The Reform of Justinian in Armenia

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

Nina G. GARSOLAN
FPEOFESSOR OF ARMENLAN sTUDIES
COLUMBRTLA THIYRRSITY

Introduction (pages 1-6), Chapter 1 (pages 7-24 },
Chapters 5-8 (pages 75-164) their Notes.
Appendices |-V (pages 1°-246"),

and full Bibliography (24/"-303").

CALOUSTE GULBEENEIAN FOUNDATION
LISBON

ΤΌ Τῇ

EDITOR’S PREFACE

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.

INTRODUCTION

The period of Justinian, which is the subject of this study, has a
particular importance for the history of Armenia as well as that of
Byzantium. We conceive this epoch as including more than the actual
relgn of Justinian; consequently we will give the name of the great
emperor to the interval of time which divides the Roman and the
Byzantine periods, and marks the transition from the ancient to the
medieval state. There are, to be sure, various scholarly opinions as
to the initial date of the Byzantine era: the age of Constantine the
Great, the period of the division of the Empire by Theodosius 1,
or the epoch of Justinian. But these disagreements are not mutually
exclusive. The foundation of Constantinople at the beginning of
the fourth century followed by the transfer to it of the centre of political
life, and the division of the Empire into two halves at the turn of the
fourth to the fifth century, both mark separate and very important
moments in the gradual trend toward a new period. In whatever

way we characterize Byzantine culture and political structure, as |

distinct from that of Antiquity, we cannot deny that the appearance

of those elements whose sum is called Byzantine occurred as the

result of close ties with the civilization of the Orient. Consequently,
the transier of the capital to the East and the subsequent separation
of the eastern half of the Empire from the western should be seen
as significant steps in the orientalization of the state.

The reign of Justinian marks the period of the last efforts to save
the imperial tradition of the past. The great imperialist sought to
unify once again the scattered portions of the Empire, and he dreamt
of recreating its past greatness, Brilliant successes in internal and
external policy appeared to justify the hopes of the Emperor, and,
for a time, it seemed as though the greatest period of Roman power
had been reborn. Single individuals, however, are not.fated to turn
back the wheels of history. The dreams of Justinian were not realized
and his aspirations, in the final reckoning, probably brought about
the opposite results, During the struggle to preserve Roman tradition
and to save the Roman spirit, the ancient pagan conception of the
world was imperceptibly transformed into one which was both Christian
and Byzantine. Justinian himself personified a type .of ruler in

2 INTRODUCTION

whom we find juxtaposed traits characterizing emperors of the Roman
and of the Byzantine periods. The split in political life which had
taken place at the time of the acceptance of Christianity had now
become so wide that the century of Justinian should be acknowledged
as the boundary marking the end of Antiquity and the mauguration
of the new, Byzantine, era of history.

In choosing this particular period of transition as a subject for
research, we have been moved by a conviction ofits primary importance
for the history of Armenia. Strictly speaking, Armenian history
begins with the consolidation of Christianity in Armenia. If we
mean by history the scholarly discipline through which we are able
to uncover the past of a given people to a sufficient degree and with
sufficient characteristics to grasp its spiritual aspect, then history
in this sense may be said to have existed in Armenia only from its
Christianization. The pre-Christian life of Armenia is obscure, at
least in the present state of historiography. All we possess are iso-
lated facts, fragmentary and occasionally circumstantial information
concerned for the most part with the relations between Armenia
and the neighbouring powers. This type of maternal can perhaps
_ cast a dim and indirect light by which ‘the general traits of political
life may be perceived, but it is totally incapable of illuminating the
factual and internal aspects of life®,

The best witnesses and interpreters of the historical life of a nation
are its language and literature. Historical knowledge reaches solid
ground at the moment when documents in the language of a particular
people become available. From this point of view, Armenian historio-
graphy, in the strict sense, begins with its period of literacy. Among
the Armenians, interest In writing coincided with the establishment
of Christianity in the country at the beginning of the fourth century,
and the final elaboration of the alphabet belongs to the beginning
of the fifth century. The first written documents, or rather the
first monuments of historical literature which have reached us, cannot
be dated earlier than the end of the fifth century. The earliest
documents of Christian literature looked primarily toward the Syro-
Persian ecclesiastical world; a closer relation with the Byzantine
Church began only im the sixth century.

The three periods just mentioned: the early fourth, the fifth and
the sixth centuries, have the same significance for the Armenians
as they had for Byzantium. They are the outstanding moments

INTRODUCTION 3

in the trend toward Byzantinization. With its introduction to
Christian culture, Armenia became a part of the broader Byzantine
world. What was the aspect of Armenia on the eve of the formation
of the Byzantine Empire — what were the conditions, especially
the political situation of the country when she entered into the sphere
of imperial concern — these are the basic problems to be investigated
in the present work; this investigation, as we have already said, has
been dictated by an interest not only in the history of Armenia, but
also in that of Byzantium.

The Byzantine Empire was far from being a homogeneous organism
from. an ethnic or even a cultural point of view. The unity of the
state was not based on a single core, or on the superiority of a particular
ethnic group over the rest of the population. No barrier separated
the victors from their subjects here, as had been the case among the
Romans. The Greek nation was unquestionable in a special position
through its strength and importance, but it would not be correct
to say that Byzantine culture was its creation. For a many-sided
study and exact characterization of this period it is indispensable
to take into consideration everything that various ethnic groups
brought into the common treasury of political and spiritual life.
Among these groups one of the first places belongs to the Armenian
world and to the eastern border in general. Its contmbution to the
common life of the Empire was great. On the other hand, it 1s equally
true that the eastern nations drawn into the orbit of imperial life fell in
their turn under the powerful influence of the imperial culture. In
this sense, the relation of Armenia to Byzantium is that of a part
to the whole. To trace Armenian elements in Byzantium and By-
zantine elements in Armenia is a problem of equal interest to Armeno-
logists and Byzantinists; both aspects are indispensable. Much can
be overlooked through the assumption of an exclusively imperial point
of view, while a narrowly Armenian outlook is equally dangerous.
Imperial as well as local standards must be used for a correct evaluation
of the facts.

In addition to their general imperial interests, the Armenians also
had their own national and highly characteristic life. We cannot
limit ourselves to the investigation of only those sides of Armenian
life which related to the Empire. For the specific purpose of studying
Armenian elements in Byzantium, and to fulfill simultaneously the
requirements of the independent discipline concerned only with

4 INTRODUCTION

Armenia, it 1s more profitable to begin with the general situation of
Armenia. For this reason we shall take the Armenian lands 1m toto
and investigate not only the parts subject to Byzantium, but also
those within the Persian orbit.

Although partitioned politically, Armenia presented a single unit
from every other point of view. To be sure, the superimposed political
structure transformed the face of the nation, and the political con-
ditions of the separate parts of the country brought about corres-
ponding alterations in their internal life. From the fall of the Arsacids,
political fragmentation became the norm, a situation which affected
other aspects of life and hindered the development of a unified national
spirit whose absence is continually cited by Armenian historians as
the main cause of the woes which afflicted Armenia. Nevertheless,
certain common elements, the foremost among them being language,
writing, and a historical tradition, existed and served as the cement
for a national unity which transcended political and territorial frame-
works. For a correct interpretation of Armenian history it is indis-
pensable to reckon with these conditions and to consider the fate of
the component parts of Armenia both joimtly and singly, that 1s to
say in their common and separate settings. Otherwise, mistakes
arising from incorrect generalizations and from the transfer to the
nation as a whole of what was true only of a particular part, are
inescapable. In the present work the Armenian lands have been
analyzed according to their political divisions and status, and a
corresponding map has been prepared 1,

The material on which we have based our study is of varying value
and origin. It has been drawn both from national and foreign sources.
While we acknowledge the full value of the data on Armenia found
in Classical literature, we do not share the negative outlook on the
Armenian material adopted by many scholars. We have avoided
all bias in favour of either Classical or Armenian sources, and in doubt-
ful cases we will treat the available material equally critically, ir-
respective of its origin.

The unsatisfactory character of the evidence found in Armenian
hterature can be explained by the particular fate of the country: the
spiritual hfe of the Armenian people underwent such drastic alterations
and was subjected to such contingencies that on occasion 10 seemed
to break off altogether and lose all ties with the past. Disruptive
political upheavals broke the chain of history to such a degree that

INTRODUCTION 5

the next generation was sometimes as ignorant or helpless as regards
its not very distant past as we ourselves. The partition of the country —
and the frequent interruptions in the normal course of its life hindered
the development and preservation of a unified tradition. As soon
as the political storms subsided, however, and the period of advers'ty
passed, when life returned to its customary tenor, an interest in the
past awoke, and the study of those documents which had survived
the disturbance began in order to find a tie with Antiquity and to
lnk the present with the past. At such times, the thoughts which
turn to days gone by tend to be romantic; the less it is possible to
grasp the outlines of the past, the more dimly familiar figures rise
from the darkness of time, the stronger the affirmation of the romantic
mood. The men of the Bagratid period did not observe accurately
the heartening aspects of their own times, or the brilhance to which
the documents now uncovered bear witness. Their thoughts turned
to the past, to the days when the Arsacid kings were ruling and the
Holy Iluminator was at the height of his activity. Under these
circumstances it is impossible to expect from them a correct outlook
and an understanding of their native land. The literary documents
of their ancestors were re-worked in accordance with contemporary
moods and outlooks. Works unsuited to a particular point of view
were forgotten or destroyed. Numerous documents perished, victims
of factional strife caused by the absence of confessional or political
‘unity. The results of such conditions were, on the one hand, the early
creation of historical stereotypes which have been repeated by cre-
dulous writers, and, on the other, the maintenance of an open field
for subjective interpretations filled with the unavoidable attendant
errors of either archaizing later phenomena or re-interpreting ancient
facts in the light of subsequent outlooks and interests. : To untangle
these questions, to untie all these artificial knots, is a task for the
literary historian. We have not avoided such investigation and we
have tried to give what answers we could, insofar as this was required
by the course of our work, but the historical aspect of disputed pro-
blems remains our primary interest. Therefore, we have concentrated
on the degree of authenticity and the relative antiquity of factual
materials without going each time into details of literary criticism.
We have tried to find materials suited to our research stripped of the
editorial conventions and elaborations with which they have reached
us, Disregarding traditional schematizations, we have prized only
historical value even when it did not coincide with literary worth.

6 INTRODUCTION

The problem of analysis has been complicated by the fact that the
historical documents had to be considered not merely from the point
of view of general accuracy, but, more particularly, from that of their
relation to the period investigated by us. In order to determine the
suitable moment for the development of events, it has often been
necessary to have recourse to the genetic method of investigation, 1.6.
to illuminate a historical problem through a study of its successive
phases of development leading up to the period interesting us. This
method has provided a way through confusing and occasionally
irreconcilable evidence, and has demonstrated that the contradictions
were often derived from a failure to maimtain the chronological sequence
and from the intermingling of data relating to different periods and
places. As a result, our work has occasionally gone outside its frame-
work, perhaps to the detriment of its organization. Without the
genetic outlook, however, it would have been difficult to grasp the
fundamental traits of the ecclesiastical organization and of the nayarar
system in Armenia during the period under consideration, even though
making full use of the existing materials. Yet it must be remembered
that the nayarar system was an extremely characteristic component
in the historical hfe of the Armenians and a factor of major importance.
The real end of political independence in Armenia came not with the
fall of the Arsacid or Bagratid royal dynasties, but with the destruction
of the nayarar houses in the period of the Mongolinvasions}#. Through
our investigation of nayarar society and of the internal structure of
western Armenia we have been able to trace the constants in the
conditions of the Armenian lands during the period concerning us.
These are indispensable for the understanding of political and other
events to which we will devote the next section of our work.

In conclusion, it 1s perhaps necessary to mention that in publishing
this work we are very far from any illusion as to its perfection. Ar-
menian philology is still at a stage where the 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. As for our own work, we are filled with the
feeling which may be expressed in the words of one of the investigators
of European feudalism, “ΕΣ eme Zeit, in welcher die Quellen aus
Hragmenten bestehen, wird niemand das allen Richtige gefunden
zu haben glauben ἦ 1»,

N. ADONT2.

THE POLITICAL DIVISION OF ARMENIA

The historical setting of Armenia and her position among the surrounding nations
— The partition of Armenia: Western or Byzantine Armenia, and Hasiern or Persian
Armenia — The line of demarcation from Dara to Theodosiopolis and beyond it to
the Black Sea — The main points on this line and the frontier defense posts — Dara
and Nisibis, Pheison, Attachas, and the Kleisurai, Akbas, Chlomarén and Afumén,
Kitharizin and Artalesin — Eréz and Oinut — The site of *Artalia-Endires —
Theodosiopolis and Du — Boi and Pharangion — Salagom and Ok’alé — Tzanika
and Tayk’ — Hgeria.

Physical environment is one of the main concerns of the discipline
which deals with external history. It is generally acknowledged
that the physical setting in which a nation develops constitutes one of
the conditioning factors of its historical evolution. Here are to be
found the motivating circumstances which determine the particular
aspect of a nation and its individual historical path. ‘or this reason,
it is understandable that an analysis of this setting must precede
all other historical investigation.

In the case of Armenia, as in that of every country which has
not been fated to play a leading role in world politics, such an analysis
has a particular significance. By physical environment we mean,
of course, not only the geographical setting, but also the general
historical setting; that is to say, we include in it not only the whole
of the natural conditions of the country, but also its position among
surrounding territorial units. Armenia was set in the midst of a
group of small countries to which she was culturally and ethnically
related to some degree: Iberia, Albania, Atropatené, Syria, and Cappa-
docia, and her fate was similar to theirs. The territorial extent
of these countries did not remain unchanged ; boundaries often shifted,
and they were set in any given period by the interaction of the con-
temporary powers, Armenian settlements spread or contracted in
various directions according to cultural and political circumstances.
From the moment of its appearance on the historical stage, Armenia

8 CHAPTER I

found herself in the midst of powerful rival states. Their influence
on the internal hfe of Armenia was enormous; time and again political
forces distorted the organic growth of the country, breaking and
altering the natural course of its development. The centers and the
entire character of Armenian cultural life frequently changed as a
result of the political domination of another state. These changes
brought about re-settlements of population and sent forth ethnic
waves into corresponding directions. Scholars have often seen
Armenia where this geographical term could no longer be justified
by a former ethnic content, and, on the contrary, they have overlooked
or failed to give sufficient weight to the presence of Armenians in
other regions.

At first the Armenian movement pushed eastward and reached
its maximum extent in this direction under the Arsacids. Before
the acceptance of Christianity in Armenia, the possessions of the
Armenian Arsacids reached as far as Ganjak, the capital of Atropatené ;
that 1s to say, they included at least half of ancient Media. To be
sure, only the political boundaries reached this far, but their ethnic
justification based on the pressure of Armenian elements on the
frontier of Atropatené should also be acknowledged. At a later date
the tide turned in the opposite direction. In the epoch of Justinian
this westward trend increased, and an important part of Cappadocia
was Armenized to such a degree that the name Armenia was officially
given to it. These shifts in Armenian population as well as the
transfers of the center of poltical life resulted from pressure on the
opposite border of Armenia and a corresponding loss of part of her
territory. Similar periods of ethnic ebb and flow also occurred on
the southern and northern borders of Armenia so that these frontiers
were likewise characterized by a lack of stability. Under these
circumstances, the determination of Armenia as a territorial umt
among the adjacent countries — Iberia, Albania, Atropatené, Symia,
and Cappadocia —, and the tracing of their territorial inter-relations
in a historical perspective, consistent with the varying evidence of
each period, poses a problem whose complication requires a special
investigation. Our task is limited here by the framework of the era
of Justinian, which is our chief concern, and consists in a preliminary
outhne of the historical setting within which the hfe of the Armenian
people took place in this period.

The continuous rivalry between the Romans and the Persians for

THE POLITICAL DIVISION OF ARMENIA 9

the domination of Armenia brought about her division between the
two contestants towards the end of the fourth century and the sub-
sequent abolition of the Armenian Inngship. This division of the
country in accordance with the terms of the treaty [of 387] was main-
tained during the following period, and up to the end of the sixth
century, when the central provinces of Armenia passed from the
Sasanians to Byzantium, The political partition of the country
into eastern and western halves resulted in a split in the life of the
Armenian people corresponding to the differences between the By-
zantine and Iranian empires. The influence of the dominant state |
was reflected in the political structure of the regions of Armenia —
subject to it and was felt in many other aspects of Armenian life, |
Thus, for example, the inconsistent and clearly ambivalent attitude —
of the Armenians toward those events In the common Iie of the
Church, which were then perturbing the whole of the civilized world,
moust be studied and explained in the light of the dissimilar political
conditions existing within the country. It is well known that the
ruling powers, not only in Byzantium but also in Persia, often intruded
in the sphere of ecclesiastical life and exerted pressure to bring about
a solution of dogmatic disputes favourable to various political con-
siderations. Consequently the rigorous delimitation of the Byzantine
and Persian spheres of influence in Armenia has not only a geographical
but also a cultural interest 2»,

The boundary line between the Byzantine, or, as it was called in
the Orient, the Roman and the Persian parts of Armenia passed
next to Theodosiopolis-Erzurum in the north and Nisibis in the south;
the former city remained in Roman territory and the latter in Persia.
Opposite Nisibis and a little to the north on the Byzantine side stood
the village of Dara, transformed into a fortified city in the time of
the emperor Anastasius and named Anastasiopolis after him. Accord-
ing to a contemporary historian, Dara lay 98 stadia from Nisibis
and 28 stadia from the Persian border?. At the present time, the
unimportant village of Dara, or Kara-dara, stands on the ruins of the
city and is at approximately the same distance from Nusaybin-
Nisibis. Twenty eight stadia are approximately 41/2 versts [ca.
3.21 miles], so that Dara stood almost exactly on the frontier 8.

Nearer Armenia, the Byzantine-Persian frontier lay along the
Nymphios river on whose bank stood the city of Martyropolis, one.of
the important frontier posts. The historian [Procopius] writes,

10 CHAPTER I

In the part of Armenia called Sophanene there is a certain
eity known as Martyropolis which hes on the very bank of
the Nymphins River, quite close to the enemy, because the
Nymphius River at that point divides the Romans from the
Persian territory. For across the river hes the territory of
Arxanene [Arzanene], which has been subject to the Persians
from early times*.

The same account is repeated elsewhere,

[Martyropolis].... This city hes in the land called Sophanene,
two hundred and forty stades distant from the city of Amida
toward the north; it is just on the river Nymphius which
divides the land of the Romans and the Persians .... This
river [the Nymphius] is one very close to Martyropolis, about
three hundred stades from Amida 5.

EHlsewhere Procopius reckons the distance from Martyropolis to
Amida as “a little more than one-day’s journey ... for an unemcum-
bered traveller’. This coincides with the previous calculation of
240 stadia, since a day’s march as a unit of measurement is given as
210 stadia by the same author 5.

Not far from Martyropolis, about 100 siadia from the city, stood
the village of Attachas’, while ancient Amida stood on the site of
the present Diyarbakir, also called Kara-Amida in Turkish®. Mar-
tyropolis is identified with Miyafarkin, a city located not far from
the Batmansuyu on one of the slopes of the mountain spur running
from the mountains of Sasun toward Amida, and At’t’ay is still found
in the mountains north of Miyafarkin 88, The Batmansuynu, one of
the main tributaries of the Tigris, must be identified with the ancient
Nymphios which flowed past Martyropolis. This city stood 240
stadia from Amida, while the Nymphios lay 300 stadza from the
same city. It is evident, therefore, that Martyropolis, despite Pro-
copius’ term “ἀγχοτάτω ”’, did not stand directly on the mver but
was separated from 1t by a distance of about 10 versts [ca. 6.89 miles].
Miyafarkin still stands in this relation to the Batmansuyu.

In Armenian documents the city’s name is given as Np’rkert and
its foundation is attributed to bishop Marut’a, who presumably built
it in honour of the relics of the martyrs which he had gathered °.
This account is found in connexion with the name of the city,
‘* Μαρτυρ-ο-πόλις ”, which can be rendered as “ the city of the mar-

tyrs”’. The Armenian form neferkert [Np’rkert] corresponds to the

THE POLITICAL DIVISION OF ARMENTA 11

Syrian mefrki, while the Armenian muharkin and the Syrian mefarkin
are equivalent to the Arabic miyyafarkin ; the first of these form should
be considered the more ancient, The last syllable kert, kat 1s a well
known Iranian word meaning city, and it is likely that the first part
of the name likewise conceals a local word1°, The forms cited un-
questionably have a common origin.

The Mareptik-n of the Byzantine author Menander Protector
may perhaps also be associated with these forms unless, it refers to
the Armenian Mardpetakan. According to the story of Menander,
the Persian king Xusrd 1 deliberately detained the imperial envoy
at Dara, while he himself setting out ‘‘ through the provinces κλίματα]
called Arrestén and Mareptikin reached Persarmenia” 1, This
account seemingly referred to Arzené [Arzanené] and Miyafarkin:
Χυρτῦ I was on his way from Dara to Armenia and indeed he reached
the districts of Bagrewand and Tarén, as is evident from the historian’s
subsequent account. The king’s route lay through Arzanené and
past Miyafarkin, so that these localities might seem identifiable with
the above mentioned “Appeordv and Ma-pen-rixdy (instead of
"Appecay and Μἴα-περ-κιτῶν). Saint-Martin was of the opinion
that the former locality should be identified with the Armenian Arest,
though he refused to give an explanation for the latter 12, The term
“ κλίμα ”, however, is more suited to the familiar province of R&tunik’
than to Arest, an unimportant town on the shore of Lake Van. Ac-
cording to Menander, Xusré reached Bagrewand and Tarén. If the
itinerary of the Persian king has been transmitted accurately by the
historian, Xusrd must have followed the eastern shore of the lake
to go from Dara to Tardn by way of Bagrewand. Both R&tunik’ and
Mardpetakan lay along this route. We must suppose that Xusré,
went from the neighbourhood of Dara to R&tunik’, circled the lake
and entered Mardpetakan; there he turned left into Bagrewand and
went down into Tardn. In such an interpretation, Arrestén and
Mareptikén must be identified with R&tunik’ and Mardpetakan,
which are well known provinces in the region of Vaspurakan 12,

In the Armeman Geography, the river Nymphios is called K’athrt’
and, in agreement with Procopius, it is given as the frontier separating
Roman and Persian territory. According to the description given
in the Geography, the following. districts were to be found in the
province of Admk’:

12 CHAPTER I

.. _Np’ret and Aljn between which flows the river Κ᾿ δ σὺ
called Sit’ma, which means “ bloodthirsty ”, by the Arabs.

The K’ahrt* springs from the mountains of Salin and Sasun,
it flows down to separate Np’rkert from K’hmar and thus
serves as a boundary between the Romans and the Persians,
and it is called Sit’it’ma that is to say bloodthirsty 18.

Joshua the Stylite knows of a river named Kalaé in the neighbourhood
of Amida, which corresponds to the K’alirt’. The river is familar
to John of Ephesus who says that the Persian fortress of Akbas [Okbas]
stood on the opposite shore from Miyafarkin}4, Another writer
describes in similar terms ‘‘ Okbas, a very strong fortress, situated
on a precipice on the bank opposite to Martyropolis” 158, Since
this fortress stood on the bank of the Nymphios and was besieged
by the Roman general Iohannes1*, it must have belonged to the
Persians. From this information we may associate ancient Akbas
with the modern AndSarvan-Kala 16, According to John of Ephesus,
the Persians had long wished to build a fortress on the Akbas mountain
but had been unsuccessful because it stood within a few miles of the
Roman frontier, and the Romans interfered. At last, taking ad-
vantage of a favourable opportunity, they carried out their plan,
but the fortress was soon taken and destroyed by the Romans. This
story is set in the reign of Xusrd 1 AndSarvan, and the city obviously
owed its name to Andgarvan, its founder.

Besides Akbas, the Persians had two additional fortified posts
along the frontier: Afumén and Chlomarién [K’hmar]17. The Roman
armies operated primarily against these three points during the long
wars which began at the end of the sixth century and which incidentally
closed with the transfer of Arzanené to Byzantium at the accession
of Xusr6 [lI] in 591. The site of Afum6n is precisely known; a small
settlement at the foot of mount Ilige [Lice], whence springs one of
the streams that form the Batmansuyu, bears the name of Fum to
this day 178, Chlomardén lay not far from Afum6n. In 568the Roman
general Philippicus, who was besieging Chlomaroén, lifted the siege
as the result of a false alarm, fled to Afumon, and, having crossed the
Nymphios, reached Amida 18, It follows, therefore, that the besieged
fortress of Chlomarién lay east of Fum. As one of the frontier posts
it lay on the defense line Akbas-Afumén and was probably im the
neighbourhood of the present Nerjiki and the Talori deresi18*, The
description in the Armenian Geography points in the same direction

THE POLITICAL DIVISION OF ARMENTA 13

since, according to it, the K’alirt’ river separated both the province
of Arzanené-A}jnik’ from Miyafarkin and the latter from Chlomarén-
K’hmar. This is possible only if Chlomaroén lay across the river and
to the north of Miyafarkin, since the river circled the city from the
north-east, and Atjmik’ lay on the east bank opposite Miyafarkin 19.
Chlomaroén and Afumoén lay in Persian territory. In 578 Maurice
took Afumén and placed a garrison there, but up to that time it had
belonged to the Persians 195,

Opposite the Persian fortresses, on the other side of the river stood
the equally strong Roman posts. In addition to Martyropolis and
Attachas, the Romans possessed Pheison [Fis] with its imaccessible
passes. Procopius describes it as follows,

As one goes westerly from Martyropolis, there is a place
called Pheison, which is also situated in Armenia, in the section
called Sophanene, a little less than a day’s journey distant
from Martyropolis. Beyond this place, at about the eight
milestone, precipitous and altogether impassable mountains
come together to form two passes, very close to one another
which they are wont to call clessurae. And when travellers
go from Persarmenia to Sophanene, either from the Persian
territory itself or by way of the fortress of Citharizon [Kit-
harizon], it is necessary for them to get there by way of these
two passes. ‘The natives call the one of them Ilymsum and
the other Saphchae.

According to the same historian the emperor Justinian fortified
Pheison and the Kleisurai with new buildings and placed a garrison
there so as to close the pass entirely to the enemy 2°. Indeed there 15
even today a small village named Fis not far from Miyafarkin, between
Hani and Hasras. To the north of it for the whole of a mile stretch
the mighty ruins of an ancient fortress which were visited in 1861
by Taylor, the British consul in Diyarbakir 31.

The Kleisurai were in the neighbourhood of Fis. During his retreat
from Afum6n to Amida, Philippicus, built on the way the fortresses
of Phathachon and Alaleisos in the Izala mountains, and placed
garrisons there 215, These fortifications should undoubtedly be iden-
tified with the famous Kleisurai. The name of one of them was
rendered Olor [Oloray] in Armenian, Haloras im Syrian, and is met
as Haluris in Arab writers22, The branches of the chain of the
Armenian Taurus which stretch in a great arc along the Murad-su

14 CHAPTER I

from the Euphrates to the shores of Lake Van and beyond, reach
down toward Fis from the north. The top of the arc is marked by
the tall range of the Chevtla [Cotela-Akcakara] and Darkosh and 1%
drops to the Lice in the region of the sources of the Tigris; spurs
reach down from it all the way to Fis itself?2, This is the region in
which the passes are to be sought, according to the information of
Procopius and of the Armenian writer Vardan. The Kleisurai formed
the only passage through which Sophanené could be reached from the
north. At the present time, the road connecting the region of Diyar-
bakir with the valley of the Murad-su runs along the lne Fis (or
Hani) — Lice — Sahverdiyan. Below Sahverdiyan, near the source
of the Ziban-Tigris, is found a curious passage in the form of a natural
tunnel with stalagtite caves. The river breaks through the tunnel
which is two miles long and eighty feet high; the present name of the
place is Bakireyn. From Sahverdiyan the road rises abruptly ito
the mountains, and at a considerable height cuts through a bare,
rocky, pass which marks the watershed of the Tigris and the Euphrates.
Beyond the pass, the road enters the gorge of the Ziilkarneyn [Berkhn-
zilkarneynsuyu] and descends along the mountain slopes to the
Murad-su near the village of Timur-aga on the very edge of the river 22°,
At Bakireyn, as well as at the entrance of the Ziilkarneyn, ruins of
ancient fortifications and of watch posts guarding the passes have
been found. These are the very gorges which are to be identified
with the ancient Kleisurai 2°.

Having clarified the position of the Kleisurai and of the Persian
fortress of Afum6n opposite them, we can determine exactly the
frontier of the two empires on the upper Nymphios, and in the basin
of the Tigris in general. It lay along the western tributaries of the
Nymphios: the Lice — the Kulp-su — the Batmansuyu.

In the valley of the Arsanias-EHuphrates and beyond it in the direction
of Theodosiopolis, the Byzantine territory adjoimed Persia in the
provinces of Asthianené and Chorzané [Chorzianené, Korzené] along
the fortified line Kitharizin-Artaleson.

And at the place named Citharizon [Kitharizon] which is
in Asthiane, as it is called, he [Justinian] established a fortress
which had not existed before, a huge and extraordinarily
impregnable stronghold, situated m a hilly region. He also
brought into it an abundant supply of water and made all
other proper arrangements for the inhabitants, ... .

As one goes from Citharizon to Theodosiopohs and the

THE POLITICAL DIVISION OF ARMENIA 15

other Armenia, the land is called Chorzane; it extends for a
distance of about three days’ journey, not being marked off
from the Persian territory by the water of any lake or by any
tiver’s stream or by a wall of mountaims which pinch the
road into a narrow pass, but the two frontiers are indistinct.
So the inhabitants of this region, whether subjects of the
Romans or of the Persians, have no fear of each other, nor
do they give one another any occasion to apprehend an attack,
but they even intermarry and hold a common market for their
produce and together share the labours of farming. And if
the commanders (ἄρχοντες) on either side ever make an expe-
dition against the others, when they are ordered to do so by
their sovereign, they always find their neighbours unprotected.
Their very populous towns are close to each other, yet from
ancient times no stronghold existed on either side. It was
possible, therefore, for the Persian King to proceed by this
route with comparative ease and convenience in passing through
Roman territory, until the Emperor Justinian blocked his
way in the following manner. There was a town in the middle
of the region named Artaleson which he surrounded with a
very strong wall and converted into an impregnable fortress;
and he stationed there detachments of regular troups ... 24.

It follows from this that Kitharizin and Artaleson were points through
which ran the line of demarcation between the two empires, to one
was assigned the defense of Asthianené, and to the other that of
Chorzané. These two provinces lay side by side, contiguous with
Persian territory, the latter adjoining the former in the north, on the
side facing Theodosiopols. Procopius counted four days’ journey
from Kitharizin to Theodosiopolis, while Chorzané stretched for a
journey of only three days from the same point toward Theodosiopolis.
Hence Chorzané did not reach all the way to the city but fell short
of it by a day’s journey. At approximately this distance (about
40 kilometers) from Erzurum, the ancient Theodosiopolis, we find
the Harhal and Hac mountains forming a wall around the sources
of the Keh or Litik[Perisuyu]. This natural boundary closed Chorzané
from the north, and indeed we have evidence that the town of Mormeran
[or Morran], situated at the foot of these mountains, was considered
to be on the border of Chorzané 5, Thus, the province of Chorzané
corresponded to the valley of the ΚΘΗ river. According to the defi-
nition of the Armenian Geography, Chorzané LXorjayn] was the region
through which the river Gayl flowed down past Koloberd. Gayl
was the ancient name of the river which is now named Keh [Perisuyu]

16 CHAPTER I

after the ancient fortress of Kol or Kolo-berd. According to Pro-
copius, Chorzané reached southward to Asthianené, while the Ar-
menian Geography placed Chorzané in the north-eastern part of
Armenia IV, that 1s to say, in the region which also included Asthia-
nené. To the west of Chorzané lay Paiatun or Palankatun,
“the province of Patan ”’, on one of the tributaries of the Keh, with
the city of Patn [Basin] which has survived to this day as a small
settlement near the town of Perl. South of Pamatun lay Balahovit,
the district of the present Balu [Palu], on the Murad-Arsanias 2°,
Concerning Asthianené [Hasteank‘], the Geography merely records
that the sources of the Tigris lay in 1t, and the center of Asthianené
was shifted by this work into the valley of the Arsanias 388, In such
a position it lay to the south of Chorzané, in full agreement with
Procopius’ description and, since it stretched along the Murad-su,
it must have borne the same relation to Chorzané as Balahovit,
further west to Pamatun. The width of the strip occupied by Asthia-
nené along the river, 1,6. the position of its boundary with Chorzané,
is Important for our determination of the location of the fortresses
of Kitharizon and Artalesdn. If we bear in mind the fact that the
disposition of provinces usually depended on natural frontiers —
mountains or river systems —it might be natural to suppose that
Asthianené occupied the valley of the Gédyniksuyu. Certain other
considerations, however, compel us to admit that the entire course
of this river did not lie in Asthianené, but that its source was found
in Chorzané or in the neighbouring provinces of Persian Armenia 2’,
On the Persian side ArSamunik’ adjomed Asthianené. Vahan
Mamikonean, seeking help from Asthianené, set out for Arsamunik’
and halted at the village of Eréz28, Hréz evidently stood right on
the border of Asthianené since historians assign it either to ArSamunik’
or to Asthianené. Passing through Anzitené and Balu in 1001, the
emperor Basil [II] crossed over the Koher mountains and from there
entered the province of Arsamunik’ at the town of Hréz28*, The Koher
are undoubtedly the present Karer [Karir] mountains on the nght
bank of the Gdyniksuyu. On the opposite bank from them, stands
the village of Omut [Ognut], the historical Hianc, also called Eimut
and Oimut. In 1056. a-Prince Ivané [son of Liparit], lord of the
town of Eréz in ArSamunik’, making the most of a favourable oppor-
tunity, marched on the castle of Elance and took it by deception,
but soon after he was punished for this enterprise and imprisoned

THE POLITICAL DIVISION OF ARMENIA 17

in Eimut 39, In both these cases the stories refer to one and the same
castle smce the historian John Mamikonean testifies to the identity
of the two names 2°, and according to the account of Aristakés Lasti-
vertci, the place seized by Prince Ivané lay not far from Hréz.

Lazar [P’arpeci| is acquainted with a village of On, or Olin according
to the old transcription, near Eréz. After a night attack on the
Persian camp near Eréz, Vahan Mamikonean went to spend the night
in On. This settlement must evidently have been very near Hréz if,
as the historian puts it, Vahan had sufficient time to make the attack,
carry out a massacre, and finally go forward to it [Ohn] “to spend
the rest of the night” *1. Both in distance from Hréz and m name,
Olin coincides perfectly with the fortress of Olmut — Olnu-berd.
Some six or seven versts [ca. 4 miles] below Olnut is found a locality
given on Kiepert’s map as Aziran and on Lynch’s as Azizan. Both
readings probably result from incorrect renderings of the Turkish
diacritical marks on the correct form Arizan 835, It seems as though
we are here on the trail of the historical Eréz. All the facts coincide:
Ariz-an, across the Koher— Karir mountains (in agreement with
Asohk), is near Olin — OInut and on the border of Asthianené and
Argamunik’, We know from Lazar P’arpeci that Olin lay north of
Hiréz, since after the night battle near Hréz, Vahan Mamikonean
reached Oln and marched forth from it to ValarSapat and further
on to Dwin. This account also agrees with the location of Arizan,
which hes south of Otnut. :

The identification of Eréz with modern Arizan is conditioned by
the problem of the position assigned to the upper course of the Génik-
suyu. The difficulty is that Vahan Mamikonean reached Eréz from
the neighbourhood of Karin [Erzurum] (from the village of Arcat’i
[Arzunti?], which still exists north of Erzurum), but the road from
Erzurum to Arizan follows the bank of the Géniksuyu from 105 source
all the way to Arizan — Oimut, and this was probably also true in
Antiquity. In any case, the road could not lie further east since
the lofty ranges of the Bingél daglari rise there. Before reaching
Eiréz, Vahan had had to pass through the upper valley ofthe Goniksuyn,
_if he reached the border of Asthianené only at Hréz, the upper reaches
of this river obviously could not he in Asthianené. Nor could they
belong to the neighbouring district, smce in that case Vahan would
have come to Eréz through Asthianené, that is to say through Roman
territory, and this contradicts the evidence of the historian who says

18 CHAPTER I

that the Mamikonean prince had not crossed the frontier: he wished
only to go “ in the direction of the frontier of Asthianené [Hasteank’] ”,
that 1s to say into Argamunik’, and in fact “he went toward the
border of Asthianené, came and stopped in the district of ArSamunik’
in the village of Hréz”. According to the Armenian Geography,
Argamunik’ lay north of Tardn near the Srmane mountains, the
present Bingdl. From all these indications Arsamunik’ may be
defined as the district of the Bingdl stream and the upper reaches
of the Goniksuyu 38,

South of Arsamunik’, a narrow band between Tardn and Asthianené
formed the next district of Palun [Palunik’], with its capital Kowark
or Kowars, now Guvers near Boghan, which determines the position
of Palun along the course of the Menaskut. The Armenian Geography
is not familiar with Palun and attributes its territory to Tardn 83},
Incidentally, [Asohk], the historian of the house of Tardn, who is
thoroughly familar with the topography of both Palun and Tarin,
lists the city of Porpés as part of Tardn, whereas Porpés, the present
Borbas, stood on the Menaskut river south of Kowars and was, therefore,
part of Palun. Zenob Glak, another local historian, assigns Kowars,
which he himself acknowledges to be the capital of Palun, to the
lands of the Mamikonean, that is to say to Tardn 88, What seems
to have occured is that Palun passed to the Mamikonean family at a
later date, and consequently failed to be included in the Geography as
an independent district. In the west Palun bordered on Asthianené
and was separated from it by the natural boundary of the Navan
pass (4,636 feet) 88. Both Arsamunik’ and Palun unquestionably
lay in Persian, that is to say in Kastern Armenia, since they are men-
tioned as taking part in the fifth century rebellion against the Persians.
Both districts formed the extreme border strip of this portion of
Armenia.

Thus the line of demarcation between Eastern and Western Armenia
ran from Fum, over the Cotela mountains, through the NavSan pass,
to Arizan — Oinut; then, crossing the Géniksuyn, it went up the right
bank of the river to the western slopes of the Srmanc-Bingél mountains.
Along such a line the frontier comcides with the mountain range
running from the Euphrates to the Bingédl. This coimcidence between
the political and natural boundaries justifies our conclusions.

The problem of the location of Kitharizén and Artalesdn remains
unsolved. Τὺ is evident to us that the districts in which they were

THE POLITICAL DIVISION OF ARMENIA 19

situated were divided from each other along the line Hréz-Omut,
by the Karir mountains facmg them. The border land open on all
sides, described by Procopius, must be the valley irrigated by the
Goyniksuyu. According to the indications found in Procopius, the
fortress of Kitharizén should be sought in the Karir mountains and
must be identified with one of the modern fortified localities, Sheikh-
Selim-kala, Aznaberd, or Astiberd (2.6. the fortress of Sheikh-Selim,
the castle of Azn, or the castle of Astt), which are found not far from
each other on the northern slopes of these mountains 33»,

Artalesin, according to the account of the same historian, should
then be sought further north, nearer to Manah. The Armenian form
of ᾿Αρταλεσῶν must have been *ariali-s, *artal-k’, a form similar
in composition to mardah-k’, manah-k’, the names given to the districts
adjoining Chorzané. Mardalk’ extended along the northern slopes of
the Bing6l in the north, as did ArSamunik’ in the south. The original
stream of the Araxes, the Mure, now called ΒΥ] or Aras, had its
source in this district, and im the west, Mardahk’ adjoined the Meledux
range, identified with the Harhal mountains, which we have already
mentioned. In the north it was separated from Karin by the Ayc-
Ptkunk’ mountains, which correspond to the mountain range forming
a half-moon south of Erzurum 8. Thus, Mardahk’ embraced the
watershed of three rivers: the Aras, the Litik [Perisuyu] and the
Tuzlasuyu. Furthermore, the Harhal range provided a natural wall
for Mardahk’, and for Persian or Eastern Armenia atthe same time 242.
Manralik’ [sic], in the west, and Chorzané, in the south, abutted the
Harhal mountains at an angle. In our opinion the part of Chorzané
touching Manralhk’ and Mardahk’ at the Harhal mountaims must
have born in antiquity the related name of *Artalia-Artalik’ and
have contained the similarly named fortress of "ApraAco-dv.

The village of ᾿Αραβεσσῶν, mentioned in Xusrd AndSarvan’s
campaign of 576, has the same location as Artaleson. In that year
Ausro entered Armenia through Arcn and Miyafarkin, crossed the
provinces of Bagrewand and Tardn, and, having advanced toward
Basean, broke into Roman Armenia on the side of Theodosiopolis.
Taking the Romans by surprise,

he established a camp in the village called Arabesson, in
the province south of the city [Theodosiopolis] while the Roman
troops, as many as were to be found there at the time, spread

to the north in the province called * at the foot of the moun-
tain 85,

20 CHAPTER I

Judging from its surroundings Arabesson is none other than Artaleson.
The narrator of the above campaign relates that the Persian king
highly prized the strategic position of Theodosiopolis, which dominated
Armenia and Iberia, and tried to obtam mastery of it. To achieve
this, Xusr6d’s plan apparently was to cut off Theodosiopolis from the
nearest fortified posts, Artalesin and Kitharizin. Tor this purpose
he halted south of Theodosiopolis in the neighbourhood of the locality
which we have called *Artala. On the basis of this we believe that
Arabesson is merely a distortion of Artalesén, (Αραβεσσ-ῶν instead
of ᾿Αρ(τ)αλεσσ-ὥν). This distortion obviously reflects the influence
of the name of the famous Cappadocian city of “ApaBiocos. The
locality which we have identified as *Artala is known at the present
time by the name of Endires, which is probably the Turkish pronun-
ciation of Artales. Here, at the foot of the Hag mountain, stood
the fortress of Artalesdn, approximately in the neighbourhood of
the modern Melikan 88,

The distance between Artalesin and Kitharizin was not great,
approximately-a day’s journey. Before the campaign of Dwin in 542,
Roman troops had been distributed among the frontier posts: one
regiment stood at Kitharizin, another, not very far from it in Chorzané,
specifically at Artalesdn, and the third at Fis, The regiment from
Chorzané crossed the frontier first without informing the others; the
one from Kitharizon, having heard of this, followed on the very next
day ; ou the troups stationed at Fis heard of the invasion only late
since “‘[they] had encamped far away from the rest of the army ” *’.
Consequently we see that Kitharizon lay closer to Artalesén than to
Fis — a situation which in no way contradicts our conclusions as to
the position of Kitharizén and Artalesdn. According to one interesting
indication, Kitharizin was situated between Syria and Armenia 88,
If Armenian claims reached as far as Nisibis, then it is understandable
that the Syrians allowed similar exaggerations. If, according to
this theory, we take the Murad-Arsanias as the frontier of Syria, we
will have to shift Kitharizin to the banks of the Murad, The small
settlement of Darizoa now found in Capakeur might perhaps be
identified with Kitharizén (from k-Tariz, with the dropping of the
first vowel) 885. but we think it more likely that the historian included
into Syria all five Armenian satrapies, one of which is known to have
been Asthianené. In such a case it becomes understandable that
Kitharizin,,;which lay on the northern border of Asthianené, should

THE POLITICAL DIVISION OF ARMENIA 21

have been considered as having stood between Syria and Armenia.

Past Mardahk’, in the region of Theodosiopolis and beyond, the
frontier ran along the mountain range stretching from Theodosiopolis
to the Coruh river. To the right of Erzurum, the Deveboynu, and
the Kargapazarl mountains follow each other toward the north 885.
The latter turn toward the west at the peak of Kandil (10,230 feet),
their northern most and highest point, to merge with the Dumlii range.
The Dumlii extends above Erzerum toward the banks of the Coruh
above Sper. Basean, and the districts of Tayk’: Buya and Ok’alé,
facing Roman Karin and Satagom, bordered the frontier on the
Persian side. On the frontier itself, directly opposite Theodosiopolis,
stood the village of Du which served simultaneously as the frontier
between Karin and Basean. We know from the Hostory of Vahan
Mamikonean that the Persian commander pursuing the Armenian
rebels stopped in the village of Du, which the historian Lazar P’arpeci
calls the frontier between the two kingdoms. Vahan, the leader of
the rebels, was stationed not far off in the village of Mknafiné.
Another Persian general named Hazarawuyt, followed in Vahan’s
steps and came to the villages of Giwhk and VardaSén in the district
of Ok’alé. By this time, Vahan was already beyond the frontier in
the Roman district of Salagom, though still close to Hazarawuyt.
The Persian pursuit proved unsuccessful and they went down from
Ok’alé to the village of Du in Basean, while Vahan crossed to the
Mamikonean village of Cahk and planned to advance in the direction
of Asthianené 88°, ‘The villages mentioned above still exist. Du, near
Erzurum, at the foot of the Kargapazarl mountains is called Tuy
according to the modern pronunciation, which is probably a genitive
form. It consists of two settlements, greater and lesser Tuy, almost
side by side. A little to the east, stands the village of Kurnug, which
is undoubtedly to be identified with the historical Mknatiné, whose
distance from Du, calculated by the historian as two parasangs (twelve
kilometers), corresponds to the location of Kurnug. North of mount
Kandil, on the frontier itself, stood and still stands ancient Calla
_ [Zagki] (genitive of catik- flower). Two other villages are located
higher in the valley of the Tortum gayi, in the vicinity of the city
of Tortum itself, and are called by their ancient names of Gelik and
*Vardisén. These villages determine the location of Ok’alé as well
as that of the Roman district of Salagom, which lay “ nearby - (da...
Ρ tim)”, and therefore, on the other side of the mountains, in the
valley of the Sergeme deresi, between Karin and Sper 39,

22, CHAPTER I

Facing the Roman fortress of Theodosiopolis on the Persian side,
stood the castle of Bot, Bol-berd, in the province of Basean, not
far from Theodosiopohs. The wives of the Kamsarakan princes
captured by the Persians at the time of Vahan Mamikonean were
imprisoned there 394, Bolis hkewise well known to western historians
and it played an enormous part in the political events of the sixth
century. Its location is not exactly known. According to one
indication it stood in Basean, according to another, “‘ near the border
of Theodosiopolis”’ 4°, It is usually associated with the modern
Hasankale, the site of the former city of Vaiar8akert, where the kat’o-
hikos Nersés [II]] the Builder had erected a church dedicated to the
Mother of God 41, It is unlikely, however, that ancient Botberd
should subsequently have been called ValarSakert, since this name
cannot by its very nature be late in origin, unless the Persian king
Vatiars (Valarses, 484-488) rebuilt the fortress of Bot to offset Anasta-
sius’ fortification of Theodosiopohs, and renamed it Valargakert
(the city of Vatars). In view of the similarity in sound of their names,
it seems more profitable to seek Bol closer to the neighbouring district
of Buya in the region of Tayk’. Buya occupied the source of one
of the branches of the Oltugayi in the vicinity of Basean, and a fortress
called Bugakale still exists in the Kargapazari mountains, on the
border of the two districts. If Buga is derived from Buya, Bugakale,
must be the ancient Botberd 45,

The region of Pharangion, where gold was mined for the Persian
king, was indissolubly tied to the political fate of Bolberd. We know
that this region lay in Armenian territory, near the border of Tzanika
[Canet'1], where the Boas or Voas river had its source. The Boas
corresponds to the Voh of the Armenian Geography and is none other
than the Coruh, or rather the upper course of this river. ‘The sources
of the Coruh are found in the neighbourhood of Ispir. Ancient
sources relate that gold mines, which had interested Alexander the
Great, were to be found in Suspiritis. According to these indications,
Pharangion must coincide with the Armenian Sper, the classical
Suspiritis, and the denunciation of Vahan Mamikonean im an affair
dealing with the extraction of gold probably refers to the mines of
Sper. Pharangion was Persian property. Under Kavad, the super-
vision of the gold mining was given to an Armenian named Simeon,
who later under Justinian, went over to the Romans and handed
Pharangion over tothem. At the same time Prince Isaac Kamsarakan

THE POLITICAL DIVISION OF ARMENIA 23

also surrendered to them the fortress of Bot 48. To be precise, the
Persians, at Pharangion, bordered not on Roman but on Can [Tzan]
lands. Tzanika or Khaldia, the land of the Tzans or Khaldians,
was a mountainous province consisting of the Parhar range, which
lay between the Coruh, and of the coastal strip of the Black Sea as
far as Trebizond. In the valley of the Coruh, Tzanika bordered
on Persian territory and on the province of Tayk’ from Pharangion-
Ispir, to the fortress of T’uyars, now Hars 48°, Beyond this point
Tzanika adjomed the district of Klarjet’iin Gugark‘ along the Ardanug
river, |

Still further, the CGoruh river entered Egr (Hgeria), according to
the description of the Armenian Geography; there, it flowed through
the districts of Nigal, Mrul, and Mrit, and finally emptied into the
sea 44, In our opinion the name of Nigal has been preserved in that
of the small Murgulsuyu river which flows into the Goruh from the
left side, below Artvin. One of the tributaries of the Adzharis-Tskah
is the Marat, which bears the same name as the Mrit, and the Mrul
may be connected with the Imerehevi deresi (Mer-uli) 44, In other
words, the three districts comcide with the valleys of the streams
bearing the same names on the lower Coruh, between the mouth of
the Imerehevi deresi and the sea. These districts made up the province
of Kgeria par excellence. The name Eger-Kgeria, has survived to this
day in the form Adzhar-ia, with the usual transformation of the guttural
g into a palatal dzh, The term Egeria is also used by the Armenian
Geography τὰ a broader sense to designate the entire eastern shore
[of the Black Sea] from Abkhazia all the way to Trebizond and to
include Tzanika [Canet’i] as well. The eastern bank of the Coruh
along which lay Tayk’ and Klarjet’1 belonged to the Persians. In fact
we cannot tell whether Tayk’ was restricted to the eastern bank of
the river or whether it also included part of the west bank, a conclusion
which some indications seem to support 45. In the latter case, the
foot of the Parhar range should be taken as the frontier line of the
Persian possessions, and Tzanika should begin beyond this point:
Tzanika, and in general Hgeria, in the broader sense, were left to
their own devices. Procopius found the Tzans “ settled on Roman
territory ” but still enjoying freedom 46, The Tzans were finally
conquered and forced to recognize the imperial authority only under
Justinian, who built the fortress of Petra on the border of Lazika,
on the sea shore at the northern estuary of the Coruh. In terms of

24 CHAPTER I

the hmits of influence of the emperor and of the Persian king rather
than in terms of their actual territorial possessions, Petra may be
taken as the border of the Empire in this period. In actual fact,
however, a bitter struggle for the mastery of this border was carried
on with varying success between the two rulers during the entire
century 462,

Thus from Nisibis to the Goruh, the lands of Armenia were divided
into two halves: Western (or Roman) and Eastern (or Persian) Armenia,
along the hne which we have just traced.

Vv

ADMINISTRATION :
WESTERN ARMENIA BEFORE JUSTINIAN

The general structure of the Empire — Civilian and military powers, and their
instruments,

J. Armenia I and II in the administrative hierarchy — Their military position —
The dux Armeniae — The contingents under his command and their size — The
distribution of troops within the country — Military garrisons, primary and secondary
— The ranks of the military commanders — The position of the dua Armeniae in the
military hierarchy — His offictwm — The Codicillus dignitatum of the vicar of Pontica
and of the dua Armeniae.

II. The administrative and legal position of the Sairapies and of Armenia Interior —
The institution of foederati based on a foedus non aeqguum — Variations in this insti-
tution — The meaning of foederait in the Byzantine Empire — The satraps as foederat:
— Characteristics of an alliance with the Empire — The creation of satrapal law —
Aspects of a treaty marking entrance into the Empire — Armenia Inierior as a civitas
foederata —- Her incorporation into the Empire, its terms, and the treaty on which
they were based — Freedom from taxation and from the aurum coronarium — The
problem of the φόροι δημόσιοι --- The comes Armeniae — The rank of count and the
limits of his legal powers — The problem of the δημόσια dpperaxd — The relation
of the comes to the naxarars — The naxarar system in Armenia Interior.

Diocletian has rightly been identified as the creator of the internal
structure of the Roman Empire as it is found in the period of Jus-
tinian}, Huis renovation of the entire administrative machinery was
continued by his successors and received particular stimulation at
the time of Theodosius I. The results of this activity spread over
a full century are known from the famous Notiiia Dignitatum, a docu-
ment dating from the beginning of the fifth century 2. This document
contains nothing but a detailed listing of all the dignities and offices
of the civilian and mihtary administration of the Empire, yet it
provides us with a clear idea of the administrative machinery created
by the Christian emperors, and which can best be described by the
term bureaucracy. The principle of autocracy proclaimed by the

we

76 CHAPTER V

Empire could only produce such a system suited to the aims of absolut-
ism, since the creation of an extensive network of officials would
provide a larger number of instruments through which power could
operate. On the other hand, the division of power among numerous
officials hierarchically subordmated to one another increased the
control maintained over them and, therefore, precluded the possibility
of opposition.

