so brilliantly that Corbulo was
put into a position where, to “... risk no further the laurels earned
in the course of so mhany years ’’, says Tacitus, he asked for the appoint-
ment of another general to defend Armenia 5. His successor, Caesen-
nius Paetus, a man of no ability, suffered a total defeat and began

THE FEUDAL BASES OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 329

negociations with Vasak, the commander of the cavalry, who was the
Parthian plenipotentiary. The terms accepted by Paetus : to remove
the legions from Armenia, and to surrender all fortifications and sup-
plies to the enemy, were so shameful, that Corbulo returned once
more to the rescue. The Romans agreed to leave Armenia to Trdat I,
on the condition that, «... Tiridates should lay the emblem of his
royalty before the statue of the emperor to resume it only from the
hand of Nero 5).

To fulfill these terms, Trdat set out on a long journey accompanied
by his own family, his wife and children, the sons of Vologaesus,
Pacorus of Media, and Monobazus of Adiabené, as well as by three
thousand horsemen. After nine months, Trdat arrived in Italy, and
since Nero was in Naples at the time, made his way to that city.
The reception of the Armenian king was attended by pomp such as
the Romans had granted to no other foreign ruler. Naples and Rome
took on a festive appearance, The latter was illuminated and deco-
rated with garlands 88; the entire city poured forth to receive the king
and see him in person, so that the crowd filled the streets and even
the roofs of the houses. In the middle of the square where the coro-
nation was to take place, the citizens stood in order of rank clad im
white robes and bearing laurel wreaths, while the soldiers were drawn
up all around. The ceremony was unprecedented for solemnity and
splendour, After the coronation, theatrical performances were given
in honour of the king, and on this occasion the entire theatre was
decorated with gold τ. All this pomp demonstrates the high value
set by the Romans on the form, flattering to their vanity, in which
their defeat in Armenia was clothed. The Parthians had obtamed
their goal and consolidated their position in Armenia to the accom-
paniement of Roman jubilation.

The accession of Trdat I marks the beginning of the Armenian
Arsacid line, notwithstanding national traditions which single out
Vatarsak as the founder of the dynasty 7*, The real ancestor of
the Armenian Arsacids, Trdat I, seems to have been one of the
most interesting figures not only among the Armenian, but also
among the Parthian representatives of this famous dynasty. He
united in his person both military valour and political perspicacity.
The statement that “ Great empires ... needed the conflict of men and
arms’, which Tacitus puts into his mouth, characterizes him admi-
rably as a military and political figure. His elder brother held to

890 CHAPTER XV

the more humane view that, “‘ equity and not bloodshed, reason and
not arms’, were superior, but subsequent events showed the side
of the truth, and the accuracy with which Trdat had perceived the
true state of affairs. His boldly explicit belief, “2d ... aeguius quod
validius, with its teaching that “ ... might was the only nght”,
is equally apt for our times. It is an admission characteristic of a
national leader who had experienced in his own life all the bitterness
and tribulations of the powerless.

The proud Arsacid prince bowed his head before the statue of the
man he hated in order to receive a crown which already belonged to
him. Naturally, he did not undergo this humihating procedure
because he lacked pride. According to the observation of ancient
writers, a realization of their own worth bordering on haughtiness,
and fearlessness were the characteristic features of the Arsacid princes.
These qualities are also visible in Trdat, as evidenced by his desperate
struggle against the Romans. His barely restrainable native pride
was ready to burst forth at any moment. Thus, when he was required
to remove his sword to be presented to Nero at Naples, the proud
prince categorically refused to obey, and agreed only to put the
sword in a scabbard. Cassius Dio comments that Tinidates “ ... quel-
ling his pride made himself subservient to the occasion and to his
need, ... in view of the prize he hoped to obtain » 8.

The figure of Trdat I, the founder of the Arsacid dynasty, cut itself
deep into the national memory and left a vivid imprint in popular
legends. Armenian popular traditions, even in the form in which
they have been preserved by Xorenaci, occasionally reflect with
remarkable accuracy specific historical moments and events, though
these are often distorted by the false pragmatism imposed on the
national traditions by Xorenaci or the writer who first reworked them.
The characteristic traits of king Trdat were preserved piecemeal in
these traditions. They are clearly present in the personalities of
Valarsak, of ArtaSés, the darling of national bards, and even in that
of Trdat III, the contemporary of the Illuminator. According to
the Armenian tradition, the founder of the Armenian Arsacid line
was called Vatarsak and not Trdat. Vatars-ak [Ywqup> — wi] 15 the
popular form of Vologaesus (Persian, Valas), the name of Trdat I’s
older brother who was ruling in Persia ®. Vologaesus was deeply
concerned with the fate of Trdat, and probably for this reason his
name was interchanged with his brother’s in legendary accounts.

THE FEUDAL BASES OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 331

in appointing his brother king of Armenia the Parthian king showed
him the boundaries of his domain, adding the comment, « ... the boun-
dary of the brave.is his sword, as much as he cuts off, so much he
possesses’. ‘This statement which is strikingly reminiscent of the
words of Trdat I quoted above, “... ad ... aequius quod validius”’,
render admirably their fundamental concept!®*, Morp’iwhk
[πρῴ μι}, against whom ValarSak was compelled to wage war, is
none other than the Roman general Corbulo, the enemy of Trdat 1%,

According to trustworthy historical evidence, Trdat, the first Arsa-
cid ruler, repelled an attack of the Alans and drove them from the
territory of Armenia in 75 A.D. National tradition, however, attri
butes this action to ArtaSés II in the romantic tale of the princess
Sat’enik29>, Some of the actions of Trdat I have also been transferred
by Xorenaci to the king of the same name, who was the contemporary
of the [uminator. Thus the famous lariat episode, which in reality
involved Trdat I and occurred during the Alan campaign, of 75 A.D.,
has been attributed to Artasés 11 11, whereas the exploits related by
Aorenaci about king Trdat III are echoes of events which occurred
during the gladiatorial games offered by Nero in honour of Trdat I,
where the Armenian king was said to have brought down two bulls
with a single arrow 15, These revivals and echoings of the period
of Trdat I in relatively late accounts prove that memories of the first
Arsacid ruler were very vivid indeed, and that his reign had aroused
great interest.

The fame of the king presumably rested not only on external events,
but also on his internal accomplishments. The national traditions
depict the first Arsacid king as the renovator of the country, and
they see his period as the beginning of its rebirth. There is a certain
degree of truth in these views. The reforming figure of VatarSak
sketched by Xorenaci is a reflection of the historical Trdat I. Trdat
ascended the Armenian throne ca. 50 A.D., and ruled with only a
brief interruption until the eighties of the first century A.D. After 66,
conditions became favourable for development, and were not affected
by the brief Alan invasion of 75 A.D.

The first possibility which comes to mind in this connexion is to
attribute to the period of Trdat I the division of Armenia into one
hundred and twenty prefectures or strategies. The earliest author
to speak of these is Pliny the Elder, Trdat’s contemporary, who
perished a victim of the erruption of Mt. Vesuvius in 79 A.D, Strabo,

592 CHAPTER XV

who died in 23 A.D., and who was well informed concerning Armenia,
is not acquainted with these strategies, though he mentions divisions
bearing this name in Cappadocia 135, If the strategies developed as
the result of anyone’s initiative in the interval of time between Strabo
and Pliny, this initiative can only be that of Trdat I, but the divisions
represented, and the reason for which they were called strategies are
not altogether clear. The terminology of classical authors with
reference to foreign administrative units is not known for its accuracy,
in contrast to ἐπαρχία or provincia, στρατηγία seems to be an unusual
expression designating any district which did not fit into the Roman
institutional pattern. Whatever their date, however, these divisions
were unquestionably native in origin, and this fact is not altered even
by their Greek name, just as Parthian coins remain Parthian despite
their Greek inscriptions,

Pliny gives the name of one of the prefectures or strategies, namely
Carenitis or Karin, and thus clarifies the nature of the one hundred
and twenty divisions from a territorial pomt of view 12», They are the
Armenian districts familiar to us from classical and Armenian literature.
Pliny describes Armenia as being within the following limits: from
the city of Dascusa on the banks of the Euphrates to the Caspian Sea,
and from Tigranokerta to Iberia 1%, 2.6. within the same boundaries
as those given in the Armenian Geography. According to Pliny, the
entire country was divided into one hundred and twenty strategies,
barbaris nominibus”’, although the Armenian Geography gives up
to one hundred and eighty five small districts. Nevertheless it is
not difficult to isolate the one hundred and twenty older districts
from. the larger number; the names of more than fifty of them occur
in Strabo, Pliny, and Ptolemy. The divisions indicated by Pliny are
not units of an administrative nature; they developed independently
through private initiative. Hence, all that we can attribute to the
first of the Arsacids is to have put them in order and to have brought
them into a definite system. The new dynasty merely sanctioned a
situation which it had found in the country.

There are no reliable indications concerning the socio-political aspect
of these divisions or of the country in general. The historians of the
wars of Trdat distinguish two strata within the population: the
proceres and the plebs, 1.e. the aristocracy and the common people;
the nobles are also called megisianes, primores, or simply nobiles 14,
The social content of these terms can be postulated on the basis of

THE FEUDAL BASES OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 303

our previous analysis. Since we have seen that tribal forms of life
disintegrated in the period of the Tigranids, and that the tribe split
into two parts with the aristocracy devoloping from one of these, the
proceres and megisianes cannot be anything but the former variously
named clan heads, who by this time had reached the level of rulers 42,
The nobilitas which had arisen on the ground of the disintegrated tribal
life formed a closed circle in which many of the customs of the earher
tribal stage continued to operate, and tribal terminology was also
transferred to this smaller circle. Thus, the heads of noble families
were called, ἐδγ, aspet, matyaz, mamak, etc., as before, in spite of the
altered nature of the clan, and the terms manuk, sepuh, vor-ear, and
alayin, which had formerly designated the children of tribal communi-
ties, began to be used exclusively for the children or members of
noble families, though manuk and alayi also kept their more general
meaning 15, Analogous phenomena are observable in Latin where
liber, means simultaneously, «children» and «free men». Another
such example is found in the forms patres and patric, which have
the same relationship to each other as aspet and sepuh. Here patricius
is the adjective from pater and indicates membership in a family, while
the patric are the ἰδ δεγὶ of fathers of senatorial rank 54, A number
of terms meaning « clan» — mwqq, ugh, mnZi, yup [azg, azn, tohm, zarm|—
also acquire a connotation of nobility, and similarly, mut [tun =
‘house ’’] takes on the sense of a princely clan or domain», The
remainder of the population which did not belong to the nobility,
2.€. the plebs, was called according to the district — gh Inrh, spliwlmh,
nuh, ankLhh [getjuk, sinakan, famik, grehik], perhaps also smh
[msak], ete. — Ramik and m3ak seem to be derivatives from ἀραμεῖοι
and μόσ-χοι, the names of the native peoples who were conquered
and subjected by the newcomers, and whose names consequently took
on a connotation of inferiority. The Aramean wym/uhhlatayin] acquired.
the sense of a serving woman for the same reason. As for the term
grehik, it corresponds to the Georgian gley2, and has the same origin 15°.
Such, then, were the conditions present in Armenia at the accession
of the new dynasty. The process of aristocratization was reaching
its term and had consequently brought forth one hundred and twenty
rulers, both great and small. The princely houses which were to
dominate the country in later times were already im existence.

According to national traditions, social relationships under the
Arsacids entered the phase of development characterized by the term

334 CHAPTER XV

nayarar. We have already seen that the period of Arsacid rule
marks the stage of Iranian history characterized by a socio-political
system reminiscent of western feudalism. The nayarar system is its
counterpart in Armenia, 154,

Scholars have given a great deal of weight to the factor of conquest
in the ongin of Arsacid feudalism, but such an interpretation is not
altogether correct 16. As a result of its development a tribal society
evolves naturally into a feudal pattern. In Persia, feudalism had to
follow the tribal stage as an indispensable phase; the real problem is
to determine whether the presence of secondary factors accelerated
the process of change. The Persian Empire arose in an area fertilized
by the cultural achievements of the vanished empires of Assyria and
Babylonia, and it was also the heir of much of their political wisdom.
The earlier empires had possessed fairly elaborate administrative
systems, which necessarily influenced that of the Persians to some
degree. Among the Persians themselves, administrative institutions
had also existed from ancient times side by side with the tribal
organization ; next to the dahyu we find the ysaOra, ruled by a satrap.
These all-powerful servants of the king of kings were not merely
officials or governors. Their appointments to the countries they
tuled were made on an individual basis, but in practice they
consohdated their hold over their area through the hereditary
inheritance of the office itself. In this sense the satrapy was an
important social as well as political factor. 164

Men who had been granted lands, though they did not govern them,
and who were present at the king’s court as his attendants were also
ranked as satraps. Lands were given out for administrative purposes
but also merely as a source of revenue. When King Cyrus of Persia
distributed satrapal positions to his friends, he said to those whom

he kept by his side,

“J have further decided that any of you who remain here,
and to whom I may occasionally give the trouble of going
on business for me to those nations, shall have lands and houses
there; so that they may have tribute paid to them here and,
whenever they go there, they may lodge in residences of their
own”,

Xenophon goes on to comment after this statement,

he gave houses and servants in the various states which he
had subdued. And even to this day those properties, some

THE FEUDAL BASES OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 335

in. one land, some in another, continue in the possession of the
descendents of those who then received them, while the owners
themselves reside at court 37.

‘Not only courtiers but government officials in general should be
included among such men. Under the Achaemenids officials such as
the collector of taxes, the dispenser of the revenue, the supervisor of
public works, the supervisor of the treasury, the supervisor of supplies,
the overseer of the stables, the master of the hunt, the commander of
the infantry, the commander of the cavalry, the generals, οὐ al. were
already known in addition to the provincial satraps (ἐθνῶν σάτραπα!ι).
The king likewise had a door keeper, a baker, a cook, a butler, a bather,
table servants, a chamberlain, an adorner, etc...18 All these public
or court officials were distinguished from the provincial governors
and two types of land tenure were distinguished accordingly. In the
first case land tenure meant a territorial estate, a possession, while
in the other, namely for the satraps, it meant territorial rule, 1.6.
the union of a territorial holding with political rights. Such a fusion
is the general and the main foundation of feudalism.

When Cyrus sent the satraps to their appointed posts, he admonished
them to follow his example in all things, among other things, he also
demanded of «... as many as received lands and authority», that they
present themselves at the satrap’s court, that they bring their children
to be educated there, and in general, that they serve the satrap 19.
According to this indication, the landed aristocracy in a given satrapy
stood in the same relation to their satrap as the satraps to the King
of Kings. The satrap is shown here as a sort of king or ruler in the
territory entrusted to him, He is the one endowed with “ γῆν καὶ
ἀρχεῖα ᾿᾽, 2.6. territorial and legal sovreignty, the two basic aspects
whose fusion characterize feudal land tenure. In this sense, the
Achaemenid empire already showed the rudimentary forms of a feudal
pattern 195,

The same administrative system with its distribution of lands
functioned also in the Arsacid period. Like the Achaemenids who
had usually distributed the satrapies among their kinsmen, the Arsa-
cids maintained a tribal point of view and entrusted the government
of the conquered lands to members of their own family. When the
Parthian king Vologaesus'I appointed one of his brothers in Media and
the other in Armenia, he believed that he was thereby settling the
affairs of his family “ ... famihae nostrae penates rite composuisse 30 ἢ

336 CHAPTER XV

A council of notables (ordo probulorum) seemingly composed for the
most part of the representatives of the noble families, existed under
the Arsacid kings. According to historical testimonies, commanders
in wartime and governors in time of peace were chosen exclusively
from this group, “... ex hoc duces in bello, ex hoc in pace rectores ha-
bent 21’, The term rectores designates not only provincial governors,
but administrative officials in general, and such offices were numerous.

A Byzantine author has preserved for us the information that seven
famous families had hereditary control of the more responsible and
honourable branches of the government, according to the ancient
laws of the Medes (1.6. the Parthians). The first of these was the
Arsacid dynasty which held the royal power, and to which the nght
of crowning the king also belonged. After it came the families which
performed the following duties : the command of the army, the civilian
administration, the supervision of justice, the command of the cavalry,
the levying and collection of taxes, the supervision of arms and military
dress 22, This information must refer to the Parthian period as is
obvious from the words referring to the ruling family. But even if
we admit that seven noble families existed among the Parthians, these
can have had no connexion whatsoever with the seven satraps found
under Darius J. Such a division of power would have been alto-
gether fatal in a country which had repeatedly suffered dynastic and
other overturns. The incontestable and essential part of Simocatta’s
description lies in his indication that certain duties were considered
particularly honourable in the Parthian realm, and that these functions
had been assigned to certain families as their hereditary right.Ad-
ministrative offices were obviously becoming hereditary just like the
satrapies, and this development brings us close to the concept of fire/-
office τὰ western European feudalism 22°,

Hence, from ancient times, a purely administrative structure based
on service had operated side by side with a tribal organization, and
had brought about the creation of feudal classes under the influence of
this tribal society. We have already seen that classes had also de-
veloped from the disintegration of the tribal mode of life. We do not
know how the results of this double process manifested themselves,
nor the form of class structure found under the Arsacids, but some
understanding of this may be obtained from an analysis of the Had-
jiabad inscription of Sahpuhr I (240-270) 22».

This inscription was set up during one of the king’s hunting trips,

THE FEUDAL BASES OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 337

and the following sentence is found in it: «I shot my arrow in the
presence of the Sairdardn va barbiidn va raban va dzdian ”’ [sie], or in the
Pehlevi version, “ysa8rdaran u vaspubrakan u vatarkan ἐν dzaian” [sic].
These terms are a list of the various ranks of free classes 24. It 15
evident that we are not dealing here with a haphazard collection of
names but with a mgorously defined class stratification, since Arabian
authors are also familiar with four noble classes among the Persians,
although they mistakenly atiribude their creation to Ardasir I, the
founder of the Sasanian dynasty 2°. While it is true that the Hadjia-
bad inscription belongs to the reign of Sahpuhr I, its evidence on class
structure belongs to the preceding Arsacid period. At the time of this
inscription the new dynasty had not had the time to make fundamental
changes in the organization of the country, especially since it had
been forced to spend a great deal of time in the consolidation of its
political position.

The first term in the list consists of Sara, “ country”, and dar,
+o hold ”, and corresponds to the Sdtrapa (Armenian >w4uy [Sahap))
of the Achaemenid period, which is derived from the same saira and. pa,
“to keep”. The fact that the sairdarén accompanied the king on
the hunt shows that they were not ordinary satraps or provincial
governors, but that this term has broader implications, since it is
clearly not possible to believe that the satraps were summoned by the
king from their provinces merely to go hunting. The persons bearing
this title seemingly stayed constantly in the capital, and were probably
connected with the court. Hence, Satrdar designates a social or
class rank rather than an administrative one. These were the titled
magnates, the representatives of the great territorial estates, and
they can be traced back to the king’s friends whom he had endowed
with lands, as we have seen above. They were equal in social rank
to the satraps but had no official or administrative functions 358,

The next rank consisted of the vaéspuhran. This term which is
taken from tribal society, is already familiar to us; it designated the
son of a clan, and, after the disintegration of the tribal pattern, the
son of a ruler. In tribal society, the sons of the clan ranked high,
since they were the chief associates of the clan leader both in battle
and in the pursuit of booty 356, The high rank of the vaspuhrs is noted
in Avestic literature. Here, the price given for a nmanopaiiz is one
bull of lowest quality, that of a vispazte is one bull of medium quality,
that of a zantwpaziz is one bull of highest quality, and that of a dahyuparie

338 CHAPTER XV

is a chariot with four horses. The wisdpuhra 15 left out of this lst,
but his value is one bull of highest quality, 1.6. the price of a zantwpatin.
Consequently, the wisopuhra was ranked second only to the dahyupaiit,
and the latter, as the governor of a province, was equal in rank to a
satrapa or Sahrdar (dahyu = sahr). Thus the Avestic tradition on
the rank of the vdspuhrs coincides with the evidence of the Hadjiabad
inscription, since the vdspuhran also follow the sahrdaran in this
inscription 2’. The vdspuhran were the sons of the sahrddrs??*, We
should understand by this not only sons in the strict sense of the word,
but also the members of the family in general, 2.6. all the male represen-
tatives of that family except for its head, the sahrdar himself. During
the lifetime of the sahrd@r, his sons had potential authority as his
heirs, for this reason they ranked below him but above everyone
else 27b,

Third in rank stood the vacarkdn or vuzurgan, that is to say the
elders, from vazraka (Persian buzurg), “ great”. This title is best
suited to those noblemen who were descended from ancient tribal
leaders. The institution of the abscarig or ἐλευθερὰ ἀγορά, with
which we are already familar, had provided the crucible in which
the heads of clans had been transformed into nobles and court officials.
The word οδι(οαγὶδ may have been pronounced vacar in Pehlevi as
is suggested by the Armenian form yudéum [vaca]. The name of the
third rank may, therefore, be read vazrakdn or vacarkdn. In the
the latter case it can be derived from vaca7, with the sense of a parti-
cipant or member of the abicaris. Only the wealthy came to the
abicarts and concerned themselves with military affairs. This
was the circumstance which made possible their transformation into
a privileged class. Regardless of its etymology, it seems to us that
vuzurgan must be understood as the general term for that part
of the nobility which had grown out of a tribal background.

The last in rank were the azddh-an, who were related to the vuzurgan
in the same way as the vadspuhrdn were related to the sahrdaran.
Azadh-dn is the plural form of dzédha, the past participle of G-zan, aza,
“to give birth”’. The dzddhs were the sons and heirs of the vuzurgan ;
in a legal sense they shared the rank of the vdspuhrs, 1.e. they had power
as future vuzurgdn 27°, Such then, is our interpretation of the inter-
relation of class ranks; the evolution of classes in the Arsacid period
ended with them, and we must bear this circumstance in mind when
we study the Arsacid legislation in Armenia.

THE FEUDAL BASES OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 999

A two-fold development of the class nobility, based on tribal as

well as purely administrative institutions, must be acknowledged
as having taken place in Armenia as well as in Parthia. The custom
of distributing land and offices existed also among the Armenian
Arsacids. Faustus, the historian of the Christian Arsacids, testifies
that the Armenian princes owed much to the Arsacid house. First
among these benefits were territorial possesions: the rulers gave to
the nobles great provinces, countries, villages, and other estates;
they granted them benefits by bestowing upon them honouritic
or administrative and service offices274, As we have seen, />/umhn-
fp [esyanut‘iwn] was distinguished from gapdmlmjnifefih [gor-
eakalut‘iwn), the princely rank from the service or official position.
Members of the former were identified according to cushion, those
of the latter according to rank: “... dhdukd ph jfrpmpmh ship qurdn,
gnpoulw, ph Jjupu pul ship Suni. : [He re-established ... the great
each to his cushion, the officials each to his rank] ” 28.
Princes had existed in Armenia before the appearance of the Arsacids,
while the administrative machinery was introduced by them. Accord-
ing to Xorenaci, the achievement of the first Arsacid king consisted
in his distribution of diverse public and court functions among the
native princely families. The official duties noted in the Parthian
Empire were also present in Arsacid Armenia 28,

The honourific duty of crowning the king was considered to be the
prerogative of the Siiréns in Persia and of the Bagratids in Armenia 39.

The supreme command of the army, ummpuuyknnfefih |spara-
petut‘iwn]), was hereditary in the family of the Asparapets [Aspahbadh],
or Kosmids in Persia, and in that of the Mamikonean in Armenia 398,

The office of hazarapet was of great importance; according to all
the evidence it corresponded to the third office listed by Theophylact
Simocatta, 2.6. to the one concerned with “ τὰς πολιτικάς φροντίδας,
as opposed to the one dealing with “πολεμικῆς συντάξεως 29>, In
Faustus’ History, the hazarapetut‘iwn, or office of the hazarapet,
was in ὃ certain sense contrasted with that of the sparapet. The
former official was appointed for “public welfare [supervision]
wpfumphuinkuh ἰαδμι δι πὶ θὰ ”, and concerned himself with
pa<lwimjekwh, ὃ.6. with the peasants working the land. The Gnuni
house, which held the office of hazarapet, was called ohlurhuimeth (sina-
kanasén [peasant ruling or supervizing]). On the other hand, the
Mamikonean, as sparapeis, were said to stand, “ fp qbpmy fofumim|eiwhh

340 CHAPTER XV

pmfahyal fp ἡβμιμ) mihi qnpmy ynpmfwpm|thwih, above all the
princes, above all the zoravark® or military commanders]” 29°, The
Armenian army was made up of many contingents furnished by
the princely houses. Hach of these detachments was commanded
by its own prince, but the supreme command belonged to the
hereditary sparapeis, the Mamikonean house, who, in this sense,
stood “above all the princes’, and their armies.

The entire peasant population was under the authority of the
hazarapet. Hazdéra-pati = χιλίαρχος ; “ chiliarch” or “ thousander”’,
was a military term which had been transferred to the civilian sphere
as early as the Achaemenid period. According to Xenophon, Cyrus,
concerned with the regularization of finances because of the enormous
expenses resulting from such a vast realm, decided to adopt the
system of military divisions for this purpose, and consequently set
up dekadarchs, lochagot, chiharchs, and myriarchs in the financial
branch to simplify its administration 88, According to this system,
hazarapet must be the title of the highest ranking official in the ad-
ministration of the state revenue, and his relatione to the taxeable
population, 2.6. to the peasants becomes understandable. The haza-
rapet might be thought to have supervized taxation as well, but we
know from the list cited earlier that the levy and collection of taxes
Tormed a separate department. It is possible that this duty was at
first included among those of the hazarapet, but that it was later
removed to a separate division. The all-powerful Sasénian magnate
Mihr-Nerseh was called great hazarapet (hd 4uqupmmim) by the
Armenians, and vuzurg-framadhér by Tabari, a title which,
according to his own translation, meant grand vizir 81, Nevertheless,
Mihr-Nerseh had under him a certain MahguSnasp, who supervized
the department of taxation and was called vdstrydsan-sdlar, 1.6.
“overseer of the tillers of the soil” 3%, This title is similar to that
of the hazarapet in the sense in which Faustus used it to characterize
the Gnuni family 38, Perhaps the former office of hazdrbadh was
spht in Persia into two departments: one for_rds πολιτικὰς φροντίδας
was supervized by the vuzurg-framadhar, and the other by the vdsiry-
Osan - salar, whereas in Armenia this office remained unaltered.

The judicial power or the administration of justice lay in the hands
of the Magians or of the clergy in general. With the conversion of
the country to Christianity, this passed to the Church, and belonged

οὖο the bishop in each province. The authority of bishop Daniél of

THE FEUDAL BASES OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 34]

Tardn is defmed by Faustus as that of “ gnpdmhmujpmfebuhh
Woh = _zummopmfeimhh : [the office of great justiciar, or high
justice] ” *4, Both the imterference of the clergy in political affairs,
and its great importance in both Armenia and Persia is partly éxplained
by the fact that it served as a judicial institution 85.

The command of the cavalry τῆς ἵππου) was also a hereditary
right, but we do not know to what family it belonged. The Armenian
army consisted primarily of cavalry, but it was under the over-all
command of the sparapet. According to some indications, the Persian
cavalry was commanded by the Spandiyadh house 88,

The supervision “rv ὅπλων καὶ τῆς πολεμικῆς ἐσθῆτος ”’ corres-
ponded to the modern quartermaster’s duties and was apparently
connected with the house of the Mardpet*6*, The exalted rank of this
house at the court of the Christian Armenian Arsacids was noted
in historical sources, but its duties remain altogether unclear, and
we have nothing but contradictory evidence on this subject. The
origin of the title, mardpet, which we clarified earlier, had been forgotten
at the time of the advent of literacy in Armenia. On morphological
grounds, this term seemed to contain the Armenian word Supy [mard],
“man”, and this mistaken etymology interfered with the under-
standing of the true nature of the office, Xorenaci did not even
mention the title of mardpet, and admits truthfully that he knew
nothing about the house of prince 2uyp [Hayr]*?. Mardpet was a
tribal princely title, and had nothing to do with any office. The
mardpet “was called, according to his duties, father of the king
(Quppmkin, np wink, fasts pum ηπμὸπ) δ © Layp feéuqanpph)” 38

For this reason, ἥμιμηιηιππι 9 ῥεῖ [mard-petut‘vwn] and 4mjpm/?fnh,
[hayrut‘vwn| are used as synonyms 89,

We do not know the true meaning of this imposing title; we know
only that the supervision of the royal treasure and of the fortresses
in which it was kept was one of the duties of the mardpet, and that
“this duty and the office of mardpet called hayr [father], had been
the prerogative of eunuchs from ancient times” 4, The pompous
title of the mardpet indicates a very close connexion with the royal
court, Because they were eunuchs, the mardpeis served as the guar-
dians of the queen 41, and the supervision of the royal wardrobe
probably also belonged to them. When King Pap decided to kill
the mardpet Giak, he ordered first that the mardpet be dressed in
inordinately wide garments, then that he be taken to the “ house of

342 | CHAPTER XV

the wardrobe (mmf mumimdmlug)”, and executed there 453, If the
wardrobe was under Gtak’s control, the execution of its supervisor
within its very walls must have seemed particularly humiliating,
as the king had intended 43.

The administrative system of the Arsacid state was not limited to
the offices listed. Our purpose in investigating them was to demon-
strate the similarity of the Arsacid administrative systems in Persia
and in Armenia. The custom of granting lands and offices necessarily
produced the same results in Armenia as in Persia, namely the creation
of social entities similar to the native princes both in rank and terri-
torial possessions, but distinguished from them through the origin
of their status. The Persian Arsacids created such positions for
their relatives, but the Armenian kings, at least in the Christian
period, for the most part promoted influential representatives of the
native hereditary nobility, though it is possible that they too, at
first, primarily favoured their kinsmen. In either case, a new element
was added to the native legal system, either through giving a conno-
tation of officialdom to the aristocracy, or through the creation of
new noble houses, whose privileges derived from sources other than
those of the native princes.

This innovation was reflected in the relevant title, which is that
of nayarar. Unfortunately for us, this term does not yet lend itself
to etymological analysis 44. Originally it probably designated the
provincial governors, rectores. As a social concept, nayarar was the
equivalent of the Persian sahrddr, and the corresponding territorial
unit, the nahang, was equal to the sahr. It is also possible that the
term azat designated the son of a nayarar. The new terminology
did not oust the old, since the new concepts it expressed had not
replaced but only paralleled the earlier ones. But the older tribal
terminology tended toward greater uniformity as the result of the
wear and tear of new relationships. Jer became the predomimant
title among all the terms by which clan leaders had once been known;
the others either vanished or became localized and frozen in a particular
clan as its hereditary title. Tér became the technical term used to
designate the head or senior member of a princely clan. The terms
used for the sons or children of a clan underwent a similar standardi-
zation. Sepuh was assimilated exclusively to princely families,
while the other terms kept their original general meaning. In the
same way, among territorial terms, tun, “ house’, became the tech-
nical term used to designate the corresponding territonal concept.

THE FEUDAL BASES OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 343

Thus, side by side with tér, sepuh, tun, which had been the concepts
of the tribal society, appeared nayarar, azat, nahang, which were the
concepts of the administrative order, but the tribal traditions proved
so powerful that whatever new relations arose had to be fitted into
the earlier framework. For this reason, the sources alternate tér
and nayarar, sepuh and azat, tun and nahang, as equivalent terms.
With the consolidation of the administrative pattern, the term nayarar
became the dominant one with the meaning of “ prince ” or “ noble-
man’, while ¢ér turned into an uncharacteristic expression for “ lord ”’
or “owner”. Secondary expressions, such as nahapet and tanutér
which replaced tér and nayarar, became necessary for the identification
of the head or senior member of a princely house. The origin of the
first term is not clear, but it seems to have had the same relation to
nahang as tanutér to tun. These newer expressions must have taken
over the original meaning of ter and nayarar. They did not, however,
replace tér and nayarar altogether, but were used in preference to the
earler terms whenever the head of a clan had to be singled out
from it 444,

This is the manner in which the more characteristic terms of Ar-
menian social life made their successive historical appearance. Up
to now, we have pursued our investigations according to general
historical principles, while maintaining a contact with the historical
reality reflected in the sources. Returning to our earler simile,
we may say that starting from the top of the tree under investigation,
we have tried to uncover its roots according to the guidelines found
in its visible or accessible parts. | The hypothesis we have elaborated
on this basis can only have the validity of all such inductive work.

We shall now turn to an analysis of that phase of the phenomenon
we are investigating which is known to Armenian literature, and
which has served us ex stlentio as a foundation for our earlier excursions
into antiquity.

11

Arsacid Armenia is depicted in historical literature as a country
divided into several dozen principalities. Although legally equal,
these principalities were differentiated in fact by their political 1m-
portance and their degree of dependence on the crown. The most
independent were the principalities which lay along the borders.

ς 844 CHAPTER XV

First among these were the domains of the so-called bdegys; and next
to them the principalities of Siwnik’, Mokk‘, Tayk‘, and Sophéne
[Cop‘k‘]. Among the central principalities those of the Mamikoneans,
Bagratids, Mardpets, Arcrunis, Xoryoftunis, and Kamsarakans, were
especially outstanding. The remaining majority consisted of small
principalities whose rulers were greatly inferior by birth and ancestral
possessions, and who mostly took refuge within the sphere of influence
of the more powerful princes.

All territorial units were considered equal in rank. Each unit
was a tun with a ter or tanuiér at its head, and these units were called -
tanuiérdoms [tanutérut‘wwnk‘] or nayarardoms [nayararut‘wwnk'], The
tanutérdoras were closed circles with sovereign prerogatives. They
had judicial and administrative autonomy as well as the other attzi-
butes of sovereignty. ‘They were a type of small kingdom, and their
ruling princes were little kings or minor sovereigns. The limits of
each one’s jurisdiction depended de facto on the power he possessed
at a given moment. The historians often speak of great nobles
(ubouuhd uugmhh [mecamec awagani]) and distinguish the senior
(σα [awag]) tanutérs or nayarars from their juniors (fpumip
[krster]), evidently on a basis of relative power. The general position
of a tanutérdom was determined by the actual relationship between
the power of its prince and that of the king, and by the predommance
of centripetal or centrifugal tendencies. Whenever circumstances
were favourable, the kings did not hesitate to confiscate the territorial
᾿ possessions of guilty princes 44»,

This general picture outhning the political aspect of Armenia,
should prove sufficient to compare its internal structure to the system
known to us under the name of feudalism 44°, A many-headed political
body with little administrative unity, is particularly characteristic
of a feudal state. In the period of the flowering of feudal institutions,
France, the locus classicus of feudalism presented the same aspect
as Arsacid Armenia #47, The country was split into a multitude of
large and small principalities which enjoyed sovereign rights to various
degrees. Some exhibited a highly developed feudal organism and
enjoyed full sovereign powers; others were great lordships [sezqneuries]
with the same powers; finally there were small holdings with hmited
rights. From the point of view of sovereignty, all principalities were
divided into two categories: great and small lordship (grandes sergneu-
ries, petites sergneurtes). The former, up to forty in number, enjoyed

THE FEUDAL BASES OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 345

all the rights herent in a state (drovts régalens) and made up the
various duchies, countries, and vis-counties (duchés, comtés, vicomteés).
The small lordships were very numerous and consisted of chéiellenies,
secondary vicomiés, ndamies, and avoueries; these did not have the
same political importance as the grandes sergneuries, and their lords
were often indistinguishable from vassals, because of the limitation
of their nights 5, The feudal character of Armenia was not expressed
exclusively in its external aspect, however; the similarity went deeper
and also included the legal system operating within the country.

Feudalism is a well known politico-social pattern which is not
exclusively characteristic of the Middle Ages. In a certain sense
it appears to be an inevitable stage in the development of human
societies, and can be traced among various peoples and in different
periods of the history of culture4*, It has been shown by historical
science that feudalism develops in both ascending and descending
orders, that is to say, either when the cultural level is rismg or when
it is falling and disintegrating. In this sense the controverse between
the Romanist and Germanist schools over the origins of feudalism
ceases to be a true conflict. Both sides are right albeit one-sided:
The dissolution of the Roman Empire already disclosed processes
of feudalization, but the barbarians, who had vanquished the Romans,
were also set on the path of feudalization insofar as their own tribal
pattern was disintegrating in the fifth century. The two independent
processes were leading to one and the same system, Their meeting
and clash after the Germanic invasions merely complicated the nature
of the institutions developing at that time.

One of the most characteristic traits of a feudal system observed
by scholars is fragmeniation, or the dispersal of supreme political
power. According to this definition, feudalism begins to develop
when the territory, the supreme power, or the political and legal ties
in general are divided among many regional rulers and when groups
subject to private rather than public authority make their appearance.
Large-scale tenure of land simultaneously marks the point of departure
of feudahzation ; it is the foundation of the entire system, all of whose
other features then follow from it.

Two categories of holdings are recognized as the bases of feudal
land tenure: the allod, ancestral or royal, and the beneficiwm, or grant,
The institution of the fief[feodwm], from which the entire system took
its name, is supposed to have developed from the second category.

346 CHAPTER XV

The word feodum - fief does not appear in documents before the
tenth century. It was first used side by side with benefice, and in
the same sense, but subsequently, from the end of the eleventh century,
it replaced the earlier term. From that time on, fief began to designate
land whose use was contingent upon military service. Scholars have
also shown that a fief was further distinguished from a benefice by
the fact that the fief was granted as a hereditary tenure, whereas
the benefice was only granted for life 46,

The origin of the fief and its relationship to the benefice have not
been interpreted altogether correctly by scholars in my opinion.
Although the term feodum = fief appears in document only from the
tenth century on it is unquestionably of ancient origin. Moreover
the Roman and Germanic antecedents of feudal concepts and termin-
ology must also be distinguished on analysis. The fref, like the allod,
is an inheritance from Germanic society. The equivalent Roman
social concepts were the latifundiwm and the beneficrum. Allods,
as ancestral holdings, 2.6. hereditary lands free from all obligations.
They went back genetically to lands once held in jomt ownership by a
community, but which had passed after the dissolution of the com-
munity to its chieftain or to its more powerful members who sub-
sequently turned into an aristocracy. The feodum, in opposition to
the allod, nm all hkehhood originally designated land hable to taxation
or subject to certain obligations. Whereas the allod, because of its
lexical composition (from all. “all” and od, “‘ possession ”’) indicates
total possession, or more accurately the possession of the whole clan
or community; feodum - fref, derived from ἐλ, and od (where freh =
German vieh, from the same root as Latin pec-us and with the same
double sense of pecus and pecunia), characterized a particular category
of land according to the revenue furnished by it. In this sense,
Jeodum could designate both a censwe tenure [tenure ὦ cens] or a benefice,
depending on the nature of the obligations laid upon it. This fact
would explain why in feudal times, when the fief had acquired the
sense of hereditary benefice, the term fref also designated censive
tenures (derres roturiéres), or peasant holdings in certain regions of
France 4’, From the beginning, hereditary tenure was inherent
in the fief, and from the tenth century we also meet the expression
perpetuum benefrcerum, which indicates that the evolution of the beneft-
cia also tended toward hereditary tenure. It is very likely that this
circumstance assisted the fusion of the benefice and the fief and the
disappearance of the former.

THE FEUDAL BASES OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 347

The characteristic feature of feudalism is the fact that territorial
relationships are closely tied to relationships between individuals.
Land is not only a source of wealth, but also a means of ruling over
men. The owner of free lands becomes a lord [sezgneur], while the
holder of a fief becomes a feodalis, or vassal, depending on a lord.
The roots of this type of subordination are also traceable back to
Germanic and Roman antecedents. Various types of patronage
and clientele had existed among the Romans, particularly in the
period of decline. Among the Germans, we find lords and his gassinds
Or vasst, 7.6. a group of companions or a bodygard composed of men
loyal to their lord. In exchange for their services to the lord these
men enjoyed his protection, but their type of service differed from
the one found in the feudal period. Service, even military, may
also exist without territorial compensation, and such service can
probably be called vassalage, but the basis of feudal vassalage was
service, primarily military, in exchange for land. This service deter-
mined by land tenure is the crucial element in the feudalization of
personal relationships. Thus the allods and latifundia provided the
foundation for free and seigneurial land tenure, while the feodum and
beneficitum were the basis for feudal or conditional tenures; sociologic-
ally the suzerain-seigneur was descended from the German lord and
the Roman magnate, while the vassal was descended from the vasss
and clientes.

These basic elements of a feudal regime were clearly present in
Armenia. The indispensible foundation of land tenure showed great
similarities to the feudal pattern, not only in type but im origin 475,
The Armenians also distinguished two categories of lands: 4ujpbhhp
[hayrentk’] and wymupgahuhmip [pargewakank‘], 1.6. ancestral posses-
sions and benefices. In addition, we also find mentions of ,pumhw-
nhip [k‘sakagink‘], or purchased estates, a type of lands also found
in western feudal society after the twelfth century, but the main
categories of land holdings both in the West and in Armenia were
ancestral holdings and conditionally granted benefices 48.

The Merovingian allod corresponds exactly to the Armenian
Lujpkii.p [hayrenik’], as a type of land tenure. Both are inherited
lands transferred from one house to another on terms of outright
possession. 2uyphifp [Hayrenk‘] was the general term designating
the whole of a princes hereditary possessions, each unit of which was
called a mah [tun], “ house’. These houses are depicted as lordships

948 CHAPTER XV

in the sources, and they make up a mipmjé[rh (térut‘wn) or lord-
ship; in the same manner the feudal dominium, or unit of allodial
tenure lay at the foundation of the lordship or sergneurre 485,

In the case of wympghmlmhp [pargewakank‘] lands, the term was
perhaps used by historians to designate exclusively small holdings,
such as hamlets or villages, bestowed on a prince as reward for some
service, but in earlier times, more extensive territomes had also been
subject to grant. According to the Arsacid historian whom we
have already cited, many of the princes became the rulers of great
provinces, countries and important villages thanks to the favour of |
the Arsacid kings. These words are corroborated by the concrete
examples cited in historical literature 48»,

We have already presented the hypothesis that a nahang had the
same relation to granted lands as a twn to clan or patrimonial lands,
but that 1t was at the same time an administrative unit. <A nayarar
held a nahang just as a tér, or tanutér, ruled over a tun, and the tenure

itself was called nayararut‘iwn. There were no essential differences
between nayarardoms and tanuiérdoms; both were territérial-political
units similar to the seigneurie. Moreover, the nayararut‘wwns can be
equated with western comités and duchés which had grown out of
former Roman provinces, while the tanutérut‘vwns were the equivalents
of allodial lordships (alleux souverains)4%e,

The evolution of the allods took place in two directions. Some
gradually extended their boundaries and became such important
territories powers that their lords easily obtained political rights
through so-called immunities. The crown conceded to them judiciary
power, taxation, and other branches of public jurisdiction within
the limits of their allod; at the same time, they were often invested
with administrative functions such as the office of count. The rights
and privileges so acquired generally became hereditary; once it had
entered upon a political course, the allod tended to become a sergneurte,
and indeed all important allods eventually became lordships. Other,
and very numerous, allods were unable to expend either territorially
or politically ; on the contrary, they were forced through circumstances
to give up their privileged character of free inherited lands, and came
closer to the category of benefices, or of the conditional service-
holdings known as fiefs. The owners of such former allods became
the vassals or feodales of more powerful lords.

A similar process can also be traced in Armenian land holding

THE FEUDAL BASES OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 349

relationships; but first, how should the relationship of the Armenian
princely estates to the crown be characterized from the feudal point
of view? According to the indications given by Armenian sources,
the princes — nayarars or tanuiérs, — were the odwamp [οὐ ον ἢ]
or “ servants ” of the king; their relation to him was called dmwamym-
βὶἰμὰ [eatayut‘own “service”] to them the kmg was a mip
[tér], or lord. The terms servant, and service correspond to servitium
and obsequium, the terms expressing the obligation of a vassal to
serve his lord, and the vassal himself was nothing more than a servant,
famulus 45. The obhgation to serve may have been founded on fides
or on the fief; the Armenian sources do not present this matter very
clearly. On the one hand, the princes are shown as the absolute
owners of their lands, with the same unalenable rights as the king.
On the other, there are relatively common cases where the king either
confiscates the lands of a prince for the benefit of the treasury, or on the
contrary, presents a prince with new lands. The right of confiscation
and grant affected the dominiwm utile which characterized lord - vassal
relationships. The confiscation of princely estates under the Arsacids
may be equated to the right of forfaiture claimed by the feudal lord
against his guilty vassals. On the whole, conditions in Armenia
were marked by instability, which is a feature characteristic of a
feudal society.

The Armenian form of princely land tenure is perhaps best defined |
as the type known to historians of feudalism as fref- sergnewrre.
Historians distinguish true fiefs from this type, which may be classified
as a lordship from the point of view of its legal status, although 1%
is called a fief 5 These two categories of fiefs were founded on two
opposite principles of feudal land tenure: on the one hand, the fief
was seen as a conditional land-hold, subject to confiscation im case
of a breach of the oath of service by the holder; on the other, the feudal
tenant who no longer wished to serve a certain lord, moved with his
land into the service of another lord by means of the so-called commen-
datio. Such transfers indicate that the individual was acknowledged
to be the absolute master of the land, and could serve whomsoever
he wished. In such cases, then, the personal dependence of the vasals
on his lord prevailed over the dependence of the land. This type of
lordship is especially noticeable in the initial period of feudalism.
In the opinion of a recent historian, the territorial sovereignty of
counts or princes extended only as far as their own domain. Outside

350 CHAPTER XV

this domain, their authority expressed itself not so much with regard
to land, as over the persons bound to them by the vassal oath of
allemiance 1, The relations of the king to the Armenian princes may
be defined in similar fashion. They too were characterized by personal
rather than territorial dependence. The king might deprive a prince
of his possessions for a particular offense, but this punishment did
not extend to his descendents; the nearest heir of the guilty prince
assumed his rights, and the confiscated lands returned to him as the
unahenable possession of his house. In reality, in Armenia as in all
of feudal society, social relations were governed not so much by legal
regulations as by concrete force, and the relationships entered upon
vanied.a great deal as a consequence. In the West, some lordships
were true states in which the king was the head of allied princes, other
lordships enjoyed the same rights to a lesser degree but were still
considered sovereign units, and finally there were fiefs of various
status, some with the prerequisite of service, others with the mght of
commendatio, etc. Similarly in Armenia, the marcher lords or bdesys
were seen as lesser kings, the senior tanuiers possessed de facto rights
which were incomparably greater than those of their juniors, and there
were princes, who occupied very subordinate positions as well.
According to the generally accepted pattern, the feudal system
consisted of three links of personal and territorial dependence: 1) the
lord and his domain, 2.6. the part of his lordship which he held directly,
2) the group of his vassals and their fiefs, 2.6. the lands granted to
them from the lordship, 3) the common people and their lands called
censive tenures. Formerly, the fief, that is to say the territonal
dependence, was thought to have been the fundamental feature of
feudalism; at present, however, historians give greater importance
to the commendatio of the individual holding the land, and they
shift the center of gravity of the feudal system to the sezgneurie.
But, in fact, the commendaizo did not contradict the principle of
conditional tenure; it only preserved the fief from enslavement.
The mark of conditional tenure stayed on the fief, since its holder
was not freed from the obligation of serving by passing to another
lord. Every schematization of feudal relationships, which attempts
to establish distinctions between the important and unimportant
aspects, 1s In Some sense an abstraction and a hypothetical structure.
In reality, these relationships presented themselves in a variety of
forms and combinations. For purposes of historical investigation,

THE FEUDAL BASES OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 351

it 15 more fruitful to trace this phenomenon in its concrete forms than
to dwell on the degree of comparative importance of this or that
feature. We should be on the right path if we divide those legal
relations in the feudal system, which correspond to the two classes of
persons, lords and vassals, found in feudal society, into two categories:
seloneurial and feudal, in the strict sense of that term; and if we
then study each category separately.

Arsacid Armenia as a whole may be taken as a single large lordship
in which the lord was the Arsacid ruler, the vassals were the princes
acknowledging his authority, and the remainder of the population
was made up of the common people or peasants. It is evident from
the relations of the nayarardoms to the crown that each of them could
be equated in some degree to an ordinary lordship. Like the French
crown, which was above all a lordship of superior rank, the Arsacid
kingdom formed a single nayarardom, while the nayarardoms, in
their turn, tried to turn into miniature kingdoms of the Arsacid type.
For an investigation of lordship and vassalage in Armenian society
it 1s important to note the presence of the characteristic features of
nayarardom, whether these features appear as attributes of royal
or of strictly nayarar power. Because Armenian life was subject
to tradition and custom more than to law, it is vain to seek in it the
legal codifications of relationships found in western feudalism; the
forms expressed through legal aspects in the West appear in Armenia
under the guise of custom. This difference does not prevent us from
. comparing the two systems, since feudal legislation itself was merely
the sanction of an existing order, which had been worked out in
practice.

The institution called sexgneurze in France, manor in England, and
Grundherrschaft in Germany, was designated in Armenia by the terms
un fame fib (térut‘own) and muinuntpm|? fh (tanutérut‘vwn), or fu fam pupa
βιμδζ nayararut‘iwn) and fhuluykmmfefh (nahapetut‘iwn). The lord
of such a holding was called correspondingly, mfp[ tér] and mwhmmtn
[tanutér], or hufuupup [nayarar] and fhuduukm|nahapet]. In the
historical sources that have come down to us, these terms alternate
as absolutely synonymous concepts; the only variation being that
some authors prefer one of them, and others another 52,

Lérutiwn and nayararut‘iwn were the political formulae correspond-
ing to the territorial concepts expressed by the terms mi [tun],
urfumps [asyarh], yun [gawar], ete. The central core of such

902 CHAPTER XV

territorial units was the numwih [ostan], or “ court” (Lit. “ threshold ”’)
which corresponded to the seignorial curits dominicalis in the West;
another name for it was gw, gu<njlp [gah, gahoynk‘], “ place,
throne ’’, in the sense of residence 8, The lordship, par eacellence
was held by the Arsacids. Just as the head of the Church was acknow-
ledged as kat‘ohkos of all Armenia but also as bishop of Ayrarat,
so the Arsacid rulers were simultaneously kings of Armenia and
princes of Ayrarat. To distinguish it from other princely holdings,
the domain of the Arsacids was called the royal ostan or “ house”
(uppmibh omh mppmbf num) 3,

We can see from its relationship to the royal power that the tanu-
iérut‘swn was not simply an estate but a lordship, ὁ.6. a territory
possessing sovereignty. It is well known that the power of tanutér
was hereditary in a given house and passed from one of its members
to another according to seniority, as was the case in feudal lordships *4.
Even. so, the sovereign interfered in questions of nayarar inheritance ;
first the native kings, in the period of the Arsacids, and, after their
downfall, the Persians, watched contimuously to see who inherited
the power of the fanutérs. Historians even claim that the king ap-
pointed the tanuiérs or that they granted the tanutérs their position *,
Royal interference seems unnecessary where a strict pattern of suc-
cession already exists, and there is no evidence that the kings acted
against the rights of seniority. Hence, the appomtments or grants
of tanuiér positions mentioned by the historians must evidently be
understood in the sense that the king acknowledged and confirmed
the rights of the legal heirs. Had the tanuiéérdoms been essentially
private holdings or estates, the confirmation of the king would not
have been needed. The tanuiér performed important duties, and
the purpose of the royal confirmation of the tanuwiér’s authority was
to insure his obligation to serve the ruler as his vassal 552,

In the feudal world, a vassal’s tenurial right ended with his death ;
the lord had to revive it in order to transfer it to another vassal, and
usually, in his own interest, he left it to the dead man’s son. In
Armenia, royal recognition of the rights of the heir of a tanuiér was
not a general custom; it was stressed only in particularly important
cases. This grant of recognition had the same significance as the
installation or investiture customary in the West. The symbols of
the investiture in the West are well known; they consisted of a green
branch or a piece of sod representing the land, together with a hat,

THE FEUDAL BASES OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM B53

a ring, a standard, etc., depending on the customs of each locality.
A similar practice can also be observed in nayarar society. We know
that each tanutér had a ring which served simultaneously as his seal,
and each princely clan had its own standard; the hat was replaced
by a diadem (mmx, patiw), which was part of the headdress. We
know of cases where the diadem and ring were given at the time of
entery into the tanuiérut‘wwn, a significant gesture giving to these
objects the character of an investiture 56, The standard (pun
draws) undoubtedly had the same significance 57. We had occasion earlier
to refer to the branch or wreath with which the Persian king greeted
the Armenian princes, though we do not know what they signified 58,
In the West, the lord gave his vassal a green branch or piece of sod
as a symbol when bestowing his lands upon him, and in all hkelihood,
the gift of a branch or wreath had the same symbolic meaning among
the Armenians. Finally, the seignorial character of the Armenian
tanutérut‘vwn is shown by the fact that the term mlpmjéfh [térut’-
wn], the older and more common name for the authority of the
tanuiér, eventually acquired the meaning of state. Moreover, the
lands of a tanutér were called [asyarh, gaway'], that is to say they were
designated by terms hkewise having connotations of statehood.

The above discussion gives a basis for considering the tanutérut‘own
as a politico-social institution in the general spirit of the feudal se-
gneurie of the Middle Ages, but there is little evidence on the manner
in which the rights of the tanuiérs were more closely defined. In the
West, the lord’s power included the most important aspects of life.
He had the right to legislate, droit de ban, and to issue decrees, consti-
tutiones or asstsiae, which were binding within the limits of the lands
directly subject to him. If, however, they affected his entire lordship,
including the fiefs, the agreement of the vassals was required and a
curia plenaria was summoned to the lord’s court for that purpose 59.
In Armenia, the nght of legislation was inherent in the royal power,
and the nayarars and tanutérs unquestionably also enjoyed this night
to a greater or lesser degree. If references to legislative acts are rarely
found in the documents that have reached us, this can be explained
in part by the fact that Armenian life was governed primarily by the
rigid tradition of the past and consequently had no pressing need
for legislation. In such a society, usages and customs (pwpp ἐ
unfapmfefrhp,, bark’ ew sovorut‘iwnk') rule in preference to laws 50,

Each nayarar, like every feudal lord, was judge within his own

354. CHAPTER XV

domain 83, Powerful princes in the West passed judgement over
their vassals, in their quality of sesgneurs justiciers. The Armenian
king, as the supreme lord, had the same jurisdiction over the princes
subject to him 8, A medieval lord supervised administration together
with the council of his vassals. He also had various ministerva, or
instruments of government whom he appointed in a manner similar
to that of the king, and the courts of the various counts and dukes
likewise reflected the protocol of the royal court; they had their
sénéchal, chambrier, connéiable, bouteiller, and chancelier, who served
at court and simultaneously performed the administrative functions
they had received as fref-offices. The system of administration
current under the Armenian Arsacids was relatively complicated.
Offices were known as gapd [gore], “ function, work ”’; an individual
invested with such an office was called gapdmim, [gorcakal],
officer ”, whence we find ππμὸδιι πε θ μεν [gorcakalut‘iwn] =
** momstervum, office’. The corresponding Persian form was ppmplwp
[k‘riukar], karta-kdra = ynpo—hw, [gorc-kal]. More than nine hun-
dred gorcakals were said to have existed at the court of the Arsacid
kings, but this figure drawn from Faustus’ History, is unquestionably
an exaggeration 5,

We have already studied the more important offices which have
much in common with the leading offices (grands offices) found at the
court of great lords and kings in the feudal period. In Armenia,
as in the West, the chief offices were held as hereditary possessions
by the more powerful houses. Foremost among the leading officials
were the sénéchal and the chanceher; the former was considered to
be the most important personage in the lordship after its lord, and his
importance was based on the fact that he was the commander of
the army. The chanceler, on the other hand, had a court title,
but he simultaneously administered the revenues of the state, and
derived his influence from this fact 864, The functions of the sénéchal
and of the chancelier were essentially equivalent to those of their
Armenian counterparts, the sparapet and the hazarapet. In Armenia,
as in any feudal state, land subject to the king was held partly by
princes, who ruled over estates, and partly worked by peasants.
Two offices were needed to correspond to this division, one “ fp dipuy
fojuutimjéiuth [over the princes]”, and the other “fp yhpuy
splulminjebuth [over the peasants]”. The obligation of the
princes was to render mihtary aid, 7.e. to furnish knights; for

ςς

THE FEUDAL BASES OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 355

this reason the official placed over them was the sparapet, who was
the commander of the army. The hazarapet, on the other hand, was
the supervisor of the affairs of the taxable population, that 1s to say
of the peasants 42, We have no information about the internal organi-
zation of Armenian peasant communities; we know only that they
had headmen called qmuumuylmp [dasapetk‘] or ghyJurmq [gelja-
wag], who may be equated with the doyens = decam, and mazres
= maiores of France ®, Similarly we know very little of the internal
administration of the principalities. Like the king, their rulers
probably had administrative officials commensurate with the size
of their possessions °°.

We have already distinguished seignorial duties from those of
feudatories or vassals. Feudal obligations in the latter sense took
their point of departure from hommage et fideliié = hominvum et
Jidelitas ; since the dependence of the holder of the land, or feudatory,
on the owner of that land, or lord, the so-called engagement de vassalage,
was created by this means. Hence, the obligations of the vassal,
made possible in practice by land tenure, were derived from concepts
of fealty and homage. The form taken by these obligations were
primarily auxilium, consilium, and participation in the administration
of the lordship. The basic aspect of feudal obligations can also be
traced in nayarar society. Hominiwm (from homo) consisted in the
act by which a given individual acknowledged himself to be his lord’s
man (homo), and confirmed this by an oath; the Armenian engagement
or vow (mpi, uxt), by which the princes swore to the king that they
would be his faithful servants, had the same significance. This
engagement was in turn accompanied by an oath whose symbolic
expression was the offering of salt 57: as a result of this oath, one side
took upon itself the duties of lordship and protection, and the other
those of faithful service and obedience 58,

The military obligations of a vassal consisted of three types of
duties: service in wartime (service d’ost et chevauchée), defense of his
lord’s castle (estage), and surrender of his own castle at the demand
of the lord 6°, Military service was likewise obligatory in nayarar
society. Just like western-EHuropean vassals, the Armenian princes
had to appear together with their contingent of knights at the summons
of the king in order to participate in military undertakings, either
campaigns (hostis, wumbpuyid — paterazm), or raids (chevauchées =
cavalcata, muymumul — aspatak). The listing of nayarar cavalry

356 CHAPTER XV

contingents in the Military Inst discussed earlier, gives us some idea
of the military strength of the nayarardoms. In the West, barons
of the first rank furnished a few hundred knights to their suzerain ;
a senior fief furnished only one knight, and frequently several fiefs
jomed together to furnish a single armed man’. According to
the Miliary Inst, the Armenian princes were divided into several
categories for this purpose, but according to this L7st no prince furnish-
ed fewer then fifty knights 7,

The obligation to defend the lord’s fortresses was the duty of a
single Armenian family, and formed its hereditary prerogative on a
par with other hereditary offices. The defense of the royal fortresses
in Cop‘k’ and Angeltun was entrusted to the prince Mardpet 7.
Among the Persians, who considered this office very honourable,
this office was held by a member of the royal family, who was called
the Argabadh (the ancient arkapaiés) 3. Hach principality contained
its own castles which were, however, at the disposal of the Arsacid
kings; the prince’s castles were yurabila et reddibiha to them, as was
required by feudal custom in the West, After the disappearance of
the Armenian kingship, the Persians occupied many fortresses in
various parts of the country and kept permanent garrisons in them 74.
We presume that these strongholds came to them not by way of
conquest, but as an inheritance from the Arsacids.

A duty similar to the feudal constlium also existed among Armenian
princes, and the Armenian nobility unquestionably shared in the
administration of the country, since a large body of officials was
recruited exclusively from among of the princes. Moreover, the
princes frequently assembled at the king’s court to discuss with him
various questions of internal or external policy; in important cases
the king summoned them himself, while on some occasions they came
of their own accord *, The rule that the mightier princes, those
having more than a thousand knights, should reside continuously
at the royal court and ride forth with the king, was attributed to
Trdat IIT’s son king Xosrov II, but in fact, Cyrus had already obliged
those who possessed lands and power to spend some time at the court
of the satrap and to have their children educated there 76, This
custom was apparently traditional in Armenia as well.

One of the characteristics of the fief was its tendency toward hier-
archy. With the passage of time, a fief might grow territorially
and politically; the holder would then parcel out estates from his

THE FEUDAL BASES OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 357

lands and grant them to his friends on a basis of vassalage; thus,
while remaining the vassal of his own lord, he became simultaneously
a minor lord in his own night. A subinfeudation of lands and indivi-
duals had taken place, and the new estates and vassals were considered
to be sub-fiefs and sub-vassals (arriéres-fiefs, arriéres-vassaux) of the
original higher lord. A similar phenomenon can be observed in the
Armenian feudal system. Here the division within fiefs took place
inside the limits of the clan and as a result of the disintegration of
seniority rights.

The inalienability and indivisibility of the fief through a system
of single inheritance was characteristic of the feudal world and served
directly the interests of the lord, simce the obligations of vassalage
were better guaranteed under such circumstances. If the lands
were to be divided equally among the heirs, the vassals would soon
loose the minimum territorial endowment indispensable for the
performance of their duties, Consequently, the lords stood for unity
in the fief, and for the mghts of seniority in inheritance. Little by
little, however, equality of rights fought its way to the fore. At
first other sons were allowed to inherit as a favour, but the best part
of the land was preserved for the eldest, and he was considered res-
ponsible for himself and his brothers; he alone did homage and received
the investiture, but in the end, the principle of equal inheritance
gained the upper hand. Hereditary tenure and seniority were funda-
mental features of Armenian feudalism. The so-called rights of sepuhs
grew only in proportion to the weakening of this basic aspect 76,
As we have already seen, sepuh had originally meant a “ son of the
clan’, and the word was used in the nayarar period as a technical
term to designate any member of a princely house. With the exception
of the tanutér, or head of the clan, all its other members were considered
to be sepuhs. In the sources, the tanuiér’s brothers, sons, nephews
and kinsmen in general are designated in this fashion without any
distinction 77, As long as the system of single inheritance continued
to function, the power of the tanutér passed to the senior sepuh, the
uid [mec] or πε uhymf [awag sepuh|. With the passage of
time, however, the principle of the indivisibility of princely lands
was undermined, and the sepuhs demanded their share. Anew
system,of divided holdings, according to which the lands were parcelled
out among the sepuh heirs, appeared, with the result that a new rank
in land tenure as well as in the nobility came into being. The portion

900 CHAPTER XV

of land alloted to a sepuh was named sephakan, and the sepuh class
of free men was referred to as the sepuh nobility (uhyduluh
mgunnnefrh, sephakan azatut‘vwn)??, |

The process by which the sepuhs were transformed into an
independent group cannot be traced. Some indications of the in-
dependence of sepuhs can already be seen in the histonans relating
the events of the fifth century. In all of them the sepuhs appear
next to their tanutér, as seemingly free agents. At the time of the
Armenian uprising, the sepwhs were invited for negotiations at the
Persian court along with the tanutérs. During the rebellion, decrees
were signed not only by the tanwtérs but also by the sepuhs, and,
in general, on all important occasions, the sepuhs appeared inseparably
from the ianutérs78, The first manifestations of sepuh nghts appear
in a period following the fall of the Arsacids. Xorenaci asserts that
according to the custom of the Arsacid house, only the heir remained
at court, while the other children and kinsmen of the king lived else-
where, in districts especially set aside for them, first i HaSteank‘,
and later in Ahovit and Atberani. In time they found themselves
crowded in these districts, and petitioned the king to have their
possessions enlarged. But the king refused the request and decided,
‘not to set aside new estates for them, but to divide equally among
them the lands in their possession”. A new division of the lands,
conforming to the number of individuals, and the Arsacid princes
were evenly distributed in the districts indicated 7°.

The more credible and valuable part of the story hes in its indication
that the custom of dividing land according to the number of heirs
was common among the Arsacids. Since the royal house was internally
held together on the same basis as the families of the princes, this
custom of dividing lands, noted by the historian, should hold for
princely houses in general. This phenomenon does not belong,
however, to the period of the Arsacids mn which it has been set by the
historian. We have in his account the reflection of a practice con-
temporary with himself, and which he has set back into earlier times.
The division of the inherited domain among the members of a family,
is a manifestation of the new sepuh system, which apparently made
its appearence in the sixth century, since it was quite clearly developed
by the time of the Council of Dwin of 641 8°, Private quarrels over
the division of property resulted from the sepuh system, and were
duly recorded by Xorenaci, in whose time a rich documentation on

THE FEUDAL BASES OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 359

tigations, both in Persian and in Greek, was still available. The
historian made use of these documents and he confirms the fact these
acts dealt for the most part with the inheritance rights of sepuhs 81,
Subsequently, the terms sepuh and sephakan, acquired the meaning
of private property. At the present time, there is no term for private
property im Armenian other than υξιηζιμ μεδπι μιν [sephaka-
γα νη). In ancient documents this word is also used as a synonym
for dunwhy, dunwhgmfefh [Zatang, Zafangut‘iwn], “heir, inheri-
tance’. The second meaning of the word is easily derived
from sepuh, as a son and heir, and it apparently also served as an
intermediary step to the sense of private property 83. The sepuh
system of inheritance undermined the foundations of nayarardom,
through its replacement of the rule of seniority. As a result of the
division and redistribution of lands, nayarar holdings necessarily grew
smaller. Inevitably artificial means were sometimes taken against
the disintegration of princely houses; thus, for example, marriages
of near relatives were allowed to preserve the unity of the land 88,
The status of a sepuh separated from his clan is unclear. We do
not know the relation of a sepuh who had left his clan taking his terri-
torial portion with him to his former tanutér. As the holder of a
relatively small landed estate, he could not aspire to an independent
position. Accordmg to some indications, such an isolated sepuh
sought the protection of a more powerful prince and bound himself
to him through an obligation of service. In the ninth century a
man of sepuh rank served Prince ASot as his bodygard, and there were
other sepuhs around Αϑοῦ performing various other duties 84; sepuhs
in such positions should be classed as vassals. As owners of an
independent territorial property, they were free to serve their own
ianutér or to seek another, on the same pattern as holders of allods.
The development of the sepuh class was halted by political conditions
which brought about the concentration of feudal forces and the forma-
tion of several large units which engulfed the smaller proprietors.
Another distinct category of free men is recorded in the sources;
these are the so-called men of the ostan, or ostantk’ [nummbhpp] 85,
Ostan, as we have already seen, meant “court”; the ostanik‘ were
“court people, courtiers”: “‘ostan freedom’’, corresponded as a
class to that of the Russian nobility [dvorianstvo, from ἄνουν, “ court ’’).
The sense of ostantk*, however, was equivalent to mppahh [ark‘una,
“ royal ’’, a term by which it was often replaced or explained. Hach

360 CHAPTER XV

princely court was called its osian, but the term was used primarily
to designate the royal court as the most important one among them,
axid it sometimes referred to the entire royal domain. Osian freedom,
as is implied by the name itself, was closely connected with the royal
court. In my opinion, the ostanik‘ had the same relation to the
royal house as the sepuhs to the nayarars 855,

The problem of the origin of the ostan freedom and of its nature
already attracted the attention of Xorenaci, but the historian appar-
ently had no more information on this matter is available to us. He
came to the conclusion that the osiamik’s were descended from the
four regiments supposedly created by king Vaiarsak out of the descen-
dents of the ancient Armenian kings of the house of Hayk in order
to protect the royal court. Subsequently, according to the same
historian, the Persians formed regiments composed of other men and
called these ostan. Movsés does not know the reason for this trans-
formation, whether the former clans had died out, or whether they
had been dismissed for some act of disobedience so that other regiments
called mwppmbfh [ark‘unt] had to replace them; he merely insists
upon the fact that the former regiments were descended from the
house of the first kings, like those which in his time were called sep‘ecul
by the Georgians 886, -Xorenaci’s conjectures aro undoubtedly based
on suggestions found in the Histories of Lazar P‘arpeci and Enhsé,
which -we have already cited. Having noted that the terms πμιπιμὴ
[ostan] and mppnibf [ark‘unc] alternated in them, Xorenaci postul-
ated correctly the identity of the two terms and suggested hypothetic-
ally that the first term was older, 2.e. Arsacid, while the second belonged
to the Sasanian period. That ostan regiments did indeed exist is
evident from the historians who speak of “ wjpmdah” or “ gopu
puppmhh mutf’ [the cavalry or forces of the royal house] 385,
but that these regiments were intended especially for the defense
of the court, or that they were four in number, are mere guesses of
the historian inspired by the information he had about the prince-
bdesys who held the first rank at the Arsacid court 87, The authentic
part of the historian’s explanation is his statement that the ostantk'
were men of royal origin; but we must take this in the sense of descen-
dents of the Arsacids and not of the earlier kings, as Xorenaci believed.
The ostanik* were Arsacid sepuhs, and the historian is night when he
equated them with the sep‘eculs in Georgia. There is also no reason
to doubt the correction of his assertion that the composition of the

THE FEUDAL BASES OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 501

ostanik’ in his own time was not the same as before. The ranks of
the ostantk’ must have included not only Arsacid descendants but
also men of other origin who had distinguished themselves in some
fashion. Among them were the minor princely houses found within
the Arsacid domain, 1.6. the province of Ayrarat. Perhaps this is
the reason for which this class of free men began to be designated
by the uncharacteristic name osianik* (men of the ostan) rather than
sepuh, the term probably used for them until the change in their
make up.

The documents speak of ostantk* only in the royal province (jupparhph
mut, [an the royal court or domain]), meaning Ayrarat. In speaking
of the origin of nayarardoms, Xorenaci notes that men were raised
to the rank of free men for outstanding service to the king 88, Such
cases became more common after the fall of the Arsacids, and these
are the means by which the Persians prepared a circle loyal to their
interests. Consequently, Xorenaci attributes the change in compo-
sition of the ostanik* to the Persians. The Armenian Arsacids had
also rewarded persons who had rendered important services with
landed estates in their own domain of Ayrarat, The enormous staff
of officials serving at court consisted of men from the free class, and
after the fall of the Arsacids, these must have passed into the ranks
of the osianik*. Thus, the so-called “ ostan freedom” was composed
of persons of three types: descendents of the Arsacids who had sepwh
estates in Ayrarat, men having received grants of land there, and
finally court officials after the abolition of the royal power in Armenia. 885,

ΠῚ

There is very little information concerning the Armenian rural
population and particularly its social status. The sources sharply
distinguish the peasants from the rest of the population and contrast
them with free men, but they say almost nothing about their relation
to each other, or about the dependence of the peasants either on the
land or on their lords, According to the sources, all those who did
not belong to the classes of free men, nobility or clergy, formed a
single mass of inferior population known under the name of aphu-
juin ff (Sinakanut‘iwn). Sinakan, in the sense of peasant,
is the term most commonly used, but it alternated frequently with

862 | CHAPTER XV

amifil, (famik), ghySmh (getjuk), and the ecclesiastical term
οἰπηπήπιμη (Zotovurd)’®, The hazarapet stood at the head of the
peasant population, just as the sparapet was at the head of the princely
class. We do not know whether the entire peasant population of the
country was subject to the hazarapet, or whether he was the official
supervizing exclusively those peasants found in the royal domain.
Although the first thesis seems to have better support, we are still
not clear as to what determined the relations of the peasants to the
princes and to the king, and what was meant by peasant land holds 895,

In western feudalism the status of peasants was known as servage.
Legally the holding of a serf was considered as being merely a life
tenure conditioned by the performance of certain services. On the
death of the serf his portion returned to his lord to dispose of at will.
The serf did not have the right of hereditary transmission, but was
said to hold 7n moriemain insofar as the transmission of land to his
heirs was concerned, though in practice, the lord usually transferred
the allotment of a serfto hisson. The serf was also personally subject
to his lord; he could not leave bis land without his lord’s permission,
and this is the characteristic trait of serfdom. The legal status of
the medieval peasantry was also reflected in its financial subjection
to the lord; the peasants were subject to taxation for the lord’s benefit.
The basic tax was the chevage = census capitis, a poll tax collected
from all of the common people. Servile lands paid tenures ὦ cens,
or rent for the use of the land and tenures ὦ champart = campr pars,
or the share of the harvest designated for the lord’s use. In addition
to these there were the corvées or obligatory services of various kinds
such as carrying, building, work on the lord’s fields, etc. 89»,

Among the Armenians, the peasant allotment was known under
the following names: Jémwhp [keank‘], mwpmp [arar], Imjmmod [kalo-
wac], though the same terms were also used for the possessions of
the princes and of the clergy. Ymwjmwed [kalowac] corresponds
semantically to tenure, and hkmip [keank‘] literally means “hfe”.
Might we, therefore, conclude on this basis that the legal nature of
these allotments was a tenure and a life holding ? 50

Definite information about the territorial obligations of the peasants
has also failed to reach us. No evidence on this subject is found in
Faustus 2, We know only that the Armenians paid a tribute to
the Persians in the period of the Marzpanate; such a tax had undoubt-
edly also been paid to the Arsacid treasury. The Marzpan Vasak

THE FEUDAL BASES OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 363

is quoted as having boasted, “1 have before me all the taxes of the
Armenians, and the Persian officials are in my hands, and much wealth
I took from them” 9. After the fall of the Arsacids, the Persians
took a new census most likely to determine the amount of the taxes
and to distribute them accurately. According to Elisé, one of the
results of the census was an increase in taxation designed, as he
assumed, to ruin the rural population. The taxes were enormously
heavy,

where one hundred dahekans should have been levied,
twice as much was taken; even bishops and priests were taxed ;
not only were the inhabited lands taxed, but even the ruins.
Who, “ exclaims the historian, ‘is able to speak of the burden
of taxes, of dunpy fi umbhg, μοὶ μη fr Cuupy Er Luplng levied from
mountains, and fields, and forests’? They did not take as
becomes the royal dignity but plundered like brigands ” 93,

The Armenian princes come before Yazdgard, claimed that Armenia
was paying in this time more snmp [mutk’] and uwhp [sakk‘], and
other 4uphp [harkk‘] than in his father’s days. These statements
are valuable in that they apparently contains the technical names
of the various taxes, and it is possible to form some idea of them,
in the absence of direct evidence, through a comparison with the
tax system common in Persia.

Two types of taxes existed in the Sasanian Empire: the kharddj, or
land tax, and the gezi‘ [jizya], or head tax. The same taxes were
also custommary among the Romans: the irzbutum sols and the tribu-
tum capites, or, according to the terminology of the reform of Diocletian,
capitatio terrena [ jugatro] and camtatio humana or plebera [cayitatio].
Under the Arabs, two types of land tax were distinguished: the wazifa
and the mugdsama. The first corresponded to the European cens,
or rent for the land, and consisted in the payment of a given sum by
each unit of land; the second was the European champart, or share
of the harvest due to the landlord. The tax system of the Arabs was
not created by them, but went back to the preceding period and was
their inheritance from the Sasanians 9388, Among the Arabs men younger
than twenty and older than fifty years of age, the years unfit for
military service, were free from taxation, and we know that the Per-
sians performed military service between the ages of twenty and
fifty 94, This fact indicates the antiquity of the regulations inherited

364 CHAPTER XV

by the Arabs from the Persians. The Arab waz?fa in fact corresponded
to the kharadj, and the mugdésama was called bahrak in Persian 95,

The types of taxes mentioned above: ἥπειπ, uml, pud,, fon and
fun can be explained within this framework. Of these um] [sak]
and put [baz] are very familiar mn Persian literature, and are charac-
teristically often mentioned together: sak and baz, or sdv and bag 95,
We consider this pairing characteristic because 1¢ shows that these
terms expressed definite tax regulations. It 1s more than likely
that sak and baz corresponded in content to khardd) and jizya, 2.¢. that
they designated respectively the land and head tax. An explanation
for these synonymous expressions may be that some of the terms
apply to an older period and others to a more recent one, or that some
were customary in one part of the empire and others in another.
The etymological content of the terms might have solved the problem
had it not raised doubts. Baz, the Armenian pwd [baz] means
“share”, as does the Greek δασμός (from Saiw, “to divide”) =
‘a share ora tax”, The tax collected by the Achaemenids from the
subject nations was called bagi [baj2]. In the Cyropaedia, δασμὸς is
used to designate the tax collected by Cyrus, and is a translation
of the Persian δᾷ}} 9. The term [sak], the Persian s@ or sav, 18
unquestionably related to the Armenian word wml [sak], “ count”,
uml)—mplk; [sak-arkel] 58, but its Persian or even Aryan origin is
doubtful. There are also grounds for relating the khard (from the
Persian *hardka) with the Armenian 4upl [hark], Georgian boMgo,
thus lmking them with the root from which is derived the Ar-
menian 4hplb, [herk-el], “to plow”. Finally, gezit‘ corresponds
letter for letter with the Armenian gym? [gzat‘], which means “a
measure of wool, a fleece”’, from the root gy4, [gzel], Semitic gizzd,
“to comb out waves”, whence comes gizza?. This word acquired
the general meaning of tax, evidently because in some period gizzaé’s of
wool had been paid in lieu of tribute 988, Originally all taxes were paid
in kind. The payment in wool is particularly suited to a pastoral
mode of life. There is nothing surprising in this, since even in the
middle ages the feudal lords sometimes still took several pounds of
wax for chevage or census capitis.

If the Iranian origin of sak were indisputable, it would be possible
to state that sak and baz, and kharddj and gezit‘ were synonyms ex-
pressing one and the same idea in the Aryan and Semitic cultural
spheres. It is altogether possible that dn:mp [mutk*] and 4uu [has],

THE FEUDAL BASES OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 365

which the historians give side by side with sak and baz, served as
the corresponding expressions on Armenian soil. In the same way,
uinmy [ptut] was the equivalent of bahrak. Baz 15 probably the land
tax, and sak the head tax. In fact the same terms may have been
used with different meaning depending on circumstances of time and
place. So for instance, khardd) among the Arabs indicated the land
tax, while in Hebrew documents this is called tasqa, and kharddj |keraga|
has the meaning of head tax 9°, For our purpose it is the tax system
itself that matters and not its terminology. In addition to the taxes
mentioned, a tax of the same nature as the Huropean corvées =
corrogata opera, “ὁ service”, was known and called phhmp (bekar).
This word is derived from the Persian expression bekdér dmadan,
“to go to work ’’, and is used to this day among the people in the
sense of corvée. In practice, the service was called kar, Armenian
inn [kor], “ work”, and occasionally the two forms are given together,
hon m pklhup [kor u bekar], but the term bekar is the one found in the
Canons of the Council of Dwin of 641 1°,

Thus, the main types of obligations were the khardd, or land tax,
the geztt’ [jizya], or head tax, bahrak, or payments in kind, and bekar,
services. A few indications exist as to their amounts. According
to the information preserved in Tabari, the Persian land tax before
Aust6 J AndSarvan was collected in kind and corresponded to 1/3,
1/4, 1/5, or 1/6 of the crop, depending on the fertility of the land or
the quality of the harvest. In order to regulate the land taxes at
the end of his reign, king Kavadh had intended to take a land-census
of both plas and mountains, but he died soon after and left the
completion of this task to his son Xusrd J. Xusrd carried out
his father’s intention and took an additional census of the taxable
population, and at the end of this undertaking established regulations
for the collection of taxes. The unit of land called gartb, and equal
to 3,600 square ells, was taxed differently according to the nature
of the crop: a gartb of wheat or barley land owed one dirrhem in taxes,
a gartb of vines owed eight, a gartb of Incern, seven, etc 1,

All men between the ages of twenty and fifty were subject to the
head tax except princes, courtiers, soldiers, priests and officials.
From each man 12, 8, 6, or 4 dirrhems were collected according to
hisincome. Thelast figure was apparently the one generally accepted,
since Chinese sources mention that in Persia each individual paid 4 silver
coins as a tax. It was also laid down that payments were to be made

366 CHAPTER XV

in thirds, on three occasions or, as this was called in Persian, in three
sumarraks 191, |

We know that in the Roman Empire a measure called jugum served
similarly as the basis for the land tax. Hach jugwm was subject
to a tax whose amount was regulated by imperial decree. The yugum
varied in amount according to the nature of the land; for instance,
in Syria a jyugum consisted of 5 yugera of vines, or 20 jugera of cultivated
land of first quality, 40 jugera of medium quality, or 60 of poorest
quality, etc. It is interesting that in the Empire taxes were collected
on three dates: 1 September, 1 January, and 1 May 1915,

All the taxes mentioned were also current in Armenian feudal
society; the technical terms which have survived in the literature
are our best evidence for this, but we have no specific information
about the actual amounts of these taxes unless we take into consider-
ation some of the evidence drawn from ecclesiastical life. The Ar-
menian Church was feudal in structure; it reproduced the social and
economic regulations customary in nayarar society, and preserved
them in part after the disappearance of the secular feudal nobility 1°.
Consequently information taken from ecclesiastical life is also relevant
for nayarar society.

In the Canons of the Council of Dwin it is noted that certain princes
oppress almshouses, demand from them taxes equal to those of living
[lay] men, and send their men there to levy taxes even on items of
food and drink, while on the contrary, “ they should watch over them
with care, granting them a share of all the produces of the threshing
[||], of the pressing [4hdwh], and of all produce” 1°, It is evident
from this that a certain share of the rural produce went for the use of
the feudal lord. Even more valuable is the decree of the Atbanian
Council under king Vacagan. The clergy decreed here the following
taxes :

This shall be the rule concerning the (fruits of the earth to
be given) to the priests by the people. He who 15 rich shall
give 4 bushels (griw [gartb]) of wheat, 6 of barley, and 16 jugs
of sweet (wine); the poor man shall give half a loaf of bread
and as much wine as he can; and nothing shall be taken from

him who possesses no field or wineyard. .... He who has
sheep in his household shall give one sheep, three fleeces (=
gzat’s) and one cheese; (he who has horses — one foal, and

he who has cattle — one calf) 1%,

THE FEUDAL BASES OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 367

This official document provides a reasonably clear definition of the
material and financial obligations of the population toward the spiritual
and, of course, the secular authorities. The information that, in
addition to the tillers of the soil, there was in Armenia at the time of
this Council (1.6. no later than the sixth century) a group exclusively
occupied with stock raising is important for a picture of the social
structure of the country. Xorenaci was consequently not speakingly
idlely when he complained that “ not all part of Armenia were given
over to agriculture, but here and there lived men who ate raw food
and the like, as in northern lands ” 1°,

According to the information incorporated into the Law Code of
Myit‘ar Gos,

... from the plowed lands a fifth to be taken ... purchased
fields, orchards and gardens shall be exempted from the fifth
as are mills, houses, and shops. Persons occupied with crafts
or trade shall pay a tax; the head tax shall not be collected
from the peasants but only from foreigners conquered by force.
Irrigated fields shall be subject to a fifth, and non-irrigated
ones to a tenth.

Limits were also set for required services and for taxes on household
cattle 106 These taxes are often mentioned in the inscriptions from
Ani and we know that several dozen taxes of various types were
enumerated and named on them?1°?, This evidence, however,
belongs to a period outside the limits of our immediate problem,
although this needs not mean that the tax system given was a product
of Arab rule. Mushm law undoubtedly brought about alterations
in the nayarar system, and single regulations or the evaluation of
taxable items might be affected, but the system of taxation as such
was inherited by the Arabs from their predecessors.

The form taken by nayarar relationships under the Arabs, and the
degree of their influence are problems which concern scholars of the
Bagratid period. Our own task has been to trace the nayarar system
from its origin to the period when Persian rule, which had provided
the foundation for its development, was replaced by that of the Arabs.
As such, the period of Xorenaci marks the close of our investigation,
and our intention has been to repeat the task performed by him in
his own time. It is, therefore, interesting to compare our conclusions
on ὃ given problem with those reached by Xorenaci. This comparison
will serve in part as a verification of our hypothesis.

368 CHAPTER XV

Although negative criticism has succeeded in underminmg the
authority of Xorenaci as a historian, it has in no way shaken the
importance of his work as a historico-lterary source reflecting the
atmosphere and attitude of the author’s world. From this point
of view, the work of Xorenaci is of the greatest interest still. Indeed,
what really matters in problems relating to the nayarar system is
not this or that item of factual information or a particular explanation
given by a historian, but rather the value of that author’s ideology ;
the manner mm which he understood the nature of nayarar society
and the methods he used in solving the problems he raised about
the nayarar system.

Aorenaci could not free himself entirely from the contemporary
scene. Hvery investigator of antiquity suffers to a greater or lesser
degree from the weakness of looking at the past through the prism
of the present, and many of the ideas of Xorenagi concerning the past
of Armenia are echoes of conditions found in the period m which he
lived, We can doubt the accuracy of his information and whether
a particular nayarardom arose in fact in this or that period or under
these or those conditions, but we cannot doubt that one or another
quahty attributed by the historian to the nayarar system is correct,
or that the particular method for the development of nayarar houses
given by him was considered possible, at least in the period when
he was writing. Our historian undertook a responsible task in the
bitter knowledge that he possessed no reliable sources for the history
of his native land. He was forced to work on the basis of disconnected
and fragmentary data, of occasional references, of incomprehensible
misstatements, and of similarly unpromising materials. He was forced
to arrange odd facts and data in the light of the pattern of his own
times, so that he imvoluntarily archaized many phenomena and
situations drawn in reality from the life of a later epoch. Xorenaci’s
pattern of thought moves from facts to ideas, from actuality to theory.
Though on the contrary, he may select or even occasionally vent
a suitable setting to illustrate a preconceived idea, piecing
together more or less credible facts in the process. Often Xore-
naci bases his conclusions on an etymological interpretation of geo-
graphic or nayarar terminology; this is the method on which he relies
extensively for his analysis of nayarar genealogies. Irrespective
of the degree of acceptability of these etymological interpretations
(indeed the majority of them is not acceptable and many of Xorenaci’s

THE FEUDAL BASES OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM 369

conclusions owe their dubious character primarily to doubtful ety-
miologies) his method, as such, is unquestionably scholarly 107,

Our own investigations resemble those of Xorenaci from a metho-
dological point of view. Taking as a pomt of departure the existing
conditions which are reflected in the sources which preceded the
period of Xorenaci, we have attempted to penetrate into the depths
of antiquity m order to seek in them the origin of the phenomena
interesting us. At the same time the etymological analysis of the
more characteristic terms of nayarar institution and terminology
have been of substantial assistance to us. The results of our investi-
gations have also been similar in a certain sense. For Xorenaci
as for us, nayarar society was closely tied to the Arsacids. Xorenaci
tells us on one occasion that Vatargak, the first of the Arsacids, found
naxyarardoms already present in Armenia when he came to power
and that he consequently asked his older brother Argak, “ whence
originated the nayarardoms existing here?” though on another
occasion, the historian claims that Valarsak “‘ established the nayarar-
doms and nahapets for each one of them ” 198, so that we might accuse
convict him of inconsistency and contradiction on superficial acquain-
tance. But when we penetrate to the heart of the matter, it becomes
clear that Xorenaci was attributing to the first of the Arsacids only
the regularization of the nayarardoms and not their creation in the
strict sense of the word.

A orenaci set for himself the task of clarifying, “ which of the nayavar
clans had been related to us from ancient times, and which came in
[from outside] and became related” 29, Strictly speaking, this
clarification was really the valuable result reached by the histonan
at the end of his investigation, but he presents it in his account as a
problem to be examined. Our own analysis justifies his interpretation
since it too has shown that the nayarar system did in fact consist
first of native and later of foreign elements. The fundamental differ-
ence lies in the fact that according to Xorenaci the great nayarardoms
were descended from single individuals, while in our analysis they
were derived from previously independent ethnic groups. According
to Xorenaci’s version, some nobles, in fact the majority, had risen
to the rank of nayarar by way of court and administrative service.
Such were: the Bagratids as coronants, the Gnt‘uni as keepers of
the royal wardrobe, the Xoyortuni as bodyguards, the Varaznuni
as masters of the hunt, the Abetean as supervisors of the granaries,

370 CHAPTER XV

the Gabelean as royal chamberlains, the Arcruni, as eagle [standard]
bearers, the Gnuni, as butlers, the Spanduni as supervisors of the
slaughterhouses, the Hawnuni as falconers, the descendants of the
house of hAyr (1.6. the Mardpeis) as eunuchs, etc. ...; the princes of
Siwnik‘, the princes of Kadmé, and the princes of Gugark‘, Angettun,
and Atjnik* guarded the frontiers and the Vahewuni were clerics.
Some of the nobles were included among the nayarars thanks to the
nobility of their stock or because of their descent from the progeny
of Hayk or of the ancient kings; such were the Orduni, Apahuni,
Manawazean, Bznuni, Afawenean, Zarahewanean. There were also
noble foreigners such as the Amatuni, Atawalean, Rop‘sean, Mami-
konean, and Kamsarakan. Finally, a few men had obtained nayarar
status through merit and personal valour, such had been the ancestors
of the Dimak‘sean and of the Truni.

It is evident from the examples just cited that for Xorenaci two
qualities were the bases of nayarar status: service and nobility 1.6.
superiority of blood. On this point too we have no disagreement
with him, since the roots of the nayarar system found by us go back
either to a tribal stage or to bases of an official administrative cha-
racter. In Xorenaci‘s opinion, the aristocracy consisted of the more
ancient families, primarily those presumably descended from Hayk,
which were already present in Armenia at the time of the coming
of the Arsacids. According to us, the aristocracy consisted of the
houses which had developed through the disintegration of tribal
relationships. Here, however, our agreement with Xorenaci is only
one of principle; in actual cases, 2.6, on which nayarardoms belonged
to which category, we are in disagreement.

For Xorenaci, as for us, land tenure also provided the material
basis of the nayarar system. Promotion to the rank of nayarar
according to him was nothing more than a grant of lands 110, Nobility
and nayarar status were synonymous concepts for him for the very
reason that all nobles possessed lands, and lands were granted in
hereditary tenure. The expression mqq ubkph;, “to lay the founda-
tion of a clan”, which he used in speaking of someone’s elevation
to naxarar rank is significant in this connexion. If to grant lands
was to create a new clan, then it is clear that these lands were given
in hereditary tenure 2, According to Xorenaci, the grant and
confiscation of land was a prerogative of the sovereign power, which
is a feature characteristic of feudal land tenure 122,

THE FEUDAL BASES OF THE NAXARAR SYSTEM Syal

The clan and its territory were both called nayararut‘iwn by Xore-
naci, and this is the term he commonly uses. Occasionally he replaces
it by fuumkams|? fh (nahapetutvwn), but ib is evident from his expres-
sion fu fp pi fe ftp h hingf ΟΣ ΠΣ] fn Lay Ginn [9 fir Ρ Δ.
nayarardoms and the nahapeidoms of their nayarardoms ”’], that he
assumes a difference between the two terms: nahapet designates the
head ofanayarardom. Térand ianuiér are likewise found in his work as
synonyms for nahapet, and also mipm/é fh [térut‘own)] and mubnun{ pare fh
[tanutérut‘iwn] in the sense of nayarardom and nahapeidom 138,

Finally Xorenaci is thoroughly familiar with the sepuh system of

inheritance and with the institution of ostan freedom atthe very point
in their development when they were turning into a separate new
rank within the feudal-nayerar aristocracy. Thus, if we discount
the factual setting and turn instead to a theoretical study of the
naxarar system, we cannot deny that Xorenaci was correct both in
his methodological approach and in his setting of the problem.

The points where our own interpretation of the origin of the nayarar-
doms and of the nature of the system itself have coincided with Xore-
naci’s should be counted in favour of the accuracy of our conclusions.
How far these are acceptable and what is their historical value, is
open to differences of opinion, and we are far from any idea that
anything beyond challenge can be created on the basis of the insutfi-
cient and fragmentary material at our disposal. There is unquestion-
ably much that is hypothetical and biased in our thesis, but these
are defects which characterize all historical interpretations to a greater
or lesser degree. What matters here is the general setting of the
problem and the broad lines of its solution: have we been successful
in uncovering the roots of the nayarar system, how accurately have
we observed its subsequent development, and are the points of contact
between the institution of nayarardoms and western-European feudal-
ism suggested by us acceptable? Our clarification of the nayarar
system should bring a ray of light into the darkness which hangs over
the Armenian past in the pre-Arsacid period, and should provide a
starting point for a scholarly analysis of the extensive subsequent
period of Armenian history which leads all the way to the destruction
of the nayarar system in the period of the Mongol invasions 113,

ABREVIATIONS

Acia Sanctorum Bollandiana (Brussels).

Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin.

Analecia Bollandiana (Brussels).

Abhandlungen der bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschafien zu Miinchen.
Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, Schwartz, Εἰ. ed. (Berlin, 1914).
Annuaire de V Ecole des Hautes Biudes (Paris).

Annuaire de PInstitut de philologie et ἃ’ histoire orientales et slaves (Brussels).
American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures (Chicago).
Abhandlungen der kiniglischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschafien zu Géitingen.
Acta Orientalia (Copenhagen).

Armenian Quarterly (New York).

Académie Royale de Belgique. Bulletin Classe des Lettres (Brussels).
Abhandlungen der stichsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften.

Byzantion (Brussels).
Bulletin arménologique.
Berytus (Beirut).
Bibliotheca geographorum arabicorum, de Goeje, M.J. ed. (Leiden).

Bulletin de Vinstitut Marr (Tbilisi).

Bedi Karthhisa, Revue de Karthvélologie (Paris).

Banber Maienadarant (Erevan).

Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbiicher (Berlin).

Bulletin de la Société Innguistique de Paris.

Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies (London).
Byzantinische Zetischrift (Leipzig).

Caucasica (Leipzig).

Cambridge Ancient History.

Collection @historiens arméniens, Brosset, M.F. ed. (St. Petersburg, 1874-
1876).

Collection @historiens anciens et modernes de l Arménie, Langlois, V. ed.
(Paris, 1967-1869).

The Catholic Historical Review (Washington).

Corpus Inscriptionum Graecorum.

Corpus Inseriptionum Latinorum.

Corpus Juris Civilis, Mommsen, T., Kriiger, P., et al., edd. (Berlin).
Cambridge Medieval History.

Codex Theodostanus, Mommsen, T., et al., edd. (Berlin).

Classical Philology (Chicago).

Classical Review (London-Oxford).

Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orienialium (Louvain).

Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae (Bonn, 1828-1897).

Dictionnaire d Histoire et de Géographie Ecclésiashque (Paris).

Mélanges de PUniversité de Saint-Joseph (Beirut).

ABREVIATIONS XXII

Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique (Paris).
English Historical Review (London).
Encyclopaedia of Islam (Leiden, 1913-1948).
Eichos @ Orient (Paris).

Fragmenia Historicorum Graecorum, Muller, C. ed. (Paris, 1841-1883).
Georgica (London).

Office of Geography, Department of the Interior, Gazetteer No. 46 : Turkey
(Washington, 1960).

Geograph Graect Minores, Muller, C. ed. (Paris, 1855-1861).

Handés Amsorya (Vienna).

lzevestia Armianskogo Filiala Akademi Nauk SSSEH (Erevan).

Jzvestiia Akademi Nauk Armianskot SSE (Erevan).

lavesivia Akademi Nauk SSSR (Moscow).

Javestiia Kavkazskogo Istoriko-Arkheologicheskogo Instituta (Tbilisi).
Istoricheskie Zapiski (Moscow).

Journal Astatique (Paris).

The Journal of Ecclesiastical History (London).

Journal of Hellenic Studies (London),

Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain (London).

Journal of the Royal Geographic Society (London).

Journal of Roman Studies (London).

Klio. Betirége zur alien Geschichte (Leipzig).

Kratkie Soobshchentie Instituta Narodov Azit Akademit Nauk SSSR (Mos-
cow).

Khristianskit Vostok.

Loeb Classical Inbrary (Cambridge, Mass.-London).

Leatkon fiir Theologie und Kirche (Freiburg i/B).

Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio. Migne, J.B. ed. (Floren-
ce - Venice, 1759-1798). New edition (Paris, 1901).

Mémoires de l’ Académie Impériale des Sciences de St. Péersbourg.
Monatsberichte der berlianischen Akademie der Wissenschafien.
Morgenlandische Darstellung aus Geschichte und Kultur des Ostens (Berlin).
Mitteilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft.

Nord Tidsskrift for Sprogviden (Oslo).

Oriens Chrisiianus (Leipzig).

Orientaha Suecana (Uppsala).

Pazmaveb (Venice).

Proceedings of the British Academy (London).

Paima-banasirakan Handés (Erevan).

Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeco-latina, Migne, J.P. ed. (Paris,
1857-1866).

Patrologiae cursus completus. Series latina, Migne, J.P. ed. (Paris, 1844-
1855).

Pairologia Orientalis, Graffin, R. and Nau, F’, edd. (Paris, 1903).

La Parola del Passato. Rivisia dt Studi Classict (Naples).

Palestinskit Sbornik (Moscow).

Real-encyclopddie der classischen Aliertumswissenschaft, Pauly, A., Wisso-

New edition (1954-).

XXIV

LVS

ABREVIATIONS

wa, G., and Kroll, W. edd. (Vienna, 1837-1852).
1893).

Revue des Etudes Arméniennes (Paris, 1920-1932). New series (Paris,
1964-).

Revue des Ftudes Anciennes (Bordeaux).

Revue des Etudes Byzantines (Paris).

Revue des Htudes Indo-Européennes.

Revue Historique (Paris).

Revue @ Histoire Heclésiastique (Louvain).

Revue de lV Histoire des Religions (Paris).

Revue de POrient Chrétien (Paris).

Recuetls de la Société Jean Bodin (Paris).

Syria (Paris).

Sttzungsberichie der philologisch-historische Classe der katserlachen Akademie
der Wissenschaften (Vienna).

Stlzungsberichie der bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschafien zu Miinchen.
Studia Instituit Anthropos (Vienna).

Sak’artvelos Muzeume Moambe (Tbilisi).

Sovetskoe Vostokovedente (Moscow).

Traditio (New York).

USAF Aeronautical Approach Chart (St. Louis, 1956-1958).

Uchennye Zapiski Leningradskogo Universiteta.

Verhandlungen der berlinischen anthropologischen Gesellschaft.

Vesinik Drevnet Istorts (Moscow).

Voprosy Istort: (Moscow).

Voprosy lazykoznaniia (Moscow).
Vizantiiskit Vremmenik (St. Petersburg,
1947).

Wiener Zettschrift fiir die Kunde des Morgenlandes.

Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlindischen Gesellschaft (Leipzig).

New edition (Stuttgart,

1894-1928). N.S. (Leningrad,

_ Lettschrift fiir Hihnologie.

Zapiski Klassicheskago Otdelenisa Imperatorskago Russkago Arkheologi-
cheskago Obshchesiva (St. Petersburg).

Lhurnal Ministersitva Narodnago Prosveshchentia (St. Petersburg).
Zeitschrift fiir neutestamentliche Wissenschaft.

Lapiski Vostochnago Otdeleniia Imperatorskago Russkago Arkheologicheskago
Obshchestva (St. Petersburg).

Zeitschrift fiir vergleichende Sprachforschung.

NOTES : CHAPTER Ι΄ 433

CHAPTER IX

ἃ [See Introduction n. la for criticism of Adontz’s periodization. For the naxarar
system in Armenia see particularly, Toumanoff, Studies, Manandian, Feudalism and
for a more recent Soviet interpretation, Sukiasian, Armenia. On The Sasanian Empire,
the fundamental work is still Christensen’s against which all of Adontz’s discussion must
‘be checked. See also Frye, habia

1 Arm. Geogr., p. 40/53, “Anum fp npanpul (pro Mnpuwumh, short form
Ninpuymputp found in the printed text) Jmum f Lain}, mum fp bynpumut,
ἤπιε β Qual on f hangin Gun} oom ΠΣ) ἢ The phrase ou puny binh
gop Nnpumpuih ἤπια δὴ i.e. “the sparapet of Xorwaran” of the western region,
which the editor Miaban, Ararat, (Feb.-Apr., 1906) failed to understand, is found in
Ananias Sirakaci. [Cf. Markwart, Eran, pp. 16-18, 94sqq. Also, Christensen, 352

τι. 6, ete]. . (213. 1)
2 Rawlinson, The Seventh Monarchy, p. 439 of Christensen, Ὁ. 102 and Toumanoff,
Studies, Ὁ. 158 τι. 33}. (214, 1)

3 Noldeke, Tadar:, pp. 151-153, “* Darauf ward Kiénig Chosrau Anésarwin, Sohn des
Kawadh u.s.w. Nachdem er Kénig geworden, schrieb er an die 4 PAadhéspane, deren |
jeder eine Gegend Persiens verwaltete, und ihre Gefarten (= Unterbeamten), Briefe,
von welchen der an den Padhéspin von Adharbaigan gerichtete also lautete : ἡ... an
Zadhoé(?), den Nachwerg4n, den Padhéspén von Adharbaigén, Armenien und dessen
Gebiet ...”. [Cf. Christensen, pp. 363-364]. (214, 2)

4 Ibid., Ὁ. 155, “* Bevor er Konig wurde, hatte ein Mann die Stelle eines Spahbedh’s
d.h. Oberbefehlshabers der Truppen bekleidet; dieses sein Amt hatte das ganze Reich
umfasst. Als Konig vertheilte aber Chosrau das Amt und die Wiirde unter 4 Manner
namlich 1) den Spahbedh des Ostens d.i. Choerasén und dessen Nachbarschaft 2) den
Spahbedh des Westens 3) den Spahbedh von Nimréz d.i. Jemen 4) den Spahbedh von
Adharbaigan un dessen Nachbarschaft d.i. dem Lande der Chazaren”. [Cf. Christensen,
pp. 180 sqq., 370, 518, and Frye, Persia, Ὁ. 220]. (215, 1)

5 Padhghispain (which was incidentally the title of the governor of Isphahan at the
time of the Arab conquest in 641, Tabari, II, xliii), Arm. Qunnygnumymh, Sebdéos,
xxiii, p. 77 is formed in the same way as marz-pan, and means “ protector ” or “‘ ruler ”
of a “country ” or “region”. Patkos occurs in Pehlevi leterature with the sense of
** province’, West, Pahlavi Teais, ΤΙ, p. 297, Hiibschmann, Grammaitk, I, Ὁ. 223.
The word 4umagnu has a definite meaning for the historian ponies Areruni, * minut ppl
juppminunp yp muon p yop. pugiop”, Tov. Arc., p. 286,
it is used in the same sense by slag Kat., p. 265, “ hh jung ihunngnu” and
probably by Zewond, Ὁ. 188, “πὸ dupwg plynummfony qoungpoul my
fuipuntwy qnymjul fup”. The word underlined being a mistake for mumngnn.
In the examples cited the word wp TAeans ** ruler, official ’ in the sense of patkos-
pan. Untortunately the etymology of the word is not known. On the basis of ne
Armenian examples it may be broken down into pati-kos, “ head of a country or region ”
(ef. kos with Arm. hn 11}. On the other hand kos begs the comparison with kost, kostak.
Perhaps paigos-pan < pat-kos-t-pan, while patkos < patkost. We should perhaps
acknowledge kos as an independent word and derive xosi from it. (215, 2)

434 NOTES : CHAPTER IX

5a [There must be a misprint in the text at this point probably due to the quoted
passage of Sebeds which speaks of ‘‘ Yazdgard the grandson of Xusr6”’, but the yusré
meant here was Xusrd JJ Abharvéz, who was indeed the grandfather of Yazdgard 111
the last Sasanian ruler. [Cf. Frye, Persia, p. 283, whereas the divider of Persia into
four regions is usually held to be Xusr6 I.]

ὃ Sebéos, xxviii, pp. 99-100, “τ. fh wumunkm, pudmbkguh quip. p
ΤΟΣ ΩΣ μα πα βη jippu Suunciu : Qunp uh mph np fh uy fy h puphby py
hnqdmbt > δι yup uh Napbiny . mp Uunphumubbuyyg bapimil : Ge quup
uf np Uanpuyprnm hah ἠπηδιμδιἐ : Punjg [@uqunnp bap ἐμ p S/qpah, h
"αἴξ phh ἤρα yemmthh ἧμιν dhmpwhmfeiip unith ”. An echo of
the Sasanian division of the army into four parts is found in WX, II, 1, where the
Armenian king Artasés divides his army among four commanders. (215, 3)

6a [See, Christensen, pp. 181 and 371 for the opposing theory.]

? West, Pahlavi Texts, II, 7, p. 12 [‘* As it is said that Tistar is the chieftain of the
east, Satavés the chieftain of the west, Vanand the chieftain of the south and Haptok-
ring the chieftain of the north ᾽. (216, 1)

78 [See Stein, Hin Kapitel, and Christensen, Excursus II, pp. 518 sqq., for the thesis
that the organization of the Empire was copied on that of Iran, but in the VIIth century,
also Altheim, Hin asiatischer Staat.]

8 Arm. Geogr., p. 40/53, “" Umpurmyuinmlmh, Upifi np f 2myp, YmpPub ἡ ap ἰ
Y App [pm np f Unnumtsp, Puyol, ΠΣ ΩΣ Unl, Φ βημὴι, Cubdémh,
“ὑπερ, “bipunmbn, Swuppummh, fhunh, Usp, gap wennill; un Dh
hu εἴη ᾿ [Cf. Eremyan, Armenia, p. 26]. Which lists 14 districts instead
of the 13 announced [See Appendix IV B for the context. The Soukry translation
Ibid., Ὁ. 53 omits the district of Aré, which is, however, included in the text, Jbid.,
Ῥ. 40]. Markwart, Hran, p. 125, takes Sanéan (pro éréan) as an interpolation. The
final comment in the cited passage of the Arm. Geogr., is interesting since it suggests
either that our version of the Geography is incomplete, or that the section dealing with
the subdivisions of Persia has been taken from another work in which a detailed descrip-
tion of the provinces listed had been given. [On the problems of the Arm. Geogr., see
below, Chapter XI n. 1]. (217, 1)

9 Markwart, Hran, pp. 94-95. Might this indicate that the creation of the four
toparchies preceded the actual subjection of the districts named to the Persian Empire?

(218, 1)

10 Ibn Khordadhbeh, pp. 118/90. Cf. Eremyan, Armenia, p. 66 n. 1. (218, 2)

11 [Bid.,p. 17-8, oS Qlasy! Ayn ¢ old OS Sby ST ¢ ols OI ¢ old Ol pd
pro ὠνπώρω [QUgs] ol GNI ole GICs Ipy ole Gbps
oles Lr) | yy 9 ols O'S bys] Pro ols Clery a8 we believe this
passage should be read. (218, 3)

12 Zach. Mityl., ΤΙ, vii, pp. 327-328. (219, 1)

13 According to Ibn Khordadhbeh, Ὁ. 121 there were 12 farsakhs from Berzend to
the plain of Balasakan and from there to the frontier of Azerbaijan. According to the
short version of the Arm. Geogr., the nupu β Paypal is mentioned among the
districts of Albania. Because of the defective description of Albania in the longer
version of the Geography, we cannot tell how the subject was treated there. Zewond,
p. 132 lists the districts devastated by the Khazars in 763 with the comment that
“my panunp upfumphhh Ugmmbfyg” and furthermore that “μπρὲ ἢ
qggubhoy fp quot Puymumlwt”, Balasakan was perhaps moved to Atbania

NOTES : CHAPTER IX 435

on the strength of this passage. Ifthe corrections ΠΠῚΠ - - pup and Puquu
— nin “the Balas river” are permissible, μη ματι ἢ ΙΗ! might be connected
with the district of Purquh - nnn or {hon—f—purju in P’aytakaran. In Alisan,
Great Armenia, p. 92, the Bolgaru gay is called Bala-rud and equated with the Balas-fot.
[Cf. Manandian, Trade, pp. 163-168; Frye, Persia, Ὁ. 206 and n. 20; Eremyan, Armenia,
Ῥ. 44, 83, 88, 109; Honigmann and Maricg, Recherches sur les Res gestae divi Saporis
(Brussels, 1953), pp. 80-87.] (220, 1)

13a [ Koriwn, xxi, 5, p. 84 and p. 92 τι. 46.]

180 [Sebéos, i, p. 26, “ Gmpidud punny pul quyu win dpb ay fp pany
Ehmy fh Ζιμ!πῇ win buy Y wah fofumt wp fump£ pbs Ufrbbug, h fulypimy
fb Rmupmfay puppayth Qupupg. qf mupgbh qppumh mepamplph {είτε
bp bphay fp Φιιγιπιιή μιν puqup, bh jupykugl ypuquph fp Cmépiup
U,in py nt nf. yp Dh hu Ingkugf mba Ζι")πῇ fi fEpwy ἡ ΠΗ} ᾿ς [Adontz
translates the last clause, “*... so that in the future it should no longer be considered
an Armenian city, but bogu is a plural, as it is rendered by Macler in his translation,
F. Macler, Histoire d’ Hérachius par Vévéque Sebéos, Paris, 1904, p. 5 and n. 5, “... de telle
sorte qu’on ne donnat plus aux Siuniens le nom d’Arméniens ”’.]

14 Sebéos, xxxviii, p. 152 who speaks of the princes of Siwnik’, “--- np ΟΣ
{μὲ punm Jmgayh ag pp horn ἢ μὲ Unpupwinmlwf, ΠΗ ΓΔ βιπημμιπ-
pofefrth Qupupg, ---”. sahr-mar is correctly rendered by the Armenian term
“ἐμ πζιμη fp. [Cf. Markwart, Hran., pp. 120-122, Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 131, 214
and n. 244, 332. Eremyan, Armenia, Ὁ. 88.] (220, 2)

15 Procopius, Pers., I, xv, 1 [L. I, 128/9], “τὸ δὲ στράτευμα τοῦτο Ilepoappeviny τε
καὶ Lovviray ἦσαν, ot δὴ ᾿ΑΛ[β]ανοῖς εἰσιν cpopor””. (221, 1)

16 Arm. Geogr., p. 40/53 gives ρῥμιμίμεδ, Uuydhipumbd of which the second is
a distortion of Updh numml, The Syrian sources distinguish between Arzén and
Arzon-ostan, see above Chapter 11, p. 35 and ἢ. 25. The short version of the Geography
gives this name as Upapt, Up ckh,, which Markwart, Eran, Ὁ. 25 takes to be a
dittography. [On Aljnik and Nor-Sirakan, see also Eremyan, Armenia, pp. 33-34,

72, 77, etc.; Toumanoff, Siudves, pp. 128-129; and below n. 32, 33, 35a}. (221, 2)
17 The correct form is marzpan from marz, “ἡ country, region ” and pan, hence “ keeper
of the country”. Marzban is the modern Persian pronunciation. [Cf. Hiibschmann,

Grammatik, p. 198, Christensen, pp. 186-137, 519, Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 153 ete, ]. (222, 1)
18 Procopius, Pers., II, xxv, 1-5 [L. I, 478/9-480/1]. According to which Dwin served
as a mart for the exchange of Persian and Roman goods, “... ἐκ re yap ᾿Ινδῶν καὶ τῶν
πλησιοχώρων ᾿Ιβήρων πάντων τε ws εἰπεῖν τῶν ἐν Πέρσαις ἐθνῶν καὶ “Ῥωμαίων τινῶν τὰ
φορτία ἐσκομιζόμενοι ἐνταῦθα ἀλλήλοις ξυμβάλλουσι ᾿. [Cf. Manandian, T'rade, pp. 81-
82]. Dwin stood on the bank of the Araxes, presumably at the site of the present village
of Diurgiun. [The site of Dwin is now identified, cf. Eremian, Armenia, p. 49 et al.].
The name of this city, which was of such interest to Armenists, must, in my opinion,
have the same origin as Dabana, a town in Armenia Minor and have had the sense of
** village ’ from the pre-Indo-European Armenian *dava-, Georg. cosbs. [Cf. Minorsky.
“Le nom de Dvin”, RHA, X (1930), pp. 117-120, Hiibschmann, Orisnamen, Ὁ. 422,]
(222, 2)
19 ZP’, lxxili, pp. 428-429, * amin uuuinfly ELuu jiphfpu { pay, h pa
nkukwy 9 ns be png oy unm) fp, fone mmbay pp pbpphu Ζιμπη Hom ἢ
pm di binl ἢ πὶ [9 bah Y pug uw aby δε. nes yop.p 2uyny win wip. ΡΜ δ Y pug
fwuubthh. hb polobkwy, pwn dayp dh qonmaph Guabipay ἡμημημ ph”.
(222, 3)

436 NOTES: CHAPTER IX

20 Lewond, Ὁ. 168, “ 4uawhtp f umfiuin YUpug fp gunn Yon”. [Cf

Eremyan, Armenia, pp. ὅθ, 84, 118; Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 181-132, 452-456, etc.]

(223, 1)

20a [LP’, xxxv, p. 202, “++ εἰ fp gboqh op ἤπβ ee paphpph ἰληπι-

wbhyg ”, BUS, p. 75, “ uhpea p nuddaba ὦ pg Lurk πὶ wy wy pay pum ph,
np dung ἐμ [βιπηιπημμη Ugqaunlpy "1

21 Alishan, Great Armenia, Ὁ. 84; Baryudarean, Arcax, p. 420; Vaxust, gives Xilyil,
a city in Shamshadilo, on hismap. [C/. Eremyan, Armenia, pp. 75-76, 118; Toumanoff,
Studies, Ὁ. 132 ete. _The Zegam or rather Jegam cay is indicated in both the Armenian
and Azerbatjan Atlas. — AA, AzA.] (223, 2)

22 FB, Il, vi, “ρέμμα f qgenwnl fuphuhyg fp jogiuha ἰληπειμῆβη ἢ
umLinsin 2ujoy fp Zupuby, fr ghonh .-. Usupug = MX, TI, iti, “ phpkym]
fb oinpp Ufsifa, Pugkghh pUsmpou uhh”, Arm, Geogr., p. 33/44. (228, 8)

22a [Idem., the printed text of the Arm. Geogr., p. 33 has the following reading,
“pUfumlmhpu, qannml,...”. Cf. Eremyan, Armenia, pp. 70, 117.]

88. LP’, xxxvii, p. 216,“ @iphin mbiynth f mbyiundh ἢ Zin h f Qupmmhy
pmnuinhl® Yéuphh yp ηπμὸπ δι yumbpoglhh, bongs π πᾷ Lpitp wpyky qgopmb
Nupufy Luunhky pupfumpLh Ζι")πῆ πα πι [δ τι ἣρ. bh ΣΙ μιυμὰιι ἢ bh
Piimuby”. Ibid., xxi, p. 416, “ --- (Epi 113, wutp, 1 [}} whqwhey purine
β δῖ Nupufy fh up Ing ἠπηΐϊῆ urefumphpu Zuyny”. > Tbid., Ixxxix, p. 519,
“Gr Shiny Upfanp jurpuupth Lang n° feuimy pIudfoby ν΄ 2ayng mby pun,
ayy ηιμημμῖ! fp gomnfh ap hnskp Zip +--+”. [Cf Eremyan, Armenia,
pp. 51-52, 68, 117.) (224, 1)

282 [Liynch’s Map still indicates Hogeac Vank’ due south of Kasrik ὁ, 38°03°N x
43°25°E.. but no such indication appears on USAFM 340 B IV.]

24 Georg. Cypr., p. 48, “" ἡ κλεισοῦρα Bad-ad-ciowy καὶ ἄρχειται κατὰ τὸ ἀρκτῷον μέρος
ἡ Μεγάλη ᾿Δρμενία . The kleisurai are the pass called Qnpmyl inju by the Ar-
menians, FB. IV, 1, “ ny wip pany moth fh Ζιμ! πὴ haut np Qnpwmyh hngkh,
npahy nithh”. Sebéos, xxx, p. 108, “-+-ply duhmympdu Qnpny pupfampeh
Supolinj---”. Nowadays this pass is called [Mw4i/m Inéitean, Geography, p. 176;
Sargisean, Jitneraries, Ὁ. 274. [Cf. Markwart, Siidarmenien, pp. 376-378. Eremyan,
Armenia, pp. 33, 36, 58, 63, 71, 117; Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 198-199, etc.]. (225, 1)
_ 24a TArm. Geogr., pp. 28-29/39-40, 33/44; Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 128-133.]

24> [FB, IV, 1, ef, V> vil-xvi]

25 Ibid., V, vili-xvi. (226, 1)

25a [Ibid., V, xiii, “δὲ gymp gh’ npytu bh puonm Sh phew, fp, ply Ephhph
Ugaubfg bo pig Ephhph fopboby ooh mpphay lgaygbht hh”.

25b [[bid., V, πν, " δι yhfh nmdijmhut, np pun Ink En pany japhpph 2mjng
h phy Eph fp Lp, op f php dbo ἡξιπῖν Qmp, mpimfimks ph ph ifmuphmy,
ounkianyp ulna ἢ "Ὁ

28 Thid., Vi, i, ™ Pung h β tnguht pum HULU T,D bpdkmy p funny p
nyup, ming, bh tiny al La Souk μα βπυπζιη Eplagmig un phous
βιιημημμ (226, 2)

27 Ibid., IV, xxi, “ pul παι ζιδενδμπξ ph femamnphh Ζιμ!πη. op humbhh fp
Qubdwl Unpywmmlmbf, +”, Ibid. Viv, © + fish Θὰ ἢ κ1λιπμιημι---
pula fp amfiuka Zayny Lmpmdtfh...”, Ibid, V, v, “+++ gly fp πιπζῆιϊηδα
Zujny fp Dubdwht mul ponnpymyalwt mul”, [bid V, vi, “ ++-féng ph
gio ufimubmyod fp Qubdml’ ap fp oediuh ply Depo h phy Zu”.

NOTES : CHAPTER IX 437

Ibid., V, xxxiv, “ εὐλαὶ p Quriduh “αἰ ζ ἣ μι δὶ Eplhph ap Mapu py hmut fn,
Zuyny umdioh fn”. Cf. also, Ibid., V, i, “Gr δια, f pm fp umdimbuh
μ Qokdul [λιππιημηπα μα [9:5 ” and Ibid., TI, vii, “ +> pists ph Eph hp
ζμι!πη. oes ΠΗ pt ipnpp pum phhh Uurnuym, h uprhish p μὰ μι ἢ πα ζῆ ἢ

μι py minal”? (226, 3)
28 Hoffman, Ausziige, Ὁ. 250; Noldeke, J'abart, p. 100 [Cf Christensen, pp. 142, 166;
Frye, Persia, pp. 221 and 259 n. 23; see also, Chapter I n. 1.1 (226, 4)

29 Petr. Patr., Ὁ. 135, “ ᾿Αρμενίαν δὲ Zivda τὸ κάστρον ἐν μεθορίῳ τῆς Ἴηδικῆς κείμενον
ὀρίζειν ”. Kiepert, Karte gives a Zindu north of Nineveh near Akra, but it is doubtful
that it is related to the historical Zintha. [See next note.] (227, 1)

293 [Cf. Frye, Persia pl. 5, “* Zindan-i Sulaiman, and Manandian, Hisi.-geogr. Studies,
pp. 15-18.]

80 FB, IV, xvi,“ ++-h δμῆμπμημι εἶ ghd ombh mayp ἡ δα penpals
mp fumpphr *, Ibid. IV, xx, ++ h mug him mm hd. 4h popdunt alin
fp 2uyny guy wn hy, wyluyfu mgm p fim mmb, gf fp Ζιι πη dfiish fh Shypoh
Upish mn why ζαι δὴ yfapod nol magh, dfhgh wn by Ehingh”. (227, 2)

1 MX, ΤΙ, li,“ +++ plat fp Singh, np τ) ἢ hngh Gapyphp, f 1111}...᾽".
[On Alki-Hlki, see Eremyan, Armenia, pp. 32, 60. On the various districts, Jbdid.,
pp. 49, 60, 64, 72, 86; also Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 163-166, 180-182, etc.] (227, 3)

82 BL, p. 41, “+++ ppfhumnhbwy p Ὁπρβμμ με μὲ fp Upimt hudurhiy ΟΣ
Markwart, Hran., pp. 165 sqq.; Stidarmenien, pp. 378 sqq., ete.; Toumanoff, Studies,
pp. 161-166, εἰ αἰ... (227, 4)

83 Syn. Or., p. 272, [“ Ensuite vient le siége d’Arbéle, et Pévéque qui l’occupe est
métropolitain de Beit Nouhadra, de Beit Bagas, de Beit Dasen, de Raménin, de Beit
Mahgart, de Dabarinés( 3) et de leurs évéques—”. Cf. Ibid., p. 617. [Cf. Markwart,
Eran, pp. 22-25, and Manandian, Histor. Geogr. Studies, pp. 18 sqq.]. (228, 1)

34 Gever = Arm. Quzun; the modern name may be Bale’ gewer. Chabot, Syn. Or.,
p. 617 identifies Bates with the modern Bagkale, an old theory which Hoffman, Axfziige,
pp. 227-230 and n. 1826 considered unacceptable. See also, Ibid., pp. 206-216, Nohadra;
pp: 202-207, Dasen. The Kurdish tribe of the ὡΣ <a> is found in the Sheréf-Nameh,

ef. Charmoy, I, 2, Ὁ. 28 and in the Jehan-numa, Ibid., I, 1, Ὁ. 738. According to Was’tidi,
II, Ὁ. 423, the ὦ}. > \\| are in Azerbaijan and theirs is the settlement of ) OKI

Kinkivar, Markwart, Eran, p. 24. Markwart accepts the recent opinion of Hartman,
Bohian, p. 128 that Kinkivar = Arm. Quhbamup a city in the district of Anjewacik’.
[Cf. Eremyan, Armenia, Ὁ. 58). (228, 2)

34a [Arm. Geogr., Ὁ. 32/43.]

840 [Cf. Markwart, Hran., Ὁ. 24.]

85 Arm. Geogr., p. 40/538, “ Gamupmay pro Unduunpny [ὑπ] βμιι με ae
[Cf. above τι. 16]. (228, 3)

35a [Cf. Markwart, Hrén, Ὁ. 25. Syn. Or., p. 272, * Ensuite vient le siége de Nisibe;
Pévéque qui l’oceupe est métropolitain d’Arzén, de Qardou, de Beit Zabdai, de Beit
Rahimai, de Beit Méksayé et des évéques qui s’y trouvent”’. Jbid., p. 617, IT, “ Pro-
vince occidentale : "Arab, Beit ’Arabayé ’’.]

350 [ FB, IV, 1.]

86 Sebéos, iii, p.37, “br [ὁπηπιὴ diy ημ δι} Ephhph 2uyny uphish
ἡ μη lng oh ηηπιπῖι ἰληπιειιδ μη. h jUunping hagdubt qU pnw

438 NOTES: CHAPTER IX

yUnp Ομβμι μι ufilr sh qumdoub Suwéhuy, y fh win. fw ful Gun ph pul; aby
ju Koh ply wyrluiniune Uplish g4buwppu ἅμ μηπη hnging > Of. also Ibid.,
p. 9, where GLapoppul should be read Gapafpwl <wh>. In FB, V, xxxii, King
Pap says to the Emperor, “ G/¢f Yiuuwpfum Lim kh nwuh pug p dip ἐπα! ἐς wpy
pp pag nmp. bh gfindu puqup ppifuy f fu fubbugh ubpny ”. (229, 1)

36a [ Arm. Geogr., Ὁ. 29/40; Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 182, 163-164 and n. 43.]

36b [Arm. Geogr., pp. 31/41, 33/45; Eremyan, Armenia, pp. 35, 85; Toumanoff, Studies
pp. 129, 148, etc. Goubert, L’Orent, pp. 167-170, 290-302. ]

37 Sebéos, ii, p. 33, “Gr mug phy ηἠπη δι ἧι ηἰληπμιπη᾿ gU pom
anlisfinyh Upligh. fr Uophir ΡιιημΡ : bi Eplpth Lung gins fumphhs Swimiunkpw hah
fofuuhinife buh uphish gUpurpum hh yb ph pup, h ofr sh ghy p ὁπηπιῖι
Pobimbkug h gUabununwh *. Tbid., iii, p. 45,“ ++» Ein bngm qU pom
quik upigh gUopph, kh βρῇ μὰ 2ayng’ np py fapm{ peprutim|obunip
ἐμ, Huns Swinunbpul wh ufrli sh qghinh 2mpuynuh, h nuns You hg
uphish ΓΟ Quinhf ἐι ghyg p ondnih Polmbkmy, h qUabunaimh lk 9 πηπή fin
HL ΠΣ η Ζηβ h aU mylyn. > and not * Unkumunmt h 9 bag fin
as it is given in the printed text. (Cf. Tov. Arc., p. 88, “ ΠΝ Uatuntionmt
h yYngnifin--- Ἢ δὲ ἠπηἵῆι Y way πὰ Πμ}ἐ μι giinfh ἐμ p ounmynr|d rb
“πα βη mppupph”. (223, 1)

37a [Cf. Christensen, pp. 103 sqq.]

38 The term ify pauls is first met in Sebéos in two forms: Yury πὶ ἢ μὲ
and uhh Linhnh, XxXv, p. 140. Itis used only once in WX, II, lxii. See above, Chapter
VII n. ὅδ. An interesting composite form, swuuyntpwlmbugnyh is found in the BL,
Ῥ. 170, where Kyrion, kat’olikos of Iberia wrote to the Marzpan Smbat: “ Uumnimd
yphy { mipwhg duoympwhw haga mpmagl qeumlary fwhpkpd”. Kyrion
is praying here that Smbat should become not only a mere #ér [lord] but a tér among
térs, so that wmuympulmbmagnyh is the equivalent of m&pugnyh if such ὦ term is
possible. This interpretation supports our hypothesis as to the synonymity of
ΠΟ ΣΝ and “πα ἢ πιαπ bp (228, 1)

39 Diehl, Ch., L’origine du régime des themes dans Vempire byzantin, Paris, 1905;
H. Gelzer, Die Genesis der byzantinische Themenverfassung, Leipzig, 1899. [The litera-
ture on the problem of the Themes and their origin has grown rapidly since the time of
composition of Adontz’s work. See for the more recent views on this disputed problem:
J. Karayannopulos, Die Hnistehung der byzantinischen Themenordnung, Munich, 1959;
N. Baynes, ‘‘ The Emperor Heraclius and the Military Theme System”, HHR, LXVII
(1952); W. Ensslin, ‘‘ Der Kaiser Herakleios und die Themenverfassung ”’, BZ, XLVI
(1953); F. Délger, ‘‘ Zur Ableitung des byzantinischen Verwaltungsterminus θέμα ᾽",
Historia, IV (1955), G. Ostrogorsky, ‘‘ Sur la date de la composition du Livre des Themes
et sur l’époque de la constitution des premiers thémes d’Asie Mineure”’, Byzantion,
XXIII (1954), and ‘‘ Korreferat zu A. Pertusi”, Berichie zum XI. Internationalen
Byzantinisten-Kongress, I (Munich, 1958); A. Pertusi, “‘ La formation des thémes by-
zantins ’’, Tbid., and ‘*‘ Nuova ipotesi sull’origine dei temi bizantini”’, Aevum, XXVIII
(1954). See also BE. Stein, ‘‘ Zur Entstehung der Themenverfassung’’, Studien zur
Geschichte des byzantinischen Reiches, Stuttgart, 1919, Hin’ Kapiiel, and his ‘‘ Review ”
of A. Christensen, ‘‘ L’Iran sous les Sassanides’’, 1st ed. in Le Muséon, LIT (1940),
pp. 123-133, where he discusses the thesis that the Byzantine administrative re-organi-
zation of the VII was influenced by the Sasanian reforms of the VI; a thesis adopted

NOTES : CHAPTER IX 439

by Christensen in the 2nd edition of his work, ‘‘ Excursus 11, pp. 518-526; though
questioned by most other scholars. ] (233, 1)

40 Diehl, L’Origine, Ὁ. 12. (233, 2)

41 Justi, Geschichte Irans, Ὁ. 469 [Cf. Christensen, Ὁ. 210 and above τι. 39.] (233, 3)

41a [The “1,601 ᾽ of the Russian text is obviously a misprint for Leo III.]

42 Georg. Cypr., Ὁ. 40, “ ἐπαρχία Mecomorapias ἄνω ἤτοι A "Apyevias "Αμιδα μητρό-
mods”. Ibid., Ὁ. 48, “ἐπαρχία A ᾿Αρμενίας ἄλλης, Δαδίμων νῦν μητρόπολις ᾿΄. [Cf.
Appendix II F for the context]. Elias, the representative of the latter at the Quinisext
council of 692, is called, “ἐπίσκοπος Aadipwy μετροπόλεως τῆς A ᾿]ουστινιανῆς ᾿᾽,
Mansi, XI, p. 992. The Armenian historian Joh. Kai’ot., xvi, p. 88 mentions these
transformations and renders Iustinianea by Gnuun| pi puto hun, Gelzer,
Georg. Cypr., pp. xlvi sqq., suggests that the episcopal residence of Armenia IV or Upper
Mesopotamia was Martyropolis rather than Amida, but this was the situation at an
earlier date, before the changes just described had taken place. [Cf. Goubert, l’Orient,
Appendices x, xi, pp. 290-302]. (234, 1)

440 NOTES: CHAPTER X

CHAPTER X

8 [On the question of Adontz’s periodization, see above, Introduction n. la. The whole
of this chapter, and indeed, the entire section dealing with the naxyarar structure of
Armenian society must be taken now in conjunction with Toumanoff’s major study
on this problem. Toumanoff’s work, being a continuation and revision of Adontz’s
earlier work, (see, Studies, pp. 149-150), is relevant to all of the aspects treated here,
but it is far too extensive and detailed to permit a discussion of its contribution at this
point, since any adequate treatment of this would entail its incorporation nearly in
eatenso. Hence, only separate points from Toumanoff’s work can be introduced into
these notes. See also below, Chapters XIV-XYV.]

b [The date of composition of the History of Armenia attributed to Movsés Xorenaci
has proved to be one of the most controversial problems in Armenian studies for nearly
a century, and Adontz was one of the leading protagonists in the debate. See, for
instance, his discussion with H. Levy in Byzantion, XI (1936). The literature on this
subject is far too extensive for even a meaningful sample to be included here, but see
on this question, Toumanoff, Date, and Studies, pp. 18, 104-105, 307-308, 330-334, and
particularly p. 330 nn. 113-114, for some of the bibliography, as well as pp. 108-111,
for Toumanoff’s appreciation of Adontz’s thesis. ]

1 MX, I, ix, “ ++-funpdmpy fp din Enh qfinky-.+ num; fu fom μι μπι [δ pu
np unnn hah : Qh ng hupyp pis pau mum papa, h ng UELEb hy wyprsin minh p.
h ng gy fumenpmg mp fumpdpiu unm Shih pupnf fh ng fbpShbh, h ng wi] pig
ophhunnap, wy fawnh fp μιπεπῖν onlkiingh bh amypkhp” : (237, 1)

1a [ FB, IV, ii, “ +> με ει ὃ ph ΠΩΣ puisfip nuda, h ηημδι μι! pu
Jfepmpulishrp gunpor”.)

2 Tbid., “ Br my papa myn h μ funkinpl op gnpomlwjy min puipdfip
ἡ. 1} 9 ἢ} appwypl yup fp qpafe pagilhh. feng ηδιμζιηη πα dhdmikdu ἢ
qnutimintpy app gapoulwy p upuph hh, ph fupkip pupa’ np dombkp ἢ
Au muduphh περι {ηπι [6 πα δ payimhapogh hopgkjng., πη gomblnyy
ηπμὸδιμ μι πὶ [9 πε δδι uuymunt”. The punctuation of the 1889 Venice edition is
incorrect, as a result the words “ap gnpdwhwy p upmph [hh” might seem to be
related to the preceding phrase, “ βπη ghuduwinu”, ete., whereas they are in
fact a repetition of the clause, ‘‘ np ηπμὸιι ἐμ}. mun pupdpip ”, etc., evoqued
by the introductory phrase, “ /¢ny hmdumhmu --- ”. Moreover, μη μι ἢ μη ἡ
should be read pugimimhmugh which means both “feast” and “seat”, hence
δ Ριθη μι μη hupybjy” can mean either “the organization of a feast”, or
“the putting out of seats”. Cf, Jbdid., IV, liv, * vo fi mn fin ph mip lnhky
puyqiulo ...”. As for the expression “ gnpdmimjm/e¢hmh uymun.”, it has
only one meaning here and refers to the “* gorcakal office, or function” and not to
** service ” at the table. (239, 1)

22 [See below, Chapter XV, pp. 354 and τι. 63.]

3 Nersés, p. 82, “++ h hm hmpatp fp dui éuonjh fi ukyguh wp payph
Upoulpury pupdu onpkpfuppip ἊΝ (Cf. Appendix ΠῚ Ο for the context. Also,
Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 229 and τι. 273.] (240, 1)

3a [Nersés, pp. 38-39, “gap bapngkmg Upoml femgqunap h jupgiwg fp dui
dun fupny fp ubqah fop pupdy snp poupfapy 4poniubon dkoph ἃ μα μα ἢ

33
a

NOTES : CHAPTER X 44]

4 Steph. Orb., vii, pp. 63-64, “++. unipp pmduhinjuybinh Dp fgapho, fpf
ubd ph AY puny hupaky q fPoquinpm 9 fh fup pun umdimbh hu jukpmgh
Snibuy, h my juin fupupwhsfip Ly uninpuré |i nue h yy wsin fin fopumiugh puSit
ho podbht : Ap hb gbykghmmtu jopphhmy fp σε éupmh funk; pmpdu 400
fofumiing ” : (240, 2)

5 Tov. Arc., p. 239, ++» qguminf. Smpqymlimfeimh amdulwypa fiw Lom
mn Ey pun Ipupap pupdmpipdm|é bub fPmqgunnpagh Layng, Hn tana hy
uid fir δ᾽ ΠΠΜΗΠΗΙ) [¢uqgunonh 4 (240, 8)

6 ZG, Ῥ. 48, “+ ἃ wdfh ply fipkwhu fpfu fopimiu h dnpk pLuipkip
myp plnhp”: Tid. p. 49,“ +++ ἀπὲ dhmpoh fauna fh ἡ μὰ fp yumnh
1λιημιζπεδ τη, php phpbaku wubb] ἢ fopamtub opp thh fp phpnh Ayluah.
h yonpk phapkip ΠΗ f np wp.partf [ΜΠ wi ply ”. [On the accuracy
of Zenob, see, Abetean, I, pp. 345-362.] (241, 1)

6a [Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, p. 128 τι. 226, and below Chapter XV, n. 63.]

? The work of Ya’qubi is known from excerpts and fragments found in the works
of other authors. The information quoted is found in Ibn al-Fakih who was almost
his contemporary, Geogr. Arab., V, p. 281 = Karaulov, Sbornik, XXXI, p. 23. Yakit,
XIII, century gives 118 instead of 113 principalities, he evidently likewise depends on
Ya’qibi [Cf Toumanoff, Studies, p. 229, τι. 278). 2b, GU. ste OI ΚΕ 9
Bp ὦ.λ59. (242, 1)

8 Sahib as Serir means “ lord of the throne”. According to this account, the golden
throne of Persia fell into the hands of a descendent of Vahram Chobén after the downfall
of the Sasanians, He took it with him and ruled in the country called by the Arabs

| after the name of the throne. According to Movsés Kalankatwagci, the descen-
dents of Vahram Chobén settled in Arran and Juansér [637/8-680/1] was descended
from them. [C/. Mov. Dasy., ΤΙ, xvii, pp. 107-109 and p. 107 n.3 and pp. 109 sqq.
also Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 392-393 and p. 392 nn. 10-11]. In such a case, it may be
possible to identify Serir with Arran, or rather with its northern portion. (242, 2)

9 £P’, xxiii, pp. 188 sqq. [For the text of this list, see Appendix ITI L,i. For the
lists of princes found in Lazar and Elisé, see also Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 223 and n. 290

and particularly pp. 246-248 and tables viii-ix]. (242, 3)
10 Jiid., xxv, pp. 143 sqq. = Hisé, ii, pp. 42-43 [Cfh. ZP’, xl, pp. 236 sqq. [See
Appendix JJI F, for these texts.] (242, 4)
11 £P’, xxxvi, Ὁ. 209 = Hhsé, pp. 74, [See, Appendix III G and n. 14.} (242, 5)
12 £P?, xxxix, pp. 227-228 = Htisé, pp. 99-100 [See, Appendix TTI H, and below
n. 15, also LP’, xxxiv, pp. 198-199.] (242, 6)
138 ZP’, xlvii, pp. 272-273 = Htisé,-p. 193 [Cf. 1δὲά., pp. 178-179, and Appendix III, I.]
(242, 7)

14 Hise, Ὁ. 92 [See, Appendix ITI, H, ii.] (248, 1)
15. Hse, Ὁ. 119 [See, Appendix TI G, ii.] . (248, 2)

16 The text has “ Upbyimt » instead of * Q—uphykuh ”, as it is correctly
given in ZP’, xli, p. 231 in agreement with the same passage in Hlisé, Ὁ. 119 which
reads, “ {μια Quphnhml”; the representative of the Abeleans was named
Gazrik. In the list of the partisans of Vasak we find the name of “ Quin fon]
Napfunambip”. This family is listed earlier under its hereditary title of “ Juyfumq ”.
Its representative Xorén is referred to once as “ du|y|fumy”, LP’, xxxix, p. 225,
and several times in the same passage as “ \Jnpfunnanihf”, [e.g. Ibid. p. 227.] (244, 1)

442 NOTES : CHAPTER X

γε Qa bay » Ibid., xxxix, pp. 227-228, “ 9-h/fPmbkug ”, Idid., xlii, p. 237.
(244, 2)

. 18% Sup <fuiy> » Tbid., xlvii, p. 273, and “" Supp] », Ibid., xlii, p. 237,
more correctly, “ Sunpmy”. Hise. Ὁ. 194 has “ [hunpuniluh”, Nersés, Ὁ. 35
has “ Unapfunhfp”, and “ [hunhubmlp”, p.36, There were two Arcruni houses,
one represented by NerSapuh, as noted above, ZP’, xxiii, p. 135, and the other by
Aprsam, Ibid., xlii, p. 237, and xlvii, p. 273. . | (244, 8)
19 The prince of Aké is given in the list of the Vasakists, ἢ ὅδ, p. 92, where we also
find the name of Upumlh Phommhip indicating that the R&tuni shared Vasak’s point
of view. The list of Vardan’s supporters in Hsé, pp. 99-100 has only 26 names, of
which 20 are known from other referrences, The Uu4unnihf are found in ZP’,
lxix, p. 406, and lxxviii, p.470. The Jynupm μη τι of Hise, Ὁ. 100 should
be corrected into Gung pf λει πηι, as in LP’, xxiii, Ὁ. 135, and xxx, p.179. Might

as Gung p—fl see ἜΣ be a dialectal form of “ Naupml cs an 9) ja Snifulimh ἐν
HWS, p. 194 [πι. 11] = EP’, xlvii, p. 273. The Q:mphyimh were in Vasak’s camp. (244, 4)
20 Tbid., lxx, pp. 412-414; lxxi, p. 419; lxxxi, pp. 483-484; Ixxxiv, p. 497; xe, p. 526,
*Ymppujfi”. Idem., should probably be read “ 2Zwppuypph”. Among other
princes already listed earlier, we find the following:
1. Wuihhnhhut, Loloh, Yuawh, Upmuotu, ἀπ πη, Umpbq
2. Ufrbf, Pupph, Punpath, Qn fdnh 11. Ubdksmgafhp, Uliml, Sndub

3. U,sunnhf, Unity, Y mpugsunyng ‘12. Unhuy, BnLmh

4, Way fumg, Funnfony, Quip θη}! 18. fhoinmbbun, μη μη πηπέτιμῃ

5. βιεμὸμι], Ynyq θ πῆ, Y mpg hkpuls 14. Y μιζιπεδβ, Pung

6. Pugpummip, Umdul 15, Quynh, Poymh

T. ἀχπιδμμ παι, Zpudunn, Uhpukl, 16. Ywhubiymgh, ἡ μέν, Uygth

Umm |

8. Oath, Unt, {1πιμπππ 17. Quphylhhyg, Uunnny, bupmy
9, 9.5 θπεδίρμιη, Y ungyns 18. ‘hhdw pubhfy, Apap
10. Upopmf,. Suphmp 19, Umdunnif, Yuunh, ΟΝ

[Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 233 n. 290, who rejects Adontz’s additions to the List of
princes. } (245, 1)

21 According to the sense of Lazar’s words, Atrormizd was of Armenian descent,
i ηϊλιπμπμιἤηη πῆι minh itp pa Lh ΖΦ πη μι πη μη ζμμ δ ἶμ [βπηπι"" i
LP’, xl, pp. 229-230. We should perhaps read “ pupjumpdhl Zuyng +++”, te,
“4.e., δ᾽ to leave Atrormizd as Marzpan, in the land of Armenia ”’, in which case the origin
of the Marzpan becomes doubtful. The same passage in #i:sé[p. 128] is very interesting,

“ Quylidund gulf pug fn pro ppugh’ ἰλιπμπμιίζηη wha ΠΗΠῚ fofumin [δ pth
pul) foun ἐμ phy Lung mefamplph bk qnpdmhpg ἐμ qopmfupph ... "
since it reads as though the historian had the parallel passage of Lazar in mind, and could
not work out Atrormizd’s background. Atrormizd’s family name, “ Upouml—mh”,
is the Persian form of the Armenian “ Upowi—mhfh”, and he was probably a
descendant of the Armenian Arsacids. ‘ Quipaykut is the name of an individual
from * Plamahkug muhth”, LP’, xxxii, p. 188, as is [Qu] Upumblahp, mypl
numb pl ”, Ibid., Ixxi, p. 419. It is not clear whether Zandaiean is a praenomen
or a nomen gentilicitum;-we shall see it given as a naxyarardom in the Miliary Lnst [See
Appendix III Β]. The “Gufmauwykmi mppmhh”, is found in. both Etsé,
p- 100, and Nersés, p. 35 and designates the royal equerry, probably because of his
duties. [Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ, 233, n. 290]. (245, 2)

e

NOTES : CHAPTER X | 443

22 BL, p.42. [The list of those present at the Council of 505, including the names
given by Adontz in the note though not in the text will be found in Appendix HII L, ii).
Vard Mamikonean was the brother of the famous Vahan, Marzpan of Armenia; he is
also mentioned in ZP’, Ixiii, p. 357, etc... In the “* Letter of the Armenians to the Per-
sians on Orthodoxy ”, BL, Ὁ. 48, Vard is referred to as the Marzpan, “ β Y mp)
Vudhlatthy miuobl bh fp Ζιιπη ἥμιπηιημδ ἢ]. We know from Sebéos, i, p. 25
that Vard was named Marzpon, “Shn YUmduimy mpm ἢ [οἰ μειδπι θ fb
Yupy Qenapph Eqpayp linpw”. Sahak Kamsarakan is probably the well known
leader and collaborator of Vahan Mamikonean, LP’, xe, p. 526. ““ Puryfukh Y mba
is perhaps to be identified with ‘“ Puipoy Ym4hnbf”, a contemporary of Vahan,
Ibid., xxi, pp. 420-422. This information shows that our documents really belong
to the early Vith century. (246, 1)

23 BL, p. 74. [The list of those present at the Council of Dwin of 555 including the
names given by Adontz in the note but not in the text, will be found in Appendix ITT,
L, iii]. In the list given here, only eleven names belong to famous princely families,
the remainder do not seem to be princes, but since they are listed under the heading
" fofumlip” we must presume that many of those present at the Council were listed
according to their patronymic and not by their nomen gentilicium. Only the first
signature is -given in full: praenomen, patronymic, nomen gentilicium. Judging from
their names, “ Uponm fb Ympuqmppogkuh” “and Ζιδιιη μι f {Ππιζι ἢ ει
are from the Bagratuni family (the form “ Uponm” is interesting as the ae
of the later Bagratid praenomen “Upnm”). “ Qunpmh f Qqunnhbuh”

ὡ Uuomudumnip Upounpinh ? are from the Kamsarakan family, Anenia ταν»

i, pp. 514/520, mentions a “* Zorak Kamsarakan during the rebellion of Armenia in 571.

(Concerning Gazawon Kamsarakan, see MX, III, xlviii). Moreover, “ “hunny p

Ομ μϑπιη ται » and * YT plnf Unauapuah ἢ are names common in the Matyaz

house. The remaining signatures with the repeated praenomens Y appa, {[πιρίτη,

Umims), ” , ete., which are so characteristic. of the Mamikonean family, must belong

to members of this house. The influence of the Mamikonean was strongly felt at the

Council of 555. They had a powerful representative in the clergy in the person of

bishop NerSapuh, one of these responsible for the Council: The construction with the

idafat “ Bnhynp fp Zimpul”, is noteworthy. The fr becomes a j;— before vowels:

*Umiky JUpoenmgqah, Oppel pU pupal”. ΤᾺ the case of the twelfth signa-

ture, we have either Zuimymuy [] Umdml μ Yuumhml”, or Hamazasp’s

patronymic has been omitted. (246, 2)

24 Sebéos, xviii, p. 65 and xxviii, p. 98. Among the other princes, we find references
to the following:

1. Uuilbhntkmh, Ymknh, p.24, Yappyamphh, p.25, Lapaml apah ἡ μι---
uulm), pp. 26, 29, Umaky, pp. 37, 52, Zuamquuy, p. 50, UmLul, Ἢ. 53,
Qunhl apnh Ulm; fp, pp. 56, 58, Umi, pp. 48, 56, a apap
‘bunfeh, pp. 107, Zunimymuy pp. 139 sqq.

Ufubkug, Ymduh, Ὁ. 26, Umbibmbinu, pp. 48, 56, {7μιζιμὴ Cophypmyp Umb-
fmbiinup, Ὁ. 58, Phy frynu, p.29, μβηπμ, p. 107.
Y mfhmbh, Uuninty, pp. 48 sqq.. Uupghu, Yapmg—bhpuls, dam pp. 50

564.» Aaupa, pp. 56, 58, /¢fngnpnn, p. 108, Δι μβηπμ, p. 109.

Napfunamip, Usnunn, p. 69, [*fngnu, pp. 74 sqq.s Δαν, Ῥ. 102.

5. Usui, Yampn, p. 56, ὕπηπεξ, p. 108.

444 NOTES ;: CHAPTER X

Spuynnnbh, fanny, pp. 50 sqq.. Uupafu, 65 Βα.

Pugpanmh), Uspum πῃηβ th mbinity fr, pp. 53 sqq., un apa Upon
uuuyknp, p.56, Uspann dupqymh {ἢ pli), pp. 59, 61-63, Yumpuynfpny
πῃ! infu, pp. 63, 68 sqq.. Uapun opyp Yupmg—Umdmbmy, Ὁ. 111.
Upopahp, Yupymhs, p. 56, { mpun—Gunynrd, p. 65, Ywumh apap Umdulmy,

p. 78.

‘hhiu pukuh, UE~Lpm, p. 63, Umpafu, pp. 65 sqq., Upmunmgy ‘bfiulakmh,

p. 149, wp mubh ‘bhimpukhfy, p. 139.
10. Uyeda, Upmenmgy, Land, 2mm, p. 65.

Uy Lmbikmg nn Umbargy, p. 65.

haumhp, fefnyznpau, pp. 97, 108 sqq., [ιδιππεΐπμ μαι, p. 139.

Qinbh, Udld, p.101, Ywpuq—Dhby, p. 108.

Umduanhf, Punfife, p. 108.
15. Ununbybut, ᾿υμι ρει, pp. 108, 139.

Uanhnng fofumh {πη hnskykwy, p- 109.

Yuhubyay fojautp, Unianjwhhuip, Lupmdimblfp, p. 20, 9b /Pmbhp,

Uujubiynihp Ps “burownw lpn ΠΝ] Y mpug—bpuk£, p. 140. The fi famb Ρ h

qunpp sappapy ngkghuy 2ujng, Uytpaghp, Uuluqayph, apubuqm-

ph, app "δι μηξιιη qanunl, Quphugpp, Puukhugpp ” are likewise found here.
We have included in our list only the principality of Basean, which from Antiquity is
referred to only by the name of its territory, as is also the case for Goltn, as is evident
from FB III, 9, *-+-fofumh Puubhay Uubml)”, Tdid., TI, xii, ““..1λιπι ἢ ῥο μι...
ST ”, The remaining princes came from outside Marzpan-Armenia, and may,
furthermore, have been members of the Arsacid, Bagratid, and other houses already
listed. Sebéos, Ὁ. 93, mentions a certain “ Y plImbfp ” — MX, I, xxx, * Y ph
Imbfp” from the name of a vanished naxyarardom. [Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, p. 238
n. 291, on the inclusion of Tayk’ and Phasiane [Basean]; 251 and table xii]. (247, 1)

25 ZG, p.48, “1 ELimbbmgh upp p”. BL, p.70, “ ΩΣ U. E4umbbmy,
Uunmmdunamp Po Τμηπιεδίπιμη, U, Ρ payty Θιμζι δ μη ἢ 1διά., τ. 42,
" Umfutu Quphdaimbp, (hipay VkLimbimg ” Cf. MX, TI, viii, “" Qupké-
μα και παι fp qeplhg femqenpmy ”. (248, 1)

25a (Of, Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 128 τι. 226, 227 sqq.]

25b [The entire text of the Gahnamak will be found in Appendix IIIT A. See below,
n. 43 for a discussion of the problems found in its preface. ]

26 The Gahnamak was discovered by J. Akhverdov who realized the full importance
of this document and transmitted it to J. Emin, who published it as a supplement to
his Russian translation of the History of Movsés Xorenaci (Moscow, 1858). A photo-
graphic reproduction of the MS of this document is to be found in Alisan’s Ayrarat,
p. 430. [ΟΠ Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 229 τι. 274]. The following erraia should be corrected:
ms ΣΎ, ” for “ Usngimh,”, where the —g has been shifted from the numeral
1η: “ Yuipi pun h > for * Suipb pug h τ and * (λοι ζῆι ”,. which is pro-
bably a distortion of “ U>/umauphwh ”. (250, 1)

26a [The entire text of the Wikitary Lisi will be found in Appendix III Β.]

27 This document was first published by bishop Sahyatunean in Storagrut’iwn Ejmiacni
(Hjmiacin, 1842), IT, p. 59. (252, 1)

28 Uxianés, I, xxvii, p. 40, “" ->-npniky ynpuoth mp pnb h may ya l—
ἕνα ἥ μι ἢ fay fr pra πα ἢ hs QUA ... pul bi ginkwy yan dh thinly ἢ pépun mn ἃ μι---

NOTES : CHAPTER X 4.45

appl mp puyh Zujyng +++ h quay uh Aap ufn DE hupak bh hngs minimhu,
mn ἢ hi’ Uprbbuy mn, ἜΠΗ τς ἰλμιη Em Ειμημιμππεδβ, Enppnpyh ee
dappopypl Vuiy fumgmbp, Lphgk papal ir mBflabbuh hh yuiyy hu hupyt h

nnunnk yfupmpwhsfap fofamtafeimth », Ἔν 1)

29 Steph. Orb., vi, p. 64, “+++ ful) ηομμη bh mpfumplhh ἀπμὲ ufyh
hmgniguht sae 4p brennan pi oe mile δ) buh hnqodmbh ἡ fp pum ΠΩΣ,
Ριμμδ ἐν βρ[μδιο Ps ρει pump ἡπη δι! ἡ pba [μἷ Δ πιημ μη puubhiphm
fofumbop, mpliingah hagiwhh Gapynumgph pumbbulh fofamhop, ζμιπαμα μι hhs
baqdmbh fiofamih Utgbymmhh pambhkplm fiafuuto Pp: Quyu mypuyku f
gafimiohh fofomiugh Z2mjng gap ‘Vhohy gph, bho uml oh ypogmht
U.gu fe obgbynufh h GEpupufh » The final remark does not refer to the four
military leaders which are not mentioned in the Gahnamaks of Agat’angeios and Nersés,
but to the princes listed before them who occupied the first gahs. (254, 1)

30 Lewond,* Qumimfefah Vhohpkmy ukof ymppmyknf Gang np puqmqu
Enphkjny UuLukimf h ahhh inp flr, PE nyt h but npn op fiw ian. inipky hh,
hu wowiky πη fmyjnq”, Sabnazarean ed. (Paris, 1857), p. 11, Ezov’s MS lacked
the beginning up to chapter xiii. The Paris edition was completed on the basis of the
Hjmiacin MS which contained the full title. (254, 2)

30a [The question of the Anonymous History found in conjunction with the History
attributed to Sebéos has been the subject of considerable controversy among Armenists.
For Adontz’s contribution to this problem, see, VV, VIII (1901). For more recent
discussions of the problem, see Abgaryan, Sebéos, and Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 18 and
306 sqq., who refers to this work as the Primary History of Armenia.]

31 Sim. Aparan. The investigators of the Anonymous History have failed to observe
this fact which was noted by Alisan, Hayapaium, Ὁ. 62. It is possible that in the MS,
the History of Lazar P’arpeci was followed by that of Sebéos, in the version in which
it has reached us, 7.6. with the Anonymous. Siméon Aparaneci then mistakenly connect-
ed the Anonymous with the work of Lazar P’arpeci which preceded it. [See above,
n. 30a). (255, 1)

82 The famous house of the Amatuni is missing from the Military List. We believe
that the principality of the Amatuni is to be found hidden under the distorted form
Usuulabh (or also Zunwumniiml) although the size of its cavalry contingent,
200 knights, is far from representing the true strength of the Amatunis. [Cf. below
Chapter XIV, n. 63, also Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 230, τι. 282, 237, nn. 305-306.] (256, 1)

322 [Arm. Geogr., pp. 32-33/48-45. Cf. Eremyan, Armenia, pp. 61, 109. Mazaz is
the seventeenth district of Ayrarat, see, Ibid., pp. 64, 111, 118.]

32b [Arm. Geogr., Ὁ. 33/44; Eremyan, Armenia, pp. 82, 107, 109, 111, 116-118.]

820 [See above τι. 21, and below τι. 32e.]

32a [Arm. Geogr., p. 32/44; Hremyan, Armenia, pp. 80, 117.]

836 [MX, ΤΙ, lxxxiii. Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 232 τι. 287 who objects to some of
these identifications as incorrect. |

328 [Sebéos, xxviii, Ὁ. 98; vi, Ὁ. 48, vii, p. 50, xviii, p.65. Cf. Toumanoff, Studies,
objections, pp. 221 and τι. 266, 233 n. 290 and 235 nn. 299, 301.]

328 [Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 232 and τι. 286.]

32h [The text of the Pseudo-Gahnamak of Nersés will be found in Appendix HT C,
Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, p. 229 and n. 273,]

33 [The additional names from the Pseudo-Gahnamak given by Adontz in this note,
but not in the text, will be found together with the text of this document in Appendix
III C.] (259, 1)

446 NOTES : CHAPTER X

332 [Alishan, Hayapatum, pp. 227-229.. See, Appendix IIT J.]

34 Thid., Ὁ. 227. The princely families mentioned by name are as follows: ἱλμὸμπι.-
hkoy, Qupkdoumhh, {Γμμδ ἡ πὶ ται, Foupuy, ei (sc. Ugehkma),

Ufrbiwg, Dpmnbkog, Wappnambkuwg, Ubdhugimg, Upowhmbhng, Yut—
gupulabog, ἰλιδμιππεδ πη, Quphegeng, gap Udpunn aS, opluy ἐς
Uw dunnhkmg, Moypbbmy, Quyuhmbbuyg? Y μι μη 0}}}} oh jaa, Y ahah
ghug, Unhug, Pu Spipmbhbng, Yaqmy, Swyng, Uywhymbhag, Upowintbng,
Sung puny <g> and a few more given according to their districts. Several houses
are given twice: Uy; mh p Usurnmbbuny, Uidhugkug, Ufnbimy etc.,.. which
is also similar to the Gahnamak, According to the assertion of Anastasius, all of these
churches, * ff up Lmuunnpsth 4amnumbghh, payy μππήμ fp GEpufak” an
affirmation likewise influenced by accounts giving Gregory and Nersés as the authors
or the ones responsible for the creation of the Gahnamak. [Cf. Toumanoff, Studies,
p. 810 τι. 891. (260, 1)

35 Mov, Καϊαηῖ., Il, lii, Ὁ. 824, “Uhmuip ἡπιδππμέ[ην." gopu βη|θπὶ
Enmbipoph Uhwownmumy wn αἰ μα ζιηἷ Umiphohkut unkmy πε ”. Surpri-
singly, Vahan Mamikonean replaces Hamazasp Kamsarakan in this. passage.
At the end of the List of Churches, Anastasius mentions the kat’olikos John, who from
the context must be John [II Gabelean] οὗ. 573, the successor of Nersés II. This fact
may perhaps explain the alteration in the name of the prince; the Albanian historian
mistook the kat’olikos mentioned for John I Mandakuni [478-490], the contemporary
of Vahan Mamikonean. : (260, 2)

352 [The last nine families listed are found in the History of Movsés Xorenaci, but not
in UX, ΤΙ, vii, viii: Yuboky, Ibid., ΤΙ, vi; ἐλ β ρα ἐπι, Spahpf, ΤΙ, xvii; Usunn-
mip, Unukykwt, ΤΙ, Wi; [hopubwh, ΤΙ, liv; ἰδ ἢ β ἢ π δ ειμῖι, ΤΙ, lxxxi; ἅμ ἧπμι-
ΠΣ U>fuummp, TI, lexviii. See above, nn.32e and ἢ Cf. Toumanoff,
Studies, p. 252 and τι. 343.]

35b [See Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 232-233 and nn, 286-291 and Ὁ. 245 and Table vii,
for his objections to some of Adontz’s hypothesis and his failure to make use of the
material found in the History of Faustus.] .

36. Xorenaci was probably acquainted with the ArtaSéseans. .In the Gahnamak, the
ArtaSésean. follow immediately after the dae oad uppmip, According to UX, I,
xii and ΤΙ, vii, the office of puny iin, i.e, of “ keeper of the royal hunt” belonged to
the Varajnuni néyarars, the descendents of Varja who had been appointed keeper of
the king’s hunt, “..-- ἢ ykpmy npung mppmikwy”. According to Xorenagi,
Ibid., Tl, vii, this had taken place in the days of ArtaSés, “+--+ myo hhh juumpu
Uspinmepup ”. Ἄς Might this be a guess of the historian based on his reading of

“ppumuybin appar Upumefuburh ἀκ (265, 1)

87 MX, ΤΙ, lxiv, “... fx wayyy ong δ Apnukpognyh ogg, GPE mum bh bet

ηἠπηδιιὴβΡ Unpdt hy et nyu δ᾽ Ῥημιιὴ » App εἤμιδιηι ἣ ming hp ἐμὲ

Yormu bh απ ἣρ Eph pp, hk yma ἥπμαι ἐμῆπι [9 τειν τη πηπξριπη μΐτια! pig
Bajin, app β unpéthg h opp p nie haytmbtn, ἡ pun Ign h fy muy ἢ πῆ
Somminpmuy ἡ κι βη (read gShinfy) ἰι qmpufiyg 4ayhmquby, πδιμδρ fp ἐπήμμη :
Qop πὸ ubmuip yuunilkugnep. f pls ap EDLY payin ns | pbjny hig, bh ἰ
pis" ap ΠΡ re farina [9 παι! β παι funjn inn], Enpapy, gp bh mhdo—
mma fe fb poniag’ hupdfu fp bippa mdf phy plank urlegurieky ᾿ς
Enmin’s translation of this passage [in his ac edition, Moscow, 1858] is inaccurate,

| | (266, 1)

NOTES : CHAPTER X 447

87a [See above, τι. ae

88 MX, ΤΠ], li, “+. pny ἵπμπη δ] πη muna phEmyh, 4pmiimymg gna
Fpl puhisfupngh sai heaps poppmbfu’ papdmymbhy; ἢ finn, payy upinyh
f mind, fmypth lg ng 4unnnunaly, my fh funkuap pul y puny Funny bay
ἅμ απ πεν fp fopg ἡμιπηδριηπεῖβη aonpwanky, bol qggh Zon}uqmenymy,
apf ἱιππζὴ ἣμη ἡ πδ ει, fp ip summymbky », gf hepgkughh mbky ghph—
ghpnpy qk fefompopogh Zuyng, hb fp qfmhf fupmd gpky » : |
[Cf. £P’, xxvi, p. 111. See below Chapter XV τι. 841. εν (267, 1)

39 The number of knights at the disposal of the Kamsarakans and the Amatunis on
this occasion is not without interest. In the Military Inst the Kamsarakans have
600-knights and the Hamastuneans (sc. Amatuni) have 100, or 700 in all. The coinci-

dence is worth noting. [See above, τι. 32]. _ (268, 1)
40 Khalatiants, Arm. Arsacids, Ὁ. 294. [On the problem of a system of precedence
indicated by the documents, see Toumanoff, Siudies, pp. 242 sqq.] (268, 2)

40a [ See, ahaha pp. 393-394. ]

41 MX, I, li, “Quah apoy qopyfpmghoyy yop ἢ ζει διμη μὴ Νὰ Νὴ Ρ
ΠΗ, ηομμιηη nympoykn ip ζμμιδιμΐηπι, bho ogg h yap πη τα qq
Lphgkpopy! yng fompupgy. he qahqe ho gyal’, gop mmbmy
{ hm fubiugh pry fupy ynpm, fy ἢ ypu : Umuysn ἐν ηιππεῖμι ἡδιμαη μη μ μη
maga, gap ἤπημιρ juppmiijn, {ἘΠ} pp pag? μι μὴ βιηιπριυμ σπωπιιλη
hing [ει ἥμιιηπμημη. payy nmdniy ΖΜ} Final mtnuy yuna] uff mpg by
mupdubh, af kh kp f ie puutif ἐῶν ἐμ" unk; ". Emin’s transla-
tion is unsatisfactory. (269, 1)

412 [Vahram IV was not the immediate successor of Ardasir i. See, Christensen,
pp. 253 sqq.; Frye, Persia, Ὁ. 283.)

42 MX, ΤΙ, Ixv, “++. puyy par cata si nha my pire apn
quay apm, gqmk Kafempipagh Layng, npyte happy ἐ pUpmmeph bh
Yuphywh ΠῚ yan, happh op fina lun fp τα ἐ bon pany], Fy y ὅμιμη hy Ρ
yupuphp up ἤπια μη πὴ δι πεη πεῖ vale mpip ΤΙΣΙ pis gipmqmhyopth
hofnfuky pon tong faphmby » τ br dh, gh popdmugt cae man δι fabs
pany h pa, Sub lpahh Qugunnhh yapyenyh 2 prea |, Prk ng pepo
fing, quapoulmiph μπ μη δ π πα, αὐ fp pg pkg’. phy ayy he
fompupuok fenbugh, Ἱπμπεὴῇ miynind phph lonkagh, apyku fandugh apo
hutompolath bo hod qaetemnhfh [θέσι fp 4apgh yen bh ponm)a—
Huuphh godt fp μιππρὶμμ μα μέ, bh led μὲ θ ἢ apy qeppmbf _npowljwy)—
πα fab yn} Cumming ἢ hbinpmh ἡ ἤ μη Au hur bri bruh fr μπἷμμηδπι θ hunip,--- »
Sahak asked for the return of their possessions to “" η δι ἢ μι ἢ] Φινημ πὴ quppnyhs
Ζ μι unm, », which Emin translated * Gazawon son of Hrahat”. But Gazawon
is none other than the prince mentioned earlier as having been taken into captivity
with king Xosrov, and Sahak was beginning for Gazawon’s son Hrahat in whose favour
he had already interceded before with Ardasir [J7X, III, li] Emin, misunderstanding
the phrase, “apytu 4antmgh hapw hutumpmlebh bh had quiunmtph, etc...”
translated it to mean that Sahak, having previously obtained the abbrogation of the
Kamsarakans’ and Amatunis’ disgrace, was now pleading for a Gazawon, who was a
relative of the Kamsarakans. In reality, however, the kat’olikos was merely repeating
to Varahran in person his previous intercession for the dispossessed houses. Hrahat
was the son of Gazawon, so that a better translation of this passage would be, “... to

448 NOTES : CHAPTER X

assign him (1.6. Hrahat) a place according to his [the king’s] pleasure as his (Sahak’s)
kinsman or that of Surén Pahlawuni,” to whom Sahak’s speech was addressed. As for
the Amatuni, *‘... having deprived him of his hereditary honourable rank, at least to
lower him from the first places to the lower ones, or to grant him, the Amatuni heir
(and not the Kamsarakan one) an official position ”’, a hint at the position of hazarapet
held by Vahan Amatuni in Sahak’s own time according to Koriwn, [XIX, iv, vi, vii,
pp. 61-62, 111, 118] and Hhsé. [There is no mention of Vahan Amatuni as hazarapet
in the text of Hivsé, though his name occurs in several lists of naxyarars, e.g. pp. 48, 99,
193]. (269, 2)

43 [See, Appendix TJ A for the text of this preface.] The text is far from correct,
and the opening words are particularly awkward. In our opinion, the phrase, “ ph
puny ΜΠ] di” is a gloss which has crept into the text, and which originally
referred to the document in which the famakan nama was to be found. From this
reference, this document must have resembled the later synaxaries, and the tamakan
nama was included in it under the date 17 katoe along with other material. The word
mnkuf may also belong with this reference instead of “‘ mhu(f) f puny miuny cf”.
In both cases, the phrase “ fu ἡπαι μι ἔτη hum ~ from which the verb is missing,
must be take as defective, probably as the result of an error of the copyist who in referring
his reader to another document failed to complete the sentence. If we acknowledge
that the words * gap Upumpfip * refer to the preceding ὁ ghia” the grammatical
error will be removed and the sense of the passage will be that Sahak I saw “ the ramakan
name of Artasir ᾽" in the royal diwan, and not ** in the diwan of Arta8ir”. Khalatiants,
[Arm. Arsacids, Ὁ. 297 τι. 3] suggests that the 4: is superfluous in the phrase “ h ap
wip ”, In our opinion, either another epithet referring to the king has been omitted
here, or, as is more likely, h g/p should be taken as a lapsus calami for julighp. Kha-
lat’ians, [Jbid., p. 295] corrects Guidiupfh into sud4impl. Since the -/- is clearly
legible in the MS, and the space for a missing letter at the end is also visible, the reading
oudimpfil rust be accepted as correct and attributed to the linguistic peculiarities
of the document. Cf. qomdhbiml hh for yam ζῆ du hh, The word inp in
front of Vapbs refers to the preceding clause. The qualification pupkpup for the
Persian king is likewise to be found in LP’, xlv, p. 261, “ olinpLingl νη papbpupm-

ριμδη Qhkn > Of. MX, TI, sliii. (270, 1)
44 MX, II, Wii, * [Puqunnp hogan whip] AU punt soe ἢ yin ful
quis Upmupfp inskpn]..-”. (271, 2)

44a [See above, τι. b.]

45 FRB, Til, ix, “+:- nmin pupdknty nnd inp bhi mp pniifi--+ ᾿ς Ibid., IV,
avi, “fp dha muff qgodmh fp dui mpmfumftbmbh paitfh--.”, also,
Ibid., IV, liv. [On the question of precedence, see Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 242 sqq.]

(272, 1)

46 FR, IV, liv, “ opth p thir yp fPuqunnph Mu pufy h [Pugunnph Zmyjny
fp dpmd mmponp ρυιη δὲ μα μ ἐπι pdnyo τ Poly wyh op fafa ηιππη pug dwlohigh
Poqguanpmgh, op τη fbb, qundkhbgahy lapgbyhh, ζπεμὴ jpamny ghhp
μην πηπιδη fp beppny panphh AU powhmy pugiwhobh mnbbhh, 5... Gale
wubb phuh fppk. paygdigeh japmpuhsfup sunhm, jimay wdthh pm_digm—
guufhh quppayph Upoml » : (272, 2)

EP, xxvi, p.148, “ ριιηπιὴρ bh --» app δὴ mummy pub ἢ h gmdm h
wumppp hk sum Eh’ ap fp funkup bh”. Buse, ii, p. 20, “++ dngtp ηριπηπεὴῆμ f

NOTES: CHAPTER X 449

ἢ piarnpulh epfmabt hgh δι ph dui nuda “πη praia [9 Fahy ΠΩΣ Ρααβ μ
inky ἢ ohn din ὅπη puqimlmbfh”, Tbid., p. 85, “++ h yup bay pug διι-

joboh ἢ bogehl fp mbyp fponiaylp dummgyuhky ”. (278, 1)
48 Sebéos, xix, Ὁ. 68, δ... h ἐμ fan Enpnpy fu fumpup pf “πόα μ᾿ βιιηπῃπι-
(PEwhh ᾿χπημπήμ mppayh”. (278, 2)

49 Mov. Katank., ΤΊ, i, Ῥ. 119, “ gnpdkuy duro oeouytu mbm dkountkouy
phanbihg nnddhg μη μεπιππ ζῆι Qupupy”. (Cf. Dowsett, Mov. Dasy., pp. 61-
62 and notes for variants in the translation of this entire passage. Steph. Orbel., I, ix,
p. 69, gives “ mihi” for “ phpiiuuliify” in the corresponding place. The
subject here is the seven Sasanian noble clans. The original may have had “ plufé "
whence came the reading fiir from /¢ [Cf. Dowsett, Mov. Dasx., p. 61 τι. 81. (273, 3)

50 Mov. Katank., ΤΙ, i, p. 119,“ +++ partie h munm] mam Sh up ΟΝ
The king honoured the nobles with a cup and a wreath. The comparison with Hiisé, v,
p15," Up dnawhuyp ghyh ho gem ἰι ἡπιπυΐ δι qaammdbah yop—
phot, np pinpdf dq pup partiinum ” is interesting. (278, 4)

51 Mov. Katank., ΤΙ, i, Ὁ. 119, * A Qupu fy h qQup [thug qphuhoh wywdponply”.
Here myn jun. μὴ is used as a general term to designate a true or hereditary prince (cef-
Arm. nyu pi [δι = “stately, dignified’), and not a Pahlewi in the strict sense of the
word, as this has incorrectly been taken by the translators. We have maintained the
original term in our translation. [Cf. Dowsett, Mov. Dasy., p. 60]. (273, 5)

51a [Dowsett, Mov. Dasy., p. 62 n.1, observes that although “ἢ Andovk ... is often
mentioned in FB, ... the ... author’s account of his feats against Sapuh (iv, 20) bear no
resemblance to the present passage ”’.]

