¹ A notable exception, and a surprisingly early one, is Bussell, F. W. Part II of the second volume of his The Roman Empire: Essays on the Constitutional History from the Accession of Domitian (81 A.D.) to the Retirement of Nicephorus III. (1081 A.D.) (London 1910), entitled ‘Armenia and Its Relations with the Empire (520-1120): The Predominance of the Armenian Element,’ though containing much that is unfounded, hasty, and at present outmoded, nevertheless manifests what amounts to an inspired attempt to see Caucasia from within, as it were, not merely as Byzantium's hazy outside world, and to see it especially under its social aspect, relating then what has thus been seen to the activities of the Caucasian element within the Empire. This is the more remarkable when one considers that his was not a first-hand acquaintance with Caucasia.Google Scholar

² Even, The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire of P. Charanis (Lisbon 1963 ), the latest and in many respects the fullest presentation of the subject, and one which can be said to have made amends for previous neglect — it completes the author's earlier ‘Ethnic Changes in the Byzantine Empire in the Seventh Century,’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 13 (1959) 23-44 — displays nevertheless a total lack of acquaintance with the Caucasian social background. Passing over the use in this book of the word ‘chieftain’ to designate members of the dynastic stratum of the highly evolved Armenian social structure, one may single out the veritable tour de force of never once mentioning by name the Bagratid Dynasty, even when the context most emphatically requires a reference to that illustrious name (e.g. pp. 31, 46, 48). Of course, Armenian scholars have long combined a knowledge of the Caucasian background with a realization of the importance of the Armenians in Byzantium; and in this connection the name of Nicholas Adontz is one that first springs to the mind. It was only in the late 1920s, however, that he began writing in French, instead of in Armenian or in Russian as before, thus making the results of his research easily available to the Byzantine scholars of the West. Complementing, in the domain of the history of art, his contribution, is that of Sirarpie Der Nersessian, whose general work, Armenia and the Byzantine Empire (Harvard University Press 1947), ought to be mentioned here. But how little these opportunities have been profited by, becomes clear on comparing, e.g., the space allotted to the Caucasian element in the best-known general histories of Byzantium with that accorded to, say, the Slavic element, which has contributed nothing to Byzantine Civilization. But cf. Stein, E., ‘Introduction à l'histoire et aux institutions byzantines,’ Traditio 7 (1949-1951) 158-61 (and 97: ‘Rien de l'histoire médiévale tant de l'Occident que de l'Orient ne devrait ětre tout à fait étranger à celui qui étudie Byzance'); also my ‘Caucasia and Byzantine Studies,’ ibid. 12 (1956) 409-11.Google Scholar

³ See, for the problem of Caucasian unity, my Studies in Christian Caucasian History (Georgetown University Press 1963) I: ‘The Social Background of Christian Caucasia’ pp. 33-144. — To be sure, ‘Christian Caucasia’ or, better still, ‘Cis-Caucasia,’ would be more exact as a name; but since it is unwieldy, and ‘Trans-Caucasia’ in addition to being equally unwieldy is also incorrect historically, ‘Caucasia’ must suffice: cf. ibid. 11-12 and n. 1.Google Scholar

⁴ Cf. Studies 48–9, 55-9.Google Scholar

⁵ Traces of Palaeolithic man, as ancient as any other earliest known traces of human life on earth, have been discovered in Caucasia during the present century; as well as ample Neolithic remains (of the fifth-fourth millennium B.C.). For this, as well as for the succeeding Cyro-Araxan Chalcolithic Culture, see, e.g., Lang, D. M., The Georgians (New York/Washington 1966) 23–53 (and the bibliography, 180-89), which is by far the most valuable part of this small book.Google Scholar

⁶ Studies 50–54, 55-58.Google Scholar

⁷ This difference stemmed from the constitutional difference between the two polities. For all its claims to autocracy and cosmocracy, the Iranian Crown was limited by two constitutional factors: the existence of an official nobility and that of vassal States. The East Roman Empire, on the other hand, had no such official deterrents to both autocracy and cosmocracy. The Emperor was assisted by an officialdom and not delimited by a nobility, and all foreign monarchs, if within reach and yet allowed to exist, derived their existence as monarchs, in Roman eyes, from the legal fiction of being the Emperor's officials. In these circumstances, it was quite natural to prefer to see this legal fiction replaced by corresponding reality. Cf. infra at n. 128. Google Scholar

⁸ For the Treaty of Rhandea and the coronation of Tiridates I in Rome three years later: Tacitus, Annales 15.24–31; 16.23-24; Suetonius, Nero 13; Cassius Dio 62.22-3; 63 (62).1-7; cf. Pliny, Nat. hist. 30.6.1; 33.16; cf. Grousset, R., Histoire de l'Armenie (Paris 1947) 108-9; Debevoise, N. C., A Political History of Parthia (Chicago 1938) 193-6.Google Scholar

⁹ The Armenian historical tradition—the Agathangelus and Ps. Moses of Chorene 2.67-75 — and the Iberian — Leontius of Ruisi, History of the Kings of Iberia (ed. Qauxč'išvili, S., K'art'lis C'xovreba I [Tiflis 1955] 59, 60-1) — speak of a coalition attempted against the first Sassanid Artašīr by the Arsacid King of Armenia; cf. also Grousset, Histoire, 113-4. On their part, Cassius Dio 80.3.1-3, and Zonaras 12.15, mention the defeat of Artašīr in Armenia, at the hands of the Armenians, some Medes, and the sons of the last Arsacid Great King. The neo-Achaemenian claims of Sassanid Iran are well summed up by Cassius Dio 80.3.4, and Herodian 6.2, 4.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Separate from the rest of Armenia already in the Achaemenid empire ( Ehtécham, Ehtécham, L'Iran sous les Achéménides [Fribourg 1946 ] 170, 175), Lesser Armenia became a kingdom after its downfall. Subsequently it was part of the Pontic State and a vassal State given by Rome to various client kings, until definitively annexed A.D. 72 and made a part of Cappadocia. A separate province under Diocletian, it then became two provinces under Theodosius I, First Armenia (with Sebastea) and Second Armenia (with Melitene). In 536, Justinian I renamed them, respectively, Second and Third Armenia, altering their frontiers and enlarging them with territory from Cappadocia and Helenopontus: Reinach, Th., Mithri-date Eupator, roi de Pont (Paris 1890) 78-79; Adontz, N., Armenija v ěpoxu Justiniana (St. Petersburg 1908) 66-90, 166-8, 173; Debevoise, , Parthia 132-3, 141, 170, 179, 185, 199-200; Magie, D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ (Princeton 1950) 195-6, 210, 374, 376, 389, 413, 435, 443, 475, 494, 514, 554, 557, 1237-8, 1435; Chaumont, M. L., Recherches sur l'histoire d'Arménie (Paris 1969) 167-71; Bury, J. B., History of the Later Roman Empire II (London 1923) 344-5. Maurice, Under, Third Armenia was renamed First Armenia: Goubert, P., Byzance avant l'Islam (Byzance et l'Orient I; Paris 1951) 296. Lastly, the Heraclians transformed Lesser Armenia and some adjacent territories into the Armeniac Theme: Charanis, Armenians 19-20.Google Scholar

¹¹ For the name, see Studies p. 76 n. 84. — For the general history of Armenia, see Grousset, , Histoire; CMH IV I (1966) chap. 14 ‘Armenia and Georgia.’Google Scholar

¹² Studies I, especially pp. 48–80.Google Scholar

¹³ The First Armenian Monarchy of the Orontids (whose branches also reigned in the Kingdoms of Sophene and of Commagene), recently rescued from utter oblivion by history, is dealt with ibid. III, ‘The Orontids of Armenia’ 277-305, also 72-4.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Manandian, H., Tigrane II et Rome: Nouveaux éclaircissements à la lumière des sources originales, transl. Thorossian, H. (Lisbon 1963 ); Grousset, , Histoire 79-104; Studies 74-80.Google Scholar

¹⁵ In the peace concluded by Philip the Arab and Sapor I, upon the defeat and death of Gordian III: Sapor I's trilingual inscription on the Kaabah of Zoroaster, ed. Sprengling, M., Third Century Iran: Sapor and Kartir (Oriental Institute, University of Chicago 1953) p. 7 = Plate 1, lines 3-4 (Pahlavi); 73 = Pl. 10, lines 6-10 (Greek); 15, III.1, 2 (translation); pp. 3-4, 79-85 (interpretation). Sapor's account reveals that Gordian III was killed in battle and not slain in the camp at the instigation of Philip, as the Roman gossip had it. Capitolinus, Gordiani (Hist. Aug.) 28.1; 29.1; 31; Ammianus 23.5.17; Zosimus 1.19; 3.32; Evagrius 5.7; Zonaras 12.18-19; cf. Christensen, A., L'Iran sous les Sassanides (Copenhagen 1944) 218-9; W. Emsslin in CAH XII 88.Google Scholar

¹⁶ In the peace concluded by Jovian and Sapor II, upon the defeat and death of Julian: Ammianus 25.7.9-12; Zosimus 3.31; cf. Faustus of Buzanda 4.21; cf. Studies 150 and n. 5. Google Scholar

