Mattos Uhayeci and His Chronicle (Medieval Mediterranean) (English and Armenian Edition) [Bilingual ed.] 9004330348, 9789004330344

Citation preview

Mattʿēos Uṙhayecʿi and His Chronicle

The Medieval Mediterranean peoples, economies and cultures, 400–1500

Managing Editor Frances Andrews (St. Andrews)

Editors Tamar Herzig (Tel Aviv) Paul Magdalino (St. Andrews) Larry J. Simon (Western Michigan University) Daniel Lord Smail (Harvard University) Jo Van Steenbergen (Ghent University)

Advisory Board David Abulafia (Cambridge) Benjamin Arbel (Tel Aviv) Hugh Kennedy (soas, London)

volume 108

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/mmed

Mattʿēos Uṙhayecʿi and His Chronicle History as Apocalypse in a Crossroads of Cultures

by

Tara L. Andrews

leiden | boston

Cover illustration: The Byzantine capture of Edessa in Syria (1031) led by Giorgios Maniakes, and the Arabic counterattack. Miniature from Synopsis Historiōn by Iōannēs Scylitzēs (fl. late 11th c.), MS Graecus Vitr. 26/2, fol. 205r. With kind permission of the Biblioteca Nacional de España. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Andrews, Tara L. (Tara Lee), 1978- author. Title: Mattʿeos Urhayecʿi and his chronicle : history as apocalypse in a crossroads of cultures / by Tara L. Andrews. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, 2017. | Series: The Medieval Mediterranean peoples, economies and cultures, 400-1500 ; volume 108 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: lccn 2016045238 (print) | lccn 2016052600 (ebook) | isbn 9789004330344 (hardback : alk. paper) | isbn 9789004330351 (E-book) Subjects: lcsh: Latin Orient–History. | Crusades–First, 1096-1099–Sources. | Armenia–History–428-1522. | Matthew, of Edessa, active 12th century. Classification: lcc d183 .a53 2017 (print) | lcc d183 (ebook) | ddc 956.6/2014–dc23 lc record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016045238

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 0928-5520 isbn 978-90-04-33034-4 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-33035-1 (e-book) Copyright 2017 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Global Oriental and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

For David, Helen, and Tav, who drew me eastward.

∵

Contents Acknowledgments xi Transliteration of Names and Places

xiii

1 The Origins of the Chronicle 1 The Author of the Chronicle 3 Uṙhayecʿi’s Edessa 9 The Armenian Historiographical Tradition Uṙhayecʿi’s Sources of Information 15

12

2 The New Age of Prophecy: The Chronicle’s Place in Armenian Historiography 23 Armenian Historical Philosophy 23 Uṙhayecʿi’s Historical Philosophy 27 The Prophecies of Yovhannēs Kozeṙn 30 The Prophecies Fulfilled: The Structure of the Chronicle 37 Conclusion 43 3 ‘The Violent Massacres, This Dreadful Wrath’: Armenia in the Chronicle 44 The Idealized Past: The Presentation of Pre-1020 Armenia 46 The Loss of the Armenian Kingdoms: 1000–1045 49 471–472 (1021–1024): Basil ii’s Eastern Campaign and Its Consequences 52 490–494 (1041–1046): Turkish Invasions and the Loss of Independence 57 The Occupied East and the Armenians in Exile 60 The Royal Families in Exile 62 The Rise and Fall of Philaretos 64 The Armenian Magnates of Cilicia and Syria 66 The Slow Revival: The Armenians and the Crusaders 68 The Rise of Georgia, 1121–1129 70 Conclusion 71 4 ‘Under the Aegis of the Roman Emperor’: Uṙhayecʿi on Byzantium 74 The Era of Growing Byzantine Domination over the Armenians 79 The Waning of Byzantine Influence 91 Conclusions 98

viii

contents

5 Muslim, Persian, or Turk? The Armenian Chronicler and the ‘Infidels’ 101 The Role of Muslims within Armenian History 105 Which Muslims? 108 Tenth-century Muslims in the Chronicle 110 The Appearance of the Turks 112 Reality and Myth: The Armenians under Turkish Domination 114 Conclusion 119 6 ‘The Nation of Valiant Ones’: The Crusaders in Uṙhayecʿi’s Eyes The Local Background to the Crusade 123 The Place of the Crusaders in the Prophetic Framework of Kozeṙn 127 Uṙhayecʿi as a Source for Crusading Politics 133 Conclusion 138 7 ‘Many Break Away from the Faith’: Eastern Christianity in the Chronicle 139 Before the Fall: Ecclesiastical History before 1033 142 The Recent Past: Uṙhayecʿi’s Church in Uncertain Times 148 The Armenian Church in the Wake of the First Crusade 151 The Community of Clerics as Seen in the Chronicle 152 Aftermath: Byzantium in Cilicia and the Council of Jerusalem 153 8 The History of the Chronicle 155 The Text of the Chronicle 155 Use by Later Armenian Historians 158 Grigor Erēcʿ 158 The Earliest Witness: Smbat Sparapet 159 Recognition by Later Historians 162 The Manuscript Tradition of the Chronicle 164 The Venice Group 165 The Vienna Group 167 The Copyist of Lviv 169 The Vałaršapat Primary Text 170 Print Publication and Modern Reception 171 9 Conclusion

177

121

contents

Appendix a: Text and Translation of Selected Excerpts from the Chronicle 183 Appendix b: Lists of Rulers of the Period 232 Appendix c: List of all Known Manuscripts 233 Maps 235 Bibliography 238 Index 251

ix

Acknowledgments Any large undertaking incurs many debts of gratitude, and this book has been no exception. My profound thanks must go to my husband, Mike Knell, who initially encouraged me to return for my doctorate and who has ensured constant moral support, occasional typing assistance, and uninterrupted supplies of tea. The original research behind the book would have been equally impossible without the support of my D.Phil. supervisor, Prof. Theo M. van Lint, who saw me through with patience, humour, and frequent reminders that literature is as important as history. I would also like to thank the following people and institutions: The Mekhitarist Fathers of Venice and Vienna, the Maštocʿ Institute of Ancient Manuscripts (Matenadaran) in Yerevan, the British Library, the Bibliothèque Nationale, and the Hill Museum and Manuscript Library, for graciously providing physical access to, and digital copies of, manuscripts of the Chronicle. Past and present members of the Late Antique and Byzantine Studies programme at the University of Oxford, who saw me through my studies and later research with constant friendship, collegiality, and support. Special thanks must go to Meredith Riedel, Emilio Bonfiglio, Philip Wood, Philip Booth, Catherine Holmes, Marc Lauxtermann, Mark Whittow, Tim Greenwood, Elizabeth and Michael Jeffreys, James Howard-Johnston, David Taylor, Ida Toth, and Peter Frankopan. The Colin Matthew fund of St. Hugh’s College and the faculty fund of the Oriental Institute at Oxford, as well as Jean Knell, each of whom provided some of the financial assistance necessary to visit these libraries. Linacre College Oxford, for their award of a Mary Blaschko Graduate Scholarship for 2006–2008 that enabled me to take up my doctorate, their assistance with conference travel via the Old Members’ Trust, and their indispensable assistance in various administrative matters. Dr James Cotton of the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, who provided invaluable advice and assistance in the application of phylogenetic methods to help understand the transmission history of the surviving manuscripts. My legion of proofreaders, including Alan Knell, Rita Andrews, Jasmin Raufer, Tim Stadelmann, Michael Kröll, Betsy Moss, Patrick Dersjant, Josh Warren, Evelyn Belter, and Andromeda Yelton. The members of the Vienna.pm Verein, for unfailing hospitality on my multiple visits to the city and the library there, and for the opportunity to speak about my work on computer-assisted textual criticism to the Twin Cities Perl

xii

acknowledgments

Workshop; and the members of the London Perl Mongers, who were ever on hand to assist with technical matters. Marcella Mulder and the production team at Brill, for unfailing support in what has been a very long and winding journey for this book.

Transliteration of Names and Places My aim in the transliteration of names and places within this book has been to be as clear as possible without being unnecessarily pedantic. For Armenian names, I have used the Hübschmann-Meillet system: ա բ գ դ ե զ է ը թ ժ

a b g d e z ē ə tʿ ž

ի լ խ ծ կ հ ձ ղ ճ մ

i l x c k h j ł č m

յ ն շ ո չ պ ջ ռ ս վ

y n š o čʿ p ǰ ṙ s v

տ ր ւ ց փ ք օ ֆ ու

t r w cʿ pʿ kʿ ō f u

For Greek, Syriac, and other Near Eastern languages I have used the Library of Congress transliteration system. Where a person or a place has alternative names in more than one language, I have tried to used that which strikes the best balance between familiarity to readers and frequence of appearance in the sources in that form. Thus Edessa rather than Uṙha, Manzikert rather than Manazkert, Philaretos rather than Pʿilardos.

chapter 1

The Origins of the Chronicle The original Chronicle of Mattʿēos Uṙhayecʿi, known to most Western historians as Matthew of Edessa, was completed sometime between 1130 and 1137. At that time Edessa was a majority-Christian city, populated primarily by Syrians and Armenians. Until the Crusades swept into the area just before the turn of the twelfth century, control of the city had been passed between Byzantine officials, agents of the Turkish sultan, and quasi-independent warlords. It had most recently been held by a Christian warlord evidently of Armenian heritage, Tʿoros, who along with the Christian (often Armenian) rulers of other cities throughout the region was compelled to perform a delicate balancing act between Edessa’s powerful neighbours, the Byzantines to the north and the Turkish emirs to the south. As the Crusading knights marched toward Jerusalem in 1097 one of their number, Baldwin of Boulogne, took advantage of Edessene antipathy toward Tʿoros to become the ruler of Edessa in his own right, and in so doing established the first of the Latin Crusader states in the East. The Armenians initially welcomed the Franks as ‘liberators’ and protectors from the ever-present threat of invasion, but they quickly grew disillusioned as they observed their Latin rulers settling into much the same patterns as the local warlords who preceded them, both Christian and Muslim. The emperor in Constantinople, who considered the nearby principality of Antioch to be an imperial possession that had been effectively stolen in 1098 by its Crusader prince, contested Latin rule in the region, while the Turks never ceased their attempts to take Edessa and its surrounding territory. It is against this turbulent background that Uṙhayecʿi came to write the history of his times. The result was the Chronicle, a record of the years from 451 of the Armenian era (952/3) down to what was for him the recent past, the year 577 (1128/39), and continued by a priest named Grigor down to the year 611 (1162/3). It is the earliest, and often the only, Armenian account we have of the period after the fall of the autonomous kingdoms, the appearance of the Seljuq Turks, and the establishment of the Crusader states. The significance of the Chronicle to anyone who would study the history of the Near East before and during the Crusades is indisputable, and has long been recognized. It is the only substantial surviving eyewitness account, from an eastern Christian perspective, of the First Crusade. It is also an indispensable source for the history of the Armenians, following them from the last decades of the independent kingdoms of the Caucasus through the Byzantine annexation

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004330351_002

2

chapter 1

of their ancestral lands and their emigration en masse into Cappadocia, Syria, and Cilicia. Uṙhayecʿi’s history overlaps with the eleventh-century historical lament of Aristakēs of Lastivert, and the information therein has been used as a basis of comparison to Aristakēs’ history and, to a lesser extent, to the tenth-century Universal History of Stepʿanos Asołik. Together with these two other Armenian sources, the Chronicle performs a similar role for Byzantine historians of the tenth and eleventh centuries as it does for Crusader historians of the early twelfth—it is an apparently independent account of events written from the perspective of a Christian outsider. Less well-understood is how this history came to be, what its author intended to accomplish, how modern readers should understand it, and how historians of the modern era can and cannot rely upon it for historical reconstruction. From the perspective of historical literature Uṙhayecʿi’s work has usually been dismissed as a dry record of events, lacking any literary style. As a consequence its author is presumed innocent of any intentional embellishment or manipulation of his material. Insofar as modern logic permits, therefore, historians have tended to take Uṙhayecʿi’s information as a straightforward report of events, however subject to bias and however inexpertly pieced together. To accept this judgment, however, is to do a grave disservice not only to Uṙhayecʿi himself but also to our understanding of the history he records. A full-length study of the literary structure of the Chronicle and an analysis of its value as a historical source is long overdue, and the purpose of this book is to provide that study and analysis. We must begin by asking: who was Uṙhayecʿi? What environment produced him, and to what purpose did he write the Chronicle? The key to our study and analysis lies in the answer to these questions. We will examine Uṙhayecʿi’s environment of Edessa in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries, as well as the Armenian cultural heritage that he claimed as his own. We will see that Uṙhayecʿi has provided the key to his interpretation of history in the form of two prophecies attributed to the eleventh-century hermit Yovhannēs Kozeṙn, and we will examine the effect that Uṙhayecʿi’s apocalyptic understanding of the course of events had on his portrayal of Byzantines, Armenians, Franks, Turks, and others. Finally we will look briefly at the way that the Chronicle was received and used by later scholars and students of Armenian history, in a study of the features of its transmission history.

the origins of the chronicle

3

The Author of the Chronicle Our first question, who Uṙhayecʿi was, is the most difficult to answer. The only biographical information that exists about him is given in the two short autobiographical prefaces that break the work logically into three sections. He was a monk, an elder (erecʿ) in a monastery in Edessa, which implies that he was born perhaps in the third quarter of the eleventh century.1 Uṙhayecʿi was possibly the first historian within the Armenian tradition who did not hold the rank of vardapet, the ecclesiastical scholars of the Armenian church, and he was very conscious of this lack of qualification. On this point his prefaces bear some comparison with the genre of colophons that was beginning to flourish among Armenian scribes around the time he wrote.2 These prefaces are not colophons in the usual sense—they do not begin with the near-universal ‘Glory [to God / the Trinity] …’ and make no mention of sponsors or requests for prayers. They do draw to a certain very limited extent on the usual formulae, and he certainly expresses the humility that is a common feature of the colophons, but they do not follow the typical pattern by which these are expressed. Rather than direct epithets at himself, Uṙhayecʿi tends to justify his work in spite of his ignorance. He expresses dismay that no one more qualified has taken the trouble to write the history of the times, and concludes that God has chosen him to carry out the work to the best of his abilities, despite his weaknesses. It is also notable that in the preface to Book Three he sets down an elaborate metaphor portraying himself as a ship captain coming home after a long and arduous voyage, an image reminiscent of formulae widespread throughout the Greek world and also adopted by Latin and Syriac scribes.3 Uṙhayecʿi evidently set out to chronicle 180 years, but put the work aside for a time before beginning to write the history of the final thirty years. In the preface to his second book he writes that he has been working on the project for eight years; in the preface to his third book, that number has jumped to fifteen. He evidently did not complete the work that he intended—his last chronicle entry is for the Armenian year 577 (1128/9), three years short of his goal. His history was continued by an author who identifies himself as Grigor, a priest and resident of nearby Kesun, and who recorded events in a somewhat more haphazard fashion down to the year 611 (1162/3). The entry

1 N. Połarean suggests 1070; see Połarean, Hay Grołner, p. 218. 2 Sirinian, ‘Colophons’, p. 73. This article serves as a very good introduction to the genre of colophons as a whole, with several examples of the typical formulae. 3 Sirinian, ‘Colophons’, pp. 93–95.

4

chapter 1

following Uṙhayecʿi’s last, which is for the year 585 (1136/7) and describes events in ‘our town’ of Kesun, has traditionally been attributed to Uṙhayecʿi rather than Grigor.4 The presumption of Uṙhayecʿi’s authorship of the 585 entry is strange in that it begs a number of questions. First, and most obviously, it produces an extremely uncharacteristic eight-year gap between Uṙhayecʿi’s final two entries. While Uṙhayecʿi did not necessarily write an entry for every year, the gaps became markedly shorter and rarer as events approached his own lifetime— no more than two years at a time are skipped throughout Book Two and no more than one after 537 (1088/9), and in the entire span of Book Three only a single year (565 [1116/17]) appears to have been missed. Second, Uṙhayecʿi’s authorship of an entry for the year 585 would contradict his own assertion that he intended to write the history of thirty years, thus drawing to a close in 580 (1131/2). The editors of the Jerusalem edition unquestioningly accepted Uṙhayecʿi’s authorship of the 585 entry, and presumed that the arithmetic in the prefaces to Books Two and Three was faulty, although they reserved judgment on whether the fault had been with a copyist or with Uṙhayecʿi himself.5 Their judgment has been either explicitly6 or implicitly accepted by most of the scholars who followed. The third consequence that would require an explanation is a move by Uṙhayecʿi, without comment or explanation, from Edessa to Kesun. While moving Uṙhayecʿi himself to Kesun would make it trivially explicable how the manuscript of his Chronicle came to be in the city to be continued by Grigor, there has generally been no explanation attempted by scholars for what might have caused him to move and, more critically, no hint of an upheaval or a change in Uṙhayecʿi’s circumstances or those of Edessa within the text. In fact the assignment of the 585 entry to Uṙhayecʿi seems to rest solely upon the fact that Grigor introduces himself by name only in the next entry. Uṙhayecʿi’s own preface to Book Three argues strongly against the idea of his authorship. He makes repeated reference to ‘thirty years’ of history to cover,

4 See Dulaurier’s preface to the French translation (Chronique, pp. ix–x); Dostourian’s preface to the English translation (Armenia and the Crusades, p. 1); MacEvitt, ‘Matthew of Edessa’, p. 161 and Ačaṙyan, ‘Matt‘ēos Uṙhayec‘i’, p. 350. The traditional assignment of this entry to Uṙhayecʿi has, however, already been called into question by Połarean, Hay Grołner, p. 218; Bozoyan, Byuzandiayi arevelyan kʿałakʿakanutʿyuně, pp. 27–29 and Greenwood, ‘Armenian Sources’, p. 234. 5 Patmutʿiwn Mattʿēosi Uṙhayecʿwoy, p. 570, n. 211. 6 e.g. Ačaṙyan, ‘Matt‘ēos Uṙhayec‘i’, p. 353.

the origins of the chronicle

5

and even writes that he has completed 25 or 277 of them. Moreover, as MacEvitt himself notes,8 it is uncharacteristic of Uṙhayecʿi to lapse into the first person as the author of the entry has done. Elsewhere in the Chronicle he does this only within his prefaces, in a lament over the fate of the city of Arcn in the mid tenth-century, and in railing against Frankish rule around 1117. The most compelling evidence that the 577 entry was Uṙhayecʿi’s last, however, comes from the manuscript tradition itself—several manuscripts, including that of the base text used in the current edition of 1898,9 carry annotations at that point to indicate the change of authorship. At what point did Uṙhayecʿi begin his work, and when did he finally put down his pen? The clues given in his prefaces are somewhat contradictory. The preface to Book Two states that Uṙhayecʿi had, after working for eight years, written about 100 years of history and had 80 more to write. This suggests that he was writing during or after the Armenian year 580 (1131/2): Now indeed up to this point, through fatiguing and laborious examination, we have found out and written this historical work about [the events of] 100 years […] So indeed I had this intention, and for eight years I was engaged in unceasing research, and I was eager to put all this in writing as witness and as a document, so that all these eras might not perish in evil bitterness and be forgotten. […] We have that and even more to say to you about the labour of 80 years of Mattʿēos Uṙhayecʿi, elder of a monastery.10 However, in the preface to Book Three he writes that ‘it was in the reign of the Armenian katholikoi11 Lord Grigor and Lord Barseł when the beginning of this world history first arose.’ He also states that ‘from Adam there were six thousand and six hundred and ten years of time’.12 This does suggest that Uṙhayecʿi

7 8 9

10 11

12

These numbers, իե and իէ, are easily mistaken for each other in manuscripts, and both appear in the manuscript tradition. MacEvitt, ‘Matthew of Edessa’, p. 161. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), preface, p. v. The manuscript in question, Matenadaran ms. 1693 / 1896, is still considered the most authoritative of the extant copies (see below. p. 170). It is therefore particularly strange that the editors disregarded the evidence of their own base text in order to preserve the mis-assignment of the 585 entry. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 112–114 in the Armenian. The katholikos is the head of the Armenian apostolic church, which has been effectively autocephalous since its beginning, and entirely independent of the Orthodox communion since the early seventh century. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 277; Dostourian, Armenia and the Crusades, p. 181. The trans-

6

chapter 1

began his work as early as 1101/02, which corresponds to the Byzantine anno mundi date 6610. If we add the eight years of work that he claims in his preface to Book Two, it suggests that he finished the first part of the Chronicle in 1110, but if we accept these dates, how can we explain Uṙhayecʿi’s choice of an arbitrary date twenty years in the future—that is, eighty years after the Armenian year 500—as the point where he intended to conclude his work? In the first instance Uṙhayecʿi went on to record only fifty more years of history, bringing the narrative down to the Armenian year 550 (1101/2), before his next preface informs us that he laid down his pen for some time. One cannot help but wonder if the ‘80 years’ the reader is led to expect in the first preface may originally have read ‘50’. This suspicion is not altogether new.13 There is no textual evidence of an emendation to suggest that the arithmetic was updated either by Uṙhayecʿi himself or by a later scribe, although the lack of any surviving copies before the end of the sixteenth century means that the possibility cannot be dismissed out of hand. Uṙhayecʿi writes in the preface to Book Three that he ‘ceased [his] productive investigations’ after writing the history of 150 years, and was finally induced to take up his pen again when he saw that no one else was willing to continue the work he had begun. He describes his later efforts: Indeed no one is able to do this thing that we did, for what we wrote is written, because for 15 years we have been engaged in this work of research. Having read written works, we found the dates of the eras in colophons of books, and having entered into research with old men we have engaged ceaselessly in research, and when we had collected these things we wrote them in this book. […] we found the earlier text which we had left, when we were in the year 550. And so we began to speak about another 2514 years and there are 30 years to the end of this book; for the [years of the] Armenian era have grown amid many tribulations.15 What dates were spanned by these fifteen years, and did they include the eight years mentioned in Book Two? That is, in what year did Uṙhayecʿi stop writing? Since he expressed the intention to extend the Chronicle to 1131, there can be little question that the preface was written in or after that year. A terminus ante quem can be found circumstantially: he gives a highly complimentary

13 14 15

lation reads ‘there are six thousand six hundred and ten years from Adam to the present’, which makes little sense in the context of the ‘present’ around 1128. Ačaṙyan, ‘Matt‘ēos Uṙhayec‘i’, pp. 353–354. or 27; see note 7. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 280.

the origins of the chronicle

7

treatment to the Byzantine emperor Iōannēs ii Komnenos (1118–1143), who in 1137 led a military campaign into Cilicia and Syria. At that time much of Cilicia was ruled by the powerful Armenian family of the Rubenids, who had established themselves there before the First Crusade and by the 1130s were important allies of the Latin rulers of Antioch, the recovery of which was the emperor’s primary goal. The campaign was a success—not only did the emperor force at least a symbolic submission of Antioch to Byzantine power, but he also captured Lewon, the Rubenid prince of Cilicia, together with his wife and son Tʿoros and exiled them to Constantinople, seemingly breaking their power for good (only around 1143, almost certainly after Uṙhayecʿi’s own death, did Tʿoros escape Constantinople to return to power in Cilicia, where in 1198 or 1199 his nephew Lewon was crowned king of Cilician Armenia). It is thus fairly safe to say that Uṙhayecʿi must have ceased writing by 1137, or else we could not expect such a flattering treatment of Iōannēs Komnenos. Three solutions have been proposed to the riddle of Uṙhayecʿi’s dates of authorship. The first, proposed by Ačarean, is elegant in its arithmetic but relies too closely upon narrow and in some cases erroneous interpretations of the text of the Jerusalem edition, as well as upon the presumption that Uṙhayecʿi wrote the entry for 585 (1136/7). He concludes that Uṙhayecʿi began Book One in 1113 and Book Two in 1121, finishing these in 1128, and that after a hiatus of ten years he wrote Book Three around 1138.16 A different assertion of Uṙhayecʿi’s dates of authorship (without, unfortunately, any supporting argument) is given by Połarean, who bases his information on the Jerusalem edition as well, perhaps, as on parts of the argument of Ačarean. His arithmetic leads him to conclude that Uṙhayecʿi composed Book One over eight years between 1102–1110, Book Two over fifteen years between 1110–1125, and Book Three during the 1130s, possibly 1136.17 More recently, MacEvitt has argued for a solution similar to that of Połarean, although he begins Uṙhayecʿi’s ‘fifteen years’ from 1102 and suggests thereby that Uṙhayecʿi wrote the preface to Book Three around 1116–1117, and he erroneously accepts Uṙhayecʿi’s authorship of the entry for 585 (1136–1137).18 Both of these solutions take as a premise that Uṙhayecʿi wrote the preface to Book Three as a prelude to producing its contents, but this seems to be contradicted by Uṙhayecʿi’s assertion therein that he has already set down 25 (or 27) of the thirty years he intended to cover. Thus, although it is reasonably likely that Uṙhayecʿi

16 17 18

Ačaṙyan, ‘Matt‘ēos Uṙhayec‘i’. Połarean, Hay Grołner, p. 218. MacEvitt, ‘Matthew of Edessa’, p. 162.

8

chapter 1

did in fact begin his work around 1102 and wrote the preface to Book Three in or shortly after 1131, it is not possible to say with certainty when he recorded his last entry. Might a more certain date of authorship for the text be provided if we had an idea for whom he was writing—that is, whether he had a sponsor and, if so, who it was? Unfortunately this is also shrouded in some mystery. There is no indication within Uṙhayecʿi’s text that he was writing for a sponsor. Although he is generous in his praise for various Armenian leaders including those of the future royal Rubenid line of Cilicia, and although it has been argued that his sources of information favoured the Pahlawuni family who dominated the office of katholikos during this period,19 he does not focus on the deeds or exploits of a specific person or family. There is nevertheless a notice in the most authoritative surviving manuscript of the Chronicle, copied in 1689 in the Amrdōlu monastery in Bitlis, stating that Uṙhayecʿi wrote at the command of ‘the great Armenian prince Vasil’. It is unclear to whom this might refer. The most well-known candidates would be Goł Vasil, ruler of the nearby city of Kesun, or his successor the younger Vasil. Uṙhayecʿi has nothing but praise for both of these men.20 According to his own account, however, Goł Vasil died in 111221 and the younger Vasil was driven into exile around 1116.22 If either of them sponsored Uṙhayecʿi’s work then it could only have been in the first phase, when he wrote Books One and Two. A chronicle of events up to the Armenian year 550, that included the seemingly miraculous appearance of the Crusaders and their capture of Jerusalem, would admittedly have made a very attractive project. In this period also lived Vasil Pahlawuni, lord of Gargar and brother of the katholikoi Grigor iii Pahlawuni and Nersēs Šnorhali,23 although Uṙhayecʿi makes no mention of him.24 One final candidate for the identity of ‘the great Armenian prince Vasil’, also mentioned nowhere in the text, is Vasil the locum tenens governor of Edessa during the captivity of Joscelin in 1122. This Vasil is known only through an inscription that survives on the walls of Edessa.25 His career coincides with the time during which Uṙhayecʿi must have been working on Book Three (and suggests therfore that Uṙhayecʿi’s ‘fifteen-year’ labour for 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Dédéyan, Les Arméniens entre Grecs, Musulmans et Croisés, p. 49. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 323–324. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 323–324. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 337. See Ačaṙyan, Hayocʿ Anjnanunneri Baṙaran, vol. 5 p. 56, no. 9. This Vasil is, however, praised by Grigor Erēcʿ: Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 396. Dowsett, ‘Inscription at Edessa’.

the origins of the chronicle

9

that book may have indeed begun around 1121 or 1122). The fact that Uṙhayecʿi does not mention his existence, however, would render the colophon of 1689 extraordinarily puzzling if he were in fact the sponsor. One admittedly speculative possibility is that Uṙhayecʿi was indeed encouraged in his work by this Vasil who was governor of the city, not about Vasil’s own deeds but rather a history of the city itself. The third book in particular has a much stronger focus on Edessa than the first two, and Uṙhayecʿi displays very strong allegiance to the city and its inhabitants no matter their language or creed. If Vasil had indeed encouraged Uṙhayecʿi in writing a history specifically of the city, it might serve to explain how he was credited with sponsorship of a work that was clearly not written for the glorification of any particular prince or noble family. Absent any other examples of such a practice, however, and based on the little evidence we have, the identity of the ‘great Armenian prince’ as well as the veracity of the 1689 colophon must remain a mystery.

Uṙhayecʿi’s Edessa Although we can say very little that is definitive about Uṙhayecʿi’s life and career, one of the more certain pieces of information is the name under which he writes. He calls himself ‘the Edessene’, and so it is useful to consider the Armenian community of Edessa in which he claims membership. Although historically a majority-Syrian city well outside the bounds of what is generally known as Greater Armenia, by the first century ce Edessa was part of the Parthian cultural milieu to which the Armenians belonged26 and we may safely assume that the city was well known to Armenians from a very early date. Movsēs Xorenacʿi claims that Edessa’s early rulers were Armenian, and he reports the legend of king Abgar’s conversion through correspondence with Christ before the Crucifixion as part of his ‘History of the Armenians’.27 It was an early centre for the spread of Christian belief and specifically for translation of Christian texts into Armenian.28 When in the fifth century the bishop Maštocʿ sought to create an alphabet for the Armenian language, and later when he wished to collect Biblical and other patristic texts for translation using the new alphabet, it was primarily to Edessa and Constantinople that he sent his pupils.29 The ecclesiastical communities of Edessa as well as Caesarea 26 27 28 29

Segal, Edessa ‘The Blessed City’, pp. 10–14. Movsēs Xorenacʿi, History of the Armenians, pp. 165–175. Greenwood, ‘The Armenian Presence in Edessa after the Muslim Conquest’, p. 139. Koriwn, Varkʿ Maštocʿi, pp. 46, 74.

10

chapter 1

were critically influential to the direction of Armenian Christianity as it developed, from its beginnings in the fourth century well into the sixth century and beyond.30 The origins of a community of Armenians resident in Edessa are however profoundly murky. A prominent modern historian of Christian Edessa had little doubt of a substantial Armenian presence in the city throughout the medieval period,31 but the primary sources from which he probably drew his conclusions are not as clear-cut on the subject as he contends.32 Other historians33 are more guarded, noting that between the late antique references to Armenian activity in Edessa and the migrations of the eleventh century, there is no historical record of the activities of a continuous Armenian community in the city. Thus we cannot say how or under what circumstances Uṙhayecʿi’s own developed before the mid-eleventh century. The city passed from Muslim to Byzantine rule in 103134 and by 1037 the Byzantine-appointed strategos of the city was Abukab, an Armenian. As Byzantium annexed the Armenian kingdoms over the course of the eleventh century, a great many Armenians from the ‘old kingdom’ were encouraged by imperial policy to settle in Cappadocia, Cilicia, and Syria. Neither Uṙhayecʿi nor any of the other historians of the period tends to distinguish between Armenian émigrés from the annexed kingdoms, and Armenians who had previously been settled in Syria, although there has been a certain amount of conjecture regarding family links based on the names and careers of Armenians known to have been in imperial service prior to 1045.35 By the last decade of the eleventh century many of the cities in these regions were under the control of Armenian leaders, often bearing Byzantine imperial titles. Although in a few instances (such as that of Philaretos Brakhamios) their forebears are known to have been in Byzantine service for generations, for the most part the question of where this new nobility originated and what links

30 31 32

33 34 35

Garsoïan, L’église arménienne, pp. 17–19. Segal, Edessa ‘The Blessed City’, pp. 197, 209. In particular he reports an incident in which Armenian leaders were burned alive in a church, allegedly in the city, by Muḥammad ibn Marwan in the late seventh or early eighth century, but compare Segal p. 197 with a closely corresponding passage from Ps. Dionysius (Palmer, Brock and Hoyland, The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles, p. 202) that makes no assertion as to where the Armenians were killed. e.g. Amouroux-Mourad, Le comté d’Edesse, p. 47; Greenwood, ‘The Armenian Presence in Edessa after the Muslim Conquest’, pp. 139–140. Felix, Byzanz und die islamische Welt, pp. 142–144. e.g. a significant portion of the analysis that makes up the work of Dédéyan, Les Arméniens entre Grecs, Musulmans et Croisés.

the origins of the chronicle

11

they may have had with the Armenians in Edessa before the great migrations remains unanswered. As a result of this mass migration, by the time the Crusaders arrived Edessa had an Armenian ruler and, if not a majority among the population, a substantial and well-connected minority.36 Uṙhayecʿi’s own history gives the impression that, while the Syrian community was not uniformly poor,37 the ruling class of the city was primarily Armenian. This seems to have caused occasional tensions with the Syrians who remained, in all probability, the actual majority. They were all nevertheless Christians, along with those of Greek origin who lived in the city, and the confessional loyalties of any particular Armenian, Syrian, or Greek are not always clear. When Uṙhayecʿi writes about events that affected the Christians of Edessa it must be understood that he could be referring to any of these ethnic groups, and not simply the particular Armenian community of which he was a member. Within Edessa Uṙhayecʿi was an ‘elder of a monastery’, and indeed there was a flourishing monastic community within the city that made up part of the larger Edessene Armenian environment. For his own part Uṙhayecʿi adhered passionately and clearly to the Armenian church as distinct from that of the ‘Greeks’—that is, he rejected the council of Chalcedon and the dual nature of Christ, although he did not necessarily condemn those who accepted it.38 There certainly existed Armenian Chalcedonians,39 and it is either known or suspected that many of the Armenian lords who held Byzantine rank at the time the Crusaders arrived also professed a Chalcedonian faith, but Uṙhayecʿi displays very little rancor toward any of them. He makes reference to his monastic community and its members throughout the second half of the Chronicle. These notices, primarily recording the deaths and deeds of men remembered nowhere else, may serve as a guide to the chronological extent of Uṙhayecʿi’s own career.

36 37 38 39

For a discussion of the relative merits in Latin eyes of the various groups of indigenous Christians, see Jotischky, ‘Ethnographic Attitudes in the Crusader States’. e.g. the report of affluent Syrians in Antioch in Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 114. For more on Uṙhayecʿi’s attitudes toward Armenians and other Christians of various creeds, see p. 44. For more on the communities of Armenian Chalcedonians during this era, see Arutjunova-Fidanjan, ‘The Ethno-Confessional Self-Awareness of Armenian Chalcedonians’.

12

chapter 1

The Armenian Historiographical Tradition Although we cannot know whether Uṙhayecʿi was a first- or second-generation migrant from the old Armenian kingdoms or whether his roots in Edessa were deeper, it is clear both from his reporting of ecclesiastical affairs and from the very structure of his historical work that he claims not only the heritage of an Edessene but also that of an Armenian. The first book in particular has a decided focus on events within Greater Armenia and on Armenian relations with Byzantium. Emigré or no, Uṙhayecʿi displays a keen feeling of loss and betrayal concerning the annexation of the kingdoms by Byzantium and their ultimate capture by the Turks. His own composition was influenced by the Armenian literary heritage and belongs firmly in the Armenian historiographical tradition, and he draws his themes and his understanding of the trajectory of Armenian history from those who wrote before him. Thus it is worthwhile to ask: who were the writers of history in Armenian society, and how did they tend to explain the trajectory of their culture? Among Uṙhayecʿi’s monastic brethren in Edessa were several vardapets, or clerical scholars. The system of vardapets was peculiar to the Armenians within Christendom, and appears to have its origins in the Iranian heritage of preChristian Armenia. The word is attested as early as 260ce in a list of Zoroastrian dignitaries, and their role at that time was associated with scholarship and education.40 Although in the Christian era vardapets were invariably ordained clerics, the title remained outside the ecclesiastical hierarchy laid down in medieval Armenian canon law. The vardapets were charged with the responsibility of educating pupils (especially, but not exclusively, those destined for the clergy) and of interpreting the canons of the church, and they were generally concerned with the preservation and cultivation of Armenian history and heritage.41 Trained as they were primarily in the Old and New Testament and in the canons of the church, vardapets were particularly entrusted with the ability to expound on Armenian Christian dogma when called upon to do so. As such they were crucial voices in debates with the church of Constantinople as well as those internal to the Armenian church. As Armenian literature developed over the course of the fifth century, its practice was primarily in the hands of the vardapet class. One of the uses to

40 41

Thomson, ‘“Vardapet” in the Early Armenian Church’, p. 372. The thirteenth-century author Mxitʿar Goš discussed their training and duties in his law code; see Mxitʿar Goš, The Lawcode (Datastanagirkʿ), pp. 123–126. Also see Thomson’s introduction, pp. 43–46.

the origins of the chronicle

13

which they put the new written form of their language was to record, interpret, and preserve the history of the Armenian people. Over the centuries the historians of Armenia came to draw upon the work of their predecessors in succession, or even begin their own histories explicitly where their immediate predecessor left off. This led to the development of a relatively unitary historical tradition, chronicling the development of Christian Armenia from the conversion of King Trdat by Grigor the Illuminator in the early fourth century (Agatʿangełos, and Movsēs Xorenacʿi once his work became known after the eighth century) and the struggle over the next century to secure Christianity throughout the land (the Buzandaran of Pʿawstos), through the attempt of the Persian shah in 451 to re-impose Zoroastrianism and the martyrdom of the Armenian nobility (Ełišē and Łazar), to the rise of Islam and the subjugation of the Armenians to Muslim rule (Sebēos, followed by Łewond), down to the re-emergence of an autonomous Armenian kingdom from the end of the ninth century (Yovhannēs Drasxanakertcʿi, followed by Stepʿanos Asołik) and its ultimate loss to Byzantium in the mid-eleventh (Aristakēs Lastivertcʿi).42 The identity and eyewitness status of several of these authors is now disputed,43 but to observers before the modern era these authors were accepted as genuine witnesses to their times, and invariably remembered as vardapets. This was the tradition to which Uṙhayecʿi was heir, and his defensive attitude toward producing the Chronicle despite his ‘ignorance’ is entirely to be expected in the face of such an evidently distinguished set of intellectual forebears. Despite his lack of formal qualification he understood that the role of an Armenian historian was not only to record events but also to expound on their significance in light of his interpretation of the events according to biblical scripture and the prior tradition. In the end, however, Uṙhayecʿi evidently concluded that his not feeling qualified to do the same did not excuse him from making the attempt.

42

43

This is not an exhaustive list of the historians of medieval Armenia. Apart from histories known to be lost, such as the ninth-century work of Šapuh Bagratuni, there survives an anonymous chronicle of the seventh century and the early tenth-century work of Tʿovma Arcruni. The list given, however, is that which was evidently known and used by the time Uṙhayecʿi wrote. For a discussion of the dating of Agatʿangełos, see Winkler, ‘Present Knowledge’; for the dispute over the dating of Xorenacʿi, see Garsoïan, ‘Movsēs Xorenacʿi’; for a similar dispute over the dating and identity of Ełišē, see Thomson, ‘Ełišē’s History of Vardan’; for a recent argument concerning a possible mis-dating of Łewond, see Greenwood, ‘Reassessment’.

14

chapter 1

Uṙhayecʿi’s chosen interpretation of history rested primarily on the prophecies of Yovhannēs Kozeṙn, who was himself a vardapet and a monastic hermit whose career spanned the first half of the eleventh century. In 1033, there was a total solar eclipse that was visible throughout Christendom. Appearing as it did approximately a millennium after the crucifixion of Christ, it was widely regarded as a clear omen of His return to earth, and the Armenians were no exception. The prophecies attributed to Kozeṙn were said to have been made around 1033 in the wake of the eclipse. In them he warned that Satan had been released upon the earth, and he foretold trial and tribulation for the Armenians. This theme evidently resonated with Uṙhayecʿi, who realized that the final days of an independent Armenia had come a decade later, and who was a witness to the extraordinary event, eclipsing even the destruction of Armenia, that was the First Crusade. It was likely the Crusade itself that drove Uṙhayecʿi to write history—he simply seems unable to conscience the idea that such momentous events might go unrecorded. For those scholars approaching Uṙhayecʿi’s work from the perspective of Byzantine historiography, divided as it traditionally is between ‘classicising, literary’ history written by highly educated laymen and ‘world chronicles’ written by less well-educated clerics who sought to put events into a Biblical framework,44 the annalistic format of the Chronicle has occasionally given rise to the belief that similar assumptions should be made about its author and its purpose. This surface analysis is reinforced to some extent by Uṙhayecʿi’s denial of any claim to scholarly erudition, and by the fact that he writes in the nonscholarly register with which he is familiar.45 The influence of Greek literature and culture upon Armenian literature was profound, as is evident from the increasingly pro-Western trend in the received literary tradition46 as well as Armenian figures such as Grigor magistros Pahlawuni.47 This paradigm, misleading and dangerous as it is when applied to Armenian history, has seemed nevertheless to prevail up to now. Dowsett, the eminent twentieth-century Armenologist, dismissed chronicles altogether from his survey of Armenian historiography.48 In his own survey of Armenian historiographical tradition Thomson draws a similar distinction between ‘literary’

44 45 46 47 48

Jakov Ljubarskij, ‘New Trends’, p. 133. The difference between medieval and classicising Armenian is not as pronounced as it is in Greek, but Uṙhayecʿi’s prose has a decidedly medieval character nonetheless. Garsoïan, ‘Reality and myth’, pp. 136–143. Sanjian, ‘Grigor Magistros’. Dowsett, ‘Armenian Historiography’, p. 261.

the origins of the chronicle

15

histories and chronicles.49 Although he acknowledges that the difference is not clear-cut, the categorisation serves to re-inforce the impression of a Byzantinestyle divide. In fact the arrangement of historical narrative in a chronological format has precedent within the Armenian tradition. The early eleventh-century history of Stepʿanos Asołik (Stephen of Tarōn) is an example of such a history, written by an undeniably erudite vardapet.50 This was also, by and large, chronologically arranged with frequent reference to the year, but where Uṙhayecʿi kept to a yearby-year format with very little variation, Asołik tended to group his material thematically as well, allowing the narrative to range back and forth over spans of up to a decade. Uṙhayecʿi’s work can thus be considered the first surviving example of an annalistic world-chronicle style in Armenian historiography. The concept of a ‘classicizing’ history has furthermore very little basis in the Armenian tradition. Its pre-Christian literary heritage owes more to the genre of the Iranian epic cycle, even as its tradition of Christian historiography had an uneasy relationship with that heritage.51 The relegation of a chronicle to the status of ‘second-class’ history thus makes very little sense in the Armenian tradition. More than a simple under-estimation of the author’s level of education, however, the key danger of the misapplication of the Byzantine dichotomy may be seen in the extent to which the Chronicle has been disregarded as a work of literature. As we will see throughout this study, it is impossible accurately to assess the historicity, meaning, or implication of the information given until it is considered in the light of its literary purpose and the rhetorical methods used to write it.

Uṙhayecʿi’s Sources of Information As with a great many medieval historians (though by no means all of them) Uṙhayecʿi did not see fit to catalogue explicitly the written sources that he used for his work. We must nevertheless attempt to answer the question: from where did Uṙhayecʿi derive his information, whether faithfully and straightforwardly recorded, recast according to his guiding principles and overall motivation, or simply reported in error? 49 50 51

Thomson, ‘Concept of History’, pp. 93–94. For a summary of what has been known or surmised about the life of Asołik, see the introduction to the French translation (Asołik, Histoire universelle, pp. ciii–cviii). Mahé, ‘Entre Moïse et Mahomet’, p. 130.

16

chapter 1

In the preface to Book Two Uṙhayecʿi writes that he has ‘put together [his account] having enquired for a long time, from a number of eye- and earwitnesses who were born in years past, and through the readers [or possibly ‘readings’] of earlier historians which have become eyewitness to all these occurrences and troubles’.52 Some time later, when writing the prologue to Book Three, he claims that he ‘collected records with a valiant will in the Mesopotamian city of Uṙha’ and that ‘having read compositions, we found the dates of the eras in colophons of books, and having entered into research with old men we have engaged ceaselessly in research.’ It is a little surprising that Uṙhayecʿi places more emphasis on oral history when describing the work he did for the first two books of the Chronicle, which must necessarily have relied more on written records. The word he chooses to describe his research into written records, ընթերցողսն (əntʿercʿołsn) is also a little peculiar. The -ող suffix formally marks a present participle (in this case ‘reading’), but its common usage was to make the word a substantive adjective describing a person who regularly took that action (here ‘reader’). The common understanding of the word as ‘reader’ is strengthened with the plural marker -ս and the definite article -ն, rendering the word ‘the ones reading’ and suggesting that Uṙhayecʿi relied on digests of history provided by more educated historians. If so, this is an interesting admission of his need for others to help him make sense of his historical narrative. In 1971 L. Xacʿikyan published excerpts of a historical text attributed to ‘Yakob the priest’, preserved in a manuscript of the late sixteenth century; he attributes the otherwise lost work to Yakob Sanahnecʿi, a vardapet who lived in the eleventh century.53 Uṙhayecʿi himself records some of the activities of Sanahnecʿi, including his death in Edessa in 534 (1085–1086).54 Only a few fragments remain of Sanahnecʿi’s work, covering the eastern campaign of the Byzantine emperor Basil ii around 1022 and the first few lines concerning the eclipse of 478 (1029/30) that occasioned the first prophecy of Kozeṙn. Xacʿikyan presents this text, along with the relevant portions of the Chronicle and portions of another text of uncertain authorship: this is the Tesilkʿ (Vision) of Yovhannēs Kozeṙn, which circulated independently of the Chronicle and survives in multiple manuscripts. The almost word-for-word similarities between the three texts are clear. The fragments attributed to Sanahnecʿi, the surviving Vision, and the corresponding portions of the Chronicle must be considered as

52 53 54

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 112. Xačʿikyan, ‘Yakob Sanahnecʿi’. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 161–162, 226–227.

the origins of the chronicle

17

recensions of the same text. Although the relationship of the Vision to the two texts with attributed authors remains to be firmly established, some scholars are sufficiently persuaded both that Sanahnecʿi wrote a substantial history and that it was heavily or exclusively used by Uṙhayecʿi for the early portion of his work, that they attribute the whole of Book One directly to Sanahnecʿi.55 Apart from this work of Sanahnecʿi, there are two other lost Armenian historical works that may or may not have provided source material for Uṙhayecʿi. These are the ‘History of the Bagratunis’ attributed by Aristakēs Lastivertcʿi to Yovhannēs Kozeṙn himself, and a history said to cover events from Adam up to the year 500 (1101/2) attributed to the vardapet Yovhannēs Sarkawag (d. 1129), mentioned and used in the history of Vardan Arewelcʿi.56 The historian Samuēl of Ani was also a pupil of Sarkawag.57 Scholars of the modern era have never agreed upon the identity of any other extant historical work that Uṙhayecʿi may have used, and some have simply refrained from attempting an answer. Srbuhi Hairapetian, in her survey of Armenian literature, categorically states that Uṙhayecʿi used neither of the historical texts—Asołik and Aristakēs—with which his account overlaps as a source,58 presumably in view of the fact that Uṙhayecʿi makes gross chronological errors in Book One that cannot be blamed on either of his predecessors. Dulaurier made the argument explicit in the preface to his own translation of the text.59 Dostourian, who translated the Chronicle into English, offered no speculation about the identity of his sources, choosing instead to give a general overview of all the surviving contemporary histories of the era. He states that “we can arrive at only tentative conclusions about the similarities and differences between his narrative and the accounts of the other sources”, and that those conclusions “in no way indicate the specific sources used in compiling his work.”60 The reticence of these scholars is understandable—apart from the links to Sanahnecʿi, it is very difficult to show any particular linguistic affinity with other Armenian texts, and next to impossible to demonstrate a direct affinity to Greek, Syriac, or Arabic ones. Leaving aside the direct correspondence of a portion of the Chronicle to the Vision of Kozeṙn and the preserved fragments of Sanahnecʿi, there are several factors that prevent a close literary comparison of Uṙhayecʿi’s work 55 56 57 58 59 60

e.g. Arutjunova-Fidanjan, ‘L’image de l’empire byzantin’. Greenwood, ‘Armenian Sources’, p. 229. Boyadjian, Samuel Anecʿi. Hayrapetean, A History of Armenian Literature, p. 232. Chronique, preface, pp. xiv–xv. Dostourian, Armenia and the Crusades, p. 12.

18

chapter 1

with the extant works of his forebears. The first difficulty has already been raised: if Uṙhayecʿi did indeed depend on lost histories or digests made by other scholars around him, the chances of survival of any linguistic link would be very remote indeed. A second, and related, concern is the literary style of the Chronicle, which is already significantly different from the extant Armenian histories that precede it. Absent clear evidence of direct recension as above, the identification of literary or linguistic similarities to texts such as those of Aristakēs or Asołik is a fully subjective exercise fraught with peril. The third difficulty is the continued lack of a full critical edition of the work. Without a securely established text, any reliance on peculiarities of phrasing or word order to establish a literary link will essentially be at the mercy of a single scribe working in 1689, on whose text the Vałaršapat edition is based and who was almost certainly acquainted with the work of the other historians. A further difficulty with direct literary comparison of sources is raised by Catherine Holmes in the context of the history of the late tenth and early eleventh centuries. Holmes points to a certain textual instability in longer synoptic histories in Greek such as those of Skylitzēs or Zōnaras, which renders them ‘unsuitable for … careful comparative analyses of verbal patterns, word order, and grammatical structures’.61 She suggests that ‘large webs of subtly interrelated texts’ were circulated at this time, not only within Byzantine Greek society but also on the periphery of the empire, including Armenia and Syria, and calls for a comparison of content and narrative structure, rather than linguistic form and structure, to detect the mutual influence of these texts upon each other. This has particular relevance for Uṙhayecʿi’s text, which was written in a similar multi-cultural milieu to the Arabic and Armenian histories cited by Holmes, and would likely have drawn on much of the same sorts of source material. The point can be underscored here by considering the extant tradition of the Chronicle, which is essentially limited to the seventeenth century and after. It is dangerous therefore to make strong assumptions about the form the text took in the twelfth century, and how many copies or recensions circulated in the thirteenth and fourteenth. In the same spirit, and particularly since so little potential source material in Armenian survives, a comparison of substance and narrative structure allows many fruitful deductions concerning the sources of the information that flowed to Uṙhayecʿi and was ultimately captured in his work.62 In fact there

61 62

Holmes, ‘Byzantine Historians at the Periphery’. Much of the analysis given here is laid out in further detail in Andrews, ‘The Chronology of the Chronicle’.

the origins of the chronicle

19

can be little question that Uṙhayecʿi’s text does depend heavily on that of Aristakēs, whether directly or indirectly—a comparison of the two histories shows striking similarities in content despite the large difference in language register. Although Aristakēs formally begins his narrative at the point where Stepʿanos Asołik left off, shortly after the year 1000, he reports little of substance until the year 470 (1021/2) when the Byzantine emperor Basil ii came to the east to enforce his claim to territory occupied by Giorgi, the prince of Abkhazia. Uṙhayecʿi’s history contains a corresponding gap in information about events in the Armenian kingdom between 1000 and 1021. Moreover, almost every item of Byzantine history related by Uṙhayecʿi in subsequent entries is also related by Aristakēs. While their narration styles are different, their accounts are in harmony. There is one point upon which Uṙhayecʿi appears to be better informed even than Aristakēs: in his account of the annexation of the city of Ani, Uṙhayecʿi does not follow Aristakēs’ imprecise dates but instead gives dates that are more likely to be correct.63 Nevertheless, his explanation of the manner in which events unfolded is in full agreement with the account given by Aristakēs, and he does make one telling chronological error—the misplacement by a single year of the battle of Kaputru that followed the annexation—that suggests another dependence upon Aristakēs. Finally, Uṙhayecʿi’s uncharacteristic lapse into lamentation when describing the sack of Arcn is an unmistakable pointer to Aristakēs’ lengthy lament over the city. While it has been argued that Uṙhayecʿi saw the signs of apocalypse in the ‘sapping of the natural bonds of family, religion, and community’ that arose in the cultural melting-pot of northern Syria after the First Crusade,64 this is a message that is more characteristic of Aristakēs and whose echoes in Uṙhayecʿi’s text are only secondhand. How Uṙhayecʿi’s history might be related to that of Asołik is more puzzling. The scope of his chronological error for the latter half of the tenth century—a period Asołik covers in detail and with substantial chronological accuracy— strongly suggests that he had never encountered it. On the other hand there are a few telling features of Uṙhayecʿi’s account of the tenth century that seem to have their roots in Asołik’s text. The first of these is his coverage of events within Byzantium. Not only is there an analogue in Asołik’s history for all but one entry recorded by Uṙhayecʿi before 1000, but Uṙhayecʿi also follows Asołik into an erroneous date for the revolt of Bardas Phokas. The second clue may be seen in Uṙhayecʿi’s account of the last years of David curopalates. Uṙhayecʿi

63 64

Shepard, ‘Scylitzes on Armenia’, pp. 284–286. MacEvitt, ‘Matthew of Edessa’, pp. 180–181.

20

chapter 1

has introduced a chronological error of at least 10 years in the date of these two entries, which appears to be a direct result of a confusing ambiguity in Asołik’s history.65 Although Uṙhayecʿi did, whether directly or indirectly, make use of both his extant predecessors, he also includes information that occurs nowhere in their accounts—specifically, an episode concerning a clash between prince Derenik of Anjewacʿikʿ in Vaspurakan and the emir of Her Abuʿl-Hajji, which he sets in the mid-970s; relations between the sons of Senekʿerim Arcruni in the 1040s; and a battle fought in the Tʿonrawan district of Vaspurakan also in the 1040s. Much of this information constitutes evidence for an as-yet unidentified source of information on Vaspurakan and its Arcruni royal family. Our most well-known source for Arcruni history is the early tenth-century history of Tʿovma and its continuation that ends with the death of Gagik i Arcruni in the 940s. This history has been preserved in only a single manuscript, with several shorter continuations and colophons dated respectively to the second half of the eleventh century, the Armenian year 752 (1303/4), and a generation or so after 1326.66 Although it is impossible to say what other recensions might have existed, the extant form of Tʿovma’s history provides nothing that could explain Uṙhayecʿi’s accounts of events in Vaspurakan and Anjewacʿikʿ. Tʿovma himself ceased writing around 904 and his continuator ends no later than 943. Although the second continuation begins at that point, it has almost nothing to say about the remainder of the tenth century and covers the Arcruni emigration to Sebasteia very briefly before returning to matters in Byzantinecontrolled Vaspurakan in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries, about which Uṙhayecʿi is virtually silent. At present we may only speculate about the nature of Uṙhayecʿi’s own mysterious ‘Vaspurakan source’ and how it came to be in Edessa. A source study of the text yields little reason to assume that Uṙhayecʿi made direct use of histories in other languages such as Greek, Latin, Syriac, or Arabic, and his disavowal of a high level of education would seem to support the idea that he was unable to read these languages. There are nevertheless a few clues that point to an indirect connection to the early eleventh-century history of Leo the Deacon.67 Leo was a member of the palace clergy during the reign of 65 66 67

See below, p. 49. Tʿovma, History of the House of the Artsrunik. Leo the Deacon. Leonis diaconi Caloënsis Historia libri decem: et liber de Velitatione Bellica Nicephori Augusti. Ed. by C.B. Hase. Weber, 1828. Translation: The History of Leo the Deacon: Byzantine Military Expansion in the Tenth Century. Trans. by A.-M. Talbot and D.F. Sullivan. Washington, dc: Dumbarton Oaks, 2005.

the origins of the chronicle

21

Basil ii, and his history covers the reign of Basil’s father Romanos ii (959–963) as well as those of Nikephoros ii Phokas (963–969) and Iōannēs i Tzimiskēs (969–976), the two emperors that held power during Basil’s own minority. There are a few events mentioned by Uṙhayecʿi for the tenth century that do not appear in any of the extant Armenian sources, including the Byzantine capture of Crete in 961 and the details of the battle of Samosata in 958.68 Leo’s history includes an extensive account of the attack on Crete, indicating that planning was begun in 959. Uṙhayecʿi erroneously dates the actual capture to 959; the preliminary date given by Leo, who was notoriously stingy with dating throughout his text,69 may be the source of this error. The fingerprint of Leo’s history also appears in Uṙhayecʿi’s account of the military exploits of Nikephoros Phokas. Leo describes the initial Byzantine reverse at Tarsus, the capture of Adana, Anazarba, and Mopsuestia, and the successful return to Tarsus. This peculiar subset of Nikephoros’ conquests, although an inaccurate simplification, is another small piece of evidence pointing to an informational connection to the history of Leo. Uṙhayecʿi also records certain items of Byzantine history for the eleventh century that are not found in any other Armenian source, including the ongoing Bulgarian wars that ended shortly before 1020 and the Bulgarian and Pecheneg rebellions of 1040 and 1049–1051. This might be suspected to point to the history of Iōannēs Skylitzēs, but Uṙhayecʿi’s brief accounts bear virtually no similarity to those of Skylitzēs. Finally there is the question of events in Edessa, for which Uṙhayecʿi gives a direct indication of his source. He writes in the prologue to Book Three that he ‘collected records … in Uṙha’. The archives of Edessa were renowned in the medieval period—both Movsēs Xorenacʿi70 and Eusebios71 made reference to their value. There seems to be little reason to doubt that these records still existed, and there are several cases (such as the Byzantine capture of the city in 1031) where Uṙhayecʿi’s knowledge of events far outstrips anything recorded in other histories. On the other hand, the extent to which Uṙhayecʿi used them is unclear. His Edessene history is not very detailed at all for the tenth century. Occasionally, the city makes only an incidental appearance in the narration of another event, such as an Arab troop levy recorded for the year 407 (958–959) or a note to accompany the report of the military exploits of the 68 69 70 71

Although the battle of Samosata is mentioned briefly by Asołik (Patmutʿiwn tiezerakan, p. 179; Histoire universelle, p. 38) Uṙhayecʿi’s account does not follow it. Leo, History, introduction, p. 19. Movsēs Xorenac‘i, History of the Armenians, § ii.10, p. 146. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, §1.13.5.

22

chapter 1

emperor Iōannēs Tzimiskēs in Syria, claiming that he spared the city and its monastic communities. Most tellingly, Uṙhayecʿi has omitted an event recorded by Skylitzēs, in which an Armenian thwarts a Muslim attack on the city in 1038. Had he been aware of this event it would seem very strange for him to exclude it. While Uṙhayecʿi did have some form of access to accounts of local history (whether archival, oral, or epigraphic), it seems that the history of the city was not his priority until the period just before the arrival of the Crusade. If we accept that the Chronicle did depend, directly or indirectly, upon these two histories, then how do we explain Uṙhayecʿi’s grave chronological errors? We will see, particularly in chapter 3, that Uṙhayecʿi has indeed engaged in a large-scale rewriting of certain portions of Armenian history in order to align events more closely with the past as described by Kozeṙn and, to some extent, by Aristakēs himself. The motivation for his manipulation of events is the subject to which we will now turn.

chapter 2

The New Age of Prophecy: The Chronicle’s Place in Armenian Historiography Probably around 1102, shortly after the Crusader lords had recaptured Jerusalem and established their rule throughout the Holy Land, Uṙhayecʿi became convinced of the need for someone to write the history of the momentous century and a half that the Armenians had lived through. Although he did not consider himself ideal for the task, lacking as he did the level of education that the great historians of prior eras had attained, he needed to find a way forward— a structure that could be used to explain the past and perhaps even to predict the course of the future, for better or worse. Fortunately for Uṙhayecʿi, he had a long tradition of Armenian historiography on which to pattern his work. He also had a pair of prophecies, the latter of which contained a timeline according to which the long suffering of the Armenian Christians would finally be put to an end.

