¹ Materials for the present study have been published in Le Muséon 72, as Lists and Vitaxae, and are now superseded by it. For an early attempt in this direction, see Saint, J.-Martin, Mémoires historiques et géographiques sur l'Arménie I (Paris 1818) 205–278: ‘Sur l'origine des différents noms de l'Arménie et de quelques unes de ses provinces.’Google Scholar

² Introd. I 51, 88–90.Google Scholar

³ But also within the Byzantine or the Iranian orbit.Google Scholar

⁴ Armenija 236–321.Google Scholar

⁵ Introd. I 72. There ašxarh is translated as ‘province’ or ‘land’ and gawaṛ as ‘canton.’ The latter term, however, is to all intents and purposes the equivalent of the Georgian k'ueqana, that is, precisely, ‘land.’ Accordingly, here, the first Armenian term is to be rendered as ‘province’ or ‘country,’ the second as ‘land’ or ‘canton.’Google Scholar

⁶ In addition to the bibliography in Introd. I 7 n. 1: (again) Adontz, Armenija; Grousset, Histoire; and Trever, K. V., Očerki po istorii i kul'ture Kavkazskoj Albanii, IV v. do n.ě. - VII v. n.ě (Moscow/Leningrad 1959); Laurent, Arménie. Google Scholar

⁷ Lucullus 21.5, cf. 21.2. For the unfavorable attitude of the Greco-Roman authors towards Tigranes II, reflected in this passage of Plutarch, see Introd. I 31 n. 54. See, also, ibid. 31–32, 68–69.Google Scholar

⁸ Hist., fragm. 4.8; cf. Markwart, Ēranšāhr 175.Google Scholar

⁹ Arm. Agath. 112/795, 126/873; Faustus 3.9, 12; 4.19, 50; 5.16; cf. also Lazarus cap. 33.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Gk. Agath. 136; Gk. Life of St. Gregory 98 (72); cf. Arab. Life 86 (72: byθqs). — Not having Lagarde's edition of the Gk. Agath. at hand, I follow here the text of Stiltingh's Acta Sanctorum, as reproduced by Langlois in Collection des historiens anciens et modernes de l'Arménie I (Paris 1867) 109–193, which for the purposes of this study is quite adequate.Google Scholar

¹¹ Arm. Agath. 126, 873; Gk. Agath. 165.Google Scholar

¹² Cf. Ceret, 'eli, Ĕpigr. naxodki 50–55; for the Armazi inscriptions, see Introd. I 95.Google Scholar

¹³ Markwart, Ēranšāhr 178–179; Herzfeld, Paikuli I 155–156.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Corpus juris ibero-caucasici I/2/2/492.Google Scholar

¹⁵ O dvux social'no-političeskix terminaz drevnego Bližnego Vostoka (Istor.-lingv. Raboty) 467–470, cf. Obščie elementy meždu Xettskim i Armjanskim jazykami (ibid.) 392.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Markwart, Ēranšāhr 178–179; Herzfeld, Paikuli 155–156; Christensen, Iran Sass. 102 n. 1.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Markwart, Ēranšāhr 178; Herzfeld, Paikuli 155.Google Scholar

¹⁸ E. g. by Christensen, Iran Sass. 22–23.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Ehtécham, Iran Achém. 70–71, 114, 184.Google Scholar

²⁰ Bengtson, Strategie II 78–142.Google Scholar

²¹ Introd. I 32–33.Google Scholar

²² Ibid. Google Scholar

²³ Supra nn. 9–10.Google Scholar

²⁴ Faustus 5.16 (216: chapter heading).Google Scholar

²⁵ Introd. I 74–75.Google Scholar

²⁶ Arm. Agath. 126/873 (440); cf. Markwart, Ēranšāhr 165 etc. (Markhüter).Google Scholar

²⁷ Cf. Introd. I 63 n. 140, 85, 33, 68.Google Scholar

²⁸ Ibid. 63 n. 140.Google Scholar

²⁹ Ibid. 36, 58.Google Scholar

³⁰ Christensen, Iran Sass. 22–23, 137.Google Scholar

³¹ Herzfeld, Paikuli 96–97, 100–101, and, for the dating, 194, 205.Google Scholar

³² 23.6.14.Google Scholar

³³ Markwart, Ēranšāhr 172. The text, at all events, does not admit of the equation ‘vitaxa = satrap,’ as found in Christensen, Iran Sass. 137 n. 1, though not on p. 137 itself. Ammianus’ interpretation of ‘vitaxa’ as magister militum is highly approximative. It is to be noted in passing that much in Iranian social history of the Arsacid and (especially early) Sassanian periods remains unclear. Thus, e.g., the correlation of the offices of vitaxa, marzpān, and the four toparchs of Chosroes I still needs further elucidation; cf. Christensen 102, 265–266, 370–371. It is, therefore, to say the least rash to translate, with Coulborn, R., the ΣΑΤΡΑΠΗΣ ΤΩΝ ΣΑΤΡΑΠΩΝ of the Great King Mithradates I's Bīsutūn inscription (for which, see, e.g., Debevoise, Parthia 44) as ‘marzban of marzbans’ Comp. Study of Feud. 332.Google Scholar

³⁴ Cf. Herzfeld, Paikuli 156; Meillet, A., in Revue des études arméniennes 5 (1925) 185–186; cf. infra § 6 at n. 49.Google Scholar

³⁵ So Peeters, Ste Sousanik 271–273, 277, 284–285, who would see in one of the Vitaxae, the Iberian, an Iranian appointee (which is quite different from the fact that this hereditary Vitaxa of Great Armenia may, together with other princes, have accepted the immediate suzerainty of the Great King); this is repeated in Berjenišvili et al., Ist. Gruzii I 101, 109; Herzfeld, Paikuli 50, 78, 155, 229–230, 245, goes further still adding to this confusion another one: the Vitaxa Pāpak of the Paikuli inscription is considered at once (a) a Sassanid prince, (b) a vitaxa of the Iberian March, and (c) a King of Iberia. — The rehabilitation of the documents of the Gregorian cycle and the discovery of the Armazi inscriptions make superfluous Adontz's arguments against any suggestion that the Vitaxae of Great Armenia may have been modelled on the Sassanian toparchs. Adontz went too far when he insisted that the Vitaxae had been small kings that had fallen under the suzerainty of the Armenian Crown and that they had had nothing to do with any appointment on its part or any guardianship of frontiers: Armenija 283, 410–411, 416. It is curious that in so doing he failed even to refer to Markwart's great Excursus in Ēranšāhr, which definitively shows that the guardianship of the frontiers was precisely the raison d’être of the Vitaxates. As for their being small kings, all Caucasian dynasts could in a sense be so regarded. cf. Introd. I.Google Scholar

³⁶ For the documents of the Gregorian cycle, see Garitte, , Documents ; cf. my review of this work, in Traditio 5 (1947) 373–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁷ ‘[The King took along] also from the military confines the four pre-eminent lords of his Court, called vitaxae: the first — the margrave of the region of New Siracene; and the second — the margrave of the region of Assyria; the third — of the region of Arabia; the fourth — of the region of the Maskʽtʽkʽ’ (on this term, see infra n. 148). For ‘preeminent lords,’ see infra n. 41.Google Scholar

³⁸ Arm. Agath. 112/795; Gk. Agath. 136; Gk. Life 98; Arab. Life 86. — Garitte, Documents 311–312, 315: the Agath. recension places the list in the correct context.Google Scholar

³⁹ ‘The Prince of Arzanene, who is the Great Vitaxa … the Prince of the country of Gogarene, who is called the Other Vitaxa.’Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Garitte's Latin translation: Documents 72–73.Google Scholar

⁴¹ 3.9: ‘one of his [scil. the King's] vassals, the great Prince of Arzanene, who was named vitaxa [and] who was one of the four pre-eminent lords of the royal Court.’ ‘Pre-eminent lords’ translates here gaherēc’ barjerēc’ (and supra n. 37 gaherēc’ alone). In these terms, gah = ‘throne’ and barj = ‘cushion,’ both signifying, ‘place’ or ‘grade,’ and erēc’ = = πϱεσβύτεϱος, thus: ‘senior in grade, or in position.’Google Scholar

⁴² The cosmocratic claims of the Caucasian monarchs were, like those everywhere, a corollary of their theophany, for which see Introd. I 10, 15, 31, 50 and notes. When confronted with the reality of several neighboring theophanic world-claiming microcosms, as was the case in the ancient East Mediterranean world, these claims must acquire a certain ambivalence: the whole world is interpreted as coextensive with one particular microcosm, which alone is held to be attuned to the cosmos, i.e., theophanic. Thus, the ‘Four Corners of the World’ become the four cardinal points of a particular ethno-cultural unit. The Kings of Urartu, of Armenia, and of Georgia claimed, successively, the whole of Caucasia, which was their particular theophanic segment of the world. — In spite of all the indications regarding the number of the Vitaxae, doubts have been expressed about it by Adontz and Markwart. Adontz, Armenija 416, writing long before Garitte's rehabilitation of the documents of the Gregorian cycle, was distrustful of their evidence. As for Markwart’ in Ēranšāhr 109, he hesitated between three or four Vitaxae, but in one of his last works, ‘Die Genealogie der Bagratiden und das Zeitalter des Mar Abas und Ps. Moses Xorenac'i,’ Caucasica 6/2 (1930) 23–34, he felt justified in admitting only two, Arzanene and Gogarene, and in rejecting the evidence to the contrary of both Agathangelus and Faustus as ‘false.’ This is entirely unwarranted. Something more than an off-hand rejection is surely needed to convince one that Faustus actually ‘invented,’ in 5.40, the story of the defection of the Vitaxa of Adiabene (infra. n. 54). Unfortunately, the great Armenologist's Genealogie displays far too often this rather cavalier attitude to historical material; cf. my Orontids II; infra n. 43.Google Scholar

⁴³ Markwart, Ēranšāhr 176, 178; Südarmenien 59∗, 120, 378; cf. Adontz, Armenija 229. One of the reasons why Markwart, in Genealogie 24, refused to accept the existence of the Vitaxa of Adiabene was that ‘nur unter Tigranes d. Gr. war auch der König von Adiabene ein Vasall des Königs der Könige von Armenien.’ This is evidently due to a confusion between (a) the non-Armenian kingdom of Adiabene, which, having been briefly included in the empire of Tigranes the Great, had ceased to exist long before the time of Agathangelus and Faustus, and (b) some Adiabenian, or merely border, territory that was held by the Armenian Crown and, together with some Median border territory, formed a march of Great Armenia. This confusion involves another, verbal one: between (a) Adiabene in the broad sense of the kingdom and (b) Adiabene in the narrow sense of the march (= Nor Širakan). Caucasian historical geography presents numerous instances of such toponymical ambivalence; cf., e.g., the one-time vassal kingdom of Gordyene and the Armenian province of Gordyene or Korčēk’: Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 245–259, 333–337. It is indeed odd that, in the face of the clear witness of both Agathangelus and Faustus, Markwart should at first have hesitated to admit that the viceroy of this march bore the title of vitaxa and should subsequently have refused to admit the very existence of such a viceroy.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Armenija 228–229.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Prim. Hist. 14.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Arm. Agath. 120/842; Gk. Agath. 153 (Νοσιϰάϱων [rectius Νοσιϱάϰων] γῆς).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Infra n. 54.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Armenija 228–229. These must have included the province of Persarmenia (Parskahayk’), in which lay the princedoms of the Orontid branch of Zarehawan and Her [§ 13.23] and for which see Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 259–261.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Cf. Magie, Roman Rule 608–610; Debevoise, Parthia 230–231; Markwart, Genealogie 32–33.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Ēranšāhr 165, 176, 178; cf. my Orontids I 35. For Markwart, to be sure, it is question of the ‘House of Sophene’ and not of the Orontids.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Whereas Markwart, , Ēranšāhr 176–177, assigns the transplanting of various members of the former royal house of Sophene to the Median frontier to the reign of Tigranes the Great, Adontz would place this event in the Arsacid period: Armenija 415 n 1. For the reason of his tendency to ascribe Artaxiad events to the Arsacid period, see Introd. I 58. — The practice of conquering States to employ members of dynasties whose countries they annexed in viceregal positions elsewhere is a perennial one. As recently as in the reign of the last Emperor of Russia, Prince Alexander of Imeretia, descendant of the Bagratid kings of Imeretia, dispossessed by Russia in 1810, was Governor General of Warsaw and Commander of the Warsaw military circumscription (1897–1900).Google Scholar

⁵² Markwart, Ēranšāhr 176.Google Scholar

⁵³ 4.58, 59: with Meružan (= Μιθϱοβονζάνης cf. Orontids I 20–21, 27–28).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ 4.50: (‘But to this defection the grandees were the first to give rise: in the first place, the Vitaxa of Arzanene and the Vitaxa of New Siracene, and Mahkert-tun, and Nihorakan, and Dassntrē, and the entire princely feudality of Arzanene’).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Faustus 4.50 (supra n. 54, for Arzanene; infra § 11, for Gogarene); cf. Adontz, Armenija 225.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ For the recovery under King Pap: Faustus 5.9–19. While in 5.15 and 16 Faustus speaks of the Vitaxae of Gogarene and Arzanene, respectively, in connection with the Armenian attempt at reconquest, in 5.9 he speaks only of the land and of the inhabitants of New Siracene. This would imply that the Vitaxae of the Median March had not survived their defection. — For an analysis of the historical events between 363 and 387, see Trever, , Očerki po ist. Albanii 198–201; Adontz, Armenija 225–226.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Bk. Lett. 41: .Google Scholar

⁵⁸ 5.40 (supra n. 54). — For the Median March, see also Markwart, , ed 23–24, 109, 165–166, 169–171, 176, 178; Südarmenien 378–379; Adontz, Armenija 225–229; Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 319–321. Makhert-tun = Syr. Bēθ-Māhqert, Dassntrē = Syr. Bēθ-Dāsen.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Arm. Agath. 120/842 (tambn Mahk'er[t]-tan išxanin); Gk. Agath. 153 (τοῦ οἴϰου Μαχουϱτῶν τοῦ ἄϱχοντος). Agathangelus and Faustus differ in spelling this name (-kʽ -or -k-); both omit the extra t. See for this princedom Markwart, Südarmenien 378–379, Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 320.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Ēranšāhr 171–172, 177–178. — For the confusion between ‘Syrian’ and ‘Assyrian’ in this connection, see my Orontids I 25–27.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Cf. Magie, Roman Rule 357–358, 375, 554, 1238; Debevoise, Parthia 73, 179; Markwart, Südarmenien 29∗-30∗, 117–119; Ēranšāhr 177–178; Genealogie 32; Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 215–218.Google Scholar

⁶² Cf. Asdourian, Arm. u. Rom 136–137; Adontz, Armenija 42–44; Lehmann-Haupt, Satrap 181; Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 219.Google Scholar

⁶³ Patricius, Petrus, fr. 14 (Dindorf, Hist. gr. min. I) mentions the passing under Roman control of Ingilene with Sophene, and (in the neighboring march) of Arzanene with Corduene and Zabdicene. But his list is incomplete; and Ammianus Marcellinus, 25.7.9, enumerates the following regions retroceded by Rome to Iran in 363: Arzanene, Moxoene, Zabdicene, Rehimene, and Corduene. Accordingly, Petrus failed to mention, in this other margraviate Moxoene and Rehimene, the first of these being a dependency of Arzanene and the second of Zabdicene: Adontz, Armenija 42–43. In precisely the same way he appears to have dropped from his list Lesser Sophene and Anzitene. The latter was a dependency of Ingilene, and the two Sophenes could be easily confused. Hübschmann supposes that by ‘Sophene’ Petrus meant precisely the Lesser, whereas the Greater he counted with Ingilene: Ortsnamen 219 n. 4. At all events, both Anzitene and Lesser Sophene were known to Ptolemy, 5.12. 6, 8; cf. Adontz 32, 38.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Adontz, Armenija 28–45; Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 223–233, 294–305, 399; Gelzer, H., Georgii Cyprii descriptio orbis romani (Leipzig 1890) 49 n. 959, 177–180; Markwart, Ēranšāhr 165–167, 170–172, 175–177; Südarmenien 41∗, 50∗, 65∗, 20, 35–41, 49–50, 54, 67–75, 91–119, 552–553; Honigmann, E., Die Ostgrenze des byzantinischen Reiches (Corpus Bruxellense Historiae byzantinae 3; 1935) 4–5, 8–9, 16, 90–92, maps I, II, IV; Garitte, Documents 199, 215–216, 234; Weisbach, s. v. ‘Sophene’, RE 3 A/1.1015–1019. Lesser Sophene was also known as ‘Other Sophene’ and, in connection with the surname of its ruling house, ‘Šahian Sophene’ = μιϰϱὴ Τζοφενή (sic: Gk. Life of S5. Gregory 171 [102]), miws Cop'k’ (Faustus 4.4[81]), Cop'k’ šahēi or šahun[w]oc’ (Faustus 3.9.[32]; 4.24[149]). Anzitene was Anjit in Armenian; Ingilene, Angeḷ-tun; and Greater Sophene, mec Cop'k’. — For the origin of the dynasties of these States, see my Orontids I 25–27, 31–35.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Ibid. 34 and nn. 112, 113.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Ibid. 25–26. ⁶⁷ Introd. I 65.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Faustus 4.24; 5.7 (infra at n. 117), 18. For ostan, signifying ‘Court’ or ‘residence,’ see Introd. I 62.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Faustus 3.12; 5.7 (infra at n. 117); cf. Adontz, Armenija 41–42; Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 296 n. 1, 297 n. 3, 310.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Faustus 5. 7 (infra at n. 117); cf. Adontz, Armenija 42. For the term ostikan, see Hübschmann, Grammatik 215; Herzfeld, Paikuli 128; Adontz loc. cit. Google Scholar

⁷¹ Faustus 5.6: [for the spelling of this name, see infra n. 118] (‘Glak the Mardpet [for this dignity see infra at n. 79], who for reason of his functions was called The King's Father’).Google Scholar

⁷² Adontz, Armenija 448–449; for the Iranian office, Christensen, Iran Sass. 107–108, 215.Google Scholar