¹⁷ Cf. infra n. 19.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Cf. infra nn. 21, 27.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Faustus 6.1; Lazarus of P'arpi 6 (ed. Tiflis, 1907 p. 17 ); Narratio de rebus Armeniae (ed. Garitte, G., La Narratio de rebus Armeniae CSCO 132, Subsidia 4; Louvain 1952) 4-12; cf. the confused account in Procopius, De aed. 3.1.4-17; Ps. Moses 3.42. Both Procopius and Ps. Moses err in placing the Partition of Armenia in the reign of Theodosius II: Garitte 66-9. — For a discussion of these events and the date of the Partition, see Studies 151-2 and n. 6.Google Scholar

²⁰ Lazarus of P'arpi 13-15; Eliseus 1; Eusebius (Sebēos) (ed. Tiflis, 1913) p. 34; Ps. Moses 3.63-4; Narratio 15-16; cf. Grousset, Histoire 163-295; Adontz, Armenija 211-35; CMH IV 1.598-9.Google Scholar

²¹ The Western Kingdom, corresponding to the province of Upper Armenia, came to be called Inner Armenia by the Roman government. Together with its princely States—Acili-sene (Ekeḷeac') of the Mamikonids, Carenitis (Karin) of the royal Arsacids, and Syspiritis (Sper) of the Bagratids — it was placed, following the annexation, under the Comes Armeniae (at Theodosiopolis). Sometime before August 528, Inner Armenia became the province of Magna Armenia (under a praeses). In the same year, the comitiva Armeniae was abolished and the office of Magister Militum per Armeniam et Pontum Polemoniacum et gentes instituted; in 532 the three Princes were dispossessed; and in 536 Magna Armenia was renamed First Armenia (under a proconsul at Justinianopolis) and enlarged with territories from Pontus and old First Armenia: Studies 192-6; Adontz, Armenija 46-65, 91-198; Bury, Later Rom. Emp. II 344; Stein, E., Histoire du Bas-Empire II (Paris/Brussels/Amsterdam 1949) 289-90. Under Maurice, First Armenia was again given the name of Magna Armenia: Goubert, Byzance 296.Google Scholar

²² Procopius, , De aed. 3.1.17: …Google Scholar

²³ This was the territory of the former (Orontid) kingdom of Sophene (190-95 B.C.) and subsequently of the Syrian March of the Artaxiad Monarchy. The princely States situated there were Lesser Sophene (Cop'k'), Anzitene (Hanjit) and Ingilene (Angeḷ-tun), and Greater Sophene or Sophanene (Cop'k' mec), acquired in the Treaty of Nisibis (298), as well as Asthianene (Hašteank') and Balabitene (Balahowit), acquired c. 377/8 or possibly in 387. The dynasty ruling in both Ingilene and Anzitene and that of Greater Sophene were Orontid branches. The Graeco-Latin names of these States have varied occasionally. Cf. Studies 131–5, 166-75, 303-5.Google Scholar

²⁴ Satrapiae and gentes/ were the official Roman names for the Pentarchy: cf. Justinian, Nov. 31 (… … …. …); Cod. Just. 1.29.5 (… et gentes, Anzetenam videlicet, Ingilenam etc.); Cod. Theod. 12.13.6 (Gaddamae satrapae Sophanenae); cf. Studies 172. — For the political implications of , see Jenkins, R. J. H., ed. Constantine Porphyrogenitus: De administrando imperio II: Commentary (London 1962) 11. On the other hand, Armenians from the annexed region were ‘Romans': cf., e.g., Procopius, Bell. goth. 6.27.16-17: … … [who fought the ‘barbarians,’ i.e., the Goths; and a little later, there is question of] …Google Scholar

²⁵ Procopius, , De aed. 3.1.18–23; cf. Studies 134 and nn. 233-5.Google Scholar

²⁶ In 528, the princely immunity from Imperial garrisons and right to maintain armed forces were quashed through the creation of the office of Magister militum per Armeniam et Pontum Polemoniacum et gentes (Cod. Just. 1.29.5), under whom stood notably two duces, one in command of the Imperial forces at Citharizon, in Asthianene, the other at Martyropolis, in Greater Sophene. In 532, the principalities were annexed and, in 536, made to form the province of Fourth Armenia (under a consularis, at Martyropolis): Studies 174-5; Adontz, , Armenija 28-45, 91-198; Bury, , Later Rom. Emp. II 344. Under Maurice, this province was replaced by two: one, containing Greater Sophene and newly acquired Arzanene (Aḷjnik'), was called Fourth Armenia or Upper Mesopotamia (with the capital at Amida); the other, containing the rest of the Pentarchy and some territory taken from First Armenia, was called Other Fourth Armenia or Armenia Justiniana (with the capital at Dadima); the former passed under Arab control in the seventh century: Adontz 234; Goubert, , Byzance 296-7, 298-301. Arzanene was the Arabian March of the Artaxiad Monarchy of Armenia; it passed under Roman control in 298, then under that of Iran in 363, reverting to Rome in 591: Studies 179-84; Adontz loc. cit.; Goubert 168-9, 297.Google Scholar

²⁷ Already Maurice, in the Peace of 591, pushed eastwards the frontiers of Roman Armenia, from Theodosiopolis to lake Sevan in the north and from Martyropolis to lake Van in the south: cf. Grousset, Histoire 251-3. The question of his reorganization of Free Armenia remains somewhat obscure; it seems that the bulk of the acquired territory (the provinces of Ayrarat and Turuberan) was now called Great Armenia, while that of Tayk' was Deep Armenia and the easternmost region (near Dvin) was Lower Armenia: Goubert, Byzance 297-8. There was no interruption in the continued existence of the princely States situated in this territory; cf. Studies 147–222; Goubert 302. — For Heraclius' activity in Armenia, see Grousset 281-7.Google Scholar

²⁸ The first Presiding Prince for the Emperor was the Curopalate David, Prince Saharuni (635-638); his successor the Patrician Theodore, Prince Rštuni (641-c.645, 645-653/4), passed to the Caliph's allegiance and continued to rule Armenia (653/4-655): Eusebius (Sebēos) 29 (166-7), 30 (176), 32-25; cf. Grousset, , Histoire 286-7, 296-304; CMH IV 1.781 (to be corrected for the date of Theodore's accession: 641). — The treaty which Theodore concluded with the future Caliph Mu'awiya I in 653/4, and those concluded with the Caliphate by the Presiding Princes of Iberia and Albania (Studies 394), introduced a novel situation in the young Islamic empire: for the first time, outside Arabia, instead of conquering and annexing a part of the outside world, ‘war territory,’ the Caliphate, like the Iranian and Roman empires, officially accepted the existence, in Caucasia, of a group of autonomous vassal States. The three Caucasian States formed then a single viceroyalty of the Caliphal empire, called Arminiya; and the viceroy resided first in the former Armenian capital of Dvin and, later, in the former Albanian capital of Partav (Barδa'a): Studies 394 and n. 17. — For the earlier princely viceroys of Armenia acting on behalf of the Great King: infra n. 109. J. Laurent, L'Arménie entre Byzance et l'Islam (Paris 1919) 334, refers to Theodore Rštuni as ‘général-en-chef’ and not as Prince of Armenia. This must be due to his reliance on Macler's translation of Eusebius (Sebēos). In the original, Theodore is unequivocally called Prince (išxan) of Armenia: 30 (176), 32 (185, 188 etc.), 35 (224); CMH IV 1.781 is to be corrected accordingly.Google Scholar

²⁹ Laurent, Arménie; Grousset, Histoire 296-340; CMH IV 1.605-11. — The importance of Caucasia for the Empire in the Middle Byzantine phase was enhanced by the existence of its oil-wells which yielded petroleum, the chief ingredient of Greek Fire: Jenkins, De adm. imp. Commentary, ‘General Introduction’ II 7; cf. Constantine Porphyr. De adm. imp. 53.492-511. Google Scholar

³⁰ For the general history of Georgia, see CMH IV 1 chap. 14; Studies 55–8, 80-5, 86-103, 253-7.Google Scholar

³¹ Cf. my ‘ Chronology of the Early Kings of Iberia,’ Traditio 25 (1969) 1–33.Google Scholar

³² Supra n. 15. Suzerainty over Armenia almost invariably entailed that over Iberia, and also Albania: K. Trever, Očerki po istorii i kul'ture Kavkazskoj Albanii (Moscow/Leningrad 1959) p. 132; Studies 150 n. 5.Google Scholar

³³ Supra n. 16.Google Scholar

³⁴ The cession of Iberia is not explicitly mentioned by Procopius, Bell. pers. 1.22, but the clause (1.22.16) that the Iberian émigrés in the Empire might, if they so chose, return to Iberia is an obvious indication that that country thereafter depended on Iran and not on the Empire: Studies 371 n. 57; Stein, Hist, du Bas-Empire II 294. For the abolition of the Iberian kingship as erroneously connected with this Treaty, see Studies p. 272 n. 61; Chron. of the Early Kings of Iberia n. 127.Google Scholar

³⁵ Studies pp. 382–89. The first Presiding Prince was Guaram I, Prince of Cholarzene (Klarǰet'i) and J̌avaxet'i, founder of the Guaramid branch of the Chosroid royal house of Iberia: J̌uanšer, Hist. of King Vaxtang Gorgasal (ed. Qauxč'išvili, , K'art'lis C'xovreba I) 217-8; Studies 379-82, Geneal. Table ad p. 416.Google Scholar