Armenian Historical Philosophy Uṙhayecʿi restates his aim in his prologue to Book Three: he ‘saw that no one had the intention to investigate [recent history] or to collect records, to provide for future times a record of these massacres and tribulations for the good times, when the Lord God will fulfil his promise of the end time, when He will give to the faithful the era that will truly be full of every joy.’1 This statement places Uṙhayecʿi firmly within the historiographical tradition of his people, in which the history of the Armenian Christians was viewed as the continuation of the Biblical history of the chosen people of God, and in which the reverses that the Armenians suffered represented divine chastisement that would eventually be followed by the divine restoration of Armenian fortunes. The first Armenian historian, Koriwn, gave in his Life of Maštocʿ a philosophy of history that viewed the Bible, and in particular the Old Testament, as a document of the history of God’s chosen people. With the advent of the Christian era, the history of the new chosen people of God—that is, the Christians,

1 Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 277–278.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004330351_003

24

chapter 2

and in this instance the Armenian Christians—was, in Koriwn’s view, a legitimate extension of the Scripture they had inherited through their conversion. The historians who followed Koriwn adopted a similar philosophy of history in their own works.2 One of the most influential works of historiography from the seventh century onward, Ełišē’s account of the 451 uprising of the Armenian nobility against their Persian overlords, drew heavily on the themes of the Books of Maccabees to relate the story of Armenian piety, martyrdom, and ultimate sacrifice for their faith.3 In a sense, the story of Vardan Mamikonean and his comrades became the standard of noble piety by which all later Armenian historians would measure their own people. The shocks of the seventh-century Arab conquest, and in particular the capture of Jerusalem in 638, forced the Armenian historians to account for the rise of this new power and the efforts of their own princes and church leaders to come to terms with it. Their histories perforce became universal in both chronological and geographical scope, in contrast to the tendency to focus on Armenia alone that had prevailed in fifth- and sixth-century works of history.4 With the disintegration of the old world order that kept Armenia balanced between the two great powers of Rome and Persia, in the wake of the rise of Islam, Armenian historians needed to make the attempt to understand the origins of events that lay far outside the Armenian milieu but came to affect them anyway. The philosophy of history that developed in the seventh and eighth centuries needed to explain and justify the power structure within Armenia, during which time the Mamikonean house was swept away and the seeds of future glory for other noble houses, most notably the Bagratunis, was sown. The historians had to account for the fact that the ‘infidel’ Arabs had a lasting hold on Jerusalem and most of the former Christian Orient, and that this sustained dominance (and with it, the acquiescence to and accommodation of Muslim power by the leaders of the Armenian establishment) could not be in opposition to God’s will. An explanation was proposed in a seventh-century history attributed to the bishop Sebēos: the Christians had forfeited their pos-

2 Mahé, ‘Entre Moïse et Mahomet’, pp. 123–131. 3 Thomson, ‘Ełišē’s History of Vardan’; Thomson, ‘The Maccabees in Early Armenian Historiography’. 4 Mahé, ‘Entre Moïse et Mahomet’, pp. 131–137; This universality partially arose from an attempt to fit the events of recent history into an apocalyptic framework, such as the vision of Daniel, which appears in many later Armenian histories including that of Uṙhayecʿi and that attributed to Sebēos. For the apocalyptic perspective of pseudo-Sebēos, see Greenwood, ‘Sasanian Echoes and Apocalyptic Expectations’, pp. 375–388.

the new age of prophecy

25

session of the Holy Land through their sinfulness, just as the Jews had earlier done through their rejection of Christ.5 The Muslim Arabs, considered by tradition to be the descendants of Abraham through his illegitimate son Ishmael, had pleased God with their discipline and their abstemious behaviour. Although they were not the true chosen people of God, they had been temporarily rewarded with possession of Abraham’s patrimony, which they would be allowed to keep so long as they retained these virtues. In writing the history of the eighth century, the historian Łewond could argue that the Muslims had forfeited this claim.6 He based his argument on an agreement between the katholikos Sahak iii and the Arab governor Muḥammad ibn Marwan: as long as the Muslims kept their promise to protect their Armenian subjects and respect their faith, God would allow them their domination over the Christian lands. The persecution of the Christians that followed during the eighth century, and the violent suppression of Armenian revolts, allowed Łewond to predict the eventual liberation of Armenia from Muslim rule. That liberation came in 885, with the crowning of Ašot i Bagratuni as king of the Armenians, recognised by both the Muslim caliph and the Byzantine emperor.7 The philosophy of Armenian history was thereby vindicated. Beginning after the eighth century and continuing throughout the medieval era with only a few exceptions, many historians patterned themselves on the example of Movses Xorenacʿi who himself was following the example of the Chronicle of Eusebius of Caesarea in writing a history of the world from Adam to the present, specifically to present the unified history of God’s creation and the place of their people within it.8 The author would draw on the genealogical 5 Sebēos. Sebeosi Patmutʿyuně ev Ananuni aṛegtsvatsě. arm. Ed. by G.V. Abgarian. Erevan: Haykakan ssṛ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun, 1965. Translation: The Armenian history attributed to Sebeos. Ed. by R.W. Thomson, J.D. Howard- Johnston, and T. Greenwood. v 31. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1999. 6 Łewond. Łewond Vardapet: discours historique. Ed. by B. Martin-Hisard, J.-P. Mahé, and A. Hakobean. Monographies (Centre de recherche d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance (Paris, France)); 49. Paris: ACHCByz, 2015. 7 Although Łewond has heretofore been accepted as an eighth-century historian, the dates of his authorship have recently been called into question. It is entirely possible that he was writing during the ninth-century revival of the Bagratunis, and that his ‘prediction’ was in fact a summary of the events of his own lifetime. See Greenwood, ‘Reassessment’. 8 Movsēs Xorenacʿi. Patmutʿiwn Hayocʿ. Ed. by M. Abełean, S. Harutʿiunean, and R.W. Thomson. Caravan Books, 1981. Translation: History of the Armenians. Ed. and trans. by R.W. Thomson. Caravan Books, Aug. 2006. The dating of the history of Xorenacʿi has been hotly debated. The author himself claimed to be writing his work in the fifth century, but certain features of the text, and the fact that it had a huge influence on Armenian historians after

26

chapter 2

information in the Bible, in the Greek-language histories of Eusebius, Josephus, and others, and in the earlier Armenian tradition to show the development of the world and the place of his people within it. Prior to the eleventh century these works included the history of the Arcruni family of Vaspurakan by Tʿovma written around 904,9 the history of Armenia written by the retired katholikos Yovhannēs Drasxanakertcʿi around 925, and the universal history written by Stepʿanos Asołik (Stephen of Tarōn) around 1004.10 By the end of the eleventh century, however, the fortunes of the Armenian kings had suffered a grievous reverse. They had lost their independence and even their territory—the Bagratuni capital of Ani was annexed to the Byzantine empire in 1045, and Constantinople had proven unable to defend it against the invasions of the Seljuq Turks, who sacked the city in 1064. The task of the historians who followed, beginning with the vardapet Aristakēs Lastivertcʿi, was to make sense of this new calamity in the context of the historiographical tradition that had developed.11 It was the task of Aristakēs to come to terms with this disaster, and to find a way to draw upon the lessons of the Old Testament and the tradition of Armenian historiography to explain what had occurred and to preserve, as far as possible, a traditional understanding of Armenian society.12 In keeping with his predecessors, Aristakēs attributed the recent misfortunes of the Armenian people to their own sins. Like Pseudo-Sebēos and Łewond had to do regarding the Arabs, Aristakēs needed to account for the seemingly unstoppable success of the Turks. Unlike in the case of the Arabs, he could not fall back on a common descent from Abraham to explain God’s favor falling on the Turks. He instead rejected the concept of predestination entirely. This is perhaps the most noteworthy feature of his history—he refrains

9

10

11

12

the eighth century but not before, suggest an eighth-century dating. See, e.g., Garsoïan, ‘Movsēs Xorenacʿi’. Tʿovma Arcruni. Patmutʿiwn Tann Arcruneacʿ. Ed. by M.H. Darbinyan-Melikʿyan. Yerevan: Matenadaran, 2006. Translation: History of the House of the Artsrunik. Trans. by R.W. Thomson. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1985. Stepʿanos Asołik (Stephen of Tarōn). Stepʿanosi tarōnecʿwoy asołkan patmutʿiwn tiezerakan. Erkrord tpagrutʿiwn. Ed. by S. Malxasian. St. Petersburg, 1885. Translation: Histoire universelle. Trans. by F. Macler. Paris: Éditions de Byzantion, 1917. Aristakēs of Lastivert. Patmutʿiwn Aristakisi Lastivertcʿwoy. Ed. by K.N. Yuzbašyan. Yerevan: Haykakan ssṛ Gitutʿiunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun, 1963. Translation: Récit des malheurs de la nation arménienne. Trans. by M. Canard and H. Berberian. Brussels: Éditions de Byzantion, 1973. For more specifically on the philosophy of history of Aristakēs, see Thomson, ‘Aristakes of Lastivert’.

the new age of prophecy

27

from the suggestion that the Armenians’ misfortunes were unavoidable, and he likewise refrains from predictions of future salvation.13 His message is one of admonition: if the Armenians wish for an end to their troubles, they need only repent their sins and return to a pious and traditional way of life.

Uṙhayecʿi’s Historical Philosophy In contrast to Aristakēs of Lastivert, Uṙhayecʿi has returned to more traditional and pre-deterministic patterns of Armenian historical philosophy. As described by Thomson, ‘The prophets predicted various happenings, which duly occurred. The Turkish invasions were thus inevitable. But they do not hold any further significance; they are not regarded as a trial or punishment which will induce the Armenians to repent and mend their ways.’14 The latter point must be treated with caution—Uṙhayecʿi certainly believes that the invasions are trials and punishments meant to express God’s displeasure with His people. Nevertheless he does fail, as Thomson points out, to take up the subtle point made by Aristakēs, that the suffering of the Armenian people can be avoided if they mend the errors of their ways. Prophecy is the means by which he explains the inexplicable disaster of the Turkish invasions, and by which he promises a brighter future for the Armenians. This is more in keeping with the example of Łewond, who also rejected the notion that the Muslims were the chosen people of God and provided the comforting prediction of the total restoration of Christian power in the future. The use of prophecy in the Chronicle, however, is much more than a means of describing recent calamity. As we will see, it is the key to understanding the entire narrative thrust of the Chronicle. In his first authorial statement—the preface to Book Two—Uṙhayecʿi tells us that ‘through fatiguing and laborious examination, we have found out and written this historical work about [the events of] 100 years, […] all these occurrences and troubles that the Armenian people have borne because of their sins. Now I have considered this many times, to write for this later time about the violent massacres, this dreadful wrath, which the Armenian nation bore at the hands of […] the Turks, and of their Roman brothers.’15 This statement places Uṙhayecʿi firmly within the historiographical tradition of his people in that it

13 14 15

Thomson, ‘Aristakes of Lastivert’, pp. 82–83. Thomson, ‘Aristakes of Lastivert’, p. 85. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 112–113.

28

chapter 2

carries strong echoes of Sebēos and Łewond, the two historians of an earlier period of waning fortunes of the Armenians. In order to chronicle these, Uṙhayecʿi writes, he gathered information about ‘the three races’; the Chronicle he produced treats many more than three races. He also touches upon the history of Arabs, Georgians, Syrians, Latins, and Slavs. His work extends in its geographical scope to the limits of the world he knows, yet it remains a text that reflects a distinctly Armenian worldview. The inclusive nature of Uṙhayecʿi’s work—the attention he gives to all of the foreign peoples who had an influence on the Armenians—is likewise a feature of Sebēos and Łewond, who in seeking to explain the fortunes of their people had to turn their attention to the outside agents that were behind them.16 The perspective that Uṙhayecʿi’s text provides, and the Armeno-centric interpretation that is given to events that had no direct relevance to Armenians, has turned the Chronicle into one of the most valuable sources for the history of Syria, Mesopotamia, and the Caucasus region. The danger of such wide relevance is that the scholar who lacks a grasp of Uṙhayecʿi’s idiosyncrasies is tempted to treat the Chronicle as a straightforward (if credulous) account of the events in these regions, and in particular to assume that Uṙhayecʿi, as neither a Latin nor a Greek participant, will have been relatively objective. Too many scholars of the Crusades, who have no particular grounding in Armenian history or literature, use the Chronicle primarily as independent corroboration of other histories where they use it at all, and appear to take much of Uṙhayecʿi’s information at face value: His work undoubtedly provides us with an important counterweight to both the Latin and Arabic authors, and therefore in some ways he can be regarded as an impartial source for Antiochene history.17 Even where Uṙhayecʿi’s information is not taken at face value, his prejudices often are. Consequently, the Chronicle has far too often been used as a factual (if biased) source when the ‘facts’ presented therein support the argument of the author, and its problematic information has been dismissed with too little consideration of Uṙhayecʿi’s motives in sharing it. There has been little understanding, and even less acknowledgment, of the literary forms of Armenian historiography to which Uṙhayecʿi adhered; we have instead primarily seen superficial

16 17

Mahé, ‘Entre Moïse et Mahomet’, pp. 131–132. Asbridge, Principality of Antioch, p. 12.

the new age of prophecy

29

judgments of his ‘bitterly anti-Chalcedonian and anti-Byzantine’ sentiments,18 his ‘excessive tendency to see portents everywhere, and an insatiable hatred of the Greeks’,19 his expression of a ‘vehement hatred’.20 This tendency was perhaps most evocatively expressed by Runciman in his History of the Crusades: he describes Uṙhayecʿi as ‘a naïve man with a hatred for the Greeks and no great love for those of his compatriots who were Orthodox in religion. Much of his information about the Crusade must have been derived from some ignorant Frankish soldier; but about events in his native city and its neighbourhood he was very well informed.’21 On the contrary—although some of Uṙhayecʿi’s most memorable passages are those in which he censures Greeks such as Constantine x Doukas, or the autocrat Philaretos who is usually taken to have been Chalcedonian, there were enough exceptions to the rule that it is dangerous to conclude that his opinions were universally negative. Generalisations such as these have been nearly unavoidable to date—there has been very little scholarship specifically about Uṙhayecʿi or his Chronicle, and even less accessible to Western scholars. This is why an exploration of the text on its own literary terms is so sorely needed. Even if Uṙhayecʿi’s protestations of ignorance and incapability, and his claim not to be a scholar, simply reflect a common historiographical topos, they must be considered. His interpretation of events in Constantinople, Baghdad, Tiflis, Jerusalem, or Edessa itself must be understood in light of the philosophy of the Armenian historiographical tradition he was trying to follow, and the effect that philosophy had on Uṙhayecʿi’s judgements of the actors in his history. Indeed the Chronicle was a logical extension of that historiographic tradition. Uṙhayecʿi’s goal was to illustrate the truth of the Biblical conception of Armenian history: God’s children had strayed from righteousness; they were to be punished for the errors of their ways, but they could look forward to eventual redemption through God’s mercy. The instrument through which Uṙhayecʿi worked was prophecy. Let us turn to the central pair of prophecies of the Chronicle, and see how they became the skeleton on which the text as a whole was built.

18 19 20 21

Whittow, The Making of Byzantium, 600–1025, p. 383. Cahen, La Syrie du Nord a l’epoque des croisades et la principaute franque d’Antioche.— Paris, p. 98. Dulaurier, Chronique, p. xix. Runciman, A History of the Crusades, vol. 1 pp. 334–335.

30

chapter 2

The Prophecies of Yovhannēs Kozeṙn Although Uṙhayecʿi made frequent references to prophecies throughout his text,22 the two most prominent are the ones attributed to Yovhannēs Kozeṙn. These prophecies are the vision at the core of Uṙhayecʿi’s understanding of the history of the Armenians and of the world around them. The second prophecy in particular provides the basic outline of which the remainder of the Chronicle is an elaboration. That the prophecies of Kozeṙn are at the center of the Chronicle is not a wholly new idea. It was first suggested in passing by Thomson, who sees in the prophecies Uṙhayecʿi’s embrace of the sort of apocalyptic predestination that Aristakēs rejected.23 More recently the same has been proposed by Christopher MacEvitt, who more positively identifies the numerous prophecies Uṙhayecʿi relates and in particular those of Kozeṙn as ‘woven through Uṙhayecʿi’s chronicle, forming in a sense a table of contents and foreshadowing events’.24 Although MacEvitt acknowledges that the prophecies served some literary function, he prefers to read into Uṙhayecʿi a focus on episodes of betrayal and a disdain for the fluid ethnic and religious boundaries of his time that created space for a modus operandi that MacEvitt refers to as ‘rough tolerance’.25 Here we bring the focus back more squarely to Uṙhayecʿi and the way in which the prophecies did indeed serve as a ‘table of contents’, a guide to the trajectory of history that Uṙhayecʿi was attempting to portray and, by omission, a guide to events that did not fit the trajectory and would have received short shrift. Very little is known about the eleventh-century vardapet Yovhannēs Kozeṙn, also known as Yovhannēs Tarōnecʿi.26 Aristakēs includes him among the notable intellectuals who were active during the reign of Gagik i Bagratuni, in the first two decades of the eleventh century, crediting him with authorship of a book of faith.27 Although Aristakēs makes no mention of other works, Kozeṙn

22

23 24 25 26 27

There are several references to the prophecy of St. Nersēs, which itself was based on the vision of Daniel: Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 220, 253, 267. See also p. 275 for a prophecy from the Book of Jeremiah and p. 301 for the prophecy of the contemporary holy man Mark the Hermit. Thomson, ‘Aristakes of Lastivert’. MacEvitt, ‘Matthew of Edessa’, p. 175. MacEvitt, The Crusades and the Christian World of the East: Rough Tolerance. Ačaṙyan, Hayocʿ Anjnanunneri Baṙaran, vol. 3 pp. 566–567, no. 136; Kʿiwrtean, ‘Yovhannēs Vardapet Kozeṙn’. Aristakēs, Patmutʿiwn, p. 26; Aristakēs, Récit des malheurs, p. 9.

the new age of prophecy

31

is known to have written ‘Commentaries on the Calendar’28 and a history of the Bagratunis at the request of the katholikos Petros Getadarj. The first book was a history from the time of Adam until the coronation of Ašot i Bagratuni in 885, and the second book covered the recent era, from Ašot’s coronation down to the Armenian year 500 (1051/2).29 The majority of Kozeṙn’s history has been lost; only a few initial pages have been preserved in Matenadaran ms 1775.30 The prophecies themselves have survived independently in several manuscripts as well as being preserved within the Chronicle. An edition based on a single manuscript copied in 1320 was produced in 1895 by Nikolai Marr.31 Apart from the prophecies, Kozeṙn appears on two occasions in Uṙhayecʿi’s own Chronicle. He is first introduced as one of the Armenian scholars whom the Byzantine emperor Basil ii consulted during a dispute in 1007 over the date of Easter;32 he is also named among the Armenian contingent, headed by the katholikos Petros, who paid a high-profile visit to Basil during his Eastern campaign, as the emperor spent the winter with his army near Trebizond in January 1022.33 Kozeṙn the prophet was evidently a product of his times. As the Christian world marked 1000 years since the birth and death of Christ, there is evidence in both the west and the east that millenarian sentiment (if not necessarily millenarian terror) was widespread.34 In the Near Eastern context, the year 1033 came shortly after the reign of Basil ii had drastically altered the power structures of Anatolia, Armenia, and Syria. It came amid a persistent series of cold spells that have been correlated with famine and nomadic invasion of Armenia and of the Danube.35 By the time Aristakēs wrote, and by the 28 29

30 31 32

33 34

35

Kʿiwrtean, ‘Yovhannēs Vardapet Kozeṙn’, pp. 7–11. Greenwood, ‘Armenian Sources’, p. 224. One explanation of Aristakēs’ failure to mention Kozeṙn’s own history may be that, as he was describing the intellectual activity that flourished during the reign of Gagik i, he restricted his list to those activities in which the vardapets engaged within that timespan. Połarean, Hay Grołner, pp. 174–175. Marr, ‘Skazaniye o katolikose Petre i uchenom Ioanne Kozerne’. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 44. This seems to be a surprisingly late remnant of a controversy that was for the most part settled across Christendom after the adoption of the Easter calculation tables of Dionysius, created in the sixth century. For more on the controversy in general see Mosshammer, The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 50. See Landes, The apocalyptic year 1000, for a thorough discussion of apocalyptic sentiment specifically in the West concerning the turn of the millennium; MacLean, ‘Review article: Apocalypse and revolution: Europe around the year 1000’. Ellenblum, The Collapse of the Eastern Mediterranean, pp. 127–129.

32

chapter 2

time Uṙhayecʿi was born, it could be construed to have signaled the downfall of the Bagratuni kingdoms a decade later. Traces of this apocalyptic feeling can indeed be seen in the history of Aristakēs,36 who observes that the solar eclipse of June 1033 had been interpreted by many learned men as a sign of the Apocalypse. Aristakēs may well be referring directly to a version of a prophecy of Kozeṙn written shortly afer the event. The final fragment of the text attributed to Sanahnecʿi contains a truncated notice of an astrological omen ‘in the Armenian year 478 (1029/30) and during the reign of the Roman emperor Basil’.37 This text is more or less identical with the first lines of Kozeṙn’s first prophecy, both in the independently-circulating version and in Uṙhayecʿi’s Chronicle. The latter texts go on to write that, after the omen had been witnessed in Armenia, king Yovhannēs had sent a group of noblemen to seek an explanation from Kozeṙn. His message was dire: the eclipse marked 1000 years since the baptism of Christ, and the thousandyear imprisonment of Satan38 was now at an end. Satan would now begin his ascendancy, men would fall into sin, the anger of God would be aroused and the Christians would be punished. The second prophecy is set in the year 485 (1036/7). Again, an eclipse had been seen; again, the king and the katholikos Petros sent the Armenian noblemen, including Grigor magistros Pahlawuni and Sargis Haykazn, to seek an explanation from Kozeṙn. His response explained the radical change in fortunes that the Armenians were to undergo over the course of the next hundred years. He began by re-iterating that the thousand-year imprisonment of Satan was at an end. The institutions of the Christian church would weaken, and the Christians themselves would fall into impiety, sin, and schism. But for their appearance in sequence in the same text, up to a point the second prophecy could be taken as a recension and elaboration of the first. At some point in its textual history, however, an apocalyptic addendum was penned. According to this version of the text, Kozeṙn goes on to warn the assembled nobility that Satan, freed from his bonds, would be battling the saints. The result would be disastrous for the Christians: Hereafter there are invasions by foreigners, the cursed sons of Kʿam, the filthy forces of the Turks, upon the Christian nations, and all the earth is consumed by the edge of the sword. All the nations of the faithful in Christ 36 37 38

Magdalino, ‘The Year 1000 in Byzantium’, pp. 248–250; Pogossian, ‘The Last Emperor or the Last Armenian King?’, p. 459. Xačʿikyan, ‘Yakob Sanahnecʿi’, p. 44. c.f. Revelation 20:1ff.

the new age of prophecy

33

pass through sword and captivity. Many districts become depopulated. The power of the saints will disappear from the earth. Many churches are razed to their foundations. The mystery of Christ’s cross will be suppressed. As impiety proliferates, the feast days of the saints will be suppressed. Sons are provoked against fathers, fathers develop hatred toward sons, brothers will arise against each other, through murder and bloodshed they strive to destroy one another. They deny the compassion and love of brotherhood, the blood of their brotherhood will dry up, and thus through their deeds they become companion to the infidel. And the land is troubled by infidel nations, and the plants of the field are clothed in bloody dew, and for sixty years the earth will be desolated through sword and captivity. And then the nation of valiant ones will come, known as Franks, and with a multitude of troops they will take the holy city Jerusalem, and the holy tomb that held God is freed from captivity. And after this the earth is ravaged for fifty years by the forces of the Persians through sword and captivity, and [it will be] seven times more than what the faithful have already suffered, and all the nations of the faithful in Christ will be terrified.39 Gradually the native forces would begin to strengthen themselves, until ‘the Roman emperor, as if awakened from sleep’ came forward to drive the Persians out, and to usher in a long period of peace and prosperity for the Christians. The language in the second prophecy in particular has unmistakable parallels to the pseudo-Methodian Apocalypse, and in particular to the description of the ‘Last World Emperor’.40 The Apocalypse attributed to Methodius of Olympus41 was written in the late seventh century around the region of Sinjar in Syria,42 probably by a member of the Melkite church.43 It was translated from Syriac into Greek, and thence into Latin, where it gained wide circulation— five copies survive from the eighth century, and further copies date from each century thereafter into the late middle ages.44 Although the text has a Melkite,

39 40 41 42 43 44

See full translation below, p. 205. This too was spotted by both Thomson and MacEvitt; see Thomson, ‘Concept of History’, p. 97; MacEvitt, ‘Matthew of Edessa’, p. 158. Pseudo-Methodius. Die syrische Apokalypse des Pseudo-Methodius. Ed. by G.J. Reinink. Vol. 540–541. Leuven: Peeters, 1993. Brock, ‘Syriac Sources for Seventh-Century History’. Brock, ‘Studies on the First Century of Islamic Society’. Fried, ‘Awaiting the End of Time around the Turn of the Year 1000’, p. 25.

34

chapter 2

and thus Chalcedonian, origin, and may have had a place in anti-miaphysite polemic of the seventh century,45 it contains nothing that is overtly Christologically offensive to miaphysite readers. A partial Armenian translation of the Apocalypse survives within the late thirteenth-century history of Stepʿanos Orbelian,46 whose earliest extant manuscript dates from before 1376.47 Independent copies of the same version of the prophecy can also be found in manuscripts dating from the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries.48 Evidence of another full translation survives in a ‘Book of Questions’ attributed to Vanakan vardapet, also dating from the thirteenth century.49 Its dissemination was so widespread within the Christian world that an Armenian translation by the eighth century seems probable; support for this conjecture lies in the similarity of the Armenian version to the first of four Greek recensions of the text.50 The translation preserved in Orbelian’s history is attributed to ‘Stepʿanos, bishop of Siwnik’. Opinion differs on whether this is a reference to himself or to another well-known Stepʿanos of Siwnik who was active in the eighth century, and on whether the earlier Stepʿanos could have been the translator.51 Comparing the addendum to Kozeṙn’s prophecies to the Methodian prophecy as it has been published in its original Syriac, the broad parallels are clear. According to the Methodian prophecy: … then suddenly the pangs of affliction as [those] of a woman in travail will be awakened against them and the king of the Greeks will go out against them in great wrath and ‘awake like a man who has shaken off his wine’,52 who was considered by them as dead. He will go out against them from the sea of the Ethiopians and will cast desolation and destruction in the desert of Yathrib and in the habitation of their fathers. And the sons of the king of the Greeks will descend from the western regions and will destroy by the sword the remnant that is left of them in the land of promise.

45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

Reinink, ‘Ps. Methodius’ Concept of History’. Orbelian, Histoire de la Siounie, pp. 89–94. Boyadjian, Stepʿanos Orbelian. Topchyan, ‘The Armenian Apocalypse of Ps.-Methodius’, 367. Ervine, ‘Antecedents and Parallels’, pp. 424–425. Topchyan, ‘The Armenian Apocalypse of Ps.-Methodius’, 368. Topchyan, ‘The Armenian Apocalypse of Ps.-Methodius’, 367. c.f. Psalms 78:65.

the new age of prophecy

35

And fear will fall upon them from all sides. And they and their wives and their sons and their leaders and all their camps in the land of the desert of their fathers will be delivered into the power of the king of the Greeks. And they will be surrendered to the sword and to destruction and to captivity and to slaughter. And the yoke of their servitude will be seven times more severe than their own yoke. And they will be in a hard affliction from hunger and from exhaustion. And they will be slaves, they and their wives and their sons. And they will serve as slaves to those who were serving them. And their servitude will be a hundred times more bitter than theirs. And the land which was desolated of its inhabitants will find peace. And the remnant that is left will return, everyone to his land and to the inheritance of his fathers: Cappadocia and Armenia and Cilicia and Isauria and Africa and Hellas and Sicily. And the entire remnant that is left over from the captives and which was in the servitude of the captivity, everyone will return to his country and to the house of his father. And man will multiply like locusts on the land which had been laid waste. And Egypt will be laid waste and Arabia will burn and the land of Hebron will be laid waste and the tongue of the sea will be pacified. And all the wrath and anger of the king of the Greeks will be vented upon those who had denied Christ. And there will be a great peace upon the earth, as there has never been, because this is the last peace of the ending of the world.53 Direct echoes may easily be seen in the addendum to the second prophecy attributed to Kozeṙn: Then as if waking from sleep the king of the Romans arises and comes like an eagle against the Persian forces with a fearful multitude like sand on the shore of the sea. He will come inflamed like fire, and out of fear of him all creatures tremble, and the Persians and all the foreign forces shall take their flight to the other side of the great Gihon river. And then the Roman king will take and rule the whole land for many years; and all the earth will receive renewal, and the foundation for building will be laid, and thus it will be renewed like after the flood. The off-

53

Die syrische Apokalypse des Pseudo-Methodius, xiii.11–15. The majority of the translation is taken from Reinink, ‘Ps. Methodius’ Concept of History’, pp. 149–152. The remainder is my own translation.

36

chapter 2

spring of men and beasts multiply, fountains will gush forth streams of water, the fields bear more fruit than before. And thereafter famine will fall on the Persian land for many years, until they attack and consume each other. And out of fear of the might of the Roman king many Persian princes will leave their cities and districts, and will take flight without a battle to the other side of the Gihon river. And [the Romans] will take all their collections of gold and silver accumulated over many years, and all the multitude of treasures [heaped up] like dirt or piles of stones in such measure, from the Persian land, and bear them off them to the Roman land. And they will take all the boys and girls and women to the Roman land in captivity. The nation of the Persians will become desolate and depopulated by the forces of the Romans, and all the sovereignty of the earth will settle in the hand of the Roman king.54 The language of the earlier parts of the prophecies also retain an echo of pseudo-Methodian symbolism,55 but this direct correlation of the addendum to the framework of the prophecy of the ‘Last World Emperor’ demonstrates the influence that the Methodian text had on the Armenian scholars of the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries. Its influence can also be seen in the language of Uṙhayecʿi’s own interlude, where in setting out his motivation for writing the Chronicle he speaks of ‘the era [promised by God to the faithful for the future] that will truly be full of every joy’, and states his determination to finish his history for the benefit of those who will live in that era.56 The concrete timeline of events incorporated into the prophecy that Uṙhayecʿi records—sixty years of Turkish oppression to end with the Crusader capture of Jerusalem—is clearly a later addition to the eleventh-century text of Kozeṙn. If these sixty years are set aside, the text of the prophecy is a classic apocalyptic vision, with a safe round interval of fifty years during which the Christians are to suffer. It is not impossible that Kozeṙn himself adopted the Methodian Apocalypse for the occasion of the thousandth anniversary of the Crucifixion, and that the text that Uṙhayecʿi preserves was the result of an attempt to fill in the timeline further. It is difficult to judge the authorship of the surviving version of Kozeṙn’s prophecies. Could they have been written by Uṙhayecʿi himself? His professed lack of education would perhaps argue against it. Although the modesty topos

54 55 56

See translation below, p. 209. Thomson, ‘Aristakes of Lastivert’, p. 86 n. 46. See text below, p. 219.

the new age of prophecy

37

is as common in Armenian colophons as elsewhere, Uṙhayecʿi’s text reads as if it was written by one who, acutely conscious of his real and substantial deficiencies, feels he must justify his efforts in spite of them. It must be accepted that he probably did lack a very high level of education. He writes in the prologue to Book Three that ‘we have spoken thus in front of rhetors and philosophers and deeply wise and well-versed researchers, and we have recommended our text to them, so that they might cast it into the furnace and make an examination, and we do not oppose this because we have no antagonism against the knowledgeable.’57 Given the scholarly assistance that he evidently did seek, it might naturally be supposed that one aspect of this assistance might have been the provision of an extended version of Kozeṙn’s prophecy. On the other hand, Uṙhayecʿi demonstrates through his apparent familiarity with the forms of Armenian historiography and the very authorship of the Chronicle that he is more educated than he pretends. The possibility cannot be discounted that it is at least partially his own work. The date in which the second prophecy is placed was intentionally adjusted by the author of the version that Uṙhayecʿi incorporates. An eclipse is recorded by Aristakēs, not for the year 485 (1036/7), but for 482 (1033/4).58 Although Aristakēs has placed the event during the reign of Michael, which did not begin until April 1034, an annular solar eclipse did occur on 29 June 1033 that covered the whole of Europe, northern Africa, and the western half of Asia.59 The date of this eclipse puts Kozeṙn’s claim that ‘today 1000 years have passed since the tortures of the crucifixion of Christ’60 directly in line with the traditional calculation of the years since the birth of Christ. It seems reasonably likely that, if an original version of the prophecy was produced by Sanahnecʿi, it must have been set in the year 482. Its reassignment to 485, which gives a round number of sixty years until the First Crusade, must have been done around 1102.

The Prophecies Fulfilled: The Structure of the Chronicle The visions of Turkish invasion, Crusader arrival, and slow Christian strengthening expressed in the second prophecy form the narrative core of the entire Chronicle. The first book ends in the year 500 (1051/2), at which point Uṙhayecʿi 57 58 59 60

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 279. Aristakēs, Patmutʿiwn, p. 49; Aristakēs, Récit des malheurs, p. 38. Espenak and Meeus, Eclipse Predictions by Fred Espenak and Jean Meeus (nasa’s gsfc), eclipse #7201. See translation below, p. 195.

38

chapter 2

introduces himself to the reader. There are clear and very close links between the texts of Uṙhayecʿi, the version of Kozeṙn’s prophecies that has survived independently, and a few extant fragments of the lost history of Yakob Sanahnecʿi.61 The importance of the second prophecy (whose text does not appear in the extant fragments of Sanahnecʿi) to the structure of the Chronicle, together with the frequent appearances of Kozeṙn himself in the text, suggests that Kozeṙn’s view of history was a major influence on Uṙhayecʿi’s own. This could in turn explain why Uṙhayecʿi has used Kozeṙn’s prophecies, as extended either by his own hand or that of an assisting scholar, to help frame the course of history before and after 1051. The second prophecy divides history into four distinct phases—the period before the invasions of Armenia by Turkish warriors, the sixty years of Turkish conquest before the Crusade, the fifty years of ‘Persian’ dominance thereafter, and the period after which the Roman emperor has risen, driven out the Persians, and inaugurated the promised period of renewed Christian rule. If we accept that Uṙhayecʿi originally intended to cover 150 years of history in the Chronicle, then it implies that he set out to cover the first two of these phases. By taking up his pen to write the third book, he embarked on a record of the history of the third phase well before it was due to end. Although Uṙhayecʿi preferred to maintain the numerological neatness of sections covering the years 400–500, 500–550, and 550 up to the present, and the three books of the Chronicle do not precisely fit the three phases of history he covers, there is a rough correlation. Book One portrays the apogee of the independent Armenian kingdoms, and the Byzantine empire at its height. The first prophecy is set amid the events that set in motion the loss of Armenian autonomy—beginning with the cession of Vaspurakan to Basil ii and Basil’s own campaign in the east in 1021–1023,62 leading a military campaign against the king Giorgi of Georgia for Giorgi’s refusal to cede another principality, Tʿayk, to which the emperor laid claim. One of the consequences of this dispute was that the Bagratuni king of the primary Armenian kingdom of Ani, Smbat-Yovhannēs, was compelled to will his kingdom to the empire after his death.63 Uṙhayecʿi has followed the lead of the author of the prophecies in setting the death of Basil ii (who died in December 1025) directly after the first prophecy in 478. Perhaps in order to show the close connection of these principal actors, or perhaps simply to reconcile the chronology he had and preserve a correct order of events, he 61 62 63

Xačʿikyan, ‘Yakob Sanahnecʿi’, pp. 22–47. In fact, the Vałaršapat edition of the text sets the prophecy in 471 rather than 478, which is to say, 1022–1023. See below, p. 54.

the new age of prophecy

39

has also moved the death notices of Giorgi of Georgia (d. probably 1026) and Senekʿerim Arcruni (d. probably 1027) to the same year. It is clear nevertheless that Uṙhayecʿi knew the correct date for the death of Basil at the very least—his brother and successor Constantine viii is reported to reign for ‘four years’, but is also (accurately) reported to have died the following year, 479 (1029/30).64 In the years immediately following the longer prophecy of 485 (1036/7), Uṙhayecʿi describes the quarrels between the various pro- and anti-Byzantine factions within the Armenian nobility that would bring about the fall of the kingdom of Ani in 1045, when the emperor Constantine Monomachos summoned Yovhannēs’ young nephew and successor Gagik ii to Constantinople and pressured him into giving up his kingdom according to the will of his uncle. After the annexation of Ani, Uṙhayecʿi writes about the beginning of the Byzantine attempts to integrate the Armenian church into the church of Constantinople, which led to repeated religious disputes and to a focus on the schism that had formally existed between the two churches since the Armenian rejection of the council of Chalcedon in 607. All of this elaborates the text of the prophecy: ‘[The rulers and princes] govern and rule for [earthly] recognition and not according to God. … Henceforth many schisms [will] enter the church of God through the idleness of the patriarchs, because they grow feeble and weaken and fail to make an examination of their faith and are distracted.’ Uṙhayecʿi describes the first sustained appearance of the Seljuq Turks in the closing entries of the book: their sack of the city of Arcn, three years after the Byzantine annexation of the territory, and the battle of Kaputru that followed. Concerning the appearance of the Turks in Anatolia, the prophecy called for sixty years during which ‘the earth will be desolated by sword and captivity’, and the Christians would ‘strive to destroy one another through murder and bloodshed … and through their deeds they become companions of the infidel.’ For Uṙhayecʿi these were the years 1036–1096. The bulk of them are covered in Book Two, and the themes of internecine strife and devastation in the wake of Turkish raids are its primary focus. Uṙhayecʿi covers the persecution of emigrant Armenians at the hands of their new Byzantine neighbours, and the escalating Byzantine pressure on the Armenian church to conform to the Chalcedonian orthodoxy of Constantinople. This is set against a backdrop of continual Turkish attacks in the east, which culminated in the sack of the old Armenian capital of Ani in 1064 and in the catastrophic Byzantine defeat at the 1071 battle of Manzikert. He also gives an account of the rise of the ‘infi-

64

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 56–57.

40

chapter 2

del and most wicked prince’65 Philaretos, who was the first of the Armenian magnates to amass power of his own in the vacuum that was created in southern and eastern Anatolia when Byzantine rule was thrown into disarray after 1071. Uṙhayecʿi applies to Philaretos all the epithets that had been expressed by Kozeṙn about wicked and corrupt princes. His account of Philaretos’ career ends with the claim that he renounced Christianity for Islam in a futile bid to preserve his control over Antioch.66 After the downfall of Philaretos, Uṙhayecʿi writes almost exclusively about the Turkish and Fatimid campaigns in Edessa, Antioch, and Aleppo, and the political establishment of the Muslim emirs in the region. In the process he disregards the rise of almost all the Armenian lords who were established in their respective cities by the time of the First Crusade. The book ends shortly after the arrival of that Crusade in 1096, the establishment of the first Crusader county at Edessa, and the capture of Antioch in 1098 and Jerusalem in 1099, amid a profusion of ominous astronomical phenomena. Uṙhayecʿi makes no secret of the challenge that he faced when he came to write the third book of the history. His task was so difficult, in fact, that he refused for many years to do it at all, hoping a more qualified scholar would take up the task in his stead. He was not himself a vardapet, he explained; he did not write in a refined style, and the work should not be left to his ‘weakness and ignorance.’ Other scholars and philosophers had the ability to ‘profoundly examine the Old and New Testaments of God, expounding its contents with a formidable and brilliant analysis’. In the tradition of Armenian historiography of which Uṙhayecʿi was a part, the composition of recent history—especially a history that so graphically illustrated God’s punishment for human sin, and the redemption hinted at by the Christian re-capture of Jerusalem—must necessarily be inseparable from a sophisticated understanding of Biblical scripture, by which the full meaning of such profound events could be elucidated. It is precisely such an understanding that he disclaimed for himself. Composition of the third book had an additional challenge, and one not anticipated when Uṙhayecʿi planned and wrote the first two books: he was almost precisely in the middle of the third of his four phases of history. According to the prophecy of Kozeṙn upon which he was basing his work, the thirty years he intended to cover would need to show the seeds of a glorious future 65 66

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 206. Anna Komnēnē also accuses Philaretos of apostasy in her account of the loss of Antioch (Anna Komnēnē, Alexias, pp. 186–187), but her explanation of events does not make very much sense, as Frankopan has pointed out (Frankopan, Alexios i Komnenos, 297–298). For a fuller discussion of the question of Philaretos’ apostasy, see Dédéyan, Les Arméniens entre Grecs, Musulmans et Croisés, pp. 243–246.

the new age of prophecy

41

that had not yet come and point the way to the ‘Roman emperor’ who would be the salvation of Christendom, but was not due to accomplish his task before 1146. The ‘Persians’ had indeed arrived, in the wake of the Crusader capture of Jerusalem, to ravage the land once more. The ‘Romans’ had been driven out, and the Latin and Armenian princes were under constant pressure. Uṙhayecʿi must retain his emphasis on the continued suffering of the Christians, and explain the sins for which these sufferings were punishment, but he must also look ahead to the Christian princes—the ‘remnants of the former armies’ who would ‘begin to strengthen little by little’ and establish themselves in the conquered territory. He must show the direction from which the eventual redemption of the Christians from the Muslim oppressor would come. The events of the first thirty years of the twelfth century constituted a tale of ambiguity— moderate successes with frequent reverses—and Uṙhayecʿi apparently found it difficult to capture the ambiguity without allowing his narrative to descend into confusion. Although he felt himself unqualified, Uṙhayecʿi could not in the end leave his work unfinished. He had resolved to let a more skilled scholar take up the task, ‘and now we have seen everyone shrink from [the writing of] this history.’ He concluded that he was, perhaps, the only one who could finish it after all: ‘… it is impossible that anyone else could find these things out or could collect [records of] all the different nations and kings, patriarchs and princes, to set all the times in chronological order.’ He realised that his inability to find a more qualified continuator was evidence that God had appointed the task specifically for him, although he felt that he lacked the necessary talent: ‘it is God’s habit to require some useful work from the weak and the inconsequential; so we see the hive of bees and marvel at their organisation, that from the lightness of their bodies [which are] as nothing, all the sons of man enjoy their sweetness, and their products meet the needs of the saints, and before saints and kings their [honey] is praised.’ Finally, he understood that he was running out of time: ‘We saw that time carried on, and the flow and trickle and diminution [of time], and [the fact] that the disappearance of men from the earth does not cease, was shown to us.’ Uṙhayecʿi therefore took up his pen once more, to chronicle as best he could the mixed fortunes of the Armenians and other Christians in the early twelfth century. The text of Book Three focuses primarily on the activities of the Latin and Muslim leaders who were active in the area around Edessa and Antioch. The Crusaders took control of Edessa within a year of their arrival, and a substantial portion of Uṙhayecʿi’s adult experience would have been under Latin lordship. The city was taken by Baldwin of Boulogne, the brother of the future Godfrey i of Jerusalem, after the Armenian governor, Tʿoros, was deposed and killed by

42

chapter 2

the townspeople. Uṙhayecʿi follows the fortunes of Baldwin in Edessa and of the other Crusaders as they capture Antioch and Jerusalem, and as they come under immediate counter-attack from the Muslims. The attitude he displays toward the Crusaders is profoundly mixed—valiant on the one hand, greedy on the other. At times, he portrays them as compassionate and honourable. At other times, they are suspicious of each other, dishonourable and quick to break their oaths, and lacking in compassion. His descriptions often include them as fellow ‘faithful Christians’, and just as often set them in opposition to the Christian population, speaking of the troubles ‘that they brought upon the faithful’ as if the Latins were not Christians themselves.67 Uṙhayecʿi’s portrayal of the Crusaders reflects the difficulty that he faced in assigning them a clear role within the framework of history as set out by the second prophecy. Near the end of the book, Uṙhayecʿi begins to chronicle the rise of David ‘the Builder’—the Bagrationi king of Georgia who, over the course of the 1120s, began to expand his power into the territory of the former Armenian kingdoms that had been under Turkish rule for over fifty years. This was the beginning of two centuries of Georgian dominance in that region.68 The rise of David, and the continued Georgian strengthening under David’s son and successor Demetrios, neatly represented the ‘gradual strengthening’ that must take place before Kozeṙn’s Roman Emperor—the Last World Emperor of the pseudoMethodian Apocalypse—could arise and usher in the new period of prosperity that Uṙhayecʿi anticipated. Uṙhayecʿi’s last entry, for the year 577 (1128/9), provides an unsatisfying end to an unfinished narrative. It is impossible to say whether he envisioned an heir of David Bagrationi as the ‘king of the Romans’ who would redeem the Christians, or whether he looked to the strengthening of the Komnenian emperors of Byzantium or the Crusader lords of Outremer as the means of this redemption. It is nevertheless possible to trace Uṙhayecʿi’s attempts to organise the historical information he had for Book Three into a narrative that supported the prophetic picture of the ‘fifty years’ of ‘Persian’ attack, utter Byzantine collapse, and limited renewal of the Christian nobility that remained in the region.

67 68

See, for instance, the siege of Aplastʿan in 554 (1105/6): Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 302– 304. For more on Uṙhayecʿi’s treatment of the emergence of Georgia, see below, p. 70.

the new age of prophecy

43

Conclusion When Uṙhayecʿi came to write his Chronicle, he was drawing upon a wellestablished model within the Armenian historiographical tradition. The history of the Armenians, as Christians of the ‘true’ (that is, non-Chalcedonian) faith, was the history of the chosen people of God, and could be acceptably drawn from Biblical patterns with which he was familiar. The recent reverses that the Armenians had suffered were signs of God’s displeasure with His people. They must undergo a period of suffering as consequence for their sins, but they would eventually be redeemed through God’s mercy, and the infidel oppressors who were the agents of divine punishment would be driven out. Uṙhayecʿi arranged the narrative framework of the events he related around a pair of prophecies circulating shortly after the First Crusade, attributed to the vardapet Yovhannēs Kozeṙn, to encapsulate this philosophy of history. The second of these prophecies, extended by a twelfth-century author possibly in cooperation with Uṙhayecʿi himself, provides the structure around which the rest of the Chronicle was composed. This structure was followed in a straightforward manner for Books One and Two of the Chronicle. For Book Three, however, the prophetic structure of the history was overtaken to some extent by the inconclusive nature of events. Uṙhayecʿi was able to describe recent events neither as continued punishment nor as an unmistakable beginning of divine redemption. In attempting to paint a complex picture of varied fortunes for the Armenians and other Christians, he gives a conflicting account of virtuous yet villainous Crusaders, infidel but often merciful Turks, and the gradual revival of Bagrationi strength in Georgia near the end of a book that is nevertheless labelled as an account of ‘massacres and suffering’. His complexity descended occasionally into confusion, but his aim is served: to leave ‘a record of these trials and tribulations for the good age, when the Lord God will give what He promised in […] the era that will indeed be full of every joy.’

chapter 3

‘The Violent Massacres, This Dreadful Wrath’: Armenia in the Chronicle Mattʿēos Uṙhayecʿi had a specific task to accomplish with his account of Armenian history in order to portray the situation of his people through the lens of the prophecies of Yovhannēs Kozeṙn. Although the Chronicle touched on many races, the Armenians were the Christian people to whom the prophecies referred. Its ‘princes, judges, and leaders’ were usually understood to be the Armenian ones. It was they who descended into weakness and turned away from the true faith; it was they who suffered the consequences of the Seljuq invasions; it was their land that was made ‘desolate and depopulated’ by these invaders. Uṙhayecʿi’s presentation of Armenian history both before and after the First Crusade was informed by his attempt to follow the prophecies of Kozeṙn, although this became particularly difficult after the Crusade. He reports mixed fortunes for the Armenians throughout his third book, and in keeping with the prediction of a ‘slow strengthening’ his last few entries lack the emphasis on destruction and Christian suffering that mark many of the previous ones. Nevertheless, Uṙhayecʿi does not entirely succeed in his goal of portraying a strengthening that would lead to eventual defeat of the ‘Persians’, and he overlooks precisely the sequence of events—the rise of the Rubenid princes in Cilicia—that could have best served his purpose. This chapter will focus upon the peculiarities of Uṙhayecʿi’s portrayal of the fortunes of his people—how he presented the dispossessed Bagratuni and Arcruni princes as well as the ‘new nobility’ of the Rubenids, Goł Vasil, and the other Armenian magnates of eastern Asia Minor. The rise of the ‘new nobility’ is for the most part conspicuously absent from the Chronicle; we shall see how this apparent omission on Uṙhayecʿi’s part arises from his attempt to remain true to the timeline set out in Kozeṙn’s prophecies. It is worth first considering who the Armenians were in Uṙhayecʿi’s eyes. The question of Armenian identity was not a particularly straightforward one in this period, and the question is made more difficult to approach by the modern conception of nationhood, as well as the history of nationalism as it pertains specifically to Armenia and the tragedies it suffered at the turn of the twentieth century. There are several markers of identity that can come into play in any discussion of Armenian identity; these include the territory known as ‘Armenia’, the Armenian language, the religious faith professed by self-identified Armeni-

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004330351_004

armenia in the chronicle

45

ans, and the sense of history and culture that these Armenians shared. There is no question that the Armenians had a strong sense of identity by Uṙhayecʿi’s time, rooted in the combination of their Iranian royal past and their early conversion to Christianity, and reinforced by the particular literary culture, based on a distinct language, that was established along with the conversion.1 On the whole, Uṙhayecʿi’s conception of the place of his people seems to fall largely within bounds that would have been uncontroversial in the historiographical tradition sanctioned by the katholikoi, bishops, and vardapets who preceded him. It would, however, be a mistake to imagine either that it was important to Uṙhayecʿi to distinguish between Armenians and non-Armenians, or that he held to a narrow and dogmatic conception of who the Armenians were at the expense of a sense of wider Christian community. Rather to the contrary, there are a few instances in which Uṙhayecʿi gives no ethnic label to individuals who are reported by various other sources to have been Armenian (e.g. the tower guard who betrayed Antioch to Bohemond,2 or the men who attacked the fortress of Kharberd to free three captured Crusader lords3), suggesting that he was not particularly concerned with drawing sharp ethnic lines except where it served to illustrate tensions between the Armenians and others. Uṙhayecʿi’s sense of Armenian Christianity as a marker of Armenian identity is similarly fluid, while conforming to apostolic norms. Although he fiercely denounces perceived and real attacks by the Byzantine leadership on the autonomy and creed of the Armenian apostolic church, he praises the piety and character of many—both Armenian and not—who professed a Chalcedonian creed or, as in the case of his possible mentor Sanahnecʿi, ‘turned a little to the Roman side’ on the question of the dual nature of Christ.4 Moreover, the advent of Islam and the attendant conversions among the Armenian Christians, as well as the rise of syncretistic belief systems among the peasants of the frontier between Christianity and Islam,5 significantly complicates the question; it is worth noting, for example, that Uṙhayecʿi recalls that the Muslim emir Dānishmand was ‘of the Armenian race’.

1 An admirable summary of the development of Armenian ethnic identity up to the end of the first millennium ce is given by Lint, ‘The Formation of Armenian Identity in the First Millenium’. 2 Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 263–264. 3 Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 353–355. 4 Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 161–162. 5 See Dadoyan, The Arab Period in Armīnyah; Dadoyan, Armenian Realpolitik in the Islamic World, for a thorough elaboration of these issues of Armenian identity outside the bounds of the ‘official’ eccelesiastical hierarchy.

46

chapter 3

The Idealized Past: The Presentation of Pre-1020 Armenia Since the beginning of their written literature in the fifth century ce the Armenians have been represented by their historiographers as a people apart. Whereas pagan Armenia was firmly within the Iranian milieu, the conversion of the king and nobility to Christianity over the course of the fourth century had begun to move the political and cultural alignment of the Armenians closer to that of Persia’s main rival to the west, the Roman Empire. Over the course of the sixth century, this realignment was halted as the opinion of the Armenian church hierarchy gradually hardened around a rejection of the Council of Chalcedon, and Armenian culture remained distinct from both the rest of Iranian culture and the rest of the Christian community. Since the invention of the Armenian script in the first half of the fifth century was directly tied to the spread of the Christian faith, it is not surprising that Armenian literature would reinforce the idea of a certain exceptionalism vis-à-vis Rome and Persia.6 For the rest of its medieval history Armenia found itself perpetually caught between these two powers, even as ‘Rome’ evolved into an orthodox Byzantine state and ‘Persia’ fell to the rise of Islam and later forged a new Muslim Persian identity. Although the hereditary line of Parthian Armenian kings fell in 428, the Armenians retained their existence and their identity throughout the subsequent centuries, never fully subsumed either by West or East. In the ninth century, as balance was slowly restored between the two powers, Armenia regained much of its sovereignty and the acknowledged senior prince, Ašot Bagratuni, was recognized by both as king around 884. Even then Armenian independence was not absolute; Ašot’s son Smbat died a martyr at the hands of a Muslim emir and his death plunged the nascent kingdom into a civil war while Smbat’s son Ašot ii struggled for control. The broad outline of Armenian history over the course of the tenth century is, however, one of increasing stability and autonomy. The period from the accession of Abas i in 929 to the death of Gagik i shortly before 1021 is widely considered to be the apogee of the autonomous Armenian kingdoms in the middle period. The most informative surviving source for most of this period is the history of Stepʿanos Asołik of Tarōn, who describes each of these reigns as periods of peace and prosperity occasionally interrupted by dissension within the church or by short-lived threats of invasion by various Muslim emirs. Asołik was writing in the first few years of the eleventh century;

6 More thorough discussions of Armenian identity and the interplay with their literature can be found in Garsoïan, ‘Reality and myth’ as well as Mahé, ‘Entre Moïse et Mahomet’.

armenia in the chronicle

47

the Armenians had possessed their autonomy, balanced between the powers of Constantinople and Baghdad, for roughly his entire lifetime. An independent Armenia was therefore a natural state of affairs to him—the Bagratid kings ruled just as their Aršakuni predecessors had in the fifth century and before. Although there had been a long interregnum and subjugation to Muslim rule, and although Muslim emirs (like the Sasanian Persians of old) occasionally threatened its security, Armenian sovereignty appeared to be stable. By the time Uṙhayecʿi set out to write his own chronicle, the tables had turned entirely. The stability taken for granted by Asołik had been utterly overthrown, with the Armenian nobility and people scattered to distant corners of the Byzantine empire and beyond; if any of Uṙhayecʿi’s interlocutors had ever lived in an independent Armenia then it could only have been in the waning days of that independence. By the 1130s Uṙhayecʿi and most of his fellow Armenians had only ever had the experience of forming part of a diaspora. In his hands the story of independent Armenia has a sense of the mythical, a lost era inhabited by larger-than-life heroes and villains. Along the way it has lost much of the sobriety and nuance one finds in Asołik, instead taking on more of a traditional epic character in places as Uṙhayecʿi puts his idealized history into the framework required by Kozeṙn’s second prophecy. Uṙhayecʿi begins the Chronicle in the Armenian year 401 (952/3), which was the year of the accession of Abas’ son Ašot iii. It quickly strikes the reader as odd that neither Edessa nor the Armenian kingdoms are the main focus of the Chronicle before 1021. The entry for 401 concerns a famine in Edessa and mentions the Armenians only incidentally. The majority of the reported episodes thereafter concern the succession of Byzantine emperors and Byzantine campaigns in the east, with only a few reports of events around Edessa and Antioch, and a few records of the succession of Armenian katholikoi which are almost all mis-dated. Although Uṙhayecʿi does portray the era of independent Armenia in an epic and heroic fashion, these episodes are scattered among a much larger selection of information about Byzantium, the wider Near East, and even Bulgaria. It seems that, although Uṙhayecʿi was convinced that these had been years of peace and plenty, he actually had only a little information about the southern Armenian kingdom of Vaspurakan, and almost none about events in the Bagratuni kingdoms and principalities. The first piece of information about the Armenian kingdoms is dated to 410 (961/2) in which Uṙhayecʿi records the accession of king ‘Gagik’ in Ani. This is the first sign to the reader of a serious disturbance in his chronology; Gagik i was in fact crowned much later, in 439 (990/1).7 Gagik’s death and the civil war 7 This is supported by multiple written sources as well as surviving epigraphy. An inscription

48

chapter 3

that it set off between his sons Smbat-Yovhannēs i and Ašot iv, which occurred around 1021, are set by Uṙhayecʿi at the beginning of the year 420 (971/2), only ten years after his ‘accession’. Although the dates for these events are known from other sources, the reference to Gagik’s coronation has generally been taken as a correctly-dated but misidentified reference to the coronation of his father Ašot iii.8 This interpretation has led to a certain amount of speculation around why Ašot iii would have waited nearly a decade after taking power to be formally crowned, but an explanation is probably unnecessary. The coronation that Uṙhayecʿi describes probably refers to a ceremony that occurred in 952. The clue to the earlier date of Ašot’s coronation lies in the inclusion of a reference to ‘Yovhan’, an Alan bishop who belonged rather to 951–952 than to the following decade, as well as the similar mis-datings of the reigns of the katholikos Anania (946–968) and the other katholikoi of the tenth century.9 Uṙhayecʿi’s setting of the 1021 civil war in 971 naturally led him to ‘correct’ the name of the king who came before, and his mis-dating of the coronation seems likely to have been an effect of the source he was following. The most famously misdated entry, that for the year 420 (971–972), includes a description of the civil war, the death of a prince named Apirat, and an incursion into the Pahlawuni lands of Bǰni. The prosopographical details of all these episodes are internally consistent, and support a re-assignment to the year 470 (1021/2).10 When this is done, very little ‘Armenian’ material from before the death of Gagik i remains. It includes the gathering of the princes of Armenia to meet the Byzantine emperor Iōannēs i Tzimiskēs in 421 (972/3); Uṙhayecʿi preserves the Armenian text of a letter addressed from Tzimiskēs to the king Ašot iii. It includes Uṙhayecʿi’s account (and mis-dating) of the last few years of the life of David curopalates, the great prince of Taykʿ who died in 1000; the annexation of David’s principality by Basil ii closely foreshadowed the annexation of the remainder of Armenia over the subsequent generation. It includes two episodes concerning the Arcruni royal family of Vaspurakan, the other major Armenian kingdom to the south of Ani. One, an account of the betrayal of Derenik Arcruni, the prince of Anjewacʿikʿ, by his sparapet Aplłarip, is not

8 9 10

containing the date 436 (987/8) makes reference to Gagik’s brother Smbat, whom he succeeded; two others dated to 992 refer to Gagik as šahnšah. See Ališan, Ayrarat bnašxarh Hayastaneayc‘, p. 144 and Ališan, Širak. Tełagrutʿiwn Patkeracʿoycʿ, p. 138. Mat‘evosyan, ‘Matt‘ēos Uṙhayec‘u “Patmut‘ean” Tarənt‘erc‘umnerə Bagratunineri veraberyal’, pp. 121–122; Garsoïan, ‘Independent Kingdoms’, p. 166. Andrews, ‘The Chronology of the Chronicle’, pp. 145–146. Andrews, ‘The Chronology of the Chronicle’, pp. 147–151.

armenia in the chronicle

49

recorded in other extant sources; the other, concerning a meeting between Basil ii and the king Senekʿerim Arcruni, is also mentioned by Asołik. Finally, it includes the succession of Armenian katholikoi; this information presents its own difficulties, as will be discussed below in chapter 7. Although Uṙhayecʿi’s ignorance of the history of the Armenian kingdoms in the late tenth century is striking, it is not altogether surprising. Asołik himself gives frustratingly little information about the events of the reigns of Ašot iii (952–976), Smbat ii (976–990) or Gagik i. The version of his history which has come down to us ends in the year 1003, midway through the reign of Gagik. Aristakēs, who begins his history in earnest with the death of Bagrat of Georgia in 1014, speaks of Asołik’s history and claims that it ended with Gagik’s death (sometime between 1018 and 1021).11 If this latter portion of the history ever existed then it has left no trace of its contents in the extant sources and it is unavailable today. Both Aristakēs and Uṙhayecʿi, however, appear to regard the reign of Gagik as the apogee of Bagratid Armenia (even if Uṙhayecʿi was confused concerning the identity of the king) and both regard the bellicosity of the younger generation of kings (Smbat-Yovhannēs and Ašot of Ani as well as Giorgi of Georgia) as the beginning of the troubles that led to the loss of Armenia. For Uṙhayecʿi, the faults of this younger generation of rulers constitute one of the first indications of the truth of the words of Yovhannēs Kozeṙn: that the leaders and princes of Armenia would fall into weakness and corruption and would thereby bring about the ruin of their people.

The Loss of the Armenian Kingdoms: 1000–1045 Apart from occasional references to the fact that ‘Smbat’ or ‘Ašot’ reigned in Ani or to the succession of katholikoi, Uṙhayecʿi says nothing more about individual Armenians until the death of David curopalates of Taykʿ. David, a member of the Bagratuni/Bagrationi clan, is normally described not as ‘Armenian’ but rather as ‘Iberian’, which is a word generally applied to those who were identified as Armenian on the basis of culture and language but adhered to the council of Chalcedon (and thus communion with the church of Constantinople).12 Given the territory he ruled and the doctrine he professed, David is associated with the Georgian people as much as the Armenians; the Arme-

11 12

Aristakēs, Patmutʿiwn, p. 26; Aristakēs, Récit des malheurs, p. 9. Arutjunova-Fidanjan, ‘The Ethno-Confessional Self-Awareness of Armenian Chalcedonians’, pp. 351–352.