⁷³ Lazarus 34 (136). For the personage in question, see Christensen, , Iran Sass. 288.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Cf. Dunlap, J., The Office of Grand Chamberlain in the Later Roman and Byzantine Empires (University of Michigan Studies: Humanistic Series 14; New York 1924); Bréhier, L., Les institutions de l'Empire byzantin (Paris 1949) 96–98; Ensslin, W., s. v. ‘Praepositus sacri cubiculi, RE Suppl. 8.556–557.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Faustus 4.14; 5.7 (infra at n. 117).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ This gem is reproduced in Herzfeld, Paikuli 79 (fig. 36); Christensen, Iran Sass. 288. It is in the British Museum, No. 12 3.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Faustus 5.6, 7.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Cf., e. g., Faustus 3.20 (60); 4.3 (78).Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Faustus 4.14 (mardpet-hayr); 5.6, 7 (supra n. 71; infra n. 117).Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Thus, while the Arm. Agath. 112/795 (403–404) refers to the išxann mardpetut'ean išxanut'ean (‘prince of the princedom of Mardpet-dom’), the Gk. Agath. 136 calls him ἄϱχων ἐπὶ τῆς ἐξουσίας Πατϱίϰιος [= hayr] λεγόμενος; cf. Adontz, Armenija 448.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Adontz, Armenija 319, 416–417, 448; Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 343–344, 451; Markwart, Ēranšāhr 166–167; Genealogie 25–32; Garitte, Documents 224, 225; Weissbach, s. v. Μάϱδοι, RE 14/2.1649. — Like the Houses of Amatuni [§ 12.4], Mandakuni [§12.19], and Murac'an [n. 270], the Mardpets ruled over a territorialized remnant on the Armenian soil of the Caspo-Medians: Adontz 303–304, 321, 418–419; Lap'anc'yan, Xajasa 136, 140; cf. Introd. I 78 n. 190.Google Scholar

⁸² 98 (72).Google Scholar

⁸³ Introd. I 86–88.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Cf. Adontz, Armenija 319–320, 448–449, 490; Kherumian, Féodalité 16–17; cf. Markwart, Genealogie 25.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ This is indirectly by a text in Ps. Moses, 2.7, where the story just outlined appears allegorized as the reduction by the King of Armenia of some Haykids, i.e., dynasts (Introd. I 55 n. 120), to the status of eunuchs who were, then, placed under the hayr ruling what, as can be seen from the text, amounted to the territory of Mardpetakan, i. e., from Atropatene to Čuaš and Naxčawan; cf. Markwart, Genealogie 27. This allegory of Ps. Moses must undoubtedly have influenced the scholarly curiosities just alluded to.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Adontz, Armenija 319–321. Adontz, of course assumes that the Arcrunis succeeded to the dynasty of the hayr-mardpetk’! Markwart, on the other hand, is unaware of the fact that the Mardpets of the fifth century were already of the House of Arcruni: Genealogie 27.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Arm. Agath. 112/795 (403–404); 126/873 (440); Gk. Agath. 136, 165; Gk. Life of St. Gregory 98 (72–73).Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Among the Princes sent by Chosroes II of Armenia against the Vitaxa of Arzanene were: Mar, Prince of Greater Sophene and Nerseh, Prince of Šahian Sophene: 3.9. — At the accession of Tigranes VII are mentioned: the Great Seneschal of Armenia, Valarš, Prince of Anzitene, Zareh, Prince of Greater Sophene, and Varaz Šahuni, Prince of Sophene: 3.12. — Accompanying St. Nerses to Caesarea: Daniel, Prince of Greater Sophene: 4.4. — Abandoning Arsaces II in 363: Salamut, Prince of Anzitene and the Prince of Greater Sophene: 4.50.— For the office of Seneschal (hazarapet), later vested in the Orontid house of Gnuni [§ 12.14] see Introd. I 80 and n. 195.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ For List A, see supra n. 38. Faustus, indeed, does mention a Prince of Ingilene, but in a different sense, as will be seen infra § 8.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Thus, e. g., Faustus speaks of ‘Aršawir Kamsarakan, Prince of Siracene and of Aršaruni’ (3.11), of ‘Aršawir Kamsarakan’ tout court (3.16), of ‘Aršawir Kamsarakan, nahapet (for this title, see Introd. I 62) of Aršaruni’ (3.21), and of ‘Aršawir, Prince of Siracene and Aršaruni’ (4.4); Lazarus, on his part, speaks of another ‘Aršawir Kamsarakan’ (34), of ‘Aršawir Kamsarakan, Lord of Aršaruni’ (63), of ‘Aršawir Kamsarakan, Prince of Aršaruni’ (35), of ‘Aršawir, Lord of Aršaruni’ (23), of ‘Aršawir, Prince of Aršaruni’ (30), of ‘Nerseh Kamsarakan [Aršawir's son], Lord of Siracene’ (73), of ‘Nerseh Kamsarakan, Prince of Siracene’ (68).Google Scholar

⁹¹ Asdourian, Arm. u. Rom 127–157; Grousset, Histoire 113–143; Lehmann-Haupt, Satrap 185.Google Scholar

⁹² Lazarus 33.Google Scholar

⁹³ Introd. I 83–84.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Adontz, Armenija 44–45; but, for the date, see also Stein, , Hist. du Bas-Emp. II 289 n. 5 (= 290).Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Ps. Moses 2.8, 22, 62; 3.22, 31; and, for the surname, Faustus 3.7, 12. This house also figures in Lazarus 33 (134), among the now foreign princes to whom the Armenian insurgents appealed for aid in the mid-fifth century (cf. supra n. 92). — For Asthianene = Arm. Hašteank’, see Adontz, , Armenija 29–30, 42, 44–45; Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 291–293; Baumgartner in RE 2.1789; Gelzer, Georg. Cypr. n. 464, p. 49, 182–183; Garitte, Documents 205.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Adontz, Armenija 29–30, 42, 44–45; Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 294, 412; Lap'anc'yan Xajasa 127–132. Balabitene = Arm. Balahovit. — This house is not mentioned in any Armenian sources.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Besides Gaiumas Inseles/Inreles = Ingeles there was, at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, also Maras Azetiniensis: Mansi 7.403; cf. Adontz, Armenija 39. For the ethnic separateness of Anzitene, see Adontz 31. As has been noted, supra n. 63, Anzitene is a separate land in Ptolemy. This, of course, in no way militates against its being dynastically united with Ingilene. Precisely in the same way two quite distinct lands, Tayk’ and Tarawn were dynastically united under the Mamikonids, each, moreover, having its own bishop.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ De aed. 3.1.17: τῇ δὲ ἄλλη Ἀϱμενίᾳ, ἥπεϱ ἐντòς Εὐφϱάτου ποταμοῦ οὖσα διήϰει ἐς Ἄμιδαν πόλιν, σατϱάπαι ἐφειστήϰεισαν Ἀϱμένιοι πέντε … Adontz offers an elaborate explanation for this (according to him) mistake in Procopius’ calculation: Armenija 42–44. Actually, in view of the dynastic union of Ingilene and Anzitene, though one may indeed (with Adontz and as in Introd. I 75, 83), speak of the six princely States, one may only speak of the five princes.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Cod. Just. 1.29.5: ‘… Magnam Armeniam, quae interior dicebatur et gentes: Anzetenam videlicet, Ingilenam, Asthianenam, Sophenam, Sophanenam, in qua est Martyropolis, Balabitenam …’; —Nov. 31: … τῶν ἐθνῶν … Τζοφανηνή τε ϰαὶ Ἀνζητηνὴ ϰαὶ Τζοφανὴ, ϰαὶ Ἀσθιανηνὴ ϰαὶ Βαλαβιτηνὴ ϰαλουμένη ϰαὶ ὑπò σατϱάπαις οὖσα (see, for the emendation of this text, Adontz, Armenija 29 n.1). Cf. infra n. 107.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Supra n. 93. In view of what has just been suggested, the use of the terms ‘hexarchy’ and especially ‘hexarch,’ adopted in Introd. I, is to be replaced by that of ‘pentarchy’ and ‘pentarch.’ — The term ‘satrap’ applied by the Roman government to the trans-Euphratensian Princes is a misnomer: Introd. I 63 n. 140. And although Justinian is correct in stating that ἀϱχῆς δὲ ὄνομα τοῦτο ἦν οὐδε ‘Ρωμαϊϰòν οὐδὲ τῶν ἡμετέϱων πϱογόνων ἀλλ’ ἐξ ἑτέϱας πολιτείας εἰσενηνεγμένον (Nov. 31), this term was equally foreign to the Armenian polity, and it was only in the Roman Empire that these princes were so denominated. It is, therefore, perhaps not altogether exact to state, with Stein, Hist. du Bas-Emp. I 471, that with the dispossession of these princes (infra at n. 108) ‘le titre de satrape s’éteignit après avoir existé sans interruption depuis le vi^e siècle avant J.-C.’ (italics mine). The origin of this Roman usage remains obscure; cf. Lehmann-Haupt, Satrap 185; Adontz, Armenija 41. But it manifested the cosmocratic claims of a totalitarian State, for which, see infra n. 102. The name ‘Gentiles’ is also suggestive, for it shows these Princes’ complete autonomy: they did not belong to the theophanic microcosm of the Empire which claimed to be ‘New Jerusalem’ no less than ‘New Rome.’Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ De aed. 3.1.25–28.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Cf. Treitinger, O., Die oströmische Kaiser - und Reichsidee (2nd. ed. Darmstadt, 1956) 192 (‘Die Beliehenen sind in byzantinischer Betrachtung gewissermassen Statthalter, die für “Rom” das Land verwalten’); Ensslin, W., ‘The Emperor and the Imperial Administration,’ in Baynes, N. and Moss, H., Byzantium (Oxford 1948) 273 (‘other Christian princes could be, as it were, only the representatives of the Christ-loving Emperor’); Bréhier, L., Les institutions de l'Empire byzantin (Paris 1949) 282–300. A weaker and reduced Empire, of the neo-Hellenistic phase, adopted the milder fiction of the Emperor's headship of the ‘pneumatic’ family of Christian princes: Treitinger 195–196; and especially, F. Dölger, ‘Die “Familie der Könige” im Mittelalter,’ ‘Die mittelalterliche “Familie der Fürsten und Völker” und der Bulgarenherrscher,’ ‘Der Bulgarenherrscher als geistlicher Sohn des byzantinischen Kaisers,’ in Byzanz und die europäische Staatenwelt (Ettal 1953). One is reminded of the similar cosmocratic claims of the Mongol Khans, which made them treat the succession of their Rurikid vassals in Rus’ as a matter of ‘appointment.’Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Whereas an Imperial decree of 387, addressed to Gaddana, Prince (satrapes, cf. supra n. 100) of Greater Sophene or Sophanene (Cod. Theod. 12.13.6), stressed the voluntary nature of the aurum coronarium expected of the trans-Euphratensian Princes (as civitates foederatae), Gaddana's successor, Theodore of Greater Sophene, is reported by Procopius to have, together with the people of Martyropolis, surrended to the Great King in 502 the public taxes of two years (φόϱους τε τοὺς δημοσίους ἐνιαυτοῖν δυοῖν ἐν χεϱσὶν ἔχοντες): De aed. 3.2.6. Adontz suggests that, unless the φόϱοι δημόσιοι of Procopius be considered as a rendering of aurum coronarium, a reduction in status is implied, which he connects with Zeno: Armenija 113–116. This reduction amounted to the abolition of one of the immunities enjoyed by these vassal princes — from Imperial taxation: Introd. I 83.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Supra n. 99.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Cod. Just. 1.29.5; also Procopius, De aed. 3.1.28–29; 3.2, 3; Malalas, Chron. CSHB (1831) 429–430; cf. Adontz, Armenija 131–152; Stein, Hist. du Bas-Emp. II 289–291.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Introd. I 83; cf. Procopius, De aed. 3.1.24, 27–28. Thus, the Princes appear to have enjoyed greater rights in the Roman Empire than, earlier, in the Kingdom of Great Armenia, where the king had the right to install garrisons in some castles on princely territory: supra at n. 67.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Supra n. 99; also Procopius, De aed. 3.1.28 (who telescopes the two enactments, this and that of 528, into one act: Ἰουστινιανòς βασιλεὺς τò μὲν τῶν σατϱαπῶν ὄνομα ἐξήλασεν ἐνθένδε εὐθύς, δοῦϰας δὲ τοὺς ϰαλουμένους δύο τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἐπέστησε τούτοις); cf. Adontz, Armenija 157–176; Stein, Hist. du Bas-Emp. II 471; Bury, Lat. Rom. Emp. II 344. — It may be suggested that, when Justinian is concerned, as in the act of 528, with the new military organization of the trans-Euphratensian lands, he refers to all the six of them, but that, in dealing with the new administration, he has in mind only the five princely governments replaced by it.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Adontz, Armenija 179–198; Stein, Hist. du Bas-Emp. II 470–472; Bury, Lat. Rom. Emp. II 345; cf. Introd. I 67 n. 158, 68 n. 161. In Novel 118, Justinian notes also the absence of testamentary dispositions among the Armenians. This is quite natural, for the γενεαϱχιϰὰ χωϱία constituted the dynastic domains of the recently ‘mediatized’ princes; as such, being but lately connected with the exercise of public power, they were succeeded to in accordance with the right of birth and not inherited in accordance with one's will; cf. Adontz 195–196. Justinian's vehemence in suppressing all this was caused, undoubtedly, by a totalitarian's desire for uniformity and hatred of any form of aristocratic independence; cf. ibid. 196–198. It would probably be an over-estimation of Justinian's delicacy of feeling to suppose that he intentionally abstained from overtly proclaiming by one legal act this wholly unjustifiable breaking of the foedus of the Empire and its sovereign vassals.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ For the date of the embassy (given wrongly by Adontz as of 532: Armenija 175), see Procopius, , Bell. pers. 2.3.56 (13th year of Justinian); cf. Stein, Hist. du Bas-Emp. II 364.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Procopius, Bell. pers. 2.3.28–53. It is true that the Princes referred specifically to new taxation, which was contrary to previous agreements; but that, after all, was a salient outcome of their ‘mediatization’; cf. Adontz, Armenija 111–113. For Inner Armenia, see infra § 12 at nn. 208–219.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Supra n. 63; cf. Markwart, Ēranšāhr 171–172.Google Scholar

¹¹² Ibid. Markwart thought, without sufficient reason, that it was rather the Prince of Šahian Sophene who was the Vitaxa. This was, doubtless, due to his interpretation of the toponym; for this, supra at n. 65.Google Scholar

¹¹³ 3.12; 5.7 (infra at n. 117).Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Arm. Agath. 126/873 (440); Gk. Agath. 165.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Faustus’ text (3.9; supra at n. 41) on the pre-eminence of the four Vitaxae at the Court of Armenia need not be taken in an exclusive sense. This is precisely what Adontz does, Armenija 283, and then proceeds to express his puzzlement as to how the four Vitaxae could all have had the first place. Obviously, Faustus is not to be taken here au pied de la lettre. List A of the Gregorian cycle shows very clearly that the greater princes could take precedence of the Vitaxae. Thus, on that list, the Prince of Arzanene, who was Vitaxa of the Arabian March, is preceded by the Prince of Ingilene, who was no longer the Syrian Vitaxa, and the Prince of Gogarene, who was the Iberian Vitaxa, is preceded not only by the Mardpet (also Grand Chamberlain and, probably, Syrian Vitaxa), but also by the Princes of the Bagratids, of the Mamikonids, of Corduene, and of Sophene; cf. infra § 20 Table VI.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Adontz, Armenija 41–42; Markwart, Ērānšahr 166; Südarmenien 125 n. 3; for a greater imbroglio, see infra to the end of § 8.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ 5.7 (210–211).Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Italics in this translation are mine. — It is very odd that, in the teeth of the plain sense of the above text, Markwart should have argued that, since in that chapter Drastamat is nowhere entitled hayr mardpet, but is referred to as ‘the eunuch’ (nerk'ini), he was not in fact Grand Chamberlain; but that that office was at the time filled by Glak (in the MSS Dak’ through the confusion of and ) or Gylaces (Faustus 5.3 and 6; Ammianus Marcellinus 27.12): Genealogie 24–25. This chapter of Faustus appears to be largely an adaptation of an older, half-legendary account of the death of Arsaces II in the Castle of Oblivion; Procopius has another adaptation of it in Bell. pers. 1.5. It is possible, therefore, that Faustus merely repeated his source's way of referring to Drastamat as ‘the eunuch.’ After all, this is precisely how Ammianus Marcellinus refers to Glak-Gylaces. This cannot in any way detract the value of what appears to have been Faustus’ own remarks on the nature of Drastamat's offices and titles, adduced above, where, moreover, Drastamat's connection with the office of hayr and the title of mardpet is amply indicated. Markwart's chronological objection will lose ground when confronted with the following table of the Grand Chamberlains of Armenia, based on Faustus 5.3, 6: — (1) Glak (for the first time) ‘for some time’ under Arsaces II or his father Tigranes VII; — (2) Drastamat, under Tigranes VII and Arsaces II [lost his office when Arsaces lost his Crown]; — (3) Unnamed Mardpet, executed by King Pap (368–374); — (4) Glak (for the second time), executed by King Pap.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ I am grateful to Prince Charles Schwarzenberg for drawing my attention, in his letter of 30 January 1960, to this parallel. What makes this parallel especially interesting is that it is not only functional, but also, to some extent semantic: ostikan being related to ostan (‘Court’) (supra nn. 68, 70) exactly as Pfalzgraf = comes palatinus is related to palatium. Google Scholar

¹²⁰ For these two events, see Faustus 4.50 (supra n. 88) and 4.54.Google Scholar

¹²¹ Since Markwart refused to consider Drastamat a Grand Chamberlain (supra n. 118), he felt obliged to reject the connection between the office of ostikan of Angl, etc., and that of hayr mardpet: Genealogie 22–25; but cf. Ērānšahr 166; Südarmenien 125 n. 3. Accordingly, he asserted that Drastamat was but one of a series of eunuchs who, not being Grand Chamberlains, were ostikank’ of Angl and also held the Principality of Ingilene. This, however, is plainly contradicted by Faustus 5.7, where the traditional connection of the two offices is stressed. It is the investiture with Ingilene that appears, from that text, unconnected with these offices, but united with them only in the person of Drastamat. Markwart's appeal to the fact that Faustus does not mention a Prince of Ingilene apart from Drastamat (Genealogie 33) has been answered above. And he simply overlooks the testimony of other sources to the continued existence, down to the sixth century, of the Princes of Ingilene and Anzitene.Google Scholar

¹²² Drastamat was led captive to Iran together with his king: Faustus, 5.7; Procopius, Bell. pers. 1.5.30. For the tragic end of both, see Faustus, , loc. cit .; Procopius, 1.5.30–40.Google Scholar

¹²³ Prim. Hist. 13; Faustus 4.20 (139: aruac'astani); 4.21 (144: aruestani); Sebēos 2 (51).Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Markwart, , Ērānšahr 165–166; Südarmenien 378.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Markwart, , Ērānšahr 25, 165–166, 169, 178.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Aḷjneac’: the genitive of Aḷjnik‘: Ἀλσενῶν in Gk. Agath. (supra n. 38; infra n. 324).Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Faustus 3.9 (supra at n. 41).Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Arm. Agath. 112/745; Gk. Life of St. Gregory 98 (supra at n. 38; infra n. 324).Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Faustus 5.16 (chapter heading).Google Scholar