³⁶ Supra n. 28.Google Scholar

³⁷ No list of the Presiding Princes of Lazica has so far been compiled; and the scarcity of sources at our disposal leaves us with but two names: Lebarnicius, patricius Lazicae, c. 662 (Theodosius and Theodore of Gangra, Scholium, sive Hypomnesticum [PG 90] col. 195) and , 698 (Theophanes, Chronographia a. 6189; Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Hist. eccl. [PG 108] col. 1340: Sergius … patricius Lazicae). It seems safe to assume that the title of Patrician indicates that these personages were Presiding Princes and also that the institution in question must have been introduced earlier than c. 662, i.e. about the same time as it was introduced in Armenia and Albania. Cf. Studies 255 n. 355. — One of the princedoms of West Georgia was Suania (Svanet'i) which played a considerable, if unwilling, role in the conflict of Justinian and Chosroes: ibid. 257. Google Scholar

³⁸ The first Presiding Prince was Varaz-Gregory I, Prince of Gardman (628-636): Moses of Kaḷankaytuk' (or of Dasxurēn) 2.17; 3.20; 3.3; Sumbat, Hist. Bagr. (ed. T'aqaišvili, E., K'art'lis C'xovreba [Tiflis 1906]) 340; cf. Studies 216-17, 476-7, n. 171. See, ibid. 476-7 for the question of his rebaptism by Heraclius. The House of Gardman had passed after 363 from the Armenian to the Albanian political sphere: ibid. 216-7.Google Scholar

³⁹ Ibid. 388–9; CMH IV 1.781-82. The preference thus shown by the Empire to Iberia over Armenia in this matter must have been due to the fact of Iberia's conformity to, and Armenia's dissent from, the Emperor's religion. The setting up of the Caliph's suzerainty over Caucasia placed the whole of it under the intermediate control of the caliphal viceroy of Arminiya (supra n. 28). This may be regarded as to some extent a diminution of the powers of the office of Presiding Prince, combining as it did those of an imperial viceroy and of a local High Constable. Yet, internally, this office continued to combine the highest civil and military authority in each State. In addition, the Caliph's viceroy was appointed not to each of the three States, but to the three of them together. In a sense, then, the office of Presiding Prince may be considered as having retained its viceregal character in each country even after the establishment of the Caliph's control, with the caliphal viceroy's being a sort of super-viceroy. — The importance attached by the Court of Constantinople to the Caucasian dynasts is further shown by the fact that the Kings of the Franks, Charles Martel (737-741) and Peppin the Short (751-768), were given by that Court only the title of Patrician, in 724 and 754 respectively: cf. E. Stein, ‘La période byzantine de la Papauté,’ Catholic Historical Review 21 (1935) 161-2.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Laurent, , Arménie 83–128; Grousset, Histoire 329-34, 341-93; Studies 153-4, cf. the statistics, pp. 223-9. — The growth of prosperity was in part due to the insistance of the Caliphate on collecting taxes and tribute in money which, having first ruined Armenia, nevertheless led to an economic revival as the nobility and peasantry found themselves forced to abandon the autarkic rural economy and to produce a surplus of raw and manufactured goods for sale; thus commerce and urban economy revived: Sorian, A., Die soziale Gliederung der armenischen Völker im Mittelalter (Leipzig 1927) 62-4; Manandian, H., The Trade and Cities of Armenia in Relation to Ancient World Trade, transl. Garsoïan, N. (Lisbon 1965) 136-55; cf. CMH IV 1.609.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Studies 201–3, 306-54. The principalities held by the Bagratids at this period were, Aršarunik' and Siracene (Širak) (acquired from the Kamsarakans) and southern Tayk' Bagravandene (Bagrewand), and Taraun (wrested from the Mamikonids).Google Scholar

⁴² Studies 199–200.Google Scholar

⁴³ Studies 214.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Studies 209–12. The Mamikonids finally retained only southwestern Taraun (with Arsamosata) and Sasun.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Studies 253–4, 389-416. The Guaramids nearly monopolized the office of Presiding Prince of Iberia: ibid. Geneal. Table ad p. 416; CMH IV 1.781-2; cf. supra n. 35.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Supra n. 38.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Minorsky, V., s.v. ‘Tiflis,’ Encyclop. of Islam 4; Markwaḷt, J., Südarmenien und die Tigrisquellen (Vienna 1930) 501-8; Jenkins, , De adm. imp. Commentary (note 24 supra) II 167, 169; Laurent, , Arménie 320-1, 322-6, 326-8.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Appearing in the tenth century: Minorsky, Studies in Caucasian History (London 1953).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ By Ašot IV, Prince of the Bagratids (for the genitive plural of the nomen gentilicium, as part of the Armenian princely nomenclature, see Studies p. 130): Asoḷik 2.2; Samuel of Ani (available to me only in the Latin tr. of Zohrab, J. and Mai, A., PG 19) 706; cf. Markwart, (Marquart), Osteuropäische und ostasiatische Streifzüge (Leipzig 1903) 451-2; Laurent, , Arménie 98-104; Grousset, , Histoire 341-3; CMH IV 1.609-10. The significance of the restoration of the Principate, after its temporary suppression by the Caliphate, in favor of Ašot IV seems to have escaped the notice of the primary sources.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ By Ašot I the Great, Duke of Cholarzene: Chronicle of Iberia (ed. Qauxč'išvili, , K'art'-lis C'xovreba I) 252; Vardan (ed. Venice, 1862) 77; cf. Toumanoff, , ‘The Bagratids of Iberia from the Eighth to the Eleventh Century,’ Le Muséon 74 (1961) 11-12; Studies 353 and n. 54, p. 415; CMH IV 1.610.Google Scholar

⁵¹ By Ašot, V, Prince of the Bagratids, thereafter Ašot I the Great, with the Caliph's authorization King of Armenia: Katholikos, John (ed. Tiflis, 1912) 139–40; Arcruni, Thomas 3.20 (ed. Tiflis, 1917, pp. 368, 369); Asoḷik 3.2; Samuel of Ani 709-10; Cyriacus (Karakos) of Ganja (ed. Tiflis, 1909) 74; Vardan 85-6; Stephen Orbelian 37; cf. Laurent, Arménie 284-95; Grousset, Histoire 394-7; CMH IV 1.612-13. The exact date of the coronation of Ašot appears to have been Wednesday, 26 August 884, on the basis of a colophon found in a MS of the Gospels, copied, together with the colophon, from an earlier MS in the fourteenth century (Matenadaran N° 3711): V. Hakobyan, Mayr žamanakagrut'yunner (XIII-XVIII dd.) II (Erevan 1956) note 45, pp. 156-7; cf. 156-62 = ‘La date de l'avènement d'Ašot, premier roi Bagratide,’ Revue des études arméniennes 2 (1965) 273-82. There is, however, a certain difficulty in connection with this colophon. It states that the Katholikos ‘anointed Ašot as King of Armenia’ (ceac' zAšot t'agawor Hayoc'): Mayr žamanakagr. p. 157 (fol. 159b). And yet the Katholikos John, a contemporary, asserts categorically that his predecessor ‘instead of anointing with the holy chrism, crowned him King’ (p'ixanak ωcman sruaki iwḷoyn psaken zna t'agawor): John Kath. 139. Whatever the reason for the omission of anointing (cf. Revue des ét. arm. 2.274), the fact of the contradiction remains. The later sources, oblivious of the omission, indeed speak of the anointing of Ašot; and so does our colophon. It has, after all, reached us in a fourteenth-century MS, and we have no guarantee of its really being written by a contemporary. The name of its author, Grigor Maškewor, is not known in Armenian history, except (and this is perhaps significant) that Matthew of Edessa (3.217) records the death of the illustrious Armenian vardapet Grigor surnamed Maškewor, which occurred A. Arm. 563 = A.D. 1114/1115. — Previous to his elevation to the royal status, Ašot had been Presiding Prince of Armenia for the Caliph, from 856: John Kath. 132-3; Asolik 2.2.; Cyriacus 74; cf. Laurent 213; Grousset 372. About 862, he became Prince of Princes of Armenia: John Kath. 120; Thomas 3.20 (pp. 357, 365); Cyriacus 74; Vardan 82; Samuel of Ani 709-10; cf. Laurent 267-8; Grousset 372-3. The latter title, rendered as , the Court of Constantinople continued to apply to the Bagratid sovereigns of Armenia even after the coronation of Ašot: Constantine Porphyr., De adm. imp. 43.30, 34, 112; 44 passim.Google Scholar

⁵² By Adarnase IV: Sumbat, Hist. Bagr. 347; cf. Toumanoff, , Bagr. of Iberia 21-5; CMH IV 1.613. — For the abolition of the Iberian Monarchy in 580: J̌uanšer 217: cf. Studies 360-82; CMH IV 1.602.Google Scholar