50

chapter 3

nian sources nevertheless treat him as one of their own. He was granted his title as well as territory within the Byzantine empire by Basil ii as a reward for his assistance against the rebel Bardas Skleros. When he later allied with the rebel Bardas Phokas against Basil, he was compelled in the aftermath of Phokas’ defeat to will his entire principality to the empire in 990.13 The trajectory of David’s career directly foreshadows the later loss of the Armenian kingdoms and particularly the loss of Ani in the 1040s. In this light it is odd that Uṙhayecʿi makes no mention of David’s will or Basil’s attempt to claim his inheritance—is this a case of simple ignorance and faulty information, or was the tale of David simply inconveniently placed for the overall arc of Kozeṙn’s prophecy? In this light it is also, perhaps, telling that Uṙhayecʿi provides no account of the circumstances of the cession of Tarōn to Byzantium by the Bagratuni princes of that land in the late 960s. Uṙhayecʿi records the attack of Mamlan, the emir of Atrpatakan, against Taykʿ, the murder of David curopalates by some of his courtiers ‘a few years’ after the defeat of Mamlan, and the revenge exacted by Basil ii ‘a few years later’,14 all compressed to a period ‘in these times’ around 432 (983/4). The chronology given for the death of David is somewhat bewildering when compared to the account of Asołik, who reports that Mamlan only succeeded to the emirate in 437 (988/9).15 It is also well-attested that David died in the year 1000.16 Although there is no evidence that Uṙhayecʿi made direct use of the history of Asołik as a source, it is possible that his chronological error here can be traced back to an ambiguity in that account.17 The information concerning David is also curiously isolated in the text; Uṙhayecʿi makes no mention of David’s fellow rulers apart from Basil, suggesting that if he was working directly from a source that mentioned David’s contemporaries (including Gagik i of Ani, Abas of Kars, and David’s own heir Bagrat of Georgia all mentioned by Asołik in this context) then he was simply unable to reconcile the names given with his belief that the princes of 1021 had been in place since 971. Notwithstanding the difficulties with its exact placement in time, the episode concerning David curopalates fits very well into the trajectory of Arme-

13 14 15 16 17

Garsoïan, ‘Independent Kingdoms’, pp. 168–169. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 34–38. Asołik, Patmutʿiwn tiezerakan, p. 199, Histoire universelle, p. 73. Aristakēs, Patmutʿiwn, pp. 22–23, Récit des malheurs, pp. 2–3; Asołik, Patmutʿiwn tiezerakan, p. 275, Histoire universelle, p. 162. At issue here is a confusingly worded chronological backtracking in the history of Asołik, which could easily lead a reader to mis-date the attack of Mamlan on Taykʿ as Uṙhayecʿi has evidently done. See Andrews, ‘The Chronology of the Chronicle’, pp. 150–151.

armenia in the chronicle

51

nian history that Uṙhayecʿi is trying to map. The prince is threatened by an impious Muslim emir in the blackest terms; he immediately beseeches God for assistance and, before he has risen from his prayers, news is carried to him of the emir’s defeat.18 Some time later certain ‘evil princes’ sought to murder him, going so far as to poison the Eucharist given to him; although David was wiser than his enemies expected and had an antidote prepared, the priest responsible for the poison finally smothered him in his sleep. The plotters, however, met their ends at the hands of Basil ii who had them drowned in the river as punishment for their deeds.19 In Uṙhayecʿi’s account the rulers remain wise and pious; although they may be martyred at the hands of their evil enemies God sees to it that justice is done. The more ambiguous parts of the history that are overlooked by Uṙhayecʿi, concerning David’s involvement in the plot against Basil and his own cession of his lands, have no place here. From the death of David curopalates until the Eastern campaign of Basil ii in the early 1020s, the only substantial item of history Uṙhayecʿi reports from the Armenian kingdoms concerns the early incursions into Vaspurakan by the nomadic Turks, and the consequent annexation of the kingdom by the Byzantine empire. Uṙhayecʿi has preserved the fullest extant account of this raid—even the continuators of the Arcruni family history of Tʿovma20 give only the barest description of the invasion and the family’s consequent migration to Sebasteia. In 999 the last Iranian dynasty in Central Asia, the Samanids, was overcome by a confederation of Qarakhanid Turks; Samanid power had acted as a barrier that prevented the migration of Turkic tribes westward, and this was now removed.21 One of these tribes entered Vaspurakan in late 1016 or early 1017. When the king Senekʿerim Arcruni heard of the invasion, writes Uṙhayecʿi, he interpreted the appearance of the Turks as a sign of the inevitable destruction of his kingdom. He realised that he was unable to defend it, so he turned to the power who was most able to take on the responsibility: the Byzantium of Basil ii.22 The Arcrunis and their dependent noble families were re-settled in Sebasteia, Vaspurakan passed into Byzantine governance, and thus ‘the

18 19 20 21 22

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 34–36. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 37–38. Tʿovma Arcruni, Patmutʿiwn Tann Arcruneacʿ, pp. 335–338. Dimitri Korobeinikov, ‘Raiders and Neighbours’, p. 696. However, Peacock, Early Seljūq history, p. 151 raises doubts about whether the Seljuqs had come as far west as Vaspurakan at this early date, and strongly questions the connection between any raids and Senekʿerim’s decision to abdicate.

52

chapter 3

Armenian land was abandoned by its kings and princes’.23 For Uṙhayecʿi this served as the most direct and explicit model for what was to come. 471–472 (1021–1024): Basil ii’s Eastern Campaign and its Consequences Uṙhayecʿi continues the theme of abdication of responsibility with his next pair of entries, which describe Basil’s 1021–1024 campaign in the East and its consequences. The full story of the year 1021 began much earlier in his narrative, with the misplaced entry that covered the civil war between the brothers Smbat-Yovhannēs (hereafter Yovhannēs) and Ašot upon the death of their father Gagik. At the same time, because Uṙhayecʿi was confused about the dates, he necessarily had to alter his presentation of events. He needed to show that it was not until the eleventh century and the arrival of the Turkish threat that the weakness of the Armenian princes began to have disastrous consequences. The sequence of events for these years can be fairly well established through the surviving histories of Aristakēs,24 Skylitzēs,25 and Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd26 as well as that of Uṙhayecʿi (although only Aristakēs and Uṙhayecʿi give an account of the civil war itself). Based upon the consensus of these sources we may sketch the following outline. Gagik i of Armenia was dead by 1020, though the date of his death has not been firmly established. Soon thereafter, probably in 1021 but possibly a little earlier, his sons Yovhannēs and Ašot began to dispute the succession. Their dispute resulted in a short civil war that drew in most of the regional powers, including the kingdoms of Georgia and of Vaspurakan. The neighbouring kings and princes together with the ecclesiastical leadership of Armenia brokered a settlement between the brothers that left Yovhannēs in control of the city of Ani and its immediate surroundings, while Ašot ruled the kingdom outside Ani; it was agreed that upon the death of either brother the kingdom would be re-united under the other. This settlement seems to have played to the strengths of both brothers—Yovhannēs is portrayed as intelligent but physically weak, while Ašot was the warrior to whom the defence of the kingdom as a whole could be entrusted. Although the details of Uṙhayecʿi’s account of the civil war are internally consistent and almost certainly belong to the year 1021, his placement of the

23 24 25 26

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 49. Aristakēs, Patmutʿiwn, pp. 26–40, Récit des malheurs, pp. 7–26. Skylitzēs, Synopsis historiôn, pp. 304–305. Yaḥyā, ‘Histoire 3’, pp. 459–469.

armenia in the chronicle

53

episode in 971 did affect his presentation of the event.27 The constraints of Kozeṙn’s prophetic timeline required a portrayal of Armenian heroes, of brave and virtuous warriors, and of a solution to the problem that was in accord with God’s will; this is the portrait that the reader must therefore expect, and it is what Uṙhayecʿi provides. He begins his account by describing the characteristics of the two kings. Yovhannēs, the elder, was ‘wise and very clever, but was cowardly and idle in flesh and feeble and unpolished in battle’; Ašot, the younger, was ‘valiant and brave and strong, invincible and victorious in war.’ Upon the death of their father Yovhannēs took control of the city of Ani while Ašot travelled around Armenia with his army to solicit support for his own claim. On his way back to Ani to confront his brother, he stopped to pray at the Holy Cross of Varag and the icon of the Virgin and made a substantial donation to the monastery of Varag. Uṙhayecʿi describes the fighting that occurred at the gates of Ani and relates the story of a Georgian hero, allied with Yovhannēs, who died in single combat against Ašot; this becomes a portrait of the bravery of men on both sides of the conflict. After the battle the Armenian nobility intervened to make peace between the brothers, which resulted in the division of the kingdom described above. ‘And then’, writes Uṙhayecʿi, ‘there was peace in all the land of Armenia.’28 The entry goes on to describe the death of a prince named Apirat, who had been allied with Ašot and had fled Ani in fear of reprisal by Yovhannēs, at the hands of the Muslim emir Abūʿl-Uswār. Uṙhayecʿi describes Yovhannēs’ bitter regret upon learning of Apirat’s death and writes that the king made amends by giving ‘lands and high honour’ to the prince’s orphaned sons. He ends the entry with an account of the death of Vasak Pahlawuni, the father of Grigor Pahlawuni (later Grigor magistros), who died defending his family fortress of Bǰni against the Daylamites of Iranian Azerbaijan. Again he stresses the virtue and bravery of the Armenian forces: upon hearing of the invasion Vasak immediately abandoned his revelry, and before going into battle he and all his troops ‘took communion and sincerely confessed their sins to Jesus Christ.’29 The message throughout is that the princes of this era were valiant and pious.

27

28 29

It would be extremely interesting to know whether, in this chronological placement, Uṙhayecʿi was also following the history of Sanahnecʿi; unfortunately the corresponding portion of the latter does not survive. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 7–10. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 10–11.

54

chapter 3

For an instructive comparison one may turn to the account given by Aristakēs. His description of the brothers is very like Uṙhayecʿi’s: ‘Smbat was corpulent and thick-bodied, but in wisdom they say that he surpassed most men; Ašot had a well-regulated stature of body, was brave-hearted and war-loving.’30 From that point, however, his telling diverges: Giorgi, the king of Georgia, brokered the territorial settlement between Yovhannēs and Ašot shortly after the death of Gagik. As Yovhannēs travelled back to Ani, a prince who was one of Ašot’s partisans went to Giorgi to accuse Yovhannēs of unjustly taking his lands. Giorgi sent soldiers to arrest Yovhannēs; the fight outside Ani resulted from this action, not from a direct conflict between Yovhannēs and Ašot. Aristakēs reports that the soldiers ‘despoiled and plundered the ornaments of the churches of the katholikoi; and, pulling the nails from the cross, they said about these affronts “We shall take them and use them for horseshoes.”’ Aristakēs continues his tale with ominous foreshadowing: even after this dispute had been settled, Ašot suffered from the encroachment of powerful neighbours and eventually went to seek military assistance from Constantinople. It is clear that the message Aristakēs wishes to convey is very different from that of Uṙhayecʿi: the Armenian princes were not acting in accordance with God’s will, and their people would soon suffer for it. The message of sin and suffering that was excised from Uṙhayecʿi’s account of the civil war returns in full strength for the remainder of his description of the events of 1021–1023, now placed in their proper years. This part of the tale concerns the Iberian campaign of Basil ii, recorded by Skylitzēs and Yaḥyā as well as the Armenian historians. The causes for this campaign had their roots in the failed rebellion of Bardas Phokas against the emperor in 989. As a consequence of his support for the rebel, David curopalates had been compelled to will his principality of Taykʿ to the empire upon his death. Basil had marched east to claim his inheritance after David’s death in 1000, but Byzantine control of the region was not strongly asserted and David’s original heir, Bagrat iii of Abkhazia, remained in control. By his death in 1014 Bagrat had also acquired the kingdom of Iberia and was thereby able to pass on the united pair of kingdoms, along with the de facto claim to Taykʿ itself, to his son Giorgi (the king who would later mediate between Yovhannēs and Ašot) upon his death in 1014. A Byzantine army sent that year to enforce Basil’s claim to Taykʿ was defeated; it was to avenge this defeat that Basil marched east in 1021.31 While Basil was in the east he was confronted with another revolt led

30 31

Aristakēs, Patmutʿiwn, pp. 26–27, Récit des malheurs, p. 10. Holmes, Basil ii, 481–482.

armenia in the chronicle

55

by his generals Nikephoros Phokas and Nikephoros Xiphias.32 The revolt had widespread support within the Byzantine military and among the leaders of the East, including Giorgi, Yovhannēs, Ašot, and David Arcruni, who was the son of Senekʿerim of Vaspurakan. It was quelled upon the murder of Phokas; the Armenian sources claim that this was brought about by David Arcruni, who came to regret his role in the rebel cause.33 Although it is not at all apparent from Uṙhayecʿi’s account, the civil war in Ani occurred under the shadow of this Iberian intransigence toward Byzantium and its aftermath was intertwined with Basil’s presence in the east. The evidence of direct Armenian involvement in the Byzantine–Iberian dispute is scant, but Uṙhayecʿi does claim that Yovhannēs supported Giorgi in his struggle against Basil (as well as supporting the rebel leaders Phokas and Xiphias). If so, the Armenian king would have been put into an awkward position when Giorgi was defeated. Whether out of fear of Byzantine reprisal, out of a desire to prevent an eventual succession by Ašot or his descendants, or from another set of motives, Yovhannēs sent the katholikos Petros Getadarj to sign a treaty in which he willed his kingdom to the Byzantine empire after his death. It was the efforts to enforce this treaty after Yovhannēs died in 1041 that would lead directly to the end of the Bagratuni throne. A comparison of Uṙhayecʿi’s account of this campaign with the reconstructed version given above is instructive. This episode follows a series of entries that focus on events in Byzantium, and in particular on the victorious campaigns and upright conduct of Basil ii.34 Uṙhayecʿi begins with the assertion that Basil marched eastward to demand Ani and Kars from the king Yovhannēs, apparently unprompted by anything. In light of the actual events of this year, and of Uṙhayecʿi’s generally high opinion of the emperor, the lack of context or justification for Basil’s ‘demand’ is surprising. Uṙhayecʿi goes on to claim that Yovhannēs acquiesced out of ‘cowardice’. Although this is not a particularly illuminating rationale, it is of a piece with his claim, first expressed in connection with the annexation of Vaspurakan, that the Armenian kings had become cowardly and neglectful of their duties. From that point on, however, Uṙhayecʿi’s account of events begins to reflect that of Aristakēs much more closely than in the material transposed to 420 (971/2), since at this point both writers have a similar message: that the fall of Armenia was brought about by 32 33 34

Holmes, Basil ii, 515–525. Uṙhayecʿi, Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 51; Aristakēs, Patmutʿiwn, p. 34, Récit des malheurs, p. 19. Uṙhayecʿi’s attitudes toward Byzantium, and toward Basil ii in particular, are discussed in detail in chapter 4.

56

chapter 3

the sins of its leaders. The similarities can be seen, for instance, in the two descriptions of the visit that Basil received from the Armenian katholikos Petros (and, according to Uṙhayecʿi, Yovhannēs Kozeṙn). The emperor invited the katholikos to celebrate the service of Epiphany. Both Uṙhayecʿi and Aristakēs describe the miracle that occurred when Petros blessed the water according to the Armenian rite of Epiphany. If one allows for the inevitable embellishment of details over the decades that separate the two authors, their descriptions are remarkably similar. Aristakēs reports that ‘when the hayrapet poured the Lord’s oil into the water, a scattering of rays of light suddenly shone forth from the water’;35 according to Uṙhayecʿi, ‘fire suddenly appeared shining upon the water and the river was bound to one spot and did not move.’36 Similarly, the accounts of the attempted coup of Phokas and Xiphias match. Both Armenian historians leave Xiphias out altogether; both describe the ‘turn-coat’ role played by David Arcruni; both describe Basil’s subsequent attack against Giorgi, the latter’s submission, and the freak summer snowstorm that halted Basil’s advance on the Muslim-controlled city of Her. The details of the individual episodes within Uṙhayecʿi’s account align remarkably closely with those of Aristakēs. In service to his theme, however, he has re-ordered all the major events. Here, Basil arrives in the east to demand the territory of Yovhannēs, and to demand submission from Giorgi of Georgia. Yovhannēs accedes to Basil’s request, but Giorgi refuses to submit until Basil compels him through force of arms. While the emperor is in the East he honours the Armenian church, represented by its katholikos Petros, allowing him pride of place at the Epiphany service. Having demonstrated his esteem for the Armenians, Basil is confronted with a rebellion by his own generals which is supported by, among others, the very Armenians that he has just honoured. He defeats the rebels with the assistance of David Arcruni and then turns against Giorgi in retaliation for his support of the rebels. This is a rather different sequence of events, and gives a much more negative image of the Armenian princes of the time, than the accounts that have come down to us from the other historians. The picture that Uṙhayecʿi paints is explained immediately with the first prophecy of Kozeṙn, placed just after the account of Basil’s Eastern campaign. With the consequences of that campaign fresh in the reader’s memory, Uṙhayecʿi sets down Kozeṙn’s warning that no man would remain faithful to the commandments of God, that the princes would fall into sin, pride, and small-

35 36

Aristakēs, Patmutʿiwn, p. 32, Récit des malheurs, p. 15. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 50.

armenia in the chronicle

57

mindedness, and that in so doing they would incur the wrath of God on all creation. It is a warning whose truth Uṙhayecʿi has just illustrated. The Armenian royal ‘children’ had rejected and rebelled against their ‘father’; they had begun to display the ‘stubborn, self-loving, … mendacious’37 qualities against which Kozeṙn warns. As a result, they and their people had already paid a price, and would pay a much heavier one in the years to come. 490–494 (1041–1046): Turkish Invasions and the Loss of Independence The second prophecy, set in 485 (1036/7), gives the outline of history that Uṙhayecʿi followed for the remainder of the Chronicle. The ‘foreign race of infidel Turks’ would come to punish the Christian faithful as agents of God’s wrath; ‘for sixty years the earth is to be desolated by sword and captivity.’ This sixtyyear period would end when the Crusaders captured Jerusalem but another fifty-year period of suffering would immediately follow, this time at the hands of the Persians, the traditional antagonists of Christian Armenia throughout its medieval historiography. This second period of Christian subjugation would be tempered by a slow strengthening of the remaining Christian princes in preparation for the eventual revival of the pseudo-Methodian ‘Roman emperor’ and re-establishment of the Christian order. This is the summary of the history of the Armenian people as Uṙhayecʿi went on to write it. He begins immediately with an account of the Armenian capture of Berkri from a Muslim emir named as Xtrik.38 The victorious prince, Ganji, allowed his troops to fall into drunken negligence. The consequences were immediate: the evicted emir was able to rally his townspeople against the invaders, catch them unprepared, and rout them. Already in the very year in which Uṙhayecʿi has set them Kozeṙn’s predictions were beginning to be fulfilled. Uṙhayecʿi’s description of the capture of Berkri and the loss that was brought about by the captors’ negligence is partially corroborated in the accounts of Aristakēs39 and Skylitzēs,40 but there it is cast as a conflict between Byzantines and ‘Persians’ with no explicit Armenian involvement. Uṙhayecʿi may have regarded the episode as an ideal illustration of the consequences of Christian immorality, and adopted it into his account of Armenian history by changing the identities of the protagonists; equally, given the location of Berkri to the northeast of Lake Van in Vaspurakan, the soldiers may well have been Armenian even if their commanders were not. 37 38 39 40

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 53–54. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 74–75. Aristakēs, Patmutʿiwn, p. 48, Récit des malheurs, p. 36. Skylitzēs, Synopsis historiôn, p. 322.

58

chapter 3

The signature disaster of the 1040s, for most of the Armenian historians who followed, was the loss of their hereditary territory and longstanding autonomy to the Byzantine Empire. Apart from the Chronicle, the most informative source for the annexation of Ani is the history of Aristakēs; it is also discussed briefly by Skylitzēs. None of these historians gives an entirely satisfactory account of events but the evidence suggests something like the following.41 The king in Ani, Yovhannēs, died in 1041 with no son or appointed heir; his brother Ašot had died the previous year leaving a teenage son Gagik. In exchange for the agreement he had made in 1022 to leave his kingdom to Byzantium after his death, Yovhannēs had held Byzantine imperial rank (with the financial subsidy that this rank implied) for the remainder of his life. After his death a courtier named Sargis Haykazn attempted to take control of the kingdom, probably on behalf of the Empire, and a pro-Byzantine faction allied with Sargis encouraged the emperor Michael iv to come and enforce Yovhannēs’ will. Michael marched eastward with an army to take Ani, but an anti-Byzantine faction within the city led by Vahram Pahlawuni (uncle of the future Grigor magistros) expelled Sargis from the city and installed the young son of Ašot iv, Gagik, as king. Gagik captured and imprisoned Sargis, thus removing the immediate internal threat to his rule; the external threat, Michael’s Byzantine troops, were unable to overcome Armenian resistance and soon withdrew. Gagik then embarked upon ‘two successful years’42 of his reign during which time Sargis Haykazn worked his way back into the young king’s confidence. In late 1044 or early 1045 the new emperor Constantine ix Monomachos made another attempt to claim the inheritance of Yovhannēs. He invited Gagik to visit Constantinople; both the Armenian sources claim that this invitation was made with the duplicitous purpose of removing the king from his capital and forcing him into exile. Gagik was convinced by his proByzantine advisers, led by Sargis, to accept the invitation of the emperor; he entrusted the rule of Ani to the katholikos Petros Getadarj and departed for Constantinople. He was never to return. Once in the capital, he was coerced by Constantine into giving up his kingdom in return for the grant of territory near Sebasteia. Resistance to Byzantine rule was once again organised by the Pahlawuni family, but it was short-lived. Petros surrendered the city to the governor of Melitene after it had become clear that Gagik would not return.

41 42

This reconstruction of the timeline for both the annexation of Ani and the 1048 sack of Arcn and battle of Kaputru is taken from Shepard. ‘Scylitzes on Armenia in the 1040s’. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 87.

armenia in the chronicle

59

Uṙhayecʿi’s own account of the loss of Ani is consistent with his larger aim to portray the ways in which dissension and sin led to the downfall of the Christian kingdoms as Kozeṙn’s prophecies foretold. He begins his account of events for the year 489 (1040/1) with the sighting of a comet; this is not assigned any immediate significance but it serves as a portentous introduction to disaster. The death of Ašot iv is recorded in the same year. After his death ‘the Armenian forces grew feeble and despised the arts of war, they came under the yoke of servitude to the Roman nation, they settled into drunkenness, they loved citherns and the works of gusans;43 they deviated from unity with each other and they did not come to the aid of their own; and [as for] the land which was put to the sword, they engaged in weeping and wept for the destruction of each other while betraying each other to the sword of the Greek race; and they became destroyers of their own kind and turned to the side of their own enemies.’44 This relatively long condemnation of the Armenian military forces is a clear echo of the warnings of Kozeṙn. The theme of dissension and mutual betrayal is taken up in the next episode Uṙhayecʿi describes: an offensive by the emir Abūʿl-Uswār against the Alan ruler David Anhołin.45 The combined Alan and Armenian armies were successful on this occasion, but Uṙhayecʿi explains that the required troops were only raised after David wrote to Yovhannēs of Ani, and the rulers of Kapan and Abkhazia, threatening to betray them to Abūʿl-Uswār if they refused to come to his aid. Here we find something of an inversion of the tenth-century attack of Mamlan upon David curopalates, substituting the threats and treachery of the Alan for the piety and trust in God of the Iberian. Uṙhayecʿi goes on to describe the offensives of Michael iv against Ani and the coronation of Gagik ii that was engineered by Vahram and Grigor Pahlawuni to counter Byzantine claims.46 Like Aristakēs he gives hints of the complex political alliances that formed in Ani during this time, but these hints are frustratingly vague. The responsibility for the loss of Ani is laid on the ‘apostate and perfidious men’, including Sargis Haykazn, who arranged to surrender Ani after Gagik had left the city. He describes the continued resistance of the residents of Ani to Byzantine rule and their eventual submission. His entry for the following year describes an earthquake in Ekełeacʿ province and ‘darkness 43

44 45 46

Gusans were itinerant musicians in the Parthian cultural tradition; from the beginning of Armenian Christian historiography they tended to be associated with the pagan traditions that Christian written literature was intended to supplant. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 79. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 79–82. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 82–84.

60

chapter 3

and gloom upon the earth to such an extent that the sun and moon took on the appearance of blood’ throughout that summer. The message of divine anger at the Armenians is clear.

The Occupied East and the Armenians in Exile After he had accomplished their annexation Monomachos lost no time in bringing the new Armenian provinces under imperial control. A primary remit of the appointed Byzantine governors was to secure the area against the increasingly frequent Turkish raids; one of these ended in 1045/6 with the capture of the Byzantine governor of Vaspurakan Stephen Lichoudes.47 In 1048 Monomachos dispatched three Byzantine governors—Katakalon Kekaumenos of Ani, Aaron (son of Vladislav of Bulgaria) of Vaspurakan, and Grigor magistros Pahlawuni, who in the wake of the annexation of Ani had ceded his patrimonial lands to the empire and had been made doux of Mesopotamia—to engage the Turks.48 These three had been ordered to join forces with a Georgian prince named Liparit, but as they waited for Liparit’s arrival, the Turkish troops reached the town of Arcn unopposed and sacked it. Although both Uṙhayecʿi and Aristakēs dwell at length on the sack of Arcn and Uṙhayecʿi claims that it was ‘the first town which was captured from the Armenians and put to the sword and enslaved’,49 the land did not immediately come under Turkish rule. The Byzantine modus operandi at the time was to allow the raids to take place, and attack the raiders as they returned with their booty and prisoners to the East.50 This was precisely what Kekaumenos, Aaron, and Grigor did, but when they engaged the Turks they were defeated and Liparit was taken prisoner. The next twenty years were marked by repeated raids by Turkish troops; although Byzantium remained in administrative control of its eastern territory, the emperors neglected to devote enough resources to securing Anatolia against raids. Meanwhile, the increasing population of the nomadic Turks led them more aggressively to seek a permanent base.51 In 1069 Romanos Diogenes took the imperial throne. He was aware of the danger, and his expedition to the East in 1071 was meant to secure the eastern territories against this threat

47 48 49 50 51

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 98–100; Skylitzēs, Synopsis historiôn, p. 371. For the career of Grigor, see Sanjian, ‘Grigor Magistros’. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 103. Frankopan, Alexios i Komnenos, 271–273. Magdalino, ‘The Medieval Empire (780–1204)’, pp. 180–189.

armenia in the chronicle

61

of invasion and settlement. His defeat at Manzikert, blamed by the vast majority of primary sources on treachery within the leadership of his army, is usually regarded to mark the end of effective Byzantine control in the East. Opposition to the Turkish raids after 1071 was organised primarily by local strongmen who amassed power in the vacuum left behind.52 For Uṙhayecʿi the inescapable result of the loss of Armenian independence was the constant waves of Muslim invasion and Christian retreat that Kozeṙn had foretold. Within his entry for 494 (1045/6), the year of the annexation, Uṙhayecʿi foreshadows the events that were to come by describing the incursion of ‘three men from the court of the sultan Ṭughril’, after they had been driven from Mosul by the Arab emir Qirwash ibn al-Muqallad.53 They attacked the city of Pałin (which lay roughly halfway between Melitene and Lake Van), took captives, and requested return passage through Byzantine-held Vaspurakan. It was Lichoudes’ refusal to allow them passage that resulted in his capture and, according to Uṙhayecʿi, his torture and death. Beginning with the sack of Arcn (which took place in 1048, although both Uṙhayecʿi and Aristakēs dated it to the following year)54 nearly every entry set in the former Armenian kingdoms describes a Turkish attack on an Armenian settlement and the consequent massacres of Christians. One of the early entries describes a rare Christian success: Uṙhayecʿi describes the first Turkish attack on Manzikert in 1054, which was successfully repelled by the strategos Vasil Apokapēs, an Armenian in the service of Byzantium.55 More typical are the accounts of Turkish attacks in Melitene,56 Sebasteia,57 Pałin,58 and others. The themes of Christian dissension and betrayal continue to feature 52

53

54 55 56 57 58

There is a great deal of debate in the current scholarship concerning the causes of this Byzantine collapse, and the extent to which the Byzantine government lost control of the East in the decade after Manzikert, but the links between regional and central power do seem to have weakened somewhat. Some of these links were re-established between 1078 and 1082 by Nikephoros Botaneiates and Alexios Komnenos, but by the 1090s even this power had gone. See Dédéyan, Les Arméniens entre Grecs, Musulmans et Croisés, part 1 ch. 1; Frankopan, Alexios i Komnenos, ch. 4; Holmes, Basil ii, 538–541; Dimitri Korobeinikov, ‘Raiders and Neighbours’, p. 701. This battle is placed by Ibn al-Athīr in April 1044; he also mentions the raids on the ‘Armenians and Byzantines’, but says nothing of the death of Lichoudes. Cf. Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kamil 1029–97, pp. 23–24. Shepard, ‘Scylitzes on Armenia’, pp. 272–273. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 118–122. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 128–130. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 133–135. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 138–140.

62

chapter 3

prominently. Uṙhayecʿi writes of a Byzantine counter-offensive near Amida in 511 (1062/3) in which the Armenian doux of Edessa, Dawatanos, was killed through the ‘treachery’ of the Frankish mercenary Hervé (named by Uṙhayecʿi as Frankopoulos). He claims that, later the same year, Hervé defeated the Turks at Karin, but was recalled and executed by the emperor Constantine Doukas for the death of Dawatanos.59 The final acts in the Turkish conquest of Armenia were the sack of Ani in 1064 and of Manzikert in 1070, both by the sultan Alp Arslan. The sack of Manzikert was, according to Uṙhayecʿi, a revenge attack for the failed offensive that Ṭughril Bey had led in 1054; it led directly to the 1071 battle of Manzikert, in the aftermath of which Byzantine control over its eastern territories was severely impacted. The words of the second prophecy are thus clearly illustrated: ‘all the faithful in Christ pass into starvation and captivity; many districts become depopulated, the strength of the saints is removed from the earth; churches are razed to their foundations.’60 Uṙhayecʿi must show that the Armenian lands had been devastated, just as Kozeṙn had foretold. The Royal Families in Exile Uṙhayecʿi’s portrayal of the ‘suffering of the Armenians’ was not limited to the former kingdoms of the east. He also shows the declining fortunes of the Armenian kings and princes in exile, and the continued mistreatment of his people at the hands of others. During the years surrounding the annexation of Armenia, in entries intermingled with those describing the Turkish raids and the Byzantine offensives on Ani, Uṙhayecʿi returns his attention to the Arcruni princes Atom and Apusahl, the sons of Senekʿerim who had inherited his titles in Sebasteia after the death of their brother David. The first overt indication of trouble came, according to Uṙhayecʿi, in 1040.61 A ‘wicked and evil prince’ of the Arcrunis went to the emperor Michael iv to accuse Atom and Apusahl of some unspecified act of treachery. Rather than resist the imperial troops sent to apprehend them, the brothers submitted to arrest and were brought to Constantinople where they invoked the memory of Basil ii in a plea for clemency. Michael was, claims Uṙhayecʿi, moved by their plea and allowed them to return to Sebasteia. One of the last appearances of the Arcruni brothers in the Chronicle comes in 1071 on the eve of the battle of Manzikert, when they were snubbed by

59 60 61

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 141–144. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 72. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 83–84.

armenia in the chronicle

63

Romanos Diogenes as a result of more ‘slanderous remarks’ made to him by unidentified ‘Romans’. Uṙhayecʿi blames Diogenes’ downfall on the prayers of Armenian monks who cursed the emperor after he threatened, in the grip of his indignation at the Arcrunis, to force union upon the Armenian church after his return from the battle.62 Similar stories appear elsewhere within Books One and Two, and Uṙhayecʿi uses one of these episodes as his entry for the year 500 to end Book One. The emperor at this time was Constantine ix Monomachos, the accusers were another set of ‘perfidious people’ of unknown ethnicity, and the victims were the ‘sons of Habel’ Harpik, David, Lewon, and Constantine.63 In this instance the emperor dispatched a general to arrest them and they chose to resist. Harpik was killed and the other three were taken to Constantinople and confined to one of the islands in the Sea of Marmara, where they remained until the reign of Theodora (1055–1056).64 After the last king of Ani, Gagik, had joined his fellow Armenians in exile in Cappadocia he began to share their fate to some extent. His first appearance in the Chronicle after the fall of Ani comes in 514 (1065/6) when the emperor Constantine x Doukas gathered several members of the Armenian nobility and clergy in Constantinople in order to accomplish the union of the churches. Just as they were on the point of adopting a statement of union drawn up by Yakob Sanahnecʿi, claims Uṙhayecʿi, Gagik arrived in Constantinople, destroyed the statement of Yakob, and wrote his own profession of faith, the full text of which Uṙhayecʿi reproduces in the entry.65 Upon his departure from the capital Gagik went to Caesarea, where relations between the Greek and Armenian communities appear to have been particularly bad. He had an altercation with Markos, the Greek metropolitan of the city, which ended with Markos’ murder at the hands of Gagik’s men. The consequences of Gagik’s actions were reaped fifteen years later, when he was captured and killed by three Byzantine nobles identified as the ‘sons of Mandalē’. ‘Here,’ writes Uṙhayecʿi, ‘the kingdom of the Armenian nation and of the Bagratuni family came to be ended.’66

62 63

64 65 66

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 198–199. Dédéyan has proposed that these were forerunners or other close relatives of the Rubenid line that would come to rule Cilician Armenia. See Les Arméniens entre Grecs, Musulmans et Croisés, pp. 368–371. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 109–112, 122. See below, p. 149, for more on this incident and an alternative interpretation thereof. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 220.

64

chapter 3

The Rise and Fall of Philaretos Throughout his account of the sixty years that passed between the second prophecy attributed to Kozeṙn and the arrival of the First Crusade, Uṙhayecʿi is consistent in portraying the sons of the former Armenian kings as victims of Byzantine aggressiveness and of the perfidy of their own compatriots. There is only one Armenian ruler who is acknowledged to have had any measure of success during this time, and Uṙhayecʿi’s opinion of him is violently negative. This is Philaretos, the warlord who came to control a large swathe of northern Syria and Cilicia in the decade after 1071. The Byzantine defeat at Manzikert left many scattered remnants of the imperial army in Asia Minor, some of whom took advantage of the anarchy of the next few years to carve out their own power bases. One of these soldiers was Philaretos Brachamios, an ethnic Armenian whose family had been in Byzantine service for at least two generations.67 By 1078 Philaretos was in control of territory that stretched from Kharberd to Antioch. During his Byzantine military career he had been part of a cohort of ethnic Armenian soldiers who were closely allied with Romanos Diogenes; several of them were active participants in Diogenes’ attempt to regain his throne after his defeat, and it was probably for this reason that Philaretos gave no recognition to the new emperor Michael Doukas. Michael was unable to force the issue and Philaretos’ rule was effectively independent until the rise of the Seljuq sultan Malik-Shah. Philaretos finally acknowledged Byzantine suzerainty in 1078 to the new emperor Nikephoros Botaneiates, who had been a comrade-in-arms in the years leading up to the battle of Manzikert. His rule over his territories was acknowledged in return by Botaneiates through the grant of the Byzantine title of Domestic of the East, and was later acknowledged by Alexios Komnenos by his confirmation of Philaretos’ office and his promotion to the ranks of sebastos and protosebastos in turn. By the mid-1080s, however, Philaretos was coming under increasing pressure from the Turks under Malik-Shah. He lost control over Antioch in 1084, having left it undefended while he himself was in Edessa; this was recorded by Uṙhayecʿi as well as by Anna Komnenē, who was anxious to show that the loss of Antioch was not the fault of Alexios himself.68 Philaretos went to the court of Malik-Shah shortly after the loss of Antioch to seek confirmation of his rule, but he was unsuccessful, and in his absence a rival staged a coup in Edessa that resulted in the loss of the last of his power.

67 68

For a thorough discussion of Philaretos, his origins, and his career, see Dédéyan, Les Arméniens entre Grecs, Musulmans et Croisés, part 1. Frankopan, Alexios i Komnenos, 297–298.

armenia in the chronicle

65

In Uṙhayecʿi’s eyes, Philaretos was the epitome of the ‘impious princes, with many vices, audacious and sinful’ to which Kozeṙn referred in his prophecies. He is introduced with a string of epithets: In this period the impious and most evil prince Philaretos rose to tyranny, who was indeed the eldest son of Satan, for when Diogenes fell [this] venomous man, who was indeed a fore-runner to the Antichrist, tyrannised the land, demonic and capricious in his malicious behaviour. He began to make war against the Christian faithful, because he was an unbeliever in Christ, with no Armenian and no Roman recognising him, [although] he held the Roman religion and customs, and through his paternity and maternity he was Armenian, and from infancy he had been placed with his father’s brother in the monastery called Zōrvri-Kozeṙn in Hisn-Mansur district. He came from the desert and became filth of the desert; he took over many lands and cities and mercilessly destroyed many great princes and he came and dwelled in Mšar.69 The Brachamioi were Armenians who had long been in Byzantine service; as such it has been generally assumed that they professed the Chalcedonian creed. This cannot entirely explain Uṙhayecʿi’s enmity, however, given the number of Armenian Chalcedonians in the Chronicle who are not so reviled.70 A good counter-example is Tʿoros, the ruler of Edessa who was killed shortly after the arrival of the Crusaders. He was probably a Chalcedonian71 but Uṙhayecʿi portrays him as a ruler who had the best interests of his Armenian subjects in mind and who was unjustly hated. One must search elsewhere for an explanation of his antipathy toward Philaretos. Dédéyan has suggested that his attitude may arise from a source, whether written or otherwise, connected with the katholikos Grigor ii Vkayasēr, the son of Grigor magistros Pahlawuni whose enmity toward Philaretos was well-known.72 A more striking suggestion has been put forward by Seta Dadoyan, who sees in the descriptions of the rise of Philaretos signs of an adherent to the syncretistic Tʿondrakian movement.73 If so, Uṙhayecʿi would have seen him as fully heretical rather than simply schismatic, and this would be more than enough to explain his ire as well as the enmity of the Pahlawunis. 69 70 71 72 73

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 206. For a further discussion of Uṙhayecʿi’s religious attitudes, see chapter 8. Bournoutian, ‘Cilician Armenia’, pp. 274–276. Dédéyan, Les Arméniens entre Grecs, Musulmans et Croisés, p. 49. Dadoyan, Armenian Realpolitik in the Islamic World, pp. 56–59.

66

chapter 3

Whatever the origins of Uṙhayecʿi’s opinions, he found in Philaretos another agent of the divine punishment of the Armenians that the prophecies called for. Having introduced him in such an extremely negative manner, Uṙhayecʿi went on to connect him to the downfall of several Armenian nobles including Tʿoṙnik of Sasun,74 the rival rulers of Edessa Smbat and Išxan,75 and Gagik Bagratuni himself.76 He also blamed Philaretos for instigating multiple divisions within the Armenian church, by appointing rival katholikoi to Grigor Vkayasēr who refused to reside within Philaretos’ principality. This was in direct fulfilment of the prophecies: And so behold all these things [i.e. the divisions within the church] are precursors of the Antichrist and the beginning of the end of the world, for this disappearance of faith and of divine worship is in fulfilment of what was written in the holy books, what St. Nersēs and his son St. Isahak, and what the holy vardapet Yovhannēs, who is called Kozeṙn, said in our time. He spoke many words as prophecies about this era and about the obstruction of divine worship in the minds of everyone; and [that] they would weaken in faith; he said this in that same book from earlier times.77 Finally Uṙhayecʿi reports the apostasy of Philaretos, an action taken in a desperate and unsuccessful bid to gain the favour of Malik-Shah and be restored to the rule that he had recently lost. Anna Komnenē likewise reports that Philaretos fell into apostasy after the fall of Antioch, in a desperate and unsuccessful bid to regain control of the territory that had been seized from him.78 It was, in Uṙhayecʿi’s eyes, a fitting end for the vile character represented in his pages. The Armenian Magnates of Cilicia and Syria One result of Uṙhayecʿi’s attempt to remain within the bounds set out by the prophetic timeline, which appears particularly odd given his focus on local events, is his silence about the rise of the Armenian princes who followed Philaretos. While the Arcrunis of Sebasteia and the Bagratunis exiled from Ani seem to have died out by the end of the eleventh century, much of the territory 74 75 76 77 78

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 206–210. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 222–224. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 218–220. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 230. Anna Komnēnē, Alexias, vol. 1, pp. 186–187, Alexiad, p. 198; although, of Dadoyan’s claim that Philaretos was a Tʿondrakian is true, it throws an interesting light onto what this ‘apostasy’ entailed.

armenia in the chronicle

67

of Cilicia, Cappadocia, and Syria came under the control of various Armenian warlords, quite likely those who had themselves been lieutenants of Philaretos.79 Although Antioch had been lost to a Muslim warlord whose loyalties lay with a branch of the Seljuq family, several other cities including Edessa and Melitene were ruled by Armenian leaders with Byzantine rank.80 Other cities, such as Kesun and Anazarba, were also held by Armenians, although their standing vis-à-vis Constantinople at the time of the Crusade is less clear. The provenance of this ‘new nobility’ remains extremely unclear to this day, as the historian best-placed to supply some information—Uṙhayecʿi himself— has provided almost none. One of the most powerful and successful of these Armenian warlords was Goł Vasil, who controlled a large principality centred at Kesun and Raban and who came to power sometime during the reign of Philaretos.81 Vasil does not appear in the Chronicle until 552 (1103/4), early in Book Three; by this time he had already gained sufficient influence to act as sponsor and intermediary for the ransom of the Crusader prince Bohemond of Taranto, who had been taken captive by Dānishmand in 1101, and had enough autocratic power over his own territories to levy a substantial sum for the ransom money.82 Another member of the Armenian ‘new nobility’, who was perhaps not yet as powerful as Goł Vasil at the time of the Crusade but whose kin would be pre-eminent among the nobility by the 1130s, was Constantine the Rubenid. Uṙhayecʿi makes only a passing reference in the entry for 545 (1096/7) to Constantine, who by this time held territory within Cilicia more or less independent of Byzantium and the caliphate. His father Ruben established a stronghold in Cilicia sometime during the late eleventh century, roughly contemporaneous with Philaretos.83 His descendants would be ruling over a new kingdom of Cilician Armenia by the end of the twelfth century. Just as in the case of Goł 79 80

81 82 83

Dédéyan, Les Arméniens entre Grecs, Musulmans et Croisés, p. 933. The possession of Byzantine rank has persuaded many historians such as Dédéyan that these Armenians professed the Chalcedonian faith; the evidence for this, however, is extremely circumstantial. Michael the Syrian, Chronique, iii, p. 198. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 294. The foundation of Rubenid power has been attributed, on the basis of Uṙhayecʿi’s entry for 545, to Constantine rather than to Ruben himself. This is open to interpretation; the Armenian text reads … մեծ իշխանին Հայոց Կոստանդին որդին Ռուբենայ, որ ունէր զՏօրոս լեառն ի յաշխարհին Կոպիտառայի ի Մարապա, որ և բազում գաւառաց տիրեալ էր, և ի զօրացն Գագկայ էր։ (‘the great prince of the Armenians Constantine son of Ruben, who ruled the Taurus mountain from the land of Kopitar to Marapa, who had indeed taken many districts, and was from the army of Gagik.’) The

68

chapter 3

Vasil, Uṙhayecʿi does not touch upon the sequence of events that led to their rise to power, and in so doing he gives the impression that their power was of little consequence to the fortunes of the Armenian people. This apparent insignificance of the local Armenian rulers cannot be taken at face value. Uṙhayecʿi was, after all, operating within the constraints of a prophecy that did not allow for ‘the strengthening of the remnants of the Roman armies’ until some years after the Crusader capture of Jerusalem. The Rubenid line, Goł Vasil, and the other Armenian lords who controlled territory at the time of the First Crusade had perhaps come to power too early. Uṙhayecʿi could not find a way to work an account of their successes into the account of desolation, destruction, and divine retribution that had necessarily to dominate the years between 1036 and 1096. By the mid-1090s Uṙhayecʿi had described the demise of a long succession of Armenian princes all over Asia Minor, at the hands either of the Byzantines, the Turks, or Philaretos. He gives a very strong impression of a nobility whose best and brightest members had been wiped out by the dissension and jealousy of their own people and of others. This part of the second prophecy of Kozeṙn could thereby be seen to have been fulfilled: ‘through murder and bloodshed they strive to destroy one another … and for sixty years the earth is to be desolated by sword and captivity.’84 Though he had passed over the successful Armenian princes such as the Rubenids who began their rise to power in this period, his omission was in service to the ‘higher’ truth contained in the prophecy.

The Slow Revival: The Armenians and the Crusaders The arrival of the Crusaders, precisely sixty years after the date in which Uṙhayecʿi has set the second prophecy of Kozeṙn, marked the transition to a new phase of history as he understood it. There were to be fifty further years of ‘Persian’ harassment of the Christians, thirty-five of which had passed by the time Uṙhayecʿi wrote the prologue to Book Three. Although he did not expect himself to see or write about the rise of the ‘Roman Emperor’ who would conquer the enemy and redeem the Christians from their persecution, he

84

relative pronoun որ (‘who’) is ambiguous as to its antecedent; the translators have taken it to refer to Constantine, but given the balance of evidence that Ruben himself was the founder of Rubenid power (see Dédéyan, Les Arméniens entre Grecs, Musulmans et Croisés, pp. 374–376) we must accept the possibility that Uṙhayecʿi intended to refer to Ruben. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 72.

armenia in the chronicle

69

was driven by the necessity of completing his history of the suffering that the Christians had so far undergone, in punishment for their sins, before this re-conquest came about: ‘We saw that no one had the intention to pursue this [history] or to collect documents, so that there might be a record of this massacre and tribulation’.85 The task before him, however, was not as simple as a record of Armenian suffering and divine anger. He needed to show the beginning of a revival as well. It is clear from his prologue that he felt that this task was beyond him; it is clear from the text itself, in which he focuses primarily on the dealings of the Crusader lords, the politics between various factions of Fatimid and Turkish emirs, and the experience of the townspeople of Edessa, that he struggled to set out a coherent universal history of the Armenian people that fits the model he uses. A constant fact of life between 1101 and 1131 was the frequent warfare throughout Asia Minor as the Crusader lords struggled to establish their holdings; this gave rise to a constantly shifting set of alliances and enmities between individual Latin lords, Muslim emirs, and the Armenian rulers alongside them. The consequences of this warfare were very easy to interpret as further divine punishment of the Christians and Uṙhayecʿi was quick to do so. He reports several offensives on Edessa itself as well as on surrounding cities such as Antioch, Marash, and Anazarba; he gives a constant litany of famine, slaughter of Christians, and displacement of townspeople throughout the region. In keeping with his curiously silent treatment of the leaders who succeeded Philaretos in the 1090s, Uṙhayecʿi mentions only in passing several other Armenians who held power contemporaneously with the Crusaders, including Gabriel of Melitene,86 Constantine of Gargar,87 Aplłarip of Bira,88 Ōšin of Lambron,89 Tʿatʿul of Marash,90 and Goł Vasil’s heir Vasil the Younger.91 He is frustratingly silent on the reaction of most of these lords to the appearance of the Crusade. It is almost certainly because Uṙhayecʿi downplayed Armenian involvement in the Crusade to such a drastic extent that the Armenians themselves have ben so neglected in the subsequent historical record. As we will shortly see, his conception of history called for a narrative in which the Armenians were persecuted and deprived of their power by the rapacious Latin 85 86 87 88 89 90 91

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 277. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 252, 272. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 260, 338. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 314, 337–338. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 259, 401. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 272, 298. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 323–324.

70

chapter 3

newcomers; Uṙhayecʿi duly describes the downfall of several Armenians who controlled various cities in the area, occasionally without any word as to how these men came to control the cities from which they were deposed. The reader is left to wonder what the vast majority of these Armenians were doing until the moment of their deposition; from what background did they hail, with whom did they make their alliances, how did they affect the politics of regional power? The very fact that so much of our information about these figures arises from the Chronicle, which leaves out so much context, renders it all the more necessary to attempt to understand where, how, and why Uṙhayecʿi was adapting or altering his descriptions of events after the First Crusade. The most striking thing about these episodes is that they are all focused on cities that are relatively near to Edessa. This focus on local events to the nearcomplete exclusion of events in Byzantium, in the old kingdoms of Armenia, or elsewhere, is the main feature of Book Three and represents a significant departure from the Chronicle up to that point. Uṙhayecʿi is no longer writing a history of the Armenians; he is writing a history of Edessa, Syria, and its environs, and primarily of the Armenian and other eastern Christian populations under the rule of the Crusader lords. The reader must struggle throughout most of this book to find the connection to the prophecies of Kozeṙn that Uṙhayecʿi had maintained throughout the first two books of his text. The Rise of Georgia, 1121–1129 The Christian prince whose rise was precisely on time, for Uṙhayecʿi’s purposes, was David Bagrationi of Georgia. The emergence of Georgia makes up nearly all the items of non-local information within the third book of the Chronicle; in describing the conquests of David and his son Demetrios, Uṙhayecʿi’s prose loses the heretofore predominant tone of Christian suffering, and turns instead to Christian joy. The information Uṙhayecʿi gives about the re-emergence of the kingdom of Georgia is closely corroborated by the Kʿartʿlis Cxovreba (the Georgian Chronicle).92 David was the son of Giorgi ii, one of the last remaining Bagratuni/Bagrationi rulers in the Caucasus after the abdication of Gagik of Kars in 1064.93 In 1121, he repelled a raid from the emir of Ganjak, the Turkmen chief il-Ghazi,

92

93

Armenian and Georgian text: S.H. Rapp, ed. Kʿartʿlis cʿxovreba: the Georgian royal annals and their medieval Armenian adaptation. 1st ed. Delmar, ny: Caravan Books, 1998, pp. 233– 256; translation: R.W. Thomson, ed. Rewriting Caucasian History: the Medieval Armenian Adaptation of the Georgian Chronicles. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 309–343. Thomson, Rewriting Caucasian History, pp. 313–314.

armenia in the chronicle

71

although the Georgian army was massively outnumbered.94 This was one of the first of a dramatic series of Georgian victories throughout the decade of the 1120s. David captured Tiflis in the same year. Two years later, he defeated another attack from Ganjak and took several cities; the following year, in 573 (1124/5), he took Ani. Uṙhayecʿi duly notes the momentous meaning of this event: ‘So the royal capital of Ani was freed from the yoke under which it had been for sixty years … there was rejoicing throughout all Armenia, for everyone was witness to the deliverance of the holy cathedral.’95 David died in 1125; he was succeeded by his son Demetrios, who continued to build on his military success. Georgia would remain a significant regional power for over two centuries. Uṙhayecʿi probably began the third book of his own Chronicle around 1122, when David began his string of victories; at this point the Georgian kingdom was established, and still expanding, under Demetrios. It is possible that the Georgian renaissance, along with his own memories of the momentous events of the early twelfth century, played some role in Uṙhayecʿi’s resolution to write the history of his times, and to press on to the third book despite his conviction that the task was too much for him. Had he finished his Chronicle, the question of the connection he drew between David Bagrationi and the prophetic timeline to which he was working would have almost certainly been more clearly elucidated. There is little doubt, however, that Uṙhayecʿi had Georgia firmly in mind when he wrote of the ‘slow strengthening’ that was to come.

Conclusion Although Uṙhayecʿi’s Chronicle relates a history that touches upon almost all the cultural groupings in the Near East between 951 and 1129, he conceived of it as a history of the Armenian people. His goal was to place the history of the Armenian Christians into the biblical historiographical tradition that earlier Armenian writers had established, and the means by which he accomplished this was the timeline laid out in the second prophecy attributed to Yovhannēs Kozeṙn. Uṙhayecʿi’s history of the Armenians had necessarily to begin in the era of the independent Bagratuni and Arcruni kingdoms, which to observers of his time was the golden age of medieval Armenia. The difficulty he faced in

94 95

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 348–350. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 359.

72

chapter 3

the beginning of the Chronicle was a lack of specific information about the events of this era. Very little information about events in the late tenth-century Bagratuni kingdoms has come down to us in the history of Asołik, which is almost our only extant source for the tenth and early eleventh centuries apart from the Chronicle itself; although it seems that Uṙhayecʿi took his information from other sources, it would appear that these sources had no more information than did Asołik. Uṙhayecʿi filled the gaps with the more plentiful information he had about Armenia’s neighbours, primarily Byzantium. As a consequence of his inexact information, the information he gives about events in the Armenian kingdoms prior to 1021 must be treated with care. The events he describes are more likely than not to be chronologically misplaced, and their portrayal—particularly the misplaced civil war between the brothers Yovhannēs and Ašot—is likely to be coloured by his need to portray the Armenians of this time as virtuous and strong. The years between 1016 and 1045 were the critical period during which, according to Uṙhayecʿi, the rulers of Armenia made the decisions that would lead to full Byzantine annexation of their kingdoms and the loss of the independence they had won at the end of the ninth century. This was the era during which Yovhannēs Kozeṙn lived and wrote; it is the period in which Uṙhayecʿi places both the prophecies that were attributed to him. The elaboration of the course of history at the end of Kozeṙn’s second prophecy provided the basis of the chronological calculations that Uṙhayecʿi used to demarcate the history of the Armenians: sixty years of Turkish invasion, the First Crusade, and fifty further years of ‘Persian’ persecution. The remainder of the first book of the Chronicle and the entirety of the second book illustrate this timeline rather well. Uṙhayecʿi successfully conveys the impression of a desolate and depopulated Armenia and of Armenian refugees in a foreign and usually hostile land. He illustrates this hostility with his description of the constant harassment of the Arcrunis, the death of Gagik Bagratuni, and the false accusations, religious harassment, and murders of a host of Armenian princes of Cappadocia and Syria. His hostility toward Philaretos, the only Armenian ruler of the period who is portrayed as having significant success, fits very well with the dire prediction of wicked and corrupt princes. His implication that Philaretos bore responsibility for the murder of Gagik ii can be tied directly to Kozeṙn’s prediction that ‘through murder and bloodshed [brothers] strive to destroy one another’; his description of the actions Philaretos took to divide the Armenian church reflect the ‘many schisms’ that had been predicted; his accusation of Philaretos’ apostasy suggests the ‘companion[ship] to the infidel’ called for by the second prophecy. In order to remain true to the timeline that had been set out Uṙhayecʿi was forced to pass over in

armenia in the chronicle

73

silence the rise of many of the more powerful Armenians who gathered power in the shadow of Philaretos, including Goł Vasil and the Rubenid princes. As he came to write the third book of the Chronicle Uṙhayecʿi became less able to set out a clear trajectory for the history of the Armenians in line with the prophecy. This theme becomes a little lost in the local history that he has begun to write instead. He nevertheless stays his course concerning the history of which he is aware, with moderate success. The rise of David Bagrationi of Georgia, which occasions the first consistent focus on non-local history as it pertained to Armenians, is a very good example of the slow strengthening of the remains of the Christian forces at just the time that the prophecy required. Uṙhayecʿi wrote the third book of his history some time before the predicted fifty-year period of warfare and massacre at the hands of the ‘Persians’ was meant to be drawing to a close; the princes of Cilician Armenia were growing in strength, and the Bagrationi kings of Georgia were reclaiming the territory of the lost independent kingdoms. Uṙhayecʿi must have expected the imminent rise of the ‘Roman’ emperor of prophecy, and must have known at the same time that he would probably not live to see it. The sense of urgency he felt to finish the Chronicle drove him to write the third book, imperfect as it was, so that there would be some historical record ‘for the good age, when the Lord God will give what He promised in the end time’.

chapter 4

‘Under the Aegis of the Roman Emperor’: Uṙhayecʿi on Byzantium The addendum to the second prophecy of Yovhannēs Kozeṙn provides the overarching framework for the course of Christian history over the 180 years about which Uṙhayecʿi intended to write. Although his is an Armenian chronicle, and he is primarily concerned with the fortunes of the Armenians, he is very far from maintaining an exclusive focus on his own people. The Chronicle begins in Edessa (a city whose legendary Armenian origin Uṙhayecʿi was quick to establish, but nevertheless populated by Christians of all stripes). It quickly widens its scope from Edessa to a skirmish at Samosata (for which Edessene fighters were levied) between Arab and Byzantine forces, and moves on to describe other Byzantine military offensives before arriving at the coronation of the king ‘Gagik’ who is the first Armenian individual to appear. The prophecy, it is clear in Uṙhayecʿi’s eyes, concerns the whole of the Christendom he knows. His stated aim as he commences Book Two is to write about ‘the three nations’, and his focus throughout Book One has duly been precisely on distinct groupings of the Armenians, the Byzantines, and the Muslims. By the end of Book Two the focus must necessarily expand to include the Crusading ‘Franks’, and in his prologue to Book Three Uṙhayecʿi no longer speaks in terms of distinct nations, but rather, simply, ‘the Christians’. This chapter and the next two chapters will have as their focus Uṙhayecʿi’s attitudes toward three of the ‘nations’ who populate the Chronicle—the Byzantines, the Muslims, and the Latin Crusaders. Each of these groups exercised power over a significant population of Armenians at various points in the Chronicle’s 180 years, and each of them present their own problems of interpretation. Uṙhayecʿi refers to the Byzantine Greeks interchangeably as ‘Greeks’ (Yunkʿ) and ‘Romans’ (Hoṙomkʿ) with no discernible differentiation between his use of the terms. He has frequently been described as harboring a fierce hatred of them;1 one writer even goes so far as to see in the Chronicle a distinction between the ‘moderate’ view of his presumed source, Sanahnecʿi, and his own

1 e.g. Dulaurier, Chronique, p. xix; Cahen, La Syrie du Nord, ii, p. 483; Whittow, The Making of Byzantium, 600–1025, p. 383.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004330351_005

uṙhayecʿi on byzantium

75

more violent feelings.2 Although Uṙhayecʿi did indeed succumb to vitriol from time to time when expressing his opinions of how the Armenians had suffered through the actions of Byzantium,3 his judgments at other times were much more nuanced, particularly where they concerned specific people or groups of individuals. Thus, for example, shortly before the battle of Manzikert the emperor Diogenes is led into a false belief of Armenian loyalty by ‘the Roman nation’, but is reassured by, among others, ‘the great Roman princes’ to disregard these slanders.4 His vitriol stemmed, not from a principled dislike or even distrust of ‘the Greeks’, but rather from the feelings of betrayal that he feels on behalf of his people toward those who were supposed to be their guardians.5 This feeling of betrayal, also present to some extent in the work of Aristakēs and certainly in the historians of Armenia who came after, stems from the perception that, by the mid-eleventh century, the Byzantine Empire had taken on a commitment to be the ‘protector’ of the Armenian kingdoms. The strengthening of relations between the Byzantine regime and the Armenians can easily be seen in the works of the tenth-century historians. As the expansionist policies of the Empire accelerated in the mid-tenth century, Armenia was brought closer in practice, as well as in ideological terms, to Byzantine suzerainty. This is a role that was ultimately personified for the Armenians in the emperor Basil ii. Throughout this period, distant as it was to Uṙhayecʿi’s lifetime, his portrayal of the Byzantines owes a great deal to the image given by his predecessors: they were valiant and victorious, and if, like the emperor Tzimiskēs, they fell into wickedness, then they realized their errors and repented of their sins. As the successors of Basil ii gradually lose control over the mid- to late eleventh century of the Armenian territories that had been annexed, and as the Armenians—not only the ones remaining in the ancestral lands, but also those who had migrated to the interior of Anatolia and to Syria—begin to come under the control of Muslim emirs affiliated in various ways with competing factions of the Seljuq Turks, Uṙhayecʿi pours out the bulk of his vitriol and condemnation of the behavior of the ‘Greeks’. This is brought to a crescendo of sorts with a damning portrait of Romanos Diogenes, the emperor whose defeat at the battle of Manzikert and deposition in its wake ultimately opened the way for Turkish occupation of all of Anatolia. It is remarkable how quickly the 2 Arutjunova-Fidanjan, ‘L’image de l’empire byzantin’, p. 16. 3 e.g. the diatribe against the ‘false guardians, the weak, feeble and cowardly nation of the Greeks’ (Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 135–137). 4 Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 198. 5 MacEvitt, ‘Matthew of Edessa’, pp. 170–174, reflects at some length on this theme of betrayal within the Chronicle.