¹³⁰ Markwart, Ērānšahr 25, 178.Google Scholar

¹³¹ Faustus 4.24.Google Scholar

¹³² Cf. Adontz, Hist. d'Arm. 198, 275; Meliki, G.švili, Usartskie Klinoobraznye Nadpisi (Moscow 1960) 417.Google Scholar

¹³³ Toumanoff, , Orontids I 35, 31–33. — This house is mentioned in Lists A and B of the Gregorian cycle (infra § 20 table VI); Faustus 3.9 (supra at n. 41); 4.24, 50; 5.16; Lazarus 33 (134); Eliseus 1 (16), 2(66), 4(120), 7(173); and Ps. Moses 1.23 (chapter heading on the common descent of the Vitaxae of Arzanene, the Arcrunis and the Gnunis from Sennacherib of Assyria); 2.8, 30; 3.4. — It is be regretted that Markwart should have reversed his opinion in Genealogie 23–24 — but not in Südarmenien, e.g. 116 (which work appeared in the same year 1930) — when he identified the Vitaxa of Arzanene with the ‘Assyrian’ margrave and stated that ‘ein bdeašx nach der Seite von Arvastan … ist überhaupt nicht bekannt.’ For the confusion between ‘Syrian’ and ‘Assyrian’ in connection with the Orontid origin of the House of Arzanene, see my Orontid I 35 and § 15.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ Faustus 3.9 (supra at n.41); cf. Ps. Moses 3.4.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Supra at n. 91.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ Supra n. 134.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ Ammianus Marcellinus 25.7.9 (supra n.63); Faustus 4.50 (supra n.54).Google Scholar

¹³⁸ Faustus 5.10, 16.Google Scholar

¹³⁹ Lazarus 33 (134). In Eliseus, Arzanene appears as even more foreign than in Lazarus: 1 (16), 2(66), 4(120), 7(173).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ For this march, see Adontz, , Armenija 42–43; Markwart, Ērānšahr 25, 114, 165–166, 169, 178; Südarmenien 89–90, 115–116, 119–122, 215–220, 352–354, 357, 373–374; Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 248–251, 254–259, 305–322, 331–337; Gelzer, Georg. Cypr. 47 n.938a, 165–167; Honigmann, Ostgrenze 4–6, 22–24, maps I, IV; Garitte, Documents 200–202, 219–220, 225, 237; Baumgartner, s. v. ‘Arzanene,’ RE 2/2. 1498; Streck, ibid. Suppl. 1.147; Tournebize, s. v. ‘Arzn,’ DHGE 4.862; Baumgartner, s. v. Γοϱδυηνή, RE 7/2. 1594–1595. — Arzanene = Arm. Aḷjnik’ = Syr. Arzōn; Corduene = Arm. Korduk’ = Syr. Bēθ-Qardū; Moxoene = Arm. Mokk’ = Syr. Bēθ-Moksāyē; Zabdicene = Arm. Cawdēk’ = Syr. Βēθ-Zaßdē; Rehimene = Syr. Bēθ-Rehīmē; Gordyene = Arm. Korčēk’. — The Vitaxate of Arzanene comprised, thus, besides the province of Arzanene with the nucleal princedom of Aljn, also the Province of Moxoene and a part at least of that of Gordyene.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ This house is mentioned in List A of the Gregorian cycle; Faustus 3.9; 4.50; 5.10; Eliseus 1(16), 2(66); Ps. Moses 2.8. The exemption of the Prince of Corduene from the control of the High Constable is implied in the Arab. Life of St. Gregory 86 [Garitte's translation, 72]: ‘… principes … sub eius [scil. High Constable's] potestate erant, praeterquam quod princeps qmrδl non erat sub eius potestate, quae (regio) est iuxta fortes qrδyṭn’; cf. Garitte, Documents 219–220; Introd. I 102; infra § 20 n. 324.Google Scholar

¹⁴² Faustus 3.9.Google Scholar

¹⁴³ In the province of Gordyene was also situated the princedom of Albace or Little !Albak, belonging to the Arcrunis [§ 12.8], for which see Hübschmann, , Ortsnamen 335–336. But we do not know whether the entire province was included in the Arabian March.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ Accordingly, in Eliseus 1(16) and 2(66). Arzanene, Corduene, and Zabdicene appear as distinct from Armenia as Iberia and Albania; cf. infra n. 145.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ Introd. I 81 and n. 186.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ The Princes of Zabdicene are mentioned in List A of the Gregorian cycle; Eliseus 1(16) and 2(66); Ps. Moses 2,8. — In recent historiography Eliseus’ reference to Cawdēic‘/Cōdēic‘, among those peoples to whom the religious edict of Yazdgard II was addressed (1 [16], 2[66]), has been interpreted as having to do with the Sodi of Pliny, 6.11.29 (sic plana aut devexa optinentur; rursus ab Albaniae confinio tota montium fronte gentes Silvorum ferae et infra Lupeniorum, mox Diduri et Sodi); e. g. Trever, Oč. po ist. Alb. 202 n. 3. Except the Sodi, the ethnica of Pliny are perfectly identifiable: ibid. 48. Now the edict of Yazdgard was addressed, in Eliseus 1, to the Armenians, Iberians, Albanians, Lp‘ink‘ = Lupeniori, Cawdeayk‘, Carduenians (Karduac‘), and Arzanenians (Aḷjneac‘) and, in Eliseus 2, to the Armenians, Iberians, Albanians, Lp‘ink‘ Arzanenians, Cōrduenians, Cōdeayk‘, and Darsan (= Dassntrē in the Median March?). ‘Albania and Lp‘ink‘ (and Čor)’ formed part of the intitulatio of the Albanian katholikoi: Trever 48, 243. Most likely they entered also the intitulatio of the Albanian kings. They, at any rate, were, like ‘France and Navarre’ or ‘England and Wales,’ frequently spoken of in the same breath. But, just because the Lp‘ink‘ are indeed the Lupeniori of Pliny, it does not follow that Pliny's unidentified Sodi must be Cawdeayk‘/Cōdeayk‘ (ō being a later way of manuscript rendering of the original diphthong aw) of Eliseus. The latter term is mentioned, in two different combinations, together with those to designate Arzanene and Corduene, while its proximity to the Lp‘ink‘ appears fortuitous, being due to one of the two ways in which these three names are ranged. There can be no doubt, I think, that the term in question denotes Zabdicene. But the confusion is an ancient one: Ps. Moses, too, possibly under the impression of some source where, as in Eliseus 1, the Lp‘ink‘ are mentioned just before the Cawdeayk‘, believed the Princes of Zabdicene (who had disappeared long before his time) to have been an Albanian dynasty, for in 2.8 he assigned to them the descent, together with the Houses of Otene [§ 13.19] and Gardman [§ 13.9], from the Albanian eponym Aṛan.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ Rehimene is not known to Armenian geography, its very toponym not having any Armenian equivalent, and there is absolutely no indication that is ever had a dynasty of its own. It was not, therefore, an Armenian land, let alone an Armenian princedom, but a Syrian region controlled by the Vitaxae of Arzanene, or even merely grouped together with the lands controlled by them, by the Roman government at the moment when it passed under the aegis of the Empire. It is mentioned above only because, of all the several princeless cantons of Arzanene, Gordyene, and Moxoene that formed part of the Vitaxate, Rehimene alone has played a role in history, for which, see supra n. 63.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ This term is found again in Arm. Agath. 120/182 (425) and, similarly rendered, in Gk. Agath. 15, in connection with the geographical limits of St. Gregory's preaching: ‘from the city of Satala to the country of Chaldia, to Cholarzene, to the very frontiers of the Maskʽtʽkʽ to the Alan Gate, to the frontier of the Caspians, to P'aytakaran the city of Kingdom of Armenia …’ (). The term Mazkʽtʽkʽ is found also in Faustus, 3.5–6, in connection with the younger St. Gregory's preaching in Albania. Faustus, moreover, connects these neighbors of Albania with the Huns and also describes the invasion of Armenia by the Mazk't'k’ and the Huns: 3.7. This invasion is discussed very thoroughly by Trever, Oč. po. ist. Alb. 188–197. In this fourth-century invasion, Albania also seems to have participated. There cane be no question that in this context the term Mazkʽtʽkʽ can only refer to the Massagetae or Alans: Markwart and Messina, J., ‘Die Enstehung der armenischen Bistümer,’ Orientalia Christiana 27/2 (1932) 214–219; though Trever would, instead, identify them with the north-Caucasian Mazamacae of Pliny 6.7.21. But, on the other hand, in the context of the two Agathangelus passages, the term in question must denote the Moschians: Markwart, Ērānšahr 168–169 (in Genealogie 24, however, Markwart reversed his opinion and spoke of ‘dem Markhüter nach der Seite der Maskʽutʽkʽ, d.i. der Massageten oder Alenen’); Peeters, ‘Les débuts du christianisme en Géorgie,’ AB 50 (1932) 21–23 (who went too far in the opposite direction and would see even in the Mazkʽtʽkʽ of Faustus the Moschians and not the Massagetae); cf. Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 212 and n. 1. With the memory of the great invasion just mentioned still relatively fresh, it would have been only too natural for the compiler, or copyist, of the Agaangelus to substitute the term Maskʽtʽkʽ (indeed meaning the Massagetae) for whatever word had originally been used to designate the Moschians. The proximity of Gogarene, the most important part of the northern viceroyalty, to Albania must have made this substitution easy: that viceroyalty could be regarded as a bulwark of the Armenian Monarchy from any Albanian, no less than any Iberian, invasion. The Greek Agathangelus adds in both passages, under the influence of the same memory, or of the text of Faustus, the words τῶν Oὕννων. The reference to the Alan Gate (the Greek translation transposes here two toponyms and has: ϰαὶ πυλῶν Κασπίων ϰαὶ μεϱῶν Ἀλανῶν: the confusion between the ‘Caspian’ and the ‘Alan’ Gates was widespread among the ancients: Trever 121–126, 214–216, 274–275; and so also one between ‘Albani’ and ‘Alani’) constitutes, I think, a proof of the equivalence Maskʽtʽkʽ = Moschians. The passage in question assumes Armenian suzerainty over Iberia, which is the constant thesis of the Gregorian cycle; it thus makes Iberia's northernmost limit, the Alan Gates, Armenia's own. Our passage, accordingly, traces the complete northern boundary of the Armenian Monarchy: Satala-Chaldia-Cholarzene-Moschica-Iberia (= the Alan Gates)-Caspiane (or P'aytakaran, with the chief city of that name). Cf. in this connection Ptolemy 5.12.4: παϱὰ μὲν τὰ Μοσχιϰὰ ὄϱη ἡ Καταϱζηνή. For Catarzene-Cholarzene-Klarǰet'i-Klarǰk’, see Toumanoff, , ‘The Bagratids of Iberia,’ Le Muséon 74 (1961) II § 3, 11. Ptolemy's Μοσχιϰά = Strabo's Μοσχιϰή (11. 2.17 and 18) = Cedrenus’ Μεσχία (2.572); it is the Mesxet'i (Meschia) or Zemo K'art'li (Upper Iberia) of the Georgians: Vaxušt, Geogr. Descr. 70–130; Javaxišvili, K'art’. er. ist. II (Tiflis 1914) 319–335; Gugushvili, A., ‘Ethnographical and Historical Division of Georgia,’ Georgica 1/2–3 (1936) 62, 63–65, 66–67; Ingoroqva, P., Giorgi Merč‘ule: k'art'veli incerali meat'e saukunisa (Tiflis 1954) 296–399; cf. Bagr. of Iber. II § 1 and n. 1.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ For this march, see Markwart, , Ēranšāhr 116, 165–166, 168–169, 178; Skizzen 26–31; Peeters, Ste Sousanik 271–285; Movs, L.êsian, ‘Histoire des rois Kurikian de Lori,’ Revue des études arméniennes 7/2 (1927) 213–214; Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 275–276, 353–357; Garitte, Documents 208; Kiessling, M., s. v. ‘Gogarene,’ RE 7/2. 1553–1554; Toumanoff, Iberia, Excursus A (‘The Vitaxae of Gogarene’); Bagr. of Iber II, § 8–19.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁰ Gugarac‘: the genitive of Gugark‘.Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ Supra at n. 12.Google Scholar

¹⁵² Arm. Agath. 112/795 (supra at nn. 38, 39; infra n. 324).Google Scholar

¹⁵³ Gk. Agath. 135 (supra at n. 38; infra n. 324)Google Scholar

¹⁵⁴ Gk. Life of St. Gregory 98 = Arab. Life 114 (supra at n. 38; infra, n. 324).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁵ 4.50; 5.15.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁶ Brosset, Additions et éclaircissements à l'Histoire de la Géorgie (St. Petersburg 1851) 73–74; Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 226; Gugushvili, Hist. Division 63; Toumanoff, Bagr. of Iber. II § 16 at n. 164.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁷ Bdešx Vrac‘: 27 (108), 28 (116), 31 (125), 62 (242), cf. 25 (98); — išxann Vrac‘: 59 (234).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁸ Visconti, E. Q., Iconographie grecque II (Milan 1825) 365–366, Pl. xlv, No. 10; Herzfeld, Paikuli 78 (fig. 34); cf. Peeters, Ste Sousanik 273–277; Akinean, Koriwn, Vark’ s. Maštoci (Texte und Untersuchungen der altarmenischen Literatur 1/1, Vienna 1952) 102–103. The significance of the last word will be discussed infra at nn. 187–190. — The gem was formerly in the Cabinet des médailles of the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁹ K'artl'isa pitiaxši: Martyrd. St. Eustace of Mc'xet'a 3 (47).Google Scholar

¹⁶⁰ Somext'a patiaxšisa; patiaxša Somxit'issa: uanšer 185, 199.Google Scholar

¹⁶¹ Pitiaxš, in Martyrd. St. Susan 34–43.Google Scholar

¹⁶² Ceret'eli, Ĕp. naxodki 50–51.Google Scholar

¹⁶³ It is absolutely impossible to tell whether this was an isolated instance of collegiality or the manifestation of a system. At all events, this cannot justify the tendency to generalize on the part of some specialists who would suppose the existence in Iberia of two kinds of vitaxae, ‘junior’ and ‘senior,’ ‘great’ and ‘little (sic)’; cf. Ceret'eli, op. cit. 50 n. 5; Berjenišvili, Ist. Gruzii 74. All this involves something else: the tendency to treat Caucasiology as so many watertight compartments and, in this particular case, to speak of the Iberian vitaxae without any reference to their Armenian context.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁴ Toumanoff, , Bagr. of Iber. I § 7.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁵ Introd. I 47–50, 103–104.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁶ Bagr. of Iber. II § 4–5.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁷ 11.14.5, and, for the position of Gogarene, also 11.14.4. See in this connection Bagr. of Iber. II § 8, 10, 11, 14, 15.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁸ Bagr. of Iber. II § 15,10.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁹ Bagr. of Iber. II § 14.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁰ Bagr. of Iber. II § 15.Google Scholar

¹⁷¹ Cf. Grousset, , Histoire 105–113; Magie, Rom. Rule 476, 482–486, 496–497, 498, 507–509, 513–515, 551–562, 606–610, 659–662; Debevois, Parthia 143–269.Google Scholar

¹⁷² Bagr. of Iber. II § 15 at n. 145; Introd. I 95; and, for Armazi, ibid. 40 n. 82.Google Scholar

¹⁷³ Bagr. of Iber. II § 15 at n. 147.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁴ Bagr. of Iber. II § 15 at nn. 148–154. It is in the seventh-century Geography of Ananias of Širak that Gogarene is made to comprise Cholarzene (Kaḷarǰk’, i. e., Kḷarǰk’), Artani (Artahan), and Upper avaxet'i (ovaxk’, rectius awaxk’): Ašxarhac'oyc’ Movsesi Xorenac'ioy (ed. Venice 1881) 34. This work has once been attributed to Ps. Moses: cf. Abeḷyan, Ist. drenuearm. lit. I 314–326, esp. 323. Ananias also includes in Gogarene the Iberian land of T'rialet'i (T'reḷk’), the reason for this will be seen infra at n. 200. Cholarzene had simultaneously with Gogarene reverted to Iberia between the beginning of the first and the middle of the second century: Bagr. of Iber. II § 11 at nn. 93–98.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁵ Ps. Moses, 2.8, knows only the second, Mihranid, House of Gogarene and so ascribes to all the Vitaxae an Iranian origin; but, at the same time, according to him, all the Gogarenian lands: Kangark’, Koḷb, Cob, Jor, Ašoc’, Tašir, as well as a part of awaxk’, were appanages of the race of Gušar, a scion of the Haykid Dynasty; this is a tradition that is much older than his memory. See Bagr. of Iber. II § 14 at nn. 134, 140; and, for the Haykids, Introd. I 55–56.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁶ The following Vitaxae of the Gušarid Dynasty are revealed in the Armazi monuments: Also: the Vitaxae ΑΣΠΑΥΡΟΥΚΙΣ, ΒΕΡΣΟΥΜΑ (scil. Bar-Şauma), and the ‘good Vitaxa’ BUZMIHR, whose dates are unknown. There is also a mention in an inscription of a ‘Vitaxa of the divine Ardašir.’ If the first Sassanid is meant here, the inscription must be of the third century and must, moreover, indicate direct Iranian control of Gogarene; on the other hand, and this seems more likely to me, this inscription may be a more ancient one, referring to an Armenian Artaxiad, more particularly Artaxias II (34–20 B.G.), and thus may date from the period when not only the Iberian March, but the Kingdom of Iberia itself was within the political sphere of Armenia. See, for the equivalence of Artaxias-Artašēs-Artaxšaθra-Artašir/Ardašir, my Orontids I § 4 at n. 27; Introd. I 28 n. 46; and, for the Iberian dependence on the Second Armenian Monarchy, ibid. 34 and n. 68. The identity of the Kings in the above genealogy is dealt with ibid. 95.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁷ Bagr. of Iber. II § 11 at n. 99; § 15 at n. 155; cf. supra at n. 55.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁸ Bagr. of Iber. II § 16 and n. 161.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁹ For the House of Mihrān, see Christensen, , Iran Sass. 104–105; Ehtécham, Iran. Achém. 21 n. 4.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁰ The advent of the Mihranids to Caucasia is treated in some detail in Bagr. of Iber. II § 16.Google Scholar

¹⁸¹ Adontz, , Armenija 440–441.Google Scholar

¹⁸² Iberia 17 n. 1 (= 18).Google Scholar

¹⁸³ Bagr. of Iber. II § 18 at nn. 173–178, and n. 174.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁴ Leont. Mrov. 64 and passim. Google Scholar