52 EP’, Ixiti, pp. 360-361, “++. jun mp Puphhh ufrif”. It is well known
that one of the sons of the Marzpan Vasak was also named Pmpfi, and it is difficult
to determine the relationship between him and “ Pmphh ju”. Perhaps this is in
fact the Marzpan’s son. [Cf. Dowsett, Mov. Dasx., p. 63 τι, 3], who questions Adontz’s
identification. (275, 1)

53 Steph. Ord., I, ix, p. 68, “---pwumanudnyg uppayh Qimprupe Ufrbbury
uy με πιηπαῃ,. Ibid., I, x, p. 71, “+++ fp bngh dunpyh Skunk Qinpruf ” Ibid.,
Ῥ. 78, “++. npyku nhhnyy uy f hippayiuh ἐιμπιὴ Epuhky pir inp
Ufrbbmy fm hpuljpynn, phpfenymfoph Umfufuf mpmhipm:” Ibdid., p. 79,
“aes gkpmbkyngh Qinpauf’ Uprbbag πη μα πιηπῤ, fp bbppapdimhth unm p, yap
ΜΙ ΠῚ] ΠῚ f Widh Puphh, yop h Qin puflp πἰμμέαήμπι pagmh pun. ask hh gh oo
J. Emin, the editor, regretably removed this valuable commentary from the text and
put it as a note at the bottom of the page, in contradiction to the evidence of the MS.
[The Sahnazareang, Paris edition used in this edition gives the commentary as part of
the text]. (276, 1)

53a [ See, Appendix ITI, L, iii, for the list of the participants at the Council on Dwin
of 555.]

58> [ PB, IV, xx.] :

54 Bus, i, p.6, “br fpph gio ho dipcthmg fp femyoimfebith, fp ἔμ ιμι---
pupul Z2uyoq mblmbks feoqapmfe fab. ἢ} ἐξα ho ιμδι δ pop pahfo
Mu pulp ary En? uyp, ular mypdhh 2ujny pif mbm p dbnh fw fu npn—
pogh ono Sbopytp fp yembpmgidh”. For the ceremonial meeting and reception
of the Armenian cavalry at the Persian court, see, [bid., ii, Ὁ. 44. (278, 1)

ὅδ Tbid., ii, p. 22, “+++ ws fam pag hp mnbky ἀπ Gplpph = 2mynq fh

fengm|e [rh ζιμ μὴ h p [PE fehim|e fb dubpnifebwh mypnidfinyh » Ibdid., vi,

450 NOTES : CHAPTER X

Ῥ. 131, * nyny {pundit p ghuiplyy uf Lp. h η!μπεὰ μὲν liu quip.pailih

PEPhmgny wn eel: uf”. (278, 2)
58 Lewond, x, p. 33, “ ΤῊ ΒΕ, β fun mip pail h uniiny fnny”’.
(278, 3)

5? His, iii, p. 85, “Ge glum nnéhlah hopatp mbypth μεμα pul ship”,
Idid., p. 196, “ Fpghug fngu nandhl, bh quywmpuunm|e fh ΡΝ ΕΗ bush

fpr in pay Jai perinia ”, also, Ibid., p. 199. (279, 1)
58 FB, V, xxxiv, “-++-qgudbhuyh mgquinul Z2uynq ΠΩΣ, eae
gpimnpby re (279, 2)
59 Sebéos, xxxv, p. 188, “++. mui aby mipin [δ μι <annf h funpépip fi
ΠΣ ΝΣ]: las sion μη wnhk;”. (279, 3)
60 7ῤ14., xi, p. 56, . hupyhy bagu nibphu jap priiniuun ”. (279, 4)
61 Lewond, xvii, pp. 100-101, “+++ mofumphughp wabky ply sip pimple Ζι")πὴ
ΠΟ ἐκ ως ον} ΠΗ ΠΙΗ [ὃπ| oumnmyni [9 buh 4uphunnpnrfe bwh we. ᾿",
(279, δ)

62 Tbid., xxi, p.113, “--- jApfy many ἐ μη ἢ πη τ bay ἐμ A hnw fm ppg hi
Zajyng ἦι hnghh LEobpngh gfumdpfemyuh ”.
(280, 1)
63 Idem., “ +--mmyp fpr δεῖ honk) " dyn hnpu wil muh én yiphy mw fury hi >.
(280, 2)
63a [The reference is not clear. Adontz’s text reads ‘‘ Abdallakh (750-775) ” following
ewond’s form Upapmy. This should be a reference to the first Abbasid caliph Abu’l-
Abbas as-Saffah, but his rule extended only from 750 to 754, when he was succeeded
by al-Mansur who reigned until 775. Cf. Lane-Poole, Mohammedan Dynasties, Ὁ. 12.]
64 Lewond, xxviii, pp. 128-129, * pupiidint Lum. uly mi pro [2 nyhh, ap qunyn
mip μη pappmimun ygopugh Zayjng: δι ηζμι dup ἐβὸ ξπηΐ upd St hb
Jppfumbungh, hk <uph ,fiitp f mig μεμα ζει πὰ) ηηπιεδημ a
65 Sebéos, xxxvii, p. 147. (281, 1)
66 Lewond, viii, p. 23, “ --- ἰμπμζπιμη Hunn f ἡ 9 uinkwy ΠΩΣ yun u—
un {ππιὴμ unify pep pmp eta Ζιι]πὴ ζιδηδμὰ hnghh ζεὸ πῆ Ρ᾽. Ibid., x,
p. 81, * {||}. ἰμιπμξίρημι pumbliny pmpfumpetu Zujny qgundd bo foupmpug
hngfh ζεδίηπι p”. (281, 2)
8? Ibid., x, pp. 31-37. Theoph. Conf., i, p. 372,“ ... rods δὲ μεγιστᾶνας τῶν ᾿Αρμενίων
σωρεύσας evi τόπῳ ev. ζωοκαύστους ἐποίησεν ". This event is also known to Michael
Syrus, ΤΙ, p. 474. (281, 8)
68 Lewond, X, Ῥ. 35, “eee ng punks ofp pun dfn YE wank; : Qh ἡ μι ει να ἰπιμδ
pupdboy fp ἡ πῆμ wbdwamhy τα πὶ bh qupfumpgu fp fa faupupy :
Sup) dutwhulh feunpmp Eqbwy a μὰ Zujag fp ἱππζῆξ hn fowpupay’

Dumbthh opyfu gnsfumpu fp Γ᾽ qmyng ? (281, 4)
68a [See, Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 234 sqq.]
69 Indeed, we should note the words of FB, IV, ii, “--- h Chuqwhnlp quhko—

wiukouh, giipapmlship gopu pudwhkmy, yodkhoyh Inqimhy, umiubingh
2myny pm dda ἦι my ΗΜ ΖΗ hugmigubtp >. [Cf Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 235, and
below Chapter XV, nn. 86-87]. (282, 1)
τὸ FB, I, vii, xi, xviii; IV, ii; V, i, xxxvii, xliv. [See below Chapter XV ἢ. 29a].
(288, 1)

NOTES : CHAPTER X 45]

70a [On the bdeasxs or vitaxa, see below, Chapter XTV, nn. 39-40.)

70> LPB, ΤΠ, ix, “+++ ppbmefuh. ap fp up fi gnpufy, qudipty puopdkply
nur [ἢ upprilif”. Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, p. 176 n.115.]

εἴθ. [See above, Chapter IX and τ. 6a.]

71 MX, τί, litt, © puduhft ae h gpofuuimpefat yopmh ply snpu,
ἡ μι} buh πηπι. fp yEpmy Upuunuiggmy, A ημιμίτεδιπ τι ἣν may Shpa—
hoy, ηζιαμαμαμ hhh fp Uspum onan hb yffoupumyphh fp Qupls”. (284, 1)

72 ZG, p.43, “" hngifimayms βου με ἰληδλίτμιη snp p fuga gan nace

Toid., p.46, “ho ψπηπην feogkmy πμμιπ μη ἡμπεῖπι ape bes me)
bh gobo mbgkwgh yPogpembbagh pofamth laymgmitn ym
[ehh yopnul imap fp dbnh foprmiph Ufrbbng kh ymdimh fehb f μπῇ ΠΥ
Ulgkynut : bul qgmtinty fofumbut ἐμμηπ|η [¢ phyla fup”. (285, 1)

78 MX, 1, viii, “++. ἃ fpqu ghimapmfebmhy bh lingmby mn) pin h
Ephpopqe bh Eppopqe boop fp pg hh”. (285, 2)

78a [See, Toumanotf, Studies, pp. 236-241.]

τὰ Agat’., cxxvi, Ὁ. 644. Trdat set out for Rome, “--- pun Ui eunlkdo p h
hftubuums Caqmpon. plinfip qopml 4uinkpd”. This statement is repeated
in the famous dogmatic letter of the Armenians, Sebéos, xxxiii, p.129. This is an
important factor in the critique of the texts of both Agat’angelos and Sebéos. [On
Agat’angelos’ problems see below τι. 89a, on those of Sebéos, see above n. 80a] (286, 1)

τὸ FR, ΤΙΊ, viii. | (286, 2)

76 Thid., TV, xxvii, xxiv, xxx, xxxii, xxxiii, xlviii, xxviii. We also find purely
legendary figures such as the 400,000 knights of Jbid., IV, xx, or the 600,000 in Jdzd.,

IV, xxi. (287, 1)
7? Ibid., V, ii, iv, v, vi. (287, 2)
78 Tbid., V, xxxix, xl. (287, 3)
79 Sebéos, i, p. 34, “1 4uqmp plinfp iumbjny ”. (287, 4)
80 Joh. Mam., p. 18. (287, 5)
81 ZG, pp. 40, 48, 46, [On the date of Zenob Glak, see Abetean, I, pp. 345-362].

. (287, 6)
82 Procopius, Pers., I, xv, 1 [1.. 1, 1289], “...76 δὲ στράτευμα τοῦτο Περσαρμενίων τε
καὶ Σουνιτῶν ἦσαν, of δὴ ᾿Αλ(υ)ανοῖς εἶσι ὅμοροι. ΟἿ. the size of the army see, Ibid.,

xv, 11 [L. I, 1328]. (287, 7)

88 Sebéos, xxxv, p. 138, “ 4bdbu) με! ἢ pupfumps hn df Amma”. (288, 1)

84 Lewond, xxv, Ὁ. 120, +++ ἔζαμι wyminphhh 2myng fp fe Almtu onhmlmbimpe bok
h mip phy op piinfp Edkjng chin πε yanking”, Abt the time of the
rebellion of Vahrém Chobén, the Armenians supported Xusré II and sent 15,000 men
to his assistance, it is evident from Sebéos, however, that this was not the whole of the
Armenian army, but only 8. part thereof, J0¢d., iii, p. 36, “app fA ¢uimh wadknh
pinky 7 (288, 2)

85 Sebéos, iii, p.42 “[Umihhnhkuh| wala pliofp mpo Ephm fun”.
Ibid., vi, p.48, “" Mapfunanhp sos Umdharhp ++ Vutflatkuh [Δ wh]
4bobu) p Apph Ephm Lurgan p *, Ibid. x, p.58,°U fp ζιωημμ gUudul {Γι ἢ π---
hkuh, hb uf fuquip fh ἀξ πὴ Uspunm, Pogponiinny npysny Wuhnrky p as
Tbid., xviii, p. 65, * Upopmip --- h mi] P f fy fam ppg h : δὲ gunpp tinpm
Ppp Eplm Luqmp Lhdbmy +--+”, Ibid., xxx, p.107, “ Umpby Uanfpabibaal
πμὴ μα 9! qgunpunfupl Zuyny ink p fmquip ajar paps ete. In FB,

452 NOTES : CHAPTER X

Ill, xx, the marzpan of Atropatené had 3,000 men, Cf. Yuumf fy, with 3,000 men in
the Mihiary Lrsi. (289, 1)

86 FB, II, viii, “--» phfp opti’ gh dbomdho wiwambfh, ἧμιν μια πμιμ ph
mip fun by ph arg fumpSunin eur pir op bhi plaponnpph hb fayqmpunnpph
huyghh mn mppayhh”. (289, 2)

87 Sebéos, Ὁ. 36 (34), “" mig kun Pp ft 4mbnfup, fippir ζμιῆμιῃ 4higkun muah p,
fupm puhefup anil p ΠΣ, pau Su ppapurn pay’ pum Aug upuinpung:
pon pinhy pun Apunpmy fuphuliy”. The passage is found also on p. 34 as a

result of a confusion in pagination. (289, 3)
88 ἢ’, xxxvi, p. 209 [Cf above, n.11 and Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 246 sqq. and
tables viii, ix]. (290, 1)

89 Thus, for instance, the duplication of names some of which are mentioned by the
historians: Sebéos, xviii, p. 65 knows two Ummdmblif, EP, xxxiv, pp. 198-199, and
Husé, v, pp. 99-100 distinguish two Dimak’seans, the representative of one branch
being named fm fen and of the other Zim buh ; EUS, v, p. 100 also has “" up hu
my Guppl ‘fim pubmh”. We have already noted two branches of the Arcruni
family. ZP’, has two Gfum ἢ μιζίιπεδι ἢ, one in Vasak’s camp, xxxvi, p. 209, the
other with Vardan in Albania, xxxiv, p.198. Incidentally, in the same passage of
ES, p. 100, we read in one case πεῖ ηἷι instead of Ff [ef. p. 100 τι. 281 (291, 1)

89a [See above, pp. 215-217 and nn. 49-51, and Appendix III D. Even though he was
well acquainted with the various redactions (Armenian, Greek, and Arabic) of the work
attributed to “* Agat’angelos ”, which he cites repeatedly and discusses in this section
of his book, Adontz refers here to this work as a single unit rather than as the composite
source that subsequent scholars have shown it to be. Indeed, many of the problems
and some of the solutions connected with the enigmatic work commonly known as the
History of Agai’angetos appeared considerably later than Adontz’s study. For the
problems of the ‘‘ Agat’angelos ’’, its connexions with other sources, the various compo-
nent parts of this work, new versions, and the relevance of these questions to Adontz’s
discussion, see Garitte, Agathange, and later studies in 4B and Le Muséon, as well as
Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 16, 159-166 with their notes, 243-244, 307, 458-459 n. 98, and
Ter Lewondyan’s, New Arabic Version; also List A, pp. 159-161, List B, pp. 161-162,
and p. 244 table vi. For the sake of convenience, Adontz’s terminology will be main-
tained in this edition, and the documents of the “‘ Gregorian Cycle” will be referred
to as Agatangetos.)

90 Mov. Katank., Ὁ. 182, Ulin mbuul ypu ingullingu)’, bid. p. 189, * Gu ΩΝ
Uyniumb hy re hu feng phan >. [Of. Dowsett, Mov. Dasy., pp. xviii, 92-98, 103,
229). (292, 1)

90a [See Appendia 111, E.]

91 Had we not possessed the Arabic version of the List, this fact might have been
explained through the influence of the second list of princes in Agai’angetos, [cxxvi,
p- 643], where the four bdesxs are listed separately at the beginning followed by the
princes of Uiighy ἱππιὴ et al. In the first list, the prince of Angeltun is immediately
followed by the bdesy of Aljnik’, as a result the author of the story included only three
bdesys into the list, so that the prince of Siwnik’ might consequently have found himself
in the 14th place. The fact that the bdesx of Gugark’ occurs twice in the list since he
is also the bdesy of Maskut found in the first list, will have to be explained in terms of
the author’s ignorance of their relationship. [Cf. Garitte, Agathange, lxxxviii, p. 72,
and Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 183 sqq.]. (292, 2)

NOTES : CHAPTER X 453

92 [Armenian] Agai’, cxii, pp. 590-591. Ag., pp. 68-69. [Cf. Toumanoff, Studies,
pp. 159-160, also Appendix IJ] D. The order of Ag. has been altered by Adoniz to
reconcile it with the Armenian list.] (293, 1)

93 Va., p.115. [Cf. Garitte, Agathange, lxxxvi, pp. 72-73; also Appendix IIT D, 11].
The MS has ote with the article cll. Marr Christianization, p. 202, suggests the

reading ΕΝ in which he, incidentally sees, the Greek γύψ, a translation of the Arm,
με mba ” = “* kite’. In my opinion, the first syllable is not an article, and the whole

word should be taken as a misreading of cn] Anjelin = Angelené. (293, 2)
94 The MS has ene > |, which is undoubtedly derived from on >) | or ὦ ") gab y| 3).

(298, 8)

95 The MS has (yliy sy | pro Oky 35 | » |. (298, 4)

96 The MS reads, *‘ the prince of the Aspeis, entitled Aspet to whom was entrusted
the guard of the qwsywn and mtznywn mountains, () ) Bete 1 9) | be oan 3 gals
ὧ ) 2. "μοὶ | 9. [Cf Appendix ITI D ii for Garitte’s translation]. The qwsywm
mountains are unknown in Armenian literature, and the word miznywn is completely
incomprehensible. This phrase is undoubtedly a translation of the Armenian original,
“umdiubiulm; jupkuimpy mut”. (Cf. MX, ΤΙ, iii) where the Greek translator
has mistaken the last word for a proper name, and the Arab translator has confused
the Gr. ὅρος = umiul with ὄρος = “ mountain”. As for the word (ἢ ) 93 sell

it is probably a distortion of ὦ ) on) ll δ᾽ west”. (293, 5)
97 ‘* Prince qmrdl near the gqrdytn”’. δι may be a distortion of the Arm.
Unp6k p. (298, 6)

98 The MS has ὦ 92a pro ὦ gnarl. (293, 7)

99 The MS has (yal> ) geeev = δεσποτειῶν or δεσπότων corresponding to the Arm.

Σααπιανῶν of the Greek text according to Marr. But Σααπιανῶν = Arm. urdu uy is
found in another list which is not found in the Arabian redaction. In context, this
word corresponds to the Armenian Ounnt hy of which it must be considered a distortion.
(293, 8)

99a [Arm. Geogr., pp. 30-35/41-46.]

100 Sebéos, xxxiii, Ὁ. 121, “Griufinmny Umuhlnbt hy fu puljawnn LU ΤΩΣ 1] ἧι-τ-:
μηπεΐ νει : bf ph nya in prin wa by ahi "ἢ pin fb Pphuku ΤῈ uppnyh Qahanph Ὁ
[On the date of this Council, see Garitte, Agathange, pp. 35] and n. 4, 353.) (295, 1)

101 MX, ΤΙ, viii, “δὲ pupkiby μη ἠπηδιιδὲ yn knp Lupo ἢ μὲ juoupy
hoya, glphm gigfg bokeh bohgh upowhboh bh p_alhmyh,-..”

(296, 1)

102 Ibid., I, xiv. (296, 2)
108 Tbid., ΤΙ, viii, “ pliypba pappih Yunijwumy:-- pats fu ηπιημιπιμηῖπη ᾽. (296, 3)
104 Tbid., II, viii and iii. (296, 4)
105 Joid., I, xxiii and xxx. [Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 201, 295-296, 318-320].
(296, 5)

1058 [Khalat’iants, Arm. Arsacids, pp. 294-295.]
106 [ MX, II, 1x, lxiv}. (297, 1)

454 NOTES ; CHAPTER XI

CHAPTER XI

@ [This entire chapter is based primarily on the Armenian Geography, the names of
the districts discussed should be checked in all cases against the more recent works of
Eremyan, Armenia (particularly the classified lists on pp. 116-120), Hewsen, Armenia,
and Toumanoff, Studies, especially, ii, ** States and Dynasties of Caucasia in the Forma-
tive Centuries’, pp. 147 sqq. See also the Bibliographical Note, and Appendix IV B-C
for the two versions of the Armenian Geography. |

1 [Arm. Geogr., p. 33-4/45]. The short version of the Geography has 20 gawaz's, the
additional ones being: “ Amun, Uuuimg nuh, Usnyp, Uugug”, Note that
this version has the better reading Ywduumbhfp for 2uzmbihp. [Arm. Geogr., 11,
p. 8667. The Armenian text speaks of 20 gawaz's although it actually gives 19, Saint-
Martin’s translation acknowledges this discrepancy “‘ L’Ararat ... contient dix-neuf
cantons...”. Ibid., p. 367. On the two versions of the Geography and their problems,
see Hewsen, Armenia, and Appendix IV B-C}. (300, 1)

2 Xen., Anab., IV, vi, 5 [L. 1, 60/1), * Φασιανοί ...”; Ptolemy, V, xii, 4, p. 988,
** Σιρακηνὴ ... ἢ. V, xii, 9, p. 947, ** Βαγρανανδηνή ...””; Strabo, XI, xiv, 4[L. V, 8201],
?Apaénvar πεδίον ...” = Gpumpumdnp; MX, ΤΙ, xe. (300, 2)

2a FB, III, xi, xii; TV, xix, οἷο...

2b [Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 132, 137, 201-202, 209-210, 218, 241, 309, 321, 324.]

ὃς [1bid., pp. 132, 171 n. 90, 202, 206-207, 323-324 n. 81 etc. Cf. #B, ITI, xi.)

2a [I[bid., Ὁ. 204, and 230 τι. 278.]

3 AL, iii, Ὁ. 35, +++ fp uawanmdh. Punkin, fp mbgin2h ap hash Um) pnpuy

.”, [On Sirak, see Eremyan, Armenia, pp. 73-74. Soragyal cannot be found as
the name of a district, although it survives in the form Bassiiregel, the modern name
for the village of Sirakawan, Jbid., p.74 and G46, p.80. In the same district, the
village of Siiregel, G 46, Ὁ. 578 is likewise still extant; the Arm. Aillas, p. 107 seems to
give Soragyal as a: district rather than a locality. On Sirak in general, see Alisan,
Sirak. On Basean and the village of Salk’or, see, Eremyan, Armenia, pp. 44, 79, ete.].

(301, 1)

32 [Arm. Geogr., pp. 38-34/45, see, Appendix IV B for the text. Οἵ, Eremyan, Armenia,
pp. 31, 46, 62, 79, 118, ete...)

3b [66 above, τι. 3 for Sirak, Basean, Vanand and Siiregel. Taytin is given by Lynch,
Armenia, map in the form Takhtin and apparently survives as a toponym, though not
as a district in the village of Tahtakiran NW of Kars, G 46, p. 581.]

36 [On Botberd, see above, Chapter I, n. 40 and Eremyan, Armenia, p. 45. Toumanoff,
Studies, does not give Boi as one of the Kamsarakan possessions. ]

4 Only the short version of the Armenian Geography lists the district of A8oe in
Ayrarat; it is no longer mentioned in the longer version [Cf above, n.1]. Georgian
sources read Abog as the result of a confusion between y and y. See Ali’an, Ayrarat,
Ῥ. 127, [Also Eremyan, Armenia, Ὁ. 36 and Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 185-186, 190 and
n. 199, 323-324 τι. 81, ete.]. (802, 1)

48 [The list of gawaz's given here follows the short and not the long version of the
Geography. See Arm. Geogr. II, Ὁ. 367. Cf. Eremyan, Armenia, pp. 64-65, and
Appendix IV C.}]

NOTES : CHAPTER XI 4.55

4b [On these districts, see Eremyan, Armenia, pp. 38, 49, 60, 64, 72-74, 76, 82; Tou-
manoff, Studies, pp. 197-198, 204-205, 222, etc., they are to be found in 44, PP: 7 107.)

4e [Piolemy, V, xii, 4, p. 988; Sebéos, xxxii, p. 114.]

4a [ δ, iii, iv, vii, pp. 74, 92, 179.]

5 MX, I, xii, and ΤΙ, xi, +--+» wn Eg kpp Zpunnof”. (BL, p. 74, see, Appendix
IL for the text]. (303, 1)

6 In western sources we find Ounhmbh = “* Zachunue ” Saint-Martin, Wémotres,
ΤΙ, p. 287 τι. 24; Alisan, Ayrarat, p. 260. [The district of the upper Zanga is still called
Darachichak by Lynch, Armenia, Map, but it has now reverted to the Armenian form
of Catkuni-according to-the Arm. Atlas, p.7. Cf. Markwart, Hnisiehung, Ὁ. 48 and

Honigmann, Osigrenze, pp. 193-194.] (302, 3)
7 MX, U, iv, * ++ -gdn πη kpkmyuh Doki, np ft Qhquniuay h β ΠΣ
ΠΩΣ ” (sc. Gut’uni), of, Tbid., I, xix. (303, 3)
8 Alishan, Ayrarat, Ὁ. 248, “ pu urd ΠΡ ἡ πμῥηπμ ΟΣ /¢mbimy ιπΐμ ECL.
Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 204-205 and τι. 233, on the Aparan inscription], (303, 4)
9 EP’, xix, p. 113. (308, 5)

9a [ MX, III, ix (Cf. #B, ΤΙ], vii).]

10 MX, ΤΙ, lvii. [On the origin of the Amatuni and their possession of the fortress
of OSakan, see, Toumanoff, Studies, pp..197-198 and τι. 228, 229-230 ἢ. 110, also below,
Chapter XTV n. 681. (304, 1)

10a [See below, n.74 and preceding note.]

11 Sahyatunean, Storagruliwn - Hiymacen, TI, p.46, “ pudu sik aii Plogopnup
Giabhmy byih opbiyun mmiy ...”; Alishan, Ayrarat, p.135. _ (804, 2)

12 Nersés, p.15, “+++ uf nifty fp μρὸ. “fim amp fp gonunfh Ὀβμιιῆμμ ap
ἐμ upuhdhngkm, fh jAppin, ΓΟ ἐλέη OE ἡ (804, 8)

18 Toy, Arc., III, xxvii, p. 247, and IV, xii, p. 808, “ Upsse payne iad
quunpds ”. (304, 4)

14 MX, ΤΠ], xxiii. FB, [IV, xxiii] gives GuLmm/nfmt as a city, eer Xorenaci,
loc. ci#., speaks of it as a mountain not far from Kogovit [C/. Eremyan, Armenia, pp. 56,
85, also Hiibschmann, Orisnamen, p. 457 and Markwart, Siidarmenten, Ὁ. 560]. (804, 5)

14a [On the Gnuni and their possessions, see-Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 205 and n, 234, 295,
298, 453 τ. 63. On Xorenaci’s derivation of their name, Jbid., Ὁ. 206, τ. 234. Cf.
MX, ΤΙ, vii.J

15 WX, ΠῚ, vii] asserts that ihe name of the Q pbranly nh came from their function
which was to supply snow to the royal summer residence. The name is more correctly
derived from the “‘ snowy lands” in which the Jiwnakan dwelt. Their home was
probably on the slopes of the Aragac in the vicinity of the Gnuni. The etymology of
Uywhynhp fom umm meaning “ slaughter house” [supervisor of sacrifices] is
equally dubious. Unymbry may be a contraction of Uuwhpopup a name favoured
in the Kamsarakan family, and the Spanduni were a branch of that house. [Cj Tou-
manoff, Studies, pp. 220 and τι. 259, 221). (305, 1)

16 [Sebéos, xxxv, p. 189; IX, ΤΙ, viii, lviii]. The form Unuhyhwh belongs together
with Uphyhuh, Quphybmb, and prince Atawelean may have lived close to them on
the border of Sirak in the locality of OSakan (now A’nak near Tali’) which is still familiar
to Sebéos. Ununwh-fuh is the popular form of Uponuimh-bahs, and Artawan
[Artabanos] was a common name in the Arsacid family. The Atawanean may
' have been descended from it. [Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 199, 215, 305, ete.]. (806, 2)

456 NOTES : CHAPTER XI

17 Sargisean, Itinerary, p. 166, “ p hak emg. bu Usuyum.-- Emm ηβὴ
gbyu gUmduamipa fp dip Solpmmypbin fPgonopury p mpiykpmdnsuly
Yuku Zonninuf”. Alisan, Sirak, Ὁ. 81. (806, 1)

18 Joh. Kai’., xix, p. 108-104, “λαμ Umdwnanhp fmpungwyqum.-. pofrmt
Lunges vpilp ful Ehkgkgph gkgkghwjupiup’ ap p puyupughyh Uphh”:
[Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 214]. (306, 2)

18a [Arm. Geogr., Ὁ. 34/45. Cf. Eremyan, Armenia, pp. 35, 42, 56, and Toumanoff,
Studies, pp. 187 and n. 240, 201, 209, 218, 241, 309, 319, 321, 324.]

19 EP’, xxxi, p. 186, “ σιιηἠπιειπὴ ”, lxxiii, p. 266, “" Cunhionh ᾿ Asotik,
XxXviii, p. 266; xliii, p. 278, “ σπηἠπ|πιπὴ ἢ. The more correct form is Qughtomb
< ὁμιηἢ ξιμ} — muh, “the foot of the flowery mountain”, of, the present Ala-dagi,
δ the multicoloured ”’, or “‘ pied, mountain”. [Cf. Vita Sb. Oskeane, p. 60, also Hiibsch-
mann, Orisnamen, pp. 485-436.] (306, 3)

isa [Hremyan, Armenia, Ὁ. 59; Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 200, 202, 321-322 and 322 τι. 77,
342-344, 348; as well as Hiitbschmann, Orisnamen, pp. 342, 441.]

20 EP’, lxxvi, pp. 452, 457, “--» Puquimh fp fudubghh Puyphulymy, p
ΜΗ pappih “ap eda Gan, tom ἢ umpp miyh dompulh
πμιηΐ " ἐμῆπι. pupphibyop ° Ρ FB, V, xiii, “ἢ Pugphimky ae β
Pugmah umbh, ap f Doi penbpuhoh sa era pms Ppp τ" dinfh
un Sh unipp meas BalLubhar, ap hyp pod ghy”. (306, 4)

20a [See above, τι. 19a.]

21 1", xxxi, p. 186, * fi mun τ μὲ Πὲὶ ‘np hash Cun haunt, ube fi papph wine
yon Ufiagnh uiiniatkh”. Ibid. \xxiii, p. 428, * β μη} ἐπιπῖι aoe p ΩΝ
ap ἤπερ Yupomlp”. Anget is mentioned by Procopius, Pers., II, xxv, 16 [L. I,
4828], “" *AyyAdr”’, by Sedéos, xxii, p.74, “ fh Cughomwhh, f gfiph op hash
Ufgnh”; so also Vita Sb. Oskeang. [Angi of Catkotn should not be confused with

the great southern fortress of Angi-Karkathiokerta, see next note]. (306, δ)
22 MX, I, Ixii, “ quam Sumbnin”. [Cf Eremyan, Armenia, pp. 35, 85.
Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 310 sqq.]. (307, 1)

23 [ FB, IV, ly, lviii], ἡ The birthplace of the founder of the T’ondrakeci”’, “ Uipunn
nigpmluy wan Phhh fp Qupklunmh aby fp Cughanh qurmnf ”. [Asotik,
ITI, iii, p. 160, Cf. Gregory Magistros, Letter to the Syrian Kai’ ottkos, p. 153-154,
U Span mph. mnmkg pmduimynftkoh bbpyf. pmdubmyfp, ++ Ehbuy
fp qununty Oughambt fp bgt Qupkdmubl, ae phuhbgun fp {enkiypuly

ἐ nmumgmhky ayaa qanfitnn ph ΩΣ papap, +++”). (307, 2)
24 FB, V, i, “« phpgh Pupunhfy op ft pas Gngmy, mp ἤμμ} [ἢ qubdp
Upoulmbkugh”. [Cf Towmanoff, Studies, p. 322 τι. 77). (307, 3)

25 Sebéos, xix, Ὁ. 68,“ qimpiph bapw mupmib--- fb ΡΒ 4uhqunmpoh h

Finfh f wn ey ἢ ἡ f ηἰιηὴ απ fio, ap f Ρ Gann fin ψμααμμπβ.

Τοϊᾶ., xxxii, p.116. [Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 342-344 and 844 n. 16.] (307, 4)
26 FB, V, xliv. [Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 321 sqq. and 321 n. 76.] (307, 5)
27 From *Bagrai-vanda, where vanda is the ancient form of the later gund, incidentally,

with the meaning “houses”. Cf. yYublip-mh. Theoph, Sim., II, v, p.117,

mentions the city of the “ Βενδοσαβόρων ᾿" which scholars have identified with the

GundeSapur of Arab sources. Cf. Néldeke, Tabari, Ὁ. 41. [See also, Hiibschmann,

Grammaitik, pp. 113, 180; Ortsnamen, pp. 380, 411; Markwart, Stidarmenien, Ὁ. *11, ete. ;

and Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 318-321 and notes.] (307, 6)

NOTES : CHAPTER XI 457

27a [EP’, lxxv, p.457 and xviii, p.110, cf. JX, ITI, lxvi-lxvii. See also Inéiéean,
Description, pp. 406 sqq., Eremyan, Armenia, Ὁ. 42, Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 218.]

28 [Arm. Geogr., Ὁ. 31/42. Arm. Geogr., Tl, pp. 360 /1-362/38. See Appendix IV B-
0]. The last two names are missing in the long version of the Geography in spite of its
statement that there were 16 districts in all. We have completed the list from the
short version. (308, 1)

29 Tacitus, Ann., XIV, xxiv, [L. IV, 146/7], “in regionem Tauraunitium ”’. Procopius,
Pers., II, xxv, 35 [L. 1, 488/9], “7a ἐπὶ Ταραύνων ywpia”’. Const. Porphyr., DAT,
xliii, pp. 188/9-198/9, ** Tapa». Tauraun-itis is unquestionably connected with the
Taurus mountains, Sem. ivr. The later toponym Supnipipwh < δα: ΠΠ| -Ρ μι
(of. διμιπαβὶ < dunmsh,) = vulg. Soporphpwh has a similar origin. There is no
need to correct Tauraunitis into Taraunitis as this is done by Hitibschmann, Orisnamen,
p- 325, and de Lagarde, Ag., p. 46. [On Taruberan, see Hiibschmann, Orisnamen,
pp. 251-254; Eremyan, Armenia, pp. 85, 116; Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 129, 148, 199,
209, ete. On Tar6n, see Hibschmann, Orisnamen, pp. 325-327: Markwart, Stidarmenten,
pp. 204 and n. 1, 220; Eremyan, Armenia, p. 85; Runciman’s notes to Const. Porphyr.,
DAI, TI, pp. 157 sqq., especially p. 159 where he rejects but does not discuss Adontz’s
etymology of the name; Garitte, Narratio, p. 245; Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 138, 202,
209-210, 215, 218, etc., see following notes. On the later history of Tar6dn, see Adontz’s
own study, “‘ Les Taronites ... 7. (808, 2)

80. Arm. Geogr., p. 2940, " Supmpkpmh no f Supoh”. (309, 1)

31 FB, III, xviii, “+-- wpp bh U wd pl bubs ιππηζὴῆξ... br soqmh pep fumpth
fuphuhy poimpu Smjny. A why boom uy pmgnaiin-.. h feng ph yay) qinnilh
fuphmhg”. Ibdid., IV, ii, “' pnmbbn ghouw [ἡ {με ἢ πὶ ἰτμιἧμη podnipy ΟΣ ΩΣ
{μὴ Sujoy jfepkuhy mis fumpd ph "Ὁ Ibdid., IV, xviii, “ gunht hh qh jfepm
guuunhh fp Smyu, jjup inp papyhh® πμπιὴῆ whah bpmfonlp hash”.
LP’, ist. δος Yap (U'unlhlobbah) op fp ἵδημη δια! mya fp μι δι fp f
Suju”, Cf. Ibid., xli, pp. 231, 284; lxviii, p. 393; lxxv, p. 440. See Toumanoff, Studies,
pp. 172 n. 97, 335 τι. 148, 452, 498.] (309, 2)

32 FB, V, iii, “" {{πιρβη... fp fp hdph qonunph Smpoh jjnpma pip
πμπιὴ ἢ ημιίμεδι hagkh, ap ΠῚ β βμμ] nhinnyh διῤμιμδιμ) >, [Cf. Toumanoff,
Studies, pp. 138, 209, and below n. 56.] (309, 8)

33 See above, n. 31 [first quotation.] (309, 4)

34 FR, IV, xiv, “ £9 Zuiyp Hn py Ein ἢ nun Smpuurhny pay up ηἐιημὴι
niuwhky.-- ghtp feotimimhu Sppwinmy mppajp--- Θμπη, wut, quyumfup
mkghu holmbymdubinbpd suppl mmky Fh ng πη ἢ. The patriarch Sa-
hak I was buried, ‘‘--- fp qgazunl Supunhny, fp ΕἸ} gponk <jfup μὲδιη ζιμ ἢ ει,

μαδπαι ἔτι ἢν > Upinfrouin ” LP’, xviii, p.112. [The words in brackets are
missing in the Venice, 1933 edition of Lazar. Cf. MX, IIT, lxvii, “ Pang yup 1ΠΠι---
muh μι πα}... Gpkdpmyhp fubinbpd.-- mplhonh δι ἡ μπὲ δ βη 55. mupboy
ζιιδηπιη phi πβριμίιδη ηἱιηῖ ΠΙΟΥ ΣΙΝ ap ἰ p qunuinps δ ΠΟ (809, 5)

35 MX, ΤΙ, xii, xiv. [Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 215, 218.] (310, 1)
36 Tbid., ΤΊ, lxxxiv. [On the Stkuni, see Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 212, 215, and
notes]. (310, 2)

37 MX, II, Ixxxi. The fortress of Aywhwh = modern Akcan on the Euphrates not
far from the village of Suluk north of Mus, where there is a ferry across the river. Xore-
naci’s account is undoubtedly based on a connection between Sikuni and Suluk. [Cf.
Hremyan, Armenia, Ὁ. 74.] (310, 3)

458. NOTES : CHAPTER XI

88. FB, III, viii, “ Eun Yugkh Hat μα πῃ, ~ guhnkn Yuh I ubuh hb h
ἡ pups fufa ho g8pm gym fa μι} πα παι ἤπια, ἣν Laknkpd”. The
position of these localities is unknown. In the Vita Sb. Oskeane, p. 65 Qpmpupfu =
the Sukawet mountains of Bagrewand. [On these mountains, see Eremyan, Armenia,
p. 81 and Arm, Ailas, p.104]. Synz gyniju is presumably a translation of Taurus
(Ταῦρος = ymy bull”) pro Sunpny ηπεβι ef. Senpny popu. (811, 1)

39 EP’, xviii, p. 111 [See above, Chapter VIT n. 55 for the text]. (311, 2)

40 See above, Chapter 1, Ὁ. 18.[On the Paluni, Toumanoff, Studies, “Ὁ. 212]. (811, 3)

41 FB, IV, xv, “*+>- jUpouninikmg ᾿π τη ιπηῖι p πιαιζμι πη ἢ Sw pu gunn ᾿"
LP’, Ἰχχανὶ, Ὁ. 486, “++-ghujyn fp umfiubin Zupmnkhifge.» h Loukmy pubultn
β qunwnfh Upouimbkhug”, On the same page [p. 488 of the Venice, 1933 edition]
we should read Upompmiiimg for Upomimbkmyg in the passage, “--- miukwy
hmpomy, op fp fp gent Upominibkmg fp gig Sth Ghpimg ymykmlapah
nhunkh δ βμιίμ Quinupwulabph”. Not only did the Kamsaraken’s have no
connexions with Arsamunik’, but we know from Asotik, III, xvii, p. 197, that Sirim was
located in ArSarunik’, “++. fr qynifun Upoupmbbag qoiunph, apa GAppita
Angfup”. (311, 4)
_. 42 Babelon, Les rois de Syrie, pp. 193, 211. [For more recent publications on the
Nimrud-dag monuments and their inscriptions, see Honigmann, Kommagene, Toumanoff,
Studies, pp. 278 sqq. The inscriptions have been published by Jalabert and Mouterde
Inseryptions. The final report by Th. Goell and F.K. Dorner, Vemrud Dag, is announced
but has not appeared to date]. (311, δ)

48 Asotik, II, ii, p.81, “8mfluh Uubyuhmhp, ap fp hf qonmnth Upo-
uinibkuy”. [Cf. Eremyan, Armenia, p. 40, Toumanoff, Studies, p. 212]. (311, 6)

48a [Arm. Geogr., Ὁ. 31/41, ef. Eremyan, Armenia, Ὁ. 38.]

44 Toy, Arc., ΤΙ, vii, p. 121, calls the inhabitants, “ Huy ah puny P, mip fia
pprip”, and believes that, “ puqmqu fupfethh h υδιζίτιππιηοιπῖ fh fuonfgh bh
pupnigh Inshl homje---”. Of. Georg. Cypr., p. 48, “ εἰσι δὲ καὶ of οἰκοῦντες εἰς τὸ
ὄρος τοῦ Ταύρου πλησίον τοῦ αὐτοῦ κλίματος. [μεγάλης Appevias) λαοὶ B’ ὀνομαζομενοι ὁ μὲν
εἰς Χοθαΐται, ὁ δὲ ἕτερος Σανασουνίται". In the days of Yovhannés Mamikonean,
Xoyt’ belonged to the princes of Tarén, that is to say to the Mamikonean, Joh. Mam.,
i, p.13, “ wnkwy aU nm by ηιπἐμὶι U>nj h fumfemy Smpotny [pprmbh h
Uuuhny”. (312, 1)

45 [Arm. Geogr., p. 31/42]. FB, V, xxix, “ Uqppuhou fyhuloynnfh Uuhmg.
hipmny”. Ibid., VI, ii, “ἢ nky St Uubmiughipmny”. Tbid., II, iv [See below
n. 47 for the text of this passage]. ZP’, xxiii, p. 134, “Sip Ub hint Umbdhepmny
fyfulnayny *, Const. Porphyr., DAJ, xliv, I, p.198/9, “7d Maviixiepr”. [6].
Runciman, “ notes” to Jbid., II, pp. 167-169. Hiibschmann, Orisnamen, Ὁ. 328, 449-
450; Honigmann, Osigrenze, pp. 149, 169-170, etc., speaks of Manazkert as being in
Apahunik’, but he is speaking of a later period, see Markwart, Siidarmenien, p. 15,
** |. an den Gau Hark’, der im westlichen der Ebene Bulanyk entspricht und urspriinglich

Manavazkert (Melazkert) einschloss, .... Im 9. und 10. Jahrhundert aber gehirte
Manazkert (Manckert) zu Apahunik’”. Also pp. 78, 454, 505-506 n.7. See below,
τι. 51). (312, 2)

45a [See Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 218.] 3
46 MX, I, xii; Il, viii; “1. qh Pmpaupn fe bh Unulmbkmg ἐκ yV win
μη μι bh Pybmbkobh fp hing quimlagh Zulu”. [Cf. Hibschmann,

NOTES : CHAPTER XI 459

Orisnamen, pp. 411, 435, 449; Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 110 n. 173, and below, nn. 48 sqq.].

(312, 3)

46a ['Toumanoff, Jbid., p. 231 τι. 283, and 233 τ. 290, is of the opinion that the Abra-
hamean house never existed.]

4? FB, III, iv, [ aupm) femqunnph Zuyjng--- Gn παι h gpa quknyhy
ηἰιηΐι hn Lary bin fh UT. wun bh fg buy hulnuynuph Uqphutauph pahiqbgyp.
gU weg Ean μι ΜΠ brw ph um Limbo p h gunn hh Lulinkne op amp
qinpop [p, ap hwy fp hagduhe ghonjyh Gipunnay τ Ge bimb gpm ηἰιηῖι
Apyminng, apny minh fp ἢρηπμπι. momp δι βμὴπιηπα Poowlo είτε [ἢ
uufimboph Lutpknd, ap fiph ful £ jfphphi Puuutn”. Cf. Toumanoff,
Studies, pp. 218-219.] (312, 4)

48 FB, ΤΙ], viii, "" Palnhfp” is listed among the ecclesiastical lands in Ibid., IV,
xiv. [Cf Toumanoff, Siudies, pp. 199, 216, and 209-210, 213, 323-324 τι. 81, for the
later history of Bznunik’]. (315, 1)

49 FB, III, xx, “Uy ΠΩΣ Um mdarb bung, pam pit ubop pAppih
U. ματα, infin μὲ ἡ] npn p. nkyunph apa muni hash pump Ugpapu Ρ:
The word ,puiquip is obviously used here in its archaic sense of “ fenced area, hunting
preserve’. Atiorsk’ was located in Aliovit, the U,gnj—4m] in of Faustus, Jbid.,
IV, lv, and the “ [1η ιπ---ζπι{ {π᾿ of the Arm. Geogr. [p. 31/42]. Both forms are
correct, “ wy fin” or δ « wf” means “ salt deposit < mfr” = “ salt”. [Cf. Hiibsch-
mann, Orisnamen, pp. 329-330, 396. Markwart, Siidarmenien, pp. *14, 15, 74 τι. 2,
77-78. Eremyan, Armenia, pp. 33 (2), 36. Toumanoff, Studies, p. 199.] (313, 2)

50 Sip’an = ancient O'fufml, was first the name of one of the small islands in Lake
Van (so in Arm. Geogr., p. 31/42), and only later was transferred to the mountain named
μι Uuufn. [Cf. Markwart, Stidarmenien, pp. *11, 15-16, Eremyan, Armenia,
Ῥ. 72,] (318, 3)

50a [Arm. Geogr., p. 31/42, “>+- Unum nib pp. phy npny DE Dh why mrt Upu-
δε μ᾽ jiyph Poimbbmy”. Cf. Hibschmann, Orisnamen, pp. 328-329, Eremyan,
Armenia, Ὁ. 458. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 213, 216.]

5. BL, p. 223," { οὁπηπι μ UwhughEpm gh ἢ uu hiurhgy nfo yf dun h hs
Quip pur ”. Idem., * h uf Yuyp Uap Lnrhkuny HULU β phy Uubinghbpin ec
ZG, p.40, “ff ganunh Unwinibbug β pura plah Umbdhinm”. Asotik, xiii,
p. 277, “fA qunmnh Zup Pp fh Vulughipn pmyup”. [See above, nn. 45, 49).

(318, 4)

52 Const. Porphyr., DAT, xliv, I, p. 200/1, “" τὸ καστρὸν τοῦ Movlixiepr μετὰ τῆς χώρας
τοῦ ᾿Απαχουνῆς καὶ τοῦ Kopi) καὶ τοῦ Χαρκά ". Ibid., p. 202/38, “" τὸ Mavlixiepr ... τό τε
᾿Απαχουνῆς καὶ τὸ Κορη καὶ τὸ Χαρκά ". [See Runciman, “ notes” to 16ὲά., II, p. 170.
Hiibschmann, Orisnamen, p. 330. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 208-209. See above n. 45]

(813, 5)
52a TArm. Geogr., Ὁ. 31/42. See next note.]

53 The reading Gunman is also found for "Βα ΠΗ. δκμιπὸμι-τπα ἢ =
in Arm, “‘ shepherds’ field ” is equivalent to the Karayazi ovasi. “pin μὴ = ‘ greenery”
is the same as the Elmali plain = “apple plain”. Xnus < mid. Arm., Aylmbfp,
NWinhfu. Alishan, Hayapatum, p.550. [Cf. Hibschmann, Orisnamen, pp. 327-329,
470. Hremyan, Armenia, pp. 48-49, 51, 65, 82 (3), 86, 116. (314, 1)

54 We do not know the relationship between VaraZnunik’ and the princes of the
same name found in Ayrarat. According to WX [II, xxii], Aliovit had been granted

460 NOTES : CHAPTER XI

to a collateral branch of the Arsacids; might this statement be a reminiscence of the
fact that several houses from Ayrarat, apparently drawn from the osianik’s, had moved
to Taruberan? Hitibschmann, Orisnamen, p. 328[ 8] presumes thatthe Bajunis Won |

of Arab sources should be identified with Y uc inilif p rather than with {71} ξπεδ} Ps
an opinion which is shared by Ghazarian, Armenien, pp. 21, 74. It might seem more
probable to identify Bajunis with the better known Pyhnzhfu, but this district seems
to have been known to the Arabs by the name of its chief city, Xlat’, which is mentioned
together with Bajunis by Ibn Khordadhbeh, p. 122. Weshould read Pahunis = <U>-
ny Zan fu. (314, 2)

54a [Arm. Geogr., pp. 32-33/43-44. Arm. Geogr., II, pp. 362/3-364/5, which speaks
of 37 districts. See also, Hiibschmann, Oritsnamen, pp. 261-263, 339 sqq., Honigmann,
Osigrenze, pp. 169 sqq., Eremyan, Armenia, pp. 82, 117, εἰ al. Also, Appendix IV for
the text of the two versions of the Geography.]

540 [This pattern is also suggested by Htibschmann, Orisnamen, Ὁ. 347, waom Adontz
follows quite closely throughout this discussion.]

S4e [The Arm. Geogr. lists Dartni for Garni and places it before Arberani.]

55 This district is placed after Gpnumliynhfp in the long version of the Armenian
Geography, and after Pnidmlifp in the short version [See, Appendix IV B-C]. The
latter version is preferable since Unbnj—ninh “the foot of the Amoy mountains”
lay south of Anjewacik’. The mountain chain near Mokk’ is still known as the Arnos
[Arnas] dagi and is probably a derivation from Unbny yup in which the Arm, uup
has been replaced by the Turk. dagz, and the name of the mountain itself was mistakenly
considered to have been Unbnyu uup. ‘This was the ancient name of the range
stretching from Mokk’ to Julamerk. The part of the chain directly above Julamerk
was the one known as Unhn; nin, [Cf. Hiibschmann, Orisnamen, Ὁ. 402, Eremyan,
Armenia, p. 37.] (215, 1)

56 The Arm. Geogr. has Updfowdaiffn instead of Updfomlm)fin, which is found
in the short version [See, Appendix IV B-C}]. The modern form Ergek is a contraction
of Updfowl the diminutive of Updf> which is the name of a city in the northern
corner of Lake Van. Part of this lake was called the bay of Aréé’ in antiquity, and
subsequently, the name was given to the whole of the lake: Sirabo, XI, xiv, 8 [L. V,
9207], “ἡ δὲ ᾿Αρσηνή, ἦν καὶ Θωπῖτιν καλοῦσιν ... ᾿. This passage should be read,
**°Apanoy καὶ Θωσπῖτιν "᾿. “ Θωσπῖτιν ᾿ = ArééS and Tosp, the name of Lake Van.
Pliny, VA, VI, xxxi (127) [L. II, 4384/5] gives the name in the form “‘ Arethusa ”’ where
the th corresponds to a palatal. [Adoniz’s thesis is followed by Eremyan, Armenia,
p. 37, but Rakham in his edition of Pliny, loc. cit., gives the name as “... lJacum Are-
tissam ...”. Cf. also Ibid., VI, xxxi (128), [L. II, p. 4384/5], “ alterum deinde transit
lacum qui Thespites appellatur ...”.. The small lake above the city of Van [Ergek
gli] is called Updpomh * little ArééS ”’, to distinguish it from Aréés. Perhaps μι πόξ»
had the general sense of “lake” in the language of the pre-Armenian population.
[On these districts and their respective positions, see, Hiibschmann, Orisnamen, pp. 339-
341, 405, 476. Markwart, Siidarmenien, pp. *33-34, *59, 4, 29-32, 77, 232, 345, 358,
370. Honigmann, Osigrenze, p. 21 τι. 3, 170, 207, 209. Hremyan, Armenia, pp. 39-40
79, 86. Toumanoff, Siudzes, pp. 50 τ. 44, 160, 205, 213]. (315, 2)

δ᾽ Lewond, xxxiv, Ὁ. 146, “ -.: f ΜΠ Unpbpubh p ghoh PEphpp ἐμ
Sebéos, xxx, p.108. Const. Porphyr., DAZ, xliv, I, pp. 198/9-204/5. Might Gure be
related to Quin, and Giresor, a village at the foot of the mountain, to Qunbpanp;

39

NOTES : CHAPTER XI 461

Cf. also the name of the river at Bayezid, the Gernevik[Gernaoksuyu]. On the Gafnijor
mountains, see Eremyan, Armenia, p.46. Mt. Gure (c. 39925°N x 43°58’H) is given
by Lynch, Armenia, map, and the village of Giresor (6. 39°14’N x 44°02’) is found
both in Lynch. Loc. cii., and on the USAFM map 340 BI, but neither can be other-
wise identified. On Aiberani and Gafni, see also, Hiibschmann, Orisnamen, pp. 341-
842. Markwart, Stidarmenien, Ὁ. 459. Tremyan, Armenia, pp. 37, 46. Runciman,
** notes? to DAI, ΤΙ, p. 167. Toumanoff, Studies, p. 205]. (316, 1)

58 Tov, Arc., III, xiii, p. 197, ** --- fp qymfun dnpnyh Zumyjny ” (and not Z2uyny,
as in the printed version), “ap Lint ἰλμπιειιδ πιὰ puny **y MAX Ay: x:
This is still its name at the present time, Cf. Intiéean, Geography, p. 144. [For these
districts and their respective positions, see, Hiibschmann, Orisnamen, pp. 342-343,
400, 443. Markwart, Stidarmenien, pp. *87, *53, 359-389, 422-423; Honigmann,
Osigrenze, pp. 147, 170; Eremyan, Armenia, pp. 36, 45, 51, 86; Toumanoff, Studies,
pp. 198-200, 204 and τ. 232, 221, 235, 310, and below τι. 75]. (316, 2)

59 MX, Il, lii, “++. f ΖμΙ 11. Π| μηδ} fg hmut Uuniuy, op hngkp Gunm—
poulpal gunn, pf YEpmy μαζί πη qphpl) whmbh Upmuyg. pug fh ho m.fumph
mumnp gbpbg uhh Upunmy hngp ἐπι sh gujuop αἷμ δι δι ἢ ἢ. LP’, χοὶ, p. 532
ee A ηϊμεμιπὶι op hash Upmmy β nhonh ap ΠΣ ΠΕ by ply «οὖς Tbid., xxxviii,
Ῥ. 211, “+++ Upmmg fay fr gkogh np jngh Usmpayp fr ορβιυηινὴ bgp
Sqinun yuomp”. Vardan, Geography [p.16], “Upmuaqg Uwhm ἔχ mp hay
up mau pup fémplnu”. Cf. Tov. Arc., TIT, xxix, Ῥ. 259, “++ fp 4uhqump
uppayh unknuf unm pkyny jUpyngquhats yunuinp ”, [See also, Htibschmann,
Orisnamen, pp. 343-344, 451. EHremyan, Armenia, pp. 40, 65. Toumanoff, Studies,
p. 169, and below, nn. 74]. (316, 3)

60 Tov, Arc., III, xxii, p. 232, “+--+ quinoa pls Uhuh f fonnliniah (pro (onhpuauh
of the Arm. Geogr., Ὁ. 32/43) gununp, hb qutiniph Ganap fp dnph ἢ δια! fq, quamph
Uhmbp β ψπηὶ! [ipmy”. (Cf. 10]ά., IV, i, p. 275, ‘+++ f ΠΩ Lmdpuy
hnskykmy Papul ἢ; Jbid., ITT, xx, p. 226, “ ... daph Lhdmyhy, npny Ey ph
pig qouunl Zip poymph”. Tbid., ΤΠ, xxix, p. 264, “--. pls danph ἰλδιὰμιζη)"
hh 9 υἱμιιἠ μι ἠπαίτη kay pup”, Tov, Arc. Cont., IV, ii, p. 271, “ vee fh
papal Gounpng fh dnph Utidujuny”. £P?, xxxix, p. 228, “++ μηηηξ Phomy-
funny.” Hus, V, p.100, “Lhcdmj[i]ugh”, p.116, “ δι fh Ἔν. 120,
“ Phouyling”. Finally in the Gahnamak, “ ἢ πὸ δὴ μ᾽" and in the Military List,
“Phompph” instead of midmujuph = plhoméfl. [See, Appendices III A, 81.
The correct form apparently was plowhl, —uy (the plowylininy of Lazar should
be read plidmyliny) and the other forms sprang from the erroneous plomdfl. In
Tov. Arc., I, vii, p. 51, we find an attempt to provide an etymology < wh—dm/u,
du july, but it is incorrect, and the whole passage may be a late gloss. Nkan = Nagan
(though Hiibschmann, Orisnamen, Ὁ. 395, repeating Intitean, Description, p. 209,
asserts that ‘* Die Lage der burg Nkan ... ist “ unbekannt”). The position of Nkan
justifies the transfer of T’otnawan from the basin of the Araxes where it was placed
by Hiibschmann to that of Lake Van. [Although Nkan is marked in AA pp. 105-107,
ec. 38940’N x 44910’E, and is discussed by Markwart, Siidarmenien, pp. 311, 466 and
n. 4, Hakobyan, Geography, p. 187, as well as by Laurent, Arménie, pp. 52 and 95 where
he gives its approximate position, “ ... la forteresse de Nkhan, située ἃ peu prés ἃ égale
distance des lacs de Van, d’Ourmiah et de Sevan ...” its precise position cannot be
determined since it is not indicated on any other map to my knowledge, either contem-

462 NOTES: CHAPTER XI

porary to Adontz’s writing, or more recent}. The other fortress, Sewan = Seyvan
kale is placed closer to Kotur on the Russian maps and closer to Van by Lynch, Armenia,
map. [As in the case of Nkan, there seems to be some confusion in this case: Seyvan
is not located on the Mehmedik river, as Adontz claims in his text but on one of its
southern tributaries. See, Lynch, Ibid., USAF map, 340 Β ΤΥ, εἰ αἱ. On the ‘districts
discussed in this section, see also, Hiibschmann, Orisnamen, pp. 344-345, 400, 480.
Markwart, Stidarmenien, pp. *59, 357, 390-392, 426. Honigmann, Osigrenze, Ὁ. 170.
Eremyan, Armenia, pp. 32, 33, 36,117. Toumanoff, Siudies, pp. 170 τι. 85, 181 τι. 148,
197, 199-200, 219-220, εἰ αἱ. (817, 1)

61 Tov. Arc., ΤΙ], xxix, p. 264, “+++ phy dnp Ubdmhfny hh [9 μ υἱεῖ
ἠπαίτη ται! Tupi, ++ f ddhpngul mip.paihip, β pura rat mu» penuh Yun ἢ nt =
Ibid, p. 254 “++ Uunwhoth omh, un YQupidhph jaskghmy ykmnl, op
publ ft πῥιπὴ Gpwnfy "ς In antiquity, the river bore the same name: DML -
nmin i.e. “the ὕοπνδβ river”. [See also, Hiibschmann, Orisnamen, pp. 345-347, 448.
Markwart, Siidarmenien, pp. 205-206, 208-209, 311, 313, 401. Honigmann,
Osigrenze, pp. 166-167, 170. Eremyan, Armenia, pp. 63-64. Toumanoff, Studies,
pp. 219, 305 n. 1191. (317, 2)

62 According to Tov. Arc., III, xxix, Ὁ. 260, from Mardastan, “ +f poly hh qun-
fk Π ὅπ | on the left), and fi fonatmuimh gunn (on the wight), ΠΣ kw phy
Upémikuy gun”, Kréunik’ is not derived from Ufpé—mbf as might seem
probable, but rather from Ypmpb—nibfh: Ypn—fS has the same formation as
Umnpuum—fS and means “Kurd”, It is interesting to compare Ypdmlif with
the Yapmdéuyp (< Ynpmf[d—m)p) of FB, which he uses [IV, xlviii] for the region
of Salamas adjoining Kréunik’. [Cf. Hiibschmann, Orisnamen, pp. 345-347, 442, and
Hremyan, Armenia, Ὁ. 61, where he assimilates the name of Kréunik’ not only to Ku-
rucan, but also to modern Kurcivik. See below n. 75a]. (318, 1)

68 Lewond, viii, p. 26, “--» fp qunwal [λοιππεδισαιη f yfagh, npn πε ει
Ingkh ”. Cf. Του. Arc, TIT, xxix, pp. 251-252, “ .... <Snuu > nommbifp,
Ponmbpp, Ῥιπιημ .-- Upumpfubah ””, »: [See also, Hibschmann, . Orisnamen,
pp. 345-347, 409, 420, Eremyan, Armenia; pp. 41, 48.] τα τας ὁ (318, 2)

64 Among the doubtful districts; Dininaymprh pp, Upmsinrion iw, Pung,
Gunk/emh are [un]known even to Tovma Arcruni. [Since these districts cannot be
found in the listing of Tov. Arc., 111,. xxix, pp. 251-252, see next note, it seems likely
that the negative was accidentally omitted from Adontz’s sentence. Of, Hiibschmann,
Orisnamen, pp. 345-347. Eremyan, Armenia, pp. 41, 44, 46, 77, both give alternate
forms of these toponyms. See below n. 76.] ὩΣ (318, 8)

65 Tov. Arc., III, xxix, pp. 251-252. [See, Appendix IV for the text]. Tovma says
of the last districts that they were won from Parskahayk’, which is the situation depicted
in the Arm. Geogr.,; [pp. 32-33/43-44]. Tovma goes on to explain the absence of Nayéa-
wan and Golt’n by the fact that they had been lost to Vaspurakan, the former 210 [sic],
and the later 186 years earlier. Since both districts are listed by the Arm. Geogr. in
Vaspurakan, we should conclude that the redaction of the Geography dates from a
period 210 years before Tovma. On the other hand, in view of the doubt we have
expressed as to the authenticity of these thirteen districts, it is possible that Naxéawan
and Golt’n are among the thirteen districts included in Vaspurakan on the basis of
Tovma’s commentary. In such a case, the redaction: of the Geography must postdate
Tovma’s History. [On the problems of the Arm. Geogr., see, above, chapter X, n. Ὁ,

NOTES : CHAPTER XJ ; 463

and for the chronology of the commentary of Tovma Areruni, Brosset, CHA, I, p. 203
n.4. On Goltn, Naxtawan and the presumably transferred districts, see Hiibschmann,
Orisnamen, pp. 338, 346-347, 419; 427, 455, Eremyan, Armenia, pp. 48, 52, 58, 72, 84,
117; Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 170 τι. 85, 203-204 and τ. 230, 293, 305 and n. 119, 310 and
n. 32, 323. [See below τι. 76). For the entire discussion of the title of Mardpet and its
identification with the Arcruni house, see, [bid., pp. 131, 169-170 and nn. 81, 86, 176-
178 and nn. 115, 118, 199-200, 220, 231 τι. 185, 233 τι, 290, 237 τι. 305, 248, 314; also
Hibsechmann, Orisnamen, pp. 343-344, 541; Markwart, Hrain, pp. 166-167, and Genea-
logie, pp. 34-41; Garitte, Agathange, pp. 224-225; Manandian, Feudalism, pp. 46, 61,
63-67, 271-273, 276; Sukiasian, Armenia, Ὁ. 190, οἱ al. Also below Chapter XV τι. 36a,
(318, 4)
66 In BL, Gregory is called, “+++ uhyduhmh ghyhh byfuhnyan”, p.73, but
γεν Wwpqykunmlah ἔπ με πιο "Ὁ on pp. 70, 76, 81 ΓΝ, both on p.70 and
on p. 76, though not on Ὁ. 81 we find a double listing: “... (70) Φιμῥηπμἠ ἰλμὸ-
pobkuy Gypulayn, + fp bppaapk ἱΠιιμηιηιπα με ἔῃ μα πιηπαξ.... (76)
Φρβηπμ Uv wy pp Eseries ἢ hs fy fulnwynup, Opfaaph. Upepmibang Ey hulaynuf,...”
Similarly, Theodore is given as bishop, “+++ uhuydunuh .ghyh 0... Ibid.,
Ῥ. 151, but as bishop “.... Wmpymhmmlmh”, pp. 146, 196. [Here too a double
listing appears in one case. On p. 146, Theodore is given as iene of Mardpetakan,
but the name of the Arcruni bishop is John]. (319, 1)
66a [On the toponym Vaspurakan, see, Hiibschmann, Orisnamen, pp. 210-211, 253-254,
261-263, and Grammatik, pp. 60, 80-81. Justi, Namenbuch, p.359a, Christensen,
pp. 100-103, 108-109 n. 3, 123. Manandian, Feudalism, pp. 50sqq., 65 n.1, 77, ete.
Garitte, La Narratio, Ὁ. 244. Toumanoff, Siudies, pp. 331-332, and below, Chapter XV
n. 26-27a,.].
66b [See below Chapter XIV τ. 57.] .
6? FB, IU, xviii. [Cf above, τι. 65, on the Mardpet with the εὐ (319, 2)
88. 10ϊά,, IV, xiv. . (320, 1)
69 EP’, xxxix, p.225, “++ ginfph Updpmikuy h sbanatal U'hép-
ouumd”, Huse, Ὁ. 193, “ Sungalh Upopnrhbng νέον μὰ -, [Of above,
ἢ. 661. (320, 2)
τὸ Z,P’, xxxiv, p.199, “+>. ηἡπιδη Ρ p yop. Um ppm kin ahs uypnidpny ”.
Htisé, III, p. 74, “ Θηπιδηῖ un ὃ hb unm [}} 7 Ep omnis {hipoubwh, h
amt hh gh τη μιζια με wpfumpdhh, πὰ fp umkiwha Umpoyonnmhoh
we furia pr μὲ ἪΡ [Cf. Ibid., pp. 43, 99, 193]. NerSapuh is the popular form of Mihr-
Sapuh, and both forms are found in ZP’, pp. 135, 144, 225, 236-237, ete. [Cf. Hiibsch-
mann, Grammatik, pp. 54, 56. Justi, Namenbuch, pp. 206, 228. Toumanoff, Studies,
pp. 231 τ. 285], The meaning of the name [hipnubwh is unknown. (320, 3)
τι EP’, iv, p.16. Tov, Arc., ΤΙ, vi, p. 116, * -+- hh Finn ply hnyity Unpuyur-
nolo yUqpey geen ykphhph Ymuympoloh, bh pohmhigas ἢ
᾿ἴλημ δι μια nomohph Upepathug-.+” οἱ al. [Cf Hibschmann, Orisnamen,
p. 442. Markwart, Stidarmenien, pp. *59, 426. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 199-200, 304.]
(320, 4)
72 EP’, xiii, pp. 236-237, “++ gfpfumbh dbo Updpmbkmg ἡ v&p umd
+++ pfofumbh Upepmbkug qUuypumi”. Cf. Huse, pp. 99-100, and 193, “ Θιπηη τη
Upopmikuy Up ound h Guonwuy bh Glgfhh bh Vképnd uh h Qupoh h
Suréunn +++ Supepeiltie mngoth Upon.” Ner’apuh was prince of Albak,

464 NOTES : CHAPTER XI

(EP, xliv, p. 248, “... 1 mt wry pay ary hy, πῃ ἐμ np Enly popam hh
Upoparbhhug Ubpoumfny”. Cf. xiii, p. 237; xlvii, p. 272). The branch of Aprsam
must have ruled Mardastan but contrary to expectation, it is NerSapuh and not Aprsam
who is given the title of Mardpet. Evidently, with the passage of time, this title had
become generalized among the Arcrunis. [Cf. Toumanoff, Siudies, pp. 199-200, 231

n. 285, and above, τι. 65.] (320, 5)
73 Unless δ᾽ nuyynsimnif Pp in Του. Arc., ITI, xxix, p. 251 is taken merely as an error.
[See, Appendix IV, and Toumanoff, Studies, p. 213.] (321, 5)

74 Τὸ is evident from Tovma Arcruni that the Amatunis first lived in Artaz, since
he speaks of the bishop of Artaz as “--. Emfuljnuynul Qphgnp Udunnohibug
wh, ap humtp fh fuhyump uppaph (>untnuf 1 ΠΗ] ΤΩΙ ἰλμηπημι με
nuns ”, Tov. Arc., III, xxix, p. 259. As we shall see, ecclesiastical subdivisions
usually reflected an earlier state of affairs. The Amatunis were one of the oldest princely
houses, and its origin points to an ancestral domain on the frontier of Atrpatakan.
See above, n. 59, and below Chapter XIV n. 63. (321, 2)

75 Tov, Are., II, vi, Ῥ. 109, “+++ fp ἱππζὴξ Plinnihkmy---” should be read “...
s+ fp ππζὴξ Spmbkmy---” as it is given Ibid., 111, ii, p. 184. Tir-uni is apparently —
a contracted form of Tirpat-uni. [Cf. Hiibschmann, Orisnamen, pp. 343. Toumanoff,
Studies, pp. 221, 235 n. 301. See above τι. 58.] (321, 3)

752 [On these principalities, see above, nn. 57, 60, 62, and the next note. Also, Eremyan,
p. 45, and Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 110 ἢ. 173, 130 n. 229, 197 and n. 222 on Aké;
pp. 182, 199, 205-206 τι. 284, 298, 303, 318, 327, 453 n. 63 on the Gnuni.]

76 Pu pub should be compared with Pahbgan, a village south of Maku [Lynch,
Armenia, map). μη μια «- μη pal — with the Pers. suffix -an τὸ the
Arm. Fuqpfl—p of Tovma Arcruni, who gives “ Bugnflh Uuymupmy ”, Tov.
Are., TI, vi, p.109, but “...- Quwaphhph ἰλιηπιμ ὃ bh ἃ πα ἢ bh Ywduh”.
Ibid., III, v, p. 146. Y ftmbimbp is given as “Yudmbf” in the Arm. Geogr.
and “Ympmcimhf” in Arm. Geogr., 11, the last form apparently being the more
correct one [See Appendices IV and above τι. θά. The name VaraZnunik’ in its various
versions appears in Ayrarat and Taruberan, as well as in Vaspurakan, cf. Eremyan,
Armenia, p. 82]. The Uudshibml: of the Gahnamak is apparently a distortion of
Damp, Smpapbuh might be compared with Deir [now Der-Sikefti, see, G 46,
p. 178], a village north of Bagkale. [For these minor districts, see, Toumanoff, Studies,
pp. 230-233 and nn. 281, 283, 286, 289, p. 236 and τ. 3038.] (321, 4)

Τῇ [See preceding note]. For example, Tov. Arc., Tl, vi, p. 109: UujpmLarhhp,
Zubia hp, Qw pum bh. Tbid., 111, xxii, p. 235 the Uphybhpy mip is given in
Vaspurakan, as is prince Pu Yphpmbf. Idid., ΤΙ, vi, p.109. [Cf Hibschmann,
Orisnamen, pp. 329-330, 363. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 206, 220-222. (321, 5)

NOTES : CHAPTER XII 465

CHAPTER XIT

ἃ [For more recent discussions of the place of the Church in the nayarar system, see
Manandian, Feudalism, and Sukiasian, Armenia, Garitte, Narratio, also individual
notes below.]

1 Ter Mkrttschian, Die Paulikianer, Ὁ. 55, *‘ Die armenische Kirche aber ist von Anfang
an als eine selbstandige, nationale entstanden, in ganz anderen politischen und kultu-
rellen Verhaltnissen als die grosse katholische Reichskirche ”’.

1a [Marr, Arkaun, pp. 1-2.]

1b [See above, Chapter I n. Ib.]

2 Agai’, cxxiii, p. 631. [ΟΡ Appendix III K for the text of this passage. Also,
Garitte, Agaihange, pp. 321-323 for the variant versions. On the problems connected

with the text of “ Agat’angetos’’, see above, Chapter X n. 89a,] (324, 1)
3 Agai’, exxi, pp. 623-624. [See, Appendix III K for the text.] (324, 2)
4 Idem. (324, 3)
5 Uxtanés, 1, lxx. [ΟἿ however lxxxix. See, Appendix 111 K, vi, for the text. On
Uxtanés’ date, see, Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 19 and τ. 21.] (324, 4)
6 Steph. Ord., vii, I, pp. 64-65. [See, Appendix ITI, v, for the text.] (825, 1)

7 Asolik, TII, vi, p. 174, ‘S++. [εδιμεμπαι ἢ ἢ Umit), puiurhapdh Ρ |
ἡ[ιππειη ξεῖν Qpny πμμπὴ h ἶμαμι Epa inn fe buh. > See also, the ‘* His-
tory of the Vivifying Cross’, in AliSan, Ayrarat, pp. 547-549. (325, 2)

8 Asoltk, III, vi, p.174. The abbot preceding Samuél was Polycarp, who was
present together with Xacik at the election of Kat’oltikos Step’annos 171 Sewaneci in
972, Ibid., ITI, viii, p.181. This same Xatik was elected Step’annos’ successor two
years later, A.H, 421 = A.D. 974, Jbid., TI, ix, pp. 184-185. [Adontz follows the dates
given by Asolik, but the chronology of the period is contradictory and confused. De
' Morgan, Histoire, gives the dates A.D. 969-971 for Step’annos III, and 972-992 for
Aatik I, whereas both Ormanian, Azgapaium, I, pp. 1117 sqq. and “‘Index”’, p. xxxi,
and Kogean, Armenian Church, pp. 323-331, date the two kat’olikoi respectively A.D.
969-972 and 973-992. Cf. Grousset, Arménie, pp. 486-488. For the shift of Uxlanés
from the Xth to the XIth or even XIJIth century, see, Peeters, Sacnie Soussantk, and
n. 5 above]. | (325, 3)

9 See above, Chapter X n. 6. (326, 1)

10 This thesis is not affected by the latest conclusions on the composition of
Agat’angetos based on a comparison of the Armenian and Arabic versions, cf. Marr,
Christianization, p. 182. If our version of Agat’angelos cannot be dated earlier than
the ὙΠῸ century, as is claimed by Marr, the author could have used Zenob’s work
in either version. In such a case, Zenob’s naive claim that he had written his work
before Agat’angelos, ZG, p.19“ fu unm Sugnyh gnkgh pub ..5 q¥Uqm/embgbgn ”,
is less ridiculous than it first appears. [For the date of “ Agat’angelos ”, see above,
Chapter X n. 89a, for that of the Pseudo-Zenob, Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 18-19.]

(326, 2)

11 We should note in particular the information that there were 620 provinces in
Armenia. According to ZG, pp. 12-13, the Armenians wrote among other things to
bishop Eleazar that, “ avkhuyh quumamgu Gy μα πιη πὴ ypinny bh bh pmdubuayu
gh felyfn niwhp, opp momkp munkp khimy bh dnym[iw), payy ἡ β΄ ὯΔ
Eh wynphh mn digduplsp bh pow qauunw ζα πη. np kh qomunph ith uf

466 NOTES: CHAPTER XII

ῥιμζι ἧι! hut pla jul fet ζωδηβη θ᾽". This passage is repeated in the
Letter of the Kat’olikos Constantine I to King Het’um 1 in A.D. 1248, “ἢ h fh
quuunp fh Zapp ybpqhhaykh fp dip ho hol op ung Eh ho fut ap fp
ounmynifebuh, fet bm qunph ply Ζιιπη, feng Enféwh mgumth ”, BL,
p. 509. It is interesting to compare Zenob’s account with the passage in MU, Ixxxiz,
pp. 184-185, dealing with ecclesiastical provinces under Kat’olikos Peter I at the end
of the Xth century [Petros I Getadarj was kat’ olikos A.D. 1019-1058}; “ papd ua ἐμ mip
Qiinpnu pufenn 4m jpuny finn [9 bab h p 2m juni wp pap cpl, mtn
hug ἥπι [9 fib ζι μίγη" mnbuy pr [θιμημμιππιμη Ζιμ πὴ ζβέιη, ζαμμιμ
phy win h dkombpp h oudantin phinhp plunip, baphyfua bh πη [μὴ πιηπερ
fpig fupfep opononapp, ho qgananunbumgy fp fapwy 4phqg 4upfup ιν
Ζμ 1 1Πη.. Eph Eu huhnuynn Ρ h onpu fu pry Ein Ρ p ny 4unjpuny bin hhh
why alan L phkp h im feunch inky Ρ hpobluanpug h puhmr hah nbing Lphy fupfip
h ἐἰμ finiumum ufénn 4m jpn Ginnie bwhh put /@uqunnpnifekmbh 2ujny an
Any locality having a representative of the ecclesiastical authorities, quinn buns
is considered to be an ecclesiastical province in this passage, but since these subdivisions
characterize a late period, they are useless for our study. (326, 3)

12 Uytanés, I, lxx, [See, Appendix III K, vi, for the text]. The last name in the
printed text is * U pmuminphag » rather than “ "νει Uunpluy ”*, which we believe
to be the correct reading. (327, 1)

18 Agat’., cxx, p. 621, “δὲ myumtu ply unilblyh Epbhph Zmyny: fp Ounqmy
ΠΝ fp μι doth nmpwdubtn piulmefb pupngmfeboth bh obnopw—
hmfetEmbh, μ Uurnuquging puqupth dhiish mn πποβιμιπζαεῖ ἢ] μιηιπίπιη,
ufhi sh mn YoqupSop, ups fuywn fp omLdubun Vu pt uy, phish fp ηπιπῖμι
Ujpwhuy, ΠΝ “1 ζ ἣ μ1 .}} ἀμ βη., β φ μ}ιπμι ἢ μι μα pump ΓΤ,
Ζιμ)πη. h pUspmging pagum pth uprhi sh un Udphh pmym pun, Phpin mn 1111|--τὸ
Lambo ph Uunpny, win. Lap Ghpuhmt Ephpunt, ho wn Yappop ufrhi sh pu
Snip Ephhph {{ mp , upish un inp U mk prints fofumb ph, uprhish |.λιπμ---
yy nur ἐν μηδ dain mn pdr ἐμ qu bm pubinr fe ph fup ”, ‘The expression,
“oe. Puywmhapah puymp uppmujymfebmbh 2ujng -.-” points to an Armenian
city of the royal period.

14 [Va], Marr, Christianization, p. 136. [See, Appendix III K, iv, for the text], Marr’s
edition has oh! Aly ‘ the land of Gilan ” and } lal esl ** tothe Abkhaz ”’, both of

which we consider to be incorrect. The Abkhaz had already been mentioned in the prece-
ding paragraph, both Abkhazia and Gilan lay outside the boundaries of Armenia, and
consequently had nothing in common with the Armenian districts of Greater and Lesser
Cop’k’, HaSteank, Mokk’, and Mardpetakan, which are listed after them. The first
name is more correctly read, ΠΕΣ = ᾿Αγγελήνην, and the second should be taken

as a distortion of Arzanené. [This correction is born out by the new Greek version
published by Garitte, who accepts Adontz’s reading, Agathange, clxxi, p. 171, also
pp. 200-201, 215-216.] (328, 2)

148 [Garitte, Agathange, Va, clviii-clix = Ug, clxx-clxxi, pp. 101-102. See, Appendix
III K for the texts. ]

140 [Ibid., Va, clx = Vg, elxxii, pp. 102-104. See, Appendix III K for the text.]

15 Marr, Christianization, Ὁ. 186 [= Garitte, Agaihange, p. 103]. The first syllable
of ὦ ) 5.6. "γῇ... iD Marr’s text should be separated from the rest of the word and read
aly “land”, whereas oO ) gc 98 seems to be ἤπη, a district in Tayk’, although we

a

ΝΟΤΕΝ: CHAPTER ΣΤ 467

should expect ζοῖ᾽ since the Arabic version is a translation from the Greek. . On historical
grounds we should expect this to be distortion of the bishop of Vanand. [Cf. Garitte,
Agathange, pp. 221, who gives Karwy = Kotayk’, 221.] (328, 3)
16 Marr’s edition has Oss | 53 * of the Kuanites ” but the correct reading is Cn | ὃ
= Kappirw = Arm. Yuipfl [Adonta’s correction is supported by the new Greek
version, and accepted by Garitte, Agathange, pp. 103, 218.] (828, 4)
16a [Garitte, Agathange, pp. 103, 196-198, 235-236, gives Albios as bishop of Tarén
and Tayk’ rather than Tardn and Bznunik’, as suggested by Adontz. Garitte’s con-
clusion seems more likely both in the light of the new Greek version, and because Albios
was associated with the Mamikonean house which had bishops both in Tarén and Tayk’.
See below, pp. 263,266-267,271-272,288, also Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 138, 172 τι. 97.]
17 EP’, xxiii, pp. 133-134 = Hiisé, ΤΙ, pp. 27-28. [See, Appendix III for the texts.]

(829, 1)
18 BL, Ὁ. 41. [See, Appendix ΠῚ for the text. On the date of the Council, 866
Garitte, Narratio, p. 152]. (329, 2)

19 BL, p. 73. [See, Appendix ΠῚ for the text. From the “ Letter of Accusation ”
of the Kat’olikos Nersés IT [BL, pp. 70-71] we see that the following bishops were living
during his pontificate, but were absent from the Council:

Mnupm] Udernnohimg Ζηπηδιμῖπε Ubpry
Umiul; [homarbbuny Uhpujly Qupkfunmbhhy
Ungml inh Unhng Udummyp Pdimbbuy

Unbijpmbine Usidlagkung
The eleventh signature at the Council of 555 is given in the text as Markos of Bagrewand;
but Bagrewand was already represented [in the fifth signature], so that this must be
considered a mistake for the missing bishop of Banunik’ or Tayk’. [Cf. Garitte, Narratio,
pp. 130-175.] : (330, 1)
19a [See above, chapter XI n. 66.]
19> [Cf. Garitée, Agathange, pp. 108, 238-239, and Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 208-209.]
ise [See above, chapter XI, pp. 236,242 sgg.]
19d [See above, chapter XI n.41.]
20 BL, p.78, “ Ghpu Puukhny k {Γπππημμηπὶ byfuhngnn”, [Cf. Ibid., p. 73.)
(333, 1)
202 [On the date of the Council of 644-648? See, Ormanian, Azgapatum, I, p. 711.
See also next note.]
21 BL, p. 146. [On the election of the successor of Kat’otikos Movsés 1, see, Ormanian,
Azgapaium, I, pp. ἜΘΠΘΙΝΣ 615, Garitte, Narratio, pp. 228, 258-259. For the text

Appendix IV L, iv.] (333, 2)
2 BL, p.149, [See also preceding note, and Garitte, Narratio, pp. 259-261. Ap-
pendix III L, iv.] (334, 1)

23 Ibid., Ὁ. 161. [Cf Ormanian, Azgapaiwm, I, pp. 617-618. The text of Adontz
gives 571 as the date of the treaty, but this must be a misprint. The treaty between
Maurice and Xusr6 IT was signed in 591. See above, Chapter I n. la, and Garitte, Nar-
ratio, Ὁ. 260.] (334, 2)

24 Idem. [See Appendix III L, iv for the text]. The eight signature, that of
8m[duhlmy byny has been distorted to Gnduh Ymyqny and ἃ σαι pny in Uxtanés
* Schism ”, II, pp. 64 and 57 respectively. (334, 3)

468 NOTES: CHAPTER XII

25 by or δ)» more correctly Gy β» is unquestionably a contracted form of the Uy ἢ
listed in the Arm. Geogr., [p. 32/43] among the districts of Parskahayk’. In the Geo-
graphy Ayli is identified with Kuiitan “ qUyjfh np dash Ἡπεπβόμιδι ᾽" = modern
Culican in Gever, Cusnet, ΤΊ, p.717. Arni is likewise listed in Parskahayk’. The
BL gives Unb p. 151, and Unhmjny p. 147, instead of the Uni found in the
Arm. Geogr. (334, 4)

26 Dwin Canons. [See, Appendix III L, for the text]. Caméean, History, II, p. 345,
gives the same names, but in a different order, moreover, the bishop of ArSarunik’
is given as Theophilos and the bishop of ArSamunik’ as Gregory, in reversal of our
document. In view of the fact that we find a Theophilos, bishop for 36 years, in the
List of ArSarunik’ bishops given in Dashian’s Caialogue, p. 656 (according to a copy
of the Paris MS), we must give the preference to Caméean’s reading. There is a Gregory
in the List of ArSarunik’ bishops, but this is the famous scholar who participated in the
Council of 726. (834, 5)

27 Roteak = Rostak, was a district of Salamas according to Joh. Kat’., lv, p. 363,
ΟΣ ghagimilp ph Phnnwhwy quionfh f Φ ΡῈ kh Umqudwu, bh whinp

pum p Un puyinnhhs f ++» ”, [Cf. Hiibschmann, Orisnamen, pp. 260-261,
Eremyan, Armenia, p. 63.] (335, 1)

27a [See, Appendix III L, v.]

28 Joh. Kai’., xx, pp. 118-119, * Umdml).-. hin fu hmpgbuy ἐμ Ἡρημειὴπιηπαπι-
[fe fnbh [hninmh ng h phhh mya hngkym pufenn uppayh Dppuaph ”. (886, 2)

29 Mich. Syr., TI, 497; BL, Ὁ. 223; Dashian, Catalogue, p. 768; Caméean, History,
II, p. 398. [See, Appendix III for the texts]. The Syriac version dates the Council
in 1037 of the Greek (1.6. the Seleucid) era, and incorrectly in the 135th rather than the
175th year of the Armenian era; the latter date being the one given in the Armenian
version. Kir. Ganj., [p. 69 = p. 39 of the 1865 Venice edition] gives the year as 156
instead of 175, woh pro mZk [sic]. One of the MSS in Dashian’s Catalogue, Ὁ. 108
gives the date as: “μα miwnl ni” instead of “ yuuh Zuyng wi”. [There
appear to be a number of misprints or confusions in this note: the 1865 Venice edition
of Kirakos gives the date as 155, ‘* --- uli p Luipfup Jpumh h ζβδιηῃ [βπειι δ ἐδ
Uptish f ky fuipfip pitun.h, np μ᾽ ub p WILL pW [. The last number being
in fact the one given by Adontz in Armenian, since & = 5 in the Armenian numerical
system. The critical edition of Kirakos, p. 69, corrects the date to 175 = “+-- uhukwy)
fb o26 fenmbmbfh ..”. Finally the correct symbol for the number 100 in the
Armenian system is 7 and not w, as given by Adoniz.] (337, 1)

30 Theodoros of “ARMN [Wich. Syr., II, p. 497] should be read Theodoros [ostan]
ARMN = “ flummh Ζιμ πη " [Cf. BL, p. 223]. The preceding name is given in the
Armenian version as 2 ui. puly = ARKI-WS, in the Syriac version; might the final ws
of this name = ostan and have been suffixed on Arka by mistake [Cf. Markwart’s
notes to Mich. Syr., II, p. 497.] (337, 2)

31 Step’annos, Incorruptibility, Ὁ. 30, BZunik’, one of the southern districts of Vas-
purakan, was derived from Baz; the mountain district south of Julamerk is still called
Baz, Cuinet, 11, p. 651, and is still inhabited by one of the five autonomous Syrian
tribes named Baz. Both the Armenian form Purdnilf, found in Uxianés, and the
form Podmhf, which reflects the influence of Pybahh < Baz. [See above, n. 32
and Chapter XI, nn. 46, 48, 54-55.) (337, 3)

31a [ Mich. Syr., ΤΙ, p. 497 and notes.]

NOTES: CHAPTER XII 469

31D [On the evolution of the Armenian Church and its relations with Syria up to the
Council of Manazkert, see particularly Ter Minassiantz, Die Armenische Kirche, also
Ormanian, Azgapaium, 1; Honigmann, Hvéchés; Garitte, Narratio, pp. 108 sqq.]

810 [For a discussion of Adontz’s dating and interpretation of the Arabic version,
see, Garitte, Agathange, pp. 351-353, who expresses some reservations as to Adontz’s
conclusions. For the religious situation in Armenia during this period, see the preceding
note; and Goubert, ?’Orient, pp. 211-246; for a more recent review of the material, see van
Esbroeck, Chronique.]

32 “ Letter of Accusation of the Kat’olikos Nersés ’, BL, pp. 70-71. [Cf. Ormanian,
Azgapaium, I, pp. 547-548. ‘* Nestorian” is a term commonly used by Armenian
sources in this period to designate the adherents of the Council of Chalcedon and should

not be taken literally in all cases. See below, τι. 39a.] (339, 1)
32a [BL, Ὁ. 78, see Appendix IIT L, iii.]
33 Tbid., pp. 76-77. (340, 1)

34 Tbid., pp. 78-80,“ δὲ mul ἢ β 5550 pnump Efef mynd Ghumapmlmhp μιπηπιὴρ
hf dkp mefumpdhy phuohkuy, Gh, h ymp qynum fp umpp Ehigkgfhu phyabhp,

pin you fuynpapp. ++ (79). (340, 2)
35 Tbid., pp. 81-84.
35a See above, Chapter X, n. 100. (340, 3)

35b [See, Appendix TJ] K for the various versions of this passage of ‘‘ A gal’angetos”’,
also below τι. 39a on the “‘ Nestorian ” bishops.[

859 [The text does not seem very clear at this point. Adontz himself admitted that
the Arabic version was translated from the Greek, see above τὶ. 15, which is the opinion
accepted by most scholars, it is therefore difficult to see what he intends by “ the Ar-
menian original of the Arabic version’. On the relations of the various versions to
one another, see, Garitte, Agathange, passim, and particularly pp. 260-261, 311-328.
Also, below n. 36.]

35d [Garitte, A gathange, pp. 196-198.]

36 Some of the stylistic characteristics of “ Agat’angelos”’ link it with Koriwn’s
Infe of Si. Mesrop, so that the hypothetical earlier version of the Lafe of St. Gregory
might be attributed to him, but since Koriwn’s work has also suffered alterations through
a curious quirk of fate, its surviving version cannot be considered the original one.
azar Parpeci made extensive use of Koriwn’s work, but evidently in a different redac-
tion, since it is unlikely that he would have altered Koriwn’s style to such an extent
while borrowing entire pages from him. We believe that both these documents: the
Life of St. Gregory and the Lafe of St. Mesrop were linked from the start and suffered
the same vicissitudes. Recently Marr, Christianization, pp. 157, 180 sqq. has presented
an illuminating hypothesis on the existence of a link between Mesrop and the Ife of
St. Gregory, though his presentation of the problem needs some rectification. [On
Marr’s thesis, Cf. Garitte, Agathange, pp. 338-350]. Mesrop’s improvement of the
art of writing in Armenia proved a new and powerful instrument for Christian prosely-
tism. As the continuator of the work of the Illuminator of Armenia, Mesrop was
probably the first to collect hagiographic materials concerning St. Gregory and the
martyred virgins Hrip’simé and Gayané, and to compose a “ Life of St. Gregory ἢ
which is the prototype of the present ‘‘ Agat’angelos’’. Mesrop’s disciple, Koriwn,
made use of his teacher’s works, the Life of Si. Gregory among them, in writing the
biography of his teacher, and this is the fashion in which the points of contact between

470 ΝΟΤΕΝ: CHAPTER XII

the two Lives should be explained. At the turn of the VIth and ὙΠῸ centuries,
Koriwn’s Life of St. Mesrop was rewritten in accordance with the new mood of dogmatic
dissentions which resulted from the altered political situation brought about by the
events of 591. The author of the new version was probably Hznik the Priest, known
to us through a brief work surviving as a supplement to the History of Agat’angelos
in one of the MSS of the Bibliothéque Nationale [Macler, Catalogue, exii, p. 55). This
work is entitled ὁ" Gowhimghp hupymy push fy babhmbh Epfym > in the copy
of MS 51 made by me (edited by Ter Mikaelian as an addendum to Sam. Ant., Ὁ. 266).
[MS, li = cii, cf. Macler, Catalogue, p. 182]. It gives a brief account of the kat’olikoi
and kings of Armenia from Trdat IIT to the pontificate of Komitas 1 [615-628]. Hznik
was Komitas’ contemporary and an eyewitness of the relics of St. Hrip’simé. The
work closes with the words, “fyfgh jpoumml Balinhh f fPupaimhk; yafpu
yuyu” (the next section of the MS is no longer part of Eznik’s work). Abbé Martin
who composed a catalogue of the MS in the bibliothéque Nationale [See, Macler, Cata-
logue, p. xxiv] suggested in his description of MS 5] [= 112] that our version of Agat’-
angelos was the work of Eznik, an opinion shared by Langlois, CHAMA, I, p. 103
* note additionelle”’. Marr, Christianization, Ὁ. 152, rejects this thesis and believes
that Eznik’s colophon refers only to his translation of the Ist of Armenian kat’olikoi
and kings and not to the Life of St. Gregory. The difficulty is that the Ist of kat’ olikoi
can hardly be a translation, so that the words, * let Hznik the translator of this book be
remembered ”, must apply to the work of Agat’angelos. It is, of course, possible that
/@upmimiiky is used here in the wider sense of “ comment, compose (Cf. 8. πη δι τι,
Uufubkmy nuthopti, pp.179sqq.). While altering the work of Agat’angelos,
Eznik likewise retouched the Life of St. Mesrop, which was apparently added as a supple-
ment to that of St. Gregory. The common passages linking Koriwn’s work with the
prologue and epilogue of Agat’angeios are due to Eznik’s pen. Hence we must acknow-
ledge that the Life of Si. Gregory went through three stages and three re-workings:
the first stage belonged to Mesrop-Koriwn, the second to Eznik at the beginning of the
ὙΠ century, and the third, the nationalistic version dates from the early part of
the VilJth century. [On Koriwn and Lazar Parpeci, see, Abefean, 1, pp. 157-176,
325-359.. On the problems of the versions of “ Agat’angelos "ἢ, see above, nn. 810, 35a-d,
and Chapter X, n. 89a. Garitte, ἐμός ὦ, PP. | 50, 254-277, On Hznik, see also Adontz’s
later work, Nsanagir.] ὃ. (341, 1)

36a [Koriwn, X, 2, p. 30, and 90 n. 39.]

87 Joh, Hph., 11, xvii-xxix, pp. 57-64. [Cf Stein, Studien, pp. 23-24; Grousset,

Arménie, pp. 292-294. Garitte, Narratio, pp. 175-225, 225-254.] (348, 1)
. 38 Sebéos, iii, pp. 836 sqq. [Cf. Goubert, ?’Orient, pp. 191 Βα. ᾿ (843, 2)

39 Diegesis, according to my own copy made from the Codex Parisinus 900, fol. 144.
[Cf. Garitte, Narratio, ci-cvi, pp. 40-41, 242-246.] (344, 1)

39a [There seems to be some confusion or lack of clarity at this point. Already earlier,
in his discussion of the Council of Dwin of 555 (see above, τι. 32) Adontz seemed to take
the term ‘“* Nestorian ” found in the Armenian sources too literally. From the Vith
century on, this term is commonly used by the adherents of the Armenian Apostolic
Church as a pejorative synonym for the partisans of the Council of Chalcedon, and not
in the strict sense. Insofar as the Chalcedonians had accepted the Council of Ephesus I,
they had undoubtedly condemned Nestorianism, but in the eyes of their Armenian
contemporaries they had fallen back into the same heresy. While Nestorians were

NOTES : CHAPTER XII 47]

indeed to be found both in Syria and in the southern districts of Armenia, the particular
Syrians who appealed to Kat’otikos Nersés 11 in 555 represented the opposite extreme
on their dogmatic position and seem to have been advocates of the beliefs of Julian of
Halicarnassus. Consequently, their influence could hardly have pushed their neigh-
bours, the south Armenian bishops into the rival Nestorian camp, as Adontz seems to
be arguing. Finally, the creation of a Chaleedonian patriarchate in Armenia during
the reign of Maurice can hardly be taken as the work of the “ national party ”’, the
precise reverse being in fact the case, with the ‘‘ uniate ” Chalcedonian patriarch John
of Bagaran considered a heretic and rejected by the national Church. Cf. Ormanian,
Azgapatum, I, pp. 577-579. Garitte, Narratio, pp. 130, 144 sqq., 246-253 εἰ passim.]
39> [On the early Armenian Chureh see, Ormanian, Azgapaium, I. Ter Minassiantz,
Die armenische Kirche. Ter Mikaelian, Die armenische Kirche. Markwart,.Die Ent-
stehung. Peeter, Recherches, 1. Garitte, Agathange and WNarratio. Honigmann’s
articles on the Conciliar Lists should likewise be consulted for early Armenian eccle-
siastical prosopography, and on the Council of Chalcedon, Sarkissian, Chalcedon. ]

40 FB, IV, iii. (345, 1)

41 [FB, VI, ii-xv], Cf. Mx, ITI, Ixv. (845, 2)

41a [For a recent review of the question of the apostolic mission n of Thaddeus-and
Bartholomew in Armenia, see, van Esbroeck, Chronique, pp. 425-432. See also Duval,
Eidesse; Hayes, Hdesse; Sarkissian, Chalcedon, Ὁ. 76 and n. 2; Vodbus, Syrian Asceticism,
pp. 31-61.)

42 Huseb. Caes., HH, VI, xlvi, 2 [L. 11, 128|9], “... καὶ τοῖς κατὰ “Appeviay
ὡσαύτως περὶ μετανοίας ἐπιστέλλει ὧν ἐπεσκόπευς Mepovlarvns”’. [See below, Chapter
XIV, nn. 49, 51.] (347, 1)

42a [Gelzer, Anfainge, Ὁ. 172.]

43 Gutschmid, Kénig. Osrohene, p.16. [Duval, Hdesse; Hayes, Hdesse; Tournebize,

Arménie, pp. 36, 48; Ter Minassianz, Die armenische Kirchen, pp. 2-3.] _ (847, 2)
44 FB, III, iv, “+++ ap funy hf ἠϊπη διε ἧμι any? es ale [See above
aa: XI n. 47 and Appendix TIT Κι (348,1)

448 ΓΡῚῈ, III, xiv. Ter Minassiantz, Die armenische Kirche; Ὁ pp. 5 sqq.]
45 Cass. Dio, Ixxviii, 12 [L. IX, 304/5}. [C/. Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 284 Marieq,

Caracalla}. . (849, 1)
46 Harnack, Wission, ΤΙ, p. 163. (350, 1)
4? Harnack, Mission, Ὁ. 166. (350, 2)
47a [Cf. however, Ananian, La Daia.]

48 FB, III, ii, xi, xii. [Cf. Peeters, Intervention, pp. 237 sqq.] (851, 1)
49 See above τι. 44a, (851, 2)

49a [FB, Ill, xvi, “+++ ηφιιπ πῆι kply, fb qonwnbh Swpohny--.”. Ibid.
il: svi, ++ Gurduihh... ΠΣ, Ympnigh Punkhuy ” On the two foci of
Armenian Christianity in the IVth century, see Ter Minassianz, Die armenische Kirche,
pp. 4-29; Conybeare, Key of Truth, pp. cx-exvi; Peeters, Alphabet and Intervention;
Garitte, Narratio, pp. 59-61, 420-421; Sarkissian, Chalcedon, pp. 80 sqq.]

50 Might the so-called ‘“‘ Danielian 5 characters [Koriwn, vi, pp. 16-17] be associated
with the name of this missionary? Just as Mesrop, the representative of Greek Chris-
tianity in Armenia, concerned himself with the improvement of the written language,
for the purpose of proselytism, so the representative of Syriac Christianity. must have
been concerned with the self-same problems. It is very likely that it was Daniél who

472 NOTES : CHAPTER XII

adapted the Syriac characters to Armenian, though they were soon abandoned as
unsuitable. Then, with the re-awakening of interest in this script, the name of its
creator was again remembered. Since there is much that is legendary in the account
of the invention of the Armenian alphabet, it is not surprising that Daniél should be
described as a contemporary of Mesrop living somewhere in Mesopotamia. There
would have been no reason for a Syrian bishop to have preserved the Armenian alphabet.
[See Adontz’s later work on this subject, Wastoc, also Markwart, Armenischen Alphabet ;
Peeters, L’ Alphabet; Sarkissian, Chalcedon, pp. 85-97; van Esbroeck, Chronique, pp. 435
sqq.] (851, 3)
50a [There is no evidence that Daniél belonged to the house of Atbianos of Manazkert.
The claim is made for Yusik, Zawén, Sahak and others. See, Garitte, Narratio, pp. 418-
421, 425), but Faustus specifies that Daniél was a Syrian by birth, FB, ITI, xiv, * δὲ kin
um “bubbly; mqgun munpf”. Cf. Ter Minassiantz, Die armenische Kirche, pp. 5-8,
13-17. Sarkissian, Chalcedon, p. 83 and n. 2.] .
51 MX, 1, Ixxiv, “hh mh wukh qyqm|e fib Hon uppny h keh Lmumnapsph :
Y wah ΠΠΠῚ| h δ πῃ βὶ! Unum phjnj obinpdh phhujkmy, np win 4 hgo mn ΠῚ} ban.
finphi gy pibpnfefh fun, ghaphh by hy gdnghap dswhmfebobth wml
fp”. ZG, p. 21. (352, 1)
52 FB, IV, xi. (352, 2)
53 Jbid., IV, xv. [As in the case of Daniél (see above τι. 50a), there is no reason for
associating Cunak with the house of the bishop of Manazkert; Faustus makes it amply
clear that Cunak was not a man who could boast of his noble lineage, *--- Qaihwl nifi
winds uapml fp πιπμπιίμμη uppmbfh”. Cf. Ananian, La Data, pp. 356,

359-360. ] (353, 1)
54 FB, VI, i. (353, 2)
55 JTbid., V, xxxil. (353, 3)
58 Tiid., V, xxix. [See above τι. 50a.] (853, 4)

5? [Ibdid., VI, ii-iv] Sahak is called Ynpo6buyy. If this reading is correct, Sahak must
previously have been bishop of Koréék’. It is more than likely that he too was from
the house of Albianos. [See above n. 50a, also Ananian, La Daia, Ὁ. 360.] (353, 5)

5?a [Though occasionally oversimplified or overstated, Adontz’s thesis of the alter-
nation of two parties in the Armenian Church during the [Vth century: Syrian-Greek,
Sasanian-Byzantine, Albianid-Gregorid, is both illuminating and borne out by the
sources, a8 I hope to show in my forthcoming study on Armenia in the Fourth Century.
Cf. Sarkissian, Chalcedon, Ὁ. 80 and τ. 1 et sqq.]

57b [On the organization of the Church atthe time of the Council of Nicaea I, see,
Fliche-Martin, pp. 437 sqq.; Dvornik, A posiolicity, pp. 3-38 ; Jones LRE, ΤΙ, pp. 873 sqq.]

5?e [ Jones, LRH, 1, p. 47.)

57d [Cf. Dvornik, Aposiolicity, pp. 17-18.]

58 [ Mansi, ITI, col. 560]. BeneSevié, Syntagma, Ὁ. 96,

** Τοὺς ὑπὲρ διοίκησιν ἐπισκόπους ταῖς ὑπερορίοις ἐκκλησίαις μὴ ἐπιέναι, μηδὲ συγχέειν
τὰς ἐκλησίας" ἀλλὰ κατὰ τοὺς κανόνας τὸν μὲν ᾿Αλεξανδρείας ἐπίσκοπον τα ἐν ᾿Διγύπτῳ μόνον
οἰκονομεῖν, τοὺς δὲ τῆς ἄνατολῆς ἐπισκόπους τὴν ἀνατολὴν μόνην διοικεῖν, φυλαττομένων
τῶν ἐν τοῖς κανόνι τοῖς κατὰ Nixaiay πρεσβείων τῇ ᾿Αντιοχέων ἐκκλησί ᾷ, καὶ τοὺς τῆς ᾿Αἰσιανῆς
διοικήσεως ἐπισκόπους τὰ κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ασίαν μόνην οἰκονομεῖν, καὶ τοὺς τῆς Ποντικῆς τὰ τῆς
Ποντικῆς μόνον, καὶ τοὺς τῆς Θράκης τὰ τῆς Θράκης μόνον οἰκονομεῖν ”’. (355, 1)

59 [Manst, II, col. 669 sqq.] = Benesevit, Syntagma, p. 86,

NOTES: CHAPTER XII 473

* Τὰ ἀρχαῖα ἔθη κρατείτω, τὰ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ Διβύῃ καὶ [Πενταπόλει, ὥστε τὸν ᾿Αλεξαν-
>? 2 4 wv AY 3 ? 3 A 1 ma 3 e 4 3. } “-Ἠ
δρείας ἐπίσκοπον πάντων τούτων ἔχειν τὴν ἐξουσίαν, ἐπειδὴ καὶ τῷ ἐν “Ῥώμῃ ἐπίσκοπῳ τοῦτο

2.22. 2 ᾿ , \ ἢ Yo. 2 2 2 a, 3 3 ἢ ᾿ a
συνύηθές ἐστιν" vopoiws δὲ καὶ κατὰ τὴν ᾿Αντιόχειαν Kal ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις ἐπαρχίαις, τὰ πρεσβεῖα

σώζεσθαι ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις ᾿ἢ. (356, 1)
60 Markwart, Siaaisverwaliung, I, p. 322. [Seston, Diocletien, pp. 294-351 et al.].
(356, 2)

60a [Cf. Dvornik, Aposiolictiy, pp. 6 sqq.; Jones, LRE ΤΙ, 883 sqq.]
60b [Ibid., pp. 11-15.]
61 Mansi, VII, col. 428 = A.C.O., II, i, 3, p. 88 sqq.
δ ως Kal τοὺς THs IDovriunns καὶ τῆς ᾿Ασιανῃς καὶ τῆς Θρᾳκικῆς διοικήσεως μετροπολίτας
μόνους, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τοὺς ᾽ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖς ἐπισκόπους τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων χειροτο-
νεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ προειρημένου ἀγιωτάτου θρόνου τῆς κατὰ Κωνοταντινούπολιν ἁγιωτάτης
ἐκκλησίας, δηλαδὴ ἑκάστου μητροπολίτου τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων μετὰ τῶν τῆς ἐπαρχίας
ἐπισκόπων χειροτονοῦντος τοὺς τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπους, καθὼς τοῖς θείοις κανόσι διηγόρευται"
χειροτονεῖσθαι δὲ καθὼς εἴρηται, τοὺς μητροπολίτας τῶν πτοειρημένων διοικήσεων παρὰ τοῦ
ΪΚονσοταντινουπόλεως ἀρχιεπισκόπου ψηφισμάτων συμφώνων κατὰ τὸ ἔθος γινομένων καὶ
ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν ἀναφερομένων ”. [Cf. Dvornik, Aposiolicity, p. 82 sqq.] (358, 1)

61a [There must be some misunderstanding here, the patriarch John the Faster was
not a contemporary of Justinian but of Maurice, he occupied the patriarchal throne
from 582 to 595 and took the title of Gcumenical patriarch ca. 587, though the title had
been in sporadic use before. The patriarch of Constantinople in 558 was Eutychius.
See, Daniélou-Marrou, ΝῊ, I, p. 441; CMH, IV, 1, p. 800; Grumel, Regesies, I, celxiv,
p. 105, οὐ al.)

62 See above Ὁ. p. 72-74 for the residences of these metropolitans. The ecclesiastical
divisions of Armenia were not altered by Justinian, see above p. 73. (360, 1)

68 Gelas. Cyz., p. 1310 gives the following provinces as being under the jurisdiction
of the bishop of Caesarea, "Πόντον Πολεμαΐκον, ᾿Αρμενίαν μικρὰν καὶ μεγάλην ᾽΄. (860, 2)

64 PB, V, xxix, “δὲ fppu wyu ἡξὸ qupholnp, quot Ebay ζμι}---
puykinfh Qaumpm yun pobfe mponphh, ἄς byby Pnym buyfulnynumgh
ufrbdagnuph ἱμαζια δα β YGauupo wnubg 4m jpn Ein [ἢ]... h gpkg ph βπιῃβ
mn [θιπιμπμὴ Quy, bh πιὸ θὲ gpofumhm|efbh ἐμ [ζθπη βήπηπι θ τπιδι. gh
ap {{{} ζιμμμιμη τι Ζα πη. bo ἡπιιδ mppmbf pofukugl gduagh opfhky.
huh pofukugl dhnhugn ky qghypuhamnah Ζιι!πη, πρηξη ππήπηπι δ fot ἐμ p pht :
δι μη δὴ Link ΓΙΌΣ pofuubarfe fab Zujny qkuypfulpuynuh dbnhiunpby.
my, ap [Pak ph πη με με πίη παρ wibby qgenmawyg gong Zujny ἐν ἡπηδιηδη,
ἠπηδιιδιη, mpindbh μα Limi ap ἐἤμεδημ ἣ | pif μὰ ἐπ μα πίη παρ unlin—
hugh Zujnq, δρίθα μὰ fp pagum ρὲ ybuupmging, h why 1 potph buyfulnynnp :
Yuh gf με! π ἢ Lint μαμὰ, fofumtime fh pkplpth 2ujyng, mpimdimbs ng
fofuk fi Eupulnynup dabnhugpky, puyg op ppitp mig bypuhaynangh, ἢ
YEpmy opp bumkp, bh dug opfhty fPmyuanpugh ». (362, 1)

65 St. Basil, Hp., xcix [L. 11, 170/1-182/3], exx-exxii [L. IV, 244/5-252/3]. Note
p. 248 τι. 2, that the editor seems to have mistaken the proper name, Pap, for the title,
pope]. Gelzer, Anfinge, Ὁ. 159. (862, 2)

65a PB, IV, ui; Vi, v.]

65d [Cf. Garitte, Narratio, pp. 56-57.]

66 See above, Chapter 11, n. 22. (363, 1)

66a [On Nisibis and Amida, see, Duval, Hdesse, pp. 138-146; Peeters, Legende; Voddbus,
Syrian Asceticism, I, pp. 142-143.]

474 NOTES : CHAPTER XII

87 Mansi, IX, 391, ‘* Gregorius ... ep. Iustinianopolitanorum civitatis magnae Ar-

meniae”’, Jbid., p. 191, the name of the same personage is given as “ Georgius ”’.
(363, 2)

68 Mov. Katank., p. 212. (364, 1)

68a [Koriwn, xiv, p.38, “++ quwmmulmh δ με ἠ πιηπεΐ epImbwy, opal
minh ἠπαίμ Dplife, ---”, of. p. 97 n. 68. Garitte, Agathange, p. 209.]

69 On Theodore, see above, Chapter VI n. 53. On George, see above, Chapter 11]
n. 20, also, Mansi, XI, pp. 613, 993. On Marianos, Jbid., p. 1005, “ὁ Mapiavos ἄναξ ern.
Κιθαρίζων τῆς πρώτης (se. τεττάρτης A pro 4) τῶν "Appeviwy éemapxias”’. [Cf. Garitte,
Agathange, pp. 209, 212-213.] (364, 2)

69a [See above τι. 64.]

70 MX, II, lxv. Tov. Arc. 1, xi, p.74, “ ἰλίμμιππηβ qopruifm phi Sniimg
ηζιιπιὴ oniti Ὠπιἠπόμῃβ haga Soup yulog δι μμὴπιηπμι ἐπ. bh
“ἐμ πη δ ἢ ἐκ]. bh sinfeimy Eph pp Zujyny hwy wiapupwhafebaip, | fh
whhupynfeimip”. (3y5, 1)

70a [See above τι. 64.]

71 Mansi, ΤΙ, 669, “"᾿Επίσκοπον προσήκει μάλιστα μὲν ὑπὸ πάντων τῶν ἐν τῇ ἐπαρχίᾳ
καθίστασθαι: εἰ δὲ δυσχερὲς εἴη τὸ τοιοῦτον, ἢ διὰ κατεπείγουσαν ἀνάγκὴν ἢ διὰ μῆκος
ὁδοῦ, ἐξάπαντος τρεῖς ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συναγομένους. συμψήφων γινομένων τῶν ἀπόντων καὶ
συντιθεμένων διὰ γραμμάτων, τότε τὴν χειροτονίαν ποιεῖσθαι. τὸ δὲ κῦρος τῶν γινομένων
διδόσθαι καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἐπαρχίαν τῷ μετροπολίτῃ ᾿. [Cf. Dvornik, Avposiolicity, p. 6.
Jones, LRH, ΤΙ, p. 880.] (865, 2)

72 PB, IV, xv. (366, 1)

722 [This conclusion cannot be reconciled with the evidence of the sources on the
presence of other bishops in Armenia, and particularly with the list of Gregorid consecra-
tions given in the various versions of ‘* Agat’angelos’’ some of whom, e.g. Aibianos
of Manazkert are authentic [Vth century figures. Cf. above nn. l4a-b. If the Ar-
menian hierarchy was still almost inexistent in the Kat’olikosate of Nersés I, who would
have been the dignitaries summoned by him to the first Council of AStiSat c. 365? Cf.
FB, ΤΥ, iv, “ Ge fiph[Géputul ... ὁπηπή ἐμ mn piph qudbbujh buy pulyn-
nun 2mjny wip fumip§ pl : daqmiiguh fp ahah Upin foun, nip gun 9 filrh
gkhkgighh tp spbkmy. gh fu fp doyp Ghegbgboagh, ho mkgh poop ἧμι[ι-
bimgh dnym[ag ufubdngnuph : ἢ Anam! ζιμεμι πε [δ βε bhi) wilbbbyns,
h [ιπμζπιμη pubkiug f ἡ 9 uphmbk hh, humnmpky ΠΣ iy en [μμμζμι ἢ aah
Japan Ehbybyingh h Anymfh funn Sununu pn [9 bah ἢ Of. Garitte,
Narratio, pp. 99 sqq. |

73 Ibid., V, xxi, “ γιμη ἥμι ἢ Π|ὴ qhupyu uy mpmoht hy. h με ήδη ἢ1---
Luin hmgnyy nkumi su fu fulnynun ἢ, JIbid., V, xxxi, *“ ny unin fan fupyhs
Eypuhayoumg podkboyh gown fojog pordwfulp pon mpdubp fupbuby”.

(366, 2)
74 Ibid., V, xlii, “ paribus ph Huw ΠῚ] hugnigwhtn U mink) fru Gan bina bh
nfupu Roun Bun”, (366, 8)

75 The Greeks used this argument against the Armenians in the period of intensified
ecclesiastical controversies. According to the famed learned monk Solomon cited by Mov.
Katank., 11, xlviii, p. 309, 312 the Greeks pointed out that the ecclesiastical hierarchy
should comprise nine degrees; namely, “ Qwunpfmpg op f 4aypuybin h wp phy hull

ayn ap hash δι βμμὴπιηπμμηη πιπ ἐκ ἐμ πη μή πα, dhmnpayny fn A Guy [μιΐπιηπι,

NOTES; CHAPTER XII 475
puduhmy, uaphonmg, bonmphoimg, phfékpgag, kh sump -.-”. and said,
“AOL ap diumfebutp Sammyp, fonmanjah jkpmp, Gf mi £ wimnp-
pupal dbp”. They asked which of the four original patriarchs had had -jurisdiction
over Armenia, since Gregory had been consecrated at Caesarea merely as archbishop.
Influenced by theses arguments, and “++. Yuu dhdmpuimfebmh Θπιΐμπης.
ap iin ppl gmbh, δϑιημ hh ahmypy fmbiquin ἐπα fountnuf nim ΤΩΝ
oan; byfalawnummyhm hb ἡϊειπμπιηπ) fm. ”. Idem, the Armenians attempted
to fill in the missing degrees and pointed to the bishops of Mardpetakan and
subsequently of Siwnik’ as metropolitans. According to another source, the Arme-
nian kat’olikos was considered to be a patriarch, the kat’otikos of Albania was an
archbishop, and the bishops of Siwnik’, Iberia and Mardpetakan, simple bishops.
Joh. Kat’, xii, pp. 62-63. Steph. Ord., vi, I, pp. 60-63. [See also next note}. (867, 1)

78 In the Armenian translation of the Canons of the Council of Nicaea, the word
μητροπολίτης is translated ἐμ θ πη flu cf. Melik’-Tangean, Canon Law, Ὁ. 256. In
FB, IV, iv, bishop Eusebius of Caesarea who consecrated NersésI is called “ 4m /¢ngf-
hnumy hu feng phan * which corresponds to the title metropolitan of metropolitans,
which was in fact the position of the bishop of Caesarea. Scholars believe that the term
καθόλικος was originally used to designate a financial official, and was only subsequently
used to designate the heads of the Armenian, Iberian, and Syrian Churches, Gelzer,
Anfinge, p. 139, Intiéean, Antiquities, ITI, Ὁ. 251. Procopius, Pers., 11, xxv, 4 [L. I,
480/1] understands this title literally, “‘ τόν τε τῶν χριστιανῶν ἱερέα Καθολικὸν καλοῦσι τῇ
"Ελλήνων φωνῇ, ὅτι δὴ ἐφέστηκεν εἰς ὧν ἅπασι τοῖς ταύτῃ χωρίοις ᾿. It is altogether
possible that the title καθόλικος for καθόλικος ἐπίσκοπος was the original title of the
chief bishop of an eparchy, who was later called ἐπίσκοπος μητροπολίτης, because he
resided in the metropolis of the eparchy. [ΟἿ above τι. 65b. Also, Kogean, Armenian
Church, pp. 109-112, and van Esbroeck, Chronique, Ὁ. 435.] (367, 2)

7? See above n. θά. (368, 1)

78 Manst, XI, 957/8-959/60 * ᾿Εἰπειδήπερ ἔγνωμεν ἐν τῇ ᾿Αρμενίων χώρᾳ μόνους ἐν κλήρῳ
τοὺς ἐκ γένους ἱερατικοῦ κατατάττεσθαι ἰουδαϊκοῖς ἔθεσιν ἑπομένων τῶν τοῦτο πράττειν ἐπιχει-
ρούντων, τινας δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ μὴ ἀποκειρομένους ἱεροψάλτας καὶ ἀναγνώστας τοῦ θείου νόμου
καθίστασθαι, συνείδομεν, ὥστε ἄπο τοῦ νῦν μὴ ἐξεῖναι τοῖς εἰς κλῆρον βουλομένοις προάγειν
τινας εἰς τὸ γένος ἀποβλέπειν τοῦ προχειριζομένου, ἀλλὰ δοκιμάζοντες, εἰ ἄξιοι εἶεν κατὰ τοὺς
τεθέντας ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς κανόσιν ὅρους ἐν κλήρῳ καταλεγῆναι, τούτους ἐκκλησιαστικῶς προχειρί-
ἕεσθαι, εἴτε καὶ ἐκ προγόνων γεγόνασιν ἱερέων εἴτε καὶ μὴ ἢ. (368, 2)

79 Gelzer, Anfinge, Ὁ. 140, also mentions Judaizing independently of the Council
in Trullo, ** ... der Katholikat hat thatsichlich wenig Aehnlichkeit mit dem christlichen
Episcopat, sondern erinnert vielfach an jiidische und heidnische Vorbilder. Dahin
gehért vor allem die Erblichkeit des Hohenpriesteramtes”. This characteristic was
due to the influence of naxarar practices and not to Judaising tendencies as was believed
by this scholar followed by Weber, Katholische Kirche, Ὁ. 218. (369, 1)

80 ZP’, Ixii, p. 354, [Cf Garitte, Nerratio, pp. 99-100, 422-427.) (369, 2)

80a FWhile there is no doubt that the Mamikonean bishop played an important part
in the Council of Dwin of 555, and he signs the Acts of the Council of 505 immediately
after the kat’olikos, the precise status of the bishops does not seem to have been rigo-
rously fixed in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. In the listing of the bishops at the Council
of 450, the second place is given to the bishop of Siwnik’, while the Mamikonean bishop

470 NOTES : CHAPTER XII

of Tar6n is found in fourth place. On the other hand, the bishop of Siwnik’ has dropped
to ninth place at the Council of 555. [See, Appendix III L, iii]. Nevertheless, there
seems to be no question but that the great houses had their own bishops who shared
in their prestige. ]

NOTES : CHAPTER XIII 477

CHAPTER XITT

8 [For a critique of this entire section of Adontz’s work, see Toumanoff, Studies, i,
particularly p. 70 n. 76. On the Iranian social structure, see, Benveniste, Les classes
sociales; Ehtecham, L’Jran; Christensen, ** Introduction ” et passim; Frye, Persia,
pp. 49-52, ete. For a summary of Dumezil’s controversial thesis, see, his Jdéologie
iripartite, and for his application thereof to Iran, his Natssance d’archanges. See also
the bibliographical and historical references in Duchesne-Guillemin, Religion. Many of
Adontz’s Iranian transcriptions and a number of his interpretations are now out of date
and should be checked against recent scholarship.]

1 Montesquieu, De Pesprit des lois, XXX, i, ΤΙ, p. 249, “ C’est un beau spectacle que
celui des lois féodales. Un chéne antique s’éléve; lceil en voit de loin les feuillages;
il s’approche, il en voit la tige; mais il n’en apercoit point les racines : il faut percer la
terre pour les trouver ” (373, 1)

2 Kuhn, Vesfissung, ** Forword ”, p. ix, “* Das rémische Reich ist zu denken als aus
Stadte bestehend, welche der Kaiser beherrscht”’. On the other hand, Spiegel, on of
the specialists on Iran, insists, Jranische Stammverfassung, Ὁ. 685, that “ die Verfassung
der alten Perser und des alten Irans iiberhaupt eine Stammesverfassung war’’. (873, 2)

2a [TEhtécham, L’lran, Ὁ. 18, “ Les Iraniens, bien avant leur séparation des branches
indo-européennes, c’est-3-dire antérieurement ἃ la fondation de ]’Empire des Achémé-
nides, ont constitué une société patriarcale du type gentilice”. Christensen, p. 15,
** Les Iraniens ont formés dés les temps les plus anciens, une société patriarcale ....
Dans l’Iran occidental, la base patriarcale de la société se cache en partie sous une surface
empreinte de civilisation babylonienne .... Mais Vorganisation patriarcale n’avait
jamais cessé d’exister”. Ibid., p. 17, “*... le royaume des Arsacides, malgré son vernis
hellénique, est réellement d’un iranisme plus pur que celui des Achéménides μος. Avec
cette pré-dominance des Jraniens septentrionaux l’ancien régime patriarcal reprend
vigueur. La notion de la filiation généalogique de la société s’est conservée pendant
bien des siécles, méme aprés Ja chute de ’empire des Sassanides, dans la communauté
zoroastrienne ”’.]

3 Weissbach, Ketlinschrifien, I, xii, p. 14/5 [Kent, Old Persian, pp. 117, 120, “ Oatiy:
Darayavaus: xS8aya Biya: aita: ySacam: tya: Gaumata: hya: magus: adinad: Kabtijiyam:
aita: xSacam: hac&: paruviyata: amayam: taumaya ... Saith Darius the King: This
kingdom which Gaumata the Magian took away from Cambyses, this kingdom from
long ago had belonged to our family”’]. Weissbach, Keilinschrifien, I, xiv, p. 14/5.
[Kent, Old Persian, pp. 118, 120, “ Oatiy: Darayavaus: ySaya Biya: ySacam: tya: haca:.
amayam: ta umaya: parabartam: ... Saith Darius the King: The kingdom which had
been taken away from our family, that I put in its place: I reestablished it on its foun-
dation”’], Darius characterizes his reign as follows, Weissbach, Ketlinschrifien, IV,
IV, LXII, p. 28/9 [Kent, Old Persian, pp. 129, 132, “ batiy: Darayavaus: xSaya Giya:
avahyaradty: Auramazda: upastim: abara: uta&: aniyaha: baga&ha: tyaiy: hatiy: yaba:
naiy: arika: Aham: naiy: draujana: &ham: naiy: zirakara: dham: αὶ: adam: naimaiy:
taumad: upariy: arstam: upariyayam: naiy: Skaurim: naiy: twnuvatam: ziira: akunavam:
martiya: hya: hamataySata: mana: vi diya: avam: ubartam: abaram: hya: viyana faya:
avam: ufrastam: aparsam: ... Saith Darius the King: For this reason Ahuramazda bore
aid, and the other gods who are, because J was not hostile, I was not a Lie-follower,
I was not a doer of wrong — Neither I nor my family. According to righteousness

418 NOTES : CHAPTER XIII

I conducted myself. Neither to the weak nor to the powerful did I do wrong. The
man who co-operated with my house, him I rewarded well; whoso did injury, him I
punished well”. Cf. Frye, Persia, iii, pp. 83 sqq. etc.] (374, 1)

4 Sirabo, XV, ii, 2 [L. VII, 1667], “ of yap Πέρσαι κρατήσαντες ήδων καὶ ὁ Κῦρος,
ων ἐνταῦθα [Aovais] ἔθεντο τὸ τῆς ἡγεμονίας βασίλειον" ἅμα καὶ τὸ ὅμορον τῆς χώρας ἀποδε-
ξάμενοι καὶ τὸ ἀξίωμα τῆς πόλεως καὶ κρεῖττον τὸ μηδέποτε καθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν τὴν Ζουσίδα
πραγμάτων μεγάλων ἐπήβολον γεγονέναι, ἀλλ᾽ ἀεὶ ὑφ᾽ ἑτέροις ὑπάρξαι καὶ ἐν μέρει τετάχθαι
συστήματος μείζονος, πλὴν εἰ ἄρα τὸ παλαιὸν τὸ κατὰ τοὺς ἥρωας ᾿. The Persians
shifted their capital to Susa so that the Susians should not plot to defect, but rather
remained within the great confederation and not as they had lived in heroic times.
[Adontz translates “σύστημα μεῖζον "ἡ as “ great confederation”, whereas Jones,
L. VII, p. 157 gives “larger organization”. Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 36-37.] (374, 2)

4a [This interpretation is questionable. See Kent, Old Persian, p. 190, dahyu, dasyu.]

5 Weissbach, Keilinschrifien, pp. 44/5, 40/1, 42/8 [Kent, Old Persian, pp. 137,
148-149, 152-153, 190, 211. See also above τι. a, and below n. 8.] (875, 1)

5a [Ehtécham, L’Iran, pp. 24-25, 40-41, 91 sqq., 110 sqq. Frye, Persia, pp. 66, 70-71,
90 sqq.]

8 Herod., I, 125 [L. 1, 164/5], “ ἔστι δὲ Περσέων συχνὰ γένεα, ... ἔστι δὲ τάδε, ἐξ ὧν
ὦλλοι πάντες ἀρτέαται Πέρσαι, Lacapydda. αράφιοι άσπιοι. τούτων ΠΠασαργάδαι
ἄριστοι, ἐν τοῖσι καὶ ᾿Αχαιμενίϑαι εἰσὶ φρήτρη, ἔνθεν οἱ βασιλέες οἱ Περσεῖδαι γεγόνασι,ἄλλοι δὲ
Πέρσαι εἰσὶ οἵδε, Πανθιαλαῖοι Anpovarato. Γερμάνιοι. οὗτοι μὲν πάντες ἀροτῆρες εἰσί, οἱ
δὲ ἄλλοι νομάδες, Ado. άρδοι Apomxoi Σαγάρτιοι᾽. Ibid., I, 101 [L. I, 1525], “" ἔστι
δὲ Μήδων τοσάδε γένεα, Βοῦσαι Παρητακηνοὶ Στρούχατες ᾿Αἰριξαντοὶ Βούδιοι Μαγοι. γένεα
μὲν δὴ Μήδων ἐστὶ τοσάδε ᾽", (876, 1)

6a [Ehtécham, L’lran, pp. 20 sqq., 26, 39. Frye, Persia, p. 50 table.]

7 Weissbach, Ketlinschriften, ITI, xl; JI, xxiv. [Kent, Old Persian, pp. 123-124,
126-127. Weissbach, p. 23 translates ‘‘ das persische Volk das im Palaste war’’,
whereas Kent, p. 127 gives, “the Persian army which (was) in the palace” the same
translations are given for the Medes. Cf. Kent, pp. 179-180, 208; Ehtécham, L’lran,
p. 63 n. 5.] Note likewise that the entire Median people is called sara while the dynasty
of Cyaxares is called tawma [“‘ UvaxStrahya: taumaya”’, Kent, p.121. Cf. Frye,
Persia, pp. 91, 103). (376, 2)

8 These terms are often found in Avestic literature, the most valuable passage is
in Yasna, XIX, 18, where the answer to the question ** Who are the lords? ” lists four,
and a fifth who is Zara @ustra, “kaya ratavo, nmanyd, visy6, zantums6, danhyumd
Zara dustro puxto”’. ᾿ Yasna, IX, 27 gives the synonyms: Nm&nopaiti, vispaiti, zantu-
paiti, danhupaiti, spanatha vaedyapaiti. The last term ‘‘ head of the religion” =
Zara Gustra.

tauma zend. taoyman, “family, offspring, kinship” skt. iakman, gk. τέκνον
* child ”, τοκεύς ‘* parent ”’.
zantu, skt. janiu, lat. gen<ts>s, gk. γένος, arm. Oph, jan, zan, whence also
zant, arm. Liu —y hn.
nmana, O.P. manya < man.
vi 8, skt. ves-as, vis, lat. vic-us, gk. οἶκος = οἶκος, slav. Opcb.
danhu, skt. dasi, pers. deh.
[Cf. Kent, Old Persian, pp. 185 and 218, 211, 202 ‘‘ maéniya”, 208, 190 “‘ dahyu”’.
Markwart, Hran., pp. 122-124; Ehtécham, L’lran, pp. 40-41, ete.] (377, 1)
9 For example in Darius’ inscription, 779 is used as a terminus geniis, ‘* vidam:

NOTES: CHAPTER XIII 479

tyim: amayam: g& ava: avastayam ...”’, “1 reestablished our royal house on its foun-
dation as (it was) before’. [Kent, Old Persian, pp. 118, 120.] (378, 1)

10 Weissbach, Ketlinschriften, p.34 [Kent, Old Persian, pp. 135-136. Ehtécham,

L’Iran, Ὁ. 21 and n. 3. Frye, Persia, pp. 18, 51-52. This interpretation is doubtful.]
(378, 2)

11 Xen. Cyrop., I, ii, 3-15 [L. I, 10/1-24/5]. See, Appendix IJ for the text. (380, 1)

12 The word sabha has survived in German in the form sippe meaning “kin” a
semantic change showing that the sabha was an assembly of groups of kinsmen. [C/f.
Vernadsky, G., Kievan Russia (New Haven, 1948), p. 134. The form abzcaris is proble-
matic. See, Kent, Old Persian, p. 68.] (881, 1)

13 Xen. Cyrop., II, i, 14 [L. I, 1423], * ἐν μὲν τῇ πατρίδι οὐ μετείχετε τῶν ἴσων ἡμῖν,
οὐχ ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἀπελαθέντες ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ τοῦ τἀπιτήδεια ἀνάγκην ὑμῖν εἶναι πορίζεσθαι ”’. (382, 1)

14 Τρ1ά., ΤΊ, i, 2 [L. I, 182/3-134/5] “ ... Cyaxares asked Cyrus how large the army
was that he was bringing.

‘ Thirty thousand ’, he answered, ‘ of such as have come to you before as mercenaries;
but others also, of the peers [ὁμότιμοι], who have never before left their country, are
coming ἢ.

‘About how many?’ asked Cyaxares.

* The number ’, said Cyrus, ‘ would give you no pleasure, if you were to hear it; but
bear this in mind, that though the so-called peers are few, they easily rule the rest of
the Persians, many though they be’. [ οὗτοι of ὁμότιμοι καλούμενοι πολλῶν ὄντων THY
ἄλλων Περσῶν ῥᾳδίως ἄρχουσιν ᾽Ἶ.

Ibid., I, v, ὅ [L. I, 78/9] * ... Cyrus had by this time completed his ten years among the
youths also and was now in the class of mature men.

[5.7] ... and the elders in council chose him commander of the expedition to Media.
And they further permitted him to chose two hundred peers [διακοσίους τῶν ὁμοτίμων]
and to each of the two hundred peers in turn they gave the authority to choose four
more, these also from the peers [ἐκ τῶν ὁμοτίμων] That made a thousand. And
each of the thousand in their turn they bade choose in addition from the common
people [ἐκ τοῦ δήμου] of the Persians ten targeteers, ten slingers, and ten bowmen.
That made ten thousand bowmen, ten thousand targeteers, and ten thousand slingers —
not counting the original thousand. So large was the army given to Cyrus”. [Cf.
p- 791. 1]. Here the ὁμότιμοι are opposed to the δήμος.. The term ὁμότιμοι designates
the men picked from the same class as the chooser. From Cyrus’ point of view all
thousand men were ὁμότιμοι 2.6. [peers] from the class of mature men. This is also
evident from the fact that they carried the same wapons as mature men, Jbid., II, i, 9
[L. I, 1388/9], “θώραξ μὲν περὶ τὰ στέρνα, γέρρον δὲ εἰς τὴν ἀριστεράν, κόπις δὲ ἢ σάγαρις εἰς
τὴν δεξίαν ᾿, cf. I, ii, 18 [L. I, 22/3, see, Appendix TI]. Might ὁμότιμοι be the Greek
translation of the Iranian word preserved in Armenian as 4wim4upy < harz, arz =
O) ) | and wpd—mhf—p, with the sense “ equal in worth, or equal in honour”. [Cf.
Hibschmann, Grammaitk, p. 177.) (382, 2)

14a [Xen. Cyrop., I, ii, 2 [L. I, 10/11-12/3], “‘ The hucksters with their wares, their
cries, their vulgarities are excluded from this and relegated to another part of the city
so that their tumult may not intrude upon the orderly life of the cultured”. See,
Appendix IT for the text.]

140 [Cf. Hiibschmann, Grammaith, Ὁ. 242. This relationship is very doubtful.]

480 NOTES : CHAPTER XIII

Me [Coulborn, Feudalism, 108-119. Christensen, pp. 15-16; Frye, Persia, pp. 90 566.»
106-107, 182-188, etc.; Ehtécham, D’Iran, pp. 18-21, 40, 47, 110-115; Toumanoff,
Studies, pp. 34-40 and nn. 13-14.] :

14a [This thesis which was accepted by Rostovtzeff, was rejected by Brundage, in
Coulborn, Feudalism, Ὁ. 110, “Τὰ theory the king was absolute; in practice the Achae-
menian state was a fairly stable symbiosis of crown and aristocracy. [The] rebellious
nobles .,. never ... attacked the integrity of the crown itself. ... feudalism never emerged
out of the disintegration of Achaemenian times. ... Rostovtzeff says, ‘The feudal
structure of the Parthian Empire was inherited by the Arsacid from the Achaemenids
and was transmitted by them to the Sassanian kings’. This comment must be rejected
for the reasons which have just appeared ”. This point of view is shared by Christensen,
p. 16, “... le féodalisme ne s’était pas encore développé sous les Achéménides”. Cf.
Ehtécham, L’Iran, pp. 47, 52 sqq., etc.]

15 Xen. Cyrop., VITI, vi, 1 [L. I, 4089]. [Herod., ITT, 89, L. 11,116]. (383, 1)

15a [Cf. Frye, Persia, pp. 182 sqq., and above nn. 20-21. Debevoise, Parthia,
pp. xxxviii-xxxix. Debevoise, Parthia, pp. xxxviii-xxxix.]

16 Herod., J, 125 [L. 1, 164/5. Cf. Frye, Persia, pp. 48, 172-175.] (884, 1)

1 Sirabo, XI, viii, 3 [L. V, 260/1], “Ὁ τῶν Aady of μὲν προσαγορεύονται "Απαρνοι, ot
δὲ Ξάνθιοι, οἱ δὲ Πίσσουροι". Cf. Ibid., XI, vii, 1 [L. V, 2489]. Tomaschek, Aparnot,
takes this name to be avest. aperendyuka, O.P. *aparenayu < a+ parena = “not +
full”? (NLP. burnd, slav. WhA- HF) with the sense “unripe, immature”. [See also
preceding note. ] (384, 2)

17a [Cf. Christensen, pp. 16 and 220 n. 2, and above n. 16.]

18 Sirabo, XI, ix, 3 [L. V, 574 5.91 6/7] tells us that the entire sixth book of his His-
torical Sketches had been devoted to the political institutions of the Parthians, “ ... εἰρη-
κότες δὲ πολλὰ περὶ τῶν Παρθικῶν νομίμων ἐν τῇ ἕκτῃ τῶν ἱστορικῶν ὑπομνημάτων βίβλῳ,
δευτέρᾳ δὲ τῶν μετὰ Πολύβιον ... Not even quotations from this work have survived.
[Cf. Frye, Persia, pp. 87, 127, 135, and Ehtécham, L’Jran, pp. 110 sqq., ete., on the
Achaemenid satrapies.] (384, 3)

19 Jystin., XLI, ii, 1-2, ‘* Administratio gentis, post defectionem Macedonici imperii,
sub regibus fuit. 2. Proximus majestati regum probulorum ordo est; ex hoc duces
in bello, ex hoe in pace rectores habent ”’. (385, 1)

20 Strabo, XI, ix, 3, [L. V, 276/7], “*... τῶν Παρθυαΐων συνέδριόν φησιν εἶναι Ποσειδώνιος
διττόν, τὸ μὲν συγγενῶν, τὸ δὲ σοφῶν καὶ μάγων, ἐξ ὧν ἀμφοῖν βασιλεῖς καθίστασθαι ”. (885, 2)

ΟΞῚ Jusiin., XL, iv, 1, “ Igitur Mithridates, rex Parthorum, post bellum Armeniae,
propter crudelitatem a senatu Parthico regno pellitur”. Jbid., XLII, v, 4, “* Qua
victoria insolentior Phrahates redditus, cum multa crudeliter consuleret, in exilium a
populo suo pellitur ” [108]. Adontz’s}. Here both senaiw and populo refer to the ordo
probulorum [cf. above τι. 19]. The actual MS reading is * ordo populorum ”’,.the recti-
fication ‘‘ probulorum ”’ was made by Gutschmid, Geschichie Irans, Ὁ. 57, τι. 3, and was
accepted and included in the Teubner edition, Saint-Croix, Mémoire, p. 60, note y,
had already suspected that the MS text was incorrect, and suggested the emendation
ontimatum”. In view of the passages of Justin just cited in which populo is un-
questionably the equivalent of the disputed ordo, the proposed rectification seems
unnecessary, or else yopulo in this passage should also be corrected into probulis. (385, 3)

21a [Jusiin., XLI, ii, 5-6, “* Exercitum non, ut aliae gentes, liberorum, sed majorem
partem servitiorum habent, quorum vulgus, nulli manumittendi potestate permissa,

23
.

NOTES : CHAPTER XIII 481

ac per hoc omnibus servis nascentibus, in dies crescit. Hos pari ac liberos suos cura
et equitare et sagittare magna industria docent. 6. Locupletissimus ut quisque est,
ita plures in bella equites regi suo praebet. Denique Antonio bellum Parthis inferenti
cum L milia equitum ocecurrerent, soli CCCC liberi fuere’. [See also next note.} Plut.
Crassus, xxi, 6 L. ITI, 378/9 ** ... ἱππεῖς ὃς κατάφρακτοι χίλιοι, πλείονες δὲ τῶν κούφων Tap-
ἔπεμπον, εἶχε δὲ τοὺς σύμπαντας ἱππεῖς ὁμοῦ πελάτας τε Kal δούλους μυρίων οὐκ ἀποδέοντας ”’.
This problem has been extensively debated, see, Frye, Persia, pp. 184-187 and Perik-
hanian, Slavery. Manandian, Feudalism, pp. 117-118, categorically rejects the thesis
of a “slave” cavalry, “ Uyn ΠΩΣ Uru bergen μι ph ujumy ki >”. Adontz
seems to have followed the contradiction inherent in Justin who characterizes the
horsmen as both slave and free. [See, next note.]

22 [See preceding note for alternate Justin. text and discussion]. Jusiin., XLI, iii, 4,
“* Equis omni tempore vectantur; illis bella, illis convivia, illis publica ac privata officia
obeut; super illos ire, consistere, mercari, colloqui. Hoc denique discrimen inter servos
liberosque est, quod servi pedibus, liberi non nisi equis incedunt”’. [Ehtécham, L’Jran,
pp. 64-65.] (886, 1)

222 [Hrye, Persia, pp. 182 sqq.]

23 Pliny, NH, VI, xxix (112) [L. II, 4225], ‘‘ Regna Parthorum duodeviginti sunt
omnia ...”. AM, XXIII, vi, 14 [L. 11, 356/7, ‘Sunt autem in omni Perside, hae
regiones maximae, ... Assyria, Susiana, Media, Persis, Parthia, Caramania maior, Hyr-
cania, Margiana, Bactriani, Sogdiani, Sacae, Scythia infra Imaum et ultra eundem
montem, Serica, Aria, Paropanisadae, Drangiana, Arachosia, et Gedrosia”’. Cf. p. 356
n.1]. Hence the Sasanian empire likewise comprised eighteen provinces. Is this
an accidental coincidence or an imitation of Pliny? [Οἵ Frye, Persia, pp. 202-206.]

(386, 2)

24 Isidore of Charax, Ὁ. 2, “Μεσοποταμίας καὶ Βαβυλωνίας ... ᾿Απολλωνιάτιδος ...
“Χαλωνίτιδος ... Mydias ... KapBodnvis ... [Μηδίας τῆς ἄνω ... ἹῬαγιανῆς Madias ... Xoo-
ρηνῆς ... Κομισηνῆς ... “Ypxavias ... ᾿Ασταυηνῆς ... ΠΙαρθυηνῆς ... ᾿Απαναρκτικηνῆς ... Map-
γιανῆς ... "Apetas ... ᾿Αναυῆς ... Ζαραγγιανῆς ... Σακαστανῆς ... ᾿Αραχωσίας ...” ef passim.
[Cf. Frye, Persia, pp. 176-182 and next note.] (386, 3)

24a [See preceding note. Pliny, NH, VI, xxix (112-114, L, 11, 422/3-424/5, Regna
Parthorum ... ita enim dividunt provincias circa duo, ut diximus, maria Rubrum a
meridie, Hyrcanium a septentrione, ex his XI quae superiora dicuntur incipiunt a
confinio Armeniae Caspiisque litoribus pertinent ad Scythas, cum quibus ex aequo
degunt. reliqua VII regna inferiora appellantur. quod ad Parthos attinet, semper fuit
Parthyaea ... habet ab ortu Arios, a meridie Carmaniam et Arianos, ab occasu Pratitas
Medos, a septentrione Hyrcanos, undique desertis cincta .... Media ab occasu transversa
oblique Parthiae oceurrens utrasque regna praecludit. habet ergo ipsa ab ortu Caspios
et Parthos, a meridie Sittacenen et Susianan et Persida, ab occasu Adiabenen, a septen-
trione Armeniam”’. IJbid., VI, xxv, (92), L. II, 408/9, “‘ regio ... Bactriae; Arianorum
deinde ...”. Jbid., VI, xviii (48-49), L. ΤΙ, 372/3-374/5, ‘*... Bactri ... ultra Sogdiani
oil

24b [Cf. Frye, pp. 184-135, 139-140, 162-164, 172 sqq. Debevoise, Parthia, pp. 8-9.]

546 [TF rye, Persia, Ὁ. 177, attributes the assumption of the new title to Mithradates II
(ca, 123-87 B.C.), Mithradates I had merely earned the title of “‘ great king ”, Jdid.,
p. 176. For possible Urartian influence on Achaemenid titulatur, see, Melikishvili,
Inscruptions, pp. 112-114; Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 48-48 and 47 τι. 36, 50-52 and nn. 43-
44, 107 nn. 162-165, ete.)

33

482 NOTES : CHAPTER XIII

25 [Hamzah al-Isfahaini, p. 28, ‘‘ When Alexander perished and the country fell into
the hands of the tribal kings .... There were in all ninety of these tribal kings, and they
respected the king who ruled over Iraq and resided at Ctesiphon, which is the same as
Mada’in. Whenever he corresponded with them, he began with his name first ”’.]
The figure given is an exageration, or else the result of a misunderstanding. Under
Seleukos I Nikator (312-280 B.B.), the Achaemenid satrapies were split into smaller
units numbering up to 72 altogether, whereas Parthia consisted of 18 provinces. Perhaps
the figure 90 was derived from 72 - 18. [The figure 72 is found in App. Syr., lxxii,
* σατραπεῖαι δὲ ἦσαν ὑπ᾽ αὐτῷ [Ζελευκος] δύο καὶ ἑβδομήκοντα ᾽ν, but Bickerman, Jn-
stitutions, pp. 197-208, concludes that, “* 1] serait vain de vouloir dessiner la carte ad-
ministrative du royaume remaniée mille fois par les événements, ou de donner l’énumé-
ration des divisions territoriales, qui auraient correspondu ἃ une époque déterminée.
Les indications dont nous disposons ne sont pas cohérentes .... I] est évident d’autre
part que les circonscriptions pouvaient bien changer pendant la durée de plus de 250 ans
de la domination séleucide”’. Jbid., p.199. Tarn, CAH, IX, p. 590, reverses Adontz’s
pattern and argues that the Parthian provinces varied in number, but “ The big Seleucid
satrapies were broken up into smaller units ”’. )387, 1)

26 According to Tabar?, [Zétenberg edition], I, exiv, “‘ Les rois de provinces lui [Aschk]
obéirent et reconnurent son autorité; car il était fils de Dara et il avait des droits au
gouvernement. Ils lui envoyérent des lettres et inscrivirent son nom en téte avant
leurs propres noms. I] en fut satisfait, mais il ne put leur enlever le gouvernement ...”
(p. 592), cf. p. 526, also I, ex-cxiv; II, i.]

27 Xen. Cyrop., I, i, 4 [L. 1, 6/7], where Cyrus is distinguished from other kings:
τως, διήνεγκε τῶν ἄλλων βασιλέων, καὶ τῶν πατρίους ἀρχὰς παρειληφότων καὶ τῶν δι᾽

ἑαυτῶν κτησαμένων, ... ἢ. [Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 41-48, ef passim.] (388, 2)

NOTES : CHAPTER XIV 483

CHAPTER XIV

@ [The bibliographical indications given at the beginning of the preceding chapter
are also relevant here. For a critique of Adontz’s periodization see Introduction n. 2.
The entire chapter must be considered in conjunction with Toumanoff’s more recent
Studies, on this subject. See also Trever, Armenia, and the next note for the inscriptions
of Artaxias I.]

1 The pre-Arsacid period in Armenia is usually considered to have begun with Artaxias
and Zariadris. According to Sirabo, XI, xiv, 5 [L. V, 322/3-324/5], they were generals
of Antiochus the Great (223-187 B.C.) who divided Armenia after Antiochus’ defeat
in 189 at Magnesia’ and proclained themselves independent. In fact, however, the
division of Armenia had already existed for a long time and is shown by the components
of the XIII and XVIII satrapies of the Achaemenids. Xenophon, Cyrop., 111, i, 2
[L. I, 216/7, 220/1 sqq.] speaks of an Armenian king contemporary with Cyrus and
Astyages who had two sons: Τιγράνης and 2dBapis. Xenophon does not give the
name of this Armenian king, but the Armenian tradition calls him Tigran and makes
him the ally of Cyrus against Astyages ΠΧ, I, xxiv-xxxi]; the great descendent
of Artaxias, Tigran 11, likewise bore his name. The house of Artaxias undoubtedly
sprang from Tigran the contemporary of Astyages, and Zariadris, the king of Sophené,
was also descended from an ancient royal line, since Antiochus III had fought with an
Armenian ruler named Xerxes at Arsamosata, Joh. Anitioch., liii, Ὁ. 557. As early
as the reign of Seleukos I (312-280) we hear of an Armenian king whose name is given
as Ardoates or Ariaones; the latter form corresponds to ’Apravys, the name of one of
Zariadris’ successors in Sophené. This name was evidently common in the Zariadrid
family, and the names Xerxes and Zariadris, Arm. ΣΝ and Qupke were also
favoured by the Arcruni house which came from Sophené. The Anonymous History
speaks of kings named Quph4 Gump and Uping (= Upinnl cf. ᾿Αρτάνης) [Sedéos,
p- 6] of. Markwart, γᾶ, p.177. The original division of Armenia into two portions
goes back to remote antiquity, and in my opinion, should be connected with the two
great kingdoms of Urartu and Manna mentioned in cuneiform inscriptions, and corres-
ponding on the whole with the Eastern and Western Armenias of the satrapal period.
Under Tigran IJ, the kingdom of Sophené was fused with that of Artaxias. We have
called the pre-Arsacid period in Armenia “ Tigranid”’, in honour of Tigran, the first
known representative of the dynasty, as well as of the famous conqueror, Tigran the
Great. [On the Artaxiad and Zariadrid dynasties, see Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 69 n. 71,
72-75, and particularly 277 sqq. On the Orontid dynasty, see also Manandian, Armavir
Inscriptions and Trade, pp. 33-48, Trever, Armenia, pp. 104-174. For the Nimrud
dag inscriptions, see, above Chapter XI, n.42. For the Aramaic inscriptions of Artaxias
1, see, Perikhanian, Une Inscription araméenne, which gives the earlier bibliography.

18. [Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 111 nn. 174-176.]

2 Xen. Anab., IV, v, 9-35 [L. ΤΙ, 46/7-56/7]. “ὁ δὲ ἄλλο μὲν οὐδὲν ἐδέχετο, ὅπου δέ
τινα τῶν συγγενῶν ἴδοι, πρὸς ἑαυτὸν ἀεὶ ἐλάμβανεν "᾿. Ibdid., IV, ν, 82 [L. 1, δ6|71).
In one of the villages, the Greeks seized the komarch and seventeen foals destined as
tribute for the Persian king, “"... καταλαμβάνει πάντας ἔνδον τοὺς κωμήτας καὶ τὸν
κώμαρχον, καὶ πώλους εἰς δασμὸν βασιλεῖ τρεφομένους ἑπτακαίδεκα, ...”. Ibid., IV, v,
24 [1.. 11, 52/3], “« καὶ πάλιν ἠρώτων τίνι οἱ ἵπποι τρέφονται. ὁ δ᾽ ἔλεγεν ὅτι βασιλεῖ

Sacpds:”. Ibdid., IV, v, 84 [L. 11, 56/7]. Strabo, XI, xiv, 9 [L. V, 5801] says that

484 NOTES : CHAPTER XIV

the Armenian satraps sent each year to the Persian king 20,000 foals for the Mithrakina,
"4. ὁ σατράπης τῆς “Appevias τῷ Πέρσῃ κατ᾽ ἔτος δισμυρίους πώλους τοῖς Midpaxivors
ἔπεμπεν . Xen. Anad., IV, ν, 35 [1. II, 56/7] says that the horse taken by him was
dedicated to the sun, “... ὅτι ἤκουεν αὐτὸν iepoy εἶναι τοῦ ᾿Πλίου ... . The infor-
mation of Strabo refers to an earlier period since in his own time Armenia was an in-
dependent country ruled by its own king and not by a satrap. If one village sent 17
foals, a tribute of 20,000 should indicate some 1,200 komarchs. [Cf. Toumanoff, Siudies,
pp. 69-70 and 70 τι. 76, 277.] (391, 1)

3 Pliny, NH, VI, x (26) [L. 11, 356/7}. [Cf. Bengston, Siraiegie, II. HKhtécham,
L’Iran, pp. 113-115, 184. Toumanoff, Studies, pp.79, 111-112 n.176, 136 τι. 238,
156-157, 290, 291 n. 58, 292.] (391, 1)

88 [Cf. Manandian, Trade, pp. 40 sqq., Feudalism, pp. 241 sqq., Toumanoff, Studies,
p. 108, ete.]

3b [Hibschmann, Grammaitk, pp. 101, 208, 242, 253. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 114 sqq.
and notes. See also below nn. 23, 25-26 and Chapter XV.]

80 (Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 62-70. See also next note.]

4 Herod., III, 93-94 [L. II, 120/1-122/3], “ ἀπὸ Πακτυϊκῆς δὲ καὶ “Appeviwy καὶ τῶν
προσεχέων μέχρι τοῦ πόντου τοῦ Εὐξείνου ... νομὸς τρίτος καὶ δέκατος οὗτος. ... Marinvoiar
δὲ καὶ Adomerpor καὶ ᾿Αλαροδίοισι ... νομὸς ὄγδοος καὶ δέκατος οὗτος. ... ᾿. [CF Touma-
noff, Studies, p. 68 n. 65. Ehtécham, L’Jran, pp. 121-184. (393, 1)

5 Herod., V, 49 [L. 1ΠῚ, 52/3], “ Κιλίκων δὲ τῶνδε ἔχονται ᾿Αρμένιοι olde, καὶ οὗτοι
ἐόντες πολυπρόβατοι, “Appeviwy δὲ Marinvol χώρην τήνδε ἔχοντες ”.

Ibid., V, 52 [L, ITI, 58/9], “ οὖρος δὲ Κιλικίης καὶ τῆς ᾿Αρμενίης ἐστι ποταμὸς νηυσιπέ-
ρητος, τῷ οὔνομα Εὐφρήτης. ... ποταμοὶ δὲ νηυσιπέρητοι τέσσερες διὰ ταύτης ῥέουσι, τοὺς
πᾶσα ἀνάγκη διαπορθμεῦσαι ἐστι, πρῶτος μὲν Τίγρης, μετὰ δὲ δεύτερός τε καὶ τρίτος wuTos
ὀνομαζόμενος, οὐκ wuTos ἔων ποταμὸς οὐδε ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ῥέων" 6 μὲν γὰρ πρότερον αὐτῶν
καταλεχθεὶς ἐξ “Appeviwy ῥέει, ὁ δ᾽ ὕστερον ἐκ ατιηνῶν ”’. (393, 2)

8 Ibid., VIL, 62-79 [L. IL, 376/7-388/9]. [Cf. above τι. 4.] (394, 1)

? Xen. Anab., I, v, 17; IV, iii, 4; IV, iv, 4; VU, viii, 25 [L. J, 490/1; Il, 24/5;
38/9; 370/1, cf. p. 370 n. 1 for later additions.] [See also Manandian, Trade, Ὁ. 20 and
36:sqq., Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 277-279.] (394, 2)

8 Xen. Anabd., VII, viii, 25 [L. ΤΙ, 370/1], this passage is considered to be a later
addition by the editor, ¢f. p.370 n.1. See also, Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 59 n. 58 and

68 n. 65. | (394, 3)
® Arrian, Anab., ITI, viii, 5 [L. 1, 2467], “ ... "Appeviwy δὲ ᾿Ορόντης καὶ Μιθραύστης
hex... [Manandian, Trade, pp. 36 sqq., Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 279.] (394, 4)

98 [Herod., VII, 73. L. ΤΙ], 384/5, **Appémor δὲ κατά περ Φρύγες ἐσεσάχατο, ἐόντες
Φρυγῶν ἄποικοι. τούτων συναμφοτέρων ἦρχε ᾿Αρτόχμης Δαρείου ἔχων θυγατέρα ᾽᾿. [Cf.
Toumanoff, Studies, p. 58 τι. 49.]

ob [tbid., VII, 68, 78, 79 [L. III, 380/1, 386/7, 388/9]; Jde¢d., VII, 62 [L. TL, 376/7],
“Μῆδοι δὲ τὴν αὐτὴν ταύτην ἐσταλμένοι ἐστρατεύοντο: Μῆηδιιοὴ yap αὕτη ἡ σκευὴ ἐστι καὶ
οὐ Περοαική ᾽. [See above τι. 8, also, Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 55-62.]

99 [See above nn. 4, 6-9b. Also, Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 129, 233 τι. 291, ete.]

10 Strabo, XI, xiv, 5 [L. V, 324/5], “... ὥστε πάντας ὁμογλώττους εἶναι ᾽". (395, 1)

11 Idem. The printed text has Tapwriris but Kenophon’s description shows that
the district was already in the hands of the Armenians at the time of the retreat of the ©
Greeks in 400 B.C. The more accurate reading is, therefore, Ταμωρῖτις = Sdnpf|p

NOTES : CHAPTER XIV 485

[See the notes L. V, p. 324, for alternate readings. or the acceptance of Adontz’s

correction, see, Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 323 n. 78]. (395, 2)
12 Strabo, XII, i, 2 [L. V, 344/5-846/7]. [Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 56 and 57
n. 54.] (395, 3)

18 Herod., I, 72 [1 I, 86/7], “ Οἱ δὲ Καππαδόκαι ὑπὸ ᾿Βλλήνων Σύριοι ὀνομάζονται" ...””.
Ibid., VII, 72 [L. ΤΙ], 8846], “" οἱ δὲ Σύριοι οὗτοι ὑπὸ Περσέων Καππαδόκαι καλέονται ἢ.
Sirabo, XVI, i, 2 [L. VIT, 192/3-194/5], “of γοῦν Καππάδοκες ἀμφότεροι, οἵ τε πρὸς

τῷ Ταύρῳ καὶ οἱ πρὸς τῷ Πόντῳ, μέχρι νῦν “ευκόσυροι καλοῦνται, ...””. (395, 4)
14 Marr, Tables. [On the origins of the Tberians, and Marr’s controversial thesis,
see, Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 55-66 and notes, also, Thomas, Warr.] (395, δ)

18 Strabo, XVI, i, 2 [L. VII, 1925], δ Δοκεῖ δὲ τὸ τῶν Σύρων ὄνομα διατεῖναι ἀπὸ μὲν
τῆς Βαβυλωνίας μέχρι τοῦ ᾿Ισσικοῦ κόλπου, ἀπὸ δὲ τούτου μέχρι τοῦ Hdéeivov τὸ
παλαιόν ᾽ἢ. (896, 1)

15a [See above τι. 9a. ]

16 Strabo, I, ii, 84 [L. I, 1625],

“ τὸ γὰρ τῶν “Appeviwy ἔθνος καὶ τὸ τῶν Σύρων καὶ ᾿Αράβων πολλὴν ὁμοφυλίαν ἐμφαίνει
κατά τε τὴν διάλεκτον καὶ τοὺς βίους καὶ τοὺς τῶν σωμάτων χαρακτῆρας, καὶ μάλιστα καθὸ
πλησιόχωροΐ ἐϊσι. δηλοῖ δ᾽ ἡ Μεσοποταμία ἐκ τῶν τριῶν συνεστῶσα τούτων ἐθνῶν" μάλιστα
γὰρ ἐν τούτοις ἡ ὁμοίοτης διαφαίνεται. εἰ δέ τις παρὰ τὰ κλίματα γίνεται διαφορά τοῖς προσ-
βόρροις ἐπὶ πλέον πρὸς τοὺς μεσημβρινοὺς καὶ τούτοις πρὸς μέσους τοὺς Avpous, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπικρατεῖ
γε τὸ κοινόν. καὶ οἱ ᾿Αἰσσύριοι δὲ καὶ οἱ ᾿Αριανοὶ καὶ ot ᾿Αραμμαῖοι παραπλησίως πως ἔχουσι
καὶ πρὸς τούτους καὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους. εἰκάζει γε δὴ καὶ τὸς τῶν ἐθνῶν τούτων κατονομασίας
ἐμφερεῖς ἀλλήλαις εἶναι. τοὺς γὰρ ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν Σύρους καλουμένους ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν τῶν Σύρων
᾿Αριμαίους, καὶ ᾿Αραμμαίους καλεῖσθαι" τούτῳ δ᾽ ἐοικέναι τοὺς ᾿Αρμενίους καὶ τοὺς “ApaBas
καὶ ᾿Ερεμβούς, τάχα τῶν πάλαι ᾿ Ελλήνων οὕτω καλούντων τοὺς "ApaBas ᾽".

[Cf. notes p. 152 for variant readings. Adontz gives *Appémo. where Jones has
᾿Αραμμαῖοι and ’Apipaiovs.] . (396, 2)

1? Tbid., XVI, iv, 27 [L. VIL, 370/21], “ φησὶ δὲ [Ποσειδώνιος] ταῦτα τρία ἔθνη, συνεχῆ
ἀλλήλοις ἱδρυμένα, ὁμογέγειάν τινα ἐμφαΐνειν πρὸς ἄλληλα, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο παρακειμένοις ὀνόμασι
κεκλῆσθαι, τοὺς μὲν ᾿Αρμενίους, τοὺς δὲ ᾿Αραμαίους, τοὺς δὲ "ApayBovs: ὥσπερ δὲ ἀπὸ ἔθνους
ἑνὸς ὑπολαμβάνειν ἔστιν εἰς τρία διῃρῆσθαι κατὰ τὰς τῶν κλιμάτων διαφορὰς ἀεὶ καὶ μᾶλλον
ἐξαλλαττομένων, οὕτω καὶ τοῖς ὀνόμασι χρήσασθαι πλείοσιν ἀνθ᾽ ἑνὸς ἢ, (397, 1)

18 10͵ἅ., I, ii, 84 [1,.1, 1601], “dad τῆς τῶν ἐθνῶν συγγενείας, καὶ κοινότητος
ἐτυμολογῶν ””. (397, 2)

188. [On the place of Armenian among Indo-European languages, see, Meillet, Grammaire
Comparée, Solta, Die Stellung, Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 53-55 τι. 49, 62 τι. 59, εἰ al. While
the Indo-European character of Armenian is generally accepted, its independence from
other Indo-European sub-groups is generally stressed at present. Cf. Meillet, Gram-
maire comparée, Ὁ. 9, “ L’arménien est un ramean de la famille indo-européenne aussi
indépendant de tous les autres que le sont par exemple le grec ou le germanique. 1] est
de plus isolé, n’étant pas accompagné d’une langue d’aspect analogue, comme le slave
Pest du baltique, ni méme d’une langue offrant des innovations importantes en commun
avec lui, comme litalique lest du celtique”. See below τι. 62 and Bibliographical note].

19 On this basis we may raise some questions concerning some of the peoples living
to the south and north of Armenia: the kardu-xapdob-x-01, κορδυ-σίων, γορδυ-ῆνοι,
and the kar du, JoHma-gmo, joHa'gi-wmo. (The hypothesis that the Karduchians
were the ancestors of the Kurds has now been abandoned. Ancient sources refer to the

486 NOTES : CHAPTER XIV

Kurds under the name κύρτιοι, Noldeke, Kiepert Festschrift, p.73, and Hartmann,
Bohtan, p.90). The μόσ-χοι are related to Arm. Uma> Unip—hq, where
—fy = Georg. nero. The southern χαλδ-αῖοι are related to the northern Ajuymp—p
or yodA-vB-es. Strabo, XI, xiv, 9 [L. V, 328/9] distinguishes two districts named
Συσπιρῖτις, one on the Coruh = the Σάσπειρες of Herodotus [I, 104, etc.], the ᾿Εσπερῖται
of Xenophon, [Anad., VII, viii, 25, a later addition according to the editor L. V, p. 370
n. 1), the other to the south near the Tigris. The former is the presentday Sper, the
latter = Supri, see, Markwart, Eran, p. 159. Arm. Unl—p is related to Μύκοι
> Mughan, andUfumhp in Arcay. [See above τι. 9b, and Toumanoff, Studies, pp.
321-323 n. 76; below nn. 58, 77.) (398, 1)

20 Marr has found it possible to derive armen-ius from Aram without the help of
ancient sources, see his Review. As for fury, some derive it from pati, “‘ head” with
the sense of conqueror, others from Hat: (cf. Jensen, Hetiiter und Armenien, 1898),
or finally connect it with the paz in [aovia, a district of Macedon, and the original
home of the Phrygians (Hommel, Grundriss, I, Ὁ. 31). Strabo, XI, xiv, 12 [L. V, 3832/3]
argues that the dress of the Armenians points to a Thessalian origin, ‘ καὶ τὴν ἐσθῆτα δὲ
τῆν ᾿Αρμενιακὴν Θετταλικήν φασιν, οἷον τοὺς βαθεῖς χιτῶνας, οὖς καλοῦσι Θετταλικοὺς ἐν ταῖς
τραγῳδίαις, καὶ ζυννύουσι περὶ τὰ στήθη, καὶ ἐφαπτίδας ὡς καὶ τῶν τραγῳδῶν μιμησαμένων
τοὺς Θετταλούς ... καὶ τὸν τῆς ἱππικῆς ζῆλόν φασιν εἶναι Θετταλικὸν καὶ τούτοις ὁμοίως
καὶ Μήδοις" ...”. [On the ethnika “‘ Armenia”? and ‘“ Hay ” their sources,
and the recent views on the subject, see Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 55 n. 49, 59 ἢ. 58,
108-109 and n. 163, 294-297, ete. Adontz developed the question further in his Histoire

d’Arménie. Also, see below τι. 62.] (398, 2)
20a [Cf. Manandian, Trade, pp. 42-43.]
21 Herod., V, 49 [L. ITI, 52/3]. [See above τι. 5 for the text.] (399, 1)

22 Sirabo, XI, iii[L. V, 216/7-220/1] Iberians; XI, iv [L. V, 222/3-230/1] Albanians;
XVI, i, 1 [L. VII, 192/3] Assyrians; XVI, i, 26-28 [L. VII, 2382/3-236/7] Arabians.
[Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 84 sqq., Trever, Albania.] (399, 2)

22a (Cf. Garitte, Agathange, Ὁ. 223, Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 208-209.)

23 This title belonged exclusively to the Bagratuni: ‘ Uuufinh ue wy fd hb ἐ
wy Lp ἢ ”, Sebéos, p.34 the correct form should be Uu [app] wink as it is
given in Ibid., p.36, “ 4 Uap πα inh kd yup [ehh ἐ yup Ma LO.
Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 324-326, for a critique of Adontz’s etymology, also below nn. 25-
26, and Hiibschmann, Grammaitk, pp. 13, 109; Benveniste, Titres, pp. 9-10.] (400, 1)

24 Marr, Hiymologies. (401, 1)

348, [Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 92 n. 132,115 τ. 186. [Benveniste, Termes, pp. 9-10.]

24d [FB, VI, iv, xv.]

25 Kir. Ganj., pp. 23-24. [Where the initial Y has been removed, altough the form
Yuuympubtu is preserved in the Venice, 1865 edition, Ρ. 141. Narratio, ciii,
** 4. τῆς ᾿Ασπουρακὰν χώρας οἱ ἐπίσκοποι ...”. [Cf Garitte’s “commentary”, Ibid.,
pp. 244, also 403, 406, 418-419]. T’aigqasvili, Three Chronicles, Ὁ. 122 “ Cusneria u
Acnaparaut, ”, Mov. Katank., p. 69, one of the participants at the Council of King
Vatagan of Albania was called Uuwymh—fu. [Cf. Mos. Dasy., I, xxvi, p. 54, which
gives the name as ‘‘Sprakos”’ with the variants ‘‘ Asprakos” and ‘ Sparakos’’.] (401, 2)

26 Although the form vaspur is closer to the original, aspur is the older form from the
point of view of Armenian phonetics. Armenian borrowings from Iranian in the pre-
classical period necessarily lost the initial v since Armenian, like Greek, did not pronounce

NOTES : CHAPTER XIV 487

this phoneme in initial position. In roots, the v > g, while in borrowed words it dis-
appeared altogether. [Cf. Meillet, Grammaire comparée, pp. 48-50]. Iranian words
with an initial » found in Armenian entered this language in the Classical period. This
clarification should help to remove Hitibschmann’s misgivings, Z2DMG, XLVI, p. 327,
as to the disappearance of the initial vi- in sepuh, As shown by the Greek equivalent
οἶκος = 020, the Iranian vi da-puhr < *vaida-puhr > *vasé-puhr and *Vasia-puhr,
the prototypes of the Armenian asé-puhr and asé-puhr (depending on the accent) without:
the initial v-. The alternation as-sé can incidentally be explained by the dropping
of the vowel in compounds, especially in the case of an initial sp-, e.g. aspanj, Arm.
unuhImhuh, Pers, sépan, ; Aspahapet, Spahpet, Ispahbed; aspar and spar “ shield”,
ete. [See above τι. 246. (401, 8)
27 It is probable that Hku * proud ” also = wt ya, *yat ba < vt θ with the suffix -ya,
Y fu, like Yuli, originally indicated membership in a clan. Cf. a mnguph,
In its archaic sense, vsam is found in Thom, Arc., III, xxii, Ῥ. 281, “+--Lpmbby f
fy {μὴ πιη πηΐὶ Dpfanp Nommbkng Homi”. » In the Canons of the Council of
King Vatagan, Mov, Katank., p. 68 we find the injunctions that “--.74mu EhAgkyiny
Po damit Ehbgkghh mughh”. (Can, XVI] and “++. fp Afupmbth mip bh
dunmy fp yum Ebkgkghh kp[éfgkh juqofu ᾿. (Can. XIX]. In Canon
XVIII of the same Council, the decree, “ap muuwinpyy moh ΜΠ ΜΠ jupypp
gyfah pal Ehighyfh mughh, bh ghtuh jfapkwhy Elbnkyhh”. thus opposing
the pak Ehinkyp to the azat or noble church. [Cf, Dowsett, Mov, Dasy., ΤΙ, xxvi,
p. 53 τ. 1 for the possible reading ui} af, with the contractions, = Yuu mulbhfynrh
Ehiniyingh), One of these churches is taken as being the Yumi &Ehiykgh, If we
admit the existence of vt @ama-pati, we can derive from it the favourite given name of
the Aspets: Ui—ujmmn < *i-sémpati. [See above nn, 23, 24a, 26.] (402, 1)
28 The name Mamak was common in the Mamikonean family as early as the VIIth
century, Cf. Sebéos, vi, xi, xiii, pp. 48-49, 56, 58. The suffix —nubip or ---Πιὶ! =
Georg. m6. Uwufi—nh and Umig—mh are alternate forms of -an, the sign of
the plural. -Fui is a tautology as an equivalent suffix. [Cf. Toumanoff, Studies,

p. 211 n. 238.) (402, 2)
29 FR, V, xxxvii, “ ++ ain fofubfp [πῃ hh /?mqonop Ρ web
Dbhuny we ὃ, 1)

29a [‘* Primary History ”, Sebéos, p. 12-18, “[Wunlfilnhkmhp| πὸ &h ... ae
my ooh β δι ΤΕΥ ΤᾺ Wy] Eh κα f sShuunmht .... Pufamnlmh
pray Uhhh hk πα ght mn mppuyh Upomlmabf ap tumkp fp Pg,
Gurhoumuh fr jpaphpph Fmouhug ++» [wppmph Upomlarh β] ng fin yinom ἢ
dboh iinpw [pbhpwhmpp|) wy ημὲ wn to uppml +++ km moby qhinuw ἢ
dan wphm bh jigp Ephpp fp ἱπρη ph poh, ap mphyahh fp δα! μῶν dinmbf ”,
See, Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 209-211 and particularly n. 238 for the origin of the Mami-
konean, and the extensive bibliography on this subject. For the Tzans, see above
Chapter I, nn. 46 and 46a, Chapter II], pp. 49 ssg. and nn. 26a-30, 32a.]

290 [On the Orbeliani and their Mamikonid antecedents, see, Toumanoff, Studies, "
pp- 211 ἢ. 238, and 270.]