⁵³ The King of Armenia was the recognized overlord of the other Armenian dynasts and could command a considerable number of troops. Matthew of Edessa gives the number of the regular troops under King Ašot III (952-977) as 45,000 and that of the levy in mass as 100,000 (1.5, 6); and the number of troops summoned by John-Smbat III (1020-1041), when the kingdom had been greatly reduced in size, as 40,000 foot and 20,000 horse (1.9); cf. also 1.14. Though possibly exaggerated, these figures are not wholly out of the historical context: suffice it to recall that the Armenian military aid to the Caliph after 653/4 was 15,000 horse: Eusebius (Sebēos) 35 (p. 224); Leontius (Ḷewond) 25 (ed. St. Petersburg, 1887, p. 120); or that the levy in mass of the Theme of Iberia (comprising the reduced Kingdom of Armenia and the inheritance of the Curopalate David II of Tao, i.e., the greater part of the northern half of Armenia) amounted to 50,000 men: Cedrenus 2.608; cf. also the statistics of the Armenian military potential in Studies 236-9. — The fertile soil of Caucasia was carefully irrigated and cultivated; its industries and commerce flourished participating in two great economic systems, the Caspian of the Muslims and the Pontic of the Byzantines. Old cities revived, new ones, like Ani, arose. Architecture, Caucasia's chief art, entered a new phase of flowering, as Caucasian dynasts vied with one another in building monasteries and castles and beautifying their cities with churches and palaces. Armenian and Georgian historical literature reached a high point during this period: S. Der Nersessian, ‘Armenia in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries,’ Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies (London 1967) 427-31; Grousset, Histoire 394-541; CMH IV 1.612-17. — For the economic aspect of this revival, see also supra n. 40. Cf. also V. Haroutiounian, ‘L'urbanisme en Arménie du Moyen Age,’ Revue des études arméniennes 5 (1968) 51-63.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Armenian historians, Katholikos, John (p. 140), Cyriacus of Ganja (p. 75), and Vardan (pp. 85-6), supply us with details regarding this rapprochement between Basil I and Ašot I. The Emperor's Armenian origin may well have had something to do with this, but more so, doubtless, his political wisdom in fostering a friendly buffer State between Byzantium and Islam. The alliance of Armenia and the Empire following King Ašot II's visit to Constantinople in 914 was a continuation of this policy, as also, to some extent, was the alliance of King Ašot III and the Emperor John I Tzimisces in 974. See for all this Grousset, Histoire 395-6, 443-6, 494-500. — The date of Ašot II's visit, as given in CMH IV 1.614, is to be corrected (on the basis of Theophanes Contin. 386; Symeon Magister 722-3; George Monach. [Contin.] 879-80; Leo the Grammarian 491; Cedr. 2.284) to 914; cf. Adontz, ‘Ašot Erkat’ ou de Fer, roi d'Arménie de 913 à 929,’ reprinted in Études arméno-byzantines (Lisbon 1965) 265-83.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Laurent, , Arménie 287–8.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Thomas Arcruni 3.22; John Katholikos 171-2; cf. Grousset, , Histoire 433–5. What began as the setting up of Xač'ik-Gagik, Prince Arcruni as an anti-King of Armenia, soon became, since the Bagratid position remained unaffected by this, a permanent division of Armenia into two separate kingdoms, of Armenia and of Vaspurakan. Cf. also CMH IV 1.784.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Stephen Orbelian 55 (ed. Tiflis, 1910, pp. 299–301 ); 59 (317); cf. Grousset, , Histoire 484-5. The exact date of the assumption of the royal title (with the consent of the neighbouring Islamic Courts) by Smbat II of Siunia is not known; recent research places this event in the 970s: H. Berbérian's important review and résumé of H. M. Utmazyan's Armenian work on Siunia (Siwnik') in the ninth and tenth centuries (not available to me), in Revue des études arméniennes 3 (1966) 408. Cf. also CMH IV 1.784.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ The tendency of dividing States between several sons or several branches begins to be very much in evidence in Caucasian society in the ninth century. The fundamental Caucasian system of succession was one of primogeniture occasionally modified by the by-norm of a limited lateral succession, and it admitted of no division. At the same time, the ownership of a family demesne was communal, the head of the family being merely the administrator of it: Studies 119-23. One may, therefore, venture the suggestion that the innovation in question was due to the fact that the few remaining princely houses of Armenia ruled States that were composed of several older princedoms. The unity of such a composite State was, accordingly, somewhat artificial and, at any rate, recent; it thus could, and did, break up into component parts that were possessed of a greater self-sufficiency and ethno-political unity, i.e., precisely, the older, historical, principalities which had been made to form it. This fragmentation must have been aided by the change then taking place in the tenurial rights of the cadets of the princely houses, the sepuhk'. Originally, as has been said, they shared in the communal possession of the dynastic demesne; but after the fall of the Arsacid Monarchy of Armenia there developed the tendency of giving separate appanages to them, and, by the ninth century, they had been known to transfer on occasion their allegiance to another reigning prince, not the head of their dynasty, which must signify that this system tended to acquire a political character, that appanages were being transformed into sub-States: cf. Studies 124. In connection with all this must be the fact that, by the tenth century, the by-norm of lateral succession had superseded in Armenia the earlier norm of primogeniture: ibid. 120-2 n. 207. Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Mušeḷ, younger brother of Ašot III, King of Armenia, became King of Kars (with the land of Vanand) in 962, and in 982, Gurgēn, younger brother of King Smbat II, became King of Lori and ‘of Albania’ (with the land of Tašir-Joraget: roughly ancient Gogarene/Gugark'): Asoḷik 3.8; Vardan p. 90; Mxit'ar of Ayrivank' (ed. Moscow 1860) 56; cf. Matthew of Edessa 1.10; cf. Grousset, , Histoire 483, 507–8; L. Movsēsean, ‘Lori et l'histoire de la famille bagratide arménienne Kurikian’ (tr. Macler, F. ), Revue des études arméniennes 7 (1927) 209-66. — The branch of Taraun stemmed from Bagarat II, son of Ašot IV, Prince of the Bagratids, in 826, and was dispossessed through Byzantine annexation in 966/7: Thomas Arcruni 2.5-7; John Katholikos 117; Asoḷik 2.2; 3.8; Cedrenus 2.375 (for the date of the annexation: infra n. 66); cf. Grousset 349, 493-4; Adontz, , ‘Les Taronites en Arménie et à Byzance,’ reprinted in Études arméno-byzantines 197-263; Laurent, Arménie 105; Markwart (Marquart), Osteuropäische und ostasiatische Streifzüge (Leipzig 1903) 463-4; Südarmenien 296-8, 495-500.—The ancient Bagratid principality of Syspiritis (Studies pp. 202, 321 and n. 76) was annexed by Justinian in 532 (supra n. 21), regained by the Bagratids, during the Byzantino-Muslim struggles, sometime before 772 (Studies 323-4 n. 81), and recognized as theirs by the Empire in 835: Asoḷik 2.6; cf. Markwart, , Streifzüge 421. The line of Syspiritis, thus founded by Ašot, son of Šapuh and nephew of Ašot IV, did not last for more than a century: ibid. 439. Nor did the line of Moxoene (Mokk'), which princedom had originally been under its own dynasty (Studies p. 182) then was acquired by Smbat VIII, Prince of the Bagratids, whose son Mušeḷ was the founder of the line: Thomas Arcruni 3.2, 10, 11, 17, 19, 20; cf. Markwart, , Streifzüge 464-5; Südarmenien 495-500. Cf. also (for both Syspiritis and Moxoene) Laurent, Arménie 109, 114-5, 127; Studies 202,200. — Worse still, the diminished Kingdom of Armenia was divided, c. 1021-1040, between John-Smbat III and his younger brother Ašot IV: Aristaces (Aristakēs) of Lastivert 10 (ed. Tiflis 1912, p. 51); Matthew of Edessa 1.8-9; Vardan 92-3; cf. Grousset 542-4.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Toumanoff, , Bagr. of Iberia; Studies 485–98. There were the Dukes of Tao (= Arm. Tayk'), later of Upper and of Lower Tao, the Dukes of Cholarzene (Klarǰet'i), with the city of Artanuǰi, and the Princes, later Kings, and Curopalates of Iberia. — For the rivalry with the Kings of Abasgia, see Gugushvili, A., ‘The Chronological and Genealogical Table of the Kings of Georgia,’ Georgica 1.2-3 (1936) 120-2; Toumanoff, ‘Chronology of the Kings of Abasgia and Other Problems,’ Le Muséon 69 ( 1956) 75-6.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Gugushvili, , Chron.-Geneal. Table 136–7. The chronology given in Gugushvili is subject to modification. The first independent Prince of Kakhetia, Gregory, makes his appearance after Ašot the Great's receiving the dignity of Curopalate: Chron. Iber. 252-3; Ašot was made a Curopalate in 813: supra n. 50.Google Scholar

⁶² Moses Kaḷankat. 3.23; Stephen Orbelian 59 (318-21); cf. Studies 216, 257-8; Grousset, Histoire 616-7. Google Scholar