In the Notitia Dignitatum, civilian authority is separated from the
military and constitutes a separate administration. This reform is
attributed to Constantine the Great®. From the civilian point of
view, the whole Empire was divided into four prefectures headed
by praetorian prefects (praefecti praetorio). These prefectures were
subdivided into dioceses governed by substitutes for the prefects
(vicar praefectorum). Finally the dioceses in turn were divided
into provinces, each of which had its governor called praeses, ἄρχων
in Greek.

In the eastern part of the Empire were found the Praefectus praetorio

Orientis, and the Praefecius praetorio Illyrict. The first of these,

2.6. the prefecture of the Hast, contamed five dioceses: Oriens, Aegyp-
tus, Asiana, Pontica, Thracia. . Eleven provinces, among which were
meluded the Armenian lands: Armenia J, Armenia II, as well as
Pontus Polemoniacus, made up the diocese of Pontica:

Sub dispositione viri spectabilis vicari dioceseos Ponticae
provinciae infrascriptae: 1. Bithynia, 2. Galatia, 3. Paflagonia,
4, Honorias, 5. Galatia Salutaris, 6. Cappadocia prima, 7, Cappa-
docia secunda, 8. Helenopontus, 9. Pontus Polemoniacus, 10. Ar-
menia prima, 11. Armenia secunda 85,

At the head of Armenia I and II stood praesides subordinated to the
vicar.

The miltary divisions of the Empire did not always coincide with
the civilian ones. The highest power there was divided between
military commanders known as magistrt militum. There were five
such commanders in the eastern half of the Empire according to the
Notitia Dignitatum. Of these, two were in the capital, magisir
mium praesentales, and three in the provinces: in Thrace, Ilyricum,
and the Hast, magisirt milhitum per Thracias, per Illyricum, per Orien-
tem. The magisirs mhium had the same miltary authority as the
praetorian prefects in the civilian sphere.

WESTERN ARMENIA BEFORE JUSTINIAN 17

The offices below that of the magisir: were filled by dukes and
counts, duces, comites rer mlitaris. Within this hierarchy, these
were the equals of the vicars, since both made up the rank of specia-
biles, but the territories under their authority were noticeably smaller
than the dioceses. From this pomt of view, the dukes were rather
the equivalent of provincial governors. We do not know the precise
relation of the dukes or counts to the magisirs militum; there is no
indication on this subject in the Nota. We presume that they were
subordinated to them, but how and to what degree is unclear 4.

The dukes as well as the magisirt militum were in charge of a certain
number of military contingents. The forces of the magister militum
per Orientem were defined as follows:

Sub dispositione viri illustris magistri militum per Orientem:
Vexillationes comitatenses decem...
Auxilia palatina duo...
Legiones comitatenses [IX]...
Item pseudocomitatenses [XT] >.

As is well known, the regular army was composed of legions. The
Notitia Dignitaium distinguishes three categories of legions: palatinae,
or court, comiiatenses, or camp, and pseudo comitatenses, or quasi-camp.
Originally the first two terms designated soldiers of the imperial
guard, the former served at court, the latter during campaigns, and
at that time their number was limited. Subsequently both palaiinae
and comitatenses outgrew their etymological sense and made up the
core of the active army as opposed to the border or garrison troops,
mihies limiianei. Legions organized according to the pattern of the
comiiatenses but not enjoying equal priviledges were called pseudo
comitatenses. They did not receive a majus stipendium as did the
palatinae and comiiaienses. According to the Epiioma Rex Miliaris
of the military writer Vegetius Renatus (383-450), a legion consisted
of 6,100 infantrymen and 726 cavalrymen. Johannes Lydus, a writer
of the sixth century, likewise gives 6,000 men in a legion, and according
to his information, a vevillaivo was a cavalry squadron of 500 horsemen,
while an ala was a detachment of 600 horsemen * In the Notiva
Digmiatum, there are mentions of vexillationes palatinae and veailla-
tiones comitatenses, but there are no references to verillaivones pseudo
comitatenses, At that time the cavalry had seemingly been removed
from the first two categories to form separate squadrons, while it

78 CHAPTER V

remained part of the pseudo comitatenses as before. According to
the explanation of Vegetius, the auxila were troups drawn from
foreigners in the Empire ’.

From this we obtain:

10 vexillationes of 500 each giving 5,000

9 comitatenses of 6,000 each giving 54,000

10 pseudo comitatenses of 6,000 each or 60,000
From 726 to 500 horsmen each or 7,260 to 5,000
2 auxilia, the number in which 15 indeterminate.

Bearing in mind the fact that legions were not always at full strength,
we may still say that an army of up to 100,000 men, in round numbers,
stood under the orders of the magister malitum per Orieniem?>. This
army was presumably spread through the provinces in divisions
headed by vwiri speciabiles, duces or cometes ret militaris*. This
assumption would provide solution for the problem of the relation
of the duces to the magisir7, and this is the system found in the Western
Empire, where the dukes and counts were subordinated to the ma-
gister, as the Νούῤῥῥια Dignitatum indicates, “sub disposiirone vere
illustris magistra peditum praesentalis ; comates linntum wnfrascriptorum
sex, duces limitum infraseriptorum decem” 88, No such indication
exist, however, for the Eastern Empire, and the military forces which
were at the disposal of the dukes and military counts are not included
in the number of legions placed “‘ sub dispositione magisir,”’, a cit-
cumstance which argues rather in favour of a certain independence
on the part of the dukes as military leaders.

There was only one duke in the diocese of Pontica with its eleven
provinces, the ἄμα Armeniae whose power extended over three pro-
vinces, Armenia I and JI and Pontus Polemoniacus. Nothing 15
known of the military organization of the other provinces or dioceses.
In the diocese of Oriens, in which there were fifteen provinces, only
some of them had special dukes: ἄμα Palestinae, Foenices, Arabiae
Euphratensis et Syriae, Osrhoenae, Mesopotamiae ὅν, The remaining
provinces, in which no special military officials were stationed, pro-
bably came under the direct supervision of the magister militum, and
his own troups were disposed in these particular provinces.

The subordination of the dukes to the magistri expressed itself
more in judicial matters than in specifically military ones. Soldiers
accused of capital offenses were under the jurisdiction of either the

WESTERN ARMENIA BEFORE JUSTINIAN 79

magrster or of the duke, depending on the army to which they belonged.
When a duke or a military count was the accused, the matter was
heard by the magister in person. Hence the magisiri had legal juris-
diction over the dukes 9.

According to the Nottia Digmiatum the Dux Armemae disposed
of the following forces:

Sub dispositione viri spectabilis ducis Armeniae.

Equites sagitarn, Sabbu.

Kquites sagitarii, Domana.

Praefectus legionis quintadecima Apollinaris, Satala.

Praefectus legionis duodecima fulminatae, Melitena.

In Ponto:

Praefectus legionis primae Ponticae, Trapezunta.

Ala Rizena, Aladaleariza.

Ala Theodosiana, apud Auaxam.

Ala felix Theodosiana, Siluanis.

Et quae de minore laterculo emittuntur:

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 milaria Petraeorum, Metita.
Cohorts quarta Raetorum, Analiba.
Cohors miliaria Bosporiana, Arauraca.
Cohors milaria Germanorum, Sisila.

Ala prima Jovia felix, Chaszanenica.

Ala prima felix Theodosiana, Pithae.
Cohors prima Theodosiana, Ualentia.
Cohors Apuleia civium Romanorum, Ysiporto.
Cohors prima Lepidiana, Caene-Parembole.
Cohors prima Claudia equitata, Sebastopolis.
Cohors secunda Ualentiana, Ziganne.
Cohors, Mochora.

Officium autem habet ita:
Principem de scola agentem in rebus.
Numer&rios et adiutores eorum.
Commentariensem.
Adiutorem.
A libellis sine subseribendarium.
Exceptores et caeteros officiales.
Dux Armeniae VII (evectiones) 88,

80 CHAPTER V
Under the dux Armeniae there were:

2 regiments of archer cavalry

3 legions, or counting 6,000 men a piece = 18,000 men.
11 divisions of cavalry, at 600 each = 6,600 men.
10 cohorts of infantry, at 600 each = 6,000 men.

of these, the cavalry, two legions, six divisions or alae, and four cohorts
were stationed in Armenia. The remainder, one legion, five divisions,
and six cohorts were stationed in Pontus Polemoniacus.

The main forces were concentrated at Satala in Armenia 1, and
in Melitené, the metropolis of Armenia II. One legion was stationed
in each of these cities. In addition, one regiment of equites sagiiarn
apiece was stationed at Domana, near Satala, and, nearer to Melitené,
at Saba-Sepik near Arapkir. The cohorts and alae were distributed
among other points already familar to us in the country. One cohort
apiece stood in Analiba, Arauraca, Sisila, Metita; one ala each in
Chiaca-Ciaca, Dascusa, Aeliana, (probably Arna), Suissa, Tablariensis.
The ala prima praetoria rust have been stationed at the place called
ad praetorium in the Livnerartes 19.

The components of the army of the dux Armemae found in the
Notitia Digmiatum were very ancient in date. Its core, the fifteenth
and twelfth legions had been transferred to Armenia together with
other contingents during the Roman-Parthian wars in the days of
Corbulo and Tiridates and probably remained in Armenia after that
time for the defense of the country at its two main strategic points,
Satala and Melitené 198. Both legions and their titles, Apollinaris
and Fulminata, were known to Cassius Dio, who placed them in Cappa-
docia, evidently meaning Lesser Armenia by this 1, In the Iinera-
rium Antonin we read, “ Satala leg. XV Apollinaris ” 115 which in-
dicates the sources used by the compilers of itineraries. Procopius
testifies to the fact that the twelfth legion had stood at Meltené
from ancient times?2, The ala prima Augusia Colonorum probably
took its name from the city of Koloneia [Colonia], founded by Pompey.
The ala Aurrana was named either after the city of Auria in Spain,
or after its first commander. According to Tacitus, the ala Auriana
had been sent to protect the banks of the river which flowed between
Rhaetia and Noricum 1%, The cohort quarta Raeiorwm was composed
of the same Rhaetians and was stationed at Analiba. The cohort
quinta Raetorum was to be found in Egypt. The ala prima Ulpia
Dacorum bore the name of Ulpius Trajanus, who had conquered

WESTERN ARMENIA BEFORE JUSTINIAN 81

the Dacians and raised several divisions among them. The cohors
teria Ulmia Petraeorum, which had been transferred to Metita in
Armenia, not directly from Dacia, but from the city of Petra, had
the same origin.

Milaria, as an adjective applied to a cohort, malaria Petraeorum,
mhara Bosporiana, mhara Germanorum, meant, according to the
explanation of Vegetius, that the given cohort consisted of a thousand
picked soldiers. A legion usually numbered ten cohorts of which
one, usually the first; outshone the others in the number and quality
of its soldiers and contained 1105 foot soldiers and 132 auxhary
horsemen #4, Concerning the location of these troops, we must note
that the rubric of the Nottia Dignitatum lists three main posts in
Pontus: Trapezus, Auaxa and Siluana, and four in Armenia; while
the text adds a fourth post in Pontus, Aladaleariza, to the three.
already listed. The evidence of the rubric is supported by the sketch:
appended to the text, where only three fortresses are indicated. We
must conclude, therefore, the text is incorrect 15,

Of the garrison posts, Trapezos was a famous city at the mouth
of the Pyxites river, now the Degirmendere. Auaxa is unquestionably
the present village of Avaza or Avsa, standing according to Lynch, at
the foot of the Kolat daglari, among the sources of the Pyxites 158,
Siluanis, the ablative case of Siluana, is probably the Solonenica of
the Itinerarium Antonini, this, in turn, is the adjectival form of
Salona. Siluanis should perhaps be identified with the village of
Siile at the source of the Harmut-su [Giimiigane deresi], near Kalecik,
where the ruins of an ancient fortress can still be seen16, To the
west of the Kolat daglari he the Zigana daglari, and the road from
Trebizond to Ardasa [Torul] crosses the Zigana pass at 6,640 feet.
A Roman cohort stood at the entrance to the pass at the little
settlement of Zigana, which still bears its ancient name. Ancient
Mochora stands to this day east of Zigana, and was also the station
of a Roman cohort 185, Chaszanenica is equivalent to the Gizenica
of the Tabula Peutingeriana (cf. Chiaca = Ciaca) and may be
related to the modern Hadzana, a village on the Deégir-
mendere1?, Ysiportos, (= to the “Yooor λιμήν of Arman, later
Susarmia, now Surmene) is a port on the Black Sea east of Tre-
bizond 18, Kamé Parembolé (Kaw) παρεμβολή = new camp) is
hardly a proper name, Pithia and Sebastopolis are thought by some

82 CHAPTER V

scholars to be the Laze fortresses of Pitiunt and Sebastopolis, but
it has rightly been objected to this that those fortresses were not yet
subject to the Romans at the time of the composition of the Notitia
Dignitatum and that the power of the dux could not have extended
so far19, The connexion of Pithia with the Thia of the Limnerarrum
Antonini 1s probable. Sebastopolis, Ualentia and Kainé Parembolé,
all localities with names that replaced the indigenous ones, remain
unidentified 194,

The commanders of the armed forces stationed at Sabbu, Domana,
Satala, Melitené, Trapezos, (Aladaleariza), Auaxa and Siluana were
of a different rank from the commanders of the remaining units,
namely of the cohorts and the alae. The names of the former are
listed in the laterculus macus and those of the latter in the laterculus
minus. Laterculus was the name of the official list or register of all
administrative and court officials, with the indication of their office,
rank, and title. Appointment to a given rank was made by the
emperor himself by means of a special diploma, the codzcallus degni-
tatum, ἴὰ which the mandaia principi, that 1s to say the authority
and nature of the given office as well as its outward signs, insignia,
were clearly defined. After this the name of the newly appointed
official was inscribed in the Laterculus. A personal petition to the
Himperor was required to obtain the diploma, and he presented it
in a solemn audience. For lesser offices, however, such diplomas
were presented not by the Emperor but by the Quaestor. The
differentiation between the Laterculus maius and the Laierculus
minus, the greater and lesser register, was made in accordance with
this practice. In the first were recorded the names of officials appoint-
ed directly be the Emperor, and it was kept by the first secretary
(primicertus notarium) m his own chancery. The lesser Laterculus
contained the list of offices filled at the discretion of the Quaesitor
and was kept in his office 2°, Among the officials subordinate to the
Dux Armeniae, the commanders of all ten cohorts and of eight (out
of ten) of the alae were listed in the Laterculus minus, or, as this was
expressed, ‘‘de manore laterculo emitientur”’. On the other hand,
the commanders of two of the alae, those at Auaxa and Ailuana,
together with the prefects of the legions and of the cavalry belonged
in the Laterculus marus 398,

The Dux Armeniae himself occupied a position of honour m the
hierarchical list; he belonged in the rank of spectabilis. The earlier

WESTERN ARMENIA BEFORE JUSTINIAN 83

designations of rank, the senatorial clarissimus, and the equestrian
perfectissimus had undergone radical transformations [by this period].
With the disappearance of the equestrian order, the title of perfectis-
sumus became the prerogative of officials of the lowest category.
The senatorial clarissimus acquired three levels or grades: the first
and highest: clarissomus et allustris, the second: clarissumus et specta-
bilas, and the third: merely clarissimus. From these developed the
subsequent ranks of alustris, spectabilis, clarissumus and. perfectissimus.
Among the illustres were all the praetorian prefects and magisiri
militum ; among the spectabiles were the vicars and the military dukes
and counts; among the clarisstm: were the provincial governors
(praesides) and the prefects of the legions. Hence, the Dux Armeniae,
hike all the other dukes, was assigned the title of spectabilis, the second
in order of importance. By his side, as by the side of every represen-
tative of authority, was to be found a certain staff of assistants, his
officvum, or as we would say hischancery. At the head of this officowm
stood a princeps, who was in charge of the chancery. He was chosen
from the schola of the agentum in rebus, as is indicated in the case
of the officxum of the Duke of Armenia. This schola was a sort of
militia of 100 or more men, agentes in rebus, who carried official
messages in the provinces and were under the authority of the minister
of the court (Magister officiorum). The chancery of the Duke was
divided into departments (serinia) which controlled different branches
of the administration: the numerari — officials in the department
of finances, the commeniariensis —the head of the department of
capital affairs, the a lzbell4s — who received the petitions addressed
to the Duke, the exceptores — executive officials, and others 31,

The Notitia Digniatum has preserved the description of the iden-
tifying insignia of each office, presented to the corresponding person
together with the imperial diploma (codicillus dignitatem). From these
we give the insignia of the vicar of Pontica and of the Duke of Arme-
nia 218, ‘The insignia of the vicar consisted in eleven figures represen-
ting the eleven provinces subordinate to the vicar of the diocese.
These figures were differentiated from one another by the combination
of their colours. Above them lay a book on a stand; this was the /zber
mandatorum, and next to 1t a column which in most cases bears two
effigies (the emperor and empress ἢ), but occasionally four, as is the
case for the vicar of the diocese of Asia.

The insignia of the Duke of Armenia consisted in the tracing of

84 CHAPTER V

the seven fortresses, four Armenian and three Pontic, where the
representatives of the military authorities listed in the Laterculus
maius had their station. The stations of officials listed in the Later-
culus minus were not shown on this insignia. The Duke of Armenia
had a leber mandatorum without a stand, as was the custom for all
dukes. Officers of the rank of allustris had a portrait on the binding
of the book, presumably that of the emperor, while other officials
had the following inscription instead of the portrait:

FL
INTALL
COMORD

PR

The first attempt to explain the puzzling letters was made by the
famous scholar Pancirol who read:

Felix liber
amvunctus notaris tribunis a laterculo
continens mandata ordine
promacerny 71»

Bocking offered a different deciphering :

Jelicriaiis laeitiae
qui imperatorin numinis, tutela Augusiorum larium
Ciniates omnes marestat, obediant regiae domanr
popula Romana 319

In addition he refered to a curious passage in the history of Cedrenus
who, speaking of the division of the Empire between Honorius and
Arcadius, states that the cipher KONOB on Roman coins should
read ‘‘ civitates omnes nostrae obediant veneraiton:”’ 22, Might this
serve as a key for the deciphering of the mysterious letters on the
liber mandatorum? The reading of the last part seems plausible,
but in general the riddle still awaits a solution 3306, Next to the book
hes a rolled sheet of parchement, whose meaning is likewise unknown.

Π

At the time when the lands of Lesser Armenia formed an organic
part of the Empire, and had adhered to it through all the ties of

WESTERN ARMENIA BEFORE JUSTINIAN 85

political life, the provinces of the former Greater Armenia, 1.6. the
Satrapies and Armenia Interior, bore the characteristics of independent
possessions, externally attached to the Empire but entirely autonomous
in internal life and organization 22»,

From, a general administrative poimt of view, the legal position
of these provinces may be said to belong to the category of component
units of the Empire defined from antiquity as being alhed (foederatae)
and free (Icberae). The precise relations of allied territories to the
Romans were determined by the terms of a treaty binding them to
the Empire, as is shown by the very term, foedus non aequum. Through
this treaty the inferior party won for itself certain autonomous privi-
leges upon its entrance into the composition of the Empire. Similar
privileges were enjoyed by the so called free nations (lzberae), which
were differentiated from alhed or federated ones by tlie fact that they
received their liberties directly from the highest, imperial, authority,
whereas the freedom of the foederati was based on a treaty. To
express this in legal terms, the foederati enjoyed their liberty as a
legal right, while the free nations received theirs by decree, The
nature of the self-government left to the foederat: consisted in: Inberias
— administrative independence, and autonomia — legislative power
and judicial competence. They were acknowledged complete masters
in their own territory, were free from taxation, did not have a Roman
governor, and did not maintain a Roman garrison. The main obl-
gation binding them to the Empire was that of furnishing armed
contingents and in general rendering military aid to the Empire. |
Such is the theoretical formulation of the question. In practice,
however, the prerogatives just noted and granted de jure for free
nations were differently interpreted in specific instances. Side by side
with autonomous nations free from taxation (αὐτόνομοι καὶ φόρων
ἀτελεῖς) or liberae ef aommunes) were found others which, although con-
sidered free were compelled to furnish contributions to the imperial
treasury. Accordingly, a distinction was made between civitates foede-
ratae, civitates liberae et immunes and cinitates stupendiariae, t.e. nations
who were (ἔνσπενδοι, συμμαχικοῖί) as opposed to others who were
(ὑπήκοοι, ἀρχόμενοι) 38,

At the end of the ancient world and during the period of slow but
definite transition from a Roman to a Byzantine state, the meaning
and position of the foederait, as of many other ancient institutions,
may have been altered to conform to the new governmental setting 385,

86 CHAPTER V

Furthermore, the term φοιδεράτοι was in use during the troubled
period of the influx of new elements and of ferment within the
old; it was used for those autonomous ethnic groups settled on the
periphery of the Empire, which pressed upon it from various sides,
and occasionally entered into peaceful relations with it. The Emper-
ors established friendly contacts with them and skilfully used their
strength for their own purposes. The army of Justinian was composed
of a mosaic of regiments of different nations which were jointly de-
signated by the term foederat: to distinguish them from the Empire’s
own forces, the regular army or στρατιῶται.

During the African expedition, the army operating against the
Vandals consisted, according to a contemporary of, “ ἔκ τε στρατιωτῶν
καὶ φοιδεράτων ᾿. The author goes on to clarify:

Now at an earlier time only barbarians were enlisted among
the foederati, those, namely, who had come into the Roman
political system, not in the condition of slaves, since they
had not been conquered by the Romans, but on the basis of
complete equality. For the Romans call treaties with their
enemies “‘foedera’’. But at the present time there is nothing
to prevent anyone from assuming this name, ... . 34

The author notes that time rarely preserves the significance of a
name, for circumstances and meanings change continually while men
carelessly go on using the same words. Procopius is evidently of the
opinion that the term foederatus had outlived its original meaning,
but the nature of the change remains unexplained. The historian
apparently draws only on the etymology of the Latin term for his
observation, and disregards the legal sense of foederati, or civitates
foederatae, as small groups which had entered the Empire on the
basis of an unequal alliance (foedus non aequum).

Concerning the settlement of Thrace by the Goths, the same historian
says that

. with the emperor’s permission, they settled in Thrace;
and during part of this time they were fighting on the side of
the Romans, receiving pay from the emperor every year jus}
as the other soldiers did and being called “ foederati’’; for
so the Romans at that time called them in the Latin tongue,
meaning to shew, 1 suppose, that the Goths had not been
defeated by them in war, but had come into peaceful relations
with them on the basis of some treaty; ... 35,

WESTERN ARMENIA BEFORE JUSTINIAN 87

Evidently the Goths rendered aid to the Empire without surrendering
their independence. Such a relationship to the Empire entirely
justifies the name of foederatus in the full sense of the word and in-
dicates that its use in the period of Justinian is to be explaied both
by the survival of this term and the suitability of a concept which
was not yet obsolete. The inaccurate use of the term objected to
by Procopius does apparently occur in the particular case cited by
him case and his criticism seems warranted. During the African
campaign persons not of foreign background are mentioned as heads
of foederati, although the foederati usually served under their own
leaders. The actual composition of the foederat: in the given case
is not known. It is possible that the troop contingents themselves
were foreign but that on this occasion they fought under Roman
commanders. Dorotheus, the commander of the Armenian regiments
under consideration, is listed among the nine leaders of the foederatz,
where he is given the first place 386, Dorotheus’ actual position was
that of magister which Justinian had recently created in Armenia,
and he fought as such against the Persians. He was then sent to
Africa after the conclusion of the peace of 532 268. As we shall see
later, both native Armenian divisions and contingents from the impe-
rial army were at the disposal of the magrster of Armenia. The regi-
ments transferred to Africa together with Dorotheus were evidently of
the same mixed composition. If this practice was also followed in the
case of other commanders of foederatr, the blame addressed by the
historian to those who assumed illegally the name of foederat: becomes
understandable.

The fact that Armenian regiments were included among the foederat
is important in its own right regardless of the case under discussion,
which may or may not be justifiable. If we study the meager evidence
available on the administration of the Sairapies and of Armenia
Interior, we can easily observe a basic similarity between them and
the foederatz. Procopius tells us that,

... in the other Armenia, which extends inside the Euphrates
River as far as the city of Amida, five Armenian satraps held
the power, and these offices were always hereditary and held
for life. However, they received the symbols of office only
from the Roman Emperor. It is worth while to describe
these insignia, for they will never again be seen by man. ‘There
is a Cloak made of wool, not such as is produced by sheep, but
gathered from the sea. Pinnos the creature is called on which

88 CHAPTER V

this wool grows. And the part where the purple should have
been, that is, where the insertion of purple cloth is usually
made, is overlaid with gold. The cloak was fastened by a
golden brooch in the middle of which was a precious stone
from which hung three sapphires by loose golden chains. There
was a tunic of silk adorned in every part with decorations of
gold which they are wont to call pluma. The boots were of
red colour and reached to the knee, of the sort which only
the Roman Emperor and the Persian King are permitted to
wear, }

Roman soldiers, however, never fought under the orders
of the king of the Armenians or of the satraps, but these
rulers conducted their wars independently. But at a later
time, during the reign of Zeno, some of the satraps decided
to array themselves openly with Illus and Leontius, who had
revolted against the Emperor. Consequently, when the
Emperor had reduced Leontius and Illus to subjection, he left
in the former status only one satrap who held a very inferior
province which was not of any importance, in the region called
Belabitiné ; all the others he removed and no longer permitted
them to transmit the office to those connected with them by
kinship, but he ordained that on each occasion different men
of the Emperor’s choosing should succeed to these offices,
just as is the rule in all the other offices of the Romans. Even
so, these officials were not in command of Roman soldiers,
but only of a few Armenians, as had been customary pre-
viously 27,

From the lttle information given here we know that the Satrapies
were not, strictly speaking, conquered lands, but that the satraps
were rather the allies of the Emperor, though not on a basis of equality.
The fundamental traits characterizing them as well as foederats
are complete autonomy without supervision from the Roman authori-
ties, and military service rendered to the Empire. The Satrapies
were miniature kingdoms ruled by their own princes, who were the
equals in rank of kings. The insignia sent to them by the Emperor
indicated royal power; the porphyra or purple cloak and the red
boots were part of the regaha of the highest rank. Similar signs
of distinction were conferred by the Emperor on the king of the Lazes,
who received in addition to a white cloak, tunic and shoes, a diadem
of Roman type and a belt covered with pearls #8, The Armenian
princes also wore a belt, but we do not know whether they received
it from the Emperor. The same is true of the satrapal diadem.

The nature and origin of the power of the satraps are to be sought

WESTERN ARMENIA BEFORE JUSTINIAN 89

in the complex of legal relationships, known under the general name
of nayarar system, which flourished in Armenia, especially in the
period of the Arsacids. The satraps were Armenian nayarars of the
same type as their kinsmen who ruled im other parts of Armenia.
From the point of view of native political theory, they were the
vassals of either the Armenian or the Persian king, while at the same
time, the nature of their political authority corresponded to that of
foederatt in Imperial law. The basis for their autonomy should not
be connected with the incorporation of the Satrapies into the Empire;
it is rather to be found in the politico-social system prevailing in
Armenia 388. The absence of Imperial limitations on the freedom of the
Satrapies is not the result of magnanimity, it merely reflects the
restraints imposed on the Empire by the particular circumstances
of its age-old struggle with the Persians for the control of Armenia,
A consideration of the sympathies of the country, which might sway
it toward one or the other party in the struggle and thus determine
its outcome, was far from negligible. According to Armenian sources,
the satraps broke of their own accord with the Armenian kingdom
after the fall of king ArSak II, and gave themselves voluntarily to
the Greek emperor 2°, We cannot fail to identify this voluntary
transfer of allegiance as being in reality the treaty whereby the re-
cognition of the Hmperor’s sovreignty by the Armenian satraps
guaranteed their own existing rights and liberties. No outstanding
political perspicacity was needed to solve the problem of the Satrapies
in ἃ manner favourable to the Empire. To receive the Satraps with
a grant of autonomy was to gain in their person an advantageous
support against the Persians. To refuse to receive them, or to attack
their liberties, was to drive loyal alles to the side of the Persian king.

The treaty underlying the mcorporation into the Empire of Armenia
Interior, the neighbour of the Satrapies, is even more clearly visible
from the history of the events, According to an account preserved
by Procopius, the last Armenian king of the Arsacid dynasty had
made before his death a will dividing his realm between his two sons
Arsak and Tigran, the latter’s share being four times larger than his
brother’s. Offended by such an injustice, Arsak turned to the Roman
emperor Theodosius II for support and attempted to set aside his
father’s will, Tigran, in turn, sought the protection of the Persian
king, fearing the vengeance of the Emperor. ‘‘ Arsaces meanwhile
still feared the hostility of the Persians and of his brother and resigned

90 CHAPTER V

his own kingship in favour of the emperor Theodosius, on certain
conditions (ἐπὶ ξυνθήκαις τισίν) 3°, The terms of these conditions
are given by Procopius in another of his works. There they are put
into the mouth of the Armenian princes displeased with Justinian’s
policy who came to the Persian court and stated, among other things,
in their petition to king Xusré 1 that,

Arsaces, the last king of our ancestors, abdicated his throne
wilingly in favour of Theodosius, the Roman emperor, on
condition that all who should belong to his family through
all time should live unhampered in every respect, and in parti-
cular should in no case be subject to taxation 81.

The speakers asserted further that these conditions had been adhered
to until the conclusion of the peace of 532 between the Persians and
the Romans.

According to this account, the circumstances of the downfall of
the Armenian Arsacids are presented in a very different light from
that found in the Armenian sources which have reached us. It has
been suggested that the tale transmitted by the Byzantine historian
is not to betrusted. To be sure, doubts as to the names and individuals
mentioned in the story are unquestionably possible, and it will still
be necessary to determine the relative value of Procopius’ Byzantine
and Faustus’ Armenian version. A recent investigator has even
claimed that the entire story is pure invention and that this tale
has been drawn by Procopius from highly dubious sources, most
likely from the mouth of the Armenian princes themselves, whose
national pride could not allow them to concede that the idea of the
partition of Armenia had originated among the partitioning powers 83,
Even if we accept this opinion, for which there is no foundation
the most valuable part of the story cannot be disregarded, and the
opinion itself is groundless.

The evidence of Procopius on the last days of the Arsacids does
not in fact contradict all that we know from other sources. According
to the national version the vahant prince Manuel Mamikonean, regent
for the powerless princelings Arsak and Valarsak, wrote before his
death “a letter to the Greek emperor and entrusted to him king
Argak and the land of Armenia” 88, Furthermore the feuds of the
princes ArSak and Tigran in Procopius are very reminiscent of the
enmity between the kings Argak and Xosrov in the Mostory of Faustus.
The crux of the matter does not he in the manner in which the partition

WESTERN ARMENIA BEFORE JUSTINIAN 9]

of the Arsacid realm took place, whether it be according to the inten-
tions of the interested parties or as a result of local disputes over the
crown. The important fact is that after the partition, one part of
Armenia adhered to the Empire on the express condition that the
Arsacid forms should be preserved in the country, that is to say,
it should remain free and be subject to no taxation. These are un-
questionably the specific conditions under which the Armenians
lived until Justinian. Let us even concede that Procopius’ account
is based on someone’s invention, we still cannot deny that this invention
must have reflected the actual state of the country since the histonan
is able to assert, by means of the Armenians’ petition, that they had
benefited from the above mentioned privileges up to his time. To
enjoy this exeptional position in the Empire was, in Roman termi-
nology, to be a federated territory. Consequently, Interior Armenia
was a country as free as the autonomous Satrapies 888,

One of the priviledges of the foederat: was freedom from taxation 3,
Reliable evidence as to the financial relations of the Armenian terri-
tories to the Empire is extremely scarce. There is an imperial decree
from 387 addressed to Gaddana, satrap of Sophanené, in which the
tribute to the crown is demanded:

The same Augustuses [Valentinian, Theodosius and Arcadius]
to Gaddana, Satrap of Sofanena,

We decree that the crown gold shall be returned and restored
to those persons from whom it appears that it was illegally
taken away, so that according to the practice of ancient custom,
all satraps shall have the right to provide from their own
resources for the customary offering of the crown to Our
Serenity, in accordance with the devotion which they owe
to the Roman Empire 3,

The imperial decree was evidently the result of abuses against the
Satrapies, countenanced by agents of the imperial power. A few
years earlier, specifically in 384, a decree had been promulgated
by the same emperors rigorously forbidding the forcible exaction
of the aurum coronarvum in the Empire in general®4. Whether as
a result of the separate status of the Satrapies, or for some other
reason, this imperial decree had probably not been applied there,
and a special rescript was needed to return the aurum coronarium
collected in the Satrapies and to allow the satraps to operate mm their
own way. The tribute known as aurum coronarium differed from

92 CHAPTER V

other official taxes in that 1+ was a voluntary tribute and not required
by law. In one of the decrees of Juhan for the year 362 it is flatly
stated that “ aurum coronarium munus est voluntatis” 85, The term
itself derives from the fact that originally gold crowns had been
presented to the Emperor on the occasion of a victory or of some
celebration. Such gifts were especially tendered by free communities
and friendly nations bound to the Empire through confederation,
who expressed their good will and friendschip in this manner. The
Romans occasionally solicited “ἡ τῶν στεφάνων ypvodv’’ themselves
as soon as they had overcome a foe 36, A trustworthy source informs
us that ‘‘ That which the inhabitants of Rhodes paid to the Romans
is called στεφανικὸν τέλεσμα since they were autonomous”. The
negligible sum which they gave each year to the Romans was considered
by them not as “a tribute to victors’’, but rather as “a crown to
friends ” 8?, Voluntary obligations to the Empire of a similar type
were also borne by the Saracen tribes of Mesopotamia. The leaders
and princes of the Saracen tribes came before Julian the Apostate
in Mesopotamia, durimg his campaign in the Hast, and showed their
respect by the presentation of a gold crowns 88. The tradition of the
coronae was still alive in the sixth century. The Gothic king Theo-
datus mace peace with Justinian on the condition, among others,
that he would send the Emperor a gold crown of three hundred pounds’
weight 38, ‘There can be no doubt that the corona of the satraps
mentioned in the edict of Theodosius 1 cited above, belonged to this
category of crowns. It was a spontaneous tribute from autonomous
satraps to their sovereign. Although voluntary, and non-compulsory
in character, the corona became a requirement, hallowed by time and
custom, and served as an attractive symbol of the dependence of the
satraps on the Empire.

Since we are led to believe that the presentation of the crown gold
marked the whole of the financial obligations of non-equal allies,
and since the autonomy of the satraps was maintained until Justinian,
they should have been free of all other monetary obligations up to
that time at least. There is, however, one piece of evidence which
runs counter to this. During the Roman-Persian war of 502, the
Persian king Kavadh advanced to besiege Martyropolis. The
inhabitants of the city, realizing the hopelessness of resistence, decided
to surrender. Together with Theodore, satrap of Sophanené, they
came out to meet the king “ bearing in their hands the public taxes

WESTERN ARMENIA BEFORE JUSTINIAN 93

of two years, (φόρους ... δημοσίους) 4°. How is this passage to
be understood? Theodore, one of the successors of Gaddana as
satrap of Sophanené, had his seat in the capital of Martyropolis.
Although he was a vassal of the Emperor, Theodore surrendered to
the Persians in order to save his lands from devastation, and to pro-
pitiate the king presented him with some kind of tax for two years
in advance. Were these φόροι, taxes, destined for the imperial
treasury? Perhaps this was the traditional corona in the form of
currency, 1.6. the aurum coronariwum. Should this interpretation
prove unacceptable and the φόροι δημοσίοι prove to be different
from the corona of vassality, we will have to acknowledge that Zeno’s
alterations in the structure of the Satrapies had been very profound
indeed. We have quoted earlier the actual passage in which Procopius
says that the Emperor Zeno had abrogated the sovereign rights of
the satraps in punishment for their participation in the rebellion of
Leontius and Illus in 485, thereafter the satrapal power was trans-
mitted to one or another individual at the discretion of the Emperor.
Perhaps from this time on the satraps appointed by the Emperor
were also liable to a new tribute called φόροι δημοσίοι. Legally
this would imply the demotion of the Satrapies from the level of
foederats to that of cwitates stipendiariae; that 1s to say that they
had been deprived of their smmuniias. As yet this problem remains
unsolved 498,

Armenian taxes (τὰ ἀρμενιακὰ δημόσια) are mentioned in one
of the edicts of Anastasius for the year 496 4°», We do not know
whether they have anything in common with the φόροι δημοσίοι.
Judging from its name, Anastasius’ demand referred to the Armenians
in general and probably to the other, 1.6. to the non sane parts
of Imperial Armenia.

Interior Armenia, from the ee of view of status, resembled
the position of stipendiary territories. She differed from the Satrapies
in that a representative of the Imperial power had his seat there.
After the division of Armenia, says Procopius, ‘‘ the Roman Emperor
always appointed a ruler for the Armenians, whomever he wished
and whenever he wished. And they used to call this ruler even to
my time the Count of Armenia (Comes Armeniae)” #1. The Armenian
sources likewise speak of this fact. According to them, after the
death of the last king ArSak, the Greeks did not give him a successor
but placed their possessions in the hands of counts 42,

94 CHAPTER V

With the abolition of the royal power, certain transformations
occurred in the political life of Armenia. But this did not bring
any particular changes in the framework of legal relationships existing
within the country. Strictly speaking the transformation affected
the interests of the reigning dynasty rather than those of the country.
Once the power of the Arsacid kings had been set aside, the Emperors
exercised great caution and avoided any measures which might
injure the interest of the country or the national pride of the Armenians
and drive them to the Persian side. They refrained from any attempt
to mterfere in the internal order of the country so that the social
structure and the political institutions below the level of the crown
remained untouched. The authority of the count was so defined
that it was in harmony with the rights of the local feudal lords (naya-
Fars) 428,

Unfortunately, the nature of the count’s office is not known to
us In its entirety. All that we know authoritatively is that the Count
of Armenia had no military forces at his disposal 4%, hence he was
a representative of the civilian authorities. From the local point
of view the Count was the equivalent of the Marzpan, the highest
civilian authority in Oriental or Persian Armenia, who shared the
rule of the country with the nayarars. If we only knew the exact
position of the Count in the Imperial hierarchy we might perhaps
be able to outline his duties with greater precision. The Count of
Armenia was obviously not included in the Notiiia Digmiatum, since
his office was created somewhat later than the composition of this
famous document which took place in 410-413. However, other
counts are to be found in it. In view of the obvious trend toward
uniformity and symmetry in administrative institutions observable
in the legal enactments of the Emperors, we are probably justified
im comparing the Count of Armenia with one of the classes of counts
found in the Notitia Dignitatum.

Leaving aside the Occident and concentrating on the Orient, we
find counts located in Egypt, Isauria and the diocese of Orient:

Comes lamits Angy ptr
Comes per Isauriam
Comes Orientis 488,

The first two are not comparable to the Count of Armenia since they
exercised military authority, while the Count of Armenia discharged

~

WESTERN ARMENIA BEFORE JUSTINIAN 95

only civilian duties. The Count of Isauria was simultaneously invested
with plenary military and civilian powers, and therefore bore the
title of ‘‘ Comes rei militaris per Isaurtam et praeses’”’. In the hierarchy
of military offices both the Isaurian Count and the Egyptian Count
were assimilated to such dukes, such as the dux Arabiae and the dux
Mesopoitamiae, who were stationed along the frontier and were assigned
the defense of the Empire from the perpetual threat of the Sasanians.

The dux Armeniae, in the north, belonged to the same category
of officers, since he was entrusted with the duty of defending the
frontier along with the other dukes.

The Comes Orientis differed radically from these counts. He was
above all an official with civilian competence and corresponded in
rank and duties to the vicars of the dioceses. He replaced the wcarcus
praefecitt Ortentis in the diocese of the East. As early as the period
of Constantine the Great, special commissioners (comites provinciarum)
had occasionally been sent to the provinces. The Count of the Orient,
who alone survived from that period was descended from these com-
missioners; the type of his duties gradually assimilated him to an
ordinary vicar, but he preserved the ancient title. The vicar was
not a mere surrogate of the prefect. Since he was directly appomted
by the Emperor, he occupied an independent position within the
limits of his diocese and shared in the nights and plenary powers of
the prefect. His duties consisted primarily in the supervision of the
provincial governors (praesides), the collection of taxes, and in legal
jurisdiction. The vicars had the right to render judgments vice
sacra (in the name of the Emperor) and to communicate directly with
him #4, The Comes Orientis, just like the vicars, belonged to the rank
of speciabtles.

From the nature of his office the Comes Armemiae belongs with the
Comes Orientis, and thus with the vicars of dioceses 45. Since Armenia
was not reorganized along the lines of an Imperial province, there
can of course be no question of absolute similarity, but insofar as it 1s
possible and necessary to equate the Comes Armeniae with one or
another of the official positions, his identification with the Comes
Orientis should not be considered unsuitable. The Comes Armenae
may not be lowered to the level of a provincial governor (praeses),
since the territory under his authority far exceded the dimensions
of a province. To raise him to the rank of pretorian prefect 1s equally
unwarranted from the reverse considerations. All that remains for

96 CHAPTER V

us is to admit the identification of the count’s authority with that of
a vicar. With regard to the Comes Armeniae the part of provincial
praesides was played by those hereditary princes who possessed and
ruled their districts or provinces on the basis of the nayarar system.
In his relation to these princes, the Comes, as the representative of
higher authority, was the equivalent of the [Persian] Marzpan, as we
have already said 452,

If we identify the Comes Armeniae with a vicar, the limits of his
authority become clear. Of the three categories of duties assigned
to the vicar, of which we spoke above, the most important, particularly
with reference to the Count of Armenia, was his obligation to collect
state taxes where they existed. This aspect of the matter is highly
problematical. The edict of Anastasius relating to τὰ ἁρμενιακὰ
δημόσια, cited above proclaims as follows:

To Anthemius Praetorian Prefect:

.. all revenues, and among them the so called Armenian ones
must be paid [in thirds on three occasions, namely the Kalends
of January, the Kalends of May and at the end of the indic-
tion 46, The revenue is to be divided in three equal parts and
no deferment is granted to the payers in the interval of pay-
ments. In view of the fact thatthe Armenian payment|teAdopara]
was paid in two installments [xaraBodAais] those who paid
in this way, if they desire to choose their former custom; are
permitted in the future to continue paying in two instalments,
in halves, and to pay the second half in the September following
the indiction. But if any wish to pay the Armenian tribute
in thirds, to them is granted a delay of the month of September
following the indiction. Upon the preservation of the former
system, however, the payments are to be made customarily
at the beginning of each indiction as is evident from the very
name 46,

The payments discussed here can hardly concern the province of
Lesser Armenia, since this territory had long since been fused with
the Empire and it is unlikely that any variation from the general
system, even over the terms of payment would be tolerated there.
The Imperial admonitions deal rather with Interior Armenia under
the authority of the Count, and their inclusion in an edict addressed
to the Pretorian prefect, merely demonstrates the subordination of
the Count to the Prefect and reinforces our thesis on the hierarchical
position of the Comes Armemiae as a kind of vicar,

WESTERN ARMENIA BEFORE JUSTINIAN 97

At the begmning of the reign of Justinian a powerful movement
against the Imperial power sprang up in Armenia Interior and the
dissatisfaction of the country turned into open rebellion. The main
cause of the disturbance, according to the words of a contemporary,
was the oppressive taxation: |

Acacius ... secured the command over the Armenians by the
gift of the emperor. ... and ordained that they should pay an
unheard-of tax of four centenaria 47.

Therefore, the emperor sent Sittas against them from By-
zantium. ... So he came to Armenia... and exerted himself
to calm the people and to restore the population to their former
habitations, promising to persuade the emperor to remit
to them the payment of the new tax 48.

To the same period belongs the petition of the Armenian princes to
the King of Persia containing their grievances against Justinian and
the referrence to the treaty between Arsak and Theodosius II 48,
How is the evidence of ἀρμενιακὰ δημόσια to be reconciled with the
statement of the Armenian princes regarding their immunity from
taxation up to the time of Justinian? Hither the taxes mentioned
in the edict of Anastasius apphed to Lesser Armenia and not to Interior
Armenia, or we have not understood the terms of the Arsacid treaty
with sufficient precision. Who were the persons included in the
designation “‘ all who should belonged to his [Argak’s] family ”’, and
whose interests were protected by the treaty? 48» Are those to be
protected the entire Armenian population subject to Arsgak, 1.6.
Armenia ἡ.) toto, or the heirs of the Arsacids, in the strict sense of the
word, or even those nayarar houses in general whose representatives
had attempted to enter into marriage alliances with the Arsacids ?
It is possible that the position of the nobility had really deteriorated,
and that the privileges of this hitherto free class had been limited.
The indignant princes accuse Justinian of breaking the treaty by
laying on them an imposition which had not existed before, “φόρου
ἀπαγωγὴν ἔταξεν od πρότερον οὖσαν "495. This tax was equal to
four cenienaria or four hundred pounds of gold. The Roman pound
was somewhat smaller than ours; four hundred pounds of gold at a
value of approximately 500 rubles would be equivalent to 200,000
rubles in our money 495, If this tribute was laid on the nobility (the
nayarars), % roust have been a land tax, but such an extremely high

98 CHAPTER V

rate of taxation 1s impossible for Interior Armenia which consisted of
nine small districts and probably as many princely houses. For the
same reason, four centenaria of gold cannot be interpreted as an addit-
ional tribute levied on the whole country above and beyond the legal
taxes (τὰ ἀρμενιακά). Even if we suppose that these four centenaria
represent the entire revenue drawn from Armenia by the government,
we must still acknowledge that such an imposition was oppressive
for the country. If the tax of four centenaria was really imposed by
Akakios in the period of Justinian, then we must admit that the
Armenians were indeed free from taxation before that time and that
the account of the treaty is not a legend “‘ called into being by the
pride of the Armenian princes” as has been suggested by a certain
scholar 49»,

Nothing is known of the other functions of the Count of Armenia.
On the problem of jurisdiction in the country, the beginning of an
early decree of Justinian, dating from 529 is interesting. In it the
right of appeal to the Emperor is given, among other provinces and
districts, to Armenia and to the Nations, 1.6. to the Armenian provinces
and to the Satrapies 5°, Itis not clear whether the nght was guarante-
ed to them anterioribus legibus or whether Justinian himself extended
it to the Armenians. Since this decree antedates the reforms of
Justinian in Armenia, it is probable that the situation had existed
before him, and this decree demonstrates the dominion of the Emperor
over an alhed nation in the legal sphere.

The administrative authority of the Count must have expressed
itself in his relations with the local nayarar powers, but we have no
immediate information on this subject. In the absence of other
Imperial institutions in the country, it is evident that the functions
taken over by the governors (praesides or archonies) in other provinces
were left here to the nayarars. Unfortunately, we also lack evidence
on the division of the country among the native holders of power.
Ancient documents have not preserved for us the names of the princely
houses whose possessions lay in the western portion of Armenia.
We know that the district of Sper belonged to the Bagratid princes 53.
There is evidence for believing that Karin became an Arsacid domain,
at least from the time of the partition of Armenia. In the days of
Manuél Mamikonean, and under his guidance, the young kings Arsak
and Vatargsak had consolidated their power in Karin 55, Even earlier,
when the same Mamikonean prince had risen against Varazdates,

WESTERN ARMENIA BEFORE JUSTINIAN 99

one of the last Arsacid kings, their confrontation had taken place
on a field near Karin, a circumstance which might be interpreted as
an indication that Karin belonged to the Arsacids 58,

The Arsacid house was of course not suppressed, after its loss of
the crown. The descendents of the former kings continued to enjoy
the privileges of ruling princes on a par with the other princely families.
So-called “‘ men of the Ostan” or “ Ostamk’’, are often mentioned
in the history of the fifth century rebellion; these are the “ men of
the court’, the former “king’s men” *4, They participated in the
events of this period and are found in the camp of prince Vasak of
Siwnik’. The nayarar cavalry served in separate contingents, each
under the command of its prince, but although historians list by name
the leaders of the princely clans participating in the revolt of the fifth
century, they have not a single word to say about the commanders
of the ostanik’ regiments, except for one mention of a certain Zandatan,
from an Ostantk’ house 5. The Armenian Atrormizd, whom the
Persians appointed to replace Vasak, was also of Arsacid descent,
judging from his surname, Arsakan, which is the Persian equivalent
of the Armenian Argakuni 55,

The obstinate and incomprehensible silence of Armenian authors
concerning the descendents of the Arsacid kings is broken by the
information of foreign writers who assert that the Arsacids continued
to play an important part in the destiny of their country. The
Armenian princes who led the Armenian revolt against the Byzantine
authorities at the beginning of the reign of Justinian stressed before
the Persian king that they were “descendants of Arsaces”’, and
Procopius also notes the names of the leaders of the revolt, John and
“Ὁ Artabanes son of John of the Arsacidae’”’ 5’. Artabanes, together
with his brother, moved to Byzantium where he was soon to become
one of the leading figures in the Empire 525, The blessed Thomas the
deacon, renowned for his ascetic life, who likewise lived in the time of
Justinian, ‘‘ was educated from his childhood in royal fashion and was
issued from the house of the Arsacids, from a certain Barbar‘i who
was once the most powerful, great, and illustrious patrician in the
Hast ”’, according to John of Ephesus **. Another Armenian ascetic
also named Thomas, whose father was “‘ olam wir nobilissimus et regrbus
familaribus”, had a wife Mana, “amplissima et clarissima genie
Arsacumorum natam, quae ui ajunt stirps regia nobilissima fuerat” 5°.
These examples remove all possible doubt that the Arsacid house

100 CHAPTER V

outlived its loss of the kingship at the beginning of the fifth century.
Karin was undoubtedly numbered among the ancestral provinces
of the Arsacid princes.

The names of the princely houses with possessions in other parts
of Interior Armenia have not been preserved. In the documents
which have reached us they are named according to the districts
they ruled: the princes of Sper (or Bagratids), of Manahk‘, of Daranahk’‘,
of Eketeac, of Karin, also of Mardahk, of Xorjayn, of Derjan and
even of Kamay, after the famous city 50,

Daranalik‘ and Ekeleac are usually given as possession of the
Church. Faustus of Byzantium, the historian of the events of the
fourth century says that in the days of the kat’ohkos Nersés I,
the Church possessed vast estates consisting in fifteen districts,
among these he lsted Ayrarat, Tardn, Bznunik’ and Sophené
in addition to the two already mentioned *. It seems to us that
the words of the historian should not be taken to mean that these
districts belonged to the Church in their entirety; this would not
agree with the remainder of our evidence, but rather that Church,
or more exactly religious estates, were scattered though them side by
side with princely ones. We know that Eketeac formed the patrimony
of the patriarchal house of Gregory the [uminator, the Pahlawuni 82,
At the death of the kat’ohkos Sahak I (A.D. 439), his estate passed to
his daughter, the wife of Hamazasp Mamikonean, in the absence of
a male heir. Hence, the Mamikonean apparently added Ekeleac
to the rest of their inheritance. Certain sources, which seem to
indicate that a branch of the Mamikonean house distinct from the ones
in Tarén and Tayk’, also existed in Imperial Armenia, support this
interpretation. According to the historian Ehsé, “a certain man,
Vasak by name, from among those Mamikonean who are found in
the service of the Greeks, (that is to say in the Imperial part of Ar-
menia) ... was a collaborator of the other Vasak [of Siwnik‘]”’, in the
fifth century *, Furthermore, one of the active participants in the
rising of 536 in Interior Armenia, the son-in-law of the Arsacid John,
was named Vasak [Bassakos], and he is also the leader of the embassy
of Armenian princes to King Xusr6 1%, This “energetic man”
must have been an offspring of the Mamikonean; his is a traditional
Mamikonean name, and he exhibits the belligerent spirit so charac-
teristic of this illustrious princely clan. From the sense of the speech
made by the Armenian ambassador before Xusr6 I, Vasak was one

WESTERN ARMENIA BEFORE JUSTINIAN 101

of the princes who came from the part of Armenia subject to Justinian.
Later he was reconciled with Justinian and moved to Byzantium
together with the other rebels. If we admit the existence of a branch
of the Mamikonean clan in Imperial Armenia, on the basis of this
evidence, then in all likelihood we must seek it in Ekeleac 86,

The status of the Armenian territories outlined here lasted until
the period of Justinian when it underwent radical transformations.

Vi

THE REFORM OF JUSTINIAN IN ARMENIA

The character of Justinian and of his reign — His imperialist policy — His reforming
activity — The military reorganization of Armenia — The concentration of military
powers in the hands of the magister militum per Armenian — The decree of Justinian
creating the office of magisier militum per Armeniam — The information of Malalas
relevant to this event — Analysis of the decree — Date of the decree —- The nature
of the magisier’s power — His army and his officium — The dukes subordinated
to him — The military occupation of the country — The system of defense, the
fortresses of Justinian: Martyropolis, Kitharizén, Artalesbn, Karin-Theodosipolis,
Bizana-Leontopolis, Tzumina-Justinianopolis, Satala, Koloneia, Baiberdén, Aredn,
Lysiormon, Lytararizén, Sebasteia, Nikopolis, Melitené — The churches erected by

Justinian — Fundamental aspects of the technique of fortification: the defenses of
Theodosiopolis according to Procopius and in the Armenian tradition — Types of
fortifications.