80 The Lat. deus and dies, Gk. Ζεύς, διός, Skr. djatis, ‘ ee is fea “ god ”, devas

“sod”, Zend. daeva, likewise belong here. According to TOs J, 131 [L. I, 1701],
the Persians called, ‘*... τὸν κύκλον πάντα τοῦ ovpavot”, ** Ala The same meaning
is attached.to the Armenian m/— in the word ΠΑΝ ἜΡΙΝ the original sense of

488 NOTES : CHAPTER XIV

7. 33

“firmament ”’ similar to the Persian, ‘ dia”? and subsequently coming to mean the
inhabited universe δ oikumené ” (ΒΡ ** region ” is attached to it as a reinforcement).
[Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 90-91 nn. 128, 130, 114-115 n. 185 and the objections of
Dowsett, -Tér, pp. 136 sqq.] (405, 1)

31 According to Pomp. Trog., “‘ Prologus ”’, xlii, ‘‘ successores deinde eius Artabanus
et Tigranes cognomine deus a quo subacta est Media et Mesopotamia’. The reference
here is to Tigran the Great, how are we to understand the cognomen deus attributed
to him, might it not be a rendering of the Armenian in its sense of “‘king ” or “god”?
The name Tigran may also be connected with the root infr- and have the sense of ** divin-
ity” like the Lat. Diana, Gk. Διώνη. Hommel, Grundriss, pp. 39 τ. 2, and 48 n.1,
already suggested that the initial syllable #e- in Techib, Tisup, Teisbas, TiSpak, meant
“Jord”. [See the preceding note, and Hiibschmann, Grammatih, pp. 87-88.] (406, 2)

31a [Sirabo, XJ, iii, 6[L. V, 220/1),

“ Terrapa δὲ καὶ γένη τῶν ἀνθρώπων οἰκεῖ τὴν χώραν" ἕν μὲν Kal πρῶτον, ἐξ οὗ τοὺς
βασιλέας καθιστᾶσι, κατ᾽ ἀγχιστείαν τε καὶ ἡλικίαν τὸν πρεσβύτατον, ὁ δὲ δεύτερος
δικαιοδοτεῖ καὶ στρατηλατεῖ" δεύτερον δὲ τὸ τῶν ἱερέων, οὗ ἐπιμελοῦνται καὶ τῶν πρὸς τοὺς
ὁμόρους δικαίων" τρίτον δὲ τὸ τῶν στρατευομένων καὶ γεωργούντων" τέταρτον δὲ τὸ τῶν λαῶν,
of βασιλικοὶ δοῦλοί εἶσι καὶ πάντα διακονοῦνται τὰ πρὸς τὸν βίον. κοιναὶ δ᾽ εἰσὶν αὐτοῖς αἱ
κτήσεις κατὰ συγγένειαν, ἄρχει δὲ καὶ ταμιεύει ἑκάστην 6 πρεσβύτατος. τοιοῦτοι μὲν οἱ Ἴβηρες
καὶ ἡ χώρα αὐτῶν ἢ.

[Cf. the following notes.]

82 Tbid., XI, iti, 3 [L. V, 218/9], Strabo distinguishes two types of population in
Iberia, “ἢ... the plain of the Iberians is inhabited by people who are rather inclined to
farming and to peace, and they dress after both the Armenian and the Median fashion ;
but the major, or warlike portion occupy the mountainous territory, living like the
Seythians and the Sarmatians, of whom they are both neighbours and kinsmen ; however,
they engage also in farming. And they assemble many tens of thousands, both from
their own people and from the Scythians and Sarmatians, whenever anything alarming
oceurs”’, This is the reason for which Strabo, Jbid., XJ, iii, 6 [L. V, 220/1] defines
the third caste as made up “... τῶν στρατευομένων καὶ γεωργούντων ...”” and not for
the reasons given by Javayiavili, Polity, p. 56. [Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 90-96 and
notes. | (407, 1)

328 [Strabo, XI, ii, 6[L. V,220/1)]. See aboven. 818 for the text.] Cf. also Toumanoff,
Studies, pp. 90-91, 96-103, 106 sqq., and notes.]

38 At first, the heir may have replaced the king only in cases of illness or absence as
was the custom among the Sabaeans where, ‘‘ the king has as Administrator one of his
companions who is ealled ‘brother’ (καλούμενον adcApdr)”. Strabo, XVI, iv, 21 [L. VII,
352/3]. [The reference in Strabo is to the Nabateans, who ruled Petra, rather than to
the Sabaeans.] Cf. Xen, Cyrop., VITI, vi, 16[L. ΤΙ, 418/9], “" βασιλέως ἀδελφός, βασιλέως
ὀφθαλμός ” among the Persians. (407, 2)

84 The union of the functions of judge and commander of the army in the hands of
one man shows that the judge was in need of force. Among the Assyrians also, cases
of theft were tried before a military court [Sirabo, XVI, i, 20, L. VII, p. 226/7, though
this is not the precise sense of the passage.] This pattern is characteristic for a period
of disintegration in the tribal structure, since as long as the bases of natural-legal rela-
tionships remain strong, the society maintains its own equilibrium and has no need of
judges. Strabo’s friend Artemidorus, the philosopher, was greatly amazed when

NOTES : CHAPTER XIV 489

visiting the Nabatean [the Russian text reads Sabaean, but see preceding note] capital
that δ᾽ the foreigners often engaged in lawsuits, both with one another and with the
natives, but that none of the natives prosecuted one another, and that they in every
way kept the peace with one another’. Jbid., XVI, xiv, 2, [L. VII, 352/3]. According
to Strabo himself, the Nabataeans were still in the initial stages of development. [Cf.
above non. 31a-32a.] (408, 1)

85 Javayisvili, Polity, does not raise the question of the interrelation between the
four castes of the Iberians, and consequently the origin of the royal δοῦλοι is incorrectly
interpreted by him, since he argues on the basis of the Georgian term Ombo =
maniya, “slave’’, that the institution itself had been borrowed, Jbid., p. 74. If this
point of view is accepted, a great deal will have to be acknowledged to be of foreign
origin. [C/. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 94-96 and nn. 140, 142.)] (408, 2)

36 Sirabo, XI, iv, 6 [L. V, 228/9), “ νυνὶ μὲν οὖν εἷς ἁπάντων ἄρχει, πρότερον δὲ καὶ
καθ᾽ ἑκάστην γλῶτταν ἰδίᾳ ἐβασιλεύοντο ἕκαστοι. γλῶτται δ᾽ εἰσιν ἕξ καὶ εἴκοσι αὐτοῖς dé τὸ
μὴ εὐεπίμικτον πρὸς ἀλλήλους ”. [Cf. below τι. 88. (409, 1)

δὲ 7014., XI, iv, 7 [L. V, 2289], “ ἱερᾶται δ᾽ ἀνὴρ ἐντιμότατος μετά γε τὸν βασιλέα,
προεστὼς τῆς ἱερᾶς χώρας, πολλῆς καὶ εὐάνδρου, καὶ αὐτῆς καὶ τῶν ἱεροδούλων, ... ᾽᾿. [Cf
Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 96 n. 142. (409, 2)

38 Tbid., XI, iv, 8 [Π. V, 2267], the Albanians, “ὁ send forth a greater army than that
of the Iberians; for they equip sixty thousand infantry and twenty-two thousand
horsemen, the number with which they risked their all against Pompey”. Plutarch,
Pompey, xxxv, 2 [L. V, 208/9] gives twelve instead of twenty-two thousand horsemen,
as in Strabo, (we should read ** δισχιλίους ἱππεῖς ἐπὶ [δισ]μυρίοις ” [the Loeb edition
gives merely “μυρίοις ᾽7), ‘* They were led by a brother of the king, named Kosis (ἡγεῖτο
δὲ αὐτῶν βασιλέως adeAdds ὄνομα Kors) and not by king Oroizes [ἢ Orgires ” according
to Appian, Mithr., XV, ciii]. Kosis obviously led the army as part of his office of
commander in chief. It is possible that he was likewise responsible for the adminis-
tration of justice, as was the case in Iberia. ‘“ Three chiefs of the Iberians [and] two
of the Albanians (... ἡγεμόνες τρεῖς ᾿Ιβήρων καὶ ᾿Αλβάνῶν dvo)” were found among the
324 vanquished chieftains preceding the victor’s chariot during Pompey’s triumph,
Appian, Mithr,. XII, xvii, 117 [L. ΤΙ, 4667]. The three Iberian leaders were the king,
the high priest, and the military commander; the two Albanians were the king and
the high priest, since Kosis, the commander of the army, had been killed by Pompey,
[Plutarch, Pompey, xxxv, 2, L. V, 208/9]. [On Albania, see Trever, Albania, and
Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 84-86, 96 τι. 142.] (409, 3)

38a (Cf. Manandian, Trade, pp. 42-43, and above Introduction τι. la.]

39 Plut. Lucullus, xxi [L. 11, 656,7], “ὁ βασιλεῖς δὲ πολλοὶ μὲν ἦσαν οἱ θεραπεύοντες
αὐτόν, τέσσαρες δέ, οὖς ἀεὶ περὶ αὐτὸν εἶχεν ὥσπερ ὀπαδοὺς ἡ δορυφόρους, ἱππότῃ μὲν ἐλαύ-
γοντι πεζοὺς παραθέοντας ἐν χιτωνίσκοις, καθημένῳ δὲ καὶ χρηματίζοντι περιεστῶτας ἐπηλ-
λαγμέναις δι᾽ ἀλλήλων ταῖς χερσΐν, ὅπερ ἐδόκει μάλιστα τῶν σχημάτων ἐξομολόγησις
εἶναι δουλείας, οἷον ἀποδομένων τὴν ἐλευθερίαν καὶ τὸ σῶμα τῷ κυρίῳ παρεχόντων παθεῖν
ἑτοιμότερον ἢ ποιῆσαι ἡ. [In this section Adontz generally follows the argument of
Markwart, Hran, pp. 165,172 sqq. On Tigran the Great, see also Manandian, Tgrane 11,
and Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 76 n. 84, 77 τι. 86, 82-83 and 83 n. 104. On the institution
of the bdeSxs, see also, Christensen, pp. 22-23, 101-102, 518 sqq.; Frye, Persia, pp. 97-98,
186, 201, 273 n. 9; Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 76, 154 sqq.; Lap’ancyan, Hist.-Ling.-
Studies, pp. 467-sqq.]. (410, 1)

490 NOTES ; CHAPTER XIV

40 Since Markwart’s clarification of this point, Hran, pp. 172 sqq. Gutschmidt’s
hypothesis, Geschichie, Ὁ. 85, that the kings of Atropatené, Gordyené,
Adiabené, and Osrhoené are intended here, must be completely abandoned. This
hypothesis was already shown to be incorrect by that fact that these kings were not
with Tigran at the time of Lucullus’ expedition: Tigran was awaiting the kings of
Adiabené and Atropatené, Zarbienos, king of Gordyené had been executed earlier for
treason [Plut. Lucullus, xxix, 6, Τὼ, ΤΊ, 568/9], and Cleopatra, queen of Osrhoené, was
being kept prisoner at Seleucia, Sirabo, XVI, ii, 3 [L. VII, 240/1]. [Cf. Toumanoff,
Studies, Ὁ. 82.] - _ (411, 1)

41 App., Syr., XI, viii, 48-49 [L. IT, 196/7], “ ὁ Τιγράνης ἦρχε Συρίας τῆς μετ᾽ Eddpd-
τὴν, ὅσα γένη Σύρων μέχρι Αἰγύπτου. ἦρχε δὲ ὁμοῦ καὶ Kidixias {καὶ yap ἧδε τοῖς Ζιελευκί-
das ὑπήκονε), αγαδάτην στρατηγὸν ἐπιτάξας ἅπασιν, ἐπὶ ἔτη τεσσαρεσκαίδεκα. ... ὁ
Μαγαδάτης ἤει μετὰ τοῦ στρατοῦ Τιγράνῃ βοηθήσων, ..”. The printed text has
Mayaddrns for Βαγαδάτης but the MSS have both versions and the second is more correct,
ef. Markwart, Eran, p. 174. [See also, Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 202, 3138-314, 320-321,
and 420 τι. 71, 324; and below note 44.] (411, 2)

42 App. Mithr., XII, xii, 84 [L. 11, 5989], “ MidpoBaplarny προύπεμπε μετὰ δισχιλίων
ἵππέων, Δεύκολλον ἐπισχεῖν τοῦ δρόμου. Mayxaim δὲ Τιγρανόκερτα φυλάττειν ἐπέτρεψεν, ἦν τινα
πόλιν, ὥς μοι προείρηται, ἐπὶ τιμῇ τῇ ἑαυτοῦ βασιλεὺς ἐν ἐκείνῳ γενέσθαι τῷ χωρίῳ συνῴκιζε, καὶ
τοὺς ἀρίστους ἐς αὐτὴν συνεκάλει, ζημίαν ἐπιτιθείς, ὅσα μὴ μεταφέροιεν, δεδημεῦσθαι. τείχη
τε αὐτοῖς περιέβαλε πεντηκονταπήχη τὸ ὕψος, ἱπποστασίων ἐν τῷ βάθει γέμοντα, καὶ βασίλεια
καὶ παραδείσους κατὰ τὸ προάστειον ἐποίει μακρούς, καὶ κυνηγέσια πολλὰ καὶ λίμνας" ἀγχοῦ
δὲ καὶ φρούριον ἀνίστη καρτερόν. καὶ πάντα τότε Μαγκαίῳ ταῦτ᾽ ἐπιτρέψας, περιήει στρατιὰν
ἀγείρων. Πῆιθροβαρζάνην μὲν οὖν ὁ “Λεύκολλος εὐθὺς ἐκ τῆς πρώτης συμβολῆς τρεψάμενος
ἐδίωκε, Mayxaiov δὲ Σεξτίλιος ἐς Τιγρανόκερτα κατακλείσας τὰ μὲν βασίλεια αὐτίκα, lal
ὄντα, διήρπασε, THY δὲ πόλιν Kal TO φρούριον ἀπε ρενεὶ καὶ μηχανὰς ἐφίστη, καὶ ὑπονόμοις
ἄνεκρήμνη τὸ τεῖχος ἢ

[Cf. next three notes, and nn. 50-5]] (411, 3)

43 Plut. Luecullus, XXV, 2-4 [L. TI, 550/1] “ πρῶτος δ᾽ αὐτῷ τῶν φίλων ἐτόλμησε
Μιθροβαρζάνης φράσαι τὸ ἀληθές. οὐδ᾽ οὗτος δὲ χρηστὸν ἠνέγκατο γέρας τῆς παρρησίας.
ἐπέμφθη γὰρ εὐθὺς ἐπὶ τὸν “ούκουλλον σὺν ἱππεῦσι τρισχιλίοις, πεζοῖς δὲ παμπόλλοις,
κελευσθεὶς τὸν μὲν στρατηγὸν ἄγειν ζῶντα, τοὺς δ᾽ ἄλλους καταπατῆσαι. ... ὁ Ζἰεξτίλιος ...
ἐβιάσθη δ᾽ ὑπὸ τοῦ MibpoBapldvov θρασέως ἐπελαύνοντος εἰς χεῖρας ἐλθεῖν. καὶ γενομένης
μάχης ὃ μὲν Μιθροβαρζάνης ἔπεσεν ἀγωνιζόμενος, οἱ δ᾽ ἄλλοι φεύγοντες ἀπώλοντο πλὴν
ὀλίγων ἅπαντες ᾿".

[Cf. preceding note, and below nn. 50- 51] (412, 2)

44 Ibid., xxxii, 4-5 [L. II, 578/9], “ ταύτην [Νίσιβι»] εἶχεν ee μὲν ἀδελφὸς
Τιγράνου Γούρας, ἐμπειρίᾳ δὲ καὶ δεινότητι μηχανικῇ Καλλίμαχος 6 καὶ περὶ ᾿Αμισὸν πλεῖστα
πράγματα «“ουκούλλῳ παρασχών. βαλόμενος δὲ στρατόπεδον καὶ πᾶσαν ἰδέαν πολιορκίας
ἐπαγαγὼν ὀλίγῳ χρόνῳ κατὰ κράτος λαμβάνει τὴν πόλιν. καὶ Γούρᾳ μὲν ἑαυτὸν ἐγχειρίσαντι
φιλανθρώπως ἐχρήσατο, ... ἢ. (412, 2)

45 See above chapter XI, p. 242 and n. 27. The phonetic shift ὃ > r in the name
Bagarate < Bagadates, which is considered to be a characteristic of dialects from
Atropatené according to Iranists, points in the same direction, Grundriss, I, 2, p. 355,
exvi. [C/. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 306 sqq.] (412, 3)

46 Cf. Markwart, Hran, Ὁ. 174 [and the preceding note.] _ (418, 1)

ΑἹ Sebéos, Ὁ. 6, ‘ +++h npypph ΠΣ ΧΩ, οἰ παι δ η έτη μὲν y¢ wnuhym—

NOTES : CHAPTER XIV 49]

prio fuphuty ἢ ae uphinnfy, τραβῶ ρὲ [ Uhaby innh. sum gh
hnoiym Pugmpum b Utinky yop p Fn iunbin hhh μετ βὴ ung puyppauprumgh
HNL hnskgfh”. ἢ ΤΟΙ above 1. 45. (413, 2)

48 In this case we can postulate a connexion between {δίνη mm and Usay,
the village in Bagrewand which we proposed above as the ancestral home of the Bagra-
tuni [See above chapter XI, Ὁ. 242 and n.27]. The Biblical Uian = Gk. NepyéA
(probably < ἐποίησαν τὴν <vy>epyéA pro épyéA) has no connexion with Ulghy
mach in spite of the Anonymous History’s familiarity with it, which was accepted by
Khalatiants, Armenian Epic., δὰ 84. ae Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 296-305, and above
n, 45.] (418, 8)

49 The MSS of Appian have thie correct ΠΣ Μμιθροβουζάνης, as shown by Justi,
Namenbuch, pp. 208-209, . MidpoBovfarys consists of Mifpa + budin, Arm. pad —
fh and has the sense of ‘“‘saved by Mithra”: [Cf a Grammatik, pp.
52-58, Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 299, 321.) = (418, 4)

50 According to Plutarch [Lucullus, xxv, L. 11, 548/9-860/1), the first- man to bring
Tigran news of Lucullus’ expedition was decapitated, hanged, according to Appian
[Mithr., XII, xii, 84, L. 11, 8989], after which, according to Plutarch, no one dared
speak of Lucullus to the king, “.... those who flattered him ... said that Lucullus would
be a great general if he ventured to withstand Tigranes at Ephesus, and did not fly
incontinently from Asia at the mere sight of so many myriads of men .... The first
of his friends who ventured to tell him the truth was Mithrobarzanes, and he, too,
got no very excellent reward for his boldness of speech. He was sent against Lucullus
with three thousand horsemen and a large force of infantry, under the orders to bring
the general alive, but to trample his men under foot”. [See above τι. 42 for the text].
According to Appian, Tigran’s order was very modest, “... to hinder Lucullus’ march.
αν ἦς Mithrobarzanes had but.2,000 horsemen, and the battle ended in Mithrobarzanes’
flight [see above τι. 42 for the text]. Plutarch, however, raised his forces to ‘‘ three
thousand horsemen, and a large force of infantry ” and had him fight not against Lu-
cullus himself, but against his legate Sextillius, with the resultant death of the Armenian
commander, These disagreements show the bias of ancient historians, and Tigran’s
history still awaits an. impartial study. Scholars have accepted all the information
given by the sources forgetting that these were based on the false reports of the boastful
Lucullus who described partisan skirmishes and bandit raids as pitched battles in which |
20,000 men defeated the enormous and brilliant forces of Tigran, which numbered up
to 260,000 or 300,000 men. At the same time, it is claimed that whereas the enemy
had lost more than 100,000 dead, and almost no one had survived out of a cavalry of
55,000, Lucullus suffered losses of some 100 wounded, and 5, or even, 1 dead. The
nature and value of Lucullus’ accounts can be judged from the following classic example:
in his report of the battle for Artaxata, Lucullus wrote that “ἢ Of three kings who together
confronted the Romans, Mithridates of Pontus seems to have fled most disgracefully,
for the could not endure even their shouting”. [Plut. Lucullus, xxxi, 7, L. ΤΙ, 574/5-
576/7], This is told of a man unequalled for-his fearlessness, one whose mere name
terrorized the Romans, and of whom. it was said after his death that ‘* ... in the person
of Mithridates ten thousand enemies had died”. Plut. Pompey [XLII, 1, L. V, 222/3.
[For a recent attempt to clear Tigran’s reputation, see, Manandian, Tigran 11, who
shares Adontz’s opinion of the reliability of classical sources on this subject, cf. in parti-
cular, Jdid., p. 2 sqq., also Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 299 τι. 89.] | - (414, 1)

492 NOTES : CHAPTER XIV

51 Diod. Sic., XXXI, xxii, [L. XI, 370/1-372/3], ef. Polyb., XXXI, xvi (xv), 1 [L. VI,
194/5]. We have already seen that the bishop of Sophené was also named Μερουζάνης.
See above, Chapter XII, pp. 270-27] and τι. 42. [Also, Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 292 sqq.,
and stemma p. 282. The protector of Mithrobouzanes is usually considered to be
king Ariarathes V Eusebes Philopator of Cappadocia (163-130 B.C.) and not his father
Ariarathes IV, ef. Diod, Sic., ΧΟ ΧΙ, xix, xxi-xxii, L. XI, 368/9-370/1, and p. 369 τ. 3]

(414, 2)

518. [ Strabo, XI, xiv, 15 [L. V, 336/7), “sod δὲ Ζαριάδριος 6 ΣΙωφηνὸς ᾿Αρτάνης ἔχων
τὰ νότια μέρη Kal τούτων τὰ πρὸς δύσιν μᾶλλον. κατελύθη δ᾽ οὗτος ὑπὸ τοῦ Τιγράνου, καὶ
πάντων κατέστη κύριος ἐκεῖνος "΄. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 292-294.]

510 [10614., pp. 209, 321.]

52 Markwart’s hypothesis, Hran, p. 176, is very likely. The transfer of the Sophenian
branch to Albak does not belong in the period of Tigran 11, as he supposes but in that
of the Arsacids. The etymology of the name is still untraced, since all the attempts
to interpret this name remain as yet unacceptable. [On the Arcruni, see Toumanoff,
Studies, pp. 110 τι. 178, 164-165, 170, 199-200, 298-299, 303, 305, 320-321; on the ety-
mology of their name, Jbid., pp. 301 τι. 228, and 298 τι. 83; on the Bagratuni, [bid.,
pp. 110 n. 178, 201-203, 306-354, ete.; on the Mamikonean, Jbid., pp. 110 n. 178, 209-
210, 821, 325 τι. 88.] (415, 1)

528 [On the Xorxoruni, see, Ibid., pp. 110 n.173, 208-209, 325 n. 88; Garitte, Agat
hange, p. 223.] :

52D [See above τι. 39.)

53 Plut. Lucullus, xxxi, 5 [L. 11, 6745], **... πολλοὶ yap ἦσαν ἱππεῖς καὶ λογάδες ἀντι-
παρατεταγμένοι, πρὸ δ᾽ αὐτῶν ἱπποτοξόται Mapdor καὶ λογχοφόροι Ἴβηρες οἷς μάλιστα τῶν
ξένων ὁ Τιγράνης ἐπίστευεν ὡς μαχιμωτάτοις Ἶἢ. (417, 1)

54 Strabo, XI, xiii, 3 [L. V, 8046], "ἢ... of ἐν τῇ ΠΠεροίδι Κύρτιοι καὶ Μάρδοι {καὶ γὰρ
οὕτω λέγονται οἱ "Αμαρδοι) καὶ οἱ ἐν τῇ "Apuevia μέχρι νῦν ὁμωνύμως προσαγορευόμενοι τῆς
αὐτῆς εἰσὶν ἰδέας. The Mardians are undoubtedly related to the people having
the same name (Mardi or Amardi), living near the Caspian Sea, whence were derived
the Am] of the Arm. Geogr., Ὁ. 40/53 [See above, Chapter TX n. 8]. Aml < *Amrda,
Andreas, Amardi, Markwart, Hran, p.136. [Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 169-170.]

(417, 2)

55 Xen. Anad., IV, iii, 4 [L. 11, 24/5], *... ὁρῶσιν ἱππέας πον πέραν τοῦ ποταμοῦ
ἐξωπλισμένους ws κωλύσοντας διαβαίνειν, πεζοὺς δ᾽ ἐπὶ ταῖς ὄχθαις παρατεταγμένους ἄνω τῶν
ἱππέων ὡς κωλύσοντας εἰς τὴν ᾿Αρμενίαν ἐκβαΐνειν. ἦσαν δ᾽ οὗτοι ᾿Ορόντα καὶ ᾿Αρτούχα
᾿Αρμένιοι καὶ Μάρδοι καὶ Χαλδαῖοι μισθοφόροι ”. (417, 3)

56 Tacitus, Ann., XIV, xxiii [L. IV, 146/7], “ Atque illum [Corbulonem] finis suos
praegredientem incursavere Mardi, latrociniis exerciti contraque inrumpentem montibus
defensi; quos Corbulo inmissis Hiberis vastavit ... [xxiv] ... Unde in regionem Taurauni-
tium transgressus inprovisum periculum vitavit ...”’. (417, 4)

5? See above chapter XI, pp. 249-250; Sebéos, xxxv, p.138, “++. np &ykh f
Uupyngtut: »; Lewond, ii, Ὁ. 7 “ eve p πα ζῆ μι ἢ {Πππρηπιη πη sos Both
consist of Uupyny (nom. loc.) < mard, while the ending —l P or ποι! gives it the
sense of an ethnikon: “the inhabitants of Mardoc’”’, which is similar to ᾿ημό-- Ps
2mpuuunah -- Fu).p, ete. We believe that, in addition to Mardastan, the name
of the Mardians has also been preserved in the province of Mardatik’ (see above, Chapter
IIT n. 18), Perhaps the Mardians of Mardalk’ are the descendents of those Mardians

NOTES : CHAPTER XIV 493

who attacked Xenophon at the Kentrites crossing together with the Chaldaeans [see
above τι. 55]. Still together they moved northward and occupied the districts named
respectively Mardatik’ and Chaldia. The Mardians who appeared in Mardastan pro-
bably came at a later date and from the direction of Iran. [See above nn. 54-55]. (417, 5)

57a [Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 169-170, 200, 231 τ. 285, 237 n. 305, 248; Garitte,
Agathange, p. 224.]

58 Pliny, NA, VI, x (28) [L. II, 356/7], “*... proximi Armeniae sunt Menobardi et
Moscheni”. [Markwart, Stidarmenien, Ὁ. *53, Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 182-183, also
458-460 nn. 98a and 98. See above nn. 6, 19; Garitte, Agathange, Ὁ. 225, and Hiibsch-
mann, Orisnamen, pp. 254-255; Eremyan, Armenia, Ὁ. 71]. (418, 1)

59 Yapdkhp < *Ynpmpd—myjp, where YnpmfS =“ Kurd”; the form is similar
to winpuyuin—fs, puyuu—fd, etc. Andreas’ derivation from kurti-hayk is un-
founded. [Cf. Hibschmann, Orisnamen, pp. 255-259, 333-335; Markwart, Siidarmenien,
pp. *53, 353; Garitte, Agathange, pp. 219-220; Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 57 n. 54, 60
n. 58, 129-130, 169-170, 181-182, 197 τι. 222, 468 n. 188; Eremyan, Armenia, p. 60;
Hewsen, Armenia, Ὁ. 329 n. 36. See above τι. 19]. (418, 2)

60 According to the Anonymous History [Sebéos, Ὁ. 2] and MX [i, xii], Quinn was
the grandson of Hayk, the son of Armenak, and the Yumi/imh house was descended
from him. It is possible that Kadm is a misunderstanding of the Syr. kadun, “ first ”
so that “" kin--- Funwhyn |? fb Quin) (/¢nnph pupa) πμῃηπ| δι 1} μεῖνε ἢ μι]
... ? [Sebéos, p. 2] means, ‘‘ he gave ... to the first or eldest son of Armenak ...”. On the
other hand, the hypothesis that 4u7—/—nu is the toponym equivalent to the Syr.
kasdim (plur. kasd) > kard the root of Kardu-x-ot, is also possible. Cf. Marr, Tables,
Ῥ. 5, Hommel, Grundriss, I, pp. 187 n.4 and 244 n.4. In such an interpretation,
Yuqfiuh would become a name of the type fnpgnibuh, Upuwikiut, etc. [Tou-
manoff, Studies, pp. 224-225 and 224 τι. 270, 236.] (418, 3)

61 Herod., V, 52 [L. III, 58/9] Martin} was a country adjacent to Armenia on the
river Zab, or, as Herodotus calls it, the third Tigris. According to his indication,
the Royal Highway from Susa to Sardis passed through Armenia and Mantiené, ** In
Armenia there are fifteen resting-stages, and fifty-six parasangs and a half” whereas
in Mantienéd there are “ thirty-four [sic], and a hundred and thirty-seven parasangs ”’.
[NB. Adontz gives only four resting-stages in Mantiené and deduces the relative size
of this country and Armenia from this ratio]. Sirabo, XI, vii, 2 [L. V, 250/1], puts
Matiané together with Media Piol., VI, ii, 5, mentions Marovordva < matu and stana,
and Μαρτιανής According to Sirabo, XI, xiv, 8 [L. V, 326/7], Lake Urmiah was called
“ἡ Μαντιανή, Κυανῇ ἑρμηνευθεῖσα, ...”. In his description of Media, [XI], xiii, 2,
L. V, 302/3] the same lake is called Σ΄ παῦτα [cf. p. 302 τι. 3 “ Καπαῦταν . In one case
Strabo has followed Apollonides, and in the other Eratosthenes, moreover he mistook
κυανῇ “blue” as the translation of αντιανή, whereas it belonged with Σ᾽ παῦταν <
[Κα]ποῦταν = Yurnynimmh of the Arm. Geogr. II, (Pers. ,y| 5 ΤΥ ) which does mean

“blue”. Cf. Hiibschmann, Orisnamen, Ὁ. 439; Markwart, Hrin, Ὁ. 143; Eremyan,
Armenia, Ὁ. 58; Hewsen, Armenia, p. 329 τι. 39, also next note.] (419, 1)

62 The etymology of manda and of the other forms has not yet been worked out,
ef. Hommel, Grundriss, p.195 and Rost, Uniersuchungen, where the latter compares
mada and madh, with the sense, *‘ verstandigen, in verstandlicher Sprache redenden ”’,
Ibid., p.78. According to Sirabo, XI, vii, 2 [L. V, 250/1]. Media and particularly
Mantiené were famous because, “ἡ μὲν yap ἄμπελος μετρητὴν οἴνου φέρει ... ἐν δὲ τοῖς

494 NOTES : CHAPTER XIV

δένδρεσι σμηνουργεῖται καὶ τῶν φύλλων ἀπορρεῖ μέλι" ...”. See also, Ibid., Tl, i, 4
[L. I, 272/3]. This fact may perhaps provide a basis for tracing mada and mait from the
root madu, Avest. mada, Gk. μέθυ, Slav. iE Ah meaning wine” or ‘‘ mead”. [The
entire question of the “ Mada ”’, the part they played in the “* barbarian confederation ”
or ‘* Umman - Manda ” of late Assyrian sources, their relation to the country of Manna
and its inhabitants, and finally their connexions with the Armenians, has grown enor-
mously since the time of writing of this work, and, indeed, is considerably developed
by Adontz himself in his late work, Histoire d Arménie. On these highly controversial
problems, see also, Piotrovskii, Origin, and Kingdom of Van, D’iakonov, Assyro-Babylo-
nian Sources, Media, and Collection, van Loon, Urartian Art, pp. 1-28, οἱ al.] (419, 2)
88 MX, ΤΙ, Wii,“ Gaumpu ouopm wok Elim ἡπιηη winking
baytubgh mph; py ee mixfumpdph : Payg bh unpw phmfekuip 2 μέτα]
fh ΤΩΝ, nulkifnk. . + Supbmyp bh unpm f sUpomlary urna) hhh f Minn [Phung
/Punnpbykjnyh, h jane Ὁ. δὴ, Bins πη {ἢ jUphwy mip fm Z pbs p ny unin fi.
4uruur p β ἠπηδιιῖηει ἰλξιδμηπι : Pinyy [Pt yp 3 ee guy ἡ ΠΗ͂ ΜΙ
myup ng ηἐιπῆ, uy yon ph jU pom ρὲ ghyfip bh puumubhipnop, ho wh—
muh oiunonhplp, apylu fel bhp : δὲ. hiup fp Qupufy Swimkwi phn
hngkh pum ΝΕ "Ὁ Thus, the Amatuni came from Ahmatan and were
the descendents of a certain Manwé. Xorenagi presents the Amatuni as 4} p “ immi-
grants”? (evidently from Pers. .\..,|), but why then mention their ancestor Manwé, “ on
account of whom some of the Persians still called them Manwean”? The legendary
account presumably had spoken of Umunr and Uuinnkmid, (subsequently distorted
into Uwiin. Uwhmbmi), and Matu is an eponym pointing to the people having the
same name. The initial a- in A-maiuni is also found in the form A-madai for Madai,
and seems to have been a characteristic of Alarodian pronunciation, Hommel, Grundriss,
Ῥ. 195 n.2. [Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 61 τι. 58, 169 n, 81, 197-198, on the Caspio-
Medians and the Amatuni; 110 τι, 173, 198 τι, 223, 212, for the Mandakuni.] (419, 3)
64 The Gahnamak has Umpuyghmh pro Umpnybml, as does Thom. Arc. II, vi,
p- 109. 2X, ΤΙ, viii, insists that “ bplpapy fPmgunnpm|thuhh | pity pf ae
Upunm £m ἤ μι} Umpury Eykyny [Puyminpp, op κι!οἰἣ Umpmgmhy hngkh
Folgf ng oobi fohewknh o_gghh Umpuguh mip, ay Smpugngh mip”.
but he himself speaks of “ {μη ἢ muhnunlp myghh Umpougmh .-.”. Ibid.,
TI, sliv, and “Upqud hudaykn Umpoquimy”. Ibid. II, xlvi. [Cf. Tou-
manoff, Studies, pp. 224 n.270, 230-231 nn. 280, 284. Eremyan, Armenia, p. 65.
Hewsen, Armenia; Ὁ. 331 and nn. 47-48.] (420, 1)
65 Plut. Lucullus, xxvi, 4.[L. 11, 554/5], ““.., συνῆλθον ᾿Αρμένιος καὶ Topdunvot,
πανστρατιᾷ δὲ ῆήδους καὶ ᾿Αδιαβηνοὺς ἄγοντες of βασιλεῖς παρῆσαν, ἧκον δὲ πολλοὶ μὲν ἀπὸ
τῆς ἐν Βαβυλῶνι θαλάσσης "Αραβες, πολλοὶ δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς Κασπίας ᾿Αλβανοὶ καὶ Ἴβηρες ᾿Αλβα-
vois προσοικοῦντες, οὐκ ὀλίγοι δὲ τῶν περὶ τὸν ᾿Αράξην νεμομένων pee χάριτι Kal
δώροις πεισθέντες ἀπήντησαν, ... 7. (420, a
86 Herod., III, 98; VII, 68 [L, II, 120/1; III, 380/1). Strabo, XI, vii, 1; XI, viii, 8
[L. V, 248/9; 268/9). Pliny, NH, VI, xvi (45), ᾿ Atropatene ab Armeniae Otene eee
diseretaa Araxe”., FPiol., V,. xii, 4, .. παρὰ δὲ τὸν Κύρον ποταμὸν ... ἡ ᾿Ὡτηνή ”
[Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 68 n. 65, 10. n. 173, 129, 182, 219, 475, 482. Πα
Armenia, p. 75, Hewsen, Armenia, p- 383. Cf. Frye, Persia, p. 47; Trever, Albania,
p. 46 ete.] | : (420, 3)

NOTES : CHAPTER XIV 495

67 Τῆλαι > modern Gilan =“ QBiy—uy”, Bhs, v, p.116; “ Θιἰμμηΐῃ" Mov.
Katank’., ΤΙ, xix, p.140;“ fphfp 9by5—my ” Sebéos, xii-xiii, pp. 57-58; “ Θιδη δειλὴ
pau” MX, τί, 11. Cf. ΦΡημ ἥ, Amp pap, [Eremyan, Armenia, p. 47;
Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 214; D’iakonov, Media, p. 93 τ. 1.1 (420, 4)

68 Strabo, XI, vii, 1 [L. V, 248/9], “ Αἰνιᾶνας δ᾽ ἐν τῇ Οὐιτίᾳ τειχίσαι πόλιν, ἣν Aindva
καλεῖσθαι ...”, Andreas, Ainiana, derives the Arm. Zmlif in Paytakaran from this
city. But Sirabo, XI, xiv, 14 [L. V, 334/5] also asserts that ‘‘ “έγονται δὲ καὶ τῶν
«Αἰνιάνων τινές, οἱ μὲν τὴν Οὐιτίαν οἰκῆσαι, of δ᾽ ὕπερθε τῶν ᾿Δρμενίων ὑπὲρ τὸν "Α͂βον καὶ
τὸν NiBapov”. On the basis of this passage, the Armenian Uff should also be
linked with the *Awid-vor. [Eremyan, Armenia, Ὁ. 621. (420, 5)

89 Strabo, XI, viii, 4[L. V, 260/1-262/3], " [Σάκαι] ἅπαντες δ᾽ ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ νομάδες ..
i ΠΛΊσ δ eee: ἐποιήσαντο τοῖς ἀιμβεβίοις καὶ Τρήρεσι, τὰς μὲν μακροτέρας, τὰς δὲ
καὶ ἐγγύθεν" καὶ γὰρ τὴν Βακτριανὴν κατέσχον καὶ τῆς ᾿Αρμενίας κατεκτήσαντο τὴν ἀρίστην
γῆν, ἣν καὶ ἐπώνυμον ἑαυτῶν κατέλιπον τὴν ΖΣακασηνήν, καὶ μέχρι Καππαδόκων, καὶ
μάλιστα τῶν πρὸς Εὐξείνῳ, obs Ποντικοὺς νῦν καλοῦσι, προῆλθον". [As in the case of
the Mada, the migration of the Saka has received a great deal of attention from recent
scholarship. See above, the bibliography given in n. 62, also Kremyan, Armenia, Ὁ. 73;
Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 52, 54 τι. 49, 60 τ. 58, 80; Frye, Persia, pp. 41-42, 47, 67-70,
152-160, 164-167, 177-178, 216, 252 nn. 50-52; Mellink ed., Dark Ages, Trever, Abania].

(421, 1)

70 Hiibschmann, Orisnamen, Ὁ. 457, is of the opinion that the phoneme § for s in
Guluoth stands in the way of this etymology, but even if we were certain that saka
must > nul; and not oul in Armenian, it would still be possible to attribute this
transformation to some peculiarity of Utian or Albanian pronunciation. Markwart,
Eran, p. 120 n. 3, holds that the etymology of Sakasené, and of the festival τὰ σάκαια
** ist eine blosse Konjektur ” of ancient writers, that they probably had nothing to do
with the Saka, and the etymology was devoid of historical value. This conclusion
is correct in the case of the odxa:a which has no connexion with the Saka, and is
probably < sak *‘ tribute ” referring to the great gifts made at the-time of the festival.
[See preceding and following notes.] (421, 2)

71 Arrian, Anad., IU, viii, 4 [L. 1, 246/7], “Μήδων δὲ ἡγεῖτο *Arpomarys: ξυνετάτ-
τοντὸ δὲ Mysors KaSovarol τε καὶ ᾿Αλβανοι καὶ Saxesiva.”. Strabo, XI, xiv, 4 [L.V,
8320/1], “ἡ Ζακασηνή, καὶ αὐτὴ τῇ ᾿Αλβανία πρόσχωρος .... Pliny, NH, VI, x (29)
[1 TI, 358/9], “ὁ... Moschorum tractus ad Hiberum amnem in Cyrum defluentem et
infra eos Sacasani et deinde Macerones ad flumen Absarrum”. Fiol., V, xii, “" Yaxa-
-onvyi”. [See above nn. 69-70 and next note.] : ¢ (421, 3)

72 De Lagarde, Gesam. Abh., p. 155 and Arm. Studien, pp. 135-136, 199/5, believes
that the original name of the country was Si, which became Si-sakdn (i.e. “* Si of the
Saka ”’) after its occupation by the Saka— An unacceptable hypothesis; composite
names usually have a separate origin. The Armenian form Ufihif consists of the root
uf— and the ending —nilif, but the Persian form Ufumhmt presuposes the root
ufu—. The family historian of the house of Siwnik’ says that king Valarsak gave the
supreme command of the army to the house of Sisakan, “ Bx 4punimj! Ufumlpmhingh
Cpatobonnap y pbb fp fipmy anita mp path qopugh, h Eplpapy femgun-
npmfebmh pupa bh μϑηηξἣ fn: Sohn: yoembpgiun pppoe Ζηδηπη.
ΠΠΠῚ oh nm Dinh Ufaml ingfup τ. Steph. Orbd., 1, iv, I, pp. 54-55.
A few centuries before Orbelean, the Arab geographer Ibn al-Fakih (ca. 903) wrote that

496 NOTES: CHAPTER XIV

the Arabs took the city of Baylakan under the caliph Ut’man (644-656) and sent their
cavalry to conquer, ἘΣ Olis pall s Ol pally daly Ol 19 tae

Ν pals cn) ἴω) BGA, V, p. 298 = Karaulov, Sbornik, xxvii. It is easy to iden-
tify Sisan (instead of the Sisar of the text) Meckowank’ (17 bOlmubh-p), Unk’
(Niunf—p), Mecirank’ (UEoppmt—p) among these rustég. The last name is a dis-
tortion of Lun δ ἷ!- Pp or Um fumi] Lun pd hh— Ρ. With the exception of the
first, the remaining names are known from the Arm. Geogr., [p. 33/44, see Appen-
dix IV] as districts in Arcay. The first name is to be identified with the Ufumh
of Orbelean, according to whom this was the original name of the Gate of the Huns,
i.e. the present Derbent. Ibn al-Fakih gives a detailed description of the pass at Der-
bent which had been fortified with a long wall by Xusré6 AndSarvan, and says that
there were seven passages opened in this wall at each of which a city was built, these
were inhabited by Persian troops and called stasikin, “ Sa ω» ..}}} ees ty Gal

κω ὦ] σῷ >. Moreover, the author continues, “it is said that men

from Armenia are required to guard this wall and these gates”. BGA, V
p. 291 = Sbornik, Ὁ. 23. These last words leave no doubt that siastkin is
the Arab. plur. of stsakan. The modern Arab pronunciation is sisajan (plur.
siasyin, a8 given in BGA, V, p. 728 = Karaulov, Sbornik, Ὁ. 17), Xusrd built
Vaye (_y23 9) = Yujny [dnp] and other fortresses in the land of Sisajan and filled
them with Siasijans, a warlike and brave people). The departure from the correct
Arabie pronunciation shows that the author relied here on an ancient Persian source.
Since the defense of the gates was entrusted to the population of Sisakan, in which lay
the district of Sisan, we can understand the reason for which the gates came to be called
Sisan. It is the echo of an historical event, namely, that these gates had been guarded
by Armenians from Sisan (cf. the words of Vasak of Siwnik’, ZP’, XLV, p. 264, “*...
bu δ Σ Ypmg dupqywhh fh h bank Unawhfg pind dknph fp, pond
ηομπηπεβιρ fnhimy pin pu pupbhwidmguh ---, )Should we accept Sisan as a
contraction of Sis<ak>an, or of Sis<aj>an, or should we take it as an independent
formation (< the root sis + an, the suffix indicating the plural) and connect it with
modern Sisian, a section of the Zangezur district of Siwnik’, although Sisian can also
be taken as a contraction of Sisakan. The question whether Sis is the name of a parti-
cular people, or whether it has the same origin as Siwnik’ isnot clear. Theform Ujuhhp
is older than U fm huh ; it is found in Eusebius, Praep. Evang., VI, xxxi, “ καὶ ὅλη τῇ
᾿Αλανίᾳ καὶ ᾿Αλβανίᾳ καὶ ᾿ῷτηνῇ καὶ Aavvia”’. Ithasalso been suggested that Φαυνῖ-τις
should be read Savvi-ris in Strabo, XI, xiv, 5[L. V, 3245], Procopius, Pers., I, xv, 1
[L. I, 128/9], knows of the Sunitat as neighbours of the Albanians [sic. The text of
Procopius has Alans, “ro δὲ στράτευμα τοῦτο Περσαρμενίων τε καὶ Σιουνιτῶν ἦσαν, of
δὴ ᾿Αλανοῖς εἶσιν ὅμοροι. The Persian form of the name: Sisakan, appears for the
first time in Zachariah of Mitylene, XII, vii, p. 328, for the year 554, where he gives
Sisagin as a country separate from Armenia as are Arran and Gurzan [See above, chapter
IX, p.171]. In Armenian literature, Sisakan also appears later than Siwnik’. It is
interesting that the Anonymous History does not include Sisak in its genealogy of the
Haykids, where this is done by MX [I, xii, “++ Ohwmxz ἡπρὴβ fup ἡ] {μι ...
guido Look bio cunmbymehoh fp ὁπ ἢν ply mponye uhh sh game

up, ap ηἐτιπῖι Gpwufu oes fpPmbt p ΠΩΣ : Uun phuliwy Ufuml, pm

NOTES: CHAPTER XIV 497

opinifebmip qumdoubu phulmfbwh fupny. h qunsfumpch hngh fupm
uiinumiph Ufitpp. wy) mu pup pum manyh pull [μι νι hngkh ”. Does
this omission indicate that the form Sisakan was not yet in use in the period of
the Anonymous History, or does it reflect the period 571-660, when Siwnik’ was separated
from Armenia? [Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 330 sqq., particularly 332, for the use
of this term to date the History of Movsés Xorenaci]. The root sis- in Sisakan can be
reduced to sz-, in Siwnik’, if we accept the hypothesis that szs- has the same relation
to si-si-k’, as Puan < wily > to Pun—p, Moks-ena to Unh— .p, Akilis-ené to
bhinf—p, bhiykmg,, etc. [Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 180 τι. 229, 214 and τι. 244,
352 τι. 50, and above nn. 69 sqq.] (421, 4)
73 FB, II, vii, the ὁ" yopu Puqun—buy »” jive north of the Kura. In Koriwn,
XI, 5, p. 34, the “ Purqunmhah ἠπη δι Pp” lie on the road from Atbania to Gardman
and TaSir, 2.6., along the Kura. Muslim sources are familiar with Batasakan, on the
right bank of the Araxes between Ardebil and Vardan[akert], Markwart, Hran, Ὁ. 120,
(cf. puqwh—nann, a district in Paytakaran LArm. Geogr., p. 33/44]. We can see
from this that the people under discussion came down into the valley of the Kura from
the mountains and moved to the junction of the Kura and the Araxes. During this
migration, some of them must have settled in the locality named Puy—p, Puy—n,
after them. 2sé, vi, p.134, “... pupbhuimgbuy ἐμ hm ply Ζίπαμιδιμ}
Znbf dhupabmpehodp μι ημ μι appa ...”. Since, in the same con-
text, ZP’, xlvi, p. 268, mentions only the king of the Huns, we must presume that
Elisé’s King of Bajasakan is one and the same person as Hefan, the Hun. In this
case, it is possible that Znmli is merely a form of Unmii = Albania, 1.6., that Vasak
had concluded an alliance with the Aibanians, or the Albanian Huns who were ruled
by the King of Balasakan. The Balas probably were one of the Hunnic tribes. [Cf.
Eremyan, Armenia, pp. 43, 88; Trever, Albania, pp. 75, 150, 191-192, 196-197, 208].
(428, 1)

74 Pliny, NH, VI, xi (29), [L. 11, 358/9], *... ab Albaniae confinio tota montium
fronte gentes Silvorum ferae et infra Lupeniorum, mox Diduri et Sodi”’. FPiol., V, xii,
Ῥ. 938, Σοδουκ-ηνή which reproduces the Arm. Unmpp. The comment of Steph.
Orb., I, iii, I, p. 51, “* Qnppnpy Un|ehy gun, np uubn Luh gnpybuh
ppng h ΓΝ οηπηΐ ΠΣ ΠΣ Zphgkpnpy Uqmdeé gurun ---”.
The UymLhép were apparently drawn from the people whose descendents in southern
Daghestan are now called 1 m4fdé. [Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, p. 182 τι. 146}. (424, 1)
7S FB, III, vii, “ Hopu Garg pig ” oro * hu pyuiping 5 under the influence of
agquip p the well known province of Gogarené. dX, ΤΙ, vii, * Ομ πη pmginy
ῥοἰμδπι fe fab >. Thom. Are. III, x, p.177, “++ pImbl p ΠΙΠΙΠῚΙ Quip
purging, h En[¢hmy διπα pf punyu ρὲ uke Qu pana. «τ Ὁ Jbid., ILI, xviii,
p. 216, “ Qapmun yupofumpla Gupympuging”. [See next note). (424, 2)
76 Strabo, XI, v, 1 [L. V, 2382/3] Tapyapets. The similar Γωγαρηνή, which is also
known to Sirabo has nothing to do with the Gargarians and belongs to Armenian nomen-
clature. Gargar may = Assyr. kakkari, “" country, province”. There is, incidentally
no etymological or historical objection to the association of Qnigup Pp with the
Qunpyupp, who would then be considered earlier migrants. This is all the more
tempting that the neighbouring provinces of Sirak and ASog have also preserved the

498 NOTES : CHAPTER XIV

memory of mountain tribes, the “ Σιράκων καὶ "Adpowy φῦλα ...”. Strabo, XI, v, 8
[L. V, 242/83], who were the most numerous and powerful of the peoples nomadizing
between the Maeotic and Caspian seas. They moved from north to south (** φυγάδες
τῶν ἀνωτέρω ᾽Ἶ and, gradually spreading carried on trade with Indian and Babylonian
wares which they received from the Armenians and the Medes, “
καμήλοις τὸν ᾿Ινδικὸν φόρτον καὶ τὸν Βαβυλώνιο» παρά τε ᾿Αρμενίων καὶ Mydieor
διαδεχόμενοι" ”. Idem. [Cf. the objection of Manandian, Trade, pp. 49-50]. In view
of their close connexion with the Armenians, it would not be surprizing if part of them
had moved to Armenia into the district later called Ghpml = Σίρακ,, while Uonyg =
᾿Αόρσοι.. According to Pliny, NA, VI, iv (16) [L. ΤΙ, 8489], the Cephalotomi lived
next to the Seraci [NB. the text of Pliny has Serrt and not Seraci, “‘ ... post eos Serri,
Cephalotomi’’]. However, we learn from Strabo, XI, xiv, 14 [L. V, 334/5-336/7),
that their real name was Saraparas and that part of them moved to the Median border,

§

.. ἐνεπορεύοντο

*... φασι δὲ καὶ Θρᾳκῶν τινάς, τοὺς mpocayopevopévovs Lapamdpas, οἷον κεφαλοτόμους,
οἰκῆσαι ὑπὲρ τῆς ᾿Αρμενίας, πλησίον ... Μήδων, θηριώδεις ἀνθρώπους ... ἀποκεφαλιστάς"
τοῦτο γὰρ δηλοῦσιν of Σαραπάραι". If we accept the hypothesis that the Saraparas
settled in Armenia together with their neighbours the Sirakeni, a new light is cast on
the. gentilicial name of the Kamsarakan princes: Sara-para has the literal sense of
κεφαλο-τόμος, according to MX, ΤΙ, lxxxvii, Yuump had the same meaning, “...
yun yap μπηπμπι θεν πιπημ Pho, obabbgen Youump mylip
unum”, ὁ.6. the name was composed of Kam and sar, On this basis we can presume
that the Kamsarakan were descended from Saraparian immigrants into Sirak. Sub-
sequently, with the transfer of Sirak to the branch of the Arsacids which had settled
in Argarunik’, it also received the name of the Kamsarakans. According to
the Armenian tradition transmitted by JX [ΤΠ], v, viii], Sirak < Saray, and Gugark’ <
Gusar. It is clear that Gupmy and Gmpup are merely eponyms, Curpruy has the
same relation to GApul; as QBmioup to Gargupp. The correct form of the latter
may be Fur Suip ef modern Gujareti. It is, of course possible that Sirak means “ field ”
(cf. the Sirak plain along the Alazan), 807 Ora, sehra, Sirak. [On the Gargarians, see also,
Trever, Albania, pp. 31, 46, 48-50, 58, 66, 140. On the GuSarids and the vitayate of
Gogarené, cf. Toumanoff, Studies, 183 sqq., 467-473 and notes. On Sirak, Manandian,
Problems, pp. 61 sqq.. On the Kamsarakan house, Jdid., 110 τ. 173, 180 τ. 229,
171 τ. 90, 193 τι. 207, 206-207]. (424, 3)

τ Herod., VII, 68 [L. III, 380/1], the Mvxo. lived next to the Ovrio. and were armed
like the [dxrues, 1.6. the inhabitants of Bohtan. This last fact suggests the possibility
of a link between the Mvxo. and the Mok-s-ians ( {{πι|{μιη}. It is interesting that 1X
[IL, viii] believed that the inhabitants of RStunik’, the district next to Mokk’ had come
from Siwnik’, a territory near Mughan, “ ful qapunnmhi fu h gynnfehighu
pnp yonndiwy fp upoulebth wppph Lond, ng gpk, [2 polo τ μπιλη ἢ
qnonunh whnbbh, hb Pf pot qeewngh ghrp πα θ faba ἡπαδη τι! ”.
[Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 68 τι. 65, see above nn. 19, 58] — (426, 1)

18 Strabo, XI, vii, 1 [L. V, 248/9]. According to the geographer, there existed,
** Παρρασίων τινας ... ots καλεῖσθαι viv Παρσίους ...”. More correctly, the Parsioi
and the Parrasioi were separate but related peoples (Pliny, NH, VI, xviii (48) [L. 1],
372/3] also asserts that ‘‘ Gaeli quos Graeci Cadusios appellavere ... although we know
that Gaeli and the Cadusii were separate peoples). According to Mov. Katank’, I, xiii,

NOTES: CHAPTER XIV 499

Sm firmp& uh U pom fam] nmpnohul minh” exists, the name is given as Qu pu-
ἐμεδη in the heading of the chapter. In Jdid., ITI, xx, p. 264, the same name is given
as ἢ) μιη---ἰ ἦν -- ρ while the Arm. Geogr., [p. 33/44] has Judhulip. The other district
Powin—fp—unipntin is found in Asotk, III, xvii, p.198; xxx, p. 256; xlviii, p. 283
in the form Punfi <nu>. (425, 2)
78a [Cf. above pp. 317 sgg. and τι. 38a.]
180 [See next chapter.]

500 NOTES: CHAPTER XV

CHAPTER XV

& [The bibliographic indications given at the beginning of Chapters 1X and XITI are

also relevant for this chapter. For works relating to the problem of Armenian feudalism,
see below τι. 15d.]

1 The Tigranid dynasty goes back to the period of Cyrus and Astyages, whose contem-
porary was an Armenian king having two sons: Tigranes and Sabaris (see above, Chapter
XIV andn. 1). From them were descended the following:

1.

Artaxias [ArtaSés] in 190 B.C.

2. Tigranes [Tigran] I. According to Appian, Syr., XI, viti, 48 [L. IT, 196/7] Tigran

10.

11.

12.

33
.

the Great was the son of a Tigran, “ βασιλεὺς ᾿Αρμενίας Τιγράνης ὁ Τιγράνους ...

. Artavazdes [Artawazd] 1. 94 B.C.
. Tigranes IT the Great (94-56 B.C.), His son also named Tigran was married to

the daughter of King Phraates of Parthia. The daughter of Tigran was married
to King Mithradates of Atropatené, [Media], Cass. Dio., XXXVI, xiv [L. ITI, 20/1], —
δ“ ἡ Μιθριδάτες ὁ ἕτερος ὁ ἐκ Μηδίας γαμβρὸς τοῦ Τιγράνου ... Ἴ. JX ΠῚ, xi, xiv-
Xvi, xviii], confuses Mithradates of Pontus with Mithradates of Media. Tigran II
was married to Cleopatra, the daughter of the former, whereas his own daughter

was married to the latter.

. Artavazdes IT (66-30 B.C.). Taken prisoner in 858 B.C. Killed by Cleopatra VII

of Egypt in 30 B.C.

. Artaxias IT, son of Artavazdes J. Killed **... per dolum propinquorum”’. Tac.

Ann., ΤΙ, iii [L. ΤΙ, 388/9).

. Tigranes III. Brother of Artaxias and Erato, [“‘ Nec Tigrani diuturnum imperium

fuit neque liberis eius, quamquam societatis more externo in matrimonium reg-
numque ”’.] Idem. |

. Artavazdes III. Deposed in A.D.1. Jdid., IT, iv [L. JI, 388/9], [ἡ Dein iussu

Augusti inpositus Artavasdes et non sine clade nostra deiectus. Tum Gaius
Caesar componendae Armeniae deligitur ”’.]

. Ariobarzanes of Media. [‘‘Is Ariobarzanen, origine Medum, ob insignem corporis

formam et praeclarum, animum volentibus Armeniis praefecit. Ariobarzane morte
fortuita absumpto stirpem eius haud toleravere; ...”.] Idem.
Erato, sister and wife of Tigranes III (for the second time), Jdem, [‘* temptatoque
feminae imperio, cui nomen Erato, eaque brevi pulsa ... ”.]
Vonones of Parthia, [‘'... incerti solutique et magis sine domino quam in libertate
profugum Vononen in regnum accipiunt. Sed ubi minitari Artabanus et parum
subsidii in Armeniis, vel si nostra vi defenderetur, bellum adversus Parthos sumen-
dum erat, rector Syriae Creticus Silanus excitum custodia circumdat, manente
luxu et regio nomine”’.] Idem.
Artaxias JI] = Zeno, son of King Polemon of Pontus, Jbzd., 11, lvi [L. 11, 472/3-
474 [5], [“ (Armenti) Ambigua gens ea antiquitus hominum ingeniis et situ terrarum,
. Maximisque imperiis interiecti et saepius discordes sunt, adversus Romanos
odio et in Parthum invidia. Regem illa tempestate non habebant, amoto Vonone:
sed favor nationis inclinabat in Zenonem Polemonis regis Pontici filium, quod is
prima ab infantia instituta et cultum Armeniorum aemulatus. ... proceres ple-
blemque iuxta devinxerat. Igitur Germanicus in urbe Artaxata adprobantibus
nobilibus, circumfusa multitudine, insigne regium capiti eius imposuit. Ceteri

18.

14,

15.

16,

11.

NOTES : CHAPTER XV 501

venerantes regem Artaxiam consalutavere, quod illi vocabulum indiderant ex
nomine urbis ᾽..

Arsaces, son of Artabanus III of Parthia, Zbid., VI, xxxi [L. ITI, 206,7]. [“ (Arta-
banus) avidusque Armeniae, cui defuncto rege Artaxia Arsacen liberorum suorum
veterrimum inposuit, ...”.]

Tigranes IV [grandson of Herod the Great], executed in A.D. 36, Zbid., VI, x] [L. TI,
224/5], [ἢ Ne Tigranes quidem, Armenia quondam potitus ac tune reus, nomine
regio supplicia civium effugit.]

Mithradates of Iberia, Zbid., XIT, xliv-xlvii [L. TIT, 376/7-384/5).

Rhadamistes of Iberia, opposed to Tigran V from A.D. 50, [Jbid., XII, xliv-li;
XII, vi, xxxvii,[L. ITI, 376/7-390/1; IV, 10/1, 60/1}.

Tigranes V of Cappadocia, the Roman candidate and rival of Tiridates I [** (Veru-
Janus) ... quosque nobis aversos animis cognoverat, caedibus et incendiis perpopula-
tus possessionem Armeniae usurpabat, cum advenit Tigranes a Nerone ad capessen-
dum imperium delectus, Cappadocum ex nobilitate, regis Archelai nepos, sed quod
diu obses apud urbem fuerat, usque ad servilem patientiam demissus. Nec consensu
acceptus, durante apud quosdam favore Arsacidarum. At plerique superbiam
Parthorum perosi datum a Romanis regem malebant”. IJbid., XIV, xxvi [L. IV,
Ibid., XV, vi, xxiv [L. IV, 224/5, 252 5].

The Arsacid Dynasty:

1.

Tiridates [Trdat] I, from A.D. 50, permanently A.D. 66-80, ZJbid., XII, 1-li; XII,
KXXIV, xxxvii-xli; XTV, xxvi; XV, i-xvii, xxiv-xxxi; XVI, xxii, xxiii-xxiv [L. IT],
8889; IV, 56/7, 601-728; 148/9; 216/7-242/38, 252/3-262/3; 372/38]. For the

reception of Irdat I in Rome see below n. 7.

. Axidares, A.D. 110, son of Pacorus and brother of Tiridates [see next entry].
. Parthamasiris, A.D. 111-114, brother of Axidares, Cass. Dio., LX VII, xvii, [L. VIII,

392/3-400/1}.

. [Vologaesus]—117, SHA, “ Hadrianus”, xxi [L.I, 66/7], [“ Armeniis regem

habere permisit, cum sub Traiano legatum habuissent ... ”’.]

. (A king appointed by Antoninus Pius, A.D. 138-161). [‘S Sous le régne d’Antonin

le Pieux, une monnaie des années 140-144, avec la légende “* Rex Armentis datus”’,
nous montre cet empereur posant la tiare sur la téte d’un prince ...”. Grousset,
Arménie, p. 111.)

. Sohaemus (159-162). [Jamblichus, in Photius, Brbliothsque, xciv, TI, p. 40, “...

ἀκμάζειν ἐπὶ Σοαίμου τοῦ ᾿Αχαιμενίδον τοῦ *Apoaxidov, ὃς βασιλεὺς ἦν ἐκ πατέρων
3

βασιλέων, γέγονε δὲ ὅμως Kal τῆς συγκλήτου βουλῆς τῆς ἐν Ρώμῃ, καὶ ὕπατος δέ, εἶτα
καὶ βασιλεὺς πάλιν τῆς μεγάλης ᾿Αρμενίας ᾽..}

. Pacorus (162-164). [Fronto, dd Verum Imp. L. II, p. 144/5] CIG 6559 “" ᾽Αὐρέλιος

Iaxdopos βασιλεὺς μεγάλης *Appevias”’.] Sohaemus, bis (164-169). [See above, entry
No. 6 and Cass. Dio., LX XI, 2, [. IX, 4/5].

. Sanatruces [Sanatruk] (190-197). [The problem of Sanatruk is particularly compli-

cated, see Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 284, Debevoise, Parthia, Ὁ. 235, Maricg, Sanairoug,
et al., also next entry.]

. Vologaesus [Vatarsak] (197-216). [Cass. Dio., LXXYV, ix, L. VII, 418/9], “Ὅτι τῷ

Οὐολογαίΐσῳ τῷ ΦΖΣανατρούκου παιδὶ ἀντιπαραταξαμένῳ τοῖς περὶ Ζιεουῆρον, ... μέρος τι
τῆς ᾿Αρμενίας ἐπὶ τῇ εἰρήνῃ ἐχαρίσατο ". Ibid., LX XVIL (ΣΧ ΎΤΠ,, xii, 1, [L. IX,
9045], “ Τὸν δὲ τῶν ᾿Αρμενίων βασιλέα ... ἐκάλεσε μὲν φιλικοῖς γράμμασιν ... ἔδρασε
δὲ καὶ περὶ τὸν Αὔγαρον . Cf. Maricq, Chronologie).

502 NOTES : CHAPTER XV

10. Tiridates 11 (217). The kings of the I/Ith century are not known, and the existing
evidence is very confused. We have mentions of: .

11, Tiridates ITT in 253

12. Artavazdes in 269 |

13, Tiridates IV, the first Christian ruler contemporary with Gregory the Illuminator.

14, Chosroes [Xosrov 11]

15. Tiran [Tigranes VII}, deposed in 344.

16, Arsaces [Argak JT], (846-349).

17. Pap (369-874). _

18, Varazdates (874-378).
[Manuél Mamikonean, 378-385].

19. Arsaces and Valarsaces [Arsak and Vatarsak].

20. Vramsapuh,

21. Artasés. 7

[The Armenian chronology remains riddled with problems despite the considerable
work done on it since the publication of Adontz’s book. Only the briefest indications
can be given here of subsequent developments. The main areas of transformation have
been:. 1. the identification of the. Orontid dynasty in Hellenistic Armenia and the ad-
ditional material furnished by the Nemrut dag inscriptions and the Aramaic inscriptions
of Artaxias I found in Armenia. 2. The attempts to clarify the confusion created by
Armenian sources, particularly Movsés Xorenaci, who confuse the Artaxiad and Arsacid
dynasties in Armenia, confuse rulers and totally misplace a number of them such as
Abgar of Edessa, Tigran the Great, Sanatruk, ete. 8. The attempt to bring greater
precision in the chronology of Romano-Parthian relations, particularly in the periods
of Nero, Trajan, Mareus Aurelius. and Septimius Severus. 4. The publication of the
Sasanian inscriptions of Paikuli, the ‘“‘ Kaabah of Zoroaster” the “ Res Gestae” of
Sahpuh I, ete, as well as of the Greek inscription at Gatni, which brought considerable
new evidence on Roman-Persian relations in the ΤΠ. century A.D. 5. Finally the
chronology of the Christian Armenian Arsacids tied to the still controversial problem
of the date of Christianization of Armenia, has received no final solution.

The chronology of the. entire period diseussed here was given by Asdourian, Bezie-
hungen, who already. noted a number of errors in Armenian sources such as the mis-
placing of Sanatruk. Magie’s Roman Rule, covers the entire Roman-period to the end
of the ITIth century, see also, Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 73-77, 83 τι. 105, 111, 120 τι. 207,
166-167, 213 τι. 241, 283-286, 291-294, 314, ete. 1. On the Artaxiad dynasty and its
accession, see Manandian, Trade, pp. 32 sqq., Trever, Armenia, Toumanoff, Studies,
pp. 73-77, 83 τ. 105, 111 nn. 174, 176, 283-286, 291-294. Debevoise, Parthia,. Manan-
dian, Tigrane II, etc. 2. On the Romano-Parthian relations from the accession of
the Armenian Arsacids to the Sasanian revolution in Persia, see Schur, Orientpolitik,
XIX, XX; Henderson, Chronology; Egli, Feldziige; Kudriavtsev, VDI (1948-1949),
all of which deal with the period of Nero and of the Peace of Rhandeia; Lepper, Parthian
War, for the chronological problems connected with Trajan’s campaign. Maricq,
Sanatroug, and Chronologie, Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 83 τὶ. 105, 166, 213 τι. 241, 284,
for the reigns of Sohaemus, Sanatruk, ete. and the emprisonement of the Armenian
king by Caracalla; and in general, Manandian, Critical History, ΤΊ, 1; Debevoise, Parthia;
and Magie, Roman Rule. 3. For the Ith century Sasanian period, 866,
Trever, Gant and Armenia; Maricq and Honigman, RGDS, Sprengling, Third

NOTES : CHAPTER XV 503

Century Iran; Herzfeld, Paikuli; Seston, Dioclétien; Christensen; Manandian, Critical
History, II, 1; Gage, Sassanides, ete. 4, The problem of the [Vth century chronology
and the date of Christianization of Armenia seemed solved by Adontz’s suggestion
of A.D. 288 for this event, Vestige, and Baynes re-working of the chronology found in
Armenian sources, particularly Faustus, Rome and Armenia. Unfortunately, Adontz’s
date has been challenged by numerous scholars, and Baynes’ chronology, though very
tempting, is unacceptable; cf. Ananian, La Data; see also, Manandian, Critical History,
Il, 1; Garitte, Narratio; Peeters, Persecution and Intervention; and my forthcoming
study on Armenia in the IVth century.] (427, 1)

2 Tac. Ann, XIV, xxvifL. IV, 150/1]. [See preceding note for the text.] (429, 1)

3 Tbid., XV, i [L. IV, 2189], “ Tiridates quoque regni profugus per silentinm aut
modice querendo gravior erat: — Non enim ignavia magna imperia contineri; virorum
armorumque faciendum certamen; id in summa fortuna aequius quod validius, et sua
retinere privatae domus, de alienis certare regiam laudem esse ”’, (429, 2)

4 Ibid., XV, ii [L. IV, 218/9], [ἢ “Hune ego eodem mecum paitre genitum, cum mihi
per aetatem summo nomine concessisset, in possessionem Armeniae deduxi, qui tertius
potentiae gradus habetur: nam Medos Pacorus ante ceperat. Videbarque contra
vetera fratrum odia et certamina familiae nostrae penatis rite composnisse. Prohibent
Romani et pacem numquam ipsis prospere lacessitam nunc quoque in exitium suum
abrumpunt. Non ibo infitias: aequitate quam sanguine, causa quam armis, retinere
parta maioribus malueram. Si cunctatione deliqui, virtute corrigam ...᾽ 7 (429, 3)

5 Ibid., XV, vifL. IV, 2245], [* ... Dilata prorsus arma, ut Vologeses cum alio quam
cum Corbulone certaret, Corbulo meritae tot per annos gloriae non ultra periculum
faceret. Nam, ut rettuli, proprium ducem tuendae Armeniae poposcerat, et adventare
Caesennius Paetus audiebatur. 77 (480, 1)

6 Ibid., XV, vi-xvii; xxiv-xxix [L. IV, 224/5-242/3; 252/3-260/1], [ἡ Tum placuit
Tiridaten ponere apud effigiem Caesaris insigne regium nec nisi manu Neronis-resumere;
wes , | (480, 2)

6a [Adontz’s text has “the former” city, but Cass. Dio., LXIU, iii, 4 [L. VIII, 140/1,
sets the coronation ceremony in Rome, and the same seems to be implied in Tacitus’
shorter account, Ann. XV, xxxi; XVI, xxiii-xxiv, L. IV, 262/38, 372/38. See next
note for the text.]

? Ibid., XVI, xxiii-xxiv, [L. IV, 3872/3], Cass. Dto., LXIII, i-vii, [L. VI,
138/9-146/7, δ΄, 6 Τιριδάτης ἐς τὴν ᾿Ρωμὴν, ... ἀνήχθη, καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτῶν πομπὴ
διὰ πάσης τῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ Εὐφράτου γῆς ὥσπερ ἐν ἐπινικίοις. αὐτός τε γὰρ ὁ Τιριδάτης καὶ ἡλικίᾳ
καὶ κάλλει καὶ γένει καὶ φρονήματι ἤνθει, καὶ ἡ θεραπεία ἥ τε παρασκευὴ ἡ βασιλικὴ πᾶσα
αὐτῷ συνηκολούει, ... καὶ αὐτοὺς αἵ τε πόλεις λαμπρῶς κεκοσμημέναι καὶ οἱ δῆμοι πολλὰ καὶ
χαρίεντα ἀναβοῶντες ὑπεδέχοντο" ... καὶ τοῦτο ἐπ᾽ ἐννέα μῆνας, οἷς ὡδοιπόρησαν, ὁμοίως
ἐγένετο. ἵππευσε δὲ πανταχῇ μέχρι τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας, καὶ αὐτῷ καὶ γυνὴ συμπαρίππευς, xpdvos
χρυσοῦν ἀντὶ καλύπτρας ἔχουσα, ὥστε μὴ ὁρᾶσθαι παρὰ τὰ πάτρια. ἐν δὲ τῇ ᾿Ιταλίᾳ ζεύγεσι
πεμφθεῖσιν ὑπὸ τοῦ Νέρωνος ἐκομίσθη, καὶ διὰ Πικεντῶν ἐς Νέαν πόλιν πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀφίκετο.
οὐ μέντοι καὶ τὸν ἀκινάκην, ὅτε προσήει αὐτῷ, καταθέσθαι καίπερ κελευσθεὶς ἠθέλησεν, ἀλλ᾽
ἥλοις αὐτὸν τῷ κολεῷ προσέπηξε, καίτοι καὶ ἐς γῆν τὸ γόνυ καθεὶς καὶ τὰς χεῖρας ἐπαλλάξας,
δεσπότην τε αὐτὸν ὀνομάσας καὶ προσκυνήσας. ὁ οὖν Νέρων καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ αὐτὸν θαυμάσας
τοῖς τε ἄλλοις ἐδεξιώσατο καὶ μονομαχίας ἐν Πουτεόλοις ἔθετο. ... .

Mera, δὲ τοῦτο ἔς τὲ τὴν Ῥώμην αὐτὸν 6 Népwy ἀνήγαγε καὶ τὸ διάδημα αὐτῷ ἐπέθηκε. καὶ
πᾶσα μὲν ἡ πόλις ἐκεκόσμητο καὶ φωσὶ καὶ στεφανώμασιν, οἵ τε ἄνθρωποι πολλοὶ πανταχοῦ

504 NOTES : CHAPTER XV

ἑωρῶντο, μάλιστα δὲ ἡ ἀγορὰ ἐπεπλήρωτο" τὸ μὲν yap μέσον αὐτῆς ὁ δῆμος λευχειμονῶν καὶ
δαφνηφορῶν κατὰ τέλη εἶχε, τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα οἱ στρατιῶται λαμπρότατα ὡπλισμένοι, ὥστε καὶ τὰ
ὅπλα αὐτῶν καὶ τὰ σημεῖα ἀστράπτειν. οἵ τε κέραμοι καὶ αὐτοὶ πάντων τῶν τῇδε οἰκοδομημάτων
ἐκρύπτοντο ὑπὸ τῶν ἀναβεβηκότων. τούτων δ᾽ οὕτως ἐκ νυκτὸς προπαρασκευασθέντων ἐσῆλθεν
ἐς τὴν ἀγορὰν ὁ Νέρων ἅμα τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, τὴν ἐσθῆτα τὴν ἐπινίκιον ἐνδεδυκώς, σύν τε τῇ βουλῇ καὶ
σὺν τοῖς δορυφόροις, καὶ ἐπί τε τὸ βῆμα ἀνέβη καὶ ἐπὶ δίφρου ἀρχικοῦ ἐκαθέζετο καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο
ὅ τε Τιριδάτης καὶ οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ διά τε στοίχων ὁπλιτῶν ἑκατέρωθεν παρατεταγμένων διῆλθον
καὶ πρὸς τῷ βήματι προσστάντες προσεκύνησαν αὐτόν, ὥσπερ καὶ πρότερον ... ὁ δὲ Νέρων
ἠμείψατο αὐτὸν ὧδε: “GAN εὖ τοι ἐποίησας αὐτὸς δεῦρο ἐλθών, ἵνα καὶ καὶ παρὼν παρόντος
μου ἀπολαύσῃς" ἃ γάρ σοι οὔτε ὁ πατὴρ κατέλιπεν οὔτε οἱ ἀδελφοὶ δόντες ἐτήρησαν, ταῦτα ἐγὼ
χαρίζομαι καὶ βασιλέα τῆς ᾿"Αρμενίας ποιῶ, ἵνα καὶ σὺ καὶ ἐκεῖνοι μάθωσιν ὅτι καὶ ἀφαιρεῖσθαι
βασιλείας καὶ δωρεῖσθαι δύναμαι. ᾽ταῦτ᾽ εἰπὼν ἀνελθεῖν τε αὐτὸν κατὰ τὴν ἄνοδον τὴν ἐπ᾽
αὐτῷ τούτῳ ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ βήματος πεποιημένην ἐκέλευσε, καὶ καθιξηθέντι αὐτῷ ὑπὸ τὸν
πόδα τὸ διάδημα ἐπέθηκε. βοαΐ τε καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ πολλαὶ καὶ παντοδαπαὶ ἐγένοντο. ἐγένετο δὲ
κατὰ ψήφισμα καὶ πανήγυρις θεατρική. καὶ θέατρον, οὐχ ὅτι ἡ σκηνὴ ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡ περιφέρεια
αὐτοῦ πᾶσα ἔνδοθεν ἐκεχρύσωτο, καὶ τἄλλα ὅσα ἐσήει χρυσῷ ἐκεκόσμητο: ἀφ᾽ οὗ καὶ τὴν
ἡμέραν αὐτὴν χρυσῆν ἐπωνόμασαν. τά γε μὲν παραπετάσματα τὰ διὰ τοῦ ἀέρος διαταθέντα,
ὅπως τὸν ἥλιον ἀπερύκοι, ἁλουργὰ ἦν, καὶ ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν ἅρμα ἐλαύνων ὁ Νέρων ἐνέστικτο,
περὶξ δὲ ἀστέρες χρυσοῖ ἐπέλαμπον.

Ταῦτα μὲν οὕτως ἐγένετο, καὶ δῆλον ὅτι καὶ συμποσίῳ πολυτελεῖ ἐχρήσαντο" ... ἐν δὲ δὴ τοῖς
ἄλλοις ἐκολάκευσεν αὐτὸν καὶ ὑπέδραμε δεινότατα, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο δῶρά τε παντοδαπὰ πεντακισ-
χιλίων μυριάδων ἄξια, ὥς φασιν, ἔλαβε, καὶ *Aprdéata ἀνοικοδομῆσαι ἐπετράπη» ... ἢ
Cf. below n. 8] (480, 3)

7a (MX, ΤΙ, i, “+++ Bpkd phy με] Οἱ... hupaun, np fig fgbmy wun ηπμὸ
pudmpebut h upmftkoh, βδιμαιπ θη bh ppg dfiny dpny mpmp fp bogubl,
opp ypuppuyti upupy Upomhay bh Luqupmpewiay bqpopf inp, gap
uipny mgnhu [θυ πμβηπ)η. h pis op jeu binpm δη δὶ /@uqunnpp mp fm pd piu
Uipny fp Soph ukpimht, apah fp foph wabkym] yotpmfe fb mfimmbkgeh
uppahmhfhp pUpouluay., urbjappph yuqqg hf pugim|efilh udSEghmyp, ἢ
ufiuhh pun Lupa Limiumhuy p /Puqminpm|e fb >, Of. I, ix, Dl, iii, xxviii,
Ixviii, and the ‘* Primary History ”, Sebéos, p.13. Also Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 111
τι. 174, 197 τι. 222, 220-221 nn. 257 and 262, 295 n. 75, 313 n. 41, 331.]

8 Cass. Dio., LXTIH, ii, v [L. VIII, 142/38], [“... κραυγῆς τε ἐπὶ τούτῳ πολλῆς
συμβάσης ἐξεπλάγη τε ὁ Τιριδάτης, καὶ ἄφωνος χρόνον τινὰ ws καὶ ἀπολούμενος ἐγένετο.
ἔπειτα σιωπῆς κηρυχθείσης ἐπεθάρρησέ τε, καὶ ἐκβιασάμενος τὸ φρόνημα τῷ τὲ καιρῷ καὶ τῇ
χρείᾳ ἐδούλευσε, μηδὲν φροντίσας εἴ τι ταπεινὸν φθέγξαιτο, πρὸς τὴν ἐλπίδα ὧν τεύξοιτο.
εἶπε yap οὕτος" ‘éyw, δέσποτα, ᾿Αρσάκου μὲν ἔκγονος, Οὐολογαίσου δὲ καὶ Πακόρου τῶν
βασιλέων ἀδελφός, σὸς δὲ δοῦλός εἰμι. καὶ ἦλθόν τε πρὸς σὲ τὸν ἐμὸν θεόν, προσκυνήσων σε ὡς
καὶ τὸν Mi@pav, καὶ ἔσομαι τοῦτο 6 τι ἂν σὺ ἐπικλώσῃς" σὺ γάρ μοι καὶ μοῖρα εἶ καὶ τύχη ᾿".
Cf. above n. 7 for the episode of Tiridates’ sword or dagger, which had been stipulated
for in advance, according to Tacitus, Ann., XV, xxxi [L. IV, 262/3], *... Vologesen
Ecbatanis repperit, non incuriosum fratris: quippe et propriis nuntiis a Corbulone
petierat, ne quam imaginem servitii Tiridates perferret neu ferrum traderet aut complexu
provincias optinentium arceretur foribusve eorum adsisteret, tantusque ei Romae
quantus consulibus honor esset. Scilicet externae superbiae sueto non inerat notita
nostri, apud quos vis imperii valet, inania tramittuntur ”’.] It is interesting to compare
this episode with that of MuSel Mamikonean as related by Sebéos, iii, Ὁ. 42. (432, 1)

NOTES: CHAPTER XV 505

9 Vologaeses corresponds to either Arm. Yupy—alu or Arm. Y wingn. [Cf. above
n. 7a. ] (432, 2)
10 MX, I, viii, “--- Upoml) uiO wppuy ΟΣ ᾿ββιμῃιμεπμβηπιεηλδἑ
yoypayp fup AY qm pouily oh umlimhu Luommbk tidus --- npgsunp ufin.p pn
h puSmfefh Gunmbth, gh umdinip pu Jug, mul, gthh fupkoty, oppuh
fumnmhk” mpipah nif”. [Cf. above n. 81. (432, 3)

10a [MX, ΤΙ, iv-v.]

100 [ MX, ΤΙ, i, ef. above chapter VII end nn. 37-37a and chapter XI n. 16.]

11. Joseph., Bell. Jud., VII (iv), 244-251 [L. DI, 574/5-576/7),

“To δὲ τῶν ᾿Αλλανῶν ἔθνος ὅτι μέν εἰσι Ζικύθαι, ... κατὰ τούτους δὲ τοὺς χρόνους διανοη-
θέντες εἰς τὴν ήδιαν καὶ προσωτέρω ταύτης ἔτι καθ᾽ ἁρπαγὴν ἐμβαλεῖν τῷ βασιλεῖ τῶν ‘Ypxa-
νῶν διαλέγονται" τῆς παρόδου γὰρ οὗτος δεσπότης ἐστίν, ἦν 6 βασιλεὺς ᾿Αλέξανδρος πύλαις
σιδηραῖς κλειστὴν ἐποίησε. κἀκείνου τὴν εἴσοδον αὐτοῖς παρασχόντος ἀθρόοι καὶ μηδὲν προῦποπ--
τεύσασι τοῖς Πήδοις ἐπιπεσόντες χώραν πολυάνθρωπον καὶ παντοίων ἀνάμεστον βοσκημάτων
διήπαζον μηδενὸς αὐτοῖς τολμῶντος ἀνθίστασθαι. ... μετὰ πολλῆς οὖν ῥᾳστώνης ἀμαχεὶ ποιού-
μενοι τὰς ἁρπαγὰς μέχρι τῆς ᾿Αρμενίας προῆλθον πάντα λεηλατοῦντες. Τιριδάτης δ᾽ αὐτὴς
ἐβασίλευεν, ὃς ὑπαντιάσας αὐτοῖς καὶ ποιησάμενος μάχην παρὰ μικρὸν ἦλθεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς ζωὸς
ἁλῶναι τῆς παρατάξεως" βρόχον γὰρ αὐτῷ περιβαλών τις πόρρωθεν ἔμελλεν ἐπισπάσειν, εἰ
μὴ τῷ ξίφει θᾶττον ἐκεῖνος τὸν τόνον κόψας ἔφθη διαφυγεῖν. οἱ δὲ καὶ διὰ τὴν μάχην ἔτι μᾶλλον
ἀγριωθέντες τὴν μὲν χώραν ἐλυμνάντο, πολὺ δὲ πλῆθος ἀνθρώπων καὶ τῆς ἄλλης λείας ἄγοντες
ἐξ ἀμφροὶν τῶν βασιλειῶν πάλιν εἰς τὴν οἰκείαν ἀνεκομίσθησαν ἢ. (438, 1)

12 Cass. Dio., LX XIII, iii [L. VIL, 140/21), “ καὶ ἔδει γὰρ τῷ Πατροβίῳ τιμήν τινα διὰ
ταῦτα γενέσθαι, ἐτόξευδεν ὁ Τιριδάτης ἄνωθεν ἐκ τῆς ἕδρας θηρία, καὶ δύο ye ταύρους μιᾷ ἅμα
βολῇ, εἴ γέ τῳ πιστόν, διέτρωσε καὶ ἀπέκτεινε ". Ch. DX, ΤΙ, Ixxix, “--- Minin dt ηδιμι-
ζαμπαι ἤπιε [9 πα Spun, 1505 om gkplg gpg diypbbbmg ἐπ ἀπμιὴρ
μι μι) gig θέμεν, feunphmy ζιυδηξμὰ μδηηίεαι δι ξαφιιω μεδιυῖμ ”

The comparison found in “ Agat’angetos ” [xi, p. 100, “--» Yuu mypunp βῆ uy 11 9—
μιόη μι} popu my fp pola hopgh wamhng, feb fppie qutgh Spon, op
ufgoypmfh ockpkmg yfénuipu gkmng, bh guimpkynjy ful fp ἡβημ μιμπιῇ
yjnpdmbiu dmjniy” probably refers to the first of the Armenian Arsacids. Pliny,
NH, XXX, vi (16-17), [L. VIII, 288/9], says that Trdat, as a Magian, did not wish to
Rome by sea, so as not to pollute water, “ Magus ... Tiridates venerat Armeniacum de
se triumphum adferens et ideo provinciis gravis. navigare noluerat, quoniam expuere
in maria aliisque mortalium necessitatibus violare naturam eam fas non putant. Magos
secum adduxerat, magicis etiam cenis eum initiaverat, non tamen, cum regnum ei daret,
hance ab eo artem accipere valuit ’. The Armenian saying, which is undoubtedly taken
from a legendary account, must also be an allusion to Trdat’s journey, and should be
taken in the sense that the king travelled over the sea as though it were over land.
[Cf. above τ. 7 for the passage of Cassius Dio where he notes that Trdat’s journey took
nine month and that the king rode on horseback all the way to Italy. Also Herzfeld,
Archaeological Hisiory, pp. 63-67, for the possible influence of Trdat’s journey on the
story of the Magi.} (433, 2)

12a [See above Chapter XIV n. 3.]

12b [Pliny, V.H., V, xx (83) [L. II, 284/5}, “‘[Huphrates] oritur in praefectura Armeniae
Maioris Caranitide, ...”. See also Chapter XIV n. 3.]

13 Pliny, NA, x (27) [L. II, 356/7], “ ... universae [Armeniae] magnitudinem Aufidius
quinquagiens centena milia prodidit, Claudius Caesar longitudinem a Dascusa ad confi-

506 NOTES : CHAPTER XV

nium Caspii maris /xiii/ p., latitudinem dimidium eius a Tigranocerta ad Hiberiam ”
(434, 1)

14 Tac., Ann., II, lvi [L. ΤΙ, 4746], according to Tacitus king Zeno changed his name
to Artaxias, attracted the sympathies of the “‘ proceres and the plebs ”, and was crowned
at Artaxata, “ adprobantibus nobilibus””. [Cf. above τι. 1 for the complete text]. Jdid.,
XII, xliv [L. IT, 378/ 9], “ ... Erat Pharasmani filius nomine Radamistus, decora proceri-
tate, vi corporis insignis et patrias artes edoctus, claraque inter accolas fama.
primorum Armeniorum ad res novas inlicit ...”. Jbid., XV, xxvii [L. 1V, 2589], [Cor-
bulo] consilio terrorem adicere, et megistanes Armenios ... pellit sedibus, castella eorum
excindit, ...”. Jbdid., XV, i [L. IV, 216/7], the Parthian nobles were likewise called
ἐδ orimores geniiwm”, and Jbid., ΤΙ, lviii [L. ΤΙ, 476/7], “ proceres gentium’’. See also,
Ibid., ΤΙ, ii; VI, xxxi; VI, xlii, ete. [L. TI, 384/5; ΤΙ], 206/7; 226/7-228/9). (435, 1)

14a [See above Chapter XTV.] .

15 Manu-k, Arm. dulinil < twin, Rus. Mesz—miii, Lat. min-or. MX [ΤΠ], Ixv),
* Pmimnmed pinyin Y mpyytu μι πε ἢ fi Smiuyq gomunlh, yPuuny
ηἰτιππι, δἰ! huin kup nGpls BL pm, aU pmnpity puna pun, ἢ eee phim],
Hnky afk) ηηπιπὴ bpmwhyay mppayp + qapey ppp ph mnkmy
Y mpygtups, +++”, The word manuk is used here in the sense of “ princeling ”. [Cf.
Hiibschmann, Grammatik, p.472, and above Chapter XIV, pp. 311, nn. 22a, 24a,
26 etc.] (435, 2)

15a [Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 115 τι. 186.] 7

15b [See above Chapter XIV n. 3b,]

166 [See Eremyan, Slavery, pp. 21, 25; Sukiasian, Armenia,. pp. 120-122 and below
nn. 89-89a,] |

15a The entire section on feudalism should be reviewed in the light of the more recent
studies of this institution, which have dated some of Adontz’s concepts, though he
reviewed and developed them himself in his later work, Aspect. The interpretation
of feudalism and the understanding of the term have developed extensively since the
beginning of the century, and the problems have been complicated by the disagreement
of Western and Marxist scholars on some of the fundamental aspects. The most.recent
studies of Armenian “ feudalism ” are to be found in the various works of Manandian,
particularly his Feudalism, and in Kherumian, Féodaliié. The application of the
Marxist thesis to Armenia is given in Sukiasian, Armenia. The most important work
to be consulted is of necessity Toumanoff, Studies, in which he elaborates the crucial
distinction between Armenian “ feudalism and dynasticism” (p. 110). Without this
distinction, the question of the correctness with which the Armenian naxyarar system
may be called ‘‘ feudal ᾿ in the Western sense cannot receive a valid answer. On the
question of the extension of the term “feudalism” to various institutions, see also
Coulborn, ed. Feudalism, which is, however, unfortunately poor for Armenia. Specific
aspects will be dealt with further in the relevant notes. [Cf. above Chapter XI for
the comparison with Iranian ‘‘ feudal ” institutions, also below τι. 44c.]

16 The first scholar to raise the question of Arsacid feudalism was Edward Gibbon,
but the formulation of the problem belongs to St. Martin, Discours, Ὁ. 293.
St. Martin goes on to assert that if Europe did not invent feudalism, neither should
this be held as a creation of the Parthians: “ἡ Qu’est-ce que le gouvernement féodal,
e’est tout simplement Voccupation militaire d’un vaste territoire, partagé entre tous
les soldats: les rangs y sont distribué comme les grades dans une armée; c’est la consé-

NOTES; CHAPTER XV | 507

quence inévitable d’un gouvernement militaire ou d’une conquéte. Les Arsacides ne
furent pas les inventeurs de ce mode de gouvernement, puisqu’ils ne furent pas les
premiers conquérants de Asie”. Jbid., p. 296. From this definition it, is evident
that the distinguished scholar belonged to the German school and suscribed to its point
of view, which is now considered to be out of date. [See the preceding note and the
Bibliographical note on Feudalism.] . (486, 1)
16a [See above Chapter XIV, also Ehtécham, Iran, pp. 110 sqq., and Toumanoff, Studies,
1. 3

1? Xen., Cyrop., VITI, vi, 4-6 [L. ΤΙ, 410/1], “Sexe? δέ por καὶ τῶν ἐνθάδε μενόντων
ὑμῶν, ols ἂν ἐγὼ πράγματα παρέχω πέμπων πράξοντάς τι ἐπὶ ταῦτα τὰ ἔθνη, χώρας
γενέσθαι καὶ οἴκους ἐκεῖ, ὅπως δασμοφορῆταί τε αὐτοῖς δεῦρο, ὅταν τε ἴωσιν ἐκεῖσε, εἰς
οἰκεῖα ἔχωσι κατάγεσθαι.

Ταῦτα εἶπε καὶ ἔδωκε πολλοῖς τῶν φίλων κατὰ πάσας τὰς καταστραφείσας πόλεις οἴκους
καὶ ὑπηκόους" καὶ νῦν εἶσιν ἔτι τοῖς ἀπογόνοις τῶν τότε ἬΝ αἱ χῶραι καταμένουσαι ἄλλαι
ἐν ἄλλῃ γῇ" αὐτοὶ δὲ οἰκοῦσι παρὰ βασιλεῖ ”. (438, 1)

18 Toid., VITI, i, 9-10 [L. ΤΙ, 8089-81011, “ Κῦρος δ᾽ ἐπὶ μὲν τἄλλα καθίστη ἄλλους
ἐπιμελητάς, καὶ ἦσαν αὐτῷ καὶ προσόδων ἄποδεκτῆρες καὶ δαπανημάτων δοτῆρες καὶ ἔργων
ἐπιστάται καὶ κτημάτων φύλακες καὶ τῶν εἰς τὴν δίαιταν ἐπιτηδείων ἐπιμέληταί: καὶ ἵππων
δὲ καὶ κυνῶν ἐπιμελητὰς καθίστη οὖς ἐνόμιζε καὶ ταῦτα τὰ βοσκήματα βέλτιστ᾽ ἂν παρέχειν
αὐτῷ χρῆσθαι ἢ. ... “ καὶ ταξιάρχους δὲ καὶ πεζὼν καὶ ἱππέῶν ἐγίγνωσκεν ἐκ τούτων κατασ-
τατέον εἶναι. 10ϊ]ά., VIII, viii, 20 [L. II, 4601], “voy δὲ τούς τε θυρωροὺς καὶ τοὺς
σιτοποιοὺς καὶ τοὺς ὀψοποιοὺς καὶ οἰνοχόους καὶ λουτροχόους καὶ παρατιθέντας, καὶ
ἀναιροῦντας καὶ κατακοιμίζοντας καὶ ἀνιστάντας, καὶ τοὺς Koopynrds,...”. [Cf. Ehté-
cham, L’Iran; Frye, Persia, pp. 90 sqq.] (438, 2)

19 Xen., Cyrop., VIII, vi, 10 [1. ΤΙ, 415/6), 8... ὁπόσοι δ᾽ ἂν γῆν καὶ ἀρχεῖα λάβωσιν ...
ἀρχεῖα has the litteral sense of ‘* administrative institution ’’, but it is used here in the
sense of “ power,rule”. [Miller, L. I, p. 416, pee the seaneletion®* lands and palaces”,

| ' (439, 1)
192 » [Ehtécham, ivan, pp. 114-116, i dala above Chapter XII nn.14c-d.]
20 Tac., Ann., XV, ii [. IV, 218/9], see above τι. 4 for the text. (439, 2)
21 Justin., ΧΙ, ii, see above Chapter XIT n: 19 for the text. (439, 3)

22 Theoph. Sim., ITI, xviii, 7-10, “ δήμοις yap παρὰ τοῖς ήδοις ἑπτὰ τῶν πράξεων τὰ
ἀνχίνοά τε καὶ τιμιώτατα διανυομένοις, νόμῳ πρεσβύτῃ KAnpodorovpévois, μὴ ἄλλως ἔχειν
τὰ πράγματα ἔφασκεν. καὶ φασι τὸν μὲν ᾿Αρσακίδην ἐπιλεγόμενον δῆμον τὴν βασιλείαν
κατέχειν, καὶ τοῦτον ἐπιτίθεσθαι τῷ βασιλεῖ τὸ διάδημα, ἕτερον τῆς πολεμικῆς προεστάναι
συντάξεως, ἄλλον δὲ τὰς πολιτικὰς περικεῖσθαι φροντίδας, τὸν δ᾽. ἕτερον τὰς διαφορὰς
διαλύειν τῶν περί τι καταστασιαζόντων καὶ διαιτητοῦ δεομένων, τὸν δὲ πέμπτον ἡγεῖσθαι
τῆς ἵππου, τὸν δὲ μετὰ τοῦτον φορολογεῖν τὸ ὑπήκοον καὶ τῶν βασιλικῶν ταμείων ἔφορον
πεφυκέναι, τὸν δ᾽ ἕβδομον κηδεμόνα τῶν ὅπλων καὶ τῆς πολεμικῆς ἐσθῆτος ἐπιστατεῖν,
Δαρείου τοῦ “Ὑστάσπου τουτονὶ τὸν νόμον ἐν τοῖς βασιλείοις ἐντεμενίσαντος ”*.
Theophylakt traces the origin of the families invested with these duties to the period
of Darius I, obviously under the influence of the tale of the seven satraps. The Arab
sources likewise speak of the seven satrapal houses, Néldeke, Tabari, p.437. We
even find the legend that Argak, like Darius, had been placed on the throne by seven
satraps. It is possible that certain functions were considered particularly honourable
under the Arsacids, as they had been under the Achaemenids, so that there was ὃ corres-
ponding number of satrapal houses, but it is altogether unlikely that the Arsacid families

508 NOTES : CHAPTER XV

should have a genetic link with the satraps of Darius]. Tabari links the Stirén, Karin
and Spandiyadh families, which are known to have been powerful Parthian houses,
with the satraps of Darius I. According to WX, II, xxviii, xviii, the sister of Karin
and Stirén was called KoS8ma, and her descendents were named Aspahapetuni from the
name of her husband (Cf. Sebéos, iii, p. 36, Unum pny bin = Procopius, Pers., I,
xxiii, 6; 1, xi, 5[L. I, 210/1; 82/3], ᾿Ασπεβέδης, Pers. aspabadh < aspa bed > asparapet).
KoSma seems to bear the same relationship to the district of ομισηνή as the Karin
to the district of Képwa. Even in the Arab period, the Karins lived in Nihavend
near the ancient Karin, cf. Noldeke, Tabari, p.487. The powerful house of Mibran
also belonged among the great Parthian families. Theoph. Sim., 111, xviii, 10 considers
it to be one of the Median (7.e. Parthian) families, “*... τὸν δὲ Bapdp τῆς τοῦ Mippdvov
οἰκαρχίας γενόμενον, δήμου δ᾽ ᾿Αρρσακίδου, ...”. The name VSnasp was current in
this family: ZP’, lxiv, p. 366, “ Gquu/>inuny, apnp Upmann fp Upspmot
muh...” be is considered to have been the quyhulnpnf of Peroz, Ibid., lx, p. 346,
and consequently his father U>uuin was Peroz’s tutor, but in Lisé, Ὁ. 197 the name
of Peroz’s tutor is given as Raham, “dpmukp appingh Sughipmp ημι ἐπι ἢ,
Pudot wink f ὦ] pSpunks mnZolh”. We know that the father of Vahram
Chobén was named Vahram GuSnasp, Noldeke, Tabari, p. 270; Theoph. Sim., V,
xiii, 4, “... Bapdu, υἱοῦ Baplapylovoras.”. The son of the all-powerfull dignitary
Mihr-Nerséh of the house of Mihraén was named Mah-gusnasp, according to Tabari,
p. 110. V&nasp is the title of the holy fire whose temple was found at Ganjak-Siz of
Atropatené, Ibid., p.100, ef. Sebéos, xxvi, p.92, “"..- fh Qulidul --- qgpmgphu
Zpunpfh wkop πμπιδ Yohmuy haskpi”, Near Ganjak is found the district
of Χωρο-μιτρηνή, Ptol., VI, xxvi, which probably was the residence of the Mibranian
house. It is possible that the VSnasp was their family cult; fire was wor-
shiped as the visible symbol of the great god Mithra or Mibr, from which
the name Mihran was derived. Horses were sacrified to Mihr, just as cows
were dedicated to Ahura-mazda, Xen., Cyrop., VIII, iii, 11 [L. ΤΙ, 354/5) also VITI, iii,
24 [L. II, 360/1], ‘°... ἔθυσαν τῷ Avi καὶ ὡλοκαύτησαν τοὺς ταύρους" ἔπειτα τῷ ᾿Ηλίῳ καὶ
ὡλοκαύτησαν τοὺς ἵππους" ... ἡ. [Cf. Xen., Anadb., IV, v, 35 [L. I], 56/7], see above
Chapter XIV n. 2 for the text]. For this reason the god was called M2 0ra or A Ora
vrsnaspa, (i.e. the Mihr, or Fire, demanding good horses (< vrsni, Pers. gun, “* male ”
and aspa, “ horse”). The Moon was worshipped as well as the Sun, but were the Siiréns
her devotees? Cf. Suraena and Σεληνή. Ζ1 is also a family name of unquestionable
Parthian origin. The Persian ambassador to Justinian in 562 was named ᾽]εσδεγουσνάφ
and had the title of Ziy, Men. Prot., Ὁ. 346, “... ἐκπέμπεται αὐτόθι καὶ Περσῶν
πρεσβευτὴς, ᾧ δῆτα ὑπῆρχε μὲν ἀξίωμα τὸ Ζὶχ, μέγιστόν τι τοῦτο παρὰ τοῖς Πέρσαις γέρας,
προσηγορία δὲ αὐτοὺ ᾿Ιεσδεγουσνάφ. οὗτὸς δὲ παρευναστὴρ τοῦ κατ᾽ αὐτὸν βασιλέως ὑπῆρχε ἢ.
Historians took the names Surena and Mihran to be similar titles: damm. Mare., XXIV,
ii, 4 [L. II, 410/1], “ Surena post regem apud Persas promeritae dignitatis ...’; Zosim.,
111, xv, 5, “ὃ yap σουρήνας (ἀρχῆς δὲ τοῦτο παρὰ Πέρσαις évopa)”, Proc., Pers., I,
xiii, 16 [L. I, 106/7], “στρατηγὸς δὲ εἷς ἅπασιν ἐφειστήκει, Πέρσης ἀνήρ, μιρράνης μὲν
τὸ ἀξίωμα (οὕτω γὰρ τὴν ἀρχὴν καλοῦσι Πέρσαι), Περόξης δὲ ὄνομα". FB, IV, Wy,
“Uy mpduhling mppayh Qupupy Cuymd fp ἡδρμη πιρβηαμςβ Layny
ἐμῆπεν πδιμῖμι ppofauiag wif fopag, ἐπ πιῶ Qhh what bh dpm Guiplh ”.
When the king of Persia appointed the Zik as tutor to the Armenian king Xosrov ΠῚ,
he probably had in mind the relationship of the regent to the young king, Jded., VI, i,

NOTES : CHAPTER XV 509

“66 pimghh on femgonnph Qupupg --- ho fubypkghh pp διδ! Poq_oinp
wipsubnhf see Un ηιπι δ ἐμ ph hiifh unlit δι παῖ uf minh Maupm, h
fungbg Pog fp gps inpm bh bn ted ἢ δὴ ppayp fap 50. bh ph ἧπιβριιὴ
quunfupul fn wppuyph hnupm{my”. [From the text the relationship seems
to be rather between the two rulers]. If we find that there really were seven great
families among the Parthians, we should perhaps add the house of the Nixyorakan,
from Deh-i-Niyorakan on the east shore of Lake Urmiah, to the Siirén, Karin, Span-
diyadh, Aspabadh-KoSma, Mibran, and 4ik. [Cf. Christensen, pp. 108-110; Frye,
Persia, pp. 184 sqq.; Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 40 τὶ, 14, 83-84 and ἢ. 105, 103 n. 159,
149, 187 sqq., 206, 208 na 236, 218, 225 n. 270, 253, 317 and τ. 58a, 325-326 and n. 91,
335, 473 sqq., etec., and below τι. 36]. (440, 1)

228 TToumanoff, Studzes, pp. 119, 267.]

22b [Ibid., pp. 40 τ. 14, 111 n. 176, ete.]

22e [On the Hadjiabadh inscription, see, Christensen, Ὁ. 52, and 100, n. 1; Herzfeld,
Paikuli, 1; Nyberg, Hajjtabid. The date of Sahpuhbr I’s accession is given as 240 by
Frye, Persia, p. 283 and as 241 by Sprengling, Third Century, p. 2 and Christensen, Ὁ. 179,
who also sets the date of the coronation as 242, [bid., pp. 180-181, this date has been
controversial, see Frye, Persia, p. 200. The king’s death is dated 271 by Sprengling,
Third Century, p. 2, and 272 by Christensen, p. 226 and Frye, Persia, p. 283, with some
hesitation. 7

285 WZKM, VI, p. 72[Cf. Herzfeld, Patkult, I, pp. 87-89. Nyberg, Hajjiabdd, pp. 67-
68, gives the following transcriptions: 1. sa@ridaran wu vispuhrin wu vazurkin u dzaitin.
2. xsabridarin vispuhrain vazurkin u dzdidn.] (442, 1)

24 Nildeke, Tabari, p. 71 and note 1. [Cf. Christensen, pp. 98-113 and notes, Frye,
Persia, pp. 206-208 see below above Chapter XIII ἢ. a.] (442, 2)

25 Noéldeke, Τ᾽ αδαγὶ, p.8 and n. The Arab authors give different interpretations
of the four classes, evidently basing themselves on later conditions. [Cf. preceding note].

(442, 3)
25a [Cf Christensen, pp. 100 n. 1, 101-103; Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 40 τι. 14.]
26 Leist, Graeco-ltalische Rechisgeschichie, p. 123 γι. ὁ. (443, 1)
27 Darmesteter, Hiudes iraniennes, I, pp. 140 sqq. [See also next note] (443, 2)

3:8. TOn the vaspuhrin, see also: Christensen, pp. 103-110, Benveniste, Les Classes
sociales, Ὁ. 131; Frye, Persia, pp. 94, 206; Toumanoff, Siudzes, pp. 40 τι. 14, 115 τι. 186.]

27> [On the vuzurgdn, see also: Christensen, pp. 110-111; Frye, Persia, pp. 184, 206;
Toumanoff, Studies, p. 40 n. 14.]

510 [On the dzddhan, see also: Christensen, pp. 111-113; Frye, Persia, pp. 111, 184-185,
206; Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 40 τι. 14, 94 and nn. 137, 138, 95 n. 140, 124-127 and nn. 215-
216, 220, 235, 238-239, ete.; Kherumian, Péodaliié, pp. 11-12, 19-21; Manandian,
Feudalism, pp. 90 sqq.; Sukiasian, Armenia, Ὁ. 106, εἰ al.]

27d [H.g., #B, ΤΙ, viii; IV, ii, οὔο.

28 See above Chapter X, pp. 185 and n. la. (444, 1)

28a [ MX, ΤΙ, iii, vii-viii.]

29 Tac., Ann., VI, xlii [L. III, 228/9], ‘‘ Surena patrio more Tiridatem insigni regio
evinxit ’. On the Bagratids: PB, V, xliv, “--- mmyjp how gynuinp ΤΩΝ,
Ριμημμηππεΐη! fp Uytp χιμεμπί, op fmgunapp Poqmlmy ph jim hh pf phit
wpa oqunpmfebath mpoulminy”, This title was not known to the
Achaemenids, and was apparently abolished after the Arsacids, dmm. Marc., XXIV,
ii, 4 [L. TZ, 410/1}] mentions the high position of the Surena under the Sasanians, “...

510 NOTES : CHAPTER XV

potestatis secundae post regem ...”’ but he does not mention their office of coronants.
[Cf. Toumanoff, Studtes, pp. 112 τ. 176, 132, 160, 162, 202, 325 ἢ. 88, 326, 342, and
above τι. 36, also Christensen, Ὁ. 107, who cites without comment Theophylakt’s claim
that the Artabids were the hereditary coronants under the Sasanians.] (445, 1)

29a [On the office of sparapet = Hran-spahbadh, see: Christensen, pp. 99, 107 n. 3,
109, 130-132, 263, 265, 370, 520 sqq., for the Sasanian office; Manandian, Feudalism,
73-75, etc., and Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 97 n. 144, 112 n. 176, 132, 141 τ. 253, 160, 162,
201 n. 228, 209-21] and n. 238, 325-326 and n. 89, for the Armenian office. See also
above τι. 22, and Chapter X, n. 70.]

29b [See above n. 22 for the text of Theophylakt. For the hazarapet = hazarapati =
vuzurg-framadhar, see: Christensen, pp. 113-116, 319, 395, for the Sasanian office;
Manandian, Feudalism, pp. 69-73, ete. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 112 τ. 176, 205-206
and n. 238, for the Armenian office. Also below nn. 29c-33.

29¢ PB IV. ii, * br ubfgph ηπμὸι ἡ μπὲ [6 bwhh Cun p ny finni fe kinhih 4p fai pd—
minkuly fobuduh aye int, mpfumphurth mip furnip Lurid ne<lmim|ebwh,
opiubwhuorth mga @iahkwy’ Loqupwykh onihhoyh Eplphh: Ὁπηδιη
uinpuink inne buh muy py bine bw yop pnt [9 ναι δῖ ΠΩ ἠππιῖπ|.
ηπμὸπ] μπιμη ἡ δι μμιπιι ἥπιη ἀβημ ἢ μ fpunpwnth wmywtuypop ππὸπε[---
houhp, Yupdimlmbpp wbbphfuyp ρει Juuppnp bukumulp ρθε πεῖ ρ,
ΠΣ, Ριυμέρζιι ἥμιν, Pp pupkynpdp purSnqml Pp of gnpd ymmbpwgiug f
paul fp bu fubbogh bapqog fp Uwiflaibwt m_ghh, f YEpwy pofuwtnifebmbh
padubyml p fEpuy wiuibnyh yopug qnpunfwpn dbo bh puqonfebobh 2ujny
ui ouiy, funky ny μα ἦν} dud μιηβθπη πη [ἢ np ppl iuy jiphhify pup publ
ppm pad fp ubdp tmLoybonfebwh yumkpmgih ”. (Cf. nn. 29b, 31-33]

30 Xen., Cyrop., VIII, i, 14-15 [L. JI, 312/38], “Οὕτω δὴ σκοπῶν, ὅπως ἂν τά τε
οἰκονομικὰ καλῶς ἔχοι Kal ἡ σχολὴ γένοιτο, κατενόησέ πὼς THY στρατιωτικὴν σύνταξιν. ...
ὥσπερ οὖν ταῦτ᾽ ἔχει, οὕτω καὶ ὁ Κῦρος συνεκεφαλαιώσατο τὰς οἰκονομικὰς πράξεις" ... "ἢ
It is interesting to observe that the New Testament uses the term Aung μι pry Ein to
translate the Greek οἰκονόμος, I Cor., iv, 1, “ f ld funy wi pry fan 2 — “By τοῖς
οἰκονόμοις "᾿. The same term is sometimes used to translate χιλίαρχος, Mark, VI, 21,
* ph /é pfu muy LEpmytu ees hn jump psy fupny h funy py nay h kouubomy
pun unin ἊΝ Ἡρῴδης ... δεῖπνον ἐποίησεν τοῖς μεγιστᾶσιν αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῖς χιλιάρχοις
καὶ τοῖς πρώτοις ...”’. [Cf. above n. 29b], also Toumanoff, Studies, p. 206 n. 2841. (446, 1)

31 Néldeke, Tabari, p. 111, framadhar = ζμμ ier ap in Hirgeé, ii, p. 24, FB, TIT, xiv,
to which he attributes the meaning of ‘‘ Vorankommer”. In Tabari, the title of Mibr
Nerséh is given as hazdrabanda, Ibid., Ὁ. 76, which Néldeke connects with the definition
of Theod., HH, V, xxxix, “" Σουρήνην χιλίων οἰκετῶν δεσπότην ...”. Since the Ar-
menians refer to the Sirén as Hazarapet, we should perhaps read 1,3 ) | 58 PTO Δ) | ΒΝ
and the indication οἵ Theodoret probably results from the incorrect interpretation of
the same word. [The confusion seems to stem from Lazar P’arpeci. #8 distinguishes
between the Armenian hazarapet dismissed by the Persians, “4wqupuuykmh ἐμ
μιρβμιμξβα, fipphe pha Yepmigm ζιμδιμθμ ἐμ wefumphurhubimg
pppamabt hy see fubkmy yh p ηημὸπι δ" ifn fu bly bnapu upp fil) me
pug fap ”, p. 23, and the hramatar and great hazarapet of Eran, Mibr-Nerséh, who
styles himself, “UhZPULBPUbL Z2NRPY Lp ann pr Gpuh h Ubbputs ἐδ
p. 24, and is addressed by the Armenian bishops as “... Updpliipublh ubop
fuqupuytioh Upkog bh Utmuplug”, p.28; there is no mention of the Sirén
in Hisé. £P’, on the other hand, gives the title of hazarapet to both the Sirén and

NOTES : CHAPTER XV 611

Mibr-Nerséh, whom’ we know to have been a member of the Spandiyadh house, “...
Um pli wympo fp fp Podtohel bh μα δ Qaympaykn fp ppt mp pmbp--”.
xiv, p.70, and “Uféphipnk{ 4aqupmyimh Upkmg .--”, Ibdid., xx, p. 116.
On the functions of the great Iranian houses, see above τι. 29b, and the next notes. Manan-
dian, Feudalism, pp. 28, 70]. (446, 2)
32 Noéldeke, Tabart, p. 110. (446, 3)
88 An earlier hazarapet was αἰανῆ, prince of Anjit?, FB, I, xii, “ ganimphmy
phy fim feogonoaph δ ΩΣ qubo fayqupumkinh f Sunn pny finn fd bmi
pol fp ἱππζὴξ wibby Zaynyq dhdmyg, ἡ πιημπα, ap ἐμ fofuml Usidmuy
The last incumbents of this office were Atfawan and Vahan Amatuni, Koriwn, ΤΙ, 1,
p-11, “ [Wupmag] ἐμπη παν μαπιρπεδι αν pfoobph | βὰν vyoominp up puy-
ΠΠΠΠΙΒ ΣΝ win fury puny Ene fd bap mip fumpd piu 2ujny Unonuiiny
mpniity”. Ibid., XIX, 4, p. 61, “Ymdoh minh hash ph, μιυηηξὰ Usumbkug,
np ἐμ Amy πὴ bin Zmyny Utomy,-+- ”, After them Persian officials were appointed,
Lhsé, Ὁ. 42 and LP’, Ixvi, p. 383 (C7. However, Akinian, Koriwn, p. 18, who is of the
opinion that Atawan should be identified with the Zik, and presumably, therefore,
be a Persian, though see on this point Christensen, Ὁ. 105 τ. 3. Also, Toumanoff, Studies,
pp. 171 n. 88 and 205 and τι. 234, in whose opinion the office of hazarapet passed in 363
to the Gnuni, “* ... succeeding in this the House of Anzitené”’, See also, above nn. 29b-
32. Manandian, Feudalism, pp. 281-282] |
84 FB, II, xiv. In the Gahnamak, “ Punbliny yumunnph” may perhaps be a
reference to episcopal authority. [On the administration of justice under the Sasanians
and its relation to the clergy, see, Christensen, pp. 299 sqq., cf. pp. 116 sqq. On the
situation in Armenia, see Manandian, Feudalism, pp. 76-78, 140, 282, and Sukiasian,
Armema, pp. 224-225, 238-248, also next note.] (447, 1)
35 Hise, p. 23, after the abolition of the Armenian kingship, the Persians began to
appoint, “whi ho ἥπημη Ean’ qurnunnyl np fauph ph, gf ghhinkyingh ψιπῖμι
᾿μ.πηἴγπη hh ”, Néldeke, Tabari, Ὁ. 110. Under the Sasanians the chief Hérbadh =
aé Orapaiin, who was almost the equal in rank of the mdbadhin mébadh = magupatti,
supervised δ die Kirche und die Rechtgelebrsamkeit”. [ΟἿ Christensen, pp. 116 sqq.,
particularly pp. 119-120, 519 sqq., and the preceding note.] . | (447, 2)
36 In the lranian Epic,.Spandiyadh, the son of Vistasp, is famous for his victories
over many nations.. To him.are attributed the taking of the Gates of the Alans and
the fortress of the Iron City, Markwart, Streifziige, p.116. He -is undoubtedly the
* pu) <f>h Uuypwhyhum <a>, gapik mukh paippupnn ph jek Zuukuy
fi unin pg tiun. uprhi sh yuyu Yuryp gym yhpgml. fap fp gambp τ, Sedéos,
ii, Ὁ. 30, Mov. Katank., ΤΙ, x] identifies him with a god named T’angri xan worshipped
by the Huns “Using horses as burnt offerings”, “ 4uhmyf. niokith mjpunh
ubSnnhinny A fim funpm] yngfip ΠΗ ΙΠΟΙ Huong abt bh ἐμηπημ πὶ yin
[Pmtapp pooh unm, gap Qupuph p Uaymhytunn hagskh --.” p. 273 = Dowsett,
Mov. Dasx., p. 156, “ Uuywhgt [wn] ny παι ει yp Culm afm] p mypkgkjm] p
qn& dunnmyuhtp--.”, Mov. Katank., ΤΙ, xl, p. 278 = Dowsett, Mov. Dasx., pp. 158-
159. The victims offered to Spandiyadh link him with the cult of the Fire a @r-vsnasp
[Adhur-Gushnasp] in Atropatené which was the family cult of the Mihranids [ΟἿ above
n. 22, Christensen, pp. n45-146 and τι. 3, 158-159, 166-167 ; Duchesne-Guillemin,. Religion,
pp. 87 sqq., 99 sqq.]. Spandiyadh was of Arsacid origin, and Sebéos refers to him in
connexion with the raid of the Arsacid Vahram Chobén [ii, p. 30, ef. Macler, Sebéos,

512 NOTES : CHAPTER XV

p- 11 nu. 5, Christensen, pp. 105, 443-444]. Might the horse sacrifices be a symbol of
the office of the Spandiyadhs as commanders of the cavalry? The name in its older
form, Spandarat, spanda-Oata, occurs in the Kamsarakan house; are we entitled to
conclude on this basis that this family was related through blood and office with the
Spandiyadhs? [On the office of Aspet and the Spandiyadh house, see above Chapter
XIV, pp. 31] and notes, and Chapter XV n. 22. Also, Christensen, pp. 108, 107-
109 and notes; Manandian, Feudalism, pp. 61-64; Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 220-221,
and nn. 259, 264, 324-326 and notes.] (447, 3)

36a [Cf. above τ. 22. On the office of the Hayr-Mardpet, and its mistaken interpreta-
tions and identifications, see above, Chapter XI, pp. 249-250 and notes; Manandian,
Feudalism, pp. 64-67; Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 131, 168-170 and ἢ. 81, 200, 248, 314-
315, and next notes.]

87 MX, ΤΙ, vii, “ Um bh ΔΩ putin t pf ὑπ} man μηδ]. h fra Luny kin
hngm y2uyp fofumbhs Hun phi ᾿Δλιπμιημηπιμεδ uh oh gpm h ΠΣ
Pujg apyte f bh mp onpy fpp whgph mbypommulhy fh, bu nx ghmbi:”.

(448, 1)

38 FB, V, vi. [The 1894 Venice edition erroneously gives the Wardpei’s name as
‘byl throughout.) (448, 2)
39 Tbid., IV, xiv. [See above τι. 36a.] (448, 3)

40 Ibid., V, vii, “ Uyo gqnpomimymfefrh [seo 4onmmupfh μι δὰπιη hh
pepymy) bh duppybam ef, npn 4uyph haskhh bipphhimy ἡπμὸ jkuy fi
pat duiuinnlmy”, the edition has a mistake in punctuation, the correct reading
should be. bApphhhmy πρὸ jury, and not 4uyph hip phhbung [See above n. 36a.](448, 4)

41 The Military Inst gives correctly two of the duties of the MWardpe: “ dupy-
yooh, ap f bipphhp wymLaymh fp oipmy [βιπηπεζιπ δ h yuhdmg” (Cf.
Appendix ITT], Nersés, ii, p. 15, attributes the guard of the royal treasure to the senekapet,
“Ubpulu ppbtp abbbhayln fp ytpay mibbayh qubdmg binpm--.”. In the
same context, #B, IV, iii, says only that Nersés, as senekapet held the royal sword on a
pearl studded belt, “Uy fp Audwbuhhh payifhh fp fp ifapu ghimapmfebuh
fp qnpdmhmpn/ekmt, upp fp ubbbhoyhn mppayplh Uppwhwy, 4onummphi
fb oybpmy mith pang bhhog Pmqoinpaftkwth fh hkppay h mpm pay:

hoyp fb oqwaum feoqgannphh tom fp ubwpu mp payph, gap pmabuluh
ununkph quymfonplh gnulkuywmbobhh Cobpkpd mbhobohy ἥπιπημεπιπιπη πη
judtwponk fp ogo ἧππ pupdimy mifp, +++”. (Nersés, iti, p.19, has at
the same place, “ qguppmimiuh jwmuhfh μαμὰ! mbfn”, which is obvi-
ously a distortion of “ gupparhulmh < umubph nulf > wyumkuobh -..”.

FB, [loc cit.]. In view of the words of the Mardpet, FB, IV, xiv, “pinky fu HI f1,pnL.-
hh ubbiuh hugiby hy +++", it is possible that the Mardpet was connected
with the royal ubbkml, Ubbkh}umhm may be the title of the official entrusted with
the guard of the royal treasure, especially since ΖΒ, IV, iii takes the “ gnpoulay-
nf? jut ubbkhmuyhm ” ina broad sense to mean, “ ζιμεαμπαἐἣ fp fepoy wilbbnyh
happy ἡ δίνη feoqonnpm|thoth pf hip pay kh mpmm pry”. (Cf. above nn. 36a-40.]

(448, 5)

42 FB, V, vi. Cf. also the request of the eunuch Drastamat, Ibid., V, vii, that he be
allowed to see King ArSak, “--- jnumbiny qayniju tinpw bh odwhky h mynigmhby
how yomindul ..- bh my”. (449, 1)

NOTES : CHAPTER XV 513

43 Faustus is acquainted with several representatives of the WMardpet house: Under
King Tiran he knows, “ myp up uhonth... np mtn quyain fds Ubof Hu py Finn
[thmth, μΠ hip ppp πμπιὴ Ζιμ ἢ bask hh +++, FB, III, xviii. The same
personage is found in the train of St. Nersés, on his journey to Caesarea, ὁ y2uiyjp he
ΟΣ Jupp εππα |? bah ἢ Ibid., IV, iv, and is killed by Sawasp Areruni, Ibid.,
IV, xiv. Another Mardpet, entered the fortress of Artagers, after the emprisonment of
King Arsak II, and insulted his queen, ἡ" hh Einun yun 9 f bkpu f ΓΝ Ζιμ 8
Suppyhin bipphhph feohudkuy qnplpbh το Γ ppph ἡ μπη up :”. Ibid; WV, Ἰχϊὶ
He was killed by MuSet Mamikonean, and “fp miyh Lujpmfeimh ἥπι πη διππι ἐπα διῖι
huipy f η-«- “: ηημιῇ πὴ mbach, np puna Uprourly ny /Pugmnpph hunt δ ΖΗ,
fop bap ηἡμἣπε dpnS μα] pf hing ἡπμὸ Supyambmnafeluh ...”. Tbid., V,
iii. This Giak was likewise executed under Pap for his attempt to shift to the Persian
side, Jbad., V, vi; and he isthe “ Zuyp διημηιη kin > mentioned as Musel’s collaborator
after the death of St. Nersés, [did., V, xxxiii. Finally, in the account of ArSak IT’s
tragic death, we have a mention of still one more Wardpet, named Drastamat, Ibid., V,
vii. [On this occasion, the Mardpei is identified as being ἡ" ἡ βίαι ηἰλδηβη “πε δ 1

One authentic historical figure is found among these personages, namely Giak, who
is well known to Ammianus Marcellinus, according to whom Giak [Cylaces] was killed
together with his collaborator Arrabanes (Faustus’ MuSsel) at the instigation of the
Persian king, Amm. Marc, X XVII, xii, 5-14 [L. III, 78/9-84/5], “* [Sapor] Cylaci spadoni
et Arrabanni, quos olim susceperat perfugas, commisit Armeniam (horum alter ante
gentis praefectus, magister alter fuisse dicebatur armorum) [5] ... Sapor ... Papam ut
incuriosum sui per latentes nuntios increpabat, quod maiestatis regiae velamento,
Cylaci serviret et Arrabanni, quos ille praeceps blanditiarum illecebris interfecit, capi-
taque caesorum ad Saporem ut ei morigerus misit”. [14]. According to Faustus,
Muésel outlived Giak and plotted to shift to the imperial side together with the Ζιμ 8
Huntin, who is in fact one and the same Glak [FB, V, xxxiii]. According to Amm.
Mare., X XVII, xii, 9 [L. 11], 82/3], Cylax and Arrabannes had also’turned to the Emperor
Valens for help and so sealed their own doom “ Qua humanitate Cyclaces et Arrabannes
Ulecti, missis oratoribus ad Valentem, auxilium eundemque Papam sibi regem tribui
poposcerunt ”. Moreover, Ammianus says that the negociations with Queen P’atanjem,
who was shut in the fortress of Artagers, were carried on by the same Cylaces and Arra-
bannes, who were acting for the Persian king, but changed side during the negociations
through pity of a defenceless woman, Amm. Marc., X XVII, xii, 5-6 [L. ITI, 789-801},
“TSapor] eisdemque mandarat, ut Artogerassam intentiore cura exscinderent, oppidum
muris et viribus validum, quod thesauros, et uxorem cum filio tuebatur Arsacis. ...
eunuchus Cylades, aptusque ad muliebria palpamenta, Arrabanne, ascito prope moenia
ipsa, ... propere venit, et cum socio ad interiora susceptus ut postulavit, suadebat
minaciter defensoribus et reginae .... Multis post haec ultro citroque dictitatis, heiulan-
teque muliere truces mariti fortunas, proditionis acerrimi compulsores in misericordiam
flexi, mutavere consilium, ...”. Consequently, the Wardpet who insulted the Queen
according to Faustus must be the same Cylaces-Glak. 18, V, iii, asserts that Giak
had already held the office of Mardpet under Arsak II, or even under his father Tiran;
this statement is supported by Amm. Marc., X XVII, xii, 5 [L. III, 78/9] according to
whom Cylaces and Arrabanes had fled from Armenia to Sapor, who had received them
as refugees and entrusted Armenia to them. This fact leads us to identify Glak with
the first mardpet mentioned by Faustus as living under King Tiran [FB, III, xviii].

514 NOTES: CHAPTER XV

Neither Sawasp Arcruni nor Musel Mamikonean, in fact, killed a Mardpet, these episodes
are purely didactic passages in Faustus’ work intended as condemnations of crimes:
the Mardpet falls for his massacre of the Arcrunis, at the hand of Sawasp, the last survivor
of this house; whereas, MuSei Mamikonean avenges the insult to the Armenian queen.

(Faustus also says of Drastamat, that he had served under Tiran [7B, V, vii] it may
be that Drastamat had replaced Giak after the latter’s flight to Persia. But Ammianus
is not acquainted with this Drastamat, and in his account Arsak IT dies at the hand of
the executioner. Judging from his name: durusi-amat δ ΔΘ who comes in time”
[** schnell-gekommen ”’, Hiibschmann, Grammaitk, p. 38], Drastamat is merely a ficti-
tious character created to enhance the episode of Argak’s tragic end.)

Faustus refers to the first two Mardpeis as Zmyp, which can be taken as either a
proper name or a title. Our identification of these officials with Giak resolves the
problem in favour of the title. In connexion with this same identification, we doubt
the characterization of the Mardpets as eunuchs. Glak himself, was indeed a eunuch,
Ammianus calls him spado, [Amm. Marc., XXVII, xii, 5; L. III, 78/9], but with the
division of this personage into four different figures, this incidental detail was transferred
to the Mardpeis in general. [The figures of Cylaces and Arrabannes remain enigmatic.
Markwart suggested that they be identified with the 4ik and the Karin, but this identi-
fication is rejected by Christensen, Ὁ. 105 τι. 2., see also Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 177-178
and ἢ. 118, and above nn. 36a-42). (449, 2)

44 All attempts have remained unsuccessful so far: Intiéean, Antiquities, 11, p. 77
compared fn fap with the Lat. prae-fectus and < ru fu — wpun, Emin,
Mov. Xor., Supp., p. 298 accepted this explanation with a slight correction. Marr.
Kiymologie, suggested the etymologie hin fu or fm connected with hu£—wihy ** pro-
vince”, having the same origin as the Arab.-Iran. term nahie (4,@)) “ province”,
while the last syllable —pwp was an alteration of ra9, Zend. ratu “lord”. The famous
Jranist, Andreas, supposed that fn fumpusp is related to Nohodares, the name of one
of the Persian generals given by Ammianus Marcellinus [Amm. Marc., XIV, iii, 1-2,
L. I, 24/5, ete], Hiibschmann, Grammatik, pp. 514-515. The second half of the word
unquestionably < raf, and not from ratu, the difficulty lies in the first syllable. Its
explanation must take account of: ἧμιν μι “first”, hund—unnul, huh—mbhg, Pers:
naxust, nahie, possibly Ufdnp—mlmh, ete. Historical considerations lead to the
linking of nayarar with sa @rdar, consequently Marr’s suggestion that there is a connexion
between nah, nahr, and sah, sahr, cf. fu L—win ἐν and ow h—unin ly, deserves serious
consideration. It is interesting to note that Hus, iii, p. 84, divides the nobles at the
Persian court into “ ἠημπιῆρ h ywmnmwlwh hwfuupwpp” which corresponds
to burzugan and sahrdaran.

Since the etymology of haw fu pp has not yet moved from the realm of guesses and
hypotheses, it is perhaps not superfluous to note that the mysterious word nah- may
be a contraction of da-nhiu, with the loss of the initial da-, with nahodar < da-nhudar,
as nahape < da-nhupatt. [After an additional half-century of scholarship, the problem
of the term nayarar, remains without a final solution. Adontz, himself considered the
probem again in his Aspect, and some of the most distinguished specialists in the field
have concerned themselves with it, see, Meillet, Wots parihes and Benveniste, Tvtres.
For a review of the scholarship and evidence, see Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 114 sqq.
and n. 188. See also next note.] (451, 1)

NOTES : CHAPTER XV 515

44a Adontz’s recognition of the double aspect of the Armenian social system: feudal
and dynastic has received considerable development and elaboration in Toumanoff’s
Studies, pp. 34-144, 154, 188, ef passim.]

44D [See preceeding note, particularly, [δἰά., pp. 113-119 and τ. 181. Also, Manandian,
Feudalism, pp. 42-89 and Critical History, II, 1, pp. 314-334; Sukiasian, Armenia,
pp. 97 sqq., 184 sqq., especially 193-195 et sqq., where he supports Adontz’s conclusions
against Manandian’s, 226-227, etc.]

440 [The thesis of the similarity between the Armenian nayarar system and West-
european feudalism has found favour among Soviet scholars, cf. Manandian, Feudalism;
Sukiasian, Armenia, pp. 97,191 sqq., eal. There are, however, important dissimilarities
observed by Toumanoff, Siudies, some are derived from the general survival of what
Toumanoff has called *‘ dynasticism ” in the “ feudal’ pattern see above ἢ. 73, others
deal with specific if related manifestations such as the apparent absence of the crucial
act of hommage as distinct from the oath of fealty, see, Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 117 n. 191,
but also pp. 40 n. 14, 144 n. 262, etc. The entire question of the comparison must,
evidently, hinge ultimately on the crucial and debated definition of the term
** feudalism ” and the legitimacy of applying it to different societies, see, Coulborn, ..
Feudalism, Kosminski, Basic Problems, and below τι. 45a.]

44d [See preceding note. The proliferation of studies on both western and eastern
“feudalism ” in the last fifty years have of necessity rendered part of the discussion
in this section out of date and in need of serious revision. In addition to works concerned
directly with Armenian “‘ feudalism ” for which see above nn. 44a-b, the Bibliographical
Note should be consulted for the problem in general.]

45 Luchaire, Manuel, pp. 235-236. [See preceding note.] (454, 1)

458 [The definition of ‘‘ feudalism” as ‘‘an inevitable stage of development” has,
of necessity, commended itself to Marxist scholars, while finding less appreciation
in the West. See, Coulborn, Feudalism; Kosminski, Basic Problems; IXth Congrés,
I, 417-471; RSJB, I, οἱ al. The problem was set with his usual felicity by Bloch, Société
jéodale, II, 241 sqq., who incidentally noted its appearance in the XVIITIth century,
almost simultaneously with the term ‘ feudal” itself, ‘‘ Aux yeux de Montesquieu,
Pétablissement des ‘lois féodales’ en Europe était un phénoméne unique en son genre,
‘un événement arrivé une fois dans le monde et qui n’arrivera peut-édtre jamais’. Moins
rompu, sans doute, ἃ la précision des définitions juridiques, mais curieux d’horizons
plus larges, Voltaire protesta : “La féodalité n’est point un événement; c’est une forme
trés ancienne qui subsiste dans les trois quarts de notre hémisphére, avec des adminis-
trations différentes’”’, Cf. Ibid., I, pp. 1 sqq.]

46 Luchaire, Manuel, p. 155. (455, 1)

4? Ibid., p. 156. (456, 1)

47a [See above τι. 44a.]

48 Huse, iii, p.85, “... Ephhbpp, [fel Lujphhhp, Gb mupghmluip bh

Eek puulunfip, bh Gubkw, mpm.p fgl, Cpudmybgup gh qupdghh:”. [See
next note}. (457, 1)

48a [ΟΡ Manandian, Feudalism, pp. 122-123, 310 sqq.; Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 118-
119.}

480 [Cf. Manandian, Feudalism, pp. 24 sqq., 32 sqq.; Toumanoff, Siudies, pp. 112 sqq.
See above τι. 27d.]

486 [See above nn. 44a-d, 47d-48a.]}

516 NOTES: CHAPTER XV

49 Waitz, Verfassungsgeschichie, IV, p. 273, “*‘ Das Verhaltniss zum Herrn als ein
Diener (servire), Dienst (servitium) bezeichnet; der Wassall heisst um des Willen auch
wohl selber Diener (famulus, puer)”. FB, III, ix, “ Quylimn οὐδ δια hon ἀπ πα -
Ρίγαιη μυμιρι ἐν Zmyng dh fb Omnamy μη ἥπραι hd pofumh Uydhiag, ap whnuobbay
fastp ppkmeful. np ἐμ dh f sappy, pntipty pupdkply inwdupfhh mpprbip : ---
Uy unm php Pupuinph 2uyng sa μή qowmnupy pop, qprepambh oe
ginhh, h gfaproth kop Onpuy yup, + Ge fipph, my np ng fp ihimgbmy
peggth, bo mppay yma Dhl bp ᾿ γηὶ Δ λιν nppbpnygh mppaph Yu phbhwy
ufuinay, bh gombh Ubdbkog. h opp qin pybwpfa bh yaynquin nh ὙΠΈΡ: .
Huy papiurepls poled ἢ dumuynifé fh mip pin fis ζμι μη μη ”. Tbid., V,
xxxvili, ‘*- ap fh m dkhnu wn bhi h ΠΣ εὐ ι ἐὐήῶι h δ μι εἤνμιδιππι [δ τε ἣρ
ὀμιπαι ἔτπη δὰ, bh mmygkh fim ἡπιοίμπιμζη Ζι πὴ 1 +++ kh mfp gmk βεμέιηδη
yup pay Qupupg, bo loyhh ἢ dunn πὶ [ binh ἬΒΕ ” Z£P, xxv, p. 140,
“sefAf dkg qhw'py fenip, f διαπιμ! μη mppyfup mbkph μη μι μὰιιῆ πὶ βἰμιυὴρ
ypky win. fupbuhy ink ph ᾿ς Ibid., xxvi, p. 148, * 6mm h Supima
[eft * qnp dumm hy ways fown fuphuoty mbunoh hoon fwgqonnpa wahky”.

Ibid., xxviii, p. 168, “-- a guy popat Link hupobiwy hip β dbp
ounmynifefilin”. Ibid., xlv, Ὁ. 263, “++-Ounmyph dbp Ympyuis-- Ibid.,
Ixxv, p. 442, “" h yap puryfig up puny hh h ὄπα fobht uf byuhitn fs » Tbid.,
Ixxv, pp. 447: 450, “--- h dby ae “πέτα δ πα πρεμδ ἢ πὶ [9 κι upcubih byl,
fp dnp Enh mnmPh Yammer ho Supglah* mpymp dmop Skunh ἧι dhy
Omnuynr [ [εἶν μι πα ἔτ]. [447] - --Hhp phpl in iuipp fp h ζμ πη ἢ" ubpng h
hufubbeag, ἃ dkp dwawympfipfrh mnbbip.-- T4501”. ”» Ibid., xcii, p. 548,
“os. ἀ dip pil miupp bp, hukp dbp phhl dunuy p hip ”, Buse, “ Lup ph
Uip +++ hugh fp ownayn fia youn -.- hikp ghayh ounmjntfe ph
ounuykymp”. [Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 117]. (459, 1)

50 Luchaire, Manuel, Ὁ. 159, “11 faut distinguer les fiefs qui sont des seigneuries et
les fiefs qui n’en sont pas’. In his investigation of Russian feudalism, N.P. Silvanskii,
Feudalism, p. 76, calls the first type “‘ fief - benefice’ and the second “ fief-allod ”’.
[Cf. Manandian, Feudalism, pp. 104 sqq. on the yostaks which are not discussed by
Adontz]. (460, 1)

51 Mortet, ‘‘ Féodalité ” in La Grande Encyclopédie, XVIII, p. 206. (461, 1)

52 Faustus commonly uses the terms fn fina and fran Quy bun, δ αἰ πιιπ ἐμ occurs
only seven times: three times together with hu4uukm, FB, IV, xvi, p. 184; V, xxxvii,
pp. 242, 248, and four times alone, Jbid., III, xx, p. 62; IV, xvii, p. 186; IV, 1, p. 167;
V, xxxviii, p. 249. The terms utp and mf pnifé fh, in their technical sense are rare:
Ibid., xiii, p. 253; V, xliv, p. 256; IV, xix, p. 137; IV, vi, p. 208; IV, xxxii, p. 23a;
IV, xxxvii, p. 246; V, xxxviii, p. 249. Zazar P’arpeci on the contrary avoids furdu-
min and uses mulinumtp, mip, tmfumpup. Ets, prefers hujumpup and
never uses either hu4umfhin or mulinuntp. [Cf. above τι. 48c, and Toumanoff, Studies,
pp. 117 n. 190 and 180 π. 229). (468, 1)

538 Τὴ the period under discussion, VatarSapat was the osian of the Arsacids, Erwanda-
Sat, that of the Kamsarakans; Hadamakert, that of the Arcruni, Dariwnk’, that of the
Bagratids; Ostan, that of the R&tuni, etc. [Cf Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 114, 198
n. 209, 199, 202, 206, 213, 322-323 and n. 77, etc. Manandian, Peudalism, pp. 56-58,
etc. | (463, 2)

588 ΤΟ, Manandian, Feudalism, pp. 97 sqq.]

NOTES: CHAPTER XV 517

54 HU se, v, p. 99 indicates the order of succession, ‘‘ -+-n/umbund piu ἐμμη πη δ"
np bpp ηξίμπ frefumliph ἰλῥαδίπη, cae jw ηρηῤιι ἡμνῦ yhnpmpg’
anpun fp alah hagu Sumnymbtp.--

Succession according to seniority can be traced in the Mamikonean house. FB,
III, iv, gives the fu fun Π 11} of this house under Xosrov IT of Armenia, as Vacé, son of
Artawazd, “+++ mpdmbiiimg feuguanph fp dipwy hagw qd sk apph ἰλμιπιμεμιη-
qoy qhokenkon Vodphobhoh mod poqgk oympaybnm(Phah Zmynq,
qui yopunmp yopmy fipng”. The power passed to his only son Artawazd,
Tbid., IU, xi, * Uulanyh AY ustf qopunupp ihn ppp Hin hid pl uf yhapnh
ἡππηβ β ζμ μὰ Ἀ pupd χμιζπιὴ ἥμηππεη τ ἧ { hh, apo mbm ἔμ pola Lona
fupny ἰλμιπυιιηη : Unm Sh [δια πῃ pi ἡζομὲι “πε p aymfub nut hh, h
qoyupuuyhinmfebah tnpah migh., gf fpf npah awammbinph fp, bh
Hon lpaap mont. yh my) pongpfh ngs unui. fodlm, gh f le nym & parila
winmi ". Under Tiran, the representatives of the family were Artawazd and Vasak,
Ibid., TI, xviii, “ δὲ why ἡ[μη δι] Upmenmgg bh ἅ πα ἢ, opp pf duihlobkoh
mntoth, app thi qopunmpp mikbuyh yopwy Zuyng 505 ὃς. Ar’ak II, “ +.
hugnyy iss η mph ghnty ξηρὴ β ἡπη ζαμη finns [6 imbh ΠΩΣ jupbmby,
h glum gofIhh Eqpayph gfip ημ μι fp aapepwybunfefrbh ἡοριμή-
mpnifeioh pfpu yunnkpuydugh ”, Ibid., IV, ii. Consequently, Vardan is called,
“ μβὸ tukuykm duniflabkuh mn4ih ” [as agains his brother, “ --. wkd
win pin juin fi Ζιμ!πη nam Yon hngkp >), Idid., IV, xi, and IV, xv, as well
as “S mubnuntph todo dwhlobkoh mnduph, Epkg Eqpayp Ymuwluy,
uympumknfh”. Ibid. IV, xvi. Vardan was succeeded by his next brother Vasak,
Ibid., IV, 1, “+++ Summguahtp he ΡΜ ΠΗ --. βεπὴ mmobnunbunbth
Y wumbay +++ ”, Vasak was simultaneously sparapei. After him, his son Musel,
assumed the function of sparapet, “δ ..- h fp hingm yopugymju Umpby nppph
Yuuulwy uywpuybmph ”. Tid. IV, Ww. King Varazdat had Musel killed and
transferred the office of sparapet to Bat Sahatuni, “* Umum hmgnyy [βιυημιεπμὴ
Ψιιμηήμμπ ἢ πρὸ παμαμιπιη ἐτιππι [9 πιμ δ gPom σαι απ {}πζμιππιδιένμιη
mnguph +++ fap ημι μι, ", bot πη δ ἢ βἢ πδι ιμἷ modi ἱπειδιπειπὲμ
hu dunn fin hugnyy feuguninp Y mst minh fh haffh mndok ?, Ibid., V, xxxvii.
At the return of Manuél Mamikonean from captivity,“ ++» Apph Gumku ghu Y¥msth’
ap ponmSh bp peo fio Lonybinh, εἷς sh εὐ παν! ἔμ ba Bin gh quyunnfr fofauiim-
Pkmth, gop wnkuy fp pp fmqenapkh ᾧ μιμμιηηλμιπ},, pula fu fn Epty
poggfh. h {Γι πε} mbkp ghodomkbomfeboh πη β ἱπαιπειπἐ μπι [9 παῖ
yup, bh Ymgth pity Ephpnpg : Ῥμὴ γημολποὶμ ἣ Foun bho {Πιπΐ πε}
fifa nntpmifeboh fapry, hfe moambg fpwtwhp feoq_enapph Ympeqpemny
[ppt ponpommlbag qygopunjaprifefwhh guy pumykinm|d fbb. gh mayb pir
op fupng fimfubbogh p phth huypbuy fp fp ulqpmbl, gap mppayh 4 μιμιπη-
gunn shiaph unbts fap με ξιμὴ hh Panny, gap Voit, ppiph fwhkm;
πιδπὲμ 9 fp fumbinifé {1 >, Idem, Manuél was succeeded by his son Artasir, Idid., V,
xliv, “S++. £ fem bp ἢ 1}. ΠΣ ΨΩ Πομιμ μι ph Lung Uubnt) Huu fain ζβεμδιηπι-
[tims Sula. bh hnskmy ἡπμὴβ pup. AU pun pp, him fiw ηιπἐμπι fh /up h
quapopmmbinn [9 pl yopunfupmfebuth frpay ”. The son of Artasir was probably
the Hamazasp, who was the son-in-law of the Kat’otikos Sahak 1, and who in turn had
three sons: Vardan, Hmayeak, and Hamazaspean, ZP’, xviii, p.111, “ [Umdmbmy]

δι ΠΡ yh ng Aap ἢ ἢ πὶ ΠΩΣ yuna pay εἴμ} quip uf, yop In 1ΠΠ|-

518 NOTES : CHAPTER XV

fu himfeimh Zura ἢ win] "πω πῆι Uuuh ltt hg h uy uy pay bin fh 2uyny,
op Ohun fp Ζιηδμιη ΜΙ ΜΙ} Enfu nppfe, qumpph ἃ μιπημιὶ, h ηξδι ἢ bh
ni puliby ph Zuniga Gah ”. Vardan was the next tanutér, and after him his
nephew Vahan, because of the premature death of his brothers. ZP’, xxiii, xxv,

pp. 184, 144, ete, “.-.. Ymwdwh [mblp] qutpm[ehih Uuhhotkhg ho quy—
pry timate ft >, Ibid., lv, p.393. [Cf Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 120-122, 209}.
(464, 1)

55 FB, IV, ii, Arsak IT appointed Vardan, nahapet of the Mamikonean, and Varazdat
appointed Vaéé, Jbid., V, xxxvii [see preceding note for the texts]. Manuél seized
the sovereign power, [bid., V, xlii, “ Unyplaytu penny hs yumi hmgmgmbtn
wpa py inh U πε} fu Lany fanu ἐ inf npus DL ἢ | ”. LP’,
xlii, p. 236, has the marzpan reassure the Armenian nobles that, ‘‘ 15 yink pnifé fby
h quyminfr Lobb p ynukpt”. After the fall of Vasak of Siwnik, the Persians appoint-
ed his enemy, the apostate Varazvaian, “ -soinkn f ΠΣ, ΠΡΟΣ ΤΩΣ Ufrbbuy .
Ibid., xlvi, p.270. The Persian king assured the Armenian nobles that, if they
accepted Mazdeism, “ --- g/ipmpwisup mpmp quubauntpmf fal mod bh
yam ἐϊ Huy un fi. ” Ibid., lv, p.31l, also, Ibid., Ixii, Ῥ. 357, hh au pulang
qginwinaunkpnifé prob gui mpmgn|dbudp, ++. δια Jbid., lxxv, p. 443, * h
mp ηπ|η Phd wyp ap puynypup wepampsp’ op [9 waukpun Pmqunnpm [βία ἣρ
up¢ubminpayke Louk fp mwotnuntpm δ fh, my aphap στε ηλμἢ h whiny finmhs,
Lughmmulp h ywmnnkihh, op gah ἡ μη μα uke [Puqunopmfe fib paupeh,
bh phy bpmwhf hun ghbh h mfpnijfefal ”. Vahan made the condition that “ ---
περ puqugu ingnfekmh god h yma oumypp ”. Ibid., lxxxix, p. 523, and he
interceded before the king, ‘‘--- ον πμζίῃ aby qinmbinuing μπι[ βεῖι Qudumpuhmbph ae
which was granted, “ὁ... Epfgp {μιν pn ιππιΐτμι! ηιπἐμπι δ fib Quidumpul-
wif”, Ibid., xevi, p. 572. Services were taken into consideration on appointment
to a tanutérui’iwn. Rejecting a similar request of Vahan in favour of Prince
Areruni, the king pointed out that“ --- yuaqmgu mipm[e hhh Upopminnyh, feng
Yayp of gh ηβιπιιμη δὰ dwpyphh feb ap fp ἱππζῆξὰ Gh, oyme pls mpdubue-
n pau ta ΓΤ ΤΗΣ un by, h Yuriy pis joqnun Upbug mip fumpd piu
απ ἠδ]. fajybugmp uym h hp yupduih ”, Idem. The king dismissed Prince
Garegin, “ h fmbbuy fr pay pink pif? ph p πα ...”, Huse, 1,0. 18. Ibid.,
v, p. 115, δ... ἐ ΠΗ ζμη δὴ NI LUT Ρ Lummi p hnguht “ἢ, of. Ibid.,
vii, p. 164. Bishop Sahak of R&Stuni blames the king that, “ Gum P nau yink pm
(pbb Ufanthuy ”. Ibid., vi, p.1385. The king “ ++ funumumgqun mm lingw-

y jap pub ship fofrmbimfé fab punn hupaf Luypkhp npmnininph,> + ”, Ibid., p. 197.

According to Sebéos, xvii, p. 65, Xusré, “ muy baw Udpunnmy] τὰν ηιπιι δ πειπ ππι---

full... *. Kavadh granted to his son’ Varaztirog, “ -+- ἡβροξιδπι β [ιν
nutnuntpnfélmhh Ὁ. Ibid., xxviii, p.97. Finally, “ gapah bapw ἡμδιηπιὶ μὴ"
apm αἱ πιδ ἐμ Udpun, fpgbag mppay fp yumf Gap apr, ἱππι-
fm fim gpofumimfe Akh μὲν ἢ) mutmolpambohh muyknmfeboh, hb mpop
yi qparhaup Hun pny βιμπὴ ᾿ς Lbid., xxxii, p. 116. (464, 2)

55a [Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 119, and Sukiasian, Armenia, pp. 204-205, 307.]

56 FB, ITI, xi [See above τι. 54 for the text], Ibid., IV, ii, ‘--- un ἢ nip puny fli
wun. fp ηχπεβι μιμηδέβμῆ". Tov. Arc., iv, p.272, “+++ mmy qouinubp ἢ
Afnu ἰλοπιππὶ bh mppkgmgwht ubpbholoh dunwhym|thohh ... ὄπ|μπι-
fphmip”. (466, 1)

NOTES : CHAPTER XV 519

5? FB, IV, iii, “ Ua fp df οἰπηπι pounkgoh on mppayh Πρ μὴ dbdunlke p
fin Lun fin p me μη’ "ππζῆμιη ιππζῆμ!η, ἡδηβη h Hpoomy nimpp se
Hach princely house had its own standard, on which were represented, among other
devices: doves, mguimpno> mjpubipu. ypos turile-doves, aupdubmhmbp <
Yup util — μια, eagles, uponibhemh, (466, 2)

58 See above Chapter X, p. 215 and n.50. [Also the grant of insignia to the
Armenian satraps in the IVth century, ef. Chapter V, pp. 87-88 and n. 27. Toumanoff,
Studies, pp. 117 and τ. 198, 134, τ. 235.] (466, 3)

59 Luchaire, Manuel, pp. 250 sqq. [Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 118.] (466, 4)

60 There is no word meaning “law ” in Armenian so that an Iranian loan word has
to be used uu—plh < daena. [Cf. Sukiasian, Armenia, pp. 238-254, 381 sqq.] (467, 1)

61 Inéiéean, Antiquities, II, p. 87, observes correctly that we have no case of royal
interference in the internal affairs of the principalities, and consequently deduces their
autonomy. [Cf. the preceding note and the status of the Armenian satrapies vis-a-vis
the Roman Empire as civitates foederatae liberae et immunes, above Chapter V, pp. 75-101}.

(467, 2)

62 Cf. FB, ΠῚ, viii for the execution for treason of Prince Datahey
Bznuni [and not Ratuni], “ “hammpuy hm Lan kin hr Paimbkug oes [μιπμζπιμη
ἐἤιηριδπι [δ πε pita phy βαβαῖ gopmgh Qpufg. ἐππείπημα, dumbk, ῥ
ἀπ fingm quippuph Zujny yntph fap. +++ Qhppuluy mip play A‘ honnmpt hh
Yush uympmyfoh ho ρα 9 Yuduh oiummbp, with glu unmPA kop
fPuqunaphh ᾿σπημπήπι, bh pmphag unbkbh qi pwpuip ppph qmyp, op
up fap dpa h gin bk yopuy mhunh fupny qonudmh pau pal > Ge ηπιηη inpm
A ghhh bh qapppe qowbtp μὰ ἥμπη β mig ppfumihh Γ πριππεὴ {πη pulunbkmyh
Ug /¢ wimp hynind. f howe yim Yuh puppy kink, μη τι] β ἠηη μὲ" un.
fuumpah ng gky fengnyp h πὸ yup > Gt myumlu pupdon πηηπηππζὴ ἧι ζαι-τ-
pupmfebwhh aphapph, Ge ηϊππεῖ fing poppaiifu ἡμημμὶ ”, (467, 3)

68 According to JB, IV, ii, nine hundred persons sat at the royal table, not counting
the ones who remained standing on their feet. We learn from Persian sources that,
δ one of the Persian Xusrés ordered to assemble all kinds of men from all parts of the
realm and to seat them in a definite order for a feast. At the same time, a certain part
of the officials was separated from the group during this distribution, in order to conform
to the traditional practice. ‘“‘ K. Inostrantsev, Waterials, p.177. The reference is
to the creation of the Throne List or Gahnamak with which we are already familiar.
The officials supervising the organization were probably the very ones to remain standing
in Faustus’ account. See above, Chapter X τι. 2 for the text. [On the gorcakals, see,
Manandian, Feudalism, pp. 60-65, 67-69, 71-79, 81-83, 121-122. Toumanoff, Studies,
pp. 204, 220-222, 230 n. 279, ete., ef. above Chapter X, pp. 185sqq and notes.] (468, 1)

64 Luchaire, Manuel, p. 262, “... dans la plupart des états féodaux, le plus important
des hauts fonctionnaires est le sénéchal. Apres le duc ou le comte, il est le souverain
en second de la seigneurie; il dirige la justice et Padministration locale, commande
Varmée .... Le chancelier est un personnage non moins considérable ... il est percepteur
et collecteur perpétuel de tows les revenus du comté ”. [Cf. Lot and Fawtier, Insttiutions].

64a See above pp. 339-341 and nn, 22, 29a-43, 63.

65 Luchaire, Manuel, Ὁ. 264, * ‘puna bin p ”, is found in FB, IV, li, [* dhdw-
Wop hmfuupapp fmunlupp japiuhay,p qaunenkupp ynpouhmyp bh
quuuykinp spliulmlug = ghyIumg”, BL, Ῥ. 41 = “ghrymmkm”, Mov.

520 NOTES : CHAPTER XV

Katank’, p.124. [Cf Manandian, Feudalism, pp. 82 and τι. 1, 174, 187-188, 232, and
below n. 00.

66 Sebéos, xvii, p. 62 speaks of a member of the Dimak’sean house who was an official
of the Bagratids in the VIIth century, “-+- jupyhmy fp f Yap; muh anu.
nupp bh hutwhunmp”. (Cf. Sukiasien, Armenia, pp. 226-231.] (469, 2)

6? FB, IV, xxiii, Prince Meruzan Arcruni, having gone over from Arsgak II to the
Persian king, “ gitp ply ham mjum μηδ ἣρ, gp jonfpmboh Ommay 6 {ἢ
fim ἢ. Ibid., IV, 11, ArSak II asked for an oath as safe-conduct before his hourney
to the Persian court, * U pom fulyptp fun πῇ ἣ Epyniity my fuun fi. f δα μι,
gp μυμμ ὃ Link mbhmuld Epfehgt wo ἅμ τ be bw bv pkpby pom opphlugh
funn p pi Epyduby /Puqunnpm|ebubh Mu pu fry’ ma, ἐδ phy Yupmg hhup-
ughp dumuibun, h yyw”, (Curiously, Adontz says here that the Persian king’s
ring bore the effigy of a “leopard ”, or “‘ panther ” rather than of a wild-boar, which
is the description given by Faustus, and is indeed, the correct device for the official
seal of the Sasanians, cf. Christensen, Ὁ. 8947 Sebéos, iii, p.43, “ bur ΜΠ μι τι μη
ἐμηπιῖδι hh phuy ”, According to Proc. Pers., I, iv, 9 [L. 1, 22/3, the Persian king
Peroz had sworn an oath to the Hephthalite Huns over salt, and the ruler of the
Huns, “sods δὲ ἅλας ἄκρου σημείου τοῦ βασιλείου ἀπεκρέμασεν ἐς ods τὸν ὅρκον Περόζης
ὦμοσε πρότερον, ὃν δὴ ἀλογήσας εἶτα ἐπὶ Οὔννους ἐστράτευσεν ". HhSsé, iii, Ὁ. 86, the
Persian king,‘ fubgptp fp hogmhl ἠδ πι θ μα 4onminmpinifebmh jbplhph
Ζιππη, h Eppdwdp γπείμιη tnmbtp unmYh fingm--.”. [While these oaths are
duly attested, not all have the character of ‘ homage ”, also, as observed by
Toumanoff, Studies, p.117 n. 192, ‘* The concept of homage as a separate act from
the oath of fealty does not appear to have existed in Armenia ”’.] (469, 3)

68 LP’, xxvi, p. 146, “ --- ulin un dby nk pnifé ph h υἱμα δι μὴ πε fe rh, Ι
dip wn diy mppapoinmpPiodp δαιπμι πὰ δ με h Giagqmbynife fh ᾿ς. (470, 1)

69 Luchaire, Manuel, p. 195. (470, 2)

70 Jéid., p.196. [Cf. Toumanoff, Siwdzes, pp. 117-118, and next note.] (470, 3)

a The Armenian cavalry was also drawn from peasants, as was that of the Parthian
custom, hence the expressions, “ἢ nuff; LEdbmy, ghn Sah Lhokmy ”, See above,
Chapter XIII, pp. 299-300. [See also Chapter XIII n. 218 for the critique of this thesis.
On the size of the Armenian feudal contingents and a comparison with western ones,
see, Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 234-241, particularly p. 235 n. 300, and Table V]. (470, 4)

τὰ FB, V, vii, Drastamat was, fi fh nm ΠΣ ΠΩΣ h fununinup pi πμμἷ!---
any Utigky pépaph, h μα τι yh phpymyh ΜΠ pmilif np f ἠπη διυιῖμι μη.
μπ| μηδ hk piphpph Ompug fp βθιιρθη pbpppi qubdph jim ἐδ ply
ἀπά μι. ἢ. [ΟΡ above n. 36a.] (470, 5)

73 Néldeke, Tabart, pp. 5, 111. “ὁ ἀργαπέτης ᾿ is found in Palmyrene inscriptions,
of. Levy, ZDMG, XVIII, p. 89. The word is derived from Pers. “ | fortress ” =
Lat. arz, and means “‘ commander, keeper, of a fortress = ph paul)... | Cf. Christen-
sen, Ὁ. 107.] (470, 6)

74 Hhsé, iii, Ὁ. 68, * papduhbyah fi yipmy papypyh h 111} 1185 yap
mit [ἢ Mu pru ph ph f inky fu infin fin, paiipngu mp pamipL fbr, τος Unum ὃ μὲν
qubob Upunuiyunin ζιδηξμὰ ἘΜ ΟΡ fupml P- ἐκ mnharph quikidunnnyy winipul
η Qunbif pup ph, AUS fh, gUpumgbpu h yuh fupbuhy. ἡ μάμμη μηδ
h AU pfubfh h μιν! faphohg., yPupdpupagh, qghnpwhpunh, 70m foutifunts,
qubil mul mdb f Nywhwhh, h pin fnow hh youn fuphahy. qU ppfmbkwyh,

NOTES : CHAPTER XV 521

AY whh minh, phy if kh qunmbiuh jup. qdnkmyh h η πη πμπὴ, gApomh
Lh 7 περι ἤν νοι ιπ ”. (471, 1)
76 FB, II, xiv, “ Upy up fm nym] Enim; ubdunthdp hu fompopigh,
h p uf ἤμῃ!ῃ bhiw, Ps funp4mpyp [ιπμζβηιμῖι > Tbid., xxi, “ οἰπηπιη πη
fp dh ὁπηπι ἤριπε θ κι δμιπηβὴ mpfampfhh δι μαμπιμῖ Enphpph, fu—
fumpupp dhdwulke Ρ. uma p, havuwhny Ps ure fur pra typ Ps wqunn p, yopmapmfap,
panuinpp, ybinp, frjuwip. pujyg ἢ qopmfupmgh, my ἦι fp aphulwhmg
μ μα πὴ δι πη ἦ μι] ”, Ibid., IV, iii, “ Uma fh uf Anam hmnkywh
umn mip pup Uproml udp hn Lun Fin p -++”, of. Ibid., IV, iv, li; V, lv, “ μξὸ
fin fm pip phi Ζιμ! πῇ πεν uhh μ᾿ πεξίτιπ δι. pun hu dury fupkuhy uly
yf? mguanph ”, etc. Many cases of the princes meeting in council are also found in
LP. (471, 2)
76 FB, II, viii, after the treason of Prince Databey, King Xosrov, “ pltp opthu'
yh ἐπδι πὸ mph pt, fm ἤπια παι ἢ ph mip fami) ph > pLurin up ph
op EA piaponopph bh Ququpannpph, joyghh un παρ ρα fh, h phy hilar >p)-
fugph, h dh np Epféhgl fp tnguhf phy qgopu mppmhp”. [Cf. above p. 335
and n.19 for the regulations of Cyrus]. (471, 3)

76a (Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 119-126, particularly Ὁ. 120 τ. 207.]

‘7 Lazar P’arpeci calls the following relatives sepuhs of the tanutér:

. his brother: .-- bof ubydhi Uunhlabthy Eqpoph Lupyminy -.. =”.
2omjpbul. LP, xxvii, p. 159, xli, p. 234. Vardan had another brother named
Hamazaspean, Ibid., xviii, p.111, but Hmayeak was the older of Vardan’s two
brothers, and is consequently called “hd ubymd”, When Vahan Mami-
konean became ianutér of the house, his brother Vasak was called “ αἰτιη πιζῇ
ΣΝ muphnbt hg ”» Ibid., lxix, p. 401.

2. his son: ‘+++ ubwmd lh mpough ns πμηβ Qaqfebhm fp fuuh ph fipom, ”.
Jbid., Ixvi, p. 391.

. his nephew: Vahan, “mwpdmbip g/ip Eqpopnpyh uh, qnpph bwdoinwl |b
Yunulny Bapynp : + πἰιηπιζὰ Wualbhabkly Dphanp +++”. Ibid., xeiv,
pp. 557-568.

4, his kinsman: Sewuk, prince of the Anjewaci, had an myqmljhy named John, to
whom the historian refers as “ ἢ ΠῚ jUbeuimy fh fin [απ μια pig’ αἰτιηπεξ
Up apm mimk ἐμ Sado .... δὲ χπεῖιμ! yanamufamhfp poqgmlyth
ΣῊΝ ΠΌΣΙΝ Ufdhmakng Uhhny -++, Idid., lxx, pp. 412-413. Va-
razvatan is also called sepuh, as “ayp up fp modith Ufalbmg”. Ibid.
xx, p. 115, “* qu fine μἰτιη πεζῆι Ufnhbuy η mpg ”, p.ll8. He was
the son in law of Vasak of Siwnik, “++. spbumpmykuy fopaub ph Ufrbbug
Qanulwy, ubyms Ufrbiug”, Ῥ. 115-116, and it is not clear whether he was
entitled sepwh as a member of the house of Siwnik’, or as Vasak’s son-in-law.

5. Sebéos refers to three individuals from the same family as sepuhs “ ubynd ph
YuLhmbfp {7 ἧπι{ ἢ yap mn [! h Umpapu h Y mpg GEpuke h
Uhputu ---”, vii, p. 60. Their tanutér was, “ hynupm] Ymhmbhmg mfp”.
Ibid., xi-xii, pp. 56, 58.

Other historians rarely use the term sepuh. Twice in FB, IV, xv, “ η δ] whe

αἰ πεζ uppulmbf +. ? and“ Ζινδιη μι μα ubymd up fh Uualplntkmh

umngot ”, Ibid., V, xxxvii. In Htisé, likewise twice: “+. ubuym{p niwhp
pupil ἱππζὴ! ”, iii, p.74 = (EP, xxxvi, p. 200), and “ ubuymd dh mgalh

a

oo

522 NOTES : CHAPTER XV

Usunmibug ”. Ibid., v, p.105 = (LP’., xxxvii, p. 215). In Sebéos, only the

passage given above. [C/. Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 130}. (472, 1)
778 [On the sephakan, see below τι. 82.]
78 The answer to the Persian king, ZP’, xxiii, p. 135, was composed “ἢ... 118} Π

mn kinink vip p, Lulinknd wimg ubylop ”. The king summoned, Ibid., xxv, p. 14]
= wre baw yh wn hinun bu ph ἐι mL ubwymd ph Epkgm pu pam phurg 8

Again, Ibid., xxvii, p. 154, “+--quya ualbhayh gino bw [μι παν πη ᾿ς mibbkgnh
h ub hugh ooo 7) OF. Ibid., xxvii, pp. 157, 160, ete, TZbid., xxxii, p. 190,
δι wa ΜΠ ἧχι phe wn tinuink punipp h αἰτίη ζο ρ᾽ fuumnuink hh gE pyniiu, h npg ἵμιιπιι-
ΠΣ jh hu ἐμ biphuy qUcbunm poh bh pt ph ” ‘Ibid., xxxii, p.194, “ hh p-
Fury fu fa Sunni kur fapambpi Ufrbibury Y muah, h wy a Duunuhbo p
mlb ph nw πιιη [παι ἢ ἡ 2mjny h mL uly 4iigh °. Ibid., xli, p. 231, “ hufu-
Mf f1,P h ulwmip ”, ete. (474, 1)

79 MX, ΤΙ, xxii, * Luijny βιυχιμεπμὲ Upmunrugy πμηβ δ βημιΐμμ! : Um
Gunmbgkgnrguht gy pupu fup ἐι popu f gunn Ug frifinh h UnpEpmiiny,
[βπηιπη pp boow ἢ δια αἷ oppmbp ap fh oth δ ἢ ἢ quam”, Guligbpd πιπιιδιὰ [ἢ
Sng ἰι nanéhug, pum ομβὶπμὴ wggohubmeh oop fp ἠπηδιιιῖμι Zurpinkh jy.
npuylu ah | pbk boyu wy pnin in fn bi pn phi h wnuity [θινημιεππιη δὴ! pu
quyhu omppulmifu. δα} ἢ opplumpk ng fiw, jUypmpunn ἢ phuhmfe fab
mipi,puny fi >. Ibid., ΤΙ, lxii, 8“ δὲ Ehiwy un bun huh fumgnyh fupny mipowlahbag,
op thi fp lngiutu Zupukhhy, wubkh. Ciqupdwhia ky gd mmm πε [δ [μεἶμιι,
gp bby f. pulgh μιμὴ ἥμιηιρ : δὲ hw fpmiuyt πδμδη fp tinguht Ep[euy fh
quaint ἰλημπίμημ h Unpipwtiny : pul ungu minniky hu paynp fuji win
wppuph, (tb unukpoanp hy ξ alin, ng fis mbbbghp 1 pip δ μεν, my
Luin bay ἠδ βπ' ns wy σα πμδηπι [9 fel may ing, ΡΜ} gop mph Lowey
mapndby Jpipiuta : πῃ pudubbmy pam ἥμιπημ [dn py, Hinuih wy lan dunuh—
gmfefil phuhagugh Zupinbiihy, yuu npny pugnip fr tingmblt Ehkw) fh
Huns Uy fm] fin b ΠΩ, ον (474, 2)

80 One of the canons of this Council begins: “‘ynpdéud wqump gfipbulyg ἡῤμη
h qgdwpy podwibh”. The king of Atbania, driven from his throne by the Persian
king, demanded from him his own sepuh possessions, “ fuliaphwg godwhhafebuh
ub wy ζμι ἢ abh, yop Lopli fupny obinp liu ἐμ how fi πη} πὶ [9 bk Auman
Ep ᾿ς Hise, Ὁ. 199. This passage is found in Book VIII, which is undoubtedly of
a different and relatively later origin than the others. [Cf. Manandian’s objection,
Feudalism, p. 192.] (475, 1)

81 MX, 1, iii, “++. gheghg bh gonmnamg ho h fupm pubsfup “ΠΝ ἢ ΜΙ ΠΗ ἃ----
huhwbon jimh, bh fubmpg fulwomlafiobg bh qepuhg wii un εἴη
gun h fh wip ἡ μπιη μη δεμαπ μι p, δια δ μι μη πῃ fh αἰδιξζμι ἢ με wy nnn [Ὁ oh
μα μα η μηππι δ με ἢ. The word μι παι ἦι ἀλη ἢ μι πα [9 τι does not have here the
opposite sense to Aubinipy, as might seem likely (and it was understood by Marr in his
review of Javayisvili’s Polity, which we have cited earlier). It is evident from the
context that litigations arose primarily at the time of division of the sepwh inheritance.
The sepuh having received his portion left the family, he became an wnwhdhmlmh,
and the quarrels arose from just such wawhdbmimbmjélmhy. [Cf Manandian,
Feudalism, pp. 171-172 and next note.] (475, 2)

82 According to Xosrov, the patriarch, “ nlm hah uni vbpink ἐ wu ἐγ a.
nuh Ey fib °, Arm. Dict., ΤΙ, p. 706. [Cf. Manandian, Feudalism, pp. 77, 93-94, 172,

NOTES : CHAPTER XV 523

192-195. See also Ibid., 127-130, ete., for zarvangul’iwn, as used in connexion with the
clergy. Also Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 120 τ. 206, 124.] (475, 3)
88 MX, Ill, xx, “ bn’ ημήπιεμα qunpunupsl μμηημιῇ ἕν μι fw pin pau Πα! ἢ ἢ ΠΣ
uff’ gubpduinpuy fun? fib, gap ΠΩΣ “μὰ ζ ἢ} Π] αἰτιξζμι ἢ myqunnnL [9 hath
wnhthi”. The passage concerns the forbiding of such practices by Nersés 1. At the
same point in FB, IV, iv,“ δι np L ΠΩΣ putin? ἐτιμδ op pliunnp ΤᾺ uf
uinky ko dh yun ppb; ee winuobafefbpham, ἠπηδιιδη. hh flee aL
wb fp fp uipduinp bh πη θὲ ἱππζδμ ἢ μη feunbohmfeioh wimolm [9 ἢ ἢ...
Faustus gives no reason for such consanguinous marriages. Movsés, while ἜΡΜΟ
the information from Faustus, adds his own commentary in which he presumes that
these marriages were meant to preserve the inheritance of the “ sephakan - freedom ”’,
And, in reality, a brother marrying his sister-in-law, inherited his brother’s sepuwh share.
Movsés’ interpretation is characteristic for his period and not for that of Faustus, in
whose History, the injunction of Nersés I is taken primarily as a reference to the marriage
of King Argak II with the wife a his nephew Gnel. (475, 4)
84 Tov. Arc., III, ii, p. 181, κα μιζμμι μι πεζ [A phim fafa fh we ἢ
ut} P eh ubwmd winsinolt hy ” . Ibid., p. 134, he says of the same Vahram, “ --.
op kh fehhiimuymg fofumifu, --.”. Tt is interesting that Thomas seems to use the
term sepuh as the indication of a particular rank, and without any indication of the
family to which the particular sepuh belonged, as this would have been done by earlier

authors. So also, Jbid., II, vi, p. 109, “ --» h 1}] P β fin fp ph - niuymdh
ΝΟΣ nbn uf Unluh +++ ”. In AL, x, p. 60, “ Uluyms ambnh PE Di
1Π1} Eykmy fh ζι μι δ τα η << ἡπῖι δὶ my h kh.» *, (476, 1)

85 BUS, iv, p.92, “ puqnud h Μ}} μι μη δι μηβὴ gop, nunubbloh mim—
ΠῚ puppmhh muhl ” = LP’, xxvi, p. 209, “" h wy p ᾿μπμιπι δή μη, h ubymip
nimip yfpupul siyp ἱππζὴξ ”. Buse. i, p. 10. “ Φπεδη ἱμιηΐΐμ fp 2uyny
Uloug ququm bh qguqumnphy, kh poppahp mab qnummbpl διιμηβῆ. ”.
Ibid., iii, p. 74. “+++ unlbhinph fn fn μαι ῃ ph yopoph fupbuhy Jfepe pul sfip
mmbg +. μαιηπεὶ h wy wypmdf, ap poppabp mot mbunh ip”. Idem, “ yop
ypappmbp nmbfh’ Ibid. p.194, “ δὲ pugqmd ho Μ}} mun Suppl, bh
mp puppmbf mut, ...”. ZP’., xii, p. 231, “ hn fw ppp h viymdp,
nuntiblh p h nuuhlp”. Ibid., xciii, p. 554, “ hin fu ppp h ΜΙ unin p h ui] .Ρ
poommbfl dupplmhl ἡ. MX, I, xxx. [See below τι. 86 for the text. On the
disputed problem of the ostantk, see, Manandian, Feudalism, pp. 56-58, 90-104, 116-117,
123-124; Sukiasian, Armenia, p.101; -‘Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 114, 125-126 n. 215,
Perikhanian, Osianiks.] (476, 2)

85a [See above, τι. 53, and preceding note.]