⁶³ Moses Kaḷankat. 3.22; John Katholikos 170-1; Asoḷik 3.3; Stephen Orbelian 52 (218), 55 (299); Ma'sūdï, as quoted by Laurent, Arménie 211 n. 1. It was Hamam, probably of the ancient Albanian royal dynasty of Aranšahik, who c. 893 restored the dormant Albanian kingship in his princedom of Šak'ē (Šakkï) and Heret'i; cf. also Studies 258 and n. 362; Laurent loc. cit.; Grousset, Histoire 403; V. Minorsky, ‘Caucasica IV,’ Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 15/3 ( 1953) 504-14.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ The weakening division of Caucasia and the consequent partial loss of its value as a buffer State in the eyes of Byzantium may indeed be urged as an excuse for the Basilid abandonment of the policy of protectorate for that of annexation. Yet it will also be noted that this change of policy, while it indeed played a decisive role in the destruction of the Bagratid renascence in Armenia, had in actual fact begun manifesting itself before the setting in of the process of division in Caucasia. For a time, the two policies worked parallelly. Then the successes in the war on Islam must have whetted the Byzantine appetite for the preferred policy of annexationism. At the Council of Širakawan in 862 (cf. Rev. des ét. armén. 2.279), the national Armenian Church rejected Photius' advances, which had been made in reply to Ašot V, Prince of Armenia's (supra n. 51) request for Imperial support: Laurent, Arménie 187–8, 217-20; Grousset, Histoire pp. 382-4. Thereafter, Basil I, in the 870s, interfered inimically in Armenian affairs. Imperial control was imposed on the Prince of Taraun, Ašot V's homonymous cousin, who was created a Curopalate and set up as an anti-Prince of Armenia in opposition, obviously, to Ašot V and to the work of consolidation that was then being carried on, albeit under official Caliphal auspices, by him. This is clear from Thomas Arcruni 3.19; cf. CMH IV 1.612; Laurent 271-5 (Laurent seems to imply, 272-3 n. 10, 274, erroneously, that Ašot of Taraun's brother David succeeded him as Prince of Armenia, whereas the question is merely of his succession to Taraun).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Digisene (Dēgik' = T) represented, as a princedom, a revival of the tradition of the Pentarchs, which had been made possible under, it appears, a Mamikonid branch, by the struggle of Byzantium and Islam. After its annexation by Leo VI, it formed, together with other portions of Roman Armenia that had been recovered from Islamic control, the Theme of Mesopotamia: Constantine Porphyr. De adm. imp. 50.115, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123; De them. 9; cf. Honigmann, E., Die Ostgrenze des byzantinischen Reiches (Brussels 1935) 69, 76-7; Adontz, Taronites (n. 59 supra) 299; Charanis, Armenians 29; Jenkins, De adm. imp. Commentary II 189.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Grousset, , Histoire 493–4; Adontz, Taronites 231-2; Markwart, Südarmenien 463-4, 495; Honigmann, Ostgrenze 148-9; Charanis, Armenians 31. — Asoḷik 3.8, dates the death of the last Prince of Taraun, the Byzantine annexation of the principality, and a solar eclipse as in 415 Arm. Era = 30 Mar. 966—30 Mar. 967. Unfortunately for any attempt to arrive at a more precise date, there were an eclipse on 20 June 966 and another one on 13 Jan. 967: Grumel, V., La Chronologie (Traité d'études byzantines 1; Paris 1958) 464. On the other hand, Cedrenus 2.375, places both the ‘cession’ of Taraun and the eclipse in 968. It seems unquestionable that (pace Adontz) the information of Asoḷik must, in this case, be given preference.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Sumbat, , Hist. Bagr. 352, 354–9; Chron. Iber. 284-9; Asoḷik 3.43, 44; Aristaces 1, 2, 3, 4; Cedrenus 2.431, 447; Vardan 95; Zonaras 17.9; cf. Grousset, Histoire 529-35, 538-9, 547-50; CMH IV 1.617-21; Avalichvili, Z., ‘La succession du curopalate David d'Ibérie, dynaste de Tao,’ Byzantion 8 ( 1933) 177-202; Honigmann, Ostgrenze 150-67. Part of the Curoplalate's domain was a territory in northwestern Armenia granted to him personally by the Empire, in recompense for the aid (12,000 horse) which had made possible the imperial victory over Bardas Sclerus in 979. — For the date of the Curopalate's death (31 March 1000): Bagr. of Iberia 39-40.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Before the first Seljuq attacks on Armenia occurring in the 1030s (infra n. 77), it was twice invaded by various Turco-Mongolic tribes which had been settled in Azerbaijan from the beginning of the eleventh century. In 1016 they attacked Vaspurakan causing its king's decision to abdicate in favor of the Emperor, and in 1021 they struck at the Pahlavid principality of Nig, doubtless precipitating thereby the cession of Vaspurakan to the Empire. This is made clear by Agadžanov, S. and Yuzbašyan, K., ‘K istorii tjurkskix nabegov na Armeniju v. XI v.,’ Palestinskij Sbornik 13 (1965) 144–57. The Pahlavids (for whom see Studies 206-7), in the person of the Magister Gregory II, later Dux of Mesopotamia, ceded c. 1045/6 Nig, with the castle of Bǰni, to the Empire: Aristaces 10 (p. 61); Vardan 99; cf. Honigmann, , Ostgrenze 175.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Aristaces 3 (p. 20 ); Yahya (ed. Rosen, St. Petersburg 1883) 59; Cedrenus 2.464; Thomas Arcruni Contin. 3.41; Samuel of Ani 723-4; Vardan 92; cf. Grousset, Histoire 551-6; Honigmann, Ostgrenze 168-73; CMH IV 1.619. — Already in 1001, Basil II and Sennacherib-John concluded an alliance (Matthew of Edessa 1.32), which can only have implied Imperial protectorate over Vaspurakan, cf. Asoḷik 3.43, 46.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Especially of the Pahlavid family, led by Prince Vahram II Pahlawuni, High Constable of Armenia (†1045/6), uncle of the Magister Gregory (supra n. 68): Aristaces 10 (p. 54); Matthew of Edessa 1.59, 60. Google Scholar

⁷¹ Matthew of Edessa 1.61 makes clear the entente between the Courts of Constantinople and of Lori, but, reversing quite improbably the causality, attributes the attack of Michael IV to the instigation of David I Lackland, King of Lori (989-1046/8), who himself struck at Armenia upon Gagik II's accesion. The Emperor Michael, who invoked the testament of John-Smbat III can hardly have needed any prompting; and Constantinople's instigation in 1045 of the Šaddādid Abul-Answār I to attack Armenia (Cedrenes 2.558; cf. Grousset, , Histoire 574–5; Minorsky, Studies in Cauc. Hist. 52-3; Honigmann, Ostgrenze 174-5; F. Dölger, Regesten I 2 p. 6) plainly shows the correct pattern of the entente, which Matthew misunderstood. This cooperation of Lori with Byzantium may explain why David I's successor, Gurgēn/Korikē/Kiwrikē II (co-King from c. 1046) appears to have received the dignity of Curopalate, and may thus justify D. M. Lang's inference that the coins (of a single known type) struck by a Curopalate Korikē (with Armenian legends) must belong to the latter sovereign: ‘Supplementary Notes on Kiurike II, King of Lori in Armenia and His Coins,’ Museum Notes (The American Numismatic Society) 6 ( 1954) 183-91; but cf. ibid. 10 (1962) 107-12.Google Scholar

⁷² Aristaces 10 (pp. 60–2); Cedrenus 2.556-9; Matthew of Edessa 1.56-61, 66; Samuel of Ani 725-6; Vardan 97-100; Cyriacus 85-6; cf. Grousset, , Histoire 556-8, 568-72, 574-81; Honigmann, , Ostgrenze 174-5; CMH IV 1.619-20. It may be noted in passing that Gagik was ready to recognize the Emperor's overlordship, but that the latter was bent on annexation pure and simple: Cedrenus 2.557. This was a salient example of the triumph of an irrational political theology — cosmocratism — over rational politics.Google Scholar

⁷³ Aristaces 10 (p. 58 ); cf. Grousset, , Histoire 586-7; Charanis, Armenians 50-53. The fact that about one-fifth of the Georgian royal and princely dynasties, forming about one-third of the houses into which these were divided, were of Armenian origin (Studies 266-73, 254) is due to the immigration of numerous members of the Armenian princely class, especially after the fall of the Armenian kingdoms in the eleventh century. A wave of the Armenian émigrés to the Empire flooded its Hellenic territories with a religiously, ethnically, and linguistically distinct element, which in the circumstances was moreover a hostile element (Charanis 51-7) — one of the negative effects of the annexation.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Cedrenus 2.608; cf. Grousset, Histoire 586-7; Honigmann, Ostgrenze p. 178. Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Adontz, , Taronites 235–41; Markwart, Südarmenien 517-30; Grousset, Histoire 607-8, 331 n. 2; Studies 210 (for the Mamikonids of Sasun and Arsamosata); — Markwart 528; Studies 182, 200 (for the Arcrunids of Moxoene).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Cedrenus 2.606; Samuel of Ani 729; Vardan 102-4; Cyriacus pp. 86-7; Matthew of Edessa 2.188; Chron. Iber. p. 307; cf. Grousset, Histoire 615-6; Honigmann, Ostgrenze 188; CMH IV 1.620. Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Grousset, , Histoire 585–636; Honigmann, Ostgrenze pp. 177-90; CMH IV 1.620 — Seljuq invasions of Armenia took place in 1037/8, 1043/4 1045/6, 1049, 1054/5, 1055/6, 1056/7, 1057/8, 1059, 1062/3, 1064, 1065/6, 1067, 1069/70, see also Agadžanov and Yuzbažyan, K istorii tjurkskix nabegov (note 68 supra).Google Scholar