¹⁸⁵ Movses Kaḷankatuac‘i, History of Albania 2.17; 3.23 (ed. Tiflis, , 387): (‘And Mihrān, who was of the Sassanid house’). For the History, cf infra n. 360.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁶ Leont. Mrov., 68: (‘And [Mirian] brought from Iran his kinsman, of the house of the Kings, named P'eroz’)Google Scholar

¹⁸⁷ Supra at n. 168.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁸ Thus, Fr. Peeters would emend Καϱχηδῶν to Κολχιδῶν on the ground that the Vitaxae held Cholarzene: Ste Sousanik 275–279. But Cholarzene was always a part of Iberia — Upper Iberia — and never of Colchis-Egrisi; and, at any rate, Κόλχων would have been the form proper. Fr. Akinean suggests that the genitive of Gogarene-Gugark’: Gugarac’ may have been the original of the Greek: Koriwn 103. This would have been what one would have liked to believe, but the distance between the two vocables, Καϱχηδῶν and Gugarac‘, is too unbridgeable to admit of this solution. See ibid. also other theories: Tēr-Sahakean's that Kaxet'i (Kakhetia) be the basis for the Greek term — one wonders why; and the tempting reference to the fact that Plutarch speaks of Artaxata as ἐν Ἀϱμενίοις Καϱχηδῶν: Lucullus 32.3, owing to the fact that it was Hannibal who supervised its construction: ibid. and 31; Strabo 11.14.6. But the Vitaxae of Gogarene had absolutely no connection with the ancient Artaxiad capital.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁹ Sebēos, Preface 34.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁰ Cf. Macler, F., Histoire d'Héraclius par l'évêque Sebêos (Paris 1904) 156–157: the Armenian version of the apocryphal additions to the Book of Daniel ‘semble identifier Carthage et le peuple de Perse’; this version is nearly contemporary with Sebēos.Google Scholar

¹⁹¹ 2.8, 11. — For the connection of Nabuchodonosor with Iberia, see my Orontids II 74 n. 4.Google Scholar

¹⁹² 2.11.Google Scholar

¹⁹³ 3.6. The term used is aṛaǰnord, whereby Ps. Moses designates elsewhere (2.86) the same King of Iberia and also Ezechias, King of Juda (1.23).Google Scholar

¹⁹⁴ Supra at nn.157–159.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁵ Christensen, Iran Sass. 104 n. 1; Markwart, Genealogie 65–66. — The confusions of Ps. Moses caused, in turn, those of Herzfeld. The Vitaxa Pāpak of the Paikuli inscription (supra n. 35) is obviously not a Caucasian, but an Iranian dignitary and, to boot, a member of the imperial house, since on that inscription he precedes the Prime Minister of Iran whereas ‘the Armenian and Georgian margraves … never held so high a rank [at the Court of Iran]’: Herzfeld, Paikuli 50 (As a matter of fact, Herzfeld would have found himself hard put to it to cite any document indicating the precedence enjoyed in Iran by ‘the Armenian and Georgian margraves.’). Nevertheless he would consider Pāpak at once a Sassanid prince (a brother of the Great King Nerse), a Yitaxa of Gogarene, and a King of Iberia! For this reason he identified Pāpak with St. Mirian, and explained the King's name by the supposition that his mother might have been a Mihranid princess.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁶ Leont. Mrov. 64; cf. Bagr. of Iber. II § 17 at n. 168. — Because the Princes of Gardman acquired in the seventh century the Principate of Albania, for the Iberian historians the House of Gardman was synonymous with the House of Albania: ibid. § 17 at 169–172.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁷ Bagr. of Iber. II § 11 at n. 99; at n. 162.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁸ Bagr. of Iber. II § 14 at n. 134; 15 at n. 154; 16 at n. 163; 18 at nn. 200–205. The Princes of Jorap'or, or of Jor, and of Koḷbap'or, or of Koḷb, are mentioned in Faustus, 3.12 (c. 342: Manawaz of Kolb and Gorut’ of Jor); 4.50 (in connection with their abandonment of Great Armenia), and in Ps. Moses, 2.8. For these regions, see Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 353, 354.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁹ Bagr. of Iber. II § 14 at nn. 134, 139–140; 15 at n. 154; 16 at nn. 159, 163, 165. For the Princes of Tašir, see Lazarus, 42, 47; Eliseus 8 (251); Ps. Moses 2.8; for their land: Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 271. — Koriwn mentions Ašuša, Prince of Tašir (15.3 [43]: išxanin Tašrac'woc’ … Ašušay), who was the host of St. Mesrop (Maštoc), inventor of the Armenian alphabet, after the latter's trip to Constantinople, i.e., sometime about 430: Peeters, ‘Jérémie, évêque de l'Ibérique perse (431),’ AB 51 (1933) 28. In relating these events, Ps. Moses (3.60) speaks of Ašuša, Vitaxa of Gogarene, who received Mesrop in the canton of Tašir, in his principality (yiwr išxanut'iwnn ‘i gawaṛn Tašray). Fr. Peeters has thought that, since Koriwn could not have been in error on matters of nomenclature involved, his ‘Prince of Tašir’ must be distinct from a Vitaxa: Ste Sousanik 273. But ‘A[r]šuša’ was a name typical of the Mihranid Vitaxae (infra n. 203); and the fact that Ps. Moses qualifies elsewhere (2.8) Tašir as a sephakanut'iwn seems to indicate that, until the time when, in Lazarus, a Prince of Tašir does indeed appear simultaneously with a Vitaxa, and is among the Armenian princes whereas the latter is counted among the Iberian, Tašir belonged to the Vitaxate. The term sephakanut'iwn designated the appanage of a sepuh or cadet of a princely dynasty: Introd. I 62; Adontz, Armenija 473–475. (The present-day significance of the term is ‘property’; Markwart is inexact, in Genealogie 26, 65, when interpreting sephakan as ‘allodial’ instead of as ‘appanged.’) Very likely, thus, it belonged to the Vitaxate as the appanage of the hereditary sepuh (mec/awag sepuh: Introd. I 62). In this sense, Fr. Peeters must be right: Aršuša of Tašir may well have succeeded to the Vitaxate after the visit of Mesrop; and Ps. Moses in calling him Vitaxa already then may have been merely projecting back his subsequent title. — The Princes of Ašoc’ are found in Lazarus 23, 42; and in Ps. Moses 2.8; 2.78, 82 (Tačat, Gušarid Prince of Ašoc’, at the time of the Conversion of Armenia); 3.65 (Hmayeak, Prince of Ašoc’, at the time of the abolition of the Armenian Monarchy, A.D. 428); for their land, see Hübschmann 365. The reference to Tačat of Ašoc’ (Ps. Moses 2.78, 82) must, if true, signify that there had once been a Gušarid line of Ašoc’ — and Ps. Moses regards the House of Ašoc’ as Gušarid: 2.78 — that to Hmayeak (3.65) indicates that the separation of Ašoc’ from Gogarene took place earlier than that of Tašir. That a house of such importance as that of Ašoc’ should have been left unmentioned in Faustus, is unthinkable; it must therefore be supposed that there was indeed no dynastic continuity between Tačat and Hmayeak.Google Scholar

²⁰⁰ Bagr. of Iber. II § 16 and n. 164; cf. also supra n. 174 (for the Armenian inclusion of T'rialet'i in Gogarene).Google Scholar

²⁰¹ Leont. Mrov. 131 (da erman misman). The word er, it will be recalled, meant both ‘army’ and ‘people’: Introd. I 45 n. 95, to which add: Molitor, Altgeorgisches Glossar zu ausgewählten Bibeltexten (Monumenta biblica et ecclesiastica 6; 1952) 61.Google Scholar

²⁰² Gogarene, nevertheless, was evangelized almost simultaneously with Armenia. The insistence of the Armenian tradition on the apostolate of St. Gregory, or of his homonymous nephew, in Iberia (and Albania) must, as another manifestation of the perennial confusion between the Iberian kingdom and the Iberian Vitaxate (supra at n. 156), in actual fact, refer to the latter: Toumanoff, Christian Caucasia 179 and n.309.Google Scholar

²⁰³ For a list of the Mihranid Vitaxae, see infra, Supplementary Note A.Google Scholar

²⁰⁴ See my Iberia for the Guaramid and Chosroid lines of the Iberian Mihranids.Google Scholar

²⁰⁵ Some problems concerning the Vitaxae of Gogarene and the presumed Diarchy of Iberia are discussed infra, Supplementary Note B.Google Scholar

²⁰⁶ Supra § 4.Google Scholar

²⁰⁷ The surviving Arsacids must have been the descendants of the Western royal line, and so settled in the Roman zone: the national historians, dealing with the Iranian zone, do not know of them (Adontz, Armenija 123), but a goodly amount of information about them is available from both the Roman Empire and the Roman zone of Armenia (ibid. 123–124): Procopius, Bell. pers. 2.3; Bell. vand. 4.28–28; Bell. goth. 7.31–32; John of Ephesus, De beatis 13; 21; Sebēos 32 (180, 188), 34 (221) — the last-named is indeed an Armenian historian, but he speaks of the epoch following the Heraclian thrust against Iran, when Roman influence made itself felt in Iranian Armenia; Eliseus 6 (156) also mentions members of the Royal House as taking part in the insurrection of 451: this may indicate that some of the Aršakunis volunteered to join the action beyond the Roman border. What is of interest is that Procopius, 2.3.32–54, in the text of the complaint of the Armenian Arsacid Princes (from Magna Armenia) before the Great King, twice makes them say that they are descended from Arsaces III (cf. infra n. 212). The collateral Arsacid branches of Asthianene and Kamsarakan, moreover, were never called Arsacids. And so, also, when Sebēos 32 (188) refers to the Aršakunis as the Emperor Heraclius’ close relatives (merjawork‘), the descendants of Arsaces III must be meant. The reference in question, by the way, is not precise enough to enable one to assert, as is sometimes done, that Heraclius was a descendant of the Arsacids, an Arsacid himself.Google Scholar

²⁰⁸ Procopius, Aed. 3.1.14–15; Ps. Moses 3.46; cf. Adontz, Armenija 116–119; Stein, Hist. du Bas-Emp. II 289. The comitiva Armeniae was not, apparently, instituted immediately upon the death of Arsaces III, for it is not yet mentioned in the Notitia dignitatum (Adontz 117). The death of Arsaces occurred, according to Ps. Moses, 3.46, two and a half years after the Partition of 387. — The name of Great Armenia was, obviously, applied to that section of the once united realm because, from the moment of the Partition, each of the two rival kingdoms claimed to be the Great Armenia; cf. Adontz 29. Its official Roman name, after the death of Arsaces, however, seems to have been, first, Armenia Interior and, then, Magna Armenia: Stein 289; infra at n. 214.Google Scholar

²⁰⁹ Adontz, Armenija 120, 121, 123, 124; he must be mistaken in suggesting that every canton of Upper Armenia constituted a principality (cf. infra at n. 291). As for Carenitis (Karin), it is clear from Faustus, 3.44, that it was a demesne of the young Arsaces III and his brother Vologases (Valaršak); there also took place the combat of King Varazdat and Manuel Mamikonean: Faustus 5.37; cf. Adontz 122–123. It will be remembered in this connection that the necropolis of the Armenian Arsacids, at Camachus-Ani, was also situated in Upper Armenia, cf. Orontids I 30 n.98. In the land of Carenitis was situated the city of Karin, subsequently Theodosiopolis: Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 287–290. This city existed there before the partition, as a village at least, as is clear from the text of the Narratio de rebus Armeniae, re-established by Garitte: see my Christian Caucasia 130–131. It would have been perfectly natural for the Imperial government to choose as the seat of the Roman viceroy of the newly annexed Western Kingdom the chief seat of the royal demesne, which must have served as a capital while that kingdom lasted. — Procopius also mentions Bassaces, son-in-law of the Arsacid John, who in fact led the Armenian delegation to the Great King Chosroes I (infra at n. 218): Bell. pers. 2. 3, and who later led a group of Armenian notables back to the Emperor: ibid. 2.21. The name of course renders the Armenian ‘Vasak,’ and it is Adontz's opinion that Eliseus’ reference (4 [120]) to a Vasak Mamikonean who was a Roman vassal, among the insurgents of 451, to which there is no parallel reference in Lazarus, is misplaced and that the Vasak of 451 is merely a memory of the Vasak (Bassaces) of 539. It may, however, be assumed that both existed and both belonged to the Mamikonids. At any rate, Lazarus, 33 (134) records the appeals of the insurgent princes of 451 as being addressed to the Emperor, to other Armenian Princes who were no longer in Great Armenia, and to the Prince of Acilisene (Ekeḷeac’). Now Acilisene was originally a Gregorid [§ 13.11] allod (Faustus 3.2; 4.14) and it must have passed, as part of the Gregorid inheritance to the Mamikonids. Thus the appeal recorded by Lazarus and the response related by Eliseus complement each other. All this indicates the existence of a separate (short-lived no doubt) Roman line of the Mamikonids, in Acilisene: Adontz 124–125. — The only other princely house in Upper Armenia, mentioned by Procopius, Bell. pers. 2.3, as τῶν Ἀσπετιανῶν γένος is that of the Bagratuni-Aspetuni; cf. my Orontids II 96 n. 83.Google Scholar

²¹⁰ Adontz, Armenija 116–117; for the trans-Euphratensian Princes, see supra § 7.Google Scholar

²¹¹ Cod. Just. 10.17.13 (τὰ ἀϱμενιαϰὰ δημόσια).Google Scholar

²¹² Procopius, Bell. pers. 2.3.28–39 (complaint of the Armenian Princes before Chosroes): Eἰσὶ μὲν ἡμῶν πολλοὶ Ἀϱσαϰίδαι, ὦ δέσποτα, ἐϰείνου Ἀϱσάϰου ἀπόγονοι ὃς δὴ οὔτε τῆς Πάϱθων βασιλείας ἀλλότϱιος ἐτύγχανεν ὤν, ἡνίϰα ὑπò Πάϱθοις ἔϰειτο τὰ Πεϱσῶν πϱάγματα, ϰαὶ βασιλεὺς ἐπιφανὴς γέγονε τῶν ϰαθ’ αὐτòν oὐδενòς ἧσσον… . Ἀϱσάϰης γὰϱ ὁ τῶν πϱογόνων τῶν ἡμετέϱων βασιλεὺς ὕστατος ἐξέστη τῆς ἀϱχῆς τῆς αὐτοῦ Θεοδοσίῳ τῷ ‘Ρωμαίων αὐτοϰϱάτοϱι ἑϰών γε εἷναι, ἐφ’ ᾧ δὴ ἄπαντες οἱ ϰατὰ γένος αὐτῷ μέλλοντες πάντα τòν αἰῶνα πϱοσήϰειν τά τε ἄλλα βιοτεύσονσι ϰατ’ ἐξουσίαν ϰαὶ φόϱου ὑποτελεῖς οὐδαμῆ ἔσονται. ϰαὶ διεσωσάμεθα τὰ ξυγϰείμενα … οὐχ ἡμῖν μὲν φόϱου ἀπαγωγὴν ἔταξεν [Justinian] οὐ πϱότεϱον οὖσαν … Three remarks in this connection: (1) the reference to the ‘abdication’ of Arsaces III is a typical instance of the self-righteous !euphemism of messianic cosmocracies; for the reality, see Moses, Ps. 3.46. — (2) the admission of the existence of definite conditions regarding the Arsacid (and doubtless other princely) immunity from any interference, especially fiscal, in connection with Magna Armenia’s becoming a Roman dependency. — (3) the assertion that Justinian was the first to infringe this arrangement after the peace of 532 (2.3.36–37), especially its fiscal aspect. Finally, Procopius refers, in particular (I think), to their dispossession when he makes them say, 2.3.33: πάϱεσμεν δὲ τανῦν εἰς ὑμᾶς ἅπαντες δοῦλοί τε ϰαὶ δϱαπέται γεγενημένοι, οὐχ ἑϰούσιοι μέντοι, ἀλλ’ ἠναγϰασμένοι ὡς μάλιστα … One may wonder whether δοῦλοι in this context does not signify ‘subjects,’ as opposed to ‘dynasts,’ i.e. ‘sovereigns’; cf supra n. 40. In Aed. 3.1.4–17, Procopius returns to the story of the Partition of 387, but in more detail and, so, more confusedly. His version telescopes together two events: the Partition, and the earlier co-kingship of Arsaces and Vologases; it gives wrong names to Ars aces’ father and brother (Arsaces and Tigranes respectively); it supplies the Partition with a wrong chronology (cf. Christian Caucasia 130–131); and, of course, it repeats the pious legend of the last King's ‘abdication.’ But what is of importance here is the repeated reference to definite conditions (ἐπì ξυνθήϰαις τισὶν: 3.1.12) on which the Arsacids (and, to repeat, undoubtedly the two other princely houses) accepted (after the Partition) the suzerainty of the Roman Emperor: Adontz, Armenija 111–112. These ξυγϰείμενα or ξυνθήϰαι must be, precisely, the foedus (non aequum) which bound these Princes to the Emperor: ibid. 113. The distinction proposed here between annexed territories and vassal States makes it unnecessary to wonder, in connection with the law of Anastasius of 496, whether the latter might not have been only civitates stipendiariae, as does Adontz 116. — For an example of the spoliation of Armenia by the Roman officials, see Procopius, , Bell. pers. 2.3. 5–7; cf. Bell. goth. 7.32.7.Google Scholar

²¹³ The comes Armeniae had no regular troops under his authority: Procopius, Aed. 3.1. 15–16; cf. Adontz, Armenija 117. Adontz's suggestion (119) that the Princes of Inner Armenia were, from the point of view of the Imperial government, praesides, under the comes as a vicar, I cannot think to be correct because of the parallel situation in ‘Other Armenia,’ where the Princes were simply what they were: vassal sovereigns, without any recourse to bureaucratic euphemism. — For Inner Armenia between Theodosius I and Justinian I, see Güterbock, , in Festgabe der jurist. Fakultät zu Königsberg Th Schirmer, f. J. (1909) 20–29.Google Scholar

²¹⁴ Nov. 20 (18 March 536), cf. Nov. 8 (15 April 535); cf. Stein, Hist. du Bas-Emp. II 289; Adontz, Armenija 160–175.Google Scholar

²¹⁸ Supra at n. 105.Google Scholar

²¹⁶ Supra at n. 107.Google Scholar

²¹⁷ Supra at n. 108.Google Scholar

²¹⁸ Procopius, Bell. pers. 3.1; cf. Stein, Hist. du Bas-Emp. II 364. Since the leader of this insurrection, Vasak, appears to have been a Mamikonid and not an Arsacid (supra n. 209), Procopius very likely simplifies the story by making of it an Arsacid insurrection. The paucity of the dynasts in Inner Armenia must have helped to create the impression that they were all of one family.Google Scholar