76

chapter 4

‘Romans’ fade from the pages of the Chronicle thereafter. Although Uṙhayecʿi indicates the continuing ties of various Armenian lords to Constantinople from time to time, the ‘Greeks’ have served their prophetic purpose, quickly to be replaced by the Latin Crusader lords who are treated almost identically in nuance and vitriol alike. The internal politics and military exploits of Byzantium—events that have no direct bearing on the Armenians and their lands—comprise a major part of Book One of the Chronicle. As the influence of Byzantine rulers diminished in the wake of the Turkish invasions of Asia Minor and the Crusades, Uṙhayecʿi’s account of Byzantine history likewise diminishes over the course of Book Two. After the downfall of Diogenes, the imperial succession continues to be recorded, but apart from that there is only a single mention of events within the Empire, concerning the war with the Pecheneg nomads beyond the Danube and the appearance of a heretic who led many of the Christians of Constantinople astray before being burnt at the stake.6 It is clear that in Uṙhayecʿi’s understanding of the history of his people (whether defined as Armenians or as the Christians of the East), Byzantium played a historical role rather than an ongoing one. Events in Constantinople had very little relevance to him, and were perhaps not even relayed in any great detail, after the late eleventh century. Uṙhayecʿi’s portrayal of the history of Byzantium as it related to the history of the Armenians of Syria and Mesopotamia is a fascinating case study for the way in which he has drawn upon the historiographical tradition that circulated in the Near East by the late eleventh century, and the way in which he has shaped that tradition to conform to the prophecies. One of the keys to understanding both the flows of information that reached him and his agenda in reporting what he did is to pay attention to the chronological and substantive details of his work. The Chronicle is not by any means the dry and colorless compilation of facts and dates that it has been accused of being. By the same token, there is information lurking even within the seemingly dry and often factually incorrect aspects of his account. His chronological reliability in particular is an important key to understanding the extent to which Byzantium was relevant to Armenia and the Armenians. As Byzantine influence waned over the second half of the eleventh century, Uṙhayecʿi’s information about events as they concern the empire becomes dramatically less precise. A detailed examination of Uṙhayecʿi’s factual and chronological information, as well as the attitudes he adopts toward Byzantines within the text, will help the reader better assess not

6 Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 237–239.

uṙhayecʿi on byzantium

77

only the Chronicle’s value as a source for general Byzantine history, but also its value as a witness to the dynamics of Byzantium’s relationship with its Armenian subjects and neighbours. Contacts between Armenia and the empire to its west have been attested since the time of the Roman Empire.7 These links became stronger after the beginning of the fourth century, when both Armenia and Rome turned away from their respective polytheistic traditions and adopted Christianity as the official state religion. For the Armenians, this break from their Zoroastrian past represented a shift away from the Parthian- and Persian-dominated culture to which they had hitherto belonged. In the sixth century the emperor Justinian controlled the western part of Trdat’s old kingdom, where he pursued an active policy of assimilation of these Armenian territories. He eliminated the hereditary naxarar system,8 while the regions that remained under Persian control retained some autonomy and had their native hierarchies preserved. The seventh century saw both the Byzantine conquest and subsequent Arab demolition of the Sasanian Empire, and the near-immediate expulsion of Byzantium itself from the majority of its eastern territories by the Arabs. As Byzantium emerged from this military nadir after the eighth century, it began to expand its power and influence into the territories that had been lost to the Arabs. This included eastern Anatolia, which by the end of the eighth century was a patchwork of Armenian principalities and Muslim emirates controlled primarily by the Abbasid caliphate. When Ašot i Bagratuni was recognised by the caliph in 887 as Armenia’s first king since the fifth century, Byzantium (which had never renounced its claim, not only to its former Armenian territories but to Armenia as a whole)9 was quick to give official acknowledgement to the new political reality and to give Ašot the same imperial recognition. The Armenian religious traditions were a constant target for Byzantine emperors and patriarchs who wished to exert control over those who professed an Armenian identity or influence that identity in some way, and the personality of the katholikos was crucial to the outcome of these attempts. An ongoing doctrinal debate, primarily concerning the theological question

7 A good synopsis of the early history of Armenia and its relations with Rome is provided by Garsoïan, ‘Emergence of Armenia’ and ‘Aršakuni Dynasty’. 8 Garsoïan, ‘The Marzpanate’, pp. 107–110; the relevant legislation is preserved in Novella 31 of the Codex Justinianus. 9 The De Administrando Imperio of the emperor Constantine Porphyrogennetos illustrates this claim: ‘… it is right that you should not be ignorant of the parts towards the rising sun, for what reasons they became once more subject to the Byzantines, after they had first fallen away from their control.’ dai, ch. 43 p. 189.

78

chapter 4

of the dual nature of Christ, was a particular feature of Byzantine-Armenian relations. The history of the disputes and compromises between the (Chalcedonian, duophysite) Byzantine church and the (miaphysite) Armenian church was closely tied to the secular history of Byzantine/Armenian relations.10 When the political situation called for cooperation with Armenia, the ecclesiastical mood was one of compromise. In the ninth century, when Byzantium was most anxious to restore alliances with Armenia, the churches met at the Council of Širakawan in 862. The records from this council provide a striking example of the extent to which the patriarchate of Constantinople was at that time willing to compromise on doctrinal issues.11 When in the late tenth and the eleventh centuries individual Byzantine emperors wished to assert their suzerainty more firmly over Armenia, religious disputes frequently arose. The accounts of contemporary Armenian historians contain numerous examples of flare-ups of this ongoing dispute between the Constantinopolitan and Armenian apostolic hierarchies, although they tend equally to pass over in silence periods of relative harmony that might have arisen from councils such as that of Širakawan. Although the Armenians possessed a territorial and cultural identity that was markedly distinct from a more general Byzantine identity—unlike many of the other non-Greek Christian areas within the empire, the majority of Armenia had never been a ‘Roman’ land—by the turn of the millennium there was a long and rich history of Armenian individuals and families integrating, and even assimilating, into Byzantine culture.12 Military service was a particularly well-travelled road that brought Armenians into Byzantium—from the sixth century onward, the activities of Armenian generals and soldiers in the Byzantine army are frequently mentioned by Byzantine authors.13 Although it is difficult to establish whether there was a permanent Armenian presence in Constantinople itself,14 several references to the presence of Armenians in the city at particular points in time, from 626 down to the fifteenth century, can be found in a variety of sources. Given the close links between the military and

10 11

12 13 14

Maksoudian, ‘Council of Širakawan’. For the council of Širakawan itself, see Maksoudian, ‘Council of Širakawan’; for recent scholarship on the correspondence between the Byzantine patriarch Photios and the Armenian katholikos Zakʿaria, see Greenwood, ‘Failure of a Mission’; Dorfmann-Lazarev, Arméniens et Byzantins à l’époque de Photius. A good survey of the evidence for Armenians in Byzantium can be found in Garsoïan, ‘The Problem of Armenian Integration’. Garsoïan, ‘The Problem of Armenian Integration’, pp. 61–64. Garsoïan, ‘The Problem of Armenian Integration’, pp. 58–61.

uṙhayecʿi on byzantium

79

the aristocracy, it is not at all surprising to find several emperors of the eighth to tenth centuries for whom Armenian descent was claimed. The large presence of Armenians in imperial service inevitably raises the question of religious confession: was it a prerequisite of high imperial office to profess the Chalcedonian creed? Certainly there were communities of Armenian Chalcedonians from which a great deal of military manpower may have been drawn, and some of whose members may have risen to prominence.15 At the higher strata, however, many of the most well-known Armenians in imperial service were drawn from the traditional noble houses, for whose spiritual welfare the Armenian katholikos remained responsible. There is ample evidence for periods of religious conflict in the tenth and eleventh centuries, during which it is difficult to imagine that a high-ranking official of an Armenian background would be allowed to profess a non-Chalcedonian creed. At the same time, there are instances even at the height of internecine tensions, such as the career of Grigor magistros Pahlawuni in the 1050s, in which a prominent non-Chalcedonian ascended apparently unimpeded to the highest ranks of administration. Although question of religious confession vis-à-vis the integration of Armenians into the empire has been studied at length,16 enough uncertainty around the topic remains that it must be considered exceedingly dangerous to draw a conclusion about the religious confession of any individual Armenian based solely on possession of an imperial title. On this matter as on many others, the Chronicle is a valuable witness, to whose expressions careful attention must be paid.

The Era of Growing Byzantine Domination over the Armenians With the accession of Nikephoros Phokas (963–969) the Byzantine re-conquest of its eastern territory lost over the course of the seventh century, which had begun in the late ninth, accelerated dramatically. Although Armenia was not subject to military conquest, the various kingdoms gradually lost their autonomy over the following century. The principality of Tarōn was the first to be 15 16

Arutjunova-Fidanjan, ‘The Ethno-Confessional Self-Awareness of Armenian Chalcedonians’. Bartʿikyan, ‘The religious diplomacy of Byzantium in Armenia during the tenth and eleventh centuries’; Cowe, ‘Armenian Immigration to the Sebasteia Region, Tenth–Eleventh Centuries’; Dédéyan, ‘L’immigration arménienne en Cappadoce au xie siècle’; Mahé, ‘Confession religieuse et identité nationale dans l’église arménienne du viie au xie siècle’, as well as the works cited above.

80

chapter 4

annexed. The princes of Tarōn were a branch of the Bagratuni family, had held Byzantine imperial titles since the early half of the century, and traditionally turned to Constantinople to settle their disputes.17 Although the link between Byzantine imperial service and Chalcedonian confession is far from clear18 the grant of imperial titles also suggests that, unlike the majority of the Armenian nobility, the Taronites were in communion with the church of Constantinople. After the death of the prince Ašot in 967/8, his sons Grigor and Bagrat submitted to Byzantine pressure for annexation. Nikephoros ii received them and “conferred upon them the dignity of patrikios and liberally assigned to them rich revenue-producing lands.”19 The Taronites went on to hold important posts within the empire20 including military command in the war against Bulgaria during the reign of Basil ii.21 Although the annexation of Tarōn is not referenced within the Chronicle, it set a precedent for the later annexations that are described in detail within Book One. This is how matters stood at the point at which Uṙhayecʿi begins to record his own history. A good barometer to Uṙhayecʿi’s attitude toward Byzantium is provided by the extent to which the substantive and chronological details of the events he reports are corroborated by other sources. Although his chronological reliability throughout Book One is in general wildly erratic, the dates he gives for events concerning Byzantium are usually accurate to within a year or two during those periods in which Byzantium played an active role in the history of the Armenians. The Empire first appears in his second entry, for the year 407 (958/9), which describes the capture of Samosata during the reign of Romanos ii. If we leave aside Uṙhayecʿi’s entry for the year 420 (971/2), which almost certainly belongs to the year 470 (1021/2),22 the majority of the history Uṙhayecʿi records before 470 is essentially a history of Byzantium in the east. Despite its relative solidity in comparison with his timelines for other subjects, Uṙhayecʿi’s chronology here has a few flaws. He mis-dates the Byzantine capture of Crete, which occurred in 961, to the year 408 (959/60). He conflates the 986 defeat of Basil ii in Bulgaria and the October 989 earthquake of Constantinople into a single year, 437 (988/9), and places them after the revolt of Bardas Phokas. Phokas’ revolt began in 987, in the aftermath of Basil’s defeat in 17 18 19 20 21 22

Constantine Porphyrogenitus, dai, ch. 43. See discussion in Garsoïan, ‘The Problem of Armenian Integration’, p. 86 ff.. Skylitzēs, Synopsis historiôn, pp. 234–235. Garsoïan, ‘Byzantine Annexation’, p. 189. Holmes, Basil ii, 194–196. See above, p. 48.

uṙhayecʿi on byzantium

81

Bulgaria, and lasted until 989; Uṙhayecʿi’s date for this is also in error. He, like Stepʿanos Asołik before him, places the revolt a year early, in 435 (986/7). These three chronological mistakes all show an intriguing correlation with the Greek history of Leo the Deacon. Leo, writing in the decade of the 990s, composed an account of the reigns of Romanos ii, Nikephoros Phokas, and Iōannēs Tzimiskēs. He indicates in book 10 that he intended to continue his history into the reign of Basil ii,23 and he does briefly digress into events during Basil’s reign, but the history that has come down to us ends with the death of Tzimiskēs. His history is notoriously difficult to use for exact dating—he gives only four firm dates throughout, and these have been miscalculated in that they do not accord with the indiction year he gives. If Uṙhayecʿi relies upon the history of Leo either directly or indirectly, this could explain a number of the chronological peculiarities present within the early part of Book One. For instance, Basil’s defeat at Triaditza in Bulgaria in 986 and the earthquake that destroyed the dome of Hagia Sophia in 989 are dated by both Uṙhayecʿi24 and Skylitzēs25 to the same year. This coincidence of error between two sources that seem otherwise unrelated makes some sense when we see that the two events are described together, out of chronological sequence and with no clear dating information, in Book 10 of Leo’s history. Given his relative chronological accuracy for tenth-century Byzantine history and the apparent reliance on a known Byzantine source, the wild divergence in the substantive content of Uṙhayecʿi’s account is jarring. The version of events that he gives is often unique in the historical record; indeed the nature of his divergence seems more of a piece with the rather fabulous and hearsay nature of his account of tenth-century Armenia. In both these cases, it seems, Uṙhayecʿi was not particularly concerned with sober historical reporting. His objective was to portray the past according to the Biblical and prophetic paradigm within which he worked. Just as the Armenian kings were uniformly valourous and pious, the Byzantine emperors were strong, protective of their Christian minorities, and victorious against the Muslim enemy. This tendency can be seen from the outset. In his entry for the year 407 (958/9), in which he has correctly placed the battle of Samosata, he describes it as an Arab victory over the Byzantine defenders of the city.26 According to

23 24 25 26

Leo, History, p. 218. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 39–40. Skylitzēs, Synopsis historiôn, p. 277. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 2.

82

chapter 4

both Stepʿanos Asołik27 and Yaḥyā ibn Saʿid,28 it was the Byzantine attackers who defeated the Muslim defenders. He also refers to the Byzantine general, Basil Lekapenos, who accompanied Tzimiskēs on that campaign, simply by his title ‘parakoimomenos’ as if it were a personal name. Uṙhayecʿi’s account of the murder of Nikephoros Phokas by Iōannēs Tzimiskēs has several features that are unique—Tzimiskēs as a prisoner condemned to die, the empress embracing her husband and tightening his sword in its scabbard, the gory details of the murder itself, the empress’ intention to poison her own sons Basil and Constantine.29 He is the only historian to suggest that Tzimiskēs had been romantically involved with the sister of the Hamdanid ruler Sayf ad-Dawlah and that this led to his sparing the city. He is also the only historian who suggests that Tzimiskēs voluntarily abdicated in favour of Basil ii. Yaḥyā records only the date of the emperor’s death;30 Asołik simply states that the emperor died in his palace;31 and the Greek historians of the period agree that he fell ill while on campaign in the East and died upon his return to the city.32 Uṙhayecʿi’s versions of events could perhaps arise from local myth or some other oral history that was transmitted independently of written sources. He has clearly drawn his dates from written records for the tenth century, but he seems to have chosen to record the events themselves either as they were commonly understood in Edessa in the 1130s or according to less common stories that better reflected the lost glorious past of Kozeṙn’s prophecies. Although Uṙhayecʿi’s narration is a colourful departure from other sources, the centrepiece of his record of tenth-century Byzantium—the letter from Iōannēs Tzimiskēs written to Ašot iii Bagratuni, probably in 972—is not. The veracity of the letter itself is open to dispute. Tzimiskēs did campaign in the East with great success, but his sweeping claims, such as the statement that ‘now all Phoenicia and Palestine and Syria have been freed from captivity by the Muslims and have accepted Roman sovereignty’33 are not substantiated by the accounts of Asołik, Skylitzēs, Leo the Deacon, or Yaḥyā.34 The text nevertheless has the hallmarks of a translation from the Greek, as Dulaurier noted in the

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Asołik, Patmutʿiwn tiezerakan, p. 179, Histoire universelle, p. 38. Yaḥyā, ‘Histoire 1’, pp. 771–775. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 6–7. Yaḥyā, ‘Histoire 2’, p. 371. Asołik, Patmutʿiwn tiezerakan, p. 187, Histoire universelle, p. 49. Skylitzēs, Synopsis historiôn, pp. 260–261; Leo, History, pp. 218–221. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 26. For an analysis of these claims, see Walker, ‘The “Crusade” of Tzimisces’.

uṙhayecʿi on byzantium

83

preface to his own translation.35 The end of the letter is garbled in a way that suggests that it was originally a separate letter, concerning the return of the fortress Ayceacʿ to Byzantine control.36 It is followed in turn by one written to a vardapet called Łewond. This suggests that both (or possibly all three) letters formed part of an archive of royal and ecclesiastical documents. It is possible that Uṙhayecʿi had access to the archive itself; if so, it may have included the initial versions of the prophecies of Kozeṙn, as well as the confession of faith allegedly proffered by Gagik ii to the emperor Constantine Doukas in 1065 and the letter written by the katholikos Grigor iii in the wake of the Easter controversy of 1102. Another strong possibility is that the letters of Tzimiskēs to Ašot and to Łewond, as well as one or both of the prophecies, formed part of another historical work that Uṙhayecʿi used as a source, and that the textual confusion originated either from this source or from Uṙhayecʿi himself. The text of Kozeṙn’s first prophecy is known to have formed part of the history of Yakob Sanahnecʿi, which was almost certainly a major source for the Chronicle.37 Sanahnecʿi’s work could well have also been Uṙhayecʿi’s source for these letters. The common theme of the history of Byzantium through the reign of Basil ii as presented by Uṙhayecʿi is military success together with harmony between Greeks and Armenians. Nikephoros Phokas is portrayed as a pious and victorious warrior-king. Iōannēs Tzimiskēs was undeniably guilty of regicide, but he too was a victorious emperor who avenged the defeats of his generals38 and who repented of his wrongs in the end, by abdicating in favour of Basil. The reign of Basil ii presents a problem for present-day historiography due to its paucity of coverage in the extant sources.39 His reign is widely regarded as the political and military apogee of the Byzantine empire, but every surviving history speaks only of a few events within those fifty years. Basil immediately 35 36

Matthew of Edessa, Chronique, preface, pp. xvi–xvii. The text reads: … զորս ընդ ձեռամբ մերով հնազանդեցոյց Աստուած, ընդ որում հանապազօր օրհնեալ տէր Աստուած Իսրայելի։ Եւ յանափոռտէն պռտօսպաթրին Դերջնայ, Լևոնի և Տարօնոյ զօրավարին ողջոյն և ի տէր խնդալ։ Արդ գրեցաք որ զԱյծեաց բերդն որպէս յանձին կալար՝ չես տուեալ. (‘… which God sub-

37 38 39

jected through us, for which the lord God of Israel is blessed every day. And from the report [ἀναφορά] of the protospatharios of Derjn, Lewon and general of Tarōn, greetings and joy in the Lord. Now we have written that you have not given the Ayceacʿ fortress as you promised.’) Uṙhayecʿi, Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 27. Xačʿikyan, ‘Yakob Sanahnecʿi’, pp. 29–32. e.g. the death in captivity of Mleh/Melias, a general of Nikephoros Phokas. See Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 15–19. For a thorough examination of Basil’s reign and the historiographical problems it poses, see Holmes, Basil ii.

84

chapter 4

had to cope with a rebellion by his general Bardas Skleros, which was put down with the help of another general, Bardas Phokas. After roughly ten years Basil led a campaign against Tsar Samuel of Bulgaria. This campaign ended in a military disaster at Triaditza (Sardica) which wiped out a huge number of Byzantine troops and from which Basil himself only narrowly escaped. This defeat precipitated the revolt of Bardas Phokas, who made a short-lived alliance with Skleros before betraying and blinding him, and who mysteriously dropped dead on the field before the decisive battle with Basil. The next twenty-five years of Basil’s reign were taken up with campaigns to subjugate the Bulgarians, over whom the empire finally prevailed in 1018. Basil had only one further revolt to suppress, that of Nikephoros ‘Crook-neck’ Phokas and Nikephoros Xiphias, in the final years of his reign. He died in December 1025 with no heir apart from his elderly brother Constantine viii and Constantine’s daughters Zoe and Theodora. The events recorded by Uṙhayecʿi conform to precisely this pattern, although even here his account is at variance with the mainstream tradition. He begins his coverage of Basil’s reign with the claim that Tzimiskēs abdicated in his favour and he dates the accession to 424 (March 975–March 976), a year early. His account of the revolt of Bardas Skleros, which was supported by some of the Armenian princes,40 is on the one hand dated correctly, but on the other hand wholly uncomplimentary to Skleros, generalised, and inaccurate. He describes Skleros’ defeat and flight to Baghdad but says nothing about the role of Bardas Phokas in suppressing Skleros’ revolt. The rebellion lasted for three years, but Uṙhayecʿi claims instead that Skleros remained in Baghdad for three years and then ‘came and died in the land of his own people, the Romans.’41 This misunderstanding affects in turn his description of the revolt of Phokas. Uṙhayecʿi, who seems to be unaware of the role of Skleros in this second revolt, conflates the two rebels. He states that the imperial army ‘drove him [Phokas] to the Tačik [Muslim] land; when he returned after one year he was killed by the emperor Basil.’42 Although Skleros certainly went into exile in Baghdad, there is no evidence that Phokas ever did. In keeping with the usual pattern of narration of the reign of Basil Uṙhayecʿi turns next to the wars in Bulgaria. This is a rare departure from the usual focus on Asia Minor—he has omitted any mention of the campaigns of Nikephoros Phokas or Iōannēs Tzimiskēs against the Bulgarians. It seems that the pattern

40 41 42

Dédéyan, Les Arméniens entre Grecs, Musulmans et Croisés, pp. 10–14. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 34. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 39.

uṙhayecʿi on byzantium

85

of narrative of Basil’s deeds was already so fixed a century after his death that Uṙhayecʿi included the whole. It is also possible that he was aware of the Bulgarian campaigns regardless of the settled narrative, due to the involvement of the Armenian nobility who had been drawn into imperial service from Tarōn. By the time of Basil’s accession, the Bagratuni princes of Tarōn had ceded their principality to the empire and had become imperial military commanders, and it was they who led the campaign in Bulgaria.43 Although this Armenian link is not mentioned by Uṙhayecʿi, it may well explain his interest in the campaigns that were fought there, far from the usual geographic reach of the Chronicle. In 465 (1016/7) the first Turkish raiders probably appeared in Vaspurakan. The account given by Uṙhayecʿi’, which survives only in a single manuscript44 and in the summary by his successor Smbat Sparapet,45 relates the cession of Vaspurakan and the emperor’s march into Bagratid Armenia in 470 (1021/2). It ends with the apocryphal tale of Basil’s re-baptism according to the Armenian rite, with which he ‘thereafter became like a father to the Armenian nation’.46 This story appears to be part of a developing Armenian legend concerning Basil. Its elaboration may be traced from the history of Aristakēs, through the extant fragment of the history of Yakob Sanahnecʿi, to Uṙhayecʿi and Smbat Sparapet.47 There is a lacuna in the text here, after which Uṙhayecʿi has moved on to the revolt of Nikephoros ‘Crook-neck’ Phokas. In the description he gives of the rebellion, the clear implication is that the Armenian princes were complicit in the rebellion against Basil as a result of his demands for their territory. He describes the retaliation Basil took against Giorgi for his support of the rebel: the Georgian king was finally compelled to submit to the emperor and to send his son to Constantinople as a hostage. Uṙhayecʿi ends this pair of entries with an account of the Byzantine siege of Her, a territory of Vaspurakan that had come under Muslim control. The siege was broken by a summer snowstorm and subsequent flood which trapped the Byzantine troops. This event is also recorded by Aristakēs.48 Although the facts in the two accounts are in agreement with each other, the difference in interpretation is striking. According to Aristakēs the storm was ‘their [i.e. the Byzantines’] retribution 43 44 45 46 47 48

Asołik, Patmutʿiwn tiezerakan, pp. 183, 260, Histoire universelle, pp. 44, 145–146; see also Holmes, Basil ii, 194–195 for the interest of Asołik in the deeds of the Taronites. Matenadaran ms 1896. Cf. p. 170. Smbat Sparapēt, Taregirkʿ, pp. 23–27. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 50. Xačʿikyan, ‘Yakob Sanahnecʿi’, p. 26. Aristakēs, Patmutʿiwn, pp. 38–39, Récit des malheurs, p. 24.

86

chapter 4

for the merciless sword which they inflicted upon the Christians’—this was divine punishment for the sin Basil had committed by fighting the Georgians.49 Uṙhayecʿi, in contrast, reports that Basil had 13,000 of his own soldiers killed in order to make the muddy land passable and to allow for the escape of the remainder of his army.50 His aim here is not to expound upon divine justice but to show Basil as the merciless, efficient, and still undefeated emperor—the warrior-king who has just inherited responsibility for all Armenia. Uṙhayecʿi has thus related the history concerning each of the three warrioremperors of the tenth century—Nikephoros Phokas, Iōannēs Tzimiskēs, and Basil ii—according to the pattern that is common in most of the surviving tenth- and eleventh-century historiography from Byzantium and Armenia. He has filled in the outlines of this common history with anecdotes that have no analogue in any other history and which may reflect the local legend that had arisen in the century and more since the Byzantine and Armenian apogee. In particular he has followed and elaborated a tradition that appears in the extant fragments of the chronicle of Sanahnecʿi, in which the history of Basil was re-written into a myth of the adoptive father of the Armenians. According to this myth the young emperor was sent to an Armenian fostermother during his childhood in order to escape the murderous intentions of his own mother; he put down a succession of rebellions against his rule; after he was humiliated in Bulgaria he returned to ‘deliver the entire West to ruin and captivity, and take the Bulgarian kingdoms to extermination.’51 Eventually he turned to Armenia, where the native princes abandoned their territory to him because they were too weak (e.g. Senekʿerim), too cowardly (e.g. Yovhannēs), or too foolhardy (e.g. Giorgi) to hold it in their own right. In so doing he accepted consecration from the leader of the Armenian church and secret re-baptism from the Armenians of the Black Mountain. On his deathbed, he ‘entrusted his entire kingdom to [his brother Constantine] and made him resolute about Armenia, that he would care for that nation with fatherly love.’52 The merciless and unconquerable warrior-emperor had, according to Uṙhayecʿi’s understanding, replaced the Bagratuni princes as the true king of Armenia.53

49 50 51 52 53

Thomson, ‘Aristakes of Lastivert’, pp. 79–80. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 52. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 46. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 55. The image of Basil as a careful steward of the lands he conquered, if not a father to the Armenians, is already present in contemporaneous imagery. See in particular the colophon in Grigor Narekacʿi, Matean ołbergutʿean, p. 267; see also Mahé, ‘Basil ii et Byzance vue par Grigor Narekacʿi’.

uṙhayecʿi on byzantium

87

It was his successors, not Basil himself, who would betray the Armenians and would cause the fall of the kingdom. The rot did not set in immediately. Constantine viii reigned as sole emperor for three years (1025–1028), and his reign was not marked by any significant territorial expansion or frontier campaigns. Although the Greek historians Skylitzēs and Psellos are uncomplimentary toward Constantine, Uṙhayecʿi and his fellow Armenian Aristakēs claim that he was a generous and peaceful ruler.54 The first stirrings of trouble, in Uṙhayecʿi’s telling, came during the reign of Constantine’s son-in-law Romanos iii (1028–1034). Romanos personally led a campaign against Aleppo that ended in the emperor’s defeat and ignominious flight.55 Uṙhayecʿi calls him ‘a great blasphemer of the Orthodox faith’, which could be a reference to the accusation levelled against him by Aristakēs that he disdained the prayers of the Armenian monks of the Black Mountain and had them conscripted into his army. Romanos’ bad judgement is confirmed by Uṙhayecʿi when he describes the aftermath of the capture of Edessa by Geōrgios Maniakēs: ‘Now after all these events and troubles and evils that the brave Maniakēs had endured, Romanos replaced him and gave Edessa to Abukab’, identified here as the former tent-guard of David curopalates.56 As is fitting for such a presentation, Romanos came to no good end. Uṙhayecʿi reports that he was poisoned by his empress,57 and thus airs a rumour to which Skylitzēs alludes in his own history.58 The reign of Michael iv (1034–1041) is not given a great deal of coverage in the Chronicle. Uṙhayecʿi records a Byzantine expedition in 484 (1035/6) against the ‘Tačkunkʿ’59 who had attacked Edessa, Alar, and Sewawerak. The expedition was led by Michael’s brother, who got as far as Melitene before he was ‘frightened’ and turned back without a fight. Upon their return, Uṙhayecʿi claims, they ‘pillaged the Christians more than the Persian army had done.’60 This was clear evidence to him of what was to come: the empire of Byzantium, which had

54 55 56 57 58 59

60

Uṙhayecʿi, Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 56–57; Aristakēs, Patmutʿiwn, pp. 40–42, Récit des malheurs, p. 26. Uṙhayecʿi, Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 57–58; Aristakēs, Patmutʿiwn, pp. 43–44, Récit des malheurs, p. 29; Skylitzēs, Synopsis historiôn, pp. 315–316. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 64. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 64–65. Skylitzēs, Synopsis historiôn, pp. 323–324. Skylitzēs gives ‘Mesopotamian Arabs’; Cheynet has taken this as a reference to Naṣr adDawlah, the emir of Harran (Synopsis historiôn, p. 331 n. 38). For further discussion of Uṙhayecʿi’s confusing use of ethnic labels for the Muslims, see below, p. 108. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 66.

88

chapter 4

assumed sovereignty over Armenia in the person of Basil ii, had begun to abdicate its responsibility toward its subjects. Uṙhayecʿi begins to portray the political weakening of Byzantium itself in the description of a Bulgar rebellion in his entry for 489 (1040/1). He records that Michael invaded Bulgaria, but that the Bulgarians raised an army and drove the emperor back to Constantinople. Uṙhayecʿi believed that the Bulgarians had done what the Armenians could not: ‘the Bulgars strengthened themselves against the Greeks and took their entire land and escaped the servitude to the Romans; and a great peace came over the Bulgarian land.’61 To highlight the contrast, Uṙhayecʿi here begins his tale of the final loss of Armenian autonomy in their ancestral lands. There is an account at the end of Uṙhayecʿi’s entry for this year, just before the death of Yovhannēs of Ani, concerning the emigrant Arcrunis. With this he begins to portray the hostility between Greeks and Armenians that will come to dominate Book Two. The sons of Senekʿerim, Atom and Apusahl, who now held land in Sebasteia, were accused of plotting rebellion against the emperor Michael. When they were arrested and brought to Constantinople to answer the charges, Uṙhayecʿi informs us that they ‘rushed weeping to the tomb of king Basil and threw their oath-paper upon the tomb and said “You brought us to the land of the Romans, and behold they threaten us with death. Give us justice from our enemy, O our father!”’62 Once again Uṙhayecʿi has invoked Basil as the father of the Armenian nation. The brothers’ lament was effective, he writes: Michael was swayed by this spectacle and ordered the denouncer to be punished. In his entry for 490 (1041/2), Uṙhayecʿi describes the first attempt of Michael to enforce Basil’s 1021 treaty with Yovhannēs by taking control of Ani. The Armenians rallied under the general Vahram Pahlawuni and rebuffed the Byzantine forces. Michael was distracted shortly thereafter by the need to suppress the rebellion in Bulgaria. Uṙhayecʿi states that he levied troops from the Armenian territories already controlled by Byzantium for this purpose. Shortly after this campaign Michael died, in December 1041. Uṙhayecʿi describes the shortlived reign of his nephew Michael v that followed in the first months of 1042. Although his account of the reign and downfall of Michael v does not differ significantly from that of other histories of the period, the tale serves to reinforce Uṙhayecʿi’s presentation of the increasing profligacy and irresponsibility of the imperial successors of Basil ii.

61 62

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 78–79. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 83.

uṙhayecʿi on byzantium

89

Like the other Armenian historians Uṙhayecʿi is overwhelmingly hostile to the next emperor, Constantine ix Monomachos (1042–1055), under whose rule Ani was annexed to the empire. He begins his account of Monomachos’ reign with a description of the revolt of Geōrgios Maniakēs, the general who had brought Edessa under Byzantine control. Monomachos was crowned in June 1042, and Maniakēs’ revolt ended with his sudden death in February 1043. Uṙhayecʿi has mis-dated his account by one year, showing that he failed to account for the year that passed after the downfall of Michael v. He moves immediately to the loss of Ani, giving a date of early 493 (this year began in March 1044). Monomachos brought the young Bagratuni king Gagik ii to Constantinople and held him hostage at court until he agreed to relinquish his kingdom to imperial annexation, according to the concession made by his uncle Yovhannēs to Basil in 1021/2. Like his compatriot Aristakēs, Uṙhayecʿi has very few positive things to say about Byzantine rule in this period. His next several entries describe campaigns in the newly annexed Armenian territories against the ‘Persians’ of which only one, led by the eunuch ‘teliarch’,63 met with any success. Amid these battles in the east Monomachos had to contend with a rebellion by Leo Tornikios in 1047, which is also described by Uṙhayecʿi. The facts he gives agree in their essentials with the accounts of Skylitzēs and Attaleiates.64 He explains that the patriarch and the aristocracy of Constantinople reconciled Tornikios to the emperor with an oath and an alliance but that ‘after a few days they denied their oath and denied the mediator God, as it is common for the Roman people to destroy all the nobles of the land by means of an oath.’65 This is an unmistakable and bitter reference to the oath that Monomachos allegedly made to the young king Gagik ii shortly before he deprived him of Ani. The episode serves to reinforce Uṙhayecʿi’s general accusations of the faithlessness of the Byzantines who engineered the loss of Armenian autonomy. The remainder of Book One alternates between reports of invasions in the east and Byzantine ‘perfidy’ toward various Armenian noblemen. Uṙhayecʿi describes Monomachos’ invitation to the katholikos Petros to come to Constantinople; just as with Gagik, Monomachos prevented Petros’ return to Ani.66 The katholikos eventually settled in Sebasteia, under the patronage of the Arcruni brothers. Meanwhile, in the wake of the sack of Arcn by the Seljuq 63 64 65 66

This is almost certainly a garbled reference to the hetaireiarch Constantine. See Shepard, ‘Scylitzes on Armenia’, pp. 301–302. Uṙhayecʿi, Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 100–102; Skylitzēs, Synopsis historiôn, pp. 365–368; Attaleiatēs, Historia, pp. 36–51. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 101–102. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 104–107.

90

chapter 4

Turks in 1048 which was dated by both Uṙhayecʿi and Aristakēs to 498 (1049/50), the three men who had been appointed to govern the newly-created themes in Byzantine Armenia—Katakalon Kekaumenos, Aaron of Bulgaria and Grigor magistros—were dispatched to fight them. Uṙhayecʿi describes the dissension between the Byzantine commanders and the Georgian prince Liparit, and the resulting Turkish victory, including Liparit’s capture.67 He turns next to the Pecheneg invasion of Byzantium on its north-western frontier for the year 499 (1050/1); in keeping with his portrayal of the Byzantines after Basil ii as weak, he claims that ‘the frightened emperor did not dare to go into battle, for the enemy forces were innumerable and uncountable.’68 His final entry, for the year 500 (1051/2), returns to court politics under Monomachos. ‘Perfidious people’ had denounced a quartet of Armenian brothers, the ‘sons of Habel’. Monomachos sent a general to deal with the situation, whereupon the eldest brother was killed and the other three were held in Constantinople.69 Uṙhayecʿi commences Book Two with a smooth continuation of his narrative arc concerning the role of Byzantium in the present situation of the Christians of the East. He begins with the tale of an altercation between Syrian Christians and the Byzantine patriarch of Antioch in 502 (1053–1054), illustrating once again the lengths to which the imperial church would apparently go to enforce Chalcedonian belief. He moves on to record the death of Monomachos and gives a summary of the reign of Theodora. Intriguingly, the empress reprises the role of ultimate arbiter of justice for her Armenian subjects that is associated with the image of Basil ii. She ‘freed the Armenian princes, the sons of Habel and the brothers of Harpik, from prison […] and with great honour she released them to their paternal lands, to the fortress Arkni, but she ordered that they transgress no more. And in the same year she replaced the katepano Peros’70 who, according to the final entry of Book One, had been responsible for the brothers’ unjust imprisonment. At the same time, Uṙhayecʿi’s chronology on matters Byzantine begins to fall into confusion. Monomachos, whose date of death is given as 504, died in January 1055 (late 503 in the Armenian calendar). According to Uṙhayecʿi’s dating arithmetic Theodora then reigned for two years and three months, and was succeeded by Michael vi Stratiōtikos who reigned for seven months before his deposition by Isaac Komnenos, inconsistently dated to 505 (1056/7). In fact Theodora died after reigning for a year and a half, in August 1056 (505 67 68 69 70

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 107–109. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 109. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 109–112. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 122.

uṙhayecʿi on byzantium

91

in the Armenian calendar). Michael vi reigned for a year before abdicating in favour of Isaac Komnenos in August 1057 (506 in the Armenian calendar). Isaac himself reigned for two years, and then abdicated in favour of Constantine x Doukas in November 1059 (Armenian year 508). Uṙhayecʿi’s chronology for the succession during these years is striking not only for its error but also for its internal inconsistency, which is not typical within the Chronicle. It suggests that whatever reliable source he was using for the dates of Byzantine imperial reigns ended before 1055. Uṙhayecʿi describes the reign of Isaac Komnenos as a period of dissension and military defeat for the Byzantines. He claims that the emperor ‘had committed various acts of treachery against the Christians’,71 and was consequently unpopular. After Isaac ceded the throne to Constantine Doukas, he says, the new emperor ‘ruled despotically over the Greek empire and brought all the unconvinced to acquiescence, and there was joy throughout the entire Greek nation because of Doukas.’72 Once again the message is one of weakness, dissension, and persecution of Christians by their own emperor.

The Waning of Byzantine Influence Although he describes joy among the Greeks upon the accession of Constantine Doukas, Uṙhayecʿi did not consider the occasion joyous for the Armenians. He returns to the topic of Byzantium after his description of the sack of Sebasteia in 508 (1059/60), where he launches into a full diatribe against the Byzantines for their ‘abandonment’ of Armenia and their failure to act in the wake of the Turkish invasions: Who would be able to go into the details of the wrathful destruction and the repentant mourning of this Armenian nation, which it bore at the hands of the impious and bloodthirsty beasts of the Turkish army, due to anarchy from the false guardians, the weak and feeble craven race of the Greeks? For one by one they brought the brave soldiers of the Armenian nation to destruction, taking them from their houses and out of the region, and abolishing the throne of the Armenian kingdom. They destroyed the barrier of guardian armies and commanders, and the boasts of the unfailing bravery of the Romans turned to flight. They resem-

71 72

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 125. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 127.

92

chapter 4

bled the craven shepherd who flees when he sees the wolf. Nevertheless the Romans diligently exerted themselves in this respect, for when they heard of the fortification wall of the Armenian nation, they destroyed it and dispatched the Persians with their swords and regarded all this as a success for themselves, and they themselves shamelessly tried to guard Armenia with castrated generals and eunuch troops, while the Persians saw all the East lordless. And then the foreigners strengthened themselves immensely, so that in one year they reached up to the gates of Constantinople and took all the Roman land, the coastal cities and their islands, and made the Greek nation prisoners inside Constantinople. And when they took Armenia from the Greeks, all the torments of the Romans against the Armenian nation were stopped. And after this they contrived in another way to stir up battle against the Armenians; they sat in examination of the Armenians and in this way shunned the exertion of war, battle, and struggle and settled into the arrangement of squabbles in the church of God. They willingly avoided war with the Persians and tried to hinder all the true faithful in Christ and dislodge them from their faith, for when they found a brave and strong man, they would blind his eyes or, hurling him into the sea, would strangle him to death. And that was their zealous desire, as they took all the Armenian princes and the brave soldiers from the East and carried them off to live in Greece. And then they turned their own flower of youth into eunuchs and they dressed them in long and broad garments instead of close chain mail, which the brave wear, and instead of steel helmets they put on hoods, and instead of iron on their backs they put wide neck-cloths on their shoulders; and they spoke like meek and docile women, and constantly pondered the waste of brave young men. And by the hands of these men, the faithful were betrayed into captivity in the land of Persia.73 With this long polemic Uṙhayecʿi begins to focus on the religious dissension that arose once more between the Byzantine and the Armenian churches, and he places the blame squarely upon Constantine Doukas. His account of the quarter-century of Byzantine domination focuses almost exclusively on these two themes—Byzantine inaction in the face of Turkish invasion and massacres of Christians, and their concentration instead on religious persecution of the Armenians. The Armenian katholikos at the time was Xačʿik, whose residence was in Sebasteia near the Arcruni brothers. Uṙhayecʿi, who claims that the

73

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 135–136.

uṙhayecʿi on byzantium

93

Byzantine authorities were seeking the gold and silver wealth that Xačʿik’s predecessor Petros had accumulated as well as the submission of the Armenian church to the church of Constantinople, describes his forcible removal to Constantinople for three years and claims that ‘in those days many dangers befell the Armenian faith.’74 Shortly after the death of Xačʿik in 514 (1065/6), Uṙhayecʿi describes at length a new religious conflict between the Greek and Armenian churches. This is the dispute that led to the appearance of Gagik ii in Constantinople, allegedly in order to repudiate the act of union that was on the point of being agreed between the Empire and the remainder of the Armenian nobility.75 Even at this late stage, and despite his hostility toward Constantine Doukas, Uṙhayecʿi still portrayed the emperor as the dispenser of justice for Armenian subjects who had been wronged by malicious Greeks. In an account of a Turkish invasion of Tʿlxum (north of Amida on the Tigris river) in 511 (1062/3) he describes the death of Dawatanos, the Armenian doux of Edessa, and attributes it to the treachery of the ‘Greek’ general Frankopoulos (that is, the Latin mercenary Hervé). ‘Now when the king Doukas heard about the death of Dawatanos, which had come about through the treachery of Frankopoulos, he summoned him to Constantinople and drowned him, tying a stone around his neck and tossing him into the Ocean.’76 A very similar incident is described shortly afterward in the entry for 514 (1064/5) that records a renewed attack on Tʿlxum. Uṙhayecʿi writes that the Byzantine doux of Edessa, Niketas Pegonites, conspired with his lieutenant to have the Armenian doux of Antioch, Xačʿatur, killed in the battle. When he realised the intention, says Uṙhayecʿi, ‘Pext77 said “O apostate Romans, do you do this in your treachery?” He returned to Edessa, and after a few days went to the city of Antioch; and he notified the king Doukas of all this in writing. And the king seized Pṙokʿsimos [the lieutenant] and flayed his body and stuffed his skin with grass, and sent to Edessa and deprived Pegonites of his rank.’78 Neither of these incidents is recorded in other sources, nor is the death of Hervé—his activities during the reigns of Constantine ix and Michael vi are recorded by Skylitzēs,79 he is known from a surviving seal to have

74 75 76 77

78 79

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 138. See below, p. 149. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 144; also see above, p. 62. In the Chronicle, Uṙhayecʿi refers to Xačʿatur as ‘Pext’, which seems to be a corruption of the Byzantine title epeiktes. See Dédéyan, Les Arméniens entre Grecs, Musulmans et Croisés, pp. 37–39 for a full argument for the identification of ‘Pext’ as Xačʿatur. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 158. Skylitzēs, Synopsis historiôn, pp. 386–387, 399–401.

94

chapter 4

held the office of stratelatēs of Anatolia shortly before this time, probably during the reign of Isaac Komnenos,80 and (based also on sigillographic evidence) he may well have been present at Manzikert in 1071.81 Whether true or apocryphal, the tales serve to reinforce the valour of the Armenians, the duplicity of the Byzantine nobility, and the recognition by the highest authority that the Byzantines in question were in the wrong. The fact that this ultimate authority, in Uṙhayecʿi’s eyes, remains the Byzantine emperor is highly significant for his conception of Armenia‘s place vis-à-vis Byzantium. Uṙhayecʿi’s narrative returns to Constantinople and to a correct chronology upon the death of Constantine Doukas and the accession of Romanos iv Diogenes. Given the generally good relations between Diogenes and the Armenian troops in the Byzantine army,82 the Armenian historians are not as sympathetic to the emperor as might be expected. Uṙhayecʿi begins his account of the reign with a story of the court intrigues that led to Diogenes’ recognition, thus underscoring the Byzantine ‘habit’ of deception and destruction of its own nobility. He repeats and elaborates the claims of Aristakēs83 that Romanos was swayed by the denunciations of unnamed Greeks, snubbed the Arcruni brothers Atom and Apusahl when he passed through Sebasteia and, despite the intervention of other Greeks alongside high Armenian dignitaries, made renewed threats against the Armenian church. It is this, Uṙhayecʿi claims, that led to his downfall—‘when the monks heard [these threats], they called down mournful curses on his expedition—that he not return on the same road by which he left, but that the Lord destroy him like the impious Julian, who was cursed by St. Basil.’84 These claims sit oddly with the facts of Diogenes’ reign as they have emerged elsewhere: the Byzantine army recruited heavily among Armenians during this time, the Armenian soldiers were generally (though grudgingly) praised for their bravery and loyalty at the battle of Manzikert, and the Armenian nobility of southern Anatolia were heavily involved in the attempt to restore the deposed emperor to his throne.85 Dédéyan himself sug-

80 81 82 83 84 85

Schlumberger, ‘Deux chefs normands au xie siècle’, 295. Seibt, ‘Übernahm der französische Normanne Hervé (Erbebios Phrangopolos) nach der Katastrophe von Mantzikert das Kommando über die verbliebene Ostarmee?’. Dédéyan, Les Arméniens entre Grecs, Musulmans et Croisés, pp. 24–28. Aristakēs, Patmutʿiwn, p. 139, Récit des malheurs, p. 125. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 199. A very good reconstruction of events concerning Diogenes’ attempt to regain his throne is given by Dédéyan, who has used evidence from written histories and sigillographic catalogues to reconstruct the identities and movements of the Armenian magnates in Syria during this time. See Dédéyan, Les Arméniens entre Grecs, Musulmans et Croisés, pp. 40–46.

uṙhayecʿi on byzantium

95

gests a deep animosity between the Pahlawuni family (in particular its head at this time, the katholikos Grigor ii Vkayasēr) and the rising magnate Philaretos Brachamios, who had very good relations with Diogenes and with the future Byzantine soldier-emperor Nikephoros Botaneiates. If true, this may well explain why Uṙhayecʿi, whose account is itself partial to the Pahlawunis and violently opposed to Philaretos, would also have taken a dim view of the imperial figures with whom Philaretos was friendly. Given his negative view of Diogenes, his claim that the emperor had maltreated the Armenian nobility of Sebasteia and intended to wipe out the independence of the Armenian church can be seen as a further elaboration of Uṙhayecʿi’s theme in this part of the chronicle. After the battle of Manzikert and the downfall of Diogenes, the Byzantine emperors largely disappear as active players in the Chronicle and the chronology of the imperial succession begins to falter once more. Michael vii Doukas, Diogenes’ successor, is not given any description until the end of his reign, whereupon he was described as ‘a good and God-loving man, adorned with every virtue and radiant holiness and in every way he resembled the saintly kings of old and was resplendent in the Orthodox faith.’86 Uṙhayecʿi makes no mention of his relations with his Armenian subjects, and the description of Michael as ‘orthodox’ strongly suggests that he instigated no religious arguments. This is hardly surprising, given the evidence that Michael had very little direct influence over events in the territories where Armenians lived. Uṙhayecʿi’s praise for him may indeed simply be tied to Philaretos’ refusal to acknowledge him.87 The Chronicle returns to Constantinople with the deposition of Michael and the accession of Nikephoros Botaniates. This too can be tied to the actions of Philaretos, who was an old comrade-in-arms of Botaneiates and offered him the recognition that he had always denied to Michael. Uṙhayecʿi’s chronology nevertheless leaves something to be desired. He claims that Michael reigned for four years from the downfall of Diogenes in 1071 and that Nikephoros Botaneiates claimed the throne in 525 (1076/7). Botaneiates, we are told, reigned for only one year and had no intention of reigning any longer. He was allegedly succeeded by Nikephoros Melissenos, who reigned for four months before being deposed by Alexios Komnenos.88 This suggests an accession date of 526 or 527 (1077–1079) for Alexios, three or four years too early. Michael

86 87 88

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 211–212. Dédéyan, Les Arméniens entre Grecs, Musulmans et Croisés, pp. 47–49. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 215, 216–217.

96

chapter 4

was deposed by Botaneiates in January 1078 after a reign of nearly seven years; Botaneiates was in turn deposed in April 1081 by the simultaneous revolts of the Komnenos brothers (Alexios and Isaac) and of Nikephoros Melissenos, whose own rebellion the Komnenoi had refused to help put down.89 Botaneiates attempted to abdicate in favour of Melissenos, but his attempt to bring Melissenos to the city was stopped by an agent of the Komnenoi, and Alexios gained the throne instead.90 None of these emperors are portrayed as having had any significant interactions with the Armenians or with the people of Edessa. The religious controversies and reports of accusations levelled against Armenian princes, including the Arcrunis of Sebasteia, disappear. The implication is that, with the downfall of Diogenes and the rise of Philaretos, the regime in Constantinople was no longer concerned with direct imposition of order on the lands that were inhabited by the Armenians. This is bolstered by Uṙhayecʿi’s statement, the year after the battle of Manzikert, that ‘in this period the impious and most evil prince Philaretos rose to tyranny’.91 Philaretos has replaced the Byzantine emperors as the ruler of these lands and Uṙhayecʿi no longer suggests that the empire has responsibility for the safety of the Christians in the East. Uṙhayecʿi describes Alexios’ war with the Pechenegs, dating the final Byzantine victory to 538 (1089/90). He then describes a heretic that appeared ‘in this era’ in Constantinople and attracted a wide following, including Alexios’ own mother. Here it seems that Uṙhayecʿi may have conflated Neilos, who according to Anna Komnenē consorted heavily with Armenians in the capital,92 with Basil the Bogomil whose trial and execution by burning are prominently featured near the end of the Alexiad.93 Uṙhayecʿi’s inclusion of this incident, when he writes very little else about the reign of Alexios, lends support to an observation that Alexios was a zealous enforcer of Chalcedonian orthodoxy.94 Another piece of evidence arises in Uṙhayecʿi’s obituary of Alexios in which he describes the emperor as ‘a good and wise man and strong in warfare and very merciful to the faithful in Christ’, but also levels the accusation that ‘he did a deed which was not according to the will of God: he ordered second baptism and, disal-

89 90 91 92 93 94

Nikephoros Bryennios, Hyle Historias, p. 301. Anna Komnēnē, Alexias, p. 83. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 206. Anna Komnēnē, Alexias, pp. 281–283. Anna Komnēnē, Alexias, pp. 485–493; The trial of Neilos took place in 1087; the execution of Basil around 1104. See Buckley, Alexiad, p. 190,272. Augé, Byzantins, arméniens & francs, p. 323.

uṙhayecʿi on byzantium

97

lowing Nicaean baptism, confirmed the Chalcedonian order.’95 This focus of Alexios would to some extent have impaired any attempt to win the sympathy of the Armenians against the Latins in the wake of the First Crusade, which in turn was very relevant for the time during which Uṙhayecʿi was writing Book Three, when the Armenian and Latin churches had begun to pave the way to the rapprochement of the Jerusalem synod of 1140.96 In 1097 the Crusaders began to reach Constantinople. ‘When the emperor Alexios heard of their approach, he sent an army against them in battle’, writes Uṙhayecʿi. ‘All the lands through which they passed came against them in battle and vexed them with many torments.’97 Uṙhayecʿi’s account of the Crusaders’ arrival at Constantinople comes, it seems, primarily from the Latin participants. He suggests that the emperor relented of his own will, however: ‘And when the king Alexios heard of all this [i.e. the travails of the Crusaders], he put away the sword and did not battle against them anymore.’98 When relations between Byzantium and the Crusaders soured after the siege of Antioch,99 Uṙhayecʿi’ expresses a certain measure of acknowledgement of the Byzantine viewpoint, suggesting that he was not fully convinced that the grievances of the Latin leaders against the empire were justified. Alexios, he says, ‘was resentful against [the Crusaders] because of the disavowal of their earlier oath [to return former Byzantine territories to the empire], which they made but did not keep.’100 At the same time he passes on the rumors of sabotage that were rampant among the Crusaders, particularly during the Crusade of 1101: ‘But he [Alexios] did the deed of Judas against [Raymond of St. Gilles and his troops]—he ordered that all the land before them, through which the Frankish army passed, be burned, and that they be guided through uninhabitable places, and he withheld bread from them and caused them to go hungry, so that out of desperation they ate their horses. And he sent (to) the Turkish army and caused a huge multitude to come against them. […] And king Alexios

95 96 97 98 99

100

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 345. Concerning the relationship between the Armenian and Latin churches during the period in which Uṙhayecʿi wrote, see below, p. 153. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 254–255. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 255. For the significance of Antioch to subsequent relations between Byzantines and Latins throughout the reigns of Alexios, Iōannēs, and Manuel Komnenos, see Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel i Komnenos, 1143–1180, 30–32, 36–41, 66–75; see also Shepard, ‘ ‘Father’ or ‘Scorpion’?’, pp. 113–130 for the consequences that Alexios’ inaction at Antioch had in the context of his previous diplomatic efforts. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 284.

98

chapter 4

ordered that lime be mixed into the bread and given to them to eat, and that was a tremendous sin before God.’101 Uṙhayecʿi has nothing more to say about Alexios or about Constantinople until the emperor’s death, which could be seen as surprising given the emperor’s role in summoning the First Crusade and in engaging with the Crusader princes who rose to power in the area. The empire under Alexios’ rule in the 1090s was in a dire condition with respect to the situation in Asia Minor and the incursion of the Turks.102 It was his messages to Western leaders throughout the 1090s that very likely provided the impetus for the First Crusade,103 and it was he who pressed the Crusaders to agree that all conquests in former Byzantine territory should be turned over to him.104 Uṙhayecʿi’s depiction of the deeds and motivations of Alexios during the First Crusade seems to be informed almost entirely by the Latin view and incorporates many of the Latin accusations of betrayal, which in turn suggests very little communication between Byzantium and the Armenians of Cilicia and Syria during this time period. Even if there was any real vector of information from Constantinople to Uṙhayecʿi’s community in Edessa, the news was evidently not accorded much value. The mis-dated death of Alexios and the accession of Iōannēs Komnenos make up the final entry that concerns Byzantium, or the actions of the Byzantine emperors, within the text. This chronological error is a particularly telling one. Uṙhayecʿi claims in the prologue to Book Three that he began the work on his Chronicle during Alexios’ reign. If he was collating sources and making records of the dates of events even then, how could he have mis-recorded the date of an event that occurred in the middle of his research? It suggests either that he was not making his own notes about current events as they happened over the years during which he wrote, or that news from Constantinople was no longer reaching Edessa in a timely fashion.

Conclusions Uṙhayecʿi’s portrayal of the history of Byzantium within the Chronicle is consistent with his overall aims. While his object is to explain how the Armenians of 101 102 103 104

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 282–283, 284. Frankopan, The First Crusade. Shepard, ‘Cross-purposes: Alexius Comnenus and the First Crusade’, p. 118. For an analysis of Alexios’ preference for foreign soldiers, and of the tactics he used to retain the loyalty of the Latin soldiers in particular, see Shepard, ‘ ‘Father’ or ‘Scorpion’?’, pp. 113–122.

uṙhayecʿi on byzantium

99

his era came to be in the situation they were in, along the way he gives his interpretation of the history of Byzantium insofar as it is relevant to the Armenians. Although the history of relations between the Byzantines and the Armenians do not directly have a place in the prophecies of Kozeṙn, Uṙhayecʿi uses that history to help frame the context of that prophetic course of events for the Armenians. According to this prophetically-influenced interpretation, during the apogee of independent Armenia in the late tenth and early eleventh centuries, the Byzantine warrior-emperors Nikephoros Phokas, Iōannēs Tzimiskēs, and especially Basil ii conquered the formerly-Christian territory that had been occupied by the Muslims. They took the Syrian and Armenian Christians under their explicit protection in the process. Near the end of Basil’s reign the Armenian princes, most notably Senekʿerim Arcruni, began to abdicate their responsibilities to keep their kingdoms safe. Basil willingly took this responsibility off their hands. He converted himself into a father of the Armenian people and assumed responsibility for the security and well-being of Armenia. When Basil died, he took special care to hand on this responsibility to his brother and successor. The emperors that followed Basil and his brother Constantine did not live up to his standard. Uṙhayecʿi found them weak, and short-sighted, and bigoted against Armenians. They, and particularly Constantine ix Monomachos and Constantine x Doukas, wilfully destroyed the autonomous kingdoms and tried to destroy the church, due solely to their desire to wipe out the Armenian faith and to co-opt Armenian wealth. Their weakness left them unable to defend the land they had annexed against the invading Turks, and their lack of interest in Armenian welfare meant that they preferred to engage in disputes about theology while their eastern Christian subjects suffered. The emperors during this period nevertheless remained the arbiters of justice for Armenians as well as Greeks—Michael iv, Theodora, and even Constantine Doukas could be persuaded of the justice of the claims of wronged Armenians. With the military defeat of Romanos Diogenes at the battle of Manzikert came a pronounced loss of Byzantine control over the lands inhabited by Armenians, both in the Caucasus and farther to the west in Syria and Cappadocia. It was after Manzikert that the Byzantine-Armenian soldier of fortune Philaretos began to assert his own control over the Armenian-inhabited parts of Asia Minor. The emperor that followed Diogenes, Michael vii Doukas, is a benign but distant figure within the Chronicle who took no action that concerned the Armenians. His deposition and the short reign of his successor Nikephoros Botaneiates were recorded by Uṙhayecʿi, but Botaneiates likewise took no action within Armenia. Uṙhayecʿi’s near-complete silence on the subsequent reigns of Alexios Komnenos and his son Iōannēs compound the

100

chapter 4

impression, whether historically justified or not, that the Byzantine emperors had ceased to be relevant to the Armenians after 1071. Adapted as they are to fit this overall narrative structure, and perhaps obscured from the outset in the sources he used, Uṙhayecʿi’s reports are sometimes more useful as an indicator of Armenian sentiment toward Byzantium in the early twelfth century than as a description of what actually happened. As such the Chronicle must be treated with utmost caution as a source for events before the end of the reign of Basil ii. His grasp of the basic outline of events, such as those surrounding the battle of Samosata in 407 (958–959), is sometimes inexplicably confused. In addition his history has a markedly mythological character for this period, which reflects the larger-than-life stature he accords to the victorious warrior-emperors at the beginning of his Chronicle. His description of the palace coup d’état of Iōannēs Tzimiskēs is long and colourful, with many peculiar details unknown from elsewhere. His description of the reign of Basil largely marks the events that are commonly recorded by every historian of the period, but he adds fantastical material that portrays the emperor as unfailingly sympathetic to the Armenians, even in the face of Greek opposition to Armenian views. Basil was the emperor who ‘cared for [the Armenians] with fatherly love.’ Uṙhayecʿi’s treatment of Byzantine history, more or less chronologically reliable in the early period, becomes factually more in line with other accounts after the death of Basil’s brother Constantine viii, although some variation remains. His descriptions of events within the empire also become less fantastical at that point, although he retains the viewpoint of an Armenian partisan, furious and despairing over the loss of autonomy in the hereditary kingdoms. In the period between the annexation of Ani and the rise of Philaretos in 1072, and again for a brief period in the early reign of Alexios Komnenos, Uṙhayecʿi continues to record items of Byzantine history that have no discernible direct bearing upon the Armenians of Cilicia and Syria—the events of the brief reign of Michael v, the circumstances of Diogenes’ accession, the actions Alexios took against an unnamed heretic in Constantinople. This suggests that events in the capital during these years were still of sufficient interest to the Armenian community of northern Syria to be included among the documents that Uṙhayecʿi had at his disposal. The inclusion of these events also provides strong circumstantial evidence for the strength or weakness of the effective influence of Byzantine rulers in the region at particular points in time.

chapter 5

Muslim, Persian, or Turk? The Armenian Chronicler and the ‘Infidels’ If the first half of the Chronicle focuses primarily on the Armenians and their relations with Byzantium, in the latter half Uṙhayecʿi shifts the bulk of his attention to those who came to wield more influence over the lives of the Armenians of Syria and Cilicia: first the Muslims, then the Latin Crusaders. The ‘Muslims’ of whom Uṙhayecʿi speaks primarily indicate the Seljuq Turks, who found themselves in control of much of Anatolia at the expense of Byzantium in the final decades of the eleventh century. The Turks occupy a central role within Kozeṙn’s second prophecy and within the Chronicle, and Uṙhayecʿi’s portrayal of them corresponds well to the pre-existing paradigms within Armenian historiography. Their role as the infidel, the persecutor, the agent of God’s chastisement is stressed; at the same time there are clear, if implicit, indications that co-existence with Muslim neighbours and rulers was a long-entrenched fact of life. While the portrayal of Armenian/Muslim relations is therefore very familiar to any student of medieval Armenian historiography, Uṙhayecʿi’s application of an old paradigm sits rather uncomfortably with the rather more flexible reality in the latter half of the eleventh century. The centuries-old status quo of the Near East as a borderland under the eternal cycle of waxing or waning influence (as the case may be) of Byzantium to the west or Persia (in later centuries, Islamic rule, be it Umayyad or Abbasid) in the east became seriously threatened over the course of the eleventh century. The causes of the Byzantine military collapse and the loss of most of Asia Minor that accelerated in the 1070s is a topic still under vigorous debate.1 Their opponent, however, was not a vigorous and strong Abbasid empire based in Baghdad but rather a confederation of nomadic Turkic warlords, themselves taking advantage of the political weakness of the Abbasid caliph to take control 1 The majority of historians look for the causes within the Byzantine administration. For a summary of arguments based on Byzantine overreach and subsequent political infighting, see Angold, ‘Raiders and Neighbours: The Turks (1040–1304)’, pp. 583–587; for the disconnect between land ownership and political power that seems to have been an increasing reality in Byzantium from the late tenth century, see Howard-Johnston, ‘Crown Lands and the Defence of Imperial Authority in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries’; Whittow, ‘How the East Was Lost: The Background to the Komnenian Reconquista’.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004330351_006

102

chapter 5

of much of the machinery of empire, yet prone to fighting amongst each other. If Armenia and the land of the Euphrates had been for centuries a classical ‘borderlands’ culture, pitting the syncretistic inhabitants against the established nobility that sought to control what it meant to be Armenian or Christian or Muslim,2 the latter half of the eleventh century could be said to be the political ascendancy of the borderlands at the expense of the established nobility. Much of this history becomes clear only by omission or contradiction in Uṙhayecʿi’s account, and his treatment of the ‘Muslims’ within the Chronicle is emblematic of the way he has constructed the whole. We have seen that, for the history of the Armenians vis-à-vis Byzantium up through the middle of the eleventh century, Uṙhayecʿi presents his readers with an adapted version of the historiographical tradition that was already circulating around the Near East and that left its traces in the work of historians as distant as Yaḥyā ibn Saʿid, Leo the Deacon, and Ioannēs Skylitzēs.3 As his focus shifted to the Seljuq and other Sunni emirs who primarily aligned themselves with the Abbasid caliph but occasionally gave their allegiance to the Fatimids of Egypt, he was evidently far less able to rely on a received written tradition. For the tenth and early eleventh centuries the best-known historian of the Arab world was Yaḥyā ibn-Saʿid of Antioch (c. 980–1066),4 a Christian Arab from Egypt who had settled in Byzantine-held Antioch after fleeing the pogroms of the caliph al-Hakīm around 1015. Yaḥyā’s connections to the Arab world as well as the Byzantine one put him in the position to write an unusually comprehensive account of events throughout the Near East. For the period from the mid-eleventh to the mid-twelfth centuries, the most notable historians in the Arab world whose work survives were Ibn al-Qalānisī (c. 1073–1160),5 who wrote a chronicle centred on events in Damascus, Ibn al-Athīr (1160– 1233)6 who drew upon Ibn al-Qalānisī as well as a range of other sources to

2 For the perspective of the Armenians and the borderlands, see Dadoyan, The Arab Period in Armīnyah. 3 Holmes, ‘Byzantine Historians at the Periphery’; c.f. p. 18. 4 Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd al-Antaki. ‘Histoire de Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd d’ Antioche, part 1’. In: Patrologia Orientalis. Ed. by I. Kratchkovsky. Trans. by A.A. Vasiliev. Vol. 18. Paris: Brepols, 1924; Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd al-Antaki. ‘Histoire de Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd d’Antioche, part 2’. In: Patrologia Orientalis. Ed. by I. Kratchkovsky. Trans. by A.A. Vasilev. Vol. 23. Paris: Brepols, 1932; Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd al-Antaki. ‘Histoire de Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd d’Antioche, part 3’. In: Patrologia Orientalis. Ed. by I. Kratchkovsky. Trans. by F. Micheau and G. Troupeau. Vol. 47. 4. Turnhout: Brepols, 1997. 5 Ibn al-Qalānisī. The Damascus Chronicle of the Crusades. Ed. by H.A.R. Gibb. University of London historical series 5. London: Luzac, 1967. 6 Ibn al-Athīr, ʿIzz al-Dīn. The Annals of the Saljuq Turks: Selections from al-Kāmil fīʾl-Taʾrīkh

muslim, persian, or turk

103

write his own history,7 and Kamāl ad-Dīn (1192–1262),8 who despite his temporal distance from the eleventh century has evidently preserved the work of Arab historians that are now lost.9 Of these, Ibn al-Athīr is the historian who has received the most attention from Western scholarship. He was a scion of a wealthy family settled near Mosul, who alone of his brothers did not pursue an administrative career. His historical magnum opus, the Kamīl fiʾl-taʾrīkh, is a world chronicle with a focus specifically on the development of the lands of Islam. When the history was complete he dedicated it to the Zengid regent Badr ad-Dīn Luʾluʾ, but neither Luʾluʾ nor any earlier ruler commissioned the history. It is remarkable for its time, both for the breadth of its scope and for the way that its author has made a true synthesis of his source material.10 As Uṙhayecʿi’s coverage began in the middle of the tenth century, the unity of the Abbasid Islamic state was in the process of disintegration, the roots of which may well be found in the spread of Islam itself. When adherence to Islam was no longer an attribute that set the ruling class apart from the majority of the population, tribal and local affiliations began to carry much more political significance. By the end of the ninth century the economic power of the Abbasid centre began to collapse, weakening their effective control over the state. This gave rise to strong families (of which the Hamdanids of Aleppo and the Daylamites of Kurdistan were two of the most relevant to the Armenians of Mesopotamia and the Caucasus) who effectively had free rein within their own principalities. Although these emirates could be considered part of the Abbasid empire, they are often referred to by the name of their ruling clan, e.g. ‘Hamdanid’ or ‘Daylamite’, and it is perhaps more useful to consider the phenomenon in terms of a ‘Muslim commonwealth’.11 By the end of the tenth century the rival Fatimid caliphate of Egypt had grown sufficiently in power to mount a serious challenge to Abbasid supremacy, and the rulers of these

7 8 9 10

11

of ʿIzz al-Dīn Ibn al-Athīr (1029–97). Ed. by D.S. Richards. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2002; Ibn al-Athīr, ʿIzz al-Dīn. The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athir for the Crusading Period: From alKāmil fīʾl-taʾrīkh. Part i (1097–1146). Ed. by D.S. Richards. Crusade Texts in Translation 13. London: Ashgate, 2006. Micheau, ‘Ibn al-Athīr’, pp. 67–68; for the link between Ibn al-Athīr and Ibn al-Qalānisī, see also the introduction to Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kamil 1097–1146, p. 4. Ibn al-ʿAdīm, Everything desirable about the history of Aleppo. Eddé, ‘Kamāl al-Dīn ʿUmar Ibn al-ʿAdīm’, pp. 128–130. For more on Ibn al-Athīr, see Micheau, ‘Ibn al-Athīr’ and Richards, ‘Ibn al-Athīr and the Later Parts of the Kāmil: A Study of Aims and Methods’, as well as Richards’ prefaces to the English translations of the Kāmil. Kennedy, Age of the Caliphates, pp. 198–202.