The accession of Justinian marks an era remarkable from many
points of view in the history of the development of the Empire.
Justinian belongs among those who come to the throne with a definite
ideology and with a clear idea of the problems to be attacked. From
the very first year of his reign he undertook a series of reforms which
affected in various ways the life of the state. Huis reforming activity
extended equally to the field of legislation and of judicial and ad-
ministrative codification. Educated in the Roman tradition and
nourishing an almost slavish admiration for the Roman past, he
cherished hopes of recreating the fallen glories of the Empire, of the
return of the ancient days of the Caesars and Augusti. In the eyes
of the Emperor, the colossal structure of the Roman state had a firm
foundation on the force of arms and on the law which assured its unity
and might; they were the roots of Roman prosperity. Going still
further, Justinian believed that they provided the strength on which
any government should rest. In his own words, “ Summa rer publicae
tuitio de sturpe duarum rerum, armorumque atque legum, venens vimque
suam exinde mumens felix Romanorum genus”), |

Basing himself on this interpretation, Justinian concerned himself

104 CHAPTER VI

primarily with the military power of the Empire and with the im-
provement of its legal structure. A dedication to arms and law as
the bases of the state leads inevitably to imperialism in foreign policy
and to absolutism in internal affairs. Thus Justinian in his idealization
of Roman antiquity was carried away by the unrealizable dream of
bringing back the glory of the past. He was entirely filled with the
illusion that he could revive the long dead Roman spirit, conse-
quently he undertook on one hand extensive conquests, and on the
other the centralization and consoldation of his power on the basis
of Roman tradition. His long reign was passed in constant wars,
now in the Hast, now in the West, Shitting the legions from one end
of the Empire to the other, Justinian fought the Persians and con-
quered the small, semi-independent nations lying beyond the imperial
frontiers: the Arabs of Mesopotamia, the Armenians, the Tzans and
the Lazes. He defeated the forces of the new peoples surging into
the lands of the Western Empire and conquered the kingdoms of the
Goths, the Vandals and the Moors in Italy, Africa and even Spain.

The brilhant characteristics of Justimian and his imperiahstic
policies are shown by Procopius in two speeches which he puts into
the mouths of the Gothic and Armenian ambassadors to King Xusré I
of Persia:

... be [Justinian] is by nature a meddler and a lover of those
things which in no way belong to him, and is not able to abide
by the settled order of things, he has conceived the desire of
selzing upon the whole earth, and has become eager to acquire
for himself each and every state 3.

Hiqually bitter are the words of the Armenians. Having recalled
the innumerable misfortunes Justinian had brought upon various
nations, the Armenians exclaim with indignation,

The whole earth is not large enough for the man; it is too small
a thing for him to conquer all the world together. But he is
even looking about the heavens and is searching the retreats
beyond the ocean, wishing to gain for himself some other
world 3, |

The accuracy of this characterization taken from the pen of a
contemporary who had thoroughly studied Justinian may be seen
from the words of the emperor himself, as the dreaded conqueror
proclaims, |

THE REFORM OF JUSTINIAN IN ARMENIA 105

τω after so many expenses and wars, God has granted us the
_ possibility of making peace with the Persians, of subjecting
to ourselves the Vandals, the Alans, and the Moors, and of
conquering all Africa and Sicily. We likewise cherish the great-
est hopes that, with God’s help, we shall succeed in extending
our power over those other lands within the limits of the two ᾿
oceans which were ruled by the ancient Romans and sub-
sequently gradually shpped away through their neghgence 4.

The Empire spent enormous efforts, both material and spiritual,
on military undertakings of such grandiose conception, and as the
Imperial frontiers spread, so grew and was realized the tendency
toward centralization. The principle of the concentration of power
was part of Justinian’s concept, it was proclaimed often and quite
unambiguously from his first decrees, Justinian was a born despot,
This trait of bis character is admirably displayed in the instructions
promulgated by him for the review of former legislation and the working
out and formulation of his famous Code, The principles of the sacred
personality of the Emperor and of the divine origin of his power are
proclaimed in them. The Emperor is the incarnation of law and
Justice; power is a gift received by him from above: “ wmperiwm quod
nobis a caelests maiestate tradiium est”. In which case, the Emperor con-
tinues, “what can be greater or more sacred than the imperial ma-
jesty?”’ 5, He is the exclusive source and instrument of the law.
Not only the right of promulgating the law but the capacity for its
interpretation is the unalienable prerogative of the highest power 5.
In all cases where doubts arise, or there is an obseurity in the meaning
of the law, it is indispensable to turn to the ruler, and he, “ numine
caelesti erecta emendabat et in competentem formam redigebat”’ 7. Indeed

can, a man be conceived so bold that he should dare refuse
to recognize the imperial decision when the founders of ancient
law openly and most clearly determined that all decisions
which follow an imperial decree should have the power of
law? ...For to whom shall it be given to solve problems of law
and who shall be capable of revealing them to all if not he to
whom alone it is given to be the instrument of the law? ὃ

In Justinian’s own proclamations cited above, the figure of the
autocrat and absolute monarch is brought into relief. His natural

106 CHAPTER VI

inclinations are raised to the level of principles, his practical aims
given theoretical bases. These helped him establish his leadership in
the creation of a vast yet centralized power within the Empire.

With this aim Justinian undertook a number of administrative
reforms. As the reformer himself said, the direction in which all
these changes should tend was, “‘ ui nostro moderamine recite gubernatur
et firme custodiatur”’ ὃ. This is the motto which lay at the base of
the provincial reforms of Justinian and which is lkewise relevant
to the reorganization of the Armenian lands.

The changes which Justinian initiated in Armenia are unquestionably
inspired first of all by the over-all spirit of imperialism, and they
served the interests of the unification and consolidation of the Empire.
The concept of consolidating the parts of the Empire, at least in the
one-sided understanding found in all autocrats, required the oblitera-
tion of the characteristics which distinguished the Armenian provinces
from the rest of the Empire; it stressed the necessity of removing
their individual aspects. It was imperative to transform them
from semi-independent nations into an ordinary imperial province
conforming to the general pattern.

In addition to the general reasons underlying the whole of Justinians
reforming activity, particular motives, relating to the specific political
circumstances, were present in each separate case. The immediate
pretext for the military re-organization of Armenia was the Persian
war. Justinian took up the rems of government at the height of
the war begun under his predecessor. The imperial army had just
suffered a defeat at the hand of the Armenian princes under Persian
domination. The lack of success of Roman arms was attributed to
the unsatisfactory defense of the frontier provinces. It was blamed on
the forces of the Dux Armeniae and of the native princes who, as the
war had demonstrated, were incapable of withstanding a concentrated
Persian attack on the Imperial territory. Furthermore, the nayarar
contingents of Interior Armenia and of the Satrapies did not come
up to requirements of a rigorous discipline because of their hetero-
geneous composition and leadership. They would have found it
difficult to operate in conjunction with the regular armies of the Duz 955,

According to the historian Procopius, the Count of Armenia was
unable to repel the invasion of the enemy, because he had no troops
at his disposal. Justimian, therefore, having realized that such a
disorganized Armenia could easily be captured by the Persians,

THE REFORM OF JUSTINIAN IN ARMENIA 107

abolished the office of Count; placed a sirategos m Armenia (στρατηγὸν
δὲ τοῖς ᾿Αρμενίοις ἐπέστησε) and gave him a considerable number
of troops, enough to repel enemy attacks. These were the measures
taken by the Emperor in so-called Greater Armenia?°. As for the
autonomous Satrapies, we learn from the same historian that they
were left to their own devices and dispensed with Roman help since
they had their own troops drawn from among the Armenians
The satraps, however, also admitted their helplessness in the face
of enemy attack.

And when this came to the knowledge of the emperor
Justinian, he immediately did away with the title of Satrap
and appointed in these provinces two Dukes, as they are
called; and he put under them a very large force of regular
Roman troops to assist them in guarding the Roman frontier 11.

The actual decree according to which these changes took place has
fortunately been preserved:

The Emperor Justinian to A. Zeta, wir allusira and master
of the army for Armenia, Pontus Polemoniacus and the Nations:

Having, through God’s grace, received the Roman power,
and having considered this matter with solicitous care and
vigilant concern, we have found it necessary to create by the
present law a special military commander for parts of Armenia,
Pontus Polemoniacus and the Nations. We chose with com-
plete confidence for a post of such responsibility thy highness
which has so commended itself to us through its former activity.
We entrust to thy care certain provinces, namely Greater
Armenia, which is called Interior and the Nations (namely
Anzetena, Ingilena, Asthianena, Sophena, Sophanena, in which
lies Martyropolis, Balabitena) as well as First and Second
Armenias and Pontus Polemoniacus, together with their Dukes.
And the Count of Armenia is to be abolished altogether. We
entrust [to thee] certain legions, not only those which are
now being constituted, but also those chosen from the ones
in the capital, those in the East, and certain other regiments.
Furthermore, the number of soldiers in them shall not be
diminished, for we have formerly added many to them without
burdening the republic or raising expenditures. Now, how-
ever, we withdraw some of them, but in such a way that even
after this subtraction more shall remain than there were before
our blessed time 115, |

108 CHAPTER VI

The chronicler John Malalas knew and made use of this law. He
gives certain details which complete and clarify the official procla-
mation. We, therefore, give his account in full:

In the abovementioned year of the reign of Justinian, Ztittas
(Sittas) was sent to Armenia as_ straielates. Before that
time there was no siratelates in Armenia but there were dukes,
governors and counts. The Emperor gave to him troops
from, two [sources], from. the capital and from the East, Having
assumed the office, he, with the sacred authorization, recruited
for himself native straielate scroniae, having obtained from the
Himperor the right to admit natives to military service because
of their famiharity with the localities in Armenia. The Em-
peror authorized this and transferred to him also the rights
of the Armenian dukes, counts and their hypator, consisting
formerly garrison soldiers. All former powers were abolished.
But he received four regiments from the sératelates of the East.
The frontier defenses of the Romans became mighty from that
time, for he was a warlike man. He was the same man who
married Comito the sister of the empress Theodora 15,

Τῦ is evident, both from the official document and from the historical
account that, the crux of the military reorganization of the frontier
consisted in the reunion of all the Armenian lands under the power
of a single commander who was a general or master of the army
[magisier miltum].

The office of magister militum was the highest military rank in the
Empire. There were only five such magisivt in the whole of the
Empire: two in the capital, one in the East, and two in the West,
The appointment of such an important official in Armenia testifies
to the importance given to the eastern frontier of the Empire at that
time. The actual decree of Justinian speaks of the subordination
of the dukes to the new commander, while Malalas asserts that all
previously existing authorities were to be abolished with the appoint-
ment of the new general. The information of the historian is incorrect
and based on a misunderstanding. Several dukes and counts did
not exist at the time when a military commander was appointed for
Armenia; the historian has evidently confused the situation before
the military reorganization with the one created by the civilian re-
organization which followed the military one by a few years, specitically
in 536. |

The precise year in which the military commander was appointed
is not known since the date of the decree is missing. Judging from

THE REFORM OF JUSTINIAN IN ARMENIA 109

the opening words of this official document, “‘ cum Romanorum nobis
sit delatum imperium ”’, it was promulgated immediately upon or soon
after the accession of Justinian 183, _By 530, at the time of the battle
near Satala against the Persians, Dorotheus, a skilfull man experienced
in military affairs was the sirategos of Armenia, while Sittas, one of
the Byzantine commanders in chief, was at the head of all the troops
stationed in Armenia?4. One of these two personnages occupied
the position of military commander which Justinian had created.
Although Dorotheus is called sirategos of Armenia, the term by which
Procopius renders the Latin title, magister mihtum, Sittas’ name
leaves no doubt that he was the one invested with the power of magis-
ter. The title, “ magister mltum per Armeniam et Pontum Polemo-
niacum et genies”’, was entirely appropriate for him as general in chief
of the entire army. As for Dorotheus, he must have been the Dua
Armeniae. At this time, Belisarius was magister mihtwm per Orien-
tem. In 531, Belisarius suffered a defeat near Kallinikos, and Jus-
tinian, displeased, recalled him to the capital, having relieved him of
his functions as magister of the Hast; “ but Sittas, as had been decreed.
by the Emperor Justinian, went to the Hast in order to guard that
portion of the empire” 15, And indeed, soon after, Sittas appeared
at the head of a Roman army in the village of Attachas, to render
assistance to Martyropolis, which was then besieged by the Persians 1°.
_ It would seem therefore that Sittas had been transferred to replace
Belisarius as commander of the Hast. Malalas also testifies that
Justinian having heard of the defeat near Kallinikos, “ wrote to
Sittas, the magister militiae praesenialis, who was then staying in Ar-
menia, and ordered him to journey to the East to participate in the
war. Sittas occupied the territories of the Persians and, having
crossed the Armenian mountains, came to Samosata ” 17, |
According to the same historian, a special official was assigned to
the theatre of the war to make an investigation. As a result of his
report, Justinian dismissed Belisarius from his military command
and appointed Munda in his place as stratelates of the Hast (orpary-
λάτην ἀνατολῆς) 18, What happened to Sittas at this point is not
altogether clear. Malalas also knows of his operations near Martyr-
opolis 1°, but according to his indications, the siratelates of the Hast
was Dorotheus. In this capacity the latter took a certain fortress
in Persarmenia 2° and repelled an attack of the Sabirian Huns 531,
The battle near Kallinikos took place in Holy Week, on Saturday

110 CHAPTER VI

April 19th, which corresponds to the date of Haster for the year 531,
and Sittas left Armenia after this battle. Whether he was appointed
commander of the Hast, as Procopius asserts, or whether he returned
to the capital because the post was given to Munda, as Malalas reports,
does not affect our discussion. What is important and uncontro-
vertible is that Sittas remained in Armenian as magister until 19
April, 531. We also know that he was in Armenia the preceding
year, 530, and fought with the Persians near Satala 315, As a result
of all that has been said, it follows that the military reorganization
of Armenia, which is associated with the appointment of Sittas as
magister militum per Armeniam, must be placed in the period between
the accession of Justinian in 527 and 530; the most likely date is 529.

In contradiction to Malalas, “ all former powers ”’ were not abolished
in this reorganization. Only the office of Count of Armenia, and the
autonomy of the Satrapies were abolished. Not only the praesides,
or civilian governors of Armenia I and II, but also the Dux Armemae
remained untouched. In the place of the Count and the Satraps,
three new Dukes were appointed and subordinated to the mibtary
commander or magister. The latter may be compared with present
day governor generals by virtue of the scope and nature of his powers.

Considerable military forces and an officxowm were at the disposal
of the magister per Armeniam. Unfortunately, precise information
as to their composition is lacking. The information of Malalas as
to the serinzari is curious 21>, The seriniars or officiales served in one
of the officia or in its departments, the seriniae. The officiwm of a
magister consisted of his staff and chancery. The officials wore
military dress, and their office was referred to as miliiza; nevertheless
they were not considered to be part of the army. Originally, the
officials apparently had also had military duties. Thus, in the
Notitia Dignitatum it is said of the offictum of the magisiri of the
capital and of Thrace (magister mihium praesenialis et mag. mail. per
Thracias et Illyricum) that “in numerts militat et in officio deputa-
tur” 21e, The seriniari of the magisier of Armenia were of the same
type, since Sittas had specifically requested it. The passage from
Malalas shows that Sittas’ petition to the Emperor had included
two requests: first, that he be given the power to form an οὐ ον
from the natives, that is to say the Armenians; and second, that they,
the seriniara recruited by the magister, be allowed to “ militare”’
(στρατεῦσαι). Sittas, the newly appoimted. commander, whg had

THE REFORM OF JUSTINIAN IN ARMENIA 111

previously been in Armenia and begun his military career there,
clearly realized that without the co-operation of the local forces it
would be difficult for him to carry out the responsible role assigned
to him. It is even possible that he was no stranger to the Hast by
descent. Sittas or Tzittas was apparently a nickname; the name of
the general was Ursicius. Such is the name given to the important
official and commander married to Comito, Justinian’s sister-in-law
and Theodora’s sister, in an interesting document which has recently
come to light 22. We know from Malalas that this official, the brother-
in-law of Theodora, must be identified with Sittas.

Sittas’ legitimate request met with the highest approval, and the
serumaru, recruited among the natives were perhaps included among
the numeros novos mentioned in the Imperial decree. In addition to
the numer? novi, the army of the commander of Armenia, also comprised
segregats de praesentalibus, ortentalibus et alvis agmanibus ” 228; that
is to say certain detachments taken from the legions under the com-
mand of the magisiri of the capital and of the Hast (magisire mil.
praeseniahs et per Orrentem) and transferred to the commander of
Armenia. In the Notitia dignitatum regiments of Armenian archers
(sagutaria Arment) are listed among the troops stationed in the capital,
while to following legions: prama Armemiaca, seconda Armeniaca, and
the Transingritant are found among the eastern contingents 22°; these
are perhaps the regiments of which the abovementioned segregais were
composed in whole or in part. Malalas likewise asserts that the
army of Sittas consisted of contingents drawn “ ἐκ τῶν δύο πραισέντων
καὶ ἀνατολῆς ᾿᾿, 1.6. praesentalibus et orientalibus; and furthermore,
as he says himself, four legions were drawn from the latter 33, In
place of the “ numer novi et allia agmina”’ of the decree, the historian
refers to serimarv and “ τοὺς ὑπάτους( 1)" who were “ καστρισιανοὺς
στρατιώτας ᾿᾿ (castrensiant milites). These should perhaps be taken
as being one and the same, and this might confirm the hypothesis
that the novi numer: refer to the scrimiara and that the alla agmina
are, therefore, to be identified with the miles casirensiant *.

It is difficult to determine the size of the army of the magisier
of Armenia. We know that in 530 Sittas fought the Persians near
Satala, with fifteen thousand soldiers at his disposal 25, Somewhat
later, at the time of the campaign of Dwin, the active army, composed
of the forces of Valerianus, magister of Armenia, and Martinus, magister
of the, Kast, was reckoned as thirty thousand men 386, Τῦ is, however,

3)

112 CHAPTER VI

dangerous to measure the Imperial forces in the Hast according
to these figures; the two magisirs cannot have disposed of an army
numerically inferior to that of the dux Armemae, for example, whose
forces, according to the Notiiia dignitatum, exceeded thirty thousand
men 764, 7 ἊΝ

Theodosiopolis, in Inner Armenia, became the residence of the
magister of Armenia. Before that, Melitené, the capital of Lesser
Armenia, had been the military center, simce the Duke of Armenia
had resided there 26>, During the Roman-Persian war of the early
sixth century, Eugenius, one of the Roman generals operating agaist
the Persians in Mesopotamia, is even referred to as Duke of Melitené 2’,
though he was in fact Duke of Armenia. With the reunion of the
Armenian provinces to the Empire, the center of the military forces
shifted to the frontier city of Theodosiopolis, Of the newly created
dukes subordinate to the magister, one was stationed at Artalesin,
two in the Satrapal lands, at Kitharizin and Martyropolis, and two
in Pontus and Tzanika, at Horonin, and Schamalinichin or Tzanzako6n,
of which we have already discussed the position 375,
_ These sites had been chosen primarily for strategic purposes, con-
sequently Justinian reinforced them with new defenses. It is well
known. that the building activity of Justinian is one of the amazing
and admirable aspects of this activity, and struck the imagination
of his contemporaries. It seemed to them that future generations
would not believe that such enormous and innumerable buildings
could be the work of one man 28. The undertaking was indeed gigantic
and knows no equal in history for scope. The vast Empire, and
particularly its borders, was covered by an uninterrupted network
' of fortifications, The positions, with their fortifications and garrisons
were chosen with the defense of the country in view, and, in general,
the fortifications of the Emperor were closely connected with the
system of defense. As we have seen from the topography of Lesser
Armenia, the strategy of the Romans had formerly consisted of the
occupation of the most important points on the main roads, This
system no longer provided sufficient protection for the country m
the period of Justinian. The Empire had spread so far, and was in
such a disturbed condition, that enormous forces were needed to
secure the defense of the vast expanse of the state. Justinian was
forced to. compensate for the lack of armed forces by an increase in
the number of defensive positions and of secure fortifications, which

THE REFORM OF JUSTINIAN IN ARMENIA 113

would solve the problem of national defense as well as that of attack.
This was the policy followed on the eastern frontier of the Empize,
namely in Armenia. The primary requirement was the strengthening
of the border line. Yor this purpose, a series of fortresses was erected,
stretching in a long chain along the frontier itself from Dara to Trape-
zos. ‘This was the first line of defense, made up of the posts already
᾿ mentioned, Martyropolis, Kitharizin, Artalesén, Theodosiopolis, Horo-
nén and Tzanzakén, in which stood permanent garrisons under the
command of the five dukes and the maguster.

The main strategic pomts were Martyropolis and Theodosiopolis,
and other smaller forts were built in the rear for their protection.
Behind Martyropolis stood the fort of Pheison and the famous Klei-
surai, the naturally inaccessible passes which Justinian surrounded
with new fortifications and a garrison intended for the protection of
both Martyropolis and Kitharizon. The same function in relation
to Theodosiopolis was fulfilled by the forts of Baiberdén, Charton,
Areon, and Barchin, disposed against attacks from the Hast and
from the North. For the same reason, Sisilisin, Bourgousnoes, and
the so-called Longini Fossatum were built to protect the dukes of
Tzanika 288,

Behind the front line of defense ran a second one, with two main
centers, Melitené and Satala, which were positions as strong as Mar-
tyropolis and Theodosiopolis. The importance of these ancient
cities even in the military sense was not decreased by the erection
of the new defense lme, Justinian prized their position highly and
restored their ancient fortifications. He endowed Melitené with such
brilliance that the contemporaries called it the pride of Armenia.
Satala was transformed into a fortress of the first rank, and the ancient
localities scattered around them, the forts of Osroené: Lythararizin,
Lysiormon, Germani Fossatum, as well as Bizana and Tzumina were
also renovated. The building activity of Justinian also touched the
ancient cities of Sebasteia, Nikopolis and Koloneia 28»,

Procopius dedicated a special work, the de Aedsficizs in four books,
one entirely devoted to Armenia, to Justinian’s building activities;
through it we are informed about the Emperor’s constructions in
Armenia. According to Procopius, the city of Martyropolis had been
poorly defended from ancient times. Hence the Satrap Theodore
had not even considered the possibility of resisting Kavadh I, in
502, and had surrendered unconditionally to the Persians. The

114 CHAPTER VI

Emperor Anastasius, who was familar with the situation, did not
blame Theodore for his behaviour, but considered the step reasonable
and praiseworthy. Taught by this experience, Anastasius surround-
ed the city with a wall four feet thick and twenty feet high, but the
wall was still not strong enough to withstand assault and wall-piercing
engines, and it was even possible to make one’s way over it into the
city.

Therefore the Emperor Justinian devised the following
plan: Outside the circuit of the wall he dug a trench, and
laying foundations there he built a second wall with a thickness
of four feet, leaving a space of four feet between the two walls;
and he raised the new wall also to a height of twenty feet and
made it in all respects equal to the first. Then, by throwing
stones and mortar into the space between the two walls, he
brought this work to perfection by forming one solid structure
with a thickness of twelve feet. Above this he added, in
about the same thickness, the same height which the earher
wall had had. He also constructed admirable outworks for
the city and all the other things without Per on which
the city’s defense are based 8,

In this way the thin and low walls of Martyropolis were altered by
Justinian into major fortifications reaching twelve feet in thickness
and forty feet in height.

We are already familiar with the positions of Pheisdn and the
Kleisurai. Justinian “... by establishing admirable forts at Pheisin
and in the passes and posting in them invincible garrisons, has made
this region altogether inaccessible to the barbarians.” 284, In the
village of Kitharizon because of the absence of earlier fortifications,

.. he established a fortress which had not existed before,
a huge and extraordinarily impregnable stronghold situated
in a hilly region. He also brought into it an abundant supply
of water and made all other proper arrangements for the
inhabitants, and he stationed there the second of the Dukes,
as 1 have said, with a very numerous garrison of soldiers.
And he thereby guaranteed the safety ofthe Armenian provinces.

Similarly,
There was a town in the middle of this region named Arta-

lesin which he surrounded with a very strong wall and con-
verted into an impregnable fortress; and he stationed there

THE REFORM OF JUSTINIAN IN ARMENIA 115

detachments of regular troops which by his order were always
to be commanded by an officer whom the Romans, in the
Latin tongue, call a Dus 388,

Theodosiopolis, according to Procopius’ account owed its foundation
to Theodosius II, who ‘‘ took over the dominion of Arsaces [the last
Armenian king], ... he built on one of the hills a fort which was easy
for assailants to capture, and he named it Theodosiopolis” 28. Karin,
the Armenian name of the city, which is identical with the ancient
name of the province, indicates that a village, if not a town, had
existed on the site of the fortress of Theodosius from ancient times.
Had the locality first become known to the Armenians as Theodo-
siopolis, a second, Armenian, name would hardly have been necessary.
The emperor Theodosius is only entitled to the credit of having built
a fortress where an Armenian village had formerly stood. Indeed,
in another work, the same historian writes that the emperor Anastasius
built a city on the frontier of Persarmenia, and adds, “now in this
place there had been a village from old, but it had taken on the dignity
of a city by the favour of the Emperor Theodosius even to the name,
for it had come to be named after him ”’ 28,

The construction of Theodosius proved inadequate for military
purposes, at least in the period of the wars with Kavadh 1. Theodo-
siopolis, like Martyropolis, was unable to withstand a siege and was
captured by the Persians. Procopius informs us that,

The Roman Emperor Anastasius not much later built a
city there, enclosing within the circuit-wall the hill on which
stood the fortress of Theodosius. And he gave his own name
to the city, yet he was quite unable to obliterate that of Theo-
dosius, the earlier founder; for although familar names are
wont constantly to be changed by men for new, nevertheless
the older names cannot easily be relinquished. This wall
of Theodosiopolis was of adequate extent, but it did not rise
to a height proportionate to its thickness. In fact it attained
a height of only about thirty feet, and for this reason it had
proved to be very easy for an enemy to capture by assault,
particularly for the Persians. In other ways too it was vulner-
able; for it was protected neither by outerworks nor by a moat.
Indeed, there was actually a certain elevation which came
very close to the city and overtopped the circuit-wall. Conse-
quently the Emperor Justinian took the following measures
to meet the situation. First of all he dug a very deep ditch
all around, making it very like the ravines between lofty

116 CHAPTER VI

mountains. Next he sliced off the elevated ground, so trans-
forming it as to make a series of impassable cliffs and of gulches
affording no outlet. And in order that the wall might be
exceptionally high and altogether impregnable, in case anyone
should attack it, he added all the details which he had incorpor-
ated in the fortifications of Daras. For he made the em-
brasures quite narrow, just wide enough for the defenders to
be able to shoot from them, and by adding courses of stone
he built thereon a storey like a gallery all around, he then
cleverly added other embrasures above them; and surrounding
the wall with outworks on all sides he made it much lke the
circuit-wall of Daras, fashioning each tower as a strong fortress.
Here he stationed all the troops and the Generals of the two
Armenias, and thus he made the Armenians thenceforth too
strong to be afraid of the attacks of the Persians 388,

The historian goes on to say that no fortifications were erected at
Bizana. The reason for this was that,

This town les on level ground, and about it for a great
distance stretch plains suitable for cavalry manoeuvres, and
there are many pools of standing water there. Consequently
it is not only very open to the enemy’s attack, but most un-
healthy for the mhabitants. For these reasons he passed
over this town and in another situation built a city bearmg
the Himperor’s name, a very noteworthy and altogether im-
pregnable place, in the district called Tzumina, which is three
miles removed from Bizana, situated on very precipitous
ground and enjoying excellent air 381,

Ta Βιζανά is the city called Balavis or “εοντόπολις in Justinian’s
decree 28, Scholars have located it incorrectly as they identify it
with either Theodosiopolis or Erzincan. In reality Bizana lay
half way between these cities, and is the Armenian Vizan, a village
which still stands on the banks of the Euphrates at the point were
Alihsené borders on Mananah. It was renamed Leontopolis,
probably in honour of the emperor Leo I (457-474), but we do not
know on what occasion #8, We cannot tell how far the topographical
conditions described by Procopius are accurate, but his description
seems to be corroborated by the name of the place, Vizan, which
means “flood ” in Armenian 39,

Not far from Bizana, nearer to Erzincan in the foot hills of the
Kegis daglari, stands the settlement of Cimin, incidentally renowned
for its excellent wine; this is the historical Tzumina 9°, The Emperor

THE REFORM OF JUSTINIAN IN ARMENIA 117

enlarged it, re-named it Justinianopolis, and made it the center of
the civihan administration. This city was also the residence of the
bishop of the province, who was known as the bishop of Justinianopolis
or of Akilisené, from the name of the province 81, From antiquity
these three localities, 'Theodosiopolis, Leontopolis, and Justinianopolis,
have been confused with one another as a result of their closeness.
An error has even crept into such official document as Novella XX XI,
where Justinianopolis is given as the new name for Leontopolis.
lt should now be entirely clear, however, that Justinianopolis is to
be identified with Cimin, Leontopolis with VizZan, and Theodosiopolis
with Karim [Erzurum].
Justinian likewise restored the city of Satala,

The city of Satala had been in a precarious state in ancient
times, For it is situated not far from the land of the enemy
and it also les in a low-lying plain and is dominated by many
hils which tower around it, and for this reason it stood in
need of circuit-walls which would defy attack. Nevertheless,
even though its surroundings were of such a nature as this,
its defences were in a perilous condition, having been carelessly
constructed with bad workmanship in the begimning, and with
the long passage of time the masonry had everywhere collapsed.
But the Emperor tore all this down and built there a new
circuit-wall, so high that it seemed to overtop the hills around
it, and of a thickness sufficient to ensure the safety of its
towering mass. And he set up admirable outworks on all
sides and so struck terror mto the hearts of the enemy. He
also built a very strong fortress not far from Satala m the
territory called Osroené 815,

According to the description of Procopius, the city of Koloneia
lay in the same district. First it had been a castle, which had
existed from antiquity, at the top of a steep bill 85, then the Roman
general Pompey who conquered this district captured the castle,
fortified it, and called it Koloneia.

This also the Emperor Justinian finding that it had suffered
much through the ravages of so long a time, restored with all
his resources. Furthermore, by granting great sums to the
inhabitants of this region he brought it about that everywhere
on their own land either new defenses were built or those
which had fallen into decay were restored. Thus practically
all the fortifications which can, be found there, are, as it happens,
the work of the Emperor Justinian. In that region also he

118 CHAPTER VI

constructed the forts called Baiberdén and Aredn. He likewise
restored Lysiormum, which had already fallen into ruin, as
well as Lytararizon. And at the place which they call Germani
Fossatum he built a new fort. Furthermore, he rebuilt the
walls of Sebastela and Nicopolis, cities of Armenia, for they
were all on the point of collapsing, having suffered from the
long passage of time, and he made them new 838,

Meltené, a very important center in Armenia and in Asia Minor
in general, was at first a small fort serving as a post for the Roman
army ; it was built on level ground in the form of a square. From the
time of the Emperor Trajan, Melitené was a city and the capital of
the district. When the population had grown to such a point that
it could no longer be contained inside the fortifications, the inhabitants
began to settle on the plain outside the walls. Here they built temples,
houses for the magistrates, a square and a market, Streets were
laid out, porticoes, baths, theatres, and all that pertains to a large
and well planned city was erected. Thus suburban Melitené arose
in very ancient times. Anastasius intended to surround the city
with a wall, but died before he had had time to carry out his plan.
“But the Emperor Justinian built about it on all sides a very strong
wall and made Melitené a mighty stronghold for the Armenians and
a thing of beauty ” 52»,

Among the constructions of Justinian several churches are also
mentioned.

In Theodosiopolis he dedicated a church to the Mother of
God, and he restored monasteries in the place called Petrios
and in Coucarizén. In Nicopolis he built the monastery
named after the Forty-five Saints, and in Bizani a church
to the martyr George. And close to Theodosiopolis he restored
a monastery named after the Forty Martyrs =,

All the locahties mentioned are well known with the exception
of a few pomts. These are Aredn, Lysiormon and Petrios, which
must be sought in the neighbourhood of Bayburt. Here too, stood
Koukarizon, in the vicinity of Derjan and Karin, on the site of the
present Kokaris 3%, LytararizOn is unquestionably the Olotoedariza
of the Iiinerarium Antonini 4, Germani Fossatum should be iden-
tified with one of the episcopal cities of the Metropolis of Trapezos
in the ninth century, namely Keramon recognizable under the present
name of Krom, a small village north of Giimiigane 85.

THE REFORM OF JUSTINIAN IN ARMENIA 119

The description of the fortifications of Justinian given above has
more than a topographical interest, it also acquaints us with the
principles of the art of fortification at that time. In this connexion,
the fortifications of Theodosiopolis and even those of Martyropolis
are of particular interest. First, it is mteresting to compare the
data of Procopius with the Armenian material. According to the
national tradition, the city of Theodosiopolis was founded by a certain
Anatolius at the order of the emperor Theodosius,

..at the foot of a well situated mountain whence flowed a
multitude of small clear springs. He surrounded it by a deep
moat and in a ditch laid the foundations of the walls. On
these he raised enormous and heavy towers of which he called
the first Theodosia in honour of Theodosius. Further he built
sharp ended towers like the prow of a ship and stretched
passages with incurved recesses which faced the mountains.
Similar towers were built facing the plam toward the North.
On the Eastern and Western sides, however, he built round
towers. In the center of the city on a raised spot were esta-
blished a number of magazines and this place was called the
Augusteon in honour of Augustus. He also led in other streams
through many places by hidden channels. He filled the city
with arms and troops and named it Theodosiopolis 88,

ixtremely interesting information on the foundation of Theodo-
siopolis has been preserved in a tale which though legendary in cha-
racter derives unquestionably from a well informed source. In
opposition to the above account, this tale attributes the foundation
of the city to two Armenian monks, Moses and David, who were
among those sent to the Byzantine capital to translate the Holy
Scriptures, and not to Anatolius. The Emperor Theodosius the
Younger had entrusted to these two personnages, who were well
known in Byzantium, the task of building a new city m Armenia.
Having returned to their native land they undertook this task.

They built a Xosrovian tower, fearless against slege engines,
and raised three walls on one foundation. It was ordered to
dig out and carry away the earth for the space of three walls
and to dig through to the center (lt. the navel) of the city.
The a deep ditch was filled with enormous undressed blocks
and lime [mortar?], and on a single foundation three walls
were erected. Inside, on the side of the city, two hundred
steps going further and further down were set against the wall

120 CHAPTER VI

so that it might not be shaken by tunneling underneath. Inthe
same way two hundred steps, one below the other, were set
on the outside of the wall for safety from tunnels by the enemy.
Other means were also invented in case the enemy should
attack, besiege the city or close all the roads to the city. They
made underground paths to the city, they succeeded in digging
deep into the ground and in leading a tunnel to the plain,
half a day’s journey from the city to a place where there are
stagnant waters which form a samb, a swamp filled with reeds.
In this way in case of a siege the city could obtain fodder for
the cattle and reeds for fuel, and the enemy would know nothing
about it. On the other side of the city they also laid a tunnel
to the mountain called Aycu-ptkunk‘, that is to say, Goat-
teats, and filled it with large rocks. If cavalry were needed,
it could be sent for and could ride into the city without the
knowledge of the enemy.

As for water, everything was excellently organized exactly
as it should be. There is no one in the city, rich or poor,
who may not make use of the water from underground conduits.
The palaces and towers are magnificent and built of cut stone.
The streets and squares, slaughter houses and markets are
of impecable cleanliness. The churches amaze the beholder.
The gates of the city are tall and broad, the walls are well
kept, and the towers all Xosrovian 37,

According to the description of Procopius, the Euphrates had its
source forty-two stadia from Theodosiopolis on a not very high moun-
tain. |

... the Euphrates at its beginning flows for a short distance,
and is then immediately lost to sight as it goes on; it does not,
however, become subterranean, but a very strange thing
happens. For the water is covered by a bog of great depth,
extending about fifty stades in length and twenty in breadth;
and reeds grow in this mud in great abbundance. But the
earth there is of such hard sort that it seems to those who
chance upon it to be nothing else than solid ground, so that
both pedestrians and horsemen travel over it without fear.
Nay more, even waggons pass over the place in great numbers
every day, but they are wholly insufficient to shake the bog
or to find a weak spot in it at any point. The natives burn
the reeds every year, to prevent the roads being stopped up
by them, and once, when an exceedingly violent wind struck
the place, it came about that the fire reached the extremities
of the roots, and the water appeared at a small opening; butin
a short time the ground closed again,.and gave the spot the
same appearance which it had had before. From there the
river proceeds into the land called Celesene 88,

THE REFORM OF JUSTINIAN IN ARMENIA 121

We have here the description of the reed swamps which the Arme-
nians call gamb. Movsés Xorenaci says of them that one of the
branches of the Euphrates, not far from its source

... spreads into the likeness of a swampy lake and on its
banks forms a Samb, and reeds grow in great number; the
plains are famous for thick grass and the wealth of cereals 39,

This place is called in Turkish saslyk ‘“‘ the reeds’, and hes north of
the city at approximately the distance indicated by Procopius, namely
not more than ten kilometers 4°.

On the opposite side, that is to the south, the city is protected
by the Palandéken mountains, which are the ancient Goats’ Teats,
In the east, just above the city rise the heights of Top dagi also known
as Surb NSan, (Holy Cross), from the name of the church. The citadel
is on a hill on which is also found the arsenal. The Top dagi rises in
sight of the citadel and it is possible to direct artillery fire from it
against the city and the arsenal*1. Indeed, during the last Russo-
Turkish war, Russian troops occupied “ ... first two forts of Top-dag,
Azizie and Medzhidzhe, which dominate the entire citadel ”’ 45,

It is perfectly clear from all this that the high point which rose
before the city and which was dug out by Justinian was in fact the
present Top-dagi. The well situated mountain at whose feet the city
was spread according to Movsés Xorenaci, was not Top-dagi but the
Goats’ Teats. This can be deduced from that fact that the Armenian
historian says that the round towers of the city walls faced east and
west, while the towers like ships’ prows faced north and toward
the mountains, which clearly means to the south. According to a
late author who was a native of Theodosiopolis, the city was situated
on a height, and like a royal throne lay at the foot of the high mountain
Solalar and Gohanam, looking out toward a beautiful circular plain
in the direction of the village of Kan 4*, Kan or Kian hes north of
the city, while both Solalar and Gohanam are actually one and the
same mountain south of the city between the Deveboynu and the
Palandéken range 44. It is considered to be the highest peak of the
region, and from its summit both the Ararat and the Black Sea are
visible. |

These descriptions of the fortifications are not in complete agreement.
According to Procopius, the fortifications of Theodosiopolis consisted
of a three fold defense: a very deep ditch (ἡ τάφρος βαθύτατος), the

122 CHAPTER VI

outworks or fore-walls (προτείχισμα), and the main crenellated wall
(περίβολος or τεῖχος), composed of two storeys separated from each
other by a passage similar to a covered gallery with towers. Movsés
Sorenaci knows only a ditch and a wall with towers, and his ditch
does not seem to have had a separate function, but merely served
to deepen the foundation of the walls. This is also the version found
in the Legend 48. The author of the Legend unquestionably had a
good source at his disposal, but he is also probably to blame for certain
absurdities in the description resulting from an incorrect under-
standing of his source. The digging out of the earth in the space
between the walls mentioned by the author of the Legend is reminiscent
of the work done by Justinian on the walls of Martyropolis45*, The
three walls built on a single foundation correspond to the outworks
and the two-storey wall. According to the evidence of the anonymous
Legend, the city walls had the appearance, within and without, of
a grandiose staircase with two hundred steps. Such a structure,
regardless of the function assigned to it, is unsuitable from the very
fact that besiegers could have climbed up the wall by means of the
stairs. This information must be considered as altogether doubtful.
Obviously, either the original source described separate stairs added
to the wall, or we have here an exaggerated description of the two-
storey wall of the city. The account of the underground approaches,
unless confirmed by excavations on the site, may also be taken as an
exaggeration of the fact that the city had four gates, from one of
which it was possible to ride north to the samb, and from the others
south to the Goats’ Teats.

The description of both Movsés Xorenaci and the Legend refer
to the reconstruction of Theodosiopolis by Justinian; and the city
walls were destroyed and rebuilt several times thereafter 4°, Never-
theless, certain ancient traits are still visible when compared with
the modern city. Modern Erzurum consists of three parts: the citadel,
the city, and the suburbs, in other words the citadel, the fortress, and
the city. The city with the citadel is situated on a height and is
separated from the suburban sections by a double wall and a ditch
with an embankment. The height of the walls is 24 to 30 feet and the
thickness up to 5 feet; there are 62 towers in them; the circumference
of the city is one half hour’s walk. The citadel, Ic-kala in Turkish,
Mijaberd in Armenian, occupies the highest point in the western
corner of the city and is surrounded by a high wall to the east. Itis

THE REFORM OF JUSTINIAN IN ARMENIA 123

shaped like a rectangle 180 steps long and 80steps wide. Inside itis
an empty space with one tall tower and a few buildings4’, As for
the suburban part, it les outside the fortress walls and consists of
four parts or maala. In the east, the remains of ancient walls some
6 feet thick adjoin it, and in front of them there are traces of an em-
bankment 48,

Where do the boundaries of Justinianic Theodosiopolis end? We
have seen that Justinian built a temple dedicated to the Mother of
God in Theodosiopolis (“ ἔν re γὰρ τῇ Θεοδοσιονπόλει νεὼν τῇ θεοτόκῳ
ἀνέθηκε 435, Τὸ this day the main church of the city bears the name
of the Mother of God, and the Armenian Legend attributes its foun-
dation to David and Moses, that is to say to the men who were entrusted
with the building of the city. This circumstance clearly points to an
intrinsic relationship between the present church and the temple of
Justinian. We believe that the monastery of the Forty Martyrs
built near the city by Justinian may have been connected with the
present spring, Kerh-cesma ‘the 40 springs” in Erzurum and to
the Karh-deirman, “the 40 mills”, outside the city because of its
name. In Nikopolis the same Emperor built a monastery dedicated
to the Forty-five Martyrs. Should we believe Procopius that the
monastery in Theodosiopols was under the vocable of the Forty
Martyrs, or is another origin to be sought for the name? In 1653 the
Church of the Mother of God had up to fifteen priests and ten deacons ;
among the former was the Yakovb of Karin, referred to earlier,
who has left us a description of his native province. Since the church
of the Mother of God is now found in one of the suburban sections
outside the fortress, we must suppose that the ancient walls of Justinian
were those which enclosed the suburban districts and whose remains
have survived to the present day. One of the travellers who visited
Erzurum in the 1840’s believed that the suburban walls were older
than those of the fortress 48», The position of the church of the Mother
of God solves the problem of the outer circumference of Justinianic
Theodosiopolis, since there are no grounds for thinking that Justmian
built this church outside the city he had fortified.

Justinian merely raised and reinforced walls which had existed
previously; they actually dated from the period of his predecessor
Anastasius. This Emperor had “ built a city there, enclosing within
the circuit-wall the hill on which stood the fortress of Theodosius” 835,
The walls of the present fortress in all ikelihood indicate the boundaries

124 CHAPTER VI

of the castle of Theodosius. That is not to say, of course, that
the walls themselves are of such ancient origin. According to Movsés
Xorenaci one of the towers was called Theodosia or rather Theodosian 49
the one intended is clearly the tall tower standing isolated on the
citadel. It is also the one called “‘ Xosrovian”’ in the Legend *°.
The account of Movsés Xorenaci may perhaps reflect a historical
fact, namely that Theodosius was responsible for the establishment
of no more than the citadel and the tower. If this is the case, the
walls of Anastasius, and, therefore, of Justinian comecided with the
line now followed by the double walls of the fortress. This hypothesis
is acceptable if we also admit that the Church of the Mother of God
had originally stood within the fortress and was subsequently trans-
ported to the suburbs under the Mushm domination *1. The problem
can be solved only through an archaeological investigation of the site.

In connexion with the actual technique of fortification, 1¢ is im-
portant to note the means of defense, which consist of three devices;
the fundamental wall (τεῖχος or περίβολος,), the outworks (προτείχισμα)
and the moat (τάφρος) 55, The fundamental as well as the outer walls
were protected by a whole series of towers which served as bases
for repelling enemy attacks; the walls ended in crenellations. When
it was found desirable to raise the wall, the crenellations were filled
in with stones to form a gallery, and above this the wall was raised
higher to end once more in crenellations. The gallery went all around
the wall, and produced a kind of two-storied wall**, The defense
was carried on from the galleries at the top of the walls and towers.
The walls of Dara and Theodosiopolis, the two most important strategic
points on the frontier of the Empire, were constructed in this way.
It would be a mistake to think that this system of fortifications was
imported into the Hast by Justinian, it was undoubtedly the product
of local tradition. It is possible that the common Armenian terms,
parisp, patovar, yandak or p’os, are intended to render three forms
of fortifications corresponding to the Greek τεῖχος, προτείχισμα
and τάφρος.

Not every fortification was provided with all of these devices,
The outer, additional walls were usually put up in large fortresses in
order to give to the neighbouring defenceless population a refuge in
time of attack. Procopius says of Dara that it was surrounded by
two walls, of which the inner was incomparably higher than the outer;
the height of the former reached 60 feet, and the towers were as high

THE REFORM OF JUSTINIAN IN ARMENIA 125

as 100 feet. The space between the two walls was reckoned as no
less than 50 feet: “in that place the citizens of Daras are accustomed
to put their cattle and other animals when an enemy assails them ”’ *4,
Several types of fortified centers were distinguished according to their
strength: great fortified cities (πόλεις - civitates), important fortresses
(φρουρία - castella), unimportant redoubts (byrgz), camps surrounded
by a moat (castra), and walls closing a pass (klevsuraz) 55. As we have
seen, all of these types were to be found in Armenia.

Vil

THE CIVILIAN REORGANIZATION OF ARMENIA

The administrative reasons for the reorganization of Armenia and their connexion
with the general reform of the provincial administration —- The decay of the adminis-
trative machinery and its causes according to Justinian — Sujfragium and its sup-
pression, administrative reform along the lines of provincial consolidation — The
legal reform — The Novella creating four governors in Armenia — Analysis of the
Novella — The new divisions: Armenia 1, JJ, UJ, and IV, from the point of view of
territory — Attempted changes before the promulgation of the Novella — The person-
alities of Akakios and Thomas and their role in the reforms — Problems met by Jus-
tinian in Armenia — Sacra commontioria and Novellae concerning the system of in-
heritance found in Armenia — Analysis of these Novellae — Meaning of the absence
of women’s rights treated in these Novellae — The problem of marriage and dowry
in Imperial legislation: φέρνη and δωρεά, or dos and donatio, varjank’ and awjit among
the Armenians, Armenian proyg and towayr as literary borrowings from the Greek προῖξ
and dwpea — Contemporary transformation of ancient marriage customs — The
non-inheritance of women in family estates — Inheritance ad tniestato in Armenia —
Presence of both customs in European feudalism — Real sense of the Novella — The
destruction of the nayarar system, one of Justinian’s chief intentions — Fiscal interests,
the immediate motive for the reform both in general and in Armenia.

Justinian’s transformation of the civilian administration in Armenia
had a much more fundamental effect on the country that the military
reorganization, because it altered its ancient pattern of life. This
reform took place in 536 as the result of a special Novella. The ultimate
goal of this change was undoubtedly the destruction of the peculiar
socio-political structure of the country and its Romanization. A
Romanized Armenia seemed a more reliable base against the continuous
attacks from the Hast. Justinian never disguised his desire that
“the Armenians should follow Roman laws in all ways” and that
“Armenia should in no way be differentiated from the Empire” 5.
Despite the clearly assimilating intentions ofthe Imperial reformer,
his plan for the reorganization of the Armenian territories does not
seem to have been conceived at first as an exceptional measure directed
against the Armenians; it began naturally as part of his general
reform of the administration. |

128 CHAPTER VII

The internal policies of the Emperor were as admirable as the
external ones. When Justinian came to the throne, the Empire was
passing through a very difficult period. Thanks to the negligence
of his immediate predecessors, the internal organization of the state
had sunk to a level altogether unsuitable to the pride of a mighty
realm, and it showed signs of disintegration: venal administration,
absence of justice, decline in the ability of the people to pay taxes,
impoverishment of the country in the face of overwhelming danger,
unsound finance; all these contributed to the dismal picture presented
by the political life of the country. All governmental mstitutions
were in need of renovation; decisive measures were required to save
the state from disaster. The population oppressed and exploited
in every way, was driven to despair, discontent grew, and disorder
spread throughout the Empire. Popular movements, sedition, and
the increase of open rebellion threatened the Empire with inevitable
dissolution. An imperative need for transformation and renewal of
the administration was manifest. This was undertaken by Justinian
some eight years after his accession to the throne.

In the year 535, on April 15, Justinian promulgated an admirable,
and for its type an unusual Novella, in which he exposed with un-
wonted candour the decadence of officialdom, and the depravity of
its morals, and uncovered the festering sores of the bureaucracy in
all their horror?. Among all officials extortion and all the sins
derived from cupidity were highly developed, “‘ The love of gain 1s
the mother of all evils (τὴν φιλαργυρίαν πάντων εἶναι μητέρα τῶν
κακῶν) ᾿" proclaims the Emperor in his Novella. ΑἸ] officials were
infected with this love of gain however, not because of a general
moral decay, but as a result of the system for filling offices known as
suffragium, Vacant posts were openly offered practically for public
sale. The grant of an office was customarily accompanied by the
payment of a given sum known as suffragvum or δόσις. Naturally,
the offices went to those who offered the largest sum. The Emperors
who preceded Justinian had not condemned this practice, and their
example was followed by men of other ranks, each of whom fleeced
his subordinates 2, The whole weight eventually fell on the people
who were forcdd*to pay various illégal but compulsory exactions
above and beyond the legal taxes.

An official having obtained his position for money, expected not
only to recover the suffragiwm he had paid, but to make a profit as

THE CIVILIAN REORGANIZATION OF ARMENIA 129

well once he received his post. His salary being insufficient for such
a purpose, he had recourse to forcible and illegal means of obtaiming
revenue. Often, not having the means of paying the suffragium,
he had to borrow at a high rate of interest and on many occasions he
would set out for his post accompanied by his creditors. These
abnormal conditions pushed men into illegality and manifested
themselves in bribery, extortion, favouritism, coercion and injustice;
hence, they had a corrupting influence on morals, since they under-
mined authority and cut the country’s sense of honesty and legality
at its very root.

Who, then shall not steal with impunity, “exclaims the
author of the Novella”, who will not rob irresponsibly,
when he looks to those in power, sees everything traded by
them for money, and is assured that whatever crime he commits
can be remitted with a payment! From this come murder
and adultery, assault and plunder, the rape of women, seditious
gatherings, and contempt of law and authority, since all are
of the opinion that power is up for sale ike a wretched slave 8.

All levels of society suffered equally from this arbitrarmess and lack
of leadership. Persecuted by the authorities, “ clergy, magistrates,
landowners, town and country people’’, all fled to the capital to
complain of their fate and of the plunderimg and abuses they had
suffered at the hand of officials. The general discontent occasionally
exploded in riots erupting now here, now there, in the towns and in
the countryside.

The Imperial treasury suffered no less from the disorder. The
population hit in its material well-being, fell into such poverty that
it paid with the greatest difficulty ‘‘ ordinary taxes provided by law ”
The irregularity of these payments disturbed Justinian above all.
As the Emperor states himself, the imperialist policies involving him
in wars both in the Hast and the West, required and consumed vast
sums of money, and the regular return of state revenues was a Matter
of the first importance. Justinian returns repeatedly to this problem
in his Novella, stressmg its enormous importance. Concern over
finances provided one of the main stimuli for the féfotm. ~ -

First, it was indispensable to root out the demoralzing system of
selling offices, the fount of all evil. The Emperor realized that order _
could be re-established only . ἃ

130 CHAPTER VII

if those persons who stand at the heads of provinces keep
their hands clean, and forswear bribes of any kind, remaining
satisfied with their bare salaries paid by the state. But this
cannot be achieved otherwise than by having them obtain
their offices freely, without suffragiwm or other expenses 4.

Justinian consequently abolished the suffragiwm and re-established
the ancient custom whereby a newly appointed governor was required
only to pay a sum to the bureaus concerned with his appomtment,
in return, so to speak, for the work of preparing and forwarding the
necessary papers. This sum was rigorously set for each governor.
With the exception of a few provinces which were considered specta-
biles, all were divided in to consular provinces, consulares, and praesidal
ones, correctorvales; of these the former paid more than the latter.
We learn from the list appended to Novella VIII, that the governors
of Armenia II, Greater Armenia and Helenopontus paid according
to the first category, while the one from Armenia I paid according to
the second’, A Novella de mandatis prineipium was promulgated
at the same time as Novella VIII 55, Τῇ this edict the entire range of
duties of a provincial governor is described in detail, together with
severe injunctions to abide by the orders given.