⁷⁸ To this importance, the liberal bestowal of Byzantine titles upon Caucasian dynasts, and in particular of the dignity of Curopalate, bears an eloquent witness. Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Charanis, , Armenians 16–8.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ We know, for instance, that the Pentarchs, who may have been under the obligation of rendering military aid to their suzerain the Emperor ( Adontz, , Armenija 105, 109), maintained their own regular armies: Procopius, De aed. 3.1.24-25, 27. Accordingly, only a fraction of the available men, and very likely not a considerable one, constituted, if at all, the military aid of vassal States. It was, as a matter of fact, in the name of a more efficient defence against Iran that Justinian effected his annexation of the Pentarchy: Procopius 3.1.27-8. — The most important annexed lands were thus the two parts of Roman Armenia, which have already been examined: the Western Kingdom and the Pentarchy. These, together with Lesser Armenia, could within a century or so after Justinian, compensate the Empire for the loss of the Balkan peninsula as a recruiting ground. And this is the reason why, while before the end of the sixth century the Armenians were merely one of the several ethnic groups of which the Imperial armies were composed, they became thereafter the preponderant group: infra at n. 81.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Charanis, , Armenians 16–21, 32-4.Google Scholar

⁸² Ibid. 14–16; idem, Ethnic Changes 29-31.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Ibid. 15.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Adontz, , Armenija 202–6; Charanis, , Armenians 13-14, 19-21, 29, 32, 51; Grousset, , Histoire 522. This was doubtless the reason why the provinces of Lesser Armenia were being augmented by additions of Cappadocian and Pontic territory: supra at n. 10. Cf. de Jerphanion, G., Les églises rupestres de Cappadoce (Paris 1942) 399.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Adontz, , Armenija 205.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Charanis, , Armenians 28–32. This influx of the Armenians, when not actually enforced, was encouraged by the Imperial government: Adontz, Armenija 204.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Military leadership was exercised in the Empire not only by the inhabitants of the annexed Caucasian provinces, in particular by the local aristocracy drawn to the Imperial Court, but also by the émigrés, likewise nobles and perhaps even men of less exalted social standing, who came from Free Caucasia and even from the Iranian zone of it. Thus, the prince Bacurius (infra at nn. 88-90) was in the Roman service at the moment when his dynasty's princedom of Gogarene and its suzerain, the Crown of Iberia were fully under the aegis of the Iranian empire: Studies 150 (for Iberia's dependence on Iran) and 499 (for Gogarene's dependence on Iran). Another prince of the Iberian royal house, Peranius, exchanged Iranian for Roman allegiance: Procopius, Bell. goth. 5.5.3; infra Appendix A (b) No. 1. The same was the case of the Arsacid princes Artabanes and John (Bell. vand. 4.24.1-2; Appendix A [a] Nos. 1, 2); the Kamsarakan princes Narses, Aratius, and Isaac (Bell. pers., 1.12.21-22; 1.15.31-33; Appendix A [a] Nos. 4, 5, 6), as well as of others, including the great Narses: Bell. pers. 1.15.31. Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Rufinus, , Hist. eccl. 10.11.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Peeters, P., ‘Les débuts du christianisme en Géorgie d'après les sources hagiographiques,’ Analecta Bollandiana 50 (1932) 27–38. It is difficult, however, to accept Fr. Peeters' identification of Bacurius: cf. the following note.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Toumanoff, , Chronology of the Early Kings of Iberia at nn. 132–145. Bacurius was in the Roman sevice until about 394 and then succeeded to the throne of Gogarene. — For the title of Vitaxa (Arm. bdeašx/Georg. pitiaxš), see Studies 154-8; for the Vitaxae of Gogarene, ibid. 183-92. 260-4, 467-75.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Infra Appendix A.Google Scholar

⁹² Infra Appendix B.Google Scholar

⁹³ For the Curcuae: Charanis, , Armenians 36–7. The name may be a derivation of the praenomen Gurgēn, for Armenian historians occasionally use the latter for Curcuas: Adontz, Ašot Erkat' 283. — The Dalasseni: Adontz, ‘Notes arméno-byzantines, V: Les Dalassènes,’ reprinted in Études arméno-byzantines 163-77; Charanis 45-6. — The Maniacae: Charanis 25, 46. — The Scleri: ibid. 42, 37. — The Musele-Crinitae: Adontz, Taronites (supra n. 59) 225-9; Charanis 40-1. — The Taronitae and Tornicii: Adontz, Taronites; Charanis 46-7. Other Armenian families in Byzantium included the Brachamii (Adontz, Notes arm.-byz. III: La famille de Philarète 147-52; Charanis 47); the Burtzae (Charanis 45); the Cecaumeni (P. Lemerle, Prolégomènes à une édition critique et commentée des ‘Conseils et Récits’ de Kékauménos [Brussels 1960]; ‘Nouvelles remarques sur la famille Vichkatzi-Kékauménos,’ Revue des ét. armén. 3 [1966] 177-83; also ibid. 5.141-4; Bartikian, H., ‘La généalogie du Magistros Bagrat, Catépan de l'Orient, et des Kékauménos,’ ibid. 2 [1965] 261-72; Charanis 47; — it is to be regretted that Bartikian should have assumed the existence of a ‘nom de famille , mentionné par le Porphyrogénète [De adm. imp. 46]' and then attempted through various ‘emendations’ to identify this presumed family with the Vixkac'i-Cecaumeni [pp. 265-266], without realizing that the term used by Constantine was, so far from being a family name, merely the sobriquet of an Iberian Bagratid, Ašot II the Prompt [kiskasi], Duke of Artanuǰi-Cholarzene/Klarǰet'i, † 939: my Bagr. of Iberia p. 30 No. 29); the Curticii (Charanis 44-45); the Machetarii (Adontz, Notes I: Les sceaux des Makhitar 137-41; Charanis 47); and the Theodorocani (Adontz, Notes IV: La famille de Théodorokan 153-62). On the other hand, the Armenian origin of the Melisseni, occasionally asserted, seems to be far from certain: Charanis 46 n. 173. Mention should be made here of two Georgian families, the Apocapae (S. Vryonis, ‘The Will of a Provincial Magnate…,’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 11 [1957] 274-5; Charanis 47-8) and the Pacuriani (Honigmann, Ostgrenze 222-6; Charanis 47-8). For other short-lived families, see infra, Appendix B.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Adontz, , ‘Les fonds historiques de l'épopée byzantine Digénis Akritas,’ Études arméno-byzantines pp. 14–5: the family name may possibly have been a derivation of dux as a rendering of the Mamikonid office-fief of High Constable (sparapet) of Armenia.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Charanis, , Armenians pp. 37–9. One may wonder, however, why various men bearing the Christian name of Phocas — there have been several St. Phocases — should have been adduced (p.37) in connection with the origins of the family of that name. The claim of that family to be descended from the Fabii (Attaliates [Bonn 1853] 217-22) though obviously a chimère, stresses at any rate its origin in the partes Occidentis and thus militates against the implication of the praenomen Vard. On the other hand, the parallel (maternal?) descent also claimed by the family from some Iberians brought — likewise — from the West by Constantine the Great and settled in the region, once inhabited by the Assyrians, the Medes, and then the Armenians, seems to point to Caucasian, rather than Pyrenean, Iberia; the tracing of this line of descent to the West may have been influenced by the consciousness of the western origin of the family in the paternal line. The name Vard, being Armenian and not Georgian, may, in conjunction with the Iberian maternal descent, point to the Armeno-Georgian marchland of Tayk'-Tao.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Cf. Charanis, , Armenians 21–2, 42, 46; Appendix B Nos. 6, 19, 20, 46, 149, 177, and 180.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Cf. Charanis, , Armenians 22, 23, 36-7; Appendix B Nos. 17, 26, 55, 158. — It is difficult to see why historians should omit from the lists of the Emperors Artabasdus (742-743) and his son and co-Emperor Nicephorus. Artabasdus fulfilled what constitutional requirements there were for making a lawful Emperor (cf. infra n. 131): he exercised the Imperial power in the capital, having been proclaimed by (as ever, a part of) the armed forces and accepted by the people and the senate of Constantinople. His case is similar to that of Basiliscus (475-476), who does figure in such lists; cf. e.g., Ostrogorsky, G., History of the Byzantine State, transl. Hussey, J. (Oxford 1968) 578.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Eusebius (Sebēos) speaks of the descendants of the royal Arsacids of Armenia (Aršakuni, for whom see Studies 192-6) as relatives (merjawork') of the Emperor Constans II: History 32 (ed. Tiflis 1913) 188. (Actually, the text is somewhat unclear, since in Classical Armenian iwr can mean both suus and eius. It thus states that the Emperor maintained Smbat V Bagratuni in the dignities of his [iwroy] father, made him Drungary of his [iwroc'] forces, gave him as wife a princess of the house of the Arsacids, his [iwroc'] relatives, and sent him to the camp of his [iwr] army. Now, it is obvious that the iwroy modifying ‘father’ has the sense of eius, and it is equally obvious that the iwroc' and iwr modifying ‘forces’ and ‘army’ have that of suus. The sense of iwroc' merjaworac‘, though ambiguous grammatically, can also be established in the historical context. For a Bagratid to marry a mediatized Arsacid would have been so normal as to require no comment. Therefore, the fact that the Emperor arranged this marriage, as part of a series of honors showered upon Smbat V, must mean that these Arsacids were not the Bagratid prince's relatives but the Emperor's.) On the basis of Theophylactus Sim. 3.1 and 3.6, A. Pernice concludes that the Emperor Heraclius I's father was born ‘probabilmente in Carin (Theodosiopolis)’: L'imperatore Eraclio (Florence 1905) 25 and n. 1. He was, accordingly, born on the territory of the Western Kingdom; and Carenitis was the principality of the Arsacids on its territory: supra, n. 21. The references to Heraclius I's golden hair are in no way ‘contradictory’ to the assertion of his Armenian origin ( Vasiliev, A., History of the Byzantine Empire [Madison 1952] 193): there have been blond Armenians, and, at any rate, Armenian origin does not preclude a possible admixture of other ethnic strains. All this, however, does not necessarily mean that the Heraclians were of Arsacid origin: see infra Appendix C.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Adontz, , ‘L’ǎge et l'origine de l'empereur Basil I (867-886),’ reprinted in Études arméno-byzantines 47-109. It cannot be urged too strongly that the misnomer — the vox nihili (Bussell II 408) — ‘Macedonian Dynasty’ be replaced by a more adequate name, e.g., precisely, ‘Basilid'; for, by the same token, the Heraclians might be called — as absurdly — ‘African Dynasty.’ — It is not a little odd, in the face of the assertions of the Vita Basilii and the exhaustive research of Adontz, to note that Professor Ostrogorsky should still find it appropriate to write that ‘it is also far from certain that he [scil. Basil I] was of Armenian extraction': History 232 n. 2.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Tēr-Sahakean, Tēr-Sahakean, Hay Kayserk' Biwzandioni II, (Venice 1905) 35. For the House of Gabeḷean, Princes of Gabeḷeank', see Studies 220-21. — In the case of the Lecapeni, as in the case of the Basilids, the modest conditions surrounding the founder of the dynasty before his rise to power need not mean undistinguished origin; the vicissitudes of history have often been responsible for the phenomenon of impoverished, but aristocratic émigrés. Constantine VII's uncomplimentary reference to Romanus I as ‘a common, illiterate fellow’ (De adm. imp. 13.150) is to be taken with a grain of salt: he obviously had no love for his prepotent father-in-law and was, moreover, hard put to it in explaining away the Bulgarian mésalliance, which the other had allowed. It is also to be borne in mind that the predominance in Byzantine society of the highly class-conscious Caucasian aristocracy (infra at nn. 122-5) would hardly have made possible the rise to prominence of a homo novus from Caucasia.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Adontz, , Age et origine 106, 107–8; Studies 210.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Charanis, , Armenians 25, 27–8.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Tarchnišvili, Tarchnišvili, Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur (Studi e Testi 185; Vatican City 1955) 61-5, 69-78.Google Scholar