104

chapter 5

emirates might offer allegiance to either caliph. A significant addition to this already complicated picture came over the course of the eleventh century: the Turks. They were nomads, part of the Oghuz confederation, who came primarily from the area east of Khurasan and may have been connected to the Khazar khanate before its demise in the early tenth century.12 They were recruited (or enslaved) into the Abbasid military beginning in the ninth century.13 From the beginning of the eleventh century, amid the chaotic period of the Muslim commonwealth, Turkish warlords and their followers began to move west from Ghaznavid territories into Khurasan and Iraq.14 In 1055 Ṭughril Bey took control of Baghdad15 and, from that point on, the Seljuq advance to some extent had the machinery of the Abbasid state at its disposal. Perhaps the most striking feature of the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries is precisely the marked de-centralisation of power in Asia Minor. Several cities and their associated regions were held by various scions of the Seljuq family, who at times cooperated with the command of the sultan and at other times rebelled.16 The sultanates of Ṭughril Bey (1055–1063) and Barkyaruq (1092–1105) were particularly marked by these power struggles, although neither Alp Arslan (1063–1072) nor Malik-Shah (1072–1092) were entirely immune from challenge. Other strongholds were in the possession, variously, of non-Turkish Muslim emirs (e.g. Sharaf ad-Dawlah ibn Quraysh of Mosul, or Yaghi Siyan of Antioch), descendants of the dispossessed Armenian nobility in Cappadocia, or Armenians who had risen through military or political service (e.g. Philaretos, Goł Vasil of Kesun, or Constantine the Rubenid).17 It was in this patchwork of autonomous lordships that the Latin Crusaders found themselves fighting from 1097, and as will be seen in the next chapter, from the point of view of the inhabitants of Anatolia and Syria, the Crusaders were quickly assimilated into these devolved structures of government.

12 13 14 15 16 17

Peacock, Early Seljūq history, pp. 27–35. Cahen, ‘The Historiography of the Seljuqid Period’, pp. 6–7. Dimitri Korobeinikov, ‘Raiders and Neighbours’, pp. 697–698. Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kamil 1029–97, pp. 99–102. Uṙhayecʿi himself records many of these battles. See Peacock, Early Seljūq history, pp. 60– 68 for a discussion of this contentious power dynamic. For a more thorough discussion of the network of lordships in this era, see Köhler, Alliances and Treaties between Frankish and Muslim Rulers in the Middle East, pp. 8–20.

muslim, persian, or turk

105

The Role of Muslims within Armenian History From the broad historical sketch, we can turn to the question of how Uṙhayecʿi regarded the Muslim rulers, fighters, and civilians who populate the Chronicle. There is a certain parallel here with how Byzantine Greeks are portrayed. Although much has been made of his antipathy toward the Byzantine Greeks and their church, we have seen already that his opinions and expressions were rather more complex; much the same is true of his portrayal of Muslims. While the basic paradigm that Uṙhayecʿi presented cast Byzantium in a role as the rightful protector of Christian Armenia, who were worthy of praise insofar as they lived up to this ideal, his attitude toward Muslim leaders was not all that dissimilar: while they were not necessarily the rightful protectors of Armenians, so long as they did in fact protect Armenians they were to be praised. Uṙhayecʿi’s attitudes have been described as xenophobic, and there too the portrayal is over-simplified. In the words of A.E. Dostourian: In analyzing Matthew’s basic philosophy, there is a tendency to oversimplify the chronicler’s viewpoints. Indeed, some scholars have characterized Matthew as superstitious and credulous, intensely nationalistic, deeply suspicious and hateful of foreigners.18 Dostourian himself describes Uṙhayecʿi as ‘open-minded’ about the Arabs and the Turks, in that he was willing to praise rulers such as Malik-Shah for their benevolent treatment of Christians.19 Even so, he leaves unanswered the question of whether Uṙhayecʿi’s portrayal of the Turks and other Muslims had a coherent guiding principle or was simply contradictory. In fact a guiding principle can be detected throughout the Chronicle that is the direct expression of a fundamental dichotomy that has existed throughout Armenian historiography: the conflict between co-existence with Muslim rule and opposition to the Muslim faith. Nina Garsoïan has pointed out this great discrepancy between the ‘reality’ of Armenian history—the more or less peaceful co-existence of Persian or Arab overlord and Armenian prince, both before and after the conversion of Armenia to Christianity—and the ‘myth’ of Christian Armenia, in which the Armenian princes, through their steadfast faith, upheld their distinct ethnic identity and the legacy of the luminaries Trdat the Great and Grigor the Illuminator,

18 19

Dostourian, ‘Chronicle of Matthew’, p. 158. Dostourian, ‘Chronicle of Matthew’, p. 163.

106

chapter 5

who represented the Christian Armenian ideal.20 That ‘myth’ was not simply fiction, of course. The Armenian adoption of Christianity over the course of the fourth century did set them gradually and irrevocably apart from the spiritual milieu of Zoroastrian Persia, and there is ample evidence that their loyalty to the Persian government was suspect from time to time. There is nevertheless strong evidence that most Armenians felt that, despite their differences of belief, they belonged to the Persian milieu.21 When the Sasanian royal house fell to the emerging forces of Islam in the mid-seventh century, the Armenians came once more, and not entirely involuntarily, under the effective rule of a power with whom they shared some elements of culture but not a religion. The Umayyad period of rule was a turbulent one in Armenia, as successive caliphs tested the bounds of accommodation for their non-Muslim subjects. It is largely covered in the history of Łewond, who argued that the Muslims had broken their divinely-ordained pact with Christian Armenia and would therefore, sooner or later, lose God’s favor.22 The early Abbasid period saw a revival of Persian culture in the Islamic world.23 Under these circumstances the Armenians, who had never entirely rejected their eastern heritage, were themselves an integral part of the Islamic world despite the retention (by and large) of their Christian faith.24 The world order had changed utterly in the seventh century, but the pattern was very familiar. The role of Armenian literature, and particularly its historiography, in the delineation and preservation of a particular version of Armenian identity was thus assured. True to the preservation of the ‘myth’, the historiographical tradition is filled with accounts of the martyrdom of Armenia’s most celebrated sons and daughters. By the time Armenian history began to be written in its own language, the kingdom of Trdat and Grigor was already a thing of the past, along with the state conversion to Christianity that they led. Vardan Mamikonean, who would be remembered as the premier martyr of the Armenians, had already died in his celebrated ‘last stand’ against the attempt by Yazdgerd ii to re-impose Zoroas-

20 21 22

23 24

Garsoïan, ‘Reality and myth’. Garsoïan, ‘Reality and myth’; Garsoïan, Buzandaran, pp. 51–55. This they duly did in the late ninth century, as Armenia regained its effective independence; for the argument that Łewond himself wrote in the ninth century, see Greenwood, ‘Reassessment’. Ashraf, Iranian Identity iii. Medieval Islamic Period. There were, of course, substantial numbers of Armenian converts to Islam, although they tended to lose their Armenian identity after only a few generations. For the Armenian integration into the medieval Islamic world during this time, see Dadoyan, The Arab Period in Armīnyah, particularly chapters 2 and 3.

muslim, persian, or turk

107

trianism on the Armenians. So the division between ‘reality’ and ‘myth’, present from the beginning of Armenian historiography, was maintained throughout. Garsoïan suggests that the very closeness of early and medieval Armenian culture to that of the Persians was the impetus for the creation of the myth; their conversion to Christianity, and the death of their leader Vardan in defence of that conversion, distinguished them and had therefore to be emphasized. The Byzantines on the other hand were their co-religionists, but Byzantine culture with its centralised structure of government was very different from, and much more damaging to, the traditional Armenian customs. It was much easier for the Armenian princes to preserve the status quo under Persian suzerainty than under that of the Byzantines, but this led the Armenian historians to place emphasis on the ‘otherness’ of their religious faith and to highlight their resistance to the faith of their Eastern suzerains, lest they be accused of an impious collaboration with the ‘infidel’ against their Christian brethren in Byzantium (or, indeed, lest they be re-absorbed by the majority culture). Like the Sasanian empire, the caliphate that replaced it had a government less centralised than that of Byzantium. The Armenians were as a result able to preserve their traditional power structures under Arab domination almost as easily as they had under the Persians.25 The proliferation of names of Arabic origin—Hasan, Apuhamza, Apuselm, Apusēt—is a testament to the de facto cultural interchange between Armenia and the Arabs.26 At the same time, the retention of Christianity remained one of the defining characteristics of the Armenian people in the view of its nobility and church leaders. Their adherence to their faith in the face of increasing pressure to convert to Islam therefore took on even greater importance in the historiographical tradition, which was preserved and maintained by that nobility and those church leaders. Historians of the early Islamic period such as Sebēos, Łewond, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertcʿi, and Tʿovma Arcruni were quick to condemn the Arabs as heathen agents of Satan.27 The political reality thus seems to have been that, despite the religious and political links with Byzantium, the Armenian establishment had a little more room to exercise its autonomy during those times when Byzantine power was comparatively weak. This pattern had been evident since the beginning of the Armenian historiographical tradition, and was an unwritten counterpart 25

26 27

For a good overview of the development of the Muslim states from the seventh century through the tenth, see Kennedy, Age of the Caliphates; for Armenia specifically, see p. 109. Garsoïan, ‘Reality and myth’, p. 120. Garsoïan, ‘Reality and myth’, p. 127.

108

chapter 5

to the usually-increasing hostility to the ‘infidel’ expressed within that tradition. Even within this framework, however, Uṙhayecʿi’s vantage point from the early twelfth century merits some consideration. The tenth and early eleventh centuries have been regarded by both later medieval and modern historians as the apogee of an independent medieval Armenia—a re-establishment by the Bagratuni dynasty of the ancient Aršakuni kingdom that had been swept away in the fifth century just when Armenian written culture began to emerge. Although this is a simplified and problematic picture that masks the extent to which the ‘Armenian kingdom’ itself tended toward fragmentation and was still subject to outside powers, and omits entirely the existence of Armenians who lived outside the bounds of these territories and had integrated themselves to a greater or lesser extent in the wider world around them, by Uṙhayecʿi’s time the historical literature had already been able to dispense with any justification for a modus vivendi with a non-Christian suzerain. On the other hand the loss of Armenian independence, as their ancestral kingdoms were incorporated into the Byzantine empire, and the loss of Armenian security and the traditional social structure that occurred when Byzantium failed to protect those territories from the Turkish advance, had demonstrated to Armenian observers of Uṙhayecʿi’s time precisely what re-orientation toward the West had cost them. It is in this confusing environment that Uṙhayecʿi must assign a role to the Turks and other Muslims within the Chronicle. Little wonder that the resulting portrayal has been characterised as ‘ambiguous’.28 Which Muslims? Insofar as the historical reality since the 1040s did not fit any established paradigm of Armenian history, Uṙhayecʿi faced a difficult task in writing about it. The first symptom of his difficulty is the marked inconsistency of his ethnography, which further clouds an already complex situation that arose from the fragmentation of the Abbasid caliphate beginning in the tenth century, and the proliferation of ruling dynasties of various origins. The result is a marked inconsistency in the labels that he applies to the various Muslims within the Chronicle. While it is easy to arrive at the conclusion that his inconsistency arises from ignorance, however, it is a dangerous assumption to make wholesale. An observer such as Uṙhayecʿi, who was not particularly erudite and who gives no evidence of the ability to speak or read Arabic, would have had to rely largely on oral explanations and hearsay in order to disambiguate the

28

Dostourian, ‘Chronicle of Matthew’, p. 162.

muslim, persian, or turk

109

various factions and understand the alliances and associations between them. In his text the various Muslim individuals and polities are usually referred to as ‘Tačik’, although more specific words such as ‘Delumkʿ’ (Daylamite) and ‘Arab’ occasionally appear.29 The words ‘Parsik’ (Persian) and ‘Tʿurkʿ’ are used nearly as frequently as ‘Tačik’, although their uses are not very consistent either. Uṙhayecʿi’s first entry, an account of a famine in Edessa and the lands to the south in 401 (952/3), describe those southern lands as ‘the land of the Tačiks’.30 They were ruled at the time by the Hamdanids, who were clients of the Abbasid caliphate. The entry for 410 (961/2), which describes the Hamdanid capture of Aleppo and Anazarba from the Ikhshīdid dynasty,31 describes the Hamdanids there as ‘Arab’ rather than ‘Tačik’, and the Ikhshīdids as ‘of Egypt’. The Arabs of Crete, descendants of the Andalusian Muslim Abū Ḥafṣ ʿUmar,32 are themselves referred to as all three of ‘Arab’, ‘Tačik’, and ‘of Egypt’ in the single short entry for the Byzantine capture of that island, which Uṙhayecʿi has dated to 408 (959/60).33 The Turks first appear (as ‘Tʿurkʿ’) in the Chronicle in the entry for 465 (1016/7), in which their initial appearance in Vaspurakan is described. They are also named explicitly in the second prophecy of Kozeṙn as the infidel race who would shortly appear and ravage the land before the appearance of the Latins, although the role of aggressor after the appearance of the Crusade is once again given to the ‘Persians’. One might initially argue that this inconsistency of ethnographic names early in the Chronicle is an effect of the disparate sources from which information was drawn, but evidence of the same interchangeable use of labels can also be seen in Books Two and Three. A very good example occurs in the entry for 553 (1104/5), which describes one of the campaigns of the Crusader lords Joscelin of Courtenay and Baldwin of Le Bourcq: ‘And when Baldwin and Joscelin encountered the army of the Turks (Tʿurkʿin), there arose a frightful and severe battle in the foreign land of the Muslims (Tačkacʿ), and then the army of the Persians (Parsicʿ) defeated the army of the Franks …’34 There is, in short, very little discernible pattern to Uṙhayecʿi’s use of ethnographic adjectives for the various Muslim emirs and

29

30 31 32 33 34

In his English translation of the text, Dostourian simply translates the word ‘Տաճկունք’ as ‘Muslims’, since Uṙhayecʿi’s own use of the word is so widespread and so ethnographically mixed. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 1. Sauvaget, ‘Ḥalab’, but see below, p. 111, for Uṙhayecʿi’s date confusion here. Canard and Mantran, ‘Iḳrīṭish’. See above, p. 80, for Uṙhayecʿi’s chronological misplacement of the capture of Crete. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 296.

110

chapter 5

polities. His readers must perforce exercise great care if they wish to attribute significance to any particular label. This is not to say, however, that Uṙhayecʿi was ignorant of the factions and divisions that existed within the Muslim world, nor of the Armenian links that some of them held. He may well write, as in the example just given, about the ‘foreign land of the Muslims’, but the Muslim world was not in the least foreign to any inhabitant of Edessa who had lived through the last decades of the eleventh century and, for his own period at least, Uṙhayecʿi was no exception. He is a good source of information on the rivalries, battles, and assassinations that took place within the Abbasid and Seljuq worlds—as we will see below, though his accounts of events are occasionally credulous and often diverge from those of Arabic chroniclers, his presentation of alliances and enmities usually agrees with theirs. Despite the arbitrariness of the ethnographic label used in any particular instance, Uṙhayecʿi is able to name the family connections of most of the Muslim emirs who appear during his own lifetime and appears to be reasonably well-informed of their political alliances and enmities at any given point in time. The reader is left finally with the suspicion that Uṙhayecʿi’s confusing ethnography may simply reflect the changeability of identity as it appeared to an inhabitant of Edessa during this exceptionally fluid time. Tenth-century Muslims in the Chronicle If Uṙhayecʿi’s ethnography can be described as a mixture of fair description, fluidity of identity, and honest mistake, what then of the historical information he records? Here we turn to the larger question of his overall agenda in reporting on events within the Muslim world. How should Uṙhayecʿi’s information about particular emirs and their deeds be interpreted in light of the historiographical patterns that circulated before the 1050s, and the patterns that emerged (which, in the Armenian context at least, he largely shaped) after the 1050s? As in the realms of Byzantine and of Armenian history, Uṙhayecʿi’s evident agenda depends heavily upon the time period about which he writes, and the extent to which the emirs in question were relevant to contemporaneous Armenians. The scant information that Uṙhayecʿi gives about events concerning Muslims in the tenth century is usually either incorrect or uncorroborated. Into the former category could be placed the entry for 410 (961/2), in which he describes a battle between the ‘Arabs’ and the forces ‘of Egypt’ for Anazarba and Aleppo. There was a Byzantine offensive against Aleppo in 962, during which Nikephoros Phokas sacked the city,35 but there is no account in any source, 35

Skylitzēs, Synopsis historiôn, p. 213.

muslim, persian, or turk

111

including that of Yaḥyā, of any intra-Muslim warfare around Aleppo during this period. It has been suggested36 that this entry could refer to the capture of both cities in 944 from the Ikhshīdids ‘of Egypt’ by the ‘Arab’ Sayf ad-Dawlah, which would render his ethnography correct but would give a date that fits into none of his patterns of chronological error for Book One. Further error is found in Uṙhayecʿi’s account of the battle of Samosata of 407 (958/9) in which he has transposed Byzantine attacker and Arab defender, and the assertion that the emir Hamdan, or Sayf ad-Dawlah, died at the hands of ‘Armenian troops’ in 408 (959/60).37 The uncorroborated items of information include the tale of the capture of prince Derenik by the emir of Her in 424 (975/6),38 and the reference to an emir known as ‘Long-hand’ who menaced Edessa in 440 (991/2).39 All of these entries give very little indication that Uṙhayecʿi was familiar with the history of the various Muslim states during this period. The vague ethnographic information he gives in some places does correspond with facts as recorded elsewhere—the ‘forces of Egypt’40 who held Crete prior to its capture by the Byzantines in 961 were descended from Andalusian Muslims who had settled in Egypt in the ninth century before being driven out, and they had moreover called upon the Ikhshīdids of Egypt and the Fatimids (who would conquer the Ikhshīdids and make Cairo their capital in 969) for assistance against the Byzantine invasion.41 Concerning Uṙhayecʿi’s misplacement of the battle between ‘Arab’ and ‘Egyptian’ for Anazarba and Aleppo, it was plausible to suggest that certain groups of Arabs, backed by the Abbasids, might be engaged in combat with the Fatimid or Ikhshīdid ‘Egyptians’ during this time.42 Even here, however, the focus is on the consequence to the Christians. The battle for Anazarba and Aleppo ‘caused immeasurable massacre, more of the Christians than of their own people’.43 The Muslims conscripted soldiers,44 they ‘intended to commit a great massacre against the

36 37

38 39 40 41 42 43 44

Dostourian, Armenia and the Crusades, p. 284, note 4/2. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 3. In fact, Sayf ad-Dawlah died in 967; see Bianquis, ‘Sayf alDawla, Abu ʾl-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. Abi ʾl-Haydjāʾ ʿAbd Allāh b. Ḥamdān b. Ḥamdūn b. al-Ḥārith Sayf al-Dawla al-Taghlibī.’. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 30–33. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 41–42. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 3. Canard and Mantran, ‘Iḳrīṭish’. Kennedy, Age of the Caliphates, ch. 12. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 3. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 2.

112

chapter 5

Armenians’,45 they caused ‘devastation and captivity’.46 Just as Uṙhayecʿi has given his reader a portrait of the tenth century that included virtuous Armenian warriors and victorious Byzantine emperors while neglecting the small details that would confer historical accuracy, he has also portrayed the antagonist necessary to complete the picture—‘infidels’ who not only fought the Christians but also resorted to slaughtering each other on occasion. This portrait follows the broad models of a Biblically-influenced Armenian historiography as exemplified by Uṙhayecʿi’s forebears. The Appearance of the Turks From the point of view of a historian of the Muslim-dominated Middle East, Uṙhayecʿi’s Chronicle begins to come into its own—in the sense that his information about events seems to come more or less directly from the relevant regions, rather than filtered through a received narrative of prior Christian historiography—with the introduction of the Turks in the second decade of the eleventh century. These are the primary ‘Muslims’ in Uṙhayecʿi’s experience, and they quickly replace ‘Arabs’ and ‘Egyptians’ as the main adversaries within his text. He records the event with apocalyptic imagery: When the year 46547 of the Armenian era had been reached, the anger of divine wrath was awakened against all the Christian populace and the worshippers of the holy Cross, for the dragon that breathes death awoke with mortiferous fire, and struck the believers in the Holy Trinity. At this time the prophetic and apostolic foundations trembled, because winged serpents arrived and wished to shine out through all the lands of the faithful in Christ. This was the first appearance of the bloodthirsty beasts. In those days troops gathered among the barbarous race of the infidels, who are called Tʿurkʿ, and reaching the Armenian land they entered Vaspurakan province and the Christian faithful were mercilessly slaughtered at the point of the sword.48 Uṙhayecʿi was most likely born sometime during the latter half of the eleventh century, and probably lived out his life in Edessa. The world with which he 45 46 47

48

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 35. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 41. The majority of the extant manuscripts give the date as 467 (1018/9), but Seibt has argued based on the Armenian synaxarion that 465 (1016/7) is the correct date. See Seibt, ‘Die Eingliederung von Vaspurakan in das byzantinische Reich’. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 46–47.

muslim, persian, or turk

113

was familiar had always included Turkish raiders with links to the Abbasid caliphate. The battles, and relations, between Christian and Turk constituted the major sweep of events as he knew them; the proximate expression of God’s wrath in the pair of prophecies which soon followed this entry was the incursions of the Turks. In this sense it can be argued that Uṙhayecʿi’s own Chronicle begins in earnest with this image of the ‘fatal dragon’. The prophecies of Kozeṙn are set shortly afterward, and present the Turks as the primary agent of God’s punishment of the Christian people.49 Much of the remainder of Book One of the Chronicle, and the majority of Book Two, is devoted to a full account of this punishment, although the Turks themselves do not re-appear in the Chronicle until the decade of the 490s (1040s). Uṙhayecʿi then begins to describe a succession of Turkish raids on Armenian and other Christian cities. He illustrates through these the words of Kozeṙn: that ‘hereafter there will be invasions by foreigners, the filthy forces of the Turks, the cursed sons of Kʿam, upon the Christian nations, and all the earth will be consumed by the edge of the sword; all the Christian nations will pass through sword and captivity’.50 The invasions of the Turks were a centrepiece of the second prophecy of Kozeṙn. They were likewise a centrepiece of Uṙhayecʿi’s understanding of recent history, and therefore of the Chronicle itself. Although his ethnography is very inconsistent, as we have seen above, one of the few discernible patterns therein is that Uṙhayecʿi almost always uses ‘Turk’ as a collective word, and always in the context of a group of attackers of Christians.51 It is unreservedly negative, whereas the words ‘Tachik’ and ‘Persian’ can be used for benevolent Muslims as well.52 Even the Seljuq sultans Ṭughril Bey and Alp Arslan are invariably called ‘Persian’ when Uṙhayecʿi refers to them individually.53

49

50 51

52

53

It is nevertheless worth noting the doubt expressed by Peacock, Early Seljūq history, p. 156, that the Turks had indeed come as far west as Vaspurakan before 1020, or that the impact of any raid would have been severe enough to bring Senekʿerim to abandon his lands. See translation below, p. 205. e.g. the description of the capture and death of Stephen Lichoudēs (Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 99–100); the lament following the sack of Tʿlxum and Arkni in 511 (Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 140–141); the description of the troops under Alp Arslan during his Armenian campaign (Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 145). This has a parallel to an observation in Peacock, Early Seljūq history, p. 48, who notes the very common use by Arab chroniclers of ‘Oghuz’, a term that is not used by Uṙhayecʿi, in a pejorative sense. e.g. Ṭughril Bey’s siege of Manzikert (Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 118); Alp Arslan’s cam-

114

chapter 5

Reality and Myth: the Armenians under Turkish Domination Uṙhayecʿi’s insistence on antipathy toward the Turkish newcomers is reminiscent of the opening of the Alexiad of Anna Komnenē, in which the reader is introduced to Alexios as a man who, from the beginning of his life, sought to repel the Turks. Anna intended through this device to draw attention away from the willingness of her father to seek accord with them and even enlist them as lieutenants.54 If, like Anna, Uṙhayecʿi has presented the relationship between Turk and Christian as more adversarial than it often was, he has a strong precedent in Armenian historiography for doing so.55 True to the tenor of the second prophecy, the Turks are portrayed with unremittingly negative imagery. Ṭughril Bey came ‘arising like a black lightning cloud’ against Manzikert in 1054, before he turned back ‘humiliated’.56 The emirs who attacked in his name were ‘evil men and more bloodthirsty than beasts’.57 Alp Arslan, his nephew and successor, ‘like a cloud puffed up with the fog of iniquity reached Armenia with much massacre.’58 This is the historiographical ‘myth’ of the infidel with dominion over Armenians, applied to the Turkish domination of Asia Minor. Armenian historiography also had a place for righteous Muslims, however, and these are not absent from the Chronicle. A good example is Malik-Shah, son and successor to Alp Arslan, who ‘was granted his sovereignty by God; he held power over all the earth and brought peace to all the land of Armenia.’59 Uṙhayecʿi’s unfailingly positive treatment of Malik-Shah echoes and exemplifies the theme found in the eighth-century history of Łewond: so long as a Muslim ruler exercised good stewardship over the lands that God had allowed him to occupy, he would retain divine consent to his rule.60 It is certainly no accident that the ‘peaceful’ reign of Malik-Shah is set in contrast with the rule of Philaretos, the Armenian villain of Book Two. Where the one ‘brought peace to Armenia’, the other ‘brought with him abominable desolation.’ This deliberate contrast is a good example of the ‘reality’ of accommodation of Muslim rulers that is often hidden in Armenian sources.

54 55 56 57 58 59 60

paign in Armenia in 513 (Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 144)—but see fn. 51 above for collective description of ‘Turks’ in the same entry. Frankopan, Alexios i Komnenos, 286–290. As shown by Garsoïan; see above, p. 105. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 118. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 133. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 194. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 205. Mahé, ‘Entre Moïse et Mahomet’, pp. 136–137.

muslim, persian, or turk

115

The other primary clue to the ‘reality’ of cohabitation with the Turkish newcomers is less apparent to the reader: this is the nature of reports that Uṙhayecʿi gives about events in Baghdad, Damascus, and other areas deep within the Muslim sphere. We have already seen that Uṙhayecʿi’s information about the Muslim world in the tenth and early eleventh centuries is vague, brief, and somewhat derivative. This corresponds to the picture of Armenian history as presented by both Asołik and Aristakēs—the nobility and church of the autonomous kingdoms were in the process of a gradual political re-orientation toward Constantinople, and Byzantium itself was in an expansionist phase. As the Chronicle progresses through the eleventh century, items set well within the Muslim sphere of influence and with no apparent relevance to Armenians of Edessa or elsewhere begin to appear within its pages—the report of a strange omen of red snow at Maiyafariqqin,61 the detailed story of the demise of Alp Arslan at the hand of a Kurd.62 Many of Uṙhayecʿi’s entries concerning the Turkish campaigns and other events of this era—including records of natural phenomena such as comets and years of famine—correspond to information found in the history of Ibn al-Athīr. The increasing focus on the Muslim world beginning with the Turkish invasions does imply conduits of information that were either absent or ignored in the years before the fall of independent Armenia. Even so, the impression given in the Chronicle is that the Muslim world remained a foreign one, the source of invaders and destroyers of Christians, until the very end of the eleventh century. Uṙhayecʿi says of Malik-Shah at the outset of his reign, shortly after the Byzantine defeat at Manzikert in 1071, that ‘in ruling he ruled all the earth and he made peace in all the land of the Armenians’,63 but his coverage of the Turks fades entirely at this point while he records the rise of Philaretos and dwells on his many sins. It is only near the end of Philaretos’ reign, on the eve of his loss of Antioch in 533 (1084/5), that the Chronicle truly portrays the Armenians as part of the Muslim world. This is again well in keeping with the established historiographical tradition that required the Muslims to be portrayed as the infidel alien, and that sanctioned accommodation as a last resort only when the Armenians had no alternative and only with a suitably benevolent ruler who would allow the Christians the right to their religious beliefs. It is apparent from the evidence of scattered sources (particularly Arabic ones) that a great many Armenians were by this period well integrated into the Muslim world,

61 62 63

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 131–132. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 203–205. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 205.

116

chapter 5

having even in some cases converted to Islam while retaining a sense of their own Armenian identity.64 Uṙhayecʿi’s silence on the subject of Armenian integration with the Muslim world, and his presentation of the Armenians as the steadfastly Western-oriented but autonomous true Christians throughout the Byzantine annexation and the Turkish invasions, does indeed falter occasionally. He notes that the attack on Melitene in 507 (1058/9) was led by the son of Liparit,65 the Georgian doux in Byzantine service who had fought and been captured in the battle of Kaputru in 1048. Even the deposed king of Ani, Gagik ii Bagratuni, was not immune to cooperation with the infidel—Uṙhayecʿi tells us that in 514 (1064/5), after a visit to Constantinople wherein Gagik allegedly prevented ecclesiastical union between the Byzantine and Armenian churches,66 he had no intention ever to return to Constantinople and indeed ‘he intended to go to Alp Arslan, the Persian sultan, and rule the throne of the kingdom of the Armenian people, for the sultan had summoned him many times, and he was prohibited because of his Christian faith.’67 The idea that Gagik was prohibited from a meeting with the sultan because of his faith is an interesting one, and not particularly grounded in the historical reality of the precarious ‘independence’ of the Bagratuni kingdom. Perhaps Uṙhayecʿi, aware of Gagik’s intent to defect from the Byzantine court to the Seljuq one, chose to use the fact to present a picture of the desperation to which the Armenian king was driven by Byzantine pressure. Much as Uṙhayecʿi despised Philaretos and all he stood for, the principality that Philaretos created could fulfill the historiographical function of a Christian Armenian state. When Philaretos fell from power, however, Uṙhayecʿi had finally to acknowledge the fact that the Armenians about whom he wrote were in a Muslim world. From that point up to the arrival of the Crusades, the Chronicle focuses almost entirely on the local history of the areas around Edessa. The wealth of information about relations between Muslim emirs is reminiscent of the strong presence of Byzantine affairs in events prior to 1071. Not all of the facts that Uṙhayecʿi presents can be corroborated, and a few appear to be contradicted, by Ibn al-Athīr—the emir ‘Khusraw’ who attacked Harran in 532 (1083/4), for example, is unattested by the latter, whose account suggests rather that the aggressor was Tutush (the son of Alp Arslan and brother of MalikShah). 64 65 66 67

For more on this phenomenon in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, see Dadoyan, Armenian Realpolitik in the Islamic World. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 128. For more on this episode, see below, p. 149. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 180.

muslim, persian, or turk

117

Even where the basic facts for a given event do coincide with the Arabic accounts, the presentations and points of view can be rather different. For example, Ibn al-Athīr describes the battle in 1084/5 between Sulayman of Antioch and Sharaf ad-Dawlah of Aleppo as the consequence of a dispute over tribute that had previously been paid by Philaretos.68 Uṙhayecʿi, who calls Sharaf ad-Dawlah ‘a kind man and one benevolent toward the faithful in Christ’, comes close to suggesting that he was fighting on behalf of the dispossessed Christians. A similar divergence comes with the accession of Barkyaruq, the son of Malik-Shah, after the latter’s death in 1092—according to Uṙhayecʿi, Barkyaruq’s maternal uncle Ismail ‘was made regent over all Persia’, through which office he ‘ruled over all Armenia as its sovereign; it was he who began to make all Armenia prosper once again and to protect all the monasteries from harassment by the Persians.’69 He was killed in 1094 by Buzan and Aqsunqur, the respective emirs of Edessa and Aleppo, who hatched a plot against him for unspecified reasons, and ‘when the sultan heard about the death of the great Ismail, he severely regretted it.’70 Ibn al-Athīr gives rather a different story: Ismail, emir of Azerbaijan, was summoned by Turkan Khatun, the mother of Barkyaruq’s half-brother, in order to help overthrow the sultan and put her son in his place. Ismail acquiesced in the plot, but left shortly thereafter due to mistrust of certain of Turkan Khatun’s emirs. He went to join his sister Zubayda, the mother of Barkyaruq, but was killed by Buzan and Aqsunqur after confessing to them that he wished to overthrow Barkyaruq and take the sultanate for himself.71 This episode is telling. Uṙhayecʿi has given a skeleton of events that corresponds to the account of Ibn al-Athīr—the maternal uncle Ismail who held power in Caucasian lands, and who was killed by Buzan and Aqsunqur amid intrigues. The interpretation, however, is very different. Uṙhayecʿi portrays the trusted deputy of Barkyaruq, who was ‘in all ways mild and merciful and good and mindful and philanthropic and peaceful and a builder of all the Armenian land’.72 Ibn al-Athīr makes no mention of Ismail’s activities in Azerbaijan, but portrays the duplicitous uncle who attempted to play off the opposing family factions in order to take power for himself. It is through discrepancies

68 69 70 71 72

Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kamil 1029–97, pp. 218–220. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 246. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 247. Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kamil 1029–97, pp. 267–268. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 246.

118

chapter 5

such as these that the reader may see hints of the modus vivendi establishing itself between the Armenians and the Seljuqs prior to the First Crusade. As we will see, the Crusade itself did not entirely destroy this spirit of accommodation. The role that the Muslims had played between the demise of Philaretos and the Crusade’s arrival—the power under which Armenians could find a safe haven from the cultural and theological aggression of the Byzantine empire—was immediately transferred within the historiography to their Latin co-religionists. One of the most interesting figures in the history of Muslim Armenians, the emir Dānishmand, also belongs to the eleventh century. Uṙhayecʿi’s coverage of him exemplifies the way in which his information can be inconsistent and distorted but still contain telling details that suggest that either he or his fellows in Edessa knew more than he wrote. In 515 (1066/7) Uṙhayecʿi introduces a certain ‘great and powerful emir’ Gumishtekīn who was the ḥājib, or chamberlain, of Alp Arslan and attacked the district of Tʿlxum ‘like a beast with many wounds’73—a curious phrasing which suggests that the emir felt somehow aggrieved. This Gumishtekīn, also known as the ḥājib of Alp Arslan and the dānishmand (tutor) of his children, seems to have been Rat or Hrahad, a son of Liparit, who was kept as a hostage at the Seljuq court after Liparit himself had been granted his freedom.74 The identification of Liparit’s son as Dānishmand/Gumishtekīn throws further interesting light on Uṙhayecʿi’s assertion that it was a son of Liparit who led the attack on Melitene. Aristakēs, who also covers the sack of Melitene, betrays no knowledge of who exactly these Persian troops were,75 but he mentions another son of Liparit, Iwanē, active at around the same time. According to Aristakēs, Iwanē took advantage of the civil war in Byzantium in 1057 between the emperors Michael vi Stratiōtikos and Isaac Komnenos to attempt a takeover of the fortified city of Arcn. When this failed, he joined the Seljuqs in open rebellion against the empire.76 The links between Iwanē’s rebellion and Rat/Gumishtekīn’s loyalties may only be speculated upon, and Uṙhayecʿi himself connects Rat/Gumishtekīn neither with the son of Liparit who allegedly led the attack on Melitene (whether that was Rat or Iwanē) nor with the emir Dānishmand, who is first introduced in the closing pages of Book Two as the captor of the Crusader prince Bohemond of Taranto and his nephew Richard.77 Dānishmand is here described as a ‘Per73 74 75 76 77

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 186. Dadoyan, Armenian Realpolitik in the Islamic World, p. 51. Aristakēs, Patmutʿiwn, pp. 113–118, Récit des malheurs, pp. 104–108. Aristakēs, Patmutʿiwn, pp. 106–108, Récit des malheurs, pp. 96–100. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 272–273.

muslim, persian, or turk

119

sian emir’ who is master of the land of the Romans, with no further clue as to his background. A link, and the indication that Uṙhayecʿi knew more than he was telling, appears only as an accompaniment to the notice of Dānishmand’s death in 553 (1104/5): here he is ‘the great emir of the Roman land, who was of the Armenian race, a good man and builder of the land and he was very compassionate toward the faithful in Christ.’78 It is worth observing that, if Uṙhayecʿi did indeed write Book Three nearly a generation after the first two books of the Chronicle, his admission here of Dānishmand’s Caucasian roots may indicate that, unlike in 1101, he no longer believed that the information was worth concealing.

Conclusion In describing the relationship between Muslims and Armenians Uṙhayecʿi has generally held to the patterns found in the Armenian historiographical tradition, which tended to place emphasis on the ‘otherness’ of the Armenian Christians and the persecution suffered at the hands of the ‘bloodthirsty infidels’— this despite the ability of Armenian leaders quite frequently to reach an accommodation with Muslim rulers that preserved the status quo for the Christians as much as possible. If the history of Armenia had, according to the evidence Uṙhayecʿi presents, been a ‘Byzantine era’ since the beginning of his Chronicle, the ‘Muslim era’ began gradually in the 1030s, accelerated with the fall of Ani and the battle of Manzikert, and by the time of the fall of Philaretos was the status quo. As references to Byzantium fade from the Chronicle after 1071, the role of suzerain to the Armenians—now protector, now oppressor—was almost immediately transferred to the rising Seljuq Turkish power, in the person of Malik-Shah. Like Basil ii, Malik-Shah was for Uṙhayecʿi a benevolent protector of the Christians under whose reign the Armenians could flourish and their lands could be at peace. The picture is complicated a little by the fact that the particular Armenian to flourish at this time was Philaretos, who was for Uṙhayecʿi the epitome of the weak and evil prince about whom Kozeṙn had prophesied. It is nevertheless Malik-Shah who is given credit for the final removal of Philaretos, and it is to him that the katholikos Barseł applied for the authority to reunite the Armenian ecclesiastical see in 539 (1090/91).

78

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 297.

120

chapter 5

Malik-Shah was not an exception within Uṙhayecʿi’s narrative. Many Muslim rulers in this period are given the same favorable treatment. His son, Barkyaruq, is not praised so effusively as Malik-Shah himself was, but Barkyaruq is accepted as the legitimate ruler of the Edessene Armenians. His uncle Ismail, governor of the Muslim province of Armenia, is praised as a just and benevolent ruler of the Christians. Despite the historiographical imperative to stress the distinct and Christian history of Armenia and its people, and to oppose their fortunes to those of the ‘infidel’ Muslims, Uṙhayecʿi’s own worldview clearly had a place for acknowledging the well-being of Christian subjects under various non-Christian rulers. This is not to say, however, that Uṙhayecʿi was content to accept Armenian subjection to Muslim rule as the natural order of life, or that reports of persecution and confessional tensions were inevitably exaggerated. Although many Armenian individuals and communities thrived under Muslim rule, Edessa and its surroundings remained frontier territory where warfare, raids, and religious persecution were ever-present threats. Equally, this was a time when the established order of Christian Armenia—the naxarar nobility and the territorial patrimony they possessed, the hierarchy and dominance of the See of St. Grigor, the relationships of influence between peasants, city-dwellers, and those of the noble class—was turned on its head in spectactular and unprecedented fashion. Uṙhayecʿi himself was an apparent adherent to Gregorian Armenian orthodoxy, and his presentation of Muslim-Armenian relations draws as far as possible upon themes from Sebēos and Łewond, the chroniclers of the previous major period of Muslim domination. He has nevertheless stopped short of the artful re-framing of history that one might expect of a more erudite vardapet, and as a result the Chronicle is, in conjunction with other historical evidence of the time, a guide to the times whose very flaws render it more informative, accessible, and useful than a history such as that of Aristakēs.

chapter 6

‘The Nation of Valiant Ones’: The Crusaders in Uṙhayecʿi’s Eyes In a study of the work of Ibn al-Athīr, Françoise Micheau points out that ‘There are no extant “Arab chronicles of the Crusades”; instead the Crusades—which is, after all, a western construction and concept—are treated in a scattered manner in works that have their general framework devoted to something else.’1 Precisely the same statement can be applied to the Armenian historiographers, and particularly the Chronicle of Uṙhayecʿi. When he began his work around 1102, the coming of the Crusade was the climax of his story so far, but the focus of his work was not, by any means, the Latin journey to Jerusalem. Rather, it was the presentation of an understanding of the history of the Christians, and specifically the Armenian Christians, in what seemed to be apocalyptic times. The Crusades, and the First Crusade in particular, have been the subject of a huge amount of historiography from the Western perspective, from early modern times until the present day.2 This is only to be expected, not only due to the direct links of the Crusaders with Western society and civilisation, but also because the Crusades were so richly documented by their Western participants and onlookers.3 The miraculous significance to its Western participants of the First Crusade is certainly worthy of note on its own terms.4 The richness of documentation and extreme significance to its participants on the Latin side makes for a marked contrast to the surviving historiography of the period in

1 Micheau, ‘Ibn al-Athīr’, p. 63. 2 An extended study on the understanding and ideological use of Crusading history, focusing in particular on the post-medieval era, is Tyerman, The Debate on the Crusades, 1099–2010. 3 There are many general histories of the Crusades and the First Crusade that focus primarily on the Western perspective, including Tyerman, God’s War: A New History of the Crusades; Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading; France, Victory in the East: A Military History of the First Crusade; Rubenstein, Armies of Heaven; Asbridge, The First Crusade. Treatments from a Byzantine perspective include Harris, Byzantium and the Crusades; Frankopan, The First Crusade. For studies based on Muslim sources and perspectives, see Hillenbrand, The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives; Laiou and Mottahedeh, Byzantium and the Muslim world; the latter also incorporates a Byzantine perspective. A useful study focused on the Armenian experience of the First Crusade can be found in Augé, Byzantins, arméniens & francs. 4 This is especially prominent in the treatment by Rubenstein.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004330351_007

122

chapter 6

Greek or Arabic, not to mention the more precariously-documented cultures of the Armenians or Syrians. This results in a situation in which the eastern accounts, both Christian and Muslim, tend to be enlisted as a counterweight to the copious Western records and not often treated in their own right, in their own context. This approach is made explicit by at least one historian: ‘The spate of translations of oriental sources in the years since Runciman … has given us more insight into conditions in the East but the essential story of the Crusade must still be written from Western, and in particular eyewitness, accounts.’5 The danger is that there is a tendency within modern Western historiography to focus on the First Crusade as an event that had equally strong, if not identical, significance to the eastern Christians (save perhaps the Greeks) as it did to the western ones. Thus we find references such as one to Armenians who ‘lived under direct Muslim rule … eagerly awaiting the opportunity for freedom’.6 To speak of the Armenians awaiting liberation is, in this context, exceedingly dangerous, as we have seen in the previous chapter. At the time of the First Crusade, much of Syria and Cilicia was held by Armenian officials or warlords, and the Armenians had generations of experience in finding accommodations with Muslim rulers. These may not have necessarily been ‘free’—Tʿoros of Edessa had constantly to pacify Muslim emirs more powerful than he was— but the ascription of a desire for ‘freedom’ to a populace whose conception of the natural order of society revolved around royal and imperial rule makes little sense. The one meaningful sense in which Armenian writers expressed a desire for freedom was in matters of religion, but even on this account the Chronicle makes clear that doctrinal interference came primarily from the Greek clergy, and the last recorded threat to Armenian doctrinal freedom had died, according to Uṙhayecʿi, with Romanos Diogenes. The purpose of this chapter is to examine the Crusade and the Latin newcomers to the Near East through the lens of Uṙhayecʿi. In so doing, however, we must be careful to retain the perspective of an Armenian of the Syrian diaspora. There is no doubt that the coming of the Crusade was the stuff of prophecy, and was viewed as such by the Edessenes in 1097. Yet, as we have seen, the local Christians were not necessarily oppressed. They had certainly been represented to the West as such—they had been an object of Pope Urban’s call to arms in 1095—but they had not been the intended audience of that sermon. There is likewise little evidence that the Armenians would have shared in the enthusiasm for the Crusader march to Jerusalem—indeed, given the service of

5 France, Victory in the East: A Military History of the First Crusade, p. 382. 6 Asbridge, The First Crusade, p. 140.

crusaders in uṙhayecʿi’s eyes

123

a branch of the Pahlawuni family to the Fatimid caliph during this time and the substantial Armenian presence in Cairo, the feelings among Armenians concerning the bloodshed in Jerusalem must have been profoundly mixed.

The Local Background to the Crusade The death of Malik-Shah in 1092 plunged the Near East into a period of severe warfare and instability. The early Seljuq succession was never particularly stable,7 and this was no exception—the civil war between Malik-Shah’s brother Tutush and his son Barkyaruq lasted for two years. Uṙhayecʿi writes that ‘severe death fell upon all creatures’ and that there was ‘severe slaughter and bloodshed among the Armenians’ during these years.8 It also meant an end to the precarious equilibrium that the Byzantine emperor Alexios Komnenos had managed to establish in the east. By 1095, Alexios was facing an extremely dangerous rebellion against his rule and needed help wherever he could find it.9 The idea of a Crusade, to ‘liberate’ the Holy Land from its Muslim masters, was first preached by Pope Urban in 1095. The initial inspiration for an armed force of western Christians to aid Byzantium against the Turks almost certainly came from Alexios himself,10 but the result of Urban’s call to arms far exceeded Byzantine expectations. This over-abundance of soldiers, and the resulting unexpected demand on imperial resources, was one of the roots of a persistent friction that developed between the Byzantines and the Latins and undermined the unified front of Christendom that the Crusade was meant to represent. Uṙhayecʿi does not seem to be particularly aware of the sources of this friction. Instead he presents the Crusade as a surprise to Alexios who, after fighting these ‘invaders’ of his territory, relented and then helped them on their way. It is particularly striking that he says nothing about the People’s Crusades. He does report that ‘they promised to him that they would seize from the Persians and give to the emperor Alexios all those districts which were previously Roman, and the Persian and Arab country would belong to the Frankish nation; thus with a confession of faith on the cross and the holy Gospel they bound the promise with an unbreakable bond.’11

7 8 9 10 11

Peacock, Early Seljūq history, pp. 60–68. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 241, 243. This is the argument compellingly laid out by Frankopan, The First Crusade, ch. 3–4. Frankopan, The First Crusade, p. 6. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 255.

124

chapter 6

After taking Nicaea and returning it to Alexios, the Crusaders first reached Cilicia and Syria in 1097. Their immediate objective once there was the capture of Antioch, where a siege was laid in October. Two of the leading Crusaders, Baldwin of Boulogne and Tancred the nephew of Bohemond of Taranto, left the main army in the autumn of 1096 and struck out eastward. This has been interpreted variously as independent fortune-seeking,12 as competing expeditions conducted under the orders respectively of Godfrey of Bouillon and Bohemond,13 or as a campaign carried out by Baldwin under an agreement made with Alexios, opposed by Tancred, with the intent of restoring Byzantine authority over the area.14 According to Albert of Aachen Baldwin was guided by Bagrat, the brother of the Armenian warlord Goł Vasil, who had escaped from imperial custody and encountered Baldwin in Nicaea.15 Baldwin and Tancred disputed the possession of Tarsos, as a result of which their armies came to blows outside Mamistra. From there Baldwin moved on to Tell Bashir, where an invitation from Tʿoros, the Armenian doux of Edessa, reached him. Baldwin was greeted with joy upon his arrival at Edessa, and Albert of Aachen claims that he was adopted as the son and heir of Tʿoros16 (a claim that Uṙhayecʿi does not substantiate). In short order the townspeople rose up against Tʿoros and killed him.17 Edessa is thus generally considered to be the first Crusader-ruled territory, even before the fall of Antioch. Whether on behalf of the emperor or on his own account, Baldwin quickly consolidated his hold over the region, capturing Saruǰ and Samosata within a few years. The Crusaders captured Antioch in July 1098 after a long siege and with no assistance from Byzantium. Bohemond, the son of Alexios’ former NormanSicilian bête noire Robert Guiscard, claimed the city for himself as a principality rather than relinquishing it to the empire as the Crusaders had initially promised. It is clear from the available sources that Alexios had come to some

12 13 14 15 16 17

Rubenstein, Armies of Heaven, p. 161. Amouroux-Mourad, Le comté d’Edesse, p. 58; Tyerman, God’s War: A New History of the Crusades, p. 131. Frankopan, The First Crusade, pp. 150–153. Albert of Aachen, Historia Ierosolimitana, pp. 164–167. Albert of Aachen, Historia Ierosolimitana, pp. 170–171. Uṙhayecʿi, Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 261–262, implicates Baldwin in this plot, although he lays the primary blame squarely upon the townspeople. The Latin sources (e.g. Fulcher of Chartres, A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem, p. 91; Albert of Aachen, Historia Ierosolimitana, pp. 172–177; William of Tyre, A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, iv.5) absolve Baldwin, claiming that he tried to interced to protect Tʿoros.

crusaders in uṙhayecʿi’s eyes

125

understanding with Bohemond upon his initial arrival in Constantinople. What remains a source of vigorous debate is the question of what that understanding entailed. It is possible that Bohemond asked for no less a role than that of domestikos of the East, and that Alexios at the very least agreed to grant him a large swathe of territory east of Antioch, presumably under imperial suzerainty, in return for Bohemond’s agreement to use his influence with the other Crusader lords to the benefit of the empire.18 When the expected relief force led by Alexios failed to materialize and the Crusaders were left to capture and defend Antioch on their own, Bohemond and most of the other Latins felt justified in setting aside whatever agreements they had made with the emperor. This was to become a point of bitter contention between Byzantium and Jerusalem for much of the twelfth century. Uṙhayecʿi says little about this dispute in his coverage of the siege of Antioch. He makes no connection between the oath that he reports the Crusaders to have made and the possession of Antioch by Bohemond, which, he says, ‘had been taken by the Armenian nation’. His only reference to the strife between Byzantines and Latins comes in Book Three, in which he writes that Alexios ‘resented [the Franks] because they denied the earlier oath, which they promised but did not fulfill.’19 The remainder of the Crusading army (absent Bohemond and Baldwin of Edessa) eventually continued southward and took Jerusalem in July 1099. The kingdom of Jerusalem was then established under the rule of Godfrey, Baldwin’s brother. Upon Godfrey’s death the following year Baldwin was called from Edessa to succeed his brother on the throne of Jerusalem. The county of Edessa was given to his cousin and namesake Baldwin of Bourcq, who held it until the death of Baldwin i when he in turn was called to succeed to the throne of Jerusalem as Baldwin ii. Edessa then passed into the hands of Joscelin of Courtenay, who died in 1131—in all likelihood around the time Uṙhayecʿi was writing. These three—the two Baldwins and Joscelin—appear most frequently in Uṙhayecʿi’s accounts of Crusader affairs, along with Bohemond of Antioch and his nephew and successor Tancred. The role of the Armenians in the First Crusade remains extremely murky, and the Chronicle of Uṙhayecʿi unfortunately has its share in that obfuscation. The collaboration between Baldwin of Boulogne and Bagrat the brother of Goł Vasil is one of the most well-known examples of proactive Armenian influence

18 19

Pryor and Jeffreys, ‘Alexios, Bohemond, and Byzantium’s Euphrates frontier: a tale of two Cretans’, pp. 32–33. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 284.

126

chapter 6

over the course of the Crusade,20 and one about which Uṙhayecʿi is entirely silent.21 The only reference Uṙhayecʿi makes to Bagrat anywhere in the Chronicle comes in an entry for the year 566 (1117–1118) when Uṙhayecʿi is lamenting the fate of a whole swathe of Armenian noblemen who were overthrown or pushed aside by Baldwin of Bourcq, stating simply that Baldwin ‘pillaged the other Armenian prince, the brave man Bagrat, who lived in Ravendan near Cyrrhus, and ravaged all his districts.’22 It is essentially only through the testimony of Albert of Aachen that we may connect this Bagrat of Ravendan mentioned in 1117 with the brother of Goł Vasil who aided Baldwin of Boulogne in 1097, was rewarded with Ravendan for his troubles, but soon thereafter fell under suspicion and was deposed from his new command.23 Of the later history of Bagrat we have not a hint, and Uṙhayecʿi omits entirely any mention of Bagrat’s confederate ‘Fer’ named by Albert—this has been identified as Bahrām (Vahram) Pahlawuni, a nephew of the katholikos Grigor ii Vkayasēr, who would become the first and only Christian vizier to the Fatimid caliphate in the 1130s.24 If Bagrat’s motive was, as claimed by Dadoyan, to gain power and territory at the expense of his brother,25 what were the motives that lay behind Goł Vasil’s own interactions with the Crusaders? If he did indeed ransom Bohemond of Taranto from Dānishmand, as Uṙhayecʿi claims,26 what links lay between him and Bohemond, or indeed between him and Bohemond’s Caucasian Muslim captor? These are precisely the questions that Uṙhayecʿi entirely fails to answer, and the result is that the history of the Crusader Near East has become an argument by omission. Recent work has gone a substantial and painstaking way toward correcting the impression given by Uṙhayecʿi, but his portrayal of Armenians as powerless victims of the Latin lords has gone a long way toward obscuring an important part of the history of the Near East. We must therefore treat the information he gives with caution, and be very careful to observe the inconsistencies he includes.