86 MX, 1, xxx, “ Ge qnunwhh whawwhbm, laqdmbgh "πὴ hh wyuinm—
Ln fp oquphg anpw mot μια μα ppp fPmquanpmlah μι μἷδι ’ Toid., ΤΙ, vii, “ be
ηπεῖμι Ge ym ζαμ ἦι ypwl wp pmbip πη yenpuu, nu fupmpubship
Hunky] p pf fingh Lh qupdfg fe mpminpingh np fp Zujppwuy, ap phy dudubuly

Gutwhuhy dunutam|eimh ἢ fupwuhy unugboy, ghou bk qari Epanu :
Ful mun πιμ δι Qu pu fig fPuquinpm|e bah, npuyga ILLES yyy papmgybiny
gauge ho nin mime. ng ηβιππὴ feb yank unk wa_ghh wamSiny,
{μὴ LALA τα Pepe δι οἰ διω he fp pg phbbgbuy ημιη δι,
yuyu p mig pu hh nym papi hh ηπεΐη πε ἣρ mpparhh : Uy min Y hbk
fmuimunn ἢ ΓΗ; Purquinpmgh un Shing. npytu h my β Y pug ΝΟΣ ΩΣ
ap Ubuponuyh hnsh”.

524 ᾿ς NOTES: CHAPTER XV

Sep’cul < Logg ‘“sepuh” and Gyymo “son, child”, Marr, Hiymologies, Ὁ. 286.
[Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 92 τ, 132, 130 n. 229, 408.] (477, 1)
86a [Cf. above τι. 85.]

87 Movsés’ concept of the ddesys is extremely unclear. He mentions the bddesys
of Aljnik’ and Gugark’ [IX, ΤΙ, viii; IU, vi, lx], but gives no information about the
others. He does not indicate that there were four of them, or that they occupied a
pre-eminent position at the Arsacid court. [On the bdesys, see above, Chapter X,

pp. 222-224 and nn. 69-73, and Chapter XIV, un. 39-40.] (478, 1)
88 MX, I, vii, “+++ puamDgfimfebhf wqammgkmyy, apyfa plowhpl
[βινηιπεπμιιη ”. (478, 2)

88a [See above τι. 85.]

89 FB, I, xiii, “ μιιηἥπι με suppl οὐπηπήμηπη hafmpapmgh h huni}
spina h mba fe iwi ”, Ibid., ΠῚ, xxi, "' Um wank; οἰπηπι ἰτη τ --. lin fampmpp
oud p. uuugp, >» ἀπ} ἐκ fp oplmlmbug whqud aunlhl supylwhh”. ΤΌϊά.,
IV, iv, “ gdnghap uppayh παῖδ mdtp on mdbbhuph, mn dbdanlkou bh wn
Subbain, on yemmolahe boon απ πῆ. on Sop bwin wapamh, wn
myo h mn spiiunhmhu”. Idid., V, xxiii, “ ho ufpfph ghw mn fuumpal lkeu-
Hop bh ipnpmhp, ywommulwhp h miupap, uqunp bh dsfhlmbmulutp
Upubiymiinyph”. Ibid., V, xxx, EP’, xxxvi, p. 211, “ Ymuuml πὰ Epphp jpunum-
pip apky fodwhohp un popmbo bh phimhutin bh pwhakup mpfamphfa
Zujng-.» ”. Ibid, xli, Ῥ. 231, “ hu fampupp hh vkymép, nunubibhp bk amiplp

- °, Ibid., xxi, p. 416, “ δὲ ΠΗ) phy fup gino pnp h DE ΜΠΠῊ h
my πραεῖα} nani ..-”. Tbid., Ixxix, p. 472, “ +++ qgpmqmiu ἢ πιμι μὴ
Hupphmblh Z2mujng ”. Toid., πον, p. 565, “ hnubp spinulmbip Supypl up famp—
Lh Zuynq ++”, Ibid., xviii, p.109, “--- hb ofmduninin οἰπηπηπηπηΐδ --- ”.

Ibid., Ixix, p.408, “ wihhuyh bwufumpupmgh Ζιμπὴ bh παι ἣ μη ἡ ”, οἷο.
πη δὲ, ii, ν. 62, “" Niumipp h qamipp wmymmmg bh ophmbmbmg--.”. Ibid, iii,
p. 57, “ daqmighh ἡ ρμμιηἥπι θεῖ παι bh hobby, opiulpiag bh mq
ypudwhmphy bh μεμα πη μη ”. Idid., iii, p. 67,“ +++ upp hk futupp h unk-
hoy nauhh pogimeflh ... ho ngs mq ἐμ πηι] pu ynky Im
ἠγιπιπη τι! «+» ”, ete, [On the extensive work done on the famtk and the sinakan,
and the distinction of the two terms by Manandian, see the bibliography in Touma-
noff, Studies, p.127 and τὶ. 222, also Eremyan, Slavery; and Sukiasian, Armenia,
pp. 120-143, 149-156, as well as the Bibliographical Note.] (479, 1)

89a [Cf. Manandian, Feudalism, pp. 69-73, and the preceding note.]

890 [For a detailed investigation of the various aspects, see, e.g. Duby, L’Hconomie
rurale. |

90 Huse, vi, Ὁ. 181,“ ... E/E pugmmmg pybh, EPE pf oplmbmiuy, δ}
Ehigtyny, ΠΊΩΝ hhmtbin h πηι ἐηξῆι, Ehkughh h hiny gh y fap pabsfip
qupopy +++ μιπηπιὴρ ful Ehhh h οἰπηπι ημι, bh jmp qfopwpmisfanp ja—
jprmdu ”, [Cf. Manandian, Feudalism, pp. 27, 182, 197-201, 204.] (480, 1)

91 FB, V, viii-xix. In each of the twelve chapters devoted to the victories of MuSei
Mamikonean, we find repeated the stereotype phrase: “ gitmmynpnul hnundtp bh
Luphh hmgmgmhty "ἢ or δ fp faphh ounmypmfthoh mgnygullp ”; in two
cases the formula is“ 4wpl ηδὲμ timgnpywgh ” [V, x-xi]. But the expression
f Lunplyh hmgmgmhky > does not mean “to levy a tribute”; it has the more
general sense of ‘‘ bring into subjection, subject”. The complete formula is: “ p

NOTES : CHAPTER XV 525

Luphh < dunmpnfeimh > Ipuymywhl); ”, “to force into subjection”, (cf. I
Mace., 4, * giimynpyuh fb 4uphh hugay hh may ing fun mimi ἢ.
Moreover the authenticity of this section of Faustus’ History is known to be doubtful.
[Cf. Manandian, Feudalism, pp. 85-89, 154-159, 166, 173, 233-234, and following notes.]
(480, 2)

95 EP’, xlv, p. 264, “ ++» duph pu milbhuygh mpdmpdfiu Ζι πη un fu bh,
A qnpdmiuy, p μενα ypimud aboph, bh, fa. my ha μιπηπεὴῦ japuuf’ gap f
npaipuply ηπμὸιιί αι μη Lurhih op mum f Luju ἐμὰ >. Of. the king’s words,
Idid., xlvi, Ὁ. 269, “δὲ g4uplbp y fing ΟΣ ΧΩ 2 πη h bmi η μεμα με η δ᾿
yop ΠΣ ΩΣ h gh mpunph wry hi san par’ yop fubbn, fpr ain bye Ρ ἰυιδημῖι
mubt pmol h ynppng png’ aphsh fSupbogh unlbhmyhh ”. Cf. Buse, vi,
p. 133, “++ gag hu qunnhif B Lup mp pampd fh » After the Armenian
rebellion, the Persians tried to pacify the country, ZP’, xlii, p. 236,“ h f Luphm—

npnrfe huh pagan ᾿Ξ Of. HUSé, vi, p.131, * +++ fénymy ζμμἧμ ἐμ ηζιμῖμι
uppumpdph ° (481, 1)

98 Hise, ii, pp. 22-23, »-- ἡζμιμῖν wsfumpLhh mpark; Smbpugnyy τ 55 Gr ἡμῖν
muha πα ἐπ +++ poplalwtoh dmbbuyl, ++ hong np phygfiogen hin,
ββιηΐιη h ἐμ ound fh ΣΙ Ἑπδηβ nLuinp upd uly ἐμ οὐ fupfip
qucbhoton sen, ἡμὴ βὰν mabaph. tinpiyfo ἢ lial ana Eppymby
nithh, ns ἤπιαν shiiuy, my bh uckpwlg τ Ὧι bh phon on Η [αὶ hupk unk
{με i Maa Hnfy ho umbhy, padhy bh fanfy pkpohy ho yoymmy bh
Sujphug > As pom mppmbh aptutonapmfebwth anfpmph, ayy Shlimpop
ἡ μοὶ ἀν, Upiish pipkuhp ful dhoumlu ἡπιμ δι μὰ, 9 munp myn
wubb nmbd Epohk’ gp’ py okt haygl mofumpch ”.

[On sak, baz, mut, and hark, see Hibschmann, Grammatth, pp. 114-115, 234; Avdal-
begyan, JANA (1926, 1); Manandian, Feudalism, 205-208, 316-318, also above τι. 91
and below nn. 96, 97.] (481, 2)

988. [Néldeke, Tabari, p. 241 τι. 1, **‘ Desname der Grundsteuer ist arabisch chard,
wofiir in Pers. etwa chardg anazusetsen ist, da das Wort im Talmud δ} lautet ; auffallen-
derweise steht dies im Talmud ahe rgrade fiir die Kopfsteuer ... waihrend Grundsteuer da
NpPoy (arab, tasq) ist .... Die pers. Kopfsteuer heisst in unseren Texten gizja;
das ist das atamdaische geatth(d), welches in’s Pers. als gezit gekommen ist. .... Beide
Ausdriicke, chardg und gizja sind in die Terminologie des muslimischen Rechts auf-
genommen”. See also HI, kharadj, mukdsama, wazifa; Christensen, Ὁ. 124 and n. 3;
Henning, Orientaha, IV, pp. 291-293; Frye, Persia, pp. 108-109, 218-219. Cf. Ehté-
cham, L’lran, p. 97 for the Achaemenian antecedents, and Jones, LRH, I, pp. 61-65,
Déléage, Capiiation, for the reform of Diocletian.]

94 Sirabo, XV, a 19 [L. VIT, 1823], “ἡ Στρατεύονται δὲ καὶ ᾿ ἄρχουσιν ἀπὸ εἴκοσιν
ἐτῶν ἕως πεντήκοντα ᾽ (482, 1)

95 Pers, Δ ὃ δ τὶ = Pehl. *bahrak, Syr. bahrag. This word is still used in Trans-
caucasia in the sense of champart = malzhegat. Mugasama-t is also found in the Tatar
version, kasimet. [See above τι. 98a.] (482, 2)

96 Matikin-i-catrang, I, 12. Sahname, I, p. 247. [See above τι. 93.] (482, 8)

9? Bajt < root baga, Skr. bhaga, Zend, baz. In our opinion bahrak also > it. Iranists
link bahrak with Av. baydra, meaning “tribute, food’, Horn, Wérterbuch, Ὁ. 56 >
Av. hu-basra, “* fortunate’. Both forms presuppose the root bag with the suffix -dra,
and like baz, and the past part. baxia, pu fun, can have the sense of both “tribute ”

526 NOTES: CHAPTER XV

and “‘ fate, fortune”. Bayra or bahra and barx a yy < δαχδγα. [See Meillet-Benveniste,

Grammaire, Ὁ. 49, and above τι. 93.) (483, 1)
98 Umlun, ** little’, lit. ‘“ parcimoniously, calculatedly ” and ΠΣ ** share,
rank ᾿ (οἷ. Rus. HacueTb) should also be related to it. (483, 2)

98a [Cf. Lagarde, Arm. Studien, No. 479, p.35; Hibschmann, Grammaiik, No. 19,
p. 802. Manandian, Feudalism, Ὁ. 132, for the Armenian equivalents of the Sasanian
kharadj and jizya, in his opinion, also above n. 98a. ]

99 Noéldeke, Tabart, pp. 241-246 [See above n. 93a]. Luchaire, Manuel, p. 337,
in southern France, the tax in kind, or champari, is called tasca. (484, 1)

100 Dwin Canons, viii, Ὁ. 190, “ phy ΣΑΣ hy gp puja AEnhuypnife buh,
πη fp fuplt bh fp phhwpl”. [Cf. Manandian, Feudalism, pp. 167, 208-211.

(484, 2)
100a [Néldeke, T'abari, pp. 241-245, ** Die Kénige von Persien pflegten vor der Regierung
des Chosrau AndSarwan von den einzelnen Kreisen als Grundsteuer ein Drittel oder ein
Viertel oder ein Ftinftel oder ein Sechstel des Ertrags zu erheben, je nach Maassgabe
der Bewasserung und Bodencultur im Kreise, ... Nun hatte Kawadh, Sohn des Péréz,
gegen Ende seiner Regierung angeordnet, dass das Land, Ebene wie Gebirg, vermessen
werde, um danach die Grundsteuer richtig zu bestimmen. Diese Vermessung war
geschehn; doch war die Sache bei Kawadh’s Tode noch nicht voéllig beendet, Als nun
aber sein Sohn Chosrau zur Regierung kam, liess er die Vermessung zu Ende fihren,
Auf jeden Garib Land, der mit Waizen oder Gerste besit war, legten sie 1 Dirham
Grundsteuer, auf den Garib Weinland 8, auf den Garib Luzerne 7, auf je 4 persische
Dattelpalmen 1 Dirham, auf je 6 gemeine Dattelpalmen eben so viel, desgleichen auf
je 6 Olivenbéume”. [Cf. Chrisiensen, pp. 366-367 and Pigulevskaja, VDI 1 (19387)
for the fiscal reform of Xusr6 1, The dimension of the garib is given by him as 2400
square meters, [bid., Ὁ. 866 n. 2, whereas Manandian, Feudalism, Ὁ. 206 n. 2, following
Decourdemanche, gives it as 1470.871/2 meters square, and Kremer, Culturgeschichte,
I, pp. 98-99, takes it at 1169.64 square meters. ]

101 Ndldeke, Tabari, Ὁ. 246, [“ Die Kopfsteuer legten sie Allen auf mit Ausnahme
der Adlichen, der Grossen, der Soldaten, der Priester, der Schreiber, und die (sonst)
im kéniglichen Dienst Beschaftigten. Sie richteten mehrere Classen ein zu 12, 8, 6 und
4 Dirham, je nach dem grésseren oder kleineren Vermégen des Mannes. Die, welche
noch nicht 20 oder mehr als 50 Jahr alt waren, befreiten sie von der Kopfsteuer. Diese
von ihnen festgestellten Sdtze legten sie dem Chosrau vor. Derselbe gemehmigte sie,
befahl, sie einzuftiihren und danach die Steuern jahrlich in 3 Raten, jede Rate fiir 4
Monate, zu erheben”. Despite Tabari’s specific indication, Christensen, Ὁ. 367
asserts that, “les impéts furent payés par termes tous les trois mois”’]. Stmarrak is
probably composed of s2, sé, “‘ three ’’ and Amar, 4undup ** sum, count’. The present
liquid measure, the unduypt, or unui = 2, or 3, puds is probably derived from this
measure, probably as a result of the fact that a certain quantity of grain went into each
stmarrak, (485, 1)

101a [According to Déléage, Capitation, pp. 244-245, basing himself on the Theodosian
Code, “‘ La perception des impdts annuels était répartie en trois termes .... Les percep-
tions commencaient pour chaque année fiscale le 157 mars. Les possesseurs de biens
privés devaient avant le 1¢T juillet se libérer du tiers de leur prestation, tandis que les
possesseurs de biens emphytéotiques ... avaient la faculté de ne se libérer pendant ce
premier terme que du sixiéme de leur imposition .... Les prestations en nature étaient

NOTES : CHAPTER XV 527

seules acquitées par termes échelonnés et par contre la taxe en espéces était réclamées,
au moins aux possesseurs privés, en totalité entre le 22 novembre et le 81 décembre... ”’.
Cod. Th., XI, i, 16, ‘* Provinciales nostri tributa fiscalia per anni curriculum tripertita
satisfactione restituant’’. Jbdid., XI, vii, 19, “‘ Tertiam partem canonis fundorum
privatorum vel sextam enfyteuticorum ex kalendis martiis, sicut consuetudo deposcit,
reliquam vero canonis summam ex kalendis inliis par erit postulari”. Jbid., XI,
xix, 3, “‘ Ab enfyteuticariis possessoribus annonariam quidem solutionem per quattuor
menses ita statuimus procurari ut circa ultimos anni terminos paria concludantur,
aurum vero non ex die X kalendas decembres in pridie kalendarum ianuariarum, sed
per annum solidum, prout quisque pendere potuerit, inferatur’’. Cf. however Appendix
101
102 ΒΝ δξ, ii, p.46, “ Cw h fp umpp δἰ βηβηιπιδ, op Ep πιημπ fp Ppp,
pum ἐμαμὴβ hu fuliibmy ukpng ἰ uhfgimif, --- ”, Dwin Canons, ix, pp. 193-194,
β ΤΩΣ Qppynph bh uppnyh ΑΥ̓ΤΉ, ΠΗΠΙΠΡ EhEnkginy δε ἧι ἢ πα ἷμι
ΠῚ Πιμη ΜΠ} ἱππζιηδι Eh jupybay ἐ ΜΠ WT ἐμὲ uppny Eh bykguny ζπη h Inup
buh fp Qupupy ful mbpmfebobth pop mpopbay bh sf fumnbbmy fp ofl,
fo fume |? ba ip pknfhymbkuy mmol ἢ phim Enbmy, bh, poy fayh
nuns 1Π1Μ} μυμιρπιεὸὴβ >. [Cf. next note}. (485, 2)
108 Toid., xi, pp. 196-197, “f)dwhp juqunnmg fp ip, mlpmbingag
fo fuumtinife fa mnbbh bh npyko fp bbqmbkog Gophe yd 9b hk fp hipwlapo
h ypimly fu qpapkuhy ηππὸμιἤμ μι dwunmgyuhbh ”, instead of the proper beha-
viour: “ Cnquay ho fubuihy; jpfupmpmbsfup ymummlnag fp joyny bh fp ζιλι δ ἢ
pudbhinyh μι διπ bay muy duu ἐμ purd hh ὦ . Of. Sahak Canons, in Melik’
Tangean, Canon Law, p.557, “ ful) fh mjny h fp Shdwhf bh πμ πὴ mpiimbing
nuuuinppy Cubgkh”. [Cf Manandian, Feudalism, pp. 126 sqq., particularly
129-132, where still more extensive use is made of the material found in Armenian
Canons. ] (486, 1)
104 Mov, Kalank, 1, xxvi, p. 99, “-.«Πιππιη ρ f dngm){pgbht Ephgm ty ἤμην myo
hyp. Pomfwib hi anpu gp. gopkm', by gphx quph ἐι βγιπινιυχιῖ pum purge.
h ap or run wy bs wn }ἷ Bh g4uin hy biut πη ἐ apdif ae ἐ hupagh pal, pul;
npny Yup hk mah ng fy fh maghh --- bh πα ngfump ξ β nah ‘ngfamp ah be κρῖ
Le pry h Ob yup, δ nyp app frum pgbh ἍΝ smart A myp ἀμ μὲ
pobh n ple up” = Dowsett, Mov. Dasy., p. 51 [Adontz’s translation varies slightly
in the case of the poor man who gives “ half as much bread” (7.e. 2 griws of wheat
and 8 [sic] of barley)]. In the Armen. Dict., p. 588, the word en μὴ appears
in the form gpnimbfl, the diminutive of gpm, but this word is the Pers. Ol

Pehl. tuvanth, “ powerful, possessor, wealthy’. The canon with which we ar® con-
cerned is found in one collection with the following reading, “--- fp /¢numhflh np [
26g) yaya, 2 appr gnpkwh op ᾧ δα. ἢ appr qupp h dq spun pmggnr”,
Dashian, Catalogue, p. 275. This interpretation is only a supposition of the scribe,
perhaps suggested by the confusion of πε μὴ with /¢hy, [¢bnmlfl. Here too,
thu is replaced by suns, “a jug, a liquid measure’ = Pers. day, whereas
ipa = Pers. cele “watch, guard, part of the foot” and “en général partie d’une
chose”. It corresponds to O.P. pah, pahr, Arm. wud, wymdn > pas, as puhr > pus

“son”. The Arm. appr = garib, a land measure, and subsequently a measure of the
grain needed to sow such an area of land. From it is derived the Arm. apni,

gph pul], 8 measure of weight, now one pound. [Both the Arm. Dict., loc. cit.

528 NOTES : CHAPTER XV

and Hiibschmann, Grammatik, p. 131 give the form gpmmbfl with the translation
δ modius”’, and Hiibschmann derives this term from griw. See above n.100a.]
(486, 2)

105 MX, Il, lix, “ wy h ng punbiinyh infin fu Eph punnponfe fib p, ΡΠ] ἢ
ηπ]ηἢ mykp. pun ria ffrnpumlwbug ἤπηδιηδη ounip purl Epa θ ἐτει ἣρ h
myjri P ΟΣ ΠΣ ΩΣ» hE LL 7 *, Emin attributes the words ynigh nuh p to the
preceding phrase in his translation [as does Le Vaillant de Florival in the 184] Venice
bi-lingual edition, p. 287]. This is evidently a mistake, since it is impossible to believe
tha® even in ArtaSés’ time, the land was not cultivated * ... en tous lieux, mais sur quel-
ques points seulement ”’ [de Florival translation loc. cit.}. [NB. Dowsett, Mov. Dasy.,
Ῥ. 50 τι. 1, dates the Council “ during the period A.D. 484/5-487/8]. (487, 1)
106 Myit’ar Gos, ΤΙ, i= Karst, Sempadscher Kodex, I, p. 22-23, “ Ful) ghupln
gong bh πη πη feogeenpp bh fofuuhp mppmprifebwip πὴ βὰς df fis ub h
pub qgunw δ πη ἢ μη πμπι θ [ἦι hiny gp, - Gr mpy mpoytu yp μη} τ Qubym—
mami h ηξβημημη ἥμ11}}} μπῇ ἰὴ, vos Uaiamks h μ᾽ ἣ ΠΣ yh mpodu—
[Pmafh wi Π ΜΠ 1Π1Π ΜΙ] h μι} ἐπα π ΝΣ] h parpuninh uf; Ι pap pin Lupin Cink,
hiubhunyts bh Spoqag ho omh h fomimpe > Uy Pb phobpsph phy upobunp
hunt in yurduinp upg gp ng ἐ Suppl ἀμ {μπ| pppumabf hg, poy myp—
wygbag yaptod μοὶ phy Soph mpoughh > Poy whips p Ppupphp
ΤΠ at ae oe lee ae A a ake aaa ke || al lil a
h fofumhp, h ng Imp. unpiyfu nompiip, παρ h Sunwmummip : Uyuytu
A poumpu pmpuftm jhoftht uf ynpdpyp heb " mipmiip, my wey fp

u>fumimnkyh lie whhbuph whhpannfe fh ak : Gg fl unmbdfhh “IL
yt uf paps +++ Gna 1 fanp δηΐ aa! Lpap : ἜΝ ΜΙ} ζμιμὴ uh 1 μη}. +
fsfumpp pqumnpli munmbappunhh, .0. Qhny hk Inprny h peony dp pgp Carp,

32

boomopkinunn pom |uph Swan ΗΜ. h youmpu molify ”. Taxes on
animals also existed in the West, * bovagium, vaccagium, multonagium, caprinum)
ete. ’, Luchaire, Manuel, Ὁ. 388. (487, 2,

107 Alishan, Sirak, p. 91 [Cf. also Marr, Ani]. (487, 8)

1078 [For some of Movsés’ etymologies, see, Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 201, n. 228, 300,
308, 327. For his dating and appreciation of Movsés’ History, pp. 108, 306 sqq., 330-
334, et passim, also, The Date of Pseudo-Moses. On the problem of Movsés in general,
see above, Chapter X τὶ b.]

108 MX, I, ix, “+++ funpdmpy fh me oH nfinky, is π|Ρ ndurh p pun $
pal ghd fgkh mppkwy wpfumphhu 2uynq, ko momp fofampapm/efrcbpu* np
wun ΤΩΣ Qh ns hupap pis pau muin pun punlifr- + ~h ng αι juunnpuyg mip fumph fin
uno D hhh popnh Γ ἃ es ffpP fbb, +--+ my famnb fp famat fp fonnl mabhinyh
h ἐμή μὰ ἢ. Tdid., ΤΙ, iti, * Y apmpomh ... πηι bEfiqmqmlahn, npisuiif dup |etn,
um diab bury > pm pdpiu. h hn frmppanfe βεῖιι, Lb ng fis fn Lo pp |e bnkigh
fufoyhomfe fhe Geum gape τη [ππιμδ αι, ap fp qed hm falanyh
Hip Zuylmy hk puyjny”. (490, 1)

109 Ibid., I, iii, “++. dig funjy faliqpnyy un Ὁ ἢ, uphobky plop bh
grea yapoml πη η{μι uipny pal quan ἧπι [9 fh, b> ηβι η[διιημμιπμιμη ὃ
A αἶναι βμπηριαιἡ μνΐμμη gpm ἦι mndalig, βὲ πὶ γειῦδξ, Ὰ gpls [apm pulishrp
np fp ᾿πημιδί ηπμδίμπη, kh πὴ ap fp ηδηβην πμποίηπὴ ἔπι h dupughkuy,
h npp nimhp δὴ Ρ phunuthing buy p h dkpmghmgbuy p--- (490, 2)

110 Τρία, ΤΙ, xi and I, xii, the king appointed Varaz: δ ἰοῦ mip prin puking

NOTES: CHAPTER XV 529

npung h obhu ny spp ny fiw wn pga ghinm ” Ibid. II, vii, to, Gabal and
Abél, he granted, “ ofiw wupaht ingm, jopng ἐ αἱ πεῖν hoshh oto befor.
[tft ph Upknth h Qwphyth .-.”. Ibid., ΤΙ, lvii, to the newly come Amatuni,
Υὰ ἡ απ πα pli ΟΣ h quumumlEpmop, eee ἢ Tbid., II, lxxxiv, the Mamiko-
nean received, “μι [ιπ εἶν μι ἢ αἱ fofuwtimf¢ioip gqgkonu bh gywunmhipmn,
--- ”, as did the Kamsarakans, Jbid., II, xlii, xe, etc. (491, 1)
111 Ibid., ΤΙ, Ixxxiv, δ"... mmg hou punpink hilt fp pumtarfe ιν ἣρ ynboqu ”,
etc. On the creation of new houses, II, xlvii, lviii, and lxiv. (491, 2)
112 Ibid., ΤΙ, xiv, Tigran took away the possessions of the Vahewuni, “* plibhat
yhnum β εμῆπι θὲ th ἐ ηηϊιηῖι yap prilifu unin. -+- ”, Ibdid., TI, li, Under Artasés,
the Muracans lost their possessions, “ἢ gpunt ΠΩΣ ph notin h gurl bn ph fia pamt-
mf? fru ἡ π ἢ ΜΙ ”. 1014., TI, 111, the king, “" nyt yduuh uj pnirp, op p
shu anf ats h ἢιηιϊππεμ mba εν. ” to Smbat Bagratuni, etc. (491, 3)
13 [bid., I, iii, “ mump bun fumpupm|? fh pu, np wun push fi aie fan frm pup
nije bmby hupnt py fun fun pn pnife prin. hu fumpwprifd pb Uy Lorbkuy, a
ete. Jbid., I, vii-viii, * hn Lon finn? fh Nowmathiwyg, ΠΣ ΩΣ Qupuh ”,
ete. © Unipwdmt min Tdid., ΤΙ, viii,”. Upqutd mutinuntp πη βῆ Umpuduh
= Upqutd tuluykn Umpudwh ”. Ibid. 11, xlvi, xliv, “ pun Jong hwy
nutmntpuloh yup”. Ibid. ΤΙ, vii, “ Goumdanyknf uywdpor ponh
mnutinuntanfobht quntinath npn tim) »”. 1 ϊ]ά., ΤΙ, xxviii. It is evident from the
expression “ἡ η{πεμι bu Cony bin ἅν ΠΗ ΜΙ ηἶ wy pay ἦς Jodid., II, vii, that the head of
house was in fact the nahapet. Movsés refers in the same way to the patriarchs of the
the Old Testament, as this is done in the Bible as well, Jbzd., I, iv. According to Mov-
sés, the term bun frp consists of hu fu and wu, with the sense fn pomp by,
as can be deduced from the following examples: Jbid., I, v, “ afin apykhn [thw
fn fu ppl hig obhang jiphy ΠΩ πμηϊπηΐ! ὑπ ᾿ς Ibid., I, ix, “ pf
Ohigng yippy tafumpwpwhabge μα πη mpwhyu, Qnmb, Sfinmhi,
Buuykunult, ”. Ibid., I, iii, ** η[θιιημμπμιμη ὃ h gh fu πα αἱ η muy h
mnkipy ". Of. BP’, A ha fpp yengwdonpagh.”. (492, 1)
1188 [Hor Manandian’s suggestion that some traces of the system survived to thefifteenth
century, see, Feudalism, pp. 138, 251-260, 304-305.]

APPENDICES

The Appendices are an addition in the present edition and were not
part of the original publication, although some of the material included
in them was printed as part of Adontz’s text, and much of it was
referred to in his notes. In some cases, such as the new Greek version
of the 1276 of δὲ Gregory, the Appendices contain material which has
become known since the publication of the Russian edition.

Each of the documents included is given either 272.) extenso, or, aS In
the case of geographical documents or such administrative documents
as the various Notiivae, in their relevant portions. The text from which
a given document has been cited will be indicated in every case,
but for variant readings or editorial notes, the reader is referred to
the original edition.

I. GREEK AND LATIN LEGAL DOCUMENTS

A. CopgEx THEODOSIANUS 1

Inber XII Trtulus XIII De auro coronario

6. lidem AAA [Gratianus, Valentimanus et Theodosius] Gaddanae
Satrapae Sophanenae. Aurum coronarium his reddi restituique de-
cernimus, quibus illicite videtur ablatum, ut, secundum consuetu-
dinem moris antiqui, omes satrapae pro devotione, quae Romano
debetur imperio, coronam ex propriis facultatibus faciant serenitati
nostrae solenniter offerendam. Dai. XVIII. Kal. Iul. Constanti-
nopolt, Valentumano A. 111. et Hutropio Coss. (387).

B. CopEx JUSTINIANUS 2

Inber I Titulus XXVIIIL De officio magisira mahium

5. Imp. Iustimanus A. Zetae viro allusira magistro malitum per
Armeniam et Poniem Polemomacum et gentes. Cum propitia divinitate
Romanum nobis sit delatum imperium, sollicita cura cauta diligentia
pertractantes perspeximus oportere etiam partibus Armeniae et
Ponto Polemoniaco et gentibus proprium magistrum militum per
hance legem constituere, tuamque magnitudinem, quae nobis ex ante
gestis optime commendata est, idoneam ad talem fore dignitatem
confidentes elegimus certasque provincias, id est magnam Armeniam,
quae interior dicebatur, et gentes (Anzetenam videlicet, Ingilenam,
Asthianenam, Sophenam, Sophanenam, in qua est Martyropolis,
Balabitenam) et primam et secundam Armeniam et Pontum Pole-
moniacum tuae curae cum suis ducibus commisimus, comite Armeniae
penitus sublato, certosque subdidimus numeros, non modo quos in
praesenti novos constituimus, sed etiam de praesentalibus et Orienta-
hbus et aliis agminibus segregatos, non tamen quantitatem eorum
agminum minuentes: sed quia plures eis addidimus sine rei publicae
gravamine et sine augmento sumptuum, aliquantos subtraximus,

1 CTh, II, 1, p. 781.
2 CJC, 6th ed., IT, p. 82.

GREEK AND LATIN LEGAL DOCUMENTS 3*

ita tamen, ut et post hanc subtractionem amplores remanserint,
quam usque ad nostra felicia fuerant tempora.

C. CopEx JUSTINIANUS 8
laber X Titulus XVI De annona et tributis

13. Αὐτοκράτωρ “Avacrdcaiws Α. ᾿Ανθεμίῳ ἐπάρχῳ τῶν πραιτω-
ρίων.
"Ka 3 3 2 > } a 5A 7 λ wn a
av μὲν αἰτήσῃ ἐπαρχία ἢ πόλις κουφισμόν λαβεῖν τνχικῆς συντε-
? a ? i oY 2 \ “a 2 2 \ e ?
λείας ἢ ἐπόπτην ἢ ἐξισωτὴν πεμφθῆναι, ἀναφερέσθω μὲν ἡ δέησις
> -Ἢἔ, > λέ ‘ ? 3 A Font > “-ς δ 3 48 \ ry
αὐτῶν εἰς βασιλέα, καὶ ἐξ ἐπιλογῆς αὐτοῦ ὁ ἐπιτήδειος πρὸς τοῦτο
πεμπέσθω ὅρκον πρότερον διδούς, καὶ ἐάν τι μηνύσῃ οὗτος τοῖς ἐπάρ-
ὃ ἣ Ζ ὃ ὃ 2 θ > Ἃ ‘ ? 3 a 3 \ 3 ‘ ξ
yous, μηδείς τύπος διδόσθω ἐπὶ τὴν μήνυσιν αὐτοῦ, εἰ μὴ αὐτοὶ οἱ
» a ὃ ὃ ? λ # ? Ἅ 9 ? - 3 ὃ ὃ θ ?
ἔπαρχοι ἀναδιδάξωσι βασιλέα πάντα τὰ Tap αὐτοῦ ἀναδιδαχθέντα
a 2 ‘ Φ rt » ) 7 3 Δ ζ΄".
καὶ ζητηθέντα, καὶ οὕτως θεῖος ἐκφωνηθείη τύπος ὀφείλων πᾶσι
7? A ? θ i de θ ‘ 3 8 ὃ 7 Ἃ a
τρόποις παραφυλάττεσθαι. ὁ δὲ καθεὶς ἄνθρωπος δεήσεις περὶ τοιούτων
3 “A Ἅ ? ὃ ὃ ? # ὃ XN V “ἢ ? ὃ “wn a
ἐννοιῶν μὴ ἐπιδιδότω" μήτε δὲ Kovdiopos ἢ μείωσις διηνεκαῖς ἢ mpoo-
7 ? ? ? 7 >? ? Ἃ λ Font ? 2
καίρως μήτε ἐποψία μήτε ἐξίσωσις γινέσθω χωρὶς βασιλικῆς ἐγγράφον
κελεύσεως. ᾿Αλλὰ μήτε ἐκταγὰς ποιείτωσαν οἱ ἔπαρχοι ὑπὲρ χρόνων
3
προλαμβανόντων τὴν αὐτὴν ἀρχήν, μήτε σιτηρέσιά τισιν ἀφοριζέτωσαν
ἢ ἄλλως πως χρήματα ἢ μὴ παρεχόμενα τὴν ἀρχήν, ἢ παρεχόμενα
“A Fas’ 3
μέν, διὰ δέ THY ἔλλειψιν τῶν ταῦτα κομιζομένων σωμάτων ἀργήσαντα
"ι ὃ \ ‘ OA N > @? A ? ὃ > wav ? N 3 2
ἢ διὰ τὸ παυθῆναι τὴν αἰτίαν σχολάσαι, δι΄ ἣν παρείχοντο τὴν ἀρχὴν"
Ἰλλὰ ΄΄- i > λ σι 3 30 ? FA θ XN Ἃ
ἀλλὰ ταῦτα πάντα ἐκ βασιλικῆς μόνης αὐθεντίας γινέσθω κατὰ τὸν
θ Fn) 3 ra e de A lon) A 7 +. A ὃ ὃ 2
Eloy ἔγγραφον τύπον. οἱ δὲ μὴ τοῦτο παραφυλάττοντες καὶ TO διδό-
¥ 9 2 Ἅ Fat 2. ; a ΒΩ ξ “-
μενον οἴκοθεν ἀποδιδότωσαν καὶ πᾶσαν ἄλλην ζημίαν, ἣν ἄν ὑποστῇ
A ὃ 7 ? A ? a“ ? 3 A # ?
τὸ δημόσιον. Mire δὲ υπερθέσεις ἢ προθεσμίας ἐπὶ τούτοις ὀφειλο-
7
μένοις δημοσίοις ἐνδιδότω τις ἢ τὰς νενομισμένας προθεσμίας χωρὶς
? 2 ) λ ᾽ δ \ a ‘ 38 ? > ? Fa
ἐγγράφου θείας κελεύσεως. ὁ δὲ τοῦτο κατὰ αὐθεντίαν οἰκείαν ποιῶν
37 8 AAé \ 4 “ ὃ 2 My de
οἴκοθεν καταβαλλέτω τὰ κεχρεωστημένα TH δημοσίῳ. ἦτε δὲ
‘ A Ἁ 2 °? vx Aw ὃ 7 9 Ζ Ἃ “A “Δ
τὰ πολιτικὰ χρήματα, ὅσα ἢ τῷ δημοσίῳ εἰσφέρεται ἢ τοῖς πόλεσιν
ἀφώρισται, εἰς ἑτέρας μεταφερέσθω χρείας ἢ προσώποις τισὶν ἀφορι-
2 \ ? A 7 Κι Ἃ ξ é δὲ ~ 3 ? 3 s
ζέσθω χωρὶς θείας κελεύσεως. Kal ἡ τάξις δὲ τῶν ἐπάρχων, εἰ μὴ
Ed \ a fond ὃ 3 ΄- λ 2 λ ὃ ὃ ,
πάντα τὰ περιεχόμενα τῇ διατάξει ταῦτα παραφυλάξει καὶ διδάξει
e “ ~ Ἁ ξ
τοὺς ἐπάρχους, καὶ οἱ ἄρχοντες τῶν ἐπαρχιῶν καὶ αἱ πειθόμεναι
τάξεις αὐτοῖς καὶ ot λοιποὶ δημοσιεύοντες, εἶ ταῖς τοιαύταις κελεύσεσιν
3 ~ ,
ὑπουργήσαιεν, οἴκοθεν διδότωσαν τὴν συμβαΐνουσαν τῷ δημοσίῳ

8 CJC, 6th ed., 11, ». 402.

4 APPENDIX I

βλάβην καὶ ὡς τοῦ νόμον καταφρονήσαντες πεντήκοντα χρυσίου
At ? T ΄ \ ? ‘ ὃ 7 > 7
itpas προστιμάσθωσαν. Τριμερῶς δὲ πάντα τὰ δημόσια εἰσφερέσθω,
? 3) ‘ \ 7 3 7 Ζ ἥ 3
τά τε ἄλλα καὶ τὰ λεγόμενα ᾿Αρμενιακά, τουτέστι καλάνδαις *lavova-
? \ λ f ὃ M “a ‘ \ “ iN “Ὁ 3 7 3
ρίαις καὶ καλάνδαις Matas καὶ πρὸς τῷ τέλει τῆς ἐπινεμήσεως, ἐξ
ἴσων τριῶν μερῶν διαιρουμένων τῶν δημοσίων, καὶ μηδεμιᾶς καινοτο-
ὔ 3 “ 7 2 \ “ ~ 3 \ \ \ 3
μίας ἐν τῷ μέσῳ γινομένης κατὰ τῶν συντελῶν. ᾿Εἰπειδὴ δὲ τὰ “Apy-
ενιακὰ τελέσματα ἐν δύο καταβολαῖς συνετελεῖτο, ἔξεστι τοῖς ταῦτα
συντελοῦσιν, εἰ βούλονται, τὴν προτέραν συνήθειαν προτιμᾶν καὶ ἐν
δύο καταβολαῖς ἀνὰ ἥμισυ καταβάλλειν, καὶ τὸ ἕτερου ἥμισν ἐν τῷ
Σιεπτεμβρίῳ τῆς μελλούσης ἐπινεμήσεως καταβάλλειν. Hi δὲ καὶ
“~ f \ 3 \ 2 3 3 ?
τριμερῶς βούλονται τὰ ᾿Αρμενιακὰ δημόσια καταβάλλειν, ἐχέτωσαν
τὸν Σεπτέμβριον μῆνα τῆς μελλούσης ἐπινεμήσεως πρὸς ὑπέρθεσιν
3 ~ 2 \ \ Ζ \ 7 9 2
αὐτοῖς δεδομένον. Τὸ δὲ προαπεσταλμένον κατὰ σύνθεσιν εἰσφερέσθω
ἐν τῷ προνομίῳ ἑκάστης ἐπινεμήσεως, ἐπειδὴ τοῦτο δηλοῖ καὶ ἡ
προσηγορία αὐτοῦ.

Dk. April. Paulo ve. cons. [a. 496]

D. NOVELLA Vit 4

Ut wudices sine quogquo suffragio fant

H AIATASIZ ΠΕΡῚ TOY ΤΟΥ͂Σ APXONTAL XQPIX ΤΗΣ
OIAXZOYN AOXEQX ΓΙΝΕΣΘΑΙ.

Ὃ > \ A \ μα ? 3 ? 7 \
αὐτὸς βασιλεὺς ᾿Ιωάννῃ ἐπάρχῳ mpaitwpiwy τὸ
β', ἀπὸ ὑπάτων καὶ πατρικίῳ.
<ITIpooipiov>. ᾿Απάσας ἡμῖν ἡμέρας τε καὶ νύκτας συμβαΐνει
μετὰ πάσης ἀγρυπνίας τε καὶ φροντίδος διάγειν ἀεὶ βουλευομένοις,
~ be] ra’ “-
ὅπως ἂν χρηστόν τι καὶ ἀρέσκον θεῷ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν τοῖς ὑπηκόοις δοθείη.
K a > 7 a > 3 A ? IAA. > ? >) \
αἱ οὐ πάρεργον THY ἀγρυπνίαν λαμβάνομεν, a εἰς τοιαύτας αὐτὴν
> Ad B Aa ὃ 2 4 A ν ξὶ 2 wv n Qe 7
ἀναλίσκομεν βουλὰς διημερεύοντές τε καὶ νυξὶν ἐν ἴσῳ ταῖς ἡμέραις
y ?
χρώμενοι, ὥςτε τοὺς ἡμετέρους ὑπηκόους ἐν εὐπαθείᾳ γίνεσθαι πάσης
φροντίδος ἀπηλλαγμένους, ἡμῶν εἰς ἑαυτοὺς τὰς ὑπὲρ ἁπάντων
3 ΄΄-
μερίμνας ἀναδεχομένων. Ara πάσης γὰρ ἐρεύνης καὶ ζητήσεως ἀκριβοῦς
ἐρχόμεθα, πράττειν ἐκεῖνα ζητοῦντες, ἅπερ ὄφελος τοῖς ἡμετέροις
e fa 3 7 Ἅ > A 3 ? 2 Ἃ 7
ὑστηκόοις εἰςάγοντα παντὸς αὐτοὺς ἀπαλλάξει βάρους καὶ πάσης

4 CJC, 6th ed., ΠῚ, pp. 64 sqq.

GREEK AND LATIN LEGAL DOCUMENTS 5*

7 2 3 2 Ἅ \ ? 3 \ λ
ζημίας ἔξωθεν ἐπειςαγομένης παρὰ τὴν δημοσίαν ἀπογραφὴν καὶ
τὴν δικαίαν τε καὶ νενομισμένην συντέλειαν. Hdpioxopev γὰρ πολλὴν
3 fan “ 7 > , 3 ? 27 > 3
ἐπειςελθοῦσαν τοῖς πράγμασιν ἀδικίαν, καὶ ταύτην οὐκ ἄνωθεν, ἀλλ
ἔκ τινων χρόνων, βιασαμένην τοὺς ἡμετέρους ὑπηκόους καὶ εἰς πενίαν
2 - ξ > é ? \ > ? 7 3 “A
ἐλαύνουσαν, ws εἰς τελειοτάτην αὐτοὺς ἀπορίαν κινδυνεύειν ἐλθεῖν
καὶ μηδὲ τὰ συνήθη καὶ νενομισμένα τῶν δημοσίων καὶ ταῖς
> ? ? ἴω \ \ } 2 \ ?
ἀληθείαις εὐσεβῶν φόρων κατὰ THY δημοσίαν ἀπογραφὴν δύνασθαι

\ 2 3 ᾽ δ ~ ‘ av 3) g A
χωρὶς μεγάλης ἀνάγκης τιθέναι. ITds yap ἂν ἴσχυον ot συντελεῖς,
τῶν τε ἔκ τινος χρόνου βεβασιλευκότων ἀεί τι κερδαίνειν ἐκ τῆς ἐπὶ
ταῖς ἀρχαῖς προαγωγῆς βουλομένων, εἰκότως τε τούτοις ἀκολουθούντων
καὶ τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ὑπάρχων, ἔκ τε τῆς ἐυτεῦθεν ἀδικίας ταῖς τε
3, , “a 2 3 ; ? “ 3 “
ἔξωθεν ζημίαις ταῖς τε νενομισμέναις εὐσεβέσιν ἐπαρκεῖν εἰσφοραῖς ;
"Evvoia τοίνυν ἡμῖν γέγονε, τί ποτε ἂν πράξαντες ἅπαν, ὅσον ἐν ταῖς

a 3 , 3 \ > ? 7 δ δα “ \ \
ἡμετέραις ἐπαρχίαις ἐστὶν ἐπιβλαβές, πράξει μιᾷ κοινῇ πρὸς τὰ
κρείττω μεταστήσαιμεν. τοῦτο δὲ πάντως ἀποβησόμενον εὑρίσκομεν,
εἰ τοὺς ἡγουμένους τῶν ἐθνῶν, ὕσοι τὰς πολιτικὰς ἀρχὰς τῶν ἐπαρχιῶν
ἔχουσι, καθαραῖς παρασκευάσαιμεν χρῆσθαι ταῖς χερσὶ καὶ παντὸς
ἀπέχεσθαι λήμματος, μόνοις ἀρκουμένους τοῖς παρὰ τοῦ δημοσίου

2 Ὁ 2 Κλ] Le ? 2 Ἃ \ 3 \ ‘ 3 \
διδομένοις. “Ὅπερ οὐκ ἂν ἄλλως γένοιτο, εἰ μὴ Kal αὐτοὶ Tas ἀρχὰς
> ? ? 293 e ~ 7 3QO\ 2 Κ᾿
ἀμίσθους παραλαμβάνοιεν, οὐδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν διδόντες οὐδὲ προφάσει τῶν

΄ by 2) “- \ 3 \ ” 37 e 2

καλουμένων suffragiwy, οὔτε τοῖς τὰς ἀρχὰς ἔχουσιν οὔτε ἑτέρῳ
τῶν πάντων οὐδενί. ἐσκοπήσαμεν γὰρ ὅτιπερ, εἰ καὶ πόρος οὐ μικρὸς
> ~ fons ; 3 9 iy ~ φ δ “᾿ 2 ?

ἐλαττοῦται τῇ βασιλείᾳ, ἀλλ᾽ οὖν τῶν ἡμετέρων υποτελῶν ἐπίδοσιν

tA A ? ” > ? \ “ > 7 Ad

μεγάλην λαμβανόντων, εἴπερ ἀζήμιοι Tapa τῶν ἀρχόντων φυλάττοιντο,
4 τε βασιλεία τό τε δημόσιον εὐθηνήσει χρωμένη ὑπηκόοις εὐπόροις,
μιᾶς τε ταύτης εἰςαγομένης τάξεως πολλὴ καὶ ἀμύθητος ἔσται τοῦ
πράγματος ἀφθονία. ἢ οὐ πᾶσίν ἐστι φανερόν, ὅτιπερ ὁ χρυσίον

\ \ Φ Ἁ 3 \ 3 ? 3 ? \ ? ͵ id
διδοὺς καὶ οὕτω τὴν ἀρχὴν ὠνούμενος οὐκ αὐτὸ δίδωσι μόνον, ὅσον
προφάσει τῶν καλουμένων ἐπενοήθη suffragiwy, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἕτερον
3 3 “ 7 “a ~ 327 ~ “o > a
ἔξωθεν προςεπιθήσει πλεῖον προφάσει τῆς τῶν ἄλλων τῶν τῆν ἀρχὴν
ἢ διδόντων ἢ μνηστευόντων θεραπείας ; καὶ μιᾶς ἀρχῆς ἀτόπου δοθείσης
πολλὰς ἀνάγκη χεῖρας περινοστεῖν τὸν τῆς δόσεως ἀρχόμενον, καὶ

na \ \ ? > 3 37 7 3 \ ?
τοῦτο δὲ TO χρυσίον οὐκ οἴκοθεν ἴσως παρέχειν, ἀλλὰ δεδανεισμένον,
> @ } 7 ? 2 , 9
καὶ ἵνα δανείσασθαι δυνηθείη, ζημιούμενον, καὶ συλλογίζεσθαι κατ
αὐτόν, ὅτι προςῆκόν ἐστι τοσοῦτον ἐκ τῆς ἐπαρχίας λαβεῖν, ὁπόσον
διαλύ \ 3 “ \ 3 An tA 7 λ 7 λ \
cet μὲν αὐτῷ τὰ ὀφλήματα, κεφάλαιά τε καὶ τόκον, Kal τὰς

ξ \ 3 lox “~ ὃ ? 8 a ? ὃ 2 δὲ λ \ > / ὃ 2
ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ τοῦ δανείσασθαι ζημίας, δώσει δὲ καὶ τὴν ἐν μέσῳ δαπάνην
δαψιλεστέραν τε ἤδη καὶ ἄρχοντι καὶ τοῖς apd αὐτὸν πρέπουσαν,

; ξ σι ‘ ‘ \ Cea /
καί τινα ἑαυτῷ Kal προςαποθήσεται πόρον κατὰ τὸν ἐξῆς χρόνον,

6* APPENDIX I

2 ἃ ” ΕἾ 3 14 a 3 > lo 2 7
καθ᾽ ὃν ἴσως οὐκ ἄρξει" ὥςτε τοῦ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ διδομένου τριπλάσιον,
lan , 3 A 2 2 3 a ? \ \ “A
μᾶλλον δέ, εἰ det τἀληθέστερον εἰπεῖν, δεκαπλάσιον τὸ παρὰ τῶν
“ 3 los
ἡμετέρων ὑποτελῶν εἰςπραττόμενον ἔσται. ᾿Εἰντεῦθέν τε καὶ τὸ
>? ? τὰ \ 2 “ 2 \ ἢ > lal
δημόσιον ἐλαττωθίσεται: ἃ yap ἐχρῆν εἰς τὸ δημόσιον εἰςαχθῆναι,
τοῦ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἔχοντος καθαραῖς χρωμένου ταῖς χερσί, ταῦτα εἰς
\ 3 ? ? \ et \ > \ 97 27 ? 3 ?
τὴν οἰκείαν θεραπείαν λαβὼν ὁ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἔχων ἄπορόν τε ἀποφήνας
ἡμῖν τὸν συντελεστήν, τὴν ἀπορίαν ἐκείνου τὴν δι᾽ αὐτὸν γενομένην
et A φ A ? Ilé de 5 “. λ LAA ? 3 \ “~
ἡμῖν ὑπολογίζεται. ὅσα δὲ ἀσεβῆ καὶ ἄλλα γίνεται εἰς τὴν τῶν
“ ? 3 2 > , ? ξ Ἃ \ \ > \
κλοπῶν τοίτων εἰκότως ἀναφερόμενα πρόφασιν ; οἱ yap δὴ τὰς ἀρχὰς
ἔχοντες τὰς ἐπιχωρίους εἰς τὸ λῆμμα προςέχοντες τοῦτο πολλοὺς μὲν
σι et 4 3 os ~ 3 n A ? \
τῶν ὑπευθύνων ἀφιᾶσι, πωλοῦντες αὐτοῖς τὸ πλημμέλημα, πολλοὺς
δὲ τῶν ἀνευθύνων κατακρίνουσιν, ἵνα τοῖς ὑπευθύνοις χαρίσωνται:"
καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐπὶ ταῖς χρηματικαῖς μόνον πράττουσιν αἰτίαις, ἀλλὰ
3 an 3 a ¥ \ “ 3 ξ ? 3 >
Kay τοῖς ἐνκλήμασιν, ἔνθα περὶ ψυχῆς ἐστιν ὁ κίνδυνος. φυγαί τε ἐκ
τῶν ἐπαρχιῶν γίνονται, καὶ συρρέουσιν ἐνταῦθα πάντες ὀδυρόμενοι,
ec al ἴω
ἱερεῖς τε καὶ βουλευταὶ καὶ ταξεῶται καὶ κτήτορες καὶ δημόται καὶ
γεωργοί, ταῖς τῶν ἀρχόντων κλοπαῖς τε εἰκότως καὶ ἀδικίαις μεμ-
3 Κι 3 3 “ δ᾽ ? ἢ SAAC \ ξ “᾿ SA
φόμενοι. Kai od ταῦτα δὴ γίνεται μόνα, ἀλλὰ καὶ at τῶν πόλεων
a 2 e ? a \ \ δὲ , , \
στάσεις καὶ οἱ δημώδεις θόρυβοι τὰ πολλὰ χρημάτων yivorTai τε Kal
\ , \ “ “
παύονται. καὶ ὅλως μία τις ἐστὶν αὕτη πάντων ἀφορμὴ τῶν κακῶν,
καὶ τὸ γε ἀργυρολογεῖν τὰς ἀρχὰς πύσης ἐστὶ πονηρίας προοίμιον
\ “ “
τε καὶ πέρας" καὶ ἔστιν ἄρα καὶ τοῦτο τῶν θείων λογίων θαυμαστόν
\ wn
τε καὶ ἀληθέστατον τὸ τὴν φιλαργυρίαν πάντων εἴναι μητέρα τῶν
κακῶν, καὶ μάλιστα ὅταν μὴ ταῖς τῶν ἰδιωτῶν, ἀλλὰ ταῖς τῶν ἀρχόντων
3 2 “a ? \ 3 Pd) 3 2 2 7 \ 3 xv
ἐγγένηται ψυχαῖς. Tis yap οὐκ ἂν ἀκινδύνως κλέπτοι, τίς δὲ οὐκ ἂν
λῃστεύσειεν ἀνεύθυνα, εἰς τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀποβλέπων κἀκείνην ὁρῶν
ἅπαντα χρυσίου πιπράσκουσαν, καὶ θαρρῶν ὡς, ὅπερ ἂν πράξειεν
ἄτοπον, τοῦτο χρήματα δοὺς ἐξωνήσετα ; ἐντεῦθεν ἀνδροφονίαι τε
καὶ μοιχεῖαι καὶ ἔφοδοι καὶ πληγαὶ καὶ ἁρπαγαὶ παρθένων καὶ πανη-
γύρεων συγχύσεις καὶ καταφρονήσεις τῶν τε νόμων καὶ τῶν ἀρχῶν,
πάντων αὐτὰς wriovs προκεῖσθαι νομιζόντων, ὥςπερ τι τῶν κακίστων
> 2 ? > τ WN 3 Ζ A \ > A ,
ἀνδραπόδων. Kai οὐκ ἂν ἀρκέσαιμεν προςεννοεῖν τε καὶ ἀφηγεῖσθαί,
ὁπόσα καὶ ἐκ τῆς κλοπῆς τῶν ἐπιχωρίων ἀρχόντων γίνεται χαλεπά,
\ - “΄- lan
οὐδενὸς αὐτοῖς θαρροῦντος μετὰ παρρησίας ἐπιτιμᾶν, ἐκείνων εὐθὺς
τὸ τὰς ἀρχὰς ὠνήσασθαι προισχομένων.

CAPUT I.

Ταῦτα ἅπαντα καθ᾽ ἑαυτοὺς βουλευσάμενοι κἀνταῦθα κοινωνὸν
“~ ? 2 ‘\ 3 lon ? t A 3
τοῦ βουλεύματος παραλαβόντες τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ δεδομένην ἡμῖν εὐσεβεσ-

GREEK AND LATIN LEGAL DOCUMENTS ἔρος

τάτην σύνοικον, καὶ τῇ σῇ γε ὑπεροχῇ τὸ πρᾶγμα κοινωσάμενοι καί
τι καὶ παρὰ τὴς σῆς λαβόντες βουλῆς, ἐπὶ τόνδε τὸν θεῖον A ἐληλύθαμεν
νόμον" δι᾽ οὗ θεσπίζομεν, μήτε ανθυπατείαν μηδεμίαν μήτε τὴν μέχρι
νῦν καλουμένην βικαρίαν μήτε τὸν κόμητα τῆς ἑῷας μήτε ἄλλην
οἱανοῦν ἀρχήν, μὴτε ὑπατικὴν μήτε ἡγεμονικήν, as δὴ κονσουλαρίας
καὶ κορρεκτορίας καλοῦσιν (ὧν τινων ῥητῶς μέμνηται ἡ ὑποκειμένη
τῷδε ἡμῶν τῷ θείῳ νόμῳ ἀπογραφή, ἃς δὴ καὶ μόνας ὑπὸ τόνδε τὸν
γόμον ἄγομεν), διδόναι τι suffragiov μηδὲ ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀρχῆς τὴν
οἱανοῦν δόσιν μήτε ἄρχοντι μηδενὶ μήτε τῶν περὶ τὰς ἀρχάς τινι
μήτε ἑτέρῳ προςώπῳ κατὰ πρύφασιν προστασίας" ἀλλὰ προῖκα μέν
κομίζεσθαι τὰς ἀρχάς, μέτρια δὲ παρέχειν προφάσει τῶν ὑπὲρ ἑκάστης
διδομένων συμβόλων τε καὶ χαρτῶν. Kai γὰρ δὴ καὶ ὑπεθήκαμεν
ἀπογραφὴν τῷδε τῷ θείῳ ἡμῶν νόμῳ δηλοῦσαν, τί προςῆκόν ἐστιν
ἑκάστην ἀρχὴν παρέχειν ἢ εἰς τὸ θεῖον ἡμῶν laterculov ἢ εἰς τὸ
δικαστήριον τῆς σῆς ὑπεροχῆς προφάσει τῶν κωδικέλλων ἢ συμβόλων
ἢ προςταγμάτων: wste ἐκεῖνο [te] συνεστάλθαι καὶ μὴ παρέχειν
αὐτῷ μεγάλην αἴσθησιν.

CAPUT II.

B ᾿Εκεῖνο μέντοι διορίζομεν, τὸ χρῆναι τὸν βικάριον τῆς ᾿Αἰσιανῆς,

ὄντα δὲ καὶ ἄρχοντα τῆς ]]ακατιανῆς Φρυγίας, μηκέτι μὲν οὕτω
? 3 ‘ “ an ? , a

προςαγορεύεσθαι, ἀλλὰ τοῦ λοιποῦ κόμητα Φρυγίας 1]]ακατιανῆς
3 ? λ 7 3 “A , Kd λ lod 7
ὀνομάζεσθαι, καὶ κομίζεσθαι ἐκ τοῦ δημοσίου, ἅπερ καὶ νῦν προφάσει
ἀννόνων τε καὶ καπιτατιώνων ὑπὲρ ἑκατέρας ἀρχῆς ἐλάμβανεν, οὐδενὸς
3 Ζ ? \ 2 ? lon 3 \ 3 a“
ἐλαττουμένου τούτων" Kai un δύο τάξεσι χρῆσθαι, ἀλλὰ ἀναμιγεῖσαν
ἑκατέραν, THY τε τοῦ ἄρχοντος THY τε TOD βικαρίον, μίαν γενέσθαι,
κομιτιανὴν οὖσάν τε καὶ ὀνομαζομένην, τοῦ κινδύνου τῶν δημοσίων
φόρων αὐτῷ τε καὶ πᾶσιν ὁμοίως ἐπόντος --- οἷα μιᾶς τάξεως καθεστ-
wons, μὴ διῃρημένης αὐτῆς παντελῶς, ἀλλὰ κατὰ μίαν ἁπάντων
στρατευομένων συνέχειαν —, κομιζομένην μέντοι καὶ αὐτὴν διὰ τὸ
διπλοῦν τοῦ κινδύνου τὰς ἀννόνας καὶ καπιτατίωνας, ἅπερ ἑκατέρα
πρώην ἐκομίζετο τάξις. μὴ μὴν ἐτέρας τινὸς ἄρχειν τὸν πρώην μὲν
βικάριον, νῦν δὲ περίβλεπτον κόμητα τῆς ΠἼακατιανῆς Φρυγίας,
οὐκ ἔχοντα παντελῶς οὐδεμίαν μετουσίαν ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις ταῖς τῆς
3 “~ 2 3 } 2 2. 3 λ \ “a λέ
Aowavijs διοικήσεως ἐπαρχίαις, ἀλλ᾽ ἔχοντα μὲν τὴν τοῦ περιβλέπτου
κόμητος τῆς Πακατιανῆς Φρυγίας ἐπωνυμίαν, ἀρκούμενον δὲ μόνῃ
“κι a ? 3 32) ,
τῇ Πακατιανῇ, καθάπερ εἰπόντες ἔῤφθημεν, Φρυγία.

8* APPENDIX I

CAPUT 111.

Tr Ad 3 δὲ “a \ > ἃ ? los 2 ? ὃ )

ὑτὸ δὲ τοῦτο καὶ ἐπὶ θατέρου τοῦ πρώην βικαρίου διορίζομεν,
‘ \ “~ ‘ \ \ ? 4 ἈἌ ? 2

φαμὲν δὴ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν ΠΙοντικὴν διοίκησιν" ὥςτε μὴ δύο καθεστάναι

Ἃ é > ? Ὁ 7 Ἁ ’ ? > ra
τὸ λοιπόν, GAN ἕνα, κόμητα μὲν Γαλατίας πρώτης ὀνομαζόμενον,
καὶ ἔχοντα καὶ τὴν κατὰ τῶν στρατιωτῶν ἐξουσίαν, καθάπερ ἔχει
καὶ νῦν, καὶ τὰς ἑκατέρας ἀρχῆς κομιζόμενον σιτήσεις, οὐ μὴν ἔξω

a a ? > ? \ 3 ἴω ¢ 2 “Ὰ ,ὔ
Ths πρώτης Γαλατίας. οὐδεμίαν γὰρ αὐτῷ ἑτέραν παντελῶς δίδομεν

2} 3 , > 3 “a : nN 3 3 ? \ \ 4
ἔχειν ἐξουσίαν κατ᾽ οὐδεμιᾶς Ποντικῆς ἐπαρχίας, ἀλλὰ κατὰ μόνην
I “3

Γαλατίαν τὴν πρώτην. τῆς τάἀξεώς τε ὁμοίως ἀναμιγνυμένης καὶ
κατὰ μίαν, ὡς εἴρηται, νοουμένης καὶ ἀριθμουμένης συνέχειαν, κομι-
τιανῆς οὔσης τε καὶ ὀνομαζομένης" καὶ οὐδενὸς παντελῶς ἐξ αὐτῶν
πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους ἔχοντός τινα διαφοράν, ἀλλὰ μίαν εἶναι τάξιν, ὑφ᾽ ἐνὶ
, Ὁ ; can
τεταγμένην ἄρχοντι, μιᾶς ἐπαρχίας ἡγουμένῳ: πάσης ὁμοίως τῆς
τάξεως ἅμα τῷ σφῶν αὐτῶν ἄρχοντι περὶ τὰ δημόσια κινδυνευούσης.

CAPUT IV.

<A> Οὐδενὶ δὲ ἄρχοντι παντελῶς ἐφίεμεν οὔτε πολιτικῷ οὔτε
στρατιωτικῷ ἐκπέμπειν ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν τῆς ἐπαρχίας, ἧς ἄρχει,
τοὺς καλουμένους τοποτηρητάς, γινώσκουσιν, ὡς εἶ τοιοῦτό τι πράξαιεν,
ἴω lo “ a ξ ᾿
αὐτοὶ παντελῶς ἐκπεσοῦνται τῆς ἀρχῆς οἱ θαρρήσαντες ἑτέρους εἰς
\ 8 a 2 3 2 :
τὴν ἑαυτῶν τάξιν ἐμβιβάζειν.

CAPUT V..

E Αὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο φαμὲν καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ λαμπροτάτου κόμητος τῆς
ἑῴας καὶ τοῦ λαμπροτάτου ἄρχοντος. κἀκεῖσε γὰρ μίαν ἀρχὴν ἀμφο-
τέρας ποιούμεθα, ἔχοντος μὲν καὶ τὸ τοῦ περιβλέπτου κόμητος τῆς
᾿Εῴας ὄνομα, τάξεως δὲ μιᾶς ἄρχοντος κομιτιανῆς οὔσης τε καὶ
ὀνομαζομένης, καὶ τῆς πρώτης μόνης Συρίας καὶ τῶν Κυρρηστικῶν
ἡγουμένου, καὶ τὰς ἑκατέρας ἀρχῆς ἔχοντος σιτήσεις. ἐν ἴσῳ γὰρ
τοῖς βικαρίοις κἀκεῖνον τίθεμεν, ὥςτε ἅμα καὶ αὐτὸν τῇ πειθομένῃ
αὐτῷ τάξει κινδυνεύειν ὑπέρ τε τῆς τῶν δημοσίων εἰςπράξεως ὑπέρ τε
τῆς πολιτικῆς καὶ δημοσίας καταστάσεως.

CAPUT VI.

ς΄ Βουλόμεθά γε μὴν ἅπασι τοῖς ἄρχουσι τῶν ἡμετέρων ἐπαρχιῶν
πάντας ὑποκεῖσθαι, τοὺς μὲν ἰδιώτας κατὰ τὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἴδιον ἐπὶ
πάσαις αἰτίαις καὶ πάσαις χρηματικαῖς τε καὶ ἐγκληματικαῖς προφάσεσι,

GREEK AND LATIN LEGAL DOCUMENTS g*

τοὺς δέ ye ἐν στρατείαις ὄντας Kal ὑπὸ ἰδικοὶς ἄρχοντας τεταγμένους
᾿ αὶ \
καὶ τούτους οὐδὲν ἧττον προφάσει δημοσίων τε Kal ἐγκλημάτων
“A nn γι “ 3 \ ? lo ;
ὑποκεῖσθαι πᾶσι τρό- «21: ποις αὐτοῖς. ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ἐντεῦθεν
κατιόντας ἐξ οἱουδήποτε δικαστηρίου καὶ τὰς οἱαςοῦν μεταχειριζο-
μένους ψήφους ἐξεῖναι τοὺς τῶν ἐπαρχιῶν ἄρχοντας μὴ συγχωρεῖν
“A a ~ “A ᾿ 3
πλεῖόν τι τῶν τῇ θείᾳ ἡμῶν διατάξει διηγορευμένων λαμβάνειν sportul-
ων, γινώσκοντας ὡς, εἰ τούτου ῥᾳθυμήσειαν, πᾶσαν ζημίαν ἐντεῦθεν
τοῖς ἡμετέροις υποτελέσιν ἐπαγομένην αὐτοὶ καταθήσουσι. 4 ἔδομεν
δὲ αὐτοῖς ἄδειαν καὶ γνωρίζειν τὰ περὶ τούτου μὴ μόνον εἰς τὰς ἀρχάς,
, > >_\ e ca 2 \ \ > e lal 2 é ad ξ cal
ἐξ ὧν εἰσὶν. ot στελλόμενοι, ἀλλὰ Kal cis ἡμᾶς αὐτούς, ὥςτε ἡμᾶς
ταῦτα γινώσκοντας τῷ πράγματι προφςηκόντως ἐπεξιέναι. Hi δὲ
\ >? v \ \ 5 m= > 7 NA ? ¢ ἢ
καὶ αὐτοί τινας εὕροιεν διὰ τὴν ἐκ τῆς ἀξίας ἢ τῆς ζώνης ὑπεροψίαν
τοὺς ἡμετέρους ὑποτελεῖς. ἀδικοῦντας, ἄδειαν αὐτοῖς δίδομεν καὶ
3 \ 3 2 \ \ ξ # ᾿ ξ 2 3 “A
ἐξετάζειν τὰ ἀδικήματα Kal τοὺς ὑπευθύνους εὑρισκομένους ἀφαιρεῖσθαι
τῆς ζώνης καὶ τὴν ἡμετέραν τάξιν ἐν ταῖς ἐπαρχίαις πληροῦν, τοῦτο
ὕπερ καὶ τοῖς ἀρχαίοις διηγόρευται τῶν νόμων. ὥςπερ γὰρ αὐτοὺς
ἃ ~ “a > “A
παντὸς ἀδίκου κέρδους εἴργομεν, οὕτω καὶ καθαρῶς ταῖς ἀρχαῖς
~ "-- “Ὁ
κεχρημένους πάσης τιμῆς τε καὶ αἰδοῦς καὶ σεμνότητος ἀπολαύειν
θεσπίζομεν.

CAPUT VII.

H Οὕτω τοίνυν ἡμῖν τῶν ἀρχῶν διακεκριμένων προσήκει τὸν
ἐνταῦθα παραλαβόντα τὴν ἀρχὴν μετὰ τῆς τοῦ. θεοῦ μνήμης ἐναντίον
ἡμῶν, ἢ εἴπερ ἡμῖν οὐκ εἴη σχολή, ἐναντίον τῆς τε offs ὑπεροχῆς,
καὶ τῶν ἀεὶ τὸν σὸν κατακοσμησόντων θρόνον, τοῦ τε αεὶ ἐνδοξοτάτου
κόμητος τῶν θείων ἡμῶν largitionwy τοῦ τε ἐνδοξοτάτου quaestoros
τοῦ θείου ἡμῶν παλατίου τοῦ τε ἐνδοξοτάτον κόμητος τῶν ἁπανταχοῦ
θείων ἡμῶν privatwr, παρόντος δὴ καὶ τοῦ κατὰ καιρὸν μεγαλοπ-
ρεπεστάτου χαρτουλαρίου τῶν θείων ἡμῶν κοιτώνων τοῦ τοῖς συμβόλοις
τούτοις τοῖς παρ᾽ ημῖν ὑπηρετουμένου, ὅρκον διδόναι, μηδενὶ παντελῶς
μηδὲ ὁτιοῦν παρέχειν μήτε προφάσει δόσεως μήτε προστασίας, μηδὲ
ἐπαγγείλασθαι, μηδὲ ἐκ τῆς ἐπαρχίας ὁμολογῆσαι στέλλειν, μὴτε
τοῖς ἐνδοξοτάτοις ἐπάρχοις μήτε τοῖς ἄλλοις τοῖς τὰς ἀρχὰς ἔχουσι
μήτε τοῖς περὶ αὐτοὺς καθεστῶσι μήτε ἑτέρῳ Twi κατὰ πρόφασιν

? 3 3 a a ἢ A 3 é Ζ
προστασίας. ἀλλ᾽ ὥςπερ ἄμισθον λαμβάνει τὴν ἀρχήν, προσλαμβάνει
τε παρὰ τοῦ δημοσίου τὰς σιτήσεις [ταύτας γὰρ δὴ καὶ μόνας λαμβάνειν

> i a)? . Ἐ 2» \ aa) ta “A ? nw
αὐτὸν ἐφίεμεν), οὕτως αὐτὴν καθαραῖς - φυλάξει ταῖς χερσί, θεῷ τε

\ tia ee | ¢ ἃ ? A Ly 2 i 32 \ €¢ _\ φ \ \
καὶ ἡμῖν τὸν ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς ὑφέξων λόγον. “JoTw yap ἡ σὴ ὑπεροχὴ καὶ
οἱ μετά σε τὸν αὐτὸν ἐπιβησόμενοι θρόνον, ὡς, εἴτε αὐτοὶ θαρρήσειαν

«

1053 APPENDIX I

“A ἴω > ξ
λαβεῖν τι παρὰ τῶν εἰς τὰς εἰρημένας ἀρχὰς παριόντων εἴτε οἱ παρα-
δυναστεύοντες αὐτοῖς εἴτε καὶ ἡ τάξις ἡ σὴ περαιτέρω τῶν προφάσει

“ 3 c “nN A ? ? 3 A
συνηθειῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῶν αὐτοῖς ὡρισμένων {ἅπερ δὴ Kal ἀρκεῖν μόνα
νομίζοντες δίδοσθαι διωρίσαμεν), ὡς οὐκ ἐν μικροῖς ἡ ποινὴ γενήσεται"
2 3 ξ A 4 2 ξ “A ? \ “~
ἀλλ᾽ ot μὲν μέγιστοι ἄρχοντες ot λαβεῖν τι θαρρήσαντες παρὰ τῶν

Ἄ “ 3 a
ἐπὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς παριόντων ἢ καὶ συγχωρήσαντες TH οἰκείᾳ τάξει τοιοῦτό
τι πράττειν, καὶ προςαγγελθὲν οὐ θεραπεύοντες, ὡς οὐ μόνον τετραπ-

) 3 , a m4 »Ὰ 2 : 3 λ \ 2 3 ,
λάσιον ἀποδώσουσι πᾶν ὅσον εἰλήφασιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ μεγάλην ἀγανάκ-
᾿ ξ -

THOW ὑποστήσονται καὶ τὸν ἐπὶ TH ἀρχῇ κίνδυνον εὐλαβηθήσονται.
\ ° > 9 3 \ 27 ‘ ¢ é 2 3 “ 3 af
καὶ οἵ ye aud αὐτοὺς ὄντες καὶ ἡ πειθομένη τάξις αὐτοῖς, εἰ πλεῖόν

ἴω “ - ?
τι τῶν Tap ἡμῶν δεδομένων ἐπιχειρήσαιεν λαβεῖν, αὐτοί τε ὑποκεί-
σονται τοῖς ἐζημιωμένοις τῇ εἰς τὸ τετραπλοῦν ἀποδόσει ἐκπεσοῦνταϊ

‘ 2. ἢ \ - \ ζω \ ? e 2
τε καὶ οὐσίας καὶ ζώνης, πρὸς τῷ καὶ τιμωρίαις ὑποβάλλεσθαι πρε-
πούσαις τοῖς πλημμελήμασι τοῖς αὐτῶν.

CAPUT VIII.

ΡΝ AY \ id 3 ? 2 \ > Ἁ ~

Θ Τοὺς δὲ οὕτως apiofovs παραλαμβάνοντας τὰς ἀρχὰς πρῶτον
ἁπάντων σπούδασμα ἔχειν χρὴ τὸ τοῖς δημοσίοις ἀγρύπνως προσέχειν,
καὶ τοὺς μὲν ἀγνωμονοῦντας καὶ δεομένους ἀνάγκης μετὰ πάσης
3 “a
εἰςπράττειν τῆς σφοδρότητος, μηδὲν ὑποκατακλινομένους μηδὲ ὑπὲρ
αὐτοῦ τούτου κέρδος τι παντάπασιν ἐννοοῦντας, τοῖς δὲ εὐγνώμοσι
πατρικῶς προςφερομένους: ἐπειτα τὸ τοὺς ἡμετέρους ὑπηκόους

3 lo 3
φυλάττειν πανταχόθεν ἀνεπηρεάστους, οὐδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν παρ᾽ οὐδενὸς
3 “ ? > > κ᾿ \ 3 “ 7 > \ 3 “A
αὐτῶν κομιζομένους. ἀλλ᾽ ἶσοι μὲν ἐν ταῖς δίκαις, too. δὲ ἐν ταῖς
δημώδεσι καταστάσεσιν ἔστωσαν, ἐπεξιόντες τε τοῖς ἁμαρτήμασι καὶ
τοὺς μὲν ἀνευθύνους πανταχόθεν φυλάττοντες καθαρούς, τοῖς ὑπευθύνοις
δὲ ἐπιτιθέντες πρὸς τὸν νόμον τὴν ποινήν, καὶ οὕτως ἄρχοντες τῶν
cA “A

ὑπηκόων ὡς ἂν πατέρες υἱῶν, ἀγαπῶντες μὲν αὐτοὺς ἀνευθύνους
ὄντας, ὑπευθύνους δὲ φαινομένους σωφρονίζοντές τε καὶ τιμωρούμενοι,
καὶ πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην ἔν τε τοῖς δημοσίοις ἔν τε τοῖς ἰδίοις συμβολαίοις
αὐτοῖς διατηροῦντες" καὶ οὐκ αὐτοὶ μόνοι τοῦτο πράττοντες, ἀλλὰ
καὶ τὸν ἀεὶ παρεδρεύοντα τοιοῦτον λαμβάνοντες καὶ τοὺς περὶ αὐτοὺς
7 ξ Ἅ “A >? } \ “~ 3 4 > > ὃ; »
ἅπαντας, ὡς μὴ δοκεῖν ἐκείνους μὲν δῆθεν ἀνευθύνους εὖναι, δι᾿ ἑτέρων
δὲ λ ᾿ A “ ‘ A ? ~ 4 Vv αλλ 3 ? ?
ἐ πλημμελεῖν τε καὶ κλέπτειν, τοῦτο ὅπερ ἔτι μᾶλλον αἰσχρότερόν
3 \ \ \ “ δι 2 ? vv 2 7 ~
ἐστι TO καὶ κοινωνοὺς τῶν ἀδικημάτων λαμβάνειν. “ὥςτε ἐξέσται τῇ
“ im “ ? “~
σῇ ὑπεροχῇ τῶν σεμνοτέρων τινὰς ἐπὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς πέμπειν καὶ τῶν
ἐπισταμένων τὰ δημόσια, βουλευτῶν τε φαμὲν καὶ ἑτέρων προςώπων,

a ¢ “- > \ 4
πεῖραν ἑαυτῶν δεδωκότων ἀγαθὴν καὶ πρὸς Tas ἀρχὰς ἐπιτηδείων.
7 \ 3 on
Tis yap ἂν οὐκ ἀγαπήσεις Kal σευνότητος ἐμπεπλῆσθαι wey 1 adns

GREEK AND LATIN LEGAL DOCUMENTS 113

νομίσειεν, εἴπερ ἡμετέρᾳ ψήφῳ καὶ κρίσει τῆς σῆς ὑπεροχῆς ἐπὶ τὴν
ἀρχὴν παρέλθοι, μεμαρτυρημένος μὲν ὡς εἴη χρηστός, προῖκα δὲ
3 \ ὃ ? 3 3 λ δὲ λῶ ὃ \ 5A \ \
αὐτὴν δεχόμενος, οὐκ ἐνησχολημένος δὲ παντελῶς οὐδενὶ φαύλῳ κατὰ τὴν
? 29 \ a \ A 10 7 δὲ “θ λλέ ?
χώραν, οὐδὲ ὅπως τὸ δοθὲν ἀθροίσειεν, οὐδὲ ὅθεν συλλέξειε χρυσίον,
Ἰλλ᾽ Ὁ δὴ lo) , 3) ὃ \ ἴω θ ἴω \ a > \
ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα δὴ τοῦτο μόνον ἔχοι σπούδασμα TO TH θεῷ τε Kat ημῖν ἑαυτὸν
on Ἃ ? > -" lan \ 3 \ > ? iA
συστῆσαι, καὶ δόξης ἀπολαῦσαι χρηστῆς, καὶ ἀμοιβὰς ἐλπίσαι μεγάλας ;
Εἰ δέ τις παρὰ ταῦτά τι πράξειεν, ἴστω καὶ ἕως ἐπὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς, ἐφ᾽
ἧς ἐστι δικαστής, κλοπῆς αἰτίαν ὑποστησόμενος" καὶ εἴγε φανείνη
ὃ \ ? e \ fan A “A \ > \ s\ A \ 3 ων > -
οὺς χουσίον ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαβεῖν τὴν ἀρχὴν ἢ λαβὼν ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς
Ξ ? s e ? t 2 oe \ ? \ 3 ,
(ἑκάτερον γὰρ ὁμοίως ὑπεύθυνον), ὅτι καὶ δήμευσιν καὶ ἐξορίαν
ὑποστήσεται καὶ τὴν εἰς τὸ σῶμα βασανόν τε καὶ τιμωρίαν, καὶ
3 \ or. \ A ? 9 ? ~ Ad 3 7 3) θ
αὐτὸν δὴ τὸν λαβόντα παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ, καθάπερ εἰπόντες ἔφθημεν,
κακοῖς ὑποθήσει μεγάλοις. Καθαρὰς γὰρ ἀπαιτοῦμεν εἶναι ταῖς
ἐπιχωρίοις ἀρχαῖς τὰς χεῖρας, ἵνα τοὺς ἀρχομένους ἀζημίους τε καὶ
> ᾽ 2 \ ον \ 9 κι Ed 3
εὐθηνουμένους φυλάξαιμεν. Kai αὗται μὲν ἔκ τε τῶν νόμων ἐκ τε
τῶν ἀρχῶν ἐπικείσονται ποιναὶ τοῖς ἐν ταῖς εἰρημέναις ἀρχαῖς οὖσιν,
3 “Ἅ ᾿ ? \ \ a > ? Σ
εἴ τι τοι οὔῦτο πράξαιεν. Aldopev δὲ καὶ τοῖς ἐπαρχεώταις ἀδειαν,
” \ ~ 3 ? 3 Ly \ 3 Ἅ 2 7
εἴ τι κατὰ τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἄδικον ὁ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἔχων διαπράξηται
λ ? \ "δ > ? TAA \ \ ? ξ λ A
καὶ ζημίαις τισὶν ἢ ἐπηρείαις περιβάλλοι τοὺς ἡμετέρους ὑποτελεῖς,
ὥςτε τὸν θεοφιλέστατον ἐπίσκοπον καὶ τοὺς ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ πρωτεύοντας
δεήσεις εἰς ἡμᾶς ἀναπέμπειν, καταλέγοντας τοῦ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἔχοντος
τὰ πλημμελήματα. ἡμεῖς γὰρ ταῦτα μανθάνοντες στελοῦμεν ἐν τῇ

f 4 ro 3 2 »}3. @ >? 0 aS i 2 δ
Xwpa TOY TAVTA ἐξετάσοντα, ἐφ ῳ τε AVTOV, ενῦα TNOLKTOEV, EKELOE

καὶ τὰς ποινὰς ὑποσχεῖν τῶν πλημμελημάτων" ὥςτε μηδὲ ἕτερόν τινα
τοιοῦτό τι πρᾶξαι θαρρῆσαι πρὸς τὸ παράδειγμα βλέποντα.

CAPUT Ix.

3 “~

ἀνάγκην ἔχοντος τοῦ τὴν ἀρχὴν διέποντος κατὰ Tas ἔμπροσθεν
διατάξεις, ἐπειδὰν κατάθοιτο τὴν ζώνην, τὰς πεντήκοντα ἡμέρας ἐν
A ?
τῇ ἐπαρχίᾳ διατρίβειν δημοσίᾳ φαινόμενον, Kal τὰς παρὰ πάντων

3
δεχόμενον ἐναγωγάς. εἰ μέντοι, πρὶν πληρώσειε τὰς πεντήκοντα
e 2 > ὃ ὃ ? LA ὔ θ 2 ἴων > 2 2 ὃ 40
ἡμέρας, ἀποδιδράσκων ἁλοίη καθάπερ τι THY ἀτιμοτάτων ἀνδραπόδων,
? 3) “ ξ 2 ? 2 \ 3 aA 3 BD] nee ?
δίδομεν ἄδειαν τοῖς ὑποτελέσι κατέχειν αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ [ἢ τῇ ἐπαρχίᾳ]
lan ~ ων lo ?
καὶ πᾶν ef τι δεδώκασιν αὐτῷ προφάσει κλοπῆς τοῦτο εἰςπράττειν,
παρόντος μέντοι τοῦ θεοφιλεστάτου ἐπισκόπου καὶ τὸ πρᾶγμα ἐγγράφως
ὃ ~ 4 nN 2 ὃ ? ΄Ὰ φ A ‘ ? “AXA \
ιασκοποῦντος, ἕως ἂν ἀποδοίη πᾶν ὅπερ κεκλοφὼς φανείη. ὰ
καὶ αὐτοὺς τοὺς ἐπαρχεώτας, εἴπερ αἴσθοιντο τῆς τῶν ἀρχόντων
κλοπῆς, ἄδειαν ἔχειν, μᾶλλον μὲν οὖν καὶ ἀνάγκην, ταῦτα μηνύειν
δ΄ oa lan) 2

εἰς ἡμᾶς: ὥςτε ἡμᾶς μανθάνοντας, ὅτι περ ὅλως χρυσίου πιπράσκει

12* : APPENDIX I

‘\ , na 3 ? > 1 ξ ἐλλ “A Ἃ An ‘
τὸ δίκαιον, ταῖς εἰρημέναις αὐτὸν ὑποβάλλειν ποιναῖς, πρὸς τῷ καὶ

“ “Ὁ Ὄ 3
ταῖς ἐξ οὐρανοῦ τιμωρίαις ἔνοχον εἶναι, παραβάντα τοὺς ὅρκους ἐφ
4 er \ > Fs Ei δὲ \ 3 3 θ᾽ ξ fo " 9, \ λ
οἷς ἔλαβε τὴν ἀρχήν. Hi δὲ καὶ ἰσχύσειε καθ᾽ οἱανοῦν αἰτίαν μὴ πεπληρ-

“~ , A wn

ωκὼς τὰς πεντήκοντα ἡμέρας. ἐκ τῆς ἐπαρχίας φυγεῖν, τηνικαῦτα
συλληφθείς, ἔνθα ἂν διατρίβων φανείη, ἐπαναχθήσεται μὲν εἰς τὴν
>] εν 9 Ὁ ἂν g ὃ Ξ ὃ ῸὋ ὦ Κλ) ξ θ ? A ? > ὃ ?
ἐπαρχίαν ἧς ἦρχεν, ἅπαν δέ, ὅσον ἂν εὑρεθείη λαβών, ἀποδώσει τετραπ-
λάσιον. ἊΣ

CAPUT X.

"EB 3 ὃ λ δὲ - λ Lee a” ὃ ? > A e 2
κείνου δηλαδὴ φυλαττομένγου τοῦ μηδεμίαν εἶναι τοῖς ἡμετέροις
φ ? 22 273 ὃ 2 λ \ s\ - δι . ‘ A Ed
ὑπηκόοις ἄδειαν ἐφ᾽ ἑτέρῳ τινὶ πλὴν ἢ κλοπῇ ταῦτα περὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας
? ? ‘ > ? ᾽ A 3 2 \ \ “
πράττειν. Οὐ γὰρ εἰ φανείη σφοδρότερος τοῖς ἀγνώμοσι διὰ τὴν τῶν
? ” κλ] a) \ “~ ‘ 3 ? “Δ
δημοσίων εἴςπραξιν ἢ διὰ τὴν τῶν πλημμελημάτων ἐπεξέλευσιν,
“a 3 “~ εν
δώσομεν τοῖς ὑπηκόοις πράττειν τι κατ΄ αὐτοῦ" τοὐναντίον μὲν οὖν
A ΄- 3 A
Kal ποιναῖς αὐτοὺς ταῖς πασῶν πικροτάταις ὑπάξομεν, εἰ τοὺς καθαραῖς
“ : ‘ fod a’ ? > 2 \ 2
yopoapevous ταῖς χερσὶν καὶ τῇ τῶν δημοσίων εἰςπράξει μετὰ πάσης
= F ἢ ,
προςεγεχθέντας ἀκριβείας, εἶτα καταθεμένους τὴν ἀρχὴν. ὑβρίσαι
θαρρήσαιεν, ἀλλὰ μὴ σὺν εὐφημίᾳ πάσῃ μετὰ τὸν νενομισμένον χρόνον
τὰς. ἐπαρχίας ἀπολίμπάνοντας ἀποπέμψαιεν. Ae? γὰρ τοὺς μετὰ
τόνδε ἡμῶν τὸν νόμον γινομένους λαμπροτάτους τῶν ὑποτεταγμένων
ἴω : “a >
ἐπαρχιῶν - ἄρχοντας ἐντεθυμῆσθαι, πόσης μὲν ἀπολαύσουσι δόξης
τοιοῦτοι φαινόμενοι, πόσαις δὲ περιπεσοῦνται δυςκολίαις τὸν νόμον
fe - τς : et A: 5 “
τοῦτον παραλῦσαι τὸ γε ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς θαρρήσαντες. εἴη γὰρ ἂν τῶν
3 , > \ \ > 3 3 δ 8 7 “A 3 \ 2
ἀτόπων, εἰ τοὺς μὲν ἐπ᾽ εὐτελέσιν ἁλόντας κλοπαῖς αὐτοὶ κολάζοιεν,
καὶ βασάνοις αὐτοὺς ὑποβάλλοιεν, καὶ οὐ πρότερον συγχωροῖεν ἕως
a ὃ δ΄ ‘ a 3 \ de 3 30 3 >? ἃ ἐλ ?
ἂν αποδοῖεν τὰ φώρια, αὐτοὶ δὲ ἀνεύθυνοι μένοιεν ἐπὶ μεγάλων γενόμενοι
κλοπῶν, καὶ οὐδὲ τὸ πρὸς τοὺς ὑπηκόους ἐρυθριῶντες παράδειγμα"
ὧν ἔξεστιν αὐτοῖς ὑπεριδοῦσι σεμνοῖς τε καὶ ἐλευθέροις καὶ πανταχόθεν
3 id A \ Ἁ 3 ς κα 2» ‘ T A ᾿ ,
ἐπαινουμένοις φανῆναι καὶ τὴν ἐξ ἡμῶν ἔχειν καλὴν 144 1 μαρτυρίαν
WN 2N [ὃ ᾿ O 3 ~ ‘ ὃ \ 3 A A 2 ὃ \
τε Kat ἐλπίδα. Οὐ. συγχωροῦμεν δὲ οὔτε τοῖς περιβλέπτοις δουξὶν
3 ¢ 2 \ \ £ lo ΕΣ a : ἢ > 7 3 va! av
οὔτε ἑτέρῳ τινὶ THY οἷανοῦν αὐτοῖς πλεονεξίαν ἢ ἀδικίαν ἐπαγαγεῖν, ἢ
πολιτικοῖς ὅλως πράγμασι κοινωνεῖν, ἵνα καὶ ἡμεῖς αὐτοῖς τὴν σεμνότητα
᾿ 2 A : A 2 A
φυλάττοιμεν κἀκεῖνοι τὴν καθαρότητα τε ἡμῖν καὶ εὔνοιαν ἀντιδιδοῖεν.
"T : \ ¢ ‘ \ 2 ? ᾿ 2 ὃ Ά \ 3 ἴω 3 Ξλ λ Ἅ : ;
στω γὰρ ἅπὰν TO ὑπήκοον, ὡς διὰ THY αὐτῶν ὠφέλειαν καὶ TO πανταχ-
Ed 2 AN Ὁ 2 \ 3 \ 3 ; 3 \ 2, >. 3 Ἃ
ὄθεν αὐτῶν ἀζήμιον καὶ τὸ διὰ πάσης αὐτοὺς ἄγειν εὐπαθείας καὶ
.ἃ -: | ? A \ 3 - 2 A - 2 δὲ 3 - λ
μὴ καταναγκάζεσθαι τὰς χώρας ἀπολιμπάνειν μηδὲ ἐν ξένῃ ταλαι-
πωρεῖσθαι, διὰ τοῦτο τὸν παρόντα νόμον ἐγράψαμεν, Ged τε αὐτὸν
ἀνατιθέντες καὶ ταῖς παρούσαις σεβασμιωτάταις τῆς μεγάλης αὐτοῦ
καὶ κοινοτάτης ἑορτῆς ἡμέραις" ἵνα πᾶσιν ἐξῇ πατέρας δέχεσθαι

GREEK AND LATIN LEGAL DOCUMENTS 135

“A 2 a ? ? \ 3 2 \ A e “A
μᾶλλον ἄρχοντας ἢ κλέπτοντάς τε Kal ἀνδραποδώδεις Kal ταῖς αὑτῶν
> ? 3 f a A A e ---ὡ Ἁ Ἃ 2 δ “A
οὐσίαις ἐφεδρεύοντας. Ae? δὲ καὶ ὑμᾶς τοὺς ἡμετέρους ὑποτελεῖς
εἰδότας, πόσην ὑμῶν ἐθέμεθα πρόνοιαν, μετὰ πάσης εὐγνωμοσύνης
τοὺς δημοσίους ἀνελλιπτῶς φόρους εἰςάγειν, καὶ μηδὲ τῆς παρὰ τῶν
ra 3 e
ἀρχόντων ἀνάγκης δεῖσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ οὕτως εὐγνώμονας ἑαυτοὺς παρέχειν,
ὥςτε ἡμῖν ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐνδείξασθαι τῶν ἔργων, οτι καὶ αὐτοὶ τῆς τοσαύτης
φιλανθρωπίας τὴν οἰκείαν ἡμῖν εὐγνωμοσύνην ἀντιδίδοτε, καὶ εἰκότως
ἕξετε πᾶσαν παρὰ τῶν ἀρχόντων προφάσει τῆς εὐγνωμοσύνης σπουδὴν
τε καὶ πρόνοιαν, ἐκεῖνο γινώσκοντες ὡς, ἐπειδὴ τοῖς ἄρχουσιν ἐπίκειται
πανταχόθεν ὁ τῶν δημοσίων κίνδυνος καὶ τῶν ἀνωμολογημένων
3 ἴω fal . »»" 3
ἐστίν, ὡς ἐπὶ τῷ σθῶν αὐτῶν κινδυνῳ τὰς ἀρχὰς ὑπειςέρχονται, καὶ
ὑμᾶς τοῦτο γινώσκοντας ἐκ τρόπου παντὸς εὐλαβεῖσθαι τὴν ἄγνω-
μοσύνην, καὶ μὴ τὰς ἑαυτῶν γνώμας οὕτω παρέχειν ἀπειθεῖς, ὡς
΄- ΄-- nA 3 “A “A
καὶ τῆς ἐξ αὐτῶν δεῖσθαι σφοδρότητος, ἣν ἀναγκαῖον αὐτοῖς ἐστι
2 A \ 3 ? “A ? 3) δὼ 23
προςλαμβάνειν διὰ τὴν ἀπαραίτητον τῶν δημοσίων εἴςπραξιν. εἰδότων
ὑμῶν τῶν ἡμετέρων ὑπηκόων, ὡς αἱ στρατιωτικαὶ δαπάναι καὶ ἡ
nw A ) ᾽ λλῇ Fal lon) > A ἢ λ 2 3)
τῶν πολεμίων δίωξις πολλῆς δεῖται τῆς ἐπιμελείας, καὶ οὐκ ἔστι
χρημάτων χωρὶς ταῦτα πραχθῆναι, τοῦ πράγματος μηδεμιᾶς ἀναβολῆς
“A ξ “ 7 aA
δεομένον, οὐδὲ ἡμῶν αἱρουμένων περιορᾶν τὴν “Pwpaiwy γῆν ἐλαττω-
α ξ \ 2 A > 2 \ ; Se aes
θεῖσαν, ἁλλὰ AiBinv τε πᾶσαν ἀνακτησαμένων καὶ Bavdidovs κα-
ὃ A 2 \ AAG 3 \ 3 ? 3 7
ταδουλωσάντων καὶ πολλά γε ἔτι καὶ μείζονα τούτων ἐλπιζόντων
παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ λαβεῖν τε καὶ πρᾶξαι, εἰς ἃ προςῆκόν ἐστι τοὺς δημοσίους
φόρους ἀνελλιπῶς καὶ εὐγνωμόνως καὶ κατὰ τὰς ὡρισμένας εἰςπράτ-
τεσθαι προθεσμίας. ὥςτε εἴπερ ὑμεῖς μὲν εὐγνωμόνως ἄπαντήσοιτε
τοῖς ἄρχουσιν, οἱ δὲ padiay τε καὶ ἐκ προχείρου τὴν τῶν δημοσίων
εἰςκομιδὴν εἰς ἡμᾶς ποιοῖντο, καὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας ἐπαινέσομεν τῆς
΄νὦ ‘ “A 3 7 “a
σπουδῆς Kal ὑμᾶς ἀποδεξόμεθα τῆς γνώμης" καὶ πανταχόθεν μία
τις ἔσται καλὴ τε καὶ σύμφωνος τῶν τε ἀρχόντων καὶ τῶν ἀρχομένων
ἁρμονία.

CAPUT XI.

“A : ? nm ~ “Ὁ fon ~

Τῷ μεγάλῳ τοίνυν θεῷ καὶ σωτῆρι ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ πάντες
ξ 7 . “ a
ὁμοίως ἀναπεμπέτωσαν ὕμνους υπὲρ τούτου δὴ TOD νόμου, ὃς αὐτοῖς

“᾿ 3

δώσει καὶ τὰς πατρίδας οἰκεῖν ἀσφαλῶς καὶ τὰς οἰκείας περιουσίας
2 ? . \ a “A > 3 > ᾿ Ζ A
ἔχειν βεβαίως Kal τῆς τῶν ἀρχόντων ἀπολαύειν δικαιοσύνης. Καὶ

\ or \ e “A ὃ \ nn >? \ ΠΗ θ a i) 3 “Ὁ 3 ~
yap δὴ καὶ ἡμεῖς διὰ τοῦτο αὐτὸν ἐθέμεθα, ὅπως ἂν ἐκ τῆς ἐν τῷ
νόμῳ δικαιοσύνης ἰσχύσωμεν τῷ δεσπότῃ θεῷ οἰκειῶσαι ἑαυτοὺς
καὶ τὴν ἡμετέραν συστῆσαι βασιλείαν, ἵνα μὴ δόξωμεν. περιορᾶν
3 θ ? 10 2’ a eC aw ὃ ξ θ ? Ἃ 7 A
ἀνθρώπους ἀδικουμένους, ods ἡμῖν παρέδωκεν 6 θεός, ὅπως ἂν αὐτῶν

14* APPENDIX I

Ἃ ? ? Fant ? ΄ ~ > 2?
διὰ πάντων φειδώμεθα, TH αὐτοῦ κατακολουθοῦντες ἀγαθότητι.
Ὅ - 3 3 2 ~ 3 ? on “-ςἨ ὃ 2 δὲ ~ 3 “-
ςτε τό γε ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν ἀφοσιούσθω τῷ θεῷ, διότι μηδὲν τῶν εἰς νοῦν
A Foam’ ? ΄
ἡμῖν ἐρχομένων ἀγαθῶν ὑπὲρ κηδεμονίας τῶν ὑπηκόων παραλιμπάνομεν.
7 A ‘ 3 ? Fa \ > ᾽ \
βουλόμενοι yap τὰς ἀνελευθέρους ταύτας καὶ ἀνδραποδώδεις κλοπὰς
ἀνελεῖν καὶ τοὺς ἡμετέρους ὑποτελεῖς ἐν εὐπαθείᾳ παρὰ τῶν τὰς ἐπιχ-
wpious ἀρχὰς ἐχόντων φυλάξαι, διὰ τοῦτο ἐσπεύσαμεν προῖκα τὰς ἀρχὰς
3 wn Pont φ 3? > 3 “- > on) n \ e 7
αὐτοῖς δοῦναι, ὅπως ἄν μηδὲ αὐτοῖς ἐξῇ πλημμελεῖν τε καὶ ἁρπάζειν
τὸ ὑπήκοον: οὗπερ ἕνεκα πάντα αἱρούμεθα πόνον, οὐκ ἀξιοῦντες
μιμεῖσθαι τοὺς πρὸ ἡμῶν βεβασιλευκότας, οἵπερ χρημάτων mpod-
βάλλοντο τὰς ἄρχάς, ἑαυτοῖς ἀναιροῦντες τὴν ἄδειαν τοῦ ye τοῖς ἐν
aA > “Ὁ 3 lat > “~ , > 3 > ? Ὄ 2 #
ταῖς ἀρχαῖς ἀδικοῦσιν ἐπιτιμᾶν δίκαια, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτοί τε οἷς ἐλάμβανον
3 2 ? ~ ᾽ > 2 ¢ A >
ἐγκαλύπτεσθαι δίκαιοι καθεστῶτες, τούς τε οἰκείους ὑποτελεῖς δι
3 A Ἁ ~ > ? a - 3 7 > 2 3 \
αὐτὸ δὴ τοῦτο é€apralew τῶν κακῶς ἀρχόντων od δυνάμενοι οὐδὲ
αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἄρχουσιν ἐπιτιμᾶν σωφρονεῖν προφάσει τῆς εἰρημένης
αἰτίας. ἡμεῖς δὲ ἀρκοῦντα τῇ βασιλείᾳ πόρον εἶναι νομίζομεν τὸ
? 3 A a Ἃ ὃ ? # θ ? Ἰλλὰ ? ‘
μόνους ἐντελεῖς τοὺς δημοσίους κομίζεσθαι φόρους, ἀλλὰ py) τι καὶ
ἔξωθεν προςεπιζητεῖν, ὅπερ τοῖς ὑπηκόοις πάντα κατασείδει τὸν

,
βίον.
CAPUT XII.

\ \ > ral 37 tc oa 3 7 2) , wn
IB To δὲ ἐν τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν ἡμῖν εἰρημένον ἔτι μείζονι χρῆναι
\ 3 a “A > 7 , Ὁ \ \ Ζ
καὶ ἀκριβεστέρᾳ περιλαβεῖν φήθημεν νομοθεσίᾳ, wste τὸν ἡμέτερον
σκοπὸν ἅπασι γενέσθαι φανερόν. Θεσπίζομεν γὰρ τοὺς λαμπροτάτους
τῶν ὑποτεταγμένων ἐπαρχιῶν ἄρχοντας, χωρὶς ἁπάσης γινομένους
~ > ~ ?
χρημάτων δόσεως καὶ τῶν παρ᾽ αὐτῶν διδομένων ὅρκων μεμνημένους,
» \ > “". lo >
ἔχειν Kal ταύτην Tap ἡμῶν THY παρρησίαν τοῦ μηδεμίαν εἶναι μηδενὶ
‘ “ Ἀ
πρὸς αὐτοὺς παντελῶς φόρου [ἦτοι Kpitypiov] παραγραφὴν μήτε
> “A ς 7 ? > \ “A 3
ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρτανομέναις παρά τινων βίαις μήτε ἐπὶ τοῖς ἐγκλήμασι καὶ
ταῖς ἐντεῦθεν ἀδικίαις μήτε ἐπὶ ταῖς στάσεσι ταῖς δημοσίαις μήτε
λ᾽᾿᾽ a ἴων 2 3 2 7 > \ 7 ξ ,ὔ
ἐπὶ ταῖς τῶν δημοσίων φόρων εἰσπράξεσιν, ἀλλὰ πάντας ὁμοίως
a on , i
ὑποκεῖσθαι TH τούτων δικαιοδοσίᾳ, οὐκ ἀναμενόντων οὔτε προςτάξεις
“ “᾿ 3 χὰ
λαβεῖν ἐκ τῶν ἀρχόντων οἷς ὑπόκεινται, οὗτε μηνύειν εἰς αὐτούς,
> 3 5 A ~ e ἴω ~ ? 3 Ὁ “Ὁ 3 a 3 )
ἀλλ᾽ ἀρκεῖσθαι τῷδε ἡμῶν τῷ νόμῳ, δι᾿ οὗ πᾶσαν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν
, ~ ‘ “» > ?
παρέχομεν. οὐδενὸς ἄδειαν ἔχοντος παντελῶς ἐπὶ τῶν εἰρημένων
3 ΄“ if ? “A “a “A any
αἰτιῶν οὔτε προνομίῳ χρῆσθαϊΐ τινι οὔτε ἐκεῖθεν ἑαυτῷ κατορθοῦν τὸ
λ λ a 3 f > \ Κλ) e ? ? ? A 2
πλημμελεῖν ἀνευθύνως. οὐ γὰρ ἂν οἱ πάσης ἀπεχόμενοι λήψεως
U 4 “~ lon fos a ¢ ? 2
ἄρχοντες ἕτερόν τι τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τοῦ ἡμετέρου προθήσουσι
δέ Ἰλλ᾽ 2 3 “A λέ λά a) et 3 Ἃ 7
ἔους, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς ἐκεῖνο βλέποντες φυλάξουσι τοῖς ὑπηκόοις τὸ δίκαιον,
} \
πάντα κατὰ τοὺς Hue 1 Tépovs KpivovTés TE καὶ πράττοντες νόμους.

GREEK AND LATIN LEGAL DOCUMENTS 15*

᾿Επὶ yap τοῖς τοιούτοις Kal τοὺς στρατιώτας τοὺς ἐν Tals ἐπαρχίαις
ὄντας αὐτοῖς ὑποτάττομεν, οὐδὲ ἐκεῖσε δεομένοις προςτάξεώς τινος
ἰδίας ἢ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν ἢ παρὰ τῶν ἡμετέρων ἀρχόντων, ἀλλὰ τῷ παρόντι
νόμῳ χρωμένοις καὶ τοῦτον αὐτοῖς δεικνύουσιν, ὥςτε ἐπαμύνειν αὐτοῖς
χρωμένοις τῇ τῆς ἀρχῆς παρρησίᾳ, γινώσκοντας ὡς, εἰ μὴ τοῦτο
πράξαιεν, καὶ σιτήσεων καὶ αὐτῆς τῆς στρατείας ὑπομενοῦσιν ἔκπτωσιν
καὶ τὸν εἰς σῶμα κίνδυνον ὑποστήσονται. “Ὡςτε ἡμῖν μηδενὸς ἑτέρου
παντελῶς δεῖν ἄρχοντος, καὶ λῃστοδιώκτας ἢ τοὺς καλουμένους
βιοκωλύτας, μᾶλλον δὲ λωποδύτας, ἢ ἀφοπλιστὰς ἐκπέμπειν, προφάσεσι
μὲν δῆθεν εὐλόγοις χρωμένους, αὐτοὺς δὲ τὰ πάντων χείριστα πράτ-
τοντας. τῶν γὰρ ἀρχόντων τῶν ἐπαρχιῶν τὴν ἑκάστου τῶν μεγίστων
ἀρχῶν πληρούντων τάξιν, καὶ ἀντὶ πάσης ἑτέρας δὲ ἀρχῆς ταῖς ἐπαρχίαις
ἀρκούντων, καὶ τὰ ἐκ τῶν ἡμετέρων νόμων τό γε ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς ψηφι-
ζομένων, τίς ἂν θαρρήσειεν ἢ φόρου παραγραφῇ ἢ τοιούτῳ τινὶ πρὸς
αὐτοὺς χρήσασθαι ;

CAPUT XAIil.

3 2 \ ‘ a ? ? A a
<IT> ᾿Απαγορεύομεν δὲ καὶ τῷ ἐνδοξοτάτῳ στρατηγῷ τῆς
“Ὁ ᾿ “ “ ξ # 3» BD! λ ὃ #4 aN Av
ω Kal πᾶσι τοῖς ἡμετέροις ἄρχουσιν, ἢ λῃστοδιώκτας ἢ βιοκωλύτας
ἢ ἀφοπλιστὰς ἢ τινας τοιούτους ἐν ταῖς ἐπαρχίαις ἐκπέμπειν. ἤΐστωσαν
‘ a ? θ ‘ 7 ὃ e ~ \ ? A 2 τ λλ
γὰρ οἵ τε γενέσθαι μετὰ τόνδε ἡμῶν τὸν νόμον θαρρήσαντες, ὡς συλληφ-
θέντες παρὰ τῶν ἀρχόντων τῶν ἐπαρχιῶν καὶ δεσμωτήριον οἰκήσουσι
καὶ εἰς ἡμᾶς τοῦ πράγματος μηννυομένου τὸν ἔσχατον ὑποστήσονται
? “A Sao
κίνδυνον" of τε τὰς τοιαύτας αὐτοῖς παραδιδόντες προςτάξεις triginta
librarum aur’ ὑποστήσονται ποινήν, καὶ μείζονος δὲ ἔτι καὶ σφοῦ-
£ ~ 7; A “A ;
ροτέρας ἡμῶν ἀγανακτή- [A σεως πειραθήσονται. Aci τοίνυν τοὺς
“ “κ᾿ > 3 e ~ ,
ἄρχοντας τῶν ἐπαρχιῶν τοσαύτης ἀξιωθέντας παρ᾽ ἡμῶν ἐξουσίας
οὕτω τῷ πράγματι χρῆσθαι, ὡς δικαίως καὶ νομίμως ἅπασιν εἶναι
“a > “ ~ “
φοβερούς, εἰδότας ws, εἰ TH δεδομένῃ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν ἀρχῇ κακῶς καὶ
a ᾽ a > - ? ?
ἀναξίως τῆς ἐπιτραπείσης αὐτοῖς παρ᾽ ἡμῶν παρρησίας χρήσονται,
ὑποκείσονται ταῖς τιμωρίαις αἷς ἔμπροσθεν εἴπομεν, καὶ ἕως τὴν
ἀρχὴν ἔχουσι ταύτας ὑπομένοντες, καὶ ἐπειδὰν αὐτὴν κατάθοιντο,
7 3) f ὃ ? Οὐδὲ ‘ did 3 “A LO
μειζόνων ἔτι πειρώμενοι κινδύνων. Οὐδὲ yap δίδομεν αὐτοῖς ἄδειαν,
πρὶν τὸν νενομισμένον τῶν πεντήκοντα ἡπερῶν πληρώσουσι χρόνον,
“~ 3 ~ Ὁ εν > “A μ)] \ fa =
τῶν ἐπαρχιῶν ὧν ἦρξαν ἀναχωρεῖν ἢ κατὰ πρόφασιν revocatorias
37 3 ? » ‘ ὔ “ δ] \ 2» ¢ ~
[ἤτοι dvaxAjoews] ἢ κατὰ πρόφασιν φυγῆς ἢ κατὰ ἄλλην οἱανοῦν
αἰτίαν" γινώσκουσιν ὡς, καθάπερ ἔμπροσθεν εἰπόντες ἔφθημεν, εἴτε
“᾿Ὰ ξ 7
ἐπὶ ταύτης γένοιντο τῆς εὐδαίμονος πόλεως εἴτε ἐν οἰἱᾳδήποτε χώρᾳ,

165 APPENDIX I

A \ 3 ? 5 3 7 @ S \ e ? a
πρὸς τὴν ἐπαρχίαν αὖθις ἐπαναχθέντες ἧς ἦρξαν ποινὰς ὑφέξουσιν, ἃς
ἔμπροσθεν εἰπόντες ἔφθημεν.

CAPUT XIV.

Tov δὲ ὅρκον δώσουσιν ἐνταῦθα μὲν κατὰ τὸ avw- Ih τέρω ῥηθέν.
Εἰ δέ τισιν ἐν ταῖς ἐπαρχίαις οὖσι πέμποιτο τὰ τῆς ἀρχῆς σύμβολα,
ἐπί τε τοῦ θεοφιλεστάτου ἐπισκόπου τῆς μητροπόλεως καὶ τῶν ἐν
αὐτῇ πρωτευόντων τὸν ὅρκον ὑφέξουσι, καὶ οὕτω τῶν τῆς ἀρχῆς
ἀντιλήψονται πράξεων: δηλαδὴ τῆς offs ὑπεροχῆς προνοούσης τοῦ,
εἴτε ἐπὶ ταύτης τῆς μεγάλης πόλεως ποραλάβοι τις ἀρχήν, εἴτε κατὰ
χώραν αὐτῷ τὰ σύμβολα ταύτης πεμφθείη παρὰ τῆς σῆς ὑπεροχῆς,
αὐτὸν τὸν λαμβάνοντα τὸ ἀσφαλὲς περιποιεῖν τῷ δημοσίω περὶ τῆς
τῶν φόρων ἀμέμπτου εἰςπράξεως, καθάπερ ἂν αὐτὸς καθαρῶς δοκι-
μάσειας. Κείσθω δὲ ὁ νόμος ἡμῖν οὗτος ἐφ᾽ ἅπασι τοῖς τὰς παρ᾽
ἡμῶν ῥητῶς ὀνομασθησομένας ἀρχὰς ἐκ τοῦ παρόντος χρόνου ἀμίσθους
παραληψομένοις. τὰ γὰρ δὴ προειληφότα τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν κειμένοις
ὑποκείσθω νομοις, οὐδεμιᾶς ποινῆς τῶν ἐν τῷδε ἡμῶν τῷ νόμῳ διωρισο-
μένων ἐπικειμένης τοῖς μέχρι νῦν τὰς ἀρχὰς ἔχουσι, πλὴν εἰ μὴ καὶ
αὐτοὶ μετὰ THY ἐμφάνισιν τοῦδε τοῦ νόμου κλέπτοντες ἁλοῖεν.

«᾿ΕπίλογοςΣ". Ταῦτα τοίνυν ἡ σὴ ὑπεροχὴ πάντα μανθάνουσα
ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσι τοῖς ὑποτεταγμένοις φανερὰ παρασκευασάτω
γενέσθαι, κατὰ τὸ νενομισμένον προςτάγμασι χρωμένη πρὸς πάντας
τοὺς τῶν ἐπαρχιῶν ἡγουμένους" ὥςτε αὐτοὺς γινώσκοντας τὴν ἡμετέραν
περὶ τοὺς ὑπηκόους σπουδὴν καὶ ἣν ἔχομεν περὶ τὴν τῶν ἀρχόντων
χειροτονίαν γνώμην, εἰδέναι, πόσων αὐτοῖς ἀγαθῶν μεταδεδώκαμεν,
οὐδὲ τῆς βασιλικῆς θεραπείας διὰ τὴν αὐτῶν εὐδαιμονίαν θεισάμενοι.

Dat, xvu. k. Mai. CP. Belisario v. c. cons. [α. 535].

"Td \ ~ e “-- ~ θ λ 2 3 2? \
LKTOV γραφὲν τοῖς ἁπανταχοῦ γῆς θεοφιλεστάτοις ἐπισκόποις καὶ
ὁσιωτάτοις πατριάρχαις.

κι } te oA 3 “Ὁ ? ? \ > £ 2
Τῆς παραδοθείσης ἡμῖν ἐκ θεοῦ πολιτείας κηδόμενοι καὶ ἐν ἁπάσῃ
δικαιοσύνῃ ζῆν τοὺς ἡμετέρους ὑπηκόους σπεύδοντες, τὸν ὑποτεταγ-
? ? 2 Ό ὃ \ ~ ~ e 7 Ἃ ὃ 3 Σ᾽ “ἃ Ye
μένον νόμον ἐγράψαμεν, ov δὴ τῇ σῇ ὁσιότητι, καὶ δι᾿ αὐτῆς ἅπασι
τοῖς τῆς ἐπαρχίας τῆς offs ποιῆσαι φανερὸν καλῶς ἔχειν ἐνομίσαμεν.
τῆς οὖν σῆς θεοφιλίας καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἐπισκόπων ἔστω ταῦτα παρα-
a b) ) “ a
τηρεῖν, Kal εἴ TL παραβαΐνοιτο Tapa τῶν ἀρχόντων, cis ἡμᾶς μηνύειν,
\ 3 ᾽ οὶ ς ? } 3 “
ὅπως ἂν μὴ τι παροραθείη τῶν ὁσίως τε καὶ δικαίως ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν νομο-
e A “~
θετηθέντων. Ei yap ἡμεῖς μὲν τοὺς ἡμετέρους ὑπηκόους ἐλεοῦντες,

GREEK AND LATIN LEGAL DOCUMENTS 17*

Ὁ 1 oF A ? f > ? \ ? e 2
ὅτι πρὸς τῇ τῶν δημοσίων φόρων ἐκτίσει καὶ μεγάλας ὑπέμενον
“ a 3 “A “Ὰ
ἐκ τῆς τῶν ἀρχόντων κλοπῆς ἀδικίας διὰ τὰς γινομένας τῶν ἐπαρχιῶν
? A “A
πράσεις, ταύτας ἀνελεῖν διὰ τοῦ ὑποτεταγμένου ἐσπεύσαμεν νόμου,
ὑμεῖς δὲ ῥᾳθυμοῦντες μὴ προςαγγείλητε, ἡμῖν μὲν ἀφοσιούσθω τὸ
4 Ἃ ? 3, ¢ “A ‘ 3 ? \ » ἃ ξ A
πρὸς τὸν δεσπότην θεόν, ὑμεῖς δὲ ἀπολογήσεσθε πρὸς αὐτὸν ὑπὲρ
A - 3 3 ? ” \ \ \ an ge A 2) : a
τῆς τῶν ἄλλων ἀδικίας, εἴ τι παρὰ τὸ μὴ μαθεῖν ἡμᾶς βλάβος τοῖς
παρ᾽ ὑμῖν ἀνθρώποις ἐπάγοιτο. ἀλλὰ δεῖ παρόντας ὑμᾶς τῇ χώρᾳ
καὶ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἀγωνιῶντας φανεροὺς ἡμῖν καθιστᾶν
“A σὰ \
καὶ τοὺς ὀρθῶς ἄρχοντας καὶ rods παραβαίνοντας τόνδε ἡμῶν τὸν
νόμον, ὅπως ἂν ἑκατέρους γινώσκοντες τοὺς μὲν κολάζωμεν, τοὺς
\ > ? 3 \ \ ec a , 3 λ ῳ
δὲ ἀμειβώμεθα. ᾿Επειδὰν δὲ 6 νόμος δημοσίᾳ προτεθείη καὶ ἅπασι
2 2 a rN. "ἡ > ; ? ας 2
γένοιτο φανερός, τηνικαῦτα ληφθεὶς ἔνδον ἀποκείσθω ἐν τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ
ἐκκλησίᾳ μετὰ τῶν ἱερῶν σκευῶν, ofa καὶ αὐτὸς ἀνατεθειμένος θεῷ
A 3 “Ὁ 2
καὶ πρὸς σωτηρίαν τῶν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενομένων ἀνθρώπων γεγραμμένος.
2 Si Ay eg AN Ore COLae Bt Pers ,
ποιήσαιτε δὲ ἂν κάλλιον καὶ τοῖς αὐτόθι πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις συμφορώτερον,
ἊΝ >». 3 , ον ; ΠΟΥ, 3 a nA a 8
εἴπερ αὐτὸν ἐγκολάψαντες ἢ σανίσιν ἢ λίθοις ἐν ταῖς στοαῖς τῆς ayiw-
᾿ | lan \ “᾿
τάτης ἐκκλησίας ἀναγράψαντε, πρόχειρον παρεχόμενοι πᾶσι τὴν τῶν
νομοθετηθέντων ἀνάγνωσίν τε καὶ κτῆσιν.

CAPUT I.

Εἰ δὲ τῆς τῶν ἀρχόντων καθαρότητος τοσαύτην ἐθέμεθα πρόνοιαν,
na - - 3 wn
πρόδηλον ws πολλῷ μᾶλλον τοῖς ἐκδίκοις οὐκ ἐφήσομεν οὐδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν
2 λ 2 3» ὃ ὃ ἦ - τ᾿ ὃ ΙΑ ͵ Vo: A ξ \ a 2
οὔτε λαμβάνειν οὔτε διδόναι: δώσουσι μὲν γὰρ ὑπὲρ τῶν παρεχομένων
αὐτοῖς προςταγμάτων ἐν τῷ δικαστηρίῳ τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων,
εἰ μὲν μείζονες αἱ πόλεις εἶεν, solidos quattuor, εἰ δὲ τῶν ἐλαττόνων,
* ᾿ es “~ 3
solidos tres, καὶ πέρα τούτων οὐδέν: λήψονται δὲ οὐδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν παρ
οὐδενός, πλὴν εἰ μή τις ἐκ τοῦ δημοσίου νενομισμένος αὐτοῖς mposin
πόρος" ἢ εἴπερ μηδὲν ἐκ τοῦ δημοσίου λαμβάνοιεν, μηδὲν περαϊτέρω
τῶν τῇ θείᾳ ἡμῶν διηγορευμένων διατάξει κομίζεσθαι. ἐπείτοιγε εἴ
, ς a“ Rd! 3 +, os ξ [ή 3 A 2 “\
τι λαβόντες ἁλοῖεν ἢ αὐτοὶ ἢ οἱ καλούμενοι αὐτῶν χαρτουλάριοι 7
ἕτερός τις τῶν περὶ αὐτούς, ἐκεῖνο τετραπλάσιον ἀποδώσουσιν ὅπερ
ἔλαβον, καὶ τοῦ φροντίσματος ἀπελαθήσονται" καὶ πρός γε καὶ ἐξορίᾳ
διηνεκεῖ ζημιωθέντες καὶ εἰς σῶμα σωφρονισθέντες δώσουσι χώραν
ἀνδράσιν ἀγαθοῖς ἀντὶ κακῶν τοῦ φροντίσματος ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι.
” iy θ δὲ λ 3 5A e “A \ λ ? \ \ “-
σεσθε δὲ καὶ τούτου φύλακες ὑμεῖς, καὶ κωλύντες τὰ παρὰ ταῦτα
γινόμενα καὶ μηνύοντες, ὥςτε μὴ διαλαθεῖν τι. τῶν ἁμαρτανομένων
δὲ 3 les A θ n > 2? εν Ἰλλὰ “ “-’μ > # a \
μηδὲ ἐκ τοῦ λαθεῖν ἀτιμώρητον εἶναι, ἀλλὰ πᾶσαν ἰσότητά τε καὶ
Ὁ “A ὃ ξ
δικαιοσύνην τοῖς ἡμετέροις ὑπηκόοις ἐπανθῆσαι.. Hi δὲ καὶ ot μέχρι
νῦν ἄρχοντες μὴ μετὰ τὴν ἐμφάνισιν τοῦδε τοῦ νόμου πάσης ἀπόσχωντα.

«

1853 APPENDIX I

ton) 7 ‘ \ - 3 “Ὁ lon 2 a ?
κλοπῆς, ἴστωσαν Kal αὐτοὶ ταῖς ἐκ τοῦδε τοῦ νόμου ποιναῖς ὑποκείμενοιι

“ \ \ Ἃ > ?
[τοῦτο τὸ ἴδικτον πρὸς τοὺς ἐπισκόπους.

Dat. xv. k. Mai. CP. Belisario v. c. cons. [a. 535].

°E ? \ κὺ ~ ἰδί K At 3 [ἡ ‘
γράφη τὸ ἶσον τοῦ ἰδίκτον Kwvorartivovmoditais, EYOV OUTWS

Ὅ ξ Ζ “ δ ? Ae A ? δ ? e 9
σὴν ἁπάντων τῶν ὑπηκόων ἐθέμεθα πρόνοιαν, δείκνυσιν ὁ παρ
¢ ἴω 3} λ ? τὰ \ \ \ > δὰ ξ a
ἡμῶν ἔναγχος τεθεὶς νόμος, ὃν δὴ πρὸς τοὺς ἐνδοξοτάτους ἡμῶν
3 ? 3 ? 3 ‘ ~ 7 3 \ e “- 3 Ἃ 99 7
ἐπάρχους ἐγράψαμεν. ἀλλὰ προςῆκόν ἐστι καὶ ὑμᾶς αὐτοὺς εἰδέναι
¢
τὴν ἡμετέραν πρόνοιαν, ἣν περὶ πάντας ἀνθρώπους ἔχομεν. καὶ διὰ
τοῦτο τὸν νόμον αὐτὸν καὶ ἐν ἰδίκτου προτεθείκαμεν σχήματι" ὥςτε
e A “ ? ~ 3 ~ ξ ~ 3 a“ an ?
ὑμᾶς τῷ δεσπότῃ θεῷ Kai σωτῆρι ἡμῶν ᾿]ησοῦ Χριστῷ δικαίως
2 2 va \ ~
ἀναπέμπειν ὕμνους, Kal TH ἡμετέρᾳ βασιλείᾳ, ὅτι πάντα διὰ τὸ ὑμέτερον
ξ
συμφέρον αἱρούμεθα πόνον.
“~ an > “Ὰ οὶ
Ivéois τῆς παρ᾽ ἑκάστης τῶν ὑποτεταγμένων ἀρχῶν ὀφειλούσης
παρέχεσθαι λόγῳ συνηθειῶν ποσότητος, [παρὰ] τῶν τὰς ἀρχὰς ἐχόντων
οὐδενὸς τολμῶντος παρὰ τὰ προγεγραμμένα οὔτε λαβεῖν οὔτε δοῦναί
τι πλέον.

3 ~ lon “Ὅ
1 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ περιβλέπτου κόμητος τῆς ᾿Ανατολῆς οὕτως"
> mn ? e - ᾽ 3
ἐν τῷ θείῳ ἡμῶν κουβουκλείῳ von. ἕγ
τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-
, ΄- “Ὰ
ρίων μετὰ τῶν τεσσάρων σκρινίων τοῦ θείου λατερ-

7 3
κούλου VOM. Vv
an 3 fol B θ ων >
τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ γομ. 7
“Ὁ 4 ἴω 39 2 3 ? ξ \ ?
τῇ τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ mposTay-
9
μᾶτος VOL. π
3 -«« 3 3 “ ἴω
2 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἀνθυπάτου ᾿Ασίας οὕτως" ἐν τῷ θείῳ ἡμῶν
? >
κουβουκλείῳ νομ. &y

τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-
ρίων μετὰ τῶν τεσσάρων σκρινίων τοῦ θείου λατερ-
κούλου VOL. jh
Ὁ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ γο
τῷ αὐτοῦ Bonde hy
“A ? “σ᾿ 3 # > 7 ξ \
τῇ τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ προςταγ-
a
ματος VOL. π'
> \ lo “A
3 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ περιβλέπτου κόμητος Φρυγίας Πακατιανῆς
οὕτως"
A 7 ? \ “~
τοῖς «“περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ
4 t ~ i 3
θείου ἡμῶν κουβουκλείου νομ. θ

GREEK AND LATIN LEGAL DOCUMENTS

“ , “-“
τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-

ρίων νομ. Kd
“ > lo β θ κ᾿ 3
τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ vou. 7
“ ? “ 2 7 > 2 τ \
TH τάξει THY ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ προς-
τάγματος γομ. ν᾽
4 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ περιβλέπτου κόμητος Γαλατίας πρώτης
οὕτως"
“ ? , \ ““΄“" “
τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου
7 3
κουβουκλείου vou. θ
τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τὼν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-
ρίων vou. κδ᾽
ων 3 “ ἴω >
τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ γομ. 7

τῇ τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ προςταγ-

μᾶτος νομ. ν᾽
5. ᾿Απὸ τοῦ βικαρίου τοῦ ωχάκροῦ Τείχους οὕτως: τοῖς

περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου κου-

βουκλείου von θ᾽
τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβοήνων νοτα-
ρίων γομ. KO"
“ 3 “A ἴω 9
τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ vou.

“ “~ 3 id > 3 e \ ?
τῇ Tale. τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ προςτάγ-
3
ματος VOL. μ

Kai ὅσαι ἀρχαὶ ὑπατικαὶ ἤτοι κονσουλάριαι:"

6 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος []]αλαιστίνης πρώτης οὕτως"
τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου

κουβουκλείου γομ. θ᾽

τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-

ρίων vou. Ko”
σὰ 3 on) “ 3

τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ voy. Y

“Ὁ 2 “ 3 ? 3 Ζ ξ \ 7
τῇ τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ προςτάγ-
ματος νομ. μ᾽
7 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος []αλαιστίνης δευτέρας οὕτως"
τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου
, 3
κουβουκλείου vou. θ
τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-

3
ρίων voy. κὃ
τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ vou. γ᾽

; Uber bh ¥

195

20} APPENDIX I

~ Le ~ > ὃ ἕξ ? 3 ? ἐν \ ? =
τῇ τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ mposTay
3
ματος VOM. μ
3 \ ἴον ¥ ) 2 4
8 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος Φοινίκης παράλον οὕτως"
τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου

κουβουκλείου voy. θ᾽

τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων ene γοτα-

ρίων vou. KO
΄' 3 lon ΄“ 3

τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ vou. y

TH τάξει THY ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ προςτάγ-

ματος γομ. μ᾽
9 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος Συρίας δευτέρας οὔτως"

τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου

savages von. θ᾽

τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-

ρίων γομ. KO"
΄ἷὦ 3 δὰ “ >

τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ γομ. Y

τῇ τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ προςτάγ-

ματος γομ. μ᾽
10 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος Θεοδωριάδος οὕτως"

τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου

κουβουκλείου γομ. θ᾽

τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-

ρίων γομ. KO”
΄“" > a “~ 3

τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ vow.

τῇ τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ προστάγ-
ματος γομ. μ᾽
11 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος ᾿Οσροηνῆς οὕτως"
τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου

κουβουκλείου vou. θ᾽

τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-

ρίων γομ. KS”
“ ? ~ ~ >

τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ γομ. Y

δ ? “A 3 “ > δ e \ 3
τῇ τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ προςτάγ-
3
ματος VOL. ph
12 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος Kidixias πρώτης οὕτως"
τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου
? 3
κουβουκλείου voy. θ
τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-
3
ρίων von. Kd
ἴω 3 3 B Ad 3
τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ | vo.

GREEK AND LATIN LEGAL DOCUMENTS

A 2 ~ > ? > 3 e_\ 2
τῇ τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ προςτάγ-

ματος γομ. μ᾽

13 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος Κύπρου οὕτως"
τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου

κουβουκλείου von. θ᾽

τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-

ρίων γομ. KO"
a“ > lox “ 3

τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ vom. y

“ιν ? ~ 3 2 ? ? ς \ #
τῇ τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ προςτάγ-

Paros VOM. μ᾽

14 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος Παμῴυλίας οὕτως"
a“ ? ? \ a“ ?
Tots περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τριδὲ τοῦ θείου

κουβουκλείου γομ. θ᾽

τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάων τριβούνων νοτα-

ρίων voy. Ko”
“~ 3 “a β θῶ 3

τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ vou.

? ΄Ὰ > 4 3 3 ct 3 ?
Τῇ τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ mposTay-

ματος γομ. μ᾽

15 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος Βιθυνίας οὕτως"
τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου

κουβουκλείου von. θ᾽

τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-

ρίων vou. κδ᾽

τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ von. γ᾽
, ηθέ BY

aA _? n°? 2 ») 2 ς- Ἂν 2
ΤΊ) τάξει ΤΩΝ ἐνδοξοτάτων εταρχὼν VITEP TPOSTay~

patos POR. μ᾽

16 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος ᾿λληςπόντου οὕτως"
τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου

κουβουκλείου γνομ. θ᾽

τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-

ρίων γομ. KO"

τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ ν ᾿
on BG op.

TH LE L ὃν 3 ὃ Eo 2 3 2 ν ς \ oO 7 =
ἢ τάξει τῶν EVOOSOTATWY ἐπάρχων ὑπερ TposTay

ματος γομ. μ᾽

17 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος Δυδίας οὕτως"
τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου

κουβουκλείου νομ. θ᾽

τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-

ίων νομ. KO.
ρ μ

21"

22. APPENDIX I

“~ 3 “ ~ 3
τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ vou. y
~ 2 ἴω > “ 3 7 φ \ td
τῇ τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ προςτάγ-
μᾶτος vo. μ᾽
18 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος Φρυγίας σαλουταρίας οὕτως"
τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου

κουβουκλείου von. θ᾽

τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτατων τριβούνων νοτα-

ρίων vop. KO’
Ὁ αὐτοῦ β νθῶ ν :

τῷ αὐτοῦ βονθῷ ομ.γ

τῇ τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ προςτάγ-

ματος νομ. μ᾽
19 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος {Πισιδίας οὕτως"

τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου

κουβουκλείου von. θ᾽

τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-

ρίων γομ. KO.
“' 3 “. β θῶ 3

τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ vou. 7

ron ? ων > Ζ > δ t \ ?
TH τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ προςτάγ-
3
ματος γομ. μ
3 \ ~ OF ) va
20 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος “υκαονίας οὕτως"
“ 7 ? \ “A ?
τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου

3
κουβουκλείου vou. θ
τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-
3
ρίων γομ. κὃ
“ > ~ β θ “ 3
τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ γομ. 7

a (ξει A 25 ἕ 2 3...ὄ ἢ ει ἃ ΠΕΡ
ΤῊ Τὰ τῶν EVOOCOTATWY ETAPKWY VITEP TPOSTay
3

ματος γομ.μ
21 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος Νέας ᾿]Ιουστινιανῆς οὕτως

a # , \ a ?
Tots περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου

κουβουκλείου vou. θ᾽

τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νυτα-

ρίων vo. KO"
“ + lan β θ ἴω 9

τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ voy.

TH τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ mposTay-

ματος VOL. μ
22 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος ᾿Αρμενίας δευτέρας οὕτως"

τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου

κουβουκλείου voy. θ᾽

GREEK AND LATIN LEGAL DOCUMENTS

τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-

᾽ 3
ρίων γομ. KO

wn 3 ~ β θ “- 3
τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ vom. γ᾽

on / “~ > # > 7 τ \ ?
τῇ τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ προστάγ-

μᾶτος vou. μ᾽

23 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος ᾿Αρμενίας μεγάλης οὕτως"
τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου

κουβουκλείου γομ.. θ᾽

τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-

ρίων γομ. KO.
΄' 5 ~ β θ wn 3

τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ voy. ¥

fond “ “ 3 ? 3 ? e \ ?
τῇ τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ TposTay-

ματος VOM. μ᾽

24 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος Καππαδοκίας πρώτης οὔτως"

a 2 , ᾿ a ?
τοις περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις TPplol TOV θείου

κουβουκλείου vou. θ᾽

τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-

ρίων γομ. KO"
“ 3 A “- 2

τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ vo. Y

“ Le ΜᾺ 3 ὃ ἕξ ? 3 2 e ἑ id 2
TH τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ προςτὰγ

ματος γομ. μ᾽

25 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος Καππαδοκίας δευτέρας οὕτως"
τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου

κουβουκλείου γομ. θ᾽

τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-

ρίων voy. KO"

τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ vou. γ᾽
οηθέ Bey

“ ? “ 3 ? ? ? ¢ \ ?
TH τάξει TOV ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ TposTay-

ματος VOR. μ᾽

26 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος ᾿λενοπόντου οὕτως"
τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου

κουβουκλείου γομ. θ᾽
τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-

ρίων γομ. KO”
et 3 “a θ σι 9
τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ VOU. Y

κι ; a ? ὔ > ἢ εν ?
ΤΊ) τάξει Ty ἐνδοξοτάτων ETTAPXWY VITEP προςταγ-

μᾶτος voy. μ᾽

27 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος Εὐρώπης οὕτως"
τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου

κουβουκλείου von. θ᾽

20 Ὁ

24 APPENDIX I

ἴω ? “
τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-

? 3
ρίων γομ. κὃ
- 3 lon “A 3
τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ voy. KO

τῇ τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ mposTay-

ματος νομ. μ᾽
28 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος Θράκης οὕτως"

τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου

3
κουβουκλείου γομ. θ
τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-
ρίων γομ. KO
“Ὁ 3 A β θ “ 3
τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ γομ.γ

τῇ τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ προςτάγ-

μᾶτος νομ. μ᾽
29 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος ᾿οδόπης οὕτως"

τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου

3
κουβουκλείου vop. θ
τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-
ρίων von. κδ᾽
“~ ? “A β θ “A 3
τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ voy. 7

τῇ τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ προςτάγ-

ματος VOW. μ᾽
30 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος Αϊμιμόντου οὕτως"

τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου

κουβουκλείου νομ. θ᾽

τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τὼν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-

ρίων γομ. Ko”
“, 3 “A “A 3

τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ γομ.γ

τῇ τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ προςταγ-

ματος | vo. μ᾽
31 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος Καρίας οὕτως"

τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου

κουβουκλείου γομ. θ᾽

τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-

ρίων νομ. Kd"
~ 3 fo. Fon’ >

τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ vou. Y

Fond 2 ~ 3 2 3 e Ἃ ?

TH τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ προςτάγ-
ϑ
ματος γομ.μ

32 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος Avxias οὕτως"

τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου
᾽ 3
κουβουκλείου vop. θ

GREEK AND LATIN. LEGAL DOCUMENTS 25*

τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-

Σ 7 3
: ρίων νομ. KO
ἴων 3 lon β θ ἴω : ; ; ᾿ 3
τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ γομ. Y
“ 4 Fant 3 2 3 2 iy \ : 2
τῇ τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ προςτάγ-
3
ματος VOL. μ

33 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος Αὐγουσταμνικῆς πρώτης οὕτως"
τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου

κουβουκλείου νομ. θ᾽

τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-

pilav γομ. KO’

τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ .. -. ER ὡς Soe οὐ τὰ gig 3
Ἑ 7) τ ᾿ : : ΝΣ fs γ

a“ 7 “ 3 3 3 2 : e oA Seto 7
τῇ τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ προστάγ-
. . 3
ματος λει εν DOM Bb

Καὶ ὅσαι ἀρχαὶ ἡγεμονικαὶ ἤτοι correctoria::

34 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος “ιβύης τῆς ἄνω οὕτως"
τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου

κουβουκλειου γομ. θ᾽
τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-

ρίων VO. te
τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ PO. γ᾽
τῇ τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ προςτάγ-

ματος voy. As”

35 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος Αἰγύπτου πρώτης οὕτως"
τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου
κουρουκλξιοῦ pop. θ᾽
τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν “λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-
ρίων γομ. κέ
τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ κα vow. γ᾽
ΗΝ πο Ἄν 2. : 4 3. “2 ¢ 4 eee
τῇ τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ TposTay-
. ; ἥ ᾿ 3
ματος vop. ἃς
36 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος Αἰγύπτου δευτέρας οὕτως" |
τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου
κουβουκλείον von. θ᾽
τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-
᾿ "3
pla vo. te
᾿ ᾿ κὰ 9 fo a ates ?
᾿ τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ ᾿ vO. 7

208 APPENDIX I

TH τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ προςτάγ-

ματος γνομ.. As’
37 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος Αὐγυσταμνικῆς δευτέρας οὕτως"

τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου

κουβουκλείου νομ. θ᾽
“ } ἴω

τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-

ρίων VOM. Le
ἴω > “~ β θ “. 3

τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ von.

TH τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ TposTay-

ματος vop. As”
38 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος “Παλαιστίνης τρίτης οὕτως"

τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου

κουβουκλείου vou. θ᾽
an , “A

τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-

ρίων VOL. Le

τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ ν ;
; NS al

TH τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ προςτάγ-

ματος νομ. As”
39 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος ᾿Αραβίας οὕτως"

τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου

κουβουκλείου von. θ᾽

τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-

ρίων vou. le
σκιὰ 3 los ΩΝ 3

τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ γομ.γ

τῇ τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ προςταγ-

ματος γομ.. As’
40 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος Βυφρατησίας οὕτως"

τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου

κουβουκλείου von. θ᾽
τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-
? 3
ρίων VOL. τε
ἴω ? “~ β \ θ ἴω 3
τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ vom.

lon ? ~ 3 3 3 é ς \ ?
τῇ τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ mposTay-
>
ματος voy. As
3 “
41 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος Μεσοποταμίας οὕτως"
τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαπτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου
? 3
κουβουκλείου vo. θ
τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-
τίων γνομ.. Le
΄ 3 “a B Ad 3
τῷ αὐτοῖ βοηθῷ γομ.γ

GREEK AND LATIN LEGAL DOCUMENTS

τῇ τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ TposTay-

ματος voy. As”
42 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος Κιλικίας δευτέρας οὕτως"

τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαπτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου

κουβουκλείου vow. θ᾽

τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-

ρίων VOL. τε
~ > a B A a 3

τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ vo. 7

τῇ τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ προςτάγ-

ματος vou. As”
43 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος *Apyevias πρώτης οὕτως"

τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου

3
κουβουκλείου γομ. θ
τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-
ρίων vou. Le
ᾧ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ vou. γ᾽
ΤΟΣ σῷ BY

τῇ τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ προςτάγ-

ματος γομ.. As’
44 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος Γαλατίας δευτέρας οὕτως"

τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θεΐου

3
κουβουκλείου νομ. θ
τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-
ρίων γνομ.. Le
τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ vou. γ᾽
% 1 ι ade 7

τῇ τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ προςτάγ-

ματος von. As”
45 °Ano τοῦ ἄρχοντος ‘Ovwpiddos οὕτως"

τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου

3
κουβουκλείου νομ. θ
n “ #
τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-
3
ρίων VOL. τε
“ 2 fon ~ >
τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ νομ. γ᾽

ων é ~ ? 2 3 7 e \ 7
τῇ τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ προςτάγ-
3
ματος von. As
3 \ am Ψ a 4
46 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος τῶν Νησων οὕτως"
A lo ?
τοῖς περιβλέπτοις γαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου
, 3
κουβουκλείου vou. θ
τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-
ρίων γομ.. Le
Ὁ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ vou. γ᾽
τῷ αὖτ οηὔᾳ ΡΣ

28* APPENDIX I

TH τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ mposTay-

ματος vo. As’
47 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος Mucias δευτέρας οὕτως"

τοῖς περιβλέπτοις γαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου

κουβουκλείου vou. θ᾽

τῷ πριμικηρίῳ᾽ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-

ρίων VoL. te
n 3 a B θ ἴα ἶ ᾿

τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ vom. 7
on ? “~ 3 2 3 2 e \ ὃ

τῇ τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ προςτάγ-

ματος vou. As’

48 ᾿Απὸ τοῦ ἄρχοντος Σκυθίας οὕτως"
τοῖς περιβλέπτοις χαρτουλαρίοις τρισὶ τοῦ θείου

κουβουκλείου νομ. θ᾽
“A ? a

τῷ πριμικηρίῳ τῶν λαμπροτάτων τριβούνων νοτα-

ρίων VOL. LE
a 2 lo β θ ἴω 3

τῷ αὐτοῦ βοηθῷ vo. ¥
“A 3 ~ 3 , ? 3 ? a! ?

τῇ τάξει τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων ὑπὲρ mposTay-

ματος γνομ.. As’

49 Ilapa δὲ ἑκάστης πόλεως ἐκδίκου, εἰ μὲν εἴη μητροπολίτης,
ὑπὲρ προςτάγματος εἰς τὰ τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτων ἐπάρχων δίδοσθαι vopio-
δ᾽ 3 δὲ TAA Δ “- > \ ? 3 4 390 ἃ
para δ᾽, εἰ δὲ ἄλλης πόλεῶς, vow. γ᾽" καὶ πέρα τούτων μηδέν. οὐδὲ
B) ‘ 3 ? ἃ. 7 “a 3) 30. λ ςΦ “) : ‘ δ
γὰρ τοὺς ἐκδίκους οὗτε διδόναι τοῖς ἄρχουσιν οὐδὲ ἑτέρῳ τινὶ οὔτε
λαμβάνειν. βουλόμεθα, πλὴν εἰ μή τινες εἰσὶν αὐτοῖς ἐκ τοῦ δημοσίου
παρεχόμεναι συνήθειαι" εἰδότων αὐτῶν ὡς, εἰ μηνυθείΐη τῷ ἡμετέρῳ
κράτει περί τινος αὐτῶν, ὡς παραβαΐνοι τὰ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν θεσπισθέντα,
καὶ ὅπερ ἂν λάβοι quadruplum ἀποδιωύσει, καὶ τῆς φροντίδος παρα-
λυθεὶς ἐξορίαν οἰκήσει διηνεκῆ ὁπότε καὶ ot τῶν ἐπαρχιῶν ἄρχοντες,
> : Ω
εἰ τούτου παραμελήσειαν καὶ τοὺς ἐκδίκους περιΐδοιεν κλέπτοντας,
οὐκ ἐλάττονα καὶ αὐτοὶ ποινὴν ὑποστήσονται.

Dat, xvii. Κ. Mai. CP. Belisario <v.e¢.> cons. [α. 535).

GREEK AND LATIN LEGAL DOCUMENTS 29*

Hi. Novetia XX 5
De admimstrantibus offices in sacris appelationibus

ΠΕΡῚ ΤΩΝ YIHPETOYMENQN O@@IKIQN EN ΤΟΙ͂Σ
AAKPOIX ΤΩΝ EKKAATON.

Ὅ 5 ἃ λ \ °T ? “A 3 ὃ ? 3 ? ἴω ξ “~
αὐτὸς βασιλεὺς ᾿Ιωάννῃ τῷ ἐνδοξοτάτω ἐπάρχῳ τῶν ἱερῶν
praetoriwy τὸ β᾽, ἀπὸ ὑπάτων καὶ πατρικίῳ.

«Προοίμιον). ᾿Πδη μὲν θεῖον ἐποιησάμεθα νόμον περὶ τῶν ἐφέσεων
διαλεγόμενον, τίναι χρῇ παραφυλάττεσθαι τρόπον ἐπ᾽ αὐταῖς, καὶ
id 3 , ? \ 3 7 is) ᾽ \ \ e \
ὅθεν εἰς τίνας φέρεσθαι Tas ἐκκλήτους" ὃν πρός τε THY σὴν ὑπεροχὴν

δὲ \ 3 7 ξ “- 3, ᾽ 3 Ἁ
πρός τε τὸν ἐνδοξότατον ἡμῶν κατεπέμψαμεν κοιαίστωρα. ᾿πειδὴ

“ ?
δὲ πολλὴ γέγονεν ἀμφισβήτησις περὶ τῶν ὑπηρετουμένων ταύταις
ὀφφικίων, τῶν μὲν ἐκ τοῦ θείου τῶν ἐπιστολῶν oxpiviov τὰς τῶν
spectabiliwy δικαστῶν οἰκειουμένων ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλήτοις ὑπηρεσίας,
τῶν δε ἐκ τοῦ θρόνου τῆς σῆς ὑπεροχῆς μέγιστα δηλούντων ἠδικῆσθαι,
εἰ μεταβεβλημένου τοῦ σχήματος οὐκέτι μόνοι ταῖς ἐκκλήτοις ὑπηρετή-
σουσι ταῖς ἀπὸ τῶν λαμπρουάτων τῶν ἐπαρχιῶν ἀρχόντων ἐρχομέναις
εἰς μόνον τὸ σὸν δικαστήριον, καθάπερ πρότερον ἦν ἡνικὰ ἐν θείῳ

\ \ ? δ “}» ? e “A δὲ ξ ? g 2 Ἰλλὰ
μὲν καὶ αὖτος ἠκροῶ δικαστηρίῳ, ὑπηρετεῖτο δὲ ἡ τάξις ἡ σή, ἀλλὰ
διὰ τὸ τῶν σπεκταβιλίων σχῆμα ἐν τάξει θείου ἀκροατηρίου τῆς
ὑποθέσεως κινουμένης, καὶ συνακροωμένου τῇ σῇ ὑπεροχῇ καὶ τοῦ
ἐνδοξοτάτουν ἡμῶν κοιαίστωρος, καὶ ἑκατέρου μέρους τὸ πᾶν οἰκειου-

3 ~ ~ onl “~
μένου, Kal συναχθέντων παρά τε TH σῇ ὑπεροχῇ καὶ τῶν ἐνδοξοτάτῳ
ἡμῶν κοιαίστωρι πολλάκις τῶν τε ἐκ THY θείων σκρινίων, οἵπερ ταῖς
ἐφέσεσιν ὑπηρετοῦνται, τῶν τε ἐκ τῆς τάξεως τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ cod:

2 \ “". 3 2 ξ la
τέλος εἴς τινα τύπον TO πρᾶγμα περιέστη, ὃν ἀγράφως εἰς ἡμᾶς Hyayere.

\ “ \ A ξ Aa 3 ? \ δέ \ 3) λ 7
τὸ πρᾶγμα δὲ Kal ἡμῖν οὐκ ἀπὸ τρόπου γεγονὸς ἔδοξε. Καὶ τέως,
3 a 7 \ ¢ 7 Ζ 7 > 2) ᾿
ἐπειδήπερ IladAayovia καὶ ‘Ovwpias, διηρημέναι πρότερον εἰς ἄρχοντας

> ? ay “A ?

δύο, εἰς ἕνα Kal τὸν αὐτὸν περιέστησαν TO τοῦ πραΐίτωρος ὄνομα

, “» 3 2 bd \ “Ὁ “A ΄“. 2
προςλαβόντα, τοῦτο ἀναμφισβητήτως ἔδοξε τὸ σχῆμα τῇ σῇ προςήκειν
3 “a T > \ de Δ. ἃ “ \ ὃ ? Πό a ‘EX 7
ἀρχῇ. Ταὐτὸ δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ποτὲ δύο ]ΠΠ]Πόντων, τουτέστιν ᾿ βλενοπόντου

\ 4 los 3 “A \ ? 2 37)

τε καὶ ]]όντου ]ολεμωνιακοῦ" κἀκεῖσε γὰρ δύο καθεστώτων ἔμπροσθεν
ἀρχόντων, νῦν δὲ ἑνὸς τοῦ μοδεράτωρος γεγονότος, κεκοσμημένου
καὶ αὐτοῦ τῇ τῶν περιβλέπτων ἄξιᾳ, πάλιν ταῦτα συνέβαινε καὶ εἰς

Ἂ ‘ / ? ? \ > \ “~ > ? ?
TO σὸν μόνον δικαστήριον φέρεσθαι τὰς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐκκλήτων δίκας
ἐχρῆν, κατὰ μέντοι τοὺς ὅπους τῆς περὶ τῶν ἐκκλήτων διατάξεως.

5 CJC, 6th ed. Ili, pp. 140 sqq.

30* APPENDIX I

a]

CAPUT I

? Ld A fos “A -

Συνήρεσε τοίνυν ἅμα μὲν τοῖς ὑπουργοῦσιν ἑκατέρᾳ τῶν ἀρχῶν,
vd A t A 3 Ff \ / +, tf A 3 ~ a v \
ἅμα δὲ ὑμῖν ἀμφοτέροις, Kal πρός ye καὶ ἡμῖν ὀρθῶς ἔδοξεν ἔχειν τὸ
παραστὰν ἡμῖν, ὥστε μόνην τὴν τάξιν τῆς σῆς ὑπεροχῆς ταῖς τοιαύταις.

ta) > 3 Ἃ

ὑπηρετεῖν ἐκκλήτοις, καθάπερ καὶ πρότερον ἦν, εἰ καὶ ἐν σχήματι
θείου ἀκροατηρίου λέγοιτο καὶ παρείη καὶ ὁ ἐνδοξότατος ἡμῶν κοιαίστωρ
καὶ μετέχοι τῶν πραττομένων.

CAPUT II

᾿Αλλ Ἅ > 7 e ~ ? Ki ὃ , ξ ? ra
a μὴν ἐπείπερ ὁ THs πρώτης Καππαδοκίας ἡγούμενος πρότερον
εἰς τὴν σὴν ἀρχὴν ἑώρα μόνην κἀκεῖσε τὸ τῶν ἐφέσεων ἐφέρετο, νῦν
δὲ > Ἅ »,.Ἤ λέ 3 A 2 ? λ “Ὁ ὃ
ἐ εἰς τὸ τοῦ περιβλέπτου ἀνθυπάτου μεταβέβληται σχῆμα, οὐδεν
ἧττον προςῆκόν ἐστι, καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἐκείνης ἔφεσιν δεχομένης καὶ
3 a “a ~
ἀναπεμπομένης τῆς δίκης ἐνταῦθα, κατὰ τὴν θείαν ἡμῶν διάταξιν
ἐν τάξει θείου ἀκροατηρίου αὐτὴν ἀγωνίζεσθαι, συνόντος καὶ τοῦ
“A 7 A ?
ἐνδοξοτάτου ἡμῶν κοιαίστωρος και ovvaKpowpevov THs ὑποθέσεως,
μόνης δὲ τῆς τάξεως ὑπηρετουμένης τῆς σῆς, ἐπειδὴ καὶ πρότερον
τοῦτο ἐνενόμιστο. Hi yap καὶ ὁ περίβλεπτος κόμης τῶν οἰκιῶν συνα-
γνεμίχθη νῦν τῇ ἀρχῇ, ἀλλ᾽ οὖν οὔτε πρότερον πολλαΐ τινες ἐκινοῦντο
3 “- lo ~ 3
δίκαι παρ᾽ αὐτῷ οὔτε ἐκ τοῦ δικαστηρίου τοῦ Kat adtov ἐφέρετό
Ἁ 3, 3 “- ~ ‘ ‘ \ ‘ \ ‘ ‘
τις σχεδὸν ἔφεσις ἐνταῦθα. viv δὲ δὴ Kal τὰ περὶ τὰς ταμιακὰς διοι-
κήσεις καὶ ἑτέροις τισὶ παρεδώκαμεν, καὶ οὐ δεῖ παρὰ τοῦτο ἐλατ-
“Ὁ \ \ ? > 3 e 2 Ἁ \ e “ 2
τωθῆναι τὸν σὸν θρόνον, ἀλλ᾽ ὁμοίως τὴν σὴν ὑπηρετεῖσθαι τάξιν
μόνην ταῖς ἐνταῦθα φερομέναις ὑποθέσεσι.

CAPUT Τ|1

Ταὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ τῆς “Appevias ἀνθυπάτου, ἐπειδὴ

, 3 Ἁ > ἃ 3 , 2’ 2 - 3
πρότερον ἀρχὴν αὐτὴν ὀρδιναρίαν [ἔμβαθμον] ποιήσαντες νῦν οὐδεν
αὐτῇ προςθέντες εἰς τὸ τῆς ἀνθυπατείας μετηγάγομεν σχῆμα. Kat
γὰρ δὴ καὶ ταὶς ἐκεῖθεν δίκαις ἡ τῆς σῆς ὑπεροχῆς ὑπηρετήσεται
τάξις, τῆς δίκης μὲν ἐν τάξει θείου ἀκροατηρίου, καθάπερ εἰπόντες
# Fg 9 3 2 \ δ΄ A 3 ? δῶ
ἔφθημεν, κινουμένης, παρ᾽ ἀμφοτέροις δὲ ὑμῖν ἐξεταζομένης οὐδὲν
δὲ ἧττον τῆς τάξεως σῆς ὑπηρετουμένης τῷ πράγματι, καθάπερ καὶ
πρότερον ἦν, ἡνίκα μόνον τὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς τῆς καλουμένης ὀρδιναρίας
εἶχε σχῆμα μείζονα τάξιν οὐ προςλαβοῦνα.

CAPUT IV

| >
᾿Επειδὴ δὲ καὶ Aveaoviay καὶ Πισιδίαν καὶ ᾿Ισαυρίαν ὑπὸ ἄρχουσι
πρότερον τεταγμένας καὶ τὰς ἐκκλήτους ἀναπεμπούσας εἰς τὸν θρόνον

GREEK AND LATIN LEGAL DOCUMENTS 31*

an on “᾿ 9 “ "

τὸν σὸν νυνὶ κοσμηθῆναι τῇ τῶν πραιτώρων ἀρχῇ συμβέβηκεν (ei
καὶ δοκεῖ πως συναναμεμίχθαι τις αὐτῇ καὶ στρατιωτικὴ τάξις ἐπειδὴ

id \ \ > 393 ξ a μή 3 a > > ,ὔ
πρότερον καὶ δοὺξ ἐφ᾽ ἑκάστης τούτων ἐπαρχίας ἦν), ἀναγκαίως
toa 2) 3 ὃ \ \ \ fo) ? δὲ “᾿ θ ra “A \
ἡμῖν ἔχειν ἔδοξε διὰ τὸν καινισμὸν τοῦτον μόνῳ δὴ τῷ θρόνῳ σῷ καὶ
τῷ ἐνδοξοτάτῳ κοιαίστωρι παραδοῦναι τὴν τῶν ἐφέσεων ἐξέτασιν,
δοῦναι δὲ φιλανθρωπότερον τῇ τάξει τῇ σῇ καὶ τοῖς ἐπὶ τούτῳ πρατ-
τομένοις ὑπηρετεῖσθαι. ὥστε, εἴ τι γέγονε τοιοῦτον ἔμπροσθεν ἢ καὶ
ὕστερον γένηται, τὴν αὐτὴν τῷ πράγματι τάξιν ὑπεῖναι θεσπίζομεν.

CAPUT V

a \ \ ? A “- 5. 32 Ἃ ~ 2 ~ ἬΝ ? “~
πειδὴ δὲ δύο καθαρῶς ἦσαν ἀρχαὶ τοῦ τε κόμητος THs “Hwas τοῦ
3 > A ~ 7 7 \ ς \ “ ων
τε ἄρχοντος αὐτῆς τῆς πρώτης Ζυρίας, καὶ αἱ μὲν τῆς πολιτικῆς
ταύτης ἀρχῆς ἐφέσεις εἰς τὸν σὸν ἐφέροντο θρόνον, τῆς τάξεως ὑπηρετ-
“κ᾿ ~ e lon os ξ Ὡ
οὔσης μόνης τῆς σῆς, αἱ δὲ τοῦ κόμητος τῆς ᾿Βώας, οἷα σπεκταβιλίου,
κατὰ τὸ τῶν θείων ἐκροατηρίων σχῆμα εἴς τε τὸν θρόνον τὸν σὸν
37 \ 3 ? ? ? “~ 7 ?
εἴς Te τὸν ἐνδοξότατον κοαίστωρα, μόνων τῶν θείων oxpr (VI) νίων
ὑπηρετουμένων" ἄλλα τοῦτο *** ἐν τούτῳ τῷ μέρει καλῶς ἡμῖν ἔδοξεν
ἔχειν ἐπὶ ταύτης δὴ τῆς ἀρχῆς κοινὴν δοῦναι τὴν ὑπουργίαν τοῖς τε ἐκ τοῦ
- ? a A “A a “A “"Ἅ
τῶν θείων ἐπιστολῶν σκρινίου τοῖς τε ἐκ τῆς τάξεως τῆς σῆς ὑπεροχῆς. Τὸ
\ \ “A 2 2 ? “~ on 7A “σιν
γὰρ δὴ τῶν πρόσθεν δύο βικαρίων τε Ποντικῆς τῆς τε ᾿Α΄σιανῆς παν-
τελῶς καινισθὲν καὶ εἰς τὴν ἀρχὴν μόνης ἐπαρχίας μιᾶς μεταστάν,
ΙΓ λ , \ Ἃ ? “A ? \ ? Ἃ
ἀλατίας φαμὲν καὶ Φρυγίας ΠΙακατιανῆς, φοιτάτω μὲν πρός τε τὴν
σὴν ὑπεροχὴν πρός τε τὸν ἐνδοξότατον κοιαίστωρα, μόνην δὲ τὴν
ὑπηρεσίαν δεχέσθω τῆς τάξεως τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ σοῦ.

CAPUT VII

3 a ? , Ό > ἃ 7 AY ~ > “ἷ “᾿
Κἀκεῖνο μέντοι θεσπίζομεν, ὥστε ἐπὶ τούτων δὴ τῶν ἀρχῶν τῶν
- > wn ~ ~ A ry
viv παρ᾽ ἡμῶν ἐξευρεθεισῶν καὶ μεταβαλουσῶν τὸ ἀρχαῖον σχῆμα,
εἴτε αὐτόθεν κατὰ τὴν φύσιν τῆς οἰκείας δικάσαιεν ἀρχῆς εἴτε καὶ
font ¢ nm
ἐκ παραπομπῆς ἡμετέρας, ταὐτο φυλάττεσθαι σχῆμα: καὶ ἔνθα μόνην
ξ “A ‘ ? “ο ΄σὰ δ wn 3 ἢ e¢ ?
ὑπηρετεῖν THY τάξιν τῆς σῆς ὕπερο (VIII) γῆς ἐθεσπίσαμεν, ὁμοίως
[εἴτε ἐκ παραπομπῆς εἴτε ἐκ τῆς τοῦ δικαστηρίου φύσεως ἡ ἔφεσις
a “AO ΩΝ 7 “a on’ 4 font et “an 8 ~ >] ? θ ?
ἀνέλθοι, THY τάξιν THs σῆς ὑπεροχῆς ὑπηρετεῖσθαι ταῖς ἐφέσεσι θεσπίζο-
3} 3 “A ~ 3, Font
μεν, εἴτε ἐκ παραπομπῆς ἡμετέ (IX) pas, ὁμοίως τῆς τάξεως ἔσται τῆς
Font 5 3 κυ \ 3 ‘ ln’ a 2 ?
σῆς. “Lid οἷς τε κοινὴν εἴπομεν THY τε τῶν <ody> τάξεων τὴν τε
~ 3
ἐκ τῶν θείων σκρινίων ὑπουργίαν, ὁμοίως τὴν κοινότητα φυλάττομεν,
~ 3 wn ?
εἴτε ἐκ παραπομπῆς εἴτε κατὰ TO τεταγμένον ἐν TH δικαστηρίῳ
3 “nw Ρ] 3 ww -
γένοιτο τὰ τῆς ἐξετάσεως. “Hi ἐκείνων μέντοι τῶν δικῶν, ἃς οὐ σπεκτα-
Δ ὃ \ ? LAAQ ? ? >] 3 “ἶ >] 7 A}
βίλιοι δικασταὶ κρίνουσιν, ἀλλὰ συνήγοροι μόνον, ἐφ᾽ ὧν ἐφέρετο τὰ

32* APPENDIX I

~ e ‘a 3 \ ? ‘ \ » \ ? 7 ξ “-
τῆς ὑποθέσεως εἴς τε τὸν θρόνον τὸν σὸν εἴς τε τὸν ἐνδοξότατον ἡμῶν
΄' 2 a
κοιαίστωρα, τῶν καθωσιωμένων λιβελλησίων ὑπηρετουμένων αὐταῖς,
3 \ \ “A 2) \ 7 ? \ \ ἢ
ἐπειδὴ μηδὲν παντελῶς ἐπὶ ταύταις κεκαίνισται, τὸ παλαιὸν φυλάττομεν
σχῆμα. ὥςπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων τῶν οὐ καινισθέντων τὰ
“» “ὦ 3 a ?
τῆς παλαιᾶς ὑπουργίας μένειν ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν διατάττομεν, οὐδενὸς νεωτέρου
γενομένου. ὁ γὰρ ἐπισυμβὰς καινισμὸς ἀλλοῖον πως χρῆναι γενέσθαι
Ἁ “- ~
Kal TO τῶν ὑπουργούντων ὑπέδειξε σχῆμα.
9 aA los “-
<"“Emidoyos>. Ta τοίνυν παραστάντα ἡμῖν καὶ διὰ τοῦδε τοῦ
; ¢ A
θείου δηλούμενα νόμου ἡ σὴ ὑπεροχὴ ἔργῳ Kal πέρατι παραδοῦναι
σπευσάτω.

Dat. xv. k. April. Constantinopoli post cons. Belisari v.c. [α. 536]

F, Novetia X XI 8

De Armenvis ut vpsi per omnia sequantur romanorum leges

KA
ΠΕΡῚ APMENIQN QTE KAI AYTOYX EN ITAXI
ΤΟΙ͂Σ PQMAIQN AKOAOY@EIN ΝΟΜΟΙ͂Σ.

Ὃ αὐτὸς βασιλεὺς “Axaxiw τῷ μεγαλοπρεπεστάτῳ ἀνθυπάτῳ Appevias.

} A

<IIpooiuiov>. Τὴν ᾿Αρμενίων χώραν τελείως εὐνομεῖσθαι βουλό-
\ \ “Ὰ LAA ξ ~ 2 λ ? > “A ξ ae
μενοι Kal μηδὲν τῆς ἄλλης ἡμῶν διεστάναι πολιτείας ἀρχαῖς Te ‘“Pwyai-
Kats ἐκοσμήσαμεν, τῶν προτέρων αὐτὴν ἀπαλλάξαντες ὀνομάτων,
σχήμασί τε χρῆσθαι τοῖς “Ρωμαίων συνειθίσαμεν, θεσμούς τε οὐκ
3 Ὄ 3 ? A av a g A ? > 2 \
ἄλλους εἶναι παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἢ οὖς ‘Pwyator νομίζουσιν ἐτάξαμεν. Kai
φήθημεν χρῆναι ῥητῷ νόμῳ κἀκεῖνο ἐπανορθῶσαι τὸ κακῶς παρ᾽
αὐτοῖς ἁμαρτανόμενον, καὶ μὴ κατὰ τὸ βαρβαρικὸν ἔθος ἀνδρῶν μὲν

4 a) \ “~ ? ~ 3 οὶ “. 3 /
εἶναι Tas διαδοχὰς τῶν τε γονέων τῶν τε ἀδελφῶν τοῦ τε ἄλλου γένους,
γυναικῶν δὲ οὐκ ἔτι, μηδὲ χωρὶς προικὸς αὐτὰς εἰς ἀνδρὸς φοιτᾶν

3 3 ων an “

μηδὲ ἀγοράζεσθαι παρὰ τῶν συνοικεῖν μελλόντων, τοῦτο ὅπερ Bap-
βαρικώτερον μέχρι τοῦ νῦν παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐνομίσθη" οὐκ αὐτῶν μόνων

lo 9 ? ? 3 \ \ ξ ? 3 ἴω a 3
ταῦτα ἀγριώτερον δοξασάντων, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἑτέρων ἐθνῶν οὕτως ἀτιμα-
3 \ 7 \ 4 BAA / ξ > \ 8 ~
σάντων τὴν φύσιν καὶ τὸ θῆλυ περιυβρισάντων, ws οὐ mapa θεοῦ

56. CJC, 6th ed., ITI, pp. 144 sqq.

GREEK AND LATIN LEGAL DOCUMENTS 33*

; a - >
γενόμενον οὐδὲ. συντελοῦν τῇ yeveovovpylia, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς εὐτελές τε Kal
2 2 \ 2 2) on) ? “
ἠτιμασμένον καὶ πάσης ἔξω προςῆκον καθεστάναι τιμῆς.

CAPUT I.

} I \ A ΄- ) 2 ° \ \
Θεσπίζομεν τοίνυν διὰ τοῦδε τοῦ θείου νόμου, ὥςτε Kal παρὰ
3 ra) 3 - “» “A
Appeviows τὰ αὐτὰ κρατεῖν ἅπερ Kal παρ᾽ ἡμῖν προφάσει τῆς τῶν
θ λ A ὃ ὃ “ \ ὃ fd 3 ὃ ‘ 3 ? \ A A }
ηλειῶν διαδοχῆς, καὶ μηδεμίαν εἴναι διαφορὰν ἄρρενός τε καὶ θηλείας.
3 3 A . a “A
AdW’ ὥςπερ ἐν τοῖς ἡμετέροις νόμοις τέτακται, κατὰ ποῖον μὲν σχῆμα.
κληρονομοῦσι γονεῖς, ἤγουν πατέρα καὶ μητέρα, καὶ πάππον καὶ
, ‘ \ 3 7 aX 4 Ἁ 3 2 é ?
μάμμην, καὶ τοὺς ἔτι πορρωτέρω, ἢ καὶ τοὺς μετ᾽ αὐτούς, τουτέστιν
υἱὸν καὶ θυγατέρα, ὅπως τε αὐτοὶ κληρονομοῦνται" οὕτως καὶ παρὰ
7A ? i ‘ δὲ N 7A ? ? : “᾿ Ῥ ’ ὃ
ρμενίοις εἶναι καὶ μηδὲν τὰ ᾿Αρμενίας νόμιμα τῶν Ῥωμαίων διεσ-
2 Re \ “Ὁ ς᾽ ΄. λ ? > \ ὃ : A 2 ? ct oA Ἃ
τάναι. i γὰρ τῆς ἡμετέρας πολιτείας εἰσὶ δουλεύουσί τε ἡμῖν μετὰ
“- 3 20 A ‘ ? 3 λ 2 ~ ξ ͵ > δὴ
τῶν ἄλλων ἐθνῶν καὶ πάντων ἀπολαύουσι τῶν ἡμετέρων, οὐ δήπου
? 3 3 “Ὁ ξ ἦλ a > ξ A > 2 ? λ θὴ
μόναι παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς αἱ θήλειαι τῆς παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἰσότητος ἐκβληθήσονται"
ἀλλὰ πᾶσιν ἐν ἴσῳ τὰ τῶν ἡμετέρων ἔσται νόμων, ὅσα τε ἐκ τῶν
παλαιῶν συνηθροίσαμεν καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἡμετέροις ἐτάξαμεν ἱνστιτούτοις
τε καὶ διγέστοις ὅσα τε ἐκ τῆς βασιλικῆς νομοθεσίας τῶν τε ἔμπροσθεν
δ ct “ “A
αὐτοκρατόρων καὶ ἡμῶν [re] αὐτῶν ἀπογέγραπται.

CAPUT II.