^103a Cf. Lang, , The Balavariani (Barlaam and Josaphat): A Tale from the Christian East (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1966); The Wisdom of Balahvar: A Christian Legend of the Buddha (London and New York 1957); Tarchnišvili, Gesch. georg. Lit. 394-95. For St. Euthymius: ibid. 126-54. For a persistence of an older and different view: F. Dölger in CMH IV 2.242-43.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Especially by Honigmann, and Nucubije, Š., cf. Tarchnišvili, Geschichte 246-8, for a summary of the arguments in favour of this identification, as well as Nucubije's more recent work, Istorija gruzinskoj filosofii (Tiflis 1960) 84-107. — For Peter's family background, see Studies 260-61. — Of more importance for the Byzantinists than for Byzantium itself is the fact that a number of Greek texts, lost in the original, have been preserved in Armenian and Georgian versions. Suffice it to recall here Eusebius of Caesarea's Chronicle, which has reached us in its entirety in an Armenian version. For the Georgian translations of now lost Greek works, see E. Xint'kije, ‘Korneli Kekelije da bizantiur-k'art'uli literaturuli urt'iert'obis sakit'xebi,’ Mnat'obi 11 (1969) 181-5.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Architettura medievale armena (Rome 1968 ). This publication, accompanying the exhibition (held from 10 to 30 June 1968 in the Palazzo Venezia, in Rome) of splendid photographs, is, like them, the result of two missions to Armenia, made (in 1966 and 1967) under the auspices of the Medieval Section of the Institute of the History of Art of the Faculty of the Letters of the Universityof Rome. It contains the following essays (after a Preface by Professor Géza de Frankovich, Director of the Institute of the History of Art): de Maffei, F., ‘La civiltà figurativa armena’; Vahramian, H. Kh., ‘Architetti e maestri costruttori nell'Armenia medievale’; Breccia Fratadocchi, T., ‘Componenti religiose e simboliche dell' architettura medievale armena’; Cuneo, P., ‘Introduzione all'architettura armena’; idem, ‘L'architettura armena del primo periodo: IV-VII sec.’; Costa, E., ‘L'architettura armena del secondo periodo: IX-XIV sec.’ For the originality of this architecture, see especially de Maffei, F. 14-16 (the stonework), 19-23 (the dome); Breccia Fratadocchi 42-5; for the impossibility (as yet) of determining respective influences of Armenia and Byzantium: especially Costa, E. 65. Last but not least, cf. Der Nersessian, Armenia 55-89. To the classical presentation of Professor Der Nersessian, several new facts may be added. Recent excavations at Voližaberd appear to have brought to light a fourth-century Arsacid sepulchral monument with a dome on pendentives over a square bay (F. de Maffei in Architettura mediev. armena 19); accordingly, an important part of Strzygowski's celebrated thesis, hitherto believed unproved (Der Nersessian, op. cit. 57), seems vindicated. The Italian mission of 1967 discovered a hitherto unknown domed church at Soradir in Vaspurakan which F. de Maffei dates (20; cf. also 98 and Plates 56-58), as probably of the first decade of the sixth century. And recent investigations would seem to indicate that the original dome of the Cathedral of Eǰmiacin, dating from 480, was of stone and not of wood: Sahinian, A., 'Recherches scientifiques sous les voǔtes de la cathédrale d'Etchmiadzine,’ Revue des études arméniennes 3 (1966) 39-71, esp. 62. — For a suggestion of Byzantino-Georgian connections in the field of architecture and sculpture, see Winfield, D., ‘Some Early Medieval Figure Sculpture from North-East Turkey,’ Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 31 (1968) 71-2.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Archit. mediev. armena 25–6, 61-2, 64-5; Der Nersessian, Armenia 79.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ A notable example of Byzantine influence is the great Cathedral of the Angels (Zuart'-noe'), ar Vaḷaršapat, built by the Katholikos Nerses III the Builder (642-662): Arch. med., de Maffei, F. 23–5; P. Cuneo 58; E. Costa 64; E. Costa and P. Cuneo, ‘Schede degli edifici’ 102 (and bibliography). For the religious policy of Nerses III, see Grousset, Histoire 297-304; Garitte, G., La Narratio 339 (and bibliography); Toumanoff, ‘Christian Caucasia between Byzantium and Iran: New Light from Old Sources,’ Traditio 10 ( 1954) 159.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Cf. Stein, , Hist. du Bas-Empire II 466–80; Bury, Later Rom. Emp. II 338-43.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Lazarus 98-9; cf. Grousset, , Histoire 229–33; CMH IV 1.600-7, 780; and, for correct chronology, Manandian (Manandyan), K'nnakan tesut'yun Hay žoḷovrdi patmut'yan II/2 (Erevan 1960) 387, 388 (CMH IV 780 is to be corrected accordingly).Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ For the office of Marzpān: Christensen, Iran Sass. 136-9; for the Princes: infra at nn. 119, 120. Google Scholar

¹¹¹ JK 1052. Google Scholar

¹¹² Stein, , Hist. du Bas-Empire II 615. — It may presumably be argued that the Exarchate became a fixed office only after the disappearance of the Praetorian Prefects of Italy and of Africa (in the seventh century: RE 22/2 s.v. ‘Praefectus Praetorio’ 2496-8); cf. RE 6/2.1552-3 s.v. ‘Exarchos.’Google Scholar