20

21 22 23 24 25 26

This episode is covered in many of the major histories of the Crusade, e.g. Tyerman, God’s War: A New History of the Crusades, p. 134; Runciman, A History of the Crusades, pp. 200– 202; Dédéyan, Les Arméniens entre Grecs, Musulmans et Croisés, pp. 1109–1112. For the rise of Goł Vasil himself and Uṙhayecʿi’s omission on this score, see p. 67. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 338. Albert of Aachen, Historia Ierosolimitana, pp. 164–167. Dédéyan, Les Arméniens entre Grecs, Musulmans et Croisés, pp. 1191–1198. Dadoyan, Armenian Realpolitik in the Islamic World, pp. 41–42. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 293.

crusaders in uṙhayecʿi’s eyes

127

The Place of the Crusaders in the Prophetic Framework of Kozeṙn By the time he came to write the third book, fifteen years after he had finished the second and perhaps 25–30 after the appearance of the Crusade, the immediate feeling of apocalypse had receded. The traditional paradigmatic presentation of the history of his people upon which Uṙhayecʿi had so far drawn was confounded by the aftermath of the Crusade, which added an entirely new polticial, cultural, and religious factor to an already extremely fluid and unfamiliar situation. This third book of the Chronicle is thought to be composed primarily on the basis of Uṙhayecʿi’s personal experience and oral accounts from others. As such it is of particular interest for the way in which Uṙhayecʿi is not simply adapting a received consensus of history as he has done for Books One and Two, but is in fact helping to shape the consensus view that would prevail for later generations. This, rather than a presumed third-party ‘impartiality’, is what makes his account so valuable to historians of the early Crusades. It follows that in order to benefit from that value, we must consider not only the sequence of events as they occurred, but the interpretation Uṙhayecʿi gave to them from his vantage point in the mid-1130s, by which time it was clear that the Latin lords were not the unalloyed redeemers of the Christians of the East. In fact the aftermath of the Crusade and particularly the establishment of the Crusader states posed a very real historiographical problem for Uṙhayecʿi. For anyone steeped in the Christian eschatological tradition, it was difficult in 1099 (or even, still, in 1101 when Uṙhayecʿi likely began his work) to interpret the appearance of the Crusade and the capture of Jerusalem as anything other than a sign of the advent of the return of Christ and His kingdom on Earth. Despite the ominous tone on which Uṙhayecʿi ends Book Two, the capture of Jerusalem and the death of Godfrey made a fitting conclusion to the arc of his historiographical narrative. As time stretched on, however, the Latin nobility had simply become players in the alliances and power games that had characterised the Near East since the rise of the Seljuqs, and were in many ways indistinguishable from their Muslim, Byzantine, and Armenian fellows. The significance of the Crusade became ever harder to explain in prophetic terms. By 1131 when Uṙhayecʿi must have begun Book Three, he was working without any real precedent in his historiographical models. The alliances and enmities between Christians and Muslims, always more complex than mainstream Armenian historiography represented them, had become even more so with the addition of the Latins and their own tensions and rivalries. Moreover, while the Byzantines and the Muslims had a traditional place within the Armenian historiographical models, the Latins were an entirely new element whose appointed role was not at all clear. As

128

chapter 6

his readers are reminded in the prologue to Book Three, Uṙhayecʿi was not a vardapet, sufficiently erudite to formulate and present a full philosophical and theological explanation of the Crusade. On the other hand it evidently troubled him that thirty years had passed and no one more qualified had appeared to make sense of events and proffer the necessary interpretation of events. How was he then to proceed? The place of the Crusader states had arguably very little role in the prophetic vision of Yovhannēs Kozeṙn, and in that sense Uṙhayecʿi had very little to guide him. The ‘Franks’ are mentioned explicitly only once, after a description of sixty years of Turkish invasions: And then the nation of valiant ones will come, known as Franks, and with a multitude of troops they will take the holy city Jerusalem, and the holy tomb that held God is freed from captivity.27 That this had come about was clear enough, but by the 1130s it was also clear that this had not led directly to the salvation that was hoped for. After the capture of Jerusalem the prophecy turns sharply away from the subject of the Crusade, with a somewhat jarring return to the description of the ravages that had come before: And after this the earth will be ravaged for 50 years by the forces of the Persians through sword and captivity, and [it will be] seven times more than what the faithful have already suffered, and all the nations of the faithful in Christ will be terrified; and the forces of the Romans will be in despair over the multitude of tribulations, and they [will] suffer much death and massacre at the hands of the Persian race; these [will] slaughter the most elite of the brave soldiers with sword and captivity, until the Roman forces despair of salvation. And after some years they [will] begin to strengthen little by little wherever there are remnants of the former forces, and year after year they [will] advance and settle as existing lieutenants in the lands and districts. Then as if waking from sleep the king of the Romans will arise and come like an eagle against the Persian forces … The capture of Jerusalem was of course far too momentous to be passed over in silence by any prophecy on which a history was to be based. At the same time, although it had been a stirring victory for Christendom, it quickly became

27

See translation below, p. 207.

crusaders in uṙhayecʿi’s eyes

129

clear that this was not the apocalyptic climax that had been awaited since the appearance of the prophecy of pseudo-Methodius. Not only had the displaced Muslim emirs and their allies fought back successfully enough to prevent the wholesale expulsion of Islam that the Crusade propagandists, and the proponents of the prophecy of the Last World Emperor, had hoped for. The Latin princes had shown themselves entirely willing to enter into alliances with these same Muslims in order to pursue their territorial ambitions. Christian suffering had not come to an end through the intervention of the Latins, and they gained thereby no specific role in the final victory over the ‘Persians’. Uṙhayecʿi himself makes reference to a certain Mark the Hermit, who died in 1105; he writes that Mark ‘prophesied about the Franks, when they took the holy city of Jerusalem, that the Persian nation would again strengthen itself and would come with the sword up to the coast of the great sea, which indeed we have seen.’28 Mark was evidently not one who believed that the Christians had yet been sufficiently punished for their sins—according to Uṙhayecʿi, he went on to say that ‘belief in God would decline and the doors of the churches would be closed. People would become blind to good works and would forget the precepts of the Holy Gospel of Christ. Sin and evil would inundate the earth, and the sons of man would wallow in it as one immersed in the sea. Finally all the nations of the faithful would forget the practice of righteous behaviour.’ This language is strongly reminiscent of the first Kozeṙn prophecy, without the promises of punishment and salvation that appear in the second. It suggests a feeling of despair that, five or six years after the capture of Jerusalem, no real salvation had yet come to the eastern Christians. To reinforce his belief, evidently made firm by 1110 when he might have been writing the last few pages of Book Two, that the Franks did not long enjoy the grace of God, Uṙhayecʿi records several astronomical omens in these last years. They all indicated future bloodshed, he reports, and concerning the third one he asserts that ‘since the day the Frankish nation went forth, not one good or favourable omen appeared; on the contrary, all the omens pointed to the calamity, destruction, ruin, and disruption of the land through death, slaughter, famine, and other catastrophes.’ This too reiterates the timeline of Kozeṙn: the Crusaders would take Jerusalem, but fifty years of suffering were sure to follow. The Crusaders themselves thus had very little intrinsic role in the remainder of Kozeṙn’s timeline—the fifty years of further suffering at the hands of the Persians, followed by the coming of the victorious Roman Emperor. Although some have suggested that the ‘Roman’ emperor could as easily be a reference

28

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 301.

130

chapter 6

to a future Latin leader29 as to a future Byzantine one,30 it is clear that, within a decade after the arrival of the First Crusade, the Latins were no longer universally welcomed as ‘liberators’ by the Christians of the East. Uṙhayecʿi’s own portrayal of the Latin leaders throughout Book Three shows his attitude toward them very clearly—they were uniformly brave, and could become benevolent rulers, but often lacked the judgement necessary to win battles and could all too easily revert to malevolence and greed. Uṙhayecʿi captures the initial popular Armenian enthusiasm for the Crusaders very well in the relevant entries of Book Two. When Baldwin of Boulogne first arrived in Edessa, ‘the populace of the city came to meet him and took him into the city with great joy, and there was joy among all the faithful; and the curopalates Tʿoros showed the count friendship and generosity and confirmed an alliance with him.’31 Upon the capture of Antioch and the defeat of Kerbogha’s counter-attacking army, ‘the Frankish army returned to the city of Antioch with great joy; and that day was a day of great joy for the Christian faithful.’32 Shortly thereafter, Uṙhayecʿi describes the successful Latin defense against the Muslims who counter-attacked after their own defeat in Jerusalem: ‘And it was not they [the Franks] who fought, but it was God who fought in their stead against the Egyptians, like He had done for the sons of Israel against the Pharaoh along the Red Sea.’33 Even so, by the time he finished Book Two around 1110 his sentiments had already darkened enough to allow him to record such a profusion of negative omens in the closing entries of the book: ‘Indeed from that day, ever since the race of the Franks came, no good or joyful omen has ever appeared, rather [they signify] wrath and ending and ruin and dissolution of the land, death and destruction, famine and earthquakes.’34 The subtext is clear: the Christians of the East, and most probably Uṙhayecʿi himself, were genuinely enthusiastic and joyful at the early successes of the Crusaders, but their hopes of final salvation had faded over the course of the next decade, and they would have understood at the time had they only paid attention to these astronomical omens. Much like the Arabs according to the history of Łewond,35 the Latins only enjoyed God’s favour as long as they did not sin against him, and the infractions 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Garsoïan, ‘Reality and myth’, pp. 139–140. Dostourian, Armenia and the Crusades, p. 300 n. 64/6. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 260. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 266. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 268. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 270. See above, p. 25.

crusaders in uṙhayecʿi’s eyes

131

quickly began to accumulate. By the time Uṙhayecʿi was writing Book Three, any sentiment that the Crusader lords were divinely blessed had vanished. On the victory of Dānishmand against them in 1100, Uṙhayecʿi adds that ‘things such as this happened to the Frankish army because of their sinful deeds, for they left the straight path to God and began to follow the path of sin, which God had not bid them to do.’36 The ‘sinful deeds’ in question are elaborated throughout Book Three. The Latins had earned the enmity of Alexios ‘because of the oath which they had previously made to him, but had not carried out’; they frequently allowed their pride to bring them to battle unprepared, and suffered the consequent defeat;37 they engaged in battle against each other, often relying upon the support of Muslim emirs to do so. It is particularly notable that, although Uṙhayecʿi records a number of these alliances38 in Book Three, he has entirely overlooked the Crusader negotiations with the Fatimids that took place before the siege of Jerusalem in 1099. This is another piece of evidence that points to how Uṙhayecʿi’s presentation of the Latins as a force in the Near East, and the understanding that underlay it, had changed considerably by the time he came to write Book Three. In his entry for the year 566 (1117/8), Uṙhayecʿi removes all doubt as to his judgment of the Latins, and particularly Baldwin of Bourcq, in describing Baldwin’s attack on Aplłarip of Bira:39 And so little by little he [Baldwin] systematically toppled all the Armenian princes, in this way, more than the Persian race, he persecuted the Armenian princes who had been left by the furious race of the Turks. He proscribed them all with great oppression, he toppled the entire principality of Goł Vasil, he put to flight all the ranks of nobility,40 who [went] to Constantinople. […] many other handsome princes were killed in prison and by tortures and in chains; and there were many whose eyes had been put out, hands cut off and noses slit, they castrated them and, having

36 37 38

39 40

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 274. e.g. the siege of Tiberias in 562 (Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 327–328) or the defeat of Roger of Antioch in 568 (Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 343–345). e.g. the enlistment, in his telling, of Jāwulī and Mawdūd respectively in 1108–1109 and 1110– 1111 by Baldwin and Joscelin against Tancred: Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 307–308, 312. See Köhler, Alliances and Treaties between Frankish and Muslim Rulers in the Middle East, pp. 65–67, for a modern analysis of these alliances. For a discussion of this siege, see Dédéyan, Les Arméniens entre Grecs, Musulmans et Croisés, pp. 1208–1210. ‘ազատաց’.

132

chapter 6

raised them up on wood, killed the young blameless ones in order to have their parents punished. And such innumerable and unspeakable deeds [were done], they reduced the land to ruin and destruction with unjust torments, always in order to take treasure unjustly; and all the time they were occupied and did nothing else, but only sat pondering maliciousness, they loved deceit and all the ways of evil, unmindful of goodness and any kindness. I wished to write about their great injustice, but we do not dare, for we are under their sovereignty.41 Concerning Joscelin, who was the specific ruler under whose sovereignty he probably wrote, Uṙhayecʿi was more circumspect. Joscelin was granted the county of Edessa in 568 (1119/20) upon the accession of Baldwin of Bourcq to the throne of Jerusalem. Within that entry, Uṙhayecʿi records in passing the fact that Joscelin had been exiled from the environs of Edessa since 1113, writing that he had been compelled to ‘serve in foreign lands’ and had been made lord of Tiberias by Baldwin i. With his he neatly exonerates the new count of Edessa from the worst of the Latin excesses, which were recorded during the years of his absence. Uṙhayecʿi adds that ‘he turned to the compassion of mercy toward the city of Edessa, abandoning his beastly habits, which he had previously had.’42 Thus the Latins were not irredeemable, even if they were not, in Uṙhayecʿi’s opinion, the chosen agents of the coming Christian liberation. As if to remind his reader of the unsuitability of the Latins, Uṙhayecʿi then recounts a series of episodes for the years 571–573 (1122–1125), corroborated more or less exactly by almost all the other sources,43 in which Joscelin and Galeran (the count of Saruǰ) made an ill-advised attack on the emir Balik of Kharberd, and were taken prisoner.44 Baldwin ii of Jerusalem was captured by the same emir shortly thereafter, and held with Joscelin and Galeran at Kharberd. A Latin initiative to free them by capturing the fortress initially succeeded, but was quickly reversed into a defeat and a re-capture of most of the prisoners, although Joscelin was not re-taken. Balik was killed in battle with Joscelin in March or April 1124.45 Uṙhayecʿi says of him that ‘his [Balik’s] destruction brought joy to all the lands of the Franks, but in his own districts a formidable grief and sadness and general loss arose, because he had been mer-

41 42 43 44 45

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 338–339. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 346. See below, p. 135. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 352. Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kamil 1097–1146, p. 251.

crusaders in uṙhayecʿi’s eyes

133

ciful to the Armenian nation, who were in his power.’46 Even at this late stage in the Chronicle, at a time when he was attempting to portray ‘slow strengthening’ of Christian leaders, Uṙhayecʿi did not consider the Latin rulers automatically to merit praise, nor the Muslim ones to attract automatic censure.

Uṙhayecʿi as a Source for Crusading Politics The provenance of much of Uṙhayecʿi’s information for Books One and Two can be traced through comparison to other sources—up to the late eleventh century, he has drawn upon a historiographical tradition that had more or less coalesced. As a historian of the Near East writing during the time of the Crusades, the tables have to some extent been turned in Book Three. This is the book for which Uṙhayecʿi was able to rely on his own eyewitness experience. Its Edessene focus makes it unique among the Crusade-era records—even Fulcher of Chartres, who served as chaplain to Baldwin of Boulogne and accompanied him to Edessa,47 focuses primarily on events in Jerusalem in his own chronicle. Albert of Aachen, writing a relatively exhaustive history of the Crusader states as a whole, does devote somewhat more attention to the political manoeuvres and military engagements of the rulers of Edessa, but does not dwell upon events within the city or the conditions of its inhabitants. The remainder of the contemporary accounts focus either on Jerusalem (in the case of the Latin historians) or the Byzantine or Muslim (Seljuq, Abbasid, and Fatimid) courts. The Chronicle is therefore a very important source, both for an external view into the substance of accounts in the other histories and for information about the county of Edessa and the neighbouring regions that was not recorded elsewhere, in that it was being written at the time that the received historiographical tradition of the Latins in the East was being formed. In this sense Book Three gives us a glimpse into this process of coalescence. There are two accounts of the First Crusade that were written and circulated in the years immediately after the Crusade: these were the Gesta Francorum48 and the history of Raymond of Aguilers.49 The Gesta in particular, which was written by a member of Bohemond’s army and is generally understood to have 46 47 48 49

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 358. Fulcher of Chartres, A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem, p. 92. The Deeds of the Franks and the Other Pilgrims to Jerusalem (Gesta Francorum). Ed. by R.M.T. Hill. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962. Raymond D’Aguilers. Historia francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem. Ed. by J.H. Hill. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1968.

134

chapter 6

served as useful propaganda for Bohemond’s claim to Antioch against that of Alexios, seems to have had a wide circulation.50 Uṙhayecʿi does not seem to have incorporated either Latin account into his work, although he may well have been aware of the Latin conception of events. In order to make sense of Uṙhayecʿi’s role in the emerging tradition, rather than focusing on earlier historians it is more helpful to turn to later ones. Historiography of the Muslim and (particularly) Turkish world, which is relatively sparse for the period after that covered by Yaḥyā ibn Saʿid, comes into its own again around the middle of the twelfth century with the chronicles of Ibn al-Qalānisī, Ibn al-Athīr, and Kamāl ad-Din.51 Of the several Latin chronicles of the Crusades, the histories of Fulcher of Chartres,52 Albert of Aachen,53 and William of Tyre54 were written with some distance from the event. In all cases, their authors were primarily interested in events at the Latin court of Jerusalem. A Byzantine view is given by the Alexiad of Anna Komnenē, although Anna’s own agenda in writing—to clear the good name of her father from all accusations of blame concerning the loss of the East and the outcome of the First Crusade in particular—must naturally be taken into account.55 The chronicle of Michael the Syrian56 is also a useful eastern Christian point of comparison to the Chronicle, particularly for the events of Book Three, although Michael’s temporal distance from events before his own lifetime often renders his account vague or credulous. Much the same can be said for Gregory AbuʿlFaraj (a.k.a. Bar Hebraeus), who used Michael’s chronicle as his main source for this period.57 A great deal of Uṙhayecʿi’s information may be compared against one or more of these sources, which in turn gives a useful indication

50 51

52 53 54 55 56 57

Gesta Francorum, pp. ix–x. For a more general overview of contemporary Arabic historiography of the Crusading era, see Gabrieli, ‘The Arabic Historiography of the Crusades’; Mallett, Medieval Muslim Historians and the Franks in the Levant. Fulcher of Chartres. A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem. Ed. by H.S. Fink. Trans. by F.R. Ryan. New York: W.W. Norton, 1973. Albert of Aachen. Historia Ierosolimitana (History of the Journey to Jerusalem). Ed. by S. Edgington. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007. William of Tyre. A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea. Ed. by E.A. Babcock and A.C. Krey. New York: Octagon Books, 1976. Frankopan, The First Crusade, pp. 205–206; Paul Magdalino, ‘The Pen of the Aunt: Echoes of the Mid-Twelfth Century’. Michael the Syrian. Chronique. Ed. by J. Chabot. Paris, 1899–1910. Bar Hebraeus, Gregory Abuʿl Faraj. The chronicle of Gregory Abûʿl Faraj. Ed. by E.A.W. Budge. Gorgias historical texts 6–7. Piscataway, nj: Gorgias Press, 2003.

crusaders in uṙhayecʿi’s eyes

135

of the extent to which elements of his narrative have been adopted into the received history that was to follow. If we subject particular events to source comparison and analysis then we find that Uṙhayecʿi’s account, if occasionally credulous, corresponds reasonably straightforwardly to that of the other chronicles. His chronology is for the most part much more accurate than for Books One and Two. For example, concerning the ransom of Bohemond from Dānishmand, his date of 552 (1103/4) is the one generally accepted58 over Ibn al-Athīr’s date of 1101/259 despite the generally high reputation of Ibn al-Athīr concerning these sorts of details and points of fact. Uṙhayecʿi records the death of Dānishmand in 553 (1104/5), noting that he was ‘of the Armenian nation’—a connection that is not made by Ibn al-Athīr, who in any event appears to have conflated Dānishmand with his son.60 There are occasional exceptions to Uṙhayecʿi’s chronological accuracy, most notably the mis-dating of the death of Alexios Komnenos. This can however be taken as a reflection of the extent to which events in Constantinople had ceased to be obviously relevant to the Armenians of Edessa. For items that have correspondences in later sources, Uṙhayecʿi’s Book Three takes its place in the panoply of historians whose accounts, taken together, provide a wealth of detail and must be compared against each other for as full a picture as possible of the actual sequence of events. One good example is the Latin fiasco at Kharberd in 1123, for which Dostourian has given a summary of the variant accounts in his own translation.61 All the extant sources agree on the outline of events; the variations come in the identities of the various actors. The Syrian sources credit a group of Armenian workmen with the initial capture of the fortress,62 while the Arabic sources claim that the captors were Latins,63 with Ibn al-Qalānisī crediting the captives themselves.64 The Latin 58 59 60

61 62 63 64

Mélikoff, ‘Dānishmendids’. Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kamil 1097–1146, p. 60. Ibn al-Athīr refers throughout to Gumushtakin Ibn al-Dānishmand, the son of the founder of the dynasty, as ‘the emir of Malatya’. He gives no record of this emir’s death, but makes no mention of him between the years 1102 and 1134 (al-Kamil 1097–1146, p. 309). In 1141, Ibn al-Athīr names the emir of Malatya as the son of Ibn al-Dānishmand (al-Kamil 1097–1146, p. 357); the death of this son is recorded in 1142 (al-Kamil 1097–1146, p. 367). This seems to be an error on the part of Ibn al-Athīr; Dānishmand himself most likely died in 1104/5, as Uṙhayecʿi records. Dostourian, Armenia and the Crusades, pp. 347–348 n. 90/4. Michael the Syrian, Chronique, vol. 3 p. 211; Bar Hebraeus, The chronicle of Gregory Abûʿl Faraj, p. 251. Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kamil 1097–1146, pp. 246–247. Ibn al-Qalānisī, The Damascus Chronicle of the Crusades, p. 169.

136

chapter 6

sources William of Tyre and Fulcher of Chartres also credit a group of fifty Armenians with the deed.65 It is therefore rather striking that Uṙhayecʿi does not give the identity of the group who instigated the capture, although his description of their ruse of ‘feigning the appearance of quarrelling plaintiffs’ most closely matches the Syrian accounts. Not only does the episode gives a very good example of the manner in which the details of a well-known deed could alter with successive retellings, it also suggests that by the time he wrote Book Three, Uṙhayecʿi was perhaps writing a less overtly nationalistic work. He was more concerned with the welfare of all Christian people than the opportunity to distinguish an Armenian identity at every turn. Book Three nevertheless has its moments of overt rearrangement of fact in order to suit the agenda of its author. The lack of a clear guiding course of prophecy for these decades seems to have caused Uṙhayecʿi to invent his own moral tales much more frequently than in Books One and Two, in the service of which he will stretch his facts where necessary. In 1102, for example, the Armenian and Syrian churches fell into conflict with the Byzantine Orthodox church concerning the correct date of Easter, just as they had in 1007.66 Uṙhayecʿi reports that the Latins and the Syrians both bowed to Byzantine pressure and followed the ‘fraudulent’ calendar, and that the lamps of the Holy Sepulchre were falsely lit on this date but were lit in an authentic fashion on Armenian Easter.67 Shortly thereafter, Baldwin i of Jerusalem was wounded in battle with the Fatimids near Jerusalem. Uṙhayecʿi writes that ‘the wound in the king’s body remained incurable until the day of his death; and then Jerusalem was filled with grief and sadness for their king. This happened because of the illegitimate observance of holy Easter.’68 This description masks the fact that Baldwin did not actually die until 1118 (an event recorded in its correct year). Uṙhayecʿi has stretched the story of Baldwin’s wound in order to manufacture consequences for the ‘incorrect’ celebration of Easter. Similarly, his account of the siege of Harran in 1104 is largely in accordance with that of Ibn al-Athīr.69 Uṙhayecʿi, however, describes an act of desecration of a loaf of bread by one of the Latin soldiers. He attributes their loss to this: ‘When the wise men saw this, they said “That is a greatly sinful deed, and God 65 66 67 68 69

Fulcher of Chartres, A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem, pp. 246–252; William of Tyre, A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, pp. 541–545. See below, p. 146. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 292. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 292–293. Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kamil 1097–1146, pp. 79–80.

crusaders in uṙhayecʿi’s eyes

137

will not stand for this deed and he will not give them [the Franks] victory, because they have committed this sin in the bread.”’70 This Latin defeat resulted in the first imprisonment of Baldwin (i of Jerusalem) and Joscelin and was perhaps the first clear indication to everyone, including the Muslims and the eastern Christians including Uṙhayecʿi, that the Crusaders were not invincible and that God might allow their defeat.71 On the whole, although Book Three contains embellishments and some inaccuracies, these are on a small scale and have clear patterns. Lacking narrative clarity from the relevant part of the second prophecy of Kozeṙn, and unsure of the direction from which the predicted salvation of Christendom will come, Uṙhayecʿi often seeks a near-term moral lesson from the events about which he writes. The narrative arranged around these moral vignettes must be treated with great caution, but apart from Uṙhayecʿi’s belief in a ‘slow strengthening’ of Christians and the imminent advent of the Last World Emperor, the lack of a clear guiding prophetic principle, with a known outcome, to explain the presence and activities of the Latins leaves less scope for dramatic adaptation of events. In sum, Uṙhayecʿi shows himself to be consistently well-informed about the events of which he writes, where they can be corroborated. His vantage point in Edessa leads him to write about many events which are not well-corroborated in the other more remote sources,72 but his command of verifiable facts allows the reader to place a modicum of trust in the unverifiable ones. The best indicator of when a narrative episode must be treated with some caution is when Uṙhayecʿi is vague about the details, in a manner reminiscent of the more mysterious entries in Books One and Two—for instance, the account of fighting between ‘Arabs’ and ‘Turks’ around Basra in 557 (1108/9) in which Uṙhayecʿi gives almost no prosopographical details.73 The entry is reminiscent of earlier accounts of intra-Muslim fighting (e.g. the description in Book One of fighting between the ‘Egyptians’ and ‘Romans’ in 440 (991/2), which allegedly led to an invasion of Armenia.74) Given the general quality of Book Three,

70 71 72

73 74

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 295. Asbridge, Principality of Antioch, pp. 55–56. e.g. the siege of Edessa by Chokurmish after the battle of Harran in 1104, mentioned only briefly by Ibn al-Athīr (Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 301–302); the otherwise unattested invasion of the territory of Cilicia and Kesun in 556 (1107/8) (Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 305–307); and rather crucially, the Latin offensive against Aplłarip of Bira which inspires Uṙhayecʿi’s rancour (Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 338–339). Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 310. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 41.

138

chapter 6

however, the veracity of these items must be considered more carefully than those of Books One and Two. It must nevertheless be stressed that Uṙhayecʿi’s immense value as a source for the activities of the Crusaders in the the twelfth century does not render him ‘impartial’. He takes his place in the ranks of authoritative historians for this period, but like every historian, he brings his own cultural context and his own biases to his work. In the next chapter we shall explore the contemporaneous cultural and particularly religious context in which Uṙhayecʿi wrote, and seek to explain his attitudes to the world around him in terms of the community of Armenian miaphysite clerics of which he was a member.

Conclusion The Chronicle of Uṙhayecʿi is not a history of the First Crusade. While he almost certainly engaged with Frankish soldiers during his lifetime, and it was likely the Crusade itself that moved Uṙhayecʿi to write his Chronicle at all, the arrival of the Crusaders complicated the traditional historical patterns available to him almost beyond recognition. Their capture of Jerusalem was written into the second prophecy of Kozeṙn on which the Chronicle is based, but the Crusaders were given no further role in the apocalyptic events that were then to follow. One of the challenges faced in his composition of Book Three was therefore to find an appropriate role for this group of foreign Christians who, as far as was apparent to anyone at the time that Uṙhayecʿi wrote, now had a permanent role to play in the power dynamics of the Near East. It cannot be said that Uṙhayecʿi succeeded in finding an appropriate literary or prophetic role for the Latins, but it is clear that by the 1130s he did not consider them to be the agent of God’s eventual redemption of His people. Although Uṙhayecʿi’s ambivalent attitude toward the Latins forestalled his attempt to create a mythology for them, it does render his account a somewhat more reliable record of contemporaneous perceptions of the Crusade as compared to his earlier presentations of the Byzantines and the Turks. Uṙhayecʿi’s accuracy is not beyond reproach, however. The need to derive a moral lesson from recent history has led him in places to stretch the facts of an event, such as the wound suffered by Baldwin i of Jerusalem shortly after his accession to the throne. These literary flourishes are the means by which Uṙhayecʿi preserves the relevance of the prophecies of Kozeṙn throughout this section of the Chronicle.

chapter 7

‘Many Break Away from the Faith’: Eastern Christianity in the Chronicle From the beginning of their written history Armenian literary and historiographical heritage had been primarily in the hands of the church through its vardapets, or ecclesiastical scholars of the Armenian church. The historical record could be seen as an unbroken line stretching from the fifth century until Uṙhayecʿi’s own lifetime, reflecting a tradition that held Armenian history as almost inseparable from Armenian Christian belief.1 Although Uṙhayecʿi was perhaps the first historian in the Armenian tradition who was not a vardapet and denies, in his prologues, a high level of erudition and intelligence,2 the fact that he was a member of what seems to have been a mainstream Armenian apostolic monastic community gave him an important point in common with the vardapet historians who had preceded him. Even taking into account the central political role played by the Armenian katholikos, many of these historians (most notably Stepʿanos Asołik) devoted a great deal of attention to events within the Church of which they were a part. Uṙhayecʿi was no exception—many of the entries within the Chronicle record Armenian ecclesiastical affairs, and the book itself is written from the perspective of one who is deeply ensconced in a monastic fraternity. Uṙhayecʿi belonged to the primary Armenian Gregorian (apostolic) church, which since the early seventh century has explicitly refused to accept the council of Chalcedon and is classed thereby as miaphysite. The question of the extent of miaphysite belief in the Armenian church is a nevertheless a very complex one. The aim of the 451 council of Chalcedon was to resolve the apparent contradiction that Christ, although evidently possessing both divinity and humanity, was a unitary being. Its solution of ‘two natures’ became the primary point of division between Byzantine (and Latin) Christianity and most of the churches of the East. In contrast to many other miaphysite churches, however, the Armenians did not formally reject the council of Chalcedon until 1 Mahé, ‘Entre Moïse et Mahomet’; while some recent scholarship (see introduction, p. 13) has challenged the assumptions that certain writers such as Ełišē and Łewond were contemporary reporters of events, Armenian historians of the later medieval era did seem to view their historical tradition this way. 2 See translation, p. 221.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004330351_008

140

chapter 7

the first decade of the seventh century, and there were factions of Armenians who accepted it outright.3 The katholikoi and ecclesiastical hierarchy, however, were reluctant throughout the sixth century to positively endorse Chalcedonian belief even though they rejected the more extremely miaphysite doctrinal positions. It was perhaps the intervention of the Byzantine government under the emperor Maurice, after much of Armenia had been annexed in 591, that drove the formal split in the following decade. Various katholikoi had attempted at various times to re-establish church union, and the most promising of these came around 862 at the Council of Širakawan. By the mid-tenth century, as Byzantine re-expansion into the East was fully underway, the earlier attempts at rapprochement were lost to irrelevance. Širakawan was to be the last known effort to bring the Byzantine and Armenian churches back into communion on more or less equal terms. Relations with the Latin church, meanwhile, were more circumspect. As far back as the Armenian year 553 (1074/5) Uṙhayecʿi reports that the thenkatholikos Grigor ii paid a visit to Rome. While it is very unlikely that this occurred before 1080 if at all,4 both Armenian and Roman records suggest that there was correspondence between Grigor and Pope Gregory vii. The pope seems to have accepted Armenian doctrine as orthodox, but objected to several points of liturgical practice and urged the katholikos to bring his church into line. After the First Crusade was launched, religious differences seem to have been no barrier to cooperation. The Christians of the East were famously described as ‘heretical’ in a frustrated missive to the pope during the siege of Antioch, but this seems to have been based again on grounds of custom and practice rather than actual doctrine.5 Uṙhayecʿi himself reports only two points of religious contention: these were the short-lived removal of all Eastern Christians from the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem shortly after its capture,6 and another dispute in 1102 concerning the correct date of Easter.7 When in 1137–8 Byzantium went on the offensive to regain territory in Cilicia and Syria deemed to belong to the empire, the Latin, Armenian, and Syrian churches seem to have been prompted into seeking greater unity. A council was held in Jerusalem in 1141 at which union was proclaimed between the three churches, although 3 Arutjunova-Fidanjan, ‘The Ethno-Confessional Self-Awareness of Armenian Chalcedonians’; Garitte, Narratio. 4 Halfter, Das Papsttum und die Armenier, pp. 120–121. 5 Halfter, Das Papsttum und die Armenier, pp. 114–115. 6 Uṙhayecʿi, Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 275–276; for an analysis of this event, see Augé, Byzantins, arméniens & francs, pp. 89–94. 7 Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 286–287.

eastern christianity in the chronicle

141

reports differ concerning the extent to which agreement was reached and promises of reform were made.8 Uṙhayecʿi is a staunch defender of and adherent to the Armenian church throughout the Chronicle, and so it is not terribly surprising that his opinions have generally been described as passionately miaphysite. Nor is it surprising that this alleged doctrinal bias has often been assumed to inform his opinions of people and events,9 most notably in the case of Philaretos Brachamios.10 As we have seen in chapter 3, however, Uṙhayecʿi’s doctrinal beliefs are not the only, or even the primary, reason for his exceedingly negative portrayal of Philaretos. Other Armenians presumed to be Chalcedonian on the basis of the fact that they held Byzantine rank (most notably Tʿoros, the last Armenian ruler of Edessa, but also the succession of eleventh-century Armenians who held the rank of doux of Edessa and other cities) are portrayed much more sympathetically. ‘Anti-Chalcedonian’ is a simplistic description of Uṙhayecʿi’s attitude toward ecclesiastical matters that does not do justice to his portrayal of various people, whether Chalcedonian or non-, throughout the Chronicle. With that caveat in mind, let us explore some of the complexities of Uṙhayecʿi’s presentation of ecclesiastical affairs and examine his larger viewpoints in the context of the situation of the Armenian church during the decade of the 1130s. Uṙhayecʿi has massaged the history of the Armenian church where appropriate, just as he did with the secular history of Byzantium and Armenia, to conform to the prophetic timeline of Yovhannēs Kozeṙn. In addition, his place within the fraternity of Armenian monasticism has allowed him to give his items of ecclesiastical history a personal touch—one which allows the reader to begin to see the outline of Uṙhayecʿi’s own life, and to deduce the period during which he was an observer of events, and the time during which he wrote.

8

9 10

Halfter, Das Papsttum und die Armenier, pp. 126–138; Schmidt and Halfter, ‘Der Brief Papst Innozenz’ii. an den armenischen Katholikos Gregor iii’; MacEvitt, The Crusades and the Christian World of the East, pp. 161–164. Dulaurier’s preface to his translation is typical of this: see Matthew of Edessa, Chronique, pp. xviii–xix. Arutjunova-Fidanjan, ‘The Ethno-Confessional Self-Awareness of Armenian Chalcedonians’, p. 352; Dédéyan, Les Arméniens entre Grecs, Musulmans et Croisés, p. 243.

142

chapter 7

Before the Fall: Ecclesiastical History before 1033 As Byzantine power began to revive over the course of the ninth century, political and cultural contacts with the Armenians also seem to have increased. Correspondence between the patriarch of Constantinople, Photios, and the Armenian katholikos Zakʿaria culminated in the Council of Širakawan in 862. The canons of this council, remarkable for their time, sought to reinstate union between the churches through a policy of doctrinal tolerance: no Chalcedonian was to compel a Gregorian to profess the Chalcedonian faith against his will, and no Gregorian was to profess the Chalcedonian faith contrary to his conscience in order to gain any sort of preferment.11 The great promise of reconciliation offered by the council was not to last. Although Photios described the Armenians as worshipping ‘purely and in orthodox fashion’ in 867, by the early 880s all progress toward full reconciliation had been lost. Zakʿaria was dead, and the man soon to be crowned king of the Armenians preferred a diplomatic policy that favoured the Abbasids.12 The early tenth century saw a limited re-orientation of Armenian foreign policy toward Byzantium,13 but although there is evidence to suggest Byzantine engagement with a large share of the Armenian nobility, far too little information survives to be certain of its extent. There were certainly tensions over the question of Chalcedonian belief during this period,14 and the pro-Chalcedonian sympathies of a few major figures are known,15 but the details are lost to us. The picture becomes only marginally clearer in the later tenth century, as Byzantine power extended eastward into Armenia through the campaigns of the emperors Iōannēs Tzimiskēs and Basil ii while Abbasid power was clearly on the wane. Both emperors called upon their Armenian clients for military assistance, and Basil in particular used the opportunity to campaign as far as Her, south-east of Vaspurakan. The Armenian nobility was repeatedly drawn not only into these campaigns but also into several rebellious plots against Basil, another sign of deep engagement with Byzantium. Although there is little

11 12 13 14 15

Dorfmann-Lazarev, Arméniens et Byzantins à l’époque de Photius, p. 216. Greenwood, ‘Failure of a Mission’. Yovhannēs, History of Armenia, introduction, pp. vii–xii; Mahé, ‘L’Église arménienne’; Greenwood, ‘Armenian Neighbours’. These are attested most clearly by Yovhannēs Drasxanakertcʿi; see History of Armenia, ch. 55. e.g. Gagik Arcruni, the ruler of Vaspurakan under whose protection Drasxanakertcʿi ended his tenure; see Mahé, ‘L’Église arménienne’, p. 506.

eastern christianity in the chronicle

143

evidence for an imperial policy of coercion to the Chalcedonian faith until well after Basil’s death in 1025, there are a few clear signs of confessional tensions as well as signs of imperial church authority pressing eastward,16 and it is around this time that Armenian Chalcedonians began to refer to themselves as a group distinct from ‘Armenians’.17 Whatever the official policy toward the Armenian faith, Basil ii is credited by both Aristakēs and Uṙhayecʿi with nothing but respect for the church of St. Grigor. Against this historical background, two primary characteristics of Uṙhayecʿi’s treatment of church history prior to the prophecies of Kozeṙn in 478 and 485 (1029–1037) stand out. The first is a pattern of chronological inaccuracy that is unlike any other detectable pattern of error within Book One. The second is the curious lack of any hint of dissension within the church at this time, which runs counter to the other sources we have. Uṙhayecʿi is apparently ignorant of the debates between supporters and opponents of reconciliation with the church of Constantinople, and passes over in silence one of the most notorious episodes: the controversial deposition of the katholikos Vahan around 970. The Vahan controversy was recorded by Asołik, who would have been alive when it took place, and later by Kirakos Ganjakʿeci18 and Stepʿanos Orbelian.19 The roots of this dispute lay deep in the ‘silent’ period during which very little information about Armenian ecclesiastical affairs is preserved. It seems that the katholikos Anania Mokacʿi (ca. 943–965) had been at the forefront of an anti-Chalcedonian reaction to an apparent trend, possibly fostered under Gagik i Arcruni of Vaspurakan, toward reconciliation with the Byzantine church. Around the time of the coronation of Ašot iii (ca. 951), Anania had been heavily involved in a dispute with the church leadership in Baghdad and Siwnikʿ that had its roots both in the Chalcedonian dispute and in an argument about the hierarchy of ecclesiastical sees.20 Anania was succeeded by Vahan, the archbishop of Siwnikʿ. Shortly thereafter, Vahan, suspected of wishing ‘to bring about friendship and accord with Chalcedonians’,21 was deposed by a

16 17 18 19 20 21

Mahé, ‘L’Église arménienne’, pp. 505–513. Arutjunova-Fidanjan, ‘The Ethno-Confessional Self-Awareness of Armenian Chalcedonians’, p. 357. Kirakos, History of the Armenians, p. 78. Orbelian, Histoire de la Siounie, pp. 166–167. Mahé, ‘L’Église arménienne’, pp. 506–510. ‘Սա ընդ քաղկեդոնականս սիրելութիւն և հաճութիւն կամեցաւ առնել թղթովք։’: Asołik, Patmutʿiwn tiezerakan, p. 181. Macler renders this as ‘Vahanik, dans des lettres, ayant laissé voir le vif désir qu’il avait de s’unir aux Chalcédoniens’: Histoire universelle,

144

chapter 7

church council and replaced by Stepʿanos. Vahan fled to Vaspurakan, where Gagik Arcruni’s successor Apusahl-Hamazasp was sympathetic toward him. After both rival katholikoi died in 421 (972/3), Xačʿik Aršaruni was elected as the new katholikos. From the beginning Uṙhayecʿi’s dates for this era display some grave errors. He records the death of Anania in 425 (976/7)22 rather than 414 (965/6),23 while Vahan, elected in the year of Anania’s death, is reported to have died in 432 (983/4). His replacement, the katholikos Stepʿanos, reigned for two years and died, according to Uṙhayecʿi, in 434 (985/6). More curiously, in a striking contrast to what one might expect of an unabashedly partisan member of the Armenian monastic community, he simply records the death of the ‘holy’ katholikos Vahan and the accession of the ‘godly’ Stepʿanos.24 In his next entry he records the death of Stepʿanos and the accession of Xačʿik.25 This is exceedingly odd, given the number of sources both before and after the twelfth century that record the controversy. Why then does Uṙhayecʿi omit it? Is he truly ignorant of the disputes that took place during and after Anania’s reign? It is possible, given the juxtaposition of chronological errors and the history of Chalcedonian sympathies in Vaspurakan, that this omission is evidence that Uṙhayecʿi took his early ecclesiastical history from a source written there.26 Whether or not there was such a ‘Vaspurakan source’ sympathetic to Vahan or concerned with hiding discord among the clergy, the omission of this episode serves the overall structure of the Chronicle as an elucidation of the prophecies of Yovhannēs Kozeṙn, and as such could have been an intentional decision on Uṙhayecʿi’s part. Just as he has separated the events of the royal succession struggle of 1019–1022 into ‘earlier’ elements that displayed the valour and virtue of the Armenian kings,27 he has here glossed over the dissension and controversy that, for narrative purposes, came too early. His aim for the tenth century was to portray the peaceful and pious state of Armenian church and society. The deposition of Vahan and the persecution of Stepʿanos had no place in this story.

22 23 24 25 26 27

p. 41. Kirakos goes so far as to claim that Vahan negotiated union with the Georgian church: History of the Armenians, p. 78. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 33. Asołik, Patmutʿiwn tiezerakan, p. 181, Histoire universelle, pp. 40–41. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 34. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 38–39. Andrews, ‘The Chronology of the Chronicle’, pp. 157–160. See discussion above, p. 52.

eastern christianity in the chronicle

145

With the controversy excised, the ‘ecclesiastical’ items for the tenth century simply record the succession of Armenian katholikoi, generally under erroneous dates. It remains unclear how he might have got these so badly wrong, but his arithmetic is otherwise consistent with his narrative. Asołik does not give a date for Vahan’s deposition, but indicates that he was recognised by some—including king Apusahl-Hamazasp of Vaspurakan—until his death. Orbelian concurs with Uṙhayecʿi in giving the length of Stepʿanos’ tenure as two years.28 Whether Uṙhayecʿi was unaware that the two terms had run concurrently or whether he simply chose to excise the controversy, he evidently added the two years of Stepʿanos’ tenure to the seven years of Vahan’s, producing a total of nine years between the death of Anania and the accession of Xačʿik. He then shortened Xačʿik’s tenure from nineteen years to six, in order to reconcile his computed date for Xačʿik’s accession, 434 (985/6), with the correct date he had for Sargis’ accession, 440 (991/2). Despite his poor chronology Uṙhayecʿi names Vahan in his account of the gathering at Harkʿ in 421 (972/3), as the author of a letter that was delivered to the emperor Tzimiskēs. The remainder of the ‘ecclesiastical’ theme within Book One displays accurate (if occasionally misleading) chronology, where external corroboration exists. Sargis did die in 471 (1022/3),29 and his successor was Petros Getadarj.30 He does appear to err in recording Petros’ accession in 471 (1022/3), upon the death of Sargis.31 Aristakēs, in contrast, records Petros’ accession in 468 (1019/20).32 He also notes that Sargis was alive at the time—this was an innovation on the usual practice, in which a new katholikos was elected after the death of the current one.33 Sargis’ death has been correctly dated by Uṙhayecʿi to 471. In addition, Uṙhayecʿi writes that Petros was հաստատեաց (‘confirmed’) as katholikos,34 whereas the word he normally uses for the succession is ձեռնադրեաց (‘consecrated’).35 This distinct phrasing suggests that he was working

28 29 30 31 32 33

34 35

Orbelian, Histoire de la Siounie, pp. 166–167. As corroborated by Aristakēs, Patmutʿiwn, p. 32, Récit des malheurs, p. 16. Aristakēs, Patmutʿiwn, p. 28, Récit des malheurs, p. 11. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 50–51. Aristakēs, Patmutʿiwn, p. 28, Récit des malheurs, p. 11. Maksoudian, Chosen of God, pp. 37–38. Mahé points out that this was accepted as a way of guaranteeing the continuity of the office at times when it could be threatened; see Mahé, ‘L’Église arménienne’, p. 499. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 51. e.g. the accession of Vahan (Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 33), of Stepʿanos (Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 34), and that of Sargis himself (Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 51).

146

chapter 7

from a source that accurately reflected the consecration of Petros during Sargis’ lifetime. Uṙhayecʿi’s text reflects on this point perhaps not chronological inaccuracy, but rather a certain lack of clarity. Another rather confusing pair of entries is the set, for the years 486 and 487 (1037–1039), which describe a dispute between Petros and Yovhannēs of Ani. Uṙhayecʿi claims that, at the beginning of the year 486 (which fell in March 1037), Petros left Ani for Vaspurakan. He writes that Petros remained in Vaspurakan for four years before returning to Ani at the invitation of Yovhannēs, where he was imprisoned for a year and five months while a church council was convened to appoint Dioskoros Sanahnecʿi in his stead.36 Dioskoros held office for one year and two months, after which time another council met to depose him and restore Petros to the throne. This second council is the subject of the entry for 487 (1038/9).37 Although this pair of entries would thus appear to describe the events of five and a half years, it is covered from beginning to end within the entries for two. The imprisonment of Petros probably did occur in 1037, and the deposition of Dioskoros in late 1038.38 Just as he has done for the reign of the emperor Constantine viii, Uṙhayecʿi has compressed a long series of events into a short account. As in the earlier example, and as we will see below, he has done this in order to better fit the event to the prophecies, and the subsequent course of events. The peculiarities of Uṙhayecʿi’s chronology thus show that, in matters ecclesiastical as well as secular, he provides very little information that adds to our scant knowledge about the course of events in tenth-century Armenia. It is only with the accession of Sargis in 990 that chronological accuracy is achieved, and only with the appearance of Petros in 1019 that information more substantial than accession and death notices begins to appear. One of the few solid pieces of information that Uṙhayecʿi gives is the name of the katholikos responsible for writing to Tzimiskēs in 972. This is peculiar in its own right—since Vahan had by that time almost certainly been replaced by Stepʿanos, one must wonder why he was the appointed correspondent to the emperor.39 Nevertheless, the fact that Uṙhayecʿi has retained Vahan’s name, despite his own erroneous but meticulous chronology that would have Anania still occupying the office, is a sign that Vahan was indeed the correspondent. For Uṙhayecʿi, the first cracks in Christian virtue and harmony may be seen in the Easter dispute of 1007. This arose from a periodic discrepancy between the 36 37 38 39

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 75–77. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 77–78. Mahé, ‘L’Église arménienne’, p. 527. This has also been pointed out by Greenwood: see ‘Armenian Neighbours’, p. 357.

eastern christianity in the chronicle

147

Chalcedonian and miaphysite methods of calculation of the date of Easter. The conflict is also recorded in the chronicles of Yaḥyā ibn Saʿid40 and Michael the Syrian,41 although neither of those accounts gives a significant role to Armenian scholars in the debate. For Uṙhayecʿi’s purposes, this dispute highlighted the consequences of wrong belief. The lamps of the Holy Sepulchre failed to burn. The Christians who, ‘puffed up with arrogance’, persisted in their erroneous observance were massacred by the Muslims as they celebrated at the shrine. The argument was resolved, claims Uṙhayecʿi, when the emperor Basil ii summoned the vardapet Samuēl42 to Constantinople to explain the matter. In this account the emperor accepted the argument of Samuēl, which ‘put to shame and gave the lie to all the Greek wise men’.43 Peace was restored and the Armenian faith was proved virtuous. Uṙhayecʿi’s treatment of the conflict between Petros Getadarj and Yovhannēs of Ani, compressed to two years in the late 1030s, is now easily interpreted as an attempt to illustrate the truth of the prophecies. The roots of the dispute are not clear, though may have had to do with Petros’ greed for money.44 In any case Uṙhayecʿi refers only to ‘some difficulties’ that led to Petros’ departure to Vaspurakan. This pair of entries closely follows the second prophecy, in which the vardapet had predicted that ‘many schisms [will] enter the church’;45 here Uṙhayecʿi is able to show the direct fulfillment of this prophecy. Dioskoros, we are told, ‘consecrated many unworthy ones to the episcopate’ and ‘called all those to him who had been expelled from office by the earlier hayrapets for their clear transgressions.’46 Again, this is a fulfillment of Kozeṙn’s words: ‘they give consecration to many unworthy [men] and bring all the impure [men] into the ranks of the priesthood’.47 This episode, just as with the mis-dating of the death of Basil ii,48 is an example of Uṙhayecʿi’s manipulation of chronology to serve his literary ends. In order for Petros to spend the allotted four years in Vaspurakan, he must have left Ani in 1033. This is the same year during which the eclipse that inspired the

40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Yaḥyā, ‘Histoire 2’, pp. 481–483. Michael the Syrian, Chronique, vol. 3 pp. 189–190. Samuēl Kamrǰajorecʿi. See Ačaṙyan, Hayocʿ Anjnanunneri Baṙaran, vol. 4 p. 383, no. 22; Połarean, Hay Grołner, pp. 162–166. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 42–45. Mahé, ‘L’Église arménienne’, p. 526. See translation, p. 199. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 76. See translation. p. 201. See above, p. 38.

148

chapter 7

second prophecy of Kozeṙn probably occurred.49 Although Uṙhayecʿi does not dwell explicitly on Petros’ own love of money, it is likely that Kozeṙn’s frequent references to avaricious church leaders were meant specifically for him.50 Perhaps Petros, recently in disfavour in Ani, chose this moment to decamp for Vaspurakan. The record of the prophecy itself was moved forward three years to 485 (1036/7) in order to give a tidy interval between it and the appearance of the First Crusade. Petros’ imprisonment and temporary deposition now fell neatly in the following year. Uṙhayecʿi thus had an appropriate vignette with which to show the beginnings of the spiritual downfall of the Armenian people.

The Recent Past: Uṙhayecʿi’s Church in Uncertain Times In 1049, after the sack of Arcn, Petros was summoned to Constantinople. He consecrated his nephew Xačʿik as his successor should he fail to return and set out with a retinue of clerics and vardapets, of whom Uṙhayecʿi names several.51 When it indeed happened that Petros was not allowed to return to Ani, he remained in Constantinople for a few years and then settled in Sebasteia, near the descendants of the exiled king of Vaspurakan, until his death in 507 (1058/9). His successor, Xačʿik, fared little better in preserving his own independence. He was summoned to Constantinople in 508 (1059/60) by the emperor Constantine x Doukas, and there put under great pressure to accept union with the church of Constantinople. Xačʿik was confined in the capital for three years, and then released in his turn to live in Sebasteia until his death in 514 (1065/6). Shortly thereafter, Constantine x summoned the Arcruni brothers to Constantinople in order to agree on an act of union; they took the vardapet Yakob Kʿarapʿnecʿi (Sanahnecʿi) with them. Uṙhayecʿi, who likely had his information directly from Sanahnecʿi either through the latter’s lost history or from his direct testimony, writes that the emperor tried to keep the young ex-king Gagik ii Bagratuni away from the meeting while he negotiated a document of union with Sanahnecʿi, who ‘went a little to the Roman side concerning the duality of Christ.’52 When Gagik arrived, answering the secret summons of the Arcruni brothers, he destroyed Yakob’s document of union and wrote his own, 49 50 51 52

See above, p. 37. Mahé, ‘L’Église arménienne’, p. 526. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 105. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 161–162.

eastern christianity in the chronicle

149

uncompromising, confession of faith. This document is preserved in its entirety in the Chronicle. Upon hearing it read, we are told, the emperor and the court clergy dropped their attempts to force union upon the Armenians, and ‘the king Doukas acted with friendship and acceptance toward [Gagik], Atom, Apusahl, and the other Armenian princes.’53 Uṙhayecʿi ends this entry with another list of ‘illustrious vardapets’ who were active at the time. As Mahé suggests,54 the incident is unlikely to have happened just as Uṙhayecʿi reports. Gagik appeared in Constantinople, made a profession of faith, and left angry and irritated. Uṙhayecʿi reports no further attempts by Constantine x to intervene in Armenian ecclesiastical affairs, although the pressure he had previously exerted on the Armenian princes and clerics had been constant. Was he really convinced of the truth of Armenian orthodoxy, or did Gagik leave the court angrily because he had finally been coerced into an act of union? Perhaps Uṙhayecʿi has here adopted a version of events developed by Sanahnecʿi, in which he chose to salvage Gagik’s reputation by denying the union that in any event quickly became irrelevant after the Byzantine loss of Anatolia and Armenia, and substituting his version of an uncompromising confession of faith by the last king of Armenia. Only now did Constantine x allow the appointment of a katholikos to replace Xačʿik. The office was bestowed upon Vahram Pahlawuni, son of Grigor magistros, who took the regnal name Grigor ii and would be known as ‘Vkayasēr’, or ‘Martyrophile’.55 Constantine may have considered Vahram, who had already held Byzantine office, to be a pliable, pro-union choice,56 but in the event the new katholikos guarded Armenian ecclesiastical independence. It may have been this pressure on Grigor57 which caused him to leave his see only a few years after his consecration and take up a peripatetic life.58 His secretary Gēorgē was anointed in his stead. Although Gēorgē was deposed after three years,59 this episode set a precedent for regional katholikoi who reigned concurrently.

53 54 55

56 57 58 59

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 179. Mahé, ‘L’Église arménienne’, pp. 530–531. Halfter, Das Papsttum und die Armenier, pp. 112–113, suggests that the office of katholikos remained empty for five years after Xačʿik’s death, but the date given by Uṙhayecʿi would seem to contradict this. In any event, Halfter’s suggestion that Grigor Vkayasēr was chosen for his presumed pro-Byzantine sympathies stands. Halfter, Das Papsttum und die Armenier, p. 113. Halfter, Das Papsttum und die Armenier, p. 113. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 189–190. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 205–206.

150

chapter 7

With the rise of Philaretos came further complications within the church. Uṙhayecʿi excoriated him as a false Christian and an apostate. Nevertheless, his apparent aim during this time was to reconstitute an Armenian homeland with himself as regent. This required an Armenian katholikos whose legitimacy was generally accepted. To this end, around 521 or 522 (1072–1074) he invited Grigor to take up his duties as katholikos there. Grigor refused, and after another invitation he agreed to allow Sargis, another nephew of Petros Getadarj, to be consecrated as a new katholikos.60 Sargis held office in Philaretos’ principality from the town of Honi. Grigor, meanwhile, travelled to Ani and consecrated his own nephew Barseł bishop of Ani, after which he travelled to Constantinople, possibly also to Rome,61 and settled in Egypt. Barseł was promoted to the office of katholikos in Ani in 530 (1081/2).62 In 534 (1085/6), the district of J̌ahan, including Honi, was captured by a Turkish emir. Tʿēodoros Alaxōsik, the successor of Sargis as katholikos there, was unable or unwilling to join Philaretos in Marash. Philaretos then ‘came to resent lord Tʿēodoros, and he decided to install another katholikos due to his wicked and evil inclinations.’63 There were now four Armenian katholikoi— three of them, Grigor Vkayasēr, Tʿēodoros, and Barseł, were in a direct line of consecration and the fourth, Pōłos of Marash, was an ‘anti-katholikos’. This state of affairs moved Uṙhayecʿi to write a short excursus on the confusion that reigned. He explains that this confusion ‘did not arise through the manifestation of the Holy Spirit, but through chance and fortune and gifts of gold and silver.’64 This situation, he says, was the fulfillment of several prophecies, including that of Yovhannēs Kozeṙn. Like the Armenian state, the Armenian church had fragmented through the faults of its leaders and was now suffering under the domination of hostile overlords, be they Greek, Turkish, or free agents such as Philaretos. After the demise of the principality of Philaretos, Barseł went to the court of the sultan Malik-Shah in 539 (1090/1) to secure concessions for the Christian

60

61

62 63 64

For a fuller discussion of Philaretos’ attempts to set up a catholicosate within his principality, see Dédéyan, Les Arméniens entre Grecs, Musulmans et Croisés, pp. 49, 225– 234. The question of Grigor’s itinerary, and the specific question of whether he actually travelled to Rome, has been debated. See Halfter, Das Papsttum und die Armenier, pp. 120–121 and Dédéyan, Les Arméniens entre Grecs, Musulmans et Croisés, pp. 247–256 for the opposing viewpoints. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 220–222. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 228. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 229.

eastern christianity in the chronicle

151

population. Having succeeded, he travelled to J̌ahan and deposed Tʿēodoros.65 In a certain sense Tʿēodoros represented the failed state of Philaretos, under whose authority he had been appointed. We may thus infer that Barseł’s treaty with Malik-Shah had come at the expense of Tʿēodoros, and it was on the sultan’s authority that he deposed his rival and, in practice, unified the office of katholikos once more. Grigor Vkayasēr continued to hold his office in Egypt. Thus stood matters on the eve of the First Crusade.

The Armenian Church in the Wake of the First Crusade As we have seen, the Armenian church had been divided, pressured, and nearly suppressed during the years between the fall of the Bagratid kingdom and the fall of Philaretos. The katholikos Barseł had recently succeeded in reaching an accommodation with the Turks66 when the Crusader victories in Edessa, Antioch, and Jerusalem dramatically and permanently (so far as Uṙhayecʿi and his contemporaries were aware) changed the balance of power in the region. The Armenian church and people needed a protector. MalikShah was dead, and the Turkish succession was too disputed, with too much risk that the winner would be ill-disposed toward his Christian subjects. The Byzantine Empire had lost its grip on much of its Asian territory, and its new emperor, Alexios i, was as concerned with the eradication of heresy as any of his predecessors.67 Could the solution to Armenian security lie in Latin protection? Judging by the rapturous reception that Uṙhayecʿi reports in his initial entries on the subject, the Armenians were convinced that the appearance of the Latins (whether as agents or allies of a distant Byzantium, or as independent operators) would guarantee their security. Their disillusionment quickly followed, however, with the Latin usurpation of one Armenian principality after another and the occasional bloodbath against native Christian populations. Nevertheless, by the 1130s it was clear that the Latins differed from both the Byzantines and the Muslims in that they displayed little interest in either engaging in religious persecution of the Armenians or enforcing a different understanding of the creed.68 The Armenian katholikoi had been peripatetic

65 66 67 68

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 240–241. Augé, Byzantins, arméniens & francs, p. 70. Augé, Byzantins, arméniens & francs, p. 323. Michael the Syrian draws this distinction between the Byzantines on the one hand and the Latins and Turks on the other (Chronique, vol. 3 p. 262).

152

chapter 7

since the expulsions of Petros and Xačʿik from Ani. Barseł had eventually settled within the principality of Goł Vasil, where he died in 562 (1113/4). The principality did not long survive Vasil’s own death in November 1112, however, and Barseł’s successor Grigor iii was once again in search of a secure seat. He soon settled with his brother Nersēs69 at Covkʿ, within the Crusader county of Edessa, but without a firm understanding with the Latins his seat would necessarily have been at risk. The Community of Clerics as Seen in the Chronicle It was in this environment of uncertainty that Uṙhayecʿi compiled and wrote his Chronicle over the course of the late 1120s and 1130s. The church he portrayed was his own community. Its history was his own, in an even closer sense than the wider history of the Armenians. That he lived and worked in a large fraternity of clergymen, monks, and vardapets is evident throughout Books Two and Three—from the exile of Petros Getadarj through the remainder of the Chronicle, he makes frequent reference to various eminent scholars whose names survive nowhere else. The Church that he portrayed was never irrevocably divided by theological controversy. He never condemned those men with whom he had a personal link, even when, in his opinion, they had erred. Dioskoros, the anti-katholikos of 1038–1039, returned to Sanahin after his deposition ‘with a great deal of shame for his deeds.’70 The author of Uṙhayecʿi’s possible primary source, Sanahnecʿi, was himself a pupil of Dioskoros.71 Uṙhayecʿi says briefly of Yakob himself that he ‘went a little to the Roman side concerning the duality of Christ’72—that is, toward Chalcedonianism. Even so, the ‘passionate miaphysite’ who is said to have condemned Chalcedonianism in all its forms would not repudiate those with whom he had personal links. The latter part of Book Two, and the entirety of Book Three, contain obituary notices for several clerics, vardapets, and holy men. Uṙhayecʿi is liberal with his praise for each of these men. If his eulogy stems from a personal acquaintance, we may use these notices to derive an approximate duration of his own monastic life. Yakob Sanahnecʿi died in 534 (1085/6), and his obituary is the first substantial record of a cleric who did not hold the rank of katholikos, outside of the lists of ‘eminent vardapets’ who journeyed to Constantinople with

69 70 71 72

a.k.a. Nersēs Šnorhali, who would succeed Grigor as katholikos. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 78. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 226–227. Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), pp. 161–162.

eastern christianity in the chronicle

153

Petros in 498 (1049/50) and with Gagik ii in 514 (1065/6). Uṙhayecʿi’s own experience would then have dated from sometime during the reign of Philaretos. His violent antipathy toward this ruler suggests that a good number of his monastic fellows felt the same way. The multiple warm welcomes given by the Edessenes to Barseł, nephew of Grigor Vkayasēr who was himself a staunch opponent of Philaretos, appear to confirm this.73 We may reasonably suppose from such evidence that Uṙhayecʿi was active in the monastic community of Edessa, in some capacity, by 1085. He would then have witnessed the fall of Philaretos, the brief Muslim occupation of Edessa, and the reigns of a series of Armenian and Turkish lords of the city. He would have seen Tʿoros murdered by a mob of Edessenes in 1097, and the establishment of the first Crusader state. From that point on, he must have been engaged in the constant flux in Latin-Armenian relations, and his own portrayal of the Latins within the Chronicle must have been influenced by the opinions of his fellow clerics. Aftermath: Byzantium in Cilicia and the Council of Jerusalem Over the course of the late 1130s, Crusader rule in Syria began to be threatened both by the strength of Zengi and by the renewed attempts of Iōannēs ii Komnenos to re-assert Byzantine authority in the area. The necessity of cooperation between the Armenians and Latins was thus becoming clear.74 In 1137 that necessity crystallised when Iōannēs marched on campaign to southern Anatolia.75 The campaign resulted in the capture of Lewon, the Rubenid ruler of Cilicia, and his entire family, as well as the submission of the Crusader principality of Antioch. Iōannēs himself was forced to defend his troops from Zengid attacks during the campaign. In reaction to these developments, as well as to intra-Latin affairs in Antioch, Pope Innocent ii sent a legate, Cardinal Alberic of Ostia, to investigate matters.76 During his journey, Alberic met the katholikos Grigor iii and his brother Nersēs. The result of this meeting was the synod of Jerusalem in 1141, which included Latin, Syrian, and Armenian participants including Grigor iii himself. Its aim was church unity in the face of threats,

73 74 75

76

For a discussion of the rivalry between the Pahlawunis and Philaretos, see Dédéyan, Les Arméniens entre Grecs, Musulmans et Croisés, pp. 47–48. Dédéyan, ‘Frères Pahlawuni’, p. 239. This campaign is well-documented in the Byzantine sources: Niketas Choniatēs, Nicetae Choniatae Historia, pp. 21–32; Iōannēs Kinnamos, Ioannis Cinnami epitome rerum ab Ioanne et Alexio Comnenis gestarum, pp. 16–21. For a fuller account of Alberic’s trip, see Halfter, Das Papsttum und die Armenier, pp. 126– 130.