²¹⁹ See Adontz, , Armenija 201–210 for the results of Justinian's policies in Armenia, especially in connection with the immediate influx of Armenians to the Empire. Procopius bears witness not only to the numbers of Armenians in the Imperial armed service, but also to the high esteem in which they were held and the high positions in the Empire which they occupied; cf., e.g., the case of Artabanes Aršakuni, successively magister militum Africae, magister militum praesentalis, and magister militum per Thraciam, whose conspiracy against his life Justinian, with something like a parvenu’s awe before the royal birth, treated with incredible clemency: Bell. goth. 7.31–32.Google Scholar

²²⁰ For the institution of the Principate in Armenia and Iberia, see my Iberia 47–49; supra § 3.Google Scholar

²²¹ Adontz, Armenija 179.Google Scholar

²²² Ps. Moses, 2.8, though stressing according to his wont (Introd. I 56–58) the ‘raising’ of this house by the mythical King Vologeses (Valaršak), nevertheless places it in the same category as the unquestionable dynastic houses of Anjewac'i, Corduene, and Moxoene. It is true that he qualifies the supposititious ‘first prince’ of Moxoene as a brigand chief, but this seems to be rather an allegory of the Carduchian land's rugged character. On the other hand, he says that the three houses, of Anjawac'i, Corduene, and Akē, were ‘of those cantons (’i noyn gawaṛac‘)’ and this, in the circumstances, must mean their chieftainship of these territorialized tribes, that is, their dynastic origin. (In this sense, Introd. I 57 n. 125 stands to be corrected.) Eliseus, 4 (119), 5 (129), mentions Enǰul, Prince of Akē and also the House of Akē (Akēac'ik'n) as taking part in the insurrection of 451. The tenth-century historian Thomas Arcruni (for his work and its Continuation, see Abeḷyan, Ist. drevnearm. lit. I 380–390) is the last to mentiont his house: History of the House of Arcruni 2.6 (ed. Tiflis, 1917, 186); 3.4,29; Contin. 4.3. For the princedom, see Adontz, , Armenija 321; Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 344.Google Scholar

²²³ Introd. I 78 and n. 190. Also: the 505 Acts (infra Table X); Lewond (for this late eighth-century author, see Abeḷyan, Ist. drevnearm. lit. I 363–369) History 34 (ed. St. Petersburg 1887, 144), 42 (168: migration to the Empire of Šapuh Amatuni and his son Hamam, with 12,000 followers, in 791); Thomas 2.6; 3.4,24. For the Vač'utean family, see the genealogy based on epigraphic data in Brosset, Rapports sur un voyage archéologique dans la Géorgie et dans l'Armenie (St. Petersburg 1849–1851) III 99–100; Zacharias the Deacon († 1699), Cartulary of Ioannu-vank in Brosset, Collections d'historiens arméniens II (St. Petersburg 1876) 166. — In 1784, a family of Amatuni was received in the princely nobility of Georgia and in 1826 in that of the Russian Empire: Spiski titulovannym rodam i licam Rossijskoj Imperii (publ. by the College of Heralds of the Governing Senate of the Empire: St. Petersburg 1892) 5–6.Google Scholar

²²⁴ Introd. I and n. 193; Lewond 37 (155), 39 (158–161); Thomas 2.6; 3.4, 8 (Atom Anjewac'i, martyred in 853), 15; supra § 6, for Mahkert.Google Scholar

²²⁵ The origin of this house is indicated in Ps. Moses 2.8; 3.32; in 3.65 Manēč Apahuni is mentioned, who also figures, in the events of 451, in Lazarus 23, 25, 36; Eliseus 2 (55), 3 (95), 4 (119). This dynasty is also mentioned in the 505 and 555 Acts (infra Table XI); Sebēos 18 (104); Thomas 2.6. Cf. Adontz, Armenija 312–313; Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 329–330; Grousset, Histoire 293; Tournebize, s.v. ‘Apahouniq,’ DHGE 3.915–916; Markwart, Südarmenien 456, 459, cf. 501–508.Google Scholar

²²⁶ Ps. Moses 2.8; Lazarus 23, 42, 47; Eliseus 8 (250) (P'apak Aṛaweḷean in the insurrection of 451); 505 Acts; Sebēos 30 (175), 35 (226); cf. Adontz, Armenija 305. — In this connection, in Introd. I 57 n. 125 the erroneous ‘Albania’ is to be corrected.Google Scholar

²²⁷ Ps. Moses 1.31; cf. 2.8; Ĕrstom Aṛawenean took part in the events of the Partition of 387: 3.43. The last mention (Aṛa[we]nean): Sebēos 35 (226). Cf. Adontz, Armenija 305; Toumanoff, Orontids I 35 and n. 118.Google Scholar

²²⁸ Introd. I 80 and n. 194 (in the third line of the note, chaps. 30 and 35 of Lazarus are to be omitted, the reference, though the text has ‘Arcruni,’ being in reality to the Prince Aršaruni, i.e., Kamsarakan [14]); also Laurent, ‘Un féodal arménien au ix^e siècle,’ Revue des études arméniennes 2/2 (1922); supra § 6, for Adiabene. — The Arcrunis claimed to have been Christians from the days of Prince Xuran, supposedly baptized by St. Thaddaeus long before the official conversion of the ‘first Christian Kingdom’ under Tiridates III: Thomas 1.6 (88). Premiers barons chrétiens indeed I — An Arcrunid origin has been claimed for the Eastern Emperor Leo V. The Byzantine chronicle of George the Monk, on the basis of a lost work of the Constantinopolitan patriarch Nicephorus I (806–815) (cf. Alexander, P. J., The Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople [Oxford 1958] 179–180), asserts Leo's (Armenian) descent from the sons of Sennacherib of Assyria who fled to Armenia upon the murder of their father: ed. de Boor (Leipzig 1904) 2.780–782. This indeed was the family tradition of the Orontid line to which the Arcrunis belonged: Orontids I 31–33. It has, therefore, been assumed that Leo's connection was with the House of Arcruni: Adontz, L'origine de Léon V; cf. Markwart, Südarmenian 210 n. 3 (= 210–212); Alexander 126 n. 7: ‘the connexion with the Armenian princely family of the Arzrunis [sic], however, which is clearly implied by Georgios Monachos, may well be legendary and is not proved by Georgios’ assertion.’ All this calls for two remarks. First, a genealogical ‘legend’ that is contemporaneous with the person concerned (because it is not George's assertion, but Nicephorus’) is more than a legend: it is a claim; though, to be sure, it need not, for that reason alone, be more true. Quite obviously, too, this claim was not made for Leo by Nicephorus, who detested him and who, moreover, can hardly have known anything about the dynastic aristocracy of Armenia and its chimères; it must have come from Leo himself or his Armenian adherents. This, I submit, rather tends to make the claim respectable. The only difficulty with all this — and this is the second point — is that there is no indication whatsoever that the Arcrunis are necessarily implied in this claim, because the related House of Gnuni [14] had exactly the same genealogical tradition (as had the Vitaxae of Arzanene [§ 9] who, however, disappeared long before Leo's day). The Gnunis, moreover, had already claimed the Empire a century and a half previously. They had just lost their princely State, after the insurrection of 771–772, and been obliged to seek refuge with the Bagratids in southern Tayk’, precisely on the frontier of the Empire. It is more likely that the dispossessed Gnunis, rather than the Arcrunis, who were then growing in power and importance, should have sought fortune in the Empire; and this émigré status would explain the comparatively modest character of Leo's beginning. (One may recall the role in the Empire of the Armenian nobles dispossessed through Justinian's oppression; cf. supra on the Arsacids.) Finally, had Leo V really been an Arcruni, he would not have been passed over in silence by the family historian Thomas Arcruni, or, for that matter, by other Armenian historians; but the dégringolade of the Gnunis explains this silence perfectly.Google Scholar

²²⁹ Introd. I 76 and n. 187; Bagr. of Iber.; Fifteenth-Cent. Bagr. — The Georgian Bagratids (Bagrationi) were divided at the end of the fifteenth century into three royal houses, of Georgia proper, of Kakhetia, and of Imeretia. In the Russian Empire the several branches of these houses — the Princes of Georgia, Bagration, and Bagration of Muxrani (the first two extinct), of the House of Georgia; the Princes of Georgia and Davidov-Bagration, of the House of Kakhetia; and the Princes Bagration of Imeretia, Bagration, of Imeretia, and Bagration-Davidov (all, save the third branch, extinct), of the House of Imeretia — formed part of the princely nobility of the Empire: Prince Peter Dolgorukov, Rossijskaja rodoslovnaja kniga II (St. Petersburg 1855) 5–14; III (ibid. 1856), 3, 5–9, 17–22, 458–459, 471–474; Spiski 10–11, 12, 31–32, 34, 44.Google Scholar

²³⁰ Ps. Moses, 2.8, claims to have established that the Houses of Colthene (Goḷt'n) and of Rštuni [23] were branches of the House of Siunia [25]; the geographical position of Colthene could explain in part this statement, but I confess that I am at a loss to understand why Ps. Moses connects the Rštunis with Siunia. At the same time, he speaks (2.52) of an early Bagratid prince receiving from the King of Armenia a royal appanage in the settlements of Colthene (). A few lines further, Ps. Moses mentions the Bagratids settling in Tamoritis (Tmorik’). It could be supposed, of course, that the earlier reference in Ps. Moses to the House of Colthene applied to an earlier dynasty. The mention of the royal holding there might indicate the extinction of that dynasty and the passing of its State to the Crown, which thus may be supposed to have subsequently granted it to the Bagratids. Tamoritis, at any rate, appears indeed Bagratid (supra at n. 229). The sources for this house include also Faustus 3.12; Sebēos 18 (104); Martyrdom of Vahan of Colthene (for this contemporary work of Artawazd of Erašxavork’, see Abeḷyan, Ist. drevnearm. lit. I 392–396); Thomas 3.29; Vardan 72; cf. Toumanoff, Orontids II 95; Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 346; Weissbach, s.v. Κολβηνή RE. 2/1.1124.Google Scholar

²³¹ The origin of this house is, according to Ps. Moses, 2.47, non-dynastic, which is in keeping with his tendency (Introd. I 56–58), but the tale he tells to account for its origin is merely a play on words, typical of him and so not worth considering. In 3.43 and 45, Ps. Moses mentions Ašxadar Dimak'sean; and we may wonder whether perchance there be some connection between this house and Ašxadar, King of Alania (Ossetia) and father-in-law of Tiridates the Great. We may remember in this connection the royal Alanian descent traditionally claimed for the Aṛaweḷeans, who likewise were settled in Ayrarat, perhaps in the vicinity of the Dimak'seans. For the rest, this house is mentioned in Faustus 3.14; Lazarus 23, 30, 35, 39, 47, 78; Eliseus 5(129), 6(156), 8(250) (Hmayeak Dimak'sean was martyred for the faith in 451); Sebêos 17(101), 18(104), 35(226), 38(242). Cf. Adontz, Armenija 301.Google Scholar

²³² Mentioned only in Lazarus 70 (in connection with the insurrection of 451); cf. Toumanoff, Orontids I 35–36, and, for the geography of their State of Eruandunik’, Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 343; Adontz, Armenija 321. Though mentioned first only in 451, this family must, to have kept that ancient patronymic, have branched off from the Orontid stock at a much earlier epoch. This is not to say, of course, that the Orontids ever called themselves ‘Orontids,’ but to indicate that the praenomen of Orontes early on disappeared from use by that dynasty.Google Scholar

²³³ For the origin, see Moses, Ps. 1.19; also (for the office) 2.7; 2.24. For the rest, see Faustus, 4.11; Lazarus 39 (154), 42 (160), 69 (275); Eliseus 5 (129), 6 (150, 151, 156) (Tačat Gnt'uni martyred for the faith in 451); Sebēos 35 (226); John Kath. 295–297, 316–318; cf. Adontz, Armenija 303, 490.Google Scholar

²³⁴ Introd. I 80 and n. 195; also Markwart, Südarmenien 210, 299 n. 2; 474; and, for the Emperor Leo V, supra n. 228. — This house figures (in addition to the sources adduced in Introd. I) in the 505 and 555 Acts; Lewond 34 (151); John Kath. 252–254; Thomas 2.6; 3.4; Asoḷik 2.2 (see, for this early-eleventh-century author, Abeḷyan, Ist. drevnearm. lit. I 437–442) 3.3; Vardan 77 (Vahan Gnuni was a martyr in 451; Gurgen and David were martyred in 917); Gk. List of the Rulers of Armenia (Κινουνής) in Garitte, Narratio 405, cf. 435–436.Google Scholar

²³⁵ For the origin, see Ḷap'anc'yan, Xajasa 135, 223, 251. Mentioned in Lazarus 39; Eliseus 5 (129) (Nerseh K'aǰberuni martyred for the faith in 451); Thomas 2.6. Although this house appears for the first time only in Lazarus, its immemorial dynastic origin is implied by its very name. For the territorial aspect, see Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 329; Adontz, Armenija 321 n. 5.Google Scholar

²³⁶ Introd. I 77–78 and n. 189. Also Procopius, Bell. pers. I.15; Bell. goth. 6.16, 18, 20, 26, 27, 29; 7. 13, 18, 19, 24 (cf. Stein, Hist. du Bas-Emp. II 292 n. 1); 505 and 555 Acts; Lewond 39 (161); Gk. List of the Rulers of Armenia (Καμψαϱαϰάν) in Garitte, Narratio 405, cf. 440; Asoḷik, Universal History 2.2; see also Adontz, , ‘L’âge et l'origine de l'empereur Basile I^er,’ Byzantion 9 (1934) 239, 254. — For the Pahlavids, see Grousset, , Histoire 550 ff; Markwart, Südarmenien 517–530; their genealogy, e.g., in Recueil des historiens des Croisades: Documents arméniens I (1869) cxx; Leroy, M., ‘Grégoire Magistros et les traductions arméniennes des auteurs grecs,’ Ann. de l'Inst. de phil. et d'hist. orient. de V Univ. de Bruxelles 3 (1935) Table gén. It may seem strange that Vahram II Pahlawuni should, in his inscription of 1029 at the Marmašēn Abbey, have qualified himself as ‘of the race of the Pahlavids and of the family of St. Gregory (i c'eḷē Pahlawuni, ew i zarmic’ Srboyn Grigori)’: Basmadjian, K. J., Les inscriptions arméniennes d'Ani, de Bagnaīr et de Marmachên (Bibliothèque Basmadjian, K. J. 2; Paris 1931) No 212 (p. 193, cf. 195 and transl. 196). The Kamsarakans and the Gregorids [§ 13.11] claimed descent from different Iranian houses: Kārin-Pahlav and Sūrēn-Pahlav (cf. Ps. Moses 2.27, 28). But, whatever may be said about the vague terminology indicating the kinship with St. Gregory, which may be interpreted as either collateral or direct, the fact to note is that, in the female line, the Kamsarakans were indeed descended from St. Gregory. The last male Gregorid, St. Isaac († 439) married his daughter and heiress to the Mamikonid [18] prince, Hamazasp. Their son St. Vardan II was the father of St. Susan of Gogarene and of the wife of Aršawir, Prince Kamsarakan: cf. Peeters, Ste Sousanik 267–268. — The Georgian Pahlavids are the Houses of P'alavandišvili and of Mxargrjeli (the Zachariads). The dynastic patronymic of the first house, when combined with their having migrated, in 1184, to Georgia from Ani (cf. Dolgorukov, Ross. rod. kniga III 481), which was the center of the Armenian kingdom where the Pahlavids left so many constructions and inscriptions, leaves little doubt that their genealogical tradition concerned the latter. The fact that the Pahlavids are not expressly named by that tradition tends to show, I think, that the claim is a vague memory rather than an intentional fabrication. As for the Mxargrjelis, their medieval claim was to be descended from Artaxerxes Longimanus (Histories and Eulogies of the Sovereigns, ed. Qauxč’-išvili, , K'art'lis C'xovreba II [Tiflis 1959] 110), whence their surname (mxargrjel = longimanus = μαϰϱοχείϱ). This claim is tantamount to a claim to an Arsacid origin, for the Ars acids traditionally regarded themselves as an offshoot of the Achaemenids (cf. Debevoise, Parthia 10). This is confirmed by the inscription, dated 1061, from the Mxargrjeli family abbey of Sinahin by ‘Prince of Princes Šapuh, son of Gorbaniēl, of the House of the Pahlavids and of the Arsacids ‘: Arch. Jean de Crimée, Description des monastères arméniens d'Haghpat et de Sinahin (St. Petersburg 1863) 49. Šapuh is just a generation earlier than the first authenticated ancestor of the Mxargrejelis: cf. Justi, Iran. Namenbuch 458–459. For these two princely houses in the Russian Empire — the two P'alavandid branches (Palavandov and Amireǰibi [cf. Dolgorukov III 479]) and the three Mxargrejelid branches (Argutinskij-Dolgorukij [= mxargrjel], Pavlenov, and Magalov) — see Spiski 69–70, 7, 6–9, 54. It is important to bear in mind, however, that, according to Vardan 138, the Mxargrjelis, or Zachariads as the Armenians called them, were of Kurdish origin and recent Christians.Google Scholar

²³⁷ Introd. I 78–79 and n. 191; Lap'anc'yan, Xajasa 256; Adontz, Armenija 400 (maḷxaz possibly going back to Urartian days and being related to the Assyrian malik). Also: 505 and 555 Acts; Sebēos 6 (76), 20 (109–112), 22 (118), 29 (165), 32 (185). Xoren Xorxoṛuni fell a martyr for the faith in 451: Lazarus 39; Eliseus 6 (155).Google Scholar

²³⁸ Introd. I 77 and n. 188, 101–103; also: Grousset, Histoire 331 n. 2, 373–374, 607–608, 632 n. 3; Laurent, Arménie passim; Muyldermans, J., Le dernier prince Mamikonien de Bagrévand (Vienna 1926). The later Mamikonids figure prominently also in the 505 and 555 Acts; Lewond, Thomas, Vardan, Matthew of Edessa, Kirakos of Ganja, etc. — The two Mamikonid princely houses of Georgia and the Russian Empire are the Liparitids and the T'umanids. The former appeared in Iberia c. 876, was invested with the office of High Constable of Georgia; returned in the main branch to Armenia in 1177 and reigned as the Third Dynasty of Siunia [25] from c. 1200 to the mid-fifteenth century; and was subdivided in the remaining, Georgian branch (ambakur[ian = čenbakur]-Orbeliani, Baratov, Salagov, Kaxaberije-Č'iǰavaje [extinct], and possibly Abašije): my Fifteenth-Cent. Bagr. 176, 178–180; Spiski 36–37, 67–68, 12–14, 79, 98, 1–2; cf. Dolgorukov, Ross. rod. kniga III 475–476, 467–468. The T'umanids removed to Georgia from Armenia-in-Exile (Cicilia) after the twelfth century: Fifteenth-Cent. Bagr. 179 n. 59; also Zacharias the Deacon, History of the Safawids 48, in Brosset, Coll. d'hist. arm. II 119–121; Spiski 83–85; cf. Dolgorukov III 483; Geneal. Handb. d. Adels 3 (1953) 471.Google Scholar