Ταῦτα τοίνυν ἅπαντα κρατεῖν eis τὸν ἅπαντα θεσπίζομεν χρόνον,
ἀρχόμενα ἐκ προοιμίων τῆς παρούσης τεσσαρεςκαιδεκάτης ἐπινεμήσεως
καὶ αὐτῆς, καθ᾽ ἣν τόνδε γράφομεν τὸν νόμον. τὸ γὰρ καὶ τὰ παλαιότερα
περιεργάσασθαι καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἄνω χρόνους ἀνελθεῖν συγχύσεως
μᾶλλον ἢ νομοθεσίας ἐστίν: GAN’ ἐκ τῶν χρόνων, καθάπερ εἰπόντες
ἔφθημεν, τῆς παρούσης τεσσαρεςκαιδεκάτης ἐπινεμήσεως καὶ αὐτῆς
καὶ κατὰ τὸν ἑξῆς ἅπαντα χρόνον αἱ διαδοχαὶ μενέτωσαν ὅμοιαι,
τῶν ἐκ πάσης αἰτίας εἰς διαδοχὰς φερομένων ὁμοίως μὲν ἐπὶ γυναικῶν,
ὁμοίως δὲ ἐπὶ ἀνδρῶν τοῦ λοιποῦ φυλαττομένων. Τὸ δὲ ἔμπροσθεν
γενόμενον ἅπαν μένειν ἐπὶ τοῦ προτέρου σχήματος ἐῶμεν, εἴτε ἐπὶ
γενεαρχικῶν εἴτε ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων γέγονεν, οὐδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν ἐπικοινωνούντων
τῶν᾽ δηλῶν προ ΠΡ ἐπὶ τοῖς ἤδη διανεμηθεῖσι γερεσιάρχιυκοῖς
ΧΏΡιθις 7 ταῖς γενομέναις διαδοχαῖς μέχρι τῆς τριβκαιδεκάτης ἐ ἐπινεμ-
ἤσεως καὶ αὐτὴν ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ ῥηθέντος Χρόνου, τουτέστιν ἀπὸ τεσσαρες-
καιδεκάτης ἐπινεμήσεως, κρατεῖν τὰ παρ᾽ ὙΌΣ vopobernBévra
θεσπίζομεν.

«- ἘπίλογοςΣ"». Τὰ τοίνυν παραστάντα ἡμῖν καὶ διὰ τοῦδε τοῦ

34* APPENDIX I

θείου δηλούμενα νόμου ἡ σὴ μεγαλοπρέπεια Kal οἱ pet αὐτὴς τῆς
ἀρχῆς ἀντιληψόμενοι παραφυλάττειν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς σπουδασάτωσαν.

Dat. xv. k. Apmil. CP. post cons. Belisarii v. c. [α. 536]

G. Novetta XXX]?
De disposiivone quatiuor admimstrationum Armeniae
AA
ITEPI AIATYTQXLEQZ ΤΩΝ ΤΕΣΣΆΡΩΝ APXONTQN
APMENIAX.

Ὅ ? \ A \ ia ? “ 3 ὃ 7 ? 2 ΄΄ο ξ Fon’ “a
αὐτὸς βασιλεὺς ᾿Ιωάννῃ τῷ ἐνδοξοτάτῳ ἐπάρχῳ τῶν ἱερῶν THs
ΤῊ ; i 3 3 \ e ? \ ,
ω πραιτωριων ΤΌ β » ATTO ὑπάτων KAL TAT PLKlL@.

? ‘ é , > 5 / ? \ \
<IIpooiwwov>. Ta μάτην κείμενα καὶ ἐκκεχυμένως εἰ πρὸς τὴν
3 “Ὁ

προςήκουσαν ἀφίκοιτο τάξιν καὶ διατεθείη καλῶς, ἕτερά τε <av>
> > 4 # \ ? , , 3 2 >? > ?
ἀνθ᾽ ἐτέρων τὰ πράγματα φαΐνοιτο καλλίω τε ἐκ χειρόνων ἐξ ἀκόσμων
τε κεκοσμημένα διηρθρωμένα τε καὶ διακεκριμένα ἐκ τῶν ἔμπροσθεν
3 “~ a >
ἀτάκτων TE Kal συγκεχυμένων. Τοῦτο καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ᾿Αρμενίων χώρας
ἁμαρτανόμενον εὐρόντες φήθημεν χρῆναι πρὸς μίαν ἁρμονίαν τάξαι
αυτὴν, καὶ ἐκ τῆς εὐταξίας ἰσχύν τε αὐτῇ δοῦναι τὴν προςήκουσαν
τάξιν τε ἐπιθεῖναι τὴν πρέπουσαν.

CAPUT I.

Τοιγαροῦν τέσσαρας εἶναι πεποιήκαμεν “Apuevias: τὴν μὲν ἐνδοτάτην,
ἧς ἡ μητρόπολις τῇ τῆς εὐσεβοῦς ἡμῶν προςηγορίας ἐπωνυμίᾳ κατακε-
κόσμηται πρότερον Balavis ἦτοι “εοντόπολις καλουμένη, ἥνπερ καὶ
ἀνθυπατείᾳ τετιμήκαμεν, ἧς “Axdxios προέστηκεν ὁ μεγαλοπρεπέστα-
τος, σπεκιαβιλίαν τε ἀποφήναντες τὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ πάντα δόντες αὐτῇ
ὁπόσα προςῆκόν ἐστιν ἀνθυπατείαν ἔχειν" στολῇ τε yap αὐτῆν κατε-
κοσμήσαμεν ἀνθυπάτου καὶ πάντα ἀκόλουθα τούτοις ἔχειν διετυπώσα-
μεν. καὶ πόλεις αὐτῇ δεδώκαμεν Θεοδοσιούπολίν τε, ἣν καὶ πρότερον
εἶχε, Σάταλάν τε καὶ Νικόπολιν καὶ Κολώνειαν ἐκ τῆς πρώην πρώτης
᾿Αρμενίας καλουμένης λαβόντες, Τραπεζοῦντά τε καὶ Κερασοῦντα
ἐκ ΠΙῚόντου τοῦ πρώην Π]ολεμωνιακοῦ καλουμένου, χωρίσαντες αὐτῶν
τὰς μὲν τοῦ λαμπροτάτου τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἄρχοντος τὰς δὲ τοῦ περιβλέπτου
μοδεράτωρος, emma τε πόλεσι τὴν ὅλην ἐπαρχίαν περιστήσαντες καὶ
ὁπόσα τῆς περιοικίδος ἐστὶν αὐτῶν.

7 Οὐ, 6th ed., III, pp. 235 sqq.

GREEK AND LATIN LEGAL DOCUMENTS 35*

# \ > Ζ 3 ἢ Ἁ 27 ,
1 Δευτέραν δὲ ἐτάξαμεν ᾿Αρμενίαν τὴν ἔμπροσθεν πρώτην καλου-
μένην. ἧς ἡγεῖται Σεβάστεια, πόλεις αὐτῇ προςνείμαντες τὴν τε τῶν
Σεβαστοπολιτῶν ἣν καὶ πρότερον εἶχε, καὶ πρός γε όμανά τε ἐκ
τοῦ καλουμένου πρώην ΠΠΙολεμωνιακοῦ ΠΠὄντου καὶ Ζήλαν ἐκ τοῦ
ς A é ‘ \ Ἀ Β ὔ a 2 ? SA >
Ἐλενοπόντου, καὶ μὴν καὶ Βρίσαν, ὥςτε ἐν πέντε πόλεσιν εἶναι
τὴν ἐπαρχίαν ταύτην, καὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἡγεμονίαν οὖσαν καταλιπόντες
ἐπὶ τοῦ προτέρου σχήματος καὶ τὸν ἄρχοντα αὐτῆς οὐδενὶ
κοσμήσαντες ὀνόματι μείζονι, ἀλλ᾽ ὃ πρότερον εἶχε τοῦτο αὐτῷ
7 3 ‘ # ? 3 ? 2
2 καταλιπόντες. “Ent τούτοις τε τρίτην ᾿Αρμενίαν κατεστησάμεθα
δ 2 ? a A ‘ ? 5 ? a
τὴν πρότερον δευτέραν, ἧς ynyetrar ελιτηνὴ πόλις ἀρχαία, πόλις
ἐπίσημος, ἐν καλῷ τε γῆς καὶ ἀέρος κειμένη καὶ οὐδὲ πόρρω διεστῶσα
τῶν τοῦ Εὐφράτου ῥευμάτων. ταύτην φήθημεν δεῖν κατὰ τὸ παρὸν
αὐξῆσαι καὶ εἰς τὸ τῶν σπεκταβιλίων μεταστῆσαι σχῆμα, τόν τε
> “a “A
ἄρχοντα ταύτης ᾿Ιουστινιανὸν ὀνομάσαι κόμητα, δοῦναί τε αὐτῷ καὶ
ὑπὲρ σιτήσεων solidos septingentos καὶ τῷ γε αὐτοῦ παρέδρῳ
- a A ~ 3 »-ς 7 φ .Φ
solidos septuaginta duo καὶ τῇ γε αὐτοῦ τάξει solidos sexaginta
ἅπαντά τε ἔχειν ὁπόσα τῶν τοιούτων ἐστὶν ἴδια θρόνων. τούς τε
πρώην ὀνομαζομένους ταξεώτας πάντα μὲν πράττειν ὁπόσα καὶ
37 ἃ ? \ Ἅ ? 2) 3 δ Ὅ
ἔμπροσθεν, καὶ μάλιστα περὶ τὴν δημοσίαν εἴςπραξιν ἠσχολῆσθαι,
εἰς δὲ τὴν τῶν κομιτιανῶν προςηγορίαν μεταβαλεῖν, πάντων αὐτοῖς
4 3 ς ξ ? ἴω 2 7
οὕτω φυλαττομένων ὡς ἡνίκα ταξεῶται καθεστήκεσαν. LléAas
\ ξ ? 2 A lan 3 3 \ mM ? ley
δὲ ὑπεκλίναμεν αὐτῇ τοῦτο μέν “Apxay καὶ "Αραβισσόν, τοῦτο
δὲ ᾿Αριαράθειανν καὶ Κόμανα ἑτέραν {καλοῦσι δὲ αὐτὴν καὶ
lon \ ? [4] \ é S 3 μι δὲ
Χρυσῆν) καὶ Κουκουσόν, ἃς καὶ πρότερον εἶχεν ἐν ἐξ πόλεσι
οὶ 3
3 συνεστῶσα. δΣυνεστησάμεθα δὲ καὶ τετάρτην ᾿Αρμενίαν, 7
πρότερον οὐκ εἰς ἐπαρχίας συνέκειτο σχῆμα, ἀλλὰ τῶν τε ἐθνῶν ἣν
\ ? ? ᾽ “ ? ? Ζ
καὶ ἐκ διαφόρων συνείλεκτο βαρβαρικῶν ὀνομάτων, Τζοφανηνή τε
Ἵ 3 k)
καὶ ᾿Ανζητηνὴ ἢ Τζοφηνὴ καὶ ᾿Ασθιανηνὴ, 7) καὶ Βαλαβιτηνὴ καλουμένη
καὶ ὑπὸ σατράπαις οὖσα" ἀρχῆς δὲ τοῦτο ὄνομα ἦν οὐδὲ “Ῥωμαϊκὸν
29 \ “~ ct 7 ? > > 3 ξ΄ #? ? 3 2
οὐδὲ τῶν ἡμετέρων προγόνων, ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ ἑτέρας πολιτείας εἰςενηνεγμένον.
3 “A a 7
κακαείνην τοίνυν ἀρχῆς πολιτικῆς ἐκοσμήσαμεν σχήματι, ἄρχοντά τε
πολιτικὸν ἐγκαταστήσαντες καὶ πόλιν τε αὐτῇ τὴν τῶν αρτυρο-
πολιτῶν καὶ τὸ Κιθαριζὸν δόντες φρούριον" καὶ αὐτὴ δὲ ἐν τῷ τῶν
“ , ~
ὀρδιναρίων ἀρχῶν κατέστη σχήματι KovoovAapia παρ᾽ ἡμῶν γενομένη.
ὥςτε τεσσάρων ᾿Αρμενιῶν οὐσῶν δύο μὲν εἶναι σπεκταβιλίας, τήν
ol fo 3 \
τε τοῦ ἀνθυπάτου τὴν τε τοῦ κόμητος, καὶ ἀνθύπατον μὲν εἶναι τὸν
aA \ “~
τῆς πρώτης ἡγούμενον “Appevias. κόμητα δὲ τὸν τῆς τρίτης, τὸν δὲ
τῆς δευτέρας καὶ τετάρτης ὀρδιναρίους καθεστάναι. Καὶ ἐπειδήπερ
τοῦτο ἡμῖν διεσπούδασται, ὥςτε τὰς ἄχρι τῶν πεντακοσίων νομισ-

36* APPENDIX I

2 3 λ ? > \ \ 7 2 θ \ ὃ 7,
μάτων ἐκκλήτους οὐχὶ πρὸς ταύτην φέρεσθαι τὴν εὐδαίμονα πόλιν,
ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τοὺς σύνεγγυς σπεκταβιλίους ἄρχοντας, καὶ τοῦτο διατυποῦμεν,

σι “A 3 , 2 nN >
wsTe τῷ μὲν ἄρχοντι THs πρώτης ᾿Αρμενίας, τουτέστι τῷ ἀνθυπάτῳ,

Ἂ 3 “ἈΝ 2 3 , 3 7 2 ? \

τὰς ἐκ τῆς δευτέρας “Apyevias ἐκκλήτους φέρεσθαι, τουτέστι τὰς

‘ > ? ~ δὲ “Ὁ ? "A ? ? “~ λ ΜΝ, λ
κατὰ Σιεβάστειαν, τῷ δὲ τῆς τρίτης ᾿Αρμενίας κόμητι, τῷ κατὰ ΜΜελιτην-
ἦν φαμεν, τὰς ἐκ τῆς τετάρτης ᾿Αρμενίας ἐκκλήτους μέχρι τοῦ ῥηθέντος
ἀνήκειν ποσοῦ.

CAPUT II.

- ? “A

Τούτων τοίνυν οὕτως ἡμῖν διατεταγμένων κἀκεῖνο προςδιορίσαι

? 37 4 3373 aS Κι Fon’ , ? 3 ¥
δίκαιον ἔτι νομίζομεν, ἐφ᾽ @ προστῆσαι τῆς τρίτης “Appevias ἄνδρα
σεμνον, ὑπουργηκότα τε ἡμῖν ἤδη καὶ ἄξιον τοῦ τῆς ἀρχῆς ὄγκου καὶ
προσχήματος. ύρόντες τοίνυν Θωμᾶν τὸν μεγαλοπρεπέστατον ἤδη

\ 2 9 > ἃ “᾿ °A i 3 2 4 ‘ TNA \ +
μὲν ἀρχάς ἐπὶ τῆς ᾿Αρμενίων ἀνύσαντα χώρας, Kat τἄλλα δὲ ἄνδρα
χρηστὸν καὶ γνησίως ἡμῖν ὑπηρετησάμενόν τε καὶ ὑπηρετούμενον,

ns lo > σι
αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τῇ τῆς ἀρχῆς ταύτης προβαλλόμεθα διοικήσει, ὥςτε τέως
“- , a nan fon “A
μὲν τῆς ἐπαρχίας ταύτης ἡγεῖσθαι κατὰ τὸ ῥηθὲν ἡμῖν σχῆμα, προνοεῖν
δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὁπόσα ἂν αὐτῷ [ἢ] διὰ θείων ἐπιτρέψαιμεν com-
5 bd in A ἴω
monitoriwy εἴτε ἐπὶ τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἣν αὐτῷ παραδεδώκαμεν εἴτε
3 a
Kat ἐπ᾽ ἄλλαις: ὅπερ Kal πεπράχαμεν θεῖα πρὸς αὐτὸν πεποιημένοι
: ed \ “~ \ ἢ ? 7 > 4
commonitorla περὶ πολλῶν καὶ διαφόρων πράξεων, ἅπερ αὐτὸν
“Ὁ 3 3 a
καὶ εἰς ἑτέρας χώρας προςῆκόν 1 ἐστιν εἰς ἔργον ἀγαγεῖν. Ta μέντοι
περὶ τὰς ἱερωσύνας, καθὰ πολλάκις εἰρήκαμεν, μένειν κατὰ τὸ
πρότερον βουλόμεθα σχῆμα, οὐδὲν οὔτε περὶ τὸ μητροπολιτικὸν
\ “

δίκαιον οὔτε περὶ Tas χειροτονίας Tod πράγματος ἀμειβομένου ἢ
καινιζομένου, ἀλλὰ τῶν πρότερον χειροτονούντων καὶ νῦν ἐχόντων
τὴν τῆς χειροτονίας ἐξουσίαν, καὶ τῶν προτέρων μητροπολιτῶν ἐπὶ

“"» “ 3 ras “᾿
τῆς ἑαυτῶν μενόντων τάξεως, ὥςτε μηδὲν τό γε ἐπ᾽ αὐταῖς καινισθῆναι.

CAPUT Τῇ.

ὟἪἜ “A Ζ ~ > A 7 3 2 ξ 3 δή \
κεῖνο μέντοι τῶν ἀνωμολογημένων ἐστίν, ws ἐπειδήπερ τὸν
a ? \
τῆς τρίτης “Apyevias κόμητα od πολιτικὸν μόνον, ἀλλὰ Kal στρατιω-
τικὸν πεποιήκαμεν ἄρχοντα, ἀναγκαίως ἔχειν καὶ τοὺς στρατιώτας
“ \ τ “ } \
αὐτῷ τοὺς κατ᾽ αὐτὴν ἱδρυμένους ὑποκεῖσθαι, ἄδειαν ἔχοντι, καθὰ
τοῖς στρατιωτικοῖς ἄρχουσιν ἐφεῖται, καὶ πρὸς ὄνομα καλεῖν αὐτοὺς
Ἃ 3 a a ~ “~ “A
Kal ἐπιζητεῖν καὶ προνοεῖν τῶν σιτήσεων αὐτῶν καὶ ἐπεξιέναι τοῖς
3 > “A \ A “A
κατ᾽ αὐτούς, εἴπερ ἀδικοῖεν, καὶ μή TL συγχωρεῖν τοῖς στρατιώταις
3 - ᾺἋ e ? ? \ ? ? \ 3 A
; Ἢ
ἀδικεῖν τοὺς ὑπηκόους, εἰ δὲ τι πράξαιεν σφοδρότερον, καὶ ἐγκλὴη
ἴω Fa) “᾿ 3 ἴω 7 ‘
ματικῶν ἀκροᾶσθαι δικῶν, κἂν εἰ στρατιῶται καθεστήκοιεν, Kal

GREEK AND LATIN LEGAL DOCUMENTS 37*

ἅπαντα πράττειν ὁπόσα τοῖς στρατιωτικοῖς δεδώκαμεν ἄρχουσιν.

“ > “ “n a )
καὶ ὥςπερ τῷ τε ᾿Ισαυρίας κόμητι τῷ τῆς ΠΙακατιανῆς Φρυγίας καὶ
ή A 7 A ; ‘ Il δὲ \ @ a \ \
πρός γε τοῖς πραίτωρσι Avxaovias τε καὶ {Πισιδίας καὶ Θράκης καὶ τὸ
στρατιωτικὸν ὑπεκλίναμεν, οὔτω καὶ αὐτῷ μὴ μόνην εἶναι τὴν τῶν

ο \ “ οὶ
πολιτικῶν πραγμάτων τάξιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν τῶν στρατιωτικῶν ἐξουσίαν
τε καὶ ἀρχὴν, καὶ εἶναι σεμνὸν αὐτὸν στρατιώταις τε καὶ ἰδιώταις
la “a 2 ro

κελεύοντα Kal πάντα πράττοντα, ὡς μιᾶς δὴ τῆς ἀρχῆς καθεστώσης"
καὶ μίαν τίθεσθαι πρόνοιαν τοῦ μηδὲν ἔγκλημα κατὰ τὴν ἐπαρχίαν

ς δ 3 \ \ A e SAA - 2
ἁμαρτάνεσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ σωφρονισμοῖς ὑποβάλλεσθαι τοῖς προςήκουσι.
2 \ \ a 3 7 > > δὰ ἴω > Ἃ > 3
ταύτης δὲ δὴ τῆς ἐξουσίας οὐκ ἀφαιρούμεθα παντελῶς αὐτὸν ἐπ
οὐδενὶ προςώπῳ τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἐπαρχίαν ὄντων, εἴτε ἰδιωτικῷ εἴτε
στρατιωτικῷ εἴτε ταμειακῷ" μίαν γὰρ καὶ συνεχῆ τὴν εἰρήνην ἐν
nA e 7 a ¢ ? ? 3 3 ὦ
ἅπασι τοῖς ὑπηκόοις τοῖς ἡμετέροις φυλάττεσθαι βουλόμεθα, οὐ τῇ
διαφορᾷ τῶν προςώπων τὴν κατὰ τῶν νόμων εἰςάγοντες καταφρόνησιν.
9 ͵ - ἈἍ 2 ? ξ oA ξ \ ξ \ \
<°Emidoyos>. Ta τοίνυν παραστάντα ἡμῖν ἡ σὴ ὑπεροχὴ κατὰ

“ ? aA
τὴν τῶν τεσσάρων ᾿Αρμενιῶν διατύπωσιν, καὶ μάλιστα κατὰ τὴν
~ a Fal ?

τῆς τρίτης, ἧς κατὰ πρόφασιν τὸν παρόντα θεῖον ἐποιήσαμεν νόμον,
νῦν τε καὶ εἰς τὸν ἑξῆς ἅπαντα χρόνον φυλάττεσθαι σπευσάτω, πάντων
πραττομένων καὶ ἐγγραφομένων ταῖς μερικαῖς διατυπώσεσι τῶν

e Fd “Ὅ “A Cow 7 > 9 # 2
ὁμοθρόνων τῶν σῶν, ὁπόσα δίδοσθαι καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ἔτος προςετάξαμεν.

Dat. xv. k. April. CP. post consul. Belisarii v.c. [α. 536] (8)

| H. Epictum 119

De Armeniorum successtone

de
ΠΕΡῚ ΤΗΣ ΤΩΝ APMENIQN ΔΙΑΔΟΧΗ͂Σ.
«Ὁ αὐτὸς βασιλευς ...>.

«- Προοίμιον:». Kai ᾿Αρμενίους βουλόμεθα τῆς προτέρας ἀπαλλά-
ἕαντες ἀδικίας ἐπὶ τοὶς ἡμετέρους διὰ πάντων ἀγαγεῖν νόμους καὶ
δοῦναι αὐτοῖς ἰσότητα τὴν πρέπουσαν.

CAPUT I.

Kat ἐπειδὴ μεμαθήκαμεν ἔναγχος βαρβαρικόν τινα καὶ θρασὺν
εἶναι παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς νόμον οὐ Ῥωμαίοις οὐδὲ τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ τῆς ἡμετέρας
πρέποντα πολιτείας, ὅπως ἂν ἄῤῥενες μὲν κληρονομοῖεν τῶν γονέων,

8 Cf. Chapter I, n. 2, for Adontz’s objection to this version of the text which is,

however, adopted by Honigmann, Osigrenze, pp. 7-9.
9 CJC, 6th ed., 111, pp. 760-761.

38* APPENDIX I

? \ 7 \ “-- 3 ἴω 2 ὔ f
θήλειαι δὲ μηκέτι, διὰ τοῦτο θεσπίζομεν τῷ παρόντι θείῳ χρώμενοι
νόμῳ πρὸς τὴν σὴν μεγαλοπρέπειαν, ὁμοίας εἶναι τὰς διαδοχὰς

A “~ ?
Kat ὅσα τοῖς Ῥωμαίων διατέτακται νόμοις ἐπί τε ἀνδρῶν ἐπί τε
γυναικῶν, ταῦτα καὶ ἐν ᾿Αρμενίᾳ κρατεῖν. διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ δὴ καὶ
τοὺς ἡμετέρους ἐκεῖσε κατεπέμψαμεν νόμους, ἵνα εἰς αὐτοὺς ἀφο-
1 ρῶντες οὕτω πολιτεύοιντο. ᾿Β'πειδὴ δὲ τὰ ἤδη προειληφότα
ἅπαντα ἀνακινεῖν τῶν ἀτοπωτάτων ἐστί, διὰ τοῦτο θεσπίζομεν τόνδε
τὸν νόμον κρατεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ καιροῦ τῆς εὐσεβοῦς ἡμῶν βασιλείας,
ὥστε τὰς τῶν ἐξ ἐκείνου τελευτησάντων μέχρι νῦν διαδοχὰς κατὰ
τοῦτον πολιτεύεσθαι τὸν τρόπον, πλὴν εἰ μὴ ἔτυχον διαλυσάμενοι
nv 2) Ἃ 2 a 3 “ > 2 ἴων ?
ἢ ἄλλως πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἀπαλλαγέντες. εἰ yap τι τοιοῦτον γέγονε,
τοῦτο ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκείας μένειν 2 ἰσχύος καὶ μηδαμῶς ἀνακινεῖσθαι
θεσπίζομεν. Meréyew δὲ αὐτὰς καὶ τῶν καλουμένων γενεαρχικῶν
χωρίων ἀπὸ τοῦ εἰρημένου χρόνου βουλόμεθα. εἰ μέντοι συμβαίη

κι 3
τινὰς εὑρεθῆναι, οἵπερ καίτοι μὴ καλουμένας τὰς θυγατέρας εἰς τὴν
> 2 \ 2} Ὁ ? ? \ “a
ἐξ ἀδιαθέτου διαδοχὴν ἔγραψαν ὅμως κληρονόμους, μετείγαι Kal τοῖς
ἐξ αὐτῶν γενομένοις τῆς τῶν γενεαρχικῶν πραγμάτων διαδοχῆς.

«᾿Επίλογος". Τὰ τοίνυν παραστάντα ἡμῖν καὶ διὰ τοῦδε τοῦ
θ ? A a ¢ \ ς \ \ Ad ‘ #
εἰου δηλούμενα νόμου ἡ σὴ ὑπεροχὴ Kal παραφυλάξαι καὶ πέρατι

“ ξ
παραδοῦναι σπευσάτω, ὥςτε τοὺς ἡμετέρους νόμους διὰ παντων
κρατεῖν και εἶναι κυρίους ἀρχομένου μὲν τοῦ παρόντος νόμου, καθάπερ
~ nw 2 ᾽ “
εἰπόντες ἔφθημεν, ἐκ τῶν προοιμίων τῆς ἡμετέρας βασιλείας, τῷ
παντὶ δὲ συμπαραταθησομένου χρόνῳ καὶ εἰς τὸ λοιπὸν ἅπασι πολι-
τευσομένου τρόποις καὶ παρὰ πάντων φυλαχθησομένου.

Dat. X. kal, Aug. Belisario v. c. cons. [α. 535}.

Il, GREEK AND LATIN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS

A, ΝΟΤΙΤΊΙΑ DIGNITATUM 1

1. Notitra dignitatum ommium tam civilium quam militarvum, in partibus

> oD

28.
30.
32.
38.
42,
44.
46.
47,
49,
50.
79.
86.
90.
92,
93.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.

Orientis

. Praefectus praetorio Orientis ...
. Magistri equitum et peditum in praesenti duo.

Equitum ac peditum per Orientem ...
Comes Orientis ...
Uicaru quatuor : ...

Ponticae ...
Duces tredecim : ...

Per Orientem sex : ...
Eufratensis et Syniae ...
Osrhoenae.
Mesopotamiae ...

Per Ponticam unus :
Armeniae ...

Praesides XL: ...

Per Orientem VIII: ...
Hufratensis ...
Osrhoenae.
Mesopotamiae ...

Per Ponticam VIII:
Hononiados.
Cappadociae primae.
Cappadociae secundae.
Helenoponti.

Ponti Polemoniaci.
Armeniae primae.
Armeniae secundae.
Galatiae salutaris ...

1 Not. dig., pp. 1 sqq.

405 APPENDIX II

1%. [Praefectus praetorio per Orientem|]

μω

. Sub dispositione uirz illustris ρυϑοίθουυ praetorio per Orientem
sunt dioceses infrascriptae :

2 Oriens ..,

5 Pontica ...

7. Prouinciae :

8 Orientis quindecim :

9. Palaestina.
10. Foenice.
11. Syria.
12. Cilicia.
13. Cyprus.
14, Arabia [et dux et comes rei militaris)
15. Jsauria.
16. Palaestina salutaris.
11. Palaestina secunda.
18. Foenice Libani.
19. EKufratensis.
20. Syria salutaris.
21. Osrhoena.
22. Mesopotamia,
23. Cilicia secunda ...
41. Ponticae decem :
42. Galatia.
43. Bithynia.
44, Honorias.
45. Cappadocia prima.
46. Cappadocia secunda.
417. Pontus Polemoniacus.
48. Helenopontus.
49. Armenia prima.
50. Armenia secunda.
δ1. Galatia salutaris ...

vv. Magister mhium praesenialis II

26. Sub dispositione uiri ilustris magistri militum praesentalis :

GREEK AND LATIN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS 41:

27. Uexillationes palatimae sex :
31. Comites sagittari Armeni ...

on. Magister malitum per Orientem

23, Sub dispositione uiri ilustris magistri militum per Orientem : ...

48, Item [Legiones] pseudocomitatenses ΧΙ]:
49, Prima Armeniaca,

50. Secunda Armeniaca ...

58. Transtigritani ...

ax. Comes Orientis

17, Sub dispositione win spectabilis comitis Orientis prouinciae

infrascriptae :
18. Palaestina.
19. Foenice.
20. Syria.
21. Cyprus.
22. Ciheia.
23. Palaestina secunda.
2A. Palaestina salutaris.
25. Foenice Libani.
26. Eufratensis.
21. Syria salutaris,
28. Osrhoena.
29. Mesopotamia.
30. Cilicia secunda.
31. Isaunia.
32. Arabia ...

χαν. Urearrus droceseos Pontieae.

14, Sub dispositione uiri spectabilis uicarii dioceseos Ponticae
prouinciae infrascriptae :

15. Bithynia.
16. Galatia.
17. Paflagonia.

18. Honorias,

42 | APPENDIX II

19. Galatia salutaris.

20. Cappadocia prima.
21. Cappadocia secunda.
22. Helenopontus.

23, Pontus Polemoniacus,
24. Armenia prima.

25. Armenia secunda ...

cxvin. Comes limitrs Aegyptr

13. Sub dispositione uinl spectabils comitis rei militaris per Aegyp-

Tum, :...
22. Ala secunda Armeniorum, Oasi minore.
φαχυϊλῖ. Dux Armeniae
FL Auaxa
INTALL.
ΠΟΎΘΗΙ Castellum
PR.
Sabbu Domana Siluanis
Castellum Castellum Castellum
Apolhnaris Melhitena Trapezunta
Castellum Castellum Castellum

Colore
caeruleo mare
andacatur

10. Sub dispositione uiri spectabilis ducis Armeniae :
11. Liquites sagittari, Sabbu.
12. Equites sagittaru, Domana.

18,
14,
15.
16.

17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
21.
28.
29.
90.

ol.
92.
33.
34.
3D.
36.
37.
38.

39

GREEK AND LATIN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS 43*

Praefectus legionis quintadecimae Apollinaris, Satala.
Praefectus legionis duodecimae fulminaiae, Melitena.

In Ponto:

Praefectus legionis primae Ponticae, Trapezunta.

Ala Rizena, Aladaleariza.
Ala Theodosiana, apud Auaxam.
Ala felix Theodosiana, Siluanis.

Kit quae de minore laterculo emituntur :

Ala prima Augusta Colonorum, Chiaca.

Ala Auriana, Dascusa.

Ala prima Ulpia Dacorum, Suissa.

Ala secunda Gallorum, Aehana.

Ala castello Tablariensi constituta.

Ala prima praetoria nuper constituta.
Cohors tertia Ulpia miharia Petraeorum, Metita.
Cohors quarta Raetorum, Analiba.
Cohors milzaria Bosporiana, Arauraca.
Cohors miliaria Germanorum, Sisila.

Ala prima Iouta felix, Chaszanenica.

Ala prima felix Theodosiana, Pithiae.
Cohors prima Theodosiana, Ualentia.
Cohors Apuleva ciuium Romanorum, Ysiporto.
Cohors prima Lepidiana, Caene-Parembole.
Cohors prima Claudia equitata, Sebastepolis.
Cohors secunda Ualentiniana, Ziganne
Cohors, Mochora.

. Officium autem habet ita :
40.
41.
42.
48.
44.
48.

Principem de scola agentum in rebus.
Numerarios et adiutores eorum.
Commentariensem.

Adiutorem.

A libellis siue subscribendarium.
Exceptores et ceteros officiales.

46. Dux Armeniae VII 2.

2 Cf. Mommsen, Verzeichniss, Bury, ‘“‘ The Notitia dignitatum’”’, JRS, X (1922),
and Jones, LAE, 11, pp. 1417 sqq.

44% APPENDIX ID

B. LATERCULUS UERONENSIS 8

Nomina proumeiarum ommum

2. Diocensis Orientis habet prouincias numero XVIII:
3 Libia superior. :;
4, Libia inferior.
5. Thebais.
6 Aegyptus Iouia.
7 Aegyptus Herculea,
8 Arabia.
9. item Arabia Augusta Libanensis.
10. Palestina.
11. Fenice.
12. Syzia Coele.
18, Augusta Euphratensis, —

14. Cilicia.

15. Isauria.

16. Cyprus.

17, Mesopotamia.
18, Osroena.

IT. Diocensis Pontica habet prouincias numero VII :

2. Bitinia.,

3. Cappadocia. ᾿

4, Galatia. |

5. Paphlagonia, nunc in duas diuisa.

6, Diospontus,.

7. Pontus Polemoniacus. ?
8, Armenia minor, nunc et maior addite

XIII. Gentes barbarae, quae pullulauerunt sub imperatoribus : ...
38, Armeni... 4

3 Not. dig., pp. 249 sqq.
4 ΟἹ, Mommsen, Verzetchniss, and above Chapter IV, n. 31, Bury, Verona Lisi, Jones,
Verona List,

GREEK AND LATIN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS 45*

C. LatErRcuLus Potent Sinvit >

Nomina Prouncarum

ως VIII. In Oriente X :

. Prima : Siria Coele, in qua est Antiochia.

. Secunda : (Siria) Palestina. |

. Tertra : Siria Phoenice.

Quarta : Isauria.

QOuinia : Cilicia, iuxta montem Taurum.

Seata : Cyprus.

Sepiima : Mesopotamia, inter Tigrem et Euphratem.
Decima : Eufratesia.

Ocitaua : Hosdroene..

. Nona : Sophanene. —

OHAD WP ww

— μ-
μι ©

IX. In Ponto VIII:

Prima : Pontus Polemoniacus. .
Secunda : Pontus Amasia.
Tertia : Honoriada.

. Quaria : Bithinia.

. Quinta : Paflagonia.

. Sepioma : Armenia minor.

. Sexta : Armenia maior.

. Octaua : Cappadocia ... 5.

*

© OND OP oO "Ὁ

: Ῥ. HiEROKLES SYNEKDEMOS 7
IEPOKAEO ὙΌΣ YNEKAHM ΟΣ;

631 3 ee Εἰσὶν at πᾶσαι ΠΕ τι καὶ πόλεις
αἱ ὑπὸ τὸν βασιλέα τῶν “Ῥωμαίων διοικούμεναι τὸν ἐν
κωνσταντινουπόλει,

ἐπαρχίαι ἐδ, πόλεις λε, ὡς ὑποτέτακται.

5 Not, dig., pp. 258-259.
8 Cf. Mommsen, Laterculus.
7 Hierokles, pp. 12, 33 sqq.

465"

690
698

699

700

701

702

702

703

3a

WHORE N DW AA ὦ NSB DWN AHA aA ὦ LO hm GQ DRO

So WAN A AA

MMW ΟΝ S&S

APPENDIX II

IIONTIKA [Ata τῆς Ποντικῆς διοικήσεως ...
KATHTAAOKIA A ἃς. ᾿Επαρχία Καππαδοκίας α, ὑπὸ

κονσουλάριον, πόλεις δ.
Καισάρεια
Νύσσα
Θερμά
ῥεγεων 1]|ὁδανδος.

Καισάρεια
Νύσσα

τὰ Θέρμα
“Ρεγεπόδανδος

ΚΑΠΠΑΔΟΚΙ͂Α B λζ. ᾿Ἐπαρχία Καππαδοκίας β, ὑπὸ

ἡγεμόνα, πόλεις Ἢ.

Τύανα

Φαυστινόπολις

Κύβιστρα

Ναζιανζός

Σάσιμα

Παρνασσός

ῥεγεὼν Adapa

ῥεγεὼν Πουκισσός
EAENOITIONTOX _ An,
κονσουλάριον, πόλεις C.

᾿Αμάσεια

"IBwpa

Ζῆλα

Σάλτον Ζαλίχιον

"Ανδραπα

᾿Αμισός

Σινώπη

ΠΌΝΤΟΣ ΠΟΛΕΜΩΝΙΑΚΟΣ λθ,

Τύανα
Φαυστινούπολις
Κυβίστρα
Νανζιανζός
Σ΄άσιμα
ITapvaces
‘Peyedodpa

Ῥ 4
EVEKOUKOVOOS

᾿Επαρχία ‘“EAevorévrov, ὑπὸ

᾿Αμασία

᾿Ιβόρα

Ζῆλα

Σάλτου LZadiyov

"Ανδραπα

᾿Αμισός

Σινώπη

᾿Επαρχία “Πόντου

~ t δ ξ ? ? ΝΣ
ΠΠΙολεμονιακοῦ, ὑπὸ ἡγεμόνα, πόλεις ε.

Νεοκαισάρεια
Κόμανα
ΠΠολεμώνιον
Κερασοῦς
Τραπεζοῦς
APMENIA 4 ἃ.
πόλεις ε.
Σεβάστεια
Νικόπολις
Κολώνεια

Σάταλα

Σεβαστούπολις

Νεοκαισάρεια
Koyava

τὸ “εμόνιον
Κερασοῦς
Τραπεζοῦς

᾿Επαρχία ᾿Αρμενίας a, ὑπὸ ἡγεμόνα,

Σεβάστια
Νικόπολις
KodAovia.
ΖΣατάλα

Σεβαστούπολις

GREEK AND LATIN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS 4T7*

6 APMENIA B μα. °Emapyia ᾿Αρμενίας B, ὑπο ἡγεμόνα,

πόλεις ς.
7 Μελιτηνὴ Μ ελιτινή
δ "Apxa. "Αρκα
9 ᾿Αραβισσός ᾿Αράβισος
10 Κουκουσὸς Koxovaos
11 Κόμανα Κομάνα
12 ᾿Αριαράθεια ᾿Αραραθία

704 1a ANATOAIKH [Διὰ τῆς ᾿Ανατολικῆς διοικήσεως" ...
71210 ΕΥ̓ΦΡΑΤΗΣΙΑ μη. ᾿Επαρχία Eddparyocias, ὑπὸ
ἡγεμόνα, πόλεις ιβ.

11 “]εράπολις “Ἰεράπολις
713 1 Κύρρος Κύρος
2 Σαμόσατα Σαμόσατα
3 Δολίχη Ζολήχη
4 Ζεῦγμα Ζεῦγμα
5 Γερμανίκεια Γερμανικία
6 Πέρρη ITéppy
7 Νικόπολις Νικόπολις
8 Σ᾽ κηναρχία Σικεναρχαῖα
9 Σάλτον ° Epayilnvov ΖΣαλγενορατίζενον
10 Οὔριμα Σύριμα
11 Ἐὔρωπος Εὔρωπος
12 OZXPOHNH wy. ᾿ἙἘπαρχία ἹῬοσρωυνῆς, ὑπὸ ἡγεμόνα,
πόλεις 6,
714 1 ᾿Βδεσσα "ἔδεσσα
2 Κωνσταντίνα Κωνσταντίνα
3 Θεοδοσιούπολις Θεοδοσιούπολις
4 Kadppar Kappat
5 Βάτναι Βάτναι
6 Νέα Οὐαλεντία Νέα Οὐαλεντιάς
715 1 “εοντόπολις ἡ καὶ “Δεοντόπολις ἡ καὶ
Καλλίνικος Καλλινίκη
2 Βίρθα Βίρθα

3 ΜΕΣΟΠΟΤΑΜΙΑ ν. °Emapyia Μεσοποταμείας, ὑπὸ
ἡγεμόνα, πόλις α.

4 "Αμιδα "Αμιδα ...ὃ

8 On the date of the Synekdemos and its relation to other sources, see Hierokles,
pp. 1 sqq., and above Chapter IV, ἢ. 42b, also Jones, CREP, Ὁ. 503.

48 ' APPENDIX II

K. BASILIT NOTITIA 9

TAIZ ΠΡΟΚΑΘΕΔΡΙΑΣ ΤΩΝ ΟΣΙΩΤΑΤΩΝ ΠΑΤΡΙΑΡΧΩΝ

᾿ ὁ Ῥώμης
ὁ Κωνσοσταντινουπόλεως
ὁ ᾿Αλεξανδρείας.
¢ 3 , ,
ὁ ᾿Αντιοχείας.
ὁ Aidias “Ιεροσολύμων
Τάξις προκαθεδρίας μητροπολιτῶν καὶ αὐτοκεφάλων καὶ ἐπισκόπων
4 eA \ 3 \ 2 2 a ? \
τελούντων ὑπὸ τὸν ἀποστολικὸν θρόνον ταύτης τῆς θεοφυλάκτου καὶ

βασιλίδος πόλεως.

α. ᾿Βπαρχία Καππαδοκίας α ὁ Kowcapeias. ...

La, ἐπαρχία ᾿Αρμενίας β ὁ Σεβαστείας.

ΓΞ ? ? ek ἜΝ, © 3 ?

iB. ἐπαρχία. Βλενοπόντου ὁ ᾿Αμασείας.

wy. ἐπαρχία ᾿Αρμενίας a _ ὁ Μελιτινῆς.

wd, ἐπαρχία Καππαδοκίας B ὁ Τυάνων iro Xpic-
τουπόλεως. ...

iS. ἐπαρχία § ‘Ovwprddos. 6 Κλαυδιουπόλεως.

wl. érapyia δ Πόντου IToAep- ὁ Νεοκαισαρείας. ...

τς ὡνιακοῦ " "

KS. ἐπαρχία Καππαδοκίας β ὁ Μωκησσοῦ.

ὩΣ a δ᾿ ὦ ᾿ δα συ Ἢ

7b. ἐπαρχία “αζικῆς ὃ τοῦ Φάσιδος. ...

Μέχρι τούτων οἱ μητροπολῖται καὶ λοιπὸν ἐντεῦθεν. ἄρχονται οἱ αὐτο-
κέφαλοι. ... "

ἐπαρχία ᾿Ελενοπόντου , ὁ Εὐχαΐτων. ...

ἐπαρχία "Appevias β ὁ ᾿Ηρακλουπόλεως
ἦτοι Φιλαχθόης.

ἐπαρχία ᾿Αβασγίας ὁ Σεβαστουπόλεως.

ἐπαρχία | “Πόντου ΠΠ|ολεμ- ὁ Τραπεζούντων. ...
ωνιακοῦ

(Τάξις καὶ διαίρεσις τῶν μητροπολιτῶν σὺν τοῖς ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐπιο-
κόποις). "
ΝΕ A, "᾿Βπαρχία Καππαδοκίας
¢ A ᾿
ὁ [αισαρείας
a. ὃτῶν Βασιλικῶν Θερμῶν

9 Georg. Cypr., pp. 1 Βαα.

GREEK AND LATIN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS 49*

ὁ Νύσης
ὁ Θεοδοσιουπόλεως ᾿Αρμενίας
ὁ Καμουλιανῶν

MI OA | Dy

ὁ Κισκισοῦ. ...

I. ΕἘπαρχία ᾿Αρμενίας B
ὁ Σεβαστείας

ὁ Σεβαστουπόλεως
ὁ Νικοπόλεως

ὃ Σατάλων
6 Κολωνείας

M1 Al 11D |

ὁ Βηρισσῆς.

IA. °Enapyia ᾿ Βλενοπόντου

ὁ ᾿Αμασείας

ὁ ᾿Αμισσοῦ

ὁ Σινώπης

ὁ ᾿Ιβόρων

ὁ ᾿Ανδράπων

ὁ Ζαλίχου ἤτοι Μεοντουπόλεως

ὁ Ζήλων.

MI ΔῚ Ορί Ὁ 1 ΤΟΙ]

IB. ᾿Επαρχία ᾿Αρμενίας
ὁ Μελιτινῆς

ὁ "Αρκης

ὁ Κουκουσοῦ

ὁ ᾿Αραβισσοῦ

ὁ ᾿Αριαράθης

Sa i ecko

ὁ Κεομανῶν
IT’. ᾿Επαρχία Καππαδοκίας

ὁ Τυάνων ἤτοι Χριστουπόλεως
ὁ Κυβιστρῶν

e 3

ὁ Φαυστινουπόλεως

~21t1e |

ὁ Σασίμων. ...
ΙΕ. ᾿Ἐπαρχία ‘Ovwpiddos

ὁ Κλαυδιουπόλεως
ὁ ᾿Ηρακλείας ]Πόντου

Win]

ὁ ΠΠρουσιάδος

50* APPENDIX II

y. ὁ Tiov
ὃ. ὁ Kpareias
ε. 6 Αδριανουπόλεως

Is, ᾿Επαρχία Πολεμωνιανή

gz ?
6 Neoxatoapeias
ὁ Τραπεζούντων

*

e 2
ὁ Κερασούντων
ὁ τοῦ ]]ολεμωνίου

ΘΙ 17019 |

ὁ Κομάνων. vee

:

᾿Επαρχία Καπαταδοκίας
ὁ ΪΜωκησσοῦ
ὁ Ναζιανζοῦ
6 Κολωνείας
ὁ ΠΠ]}αρνασσοῦ

Oath 12 |

ὁ Aodpwr.
Ks. ᾿Επαρχία Aalixis

ὁ Φάσιδος

a. ὁ Ροδοπόλεως
β. ὃ τῆς ᾿Αβισσηνῶν
γ. ὁ Πετρῶν

δ. ὁ Ζιγανέων. ...19

F. Grorcu ΟὝΡΒΙΙ DESCRIPTIO ORBIS ΒΟΜΑΝῚ 11
.. AIA ΤΗΣ ANATOAIKHS AIOIKHXEQ> ...

᾿Επαρχία ᾿Οσροηνῆς
᾿Βδεσσα μητρόπολις
Κάραι

Κωνστάντεια

Θεοδοσιούπολις

Καλλίνικος ἤτοι “εοντόπολις
Νέα Οὐαλεντία

10 On Basil see Honigmann, Baszleios, Laurent, Basile, and Hierokles, pp. 49 sqq.
11 Georg. Cypr., pp. 41, 45 sqq.

GREEK AND LATIN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS 51*

Βίρθων
ΜΜῈονιθίλλα
Θηριμάχων
Μονιαύγα
Μάκαρτα
Μαρκούπολις
᾿Αναστασία
᾿Ημέριος
Κιρκησία

®

Μέχρι τῶν ὧδέ ἐστι τὸ πλήρωμα Meocororapias καὶ ἀρχὴ τῆς γῆς
Περοίδος.

᾿Επαρχία [Μεσοποταμίας ἄνω ἤτοι 4 ᾿Αρμενίας
"Αμιδα μητρόπολις

Μαρτυρόπολις
ΡῚ nea ? κι b ~ s “- e ἢ ?
ἀπο τε μιλίων τῆς αὐτῆς πόλεως γεννᾶται ὁ Τίγρις ποταμός.
Aapas
2 = λί δ ΄ι A SA ? 5 Ἁ θ ? Ἁ ξισ ,
amo ς μιλίων τῆς αὐτῆς πόλεώς εἰσι τὰ μεθόρια καὶ οἱ ὃροι Ilepoidos
καὶ Συρίας.
κάστρον “Pioxndas
? 7
κάστρον Τουράνδιος
κάστρον ἥάρδης
᾿ ?
κάστρον “όρνης
κάστρον ᾿Ριῴφθον
? 37
κάστρον “lodpios
7 ?
κάστρον T'Cavpas
? > 7
κάστρον Αὐδάσσος
κάστρον᾽ ABdpuns
κάστρον Τζινοβίας
? 3 “~
κάστρον ᾿Ινζιετῶν
κάστρον Βαναβήλων
κάστρον Χούδδων
3 > “4 »--ῃ
κάστρον ᾿Αϊσουδοῦος
κάστρον ασφρόνας
? ?
κάστρον Βασιλικόν
κάστρον Σκῆλον καὶ ᾿Οδήλων
κάστρον βηϊουβαΐθας
κάστρον ανασσάρων

52* APPENDIX ἢ

κάστρον Φιρθαχαβράης
κάστρον Σιτέων Χίφας
κάστρον Κάλωνος
κάστρον Βιβασάρων
κάστρον Τζαύρας
κάστρον Βίρθας
κάστρον ᾿Ατταχᾶς

Κλίματος ᾿Αρζανηνῆς

κάστρον ᾿Αφουμῶν
? 24 ?
κάστρον ᾿Αριβάχων
κάστρον Φλωριανῶν
κάστρον Aapvobduw
κάστρον Βαλοῦος
κάστρον Σαμοχάρτων
Ὧδε πληροῦται ἡ Μεσοποταμία, καὶ ἔστιν ὁ Ταῦρος καὶ ἡ κλεισοῦρα
Β λ λ , : + - \ 1 3 a Ed e M iA "A 3
αλαλείσων, καὶ ἄρχεται κατὰ τὸ ἀρκτῷον μέρος ἡ Μεγάλη *Appevia.
Ly ~ ~ “a fan
εἰσὶ δὲ Kal ot οἰκοῦντες εἰς τὸ ὄρος τοῦ Ταύρου πλησίον τοῦ αὐτοῦ
κλίματος λαοΐ β΄ ὀνομαζόμενοι ὁ μὲν εἷς Χοθαῤται, ὁ δὲ ἕτερος Lava-
, ἡ ῃῳ 3 ses A 3 ν ζό Ενον M, ἔν" 3 eS
σουνίται. καὶ ἔστιν ὄρος ὕψηλον, ἐπονομαζόμενον Mapackév: ἐν @
καὶ ἡ κιβωτὸς τοῦ Νῶε ἐπιφερομένη τοῖς ὕδασι προσέκρουσεν εἰς
τὴν κορυφὴν τοῦ ὄρους καὶ ἔστιν τοῦτο γνωστὸν πᾶσι τοῖς τῶν ἐκεῖσε

μερῶν μέχρι τῆς σήμερον.
᾿Επαρχία 4 *Appevias ἄλλης

Δαδίμων νῦν μητρόπολις
᾿Αρσαμουσάτων
πολίχνη Χοζάνων
“Χοσομάχων
Κιθαρίζων
κάστρον Μερτικέρτον
κάστρον Βαϊουλοῦος
«-- κάστρον ΠΠαλιός;»
κάστρον ᾿Αρδών |
κλίμα Σιοφήνης
χωρίον ὑπο τὸ αὐτὸ κλίμα, λεγόμενον ᾿Ιαλιμβάνων, ὅθεν ὁρμᾶται
ὁ τὴν παροῦσαν φιλοπονήσας βίβλον Βασίλειος.

GREEK AND LATIN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS 53*

κλίμα ᾿Αἰνζητινῆς
κλίμα Διγησινῆς
κλίμα [ αρινῆς
κλίμα Βιλαβητινῆς
κλίμα ]αλινῆς
κλίμα ᾿Ορζιανινῆς
κλίμα ᾿Αστιανικῆς
κλίμα [Μουζουρῶν ...

᾿Επαρχία ᾿Αρμενίας [Μεγάλης

A “A δ. 2 7 τ) 5 2 7 ? \ lon e \ ἃ 2

ef εἰδέναι, ὅτι αὕτη αὐτοκέφαλός ἐστι μὴ τελοῦσα ὑπὸ τὸν ἄνατο-
A ? 3 Ἁ n Ἃ \ Na 7 3 ?

λικὸν θρόνον. ἀλλὰ τιμηθεῖσα διὰ τὸν ἅγιον I'pynydpiov *Appevias,

3 SA \ ? ‘ Ai 12

ἔχουσα πόλεις καὶ κάστρα Kal κλίματα σ. ...15.

G. Nova TACTICA 18

ΤΑΥ͂ΤΑ MEN TA ΠΑΛΑΙᾺ TAKTIKA XKOITEI AE KAI
TA NEA

< Τάξις τῶν μητροπολεων τῶν ὑποκειμένων τῷ τῆς Βασιλίδος θρόνῳ.»

ἪΗ Καισάρεια..

ἡ ΖΣεβάστεια

¢ 3 3

ἡ ᾿Αμάσεια

ἡ Μελιτινὴ ...

t 7

ἡ Νεοκαισάρεια ....

ἡ ἥωκησος ...

ἜΓΠΕΙΞΙ ΣΙ ΘΙ ΕΠ ΡῚ

ἡ Κάμαχος ...

3 \ \, ev ς 7 ξ 7 é
iow δὲ καὶ ὅσοι ἑκάστῃ μητροπόλει ὑπόκεινται θρόνοι.

<A> Τῇ Καισαρείᾳ Καππαδοκίας.
α. ὁ Νύσης
β. ὃ τῶν Βασιλικῶν Θερμῶν
y. ὁ Καμουλιανῶν
ὃ. ὁ Κισκισοῦ

12 On the date of George of Cyprus and his relation to other sources, see Hverokles,
pp. 1 sqq., and 49 sqq.
18 Georg. Cypr., pp. 57 sqq.

54*

mp MOAR DIA! Sy Οὐ] ΟΙΩ), Wy) Slevin
S| ° * Ἢ ry =] . , ° » ns | e »

Ser eels

3)

ΠΟΙ]

1Γ.

ὮΝ

<a.>
a6.
<y.>
<6.>
<e.>
a5.
<a

APPENDIX II

ὁ Εὐαΐσων
ὁ Σευηριάδος
ὁ ᾿Αραθείας

ὁ τῶν Αἰπολίων ...
Τῇ XeBaoreia τῆς ᾿Αρμενίας

ὁ Σεβαστουπόλεως
ὁ Νικοπόλεως
ὁ Σατάλων

ὁ Βερίσσης.
Tn ᾿Αμασείᾳ ᾿λενοπόντου

ὁ ᾿Αμισοῦ

ὁ Σινώπης

ὁ ᾿ΙΒόρων

ὁ ᾿Ανδράπων

6 Ζαλίου ἤτοι ΠΙ}ομπηϊουπόλεως.

Τῇ Μελιτηνῇ τῆς ᾿Αρμενίας

ὁ "Αρκης

ὁ Καουκουσοῦ
¢ 3 wn
ὁ Αραβισοῦ

καὶ Δυπῶν ...

Τῇ <Neo>xoaicapeia ]]όντου

11. ολεμωναΐκο D

ς ᾿

ὁ Κερασούντων.

ὁ τοῦ ]]ολεμωνίου
ὁ Κομάντων

Τῇ Τραπεζοῦντι τῆς A<alixjs>.

ὁ Χεριάνων

ὁ Χαματόζουρ
ὁ Χάλ

ὁ 1]αΐπερ

ὁ Κεραμέων

ὁ Aepiov

ὁ Βιζάνων ..

GREEK AND LATIN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS 55*

Ai

Τῇ Καμάχῳ ᾿Αρμενίας
ὁ Κελιτζινῆς

᾿Αρασράκων

Qa

Baplavioons
Mero
Μελοῦ ἕτερος ...

Ona

Ona

AI OI) Ο]Ω]

Ona

=

Tots Εὐχαΐταις “Ελενοπόντου

θρόνος ὑποκείμενος οὐκ ἔστι

ΝΒ. Τῇ ᾿Αμάστριδι τοῦ [Πόντου
ΓΝ. Τῶν ᾿Ασμωσάτων
NA. Αἱ Χῶναι.

H. EPIstuLAE AD LEONEM IMPERATOREM
cece - Armenia Prima 14

Pussimo et Christianissimo imperatori] wictori semper augusto
Leoni Johannis Gregorius Auxentius Kustathius Epiphanius episcopi
primae Armeniae in domino salutem. Deus uerus dominus noster
Iesus Christus semper optima naturae humanae dona concedens
nullum tempus sine sua prouidentia dereliquit. qua gratia etiam
nune fidei uerae prospiciens, quae nostrae salutis spes est, m te pio
et Christiano principe quodam secundo Dawid cornu impern reclinauit.
quem sibi nouit religiose a cunabulis seruiturum, hunc sua sententia
in omni orbe terrarum imperare sanciuit, quatenus ex uestro Imperio
profluerent bona subiectis et ubique pietatis praedicatio praeualeret
uestra utique mansuetudine nihil aliud praeter fidem sceptra regalia
judicante, quarum rerum testis est praesens zelus et studium illa
firmandi, unde firmitas uestri accedat imperil. a deo namque unctus
et regem mox el qui unxit, ipsa principia commendasti optime satis
cogitationibus simul et uocibus ei deseruiens et ut haec bene consis-
terent, prae ceteris omnibus apud cunctos pro fide orthodoxa decer-
tatus es, omni scilicet mala secta prorsus expulsa atque sublata, ad

14 ACO, II, v, pp., 69-71.

565 APPENDIX II

idem conuenientibus et ad inuicem concordantibus qui nuper quod
fierl non oportuerat, uidebantur esse diuisi. quia prospicit uestra
pietatis mmtentio, ad unam reduxistis ecclesiam non solum eos qui
per dissensionem noua passione languebant, sed etiam eos quorum
erat a priscis temporibus mens corrupta et a recta et regia ula rece-
dentes ad loca praua et spinosa blasphemi erroris abierant, ut secundum
euangelicam uocem omnis ecclesiae unum ouile consisteret et unus
pastor dominus Christus esset. sed haec quidem omnia proueniant
in uestro semper imperio; quia uero et meae simul humiltati piis
htteris estis inbere dignati ut quid sententiam de his quae Alexandria
facta sunt, manifestem, licet [et] exaggeratio rerum ibi gestarum
neque sententiae tribuit facultatem caligine rerum tristium mentibus
obumbrante, hoc tamen uobis insinuo quia si uera sunt quae in precibus
religiosissimorum episcoporum et clericorum Aegyptiacae diocesis
continentur et auctor Timotheus muenitur tantorum et talium scele-
rum, quae propter nimietatem, ut arbitror, non creduntur, alienus
sacerdotio cum his qui similia perpetrarunt, apud sanctos canones
judicabitur. et haec quidem de his quae Alexandria gesta sunt,
cum sancto concilio quod mecum est, dehberans religiositati uestrae
significaui; fidem uero solam trecentorum XVIII sanctorum patrum
qui dei gratia conuenerunt in Nicaena urbe sub piae memoriae principe
Constantino, seruamus, qua ab infantia sumus inbuti et in sacerdotio
alios inbuere nouimus quamque et post haec CL episcopi congregati
in cluitate regia firmauerunt et propriam iudicarunt et ipsa sibi
cooperatrice utentes et doctrina diuinitus inspirata, sancti scilicet
spiritus, blasphemias et zizania radicitus amputantes quamque
nihilo minus et definitio a sancto Calchedonensi consilio explanata
firmauit, praecipue repugnans uesaniae nefandi Nestorii et sanctam
synodum quae Hphesi est celebrata, confirmans, culus praesules
fuerunt deo amabile et sanctissimae memoriae Romanorum et Alexan-
drinorum episcopi Caelestinus et Cyrillus, qui maxime aduersus
sceleratam blasphemiam Nestorii suis responsionibus doctrinisque
claruerunt, quorum epustulae aduersus eundem impium Nestorium
et <ad> Orientales uniuersos datae et ab eodem sanctae memoriae
Cyrillo contra eundem Nestorium anathemata proposita sunt firmata
atque roborata. Igitur mdicamus prolatam definitionem a sancto
Calchedonensi concilio non sicut fidel symbolum, sed sicut defini-
tionem esse positam ad peremptionem Nestorianae uesaniae et ex-
clusionem eorum qui salutem incarnationis domini nostri Jesu Christi

GREEK AND LATIN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS 57*

denegare noscuntur, ut agnoscant omnes qui ob hoc scandalum pa-
tiuntur, quia neque nos post orthodoxum symbolum CCCXVIII
sanctorum patrum aut augmentum aut deminutionem in his quae
sic perfecte et a sancto spiritu sunt definita, suscipimus <et> fidem
aliam nescimus, quia neque est nec patimur hoc audire, licet quidam
esse dicant. si uero quibusdam uolunt calumniari uerbis, etiam
hoc uestrae serenitati indicare confidimus quoniam ea quae illis
uidentur esse dubia, ad intellegentium sic respicere noscantur affectum.
sunt enim quaedam in definitione quae <si> recte intelligantur,
orthodoxa sunt; si uero aliquis ea aliter uelit inspicere, inueniet hanc
sensus dubios parientem. multi siquidem et scripturas diuinas non
intellegentes sicut scriptae sunt, propriae blasphemiae dogmata
genuerunt, quos dominus Christus sua clementia et sacra pietatis
uestrae prudentia diligentiaque conuertat et rectae praedicare uerbum
ueritatis edoceat et hoc sapere quod sancta catholica dictat ecclesia,
culus caput quidem est Christus, uos autem robur ac fundamentum
imitantes immobilem Christi petram, super quam omnium creator
ecclesiam suam aedificans omnibus Christianis pietatis requiem
econdonauit, qui etiam uestram serenitatem semper conseruare
dignetur in talibus uigilantem et insidiantem bestiam Christi ouilibus
a saeptis fidei orthodoxae repellentem. credimus enim quia postquam
nostris litteris haec indicauimus, cuncta veritatis wia omnis modus
uestrae panditur pietati quatenus sopiantur scandala et ad fidem
rectam membra discordantia reducantur domino Christo super quadam
inspiratione uestram tranguilitatem ad bona omnia deducente.

Iohahhis episcopus misericordia dei Sebastiae metropolis sanctae
dei ecclesiae manu mea suscribens secundum sanctionem uestrae
pietatis praedictam epistula mea sententiam nuntiaui, quam habeo
pro fide trecentorum XVIII sanctorum patrum in Nicaea conuenien-
tium, quam et sanctum Calchedonense concilium confirmauit, simul
et pro Timotheo, quem preces his aduersarium ostenderunt, et conse-
ruari uestram potestatem temporibus longis exopto _ |

Iohannis episcopus Nicopolitanus similiter

Gregorius episcopus Sebastopolis similiter

Maxentis episcopus Varissae similiter

Eustathius episcopus Coloniae similiter

Kpiphanius episcopus Satalenus similiter.

58* APPENDIX Τ᾿

χασχυλ - Armenia Secunda 15

Religiossimo et pilissimo et Christianissimo imperatorl semper
augusto Leoni Otrius Acacius Johannis Adelfius Hormisda Longinus
secundae Armeniae episcopi in domino salutem. Deus qui glorifi-
cantes se glorificat, secundum cor suum apicem uestrae tranquilitatis
inueniens inexpugnabilem palmam et honorem fidei consistentem
placidus praebuit uobis, Christianissimi principum, super omnes
homines sine prohibitione alqua potestatem. Insurgentes enim
inopinabiliter subdidit uictoris atque inconparabilibus triumphis
et uestram pietatem excellentissimis honoribus exornauit, immutilata
et sine htigio et ab alis indiuisa praebens sceptra uestri imperu,
ut firmas atque claras in uobis diuinas seruantes formas optima
uoluntate seruitis. bonum enim circa dominum deum favorem
uobis habentibus, mansuetis nutibus ad legalem et mirabilem uitam .
conuersationemque deducitur quidquid sub sceptra uestri imperil
gubernatur; aequam uero sortem salutis uestrae utihtati reliquiorum
hominum ponentes inconcussam catholicis totims orbis ecclesus pacem
sine tumultuatione confertis et dei clementiam imitantes neque
paruulos humilesque despicitis, quando per commodum condescen-
sionis summitatis culmen ad nos etiam pro fidei causa deponitis
sociosque nos, gui pro abiectione nostra nihil in terra sumus, inter
uestras accipitis curas, non egentes conlationem nostram et in hoc
utique magnitudinem incomparabilis dei clementiae demonstrantes.
quapropter quoniam iussi sumus, ultra nos quoque praesumimus et
quid sentiamus, uestrae pietati suggerimus. nos igitur, uenerabilis
imperator, in ultimo mundi loco degimus multo spatio a regia ciuitate
distantes, sed uestrae potentiae in nullo diuisi fauore circa fidem
equidem rectam sententiam possidemus, ad sermones wero conten-
tionum linguas habemus segnes. cohabitamus enim circa Armenios
barbaros, fideles quidem, sed recte Romano eloquio non utentes,
breui quodam ab eis spatio, magis autem intercessione Hufratis
fluminis separati, et propter frequentem barbarorum permixionem
longos nequiuimus proferre sermones, uitamus autem etiam doctrinas
extraneas proferentes, quia eloquentia quidem sancti spiritus rennu-
unt et propriam doctrinam in euangelicis eruditionibus adferre noscun-

15 ACO, 11, v, pp. 71-75.

GREEK AND LATIN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS 59*

tur. nos etenim secundam inhabitantes Armeniam una et immobili
utimur uoluntate et in una fide consistimus, communiter omnes et
seorsum singuli pro uestra maiestate ad deum facientes orationem
ab omni haerese et lingua blasphema separati unamque doctrmam
super omnia claram a sanctis trecentis XVIII patribus percipientis
patrum fidem inuiolabilem conseruamus, quaestiones uero de deo
tamquam inutiles et nostra cogitatione superiores effugimus et aliud
quidquam aut <sentientes aut> dicentes ualde declhnamus a superfluis
quaestionibus abstinentes et lectiones impias refutantes ab eorum
parauitate inimica ecclesiae sumus extranei et triticum fidei a zizaniis
separatum uobis fidelhbus imperantibus conseruamus, in traditione
patrum doctrinae sufficientiam possidentes et nihil superuacaneum
quemquam loqui sinentes. ... eum itaque adoremus Christum, qui
et dispensatiue pro nostra salute suscepit carnem passionis et diuimae
nobis inpassibilitatis tura donauit. sic enim concilium sanctorum
patrum Calchedone celebratum sapiens et trecentorum XVIII patrum
inuiolabilem et intemptabilem custodiuit fidem et fortiter meruditi
uiri fatuitatibus resistens catholicis ecclesiis in toto orbe fundatis
contulit bona pacis, cum quibus nos quoque in uno corpore congregati
per fidem uestrum imperium inmutilatum et ad fihorum filios peruenire
ab omnium domino deprecamur. si uero quidam decerpentes con-
oruentias syllabarum conpositionesque uerborum bella et tes mouere
temptans aduersus ecclesias, deus restitit eis; nos autem intentionem
exponentium fidem et mentem probantes nequaquam a uerborum
conpositione recedimus, sed et propugnatores dogmatum et perfectos
custodes fidei trecentorum XVIII patrum habemus sanctos patres
Calchedone collectos et sicut et ipsos trecentos X VIII patres honora-
mus. nihil enim adicientes illorum symbolo os obnoxium multis
suppliciis damnauerunt. igitur sanctionem pietatis uestrae suscipiens
una cum sanctissimis episcopis nostrae prouinciae relegensque preces
ab Alexandrinis clericis uestrae maiestati porrectas priores atque
posteriores in prioribus quidem inuasionem ouium factam contra
pastorem fleui et contra ipsum sacerdotium seditionem που] Dathan
et Abiron nimis ingemul. pudor enim cuctus per arrogantiam est
expulsus, omnis lex et timor imperialis et iudicium est contemptus
et sacerdotales sanctiones uexauerunt nefandissimae uoluntates manus
contra sacerdotes armantes, quas debuerunt optime temperare et
donum perceperunt dignum suae salutis pignus. habens etenim
mentem ratione priuatam, sicut precibus sumus edocti, si tamen

60* APPENDIX II

uerae sunt, sceleratus Timotheus principatus amorem utilitati praepo
nens ad res nefandas accessit sedibus non sibi conpetentibus imruens
adhue uiuo ecclesiae sacerdote dispensationemque ecclesiae petulanti
uoluntate diripiens et principium sacerdotii faciens sanguinis effusio-
nem, sed etiam sanctarum gregium caedis factus occasio inpudenter
custodem constituit semet ipsum, qui neque uocari dignus est Chris-
tianus, quando cruentis manibus uenerabilia mysteria non dubitat
impia praesumptione contingere et post damnationem ilam operari
quae <neque> eum neque alios agentes sanctorum patrum regulae
uidere permittunt. qui [neque] non sustinens ut secundum regulas
ordinaretur ecclesiasticas et ab his qui simili castigationi uidebantur
esse subiecti, factus episcopus ab omnibus ecclesiis semet ipsum
excommunicasse dinoscitur quasi faciens diuinae gratiae donis iniu-
riam. deinde cum non ualeat curare quae ab eo male praesumpta
sunt, si tamen quae de ipso dicta sunt, cum ueritate concordant,
patrum, conciliis obloquitur et cum ei mala patriae non sufficiant,
omnes conturbare temptat ecclesias, quasi potestatem habens gerendi
quaecumque uoluerit, et neque uiuis neque mortuis praesulibus parcit
ecclesiae, sed quasi contra omnes potestatem impietatis adeptus
primum CL patrum synodo derogat, quam spiritu diuino statuit sedes
Alexandrina. quod mihi fecisse uidetur, ut effugiat homicidu adul-
teriique supplicia, illic namque in ipsis principiis contra homicidas
excommunicationis decreuerunt poenam. non suscipit autem sanctam
et uniuersale Calchedonense concilium nesciens quia etiam ante hoc
a trecentorum XVIII sanctorum patrum fide semet ipsum fecit
extraneum, quam sanctum utique Calchedonense concilium confir-
mauit ac roborauit. oportebat enim eum ascendentem tyrannice
ad thronum beatae memoriae Cyrilli, ilius lbris incumbere et doc-
trinam illius possidere. sed uos, pil, tamquam uniuersos principes
optima uirtute superantes fidem defendite tyrannidem sustinentem,
patrum sanctionibus conferte uirtutem, sacerdotibus donate a periculis
libertatem, prohibete eos qui inregulariter contra ecclesias nituntur
insurgére, quatenus sine seditione et lite atque bello uestris temporibus
sanctae dei ecclesiae constitutae incessabiliter pro uestra longaeuitate
atque salute emittant domino Christo suas orationes, ut longis pacifi-
cisque temporibus uniuerso orbo terrarum et omnibus sanctis et
catholicis dei ecclesiis condoneris, per omnia inuictissime et Christianis-
sime triumphator semper auguste.

Otreius misericordia dei episcopus Melitene metropolis sanctae et

GREEK AND LATIN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS 61"

catholicae ecclesiae propria manu suscribens secundum sanctionem
uestrae pietatis meam sententiam per praefatam epistulam protuli
quid sentio et in confessione sanctorum patrum Nicaea conuenientium,
quam secuta est et Calchedonense sanctam et uniuersale concilium,
simul et quod sapio super Timotheum, quem preces accusauerunt,
et custodiri uestram potestatem sancti ecclesiis et omni orbi terrarum
temporibus longis exoro

lohannis episcopus Arcae similiter

Adelphius episcopus Arabissi similiter 16,

16 On the date of these Letters, see above Chapter VIII, n. 1.

62*

APPENDIX II

1. TABLES

1. Helenoponios, Pontos Polemomakos, Armema Prima 17

Hierokles

*Apacia
"IB apa

Ζῆλα
Σάλτον Ζαλίχην

"Ανδραπα
"Αμισος
Σινώπη
Νεοκαισάρεια
Κόμανα
]]ολεμώνιον
Κερασοῦς
Τραπεζοῦς

Σεβάστεια
Νικόπολις
Kodovia
Σάταλα

Σεβαστούπολις

Notitrae I, VIL, 1X

1 ᾿Αμασείας
4 ᾿Ιβύρνων

7 Ζηλῶν ovo.
Vill, 1X
6 Ζαλίχου ἤτοι
“Δεοντουπόλεως
5. ᾿Ανδραπόδων
2 ᾿Αμισσοῦ
3 Σινώπης
Εὐχαίτων
Νεοκαισαρέιας
Κομάνων
]Πολεμωνείου
Κερασοῦντος

Δ ὦ ἃ AS

Τραπεζοῦντος

1 Σεβαστέιας
3 Νικοπόλεως

5 Kodwvias
4 Σατάλων
2 Σεβαστουπόλεως

6 Βηρίσσης

17 Ramsay, Hist. Georg., p. 819.
18 On the Episcopal Lisis in general, see Beck, Kirche, pp. 148 Βαα., and Robert,
Villes, pp. 428 sqq. Also, Jones, CHRP, Appendix.

Nottrae 111, X, XIII

1.

I.

bend

1 ᾿Αμασείας
4 ᾿Ιβόρων ἤτοι
ITipodias

7 Ζηλῶν

6 Ladiyov ἤτοι
“εοντοπόλεως

5 ᾿Ανδράπων

2 ᾿Αμινσοῦ

3 Ζινώπης
Εὐχαίτων

1 Νεοκαισαρείας

4 Κομάνων

3 ΠΠολεμωνίου

2 Κεραζοῦντος
Τραπεζούς

5 ᾿Αλύας

6 “Ριζαίου

7 Κόκκου

8 Βυνίκου

9 ᾿Αραδάση

O Μαρτυροπό-

λεως

1 ὁ ᾿“Ὑψηλὸός

1 Σεβαστείας

3 Νικοπόλεως

5 Κολωνείας

4 Σατάλων

2 Σεβαστου-
πόλεως

6 Κηρίσσης 18

GREEK AND LATIN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS 63*

u. Pontos and Armenia 19

Jusiimian’s Re-organization Older Byzantine
Arrangement
Armenia Prima Bazanis or Leonto- Unknown
polis

. Theodosiopolis Cappadocia Prima

" Trapezous Pontos Polemoniakos

ω Kerasous 7

᾿ Satala Armenia Prima

a Nikopolis ἐ

" Koloneia fe
Armenia Secunda Sebasteia Armenia Prima

7 Sebastopolis 7

τὶ Komana Pontos Polemoniakos

na Verissa Armenia Prima

Zela Helenopontos
Helenopontos Amaseia urbs Helenopontos

ὥ Amisus urbs [sic] =

Ὡ Ibora urbs

a Kukhaita urbs 7

a Andrapa urbs .

Sinope urbs
Leontopolis urbs
Neokaisareia urbs Pontos Polemoniakos
Polemonion urbs
Pityous phrourion
Sebastopolis phrou-

rion

2?

19 Ramsay, Hist. Georg., p. 325.

64* APPENDIX II

J, XENOPHON 2°

KYPOY ΠΑΙΔΕΙ͂Α

Tu

3. ot δὲ Περσικοι νόμοι προλαβόντες ἐπιμέλονται ὅπως τὴν ἀρχὴν
μὴ τοιοῦτοι ἔσονται οἱ πολῖται οἷοι πονηροῦ τινος ἢ αἰσχροῦ ἔργου
3.1} 3 2 Ὁ

ἐφίεσθαι. ἐπιμέλονται δε ὧδε.

“Eorw αὐτοῖς ἐλευθέρα ἀγορὰ καλουμένη, ἔνθα τά τε βασίλεια καὶ
τἄλλα ἀρχεῖα πεποίηται. ἐντεῦθεν τὰ μὲν ayia καὶ ot ἀγοραῖοι καὶ
ς , . \ ee) N ane ea ἧς ἄλλ ᾿ t
ai τούτων φωναὶ Kal ἀπειροκαλίαι ἀπελήλανται εἰς ἄλλον τόπον, ὡς
μιγνύηται ἡ τούτων τύρβη τῇ τῶν πεπαιδευμένων εὐκοσμίᾳ. 4.
διῇρηται δὲ αὕτη ἡ ἀγορὰ ἡ περὶ τὰ ἀρχεῖα τέτταρα μέρη" τούτων
δ᾽ 2; a \ ? τ δὲ 3 2 TAA λ ? > ὃ 2 TAA
ἔστιν ἕν μὲν παισίν, ἕν δὲ ἐφήβοις, ἄλλο τελείοις ἀνδράσιν, ἄλλο
τοῖς ὕπερ τὰ στρατεύσιμα ἔτη γεγονόσι. νόμῳ δ᾽ εἰς τὰς ἑαυτῶν
χώρας ἕκαστοι τούτων πάρεισιν, οἱ μὲν παῖδες ἅμα τῇ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ οἱ
ZN ο Ὁ ὃ ξ δὲ , @ f/f 3 bo) e ? aA Ay 3
τέλειοι ἄνδρες, οἱ δὲ γεραίτεροι ἡνίκ᾽ ἂν ἑκάστῳ προχωρῇ; πλὴν ἐν

a a A A g
ταῖς τεταγμέναις ἡμέραις, ἐν αἷς αὐτοὺς δεῖ παρεῖναι. ot δὲ ἔφηβοι
καὶ κοιμῶνται περὶ τὰ ἀρχεῖα σὺν τοῖς γυμνητικοῖς ὅπλοις πλὴν τῶν
γεγαμηκότων" οὗτοι δὲ οὔτε ἐπιζητοῦνται, ἣν μὴ προππηθῇ παρεῖναι,
οὔτε πολλάκις ἀπεῖναι καλόν.

3 “ a

5. "Apyovres δ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ἑκάστῳ τούτων τῶν μερῶν εἰσι δώδεκα'

ἢ \ “Ὁ \ “Ὁ \ > \ \ " \ >
δώδεκα καὶ Περσῶν φυλαὶ διῇρηνται. καὶ ἐπὶ μὲν τοῖς παισὶν ἐκ
τῶν γεραιτέρων ἡρημένοι εἰσὶν ot ἂν δοκῶσι τοὺς παῖδας βελτίστους
3 rg > \ \ A 3 2 > “- “A > a) a on on
ἀποδεικνύναι" ἐπὶ δὲ τοῖς ἐφήβοις ἐκ τῶν τελεῖων ἀνδρῶν ot ἂν αὖ

‘ 3 2 , “A 4 3. Ἃ \ A > ? a oa
τοὺς ἐφήβους βελτίστους δοκῶσι παρέχειν" ἐπὶ δὲ τοῖς ἀνδράσιν οἱ ἂν
δοκῶσι παρέχειν αὐτοὺς μάλιστα τὰ τεταγμένα ποιοῦντας καὶ τὰ
παραγγελλόμενα ὑπὸ τῆς μεγίστης ἀρχῆς" εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ τῶν γεραιτέρων

a \ a

προστάται ἡρημένοι, οἵ προστατεύουσιν, ὅπως Kal οὗτοι τὰ καθήκοντα
ἀποτελῶσιν. ἃ δὲ ἑκάστῃ ἡλικία προστέτακται ποιεῖν διηγησόμεθα,
ὡ αλλ SHA 2 ὉΠ 3 Ὶ ¢ aN é\ » εξ Ve
ὡς μᾶλλον δῆλον γένηται 7 ἐπιμέλονται ws av βέλτιστοι εἶεν οἱ πολῦται.

6. Οἱ μὴν δὴ παῖδες εἰς τὰ διδασκαλεῖα φοιτῶντες διάγουσι μανθά-
γοντες δικαιοσύγην᾽" ...

δι ... μανθάνουσι καὶ τοξεύειν καὶ ἀκοντίζειν.

20 Xen. Cyrop., L. I, pp. 101-245.

GREEK AND LATIN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS 65*

Meé \ 1, «a Ἂς ? >A 3 \ a e a -
ἐχρι μὲν δὴ ἕξ ἢ ἑπτακαίδεκα ἐτῶν ἀπὸ γενεᾶς οἱ παῖδες ταῦτα
? 2 2 δὲ 3 Ἁ 3 2 δῷ 2
πράττουσιν, ἐκ τούτου δὲ εἰς τοὺς ἐφήβους ἐξέρχονται.
in 3 > ξ Ὄ a
9. Οὗτοι δ᾽ ad οἱ ἔφηβοι διάγουσιν ὧδε. δέκα ἔτη ἀφ᾽ od ἂν ἐκ
παίδεων ἐξέλθωσι κοιμῶνται μὲν περὶ τὰ ἀρχεῖα, ὥσπερ προειρήκαμεν,
καὶ φυλακῆς ἕνεκα τῆς πόλεως καὶ σωφροσύνης" δοκεῖ γὰρ αὕτη ἡ
ες ? 2 2 ? a 3 \ \ Ἅ 8 2
ἡλικία μάλιστα ἐπιμελείας δεῖσθαι: παρέχουσι δὲ καὶ τὴν ἡμέραν
ἑαυτοὺς τοῖς ἄρχουσι χρῆσθαι ἦν τι δέωνται ὑπὲρ τοῦ κοινοῦ. καὶ
Ό \ ? # Fa \ \ 2 n 9 \ 3/7 \
ὅταν μὲν δέῃ, πάντες μένουσι περὶ τὰ ἀρχεῖα" ὅταν δὲ ἐξίῃ βασιλεὺς
3. ἃ 2 3f 7 \ ¢ 7 aA A “a \ lon ?
ἐπὶ θήραν, ἐξάγει τὴν ἡμίσειαν τῆς φυλακῆς" ποιεῖ δὲ τοῦτο πολλάκις
“ ἥ ” \ A \ > 2 / \ Ἃ \ 2
τοῦ μηνός. ἔχειν δὲ δεῖ τοὺς ἐξιόντας τόξα καὶ παρὰ τὴν φαρέρταν
ἐν κολεῷ κοπίδα ἢ σά ἔτι δὲ γέ ὶ παλτὰ δύο, ὦ > μὲ
͵ ἢ σάγαριν, ἔτι δὲ γέρρον καὶ παλτὰ δύο, ὥστε τὸ μὲν
3 a “ 3 3A ? > \ “ \ nn \
ἀφεῖναι, τῷ δ᾽, ἐὰν δέῃ, ἐκ χειρὸς χρῆσθαι. 10. διὰ τοῦτο δὲ
, “a a > 3 \ \ Ό \ 3 2
δημοσίᾳ τοῦ θηρᾶν ἐπιμέλονται, καὶ βασιλεὺς ὥσπερ καὶ ἐν πολέμῳ
ἡγεμῶών ἐστιν αὐτοῖς καὶ αὐτός τε θηρᾷ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἐπιμέλεται
Ὁ 8 “~ ἰχὰ > 2 ? A a) » Ὁ ξ Ζ
ὅπως ἂν θηρῶσιν, ὅτι ἀληθεστάτη αὐτοῖς δοκεῖ εἶναι αὕτη ἡ μελέτη
n \
τῶν πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον. ....
3 Ὁ “"Ἅ
12. Ai δ᾽ αὖ μένουσαι φυλαὶ διατρίβουσι μελετῶσαι τά τε ἄλλα
[Δ] a 2 33 \ ? \ 3 ἢ \ 2
ἃ παῖδες ὄντες ἔμαθον καὶ τοξεύειν καὶ ἀκοντίζειν, καὶ διαγωνιζόμενοι
ΡΞ \ LAA AN ὃ A lon 3 δὲ λ ὃ 2 # > A
ταῦτα πρὸς ἀλλήλους διατελοῦσιν. εἶσι δὲ καὶ δημόσιοι τούτων ἀγῶνες
\ 3 3 a aN fat “- aA 5 ?
καὶ ἄθλα προτθεται" ἐν ἣ δ᾽ ἂν τῶν φυλῶν πλεῖστοι ὦσι δαημονέστατοι
καὶ ἀνδρικώτατοι καὶ εὐπιστότατοι, ἐπαινοῦσιν οἱ πολῖται καὶ τιμῶσιν
3 \ lo 37 3 Fa) GAA Δ ὦ e ‘ to 2
οὐ μόνον τὸν νῦν ἄρχοντα αὐτῶν, ἀλλα καὶ ὅστις αὐτοὺς παῖδας ὄντας
3 3 “Ὰ \ A ? “~ 3 2 e 3 ? 2) ai
ἐπαίδευσε. χρῶνται δὲ τοῖς μένουσι τῶν ἐφήβων at dpyal, ἢν τι ἢ
φρουρῆσαι δεήσῃ ἢ κακούργους ἐρευνῆσαι ἢ λῃστας ὑποδραμεῖν ἢ
ι »» τ 3 ἢ a 2 3 3 ,
καὶ ἄλλο τι ὅσα ἰσχύος ἢ τάχους ἔργα ἐστί,
fo) e
Ταῦτα μὲν δὴ ot ἔφηβοι πράττουσιν. ἐπειδὰν δὲ τὰ δέκα ἔτη διατε-
λέ 32 5 \ ? # 2.15 e@ or Ἢ
ἐσωσιν, ἐξέρχονται eis τοὺς τελείους ἄνδρας. 13. ἀφ᾽ οὗ δ᾽ ἂν
ae? ? a > A \ oo» ” , a A
ἐξέλθωσι χρόνου οὗτοι ad πέντε Kal εἴκοσιν ἔτη διάγουσιν ὧδε. πρῶτον
μὲν ὅσπερ οἱ ἔφηβοι παρέχουσιν ἑαυτοὺς ταῖς ἀρχαῖς χρῆσθαι ἦν τι
δέῃ ὑπὲρ τοῦ κοινοῦ, ὅσα φρονούντων τε ἤδη ἔργα ἐστὶ καὶ ἔτι δυνα-
? 3 2 id 3 é \ ξ Ὁ -
μένων. av δέ ποι δέῃ στρατεύεσθαι, τόξα μὲν ot οὕτω πεπαιδευμένοι
3 +? 9Q\ \ 2 \ 3? 03 2 Ὁ νη
οὐκέτι ἔχοντες οὐδὲ παλτὰ στρατεύονται, τὰ δ᾽ ἀγχέμαχα ὅπλα καλού-
μενα, θώρακά τε περὶ τοῖς στέρνοις καὶ γέρρον ἐν τῇ ἀριστερᾷ, οἷόνπερ
3 ec Πέ ” 3 δὲ on ὃ ral ? > [ὃ
γράφονται οἱ ]Π]έρσαι ἔχοντες, ἐν δὲ τῇ δεξιᾷ μάχαιραν ἡ κοπίδα.
\ ¢ 3 \ cay # 3, \ ς “A ) 2
καὶ αἱ apyat δὲ πᾶσαι τούτων καθίστανται πλὴν ot τῶν παΐδων διδάσ-
καλοι.
ἾἜἝἜ δὰ δὲ ‘ - \ 3 3) λέ 7 \
πειδὰν δὲ τὰ πέντε καὶ εἴκοσιν ἔτη διατελέσωσιν, εἴησαν μὲν
ἂν οὗτοι πλεῖόν τι γεγονότες ἢ τὰ πεντήκοντα ἔτη ἀπὸ γενεᾶς" ἐξέρ-
χΉνται δὲ τηνικαῦτα εἰς τοὺς γεραιτέρους ὄντας τε καὶ καλουμένους.

66* APPENDIX II

3 > ie A
14. Ov δ᾽ ad γεραίτεροι οὗτοι στρατεύονται μὲν οὐκέτι ἔξω τῆς
ἢ
ς “~ 3) \ 2 ? 2 \ ‘ \ om” 2
ἑαυτῶν, οἴκοι δὲ μένοντες δικάζουσι τά τε κοινὰ καὶ τὰ ἴδια πάντα.
καὶ θανάτου δὲ οὗτοι κρίνουσι, καὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς οὗτοι πάσας αἱροῦνται"
\ }Ψ»» 3.3 2 7 ἊΣ 7 > ? 9 ? “ ?
καὶ ἣν τις ἢ ἐν ἐφήβοις ἢ ἐν τελείοις ἀνδράσιν ἐλλίπῃ τι τῶν νομίμων,
? \ g ? Ὁ \ “ 27 e ? ξ A
φαίνουσι μὲν ot φύλαρχοι ἕκαστοι Kal τῶν ἄλλων ὁ βουλόμενος, ot δὲ
3 A
γεραίτεροι ἀκούσαντες éxxpivovow: ὁ δὲ ἐκκριθεὶς ἄτιμος διατελεῖ
τὸν λοιπὸν βίον.
15. “Iva δὲ σαφέστερον δηλωθῇ πᾶσα ἡ Περσῶν πολιτεῖα, μικρὸν
3 ? ~ Ἁ 3 7 nv δ \ \ 3
ἐπάνειμι" νῦν γὰρ ἐν βραχυτάτῳ ἂν δηλωθείη διὰ τὰ προειρημένα.
λέ \ \ ? 3 \ \ 4 ? > 2
ἔγονται μὲν yap Π]έρσαι ἀμφὶ τὰς δώδεκα μυριάδας εἶναι: τούτων
Ἅ > \ > ? ra ~ + 3 “ > 2 ᾿) “»" /
δ᾽ οὐδεὶς ἀπελήλαται νόμῳ τιμῶν Kal ἀρχῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔξεστι πᾶσι ]Π]έρσαις
πέμπειν τοὺς ἑαυτῶν παῖδας εἰς τὰ κοινὰ τῆς δικαιοσύνης διδασκαλεῖα.
3 3 ξ 4 ? ? ‘ “~ 3 an ?
ἀλλ᾽ ot μὲν δυνάμενοι τρέφειν τοὺς παῖδας ἀργοῦντας πέμπουσιν,
ξ \ \ 3 b] ? ξ 3 nv “ \ “
οἱ δὲ μὴ δυνάμενοι οὐ πέμπουσιν. οἱ δ᾽ ἂν παιδευθῶσι παρὰ τοῖς
? 2 3 3 “ 3 a 3 2 ?
δημοσίοις διδασκάλοις, ἔξεστιν αὐτοῖς ἐν τοῖς ἐφήβοις νεανισκεύεσθαι,
“A \ \ “a vd 3 # ξ 3 aN Ss 3 “
τοῖς δὲ μὴ διαπαιδευθεῖσιν οὕτως οὐκ ἔξεστιν. οἱ δ᾽ ἂν αὖ ἐν τοῖς
3 2 Fd \ ? “ 2 2 3 \
ἐφήβοις διατελέσωσι τὰ νόμιμα ποιοῦντες, ἔξεστι τούτοις εἰς τοὺς
, 97 ᾽ \ 3 “ \ “ 4 ξ » Ἂ
τελείους ἄνδρας συναλίζεσθαι καὶ ἀρχῶν καὶ τιμῶν μετέχειν, οἱ δ᾽ ἂν
\ # 3 A > 2 3 2 7 > \ ?
μὴ διαγένωνται ἐν τοῖς ἐφήβοις, οὐκ εἰσέρχονται εἰς τοὺς τελείους.
οἱ δ᾽ ἂν αὖ ἐν τοῖς τελείοις διαγένωνται ἀνεπίληπτοι, οὗτοι τῶν γεραι-
τέρων γίγνονται. οὕτω μὲν δη οἱ γεραίτερων διὰ πάντων τῶν παλῶν
3 , ,ὔ ‘ e ὔ id ow 32) ?
ἐληλυθότες καθίστανται: Kal ἡ πολιτεία αὕτη, ἣ οἴονται χρώμενοι
βέλτιστοι ἂν εἶναι.

11. ARMENIAN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS
A. THRONE LIST - GAHNAMAK 1

GUZULUUUY

[Po Ua euhiny polighp mpmpkwy fp qpwh wppabh jUpmusuf Pugunnph
yop Ρ Sfuujnhh fuusuby buy Ejet Eu ἡπμι h bh yin yn Upummgph β
qpemipbh mbuf μ puagng mien ‘df: δὲ Unwin, mppuyh bh pmphpwpp
ἐϊ afin wri Bu UuLurh hu [9 πη plan [et npg Qk pup pnparfe fy fpr hi
ιπιιη h ζμι} πῇ ΠΣ, h nubniunt poy ππιη ἐμ punn§ win funy μὲ,
ὑπ ἐμ kh fp ἀξμπιὴἣ βιὰ β ομιζζαι δ μ] μὰ unhby, ap puyun Limf ζιμ!πη
wqguinng bh πα πειπί παι gad fp yop {ἐμ : Unyhaybe Gbpukd Gp hon
uppuypy wppujp h ku [Yu loah Sayng ἤμιθπη βήπιι fi pkgmp qamdhbdubph b
Eqmp Sunnutih quppujhy wppuph bh ἡμῆεμαν. hf myumtu wpqmp bh ὄγμηδιιμβιπ 2 :

[UnamS hi frfumi hb dw puywgh)

ui, Ufirbbuy πίῃ of. Uduinnihh inf p

p. Uuyybinh cy. πη [P wh min

η. Upopnitibuy nfp οἱ. Gimbbmg nfp

1. [μιη[μινηπιὶβ] Pp. ἰληη Uhdunugp

pe {Πιιβιπμξ ag ink Ge. Suny

E. Οζα σπιψιιη "πίῃ [- Punkin, Πμμ1Π11.. ΠῚ
η. Unhwy kp fu. Qifeémhbuy np

i, [hanmbbug mfp βΕ- Y wpdunnh ph

p- Yudimbbug mfp fq. Qe ppb nip

Ρ. Quit hy nk pe. Umfunanih fh

d. Ubidurwybug nbn fy. Gu ply tify “πίῃ

dum, Uw Larhbug untn pl. Upbylipy mtn

fp. Qua Sum pul ohh hp. Ufrbkuy Ephpnpyh
Fy. ἰλιη Uw dmtf ff. Upopmitung Enlpopyh
An. Y whuhpug hh ie Upopmikug Eppnpyh

1 See above Chapter X, n. 26.
2 On the problems of the Preface, see above Chapter X, n. 43. On this document
in general, Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 229 sqq., and tables iv, xiii.

68*

APPENDIX ITI
Uuilpha tpg Ephpnpa ow.
[hrpubmih Op.
q—Upngimbh oq.
‘bpiu ρει τι δ δη.
Pafum ‘hpau Ρα τα δῖ ob,
Uy Uphntwhh δη.
Uy ‘hpi pubuhh of,
(μη πεδ hh op,
Unaunbniuhh ale.
Upufimpkuhh ἠ.
Zmnipmdbmbh hum.
Y pny imbh hp.
ῥεῖν ἤει hy.
Ups ur fri ἰη.
Θμι μέ ζιιμι δέτε δ hE.
ἢ δι πη hh ἠη.
Vubymhnbph hf,
Unhmiph hp.
Suyqpbmbh hfe.
"ἊΝ

pbuh πεν ph

Uuymhymhph
Uaurbhkuth

δ pauhph

Uunipk pig hh
Zuni hh

Pohinh ph

‘Pin Iphpahph
UkLinh ph

Gar fudbpfh

Purym puny ἰτιπΐι mip. pari
Apuuybnt wp path
Upon shubmbh
QLuluipagph Ephpapy
Smyh

Y p¢uhm[hp]

U,purdm

Ἢ pula ‘hpi pubs
Qargpflath
Vupuygkoh ml [μ]

Y wap ἢ [1]

Β. Minrrary List 3

Uplinkmh ππιεπὶὶ

ἰλδνηίτη moh
Βηξα μὴ ἰληδδίπαιη
Paghmimhat
{Γιατ buh
Pura punnnhh
Nap fonambf
Onpungp

{ μιζπι ἢ
Unmdmif
hah
Pubiingh

ἡ μι πε}

‘“~ inant 5» BP Se RP BRL Ε μας

3 See above, Chapter X, τι. 27.

mg)

ἰλ με πὴ ΠΩΣ

--

Uprhh

(Δ δεν ἢ πὴ ΒΡ
Uim omy pals
Ympduembp
Surs}prapruryg fr
Umqurqung
θη ει
ιμηδπεδβ

Y unbowhp
Pm pub
Yépmbph
Qari

Ty
=

v,YrYrYVvrYrAnnnnaees

ARMENIAN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS

69*

Chom phh m Quay πεῖ fh ὸ
U: mihi ἡ πεΐἢ! J Garg ppl ὸ
17η ἡ πε J Y fd ubmbp ὸ
Y mpd hin. J Qubymymh ὸ
ι] fi ὁ ένα ἢ ὄ {]πημιη p ὸ
Uantkhhinh ] U.pm dln ὸ
Yu pfin tk uah δ Uudsibmh ὸ
μι] yp jah J Yphut ὸ
fhunfubuh & Sugpbh ὸ
Ζ foufmyph yank Zupuiuphh pain
Pab> ful Qnigm pang on Qupilugh μΙ PE)
Qu dumpulah n Yapypnumgh π
Quunky β yf Upopmbf n
Aunkugh n [hppmmbih n
Curn sung h π U. nny lg n
δα βὴβ n hn Phy f 2
eT Ea n Usdhung fh >
Y uhh yng ph π Zupmdbuh [ἢ
Quppimbby pi n δ payin f 4
Apombf ᾿ UkLim bp ὄ
Unni pbuh ph 2 Uhfugh ]
Upngiuh δ QmplLambkm 1] ]
hpi puluh J δμ[πι] ee ee ]
Gph/emip J 2udumoanhkhoh &
Βη μι δὴ β J Upumotukmt ]
Quphybuh ] Uugpumnhp 6
Uphytwh ! Uppmduikink 6
Zubin ! Sparh} ]
Umuduanbh J Pmdnilp ἣ
Qhimhubunh J ‘Pu Dpapmb p &
Up frm pink & Poqmh I &
Yapuqupmphimh ὁ Unpuyuh ]

ooh ἡπδμιἧη ἢ} m>fmpdu apt yn, h L pup [en Hm pin pal upuhy np
phy wqqgmp dy—pg Gaqapmg feng quymeennpy ypobh wp pmb ap I ΠΗΙΠΗΙ ΝΠ
opp pp ιημμηβμιιηἣ Epobthh phy lp) payp bh δινπηιη ιπμ ἢ α ap f bipphhh
uy Goon 18] f ΠΊΣΩ, [βινηπιζιπ h ηιμδἀπιη ἢ h pin wf (δ [ef Hoping
fujny ap ἰ fupfap h pum Lagqmping ἃ Ὁ

4 On the Military List, see Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 229, 234 sqq., and table v.

70" APPENDIX III

C. Psgeupo - GAHNAMAK 5

δ. δὲ fpph Abnhmap gun koh
Us pulu " Qeumppm, h EhEw) 'h
Zuju ἀπμπηΐμ qqmdy fiofumhugh
2ujng, gop ἐμ Qupgkmy ‘fp byaupn—
Yury ho poy Puqgannpmgh > Qhayhh
ho hw ἐμιμηὲρ fh dud buronyh ‘hh
ubputi πῃ ρα fils Upow lary, puipdu
gnphpuppup, op bh myunphh.

Zu μηδ Ρ.
Quip δ hb wtp.
Ujpupunnkwh p.
Pugpwinmthp.
Spupunnilif p.
Yuu binmbhp.
Uw fumgnih pp.
Mnpfunnnhfp.
Upopmbfp.
Vuh hohbwt p.
Uprbbg pp.
U.swinarhp p.
Uinb yuh Ρ.-
Lpugpp.
Dmpp.

Y wpadimtfp.
Uupym kunt p.
Y wLhnrhhp.

Mu fpurnih hp.
Quip.

U fumbkot Ρ.
Quiqliuh p.
Uhuru buh ρ.
Gybubwh p,
Quipbmh p.

5 Nersés, pp. 32-39.

FPoimbpp.
Umuwhtnk p.

Q funk p.

Gh fnbmh p.
Purybnnbhhp.
Ubdmkm LP

UE puunbwt p.
U.pin pounntwh p.
Upnimbidinb wy p.
Ufiduiruy hp.
Uunughinih p.
hounnihsf p.

Y wLubinihf p.
ἰλη λυ κει Ρ-
Ἐπηξμιίΐι ρ.
Guigpmifp.
YQudumputnh ρ.
Unhughp.
Ughmispp.
Phen 'P

U,in pry inn fp.
Qnq [them IPs
Shaig p parts p.
QniyhEpmp.

U's fumg i mh p.
Upainihsh 'P
[burqimbhp.
Q-m pl yk mt p.
Uuuprbfp.

Y wdmbhp.
Lpphdnhhp.
Unipbwhp.
hf lub oh p.
Upmbfp.

ARMENIAN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS

‘pup pant pbuh ρ.
Upugmdtuh p.
Gagmfinkmh p.
Uwmobfp.
Lhowshng p.
Z2up pbuh p.
Gapyniwyp.
Unurbybuh p.
Z2upinkwh Ρ-

Y pimp.

Y uti hipkinh p.
Punudénahh p.
Surapmry f.p-

Nn 1pokm 1p
Uubiymlabp p.
Sup.

UE, finiwh p.
“hunin hip fi p.
Putt p.
Cunha Ρ-

Vunulplatp δρήμπμη.

pipldnbf Ρ.

δὲ put Ρ.
Purgmuh ρ.

[Δ ιππη πε Ρ-
Upbanhf p.
Muqink hs 'P-
UuLunnhhp.
U>fumnnp tush Ρ.
ὑπερ.
Zuduggarhh p.
Uhbuyp.

Y fdnibpp.
Unapumibh P-
GurLnaumbmp.
Oru) /o prshipp.
QuhimLbh put p.
Yu prin ina hy Es p,

Lhdm Eb p.

U. qpachh 'p
Upamifip.
Punkmh Ρ-

Um ppmgtutp.
LEh wh ynkut p.
hapabhh Ρ-
Qhiriiuhot Ρ-
Ζιιἧπεὸ τ p.
Yan[ebwh 'P
πηπιδηβρ.
QuiphLut p.
Smppipuhbut p.
Pomifp.
δὠμμνιῖβρ.
UE<pnbh p.
Fugu pu mem p.
Yujmpbuh p.
Uuwhymbhp.
Upunurpuink wiht p.
N pron Ean 'p:
Uppuodny nEwp p.
[hunihukuth p,
Purgpmuunrhhp.
Qu punch fp.
Ugh plimppoap.
Kp gnshfip.
ὑδιππη p.

Guta hnch pp.
Pugqnkuh p.
Usury Ρ.
Uppmdunliust Ρ-
2fuuobmbhwh p.
Punqmuumhwh Ρ.
OP IPP
LEwnhuhut p.
Yury puumilinh p.
2E65unmh p.

71*

125"

Qapnynuy Ρ.
Y mpybokuth ρ.
“με δμιδη Ρ-
lium simhi Pp:
Nuyphutp.
‘hpoguh pp.

U'm fun pulp.

ΠΣ
Upmdbuhp.
Yanqup) p-

Sm 9 hind p.
“πε ό pnp.
Qnpuphiul p.

pul winwin.y p.

‘hep $j pip.
GuLuunrhh p.
ΒΕ μι pl LP
Yuilfukuyp.

Qu ny bin Pp?
Ge ayy npp esp “fp ἡμιξι.

Smpfuybutp.

APPENDIX JT

Popm yds fp:
Uniugb mh p.
UmEhahhp.
hahnhhp.
Pughnbh P-
Ujbkinhh p.
8 fupmbbmh p.
Yoimbfp.

AY nigmbif p.
Yambfp.
Uurnhiarhhp.

Um fumgmbfp :

Uju Eh nm£ny p h myy hu yap,
qnp oubin fmm pb yy ΓΗ pan
gpm. gap inpnybug ἰἱλρρμιὴ
μι πμὴ h hupob ay ‘h dug
Suny fpny *f nEquh pip’ pupdu
ΩΝ Quast μι. ube fils
Gbpupup τ bul Ἵν ββήωδη hu
fob hh GhEqkgulwhp, ymunphh 6 :

D, ARMENIAN PRINCES ACCOMPANYING St. GREGORY TO

CAESAREA

1. Armenian version ?

OPP. bul) Pmgquanph ἰμεη μη ψπι|θ πὶ bh ἐμὴ fig μι" ΠΡΌΣ fulipm fe imip
Angmgkm), qgouiupboy gay fuuanpol bw αι μι πη ἧι, ηὐπεμμ ἐν mp prphph,
un 9 hs foprmth Usinky muh, Eplpapy fofumbh Ubdbbuy* ap ἐμ pybupfub
Wie, Eppapy fiofumbh Vuppykumfiwh pp fumiimfebmhh, ὁπῃμημη fo fumbh
fugu ty μη ‘fp fumiim fPiah Unybmnfebwih, Lfhigkpnpy fofumbh Uy ip t—
nije buh, yopunfup = Zmjny mp fampdphr, fEykpnpy fofumbh Yapym{nmg
upumpdpi, bofthkpnpy fpauhh Ompfmy uppomplph, mPehpapy fpr

8 On the Pseudo-Gahnamak in the Vita of St. Nersés, see Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 229.

ἡ Agat’., pp. 590-591.

ARMENIAN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS 7T3*

Φ πεμη μι! η ΠΗ πο fumpd fh “np piu minunhibay pybm>fulr, phbkpnpy fofumbh
Phoumbbung wip ph pb, monk pny fiofumih Unhuy wip fap pi, Uinmuwhh—
papa fopuuih Ufrblmy wif ΠΝ, Eplonmumbhipapy [rp fumbih Ourgt fy
wip jumps fib, Ent pnummbkpnpy ΟΣ Aumfaging wis fum pp, dapk puna—
nukkpnpy foprmth ouhunuyh Qupunuhy h Zin quunps, ζβδιηϊειπιπα δ ππμη
βοίμιδιν Way fawgm eho ΠΣ fEommumbbpapy fofumth Upepahimy :

Uys βαίμπιδιρ δὴ plinipp, ἡπιαμιήμμ p, Yogiiiahay p, Suqupmopp, pjapm—
LajLp β uty 4urpuinunhy ura fuuphh mm [@npynimy. yop gauimpb any fe oqaoph,
A mou phy Alin fo hayntuby hanya lpnying fp puym ph }Eumpmginy,
πῃ pam ΕΠ jagmph Uudm Ρ hnskh. gp mu play q μβ πρὶ" pudubmypunytin
hmymugkh fuphuhy me fumpdpur, h Cubink pak gah fin mbky SuhimympLugh :
δι ζμι δι τιμὴ {μπιεζμιμιπει l; apy ομρβδι ἢ ympu Σ

u. Arabic version 8

86, Cum igitur pervenerunt epistulae, ad eum venerunt tres reges,
rex Abchazorum ("bb’z) et rex Georgiorum (gré’n) et rex Albanorum
(Ἴ Ἄγ) et cum ipsis caterva principum : primus princeps “lhbns.
Secundus princeps *rtnwS nomine vitaxa (bytqs) magnus. Tertius
princeps *rmot’n. Quartus princeps ’sbytywn nomine ’sbyts, qui
praépositus erat custodiae montium qwsywn et mtznywn. Quintus
princeps Mqwny nwo nomine ’sb’r’b’ts : hic autem praefectus erat
exercitui totius Armeniae, equitum et peditum, nec discedebat a rege
magnae Armeniae, atque in bellis omnes quos memoravimus principes,
et memorabimus, sub elus potestate erant, praeterquam quod princeps
qmrdl non erat sub eius potestate, quae (regio) est fortes qrdytn.
Septimus regens magnae regionis swinys, quae est luxta regionem
fluminum. Octavus princeps regionis gurér. Nonus princeps rstnwn.
Decimus princeps mfnswn. Undecimus princeps swnywn et custos.
Duodecimus princeps dsbwd’wn. Decimus tertius princeps ‘tywn.
Decimus quartus princeps zwrydwn, et ipse iuxta qrdytwn. Decimus
quintus princeps brhwrwnyws, dux, qui rector erat mlh’zwn’h. Deei-
mus sextus princeps (ἄρχων) ‘rtarwnyws. Ht omnes gentes convene-
runt secundum gradus suos, _ |

87. Et hi sunt sedecim principes quos enumeravit rex et ad quos

8 Garitte, Agathange, pp. 72-73 = Marr, Christianization, Ὁ. 114.

74 APPENDIX III

misit propter honores eorum. Atque deliberaverunt de lis quae
inter ipsos erant, constitueruntque ut ad illum irent, et hoc perfece-
runt,

1. Greek version 9

135. ... 6 βασιλεύς ... κελεύει οὖν τοὺς ἀρχηγοὺς THY σατραπῶν

συγκαλέσασθαι καὶ τοπάρχας. καὶ πρῶτος ἄρχων ᾿Αγγελιτῶν οἴκου"
3 ἴω an 2,
ὁ δεύτερος ἄρχων ᾿Αλσενῶν, ὁ τῆς κομιτατησίας" ὁ τρίτος ἄρχων
ἐπὶ τῆς ἐξουσίας πατρίκιος λεγόμενος" ὁ τέταρτος ἄρχων ὁ τὸ διάδημα
3 ? 3) 3 lon “~ “a g v4 9 2 ξ 2
ἐξουσίαν ἔχων ἐπιδῆσαι τῷ βασιλεῖ, ὁ λεγόμενος ᾿Ασπέτων" 6 πέμπτος
“». on 3
ἄρχων στρατοπεδάρχης στρατηλατικῆς ἐξουσίας τῆς Apyeviwy χώρας"
δ΄ πὰ SS ee EIR ie et δ᾽᾽Όὶ Pe a a. ae 2 aoe 3 e oo
ὁ ἕκτος ἄρχων ὁ τῆς Κορδουϊτῶν ywpas* ὁ ἕβδομος ἄρχων ὁ ἕτερος
κομιτατήσιος" ὁ ὄγδοος ἄρχων τῆς “Ῥουστινῶν χώρας" ὁ ἔννατος
ἄρχων ὁ τῆς κομίτων χώρας" ὁ δέκατος ἄρχων ὁ τῆς Συνιτῶν χώρας"
ct 2 2 e ? 7 ¢ ? 3 ς
ὁ δωδέκατος ἄρχων ὁ ΖΣουδαίων χώρας" ὁ τρισκαιδέκατος ἄρχων ὁ
τῆς Οὐτίων χώρας" ὁ τεσσαρισκαιδέκατος ἄρχων ὁ ἐθνάρχης Ζαρου-
~ \ “». “A 7 e , Ζ e “-

ανδῶν καὶ Χερᾶς τῆς πατρίδος" 6 κέμπτος και δέκατος ὁ τοῦ MadAya-
ζιῶν οἴκου: ὁ éExaidéxatos ἄρχων ὁ ᾿Αρσουρουνῶν. οὗτοι οἱ ἄρχοντες
οἱ ἐκλεκτοι τοποκράτορες, πατριαρχίκοι, χιλίαρχοι καὶ μυρίαρχοι ἐν

2 “" "A 7 2 2) Θ 7 ica) θ ? ξ λ ?
μέσῳ THs ᾿Αρμενίων χώρας οἴκου Θοργώμ, οὖς συναθροΐσας ὁ βασιλεύς,
3 ? 3 \ 2 7 > 2 ? \
ἀπέστειλεν εἰς τὰ μέρη Kammadoxias εἰς πόλιν Καισαραίων, κατὰ
\ "A , ὃ tA M \ A 2 a 3 λ ? \
τὴν “Appeviwy διάλεκτον Macay λεγομένην, ὅπως ἀπελθόντες τὸν
Τρηγόριον ἀρχιερέα καταστήσωσι πάσῃ τῇ χώρᾳ.

iv. Greek Lafe of Saint Gregory 10

98. Ζυνῆλθον δὲ πρὸς τὰ προγράμματα ot τρεῖς βασιλεῖς, “αζῶν

\ 3 ? \ 3 “ \ \ Ἁ A LY “ 3

τε καὶ ᾿Ιβέρων καὶ ᾿Αλβανῶν, καὶ μετὰ τοὺς βασιλεῖς ὁ πρῶτος ἐν
3 a 3 “a \ 3 “᾿ 2 t \ ? “- 3

ἀρχῇ ᾿Ινγιληνῆς καὶ ᾿Αντιστηνῆς τοπάρχης" ὁ δὲ δεύτερος τῆς ᾿Αρζια-

΄΄ ? c 2 c \ ? ἴω 7 /

<vyn>vis πιτιάξης ὁ μέγας: ὁ δὲ τρίτος τῶν Mépdwrv τοπάρχης"

ὁ δὲ τέταρτος γενεάρχης τῶν ᾿Οσπιτιανῶν ἐπάρχης ὅστις κα-«“ ταῦ»

τεταγμένος ὑπῆρχεν φυλάττειν τὰ μέρη τῶν αυκασίων ὁρέων καὶ

9 Ag., pp. 68-69 = AASS, Sept. ΝΠ (Antwerp, 1762), pp. 320-400.
10 Garitte, Agaihange, pp. 72-78.

ARMENIAN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS 75*

Τζάνων: ὁ δὲ πέμπτος ὁ τῶν Ϊαμακουνιανῶν ἡγεμών, ἀσπαραπέτης,
“Ὁ e
πάντας τῶν ᾿Αρμενίων ἱππότας τε Kal πεζους ἔχων ὑπὸ τὴν οἰκείαν
, # > \ “A A A A M iA >A ? \
στρατηγίαν, συνών τε ἀεὶ TH βασιλεῖ τῆς MeyddAns ᾿Αρμενίας, καὶ
ἐν ταῖς παρατάξεσιν πάντας τούς τε προηγουμένους καὶ ὑποταττο-
2 eo \ » 2 ? 4 \ ¢ 3 Pal
μένους <...> ὑπὸ τὴν οἰκείαν στρατηγίαν" ἕκτος δὲ ὁ τοπάρχης τῶν
Κορδουανῶν χώρας οὕτω καλουμένης, πλησίον ὑπαρχούσης τῶν
᾿Ανδριοκοδρίτων" ὁ δὲ ἕβδομος ἐξουσιαστὴς τῆς Πεγάλης Σοφανηνῆς
7 ao ? ¢ \ ᾿Φ» ξ Ἁ “᾿ ἴω
πλησιαζούσης 7TH Μεσοποταμίᾳ: ὁ δὲ ὄγδοος ἡγεμὼν τῶν Tovyapav
? Ὡ > \ 3 \ 3 ὁ a ” δὲ @ “~ Ῥ
χώρας, ὅστις εἶχεν καὶ αὐτὸς ἀξίαν πιτιάξου" ἔννατος δὲ ὁ τῶν ‘Povo-
? 2 ge \ Ζ Ly “A ἴω 2 e \
Tovviwy τοπάρχης" ὁ δὲ δέκατος ὁ τῶν Μἥοκασῶν σατράπης" ὁ δὲ
ἑνδέκατος ὁ τῶν ΖΣυνίων φύλαρχος: δωδέκατος ὁ τῶν Τζαύδέων
? ct \ 7 2 ξ
στρατηγός" ὁ δὲ τρισκαιδέκατος <... τεσσαρεσκαιδέκατος» ὁ σατ-
a Z “A \ ΧΙ “~ ? \ ? A ? ἴω
ράπης Ζαυραβανδῶν καὶ Χειρῶν χώρας, καὶ τούτων πλησίων τῶν
Κοδρίτων: ὁ δὲ πεντεκαιδέκατος γενεάρχης ὁ τῶν Χουρχόρων ὡς
iy a » \ 3 \ \ A 7 M A #7 Ly 7
ἡγούμενος ἔχων τὴν ἀρχὴν τὴν καλουμένην MadyaldoBe: ἐξκαιδέκατος
e ~ 3 7 ? 2 \ \ \ \ 2 \
ὁ τῶν “Aptl<p>ovviwy ἐξουσιαστής" Kat τὰ λοιπὰ δὲ γένη κατὰ
τάξιν συνήχθησαν 13.

KEK. ARMENIAN PRINCES ACCOMPANYING TrRbDatT III τὸ ΒΌΜΕ
1. Armenian version 12

npg, ... Una ppph a ΠΜ1] ΓΗ hed uip_pui pis 2mjny, ἰιπμζπιμη
minha yooh μι μι πζα ἢ myping hh. 4ulpkpbmy, ἰμπηδῖμ, wala phy
up ube Up phy fulnwynuh Qphanp bh ghapah npyph η {hpunm plu ,h qewyfuljn—
nynuh Unphutinu : δι β ἡ βδπε παι ἢ με] ἠπηδμιδ ἢ gonphuph gmLintguh fupry
wn urdu p ph, ap pybupfu ph hnghh. nun fbi πα ζῆ ἦι μι hah p Lan Ghpulah
ἠπηϊδι δι th, bh giphpnpy πὰ ζἥμἧμ huh Uanphunubbayg hngpimith, bh ἡ ἐμ μπμηΐι
Uprbonmh ἠπη δε ἢ, qonpnpy fp Un pjtuy haqimhth, gid —frrfumbh
Utigky not, bh geonqeghp woybinh, bh qoympwybinh dhe, bh gfofumbh {[πῆ μη,
h gfrofumbh ΠΣ h gfofumbh [hommibug, h gpofumhh { my pomynrfe bush
muth, h you hugh διιζι fifth, h ἡ fo push UYuwuhmybameioth : δι
my ρμιπηπιὴ ιἱὸμιεδο,ρ, h hfe ohmunt Ζμ!η 1} 111. piinfip qopmuh Luhinbnd
fowqayp hop JUypupon qomnt ἱ Loqepwymm pmgmpl mbywhky ἢ
TAN TAY θπιΐπμηη. ves

11 On all the versions of the so-called ‘* Agatangetos ”’ and their problems, see Garitte,
A gathange, also above Chapter X, n. 89a. On this listing of Armenian princes to which
he refers as “* List A ”’, see also Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 159 sqq., and notes, also table vi.
12 Agat’., pp. 643-644.

76* APPENDIX JII
u. Greek version 13

164. ... ὅτε οὖν ἤκουσε τοιαῦτα ὁ βασιλεύς, ἐβουλεύσατο pera
σπουδῆς πορευθῆναι πρὸς αὐτόν. καὶ ἕτοιμος γενόμενος, παραλαμβάνει
, ma 3
τὸν μέγαν ἀρχιεπίσκοπον Γρηγόριον καὶ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ᾿Αρωστάκην
ἐπίσκοπον, καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν περὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδόξων τοὺς τέσσαρας τιμιωτάτους
τοῦ ἰδίου παλατίου, τὸν πρῶτον τοποκράτορα ἀπὸ Νορσιρακέων
nw A κι ~ > 7 “
μερῶν, τὸν δεύτερον τοποκράτορα ἀπὸ τῶν τῆς ᾿Ασσυρίας μερῶν,
ων 3 “κι “Ὰ σι
τὸν δὲ τρίτον ἀπὸ τῶν ᾿Αρουαστῶν μερῶν, τὸ δὲ τέταρτον ἀπὸ τῶν
Macayottwv Οὕννων μερῶν, καὶ τὸν μέγιστον ἄρχοντα τοῦ οἴκου
»“" id 3 “~ \ \ ? \ 2 2
τῶν λεγομένων ᾿Αγγελιτῶν, καὶ τὸν στέφοντα τὸν βασιλέα ἄρχοντα,
᾿Ασπὲτ λεγόμενον, καὶ τὸν στρατοπεδάρχην τὸν μέγαν, καὶ τὸν ἄρχοντα
ΜΜαλκαζιτῶν, καὶ τὸν ἄρχοντα Συνιτῶν, καὶ τὸν ἄρχοντα ᾿ Ρεστουνιτῶν,
καὶ ἀπογράφοντα ἄρχοντα, καὶ τὸν ἐθνάρχην Σααπιανῶν, καὶ τὸν
δὰ Ζ λ ? “A ¥ ? \
ἄρχοντα Σ'πασκαπετέων, Kal πλείστους τῶν ἄλλων μεγάλων καὶ
¢ ὃ ? A 10 3 λ nw ὃ
ἑβδομήκοντα χιλιάδας ἐκλεκτῶν στρατοπέδων.
᾿ 5 Bs ¥
165. ἐξελθὼν οὖν ᾿Αραρὰτ τῆς πατρίδος καὶ Οὐαλαρσαπὰτ τῆς
4λ 3 ? > \ 2 ~ ἾἿἾ ? 14
πόλεως, ἐπέρασεν εἰς τὰ μέρη τῆς ᾿Ιωνίας. ...7%4,

F. ARMENIAN PRINCES SUMMONED TO CTESIPHON
1, Lazar P’arpect 15

11. Pb --. δὲ anp fp σιυδἥπεδ fp dboudhd wmgutingh Ζω πη yauyp mb) bany
buh ym pdap pbk ΓΙ Ei : ΒΕ omnlikh ΣΝ Y woul [εἰπε
nk ph, op fp Auninsh Dunguuhh fa Zuyng. bh fp ἱππζδ Upopnibbmg Lépow—
nnd. ᾿ mnLokh Laponmbkuny U puny. Ρ ιππζηήξῃ ᾿σπμ{ιπππιδιένιη Q-urmfiony.
fp annlith Wunhhaithg Yupawh, 2mjng woman ἐκ mph Wonlhlabthy.
β uniokh U' nhuy Upinmly. f mndokh ἰλι με ζπι τη U'miké. p mndoth Usu—
“ππιδι τα ἢ { μιζιηΐ,. fh mndokh Y uhmibuy Q fun. ph "ηπζη ἢ Usdhugkuy
Gouin, hb jwsfumpdth Y py ΓΟ Upmoun, h nny] wn rnin kw p mf pd phi :

18. Ag., p. 83.

14 This passage does not occur in the Arabic version or in the new Greek version of
the Infe of St. Gregory published by Garitte, Agathange, cf. Ibid., pp. 327-331. On the
princes accompanying Trdat III on this hypothetical journey, see Toumanoff, Studies,
* List B”, pp. 159, 161-162, and table vi.

15 £P’, pp. 148-144, 236-237.

ARMENIAN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS i i

11. AvP ... Unm pep un bnum Hapa Unpnpafgnh p puhith ΠΩΣ
Θυιη ρμιπβ, bh Epplinjp tngw pom’ [9 ns ηπρ uyububkip pf bth), h ng
ηιπἐμπιθ ῥεῖ ho qommp. 4ahbip youlkpl : δι muy hi hani] finiuSEmy
ηἥμιπη [ἢ hr ΠΩΣ quibikubuh h mujp fomypmgnrgmhby; fp ππιπὶὶ Upbuy.
ἡ [ropumbh uke Upoparhtmy ἡ LEppomyard, h ἡ frofumbh nny Udon hbug,
: gpofumbh math Yubmbybuy, ἦν gpepauiih noth Upoupmbtmg qgupourfp,

bh ghofumbh noth Uiedhugkug gGiuinh, b gfofumbh mubh Usunonbkmg
η4 mdubh, h ea Ph θπιελίνιιη, h yhopumbh Uonymy, h ypofuuth Uno
fnkhhy yPunhup, A gfepruth Sunpuy η pth, h gfofumhh Upeparhbuny
AU uypomy, h yi yputs fp muthinzink pang hs he pny by hugh, ἐμυημηπιηιδ μὲ
pf youn fe wnoinp ph Bughipmp : Guikgkmy Jn maby ghiuy f ηπιπὴ h
fiph hkiguanp fofuuih Ufhlwg Yuunh, pwyg fiefs map foe;
pura Jonny hs pul gfiph :

li. tose 18

TI. ... δὲ minlh [?uqmenph fi bkppu hngkybuy Any py Finks, ζμιδ ἐμ
aphy joe ne h ns hu pum unjapm fp iwmhh, ayy puto ymaypughhe ppp
wn unk huh ἀπΐτιη fmt, dyPoapm] mibfibi ph qullkomilke furor aly nippy
διι πη ἰδῆ, my] uf ph hngny {punta ᾿ππιίτι! pulpoht palimuntl yin, yap
fiph éwhustp, opng mimulph bh myy :

hh mn Loki {δίκη YUUUY πεῖ :

fh nnLikh Upepahkmg LEPC INKS ‘minds:

jh mnith Pppomnbbng UPSUY mind : ,

ἢ ἱιππζήξῆῃ ᾿υπμμιπππιεδίπνη 4.112. 8} 8 mim :

ἢ ἱππζή[ῃ Uunlhhatt hy {11Γ 5.11 mim :

h mn Lokh Wnhng UPSUY what :

bh mm Ltth Ugadmbkbog {71} Ὁ ΒΕ ohh :

h ᾿ππζ δ Usunmiboyg 4.11.2 11 ν wht :

Β ᾿τιηπζήζῃη { μιζἰιπιδιη PPS αἿΠΙΝ :

hh ondith Uiidlhugkng CUURNG wim :

ἤπια sad ἐν a peat yearn hngkgph ᾿ pee ne

18 Huse, pp. 42-43.
17 On all of the princely lists in Lazar P’arpeci and Ehsé, and their reliability, see
Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 246 sqq., and tables viii-ix. ;

785 APPENDIX III

G. ParTisans oF VASAK OF SIWNIK’ 18

1. Lazar P’arpect

TI. 12 --- Ge app funumnpkgut ghif uomwhmyhh phy mponubbhgphh
YQ wom ln Eh μα ppl. popumbh Pagpoinnhkug δμπη. fafumbh NMoapfunnamh—
bug Quin feny, fafumbh Umm fait ng {Γι δ, fofumbb Y wLhmbkug Q fun,
fofumih Qumbu Y mpg μη πεζῇ fiafumbh Upbyth hy [sic] Upunth, fio pumtih
fipow, DEpukL, ho wy p younublag, ho ukymfp niwhp jjipm pulsfrp
μπηζὴξ :

1, ὐνδξ 15

ΠῚ. .-- hol ηηπιδηῖ Enpopy μ ἀπε Ywumlwy fofamhph Upbtug, ap πὸ
fp peg ἰμμηξιμ] ἐμ pufamli ζββθιιδιπμιη pom bhp ph βμιππζμηπηΐ fupag :
Linnpkog bh fun pha pup’ ἡπμπὴ ηἰμπὲμ gfemymfefrh donenang bngu.

Qhofumbh Pugpummbbng yopo.phh pupm p :
Q ho fumbih Nopfunanhbmg Hojo ph fupal Pp:
Qhofumbh Unpwdmbking yopo.ph fupml pe
Qhofuubh Y μιζίιπι έτη ΠΟμῸ ph fupm p:
Qhofumih με πεδτ εν Hono ph pup p :
Qhefrah Fupkybhhy qopoph βιμπιρ :
Rfofambh Mapduy qopoph fupn{p :

Ge quay; puagmd gopu puppmbh “παι {ἢ mph jphph, ho qukymdu niu
με δ ἱππζὴξ :

ΤΥ. .-... ἀπῇ fuph bh Fluo ἡρμιηπιὴῆμ fp ηδηϊὰ Ppfunnuf, h fuunhbmg ἢ
ambqu ἡμὴ : δι p μιμηπιὴ pay nin fu Aw pup unnkgun h Einun ppb
ηοὰ ft δ 9 μ Apu ἐν} πηι. ἐ pups Luninkiny punpounul bag h kun h klum paypoin—
βῥιιὴμ ηριπηπιδμ μμημηπιῃ bh gpg δι ηπ! πα p ye μιδαιη, ho yoy πῆιιῖμι
poulmobbuy puhubuy fy : Npng wink ph AY, ΤΟΝ ηπμὸμι ἢ ἡ μη bopu.

18 EP’, p. 209.
19 EUS, pp. 74, 91-92.

ARMENIAN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS 79*

ho fumbh houmnbbug’ {1 μιπμιὴ minh,

hofuutih Mapfunnmbbug’ Qunhony wharh.

hofuwtth Yudhmbbmg Qu whe,

hofuwhh Pugpommabbug’ Shpng mfin.

h> fui ἰλι μι ζπιδίτιι ἢ" Ub [δ wink.

ho fumbh Qu pkythf py’ Upunth win,

hofumbh ἰλ}ἐπ| ἢ ϑπιη wharh,

hofumbh Nipowy VE puke minh,

ho fumbh Ubi hu Murch bug Y mpg μη πεζ minh,
ξιηπιζ uff Usminmbkuy {Γιὰ ἐν πα πιΐ,.

Βιμηπιὴ ho wy mquin ὅπ πη μὴ, gap παιπιμῖι μι" αἿν ohms puppmip mubf :

δι Ρπαιυδιημὴ gfip payap mp fumpdi muyuinmdpbynyy pupugm |e fit, ng
εἴν} pun wpfumphohoh pogimfboth, oy ho gpmgmdo fp umpp mf
EhEnbgunyh 2°,

H. PARTISANS OF VARDAN MAMIKONEAN
1. Lazar P’arpecs 51

1". δι pun puny bin kh Zujny ink nh Vunlhlntt hg Epubiby fh Y mpl
uinkw, phy fup fp mulimnkpwegh 2myng, opp PEplkamtinh uppml bhuybhh
Dupin fpnunife but Amin uyunin Lb, np ἐμὲ wyun ppl. Naphh Mapfunanhp,
Upounpp Qu dumpulah, h (ufemy ‘hhiw pubmbs, ἐ Upunml Qu pap, h
Qfioh { μυζίιπι έτη, bh Ζδ αν ιν Vhdw pubwh, bh wy mutimnkopp bh uk—
ymdp, h pugmip fp gopmgh 2ujng, app piiphmyodmp ihmfem] spunpugl hh
{δι pl fubyfp mfumf unipp ΠΩΣ h un quiidhiy β Hut fi fEpwy
ΠΠΙΠΡ h dH p fan funny Pahunnuf. h uty] ηπιΐη Ρ ῃ yop yh Up b—
muhuh mppnidfny, ἐπ} fp ηπμὸ yuoinbpueghh wn ρ μὲ πι [9 διυΐ,.

Lf. ... ἔω!η πῃρ ἢ Au ἧπι ἢ! Epuhb f h Eplhunnp hnsiubh nth mpd nhin—
Lipp pi uppayh Yapqoty bh αι ζιμαπ αι ἢ δὴ αν, Gh myn phh. poggth σπμμιπ---
ππιδιέλιυη Epuhiby fb ᾿υπμέὲδ. μυηηξῇ “με }πεδιριιη Epinhby μὲν αἰδιη πεζῇ ἰλμιπιή.
μιηηξη δ ηπιδίιη Epwbky hh διμόιμιπ. poggth bAdupubbhy’ Epwhky μὲ
Liwjiul. μπηηξ Puodpbpmbbun* Epub; pi ὑραβζ, pogglh Qimbbug’
Epuiiby fli YU wluh, pang lh Lbduyphiny Enuhiby fb. Upulh pug hh Upmubdmuy

20 See above Appendix III-F, n. 17.
21 EP’, pp. 198-199, 227-228.

805 APPENDIX III

Epubiky ph ἘΣ ΩΝ : δι npuytu oun fumy μ h pug piiim|timip 4uipybny
h Luu p phim humm Eyngh βίμε" npp fr ππξηιπϑ yunnt pgp youl igual
phy ming hu μι ΠΗ ΒΗ, Ephipfup foftubimumt h fey myp : Ge ynpu μηιὴμπημιηῖ
pImgbmy μα ἡ δ apm hb fut shqop hafukghh Gofth Lupfip h jpomds mjp.
np.p ΠΩΣ Ufo 4uninin, Auguip Enkuah h Eg μ}Π. ἡπμπῆ fupmpubspip
mun Hupdmuunnypyh Pppunon apkmy myn dt p pyp |e bah ΠΣ : pul f
yopuigh Nupupyh np mii p npn k puny panoph papi ym inna fi.
ζινηδμι μέτα! yunnleg μὲν εἵτη migbhmgiwy pf gopuyy famgh Qupupy, bpk pomqupp
Lhiy 4upfap punwumh bh ΗΠ wjp :

n. Hse 2

Υ. ...- δὲ ψἀπιίβπι mfbbkphoh fp omigh mwmkpmgahh δ ται foumikhh
fupmpubsiip qgopop kh unify yumpmommfeimip, inpw h np μπιῆ ρὲ
Zamna hunky [hh fp ἱπξηιηϑὰ :

Léppuyms Upopnrhp,

δι honpth Mapfunamhp,

δὲ fi.ph Unmpumhint,

δι [λμιπιμὴ Qu poh,

δι Zhao Usui,

δι Φριειπῖ Y mfhmbkug,

δι fou femy ‘bhai pubwh,
δι Upaunfip Upempmp,
δι Giannh Usdunmyf,

δι Surdéuim Gh/ta.hh,

δι Unnd Dimi,

δι hjnupm Quphybuh,

δι GQupth Umdunnlif,

δι Zomjbmh hf pubwh,
δι εἴπει hu Qmgpfl ‘hhdu pubmt,
δι ὐμπῆζ Pu Ipipmip,
δι Puputiuh Uubpalaf,
δι. ἐμὰ Lhdmyagp,

δι Uppal Uphmip,

22 Huse, pp. 99-100, 119.

ARMENIAN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS 81"

δὲ Μμὲδι! Surnpmgp,

δι Uypami Upopnbbunh,

δι διιζῥιππιμη τεπῆι up pmb,

δι ἅπιμὴ Upmmtdnkmy,

δι Paykuhph h Ubkughph kh Spywmmbhph, bk yopph [hommbbwy, bh
mubbn ph ynpdwhmy ph uippmihip fupw puhsfnp yopo phi Lubinkpd :

Unpu μι ζει ἐν pik ζμιδιπηπεδηρ funnoht hh β ηπμὸ npn paguffihs ἢ qu
ἰλμιπιιηπι ἐ ἐῤδὲμ Luiinku fui pads ufo unih h iy fugu yp phy LEokmy
h pha ζ[πιπἰμν ἢ :

+++ δὲ mya mbimurh p Eh pad ὅπη ζιμπμι μη ἧι, ap ὦ η δ ἢ nipnSh ἰμπαιμίπη μι

Suygath {Γι πδξ μη αι θὲ ἢ πιπημμῖ fuiphp Epkumh Enkp wpmipp.

Suygath Mopfunambbug fopthh Yapm] fh pifilumoh mpuipp.

θιυηη Qupnbbag Upp Upnml jponch bh heh mpmipp.

Suygglh BiPmikug Qupimbim, bh δ urémin fpithnauh mpi p.

Supath ‘hpi pukh hy Pimomahh Zomjbuh pout bh Eplm. mpunipp.

Bungth Pu Ipbpnbbmg Zpupuhtpnh VEpuks hjeh mpuipp.

Sungyth Gimbbug Vubmdh ἡ μι ζιδ Epfip mip p.

Suyglh Lhomping Upquph Uputh hfth mpunip p.

Bmygth Upmihduuy Bunn) mpl ii Qurpbaph Eph fw purqunnoph h
ΡΣ

Uju Enphipfap m¢unh h hj? fon Lunml Py ply pbb lhduilke fun fpropopubs
μηδ β mbpaSh hommphgah τ δι. poppmbh mobth bh fp mohbh Upepmbbuy
h Jfppupuabsfop μη πὴ fin frp pray “πα ἃ, feng quyn Ephipfip nifeunh
h hjttn, hk my hoe hfeh fuphp hk pune yp, app quite fapmpabsfap
fh πη μη iris hitimy apky hh p huh mLnip β ke nyonnk punish : Gh Up mfurinwn
[pop unfbiayh Loqap hb Gpkumt bh Μη :

huh Ι ἠπη μιδ mypuykingh mbihmbtp μιηδὴ muni ἐμὲ Pp Ζιηη 8} ζβδιη fupfip
punuimd hb sapp myp : bot yp fp tngaht fp be yonomonnpungh fp, +++ 38

I. ARMENIAN PRINCES PRISONERS IN PERSIA

1. Lazar Parpecs 34

Tl. Wh. Pol gumpp pwduhmyah Yammer, ηιπὲμ Smfulih ἡμίθπιηβῆπε
ho ηιπΐμ Undol Peppmmbbog πη πῆπιηπυ, bh ykpwhhy fp Eptah nkp “Vhinha,
h qinkp Umat apuh Enplgh Gipommdny Upopmiiimg miwah, hb gnkp {1 ὅπι{}

23 See above Appendix 171-}}, n. 17.
24 EP’, pp. 272-273..

82. Ὁ APPENDIX III

Epfgh Upwdm, hb qotp Uppwdud umphunng, bh quip Upeth ἐμέ bybgkhp,
h qutp Pu Pwd oophurmg, quo mf? pmdubwy bh pphomnuwukp μι παι}
ban fur pnp ph Zujng, apng αἱ πα μι p Eh myunpph. fp mndoth Ufibbmg Eph
Enpupp Puphth h Puhnip. fp mn loth Upopnibbag UEpommng h Gunuuy h
Ghigfh h Vrfpmd mh h Mu pak bh Sméuu, Ρ undokh {πω πὴ ἔβη Zuni gy 111 πα]
h 2utu yoy h Uprnanimyy h Umoky. p mndokhy Yu dum pul τιμὴ Upourfip h
fm |d h Y mpd). ἢ undokh ἰλιδιμιππεδίτμ ἢ { μιζμ ἧι h Unubdwp h Unhul. β
unZokh Binbbmg Umnd, Ρ mndokh ‘hfhdw pubhhy ru [πὶ] h Uunnny, Ephnr hu
mypnh p nndimbynif p. f ιππζὴ [ἢ Uiehug kung Gounnt bh Unum, fi ιππζὴ [ἢ
ΤΆΩΝ ἰλπιμι πη πὰ θη φιμ h Y upg δὴ h ‘buy. p unLokh Upopmbbng
Uj pum. p mndokh {Ππυδ ἢ πεδ τιμὴ {7μιζιιὴ h Pu μα δι. fr unLokh Supu—
ghmy Y pth. p undokh {hmpubhhy Puphh h 8nluh : δι qunuw Epbunh h uf
ayp ἢ bm fampmpagh Zuyoq, ζμιμ δι mayp femquanph Sughipm fuji
fowymbop χα ζει mbnkh μ Uphobp, dpish podu diommumbkpapy fo_quin—
pmfeboth frpny :

i. Hise 35

ULNRULA LUNUPUPUSL Np hwiop jodmpmp tudp sani upg
Pppumnuf Bunn qgubdhho fp foto mp parhp :

Sugyth Ufrbbmg Enh Eypupp Pupath h Pulp.

Sungylh Upodpmbkng UE pomyms h Guimuy h Glinfh h {Γ ζμπι οἱ με h
Mupoh h διιόμιπ.

Suggth Uudhhaithg 2Zudmquumykah bh 2odoqauy ἐκ Upnmagg ἐν Unipby

θιιηη GQuduupuhwbiag Upourpp h [om /?, Y wd, Ub puks ἐι ἰδ πιπ.

Sugnth Usminnribung Ymdoh h Unwhdup h Until.

Bugg hh Bimbbug Und.

Smagth ‘bhiw pubhhg fom feny h Uunnny, Ephm hu myn p pulEno p.

Bungath Uidhughury Gouunk h Qnupth Ah Unum,

Bunglh Ununkykhhy φιμ μὴ h Y mpurgnth h "hum.

BU podpnbbmg mnLoth Un pry,

h mnZith Vurbiyw hobby Umdul h Puputuh,

Sunath Suppurgbuy Y pth.

8 fhunfuntkuh muith Puphh bh Θπζιιδ :

25 Hise, Ὁ. 193, cf. also pp. 178-179.

ARMENIAN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS 83*

Uyu Epkunh h {pig upp, Eh np pug fw fw pu png hs, h Eh πῃ f put pu—
πε μη, uulwyh μεν ρα pum dupifiny bh fu fuapapwgahp, pul pon
ζπηΐιπμῃ win phhin [ἐν ubh μι αν ἐν Ρ ται ἐμήδμμ fh pum pug hp > δι puna
ho wy wmquin δια πη βὶ), bh op poppmbh mmbl, bh bh ap fp nwhh fo ppopmpwgh

ful ingnh, bhywh ml hyp h Dupin l hy p pug huhu hgh : δι whe hhh
un pur hijo p Hunnhkginh f unipp Lun mhin ouipismpuilingh 26 ;

J. List or ARMENIAN CHURCHES IN JERUSALEM 2?

ZUUL LUUNPhhS 2ZU8NS NP BEPNPUULLU
(Uf fu pry Ein)

p Fur Durbin hu [βιυηιμεπμπι |? bah Spupuin iw | h f Lu jpn Eine kwh Uppayh
Dehynph Lowenopshh, dbdwilld pofumbiph Zmjng pphighh Ymblnpmyp pf
unipp pug ph Gamuwghi, apng wimmbp iwbinphhgh Eh mun ppl.

Qimpouf dak ph, op wip pny pur, ΒΡ ie f haniwht {1 γπι{μ μι}. op
hash Ζιμπμιπιΐπι Qhnpnuof, phgprp bh διβιβμαρ uppmbp ophtuay fyde :

Min biyusy Yuh phi, np ΜΠΙΠΡ Qupumy bmp k, np puplky fy haniwht β ὥ6--:
hi my pEppih funy, finyhiyke up pap om fufip ἀράδα), jobmt unpp Qu fén—
gphthh ap fb Laequpomyen pagum ph, yap Ugmutp πεν β uplgh gayi :

Updmy uh ph, ap palm Umpp Punwub hgh, yap mjpry Sw6flp ahph :

VEna fh bur Punph iui ph Chpmlmaying, yap ΩΣ, μή! p {ιππ|
ΠΣ

Umpp Qinpywy mh ph, fp ting hangin Fy gop μι! mk f;

Unpunf{ah p, ub pe fh ghpbyomhs Gum jiu Hin pk fbr, Π ἡ π ἢ ἡπηΐϊῆι Qhei—
bk uy pEppih, gop μι! ἢ pmbimy bh Subp p :

hjmquy Epubkyny “μὲ ph, ΠΗ ἰ ἢ Quph 8 mfunifpwinnt, uid f QE /¢ukimbip :

Unipp πη fin pumnup wh ph, ΣΙ Θπῃμπμημιμ bin Ζιμ πὴ p {fuufuny
ἠπηΐϊίι :

Upopmbbmg Yuri phi, an pot Unipp fn pp] :

QuipkLunuhih ΠΣ ΜΙΠΙΠΉΗΙ pny puyuphh :

Umabhnbbimbg Yuh ph op polo Unipp Qu pub fh :

Qnigm puny yuh ph

Pokefuh Yuhiph ephkay fr ὅπ! ἠπηδῶ, np fngh U. Umpqup hk Pugnuf :

26 See above Appendix III-F, n. 17.
27 Alishan, Hayapatum, pp. 227-229.

845 APPENDIX III

ΠΩΣ, Yuh ph op pula Unipp Ofna), yap Sudphp pullin hh :

Rapomahfag aabph, ap mplubag fp Ζμ πη ywtinph hgh, Singh ayiti :

Nanfanambbug μι ρὲ, fp tingh ἠπηΐῆ :

Gafyunfuip, ap fp Ἔα 9} qpob &, ap polo Umpp Uammumdmdhp f :

Umpp ‘VLéuohgbuby ymhiph :

ἅμιπβ mhp, Qappnpy 2uyng, γράμ fy pont fray :

Utdhuy bury ἡμὴ ph’ np polo Uppayh Usnuhkay, ap ἰ πὰ p Pigg hhh :

bt fp μα fp paqu ph Upoulmabbmg yah ph, ἢ ΠΗ Πμπιημμπ μὴ ἐξ ἤπηδιμδῖι :

Ququnmbp ywhph ap poimh Umpp 2nfuhapith h Qopkmbl, fp kd ρμι---
qapph ypobh Supmfehmt ;

ἅμ δα palo by Yuh pir yap Upomlmbbmy hngskh, mp pola Unpnji
“Qnbanph Laonapshhr :

Usunmbioy yohph, Umpp Ufnhp bagi Ek:

Uy ink ph Usuinmbtuy , an μι ΠΏ... ΠΡῚΝ ΓΤ ΠΩΣ p agit {μπὲ} :

Vualphatt hy Yuh ph puimb Unipp Qu puny bm fh, f hnyh anit :

Qapu utp my ἢ Ubpmpiny πη ΐῆι hy :

Yuphugng yh ph, gap Uspwn Pugpumnbkog { ophkm, :

Uudunmiing ifwihi phi, fp finyh hagimh fi: ap Puipnufmhip hngskh, np ft
Shunhhy pop yon phalmjun ἐπι :

μη πιδἐτιπη μι ph, ap ἰ f ἠπηΐῆι Quny yim pApph 3

Uy Ubehinghug yuh ph, lay fp hingh ἡπηδιμῆ :

ees furl ph ph ὅπ hngiwh £, yop my hi Swéfhp mbph :

Umpp Punmulihy furl phi, " bap haqiubh hay :

Yanan τη πῇ (ἀπιπαι την πη 2) yuh ph, f hantn Qhfekhhmy pApphy, μημπεὴ
η filth TL cd [εδιμ" nunjyy (Ppfumnn) λα} ἢ ping:

4 μιμιπο(πε)δίνιιη uri phi, fp fink agit muréuphh Ungninhp :

L whi liqarg tury Yuki ph, fp tingh ἡπη δῆ :

Quinkymyh fp hayh lagi :

Unhuag {μὴ ρὲ" fp ἡπη πῆι 4 [tub duh h :

PuSpipmbkmg inhi ph, ἢ ἠἡπηῆι Qauny pay pApfhs :

UuLuanihbmg nh pi* f hagh ἡπη f ;

{Πππηϊηη ἐτιπη Yih ph, ap μ᾽ Znanit miubif :

Unipp BnLubiiar yuh phi, f nyu Supniftimh, op myth Y pug fp mph :

Qaquy Hunk pir p hnyh nytt, yop myo nani nibif :

Uupmhynhbug Huh ph :

Uoutnkbug yuh ph mkpmd § :

U pbb, fy haut uy] ἐμή p 2uyny :

ΝΟΣ ΟΣ

ARMENIAN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS 85*

Ufebbmg yubiph puphrby fy yout :

Uy fatp Ufrbibmy fp Singh ἠπηΐῆι :

Uy ψεὴρ Uppbkug fp Qoph Umpuyp :

Qappapy yuh p Ufubtmy, fp Qaph 8mfuunfufem :

2piphpopy {μιὰ 1] δίνη" gap Sudhhp mbiph :

Puunpny yuh ph op putin ae Uummmdmdhp, np mn ΠΣ pul bh
Ἔα} £ :

Quyubynmy {μι ρὲ, fp tingh ἡπηδαιδ £ :

Unipp Dpfqop Ua pmuniy ink ph;

Upgm puny ymbiiph, f 4apunmlngiin :

Uy Spkp yuhp ἰληπιιιὴβη, gap μι) ἢ Swéhhp (Upmpugfp) miph :

Uyy Fphp yup fp δὲ δ pmgupph Θμπιιμμηίμῇ :

Suepuging yubp’ ap polimd Umpp appa, Upouhmhkmy optim :

Gi my sopu utp τὸ μιν ρ f Uuuhhntthy βλέ! :

Uskhujh pmfwhyml Foftmhuumh yuhp pspbkuy byh jpofamiog 2uyng f
unLpp pum ph ΙὉμπωμμηξ ἥ, p inky fn nbop flim hukingh Ppfumunh h yyy
mnnnnmemlnfa infy ful τ δι. qudunlkd Ehintnh Ph, gbaggnf[etm, ἡ Ὁ ππιλιηΐ,
qUmpp Subnph, q2phomm i uuybinh, h gh pip sh, gL Epona h gp 2uihpu—
pani, yQunkph h gigas qfunk, ghopobh Lmumapshh, bh qgmumnmdphlm
Pipi imhh, ofhiiuy yh f [Puqunnplh Syupuumyy h β Uppayh Dphynp ] πι111.--
ΩΣ

δι. wu abby ἡ{π|δπ πα], pu ΠΣ) Pp Umpp Laenunnpsth ζανμπ τη μι.
pay yaymfa β DEpufal, qnp fpr tiny Sung opty f ny murda uiole hy p ψμὴπι.--
fefah Zujny > Qap Lm puny dina mnbginyh jfinny fp fru famisd sup uy"
fombymplg μὲ qgubhngh ἰμαπη Yunkapk poh. Yuu apny frfawbugh Zuyay
πο θῖν hEfinhhapy mokay (Pugunnphh Snumpifutinup, ap ppp 70,000
qucbhwoh, Ponplghh phofauimpPbht Qaypaybnmgh qonlkimyph Loy ppwhinpmyuts,
ἐρὲ mpuhy πιο. bel yubioty dnntp, bet εἤνιιδι δ ιῆη μμόβθ. mint ἢ μὲ, pk—
win wabkpm] pofukgnqe τ Ua jfmny πηἠπ θ᾽ mpmpkay pofumtagh 2uyjnyq
ἐ hu feng plough, npuytu h guy εϊεοιμ μὸν f ymunnaLfpubagh midny mnbkhs,
h ἡμιῖηε ἡ p op pbpmomgh? day bh ζβηη Gy kh, Ὦπη τ} mowmypbmy ρυιδη πη :
pul np.p uy {απ fh Ρ h Ahn Ρ h mnie Lurény ΠΩΣ μ᾽ y faphubgh αμπζίτη μὲ
audio Lowunay ἐν ἡμιμπιη, ἥπημ ἢ nbn ho off bh bh ζιμαιπιπππεῖ τ be ἡ πα
Yubnph gh dépng* japtud maw Poopyp yaprSmbthh bongs | pitp op ζπηξϊριπὰπι"
np yyy Ap ἡμιπηξμ wan Piapy Lang, wy wduywph μὰ yuroppupynrh p
Gamuugkdp ho 2nnndh : te pupdtuy ἢ fi piphmip 2m ymbulmhph, f
duhipm [okt fuiplng Sudhjogh saynypky lanky], bh yay fuphuthy Yuh δ μὴ
op ply dhomip ἐμ μη mmpuyop puym phi latimhy ymhpkp wmpuphh ἢ

865 APPENDIX III

uuphunugmspa pupehyhh, yf mbidaph phgph hk mpm, npyfe bh gy
fubioiy Yuhik pbs > δι piplwh p Harbus hh ph wpinuipnj pagum pph Ey pi JI
πίη μα. bh ipnfokmy quimobo’ gen ho mqeengh πη πη ἢ mbiniubky hh
(yayjnq) winiohu, [μέ pp ππημδ ἐν gmbh onhmjfefit h agnpinié fab :

Upp, paqmip yogpyann hb Ugh puwhyppm hf Pkpmypy bf μηυπὴ
Upifulah fof déhimonwhp Ζμ πη. ho ho f umpp pawn upon, kh ἢ
jaagp om[nh Sfplpuy h juyy “1: ζἢ μι 11 Mu pb απ hhiny. yop yaya pam hh full
ΟΡ ιπἰτ ἶσα}. ητι ἣη pognde dayh yp ῥμδδ αι poofumpd ἐμ ιΐ ἢν. ho milkbinyh
mun ΠῈΜ] ΜΙ ΠΕ 3 ἐ Lng byw wy ann fps p why han Bnyp β Lush emt
pAgmu, μμεϊελνμι ἢ UEhmumutin Gpniuinybuh h op bf ompd ybpnumy μια :

δμιδ έν .π|ὃ ἀλλα ιπαι μα} 2uynq yppwybnf gpkmy ημδπειιΐπ ywhaplpgh
Gani buh, f fuphypny fofamiiph Zur yay wu aya) Qu dumpulmbp [μι funny,
ap foil gba 1 μπιεμιμηξ ἣ, ap bh pha pol ho pdtuheg_an wammmdwhafy
unipp nkpbugh, ply np op gun Sth Shunu Ppfunn ἢ Hupp bn
pup, h f 4 jpn Emig h Gpnumykuh βιυίνμιη ηΖμ πῆ ΠΡΟΣ nyp
hmodthh pAquupnpuby ahinpyy hing h y4ununinu pum Snphug β pupaqm|ebuh :
Uy; 4 jamny pun hkynrfe prin h wn Jian pln hh Zu ph Ζι")πὴ h {{ι--
fopmyph ἢ ᾿ημηπμβιμπημη Zonning bho myjng πῃ ηὐδῃ ἧπῆμι ὮμΙΠΗΙῚ,
ΠΣ ιν} Π] ouppnpy Anyninyh Pughinnhh h ἰμπμιππηιιδπι [9 ἐπι ΠΩΣ
pimfebmhy > δι ἐμ ρμεὴι οὐπηπήξμι! whan yh Zup ph h un Din py p UEhm—
minha ἢ h μῃμόμ(θιμεπμ Ufim pul bag ph, wha μὲ ρ ppp phy fupfap, apkghh
wn με! fp ym feogplonh Soda han my mfennmbmyh, Efe gf°hs yop
fgf wnbky, ζει] fing ho mbky qmkgh phuohafeiwh fupbuby, bh fet
feagny hb Fyuhiby whinh, gh Spontwh feogeanphh foumuiayp fp ykpmy uppry
pum phh h fui μι Ginna, yf uf’ Εἶμ μη μὴ whan fp Zayng hnolmanpuy
h Suhnphl Uunph ID) poqpupmmgingh. uy] uprujhs np.p ny πε μὲ ἡ ζΜ1Μ11Π1)
βιμηιμεπμβῆ bh ηϑηρίμμη ἢ μμι ζῆι ημπι θ ἐμ : δι ημέιιη ἐμ θπη [ἡ πιὴ
Ζιηπη, feb woh Lovuany δια μὲ dh’ ζιιπημδηβ,Ρ yngm, my fagtp bh mpm pu
ghughp f pugmpl mph : δὲ ριμηπιὴρ [θπηβὴ qukhaunuhu fuphuhg bh
qphgu hp pang qhimgph. bmg p plhuhbguh f Qeuuppu, hwy p snquh jbphymnn,
h pura. p f mnkgin St fupbuhgy ng phy fb. uw) Lu ipbpky hh nunhhy ho o.m—
punnrfebuhy h bkpnfehwhg ἢ ζμ} 11} τπ πη Gpnwuwybif, up frlish inppby ph
Subp p mis fami ph pls DD h Gpnumaybuf. h μι ἡ πεζίτιπὶι ng 4m dap d—
hEgmh polmpuink;, Wn.p fu jp iin phi, ap pay paykywh β dbnuy pudimjb—
pepngh nyonnp fies ph h phpbyuhs, h Surin fun ΠΩΣ Zui] ,p h Uunphp :
ful γξιππ| fp Ombpmfebht Luphugh ἢ πη μη ἷ bh pobpwhmgh Epp 2 πη.
gp πὸ phpthh ηἥπειπη ηδημπμδμη gop wympphim, fp feaguarnpp hb fofumbph
Ζιμ)πη. ἐ bngm ns hianpmgbny ΩΝ [πη ph ninky fu fupbuhy. h db

ARMENIAN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS 87*

yuki p εἤνμι ἡ Hu uy fb, ἐ hiup p ΠΩΣ QhfeEhimy h WJ] P εἰ πὰ β Ριεβηρξ[ῇ,
h U frrtis hah hpobunnnp, h fp jaqp ΠΠΙΠΡ gbunnyh Sapnuhubn, h Ρ pEppih
bapdm|ebut, Uhura nin Ppl shh, h p (wu μομαι ἐν μι jun, h p ZEpint*
ζει ηξ [mu βόμμι). h mi jp f bnjh hagdwbu S/pbpnhah omnih, papa
hanimht my ghofeh δε ἧι αι hh Em (Pppumnn) Lpiradup fpagh : bh μα πη fly
wujuuytu Enbjng :

b ph fiph Znaning Qin qunin finn, np δι ἔνι ἧι παι hngp Ufign ppm, p L muminps fl
Gp fag pot Ehbnbgp Hun up app.ps papa ημέιυ] ἐμ Api myn. ΠΗ
Uhoonan wimp με πηι τα Zayng globe fp pGpnmg tt, ἐκ olpobonnky
Enbuy swtiapkhoh. bh bh μι εἴν μι ph Yuiinpmy ph Zujny ap [δμπιμμηΐ ἣ᾽ bofem—
Yuan “δι p. h ppb ΠΣ ΣΤῊΝ ἐι ppt, pf Ὀπιφιιη qui πὴ, np nod hap
Qishmdml. h bp ginkmy quo he op flim hE my quis hi hupqun :

K. Tue GrRecorip BisHoPs
1. Armenian version 28

oP --- δι μι ἢ ἐπ phy μα ρληι οι Eph ph Lmyny fi ΕΣ, ufprhi sh fp owan agin
“παι παι δι ἐμ ηδοιμ πὶ 9 με pupngmfebwhh bh unbuupwhimfebobh, fp Uu—
"πη μη. πῆ ρα ημ ρἐ ἢ dplish wna mpfumpdunh 1 μιηιπξιμη, dhlish wn GuqupSop,
ΠΝ fowun fp μι ζ ἡ μεἧμι Uuupfemy, upush fi npn U pushing, ΠΝ p “11 ζ ἢ μ] “11
ἱμεμξβη, Puyo puts punyu p up_pmjn.]dbuhh Zujny. h ἰλδημιηιπη
pum pth Upiish un Udphh puympon, phplp wn umfiumboph Uunpng, wn
Lap Ghpuil nt Eplpunh, ho wn Unppop uphish paninyp Ephfph Uurpmny, ΠΝ
wn ump Und Ρμιπιμῖ fofumbph, ΠΝ Uanpywumhah agin unm pin Sur p
qgunbinmpubinfe fh fap :

Qunfihiayh Fu Yusha lu bEhimy fupag, ey h ηδιη; πῆι qin fr h ΠΩ
uinfELEn winunhiy pany yny apni ful 1] 1 1Π 11} ran ἢ 11] h πη Ingo απππι
ηἷμμη αι ρα, waw Ph femqunnpmg ἧι pofumtmg bo ται ζἰ[θιιδπμιμη wh
ping pie lg fh furl wn hopping qudibnsh μὴ shh win Sfniuh hnbuy, h
guiubhw yh ngh wunnwdmygkunn hb npfgfhie punky : ---

aru ... Np pugin βόδι! Fy hulnmnrfebubh hh μι πο μι ἢ ἦ1Π|. wink wy
AEnbugpm|e fal fp δια. op mam Sioyh Uyphetine wih, ap may ἤπη διιδη ἢ
Euxfpmiunmloh gbinnyh 1 hbtp fEpmlgar. Eplpopphh Gunugpfaw, ap fp πη διιΐη
Yajpugh Puubliay hogkay | pifp Sofie. Eppapyph’ Panny. sappopyl’ Unfugu,

28 Agatl’., pp. 621-624, 630.

88" APPENDIX III

Spink pnpy th Guukppnu, YEgkpapyh’ Bndmbhtu, hfhkpapyy Uguuylu, mf bpnpa
Upunpfetn, pibkpnpyir Upumbtu, munbk pnp ἐλέη fin phn, Hino um bkpnpyl
AY ppphtu, Ephamwawhk papa ἀμεμυῆπε: ἰλμιρ᾽ ap yappngh primyh piunply oh
ΠΣ Guypulnynup ἠπηδιαδη ἡπηδιιδη, udi ἢ πα δέτι ypupnyniiefh : δι
qmjoy winkeye [9 bh hhgh np, πὸ ἱμεριμπη σα μοι :

δὲ qUgppuiina qayp b:dupfm Ah moonmeuntp iipmlpagn [Pngayp 17 pn—
hulut gpa pobmbplh, bh ΒΡ phy οὐμι δια. dutwila fp jpapfin
Apobtp. op bh pipkuip fupm] whdwdp ful opfiul gmymhty : «5:

ar>? SUBLU d¢udubiuhh Enmbky ft ιν! fp ho πη μι} δι, u push sky ἢ
LPifp Ephppe Zmyng. + wm [Fppqnp) bymy Sauk Ephfay hay μι papain
fujbptimfuow minun. :

Opy pan ewig qe Ep[thmy piunptn mb dfhi [ιμπιὴ ἰμμ μι fubinuin—
Fuh μη απ απ mkg fo hk why phlfp, bh poloinpy poueinpkp quilkhkubuds :

δι. punqiimnyy ἤπμηπ|η “πέγη Πι su fu hula penis gunn L2myng
Pofumtimpebmth fupny bo np Gyfulnynnmgh papmfSmh ἀϊπδιημημ ἢ
ΣΦ winky fr pu ysapk plain fap Fy puljaynun, app laughs mnbunzsu mbybuy
inky bury : pul Ahupgy Enfomby h ἐμ ἣ nu play hut niin 1] ΠΗ 11.
honp wyy ho ἡ ϑιποῦ δίτα πὴ hughh, πὰ βαρ [hi fp μειηἥπι θδδξ :

u. Greek version 39

152. ... καὶ ἐν πάσῃ τῇ χώρᾳ τῆς “Appevias ἀπ᾽ ἄκρου ἕως ἄκρων
διέτεινε τὴν ἐργασίαν τοῦ εὐαγγελικοῦ κηρύγματος, ἀπὸ Σίαταλῶν
on ? 7 a , 2 \ “ 4 ¢ 7?
τῆς πόλεως μέχρι τῆς χώρας Χάλτων καὶ Kadapody, ἕως ὁρίων

“A 4 \ ~ ; \ ἴω 3 ἴω \
Μασαχουτῶν Οὕννων καὶ πυλῶν Κασπίων καὶ μερῶν ᾿Αλανῶν καὶ
Φ a 4λ 7A ? A ? \ 3 λ om κι "24 ὃ n

ατακαραγνῆς πόλεως “Appevias βασιλέων. καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν ᾿Αμιδηνῶν

? ? ? \ 1, 9 A ? ῳ ,
πόλεως μέχρι Νισίβεως παρὰ τὰ ὅρια τῆς Avpias ἕως Νορσιράκων
γῆς καὶ ορδουϊτῶν καὶ τῆς ὀχυρωτάτης χώρας τῶν Μήδων καὶ τοῦ
οἴκου Μαχούρτων τοῦ ἄρχοντος καὶ μέχρι ᾿Ατραπατακάν, ἥτις καλεῦται
πυροσχωρία κατὰ τὴν περσικὴν γλῶτταν, ἐξέτεινε τὸ εὐαγγελικον
κήρυγμα, θέρους καὶ χειμῶνος, ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός, ὁ ἄοκνος ἐν τῇ
3 “ » fa ? \ 2 , ἦ > \ ?
ἀποστολικῇ αὐτοῦ πορείᾳ καὶ εἰρηνοφόρῳ βαδίσματι ἐπὶ βασιλέων
καὶ ἀρχόντων καὶ ἐθνῶν ἀφόβως τὸ πανσωτήριον ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου
ἐπὶ στόματος φέρων, πᾶσαν ψυχὴν χριστοφόρον εἰργάσατο. ....

153. ... ἐξ ὧν καὶ εἰς τὴν ἐπισκοπικὴν τιμήν τινες ἀξιωθέντες
παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ χειροτονοῦται. ὁ πρῶτος ᾿Αλβῖνος καλούμενος, ὅστις

29 Ag, pp. 77-80.

ARMENIAN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS 89*

“A 2 Ρ 3 ? - A - 3 2 ? ξ \ ἊΝ
τοῖς μέρεσιν βιὐφράτου τοῦ ποταμοῦ ἐπέστη διδάσκαλος. ὁ δὲ δεύτερος
a ᾿ nn ,

Εὐθάλιος, τοῖς μέρεσι Βασηνῶν κατασταθεὶς ποιμήν. ὁ τρίτος Βάσσος,
ς᾽} oa ς ? > 2 ev 3 , eo
6 τέταρτος ωῦσῆς, ὁ πέμπτος LdoéBios, 6 ἕκτος ᾿Ιωάννης, ὁ ἕβδομος
ἀνά Σ Ove 7A : ςῳ,. 4 2 5 δέ "A ?

γάπιος, ὁ ὄγδοος "ἄρτιος, ὁ evvaros ᾿Αρσύκης, ὁ δέκατος ᾿Αντίοχος.

3 \ 3 “ ξ 2 tA 3 , 7 > 2? 3 ?
αὐτοὶ ἐκ τῶν ἱερέων υἱῶν ἐξελέχθησαν γενέσθαι ἐπίσκοποι ev διαφόροις
μέρεσιν, ὥστε εἰς αὔξησιν φέρειν τὸ κήρυγμα. τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν τὰ
> 3 7 , 3 ay 7 3 “.
ὀνόματα δυσθεώρητα, εἶ καὶ βουληθείη τις ἐξειπεῖν.

154. τὸν δὲ ᾿Αλβῖνον,. ἄνδρα ἀληθινὸν καὶ θεοφιλέστατον, ἐν τῷ

; A ? > , ” \ 2 \ \ \
παλατίῳ τοῦ βασιλέως ἐπιστάτην ἔταξεν, καὶ αὐτὸς κατὰ καιροὺς
ἐν τοῖς ἀβάτοις ὄρεσιν ἦγεν σχολήν, τύπος ἐν παντὶ καὶ πᾶσι γινόμενος.
157. κατὰ καιροὺς δὲ ἐφιστάμενός τισι τόποις, εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν
σπουδὴν προέτρεπεν ἀκοιμήτῳ τῷ ὄνοματι. τότε οὖν ποθεινοτάτη
καὶ εὐπρεπεστάτη καὶ ὑπερκαλλίστη ἐγεγόνει ἡ χώρα τῆς ᾿Αρμενίας.
ως [Iipnyépios] εἰς μέσον παρελθών, τὸ ζωοποιὸν κήρυγμα τοῦ
2 , “Ὁ a 3 ? “A ~ 3 , 2 \
εὐαγγελίου τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐπειράθη τῇ τῶν "᾿Αρμενίων γλώττῃ. THY
θεοσέβειαν πάντας ἐδίδαξεν. καὶ ἐν πάσαις χώραις πορευόμενος ἐπε-
λέξατο ἑαυτῷ εἰς κατοίκησιν ἐρήμους τόπους, κἀκεῖσε ᾧκει" ἀπὸ
τῶν ἐρημιῶν πάντας εἶναι ἐπισκόπους πάσαις ταῖς πατρίσιν τῆς
ξ fo)

"Appeviwy χώρας. ot δὲ ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ χειροτονηθέντες Kal κατασταθέντες
πλείους ἢ τετρακόσιοι ἐπίσκοποι ἦσαν, οἱ καὶ διαφόροις τόποις ἐπεσ-
κόπησαν. τὸ δὲ πλῆθος τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ διακόνων καὶ ἀναγνωστῶν
καὶ ἄλλων τῶν ἐν τῇ λειτουργίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ κατασταθέντων τὸν ἄριθμον
ὑπερβαίνει. ....

in. Greek Life of Saint Gregory 85

170. Xerporory δὲ ἐπισκόπους ὁ ἅγιος Γρηγόριος ἐξέπεμπεν
- 70. ΔΖειροτονήσας δὲ MIC ROT OUS Gr ΕἸ ΒΘ. Ply epics Sem pr

ἐπὶ πᾶσαν γῆν τῆς Μεγάλης ᾿Αρμενίας καὶ εἰς πᾶσαν χώραν, ὁμοίως

\ ? \ > a “A a 2.22

καὶ πρεσβυτέρους. Kat ἐκ τῆς Ζεβαστειανῶν χώρας Hiphvapyor
ὀνόματι πρεσβύτερον καὶ ἡγούμενον" οὗτος δὲ 6 ιἰρήναρχος σεμνότατος
ἣν ἐν σχήματι καὶ πολιτεία ἐπαινετῇ, ἔχων καὶ πεῖραν πολλῆν
τῶν θείων γραφῶν" οὗτος καὶ ἐν τῇ εὑρέσει τῶν ἁγίων λειψάνων τῶν
Τεσσαράκοντα διάκονος ἦν τοῦ τηνικαῦτα ἐπισκόπου ὄντος τῆς
Σεβαστείας, ἀνὴρ πολιᾷ κεκοσμημένος. His δὲ τὴν γῆν τῶν Δαζῶν,

80 Garitte, Agathange, pp. 101-104.

00" APPENDIX III

2 7 Ὰ > \ 2 2; \ 3 ἃ
ὠφρόνιον καὶ αὐτὸν πρεσβύτερον ὄντα καππαδόκην, καὶ αὐτὸν συνελ-
θό ἴω ξ , is) } 2 / \ > f A ? \
ὄντα TH ἁγίῳ: ὃν πεποίηκεν ἐπίσκοπον καὶ ἀπέστειλεν. is δὲ
3 lan “ “ “ A
AhBaviav Θωμᾶν ὅσιον ἄνδρα, ἐκ τῆς τῶν Σαταλέων τῆς μικρᾶς
πόλεως. Οὗτοι γὰρ πλεῖστοι συνῆλθον αὐτῷ, εὖ ἐπιστάμενοι τὰς
θεοπνεύστους γραφάς.
171. Kara δὲ τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον ἐπί τε τὴν ᾿Ινγιληνὴν καὶ ᾿Αρζια-
νηνὴν καὶ τὴν μεγάλην Τ᾽ ζοφενὴν καὶ τὴν μικρὴν 1 ζοφενὴν καὶ ᾿Ασθια-
δ , \ > ? \ 3 \ a - \
νενήν, Lvviovs καὶ “Aprleviovs καὶ eis τὴν Moxacdy χώραν καὶ
2 4 3 é 3 “ \ 7 ἢ
Μαρ[δ)]πετακάν, οὕτω ἐν πάσαις ἀρχαῖς καὶ πατρίσιν προβαλλόμενος
ἐπισκόπους ἀπέλυεν ἅμα τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν αὐτῶν. Βασιλεῖς καὶ τοπάρχαι
μετὰ πλείστης χαρᾶς ἕκαστος ἐπείγετο ἅμα τοῖς λαχοῦσιν ἱερεῖς ἐν
ταῖς ἰδίαις χώραις, ἀνεγεῖραι ἐκκλησίας, κτίσαι δὲ καὶ μαρτύρια.
172. ”Homevder δὲ καὶ ἐν ἑτέραις τῆς Meyadns ᾿Αρμενίας κατατάξαι
? ? 3 \ \ -“ 4 “~ \ > \ Ἃ
ἐπισκόπους, ᾿Αλβιανὸν μὲν τῇ χώρᾳ Baypavarddy καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν
"Αρσινον ποταμὸν οἰκοῦντας, ὅστις ἐγεγόνει μὲν πρώην ἱερεὺς τῶν
> 2 3 ? 4 3 \ \ > \ ? \ “A οὶ los
εἰδώλων, ἐπιστρέψας δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν ἀληθινὴν πίστιν καὶ γνῶσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ
ἐν μεγίστῃ ἀρετῇ καὶ σεμνότητι ἠξιοῦτο τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ θρόνου.
3 iA de 2? \ \ B \ ) 2 3 , Ba \
Βυὐθάλιον δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν Βασιανὴν ἐξέπεμπεν ἐπίσκοπον. ἄσσιον δὲ
ἐπὶ Κώτων. ΜΜίωσῆν δὲ ἐπὶ ᾿Εκλετζενὴν καὶ Aepleryv. Εὐσέβιον
32 ἃ \ ? é 3 7 1 3 κἃ \ “a 3 7
δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν AapavddAews χώραν. ᾿Ιωάννην δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν Καρανῖτιν. ᾿4γά-
πιον δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν Σουσπέρτιν ἅμα τῷ ἡγεμόνι τῆς χώρας τῷ ἀσπαραπέτῃ.
"Αλβιον δὲ ἐπὶ τὸν ἀσπαραίπεϊτικον οἶκον ἔνθα ἀνακέκτηίντο οἱ
2 ἴων ἴων = \ > \ wn nw ΄“ι Ἁ
γένους TOV Malualxoriavdv: οὗτοι δὲ ἀεὶ συνῆσαν τῷ βασιλεῖ μετὰ
τοῦ οἰκείου αὐτῶν γεν[εάρχου τοῦ μεγάλου στρατηγοῦ καὶ ἀσπαρα-
Ἃ \ a | > \ a ἴω a 3 Ζ c Ὁ
πέτου: διὸ καὶ "AABioy ἀεὶ συνεῖναι τῷ βασιλεῖ ἐπέταττεν ὁ ἅγιος
Γρηγόριος, καὶ τὸν οἰκεῖον τόπον ἀναπληρῶσαι ἔν τε TH συνεχεῖ
προσφωνήσει καὶ διδασκαλίᾳ: ἐν πάσῃ γὰρ παιδείᾳ ἐκεκόσμητο ἔν
ροσφωνή ; ἢ γὰρ μη
τε ῥωμαϊκῇ καὶ ἑλληνικῇ, μεγίστην μύησιν ἔχων καὶ τῶν θεοπνεύστων
γραφῶν: ἐπισκόπει δὲ καὶ Ταραυνῶν καὶ Ταιόσων. ᾿Αρτιθὰν δὲ
7 > ? 9 2 \ > \ \ \ Ὁ
χειροτονήσας ἐπίσκοπον, ἀπέστειλεν δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν αλχαζὰν ἅμα
las 7 ? > 2 ‘ > ἃ \ ?
τῷ Xopyopovvios yevedpyn. “Apoovndy δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν Aitpdxwyr.
᾿Αντίοχον δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν Kopdovvwy χώρα[ν]. Τιρίκιον δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν Odavdy-
δων καὶ ᾿Αβηλιενὴν καὶ Γαβηλινήν. “Erepov δὲ Κυριακὸν ἐπὶ τὴν
? “A 7 Ki \ ¢ 7 A 7 “ \ 30 “»
χώραν “Apoapovvios. αἱ ἑτέρους πλείστους χωρῶν τε καὶ ἐθνῶν
3) 3 \ \ \ > Ζ λ 7 ὃ ὃ ?
εἴς TE ἐπισκοπὴν καὶ χωρεπισκοπὴν ἐξαπέστειλεν δυναμένους διδάξαι
τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας.
173. Αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ ἅγιος .... Πάντα γὰρ πληρώσας καὶ ἐνιδρύσας
“Ὁ ? nm wn Ὁ 27 \ 4 \
τῇ πίστει τῶν χριστιανῶν ἅπαντας, "AABiov τὸν ὅσιον καταλελοιπὼς

ARMENIAN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS 915

3 ¢ ? \ 3 Ἦ 3 “A ? e @ ra 39. Ἃ “»

ἐν ἑκάστῳ τὸν αὐτοῦ ἐκπληροῖν τόπον, ὁ ἅγιος Ipnydpios ἐπὶ πᾶσαν

χώραν ἐπισκόπους μετῆει συνεχῶς ἐφορῶν καὶ θεμελιῶν αὐτούς.