154

chapter 7

both Byzantine and Zengid, to their shared territory.77 Although Michael the Syrian claims that Grigor refused to affirm the resulting profession of faith with an oath,78 the Armenians were able to come to agreement with the other two churches. The council of 1141 was in many senses a defining event for rapprochement between the Armenians and the Latins; to the opposite extreme, the 1137/8 Byzantine campaign in Cilicia must have been a disaster for relations with the Armenians. Had Uṙhayecʿi witnessed either of these events, one would expect reflections of them within the Chronicle. Instead, Iōannēs is mentioned only at his accession within Uṙhayecʿi’s text, where he is praised as having ‘a mild and agreeable disposition’ and being ‘accepting of the Armenian nation’;79 by contrast Uṙhayecʿi neither had a particularly complimentary view of the Latins nor seemed to regard them as spiritual brothers. There is no hint in his text of a rupture in relations with Iōannēs Komnenos, nor an impending rapprochement with the Latins. Rather, the story he records remains one in which the mythical ‘Roman Emperor’ will appear in the near future to usher in the final world peace. Uṙhayecʿi’s attitudes toward Latins, Greeks, and the church support the conjecture that he wrote his last entry well before the Byzantine campaign in Cilicia and the capture and exile of its Rubenid princes. 77 78

79

Dédéyan, ‘Frères Pahlawuni’, pp. 239–242. Michael the Syrian, Chronique, vol. 3 p. 256. ‘After that, the Franks required oaths of the Syrians and Armenians that they would not accept any other confession; the Syrians took them gladly, but the Armenians did not agree, and it was recognised that they were fabulists and simoniacs.’ Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), p. 346.

chapter 8

The History of the Chronicle Whether due to his own death or for other reasons, Uṙhayecʿi’s work on the Chronicle ended around 1131. What became of his text thereafter? Quite a few works of the medieval era fell into near-oblivion shortly after they were finished, without leaving a mark on the subsequent historical record until many centuries later. This was not to be the fate of Uṙhayecʿi’s text. His determination to see that the history of his era be written down, his concern that the lack of even his own inadequate testimony would be a grave loss to the future, was not without reason, and the evidence suggests that the Chronicle almost immediately became an authoritative source within the Armenian tradition after the close of the history of Aristakēs. The purpose of this chapter is to trace, as far as possible, the story of the text once it was written—whether it existed in multiple versions, when and where evidence of its use appears in the later medieval period, how it shaped and was shaped by the study of Armenian history in later periods, and the modern reception of the text. The story of the Chronicle is a complex one whose details must remain partially obscure, even as we find the text itself spread far and wide. Nevertheless there is a tendency to regard the Chronicle as a single work together with its continuation, and to attribute a positive intention to the form in which it is normally published—that Uṙhayecʿi’s account began abruptly with a report of the famine in 401, that he left the work unfinished after 1129, that the (presumably sole) autograph came into the possession of his continuator and was transmitted in that form to later generations. Although the state of the textual transmission renders it impossible to be certain on any one of these points, it is a worthwhile exercise to trace the various possibilities, that we may avoid unwitting unsubstantiated judgment.

The Text of the Chronicle Most of the manuscripts of the Chronicle belong to one of two main groups. The first contains the full text including its continuation, and the second contains a version that is cut off abruptly shortly before the close of Book Two. Although the two versions are textually very similar, there are a number of small but significant details that distinguish them. Probably the most common

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004330351_009

156

chapter 8

distinguishing difference comes in the notation of time periods. Within the first entry of Book One, for example, Uṙhayecʿi writes about a plague of locusts that followed a famine in and around Edessa, either two years (in the long version) or five years (in the short version) later. A further elaboration of these small characteristic discrepancies must await the appearance of a new critical edition. The primary obstacle to making sense of these versions, and the relationship between them, is the fact that more than 450 years elapsed between the composition of the Chronicle and the production of the first extant copies. The longer version appears in a manuscript written between 1590 and 1600, probably in Aleppo, and now held by the Mekhitarist library in Venice. The shorter version appears very shortly thereafter, in a manuscript written in 1601 in Constantinople and now held by the Mekhitarist library in Vienna. One of the most striking variations between the two versions, appearing relatively early in the text, concerns an account of the royal lineage of the Bagratuni kings up to Gagik i. Shortly before the description of the coronation of ‘Gagik’ Bagratuni in 410 (961/2), the reader finds some variation of the following in all copies of the shorter version of the Chronicle. Ի նա նստաւ Աշոտ թագաւոր՝ որդի Աբասայ՝ ամս իէ. Աշոտ որ ողորմածն կոչիւր, որդի Աբասայ, որդի Սմբատայ, որդի Աշոտոյ առաջին թագաւորութեան բագրատունեաց ազգէն։ Յետ Աշոտոյ Սմբատ ամս ժգ, ի թվին նիթ. և Գագիկ որդի Աշոտոյ՝ եղբայր Սմբատայ ամս իթ և ապա Յովհաննէս և Աշոտ ամս ի։1

In 401 Ašot the son of Abas reigned for 27 years. Ašot, who was called Ołormac (Merciful), was the son of Abas, son of Smbat, son of Ašot the first of the kingdom from the Bagratuni clan. After Ašot Smbat for 13 years, in the year 429 (980/1). And Gagik son of Ašot, brother of Smbat, for 29 years and then Yovhannēs and Ašot for 20 years. In light of the notorious confusion in the text concerning who held the Bagratid throne when (see above, p. 48), this addendum is rather enlightening in that it traces the succession more or less accurately. Ašot iii Ołormac was indeed king in 401, and his lineage and the sequence of his successors are traced correctly. A straightforward interpretation of this textual artifact would be that it is a later

1 Matenadaran ms 5587, f. 254r. One variation, found in Matenadaran ms 1768 and copied in British Library ms or5260, has Smbat’s reign begin in 424 (նիդ) and last for 24 (իդ) years.

the history of the chronicle

157

interpolation by a scribe who had a better record of the sequence of succession. This idea receives some support from the fact that the author of the shorter chronicle attributed to Smbat Sparapet is even more in error than Uṙhayecʿi himself, claiming that Gagik held the throne already in 400 (951/2).2 It is worth considering how and why these two text versions exist. Uṙhayecʿi writes in the prologue to Book Three that he laid down his pen after recording the history up to the year 500 (1101/2), and that he fell silent in order to allow room for others more suited than himself to take up the work. It is difficult to imagine that Uṙhayecʿi, writing ‘for those who love chronicles’ and evidently in contact with the wider community of clerics and vardapets around Edessa, would not have made his work available shortly after it was finished for the first time. If he did, it would have had several years to be copied and disseminated before he returned to the task of writing Book Three. The shorter version ends within a few pages of the end of Book Two, suggesting that, if it does indeed represent Uṙhayecʿi’s first edition, the last few pages of its archetype were lost at an early stage. There are neverthless two reasons to suspect that, elegant though the idea may be that two distinct editions of the Chronicle have come down to us, it is not the case. The first of these appears in the prologue to Book Two: even in the shorter version of the text, the prologue refers to ‘eighty more years’ of history to write instead of the fifty years that he implies in Book Three to have planned at that point, and that one would expect to read in a first edition of the work. Uṙhayecʿi’s indication of his intentions between the two prologues are admittedly rather contradictory. On the one hand, he refers to these eighty years in Book Two; on the other hand, he indicates in Book Three that he intended to stop in 1101. One might still entertain the possibility that the ‘fifty years’ of Book Two was independently corrected to eighty in both versions, perhaps by Uṙhayecʿi himself, but there is no surviving evidence of a manuscript whose scribe clearly expected Book Two to be the last. The second obstacle to the theory of two editions is the absence of two short portions of text from almost the entire manuscript tradition, whose contents were nevertheless apparently known to Smbat Sparapet. They cover the handover of Vaspurakan to the Byzantine emperor Basil ii by Senekʿerim after 1017, Basil’s eastern campaign of 1020/21, and most of the first prophecy of Yovhannēs Kozeṙn in the first portion, as well as the defection of the Seljuq

2 Smbat Sparapēt, Taregirkʿ, pp. 1–2; For the versions of the work attributed to Smbat and their probable authorship, see Der Nersessian, ‘Chronicle of Smpad’; Smbat Sparapēt, La chronique attribuée au connétable Smbat.

158

chapter 8

emir Ktrič (this is probably the same historical figure as ‘Chrysoskoulos’ in the account of Nikephoros Bryennios3) to the Byzantine court and the doom foretold by the appearance of a comet in 519 (1070/71). These portions are found only in a single manuscript of the longer text group, Matenadaran ms 1896, copied in 1689. It is moreover evident from examination of the manuscript that an appropriate amount of blank space was left for both missing portions and they were filled in later by the same hand, presumably from a separate source. This is perhaps the most mysterious feature of the text transmission,4 but the unanimity of the extant manuscripts in omitting those portions does suggest that they all derive from an archetype unknown to Smbat, containing the entire text and its continuation, in which these few pages were missing or damaged.

Use by Later Armenian Historians Grigor Erēcʿ The first immediate evidence that Uṙhayecʿi’s finished work was received and read by others is the fact of its continuation by Grigor, a priest who lived in the nearby town of Kesun. Nothing is known about Grigor apart from the clues he leaves in the continuation—he was a priest, Kesun was his town, he participated in its defense during the siege of 1137. Likewise, nothing is known about how Uṙhayecʿi’s work came into Grigor’s possession or what he made, if anything, of Uṙhayecʿi’s historiographical aims. There is no extant version of the Chronicle that includes Book Three but excludes the continuation, which in itself strongly suggests that Grigor did possess Uṙhayecʿi’s final autograph text. Grigor did not continue the narrative precisely where Uṙhayecʿi left off—his relatively short text begins eight years after Uṙhayecʿi’s text ends, in the year 585 (1136). Grigor’s continuation shifts the primary focus of events from Edessa to Kesun. Much of the text is taken up with a funerary oration by an Armenian priest Barseł composed for Baldwin, count of Marash and lord of Kesun, upon his death in 1146. Apart from this oration, Grigor seems to be primarily concerned with keeping a record of the warfare in the region and the territorial exchanges that went along with it. Grigor’s style of arrangement is not as methodical as Uṙhayecʿi’s—although he retains the world-chronicle style

3 Nikephoros Bryennios, Hyle Historias, I.ii. 4 See below, p. 170.

the history of the chronicle

159

and notes the year at the beginning of most of his passages, those passages are not necessarily in chronological order. The continuation extends the original chronicle up to the year 611 (1162/3). There is no explicit indication in Grigor’s text of his relationship to Uṙhayecʿi, the circumstances of his acquisition of the text, his purpose in writing the continuation, or the dates during which he writes. The Earliest Witness: Smbat Sparapet Uṙhayecʿi’s authority within the Armenian historical tradition was arguably cemented when his Chronicle was adopted as the primary underlying source for the years up to 1129 by Smbat Sparapet, who wrote the Taregirkʿ (‘Year-book’) in the thirteenth century.5 Smbat, brother to the Cilician Armenian king Hetʿum i (1226–1270), was known by the seventeenth century to have written a history, but until the nineteenth century no work was known that could be associated with Smbat. The first versions of a work attributed to Smbat were published in the nineteenth century, based primarily on two relatively late manuscripts held at the time by the library of the See of Ēǰmiacin. These were superseded, in some sense, by the discovery and publication in 1956 of a late thirteenth- or early fourteenth-century manuscript held by the Mekhitarists in Venice, of which the previously-published versions appear to be a redaction and continuation. Although there remains some doubt about whether the Venice manuscript is a faithful copy of Smbat’s autograph work or whether it is a revision and adaptation by another author (perhaps by the scribe himself),6 it is generally accepted that Smbat was probably responsible for its factual content. In both its versions, the Taregirkʿ of Smbat relies almost exclusively on Uṙhayecʿi’s text for the period up to 1129. While the Venice text adds a few items of information for these years that were not taken from Uṙhayecʿi, most notably details concerning the First Crusade and the Rubenids of Cilicia,7 Smbat has entirely followed Uṙhayecʿi in the decision of what events to report. Despite the evidence that Uṙhayecʿi’s autograph text came into the hands of Grigor and was transmitted thence only with the continuation, Smbat appears 5 Smbat Sparapēt. Taregirkʿ. hy. S. Łazar, 1956. 6 See Dédéyan’s introduction to the French translation, La chronique attribuée au connétable Smbat, introduction, pp. 20–24, for the arguments for and against Smbat’s authorship. 7 e.g. the role of Peter the Hermit in the genesis of the Crusade, Taregirkʿ, p. 100; elaboration of Bohemond’s negotiations with the inhabitant of Antioch who betrayed the city to the Crusaders, Taregirkʿ, pp. 106–108. Cf. Der Nersessian, ‘Chronicle of Smpad’, pp. 146–147; Dédéyan, La chronique attribuée au connétable Smbat, pp. 27–28.

160

chapter 8

to have drawn a firm distinction between the two sources. While Uṙhayecʿi’s Chronicle was followed almost exclusively for the period up to 577 (1128/9), Smbat continues his narrative almost immediately with a report of the death of the Rubenid prince Tʿoros in 578 (1129/30) and the succession of his brother Lewon. It can certainly be argued that Smbat made limited use of Grigor’s continuation, but it is the termination of Uṙhayecʿi’s text that appears to prompt Smbat to diversify his sources. The manner in which Smbat evidently used Uṙhayecʿi’s text raises another question: do we possess the true beginning (and ending) of the Chronicle? The form of the text most familiar to us begins without preamble, with the report of a famine in 401 (952/3), and we can reasonably accept that the last report we possess that was penned by Uṙhayecʿi is that for 577 (1128/9). Did he indeed begin the text without preamble, or is there a possibility that the beginning was lost? Did he indeed leave it unfinished, or is there a possibility that a few entries at the end do not survive? On the latter point, Smbat’s use of Uṙhayecʿi seems to provide a reasonably clear answer. It is just possible that Uṙhayecʿi might have recorded the death of Tʿoros in a version that no longer survives, but it is at least equally likely that Smbat chose to include independent information about the Rubenid line from which he descended. More significantly, Smbat passes over the years 579–580 in silence, which suggests that if Uṙhayecʿi ever wrote material for these years, it was lost before the Chronicle was disseminated. We can safely conclude that there was probably not a lost ending to Uṙhayecʿi’s text, but might there have been a lost beginning? The text as it has come down to us launches directly into the account of famine in Edessa that is the entry for 401 (952/3), and it is striking that there is no preamble of the sort that one would normally expect. The only precedent within Armenian historiography is the history of Łewond, the extant version of whose history begins similarly abruptly. There is some doubt about how much of the history of Łewond survives intact in the extant manuscripts, and some evidence to suggest that there is a lost beginning.8 It is thus worthwhile to review the evidence in the case of Uṙhayecʿi’s Chronicle. On this point, the history of Smbat cannot bear such firm witness as for Uṙhayecʿi’s end point. The Venice text lacks its first several pages, and so the only direct witness becomes the Ēǰmiacin version, which gives a simple preamble before the first entry of substance for 410 (961/2):

8 Bedrosian, Ghewond’s History: Translator’s Preface.

the history of the chronicle

161

Ի ժամանակս թագաւորութեան Յունաց Ռոմանոսի՝ որդւոյ Կոստանդեայ, և ի հայրապետութեան Հայոց Տեառն Անանիայի, և յիշխանութեանն Պարսից Մահմուտ սուլտանին, և ի թուականին Հայոց 400 թագաւորէ Գագիկ Բագրատունի տանն Հայոց։ Որ էր որդի Աշոտոյ, և Աշոտ՝ որդի Աբասայ, և Աբաս՝ որդի Սմբատայ։ Էր թագաւորս այս քաջ, բարետեսիլ և ահարկու, ողորմած և քաղցր ի վերայ ամենեցուն, զարդարեալ ամենայն բարեձևութեամբ՝ հանգոյն նախնի թագաւորաց սրբոց, և յաղթող ի պատերազմունս թշնամեացն Քրիստոսի։ Որ և օգնականութեամբն Աստուծոյ զօրացեալ խաղաղեցոյց զաշխարհն ըստ իւրաքանչիւր կերպի, զեկեղեցականս և զիշխանս, զռամիկս և որ ընդ իշխանութեամբ նորա էին. պայծառացան և եկեղեցիքն խաւարեալ և կործանեալ յազգացն Մահմետի և ամենեքեան առհասարակ գոհանային զՏեառնէ Աստուծոյ։9

In the era of the reign over the Greeks of Romanos son of Constantine, and in the Armenian patriarchate of Lord Anania, and in the rule over the Persians of sultan Mahmut [al-Muti], and in the Armenian year 400 Gagik Bagratuni reigned the Armenian nation. He was the son of Ašot, and Ašot was the son of Abas, and Abas was the son of Smbat. This king was valiant, handsome, and frightful, merciful and pleasant toward everyone, adorned with gracefulness like the holy kings of old, and victorious in battles against the enemies of Christ. Strengthened with the help of God he pacified the land in each of its aspects, clerics and princes, common people and those who were under his dominion. And the churches that had been darkened and overthrown by the race of Mahomet were resplendent and everyone together gave thanks to the Lord God. The author, or redactor, of this version of Smbat’s text appears to have compounded Uṙhayecʿi’s error concerning the dates of Gagik’s reign, by asserting positively that Gagik already ruled in 951. He includes a brief royal lineage reminiscent of that which appears in the shorter version of Uṙhayecʿi’s text, but incomplete and without any indication of regnal periods. Does this passage suggest a lost preamble to Uṙhayecʿi’s text, or is it evidence that the first few entries of the Chronicle were missing or irrelevant to the author of the Ēǰmiacin text of Smbat?

9 Taregirkʿ, p. 1.

162

chapter 8

There is also some confusion in the manuscript tradition itself concerning where and how Uṙhayecʿi’s text began. Several witnesses to the longer version attribute to Uṙhayecʿi a short history of the katholikoi from Grigor the Illuminator up to the transfer of the katholikosate from Sis in Cilicia to Ēǰmiacin in 1441, in which the historian Tʿovma Mecopʿecʿi was closely involved. Most others in this group reproduce a single text that joins together the history of Nersēs the Great by Mesrop of Vayocʿ J̌or, this short account of the katholikoi, and the Chronicle itself. This is puzzling in itself—how would a text written after 1441 come to occupy a spot between a tenth-century and a twelfth-century text?— but it gives a terminus post quem for the emergence of this particular branch of the tradition. By contrast, the text of the shorter version usually begins with the entry for 401 (952/3) without preamble or explanation, almost invariably immediately preceded by a treatise by the Syrian scholar Ishākhā (Išōx in Armenian), ‘On Wine and Drunkenness’. In summary, there is too little evidence either way to be certain whether Uṙhayecʿi intended the Chronicle to begin immediately with the entry for 401, and the abrupt beginning appears to have led later copyists astray. While it is not particularly useful to speculate about what a preamble may have contained, it is also important to avoid assigning too much positive intention on Uṙhayecʿi’s part to its omission. Recognition by Later Historians That Uṙhayecʿi’s Chronicle was read and adopted by Smbat Sparapet is inarguable, but was it read more widely than that, and if so, by whom? The thirteenth century in particular produced a relative plethora of historians of Armenia, both in the Cilician kingdom and in the ‘motherland’ to the northeast. Apart from what was effectively a recension by Smbat Sparapet, the earliest use of Uṙhayecʿi’s text appears to have been in the Hawakʿmunkʿ i grocʿ patmagracʿ (Universal Chronicle) of Samuēl of Ani, written in the late twelfth century.10 Samuēl does not cite any of his historical sources, but evidently did rely on the text of Uṙhayecʿi. It is far less clear whether he had access to the continuation of Grigor.11 Around 1193 the priest Mxitʿar of Ani wrote his Patmutʿiwn kʿałakʿin yAnwoy (History of the City of Ani), evidently at the request of the prior of the monastery of Haṙič. Only a fragment of the work has survived, including coverage of

10 11

Samuel Anecʿi. Hawakʿmunkʿ i grocʿ patmagracʿ. Ed. by A. Tēr-Mikʿēlean. Vałaršapat: S. Ēǰmiacni tparan, 1893. Greenwood, ‘Armenian Sources’, pp. 229–230.

the history of the chronicle

163

the tenth and eleventh centuries and the advent of the Crusades. Mxitʿar acknowledges use of ‘Aristakēs and Kozeṙn and Samuēl’,12 but it is less clear whether he relied directly on the text of Uṙhayecʿi.13 The first historian to acknowledge Uṙhayecʿi’s Chronicle was Kirakos Ganjakecʿi, a scholar writing in the mid-thirteenth century.14 Although there is some doubt as to whether Kirakos used the text of Uṙhayecʿi directly or only indirectly through Samuēl of Ani,15 he certainly knew that the Chronicle existed. The use of the Chronicle by these historians is significant not only in itself, but also in the fact that all three were residents of Ani whose histories focused primarily upon Greater Armenia rather than Syria and Cilicia. This in itself is evidence that the Chronicle enjoyed a wide reception and, no doubt, a flourishing manuscript tradition, within a century after Uṙhayecʿi’s death. Despite probable use by Vardan Arewelcʿi prior to 127116 and use of either Uṙhayecʿi’s text or that of Smbat Sparapēt by Mxitʿar of Ayrivankʿ at the end of the thirteenth century,17 as well as by the minor chronicles whose text informed the seventeenth-century historian Aṙakʿel of Tabriz,18 Uṙhayecʿi is not mentioned again by a later known historian until the eighteenth century, when the historian Mikʿayēl Čʿamčʿean described him: Մատթէոս Ուռհայեցի վաներէց՝ յերկոտասաներորդ դարուն։ Սա սկիզբն առնէ պատմել յԱշոտոյ երրորդէ յարքայէն Բագրատունեաց՝ մինչև ցԹորոս և ցԼևոն առաջին ցիշխանսն Ռուբինեանց։ Այլ պատմութիւն սորա և ժամանակագրութիւն մինչև ցՍմբատ

12 13 14

15 16 17

18

Kouymjian, ‘Problems of Medieval Armenian and Muslim Historiography: The Mxitʿar of Ani Fragment’, p. 466. A dependence on Uṙhayecʿi is asserted by Boyadjian, ‘Mxitʿar Anecʿi’, but neither by Kouymjian nor by Greenwood, ‘Armenian Sources’. Kirakos Ganjakecʿi. Patmutʿiwn Hayocʿ. Ed. by K.A. Melikʿ-Ohanjanyan. Yerevan: Haykakan ssṛ Gitutʿiunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun, 1961; English translation: Kirakos Gandzaketsi’s History of the Armenians. Ed. and trans. by R. Bedrosian. New York: Sources of the Armenian Tradition, 1986. Greenwood, ‘Armenian Sources’, pp. 229–230. Thomson, ‘The Historical Compilation of Vardan Arewelcʿi’, p. 136. Mxitʿar Ayrivanecʿi. Histoire chronologique. Trans. by M.-F. Brosset. 1869, p. 25. Most intriguingly, Mxitʿar identifies Uṙhayecʿi as a vardapet. See also Rapp, Medieval Georgian Historiography, p. 452. Aṙakʿel of Tabriz. Book of History. Trans. by G.A. Bournoutian. Costa Mesa, ca: Mazda Publishers, 2010, 497 n.1. Aṙakʿel acknowledges prior historians up to Aristakēs, and refers to Smbat as a historical figure, but acknowledges neither Smbat nor Uṙhayecʿi as a source.

164

chapter 8 երկրորդ՝ փոքր մի խառն են. իսկ ՚ի Սմբատայ և անդր ցամն Տեառն 1128. թէպէտև անհարթ են, բայց համարին ստուգութեամբ գրեալ։19

Matthew of Edessa the chaplain in the 12th century. He begins to narrate from Ašot iii king of the Bagratunis up to Tʿoros and Lewon the first princes of the Rubenids. Now his history and the chronology up to Smbat ii are a little confused; but from Smbat and thence to the year of the Lord 1128, although it is uneven, he wrote with certain reckoning.

The Manuscript Tradition of the Chronicle It is only at the end of the sixteenth century, well after the lives of all our historians save Aṙakʿel of Tabriz and Čʿamčʿean himself, that the first known surviving manuscript of the Chronicle was copied. It is nevertheless a testament to the popularity of the text, and the complexity of the tradition, that by the end of the seventeenth century there existed at least twenty copies spread from Poland to Iran. The fifteenth and sixteenth centuries were, by and large, disastrous ones for Armenian literature and culture.20 After the fall of the kingdom of Cilicia in 1375 to the Mamluks, Armenia as an autonomous principality ceased to exist for some time. The incursions of Timūr Lang into the Caucasus at the end of the fourteenth century, which also severely weakened the kingdom of Georgia to the north, were recorded by the vardapet Tʿovma Mecopʿecʿi21 as well as by many contemporary colophons. After his death in 1405, much of Armenia fell under the sway of the Kara Koyunlu tribe of Turkmen rulers. In some sense this was a brief period of respite for the Armenians, during which some of the principalities (e.g. Siwnik, Vayocʿ J̌or, Gugark, Arcʿax) were restored to the control of their hereditary naxarar families. Many cities, lands, and monasteries nevertheless fell victim to constant warfare. The Armenians did not fare so well under the rival Ak Koyunlu tribe who came to dominance in the 1460s, and the dawn of the sixteenth century brought the rise of the Safavid dynasty in Iran. Greater Armenia became a battleground between the Safavids and the Ottoman Turks for over a century, and the devastation is apparent not only in the surviving manuscript colophons but also 19 20 21

Čʿamčʿean, Patmutʿiwn Hayocʿ, pp. 15–16. For a good summary of these centuries see Kouymjian, ‘Armenia from the Fall of the Cilician Kingdom (1375) to the Forced Emigration under Shah Abbas (1604)’. Tʿovma Mecopʿecʿi. Patmagrutʿyun. Ed. by L. Xačʿikyan. Yerevan: Matenadaran, 1999.

the history of the chronicle

165

in the dearth of literature, historical or otherwise, that was produced in this period. A great many Armenians fled their country, emigrating either into the heartland of one or the other empire (e.g. Constantinople, Aleppo, Tabriz) or into the Christian-ruled countries of eastern Europe and the Black Sea (e.g. Kafa/Feodosiyya in the Crimea, Lviv in what was then Poland, or communities in Transylvania and Bulgaria).22 Many of these communities had roots in the thirteenth century or even earlier, but the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries proved to be the zenith of several. Although Armenia remained a battleground between Ottomans and Safavids well into the seventeenth century, it is clear from the history of manuscript production that a revival was already underway by 1600. This may have been facilitated by the growth of the diaspora and the establishment of monastic and scholastic centers in relative peace. While none of these communities had perfect security in the long term, their sheer multiplicity appears to have been a crucial factor in the rescue and revival of Armenian literature. Judging from the rapid spread of versions of the Chronicle, it was wellestablished by 1600 as an important text that merited preservation. The seventeenth-century manuscripts include two distinct groups, named here for the location of the oldest manuscript in each, as well as six manuscripts that do not fall neatly into either group. Among these six is the manuscript (Yerevan, Matenadaran ms 1896) generally regarded as the best surviving text. The Venice Group The oldest full manuscript—Venice, Mekhitarist library, 887—was copied between 1590 and 1600 by four separate scribes; the scribe responsible for the Chronicle’s text was Pōłos of Merzivon.23 The manuscript was owned by Petros Maxsouten in Aleppo. Although there is no direct indication of where the manuscript was copied, Aleppo or its environs seems a reasonable guess. The text is divided into many short chapters, which is characteristic of several later manuscripts that probably derive ultimately from this one. The section written by Pōłos begins with the Life of Nersēs by Mesrop (chapters 1– 27), and contains the short history of the katholikoi (chapter 28) just prior to the Chronicle (chapters 29–312) with no indication that they are separate works. After this group he has included several short histories on various subjects, 22 23

For more on the communities of eastern Europe, see Maksoudian, ‘Armenian Communities in Eastern Europe’. This is not quite the oldest textual witness; an extract from the Chronicle, containing the profession of faith of the ex-king Gagik ii that appears in the entry for 514 (1065/6), appears in Yerevan, Matenadaran ms 6686, copied in 1582.

166

chapter 8

totalling around ten pages. The remainder of the manuscript was written by different scribes, and includes the Buzandaran of Pʿawstos (fifth century), the History of Tʿovma Mecopʿecʿi (fourteenth century), an encyclical letter of the katholikos Nersēs Šnorhali (twelfth century), and a few shorter pieces. There is little in the way of a colophon, apart from what appears directly after the description of a catastrophic earthquake in 563 (1014/5): Փրկեսցէ զմեզ տէր Աստուած մեր այսպիսի դառն պատահմանէ և ի սաստիկ բարկութենէ, մանաւանդ զբազմամեղ և զանարժան զմեղաւք զառածեալ զանարհեստ գրիչս զՊօղոս երեց Մարզուանցին, որ բազում աշխատութեամբ գրեցի ըզպատմագիրքս այս. որք կարդայք և տեսանէք զբանս աղէտից վասն ամենայն մեղաց մարդկան։24

Save us our Lord God from such a bitter destiny and from severe ire, especially this all-sinful, distracted by impure sins, and artless scribe Pōłos priest of Marzivon, who with great labour wrote this book of history. You who read will see the words of misfortune concerning all the sins of man. Although the immediate context of the comment is the earthquake and the destruction it brought to the region, it reinforces the general impression that Uṙhayecʿi’s history was received as another testament to the misfortunes and trials of the Armenian people—that is, the understanding of Armenian history that has predominated at least since the depredations of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. This manuscript was probably the exemplar for a number of other surviving manuscripts. One is a seventeenth-century manuscript held in the same library (Venice, Mekhitarist library, 913) into which the history of Mecopʿecʿi was also copied, but about whose provenance nothing is known. Another is a manuscript held in Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Arm. 191, that was copied between 1642 and 1647 by an unnamed scribe in Constantinople and includes the Chronicle only up to the year 570 (1121/22). Another probable descendant is a seventeenth-century manuscript of unknown provenance now held in the Armenian patriarchate of Jerusalem, ms 1051. In 1699 another copy (Lebanon, monastery of Bzommar, ms 449) was made which also descends from Venice ms 887. The scribe and the place are not

24

Venice, Mekhitarist library, ms 887, f. 156r.

the history of the chronicle

167

recorded. The manuscript begins with a confession of faith by Vardan Yunanean, the Armenian Uniate archbishop of Lviv at the end of the seventeenth century, but it is unclear whether Yunanean himself was responsible for this work. After the Confession of Faith the scribe copied the full sequence of Mesrop’s history of St. Nersēs, the short history of the katholikoi, and the Chronicle. The chapter numberings were altered throughout. This is the manuscript whose text diverges most significantly from the others—while the content closely follows that of the Chronicle, entire sentences are added, deleted, or paraphrased in a manner that suggests that the scribe wished to create a contemporary version of the text. The confession of archbishop Yunanean links the manuscript securely with the Armenian Catholic community. Although it may have originated in Lviv, this need not be the case as Yunanean was known to have travelled widely in his attempts to spread Armenian Catholicism.25 The manuscript was in Rome in 1772 according to a later colophon preserved therein. In 1787 it was in Livorno, where it was copied by Father Karapet Halačean. Both exemplar and copy (Bzommar, ms 644) were eventually acquired by the monastery of Bzommar, itself an Armenian Catholic institution. Father Halačean was aware that the text he had was problematic, and did what he could to rectify the situation. In a colophon he remarks that the copyist, ‘although writing handsomely’, produced a corrupt copy of the history. He recognized Mesrop’s history of Nersēs for what it was and omitted it from his copy of the Chronicle. He also realised that the short history of the katholikoi could not have been written by Uṙhayecʿi, as it covers events well beyond the twelfth century. He chose to retain it nevertheless, as a coda at the end of the Chronicle. The Vienna Group The second-oldest manuscript—Vienna, Mekhitarist library, 574—represents a wholly different line of transmission. It was copied in 1601 by a priest named Grigor, probably in Constantinople. It was commissioned by Grigor ii, patriarch in Constantinople in that year, and a short biography of the patriarch appears in a later hand at the end of the manuscript. The scribe describes the work as ‘an arrangement called “Histories”, from diverse texts collected in one volume like an elegant flower-garden granted to me.’ The ‘flower-garden’ comprises a series of texts: a short history of Constantine the Great, a history of the Cross

25

Nagy, ‘Archbishop Vardan Hunanean’s Two Unpublished Letters of 1687 to the Holy See on the Armenians in Transylvania’, p. 310.

168

chapter 8

of Hacʿuni, the history of Kirakos Ganjakecʿi in which chapters 41 and 42 have been pulled out of sequence and moved to the beginning, a text attributed to the fifth-century Syrian bishop Zenob, a translation of the apocryphal ‘Letter from Pilate to Tiberius’, a tract entitled ‘On Nature’ by the aforementioned Syrian scholar Ishākhāʿ,26 and a version of the Chronicle whose text ends in the middle of the entry for 546 (1097/8). While Venice ms 887 can be reasonably certainly identified as the exemplar for most of its group, we cannot say the same about Vienna ms 574. It is merely the earliest to survive of several independent strands of this group. Even so, the particular collection of texts is as much a characteristic of the group as is the truncation of the Chronicle in the 546 entry. The second-earliest surviving member of the group is one of two copies made by the scribe Zatik in Lviv (Yerevan, Matenadaran ms 5587), in which the history of Constantine the Great has been moved in the sequence to just after the ‘Letter from Pilate’, and the history of Tʿovma Mecopʿecʿi has been included after the Chronicle. This modified sequence, with only minor variation, can be observed in almost every subsequent copy within the Vienna group, and indeed many of the manuscripts in this group were consulted for an edition of Mecopʿecʿi’s history.27 Another strand in the group appears in the mid-seventeenth century and includes three manuscripts: Yerevan, Matenadaran mss 1768 and 3071 and London, British Library or5260. While the first of these was written in an unknown place28 by an unidentified scribe, we have rather more information concerning the other two. Matenadaran ms 3071 was copied in Yovhannovankʿ monastery in modern-day Armenia between 1651 and 1661. The scribe, Zakʿaria, left an extensive series of colophons over the ten years it evidently took him to finish the work, to which he referred as a book of histories. London ms or5260 was copied either in the village of Dseł or the monastery of Sanahin by a priest named Sargis, around 1659. The text of the Chronicle is followed by a note that exists verbatim in all three manuscripts, acknowledging that the remainder of the text is missing and that the exemplar ended here. Without a secure date for Matenadaran ms 1768 it is difficult to establish the precise relationship of these three manuscripts, although comparison of the texts suggests that Matenadaran ms 1768 was an exemplar for at least London ms or5260. 26 27 28

This may be the same Ishākhāʿ or Iṣoʿ who helped to translate the chronicle of Michael the Syrian into Armenian; see Michael the Syrian, Chronique, p. 6,11–12. Mecopʿecʿi, Patmagrutʿyun, introduction p. lxv. R. Kévorkian and C. Mutafian have placed the manuscript in Armenia: see Kévorkian, Arménie entre Orient et Occident: trois mille ans de civilisation, p. 238 n. 104.

the history of the chronicle

169

In 1647 a fourth version within this group appeared: a manuscript (Matenadaran ms 3519) copied in Marosvásárhely, now Târgu Mureş in Romania, by Xačʿik Kafayecʿi. The text of the Chronicle is truncated, not at the entry for 546 (1097/8) that is usual for this group, but near the end of the entry for the death of Grigor Vkayasēr in 1106. The 546 entry which usually marks the end of the manuscripts in this group contains a colophon in the main body of text, to the end of the page: ‘Oh beloved and devoted brother, pardon the deficiency of words, because the exemplar ends here because the writing was not completed.’29 The text resumes normally on the next page. This manuscript belongs to the second group, transmitted with the long sequence of texts as described above. It has been consulted for the edition of the Book about Nature by Ishākhāʿ (as manuscript h)30 as well as the critical edition of the history of Tʿovma Mecopʿecʿi (as manuscript f).31 The Copyist of Lviv That more than one version of the Chronicle existed was apparently well known early on. Many of the scribes were aware of significant gaps or truncations in their exemplars, and some left an appropriate amount of space in their own manuscript to allow for the eventuality of these gaps being filled. The most concrete evidence that scholars in the seventeenth century were aware of multiple versions of the text comes from one scribe, identified only as Zatik son of Połtn and working in Lviv in 1617. He made two copies, both of which are now held in the Matenadaran in Yerevan. Zatik did not leave a substantial colophon in either text—he noted only his own identity and the year in which he worked. One of them, Matenadaran ms 5587, belongs to the Vienna group although it was not copied from Vienna ms 574. The other manuscript, Matenadaran ms 1731, begins like the manuscripts of the Venice group with Mesrop’s history of Nersēs, and to judge by the index he provided, Zatik evidently followed the consensus of this group in reading the short history of the katholikoi as a preamble to the Chronicle. The text is copied with neither division nor subheading, and a relatively large portion of Book Two is omitted that begins with the final attempt by the emperor Constantine Doukas to unify the Greek and Armenian churches in 514 (1065/6) up to the point at which the Vienna group ends, without any note in the text that the omission has occurred. This may represent an omission in his exemplar. It could 29

Ո՜վ սիրելի և բարեկամ եղբայրք, անմեղադիր լերուք բանիս պակասութեանն, քանզի աւրինակն աստ աւարտեցաւ, քանզի կատարեալ չէր գրաց։

30 31

Išōx, Girkʿ i veray Bnutʿean, p. 75. Mecopʿecʿi, Patmagrutʿyun, introduction p. lxv.

170

chapter 8

equally suggest that Zatik realised during his work on the 514 entry that he already had a copy of the text up to mid-546 and simply chose not to repeat the labour. This manuscript of Zatik’s, or a close copy, eventually came to Isfahan where a priest named Sargis copied it in 1669 (Venice, Mekhitarist ms 901). Sargis did not copy Mesrop’s history of Nersēs, but followed his exemplar in the attribution to Uṙhayecʿi and inclusion in the Chronicle of the short history of the katholikoi. He intended to introduce divisions into the text by means of illuminated capitals, but these were not finished and so the divisions are marked by the omission of a capital letter. The Vałaršapat Primary Text In 1623 a version of the Chronicle (Yerevan, Matenadaran ms 1731) was copied in Aleppo by a scribe named Awetikʿ, at the request of one Hoja Mahmoud Hamtʿecʿi and at the school of Israyēl vardapet Hamtʿecʿi. Awetikʿ left several blank pages at the beginning of the manuscript, beginning the text midsentence near the beginning of the entry for 418 (969/70). The text does not follow the Venice text particularly closely, although a later link might be detected from a pencilled-in է (7) that corresponds to the correct chapter number for the 418 entry in the Venice sequence, if the short history of the katholikoi is omitted. Awetikʿ was evidently aware not only that there was a gap in the text of Book One (from the point in the 465 (1016/17) entry at which Senekʿerim Arcruni resolves to cede Vaspurakan to Basil ii up to a point near the end of the first prophecy of Kozeṙn) but also knew the rough size of the gap and left nearly fourteen pages free to allow the text to be filled in. The second gap common to most of the manuscript tradition, an abridgement of the last entry for 518 (1069/70) and a wholesale omission of the first entry for the following year, is not noted. This manuscript would be no more than usually remarkable were it not for the close textual affinity it has to a manuscript copied in 1689, now held in Yerevan as Matenadaran ms 1896. This manuscript is the only one to preserve the text of the two passages for which gaps were observed in the remainder of the manuscript tradition, and it is also significant for the circumstances of its creation. In the latter half of the seventeenth century, and in particular between 1672 and 1689, the Amrdōlu monastery in Bitlis perhaps singlehandedly saved several works of medieval Armenian history, including the works of Agatʿangełos, Koriwn, Łazar Pʿarpecʿi, Sebēos, Łewond, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertcʿi, and the Armenian version of the Kʿartʿlis Cxovreba (Georgian Chronicle). This was done under the direction of Vardan Bałišecʿi, the abbot of Amrdōlu between 1662/3

the history of the chronicle

171

and 1704, who commissioned four manuscripts that contained these histories along with a host of others that survived independently.32 Matenadaran ms 1896 is one of these manuscripts. Along with the Chronicle of Uṙhayecʿi it preserves the tenth-century history of Yovhannēs Drasxanakertcʿi and a pair of poems by the sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century poet Simēon Aparanecʿi. Although, as Thomson notes, the Chronicle would have survived without the intervention of Vardan Bałišecʿi, this manuscript provides both passages omitted from all other surviving copies. The manuscript opens with the short history of the katholikoi, under a heading that makes clear that this history was considered part of the Chronicle. The first ‘missing’ passage begins on the second column of f. 15v and is written to fill precisely five columns, as if space was left intentionally for it. The second ‘missing’ passage begins on f. 58v, where a scrap of text is pasted over what was originally written—presumably the beginning of the abridgement of the 518 entry contained in the other manuscripts. The new text, written in a different hand, carries on for four more columns until the original hand resumes on f. 60r with no notice or comment. Despite the reasonably extensive colophon at the end of the text, there is no mention of how these passages came to be restored. We know that Bałišecʿi was responsible for a copy of the history of Łewond made in Van in 1669, in which the scribe was able to supply missing parts of his exemplar from a thirteenth-century copy that was restored in Bitlis. It is reasonable to guess that an older copy of Uṙhayecʿi’s Chronicle also passed through Bitlis during this time, and was later lost. Whatever the case, the transmission of the Chronicle owes nearly as much of a debt to Bałišecʿi as does the transmission of the works that would otherwise have been wholly lost.

Print Publication and Modern Reception The first printed publication of the Chronicle and its continuation was not in its own language. In 1850, Edouard Dulaurier published a French translation of the portion of the text that describes the arrival and the activities of the Crusaders in the East. In his introduction to this text, Dulaurier explains that he is not the first to translate Uṙhayecʿi’s work: Part of this piece, which goes up to the year 560 of the Armenian era (1111 a.d.) has already been translated by M. Cirbied, professor of Arme-

32

Thomson, ‘Bitlis and Armenian Histories’.

172

chapter 8

nian at the special School of living Oriental languages. But this version was based on a manuscript at the Bibliothèque Nationale of Paris, transcribed in a quite recent era,33 by a scribe in a difficult and ignorant hand, which has disfigured the text with errors so numerous and omissions so frequent that his copy is often unintelligible. I have no need to say that the work of M. Cirbied reflects the imperfection of the sole manuscript that he had in his hands. Moreover, this scholar was wrong to eliminate from his translation the mention of many religious facts that are essential to the history of the Crusades, and some celestial or natural phenomena, explained by Uṙhayecʿi with the spirit of naive and superstitious faith that illustrate so well the century in which he lived.34 For his own translation, Dulaurier used a manuscript provided for him by the Mekhitarist Fathers of San Lazzaro in Venice.35 This copy, covering the years 545 to 611 in the Armenian era (1096–1162), was based on four exemplars held in the Venice library, and the copyist noted the variants he encountered in the source manuscripts. In 1858 Dulaurier published a translation of the entire Chronicle. He based his translation upon the two manuscripts held by the Bibliothèque Nationale— ms Arm. 200 used by Cirbied and ms Arm. 191 (one of the Venice group described above), which Dulaurier considered to be a better quality manuscript— along with the partial copy he had obtained from Venice. This was the only published version of the Chronicle, in any language, for 11 years, and was the only Western-language translation available until 1991. The publication of the text in its original language soon followed. In 1869 an Armenian edition of the full Chronicle was published, based upon two or three manuscripts held by the library of the Armenian Patriarchate in Jerusalem, and upon Dulaurier’s translation at times. The Jerusalem edition was based on those few manuscripts available there, as the editors describe in their preface: Կրկին օրինակք էին առ ձեռնպատրաստք ի սկսանելն զհրատարակութիւն գրոցս. առաջինն 1107 համարաւ, բոլորագիր հին հասարակ թղթեայ և առանց թուականի, երկրորդն 1051 համարաւ, նօտրագիր, անթուական և նոյնատեսակ թղթով, որոց գրչութիւն ոչ անցանէ զԺԵ դարն։ Երկոքին ևս ունին ի սկիզբն զպատմութիւն Սրբոյն 33 34 35

This presumably refers to Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Arm. 200, which was copied in 1728 in a hand that is, indeed, difficult. Mattʿēos Uṙhayecʿi (Matthieu d’Édesse), Récit de la première croisade, p. viii. Venice, Mekhitarist ms 986.

the history of the chronicle

173

Ներսէսի Պարթևի արարեալ ի Մեսրովպայ Երիցուէ. և ըզթիւ գլխակարգութեանցն խառնեալ կամ զերկրորդին ընդ առաջնոյն կցեալ։ Դամբանական ճառն Բարսեղ Վարդապետի ի միումն ևեթ [նօտրագիր] օրինակին գտանէր, որ չէր ազատ ի բազմապատիկ վրիպակաց իմաստից և բառից, որպէս էին և ամբողջ օրինակքն երկոքին, վասն որոյ ի տեղիս տեղիս զմթագոյն և զդժուարիմաց բառս և զիմաստս ուղղեցաք ի վերայ գաղղիական թարգմանութեան, ոչ զանց առնելով և առանձին ի կարգի ծանօթութեանցն նշանակել ըզնոսին, և ուրեք ի փակագծի ամփոփեցաք զբառսն որ ինքնին պահանջէին ի լուսաւորութիւն մտացն։36

Two exemplars were consulted in the publication of this edition. The first is number 1107, old boloragir on common paper and without a date; the second is number 1051, notragir, undatable and with the same type of paper … Both of them begin with the history of St. Nerses the Parthian by Mesrop the Priest; and the chapter division numbering has joined the two together. The funereal oration of Barseł Vardapet was found in only one (notragir) exemplar, and contained multiple errors in meaning and in expression, as did the entirety of both exemplars; consequently in various places we have improved upon obscure and difficult phrases and meanings in the French translation, and have included a comment to note this where appropriate, and in some places we have enclosed words in parentheses which were required for elucidation of understanding. The descriptions given in this preface match those of the Jerusalem manuscript catalogues, although ms 1107 was dated by the cataloguer to the seventeenth century.37 A third manuscript reached the editors during the publication of the third book of the Chronicle, which is described as ‘notragir, on common paper and with careless handwriting … from Amida.’ They hoped to incorporate its text into their version of the continuation by Grigor, and in particular into the funereal oration of Barseł Vardapet, but it cannot be confirmed that they did so. This corresponds to the catalogue description of Jerusalem ms 3651, although no indication is given of its provenance.38 This 1869 edition was itself consulted for the preparation of the edition that stands today: the edition published in 1898 in Vałaršapat, by Mambrē Mēlikʿ-

36 37 38

Patmutʿiwn Mattʿēosi Uṙhayecʿwoy, introduction p. ii. Połarean, Mayr cʿucʿak jeṙagracʿ srbocʿ Yakobeancʿ, p. 161. Połarean, Mayr cʿucʿak hayerēn jeṙagracʿ srbocʿ Yakobeancʿ, p. 71.

174

chapter 8

Adamean and Nersēs Tēr Mikʿayēlean. The editors used six manuscripts, all now held in the Matenadaran in Yerevan, as well as the Jerusalem text. Their discovery of the ‘missing’ passages in Matenadaran ms 1896 convinced them to use this text as their base. They believed it to have been copied from the original, or from a manuscript very close to the original: Մատթէոս Ուռհայեցու ժամանակագրութեան այս երկրորդ հրատարակութիւնը կատարուած է Մայր Աթոռի Մատենադարանի 6 ձեռնագիրների և նախկին Երուսաղէմեան տպագրի համեմատութեամբ։ Իբրև բանգիր ընդունուած է ձեռագիրներից ամենաընտիր օրինակը №.1693, իսկ միւս ձեռագիրների և տպագրի տարբերութիւնները նշանակուած են լուսանցքում։ №.1693 ձեռագիրը գրուած է «ի Յակովբ երիցուէ յամի ՌՃԼԸ» նօտրգրիվ թղթի վերայ. հնարաւորութեան չափ ջանք է գործ դրուած անփոփոխ պահել սորա բնագիրը։39

This second edition of Mattʿēos Uṙhayecʿi’s Žamanakagrutʿiwn was completed at the Mother Seat Matenadaran through a comparison of 6 manuscripts and the previous Jerusalem printed text. The main text is taken from the most accurate exemplar of the manuscripts №.1693 [presentday 1896], and the differences of the other manuscripts and printed text are marked in the margins. Manuscript №.1693 was copied ‘by Yakob the priest in the year 1138 [1689/90]’ in notragir script; a measure of care was likely taken to keep the original work unaltered. The six manuscripts included in the edition were chosen after an examination of at least eleven, the remainder of which were ‘of secondary value’. Due to the editors’ belief in the integrity of Matenadaran ms 1896, the Vałaršapat edition was not a critical one. Only a very few variants of the other manuscripts are included and, although the two significant textual gaps are noted in the preface, they are not indicated in the text itself and the alternative synopsis of the last entry for 518 (1069/79) is nowhere given. To compound the problem, when the Vałaršapat text was re-printed alongside the modern Armenian translation by Hratch Bartikian in 1973,40 the apparatus was discarded. As a result most copies of the Vałaršapat text in print today have been reduced to little more than a transcription of a single, albeit important, manuscript. 39 40

Žamanakagrutʿiwn (1898), preface. Žamanakagrutʿiwn. Ed. and trans. by H. Bartʿikyan. Yerevan: Erevani Hamalsarani Hratarakčʿutʿyun, 1973.

the history of the chronicle

175

Neither of these editions made use of the manuscripts held outside Armenia or Jerusalem. Consequently, the manuscripts held by the Mekhitarist Fathers, including the two oldest known to exist, have never been published in any form. The Paris manuscripts are published only indirectly, through the translation of Dulaurier. Since 1898, there have been two further translations of the Chronicle. A Turkish translation was published in 196241 and an English translation in 1991.42 Neither of these ventures deeply into scholarship of the text itself. It has been observed that Armenian historians of this period have been well-studied for their factual treatment of events, but almost no attempt has been made to approach their works from a conceptual or socio-political perspective.43 The Chronicle is an excellent example of this phenomenon. There has been almost no in-depth study of the text beyond the editions and translations described above, despite its wide use in historical works on the Crusades and on Byzantium, Armenia, and the Near East during the eleventh and twelfth centuries. One survey of Armenian literature describes the Chronicle thus: After the twelfth century Armenian historiography lost its artistic character and became a dry chronological record. The artistic flair, which infused Armenian historiography with its lyricism, constructed its models, characters, and actions, manifesting itself in works of literary value, gradually gave way to chronicles and annals devoid of their former literary merit. Such was the Chronicle of the historian Matthew of Edessa, covering the events from 952 to 1136.44 Other surveys omit the Chronicle entirely, presumably due to its perceived lack of ‘literary value’.45 Whatever the relative merits of these surveys, the verdict appears unanimous. Uṙhayecʿi’s prose lacks artistic merit; his description of events do not create aesthetic pleasure. This perceived handicap has helped to prevent schol-

41 42 43 44 45

Urfalı Mateos vekayi-nâmesi, 952–1136 ve Papaz Grigor’un zeyli, 1136–1162. Ed. and trans. by H.D. Andreasyan. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1962. A.E. Dostourian. Armenia and the Crusades: The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa. Belmont, ma: University Press of America, 1993. Arutjunova-Fidanjan, ‘L’image de l’empire byzantin’, p. 8. Hayrapetean, A History of Armenian Literature, p. 231. e.g. Dowsett, ‘Armenian Historiography’; Cowe, ‘Medieval Armenian Literary and Cultural Trends’.

176

chapter 8

arship of the text. The very description of the Chronicle as a ‘dry chronological record’ presupposes that its author had no higher purpose, and has helped to create a dangerous impression of Uṙhayecʿi’s ‘impartiality’. It is only in understanding his literary and philosophical purpose that present-day scholarship can rescue Uṙhayecʿi’s work from its intellectual purgatory of untrustworthy dry ‘fact’.

chapter 9

Conclusion To those Christians who witnessed it, the military successes of the First Crusade were nothing short of miraculous—especially coming as they did within living memory of the apocalyptic fervor that had been in the air sixty years previously. Little wonder that a priest in Edessa made a connection between the millennial expectation of the return of Satan and his final defeat by Christ, the arc of the history of an autonomous Armenia that ended so catastrophically between 1045 and 1065, and the arrival of a valiant and, evidently, divinely protected army of soldiers openly and explicitly fighting for Christianity. Having connected these events, he could not live with himself unless he ensured their posterity. A generation later, the final defeat of Satan no longer appeared so close at hand, nor did the kingdom of Christ on earth. The apocalyptic significance of the Crusade was much more difficult to see, and Uṙhayecʿi doubted his ability to find the deeper meaning and predict its outcome. How could the integration of these powerful Frankish adventurers into the multicultural milieu of the Near East fit into the prophecies of St. Nersēs, of St. Sahak, of Methodius, of Yovhannēs Kozeṙn? Nevertheless, Uṙhayecʿi had developed a taste for historical composition and had found support and advice from learned clerics within his community, and he had by now a positive horror of allowing the history of his times to be left unwritten. The record of the final thirty years within the Chronicle perforce sent a mixed message, attempting to show both the apocalyptic terror engendered by Satan and the ‘slow strengthening’ of the Christian forces that would bring the Last World Emperor to his rule. Whether through death or despair, Uṙhayecʿi wrote no more after 1130 or 1131. When the fortunes of the Franks reversed, beginning with the fall of Edessa in 1144 and particularly with the failure of the Second Crusade by 1149, it was precisely the opposite outcome to that heralded by Kozeṙn’s second prophecy: rather than Christ’s final victory after fifty years, it was the beginning of the end for Christian power in the Near East. To those who came after 1150 and wished to understand something of Armenian history, the prophecies that were so crucial to Uṙhayecʿi’s understanding diminished in importance, and the Chronicle came to be used as a straightforward record of its times. Even disregarding its literary framework and prophetic explanation, Uṙhayecʿi’s work was enormously informative about Byzantium, Armenia, Syria and beyond, and the later historians used it in this way.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004330351_010

178

chapter 9

When the historians of the Crusades discovered the Chronicle in the nineteenth century, it was immediately and enthusiastically accepted as an ‘independent’, if ‘ignorant’, source from the point of view of Armenians and other eastern Christians affected by the First Crusade. Literary and historiographical analysis of the text has been extremely slow to follow. The primary purpose of this study has been to rectify that in some measure, by approaching the Chronicle from the mindset of the man who wrote it. This requires a consideration of his philosophy of history both in 1102 and nearly thirty years later, and a close examination of the vehicles through which he expressed that philosophy: the prophetic texts of Yovhannēs Kozeṙn elaborated in the first book, and the author’s own prologues to the second and third books wherein he sets out his composition methods, his justification for writing, and his perception of his times. The prophecies of Kozeṙn are the centrepiece of Book One, and also the framework upon which Uṙhayecʿi’s concept of the history of his times is built. The Chronicle was written as a record of the fulfilment of these prophecies, and in particular the second prophecy that was dated by Uṙhayecʿi to the Armenian year 485 (1036/7) but was extended during the early twelfth century to encompass the events of the late eleventh. This prophecy sprang from the tradition of the Pseudo-Methodian Apocalypse, a seventh-century Syriac text that was circulated widely in the Greek- and Latin-speaking world and also made an appearance in the Armenian tradition. It sets out not only a general trend of man’s descent into wickedness, but also a specific timeline for the redemption of the Christians. The leaders and populace of Armenia were to fall into sin and weakness; their consequent punishment would take the form of Turkish invasions. After sixty years of invasion and misery, the First Crusade would arrive to liberate Jerusalem. This would not immediately bring peace; instead, it would usher in fifty further years of persecution and Christian suffering, this time at the hands of the infidel enemy traditionally identified as ‘Persians’. Finally, the ‘Roman Emperor’ would re-assert his authority over the whole of Christendom, the Persians would be driven beyond the Biblical river Gihon, and the final reign of peace would thereby be inaugurated. Having set out this pattern for history, Uṙhayecʿi has taken pains to adapt the course of events to fit it. This is most evident in his portrayal of the fortunes of the Armenian nobility throughout the Chronicle. The kings of Armenia are portrayed as strong, wise, and valiant in the tenth century, a characterisation that is maintained even where chronological confusion has led Uṙhayecʿi to assign eleventh-century events, including a civil war between brother-kings, to this ‘virtuous’ era. The nobility is shown to weaken steadily throughout the eleventh century, as the kingdom of Armenia first loses its independence to

conclusion

179

the Byzantine Empire in the 1040s and then loses its territory to Turkish and Kurdish invasions by the mid-1060s. Uṙhayecʿi’s need to portray the Armenians as helpless and leaderless causes him to pass over certain events in the late eleventh century, such as the establishment of the Rubenid princes in Cilicia and that of Goł Vasil in Kesun and Raban. It has also played a role in his unremittingly negative portrayal of Philaretos, a warlord of Armenian descent who took advantage of the power vacuum after the Byzantine defeat at the battle of Manzikert in 1071 to create his own principality centred at Marash. Although the prophecies of Kozeṙn were taken by Uṙhayecʿi to refer most specifically to the fate of the Armenians, his portrayal of the surrounding powers may be understood insofar as it helps to explain the roles that Uṙhayecʿi assigned each of them in the fulfilment of Armenian destiny. The first of these is the empire of Byzantium. The relationship between Byzantium and Armenia had long been informed both by the cultural affinity that had its root in their mutual Christian identity and by the ever-present conflict, both in the secular and the ecclesiastical spheres, between Byzantine (Chalcedonian) claims of suzerainty and expectation of Christian unity versus Armenian apostolic (miaphysite) assertion of independence and cultural links to the Iranian world. Uṙhayecʿi’s portrayal of Byzantium was positive so long as the empire assumed the role of fellow-Christian protector of Armenia. The embodiment of this ideal was the emperor Basil ii, who by the twelfth century was portrayed as a ‘father’ to the Armenian nation who placed the welfare of his Armenian subjects foremost in his priorities. The subsequent course of Byzantine history and Byzantine relations with Armenians in the Chronicle, particularly the annexation of the Armenian kingdoms and the military loss of Armenian territory amid constant pressure on the Armenians to convert to Chalcedonianism, is presented as a great betrayal of the ideal for which Basil stood. Although Uṙhayecʿi does not make such grave chronological errors in his presentation of Byzantine history as he occasionally does for Armenian history, there are several instances wherein he re-orders events in order to achieve a better fit with the structure of Kozeṙn’s prophecies. Uṙhayecʿi’s portrayals of relations with the Muslim emirates of the tenth and eleventh century, and with the Crusaders who appeared at the turn of the twelfth, have behind them a less complex agenda than in the case of Byzantium. In addition, despite the appearance of both groups within the second prophecy of Kozeṙn, neither played a nuanced role within that apocalyptic vision. Without the fraught conflict between Christian unity and cultural traditions that marked Byzantine/Armenian relations, Uṙhayecʿi had less need to embellish his presentation of Muslims or Franks within the Chronicle.