Among the measures taken by Justinian likewise with the aim of
regularizing provincial life, we should take special note of the changes
in administrative divisions. Novella VIII abolished the vicariates
of Pontica and Asiana. In this period the vicar of Asiana was simul-
taneously praeses of Phrygia Pakatiana; Justinian left him only the
government of Phrygia with the title of Count, having abolished his
authority over the other provinces of the diocese. He acted in the
same way with regard to the vicar of Pontica; to him the Emperor
entrusted only Galatia with re-united military and civilan authority.
The comes Orientis, who was the equal of a vicar, had his authority
limited in the same manner though with the retention of his title.
It was furthermore forbidden to either military or civilian officials
to maintain substitutes (τοποτηρητάς) in the provinces under their
authority 6. These measures were directed against the strictly
hierarchical system which had proved such a favourable ground for
abuses: the prefécts bought their office from the Emperor, the vicars
from the prefects, the provincial governors from the vicars; finally
the governors appointed substitutes for themselves, and in turn
required payment for the position granted. With the abolition of the

THE CIVILIAN REORGANIZATION OF ARMENTA 131

vicariate, one of the steps in the hierarchical ladder was removed,
and the provincial governors came into direct contact with the prefects.
Justinian went on to extend the powers of provincial governors,
raised them to the rank of speciabiles, and thus allowed them a certain
independence from the prefects, this too being to the detriment of the
hierarchical system. .

Filled with Roman spirit, Justinian attempted m many ways to
imitate antiquity. He believed that ancient Rome was in part
indebted to its provincial organization for iis greatness. In his
opinion, Rome would never have grown from a small state to a world
power had she not inculcated respect for herself by appointing high-
ranking governors in the provinces and by surrounding them with
magnificence through a grant of full military and civilian power’.
The natural consequence of such a view was an opposition to the
principle, in effect since the period of Diocletian, whereby the Empire
was gradually subdivided into increasingly smaller units, while military
and civihan authority was separated. Justinian began to reverse
this process by means of a cdéncentration of lands and powers.

In 585 and 536, Novella VIII was followed by a series of Novellae
intended for the re-organization of the provinces. Paphlagonia,
which had been divided without reason, according to Justinian,
in to Paphlagonia and Honoriada, was again restored to its former size
under the authority of a praetor with the rank of spectabihs 8. The
two Cappadocias were re-united and entrusted to a single proconsul
also with the rank of speciabilzs ®. Pontus Polemoniacus and Heleno-
pontus were joined together into a single province under the name of
Helenopontus; its governor was called moderaior, and received once
again the same rank 2°, The provinces of other dioceses underwent
similar transformations "1, At this same time, and amidst the general
reform, a Novella for the re-organization of the Armenian territories
was likewise promulgated.

In his provincial re-organization, Justinian was guided not only
by administrative considerations, but also by the interests of justice.
In order to understand his reforms both in general and in Armenia,
it 15 indispensable to begin with some acquaintance with his general
scheme for the administration of justice.

In the Roman Empire, justice was not assigned to a separate branch ;
the administrators supervised legal procedure along with their other
duties. Every governor, regardless of his title or- rank, was also a

132 CHAPTER VII

judex. Three legal levels corresponding to the three ranks of governors,
were distinguished: ordinarius or clarissumus, spectabilis, and allusiris
(judices ordinarn, spectabiles, illustres) 12, At the very top was the
court of the Emperor, as the supreme guardian of justice. Below
the judex ordinarius stood the municipal magistrates, but their juris-
,diction was extremely limited, and it can be said that legal cases
were generally tried in the first instance before the judex ordinarwus.
To him also went appeals against the verdicts of the same magistrates,
and from him these appeals went on to the judex speciabilis, that is
to say the vicar. The praetorian prefects judged without the possi-
bility of further appeal. The verdicts of vicars, on the other hand,
were subject to review, and appeals from them were made not to the
court of the prefect, as we should expect, but directly to the Emperor
as sacro judicr.

Such was the system before Justinian. In his time legal relations
underwent certain changes in the order of precedence. From the
second half of the fourth century, a special official known as the
ἔκδικος or defensor οὐυϊία δ had existed ds opposed to the magistrates.
His function was to defend the interests of the poor against the ma-
gistrates who were the instruments of the wealthy classes. Gradually,
however, the defensores had lost their importance and had fallen so
low in the eyes of the people that, in the words of Justinian, the name
defensor 10 his time was rather a term of opprobrium than a title 13,
The Emperor rehabilitated the title and position of the defensores;
whereas before they could judge suits involving no more than 50
solids 14, now that limit was raised to 300 solzdz 5, though suits and
claims of more than 300 sold: were still under the jurisdiction of the
provincial governors. |

As a result of the provincial reform of Justinian, the governors
with rare exceptions came from the rank of spectabiles, and thus
became judices spectabiles. Six new spectabiles provinces were created
out of the eleven former provinces which had formed the diocese
In conjunction with the Armenian territories. The 7μα 2065 ΟΥ̓Δ ΟΥ̓
and their substitutes the defensores were in effect abolished thereby.
According to the legislation of Justinian, the judiees speciabiles had
final jurisdiction over all cases up to a sum of 500 solidi. If however,
the matter exceeded this figure, the case was subject to appeal m
the court of the praetor or of the quaesior. The Novella dealing with
this matter is lost, but we know of -it from frequent references in

THE CIVILIAN REORGANIZATION OF ARMENIA 133

subsequent legislation, among others from the Novella on the re-
organization of the Armenian territories 16,

From a knowledge of the general intentions underlying the reforms
of Justinian we come to an understanding of the re-organization
effected by himin Armenia. We give the entire text of Novella XXAT:
On the Creation of Four Governors in Armenia, both in the original and,
in translation 16, | |

Concerning the Establishment of Four Governors for Ar-
menia:

The Emperor in person to Johannes the most honoured
iparch of sacred matters for the Hast, second among the
hypator and patrician:

Prologue

Everything neglected and disordered, if it be brought into
fitting order and well arranged, takes on a completely different
appearance from what it was before: from bad it becomes
excellent, from ugly — beautiful, from disorganized and confused
—orderly and clear. Having found such a defect also in the
land of the Armenians, we have thought it necessary to re-
organize it according to a single pattern, to give it disciplined
strength through good regulations, and to establish a fittmg
and suitable order.

Chapter I

By the present decree we have decided’ to create four Ar-
menias: The Inner one, whose metropolis is already adorned
with our blessed name and formerly was called Bazanis or
Leontopolis. Τὸ it we grant the rank of a proconsular province
and appoint the most magnificent Akakios as its governor.
We proclaim this office spectabilis, alloting to it all that
is customary for a proconsulate. We adorn him with the
garments of a proconsul and permit him all the privileges
designated for this rank. -“We assign to this province the cities
of Theodosiopolis, which belonged to it formerly, Satala,
Nikopolis, Koloneia, which have been taken from the former
Armenia J; also Trapezos, and Kerasos, from the former
composition of Pontus Polemoniacus. Having taken some
of these from the province of a clarissumus governor, and others
from a spectabilis moderator, we establish a full province of
seven cities with their surrounding territories.

134

CHAPTER VII

1. Second Armenia is created from the former Armenia 1
with Sebasteia as capital. We assign toit Sebastopolis, which
belonged to it formerly, also Komana, from the former Pontus
Polemoniacus, Zela, from Helenopontus, and also Brisa. Thus,
this province consists of five cities. As for the authority
existing there, namely that of a praeses, we retain it and its
governor is not granted a higher rank, but that which he form-
erly had is retained to him.

2. We furthermore establish a Third Armenia, which was
formerly called Armenia II. Its capital is the ancient city
of Mehtené, a distinguished city, with an excellent situation
and air, standing not far from the course of the Euphrates.
It seemed to us necessary to strengthen this Armenia at the
present time and to re-organize it after the fashion of spectabiles
provinces. We bestow upon its governor the title of Justi-
mianic Count, and grant him a revenue of 700 solzd2, to his
assistant 72 solidi, and to his office 60 sold:; we assign to
him all that is appropriate for such a position. The so called
taxeotar will continue their former duties an particularly to
supervise the collection of taxes. Only their name is altered
to comiitiant, everything else 1s maintained as it was for the
taxeotar. To [this province] are assigned the cities of Arka,
Arabissos, the other Komana (otherwise known as Golden
Komana) and Koukousos, all of which it formerly included
since it was composed of six cities.

3. We also establish a Fourth Armenia which up to now
did not have a provincial organization. Because it was in-
habited by various peoples it bore diverse names foreign to us:
Tzophanené and Anzetené, Tzophené and Asthianené and Bela-
bitené, and 1t was under the authority of Satraps. This title
is not derived from the Romans or from our predecessors,
but was introduced by another power. Into this same country
we bring our civilian organization, appointing a civilian governor
there and giving to it the city of Martyropolis and the fortress
of Kitharizén. To it is assigned the rank of an ordinary
province since we have made it consular. Thus there are
four Armenias of which two are spectabiles and governed one
by a proconsul and the other by a count, the proconsul being
the governor of Armenia I and the count of Armenia III.
As for the governors of Armenia II and IV, they are considered
to be ordinarnw. We have already taken careful measures
so that appeals up to a sum of 500 nomismaia shall not be sent
to our blessed city, but rather to the nearest spectabilis author-
ity. Therefore, we decree that appeals from Armenia II shall
go to the governor of Armenia I, that is to Sebasteia and that
the ones from Armenia IV go to the count of Armenia II]
who is in Melitené, and this up to the sum indicated.

THE CIVILIAN REORGANIZATION OF ARMENIA 135

Chapter IT

After we had arranged all things in this way, it seemed right
to us that we should appoint for Armenia III a distinguished
personage who had already proved himself in office and was
worthy of such a weighty and important position. Taking
into consideration the fact that the most magnificent Thomas
has already occupied various posts in the country of Armenia
and that he has been a capable and knowing man in other
circumstances, that he has served and still serves us loyally,
we raise him to this position, so that he should now govern
this province according to the system established by us and
concern himself carefully with all that we transmit to him
either in person or through our sacred commonitoria concerning
the province entrusted to his care or any other. We have
already prepared for him sacred commomiorra on many and
varied problems and 1t behoves him to put them into effect
in other spheres as well.

1. Concerning the clergy, as we have often stated, our will
is as follows, that it remain in its previous order. Nothing
new is to be introduced either in connexion with the nghts
of metropolitans or concerning the laying on of hands. But
whoever formerly had the power to lay on hands, he shall
also have 1t now, and the former metropolitans shall remain
in their position, thus in relation to the clergy no innovations
are permitted.

Chapter III

Since the count of Armenia III was appointed by us not
only with civiian but also with military powers, there can
be no question but that all troops stationed in his province
are necessarily also subordinated to him. He is empowered
by the mght inherent in a military commander to call up
soldiers in his own name, to seek out and concern himself
with their supples, to pursue their criminal activities, if there
be such, and not to allow the soldiers to oppress his subjects.
In the case of more serious offenses, moreover, he may also
judge capital offenses if the defendent be a soldier. Whatever
is granted to a military commander, he is empowered to do.
Just as we have granted military authority to the Count of
Isauria, the Count of Phrygia Pankratia, as well as to the
praetors of Lykaonia, Pisidia, and Thrace, so he shall also
have not only an officowm for civilan affairs, but likewise
authority and jurisdiction over soldiers. When he gives an
order, both soldiers and civilians shall be subject to him as
the sole wielder of authority. The count shall watch vigilantly

136 CHAPTER VII

that no crime be committed in his province and that such as
occur shall be subject to suitable punishments. Under no
circumstances do we deprive him of this right with regard
to any inhabitant whatsoever of his province, whether it be a
private individual, or a soldier, or a financial official. We
desire to observe a single and eternal peace among our subjects
and not to differentiate among men thus developing in them
a contempt for the law.

Epilogue

Thus let thy excellency take care to supervise these our
decisions concerning the organization of the four Armenias
now and in the future; especially those concerning Armenia II]
which has served as the motive for the promulgation of the
present law. And let [thy excellency] do everything, even
promulgating thine own regulations, so that each year the
taxes be paid in proportion with what has been established
by us.

Dat. XV K. April.CP. post consul. Behsarw V.C.

As a result of this Novella, the Armenian territories, that is to say
those extensive districts inhabited by Armenians subject to the
Empire taken in a broader sense than the ones considered at the time
of creation of the military commands, were subjected to an admuinis-
trative reform and reorganization on the same bases as the whole of the
Empire. Four provinces, all bearing the name of Armenia, were
created. Certain portions of Pontus Polemoniacus and Helenopontus
were transferred by the new division to the Armenian provinces,
whose boundaries were thereby extended northward toward the sea
as well as toward the West. Our Novella was promulgated on the
17th [sic] day before the Kalends of April, that is to say on 18 March,
536. The Novella concerning the re-union of Pontus Polemoniacus and
Helenopontus, and appointing for them a common governor called
the moderator Helenoponti, was promulgated a short time before,
specifically on 23 July, 53516», In addition to all other considerations,
the name of Pontus Polemoniacus displeased the Emperor because
of its derivation from the name of the usurper, and he was of the
opinion that, “it would be far more suitable to name localities with
Christian and imperial names than with those which recall wars and
disturbances ”” 17,

There were at that time eight cities in Helenopontus: Amasia,
Ivora, Euchaita, Zela, Antrapa, Sinope, Amisos, and Leontopolis.

THE CIVILIAN REORGANIZATION OF ARMENIA 137

In Pontus Polemoniacus there were five: Neo-Caesarea, Komana,
Trapezos, Kerasos, and Polemonion 18. At the time of the creation
of the Armenian provinces, it was convenient for Justinian to take
the four cities of Zela, Komana, Trapezos and Kerasos from under
the authority of the moderator and add them to the Armenian terri-
tories. Armenia I together with Interior Armenia and these cities
formed two new provinces. All of Interior Armenia, part of Arme-
nia I, within the limits — Satala, Nikopolis, Koloneia — and the newly
acquired Pontic cities of Trapezos and Kerasos taken together formed
the first province which received the name of Armenia I. The other
province consisted of the remaining portion of Armenia 1, with the
cities of Sebasteia, Sebastopolis and Brisa, and of the Pontic cities
of Zela and Komana; it was called Armenia IJ. Former Armenia II
was re-named Armenia III without territorial alterations; it included
the cities of Melitené, Arka, Arabissos, Ariaratheia, Golden Komana
and Koukousos. Finally the lands of the autonomous principalities
of Sophanené, Anzitené, Sophené, Asthianené, and Belabitené formed
one province, with the name of Armenia IV and Martyropolis as its
capital 18a,

There can be no doubt that the formerly independent satrapal
possessions were first transformed into an Imperial province in 536
by means of this Novella, since this is clearly indicated in this official
document. The situation is different in the case of Interior Armenia.
According to certain and rather clear indications, attempts had been
made to introduce a provincial organization there even before the
promulgation,of our Novella. There 15 an interesting remark concern-
ing a proconsul of Armenia in one of the Novellae promulgated simul-
taneously with the Armenian one, namely on 18 March, 536, “ Formerly
we had instituted there ordinary authority, now, however, having
added nothing to it, we have transferred it to the rank of a proconsular
province’ 19, We have already seen that the governor of the section
of Greater Armenia known as Interior Armenia (ἄρχων ᾿Αρμενίας
Μεγάλης) is included together with those of Armenias I and II in the
list of provinces dating from 15 April 535 2°, Τῦ 15 clear that even
before the promulgation of the Novella of 18 March, 536, an Imperial
civilian authority vested in an archon or praeses ordinarius existed
in this district. All that took place in the year 536 was merely the
elevation of the official from the rank of clarissimus to that of specia-
bilas; the replacement of the archon by a proconsul.

138 CHAPTER VII

A new capital ‘‘ adorned with the blessed name ’’, of the Emperor
obviously had to be selected at the time of the civilian re-organization
of the country. The existing capital, Theodosiopolis, was assigned
to the military commander, moreover, since it was situated on the
frontier of the province near enemy territory, 1t could not become the
center of a civilian administration 395, Another site, with a central
position was needed for this purpose, and a village not far from Bizana
proved suitable. The construction and re-naming of this city as
Justinianopolis preceded the promulgation of the Novella. Likewise
Akakios was already governor of Armenia when the Novella appeared ;
both these facts are evident from the text of the decree. We also
know that Akakios was not the first representative of the imperial
power in Interior Armenia. This district had been ruled before him by
Hamazasp, one of the native princes appointed archon of the Armenians
by Justinian himself. Akakios, by means of malignant denunciations,
finally obtained the Emperors consent to Hamazasp’s death and his
own assumption of the power in Armenia, but soon afterward he
too was killed by the Armenians 33,

Hamazasp and, at first, Akakios were simple governors [ἀρχόντες],
and the Armenian territory subject to them belonged to the category
of ordinary provinces. When it was raised to proconsular rank
in 536, “ nothing was added to it”, according to the words of the
Emperor 338, This assertion is puzzling if taken in a territorial sense,
and yet it can be understood in no other one. This would imply that
Proconsular Armenia, within the limits seemingly first established in
Novella XX XI, had in reality been created earlier, 1.6. that the former
governor had the same amount of territory as the subsequent pro-
consul. We know from Novella XXVIII of 23 July, 535, that
the cities of Trapezos and Kerasos, which became part of Proconsular
Armenia, were still under the authority of the moderator of Pontus
at that time 22», Consequently, if any ordinances, now lost, existed
on this subject, they would have to date from the period between
23 July, 535 and 18 March, 536 33,

Hamazasp, the first governor and representative of Imperial power
in Inner Armenia after the abolition of the office of count, was appar-
ently appointed at the time of the peace of 532 ending the Persian
war, and as a result of the dissentions which had then arisen among the
Armenian princes. It is significant that the Armenian embassy which
came to king Xusré I, dated the beginning of Justinian’s oppression

THE CIVILIAN REORGANIZATION OF ARMENIA 139

from that year 338, The statement of the Armenians naturally
tried to underscore the uselessness of the peace, in as much as it soon
proved favourable to Justinian. But in addition to its propaganda
intention, we must see a foundation of truth in the reference to the
year of the peace as the beginning of Armenia’s misfortunes, in the
sense that this was the date when the Hmperor evidently began to
interfere in the atfairs of the country by introducing into it a represen-
tative of the Imperial authority. The attempt to broaden the limits
of Internal Armenia may also have followed at that time, but the
complete re-organization of Armenia as a whole, together with the
territorial alterations, must belong to the year 536, when the famous
Novella was promulgated.

‘The division of Armenia into four parts seems to run counter to
the unifying tendency noted in Justinian’s provincial policy. In
fact, even here the general principle was adhered to insofar as it was
needed from the judicial pomt of view. Legally, the four provinces
formed. two large districts respectively under the jurisdiction of the
proconsul and of the count. Both of them had the rank of speciabiles
and all the powers appropriate to it up to an to un-appealable verdict
within the set limit of 500 nomsmata. Appeals from Armenia II
went to the proconsul, and from Armenia IV to the count 23»,

Of the two northern provinces, the one to the east became speciabilis.
We might think this the result of an increase in power in areas ad-
joining enemy territory. In such a case, however, we should expect
the same imperial action in the south, yet the count appointed by
Justinian was placed in Armenia 111 rather than in Armenia IV. Nor
did Justinian act from a consideration of the natural advantages of
the capital of Melitené, its scenic position, or the air which so pleased
the Emperor. In both cases Justinian. was guided not by serious
policy but by a simple calculation, the intention to reward the imperial
favourites, Akakios and Thomas, At the time of promulgation of
the Novella, Thomas as well as Akakios held office in Armenia. The
Himperor showed particular care for these provinces, not from a reali-
zation of their ἘΠΡΡΠΘΣΗΙΥ, but mere for the sake of their eoveners
of the moment. |

The personality of Akakios is fairly well known from Procopius.
An Armenian by birth, he was nevertheless far removed from the
interests of his native land. In his réle as governor of Armenia,
he did not succeed in reconciling his loyalty to the throne with the

140 CHAPTER VII

simple quahties of an honourable man. He reached the governorship
itself by cunning and through the shedding of his kinsman’s blood; a
man cruel by nature, he breathed an incomprehensible hatred toward
his compatriotes 24. In the brief period of his rule he succeeded in
accomplishing so much evil that the Armenians could bear his oppres-
sions no further, and he met his death at their hands.

As for Thomas, the laudatory references of Justinian to him, as a
valuable and honest official, prove rather that he was not far from
Akakios in qualities and outlook, and that his activity must be thought
negative from the point of view of the country and its inhabitants,
As a reward for their merits the Emperor invested both faithful servants
with the rank of spectabslis. To Count Thomas he assigned a salary
of 700 solidi, a considerable increase over the customary 300 solids
received by the praetors of provinces equal to him in rank and position
— as for example in Pisidia, Lykaonia and Thrace, or by the Count
of Isauria 353, His assistant, however, received a salary corresponding
to the norm for that office, namely 72 solidi. His offociwm or chancery
received a smaller salary than was usual, 60 solide as against 2 litres
of gold 28, The numerical composition of the officiwm varied with
the type of functions and with the period; Justinian was in general
inchned to limit it. Thus he reduced the officia of governors such as
praetors, and counts entrusted with civilian and military authority,
to one hundred men 27,

The proconsul Akakios was probably similarly honoured. Among
his signs of distinction are mentioned the stola and other privileges;
by this we must understand the right to the sella ewrrulis, the fasces
and securzs, the primordial attributes of proconsular authority. They
were, for example, at the disposal of the proconsul of Cappadocia and
of the praetor of Pisidia 38,

We have seen that one of the dukes had had his seat at Melitené 28°,
The position of this duke automatically disappeared with the appoint-
ment of a count to whom the duties of a military commander had
also been delegated, The importance and the responsible character
of the office of count were due in part to the complexity of his functions.
Thomas proved to be the experienced administrator capable of ful-
filling the rigorous demands of this office. He too was an Armenian,
and undoubtedly the Thomas who had served in Lazika where “...
this Thomas had built many strongholds ... at the direction of the
emperor, and he commanded the soldiers there, seeming to the emperor

THE CIVILIAN REORGANIZATION OF ARMENIA 14]

an intelligent person’ 28>, He had a son John, surnamed Gouzes,
who was still young at the siege of Petra in 550, but was outstandingly
gifted for war, and distinguished himself in the capture of the city 39,
As a native, Thomas was well acquainted with the district in which
he was being appomted and with all its pecularities, all the more since
he had already served in 1t. Such a man seemed particularly suited
to put the Imperial mtentions into practice and to carry out the
transformation of the country. He was strictly admonished to
conform in all his actions to the supreme commands, the sacra com-
monitorza, and to supervise their application not only mm the province
entrusted to him as count, but also outside it, primarily in the neigh-
bourmg Armenia IV.

We do not know the content of these commomioria. We can guess
that they consisted in advice on open or secret means for the successful
apphcation of the Imperial system in provinces distinguished by
characteristic native institutions, Armenia Interior and the Satrapies,
2.6. Armenias I and IV were in the stage of socio-political development
known in the native terminology as the naxarar system. We will
subsequently discuss this system in detail; let it suffice here to say
that the basis of the nayarar system was merely the local variation
of the world-wide phenomenon known in the West under the name of
feudalism,

Only a relatively small fragment of the vast territory in which
nayarar customs prevailed lay in the Empire. At the time of the
division of the inheritance of the Arsacids, one fourth of it went to the
Emperors and three-fourths to Persia 398. Interior Armenia and the
Satrapies formed the western border of nayarar Armenia. Nayarar-
ism as a social pattern determined the cultural and social chmate
shared by Armenia and Iran. In it were hidden the basic ties hnking
Armenian and Persian life. In spite of their political division, the
Imperial and Persian parts of Armenia showed a certain unity from
the point of view of their nayarar structure. The nayarar ruling
princes of Imperial Armenia were bound by indissoluble ties to their
kinsmen in Persarmenia, and together with them they showed a
certain inchnation toward Persia. The Empire had to take this
unwelcome phenomenon into consideration. The Emperor Justinian
naturally did not overlook this fact in his zeal for reform, and he took
measures to destroy or at least to dislocate the bases of feudal usages
in Armenia ; several of the famous commomioria were probably devoted

142 CHAPTER VII

to this problem. Two documents unquestionably connected with
the means to be used against this feudal system have come down to
us. Both of them affect the laws of inheritance then in force in
Armenia?9>, At first glance they seem to have nothing in common with
the problem of feudalism; in reality they are a key to the substructure
of Justinian’s reforms. One of these is the decree ‘“‘ Concerning the
Order of Inheritance among the Armenians’’, the other, the Novella
ordering “ That the Armemans Should Follow Roman Laws in All
Ways”. Let us study the text of these documents.

Concerning the Order of Inherriance among the Armenians 2°

Introduction

We desire to free the Armenians also from former injustice,
to transfer them altogether to our laws, and to give them fitting
equality.

Chapter 1

Not long ago we learned of a barbarous and harsh law existing
among them, which befits neither Romans nor the spirit of
justice of our realm, namely that men are allowed to succeed
their fathers but under no circumstances women. As a result
of this we ordain by the promulgation of this sacred law in
the name of thy magnificence, that succession must be equal,
and that all that is laid down in the Roman laws concerning
men and women shall have force in Armenia, since it is for
this reason that our laws have been forwarded there, that the
manner of life should conform to them.

1. Since to raise once again a matter already past is fraught
with difficulties, we command that the force of this law be
recognized from the time of our blessed reign, and that action
in the cases of persons who have died from that moment shall
be according to the present law except in cases where matters
have already been settled or decided in some way. Ifsomething
of this kind has already been done, we command that it be
left in force and not altered in any way.

2. We desire that women should also receive a share in the
family estates beginning with the date indicated. If by
chance there should be found persons who list their daughters
as heiresses, even though they are not eligible under their
custom of intestate (ἀδιαθέτος) inheritance, then they and the
children born from them shall participate in the inheritance
of the family estates.

THE CIVILIAN REORGANIZATION OF ARMENIA 143

Epilogue

Thus let thy exellency preserve and put into effect our
will expressed in this blessed law. All of our laws must have
force and sovereignty. The present law as we have indicated
enters into effect from the beginning of our reign, for all that
is past and for future times it is necessary to be guided rigorously
by 1% and to observe it in all ways.

Dat. XVII Κα. Aug. Belisario v.c. Cons.

That the Meeniene Should Follow Roman Laws in All Ways 398

From the Emperor in person to the most pepe Akakios
Proconsul of Armenia.

Prologue

Desiring that the land of Armenia should prosper altogether
and should differ in no way from our realm, we have established
Roman, institutions. Having abolished its former. names, we
have taught it to make use of Roman systems and have laid
down that there should be no laws among them except those
honoured among the Romans. We have also found it necessary
to correct the glaring defects of their lives by this law, so that
inheritance from parents, brothers, and other relatives should
no longer belong to men alone and never to women, according
to a barbaric custom, and hkewise so that women should no
longer be married without dowries and bought by their bride-
orooms. ‘These signs of extreme barbarousness are common
among them to this day. Indeed, such outlandish customs
exist not only among them. There are other peoples who
act equally irreverently toward nature and destroy the female
sex as though it were not created by God and did not serve
the survival of the race, but rather as though it were unimport-
ant and contemptible, in a position without honour.

Chapter I

In view of this we command that Ceoueh this sacred law
the same usages should be in effect among the Armenians
as ate customary among us without any difference whatsoever
between the male and female sexes. As inheritances take
place here, exactly as it has been 1816 down in our legislation
and in the precise form in which one inherits from relatives,
namely from father, mother, or uncle or grandmother, and so
on in the ascending and equally in the descending line, that
is to say to the son or to the daughter; so shall it take place
among the Armenians, and in no way shall the legal norms of

144. CHAPTER VII

Armenia diverge from those of the Romans. Since the Ar-
menians are part of our Empire, are subject to us equally
with other peoples and taste our privileges, their women must
not be excluded from the equality existing among us. The
compulsion of our laws must bind all equally, both those
which were gathered by us from ancient decrees and included
in our Institutes and Digest, and also other laws promulgated
by former Emperors and by us.

Chapter IT

Hence we command that all of this shall go into effect for
the future from the present XIV indiction in which this law
was composed. To search in more ancient affairs, however,
and to go back into the past means to introduce confusion
rather than order. From the beginning of the present XIV
indiction, as we have just said, for all future times, what
legally pertains to inheritance must henceforth be carried out;
inheritance must be equal in all ways, alike with regard to the
women as also to the men. As for what took place before,
we permit to leave everything in its former state whether
the matter pertain to family possessions or to other things.
Persons of the female sex must in no way be considered as
sharers in family estates already devided or in inheritances
which took place up to the XIII indiction inclusively. From
the term given, however, that is to say from the XIV indiction,
that which we have decreed shall be in effect.

Epilogue

Let thy excellency and those who occuppy this position
after thee endeavor to care for our will as expressed in this
sacred law for all times.

Dai. XV K. Apr. Consiantinop. post Belisarv v.c. consul.

Both documents have a single theme. One of them, the one ad-
dressed to Akakios, is dated 18 March, 536, and was, consequently
promulgated at the same time as Novella [XX XI], concerning the re-
organization of Armenia. The date of promulgation of the other
document is not exactly known, but in one manuscript the date 23
July, 535 is given, and it can be taken as correct 395, In any case,
its appearence must be put before 18 March, 536, when Novella [XX1],
on inheritance, was promulgated. According to the Hdsci, the new
regulations concerning inheritance were to go into effect as of the
accession of Justinian, but the retroactive application of the new law

THE CIVILIAN REORGANIZATION OF ARMENIA 145

apparently caused complications. New dispositions were needed
to eliminate these difficulties, and were introduced with the promul-
gation of Novella [X XJ], on the order of inheritance. In this document
the terminus a quo for the application of the law was set at the XIV
indiction that is to say, at September 535. Hence, the first document
unquestionably antedated the second 89,

The personage to whom the first Edict was addressed is not known
since the title of the document is lost. From the formula, “ ἡ σὴ
ὑπεροχή ”’, found in the concluding word of this Hdzct, we must presume
that it was addressed to John, the Praetorian Prefect of the Hast,
who was also the official to whom Novella XXXI was addressed.
**Yaepoyy ”’, the Latin excelleniia, the equivalent of our “ highness ”’
or “‘ excellency ”’, is the usual title of this Prefect, as is evident from
the numerous Novellae promulgated in his name. The new law in
the Edect is promulgated “πρὸς τὴν σὴν peyadompereiav”, a title
given to Akakios in Novella [X- XJ] 80. Might Thomas, who was an
official of equal rank with Akakios be intended here? This question
is of minor importance, since there can be no doubt that in whoso-
ever’s name the laws on Armenia were promulgated, copies of them
would be sent to Akakios, Thomas, and their superior the Prefect
John.

In both documents the Emperor carries through the principle of the
equality of women in matters of inheritance. He notes the existence
among the Armenians of the custom whereby women received nothing
through inheritance, no right of inheritance being recognized to them.
This may also explain in part the statement that women marry without
dowry and that on the contrary the bridegroom pays for or buys his
bride. There is no reason for doubting the truth of this statement
in the official document. It seems only that the nature of the gifts
made by the bridegroom to his intended bride has been somewhat
exaggerated.

In the Graeco-Roman world the dowry played an important part
in the institution of marriage; its amount was exactly specified in the
contract which was drawn up at the time of the betrothal. It was
called φέρνη or προΐξ among the Greeks and dos among the Romans.
It was also customary for the bridegroom to bring in compensation
certain gifts to the bride; these were called προγαμιαία dwped-anie
nuptias donaiio. This pre-marital gift of the bridegroom seems to
have had a less mandatory character than the dowry of the bride.

146 CHAPTER VII

In the period 531-533 of Justinian’s reign, the donatio ante nuptias
was renamed donatio propter nuptias, thus setting the gifts of the
bridegroom on the same level as the dowry, or dos of the bride, of
which the Emperor says propier nupiias fit. The donatio, according
to the clarification of Justinian, was not merely a gift but the equivalent
or answer to the dower offer of the bride; it was an antipherna, a
reciprocation. Consequently the donatvo became mandatory, on a
par with the dos. The dowry was not, however, considered an in-
dispensable preliminary of marriage. According to Justinian, “ sine
dote autem nuptias possunt celebrar,”’, 11 other words, weddings with-
out a dowry were permissible 81,

In 538, two years after the promulgation of the Armenian Novella,
Justinian decreed the indispensability of a marriage contract for
persons of a certain rank. The Novella states,

In the cases of bearers of higher titles up to senators and
illustves, Marriage must be accompanied by a dowry and a

prenuptial gift and by all that befits such illustrious names 32.

They are granted the mght to conclude marriages without dowries,
“ according to mere inclination’, but in such a case the couple is
obhged to appear in church before the defensor (ἔκδικος) to receive
a certificate indicating that such and such persons had entered into
wedlock at such and such a time” 38, This requirement is incidentally
interesting in that it also indicates the orgin of church weddings.

A few years later, in 542, a new Novella of Justinian rescinded the
decree just mentioned that newlyweds should present themselves
to a church elder, or defensor. The author of this Novella says,

Not long ago we published a law that marriages should be
concluded either by means of a contract or by means of an
oath in the presence of the defensor of a church for the sake
of the solidity of the marriage. At the present time, however,
we prefer to abide by the statutes which existed formerly.
Consequently we ordain that persons adorned with higher
titles up to that of aJlusiris should enter into wedlock in no
manner other than by means of marriage contracts.

The evasion of the legislator on the following point is noteworthy,

The exact fulfilment of this law is not required from bar-
barians subject to the Empire, even if they bear the titles noted,
but they are granted the possibility, should they so desire,
of entering into wedlock on the basis of inchnation alone 84,

THE CIVILIAN REORGANIZATION OF ARMENIA 147

As for persons not of high rank, they were free to enter into whatsoever
marriage they desired, either by contract with a dowry, or, without
it, through the mutual agreement of the spouses 35, In view of the
non-obligatory character of the property requirements for the bridal
couple, there was no basis for singling out the barbarousness of Ar-
menian customs, because they did not agree with Imperial laws.
How did these matters stand in Armenia, and what were the peculiar-
ities in the institution of marriage displeasing to Justinian ?

The classical donaivo was nothing more than a survival from a distant
past, a memory of the custom according to which the bridegroom
obtained his bride through gifts (édva) or in other words, bought her.
This form of marriage, characteristic of peoples at a certain period
of their development, was not foreign to the Greeks either, according
to the authoritative testimony of Aristotle 88: it also existed in antiquity
among the Armenians. According to the national Epic, the Armenian
king ArtaSés, having vanquished the Alans in war wished to take the
daughter of their king princess Sat’enik as his bride. The king of
the Alans answered as follows to the proposal of Artasés,

.. and where will the brave ArtaSes find thousand upon
thousand and myriad upon myriad to pay for the noble maiden
princess of the Alans? ... [then]. The valiant king ArtaSés
climbed on his fair black steed, pulled out a long red leather
strap with golden rings; he flew like an eagle across the river,
he threw the red leather golden ringed strap on the princess
of the Alans, and painfully binding the tender waist of the
princess, — he brought her swiftly to his camp 87.

The Armenian historian, Movsés Xorenaci, who quotes the words
of this popular tale, believes that they must be taken allegorically,
and proposes his own interpretation. According to him, the “red
leather strap with golden rings ’’, indicates that,

because red leather was highly prized among the Alans,
he [the Armenian king] presented them with a great deal of
leather and with much gold as a bridal gift and took as wite
the princess Sat’enik 2,

The interpretation of Xorenaci is not necessarily correct, but it 15
very interesting. Imbued with a rationalistic outlook, the Armenian
historian sought a profound meaning everywhere. and often found
allegory where none existed. In this case, the native bards, the

148 CHAPTER VII

Vipasan, merely sang of the way in which the Armenian king riding
on his black horse had kidnapped the daughter of the king of the
Alans with the help of his red strap. Their lively description shows
the custom of abduction, one of the earliest means of obtaining a
bride. The royal lariat is described as bemg woven of red strips,
that is to say of leather of high quality, and adorned with a ring, as
befits a king. The explanation of Xorenaci is important, however,
because it reflects a form of marriage through purchase gifts which
was contemporary and famihar to him. Abduction was evidently
no longer known to him, and the presence of the lariat was puzzling.
He solved the problem by changing the lariat mto red leather, a
valuable object of value required for a bridal gift. Xorenaci uses
the single word varjank‘ = “ payment” to describe everything that
Artasés had given for the princess, 2.6. the red leather and the gold.
Obviously this was the payment which was taken by the Romans as
the purchase of the bride, and condemned in the Novella of Justinian.
In this sense the words of the Novella are partially justified.

The same cannot be said for its evidence on the problem of
dowries. In view of the existence of the word, awzit, meaning “the
dowry of a bride”, m Ancient Armenian, we cannot accept with
impunity Justinian’s assertion that among the Armenians women
married without dowries. This word belongs to the non-Indo-
Huropean stratum of the Armenian language, and its antiquity 1s,
therefore, unquestionable 7», In the Syrian Lawcode, where property
relations of spouses are treated in detail, we incidentally find a note
to the effect that

... that which the husband brings to the wife is called in
Greek, dastir in Persian, zabhdad or mahré in Syrian. 88,

The Syrian word zabhdd given here corresponds etymologically to
the Armenian awzit. The three letter root, z-b-d corresponds to
the Armenian w-z-t. with the customary transfer and alteration 89.
This word in Armenian and in Syrian designates a gift in general,
and more particularly a dowry. Although the Syrian Laweode
equates it with δωρεά, the gift which the bridegroom gives to his
bride, in common Syrian as well as Armenian usage it designated
primarily the dowry of a bride 40,

The Persian synonym dastir, more exactly dastiri (the contracted
form of dastiari) has the actual sense of “ help” or “ support” 4;

THE CIVILIAN REORGANIZATION OF ARMENIA 149

it meant the gift of the bridegroom to the bride. We know from the
same Code that the bridal dowry was also customary among the
Persians. In contrast to the laws of the Roman Empire where the
bridegroom had to pay back to his bride the same amount as she
brought him in dowry (φερνὴ) in the Hast, that is to say in the Sasanian
realm, the custom was that,

ὦν if the wife brings 100 denari, then the husband brings the
half. Sometimes the husband brings more than the wife,
sometimes nothing, and occasionality the wife brings nothing 43,

We must presume that these same customs existed also in Armenia,
as part of the Iranian cultural sphere.

It is altogether uncertain whether the Roman notions of προΐξ and
δωρεά in their contractual sense ever entered into Armenian life, and if
so to what extent. The terms themselves are found in a few Armenian
documents in the forms proyg [yang] and towayr [mnmyp]. To the
best of our knowledge, they occur for the first time in the Armenian
translation of the Syrian-Roman Lawcode #3, The Armenian trans-
lation is far from being as old as the Syrian original. The transcrip-
tions and the linguistic evidence in general indicate a date close to the
Cilician period. Petermann believed that the translator was Myit’ar
Gos “4, but the identity of the translator is now established with certain-
ty on the basis of his own colophon published by the Myit’arists. The
Syrian document was translated into Armenian by the famous Cilician
bishop Nersés Lambronaci in the days of the kat’ohkos Gregory VI
in the year 645 of the Armenian Hira = A.D. 1197, according to the
testimony of a learned Syrian priest named Theodosius 45, On the
other hand, Myit’ar Go8, by his own testimony, composed his work
in 1184. The two codices, therefore, saw the light at almost the
same time; but since the work of Myit‘ar was still some thirteen years
older than the translation of the Syrian Code, there can be no question
of Myit‘ar’s dependence upon 1Ὁ 48, The passages common to both,
unless they are derived from imperial sources, must be attributed
to additions to the original work of Myit‘ar οὔ made by persons
acquainted with the translation of the Syrian Code.

The present edition of the work of Myit‘ar Go’, for which we are
indebted to Father Bastamean, a learned member of the Community
of Ejmiacin, is not altogether satisfactory, in spite of its value4s*, The
editor accepts on faith all that is attributed to Gos in the manuscripts

150 CHAPTER VII

without considering the variants noted by himself. A critical study,
however, easily reveals later accretions, 2.6. elements which have
crept into Myit‘ar’s Code after his time. We believe that the articles
on proyg and towayr show the influence of the Cilcian translation
of the Syrian Code and should consequently be classified among the
additions to the Code of Myit‘ar Go. According to the Syrian Code,
the Emperor Leo decreed,

ὦν that which the wife brings, let them write it down as
proyg (apoté); likewise, let them also record towayr (δωρεά),
that is to say, varjank*® or mahra 48,

In the Code of Myit’ar Go8, however, one of the articles begins as
follows:

Among the Muslim the conclusion of a marriage takes place
differently ; first they set the price of the bride, this is called
mahra —the same is called towayr among the Romans, then
they determine the share of the bride in the property of her
father, this is called proyg 47.

It is umpossible to miss here the influence of the Armenian trans-
lation of the Syrian Code, on the terminology; the actual concepts
were probably foreign to the Armenian society reflected in pre-Cilician
literature. It is interesting that although the author of this inter-
polated article, underscores the Roman origin of προΐξ and δωρεά,
he then immediately becomes evasive,

... the matter does not le thus among us: the husband does
not pay the price to be paid for a bride, but gives a few things
which are called eresactes (Ephumgmlu) “to see the face”
whereas the bride enters into the house of her husband with
a dowry 48,

Hiven in our times, in the patriarchal strata of Armenia society, as yet
untouched by new ideas, a young girl begins to hide from her bride-
groom and his close relatives after her betrothal. It is not customary
for her to appear before them, to be present among them with an
uncovered face, or to speak with them. In all case, this is considered
in poor taste and unadvisable for a bride, and this also holds true in
her relations with the relatives of the bridegroom during the first
years of marriage. The right to each of these steps is obtained through

THE CIVILIAN REORGANIZATION OF ARMENIA 151

the presentation of gifts, which bear appropriate names, to the bride 49,
These ceremonies are performed in different ways from place to place.
In the Code of Gos the whole collection of gifts is apparently called
eresacies. The purpose of the presents is to accustom a stranger to
a new milieu; it is no more than a survival in symbolic form of the old
bridal gift, the varjank’, which has taken on the character of presents.

The Armenian awzit and varjank’ are then basically equivalent to
the Graeco-Roman προΐξ and δωρεά, or dos and donatio. Like them,
they were not mandatory but had been re-inforced and consecrated
through by the sole force of custom. Under these circumstances,
how are we to understand the denunciations in Justinian’s Novella ?

We believe that the main reason for the promulgation of this Novella
was the existence of family estates, the problem of the division of the
lands called “yeveapyixad χωρία" in the Novellae. This was the
category of lands in which women could not inherit a share under
the existing system. According to the statement of the Emperor,
under the system prevailing in Armenia, daughters could not inherit
“ ἐκ ἀδιαθέτου (αὖ wntestato) 49°, The history of jurisprudence shows
systems of inheritance both with and without wills. In the latter
case, that is to say when a man dies without having made a will, the’
inheritance takes place according to the law of successio ab sniestato.
This system is unquestionably older than the system of inheritance
through wills. -In early periods of history, law or custom kept to
an agnatic basis, that is to say it recognized the right of inheritance
only in the male line of descendants. This basis was also known in
the classical world, and Roman law to the time of Justinian had not
quite abandoned it 5°, The existing laws on the rights of inheritance
presented such a confusion of different systems, that Justinian was
forced to review this entire question and to regulate severly the rules
of inheritance. Several Novellae were promulgated with this aim,
among them one Concerning the Abolition of Agnatie Rights and the
Esiablishment of Inheritances ab Intesiato. This law appeared in
543, that is to say after the Armenian Novella. If then agnatic nghts
still held a pre-eminent position in the imperial legislation, there
seems to be no basis for his amazement or for the accusations of
barbaric survivals, since the same system, albeit in its pure form,
still existed among the Armenians.

The emperor was interested in the “ γενεαρχικὰ ywpia”’, and
these lands are to be understood as the Armenian nayarar estates.

6

152 CHAPTER VII

Nayarar law was composed of tribal and feudal elements. In the
feudal world, as is well known, land passed along the agnatic line from
father to son or to brother, with the exclusion of women from the line
of succession; the same was true of the Salic law 55, This system was
derived from the very nature of feudalism: since feudal land tenure
was conditional upon military service, women, because of their in-
capacity to fulfill this obligation, naturally had to be excluded from
the night to hold land. Similarly im a tribal society, the non-partici-
pation of women in land inheritance was explained by their inability
to fulfill the tribal obligation of the blood feud, which corresponded
to the military service of the feudal period. The Armenian nayarar
system, feudal in content and tribal in form, took toward women or
the cognate line the position dictated by its character: the nght
to land was not extended to them. According to the evidence of the
Novella the custom, of making wills did not exist in Armenian private
law 58, and this fact is most characteristic of the nayarar system.
Since conditional land holding in Armenia followed a tribal pattern,
the need for making wills obviously did not exist. A will is an act
of free disposition permitted in cases of personal ownership; hence,
it is of necessity foreign to a milieu with a tradition of clan property.
An individual heading a clan as its leading representative, was merely
the administrator of the common clan property and was not empowered
to transmit his power to some other person in accordance with his
own decision. Accordingto tribal custom, there can be only successors
but no heirs, moreover, the order of succession 1s determined, not by
the individual will of any particular successor, but according to nghts
of birth: blood kinship and seniority. Thus, for instance, among the
Germans “.,.. each man’s children are his heirs and there 18 no will” 54.
Consequently, the absence of wills must be considered a characteristic
feature of nayarar private law m Armenia.

The historians report that the Armenian patriarch, Sahak 1, for
lack of a son, left all his possessions to his only daughter, the Mamiko-
nean princess, and to her descendants forevermore 5°, As we shall see,
feudal regulations also functioned in the Church, consequently, evidence
taken from ecclesiastical life is entirely appropriate as illustration
for nayarar customs. Lazar P’arpeci explains this will in favour
of a daughter by the fact that “Sahak had no son”, This would
seem to indicate that the rights of a daughter manifested themselves
only where there was no male heir. Here too, we can observe a simil-

THE CIVILIAN REORGANIZATIGN OF ARMENTA 153

arity to western feudalism. Where women gradually acquired the
right of inheritance to a fief, and where their rights were first recog-
nized precisely in cases where the male line had come to an end 88,

Thus the Armenian custom of inheritance ab iniestaio is an
unquestionable fact. When, however, we ask why the Impenial
authority manifested antagonism toward it, the only explanation
possible is the desire of the Emperor to weaken the nayarar system.
Like any native system, historically developped, and forming a bul-
wark against foreign aggressors, the nayarar system stood in the
way of the centralizing aims of the great imperialist. The demands
of Justinian, hike any other measure directed against the unity of the
nayarar lands, would necessarily undercut the power of the princes
which was based on their lands. In spite of his repeated affirmations,
it is evident that a concern for the welfare of the country was the
last motive which urged the Emperor toward reform. The grand-
iloguent prologues of the Novella on Armenia hardly fulfill their
purported aims. What matters is not the fact that the reformer
looks down on local culture; a contemptuous attitude toward the
Orient and its culture was as characteristic of the ancient West as
of the present one. We might think that the Armenian nation had,
indeed, stagnated in some sort of disorderly and chaotic conditions
and that Justinian had decided to lead 1t out of this confusion for
the sake of the development and welfare of the Armenians, The
true purpose of the bombastic style of the Novellae is to obscure the
truth.

The Novellae of Justinian, as literary works, have a certain scholastic
flavour both in form and content, They are all composed according
to a single stereotype and invariable consist of three parts, a prologue,
a development, and an epilogue. Furthermore, some maxim or
aphorism is presented in the prologue as the thesis of which the pro-
visions listed in the development are intended to be the realization.
Such theses are far from expressing the true motives of the reform;
they reflect traditional hterary tastes rather than legislative truth.
For instance, the prologue of Novella XX VI claims that “ the Romans
would never have created a world Empire if their provincial governors
had not been surrounded with honours”, Novella XXV_ begins
with the statement that “the population of Lycaonia, because of
its illustrious descent from King Lycaeonius, is related to the Roman
people and is, therefore, entitled to a more worthy ruler”. The

154 CHAPTER VII

promulgation of Novella XXVJ was presumably caused by the fact
that “the name Thracian is related to the concept of something
powerful and warlike’. Pontus Polemoniacus and Helenopontus
had to be unified by means of Novella XX VIII because, ** power does
not lie in a multitude of names but in the true state of affairs”. And
Paphlagonia deserved to be reformed as “an ancient people not
without honour”. Finally the transformation of Cappadocia was
also presumably based on the “famous reputation ard name of a
people who once ruled all of Pontus ” 58, etc.

All of these considerations were in reality very far from the actual
reason for the reforms. We have already pointed out the general
bases of Justinian’s reforming activity ; if he also took the situation of
a particular province into consideration, then it was primarily in the
interest of the treasury. The provincial Novellae owed their appear-
ance not to romantic reminiscences of a pleasing past, but to alarming
disaffection as a result of which, as the Novellae themselves admit,
vast regions with settled populations frequently refused to pay taxes,
and restless gangs roved through the area, murdering and plundering 57.

The prologues of the Armenian Novellae are worth no more than
the introductory maxims of Novellae in general. Armenian practices
might of course seem chaotic in the eyes of Justinian, but his concern
with re-organization was not to further the interests of the country,
it was above all to regularize and secure the state revenues. From
this point of view, the candid epilogue of Novella XXXJ-in which the
Emperor charged the prefect to watch closely over thé accura.-
payment of the taxes, contains far more truth, and it may be said
to tear from the text of the Novella its specious veiling of good will.

Justinian achieved his goal, at least at the beginning. According
to the statement of a contemporary, Akakios, the governor of Armenia ἱ
who had won the Emperor’s praise, “‘ plundered [the people] ... wit’ - at
excuse and ordained that they should pay an unheard-of tax oi sour
centenaria ” 58,

ΠῚ

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF JUSTINIAN’S REFORM
IN ARMENTA

The reaction of the Armenians to the reform of Justinian — The immediate results
of the reforms — The disintegration of the nayarar system — The migration of Ar-
menians in to the Empire and the revival of the lands of Lesser Armenia: the preparation
of the ethnic substratum for the theme of Armeniakon and the kingdom of Cilicia —
The significance of the Armenian migration from the Imperial point of view —.The
effect of the migration on the fate of Armenia — The influence of Imperial culture
on Armenia and the philhellenic school — The policy of Justinian from the point of
view of the interests of the Eastern Empire.

(Παντὸς δὲ συγγενοῦς δεδουλωμένου τε καὶ
7 > 4% , ~ ς ? 2 “a
σκεδαννυμένου ἀεὶ πανταχόσε τῆς “Ῥωμαίων ἀρχῆς».

When we try to determine and to evaluate the significance of the
reforming activity of Justinian, we should first take the place of the
contemporaries and clanty the reaction of the country at that time,
although this point of view is often subjective, conditioned in a large
measure by the occurences of the moment, and not always justified
by subsequent events. Frequently a phenomenon or an action,
positive by nature, proves to be negative after an objective weighing
of the further course of history, when, thanks to the influence of
chance factors from without, completely unexpected consequences
develop and no longer fit into the general pattern of earlier events.

The revolt against the Imperial power in Armenia which followed
immediately after the reform of Justinian, shows that the Armenians
reacted negatively to the system imposed on them by the Empire.
The increase in taxation associated with the changes created great
discontent in the population and led to bloody clashes. All these
were soon settled, however, and the ring leaders of the rebellion,
having made their peace with the Emperor, moved to the capital.

What were the changes subsequently made in the re-organization
of Justinian; did the Armenians obtain a lightening of their lot, or
did the measures once passed continue to operate unaltered? This

156 CHAPTER VIII

we do not know. The problem did not le, of course, in oppressive
regulations which might be set aside or lightened; the crux of the
matter lay in the nayarar system, to which the Imperial provisions
proved destructive. We know that the monuments of Ancient Arme-
nian literature which have reached us say absolutely nothing about
nayarars 1. Western or Imperial Armenia. Liven the particular
historian of the nayarar clans, Movsés Xorenaci, has little to say

- about the princely houses of this part of Armenia. In view of the

unusual interest of this historian in all that has to do with the nayarar
families, and their origins, which form the main focus of his work,
such a silence seems incomprehensible. It can be explained only
by the fact that at the time when he wrote his History of Armenia
the nayarar houses of Imperial Armenia had lost their actual signifi-
cance, and at best, had been transformed into an aristocracy of office
whose leading representatives were probably absorbed for the most
part into the Imperial bureaucracy.