Ki \ \ “~ 3) > An } 3 ἵ rd ΓΜ, 7 ? 7?
αἱ μετὰ ταῦτα ᾧκει ἐν σπήλαίῳ ὀνομαζομένῳ Mapiavat, ἐν χώρᾳ

Δαρανάλεως, ἐκδεδωκὼς ἑαυτὸν εὐχῇ καὶ δάκρυσιν καὶ νηστείαις.

iv. Arabie version 81

158. Tum praeparavit episcopos sanctus Gregorius, hic qui catholicus
totius Armeniae factus est, eosque dimittebat in totam terram Ar-
meniae et in Georgiam (δι Ὁ) et mn regionem draqy’t et in Albanos
(ΠΤ γα). Et assumpsit hominem georgianum (Srény) ex 1115 qui
cum ipso Sebastea venerant, nomine “byrbzhw’ (lege Jrenarchum)
eumque metropolitam fecit et misit eum ut episcopos constitueret
super totam Georgiam (ὅτ᾽); erat autem pulcher vitae modo, per-
fectus, doctus Scripturarum Ecclesiae, diaconusque erat et praesens
cum ossa Quadraginta Martyrum invenerunt, atque ornatus canitie
erat; propterea eum in hune gradum constituit. Et misit in regionem
Abchazorum (’bh’z) Sophronium (sfrwn) qui presbyter erat a Cappa-
docia advenitque cum sancto Gregorio, eumque episcopum fecit et
misit, Et misit in regionem Albanorum ("I’nyn) Thomam, hommem
electum, eratque 6 civitate Satala (s’t’l’wn) parva. Hi autem erant
ex 118 qui cum eo venerant et docti erant Scripturarum sanctarum.

159. Et sicut prius fecerat, misit ad regionem ‘lgylnyn et ad ’bh’z
et ad magnam zwi’nyn et ad zwi’nyn parvam et ad ’sty’nyn et ad
swynws (sic, lege swnyws) et ad mqswn et ad mrznt’q’n et ita ad omnem
locum quem praefecti οἱ accomodabant, episcoposque cum praefectis
regionum mittebat, ΠῚ autem principes et potentes et praefecti
gentium multa cum laetitia in regiones suas ibant cum episcopo suo
qui eis praefectus erat catervaque sacerdotum ut ecclesias in nomina
martyrum constituerent.

160. Et festinavit etiam in reliquas regiones Armeniae episcopos
mittere. Muisit Albianum (Iby’nwn) in regionem Bagravand (b’grw’-
ndwn) et ad omnes incolas fintum Euphratis qui antea idolis ministra-
bant, sed doctrina sua eos omnes ad cognitionem Dei convertit, nam
dignus erat qui in throno discipulorum sederet, Et misit Huthalum

31 Garitte, Agathange, pp. 101-104 = Marr, Chrisiamzation, pp. 136-138.

028 APPENDIX ΠῚ ᾿

(wt’lywn) in regionem bsy’nyn, episcopum super eam. Et misit
Bassum (bswn) episcopum super byqwgwn. Ht misit Moysem (mwsy)
episcopum super regionem ’yb’klyrtyn et drdnyn. . Et misit Husebium
(’ws’byws) super regionem d’r’n’l’ws. Ht misit Iohannem episcopum
super regionem qwnytyn. Ht misit Amatum episcopum super
regionem swsb’rtyn; qui abit cum praefecto regionis dicto ’sb’ta.
Et misit Albium (Ibywn) episcopum super regionem ’sbr’b’t-icam
et mqwnynwn, qui ex familiaribus regis erant et ’sbr’b’tw’ cum
praefecto eorum qui patricius dicitur; beatus autem Gregorius prae-
cepit Albio (Ibywn) episcopo et dixit οἱ : « Ne discesseris a patricio
regionemque imple praedicatione»; atque hoc (fecit) quia episcopus
eruditus erat in variis scientiis, romana et pagana, validusque erat
ad interpretationem sanctarum Scripturarum; et sub eius potestate
erant t’7rwn et bswn. Atque Artithem (rtyt’n) episcopum fecit
eumque ad regionem mlh’zwn misit cum principe eorum s’n’ry.
Et fecit Arsukan (’rgwq’n) episcopum eumque ad sr’s regionem misit.
Antiochum (ntywhn) etiam episcopum fecit eumque ad regionem
qrdlt misit. Tirictum (tryqywn) quoque episcopum fecit eumque
ad regionem Atrpatakan (’tr’b’t’qn) misit. Cyriacum (qry’qs) quoque
episcopum fecit eumque ad regionem *rs’mwnyws misit. Ht misit
etiam episcopos nonnullos ad reliquas regiones et gentes, et ita etiam
monitores misit validos ad docendum verbum veritatis.

161. Sanctus vero Gregorius.... Cum vero omnia absolvit, univers-
osque in religione christiana confirmavit, sanctum Albium (‘lbywn)
omnibus rebus ad inquisitionem regiones (pertinentibus) praefecit.
Kt ita et omnes regiones et episcopos omni tempore fundabat docendo
fidem in qua constitutierant. Post haec autem omnia, abut et habi-
tavit in spelunca m’ny’rt nominata, in regione d’r’n’l’ws, ut quietem
inveniret a curis mundi, atque seipsum ieiunio et orationi et fletui

dedidit 32,

82 On the problems of the versions of ‘* Agat’angeios ”’ in general, see above Appendix
111-:Ὁ, n. 11. On the bishops ordained by St. Gregory, see Garitte, Agathange, pp. 321-
323, and Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 458-460, n. 98. See also above Chapter XT, nn. 10-11,
14-16b°

ARMENIAN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS 93*

v. Step’annos Orbelean 38

δ. ... ἜΣ ΠΣ yu myn hupokqun. muy ἰμημηΐ h ΜΠΙΠΡ Op panp
gEhGybgmlwh you, qgqaud bh ηπμπηβι Euypbuloyoomgh, bh Lp pail
pin pipkmh mfetoam| ho nulbbhap papdm 36 bypulnynumy’ 18 pu Sat ἢ
18 μη. μιϑὲὴξ πὶ Dplh Zup pul] bu βμυἠπιηπαΐι. h μηζεὶ ἐ uno) pits Pumbhny,
ful gUfrbfi pu dopimhh phofthipnpy qu doh bommgwhf, bh gmyuhf
yuyu Umit) Quip udnpbyh :

vi. Uxtanés Urhaecs 84

YU, .... δὲ δα πιηπερ᾽ op dhalmapkguh po tiimbt’ unk fh pmb gsnphp
4uppaup Gy pula ΠΗ ΠΕΣ Ρ niybmy nkykuny :

2. Upp μυμεὴ aypp μι θππιιῆμι μι γι μαιημίη μη ἦι pupa wpmppy qjrpmpar—
sep yuku’ apylu Lmouanpshh εἴπη! πμρη} Ἔρβηπρβ ἐ pupal; ἐν Epa
qubipLolmh w/t nophim, by fulnynumgh ηἶπιμημι. urn) hr’ 2mppuj buy fr—
uhoynoh, Ephpnpyh Pumnt Bbaypulnyanh, Epnpyh Swmypny Gy hulaynut,
onpapal Uupymyny, Lphigk pap ph Upouinihbay, Yin kanal Upoparhimag,
hfehbpnapal ΠΕΣ πι δ μπμηῖ" fhoumbkmg, phbkpnpyy Unhug, mu
hipaa Usui hbug, Himnauhi papal Pumbiny, Enhamonnbk papal
U map hnbt hy, Ent pnuuwbkpnpyl Pugphotymy, soph prmumb bpp hinp—
funombkug, Spigkmwowbkpappy Yalta, ybammbbpapyh — Uaye—
Lmhbmag, hftihnwombk ppp Upomparhbeny, mjehk. muumbbpapyh ia—
hh, pith hb pnpy* πη emt, pumbbpnpyh Gauppiuhiy, ΓΙ
Usltny, pum h Ephmut Pudmiimg, puwh h Enk ρδ" Gpmmnulwg, pul
h dnp’ Uunpkuy, pum h Aphigh* ἰλνὰ νη παι, pam h igh’ (ἢ μι----
pubkng, puwh bh hpi WeLimbimg, Ραμ ἐκ m/e Gry, puwh h fbi’ Qu—
μίξιν μη, Epkombi Ufoowinplmg τ Ugo Epbumt Gypulaynup app wl/¢n—
nauhuppPhudp poly ἀἰπδιπημπι θ με fp appa Bpfanpl bh my bo Epp
fupfup bh bfewtoonh Gyfalaynnp. ap h inpm lupqtgoh ἢ mkyhu migfu
moumsp kh UamSinpnp jap pulsfip qgonmnn fp ipunpu ἰλμιππιὸπ) 85. :

33 Steph. Orb., I, pp. 64-65.

34 Uxtanés, I, pp. 99-100.

86 On the bishops ordained by St. Gregory, see above τι. 32. On Uxitanés, see above
Chapter XII, nn. 8, 12.

94% APPENDIX III

L. ARMENIAN CONCILIAR LISTS
1. Council of A.D, 450
a. azar P’arpeci 88

bo -.- ὠπηπιπηλῖ wpimlonk pum Cpohwoih mukinnkpmgh 2mynq unipp
Ew hulnuynup pun ΠΜΠΕΜΙ ΠΗ ἢ μα [μι ph Ζμιπη. ἐ DE ἤν μΙ ἦι] Enhynhp h
ΠΟ Ink p, np πὶ wyunphh. Umpph Smfubip, op febuybo hb δμίη ἐμ pon
AFnbw yp fe buh, uy] gh femy plum θὲ ει Zuyny ημι [ὁ ππῖ! nihil pf Fm tm hin ἢ bh,
Sip Utnak fu Ufrbbany fupulayan, Sip Um Upopmikurg fu hulnynn,
Sip Umdul; Suipokny Ey hulnyan, Unipph Umdul Γ᾿ ποιππεὶι ται η Fu huljnynn,
Sip UE, fink Umbdlipmny Fu fuljnynn, Sin Gyliph Pugphutybmy Fu fulnynn,
Sip Unipoul Potmbkug fuyhulawan, Stn [om |d fl; ΤΩ, Eu μα πιηπει,
Sip Gpbufim Ua ppm f fu βπιηπι, Sin hun Y uhnbipkwy by fulnyon,
Sip Puufy Unhay by hulnyynu, Sin Bypayp Ufiehugkuy Fy [μιὐϊπιη πη, Sip
Sméunn Suyny Ey fuljnynn, Sip Ruunh SuppEpminy Guy fuljnuynn, Sip
Qmnfh Uwhubupn byfulayan, Sip By fot Ustuinmbbug Fypulnynn,
δίῃ Gpbufu UymLmbkug Ew fulawnu : Uyan ΤΩ; wubb phuh Ew hulnynu PH,
h f 111 1ΠΠ11} Fyn hi Enhgurhy unipph ‘Lhnhn, h luapth f Upbhiwy, h Ἔα 9.
hwy ymmmunhah Ephgmiip, bh mig pywhmltp ριμηπεδρ, ζαδπηβμὰ u purh sky f
h pbomul wl poh nG pip Uqurhiusn., πῃ ἐμ panath Upopmbkmd, δι app
β ΟΣ, bhi Anymfbuy p, inf ph Ufirbibuny Yuunl, h ink phi Upopm—
hbuy UE pomund, | Uy foun, ink phi Uualbhntthg h yay pany Bink
Zujnyg Yuppoth, ntph LwLhmbkog Gh, mfp Unhag Upmul, mph
Udshmybuy Giunnh, ink nh Uw Lorik Uwits, ut ah Y uh hipbiy Ununrmt,
nk ah Upoupnibbuy Upoun fp, mnt ph Usunnmbkug Y whut, nt ph Dinbbuy
Umnnd, nt πὴ Qu pibkng ΤΣ {τὰ ink πὶ! ἰλπη μη) Ζμμμζμμπ, ink πὶ!
bhi pubhfy Zimpuh, πὲ πὰ Upbybhhg Quin phl, mfph Ununbybhhg Punhun,
Y pth Qhitrhah :

Ujun phil wifkhk pk ΠΣ, nuiininkupp, ζιυδημὰ mL ubwLop h
puripb usin Eu hulnynuop, h muy pub; fp h ΠΡΟΣ wy usin un [μαι
ζμπιμιπιπιι ἢ μὰ apkhh on femgqannph Sughipm hoon anbhwyh omguhph
bpm ΠΟΣΊ :

38 EP’, pp. 133-135.

ARMENIAN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS 95*
b. Ehgsé 87
ULNhULF BIPUYNDNUUSL

np Anymfbguh ;Ujpupunbu ΜΚ] ΜΙ lh apap fads bur Suh fh way ner tars [αι i ἢ]

8NYUb® Ew hulnynu Oy pupunnny.

UUZUY Eu fhulnwau Suipoliny.

UGCLbS Ey hulnwynu Uwhug hE puny.

GQUPY Ey pulaynu Pugphubyny.

UNPPUUY buyjpulayay Potnhbug.

SUBUS fuypulaynu Sujng.

βρυρρῃ μα μα πιηπε Punkhny.

PUUNP Eu fulagny Smpnpkpwbny.

CPEUPU, by fuloynn Vopqounth.

CRYLUY Fuypulayne Uupynjginy.

ULUUPy, Euyfulagn Ufpbbmg.

UNPCh byfulnynn Updpmikuyg.

UUZ2ZUY Fu ρβιὴπῆπιηπη ΠΕ ποιππιδδιπη.

RUUPL kyjpuhnuou Unhwg.

4.1.5} Βα βμήπιηπε Yuh πηι}.

δή μῦ!} Eu fulaynu Usuiunbkug.

δή PUSP Eu hula Ubduimgbuyg.

bP CUAU. Ew hulnyny Un Larhbuy.

Uyo πιεῖν Eypuhoynnp ho μειηπιδ paphypulawnup bo ywmmmlah
Enhynip fp πξηΐμινη mbgkmg ζιδηβμὰ ompp mfunfr Ehbgkging upmpuhp
h Up uLurnuhs p, Uf dm nin Anynifimy p f /Pmqwopubpon inky hh JU pms unin,
4unwhnrfe πε ἣρ ἐξὸμ πὸ fu fon po pg hh h ws Ebru yhi purine mip ΠΟΣΊ ΜΑΣ
wy pra hi bun duh hb nin fr 38:

11. Council of A.D. 505 3°

h {διὸ Zujny fp Pupybhiy fp Ζμι)πη Gyfulpynummbol, bf bap μι [η---
nu luna, Ρ UE p smu ζπ| Vuh kathy buy huljnynut, Ρ CEpuiul Uppy finn
Fupulnynul, fp Séwabnpay Zuppuy bypulaynut, fp Uaninikyt Poimbbny

8” Hhse, pp. 27-28.

88 On the Council of 450 and the list of those present, see Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 246
sqq. and tables viii-ix.

39 BL, pp. 41-47.

96* APPENDIX III

Ey hula, ses Ρ Pillay h β Uuriinikyt Punbhny Eu fulnynumy 40 ; p
(we pny Upompmibug Eu fuhnynul, fp sU gata Nopfunamilng by huln—
unul, f JUmnumbmny ὁ μπῇ Fupuljnynul, p διμόμηπ.}} Upoutinbbing uy huln—
ynut, pf buh pbyf [pmommbbuy fy bulnynul, f Buhl uit Unhuy by fulnynul,
fp Wuppuy Upopniitmg Eypulnyaut, μ Gude Usunnnhbag Fy huljaynul,
f UYmLurhay Min yarhibunrg Fy hpubnyant, β Qungnut Se Fy hulnynul,
pf U' mfubut quip pLnumbh ky fulaynul, ἢ ‘hun{mmy Stinplmg Em pulaynut,
β “huh iy k Ufidhingkng Fy hula, f fob Spur Vi Linhkmg ἐιη[μιἠπιηπιί.
ging ζαδπὰι δι plpkyn] ἡπη ὃπ|δ, μιμιππειπδιπηπλπ bh ἡπιηημίμηπ
éphuinpmg Ebknkyiny, Ephguhg ho dobwlpotg bo dfayphimgbny ἥπλιημιδη,
h fh punpluppm ning h fofumiany 2m puriminh wp fam pd fin, mp phpkh ηπιηηπι---
ihuin. Laaunn jpipkut, {πη Uuubhahbuh, Umlol Quiuepalwh mpom—
pmibmg mbp, Unywhgfhom Zaynq moykin, Upmanfp Ζιιπη sufumyg, Qh)
Yutunny nip, Uwhgkh Utummbkoy mip, Shpon Qaymbkog mip, ἡ μι---
pughk pubs hwo hapuhif mip, Y umm UujmLnibkmy “πὲ. Qik) Qiinbkmny
mbp, Βιποἰμ Ymlhmbhog mbp, Upnurfp Ufnbiog mip, Umphbpobs
[homnmbbuny nk fr, Upnmrsfip Ununiyphfg mip, ho poy yonlihoyh payqaipwn
fo fuming fh Uieury h β ἡ πιρπιδιη, h ΠΠΗΡ pin ling flr fofumiimn fe imip Eh: fh
_ampp hofemyhht h pon οἰ μμ παῖ Ebiykgind, opp gésdup fin Lovin mip p,
fb 2uyp, hb pApyf, bh fp opp 2nghh, jonah Zw peut mpfumplta, pay fu—
hoynumg, paphgubg, hf ambi, poqenng bh fh ofiimbmtmg, mn dbp
πιηηπξαπ πῃρπιίῥιδη, ubpmfh Ppfannuh περι fami; :

Yuu gh mphnoubkpapy wh Gene ππρ ρα] θη mppayp, upigypkn ku
Pupoth 2uyng δι υἠπιηπημηη τα, wGhoyh Ey pulaynrp bh pohmlaiup
h fufoopoporp Faymfiwy fur p VUypapen ganna, pou Zoypummh
mgpumpepin fr “poopy pump, «τ:

Ge qmyu fulapp Soi p fan funny apkym ph hhphymp: bu Pupath Zuynq
Qu Pmahhan unlkboyh key pulp, fopjumtunp b fru ppt. Pp gmp
κηίνινρζμμι : ---

40 The text seems clearly defective at this point. Not only does the printed version,
BL, p. 41, read “..4h UmimAbyt Poimbbuy fuypulnynut: fb Pulham Fx f
Uuinb yt Potmbbug bujhulnynul, β φ πη ἤει} fx μ Uaninbyt Putin
by hulpawnumy;” with the suspicious repetition of names, but the punctuation is
curious.

41 A translation of the greater part of this letter can be found in Ter Minassianz, Die .

Armenische Kirche, pp. 152-157, to accompany his discussion of this Council, Jdid.,
pp. 83sqq. See also Garitte, Narratio, Ὁ. 109, and Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 249-250
and table x.

ARMENIAN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS 97*

in. Council of A.D. 555 45

+ Ge donk gh gh, ἡμῖν myplnpphl 4uphiyap wink; qipmpubns [9 prin
ἡ} Lodopjuupohoh, dbp mdbuyh 2uyp, fp puwh bh snppopy εν σπημπιἝπι.
uppajpy wppayp, fp umpp fp punuubkpopyuh, p yprpuhlh oqaqnilph 48,
Yuh juipl whip hhh fumd lng GAmmaplpoiiny ses

bu UEputu Zmjny ἰμεθπιη βμῆπε : bh UE pound Sm puri. h Wun nif fy
Ay hulayan, Bp fyap αἰτίη ζαι ἤτοι ΠΣ Em fuljaynu : Mupol Lup pu fu fu—
hnynu : ΥΩ Puigphutinbmy ky hulnuyny : Φρβηπμ Punkhiny Fy hulnwynn,
Uéputu ΠΩ] Fy fulpuyno : Ywymn Upominbhmy fy [μη πιη πὴ : Niinpnu
ὑ]{δίτμιη Euhuljnuynn > Bahanp Upepmrbkiang πῃ με πιηπε : Vuplan Pamphot—
ηἔτιμ] διη[μιΐπιηπη : Uuayny Moapfunnnhbuy buy hulnynn > Onlmh UujwLmbibag
Eyhulnyny τ Uppfpony Uanpkmg oygqaunhonamy bypulnyne : Bmfiwah ἢ υν---
hunky rT : Zonal Upomparhbmy buy fpulaynn : Ppfamnonhap
(μη πεδιίτμιη πα μα πιηπη : θημι Gag [δι] fy μεἧπιηπη : (untou UELEhinhkmg
Eyfhulagnay ho πριν ἢν byfulaynutp 2m jnq upfumphhu τ δι μ μειῖρ.
Ζιιδιιηιμῃ f ΠΕ πεηημιπιεμιῖ ἢ inmik Wunlhlnh py : QurpIayp Zuyny Sury funy :
Umiky (Upopnan ang path nym puny isin : Opfanp p Zhmypmlah : Umdul fi
Yupnotot τ Qonmuedunmp Vohobyny mfp: bonny fp Φιιμ πηι :
Dppaop h Lapqet fp Lumley : Qonpol fp Byennioh : Capo Snduh
fp ϑπξιϊμμἣ + Ympymbs. ἢ Umobykmh : 2udoquuy, UYudul ἢ Zimypuhimh :
Ghim, Dimi + Yupwq Gupkybah : bahgnp Uphykm : UE pomuym4 p
Ghiimluh : Zug my Qhrfialabkut : Usnmmdunnip Zurbimiif :
Uponn ἤ Y μριπηπβμπητμιΐ : Umpby p Ζῆν ἡ ιν : {μμι ΠΙΤΣΙ :
Usnmudunamp Upounphmh : Uuriniky f Umiwhmh : Y mp fi Zim μα ἤει :
Vépula fp Unrdunhboh τ Yapyoh 4 πεζίιπιὴβ τ δι τι Lupwdimp :
Uwhnkn ΠΣ Y ai h-Upounmgy fp {δε τ Zudogquy p
UmLulmt : Umdul ph Uuimbnkuh : Y mp f Umpbykmh : δι πὸ np
ΜΙ ΠΙΠΊΙ ΡΠ] Hiag poofumpLolobag fp poze ἢ lpedonnp ηπμὸπ|ν ἢ pudmbm) hy,
fp qutihoting, fp οἰπηπή μη εἶπ, fp μινμἐιππζιΐη bh poole opiuhbmg :
δι. pupdup β uf Iny ghngm ἡμό μη! sup τ fp pape fom μὴ πηῖπὶ bh dpitiny : 44

42 BL, pp. 73-74.

43 The printed text has here the misleading “ fuyngndbhhh ”.

44 On the Council of 555, see Garitte, Narratio, pp. 130 sqq., and Toumanoff, Studzes,
pp. 249-250 and table xi, also above Chapter XII, n. si

98* APPENDIX III

iv. Councils of A.D. 607 45

GUULNLF NP δ» bh BARU, UPLOAED USUONRP PPL

ΔΓ ANLNLELNES CNHUGNANUUSt πὰ Γ 481 YUPNPLESNU

Z2U8NS BES UVUZNRULL UNLUBUP GUPNPRLPGNUP :
bh NUPULE8UL θυ ULEUW

oes unk npiny Anymfinm p Eu huljnunn pu myo ἢ dwypm punyu p Ehintahu
‘hahbiuy. θπηπμπει Hm πηι bul Ey μα ἢ πίη πα, BmfLubhtu Upepabbag
fu huljayan, Ppfumanpap Uprbbuy Ey βυῆπιηπη, Uwiuut Punbbny a [---
ulnwnn, Uppmdait {hommhkug Ey hulnaynn, Sm[dmbhtu Usuinnbbug buy p—
nhoyrn, Dphgnp Ubdhoghog Gyfulaynn, Ufa Gag [θὶ Fu fuljnwynn,
Udupnh Ui bLombbmy Guy fulnuyan, Gapulu Padnbbug Ey hulnynn, Θπζι δ fl
δ] ἐ{εήπιηπη, (unto Unlnajny Eu hulman. Guy fulnuynup O. ἢ Zipp
h puLurhiny p 8. ἢ. ἐμ δμα Ρ h myyy, funn ky μι ἢ. ἦ11] ΠΤ ΣΙ
jung my ἢ pub, app ub fh funuinm)ubiannfe fh ηη δυλημ πὶ quinn ἐι
gully πῃ ηπμὸξη hh hui ho mii, ap ahnwughh ny unin nui [9 ται ἣρ
gmk; παι piphoafeph f Skmnbt : ---

QEALUPY QNP Ὁ Γ 8 UUPUS LZPUUL UUPeQIut,
8UBF BIPUGNANUNKVLU, NPF BUPQEUL ANLALESUL
LAPhHL Z2PUUULUR bh DARA, {0281 GUPNPLPGNU
2U8NS8, 805 UVUZNhULL UNLUBU, GR Q2UEU

SEM LUPy BS LNSU :

Udhimagmiy hh honainpbyay bh omenimgiytinp£ youn] p yayounmygljny
Shunk Uspuinwy 1 phoh δια πη δῇ h mbpwhy ghininpp, bh Shunt Qs βημμ)
“harsh mph, h Yinpymybinf Zujny Gupumguph. fp Vubuuff Puubhny
Eyfulaynul, fh Ppfomunpapl Ufrhbug Fu hulnwynul, jUppmdniay Phynm—
hhmy Eu hulaynul, fh Bmlubluk Usunnbhng fupfulnynul, fh Q-pfanpt
Ufidhughury Eu hula, p Umit Gay [δὶ Ey hulrynut, Ρ Uhm pot
UiLimbbmg Eyfulnynul, f GEpulul Padmibmg buyhulaynul, fp 8ndubhuy
bany Gmpulaynul, fp θμηΐπεξ Unotiny by pulaynl, SEpmip πη ϑπιδ :

δι /tinunmubbpnpy uri Uy pnity ᾿σπιμπιίπι. mppayhy wppmyf, putubwath
Supkph, apyke thomuenpmfefrby abp yoyo Emypulaynumg’ gop fp YE pnyy

45 BL, pp. 146-147, 149-150, 151-152.

ARMENIAN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS 99*

μία! ἰ. ap fp dwtime fp ‘haphl fp umpp Ehinkyin3u phymp, ebnhwplh
fulinpkg fp Huud unLpp h πιηηιξμιπ fui.unnn], nop ulin fui phigh h Epub, fh
Yuppmyboogh hojybwy ἔς, bk mpd nbfilp huiwrph UWummean : ---

δι ἠδ py p ydbnhuphu 11}. he nw p uniypip EhigbyinSu ‘bnihy: Gu {Πα
Puubhay buypfulaynn, pi mfenowhgunp Cub_bpd, opng mimutph fh dbpnyy
ΠΟΣΊ leu Ei : δι Uipunn Y μὲν ὅλ πη ἡ], bh ΩΝ, ηβἧιπιεπμῃ, pup
fy purpunsp Luhinbpe wn Jf μι ἤϊε μια πὶ ΠΡ Gppapynife butt, hu fu ΠΣ ΩΣ
u&pni p, h wiyw Sumwhuip kpnp :

QEPLULE BNP BSP L UPPUZUUNP 2U8NS χρη}. ΡΒ}

bh UPUPULNPPEULL UG6GHUPZPU 2UENS, UBLNFPY NP

bht LU? PCHUULARP SUP ZNMNUNS Pb PUFURAPNPPEULL
UUPP YU

Giféh πὶ muubbpnpg mh Uyhpmty Naupmla mppmyhg mppmyfh, μὲ
ἱλρμιμζιἣ Zayng hufemyhlaof bo mfennwhgag ping, Uuhuulh RPoukbny
Eu hulohaynup, Ppfununpaph Uprbbug buypulaynup, δ παῖ Young
Fypfulaynu, bppgoph ἰλμὰϊαμη και bypulbaynup, Ubmfip Gaygfeuh by βμὴ η---
πᾶ}. ULwpoih Vein by fulnynop, GEpulub Podmbbmg by fulaynuf,
Bnlubhwy bya bypulnynup, upfnuf Yanko byfolaynuf bh poping
UEpng., Skunk Udspunnay ἃ phah dupqywth ho πριν qghbaopp τ Ge Ἔβημι
bw oinhupuhp, howppawkinh 2mjng Gupuuqupp, be ayy pofumiing bh w>fumpdu-
jukug bh mygunhonwg πα ὃ ἰμμη μι. [δὲ πηπμπ ukyduhot πη βμ bap—
μἶπιηπι, Unbihobaun Pugponwdiqny, δι pulang, Umfutu ᾿)ππ|μπππδινη
Fufuhaynu, Pphununpop Uwwdribog Eypulynu, UChpoto Yohwbyay
Fuphulaynn, Ambintnd inh θη Enhywip pu μη ρ[ι.Ρ. Uppw Ln uppny ἐμ [6 πι---
[ehkp [sic] μεΐβη Enea, Uunini ply uppny Zafupufilbh, Popprpou uppoy 8. πι{ζιδιδπι.
dutmg Eptg, hinupml Uioutmim, Sunfnkuh Uny fufpywy, ‘hun fld δ μη}.
ΡἈιδμ ἐξ, Gunkiny, Sahuttu ἰδεῖ, hupwyl; Qnqunlmtfg, ϑη μὴ Gabubhy,
Bndmb μὲ ἰλμιπιι μα ἢ yy way path hi, Upuu h ἢ μηξι ἐ Uppwdut Pw py finj,
Uppal, ἰληηβη, bpapepu Updnj, Ynqdmu fappay, Uuyth ἀἥμαι Uypény,
BnLub hl Upouifug, πὶ! ‘Pann [ἢ Uw inn Pum pub, h Μ}} uk hy
Enhqmip ζιιδηἐπὰ. Ehiwy polinfdwt dip qpopbywpmm|?e fh μεπμιππιζμ δ πη μὲ,
δηπι jn ves sup Anynifh Pughinnhp, h qu ppd ἱππεῖ ΜΙ Lhnhh, h wry sun hi
Sunny wk ni uno bp, fumnhey gfiphuba fp ufpwputarfe fib Ehkybyny
Soa p fun Amun fii Ppfumouf soe 46

46 On the successive Councils and their problems, see above Chapter XII, nn. 21-25,

100* APPENDIX III

v. Council of A.D. 644 4"

bu Usputu slinpffrh Usnnmdny baum ἐμε[θπη phan Zujny Yuuk yipa—
apm jutnhfu αἱ ἡ ῖμα ἢ mfennwhgm)p dkpm]p umpp Gypfulaynuop Zmjnq
ἀπε πὴ παι! bipkymwp pum Cpaimifp hb umdiwhh Zngingh uppny bh plinphyng
hap;

ΜΙ. δὲ, 8mffubhku nunwh hk sappybmubot ἐπι [με πίη πε

Sip Gégubu Ζαρα ἐπι μὴ πιῃπε

δὲμ Ἐμίμηππηπμππεμ Poukhay δι μα πιη πε

Shp Pupayly δι πη ἐμή πα
Sep Bn) dubibu Uupraqny buy fuljnynn

Sip Omiduh Pohmbimy Gy fulnuyan

Sfp Dppynp Upgwparbkmg by fulnyon

Sip ὑπ μέ πε Pugpummbbng Fy [μή πιηπε

Sip Dahyap ea Euyhulnynn

Sip Ufitah [honmhbmg Fy bulnuynn

du, Sfp Βυμμη Y ubiotymy Fy pula

fp. Sip Pbmpppau Upinibhmg Ew pulynn

Fy, Sip Uumyly Usunnbiwg fy μα πιηπη

Fy. Sip Gahanp Uhdurmykuy Eu fuhagan

df, Sip (Anynpau Qimbbug Em fuljpuynd

fy. Sip 8 ulnfpnn Qu prihibuy κι με πιη πε

df, Sfp Uminid; Wifhachhiag fy μα πιηπε

Uya ki umLpp dagmnyh Zupqy minuop, ap Ρ β πα θὲ ὁὐπηπή πη μὴ ph
june wibbounpp Gapapymimhh Zop h ἢ μηλπὶ h 2πηϊπ|ἢ uppny mikh ; 48

Qs ss PS SB

vi, Council of A.D. 726

a. (Armenian) 49

BNLZULENh PUUUSUUPPP 2UENS WRNPLPYNUP
UUY ANLNLNES NP BLL b 2UER

ἢ Upy obinpd fit huding pupaptpnph h wubb ὃ πη μι ἢ uppny Zaman uppay
a pura BnfLubhkup hmfeniy phaup "πῃ β ppapy Anyni f U. wSimg hE pin
phony fp umdinbwgynefs yf pbuh μὲ 2uppury ‘para p fay un So tron hp ufru—

4? Dwin Canons, pp. 200-202.

48 On the problematic date of the Council of 644( 3), see above Chapter XII, nn, 20a, 26,
and Garitte, Narratio, pp. 339 sqq.

49 BL, pp. 220-224,

ARMENIAN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS 101*

inky Ρ fu δ οἰ nym p : Uya fink ἢ n2b, ἰβπει μι θὲ ζμῃπη. pb. Spl mun),
npn] Anynfimy ἢ uf ἡμι} 0 Ua dnibiag Hunn Ρ ηξηΐῖ! U. αι ἡ η hip, mlb hi
kypulnynneg foiuphah {ιπιμππι[μιδπι [ται ἣρ mw fauphhu 2uyng, ho πππαι---
βϑαρῃπι βιμαῆρ pu dpi k piuunuupyp wai phyhunpayp φρῥηαρῥ ὕρρω»-
pubkuy paphyfulayauf, ¢ngmiéw, Pppomnuontp mbapp fyfuljmynup,
πῃρ Eh myun ppl : Ungpiau Zui py, [βθιμηΐπη Alumni, Umm Umubhatbhpy,
8 kum. Punkhny, Umpafn Sanyniy, fagnpan FPoimikuy, Oppynptoe papb—
yfolnyne Upoupmibag, Qui_kpe unify bypulaynumnp 2uynq, pu—
fukin ph unphurmgmip, h mpanp ἣμιδι πεῖ Ρ umpp bhigbgeny, app wyho—
fukin θ ἐπ ἣρ 2ngnph uppay, pp uf aayp nami my Bs funky] phan
πιηηπι [9 τιμῆι whip phn ἐμ δ Putph Usmnndny :

δὴμὴ ply kg pupdhwy upp ndutp fypulaynup Q. fh Sulnphl muht,
Yuul dpupaimebot fuownn{obafebah ply εἴπη 1. phbpny, npng whnunh ph
kh myanpplh. Unm Shih Qounmbipph fuyjpulnwan, Grhpapyh UEmpunymny fun
Aina pum ph, Gppapyt Couinh Jywanmiar Fy fpubnyon, snp pnp (ofngnn
Gun papa fig fy huljnmnn, fphgbpnpyh Sip Ut mba Uaphimny iy hulnynn,
Ykgbanpyh (Ofnyopnu Utwafw πῃ μὴ πιηπ τ Unpw mibhi ph fpuitohun
up phy hulnynuph Utinfin put] fluinpkuy nkh un uly fi Ups pnb inp Anymfh,
h Uf frm piu hifuny p phy ει Lorin qufinife fh CE π, mpykym p
éumu pugmu ζυιίμαπμ ἢ Ephmphulmgh Puqhbnnhh, sos

Ὁ. (Syriac) 5°

Exemplacre de la letire synodale que firent les Armémens et les Syrvens
lorsqwals s’umirent

Hin Van 1037 des Grees, 1385 selon le comput des Arméniens, vous
étes arrivés chez nous de la région de Syrie, sur l’ordre de Mar Atha-
nasius, patriarche d’Antioche, prés de moi Jwannés, catholicos de
la Grande Arménie, vous, évéques, dont les noms sont consignés ici:

Constantin d’Edesse, - Siméon de Harran, - Theodorus de Ger-
manicia, - Athanasius de Maipherqat, - Siméon de Dara; en vue de
Yunion entre nous et vous, c’est-a-dire entre les régions de Syrie
et d’Arménie.

Selon la régle, nous avons di vous demander de nous donner la
définition de votre foi; vous l’avez écrite et nous |’avez remise par

50 Mich. Syr., II, pp. 496-500.

102 APPENDIX III

écrit, Alors nous avons ordonné qu’un synode des vénérables évéques
s’assemblat dans le canton d’Apahounis au village de Manavasgerd.

Nous y arrivames par la permission de Dieu et de |’ Esprit-Saint :

Moi, Iwanés, catholicos de la Grande Arménie, et les évéques qui
étaient avec moi:

1) Halphai, évéque de “ARKIWS; - 2) Theodoros de “ARMN; -
Sahak, évéque Mamikonean; - 4)[RSQW, évéque de] Basean; -
5) Sargis, évéque de DITPIS( ?); - 6) Theorios, de Beznounis; - 7) Theo-
doros, d’ASamounis; - 8) Grigorios, d’ASarounis; - 9) NWZWN, de
"ASIBW; - 10)Habel, d’Amatounis; - 11) David, d’Hré8tounis; -
12) lowsép’, d’Artsrounis; - 13) Grigor, de Wanand; - 14) Narkisos,
de Khorkhorounis; - 15) Esayi, de Golt’n; - 16) Iwanés, de Gnounis; -
17) Gorgi, de Rotakay; - 18) Iowsép’, de Bakratounis; - 19) Mik’ayél,
de Bagrevand; - 20) Kremia, d’Apahounis; - 21) Salomon, de MRINA;
- 22) Gabriel, d’Arz6n(?); - 23) Khosrow, prétre et docteur des Ar-
méniens; - 24) David, de Souphrin(?); - 25) Salomon, archimandrite
de Mak’enis; - 26) Raphaél, archimandrite; - 27) Siméon(?), docteur ;
- 28) Iwanés, chorévéque; - 29) Grigor, de Taraun; - 30) Sahak, chor-
évéque de MATNIS; - Sargis, évéque des Sanasnayé ;

avec les autres prétres et moines assemblés dans le synode, dont il
n’est pas nécessaire d’écrire les noms, et aussi (avec) notre frére le
noble, glorieux, sage Haiyan( ?), fils de “Abou Hakim.

Pour la confirmation, le maintien, la conservation de l’union faite
entre nous et vous, nous avons écrit (cette définition) et nous vous
(’)avons donnée, 6 nos fréres nommés plus haut, représentant toute
la Syrie, nous évéques, chorévéques, prétres, plus haut désignés,
représentant toute l’Arménie, devant le Dieu vivant et vivificateur
de lunivers, et (devant) ses saints anges. Qu/il soit lui-méme le sceau
et le cachet confirmatif de la foi, c’est-a-dire de l’union entre nous et
vous jusqu’a la fin du monde.

Et nous aussi, pour la certitude des choses qui ont été faites, nous
avons signé et scellé de notre sceau, en confirmation *1,

51 On the Council of 725-726, see above Chapter XII, nn. 29-30, and Ter Minassiantz,
Die Armenische Kirche, pp. 71 sqq., 178 sqq.

IV. GEOGRAPHICAL DOCUMENTS
A, ProLEMy - GEOGRAPHY

ΚΕΦ. S°. KAITITAAOKIAXY ΘΕΣΙΣΊῚ

1. ΝΗ Καππαδοκία περιορίζεται amd μὲν δύσεως [ἀλατίᾳ καὶ

? 7 2 \ 3 2 > \ - 7 \
μέρει Παμφυλίας κατά τὴν ἐκτεθειμένην ἀπὸ τοῦ Πόντου γραμμὴν
μέχρι τοῦ πέρατος, οὗ ἡ θέσις ἐπέχει μοίρας 649 37° 40’
> \ \ , ~ ἢ \ \ 2 ~ \ a ?
ἀπὸ δὲ μεσημβρίας τῇ τε Κιλικίᾳ κατὰ τὴν ἐντεῦθεν διὰ τοῦ Ταύρου
ὄρους μέχρι τοῦ ᾿Αμανοῦ ὄρους γραμμὴν ἕως πέρατος, οὗ ἡ θέσις

709 379 20᾽

\ ? , “κ᾿ 3 “A \ a 9 ΄- 27 > \ la
καὶ μέρει Συρίας TH ἐντεῦθεν διὰ τοῦ ᾿Αμανοῦ ὄρους ἐπὶ τὸ τοῦ
Εὐφράτου τμῆμα τὸ ἐπέχον μοίρας 71° 20° 38?
ἀπὸ δὲ ἀνατολῶν “Apyevia Μεγάλῃ παρὰ μὲν τὸν Lddparny ἀπὸ τοῦ
εἰρημένου τμήματος μέχρι τῆς ἀρκτικωτάτης αὐτοῦ πρὸς ἀνατολὰς
ἐπιστροφῆς, ἢ ἐπέχει μοίρας 71° 420 30’
μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα TH παρὰ τὰ Μῆοσχικὰ ὄρη γραμμῇ μέχρι πέρατος, οὗ
ἡ θέσις yi 449 45°
καὶ τῇ ἐντεῦθεν ἐπιζευγνυούσῃ τὸ εἰρημένον πέρας γραμμῇ"
2 A ‘ 2) 7 ra 3 7 f “ς > 1 3 “ “'Ῥ
ἀπὸ δὲ ἄρκτων μέρει τοῦ Βυξείνου Πόντου τῷ ἀπὸ ᾿Αμισοῦ τῆς
Γαλατίας μέχρι πέρατος, οὗ θέσις 72020᾽ 449 45°

2. Ἣ μὲν οὖν παράλιος τούτου τοῦ τμήματος ἔχει περιγραφὴν
τοιαύτην" AevKoovpu ...

3. Πόντου Padatixob περὶ τὴν Φανάροιαν τὸ πεδίον ...

4. [Idévrov ]]ολεμωνιακοῦ

Θερμώδοντος ποταμοῦ ἐκβολαι 679 439 15°
αἱ πηγαὶ τοῦ ποταμοῦ 68° 30° 429 45°
Π]ολεμώνιον 67° 15᾽ 43° 05°
᾿Ιασόνιον ἄκρον 67° 30° 430 15°
Kordwpov 67° 35° 43° 05°
‘Eppwvacoa 67° 50° 439 15°

1 Ptolemy, pp. 865-894.

1045 APPENDIX IV

5. Πόντου Καππαδοκικοῦ παρὰ μὲν τὴν Σιδηνὴν

ἸΙσχόπολις 6δῦ 20° 43° 20°
Κερασοῦς 68° 50° 43° 20°
Papvaxia 69° 20° 459 05°
"Yooou λιμήν 709 45° 43° 20’
Tpamelots 70° 50° 43° 05°
6. παρὰ δὲ τοὺς Kiociovs
᾿Οφιοῦς 719 430 25°
“Pilots λιμήν 710 10᾽ 439 35°
᾿Αθηνῶν ἄκρον 71° 43° 45°
KopévaAy 71° 20° 439 45°
ΜΜόρθουλα 71° 40᾽ 439 45°
᾿Αρχάβιος ποταμοῦ ἐκβολαΐ 78 44°
ξυλίνη 72° 05" 449 10᾽
Κίσσα ποταμοῦ ἐκβολαί 729 10᾽ 44 20°
"Aiboppos 72° 20° 44° 30°
᾿Αψόρρου ποταμοῦ éxBodai 72° 20° 44° 40°
καθ᾽ ὃ σχίζεται τὸν Γλαῦκον ποταμὸν
καὶ εἰς τὸν Δύκον 72° 30° 439 45°
αἱ πηγαὶ τοῦ ᾿Αψόρρου ποταμοῦ 720 45᾽ 430
at πηγαὶ τοῦ AvKov 719.15᾽ 439
»Σεβαστόπολις 72° 20° 449 45°
7. "Opn δὲ ἀξιόλογα διέζωκε τὴν Καππαδοκίαν 6 τε ᾿Αργαῖος,
οὗ τὰ πέρατα ἐπέχει poipas 65° 30° 40° 30°
καὶ 669 30° 39° 40°

ὅθεν ὁ Μέλας καλούμενος ποταμὸς ῥέων συμβάλλει τῷ Εὐφράτῃ
390 20°

+ 2 ἢ 1 » 2 > 4 A 7 3) ? a
Καὶ ὁ Apriravpos TO Opos διήκων ΟἼΤΌ TOV Ταύρου οροὺυς μέχρι TOV

A \ θέ 3 7 ,ὔ 7 0
ποταμῷ Kata θέσιν ἐπέχιυσαν μοίρας 1

BE? 2 an 2 λ ΜΌΝΑ 2 \ \ \ A T 2 2)
ὑφράτου ποτάμου EV δια εἰμμᾶτι, OV TO μὲν πρὸς τῷ QUEM Ὀβέι

τμῆμα ἐπέχει μοίρας 659 30° 3δῦ 30)...
καί 6770 15᾽ 390 15°
τὸ δὲ πρὸς τῷ Βὐφράτῃ ποταμῷ ἐπέχει καὶ αὐτὸ μοίρας
679 30᾽ 300 40᾽
καὶ 719 30᾽ 419 15°
Kat ὁ SKopdiakos τὸ ὄρος, οὗ τὰ πέρατα ἐπέχει poipas
᾿ 689 415
καὶ 69° 429 30° ...
9. Ilovrov ]]ολεμωνιακοῦ μεσόγειοι
PoladAnva. 66° 30° 42° 40°

GEOGRAPHICAL DOCUMENTS

Lvsidos
Kapovavis
Βαρβάνισσα
"ABAara.
Νεοκαισάρεια
Σιαυρανία
ΪΜεγάλουλα
Ζῆλα

Aavan
ΖΣιεβάστεια
Μεσορώμη
ΖΣαβαλία
ΪΜεγαλοσσός

10. ΠΠῺόντου Καππαδοκικοῦ μεσόγειοι

Ζεφύριον
"Ala
Κοκάλια
KopdvaAn
Τραπεζοῦσα
"Ασιβα
Μαρδάρα
Καμουρήσαρβον
11. Στρατηγίας Χαμανηνῆς
Ζάμα
"Ανδρακα
Γαδασήνα
Οὐάδατα
Aapovnva.
᾿Οδώγα
12. Στρατηγίας Σαργαυρασηνῆς
Φιάρα
Σαδάγηνα
Γαύραινα
Σαβαλασσός
᾿Αριαράθιρα
Μάρωγα
13. Στρατηγίας Γαρσαυηρίτιδος
Φρέατα

᾿Αρχελαΐς

67° 20°
67° 40°
68°
68° 20°
67° 20°
68°
67° 40°
67° 30°
68°
68°
68° 30°
68° 20°
68° 10°

68° 20°
69°
69° 30°
70°
70° 30°
71° 20°
71° 30°
72°

65°
65°
65° 45°
65° 20°
65° 40°
66°

67°
66° 20°
67°
66° 30°
67° 20°
67° 30°

65°
64° 45°

42° 10°
429 10°
429 20°
420

419 50°
420

419 40°
419 42°
419

40° 40°
419 45°
419 40°
41° 20°

43°

42° 30°
429 45°
43°

439 05°
439 15°
439 40°
43° 30°

40° 45°
40° 20°
409 55°
40°

40° 30’
40° 20°

419

40° 45°
40° 30°
40° 25°
409 45°
40° 30°

40°
39° 40°

105*

106*

Νανασσός 65° 30° 399 45°
Διοκαισάρεια 65° 30° 39° 30°
Σαλαμβρίαι 659 15° 390 20°
Τετραπυργία 669 39° 20°
14. Στρατηγίας [Κιλικίας

ΪΜουστιλία 66° 15° 40° 20°
Σίονα 66" 30° 40° 05°
Κάμπαι 669 15° 390 45°
Malara ἡ καὶ Καισάρεια 66° 30” 39° 30°
Κύζιστρα 679 390 20᾽
Βυὐάγινα 67° 10᾽ 40° 15°
"Apxyadda 679 30° 40°

Σόβαρα 670 10᾽ 390 40°

15. Δυκαονίας ...

16. Στρατηγίας ᾿Αντιοχιανῆς ...

17. Στρατηγίας Tvaviridos

18. ᾿Αρμενίας Μικρᾶς ἡ μὲν ἀρκτικωτάτη καλεῖται ᾿Ορβαλισηνή,
ἡ δ᾽ ὑπ᾽ αὐτὴν Αἰτουλανή, εἶτα Aipetixy καὶ ὑπ᾽ αὐτὴν ᾿Ορσηνὴ καὶ
μεσημβρινωτάτη μετὰ τὴν ᾿Ορσηνὴν ᾿Ορβισηνή, πόλεις δέ εἰσὶ παρὰ

ἐν αὐτὸν τὸν Εὐφράτην αἵδε:
μ ράτη

19. Σινήρα 719 42° 30°
᾿Αζιρίς 719 429
ΖΔάλανα 71° 41° 40°
Σίσμαρα 710 30° 410 25°
Ζίμαρα 71° 30° 40° 40°
Δασκοῦσα 719 400 25°

20. ἐντὸς δὲ καὶ παρὰ τὰς ὀρεινγάς
ΖΣάταλα 690 30° 420 10°
Δόμανα 709 42° 05°
Τάπουρα 70° 30° 42° 10°
Νικόπολις 699 419 40°
“Χορσαβία 69° 40° 419 45°
Χάραξ 70° 30° 419 45°
Adywva 68° 40” 410 20°
Σελεοβέρεια 69° 30° 410
Καλτιόρισσα 690 50° 419 15᾽
᾿Ανάλιβλα 70° 20° 41° 10°
ITiovyydpa 68° 30° 40° 55°
Tosaca 69° 40° 45°

GEOGRAPHICAL DOCUMENTS

Εὐδοίξατα
Καράπη
Κασάρα
᾿Ορόμανδος
Ἴσπα
Φούφηνα
᾿Αράνη
Φουφάγηνα
Mapdapa
Οὐαρσάπα
"Ὅρσα

21. Μελιτηνῆς

\ \ \ > Ζ 2
παρὰ μὲν τὸν Εὐφράτην ποταμόν

Adyovoa
Σινίσκολον
Μελιτηνὴ
ἐντὸς δὲ τούτων
Ζωπαρισσός
Τιταρισσός
Κιάνικα
Φουσιπάρα
Βὐσιμάρα
᾿Ιασσός
Κιακίς
Δεύγαισα
Μάρκαλα
Σημισσός
Aadowepis

22. Atparnyias Karaovias
KaBacoos
Τύννα
Τιραλλίς
Κύβιστρα
Κλαυδιόπολις
Ζαλισανδός
ITodvavédes
Κόμανα Καππαδοκίας
Μόψου Kpivn
Ταναδαρίς

689 15°
71° 20°
70° 30°
69° 40°
70° 30°
69°

69° 45°
68° 30°
69° 05°
67° 50°
68" 30°

71°
71°
71°

70°

69° 45°
69° 20°
70° 30°
70° 10°
69°

69° 30°
70° 15°
70° 40°
70° 30°
699 30°

679 15°
66° 50°
67°
66°
65° 40°
66" 20°
67°
68°
679 20°
68° 20°

40° 25°
419

40° 40°
40° 30’
40° 20°
40° 15°
40° 10°
39° 50°
39° 45°
399 30°
399 30°

40° 05°
399 45°
39° 30°

40°

399 45°
390 30’
39° 40°
39° 30°
39° 30°
399 15°
39° 10°
399 20°
390 20°
38° 50’

585.55᾽
38° 30’
38° 20°
389 15°
370 50°
370 30
38?

38?

37° 30°
379 45°

107*

108* APPENDIX IV

Δεανδίς 68° 40° 37° 40’
23. Atparnyias Μουριμηνῆς
Σινδίτα 67° 30° 39° 10°
Korawa 689 15° 39° 10°
Ζοροπασσός 69° 20° 39°
Νύσσα 68° 20° 389 40°
᾿Αράσαξα 67° 30° 38° 30°
Καρναλίς 68° 45° 38 30’
Γαρνάκη 68 30᾽ 389 10°
24. Arparnyias “αουιανσηνῆς
πρὸς μὲν τῷ Εὐφράτῃ ποταμῷ
Κόρνη 715 390 15°
Μέτειτα 7.15 390
Κλαυδιάς 71° 389 45°
ἐντὸς δὲ τούτων
Καπαρκελίς γοῦ 10᾽ 390
Ζιζόατρα 70° 389 45°
ITacapvn 70° 30° 38° 30°
Kilapa 69° 20° 38° 30°
Aapaynva. 68° 50° 389 10°
Νοσαλήνη 690 50° 38° 20°
Aadyaca. 699 20° 379 50°
25. Στρατηγίας ᾿Αρανηνῆς
παρὰ μὲν τὸν Εὐφράτην ποταμόν
᾿Ιουλιόπολις 71° 389 25°
Βαρζαλώ 719 389 10᾽
ἐντὸς δὲ τούτων
Σεραστέρη 70° 40° 389 15°
“ακριασσός 70° 15° 389 10°
᾿Εντέλεια 70° 379 45°
"Aéarba 690 30° 37° 30°

. ΚΕΦ, Θ΄. KOAXIAOS OE2XTX?

3. ᾿Απὸ δὲ μεσημβρίας τῷ ἐντεῦθεν Καππαδοκικῷ Lorry
παρὰ τὴν ἐκτεθειμένην. γραμμὴν καὶ τῷ ἑξῆς μέρει τῆς MeyadAns
"Appevias διὰ τῆς αὐτῆς γραμμῆς μέχρι πέρατος, οὗ θέσις

749 449 40°

2 Ptolemy, pp. 922-924.

GEOGRAPHICAL DOCUMENTS 109*

3 Ἃ A 3 ~ ? , a) ‘\ > 2 A 3 2
ἀπὸ δὲ ἀνατολῶν ᾿Ιβηρίᾳ κατὰ τὴν ἐπιζευγνύουσαν τὰ ἐκτεθειμένα
διὰ τῶν Καυκασίων ὀρέων γραμμὴν ἕως 75 47°

ΚΕΦ, I, "IBHPIAXY ΘΕΣῚΣ 8

1. ‘H ᾿Ιβηρία περιορίζεται ἀπὸ μὲν ἄρκτων τῷ ἐκτεθειμένῳ τῆς
Σαρματίας μέρει" ἀπὸ δὲ δύσεως Kodyidsr παρὰ τὴν εἰρημένην γραμμήν᾽
ἀπὸ δὲ μεσημβρίας μέρει τῆς Μεγάλης “Appevias τῷ ἀπὸ τοῦ πρὸς
τῇ Kodyids ὁρίου μέχρι πέρατος οὗ ἡ θέσις ἐπέχει μοίρας

76° 44° 40°

ἀπὸ δὲ ἀνατολῶν “AABavia κατὰ τὴν ἐπιζευγνύουσαν τὰ ἐκτεθειμένα

πέρατα γραμμὴν ἕως 779 47°
2. Εἰσὶ δὲ ἐν αὐτῇ πόλεις καὶ κῶμαι aide:
“Δούβιον κώμη 75° 40° 46° 50°
"Aywva 75° 46° 30”
Οὐάσαιδα 76° 469 20°
Οὐάρικα 75° 20° 46°
“Σοῦρα 759 45° 20°
᾿Αρτάνισσα 75° 40° 46°
Μεστλῆτα 740 40° 459
Ζάλισσα 76 449 40°
‘“Appaxtixa. 755 449 30°

ΚΕΦ. IA’, "AABANIAX ΘΕΣῚΣ 4

1. ΝΗ ᾿Αλβανία περιορίζεται ἀπὸ μὲν ἄρκτων τῷ ἐκτεθειμένῳ
μέρει τῆς Σιαρματίας" ἀπὸ δὲ δυσμῶν ᾿Ιβηρίᾳ κατὰ τὴν ἀφωρισμένην
γραμμήν" ἀπὸ δὲ μεσημβριάς “Apyevias τῆς Μεγάλης μέρει τῷ ἀπὸ
τοῦ πρὸς τῇ ᾿Ιβηρίᾳ πέρατος μέχρι τῆς Ὑρκανίας θαλάσσης κατὰ
τὰς ἐκβολὰς τοῦ Kupov ποταμοῦ,
al ἐπέχουσι μοίρας

799 40° 44° 30°
ἀπὸ δὲ ἀνατολῶν τῷ ἐντεῦθεν μέχρι τοῦ Nodva ποταμοῦ τῆς ᾿Υρκανίας
θαλάσσης μέρει κατὰ περιγραφὴν τοιαύτην: μετὰ τὴν τοῦ Σίοάνα
ποταμοῦ ἐκβολὴν, ἣ ἐπέχει 86° 47°

2. Τέλαιβα πόλις 8.50 46° 40°

3 Ptolemy, pp. 926-927.
4 Piolemy, pp. 928-931.

110* APPENDIX IV

Γέρρου ποταμοῦ éxBodai 84 30° 469 30°
Γέλδα πόλις δ530 46° 30᾽
Κασίου ποταμοῦ ἐκβολαί 82° 30᾽ 469

᾿Αλβάνα πόλις 81° 40° 45° 50°
᾿Αλβάνου ποταμοῦ ἐκβολαί δ0ῦ 30᾽ 45° 30°
Γάγγαρα πόλις 79° 30° 45°

μεθ᾽ ἣν at τοῦ Κύρου ποταμοῦ ἐκβολαΐ γοῦ AQ’ 440 30°

3. Πόλεις δέ εἰσιν ἐν τῇ ᾿Αλβανίᾳ καὶ κῶμαι μεταξὺ μὲν τῆς
3 , \ “» fo “" > \ lan 7 > \ [4
IBnpias καὶ τοῦ ποταμοῦ τοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ Καυκάσου εἰς τὸν Κύρον
ἐμβάλλοντος, ὃς παρ᾽ ὅλην τὴν τε ᾿Ιβηρίαν καὶ τὴν ᾿Αλβανίαν ῥεῖ
διορίζων τὴν “Appeviav ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν,

Τάγωδα 77° 30° 46° 50°
Baxyia 77° 46° 30°
Σανούα 770 40° 46° 40°
AnyAavy 77° 20° 45 45°
Niya 77° 20° 459 15°

~ > ~ - > “A
4. Μεταξὺ δὲ τοῦ εἰρημένου ποταμοῦ καὶ τοῦ “AABdvov ποταμοῦ,
A a“ a
ὃς Kal αὐτὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ Kavxdoov ῥεῖ,

Μόσηγα 70 47°
Aapovvis 79° 46° 40°
᾿Ιόβουλα 78° 46° 20°
᾿Ιούνα 79° 46°
᾿Εμβόλαιον 78° 30° 45° 40°
᾿Αδίαβλα 790 45° 30°
"ABAdva 78° 450 15°
Kapeyia 79° 45° 45° 40°
"Οσικα 77 30 449 45°
Σιόδα 789 15° 449 40°
Bapovxa. 79° 20° 44° 40°
ἐπέχουσι δὲ καὶ at ᾿Αλβάνιαι ΠΠύλαι μοίρας, ws εἴρηται,

80? 47°

δ. Metaév ὃε τοῦ *AABdvov και τοῦ Kaciov ποταμοῦ

“Χαβάλα 80° 47°
Χοβῶτα 80° 30° 469 45°
Βοζιάτα δοῦ 46° 20°
Μισία 81? 469 20°
Xadaya 819 46°
”AdAapos 82° 46° 15°

μεταξὺ δὲ τοῦ Kaciov ποταμοῦ καὶ τοῦ Iéppov ποταμοῦ

GEOGRAPHICAL DOCUMENTS 111*

Oiavva 829 15° 46° 40°
Θαβιλάκα 829 45° 469 50°
μεταξὺ δὲ τοῦ Τέρρου ποταμοῦ καὶ τοῦ Σόανα ποταμοῦ
Θιλβίς 849 15° 46° 50°

6. Νῆσοι δὲ παράκεινται τῇ “AABavia δύο ἑλώδεις, ὧν TO μεταξὺ
ἐπέχει μοίρας 809 30᾽ 459

ΚΕΦ. 1Β΄. ΑΡΜΕΝΙΑ͂Σ METAAHS ΘΕΣΙΣ' 5

Ἢ Μεγάλη ᾿Αρμενία περιορίζεται ἀπὸ μὲν ἄρκτων τῷ τε τῆς
Κολχίδος μέρει καὶ ᾿Ιβηρίᾳ καὶ ᾿Αλβανίᾳ κατὰ τὴν ἐκτεθειμένην
Ἁ “ lay ? > \ \ 2 ; \
διὰ Κύρου τοῦ ποταμοῦ γραμμὴν: ἀπὸ δὲ δύσεως Καππαδοκίᾳ παρὰ
τὸ ἐκτεθειμένον τοῦ Hddpdtov μέρος καὶ παρὰ τὸ ἐκκείμενον τοῦ
Καππαδοκικοῦ ΠΠόντου μέχρι τῆς Κολχίδος διὰ τῆς τῶν Μοσχικῶν
2 a. .3 \ de > Ato “~ ‘Vv 7 θ λ 7 3 ἴω
ὁρέων γραμμῆς" ἀπὸ δὲ ἀνατολῶν τῆς τε ᾿ Ὑρκανίας θαλάσσης μέρει τῷ
ἀπὸ τῶν τοῦ Κύρου ποταμοῦ ἐκβολῶν μέχρι πέρατος, οὗ ἡ θέσις
799 45° 43° 20°
\ ,ὔ Ἁ \ > “~ \ > \ \ ? 2 \
καὶ Μηδίᾳ παρὰ τὴν ἐντεῦθεν γραμμὴν ἐπὶ τὸ Κάσπιον ὄρος καὶ
παρ᾽ αὐτὸ τὸ Κάσπιον ὄρος, οὗ τὰ πέρατα ἐπέχει μοίρας
79° 42° 30°
καί 809 30° 40°
> \ \ ? ~ ? \ \ “ [4 δ
ἀπὸ δὲ μεσημβρίας τῇ τε ΪΠεσοποταμίᾳ παρὰ τὴν τοῦ Ταύρου ὄρος
γραμμὴν, ἥτις τῷ μὲν υφράτῃ ποταμῷ συνάπτει κατὰ θέσιν ἐπέχουσαν
μοίρας 719 30° 389
~ \ 2 ἴω \ ? 3 2 ,
τῷ δὲ Tiypidt ποταμῷ κατὰ θέσιν ἐπέχουσαν μοίρας
75° 30° 38° 30°
\ ~ 3 7 Ἅ \ \ “A ? 2 Ἃ e >? 3
καὶ τῇ Acovpia παρὰ τὴν διὰ τοῦ Νιφάτου ὄρους γραμμὴν ὡς ἐπ
εὐθείας τῇ εἰρημένῃ μέχρι τοῦ εἰρημένου πέρατος τοῦ Κασπίου ὄρους,
du ἧς γραμμῆς διατείνει ὁ Νιφάτης ὄρος.
2. "Ὅρη δὲ τῆς ᾿Αρμενίας ὀνομάζεται τά τε καλούμενα Μοσχικὰ
διατείνοντα παρὰ τὸ ὑπερκείμενον μέρος τοῦ Καππαδοκικοῦ [Πόντου
καὶ ὁ ]]αρυάδρης ὄρος, οὗ τὰ πέρατα ἐπέχει ποίρας

75° 43° 20°
καί 77° 42°
καὶ ὁ Οὐδακέσπης ὄρος, οὗ TO μέσον ἐπέχει μοίρας
80° 30° 40°

5 Ptolemy, pp. 932-949.

1125 APPENDIX IV

\ m 3 2 \ > \ “ 3 2 Ὁ \ 2 > 2
καὶ τοῦ ᾿Αντιταύρου τὸ ἐντὸς τοῦ Εὐφράτου, οὗ τὸ μέσον ἐπέχει

μοίρας 72° 419 40°
καὶ ὁ καλούμενος "Αβας ὄρος, οὗ TO μέσον ἐπέχει μοίρας
77" 410 10᾽
καὶ τὰ Ιορδυαῖα ὄρη, ὧν τὸ μέσον ἐπέχει μοίρας
| 75° 39° 40°

3. ITorapoi δὲ διαρρέουσι τὴν χώραν 6 τε ᾿Αράξης ποταμὸς, ὃς
τὰς μὲν ἐκβολὰς ἔχει κατὰ θέσιν τῆς “Ypxavias θαλάσσης, ἣ ἐπέχει
μοίρας 700 45° 430 50°
τὰς δὲ πηγὰς κατὰ θέσιν ἐπέχουσαν μοίρας 76° 30° 42° 30°
> 7]? «& ξ .Ἁ Ἃ 3 ᾺἋ 2 ΦᾺ 3 32 \ 3 2
ἀφ᾽ ὧν ὁρμηθεὶς πρὸς ἀνατολὰς μέρι τοῦ Κασπίου ὄρους καὶ ἐπιστρέψας

A 3) an A > \ ς ? 2 3 ΔΛ ~ A
πρὸς ἄρκτους τῇ μὲν εἰς τὴν ᾿Υρκανίαν θάλασσαν ἐκβάλλει, τῇ δὲ

a 2 “᾿ \ ? 3 Ζ ᾽
συμβάλλει τῷ Κύρῳ ποταμῷ κατὰ θέσιν ἐπέχουσαν poipas
789 30° 449 30°

‘ lo ? 2 : los \ > \ “A 3 ra \ 3 \
καὶ τοῦ Βὐφράτον ποταμοῦ τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς εἰρημένης πρὸς ἀνατολὰς
ἐπιστροφῆς μέρος μέχρι τῶν πηγῶν. al ἐπέχουσι μοίρας

759 40° 429 40᾽
"Hort δὲ καὶ ἑτέρα ἀξιολογωτέρα ἀπὸ τοῦ Εὐφράτου ποταμοῦ ἐκτροπὴ,
ἧς τὸ μὲν συνάπτον τῷ ὐφράτῃ ποταμῳ πέρας ἐπέχει μοΐρας

719 30) 40° 30°
τὸ δὲ κατὰ τὰς πηγὰς 779 419

Ἁ \ 3 7 lot , 3 a 3 7 2 > \ fal
Kat τὸ ἀπολαμβανόμενον τοῦ Τίγριδος ev τῇ ’Appevia μέρος ἀπὸ τοῦ
ψινομένου ὑπὸ τῆς μεσημβρινῆς πλευρᾶς τμήματος μέχρι τῶν πηγῶν
αὐτοῦ τοῦ Τίγριδος, αὕτινες ἐπέχουσι μοίρας 74° 40° 300 40°

“ ᾽ Ἃ , - > \ \ ἅ @ i
ποιοῦσαι λίμνην τὴν καλουμένην Θωσπῖτιν. ict δὲ καὶ ἕτεραι λίμναι
4 τε καλουμένη Avyviris, ἧς τὸ μέσον ἐπέχει μοίρας

78° 439 15°

\ ¢ 9» , a8 Ἃ 2 3 2 ,

καὶ ἡ "ἄρσησα λίμνη ᾿ἧς τὸ μέσον ἐπέχει μοίρας
78° 30° 409 45°

4. Χῶραι δέ εἰσὶν ἐν τῇ ᾿Αρμενίᾳ ἐν τῷ ἀπολαμβανομένῳ μεταξὺ
Εὐφράτου καὶ Κύρου καὶ ᾿Αράξον ποταμῶν τμήματι παρὰ μὲν τὰ
Μοσχικὰ ὄρη ἡ Καταρζηνὴ ὑπὲρ τοὺς καλουμένους Βόχας, παρὰ δὲ
τὸν Κύρον ποταμὸν ἡ τε ᾿᾽Ωβαρηνὴ καὶ ἡ ᾿Ωῶτηνὴ, παρὰ δὲ τὸν ᾿Αράξην

‘ Ὁ \ \ e ξ 3 2. ἃ 2 \ \ \
ποταμὸν ἢ τε Κολθηνὴ καὶ ἡ ὑπ᾽ αὐτὴν ΖΣοδουκηνή, παρὰ δὲ τὸν
Παρυάδρην τὸ ὄρος ἣ τε Σιρακηνὴ καὶ ἡ Aaxaoynvy καὶ πόλεις ἐν
αὐτῷ τῷ τμήματι

5. ΖΣ'άλα 73° 20° 44 20°
”Acxkoupa 749 449 10°

GEOGRAPHICAL DOCUMENTS

Bapala
“άλα
Σιαντοῦτα
Σαταφάρα
Τῶγα
Οὐαρούθα
"Alara
“Χολούα
Σ᾽ηϑάλα
Σοῦρτα
Ταστίνα
Κοζάλα
Κοτομάνα
Βατίννα
Διζάκα
ΠΙ|τοῦσα
Γλίσμα
“Χολουάτα
Σακάλβινα
᾿Αρσαράτα
καὶ παρὰ τὸν Μυφράτην ποταμόν
Βρεσσός
᾿Πλέγεια
Χασίρα
“Χόρσα
Θαλίνα
[καὶ παρὰ τὸν ᾿Αράξην ποταμόν]
᾿Αρμαουίρα
᾿Αρταξάτα
Ναξουανα

75° 20°
76° 10°
77° 20°
78°

78° 50᾽
73°

73° 45°
749

74° 40°
74° 30°
74° 40°
75° 20°
75° 135°
76° 10°
76° 50°
77°

78° 20°
78° 45°
79° 10°
79° 30°

72°
73° 20°
74°
749 40°
75° 20°

769 40°
78°
78° 50°

6. ᾽Εν δὲ τῷ ἀπολαμβανομένῳ τμήματι ὑπὸ τὸ

440 10°
44°

44° 20°
449 20°
43° 30°
43°

439 45°
43° 10°
439 45°
439 40°
43°

43° 30°
439 40°
439 40’
439 10°
439 45°
43° 40°
43° 40°

430 15᾽

430 15°

429 45°
42° 45°
42° 40°
42° 50°
42° 45°

429 45°
42° 40°
429 45°

113*

εἰρημένον μέχρι

τῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ Εὐφράτου ἐκτροπῆς ἀρκτικώτεραι μὲν εἰσι χῶραι ἄρχο-

μένοις ἀπὸ δυσμῶν 7 τε Βασιλισηνὴ καὶ ἡ Βολβηνὴ καὶ ἡ ”Aponoa,

8 \ \ δ 4 3 \ \ \ 3 ~ \ ξ \ 2 A
ὑπὸ δὲ ταύτας ἢ τε ᾿Ακιλισηνὴ καὶ ἡ ᾿Ασταυνῖτις Kal ἡ πρὸς αὐτῇ

τῇ ἐκτροπῇ τοῦ ποταμοῦ ἡ Σωφηνή. [Πόλεις δέ εἰσιν ἐν τούτῳ τῷ

τμήματι αἵδε
7. ᾿Αθούα

Τίνισσα

Ζόριγα

71° 30°
73° 30°
71° 30°

42° 30°
429 30°
42°

1145

Nava 730 30° 420

Βρίζακα 74° 50° 42° 30°
Aapdvicca 76° 42° 20°
Ζογοκάρα 770 15 42° 20°
Κούβινα 78° 30° 42° 20°
Kodava 719 30° 41° 40°
Kayovpa 729 41° 20°
Xodova 73° 30° 419

Σ᾽ογοκάρα 749 419

Φαύσυα 740 15° 419 45°
Φανδαλία 740 50᾽ 41° 30᾽
Ζαρουάνα 75° 40° 41° 45°
Kirapov 76° 41° 30°
᾿Ανάριον 76° 50° 41° 30°
Σιγούα 770 419

Τερούα 789 41° 50°
Lovplova 78° 30° 41° 40°
Marovotava 78° 419 40°
᾿Αστακάνα 78° 41°

Τάρεινα 72° 20° 41°

Βαλισβίγα 730 40° 40° 40°
Βαβίλα 749 20° 40° 45°
Σαγαυάνα 75° 15° 40° 45°
"Alapa 76° 10° 40° 50°

8 ΓΕ δὲ lo A “ \ 2 7 ξὺ \
. Ἔν δὲ τῷ λοιπῷ καὶ μεσημβρινωτέρῳ τμήματι μεταξὺ μὲν
3 2 \ ~ ? “~ Ὁ \ \ ¢ e 3 >
Εὐφράτου καὶ τῶν Tiypodos πηγῶν ἢ τε Avlirnyy καὶ ἡ ὑπ᾽ αὐτὴν

Θωσπῖτις" εἶτα ἡ Kopiaias καὶ πόλεις ὁμοίως ἐν τούτῳ

᾿Ηλέγερδα 720 15) 409 15°
Malapa 71° 20° 39° 50°
"Ανζιτα 72° 399 30°
Σόειτα 72° 50° 390 30°
Βελκανία 73° 30° 39° 20°
Σελγία 74° 40°

Θωσπία γ40 20° 390 50°
Kodyis 75° 30° 300

Σιαυάνα 719 30° 380 20°
᾿Αρσαμόσατα 739 38 20°
Keéppa 74° 30° 389 40°

9. ἀπ᾽ ἀνατολῶν δὲ τῶν Τίγριδος ποταμοῦ πηγῶν ἢ τε Βαγραυανδηνὴ

GEOGRAPHICAL DOCUMENTS 115*

\ e 3 » \ e \ - 3 ? ¢ , \ ς 3
καὶ ὑπ᾽ αὐτὴν ἡ Lopdunvy, ἧς ἀνατολικωτέρα ἡ Κωταία καὶ ὑπ
αὐτὴν Μάρδοι. [Πόλεις δέ εἶσι καὶ ἐν τούτῳ ὁμοίως αἵδε"

10. Τάσκα 75° 30° 40° 10°
Pwpa 76° 40° 10’
Matra. 76° 10° 40° 40°
Bovava 769 45° 40°
Χολίμμα 779 45° 40° 40°
Τερεβία 779 40° 409 55°
ΖΔαυδυάνα 77° 40° 40° 20°
Καποῦτα γοῦ 20° 40° 30°
᾿Αρτέμιτα γδῦ 40° 40° 20°
Θελβαλάνη 769 15° 399 50’
Dia 75° 45° 39° 40°
Depevdis 74° 40° 39° 20°
Τιγρανόκερτα 769 45° 39° 40°
Σ᾽αρδηούα 759 50° 390 10°
Κόλσα 789 390 50᾽
Τιγρανοάμα 79° 45° 40°
᾿Αρταγιγάρτα 75° 20° 389 45°

ΚΕΦ. IZ’. ΜΕΣΟΠΟΤΑΜΙΑΣ ΘΕΣῚΣ ®

τ , ? > \ \ 3) nn 3 ?
HT Mecorotrapia περιορίζεται ἀπὸ μὲν ἄρκτων τῷ ἐκτεθειμένῳ
2 “ M tA 7A ? 3 \ de ὃ ? “ 3 θ Ζ \
μέρει τῆς MeyddAns ’Appevias: ἀπὸ δὲ δύσεως τῷ ἐκτεθειμένῳ παρὰ
\ A ~ 3 , “~ ? > 1 \ > ἴω a \
τὴν Συριὰν τοῦ Hidpatrov ποταμοῦ μέρει" ἀπὸ δὲ ἀνατολῶν τῷ παρὰ
τὴν ᾿Ασσυρίαν μέρει τοῦ Τίγριδος ποταμοῦ τῷ ἀπὸ τοῦ πρὸς τῇ
᾿Αρμενίᾳ τμήματος μέχρι τῶν τοῦ ᾿Πρακλέους βωμῶν οἱ ἐπέχουσι
μοίρας 80° 34° 20°
2. "Opn μὲν οὗν ἐν τῇ Μεσοποταμίᾳ κατονομάζεται τό τε
Μάσιον ὄρος, οὗ τὸ μέσον ἐπέχει μοίρας 749 37° 20°
4, Karéye: δὲ τῆς χώρας τὰ μὲν πρὸς TH ᾿Αρμενίᾳ ἡ “Avbe-
é ey? ¢ e “ δ \ \ 2 Ὁ A \ \
povoia, ὑφ᾽ Hv ἡ Χαλκῖτις" ὑπὸ δὲ ταύτην 7 τε [} αυζανῖτις καὶ πρὸς
τῷ Τίγριδι ποταμῷ ἡ ᾿Ακαβηνή: ὑπο δὲ τὴν Γαυζανῖτιν ἡ Τινιγηνή
\ > \ \ \ \ 3 Ζ ξ» “
καὶ ἐπὶ πολὺ παρὰ τὸν Kidparny ἡ ᾿Αγκωβαρῖτις.
6. Ilapa δὲ τὸν Τίγριν ποταμον πόλεις aide: ...
ον Φάπφη 769 37° 40°

8 Ptolemy, pp. 1000-1011.

116* APPENDIX IV

vw. Σιγγάρα 76° 37°

ως Andpea ig 799 50° 34 20°
7, Ἔν δε τῇ μέσῃ χώρᾳ πόλεις aide: ...

... ΓΕδεσσα ᾿ 72° 30° 37° 30°

ον Νίσιβις 75° 10° 37° 30°

... Kappar | 739° 15° 369 10°

ον Peoaiva 749 40° 35° 40° 7

Β. ARMENIAN GEOGRAPHY - LONG VERSION 8

Ah. Ugfumph Cphpapy 2ajps ap upp Yash Unmdph Zajp, shy py ἡμι πὶ
ἀμ [πὶ un Suipauy jkpuip jApp 11 δια πὴ papph, ap puduht ply bu h
ply Yatmgbhh Uunping ufrhi sh abGihpunn τ Php h my] pAppin. ghanh hy Pm—
uhy plat ἰκ ἡ ππμδινδ απ. bh gk ghayh ἡ ἢ βπιπιΐηι bh yQenmfo bh Goh
h η Ymandnunn, h nnn Enh Eymbbjny Uunpiny :

[UnmSfh Lapp (μη ἡμηπ Unm$ph Ἡμιιμιηπ ἢ βπ) un fpp P 2ιι)πη.
ἐ ΠΟ, τη διύμμηπαιι. h pAunhs ahh AU ngtan. h nhin Enbumh, AUy pu,
ho my Sulinka :

Gppapy δα!» δὰ op ἤμιὴ guphhy py Gurqmgalhpny, bh Ephoyh mupudp
ur sh gbippum. ἐκ πεῖ ayy gin Ephm, h pApphu pugmiu εἴποι πὸ puu—
bhi pla. 1} se

διε πηι αἶμα padubp pkphnw pagnaidy, dpb phy gia my βημ ἤπμι,
jap Goh ho Rape πη dphish ghgapmlfi, ho μα pagmhh nin dunt
buf fmol aff QUpd gk, np ἐ phy πιηβη fp Sfaupup’ pUfey gh, hyn
fay pagaidh alm gh; fp 4funfruny, jnopmt pholiwy, δὰ oyun p,
Z2b6dunnml p, hd dm/yp, Puupup, Pniufup, Pr publ p, βιπημῖ p, auuinhs
mnie apap fuiyhs ΣΝ np dash Uggla, uphrsh AUyquphinh
Hopu 2 ἐ gon : Apr pum ΩΝ Uuuapmfemt "Μη ηἢ ΓΟ ΤΙΣ πῆ, h
Y a πημι δι ἐπε ἷι jpurpin falr, uplish gQmuphy dniu, yp purgmdh Qunljmumy Ly,
papal moka £ qeympfoyh ‘boppwhymy, myofiph Guy bh gmail’ purgmp
ny Linh his mapuy. ΜΙ inn prt m Luin hh Ῥ hip pu Ῥ ὀπηπιὴ hugmghmy : pul
Ῥ 4fuufuny Sapo femqunopafefah 2nkimg fry ’f om, bh of διπβη tinpw wn
ἵμαα απ Y apn θα ἷ! Ριυημρ πη ἢ Znhug h Qarbyupu h {Γυμδηπ τ δι
puphby μὴ Εἱμε ἡ τ UJunfpp ηΠριι}η nh, πῃ ΠΝ ply Uu ful Umpiiuunp

? On the accuracy of Ptolemy’s information, cj. Ramsay, Hist. Geogr., pp. 62 sqq.,
283 sqq., Jones CHRP, Appendix, and W. Kubitschek, ‘‘ Studien zur Geographie des
Ptolemaus, Τ᾽", SAW, CCXYV (1934).

8 Arm. Geogr., pp. 24/33-40/53.

GEOGRAPHICAL DOCUMENTS 117*

h ply Ubfifeim wpfumplp. op bh Unum fifempp, myphph fomppuumutp,
h Wyn ρει feageiap πηι, bh lmfem bh ppfuny tingm βὰν Jompmuimy Ὁ

API. Upsfumpl Unpay Gnyphn f, ap £ Gap. yh μη ἱμιγπη ΠΠπΐπππη ὁπιπιὴ
mn Enh Um piuinfiny, ‘h δια μη ἢ ‘haul gkinny up sh 7gunton jaunh h
ghaphh pagal, ap puduht ply to bh pin Ἄμε. bo okinf mLimbip Hanami
pis Who Zujng ufrlish ἡ ιπιη πη ἔμ Qatmnau : δὲ pardubbmy f Jpiphuah
dnpu mpfumpdu ifpapariu, “hf Uwinpy, fp pgnk, fh Gp, op £ Ἰλπιιδιὰ δι Bab pmy,
Ἵ few fap Popa gon, win Antubah puyupur, hh guhfiu nop bh
Naqufp, ᾿πμπεὴ gon {[Ἐπηϊπηπι Qamhe τ. Nip ho ayy aku, gQUAminfu
op £ B04, ap. ψμ hh UES Zayng: Ibp spy puym pa, hubf, Gamm, fpagfu—
yoy fu, Ujefim, θὲ βηπῖὴ ho my pugaud δ διηππ πῆμ μι} fh ph nA qu puym pu
ὀπή πη μίλια μι, yapag £ Spurnghynh :

P. Unfumpe Lbpps je.bg 4am] Cybpmy, skp Umpsumpoy wm Yanhauny,
uphish gUqmumbipg μι ζῆ, ἐ ufrh sh g2uyny uuZoub wn Gmp ghinniu :

δι. gununp fh myu, ulimy ‘h Ying nhmny h ‘h ffrupuny Sung. ἥμηιμόρ,
yup Ῥ Ζιμ!πη fuk h, Gunt |e. Upumiah qui, ΠΕ unkuy § Ἰ Ζιμι)πὴ.
pag np mbywht alm Lgop Gap, op Ch διμ)πὴ yay], fp πη ἡμαμιπί phy
uonpoing Quamfuug, pYwhk op Uanigful ho punly pophtp whgubkp] phy
Qiphh mefumpfh ἃ πη, padubbjm) yqguimnnh, qQnonnfPfuful, ySmbpufuh,
apay ! ἡμπιβή “beh pgful ppg, kh qU gpa, bh gPaghmpnp’ aft sh
7Aupoup qua, op ymin’ ηδιβμιβα pugmpun. μη kpkp ψπριιήη ἡ
2ujng fuhibuy I: pul pum 4puufuny nhimnyh ΠΡΟ] ΩΣ Qmypuny, ζιαδη ay ‘up
quan Upmllene pepmbp, h of hay dagiwht yoomph ‘bum, h U, stiul—
nipuful bh PapyhfPfppphnafuh, dpiish gUogfunit le, ap Of wanpon Yof{houn.
yapk fnup Li fa ain, bh whiny Of Sopa nyu pSub oh mp. bh wa tmfon
Munhpufuh ἢ! Sfupwudinym, uphsh pUpug. gh, np 4ouh Cf Qala,
hk ἡδμ πα phy Sapo phy Ujomygphfel phpq, bh μηδ! pha δὲ ἢ Ugfupfeuy
puyquph h pppny Umpp μα μὴ, publ ἡ! Gap, bk pmfabpal fh of Lipph
mepamph Lpag. opal puna? paupoghay Gop’ yay ἦβ δι μιβε doypmpuyup
«μη. gh fengym] Qupampon, bh gOnpafap bh gGagpmpap bh gQunpmpap
φημι πεῖ ghnop, upigh gZhupulipn puywp, qnpu Ch Ζιμπη 4uabkuy £.
npng pom fopwiny paunhugpoomph Qunupong pugat jsop pp qutmguh
Ajmipp, bh fonkyp bh Suwefp. npng of upon Gublap pm, quit *h 2uyng
ζιυμ τι! £ > Pol Lubghy qaqm pun Lfaufuny fagtusht Qmpuy ue ΤᾺ
σι fe, βρῆ, bpoeny, Mpublle, Ὀπρέδημ :

PUL UpfampS Uppubipus, mpuphph Upmmp, shy hy ‘Lpang, phpp UmpSumpny
win Yualwam), uphigh gZmjnq umfiuban, wn Gap gh], Phyl bh wmf
gomp qodbhoph ooehimtn Lobby ἐ Oh 2mynq : Payg dip wuanygmp ἡ ΡΠΙΝ
apfuupcdh Ugnuulihy op ply ok9u ξ dkof gkmay YGaipay bh YQmflon peppihs :

118: APPENDIX ΤΥ

Lufu mn Ἅ πο Ps μὴ} gun wn ἰληπιμιῖι nkinniu, h Pudpléuh un Ympun.
h pum fmpuuiny hap phpgh Y apy dwn, Luinkne Qmgpuf? akyu pu—
qmpun, bh yaypph mimywm upbish g4mp nk. jopny phy py ἡπηδιιδ! Ang
puymp, ma Ugmul gion, h Php gene wn Gono, hb hy fg bnpm,
Gui ph, h “γε ηϊηππι. nbn. Hun apm ἐπῆἣπιδιπιδι ΠΝ win Umbif nhinm : Uju
mihi ph 4nuph h Qmfh uy, h fuunhbuy ‘hh φἰληπιιιῖι abu μι ἐν hh *h
Qnip abn. pul Ῥ "ἢ py haut Punfaqul pump Unpnimbfg uid Ῥ μεμα.
ply πρμπὶ δὲ δ qh Ukpnd phy ἦβ puny pum yinpp (1) Lang :

bP. Mhbfph Ubo ΖΡ ΩΝ yfuph Ruwais fbgkmuumh, opp bh myup :

Uni Ppl uefuups Papdp 2ujp, wpapiph Guphay puqup. Enlpnpy upfamps
Qappopy ΖΡ. Eppapy’ Ugdhpp wn Shappu gba .gappapy’ Supmphpmh
op £ διιμοῖ. Σρηιηξμπμη Ungp ap wn Gunphomutkun, {πηβμπμη ΠΝ
Ynpdl p. hofthipnpy wp pnp Qu pul dur) Ps np un Un pry rina yin fix p.
meipapy mip fame Yumuynpmloh, op pon dingy Cfrupany tinpw £. pbbbpnpy
mp fami Ufrbpp’ npr win Gpwufuu, munhbpnpy Upau fu np ppp hop hmy.
Hinuombkpnpy mip fer Papnmhwpuh pum pm np wn EnEnph, Yuuphy ἸῬ
ἥπειπη Gpuupamy. Ephommunhhpapy wn frm Aumfuyng, np un Ugo. frp h
Ymp niin, fink pumuuhkpnipy wip fame Qaiguip Pp ap mn ἅ pop. ἐπί, pmnuiw—
hkpnpy ΟΣ μὴ Supp, ap un byEpp. Shy bonmumbbanpy mip pump Upuipunn,
" ED fingu :

Upp mip unm μὲ apfamph qgenwnw pi, ‘bupwligh, Ugh, Uygmp,
Gh nin, Wubuting fr, ‘hip Sunk, ἰ}η ἐμ, Gung p, Gupph. h pupap ΠΣ εἴμ δὶ
pub g2uypp, uy bh poh qudkhuyh Ephhp. wut πμπὶ GQuonup Epp haskghh
qi, gp °f gapu dat upfumplp Imp mpduht. qh poet gapy ηδιπι qophqn,
ηδιμιμιπ᾽ pupkuinunn, bh gbpwupe μυμίεῖμι, ἡ με} ofp Snape, qu miu fu op
ἐ 4πῷ ch 4faufu : [hibf jfphia dbdu Epfu. mip bplu, Ey dipm, mya b
puqu, woh kh mpnp, ypfe, bh ἡμὴ ho πη. bh Ch fnmg bmpwhenapn,
ΠΠΠῊ jjupur, qgupm, quhfy h gaye. mop bh Sipinde bh one ἐκ qonlbhayh
yop manife fio Eplpp :

P. UapumpS 2uyjag. Qnppnpy ΖΡ, ap § Ὀπιῤμιη ἡπηΐῆ, jkph pupdp
2ujyng, VE pit puqm pun unLiwhh pum ὅπη μη, bh pom Loponny’ Up Pughun p,
A pum by μη Smpohm] : Nibp gunman mt, ἡ πμὰμ δ jb pg 4foupuny, phy
ap pSmbf dfiu Quy ἡδιπ mn Qognphpgniu. g2mombhu, popot pafubh wypiapp
δημίμι ghinny. pul Ch ding ᾿ϑπμὰμ πη! £ Quayhomh gonun, ζιδηξιη
fnimbnh pippm. bh folinky bape Of Sop Rupe fam|fm gonmn, bh Ἀ
Hing nga Ompp, bh Ubdhfe quan’ ?h 4upun, jap Om) p bh Zonk pkpy.
hh διηβηὴ ἥπημι ‘bah qgunwn, jnpmt phppp Unb bh Pomp & Uni,
apng Subyly Ch fupoe £ Qunply qgonmn, phy apo bhi Upmdmhf fama
pGipan Ch pugqaph Laumfunfs, kh πμθυ πη qinprp’ μιὰ Of umdiwho

GEOGRAPHICAL DOCUMENTS 1108

Papp Zuyng, php μη Whpnpil, h way fumnhh oh fim Guntun, μη πῆ fh dinhy
Imuk ?h panhlh ap Anghp Qhank Ymuffetoh, bh tmfu pel μηδ! bap
Opp jum ‘h Sirus ahink Qunauiphah, ΣΤῊ, Ἰ Sapau pant h purl buy
baipunn ηἷμμ!} pan fui pun, Loni ἡ μαπῖι Sapnu, papa nigind unl
ahh Ρίμμῥη. h nif Qappnapy ΖΡ plu h Lunn, h ἢ ημπιημ ἢ yunfnd :

*}. Ulpfumips Uyahifp JA py buy UhPunkinmy, h Z fru fib win “ἠηιι fem.
mip gonwaw mou, ηῴπειη, aUygedh, ply Anping vf Shh fpImbt phinh Puy frp?
yap Chféiu hagth Surdflp p, ΠΝ wip [μεμα μμηι. jiu nny ‘Puy mu Lin,
Ap pepph πιὰ qatfeph, qSmnph, qUghamgdnp, qbppbPu, qUujpudnp,
qUmhmunt. mui Enh? pad, h ay θημ h Ῥ funny pedal :

*p.. Upfumpt Supoiph pms, Jay py Qappapy 2ujng. mulif Hau Lam fE>unmuah,
ηἶσπ 9. 9 Ua oii dnp, gS upol, japm quay ghink Uy h whi μι ἢ ἢ’
δύμιυιη. np pum ffuufuny Upimbpp’ min )μδμιδιη jApunip, ap hgh Gunn
Aphpp. jopak γπ|6᾽ μη μιν wppfupp. npng pow Sfaoufup’ Vuppagp wn Ui gk
nm fu pApurip, εἴ δι sh gunjh Uyoupnlnihu op pudmhf pay Yuipfh h phy hia,
μημπιὴ gunk ἢ yan jul) h afin h hina fd oh h uy fn, 1πμπη| jay py piut Umpy
akin, php phy ζει es Ῥ Pumbkh ΙΒ ΜΙ ΠῚ h fuwonhp jCpuupu,
A ghnmgmomht gh : BE, py Uupymyny f Guanan|np quumn, bk kinpu jb] μὴ
Sump Sanna, hapa pay py ‘puipun. h ‘hh funy bngm Zipp h Ynd—
inbhp, ἐδ sh gUpmdahh, πῃ pImbl Uapu lr bk. npay h duipuny
{με μεὴ i Potmbbug gununp, Ῥ Usfu U. muh ny αἶμα δι τ! πα uyming yui—
pitnkuy bop ζπδμιδπιδ ὃπιπιῖι, Uphish ἡρ μηδ Pugs, bh migp ho Oh Lopon
haju ηδμἧμιμη μπῇ uuadima : δι βηδπεμ Ρ πιδῇ Jp Lnaduliniy onfth
hay fu Epk p. gUpdhinyh, η μηδ δ bh »Saphmbh. apap pum Lupuiny ἢ
ME pkpphh Sapnuf bh mn’ guna bphfupp, jnpod pd pig ap hash θηβηβ.
μπιμῥη. gh Of ompkyh puhout Imp poyt fgh, bh ukpiwhkuyh punuumh
mpi Luaumbk, h pant pin upiny ἰμιπιῖι > δι onifu Poimbkmy jAphia δῖ fin pap
Hyak Eh pap ΠΩΣ : ἢ μπὶ pum fpiupuny ἰλη fn fin ΠΗ}. h niin fiip
hope Usymdmbpp. phy apa ἥξϑῆ whgmht Upmdmhf jfygph Polnbkhmy :
Quhp wal, bh joummbhah opt Burlap, hh Hig p whiny pub ἡ μι δι μι [ἢ
Enlinp h Enh |é > Untkh [et hduihig funy jUpmduhp, npuyjku jGippum, yap
Aura uin ἢ nfink ip, hEbnwhh puppupmy gmabmy, qupfbh δέω h [ἐπηδμι)"
gap niwhp mubh fof ημιημιὰ fh δὲ gh, my qarqud gop Bnduh Yuuk pomkph
Ziponfuymy mut fet pul ghfuhguh ὄπ μη μα wpfrhuppar fp :

b. U.> fp Unk p, sappy huh Ugehbmy, ‘h pApphhy, Sapnu : [bf Run
pl, ghemyp, (qelfin Pemyp), ghemg qanmnl, qUnfbhthg dnp, 7h fIug,
aU ambdhnlah Unhwy gununt, ghink App qU ppm) fry ΠΝ ηἰμηπιψπίπμιη
mi fun, LEpdmdnp, Ἱπμπιὴ phi UEpd : fbf fh ἡἥμπημιῆ yuippuin h Hoh pan.
hh ququhag’ phd ghpkglhmfanjpn :

120" APPENDIX. IV

Q, ππμόϊρ μι μη yuh Waly τ Gp gon πἴριπιιμιπῆ, ηἾπμηπιι, jopma
iu’ un Uonpbonwtkon. gQopypu Lepp, ηπμηβ Πρ. gaapqpy Ueppp,
AU pmimin, qgUyquen, ghfenqeba, ghppomta, qUapuynhpu, gawd,
qPapp Ugpulp : Mbp qunph, bh ἣν ἀμπηπη au dqnlinh, mynpliph pulgup
ony ubpifi :

δ. Qupulwkayp (δι pg ἀπρμόξῥη, bh gughmmnupmp (7) dmwhf phy ay
Ginpuyanomlbh, b pbppbh Sunpoup ayhp ἡπη δεῖ ap ἤπιε ἀπξβ--- Ὁ βζημια με,
Uphish gbpwufe goo τ Neb quan fbb’ gly p, ap dosh ἀπιπβόμιδ, ΤῈ ἢ}
quran, YPrpuph qua, qUpfup op ἐ Miku, qUnim, Sudphfe, Quplfuut,
qQupunwiy, g2kp τ fhbp μπρέπη qghn bh qmjpdkmiti :

ἢ. Qemgmpolh Of iinfyg Qapulwdujng, ho mn Eph Ἡπμόξβη, mip
qonune Epbunhi<plg. ἡ ιλιππιδ μα" ap f pin Unhmg bh ὁπήπιεδ Pyimbkng,
Japad hog pp kph, Ufafemdap bh Upp bk gudaparhgg μὲ Uabghhpm, bk Smny
JA pa Potimhbng. gPagohfa, gQUpbpomdm] fin, μι πὸ uplish gyuunh Gaga] fhm
op jonfih Ugum Uentoy., qUnpipot by hg ὁπήπιῦ Pyhmbkag, jopmd
hnghp Qpmmuh ἐκ. Lit, quimpulyghh Uuhh, bh Uabunm)ot, momp Epubt
anh, bh yky pg πηι Podahp, ηἰληιὰπιζιη με, ySpymnbpa, ἡ δμπιμηπεῖ
qUnhaj—onh, g}Umpywninoh, Up dps Of ἀπηπήμιπ τ be php [μη ἡπημι
qUAl, qgUgpml uid, quhdmdfdnp, qfnhpanmh, gz.uenm upiish gbpuupy,
quphémhfu, gh dimbfa, gQaphpu, ghoboh, ηἰλημδηπμιπ, _Qaoym—
pmipa, gUpaoapkgah, gu paunubwh, gPoqoh, qeunkfeoh, ἡ ἤμπη μβἐμεΐμι,
ySugphohe, gowdimbfe, qowfdunwh, jopmd fnimlimh Ραμ :

>. UrfampS Ufalifp, ply 8) ayn] Gpuafray bh Upduprmy, hy μη ἰλγμμι---
pannny, nif quan Elon, goph9mh, ηδαιζπιῆ, qd wyngdnp, 7 ημαμ--
pmbf* ζηδιιππιὴ omafu, gqUaufta, gQUyqu ls, gO qahh, g2mpuhy, . 7Puqu,
yQnpuy, qUphin, qyoumlah upiish guulapgkuh pmynp, whgh/rp ζπῆμι---
fink nhmm) p, bh Ugqentny gh: μὰ} impo bh Gpkpp bh finink omhfr :

A. Upgufe jph μη Ufehimg., περ gone Eph, Ufo
Zupohin, qYulmhfa, gPipdap, gUbdfppuia, Ubolmula, g2mpéqunin,
ηἰΓπεμμμῖα, gQholn, ἡ μι ὃ εἶπ, qUfowhohpo, 7Qonwl, ἡ Powompbmotin,
ἡ π[μιπ., yap 0 βὰ} pupmfunhh. μι μα mbbmyh Uyjauhp mph Subbu
ἡ! Ζιιπη :

[AU. Paymuhwpos yéy py poy Nampa om Gpwufoun, qa mip Epha—
monk, gop wh. Unpyonmloh mp. Zpupamykpad, Ympymbuhban,
biftinhopmlboh pag hhpphanppaqu, Pagohann, Unnuypdoh, 2ubh, 119} Ἀν
Pugonmh, Unjuigmpaiiykpnd, Apignybpnd, Ujpiumh τ 1 μὰ Cp tia pupal
mip, h qgoph piphupny:

AP. Nunh un tng joy Gawufomy phy HEI Upgmfany bh Gap neinny.
mb gone gop Uymuhp mip hPh. Upminan, Sap, Πιπιπιηπη κει, Ugm,

GEOGRAPHICAL DOCUMENTS 121*

Smgpumul, Quppiah, βίαι ἑν, Ninf maubehuh? pops Qapuun pugmp :
L pip ch tim af[ebhp, ἡμιμμδ πα, hf ζιμεπιη" ἐμπιπμιὴ 1]

AD. ἰἰομιμς Ujpupum ?h 9 apm] δι [μαι ται! mpfumpLugy, ab
qurun Phono, pun Pupdp Ζιιπη, ἡβιπημδῆ, phy op mbguht Grane
ηἰπιπιιη τα! ἢ {Γπιμημιἥομ΄ ηἶτιππ)ν np puduht ηλιιμίηϊιηδη Ch Lepun, bh
gUphykuhn h g2Zuum hp’ Ῥ Lfrufupy, pian pin ἡ ὑἐλμραιμπεδέπιμη.
πμπῆ Ειιημίμπ πη h Cunhnhh ‘h Cup}, h Y whi by h Ghpul; h Lpuupup.
yapeg δέξαι ght Upampli Lolykpe UEougknaiu, μι ἢ μα} πὴ JA py
jain a wpa ph Ghpwulpaswm ump kh Upbhay bh δμπιμΐημι-:
oui puym ph, ΣΝ jGpuuju : δὲ Upmdmbp yuh hyph milf Ἰ Cughantt,
Ῥ npn [ἢ ΠΗ hash. ΠΣ h ΠΩΣ ply 4fuufaup ΠΟ ΣΙ Layman hh
pApuiph’ on Pugh ghyen Dh, poonhh oh Pagphuoh gin τ δι. Gawnfu βπη πη
qUpiunip pmgmp ἡ <fuupup bh qUpmqgmdanh, γπμδὲς μη μι πιηρβιῃρ
Wheunion ghinny, b gpiph qUpuqmd : δὲ. f pum Ey fy GP, papal papal
ΩΣ Pi pum fa ghnny, yhiiph ful; jAmabugmym |? Yun fu’ ‘hh Amp
[θπηπι Cpuufa, papa [θ ῥἰμπδη mopmdkoy Qagm] fm yon, bh mbgwhk Gamay
Jey py fond 4 μιημιμρινάμμπ puguph. yapat tayp blqkgkmg ἡμιθπηβὴ,
h Dupin fipoundowgh Sunnpnh ph, Ἱπμπὴη Jay py pyfubh mnppepp Uunmchh
niinny πῃ & ᾿γοηἥομ, h fumnahh ἢ UEouion, bh mu ἢ} pg bapm yh Ugqan,
A mppaph mga, npny mahi ph pfukh ἢ βοὴ paunhl, ᾽ν Umfumpuh nbyny,
op fpSmbibpm] phy apt, mippoynht ἡ εἶεν (ἢ. Jumoth Zujaq, hb whgkmy phy
fui prin wih hank ἢ Gpumpy. Ἱπμπη ‘h δ ΣΝ Upuameunn pupmp, mp
paamS [οὐ μι δια ἰδ juamnbapyp UV" howiionph, pul myjcity ihn july ηηδημη Νἷ
UFomiopuy’ fumnbip fh omfg ἠπιεμξ : bul jb fg hmul ‘hawk Eh ἤ ΠΡ
Πιμὸδινὰημ h Upudny hangin, phy HEY. ΤΉΣΙ Ymypny Qapny h Gupaip quan fi,
ply ap ἔπε nko Upmohhh, un Vuh paym pm, miguhkyn *h fui pu
fuunhif pGpuufu τ fuip πμηὶϊ upquphpbmy papiunnny win ‘hh up huipiiparfeimh :

ON}. mga p fh Ampg. ἢ ειηξιπηπη. mh mun put. gQnpmpnp, ηἾ πη--
purpap, yOnpanpnp, _Suefp, yOnkqu, ημιδήμα μι, ηἡϑπήμιμν Lepp,
qU pam ζει, ΡΣ : Lflih oe h ae oun bh unpnifhy ἰκ moumfu :
hpi wpy Lppp Smbikwy fp Layny :

AG. Suyp mip qmmnan πὰ. gun; Jaupg fmaul, joi pub mpphipp
ηἐιππ δ Ympury ᾽} nhy Sth ap muh Ynf—mlmiip. h Ἵ ἥπιιπει haps pum Epljny—
fohfun goenafhh gba ho ponkoy on Lfiufuuf, - μδη Upmmluoh, pPmit
pig Uniigful, he mayor μη παῖ! yhpa® phy ἦν Gmgphy πῆ. pul pin ἥβης
Qnquy Pippmgihap, Qn pin py gin, uiuin p' yas, ἐκ pmin funy Βπιίμμι
h Uqappmgiinp, fuphohy nknmbop, app jppap αι ἢ iy βϑιιδίτι *h Bn.
npg pum dnfy Upubing—ijinp wn Qopfaup ΠΣ phy np pmb Bnl,
ganjm), *h Unepmy, τα δ wn fOnrfampu papyml hf Gpupéu, ἐκ mbinh ybap,

1.3 APPENDIX IV

phy Uppays phy Uparg & pig Uppin qu’ ἡ Ὥπδιππι dn], gop bakpaghp
huskh (λίμνηι, h lyoqnfpp Yohuitmp τ Lip of tia fémy, tinal fe fem,
winnp, unpmffy, wpuyufumbl hb ὅλου :

PS. Sunpoqu Uanpng τ Ugpouph phgdahmp Uupny’ Uanppp, 1 [η
με πὴ fapkohyg Omak Aniwiimh wybpennufh., unbmy, Ch Ufuntt pum pt
h Ohy play npukigh’ up sh 7nwufm ηἰτιπμιδιππεῖια, gop inskh h Ponufun,
A wimp ἡ μι πὰ jon pom 4oponiny, hb πα ζῆ ἢ 2pf ono fo. h δαμ ἣρ
pis win Unjpunmd Up pan uphish ηἰλίμμη μι πὶ U pm pp phish ghphimudh
Gibpuominy’ puphéyn Inju, Lubin wy uipuml puupo Pp. h ghinnif h Yip ΠΝ
gUjuiimoe jbunh, ap pudwht pum ζίμαβηπὶ gufy php ho gQQumgnhhm,
mypupiph, gPnpp Zuju pUanpng, *f πῆι! mofumpdt inpmf : --

PQ, Upfumip4 U p2uybin p* Ja fy Uunping, jAph id Ζιμ]πη. μα ζ ἢ
ἑιπιψμιι. pum ffuufiuny, Puphpabfab h Ub ana Upuphun : fib pApphu
Eph, απ Qngnikau, qufbh hast Uiqunanu, yap ng phnbi mf f. hb qufiuh
hast {Πα μπὲ, yopif wok Eph gh μη [μέτα], qofool bash Pmpwanh, gap
qupdhi Kupap ppt). pang um ng fp μππλξ my δ quent pfu, day {{2μ)---
npim puyap, ap mblwbhh poppam., hoch fndwbimdh pbunbt pul (pfemp,
h ploy pba moypq μημίτεμι, bh oft popu τ Quyn Ephm ghinu ghnki
U fpI ugk mary Uunpny, h [Appin Enh. A 4ndh—Champ, bh qf jaunh Ephuyhr
yap Uppal pbpg, bh Smawyyhh gown h βημρηΐ. bh Eph my iinpmiip
pApfiip, up Utun, puqmp fup hgh Ughunh, bh fin jaunh hngsh PE Sup :
δι Gijpun pudmht ἢ ἰΓβρϑιιηξιπιπη ηἶἴλαπμβα, bh gu Sumy Upupho b
qPupppugng uppouph τ δι. Spappu kpfemym] ply upon” ypc pip pbs,
h ‘h Lupin] Ῥ puny paphiblyy ἡπμι" pudmbky ‘h U pI ugg, πηπι
yffrufrutun ηἰληὰἢ θη Zujyng, op £ Updh, yapmi pmqgmp Ἡπιειηῖ ἥπιιδι, np
{ Pimp, ἐκ Pho hk GmAmampm, ἐκ onlkhayh pup pfpmty 2myng of hype
pIwhk, hufu Pughpfe, ap poful oh popmbhg Unypiay kh Uabinoliny, bh pSimy
ἡμπμὲ jpphpag η μη δμια bh yPypiup, opm] padubbgah 2anmip k Qupnphp,
he hash "6! ἣ Gh/¢hjeim, np f ΠΩΣ : δὲ ἡ] ὦ Enfem pln Upime.
A yun es ἧι μη purquphl uh op ἡπεῤ Powe, op dngh mp, yp why mubh
βρυιδ ηθπιϊμυΐι : δι [ Epljm. mis fun phy HED “bly fe my h Giipuinuy
hapuekh h Mun pu fy, ΟΣ" Yunup τ bo t UhSunkmp me omuk πμίμμ δ,
ΠΣ

PI. ἰρβωμς Qupupg > Dupupg ἰυρβμιμξ phy gnpu pmdubh wyoufu.
Pam hopwumh, np f ἠπηὴ mpluiinkmy, papi up fumpd p pit. Uy μι μη πιμ
ὑΓβζμιυδι pumul,, Pupohup, Qapiialnt, Gpunh, Yuh pup—Yurmin, Gammpinmy,
Ghpulwh, Uwupehipumks :

Pump Ginnd, ap f ἠπηΐῃ dhSopkuy ap f Lup, apn wpfumps β δ τι:--
mmo, Quy, 1 πεοί μη πιμ δ, Uuumduh, Upbyhdugmp, Utuinpshp, Qmpou,

GEOGRAPHICAL DOCUMENTS 123*

Saypunhr, Vg, Uiipuupinh, Uybm, Y wou, UYulwunuts, Quyjwummh,
Ben, ἡ} gap] omnah., Ulosimhshh, bh uw agp ἰ. Wumgnmh, bond pfpomuhs,
Um), ‘h Ζιηΐμμη ΓΟ ‘bipm spy δι π| πη ἐπ ‘h Zinhmy Luhkmy :

Pouwp Wapwowh, op § bogs mip) fig. apm ἔξ mofumph puml h ἤδη,
myuph ph yop umki, Udduymh, ποῦ, Y mphioh, Uyppomep, Up] Una, 2pm,
GQuinupuh, Gump, Ujubwhmpe fh, Suphaty, Qnghwts, {ἡ "ηϊμιηη. Y Fun,
2pm, Uugqmip, Mapping, DLadpépp, ‘hy flog, Y mpburhr, Uurnuhs, 9m bunts,
Paaly ppudhl, bpdonmenfappinh, Yunhrotn, Βρι ἢ μὰ, πη μη :

Fruit Gumlnd, ap £ bagi GQendoum pEpantig, papa Eh mypaupl nb—
Ριπιπαα ἧι. Unpuyyomuolah, Upiti (ap f) 2Zuyp, “ρθε op f Lhpp, huts
πῃ ἰ Uqmutp, Puywumtwh, Upolu. Unl, Bhquh, Culdmh, bpimbp,
Pipuimbiy, Samppumml, fmt, Us, gap ywundky απ hoy εἴδη 9 :

C. ARMENIAN GErOGRAPHY - SHORT VERSION 1°

AIO. δρήρημη 2uypp sey py yap] 1 μὴ [π| wn Surpau jipmiph, mbp ppply
Enfu, bh abinu dnp, h ype Enlm Gywhk jay Uunping :

Pe Una9his Zanp phy by my] mn pir Yarymqnpng wn beh kone
2ujny, h umiimbih yay py Gippunny. h jaunt mihi yUnglan, h nhin Epkumtr
gUy fu bh my duke :

PUL. Gppapy Zap bh np dash puphhy py Yuommqmfhpny, b Bplay mupuodp
uprhish gbitpom, bh mbf my nbinu Enha, h jappin pugmiiu dbomidbou pum
h Epln : +:

ἢ». Gag piu, myy piph ἰ δηδμ. pay py | Qntiunnu omni win Eph
Um piumpny un Y pop h uke Zuni p. h mf Gabp iinpp up fumprdu sap.
qUfxbfuw, qbabp, ghouq)n, nz whik |? np Ei Wjwympp : Nib pbphhe pwgqnuin,
h ghnw h puym pu h μέρη, bk my qonman hb alga puqu pu ἐκ sfurSununbgu :

hb. Linfu, my piph [ Dfpp, jh fq hop] Gabpwy on Uoptumbun
un Qnfhwum uf sh gU qaumbify μα ζ δ un Yap ηἰριππιί : δὲ guimnp
bh ἢ" Lppp wyenphh. YpapPp, Upmuduh, Curbnp, Qurmpp, Uubyput,
Usupu, Qapqm|m |? fu pa, Suni fu fu p, Uubignbugpnp, Parpounhap, Βπηΐιη---
pap, Ιθπέη», ἀπιδημμρ, δια βμ k Usmjh h awh, Gppupp, Ἔπιηβη, Grupa,
Uugfumit(?, σιν βμη μι. bh puqmp Sipqpu, διιδοπιηΐ, Ugfupfemy my fumsh
Ee: πιὸ qghmu fp ἀἰμιὴρρ :

5. Uypubhm, myu fiph ἰ ἰληπεμ ἧι ρ, pap py hmm] Y pug un Enh Uupiw—
infiny wn Quantum ΠΝ ΓΤ onifu h y2myjny uadouboh mn Yap

9 On the Armenian Geography, its versions and problems, see Eremyan, Armenia,

Hewsen, Armenia, and above Chapter XJ,nn. 8-1.
10 Arm, Geogr., 11, pp. 603-611 = Saint-Martin, Mémoires, II, pp. 318/9-374/5.

124 APPENDIX IV

ηἰιππή : hhh quo wpyunwhyn, puyapu bh peng h g&yw purnm pu,
ghinu pugmiu, Egbgma ζήομ τ Ge qunwnp bh myunphh. Ghublp, Pfu,
Puipléuts, Gum pl, Nunwh, pimpdywh, gern Ch Poyouwhwh, bh wy gens
qopu Ch LZuyng Lwhkuy £, Chlwoth, Swppimh, Yay, Quik, h ayy pum
ΠΙΜΕΜΙΠ ufrh sh gfuwnbo.ifn Gpuu funy Ῥ ἤπιμῃ ghin :

Ph. Ubo Luyp μη py Quym] Goryugndpny bh ipapp Layng wn Gippum
nhinni "πὰ ᾽Ἵ Sup pauinh, np pur wiht gh *h uf 3 uot. h ‘h Lupin]
um ζμ ἧι ἢ ΠΣ ΠΩΣ h quinn) win. U.in pn oe pin Up uprh sh
‘h onunu Gpwu funy ‘h Quuphyg om. μι pum fpuupuny un Enh hin) Uqnimb hy
h Y pug h Ggb pu up sh gingh πιημπὰπιεμι δὲ! Gib puny ‘h fm pu. ΩΣ, : δι
abh Zu) p j&phhu τ πειδ μα, h goon dkowididu h duimbo, bh omfuly iy :
δι ahh bd Zui) p iinpp m3 fumpgu Cig bint np Eh myun ppl. Pupép
dmppy np $ ἡπηδ Yuphay, snppapy Zapp, Ugdipp, Smpmphpwt, Unhp,
Ynpéuyp, Qupulmuy p, {μη περι ἢ τι, Upgufu, Ufrthp, Pw pnw poh,
Nunfm, QDaugmpp, Supp, Ujpmpunin : Uppy huni nn Supa dwubn pup
wim, (OE hk owl pis m3 prmnn fig fd bh php κι} pupinku :

Upy mulif Puipdp Zui).p ΠΣ ‘bupokug fb, Unfrod, Uphdmp, Ghbnkmy,
Vubutunh, bipSuh, Uykp, Gamagnip, Guphh : be pum whombig pry pile
puipdp [ ΖιμΡ puh ΤΗΣ, Eph hp. pulinp pay onpu ἠπηἥπεδιη nbinu upd lt :
Aibf bh ΠΩΣ, ΠΩΣ fplu pugnitu, h fun mpouifu, bh JEninily h wynu,
h qgeikbuyh yupupnmfe fh, b puym p ἡ πηπιιῖηο) fu :

Qappapy Zul) .p jiph hny Ριυμὰμ Ζιιπη. h qurmnp πὶ °h him me. hinpeth,
Zursinkuhs p, Qu phonnnh, Purpw dm] pn, Om p, 2mbapfe, ‘hnpé p, ἡ 1.» :
fib papa h gbinu h [Epphu h phipby. mish h ἐμέ Ah Lono bh ἀὐπεῖη, h }
gugutimy ἡμιπἰιὸ :

Uyshhp un Shapfhu glnn] uy. bh goemae mip moat, ηἰλ μηδ, qupphena,
qPhq, qyb[oph, qSumph, qUghmmdnp, ghiplkPu, q'bghq, qUulndnp,
qUuunihn : fibf bund h Enhm|d ΠΩΣ h an feng, h Lon’ πη ηζπιὴ :

Smpmpbpwhs jAph uy onppnpy Ζμι!πῆ. qui LuIT p Eh fh him ἡ ιπιμ αι,
πη. Yun μι ἢ πεδ ἢ. Supoh, Upinh hp, Uppy fi, ‘hwuhuinnp, δπεμιπιμὸμι---
unui, απ, = 2uip.p, Yupudimhfp, Pylnbhp, Gpbimpp, Un fmf fun,
Umm 4nihip p, Yann, NMapfunnnhhp : Nibh h om yPababkmgh sph wyh fmf
Hynh, hf pul ΠΣ fib h ηιπη {ἢ h dknp h δι οὐ ἤ πη, h uy fim
hunfe, h Ephufe :

Unk p pay hy ἐμ πι Undhi mg paimpu δΊΜΕΠΠΗ ΠΣ yur. nibh pits.
ahouyp, yuu homjp, πὴ Π111.1}}Π qUanbhfg any, η UhSm, qu nahh
Unhu, qUppuypy HuLUIT, gUpquuinm fin, qQbpdmdop > δὲ πιδβ ‘h ἥπηπη
qgmépoml kh dubpwgnp, bh Oh ημιημιδιη gfe ghybyhmpuwjpamyg, bh of funny
ghm pun:

GEOGRAPHICAL DOCUMENTS 125*

Yapbmyp phy hy hay Unlwg on wonphomohf, gona mhp dima,

ηἽπμηπιι, ηπρημβε Yipph, gQapyppe upPph, qanpyppe bEppph, ηἰλγιππειαδι,
qUyquan, gQUnfeoqaba, gApoppuba, gyupwfeahpu, gaudnk, apn Pp ἰληριιὴ:
Abb ψωπβή, bp ἀμοῆπη γαζεηῇ ὁ

Qu pulp hiny Ρ ὄῥ'|}η ἤμι! Yopéthg wn Uinpoypwinalahon., ἐ mif yunung
poh. Up ap £ Ymaféah, Uuph, Ppp, Ugmbpo, Γ πῆμα, Suipkpn,
Qupkfonmh, Qupmmin, Zep: Nibf kp gafn h qmydbuthh :

Yonympohah Of dnp fy Qapulmdayng bn En Gapdt hg. ht Liu
Hun. p Eh Epkunh h En, fhommhfhp, Snup, Κπιηπιδβρ, U pb fouljni fin,
ἰληπήμιπ, Ὠπιημδπή{ιπ, Unpipmbp, Punt, Padmbpp, Unlaul, Ubdl—
mgip, Umpyummifip, bppmifp, Uuppwnnah, Upmug, ἴλη, Ugpul
Wid, Ulidujumdnap, nnbuimhs, Anum, [hamhpémbpp, Uloimifp, Quajm—
bhp, Φ πιεῖ, Uynuiyann, Qemywpmthp, Upoorlghioh, Upomobkut,
Pupuh, Quph/tkmt, Gagphhut, Subhphay, Lopucimhhp, dag|eh
phihfn, ἵνα μόπειμδ" papa pum ph, kh Umpuliy :

Upebhp μη [η lay Uypupurny phy af) Cpunpy hk Upgapmy. mbp
qganunn Eph, bpbImh, Amdah, Lyng dnp, Bagmpmbh bh oni,
Unnp, ἰλημιζίόρ, Oyml, Z2upmiy, Pup, Qnpp, Upiifp, GYmuuhuai :
L pip of tow imp bh gbpkph kh foal, bh αἱ ἥπερ mighp :

Upaufu japh fin Ufehbong. gonunp Gh Of him Eplanwmth, an 1ληπιειδ ρ
mifh. Ujfau Zupulg, Luhmbhp, ΒΙΡπμημὰπμ, Ubohjambp, Ubofputp,
Zupdjohp, Umjautp, Qawhp, Quhdhutp, Uhumlah nomuth, Pmumfh—
hunky, πη θ᾽ Japa {μὰ} pup family, :

Pm pnw pupa yey hay Numpny win. Gpwn fom. mun mibih timate:
gap my Unpywnmlah mip. Zp pnnykpnd, ἡ μη ἢ μιη, b1ftinpopo—
him pampiip, [hanppmqm, Puqwutnnm, Unnyfdmh, Zuhp, Ue) fp, Poqe—
Linh, UJuywhinmpohykpnd, Nypignytpnd, Ujbumh : μὰ} ‘h hija μα ἥριμ ἢ
mipo, hk πῃ fiphupnyy :

Piunfp mn διηβη joy Gaanfrmy pin 119 Upgufumy hk Gap ghinny. nahh
youn yap Ugaunhp mbpir hh. Upminnn, Snp, {hnmnujwgbnh, ἰληπιΐ,
Sag purmnmh, Quappiah, Ghhosth, amp πεπιπ ἀν ἡ ᾿πμπι ἢ με ριπιπι, pmgmp :
Lpip Cf ὅδ sffebhp, ampphhkih, hh omy’ hmmm; :

Q-mgupp *h Hinhy buy fhiunfmy, h mh goumny fbb gop Uppp mbpt.
Qapmpnp, Onpmbap, YoqpmAnp, Suphp, nkyp, Yolpupp, Upnmeuh,
Qunmfap, Qaup)p: 1} μὰ eh fiw mime, bh LoSupudun bh ἀμ μι! h mouufe :

Sujp mn Eph hoy app, mipngop h pkpnop hunmyhuy. bh mbp
quay fib. ἡ πη ἡ βἰηρημνηψπρ., ηἤιιριηβημιηίπρ, ηπιμῖμι, ἡ βπι μι, gf ριιηξ,
ἡ πῃ, qUubumpoap : δι L pup *h Saya | h ᾿πιπὴ, mini, ni plhhy,
upon uml bh tne :

1265 APPENDIX IV

U,jpuu pun ‘h ἡ 9 hun porn θαι η kay nip ἰπμπζμιηη. h ΠΣ Eh Ἰ fou
pum, Puubuh, Qu phykmt p, Upbyiutp, Yudurmihp, Upoupabtpp,
Puoaphinhy, Cughanh, Chpwh, Luahwhy, Upmgmdnamh, gulump, Voukug—
ninht, ἤπηπιξβιπ, Usnap, Ufa, Unum) p, U uaa, Y mpudinifp, noinmh
Ppehiny ΠΩ gipupinhs Gupmp τ be mbf Ujypmpum pEpfin h papi, h
qoubhae yh yppom|?e fh, bho ompelh Guypomny, bh apy papduanny upgny
wach qupy ἡμιμῆμπι [θ πεῖ ἡπεῖπ). bh qgiwyp Ghkgbykogh Ch feaquanpmphul
h poppayohhom Yuyapouymm pmym ph :

ULm hummpbymh mish ph 2m) p 2 “ὁ.

11]. Uf Pub p jap py | Uunping h Gif punn ghinny, Uunpbommhfr
wn bhymfe gb), jiph hyn ud Ζαι πη. ho mip piphia Eplm, bh glo
Ephm, h punjm pu purgmin, Ἱπμπὴη uh ἰ funda mp mhdknaanpd npn bp
ὙΜῊΝ

Le. Umpp, ap faghh Pmumph Rayhoyp, 15} [ῃ ἤμιμπ 2myng b wn bpp
Guppy dmfnih. h mbih up jmp du yujunufil. aU npn hh, lhe, phe,
ηἰ adit, y‘hApnutin, AU Aim ash, ‘pur dpulmp, Sn ayy an prin inant, ηἰλιίτη,
yfhmty : f)ib} pAppiu h nbn, h gomjulh πῃ hngh ἔμ πα Πα, mip ἢ,Ρπιπαι---
δηβηῖΐ qopdbh : fbf puympy pugniiu :

19. Upmuumuh, ap hsp Uuaphonmt myo piph Umon, Π1.) hinjm]
Up ugbmuy un Enp 2mjny. nulih Eppa h aban, h pump ηὉβπι} :

Lh. Bopimghp, op haghh Pounphp pamcumoul, phy hy jujpm] Pym Poy
ho oh διηβη Quepuhg τ Ge mbph by fiugf ph upfumpdu iinpaka ympnufl.
ghimduunmh, ἡ 7} πιη μι gu hsp, ge pm, gPuopmp, ΓΗ ΤΣ
gbpohwomuds, 74uphuim, ἢ Ὁ ΠΙΠΙΜΊΠΠ, ἡ με, η {Πιυμὰ βεῖι, ηἰ μα ῖ :
Aub ghinu Enhu, puny pu ζβδιη" Ἱπμπη ΠΣ E Qabliafouynd, apm yunh pr
out,pun ΠΣ gapobh, h hyn fu Ephm Lmbinky μμ h wy play hi dng fh :

LL. Qupup, ap dasph Rmunh Ubinnyp, μἢ| hg ἡμ πὶ famduonubp b
umn Enh Uupug, nlf Jpipamt mp famiplu ipn pmb qmyu. Aupn, qUoymduh,
qUtomh, q2uhup, qu hay py, gapdoh, ἡ περι, gFUohmpot, quan, g¥U pot,
qQiimjuom, gUaquenwh, qUyjounmh, gdbp, gUbq, gUwsph, quam,
ηἶπόξ ζμεμμπιμῖι, gQoyd : Mbp gb ho byghe bh pwqm py pugmiu, jnpng
uh Efhbohp Ch Qudpumk pugmp* japad mghf. διαπημμ {πὴ Epoht, bh ἡπ---
ΠΣ

Lf. ὕμβ. ap ἡπεβὲ Ἑπιιμηβ Napuamirp, μη py Yay] Uapay b Qupupy
Upfish ἦν Linhhu ho jkiph Lphohp omjmb. bh upfumplp bh Upiug wyunphh.
Yad, Lphuh, Umpomép, Upmi, Upmummnlph, Yumkouh, Udiubpinh,
Poph, Unghwh, Aaghoh, Usimupmd, Σμπιῦ, Qu, Ὥξμπη, Gmfudkp, bg fh—
fom, YapIuh, {Πα μα, Quiumuh, Pudy ap bh Qopfehp, miu,
Yuphimiuh, Ghph, Puppluh, bmfpoh : Nibh Uphp papfho bh gb ρμι---

ym :

GEOGRAPHICAL DOCUMENTS

L pip {punimoh sub kh ns myhfe :

127*

Ge ἤπηβ dp ἐ ζιιδηξῃ Upkmy *h

Linhuy omfn.h, μηιμπιὴ βηπιῇρ p pip Enk pjdybmh Luu ἦγ 1. πῃρ ny win ;—
parguph pin funpymyg fminiy Yuh éuipuhEjny ing quien Ὧι [ηϊμνηΐ : 11

177.

178.

179.

180.

Τὴ. ItiInERARIUM ANTONINI 12

1. Itinerarvum Provinciarum Antonim Augusta ...

A Sebastia Cocuso per

Mehtenam 294 sic
Blandos 24
Huspoena 28
Arahis 24
Ad Praetorium 28
Pisonos 32
Mehtena (32) 22
Arcas 26
Dandaxina 24
Osdara 24
Ptandari 24
Cocuso 38

Item a Sebastia Cocuso

per Caesaream 257 sic
Scanatu 28
Malandara 30
Armaxa 28
Kulepa 24
Caesarea 16
Artaxata 24
Coduzalaba 19
Comana 24
Ptandari 24
Cocuso 38

11 See above, n. 9.

12 Miller, Itineraria Romana, pp. lix-lz.

181.

182.

188.

Item a Sebastia Cocuso
per compendium 206 sic

Tonosa, 50
Aniarathia 50
Coduzalaba 20
Comana 24
Ptandari 24
Cocuso 38
Item ab Arabisso per
compendium Satalam
268 sic
Tonosa 28
ZA0ana 25
Gundusa 23
Kumeis | 30
Zara 18
Dagalasso 20
Nicopoh 24
Olotoedariza 24
Ad Dracones 26
Haza 24
Satala leg. XV Apolli-
naris 26

1285 APPENDIX: IV

184, A Germanicia per Doli- In medio 12
cham et Zeugma Hdis- Edissa 15
sam usque 87 sic

Sicos Bassilisses 20 Item a Cyrro Edissa 92 sic
Dolicha 10 Cihza sive Urmagiganti 12
185. Zeugma, 12 190. Abarara 10
Bemmaris 20 Zeugma 22
Hdissa 25 Bemmari Canna 40
Bathnas Mari 8

186, Item a Gemanicia per Edissa 10

Samosatam Hdissa 70 sic
In Catabana. 15 Item a Nicopoli Edissa
Nisus | 16 137 sic
Tharse 14 Aharia, 13
Samosata leg. VII 13 Gerbedisso 15
187. Edissa, 12 191. Dolicha 20
Zeugma 24
Item ab Antiochia Eme- Canaba 25
58 138 sic In medio 22
_Niccaba 25 lidissa 18
Caperturi 24
Apamia 20 Item, a Callicome Edissa
Larissa, 16 85 sic
188, Epiphania 16 Bathnas 24
Arethusa 16 Hierapohi 21
Emesa 16 192, Thilaticomum 10
Bathnas (Bathas) 15
Item ab Arabisso Muza- Hdissa. ... 15
na 48 sic
In medio 22 Ttem a Travia Sebas-
Muzana 26 tiam 161 sic
204, Corniaspa 21
Item a Gemanicia Hdis- τ Parbosena 25
Sa, 84 sic Sibora, 25
Sicos Basilisses 15 Agriane 20
189. Dolicha | 15 Simos 30
Zeugma 14 Sebastia 40

Cannaba 13

205.

206.

207.

GEOGRAPHICAL DOCUMENTS

Item a Travia per Se-
bastopolim

Sebastiam usque 166 sic
Mogaro 30
Dorano 24
Sebastopol 40
Verisa 24
Piarasi 12
Sebastia 36
Item ab Ancyra per Ny-
sam Caesaream usque
198 sic
Gorbeus 24
Orsologiaco 18
Aspona 20
Parnasso 22
Nysa 24
Osiana 32
Saccasena 28
Caesarea 30

Item a Caesarea Satala

324 sic
Hulepa 16
Armaxa 24
Marandara 28
Scanatus 39
Sebastia 28
Camisa 27
Zara 18
Dagalasso 20
Nicopoli 24
Olotoedariza, 24
Dracontes 26
Haza 24

Satala 26

208.

209.

210.

211.

1295

Item a Satala Melitena
per ripam Samosatam

usque 341 sic
Suissa, 17
Arauracos 28
Carsagis 24
Sinervas 28
Analiba 28
Zimara 16
Teucila 16
Sabus 28
Dascusa 16
Ciaca 32
Mehtena 18
Maisena 12
Lacotena 28
Perre 26
Samosata 24.

Item a Caesarea Meli-

tena 228 sic
Artaxata, 24
Coduzalaba 24
Comana (16) 26
Siricis 24
Ptandaris | 16
Arabisso 12
Osdara 28
Dandaxena (34) 24
Arcas 22
Melitena 28

Item a Ceasarea Ana-

Zarbo 211 sic
Arassaxa 24
Coduzalaba 24
Comana, 24

130*

212.

213.

214.

APPENDIX IV
Siricis 16
Cocuso 25
Laranda 18
Badimo 18
Praetorio 22
Flaviada 22
Anazarbo 18

Item a Sebastia Cocuso

206 sic
In medio 25
Tonosa 25
In medio 25
Ariarathia 25
Coduzalaba 20
Comana 24
Ptandari 24
Cocuso 38

Item a Nicopoh Arabis-

SO 226 sic
Dagalasso 24
Lara 20
Camisa 18
Sebastia 24
in medio 25
Ariarathia 25
Coduzalaba 20
Comana 24
Ptandari 24
Arabisso 22

Item a Sebastopoli Cae-

saream usque 217 sic
Verisa 24
Siara 12
Sebastia 36
Scanatus 28

215.

216,

Malandara 39
Armaxa 28
Hulepa 24
Caesarea 26

Item a Cocuso Arabisso

52 sic
Ptandani 28
Arabisso 24

Item a Cocuso Melite-

nam. 153 sic
Ptandani 28
Arabisso 22
Asdara 28
Dandaxena 24
Areas 22
Melitena 28

Item a Melitena Samo-

sata 91 sic
Mesena 12
Lacotena 28
Perre 27
Samosata 24
Item a Nicopoht Satalam
122 sic
Olotoedariza 24
Carsat 24
Arauracos 24
Suissa 24
Satala 26

Item a Trapezunta Sa-
talam 135 sic

Ad Vicensimum

Zigana
217. Thia

GEOGRAPHICAL DOCUMENTS

20

32

24

Sedissa (fines Ponti)

Domana
Satala ... 13

Kk. TapuLa PEUTINGERIANA

vill. Deroceszs Ponticae 14

Calcedonia - Trapezunte - Ar-

taxata - Sanora

Calcedonia ...

Trapezunte
Nyssilime
Opiunte
Reila
Ardinco
Athenis
Agabes
[Pyxites fl.
Cissa
Apsaro
Portualtu
Apasidam
[Ad Isidem]
Nigro
Phasin
Cariente
Chobus
Sicanabis
Cyanes
Tassiros

13 See below Appendix IVE, n. 17.

14 Miller, Itimeraria Romana, pp. 631-684.

[Hippus]
Stempeo
[Lamupulis]
Sebastopolis
Ad fontem felicem
Ad mercurium
Caspiae
Apulum
Pagas
Gauhta
Misium
Condeso
Strangira
Artaxata
Geluina
Sanora
Lalla
Ugubre
Teleda
Philado
[Cyropolis]
Lazo
Satara
Bustica
Sanora

151"

17
24
18

132*

xeill

Nicomedia - Amasia - Neoce-

sarta - Polemonion

Nicomedia ...
Amasia
Palalce
Coloe

Pidis
Mirones
Neocesaria
Bartae
Polemonio

ACV

Ancyra - Tavio - Nicopols -

Satala - Artazxata

Ancy?a ...
Tavio

Tomba
Evogni
[Sebastopolis
ad stabulum
Mesyla
Comana pontica
Gagonda
Magabula
Danae
Speluncis
Mesorome
[Nicopols

[ Olotoedariza]
Draconis
Cunissa

APPENDIX IV
Hassis
Liziola
Satala
Salmalasso
Darucinte
Aegea
15 Lucus Basaro
12 Sinara
10 Calcidava
16 Autisparate
10 Tharsidarate
38 Datamisa
(2) 11 Adconfluentes
Barantea,
Andaga
Armanas
Chaldas
Colchion
Raugonia
Hariza
Coloceia
Paracata
22 Artaxata
[40]
20] xevl
22
16 Amasia - Tavio - Zela - Neo-
16 cesaria
5
25 AMAS1A ...
25 Tavro
[12] ( 2) Rogonorum
13 Aegonne
14 Ptemari
[12] Lela
[26] Stabulum
13 Seramisa
10 Neocesaria

13
12
20
20
20
15
22
15
12
15
20
10
30
26
12
17
24
24
24
24
33
23

36
36
28
26
32
22
16

GEOGRAPHICAL DOCUMENTS

xevil

Polemonio - Nicopols - Zimara

Polemonio | io.
Sauronisena ᾿ς 16
Matuasco 18
Anniaca 18
Nreopola 21
Ole oberda 18
Caleorsissa 24.
Analiba ες Τ᾿ 15
Zimara ΝΞ ΞΟ

ΧΟΥἹ

Trapezunte - Satala - Meli-
tene - Samosata

Trapezunie 20
Magnana ὁ 10
Gizenenica » TS
Bylae &6
Frigdarium ον: 8.

Patara
Medocia
Salonenica
Domana
Satala
Draconis
Haris
Hlegarsina
Bubaha
Zimara
Zenocopl
Vereuso
Saba
Daseusa
Hispa
Arangas

Ciaca

Melentensis

Corne
Metita,
Glaudia,
Barsahum.
Heba

Charmodara

Samosata

ix, Diocests Aszanae 18

CV

Ephesus - Cesarea - Sebasieva
- Nicopolt

Ephesum ...

Mazaca-Cesarea a 13
Sorpara | 14
Foroba, 4
Armaza 16

15 Miller, Itineraria Romana, pp. 724-748,

Hudagina
Megalasso
Comaralis
Sevasiia
Comassa
Doganis
Megalasso
Mesorome
Nicopols

133*

32
32
22
23
15
25
22
13

1543

ον

Tavio - Cesarea - Melitene -

Amida - Nisibis
Tavro ...

Mazaca-Cesarea
Sinispora
Arasaxa
Larissa

in cilissa
Comana capadocia
Arsanio
Castabola
Pagrum
Arabissus
Arcilapopoli
Singa

Arega
Nocotesso
Lagalasso

Sama
Melentensis

Ad aras

Thirtonia [ca.

——

Mazara
Colchis
Coruilu
Arsinia
Coissa
[Amida]
Sardebar
Arcalapis
Sammachi
Aque Frigide (Meiacarire)
Arcamo
Thamaudi

APPENDIX IV
Naisibr
0011}
Sardebar - Τὶργαποοσογία
Raugonia

24
18 Sardebar
10 Adipte
23 Sitae
20 Thalbasaris
24 [Martyropolis] ( 2)
24 Tigranocarien
20 Zanserio
--- Cymiza
30 Dyzanas
30 Patansana
14 Vastauna
12 Molchia
24 Dagnevana
18 Flegoana
13 Isumbo

8 [Nasabi]

9 { Anteba]
28 | [Sorue]

8 [Catispi]
16 Raugona
13
14 cvilla
14
16 Amida - Trgranocerta
13
10 Amida
14 Ad tygrem
17 Nararra
— Colchana
30 Tigranocarten

10
12
10
1

[22]
80
20
22
27
26
32
26
15
15

[17]

[24]

[24]

[27]

[39]

27
13
45
15

GEOGRAPHICAL DOCUMENTS 135*

x. 2. Parthia 18

XCV Filadelfia 20

Trispeda 45

Artaxata - Eebatana Peresaca 4

Arabum 7

Artazxata 39 Eneca 4

Catispi 27 Rhasum 4

Sorvae [24] Ad tomenta 4

Anteba 24 Naucanio 6

Nasabi 17 Nicea Nralra 50
Gobdi 24 Kebatams Partuorum ... 17

F. Tovma ARcCRUNI - History 18
The divisions of Vaspurakan

Til, xxix... θέμα dwhauuhh Uonnf--. waka q/pofumiafe bh Ἁ wuympo—
hunk ink pn [9 Enka Quang nfl fypuyp ΠΩΣ |

δι gqpnjop Ephhpe fupbutg ἀπὲ μπι δ πιμδι μι σ᾽ εν μὰ jfpljme swunke :
Biju ἤπμι ho fp ἥπειπ ap wa Sfoufauf ηζμι πηι pbpk πιπέρι! ἐμ fp pod hit
μη ppl fia pirat, HZ nLu> nuns h 9 f>nabwimh, U puny, Uupyuinnut,
(μπὲ, U,npE put, Uqubijnnn, Punpypml fin, Mu pach fp h 7 δ πεῖ ρ. Sn—
μη ποιππιδ ἢ p, Κπηπιΐβρ. Qargquih quiLuin Upumytukmh : Ujunphl HIN LWT p
winiubhp, gap pun Shi Fu du ἧι μα ἐν fupny po fumbinifebmth ΠΣ ΧΟ
pup wp Πἶτ μι! mikn funy phi bhign|ebwh Um py bin hnskgtwy, yap h Yen
whip ppoumnubbay gagap qgnpypumpfrt, bh Soho, puqu ph Cuilhpuduy
Lngsmlby fh h ynyd ἡ μιπιμ παι ἢ π} hh pute fan ph ἠπη δμιδιη {μη περι lah :

pul Gaipaflih Hin πηι hi ἢ Zmjnyg wink wy ἐμ Ρ purdhh yay hnyu h op Ejwhf
h ζιαπμμαμ ἢ πη ἕίῃ, gUdm diy dnp, ἡ μόπεδι{ιι, η ἢ ἡπιηλὴι mf fun, h ἡ Ρπιὶι
qU mpqwunnh yun, qU pdpouhm) fun, ηπιπὶ Unhny, ηἰληριιη {Γξὸ hk πῃ.
Uhl, διιῆρίμ, Swapkmh, Rnhwjy, Qupklaimt :

16 Miller, [tineraria Romana, pp. 781-782.

1 On the Tabula Peutingeriana and the Itinerartum Antonini, see Miller, Jtineraria
Romana, pp. xiii-lv et passim, cf. Ramsay, Hist. Geogr., pp. 62 sqq., and Manandian,
Tabula Peutingeriana, Routes, Trade.

18 Tov. Arc., pp. 251-252.

1865 APPENDIX IV

Pinjg qSmipln ἐν gPnbmyh bh 7Quptdonwh gonna Lobkuy ἐμ fh Πιμμμίμι---
funy, pul; ἡ Gui βηόιαι μι pump h η πη [ἢ nun 4uhiwy ἐμ β {ἀμ μ1Π|---
purl nhf pun Fu μι μι ἢ ΟΡ punn§, UaAU mio p, μιῇ my pda Ehinkg—
Layh Dapp h ιπιιδ μι πῃ omLnr yomugh Ζιμ πῇ : ful ἡ Gayot quinn
p Gutubalh humo δ μι uppayh Ym Luin, pu 7QQ (PrmhuimfPiuig,
jap mip fu mupkgun umpph Y wuts, op ἐμ πμηβ Nnupmfu, nq |e mh

ink μι πὴ! ;

V. TOPONYMY

This appendix is an attempt at a partial synthesis of the geographical
information found in Adontz’s work together with the identifications
of later scholars and the modern forms of toponyms. The material
is presented in tabular form, with all the equivalents of a given topo-
nym, ancient (Armenian and Classical) or modern, being given when-
ever possible. Every equivalent form of a toponym has been treated
as a separate entry and provided with the available literary and map
references relevant to it. Hence, all alternatives should be consulted
in order to obtain the complete information. Variant forms, however,
are given as part of their main entry without additional information,
although, in the case of provinces, an attempt has been made
to indicate the source in which the variant form occurs.
Scholars continue to disagree as to the identification and position
of a number of localities, so that no attempt has been made to reconcile
divergent opinions which will be found in the references.

The main works consulted for this appendix have been: Hremyan,
Hayastan ast “‘ Asyarhacoyc”’ [E]; Toumanoff, Studies an Christian
Caucasian History [T], (on the provinces), and the Department of the
Interior’s Gazetteer No. 46 : Turkey [6]; The maps used were : Ere-
myan’s Hayastan ast ‘“ Asyarhacoyc’”’, and the Atlas of the Armenian
SSR [AA], (for Armenian toponyms); Calder and Bean’s A Classical
Map of Asia Minor [CM], and the Grosser Historischer Weltatlas I
[HW] (for Classical names); and the USAF Aeronautical Approach
Chart [Ὁ] (for the modern equivalents). Miller’s Ztinerarza Romana
[M] is the references given for the stations in the Tabula Peutingeriana
and the Itinerarvum Antonini. Other references are given only where
particularly relevant or if they are not included in the corresponding
notes. References to Lynch’s and Kiepert’s maps have been omitted
as incorporated in Adontz’s work, and reflecting conditions existing in
1908 rather than at the present time.

Of necessity, references have been highly selective, or even arbitrary,
and severely limited, since any pretence at exhaustiveness would
have expanded this appendix beyond manageable size and far trans-
cended its modest scope. The shortcomings of such a limited attempt

138* APPENDIX V

are far too obvious to require comment; the most that can be hoped
here, is that this listing will provide some minimal assistance to the
reader faced with the chaotic state of Anatolian toponymy at the
present time.

A. PROVINCES

The following abbreviations have been used in this section in ad-
dition to those given in the Bibliography and Notes:

Agat’.
Aed.

A.M.

de B.

ad L.

St. Byz.

Agat’angelos, Patmut’iwn | History], 3rd ed. (Venice, 1930).

Procopius, “On Buildings’, Works, H.B. Dewing and G. Downey edd.
and trans (Cambridge, Mass.-London, 1940), VII.

Ammianus Marcellinus, The Surviving Books of the History, J.C. Rolfe ed.
and trans (Cambridge, Mass.-London, 1950).

Johannis Episcopi Ephest ... Commentaria de Beatis Orientaltbus ..., W.J. van
Douwen and J.P.N. Land trans. (Amsterdam, 1889).

σὺν κ᾽ T’Woc [The Book of Letters] (Tiflis, 1901).

** Codex Justinianus ᾽᾽, P. Kriiger ed. in CJC, II, 8th ed. (1906).

Codex Theodosianus, T. Mommsen ed. (Berlin, 1905).

Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, G. Moravscik
et al. edd., (Budapest-London, 1949, 1962).

Eremyan, S8.T., Hayastana ast “ Agyarhacoyc”’ [Armenia According to
the “ Armenian Geography ”’|, (Erevan, 1963).

Georgius Cyprus, Descriptio Orbis Romani, H. Gelzer ed. (Leipzig, 1890).
Procopius, ‘‘ The Gothic War”, Works, H.B. Dewing ed. and trans. (Cam-
bridge, Mass.-London, 1919-1928), ITI-IV.

Hierokles, Synekdemos, Ἐπ. Honigmenn ed. and trans. (Brussels, 1939).
** Laterculus Polemii Silui’’ in Seeck, Not. Dig.

** Collectio Sangermanensis, [Epistulae ad Leonem Imperatorem]”, ACO,
II-v.

Mansi, Sacrorum Consiliorum Nova ef Amplissima Collectio, new ed. (Paris,
1901).

Chronique de Michel le Syrien ..., J.B. Chabot ed. and trans. (Paris, 1899-
1904).

‘** Novellae ”, R. Schoell and W. Kroll edd., CJC, III, 6th ed. (1912).
Notitia dignitatum, O.Seeck ed. (Berlin, 1876).

Pliny, The Natural History, H. Rackam ed. and trans. (Cambridge, Mass.-
London, 1938-1965).

Claudit Ptolemaet Geographia, C. Miiller ed. (Paris, 1901).

Procopius, “‘ The Persian Wars”, Works, H.B. Dewing ed. and trans.
(Cambridge, Mass.-London, 1914), I.

** Ex historia Petri Patricii ...”’, I. Bekker and C. Niehbuhr edd., CSHB.
Strabo, The Geography, H.L. Jones ed. and trans. (Cambridge, Mass.-
London, 1960-1961).

Stephanus Byzantinus, Hthnika, A. Meinicke ed. (Berlin, 1849).

Chabot, J.B., Synodicon Orientale (Paris, 1902).

140 APPENDIX V

T Toumanoff, C., Studies in Christian Caucasian History (Georgetown, 1963).

de Th. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, de Thematibus, A. Pertusi ed. (Vatican city,
1952).

VL ** Laterculus Veronensis’”’ in Seeck, Not. Dig.

xX Xenophon, The Anabasis of Cyrus, C.L. Brownson ed. and trans. (Cam-
bridge, Mass.-London, 1950-1961).

ZM Zacharias Rhetor, Historia Ecclesiastica, E.W. Brooks trans. (Paris, 1921).

(d.) diocese.

(s.) strategy.

(th.) theme.

The coordinates given in Armenian letters in Eremyan’s map have been transcribed
into Latin characters, E.g. P-4 = B-4.

Coordinates are invariably given in the customary order: Latitude-Longitude.

For a translation of Eremyan’s tables, Armenia, pp. 116-120; see Hewsen, Armenia,
pp. 326-342.

PROVINCE

Abaran
Abasgia

Abasgoi
Abazgoi
Abeleank’

al-Abhaz .

Abkhazia
Aboci .
Aéara .
Acisené
Acwerk

Adiabena .

Adiabene

Adzharia
Aegyptus

Aegyptus I
Aegyptus II

Ainiana

VARIANTS

Abasgoi
Abazgoi
al-Abhaz
Bazgun

Arasyx
Arisi

Adiabena

Aéara

EQUIVALENTS

Awazov adyarh
Abkhazia

Abasgia .

Ovéa

Hedayab

Nor Sirakan
Median March
Kadmé ?

Kgr

EASTERN

E41, 101

K.31, 118-xv/3
B-5

E.38, 117-vii/4
D-6

E.49, 72

REFERENCES
CLASSICAL

P. V, xvii, 4
S. XI, v, 8;
XI, xiv, 12
XVI, i, 1, 19
P. IV, v
N.D.
N. VIII

N. VIII
S. XI, vii, 1

NOTES

.See Aparan,

τέ Basgun.

T. 60 n. 58, 209, 266, 405 nn. 52,
54, 496-497.

See Ch. XIT, n. 14.

.See Abasgia.
.See Abasgia.

T. 220.

.See Abasgia.
.See Abasgia.
.See Asock’
.See Adzharia.
.See Akilisené.

.See Adiabené.

T. 129, 131, 133, 148, 163-166,

197, 200, 305, 322 n. 76.

See Ch. XIV n. 60, and Nor
Sirakan and Kadmé.

. See Egr.

SHONTAOUd ! ANANOdO.L

«LPL

PROVINCE

Aké

Akilisené

Alahéé

Alanac erkir .

Atandost .
Alandrot

Alania

Atbak (Mec)

Atbak (P’ok’r)

Albania

VARIANTS

Acisené
Acilisena
Akisené
Ekelenzines
Kelesené
Keletzené

Alwanrot
Alandost
Alanae erkir

Great Albak
Elbak

Lesser Atbak

EQUIVALENTS

Ekeleac
Anaetica
Anaitis chéra
Anahtakan

Kozliéan ?
Kozluk kazasi ?

Baskale kazasi

Alwank’
Arran

Ran

REFERENCES

KASTERN

E.32, 117-viii/17
D-5

E.50, 116-1/4
G-3

15.352, 117-ix, 6
G-7

£.33, 117-viii/26

G-8

E.32
A-5

E.33, 117-viii/18
G-6

£.33, 117-vi/11
D-6

CLASSICAL

P. V, xii, 6

S. XI, xii, 3,
XI, xiv, 2, 5, 12, 16
XII, iii, 8

CM Nd

Pers. J, xvii, 11

M. IX, 391; XI, 613.

P. V, xi
S. XI, iv ; xiv, 7

NOTES

T. 197.

T. 73, 132, 137 n. 240, 166, 194
n. 209, 210, 218, 233 n. 291, 322
n. 76.

See Ch. III nn. 1, 12-a-c, 18;
V, 60 and Kozluk kazasi.

See Alania.
.See Atandrot.

T. 199.

G. 78, 38°10’ χ 44°10’

T. 199-200, 219, 304, 305 n. 119.
See Ch. XI, n. 71.

T. 181 ἡ. 148, 199-200.

T. 83, 102 n. 158, 185-186, 219,
258 n. 362, 405 n. 54, 438, 467,
476 ἢ. 168, 477-478, 483-484,
499.

See Ch. ΙΧ, p. 173-174 and nn.
21, 22a.

xoVl

A XIGQNUddV

REFERENCES

PROVINCE VARIANTS EQUIVALENTS EASTERN CLASSICAL NOTES
Alewan K.32, 117-xi/10
G-7
Atiovit Alit hovit W.33, 116-iv/13 T. 205-206.
Alovit G-5
Alit hovit . eas eB το .See Aliovit.
Aliwn Ariwc E.33, 116-1/2
G-3
Aljn A}jnik’ Arzanené K.33-34, 116-iii
Arjn Arabian March D-4
be@é Arzon
Aljnik’ .See Aljn.
Alovit . a a oe te. ete Se at oe . See Aliovit.
Alwank’ Albania Albania Ἐ.84, 120
Arran B6-B8
Ran
Atwanfot . LE. ee te τσὶ .See Alandrot.
Alwé E.34, 118-xii/4
B-7
Amel . .See Amol.
Aml e GA 24 Ce al τὸ .See Amol.
Amol Amel K.115
Aml
Anaetica Anaitis Chora Anahtakan N.H. V, xx See Akilisené.
Akihsené
Anahtakan Anaetica Agat., v See Akilisené.
Anaitis Chora Anaetica C.D. XXXVI, xlviii See Akilisené.
δ. X, xiv, 16.
Angelené . δέν -ὦ.- ἦν ἢ ς ee oe . See Ingilené.
Anget tun Angt Ingilené E.35, 116-iii/1

G3-G4

SHONTAOUd : ANANOdGOL

«SPL

PROVINCE

Angi ..
Anjaxi jor

Anjewacik’

Anjit‘

Anjowacik*
Antiochiané
Anzetené .
Anzitené

Apahunik’

Aparan

Arabastan.

bé@ Arabaye .

Arabia Augusta
Libanensis

Arabia Euphratensis.

Arabian March
Arac

VARIANTS

Anjax

Anjowacik*
Anjawacik‘

Hanjit’
Hanazit
Handsith
Hanzith
Khandchoot

Abaran .

EQUIVALENTS

REFERENCES

KASTERN

E.36, 117-viii/19
G-6

£.36, 117-viii/11
D-5

E.36, 116-ii/6
G-3

E.36, 116-iv/14
G-5

CLASSICAL

P. V, vi, 16

P. V, xii, 8

CJ, I, 29, 5.

N. XXXI

de B. xxxi, Iviii
CM Ne

N.D.

NOTES

.See Anget tun.

T. 220.

See Ch. XI ἢ. 60.

T. 198-199, 200.

See Ch. XI pp. 247, 250 and
Norduz.

.See Anjewacik’.

.See Anzitené.

T. 131, 137-138 n. 240, 166
n. 63, 167, 170-172, 175-176,
241, 303.

See Ch. II nn. 9, 19b, 20.

‘T. 132, 218.
See Ch. XI n. 50a.

. See Nig.
.See Arwastan.
See Arwastan.

.See Euphratensis.
See Arzanené.
.See Arac kolmn,.

«VP I

A XIOGNYUddV

PROVINCE
Arac kolmn
Aragacotn

Atajin Hayk’
Aranrot

Arauené
Afawaneank* .
Afawelean
A*aweneank‘
Araxen6n pedion
Arberani

Arcay
Aréigakovit
Ardozakan
Aré

Arewik‘
Argastovit
Argovteacovit
Argwelk* .

Argwet*‘

Arisi

VARIANTS EQUIVALENTS
Arac
Arawaneank*

Krasyajor

Arberan
Arjax Karabag
Arcax Sodk’
Artéisahovit Ergek
Ré
Argwelk*
Argovteacovit

REFERENCES
EASTERN CLASSICAL

E.38, 118-xv/21
G-6

E.38, 118-xv/10
B-6

£.37, 118-xii/1
B-7
P. V, vi, 25

S. XI, xiv, 4

E.37, 117-viii/8
G-5

E.41, 117-x
B6-G7

Ἐ.40, 117-viii/4
G-5

E.115

E.39, 117-ix/11
G-7

E.39, 117-v/7
D-5

E.39, 119
A-5

NOTES

T. 197.

.See Armenia I.

See Ch. IV n. 9.

See Araweneank‘

See Ch. XJ n. 16.
See Ch. XI n. 16.
See Argarunik’.
T. 205.

See Ch. XI ἢ. 57.

T. 129, 132, 148, 217 n. 250, 332.

See Ch. IX p. 174.
See Ch. XI ἡ. 56.

.See Artaz.

.See Argwet'.
.See Argwet*.

.See Acwerk.

SHONTAOUd : AWANOdOL

ΚΡ 1

PROVINCE
Afiwe .
Arjn
Ark‘ayic
Armenia I

Armenia IT

Armenia IIT
Armenia IV

| Armenia LV (Altera)

Armenia Altera
Armenia Interior
Armenia Magna .

Armenia Maior

Armenia Megalé .

REFERENCES

EQUIVALENTS EASTERN CLASSICAL

Afajin Hayk’ CJ I, 29, 5

N. VIII, XX XI

N.D.

ad L., H.S., G.C.
Erkrord Hayk* E.51 N.D.

G-2 C.Th. XXX, xi, 2

C.J. 1, 29, 5

N. VIII, XXXI
Errord Hayk* E.51
Corrord Hayk‘* E.57, 116-ii N. XXXI
Upper Mesopotamia G3-G4 ας.
Cop’k’
Sophené
Justinianea G.C.

M. XI, 992
Satrapiae (Aed. ITT, i, 17)
Barjr Hayk’ N. XXXI
Armenia Magna P. V, xii
Buzurg Armenan S. XI, xii, 3-4
Mec Hayk’ XII, iii, 29

xiv, 4-8
CM Oe-Pe

NOTES

.See Atiwn,
.See Aljn.
.See Mokk* Aranjnak.

T. 196, 331.

T. 331.

T. 331.
T. 331.
See Ch. LX n. 42.

T. 129, 131, 173-175.

See Ch. IX n. 42.

See Satrapiai.

T. 148, 175, 193 and n. 208,
194-196.

See Ch. ITI.

.See Armenia Maior.

T. 72-73, 193 ἡ. 208, 195-196,
277, 286, 451 n. 53, 459 n. 98.

.See Armenia Maior.

*9F [

A XIOGNHddV

PROVINCE

Armenia Mikra
Armenia Minor

Armeniakon (th.)
Afna
Arnoy-otn

Aros-pizan
Arran
Arreson
Arrestén
Arsamunik’

Argarunik’

Arseac-p‘or
Artahan

Artanuj

Artaséseank*

Artasézeank* .

Artawanean

VARIANTS

drna

Ran

Arreson
Agmunik‘

Aseac-p‘or

Artasézeank‘

EQUIVALENTS

P’ok’r Hayk’
Armenia Mikra
Lesser Armenia

Rstunik’ ?

Erasyajor
Araxen6n pedion

Artawanean

REFERENCES

EASTERN

B.L. 146-147

E.37, 117-viii/10
D-5

E.37, 117-xi/5

E.40, 116-iv/4
G-4

K.40, 116-iv/4
G-4

M.X. II, xc

E.40, 118-xiv/8
B-4

E.40, 119-i/3
B-3

E.41, 117-vii/28

G-5

CLASSICAL

P. V, vi, 18

S. XI, xii, 3

XIL, iii, 28/29
Aed. III, iv, 15

Vib de
CM Md-Ne
de Th.

M.P. 393

NOTES

.See Armenia Minor.

T. 72-73, 76 n. 84, 82-84, 277,
286, n. 35, 451 n. 53.
See Ch. IV nn. 1-2.

See Ch. XII n. 25.

.See Albania.
.See Arreston.

See Ch. I p. 11.

T. 212.

See Ch. XI nn. 41, 43.

T. 202, 206, 207 n. 236, 210,
324 n. 81.

See Ch. XI nn. 2, 2a.

.See Ktarjet‘i.

T. 232 ἢ, 286.
See Ch. XI nn. 63-64.

.See Artaséseank“.
.See ArtaSéseank“.

SHONTAOUd * ANANOdGOL

«LPI

PROVINCE
Artaz

Arwant ‘uni
Arwastan

Arwenic jor

Arxanené .
Arzanené

Arzené.

béé Arzon

Arzon Ostan .
Aseac p‘or
Asiana
A’munik* .
ASock’

Asorestan

Aspakanuneac Jor
Aspakuneac Jor

Aspakunik’

VARIANTS EQUIVALENTS
Ardozakan Sawarsam
Arabastan béé Arabaye

Mygdonia
Arxanené Atjn
Arzené be@ Arzon
Arabian March
béeé Ostan Arzon Ostan
Arzn
Aboci
Assyria

Aspakanuneac Jor
Aspakunik’

REFERENCES
BASTERN CLASSICAL

K.40, 117-viii/16
M.X. I, hii

8.0.272

E.37-38, 117-v/4

G-5
3.0. 272 A.M. XXV, xix, 9
PP. xiv
CM Pe
8.0. 272
N.D., N. VIII

E.36, 118-xv/4
B-5

E.38

D5-D6

E.38, 116-iv/2
G-4

NOTES

T. 197.
See Ch. XI n. 59.

. See Erwandunik‘.

T. 179.

.See Arzanené.

T. 129, 131-132, 149-150, 163,
165, 166 n. 63, 179-182, 183
n. 147, 197, 199, 236, 248, 304-
305, 468 n. 138.

See Ch. ΠῚ n. 25; IX ἢ. 16.

.See Arzanené.

See Arzanené.

.See bé@ Arzén.
.See Arseac ΡΥ.

-See ArSamunik“*.

T. 185-186, 187 n. 175, 190, 191
ἢ. 199, 324 n. 81, 440 n. 16,
444-446, 468-474, 489, 499.

See Ch. XI n. 4.

See also Sophené.

.See Aspakuneac Jor.

.See Aspakuneag Jor.

«SPI

A XIGNUddV

REFERENCES

PROVINCE VARIANTS EQUIVALENTS EASTERN CLASSICAL NOTES
Aspurakan .See Vaspurakan.
Assyria oS ἄν, 3: καῷᾷ .See Asorestan.
Astaunitis P. V, xii, 6 See Asthianené.
Asthiané . ὁ ὦν aa (ἡ ἘΠ ΩΣ Δ. τὰ ae ee ae τα .See Asthianené.
Asthianené Astaunitis Hasteank’ P. V, xii, 6 T. 131, 137-138 n. 240, 172 n. 95,
Asthiané Geng kazasi C.J. I, 29, 5 241, 442 n. 22, 458 n. 93.
Astianikés Capakcur ὃ N. XXXI See Ch. In. 27; II pp. 32, 35-37.
Aed. ITI, iii, 7
CM Oe
Atropatena sk Ae a ee τὲ ee a ee .See Atropatené.
Atropatené Atropatena Atrpatakan S. XI, xii, 4 T. 75, 131, 163-164, 232 n. 187,
Media Atropatené Azerbaijan xiv, 3 459 n. 98.
See Ch. FX nn. 3, 8, 27.
Atrpatakan Atropatené K.38, 114-115
D6-D8
Atrpatunik‘* . See Trpatunik*.
Awazov aSyarh o “er ὧν de τὰ .See Abasgia.
Aygark* E.35, 117-vi/6
D-5
Ayli Kuriéan K.35, 117-vii/1
D-6
Ayrarat Ararat E.35, 118-xv T. 129, 182, 139, 148, 192, 197,
B5-G6 199, 204-206, 215, 218, 220-222,
230 n. 281, 322, 468.
A(yt)rwank‘ .See Aytwank*,
Aytwank‘ A(yt)rwank‘ E.35, 117-vi/5
D-5
Azerbaijan . SeeAtropatené.
Aznawajor .See Azwac jor.

SHONTAOUd : AWANOdGOL

x6P 1

REFERENCES

PROVINCE VARIANTS EQUIVALENTS KASTERN CLASSICAL NOTES
Aznawac-jor Aznawajor E.31, 116-iii/7
G-5
Azordac-p‘or Kap‘or K.32, 118-xiv/8
B-4
Bagan . ey ae” .See Bak’an.
béé Bagas 5.0. 272 See Ch. ΙΧ ἡ. 33.
Bagrauandené Bagrewand P. V, xii, 9 T. 132, 137, 138 ἢ. 240, 201-202,
209, 218, 241, 309, 324.
See Ch. XI nn. 2b, 20, 27, 27a.
Bagsen . See Basean.
Bagrawand ᾿ς Φ: τ : ΟΝ τιν ὁ δε i. ταῖν, An & .See Bagrewand.
Bagrewand Bagrawand Bagrauandené E.42, 118-xv/6
G-5
Bak’an Bagan Marand E.44, 117-viii/29 See Ch. XI n. 64.
Bak’ran G-6
Bak’ran cf. &. a ον a ae ae δ ΓΞ uml, vo γὰ .See Bak’an.
Balabitené Balabitena Balahovit C.J. I, 29, 5 T. 131, 188 n. 240, 212, 241.
Bilabetines Pasinler kazasi N. XXXI
Aed. IT], i, 26
CM Ne
G.C.
Balahovit Balayovit Belabitené H.43, 116-ii/4
Palu kazasi ? G-3
Balan rot Rot i Bata E.43-44, 117-xi/4
G-8
Balasakan Gargaracik’ E.42-44, 114-115 See Ch. [X ἡ. 13; XIV ἢ. 73, 76.
P’aytakaran B-7
Bazgun ?

Kaspé ?

0G

A XIONHddvV

PROVINCE

Balk’
Barjr Hayk’

Basean

Basen .
Basiané

Basilisené .
Bagkale kazasi

Basoropeda
Bazgun

Bazunik’ .
Bel...
Berdac p‘or

Berdajor .
Berjor

Bex

Bilabetines

Bithynia

VARIANTS EQUIVALENTS
Meli dast
Armenia Interior
Basen Basiané
Bagsen Phasiané
Pasinler kazasi
Basean

Phasiané
Pasinler kazasi

Berdajor

Bel
Bix

REFERENCES
EASTERN CLASSICAL NOTES

K.44, 117-ix/9
G-5

E.37, 116-i
G-2

E.44, 118-xv/1

. oe ehlUle!hUmeCUeCU~SC See Basen.
X. IV, vi, 5 T. 218-219, 219 n. 254, 496.
CM Pd See Ch. XI nn. 2-3.

.See Orbalisené.
.G. 78, 38°10°N x 44910°E.
See Albak Mec.

S. ΧΙ, xiv, 5
. See Abasgia and Balasakan.
.See Buzunik’.
bh Ge. SS ὧν +8 .See Bey.
H.44-45, 118-xiv/2
B-5
a ne oe ὦ . See Berjor.
K.44, 117-x/3
B-7
H.44, 105, 120
B-7
ὡς le Ga. τὴ .See Balabitené.
P.V,1
N.D., V.L., L.

CM D-Fc

SHONTAOUd : ANANOdGOL

* [6]

PROVINCE

Bodunik’ Bogunik’
Budunik*

Bogunik’ .

Botno p‘or

Bolya Boya
Buya

Boya

Budunik* .

Bulanoy a ae

Bulanik’ Bulanoy
Bulanyk

Bulanyk

Buya . ; ee ἧς Se

Buzunik’ BaZunik’
BzZunik’

Buzurg Armenan.

Bzabde

Bznunik’

Bzunik‘
Cahuk

Cakatk’
Cakk*

Calarzene .

VARIANTS

REFERENCES

EQUIVALENTS EASTERN
E.45, 117-viii/3
G-5

E.45, 119-iv/3
B-6

E.45, 118-xiv, 5
G-5

Norduz E.45, 117-viii/9

G-5

E.45, 116-iv/1]
G-5

E.64, 117-vi/10
D-5

E.64, 118-xv/11
G-5

E.64, 118-xiv/9
B-5

CLASSICAL

P. V, xii, 4

P. V, xu, 4

NOTES

.See Bodunik*.

T. 204, 230 n. 78, 451 n. δῦ,
458 n. 93.
See Ch. 1 n. 42.

. See Bolya

. See Bodunik’.

. See Bulanik’.

.G. 109, 399°05°N x 42°035°E.

See Hark’.

.See Bulanik’.
. See Bolya.

See Ch. XI p. 248; XII n. 31.

.See Armenia Maior.
. See bé8 Zabdé.

T. 209-210, 213, 216, 324 n. 82.
See Ch. XI n. 48.

See BuZunik’.

See Ch. XI n. 1.

. See Katarzené.

*69T

A XIGNaUddV

REFERENCES

PROVINCE VARIANTS EQUIVALENTS EASTERN CLASSICAL NOTES
Caldiran κὸν ig ἀφο, ᾧν κὰν. RY OR ΟΣ ἃ’ igi εἰς eh τὰν Se χά; cae ὦ (ὦ, ὡς ἄς νὼ pee ot ἀν οὐ te ce See hh pe.
Caltkotn Catkunik’ Varaznunik’ (1) E.56, 118-xv/7 T. 309 n. 32, 315, 319.

Zachunuc G-5 See Ch. XI nn. 6, 19, 21, 23.

ΓΑΕ ΙΝ. τὸν 3. Re we me cb. Ame wk ae oe ΑΞ ἃ. GM ὦ ὦ ὡς ὦ ot Oe eC we τὰ δός
Camanené N.H. VI, 3 .See Chamanené.
(ἀηδεῖς 2-4. 4.4 H&B ou Bee ὧν ὧν ὦ οὖν BR aw oe SR ee eS eA OS ee eS eee Tzanika:
Capakeur Capljur Geng kazasi? . 2... ΎΞΕΕΕΕΕΕ ΕΞ ἘΞ ΈἘΕΞΕΣ Asthianené
Capljur E.59 .See Asthianené.
Cappadocia P. V, vi; CM I-Me

N. XXX
Cappadocia I N.D.

N. XXX
Cappadocia IT N.D.

N. XXX

Cappadocia (Greater) So Se ewe Oe ae we we Oe 6 See Cappadocia Taurica,
Cappadocia Pontica Cappadocia ad Pontem S. XII, iii, 2 See Ch. IV nn. 3-4.

Cappadocia Taurica Greater Cappadocia 5. XI, iii, 12

Cappadocia ad Taurum xii, 10-11 See Ch. IV n. 6.
(γα. τος 20-4: Δ & ἡ ὡς ob τὰ A νι ὡς ee a ἂν OR. ΝΗ Ve αὶ . . .See Karenitis.
Caspiane . Bie ge 4 ὦ τρί a Oa ee BA UR Se fe OR Ee Be el ὦ SG oe pe See Raspiane.
Cataonia N.H. XI, iii See Kataonia.
Cawdeayk’ Cawdék* Zabdikené E.86

Tur Abdin D-4

Cawdek” 2 coe & & ob we we Bh we Row we ae Oh & & 2 @ wow & 4 see Cawdesyk’.

λυ ¢- ou %, 4. τῷ ἃ & @ ὦ ok Se we ὩΣ δ᾽ A ἃ Bo oe ὦ Oe νὰν. eww he Ἐπὶ τὰ 2 we ΘΠ,
Chaldia St. Byz.

SHONIAOUd : ANANOdOL

*&GT1

PROVINCE

Chamanené

Chera .
Cholarzené

Chordzianené
Chorzané

Chorziané .
Cilicia .
Clak

Cluk
Cobénor
Cobep‘or
Colchis

Colopene .
Colthene .