²³⁹ Lazarus 47, 97, 99, 100; Eliseus 5 (129) (P'arsman Mandakuni took part in the insurrection of 451), 8 (251); Ps.Moses 2.8; 2.76, 77. In his first reference Ps.Moses ascribes a non-dynastic origin to this house, which is based on a play on words that has no worth whatsoever. It is significant, however, in view of what has been said above, that he mentions the Mandakunis in the same breath as the Sḷkunis. In his second reference, he claims that Artawazd Mandakuni and his house were exterminated by the King of Armenia in the third century. This house, obviously, did not long survive the events of 451, so that to Ps.Moses it appeared as long extinct. For the position of princes of the Manda people, see Ḷap'anc'yan, Xajasa 136–140; Adontz, Armenija 311, 419; also Tournebize, s.v. ‘Arschamouniq,’ DHGE 4.744; Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 327. For the Katholikos John Mandakuni, cf. Garitte, Narratio 426; ὁ Μανταϰουνής in the Gk. List of the Katholikoi, ibid. 404.Google Scholar

²⁴⁰ Lazarus 23 (92), 36 (142), 39 (154); Eliseus 3 (95), 4 (119), 6 (155) (Artak Paluni martyred in 451); 505 Acts. This house must have disappeared soon after the sixth century, for Ps. Moses does not know it. Also: Ḷap'anc'yan, Xajasa 127–136; Adontz, Armenija 311; Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 345. Ḷap'anc'yan 129 cannot be right in thinking that there existed the princedom of Paḷanakan-tun (cf. Lazarus 10 [31]: John of Paḷanakan-tun [Yohan ‘i Paḷanakan tanēn], one of the scholars of Maštoc’-Mesrop's entourage): it was merely a toponym.Google Scholar

²⁴¹ Ps.Moses 2.64. The King is called by him ‘Tigranes,’ which is erroneous; but he gives, in this connection, an important synchronism when he tells us that the King was restored by Lucius Verus. The whole story may be built upon another of Ps.Moses’ facile, and incorrect, plays on words (Rufa = Ṛop'sean). But, if there be any truth in it, it must be clear that the King in question was Sohaemus, who was placed on the throne of Armenia by Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, and as a result of the latter's campaign in the East, in 164, and who was c. 175 restored on that throne by Martius Verus; cf. Magie, Roman Rule 661, 665; Debevoise, Parthia 246–249, 252–254; Asdourian, Arm. u. Rom 111–116 (different dates). Ps.Moses, or his source, obviously confused the two Veri. Sohaemus, to judge by his name, appears to have belonged to the dynasty of Emesa, though there are indications of his being related to the Arsacids. For Ps.Moses, to be sure (Introd. I 58) the King and his children by Rufa are Arsacids; he also mentions their cadet branches settled in Gordyene. The Ṛop'seans are mentioned in the insurrection of 451 by Lazarus 47; Eliseus 8 (251).Google Scholar

²⁴² Introd. I 79 and n. 192; supra n. 230; (add for the city of Tušpa-Tosp-Θωαπία) Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 476. Also — among the sources — 505 Acts; Sebēos 35 (226–227); the Gk. List of the Rulers of Armenia (Ὀϱονστουνής) in Garitte, Narratio 405, cf. 437–438.Google Scholar

²⁴³ Faustus 3.12 (the historian belonged to this house); 3.14; 4.11; 5.35; Lazarus 69, 78 (K'aǰaǰ Sahaṛuni fell a martyr in 451); Eliseus 5 (129: Karen Sahaṛuni took part in the insurrection); Sebēos 29 (166); the Gk. List of the Rulers of Armenia (Σαϱωνής) in Garitte, Narratio 405, cf. 436–437; cf. Adontz, Armeni ja 306. The early disappearance of this house must explain why Ps.Moses does not seem to know it.Google Scholar

²⁴⁴ Introd. I 81–82 and n. 197; also 505 Acts; Sebēos 1 (40); Moses Kaḷ.; Vardan; Stephen Orbelean; cf. supra at n. 238. — Siunia = Arm. Siwnik’.Google Scholar

²⁴⁵ Eliseus 5 (129: Ayruk Slkuni took part in the insurrection of 451); Ps.Moses 2.8, 77, 84 (supposed Mamikonid acquisition of the Slkuni State under Tiridates the Great); 3.20; Ps. Moses, 2.8, professes his uncertainty about the Haykid origin of this house; yet their dynastic princeship of the Sala remnant appears indubitable: Ḷap'anc'yan, Xajasa 136–140; supra at n. 239.Google Scholar

²⁴⁶ For their traditional origin, see Ps. Moses 1.76; 2.8 (Vahagn was the father of Aṛawan, from whom the Aṛaweneans are descended, and great-grandfather of Zareh, the founder of the Zarehawaneans); 2.14 (for their connection with the temple of Aštišat); and (for their connection with the temple of Armawir) 2.86; also 2.88. This is to be an addition to my Orontids I. It would, of course, be only natural that the High Priesthood of Armenia should have been vested in a branch of the royal house; and, in fact, we know of Mithras, brother of Orontes IV, who was the priest of the Sun and the Moon at Armawir: ibid. 9.Google Scholar

For the cult of Vahagn at Aštišat, cf. Abeḷyan, Ist. drevnearm. lit. I 31–35; Carrière, Huit sanctuaires 17, 19. Also Lazarus 23, 24, 36; Eliseus 2 (55), 3 (95), 4 (119), 5 (129); 505 and 555 Acts; Sebêos 6 (76), 7 (79), 11 (90), 13 (92), 30 (175), 34 (227); Thomas 2.6; 3.2 (Abu-Isaac Vahewuni martyr in 852), 4, 24, 32; Contin. 4. 3; cf. Adontz, Armenija 310. —Carrière, 22–23, would consider the Vah(n)unis as a figment of Ps.Moses's imagination on the ground that Agathangelus does not mention them; but then Agathangelus does not mention most princely houses. Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 363, would consider ‘Vahewunikʽ’ a mere variant of ‘Hawenunik’,’ a canton in Ayrarat; yet the Acts of the Council of Dvin of 555 mention both a Prince Vahewuni and a Prince Hawenuni [§ 14.7].

²⁴⁷ Faustus 3.12, 14; Lazarus 23, 39, 42, 71, 83, 94; Eliseus 6 (151) (several members of this house took part in the insurrection of 451); 505 and 555 Acts; Sebêos 35 (226); also Adontz, Armenija 299, 300; Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 363–364; Garitte, Documents 229.Google Scholar

²⁴⁸ The Haykid origin is stressed by Ps.Moses 1.12; 2.7 (the office); 2.11. This outweighs the fact that the Varažnunis are not found in Faustus, Lazarus, and Eliseus and first appear in the 555 Acts; also: Sebēos 35 (226); Thomas 2.6; 3. 4, 8 (Mleah Varažnuni martyr in 853), 18, 25; Matt. Ed. 1.32; cf. Adontz, , Armenija 303, 490; Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 365.Google Scholar

²⁴⁹ Faustus 4.11 (Kiskēn, nahapetn Bagēnic‘). The name seems derived from bag(a), which may suggest an Orontid origin; Orontids II 89–90.Google Scholar

²⁵⁰ Ps. Moses 1.2; 2.8; also 2.62; 3.2; Faustus 3.8; cf. Ḷap'anc'yan, Xajasa 256; Hübschmann, 328–329.Google Scholar

²⁵¹ Bagr. of Iber. § 17–18 and supra at nn. 180–185.Google Scholar

²⁵² Faustus passim; Lazarus, esp. 14 (origin) and 18 (extinction and Mamikonid succession); Ps.Moses 2.27, 28 (origin); 3.51 (extinction and Mamikonid succession); Ps. Moses 3.51 refers to the pahlawik, but this is obviously an epithet rather than a definite surname, pahlav (= ‘Parthian’) being the generic term for those of the Seven Houses of Iran which claimed Arsacid origin: Christensen, Iran Sass. 103. Also: Adontz, Armenija 124–125, 310–311; (for the princedoms) Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 286, 325–327, 363; (for the two temple-states) Carrière, Huit sanctuaires 16–17, cf. 19.Google Scholar

²⁵³ Faustus 4.11 (Vrkēn nahapetn Habuženic’).Google Scholar

²⁵⁴ Ps. Moses 1.2; 2.8 (origin); 3.2 (extinction); Faustus 3.4; cf. Hübschmann, 449–450; Markwart, Südarmenien 78; Piotrovskij, Vanskoe Carstvo (Urartu) (Moscow 1959) 31,63: the name of the city of Manazkert (so often given in textbooks in the corrupt form Mantzikert) is derived from that of the Urartian king Menua.Google Scholar

²⁵⁵ Ps.Moses 1.2; 2.8 (origin); 3.2 (extinction); Faustus 3.4. The latter, 3.4, and Ps.Moses 2.8, state that the princedom of Orduni was in the valley of Phasiane (Basean, Basēn).Google Scholar

²⁵⁶ Arm. Agath. 112/795; Gk. Agath. 135; Arab. Life of St. Gregory 86; Ps.Moses 2.8; Faustus 5.13; John Kath. 301–304. Otene = Arm. Uti.Google Scholar

²⁵⁷ Arm. Agath. 112/795; Gk. Agath. 135; Gk. Life of St. Gregory 98; Arab. Life 86; Faustus 4.11 (Surik nahapetn Hrsijoroy); cf. Toumanoff, Orontids I 35 and n. 118 (35–36); Garitte, Documents 213–214, 238; Markwart, Ēranšāhr 109–110, 117; Südarmenien 205 n. 1 (205–207), 555–556; Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 260–261, 338.Google Scholar

²⁵⁸ Lazarus 23, 30, 36; Eliseus 4 (119: g abeḷēnic‘) (Gazrik and Arten Abeḷean took part in the insurrection of 451); 555 Acts; Ps. Moses 2.7: ascribes to this house a non-Haykid origin and projects it and its office to the time of the mythical King Vologases (Vaḷaršak); he, moreover, mentions an Abeḷean at what must be the Artaxiad epoch: 2.60. Yet Faustus does not know this house. The non-Haykid origin need not imply a non-dynastic one, simply because the reverse is true; the Arsacids indeed were admittedly non-Haykids. This may support the theory of the Kamsarakan origin; cf. Adontz, Armenija 301, also 490; and, for the princedom, Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 363, 394; Garitte, Documents 194.Google Scholar

²⁵⁹ 505 Acts; Sebēos 25 (227: Varaz-Nerseh Daštakaran); Moses Kaḷ. 2.32 (Dastakerayn, var. Dastakerac'n); cf. Ḷap'anc'yan, Xajasa 66.Google Scholar

²⁶⁰ Lazarus 23 (Vrēn Jiwnakan in the insurrection of 451); 555 Acts; Ps.Moses 2.7: ascribes a non-Haykid origin to this house (supra n. 258), but mentions its beginnings and the creation of its office together with those of the Hawenunis [7] and the Spandunis [9]; cf. Adontz, Armenija 305, 490.Google Scholar

²⁶¹ Lazarus 39; Eliseus 5 (129), 6 (151, 156) (Arsenius Ĕncayac'i was martyred in 451); cf. Adontz, Armenija 321; Markwart, Südarmenien 205 n. 1, 313; Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 344, 400; infra n. 305.Google Scholar

²⁶² Lazarus 82: Eliseus 3 (95), 5 (129) (Gabal and Xosrov Gabeḷean in the events of 451); 505 Acts; Thomas 2.6; 3.4; Ps. Moses 2.7: mentions this house's non-Haykid beginnings (supra n. 258) and the creation of its office, together with those of the Abeḷeans [1]; cf. Adontz, Armenija 301, 490; and, for the princedom, Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 363, 368; Garitte, Documents 208.Google Scholar

²⁶³ 555 Acts; Ps.Moses 2.7; ascribes to this house the same non-Haykid origin (supra n. 258) as to the Jiwnakans [4] and the Spandunis [9], projecting the creation of their offices to the mythical King Vologases (Valaršak); also Thomas 2.6; John. Kath. 206–207; cf. Adontz, Armenija 301, 490; supra n. 246.Google Scholar

²⁶⁴ Eliseus 5 (129).Google Scholar

²⁶⁵ 555 Acts; Sebēos 35 (226); Ps.Moses 2.7: mentions this house together with the Jiwnakans [4] and the Hawenunis [7] as of non-Haykid origin (supra n. 258). The name, on Adontz's suggestion, may be a derivation of the Kamsarakan family praenomen of Spandarat; Armenija 305 and n. 1. If they be indeed a branch of the Kamsarakans, the ascription to them of the office of Master of the Holocausts of pagan Armenia by Ps.Moses 2.7, must be fully imaginary; cf. Adontz 490.Google Scholar

²⁶⁶ Lazarus 39; Eliseus 5 (129), 6 (156) (Garegin of Sruanjit died a martyr's death in 451; Xurs of Sruanjit took part in that insurrection).Google Scholar

²⁶⁷ Eliseus 5 (129); Sebēos 6 (76), 7 (79), 18 (104); Ps.Moses 2.47 (non-dynastic origin pushed back to ancient times); Lewond 34 (144); Thomas 2.6; 3.2, 4; cf. Adontz, Armenija 231 and n. 3; Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 323, 376; infra n. 301.Google Scholar

²⁶⁸ Lazarus 36, 67; Eliseus 3 (95), 4 (119). The early disappearance of this house must explain Ps.Moses’ ignorance of its existence.Google Scholar

²⁶⁹ Supra n. 249 (for Bagean), n. 231 (for Dimak'sean); Piotrovskij, Vanskoe Carstvo 124 (for Xorxoṛuni).Google Scholar

²⁷⁰ The Caspio-Median house of Murac'an is mentioned in Ps.Moses 2.8, 44, 46, 51, as descended from Astyages of Media (cf. Amatuni [§12.3]) and exterminated by the Artaxiads; cf. Ḷap'anc'yan, Xajasa 140. — Kadmos was the name of one of the early mythical Haykids: Prim. Hist. Arm. 3, 5, 6; Ps.Moses 1.10, 12. But the House of Kadmos, mentioned by Ps. Moses 2.4, 8, is not identifiable; and if it ever existed it must have early on disappeared from history. Thus, it is not known to any of the ancient historians; and Ps. Moses himself refers to it in a general way, at an early period, without mentioning it in any particular circumstances, or any members of it. Kadmos himself is considered an eponym of Corduene by Adontz, Armenija 418, and Markwart, Südarmenien 218–219. On the other hand, Ḷap'anc'yan, 256, and Manandyan, O nek. sporn. probl. 150, see in him the eponym of the land of Kadmuḫi, which according to the latter was connected with Uruaṭri. In the Military Register (infra at n. 304), Kadmos stands for Adiabene. — The houses of the princely vassals (naxarak’) of the Arcrunis of Vaspurakan, unknown before Thomas, are Gazrik, Gundsaḷar, Harmac'i, Marac'ean, and Varazx: 2.6; 3.4 (Gazrik only). Gazrik must be derived from the canton of Gazrikan, in Vaspurakan: Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 345 (known already to the seventh-century Geography of Ananias of Siracene, 33); Gundsaḷar = gundsalar, the Iranian term designating commander of an army unit: Christensen Iran Sass. 210; Varazx must be a derivation of the Iranian praenomen Varāzağ; cf. ibid. 108, 277 (father of the Prime Minister Mihr-Narseh of the House of Spandiyāδ, one of the ‘Seven Houses’: ibid. 104 n. 1). These last two words may not have been surnames.Google Scholar

²⁷¹ Adontz, Armenija 272–280.Google Scholar

²⁷² Ibid., 236–297.Google Scholar

²⁷³ Ibid. 240–241, 257–259. Through misreading a passage in Zenobius of Glak's History of Tarawn, the author of the Life of St. Nerses assumed the number of the Princes to have reached 400; he could, however, produce only 145 names, most of them erroneous or imaginary. Another misunderstanding of the sources, Faustus this time, led some to speak even of 900 houses! Cf. Adontz 238–239. — The Hist. of Tarawn appears to have been produced not earlier than the eighth century; it is a compilation of popular epic of which the first part is attributed to the fourth-century Syrian Zenobius and the latter part to the seventh century John, Bishop of the Mamikonids: Abeḷyan, Ist. drevnearm. lit. I 345–362.Google Scholar

²⁷⁴ The text: Adontz, Armenija 249–250. It was discovered by Axverdov, Y. and published in his Russian edition of the History of Ps. Moses, in 1858; its phototypic reproduction is given in Ali, L.šan, Ayrarat (Venice 1890) 430. This list, or its source, may be anterior to Ps. Moses (mid-eighth century); cf. Adontz 263, 291. In the tenth or eleventh century, Uxtanēs knew it: ibid. 253.Google Scholar

²⁷⁵ The text: Adontz, Armenija 251–252. This document, likewise termed gahnamak, was first published by Bishop Šahatunean in Storagrut'iwn Eǰmiacni (Eǰmiacin 1842). It contains a list of the princely names and of the corresponding number of cavalry. This document, or its source, may have been known to Ps. Moses and to Ōrbelean (thirteenth century): Adontz 263, 254.Google Scholar

²⁷⁶ The significance of this inclusion of toponyms will be discussed infra at nn. 300–302.Google Scholar

²⁷⁷ Ak'acu, Artašesean, Ašahmarean, Basenoy datawor (Phasiane), Bžnuni, C'ul, Kaspēic’ tēr, Mamberac'i, Mehnuni, Naxčeri, Taygrean, Tayoc’ (Tayk’), Vaagraspu, Varaspakean, Varjawuni, Vižanu; cf. infra nn. 281, 282, 283.Google Scholar

²⁷⁶ Abeḷean II, Anjewac'i II, Apahuni II, Arcruni II and III, Dimak'sean of Buxa, Dimak'sean II, Dimak'sean of Siracene, Mamikonean II, Siunia II, and Vanand II. While in the case of Abeḷean, Anjewac'i, Apahuni, and Dimak'sean, the name is preceded by the word ayl (‘the other’), in the case of the rest, the name is followed by erkrord or errord (‘the second’, ‘the third’). The list needlessly distinguishes between Dimak'sean and Dimak'sean of Buxa; mentioned together, they stand for one and the same thing: the eldest line of the house, while Dimak'sean II, close to it, must indicate its cadet branch and Dimak'sean of Siracene, mentioned later, must mean an older subdivision, but, judging from its position, junior to the line of Buxa.Google Scholar