Strictly speaking, the question of the duration of a particular
provision is not particularly important for the evaluation of Justi-
nian’s re-organization of Armenia, Single measures, which might
be maintained or superseded, are not important. What mattered
here was the general principle of transformation which could not
subsequently be altered. There are ideas which are like seeds fallen
on fertile soil in their capacity for development; once brought to life,
they need no further outside help but live and grow from their own
inner strength. The avowed aims of the Imperial power were based
on the breaking up and destruction of those conditions which furthered
the isolation of Armenian society, its national exclusiveness, and on
the inclusion of the country into the sphere of common Imperial
. interests. If this were achieved, it was believed that the defense
of the eastern provinces against the threats of the Persian monarchy
would be ensured. —

The movement of Armenians toward the center of the Empire was
furthered by this policy. Not only single individuals but entire
groups were often driven beyond the borders of their native land by
general political misfortunes as well as frequent quarrels over eccle-
siastical, political, or other differences within the country. AI such
groups found a solution to their problems in migration to the West,
and sought their fortune in the general life of the Empire. Nor did
the Empire, draw to itself only outcasts and renegades, The Byzantine

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF JUSTINIAN REFORM IN PENT 157

capital, as the focus of international life and culture, atianted other
forces as well, and a new sphere of activity enticed those who under
other circumstances might have stayed at home in their native land

The increasing attraction of Armenia toward Byzantium starting
from the period of Justinian, had both positive and negative results.
One of the favourable results was the national renaissance in the
Jands of Lesser Armenia. Lesser Armenia, which had separated
from Greater Armenia at an early stage, was progressing along a path
of development that threatened the total destruction of its national
life. To be sure, the Armenian element was still strong there in the
fifth century *. Τῦ is sufficient to remember in this connexion the
significant answer of the bishops of Armenia IJ to the encyclical of
the Emperor Leo I in’ (452. ; These ecclesiastical dignitaries assure
the Emperor of their attachment to Orthodoxy but complain that
they are unable to express their thoughts in suitable form because they

... live on the edge of the world far from the imperial city
and have tongues unsuited to debates.

The prelates then go on to complain,

... we live among Armenian foreigners. Although they are
orthodox they do not use the Roman tongue correctly. We
are separated from them (the Armenians) by some little distance
and most of all by the course of the Euphrates, and on account
of continuous intermingling with foreigners we do not know
the language well enough for long discourses 1.

These same words might be repeated, and with greater cause by
the bishops of Armenia I. The Trans-Euphratine Armenians were
hardly to blame for the fact that the clergy of even Armenia I and 11
spoke little Latin. The reference is primarily to the influence of those
Armenians among whom the bishops themselves were living, 1,6. the
population of Armenias I and II. They are the ones of whom the
bishops complain. In both these provinces the core of the population
consisted of Armenians who still spoke their native language in the
mid-fifth century.

Confessional problems, which reached such a pitch with the passage
of time that they could stifle national interests, presented a serious
danger for the concept and feeling of nationality. Confessional
΄ differences dictated the choice and use of a language, not only for

158 CHAPTER VIII

the hturgy, but also for the literature, which was permeated with
religious spirit. Consequently, the Armenians who adhered to the
Imperial Church proved incapable of creating a national written
language within the confines of Lesser Armenia. In the absence of
a national literature and national education, the fate of a language
and eo +pso of a nationality becomes unsure and insecure, Armenian
culture would undoubtedly have died out in Lesser Armenia which
was caught in the whirlpool of the general hfe and interests of the
Empire, had not a flood of new strength from the neighbouring parts
of Armenia refreshed it with a new spirit, and re-awakened its national
consciousness.

The preservation of the name Armenia for the lands of Lesser
Armenia and its extention to the neighbouring territories at the time
of Justinian’s provincial reforms, proves that the process of rebirth
had begun even earlier. It might have seemed more natural to extend
the name of Cappadocia, especially stnce some of the regions incor-
porated into the Armenian territory at this time had formerly be-
longed to Cappadocia, but, in fact, we see Justinian extending the
territory of Lesser Armenia at the expense of the neighbouring lands,
and considering them to be as Armenian as the Imperial portion of
Greater Armenia — a fact which can be explained only by a growing
pressure of Armenian population westward, toward the center of the
Empire. The clain found in Movsés Xorenaci, that the Armenian
possessions had been extended through conquests to the land of
Pontus and to Mazaka-Caesarea, and that Armenian was spoken
throughout this territory, seems to reflect the situation in the period
of Justinian rather than that of the distant days of Aram, which the
history is purportedly describing. This is clear from the fact that
A orenaci recalls the division of the Armenian territory into Armenia I,
II, UII, and IV, in connexion with this conquest, though he stubbornly
continues to associate it with the legendary period of Aram, refusing
to belheve the rumours current in Imperial Armenia as to the real
origin of these divisions 1°,

In their continuous advance, the Armenians now poured still further
in two directions beyond their frontiers into the adjoining lands:
the movement first turned westward from Greater Armenia, with
a northward deflection to the sea. The Armenian element grew so
strong here in a brief period of time, that in the next period, 1.6. at
the beginning of the eight century, one of the large districts of the

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF JUSTINIAN REFORM IN ARMENIA 159

new provincial organization was called Armenian. We are referring
here to the Theme of Armeniakon, the district stretching from Caesarea
of Cappadocia to the Black Sea, including all the territories from Sinope
to the Phasis and the Euphrates, but excluding Armenia III, which
had by that time been conquered by the Arabs. All of this vast
region, equal in size to the territories of the former provinces of Cappa-
docia, Armenia I and IT, and Pontus, received the name τῶν *Append-
κων. “trom the name of the Armenians living there and in the
neighbourhood ”, according to the authoritative testimony of the
Emperor himself2, The movement of Armenians also took place
in the direction of Armenia III, 1.6. from Melitené toward Cilicia,
once again toward an outlet to the sea, thus creating the ethnic sub-
stratum out of which eventually sprang the independent political
entity under the rule of one of the branches of the Armenian Bagratids,
which was to be known as the Rubenian dynasty after its founder
Prince Ruben 29,

The westward migration of the Armenians was very desirable from
the Imperial point of view. The proof of this 15 that the Emperors
encouraged the movement, and sometimes personally brought emi-
orants from the Armenian lands to settle in other parts of the Empire.
The project of the Emperor Maurice is particularly well known in this
connexion *, The Armenian infiltration of Byzantine territory proved
exceedingly beneficial for 16 and brought innumerable advantages
to the Empire. The Armenians who threw in their lot with that
of the Empire dedicated themselves to its interests with exceptional
devotion, and their gifts, emerging from the narrow confines of political
life in their native land, displayed themselves in all their strength
and diversity. Armenians distinguished themselves in many spheres
of Imperial life ; they produced outstanding men whorendered important
services to Byzantium in military as well as civilian careers. Many
of them sat on the throne itself, and on several occasions laid the
foundations for entire dynasties: The Armenian cavalry fought in
distant parts of the Empire for the glory and success of its military
undertakings,

The Armenians also played a fairly important οὐδὲ in the sical
and spiritual life of the Empire. The Iconoclastic movement, so
significant for the history of Byzantium, was born on the eastern
border of the Empire, and owed an important part of 1ts development
to Armenian support and protection. Iconoclasm, which up to now

160 CHAPTER VITI

has primarily been a subject for theological studies, has not been
valued sufficiently from a cultural pomt of view. As a new formu-
lation, an attempt to bring a certain rationalism into the world of
religious mysticism, Iconoclasm was destined to play the same part
in the Byzantine culture as the Reformation was to play in the modern
history of the West. It contained the seeds of the teachings which,
after further development, were to destroy the outgrown dogmatic
traditions overlaid on the Christian faith and on the life of the faithful.
Realizing the danger threatening primarily the interests of the eccle-
siastical hierarchy, the spiritual and secular powers which derived
from theocracy, brought to bear all possible means in order to root
out this evil in the initial stage of its development. The role of the
Armenians in all of these intellectual currents was by no means the
least important; they unquestionably brought to them a specific
and very sharp rehef 32,

How did the migration of the Armenians affect the fate of Armenia ?
The scattering of Armenians throughout the Empire cannot, ob-
viously, be considered a positive manifestation from the point of
view of the interests of the homeland. Emigration is normal and
harmless for a country when it is brought about by a density of popu-
lation or its natural growth. But what the Empire dramed from
Armenia was not an excess of population, on the contrary, they were
the elements which were most needed by the country, the ones which
were most enterprising and active, the men endowed with qualities
which enabled them to keep afloat in the turbulent sea of Imperial life.
The flower of Armenian aristocracy, all the nayarar families from the
portion of Armenia involved, were gradually drawn to the capital
to add lustre to the ranks of Imperial officials >.

Even the Armenians who left their native land realized the pointless-
ness of wasting their energies in the service of foreign interests, while
their native land languished under the oppression of the very power
for whose sake they were pouring out their blood on the battle field.
In this connexion, the case of an Armenian official from the capital
becomes very significant. In 548, the Armenians of Constantinople
entered into a conspiracy against the Emperor Justinian, under the
leadership of Arsaces and Artabanes, both of whom were from the
royal Arsacid house. At that time, Artabanes was enjoying a brillant
reputation, thanks to his military exploits in Libya where he had
killed the tyrant Gontharis. The conspiracy was instigated by

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF JUSTINIAN REFORM IN ARMENIA 1601

Arsaces, who persuaded his kinsman Artabanes to take a hand in the
matter. Procopius, a contemporary, relates that Arsaces rebuked
Artabanes, saying that,

... he [Artabanes] had on the one hand given proof of his
nobility of spirit in his attitude toward the misfortune of
others in that he had put an end to the tyranny ; indeed though
Gontharis was his friend and his host, he had slain him under
no compulsion whatever. But at the present juncture, he said,
he was utterly cowed, and he continued to sit there without
a spark of manhood, though his fatherland was kept under
strictest guard and exhausted by unwonted taxes, his father
had been slam on the pretext of a treaty and covenant, and
his whole family had been enslaved and was kept scattered
to every corner of the Roman empire 4.

The bitter words on the state of Armenia which the historian puts
into the mouth of an Armenian from the capital and a descendant
of the Arsacids, sound painfully true and give a picture of the position
of Armenia after the re-organization of Justinian. Even at a later
date, the Imperial authorities persisted in a policy which proved
fatal for Armenia. We possess a valuable testimony that one of
Justinian’s immediate successors [Maurice] sent to the Persian king
[Xusrd II] a letter of accusation directed against the Armenian
naxarars and their armies. The Emperor wrote as follows,

The Armenians are a disloyal and disobedient nation, they
stand between us and create dissentions. Let us make an
agreement, I will gather up mine and send them to Thrace,

let you gather up yours and order them sent to the Hast.
If they should perish there, then enemies will have perished
and if they should kill others, it is our enemies that they will
lull, and we shall live in peace, for, as long as they shall remain
in their country we shall have no rest 45.

This cynical proposition from a Christian ruler illustrates admirably
the fundamentally malignant and monstrous policy of the Byzantine
court, from which Armenia suffered, and for which the Empire itself
was eventually to pay a heavy price. By driving the Armenians
from their native land and draining away the upper strata of the
Armenian population, the Empire deprived the country of a sound
framework. The consequences manifested themselves all too clearly
during the period of Arab domination. Native kingdoms were

162 CHAPTER VIII

successfully established, after a brief struggle, in the former Persian
districts of Armenia which had become Arab: in Ayrarat, in Vaspura-
kan, in Tardn and in Siwnik’, but the Roman districts proved unfit
for political responsibilities. The military strength of the country had
been broken with the weakening of the nayarars while in the realm
of political liberty, the nayarar traditions had hkewise been destroyed.

In view of the close contact between Armenia and the Empire, it is
natural that Imperial life and culture should in their turn have exer-
cised a powerful influence on Armenian spiritual life. After the period
of Justinian, careful observation reveals the gradual appearance of
a new current sharply divergent from the literary traditions of the
preceding epoch. With the spread of Christianity to Armenia, the
religious life of the country, and the literature created by it, had
- developed primarily in accordance with the general tastes and tra-
ditions of Syrian Christianity, but after a time, a clear break becomes
visible in literary works, primarily in the field of language. To be
sure, linguistic evidence is not entirely reliable, theories and inter-
pretations derived from it are not always safe, but in this case we are
dealing with objective linguistic material, specifically with the lexical
aspect of the language, which is independent of its other stylistic
characteristics. There are certain words and word formations which
are, so to speak, entirely foreign to the works of first period of Ar-
menian Christian literature, such as the translation of the Holy Scrip-
tures, exceptis excipiendis, the works of Faustus of Byzantium, of
Lazar P’arpeci, and of others. The presence of such words serves
as proof that a given document belongs to a slightly later period,
when the so-called Imperial or Hellenizing school was flourishing 5.
These elements came into the language through philosophical and
generally speculative literature. One of the immediate results of
the closer contact with imperial life was friction over religious questions.
Dogmatic debates and dissentions became widespread. It became
indispensable both for the followers of the official Imperial theology
and for the adherents to the traditions of the national Church to
exercise themselves in the realm of speculation and abstract thought
in order to understand and be able to expound extremely complicated
and subtle problems of christology. For this and other reasons,
a new trend manifested itself, and a literature filled with scholarly
or theoretical spirit arose, and with the widening of intellectual hori-
zons, the language was enriched by a new layer of scientific terms.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF JUSTINIAN REFORM IN ARMENIA 163

This tendency began in the period of Justinian and was closely con-
nected with his reform, so that we are justified in seeing the second
half of the sixth century as a new epoch in the intellectual life of
Armenia. The importance of the Hellenizing school in the history
of Armenian hterature may be judged from the fact that it produced
among others the philosophical treatises of David the Invincible,
the works of the famous mathematician Anania Sirakaci, and finally
the first complete and critical Hrstory of Armenia, that of Movsés
AXorenaci, a truly outstanding monument, one In many ways un-
equalled in Armenian literature, and one remarkable above all for
the profound national ideology which it created and by which gene-
rations were to be educated for centuries to come.

The influence of Imperial culture on Armenian life, on one hand,
and the migration of Armenians into the Empire, on the other, led
to the same result from opposite sides, namely to a certain cultural
homogeneity. . If we consider the matter exclusively from the poimt
of view of the growing Imperial structure, we cannot deny that the
of ethnic variations and their transmutation into a single cultural
unit had a favourable effect on the political future and the entire fate
of the Byzantine Empire. From the time of the division of the Roman
Empire into two halves, life in each of them had necessarily developed
in different directions. The division of the Empire in itself indicated
the existence of a certain disagreement in the cultural climate of its
two halves. The Western Empire was Romanized, while the Hastern
one followed, so to speak, along a path of Orientalization. In the
West, the main factors proved to be the new ethnic groups, while in
the East, small historical nations competed vigourously with each
other for the first place in politics.

Justinian’s policy toward the Armenians, insofar as it pursued the
aims dictated by a natural tendency to incorporate them and all other
nations into one Empire, was justified by the internal trends of im-
perial history, but unfortunately, traditional concept of an inter-
relation between the Eastern and Western parts of the Empire made
it impossible for this unification to benefit the Eastern Empire alone.
Disregarding the fact that the breach between the two parts of the
Empire widened constantly as a result of existing political and social
conditions, and dedicating himself to an ideal of conquest, the Emperor
Justinian sought to reunite the lost territories once again and to re-
establish the former unity of the state, As a result, he sacrified to

164 CHAPTER VIII

this ideal, enormous material and spiritual resources which were not
used for the needs and benefits of the Eastern Empire, but were shifted
to the Western half for its protection against the onslaught of bar-
barian tribes. Together with others, Armenians, Syrian, and Georgian
regiments under their own generals fought in Africa, in Italy, and in
other parts of the Empire to defend a cause totally divorced from
their interests, not only as the representatives of foreign nations
but even as citizens of the Hastern Empire.

A great deal of vital strength was poured into the Empire from
the Hast. History displays before us a whole gallery of gifted states-
men who dedicated their lives with remarkable loyalty and energy
to the welfare of the Empire, and not a few of them belong to the
period of Justinian 6. Itshould be enough to single out the outstanding
figure of Narses, one of the pillars of Justinian’s reign, a man who
hac made a name for himself in a civilian career, who then in critical
moment displayed an exceptional military talent, and whose victories
even overshadowed the glory of Belisarius, the military genius of the
times. The majestic figure of Narses in the forefront of Byzantium 15
an exact foreshadowing of the future, since it appears as the embo-
diement of the spiritual and material wealth, as well as of the strength
which flowed continuously from the Eastern provinces toward the
center of the Empire during the whole of its existence.

NOTES

INTRODUCTION

All the notes have been numbered consecutively by chapter, since the pagination
of the original text could not be maintained. The figures in parentheses indicate the
page and number of the note in the Russian text. Notes marked with a letter were
added in the present edition and square brackets indicate all additions or alterations
inserted by the editor. Wherever such additions are drawn from another note, or
a note has been divided for the sake of greater clarity, the original note has been
identified at the end of the new reference. In numerous cases sources have been
quoted in editions different from the ones used in the original, either because better
editions were now available, or because those used by Adontz proved unobtainable;
both editions are given under the relevant entries in the Bibliographical section. Russian
and Armenian titles have been given in the notes in English abbreviation, for the sake
of convenience, for the complete reference, see the Bibliography.

*
* +

@[The publication of this study preceded the appearance of extensive work on the
pre-Christian period of Armenian history, for which see the Bibliographical Note.
Adontz, himself, also concerned himself with this epoch in his Histoire d’Arménte.
Les origines du Xe au Vie siecle Av. J.C., posthumously published, Paris, 1946.]

1 We regret that through circumstances beyond our control, the map prepared by us
could not be published in this volume. [Unfortunately, this map never appeared subse-
quently, to my knowledge]. (xi, 1)

1a [Adontz’s proposed periodization has been subject to considerable criticism.
Vasiliev, in his review of this book, ZMNP, p. 415, objected to Adontz’s view that the
Justinianic age formed the watershed between antiquity and the Byzantine era. Ma-
nandian, Trade, pp. 42-43, and Feudalism, pp. 10, 250-260, 304-306, rejected the thesis
that the disintegration of Armenian tribal society had taken place in the Artaxiad
period of Armenian history and was complete by the reign of Tigran the Great. More-
over, he argued that the naxarar system characteristic of Mediaeval Armenia had not
disappeared altogether with the Mongol invasions, which Adontz sets here asthe terminus
ad quem. For a review of the literature on the periodization of Armenian history
including the Marxist interpretation, see Sukiasian, Armenia, pp. 15-27, and for a
recent critique of Adontz, as well as an appreciation of his contribution, Toumanoff,
Studies, pp. 70 τι. 76, 108, 111 n. 176, 144 τι. 262].

10 [Adontz gives no reference for this quotation which I have regretfully been unable
to trace.]

374 NOTES : CHAPTER I

CHAPTER I

® The entire geographical information of Adontz’s work, both in this and subsequent
chapters should be checked against the more recent studies indicated in the Biblio-
graphical Note. See also Appendix V, in which an attempt has been made to list the
various names of a given ancient site together with its modern (definitive or hypothetical)
equivalents. Some additional material will be found in the relevant notes, but the
disagreement of scholars on a number of points precludes the possibility of a systematic
or exhaustive discussion which would expand this work to unmanageable size. (2, 1)

1 This city should not be confused with its namesake, Ganjak-Elizavetpol’ [Kirovabad]
in the province of Otené. Ganjak of Atropatené [Ganjak Sahastan] lay considerably
south of Tabriz. Modern scholars identify it with Takht-i-Sulaiman near Zanjan.
[Cf. Christensen, pp. 142 n. 1, 165, and 166 n.3. Frye, Persia, Ὁ. 139 and n. 23, and
pls. 4-5; also Aurel Stein, Old Routes of Western Iran, London, 1940, p. 341; and Le
Strange, Lands, pp. 223-224. The recent study of the site is by H. van der Osten and
R. Nauman, Vakhi-1-Suleoman. Vorléufiger Bericht tiber die Ausgrabungen, Berlin,
1961]. Cf. Ch. IX, n.28. The problem of the frontiers of Armenia will be discussed
subsequently.

18 [On the frontier of 363, see Honigmann, Osigrenze, ch.i. On the partition of 387,
see Grousset, Arménie, pp. 163-166; Jones, LRH, I, Ὁ. 158; Stein, Bas Empire, II, Ὁ. 528
πῃ. *89; Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 350-352 and Ὁ. 352 n.6. On the partition of 591,
see Grousset, Arménie, pp. 251-253; Jones, LRH, I, p. 311; M. Higgins, The Persian
War of the Emperor Maurice, Washington, 1939, p. 73, and particularly, P. Goubert,
Orient, pp. 189-190 and Appendix 10; Garitte, Narratio, pp. 236 sqq.]

10 [This is a particularly good example of Adontz’s gift for identifying the crucial
aspect of a problem. The religious divisions of Armenia had already been observed
by such scholars as E. Ter Minassiantz, Die Armenische Kirche, but the subdivisions
suggested by Adontz are much more complicated and essential, as 1 hope to demonstrate
in my own forthcoming study on Armenia in the Fourth Century.]

2 Procopius, Pers., I, x, 18-19 [L. 80/1-82/3]. Kiepert, Karte. (4, 1)

3 Procopius, Aed., II, i, 4.sqq. [1.. 98/9 sqq.]. Procopius gives the position of Dara
as follows, ᾿᾿ἀγχιστά πὴ τῶν Περσικῶν ὅρων ... Adpas”. According to Georg. Cypr.,
p. 46, the Persian frontier lay six miles from Dara, “ ἀπὸ ς μιλίων αὐτῆς πόλεως (Adpas),
εἰσι τὰ μεθόρια καὶ of ὅροι Ilepaidos καὶ Συρίας. ". The Roman mile was equivalent
to 6 stadia, consequently 6 miles would be equal to 42 stadia, but Procopius Pers. I, x, 14.
[L. 80/1] gives the distance from Dara to the frontier as 28 stadia. It is unlikely that
the passage in Georg. Cypr. refers to a different period, and more probable that Proco-
Pius’ stadion was longer than the customary 210 meters. The distance from Dara to
Nisibis is 30 kilometers as the crow flies, yet Procopius [Jdem] gives it as 98 siadza.
[On Dara, see Honigmann, Ostgrenze, pp. 10 and n. 5, et sqq. Zhe Oxford Classical
Dictionary (1957), “Measures”, p. 547, gives the following definitions of the siadion:
the Greek siadion, ‘* contained 600 feet, no matter what the length of the foot might be,
and its exact length is therefore often doubtful”. The Roman siadiwm = 125 paces,
where 1 pace = 5 pedes of 296mm each. Webdster’s New World Dictionary, College
edition (1966), p. 1620, defines the verst as ‘* c. 3000 feet or about 2/3 mile ᾽Ἴ. (4, 2)

4 Procopius, Aed., ITI, ii, 2-3 [L. VII, 1867].

NOTES : CHAPTER I 375

“1. ἐν "Appevia τῇ Lodhavyv7 καλουμένῇ πόλις ἐστί που Μαρτυρόπολις ὄνομα παρ᾽ αὐτὸν

ποταμὸν Νύμφιον κειμένη καὶ τοῖς πολεμίοις ὡς ἀγχοτάτω πρόσοικος οὖσα, ἐπεὶ ὁ Νύμφιος
ποταμὸς διορίζει ἐνταῦθα τὰ Ρωμαίων τε καὶ Περσῶν ἤθη. ἐπὶ θάτερα γὰρ τοῦ ποταμοῦ
᾿Αρξανηνὴ ἡ χώρα οἰκεῖται Περσῶν κατήκοος ἐκ παλαιοῦ οὖσα ᾿ἢ.

Joh. Eph., HH, VI, 15, p. 236, is also familiar with Arzanené as a wealthy Persian
province; also Joh. Eph., de beatis, p. 191, “* Arzanené Persarum’”’. [Cf. Honigmann,
Ostgrenze, pp. 22-24, 32-34]. (5, 1)

5 Procopius, Pers. 1, xxi, 6 [L. I, 195/6-197/8), and I, viii, 22 [L. I, 66/7-68/9],

** [MaprupomoAs] ... αὕτη δὲ κεῖται μὲν ἐν τῇ Σοφανηνῇ καλουμένῇ χώρᾳ, πόλεως ᾿Αμίδης
τεσσαράκοντά τε καὶ διακοσίοις σταδίοις διέχουσα πρὸς Βορρᾶν ἄνεμον" πρὸς αὐτῷ δὲ Νυμφίῳ
τῷ ποταμῷ ἐστιν, ὃς τήν τε Ρωμαίων γῆν καὶ Περσῶν διορίζει ... ἔστι δὲ ὁ ποταμὸς οὗτος
ΜΜαρτυροπόλεως μὲν ἀγχοτάτω, ᾿Αμίδης δὲ ὅσον ἀπὸ σταδίων τριακοσίων ”. (δ, 2)

8 Procopius, Aed., ΤΙ], ii, 4 [L. VII, 186/7-188/9]; Vand. I, i, 17; [L. 11,89]. (δ, 8)

7 Procopius, Pers., 1, xxi, 9 [L. I, 1967], “* ... χωρίον ... ᾿Ατταχᾶς ...”. Georg. Cypr.,
Ῥ. 47, “ κάστρον “Arrayaés”. Asotk, JI, xxxvi, p.264, includes “ pomp fomjiuy
δ ΜΠ Imp pépnpt, “hh pn fd wi, Ue [2 wfum; Et Usfe uy ” among the locali-
ties damaged by earthquake. [Vide infra note 11]. (5, 4)

8 Arab writers derive the epithet | ye = “black” to the black stones from which
the city was built. See Le Strange, Lands, Ὁ. 108. The city owes its present name to
a certain Bekr, who was governor of the province. The name δὰ, Lo = “the
province of Bekr ”’ and the name of the province has been transferred to the city which
was its capital. [Cf. Le Strange, ‘‘ notes” to Ibn-Serapion, Ὁ. 34, for a different ex-
planation of this name]. (6, 1)

8a [The location of Af?ay is not absolutely certain. Honigmann, Osigrenze, Ὁ. 37
and map I identifies it with Hattah, though no such village can be found in G 46 or the
relevant sheet of the USAFM. On the basis of the co-ordinates c. 38919"N x 40°55’E,
At’t’axy might be identified with the modern Hindis, G 46, p. 289, but there is some
variation in the location of the village on the maps of Honigmann, Jdem, Kiepert,
Karte, Lynch, Armenia, and particularly Chapot, Fronizére. Wilson, Handbook, Ὁ. 248
notes, “‘ On the Lija plain, the ruins of Attakh, anct. AHacha”’. Cf. also Markwart,
Siidarmenien, p. 249.]

® One of the participants of the Council of 726 was “ Ufemhuu Inpphimny
buy hula ”, BL, p. 224, Asotik, III, xvii, p.193, speaks of “... pump ..
ΜΠ" wi pin fpr uyny {π| πῃ [ Lapin ..”. Joh. Kat’., p.88 likewise mentions,
s+ qanppnpyl hngkykmy Lapp γπμπι δ μι θαι, ρινημι, Ρ dupappauy yay pu myap—
ἡ ph Gipphepw. The “1118 of Saint Marut’a ”, Acta, II, p. 31; Synaxaries of Cerené,
28 May; Tér Israél, 25 February; says that he had collected up to 280,000 relics: 120,000
from the Roman Empire, 20.000 from Assyria, 80,000 from Persia, and 60,000 from
Armenia, These figures are unquestionably exaggerated. The Coptic synaxary derives
the name of the city from that of Marui’a, Wiistenfeld ed., Synaxarium das ist Hetligen-
Kalender der Coptischen Christen, Gotha, 1879, p. 312, “ die Stadt einen von dem namen
des heiligen Marutha abgeleitenen namen erhielt’”’. [Adontz does not indicate the
edition of the synaxaries used by him, although the Synaxary of Cerené was published
in 1706 and 1730, both times in Constantinople. The edition of the Synaxary of ΤΡ
Israé] used by Adontz must have been that of Constantinople, 1834, but a more recent
edition with a translation has been brought out in the Pairologia Orientalis, G. Bayan ed.
** Le Synaxaire arménien de Ter Israel”, Patrologia Orientalis, V-XII (1910-1930). In

376 | NOTES : CHAPTER I

this edition, the Infe of Marui’a is given at the date 25 Mareri = 1 June, Ibid., X XT (1928
this edition, the Life of Warui’a is given at the date 25 Mareri = 1 June, Jbid., XXT
(1928), pp. 515-518, See also, Ibid., V (1910), “ Avertissement ”’, pp. 350-352 for the
earlier history of the text. An English translation of the Ife has been given by R.
Marcus, ** The Armenian Life of Marutha of Maipherkat ”, Harvard Theological Review,
XXV, 1 (January, 1932), pp. 47-71. The passage referring to the collection of relics
occurs in this translation on Ὁ. 68. Cf. Manandian, Trade, 61-62]. (6, 2)

10 AL, p.125, “Umdmpl hi”. Asotik, p.193 ‘Um dmpy fl”. [No such form
can be found on the page indicated. This edition of Asolik invariably gives the form
rf Giphipin ”. The form given by Adontz does however, occur in Kir. Ganj., ἸΣὶ,
p. 885 “* punyu ph U mpinfpnumy, ap hns fh Unidhupy pi” 1. If it is not merely
an error for Uiip[y|épm, the form Link found in the Arm. Geogr., 30/41, should
be compared with the Syr. méfarakt < *méfaratit. The Arabs evidently altered mazfar-
kat into miyya-farkin because they saw the word οἱ, (the plur. of οἷ. “ water’)
in the name, on the same basis as Meiacarire, a small locality on the right bank of the
Tigris near Mardin, which took its name from the cold springs: Amm. Marc., XVIII,
vi, 16[L. I, 4425], ‘* Meiacarire nomine venissemus, cui fontes dedere vocabulum gelidi ’’,
Tab. Peut., [TX, p. 741 and 740 map 240] the name is translated as “* Aquae Frigidae ’’,
Near the city are found the springs of the 9 CAS the Jehan-numa, Charmoy,

I, supp. 1, p. 148; these form a spring which flows through the city toward the Bat-
mansuyu. The presence of these ‘ waters”? may have influenced the etymology just
given. If the hypothesis of C.F. Lehmann-Ha pt and W. Belek, “‘ Majafarkin und
Tigranokerta ”, ZH, XXXIJI (1899), pp. 263-275, that ancient Tigranokerta was located
on the site of Maipherkat-Martyropolis is correct, the Batmansuyu must correspond
to the ancient Nymphios on which the city of Tigranokerta was located. Cf. Tacitus,
Ann. XV, iv [L. IV, 220/221]. [These identifications are no longer challenged, see
Lehman-Haupt, Armenien, I, pp. 381-429, 501-523; Markwart, Sidarmenten, 86-202;
and Manandian, Trade, 60-62]. There is perhaps a link between Nicephor-ius, Arm.
μὰ app * and Syr. matfar < *nakfar. Markwart, Bran. 161-162 derives Nikephorios
from Iran. *“Néwak-farr = ᾿Αγαθότυχος, but his equation of the last syllable with

the Arm. inp “ cleft”, is less fortunate. (7, 1)
11 Menand. Prot., Ὁ. 393, “διὰ τοῦ λεγομένου ᾿Αῤῥεστῶν κλίματος καὶ τοῦ Maper-
τικῶν ἀφίκετο ἐν Περσαρμενίᾳ ””. (7, 2)

12 A, Saint-Martin, ed. in, Lebeau, Histoire du Bas-Hmpire, nouvelle édition entiére-
ment revue, corrigée et augmentée par M. de Saint-Martin et continnée par M. Brosset,
21 vols., Paris, 1824-1836, X, p. 132. (7, 8)

12a [Cf. Honigmann, Osigrenze, p. 21 nn. 3-4, who cites Adontz without, however,
expressing an opinion. |]

18 Arm. Geogr., pp. 30/41, 37-88/50, « [gunman una] 7 Gini, yU gdh, μη
npng Ih pPahf gh μη βμθ, qop Chiu jnskh Subhhp, wynphiplr
upfrbuppm, «+> Paghpft, ap pofek pp pepwhg Uayhy ἐπα, Unolmutiny, ἔα
θέ ἰμπμὲ Jhpkpuy η μὴ δμιπ Et yPyfiup, npm pudwhkgwh Σηππὴρ br

Qupuphp, be ingsh δ δ Chfehfeiu, ap ἔ mpfrbuppm : ». (8, 1)
14 Joh, Eph., ΠΕ, VI, xxxvi, p. 258. ‘‘de castello alio cui nomen Agb&, quod in

terra Persarum ad Kallath est. — In ripa vero ulteriore Kallath fluvii in tractu limitis
contra Maiphergat mons praeruptus esi, super quo quasi a temporibus longinquis populo
delendo magorum castellum aedificare in animo erat, et, quandoquidem inter Romanos

NOTES : CHAPTER I 377

et Persas pactio est ne intra tot milia passum a limite vel his vel illis aedificare liceat,
Romani contra eos stabant nec eos aedificare sinebant; etenim saepe aedificatum erat
et disiectum., Aliquando autem, ut supra indicavimus, Persae, opportunitatem nacti,
castellum aedificaverunt et in eo consederunt”’. [Cf. Jos. Styl., kxvii, p.lviii]. (δ, 2)

18 Hvagr. VI, xv, p. 233, “ «τὸ "OxBas ὀχυρώτατον φρούριον, ἀντικρὺ Παρτυροπόλεως ἐς
τὴν ἀντιπέρας ὄχθην διακείμενον ἐπί twos σκοπέλου ἀποτόμου, ὅθεν καὶ ἄποπτος ἡ πᾶσα

καθειστήκει πόλις ᾿ἢ. : (8, 8)
16 Theoph. Sim., I, xii, p. 62, “.,, ἧκε πλησίον τοῦ Nupdiov καὶ τὸ “AxBas ἐνεχείρει
αἱρήσειν ᾿ἢ. (9, 1)

168 [On Akbas-Okbas, see Honigmann, Osigrenze, pp. 24-25, 27, 32, and Markwart,
Stretfziige, p. 480 τι. 2. Cuinet, ΤΙ, p. 520 map, indicates ‘“* Chirvan-kala, north-east of
Siirt ”, but no trace of the ruins can be found on modern, or for that matter on most
maps. Cf. Kiepert, Karte, and Lynch, Armenia, map}.]

17 Theoph. Sim., Il,ix, p.86; IlI,xv, p.148, “... τὸ ᾿Αφούμον, ... καλούμενον
φρούριον ", Menand. Prot., pp. 410, 415, “᾿᾿Αφουμῶν φρούριον ᾽᾽, Georg. Cypr., p. 47;
“ Κάστρον ᾿Αφουμῶν ᾿". On Chlomarén: Theoph. Sim., TI, vii-viii, pp. 82-86, “ Ζλωμα-
ρῶν. Men. Prot., p. 329, “ XAopdpwv”. Joh. Eph. AH VI, xxxiv, p. 257, *...
eastella ibi ... unum eui nomen Pum ... aliud quoque Persarum ... cui nomen Klimar”’.
Klimar is the Armenian #7 hump, which is also known as Kutemtan in the Arm. Georg.,
pp. 87/50, ++» gUgdhfu Zujng, op & Updh, papa puqmp Yaunkinmh,
op £ Pypiimp, be Pho fe Gowompu”. Might Kutemian be ὃ distorted form
of XAwpapay = Py pimp? Markwart, Hrin., 158-160, identifies Afumdn and Chlo-
maron with the Ub-bu-me and Kul-li-im-me-ri of Assyrian inscriptions, K‘i8, which
Markwart considers unidentifiable, Ibid., Ὁ. 160, is the episcopal city of Qi8 which sent
a representative to the Council of 544, Chabot, Syn. Or., pp. 322-323. Chabot sought
this city in Chorzané, Ibid., p. 680, whereas it actually stood in Arzanené and is probably
to be identified with present-day Ku8, near the town of Zok. [K’i8 is identified by
Eremyan, Armenia, Ὁ. 89 and map, with modern Bamau-kus, but no locality of this
name can be found on modern maps. For the problem of the location of Chlomarén,
see n. 18a}. (9,2)

17a [Fim is no longer given in G46 or on the relevant sheet of the USAF. Cf,
however, Honigmann, Ositgrenze, pp. 23-34, 37, and map I, also Kiepert, Karie, Ὁ VI,
** Diarbekir ”, c. 88927°N x 40°42°H, and Georg. Cypr., p. 167, and map IV.]

18 Theoph. Sim., lI, ix, pp. 86-88. (9, 3)

18a [The position of Chlomarén near Nerjiki suggested by Adontz does not agree with
the one given by Honigmann, Osigrenze, pp. 23, 26, 31-33, 87 and map I, or by Eremyan,
Armenia, p.89 and map. Nerjiki is no longer indicated in G 46 or in the USAF,
but it is recorded by Cuénet, II, p. 520 map, as being in the kaza of Kulp of the vilayet
of Bitlis; see also, Lehmann-Haupt, Armenian, II, 1, p. 482 and map, and Kiepert,
Karte, C VI, c. 38932’N x 41°03’R, on the Kulp-su. If Chlomarén were situated in this
vicinity, it would lie considerably north of the position given by Honigmann and Hre-
myan. The latter describes K’limar as being,‘ πο jul Um fhghp qyaugp ἥπιπ᾽
Ibid., p. 89. Maligir-Malagir is located at 38°05°N x 41913’E in G 46, p. 455. See also,
Georg. Cypr., p. 167, and Markwart, Hran., pp. 158-159, and Siidarmenten, Ὁ. *14.]

19 See Hoffman’s notes to Georg. Cypr., pp. 165-167 [Also Honigmann, Osigrenze,
pp: 7, 16-18, 24-26, 84]. It is possible that Νικηφόριος - Νύμφιος, and Kala 0-Si θ1 Oma
originally designated different courses of the same river. As the first form of the name

378 NOTES : CHAPTER I

has been linked with Maipher-kat, so Kala θ may perhaps be linked with Καρκαθ-ιο-κερτα
by means of karra§. The Sit’it?ma is also mentioned by [dn Serapion, pp. 18, 264-265,
in the form [Satidamad] ἡ Landed lee instead of ς, Lows lL... According to Markwart,

Eran., p. 161, this form points to an Aramaic rather than an Arabic origin, and likewise
has the sense of ‘‘ bloodthirsty ” (< gadi uw dema). In Markwart’s opinion, the name
might be explained by the fact that the river’s banks had been the scene of many bloody
battles. [Cf. also Markwart, Stidarmenien, pp. 274-284]. (10, 1)

198 (Cf. Goubert, Orient, p. 76.]

20 Procopius, Aed., ITI, iii, 1-4 [L. VIT, 190/1-192/3],

**? Ex δὲ MapruporéAews és δύοντά που τὸν ἥλιον ἰόντι χωσίον ἐστὶ Φεισὼν ὄνομα ev’ Appevig
μὲν καὶ αὐτὸ κείμενον τῇ Σοφανηνῇ καλουμένῃ, Μαρτυροπόλεως δὲ ὀλίγον ἔλασσον ἢ ὁδῷ ἡμέρας
διέχον. τούτου δὲ τοῦ χωρίου ἐπέκεινα, ὅσον ἐκ σημείων ὀκτὼ μάλιστα, ὄρη ἀπότομα καὶ
παντάπασιν ἀδιέξοδα ξυνιόντα ἐς ἄλληλα στενωποὺς ἀπεργάζονται δύο, ἄγχιστά πὴ ἀλλήλοιν
ὄντας οὕσπερ νενομίκασι Κλεισούρας καλεῖν. τοὺς δὲ ἐκ Περσαρμενίας ἐπὶ Σιοφανηνὴν πορευο-
μένους, εἴτε ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν Περσικῶν ὁρίων εἴτε διὰ τοῦ Κιθαρίξων φρουρίου ἴοιεν, ἀμήχανά
ἐστιν ὅτι μὴ διὰ τούτων δὴ τῶν δύο στενωπῶν ἐνταῦθα γενέσθαι. καλοῦσι δὲ αὐτῶν οἱ ἐπιχώριοι
᾿Ιλλυρισὸν μὲν τὸν ἕτερον, τὸν δὲ ἄλλον Σιαφχάς ”

Pers., ΤΊ, xxiv, 15 [L. I, 478/9],] “... πρὸς τῷ Φισῶν καλουμένῳ φρουρίῳ, ὅπερ ἀγχιστά
πὴ τῶν ΜἭαρτυροπόλεως ὁρίων ἐστίν ἢ. (11, 1)

21 Taylor, Kurdistan, Ὁ. 39, “... a mass of ruins that covered the slopes of the hill
for the space of one mile, fragments of thick walls and neatly cut blocks of stone were
strewed over the road and impeded our progress, the remains of the old city of Fees.
A small village near them is also called Fees, Affis and Afisios”’. [Οὗ Honigmann,
Osigrenze, pp. 18-19; Wilson, Handbook, Ὁ. 248]. Asotk, 1171, xv, p. 193 mentions a
locality near Martyropolis, “5... f ἱπξη βῆ, op Poipuroh lnsh.”. Poihu may
be a mistake: Pf fury for Pfr. (11, 2)

21a [Theoph. Sim., II, ix, 17, p. 88, “τ τὸ μὲν προσαγορεύεται Φαθαχών, τὸ δ᾽ ἕτερον
᾿Αλαλεισός, ... ἢ. See also, Honigmann, Ostgrenze, pp. 22 n. 3, 25-26.]

22 Vardan, Geography, as cited in Inétivean, Description, p. 44 [Cf. Berbérian edition,
pp. 18-19, 39], “... Shgppu np “δῆμι 9 ngh δμυλξ fp Qappnpy ie ᾿
Ζιικιπ ἐξ ὃ gun, Li β φΡηϑὲ Ny pay +”, Also Grigor Xlat’eci, WS N
167 in Dashian, Catalogue. See, Arm. Geogr., pp. 30/40, “ 92m mbhu, ἬΝ
pyfubh πηρμμρ Shapfu ηξιππὶ". Cf. Néldeke, “ Alexanderroman”, Denk-
schrift der Wiener Akademie, XX XVIII (1890), p. 28, ‘‘ Haloras, wo der Tigris ent-
springt”’. According to Al-Kisrawi, W.Tomaschek, Sasun, p.23 Holtris γὺ “4 yes

was on the upper-Tigris. According to Yaktit, Le Strange, Lands, Ὁ. 110-111, ‘* The
source of the Tigris, ... was distant two and a half days’ journey from Amid, at a place
known as Haliras, ‘where ’Alf, the Armenian, obtained martyrdom’”, Might this
name be derived from the Arm. olor, vulg. h-olor, nypapp from njapp 1» zig-zags”” ?
[Cf. Markwart, Siidarmenien, pp. *12, 58-59, 74, 232 sqq., 264, 269, 437. Honigmann,
Osigrenze, pp. 58. (11, 3)

22a [Although the Cevtla-Cotela mountains are still indicated in G 46 and the relevant
sheet of the USAFM, the Darkosh shown by both Lynch Map and Kiepert Karte C-VI,
have vanished from modern nomenclature].

22b [Timur agha is given by Wilson, Handbook, Ὁ. 247, but it is not found on modern
maps. |

NOTES : CHAPTER I 379

23 See Taylor, Kurdistan, p. 42 and Wilson, Handbook, pp. 247-248. [Also Lehmann-
Haupt, Armenien, * Der Tigris-Tunnel ”, I, pp. 430-462, and Markwart, Siidarmenien,
pp. 58 sqq. and 74]. The Kleisurai were familiar to MX, ΤΙ, viii, “+-» gyhunh
Sunpnu, mp μι Up fn Untumph mdb hw ph * In the description of the
earthquake results given by Asolik, ITI, xxxvi, pp. 263-264, “ --- sup iam Ephhp,
puyy uoonlagnh upfumpdh Qoppapy Zayjny, Zupmiulp, Wapeékuh, Ompp,
Puym, fr Quyhumnth :

δι Ρπιπμπ μὲ ἐμὲ oflinimd p wi ban ph, ++ fay phpah Paym 4ulinkpd
oplinundmfh fr pup ὅπ ἐμπιηιδξιμ : Pomp μαι ἔπι! rat mp Soap pepgh
‘hijmjémy ++» ” the word pup seems to refer to a particular locality which might
perhaps be identified with the Kleisurai. (12, i)

24 Procopius, Aed., IL, iii, 7-14 [L. VII, 192/3-194-5], “᾿Εν δὲ τῷ Κιθαρίζων
χωρίῳ, ὅπερ ἐπὶ *Acbiavivys τῆς καλουμένης ἐστί, φρούριον od πρότερον ὃν ἐν χώρῳ
λοφώδει ὑπερῴφυές τε καὶ δαιμονίως ἄμαχον κατεστήσατο" ἔνθα δὴ καὶ. διαρκὲς ὕδωρ ἐσαγαγὼν
τά τε ἄλλα πάντα τοῖς τῇδε ὠκημένοις ἐν ἐπιτηδείῳ πεποιημένος, ...

"Ex ὃε Κιθαρίζων ἔς τε Θεοδοσιούπολιν καὶ ᾿Αρμενίαν τὴν ἑτέραν ἰόντι Χορζάνη μὲν ἡ χώρα
καλεῖται, διήκει δὲ ἐς ὁδὸν τριῶν ἡμερῶν μάλιστα οὔτε λίμνης τινὸς ὕδατι οὔτε ποταμοῦ ῥείθρῳ
οὔτε ὄρεσι τὴν δίοδον ἐν στενῷ εἴργουσι διοριζομένη τῆς τῶν Περσῶν γῆς, ἀλλὰ τῶν ὁρίων
αὐταῖς ἀναμὶξ κειμένων. ὥστε οἱ ταύτῃ φκημένοι, “Ρωμαίων ἢ Περσῶν ὄντες κατήκοοι, οὔτε
τι ἀπ᾽ ἀλλήλων δέος ἔχουσιν οὔτε ἀλλήλοις πὴ ἐς ἐπιβουλὴν εἶσιν ὕποπτοι ἀλλὰ καὶ γάμους
ἀλλήλοις ἐπικηδεύουσι καὶ ἀγορὰν τῶν ἐπιτηδείων συμβάλλονται καὶ τὰ ἐς γεωργίαν. ἐπικοι-
νοῦνται. ἢν δέ ποτε οἱ τῶν ἑτέρον ἄρχοντες ἐπὶ τοὺς ἑτέρους στρατῷ ἴωσιν, ἐπιτεταγμένον
σφίσι πρὸς τοῦ βασιλέως, ἀφυλάκτους ἀεὶ τοὺς πλησιοχώρους εὑρίσκουσι. χωρία μὲν γὰρ
ἑκατέροις πολυανθρωπότατα ὡς ἀγχοτάτω ἀλλήλων ἐστίν, ἔρυμα δὲ οὐδετέροις πη ἐκ παλαιοῦ
ἣν. παρῆν οὖν ἐνθένδε τῷ Περσῶν βασιλεῖ ῥᾷόν τε καὶ ἀπονώτερον τὴν δίοδον ἐς τὰ Ρωμαίων
ἤθη ποιεῖσθαι, ἕως βασιλεὺς ᾿Ιουστινιανὸς διακωλυτὴς αὐτῷ γέγονε τρόπῳ τοιῷδε. χωρίον
ἣν ἐπὶ μέσης τῆς χώρας ᾿Αρταλέσων ὄνομα. τοῦτο τείχει ἐχυρωτάτῳ περιβαλὼν φρούριόν τε
ἀμαχώτατον ἐξειργάσατο καὶ στρατιωτικοὺς καταλόγους τῇδε ἱδρύσατο, ... ἢ
Also Procopius, Pers., ΤΙ, xxiv, 18, 14 [L. 1, 476/7], “... Κιθαρίζων τὸ φρούριον ... διέχει
δὲ Θεοδοσιουπόλεως ὁδῷ τεττάρων ἡμερῶν τὸ a τοῦτο" ... τὰ ἐπὶ Χορζιανηνῆς χωρία ᾽ν.

| (13, 1)

2 AL, xxi, p. 117, “ +--+» Appl php hagakah h Yin +++ δὰ Eh ἥδ τι
p {πὴ} qonunph p ἡ[ιηὶ ap hngh U: ἡμὴ μια, [Adontz gives the . version
Unppubin, which is found in the 1901 Venice edition of Aristakés Lastivertgi, p. 109}.
Intigean, Description, Ὁ. 48, gives the variant Unpapmbiu. . This town is to be identified
with the modern town of Melomeran, which is given on maps such as Lynch, Armenia
as Molla Omer or Mulla Omer, [Mollaémer], obviously as the result of a false etymology.
[The river equivalent to the Perisuyu is not the Gayl-Lykos-Kelkit, but the ‘* Other”
Gayl-Mews Gayl. Cf. Eremyan, Armenia, p. 70 and next note]. (14, 1)

26 Arm. Geogr., pp. 30/40-41, ++» ηπμὰμ ον jhpfpy 4fuupuny, phy op βϑιιδᾷ
ἥμιν θη} gkm wn Yoonpkpymlh, g2momtha, yapil pyfebh mppiapp Spyppa
ghinny, ful) fp dingy. Wyapdmylinyy ἐ (Ὠυιηϊμμιππεῖ gqunun, ζιδηξη fnimbnh
poppy. fr 4ukighy bopw fp ζμιμιμι. Pinpm fami] fin yun, +++”, Koloberd
(Qaqnpbnn) noeans “ἢ the fortress of Kol; whence K6l, Ket (gen. Keli), now Keli-Kasaba
[Kigi-Kasaba] = ancient Koloberd. The entire district is now called Kei [Kidi kazasi]
and is identical with ancient Chorzané. [For Koloberd and particularly the Other
Gayl (dfn Quy) see, Hiibschmann, Orisnamen, pp. 441, 415-416; Markwart, Siid-

\

380 NOTES : CHAPTER, I

armenien, pp. 264, 435-437, and Honigmann, Osigrenze, pp. 204-205. For the discussion
of the districts found in Armenia IV according to the Arm. Geogr., see Hiibschmann,
Orisnamen, pp. 290 sqq., Markwart, Stidarmenien, pp. 39 sqq., and particularly Eremyan,
Armenia, pp.116sqq. For Procopius’ text describing Chorzané, see above, τι. 24}.

(14, 2

26a [See above, nn. 24, 26].

27 Hiibschmann, Orisnamen, pp. 291-293, defines Asthianené [Ha&teank’] by means
of the Géniksuyu, and believes that Kitharizén is to be identified with the modern
Kéderig. In such a case, Asthianené would have occupied the entire border zone,
and Chorzané would consequently become a district in the interior. But Procopius,
Aed., III, iii, put the vulnerable border district for whose protection the fortress of
Artalesén was erected into Chorzané. Moreover, Asthianené adjoined Chorzané from
the south, according to the description of the Arm. Geogr., pp. 30/40-1. [See alsa
Honigmann, Osigrenze, p. 9, 16]. (15, 1)

88. EP’, lxxxi, p. 485, “[Ymdwh] ghayp umfdoby Zupmbhfyg, pum jun) —
mypkmy funpdpyag fapny, fe oui poblohtp pf qennph Upowimbiuy, pf
ηβμιηΐ np hash Gptg--> Ibid, p. 481, “ fmikgkm, whgmhky fp ἡπη δῆ ἀπ ζῆιιμμῆ-
πὰ [αι Zuomkhhy, joquge ιπμδ ἐπ] fp ingwht onimfeih”. (15, 2)

28a [Asotk, III, xliii, p.276, “δὲ whykm, femqunnph [phy Zuhdhf δι]
pin Puy ἐμὰ fp pbunh QndEpuy-+ [np phy ὌΝ Zupnkhhg, Ompuy Ex
Nnpdbhay| μι. whgmm guy font fp quunh Upountinii bury Ρ pam ph
Gapquy ». The passages in square brackets are part of Asolik’s text, but were left
out of Adontz’s quotation thereof.]