VARIANTS EQUIVALENTS
Camanené Haymana kazasi ?
Calarzene Kiarjet’i
Katarzené Artanuj
Chordziané Xorjayn
Chorziané
Korzené
Khordzen
Orzianines
Clak
Cop‘op‘or
Kotk‘isé

REFERENCES
EASTERN CLASSICAL

P. V, vi, 11
S. XII, i, 4
N.H. V, xx
CM Id

P. V, xii, 4

S. XI, xiv, 4
Aed. ITI, iii, 7
CM Nd

E.56, 117-ix/7

G-6
E.56, 119-v/1
B-6
E.56, 118-xiii/1
B-6
P. V, ix
CM Pa

NOTES

See Ch. IV nn. 3-4,8

. See Hér.

T. 142, 188 τ. 188, 322 n. 76,
334-335, 382, 434, 442 n. 22, 24,
453 n. 62, 457 and nn. 89, 93,
461 and n. 109, 462-468, 471-
472, 474, 485-488, 491, 495-498.
. See Chorzané.

T. 442 n. 22, 457 n. 93.

See Ch. III n. 1; V n. 60.

. See Chorzané.
.See Kilikia.
. See Cluk.

.See Kulupené.
.See Kolthené.

«VEL

A XIGQNdddV

REFERENCKS

PROVINCE _ VARIANTS EQUIVALENTS EASTERN CLASSICAL NOTES
Commagené N.H. VI, iii See Kommagené.
Cop’ac kotmn. Ee μὰν i OG ee δ᾽ τάς Re ew .See Cop’k’ Mec.
Cop’k’ Cop‘k‘ Sahuni Sophené E.57

Armenia IV G3
Cop’k’ Mec Cop‘ac kotmn Sophanené E.57, 116-ii
G3-G4
Cop’k’ Sahuni Sahé Sophené B.57, 116-ii/5
Sahunian Sophené G-3
(ΟΡ Ὁ ors. ὦ ἢ ὧὦ ἢ τι, Suk ok κἀς τὰς ek Some. & Be oo ἈΞ Oe AOE a a & ἡ. See Cobep or:
Corduené be. RS ee a Oe, ἃ ἋΣ ἃς SH ee SE Oe ἃ. eS ce κε ἂν ALS aeeRorduene:
Corrord Hayk’ Armenia IV K.57, 116-1
Sophené G3-G4
CowarSeank?. 2... we ee ek ke ee ee we.) See Coward-fot.
Cowas-tot CowarSeank’ B.64, 117-viii/21
Cowais fot G-6
Cwaiot
Culupene N.H. VI, iii
Cyrasjmay E.87, 119-ii1/10
A-6
Dalar Klmali dere H.48, 116-iv/8 See Ch. XI n. 53.
G-5
Dambvar. 4 Ao τ ΕἸΠΕ ee a ed oe et See Dmbawand.
Darachichak Varaznunik’ (1)? See Varaznunik’ (1).
Daranalia (d.) Daranalis Daranalik’ CM Nd
Analibla M. XI, 645. T. 233 n. 291.
See Ch. ΠῚ nn. 1, 4a, 12d; Vn. 60.
Daranaltik’ Daranalia #.49, 116-I/1
Analibla G-3 |
Daranalis:, 32 a fs 4h & fe et Bode SOM Ce ee ee oS we a we OM Oe. See Ἢ

Darni . » « . . . . Φ . . . a . . ὃ. . . . ° . . . . * « . . . . a . . See Garni.

SHONIAOUd : ANANOdOL

*GGI

PROVINCE

080 Dasén
Dasin .
Dasn

Dasnawork’
Dégik*
Derjan

Dersim
Derxené

Derzené
Dilumn
Diospontus

Dimunk’
Dmbawand
Dorek*
Dwin ostan
Edaiab
Eger
Egeria

Kgr

VARIANTS

Dasin

Dersim

Derzené

Xerxené

Dambvar

Kgeria

Eger

EQUIVALENTS

bée@ Dasén

Gastovor

Derxené

Tercan kazasi
DerjJan
Tercan kazasi

Pontus Amasia

Helenopontus
Dilumn

Adzharia

REFERENCES

EASTERN CLASSICAL
5.0. 272
E.49
D-5
8.0. 272
E.49, 116-iv/6
G-4
E.49, 116-ii/7
G-3
E.49, 116-i/6
G-4
S. XI, xiv, 5
N.H. V, xx
CM Od
N.H. V, xx
L.
E.115
E.115
E.50
B-4

See Dasn.

.See Dasn.

NOTES

See Ch. IX ἢ. 33.

See Ch. XI n. 53.

See Ch. III n. 1, 12a,14; Vn. 60.

. See Derjan.

See Derxené.

.See Dimunk‘.

.See Gawrek’*.

See Ostan Hayoe.

.See Hedayab.
. See Egr.
.See Eger.

*9GT

A XIQNAddV

PROVINCE

Ekeleac

Ekelenzines
Eibak .
Elmali dere
Erasyajor .
Ergek .
Ercoy

Ercwoy
Erestuni
Erewark’

Erit‘unik‘ .
Erkrord Hayk*
Ernjak

Errord Hayk*.
Erutak
Erwandunik’

Er χοῦ Κ΄

Ethné .
Eufratesia.

VARIANTS EQUIVALENTS

Akilisené
Anahtakan
Kozlican ἢ
Kozluk kazasi
Dalar

Ercwoy

Arwant‘uni

Erit‘unik‘

Xerhet‘k‘

REFERENCES
EASTERN CLASSICAL

E.50, 116-1/4
G-3

M. IX, 391; XI, 613

E.51, 119-vi/3
B-6

E.51, 116-iv/12
G-5

E.51, 117-ix/1
G-6

E.51, 117-viii/13
G-5

E.51, 116-iii/8
G-5

NOTES

See Akilisené.

.See Atbak Mec.

G. 207, 39°25’ x 40°35’.

.See ArSarunik’.
.See Aréisakovit.

. See Ercoy.
See R&tunik’.

.See Erwandunik’.
.See Armenia II.

.See Armenia III.
.See Rotak.

.See Satrapiae.
.See Huphratensis.

SHONTAOUd : ANANOdOL

*LGT

REFERENCES

PROVINCE VARIANTS EQUIVALENTS EASTERN CLASSICAL NOTES
Euphratensis Arabia Euphratensis N.D., N. VIII
Kufratesia
Ewtnp‘orakean E.51
bagink* G-8
Uncayeci ancayni .See Anjayi jor.
@€ncaynock*
“ncayni .See Anjayi jor.
“ncaynock* . See Anjaxi jor.
“irnay . .See Arna.
Foenices “ἜΣ ee Ἢ ὧν. οδδὲν ἣ .See Phoenicia.
Gabeleank’ Kalzwan E.46, 118-xv/2 T. 220-221.
Kagizman kazasi G-5
Gabit‘ean . i a. RS .See Gawet‘an.
Galatia P. V, iv
5. XII, v, 1
N.H. VI, iii
N.D., N. VIII
CM Fe-Ic
Galatia II N. ΝΗΣ
Galatia Salutaris N.D.
Gangark* . os ἋΣ Δ ἃ .See Kangark’.
Gardman E.46, 118, xii/6 T. 216, 258, 475-478, 480-484,
B-6 485 n. 211, 487 n. 224, 499.
Gargaracik’ Karkar See Batasakan.
Gargaracwoc dast
Garines in τῆς. i ae . See Karenitis.
Garni Darni E.46, 117-viii/7 See Ch. XT ἢ. 57.

Garni Bazar .

G-5

.See Mazaz.

*8GT

A XIGNUddvV

PROVINCE

Garsauritis

Gastavor .
Gawet’an

Gawrég
Gawrék‘

Gazrikan

Gazrikean
Gelak’unik’

Gelan

Gelark‘anunik‘
Geng kazasi

Gentes.
Georgia
Gilan .
Gogarené

VARIANTS

Gabit‘ean

Gawrég

Gazrikean

Gelark‘anunik‘

REFERENCES

EQUIVALENTS EASTERN
E.46, 117-viii/30
G-6
Dorek* E.41, 116-ii/8
G-3
H.46, 117-viii/31
D-6
Ἐ,47, 117-ix/4
B-6
Gilan E.47
G-8
Asthianené
Hasteank’
Gugark*

Iberian March
Moschic March

CLASSICAL

P. V, vi, 13
S, XII, i, 4
N.H. VI, iii
CM Ie

S. XI, xiv, 4-5

NOTES

See Dasnawork’.

.See Gawrek*.

See Gazrikan.

.See Gelak’unik’.

G. 234, 38945’N x 40°35’E.

. See Satrapiae.
. See Iberia.
.See Gelan.

T. 102 n. 158, 129, 131-138,
155 n. 14, 162 n. 40, 165, 177
n. 115, 183-192, 217, 236, 334.
432, 449, 452, 457-459, 459 n. 48,
467-474, 483, 487, 489, 495
n. 262, 499.

Lang, Review, *eculum XLII,
1 (1967) pp. 194-196.

See Ch. XIV n. 76.

SHOINIAOUd * ANANOdOL

Pee ee ree

AR) OAR ROA ὑπ Rte oc fi Amp eS με Ula on rte ts alps at τα

NaN yO ET OMEN Te Rang PETS HTH HC Ne

PROVINCE

Gogovit
Gokan .
Golthené .
Golt‘n

Gordyené

Gorgovatisy .
Gotot*is- yew

Greater Albak
Greater Armenia

Greater Cappadocia .

Greater Sophené .
Gréunik*
Gugank’

Gugark’
Gukan.
Gurzan
Gzel
Gzelx

Haband 1

VARIANTS

Gorgovatisy

Gukan

Gokan

Gzel

EQUIVALENTS

Golthené

Korték‘

Gogarené

REFERENCES

EASTERN

E.A8, 117-viii/34
G-6

E.48, 119-iii/1
A-5

E.48, 117-viii/25
G-5

E.48, 118-xiii
B5-B6

Z.M. 144
E.47, 116-19
G-4

E.61-62, 117-ix/18
G-7

CLASSICAL

P. V, xii, 9

S. XI, xiv, 3
XVI, 1, 24
CM Pf

. See Gorot‘is-yew.

.See Albak Mec.
.See Armenia Maior.
.See Cappadocia Taurica.

NOTES

00}

.See Kogovit.
.See Gugan.
.See Goltn.

See Ch. XI n. 65.

Not to be confused with Kolt
in Arcay q.v.

T. 57 n. 54, 75, 102 n. 158, 129,
148, 166, 179, 181-182, 202, 468
n. 138.

A XICQNHddV

. See Sophanené.
.See Kréunik’,

See Ch. XI n. 63.

.See Gugank’,

See Iberia.

. See Gzely.

PROVINCE VARIANTS
Haband II
Haeretica .
Hairetike
Hakkari
Hanazit
Handsith .
Hani

Haeretica

Hanjit’
Hanzith

Hartlank* Harélawnk‘

Harélawnk‘ a ae er
Hark’ Charka

Hasteank’
Hawnunik’

Haymana kazasi
Hayoe jor

Hedayab Edaiab

Helenopontus

EQUIVALENTS

Bulanik kazasi

Asthianené
Geng kazasi

Chamanené ?

Adiabené

Nor Sirakan
Median March
Diospontus
Pontus Amasia

- REFERENCES
EASTERN CLASSICAL

P. V, vi, 18

E.62, 117-xi/6
G-8

E.62, 117-x/6
G-7

E.62, 116-iv/9
G-5

E.62, 116-ii/2
G-4

E.62, 118-xv/4
G-5

E.62
G-5
Ἐ).49, 72

N.D.
N. VIII, XXVIII
CM Ac

NOTES

.See Miws Haband.
.See Hairetiké.

G. 268, 37935°N x 43°50’E.

.See Anjit*.
. See Anjit*.

. See Anjit*.
.See Anjit’.

. See Harélank‘.

See Ch. XI ἢ. 45, 52.

T. 215 n. 246.

G. 283, 39925°N x 32°35°E.

SHONTAOUd * ANANOdOL

* LOL

REFERENCES

PROVINCE VARIANTS EQUIVALENTS EASTERN CLASSICAL NOTES
Hér Xar Chera E.63, 117-vii/9 Later fused with Zarewand into
Xérakan dast G-6 Rotak.
See also Zarewand.
Honoriada ° Honorias L., N. VIII
Honorias N.D. See Honoriada.
Hosdroené See Osrhoené.
Iberia Georgia Py V,x
Gurzan δ. XI, iii
Varjan
Virk’
Iberian March ee ἃ Ὁ τὴ Me «Ἀν. ἀὲ .See Gogarené,
Ingilené Angelené Angel tun C.J. I, 29, 5 T. 131, 137-138 n. 240, 166
N. XXXI n. 63, 167, 170-172, 175-177,
224, 241, 297-303, 324 n. 81.
See Ch. II n. 25b.
Isayr E.54, 117-v/1
G-6
Isoc¢ Isuc E.54, 117-v/3
D-5
Ispir kazasi Suspiritis 6. 318, 40°30°N x 41°00°E.
Jawayét'i . eh sot Mees ce See Jawayk*.
Jawayk* Jawayéti E.78, 119-i/4
Jovayk* B-5
Jermajor E.78, 117-v/8
D-5
Jork* E.64, 117-ix/10
G-7
Jorop‘or E.63, 118-v/3

B-6

*69 1

A XIGN&ddV

REFERENCES

PROVINCE VARIANTS EQUIVALENTS EASTERN CLASSICAL NOTES
Jowayk* See Jawayk*.
Justinianea ὌΠ dee ce a ae oe a oe .See Armenia IV Altera.
Kadmé Korduené ? Adiabené ? E.86 T. 224-225 and n. 270, 233 and
n. 289, 236.
See Ch. XIV n. 60.
Kagizman kazasi Gabeteank’ G. 322, 40°10°N x 43°05°E.

Kal

Kalarjk*

Kalarson .
Κι...
Kalzwan .
Kamisené
Kangark*

Kankark‘ .
Kapkoh k‘ustak
Kap‘or
Karabag .
Karat‘unik*
Karayazi kazasi
Karenitis

Karin

Karkar
Kart‘unik*

Ket

Gangark*
Kankark‘

K‘apkolk*

Caranitis
Garines

Karat‘unik‘

E.89, 116-iii/4
G-4

S. XII, iii, 37.

E.57-58, 118-xiii/6

B-6
K.114-115.
Towarcatap-
Karin S. XI, xiv, 5
N.H. V, xx
CM Pd
Karenitis H.58, 116-i/9
G-4

Saraponik* E.58, 117-vi/9

D-6

. See Klarjet‘i.
See Klarjet‘i.

. See Kat.

.See Gabeleank’.

.See Kangark*.

.See Azeac-p‘or.
.See Arcay.
See Kart‘unik*.

G. 359, 39955’ x 42°05’.

T. 193 nn. 207, 209, 233 n. 291,
458 n. 98.

See Ch. III nn. 1, 12a-b, 14;
Vn. 60.

. See Gargaracik’.

SHONTAOUd : ANANOdOL

#691

PROVINCE

Kaspé .
Kaspiané

Kataonia

Katarzené
Kazbk’

Kelesené
Két ik‘

Khandchoot .
Khordzen .
Kigi kazasi
Kilikia
Kilikia (I)

Kilikia (II)
Klarjet’i

VARIANTS

Kasp‘é
Caspiane
Cataonia

Cholarzené
Calarzene
Kasp‘é

Cilicia

Kalarjk’
Klarjk*
Kalartk*

EQUIVALENTS

Kazbk’

P’aytakaran

Kiarjet’i

Kaspiané
P’aytakaran

Xorjayn

Cholarzené
Katarzené
Artanuj

REFERENCES

EASTERN

K.57
B-8

E.59, 116-iii/5
G-5

E.59, 118-xiii/9

CLASSICAL

S. XI, iv, 5

xiv, 5
P. V, vi, 22
S. XI, xii, 2
XII, i, 4; ii, 2-6

N.H. VI, iii

CM Ke

P. V, 12, 4

CM Pe

Pers. I, xvii, 11

P. V, vii
CM I - Jg
N. VOI
Ν, VII

NOTES

See Kaspiané.

T. 129. 132, 148, 232 n. 287.

See Akilisené.

See Anjit*.
.See Xorjayn.

G. 386, 39°20°N x 40°30°E.

T. 142, 188 n. 188, 322 n. 76,
334-335, 382, 439, 442 nn. 22,
24, 452, 453 n. 62, 457 nn. 89,
93, 461 and n. 109, 462-468,
471-472, 474, 485-488, 491, 495-
498.

*P9T

A XIQGNHddV

REFERENCES

PROVINCE VARIANTS EQUIVALENTS EASTERN CLASSICAL NOTES
Kochisar Morimené ? G. 411 (7) 39952’ x 37°24’.
See Ch. IV p. 58, also Cities.
Kogovit Gogovit E.59, 118-xv/13 T. 200, 202, 309, 321-322 and
G-5 n. 77, 342-343, 398.
See Ch. XI, nn. 24-25.
Kol Kola, E.59, 118-xiv/1 T. 457.
B-5
Kotbop‘or E.60, 118-xiii/2
B-6
Kotk‘isé ᾧ, τὰ δ ὦ. ὦ ἧς Τὴν ὑπῆνν τος, τα . See Colchis.
Kott’ Koxt Kolthené ? E.60, 117-x/12 T. 259.
B-7 Not to be confused with Goltn
in Vaspurakan.
Kolthené Colthene Goltn ? P. V, xii, 4 T. 105 n. 160, 203, 204 n. 230,
Kolt ? 323, 451 n. 2.
Kommagené Commagene P. V, xiv, 8
S. XI, xii, 2
N.H. VI, iii
CM L - Mf
Kor Koré D.A. 1. See Ch. XI nn. 28, 52.
Koré .See Kor.
Koréayk’ . a Ἢ ἃ Σ ὦ ὩΣ ὰ τὸ a ee . See Koréék’.
Koréék’ Koréayk’ Gordyené E.60, 117-vi
D-5
Kordé . .See Korduené.
Kordrik’ . & τῷ a τὰν ἃ ον el lel) S€ Tmorik*.
Korduené Corduene Korduk’ A.M. XXV, xix, 9 T. 131, 180-182 and nn. 140,
Kordé bé@ Qarda P.P. xiv 142, 144, 146.

SAONTAOUd : ANANOdGOL

691

PROVINCE
Korduk’

Korzené
Kogakan .
Kotayk’

Koték .
Kovsakan

Κοχί'.
Kozliéan

Kozluk kazasi
Kréunik’

Krkéunik*.
Kulanovit
Kulupené

Kuritan
KuSakan .
K‘ust-i-p‘atenk‘

K‘usti P‘arnes
Kuzichan .

VARIANTS

Koték

KStaia

Kogakan

Kusakan

Kuzichan

Krkénnik‘
Gréunik‘
Rotkréunik‘

Colopene
Culupene

K‘usti P‘artnes

EQUIVALENTS

Korduené
beé@ Qardi

Zangi bazar ?

Akilisené ?

Kozluk kazasi ?
Akilisené ?

REFERENCES
EASTERN CLASSICAL

E.60, 117-vi/1
D-5

E.60, 118-xv/6
B-6

K.60, 117-ix/12
G-7

E.61, 117-viii/22
G-6

E.61, 117-viii/5
S. XII, iii, 37
N.H. VI, iii
CM Ka

£.88, 90, 117-x/10
B-6

NOTES

. See Chorzané.
See KovSakan.
See Ch. XI p. 238.

. See Kotayk’.

.See Kolt’.

See Ch. III p. 47.

6. 428, 38912°N x 41929’.

See Ch. XT n. 62.
.See Kréunik’.

See Ch. III n. 20.
See Ayli.
.See Kovsakan.

NB Eremyan’s division into two

districts.
. See K‘ust-i-p‘arenk*.

.See Kozliéan.

x99

A XIGNUddV

PROVINCE

Lauiansené

Lazika

Lesser Albak .

Lesser Armenia .

Lesser Siwnik*
Lesser Sophené
Lower Sophené
Lykaonia

Machurtén
Mahkert tun

bé@ Mahqart
Malatya kazasi
Manali.
Mananali

Manralik’

Manraloi
Maperkiton

VARIANTS

Lycaonia

Machurton

Manali

EQUIVALENTS

al-Mahardan

bé9 Mahgart
Revanduz

Melitené

Manraloi

Manralik’

EASTERN

E.64, 118
D-6

5.0. 272

8.0. 272

K.64-65, 116-i/5

G-4
H.65
A-5

REFERENCES
CLASSICAL

P. V, vi, 24

S. XI, i, 4;
ii, 10;
ili, 37

CM Ld

P. V, ix, 4

Goth. IV, ii, 3

G.C.

CM Pb

P. V, vi, 15
N. VIII, XXV
CM Ge - Hf

P. V, ix, 4

NOTES

T. 255-257, 363-364, 365 n. 32,
388, 405 n. 52.

.See Atbak P’ok’r.
.See Armenia Minor.
.See Sisakan-i-Kotak
. See Sophené.

. See Sophanené.

. See Mahkert tun.

T. 165, 166 nn. 58, 59, 218,
459 n. 98.

See Ch. IX n. 33.

See Mahkert tun.

G. 455, 38925°N x 38°20°E.

.See Mananah.

See III ἢ. 1; 16;
V n. 60.

.See Mareptikon.

SHONTAOUd * ANANOGOL

* LOL

REFERENCES

PROVINCE VARIANTS EQUIVALENTS EASTERN CLASSICAL NOTES
Marac amur aSyarh E.65, 69, 115, 118
Agat’. cxx
Mardalik’ E.65, 116-iv/5 See Ch. IIT n. 1.
G-4
Mardastan Mardock’ E.65, 117-viii/15
Marducayk’ G-6
Mardock’ . ia oh AS Ger WN. wee SO mC te Km, CRM pa ee et oe, ee: Mardastan.
Mardpetakan Mareptikon ? T. 131, 139, 169 and n. 81, 170
Sephakan ? n. 85, 200, 231 n. 285.
See Ch. I p. 11.
Marducayk®§ . 2. 2. 1. ww ee ek kk ee ew) Se Mardastan.
Mareptikon Maperkiton Mardpetakan ? M.P. See Ch. I p. 11.
M. VII
Mari E.65, 117-vii/2
D-6
MAP 0 Ὁ τῷ Oe we τς Ge a Ee me ee we (26. χ δὴ τῶν. ὡς He Oe ee Media:
Maseac otn E.65, 118-χν [12
G-6
Mazaz Garni bazar ? K.64, 118-xv/17 See Ch. XI p. 238.
B-6
ον τ συ. gs a ee Oe eS ΝΎ ὧν
Mec Atbak: ὡς βου @ «α΄. ee ww 35, Eds ς νἀ we! ES ὦ .See.Atbak Mec.
Mec Hayk’ Armenia Maior E.66-70
Mec Kwank‘ Mec Kwenk‘ E.66, 117-x/5
B-7
Mecirank‘ Mec Atank‘ E.66, 117-x/4
B-7
Mecnunik‘ ¥H.70, 117-viii/23

G-5

x91

A XIGNUddV

PROVINCE

VARIANTS

REFERENCES

NOTES

EQUIVALENTS

Media

Media Atropatené
Median March
Mehnunik’

Meli daat .
Melitené

Melitine
Mesopotamia

Mark“

Mehenunik‘

Melitine

Mesopotamia Upper .

Mija

Mijaget

Miws Haband
Mokk’

Mokk* Aranjnak

béd Moksayé
Morimené

Murimené

Malatya kazasi

Mijaget

Vijac

Sisakan i Kotak

Moxoené
bé@ Moksayé

Ark‘ayic

Koghisar ?

EASTERN CLASSICAL
P. V, xii, 1
S. XI, xiii
B.L. 146-147
P. V, xii, 21
S. XII, i, 4
ii, 1
N.H. VI, iii
ad L.
CM Le
H.S., G.C.
N.D., N. VII
CM Mg-Ph
K.70, 117-v/5
D-5
E.70, 117
E.71, 116-i/5
G5-D-5
E.41, 71, 117-v/6
G-5
5.0. 272
S. XII, i, 4
v,4
N.H. VI, iii

CM Ie

.See Atropatené.
.See Adiabené.
T. 232 n. 286.

.See Batasakan.

See Melitené.

See Armenia IV.

.See Mesopotamia.

See Mokk’.
See Ch. IV p. 58.

SHONTAOUd : ANANOGOL

«691

PROVINCE

Moschic March

Mot‘olank‘

Moxoené

Mrit
συ

Mughan
Mukan.
Munzur
Murimené
Muyank’

Muzur

Muzur6n
Myank*

Mygdonia .

Mzur
Nig

Nigal

Nihorakan

VARIANTS

Ot‘olank‘

Mukan

Myank*
Monjur
Mazur

Munzur

REFERENCES

EQUIVALENTS EASTERN
E.71, 117-vi/7
D-6
Mokk’ 8.0. 272
bé@ Moksayé
E.71, 119
B-4
E.71, 119
B-4
Mughan B.71, 117-x/7
G-7
Muzur6n K.71, 116-i/3
G-3
Muzur
Aparan B.72, 118-xv/15
G-6
E.72, 110, 119
B-4

CLASSICAL

A.M. XXV, xix, 9
CM Ee

G.C.

NOTES

. See Gogarené.

T. 129, 148, 166 n. 63, 180,
181 n. 140, 197 n. 222, 200,
202, 468 n. 138.

.See Muyank’.
.See Muyank’.
.See Muzur.

. See Morimené.

.See Muyank*.
.See Arwastan.
. See Muzur.

T. 198, 205-205, 207.

.See Niyorakan.

xOLT

A XIGNdddV

REFERENCES

PROVINCE VARIANTS EQUIVALENTS EASTERN CLASSICAL NOTES
Niyorakan Nihorakan Daherrakan H..72, 118 T. 165.
deh Nahirakan D5-D6 See Ch. ΙΧ pp. 175-178.
060 Nohadra Nohadra S.0., 272 See Ch. IX nn. 33, 35.
Notartay
Norduz Anjewacik’ G. 489, 37°51’N x 43°32°E.
Buzunik’ See Ch. XI p. 248.
Nor Sirakan NoSirakan Adiabené E.27, 49, 52, 59, See Ch. IX pp. 172-173,175-178.
Sirakan Median march 64, 67, 72, 77
NoSirakan. . . 0. 0. ww kee ΕἸ ke ee ee we) See Nor Sirakan.
Notartay . ἐς a ee ee a τ σῶν τὰ ὦ οὖς δὴ, ἀν: - τῇ . See bé@ Nohadra.
Ok’ alé Ok‘al K.76, 118-xiv/6
B-4
Orbalisené Basilisené P. V, vi, 18 T. δά n. 49, 451 n. 53.
See Ch. III n. 25.
Orbisené P. V, vi, 18 »
ἀρ 4k. % @ S τ ΕΞ ΕἸ ee “Orne:
Ormizd Peroz Ormzdperoz H.75, 117-xi/9
G-7
Ormzdperoz ς ΑΝ og OR) ow ie ks A ἢ ὩΣ, ἀν ἃ: τὸ A ᾧ ὡς OS we 0. ῳὐϑέδ ναι ΓΟ;
Orsené P. V, vi, 18 See Ch. IIT n. 25.
Orsirank* Orisank‘ E.75, 117-vi/8
D-6
Orzianines G.C. See Chorzané.
Osrhoené Osroené N.D., N. VIII See Ch. III n. 25.
Hosdroené CM Mf
Osroéne. 2. «a, © 2 S&S & &. & & & Bw te Oe ee OH SOR we OR eo wR S & & = shee Osrhoene:
Ossetia: τ & ὦ βὰς «4 BS we aoe BOS ww Se ws ew ἢ ὦ MM oS ριον oS oo. See Alenia.
bé@ Ostan. 2... wk ee ee ee we. See 064 ArzOn.
Ostan Hayog Dwin Ostan K.49, 74, 116-xv/19

B6-G6 See Ch. XIT ἢ. 30.

SHONTAOUd : ANWANOdGOL

«ILI

PROVINCE
Otené

Other Armenia
Ot‘otank*

Oves

Packank*

Paflagonia
Palanakan tun
Patankatun
Palestina I
Palestina IT
Palestina [TI
Palestina Salutaris
Pahnatun .
Palines

Palnatun

Palu kazasi

Palun .
Palunik’

Panckank‘

Paphlagonia

P‘arnés
Parsakank‘

VARIANTS

Panckank‘
Parsakank‘

Patankatun
Palanakan tun
Pahinatun

Palun

Paflagonia

EQUIVALENTS

Utik’

Painatun

Palines

Balahovit ?
Palunik’

Palu kazasi ?

REFERENCES
EASTERN CLASSICAL

P. V, xii, 4

E.77, 117-x/9
G-7

N. VIII

N. VIII
N. VIII
N.D.
G.C.
E.76-77, 116-ii/3
G-3
E.76 (1), 117-viii/24
G-5
N.D., N. XXIX
V.L., Τὰ
CM Gb-Jb

NOTES

T. 129, 132, 148, 220, 259, 467,
482.

. See Armenia Altera.
.See Mot‘otank‘.
.See Acwerk.

. See Paphlagonia.
.See Palnatun.
.See Palnatun.

.See Palnatun.

T. 212 n. 240.
See Ch. III n. 1.

G. 505, 38°40" x 39°55’E.

.See Palunik’.

T. 212.

See Packank*‘,

See K‘ust i p‘arenk*.
. See Packank*.

μι
“1
bo

*

A XIGNWddV

PROVINCE

Parskahayk’

Parspatunik’

Parspunik*
Partizac p‘or

Parwar
Pasinler kazasi

Pasparunik*
Patakaranés .
Patsparunik’ .
P’aytakaran

Pentarchy.
Persarmenia .
Pharangion
Phasiané
Phauené
Phaunitis
Phoenicia
Phrygia

VARIANTS

Parspunik*
Patsparunik’
Pasparunik*

Pasen

Patakaranés

Phauené
Foenices

EQUIVALENTS

Persarmenia

Basean
Basiané

Kaspé

Kazbk’
Balasakan

Saunitis

REFERENCES
HASTERN CLASSICAL

E.77, 117-vii
G6-D6
E.77, 117-viii/26

G-7

E.77, 118-xiv/3
B-5
E.77, 119-iv/4

E.88, 117-xi
G7-G8

Pers. II, xxix, 4
X. 1V, vi, 5

S. XI, xiv, 4
N.D.

P. V, ii, 17
CM Df-Fd

NOTES

T, 129, 148, 152, 164 n. 48, 197.

See Ch. XI ἢ. θά.

See Parsparunik’.

G. 507, 40°00°N A 41°40’E.

See Parsparunik’.
. See P‘aytakaran.
.See Parspatunik’.

. See Satrapiae.
.See Parskahayk’.

See Suspiritis.
See Basiané.

See Phaunitis.

T. 53 n. 49.

SHONIAOUd * ANWANOdOL

*xEL1

PROVINCE
Phrygia Pacatiana

Phrygia Salutaris
Piank*

Pisidia

P’ok’r Hayk’
Pontica (d.)
Pontus

Pontus Amasia

Pontus Cappadocicus

Pontus Galaticus

Pontus Polemoniacus

béd Qardii

bé6 Rahimai .
Ram6nin (d.)
Ran

Re.

VARIANTS

EQUIVALENTS

Armenia Minor

Diospontus
Helenopontus

REFERENCES

EASTERN
E.77, 117-x/8
B-7

H.88-89
G2-B3

5.0. 272

5.0. 272

CLASSICAL NOTES

N. VIII
P. V, iv, 9; v,7
N. VIII

N. VIII, X XIX
CM E-Ff

N.D.

P. V,1

S. XII, iii, 1-2, 10-19

CM Jce-Pb

S. XII, iii, 38

L.

P. V, vi, 5, 8
xii, 2

CM Mc

P. V, vi, 3, 8

CM Je

P. V, vi, 4, ὃ

N.D., V.L., L.

C.J. J, 29, 5

CM Ke

See Korduené.
.See be? Rehimé.
See Ch. 1X ἢ. 33.

.See Albania.
.See Aré.

T. 450 n. 53.

*PLI

A XIGNUddV

PROVINCE
bé@ Rehimé
Rehimené
Revanduz
Rostak
Rotak

Rot-i-Bala
Rotkréunik‘
Rot-Parcean

Rot-Pacean
Rstunik’

Rwan
Rwet
Sacasena .
Saharunik’

Sahé J
Sahib as-Serir

Sahunian Sophené
Sakadén

Sakasené
Salagomk’

Salajor
Salgamk* .

VARIANTS
bé? Rahimai

Rehimena

Rostak
Erutak

Rot-Pacean

Erestuni

Rwet

Sikasén
Sacasena

Satgom
Salgamk*

EQUIVALENTS

Rehimené
bé9 Rehimé

Arreston ὃ

Sakasené

SakaSén

REFER ENCES

EASTERN

5.0. 272

E.63

E.79, 118-xii/3
B-7

E.79, 117-viii/1

G-5
E.114-115

E.73, 118-xii/7
B6-B7

E.73, 116-i/8
B-4

CLASSICAL

A.M., XXV, xix, 9

P. V, xii, 4
S. XI, xiv, 4

NOTES

T. 180, 182 n. 147.

.See Mahkert tun.
See Rotak.

See Ch. XII nn. 27, 28.

See also Zarewand and Her.
. See Batan-rot.
.See Kréunik‘,

.See Rot Parcean.

T. 213 π. 242.

.See Rwan.
. See Sakasené.

T. 214 and n. 243.
See Ch. XI p, 241.

.See Sophené.
.See Albania.
. See Sophené.

T. 220, 467 n.128, 482 and

n. 199.
See Ch. III n. 1.

. See Salnoy-jor.
. See Salagomk*,

SHONTAOUd : ANANOdGOL

*GLhI

PROVINCE
Salnoy-jor

Sanasunitai
Sanasunk’.
Sanéan

Sanojor
Saraponik‘
Sarauené

Sargaurasené

Sarur dast

Saspeiros .
Sasun

Satgom
Satrapiae

Saunitis
Sawarsakan
Sawardam
Sawdk’
Sawiedk‘ .

VARIANTS

Salajor
Sanojor

Sanasunk’

Sawargakan

EQUIVALENTS

Sasun

Sanasunitai

Armenia Altera

Ethné
Gentes
Pentarchy

Artaz ὃ

REFERENCES

EASTERN
E.79, 116-i11/10
G-4
E.73, 115
D-8

B.73, 118-xv/20
G-6

EB. 79, 116-iii/11
G-4

M.X. II, lxii

CLASSICAL

S. XI, i, 4

CM Jd

P. V, vi, 12

S. XI, i, 4
ii, 6

CM Ke

C.J., I, 29, 5

N. XXXI
Aed, III, iv, 17

NOTES

T. 210.

.See Sasun.

. See Salnoy jor.
.See Kart‘unik*,

. See Suspiritis.

See Salagomk*.

T. 131-135, 137, 138 n. 240,
170-175, 197.
See Ch. II; V n. 66.

.See Phaunitis.

See Sawarsam.

See Ch. XI n. 59.

. See Sddk’.
See SawSét*.

*9LT

A XIONWddV

PROVINCE
Sawiét
Sephakan
Sepuhrakan
Sikagén
Sirak

Sirakan
Sirakené

Sisagan
Sisajan
Sisakan
Sisakan i Kotak

Siwnik’

Sodk’

Sodukené
Sof
Séphan-ayé

VARIANTS

SawsSedk‘

Sisakan Ostan

Sisakan
Sisajan

Cawdk’
Sawdk’
Zawdk’
Sot’k’

EQUIVALENTS

Mardpetakan ?
Vaspurakan

Sirakené
Siiregel

Sirak

Siiregel

Lesser Siwnik’
Miws Haband
Sunitai

Sodukené

Arcay

Sodk’

REFERENCES
EASTERN CLASSICAL

E.73, 119-i/2
B-5

E.73-74, 118-xv/8
B-5

P. V, xii, 4
Z.M. 144
E.70, 117
E.81, L17-ix

B6-G7

#.80
B-6

P. V, xii, 4

NOTES

See Ch. IX n. 38; XI nn. 66,
66a.

.See Vaspurakan.
. See SakaSén.

_See Nor Sirakan.

T. 202, 206
See Ch. XI nn. 2c-d, 3.

. See Siwnik*.
. See Stwnik’.

See Siwnik’.

T. 129, 131-132, 137, 148, 214
n. 244, 241, 323, 332.

See Ch. [X nn. 13b, 14-15, XIV
ns 72.

See Ch. X pp. 194,199,230.

Not to be confused with
Cawdék’ q.v.

T. 182 n. 146.

. See Sophené.
. See Sophanené.

SHONTAOUd : ANANOdOL

* LLL

PROVINCE VARIANTS
Sophanené Tzophanené
Sophené Tzophane
Soragyal
Sot’k’ .

Spandaran-Peroz

Sper

Sunitai

Supani.

Stph y «Kk οδ Ν
Stiregel Soragyal
Suspiritis Hesperites

Saspeiros

EQUIVALENTS

Copac kolmn
Cop’k’ Mec
Greater Sophené
Lower Sophené
Séphan-ayé
Supani

Cop’k’ Sahuni
Lesser Sophené
Upper Sophené
Sahunian Sophené
Sahé

Sof

Stiph

Syrian March

Suspiritis
Pharangion
Ispir kazasi
Siwnik’

Sirak

Sper
Pharangion

REFERENCES

EASTERN

E.81, 117-xi/8
G7-G8

E.81, 116-i/7
B-4

CLASSICAL

C.Th. XX, xviii

C.J. 1, 29, 5

N. ΧΧΧῚ

Aed. ITT, ii, 2
iii, 1

P. V, xii, 6
S. XI, xii, 3-4
xiv, 2

XII, ii, 1

C.J. I, 29, 5

N. XXXI

de B.i

CM Ne

Pers. I, xv, ἢ

H.
X. VII, viii, 25

NOTES

T. 131, 137-138, n. 240, 139,
166 n. 63, 167-168, 170-171,
173 n. 103, 174, 175, 179, 237
n. 306, 241, 304.

See Ch. II nn. 20a, 21-23b.

T. 131, 137-138 n. 240, 166-167
and n. 63, 170 n. 88, 235 n. 306,
241, 285-287, 298, 304-305.
See Ch. IT nn. 20a, 21-24.
Used both as a restrictive and
a general toponym.

See also Asorestan.

. See Stiregel.
.See Sédk’.

. See Sophanené.
. See Sophené.

G. 578, 40°45°N x 43°936’E.
T. 131, 137-1388 n. 240, 202,
233 n. 291, 241, 315, 321-322

*SLI

A XIGQNUddV

REFERENCES

PROVINCE VARIANTS EQUIVALENTS EASTERN CLASSICAL NOTES
Ispir kazasi S. XI, xiv, 9 n. 76, 323 n. 77, 81, 326, 342, 455
Pers. II, xxix, 4 n. 73, 456 n.77, 464 n.117,
CM Oc. 466 n. 123, 467 n. 126.
See Ch. I n. 43; III ἢ. 12a.
Syria I N. XX
Syria II N. VIII
Syria, Coele N.D.
Syria Salutaris N.D.
Syrian March e jes τς τῶν ee ἡ .See Sophené.
Tamberk* Tambét* E.84, 117-vii/6
D-6
Tambét* " ΤΣ ἢ .See Tamberk*‘,
Tamoritis Tmorik’ T. 200, 202, 322, 323 n. 78.
Kordrik’

Tankriayn .See Taygrean.
Tanuterakan tun See Ch. IX pp. 180-182.
Tao Tayk’ See Tayk’.
Taparastan .See Taprostan.
T‘ar ἃ, Oe a ar eee . See Tawr.
Taprostan Taparastan E.114-115.
Taraunitis Tarawn Pers. II, xxv, 35 T. 132, 202, 209-210, 212, 215,

CM Pe 218, 314, 324 n. 81, 351.

See Ch. XI nn. 29-30, 34.
Tarawn Tar6én Taraunitis E.85, 116-iv/3
G-4
Tar6n . oe a Ἐν ἐς ἐν ἃ .See Tarawn.
Taruberan Tawruberan B.85, 116-iv T. 129, 132, 148, 199, 205 n. 234,
Turuberan G4-G5 209, 212, 312.

See Ch. XI ἢ. 30.

SHONTAOUd * ANANOdOL

*6L1

PROVINCE VARIANTS
Tasir
Tatik
T‘awr Tar
Tor
Tawruberan Σ & 9 ἃ
Taytin Takhtin
Taygrean Tankriayn
Tagrean
Tayk’

Tercan kazasi

Thospitis
Thracia (d.)
Tianet*

Tmorik‘

T‘onrawan
T‘or

EQUIVALENTS

Kars ?

Tao

Derxené
Derjan
Tosp

Tamoritis
Kordrik‘

REFERENCES
EASTERN CLASSICAL

E.85, 119-v/4
B-6

E.85, 116-iii/6
G-5

E.53, 119-ii/3
B-5

E.84, 117-viii/31
G-6

E.84, 117-xiv
B4-B5

P. V, xii, 8
N.D.
E.53, 119-vi/4
A-6
E.86
D-5

NOTES

.See Taruberan.

See Ch. XI n. 3b.

T. 129, 131-132, 148, 202, 204-
205, 209-210, 211 n. 238, 231
n. 285, 324 n. 81, 439-445, 450,
452-457, 460 n. 98, 467, 470,
485-486, 491-498.

See Ch. III n. 24a; XI π. 81].
G. 595, 39945°N x 40°25’R.

. See T’ornawan.
. See T‘awr.

*xO8T

A XIGNGddvV

PROVINCE VARIANTS

T’ornawan Tonrawan
Tosp Tosb
Towarcatap’

T*rabi Trap‘

T'rap‘i.
Ttetk*

Tri

Trialét i a ee
Trpatunik’ Atrpatunik‘
Trunik’

Tuck‘atak. mike ΣΝ
Tur Abdin Turapdin
| Turuberan ὅς, Ὧν ἀν νὰ
Tus K‘ustak Tuék‘atak

Tyanitis

Tzanika

Tzophené

EQUIVALENTS

Thospitis

Karayazi kazasi

Trialét‘i

Cawdeayk’

Zabdikené

Canet’i

REFERENCES
EASTERN CLASSICAL

E.53, 117-viii/19
G5-G6
E.86, 117-viii/2

G-5
E.86, 116-iv/7
G4-G5
E.54, 117-vii/3
D-6
E.54, 119-v/6 _
B5-B6
E.86, 118-xii/2
B-7

E.86, 117-viii/12
D-5

E.86

D-4

E.86, 118-xii/5

B-6
P, V, vi, 17
S. XI, i, 4
ii, 7

Goth. IV, iii, 3
Aed. ΠῚ, vi, 1, 18
N. XXXI

NOTES

See Ch. XI ἢ. 53.

.See T‘rabi.

See Tretk*.

T. 221, 235 n. 301.

See Ch, XI n. 75.

.See Tus K‘ustak.

.See Taruberan.

T. 255. 458-460 n. 98.

See Sophené.

SHONTAOUd : ANANOdGOL

* [51

PROVINCE

Tzophanené
Upper Sophené
Ure

Urcajor
Utik’

Vakunik* .
Vanand

Varaznunik’ (1)
Varaznunik’ (2)
Varaznunik’ (3)

Varjan.
Vaspurakan

Vayc
Vaykunik*

Vayoe jor
Vaznunik’.

Vijac .
Virk’

VARIANTS

Urcajor

Vitia

Vaznunik’

Vaznunik’
Vizanunik’

Aspurakan

Vakunik*

Vay¢

Vetia
Varjan

EQUIVALENTS

Otené

Upper Basean

Darachichak ?
Calkunik’

Sepuhrakan

Iberia

REFERENCES
EASTERN CLASSICAL

N. XXXI

E.76, 118-xv/21
G-6

E.75-76, 118-xii
B6-B7

E.82, 118-xv/9
B-5

E.82 (1) 118-xv/18
B-6

E.82 (3) 116-ii/10
G-4

E.82 (2) 117-viii/33
B-6

K.82, 117-viii
G5-G6

E.82, 117-x/2
B-7
E.82, 117-ix/3
G-6

BK. 104, 119
B5-B6

NOTES

See Sophanené.

. See Sophené.

Τ. 299,
See Ch. ΧΙ n. 4d.

.See Ure.

.See Vaykunik’.

T. 215.

See Ch. XI n. 2a.

T. 222.

See Ch. XI nn. 54, 76.
See Ch. XI ἢ. 54.

See Ch. XI n. 76.

. See Iberia.

T. 129, 131-132, 148, 197, 200,
202-206, 212, 215, 220-222, 323
nn. 78, 81, 331-332, 381.

See Ch. LX n. 38; XI nn. 66, 66a.

See Vayoc jor.

.See Varaznunik’ (2, 3).
. See Mija.

ποδὶ

A XIGQNHddV

PROVINCE VARIANTS

Vizanunik’

Xancixé Aanicx
Aanicy

Xar ..

Xerhet‘k* .

Xerk

Khorrasan
Xorjean
Xorjén
Khordzen

Xorasan k‘ustak
Aorjayn

Xorjean
“Χο. ..
Xorwaran k‘ustak
Aoryorunik’

Xoyt’

Xerxené
bé@ Zabdé
Zabdiané
Zabdikené

Bzabdé

Zabdiané

Zachunuc .
Zangi bazar

EQUIVALENTS

Chorzané
Kigi kazasi

Bulanik ?

bed Zabdé
Cawdeayk’
Tur Abdin

Kotayk’ ?

REFERENCES
EASTERN CLASSICAL

E.55, 119-iv /5
B-6

E.55, 119-vi/2
B-6
E.114

B.55, 116-ii/1
G-4

B.114-115
B.55, 116-iv/16
G-5
B.55, 116-iv/1
G-5
S. XI, xiv, 5
5.0. 272

A.M., XXV, xix, 9

A.M. XXV, xix, 9
P. P, xiv

NOTES

.See Varaznunik’ (3) and Ch. XI

n. 76.

.See Xancixé.
. Hér.
. Erxet‘k*.

.See Xorjayn.
.See Xorjayn.

T. 208-209.

T. 312.
See Ch. XI n. 44.
See Derxené.
See Zabdikené.
See Zabdikené.
T. 131, 166 n. 63, 180, 182
n. 146.

. See Catkotn.

See Ch. XI p. 238.

SHONTAOUd : ANANOdOL

*681

PROVINCE

Zarawand

Zarehawan

Zarewana .
Zawdk’

VARIANTS

Zarewand

EQUIVALENTS

REFERENCES

EASTERN

E.51, 117-vii/8
G-6

E.52, 117-vii/7
G-6

CLASSICAL

NOTES

T. 305 ἡ. 119.

Later fused with Her into
Rotak q.v.

T. 293, 305 n. 119, 310 n. 32.

See Zarawand.
. See Sddk’.

x PST

B. Crrres - Towns - VILLAGES

The following abbrevations were used in this section in addition to those previously given :

LA. ltinerarium Antonini
T.P. Tabula Peutingeriana

M. Miller, C., Iéineraria Romana (Stuttgart, 1916).

LOCALITY VARIANTS EQUIVALENTS REFERENCES MAPS NOTES
Abaxa Auaxa Awaz N.D. See Ch. V n. Lda.

Auasa
Adamakert ao ἡ . See Hadamakert.
Aeliana Arna? N.D.
Afision 2 τ ἢ “6 τς τς ἐς τῷ Ὁ, Bate . See Fis.
Afgin Yarpuz G.7 U. 341 BIV

Arabissos ? .38915” x 36°55’
Uarsapa ?

Afumo6n Fum? See Ch. I nn. 17, 17a, 19a.
Agil eo τῇ y fe ke wwe ἢ .See Egil.
Akbas Agba Andsarvan-Kala ? See Ch. I nn. 14-16a.

Okbas
Akcan Olakan G. 16 (2)

38953’ x 41934’ U. 340 A IIT T. 209.

Akn OR τ a ἢ . See Egin.
Alacahan Alajayan Aranis G. 26

Aladja Han 39°02” x 37°37’

K. 37 EB. G-2

Aladarariza . See Olotoedariza.
Aladja Han .See Alacahan.
Alajayan . See Alacahan.
Alaleisos See Ch. I n. 218.
Atiorsk’ See Ch. XI n. 49.

SHDOVTTIA - SNMOL - SHILIO * ANANOdGOL

«G81

LOCALITY

Aliws
Alki
Alvar

Amadia
Amaras
Amaraz
Amaseia
Amasia

Amasya

Amid .
Amida

Amit’ .
Analiba
Analibla
Analibna

Anastasiopolis
Ang! berd

VARIANTS

Elki

Amaras

Amasya
Amaseia
Amasia

Amid

Amit’

Analiba

Analibla

Adil

EQUIVALENTS

Diyarbakir

Daranalia

Egil

Karkathiokerta

REFERENCES

E. 32, 60

G. 35 (2)

39956" x 41937’
E. 34

E. 34

EB. 34

TP

G. 35 (2)

40939” x 35°51’
E. 35

T.P.

T.P., TA.
P. V, vi, 18
N.D.

E. 33

B. 35 ω)

MAPS

E. G-5
U. 340 A IT

EK. D-5

KB. G-7, AA 106

E. B-1, HW 218. F-1

M 643 and f. 211

U. 324 DIV

E. D-4
H.W. 41, 0-5, CM Of

M 737-740, f. 238

M 645, 679 and 680 f.
223

CM Md

E. G-4

AA 106

NOTES

See Ch. III n. 6.

. See Amaraz.

See Ch. LX n. 22.

See Amasia.

.See Amida.

See Ch TX n. 42.

See Amida.
. See Analibna.
.See Analibna.

See Ch. IIT nn. 16a-b.

.See Dara.

T. 75 n. 83, 109 n. 168, 131
137 n. 240, 167-168, 176-179,
224, 297-303, 315.

See Ch. XI n. 21; XIV

n. 48.

«981

A XIGNWHddV

LOCALITY
Angi in Catkotn Anglon

Anglon . . .
Ani in Daranalhk’

Ani in Sirak

Anogsarvan kala .

Antioch of Mygdonia

Anzit . y oe, Me Ge

Anzita Anzit
Hinzit

Agba .

Arabess6n.
Arabissos

Arabrake
Arahez.
Arakli .
Arané .
Arangas

Aranis Arané
Arapkir

ad Aras

VARIANTS

EQUIVALENTS

Kemah

Hisn Ziyad

Castellum Ziata
Tilenzit

Afgin ?

Yarpuz

Argaus ?

Alacahan

Izollu

REFERENCES

E. 35 (2)
E. 35

G. 37
40°32” x 43934’

TP.

P. V, vi, 21
IA.

G. 40 (1)

39°03’ x 38°30’
E. 31

if RA bo

MAPS

E. G-5

K. G-3

U. 325 DIV

M 737-738, f. 237

K. G-2
CM Ke

M 682 and 681 f. 223

CM Ld

M 684

CM Ld

U. 341 BII

E. G-3
M. 738, fig. 238

NOTES

T. 310, 315, 319.
See Ch. XI nn. 2], 22.

.See Angt in Calkotn.

T. 109 n. 168, 454 n. 64.
See Ch. IIT nn. J, 3a.
T. 206, 207 n. 236,

.See Akbas.
.See Nisibis.
.See Anzita.
See Ch. II nn. 110, 19a-c, 20.

See Akbas.
.See Artaleson.

See Ch. IV p. 69.

.See Avaris.
. See Siirmene.
.See Aranis.

See Ch. IV n. 20.

See Ch. IV n. 23.

SHOVITIA τ SNMOL ~ SAHLLIO : ANANOdOL

*L81

LOCALITY

Arasaka
Arauracos
Araurica .
Arbela
Arcas

Arcat’i
Ar&é3
Arcis

Aren
Ardasa

Areon
Arest

Arestawan
Arga

Argaun

Argaus.

Arghana Maden

Arguvan .
Arguvas

Ariarathé .

VARIANTS

Araurica

Arka
Arkas
Arké
Arzuti

Arestawan
Arreston

Argaus
Arangas ?
Arguvas ?

Arguvan

EQUIVALENTS

Arga

Arcis

Artétés
Eris

Torul

Arcas

Tahir ?

Arangas?

Argaun ?

REFERENCES

L.A., N.D.
BE. 49
LA.

ad L., H.S., G.C.

K. 39

G. 41
39°00” x 43°19”
E.58
G. 41
40°35” x 39°18’

E. 37
G. 42 (2)

38°21’ x 37959’
KE. 39

G. 42
38°23” x 39°40’

G. 42
38°47’ x 38°17

MAPS

CM Md

AA 104, HW 21a G-2

M 736 and f. 237
CM Me

AA 106

BR. G-5

AA 106

U. 340 BIV
AA 106

AA 106

BR. G-5

BE. G-2

U. 340 AIV

U. 341 BIIT

NOTES

. See Sarkigla.

.See Arauracos.

See Ch. ΙΧ n. 33.
See Ch. IV n. 42a.

See Arzuti.
T. 205 n. 234.

See also Karin.

See Ch. III ἢ. 25.

See Ch. I nn. 11-12a.

.See Arest.

See Ch. 1V n. 20.

.See Argaun.

.See Arguvas.

See Ariarathia.

*SS |

A XIQNUddV

LOCALITY

Ariaratheia
Ariarathia

Arizan

Arka . . .
Arkathiokerta
Arké

Arna
Arreston .
Arsamosata

Artales
Artaleson
Artasat
Artaxata .
Artvin

Arzuti

Asagi Kirvaz
Askale
Asmusat .

Asnak .
Astisat

VARIANTS

Ariarathé

Ariaratheia

AsmusSat
Samiat
Samiey
Samusat
Samuii
Samusia
SimSat

Artales

Arcat’i ἢ

Yastisat

EQUIVALENTS

Aziziye ?

Aeliana ?

Yarimca

Endires ?

Artaxata

Kowars ?
Kiravi ?

REFERENCES

C.Th. XXX, xi, 2

C.J. XI, 47, 1

ad L., H.S., G.C.

E. 37

E.40

E. 41

G. 46

41°11” x 41°49’

G. 46

40°04" x 41916"

G. 55 (2)

39°55” x 40942”

E. 36

MAPS

HW 20a D-2

CM Ke

K. G-6

U. 324 C IIT

U. 324 C Il

U. 340 A Til

U. 340 AT

NOTES

.See Ariarathia.

See Ch. IV n. 42a.

See Eréz

.See Arcas.

.See Karkathiokerta.
.See Arcas.

.See Arest.

T. 75 n. 83, 210.
See Ch. ΠῚ nn. 17-19.

.See Artaleson.

See Ch. I pp, 19-20 and n. 36.

.See Artasat.

See Ch. I n. 30.

.See Arsamosata.
.See Osakan.

T. 209.
See Ch. II n. 4; XT n. 35.

SHOVTITIA - SNMOWL - SAILIO * ANANOGOL

*68 [

LOCALITY VARIANTS EQUIVALENTS REFERENCES MAPS NOTES

Astiberd Azakpert ? AA 104 See Ch. In. 33a.
Kithariz6n ?
Athenae At’ina EK. 32 E. B-4, AA 106 See Ch. LIT n. 30.
Athenis da oa M 648 and f. 212
CM Ob
Athenis . . . 1. 5 6 © © «© © © «© © © © © © © © © » © «© © «© -ᾧ « « « « +See Athenae.
Aving~: «a. ὦ fo 44> BR te ee He www) ὦν OE ie ce ho Ce Se me GOW ee ce ow eee Atenas,
Attachas At’t’ay Hindis ? AA 106 See Ch. I nn. 7, 8a; V n. lia.
Attacha
Hattah ? CM Oe
BUGOy: ὦ 6 a me ὦ ἃ. τὰ RO RS ROA RS OE me Ὁ eG Aw καὶ ἃ ee Attachas.
AGHA occ oe. πὸ B Go we. te ἀ ae Ww Ἃς OE er ce ων ἢ we OU Oe ἄς δ᾽ πὰ ee Be Oe Oe eee Aaa:
Auaxa ee Bis Wr. τὴν ow RE “oe. Ἂν cae es ὧν er ve ee eS me ΤΣ Sm τὰ. 2 ee eo ae a ὡς (ὦν «ἶν, τ ΘΟ ae,
Averés. < =. qe & we. S s& Bo we we Oe Ue. ee ORO ee. we ee ee OR ῥὰς, τῶν ce oe. eee vars:
Avaris Avares Arahez ? G. 58 U. 324 ΟΠ
40°51’ χ 41945’
BWAE 4 τ & wee he we τὸς a ἢν See es, BO we ce τρῶς, a we ce BO Aaa.
AVERY. a oe. Gs ἐπ ὦ ἄρ Fak HS Sat Ve ee See ces ee A was Re de pt PE Olean.
Boa: A τὰ τος ai “ES SE. Bt Oe a δε. a Os ἃς we, 1 86 ne,
Azaghberd a ee BE Ge. oS es oe ὦ ἐκ τας ot me τῷ ce ee, SCE Az oped.
Azakpert Azaghberd Astiberd ? G. 64 U. 340 AT See Ch. In. 33b.
Aznaberd ? 39°14’ x 40°30’
Kitharizon ὃ
Azipatic. τῷ κι’ ἃς δὲ Ee ae ee eR ek GS oe CB i et a a we ee iz,
Aziris P. V, vi, 18
Aziziye Pirnabasin G. 64 U. 341 BIV
Ariarathia ? 38944’ x 36°24’
E. 39
PONADCRG. se. Ok me ὧν οκ καὶ ΓΤ we ak Oh es em Gow ὧδ Ἃ Ake ai ἃ .See Azakpert.
Baberd Bayburt AA 106

Bab-al-Abwab . . . . 0.0. ewe eee ek ke ee eS See Darband.

+061

A XIGQNUddV

LOCALITY

beé Bagas .
Bagawan

Bagarié
Bagayarié
Baghin
Bagin

Baiberd6n
Baioulouos
Balaleisén.
Balés

Balu

Banabelon
Barchon
Bargiri.
Barissara .
Barsalium .
Barzalo

Bad Soragyal .

Baskale
Bassiiregel

Bayazet’ .
Bayburt

VARIANTS

Bagarié

Baghin

Balalés

Benabel6én .

Barsalium

Bas Soragyal

Baytberd

EQUIVALENTS

Bagauna

Surb Karapet
Pekerig

Palin

Palios
Bayburt

Balaleison

Bitlis
Baioulouos
Palu

Hadamakert

060 Bagas ὃ
Sirakawan

Baiberd6n

REFERENCES

E. 42
G. 62 (2)
39°00" x 39°55’

EP.

E. 44

G. 78

38902’ x 44°00’

G. 80
40°42” x 43°44’

α. 82 (2)

MAPS

BK. G-4

U. 340 AT

E. G-5

AA 106
E. G-3
AA 106

EK. D-3

M 684 and f. 224
CM Ne

U. 340 BIV

AA 108
Ὁ. 325 DIV

U. 324 CIV

NOTES

.See Bagkale.

T. 309, 319-320.

See Ch. XI nn. 20, 27a.
.See Bagayarié.

See Ch. III n. 1.

.See Bagin.

See Ch. IIT n. 25.

.See Balu.
See Balés.

See Ch. IX n. 34.

See Ch. III n. 3.

. See Bnabel.

See Ch. ΠῚ n. 26c.
.See Berkri.

.See Berissé.

.See Barzalo.

. See Sirakawan.

.See Dogubayazit.

SHOVTTIA - SNMOL - SHILIO *‘ AWANOdOL

* L6L

LOCALITY

Baytberd .
Baz

Bazanis
Bazmatbiwr
Belhan
Belikan

Belkania
Benabelon.
Benabil

Berdaa
Berisse

Berkri

Berzend
Bezabdé
Bitlis

Bizana

Blandos
Blur
Bnabel
Boglan

Bol

VARIANTS

Baberd

Bilikaén

Babikan

Barissara
Verisa
Bargiri

Bzabdé

Bazanis
Vizana

Banabel6n

EQUIVALENTS

xXact

Belhan ?

Belkania ?
Belhan ?

Bnabet

Muradiye

Jazirah ibn Omar
Balaleis6n

Balés
Leontopolis I
Vizan

Tutmag ?

Benabil

REFERENCES

40°16” x 40°15’
E. 44

G. 84

38°00’ x 44°07’
G. 88 (2)

38°19” x 40°02’
G 89

37919’ x 40°51’
ad L., G.C.

G. 77

39°00" x 43°43’

G. 98
38°22” x 42906’

LA.
EB. 45

G. 100
38°58’ x 41°03?

MAPS

AA 108
K. B-4

U. 340 BIV
AA. 105

U. 340 A IV.

AA 106
U. 340 BIV

K. D-5
U. 340 A III

M 683

KE. D-4

NOTES

.See Bayburt.

.See Bizana.

See Ch. III n. 6

.See Belikan.

See Ch. Tin. 11}.

.See Bnabel.

See Ch. II nn. δᾶ, 6.

.See Partaw.

See Ch. IV n. 42a.

See Ch. [X n. 13.

See Ch. III n. 26; VI nn. 28k,
29.

See Ch. XI ἢ. 27a.
T. 187 n. 240, 168, 176-177.

.See Boltberd.

*661

A XIGNUddV

LOCALITY

Baytberd .
Baz

Bazanis
Bazmatbiwr
Belhan
Belikan

Belkania
Benabelon.
Benabil

Berdaa
Berisse

Berkri

Berzend
Bezabdé
Bitlis

Bizana

Blandos
Blur
Bnabet
Boglan

Bol

VARIANTS

Baberd

Bilikan

Babikan

Barissara
Verisa
Bargiri

Bzabdeé

Bazanis
Vizana

Banabelon

EQUIVALENTS

Χαῦ

Belban ?

Belkania ?
Belhan ?

Bnabet

Muradiye

Jazirah ibn Omar
Balaleison

Bales
Leontopolis I
Vizan

Tutmag ὃ

Benabil

REFERENCES

40°16’ x 40°15’
K. 44

G. 84

38°00’ x 44°07’
G. 88 (2)

38°19" x 40°02’
G 89

37919" x 40°51’
ad L., G.C.

G. 77

39°00" x 43943’

G. 98
38922” x 42°06’

LA.
K. 45

G. 100
38°58” x 41903”

MAPS

AA 108
K. B-4

U. 340 BIV
AA. 105

U. 340 A IV.

AA 106
U. 340 BIV

ΒΕ. D-5
U. 340 A IIT

NOTES

.See Bayburt.

.See Bizana.

See Ch. IIT n. 6

.See Belikan.

See Ch. IIn. 11b.

.See Bnabel.

See Ch. IT nn. 5a, 6.

.See Partaw.

See Ch. IV n. 42a.

See Ch. ΙΧ n. 13.

See Ch. III n. 26; VI nn. 28k,
29.

See Ch. XI ἢ. 27a.
T. 187 n. 240, 168, 176-177.

.See Botberd.

x66 1

A XIGNuddV

LOCALITY VARIANTS
Boltberd Bol

Bol6n
Borbas
Bourg . τ: δ“ οἷς
Bourgousnoes Bourg
Brisa
Brnakapan
Bubalia
Bugakale
Biyik Tuy a ee ἀν «ὦ
Caene Parembole Kainé Parembolé
Caesarea of Cappadocia
Caldiran
Caleorsissa Kaltiorissa

Caltiorissa
Cahk .
Calki
Caltiorissa .
Camisa Comassa
Capakjur Capljur
Carape.
Carcathiocerta

EQUIVALENTS

Valarsakert ?
Bugakale ?

Porpes

Pirnakapan

Bolberd ὃ

Eusebeia
Mazaka
Kayseri

Golaris ?
Olotoedariza ?

Kemis ὃ
Hafik, Koghhisar ὃ
Kitharizon ?

REFERENCES

K. 45

N. XXXI
E. 46 (2)

iP:

G. 108

40°12’ x 41941’
N.D.

LA, EP:

E. 58

G. 122 (3)
39909” x 43952”
P. V, vi, 18
T.P., LA.

TAP 1.Α.
G. 129
38°50’ x 40°12’

M. 730 and 676 f. 222

MAPS NOTES
E. B-4 See Ch. I nn. 39a, 40-43 ;
AA 106 XI ἢ. 80.

.See Porpés.

.See Bourgousnoes.

See Ch. IIT ἢ. 27.

E. G-4 See Ch. III n. 12.
AA 106
M. 680, f. 223 See Ch. IV n. 17.
U. 324 C TIL

.See Du.

See Ch. V n. 19.
M 729 and f. 234
HW 41 N-5 See Ch. IV n. 7.
EK. B-7
CM Je
U. 340 BI

M. 679 and 680 f. 223 See Ch. IV n. 16b.
CM Md

.See Zagki.

See Zagki.

. See Caleorsissa.

CM Ld
AA 106

.See Karape.

.See Karkathiokerta.

SHOVTTIA - SNMOL - SHLLIO * AWANOdOL

«S61

*V61

LOCALITY VARIANTS EQUIVALENTS REFERENCES MAPS NOTES
Οὐαί; ὦν. ὦ ὡς τον τ ἀ. ee ee te ὦ τ .ῳ οὐδὲ ΟΔΥΒΆ ΡΝ,
8. το Gece oo As ewe RE a Oe a a ne “cw, oe, isa
Castellum Ziata . 2. 0. 6 wee ek ee ee ee ee ee See Anita.
Cemiggezek Cmikacak G. 141
39904’ x 389535’
Cena & ok. ὦν Tw. 4, RS a ἧς a Ga. ἃς Te. Se SG. Se ὩΣ τῶ, a ἀν τὰς ἃ Ow: αὐὐδ Rena:
Cerasus . . «1. 6 6 © ee lel wlll lee lk ee le lle le le le lel eC t:~t*é‘<i‘i CU KK eras.
Cerme Jermay G. 144 (5) AA 105
39937’ x 40°37’
Cermik Ciaca ? G. 144 (2) U. 341 BIV
38942’ x 38°27’
δ a 2 & &.-% .e @ @. @i-m Boog. ew & 2a & em wm ee 4 we Se Be & = oSeeXaraba Barbas.
Charax P. V, vi, 18 CM De
Charsianon Charsianum Horsana ? CM Jd
Charsiane
Charsianum . See Charsian6n.
Chartén eo 4s a, 4 Soe. «a. bk. & op -oSee Hart.
Chaszanenica Gizenica T.P. M. 681 and 641 f. 212 See Ch. V n. 17.
Hadzana ὃ N.D.
Larhan ?
Chiaca . See Ciaca.
Chlomar6én Klimar See Ch. I nn. 17, 18a.
Chorsabia P. V, vi, 18
Ciaca Chiaca Craca P. V, vi, 19-21 M. 682 and 680 f. 223
Kiakis Cermik ὃ T.P., LA.
Kiakkas N.D.
E. 59 E. G-3
Cimin Cimin Tzumina G. 152 U. 340 AI
Jimin Justinianopolis 39°43’ x 39°44’

Citharizon.

.See Kitharizén.

A XIQNWddV

Claudia

Cmikacag .
Cocuso.
Colemerik .
Colonia
Comana
Comassa
Corne

Coucarizon
Covk’

Craca .
Ctesiphon

Cunissa
Dadima
Dadimon
Dagalasso
Dagona

Dalana
Dandaxena

Dara

Darband

Glaudia
Kilaudias
Klawdias

Korné

Dadima
Doganis
Dandaxina
Kara Dara

Derbend
Derbent

Tizbon

Mada‘in

Megalasso ?

Anastasiopolis

Bab-al-Abwab

T.P.
P. V, vi, 24
E. 59

T.P.

E. 56-57

TP. LAs

LA.

P. V, vi, 18
1.

KE. 48

P. V, vi, 18
I.A.

E. 48

G. 168

37910” x 40°58’

HK. 49

M. 684 and f. 224
CM Me
E. G-3

M. 684 and 683 f. 224

CM Me

E. G-3

AA 106

HW 41 0-6
M. 676 and 645 f. 212

CM Ne

CM Md

M. 730 and 676 f. 222

EK. G-2

M. 736 and f. 237
E. G-2

U. 340 D II

HW 43 0-5

CM Pf

E. A-8

. See Cemiggezek.
.See Kukusos.
.See Julamerk.
.See Koloneia.

. See Komana.

. See Camisa.

.See Kukarizon.

.See Ciaca.
See Ch. XIII ἢ. 25.

See Ch. IV n. 16a.

.See Dadimon.

See Ch. ΙΧ n. 42.
See Ch. IV n. 16.

See Ch. In. 3.

SHOVITIA - SNMOL - SAILIO : ANANOdOL

* G6 ]

LOCALITY VARIANTS EQUIVALENTS REFERENCES MAPS NOTES
Darende Taranta G. 169 U. 341 BIII See also Osdara.
38934’ x 37°30’
Darewnic Berd St oe oe .See Dariwnk’.
Darioza Derreigazan ? See Ch. I n. 38a.
Dariwnk’ Daroynk’ Dogubayazit E. 49 hk. G-6 T. 202, 321-323, 322 n. 77,
Darewnic Berd AA 106 342-343, 344 n. 16.
See Ch. XI n. 19a, 24-25.
Daroynk’ . τι Σὰ οἷ δ τ τὰ τὰ ς: 2.8. % .See Dariwnk’.
Dascusa Daskusa P. V, vi, 18 CM Me See Ch. IV ἢ. 19a.
Daseusa T.P., IA. M. 682 and 680 f. 223
N.D.
BK. 48 EK. G-3
Daseusa .See Dascusa.
Daskusa : 2.3 a. ον ote. τὴν τα .See Dascusa.
Dasteira Dostal E. 48 E. G-3 See Ch. IIT ἢ. Lda.
Deh Nayiragan .See Deh Xargan.
Deh Xarakan . a er eer ee bc ae, Wd τα a er oe .See Deh Xargan.
Deh-Xargan Dehyarakan Deh Nayiragan AA 106
Deir... et νὰ & ape τὸ .See Der.
Deliktag EKuspoena 6. 175 U. 341 B-1
39°21” x 37913
Der Deir Sikefti G. 178
38°09’ x 44912’
Derik G. 183 (1) U. 340 DI
37922? x 40°17
Divrigi Tephriké G. 190 τ. 341 BII See Ch. IV n. 19.
Teucila ? 39°23’ x 38°07’
Tevrik
Diyadin Tateonk’ G. 190 (3) U. 340 BI
39°33’ x 43°40’ AA 108

*961

A XIQNYddV

LOCALITY
Diyarbakir
Diyarbekir
Diza_ .
Djanik
Djelu
Doganis

Dogubayazit

Domana

Dostal
Doubios

Dracones

Draconis .
Dracontes.
Du

Dwin
Egil

Egen .
Egin

Eken .

VARIANTS

Diyarbekir

Bayazet’

Draconis
Dracontes

Tuy

Agil

Ekin

Egen

EQUIVALENTS

Amida
Samsun

Cal ?

Dariwnk’

Dasteira

Melikserif ?

Chapul Képru ἢ

Biiyuik Tuy

Kigtk Tuy
Doubios

Angi Berd

Akna

REFERENCES

G. 190
37955’ x 40°14’

G. 191
41°17’ x 36°20’

G. 82

39932’ x 44°08’
P. V, vi, 18

dL ce =

N.D.

G. 195

39928 x 38930’
T.P., 1A.

E. 49

G. 432 (Kiiciik)
40°00’ x 41°26?
E. 49

G. 202
38°15” x 40°05”
G. 202
39°16” x 38°29"

MAPS

U. 340 DI

U. 324 DI

U. 340 B-I

CM Oc
M. 682 and 646 f. 212

U. 341 BI
M. 676 and 645 f. 212

E. B-3
CM Me

U. 340 A ἢ

(Biiytik)
E. G-6

AA 106

U. 340 AIV

U. 341 BIII

NOTES

See Ch. I ἢ. 8.

.See Diyarbakir.
.See Gever.

Unidentifiable.

.See Dagona.

.See Dwin.
See Ch. IV nn. 16a, 17.

. See Dracones.
.See Dracones.

See Ch. I nn. 38c, 39.

See Ch. In. 18.

.See Egin.

. See Egin.

SHOVTTIA - SNMOL - SHILIO * ANWANOdOL

*L6L

*86 1

A XIGNUddV

LOCALITY VARIANTS EQUIVALENT REFERENCES MAPS NOTES
Blane Einut Ognut See Ch. I nn. 29, 30.
Oinut
Elbistan Plasta G. 205 (1) U. 341 BIV
38°13’ x 37912’
Hilegarié Se ne a ῳ" ὦ ,8. eS a σα, ἃ See Hlegarsina.
Elegarsina Elegarié Kamisli dere ΤΡ: Μ. 682
E. 50 E. G-3
Etind Erind T.A. 1/d
Rint
Elki Alki G. 206 U. 340 CI
37924’ x 43°10’
ΤΠ ιν So es τὰς, ye is a ὩΣ Oo Oe Oe ὧς ὦ Se a Se Se MO See Oonut.
Enderis Endires Susehri G. 210 U. 324 Ὁ ΠῚ See Ch. I n. 36.
Endiryas Artaleson ὃ 40°11’ x 38°06’
Henderis
Wndires: 6. j- 4 ek ee ae OO Re oe ῆψφτΨῆ Oe Se ee Enders.
FGI aS: 5. 06. ces ee ee ὅδ. eo eG me οὐ τῷ τῷ me we ce ἀ οἷς a «ὦ τ ἀξ, ἢ οὐδ. ΠΟΘ ΘΥΙΕ,
Ἐπ. ας ἀκ, ὁ Go ἧς Re de we oe μὲ “ὡς ἄς VO A. OS tw a A Ὡς Se ΕΠ Ἠε δ᾽αι
ΤΗ͂Ι. ὦ πὸ. 8... ὦ’ Ghee ἂν ὡς, πῶν Be Ss αν. τὰς οὐδε cee oe cee ee orkinis:
Ercis ee a ee ee a ee ec ee a ee oe τὺ .See Arcis.
Eréz Eriza Erzincan E. 50 E. G-3 See Ch. I nn. 28, 28a, 32, 32a.
Erezawan Arizan ? AA 106
Erznka Aziran ?
Krézawan . .See Eréz.
Erind . . See Elind.
KEriza . * ὦ τι, ταὶ, τὰ .See ἘΠδ2.
Erkinis EKrayani G. 213
Iryan 40°33’ x 41°43’
Erumya .See Urumya.

LOCALITY
Erzincan

Erznka
Erzurum

Eski Mosul
Euchaita
Eudoixata
Eumeis
Eusebeia .
Euspoena

Fatay .
Fidi

Fis

Fittar .
Fum
Gattarié
Ganjak

Ganjak Sahastan.
Ganzaca

Garissa ἢ
Garni in Daranahk’
Garni in Kotayk’

Garsagis

VARIANTS

Afisios
Affis

Pum

Ganzaca
Ganzaka
Ganjak Sahastan

Karni

*Garsanis

EQUIVALENTS

Eréz

Theodosiopolis

Karin

Deliktag

Pydna

Pheison

Afum6n ?

Shiz

Takht i Suleiman

Carsat
Gercanis

REFERENCES

σα. 214
39°44’ x 39929’

G. 214

39955’ x 41917"
P. V, vi, 18
L.A.

LA.

G. 225

40°43" x 36°27’

G. 226
38°20’ x 40°34’

E.46
E. 46 (3)

E. 46 (2)

LA.

MAPS

Uz. 340 AT

Ὁ. 340 A IT

CM Ic

M 675

M 683

CM Ld

U. 324 DIV

U. 340 AIV

KR. D-4

HW 41 P-5

EK. G-3

K. G-5
AA 106
M 675

NOTES

.See Eréz.

. See Nineveh.

See Ch. VII ἢ. 18.

.See Caesarea of Cappadocia.

.See Phathach6n.

See Ch. In. 21.

. See Phitar.

See Ch. I ἢ. 17a.

.See Xaldoy arié.
See Ch. I n. 1; TX nn. 27, 28.

.See Ganjak.
.See Ganjak.
.See Garsi.

SHOVTITIA - SNMOL - SHILLIO : ANANOdOL

*661

LOCALITY

*Garsanis .
Garsi

Garzan
Garzanissa
Gawar
Gazaca
Gegik

Gelik .
Gercanis

Germani Fossatum
Gersagis
Gever

Girvaz.
Giwhk.
Gizenica
Glaudia
Godasa

Goksun
Golaris

Goller koyti
Gomenek

VARIANTS

Garissa

Gelik

Geyik

Gerdjanis

Keréanis

Gawar

Bales gewer ὃ

Gundusa

Goller kéyii

EQUIVALENTS

Karissa

Giwhk

Gersagis

Garzanissa
Refahiye ?
Krom ?

Bagas ?

Giindiiz ?

Kukusos
Caleorsissa ?

Komana Pontica

REFERENCES

E. 47
ΤΡ.

G. 232

40°11? x 40°44’
6. 234

39954’ x 38°46’
E. 58

Aed. ITT, iv, 10

P. V, vi, 18
LA.

G. 244

38°03” x 36°30’

G. 248
40°23” x 36°39"

MAPS

E. B-1
M 678 and 675 f. 222
.See Zok.
. See Gercanis.

U. 324 CIV

AA 106

M. 675

U. 341 BIV

U. 341 BIT

U. 324 DIV

NOTES

.See Garsagis.

. See Gever.
. See Ganjak.

. See Gegik.

See Ch. LIT n. 25.

. See Gercanis.
See Ch. IX nn. 33, 34.

. See Guvars.
.See Gegik.

. See Chaszanenica. °
.See Claudia.

See Ch. IV ἢ. 16f.

. See Golaris.

*006

A XIQNHddV

LOCALITY
Giimiigane

Gimiishane
Gundusa .
Gindiiz

Gurpinar .
Guvars
Haciwn

Hackéy
Hadamakert

Hadzana .
Hafik
Hahi

Halan
Halane
Haméen
Hamurgan
Han

Hani

Hapul kopru
Haraba
Harabe kéy

Hare-berd
Haris

VARIANTS

Giimiishane

Giidiiz

Girvaz

Adamakert

Halane

Han

Chapul Képru

Haraba Mezraasi

EQUIVALENTS

Godasa ?

Haysun

Xaé
Bazmaibiwr
Baskale

Xay ?

Horon6én

Dracones

Porpés ?

Jiwnakert ?

REFERENCES

G. 255

41°07’ x 41°56’
G. 252

39934’ x 3792)’
E. 62

G. 267

39°39” x 40°40°
E. 62

G. 267
38°54’ x 39°32’

G. 274 (1)
38924” x 40024’
G. 275 (1)
38°57” x 41902’

aks

MAPS

Uz. 324 C Il

E. G-6
AA 106
U. 340 AT

K. G-5
AA 106

U. 340 ATV

U. 340 ATV

U. 340 A III

M. 682 and 680 f. 223

NOTES

.See Giimiigane.
. See Godasa.

.See Kangawar.

See Kowars.

See Ch. HI n. 10.

T. 199-200.
See Ch. XI n. 71.

. See Chaszanenica.
.See Kogchisar.

See Ch. ΠΙ ἢ. 31b.
.See Halan.
.See Hemgin.

. See Siirmene.
. See Hani.

See Ch. IV n. 17.

.See Harabe.

See Ch. In. 33.

.See Xarberd.

SHOVTTIA - SNMODL > SHLLIO * ANANOdAOL

* L0G

LOCALITY
Harput
Hars

Hart
Harta-berd
Hasan Badrik
Hasanbatrik
Hasancelebi
Hasankale
Hagara
Hasras
Hassis .
Hattah

Haysun
Haza

Hazm .
Hazro
Hemgin

Henderis .

VARIANTS EQUIVALENTS REFERENCES MAPS NOTES
Kharput Xarberd G. 277 U. 340 A IV
38943” x 39°15’
T’uyars G. 277 U~ 324 C Il See Ch. I n. 44.
40939’ x 41937’
Khart Charton G. 277 (2) U. 324 CIV
40925’ x 40°09’
.See Xarberd.
Ὁ» “ay Je. τῶν. BO : b. κϑον ἐν .See Hasanbatrik.
Hasan Badrik Pisonos G. 278 See Ch. IV n. 22.
38936’ x 38°11
ad Praetorium G. 278 U. 341 BIT
38958" x 37954’
Vatarsakert G. 279 U. 340 A IT See also Botberd.
39959’ x 41°41’
Chaszanenica ? G. 279 U. 324 CIV
40930" x 39°28’
G. 280 τ. 340 D II
37957’ x 42°16’
.See Haza.
.See Attachas.
“ & Sr “xe rr ae re ~ oe e eh lehlUel)l Se@ Haciwn.
Aza Hassis T.P., IA. M. 676 and 654 f. 212 See Ch. IV n. 24.
KE. 31 K. B-3
CM Ne
᾿ Se. ὦ ot τὸ we οἰ . See Hazro.
Hazru G. 284 U. 340 A Til
Hazm 38915" x 40°47’
Hamsen G. 285 VU. 324 CIV
41900’ x 40°53’
. See Enderis.

*G606

A XIGNUddV

LOCALITY

Hér
Hindis
Hinis
Hinzit

Hisn Ziyad
Hispa

Hogeac vank’
Horé berd

Horomos vank’

Horonon
Horsana

Hozat

Hula
Hulvenk

Humurgan
Hy pselé
llige

Ipsala .

Ipsele .
Ipsile

Iryan .

VARIANTS

Xer

Xoré berd

Chorzana

Ipsala,
Ipsele

EQUIVALENTS

Xoy

Anus

Saracik

Xarberd

Halane
Charsianon ἢ
Orsa ?
Xozan ?

Hula vank’

Lice

Hypselé

REFERENCES

E. 63
G. 289 (2)
39922” x 41944”

T.P.
E. 63

E. 63

G. 294 (2)
39°45" x 37914
G. 296

39907 x 39°14’
G. 296

38°42” x 39°09”
G. 450

38°28" x 40939”
G. 311

40°14’ x 37933
E. 54

M. 682 and 680 f. 223

EK. G-3

EK. G-3

U. 341 B-I

U. 340 AT

Uz. 340 ATV

U. 340 ATV

U. 324 Ὁ IIT

CM Le
E. B-2

NOTES

.See Attachas.

.See Anzita.
.See Xarberd.

See Ch. IX n. 23a.
See Ch. II n. 15.
See Ch. XI ἡ. 17.

See Ch. III nn. 26b, 31b.

See Ch. IV nn. 27, 28.

.See Hulvenk.
See Ch. II nn. 10, 11, 16.

.See Stirmene.
. See Ipsile.

. See Ipsile.
. See Ipsile.

See Ch. IV n. 26.

.See Erkinis.

SHOVTITIA - SNMOL - SALLIO : ANANOdGOL

90 ς

LOCALITY
Ighan

Ispa
Ispir

ISyan
Tuliopolis

Ivora
Iz oglu
Tzolu

Jazirah ibn ’Omar
Jenzan.

Jermay

Jeziret ibn Omar
Jimin .
Jiwnakert

Jiwnkert .
Julamerk

Justinianopolis
Kagdari¢

Kagizman
Kajiné-Parembolé

Kainépolis
Kalajik

VARIANTS

Iz oglu

Jeziret ibn "Omar

Jiwnkert

Colemerik

Biyiik Kagdari¢
Galtarié
Qaghyzman

EQUIVALENTS

J8yan

Ighan

ad Aras ὃ

Bezabdé

Porpés
Harabe kéy ?

Cimin
Xaldoy arié

Kalzwan

REFERENCES

G. 312 (2)
40°48” x 41945”
P. V, vi, 18

G. 316

40°29’ x 41°00’
E. 54

E. 72
T.P.

G. 317
38°28’ x 38°41’

E. 62

G. 318
37934’ x 43945’
G. 322
39°58’ x 40°47’
G. 322
40°09’ x 43°07’

MAPS NOTES

U. 324 C III T. 455 n. 70.

τ. 324 C It

E. B-4

AA 106

CM Ne See Ch. IV n. 9.

M. 658 and f. 216
See Ch. VIL n. 18

.See Izolu.
AA 105
.See Zenjan.
.See Cerme.
.See Jazirah ibn "Omar.
ge ws ee «ἢ .See Cimin.
E. G-4
AA 106
e τον we . See Jiwnakert.
U. 340 CI See Ch. XI ἢ. 55.
AA 108
See Ch. VI p. 117 andn.31;VII n.21.
U. 340 A II
M. 325 DIV

See Caene Parembole.
.See VatarSapat.
. See Kalecik.

*VOG

A XIQNdddV

LOCALITY

Kalecik

Kalejcik
Kaltiorissa
Kalzewan
Kalzwan
Kamacha
Kamakh
Kamay

Kamis

Kamisli dere .
Kamurjajor Vank’
Kan

Kangeva .
Kangever .
Kangowar

Kanguar .
Kara Amida .
Kara Dara
Karapeé

Karin

Karissa
Karkathiokerta

Karni

VARIANTS

Kalejcik
Kalajik

Kalewan

Kamacha
Kamakh
Kemis

Kjan

Kangeva
Kanguar

Karnoy k’alak’

Arkathiocerta

Carcathiocerta

Garni in Daranatik’

EQUIVALENTS

Kagizman

Kemah

Kangever
Girpinar ?

Carape

Theodosiopolis
Erzurum

Martyropolis ?

Angi berd

REFERENCES

G. 326 (16)
40927’ x 39918’

E. 57

E. 57

G. 329 (3)
39957’ x 41°16?

E. 58
P. V, vi, 18
KE. 58
E. 35

G. 362
39°40’ « 39°14’

MAPS

U. 324 CIV

AA 106

U. 340 A IT

kK. G-5

AA 106.

K. G-4
AA 106

CM Ne

U. 340 AT

NOTES

See Kalecik.
. See Caleorsissa.
.See Kaizwan.

.See Kamay.
See Kamay.

See Ch. IV n. 188.

. See Elegarsina.

.See Kangowar.
. See Kangowar.

T. 198.

. See Kangowar.
.See Amida.
.See Dara.

T.193-194 n. 209.
See Ch. VI n. 28h, 36.

. See Garsi.

T. 75 n. 83, 131, 137 n. 240,
297 n. 80.
See Ch. IT n. 5.

SHOVITIA - SNMOL - SHILLIO * ANANOdOL

*GOG

LOCALITY

Karnoy k’alak’
Kars

Karuc berd
Kasara
Kasé

Kayseri

Keban-Maden

Keli
Kemah

Kemaliye .
Kemis
Kena

Keomana .
Keramon .
Kerasos

Kerasunta
Keréanis .
Kharput .
Khart .
Khiaghid aridj
Kiakis

VARIANTS

Karuc berd

Koloberd
Kamay

Cena
Okena

Cerasus
Kerasunta

EQUIVALENTS

Casara
Konga ὃ

Caesarea of

Cappadocia
Eusebeia
Mazaka

Kigi
Ani in Daranalik’

Pharnakia

REFERENCES

G. 362

40°37? x 43905?
E. 58

P. V, vi, 18

E. 58

G. 373
38°43’ x 35°30’

G. 375
38948’ x 38945’

G. 378 (3)
39936’ x 39902”

N. XX XI

MAPS

U. 325 DIV

AA 106
E. B-5

K. G-1
AA 105
Ὁ. 341 BIV

U. 341 BIT

AA 106
U. 340 AT

HW 15c C-1

CM Me

NOTES

.See Karin.

.See Kars.

See Ch. III n. 6.

.See gin.
.See Kamis.
See Ch. III pp. 49,52 and n. 27.

.See Komana.,
.See Krom.

.See Kerasos.
.See Gercanis.
.See Harput.
.See Hart.

.See Xaldoy arié.
. See Ciaca.

*906

A XIGNUddV

NAME

Kiakkas
Kigi-Kasaba

Kinkivar .
Kiravi

Kirvel .
“18
Kit’arié

Kitharizon

Kjan
Klaudias .
Klawdias .
K’himar
Koghisar

Kéderig¢
Kokaris
Kol
Kotb

Kotloberd

Kolona
Koloneia

VARIANT

Kirvel

Qitriz

Citharizon
Kutemran
Sereflikochisar

Kokiris
Kukalarié

Kulp

Kot

Colonia
Kolona
Koloniay

EQUIVALENT

Keli

Kotoberd

Kéderi¢

Kitharizon ὃ

Sheikh Selim Kala ?

Kit’arié ὃ
Kéderig ὃ

Sheikh Selim Kala ?

Chlomaron

Hafik
Camisa ?
Kitharizon ὃ

Kukarizon ?

Keli
Kigi-Kasaba

Sebinkarahissar

Koyul hisar ?

REFERENCES

G. 386
39°20’ x 40°30’
G. 391
38°54’ x 41°32’

K. 59

E. 89

α. 411 (7)
39952? x 37024’
G. 411

38954’ x 39045"

E. 59
E. 60
ad L.,
H.S., G.C.
E. 60

MAPS

U. 340 AT
U. 340 A ΠῚ

K. G-5

AA 104

CM Ne

U. 341 BIT

U. 340 AIV

EK. B-5

EK. G-4

CM Mc

K. B-2

NOTES

See Ciaca.

.See Kowars.
See Ch. I n. 30.
.See Kiravi.

.See Kus.
See Ch. I n. 38.

See Ch. I nn. 27,33b-37.

.See Kan.
.See Claudia.
. See Claudia.

See Ch. In. 18a

See Ch. I nn. 27, 33b.
See Ch. VI n. 33.
.See Koloberd.

See Ch. I πη. 26.

.See Koloneia.
See Ch. IIT nn. 25, 30b.

SGDOVTIIA - SNMOL - SAILIO : AWANOdOL

* LOG

LOCALITY VARIANTS EQUIVALENTS REFERENCES MAPS NOTES
Koloniay . : ee τῶν ταῖς «ἠὲ ἦν ἰὸς ἄς "Ἃ wd Ge δῶν ς ἢ . See Koloneia.
Komana Aurea Comana Sar LA., T.P. HW 2la, F-2 See Ch. IV n. 7.
Golden Comana ad L. M. 735-736 and f. 237
H.S., G.C. CM Ke
Komana Pontica Comana Go6menek TP; M. 674 and 676 f. 222 See Ch. IV n. 42a.
Komanta HW 218 F-1
CM Ke
Komanta . : Σ; δ΄. ἃ τὶ στο ἴα: αν ἢ .See Komana Pontica.
Konga Kasé ? G. 415 U. 340 AIV
38°32’ x 40°38’
Korné . . See Corne.
Koropassos ; . See Zoropassos.
Kot’ér Kotitir See Ch. ΠῚ ἢ. 6.
Kotiir Khotour Kot’ér G. 424 U. 340 Al See Ch. III n. 7.
39943’ x 40°18”
Kowark’ oe κα ad So .See Kowars.
Kowars Kowark’ Kiravi ? E. 61 See Ch. I n. 30.
Guvars ? Asagi Kirvaz
Girvaz ὃ Girvaz komlari ὃ
Koyulhisar Koloneia ? G. 425 U. 324 DIV
40°18’ x 3795)’
Kréunik’ . BP τὰ a ν ὦ .See Kurcivik.
Krom Kroman Keramon G. 428 See Ch. VI ἢ. 35.
Kirtiman Germani Fossatum ? 38952” x 40°20’
Kiicik Tuy a oe oe ὟΣ .See Du.
Kukarizon Kokaris ? Aed. ITI, iv, 12
Kukusos Cucusus Géksun LA. M. 736 and 735 f. 237 See Ch. IV ἡ. 42a.
Cocuso ad L., H.S., G.C. CM Ke
Kulp Kotb Tuzluca G. 434

40°03’ x 43°39’

x 806

A XIQNUHddV

LOCALITY
Kurcivik
Kurnug
Kurucan

Kiiruman .
Kus

Kutemran.
Larhan

Leontopolis
Leri

Lerion

Lerri

Lice

Lim

Limb. . .
Longini Fossat. m
Lumb .
Lysiormon
Lytararizon
Mada ‘in
Maden
Maipherkat
Maku

Malatya

VARIANTS

Lerri

Limb

Lusat‘arié ?

Kréunik’ ?

Mknariné ?

Kasimi ?
Chaszanenica

Lerion

Rumlik

Lumb

Olotoedariza ?

Sawarsan

Melitené

REFERENCES

G. 437
38°34’ x 44°07’
G. 439
40°03’ x 41°37’
G. 442
38937’ x 44°16’
G. 443
37944’ x 40°41’
G. 449
40°44’ χ 39°37’

E. 54
Aed. III, iv, 10
Aed. IIT, iv, 10
EK. 64

6. 455 (1)
38921 x 38019”

MAPS

EQUIVALENTS

U. 340 BIV

U. 324 C HI

U. 340 BIV

U. 340 DI?
U. 324 CIV

U. 324 CIV

ΒΕ. G-6

AA 106
U. 341 B III

NOTES

See Ch. XI n. 62.

.See Krom.

.See Ktimar.

.See Bizana and Zalichos.

See Ch. VI n. 35.

.See Leri.
.See Leri.
See Llige.

See Ch. XI ἢ. 60.

.See Lim.

See Ch. ITT n. 27.

.See Lim.

See Ch. IIIT ἢ. 25.

See Ch. ΠῚ n. 25; VI ἢ. 34.
. See Ctesiphon.
.See Arghana Maden.
.See Miyafarkin.

T. 197.

SHOVTITIA ~ SNMOL - SHLLIO : ANANOdGOL

«606

LOCALITY

Malazgirt Masgirt
Mazgert
Mazgirt
Mamahatun

Manawazkert .

Manazkert
Manzikert

Manzikert.

Maragay

Maragha

Marakan Marakert

Marakert .
Marand

Mardara
Mardé berd

Mardin Mardé berd

Masgirt
Martyropolis

Mastara
Mazaka
Mazara

Mcbin

VARIANTS

Manawazkert

EQUIVALENTS

Manazkert

Malazgirt

Marakend

Tigranakert

Miyafarkin
Np’rkert

Mezré ?
Nisibis

Nusay bin

REFERENCES

G. 455
39909’ x 42°31’

G. 456
39947’ x 40°24’

E. 65

BE. 65

E. 65

P. V, vi, 18.

G. 459 (1)
37918" x 40044’
E. 65

Aed. III, ii, 2-3

Pers. I, viii, 22
xxi, 6

MAPS

U. 340 BI

U. 340 AT

KB. G-5

AA 106

AA 105
BR. G-6
AA 106

E. G-6

AA 106

U. 340 DI

K. D-4

HW 43 0-5

CM Oe

AA 109

E. D-4
AA 108

NOTES

See Ch. XI n. 45.

.See Manazkert.

T. 218.
See Ch. XI nn. 45, 51.

.See Manazkert.

See Ch. III n. 1.

See Ch. XI n. 61.

. See Marakan.

. See Mardin.

.See Malazgirt.

T. 137-138 n. 240, 174.
See Ch. I nn. 4-6.

. See Caesarea of Cappadocia.

See Ch. II nn. 11b, 12a, 13.

*xOLG

A XICNHddV

LOCALITY
Megalasso
Megalossos
Meletensis
Melikan
Melikgerif

Melita

Melitené

Melitine
Melomeran
Mesoromé

Metita
Miyafarkin

Mknariné .
Mochora

Mohola

VARIANTS

Megalossos

Melikserik ?
Metita

Meteita

Meletensis
Melitine

Maipherkat

Muharkin
Mufarlin

EQUIVALENTS

Dagalasso ?

Artalesén

Dracones ?

Malatya

Martyropolis

Tigranakert
Np’rkert

Silvan

Mohola ?

Mugura

REFERENCES

A il οἱ

G. 464 (2)
39928” x 40921’
G. 464

39°56’ x 38956’
P. V, vi, 24
T.P., N.D.

E. 70

A ea eal os
N.D.
E. 66

ἘΠῚ

E. 70

G. 475

38°08’ x 41°01"

N.D.
G. 475
40°54’ x 39°27°

MAPS

M. 730 and f. 234
CM Md

U. 340 AT

U. 341 ΒΠ

M. 684 and f. 224
E. G-3

CM Me

M. 683 and f. 224
HW 41 N-5

E. G-6

CM Me

M. 731 and 675 f. 222

E. B-2

U. 340 A IIT

U. 324 CIV

NOTES

See Ch. IV n. 16.

. See Megalasso.
. See Melitené.

See M. 682.

See Ch. IV n. 11

. See Melitené.
. See Mollaomer.

.See Melita.
See Ch. I nn. 9, 10.

.See Kurnuc.

See Ch. V n. 16a.

.See Mochora.

SHOVTTIA - SNMOWL - SHILIO : ANANOdGOL

«L1G

LOCALITY

Mollaémer

Mormran .
Mormrean

Morran
Mren

Mucura
Mufartin
Muharkin .
Mulla Omer
Muradiye .
Nagan
Naxéawan
Nayijewan

Naxuana .
Neferkert .

Neo Caesarea

Nerjiki
Nicopolis .
Nikopolis

Niksar

VARIANTS
Molla Omer
Mulla Omer
Melomeran
Mormran
Morran

Nayéawan

Nicopolis

EQUIVALENTS

Mormrean

MollaOmer

Naxuana

Niksar

Pirk

Neo Caesarea

REFERENCES

G. 476 (2)
39927’ x 40945”

P. V, vii, 5
E. 72

1.1}

P. V, vi, 18

T.P., LA.

ad L., H.S., G.C.
E. 72 (2)

G. 488

40°36’ x 36°58’

MAPS

U. 340 II

EK. B-5

AA 106

AA 106

E. B-5

M. 644 f. 211

HW 43 N-4
CM Le

HW 41 N-4

M. 675 and f. 222
CM Me

E. B-3

U. 324 DIV

NOTES

.See Mormrean.

See Ch. In. 25.

.See Mormrean.

T. 214.
See Ch. XI ἢ. 18.

. See Mochora.
.See Miyafarkin.
.See Miyafarkin.
. See Mollaémer.
.See Berkri.

. See Nkan.

.See Nayijewan.

.See Nayijewan.
. See Np'rkert.

See Ch. In. 18a.

. See Nikopolis.

See Ch. TII n. 25; IV nn. 14,
16a, 42a.

£GLG

A XIGNUddV

LOCALITY VARIANTS EQUIVALENTS REFERENCES MAPS NOTES
NINA: 52. 2, ee Ae ae Se RS κἂν Ge a ee CO A Τῶν οἷδε ὅσ. ee hr δὰ: Αἰ ce. te, ce ke. cee ΘΕ ΠΝ:
Nineveh Ninwé Eski Mosul E, 72 E. D-5
HW 100 C-1
Ninvwé . ΕΞ εν a ὦ μον ἢ . See Nineveh.
Nisibis Antioch of Mygdonia T.P. HW 41 0-5
Mcbin M 770-771 and 741 f. 241
Nusay bin CM Pf
Nisus . oa oS ae ee a τῶ re κῷ . See Nyssa.
Nize Nyssa ? G. 489 U. 341 BIV
38946’ x 35°41)’
Nkan Nagan AA 106 See Ch. XI n. 60.
Np’rkert Np’ret Martyropolis E. 73 E. G-4
Neferkert Tigranakert AA 106
Miyafarkin
Np’ret ae se Be ee Sa a ae τἢ .See Np’rkert.
Nusay bin Nisibis G. 490 (4) U. 340 DIT
Mcbin 37903’ x 41°13’
Nysa BG a (ἡ δι δ ἐς Ae a δῆς, «τῆς ἢ . See Nyssa.
Nyssa Nisus Nize ? LA. M 661 and f. 217 See Ch. IV n. 10a.
Nysa CM He
Ognut Etnut Elan¢ G. 492 U. 340 ATT
Olnut 39°08’ x 40°53’
Olmuberd
Olin
Okbas . .See Akbas.
*Okena ‘ .See Kena.
Okhda ee εἰ or ; δον ο .See Otha.
Olakan Otkan Olané BE. 74 BK. G-4 T. 209.
Akgan See Ch. I n. 30; XI nn. 32, 837.

Aykan

SHOVTTIA - SNMOL - SHILLIO * ANANOdOL

Πα [ἡ

LOCALITY

Olané .
Oleoberda

Olin.
Olkan .
Otnu berd
Olmut .
Olotoedariza

Olti

Oltu

Ordru .
Ordu
Orjnhal
Oromandos

Orsa

Ortu..
Ortuzu

Ogakan

Osdara

Osnak

VARIANTS EQUIVALENTS

Uleoy berd

Aladarariza ?
Caleorsissa ?
Lytararizon ὃ

Olti
Ordru

Horsana
Osdara ?

Ortu Ordu ?
Agnak

Orsa ?

Orjnhat

REFERENCES

ΤΡ.
E. 73

1.A., N.D.
E. 32

G. 493
40°33’ x 41°59”

P. V, vi, 18
E. 75
P. V, vi, 20

G. 500 (1)
39955’ x 41°33
LA.

E. 74

G. 501
40°40’ x 41°24”

MAPS

KE. G-6

M 675 and 645 f. 212

E. B-3
CM Mc

Ὁ. 324 C III

AA 108

E. G-2

M. 736 and f. 237
E. G-2

CM Le

ὍὌ. 324 C III

NOTES

wo. el lel ell See Olakan.
M. 679 and 680 f. 223
. See Ognut.
.See Olakan.

.See Ognut.
.See Ognut.

See Ch. V n. 18.

.See Oltu.

.See Ordu.
. See Ortuzu.
.See Ognak.

See Ch. IV nn. 25,28b.

. See Ortuzu.

See Ch. I n. 39.

T. 197.

See Ch. XI nn. 9, 9a, 10, 16.
See Ch. IV nn. 25,28d.

«VIG

A XIGQNdddV

LOCALITY
Otha
Palin

Palios kastron
Palu

Partaw
P‘aytakaran
Pekerig¢

Peri
Pertek

Petra

Petrios

Pharnacia hs ok νὰ
Pharnakia Pharnacia
Phathach6n

Pheison Phison

Phison. ee ee ee ee

Phitar Phittur
Phtr
Pitar

Phittur

Phtr

Phuphagena

Phuphena

VARIANTS

EQUIVALENTS REFERENCES MAPS
Okhda ? G. 501 U. 324 C IIT
40°35’ x 41939’
Bagin G.C.
Palios kastron E. 76 E. G-3
Balu G. 505 U. 340 A IV
Baioulouos 38942’ x 39°57’
Berdaa KE. 77 EK. B-7
Phatakaranés
Bagayarié G. 509 U. 340 AT
39°43’ x 40°13’
G. 510 U. 340 AIV
38951’ x 39°42’
Pistek ? W. 250
Pistik
Thathay
Fatayx
Fis
Fittar
P. V, vi, 18
P. V, vi, 20

NOTES

See Ch. In. 42.

See Ch. LI nn. 2-3.

.See Palin.

T. 476 n. 169, 484.
See Ch. ΙΧ n. 13b.

See Ch. Ii n. 19.

See Ch. I n. 46a; ITI n. 30.

See Ch. VI n. 32c.

.See Pharnakia.

See Ch. IV n. 1.
See Ch. In. 918.

See Ch. I n. 20.

. See Pheison.

See Ch. II n. 6.

.See Phitar.
.See Phitar.

See Ch. IV n. 23.

SHOVITIA - SNMOW - SHILIO : ANANOdOL

*G1G

NAME
Piriz
Pirnabagin

Pirnakaban
Pirnakapan

Pirsnakapan .

Pisingara
Pisonos
Pistek .
Pitar
Pithia
Pitiunt
Pkoiir .
Plasta
Polemonion

Porpés

ad Praetorium

P’rris
Ptandari

Pum
Piirk

Pydna
Qaghyzman

VARIANT

Pirnakaban
Pirsnakapan

Thia

Borbas

Praetorio

Piirko

EQUIVALENT

P’rris

Brnakapan

Hasanbatrik

Pitiunt ?

Pithia ὃ

Elbistan

Xaraba-Barbas
Jiwnakert
Harabe kéy ?
Hasancelebi

Piriz
Tanadaris
Tanir ἢ

Nikopolis

REFERENCES

G. 514
39°50” x 40°08’

6. 614

39°58’ x 40°34’
P. V, vi, 18.
LA.

LA., N.D.
K. 77

E. 78
T.P.

LA.,.T.P.
E. 31

P. V, vi, 22
LA.

BE. 78

G. 518

40°08’ x 38°09’

MAPS

U. 340 AT

U. 340 Al

M. 684

M. 681

EK. A-4

M. 647 and 643 f. 211

CM Lb

EK. G-2
M. 684

CM Ke
M. 736
E. G-2

U. 324 DIII

NOTES

. See Aziziye.
.See Pirnakapan.

.See Pirnakapan.

. See Pertek.
. See Phitar.

See Ch. V n. 19.

.See Piirk.

See Ch. IV n. 42a; VII n. 18.

See Ch. I n. 33.

See Ch. V n. 10.

See Ch. III n. 8.

.See Fum.

. See Fidi.
.See Kagizman.

x91G

A XIGNHddV

LOCALITY

Qitriz .
Refahiye .
Rhandea .
Rhandeia
Rhizaion

Rhizus..
Rize

Rint
Rizon .
Rumluk
Saba
Sabus

Sadak

Sahapiwan
Sahverdiyan

Saliamas
Salk’ora

Salona
Salonenica
Samosata

VARIANTS

Rhandea

Rizon
Rhizus

Saba

Sabbu

EQUIVALENTS

Erand

Rize

Rhizaion

Sepik

Satala
δα δι

Sumaysat

REFERENCES

G. 522
41902? x 40°31’

1.Α., T.P.

N.D.

EK. 79

G. 524

40°03’ x 39°36’

G. 527
38°34’ x 40°35’

MAPS

E. B-4
AA 106
CM Ob

U. 324 CI

M. 682 and 680 f. 223
CM Md

E. G-3

Ὁ. 324 CIV

AA 104
AA 106

E. B-5
AA 106

M. 684 and f. 224

HW 2la F-2

NOTES

.See Kit’arié,
. See Gercanis.
.See Rhandeia.
See Ch. II n. 18b.
See Ch. IIT nn. 28a, 30.

. See Rhizaion.

.See ἘΠῚ πα.

. See Rhizaion.
.See Leri.

. See Sabus.

. See Siluana.
.See Siluana.
See Ch. II πῃ. 17.

SHOVTILA - SNMOL - SHILIO : ANANOGOL

* L1G

LOCALITY

Saméat
Samsun
Samiey
Samuégat
Samui
Samusia

Sar

Saracik
Sarkisla

Sarsapa
Sarsapi6n kastron
Satat

Satala

S Ataleni .
Sawarsam
Schamalinich6n
Sebaste
Sebasteia

Sebastopolis

VARIANTS

Sarsapi .

S Ataleni

Sebaste

Sevastia
Sivastia

EQUIVALENTS

Komana Aurea

Hispa

Arasaka ?
Tonus

Satala

Sadak
Satal
Sadak

Zimla

Sivas

Sulusaray

REFERENCES

G. 534 (2)
38°20’ x 36°19’
G. 534 (2)
38952’ x 38040’
G. 540

39°21’ x 36026’

E. 80

P. V, vi, 18
T.P., L.A.

ad L., H.S., G.C.

LA. TP,

ad L., H.S., G.C.
E. 80

P. V, vi, 4

N.D., LA.

ad L., H.S., G.C.
E. 80 (2)

MAPS

U. 340 BIV

U. 341 BIII

U. 341 BI

E. B-3

CM Ne

M. 676 and 646 f. 212

M. 730 and f. 234

CM Ld
E. G-2
CM Kd
M. 674-675, f. 222

E. G-2

NOTES

.See Arsamosata.
.See Djanik.

. See Arsamosata.
.See Arsamosata.
. See Arsamosata.
.See Arsamosata.

. See Uarsapa.
.See Uarsapa.

See Ch. IIT nn. 25, IV n. 42a.

. See Satala.
. See Maku.

See Ch. III nn. 26a, 27.

. See Sebasteia.

See Ch. III n. 25; IV nn. 5,
42a.

See Ch. IV nn. 5, 42a; Vn. 19.

#816

A XIGQNWddV

LOCALITY
Sebinkarahisar

Seleobereia
Sepik

Seresekia .
Sevastia
Sewanaberd
Seyvan kale

Sheikh Selim .
Kala

Sikefti .

Siluana

Silvan .
Siméat
Sinara .
Sinekli
Sinera

Sinerva
Sinikli

Siniscolon
Sinna .
Sinope

VARIANTS

Sipik

Sinerva
Sinara

Sinekli

EQUIVALENTS

Koloneia

Sabus

Seyvan kale

Sewanaberd

Salona
Salonenica
Siile ?

Siniscolon ?

Sinikli ?

REFERENCES

G. 544

40°20’ x 38°25’
P. V, vi, 18

G. 550

39906’ x 38°32’

6. 557 (1)
38933” x 43°40’

ΤΡ ND:

P. V, vi, 18
T.P.

G. 562

38°46’ x 38°35’
P. V, vi, 21

T.P.

MAPS

U. 324 DIL

AA 106

U. 340 BIV

M. 682 and 646 f. 212

CM Md

M. 680 f. 223

U. 341 Β1Π

M. 644 and 642 f. 210

HW 21 4 Ε-1
ΔΑ 104
CM Ja

NOTES

.See Sarkisgla.
. See Sebasteia.

See Ch. XI n. 60.
.See Kitharizon.

.See Der.

See Ch. V n. 16.

.See Miyafarkin.
.See Arsamosata.
. See Sinera.
. See Sinikli.

. See Sinera.

.See Zintha.

SHOVTTIA - SNMOL - SHILIO : ANANOdGOL

x61G

LOCALITY

Sipik
Sirakawan

Siri
Sirinan
Sirnan
Sirni
Sisilia
Sisiliss6n
Sismara
Sivas

Sivastia

Spunios
Suissa

Siile
Suluk

Sumaysat .
Sulusaray

Surb Karapet.

Siirmene

Susarmia .

VARIANTS

Sirin
Sirni
Sirnan

Susurmené

EQUIVALENTS

Bas Soragyal

Bagsiiregel
Sirinan ?

Siri?

Ziziola ὃ

Sebasteia

Siluana ?

Sebastopolis

Usiportus
Humurgaén
Arakli ?

REFERENCES

G. 564
39°08” x 40935”

N.D.
P. V, vi, 18

G. 565
39°45’ x 37°02’

ΤΑ.

G. 574 (2)
40925? χ 39944’
G. 576 (2)
38951? x 41932”
G. 576 (2)
38942’ x 34044’
G. 578 (1)
40955’ x 40°07

MAPS

E. B-5

AA 106

U. 340 AT

U. 341 B-1

M. 675-676
CM Nd
U. 324 CIV

U. 340 A 1

U. 324 CIV

NOTES

. See Sepik.

See Ch. XI ἢ. ὃ.

See Ch. III nn. 6, 9.

. See Sirinan.
See Siri.

See Ch. ΠῚ nn. 27, 3ic-d.

See Sebasteia.

See Ch. ΤΥ ἡ. 23.

See Ch. XI n. 37.

. See Samosata.

.See Bagawan.

See Susurmené,

«066

A XIGNAddV

LOCALITY

Sugehri
Susurmené
Tablariensis
Tabriz
Tahtakiran

Takht i Suleiman.

Takhtuk .
Tanadaris .
Tanir

Tapura
Taranta

Tateonk’
Tawriz :
Tephriké

Teucila

Teucira
*Teurica .
Tevrik
Thathay
Theodosiopolis

Thia
Thilenzit .

VARIANTS

Susarmia

Tawriz

Abrik

Tevrik
Tapura
Teucila ?
Teucira
*Teurica

EQUIVALENTS

Stirmene

Tanadaris ?

Ptandari ?

Derende

Diyadin

Divrigi

Divrigi?

Karin

Erzurum

REFERENCES

N.D.

G. 581
40°53’ <x 42936”

6. 583 (2)
37952’ x 36941’
E. 85

Εἰ. 85

Ρ. ν, Β΄ 20

KE. 86

LA.

MAPS

AA 106

U. 324 C HI

U. 341 CI

BK. G-2

CM Le
E. G-5

E. G-3

M. 682
CM Md

HW 43 0-5

CM Pd

NOTES

. See Endires.
See Ch. III ἢ. 28a.
See Ch. XI ἢ. 3b.
.See Ganjak.

.See Tutmag.
. See Ptandari.

.See Tephriké,

See Ch. XI n. 22.
.See Tabriz.

.See Teucila.
.See Teucila.
.See Tephriké.

. See PhathachGn.

See ὦ. ΠῚ n. 26; VI ἢ. 288.

.See Pithia.
.See Tilenzit.

SHOVITIA - SNMOL - SHILIO * ANANOdGOL

*16G

LOCALITY

Tigranakert

Tigranocarten
Tigranokerta .

Til

Tilenzit
Timur agha
Tizbon
Tokat

Tokatli

Tonosa
Tonus
T’ordan
Tortan
Tortum
Trabzon
Trapezos

Trapezunta

VARIANTS

Tigranokerta
Tigranocarten

Thilenzit

Tispon
Tokatli

Trebizond

Trapezunta

EQUIVALENTS

Martyropolis
Np’rkert
Miyafarkin

Tilenzit
Til
Anzita

Ctesiphon

Tonus
Tonosa
Sarkisla
Tortan
T’ordan
Ninah

Trapezos

Trabzon

REFERENCES

ΤΡ.

G. 598 (4)
38°49’ x 39018’
E. 36

E. 23
G. 601
40°19” x 36°34

LA.
G. 602 (5)

39°21’ x 36°26’
K. 53

G. 604 (1)
39°40’ x 39°09”
G. 604

40°19’ x 41935’
G. 605

41900’ x 39°43”
T.P., LA.

N.D.

MAPS

M. 746 and 738 f. 239 See Ch. In. 10.

HW 20a E-2
CM Oe? Of?

U. 340 AIV

AA 104.
U. 324 DIV

M. 730

CM Kd
U. 341 BI

E. G-3
AA 106
U. 340 AT

U. 324 C IIT
AA 108
U. 324 CI

M. 647-648, and 645

f.212 CMNb

NOTES

bo

bo
ἘΦ
%

. See 'Tigranakert.

.See Tigranakert.

See Ch. III nn. 1, 5

See Ch. ΠῚ n. 118.

See Ch. I n. 22b.
>
as)
a)
τϑ
Ζ

.See Tokat. 9
“-
<j

See Ch. HI n. 1; XIT ἢ. 48.

See Ch. IIT nn. 28, 30.

See Trapezos.

LOCALITY
Trebizond
Tutmag

Tutmadj
T’uyars
Tuy
Tuzluca
Tzanzakon
Tzumina

Ualentia
Uarsapa

Utéoy berd
Urumya khan
Valarsakert

Valarsapat
Vardanakert
Vardasen
Vardenik
Vardisén
Varissa
Varpasa
Varsapa
Vartinik

Vereuso

VARIANTS

Tutmadj

Varsapa
Varpasa

EKrumya

Vardisén

EQUIVALENTS

Trapezos
Trabzon
Takhtuk
Blandos

Zavzoka

Cimin

Arabissos ?
Sarsapa ?

Hasankale

Kainepolis

Vartinik

Vardenik

REFERENCES
E. 86

G. 609
39932’ x 8101]

K. 57

N.D.
P. V, vi, 18

ΕΒ, 81

K. 82
BE. 83

G. 621
40°15’ x 40°40°
T.P.

MAPS

E. B-7
AA 106

E. G-3
AA 106

E. G-5
AA 106
K. B-6
KE. G-7
AA 106
AA 106

U. 324 CIV

M. 682 and 680 f. 223

NOTES

See Ch. IV n. 22.

.See Tutmag.
.See Hars.
.See Du.
.See Kulp.

See Ch. III nn. 27, 32.
See Ch. III n. 26; VI ἡ. 30.

See Ch. IV ἢ. 28b.

. See Oleoberda.

See Ch. IV n. 18a.
See Ch. In. 41.

See Ch. V nn. 10a,19.

.See Vardasén.
. See Verise.
.See Uarsapa.
. See Uarsapa.

SHOVTITIA - SNMOL - SHILIO ‘ ANANOdOL

+666

LOCALITY
Verise
Vican
Vidjan
Vizana.
Vizan

Vizana

Xat

Xaldoy arié

Xalyal .

Xaraba-Barbas

Xarberd

Aay
Aer,
XAilyil
Xnunik‘
Xnus

Xoy

VARIANTS
Varissa

Vidjan
Vizana
Vizan

Galtarié
Aalto arié
Kiaghid aridj

Charaba

Borbas

Hare bert
Hore berd
Hart Bert

Xalyal

Xnunik*

Hinis

EQUIVALENTS

Berissa

Bizana

Bizana

Hagkéy

Bazmatbiwr
Kagdarig

Porpés

Harput
Hisn Ziyad ?

Hahi ?

Xer
Hér

REFERENCES

L.A.

W. 249

E. 83

E. 63

MAPS

M. 674 and 675 ἔξ. 222

CM Ke

U. 340 Al

E. G-4

AA 106

AA 105

AA 106

AA 108

AA 108

NOTES

.See Vican.
.See Vican.

.See Vican.
See Ch. III nn. 6, 10.

See Ch. III n. 1].

See Xilyil.
See Ch. I n. 33.

See Ch. IIT n. 1.
.See Hér.

See Ch. IX n. 21.
.See Xnus.

A XIGNUddV¥

LOCALITY VARIANTS

AOzZan

Aram
Yarimca

Yarpuz Yarpus .
Yastisat ie τὰς, -ἃ
Ysiportus Yssu limén
Zagki

Zalichos

Zara

Zarehawan of Calkotn
Zela

Zenjan

Zenocopi

Zetran

Ziata

Zigana

Zimara

EQUIVALENTS

Hozat ?

Arsamosata

Stirmene
Calik

Leontopolis

Jenzan ?

Anzita
Hisn Ziyad

REFERENCES

BE. 55

6. 630 (6)
38939” x 39°46”

N.D. P.V, vi, 5
G. 657
40°12? x 41°29"

LA.

G. 658 (4)
39955’ x 37946’
E. 52 (3)

ΤΡ.
N. XXXI

ἐνἢ τ

N.D.

G. 661

40°37’ x 39°20’
P. V, vi, 18
T.P., LA.

MAPS

K. E-4
AA 106

U. 340 A IV

U. 324 C Ii

CM Jb
CM Ld
U. 341 BIL

E. G-5

AA 106

M. 679 and 675 f. 222
HW 4i N-4

CM Je

AA 105

M. 682 and 680 f. 223

CM Ne

AA 106

AA 106

U. 324 CIV

CM Ne

CM Md

M. 679 and 680 f. 223

NOTES

Unidentifiable.

.See Afgin.
.See Astisat.

See Ch. V n. 18.

See Ch. I nn. 38c 39.

See Ch. VII ἢ. 18.

T. 309, 310 n. 32.
See Ch. XI n. 23.

.See Gever.

See Ch. IIT n. 33.

SHOVITIA - SNMOL - SALLIO : ANANOdOL

* GGG

LOCALITY VARIANTS EQUIVALENTS REFERENCES MAPS NOTES
G. 662 U. 341 BI
39929’ x 38921’
E. 52 E. G-3
Zimla Zimlakova Schamalinichon G. 662 τ. 324 CIV
40°46’ x 39959’
Zintha Sinna ? E. 52 E. D-6 See Ch. TX nn. 29, 29a.
Zindu ?
Ziziola Sisiliss6n ὃ ΤΙΡ.,1.4. Μ. 676 and 64 f. 212
N.D.
Zoana L.A. M. 675
Zok Garzan G. 664 (1) U. 340 A IIT
38902’ x 41°33’
Zoropassos Koropassos CM Je See Ch. IV n. 10a.

«966

A XIQGN&€ddV

C. MounTAINS - PLAINS

The following abbreviations were used in this section in addition to those previously given :

M. mountain.
Ps plain.
NAME VARIANT EQUIVALENT REFERENCES MAPS NOTES
Abég Mts. Serefiye G. 2 τ. 324 DITII Coordinates given for town no
40°08’ x 37947’ mountains indicated by this
name in Gazetteer.
Abus M. Ararat ? CM Pd See Ch. III n. 19a.
Agri dagi & a 8 & 4 «ᾧ a a eee . See Ararat.
Ala dagi Catké G. 26 (2) U. 340 BI
39°20’ x 43935’

Alagéz. ee Cs ae ae .See Aragac.
Aleluya P. “Fair Plain” See Ch. II nn. 12, 16.

Xarberd P.

Olu ovasi

Harput P.

Kalopedion
Anti Taurus M. E. 36 E. G-2

CM O-Pe
Aragac M. Alagéz E. 38 E. B-6
AAT

Ararat M. Masis G. 40 U. 340 B II See also P’ok’r Masis.

Agri dagi 39°40” x 44924? AA7

Abus? B. 31 E. G-6

Nibarus ?
Araxen6én pedion Ersyajor See Ch. XT ἢ. 2, also

Provinces: ArSarunik’,

Argaeus M. Erciyas dagi CM Ie

SNIVTd - SNIVINNOW : ANANOdOL

x L6G

NAME

Arnas dagi

Arnos .

Aye Ptkunk’ M.

Azat Masis M.
Bagirbaba dagi

Bagirpasa dagi
Bakireyn Tunnel
Baryal

Belhan M.
Bing6l daglari

Bolhar.
Brnakapan pass
Catkawet M.
Catké .
Camlibel daglari

Capotes M.
Cevtla M. .
Chaldean P.
Cimen dagi

Cip‘an .
Ciraneac M.
Clisurae

VARIANT

Arnos

Bagirpasa dagi

Cotela Akcakara dagi

EQUIVALENT

Gohanam
Palandoken M.
Solalar

Payr M.

Srmanc M.

Pirnakapan

Dimli dagi

Kandil M.

Cevtla

REFERENCES
G. 44

37959” x 42958’
E. 37

E. 35

G. 68
39°30’ x 40°06’

G. 97
39920’ x 41920°

E. 46

E. 36

G. 125

39957’ x 36031’
G. 152

39°56’ x 39915
E. 56

G. 161 (15)
38940’ x 40°52”

MAPS

U. 340 CI

KR. D-5

E. G-4

U. 340 Al

U. 340 AIL

E. B-4

BK. B-4

U. 341 BI

CM Pc

U. 340 AT
BK. B-4

U. 340 A III

NOTES

.See Arnas dagi.

See Ch. In. 34; VI n. 44.

.See Ararat.

.See Bagirbaba dagi.

See Ch. In. 23.

.See Parhar.

See Ch. IT n. 12a.

.See Parhar.
See also Cities: Prnakapan.

.See Ala dagi.

See Ch. III n. 12b.

. See Cotela Akcakara M.
. See Xaldoy jor.

. See Sip‘an.

.See Kleisurai.

866

A XIQNUddV

NAME

Darkosh M.
Dava boyun M.

Deveboynu daglari

Dumanli dagi
Diimlii dagi

Erasyajor .
Erciyas dagi

“Fair Plain”
Gargar P.
Garnijor M.
Gaylayazut M.
Giresur M.
Gohanam M.

Gure M.
Hag dagi

Hacres daglari

Halhal
Haloéras
Haliris
Harha! dagi

VARIANT

Kohanam M.

Goan

Xai Μ.

EQUIVALENT

Kurtik M. ?

Dava boyun M.

Calkawet M.

Argaeus

Kalopedion

Giresur M.

Kara dagi

Sepuh M.
Sotalar

Maneay ayrk’ ?
Aye Ptkunk*

Khandosh M.

Aatyal M.

Meleduy M.

REFERENCES

G. 197 (6)
39949" x 40045’
6. 197

40°12? x 41915?
G. 211

38932’ x 35028”

KE. 46
KE. 46

G. 261 (2)
39932” x 40028”
G. 267

38938" x 40028”

G. 276
39°27’ x 40°56’

MAPS

U. 324 C IIT

EK. G-8
BK. G-6

NOTES

See Ch. In. 22a.

.See Deveboynu daglari.

See Ch. I n. 380.

.See Araxen6n pedion.

See Aleluya P.
See Ch. XIV nn. 75-76.
See Ch. XI n. 57.

.See Payr M.
.See Garnijor M.
See Ch. III n. 4; VI nn. 43-44.

See Ch. XI p. 248.

.See Harhal M.
.See Oloray.
.See Oloray.

SNIVTd - SNIVINQOW : ANANOdOL

*666

NAME VARIANT EQUIVALENT REFERENCES MAPS NOTES
Harput P. .See Aleluya P.
Hart ovasi . See Cities: Hart.
Hawasor . a oe om 8 g- ἢ . See Hayog jor.
Hayoc jor Hawasor ἘΣ. 62 E. G-5
Tilyrisum pass Aed. ITI, iti, 4
Izala M. .See Masios M.
Joraynkoys . . See Kleisurai.
Kalopedion νὰ δ δ, οὐ ὡς .See Aleluya P.
Kandil dagi Ciraneac M. G. 330 (3)
40°11’ x 41°35’
Kara dagi Gohanam M. G. 342 (28) U. 3840 AT
Sepuh M. 39945’ x 39°13”
Maneay ayrk’ ?
Kara Tonus M. U. 341 BI
Karasakal dagi Kazikli M.? G. 355
39°20’ x 39°38’
Karayazi ovasi Karayazi kazasi Towarcatap’ G. 359 See Ch. XI n. 53.
39°35’ x 42°05’
Karer M. . : .See Karir dagi.
Karga bazar M. . Ἐπ νὰ ἐξὸν πον, ἐς ᾿ς τς τὰ ἧς τς ὡς ὧ. ἃ .See Kargapazari dagi.
Kargapazari dagi Karga bazar M. G. 360 U. 324 C III
40°07’ x 41°35”
Karir dagi Koher M. G. 361 U. 340 AT
Karer M. 39°05’ x 40°40’
Kazikli M. .See Kiictikgé] dagi and Karasa-
kal dagi.
Keraunian Caucasus ms ἂς ὦ Ἐν ἀρ δ τῷ ἡ . See Sant’ayin M.
Kesig daglari G. 383 U. 340 AT

Khalkhal M. .

39950’ x 39945’

.See Harhal dagi.

ΚΟ ΘΟ

A XIGNdUddV

NAME

Khandosh M.
Kirklar tepesi

Kleissrai

Kiesurk*
Kohanam .
Koher M. .
Kohi Nihorakan
Kolat daglari

Kop dagi
Kose dagi
Kictikgél dagi

Kurtik M.
Lesser Ararat
Maneay ayrk’
Masios

Masis

Masius
Mazgirt M.

Meteduy M.
Misfina M.
Movkan dast .
Mughan P.

VARIANT EQUIVALENT
Mazgirt M.

Klesurk’ Jorayn kays

Clisurae Rahva pass
Kazikli M.?

Masius Izala M.

Azat Masis .

Harhal dagi

REFERENCES

G. 395
39°03’ x 39°37’
E. 59

E. 59

G. 413

40936’ x 39°35’
G. 416

40°01’ x 40°28?
G. 421 (1)
40°06’ x 37°58?
G. 430

39919’ x 39044?

MAPS

E. D-6

U. 324 CIV

Uz. 324 DHI

NOTES

.See Hacreg daglari.

See Ch. I nn. 20-23; IX n. 24.
See also Kop dagi.

.See Kleisurai.

. See Gohanam M.

.See Karir dagi.
See Ch. IX n. 34a.

See also Kleisurai.

.See Darkosh M.
.See P’ok’r Masis.
. See Sepuh M.

. See Ararat.
. See Masios.
.See Kirklar Μ.
Not to be confused with Manaz-
kert.
See Ch. In. 34.
See Ch. II n. 19c.
.See Mutani dast.
.See Mutani daét.

SNIVTd - SNIVINOOW * AWANOdO.L

x 1&6

NAME

Mulani dast
Munzur sisilesi

Musar dagi

Muzur
Navsan pass
Nemrut dagi

Ney Masik’ M.

Nibarus M.
Nimrud M.
Niphates M.
Npatakan M.
Olor

Oloray

Olu ovasi . :
Palandéken dagi

Parhal
Parhar M.

Paryar
Paryadres M.
Payir M.

VARIANT

Movkan dast

Navarshan dere

Npat

Olor

Parhal

Paryar
Baryal

Gaylayazut M.

EQUIVALENT REFERENCES MAPS NOTES
Mughan P. K. 71 EK. G-8
Muzur M. G. 479 U~. 340 AT
39°30’ x 39°10’
E. 71 K. G-3
G. 481
38°37’ x 38°25’
.See Munzur M.
See Ch. I n. 33a.
G. 487 U. 340 A ΠῚ
38°40’ x 42912’ |
Sip’an M. EK. 72 E. G-5 See Ch. XI n. 50.
Siiphan dagi
.See Ararat.
ΣῊ eee τὸ ἢ a a ἢ .See Nemrut dagi. ᾿
Npatakan M. P. V, xu, 1
Niphates M. E. 72-73 E. G-5
8... . See Oloray.
Haloéras See Ch. I n. 22.
Haliras
Holaris
hae ἘΣ κα MEL Ἢ τι, oe .See Aleluya P.
Aye Ptkunk’ M. G. 504 See Ch. In. 34.
39°47? x 41915’
ἐς: ὗς. ὦ ey τὰ ἮΝ: ἀν τῷ .See Parhar M.
Paryadres M. E. 77 KE. B-4 See Ch. I nn. 43a, 45.
ab πὰρ te e a a? ἃ . See Parhar.
Parhar M. CM L-Ne T. 445, 450-452.
Bagirbaba dagi E. 76 E. G-4

OGG

A XIONHddV

VARIANT

REFERENCES

NAME

P’ok’r Masis M.
Rahva pass
Salbtis dagi

Salin M.
Salnoy M.
Sant’ayin M.

Saphchae pass
Sarigigek yaylasi

Sarur P.
Sasun M.
Sebouh .
Sepuh M.

Serefiye .
Sinibel M.
Sip’an M.
Sipikér dagi

Sipilus

Sotalar M..
Srmanc M.
Stibhan
Stiphan dagi

Surb Grigor M.

Sebouh

Cip‘an

Sibhan dagi

EQUIVALENT

Lesser Ararat M.

Sipilus M.

Surb Luys M.
Salnoy M.

Keraunian
Caucasus M.

Kara dagi

Gohanam M.
Maneay ayrk’?

Surb Grigor M.

Salbtis dagi ?
Surb Luys M.

Bing6l daglari

Sip’an M.

Ney Masik’ M.

E. 89

G. 529

39°17’ x 40°00’
E. 79

E. 73

Aed. III, iii, 4

E. 73, 118
E. 79

E. 80

G. 563
39°52’ x 39935”

E. 80
G. 577
38954’ x 42948’

U. 341 BIT

U. 340 A I

CM

E. G-4

U. 340 BIV

NOTES

. See Kleisurai.

. See Salin M.

The coordinates given in G. 537
do no fit the indicated location
between Arapkir and Divrigi.

. See Sepuh.

.See Abeg.

See Ch. IV n. 16f.

.See Nex Masik’.

.See Aye Ptkunk*.

See Ch. I n. 34.

.See Siphan dagi.

.See Sipikor dagi.

SNIVId - SNIVINOQOW : ANANOdOL

* GEG

NAME EQUIVALENT REFERENCES MAPS NOTES
Surb Luys M.. .See Salbiis dagi.
Surb NSan M. τ τῶν. Ἂς Ἢ ἧἔὄςν wy .See Top dagi.
Taurus M. Toros daglari CM Jf-Ke
Tecer dagi G. 589 U. 341 BI

39°27 x 37°11’
Tenditirek dagi T’ondrak M. G. 593 U. 340 BI

39°22” x 43°55’
T’ondrak M. Tenditrek dagi E. 53 E. G-5
Top dagi Surb NSan M. See Ch. VI n. 42.
Toros daglari Taurus G. 588

37°00" x 33°00’
Xat M. ee ae πὰρ ᾿ς Τα ὅρος τὰ .See Hag dagi.
Xaldoy jor Chaldean P. E. 55 E. B-4
Xalyal . .See Harhal dagi.
Xar dast .See Xérakan dast.
Aarberd P a τ ἢ δον κα ὡς ἦα .See Aleluya P.
Xerakan dast Xar dast ἘΣ, 63 E. G-6
Zagros M. AA 104
Zigana sirdaglari G. 661 HW-1ll1c

40°37’ x 39°30’

E. 52 E. B-3

«VEG

A XIQGNdddV

SOUTER GRR oe TS neo 9 at ae eee oe τς πον

D. Rivers - Lakss - SEAS

The following abbreviations were used in this section in addition to those previously given :

L. lake.
R. river.
S. sea.
NAME VARIANT EQUIVALENT REFERENCES MAPS NOTES
ADV Re te es ἀρ. eB ee Oo cee te ὦ, a eh ee ee a OE we, ew ἢ See CR TV ne 19:
Acampsis. .. sc, ἀν Αἰ, οὖν δ πὰ ὡς δ, δὲ fe ΤῈ .See Akampsis.
Adzharis Tskali R. Cxenis Clali R. U. 324 CIT
Adzho R. AA 6
Bzang R.
Adzho R. . i ie js a a ae ode ν᾽ γῶν οὐς τς .See Adzharis Tskali R.
Akampsis Acampsis Boas R. BE. 32 K. B-4
Akamsis Coruh nehri AA 104
Voh R. CM Oc
Akamsis .See Akampsis.
Ak cayi .See Timut R.
Akcayill . See Cowar’ rod.
Akhurean R. . γι δ ρον τς ὁ a ὡς τὸ ἢ ἃ .See Ayuryan R.
Aksar deresi Pulat dere G. 22 Uz 324 Ὁ Til Coordinates given are _ for
40°05’ χ 38°12’ locality.
See also Piilk gayi.
Alis R. Ne ἀν ee οὖ .See Halys R.
Angu R. Arapkir gayi See Ch. IV nn. 19a-20.
Gortuk
Aracani R. Arsanias R. Euphrates R. E. 38 E. G-5
Murat nebri AA 6
Araks R. . .See Araxes R.

Arapkir gayi .

.See Angu.

SVMS - SHUMVT - SHAAN * ANANOdGOL

*GSG

NAME
Aras nehri

Araxes R.

Aréi8ak L.

Artisak R.
Ardanug R.

Arethusa
Arghana su
Arpa cayi

Arsanas
Arsanias R.

Askar deresi .

Axuryan R.

Azat R.

Bala rud .
Balan rot

Balas rot .
Batmansuyu

VARIANT

Araks R.

Aréak

Aretissa

Arsanas
Aracani

Akhurean R.

Bata rud
Balas rot

EQUIVALENT
Araxes R.

Aras nebri
Egri R.
Erasy R.
Mure R.
Ergek golit

Ayuryan R.

Rah R.

Euphrates R.

Murat nehri

Arpa gayi

Rah R.
Kars R.
Garni cay

Nymphios R.

Kalirt*

REFERENCES

G. 41
39°56’ x 48°20’
E. 38-39, 50

E. 39-40

σα. 41

41905’ x 42°05’
G. 44

40°06’ x 43°44’
K. 32

E. 31

E. 44

G. 81
379457 x 41°00’

MAPS

U. 324 DIV
EK. G4-G7
AA 6, 105
CM Pe

E. G-5
AA 105

U. 324 CIT

U. 325 DIV

AA 107

HW 10a D-2
E. B-5
AA 107

E. B-6
AAT

EK. G-8

U. 340 D IL

NOTES

See Ch. XI ἢ. 56.

.See Mehmedik R.

The coordinates given are for
the locality and district.

.See p. 460 n. 56.
.See Maden suyu.

.See Arsanias.

.See Aksar deres .

.See Batan rot.

See Bolgara gay.

.See Balan rot.

£9EG

A XIGNUddV

D. Rivers - ΑΚΕΞ - SEas

The following abbreviations were used in this section in addition to those previously given :

L. lake.
R. river.
S. sea.
NAME VARIANT EQUIVALENT REFERENCES MAPS NOTES
Apres oe we & τὶ ᾧ Te de we eo EO ὦ Οὗ ἀπ a oe ee we ee CTV ie 19;
Acampsis. . . fA Ye τῶν χὰ. ἃ, «ἃ ταὶ & & & .See Akampsis.
Adzharis Tskali R. Cyenis Clali R. U. 324 CII
Adzho R. AA 6
Bzang R.
Adzho R. . ek τὲ e we τὰ eos i: Je at .See Adzharis Tskali R.
Akampsis Acampsis Boas R. KE. 32 E. B-4
Akamsis Coruh nehri AA 104
Voh R. CM Oc
Akamsis . See Akampsis.
Ak cayi .See Timut R.
Akcayill . See Cowar’ rod.
Akhurean R. . Me. Be ok Ὡν ὦ a a σιῶν τας .See Ayuryan R.
Aksar deresi Pulat dere G. 22 Uz. 324 D Til Coordinates given are for
40°05” x 38°12’ locality.
See also Piilk gayi.
Alis R. a a ἂν νἅ .See Halys R.
Angu R. Arapkir gayi See Ch. IV nn. 194-20,
Gortuk
Aracani R. Arsanias R. Euphrates R. E. 38 E. G-5
Murat nebri AA 6
AraksR. . . .See Araxes R.
Arapkir gayi . .See Angu.

SVUS - SHMVTI - SUAMATHY * ANANOdOL

* GEG

NAME
Aras nehri

Araxes ΒΕ.

Artisak L.

Arti8ak R.
Ardanug R.

Arethusa
Arghana su

Arpa gayi

Arsanas
Arsanias R.

Askar deresi .

Ayuryan R.

Azat Β.

Bala rud .
Baian tot

Balas tot .
Batmansuyu

VARIANT

Araks R.

Artak

Aretissa

Arsanas
Aracani

Akhurean R.

Bala rud
Balas rot

EQUIVALENT

Araxes R.

Aras nehri
Egri R.
Erasy R.
Mure R.
Ercek goli

Ayuryan R.

Rah R.

Kuphrates R.

Murat nebri

Arpa cayl

Rah R.
Kars R.
Garni cay

Nymphios R.

Katirt‘

REFERENCES

G. 41
39°56’ x 48°20’
K. 38-39, 50

E. 39-40
G. 41
41905’ x 42°05’

G. 44
40°06’ x 43°44”

BK. 31
HK. 44

G. 81
37945’ x 41°00’

MAPS

U. 324 DIV
E. G4-G7
AA 6, 105
CM Pe

K. G-5
AA 105

U. 324 CIT

U. 325 DIV

AA 107

HW 10a D-2
K. B-5
AA 107

K. B-6
AA7

E. G-8

U. 340 DIT

NOTES
bo
oo
δ»
¥

See Ch. XI n. 56.

.See Mehmedik R.

The coordinates given are for

the locality and district.

. See p. 460 n. 56. “

.See Maden suyu. ΙΕ
A,
Ὁ
be

.See Arsanias.

ee Arsanias -

.See Aksar deres .

.See Balan rot.

See Bolgara cay.

. See Balan fot.

NAME VARIANT EQUIVALENT REFERENCES MAPS NOTES
Bendimahi φαγὶ G. 89 U. 340 BIV
38955" x 43°35’ AAT
Berklinziilkarneynsuyu G. 90 U. 340 ATV
38°31’ x 40°29’
Bingol su Harsanova suyu ἢ See Ch. 1 n. 32a.
Boas .See Akampsis.
Bohtan su. eH de ἢ ἐς ἢ δ τῶν ὠς. ἡ .See Botan gayi.
Bolgara cay Balan rot HK. 44 K. G-8 See Ch. [IX ἡ. 13.
Botan cayi Bohtan su Kentrites R. G. 163 U. 340 D II
Jerm R. 37944’ x 41948’
Bolya R. Oltu gayi E. 45 EK. B-4
Bulam 1... .See Hacli Goli.
Bzang R. . .See Adzharis Tskali R.
Bznunik‘ 8. .See Van L.
Calgar R. See Ch. II n. 19d.
Caltisuyu Kangal su G. 123 U. 341 BIT See Ch. IV p. 68.
39923’ x 38°24’
Caspian S. Kaspic 8. E. 58 EK. A. 8-G-8
Hyrkanian 8.
Cekerek irmagi Scylax R. G. 138 U. 324 DIV
40934’ x 35°46’
Centritis uk: ὧδ Ok. ὦ δ, eo Gt. SP ud by fe 8 ae ae ee . See Kentrites R.
Ceyhan nehri Jaihun gayi Pyramus R. G. 145 U. 341 CIV
36°45’ x 35°45’
Coruh nehri Akampsis R. G. 160 U. 324 C IIT
Boas R. 41°36’ x 41°35’ AA 6
Voh R.
Covk’ L. Goleuk ρα] K. 57 K. G-3

AA 105

SVS - SHMVT - SUMAIY : ANANOdGOL

* LEG

ἘΘΘΟ

NAME VARIANT EQUIVALENT REFERENCES MAPS NOTES
Cowars’ rod Ak φαγὶ II E. 64 E. G-6 See Ch. XI n. 61.
AA 105 See also Karmir R.
Cyenisclali 6 ww ee kk ee eee we.) Se Adzharis Takali.
Cyrus R. Kura HW 29a P-4
Degirmen deresi Pyxites R. G. 173 (6) U. 324 CIV
41°00’ x 39946’
Dicle nehri .See Tigris R.
Dklat R. . .See Tigris R.
Kégri R. a ee .See Araxes R.
Elmali deresi G. 207 See Ch. XI ἢ. 53.
39°25” x 40°35’
Ep’rat R. . .See Euphrates R.
EKrasy R. . ἘΞ 5) Te. τὸ ἘΣ ἀρ, οἷν Ξ we νὰν -ῶς .See Araxes R.
Ercek golii Aréigsak L. G. 211 DU. 340 BIV
38°39’ x 43°22’
Kuphrates R. Kp’rat R. Arsanias R. BH. 51 K. B-4
Kara su gayi AA 6
Murat nehri
Firat nehri
Firat nehri Euphrates R. G. 226 U. 341 BIII
31°00’ x 47925’
Gargar R. Karkar R. E. 46 KB. G-7
AA 107
Garni cay Azat R. AA 105
Gayl R. Lykos R. E. 46 (2) EK. B-2 See Ch. IIT nn. 5, 24a.
Kelkit gayi AA 106
Gelakuneac §. ole κα .See Sevan L.
Gercanis R. G. 234 The coordinates given are for
39954’ x 38944’ the locality.
Gernaoksuyu Gernevik G. 236 U. 340 BI

39°37’ x 44°07’

A XIONdddV

NAME

Gernevik .
Geuljik L.
Ginek R.

Goksu nehri
Goéleuk L.
Goljik .
Géneksuyu
Goniksuyu
Gortuk
Great Zab

Giimiigane deresi

Gunig su .
Hacli goli

Halys R.
Harabe deresi

Harmut su
Harsit deresi

Hasanova suyu

Hayoe jor su .
Hazar οὐ]

VARIANT

Geuljik
Goljik

Goneksuyu
Gunig su

Alis R.

Harbe

Harsut R.

Kharsut

EQUIVALENT

Goniksuyu
Sarus R.

Hazar goli
Covk’ L.

Ginek R.

Harmut su

Bulam L.

Kizil Irmak

Menaskut R. ?

Bing6l su ?

REFERENCES

E. 47
G. 244 (5)
36920’ x 34905’

G. 246
38930’ x 39°25”

G. 249
39°00’ x 40°41’

G. 255

40930’ x 39°23”
G. 267

39900’ x 42°18’
K. 32, 63

G. 275
38°56’ x 40°56’
G. 277
41901’ x 38°52’
G. 280
39911’ x 41°06’

MAPS

K. G-4

AA 6
τ. 341 DIII

U. 340 ATV

U. 340 A Il

U. 324 CIV

U. 340 A Π.ῚῚ

BK. B1-G2
CM Kd Hd Jd
U. 340 A III

Ὁ. 340 AIT

NOTES

. See Gernaoksuyu.
See Golcuk L.

.See Goleuk L.
. See Goniksuyu.

See Ch. I n. 27.

.See Angu R.
.See Zab R.

.See Goniksuyu.

See Ch. III n. 20.

.See Giimtigane deresi.

.See Xosab R.
.See Golcuk.

SVAS - SHMVT - SUMAN * ANANOAOL

*666

NAME
Hogap
Hrazdan R.
Hurazdan R. .
Hyrkanian ὃ.
Imerhav gayi
Iris R.
Jaihun gayi
Jegam R.
Jerm ΚΒ.
Kala-@ R.

K’atirt’ R.

Kangal su
Kapudan 8.
Kara su

Kara su cayi

Kara suyu
Karabudak gayi

Karadere su

VARIANT

Hurazdan R.

Imerhevi

Kapautan δ.

EQUIVALENT
Xosab R.

Zanga R.

Meruli

Yesil irmagi

Kentrites
Botan gayi

Nymphios R.

Sit’it’ma R.
Batmansuyu

Marmet R.

Euphrates R.
Melas R.
Firhat nehri
Met R.

REFERENCES

G. 295
38°20’ x 43°46’
E. 63

G. 306

41°17’ x 42°13”
E. 73

KE. 54

G. 356 (1)
38932” x 43°10’
G. 356 (3)

39942” x 39039°
G. 356 (20)
38049” x 41028”
G. 337

39928” x 38932”
G. 343 (12)
40°57 x 40°04’

MAPS

U. 340 BIV

E. B-6
AAT

U. 324 CIT

KE. B-5
E. B-5
CM Ke

E. E-7

K. D4-G-4

U. 340 BIV

AA 6
U. 340 AL

AA 6
Ὁ. 340 A IIT

U. 341 BIL

U. 324 CIV

NOTES

Coordinates given are for the
locality.

.See Hrazdan R.
.See Caspian 8.

.See Ceyhan nebri.
See Azerbaijan Atlas 21 and Ch.
IX n. 21.

.See K’ahirt’ ΒΕ.

See Ch. 1 nn. 13, 14, 19.

.See Caltisuyu.
.See Urmiah L.

*xOVG

A XIGN&€ddV

NAME

Karkar R.
Karmalas R.
Karmir R.

K’asat R.
Keli
Kelkit gayi

Kentrites R.
Khabur R.

Kizil cay .
Kizil irmak

Komiir gayi

Kor su.
Koroy jor.
Kotoroy R.
Kotur gayi
Kulp su
Kur.
Kura R.

Kuru gayi

Lice
Lidik
Limb .
Lumb R.

VARIANT

Centritis

Qyzy! Yrmagq

Kotur gayi
Kotoroy R.
Kulp dere

Kur

Limb R.

EQUIVALENT

Zamantisuyu ?

Kotur R.
Kotoroy R.
Kizil gay

Lykos R.

Gayl R.
Botan φαγὶ
Jerm ΒΕ.
Xabor R.
K‘abatos

Halys

Kor su

Karmir R.

Cyrus R.

Mtkvari R.

REFERENCES

E. 58

G. 378
40°46" x 36°32?

E. 55 (1)

G. 270

4194.5” x 35059”
H. 414 (4)
39°40" x 39°03’
E. 61

E. 60

6. 437

39°24’ x 49019”
E. 61

G. 442 (8)
38935’ x 38922”

MAPS

AAT

Ὁ. 324 D II

AA 6
CM Pf

E. D-5

U. 324 DI

U. 340 AT

KB. G-5

E. G-6
AAT
U. 340 A III

AA 6
EK. B5-G8
U. 341 B Ill

NOTES

.See Gargar R.

See Ch. IV n. 7.

See also Cowar’ rod.

.See Miws Gayl.

.See Karmir R.

Coordinates given are for the
locality.

.See Koroy jor.

See Kura R.

.See Saromsuyu.
.See Perisuyu.
.See Lumb.

See Ch. XI ἢ. 60.

SVS - SHMVT - SHAAIU * ANANOdOL

* LPG

NAME

Lychnitis L. .

Lycus R. .
Lykos R.

Maden suyu

Mahmedik cay

Maku gay

Maligir
Mananalti R.

Marat .
Marmet R.

Mec Zaw R. .
Mehmedik deresi

Met R.

Memedik .
Menaskut R.
Mermenid
Mermid
Meruli .
Mirangir

Miws Gayl R.

VARIANT

Lycus R.

Mirangir

Mahmedik gay

Memedik deresi

Mews Gayl

EQUIVALENT

Gayl R.

Kelkit gayi
Arghana su

Tehnut R.
Zanginiardere

Tuzlasuyu

Mermenid R.

Mermid R.
Kara su

Aréigak R.

Teleboas R.
Kara suyu

Harbe deresi ?

Keh R.

Litik R.
Perisuyu

REFERENCES

K. 65

EK. 39

MAPS

CM Le

U. 340 ATV

AAT

U. 340 A ΠῚ
K. G-4
AA 105

E. G-5

AA 105

K. G-5

U. 340 BIV
E. G-4

EK. G-4

AA 105

NOTES

.See Sevan L.
.See Lykos R.

The coordinates in G. 452 do
not suit the indicated locality.
.See Mehmedik.

.See Mrit.

.See Zab R.

. See Mehmedik deresi.
See Ch. I n. 32b.

.See Marmet R.

.See Marmet R.
. See Imerhav cayi.
.See Maligir R.

See Ch. Inn. 25-26.

*xOVG

A XIGNUddV

NAME VARIANT

Mrit R.

Mrul R.

Mtkvari ee he Be

Munzur deresi Muzur
Mzur

Murat nebri

Mure ἢ
Murcamawr R. Mure R.

Murgulsuyu deresi
Muzur R.

Mzur
Nazik goli

Nikephorios

Nymphios R. Nikephorios

Oltucayi

Palin R.

Perisuyu

Piramis

EQUIVALENT

Marat R.

Euphrates-
Arsanias R.

Araxes R.

Egri

Munzur deresi
Mzur ΒΕ.

K’alirt’ R.

Sit’it’ma R.
Batmansuyu
Bolya R.

Perisuyu
Miws Gayl R.
Keli R.

Palin R.
Miws Gayl] R.
Keli R.

Litik R.

REFERENCES
KE. 71

E. 71

G. 479

38°46’ x 39927’
G. 480

38°52’ x 38°48"
E. 71

G. 480

41920’ x 41°40"
E. 71

G. 486
38°50" x 42°16’

G. 493
40°50’ x 41°40°
E. 76

G. 510
38°50’ x 39°35"

U. 340 AIV

τ. 341 B III

K. G-4

U. 324 CT

E. G-3
AA 105

U. 340 A ΠῚ

AA 105

CM Pf

U. 324 C III
AA 6
ΒΕ. G-3

U. 340 AIV
AA 6

NOTES

See Kura R.

.See Murcamavwr.

.See Muzur R.

.See Nymphios.

See Ch. I n. 25.

.See Pyramus.

TOT NSN Sheree eet ee τῖπ-“ τς
5 eg ΠΩΣ

SVGS - SHMVI -ΒΒΗΛΙῈ * ANANOdOL

“xEVG

NAME
Pontos Euxeinos

Pulat dere
Piilk cayi

Pyramus R.
Rah R.

Saris su
Saromsuyu

Sarsap deresi

Sarus R.
Scylax R.

Sergeme deresi
Sevan L.

Sitit’ma R.
Spautan 8.
Talori deresi

Tatta L.
Thospitis L
Tigris R.

VARIANT

Piramis

Saris su

Sit'ma

EQUIVALENT
Black S.

Aksar

Ceyhan nehri

Ayuryan

Arpa gayi
Kars R.

Lice R. ?

Goéksu nehri
Cekerek irmagi

Gelakuneac 5.
Lychnitis L.

Tuz gohii

Dicle nebri
Dklat R.

REFERENCES

E. 78

G. 517
39°51’ x 40°07’

E. 78

G. 541
38921" x 40°54’
G. 541
38921? x 37913’

K. 81

G. 550
39°56’ x 40°45’
K. 47

G. 582

38°12’ x 41°10’
G. 597

31900’ x 47925’
E. 86

MAPS

E. B2-B4
CM Da-Oa
U. 324 D III
U. 340 AI

CM Jg-Kf
E. B-5

Ὁ. 340 A HIT

U. 341 BIV

CM Jf-Jg
EK. B-2

CM Je

U. 324 CIV

EK. B-6
AAT

U. 340 A IIT

CM He

CM Pe Of

AA 6
EK. G-4

NOTES

.See Goksu nehri.

See K’atirt’ R.

.See Urmiah L.

See Ch. IV n. 7.
.See Van L.

* VEG

A XIQNUddV

NAME

REFERENCES

Mrit R.

Mrut R.
Mtkvari
Munzur deresi

Murat nehri

Mure
Murcamawr R.

Murgulsuyu deresi
Muzur R.

Mzur
Nazik goélii

Nikephorios
Nymphios R.

Oltugayi

Patin R.

Perisuyu

Piramis

VARIANT

Muzur
Mzur

Mure R.

Nikephorios

EQUIVALENT

Marat R.

Euphrates-
Arsanias R.

Araxes R.

Egri

Munzur deresi
Mzur R.

K’atirt’ R.

Sit’it’ma R.
Batmansuyu
Bolya R.

Perisuyu
Miws Gay! R.
Keli R.

Patin R.
Miws Gayl R.
Keh R.

Litik R.

E. 71

E. 71

G. 479

38°46’ x 39927’

G. 480
38°52’ x 38°48"

E. 71
G. 480

41°20’ x 41°40’
EK. 71

G. 486
38°50" x 42°16’

G. 493
40°50’ x 41°40’
E. 76

G. 510
38°50’ x 39935’

U. 340 AIV

U. 341 B Ill

RK. G-4

U. 324 ΟΠ

E. G-3
AA 105

U. 340 A Πὶ

AA 105

CM Pf

U. 324 C III
AA 6
E. G-3

Ὁ. 340 A ITV
AA 6

NOTES

See Kura R.

.See Murcamawr.

.See Muzur ΒΕ.

. See Nymphios.

See Ch. I n. 25.

.See Pyramus.

SVS - SHNVI - ΒΒΉΛΙΣ * AWANOdOL

*GVG

NAME
Pontos Euxeinos

Pulat dere
Pulk gayi

Pyramus R.
Rah R.

Saris su
Saromsuyu

Sarsap deresi

Sarus R.
Scylax R.

Serceme deresi
Sevan L.

Sit’it’ma R.
Spautan 8.
Talori deresi

Tatta L.
Thospitis L
Tigris R.

VARIANT

Piramis

Saris su

Sit'ma

EQUIVALENT
Black 8.

Aksar

Ceyhan nehri

Ayuryan

Arpa φαγὶ
Kars R.

Lice R.?

Goksu nehri
Cekerek irmagi

Gelakuneac S.
Lychnitis L.

Tuz goli

Dicle nebri

Dklat R.

REFERENCES

EK. 78

G. 517
39°51’ x 40°07’

KE. 78

G. 541
38921’ x 40°54’
G. 541
38921’ x 37°13’

E. 81

G. 550
39°56’ x 40°45’
EK. 47

G. 582
38°12? xX 41°10”
G. 597

31900” x 47°25’
E. 86

MAPS

E. B2-B4
CM Da-Oa
U. 324 D 1Π
U. 340 Al

CM Jg-Kf
E. B-5

U. 340 A IIT

U. 341 BIV

CM Jf-Jg
E. B-2

CM Je

U. 324 CIV

E. B-6
AA 7

U. 340 A III

CM He

CM Pe Of

AA 6
E. G-4

NOTES

.See Goksu nehri.

See K’atirt’ R.

. See Urmiah L.

See Ch. IV n. 7.
. See Van L.

*VVG

A XIONUddV

NAME

Thnut R.

Tortum ¢ayi
Tortum goli
Tuz golti
Tuzlasuyu
Urcajor R.
Urmiah L.
Van L.
Varésak springs

Vedi R.
Voh

Aabor .
Xosab R.

Yenice irmagi

Yesil irmagi

VARIANT

Yoh

EQUIVALENT

Ak φαγὶ
Maku cay
Zanginiardere

Tatta L.
Mananali R.

Vedi R.
Kapudan δ.
Kapautan S.
Spautan S.
Bznuneac ὃ.

Thospitis L

Urcajor R.
Akampsis R.
Boas R.
Coruh nehri
Kakamar R.

Hayog jor R.

Hogap suyu
Zamantisuyu
Karmalas R. ?
Iris R.

REFERENCES

Hi. 86

G. 604

40°47? x 41949?
G. 604

40°47’ x 41942”
G. 610 (2)
38°45? x 330257
G. 610

39°43” x 40°16?
E. 76

E. 58

E. 620
38°33” x 42°46’

E. 32, 84

E. 62
G. 658
37936’ x 35°35"

G. 643
41924” x 36935’

MAPS NOTES

BK. G-6
AA 105

U. 324 C Hil
AA 6
U. 324 C HI

U. 340 AT
AA 6

E. G-6

E. D-6
AA 6

U. 340 BIV
See Ch. XI ἢ. 56.
See Ch. XI ἢ. 21.

AA 7

E. B-4 See Ch. III n. 24a.
. oe ehlw™hUme™hCUwe”™C™:”~C*«CO SS KK ir Β.

E. G-5

U. 341 CI

U. 324 DIV

SVS τ᾿ SAMVT - ΒΕ ΛΙῈ * ANANOAOL

*GV6

LOCALITY VARIANTS EQUIVALENTS REFERENCES MAPS NOTES

WOM ἃ το a est οιν, ἡ ἄρ οἶδ Ὡς eo Se ee See, SS OE ee Vol
Zab R. Mec Zaw G. 657 AA6

36°00’ x 43921’

E. 66 E. D-5
Zamantisuyu . . 2. 6. ee ee ee ee ee ew we.) See Yenice irmaZi.
Zanga . Bo fae BR. oS χὰ,» a Se St we τῶν me ἀνε, δ .See Hrazdan R.
Zanginiardere Maku cay AAT

Timut R.

Zegam R Ms he Ay Go ἃς Oe. τῷ» ee Se OS OS Oa, RO ee ἡ τῷ" -Seeelepam:
“idan Tigris: ce ὦ ec ee Ky wt UO A OO Ow Be Φ ee ve «=e ΠΙΒΤΊΒ.

IPG

A XIGCN8ddV

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE *

Since the original bibliography of Armenia in the Period of Justinian
has of necessity become obsolete after the passage of more than half
a century, and its form did not correspond to modern standards, this
Bibliographical Note and the Bibliography which follows it are an
attempt to indicate to the reader some of the major studies which
have appeared since its publication. The vastness of Adontz’s
interests and the expansion of Armenian, Byzantine and Iranian
studies in the intervening period preclude any suggestion of biblio-
graphical completeness, so that only the most general outline has
been attempted here. Wherever possible, more recent works sub-
suming earlier scholarship and bibliography have been listed to remain
within manageable bounds. Consequently, a number of familiar
works have had to be omitted. A number of more specialized studies
will be found in the Bibliography and in the relevant notes. In all
these cases, however, numerous lacunae of which the editor remains
painfully aware must strike the various specialists. At best, therefore,
this Note is intended as an introduction to the student, and not as
a guide to the experienced scholar.

Before turning to the works of other specialists, we should note that
Adontz, himself, developed and reworked much of the material found
in Armenia in the Period of Justinian in a number of subsequent
studies many of which will be found listed below in the Bibliography.
For a more extensive listing, both the obituary article in Handés
Amsorya, LXI (May, 1947) and the bibhography in the Annuatre de
UV Institut de philologie et dhistotre orientale et slave of the Université
Libre de Bruxelles, IV (1936) should be consulted as well as the article
of K. Yuzbasyan in PBH (1962/4).

The single most relevant work at present for the study of Armenia in
the Period of Justinian is unquestionably Cyril Toumanoff’s Studies
in Christian Caucasian History (Georgetown, 1963) in which he has
expanded and re-worked most of the subjects treated earlier by
Adontz, with the possible exception of the Armenian Church which

* For the full reference on each entry, the Bibliography should be consulted where
necessary.

248 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

is discussed only tangentially. Toumanoff’s extensive work on the
history, geography and particularly the social structure of ancient
and mediaeval Armenia, as well as of Transcaucasia, provides in
one sense a new edition of Armenia in the Period of Justinian incorpor-
ating both the subsequent scholarship and the necessary revisions.
Hence, Adontz’s work now benefits by being read in conjunction with
Toumanoff’s attendant commentary.

I. The Sources

In a number of cases the sources cited by Adontz have received
more satisfactory editions, and for several classical works he relied
on the obsolescent Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, even
though both Theophanes the Confessor and Theophylakt Simokattes
had already appeared in the preferable editions of C. de Boor (1883 and
1887). To these should now be added A. Pertusi’s edition of Constan-
tine Porphyrogenitus’ de Thematibus (1952) and Moravesik, Jenkins,
et al.’s publication of the same emperor’s de Administrado Imperto
(1949, 1962). The Mommsen, Kriiger, et al. edition of the Corpus
Juris Civilts has become standard despite some of the misgivings
voiced by Adontz, and where it is available, the Conciliar documen-
tation is probably better cited according to Schwartz’s Acta Conciltorum
Oecumenicorum (1914) than according to Mansz. There are better
editions of several of the Episcopal Notetiae than the one of Pinder
and Parthey, as was already observed by Louis Robert, Villes d’ 4516
Mineure, pp. 428 sqq., and Honigmann’s Le Synekdemos d’ Hierokles
et Vopuscule géographique de Georges de Chypre (1939) should now be
consulted on both these treatises. Finally, Miller’s Iteneraria Romana
(1916) is the standard edition for the Itinerarvum Antonini and the
Tabula Peutingertana. Although the volumes of the Loeb Classical
Inbrary are of variable quality and in numerous instances to be checked
against the critical edition of the text, they provide a convenient and
generally accurate English translation of the original; when available,
however, the French translations in the parallel Budé series are often
preferable.

In the case of Syriac sources such as Ephraem Syrus, John of
Ephesus, or Ps. Zacharias of Mitylene, the versions published in the
Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium have superseded earlier
ones.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE 249%

Armenian sources unfortunately continue to lack critical editions
in far too many instances; moreover, such editions as “‘ Agat’angetos ”’,
Movsés Katankatwaci, and Movsés Xorenaci (Tiflis, 1909, 1912, 1913),
Malyasyane’s Sebéos (Erevan, 1939), and Abrahamyan’s Yovhannés
Mamikonean (Erevan, 1941), are still difficultly obtainable, and were
regrettably inaccessible to this editor. Nevertheless, a number of
new editions have replaced those used by Adontz: Akinian’s Koriwn
(Vienna, 1952), Ter Minaseanc’s Eisé (Erevan, 1957), Melik’ - Ohan-
janyan’s Kirakos Ganjakect, (Erevan, 1961), YuzbaSyan’s Artstakés
Lastwerter (Erevan, 1963). A new version of Yakovb Karneci is to
be found in volume II of Hakobyan’s Minor Chronicles of the XIII-
XVIII C. (1958), and the first volume of the Armenian Book of Canons
containing the Canons of St. Sahak, appeared in 1964, The so-called
Diegesis or Narratio de Rebus Armeniae, which Adontz preferred to
cite in his own copy of the MS rather than according to the Combefisius’
edition fathered by Migne simultaneously on the elusive “ Isaac
Katholikos ” (PG CXXXIT) and Philip the Solitary (PG CXXVII),
has now received the excellent edition of Garitte in the CSCO (1952).

Translations of Armenian sources into western languages, with the
outstanding exception of Dowsett’s The History of the Caucasian
Albamans by Movsés Dasyuranct (1961) and his Penitential of Dawit’
of Ganjak in the CSCO (1961), have hardly changed since Adontz’s
time, and remain almost uniformely unsatisfactory.

Considerable epigraphic material unavailable to Adontz has come
to light in recent years. The pre-Armenian, Urartian period has
been illuminated by Melikishvili’s edition and translation of the
Urartian inscriptions, Urartskie klinoobraznye nadpist (1960), comple-
mented by D’iakonov’s Urariskie pis’ma ἃ dokumenty (1963) and his
‘* Assyro-Babylonian Sources on the History of Urartu ’’, VDJ (1951).
The Armavir inscriptions of the formerly unidentified Hrwandian-
Orontid rulers of Armenia, some of the Aramaic inscriptions of the
Artaxiad dynasty, and the Garni inscription of king Trdat ITI, together
with a number of other epigraphic sources, have been collected in
K. Trever’s Ocherki po istoria kultury drevnet Armenit (1953). The
Nemrud dag inscriptions of the kings of Kommagené, whom Toumanoff
has linked with the Zariadrid dynasty of Sophené, are found in Jalabert
and Mouterde, Inscriptions de Syrie, I, until the expected publication
of the final report on Nimrud dag by T. Goell and F.K. Dorner,

2505 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

and a list of the more recently discovered Artaxiad Aramaic inscrip-
tions 1s given by Perikhanian in her latest article in the REA (1966).
Three volumes of the Corpus Inscriptionum Armenicarum are now out
(1960, 1966, 1967), and such collection of foreign sources on Armenia as
Melhk’set’-Bek, Georgian Sources concerning Armenia and the Armenians
(1934, 1936, 1955) and Nalbandian, Arabic Sources Concerning Ar-
menian and the Neighbouring Lands (1965), should likewise be consulted.

The great Sasanian inscriptions, whose discovery has greatly affected
Armenian chronology especially in the third century, are to be found in
the following publications: Herzfeld, Packuls (1924), Nyberg, Hajjrabad
(1945), Sprengling, Third Century Iran (1953), and Maricq, Res Gestae Divi
Saporis (1958) which contains the earlier bibliography. For the earlier
Achemenian inscriptions, the standard text at present is Kent, Old
Persian (1953). Finally, the Greek and Latin inscriptions found in
Armenia and Pontus were collected by Anderson, Cumont and
Grégoire in Studia Pontica, III (1910).

Adontz was acutely aware of the fact that all hypotheses on Ar-
menian history and culture were, of necessity, only as sound as the
sources on which they were based, and he turned repeatedly to this
problem both in Armenia in the Period of Justinian, and in subsequent
studies. Nevertheless, the status of many crucial Armenian literary
sources remains equivocal and controversial at best. The most
convenient introduction to the multiple problems of this subject is
found in M. Abelyan’s Hayoc hin grakanut yan Patmutiwn (1944,
1946), but this work should be complemented in most cases, since
Abetyan’s views have not been invariably shared by his colleagues.
The most convenient resumé of the continuing controversy over
the date and purpose of the History attributed to Movsés Xorenaci
in which Adontz actively participated is given by Toumanoff in his
Studves, and his recent article in HA (1961). On the various problems
of the compilation traditionally associated with the name of Agat’-
angelos, but for which recent scholars tend to prefer the descriptive
title of Gregorian Cycle, the fundamental study is Garitte’s admirable
Documents pour Vétude du liwre α᾽ Agathange (1946), now comple-
mented by his study in AB (1965). A resumé of the
literature on the Armeman Geography formerly attributed to
Movsés Xorenaci can be found in Eremyan’s Hayastan est “ Asyar-
hacoyc”’ (1963) and in Hewsen’s useful abstract in the REA (1965).
On the so-called Anonymous or Primary History of Armenia, usually
found in conjunction with the History of Sebéos, see Adontz’s own

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE 251*

study, Markwart in Ca (1930), Malyasyane in VV (1949) Abgaryan,
Sebéost Patmut’iwn (1965) and Toumanoff, Studzes. On Koriwn’s
Infe of Mesrop Mastoc, see once again Adontz’s work, Akinian
in HA (1949), and the collections of articles on Mesrop Mastoc published
by the Armenian Academy of Sciences (1962) and the University of
Erevan (1963). On P’awstos Buzand, see Excursus U in Stein’s
Histoire du Bas Empire, 11 (1949), on Ehsé, Akinian’s numerous
articles in HA (1931-1937, 1950-1951), on Lewond, likewise Akinian,
HA (1929). On Sebéos, the most recent extensive study is Abgaryan’s
Sebéost Patmut’twn (1965), though Abgaryan’s conclusions have
not been definitively accepted. On the alteration of the date of
Uytanés’ History of Armenia, see Peeters, “ Sainte Sousanik ”’ in AB
(1935), on Movsés Kalankatwaci or Dasyuranci, Akinian, HA (1952,
1956-1958) and Dowsett, Hestory of the Caucasian Albanians (1961).
On the Treatise attributed to Eznik the Priest, see Akinian’s answer
to Adontz, HA (1938). Finally the Code of Myit’ar G68 and its
relationship with other such works has attracted considerable attention
e.g. Samuélean, Myit’ar Gos Datastanagirk’n (1911), Tigranian,
IKIAT (1925), Kiwléserean, HA (1926), Harut’yunyan’s Introduction
to Papovian’s translation, Armianski Sudebnik Mkhitara Gosha
(1954), Galstyan in his edition of Smbat Sparapet’s Datastanagirk’
(1958), Pivazyan, BM (1960), and T’orosyan, BM (1962). See also
Mécérian, BA (1947-1948), and Pigulevskaia’s article on the Syrian
Lawcode, UZ (1952). Asin all cases of actively controverted subjects,
all these interpretations and the bibliography must remain provisional.

11. Geography

Adontz’s book was composed at a time when Hiibschmann’s great
study, Die altarmenischen Orisnamen (1904) had already appeared
as had the earlier works of Lehmann-Haupt and of Markwart. The
later publications of these authors should, however, be consulted,
especially Lehmann-Haupt’s Armenian einst und jetzt (1910-1931)
and Markwart’s Skizzen zur historischen Topographie (1928), Siid-
armenien und dre Tigrisquellen (1930), and his recently published
MS on the province of Parskahayk’ in RHA (1966).

The major recent study of the eastern frontier of the Byzantine
Empire is Honigmann’s Die Ostgrenze des byzantinischen Reiches
(1935), and a systematic attempt not only to identify and locate,

252* BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

but also to estimate the territory of the various districts and provinces
mentioned in the Armenian Geography has been presented in Ere-
myan’s Hayastan ast “ Asyarhacoyc’”’ (1963). Wherever possible the
multiple articles of Barthold and of Minorsky in the EI should likewise
be consulted as well as Hakobyan’s Asyarhagrut‘yun (1968).

_ The topographical information provided by the various Itineraries

crossing Armenia has been studied by Miller, Ié:nerarza Romana (1916),
and with a more precise focus on their sections dealing with Armenia,
by Eremyan, VDI (1939), and Manandian, Manr hetazotut’ yunner
(1932), Hayastan glyavor canaparhnera (1936), and the Trade and
Cities of Armenra (1944).

Considerable information on Armenian ecclesiastical geography,
as well as on secular topography, is provided in Honigmann’s other
studies, particularly in his notes to the Synekdemos of Hierokles, in
Evéques et évéchés monophysites d’ Aste Antériewre (1951), and in the
article on the location of Romanopolis, which appeared in his Trovs
mémorres posthumes (1961). The same is true of Garitte’s commen-
taries to both the Documents pour l étude du livre d’ Agathange, and the
Narratio de rebus Armeniae.