²⁷⁹ Kaḷakapetn ark'uni = Prefect of the City, no doubt occupied by a prince, and Gazrikan, for which, see supra n. 270, infra n. 303. In the same list, the House of Varažnuni is mentioned, likewise, by its office of Master of the Chase = orsapetn ark'uni. Google Scholar

²⁸⁰ Bznuni, Gardman, Murac'an, Lesser Sophene, Zarewand and Her.Google Scholar

²⁸¹ Artašesean, Bak'an, Boguni, Bužuni, Gukan, Kčruni, Mazanac'i, Mehnuni, Patsparuni, Phasiane, Sodac'i, Tagrean, Tamrarac'i, Tayk’, Truni, Varžnuni, Varjawuni, Vižanuni. — Artasešean, Bak'an, Bogunik’, Bužunik’, Krčunik’, Mehnunik’, Patsparunik’, Ta(y)grean, Va(r)žanunik’, and V(r)žnunik’ were cantons in Vaspurakan; Tamber, in Persarmenia; Sodk’ in Siunia; Mazan in Ayrarat; and Va(r)žnunikc’ in Turuberan: Adontz, Armenija 256, 308, 315, 317–318, 321; Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 338, 340–341, 342, 345, 348, 365. — For Tayk’ cf. infra n. 285; for Phasiane and Truni, infra n. 301.Google Scholar

²⁸² Ak'acac'i, Amaskoni, Asčšnean, Awacac'i, Aycenakan, C'oḷkepan, Grzčuni, Hamastunean, Kinan, Sagratuni, Vaṛnuni, Varazartikean.Google Scholar

²⁸³ Abrahamean, Ašxadarean, Kaspec'i, Zandaḷan, and Gazrikan (supra n. 270). Of the 35 names given in this and the two preceding notes, 16 are identical with some of the unauthentic princely names of the Throne-List: Ak'acac'i = Ak'acu; Artašesean is the same in both; Ašxadarean = Ašahmarean; Bužuni = Bžnuni; C'oḷkepan = (?) C'ul; Gazrikan is the same in both; Kaspec'i = Kaspēic’ tēr; Mehnuni is the same in both; so is Phasiane; Tamrarac'i = Mamberac'i; Tagrean = Taygrean; Tayk’ is the same in both; Sagratuni = (?) Vaagraspu; Varazartikean = Varaspakean; Varjawuni is the same in both; Vižanuni = Vižanu; cf. Adontz, Armenija 257, 264.Google Scholar

²⁸⁴ Adiabene, Arzanene, Bznuni, Corduene, Gardman, Gogarene, Ingilene, Manawazean, Orduni, Otene, Sophene, Zabdciene, and Zarewand and Her. Also Murac'an belonging to a pre-Arsacid period.Google Scholar

²⁸⁵ Secundo-genitures of the Houses of Amatuni, Apahuni, Arcruni, and Dimak'sean are noted by Lazarus, Eliseus, and Sebēos: Adontz, Armenija 256, 291 and n. 1. — In the House of Arcruni, Mardpetakan was in the hands of the senior line (= Arcruni [I]): thus, Mihršapuh or Neršapuh Arcruni is called at once mardpet and ‘great Prince of the Arcrunis,’ while Aprsam Arcruni is simply ‘Prince of the Arcrunis’ in Lazarus 39, 42, 47; cf. Eliseus 2 (55), 5 (129), 8 (250–251); possibly Albak belonged to the latter; cf. Adontz 320. In this case his line must be the Arcruni II of the list. — Sargis Tayec'i mentioned in Sebēos 18 (104) must have been a younger Mamikonid appanaged in Tayk’, while the chief line held the remaining lands; he is thus probably the Mamikonean II of the list: Bagr. of Iber. § 8 n. 61. The case of Manag of Phasiane, of the House of Orduni (supra at n. 255) seems to be a similar one.Google Scholar

²⁸⁶ Cf. supra n. 283; Adontz, Armenija 261, 262, 264, 321. And yet, of these 16, 4 (really 3) are on Adontz’ own admission (256) unrecognizable: Ak'acac'i, C'ul, Sagratuni, Va[a]graspu[ni] (the last two stand for one and the same name: Adontz 264). To these I would add 2 more: Varazartikean and Varjawuni. Then, 6 more are authentic toponyms: Artašesean, Bužunik’, Mehnunik’, Tamber, Taygrean, and Vižanuni (= Vržnunik’). Much is made by Adontz, 248, 262–264, 321, of the fact the Bužunik’ and Mehnunik’ were episcopal sees; yet though the principalities had, for the most part, each its own episcopal see, the reverse is not necessarily true. Nor was the title of a see always identical with that of the corresponding princely State. Thus, e.g., the Bishop of Artaz was the chief prelate of the Amatunis (Adontz 321 n. 2). On the other hand, a dynasty reigning in several principalities might be connected with several episcopal sees, as the Mamikonids with their three Bishops, of Tarawn, of Bagraundene, and of Tayk’ (Adontz 330–331). The text of Zenobius, Hist. of Tarawn (ed. Venice 1889) 48, which Adontz cited for the House of Mehnuni, is not, I fear, acceptable. In the first place, it is a late (supra n. 273) and doubtful source and, secondly, the passage in question refers only to the ‘band of fearless inhabitants of Mehnunik‘’ (gund mi xučapeal Mehnuneac‘n), which has nothing princely about it (in this sense my Lists 375, No. 42, is to be corrected). Gazrikan, on Adontz's admission (321) belonged only to the Arab period; and this applied to several of the above toponyms as well. For Ašxadarean and Kaspec'i, see n. 287; for Phasiane and Tayk’, n. 301.Google Scholar

²⁸⁷ Of these 4 names, 2, Ašxadarean and Kaspec'i, are found in both documents, and 2, Abrahamean and Zandaḷan, only in the Military Register. All are spurious. Curiously enough, Adontz, Armenija 265, cf. 264, appears to think that Ašxadarean was a house known to Ps. Moses. Actually, the latter mentions (2.83) only Ašxadar, father of the wife of Tiridates the Great, who was, on the occasion of her marriage, raised by her husband-to-be to the rank of the Arsacids (i.e., recognized as ebenbürtig), but there is absolutely no reference to any family of Ašxadarean (unless this be an epithet of the Dimak'seans: supra n. 231). Nor is there any reference in any ancient historical writings to a House of Caspiane (Kaspec'i; or of the Caspians = Kaspēic’), which Adontz, 262, 263, 264, treats as real. The Military Register credits it with the contingent of 3,000 horse; and a dynasty of such magnitude could not have remained unknown to the ancient historians. The name simply disguises Atropatene, and, as Adontz himself half suggests elsewhere (289 n. 1), it was included in the Register because its compiler had seen in Faustus, 3.20, the Iranian viceroy of Atropatene reported as having mustered an army, precisely, of 3,000. Caspiane (P'aytakaran) had indeed been wrested by Armenia from Atropatene: Strabo 11.14.5; cf. Hübschmann, Ortsnamen 267–270. This is an indication, by the way, that, in order to make his list as complete as possible, the antiquarian-compiler used, besides what official registers there may have been, also the works of the historians. His inclusion of Ašxadarean must have been due to a misreading of Ps. Moses (or his source); exactly as his inclusion of Abrahamean and Zandaḷan must have been due to his misreading Sebēos and Lazarus; for this, see infra n. 290.Google Scholar

²⁸⁸ Adontz, , Armenija 231: Bak'an (perhaps included in the Register through confusion with Bagean), Gukan, and Patsparunik’; cf. supra n. 281.Google Scholar

²⁸⁹ Adontz, , Armenija 256, 262, 285, 418: Kadmean, which is the same as the Kadmeac'i (‘ [Prince] of Kadmos’) of the Military Register. For this legendary family, see supra n. 270.Google Scholar

²⁹⁰ Adontz, , Armenija 247: (1) Abrahamean: Sebēos 28 (156–157) speaks of the Katholikos Christopher II (628–630) as y Abrahamean tanē, i.e., of the house or family of the Katholikos Abraham (607 -c. 610): there is nothing dynastic about this. Christopher is called Ἀβϱαμίτης in the Gk. List of the Katholikoi (Garitte, Narratio 405); cf. Garitte 431, 430. In this sense my Lists, 369 No., 2, is to be corrected and the name of Abrahamean to be deleted from the map of the Armenian principalities and Iberian lands in both Lists (between 390 and 391) and Introd. I 105. Adontz 245: (2) Aḷbewrkac'i: Lazarus 90 (357) mentions this name among some confederates (uxtakc'ac'n) of Vahan Mamikonean, after an Arcruni and a Kamsarakan; but there is no reason to think that he was not an azat (noble): being in the company of dynasts need not make one a dynast I — (3) Aršamuni: Lazarus 81 (328) merely mentions a man as coming from the canton of Aršamunik’ (or ēr i gawaṛēn Aršamuneac‘); since this person was a milk-brother of a Kamsarakan-Aršaruni there is reason to suppose that the text is to be emended to Arēaruneac’. — (4) Artakuni: Lazarus 71 (284–285) says that he was an ostanik, i.e., a courtier of the king or a prince; cf. Introd. I 100–101. — (5) Kark'ayi: Lazarus 90 (357); his case is the same as that of No. 2. — (6) Mardpetakan: Lazarus 90 (357) speaks of Pačok i Mardpetakan, which means merely ‘Počok from Mardpetakan,’ in the same circumstances as those of Nos. 2 and 5; cf. also No. 3. — (7) Yovsepean: Lazarus 83 (337) refers to him among a group of martyrs, some of whom were indeed members of the princely caste, while others not, like one who was a Greek and, unquestionably, this one. — (8) Aršakan: Lazarus 40 (156), 41 (159), 42 (160); but he was not even an Armenian, but a Persian. — (9) Zandaḷan: Lazarus 32 (128) speaks of him as an ostanik; thus his case is identical with that of No. 4. The Military Register, like Adontz, misreading Lazarus, includes this name among the Princes.Google Scholar

²⁹¹ Sebēos 35 (226): (‘There came away to him the people of Syspiritis, the Bagratid princes, and the people of Manaḷi, and of Daranaḷi, and those of the canton of Acilisene, and all their trained forces, and the people of Carenitis, and of Tayk’, and of Phasiane’). The mention of the Bagratid princes [§ 12.9] side by side with the Syspiritians — Syspiritis was the Bagratid princedom par excellence — is, I think, sufficient to show that all these territorial epithets denote not dynasties, but peoples. Some of them indeed constituted princedoms, like Syspiritis, the Acilisene of the Mamikonids [§ 12.18] and the Carenitis of the Aršakunis [§ 12.1] while Daranaḷi belonged to the Church: Adontz, Armenija 124. But Adontz, 121, tends to regard all the above lands of Upper Armenia as separate princedoms (supra n. 209) and, moreover, places (247) Tayk’ and Phasiane on his list of the Princes. In this he was prompted by the existence of Sargis of Tayk‘ and Manag of Phasiane (supra n. 285) and by the fact that both toponyms are inserted in the Military Register and the Throne-List: supra n. 283.Google Scholar

²⁹² Adontz, Armenija 250–289.Google Scholar

²⁹³ Supra n. 287.Google Scholar

²⁹⁴ Adontz, Armenija 282–283. For the division of Chosroes I, see Christensen, Iran Sass. 370. For the suppression of the Armenian princely feudal aid to the Caliph, see Lewond 28 (128); cf. 25 (120) for the renown of the Armenian cavalry.Google Scholar

²⁹⁵ Supra n. 284.Google Scholar

²⁹⁶ Supra n. 281.Google Scholar

²⁹⁷ Supra n. 282.Google Scholar

²⁹⁸ Supra n. 283.Google Scholar

²⁹⁹ Kaspec'i, Ašxadarean (supra n. 287), and Abrahamean (supra n. 290). The first one is absolutely spurious. The second and third may, after all, represent azat names; though it seems highly unlikely.Google Scholar

³⁰⁰ While, as will be seen in Table V, of the authentic princely houses, 22 had 1,000 or more horse; 7 had 600 or 500; 19, 300; and only 3, 100; or, assuming the probabilities discussed infra in nn. 305 and 306, 23 had 1,000 or more; 10, 600 or 500; and 12, 100; the toponyms are apportioned as follows: 1, 300 (Artašesean); 4, 200 (Amaskoni, Awacac'i, Bužuni, Varjawuni); 10, 100 (Aycenakan, Boguni, C'oḷkepan, Hamastunean, Mazazac'i, Mehnuni, Sagratuni, Tamberac'i, Varazartikean, Varžnuni); 12, 50 (Ak'acac'i, Asčšnean, Bak'an, Gazrikan, Grzčuni, Gukan, Kinan, Krčuni, Patsparuni, Sodac'i, Tagrean, Vaṛnuni). I count the two Dimak'sean lines, each 300 strong, as one.Google Scholar

³⁰¹ The House of Trpatuni offers a case in point. This name is the same as Truni, as found in Ps. Moses (Adontz, Armenija 321 n. 3), but in the Register both forms appear: Truni is followed by the numeral 300 and Trapatuni by 100. This may, of course, be a case of duplication, or of sheer imagination, on the part of the author. Yet the difference in the figure may also suggest that while ‘Trpatuni’ stood for the nucleal land of the principality, ‘Truni’ represented that principality in its entirety, as composed of that land and of other territories. In the same way, Tayk’, the nucleal Mamikonid land is credited with 600, while the entire Mamikonid contribution is 1,000, and Phasiane is followed by 600, while Orduni, the nucleal unit in that valley, is ascribed 100. In these cases, the smaller figure may be considered as a part of the larger.Google Scholar

³⁰² For the azatk‘, see Introd. I 69–70, 99–101.Google Scholar

³⁰³ The name is Gazrikan; cf. supra nn. 270, 283, 286. This must be so a fortiori, if Adontz be right in asserting that, along with Gazrikan, Bak'an, Patsparuni, Vižanuni, Taygrean, etc. also became princedoms in late-Arab period: Armenija 321. — It could be supposed, on the other hand, that these toponyms were included in the Register as toponyms and that the fact of their becoming princedoms at a later date had nothing to do with the date of its compilation.Google Scholar

³⁰⁴ Supra n. 270.Google Scholar

³⁰⁵ The houses unmentioned by the Register are: Amatuni, Daštakaran, K'olean, Mardpetakan, !Sruanjit, Tašir, Urc. On the other hand, the Register credits the House of Ĕncayac'i [§ 14.15] with 4,000 horse, a patent impossibility for this decidedly secondary dynasty. Since, however, this house appears to have been a surviving branch of the Mardpets, left out of the Register, it seems very likely that the compiler ascribed to it the cavalry contingents of Mardpetakan, which in the post-Arsacid period became a princedom of the Arcrunis. Ĕnçayac'i, therefore, may, like five of the above houses, be credited with only 100 horse. — For the number of the post-Arsacid cavalry, see Adontz, , Armenija 287–288.Google Scholar

³⁰⁶ Of the houses omitted in the Register, Bagean, Balabitene, Jorap'or, and Koḷbap'or may be attributed 100 each; Amatuni, Asthianene, and Mahkert, being more important may be ascribed 500 each; while Lesser Sophene, no less important than Greater Sophene, may be credited with as much as the latter: 1,000.Google Scholar

³⁰⁷ Strabo 11.14.9: Ἀϱταουάσδης δὲ Ἀντωνίῳ χωϱὶς τῆς ἄλλης ἱππείας αὐτὴν τὴν ϰατάφϱαϰτον ἑξαϰισχιλίαν ἵππον ἐϰτάξας ἐπέδειξεν, ἡνίϰα εἰς τὴν Μηδίαν ἐνέβαλε σὺν αὐτῷ. Google Scholar

³⁰⁸ Adontz, Armenija 286–287.Google Scholar

⁸⁰⁹ Sebēos 30 (173). On another occasion, the Mamikonid and Bagratid princes are reported to have contributed to the Emperor 1,000 horse each; cf. Adontz, Armenija 289, n. 1.Google Scholar

³¹⁰ Faustus 3.8; cf. Adontz, Armenija 289.Google Scholar

³¹¹ Lewond 25 (120); cf. Adontz, Armenija 287–288.Google Scholar

³¹² Here are a few data culled at random. The Achaemenian Satrap of Armenia (a fraction of Great Armenia) used to send to the Great King 20,000 foals annually: Strabo 11.14.9. — Mithrobuzanes of Sophene met Lucullus with 2,000 horse: Appian, Mithr. 12.84. — An army of Tigranes the Great was 50,000 horse and 250,000 foot: ibid. 13.85. — Mithridates Eupator's Armenian auxiliary corps was about 35,000 horse and 70,000 foot: ibid. 13.87. — Oroezes of Albania and Artoces of Iberia placed 70,000 men in ambush for Pompey: ibid. 15.103. — Amazaspes II of Iberia mustered on one occasion 10,000 horse and 30,000 foot: Leont. Mrov. 55. — Vaxtang I of Iberia mustered 100,000 horse and 60,000 foot: uanšer 150. — Varaz-Bakur of Gardman dispatched to Vaxtang of Iberia an auxiliary force of 12,000 horse: ibid. — The Emperor Phocas claimed from the Armenians under his control 30,000 horse: Sebēos 20 (112); cf. also supra at nn. 308, 309, 310, 311. — It may be interesting to compare this with the total number of the forces of the Roman Empire prior to the death of Theodosius the Great: perhaps as high as 650,000; and with the 7,000 horse forming the private retinue of a general like Belisarius: Bury, Lat. Rom. Emp. I 40–41, 43.Google Scholar

³¹³ Introd. I 69.Google Scholar

³¹⁴ Introd. I 59–60. — The second list of Table V (slightly re-arranged) is taken from Prince Jean d'Arenberg, Les Princes du St.-Empire à l’époque napoléonienne (Louvain 1951) Table XIII 161–162. Like the Armenian Register, it does not show the full potential of the Princes; cf. ibid. 162 n. 42. The Germanic contingents were rather predominantly infantry; thus Westphalia's contribution was 20,000 foot, 3,500 horse, 1,500 artillery (ibid. 151); Saxony's occasional contribution in 1806 was 4,200 foot, 1,500 horse (ibid. 148). — The abbreviations in Table V are: D = duke, GD = grand duke, K = king, P = prince, V = vitaxa.Google Scholar

³¹⁵ Supra n. 305.Google Scholar

³¹⁶ Adontz, Armenija 272–277; cf. supra § 16 at n. 271. — It was customary, upon the arrival of the Armenian princely auxiliaries at the Court of their imperial suzerain of Iran, for the latter to send a high official to meet them on their way and to pose three of four times the ceremonial formulae of inquiry about the well-being of Armenia, and to inspect their troops; then to receive them himself in the presence of his Court and government and to address to them words of praise concerning individual princes and their ancestors: Eliseus 2 (56). On the other hand, the Great King would occasionally accord a lower rank at his table to a prince in disgrace and raise to a higher one a prince enjoying his favor: Adontz 273.Google Scholar