29 AL, xviii, p. 106,°' ++» πρὴβ Lpump fh pomhf πεῖ, opm moby fhb fp
mya pupa fp mnky hu phuhnfeimh yuko ἢ babgay fp ΠΩΣ Zupmbhify,
+> Bling Ex foupmbop fun quimph bawhyg Phpy nskgimy, ++» pameaph
sae BL gphph En fp )ηδιπειπῖ pf ΠΊΣΩ, »-

[On Iwané, son of Liparit, see J. Laurent, Byzance et les Turcs Seljoucides, Paris, 1918,
also, Honigmann, Osigrenze, p. 183, et. al.]. . (16, 1)

30 Joh. Mam., ii, Ὁ. 25, “ «εἶπ mmbky ybymhy pkpyh (var. pf yhiarphpghh,
yop nan bylinunh (var. [) ηδπειπΐὴ hnskh ” The ΠΟ mentioned by ZG,
p- 26 [ef. 48, 49] is more likely to be this locality than the famous ἢ ημι δὶ of Tarén
the fortress of the Mamikonean. It is evident from Zenob’s account that ἢ ηΐμεδι was
located near Kowats (now Guvars near Boglan) behind a spring, which must be the one
now known as the “ spring of the ten brothers”, north of Kowars. [The position of
Kowars is not altogether clear: the maps in both Lynch, Armenia and Kiepert, Karte
BVI give Guvars or Girvaz SE of Bolan, ο. 38955°N x 41°05E, whereas Eremyan,
Armenia, p. 61, identifies Kowais as “οἰ δια Yhpunh χπιη U>n ppm”,
where G 46, p. 391 gives Kiravi considerably further east, 38954’°N x 419382°E, as does
Lynch. However, Lynch also indicates a village which he names Akhgan just SE of
Kiravi]. According to FB, V, iii, the Mamikonean fortress stood on the Euphrates,
© Aymlah,... ap yay fp ybpmy gba Gibpunnuy ”, consequently, [)ywlmh should
not be confused with Aqiou,, especially since Yovhannés Mamikonean distinguishes
between Gaiam and Πηϊμιδ. In our opinion, Aqmluat is used for Πηδιπειπ only
in the above case. Tomaschek, Sasun, p.11 translates [)jmljmh as " rundlich ”
as a result of his confusion between πῇ and the Arm. μη = “ring”, as Hitbschmann
correctly observed, Orisnamen, p. 460. However, Hiibschman makes a similar mistake

NOTES : CHAPTER I 98]

when he translates Gylinun, Gyuhy peppy as ‘* Hirschkuhreich ”’, “Burg der
Hirschktihe ”, Ibid., p.423. Aahmh, [flr as well as [)q—uhwh were originally
derived from the Arm. nals = ‘‘ spine, backbone ”, which can also be used of mountains
to mean “chain, range”, e.g. “mwibhmyh ngnibp dnpp i. onponpp fr umpp”
Gregory of Nyssa, as cited in the Arm. Dict., ‘‘ πηΐ (3)”, ΤΙ, p. 607. [)ηδιπεῖιη means
simply “hilly”, Gawhg p&py (for Nymly pbpy) = “ the castle on the hills, or the
crests”. In Lazar P’arpeci, ἢ η fh is the genitive of ἢ 7h, giving gry [fli similar to
afuy δμβημι. Nq—miuh pkpy < the de-nasalized root just as Aknuimh < dbn—h,
papn Agph = papy Aymlpat should be compared with δμίη, Gppyuy =
Gplq—wiah == modern Grghhwy < Gpghhuh (cf. mood. Gpbiwhkwh for Gpbimbp
hudmbhg). The identity of ἢ η hi and [)yulmbh is also supported by the fact that
classical sources refer to the Nymlat of Tarén as *OAdvy, Strabo, XI, xiv, 6 [L. V,
326/7] or “ἡ Volandum ”’, Tacitus, Ann., ΧΤΤΙ, xxxix [L. IV, 66/7]. (16, 2)

31 LP’, lxxxiii, p. 489, “ Br yop) mpl Ζιμ) πῇ Y moh Sud plabbunh jpupabuy
fp ἠπιππμιιὸξ foimibugh, Epftimy Suabastp ee Hunk fi Bfgkpnyh ΠΣ]
phy Ih, ἡπμ Gunbuy rian pf gain migkmgh, «66 bx fp ὅπ δ] puny ‘Ep[tbwy
phuhtn f gph Ginkny =” (17, 1)

32 7,6. ἘΠ δ᾿ 351 and ὦ yy. 5 instead of (y+ 43 I. [All contemporary maps and gazetteers,
however, give Aziza. Cf. Appendix V. Cf. Honigmann, Ostgrenze, Ὁ. 196]. (17, 2)

82a [See above τ. 28. Also, Arm. Geogr. 31/41, “\---qSmpoh, +++pum fiupuny’
Upinbpp win Upiuhy pApuip, ὟΝ Of. Hibschmann, Ortsnamen, pp. 322,
327, 370 and Eremyan, Armenia, pp. 40, 80. The Bingdél-su no longer exists under
this name. Judging from Adontz’s argument and Hiibschmann’s map on which two
streams are given this name, the one intended here may be the one now called Hasanova
suyu. However, Honigmann, Osigrenze, Ὁ. 197 suggests that the “.., Bingél-su [ist]
vielleicht den oberen Aracani ”’.]

820 [See above, nn. 30 and 81. The name Menaskut found in Hibschmann, Orisnamen,
Lynch, Kiepert, Karte B VI is no longer recorded. |]

88 ZG, p. 25, “ age ὙΠΕΡ Φρβηπμβ, EE f gual δαμπὴπι
Ephnuw paghho Πυλῶν bi i.e» : pul fopw ght E_bay yoyp, gh be ἡμι ια
Ῥμιδηίπιη.. En Ghimy Jeph pph fiiajaisbeg penuh ἡξὸ Qfamht p pum punkiyh
GQumnu, ---”, Ibid., p.43 “ - ἐμ θὲ Lummbik hh pig qu Qu pacify. Ex
Eph woipu img hh fp obo uwhh Zonkube: δι. ubinfh Ey μὰ fp gbinh Gouna,”

Among the estates of the Mamikonean, Zenob also mentions, = bed., Ὁ. 37,
“TYmunu] --- npmku hwy fh gph foprmtgh dudplabbhpg 1

Joh. Mam., iii, p. 31, “-++-Ehh pf TT διιποὶπι : δι off quik pbuh
a pump od. δὶ imful ΤΠ ΠΝ pugaphh pum minh hind
fupry +++ OUnpytu, myn μπρὲ Guiky =’

Ibid., p. 62, +++ fp Qhibhipm Supotny I apy punyu ph >”

[Eremyan, Armenia, pp. 63, identifies Porpés with Xaraba-Barbas” Q/ihhipm

- ἠπρ πιῆ fp bok, Qapwylo, ay wpwpe—Poppon, Βπη μὴ gimwhh
{nin ;”, and agrees with Adontz that it lay in the center of the district of Palunik’
Ibid., p. 76. Xaraba can be identified with the modern Harabe Koy, 38°57N x
41902’E according to G46, p.275(1), but Kiepert, Karte, B VI gives Borbas as a
separate locality slightly to the south-west of ‘‘ Charaba”’. No Borbas can be found
on modern maps or in G 46]. (18, 1)

332 [For the Navsan pass cf. Lynch, Map and Kiepert, Karte B VI.]

382 NOTES : CHAPTER I

880 [Astiberd is probably to be identified with Azakpert, 39°14’N x 40°30’E according
to G 46, p. θά, and Aznaberd with Aznafer, 39912’N x 40°35°E, Idem. Kiepert, Karte,
gives all three localities in the same district, Honigmann, Osigrenze, Ὁ. 19 τι. 2 rejects
Adontz’s identification as ‘* zu weit westlich ’’. His own localization of Kithariz6n,
Ibid., pp. 16-19 and map I place it further south though no further east. Eremyan,
Armenia, p. 59 suggests the possibility of an identification with Qapakeur. Hiibsch-
mann, Ortsnamen, pp. 291-293, identifies Kitharizon with Kéderic, a suggestion rejected
by Adontz, see above, τι. 27. See also Markwart, Siidarmenien, p. *50.]

84 Arm. Geogr., 31/41-2, * Upiniifp win Upiiuhy papurip, nn hash GQuinmp
Eplpp, jopat yay? pofubh mypfopp” (ef. mod. (} 55 ly Bingél = “‘ thousand
springs”) apny pum Lprupuft U'mpyuy fi win Vin knnipu jApuip, δ δι ίτι.
gingh ἰλ|διηιπἠ πεῖ op podubf php Guphh πὶ phy ἧι +++ 1ΠῈΠ| yay py
plulUmpy ghm, ”. The name Srmang can be compared with the Upha, Uptiy
dnp, Uppurdnp, YEpkimednp of Joh. Mam., pp. 41-42. Ujo — uyinlnih p =
** Goat-teats ”; the mountains evidently received their name from their bare and jagged
peaks (cf. Teke-dere = ‘‘ goat — plain” near Erzurum, if aS} in this case means
“goat”? and not ‘‘ monastery’, or ‘‘ cemetery’). The modern name of the range,
Palandéken = ‘“‘ throwing off the saddle”, likewise emphazises the craggy abruptness
of the mountains. [C/f. Honigmann, Osigrenze, pp. 195-197]. (20, 1)

342 [On Mardali, see, Honigmann, Osigrenze, pp. 157, 192-193, and Eremyan, Armenia,
p. 65.]

35 Menand. Prot., pp. 394-395,

** .. προσβαίνοντι δὲ Χοσρόῃ ava τὰ πρόσω οἱ ἐν τῷ κλίματι MaxpaBavddy καὶ Ταραννῶν
ἥκιστα ἔμενον, ... εἶτα és τὰ πρόσω ἤλαυνς διὰ τῆς καλουμένης Βαδιανῆς, ... ἐσβάλλει τε εἰς
τὴν Ῥωμαίων Appeviay κατὰ Θεοδοσιούπολιν, ... ἐστρατοπεδεύσατο ἐς τὸ ᾿Αραβησσῶν ἐπικεκλη-
μένον χωρίον, ἀμφὶ τὸ μεσημβρινὸν κλίμα τοῦ ἄστεος, τὸ δὲ δὴ ᾿Ρωμαίων στράτευμα, αὐτὸ
γε δήπου τὸ συναθροισθὲν, ὡς πρὸς ἄρκτον περὶ τὸ κλίμα τὸ καλούμενον * συναγόμενον, ἐς
ὑπώρειάν τινα ὄρους ᾿".

Saint-Martin in his edition of Lebeau, Histoire du Bas-Empire, X, p. 198,
corrected the error of the Latin translator who had turned ἄρκτον into a proper
name, ‘ad Arctum’, but he made a similar error himself in mistaking

συναγόμενον for a place name, ‘

“ἃ Synagomenon’. The truth of the matter
is that the name of the province has dropped out of the text. The advance of
king Xusrd from the neighbourhood of Dara to Armenia, and thence to Caesarea
by way of Theodosiopolis, is also related by Joh. Eph., ΒΕ, VI, viii, p. 225.
The passage concerning the battle near Theodosiopolis is incorrect, with the result
that the word bgr in the original has been incorrectly interpret in the German trans-
lation [I.M. Schénfelder, Die Kirchengeschichte des Johannes von Ephesus, Munich,
1862], p. 232. This same word is read ‘‘ Bagrava”’, in Bar-Hebraeus, Chron. Syr.,
viii [Budge, in his translation, p. 79 gives the passage as follows, ‘‘ Then the Rhémdyé
overtook (or, pursusued) [the Persians] in Mount Bagrth, ...”’]. There can be no doubt
that the name of the locality where the battle took place is given here. The author
obviously had in mind the Armenian province of Bagrewand, the MaxpaBavd-dv of
Menander (replacing M-B-axpaBavddy where -μβ- have replaced the former β-), the
district close to Roman territory where the clash between the Persian and Roman
forces occured. [The de Boor edition of Menander, Hacerpta de legationibus, Berlin,
1903, p. 201, 27 gives ‘* Βακραβανδῶν καὶ Tapavvdv”. See also, Honigmann, Osigrenze,

pp. 21 sqq.}. (20, 2)

NOTES : CHAPTER I O83

86 Ende-r-is or Henderis [Endires] is a distortion of Arda-l-is. Another example of the
Turkish shift of J into ris to be found in Pe-r-i < anc. Pe-]-i = ΠΠάλιος κάστρον, Arm.

Muy f—h. [On Artalesdn, see Honigmann, Ostgrenze, pp. 16-19]. (21, 1)
3? Procopius, Pers., II, xxiv [L. I, 478/9}. (22, 1)
38 Joh. Eph., HH, VI, xiv, p. 235; Maurice, setting out against the Persians, “ ... inter

Armeniam et Syriam apud Qithariz videlicet, constitit ”’. (22, 2)

38a [Darizoa cannot be identified with certainty. All the localities called Darézii
in G 46, p. 169, lie much too far west for Adontz’s argument. The most likely identifi-
cation seems to be Derreigazan 38958’N x 40°30’H, G 46, p. 180 and USAFM.]

880 [The Deveboyun mountains are found in Wilson, Handbook, p. 222 and Lynch’s
Map, but have vanished from modern nomenclature].

880 [EP’, lxxv, pp. 440-441, “δὲ ἐμ purkinh uuninhn [9 buh qopnil Upluy
fh ηβοηΐ op wimulfh “ha, ἢ umddububynifebuh Mupupy br 2Znaning : δι
gap) inph Ζιμ!πη dwdhhobbobh ᾧ μιζιμῖν bpd fp hw fppk. Ephap Spumufuo Ps
f nhoy ih ny hngh Uh iunpts, “ον ἾἮ Tbid., xxx, p. 412," δι ἐμέ! PN put
pubmbtn tom fp ghogh, npn wha fp dpa Φπιη fl, be Spuncify Ympyw—
of. Ax pubwhbay why gop quyh, jutp p Yury fr (PE sudhhobkohh YY ndiunh
Jou ἐμ fp hw fb Yupwypfmpnyh fp Zonnd muh, fp qgonmnhh ap lash Gayman » :
Tbid., Ixxxi, p.481, “ --» Yudml «-- pulohtn Ρ αἰμη ἣν διμὰ, op ἐμ phy
PofuwtmpPiuiph Wuiihhaithg, πμπιὴδ wim fp Oumfl.

89 AL, xvi, p. 89, “---quy fp gymfulr Punbhny, Hind fp ηβιηἷ np hash ‘hn:
Du is also mentioned together with Ordu in Sebéos, xxiii, p. 77, "" ... ph. mumbpuagy
ἡξὸ fp how fr Sapypa ” FB Ii, iv, knows Ordru as the domain of the Orduni
house, “* --- gpnh μβιηΐι Apymtnny, opny mblinih ἐμ ἢ μηπμπι.". Inkisean,
Geography, p. 90, followed by many others, has identified Du and Ordru as Greater
and Lesser Du [Btytik and Kiictik Tuy]. In my opinion, however, Ordru should not
be identified with one of the Dus, but rather with present day Ortu, on the Ortu-su
east of Alvar, which is already mentioned in Lazar P’arpeci’s account of Vahan, ZP’,
lxxxv, p.500, “++. f ganwnh Puubhny --- f ηβιηῖ gop Uy yfmph ἐπ δὴ ae
[Honigmann, Ostgrenze, pp. 180-181 and 214 n.7, accepts Adontz’s identifications.
However, the present Ortuzu 39955’°N x 41933’E according to G 46, Ὁ. 500 (1) lies
just SW rather than E of Alvar 39956°N x 41°37°H, Jbid., Ὁ. 35 (2)]. According to
Inéiéean, Geography, p. 104, the village of σὴ fy stood within the borders of Asthia-
nené, but it is evident from Lazar’s account, that it was not far from Ok‘al (since Lazar
ealls it * afaph ph Dina ᾿ς ZP’, lxxxi, p. 481, to the Persian general Hazarawuxt,
who was stationed near Ok‘al, Ibed., lxxix, p. 472); it was also on the way to Karin and
to the nearby village of Arcat’i, Jbid., Ixxxi, pp. 481-483. (23, 1)

392 [LP’, lxxx, p. 476, “ ful Gumhny unup buy ghubuyn Qudumpuhwhigh pun
dap plepgh Puukiny, gap Κπηρ μηδ hnskh”, [also Ibid., Ixxxvi, p. 509.]

40 Procopius, Pers. 1, xv, 32-33 [L.I, 1388/9-140/1], “ ...BadAov αὐτοῖς το φρούριον,
ἀγχιστά πη ὃν τῶν Θεοδοσιουπόλεως dpiwr,”. Also, Ibid., I, xxi, 3, 18 [L. I, 204/5,
2089] and Goth. IV, xiii, 19 [L. V, 188/9]. (24, 1)

41 Joh. Mam., pp. 57-58, “ Ubpulu Qu feng plan, np β δμ πῇ ἐμ obhn-
Eudp, why ap WY wap bpinny Unpp Uunniwdud pb ΩΣ, ” The
church of the Holy Mother of God, Unipp Uumnmdmdfihr still stands near Hasankale
[in 1908]. In the tenth century, the bishop of the Iberians had his seat at VaiarSakert,
AL, ii, p. 28. (24, 2)

384 NOTES : CHAPTER I

42 Buxa is found in the Arm. Geogr., pp. 35/46, “ Pmijuw fx ἰληπριμιη πῃ"
and in the Gahnamak, “ Poijum ‘hhiwpuliimbh ”, [see Appendix IIIA]. In both cases
the form Buya can be taken as a genitive form of Paifu. The form Paifuw is also
found in MSS, Inéiéean, Geography, Ὁ. 371. Png or Bol bears the same relation to
Parfum as fifump - p< Nigmf—p to Oltu. AL, i, pp. 24-25 [var] [)ifumfp
and ii, p. 29, Jifuj¢hp. Asotik, III, xii, p. 189, and III, xliii, p. 278, Pura p [ifufe-
bmg, The modern form, Oliu 0) /¢/ shows that the phoneme -/u- in ἢ μι ἢ} was
originally derived from a — ἢ —. Incidentally, we should note that a village named
[Uxta-Otha ?] still exists on the banks of the Tortum gélu, west of Oltu, and that its
name is closer to that of ἢ 9} Lynch, Armenia, map, gives the name of this locality

s * Okhda”. [Cf Eremyan, Armenia, p. 45, who gives the spelling Ἐπιηιν--ἶμμ μι
and agrees with Adontz’s identification. Honigmann, Osigrenze, Ὁ. 157, n. δ].

43 Procopius, Pers. I, xv, 31-33 [L. I, 1889]

δ πὸ δὲ τοὺς αὐτοὺς χρόνους Napofs τε καὶ ᾿Αράτιος, ... αὐτόμολοι és ᾿Βωμαίους ἧκον,
ἢν; ὅπερ ἐπειδὴ ᾿Ισαάκης, 6 νεώτατος αὐτῶν ἀδελφός, ἔμαθε, Ρωμαίοις λάθρα ἐς λόγους ἐλθων
Βῶλον αὐτοῖς τὸ φρούριον, ἄγχιστά πὴ ὃν τῶν Θεοδοσιουπόλεως ὁρίων, παρέδωκε ἢ.

JIbid., xx, 8 [L.I, 202/3-204/5]; Goth. IV, xiii, 19 [L. V, 188/9]; Pers. ΤΙ, xxix,
14 [L. 1, 530/1-532/3),

“ Boas 6 ποταμὸς ἔξεισιν ἄγχιστά πὴ τῶν Τζανικῆς ee ἐν ᾿Αρμενίοις οἱ δὴ ἀμφὶ τὸ
Φαράγγιον ᾧκηνται ... ἢ.
Βόας--- 1 πξζ Arm. ΩΣ »» pp. 30/40, or Gnd Idid., pp. 35/46, where the initial — 1 —
is the prefixed preposition. /)£ is a popular spelling for Yn resulting from the
pronunciation of an initial a — as Yn. [Cf. Eremyan, Armenia, 32, 84, 104].
Strabo, XI, xiv, 9 [L. V, 328/9], “Μέταλλα δ᾽ ἐν μὲν τῇ Avompindi ἐστι χρυσοῦ κατὰ τὰ
Κάβαλλα᾽. The origin of Pharangion is not clear. G. Destunis, commenting on the
Russian translation of Procopius [S. Destunis, History of the Vandalic War, St. Peters-
burg, 1891], “‘ notes ”, vol. I, p. 189, believed that the name should be derived from the
Gr. φαράγξ “cleft, gorge, valley”. Intiéean, Antiquities, I, 189, associated it with
Arkni-Arini and reads it as φάργανον. It is clear from Procopius’ comment, “ ... Sapdy-
γιον καλούμενον ”’, that Farangius was a local term. We believe it to be none other
. than the Pers. farhang, Arm. ζμπιζιπῖη, having the sense, “ works, exploitation, mines ”
= ηπμὸ nuliLump, LP’, ixv, p. 378. (25, 2)

43a [The Parhal or Parhar range is given on the maps of both Lynch, Armenia and
Kiepert, Karte, A VI [Balchar], but this name has disappeared from the modern nomen-
clature albeit the village of Barhal 40°59°N x 41925°E, G46, p.77 still records 108
existence. The range refered to by this name is the NE end of the Pontic chain. Cf.
Marqwart, Sudarmenien, pp. *21 sqq.; Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 450 sqq.]

44 Arm. Geogr., pp. 35/46, “-+-whawhl wn fnjaupu plpym] fp μυμόμ δε
uhinh ybap, pin GAgmy, pln Upary be phy Upp gon’ fp πδιππε om”
T’uxars [Hars] is mentioned by Lewond, Ὁ. 26, and Vaxust, p.112, gaby mvybsfobo.
South of Hats is found Iryan [= Erkinis 40°33°N x 41943’H, G 46, Ὁ. 213], the historical
bpm fumif of FB, IV, xviii; south of Iryan stands Ighan [40°48°'N x 41°45°H, G 46,
p- 313 (2)], the fut of Sebéos, p. 140; and between them is found Avaris [41061 Ν x
41045°E, G46, p. 58] which can perhaps be identified with Upmdby, the birthplace
of the kat’olikos αἰπὺ", ZP’, lxii, p. 354. Ognak [40°40°N x 41°2@E, G 46, p. 501] =
NpPiLug Idid., xli, p. 234, is closer to Ispir. (26, 1)

44s [For the Imerhevi = Sawién, see, Eremyan, Armenia, Ὁ. 73.]

NOTES: CHAPTER I 385

45 Arm. Geogr., pp. 35/46, puts one of the districts of Tayk’, the Upubwhg—iinp wn
Qupfuup jfpudp,”, but locates the Parxar range on the left bank of the Voh-Coruh.
According to ZP’, xli, p. 233, the Paryar mountains were found “ .- -- Hind un.
ou doobwhenfe [εἶν \uqmbmg”, and not in Chaldia proper as we might expect, but
the fortresses in the Paryar mountains in which Hmayeak Mamikonean had found
refuge apparently belonged to the Mamikonean and were part of the district of Tayk’,
Ibid., p. 234. [On Tayk’ and Klarjet’i, see, Markwart, Hran, Ὁ. 116, and Eremyan,

Armenia, pp. 59, 84, 116, etc.]. (27, 1)
46 Procopius, Pers. I, xv, 19 [L. I, 184/5],
ως τὸ Τζανικὸν ἔθνος, of ἐν γῇ τῇ “Ῥωμαίων αὐτόνομοι ἐκ παλαιοῦ ἵδρυντο ᾽᾿. (27, 2)

462 [On Petra and its defense, see Procopius, Pers. 11, xv, 10 (L. I, 388/9); xvii, 3 —
to end of chapter (Jbid., 405/6-410/1); xix, 47-49 (Jbid., 428/9-430/1); xxix — to end
of book (Jbid., 528/9 sqq.). Goth. IV, ii, 82 (L. V, 72/3); xi-xiii (Ibid., 148/9-190/1);
Aed. 111, iii, 7 (lL. VIT, 214/5; ete..]

406 NOTES : CHAPTER V

CHAPTER V

1 Gibbon, Decline and Fall, I, Ὁ. 351, “ ... like Augustus, Diocletian may be considered
as the founder of a new empire”. [Adontz’s discussion of the administrative system
of Diocletian and his successors should be checked throughout against the extensive
recent scholarship, for which see the Bibliographical Note]. - 3 (91, 1)
(2 Notitia Dignitatum et adminisirationum omnium tam civilium quam militarium in
paribus Orientis et Occidentis, Βὶ, Bocking ed. (1839-1853). Because of its extensive
and valuable historical notes, Bécking’s edition cannot be considered as completely
superceded by Seeck’s new and undoubtedly more critical edition of 1876. [Used
throughout this edition and for Appendix II A]. In his special study, Uber die Notitia
Dignitatum (1834), Bécking, after reviewing all previous opinions, came to the conclusion
that the Notiiia had been composed under Theodosius IT, after 399 and ca. 404 [sic.]
Tillemont, Histoire des Empereurs, VI, pp. 476, 733-736, had been of the same opinion,
but at present, Seeck’s opinion that the document dates from 413-415 is preferred.
Cf. Questions de Notitia dignitatum (1872). [At present, the general view is that the
two parts of the Nottita are not quite contemporary in content ‘ the Western section
having been revised to a later date than the Hastern”. Jones, LRH, ΤΙ, pp. 1417 et sqq.
See also J.B. Bury’s study, “ The Notitia ign ΒΕΒΕΝ ”, J RS, X (1922}1}.} (92, 2)

3 Zosim., I, 33. 2 2 (92, 1)

32 [See Appendix II A, xxv.]

4 Bethmann-Hollweg, Civilprocess, ΤΙ, No. 136, p. 88. [Jones, LEE, I, pp. 609, *.
the fifth-century laws show clearly that the regional magisiri retained authority over
the comites and duces in their respective zones’, Also pp. 597, 599, 608 οὐ sqq.]. (98, 1)

5 The Noi. dig. lists the legions by name; we give here only the pseudo-comitatenses:

Prima Armeniaca οτος Quarta Italica
Secunda Armeniaca Sexta Parthica
Fortenses auxiliarii Prima Isaurica sagittaria
Funditores Balistarii Theodosiaci
Prima Italica Transtigritani.
[Wot. dig., vii, 23-24, 35, 38, 48-58, pp. 21-22). (94, 1)

6 Vegetius, Hpiioma, II, 6. Joh. Lyd., De mag. I, xlvi, p. 46, who is familiar with
Venatius’ work, is of the opinion that, “... ἄλας ... ἀπὸ ἑξακοσίων ἱππέων, βηξιλ-
Aatiwvas amo πεντακοσίων ... τοξοτῶν ἱππέων, καὶ λεγιῶνας ἀπὸ ἑξακισχίλιων πεζῶν καὶ
ῥητῶν ἱππέων ". The name vexilliationes is derived from vewillum “ensign, these
detachments were composed of vewilla veteranorum, t.e. vexilla recruited from veterans
having completed twenty years’ service. | (94, 2)

7 Vegetius, Lpitoma, II, 1, *... auxilia a sociis vel foederati gentibus mittebantur ”’.
Lbid., ΤΙ, 2, ** ... awxiliares ... ex diversis locis ex diversis numeris venientes, nec disciplina
inter se nec notitia nec affectione consentiunt ’’. (95, 1)

7a [For the army described in the Not. dig. and calculations as to its probable size,
see Jones, LAH, Appendix II, Tables I-XV, ΤΙ, pp. 1429-1450].

8 Willems, Droit Public, p. 590.

8a [ Not. dig. Oc., V, 125-126, 133, p. 121... Cf. Not. dig. Or., V, 26 and VI, 26, pp. 13,

17, also Appendix IT A.]

NOTES : CHAPTER V 407

80 [This passage is rather puzzling in view of its internal contradiction, and of the fact
that a number of other dukes with their contingents are duly listed in both parts of
the Notitia dignitatum. Cf. Jones, LRH, I, pp. 44, 223-224, ete.]

9 Bethmann-Hollweg, Civilprocess, ITI, No. 135, Ὁ. 85. (96, 1)

98 [See Appendix J] A, for the context of this passage. ]

10 Mommsen is probably mistaken when he takes ‘ muper”, in the phrase “ Ala
prima praetoria nuper constituta ”, for the deformation of a place name. Some of the
MSS give a prefix ca- δ ca-nuper "Ὁ, which Bécking, Not. dig., I, p. 96, suffixes on the
preceding word, “‘ pretori-ca”. Miller, Piolemy, p. 886 notes, suggests the reading
** Zopar”’ by association with the Zoparissos of Piolemy, ΓΝ, vi, 21], but this is an un-
founded hypothesis. The word “nuper” occurs several times in a similar context
in the Not. dig. : “ Ala Theodosiana nuper constituta. Ala Arcadiana nuper constituta

οὖς [Not dig. Or., XXVIII, 20-21, p. 59] to show that these regiments bearing the
names of Theodosius and Arcadius had been constituted shortly before the composition
of the Notiita dignitatum, during the reigns of these emperors. The appointment of the
regiment ad praeiorium presumably belongs to the same period. Many stations in the
Itinerarvum Antonini, bear the name ‘‘ Praetorio”’, One of these is listed on the road
from Caesarea to Anazarbus [Jtin. Ant., 212], and nine more stations with the same
name occur in other parts of the Empire. [If the “ Ala ... nuper constituta ” stood
** ad Praetorium ”’, the location must have been that of the station on the road Sebasteia
to Kukusos by way of Melitené, according to Jtin. Ant., 177, This would place it at
Hasangelebi on the road from Malatya to Sivas. See above, Chapter IV, pp. 63-67.
The *‘ Praetorio ” on the road to Anazarbus seems too far south.] (97, 1)
10a [Tacitus, Ann. XV, xxv, [L. IV, 254/5, “ Suriaeque ... copiae militares Corbuloni
permissae, et quinta decuma legio ducente Mario Celso 6 Pannonia adiecta est”, The
Twelfth legion was sent by Corbulo down to Syria, Jdid., xxv [L. IV, 254/5-256/7),
** At Corbulo quarta et duodecuma legionibus, quae fortissimo quoque amisso et ceteris
exterritis parum habiles proelio videbantur, in Suriam translatis, ...”’, but it was sent
back by Titus after the capture of Jerusalem, Josephus, Bell. Jud., VII, 18 [L. III,
p. 510/1], “... μεμνημένος δὲ τοῦ δωδεκάτου τάγματος, ὅτι Κεστίου στρατηγοῦντος
ἐνέδωκαν τοῖς ᾿Ιουδαίοις, τῆς μὲν Ζυρίας αὐτὸ παντάπασιν ἐξήλασεν, ἦν γὰρ τὸ παλαιὸν
ἐν “Ῥαφαναίαις, εἷς δὲ τὴν [Μελιτηνὴν καλουμένην ἀπέστειλε᾽: παρὰ τὸν Εὐφράτην ἐν
μεθορίοις τῆς ᾿Αρμενίας ἐστι καὶ Καππαδοκίας ”.
The Fifteenth legion likewise participated in the Jewish war, but instead of returning
it immediately to Armenia, Titus first kept it with him, Jbid., VII, 19 [L. TU, 510.1),
and then quartered it in Pannonia, Jbid., VII, 117 [L. ITI, 538/9). The precise date of
its return to the Kast is not known, Arrian, Periplus, v, knows that it was in Cappadocia
by A.D. 136, and a vexillatio from it was stationed at Kainepolis [VatarSapat] in 185,
CIL, III, 6052. Cf. Miller, Piolemy, pp. 884-885, notes and Chapot, Froniiére, pp. 73-
74, 79, 351, ete.)

11 Cass. Dio., LY, xxiii, 5 [L. VI, 454/5], “*... καὶ τὸ δωδέκατον τὸ ἐν Καππαδοκίᾳ τὸ
κεραυνοφόρον, ... TO τε πεντεκαιδέκατον τὸ ᾿Απολλώνειον τὸ ἐν Καππαδοκίᾳ ... ἢ, (98, 1)

lla [Πῆη. Ant., 183.]

12 Proc. Aed., 1, vii, ὃ [L. VII, 66/7], “ ... ἐν λεγεῶνι δὲ δυοδεκάτῃ ἐτάττοντο, ἣ ἐν πόλει
Μελιτηνῇ τῆς ᾿Αρμενίας τὸ παλαιὸν ἵδρυτο". Tbid., TI, iv, 16 [1. VIL, 198/9}. (98, 2)

13 Tacitus, Hist., ITI, v [L. 1, 3386/7]. (98, 3)

408 NOTES : CHAPTER V

14 Vegetius, Hpitoma, II, 6, **... in una legione decem cohortes esse debere, sed prima
cohors reliquas et numero militum et dignitate praecedit. Nam genere atque institu-
tione litterarium viros electissimos quaerit ... habet pedites mille centum quinque,
equites loricatos CX XXII, et appellatur cohors miliaria ”’. (99, 1)

15 [Not. dig., xxxvili, 2-19. Cf. Appendix II A}. Without deciding ὦ priort whether
or not a place named Aladaleariza really existed (cf. Olotoedariza in the Itin. Ani.,
183, 207), we can assume that in this case, Aladaleariza is merely a dittography for
Ala Rizena. The text should then be read:

Ala Rizena (Aladaleariza), apud Auaxam
Ala Theodosiana
Ala (Felix) Theodosiana) J Siluanis.
In other words, the Ala Rizena was stationed at Auaxa and the other ala stood at
Siluanis. This second detachment bore the name of Theodosius. Here the duplication
was brought about by the repetition of lines, and the epithet ‘‘ Felix’ was added to
distinguish one Theodosiana from the other. The authenticity of this Ala felix Theodo-
siana is all the more doubtful that an “ ala prima felix Theodosiana "ἢ is listed further
down as being stationed at Pithiae”. [Not. dig., xxxvili, 32. Adontz’s suggestion
is ingenious, and the repetition of a detachment seems to have occurred elsewhere,
eg. Ibid., xxxi, 41, p. 64, “ Ala prima Abasgorum, Hibeos — Oaseos maioris”’, and
xxxi, 55, p. 65, ** Ala prima Abasgorum, Oasi maiore’’. However, cf. Seeck, Not. dog.,
p. 84 n.2 and Miller, Itineraria Romana, pp. 675, 679 identifying Aladaleariza with
Olotoedariza of the Jiin. Ant., and placing the Ala Rizena there. Jones, DR#, ΤΊ,
1480, also preserves the three alae of the Notiiia and stations the first at Aladaleariza].
(99, 2)
iba [Lynch, Armenia, Map. Kiepert, Karte, AV. This locality cannot be identified
on modern maps, }

16 Lynch, Armenia, II, Ὁ. 236, fig. 174, gives a photograph of the “ castle of Kalajik ”.
The ruins are also described by Wilson, Handbook, p. 208. (100, 1)

162 [Mochora is given by Kiepert, Karte, B VI, but no locality of this name can be
found east of Zigana on modern maps. The nearest approximation to the location
seems to be Muzena, given on USAFM 324 CIV though not in G46. Both Mucura
40°54’N x 39927°H and Mohala 40°57°N x 39927°H, G46, pp. 475 and 477 seem too
far north of the Zigana pass.]

17 The location of Hadzana does not seem to coincide exactly with that of Chasza-
nenica. The road from Trapezos followed two routes: [Jiin. Ant., 216]:

** Trapezus 20 ad Vicensimum 32 Zigana 24 Thia 17 Sedissa 24 Domana 18 Satala.
20 Magnana 10 Gizenica 18 Bylae (pylae) 6 Frigidarium 8 Patara 14

Medocia 12 Solonenica 18 Domana 18 Satala”’. [Z'ab. Peut., X, 2-5, of.
pp. 645-646, fig. 212]. Judging from the distances given, Magnana was identical with
the station called ad Vicensimum in the Jiin. Ani., and should have been located in the
vicinity of Cevizlik. Gizenica, the next station on the road, must in anye ase have
laid further south, but this fact hinders the identification of Chaszanenica with Hadzana,
since the latter is located to the north of Cevizlik. The name of the Tzans is included
in the toponym Chas-zan-enica or Gi-zen-ica. [Cf Kiepert, Karte, A VI and Miller,
Iinneraria Romana, p. 681. The toponym Hadzana, or Hatsavara as it is given by
Kiepert, has disappeared, from modern maps, but Larhan, with which Kiepert identifies
Chaszanenica, can still be found lying duly south of Civizlik. G 46, p.449, USAPM
324 CIV}. (100, 2)

NOTES : CHAPTER V 409

18 Arrian, Periplus, viii. [Anonymous Periplus], p. 411, [Cf. Miller, Ptolemy,
p. 922 note, and Chabot, Frontiére, Ὁ. 365 et al.]. (100, 3)

19 Bécking, Not. dig., I, Ὁ. 484 τι. 47, [Kainé Parembolé is identified with Colchidian
Neapolis by Miiller, Piolemy, p. 923 note, and with Kena or Okena in Tzanika by Chabot,
Frontiére, Ὁ. 363 and τι. 3. On the independence of Tzanika before Justinian, see above
Chapters I, p. 23 and ITI, pp. 49 sqq. Might i+ be possible on the other hand to identify
Kainé Parembolé with Kainépolis = VajarSapat, where the presence of a vewillatio
of the XV Legion Apollinaris is attested as early as A.D. 185, ef. above n. 10a? On
Pithia and Sebastopolis and the city referred to by Ancient sources under the latter
toponym, see Not. dig., p. 84 τι. 7, who identifies Pithia with Pitiunt, Miller, Piolemy,
pp. 922-923 notes, who discusses the problem of Sebastopolis: Chabot, Fronivére, 213-214,
and 364-368, who raises the question of the extent of the jurisdiction of the dua Armeniae.
For more recent discussions of the extent of Roman penetration in this area, see Mark-
wart, Jiinerar, passim, Manandian, Trade, pp. 106-110 and 114-115, and Toumanoff,
Studies, p. 257 τι. 359). (100, 4)

19a [ltin, Ani. 217. See preceding note. ]

20 According to the Not. dig., Or. XII, p. 35; Oc. X, p. 147, the duties of the Quaestor
sacri palati were to draft imperial constitutions and receive petitions, ‘‘ Leges dictandae.
Preces”’. He also confirmed laws: “* quaestor legi” or δ subscripsi”’. [For the Later-
culus maius et minus and the duties of the quaestor and the primicerius notarium,

ef. Jones, LRH, I, pp. 101-104, 337, 574-575, ete.] (101, 1)
202 [ Not. dig., xxxviii, see Appendix IJ a.]
21 Bethmann-Hollweg, Civilprecess, ITI, No. 142, pp. 133-161. (102, 1)

21a [ Not. dig., XXV, XXXviii, pp. 54, 83, see also Appendix 171 a.]

21b [Panciroli, Not. dig. ]

21e [Bécking, Not. dig., I, p. 284.]

22 Cedrenus, I, Ὁ. 563, “... τὰ ἐν τοῖς νικαρίους τοῦ νομίσματος ὑποκείμενα “Βομαικὰ
γράματα δηλοῦσι ταῦτα: To κ δἰ τα δα Τὸ o ὄμνις, τὸ ν νόστραι, το Β βενερατιόνι, τουτέστιν
ai πόλεις τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ πειθαρχείτωσαν προσκυνήσει". Cf. Βδοϊίηρ, Not. dig., I, p. 284.

(104, 1)

858. [The following correction was included by Adontza in the list of errata, p. 526 of
the Russian edition, ‘‘ The following information transmitted to us through the kind
offices of 1.1. Smirnov should be added to the discussion of the abbreviation CONOB
given on pp. 103-104 [Russian ed.], These letters are now read CON(stantinopolis)
and OB(ryzum), “ pure gold ’”’, see Pinder and Friedlander, De la signification des lettres
OB sur les monnaies byzantines, (Berlin, 1851, 2 ed., 1873), also Babelon, H., T'raité des
monnates grecques et romaines, Paris (1901-1907), I, pp. 889 sqq. ”’.]

22b [For another discussion of the Satrapies and their status, see Toumanoff, Studies, .
pp. 131 sqq., 172-173 nn. 96-100, etc., who shares a number of Adoniz’s views but |
has corrected and developed them to a considerable extent. ]

58 Kubn, Verfassung, ΤΙ, p.14, “ Verbiindete freie und tinterthanige Geniaiide TA
Willems, Drow Public, pp. 335-336, 349-351, 362. (105, 1)

232 [On the foederati and the transformation of this term, see Jones, LAE, I, pp. 159,
199-203, 663-668. ]

24 Procopius, Vand., I [TIT], xi, 3-4 [L. TT, 1028], “ ... ἐν δὲ δὴ φοιδεράτοις πρότερον
μὲν μόνοι βάρβαροι κατελέγοντο, ὅσοι οὐκ ἐπὶ τῷ δοῦλοι εἶναι, ἅτε μὴ πρὸς “Pwopaiwy

3

ς- 2 3 3 4 a + ¢ Pd > Ἃ 3 9.12 . + 4 A \
ἡσσημένοι, GAN ἐπὶ τῇ ἴσῃ καὶ ὁμοίᾳ ἐς τὴν πολιτείαν adixowrTo* φοίδερα yap τὰς πρὸς

410 NOTES : CHAPTER V

AY 7 ‘ “~ e a ‘ 3 “ og aA > # ? ? 2
τοὺς πολεμίους σπονδὰς καλοῦσι “Ρωμαῖοι: τὸ δὲ νῦν ἅπασι τοῦ ὀνόματος τούτου ἐπιβατεύειν
οὐκ ἐν κωλύμῃ ἐστί, ...””. (106, 1)

25 Procopius, Goth., IV [VIII], ν, 18 [L. V, 901-92 [3],

ge 4 \ ? ? - Fa 2 A > \ ? 7 \ Ἁ Ὰ 7
[ως μετὰ δὲ δόντος βασιλέως ὥκήσαντο ἐς τὰ ἐπὶ Θράκης χωρία, καὶ τὰ μὲν ξυνεμάχουν
ἭῬ 7 ? ? id c 9 “a 4 λέ , > A “
ωὡμαίοις, τάς τε συντάξεις ὥσπερ οἱ ἄλλοι στρατιῶται πρὸς βασιλέως κομιζόμενοι ἀνὰ πᾶν
¥ ‘ fa > ) -΄ ‘ 2 A ta ? “~ 3 7 τ a
ἔτος Kal φοιδερᾶτοι ἐπικληθέντες" οὕτω yap αὐτοὺς τότε Aativwy φωνῇ ἐκάλεσαν “Ρωμαῖοι,

ἐκεῖνο, οἶμαι, παραδηλοῦντες, ὅτι δὴ οὐχ ἡσσημένοι αὐτῶν τῷ πολέμῳ Γ΄ ότθοι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ ξυνθήκαις

τισὶν ἔνσπονδοι ἐγένοντο σφίσι" ... Ἶ. (106, 2)
26 Procopius, Vand., I [LUT], xi, 5 [L. ΤΠ], 102/38], “ ... ἄρχοντες δὲ ἦσαν φοιδεράτων μὲν
Awpobeds τε, 6 τῶν ἐν ᾿Αρμενίοις καταλόγων στρατηγός ...””’. (107, 2)

26a (Cf. Procopius, Pers., I, xv, 3 [L. I, 180/1] in which Dorotheus is called “ general
of Armenia”, “’Apyevias μὲν στρατηγὸς ...”’ whereas Sittas is referred to as having
‘authority over the whole army in Armenia”, “avril δὲ τῷ ἐν ᾿Αρμενίοις στρατῷ
ἐφειστήκει ". Cf. below, Chapter VI, pp. 108-11] and nn. 13-14.]
27 Procopius, Aed., III, i, 17-27 [L. VII, 182/3-186/7],
4. TH δὲ ἄλλῃ *Appevia, ἥπερ ἐντὸς Εὐφράτου ποταμοῦ οὖσα διήκει ἐς "Αμιδαν πόλιν, σατ-
2 2 2 > 4 7 4 \ ? A! > > + 3 \ 3 ‘ > ~ 2
ράπαι ἐφειστήκεισαν ᾿Αἱρμένιοι πέντε, καὶ κατὰ γένος μὲν ἐς ἀεὶ ἐς τὰς ἀρχὰς ἐκαλοῦντο ταύτας,
> ? 3 “ », 3 #4 4 4 2 ἴω 4 a ἐξ rd ? binges
ἐχόμενοι αὐτῶν ἄρχι és θάνατον. σύμβολα μέντοι αὐτῶν πρὸς τοῦ Ρωμαίων βασιλέως ἐδέχοντο
μόνον. ἄξιον δὲ τὰ σύμβολα ταῦτα δηλῶσαι λόγῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐκέτι ἐς ἀνθρώπου ὄψιν ἀφίξεται.
χλαμὺς ἡ ἐξ ἐρίων πεποιημένη, οὐχ οἷα τῶν προβατίων ἐκπέφυκεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ θαλάσσης συνειλεγ-
7 , A! “Ὁ a , 2 ξ - 3 2 » 2 “ \ iy
μένων. tivvous Ta ζῷα καλεῖν vevopixaow, ἐν ois ἡ τῶν ἐρίων ἔκφυσις γίνεται. Χρυσῷ δὲ ἡ
τῆς πορφύρας κατηλήλειπτο μοῖρα, ἐφ᾽ ἧς εἴωθεν ἡ τῆς ἁλουργίδος ἐμβολὴ γίνεσθαι. περόνη,
mn a ? > ? ,ὔ 3.4 2 # 7 4 > 33 Ὁ A ef
χρυσῆ τῇ χλαμύδι ἐπέκειτο, λίθον ἐπὶ μέσης περοφράττουσά τινα ἔντιμον, ἀφ᾽ οὗ δὴ ὑάκινθοι
τρεῖς χρυσαῖς τε καὶ χαλαραῖς ταῖς ἁλύσεσιν ἀπεκρέμαντο. χιτὼν ἐκ μετάξης ἐγκαλλωπίσμασι
χρυσοῖς πανταχόθεν ὡραϊσμένος ἃ δὴ νενομίκασι πλούμια καλεῖν. ὑποδήματα μέχρι ἐς γόνυ
fal 2 is 4 7 / e , 1 mn τ a ?
φοινικοῦ χρώματος, ἃ δὴ βασιλέα μόνον Ρωμαίων τε καὶ ]]ερσῶν ὑποδεῖσθαι θέμις.
2 \ ¢ - wv ~ 2 ὔ a » 3 M 4 2 i
Στρατιώτης δὲ Ρωμαῖος οὔτε τῷ ᾿Αρμενίων βασιλεῖ οὔτε σατράπαις ἤμυνε πώποτε, ἀλλὰ
τὰ πολέμια κατὰ μόνας αὐτοὶ διῳκοῦντο. χρόνῳ δὲ ὕστερον ἐπὶ Ζήνωνος βασιλεύοντος ᾿Ϊλλοῦ
τε καὶ Λεοντίῳ τετυραννηκόσιν ἐπὶ βασιλέα διαφανῶς συντάσσεσθαί τινες τῶν σατραπῶν ἔγνωσαν.
dio δὴ “εόντιόν τε καὶ ᾿Ιλλοῦν Ζήνων βασιλεὺς ὑποχειρίους πεποιημένος, σατράπην μὲν ἕνα
# 3 Ἁ μὴ ᾿Ὶ ξ id f 3...) 3 4 ~ ΄ ra > κΑ
φαυλοτάτην ἀρχὴν ἔχοντα καὶ ws ἥκιστα λόγου ἀξίαν ἐν χώρᾳ τῇ Βελαβιτίνῃ καλουμένῃ ἐπὶ
τοῦ προτέρου σχήματος εἴσασε, τοὺς δὲ λοιποὺς καθελὼν ἅπαντας οὐκέτι ἐς τοὺς κατὰ γένος
? ta Ἃ 4 3 ‘ 4 > 3 ¢ ἐδ 95.»ϑ0ωΖΨΦἫὦ Ἃ 3 4 é
σφίσι προσήκοντας ξυνεχωρησὲ Tas ἀρχὰς φέρεσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἑτέρους ἀεὶ THY ἀρχὴν διαδέχεσθαι
διώρισε ταύτην, ods ἂν βουλομένῳ βασιλεῖ εἴη, ὥσπερ ἐφ᾽ ἁπάσαις ταῖς ἄλλαις διώρισται “Pwya-
? 3 Fay lat é 393 ¢ ¢ cad 3 a oe 3 A ~ 3 ? 4
iwy ἀρχαῖς. στρατιῶται μέντοι οὐδ᾽ ws Ρωμαῖοι αὐτοῖς εἵποντο, ἀλλὰ τῶν “Appeviwy τινές,
ἦπερ τὰ πρότερα εἴθιστο, ... ᾽᾿. (109, 1)
28 Malalas, Ὁ. 418. [See also, Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 134 nn. 233, 2541. (109, 2)
28a [Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, passim. ]
29 [1]

FB, IV, 1, “δβπὴ guppmjh 2ujng ἃ ghog {Πμιημιἥπειπ. ιπὲμὴ
Ubdmbmy, h ply hau fo fumbh ue fr Ompuy. h phy fh win [Puqminph
Smimg ᾿ς (110, 1)

80 Procopius, Aed., 111, i, 12 [L. VII, 1801], “... ᾿Αρσάκης δὲ οὐδέν τι ἧσσον τὴν ἐκ
Περσῶν τε καὶ τ᾽ ἀδελφοῦ ἐπιβουλὴν δείσας ἐξέτη τῆς βασιλείας τῆς αὑτοῦ Θεοδοσίῳ τῷ
αὐτοκράτορι ἐπὶ ξυνθήκαις τισὶν ...””. (111, 1)

31 Procopius, Pers., 11, iti, 35-36, [L. I, 2801], “’Apoaxyns yap ὁ τῶν προγόνων τῶν
ς ? \ ? ae 2 Eon 3 “A “a ξ “ ? a t 2 > ?
ἡμετέρων βασιλεὺς ὕστατος ἐξέστη τῆς ἀρχῆς τῆς αὑτοῦ Θεοδοσίῳ τῷ “Ῥωμαίων αὐτοκράτορι
¢ τ 4 Σ1} Ὁ νιν τ \ 2 A ) τ , 3 2A ?
ἑκών ye εἶναι, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ δὴ ἅπαντες of κατὰ γένος αὐτῷ μέλλοντες πάντα τὸν αἰῶνα προσήκειν

τά τε ἄλλα βιοτεύσουσι κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν καὶ φόρου ὑποτελεῖς οὐδαμῇ ἔσονται ᾿". (111, 2)

NOTES : CHAPTER V 411

32 Guterbock, Rémisch-Armenien, p. 19. (112, 1)

83 FB, V, xliv, “δὲ pam myunpfhl qpkmg fpmfupoml wn femqunoph
Smimy, h fiom pabe wip quis pump Lh Ζιμπῆ ἐι qUpomh ΠΡ} ἢ. (112, 2)

888 (Stein, Bas Empire, II, p. 528 τ. 89* agrees with Adontz that the provinces which
passed to the Empire at the time of the partition of Armenia enjoyed the same status
as the Satrapies. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 133-134, however, distinguishes the status
of the ‘‘ Pentarchs”’ [Satraps] and that of the princes of Inner Armenia, “... the ...
princes of Inner Armenia were placed under the supervision of their suzerain’s viceroy-
<s>—... the comes Armeniae ..... The Pentarchs, on the other hand, were left entirely
to themselves”. Cf. however, pp. 152, 193-195 n. 208. Jones, LRH I, 229 and n. 26
argues that the office of comes Armeniae was created during the reign of the emperor
Zeno (474-5, 476-491). Consequently the provinces acquired by the Empire at the
partition of the [Vth century could not be subordinated to him from the start. C/.
below, p. 93]

33D [ Vasiliev, ‘“* Review”, ZUNP, p. 416, objected that the discussion of the financial
obligations of Armenia to the Empire was unclear and self-contradictory. Although
most scholars support Adontz’s view that the Satrapies benefitted from fiscal immunity
as civitates foederaiae, at least at first, cf. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 133, 171, Adontz’s
discussion is in need of clarification as Vasiliev pointed out. Toumanoff, Studies,
p. 173 n. 108 rightly notes that the payment of taxes by the ruler of Sophené in 502
mentioned by Adontz did in fact imply the loss of financial immunity, and that the
fiscal status of the Satrapies had consequently been altered before the period of Justi-
nian. |

380 [See Appendix 1 A for the text of this decree. ]

34 Cod. Th., XII, xiii, 5, *‘ Ad collationem auri coronarii placuit neminem absque
consuetudine esse cogendum. Dai. XV. Kal. Febr. Consiantinopoli, Richomere et
Clearcho Coss. (384). (113, 1)

35 Tbid., XX, xiii, 1, “Imp. Iulianus A. ad Sallustium Pf. P. Aurum coronarium
munus est voluntatis, quod non solum senatoribus, sed ne aliis quidem debet indici,
licet quaedam indictionum necessitas postulaverit; sed nostro arbitrio reservari oporte-
bit. Dat, 111. Kal. Mai Mamertino et Nevitia Coss. (362). (114, 1)

36 Dio. Cass., LXAXVII ΠΧ ΎΤΙΤΊ, ix, 2-3 [L. IX, 294/5), “ χωρὶς γὰρ τῶν στεφάνων τῶν
χρυσῶν ods ws καὶ πολεμίους τινὰς ἀεὶ νικῶν πολλάκις Fre (λέγω δὲ οὐκ αὐτὸ τοῦτο τὸ τῶν
στεφάνων ποίημα: πόσον γὰρ τοῦτό γέ ἐστιν ; ἀλλὰ τὸ τῶν χρημάτων πλῆθος τῶν ἐπ᾽ ὀνόματι
αὐτοῦ διδομένων, οἷς στεφανοῦν αἱ πόλεις τοὺς αὐτοκράτορας εἰώθασιν ”’. (114, 2)

37 Suidas, Ὁ. 976 “ Σ᾽ τεφανικὸν τέλεσμα παρὰ ἱοδίοις οὗτος ἐκαλεῖτο, ἐπειδὴ αὐτόνομοι ἦσαν
οἱ ἹΡοδίοι, βραχὺ δέ τις μέρος Ῥωμαίοις ἐπὶ τιμῇ πέμποντες ἐτήσιον ὡς οὐ φόρου ἡγεμόσι
μᾶλλον ἢ στέφανον φίλοις διδόντες ᾽΄. (114, 8)

38 Amm. Mare., XXIII, iii, 8 [L. ΤΙ, 824], “ Sarracenarum reguli gentium genibus
supplices nixi, oblata ex auro corona, tamquam mundi nationumque suarum dominum
adorant ”’, (114, 4)

39 Procopius, Goth., I[V], vi, 2 [1. ITI, 48/9], * ... πέμψει δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ στέφανον χρυσοῦν
ἀνὰ πᾶν ἔτος κατὰ τριακοσίας ἕλκοντα λίτρας, ... ᾿. [On the Aurum coronarium, see,
Seston, RHA, XLIV (1942) and Lacombrade, Jbid., LI (1949)}. (114, 5)

40 Procopius, Aed., III, ii, 6 [L. VII, 188/9], “... of τῇδε ὠκημένοι ... dua Θεοδώρῳ
τηνικάδε Σοφανηνῆς σατραπεύοντι καὶ τῆς σατραπείας ἐνδιδυσκομένῳ τὸ σχῆμα, KaBady
προσῆλθον εὐθύς, σφᾶς τε αὐτοὺς καὶ Μαρτυρόπολιν αὐτῷ ἐνδιδόντες, φόρους τε τοὺς δημοσίους

ἐνιαυτοῖν δυοῖν ἐν χερσὶν ἔχοντες ᾽΄. (115, 1)

412 NOTES : CHAPTER V

402 [See above, nn. 27 and 33b.]