In addition to these works, information on Armenian geography
is also found in Ruge’s articles in PW, Minorsky’s “‘ Transcaucasia ”’,
JA (1930) and his notes to the Hudud al-’ Alam (1937), Kanayeance,
Anyayt gawainer hin Hayastani (1914), Manandian, Hin Hayastani
mi kant problemnert masin (1944), and Patmakan-Asyarhagrakan
manr hetazotut yunner (1945), Dashian’s articles on the western border-
lands of Armenia, HA (1937-1945), Appendix X of Goubert’s Byzance
et V Orient, I (1951), Canard’s, Histoire de la dynastie des H’amdanides,
I (1951).

For the peripheral lands discussed by Adontz as being at times
part of Armenia, see, in addition to the notes in the Hudud al-’ Alam,
Minorsky’s History of Sharvan and Darband (1958) and Barthold’s
earlier Mesto prekaspiiskikh oblaster (1924), for the Caspian districts ;
Pigulevskaya, Mesopotamia na rubezhe V-VI vv. (1940), Honigmann,
Die Ostgrenze, Hvéques et évéchés, and Le Couvent de Barsauma (1954),
as well as Canard, Histoire des H’amdanides, and Dillman’s article
in S (1961) together with his La Haute-Mesopotamie orientale (1961),
for Mesopotamia and north Syria; Honigmann’s Ostgrenze, and his
article ““ Kommagene’”’, PW, IV, Dashian’s articles in HA (1987-
1945), Pertusi’s commentary on Costantino Porfirogenito de Thema-

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE 253*

tebus (1952), and Tiracean’s article on Kommagené in JANA (1956),
on the west; and finally, Markwart’s Skizzen, Honigmann, Ostgrenze,
Manadian, The Trade and Cities of Armenia, Excursus ΠῚ in Mncaka-
nyan’s Alvanic ASyarht ... Surya (1966), and Hakobyan’s Siunike
T’agavorut yuna (1966), for the northern borders.

Throughout the area studied by Adontz, the problem of the topo-
nymy remains a nightmare for the investigator. Western Asia
Minor has received considerable attention lately in the many studies
of Louis Robert, but the east of the peninsula remains well nigh
terra uncognita, especially since maps of this area are generally either
totally inadequate or unobtainable as classified military information.
The survival of ancient Urartian toponyms in Armenian is discussed
by Banateanu, HA (1961), Wittek’s article on the transition from
Byzantine to Turkish Toponymy, B (1935) is very useful, and the
Department of the Interior’s Gazetteer No. 46 : Turkey provides
coordinates for most sites together with the version of their name as
of ca. 1960, but a systematic concordance of ancient and modern
toponyms, and particularly of their recent, multiple, and rapidly
changing avatars is an imperative necessity.

Ill. Philology

Armenian. linguistics and philology have been until now the most
active fields of Armenology. Consequently, there can be no question
of attempting to give here a review of the extensive literature which
has been added to this subject, all the more so because of Adontz’s
generally peripheral treatment thereof.

The first edition of Meillet’s Grammaire comparée de l Arménien
classigues appeared as early as 1902, though Adontz gives no indication
of his being familiar with it as he was with the works of both Hiibsch-
mann and de Lagarde. Of Meillet’s other works and Benveniste’s
constant studies in BSL, REA, HA, etc., such studies as Meillet’s
“Quelques mots parthes”, RHA (1922), Benveniste’s “* Titres
iraniens en Arménien”, RHA (1929), and Titres et noms propres
en Iramien ancien (1966) should be mentioned here as directly
relevant to Adontz’s interpretation of nayarar terminology, as is
Dowsett’s challenge of the etymologies proposed by him for such
terms as tér, tikin, in the Mémorial du Centenatre de l Ecole des langues

254 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

orientales anciennes of the Institut Catholique (1964). In view of
Dowsett’s query of Adontz’s capacities as a philologist, of Benvenist’s
suggestion of an Iranian origin for such a term as awZit, which Adontz
derived from Syriac, and of the growing evidence for the close con-
nexion between mediaeval Armenian and Parthian, the linguistic
aspects of Armenia in the Period of Justintan should probably be
revised in the light of new scholarship.

For the characteristics of Classical Armenian and its development,
see in addition to Meillet’s Grammaire comparée, Karst, Geschichte
der armenischen Philologie (1930), A¢aryan, Lnakatar k’erakanut yun
Hayoc lezvt (1955), and Benveniste, BSZ (1959) on phonetics and
syntax. On the evolution of the language, see Akinian, HA (1932),
Lap’ancyan, Hayoc lezvt patmut’iwn (1961), Lazaryan, Hayoc grakan
lezvt patmutiwn (1961), and Manandian’s Yunaban dproca (1928),
on the influence of the Hellenistic school. When possible, Aéatyan’s
difficultly procurable Hayerén armatakan bararan (1926-1935), should
also be consulted, even though not all of his etymologies have proved
acceptable.

On the origin of Armenian and its relationship with other Indo-
European and non Indo-European languages, see Lap’ancyan K prois-
khozhdenuu Armianskogo iasyka (1946), and the articles in his [storcko-
lingvisticheskie raboty (1956) together with the objections of D’iakonov,
“ Khetty, Frigiitsy i Armiane’’, Peredneazatskit Sbornik (1961),
as well as Haas, HA (1961). For the classification of Armenian within
the Indo-European system, see Pedersen, Le groupement des dialectes
undo-européens (1925), Solta, Die Stellung des Armenischen im Kreise
der wndogermanischen Sprache (1960), and Garibian’s report to the
XXV Congress of Orientalists (1960). On the relations of Armenian
and Iranian, see Meillet, REA (1921), Benveniste, HA (1927) and
REA (1964), Bolognesi, Le fonts dralettals deglt imprestiti tranict i
Armeno (1960), and his article in HA (1961); for Armenian and Phry-
gian, Haas, HA (1939), and Bonfante, 40 (1946). See also Deeters,
“Armenisch und Siidkaukasisch”’ (1926-1927), Vogt, NZ (1938),
and for Marr’s highly controversial theory, Thomas, The Linguistec
Theories of N. Ja. Marr (1957). Finally, for a survey of the work
of the Institute of Linguistics of the Armenian SSR, see Kostanyan,
VIA (1958).

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE O55
IV. Rome and Iran

For works relating to Armenia see below section V.

On the administrative system of the Later Roman Empire and its
eastern provinces, the main general works at present are Magie,
Roman Rule in Asia Minor (1950), Jones, The Cities of the Eastern
Roman Provinces (1937), and The Later Roman Empire (1964), although
Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History of the Roman Empvre (1926),
Broughton, Roman Asia Minor (1938), Pigagnol, L’ Empire chrétven
(1947), and Palanque’s edition of Stein’s Histowre du Bas Empire
(1949, 1959), should also be consulted. For the post-Justinianic
period, as well as the earlier one, the most recent Byzantine histories,
such as Ostrogorsky’s History of the Byzantine State (1957) and the
new edition of volume IV of the Cambridge Medieval History, are
the most convenient references.

For a more recent discussion of Diocletian’s reforms and eastern
policy, and the pre-Justinianic administration of the Armenian terr-
tories, see Costa’s article in the Dizionnario Epigrafico (1912), Seston,
Dioclétien (1946) Cumont’s ‘‘ L’annexion ... de la Petite Arménie ”’,
in Anatolian Studies (1923), and Ensslin’s ‘‘ Zur Ostpolitik des Kaiser’s
Diokletians ”’, SBAW (1952). On Diocletian’s military system, see
Nischer’s article in the JRS (1923), and van Berchem, L’armée de
Dioclétien (1952); on the praetorian prefecture: Stein, Untersuchung
tiber das Officium Pritorianerprafektur (1922), Palanque, Hssat sur
la préfecture du prétoire (1933), and de Laet, ARBEL (1946-1947);
and on the fiscal policy: Pigagnol, L’Impét de capitation sous le Bas-
Emmre Romain (1916), Déléage, La Capitation du Bas-Empire (1945),
and Karayannopoulos, Das Finanzwesen des friihbyzantinischen Staates
(1958).

On the period of Justinian, the latest major study is volume I of
Rubin’s Das Zeitalter Iustinians (1960), but Palanque’s edition of
volume II of Stein’s Histowre du Bas-Emire (1949) should also be
consulted, as well as Vasiliev’s Justin I (1950), Pigulevskaia’s Jfesopo-
tamia na rubezhe V-VI vv. (1940), and Hannestad’s articles on the
relations with Transcaucasia and Central Asia in B (1955-1957), for
the immediate background of the reign. On Justinian’s legal activi-
ties, see Collinet, Hiudes historiques sur le droit de Justinien I (1912).

For the partition of A.D.591 and the relations of Maurice and
Xusr6 ΠῚ, see Goubert, Byzance et VOrient (1951) and his preliminary

256* BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

article in B (1949), Higgins’ The Persian Wars of the Emperor Maurice
(1939), with the clarification of the problem of chronology, and his
article in the CHR (1941) on “ International Relations at the close
of the Sixth Century ”’, also Minorsky’s article in BSOAS (1945),
Pigulevskaia’s Vizantuia ὁ Iran na rubezhe VI «1 VII vekov (1946),
and Iskanyan, PBH (1960, 1963).

On the still disputed problem of the Byzantine Themes and the date
of their appearance, see the article of Baynes, in the EHR (1952),
Ensslin, BZ (1953), Pertusi, Aevum (1954), Ostrogorsky, B (1954),
Délger, Historia (1955), again Pertusi and Ostrogorsky in the Acts
of the XI International Congress of Byzantine Studies (1958), and
particularly the book of Karayannopoulos, Die Entsiehung der byzan-
tinischen Themenordnung (1959) which contains a historiographical
survey. On the similarity of the Byzantine administrative re-orga-
nization and the Sasanian reforms of the sixth century, see Stein,
BNJ (1920) and his review of Christensen’s first edition of L’Iran
sous les Sassanides, Le Muséon (1940), as well as Christensen’s own
acceptance of Stein’s thesis in the second edition of his work (1944),
excursus II. This thesis has, however been rejected by most recent
Byzantinists among them Ostrogorsky, Pertusi, and Karayannopoulos.

On Early Iranian studies in general, see Henning’s Bibliography
of Important Studies on Old Iranian Subjects (1950). Minorsky’s
articles in AO (1932-1951), and Frye’s The Heritage of Persia (1963),
which gives a good summary of recent interpretations together with
useful bibliographical notes, particularly for Russian publications.
For surveys of Iranian monuments and inscriptions see Henning,
Mittelrranisch (1959), and Vander Bergh, L’Archéologie de UIran
ancien (1959).

On the successive periods of Iranian history relevant to Adontz’s
discussion, see, for the pre-Persian era, D’iakonov, Istoriia Medi
(1956) and Aliev, Midiua - drevneishee gosudarstvo na teritori Azer-
baidzhana (1956), and for the Achaemenians: Echtécham’s L’Jran sous
les Achéménides (1946), Olmstead’s posthumously published, Perszan
Empire (1948). and Leuze’s Die Satrapien (1935). Much still remains
to be done on the Seleucid-Parthian periods despite Tarn’s “ Seleucid-
Parthian Studies’, in PBA (1930), Bikerman’s, Les Instttuttons des
Seleucides (1938), the vast material accumulated in the notes to Rostov-
tzeff’s Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World (1941),
the appearance of Debevoise’s Political History of Parthia (1938),

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE 257*

and particularly of Wolski’s articles in Hos (1946, 1954), the Bulletin
of the Polish Academy of Sciences (1947), and Ber. (1956-1957). Nu-
merous studies on the archaeological finds at Nisa and their evidence
as to the nature of early Parthian society have been published in the
Soviet Union: e.g. Masson, VDI (1950), D’iakonov and Livshits,
Dokumenty τῷ Nisy (1960), VDI (1960), Sbornik v Chest? Akad. 1.4.
Orbela (1960), and new material is constantly appearing. On the
contacts between the Parthian Arsacids and Rome, see Dobia¥’ article
in Archiv Onentalnua (1931), and the recent synthesis by Bokshanin,
Parfiant ἡ Rom (1960).

For the Sasanians, the locus classicus is still the second edition of
Christensen’s L’Iran sous les Sassanides (1944), although the various
studies on the inscriptions should also be consulted, especially Honig-
mann and Maricq, Recherches sur les Res Gestae Divi Saporis (1953),
and Sprengling’s critique of earlier accounts of Sahpuhr I’s campaigns
in his fran in the Third Century (1953). On the early period see also
Taquizadeh, BSOAS, XI (1943-1946), Frye, in the Studi dedicated
to Levi della Vida (1956), and Lukonin, Iran v epokhu pervykh Sasa-
nidov (1961). On the wars against the Romans, see in addition to
the studies listed above in reference to the partition of 591, Olmstead,
CP (1942), Rostovtzeff, Ber. (1943), Caratelli, Za Parola del Passato
(1947), and Ensslin, SBAW (1947), all on the activities of Sahpuhr I,
together with their critique by Sprengling in Third Century Iran.
On the Sasanian north and west frontier, see also Eremyan, JAF AN
(1941) and Nyberg, in the Studia dedicated to Bernhard Karlgren
(1959). Finally on the administration of the empire, see, in addition
to Christensen, Stein’s earlier article in BNJ (1920) and his review
of Christensen in Le Muséon (1940).

Duchesne-Guillemin’s La religion de Iran ancien (1962) provides a
convenient introduction to the subject, but see also: Unvala, Obser-
vations on the Religion of the Parthians (1925), Jackson, Zoroastrian
Studies (1928), Bidez and Cumont, Les mages hellenisés (1938), Spreng-
ling, “Κανῶν AJSLZ (1940), Wikander, Feuerpriester in Kleinasiens
und Iran (1946), Widengren, Numen (1956) and Les relagions de Iran
(1968), Chaumont, RHF (1960), Zaehner, The Dawn and Twilight of
Zoroastrianism (1961), Benveniste, JA (1964), and on Kartir’s mission-
ary activity, de Menasce, AHHE (1956).

For the Iranian social structure and its bases, see Benveniste’s
articles, J A (1932, 1938), Le vocabulaire (1969) and Dumézil’s controver-

258* BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

sial thesis in Natssance d’archanges (1945), and L’sdéologie tripartite des
Indo-Européens (1958); on existing institutions, Mazahéri, La famille
sranrenne (1938), Henning, J RAS (1953), Wolski’s article on the Arsacid
period, Hos (1954) and Widengren’s ‘“ Recherches sur le féodalisme ira-
nien”’, OS (1956). Finally, on the system of taxation and the lower clas-
ses of society, see Fateh, BSOAS (1938), Solodukho, SV (1948), Perik-
hanian, VDI (1952), Pigulevskaia, VDI (1937), and Les villes de
Vétat wranien (1963), and Altheim and Stiehl’s highly controversial
Kin astatischer Staat (1954).

V. Armenia

Despite the passage of more than half a century, no satisfactory
general history of Armenia has appeared in a western language since
the publication of Armenta in the Period of Justinian. De Morgan’s
Histoire du peuple arméemen (1919) and Grousset’s Histoire de [ Arméme
(1947) are on the whole disappointing, or too old to incorporate recent
discoveries. In spite of its great value for reference purposes, Touma-
noff’s Studies in Christian Caucasian History, provides no systematic
historical treatment, as is evident from its title. The most useful
general history of ancient and medieval Armenia at present conse-
quently is Manandian’s K’nnakan tesut’yun Hay Zotovrds patmut’ yan
(1945-1952), and for the Roman period, Asdourian’s Die politischen
Bezehungen zwischen Armenien und Rom (1911), although it too
requires rectification on a number of points. See also Sarkisian’s
bibliographical survey, VDI (1967).

On the periodization of Armenian history presented by Adontz,
see the critique of Manandian, Feodalism hin Hayastanum (1934) and
The Trade and Cities of Armenia (1944), and Toumanoff, Studies,
as well as the suggestions of Eremyan in VJ (1951).

Armenian chronology is still studded with problems and contra-
dictions even on such crucial points as the date of the Christianization
of the country, a point on which Adontz, himself proposed a revision
in his subsequent study “‘ Les vestiges d’un ancien culte en Arménie ”’,
AIPHO (1936). A number of corrections in the chronology were
already made by Asdourian in his Bezzehungen, and for the third
century A.D., the studies of Maricg, S (1955, 1957) and Kasuni,
Akos (1957) have helped bring a modicum of precision into a picture

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE 259%

which is still extremely confused. For the date of Diocletian’s re-
establishment of Trdat III on the throne of Armenia, the evidence
of the Sasanian inscriptions must now be taken into consideration,
cf. Herzfeld, Patkulh, Sprengling, Third Century Iran, Honigmann-
Maricq, Recherches, and Eremyan’s relation of this material to Ar-
menia, PBH (1966). For the period of the Christian Arsacids, see
the major revision proposed by Baynes, LHF (1910), which has not,
however, been accepted by all scholars, and on particular events,
Peeters, “ L’Intervention politique de Constance II”, ARBBL (1931),
“Le début de la persecution de Sapor ᾿, RHA (1921). as well as the
notes and commentary in Garitte’s Documents pour lV étude du livre
d’ Agathange and the Narratio de rebus Armenae. The most recent
discussion of Armenian fourth century chronology, hinging on the
date of the Christianization of Armenia, has been given by Ananian,
Le Muséon (1961), who includes a résumé of other theses, but holds
to the general chronological framework of Manandian and Garitte,
rejecting Baynes’ revision.

The period of Armenian history which has benefitted from the most
attention of late, is the earliest pre-Christian era of which Adontz
regretted the almost total ignorance in Armenia in the Period of
Justinian, but to which he too devoted himself in his last major work,
Histoire d’ Arménie (1946). The enormous quantity of material
uncovered by Urartian archaeology, complemented by the deciphering
of the Urartian inscription, cannot even be broached in a brief intro-
duction such as this. The most convenient summaries of the scholar-
ship and bibliography of the subject can be found in Piotrovsku,
Vanskoe Tsarstvo (1959), Melikishvih, Nawz-Urartu (1954), Manan-
dian, O nekotorykh spornykh problemakh (1956), Lap’ancean, Istoriko-
Lingvisticheskie raboty (1957), and van Loon, Urartian Art (1966),
but the constant publication of new excavation reports and articles
make all syntheses rapidly obsolete and the periodical literature must
invariably be consulted. For the ethnographic pattern of early
_ Armenia and the neighbouring lands, see below section VII.

On the Achaemenid and Hellenistic periods, our knowledge has
likewise been radically altered by Manandian’s identification of the
native Erwandian-Orontid dynasty, cf. Manandian, The Trade and
Coties of Armenia (1944) and Trever’s Ocherks po istori kultury drevner
Armenti (1953), which contains most of the relevant inscriptions.
For the development of Manandian’s thesis, and the link between

2600 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

the Orontids. the Zariadrids of Sophené, and the dynasts of Kommagené
commemorated in the Nimrud-dag inscriptions, see Toumanoff’s
Studies in Christian Caucasian History, which incorporates the material
and conclusions of earlier articles, and Sargisyan, Hellenistakan darasr-
gant Hayastana (1966). See also Tiracyan in JANA (1956), and his
report to the XXVth Congress of Orientalists (1960). The discovery
of the Aramaic inscriptions of the Artaxiads have also suggested
the neéd for a re-evaluation of the nature of both the Artaxiad and
the Zariadrid dynasties in relation to each other and to the contempor-
ary powers, cf. in addition to the works of Toumanoff and Trever
already mentioned, Perikhanian’s article, REA (1966) for the recent
bibliography.

For Armenia’s history as a buffer state between the Romans and
the Persians, see the following studies in addition to Asdourian’s
Beziehungen and the relevant works listed in section IV: on the reign
of Tigran II and the distorting image given by Roman sources- Manan-
dian, Tigran II + Rim (1943), as well as Eckhardt, K (1909-1910),
Giize, K (1926), Manandian, VDI (1939, 1940); on the wars of Nero
ending in the compromise peace of Rhandeia, Schur- K (1928, 1925),
Kudriavtsev, VDI (1948, 1949); and for Trajan’s temporary annexa-
tion- Lepper, Trajan’s Parthian War (1948). On the period of the
Christian Arsacids, see, in addition to the works already mentioned
under chronology, Akinian HA (1935), Ensslin, K (1936), Stein,
Histoire du Bas-Eemmpire, 1 (1959), and Doise, RE Ane. (1945), for the
fourth century; Mécérian, BA (1953), Eremyan, VDI (1953), and
Iskanyan, PBH (1966), for the Persian war of 450-451; and Goubert,
Byzance et V Orient, on the period of Maurice.

VI. The Church

On the general history of the early Church and its institutions
touched upon in Adontz’s discussion, the most convenient survey
is still Fliche and Martin, Histoire de Eglise (1946), and on specific
points, the DTC and DHGE are useful as are Grumel’s Regestes des
Actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople (1932). See also Stein, ZNW
(1935) and Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium (1958).

On the first cecumenical councils and their participants, Laurent’s
‘“ Les sources ἃ consulter ”, HO (1931), Honigmann’s valuable articles

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE 2615

in Β (1939, 1944), and his Patristec Studies (1953), must be consulted,
as well as Schwartz’s study in ABAW (1957) and the Prosopographia
and Topographia which he included in volume II-vi of the ACO.
On the Council of Chalcedon in particular, see the collection of articles
in Grillmeier and Bacht, Das Konzil von Chalkedon (1951-1954), Sellers,
The Council of Chalcedon (1961), and in its relation to Armenia, Sar-
kissian, The Council of Chalcedon and Armenia (1965).

On the geography of the eastern church, Schwartz’s and Monig-
mann’s above mentioned articles are indispensable, as are Honigmann’s
notes to the Synekdemos of Hierokles, and his Hvéques et évéchés mono-
physites (1951), Le Couvent de Barsauma (1954), and Trots mémoires
posthumes (1961). Peeter’s Recherches d’histotre et de plulologie orven-
tales (1951), and his articles in AB, some of which are included in the
preceeding collection, as well as Garitte’s notes to “ Agathangetos ”
and the Narratvo are likewise essential.

For the Armenian Church, studies still begin with Ormanian’s
Azgapatum (1914-1927). Tournebize’s Histoire politique et religieuse
de Arménie (1910) can occasionally be useful despite its age and bias,
and Kogean’s recent and controversial Hayoc Ekelecin, should also
be consulted, but Mécérian’s Histoire et institutions de VEglise armé-
nienne (1965) has proved unexpectedly disappointing. All the works
of Honigmann, Peeters, and particularly Garitte, already cited, are
directly relevant for a study of early Armenian Christianity, as is
Markwart’s posthumous Die Entstehung der armentschen Bisttimer
(1931). The most recent survey of the numerous points of controversy
is given by van Esbroeck in AB (1962). On the question of hereditary
ecclesiastical estates, Perikhanian’s study on pagan temple-estates,
Khramovye Ob’ edinente (1959) is of considerable interest, albeit dealing
exclusively with the pre-christian period.

VII. The Nayarar System

As indicated at the beginning of this note, all future investigations
of the Armenian nayarar system should begin with Toumanoff’s
extensive Studies in Christian Caucasian History (1963), and the
studies of Iranian institutions and terminology mentioned above will
invariably prove relevant.

For the early social structure of Transcaucasia and the neigh-

209 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

bouring lands, and the complicated ethnographic pattern of the area,
the first section of Toumanoff’s Studies may be complemented by
a number of additional works: Hiising’s Die Volker Altkleinasiens
und am Pontus (1933), Anderson, Alexander’s Gate (1932), Javayi8vili’s
and USakov’s articles in VDI (1939), Manandian’s Hin Hayastani mi
k’ant problemnert masin (1944), Hremyan, VJ (1952), Fields’ Contro-
bution to the Anthropology of the Caucasus (1953), Aliev’s article in the
Sbormtk v chest? Akad. I. A. Orbeli (1960), Melikishvili’s report to the
XXVth Congress of Orientalists (1960), and the collection of archae-
ological articles under the editorship of M. Mellink, Dark Ages and
Nomads (1964). For recent studies of Armenia’s northern border-
lands, see Trever, Ocherki po tstoru ὃ kultury kavkazskot Albania (1959),
the collection of articles on Albania published by the Academy of
Sciences of the Azerbajanian SSR (1962), Mnacakanyan’s Afvanic
asyarht ... Surj (1966), and Hakobyan’s Syuniki T’agavorut’yuna
(1966). On early Armenian society see Manandian IZ (1945) for
the pre-Arsacid period and Eremyan JANA (1948). for the Hellenistic
epoch.

The entire validity of Adontz’s thesis of a similarity between the
Armenian nayarar system and western feudalism hinges on the premise
that the term “feudalism ”’ may properly be applied to other than
medieval european institutions. In recent years, however, this
assumption has been both challenged and defended, and the definition
of ‘‘ feudalism ” as a rigorously circumscribed term, or as a general
stage of development has been hotly debated, especially between
western and Marxist scholars. Cf. Coulborn, Feudalism in History
(1956), and Kosminski, Problemy angliskogo feodalisma (1963). More-
Over extensive new studies of western feudalism have altered the
interpretation of this institution, so that a number of Adontz’s con-
clusions rest on concepts no longer acceptable to scholars. Conse-
quently, much of the argument in Adontz’s last chapter must now
be revised in the light of such studies of feudalism as Bloch’s epoch-
making La société féodale (1939), as well as more recent works such as
Lot and Fawtier’s Histoire des institutions francaises au Moyen-Age
(1957-1958), Boutruche’s Sewgneurie et féodalité (1959), and Duby’s
L’économee rurale (1962). Although less directly related to Adontz’s
argument, the studies on Iranian “feudalism” and the Byzantine
Themes, mentioned in section IV, as well as Ostrogorsky’s Pour
Vhostowre de la féodalité byzantine (1954), and Lemerle’s series of articles

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE 263*

on Byzantine agrarian history in RH (1958), provide valuable compa-
rative material.

Adontz developed his views on the Armenian social structure in his
later study ‘“ Aspect iranien du servage ”’, (1937), and his comparison
of the nayarar system to western feudalism was continued and ela-
borated by Manandian, Feodalism Hin Hayastanum (1934). Armenian
medieval society has also been investigated by Kherumian, ‘“‘ Esquisse
dune féodalité oubliée ”, (1948-1949), more recently in Sukiasyan’s
Obshchestvenno-politicheskit strot ὁ pravo Armenw (1963) and ΜΙ.
Chaumont JA (1966).

On Armenian medieval law, see the studies of the Codes of Myit’ar
Gods and Smbat Sparapet listed in section I, and works dealing with
the Church, as well as Samuelyan’s Hin Hay wravunk’s patmut yun,
I (1939), also the above mentioned studies of Manandian and Sukiasian,
both of which give considerable attention to the regulations found in
ecclesiastical canons.

The status of the lower classes of society has attracted a good deal
of attention in recent years, both in general works, and in such special-
ized studies as Manandian’s Ditolat’yunner hin Hayastant sinakannert
drut yan masin (1925) and Nyut’er hin Hayastani tntesakan kyank’s
patmut yan (1928), Samuelyan’s article in the Journal of the University
of Erevan (1937), Hakobyan’s mn ZANA (1948), and Eremyan’s VDI
(1950), all on slavery, Eremyan’s study of city-life, VDJ (1953), Xat-
kyan’s survey of popular movements, P’ok’r Hayk’s socialakan Sar-
Zumnere (1951), Hakobyan’s major work on the Armenian peasantry,
Hay gyutaciut’yan patmut yun (1957), and his articles PBH (1962,
1966).

Finally for the history of individual nayarar houses, see also Muyl-
dermans, HA (1926), Scéld, REA (1929) and Mlaker, WZKM (1932),
on the Mamikonean; Kogean, Kamsarakannera (1926); Markwart,
Ca (1930) and Sahnazaryan, Bagratunyac nayararakan tohmi caguma
(1948), on the Bagratids; Oskean, HA (1952), on the Rstuni; and
Bakhudarian in the Sbornek v chest? Akad. I. A. Orbels (1960), on the
Arcruni,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Note. All works have been listed according to the systems of
abbreggations used in the notes. For the sake of convenience, titles
in Aruienian and in Russian have been transliterated as well as trans-
lated.

All transliterations follow the systems indicated in the Preface to
this edition. Diacritical marks have been used where required, but
they have been disregarded insofar as English alphabetical order is
concerned. In Armenian, the letter ε between two vowels has been
rendered as -w-, e.g. ‘haf = Dwin. The letter fu = y, although
in Greek, the traditional transliteration, y = ch, has been preserved.

Famuilar proper names have been given according to their traditional
spelling, e.g. Dashian, rather than TaSean, and only one form has
been used for each name irrespective of extant variants.

* This Bibliography incorporates both the works listed in the
original Russian edition and those which appeared subsequently.
Works marked with an asterisk are those which were listed in the
original edition.

I. SourcEsS

Whenever available, the editions of the Loeb Classical Inbrary [L]
have been used for the sake of the parallel English text.

For Armenian sources, the best obtainable edition has been used,
but in a number of cases, the edition cited is regrettably less an index
of its intrinsic value, than of its accessibility to the editor.

** Sources marked with a double asterisk are those listed by
Adontz in the original Bibliography without an indication of the
edition used.

Aa see “ Agat’angelos ’’, Agat’.
Ag see “* Agat’angelos’”’, Ag.
Agat’. see “ Agat’angelos ’’, Agat’.

** Agat’angetos ” *Agat’angetos, Patmut’iwn [History], (Tiflis, 1883).

Ag [Greek Version]

BIBLIOGRAPHY 265*

** Agathangelus ”, P. de Lagarde ed.. AKGWG, XXXV
(1889). Trans. : in CHAMA, I (1867), pp. 109-193.

Agat’.[Aa- Armenian Version] Agat’angelos, Patmut’iwn [ History), 3rd ed. (Venice, 1930).

Va [Arabic Version]

Vg [Life of St. Gregory]

Vo

AL

Amm. Marc.

Anania Sirakaci

Anastas Vardapet, List

Anderson, J.G.C.,
Cumont, E., and Fr.,
Grégoire, H.

Anonymous History

Answers

Appian

App. Mithr.

App. Syr.

ἘΠῚ Martyrium sanctorum Gregorii et Rhipsimiae et
Gaianae ”’, in Marr, Christianization, pp. 66-148.

Latin trans. : in Garitte, Agathange, pp. 27-116.
Agat‘angetost arabakan nor ymbagrut‘iwna [A New Arabic
Version of Agat'angelos], A. Ter Lewondyan ed. (Erevan,
1968). ae

** Πράξις καὶ μαρτύριον τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ, ἐνδόξου ἱερομάρτυρος
Γρηγορίου τῆς Μεγάλης ᾿Αρμενίας, ᾿" in Garitte, A gathan-
ge, pp. 23-116.

‘La Vie grecque inédite de saint Grégoire d’Arménie ”,
G. Garitte ed., AB, LX XXIII (1965), pp. 233-290.
*Aristakés Lastivertci, Patmut’iwn Aristakeay vardapeti
Lastivertewoy [History of the vardapet Aristakés Lastt-
verter], (Venice, 1844).

Aristakés Lastivertci, Patmuit’iwn Aristakisi Lastt-
vertcwoy [History of Aristakés Lastivertci], K.E. Yuz-
basyan ed. (Erevan, 1963).

Trans. : Histowre d’ Arménie ... par Arisdagués de Lasdi-
verd, traduite pour la premiere fois ... par M. Evariste
Prud’homme (Paris, 1864).

*Ammiant Marcellint Rerum gestarum libri qui super-
sunt, V. Gardthausen ed., 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1874-75).
Ammianus Marcellinus, The Surviving Books of the
History [11], J.C. Rolfe, ed. and trans., 3 vols. (Cambridge,
Mass.-London, 1950).

Ἐπ Anania Sirakaci”, Miaban ed., Ararat (1906).
Anania Sirakaci, Yalags hareman ew lucman [On Ques-
tions and Answers], I.A. Orbeli ed. (Petrograd, 1918).
Repr. in 1.4. Orbeli, Izbrannye trudy [Selected Works],
(Erevan, 1963).

*Anastas Vardapet, ‘‘ Vasn vanorénic Hayoe or Yeru-
salem [On the Armenian Monasteries in Jerusalem]”’,
in Alishan, Hayapatum, pp. 227-229.

“ Recueil des inscriptions grecques et latines du Pont
et de l’Arménie, ’? Studia Pontica, III/1 (1910).

see, Primary History.

** Collectio Sangermanensis ᾽ν, ACO, II/v (1936), pp. 71-75.
*Appant Historia Romana, L. Mendelssohn ed., 2 vols.
(Leipzig, 1879).

Appian, ‘‘ The Mithridatic Wars”, in Appian’s Roman
History [11], H. White ed. and trans. (Cambridge, Mass.-
London, 1928-1955), IT, pp. 239-477.

Appian, “ The Syrian War ”’, in Appian’s Roman History

2068

Aristotle, Politics

Arm. Geogr. I (Long Version]

Arm. Geogr. 11 [Short version]

Arrian, Anab.

Arrian Periplus

AS - ASSR

Asolik

Barhebraeus, Chron. Eccl.

Barhebraeus, Chron. Syr.

Basil, Notitia
Basil, Caes., Ep.

Benesevité, Syntagmata

BL

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1], H. White ed. and trans. (Cambridge, Mass.-London,
1928-1955), II, pp. 103-237.

*Aristotelis Politica, F. Susemihl ed., new ed. (Leipzig,
1894).

Aristotle, Politics [L], H. Rackham ed. and trans. (Cam-
bridge, Mass.-London, 1932).

* Asyarhacoy¢c # daru[A Geography of the VIIth Century},
K.P. Patkanian ed. (St. Petersburg, 1877).

* Asyarhacoyce Movsési Xorenacwoy [Géographie de Moise
de Coréne], A.Soukry ed. and trans. (Venice, 1881).
[Adontz lists both editions without indicating the one
he used. The latter has been used in this edition].

ἘΠῚ ASyarhacoye stoy Movsisi Xorenacwoy [Géographie
attribuée ἃ Moyse de Khoren]’’, in Saint-Martin, Mé-
moires, II, pp. 318-377.

““ ASyarhacoye [Geography]”, in MX, pp. 585-616.
**Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander [L], E. Hiff ed. and
trans., 2 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.-London, 1958-1961).
* Anonymi (Arriani ut fertur) Periplus Ponti Euxini”’,
GGM, I, pp. 402-423.

Arriano, Periplo del Ponto Eusino, G. Marenghi ed. and
trans. (Naples, s.d. [1958}).

Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR, Divan Hay
Vimagrut yan [Corpus Inscriptionum Armenicarum],
3 vols., in progress (Erevan, 1960-).

*Asolik, Patmutiwn Tiezerakal [Universal History],
2nd ed. (St. Petersburg, 1885).

Trans. : Part I — Histoire universelle par Etienne Asogh’ig
de Daron, EK. Dulaurier trans. (Paris, 1883).

Part II — Histoire universelle par Etienne Asoltik de Tarén,
F. Macler trans. (Paris, 1917).

*Barhebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, J.B. Abbeloos
and T.J. Lamy edd. and trans., 3 vols. (Louvain, 1872-
1877).

*Barhebraeus, Chronicon Syriacum, P. Bedjan ed. (Paris,
1874).

Trans. : The Chronography of Gregory Abié’l Faraj ...
Bar Hebraeus, E.A.W. Budge trans. (London, 1932).

** Basilii notitia ’’, in Georg. Cypr., pp. 1-27.

**St. Basil of Caesarea, Collected Letters of Saint Basil
[11], R.J. Deferrari ed., 4 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.-London,
1961).

*Drevne-slavianskaia Kormcheia XIV titulov [Syntag-
mata XIV titulorum sine scholiis secondum versionem
palaeo-slovenicam], V.N. Benesevic ed., Vol. I, (St. Pe-
tersburg, 1906-1907).

*Girk’ T’lt’oc [The Book of Letters], (Tiflis, 1901).

Cass. Dio

Cedrenus

Charmoy

Chron. Pasch.
σου
Cod. Th.

Const. Porph., DAI

Const. Porph. de Themat.

D’iakonov

Diegesis
Diod. Sic.

Dionysios, Perigesis

Disputation

Dwin Canons

BIBLIOGRAPHY 267%

*Dionis Cassit Cocceiant Historia Romana, L. Dindorf
ed., 5 vols. (Leipzig, 1863-1865).

Cassius Dio, Roman History [L], E. Cary ed. and trans.,
9 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.-London, 1954-1955).
*Cedrenus, ‘“‘Synopsis Historiarum’’, I. Bekker ed.,
2 vols. CSHB (1838-1839).

*Charmoy, F.B. trans., Chéref-Ndmeh ou Fastes de la
nation Kourde par Chéref-owddine, Prince de Bidlis
dans Vlidlet @ Arzerotime, 2 vols. in 4° (St. Petersburg,
1868-1875).

ἘΠῚ Chronicon Paschale ”’, B.G. Niebuhr ed., CSHB (1832).
** Codex Justinianus’’, P. Kriiger ed., in CJC, II,
8th ed. (1906).

**Codex Theodosianus, T. Mommsen ed. (Berlin, 1905).
Trans. : The Theodosian Code, C. Pharr trans. (Princeton,
1952).

*Constantine Porphyrogenitus, ‘De Administrando
Imperio ”, I. Bekker ed., CSHB (1829).

Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperto,
G. Moravesik, R.H. Jenkins, et al. edd. and trans.
(Budapest-London, 1949, 1962).

*Constantine Porphyrogenitus, ‘“‘De Thematibus’’.
1. Bekker ed., CSHB (1840).

Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Costantino Porfirogenito
de Thematibus, A. Pertusi ed. (Vatican City, 1952).
D’iakonov, I.M. ed. and trans. ‘* Assyro-vavilonskie
istochniki po istorii Urartu [Assyro-Babylonian Docu-
ments on the History of Urartu]”’, VDI (1951).
D’iakonov, I.M. ed. and trans. Urartskie Pis’ma 1 Doku-
menty [Urartian Letters and Documents], (Moscow, 1963).
see Garitte, Narratio.

** Diodorus Siculus, The Library of History [L], F.R. Wal-
ton ed. and trans., 12 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.-London,
1933-1967).

ἘΠῚ Tionisii Orbis Descriptio’, GGM, IT (1861), pp. 103-
176.

ἘΠ Srboc vardapetacn Hayoc Movsési ew Dawt’i harc-
munk’ ond erkbanak Garap’arsn [Disputation of the
Holy vardapets Movsés and Dawit’ with the Heretical
Dyophysites]’, G. Srwanjteane ed., Hnoc Norog (1874).
ἘΠῚ Mi. Xorenacwoy patmut’ean zamanaki masin [On
the Date of the History of Xorenaci]”’, F.C. Conybeare
ed., HA, XVII (May, 1903), pp. 152-155.

[Adontz cites both editions, but does not indicate the
one he used. The latter has been used in this edition].
κα Kanonk’ Dunay S. Zolovoyn [Canons of the Holy
Council of Dwin]”’, Ararat (1905).

268*

Ehsé

Ephr. Syr., Carm. Nisib.

Euseb. HE
Eustathius of Thessalonike
Evagr.

FB

Festus, Breviarium
Fronto, Princ. Hist.

Gahnamak

Garitte, Agathange
Garitte, Narratio
Gelas. Cyz.

Georg. Cypr.

Georgian Chronicles
Girk? T’Woe
Greg. Naz., Orat.

Hadjiabad Inscription
Hamazah al-Isfahani

BIBLIOGRAPHY

*Ehl8é, Vasn Vardanay ew Hayoc Paterazmin [On Vardan
and the Armenian War], (Venice, 1893).

Hiss, Vasn Vardanay ew Hayoe Paterazmin [On Vardan
and the Armenian War], E.Tér Minasean ed. (Erevan,
1957).

Trans. : in CHAMA, II (1869), pp. 183-251.

*Ephraem Syrus, L'phraemi Carmina Nisibena, G. Bickell
ed. (Leipzig, 1866).

Ephraem Syrus, “‘ Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers
Carmina Nisibena’’, Εἰ. Beck ed. and trans., CSCO,
CCXLI (1963).

**Husebius of Caesarea, 7.6 Ecclesiastical History [11],
K. Lake and J. Oulton edd. and trans., 2 vols. (Cam-
bridge, Mass.-London, 1949-1953).

ἘΠῚ Kustatii Commentarii ’’, GGM, IT (1861), pp. 201-407.
*Evagrius, Ecclesiastical History, J. Bidez and L. Par-
mentier edd. (London, 1898).

*P’awstos Buzand [Faustus of Byzantium], P’awstosi
Buzandacwoy Paimu?iwn Hayoc [P’awstos Buzand’s
History of Armenia], (Venice, 1889), 4th ed. (Venice, 1933).
Trans. : in CHAMA, I (1867), pp. 209-310.

*Festus, Breviarium, C. Wagener ed. (Leipzig, 1886).
**Fronto, Correspondance [L], C.R. Haines ed. and
trans., 2 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.-London, 1919-1920).
Movsés Xorenaci, Istoriia Armenia [History of Armenia],
N.O. Emin trans. (Moscow, 1858), Suppl.

Garitte, G., Documents pour Vétude du livre d’ Agathange
(Vatican City, 1946).

Garitte, G., “‘ La Narratio de rebus Armeniae”, CSCO,
CXXXII, Subsidia 4 (1952).

*Gelazius Cyzicenus, ‘‘ Historia Concilii Nicaeni”’,
PG, LXXXYV (1860), cols. 1191-1360.

*Georgit Cyprit Descriptio orbis Romani, H. Gelzer ed.
(Leipzig, 1890).

Georgius Cyprius, Le Synekdemos d’ Hieroklés et Vopuscule
géographique de George de Chypre, Ἐπ. Honigmann ed.
(Brussels, 1939).

*Istochnikt gruzinskitkh letopiset. Tri khroniki [The
Sources of the Georgian Annals. Three Chronicles],
E. T’agaiisvili ed. (Tiflis, 1900).

see BL.

*Gregory Nazianzenus, “ Oratio XLIII, In laudem
Basilii magni’, PG, XXXVI (1863), cols. 493-606.

See Nyberg, Hajjiabad.

Hamzae Ispahanensis Annalium libri X, J.N.E. Gott-
waldt ed. and trans., 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1848).

Eng. trans. : The Annals of Hamzah al-Isfahdni, U.M.
Daudpota trans. (Bombay, 1932).

Herod.

Herzfeld, Parkult

Hierokles

Homer, Iliad
Lbn al-Fakih
Llbn Khurdadhbth

Ibn Serapion

Isidore of Charax

Itin. Ant.

Jalabert, Commagéne

Jamblichus

Joh. Ant.
Joh. Eph., de beatis

Joh. Eph., ΠΕ

BIBLIOGRAPHY 269*

*Herodott Historiarum libri IX, H.R. Dietsch and
H. Kallenberd eds., 2nd ed. (Leipzig, 1899-1901).
Herodotus, Histories [L], A.G. Godley ed. and trans.,
4 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.-London, 1960).

Herzfeld, E., Paikuli. Monuments and Inscriptions of
the Karly History of the Sasanian Empire, 2 vols. (Berlin,
1924).

*Hvieroclis Synecdemus et Notitiae Graecae Episcopatum
accedunt Nilt Doxopatrit Notitia Patriarchatuum et
Locorum Nomina Immutata, G. Parthay ed. (Berlin,
1866).

Hierokles, Le Synekdemos d’Hieroklés et Vopuscule géo-
graphique de Georges de Chypre, E.Honigmann ed.
(Brussels, 1939).

*Homeri Ilias, G. Dindorf ed. 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1899).
Homer, The Iliad [L], A.T. Murray ed. and trans.,
2 vols. (New York-London, 1925).

*Ibn al-Fakih, “‘ Kitab al-buldan ”’, BGA, V (1885).
*Ibn Khurdadhbih, “Liber viarum et regnorum”’,
BGA, VI (1889).

*Ibn Serapion, “ Description of Mesopotamia and
Baghdad written about the Year 900 A.D. by Ibn
Serapion ’’, G. le Strange, ed. and trans., JRAS, XLVII,
n.s. X XVII (1895), pp. 1-76, 255-316.

ἘΠῚ Tsidori Characeni Mansiones Parthicae”, GGM, I
(1855), pp. 244-256.

Isidore of Charax, The Parthian Stations, W.H. Schoff
ed. and trans. (Philadelphia, 1914). ᾿

ἘΠ Ttinerarium provinciarum omnium Imper. Antonini
Augusti, “‘ Recueil des itinératres anciens, de Fortia
d’Urban ed. (Paris, 1845), pp. 1-148.

“Das Itinerarium Antonini”, Jtineraria Romana, K.
Miller ed. (Stuttgart, 1916), pp. liv-Ixvii.

Jalabert, L. and Mouterde, R. edd. Inscriptions grecques
et latenes de la Syrie 1 : Commageéne et Cyrrhestique (Paris,
1929).

*“* Jamblichus ”’, as cited in Photius, Bibliothéque, R. Henri
ed. and trans. (Paris, 1959), IL, pp. 34-48.

*Johannes Antiochenus, “‘ Fragmenta’”’, FGH, IV.
*Johannes Ephesinus, Johannis Episcopi Ephesi Syri
Monophysitae Commentaria de Beatis Orientalibus et
Historiae Ecclesiasticae Fragmenta, W.J. van Douwen
and J.P.N. Land trans. (Amsterdam, 1889).

Eng. trans. : Joannes of Ephesus, ** Lives of the Eastern
Saints’, Εἰ. W. Brooks trans., PO XVII, 1 (1923); X VIII,
4 (1924); XIX, 2 (1925).

* Johannes Ephesinus, Die Kirchengeschichte des Johannes

270*

Joh. Erznk.

Joh. Kat’.

Joh. Lyd., de mag.

Joh. Mam.

Josephus, Ant.

Josephus, Bell. Jud.

Jos. Styl.

Julian

Justin

Karst, Sempadscher Kodex

BIBLIOGRAPHY

von Ephesus, aus dem Syrischen tibersetzt u.s.w. von
J.M. Schénfelder (Munich, 1862).

Johannes Ephesinus, “Iohannis Ephesini Historiae
ecclesiasticae pars tertia’”’, E.W. Brooks ed. and trans.,
CSCO, CVI (1936, repr. 1964).

Eng. trans. : The Third Part of the Ecclesiastical History
of John Bishop of Ephesus. Now first translated from
the Original Syriac by R. Payne Smith (Oxford, 1860).
*Yovhannés Erznkaci [John of Erznkay], Yovhannu
Erznkacwoy Nerboleank’? ὁ Surb Grigori Lusaworié
[Yovhannés Erznkaci, Panegyric of St. Gregory the Illu-
minator|, Sop’erk’, V (Venice, 1853).

*Yovhannés Kat’oltikos [John the Kat’olikos], Pat-
mut twn [History], (Moscow, 1853).

Yovhannés Kat’olikos, Paitmut’iwn [ History], (Jerusalem,
1867).

Trans. : [notoriously inadequate] Hvstoire d’ Arménie
par le patriarche Jean VI dit Jean Catholicos, par M.J.
Saint-Martin, ouvrage posthume (Paris, 1841).

Johannes Lydus, De magistratibus, O. Seeck ed. (Berlin,
1876).

Johannes Lydus, De magistratibus, popult Romani,
R. Wiinsch ed. (Leipzig, 1903).

*Yovhannés Mamikonean [John Mamikonean] Yovhannu
Mamikoneni episkoposi Patmutiwn Tardnoy [History
of Tarén by Bishop Yovhannés Mamikonean], 2nd ed.
(Venice, 1889).

Trans. :in CHAMA, I (1867), pp. 361-382.

**F. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities [L], R. Marcus and
L.H. Feldman edd. and trans. 9 vols. (Cambridge,
Mass-London, 1926-1965).

ἘΞΕῚ, Josephus, The Jewish War [L], H. St. John Thacke-
ray ed. and trans., 9 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.-London,
1926-1965).

*Josua Stylites, The Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite
Composed in Syriac A.D. 507, W. Wright ed. and trans.
(Cambridge, 1882).

Josua Stylites, La chronique de Josué le stylite, écrite
vers Van 515, Paulin-Martin trans. (Leipzig, 1876).
*Juliant epitome latina novellarum Justinian, G. Haenel
ed. (Leipzig, 1873).

*M. Iuniani Iustini Epitoma historiarum Philippicarum
Pompet Trogt, F. Ruehl ed. (Leipzig, 1886).

Justin, Epitoma historiarum Philippicarum, ed. 2 vols.
(Paris, 1936).

*Karst, J. ed., Sempadscher Kodex aus dem 13. Jahr-
hundert oder mittelarmenisches Rechtsbuch, 2 vols. (Stras-
burg, 1905).

Kent, Old Persian

Kir. Ganj.

Koriwn

Labbé, Concilia
Lact. de mort.
Laterculus Polemii Silvit

Laterculus Veronensis

Law of the XII Tables

Lewond

Lex Salica

Ife of St. Gregory
Infe of St. Mesrop
Infe of St. Nersés
Life of St. Theodore

LP’

Malalas
Mas’ δαὶ

Melikishvili, F.A.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 271*

Kent, R.G., Old Persian, grammar-texts-lexicon, 2nd
rev. ed. (New Haven, 1953).

*Kirakos Ganjakeci, Hamarot Patmut’iwn [Brief History),
(Venice, 1865).

Kirakos Ganjakeci, Patmutiwn Hayoc [History of Ar-
menia}], K.A. Melik’-Ohanjanyan ed. (Erevan, 1961).
Trans. : ‘‘ Histoire d’Arménie par le vartabied Kirakos
de Gantzac’’, Deux historiens arméniens, M.F. Brosset
trans. (St. Petersburg, 1870).

**Koriwn, Vark’ δ. Mastoc: [Biographie des Hl. Mastoc},
N. Akinian ed. (Vienna, 1952).

Trans. :in CHAMA, II (1869), pp. 9-16.

*Labbé, Ph. and Couart edd., Sacrosancta Concilia,
15 vols. (Paris, 1671-1672). .

**Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, J. Moreau
ed. and trans., 2 vols. (Paris, s.d. [1954)).

**°° Laterculus Polemii Silui siue Schonhouianus ”’,
Seeck, Not. dig., pp. 254-260.

ἘΠῚ Laterculus Ueronensis ’, Seeck, Not. dig., pp. 247-
253.

** The Twelve Tables, or the Law of the Twelve
Tables’, Remains of Old Latin [L], E.H. Warmington
ed. and trans. (Cambridge, Mass.-London, 1961), ITI,
pp. 424-515.

*Lewond, Patmutiwn Lewondeay mect vardapett Hayoe
[History of Lewond, the Great Vardapet of Armenia],
2nd ed. (St. Petersburg, 1887).

Trans.: Ghévond, Histoire des guerres et des conquétes
des Arabes en Arménie ..., G. Chahnazarian trans. (Paris,
1856). |

** Tex Salica, K. A. Eckhardt ed. (Weimar, 1953).

see “ Agat’angelos ’’, Vg. |

see Koriwn.

see Nersés

ἘΠῚ Zhitie Sv. Theodora [Life of St. Theodore]”, Kh.
Loparev ed. ZKO, I (1904).

*Lazar P’arpeci, Patmutiwn Hayoc [History of Armenia},
(Tiflis, 1904).

Lazar P’arpeci, Paimut’iwn Hayoe [History of Armenia],
4th ed. (Venice, 1933).

Trans. : in CHAMA, II (1869), pp. 259-369.

*Johannis Malalae Chronographia, L. Dindorf ed., CSHB
(1831).

**Mas’iidi, Les Prairies dor, Ch. Pellat ed. and trans.,
2 vols. in progress (Paris, 1962-).

Urariskie klinoobraznye nadpist [Urartian Cuneiform
Inscriptions (Moscow 1960).

272*

Men. Prot.

Mich, Syr.

Military Inst

Mov. Dasx.
Mov. Katank.

MU

MX

Myit’ar Gas

Narraivo de rebus Armeniae
Nersés

Néldeke, Tabarz

BIBLIOGRAPHY

*Menander Protector, ‘‘ Ex historia Menandri Protec-
toris excerpta de legationibus barbarorum ad Romanos ””’,
I. Bekker and B.G. Niehbur edd., CSHB (1829).
*Menander Protector, Hacerpta de legationibus, C. de
Boor ed., 2 vols. (Berlin, 1905).

*Michael Syrus, Chronique de Michel le Syrien patriarche
jacobite d Antioche (1166-1199), J.B. Chabot ed. and
trans. (Paris 1899-1904).

Storagrut?iwn katuliké Hjmiacni ew hing gawatacn
Araratay [Description of the Kat’otikosate of Ejmiacin
and of the Five Provinces of Ararat], H. Sahyatunean ed.,
2 vols. (Efmiacin, 1842), II, pp. 59.

see Mov. Katank.

*Movsés Katankatwaci, Movsest Kalankatwacwoy Pat-
mutiwn Alwanie asyarhi [History of Atbania by Movsés
Katankaiwaci}, J. Emin ed. (Moscow, 1860).

Trans. : Dowsett, Mov. Dasy.

*Matt’eos Urhaeci [Matthew of Edessa], Matt’eosi
Uthayecwoy Zamanakagrutiwn [Chronicle of Mait’eos
Urhayeci], (Jerusalem, 1869).

Trans. : Bibliotheque historique arménienne, I, I.E. Du-
laurier trans. (Paris, 1858).

*Movsés Xorenaci [Movses of Khoren], Patmut’iwn
Hayoe [History of Armenia], (Tiflism 1881).

Movsés Xorenaci, “ Patmut’iwn Hayoc [History of
Armenia]”’, Srboy hérn meroy Movsést Xorenacwoy
Matenagrutiwnk’ [Works of our Holy Father Movsés
Xorenact, 2nd ed. (Venice, 1865), pp. 1-277.

Trans. : *Istortia Armenit [History of Armenia], N.O.
Emin trans. (Moscow, 1858).

In CHAMA, IT (1869), pp. 53-175. Et al.

*Myit’ar Gos, Myit’aray Gost Datastanagirk’ Hayoc
[The Armenian Code of Myit’ar Gos], V. Bastamean ed.
(Valarsapat, 1880).

Trans.: Armianskif Sudebnik Mkhitara Gosha [The
Armenian Code of Mkhitar Gosh], A.A. Papovian trans.
(Erevan, 1954).

see Garitte, Narratio.

*Yalags zarmic Srboyn Grigort Hayoe Lusaworfi ew
patmutiun Srboyn Nersisi Hayoe hayrapett [On the
Genealogy of St.Gregory Illuminator of Armenia and
History of St. Nersés Patriarch of the Armenians, Sop'erk’,
VI (Venice, 1853).

Trans. : in CHAMA, II (1869), pp. 21-44.

*Noéldeke, Th. ed. and trans., Geschichte der Perser und
Araber zur Zeit der Sasaniden aus der arabischen Chromk
des Tabart (Leyden, 1879).

Not. dig.

Nov.

Nova Tactica

Nyberg, Hajjiabad

Petr. Patric.

Pliny

Plut., Crassus

Plut., Lucullus

Plut., Pompey

Polybius

Pomp. Trog.

Primary History

Procopius

Proc. Aed.

Proc. Anec.

Proc. Goth.

Proc. Pers.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 273*

*Notitia dignitatum, E. Bocking ed., 5 vols. (Bonn,
1839-1853).

*Notitia dignitatum accedunt Notitia urbis Constantino-
politanae et Laterculi prouinciarum, O. Seeck ed. (Berlin,
1876).

fAdontz lists both editions without indicating the one
he used. The latter was used in this edition].

*Novellae quae vocantur sive constitutiones quae extra
codicem supersunt, K.E. Zachariae von Lingenthal ed.,
2 vols. (Leipzig, 1881).

** Novellae ᾽ν, R.Schoell and W. Kroll edd., CJC, IIT,
6th ed. (1912).

ἘΠ Nova Tactica ’’, in Georg. Cypr., pp. 57-83.

Nyberg, H. S., ‘* Hajjiabid-Inskriften ᾿ς, Ost og Vest
(Copenhagen, 1945).

*Petrus Patricius, “ Ex historia Petri Patricii et Magistri
excerpta de legationibus genttum ad Romanos ”’, I. Bek-
ker and B.G. Niehbuhr edd., CSHB (1829).

*C. Plintt Secundi Naturalis historiae libri XXXVII,
C. Mayhoff ed., 5 vols. (Leipzig, 1870-1880).

Pliny, The Natural History [12], H. Rackam ed. and
trans., 10 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.-London, 1938-1965).
**Plutarch, “‘ Crassus’’, Lives [L], B. Perrin ed. and
trans. (Cambridge, Mass.-London, 1958), III, pp. 314-423.
**Plutarch, “ἢ Lucullus”’, ZLaves [L], B. Perrin ed. and
trans. (Cambridge, Mass.-London, 1959), II, pp. 496-611.
**Plutarch, ‘“‘ Pompey”, Lives [L], B. Perrin ed. and
trans. (Cambridge, Mass.-London, 1955), V, pp. 115-327.
**Polybius, The Histories [L], W.R. Paton ed. and
trans., 6 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.-London, 1954).

see Justin.

“Primary History of Armenia’’, in Sebéos, pp. 1 sqq.
Trans. : ‘‘ Le Pseudo-Agathange”’, CHAMA, I (1867),
pp. 195-200.

ἘΠῚ Procopius ”’, G. Dindorf ed., CSHB (1833-1838).
*Trans.: Istoriia Vandal’skot voiny [History of the
Vandalic War, S. Destunis trans. (St. Petersburg, 1891).
Procopius, ‘On Buildings”, Works [L], H.B. Dewing
and G. Downey edd. and trans. (Cambridge, Mass.-
London, 1940), VIT.

Procopius, “ The Anecdota or Secret History ’, Works [14],
H.B. Dewing ed. and trans. (Cambridge, Mass.-London,
1954), VI.

Procopius, ‘‘ The Gothic War’, Works [L], H.B. Dewing
ed. and trans. (Cambridge, Mass.-London, 1919-1928),
II-V.

Procopius, “‘ The Persian War ”’, Works, [L), H.B. Dewing

‘ed. and trans. (Cambridge, Mass.-London, 1914), I.

274*

Proc. Vand.
Pseudo-Gahnamak

Pseudo Movsés Xorenaci
Ptolemy

RGDS

Sahak Canons

Sam. Ant

Sebéos

SHA

Sim. Aparan.

Smbat Sparapet, Code

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Procopius, “‘ The Vandalic War”, Works [12], H.B. De-
wing ed. and trans. (Cambridge, Mass.-London, 1916), IT.
Nersés, pp. 32-39.

see Arm. Cleogr.

*Ptolemy, Claudii Ptolemaet Geographia, C. Miller ed.
(Paris, 1901).

‘** Res Gestae Divi Saporis’’, A. Maricq ed. and trans.
5, XXXV (1958), pp. 295-360.

**°° Kanonk’ Srboyn Sahakay Hayoc Hayrapeti [Canons
of St. Sahak Patriarch of the Armenians] ”’, Kanonagirk’
Hayoc [Armenian Book of Canons], V. Hakobyan ed.
(Erevan, 1964), I, pp. 363-421.

*Samuél Aneci, Samuéli Kah. Anecwoy Hawak’munk’ 1
groc patmagrac [Compilation of Historical Writings by
the Priest Samuél of Ant], (VatarSapat, 1893).

Trans. : in CHA, II (1876), pp. 340-483.

*Sebéos, Sebéost episkopost 1 Herakln [Bishop Sebéos
on Heraclius], K. Patkanian ed. (St. Petersburg, 1879).
Trans. : Histoire d’ Héraclius par Vévéque Sébéos, F. Macler
trans. (Paris, 1904).

**Scriptores Historiae Augustae [L], D. Magie ed. and
trans., 3 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.-London, 1953-1954).
*Siméon Aparaneci, Vipasanutiwn Pahlawuneac ew
Mamikoneac [Rhapsody on the Pahlawunis and_ the
Mamikoneans], (Efmiacin, 1870).

*Karst, Sempadscher Kodex, I (1905).

Smbat Sparapet, Datastanagirk’ [Code], A.G. Galstyan
ed. and trans. (Erevan, 1958).

Sprengling, Third Century Iran Sprengling, M., Third Century Iran. Sapor and αν

Step’annos, Incorruptibility

Steph. Byz.

Steph. Orb.

Strabo

Surdas

(Chicago, 1953).

*Step’annos Imastasér [the Philosopher], ‘‘ Vasn anapa-
kanut’ean marmnoy [On the Incorruptibility of the
Flesh]”’, Miaban ed., Ararat (1902).

**Stephanus Byzantinus, Hihnika, A. Meineke ed. (Ber-
lin, 1849). Repr. (Graz, 1958).

*Step’annos Orbelean, Patmut’iwn tann Sisakan [History
of the House of Sisakan], (Moscow, s.d.).

Step’annos Orbelean, Patmut’iwn nahangin Sisakan
[History of the Province of Sisakan], K. Chahnazarian ed.,
2 vols. (Paris, 1859).

Trans. : Histoire de la Siounie, M.F. Brosset trans.,
2 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1864-1866).

*Strabonis Geographica, A. Meineke ed., 3 vols. (Leipzig,
1897-1898).

Strabo, The Geography [L], H.L. Jones ed. and trans.,
7 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.-London, 1960-1961).
**Suidas, Lexicon, G. Bernhardy ed. (Halle, 1853).

Sym. Mag.
Syn. Or.
Syr.-rém. Recht

Tab. Peut.

Tacitus

Tac. Ann.

Tac. Germ.

Tac. Hist.

Tér Israél, Synaxary
Theod., H#

Theoph. Conf.

Theoph. Cont.

Theoph. Sim.

Tov. Arc.

Trever, Armenia

U xtanés

Va
Vardan, Geography

BIBLIOGRAPHY 275*

*Symeon Magister ac Logothetes, “‘ Historia ’’, I. Bekker
ed., CSHB (1838).

*Synodicon Orientale ou recuetl des synodes nestoriens,
J.B. Chabot ed. and trans., (Paris, 1902).
*Syrisch-romisches Rechtsbuch aus dem V. Jahrhundert,
K. Bruns and E. Sachau edd. (Leipzig, 1880).

** Tabula Peutingeriana ”’, Recueil des itinéraires anctens,
de Fortia d’Urban ed., (Paris, 1845), pp. 197-312.
“Tabula Peutingeriana ’’, Itenerarva Romana, K. Miller
ed. (Stuttgart, 1916).

*Cornelit Tacitr libri qui supersunt, C. Halm ed., 2 vols.
(Leipzig, 1885-1886).

Tacitus, The Annals of Tacitus [L], J. Jackson ed. and
trans., 3 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.-London, 1931).
Tacitus, ‘‘ De Germania ’”’, Dialogues [L], W. Peterson
ed. and trans. (London-New York, 1925).

Tacitus, The Histories [LJ], C.H. Moore ed. and trans.
(Cambridge, Mass.-London, 1956).

** Le Synaxaire arménien de Tér Israél”, G. Bayan
ed. and trans., PO, V-X XI (1909-1930).

Theodoret of Cyr, Theodoret Kirchengeschichie, L. Par-
mentier and F. Scheidweiler edd., 2nd ed. (Berlin, 1954).
*Theophanes Confessor, “ Chronographia’”’, I. Bekker
ed., CSHB (1838).

Theophanes Confessor, Chronographia, C.de Boor ed.,
2 vols. (Leipzig, 1883-1885).

*Theophanes Continuatus, “‘ Chronographia ’’, I. Bekker
ed., CSHB (1838).

*Theophylakt Simokatta, “ Historiarum libri VIII”’,
B.G. Niehbuhr ed., CSHB (1834).

Theophylakt Simokatta, Historiae, C.de Boor ed.
(Leipzig, 1887).

*T*ovma Arcruni, J“ovmast vardapett Arcrunwoy Patmut’-
wn tann Arcruneac [History of the Arcrunt House by the
Vardapet T‘ovma Arcrunt], (St. Petersburg, 1887).
Trans. : in CHA, I (1874), pp. 4-263.

Trever, K.V., Ocherki po istorii kultury drevnet Armenit
[Studies in the History of Ancient Armenian Culture],
(Moscow, 1953).

*Uytanés Episkopos [Ufhaeci], Patmutiwn Hayoe
[History of Armenia], (Valarsapat, 1871).

Trans. : “‘ Histoire en trois parties, “‘ Deux historiens
arméniens (St. Petersburg, 1871).

see “* Agat’angetos ”’, Va.

*Vardan, ‘* Meknut’iwn cnndoc. ASyarhagrut’iwn [Géo-
graphie du vartabied Vartan]”’, Saint-Martin, Mémovzres,
IT (1819), pp. 406-453.

276*

Vayust

Vegetius, E'pitoma

Vg

Vita Sb. Oskeane

Weissbach, Ketlinschriften

West, Pahlavi Texts

Xen. Anab.

Xen. Cyrop.

Yakovb Karneci

al-Ya kibi
Zach. Mityl.

ZG

Zosim.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Vardan, Asxarhacoye Vardanay Vardapeti [Geography
of Vardan Vardapet], H. Berbérian ed. (Paris, 1960).
*Vayust, Description de la Géorgie par le Tsarévitch
Wakhoucht, M.¥. Brosset ed. and trans. (St. Petersburg,
1842).

*Vegetius Renatus, Hpitoma τοὶ militaris, C. Lang ed.
(Leipzig, 1885).

see “ Agat’angetos’”’, Vg.

*Ban ew asuliwn é&marit srbocn Oskeane k’ahanayic
[Sayings of the True Oskean Saints}, Sop’erk’, XIX
(Venice, 1854).

*Weissbach, F.H. and W. Bang, Die altpersischen Keil-
inschriften, I (Leipzig, 1893). II Nachtrdge und Berich-
tigungen (Leipzig, 1908).

*West, E.W., “ Pahalavi Texts’, I, The Sacred Books
of the Kast, F. Miiller ed. (Oxford, 1880), V.

*Xenophon, Hxpeditio Cyrit, A. Hug ed. (Leipzig, 1886).
Xenophon, The Anabasis of Cyrus [L], C.L. Brownson
ed. and trans. (Cambridge, Mass.-London, 1950-1961).
*Xenophon, Instituttio Cyri, A. Hug ed. (Leipzig, 1883).
Xenophon, Cyropaedia [L], W. Miller ed. and trans.,
2 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.-London, 1953-1960).

*Yakovb Karneci, Yelagir verin Hayoe [Topography
of Upper Armenia], K. Kostanean¢e ed. (Vatarsapat,
1903).

Yakovb Karneci, ‘‘ Telagir verin Hayoc [Topography
of Upper Armenia] ”, Manr Zamanakagrut’yunner XIII-
XVIII dd. [Minor Chronicles of the XIII-XVIIIih
Centuries, V.A. Hakobyan ed. (Erevan, 1956), II, pp. 541-
586.

**a)-Ya’kibi, Les Pays, G. Wiet trans. (Cairo, 1937).
*Zacharias Rhetor, The Syriac Chronicle Known as that
of Zachariah of Mitylene, F.G. Hamilton and E.W. Brooks
trans. (London, 1899).

Zacharias RKhetor, ‘‘ Historia ecclesiastica Zachariae
Rhetori vulgo adscripta ”, E.W. Brooks ed. and trans.,
2 vols., CSCO, LXXXIV, LXXXVIII (Paris, 1924).
*Zenob Glak, Zenobay Glakay Asorwoy episkoposi
Paimut’iwn Tardnoy [History of Tardn by the Syrian
Bishop Zenob Glak], 2nd. ed. (Venice, 1889).

Trans.:in CHAMA, I (1867), pp. 337-355.

*Zosimus, Historia nova, L. Mendelssohn ed. (Leipzig,
1887). Repr. (Hildersheim, 1963).

BIBLIOGRAPHY HE AF bo

11. LitERATURE

Abelyan, M., Hayoc hin grakanut’yan patmutiwn [History of Ancient Armenian Litera-
ture], 2 vols. (Erevan, 1944-1946). Repr. (Beirut, 1955-1959).

— Hayoc lezvi tesuliwn [Examination of the Armenian Language], (Erevan, 1965).

— Koriwn (Erevan, 1941), Repr. Cairo, 1954).

Abgaryan, G., “ Banasirakan hetayuzumner [Philological Research]”’, BM, IV (1958).
““Mamikonyanneri zruyci hnaguyn albyuro Hay matenagrut’yan mej [The
Oldest Source of the Legend of the Mamikonean in Armenian Literature] ’’,
BM, VII (1964).

-- “ Sebeost Patmut'yuna ew Ananuni aretevaca [The ‘History of Sebeos’ and the
Problem of the Anonymous’ (Erevan, 1965).

Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR, Mesrop Mastoc [Collection of Articles],
(Erevan, 1962).

Academy of Sciences of the Azerbaijanian SSR, Voprosy istorii Kavkazskoi Albani
[Problems in the History of Caucasian Albania. Collection of Articles], (Baku,
1962).

Aéaryan, R., “‘ Grecheskie Zaimstvovaniia v Armianskom iazyke [Greek Loan-words
in Armenian]”’, VV, n.s. IT (1949).

— Hayerén armatakan bararan [Armenian Etymological Dictionary], (Erevan, 1926-
1935).

-- Hayoe anjnanunnert bararan [Dictionary of Armenian Proper Names], 5 vols.
(Erevan, 1942-1962).

- Inakatar k’erakanut?yun Hayoe lezvi [Complete Grammar of Armenian], (Erevan,
1955 — in progress).

* Adontz, N.A., “ L’aieul des Roubéniens. Notes Arméno-byzantines, VI ’’, B, X (1935).
Repr. in Etudes Arméno-byzantines (Lisbon, 1965).

-- “Α propos de Ja note de M. Lewy sur Moise de Choréne ”’, B, XI (1936).

— ** L’aspect iranien du servage ”’, RSJB, IT (1937).

— ** Darjeal Koriwni Surf [Again on Koriwn]”’, HA, XLII (1928).

— “Emprunts de haute époque en arménien”’, REJE, I (1938).

-- * Faust Vizantiiskii kak istorik [Faustus of Byzantium as a Historian], Khris-
tianskit Vostok, VI (1922). [All published].

— “ Grégoire ’Iluminateur et Anak le Parthe”, RHA, VIII (1928).

- Histoire d’Arménie. Des origines du Xe au Ve siecle av. J.C. (Paris, 1946).

-- ** Knnut’iwn Movsés Kalankatwacu [An Examination of Movsés Kalankatwaci]”’,
Anahit, X (1939). [All published].

-- ** Koriwni masin [On Koriwn]”, HA, XLI (1927).

— ** Les légendes de Maurice et de Constantin V, empereurs de Byzance’, AJ PHO,
IT (1933-1934). [Mélanges Bidez].

-- Mastoc ew nra asakerinera ost δίαγ αἰδιιυγπετὶ [Mastoc and his Disciples according
to Foreign Sources], (Vienna, 1925). Originally published in HA, XX XTX (1925).

-- ** Nachal’naia istorii Armenii’ u Sebeosa v’ eia otnosheniiakh’ k’ trudam’ Moiseia

* For more extensive bibliographies of Adontz’s works, see the Bibliographical Note.

278*

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Khorenskago i Fausta Vizantiiskago [The ‘Primary History of Armenia’ in Sebeos
in Connexion with the Works of Moses of Khoren and Faustus of Byzantium] ”’,
VY, VIII (1901).

“* Note sur les synaxaires arméniens”’, ROC, XXIV (1924).

***Nsanagir kargac banic’ Erznkan ericu [Catalogue of the Order of Things by
Eznik the Priest]”, Sion, XII (1938).

‘* Sur la date de l’Histoire de l’Arménie de Moise de Choréne: ἃ propos de larticle
de M. Hans Lewy”, 8, XI (1936).

** Erku tarber helinakner Sebeosin vera grvot patmut’yunum [Two other Authors
in the History attributed to Sebéos]’’, BM, VI (1962).

“Les Taronites en Arménie et ἃ Byzance”, B, [X-XI (1934-1936). Repr. in
Etudes Arméno-byzantines (Lisbon, 1965).

** Les vestiges d’un ancien culte en Arménie’’, AJPHO, IV (1936). [Mélanges
Franz Cumont]. Repr. in Histoire d’ Arménie (Paris, 1946).

Akinian, N., “‘ Darjeal nkaragir (‘nSanagir’) kargaci banig Eznkay ericu. Patasyan

me usucgapet N. Adonci [Again the Catalogue of the Order of Things by Eznik
the Priest. An Answer to Professor N. Adontz]”, HA, LIT (1938).

‘* Hisé vardapet ew iwr patmut’iwn Hayoc paterazmi [Elsé Vardapet and his
History of the Armenian War]”, 1. - HA, XLV-XLVI (1931-1932); IL. - HA,
XLVII-XLVIII (1933-1934); TII.- HA, XLIX-LI, LXIV-LXV (1935-1937,
1950-1951).

““ Hayerén lezu ont’ack’e [The Development of Armenian]”, HA, XLVI (1932).
Kiwrion katolikos Vrac ... (k’arasnameay srjan Hayoc eketecakan patmutenén,
574-610) [Kiwrion Kat’oltkos of Iberia ...(A Forty Year Period in the Ecclesiastical
History of Armenia, 574-610)]”’, (Vienna, 1910).

“ Koriwn, Patmut’iwn varuc S. Ma&stoci vardapeti [Koriwn’s History of the
Acts of St. Mastoc]”’, HA, LXIIT (1949).

*“Lewond eréc patmagir, matenagrakan-patmakan usumnasirut’iwn [The His-
torian Lewond the Priest, a Historico-literary Study]”, HA, XLIIT (1929).

** Movsés Dasyuranci koéwac Kalankatwaci, ew iwr patmut’iwn Alwanic [Movsés
Dasyuranci, known as Kalankatwaci, and his History of Atbania]”, HA, LXVII,
LXXXI-LXXXITIT (1952, 1956-1958).

** Patmakan albiwrner 380-450 Srjani hamar [Historical Sources for the Period
380-450] ’, HA, XLIX (1935).

Sebéos ep. Bagratuneac ew twr patmuliwnn ἡ Herakt [Sebéos Bishop of the Baia:
tunis and his History of Heraclius], (Vienna, 1924). [Originally published in HA,
XX XVIT (1923)].

“ Siméon Vardapet Aparaneci”’, HA, XX ΧῊΤ (1919).

Aliev, K., ‘‘ K voprosu o plemenakh Kavkazskoi Albanii [On the Problem of the Ethno-

graphy of Caucasian Albania], Sbornik statet v chest? Akademika I.A. Orbela
(Erevan, 1960).

“* Midiia - drevneishee gosudarstvo na territorii Azerbaidzhana [Media - the Oldest
Kingdom on the Territory of Azerbaijan] ”’, Ocherki po drevnet istorii Azerbaidz-
hana [Studies wn the Ancient History of Azerbaijan], (Baku, 1956).

Alishan, L., *Ayrarat (Venice, 1890).

Greater Armenia —Telagir Hayoce Mecac [Topography of Greater Armenia},
(Venice, 1853).

BIBLIOGRAPHY 279*

-- *Hayapatum [Antiquities], (Venice, 1901).

— WSirak (Venice, 1881).

— Sisakan (Venice, 1893).

Allen, W., “Ἐπ Ponto”, BK, XXX-XXXV (1958-1960).

Alpoyajean, A., Patmakan Hayastani Sahmanera [The Frontiers of Historical Armenia]”’,
(Cairo, 1950). |

Altheim, F. and R. Stiehl, Lin astatischer Staat. Feudalismus unter den Sasaniden und
thren Nachbaren (Wiesbaden, 1954).

Ananian, P., La Data —‘‘ La data e le circostanze della consecrazione di ὃ. Gregorio
Tlluminatore ’’, Le Muséon, LX XXIV (1961). First publication in P, CXVIT-
CXVIII (1959-1960).

Andreas, “ Ainiana, Albania, Amardi, Paytakaran ’’, PW.

Anderson, A.R., Alexander’s Gate, Gog and Magog, and the Inclosed Nations (Cambridge,
Mass., 1932).

Anderson, J.G.C., ‘‘ A Journey of Exploration in Pontus ’’, Studia Pontica, I (Brussels,
1903).

Arm. Dict., *Nor Bafgirk’ Haykazean Lezwi [New Dictionary of the Armenian Language],
Awedikean, G., Siwrmélean, X., and Awgerean, M., edd., 2 vols. (Venice, 1836-
1837).

Asdourian, P., Beziehungen — Die politischen Beziehungen zwischen Armenien und
Rom vom 190 v. Chr. bis 428 n. Chr. (Venice, 1911).

Aslan, K., Etudes historiques sur le peuple arménien (Paris, 1909). New ed. F. Macler ed.
(Paris, 1928).

Aussaressés, F., L’armée byzantine a la fin du VIe siécle d’apres le strategicon de V empereur
Maurice (Bordeaux-Paris, 1909).

Avdalbegyan, T., ‘* Has, sak u baz”, JANA (1926).

Babelon, E., Rois de Syrie — Numismatique des rois de Syrie, d Arménie et de Commageéne
(Paris, 1890).

— *Traité des monnaies grecques et romaines (Paris, 1901-1907).

Banateanu, V., “ Beitrage zum Studium der urartischen Ortsnamen in der armenischen
Toponymie ”’, HA, LX XXV (1961).

-- “ Nekotorye voprosy étnogeneza Armian [Some Problems of Armenian Ethno-
geny]”’, PBH (1961).

Barkhudarean, M., *Arcay (Baku, 1895).

Barkhudaryan, S.G., “‘ Hay knoj iravakan vitake mijin darerum [The Legal Position
of Armenian Women in the Middle Ages]”’, PBH (1966).

— “ Urartrskoe proiskhozhdenie armianskogo nakhararskogo roda Artsruni ['The
Urartian Origin of the Arcruni Nayarar House ”’, Sbornik statet v chest? Akademika
1.4. Orbeli (Erevan, 1960).

Barthold, V.V., ‘* Abkhaz, Alan, Ani, Arran, Balasightin, Berdaa, Derbend, Daghistan,
Gandja, Kars, Shirvan, Talysh ’’, HI [Some of these articles have been rectified
or replaced in the new edition of the EJ].

-- Mesio Prikaspitskikh oblastet v istorii Musul’manskogo mira [The Role of the
Caspian Provinces in the History of the Muslim World], (Baku, 1925). Repr. in
Sochenenia [Works], 11-1 (Moscow, 1963).

Baschmakoff, A., Cinquante siécles d’évolution ethnique autour de la mer Noire (Paris, 1937).

— La synthése des périples ponteques (Paris, 1948).

2808 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Basmadjian, K.J., “‘ Chronologie de l’histoire d’Arménie ”, ROC, XIX (1914).

Baynes, N.H., “‘ The Emperor Heraclius and the Military Theme System”, HAR,
LXVII (1952).

— Rome and Armenia —‘‘ Rome and Armenia in the Fourth Century ’, HHR,
XXV (1910). Repr. in Byzantine Studies and Other Essays (London, 1955).

— ** Three Notes on the Reforms of Diocletian and Constantine ”, JRS, XV (1925).

Beck, H.G., Kirche — Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich (Munich,
1959).

Belck, W., ἘΠ Majafarkin und Tigranokerta ”, ΖΕ, XX XI (1899).

Bengston, H., Die Strategve in der hellenistischen Zeit, II (Munich, 1944).

Benveniste, E., “ἢ Les classes sociales dans la tradition avestique ”, JA, CCX XI (1932).

— “ς Hiéments parthes en Arménien ”, REA, n.s. I, (1964).

— * L’Eran - vez’, BSOAS, VII (1934).

— ** Remarques sur les composés en -pet”’, HA, LX XV (1961).

-- “Sur la phonétique et la syntaxe de l’arménien classique ’’, BSL, LIV-1 (1959).

-- “Sur quelques emprunts iraniens en arménien ᾽ν, HA, XLI (1927).

— ‘Sur la terminologie iranienne du sacrifice’, JA, CCLII (1964).

— Titres — “ὁ Titres iraniens en arménien ’, RHA, IX-1 (1929).

— Titres et noms propres en Iranien ancien (Paris, 1967).

— ** Traditions indo-iraniennes sur les classes sociales’, JA, CCX XX (1938).

— Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes, 2 v. (Paris, 1969).

van Berchem, D., L’armée de Dtoclétien et la réforme de Constantin (Paris, 1952).

van den Berg, L.W.C., *Drow musulman — Principes du Droit Musulman selon les rites
@ Abou Hanifah et de Chafv’t, R.de France de Tersant and M. Damiens trans.
(Algiers, 1896).

Bethmann-Hollweg, M.A. von, *Civilprocess —- Der rémische Civilprocess, 3 vols. (Bonn,
1864-1866).

Bevan, E.R., Z'he House of Seleucus, 2 vols. (London, 1902).

Bidez, J. and F. Cumont, Les mages hellénisés, 2 vols. (Paris, 1938).

Bikerman, E., Institutions — Les institutions des Seleucides (Paris, 1938).

Birk, E., “ Dara — Anastasiopolis. Hine unerforschte Ruinenstadt in Mesopotamien ”’,
Der Erdball, IIT (1929).

Bloch, M., Les caractéres originaux de Vhistoire rurale franacgise, 2nd ed., 2 vols. (Paris,
1952, 1956).

— La Société féodale, 2nd ed., 2 vols. (Paris, 1949). Eng. trans. Feudal Society.

Bocking, E. ed., *Notitia dignitatum, 5 vols. (Bonn, 1839-1853).

— *Uber die Notitia dignitatum (1834).

Bokshchanin, A.G., Parfiant 1 Rim. Vozntkovenie sistemy politicheskogo dualisma v
perednet Azit [The Parthians and Rome. The Appearance of Political Dualism
in Hither Asta (Moscow, 1960).

Bolognesi, G., Le fonts dialettali degli imprestiti iranict in armeno (Milan, 1960).

— ** Nuovi aspetti dell’ influsso iranico in Armeno ”’, HA, LXXV (1961).

Boltunova, A., “‘ Opisanie Iberii v ‘Geografii’ Strabona [The Description of Iberia in the
‘Geography’ of Strabo”, VDI, (1947,4).

Bonfante, G., “‘ Armenian and Phrygian ’’, AQ, I (1946).

Borisov, A.Ia., “‘ Nadpisis Artaksia (Artashesa), tsaria Armenii [The Inscriptions of
Artaxias (Artashes), King of Armenia]”, VDI (1946-2).

Boutruche, R., Sezgneurie et Féodalité (Paris, 1959).

BIBLIOGRAPHY 281*

Brandenstein, W., “‘ Der Ursprung der Armenier’”’, HA, LXXYV (1961).

Bréhier, L., Les Institutions de ’V Empire byzantin (Paris, 1949).

Broughton, T.R.S., ‘Roman Asia Minor”, An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome,
T. Frank ed. (Baltimore, 1938), IV.

Brundage, B., ‘ Feudalism in Ancient Mesopotamia and Iran”, Feudalism in History,
R. Coulton ed. (Princeton, 1956).

Buniiatov, Z., “‘ O mestonakhozhdenii srednevekovykh gorodov-krepostei Bazz i Shaki
{On the location of the mediaeval fortress-cities Bazz and Shaki], KSINA,
XLVI (1961).

Bury, J.B., The Constitution of the Later Roman Empire (Cambridge, 1910).

— A History of the Later Roman Empire, 2nd ed., 2 vols. (London, 1923).

— “The Notitia Dignitatum’”’, JRS, X (1922).

--- ** The Provincial List of Verona’, JRS, XIT (1923).

Caméean, M., *Patmut’iwn Hayoc i skzbané mingew cam tearn 1784 [History of Armenia
from the Origin to 1784 A.D.], 3 vols. (Venice, 1784-1786).

Canard, M., Histoire de la dynastie des H’amdanides de Jazira et de Syrie, I (Paris, 1951).

Carratelli, “ Res Gestae divi Saporis ’’, PP, V (1947).

Chapot, V., La frontiére de lV Euphrate de Pompée ἃ la conquéte arabe (Paris, 1907).

Charanis, P., The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire (Lisbon, s.d.). First published
in Byzantinoslavica X XIT (1961).

Charmoy, B.F. ed., *Chéref-Ndmeh ou Fastes de la nation Kourde par Chéref-ou’ddine,
Prince de Bidlis dans lV lidlet d’ Arzerotime, 2 vols., in 49 (St. Petersburg, 1868-1875).

Chaumont, M.-L., “‘ L’Inscription de Kartir ἃ la ‘Kaaba de Zoroastre’ ", JA, CCXLVIII
(1960).

—- “* L’ordre des préséances ἃ la cour des Arsacides d’Arménie ”’, JA, CCLIV (1966).

-- “ Recherches sur le clergé Zoroastrien: le ‘herbad’”’, RHR, LXXX (1960).

Christensen, A., Christensen — L’Iran sous les Sassanides, 2nd ed. (Copenhagen, 1944).

Collinet, P., Etudes historiques sur le droit de Justinien I (Paris, 1912).

-- “Une ‘ville neuve’ byzantique en 507: la fondation de Dara-(Anastasiopolis)
en Mésopotamie ”’, Mélanges G. Schlumberger, I (Paris, 1924).

Conybeare, F.C., The Key of Truth. A Manual of the Paulician Church in Armenia
(Oxford, 1898).

ταν “On Some Armenian Notitiae ’, BZ, V (1896).

Costa, G., “ C. Valerius Diocletianus ᾽᾽, Dizionnario E'pigrafico, II (1912).

Coulborn, R. ed., Feudalism — Feudalism in History (Princeton, 1956).

Cuinet, V., — La Turquie d’ Asie, 4 vols. (Paris, 1890-1895).

Cumont, F., Annexion — * L’annexion du Pont Polémoniaque et de la Petite Arménie ”’,
Anatohan Studies Presented to Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (Manchester-London,
1923).

-- Studia Pontica, II-III (Brussels, 1906, 1910).

Daniélou, J. and H. Marrou, Nouvelle histoire de V Eglise, I (Paris, 1963).

Danoff, C., “ Pontos Euxeinos’’, PW, Suppl. 19.

Darmesteter, J., *Htudes iraniennes, 2 vols. (Paris, 1883).

Dashian [‘Tadpan], J., Catalogue — *Catalog der armenischen Handschriften der Mechi-
tharisten-Bibliothek zu Wien (Vienna, 1895-1896).

-- ‘Hin Hayastani arewmtean βϑῆτηϑηο: P’ok’r Hayk ew Kolop’ené (Sebastia)
[The Western Border of Ancient Armenia: Lesser Armenia and Kulupené (Sebas-
teia)]”, HA, LI-LIX (1937-1945).

282* BIBLIOGRAPHY

Debevoise, N., Parthia — A Political History of Parthia (Chicago, 1938).

Deeters, G., ‘‘ Armenisch und Stidkaukasisch, ein Beitrag zur Frage der Sprach-

mischung ”’, Ca, ΠΕΙ͂Ν (1926-1927).

— ** Die kaukasische Sprachen’”’, Handbuch der Orientalisttk VII : Armenische
und kaukasische Sprachen’, B. Spuler ed. (Leiden, 1963).

Déléage, A., Capitation — La Capitation du Bas-Empire (Macon, 1945).

Demougeot, E., De l’unité ἃ la division dans ’ Empire romain (395-410), (Paris, 1951).

D’iakonov, I.M., Assyro-Babylonian Documents — “ὁ Assiro-vavilonskie istochniki po
istorii Urartu [Assyro-Babylonian Documents on the History of Urartu ᾽Ἴ, VDJ,
(L95182-4).

— ““ Khetty, Frigiitsy i Armiane [Hittites, Phrygians and Armenians’’, Pered-
neazvatskiit Sbornik (Moscow, 1961).

-- Media — Istoriia Midi [History of Media], (Moscow-Leningrad, 1956).

— ‘* Poslednie gody urartskogo gosudarstvo po assiro-vavilonskim istochnikam
[The Last Years of the Urartian Kingdom according to Assyro-Babylonian
Sources]”’, VDJ (1951).

— Urartskie Pis’ma + Dokumenty [Urartian Letters and Documents], (Moscow, 1963).

D’iakonov, I.M. and Livshits, V.A., Dokumenty iz Nisy [Documents from Nisa], (Moscow,
1960).

— ** Iz materialov Parfianskoi Kantselarii staroi Nisy [Materials from the Chancellery
of Ancient Nisa]”’, Sbornik statet v chest Akademika I.A. Orbelt (Erevan, 1960).

- “ Parjianskoe tsarskoe Khoziaistvo v Nisy [The Parthian Royal Establishment
at Nisa]”, VDI (1960).

D’iakonov, I.M. and Strakova, K.B., “‘ Nadpisi Artaksiia (Artashesa) tsaria Armenii
[The Inscriptions of Artaxias (ArtaSés), King of Armenia] ”’, VDI (1955-1).

Diehl, Ch., ἘΣ Afrique byzantine (Paris, 1896).

- *Justinien et la civilisation byzantine au VTe siécle (Paris, 1901).

-- Manuel d’ Art byzantin, 2 vols. (Paris, 1910). 2nd ed. (Paris, 1925-1926).

-- ἘΠῚ T’origine du régime des thémes dans l’empire byzantin ", Htudes Byzantines,
(Paris, 1905).

Diehl], Ch. and G. Marcais, Le monde oriental de 395 ἃ 1081 (Paris, 1944).

Diehl, E., “‘ Phasis”, PW XIX-2.

Dilleman, L., ‘‘ Ammien Marcellin et les pays de Euphrate et du Tigre ’’, S (1961).

— ‘* La Haute-Mésopotamie orientale et les pays adjacents ”, Bibliothéque archéolo-
gique et historique de V Institut francais de Beyrouth, LX XII (1961).

Dirr, A., Einfiithrung in das Studium der kaukasischen Sprachen (Leipzig, 1928).

Dobias, J., ‘“‘ Les premiers rapports des Romains avec les Parthes”’, Archiv Orientalnt,
IIT (1931).

Doise, J., *‘ Le partage de l’Arménie sous Théodose I’’, RE Anc., XLVIT (1945).

Délger, F., “ Zur Abteilung des byzantinischen Verwaltungsterminus Θέμα ᾿᾽᾽, Historia,
TV (1955).

Dorner, F.K., ‘‘ Arsameia am Flusse Nyamphaios, eine neue kommagenische Kult-
stitte ’, Bibliotheca Orientalis, 1X (1952).

Dorner, F.K. and Th. Goell, ““ Arsameia am Nymphaios”’, Istanbuler Forschungen,
XXITI (1963).

Dérner, F.K. and Naumann, K., ‘‘ Forschungen in Kommagene ”’, Istanbuler Forschun-
gen, X (1939).

BIBLIOGRAPHY 283*

Dowsett, C.J.F., “ Armenian Tér, Tikin, Tiezerk’”’, Ecole des langues orientales an-
ciennes de l'Institut Catholique, Mémortal du Cinquantenatre 1914-1964 (Paris, s.d.
[1964)]).

— Mov. Dasxy. — Dowsett, C.J.F. trans., The History of the Caucasian Albanians
by Movsés Dasyuranct (London-New York, 1961).

Dressler, W., “‘ Armenisch und Phrygisch ”, HA, LX XVIII (1964).

Driver, G.R., Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford, 1957).

-- “The Name Kurd in its Philological Connexions’, JRAS (1923).

Duby, G., L’Economie rurale et la vie des campagnes dans Voccident médieval, 2 vols.
(Paris, 1962).

Du Cange, C. du Fresne, **‘ Familiae Augustae Byzantinae”’, Historia Byzantina,
duplici commentario illustrata, I (Paris, 1680).

Duchesne-Guillemin, J., Religion — La religion de lV’ Iran ancien (Paris, 1962).

Dukhovskii, S., ἘΠ Russkie v’ Erzerumé ν᾽ 1878 g. [The Russians in Erzerum in 1878]”’,
Voennyt Sbornik, (1878).

Dulaurier, E., Recherches sur la chronologie arménienne, I. La chronologie technique
(Paris, 1859). [All published].

Dumézil, G., “1,6 dit de la princesse Saténik ᾽ν, REA, IX (1929).

— Didéologie tripartite des Indo-Européens (Brussels, 1958).

— Naissance d’archanges (Paris, 1945).

— ** Une chrétienté disparue. Les Albaniens du Caucase ”’, JA, CCX XXIT (1940-
1941).

Dunbabin, T.J., The Greeks and their Eastern Netghbours (London, 1957).

Dunlap, J., The Office of Grand Chamberlain in the Later Roman and Byzantine Empires
(New York, 1924).

Dupont-Sommer, A., ‘‘ Les inscriptions araméennes trouvées prés du lac Sévan (Ar-
ménie) ”’, S, XXV/1-2 (1946-1948).

Duval, R., Hdesse — Histoire politique οἱ religieuse d’Edesse jusqu’a la premiére croisade
(Paris, 1892).

Dvornik, F., Apostolicity — The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantvum and the Legend of the
Apostle Andrew (Cambridge, Mass., 1958).

Eckhardt, K., ‘* Die armenischen Feldziige des Lucullus”’, Καὶ, I[X-X (1909-1910).

Egli, E., Feldztige — “* Feldziige in Armenien von 41-63 ”, in Biidingers, Untersuchungen
zur rom. Karsergeschichte, I (Leipzig, 1863).

Ehtécham, M., L’Iran — I’Iran sous les Achéménides (Freiburg, 1946).

Elnitskii, L., “‘ Iz istoricheskoi geografii drevnei Kolkhidy [On the Historical Geography
of Ancient Colchis]’’, VDI (1938).

— “ἘΚ Istorii antitserkovnykh i antikhrestianskikh tendentsii v Armenii v IV v.
n.é. [On the History of Anti-ecclesiastical and Anti-Christian Trends in Armenia
during the IV C.]”, VDJ (1965).

Ensslin, W., ‘‘ Der Kaiser Herakleios und die Themenverfassung ’’, BZ, XLVI (1953).

-- ** Praepositus sacri cubiculi”’, PW, Supp. VIII.

— ‘* The Reforms of Diocletian ”’, CAH, XII (1939).

-- ** Zu den Kriegen des Sassaniden Schapur I’, SBAWM (1947).

— ** Zu dem vermuteten Perserfeldzug des rex Hannibalianus ”’, Κα, X XIX, n.f. XI
(1936).

— Zur Grundungsgeschichte von Dara-Anastasiopolis ’, BNJ, V (1927).

284* BIBLIOGRAPHY

-- “ Zur Ostpolitik des Kaisers Diokletians ’, SBA WM (1942).

Eremyan, 8.T., Armenia — Hayastan ast “ A&yarhacoyc”
** Armenian Geography ᾽1, (Erevan, 1963).

-- ‘“‘Hayeri celayin miut’yuna Arme-Supria erkrum [The Tribal Unification of
the Armenian in the Land of Arme-Supria]”’, PBH (1958).

— “ἘΚ voprosy ob étnogeneze armian [On the Ethnogeny of the Armenians]’’,
VI (1952). Also in IANA (1951).

— ** Narodno-osvoboditel’naia voina armian protiv persov v 450-451 gg. [The
Popular War of Liberation against the Persians in 450-451], VDI (1951).

-- “ Naxs-i-rustemi ‘K’aaba i Zardust’ hugarjani arjanangrut’yan vkayut’yunnero

t [Armenia according to the

Hayastani masin [Evidence on Armenia from the Inscription of the ‘Kaaba of
Zoroaster’ at Naqsh-i-Rostam]”’, PBH (1966).

-- ** Opyt periodizatsii istorii Armenii épokhi feodalisma [Attempt at a Periodization
of Armenian History in the Feudal Era]”’, VJ (1951).

— ““Osnovnye cherty obshchestvennogo stroia Armenii v Gllinistichiskii Period
[The Main Features of Armenian Society in the Hellenistic Period] ’’, JA NA (1948).

— ** Razvitiie gorodov i gorodskoi zhizni v drevnei Armenii [The Development of
Cities and Urban Life in Ancient Armenia]”’, V DI (1953).

— ** Siuniia i oborona Sasanidami Kavkazskikh prokhodov [Siwnik’ and the Sasanian
Defense of the Passes of the Caucasus]”’, JAF AN (1941).

— Slavery — ἡ Ὁ rabstve i rabovladenii v drevnei Armenii [Slavery and Slave-
holding in Ancient Armenia]”, VDJ (1950).

— “ Torgovye puti Zakavkaz’ia v épokhu Sasanidov [Transcaucasian Traderoutes
in the Sasanian Period], VDI (1939).

Erevan University, Mesrop Mastoc [Collected articles], (Erevan, 1963).

Eritsov, *‘ Spisok’ naselennykh’ punktov”” Erzerumskoi oblasti [List of Inhabited
Sites in the Province of Erzerum]”’, [zvestiie Kavkazskago Otdeleniia Imperators-
kago Russkago Geograficheskago Obshchestva, VIII (1883) Sup.

van Esbroeck, M., Chronique =, Chronique ”’, AB, LX XX (1962).

Fateh, M., “‘ Taxation in Persia (A Synopsis from Early Times to the Conquest of the
Mongols)”, BSOAS, IV (1938).

Field, H., Contribution to the Anthropology of the Caucasus (Cambridge, 1953).

Fiey, J.M., L’ Assyrie chrétienne, 2 vols. (Beirut, 8.4. [1965}).

Fliche, A. and Martin, V., Histoire de l’Eglise (Paris, 1944).

Forrer, E., “‘ Hayasa-Azzi”’, Ca, TX (1931).

Frisk, H., “ Etyma Armeniaca ”’, Géterbog Hégskolas Arsskrift, L (1944).

Frye, R.N., “‘ Notes on the Early Sassanian State and Church’, Studi orientalistict
in onore dt G. Levi della Vida, I (1956).

— Persia — The Heritage of Persia, (Cleveland-New York, 1963).

— ** Remarks on the Paikuli and Sar Mashad Inscriptions’, Harvard Journal of
Asiatic Studies, X (1957).

Gagé, J., Sassanides — La montée Sassanide (Paris, s.d. [1964)]).

Garibian, A., “‘ De la place et du réle de l’arménien dans le systéme des langues indo-
européennes ”’, Conférences préseniées par la délégation de VURSS au XXVe
Congres International des Orientalistes (Moscow, 1960).

Garitte, G., Agathange — Documents pour Vétude du livre d’Agathange (Vatican City,
1946).

BIBLIOGRAPHY 285*

- Narratio — La Narratio de rebus Armeniae. CSCO, ΟΧΧΧΤΙ, Subsidia 4 (Lou-
vain, 1952).

— “* Une nouvelle Vie grecque de S. Grégoire d’Arménie dans le ms. 4 d’Ochrida ”’,
Byz., XXXII (1962), pp. 63-79.

-- ** La tradition manuscrite de ’Agathange grec’, RHH, XX XVII (1941).

— “Une version arabe de |’Agathange grec dans le sin. ar. 395”, Le Muséon, LXIII
(1950).

— “Une vie arabe de S. Grégoire d’Arménie”’, Le Muséon, LXV (1952).

— “La Vie grecque inédite de saint Grégoire d’Arménie ”’, 4.8., LX X XIII (1965),
pp. 233-290.

Gelzer, H., Anfdnge —‘‘ Die Anfange der armenischen Kirche’, Berichte der kénig-
lichen sdchsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften (1895).

-- ** Die Genesis der byzantinischen Themenverfassung”, ASGW, XVIII/v (1899).

— ““Geographische Bemerkungen zu dem Verzeichnis der Vater von Nikaia”’,
Festschrift fiir Heinrich Kiepert (Berlin, 1898).

Gelzer,H. et al., Pair. Nic. — Patrum Nicaenorum Nomina (Leipzig, 1898).

Gerland, E., “‘ Die Genesis der Notitia episcopatuum ”, Corpus notitiarum Ecclesiae
Orientalis Graecae, I (Kadikéy, 1931).

Ghazarian, M., *Armenian unter der arabischen Herrschaft (Marburg, 1903).

Gibbon, E., The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, J.B. Bury ed.,
7 vols. (London, 1896).

Goubert, P., “ Evolution politique et religieuse de la Géorgie ἃ Ja fin du Vle siécle”,
Mémorial Lous Petit (Bucarest, 1948).

- ** Maurice οὐ l Arménie ", HO, XX XTX (1941-1942).

— L’Orient — Byzance avant l’'Islam. I. Byzance et lV’Orient sous les successeurs de
Justinien (Paris, 1951).

-- “165 rapports de Khosrau II, roi des rois sassanide, avec l’empereur Maurice ”’,
B, XIX (1949).

Grillmeier, A. and H. Bacht eds., Das Konzil von Chalkedon, 3 vols. (Wirzburg, 1951-
1954).

Grousset, R., Arménie — Histoire de VArménie des origines ἃ 1071 (Paris, 1947).

Grumel, V., La Chronologie. Traité @études byzantines, I (Paris, 1958).

--- “1,8, ‘Notitia’ de Basile de Ialimbana ”, RHB, XIX (1961).

— Regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople (1932).

Guey, J., “‘ Les ‘Res gestae divi Saporis’”’, RH Anc, LVII (1955).

Gugushvili, A., “* Ethnographical and Historical Division of Georgia’, G, I/2-3 (1936).

- ** Nicholas Marr and his Japhetic Theory ”, 6, I/1 (1935).

Giize, F., “‘ Die Feldziige des dritten Mithridatischen Krieges in Pontos und Armenien ”’,
K, XX (1926).

Giiterbock, K., Byzanz und Persten in ihren diplomatisch-volkerrechtlichen Bezichungen
im Zettalier Justinians (Berlin, 1906).

— Rémisch-Armenien — *Roémisch-Armenien und die Satrapien im vierten bis
sechsten Jahrhundert (Konigsberg, 1900).

Gutschmidt, A. von, *Geschichte Irans und seine Nachbarlinder Tiibingen, (1888).

— *Kleine Schriften, 111 (Leipzig, 1892).

- *Kénig. Osroene —“‘ Untersuchungen iiber die Geschichte des Kénigreichs
Osroene ”’, AIP, ser. VII, vol. XX XV (1887).

286* BIBLIOGRAPHY

Haas, O., “‘ Uber die phrygischen Sprachreste und ihr Verhaltnis zum armenischen ”’,
HA, 1611 (1939).

-- ‘Zur Vorgeschichte der armenischen Sprache ", HA, LX XV (1961).

Hacuni, V., Karewor yndirner Hay ekelecwoy patmut’enén [Important Problems in Ar-
menian Church History], (Venice, 1927).

Hakobyan, 8.E., “‘ Cafa-alayin-struknere ew nranc socialakan drut’yune mijnadaryan
Hayastanum [Cara-alayin-slaves, and their Social Position in Mediaeval Ar-
menia]’’, PBH (1962).

— Hay gyutaciut’yan patmutyun [History of the Armenian Peasantry], I (Erevan,
(1957).

-- *““Socialakan haraberut’yunneri artacolume ‘Kanonagirk’ Hayoc’ um [Social
Relations Reflected in the ‘Armenian Book of Canons’]”’, PBH (1966).

— “ Strkut’yun ew strkakan hasarakakan formacian hin Hayastanum [Slavery
and Common Servile Institutions in Ancient Armenia”, 1A NA (1948).

Hakobyan, T.X., Hayastani paitmakan asyarhagrut’yun [Studies in Armenian Historical
Geography], 224ed. (Erevan, 1968).

--- Syuntk’s Vagavorut’ yuna [The Kingdom of Siwnik’] (Erevan, 1966).

Haloander, G., ἘΝεαρῶν “Ἰουστινιανοῦ Βασιλέως ... Βιβλίον ... (Nuremberg, 1531).

Hannestead, ., “ Lesrelations de Byzance avec la Transcaucasie et l’Asie centrale aux
Xe et ΧΙ siécles”’, B, XXV-XXVII (1955-1957).

Harnack, A., Mission — * Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei
Jahrhunderten (1906).

Hartmann, M., Bohtan —-‘‘ Bohtan. Eine topographisch-historische Studie’, MVG
(1896-1897).

Hayes, E.R., Hdesse — L’école d’Edesse (Paris, 1930).

Henderson, B.W., Chronology — “‘ Chronology of the Wars in Armenia, A.D. 51-63’,
CR, XV (1901).

- “* Controversies in Armenian Topography ”, Journal of Philology, X XVIII (1903).

Henning, W.B., Bibliography of Important Studies on Old Iranian Subjects (Teheran,
1950).

— “The Great Inscription of Sapur I”’, BSOAS, IX (1937-1939).

— “ Mitteliranisch ”, Handbuch der Orientalistik, I (Leiden, 1958).

Herzfeld, E., Altpersische Inschriften (Berlin, 1938).

-- Archaeological History of Iran (London, 1935).

— Paikult, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1924).

Hewsen, R.H., Armenia — “* Armenia according to the ASyarhacuye”’, REA, ns. I
(1965).

Higgins, M., “* International Relations at the Close of the Sixth Century ᾿ς, CHR, XXVII
(1941).

-- The Persian War of the Emperor Maurice (Washington, 1939).

Hirschfeld, O., *Die kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeamten bis auf Diokletian, 2nd ed. (Berlin,

1905).

Hofmann, G., Ausztige — Ausztige aus syrischen Akten persischer Mdrtyrer (Leipzig,
1880).

Hommel, F., Grundriss — *Grundriss der Geographie und Geschichte des alten Orient
(1904).

Honigmann, E., Constantinople — “* Le Concile de Constantinople de 394 et les auteurs

BIBLIOGRAPHY 287*

du ‘Syntagmata des XIV titres’”’, Τγοὶβ mémoires posthumes de géographie de
Vortent chrétien. Subsidia hagiographica No. 35, P. Devos ed. (Bruxelles, 1961).
Le Couvent de Barsauma et le patriarcat d Antioche et de Syrie. CSCO, CXLVI,
Subsidia 7 (Louvain, 1954).

Evéchés — Evéques et évéchés monophysites d Asie Antéricure. CSCO, CXXVII,
Subsidia 2 (Louvain, 1951).

‘“‘ Géographica, L’histoire ecclesiastique de Jean d’Ephése”’, B, XIV (1939).
“Kommagene’”’, PW, Suppl. 4.

Inste — “* La Liste originale des Péres de Nicée ᾿᾿, 8, XIV (1939).

** Die Notitia des Basileios von Ialimbana’’, B, ΙΧ (1934).

Original Lists —‘‘ The Original Lists of the Members of the Council of Nicaea,
the Robber-Synod, and the Council of Chaleeddon ”’, B, XVI (1944).

Ostgrenze — Die Ostgrenze des byzantinischen Reiches von 363 bis 1071 (Brussels,
1935).

**The Patriarchate of Antioch, a Revision of Le Quien and the Notitia Antio-
chena”’, T'raditio, V (1947).

Patristic Studies (Vatican City, 1953).

“ Pour Patlas byzantin ’’, B, XI (1936). |

Romanopolis —‘‘ Une ‘Scala’ géographique copte-arabe et Pemplacement de
Romanopolis en Arménie”’, Trois mémotres posthumes de géographie de l’orvent
chrétien. P. Devos ed. (Brussels, 1961).

Studien — “ Studien zur Notitia Antiochena”’, BZ, XXV (1925).

“Sur quelques évéchés d’Asie Mineure ”’, B, X (1935).

Synekdemos — Le Synekdemos Hieroklés et Vopuscule géographique de Georges
de Chypre (Brussels, 1939).

Honigmann, E. and A. Maricq, Recherches sur les Res gestae divi Saporis (Brussels, 1953).

First printed in ARBBL, XLVII-4.

Horn, P., *Grundriss der neupersischen Etymologie (1893).
Hiibschmann, H., Grammatik — *Armenische Grammatik, I. Armenische Htymologie

(Leipzig, 1895).

Ortsnamen — Die altarmenischen Orisnamen. Mit Bettrégen zur historischen
Topographie Armentens und einer Karte (Strasburg, 1904).

** Ueber die Stellung des armenischen im Kreise der indogermanischen Sprachen ”’,
ZVS, XXIII (1877).

Huntington, E., Weiter Bericht — **‘ Weiter Berichte tiber Forschungen in Armenien

und Commagene’”’, ZH, XX XITI, heft 5 (1901).

Hiising, G., Die Volker Alt-Kleinasiens und am Pontos (Vienna, 1933).
Inéiéean, L., Antiquities — *Hnayosutiwn asyarhagrakan Hayastaneaye Asyarhi [Antt-

quities of Armenian Geography], 3 vols. (Venice, 1835).

Description — *Storagrut’iwn Hin Hayastaneaye [Description of Ancient Armenia]
(Venice, 1822).

Geography — *Asyaragrutiwn toric masnana asyarhi [Geography of the Four
Parts of the World (Venice, 1906).

Inostrantsev’, K., *Materialy iz’ arabskikh’ istochnikow’ dlia kul’tyrnoi istorit Sasanidskotr

Persii [Materials from Arab Sources for the Cultural History of Sasanian Persia]
(1908).
Sasanidskie étiudy |Sasanian Studies], (St. Petersburg, 1909).

288* BIBLIOGRAPHY

Iskanyan, K.V., “ Byuzandakan kolmnoroS’man harce Vardanang paterazmi Zamanak
[The Problem of Byzantine Affiliation at the Time of the Vardanian War]”’,
PBH (1966).

-- ““ Hay-Byuzandakan dasink’o Parskastani dem (VI dar) [The Armeno-Byzantine
Alliance against the Persians in the VI Century] ’’, PBH (1963).

— “Mi δ hay-byuzandakan haraberut’yunneri parmut’yunic [A Page from the
History of Armeno-Byzantine Relations] ’’, PBH (1960).

lushkov, 8.V., “Καὶ voprosu o granitsakh drevnei Albanii [The Problem of the Frontiers
of Ancient Albania]”’, JZ, I (1937).

Jackson, A.V.W., Zoroaster the Prophet of Ancient Iran (New York, 1898).

—_ Zoroastrian Studies (New York, 1928).

Javayisvili, A., ‘‘ Osnovnye istoriko-étnologicheskie problemy istorii Gruzii, Kavkaza
i Blizhnego Vostoka [Fundamental Historico-ethnological Problems in the
History of Georgia, the Caucasus, and the Near East]”’, V DI (1939).

Javayisvili, I., [Dzhavakhov], Polity — Gosudarstvennyt strot drevnet Gruzit ὁ drevnei
Armenwt [The Polity of Ancient Georgia and Ancient Armenia (St. Petersburg,
1905).

Jensen, *Heititer und Armenier (Strasburg, 1898).

Jones, A.H.M., CERP — The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (Oxford, 1937).

— ‘The Date and Value of the Verona List”, JRS, XLIV (1954).

-- LRE --- The Later Roman Empire, 2 vols. (Norman. Okla., s.d. [1964)]).

Jullian, C., ἘΠ De la réforme provinciale attribuée ἃ Dioclétien”’, RH, XIX (1882).

Junker, H., ““ Das Awesta-alphabet und der Ursprung der armenischen und georgischen
Schrift’, Ca, II-III (1925-1926).

Justi, F., Geschichte Irans — **‘ Geschichte Irans von den 4ltesten Zeiten bis zum
Ausgang der Sasaniden’”’, Grundriss der tranische Philologie, II, W. Geiger and
E. Kuhn edd. (Strasburg, 1896-1904).

-- Namenbuch — Iranisches Namenbuch (Marburg, 1895). Repr. (Hildesheim, 1963).

Kanaeang, S., Anyayt gawarner hin Hayastani [Unknown Provinces of Ancient Armenia]
(Ejmiacin, 1914).

Karaulov, N.A., Sbornik — *‘* Svedini arabskikh pisatelei o Kavkaze [The Information
of Arab Authors on the Caucasus] ᾽ν, Sbornik materialow’ dlia opisaniia mestnostet
t plemen’ Kavkaza [Collection of Materials for the Description of the Places and
Peoples of the Caucasus (Tiflis), X XIX, XXXI, XXXII, XX XVIII (1901-1903,
1908).

Karayanopoulos, J., “‘ Contribution au probléme des ‘thémes’ byzantins ”, L’ Hellénisme
contemporain, 25 sér. X, 6 (1956).

— Die Entstehung der byzantinischen Themenordnung (Munich, 1959).

-- Das Finanzwesen des friithbyzantinischen Staates (Munich, 1958).

Karst, J., Geschichte der armenischen Philologie. In kritischer Beleuchtung nach ihren
ethnologischen Zusammenhdingen dargestellt (Heidelberg, 1930).

— Mythologie arméno-caucasienne et hétito-asianique (Strasburg-Zurich, 1948).

— Sempadscher Kodex — *Sempadscher Kodex aus dem 13 Jahrhundert oder Mittel-
armenisches Rechisbuch, 2 vols. (Strasburg, 1903-1905).

Kekelije, K., “‘ Die Bekherung Georgies zum Christentum’’, MDGKO, XVIII (1928).

Kent, R.G., Old Persian — Old Persian, Grammar-Tezxts-Lexicon, 2nd rev. ed., (New
Haven, 1953).

BIBLIOGRAPHY 289%

Khalat’iants [Xalat’eanc],G., Arm. Arsacids — *Armianskie Arshakidy v “Istoriu
Armenii’? Motseia Khorenskago [The Armenian Arsacids in the ‘History of Ar-
menia of Movsés Xorenact], (Moscow, 1903).

— Epic — Armanskit Epos’ ν᾽ ‘Istoria Armeniv’ Motseia Khorenskago [The Armenian
Epic in the ‘History of Armenia’ of Movsés Xorenact], (Moscow, 1896).

Khalat’iantz, R., ‘‘ Die Entstehung der armenischen Firstentiimer”, WZKM, XVII
(1910).

Kherumian, R., “ Esquisse d’une féodalité oubliée ’, Vostan, I (1948-1949).

-- Introduction ἃ Vanthropologie du Caucase : les Arméniens (Paris, 1948).

Khudadov, V., ‘‘ Khaldy-Urartsy posle padeniia Vanskogo tsarstva [The Khaldoi-
Urartians After the Fall of the Kingdom of Van]’’, VDI (1938).

Kiandzhuntsian, I.G., “Κα voprosu o vostochnoi politiki Rima [On the Question of
Rome’s Eastern Policy]”, PBH (1965).

Kiepert, H., Landschaft — *** Die Landschaftgrenze des siidlichen Armeniens nach
einheimischen Quellen”’, MBAK (1873).

Kiessling, M., “ Gogarene ”, PW, VII-2.

Kiwléserean, B., “‘ Myit’ar GOsi verabereal Jeragirk’ [A MS Relating to Myit’ar G63] ”’,
HA, XL (1926).

Koch, K., Reise — *Reise im pontischen Gebirge (Weimar, 1846).

Kogean, K., Armentan Church — Hayoc Eketeci [The Armenian Church], (Beirut, 1961).

— Kamsarakannera “ teark’ Sirakay ew Arégaruneac’”’, Patmakan usumnasirut’iwn
[The Kamsarakans “ὁ Lords of Sirak and Arsarunik’”. A Historical Study],
(Vienna, 1926).

Kosminskii, E.A., Problemy angliskogo feodalisma 1 istoriografit srednikh vekov [Problems
of English Feudalism and of the Historiography of the Middle Ages], (Moscow, 1963).

Kostanean, K., ἘΠ Proyg ew towayr”’, Azgayin Handés, XIII (1906).

Kostanian, R.O., “‘ Lingzisticheskie i armenovedcheskie raboty v Institute Iazyka
Armianskoi SSR [Linguistic and Armenological Studies at the Institute of Lin-
guistics of the Armenian SSR]”’, VIA, VIT (1958).

Kremer, A. von, Culturgeschichte — *Culturgeschichte des Orients unter den Chalifen,
2 vols. (Vienna, 1875-1877).

Krkyasaryan, 8.M., “ Sinoykismoso hellenistakan P’ok’r Asiayum ew Hayastanum
[Synoecism in Hellenistic Asia Minor and Armenia] ”’, PBH (1964).

Krymskii, A., “ Stranitsy iz istorii severnogo ili kavkazskogo Azerbaidzhana (Klassi-
cheskoi Albanii| From the History of Northern or Caucasian Azerbaijan (Classical
Atbania)]”’, Sergeru Feodorovichu Ol’denburgu ... Sbornik statet (Leningrad, 1934).

Kudriavtsev, O.V., “Rim, Armeniia i Parfiia vo vtoroi polovine pravleniia Nerona
[Rome, Armenia and Parthia in the Second Half of Nero’s Reign] ’’, VDI (1949).

— “ Rimskaia politika v Armenii i Parfii v pervoi polovine pravleniia Nerona
{Roman Policy in Armenia and Parthia in the First Half of Nero’s Reign]”’,
VDI (1948).

Kuhn, E., Verfassung — *Die stddtische und biirgerliche Verfassung des Rémischen
Reichs bis auf die Zeiten Justinians, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1864-1865).

Kukitschek, W., “ Studien zur Geographie des Ptolemius ”, SAW, CCXV (1934).

Kusi’kian, 8.V., “‘ Oshibki N.Ia. Marra v osveshchenii istorii armianskogo iazyka [N. Ia.
Marr’s Errors in the Light of the History of the Armenian Language] ”’, Profiv, 11
(1952).

2005 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Labourt, J., Le Christianisme dans 1 Empire perse sous la dynasive sassanide, 224-632
(Paris, 1904).

Lacombrade, C., “ Notes sur laurum coronarium ᾽ν, RE Anc, LI (1949).

de Laet, J.J., ‘‘ Les pouvoirs militaires des préfets du prétoire et leur développement
progressif ’’, Revue Belge de Philologie et d’ Histoire, XXV (1946-1947).

Lagarde, P. de, Arm. Studien — *Armenische Studien (G6ttingen, 1877).

Gesam. Abh. — *Gesammelte Abhandlungen (Leipzig, 1866).

Land, J.P.N., Johannes Bischof von Ephesos (Leiden, 1956).

Lang, D.M., ‘* Peter the Iberian and his Biographers ’, JE H, 1{{2 (1951).

Lap’ancyan, G. [Kapantsian], Hayoc lezvi patmut’un (hin srjan) [History of the Armenian
Language (Early Period)|, (Erevan, 1961).

— Istoriko-lingvistichiskie raboty k nachal’not istorit Armian : Drevniaia Malaia
Aztia [ Historico-linguistic Studies on the Beginning of Armenian History : Ancient
Asia Minor], (Erevan, 1956).

-- “ὁ Istoriko-lingvisticheskoe znachenie toponimiki drevnei Armenii, [The historico-
linguistic significance of Ancient Armenian Toponymy]”, Erevan State Uni-
versity, Scventific Studies, XVI (1940).

— K_ proiskhozhdeniiu armianskogo iazyka [On the Origin of the Armenian Lan-
guage], [AN A, VII (1946).

-- “Ὁ dvukh social’no-politicheskikh terminakh drevnego blizhnego vostoka :
ewrt - ‘viladyko, tsar’ ’i pitiahs-(bttiahs) - v‘ladetil’ ili pravitel’ oblasti’ [Two
socio-political Terms in the Ancient Near East : ewrt - ‘ruler, king’ and pitiahs-
(bitiahés) - ‘lord or governor of a province’]”’, VDI (1949).

Latyshev, V., *Izvestiia dreunikh pisatelet o Skific 1 Kavkaze [Information from Ancient
Sources on Scythia and the Caucasus], (St. Petersburg, 1890). Repr. VDJ (1948).

-- “Κ᾽ istorii Khristianstva na Kavkaze [On the History of Christianity in the
Caucasus”, Sbornik’ arkheologicheskikh’ statet podnesennykh’ Gr. A.A. Bobrins-
komu (St. Petersburg, 1911).

Laurent, J., L’Arménie entre Byzance et l’Islam (Paris, 1919).

Laurent, V., ‘‘ La géographie ecclésiastique de Empire byzantin ”’, Actes du VIe Congrés
International des Etudes Byzantines (Paris, 1950).

τς “1,8 ‘notitia’ de Basile l’Arménien ”’, HO, XX XIV (1935).

— ‘* Les sources ἃ consulter pour l’établissement des listes épiscopales du patriarcat
byzantin ", HO, XXX (1931).

Lazaryan, S., Hayoe grakan lezvi patmut’ yun [History of the Armenian Literary Language],
(Erevan, 1961).

Lebeau, C., *Histoire du Bas-Empire, J.A. Saint-Martin ed., 21 vols. (Paris, 1824-1836).

Lehmann-Haupt, C.F., Armenien — Armenien einst und jetzt, 2 vols., in 3° (Berlin,

1910-1931).

- ‘* Kine griechische Inschrift aus der Spatzeit Tigranokerta’s”’, K, VIII (1908).

-- ἘΠῚ Maiafar(i)kin und Tigranokerta ᾽ν, VBAG (1899).

— Materialen zur dlteren Geschichte Armeniens und Mesopotamiens (Berlin, 1907).

— ‘* On the Origin of the Georgians ”’, G, ΤΥ - (1937).

— “ Satrap, Tigranocerta ’, PW, ITA-1, VIA-1.

— Weitere Bericht — ἘΝ’ Weitere Bericht tiber den Fortgang der armenischen Expe-
dition’, ZH, X XI (1899).

Lehmann-Haupt, C.F. and Belck, W., ἘΠ Majafarkin und Tigranokerta”, ZH, XXI
(1899). |

BIBLIOGRAPHY 291*

Leist, B.W., *Graeco-Italische Rechtsgeschichte (Iena, 1884).

Lemerle, P., ‘‘ Esquisse pour une histoire agraire de Byzance : les sources et les problé-
mes’, RH, CCXIX-CCXX (1958).

Le Nain de Tillemont, L.S. de, *Histoire des empereurs, 6 vols. (Paris, 1690-1738).

Leo, Hayoc Patmut*yun [History of Armenia], 3 vols. (Tiflis, 1917 — Erevan 1946-1947).

Lepper, F.A., Parthian War — Trajan’s Parthan War (Oxford, 1948).

Le Strange, G., ed. and trans., Lin Serapion — *** Description of Mesopotamia and
Baghdad, Written about the Year 900 by Ibn Serapion”’, JRAS, XLVI, n.s.
XXVIT (1895).

-- Lands — *The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate (Cambridge, 1906). Repr. (London,
1966).

Leuze, O., Die Satrapieneinteilung in Syrien und in Zweistromlande (Halle, 1935).

Levy, M.A., **‘ Die palmyrenischen Inschriften ’, ZDMG, XVIII (1864).

Lewy, H., “ Additional Note on the Date of Moses of Chorene ”’, B, XI (1936).

-- ** The Date and Purpose of Moses of Chorene’s History ᾿᾿, B, XI (1936).

Lidén, E., Armenische Studien, Goteborg, (1906).

— ‘“ Armeniaca ”’, Géteborg Hégskolas Arsskrift”, L (1944-1).

van Loon, M.N., Urartian Art : Its Distinctive Traits in the Light of New Excavations
(Istanbul, 1966).

Lot, F., L’Impét foncier et la capitation personelle sous le bas-empire et a Vépoque franque
(Paris, 1928).

Lot, Ἐς and R. Fawtier, Histovre des institutions francaises au Moyen-Age, 2 vols. (Paris,
1957-1958).

Luchaire, A., Manuel — *Manuel des institutions francaises (Paris, 1892).

Lukonin, B.G., Iran v épokhu pervykh Sasanidov [Iran under the First Sasanians], (Lenin-
grad, 1961).

Lynch, H.F.B., Armenia — *Armenia : Travels and Studies, 2 vols. (London, 1901).
Russian ed. (Tiflis, 1910). Repr. (Beirut, 1965).

Macler, F., Catalogue — Catalogue des manuscrits arméniens et géorgiens de la Bibliotheque
Nationale (Paris, 1908).

-- “* Erzeroum : Topographie d’Erzeroum et de sa région ’’, JA (1919).

Magie, D., Roman Rule — Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century
after Christ, 2 vols. (Princeton, 1950).

Maksimova, M.I., “‘ Mestnoe naselenie iugo-vostochnogo Prichernomor’ia po ’Anaba-
sisu’ Ksenofonta : Drily i Mossiniki [The Native Population of the Black Sea
Coast according to Xenophon’s ‘Anabasis’ : the Drilai and the Mossynoichians]”’,
VDI (1951).

Malyasyang, 5.3., Dict. — Hayerén bacatrakan bararan | Armenian Dictionary], Répr.
(Beirut, 1955).

-- Istorua Sebeosa ὁ Motset Khorenskit [The History οὐ Sebéos and Movsés Xorenacc],
(Tiflis, 1899).

-- Istorik Sebeos (Anonim i Marabas Mutsrniiskii [The Historian Sebéos (The
Anonymous Histori and Mar-Abbas of Mcurn)]”’, VV, ns. IT (1949).

— “ Khorenskii i Sebeos [Xorenaci and Sebéos]”’, 7A FAN, 1 (1937).

— Xorenacu aretcvaci surja [On the Problem of Xorenaci], (Erevan, 1940).

Manandian, H.A., Critical History — K’nnakan tesut’'yun Hay Zolovrdt patmut yan
[A Critical Consideration of the History of the Armenians] (Erevan, 1945).

202 ἢ

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ditotot’'yunner hin Hayastani sinakanneri drutyan masin marzpanut’ yan sjanum
[Observations on the Position of the Sinakan in Ancient Armenia during the Period
of the Marzpanate], (Erevan, 1925).

Feudalism — Feodalizm hin Hayastanum [Feudalism in Ancient Armenia], (Erevan,
1934).

Grecheskie nadpisi iz Armavira [The Greek Inscriptions from Armavir], (Erevan,
1946).

Hellenistic School — Yunaban dpro¢a ew nra zrgacman srjannera [The Hellenistic
School and the Period of its Development] (Vienna, 1928).

Hin Hayastant ew Andrkovkast mi k’ani problemneri masin [On Some Problems
Connected with Ancient Armenia and Transcaucasia (Erevan, 1944).

Itinerary — “* Srednevekovyi itinerarii v Armianskoi rukopisi X st. [A Medieval
Itinerary in an Armenian MS of the X Century]”’, Sbornik ... Akademiku N. Ia.
Marru (Moscow, 1935).

** Kogda i kem byla sostavlena’ Armianskaia Geografiia’pripisyvaemaia Moiseiu
Khorenskomu [By Whom and When was Composed the ‘Armenian Geography
Attributed to Movsés Xorenaci’]”’, VV, n.s. I (1946).

“ Krugovoi put’ Pompeia v Zakavka’e [Pompey’s Circuit Route in Trans-Cau-
casia]’’, VDI (1939).

Manr Hetazotutyunner [Minor Studies], (Erevan, 1932).

**Marshruty pontiiskago pokhoda Pompeiia i put’ otstupleniia Mitridata v
Kolkhidu [The Itinerary of Pompey’s Pontic Campaign and the Route of Mithra-
dates’ retreat into Colchis]’’, VDI (1940).

Nyuter hin Hayastani tntesakan kyank’i patmut’yan [Materials for a History of
Ancient Armenian Economy, II (Erevan, 1928).

O nekotorykh spornikh voprosakh istorii + geografit drevnet Armenii [On Certain
Controversial Points in the History and Geography of Ancient Armenia}, (Erevan,
1956).

“ Ortel ér gtnvum Dareh A-i dem apstambac Arminan ? [Where was the Location
of the Armina which Revolted against Darius I?]”, Patmakan-asyarhagrakan
manr hetazotut’yunner [Minor Historical and Geographical Studies], (Erevan, 1945).
Paimakan-asyarhagrakan manr Hetazotutyunner [Minor Historical and Geo-
graphical Studies] (Erevan, 1945),

“Problema obshchestvennago stroia doarshakidskoi Armenii [The Problem of
the Social Structure of Pre-Arsacid Armenia]”’, 7Z, XV (1945).

Routes — Hayastani glyavor tanaparhnera ast Pewtingeryan K’artezi [The Main
Routes of Armenia according to the Tabula Peutingeriana (Erevan, 1936).

** Skifskoe proiskhozhdenie ’Gog’-ov ili ’Gogar-ov i zavoevanie Gogareny snachala
Iberami a satem Artaksiem I [The Scythian Origin of the ‘Gog’s or ‘Gogar’s and
the Conquest of Gogarené First by the Iberians and Subsequently by Artaxias I ”’,
Hin Hayastani ew Andrkovkasi mi k’ani problemnert masin [On Some Problems
Connected with Ancient Armenia and Transcaucasia (Erevan, 1944).

Tigran 11 — Tigran vtorot i Rim (Erevan, 1943). French trans. : Tigrane 1]
et Rome, Thorossian trans. (Lisbon, 1963).

Trade — O Torgovle ἃ gorodakh Armenii v sviazi 8 mirovot torgovlei drevnikh
vremen (Erevan, 1930). 2nd ed. (Erevan, 1954). English trans. : The Trade
and Cities of Armenia in Connexion with Ancient World Trade, N.G. Garsoian
trans. (Lisbon, 1965).

BIBLIOGRAPHY 293*

“Tse? i napravlenie podgotovliavshegosia Neronom kavkazskogo pokhoda
[The Purpose and Direction of the Caucasian Campaign Planned by Nero]”,
VI (1946-1947).

Xorenacu aretvaci lucuma [The Solution to the Problem of Xorenact], (Erevan, 1934).
Zametki o feode i feodal’nom voiske Parfit 1 Arsakidskot Armenii [Notes on the
Fief and on the Feudal Army of Partha and Arsacid Armenia], (Thilisi, 1932).

Marcus, R., “The Armenian Life of Marutha of Maipherkat”’, Harvard Theological

Review, XXV-1 (1932).

Maricq, A., Chronologie — ‘‘ La chronologie des derniéres années de Caracalla’’, S,

XXXIV (1957). Repr. in Classica et Orientalra (Paris, 1965), iii.

Classica et Orientalia (Paris, 1965).

RGDS — “Res Gestae Divi Saporis”, 5, XXXV (1958). Repr. Classica et
Orientalia (Paris, 1965), v.

Sanatroug — “‘ Hatra de Sanatrouq’”’, S, XX XIT (1955). Repr. Classica et Orten-
talia (Paris, 1965), 1.

Markwart, J., Armenische Alphabet — ““ Uber den Ursprung des armenischen Alphabetes

im Zusammenhang mit der Biographie des Hl. Mastoc " (Vienna, 1917). First
published in HA, XXVI (1912).

“ Beitrage zur Geschichte und Sage von Eran : Die Listen der eranischen und
armenischen Arsakiden bei Mar Abas und Ps. Moses”, ZDMG, XLIX (1895),
“Le Berceau des Arméniens ”, REA, VIII/1 (1928).

“Α Catalogue of the Provincial Capitals of Eranshahr ”’, J. Messina ed., Analecta
Orientalia, 111 (Rome, 1931).

Entstehung — Die Entstehung der armenischen Bistiimer, J. Messina ed. (Rome,
1932). Also published in Orienitalia Christiana, XXVII-2 (1932).

Die Entstehung und Wiederherstellung der armenischen Nation (Berlin, 1919).
Eran — *Krangahr nach der Geographie des Ps. Mosés Xorenag’i (Berlin, 1901).
** Die Genealogie der Bagratiden und das Zeitalter des Mar Abas und Ps. Mosés
Xorenac’i”, Ca, VI/2 (1930).

** Tberer und Hyrkaner ”’, Ca, VIII (1931).

Itinerar — Skizzen zur historischen Topographie und Geschichte von Kaukasien :
Das Itinerar von Artaxata nach Armastica auf der rémischen Weltkarte (Vienna,
1928).

“La Province de Parskahayk’’’, G.V. Abgaryan ed., RHA, n.s. ΠῚ (1966).
First published in PBH (1961).

Staatsverwaliung —- *Rémische Staatsverwaltung (1893).

Streifziige — *Osteuropdische und ostasiatische Streifziige (Leipzig, 1903). Repr.
(Hildesheim, 1961).

Siidarmenien — Siidarmenien und die Tigrisquellen (Vienna, 1930).
*Untersuchungen zur Cleschichie und Sage von Eran, I (Gottingen, 1896); IT
(Leipzig, 1905).

ἘΠῚ Der Ursprung der iberischen Bagratiden’”’, Osteuropdische und ostasiatische
Stretfziige (Leipzig, 1903), excursus iv.

** Woher stammt der Name Kaukasus”’, Ca, VI-1 (1930).

Marr, N. Ia., Ani (Moscow-Leningrad, 1934).

Ark’aun — ἘΠ Arkaun ”’, mongol’skoe nazvanie khristian ” v” sviazi ο᾽᾽ vopro-
som” ob” armianakh” khalkedonitakh” [Ark’aun, the Mongol Term for Christians
in Connexion with the Problem of Chalcedonian Armenians]”’, VV, XII (1906).

204 BIBLIOGRAPHY

— ‘* Astronomicheskie 1 6tnicheskie znachenie dvykh plemennykh nazvanii Armian
[The Astronomical and Ethnic meaning of Two Armenian Tribal Names] ”’,
ZVO, XXV (1922).

-- Christianization — ἘΠ΄ Kreshchenie Armian’”’, Gruzin’’, Abkhazov’’ i Alanov”’
sviatym”’ Grigoriem”’ [St. Gregory’s Christianization of the Armenians, Iberians,
Abkhazians, and Alans]’’, Z2VO, XVI (1905).

- “ Etymologiia armianskogo μέιηπιζ ‘sepuh’ i gruzinskogo bo939 ‘sep’e’ [The
Etymology of the Armenian ‘sepuh’ and the Georgian ‘sep’e’]”’, ZVO, V (1891).

— Etymologies — *** Etimologiia dvukh terminov”’ armianskago feodal’nago
stroia [The Etymology of Two Armenian Feudal Terms]”, ZVO, XI (1899).
— Grammar — *Grammatika drevnearmianskago wazyka[Grammar of Ancient Ar-

menian], (St. Petersburg, 1903).

— Izbrannye raboty [Selected Works], B.V. Aptekar’ et al edd., 5 vols. (Leningrad,
1933-1935). [Complete bibliography in vv I, V].

--- ** Kavkazskii kylturnyi mir” i Armeniia [Armenia and the Cultural World of
the Caucasus], ZMNP (1915).

-- ‘““Mnimoe geograficheskoe nazvanie ’’r’otastak (erotastak) ν᾽ Istorii Agafengela
[The Dubious Toponym ‘erotastak’ in the History of Agat’angelos]”, ZVO, IX
(1896).

— “Ὁ pervonachal’noi istorii Armenii Anonima [The Anonymous Primary History
of Armenia]”, VV, I (1894).

— Physiol. — “ Fiziolog. Armiano-gruzinskit Izvod [The Armeno-Georgian Version
of the Physiologus ”’}, (1904).

— Review — ‘“‘ Review of 1.4. Javayisvili [Dzhavakhov], Gosudarstvennyi stroi
drevnei Gruzii i drevnei Armenii]”’, ZM NP (1908).

-π Tables — *Osnovnye tablitsy κ᾽ grammatiké drevne-gruzinskago iazyka [Basic
Tables for a Grammar of Ancient Georgian}, (St. Petersburg, 1908).

Martirosyan, N., ‘* Prptumner P’ok’r Asiakan anunneru masin [Research on the Names
of Asia Minor]”’, PBH (1961).

Masson, M.E., “" Nekotorye novye dannye po istorii Parfii [Some New Data on the
History of Parthia]’’, VDI (1950).

Matikean, A., ‘* Ananuno kam kete Sebéos [The Anonymous History or Pseudo-Sebéos] ”’,
HA, XXV-XXVII (1911-1913).

Mazahéri, A., La famille tranienne aux temps anté-islamiques (Paris, 1938).

Mécérian, J.,"* Bilan des relations arméno iraniennes au Ve siécle aprés J.C. ’’, BA, IT
(1953).

- Histoire et Institutions de Véglise arménienne (Beirut, 1965).

— “* Notes de droit arménien ”’, BA, I (1947-1948).

Meillet, A., Altarmenisches Elementarbuch (Heidelberg, 1913).

- ** De l’influence parthe sur la langue arménienne’”’, RHA, I (1921).

— “ Etudes de linguistique et de philologie arménienne I”, Mémoires de la Société
de Linguistique (1897 /8-1912/4). Repr. (Lisbon, 196 ).

- Grammaire — Esquisse @une grammatre comparée de Varménien classique (Paris,
1903). 2nd ed. (Vienna, 1936).

— Mots parthes — ‘‘ De quelques mots parthes en arménien”, RHA, II-1 (1922).

-- “* Sur les termes religieux iraniens en arméniens ”’, RHA, I (1921).

Meillet, A. and Benveniste, E., Grammaire du Vieux-Perse (Paris, 1915). 2nd edition

revised by Benveniste (Paris, 1931).

BIBLIOGRAPHY 295*

Meillet, A. and Cohen, M., Les Langues du Monde (Paris, 1924).

Melikishvili, G.A., Nairi-Urartu (Thilisi, 1954).

-- ‘** La population des régions septentrionales de Nairi-Ourartou et son réle dans
Vhistoire de ancien Orient ’’, Conférences présentées par la délégation de VLURSS
au XXV Congrés International des Orientalistes (Moscow, 1960).

— Urartskie klinoobraznye nadpist [Urartian Cuneiform Inscriptions], (Moscow,
1960).

Melik’-Tangean, H., Canon Law — *Hayoe eketecakan iravunk’s [Armenian Canon
Law}, (Sui, 1903).

Melik’set’-bek, G.L., Vrac albyurnera Hayastani ew Hayert masin [Georgian Sources on
Armenia and the Armenians}, 3 vols. (Erevan, 1934, 1936, 1955).

Mellink, M. ed., Dark ages — Dark Ages and Nomads c. 1000 B.C. Studies in Iranian
and Anatolian Archaeology (Istanbul, 1964).

Menasce, J. de, “Ἰὼ conquéte de Viranisme et la recupération des mages hellénisés ”’,
AEHE (1956).

Mesrop Mastoc — ‘‘ Mesrop Mastoc cnndyan 1600 amyaki art’iv [Mesrop Ma&toe. On
the 1600 Anniversary of his Birth’, PBH (1962-2) [Entire issue].

Meyer, E., Die Grenzen der hellenistischen Staaten in Kleinasien (Zurich-Leipzig, 1925).

Miller, K., Itineraria Romana — Itineraria Romana. Rémische Reisewege an der Hand
der Tabula Peutingeriana (Stuttgart, 1916).

Minorsky, V., ** Caucasica, I-IV’, BSOAS, XII-XV (1948, 1951-1953).

—. EI —“* Artsruni, Kurd, Kurdistan, Laz, Maiyafarikin, Maki, Ma’muret al-’ Aziz,
Maragha, Marand, Mardin, Makan, Nakhchuwan, Tiflis, Urmiya, Zandjan ”’, EJ.

-- EI-II — “ Abkhaz, Adharbaidjan, Akhal-tsikhé, Akhlat, Alan, Ani, Daylam ”’,
ETI, new edition.

— ‘Les études historiques et géographiques sur la Perse depuis 1930”, AO, X,
XVI, XXI (1932, 1937, 1951).

— A History of Sharvén and Darband (Cambridge, 1958).

— Hudid al-Alam “ The Regions of the World’? (London, 1937).

-- ** Le nom de Dvin ᾽ν, REA, X (1930). _ First published in .4 (1930).

— ** Roma : and Byzantine Campaigns in Atropatene ”’, BSOAS, XI (1945).

— Studies in Caucasian History (London, 1953).

-- ‘* Transcaucasia ᾽᾽, JA (1980).

Mlaker, K., ‘‘ Die Datierung der Geschichte des Ps. Moses Xorenac’i”, WZKM, XLII
(1935).

— ‘© Die Herkunft der Mamikonier und der Titel Cenbakur”’, WZKM, XXXIX,
(1932).

τῶν “ Zur Geschichte des Ps. Moses Xorenac’i’’, Armeniaca (1927).

Mnacakanyan, A.S., Alvanic asyarhi grakanut’ yan harceri Surja [Problems in the Literature
on Caucasian Albania}, (Erevan, 1966).

Mommeen, Th., ‘* Die diokletianische Reichsprefektur ’’, Hermes, XX XI (1901). Repr.
in Gesammelte Schriften, VI (1910).

— Laterculus — ἘΠ Laterculus Polemii Siluii”’, ASGW (1857).

— ** Das rémische Militérwesen seit Diokletian”, Hermes, XXIV (1889). Repr.
in Gesammelte Schriften, VI (1910).

-- *ROmisches Staatsrecht, 3 vols. (1873-1878). 3rd ed. (Leipzig, 1887-1888).

— Verzeichniss — *“ Verzeichniss der rémischen Provinzen aufgesetzt um 297”’,
ASGW (1862). Repr. in Gesammelte Schriften, V (1908).

296* BIBLIOGRAPHY

Montesquieu, Ch. de, *De l’esprit des lois, nouv. ed., 2 vols. (Paris).

Montzka, K., Die Landschaften Grossarmentens bei griech. und rém. Schriftstellern (1906).

Mortet, Ch., ἘΠ΄ Féodalité ᾽᾽, La Grande Encyclopédie, XVII (Paris).

Muyldermans, J., “‘ Le dernier prince Mamikonien de Bagrévand”’, HA, XL (1926).

-- “ L’Historiographie arménienne ”, Le Muséon, ΤΧΧΥῚ (1968).

Nalbandyan, H.T’., Arabakan albyurnera Hayastani ew harewan erkeri masin [Arab
Sources on Armenia and the Neighbouring Lands], (Erevan, 1965).

-- “451 υ΄. azatagrakan Sarjman het kapvac mi harci Surfe [A Problem Related
to the Liberation Movement of 451]”, TIANA (1953).

Niese, N., “ Ariarathes ”’, PW, IT-1.

Nischer, E., ‘* The Army Reforms of Diocletian and Constantine and their Modifications
up to the Time of the Notitia Dignitatum ”’, JRS, XIII (1923).

Néldeke, Th., Kiepert Festschrift — ἘΠ᾿ Kardii und Kurden”, Festschrift fiir Heinrich
Kiepert (Berlin, 1898).

-- Tabari — *Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit der Sasaniden aus der ara-
bischen Chronik des Tabari (Leiden, 1879).

— Zwei Volker — ἘΠῚ Zwei Volker Vorderasiens ”’, ZDMG, XX XIIT (1879).

Nyberg, H.S8., “‘ Inscriptions antiques en Géorgie”’, Hranos, XLIV (1946).

— “Die Sassanidische Westgrenze und ihre Verteidigung”, Studia Bernhardo
Karlgren Dedicata (Stockholm, 1959).

Olmstead, A.T., History of the Persian Empire (Chicago, 1948).

— ‘The Mid-third Century of the Christian Era”, CP, XX XVII (1942).

Orbeli, I.A., ‘ Bagavanskaiia nadpis’ 639 goda [The Bagawan Inscription of 639]”,
Khristianskit Vostok, II-1 (1918).

--- Izbrannye trudy [Selected Works], (Erevan, 1963).

Ormanian, M., Azgapatum [National History], 3 vols. (Constantinople, 1914-1927).

Oskean, H., Gnuneac ew Rétuneac nayararut’iwnnera [The Nayarardoms of the Gnunis
and the Rstunis (Vienna, 1952). Also published in HA, LXVI (1952).

— “* Kirakos Ganjakeci”, HA, XXXVI (1922).

— “ Myit’ar Gos”, HA, XL (1926).

von der Osten, H. and Nauman, R., Takht-i Suleiman. Vorléufiger Bericht tiber die
Ausgrabungen (Berlin, 1961).

Ostrogorsky, G., History of the Byzantine State, J. Hussey trans. (London, 1956).

--- Pour Vhistoire de ἴα féodalité byzantine, H. Grégoire trans. (Brussels, 1954).

-- Quelques problémes @histoire de la paysannerie byzantine (Brussels, 1956).

-- ** Sur la date de la composition du ‘Livre des Thémes’ et sur ’époque de Ja consti-
tution des premiers thémes d’Asie Mineure ”’, B, XXIJIT (1954).

Palanque, R., Essai sur la préfecture du prétoire du Bas-Empire (Paris, 1933).

Panciroli, G., Not. dig. — *Notitia Dignitatum utriusque imperit orientis scilicet et occt-
dentis ultra Arcadit Honortique tempora (Geneva, 1623).

Parker, T., “ The Legions of Diocletian and Constantine ”, JRS, XXIIT (1933).

Patrono, C., “‘ Bizantini e Persiani alla fine del VI secolo ”, Giornale della Socteta Asiatica
Ltaliana, XX (1907).

Pavlov’’-Sil’vanskii, *Feodalism” »° drevnet Rusi | Feudalism in Ancient Russia], (St.
Petersburg, 1908).

Pedersen, H., “‘ Armenisch und die Nachbarsprachen”, ZVS, XXXIX (1904-1906).

— Le groupement des dialectes indo-européens (Copenhagen, 1925).

BIBLIOGRAPHY 297*

— Zur armenischen Sprachgeschichte (Guetersloh, s.d.).

Peeters, P., Alphabet — “* Pour lhistoire des origines de alphabet arménien”’, REA,
IX (1929). Repr. in Recherches, I (1951).

— “Les débuts du christianisme en Géorgie d’aprés les sources hagiographiques ”’,
AB, 1, (1932).

-- “S. Grégoire ’Tluminateur dans le calendrier lapidaire de Naples”, AB, LX
(1942).

-- Intervention — “" L’intervention politique de Constance ITI dans la Grande Arménie
en 338’, ARBBL, XVII (1931). Repr. in Recherches, I (1951).

— “Jérémie évéque d’Ibérie perse ”’, AB, LI (1933).

-- ““ La Légende de 5. Jacques de Nisibe ’’, AB, XX XVIII (1920).

-- ** Observations sur la vie syriaque de Mar Aba, Catholicos de l’église perse (540-
552)”, Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati, V (1946). Repr. Recherches, IT (1951).

-- *‘'La Passion arménienne de S. Serge le Stratélate ”’, Husarjan (Vienna, 1911).
Repr. Recherches, I (1951).

-- Persecution — “ Le début de la persecution de Sapor d’aprés Fauste de Byzance ”’,
RHA, 1 (1920). Repr. Recherches, 1 (1951).

-- ** Pour Vhistoire du Synaxaire arménien ”, AB, X XIX (1911).

— “Α propos de la version arménienne de l’historien Socrate ’, AIPHO, II (1934).
Repr. Recherches, I (1951).

- “* Quelques noms géographiques arméniens dans Skylitzés ᾽", B, VI (1931). Repr.

Recherches, I (1951).

-- Recherches — Recherches d’histoire et de philologie orientales, 2 vols. (Brussels,
1951). '

— Sainte-Sousanik — “ Sainte-Sousanik martyre en Arméno-Géorgie ’’, AB, LIII
(1935). |

— “Sur la necessité d’un Onomasticon de l’Orient byzantin”’, B, I (1924). Repr.
Recherches, 1 (1951).

— Le Tréfond oriental de Vhagiographie byzantine (Brussels, 1950).

--- “1,4 vie de Rabboula, évéque d’Edesse ”’, Recherches de science religieuse, XVIII
(1928). Repr. Recherches, I (1951).

Perikhanian, A.G., “‘ Arameiskaia nadpis’ iz Garni[An Aramaic Inscription from Garni] ”’,
ΡΒΗ (1964).

— ** Drevnearmianskie vostaniki [The ostanik’s in Ancient Armenia]”’, VDI (1956).

-- κ᾿ Teroduly ἱεροί khramovykh ob”edinenii Maloi Azii i Armenii [The Hieroduloi
on Temple Estates in Asia Minor and Armenia]”, VDI, (1957).

— Khramovye ob’ edineniia Maloi Aziit Armenit, IV v. do né. - III v. n.€. [Temple
Estates in Asia Minor and Armenia, IV C. B.C. - 111 C. A.D.], (Moscow, 1939).

— Slavery — “‘ K voprosu o rabovladenii i zemlevladenii v Irane parfianskogo
vremini [Slavery and Land Tenure in Iran in the Parthian Period] ”’, VDJ (1952).

— “Ὅπο inscription araméenne du roi Artasés trouvée a Zangguézour (Siwnik’)”’,
REA, n.s. ΤΙ] (1966). First published in PBH (1965).

Pertrusi, A., “δ La formation des thémes byzantins ”’, Berichte zum ΧΙ. Internationalen
byzaniinischen Kongress, I (Munich, 1958).

— Themes — Costantino Porfiregenito de Thematibus (Vatican City, 1952).

Pigagnol, A., L’Empire chrétien, 325-395 (Paris, 1947).

-- LT’ Imp6ét de capitation sous le Bas-empire romain (Chambéry, 1916).

298* BIBLIOGRAPHY

Pigulevskaia, N., “‘K voprosu o podatnoi reforme Khosrova Anushirvana [On the
Fiscal Reform of Xosrov Andsarvan]’’, VDI (1937).

— Mesopotamua na rubezhe V-VI vv. n.€. [Mesopotamia at the Turn of the V-VIth
Centuries A.D.], (Moscow-Leningrad, 1940).

— * Qborona gorodov Mesopotamii V-VI vv. [The Defense of the Cities of Mesopo-
tamia in the V-VI Centuries]”, UZL, XII (1941).

— Siriiskie istochnikt po istorii SSSR [Syriac Sources on the History of the USSR]
(Moscow-Leningrad, 1941).

— ** Siriiskii Zakonnik, istoriia pamiatnika [The Syrian Code, a History of the
Document], UZL (1952).

-- Les villes de Véiat iranien aux époques parthe et sassanide (Paris-The Hague, 1963).
Original Russian edition (Moscow-Leningrad, 1956).

— Vizantiia i Iran na rubezhe VI i VII vekov [Byzantium and Iran at the Turn of
the VI and VIIth Centuries (Moscow-Leningrad, 1946).

Pinder, M. and Friedlander, ἘΠ De la signification des lettres OB sur les monnaies byzan-
tenes (Berlin, 1851). 2nd ed. (18783).

Piotrovskii, V.V., O protskhozhdenit armianskogo naroda [The Origin of the Armenians]
(Erevan, 1946).

-- Vanskoe Tsarstvo [The Kingdom of Van], (Moscow, 1939).

Pivazyan, E., * Myit’ar Gosi ew Smbat Sparapeti datastanagrk’eri arngakcut’yuno
[The Connexion between the Codes of Myit’ar G63 and Smbat Sparapet]”, BM,
V (1960).

Polaschek, E., ** Uti’, PW, IXA-2.

Pomialovskii, I., Sbornik” grecheskikh” 14 rimskikh” nadpiset Kavkaza [A Collection of
Greek and Roman Inscriptions from the Caucasus (St. Petersburg, 1881).

Ramsay, Sir W.W., Hist. Geogr. —- The Historical Geography of Asta Minor (London,
1890).

Ranovich, A.B., Vostochnye provintsiti Rimskot imperit v I-III vv. n.é. [The Eastern
Provinces of the Roman Empire in the I-III Centuries A.D.], (Moscow-Leningrad,
1949).

Rawlinson, G., Seventh Monarchy — *The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy (London,
1876).

Reinach, Th., Mithridate Eupator roi de Pont (Paris, 1890).

Richard, M., ‘‘ Acace de Meliténe, Proclus de Constantinople et la Grande Arménie ”’,
Mémorial Louis Petit (Bucarest, 1948).

Robert, L., Valles d’ Asie Mineure (Paris, 1962).

Rost, P., **‘ Untersuchungen zur altorientalischen Geschichte’, VG (1892).

Rostovtzeff, M., Aparanskaia grecheskaia nadpis’ tsaria Tiridata [The Aparan Greek
Inscription of King Tiridates (St. Petersburg, 1911). .

— ‘* Res gestae divi Saporis and Dura ’”’, Ber., VIIT (1943).

— The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1941).

— The Social and Economie History of the Roman Empire, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1926).

Rubin, B., Justinian — Das Zertalier Iustinians (Berlin, 1960).

Ruge, “‘ Kappadokia, Kolchis”’, PW, X, XI-2.

Sachau, E., Syrisches Recht. — *Syrische Rechtsbiicher (Berlin, 1907-1908).

— ‘** Uber die Lage von Tigranokerta ”’, 4A WB, Phil.-hist. K]., IT (1880).

Safrastian, A., “ The Hurri-lands ”’, Ο, IV-V (1937).

BIBLIOGRAPHY 299*

Sahyatunean, H., *Storagrut’iwn katuliké Ejmiacni ew hing gawarac Araratay [Descrip-
tion of the Katotikosate of Ejmiacin and of the Five Provinces of Ararat (Ejmiacin,
1842).

Sahnazaryan, A., Bagratunyac nayararakan tohmi caguma [The Origin of the nayarar
House of the Bagratunis (Erevan, 1948).

Saint-Croix, C.E.J. Guilhem de, *“‘ Mémoires sur le gouvernement des Parthes”’,
Mémoires de V Académie des Inscriptions ef des Belles-Lettres, L (Paris, 1808).

Saint-Martin, J.A., Discours —- *‘‘ Discours sur l’origine des Arsacides ’’, Histowre des
Arsacides, II.

— Mémoires — *Mémoires historiques et géographiques sur l Arménie, 2 vols. (Paris,
1818-1819).

Salia, K., ‘“‘ Note sur l’origine et Page de l’alphabet géorgien ’, BK, XLITI-XLIV(1963).]

Samuélyan, X., Hin Hay travunk’s paimut’yun, I [History of Ancient Armenian Law]
(Erevan, 1939).

-- Myitar Gos datastanagirk’n u Hin Hayoc katak’aciakan trawunk’a [The Code
of Myxit’ar Gos and Ancient Armenian Civil Law], (Vienna, 1911).

-- “ Strkut’yune hin Hayastanum [Slavery in Ancient Armenia], Izvestiia of the
Institute of History and Literature of the Armenian SSR, IT (1937).

Sargisean, N., Itineraries — *Telagrutiwnk’ 1 P’ok’r ew Mec Hays (Itineraries in Greater
and Lesser Armenia], (Venice, 1864).

sas dew G.X. |Sarkisian], “‘ Dastakertnero ew agaraknero V dari haykakan albyut-
nerum [Dastaks and agaraks in Vth Century Armenian Sources] ’’, PBH (1962).

— Héllenistakan darasrjani Hayastana ew Movsés Xorenaci [The Hellenistic Period
in Armenia and Movsés Xorenaci], (Erevan, 1966).

— ** Tz istorii gorodskoi obshchiny v Armenii (ΕΥ̓͂ v. n.é.) [On the History of Urban
Communities in Armenia (IVth Century A.D.)]”, VDI (1955).

— Movwsés Xorenacu ‘Hayoce patmut yaw zamanakagrakan hamakarga [The Chrono-
logical System of the ‘History of Armenia’ of Movsés Xorenaci] (Erevan, 1965).

— ** Tigran B-i Terut’yuno [The Realm of Tigran Il]”’, PBH (1966).

— Tigranakert (Moscow, 1960).

Sarkissian, K., Chalcedon — The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian Church (London,
1965).

Sarre, F. and Herzfeld, E., Archdologische Reise im Kuphrat- und Tigrisgebiet, 3 vols.
(Berlin, 1911-1920).

Scardigli, P.G., “‘ Aspekte der armenischen Etymologie ”’, HA, LX XV (1961).

Schur, W., ‘‘ Die Orientpolitik des Kaisers Nero’, K, XV, Beiheft (1923).

--- ** Zur neronischen Orientspolitik ”, K, XX (1925).

Schwartz, E., Bischofslisten — ‘‘ Uber die Bischofslisten der Synoden von Chalkedon,
Nicaea, und Konstantinopel ἢ, ABAWNM, n.f., Heft XIII (1937).

-- “ Prosopographia et Topographia ’’, ACO, II-vi (1938).

-- “Ζιὰ Kirchengeschichte des vierten Jahrhunderts”, ZNW, XXXIV (1935).

Schwartz, P., Iran im Mittelalter (Leipzig, 1929).

Sedld, H., ** L’origine des Mamikoniens ᾽ν, RHA, V (1925).

Sellers, R.V., Chalcedon — The Council of Chalcedon : A Historical and Doctrinal Survey
(London, 1961).

Seston, W., Diocléiien — Dioclétren et la Tetrarchte, I (Paris, 1946).

— ** Notes critiques sur |’*Histoire Auguste’ I : Julien et Por coronaire’, RE Ane,
XLIV (1942).

300* BIBLIOGRAPHY

Shanie, A., “ Novootkrytyi alfavit kavkazskikh Albantsev i ego znachenie dlia nauki
[The Newly Discovered Alphabet of Caucasian Albania and its Scientific Signi-
ficance]’’, BJM, IV (1938).

Solodukho, Iu.A., “‘ Podati i povinnosti v Irake v III-V vv. [Taxes and Obligations
in Iraq in the III-Vth Centuries]”’, SV, V (1948).

Solta, G., “‘ Die armenische Sprache ’’, Handbuch der Ortentalisttk, B. Spuler ed., (Leiden,
1963), VII.

-- Die Stellung — Die Stellung des Armenischen im Kreise der wndogermanischen
Sprache (Vienna, 1960). First published in HA, LXVII (1953).

Spiegel, Ἐκ" Uber die iranische Stammverfassung ”, A4BAWMS (1855).

Sprengling, M., “Κατὰ Founder of Sasanian Zoroastrianism ”’, AJSL, LVI (1940).

— “Α New Pahlavi Inscription ”’, AJSZ, LIT (1936-1937).

-- “ Shapur and the Kaaba of Zoroaster’, AJSZ, 1,.11-2 (1937).

— Third Century Iran — Third Century Iran : Shapur and Kartir (Chicago, 1953).

Stein, Sir A., Old Routes of Western Iran (London, 1940).

Stein, E., Hin Kagitel — ‘‘ Ein Kapitel vom persischen und vom byzantinischen Staate ”’,
ΒΝ (1920).

~~ “ Erato ’’, PW, VI-1.

-- Bas-Empire I —- Histoire du Bas-Empire : I de Vétat romain ἃ Vétat byzantin
(284-476), J.R. Palanque ed., 2 vols. (Paris, 1959).

— Bas-Empire II — Histoire du Bas-Empire : II De la disparition de Vemptre en
oceident ἃ la mort de Justinien (476-565), J.R. Palangue ed. (Paris, 1949).

— ‘“* Review ” of Christensen, L’Zran sous les Sassanides, 1st ed., Le Muséon, LIT
(1940).

-- Studien — Studien zur Geschichte des byzantinischen Reiches (Stuttgart, 1919).

-- Untersuchung iiber das Οἰβοΐωηι der Prétorianerprafektur seit Diokletian (Vienna,
1922).

Sukiasian, A.G., Obshchestvenno-politicheskit sirot ὁ pravo Armenit v epokhu rannego
feodalizma [The socio-political and Legal Structure of Armenia in the Early Feudal
Period (Erevan, 1963).

Taescher, F., Das anatolische Wegenetz nach osmanischen Quellen, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1924-
1926).

Taquizadeh, 8.H., ‘‘ The Early Sasanians’, BSOAS, XI (1943-1946).

Tarchni8vili, F., “‘ Quelques remarques sur lage de l’alphabet géorgien”’, BK, XXX-
XXXI (1958).

-- “1,88 récentes découvertes épigraphiques et littéraires en Géorgie ’, Le Muséon,
LXITI (1950).

Tarn, W.W., Alexander the Great, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1948).

— Hellenistic Civilization, 3rd ed. (London, 1952).

— ** Seleucid and Parthian Studies ’, PBA (1930).

Taylor, J.G., Armenia — ἘΠ Journal of a Tour in Armenia, Kurdistan, and Upper
Mesopotamia, with Notes of Researches in the Dersim dag in 1866”, JRGS,
XXXVIII (1868).

-- Kurdistan — ** Travels in Kurdistan with Notices of the Sources of the Eastern
and Western Tigris and Ancient Sources in their Neighbourhood ”’, JRGS, XX XV
(1865).

Ter Lewondyan, A., Agat‘angelost arabakan nor ymbagrut‘yuna [A New Arabic Version
of Agat‘angelos] (Erevan, 1968).

BIBLIOGRAPHY 301*

Ter Mikaelian, A., Armenische Kirche — Die armenische Kirche in thren Beztehungen
zu den byzantinischen (vom IV. bis zum Χ 111. Jahrhunderts), (Leipzig, 1891).

Ter Minassiantz, E., Armenische Kirche — Die armenische Kirche in thre Beztehungen
zu den Syrischen (Leipzig, 1904).

Τὸν Mkrttschian, K., ‘‘ Bagbén Kat’olikos ”’, Ararat (1902).

-- *Die Paulikianer im byzantinischen Kaiserretche und verwandte ketzerische Er-
scheinungen in Armenien (Leipzig, 1893).

Tér Sahakean, K., Hay kayserk’ Biwzandioni [Armenian Emperors of Byzantium], II
Venice, 1905).

Texier, Ch. and Pullan, R.P., *L’ Architecture byzantine (London, 1864).

Thieme, P., Mitra and Aryaman (New Haven, 1957).

Thomas, L.L., The Linguistic Theories of N. Ia. Marr (Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1957).

Tigranian, S.F., ‘‘ ‘Sudebnaia Kniga’ Mkhitara i ‘Kniga Kanonov’ [The ‘Lawcode of
‘Myit’ar Gos’ and the ‘Book of Canons’]”’, Izvestita of the Caucasian Institute
of History and Archaeology, ΠῚ (Tiflis, 1925).

Tiracyan, G.A. [Tirazian], “‘ Achamenidische Tradition im Altarmenischen Reich ”’,
Vortrdge der Delegation der UdSSR zum XXVth Internationaler Orientalisten-
Kongress (Moscow, 1960).

-- “ Ervanduninero Hayastanum [The Ervandian Dynasty in Ασιηθηΐα]᾽, JANA,
VI (1958).

-- “Ἡΐη Haykakan petut’uan arajJacumo [The Rise of the Ancient Armenian State] ”’,
PBH (1966).

-- ‘*“Movses Xorenacu ‘Hayoc Patmut’yan’ ew Straboni ‘Asyarhagrut’yan’ mi
k’ani tvyalner Hayastani n.m.t’. III-II dareri [Some Data on I1I-IIth Century
B.C. Armenia from the ‘History of Armenia’ of Movsés Xorenaci and the ‘Geo-
graphy’ of Strabo]”, BM, VI (1962).

-- “ Novonaidennaiia nadpis’ Artashesa I, tsaria Armenii [A Newly Discovered
Inscription of Artasés I, King of Armenia]”’’, V DI (1959).

— ‘“Strana Kamagena i Armenii [The Land of Kommagené and Armenia]”’,
IANA (1956).

-- “ταγίοκδη k’alak’akrt’ut’yuno ew Ak’emenyan Irane [Urartian Civilization
and Achemenid Iran]”’, PBH (1964).

Tomaschek, W., “ Albanoi’’, PW, I-1.

— Kiepert Fesischrift — ἘΠ Historisch-Topographisches vom oberen Euphrat und
aus Ost-Kappadokien ”’, Festschrift fiir Heinrich Kiepert (Berlin, 1898).

— Sasun — Ἐπ Sasun und das Quellengebiet des Tigris”, SAW, CX XXIII (1896).

-- ‘* Zur historischen Topographie von Kleinasien im Mittelalter’’, SBAW, CXXIV
(1891).

— Zur historischen Topographie von Persien, 2 vols. (1883-1885).

T’orosyan, X.A., “‘ Datavorut’yune mijnadaryan Hayastanum’’, PBH (1966). ᾿

-- Two Redactions — “ Erku ymbagrut’yun My. Gosi Datastanagrk’i [Two Redactions
of the Lawcode of Myit’ar G6s ”’, BM, VI (1962).

Toumanoff, C., ‘* A Note on the Orontids ”’, Le Muséon, LX XIT (1959).

— ‘* Christian Caucasia between Byzantium and Iran: New Light from Old Sources ”’,
T, X (1954).

-- “ Introduction to Christian Caucasian History : The Formative Centuries (IVth-
VIlith)”, 7, XV (1959).

302* BIBLIOGRAPHY

-- ‘* On the Date of the Pseudo-Moses of Chorene’”’, HA, LX XV (1961).

-- Studies — Studies in Christian Caucasian History (Georgetown, 1963).

Tournebize, F., “‘ Amatouniq, Antzevatsiq, Apahouniq, Arshamouniq, Arscharouniq,
Arzn”, DHGE, II-IV.

-- Histoire politique et religueuse de l Arménie (Paris, 1910).

T’ovmasyan, A.T’., Hin ew mijnadaryan Hay k’reakan travunk’ [Ancient and Mediaeval
Armenian Criminal Law (Erevan, 1962).

Treidler, H., ‘‘ Iberia’, PW, Suppl. XIX.

Trever, K.V., Afbania — Ocherki po istorii ὃ kul’tury Kavkazskot Albani [Studies on the

History and Culture of Caucasian Atbania] (Moscow-Leningrad, 1959).

- Armenia ---- Ocherki po istorit kuVtury drevnet Arments [Studies on the Cultural
History of Ancient Armenia], (Moscow-Leningrad, 1953).

-- Nadpis’ o postroenit armianskoi kreposti Garni [The Inscription Concerning the
Building of the Armenian Fortress of Garnt (Leningrad, 1949).

Ungnad, A., Subartu : Bettrdge zur Kulturgeschichte und Volkerkunde Vorderasiens
(Berlin-Leipzig, 1936).

Ushakov, P., “‘ Drevneishie narody Gruzii i novye arkheologicheskie otkrytiia |'The
Oldest Population of Georgia and New Archaeological Discoveries]”’’, SSM,
X (1940).

-- “Ἑ pokhodam Urartiitsev v Zakavkaz’e [On the Urartian Campaigns in Trans-
caucasia]”’, VDI (1946).

-- ‘* Problemy drevneishego naseleniia Maloi Azii, Kavkaza i Egeidy [The Problems
Concerning the Earliest Population of Asia Minor, the Caucasus and the Aegean] ”’,
VDI (1939).

Vailhé, S., “‘ Formation de l’Eglise arménienne ”, EO, XVI (1913).

Van Berchem, M. and Strzygowski, J., Amida (Heidelberg, 1910).

Vanden Berghe, L., L’ Archéologie de lV’ Iran ancien (Leiden, 1959).

Vasiliev, A.A., Byzance et les Arabes. I. La dynastie d’ Amorium, H. Grégoire, M. Canard,
et al. edd. (Brussels, 1935).

-- Justin the First : An Introduction to the Epoch of Justinian the Great (Cambridge,
Mass., 1950).

— Review — “* Review of N. Adontz, Armenia in the Period of Justinian ’”’,in ZMNP,
ns. XXV-ii (1910).

Vogt, H., ‘‘ Armenien et caucasique du sud ”’, N7, ΤΧ (1938).

- *“ Armenien und Georgien ”’, HA, LXXV (1961).

Vodbus, A., Syrian Asceticism — History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient, in CSCO,
CCLX XXIV, Subsidia 14, CXCVII, Subsidia 17 (Louvain, 1958-1960).

Waitz, G., Verfassungsgeschichte — *Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte, 3rd ed. (Berlin,
1880-1896).

Weber, S., Katholische Kirche — *Die Katholische Kirche in Armenien (Freiburg i-B,
1903).

Weissbach, F.H., “‘ Kapdotyo., Κολθηνή, Μάρδοι, Sophené, Συσπιρῖτις ᾿, PW, X/2,
X1/1, XTV/2, IITA/1, IVA/2.

Widengren, G., ‘‘ Recherches sur le féodalisme iranien ”, OS, V (1956).

— Les religions de Iran (Paris, 1968).

-- “ Stand und Aufgabe der iranischen Religionsgeschichte ", Nwmen, II (1956).

Wikander, S., Feuerpriester in Kleinasten und Iran (Lund, 1946).

BIBLIOGRAPHY 303*

Willems, P., Drovt Public — *Le Droit Public romain, 6th ed. (Louvain-Paris, 1888).

Wilson, Sir Ch., Handbook — Handbook for Travellers in Asia Minor, Transcaucasia,
Persia, etc. (London, 1895).

Wittek, P., “* Von der byzantinischen zur tiirkischen Toponymie ”’, B, X (1935).

Wolski, J., ‘‘ Arsace IT ’’, Hos, IT (1946). |

-- ** The Decay of the Iranien Empire of the Seleucids and the Chronology of Parthian
Beginnings’, Ber, XIT (1956-1957).

— “ L’effondrement de la domination des Séleucides en Iran au IIe siécle av.
J.C.,”, Bulletin international de ? Académie polonaise des sciences et des lettres,
V, (1947).

--- ** Remarques sur les institutions des Arsacides”’, Hos, XLVI (1954).

Xatikyan, L.M., P’ok’r Hayk’ socialakan Sarjaumneri patmulyunic (4rd dar) [On the
History of Social Movements in Lesser Armenia during the IVth Century], (Erevan,
1951). .

Yuzbasyan, K.N., “ Nikolayos Adonci gitakan zafangut’yuno [The Scientific Inheritance
Bequeathed by Nicholas Adontz]”, PBH (1962).

Zaehner, R.C., The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism (London, 1961).

Zarbanalean, *T’argmanut’iwnk’ naxyneac [Ancient Translations], (Venice, 1889).

Zuze, P., Materialy po istori: Azerbaidzhana [Materials for the History of Azerbaijan,
iii-iv (Baku, 1927).

Ill. Maps anp GAZETTEERS

AA Haykakan SSR Atlas [Atlas of the Armenian SSR], (Erevan-Moscow, 1961).
AzA Allas Azerbaidzhanskot SSR [Atlas of the Azerbavjanian SSR], (Baku-Moscow,

1963).
CM Calder, W.M. and Bean, G.E., A Classical Map of Asia Minor (London, 1958).
E Eremyan,8.T., Hayastana ast “ ASyarhacoyc’’? [Armenia According to the

** Armenian Geography ”’), (Erevan, 1963) Map.
G. Department of the interior, Office of Geography, Gazetteer No 46 : Turkey
(Washington, March 1960).
H. Honigmann, E., Die Osigrenze des byzantinischen Retches (Brussels, 1935) Maps.
HS Honigmann, E., Le Synekdémos d@’ Hiéroklés (Brussels, 1939) Maps.
ΗΝ Grosser Historischer Weltatlas, Herausgegeben vom Bayerischen Schulbuch-
Verlag, I, 2nd rev. ed. (Munich, 1954).
*Kiepert, H., Karte von Kleinasien in 24 Blatte (Berlin, 1902).
*Lynch, F.H.B., Armenia : Travel and Studies (London, 1901). Map.
*Hiibschmann, H., Die altarmenischen Ortsnamen (Strasburg, 1904). Map.
Miller, C. ed., Claudit Ptolemaet Geographia (Paris, 1901). Tabulae.
USAF Aeronautical Chart and Information Center, Air Photographic and
Charting Service, United States Air Force, USAF Aeronautical Approach Chart
(St. Louis, 1956-1958), 1:250,000.

Go PA