³¹⁷ Cf. Introd. I 56–57: this antiquarian spirit marks Ps. Moses, writing in the mid-eighth century; for this date, see my Orontids II 101–102.Google Scholar

³¹⁸ Thus, for instance, the Bznunis and the Murac'ans were not contemporary with the Abeḷeans and the Gabeḷeans.Google Scholar

³¹⁹ Accordingly, Grousset, for instance, asserted that the House of Kamsarakan ‘dans l'étiquette de l'ancienne cour … occupait “le quatorzième coussin”,’ or that of Ṛštuni ‘dans l'ancien protocole royal, occupait “le sixième coussin”’: Histoire 290, 292. Actually, in the Throne-List, their places were the twelfth and the seventh, respectively: infra Table XIII.Google Scholar

³²⁰ Cf. Adontz, , Armenija 238–292.Google Scholar

³²¹ Supra at n. 38.Google Scholar

³²² Toumanoff, Early Bagr. 26–27; in Traditio 5 382–383; and, for the date of the Gk. Agath., Peeters, ‘S. Grégoire l'Illuminateur dans le calendrier lapidaire de Naples,’ AB 60 (1942) 104–112.Google Scholar

³²³ Introd. I 65.Google Scholar

³²⁴ Arm. Agath. 112/795 (403–404); Gk. Agath. 136; Gk. Life of St. Gregory 98; Arab. Life 86: see infra, Supplementary Note C.Google Scholar

³²⁵ Arm. Agath. 126/873 (440–441); Gk. Agath. 165: see supra, § 5 at n. 37; infra, Supplementary Note C (II).Google Scholar

³²⁶ Documents; cf. my review in Traditio 5.373–383.Google Scholar

³²⁷ 3.4. [§ 13.16, 18].Google Scholar

³²⁸ 3.8. [§ 13.6].Google Scholar

³²⁹ Cf. Adontz, Armenija 242–243.Google Scholar

³³⁰ It is not clear whether the second Dimak'sean is the representative of the second line or merely a younger member of the same line. Adontz thinks that this was an indication of a secundo-geniture: supra n. 285.Google Scholar

³³¹ Adontz, Armenija 242–248. Not all of the seven lists of Lazarus are adverted to by him.Google Scholar

³³² Cf. Grousset, Histoire 188–207.Google Scholar

³³³ Supra § 9; 12.25.Google Scholar

³³⁴ Supra § 12, 8.Google Scholar

³³⁵ The Kamsarakans are aften mentioned by their other surname of Aršaruni [§ 12.16].Google Scholar

³³⁶ Toumanoff, Christian Caucasia 139, 141–145.Google Scholar

³³⁷ Bk. Lett. 42; cf. Adontz, Armenija 246 n. 1. — In this list the Bagratids are called by their gentilitial title of Aspet and the Xorxoṛunis by theirs of Maḷxaz.Google Scholar

³³⁸ Bk. Lett. 74; cf. Adontz, Armenija 246 n. 2. — In this list, as in the preceding one, maḷxaz stands for the Xorxoṛunis.Google Scholar

³³⁹ Ibid. 247 n. 1.Google Scholar

³⁴⁰ Sebēos 11 (90); also 6 (76–77), 18 (104), 30 (175).Google Scholar

³⁴¹ Supra n. 277.Google Scholar

³⁴² Supra n. 274. The numeration is that of the List; the spelling of the List has been corrected,Google Scholar

³⁴³ I do not think it a valid argument to say, as one might, that the post-Arsacid houses were in reality always there, but that Faustus and the Gregorian cycle omit all mention of them because of their comparative unimportance, because a number of houses of the same political weight are found in them, as Tables VII (Zarewand) and VII (Gnt'uni Dimak'sean, Bagean, Habužean, Her[-Zarewand]) will show. Adontz, on the other hand, was inclined to think that Ps. Moses failed to mention certain houses because their military potential was below 300 horse; yet he mentions the Ṛop'seans whose contribution was 100 (this Adontz would explain by their royal origin) and omits, as Adontz himself is bound to admit, several other houses whose contribution was precisely 300 (Sahaṛuni, Paluni, Eruanduni): Armenija 264–265. The obvious reason for Ps. Moses's omissions is the early extinction of these houses, whose comparative lack of importance made them escape the notice of the eighth-century antiquarian.Google Scholar

³⁴⁴ Introd. I 88–90, to be completed by supra § 11.Google Scholar

³⁴⁵ Introd. I 89.Google Scholar

³⁴⁶ Supra § 11; Iberia 17 n. 2; § 7–12, 17–19, 21–24, 26, 31, 32–34; Geneal. Table ad p. 258.Google Scholar

³⁴⁷ Iberia § 8, 11, 14, 16–17, 19, 21, 24, 27, 29, 31–32, 35; Geneal. Table ad p. 258; Bagr. of Iber. § 9, 12.Google Scholar

³⁴⁸ Iberia 218; Bagr. of Iber. n. 113 (date of uanšer).Google Scholar

³⁴⁹ My considering the Princes of Jorap'or, Koḷbap'or, Ašoc’, and Tašir as Iberian was erroneous: Introd. I n. 226; and so was my placing the Princes of Gardman (not Garbadani) among the ‘vassals’ of the Chosroid Arč'il, in Iberia 219 (see, for this, Bagr. of Iber. § 17–19).Google Scholar

³⁵⁰ Orontids II 87.Google Scholar

³⁵¹ Iberia 219, § 25–29, 31; Geneal. Table ad p. 258.Google Scholar

³⁵² Bagr. of Iber. § 10.Google Scholar

³⁵³ Introd. I 35–36, 37.Google Scholar

³⁵⁴ Strabo 11.2.13 (the Heniochi under four kings); 11.2.19 (the Soanes under a king); Arian, Periplus of the Euxine (A.D. 131) 15 (Τούτων δὲ ἔχονται Μαχέλονες ϰαὶ Ἡνίοχοι · βασιλεὺς δ’ αὐτῶν Ἀγχίαλος … Λαζοι · βασιλεὺς δὲ Λαζῶν Μαλάσσας, ὃς τὴν βασιλείαν παϱὰ σοῦ [scil. the Emperor Hadrian] ἔχει. Λαζῶν δὲ Ἀψίλαι ἔχονται · βασιλεύς δὲ αὐτῶν Ἰουλιανός · οὗτος ἐϰ τοῦ πατϱòς τοῦ σοῦ τὴν βασιλείαν ἔχει. Ἀψίλαις δὲ δμοϱοι Ἀβασϰοί · ϰαὶ Ἀβασϰῶν βασιλεὺς ‘Ρησμάγας · ϰαὶ οὗτος παϱὰ σοῦ τὴν βασιλείαν ἔχει. Ἀβασϰῶν δὲ ἐχόμενοι Σανίγαι, ἵναπεϱ ϰαὶ ἡ Σεβαστόπολις ᾤϰισται. Σανίγων βασιλεὶς Σπαδάγας ἐϰ σοῦ τὴν βασιλείαν ἔχει). There are other references, as in Pliny and Ptolemy, but they concern these and other groups as ethnic units without any indication of their political and dynastic structure. — See, for all this, avaxišvili, K'art’. er. ist. I 3–6, 28–30, 166, 173–175, 230–232; Gugushvili, Table 1–2, 149–152; Division 55–56; Lang, Stud. in Num. Hist. 6–11.Google Scholar

³⁵⁵ The sources for the Kingdom of Lazica (Egrisi, in Georgian) include Arrian (supra n. 354), Procopius, Menander, Agathias, Malalas, Chron. Pasch., Theophanes; see Javaxi, švili, Ka'rt’. er. ist. I 239–240, 243–244, 246–262, 274–276; Gugushvili, Table 152–153; Division 56–58; Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire I (Desclée de Brouwer 1959) 352–353, 357; II 267–271, 303, 492–494, 503–521; Brosset, in Additions et éclaircissements à l'Histoire de la Géorgie (St. Petersburg 1851) 81–107; Herrmann s. v. ‘Lazai,’ RE 12.1042–1043; Minorsky, Y. s. v. ‘Lāz,’ Encycl. of Islam 3/37.20–22; Vasiliev, A., Justin the First (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1950) 255–268. — There are two rulers of Lazica mentioned, respectively, c. 662 and 696/697, who appear to have been Presiding Princes of Lazica, and as such no doubt local dynasts or even scions of the royal house. One is Lebarnicius, patricius Lazicae (Hypomnestikon of Theodosius and Theodore, priests of Gangra: PG 90.195), the other, Σέϱγιος ὁ πατϱίϰιος τῆς Λαζιϰῆς ϰαὶ [var. ὁ] τοῦ Βαϱνουϰίου, who revolted against the Empire and submitted to the Arabs (Theophanes, Chron. 752: Καὶ ἐστασίαοε Σ… . ϰαὶ ταύτην τοῖς Ἄϱαψιν ὑπέταξεν; [var. Γεώϱγιος, Βαϱνοϰίον]; the near-contemporary Latin transl. of Anastasius the Librarian, made in the second half of the ninth century, has: ‘seditioneque Sergius concitata, patricius Lazicae, hanc Arabibus subdit’ PG 108.1340; this rules out the variant of the praenomen). There can be little doubt that ‘Lebarnicius’ is another rendering of the same name as ‘Barnucius,’ which would make the two Patricians of Lazica father and son. I cannot share Ingoroqva's assurance in making of them members of the House of Abkhazia [2], by equating ‘Lebarnicius-Barnucius’ with Baruk in the genealogy of that house and thus ascribing to Baruk's son Demetrius a brother George (not Sergius!): Giorgi Merč'ule (Tiflis 1954) 193, 194, 196.Google Scholar

³⁵⁶ The sources include Arrian (supra n. 354); Procopius; Anastasius Apocrisiarius, Letter to Theodore of Gangra PG 90.175 (‘amici Christi principes Abasgiae’), 176 (the third Prince of Apsilia and Misimiana [3] died in January 665 ‘apud Christi amicum Abasgiae principen!’); Theophanes, Chron. 792 (ὁ δὲ Ἀβασγῶν ϰύϱιος); Martyrdom of St. Abo (786/790);. J̌uanšer (790/800); Divan of the Kings (embodying the genealogy of the House of Abasgia) by Bagrat III (t 1014); Chron. Iber.; see avaxišvili, K'art’. er. ist. 254–255; Gugushvili, Table 120–122, 139–140; Division 54, 58; Ingoroqva, Giorgi Merč'ule 189–249 (cf. supra n. 255); Stein, Hist. du Bas-Empire II 304, 507; Peeters, ‘Les Khazars dans la Passion de Abo, S. de Tiflis,’ AB 52 (1934) 21–56; J̌anašia, S., ‘O vremeni i uslovijax vozniknovenija Abxazskogo carstva,’ Bulletin de l'Institut Marr 8 (1940) 137–152; Allen, History 81, 83–84. Avalichvili, Z., ‘La succession du curopalate David d'Ibérie, dynaste de Tao,’ Byzantion 8 (1933); Toumanoff, Chronology of the Kings of Abasgia 73–82; Brosset, Additions 174. — The princely house of Anč'abaje (with its branches of Anč'abaje-Abxazi and Mač'abeli) of Georgia and the Russian Empire bears the same name as that given to the ancient House of Abasgia: Allen, loc. cit.; Dolgorukov, Ross. rod. kniga III 480–481; Sbornik svjedenij o kavkazskix gorcax 6 (Tiflis 1872) 29. — For the House of Šarvašije, Dukes (from the eleventh century) and (from the fifteenth) Princes of Abkhazia, see Brosser, , Hist. de la Gè. II/1 (St. Petersburg 1856) Add. ix, Tables généal. 649–650; Dolgorukov III 56–57; Spiski 103–104; Allen 107, 122, 137, 189, 207; Manvelichvili, A., Histoire de Géorgie (Paris 1951) 390–394; Gugushvili, Table 145. — Distinction is made here between the nucleal land of Abkhazia and the West Georgian Monarchy of Abasgia: both are Ap'xazet'i in Georgian and Ἀβασγία in Greek; cf. my Chronology 73.Google Scholar

³⁵⁷ Arrian (supra n. 354); Procopius; Agathias; Menander; Anastasius Apocr. 174–175; Theophanes, Chron. 796, 797 (Marinus of Apsilia); see Stein, , Hist. du Bas-Emp. II 303, 507, 515, 812; Ingoroqva, Giorgi Mcrč'ule 126–127, 140–145.Google Scholar

³⁵⁸ Supra n. 354.Google Scholar

³⁵⁹ Strabo; Arrian (supra n. 354); Procopius; Menander; Priscus; see Stein, , Hist. du Bas-Empire I 357; II 303; K. Güterbock, Byzanz und Persien (Berlin 1906) 106–108; Gugushvili, Division 54–55, 56. For the identity of the root S-N (Introd. I 20–21) in both ‘Suania’ and ‘Sanigae’, see Allen, , History 28. That the Saniges of Arrian represent the Suanians, then still lingering on the littoral, there can be little question. The Soanes of Strabo (11.2.19) dwell in the neighborhood of the city of Dioscurias (modern Suxum), and the Saniges of Arrian, in the vicinity of ‘Sebastopolis,’ which is the name Arrian gives to the same Dioscurias: cf. Chapot, V., La frontière de l'Euphrate (Paris 1907) 214, 366–367; C. Müller, Claudii Ptolemaei Geographia I 2 (Paris 1901) ix, p. 922 (note). — For the House of Gelovani, Dukes (from the eleventh century) and (from the fifteenth) Princes of Suania, as well as that of Dadešk'eliani, succeeding it in the eighteenth century, see Brosset, , Hist. de la Gé. 1/2 433; Dolgorukov, Ross. rod. kniga III 471; Manvelichvili, Histoire 387–390; Gugushvili, Table 145; Allen, History 137, 207. — Suania = Georg. Svanet'i.Google Scholar

³⁶⁰ Kaḷankatuac'i or Dasxuranc'i. The compilation ascribed to him is brought down to the late tenth century and continued to the beginning of the twelfth: Abeḷyan, Ist. drevearm. lit. I 390–391; Trever, Oc. po ist. Alb. 11–16; Dowsett, C. J. F., The History of the Caucasian Albanians by Movsēs Dasxuranci (London Oriental Series 8, Oxford 1961) xi-xx.Google Scholar

³⁶¹ The earliest royal house of Albania is said by the historical tradition to have been descended from the divine eponym of the Albanians, Aṛan, himself in turn a descendant of Hayk: Moses, P. 2.8; Moses Kaḷ. 1.4,6,15. (For the Armenian Arsacid provenance of the linking of the Albanian royalty with the Armenian eponym, see Trever, , Oč. po ist. Alb. 145.) Whether derived from Aṛan the eponym, or parallelly with it from the ethnicon Aṛan (= Albania: Introd. I 52 and n. 114), the term Aṛanšahik/Eṛanšahik can manifestly have been used to designate only the Albanian kings; cf. Krymskij, Stranicy iz istorii 290 n. 3. For Krymskij (followed by me in Introd. I 35 n. 69 [= 36]), this was the title of the Albanian Arsacids. Yet Moses Kaḷ. everywhere distinguishes between the latter and the House of Aṛanšahik; and so also do Trever (235) and Dowsett (Hist. Cauc. Alb. 108 n. 3), neither of which was available to me when writing Introd. I. The House of Aṛanšahik must, thus, have been the pre-Arsacid royal house and its descendants. It was, however, the hostility not of the Arsacids, but of the Mihranids of Gardman that exterminated this family, with the exception of Zarmihr, who was married to a Mihranid princess: Moses Kaḷ. 2.17. In 1.27, Varaz P'erož of the House of Aṛanšhik is mentioned as settled at Gis; it is there that the House of Varaz P'erož is mentioned (as in the seventh century) in 2.32, where it is said to bear the title of ḷak'nar (‘Butler’?: cf. Dowsett, 137 n. 3). Vač'agan Eṛanšahik defended Albania against the Khazars in 714: 3.16; and in the ninth century, Sahl i Smbatean, designated as both an Eṛanšahik and a Zaṛmirhakan, played a considerable role in eastern Caucasia: Moses Kaḷ 3.20, 21; cf. Minorsky, V., ‘Caucasica IV,’ Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 1953 15/3, 505–510. Sahl's patronymic, on the other hand, may indicate a Bagratid origin: Toumanoff, Eearly Bagr. 44–54, 39 (where I was in error considering the Siunid Atrnerseh, son of Sahl, who married the last Mihranid princess, a son of Sahl i Smbatean). Possibly the émigré Bagratids succeeded in Albania to the House of Aṛanšahik, precisely as they succeeded in Iberia to that of the Guaramids. At all events, the subsequent Kings of trans-Cyran Albania (Šakkī-Heret'i; for this, see my Bagr. of Iber. I note 26) may have been of the dynasty of Sahl i Smbatean: Dowsett 221 n. 6.Google Scholar

³⁶² Moses Kaḷ. 3.10; cf. 3.8.Google Scholar

³⁶³ Moses Kaḷ. 3.10; cf. 2.32; 3.8.Google Scholar

³⁶⁴ Moses Kaḷ. 2.32 (as of the seventh century): the Houses of Čnšmi (Čnšmiyan) and Mamšeḷ (Mamšeḷun) in Sacasene, Heǰeri beyond the Cyrus; the ‘Sacristan’ Varažan at Aražakan, and Tuerak. The ‘Sacristan Varažan’ is Dowsett's rendering (Hist. Cauc. Alb. 137) of Varažanu spasatunn; this may be explained in the light of the lay adoption of ecclesiastical titles which can be seen manifested in the title of Chorepiscopus borne, somewhat later, by the neighboring Princes of Kakhetia. One may venture, on the other hand, to see here a reference to the Armenian house of Varažnuni [§ 12.29]: a corrupt form of something like Varažnuni orsapet [= Master of the Chase, supra n. 279], and an indication of this dynasty's connection with Albania. In Moses Kaḷ. 3.10 (as at the beginning of the eighth century) are mentioned also, by praenomina and patronymics (with the Persian iḍāfat), the following: Vahan i Varaz- Yohanean, of the Madianac'ik’ of Iran (Dowsett 197 n. 2: Midianites, or inhabitants of Ctesiphon = Madā'in), a Jacobite settled in Cambysene; Rostom i Varazk'oyean, originating from Stahr in Iran and settled at Kaḷankaytuk’, in Otene; and ‘the sons of the lords of Dailam’ Zarmihr i Varaz-K'urdakean and Mahmat Šeroyan; cf. 3.8. The last three items, as well as some other names with personal patronymics found elsewhere, contain no indication as to the families involved.Google Scholar