40b [C.J, X, xvi, 18. For the text of this decree, see Appendix 1 C, Cf. Toumanoff,
Studies, pp. 198-195 and τ. 212.]

41 Procopius, Aed., ITI, i, 14-15 [L, VII, 182/38], “*... καὶ τὸ λοιπὸν [after the partition
of 387] ὁ Ρωμαίων βασιλεὺς ἄρχοντα τοῖς ᾿Αμενίοις ἀεὶ καθίστη ὅντινά ποτὲ καὶ ὁπηνίκα
ἂν αὐτῷ βουλομένῳ εἴη. κόμητά τε ᾿Αρμενίας ἐκάλουν καὶ εἰς ἐμὲ τὸν ἄρχοντα τοῦτον. (116, 1)

42 MX, ID, xvi, “δι myindbinks ns fun ἰμπηπιη fh Sajhp p ΠΧ}
fupbuby [?uqunnp, oo ok ΓΟ ΤΩΣ fupbmby Haru fbr ἰμυηπιη fh Snjhp
hotkun pofumin”. (115, 2)

42a [This point of view is shared by Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 194-195. See above n, 33a
for Jones’ thesis that the office of comes Armeniae was probably not created before the
end of the Vth century, 7.e. almost a century after the partition of Armenia and half
a century after the end of the Arsacid rule in any part of the country. |

43 Procopius, Aed., III, i, 15-16, [L. VII, 182/38), “AAA ἐπεὶ ody οἵα τε ἦν ἡ
τοιαύτη ἀρχὴ [of the comes Armeniae] ἀποκούεσθαι τὰς τῶν πολεμίων ἐφόδους, οὐ
παρόντων αὐτῇ στρατιωτικῶν καταλόγων, ..”’. [Nevertheless, Jones, LRH, I, 229, 271,
is of the opinion that, *‘ the post of comes Armeniae was created to take over the com-
ταδὶ of the local levies which protected the area’. Toumanoff, Siudies, pp. 152, 193-
196, refers to him as a ‘‘ viceroy’. This was also the opinion of Giiterbock, Rémisch-
Armenien, p. 26 who also noted, however, that the count had no troops at his disposal,
** An der Spitze des Landes stand der Comes Armeniae — dies sein offizieller Titel — com
Kaiser als sein Verireter ernannt und nach der damaligen hierarchischen Rangordnung
mit dem Rang eines spectabilis bekleidet. In welche Kategorie der Comites er aber ein-
zureihen, wird bei der Diirftigkeit der Nachrichten sich mit Sicherkeit kaum entscheiden
lassen ... [der] Comes Armeniae itiberhaupt keine Truppen — weder regulire noch
Auziliartruppen zur Verftigung standen, und er der Militérgewalt entbebrte,” also
Ibid., pp. 37 sqq. ete.]. (117, 1)

. 488 [ Not. dig., xxii, σαν, xxix, pp. 48, 58, 61.]

44 Bethmann-Hollweg, Civilprocess, No. 132, pp. 53-54. [On the comes Orientis
and his office, see also, Jones, LRH, I, pp. 105, 373, 481, 592}. (118, 1)

45 Gtterbock, Rémisch-Armenien, Ὁ. 27, [* Dies vorausgeschickt, dtirfte die Ver-
mutung wohl nicht zu gewagt erscheinen, dass auch der Comes Armeniae eine abnliche
Stellung wie der Comes Orientis eingenommen habe, und dass auch ihm, der an des
Kaisers statt ein Kénigreich zu verwalten und zu regieren berufen war, eben deshalb
die besondern Rechte eines Vicarius beigelegt worden seien ”’.] (118, 2)

ada [Adontz’s view that the native Armenian princes were the equivalent of provincial
praesides in their relation to the comes Armeniae is questioned by Toumanoff, Studies,
p. 195 π, 218,1

46 Cod. Th., XI, i, 15 [** Unusquisque annonarias species pro modo capitationis et
sortium praebiturus per quaternos menses anni curriculo distributo, tribus vicibus
summam collationis implebit. Si vero quisquam uno tempore omnia sua debita optat
expendere, proprio in accelerandis necessitatibus suis utatur arbitrio. Dat. XIV.
Kal. lun. Remis, Gratiano e¢-Dagalaipho Coss. (366)]. (119, 1)

46a (CJ, X, xvi, 18. For the text of this decree, see Appendix IC. Cf. also ahove,
n. 40b.]

4? Procopius, Pers., II, iii, 6-7 [L.I, 270/1-272/3},
“?Axaxios ... τὴν “Appeviay ἀρχὴν δόντος βασιλέως ἔσχεν αὐτός. πονηρὸς δὲ ὧν φύσει ἔσχε

NOTES : CHAPTER V 413

καθ᾽ 6 τις τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς ἤθη ἐνδείξοιτο. γέγονεν οὖν ἐς τοὺς ἀρχομένους ὠμότατος ἀνθρώπων
ἁπάντων. τά τε γὰρ χρήματα ἐληίΐζετο οὐδενὶ Adyw καὶ φόρου αὐτοῖς ἀπαγωγὴν οὔποτε οὖσαν
ἐς κεντηνάρια τέσσαρα ἔταξεν. ᾿Αρμένοι δέ (φέρειν γὰρ οὐκέτι αὐτὸν οἷοί τε ἦσαν) κτείνουσί
τε ξυμφρονήσαντες τὸν ᾿Ακάκιον καὶ ἐς τὸ Φαράγγιον καταφεύγουσι ”’. (120, 1)

48 Ibid., 11, iii, 8-9 [L. 1, 2725],

" Διὰ δὴ Σίτταν én’ αὐτους ἐκ Βυζαντίου βασιλεὺς ἔπεμψεν ... ὃς δὴ ἐς “Appeviovs ἐλθὼν

τὸ μὲν πρῶτα ἐς τὸν πόλεμον ὀκνηρῶς ἤει τιθασσεύειν μέντοι καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ πρότερα ἤθη ἀντικα-

θιστάναι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἠπείγετο πείθειν βασιλέα ὑποσχόμενος ἀφεῖναι αὐτοῖς τὴν καινὴν

τοῦ φόρου ἀπαγωγήν ”’. (120, 2)
48a [See above τι. 31, also Chapter VII below.]

48b [Idem.]

49 Procopius, Pers., 11, iii, 39 [L. I, 2801], δ΄ ... οὐχ ἡμῖν μὲν φόρου ἀπαγωγὴν ἔταξεν οὐ
πρότερον οὖσαν ... ᾽. (121, 1)

49a [See Manandian, Trade, pp. 116-120, for an attempt to evaluate the weights and
currency of the period.]

50 CJ, VII, lxiii, 5, “‘ Imp. Iustinianus A. Triboniano quaestort sacri palatt. Cum
anterioribus legibus ex omni provincia ad hune nostrum sacratissimus comitatum similis
cursus ad appellationes exercendas impertitus est, necessarium nobis visum est huius-
modi spatiis iustum imponere libramentum. Sancimus itaque, si quidem ab Aegyptiaco
vel Libyco limite vel Orientali tractu usque ad utrasque Cilicias numerando vel Ar-
meniis et gentibus et omni Ilyrico causa fuerit more appellationum transmissa, primum
semestre spatium in antiqua definitione permanere et nihil penitus neque deminui

neque adcrescere ”’. (122, 1)
51 FB, V, liv. Sebéos, p. 159. [See, Toumanoff, Siudies, Ὁ. 201 sqq., 316, etc.]. (122, 2)
52 FB, V, liv. (123, 1)
53 Ibid., V, xxxvii. [Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 193 τι. 209]. (123, 2)

54 Huse, 1, p.10, “Ambg hugilp fp Ζιιπη Ubomy--- pup part muh
qnumubhh δα πη ἢ ᾽ also IV, p. 92 etc. LP’, xxxvi, p. 209,“ +--+ wyp,p jnummblmg ”,
also xli, p. 231, ef al. [ΟΡ Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 193 τι. 207]. (123, 3)

53 LP, xxxii, p. 188, " Qmhywqmh ... umubkog mobth”. (123, 4)

58 Tbid., xl, pp. 229-230, 235-236, “--- Umpap upan [U pou dpa pep pump lth
Lmjny-+.” = Elise, VI, pp. 128-129. Cf. duimlmh for iulbhnhiul [The Venice
edition of Lazar P’arpeci does not give the surname Upoul uh for Atrormizd, loc. cit.,
but merely calls him “" Umpnpufiqy nifiy whmh -..”. cf. however p. 230] (123, δ)

57 Procopius, Pers., 11, iii, 32 [L. I, 2189], “ Εἰσὶ μὲν ἡμῶν πολλοὶ *Apoaxida... ”.
Ibid., Tl, iii, 25 [L. 1, 276/7], “᾿Αρταβάνης δὲ ᾿Ιωάννου παῖς ᾿Αρσακίδης ...”’. (124, 1)

57a [On Artabanes’ career, see, Procopius, Vand., ΤΙ [IV], passim, especially xxvii,
12-xxviii, 42 [L. IT, 438/9-456/7]; also below, Chapter VIII, n. 3b]

58 Joh. Eph., de beaiis, xiii, p. 69, ‘* Vir fuerat magnificus et fastidiosus, a puero
regie educatus, natus genere Arsacidarum, Bar-Bar’i, olim patricii omnium in Oriente
potentissimi, maximi, et illustrissimi”. Bar-Bar’t = Bar-ym<pl? (124, 2)

59 Ibid. xxi, p. 101. (124, 3)

60 Sebéos., p. 139, “ -.. Uubpmgfp, fofumh Ρ Βιιημιπππεδίτιη, bh Vobmgmyp,
h “hsp ἢΜ1}, phi, h nyp pGhinkuy gunuint ooo ἦν Yuphughp, h Suykghp ae
Nersés, pp. 36, 38, Yuphugfhp, hinpdbhp p, var. hinpdbuh p, ‘hip Suny hip, var.
‘hip Subp Ρ and Qunffum p a (124, 4)

$1 FB, IV, xiv. [Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 233 n. 291). (125, 1)

414 NOTES : CHAPTER V

62 FB, ΤΙ], ii, e al. (125, 2)
63 EP’, xviii, p. 111. (125, 8)
64 Buse, IV, p. 98, “ +--mn myn uf, apy {παι ἢ mun ἐμ. ΓΙ
Unb πὶ μη πῃ huh f dumnmynife buh Smimy soe Gafm my Y muul yuh
Yuuuh frp ηπμδιιήβη fp dbounhd supful’ qnp dpwpubbgph Eplapbubh”.

(125, 4)
65 Procopius, Pers., I, iii, 31 [L. I, 2789], “*... Βασσάκου σφίσιν ἡγουμένου, dpacrnpiov
ἀνδρός". (125, 5)

66 According to αὐ, ὅδ, IV, p. 98, Vasak Mamikonean, the collaborator of the marzpan
was at that time (1.6. A.D. 451) the sparapet of Lower Armenia, and had been given the
command of the Roman troops along the Persian frontier, “‘ ΠΩΣ ΜΙ} muy in pity Fain in
Umnppis 2uyny κι funn p py yng Ζπππἣπη um Cou ΗΕ Qu πη fin 7
Lower Armenia must obviously mean the Satrapies, and consequently Vasak was one
of the Satraps. Hhsé’s information about the fifth century does not enhance his repu-
tation as a historian. Imperial armies were stationed neither in the Satrapies nor in
Armenia Interior in this period, the defense of the frontier being entrusted to native
troops until 529 when Justinian first appointed a magister mliiwm per Armemam and
three dukes under his command [see next chapter]. Since Elsé speaks of a sparapei
of Roman troops in Armenia, whether we take this to be the magisier himself or one of
the dukes, the History of the Vardanank’ cannot have been composed earlier than 529
when these offices were created. azar P’arpeci does not know this Vasak Mami-
konean, consequently the reference to him must be attributed to those additions.in the
text of E86 which are not found in the parallel sections of Lazar’s History. Might
the Vasak of Eli8é be a memory of the historic Vasak, the leader of the Armenian rebels
mentioned by Procopius? Procopius places the arrival of Vasak in Constantinople
before the Persian campaign of 544. At that time the office of one of the dukes of
Armenia was held by a member of the Kamsarakan house, who resided at Kitharizon.
Perhaps, Vasak was also appointed duke because of his knowledge of local affairs, and
sent to Martyropolis, which was likewise the station of one of the dukes. Such a detail
is interesting for a study of the text of Hisé. (126, 1(

NOTES : CHAPTER VI 41

CHAPTER VI

1 De Iustiniano codice confirmando, incipit. [On the reforms of Justinian and his
legislative and administrative activity in general, see Jones, LRH, and Stein, Bas Empire,
II as well as Rubin, Justinian. For his policy in the East and in Armenia in particular,
see also, Ibid., iv, pp. 245 sqq. and Toumanoff, Studies, 174-175, 194-196, ete.; Manan-
dian, Feudalism, pp. 299-303; Sukiasian, Armenia, pp. 325-332]. (128, 1)

2 Procopius, Pers., I, ii, 6 [L. I, 2667,

δ ἡ μὲν yap νεωτεροποιός Te ὧν φύσει Kal τῶν οὐδ᾽ ὁπωστιοῦν αὐτῷ προσηκόντων ἐρῶν, μένειν
τε οὐ δυνάμενος ἐν τοῖς καθεστῶσι, γῆν μὲν ἅπασαν ξυλλαβεῖν ἐπεθύμησεν, ἑκάστην δὲ ἀρχὴν
περιβαλέσθαι ἐν σπουδῇ ἔσχεν ἢ. (128, 2)

3 Tbid., ΤΊ, iii, 42-43 [L. J, 2825],

δ ἡ γῆ τὸν ἄνθρωπον od χωρεῖ ξύμπασα" μικρόν ἐστὶν αὐτῷ πάντων ὁμοῦ τῶν ἀνθρώπων κρατεῖν.
ὁ δὲ καὶ τὸν αἰθέρα περισκοπεῖ καὶ τοὺς ὑπὲρ τὸν ὠκεανὸν διερευνᾶται μυχούς, ἄλλην αὑτῷ τινα
οἰκουμένην περιποιεῖσθαι βουλόμενος ”’. (129, 1)
4 Nov., XXX = Consi., XLIV, xi, 2,
** Kai καθαρῶς τοῖς ἡμετέροις ὑπηκόοις (τοῦτο ὅπερ πολλάκις εἰρήκαμεν) χρήσεται, πρᾶγμα
διεσπουδασμένον ἡμῖν καὶ χρημάτων ἀμελῆσαι παρασκευάσαν μεγάλων, καίτοιγε ἐν τοσαύταις
δαπάναις καὶ πολέμοὶς μεγάλοις, δι᾽ ὧν δέδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Πέρσας τε ἄγειν εἰρήνην
Βανδίλους τε καὶ ᾿Αλανοὺς καὶ αυρουσίους χειρώσασθαι καὶ ᾿Αφρικὴν ὅλην καὶ πρὸς γὲ καὶ
Σικελίαν κατακτήσασθαι, καὶ ἐλπίδας ἔχειν ἀγαθὰς ὅτι καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἡμῖν τὴν ἐπικράτειαν

7 ς A eS ΕΣ f τ ~ f “~ h! ξ 7 3 ἘΞ ?
νεύσειεν ὁ θεὸς ὧνπερ οἱ πάλαι “βωμαῖοι μέχρι τῶν πρὸς ἑκάτερον ὠκεανον ὁρίων κρατήσαντες

ταῖς ἐφεξῆς ἀπέβαλον ῥᾳθυμίαις" ... ᾽ἢ. (129, 2)
5 CJ, I, xvii, 1. Jbid., I, xiv, 12 (1), “ Quid enim maius, quid sanctius imperiali
est maiestate ? ”’. (130, 1)
6 Tbed., I, xiv, 12 (5), “ἡ... tam conditor quam interpres legum solus imperator solus
juste existimabitur ”’. (130, 2)
ἡ Ibid., I, xvii, 2, introduction. (130, 3)

8 Jbid., I, xiv, 12(1), “... quis tantae superbiae fastidio tumidus est, ut regalem
sensum contemnat, cum et veteris iuris conditores constitutiones, quae ex imperiali
decreto processerunt, legis vicem obtinere aperte dilucideque definiunt? ... (4) vel quis
legum aenigmata solvere et omnibus aperire idoneus esse videbitur nisi is, cui soli legis
latore esse concessum est? ᾽", (130, 4)

9 Ibid., I, xxvii, 2 (1). (180, 5(

92 [Vasiliev, ‘‘ Review’, ZU NP, pp. 416-417, objected that Adontz tends to under-
estimate the activity of Justinian’s predecessors and of Anastasius in particular, in
various parts of his work. In the present section, Adontz does follow perhaps too
closely the evaluations of Procopius, as expressed in the Buildings, a work repeatedly
tending to shift from history to panegyric.]

10 Procopius, Aed., III, i, 16 [L. VII, 182/3],

“AAW ἐπεὶ οὐχ οἷα Te ἦν ἡ τοιαύτη ἀρχὴ ἀποκρούεσθαι τὰς τῶν πολεμίων ἐφόδους, οὐ παρόντων
αὐτῇ στρατιωτικῶν καταλόγων, κατανενοηκὼς ᾿Ιουστινιανὸς βασιλεὺς οὕτως ἀτάκτως τὴν
᾿Αρμενίαν ἀεὶ φερομένην, ταύτῃ τε τοῖς βαρβάροις εὐάλωτον οὖσαν ταύτην μὲν τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐνθένδε
καθεῖλε, στρατηγὸν δὲ τοῖς ᾿Αἱρμενίοις ἐπέστησε, στρατιωτικῶν τε καταλόγων αὐτῷ κατεστήσατο
πλῆθος ἀξιόχρεων ταῖς τῶν πολεμίων ἐπιδρομαῖς ἀντιτάξασθαι. τὰ μὲν οὖν ἀμφὶ τῇ μεγάλη

καλουμένῃ ᾿Αρμενίᾳ διῳκήσατο ὧδε, ... ᾽ἢ. (182, 1)

416 ἂν NOTES: CHAPTER VI

11 Jbid., ITI, i, 28-29 [L. VII, 1867],
πῆς καὶ ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ πολεμίους προσβάλλοντας ἀποκρούεσθαι ἀδύνατοι ἦσαν [σατράπαὶ] ἃ δὴ
καταμαθὼν ᾿]ουστινιανὸς βασιλεὺς τὸ μὲν τῶν σατραπῶν ὄνομα ἐξήλασεν ἐνθένδε εὐθύς, δοῦκας
δὲ τοὺς καλουμένους δύο τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἐπέστησε τούτοις" οἷς δὴ ξυνεστήσατο μὲν Ρωμαίων
στρατιωτῶν καταλόγους παμπληθεῖς, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ τὰ Ῥωμαίων ξυμφυλάξουσιν αὐτοῖς ὅρια" ... ἢ

. . (132, 2)

118. [CJ, I, xxix, 5. For the text of this decree, see Appendix I B.]

12 Malalas, pp. 429-430,

*? Ey δὲ τῷ προγεγραμμένῳ ἔτει τῆς βασιλείας ᾿Ιουστινιανοῦ κατεπέμφθη στρατηλάτης
*Appevias ὀνόματι Ζτίττας. ἐν γὰρ τοῖς προλαβοῦσι χρόνοις οὐκ εἶχεν ἡ αὐτὴ ᾿Αρμενία στρατη-
λάτην, ἀλλὰ δοῦκας καὶ ἄρχοντας καὶ κόμητας. δέδωκε δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς βασιλεὺς τῷ αὐτῷ στρατηλάτῃ
ἀριθμοὺς στρατιωτῶν ἐκ τῶν δύο πραισέντων καὶ ἄνατολῆς. καὶ στρατεύσας ἐντοπίους
σκρινιαρίους ἐποίησεν ἑαυτῷ σκρινιαρίους στρατηλατιανοὺς ἀπὸ θείας σάκρας, αἰτησάμενος
τὸν βασιλέα αὐτόχθονας στρατεῦσαι, ὡς εἰδότας τὰ μέρη τῆς “Appevias. καὶ παρέσχεν αὐτῷ
τοῦτο καὶ τὰ δίκαια τῶν ᾿"Αρμενίων τῶν δουκῶν καὶ τῶν κομήτων καὶ τοὺς ὑπάτους αὐτῷν,
πρῷην μὲν ὄντας καστρισιαγνοὺς στρατιώτας: ἦσαν γὰρ καταλυθεῖσαι αἱ πρῷην οὖσαι ἀρχαί.
ἔλαβε δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ στρατηλάτου ἀνατολῆς ἀριθμοὺς τέσσαρας" καὶ γέγονεν ἔκτοτε μεγάλη
παραφυλακὴ Ῥωμαίοις. ἣν δὲ καὶ ὁ ἀνὴρ πολεμικός" ὅτις καὶ τὴν ἀδελφὴν Θεοδώρας τῆς
«Αὐγούστας ἠγάγετο πρὸς γάμον, ὀνόματι Ϊζομιτώ, ... ἢ. (184, 1)

12a (Cf. Jones, LRE, I, p. 271 who speaks of five dukes in 528, atthe time when the
post of magister militum per Armeniam was created, also Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 195-
196.]

13 Justinian himself dated the beginning of his reign from 1 April, 527, Nov., XLVII =
Const., LX VI, i, 1, when he was designated as co-emperor by Justin I. According to
Procopius, Anec., IX, liii [L. VI, 118/9], this was three days before Easter, which fell
on April 4 in 527. He became sole emperor on 1 August of the same year. Giiterbock,
Rémisch.-Armenien, Ὁ. 40 dates the accession incorrectly in 528. [For the date of
the creation of the office of magisier militum per Armeniam, see Jones, LRH, I, Ὁ. 271,
and above, Chapter V, n. 26a). (135, 1)

14 Procopius, Pers., I, xv, 3 [L.I, 1801],

[ἐτύγχανε δὲ "Appevias μὲν στρατηγὸς Δωρόθεος ὦν, ἀνὴρ Evverds τε Kal πολέμων πολλῶν
ἔμπειρος. Σίττας δὲ ἀρχὴν μὲν τὴν στρατηγίδα ἐν Βυζαντίῳ εἶχε, παντὶ δὲ τῷ ἐν "Appeviors
στρατῷ ἐφειστήκει ”’.] (135, 2)
15 Ibid., I, xxi, 2 [1..1, 1945],
ἡ καὶ Βελισάριος βασιλεῖ ἐς Βυζάντιον μετάπεμπτος ἦλθε ... Σίττας δέ, ᾿Ιουστινιανῷ βασιλεῖ
τοῦτο δεδογμένον, ὡς φυλάξων τὴν ἑῴαν ἐνταῦθα ἦλθε. ...”.

[Procopius says that Belisarius had been removed from his eastern command, “ in order
that he might march against the Vandals ... ”’]. (125, 3)

16 Jbid., I, xxi, 9 [L.I, 196/7],

“ Σίττας δὲ καὶ ὁ ᾿Ῥωμαΐων στρατὸς és χωρίον μὲν ᾿Ατταχᾶς ἦλθον, Μαρτυροπόλεως ἑκατὸν

τ

σταδίοις διέχον, ἐς τὰ πρόσω δὲ οὐκ ἐτόλμων ἱέναι, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐνστρατοπεδευσάμενοι ἔμενον ᾿ἢ.
: (186, 1)

‘17 Malalas, p. 465," ... καὶ ἐντυχων τοῖς γράμμασιν ὃ βασιλεὺς ᾿ΪΙουστινιανός, κελεύσας
διὰ γραμμάτων Τζίττᾳ τῷ στρατηλάτῃ πραισέντουν, ἐν ᾿Αρμενίᾳ διάγοντι, καταλαβεῖν τὴν
ἀνατολὴν πρὸς συμμαχίαν: ὅστις Τζίττας καὶ Περσικὰς χώρας παρέλαβε. παρελθὼν δὲ διὰ
τῶν ᾿Αρμενίων ὀρέων εἰσῆλθεν εἰς Σαμόσατα ... . Magisier militum praesentis is the
equivalent of Procopius’ Pers., I, xv, 3 [L. J, 1380/1], ".«. ἀρχὴν μὲν τὴν στρατηγίδα ἐν
Βυζαντίῳ εἶχε ...””. ; (136, 2)

NOTES : CHAPTER VI 417

3

18 Malalas, ». 466,“ ... προαγαγὼν δὲ οῦνδον ἐποιησεν αὐτὸν στρατηλάτην ἀνατολῆς ’

[Cf. Rubin, Justinian, p. 289]. (136, 3)
19 Malalas, Ὁ. 470. (136, 4)
20 Tbed., p. 469. (136, 5)
21 Ibid., p. 472. (136, 6)

21a [Procopius, Pers., I, xv, 9-17 [L. 1, 180/1-1384/5].]

210 [See above, τι. 12.]

ale [ Not. dig., IX, 49, p. 30. Cf. Jones, LRH, I, pp. 597-599.]

22 Tafe of St. Theodore, Ὁ. 3, °°... σὺν στρατηγῷ Οὐρσικίῳ, ἄνδρί ye πάνυ ὄντι περὶ τὰ
πολεμικὰ ἱκανώτατον, ὅν διὰ τὸ περίδοξον τῆς μονομαχίας βασιλεὺς ᾿Ιουστινιανὸς ἔζευξεν
αὐτῷ γυναῖκα τὴν ἀδελφὴν Θεοδώρας τῆς ἀυγούστης, ὀνόματι Κομιτώ". It has been
thought that Ursicinus was Sittas’ Roman name, Jbid., Introduction. It is more likely
that his real name was Ursuk, of. Pehl. asrak, “priest”. Cf. also Upumb-fu
a bishop’s name given by Agai’, cxxi, p. 624, and Uuppl [Uupni], the successor
of bishop Xad, in FB, IV, xii [Rubin, Justinian, p. 508 τι. 1010, rejects this hypothesis].

(138, 1)

22a [C J, I, xxix, 5, see Appendix I B.]

22b [ Not. dig., vi, 31; vii, 49-50, 58, see Appendix 11 A.]

23 [See above τι. 12). Cedrenus, I, Ὁ. 648 says that the four numeri had 1,000 men
apiece, a statement which needs verification. (138, 2)

24 Theoph. Conf., 1, p. 175, follows Malalas, but describes the scriniarz in his own fashion,

** προεβάλετο δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς στρατηλάτην ᾿Αρμενίας Τζίταν, ἄνδρα πολεμικὸν Kal ἱκανώτατον.

οὐ γὰρ εἶχεν ἡ ᾿Αρμενία στρατηλάτην, ἀλλὰ δοῦκας καὶ κόμητας. ἐστράτευσε δὲ ὑπ᾽ αὐτὸν
"Appeviwy πλῆθος, ὡς εἰδότας τὰ μέρη τῆς ᾿Αρμενίας. ἔδωκε δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀνατολῆς
στρατοῦ ἀριθμοὺς τέσσαρας" καὶ γέγονε μεγάλη φυλακὴ καὶ βοήθεια “Ῥωμαίων. ἔξευξε δὲ
αὐτῷ καὶ γυναῖκα τὴν ἀδελφὴν Θεοδώρας τῆς αὐγούστης, ὀνόματι Kopnrw””. (139:1)

25 Procopius, Pers., 1, xv, 11 [L.I, 1382/3], the Persians were, “"... οὐχ ἦσσον ἢ
τρισμυρίους ", whereas the Romans were, “... μόλις ἐς τὸ ἥμισυ ... ἐξικνούμενοι ᾿ἢ.

(139, 8)

86. Tbid., 11, xxiv, 16 [L. I, 478/9], “*... ξυνήει δὲ ὁ στρατὸς ἅπας εἰς τρισμυρίους ”’. (139, 3)

26a [See above, Chapter V n. 7a.]

26b [Cf. Stein, Bas-Empire, ΤΊ, pp. 289-291 and Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 152, 174, etc. ]

(139, 4)

2? Jos. Styl., li, p. xlv.

27a [Procopius, Aed., II, ii, 2-3; iii, 8, 14; iv, 15-20; v, 12; vi, 16-17, 26[L. VII, 186/7,
192/3, 194/5, 198/9-200/1, 204/5, 208/9, 212/83. See above Chapter I, pp. 9-10,14-16,
18-20 and Chapter ITI, pp. 49-51.]

28 Procopius, Aed., I, i, 17 [L. VII, 8/9], “ ὡς μὴ ἀπιστεῖν τῷ τε πλήθει Kal τῷ μεγέθει
«ὦ. τοῖς αὐτὰς θεωμένοις ξυμβαίη ὅτι δὴ ἀνδρὸς ἑνὸς ἔργα τυγχάνει ὄντα ᾿ἢ. (140, 1)

28a [10ϊ]., 111, ii-vi, L. VII, 187/8-212/3.]

28b [Ibid., III, iv, Τῷ. VII, 194/5-200/1.]

380 [Tbid., ITI, ii, 11-14, [L. VII, 190/1,
τ Διὸ δὴ βασιλεὺς ᾿Ιουστινιανὸς ἐπενόει τάδε" τοῦ περιβόλου ἐκτὸς τὴν γῆν διορύξας, θεμέλιά
τε ταύτῃ ἐνθέμενος τείχισμα ὠκοδομήσατο ἕτερον ἐς ποδῶν πάχος διῆκον τεττάρων, χώραν
διαλιπὼν μεταξὺ τετταρὼων ἑτέρων τὸ εὖρος, ἐς ὕψος δὲ καὶ τοῦτο ἀναστήσας ποδῶν εἴκοσιν,
ἴσον τῷ προτέρῳ παντάπασιν ἐσκευάσατο εἶναι. μετὰ δὲ λίθους τε καὶ τίτανον ἐς χῶρον τὸν

μεταξὺ τείχους ἑκατέρου ἐμβεβλημένος ἐς μίαν τινα οἰκοδομίαν δυοκαίδεκα τὸ πάχος ποδῶν

418 NOTES : CHAPTER VI

\ Ψ n 3 2 - ? 4 2 A > Ἃ ? 3 2 “
τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο ἀποτετόρνευται. ὕπερθέν τε κατὰ πάχος τὸ αὐτὸ, μάλιστα ἐς ὕψος τοσοῦτον
3 3 - 2 4 7 = 3 4 1 ? é a σι
ἐντέθεικεν, ὅσον ξυνέβαινε τὸ πρότερον εἶναι. ἀλλὰ καὶ προτείχισμα λόγου πολλοῦ ἄξιον τῇ
7 2 ’ ν᾿» ξ “ σ 1 , > ἃ 2 33
πόλει δεδημιούργηκε καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἁπλῶς ἅπαντα οἷς δὴ πόλεως ὀχύρωμα διασώζεται ᾽᾽.]}
28a [Jbid., III, iii, 6, [L. VII, 1928],
ee 4 \ 3 4 2’ -“ ‘ 3 a a 3 é - 3 7 ’
βασιλεὺς δὲ ᾿]ουστινιανὸς ev τε TH Φεισὼν κἂν τοῖς στενωποῖς ὀχυρώματά τε ἀξιοθέατα καὶ
στρατιωτῶν φρουρὰν ἀνανταγώνιστον καταστησάμενος, ἄβατον βαρβάροις τὴν χώραν διεπράξατο
παντάπασιν εἶναι ᾽.}
ase [7ὲ]4., III, iii, 7-8, [L. ὙΠ, 192/3],]
“? Ey δὲ τῷ Κιθαρίζων χωρίῳ, ὅπερ ἐπὶ ᾿Ασθιανίνης τῆς καλουμένης ἐστί, φρούριον od πρότερον
n > ? ? et ͵ 7 ΣΡ 7 Ww Ἃ ᾿ μ᾽
ὃν ἐν χώρῳ λοφώδει ὑπερῴφυές τε Kar δαιμονίως ἄμαχον κατεστήσατο" ἔνθα δὴ καὶ διαρκὲς
ind > Ἃ é 37 3 a ~ = Ἂν 3 2 7 id A -
ὕδωρ ἐσαγαγὼν τά τε ἄλλα πᾶντα τοῖς τῇδε ᾧκημένοις ἐν ἐπιτηδείῳ πεποιημένος, τὸν ἕτερον
δοῦκα, ἧπέρ μοι εἴρηται, ξὺν στρατιωτῶν ἐνταῦθα φρουρᾷ ἱκανωτάτῃ ἱδρύσατο. ταύτῃ τε
a “Ὁ ? ? μι: a} 3 4 > ? 39
τοῖς τῶν ᾿Αρμενίων ἔθνεσι τὴν ἀσφάλειαν ἀνεσώσατο ”’.
Jbid., VWI, iii, 14, [L. VII, 1946],
ςς , ἐν > % é “. # 3 2 »» ~ ? 3 ? 4
χωρίον ἦν ἐπὶ μέσης τῆς χώρας ᾿Αρταλέσων ὄνομα. τοῦτο τείχει ἐχυρωτάτῳ περιβαλὼν
4 , 3 δ 3 ᾽ 1 AY Pd ~ ξ ? e \
φρούριόν τε ἀμαχώτατον ἐξειργάσατο καὶ στρατιωτικοὺς καταλόγους τῆδε ἱδρύσατο, οἷς δὴ
2) 2 >. 3 7 ? id fo φ a “- ,ὔ “a “33
ἄρχοντα ἐς ἀεὶ ἐφεστάναι διώρισεν. ὅνπερ δοῦκα Ρωμαῖοι τῇ Aativwy καλοῦσι φωνῇ ᾿".
ast [70164., III, v, 2,[1.. VII, 200/1),
ee ς 7 Θ ὃ ? τ Ῥ ? A AY ‘ "A 7 3 ? Ν εκ ? wv
ἡνίκα Θεοδόσιος ὁ Ρωμαίων βασιλεὺς τὴν ᾿Αρσάκου ἐπικράτειαν ἔσχεν, ἧπέρ μοι ἔναγχος
δεδιήγηται, φρούριον ἐπί τινος τῶν λόφων φκοδομήσατο τοῖς προσιοῦσιν εὐάλωτον, 6 δὴ Θεοδο-
σιούπολιν ἐπωνόμασε ἡ. Cf. Toumanoff, CWH, IV, 1, p. 598 n. 1; Garitte, Narratio,
pp: 64-70. ]
288 [Procopius, Pers., I, x, 19, [L. 1, 82/3], “ἢ κώμη μὲν ἐκ παλαιοῦ ἐτύγχανεν οὖσα,
, A Ladd 2 32 3 »” 4 , , “a 3 , ᾿ ΄“
πόλεως δὲ ἀξίωμα μέχρι ἐς τὸ ὄνομα πρὸς Θεοδοσίου βασιλέως λαβοῦσα ἐπώνυμος αὐτοῦ
ἐγεγόνει ". Cf. Manandian, Trade, p. 88 and Toumanoff, Studies, p. 198 n. 209.]
ee 7A ? δὲ τ Ῥ , 3 f 4 AA ~ ia 5A 3 50 “ὃ ? A)
ναστάσιος δὲ ὁ ‘Pwyoiwy αὐτοκράτωρ οὐ πολλῷ ὕστερον πόλιν ἐνταῦθα ἐδείματο, τὸν
λόφον ἐντὸς τοῦ περιβόλου πεποιημένος, ἐφ᾽ οὗ δὴ φρούριον τὸ Θεοδοσίου εἱστήκει. καὶ τὸ μὲν
ς “a # “ 3 > “, 2.0} Δ 4 , a ~ la 3 “-
αὑτοῦ ὄνομα τῇ πόλει ἀφῆκεν, ἐξίτηλον δὲ τὸ Θεοδοσίου ποιεῖσθαι τοῦ πρότερον οἰκιστοῦ
Ὁ v > 4 ΄- ‘ Ἃ 4 a 3 ? ? 3.4 , 3
ἥκιστα ἴσχυσεν, ἐπεὶ νεοχμοῦσθαι μὲν τὰ καθωμιλημένα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἐς ἀεὶ πέφυκεν, ovo-
3 4 “A A ? > ? -“ wv “- % \ 7 “ 3 é
μάτων δὲ τῶν πρόσθεν μεθίεσθαι οὐκ εὐπετῶς ἔχει. τοῦτο δὲ TO Θεοδοσιουπόλεως τεῖχος εὐρύνετο
λῚ ξ , 3 ? \ ~ ¥ 3 na 4 a id > m 3 ᾽ > na
μὲν ἱκανώτατα, οὐ καταλόγον δὲ τοῦ εὔρους ἀνεῖχε. τὸ yap ὕψος αὐτῷ és τριάκοντα ἐξικνεῖτο
? , 2 , ~ # ‘ 7 ? rd ? 2.2
μάλιστα πόδας" ταύτῃ τε πολεμίοις τειχομαχοῦσιν, ἄλλως τε καὶ Πέρσαις, ἐγεγόνει λίαν εὐάλωτον.
ey \ + » 3}. 3 3} 4 ? ΕΝ ? > “a wv 3 ἣ “ fd
ἦν δὲ καὶ ἄλλως ἐπίμαχον. οὔτε yap προτείχισμα οὔτε τάφρος αὐτῷ ἤμυνεν. ἄλλα Kal χῶρός
τις ὡς ἀγχοτάτω ἐπεμβαΐνων τῇ πόλει τῷ περιβόλῳ ἐπανειστήκαι. dio δὴ βασιλεὺς ᾿]ουστινιανὸς
3 ? é -" Υ ? e ἢ > 3 > 2 , > \
ἀντεμηχανήσατο τάδε. πρῶτα μὲν τάφρον ws βαθυτάτην ἐν κύκλῳ ὀρύξας, χαράδραις αὐτὴν
ὁρῶν ἀποτόμων ἐμφερεστάτην εἰργάσατο. ἔπειτα δὲ χῶρον τὸν ὑπερπεφυκότα κατατεμὼν ἔς
3 3 AY 1 ? 32 3 ? A 3 a 4 cd I \
τε ἀνεκβάτους κρημνοὺς Kal onpayyas ἀδιεξόδους μετεστήσατο THY αὐτοῦ φύσιν ὅπως δὲ τὸ
τεῖχος ὑψηλόν τε εἴη διαφερόντως καὶ ὅλως ἀνανταγώνιστον, εἴ τις προσίοι, προσεπετεχνήσατο
ι Ld 3 td 4 3 ? 4 a > 2 9 2 3 ἴω 7? τ,
ἅπαντα ὅσα ἐν πόλει Adpas εἰργάσατο. τὰς γὰρ ἐπάλξεις ἀποσφίγξας ἐν στενῷ μάλιστα ὅσον
ἐνθένδε βάλλειν τοὺς τειχομαχοῦντας δυνατὰ εἶναι, ἔμβολόν τε αὐταῖς λίθων ἐπιβολαῖς ἐν περι-
δρόμῳ περιελίξας, ἐντέθεικεν ἐμπείρως ἐπάλξεις ἑτέρας, προτειχίσματί τε αὐτὸ περιβαλὼν
Ζ 3 ? ~ 3 ra ? ? ? ? ν ? 3 A
κύκλῳ ἐμφερέστατον τῷ ἐν πόλει Adpas περιβόλῳ πεποίηται, πύργον ἕκαστον φρούριον ἐχυρὸν
? Ἁ Ἃ 2 ξ ? 1 4 2. > , Ἁ e ?
τεκτηνάμενος. OD δὴ τὰς δυνάμεις ἁπάσας Kal τὸν ἐν ᾿Αἱρμενίαις στρατηγὸν ἱδρύσασθαι καταστη-
σάμενος κρείσσους τοὺς ᾿Αρμενίους διεπράξατο τὸ λοιπὸν εἶναι ἢ δεδιέναι τὴν Περσῶν ἔφοδον ””)
281 [Jbid., ΤΠ, ν, 13-15, [L. Vi, 204./5],

"Es μέντοι τὰ Βιζανὰ οὐδὲν οὐδὲν εἴργσται τῷ βασιλεῖ τούτῳ ἐξ αἰτίας τοιᾶσδς. κεῖται μὲν

NOTES : CHAPTER VI 419

ἐν TH ὁμαλῷ τὸ χωρίον, πεδία Te Gud αὐτὸ ἐπὶ μακρὸν ἱππήλατά ἐστιν, ὕδατος δὲ σηπεδόνες
πολλαὶ ξυνισταμένου ἐνταῦθά εἶσι. καὶ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῖς μὲν πολεμίοις ἐπιμαχώτατον, τοῖς δὲ
οἰκήτορσι λοιμωδέστατον αὐτὸ ξυμβαΐνει εἶναι, ὧν δὴ ἕνδεκα τὸ χωρίον τοῦτο ὑπεριδὼν ἑτέρωθι
πόλιν ἐδείματο αὐτοῦ βασιλέως ἐπώνυμον, ἀξιολογωτάτην τε καὶ ἄμαχον ὁλὼς ἐν χωρίῳ Τζουμινᾷ
καλουμένῳ, ὅπερ σημείοις μὲν τριο!: Bee? διέχει, ἐν κρημνώδει δὲ μάλιστα κείμενον εὐξίας
ἀέρων εὖ ἔχει".

28) [Nov., XXX, 1.] | :

ask [On Bizana-Leontopolis-Justinianopolis, see Jones, CREP, pp. 225-226, Stein,
Bas-Empire, p. 290 n. J, Honigmann, Ostgrenze, pp. 17-19, 93-94, and Eremyan, Ar-
menia, pp. 65, 83. The village of Vizan on the Kara-su can no longer be found in G 46,
though it is given in both Kiepert, Karie B, VI and Wilson, Handbook, p. 249, but the
locality named Vican is still indicated in the corresponding position on the USAF
300 Ai.]

29 From the verb Which; [to pour, to flood”). The form τὰ Βιζανά given Wy
Procopius, Aed., ITI, iv, 13 [L. VI, 198/9], “ ἐν Βιζανοῖς ᾿ corresponds to the Armenian
xhdmb—p, whereas Βίζανις = yYfdmh. The modern pronunciation is #idéwh and
not duh as it is given by Intitean, Geography, p. 91 [and Eremyan, Armenia, pp. 65,
83], Bizana is also mentioned in the Nova Tactica, Georg. Cypr., p. 78 as one of the
eparchies of the metropolis of Trapezos, “ὁ (θρόνος) Βιξάνων. The consiruction here
seems to indicate a nominative or the genitive from Βιζάνα. In the same List [Jbid.,
Ῥ. 82] we also find the city of Βαρζάνισσα next to [Κελιτζινή (= Ekelesené) in the metro-
politanate of Kamacha, which is easily confused with Bizana. We prefer the reading
Taptavicoa (now Gercanis) above Erzincan. This city cannot be identified with Bizana
since the latter was listed in the metropolitanate of Trapezos. [Cf Appendix II G,
for the text of the Nova Tactica. The reading Garzanissa pro Barzanissa is not suggested
by Gelzer in his edition of the Nova Tactica, loc. cit., and ἘΟΠΙΕΡΆΒΗΣ, Osigrenze, pp. 71,
75, identifies Barzanissés with Vardenik’ .] (145, 1)

80 The Greek -τζ- is a rendering of the palatal dzh. Intitean, Geography, p. 101,
gives the form Sfufili which is the western pronunciation corresponding to the Ὁ με
of the eastern pronunciation. Cf. Τζανοί and-Swhifh—p. [On Tzumina, see, Honig-
mann, Osigrenze, pp. 19, 199.] (145, 2)

31 Mansi, IX, p. 391, Gregory of Justinianopolis at the Council of 553. Ibid., XI,
p. 613, Theodore, ep., * area ἦτοι ᾿Ιουστινιανουπόλεως ” at-the Sixth Gicumenical
Council. (145, 3)

31a [Procopius, Aed., III, iv, 2-5 [L. VII, 194/5-196/7],

“ Σάταλα πόλις ἐπὶ σφαλερᾶς τὸ παλαιὸν ἐλπίδος εἱστήκει. τῶν μὲν yap πολεμίων τῆς γῆς
ὀλίγῳ διέχει, ἐν δαπέδῳ δὲ χθαμαλῳ κεῖται, λόφοις τε πολλοῖς ἀμφ᾽ αὐτὴν ἐπανεστηκόσιν
ὑπόκειται, περιβόλων τε αὐτῇ διὰ ταῦτα ἔδει τοῖς ἐπιβουλεύουσιν ἀμηχάνων ἑλεῖν. ἀλλὰ καὶ
τοιαύτῃ τοῦ χωρίου τὴν φύσιν οὔσῃ τὰ ἐκ τοῦ ἐρύματος σφαλερώτερα ἦν, φαύλως τε ἀρχὴν
τῇ κατασκευῇ καὶ παρέργως πεποιημένον καὶ τῷ μακρῷ χρόνῳ ἤδη τῆς οἰκοδομίας ἑκασταχοῦ
διερρωγότος, ἀλλὰ τοῦτο περιελὼν ὁ βασιλεὺς ὅλον, περίβολον ὠκοδομήσατο ἐνταῦθα νέον,
ὕψηλον μὲν ὅσον ὑπερπεφυκέναι τοὺς ἀμφ᾽ αὐτὸν λόφους δοκεῖν, εὐρυνόμενον δὲ ὅσον ἐπ᾽ ἀσφαλοῦς
ἐπανεστηκέναι TO γε τοῦ ὕψους ὑπέρογκον. καὶ προτείχισμα δὲ πολλοῦ ἄξιον λόγου πηξάμενος
ἐν κύκλῳ τοὺς πολεμίους κατέπληξε. καὶ φρούριον δὲ Σατάλων οὐ πολλῷ ἄποθεν ἐχυρὸν ἄγαν
ἐν χώρᾳ ᾿Οσροηνῶν καλουμένῃ ὠκοδομήσατο "".}

83 Cf, MX, Τί, iv, " -τὐριιπὰπαπδπι ἢ β din? pypml purnanqangn if, mp
ay} πὰ πηπὴιμ) ”. (146, 1)

420 NOTES : CHAPTER VI

328 [Procopius, Aed., 111, iv, 7-11 [L. VIZ, 196/7-198/9},
ςς πὶ δέ ? 3 ind Ent Δ 3 > ὔ λό 2 2 A
ν δέ τι φρούριον ἐν τῆδε τῇ χώρᾳ ἐν ἀκρωνυχίᾳ λόφου κατακρήμνον πεποιημένον τοῖς
, 3 ? - δ Ἃ 2 3 “a ἃ ςς 4 \ 3 ‘ ἣ A
πάλαι ἀνθρώποις, ὁ δὴ Πομπήιος ἐν τοῖς ἄνω χρόνοις ὁ ᾿Ρωμαΐων στρατηγὸς ἐξελὼν καὶ τῆς
χώρας τῷ πολέμῳ κύριος γεγονὼς ἐκρατύνατό τε ὡς μάλιστα καὶ KoAdveay ἐπωνόμασε: καὶ
τοῦτο οὖν χρόνῳ πεπονηκὸς τοσούτῳ τὸ πλῆθος βασιλεὺς ᾿]ουστινιανὸς ἀνεσώσατο δυνάμει
τῇ πάσῃ. καὶ χρήματα μέντοι προέμενος ἀνάριϑμα τοῖς τῇδε φκημένοις, ἐρύματα ἑκασταχοῦ
διεπράξατο ἐν τοῖς αὐτῶν ἰδίοις ἀγροῖς ἢ νέα δείμασθαι, ἢ ἀνοικοδομήσασθαι σαθρὰ γεγονότα.
Ό id ? \ 3 ra oe \ 232 wn é > 3 ~ 4
ὥστε ἅπαντα σχεδόν TL τὰ ὀχυρώματα, ὅσα δὴ ἐνταῦθα ξυμβαΐνει εἶναι, Jovariwravod βασιλέως
2 cd # 2 a 3 a ? 2 3 2 a) 2 3
τυγχάνει ἔργα ὄντα. ἐνταῦθα δὲ καὶ φρούρια ὠκοδομήσατο τό τε Βαιβερδὼν καλούμενον καὶ
τὸ "Αρεων. καὶ τὸ Δυσίορμον ἀνενεώσατο πεπονηκὸς ἤδη σὺν τῷ Avrapapilay. ἔν τε χωρίῳ,
ὅπερ Γερμανοῦ Φοσσᾶτον, φρούριον ἐδείματο νέον. ἄλλα καὶ Σεβαστείας καὶ Νικοπόλεως τῶν
5 3 , ? ‘ 3 3 γ A ? 3 2 nn
ἐν *Appevias πόλεων τὰ τείχη, ἐπεὶ καταπεσεῖσθαι πάντα ἔμελλον, τεταλαιπωρημένα τῷ
μήκει τοῦ χρόνου, ἀνοικοδομησάμενος πεποἴηται νέα ᾽".}

“*Hy δέ τι χωρίον ἐν τοῖς ᾿Αἱρμενίοις τὸ παλαιὸν μικροῖς καλουμένοις οὐ πολλῷ ἄποθεν
ποταμοῦ Εὐφράτου, ἐφ᾽ οὗ δὴ λόχος ᾿Ρωμαίων στρατιωτῶν ἵδρυτο. ελιτηνὴ μὲν τὸ χωρίον,
‘ 4 ¢ 3 3 ? 3 “2 ξι 3 ᾽ 3. é ξ fd 3 ,
λεγεὼν δὲ ὁ λόχος ἐπωνομάζετο. ἐνταῦθά πη ἔρυμα ἐν τετραγώνῳ ἐπὶ χώρας ὑπτίας ἐδείμαντο
ἐν τοῖς ἄνω χρόνοις Ρωμαῖοι, τοῖς τε στρατιώταις ἀποχρώντως ἐς καταλύσεις ἔχον καὶ ὅπως
, ‘ A “A 3 4 ‘ \ oe a am ¢ ? 2 2 3
σφίσι τὰ σημεῖα τῇδε ἐναποκείσονται. μετὰ δὲ Τραϊανῷ τῷ ᾿Ῥωμαΐων αὐτοκράτορι δεδογμένον,
> 3 A 3? e “- 3 Ja 1 2 4 “a # av? Ἁ “ὦν
ἐς πόλεώς τε ἀξίωμα ὁ χῶρος ἀφῖκται καὶ μητρόπολις κατέστη τῷ ἔθνει. προϊόντος δὲ τοῦ

Ψ > 2, t aA “- rd 2 1 ? 3 ϑ.. 2 \
χρόνου ἐγένετο ἡ τῶν Μελιτηνῶν πόλις μεγάλη καὶ πολυάνθρωπος. ἐπεί τε ἐρύματος ἐντὸς
2 . > 2 3 a} 3\7 3 an 2 ᾿" Ly ἢ 3
ἐνοικήσασθαι οὐκέτι εἶχον [ἐς γὰρ ὀλίγον τινα ξυνήει χῶρον, ἧπέρ μοι εἴρηται) ἱδρύσαντο ἐν
τῷ ταύτης πεδίῳ, ἵνα δὴ τὰ ἱερὰ σφίσι πεποίηται καὶ τὰ τῶν ἀρχῶν καταγώγια καὶ τήν τε
3 2 τ 3᾽ 5 ? 2 2. 3 ? ~ a 3 3 ἣ ΑἹ
ἄγοράν ὅσα τε ἄλλα ἐμπολημάτων πωλητήριά ἐστι, TAS τε τῆς πόλεως ἄγυιας πάσας καὶ στοὰς
καὶ βαλανεῖα καὶ θέατρα καὶ εἴ τι ἄλλο πόλεως μεγάλης ἐς κόσμον διήκει. τῷ τε τρόπῳ τούτῳ
ΪΜελιτηνὴν ἀτείχιστον ἐκ τοῦ ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ξυνέβαινεν εἶναι. ᾿Αἀναστάσιος μὲν οὖν βασιλεὺς

> A a ἢ a“ 3 ? 3» ? A] ? > , 1
αὐτὴν ξυμπασὰν τεῖχει περιβαλεῖν eyxexeipnre’ οὔπω μέντοι τὸ βούλευμα ἀποτελέσας τὸν
βίον συνεμετρήσατο. βασιλεὺς δὲ ᾿Ιουστινιανὸς πανταχόθεν αὐτὴν βεβαιότατα κατατειχισάμενος
2 a. 3 2 > δ 2 ’ 3 32 Ἃ 3 ? 33
μέγα τοῖς ᾿Αρμενίοις ὀχύρωνᾶ τε καὶ ἐγκαλλώπισμα Medirnviy ἀπειργάσατο ”*.]

320 [Zbid., III, iv, 12-14 [L. Vil, 198/9],

se » Ἁ ~ 2 a} on 4 > 2 4 fd wv 2

ως. ἔν τε yap τῇ Θεοδοσιουπόλει νεὼν τῇ θεοτόκῳ ἀνέθηκε, καὶ μοναστήρια ἔν τε χωρίῳ

“ 4 2 3 ~ ? 3 ᾽ 4 ? \ “~ e ὦ ,

τῷ καλουμένῳ Πέτριος, κἀν τῷ Koveapilwy ἀνενεώσατο. ἔν τε Νικοπόλει τὸ τῶν ἁγίων τεσσαρά-

κοντὰ πέντε καλούμενον μοναστήριον, καὶ ἵερον Γεωργίῳ τῷ μάρτυρι ἐν Βιζανοῖς ἐδείματο.