¹¹³ See, for the literature on this subject, Ostrogorsky, History 96 n. 1 and 101 n.ḷ. — While it seems beyond dispute that the earliest themes were formed by Heraclius, there is nothing in what Theophanes has to say, a. 6113, about the Emperor's going into the ‘region of the themes,’ to compel one to conclude that the thematic system had already been formed by 622. The word was ‘the normal term for a division of troops’ prior to the formation of that system (Ostrogorsky 97; cf. Bréhier, Bréhier, Les institutions de l'empire byzantin [Paris 1949] 121); in fact, it translated ‘legion’ (DuCange, Gloss. graec. 487). Accordingly a reference to a theme need tell us nothing. It is true, however, that the expression may be taken to suggest the existence of the system in question. And yet, it can well be supposed that Theophanes used this expression proleptically, in the light of the realities of his own day (cf. his reference to Justinian's general Narses as : a. 6044). Nor need any mention of a commanding officer of such a ‘division of troops’ prove by itself anything in particular. Accordingly, it can be supposed that the Comes Obsequii () of 626 as mentioned in the Chron. Pasch., and the Turmarch of the Armeniacs of 627, in Theophanes, were, respectively, the commander of the Imp. Obsequium and a ‘lieutenant-general’ of the troops (once) commanded by the Magister militum per Armeniam, which army units were then mustered for the Iranian war and only later — after the final victory and along with other measures of re-organization (such, for instance, as the setting up of the office of Presiding Prince in Armenia) — gradually transformed into themes in the specific sense of units of provincial administration.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Charanis, Armenians 19–20.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Bréhier, , Institutions 89–93, 153-4; Ensslin in CMH IV 2.9-10, 18-19; Jenkins, ibid. 80, 99 (‘The very existence of an aristocracy of birth was anomalous’).Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Stein, , Introduction (note 2 supra) 129-30.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Such a feature was the feudalistic tendencies displayed by the higher military and civil officialdom in conjunction with the possession of latifundia and governmental concessions, like the : Ensslin, CMH IV 2.33, 41-2; Stein, Introduction 129–34; Vasiliev, Hist. Byz. Emp. 563-79. Yet it was ‘une espèce de féodalisme voilé,’ in which ‘les grands propriétaires… n'exercent leurs pouvoirs quasi-féodaux qu'en tant que fonctionnaires. C'est seulement dans le sens d'empiétements progressifs faits par des pouvoirs locaux tirant leur origine de conditions de droit privé, sur des prérogatives existantes de l'État qu'il faut comprendre les deux processus de féodalisation que l'Empire byzantin a subis successivement, le premier arrěté et défait par les réformes d'Héraclius, le second détruisant lentement les effets de celles-ci': Stein pp. 130-31. These tendencies thus never passed beyond this embryonic stage; not even in the Palaeologan phase, when they did evolve into an aristocracy (as has been shown by Charanis, ‘On the Social Structure and Economic Organization of the Byzantine Empire in the Thirteenth Century and Later,’ Byzantinoslavica 12]1951] 94-154, and ‘The Aristocracy of Byzantium in the Thirteenth Century,’ Studies in Roman Economic and Social History in Honor of Allan Chester Johnson [Princeton 1951] 336-56), — an aristocracy some features of which were influenced by the West, but which nevertheless never became a true nobility. The powers of this would-be nobility were never transmuted into constitutional rights of an officially instituted hereditary nobility, as in Caucasia, Sassanid Iran, or the West. It is impossible to consider the curiales of the Late Roman phase as ‘une espèce de noblesse provinciale’ (Stein 128), since they admittedly did not form the highest stratum in society; and as for that stratum, i.e., the senatorial order, the fact that its hereditary character did not last de jure beyond the third generation militates against its being an equivalent of a nobility.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Introduction 130–1, cf. the preceding note.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Studies 33–144, 234-41; CMH IV 1.595-6.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ This was the basal régime of Caucasia, which may be termed dynasticist. The Crown, however, had, from the start, attempted to increase its ascendency over the Princes. In this way, to the purely political dependence of the dynast upon the super-dynast, or king, certain feudal features were added. What the Crown was powerless to reduce by force, it endeavoured to control by sanction; it had to admit the princely rights, but it tended to regard them as of its own delegation. Accordingly all the Armenian and some of the Iberian Princes were, from the point of view of the Crown, dukes, ruling their territories and commanding their armies in the service of the King. Moreover, in both the Armenian and the Iberian Monarchy, many dynasts were enfeoffed of great offices of the State and of the Court: Studies 34-40, 96-9, 112-9; CMH IV 1.596. Google Scholar

¹²¹ Studies 93–4, 124-7; CMH IV 1.596.Google Scholar

¹²² Studies 129–30. — Fundamentally, the autocratic and bureaucratic Roman State and the dynasticist and feudal society of Caucasia were mutually incompatible. The Byzantine treatment of the dynasts in the Caucasian lands annexed to the Empire, as is revealed in the complaints of the West Armenian Princes addressed to Chosroes I (Procopius, Bell. pers. 2.3.32-39), and a fortiori the very fact of annexationism, which meant the dispossession of the dynasts like the Pentarchs, made the Caucasian Princes, though Christians, gravitate to the aristocratic empire of Iran. And this threw the Caucasian Kings into the arms of the Emperor, who was for them not only the meta-political secular head of Christendom, but also a pleasing example of anti-nobiliary autocracy with which, before their eyes, to oppose the Princes. It was in the context of this tension, as well as that between Rome and Iran, that the Armenian Monarchy was abolished in 428, and the Iberian in 580. Cf. Studies 151-3; CMH IV 1.597-9, 602-03; cf. Grousset, Histoire pp. 260-1.Google Scholar

¹²³ Infra Appendix A (a) Nos. 1-6, (b) Nos. 1-3; Appendix B passim.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Rom. Emp. II 371–2, apropos of the epitaph on the sarcophagus of the Exarch Isaac, possibly a Kamsarakan, in the church of San Vitale in Ravenna, where he is referred to as ‘: Leclerq, DACL 14.2116.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ For manifestations of pride of birth and family solidarity, see Procopius, , Bell. vand. 4.27.16, 18; Bell. goth. 7.32.4, 5; the Exarch Isaac's epitaph stressing his being (supra n. 124); and Constantine VII's emphasis on his grandfather's illustrious Armenian origin: Vita Basilii=Theoph. Contin. 212-16. For the impression produced on East Roman society by a Caucasian dynast, cf. Bell. goth. 7.31.7-10, and also Justinian's incredible clemency towards the Arsacid Artabanes, which betrayed something of a parvenu's awe before Blood Royal: ibid. 7.32.51; 7.39.8. A manifestation of ethnic solidarity is found in the case of the young Basil and the Patrician Constantine (Maniaces): Theoph. Contin. 230. Also, for ethnic exclusiveness, cf. Gregory Pacurianus' typikon of 1083/4 for the Monastery of Petritzos/Petriconi, in Bulgaria, in which this high Byzantine dignitary and husband of an Imperial princess bars entrance into his Georgian foundation to any Greek priest or monk: Tarchnišvili, ed. Typicon Gregorii Pacuriani (CSCO 144, Scr. iberici 4 [Louvain 1954]) cap. 24, 61-62 (Georgian text), 37-38 (Latin trans.); for the Greek text, cf. Petit, L., in Vizantijskij Vremennik 11 ( 1904).Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Cf. Jenkins, , CMH IV 2.99–100.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Cf. Adontz, , ‘Les fonds historiques…’ (note 94 supra).Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Ensslin, , CMH IV 2.9-10; Bréhier, Institutions 89. And yet this émigré nobility from Caucasia — Byzantium's only real nobility — made its influence felt even in official documents. Speaking at the Symposium on Byzantine society, held at Dumbarton Oaks, on 1 May 1969, on the subject of ‘The Aristocracy,’ Professor Ostrogorsky pointed to the difference between the spirit manifesting itself in the so-called Strategikon of Maurice and that found in the Taktika of Leo VI, on the question of the qualifications of a . While the former makes no reference to birth, the latter (Const. 2.21) includes among the prerequisites.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Bréhier, , Institutions 1–88; Ensslin, CMH IV 2.1-18.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ For a distinction between co-optation of the heir and collegial sovereignty, see my ‘ The Fifteenth-Century Bagratids and the Institution of Collegial Sovereignty in Georgia,’ Traditio 7 (1949-1951) 204–9.Google Scholar

¹³¹ In view of the fact that the Byzantine Emperorship was ‘an autocracy, tempered by the legal right of revolution,’ it is as incorrect to speak of ‘legitimate’ but displaced Emperors and of successful ‘usurpers’ as to speak of a Byzantine ‘nobility’. Cf. Bréhier, , Institutions 5-6, 17, 23-4; Ensslin, CMH IV 2.6 (‘if the coup d'état miscarried, he [the would-be Emperor] suffered the dishonourable death of a usurper; if it succeeded, victory was a sign that the grace of God had departed from the deposed Emperor').Google Scholar

¹³² The earlier Empress-regnant, Irene, at least had the decency (from the Roman constitutional point of view) to resort to the euphemism of entitling herself so as to disguise the essential illegality — juridical absurdity — of a woman-imperator. Google Scholar

¹³³ In this, of course, Caucasia was at one with the West and with Sassanid Iran. Google Scholar

¹³⁴ Garitte, , La Narratio 130–75; Toumanoff, Christian Caucasia 142-5; CMH IV 1.604.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Christian Caucasia 172–86. Albania, and even some parts of eastern Armenia, long after 555 continued to waver between Chalcedon and Dvin: ibid. 148-62.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ Peeters, , Orient et Byzance: Le tréfonds oriental de l'hagiographie byzantine (Subsidia hagiographica 26; Brussels 1950) 26.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ The Presiding Prince of Armenia, Theodore Rštuni (supra n. 28), representing those who thus preferred the Caliph's to Byzantine overlordship, may well be called the Armenian Luke Notaras. Google Scholar

¹³⁸ Whatever has been said about the connection between Iconoclasm and Armenia, the existence in Armenia of religious art and of the conscious, intellectual defence of it (cf. S. Nersessian, Der, ‘Une apologie arménienne des images du septième siècle,’ Byzantion 17 [ 1944 ]) 58–87) must never be overlooked. Any connection between the Armenians and Iconoclasm, if there be any, must be sought rather in the climate of hidden revolt against the Establishment. There was, of course, a streak of anicony in Paulicianism, for which see Garsoïan, Garsoïan, The Paulician Heresy: A Study of the Origin and Development of Paulicianism in Armenia and the Eastern Provinces of the Byzantine Empire (Paris 1967).Google Scholar

¹³⁹ Garsoïan, , op. cit.: cf. my review, Armerican Hist. Review 74 ( 1969) 961-2.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Rom. Emp. II 345.Google Scholar