τῆς τε Θεοδοσιουπόλεως ἄγχιστα μοναστήριον ἀνενεώσατο τῶν τεσσαράκοντα μαρτύρων
ἐπικαλούμενον ””. |

88 Cuinet, I, τ. 184 gives Kokiris among the 14 ‘ nahiés” of the kaza of Bayburt.
This is clearly the historic Kukarizén which is also known to Xorenaci, WX, ΤΙ, Ixv,
as the birthplace of bishop Hawuk, “ 2uunl fp Ynudmymndny”. Unfortunately
Cuinet does not indicate the location of Kokaris on his map. [Cf. Hiibschmann, Oris-
namen, pp. 380, 442. Cuinet lists Kokiris between “‘ Khart” and “ Aginsor”. Al-
though both Hart and Aginsos can be found both on Kiepert, Karte, B Viand USAFM
324 CIV, Kokaris cannot be found unless it is to be identified with Gogéeli, G 46,
p. 242 (8)1. (147, 1)

34 There is probably no foundation for the identification of Avrapapifwy with
Lum /¢unfé which stood in Armenia IV at the junction of the Arsanias and the
Euphrates, according to the Arm. Geogr., [p. 30/41. Cf. Eremyan, Armenia, p. 54].

(147, 2)

NOTES : CHAPTER VI 42]

2

35 κὶ ὁ ζεραμέων ᾿" according to the Nova Tactica of the X-XIC. in Georg. Cypr,,
p. 78. Near Krom is found Rumluk, which is equated by Cuinei, I, Ὁ. 127 with ‘* Lé-
rion ’’, “ ὁ Aepiov ᾽ likewise an episcopal see in the metropolitanate of Trapezos [Georg.
Cypr., p. 78. Krom can be found in Kiepert Karie, B V, but not on modern maps or
gazetteers, although the Korum deresi evidently preserves the name of the locality,
G 46, p. 420 and USAFM 324CIV. Rumluk does not appear in the modern topo-
graphy, but Leri is still found on the USAFM 324 CIV even though it is not listed
in G46. On both these bishoprics see, Honigmann, Osigrenze, p. 54 and nn. 1, 6-8°]

(148, 1)

36 MX, IT, lix, * ΠΌΣΗ, yopunfapp palo py ηξζμιιδμι δῖ ΜΙ ΠΡΠι---
bh, Ehiwy puofumpdu dip h apIimy phy pmqgnud ἠπηδιιῖι dip, fudp fh
ΠΩ ἴψμ! ΠἷΠ| Appin β up Ingp οὐδ y puuph wpm πῃ ζΠη. oun Ina
hk phppp. ppp dp§ng Yuphmgboy qfaypuh, ng huph fp pagkay fp mkgkwgh,
mp Gppomwy dwuphh fis pall mgplipp whwhy, be fobyupn glingfrp
jana Sugim, omit sopmpup Epkium|efip. apm mipunnfefahp ahmby
ἐι quhwquh 4aamg Supulpinpmg, yapng fp doing εἴμ} ἡ μα μίση! 1, pithh
phunhfsph : δὲ yigkpp Hop ph ou pp h punini|? fib πηβημιδιη. h urpinph
mifh yfémbdpnifefch fumong bh y pu Smpipm|e fib nEpiobwinp ιηπηπὴ :
δὲ pApphph ph Eh Epkm)p Sqmhmpanfufap bh πμπόμ πη Ρ. fu ἰκ qutim—
um ἡ μόαπι pdmgmymbbh, dkomdaumly, pmuSutmplhin hb paypu
pnigmhkh Lotduhimy fp ἡῤμπι θ μι :

δι wn unupamm uf gkgkghobfon peppbh μπέτια) μιμηπιδ πη μέτειμι wi
huh fon Fp Subiihe μὴ [μέτα], why ξιπβηιπημίτη ypu ph. gnpm) >pIunrhmbbuy
funp inupi, whiny fip fumnin kway gfpinihn ΠΩΣ ἐ β YEpuy Ριμὰμμι---
pepe memupmby mdnghhn pphbag yapng ἡππμ μην Plagne whmmbkmg
p wy ain fin (>fnynuh : δι β himhk h win sphiuy mun pila Am jpunnpu
fppke qhonmyanila, bh απ yangenop funpofrp ‘app μδηηξ ἢ ζμη μὲ pipphh:
Umuyku far planta jpupin fib fprufuny. ful ping miphby py h wipluim py ἡμιδη---
hhog monmpulu ponpwdkin τ Ge fp δ᾽ pmymphh μ᾽ pmpdépmmbynl
Yuypp Aipwtingy puqgiwyumbhy spiimyg, bh Usgnempoh mbimmbimg ἢ
my unin fin. U.gnumnuf : Ge wy Impu pin yay inky fu mdkuy dinnyy maby pun
ghugip : br byhy ghhm fb. muda ghyfsp ypmymph, h whminhkmy
[*Engmiyo, fu, ap J fauna pum phh minal ΠΣ], munhh » :

[For the whole discussion of Karin-Theodosiopolis, see in particular, Manandian,
Trade, pp. 87-90, also above nn. 28g-h]. (148, 2)

87 “ὁ Disputation ”, HA, (May, 1908), p. 158, “+++ fPugminph (*fnqnu +++ ξμιπμζπιμη
fp aD wmabmy hortkgun opiky paqmpu Eph. bh ghaum hugmgbmy yipulgm
opinumdny puyuphh, Qh mbuubfp ghowm yay? βδιμεμππεῖμι δὰ, ζιιπδινμ θη :
h wampkuy ghaum fp Lup opiky ghuphn puymp : h jfupng μμμ πα δὲ hah
ῥ Ang ity Quyng ufump lp μιν qnp ἐμ epiky ἥδ Qonph* πιρήμημπι, Pmqonnpph
fmjng : bul pmfpft bh imuto ππιηΐη qapo pw du miqegmp αὐ μη Ρὴ mpopph
ΩΣ η,Ριμημι ph ἰμημδη > δὲ μι δι δ /eugennpph ayant inp h fupnn hog
qopuhmjp, hk mLunnp opimmem Epfeap pagmph bh qnpmtayp sh ἡ μεπη τη μὲ
Ρπιμηΐ!, {ιπιμπιμι ῆ ἐ μι fi Al phhmpy th ΟΣ, η- f ΠΟΊΣΗΙ, upny Lhiwh.
piphuy bh wbykmy géngkppy ympuyph gap fp ἀμ θὰ bbe huyp : Dhgkmy
ζμῖ δ τη μὰ dhhish fp oynpon pum phh. ho yfiu minnwpn funpmgayia hp
gipkuw miinhnng mjubghh, bh fp yépay dpny ζβδιιὰ harighkg ph Enfu 1ημι---

422 NOTES : CHAPTER VI

phoqe : hf hippo pf hag’ pwqm ppb wumfbuhe Ephipfapu op mn dm] jem
Jao gp dp qayfPuggkugh wyuppuyh fp papagmgh τ Unphytu h ft gpmg ἡπιμὶ
yuppuyhh unféwhe Ephkpfrp op wn dpm) pam pan gh ας {μη ἢ
inpnymy [estou puguphh, bh my Giapu Liupbgah, af fel ηπιηξ quyybh
fPohmuf_p h hhybugkh ἢ ριμημι ph hb inun bh ns muh wink. Upmphh fbn phunjap
fp BEI purgm ppb : Upuphh Gaupy pinpky bip pa ghia’ funpogny δ" hb ghagkuy
fp HES qunmph, Sunny dp ghug éwhimmuph fp mbghh ap dognl Ipagh fb
omip yxyd : gh Bet bkybugl puqaph hapag Gh pkpk; whaling funn bh
myphyny Enkgh, bh festmdfph quyy ng hupwughh piubay : μ μ fun haga
puguphh ἡ π μηδ ghnkunfnp polo dbdunlko yf hima p Uphish fp pawn np
hash μι!ὸπιιηιπὴ πεῖ ρ. bel huphp fuuwhpghh Lhdkjn, japny bh pkpky dkwrp
h 4Edkjunp Dinuhibky fh pum ph παι ἢ gpunkyny [θυ ζμι μιν η hh : δι {με ὃμπηΐ
Hupp αβη πη βῇ fh {μι} πὶ. gf ng πρ fp puqupph, ng ζιιμπιιιπ h πὸ wg frum
πῃ πὸ mip Inpu απ]. phpkmy gipkuu.p wiyphyng, wayapwhp bh mpummpulp
gbybghmotin ἐκ uppugnpdu, inyng. p h ζμι ay in pn ly p μι ἢ πα πη p h Yubur—
nutingp uppunkufyy : Ehigkghp Cpu fp maunyugh. h npmip puym pph
pupdpwubie ho μα αι βαιπ ho ἤμειπμι τι! pppoe ἀμ δ ynigu, h pmpph
wiih funupmimkhp ”. (149, 1)
38 Procopius, Pers., I, xvii, 6-11 [L.I, 146/7),
** ὁ δὲ δὴ Εὐφράτης φέρεται μὲν κατ᾽ apxas ἐπὶ τινα χῶρον ὀλίγον, εὐθὺς δὲ προϊὼν ἀφανίζεται,
οὐχ ὑπόγειος μέντοι γινόμενος, ἀλλὰ τί οἱ ξυμβαῖνον θαυμάσιον οἷον. ὑπὲρ γὰρ τοῦ ὕδατος
τέλμα ἐπὶ πλεῖστον βαθὺ γίνεται, μῆκος μὲν ὅσον ἐπὶ σταδίους πεντήκοντα, εὖρος δὲ εἴκοσι:
καὶ καλάμων φύεται πολύ τι χρῆμα ἐν τῷ πηλῷ τούτῳ. ἐς τόσον δὲ σκληρός τις ὁ χοῦς ἐνταῦθά
ἐστιν ὥστε τοῖς ἐντυγχάνουσιν οὐδὲν ἄλλο δοκεῖν ἢ ἤτειρον εἶναι. ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ τοίνυν ξυμβαΐνει
οὐδὲν δεδιότας πεζούς τε καὶ ἱππέας πορεύεσθαι. καὶ μὴν καὶ ἅμαξαι παρίασιν ἐνθένδε πολλαὶ
ἡμέρᾳ ἑκάστῃ, ἀλλ᾽ αὐδὲεν τὸ παράπαν ἰσχύουσι κινεῖν τι ἡ ἐξελέγχειν τοῦ τέλματος. καίουσι
δὲ τοὺς καλάμους οἱ ἐπιχώριοι ἀνὰ πᾶν ἔτος, τοῦ μὴ τὰς ὑδοὺς πρὸς αὐτῶν εἴργεσθαι, Kai ποτε
πνεύματος ἐνταῦθα ἐξαισίου ἐπιπεσόντος μέχρι ἐς τὰ τῶν ῥιζῶν ἔσχατα τὸ πῦρ ἐξικνεῖσθαι
τετύχηκε, καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ ἐν χωρίῳ ὀλίγῳ φανῆναι: χρόνου δὲ ὁ χοῦς αὖθις οὐ πολλοῦ ξυμφυεὶς
ἀπέδωκε τῷ χωρίῳ τὸ σχῆμα ἐφ᾽ οὗπερ τὸ πρότερον ἦν. ἐνθένδε τε ὁ ποταμὸς πρόεισιν ἐς τὴν
Κελεσηνὴν καλουμένην χώραν ἢ.
Procopius also locates the sources of the Tigris near Theodosiopolis, having evidently
confused it with the Araxes [Jbid., I, xvii, 4, L. 1, 1448]. (150, 1)
39 MX, III, lix. [See above, τι. 36 for the text]. (150, 2)
40 The etymology of the word δα δρΡ is unknown. The Turkish name is derived

from j ἴω “reed ’’; ἘΠῚ ley OF S55 ἴω mean δ the place of reeds ”’, and ‘‘ reed lake’’.
According to Yakovb Karneci, Ὁ. 578, the gamb lay half-a-day’s journey from the city.

[Cf. Eremyan, Armenia, pp. 78 (2), 94]. (150, 3)
41 According to the information of Inéiéean, Geography, p. 66. (151, 1)
42 Maj. Gen. S. Dukhovskii, ‘“‘ The Russians in Erzerum in 1878”, Voennyi Sbornik

(1878), p. 13. (151, 2)
43 Yakovb Karneci, Ὁ. 569. (151, 3)

44 Tnéigean, Geography, Ὁ. 59. This is the third case of a mountain called Gohanam:
near Erzincan, in Sper, and here. The ancient name Ujoumlniiip was apparently
replaced by Gnyuyjuin. According to Intitean, G-n4whu) is a popular name for any
high or steep mountain. (151, 4)

45 [See above, nn. 28g-h, and 36-7, for the relevant texts.] (152, 1)

NOTES ; CHAPTER VI 423

45a [See above pp. 113-114 and ἢ. 28c.]

46 According to Asotik, 11, v, Ὁ. 132 the city was taken in the ΠΙᾺ century by
Constantine V, “fo uapw uimpu fopph Youmwighh appl Leunhp bya
pipe yp mina ἡ purus ph Guiphiny, h hapowhiuy Hupp fury bnpum h
punky gunn qgudnigh ἐ y plush hsu pum ppl qU wah hinuh bagfh
ΩΣ Dn ip fap Lh Smiug ”; Jbid., TI, vit, p.179. In the Xth
century, John I, ‘* » 7 Qh μὴ yop. owha. fp ἤπηδιιΐμι Quiphoy: +++ apm.
fug gfuwhyuh puymphh h shag qpmpdpmpkpd mpommpmhu fnpw kh fun
ἡ punyu phi = (152, 2)

47 Many travellers have visited and described Erzurum. The best description of the
city is given by Father Inéiéean, Geography, pp. 65 sqq., the next is by K. Koch, Reise
am pontischen Gebirge (Weimar, 1846), IJ, pp. 281 sqqg. We have relied her primarily
on Koch. Inéitean gives 72 towers as against 62 in Koch, and Lynch, [Armenia, IT,
p. 210. Lynch also gives an extensive description of the city, [bid., pp. 198-224.] (153, 1)

48 Koch, Reise, II, 287, “* Die grossartigen Uberreste einer Ringmauer ... scheinen
mir selbst “* alter zu sein, als die der Festung (und halten 6 Fuss im Durchmessen, lagen
aber in Trummer. Hinter ist ein ausgefillter Wall) ”’. (153, 2)

48a [See above τι. 32c.]

480 [See above nn. 32c and 48.]

480 [See above τι. 28h.]

49 If we read “ {®[nqanuf (instead of (*{nqnu) whmiuhkmg...”. [See above τι. 36
for the context]. (154, 1)

50 Yakovb Karneci, pp. 548-9 makes use of the Legend in his description of Theo-
dosiopolis. Unfortunately he described the δ yosrovian towers”? by means of a word
whose meaning is not entirely clear, “ wnindéph funupmfujhh ἐν op £ >b>fuuimy”.
Ibid., Ὁ. 568, a3 lee iu = a type of gun, is apparently used in the sense of an arsenal.
The citadel contains an arsenal αἰ, ἀκοῶν or powder cellar next to a tall tower, and
Yakovb tries to identify the * yosrovian tower ” with the arsenal. The present store-
houses in the citadel are related to those called ** Augusteon’’ by Xorenaci [See above
n. 36]. Procopius, Aed., I, ii, 1 [L. VII, 32/3] gives the name Augusiéon to a market-
place or square, “ ... καλοῦσι δὲ ᾿Αυγουσταῖον τῆν ἀγορὰν οἱ Βυζάντοι ᾿.. Cf. Chron
Pasch., p. 529, but the meaning of the term was not exhausted by this explanation,
it could also have the sense given to it by Xorenagi. On the meaning of the word Au-
gusteon, see, Du Cange, Familles byzantines, II, Ὁ. 70. (154, 2)

51 According to Intiéean, Geography, Ὁ. 69 there are two churches dedicated to the
Theotokos in the suburbs of the city not far from each other. One is called the upper
church, and the other one the lower. The first is also called “ uf poh Ududfh,
nut Ρ uo [pubjny Uhm pukinife pb bapp hm fd nig phaup phn parking rai
Yakovb Karneci, speaks of only one church, Bhupul U. Umdfl, pp. 550, 5565.
The explanation given seems improbable, it is probable that the foundation of a second
church bearing the same name, if it is not of recent date, was due to confessional quarrels

between Armenians of the National and Imperialist parties. (155, 1)
52 Diehl, L’ Afrique byzantine, p. 145. [Manuel, I, p. 197 sqq.]. (155, 2)
53 Texier and Pullan, L’architecture byzantine (London, 1864). [Diehl], Manuel,

I, pp. 197-200]. (155, 3)
54 Procopius, Pers., II, xiii, 17-18 [L. 1, 376/7]. (156, 1)

55 Diehl, L’ Afrique byzantine, p. 185. (156, 2)

424 NOTES : CHAPTER VII

CHAPTER VII

a [Nov. XXI, title and incipit. The text of the entire Novella is given in Appendix IF.
See Chapter VI, n. 1, for additional bibliography on the reforms of Justinian. ]
1 Nov, VIII = Const. XVI. The entire text of this Novella is given in Appendix 1 Ὁ.
(158, 1)
1a [Ibid., Preface, 1.]
2 Procopius, Anec., xxvi, 1-6 [L. V, i, 242/3-244/5], According to this tale, even
Justinian did not refuse such a gift and accepted 30 centenaria from the Prefect, John of

Cappadocia.
3 Nov. VIII, Preface, 1. (160, 1)
4 Idem. (161, 1)

5 Nov. VIL, “ Notitia” xxii, xxiii, xxvi, xliti, [See Appendix I for the relevant
texts]. The payments were made to the imperial household (tn sacro cubiculo), to the
first secretary (primicerio ... iribunorum notariorum), to his assistant (ews adzutort),
as well as to the chancery of the praetorian prefect (officio praef. prae.). The first
class paid respectively 9, 24, 3, and 40 solid: ; the second, 9, 15, 8, and 36. [On suffragium
and Justinian’s attempt to abolish this practice, see Jones, LRH, I, pp. 279, 306-307,

and particularly 391-401.) . (161, 2)
5a [Nov. XVII.)
6 Nov. VIII, ii-v. [See Appendix I D]. (162, 1)
7 Nov, XXIV, “ Περὶ τοῦ awpairwpos Indies”, Preface and i. (162, 2)
8 Nov, XXIX, “ Περὶ τοῦ πραίτωρος Παφλαγονίας "ἢ. (168, 1)
9 Nov. XXX, “Περὶ τοῦ ἀνθυπάτου Καππαδοκίας ”’. (168, 2)
10 Nov, XXVIII, “ Περὶ τοῦ μοδεράτωρος ᾿λενοπόντου ᾽". (168, 8)

11. Nov. XXIV, “ Praetor Pisidiae ” ; Nov. XXYV, “ Praetor Lycaoniae ”; Nov. ἘΣ ΧΥΤΗ͂,
ἐς Comes Isauriae ’; Nov. CII, ‘* Moderator Arabiae ”; Nov. CITI, ‘* Proconsul Pales-
tinae "ἢ; Nov, CIV, “* Praetor Siciliae ”’. (163, 4)

12 Bethmann-Hollweg, Civilprocess, ΤΙ], No. 13], p. 44. [Cf Jones, LRH, I, xiv,
pp. 470-522], also Ὁ. 404. (163, δ)

18 Nov. XV, “Περὶ τῶν exdixwv”, Preface. [Cf Jones, LRH, I, pp. 144-145,
279-280, 479-480, 499, 726-727, 758-759]. (164, 1)

14 CJ, I, lv, 1, [* Impp. Valentinianus et Valens AA. Senecae defensori. Si quis de
tenuioribus ac minusculariis rebus interpellandum te esse crediderit, in minoribus
causis, id est usque ad quinquaginta solidorum summam, acta indicalia conficias, scilicet
ut, si quando quis vel debitum iustum vel servum ... vel quod ultra delegationem dederit
postulaverit, vel quodlibet huiusmodi, tua disceptatione restituas. Ceteras vero,
quae dignae forensi magnitudine videbuntur, ordinario insinuato rectori. D. v k, Jul.
Tyrict Valentiniano et Valente AA. conss. (a. 365). (164, 2)

18 Nov. XV, iii, 2, from 17 July, 535,

δ Ainalew τε ταῖς δίκαις ἁπάσαις ταῖς χρηματικαῖς μέχρι χρυσῶν τριακοσίων" od δυναμένων
τῶν ὑποτελῶν ἕλκειν τοὺς αὐτῶν ὑπευθύνους παρὰ τοῖς λαμπροτάτοις τῶν ἐπαρχιῶν ἄρχουσιν,
εἴπερ εἴσω τῆς εἰρημένης τῶν τριακοσίων νομισμάτων ποσότητος ἡ δίκη καθεστήκοι ἢ. (164, 8)

16 The earliest references are found in Novellae XXIV and XXYV from 18 May, 535.
The lost Novella was not yet known on 15 April of the same year, since there is no refer-
ence to the legal competence of the counts created in Phrygia and Galatia in the Novella

NOTES : CHAPTER VII 425

dealing with their appointment, [Vov.. VITI, ii, iii]. The lost Novella was probably
promulgated, therefore, between 15 April and 18 May, 535. After some time, more
precisely in January of 536, appeared Novella XXIII, ** De appellationibus ... ” in which
the author complains, Ibid., iii, “ evenit, ut super minimis causis maximi nostri indices
inquietentur et homines propter minimas causas magnis fatigentur dispensiis, ut forsitan
totius litis aestimatio ad sumptus iudicales non sufficeret”’. Thereafter, appeals on
sums less than ten pounds of gold, were to be taken not to the capital but to the nearest
spectabilis court. Since the provincial reform was still incomplete in 535, appeals
from the Armenian provinces went to the Moderator of Helenopontus, as the nearest
official with the rank of speciabils [Cf. Nov. XXVIUI, viii, * Dat. xvit. kal. Aug. CP

Belisario v.c. cons.’’], The limit was ten pounds of gold or 720 solidi instead of the

normal 500 solidi, a fact to be explained either through a temporary devaluation of the

solidus, or because legal expenses were higher in certain provinces and the sum had

consequently been intentionally increased. [Cf. Jones, LAH, I, pp. 280-282, 483, 506].

(164, 4)
16a [The entire text of this Novella will be found in Appendix I G.]
160 [ Nov. XXVIII = Consi., XXXI, “αὶ. avit kh. Aug. CP Belisario v.c, cons, ”.]
17 Ibid., i, “*... καὶ ὅτι κάλλιον ἂν εἴη τὰς χώρας ἐξ ὀνομάτων Χριστιανικῶν τε καὶ βασι-

λικῶν μᾶλλον ἤπερ ἐκ πολέμου καὶ ταραχῆς γνωριζομένου σημαίνεσθαι ἢ. (112,1)
18 [bid., Preface. Leontopolis should not be confused with the city of the same name

found in Armenia [Cf. above, Chapter VI, τι. 50]. Leontopolis of Helenopontus was

also called Zalichos, Georg. Cypr., p. 14, “* Ζάλιχος ἤτοι “Δεοντόπολις ”. (172, 2)
18a [On the creation of the four Armenias, see Jones, ERE, | 1, 280-282, Toumanoff,

Studies, Ὁ. 174, etc. ]

- 19 Nov, XX = Const. XLVI, iii. [For the text, see ἀρρδήδδ 1 ἘΠ. (173, 1)
20 Nov. VIII = Const. XVI, “ Notitia”’, xxiii. [For the text, see Appendix I DJ. (178, 2)
20a [See above, Chapter VI, τ. 26.b]

21 We should note here that Procopius, Aed., TTI, v, 15 [1.. VII, 204/5] mentions

Justinianopolis at a time when he presumably had no knowledge of Justinian’s reform

of 536. (174, 1)
22 Procopius, Pers., JI, ii, 4-5 [L.1, 2701].
δ ἄρχοντα κατεστήσατο ᾿Αἱρμενίοις αὐτόν {τὸν ᾿Αμαζάσπην) ... γνώμῃ βασιλέως ᾿Ακάκιος
τον ᾿Αμαξάσπην pone ἔκτεινε καὶ THY ᾿Αρμενίων ἀρχὴν δόντος βασιλέως ἔ ἔσχεν αὐτός ἢ (174, 2)
22a [ Nov. XX, iii,“ ... viv οὐδὲν αὐτῇ προςθέντες ...”.]
22b ον. XXVITI, Preface.)
23 Hditor’s note to Consi., XLV, Teubner ed., I, 277. - (175, 1)

388 [Procopius, Pers., II, iii [L. 1, 270/1-286/7]. Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, Ὁ. 175 n. 109.]

23b [Nov. XXXII, i, 3.]

24 Procopius, Pers., ΤΙ, iii, 5-7 [L. I, 270/1-272/3],
govnpoes δὲ ὧν φύσει ἔσχε καθ᾽ 6 τι τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς ἤθη ἐνδείξοιτο. γέγονεν οὖν ἐς τοὺς ἄρχο-
μένους ὠμότατος ἀνθρώπων ἁπάντων ἢ. (176, 1)

25 [Pisidia, Nov. XXIV, vi; Lykaonia, Nov. XXV, Epilogue; Thrace, Nov. XXVI,
v, 1; Isauria, Nov. XX VII, Epilogue;. cf. Thomas, Nov. XX XT, i, 2]. Only the Wodera-
ter of Helenopontus received a trifle more, 7.e., 725 solidi [Nov. XXVIII, iii]. In contrast
to the other officials, the proconsul of Cappadocia received 20 pounds of gold [Wov. XXX,
vi, 2]. This province contained vast Imperial estates, ταμειακὴ κτήσις and, the
proconsul also administered them and their revenue in addition to his regular duties,

426 NOTES : CHAPTER VII

and deposited 50 pounds of gold for the private expenses of the emperor and the empress.
Nov. XXX = Consi. ΧΊΩΝ, vi, 1. This circumstance explains the unusually high
salary of this proconsul. (177, 1)

26 Js this to be explained by the reduced size of the officiwm, or by a mistake in the
text? The figures given are not always accurate in other Novellae, as evidenced by

the corrections found in the new Teubner edition. (177, 2)
27 Nov. XXV = Const. XXVI,i. Cf. Bethmann-Hollweg, Civil-process, 111, No. 142,
p. 187. (177, 3)

28 Nov. XXX, vi, * ὄχημα τε ἐξ ἀργύρου και τέλεκυν Kat ῥάβδους ἔχων ...᾽. Nov. XXIV.,
iv, “ δίφρον τε ἐξ ἀργύρου ... καὶ ῥάβδους ... ἢ. (177, 4)

28a [See above Chapter VI, n. 26b.]

280 Procopius, Pers., 11, xxx, 5, [L. J, 540/1],

“οὗτος ὁ Θωμᾶς πολλὰ τῶν ἀμφὶ τὴν αζικὴν ὀχυρωμάτων ἐδείματο, βασιλέως οἱ ἐπαγγείλαν-
τος, καὶ τῶν ἐκεΐνῃ στρατιωτῶν ἦρξεν, ἔμφρων τε βασιλεῖ ἔδοξεν εἶναι ᾿ἢ. (178, 1)

29 Idem., “... νεανίας τις ᾿Αρμένιος γένος, ᾿Ιωάννης ὄνομα, Θωμᾷ vies, ὅνπερ Πούζην
ἐπίκλησιν ἐκάλουν ᾿΄. Goth., IV [VII], viii, ὃ [L. V, 1225], “ καὶ ᾿Ιωάννης ᾿Αρμένιος,
διαφερόντως ἀγαθὸς τὰ πολέμια, Θωμᾶ υἱός, ὅπερ ἐπίκλησιν ἐκάλουν Γούζην ... δ. (118, 2)

398 (Cf. Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 151 sqq., et al.]

590 [On the nayarar system in Armenia and the effect of Justinian’s reform upon it,
see Manandian, Feudalism, and particularly Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 119-123 with
their notes and 174, where the author discusses the Armenian system of agnatic inheri-
tance and its destruction by Justinian, e passim, also below, Chapter XV.]

29e [Const., LX XIII = Hd., III. The entire text of this document will be found in
Appendix I.]

29d [Nov. XXI = Const. XLVII. The entire text of this document will be found in
Appendix IF. Cf. Nov. CXVIII.]

29e [Cf. Novellae, p. 760 note 22.]

30 The wording of the decree should also be considered here, “... διὰ τοῦτο yap δὴ
Kal τοὺς ἡμετέρους ἐκεῖσε κατεπέμψαμεν νόμους, ἵνα cis αὐτοὺς ἀφορῶντες οὕτω
πολιτεύοντο ᾿ [Hd., III, i], 7.e. our laws were introduced into Armenia so that they
should regulate their lives according to them. From this remark, we might conclude
that that the transformation of Armenia had already been completed by the time this
decree appeared. In other words, that Novella XXJ had been promulgated before
18 March 536, but this is impossible in the light of the above discussion. The passage
in the decree probably refers to the establishment of the praeses in Armenia Interior,
which took place before 536, as we have already seen. [This passage both in the text
and in the note is partially obscured by Adontz’s reference to Nov. XXI and XXXI
as Hd., Ill as “the Novella’ without specifying the particular document under dis-

cussion |. (185, 1)
30a [Hd., ΤΙ], i = Nov., XXI, title. ]
31 CJ, V, iii, 20 (2). (186, J)

82 Consi., XCIV = Nov. LXXIV, iv, 1,
τε > a \ oy “ / 3 ? Ὁ 7 “ τ 7 > a \
Ἐπὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν μειζόνων ἀξιωμάτων καὶ ὅσα μέχρι τῶν ἡμετέρων ἐστι συνκλητικῶν καὶ

“ Ld 3 ͵] PANE! , a “a > é 2 23. ΚΝ 7

τῶν μεγαλοπρεστάτων ἰλλουστρίων οὐδὲ γίνεσθαι ταῦτα παντελῶς ἀνεχόμεθα, GAN’ ἔστω πάντως
3 ᾿ ’ 3 AY 1 \ >» ? id - ? 2 ~ > ? 93
καὶ προὶξ καὶ προγαμιαία δωρεὰ καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα ὅσα τοῖς σεμνοτέροις πρέπει τῶν ὀνομάτων ᾽".
(186, 2)
88. Idem. : (187, 1)

NOTES : CHAPTER VII 427

84 Const., CXLI = Nov. CXVII, iv,

“Επειδὴ δὲ νόμον πρώην ἐξεφωνήσαμεν κελεύοντα ἡ προικῷα γίνεσθαι συμβόλαια ἡ ἄλλας
συστάσεις προϊέναι γινομένας παρα τοῖς ἐκκλησιεκδίκοις, δι᾿ ὧν τους γάμους προςήκει βεβαιοῦοσ-
θαι, ἡ γοῦν ὅρκους παρέχεσθαι, ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος συνείδομεν κάλλιον διατνυπῶσαι τὰ περὶ
τούτων πρώην νομοθετηθέντα. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο κελεύομεν τοὺς μεγάλοις ἀξιώμασι κεκοσμημένους
μέχρις ἰλλουστρίων μὴ ἄλλως γάμοις προσομιλεῖν εἰ μὴ προικῷα συγγράφοιεν συμβόλαια...
ταύτην δὲ τὴν τοῦ νόμου ἀκρίβειαν συγγωροῦμεν τοῖς ὑποτεταγμένοις τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ πολιτείᾳ
βαρβάροις κἂν ἀξιώμασι τοιοῦτοις ὑπάρχοιεν κεκοσμημένοι, ὥστε καὶ διαθέσει ψιλῇ δύνασθαι
αὐτοὺς βουλομένους συναλλάσσειν γάμους ᾿ἢ. (187, 2)

35 Idem. (187, 3)

36 Aristotle, Politics, II, viii, 12, “" καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας ἐωνοῦντο παρ᾽ adAjAwy”. (188, 1)

37 MX, I, 1, “δὲ muninf® mung lh pugh Upumoetu fui p Quy py
A phpu pp papery ply pm2uq_ny ἤπμι ophnpypu Upwhug τ... 2kdun mph
"πῃ pup Upumrtu ἢ ΠῚ gbybyply, h 4ubiimy ηπμὴξοη ἐρ μμξ πὶ ΠΝ ἐ
whgkmy apytu qaipdarp upmféh phy glint, ἐκ dgkuy qnulbog ofplanhal, τῳ μεμα διδ"
pully Pp δὲ oppapyph Upuhmg, k amin gunkgayy ἡ δὲ ὃ ypurpml oppapyfh,
wn ζιιαπιη δ jal f pu hhh fup 2° 2 (188, 2)

37a [Idem, “Np hk ὄγδιμιππι διε ἣμβ ob πη > Pwhgh wunnnkuy £
win Ujpubo dnpfé fpp, μα Ραμ pun ho nol pogmi ἱππέα! pp ἡμιπὰμιΐμι,
ΜΙ ΠῊΠΙ. yinhl ih ομβημηΐ! Um | hil a)

870 [Cf. Benveniste, RHA, n.s., 1, p.5, who onthe contrary cites awzit < *abi-jiti-,
among ‘“‘ plusieurs ... mots arméniens ἃ préfixe aw- que ]’on peut présumer iraniens,
méme si les formes originales nous manquent encore ...”. See below, τι. 39.]

38 Sachau, Syrischer Rechisbiicher, R I, ‘‘ Leges Constantini Theodosii Leonis”’,
No. 31, p. 17, “ Was der Mann der Frau gibt, heisst δωρεά. Auf Persisch sagt man
dastir, auf Syrisch zabhddé oder mahré’’. (189, 1)

39 The Georg. ayybomo, guzi-2; Bboogdo, m-zitev-t, and the Arab. wy} should
likewise be linked here ; cf. the proper name 4ebed-ee, Ζεβεδ-αῖος, Zautha = Arm.
Qmff?; ef. Smpp, Yupybr. [Cf. above τι. 37b]. (189, 2)

40 Jt is possible that od fun -- und fin is used in Armenian as it is in Syriac to
indicate the gift of the bridegroom to the bride. [Cf. Hiibschmann, Grammaiik, No. 150,
p. 448. For additional bibliography on Armenian Codes and their relation to the so-
called Syrian Code, see below τι. 441. (190, 1)

41 Dastar is also found in Sachau, Syrischer Rechisbiicher, RI, No. 48, p. 23. Sachau
says that he is not familiar with such a word in Persian, and makes the incorrect sugges-
tion that, ** Vielleicht darf man es mit dastar in dem Ausdruck cra lu Aa) eo =
Geschenk geben kombinieren. Die Anfiirhung dieses persischen Wortes ἡδεῖς vielleicht
darauf hin, dass ἘΝ I innerhalb des Sassaniden reichs oder nicht fern von der persischen
Sprachgrenze wie in Babylonien verfasst worden ist”. Jbdid., Ὁ. 187 note. The actual
word anaes here is the Pers., (9) Ld» nom. abs. < ων ** friend, pace
supporter’, < *dasita-daia, or more commonly * dasha dora, “ piving a hand”
“holding with the hand”, (cf. Arm, dfn - mm, dhniinmfe}ih) whereas ite
word suggested by Sachau is a diminutive of ,lz.9 ‘“‘kerchief” = Arm. qwuinuwn
— ml (Cf. Hibschmann, Grammatik, No. 171, p. 135). (190, 2)

42 Sachau, Syrischer Rechisbiicher, RI, No. 31, p. 17 [* Im Lande der Romer (Romer)
ist dies die Ordnung der Gesetze: Wenn ein Mann sich verheiratet und seine Frau aus
ihrem Vaterhaus als φερνή Herden von Schafen ... oder Denare mitbringt, dann ist ihr

428 NOTES : CHAPTER VII

Ehemann verpflichtet, ihr seinerseits von allem, was sie mitgebracht hat, den gleichen
Beitrag zu geben.

Im Lande der Herrschaft des Ostens besteht eine andere Gewohnheit. Wenn die
Frau 100 Denare bringt, bringt der Mann die Halfte. Zuweilen bringt der Mann mehr.
als die Frau bringt, zuweilen bringt er nichts und zuweilen bringt auch die Frau nichts ”].
Ibid., No. 51, p. 81, where it is said that in Roman law, if a wife brings 100 denarn,
the husband likewise brings 100, if 200, then 200, whereas in the East, if the wife brings
100 denarii, the husband brings only half, 7.e. 50. Cf. Syr.-Rim. Recht., xlv, p. 111-112,
« 2pmdobon pint feoguanphh Gyan opbin Honk yooh yangag bh unlin—
δέδια. myoylu. qnp pis phpl bhbh wamgqu gpkugkh ἡ δ. hinylayfu apbunkh
gnmuuph myo pip gfapdmboh op f dodp. apyke fonwhp myph fp wyanjzgh-
my] f [βιμημμεπμαμεδι pum ph ᾿πμιπαι piauyoy fu h μι ἢ ἐπα} ἐμὴ iph miph—
Dinfy E/ek phpk bAbh πὶ qmElpoh finghytu mw myph Ὁ quel, fil mrs fap Lh
mi ply hy mf Μ}}} unhapm|? fb yh ἢ ΡΡμῖι δ yun ζ ἢ hin Sh mun] ΠΩΣ
CO qu Lb hh >»?

The word wuomumuimh meaning “ dowry” exists in Armenian; it is perhaps <
Pers. *pes-daia, “ pre-given ”’. (190, 3)

43 Syr.-Rém. Recht., which gives both the Syriac text and the Armenian and Arabic
translations. [On proyg, see Hiibschmann, Grammatik, No. 352, p. 374, and Kostanean,
Pfoyg.] (191, 1)

44 Ibid., p. 163. [On Myit’ar G68’s Code and its relationship both to the Syrian Code,
and the Code of Smbat Sparapet, see Karst, Sempadscher Kodex; Mxit’ar Gos; Smbat
Sparapet, Code; Pivazyan, Wyit’ar Gos and Smbat Sparapet; T’orosyan, Two Redactions ;
and for further bibliography on Armenian medieval law, Sukiasian, Armenia]. (191, 2)

45 Zarbanalean, pp. 754-755. (191, 3)

46 The editors of the Armenian translation of the Syrian Code accepted the thesis
that Go8 was acquainted with it, Syr.-Rém. Rechis., p. 163, but the colophon to which
we have referred was not yet published at the time. Jn his small article, K. Kostanean,
** Pioyg and Towayr ", Azgayin Handés, XJII (1906), p. 131, forgets the existence of
this colophon, insists that we still do not know when and by whom the Armenian trans-
lation of the Syrian Code was made, and supposes incorrectly that αο had made use
of it. [Cf. above τ. 44, particularly Harut’unyan’s Preface to the Lawcode, pp. xvili-
xxiii]. (191, 4)

462 [V. Bastameane, ed., The Armenian Lawcode of Uxii’ar Gos (Vaiarsapat, 1880).]

46> [Syr.-Rém. Rechis., xlv, Ὁ. 111, “gop flrs ppt hhh wnanyqu gpbughh
gayi, hnphmku gpkughh gmowmph wpb ph qympdmin ap f διυζῃ.

4? Myi?ar Gos, 1, exxi, “ Uyytu phip wa μι ζἥϊειπιι με ἷτ ἡπιηπι δῆ win
hinifeimh, yp Lommbkh hu fu gph mbdph hhin Sh, πῃ Insp Hugp. hinjh h myn
wn ζππι μι τη hhh maunyp hash. πα omhimbkh bh ἡ ραν ἐμ fp Gaypsip ppm,
ap insh wnnjyp”. This article is missing in four of MSS used by the editor of
the Code, in one of the MSS it has been put into the second part of the Code. The
beginning of the article shows that it is not in its proper place but has been shifted from
another part of the Code. ὅπειιῃ, the deformation of δωρεά assumes the form mmimyp
in Myit’ar’s Code, probably as a result of a false etymology deriving it from Arm. 1ΠΠ|.
mijn, toeaning markuyh junit which is given in the Arm. Dict., ΤΙ, p. 890 [C/.
Harutyunyan, “ notes” to the Lawcode, p. 237 τι. 57). Concerning mahra, see van den
Berg, Droit musulman, pp. 147-149. (192, 1)

NOTES : CHAPTER VII 429

48 Myivar Gos, I, exxi, (192, 2)
49 Jbid., Y Eppepa Ps Enkuntum Ps pepmhipugt p. [Cf. Harut’yunyan, * Notes ”’
to the Lawcode, p. 237 τι. 58). (193, 1)

49a [id., 111, i.]

50 According to the Law of the XIJ Tables, V, 4 [L. ITT, 448/9]. “51 ntestato moritur,
cui suus heres nee escit, adgnatus proximus familiam habeto”. The same was true
of the Greek, not only before Solon, but also after his reform. Men were given the
precedence over women in cases of intestacy. [On the question of agnatic mheritance,

see, Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 119-128. (194, 1)
51 Consit., CXLIII = Nov. CKVUT, “ διάταξις ἀναιροῦσα τὰ adgnatika δίκαια καὶ
τυποῦσα τᾶς ἐξ ἀδιαθέτου KAjoes”. (194, 2)

52 Lex Salica, lix, 5, ‘* De terra vero nulla in muliere hereditas est sed ad virilem
sexum qui fratres fuerint tota terra perteneat”. See Waitz, Verfassungsgeschichie, I,
p. 64. (184, 3)

53 The wording of the Hdict [In the Teubner edition], “ μὴ καλουμένας εἰς τὴν ἐξ ἔθους
ἀδιαθέτου διαδοχὴν ...’ instead of the usual “" ἐξ ἀδιαθέτου ᾿᾿ should be noted. The MS
reads ἐξαίτασιν but the modern editors rightly correct this into ἐξ ἔθους in view of
Julian’s Latin translation, “*... ab intestato parentibus suis secundum pristinam Arme-
niorum consuetudinem non succedebant’”’. [ΟἿ #d., ITI, i, which reads, ** μὴ καλουμένας
ον εἰς THY ἐξ ἀδιαθέτου διαδοχὴν ... ᾽ν, and the editor’s note to Jbid., p. 761/12]. (195, 1)

54 Tacitus, Germ., xx [L. Discourses, 292/3], “‘ heredes successoresque sui cuique
hberi, et nullum testamentum ”’. (195, 2)

55 EP’, xviii, p. 111, [δὲ anh ἡ πδ anyp ὑἶμι mpm. qm? panyg ofp pnp
uh, gop fp ἱππεῖ! fimfehoh Ζιι μη μι 1] 81} miunh = Uualblntthg bh
μα πα δια θ᾽ 2mjng, +++ npnyg ἐμπιιὴ Em h hh piu umpp ay ἰλμιππιὃπὶ
Umiul; Hu NLUNOU nto μη h wun pulang fupng, h np pig Up kia jup
ἐμ Em ἅπημι fp dunmhgmfefal bh qunmlh ing ufiish qpunpmkmdh ”.

MX, ΤΙ, lxii, mentions Drowasp, the Persian, “ ap fob δμι πη με! ἐμ pin fm fu pape
Y woympulatp, apa nmbny fp qonumhh Sunnkohu Cubpkpd wunupugo ph”.

(195, 3)

56 Ler Salica, Ixxxii, “ Hereditatem defuncti filius non filia suscipiat. Si filiam
non habuit qui defunctus est, ad filiam pecunia et mancipia terra vero ad proximam
paternae generationis consanguineum pertineat ”’. (196, 1)

562 [Nov. XXIV, Pisidia; XXV, Lykaonia; XXVI, Thrace; XXVIII, Helenopontus;
XXIX, Paphlagonia; XXX, Cappadocia. ]

5? Nov. XXIV, i.

58 Procopius, Pers., II, iii [L. I, 272/3], “τά τε yap χρήματα eAnilero οὐδενὶ λογᾧ καὶ
φόρου αὐτοῖς ἀπαγωγὴν οὔποτε οὖσαν ἐς κεντηνάρια τέσσαρα érafey”’. Historians list a
number of exactions imposed on the Empire as a whole, cf. Diehl, Justinien, p. 296.
We do not know which of these were levied in Armenia. It is possible that the revenue
from the gold mines located in Akakios’ portion of Armenia also entered into the 400
pounds of gold. According to Walalas, Ὁ. 456, the mountains lying on the border of
Persarmenia were very rich in gold; in periods of heavy rainfall, the earth washed down
from the mountains and uncovered the gold deposits. These lands had formerly been
rented out by the Romans and the Persians for 200 pounds of gold, but with the transfer
of these lands to the Empire under Anastasius, the Romans alone received this revenue,

τ 1.3»

τ» \ l f , ξ “ “ 3 ~ > ὅ i > ?
ὄτε γὰρ Bpoxal καὶ ὄμβροι γίνονται, κατασύρεται ἡ γῆ τῶν αὐτῶν ὀρέων, λεπτίδας ἀναβλύζουσα

430 NOTES : CHAPTER VII

χρυσοῦ: τὰ δὲ αὐτὰ ὄρη ἐμισθοῦντο τὸ πρότερόν τινες ἀπὸ “Ῥωμαίων καὶ Περσῶν χρυσοῦ
λιτρῶν διακοσίων. ἐξ οὗ δὲ παρελήφησαν τὰ αὐτὰ ὄρη ὑπὸ τοῦ θειοτάτου ᾿Αναστασίου.
Ῥωμαῖοι μόνοι κομίζονται την θεσπισθεῖσαν συντέλειαν ... ᾿. Consequently the Impe-
rial treasury received a yearly income of 200 pounds of gold from these mines, if these
were included into the 4 kentenaria or 400 pounds, the amount of the yearly taxes
becomes understandable. Theoph. Conf., I, p.179, “... χρυσοπυχίων ... πρώην ava
τάλαντα τελούντων “Pwpaiors τε καὶ Πέρσαις νῦν δὲ τοῖς “Ρωμαίοις μόνοις τελούντων ... ”
Theophanes is unquestionably making use of Malalas in this passage, and is using the
word “ faleni”’ in the sense of “" kenienarion ”’. (198, 2)

NOTES : CHAPTER VIII 451]

CHAPTER VIII

@ [Cf. above Chapter IV n. 8, for Vasiliev’s objection to Adontz’s thesis on the position
of Armenia Minor in the successive periods of Armenian history, and his argument
that Justinian’s policy was aimed at the erradication of local traditions and the incor-
poration of Armenia into the norms of Imperial life, all of which Vasiliev considers
insufficiently demonstrated, “Review” ZUMUNP, pp. 414-415. Nevertheless, Tou-
manoff, Studies, pp. 119-123 and p. 196 n. 219, does not seem to take issue with this
aspect of Adontz’s argument, and accepts his thesis of the migration of the Armenian
nobles westward and their assimilation into the bureaucracy of the Empire after Justi-
nian’s transformations in their homeland. ]

1 ACO, II, vi, p. 71, cf. Appendix 11 H, “... cohabitamus enim circa Armenios
barbaros, fideles quidem, sed recte Romano eloquio non utentes, breui quodam ab eis
spatio magis autem intercessione Eufratis fluminis separati, et propter frequentem
barbarorum permixtionem longos nequiuimus proferre sermones ...”’. [Adontz usually
dates Leo’s Encyclical in 452 or 453, which is patently impossible since Leo 1 did not
come to the throne until 457. The Answers to this Encychcal are usually dated 457
and 458. See e.g., R. V. Sellers, The Council of Chalcedon (London, 1961), p. 274 and
n.5; Honigmann, Original Lists, pp. 75-76 and n. 167]. (202, 1)

la [ MX, I, xiv.]

2 Const. Porph. de Themai., p. 638, “ To θέμα τὸ καλούμενον ᾿Αἱρμενιακὸν ... ἔχει τὸ
ὄνομα ... ἀπὸ τῶν ὁμορούντων Kal συνοίκων ᾿Αρμενίων τὴν προσηγορίαν ἐκτήσατο ᾽᾿.
[Cf. Ibid., p. 65, “ ἐκλήθη ᾿Αρμενιακόν, διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸ πλησιόχωρον τῶν ᾿Αρμενίων
ὦν ὖν Also Pertusi, Notes to 1δ14., pp. 108-109, 117-118]. (203, 1)

2a [The thesis of Bagratid origin for the Rupenid dynasty is no longer considered
tenable. See e.g. Adontz himself in his article “ἡ L’aieu] des Roubéniens. Notes arméno-
byzantines, VI”, Byzantion, X (1935), reprinted in his Hiudes Arméno-byzantines (Lisbon,
1965), pp. 177-195, εἰ al.]

3 Sebéos, vi, viii, x, pp. 47, 51, 53, ete. Job. Eph., WH, xi, xv, pp. 231, 236. (204, 1)

88. [The interpretation of iconoclasm as a rationalist movement, albeit favoured at
the time of composition of this book, is no longer taken seriously. For the most recent
rejection of this thesis, see M. Anastos, “‘ Iconoclasm and Imperial Rule, 717-842’,
CMH, IV, 1, pp. 61 sqq.]

8b [See Toumanoff, Studies, pp. 196 n. 219, 200-201 n. 228, and Charanis, The Armenians
in the Byzantine Empire (Lisbon, s.d.), also above, Chapter V, nn. 57-58.]

4 Procopius, Goth., III [VII], xxxii, 6-7 [L. IV, 420/1. - 4223],

“énl μὲν yap κακοῖς ἀλλοτρίοις yevvaidy τε Kal τῆς τυραννίδος διαλυτὴν αὐτὸν γεγονέναι,
φίλον τε ὄντα καὶ ἑστιάτορα Γόνθαριν αὐτοχειρὶ λαβόντα κτεῖναι οὐδενὶ λόγῳ. ἐν δέ γε τῷ
παρόντι ἀποδειλιάσαντα οὕτως ἀνάνδρως ἐνταῦθα καθῆσθαι, τῆς μὲν πατρίδος οἱ φρουρουμένης
τε ἐνδελεχέστατα καὶ δασμοῖς ἐκτετηκυίας ἀήθεσι, τοῦ δὲ πατρὸς ἀνῃρημένου ἐπὶ ξυνθηκῶν τε
καὶ ξυμβάσεως λόγῳ, παντὸς δὲ τοῦ ξυγγενοῦς δεδουλωμένου τε καὶ σκεδαννυμένου ἀεὶ πανταχόσε
τῆς Ῥωμαίων ἀρχῆς ". [The translation of this passage given in the text is taken
from the Loeb Classical library, and is closer to the text than the one given by Adontz].

(260, 1)
4a [ Sebéos, vi, p. 47, “ Ugg uf fumonp h whLhuguby Ei; mut, huh p up Dp
μτῃπι ἣ Ι "ηππμ δι : Pung El muk, bu y fou ὁπηπη τὴ h ph βμιὴ poi pls.

432 NOTES : CHAPTER VIII

h qm qpayy οπηπήξ bh ζμι δι pU pbb mmbky : Qh Get μβπιμ μὲ" feshuuhp
UEnuh ph. kh EE who bh y[Potimufin uywbwhbh, hh dbp hbkggmp {μμι---
quymkuip : Qh bE popu yephpp faphuhg | plipghh, εἴρη Subgshy ng
Ι php °. Cf. Goubert, L’Orient, pp. 191 sqq., particularly pp. 209-211 and 217-218.]

5 Among these are e.g. 11} Π|η = ἀποδείξις, δα ππελμμ ἢ = συνέχες, 1Π1}1---
papmjefih = δια-φορά, puy—wum|efnh = ἀπό-φασις, pug—unpmfefh =
ἀπόδωσις, YEpupbphy = ἀνα-φέσεσθαι, publ = πόσον, πμιμὴ = Toioy, mn prs) —
wypnifefr = διά-θεσις, owpmgpm|e fil, supwdubmfefh = συμ-πλοκή.
[On the Syrian elements in early Armenian Christianity and their linguistic importance,
see, e.g. Ter Minassiantz, Armenische Kirche, and Hibschmann, Grammatik, pp. 281-321,
etc. On the Hellenistic school in Armenia and the period of its development, Manandian,
Hellenistic School]. (208, 1)

6 According to one authority, the Armeniens, “haben dem Reiche unermessliche
Dienst gethan. Die faihigsten Offiziere, die genialsten Heeres leiter der folgenden Jahr-
hunderte (2.6. after Justinian) sind armenischen und iberischen Geblits”’, H. Gelzer,
Die Genesis der byzantinischen Themenverfassung, (Leipzig, 1899), p. 24. ‘* Der hohe
und niedere Adel der Armenier (Naharark’, σατράπαι und Azatk’ "Alaro) bildeten
neben den Iberern den kernhafsten und tiichtigsten Stamm der romaischen Reiter-
regimenter (Καβαλλαρικὰ θέματα) ᾽᾽, Ibid., p.96. [Cf. above τι. 3b]. (210, 1)

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.

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

«

10* 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,

16* 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.

«

18* 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

26% 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.

13.
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.

46*

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.

56* 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*

72*

Qapnynuy p.
Y mpybokuth p.
“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. ;

78% 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.

80* 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% 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

86* 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.

90* 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.

92° 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.

104* 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.

112* 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°

114*

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 IV

Lufu mn Ypo 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,

12s 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

134*

evil

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.

136* 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 - LAKgEs - 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

*8E6

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,

250* 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

260* 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-

262 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

266*

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).

280* 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).

290* 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).

292*

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).

294* 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