180

chapter 9

This is not to say that the Armenians did not have a complex and longstanding intercourse with the Muslim world—there is no question that they did. Yet their historiographical tradition, rooted in a particular Christian eschatological view of the Armenians as the chosen people of God, had a strong tendency to conceal Armenian involvement in the Muslim world, at least through the eleventh century. On this point Uṙhayecʿi did his best to follow the traditional line. In accordance with this well-documented model of Armenian historiography, Muslims are frequently demonised as ‘infidels’, there are many descriptions of raids on Christian territory, and the suffering that resulted is explained as the expression of divine anger at the Christian populace. They can also be seen as vehicles of divine agency when they act generously toward the Christians in their power. This rather simplistic model usually served to mask a pragmatic modus vivendi that often developed between Muslim leaders and the Armenians subject to them, and Uṙhayecʿi’s text is no exception. The wealth of detail he provides about the internal affairs of the Abbasid caliphate, and the praise he reserves for benevolent Muslim leaders, highlights this dichotomy. Uṙhayecʿi had no model within Armenian historiography to guide his portrayal of the Crusaders. This gave him great difficulty when he came to compose Book Three, which compounded the confusion he felt when trying to explain the course of events since the capture of Jerusalem, which had been neither stirringly successful nor thoroughly disastrous for the Christians. The Crusaders quickly won control of Uṙhayecʿi’s city of Edessa and expanded their hold to much of the surrounding territory over the following two decades, often at the expense of Armenian governors and warlords. The image he gives of the Crusaders is consequently profoundly mixed. By the time he wrote, Uṙhayecʿi clearly did not believe that the Crusaders would be the instrument of redemption for which the second prophecy called—despite their apparent permanence in Syria and Palestine, they were assigned no particular role in Kozeṙn’s prophetic vision of history after their capture of Jerusalem. He had nevertheless come to accept their rule over the eastern Christian territories in which they lived, and acknowledged, despite the occasional violence that accompanied their rise to power, that the majority of them ruled their territories well enough. Although the Chronicle does not cover ecclesiastical matters to the same extent as other histories, including the later Armenian-language history of Stepʿanos Orbelian or the Syriac-language chronicle of Michael the Syrian, it was written from within an ecclesiastical context. Uṙhayecʿi describes himself only as an Edessene priest and monk, but his frequent reference to the deeds and deaths of well-known clerics and vardapets, as well as his apparent dependence upon the texts of clerical scholars such as Yovhannēs Kozeṙn

conclusion

181

and Yakob Sanahnecʿi and his long explanation of the assistance he sought from other scholars in the task of composing the Chronicle, demonstrate that he was writing from within an Armenian ecclesiastical confraternity. In this sense, the attitudes expressed by Uṙhayecʿi toward the church, toward Armenian history, and toward Byzantines, Muslims, and Crusaders are attitudes that he developed from within the Armenian ecclesiastical community of Edessa, Syria, and Mesopotamia. This realisation in turn helps the reader to find a terminus ante quem for the composition of Uṙhayecʿi’s text. In 1137, the Byzantine emperor Iōannēs ii Komnenos went on campaign against the Armenian Rubenids of Cilicia and the Latin prince of Antioch. Although the campaign was successful, it precipitated a great deal of diplomatic activity between the papacy on the one hand and the Syrian and Armenian miaphysite churches on the other which culminated in the Jerusalem synod of 1141 and an agreement of confessional unity between the churches. Given Uṙhayecʿi’s position within the community of the Armenian church, the ambivalent sentiments he expresses toward the Latins and the complimentary (though vague) picture he paints of Iōannēs Komnenos suggest that he must have finished writing Book Three well before 1137, when relations between Latin and Armenian began to become dramatically closer. The prophetic timeline according to which he had framed the Chronicle was, he believed, less than two decades from completion; it was vitally important that someone ‘[record] this massacre and tribulation for future times, for the good era, when God will give to the faithful the era that will indeed be full of every joy.’ Uṙhayecʿi was unable to finish his work; his last entry came three years short of his goal. The Chronicle he left nevertheless reflects his belief that, though he may not live to see it himself, the final reign of peace on earth was imminent.

appendix a

Text and Translation of Selected Excerpts from the Chronicle List of Witnesses A B C D E F G H I J Jer K L O V W X Y Z

Matenadaran 1896 Matenadaran 1767 Matenadaran 3071 Matenadaran 3519 Matenadaran 3520 Matenadaran 1731 Matenadaran 2644 Matenadaran 1768 Matenadaran 1769 Matenadaran 5587 Jerusalem printed edition Bzommar 449 London or 5260 Oxford ms Arm e.32 Venice 887 Vienna 574 Venice 901 Venice 913 Venice 917

(1689) (1623) (1651–1661; from 1898 Vałaršapat edition only) (1647) (17th c.; from 1898 Vałaršapat edition only) (1617) (1850–1857; from 1898 Vałaršapat edition only) (17th c.) (1664) (1617) (1869) (1699) (1660) (17th c., around 1703) (1590–1600) (1601) (1669) (17th c.) (17th c.)

Given here is a critical edition and English translation for the text of both prophecies of Yovhannēs Kozeṙn, as well as the two autobiographical statements that Uṙhayecʿi left in the Chronicle. The edition and translation were made based on the text of fifteen manuscripts, the Vałaršapat edition, and the Jerusalem edition. Variants are noted in the translation where they give an alternate interpretation of the text.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004330351_011

184

appendix a

Text First Prophecy of Yovhannēs Kozeṙn, Armenian era 478 (1029/30) The witnesses C, H, and L lack this entire portion of text, and are excluded from the apparatus. Ի թուականութեան Հայոց 478 յամս կայսերն Յունաց Վասլի, եղև յերկինս ահաւոր նշան և սոսկալի, և բարկութիւն ի վերայ ամենայն արարածոց, ի հոկտեմբեր ամսոյ երիս յերրորդ ժամու աւուրն, պատառեցաւ վերին հաստատութիւնն երկնից յարևելից կուսէ՝ մինչև յարևմուտս, ընդ երկուս հերձաւ կապուտ երկինդ. և լոյս պայծառ յերկիր թափեցաւ ի հիւսիսային կողմանէ, և մեծաւ շարժմամբ դողաց ամենայն երկիր. և նախ քան զնուազիլ լուսոյն՝ եղև գոջիւն և թնդիւն ահաւոր ի վերայ ամենայն արարածոց, խաւարեցաւ արեգակն և աստեղք երևեցան որպէս ի մէջ գիշերի, և սուգ զգեցան ամենայն երկիր, և դառն արտասուաւք աղաղակէին ամենայն ազինք առ Աստուած։ Եւ ապա յետ երեք աւուր ժողովեցան ամենայն իշխանք և ազատքն հրամանաւ թագաւորին Հայոց Յովհաննիսի, և եկեալ առաջի սուրբ վարդապետին Յովհաննու Կոզեռանն, որ էր այր աստուածազգեաց և հրեշտակակրաւն և լի իսկ առաքելական և մարգարէական գրոց գիտութեամբ։ Եւ յորժամ եկին իշխանքն Հայոց՝ հարցանել զնա և իմանալ վասն հրաշալի տեսլեանն և նշանին, և տեսին զսուրբ վարդապետն Յովհաննէս՝ անկեալ ի վերայ երեսաց իւրոց տրտմութեամբ, և լայր դառնապէս։ Եւ ի հարցանելն նոցա, նա դառն ոգով և աղիողորմ հառաչանաւք ետ պատասխանի և ասաց. «Ո՜վ որդիք, լուարուք ինձ՝ վայ և եղուկ է ամենայն մարդկան զի ահա այսաւր հազար ամ է կապանացն սատանայի՝ զոր կապեաց տէրն մեր յիսուս Քրիստոս խաչիւն իւրով սրբով, մանաւանդ իւր սուրբ մկրտութեամբն ի Յորդանան գետն։ Եւ արդ արձակեցաւ Սատանայ ի կապանաց իւրոց, ըստ վկայութեան տեսլեանն Յովհաննու աւետարանչին. որպէս ասաց նմա հրեշտակն Աստուծոյ թէ 1000 ամ կապեսցի Սատանայ, և դարձեալ արձակեսցի ի կապանաց իւրոց։ Եւ ահա այսաւր արձակեցաւ Սատանայ ի հազար ամէ կապանաց իւրոց, որ Հայոց թուականն 478 ամ է. և կալ զառաջինն 552 որ լինի 1030 ամ. զերեսուն ամն տուր յառաջ քան զմկրտութիւնն, և կալ զհազարն մինչև ցայսաւր։ Եւ արդ վասն այսորիկ եղև պատառումն երկնից։ Եւ ահա յայսմհետէ ոչ ոք կարասցէ կալ հաստատուն ի հաւատս Քրիստոսի, և ի պատուիրանսն Աստուծոյ։ Ոչ հայրապետ և ոչ վարդապետ. ոչ եպիսկոպոս և ոչ քահանայ. ոչ աբեղայ և ոչ կրաւնաւոր, ոչ իշխան և ոչ ժողովուրդ. իշխանք յարենան ի գողս, և յաւազակս և ի յափշտակաւղս։ Դատաւորք ի 22–24 ըստ վկայութեան տեսլեանն Յովհաննու...արձակեսցի ի կապանաց իւրոց։] cf. Revelation 20.

5

10

15

20

25

30

text of selected excerpts from the chronicle

185

First Prophecy of Yovhannēs Kozeṙn, 478 (1029/30) In 478 of the Armenian reckoning (1029/30), in the years of the Greek kaisar Vasil, there appeared in the heavens a frightful and horrible sign, and anger against all creation. On the third of the month of October at the third hour of the day the upper firmament was rent from the east side to the west, the blue sky was split in two and a brilliant light was thrown down on the earth from the north, and the entire earth trembled with a great shaking; and before the light faded there was a shout and a frightful noise over all creation; the sun darkened and the stars appeared as if in the middle of the night, and all the world was clothed in mourning, and all peoples cried out to God with bitter tears. And then after three days all the princes and nobles were assembled by order of the Armenian king Yovhannēs, and they came before the holy vardapet Yovhannēs Kozeṙn, who was a divinely-clothed man who led an angelic life, and was truly full of understanding of apostolic and prophetic writings. And when the Armenian princes came to question him and to understand about the marvellous spectacle and sign, they saw that the holy vardapet Yovhannēs had fallen upon his face in sorrow and was crying bitterly. And when they questioned him, he gave an answer with a bitter air and miserable sighs and said ‘O children, listen to me; woe and wretchedness to all mankind, for behold today is one thousand years since the binding of Satan whom our Lord Jesus Christ bound with his holy cross, and particularly with his holy baptism in the Jordan river. And now Satan has been freed from his bonds, according to the testimony of the vision of John the evangelist, as the angel of God told him that Satan would be bound for 1000 years and would then escape his bonds. And behold today Satan has been freed from his thousand years of bonds, as this is the year 478 in the Armenian era (1029/30). With 552 years gone before, it comes to 1030 years; given thirty years up to Christ’s baptism, and there are 1000 up to today. And now because of this the rending of the heavens has occurred. And behold hereafter no one will be able to remain firm in his faith in Christ or the commandments of God; neither hayrapet nor vardapet, neither bishop nor priest, neither hermit nor coenobite, neither prince nor populace. Princes join robbers and thieves and pillagers; judges turn to bribes and unjust

186

appendix a

կաշառս և յանիրաւ դատաստանս։ կրաւնաւորք թողուն զանապատս և զմենաստանս, և յաշխարհի սբաղմունս դեգերին, և շրջին ընդ փողոցս և ի մէջ կանանց. ատեն զաղաւթս, և թողուն զկարգս կրաւնաւորութեան իւրեանց, սիրեն զվարս աշխարհի, և զհետ երթան գովեստից մարդկան։ Որոճալով որոճեն զդիւական երգս, և փքացեալ ի վերա ընկերացն ասելով, թէ ես կցուրդ և մեղեդի գիտեմ և դու ոչ. և այսու պատճառաւ՝ պղտորեն զկարգ ժամատեղացն։ լինին և բազումք ուսումնատեացք, ձոյլք՝ և դատարկաբանք, տրտնջաւղք՝ և ամբաստանաւղք։ Եւ ուր ուրեք երևի ճշմարտութիւն ի մարդիկ, զի լինին կամապաշտք՝ անձնասէրք՝ և ընկերատեացք, շոգմոգք, քսուք, ստախաւսք, հպարտք, փառասէրք, անձնահաճք, ինքնահաւանք, որկորամոլք, գինէսէրք և ցանկասէրք։ Որդեակք իմ, ահա յայսմհետէ խափանեսցի փառաբանութիւնն Աստուծոյ ի մարդկանէ, և ոչ երևի ճշմարտութիւն առ մարդիկք։ Այլ և իշխանք պիղծ և մեծախտիւ յանդգնեալ և մոլորեալ, թողուն զհոգս շինութեան տանց և զյաջողուածս գործոց, և †միշտ և հանապազ ի գինարբուս դեգերին, վասն սիրոյ և ցանկութեան չար և պիղծ ախտին, հայրապետք և եպիսկոպոսք և քահանայք և կրաւնաւորք արծաթասէրք առաւել քան զաստուածասէրք։ Որդեակք իմ, ահա յայսմհետէ սատանայի կամքն առաւել կատարեսցի յորդիս մարդկան քան զԱստուծոյն, և ի ձեռն անարժան պատարագողացն, որ յայսմհետէ լինելոց է։ Բարկանայ Աստուած ի վերայ արարածոցս, ևս առաւել ի վերայ մատուցողին զնա զի յանարժանիցն պատարագելոց է Քրիստոս և յանարժանսն բաշխի, և առաւել վիրաւորելոց է տէր

14 †] B D E F G I J K O V W X Y Z incipunt ‖ միշտ և] W մինչև ‖ ի] B om. ‖ գինարբուս] A O գինարբուսն ‖ դեգերին,] W դեգերէին 15 սիրոյ] F Y սիրոց ‖ ցանկութեան] Y ցանկութեանց ‖ ախտին,] Y յաղթին 15–16 եպիսկոպոսք] A D F I J Jer K O V W X Y Z եպիսկոպոսունք 16 և քահանայք] K քահանայք ‖ կրաւնաւորք] W կրանաւորք ‖ առաւել] K om. 16–17 առաւել քան զաստուածասէրք։] X om. ‖ զաստուածասէրք։] A D F I J Jer K O V W Z աստուածասէրք; B աստուածասէր 17 Որդեակք] F X որդեակ ‖ յայսմհետէ] I յայսմէ ‖ առաւել] K om. 17–18 կատարեսցի] X տիրեսցի; B կատարեսցէ 18 յորդիս] B D F I J O V W X Y Z որդիս ‖ զԱստուծոյն,] F X այն; V Y Աստուծոյն 18–19 պատարագողացն,] B D I J O W Z պատարագացն 19–20 արարածոցս,] B արարածոց 20 մատուցողին] D I J O W Z պատարագողին ‖ զի] X om. ‖ յանարժանիցն] D F I J K O V W X Y Z անարժանիցն 21 Քրիստոս և ... է] D I J W Z om. ‖ յանարժանսն] K անարժանսն ‖ բաշխի,] O բաշի; Jer K V Y բաշխեսցի ‖ և] X ևս ‖ առաւել վիրաւորելոց] B առաւելոց ‖ տէր] W տէրն 15–16 եպիսկոպոսք] Most witnesses have the post-classical եպիսկոպոսունք; here we retain the more symmetrical եպիսկոպոսք. (cf. Karst p. 206.) 16–17 զաստուածասէրք։] A preponderance of readings omit զ-, but neither Karst nor Meillet suggest that is grammatically correct.

5

10

15

20

text of selected excerpts from the chronicle

187

verdicts. Monks leave the hermitage and cloister, and occupy themselves in the distractions of the world, and roam the streets among women; they despise prayer and leave their monastic orders, they embrace the habits of the world and chase the glory of mankind. In their ruminations they ruminate upon demonic songs and, puffed up over their companions, they will say ‘I know the anthem and the canticle and you do not’. And with all this they disturb the order of service. Many will become contemptuous of learning, idle and speaking in vain, quarrelsome and accusing. And wherever the truth appears to men, then they become stubborn, self-loving, and despisers of their friends, tell-tales, informants, liars, proud, glory-seeking, presumptuous, self-conceited, gluttonous, wine-loving, and lecherous. My sons, behold henceforth the praise of God will be obstructed by men, and the truth will not appear among men. Rather, impious princes with terrible vices [will appear], audacious and sinful; they will abandon their [spiritual] cares for the well-being of their fortunes and the success of their deeds, and they will constantly engage in drunkenness out of their love and desire for the evil and impure vice; hayrapets and bishops and priests and monks [will be] lovers of silver rather than lovers of God. My children, behold henceforth the will of Satan shall be accomplished among the sons of man more than the will of God, which hereafter is to come by means of unworthy celebrants. God will rage against these creatures, and in particular against those who offer Him [in communion], for Christ [i.e. the host] is to be offered by the

188

appendix a

մեր յիսուս Քրիստոս ի յանարժան քահանայիցն քան զչարչարելն և զխաչելն ի հրէիցն, զի արձակեցաւ Սատանայ ի հազար ամէկապանաց իւրոց, զոր կապեաց Քրիստոս։ Եւ զայս, որդեակք իմ, պատուիրեմ ձեզ հառաչանաւք սրտիւ լալով և ողբալով, վասն զի քակտին բազումք ի հաւատոց և պարծանաւք ուրանան զՔրիստոս, և վասն այսորիկ խաւար կալաւ զամենայն արարածս։» Զայս այսպէս ասաց սուրբ վարդապետն Հայոց վասն կատարածի բարկութեան նշանին, և այլ բազում ինչ ճառեաց որ կատարելոց էր ի վերայ հաւատացելոցս, զոր ահա ամենայն ինչ կատարեցաւ մի առ մի ի ձեռն ելից կատաղի և շուն ազգին Թուրքաց, անաւրէն և պիղծ որդւոցն Քամայ։

5

Second Prophecy of Yovhannēs Kozeṙn, Armenian Era 485 (1036/7) Յայսմ և ի թուականութեանս Հայոց տոմարիս 485, խաւարեցաւ արեգակն ահաւոր և սոսկալի տեսլեամբ։ Վասն զի զոր աւրինակ եղև խաւարեալ ի խաչելութեանն Քրիստոսի, նոյն աւրինակաւ ծածկեաց զլոյսն իւր և խաւար զգեցաւ. և լուսաւորքն աշխարհիս ի մութն և ի սեաւ դարձան, և ամենայն

1 ի] D և ‖ յանարժան] I J K անարժան ‖ քահանայիցն] K քահանայից ‖ զչարչարելն] A զչարչարիլն; B D J K O W Z զչարչարեալն 1–2 զխաչելն] A զխաչիլն; D I J K O W Z զխաչեալն; B զխաչելեալն 2 հրէիցն,] A K հրէից ‖ Սատանայ] F J X Սատանայի ‖ ի] X զի; F J om. ‖ ամէ] X յամէ ի; K ամեայ ‖ կապանաց] K կապանացն 3 որդեակք իմ,] F Jer K V X Y om. ‖ ձեզ] F X Y V ձեզ որդեակ; Jer K ձեզ որդեակք 4 սրտիւ] K սրտի ‖ լալով] K ողբով ‖ ողբալով,] K լալով ‖ քակտին] F Jer K V X Y քակին 5 ուրանան] B ուրանալն ‖ այսորիկ] K այնորիկ ‖ խաւար] V Y om. 6 զամենայն] B om. ‖ արարածս։»] B զարարած ‖ այսպէս] Y այնպէս ‖ վարդապետն] Jer K V Y հայրապետն 7 կատարածի] Z կատարած ի; D կատարածի ի ‖ բարկութեան] I բարկութեամբ ‖ նշանին,] B նշանին, որ ‖ այլ] F յայլ ‖ որ] D I J O W Z զոր 8 էր] F Jer K V X Y է ‖ հաւատացելոցս,] K հաւատացելոց ‖ կատարեցաւ] J կատարացեաւ 9 ձեռն ելից] W ձեռնելոց ‖ կատաղի և շուն] Jer W om. ‖ և պիղծ] W om. ‖ պիղծ] D պիղծք ‖ որդւոցն] B D F I J O V W X Y Z որդիքն ‖ որդւոցն Քամայ։] K om. ‖ Քամայ։] X Քամայայսմի 10 և ի] W և; K om. ‖ 485,] Y 485 ամի; F X V 485 ամին ‖ արեգակն] O արեգակնն; J W H Z D I L արեգակն և 11 և] H J I L om.; D և սաստիկ ‖ Վասն զի] K om. ‖ զի] Y զի զի ‖ զի զոր] W om. ‖ աւրինակ] W զորինակ ‖ եղև խաւարեալ] W եղև խաւարեալն; X խաւարեալ եղև 12 աւրինակաւ] B Jer աւրինակ ‖ ծածկեաց] H L ծածկեալ եղև ‖ զլոյսն] X զլոյս; H L լոյս ‖ իւր] H L իւր յայսմ ժամանակի 12–13 խաւար զգեցաւ.] J զխաւարեցգեցաւ; I զխաւարեցաւ; O խաւար ըսգեցաւ 13 լուսաւորքն] D F H I J K L O V X Y Z լուսաւորք ‖ աշխարհիս] D յաշխարհս; X յաշխարհիս ‖ ի մութն] K զմութն ‖ և] K զգեցեալ ‖ ի] B D F I J Jer K O V W X Y Z om. ‖ դարձան,] B D H I J L O W Z դարձաւ 9 Քամայ։] The reading in X results from the scribal joining of the final word Քամայ to the first words of the next section, Յայսմ ամի.

10

text of selected excerpts from the chronicle

189

unworthy and distributed to the unworthy, and our Lord Jesus Christ will be more wounded by the unworthy priests than by His torture and crucifixion by the Jews, for Satan whom Christ bound has been freed from his thousandyear bonds. And this I bid you, my sons, with sighs and a weeping and lamenting heart, because many are breaking away from the faith and are ostentatiously denying Christ, and because of this darkness takes hold of all creation.’ So the holy Armenian vardapet said these things about the sign of the consummation of [God’s] wrath, and he discoursed upon many other things that would come to pass upon the faithful, and behold all these things were fulfilled one by one by means of the appearance of the furious and doglike nation of Turks, the impious and impure sons of Ham. Second Prophecy of Yovhannēs Kozeṙn, 485 (1036/7) In this reckoning and in 485 of the Armenian era, the sun was darkened in a terrible and marvellous spectacle. For just as it had been darkened in this manner at the crucifixion of Christ, in this same way its light was hidden and it was clothed in shadow; and the lights of this world turned to obscurity and blackness, and all the heavens like a vaulted arch were

190

appendix a

երկինք իբրև զկամար կապեցաւ խաւարաւն, և եղև սևացեալ արեգակն ի մէջ աւրէի, և ամենայն աստեղքն առ հասարակ երևէին որպէս ի մէջ գիշերի, և սաստկացաւ խաւարն և մութն. և գոչեաց առ հասարակ ամենայն արարածք, և հնչեցին ամենայն լերինք և բլուրք, և դողաց սասանելով լերինք և ամենայն ապառաժք, և երերալով ծփայր համատարած մեծ ծովն ովկիանոս, և սուգ առեալ լայր զամենայն որդիս մարդկան։ Եւ եղև ի տեսանել զայս ամենայն որդւոց մարդկան, ահաբեկեալ լինէին յերկիւղէն որպէս զմեռեալ։ Յայնժամ լայր որդի առ հայր իւր, և լայր հայր ի վերայ որդւոց իւրոց. տղայք զարհուրեալք ի յահէն անկանէին ի գիրկս ծնողացն. մարքն աղէտեալ սաստիկ վառմամբ իբրև հրով, լային զտղայս իւրեանց. և այսպէս ահաբեկեալ կային ամենայն արարածք, և յերկիւղէն պաշարեալ կային և ելս իրացն ոչ գտանէին. ընդ սոսկալի նշանն զարհուրեալ հիանային և ահաբեկեալ կային առ հասարակ։ Յայնժամ տէր պետրոս հայրապետն Հայոց և թագաւորն Յովհաննէս յուղարկեալ առս փառաւորս առ սուրբ վարդապետն Հայոց Յովհաննէս, որ

1 զկամար] A B զկամար կամար ‖ խաւարաւն,] I J խաւառն; B H L W խաւարն ‖ արեգակն] D O Z արեգականն; I J արեգակնն 2 աստեղքն] B D H I J L W Z աստեղք ‖ առ հասարակ] L առ հասարակ էրևէին որպէս ի մէջ գիշերի և ամենայն աստեղք առ հասարակ 3 խաւարն] O խաւարն խաւարն դուղակէր ի վերայ տանն հայոց ‖ մութն.] F մութնն 3–4 արարածք,] F X արարածս 4 լերինք] B արանք ‖ բլուրք, և դողաց] X դողաց և բլուրք ‖ սասանելով] X սասանեցան ‖ և] L և բլուրք և 5 ապառաժք,] K ծառք ‖ և] X om. ‖ համատարած] F V X Y համատարածք ‖ մեծ] D H I J L W Z om. 6 սուգ] F սուգք ‖ լայր] F լգայր ‖ զամենայն] W Y ամենայն ‖ եղև] K om. ‖ տեսանել] H I J L տեսանելովն; D K O W Z տեսանելն 7 որդւոց] H յորդւոց; F մարդոց ‖ մարդկան,] L մարդկան, Եւ եղև ի տեսանելովն զայս ամենայն որդւոց մարդկան ‖ լինէին] K om. ‖ յերկիւղէն] H L յերկիւղէն և ի յահէն; K յերկիւղէն լինէին ‖ զմեռեալ։] A B D F I J Jer K O V W X Y Z մեռեալ 8 առ] B om. ‖ որդւոց] F որդոյ; X om.; H L յորդւոյ ‖ որդւոց իւրոց.] A B om. ‖ իւրոց.] F H L X իւրոյ 9 տղայք] H L տղայ; I J K O V W Y Z տղայքն; X տղայն; F տըղքայն ‖ զարհուրեալք] B D F I J Jer L V W X Y Z զարհուրեալ ‖ յահէն] D յահէն ի յահէն ‖ ծնողացն.] K մարցն 10 վառմամբ] B D F H I J Jer K L O V W Y Z այրմամբ ‖ զտղայս] W տղայս 11 կային] B F Jer K V X Y կայր ‖ յերկիւղէն] K V X երկիւղէն ‖ պաշարեալ] K պշուցեալ ‖ ելս] D H յելս; K զելս 12 սոսկալի] L սոսկալի իրացն և; J սոսկալին ‖ նշանն] L W նշանին; Y նշան ‖ կային] B կա 14 պետրոս] K պետրոսն ‖ հայրապետն] C E G վարդապետն; K om. ‖ Հայոց] K Հայոց հայրապետն 15 յուղարկեալ] K ուղարկեցին; F յղարկեալն ‖ առս] A B D F H I J Jer L O V W X Y Z արք ‖ փառաւորս] A B D F H I J Jer L O V W Y Z փառաւորք; X փառաւոր ‖ վարդապետն] D I J Jer V W Y Z հայրապետն ‖ Հայոց] H L Y om. ‖ որ] Jer զոր 3 խաւարն] The reading of O occurs as a scribal addition in the bottom margin. աղէտեալ] From աղէտանամ.

9

5

10

15

text of selected excerpts from the chronicle

191

bound in darkness, and the sun became blackened at midday, and all the stars appeared together as if in the middle of the night, and the darkness and obscurity intensified. And all creatures cried out together, and all the mountains and hills resounded, and the mountains and all the rocks shook with trembling, and the great boundless ocean sea undulated with trembling and, sinking into grief, mourned all the sons of man. And it happened that when the sons of man saw all this, they were terrified from fear like dead men. Then a son cried for his father, and a father cried over his sons; young children frightened from fear fell into the arms of their parents; the mothers, made miserable with a severe inflammation like fire, cried for their children. And thus all creatures were terrified, and they were besieged by fear1 and they could not find a way out; they wondered fearfully at the marvellous sign, and were terrified all alike. Then Lord Petros the hayrapet of the Armenians and the king Yovhannēs sent respected men to the holy vardapet of the Armenians Yovhannēs, who

1 Bzommar ms 449 reads ‘they were being gazed fixedly at by fear’.

192

appendix a

կոչէին Կոզեռն, վասն զի ի նմանէ գիտասցեն զմեկնութիւն մեծ նշանին, զի էր այր սուրբ և սքանչելի ճգնութեամբ զարդարեալ, և մեկնիչ հին և նոր կտակարանացն Աստուծոյ, լցեալ վարդապետական շնորհաւք։ Իսկ որք առաքեցան առ վարդապետն Հայոց՝ Գրիգոր Մագիստրոսն որդին Վասակայ և հայկազն մեծն Սարգիս և այլք ոմանք յազատաց տանն Հայոց և այլք ի քահանայիցն, զի զերկրորդելն ահաւոր նշանին գիտասցեն։ Եւ եղև իբրեւ գնացին առ վարդապետն Հայոց, գտանէին զնա զի դարձեալ կայր ի գետինն երեսք ի վայր ի խոր տրտմութեան, և թացեալ լինէր արտասուաւք զգետինն. և ի սաստկութենէ լալոյն և ի դառն հառաչանացն որ ելանէր ի բերանոյ նորա, ոչ ոք իշխէր ինչ հարցանել ցնա, վասն զի տեսանէին զնա ի խորին սուգս և յահագին տրտմութեանս, և անդադար հեղոյր զարտասուսն և կոծէր զկուրծս իւր. և յայնժամ նստան իշխանքն Հայոց մերձ առ վարդապետն Յովհաննէս, և զվեց ժամ աւուրն ոչինչ համարձակեցան խաւսել և հարցանել վասն ահաւոր նշանին, և լային առ հասարակ ամենայն եկեալքն առ նա։

1 կոչէին Կոզեռն,] K Կոզեռն կոչէին ‖ վասն] A Jer om. ‖ գիտասցեն] X գիտասցին ‖ զմեկնութիւն] I J զմեկնութիւնն ‖ նշանին,] H L նշանի 2 այր] K V Y om. ‖ սքանչելի] I J զսքանչելի 3 վարդապետական] X վարդապետն ‖ որք] Y որ 3–4 առաքեցան] L առաքեացն 4 վարդապետն Հայոց՝] K Հայոց վարդապետն են այսոքիկ; Jer Y V Հայոց վարդապետն 5 հայկազն] A հայկազնին ‖ մեծն] I մեծս; D մեծին ‖ այլք] F W X այլ ‖ յազատաց] K V Y ազատաց; H L յազատացն ‖ այլք] B D F H I J L O W X Z այլ 6 զերկրորդելն] Z զերրորդեալն; K երկրորդելն; C E երկրորդեալն; D F H I J Jer L O V W X Y զերկրորդեալն; B զերկրորդեալ ‖ ահաւոր] H L յահաւոր ‖ նշանին] X նշանն 7 վարդապետն] D հայրապետն ‖ Հայոց,] K Հայոց, և ‖ գտանէին] K գտան ‖ դարձեալ] K անկեալ 8 ի գետինն] K ի գետնի; F X ի գետնին; H L om. ‖ ի խոր] F եխոն; E ի խոհ; K և ի խոր; V ի խոն; X om.; B խոր ‖ տրտմութեան,] D H I J L W Z տրտմութեամբ; K տրտմութենէն ‖ և] K om. ‖ լինէր] K էր 9 զգետինն. և] W om. ‖ զգետինն. և ի] L om. ‖ լալոյն և ի դառն] L om. ‖ հառաչանացն] A B F Jer K V X Y հառաչանաց 10 նորա,] A I նորին ‖ իշխէր] H L իշխեաց ‖ ցնա,] I W Z զնա; H L նմա ‖ վասն] K om. ‖ զնա] H L om. ‖ զնա ի] K om. 11 յահագին] D F H I J K L O V W X Y Z ահագին ‖ տրտմութեանս,] Jer տրտմութեան,; A B D H I J K L O W X Z տրտմութիւնս ‖ զարտասուսն] H L զարտասուքն; K զարտասուս 12 զկուրծս] A B H Jer K L զկուրծսն ‖ իւր.] K om. ‖ և յայնժամ] K Այլ ‖ վարդապետն] D F H I J Jer O V W X Y Z վարդապետին 13 Յովհաննէս,] Jer V Յովհաննէս, մեծի; Y Յովհաննիսի մեծի ‖ և] F X և զմեծ և ‖ զվեց] Y վեց ‖ ժամ] X ժամաւն; A ժամու ‖ աւուրն] X աւրն 14 ահաւոր] H յահաւոր ‖ նշանին,] I իշխանին ‖ լային] X կային ‖ եկեալքն] D H I J L W Z եկեալն 7 դարձեալ] K’s use of անկեալ probably reflects the scribe’s lack of context for the word դարձեալ (‘again’).

5

10

text of selected excerpts from the chronicle

193

was called Kozeṙn, so that they might find out from him an interpretation of the great sign, for he was a holy man and adorned with wondrous asceticism, and was an interpreter of the old and new testaments of God, filled with scholarly grace. Indeed Grigor magistros the son of Vasak and the great Haykazn Sargis and other nobles of the Armenian nation and other priests were sent to the Armenian vardapet, so that they might understand the repetition of the frightening sign. And it happened that when they went to the Armenian vardapet, they found that again he was face-down on the ground in deep sorrow, and the ground had become wet with [his] tears; and because of the severity of his grief and the bitter sighs which came from his mouth, no one presumed to ask him anything, because they saw him in deep grief and in this frightful sorrow,2 and his tears flowed unceasingly and he beat his breast. And then the Armenian princes sat near the vardapet Yovhannēs, and up to the sixth hour of the day they did not dare to say anything or to ask about the frightful sign, and all those who had come to him wept together.

2 A variant reads ‘in frightful sorrows’.

194

appendix a

Յայնժամ իբրև ետես վարդապետն Հայոց զողբումն ամենայն եկելոցն, բացեալ զբերանն իւր սկսաւ խաւսել հառաչանաւք և բազում արտասուաւք, և սկսաւ լալ զամենայն ազգս հաւատացելոցն, լայր և զկարգ քահանայական, և զեղծումն սրբութեան սրբոյ խորհրդոյն, լայր և զեկեղեցի Աստուծոյ և զքակտումն պատուիրանացն որ ի նմա ծածկեալ կան աստուածեղէնքն։ Եւ սկսաւ այսպէս ասել ցիշխանսն Հայոց. «Ո՜վ փառաւոր որդիք իմ, լուարուք զբանս զայս ի վիրաւոր և ի վշտագնեալ Յովհաննիսէ. զի ահա այսաւր լցան հազար ամ չարչարանաց խաչելութեանն Քրիստոսի, և արձակմանն անաւրէն Բելիարայ, զոր կապեալ էր զնա փրկիչն ի Յորդանան գետ, զոր յառաջին նշանէն ցուցաւ մեզ յառաջ քան զչորեքտասան ամն, զորս ասացաք. և այժմ դարձեալ երկրորդեաց, զի նախ երկինք պատառեցաւ, և երկիրս

1 իբրև ետես] F X ետես իբրև ‖ Հայոց զողբումն] X զողբումն Հայոց ‖ եկելոցն,] F X եկեղեցոյն 2 զբերանն] Jer X զբերան ‖ արտասուաւք,] W արտասուք 3 սկսաւ] H L սկսան ‖ ազգս] F ազգա; X ազգ ‖ հաւատացելոցն,] O հաւատաց; A B F Jer K V X Y հաւատացելոց ‖ լայր] B I J W Z լալ ‖ քահանայական,] H L քահանայութեանն; I J W Z քահանայականութեան; D քահանայինութեան 4 սրբութեան] X սըրբութեանց ‖ սրբոյ] L սրբոյ երրորդութեան; F Jer Y V սրբոց ‖ և] Z և և ‖ զեկեղեցի] H L զեկեղեցիս; B եկեղեցի 5 պատուիրանացն] F X K V Jer պատուիրանաց; H L պատուիրանացն Աստուծոյ; A B պատուիրանին ‖ ծածկեալ կան] H L կան ծածկեալ; D կան ծածկեալ կան ‖ աստուածեղէնքն։] H L աստուածեղէնք 6 այսպէս ասել] X զսոսա ասել ցնա; H K L ասել այսպէս ‖ ցիշխանսն] D իշխանսն; B ցիշխանցն; K ցիշխանացն 7 զբանս] H L զբանս իմ ‖ զայս] Y այս ‖ ի] L om. ‖ Յովհաննիսէ.] X յովանիսի; L յաւհանէս 7–8 այսաւր լցան] F X լցան այսաւր; D J O W Z այսաւր լցաւ; H L այլ ուր լցաւ 8 ամ] H L ամն ‖ չարչարանաց] A D H I J L W X Z չարչարանացն ‖ խաչելութեանն Քրիստոսի,] A Քրիստոսի խաչելութեանն; B խաչելութեանն; D ի խաչելութեանն Քրիստոսի; H L Քրիստոսի ի խաչելութիւնն; Z խաչելութեան Քրիստոսի ‖ և] H L և ի ‖ արձակմանն] H L յարձակմանն; B K արձակման 9 անաւրէն] H Y անաւրէնն; A om. ‖ զոր] I որ ‖ կապեալ] H L կապեաց ‖ էր] B om. ‖ էր զնա] H L om. ‖ զնա] Y զնա ի ‖ ի] H I J L O W Z om. ‖ Յորդանան] Y Յորդանն ‖ գետ,] D H L գետն 10 յառաջին] V Y յառաջ; F K X առաջին ‖ նշանէն] H նշանին ‖ յառաջ] K որ նախ ‖ զչորեքտասան] A զվեց; K զայս չորեքտասան; B D F I J Jer O V W Y Z չորեքտասան ‖ ամն,] K ամաւ ‖ զորս] A B D H I J Jer L O W Y Z զոր; F V X om. 10–11 ասացաք.] F V X զասացաք 11 այժմ] F X յայժմ; A յայնժամ ‖ երկրորդեաց,] H L երկրորդեցից; D W Z երկրորդից ‖ երկինք] W երկինք էք; H L om. ‖ և] L om. ‖ երկիրս] X երկիր 10 զչորեքտասան] A has replaced զչորեքտասան with զվեց in the text, presumably in an attempt to link this prophecy with the first.

5

10

text of selected excerpts from the chronicle

195

Then when the Armenian vardapet saw the lamentation of all those who had come, opening his mouth he began to speak with sighs and many tears and he began to weep for all the nations of the faithful; and he wept for the priestly order and the decay in sanctity of the holy sacrament, and he wept for the church of God and the destruction of the commandments, in which the divine is concealed. And he began to speak thus to the Armenian princes: ‘O my glorious sons, listen to these words from the wounded and afflicted Yovhannēs; for behold today 1000 years have passed since the tortures of the crucifixion of Christ,3 and the release of the wicked Belial, whom the Saviour had bound in the Jordan river,4 which was shown to us by the first sign more than fourteen5 years ago, about which we spoke. And now it has repeated, for first the heavens were torn apart and the earth was darkened. And behold in this year the stars

3 Three witnesses read ‘tortures of Christ in/at the Crucifixion’. 4 Venice ms 913 reads ‘into the Jordan river’. 5 Matenadaran ms 1896 reads ‘six’, which almost tallies with the placement of this prophecy within the Chronicle. The others (which all lack the beginning of the earlier prophecy, and thus lack context) seem to suggest that Kozeṙn made an earlier prophecy in 471 (1022/3). As discussed on p. 37 above, the original number probably should have been ‘four’.

196

appendix a

մթացաւ. և ահա յայսմ ամի լուսաւորքդ խաւարեցան և արարածք ահաբեկեցան. վասն զի յայսմհետէ ամենայն ազգք հաւատացելոց Քրիստոսի ի խաւարի շրջելոց են, զի այսուհետև խաւարին կարգք սուրբ եկեղեցւոյ Քրիստոսի յամենայն ազգաց հաւատացելոց. թուլանան ի պահոց և յաղաւթից, պակասին յոյս հանդերձելոցն, երկիւղ դատաստանին Աստուծոյ արհամարհի, բառնայ ճշմարիտ հաւատք յամենայն ազգաց, տկարանայ աստուածպաշտութիւնն, ատեն զպատուիրանն Աստուծոյ, դիմադարձ լինին բանից սուրբ աւետարանին Քրիստոսի. ամենայն ոք հակառակ գտանին սրբոց պատուիրանացն Աստուծոյ, արհամարհեն զբանս սուրբ վարդապետացն, անգոսնեն և զհրամանս կանոնաց սրբոց հայրապետացն. և այնու բազումք անկանին ի բարձրութենէ հաւատոց և ատեն զդրունս սուրբ եկեղեցւոյ, և ի ծուլութենէ պահոցն և աղաւթիցն կուրանան յաստուածպաշտութեանցն. 1 յայսմ] D I J O W Y Z այսմ ‖ լուսաւորքդ] L լուսաւորդ; K լուսաւորք ‖ խաւարեցան] B D I J O W Z խաւարեցաւ ‖ և] A և ամենայն; X և ասէ ‖ արարածք] D F I J O V W Y Z արարածս; B Jer արարած; X արարածքս 1–2 ահաբեկեցան.] A B D F I J Jer O V W X Y Z om.; H L ևս 2 ազգք] B D H J K L V W Z ազգ ‖ հաւատացելոց] I հաւատելոց; A հաւատացելոցն ‖ Քրիստոսի] D H I J L O W Z om. 3 խաւարի] A I Y B խաւար; O խաւար ի ‖ շրջելոց են,] H L շրջեսցին ‖ այսուհետև] X այսուհետև և ‖ կարգք] B D H I J K L W X Z կարգ ‖ սուրբ] A om. ‖ եկեղեցւոյ] H K L եկեղեցւոյն 4 յամենայն] H Jer K L V Y Z ամենայն ‖ ազգաց] W ազգ ‖ թուլանան] X թուլանան ի հաւատոց ‖ ի] L om. ‖ պահոց] L աղաւթից ‖ և] J W և ի; B om. 4–5 յաղաւթից,] B V Y աղաւթից; L պահոց 5 յոյս] L յոյս հաւատացելոցն և ի ‖ հանդերձելոցն,] F X հանդերձելոյն; A հանդերձելոցն, և ‖ երկիւղ] H L յերկիւղ 6 բառնայ] K բառնի; H L բառնան; X բառնւ ‖ հաւատք] K հաւատն ‖ յամենայն ազգաց,] K om.; X յամենայն ազգաց հաւատացելոց; L V Y Z ամենայն ազգաց 6–7 աստուածպաշտութիւնն,] B H Jer L V Y Z աստուածպաշտութիւն 7 Աստուծոյ,] H յԱստուծոյ ‖ բանից] K բանին Աստուծոյ որ ի; D H I J L O W Z om.; V Y բանին Աստուծոյ 8 Քրիստոսի.] W Քրիստոսի և; K V Y om. ‖ հակառակ] Y հակառակք ‖ սրբոց] D I J L W Z սուրբ 9 պատուիրանացն] H I J L պատուիրանին; F Jer K V Y պատուիրանաց ‖ արհամարհեն] B արհամարհ ‖ վարդապետացն,] Jer K V Y վարդապետաց 10 անգոսնեն] B և կոսնեն ‖ զհրամանս] D I J Z հրամանս; W հրամանսն ‖ կանոնաց սրբոց] D I J կանոնացն սուրբ; O սւորբ կանոնաց սրբոց; L կանոնացն սուրբ; W Z կանոնաց սուրբ; H կանոնացն սրբոց ‖ և] X om. ‖ այնու] X անկանի ‖ բազումք] X բազում 11 անկանին] Z քանկանին; X om. ‖ բարձրութենէ] D H I J L W Z բարձրութեան ‖ հաւատոց] K հաւատոցն ‖ ատեն] I J ատին ‖ զդրունս] X դրունս ‖ եկեղեցւոյ,] H յեկեղեցւոյ ‖ և] K om. 12 ծուլութենէ] K ծուլութենէ մանաւանդ ‖ պահոցն] Jer K Y պահոց ‖ աղաւթիցն] K աղաւթից ծուլանան; A O J W B Z H D I յաղաւթիցն ‖ կուրանան] K կուրանայ ‖ յաստուածպաշտութեանցն.] K աստուածպաշտութիւնն; D F L V X Y Z աստուածպաշտութեանցն

1–2 ահաբեկեցան.] This reading comes from K and is almost certainly an emendation, but it is clear that some word is missing here, and the reading of HL is of no assistance.

5

10

text of selected excerpts from the chronicle

197

have been obscured and all creatures were frightened, because henceforth all the nations of the faithful in Christ shall be turned to darkness; for hereafter the ranks of the holy church of Christ are obscured in all the nations of the faithful. They weaken [and turn away] from fasting and prayer, they lack hope for the future, fear of the judgement of God is disdained,6 the true faith disappears from all nations, the worship of God weakens, they despise the commandments of God, they become disobedient to the words of the holy Gospel of Christ; they all show themselves opposed to the holy commandments of God, they disdain the words of the holy vardapets, and they mock the instructions of the canons of the holy hayrapets, and thus many fall from the height of faith and despise the doors of the holy church, and because of their laziness in fasting and prayer they become blind to the worship of God. Many come under the yoke of curses, because they do not

6 The comma placement in the text of the Vienna group gives ‘they lack hope for the future [and] fear of the judgement of God; true faith is disdained and disappears …’

198

appendix a

բազումք մտանեն ընդ լծով անիծից, վասն զի ոչ հաւանին խրատու աստուածեղէն բանիցն սուրբ առաջնորդացն. որդիք անիծանին ի ծնողաց իւրեանց առ ի ոչ հնազանդութենէ զաւակաց, ծնողքն չարչարին ի ծննդոց իւրեանց, ցամաքեսցի գութ սիրոյ բարեկամաց ի հարց և ի զաւակաց։ Եւ ահա յայսմհետէ բազում հերձուածք մտանեն յեկեղեցի Աստուծոյ ի ծուլութենէ հայրապետացն, վասն զի թուլամորթին և տկարանան և հաւատոյ քննութիւն ոչ առնեն և կան յիմարեալք։ Յաղագս արծաթոյն թողուն ի բաց զհաւատն, և պակասին աւրհներգութիւնք ի տանէն Աստուծոյ. երկիւղ և ահ սոսկալի դատաստանին Աստուծոյ յաւուրն ահաւորի որ լինելոց է՝ փարատեալ խափանին յամենայն մտաց. մոռանան զհատուցումն արդարոցն և մեղաւորացն, վասն զի մեղսասէրք և ցանկացողք լինելոց են չար ճանապարհին. փափագանաւք երթան ի մեղաց ժողովարանն, զի ահա ի թագաւորաց և յիշխանաց և յառաջնորդաց՝ ապականելոց է երկիր։ Առաջնորդք և իշխանք լինելոց են կաշառասէրք և ստախաւսք և սուտերդմունք, և ի ձեռս կաշառացն թիւրեն զդատաստանս իրաւանց աղքատին. և յաղագս այսորիկ առաւել բարկանայ Աստուած ի վերայ նոցա, զի զառաջնորդութիւնն և զիշխանութիւնն 1 բազումք] K բազում ‖ լծով] K լծոյ; Jer V Y լծովն ‖ անիծից,] F H L X Y անիծիցն ‖ հաւանին] G հաւատային ‖ խրատու] H L om. 1–2 աստուածեղէն] X աստուածային 2 բանիցն] H L om. ‖ առաջնորդացն.] Z յառաջնորդացն; K առաջնորդաց ‖ ծնողաց] J O Z ծնողացն ‖ իւրեանց] I իւրոց 3 առ ի] F X Z յառի ‖ հնազանդութենէ] B հնազանդութեան ‖ զաւակաց,] H L X զաւակացն ‖ չարչարին] F V X Y չարչարեն 4 ահա] Y om. ‖ ահա յայսմհետէ] K om. 5 բազում] K Y բազումք ‖ հերձուածք] F հերձուածն; X հերձուած ‖ մտանեն] X մտանեն ի ‖ յեկեղեցի] F K V եկեղեցի; H L յեկեղեցի սուրբ ‖ Աստուծոյ] Z J W D C I Աստուծոյ սուրբ ‖ ծուլութենէ] F ծուլութենէն; X ծուլութենէ են 5–6 հայրապետացն,] B D F I J Jer K V W X Y Z հայրապետաց 6 և] H L և յանարի ‖ տկարանան] O տկարան ‖ քննութիւն] I J X քննութիւնս ‖ ոչ առնեն] X չառնեն 7 կան] X om. ‖ յիմարեալք։] X յիմարեալք։ կան ‖ արծաթոյն] K X արծաթոյ ‖ թողուն] B om. ‖ ի բաց] X զբաց ի ‖ զհաւատն,] X հաւատսն; W զհաւատսն 8 աւրհներգութիւնք] H յաւրհներգութիւնք; B աւրհներգութիւն ‖ Աստուծոյ.] H L յԱստուծոյ ‖ երկիւղ] A B V երկիւղն ‖ և] X om. ‖ ահ] D ահա 9 յաւուրն] K աւուրն ‖ ահաւորի] H L յահաւորի ‖ լինելոց] A B F I O V X լինելոցն 9–10 յամենայն] K V Y ամենայն 10 զհատուցումն] H L զհատուցումն գործոց ‖ արդարոցն] D F H I J Jer K L O V W Y Z արդարոց ‖ մեղաւորացն,] H K L V մեղաւորաց 11 ցանկացողք] O Z ցանկացող ‖ են] H L om. ‖ չար] H L զչար 12 ժողովարանն,] X ժողովարան ‖ յիշխանաց] B F K V X Y Z իշխանաց 13 յառաջնորդաց՝] F K L V X Y առաջնորդաց ‖ է] F X om. ‖ երկիր։] H I J L W Z յերկիր ‖ Առաջնորդք] Z առաջորդք; A B առաջնորդքն; F յառաջնորդքն ‖ իշխանք] A իշխանքն; I J O W Z իշխան; F յիշխանք 15 զդատաստանս] X դատաստանս ‖ իրաւանց] B իւրեանց; A O իրաւանցն ‖ այսորիկ] O յայսորիկ 16 Աստուած ի վերայ նոցա,] B ի վերայ նոցա Աստուած ‖ զառաջնորդութիւնն] L յառաջնորդութիւն; K առաջնորդութիւնն; W X Z զառաջնորդութիւն ‖ զիշխանութիւնն] Z զիշխանութիւն; K իշխանութիւնն

5

10

15

text of selected excerpts from the chronicle

199

heed the advice7 of the divine words of the holy fathers. Sons are cursed by their parents for their lack of filial submission, parents are tormented by their offspring; the compassion of loving friendship shall dry up from fathers and from children. And behold henceforth many schisms enter the church of God through the idleness of the hayrapets, because they grow feeble and weaken and fail to make an examination of their faith and lose their minds. They put aside the faith on account of money, and the singing of hymns ceases in the house of God; fear and dreadful awe of the judgement of God, on the frightful day which is to come, is dispelled and blocked from every mind. They forget the recompense of the righteous and the sinful, because they will become sin-loving and covetous of evil ways. They come through their desires to the meeting-hall of sins, for behold the earth will be corrupted by kings and princes and leaders. The leaders and princes will become bribe-lovers and liars and perjurers, and by means of their bribetaking they pervert justice concerning the rights of the poor. And because of this God is even more provoked to anger against them, for they cultivate their governance and rule for [earthly] recognition and not agreeably to

7 Matenadaran ms 2644 reads ‘they did not believe in the advice’.

200

appendix a

ընդ երեսաց վարեն, և ոչ ըստ Աստուծոյ։ Եւ տիրեալ իշխանաբար ի վերայ վիճակին, և ոչ ահիւն Աստուծոյ հովուել և ուսուցանել, որպէս պատուիրեաց սուրբ առաքեալն Պաւղոս։ Իշխանք և դատաւորք պոռնկասէրք առաւել քան աստուածասէրք, և ատեցողք լինին սուրբ ամուսնութեանն, և փակին ընդ պոռնկութեամբ ախտին, և սիրեն զկորուստ նմանեաց իւրեանց. մեծարեն զմատնիչսն և զգողսն, յափշտակեն անիրաւաբար զաշխատողացն զինչսն, անողորմ ի վերայ ուղիղ դատաստանացն։ Որդեակք իմ, ահա յայսմհետէ ի հակառակութենէ առաջնորդաց փակելոց են դրունք սուրբ եկեղեցւոյ, և վերանան սրբութեան կարգք յամենայն ազգէ, և յաղագս արծաթսիրութեան տան ձեռնադրութիւն բազում անարժանից, և զամենայն պղծեալսն ածեն ի կարգ քահանայութեան։ Եւ յայնժամ պատարագի Քրիստոս ի ձեռն անարժան քահանայից, և բազումք անարժանութեամբ հաղորդին ի նմանէ, ոչ եթէ ի փրկութիւն այլ ի դատապարտութիւն և ի կորուստ հոգւոյն. և ուր ուրեք կայ ճշմարիտ պատարագող Քրիստոսի սուրբ խորհրդոյն յազգս ազգս, որ ի ձեռս նոցա ողորմի Աստուած աշխարհի։

1 ընդ] K ըստ ‖ երեսաց] H L յերեսաց ‖ վարեն,] L X վարին 2 ահիւն] D H I J L ահիւ ‖ Աստուծոյ] D H I J L նոցա ‖ հովուել] B D F I J O V W Y Z հովել ‖ և] K և ոչ 4 աստուածասէրք,] F X զաստուածասէրք ‖ լինին] B լինի ‖ ամուսնութեանն,] V Y ամուսնութենէ; Jer K Z ամուսնութեան; F X ամուսնութենէն 5 պոռնկութեամբ] A H K L պոռնկութեան ‖ զկորուստ] X զկորուստն ‖ նմանեաց] X մատնեաց ‖ իւրեանց.] Y նոցին 6 զմատնիչսն] D H I J L W Z զնմանիչսն ‖ և] K om. ‖ զգողսն,] F Jer V X Y զգողս ‖ զաշխատողացն] X զաշխատողացս; K զաշխարհաց; H Jer V Y զաշխատողաց ‖ զինչսն,] B D F I J Jer O V W X Z ինչսն 7 անողորմ] K անողորմ լինին ‖ ուղիղ] A ուղղել; X om. ‖ դատաստանացն։] Jer K V Y դատաստանաց ‖ Որդեակք] B I J W Z Որդեակ 8 առաջնորդաց] F առաջնորդեաց ‖ դրունք] W դրունքն ‖ սուրբ] W սրբոյ 9 վերանան] K X վերանայ ‖ սրբութեան] B սրբութեամբ ‖ կարգք] Y կարգքն; D H I J L W կարգ; F Jer V X կարգն ‖ յամենայն] I V Y Z ամենայն; K աշխարհէս ‖ ազգէ,] F X յազգէ; K հայոց ‖ արծաթսիրութեան] K արծաթսիրութեանն 10 պղծեալսն] B D H I L W Z պղծեալս; Jer K V X Y պղծեալք ‖ ածեն] O աստուածեն 11 կարգ] X կարգաւորութիւն; F O կարգք ‖ քահանայութեան։] F քահանայութեանն; X om. 12 քահանայից,] A B F Jer V X Y քահանայիցն 13 հոգւոյն.] K հոգւոց ‖ ուր] Jer K V Y om. ‖ կայ] K ուրեք կայցէ; H L եղիցի; I J եղեցի; D O W Z om. 14 պատարագող] I J պատարագաւղք ‖ յազգս ազգս,] A յաղագս ազգիս; H L յաղագս; D յաղագս յաղագս ‖ ձեռս] B D F H I J Jer L O V W X Y Z ձեռաց; A ձեռն 15 Աստուած] H L Աստուած ի վերայ ‖ աշխարհի։] D H J W Z յաշխարհի; I յաշխարհհի

5

10

15

text of selected excerpts from the chronicle

201

God. And they rule imperiously over their district[s], neither guiding nor teaching with the fear of God, as the holy apostle Paul commanded. Princes and judges [will be] more whore-loving than God-loving and they [will] come to despise holy matrimony, and they surround themselves with vice through fornication, and embrace the destruction of their own peers. They glorify traitors and thieves, they unjustly plunder the possessions of the working people, [they are] merciless concerning upright judgements. My sons, behold henceforth the doors of the holy church will be shut due to the hostility of the leaders, and the ranks of the holy will disappear from every nation; and out of avarice they give consecration to many unworthy men and bring all the impure men into the ranks of the priesthood. And then Christ is celebrated in the Mass by the unworthy priests, and many take communion from Him unworthily, not for salvation but for damnation and loss of the soul. And wherever throughout the nations there is a true celebrant of the holy mystery of Christ, God has mercy on the land because

202

appendix a

Որդեակք, զսուրբսն և զառաքինիսն վիրաւորեն, և զանարատն դարձուցանեն ի քահանայութենէ առ ի չունելոյ արծաթ, ոչ տան զձեռնադրութիւն. և որպէս ասացաք յառաջ քան զչորեքտասան ամն ի լինելոյ միւսումն նշանին, եթէ պակասին բազումք ի հաւատոց աստուածպաշտութեանց, վասն զի բազումք ի քահանայից և ի կրաւնաւորաց՝ թուլամորթին ի կրաւնից իւրեանց. լինելոց են ցանկասէրք ախտից, փափագողք, որոճալով որոճեն զերգս դիւական. կրաւնաւորքն փախչին յանապատէն և ատեն զսուրբ երամս ճգնաւորացն, և զվարս առաջին կրաւնաւորացն ատեալ անարգեն. լինիցին խանգարիչք կարգաց և կրաւնից. փախչին ի ձայնէ սաղմոսերգութեանցն Աստուծոյ։ Այս ամենայն լինելոց է, որդեակք իմ, յազգս այս յղփանան առաջնորդք աշխարհի արծաթսիրութեամբ, և զամենայն անկեալս և զորոշեալս ի շնորհաց որդւոյն Աստուծոյ յառաջ կոչեն և ածեն զնոսա ի կարգս քահանայական, և զամենայն մերժեալսն՝ գլուխ և առաջնորդ կացուցանեն ի վերայ ժողովրդեանն Աստուծոյ. և ոչ գիտեն զինչ գործեն, վասն զի կուրանան ի սաստկութենէ արծաթսիրութեանն։ Եւ առաւել ունիմ ասել զայս, զի ահա

1 Որդեակք,] O J W Z D I Որդեակ; H L Որդեակք, իմ; B Որդեակք, և ‖ զսուրբսն] D H I J L W Z զսուրբն; F X զսուրբքն; O զսուրբ ‖ զառաքինիսն] D H I J L O W Z զառաքինին ‖ վիրաւորեն,] D I վիրաւորին 2 չունելոյ] K չառնելոյ ‖ արծաթ,] H J I L արծաթս; K զարծաթ և ‖ տան] W տան ի ‖ զձեռնադրութիւն.] B D F H I J Jer L O X զձեռնադրութիւնն; W ձեռնադրութիւնն; Y զձեռնարդրութիւնն 3 քան] D I J O W Z om. ‖ ի] K V X Y om. ‖ ի լինելոյ] B om. ‖ միւսումն] K միւս 4 բազումք] H L om. ‖ հաւատոց] L հաւատոյ; X հաւատոցն ‖ աստուածպաշտութեանց,] D աստուածպաշտութենէ 5 զի] D I J O W Z om. ‖ ի] X om. ‖ քահանայից] K քահանայիցն ‖ ի] K X om. ‖ կրաւնաւորաց՝] F կրաւնաւորացն ‖ թուլամորթին ի կրաւնից] X om. 6 լինելոց] F շինելոց 6–7 փափագողք, որոճալով ... դիւական.] W om. 7 դիւական.] H L դիւականս ‖ կրաւնաւորքն] X կրաւնից; D H I J Jer L W կրաւնաւորք ‖ յանապատէն] X յանապատին ‖ ատեն] W ատ 8 զվարս] X վարս ‖ առաջին] H L յառաջին ‖ կրաւնաւորացն] K կրաւնաւորաց ‖ ատեալ] B ատել; H L om. ‖ անարգեն.] J I անարգեն. և; K անարգին; H L անարգեալ ատեն և ‖ լինիցին] D H I J L O W Z լինին 9 խանգարիչք] K խանգարիչ ‖ ի ձայնէ] K om. ‖ սաղմոսերգութեանցն] H K L սաղմոսերգութեանց 10 որդեակք] D I J W Z որդեակ ‖ յազգս] C D E F G H I J Jer L V X Y Z յաղագս ‖ այս] X om. 11 աշխարհի] X յաշխարհի; K Քրիստոսի 11–12 զորոշեալս] H L յորոշեալս 12 որդւոյն] H L յորդւոյն ‖ զնոսա] W զնա ‖ կարգս] F կարգք; B D H I J Jer K L V W Y կարգ 13 քահանայական,] O քահանայկանութեան; D H I J L W Y Z քահանայութեան ‖ զամենայն] W ամենայն ‖ առաջնորդ] Z յառաջնորդ 15 սաստկութենէ] Y արծաթասիրութենէ ‖ արծաթսիրութեանն։] X Z արծաթսիրութեան ‖ ասել զայս,] Jer K V Y զայս ասել

3 զչորեքտասան] On p. 194 l. 10 above, A has corrected ‘fourteen’ to ‘six’, but has failed to do so here.

5

10

15

text of selected excerpts from the chronicle

203

of him. Sons, they wound the holy and the virtuous, and they turn away the pure from the priesthood for want of money, they do not give consecration [to them]. And as we said fourteen8 years ago at the appearance of the other sign, many slacken from the faith of the worship of God, because many of the priests and monks weaken from their monastic lives. They will come to desire vice; in their musings they ponder diabolical deeds. Monks flee from the hermitages and shun the holy company of hermits, and disdain and despise the customs of the early monks; they will become disturbers of the holy orders and of monastic ways; they flee from the sound of the singing of psalms to God. All these things will occur, my sons; in this nation the leaders of the land will overflow with avarice,9 and they call forward all the fallen and those separated from the grace of the Son of God and put them in the priestly orders, and they establish all these wretched ones as head and principal over the assembly of God; and they know not what they do, because they are blinded by the intensity of their avarice. And moreover I have this to say: that behold henceforth Christ will be afflicted with a great

8 Here all witnesses retain ‘fourteen’, including Matenadaran ms 1896 which previously emended the number to ‘six’. 9 This could well be reference to the katholikos of the time, Petros Getadarj. See Mahé, ‘L’Église arménienne’, p. 526.

204

appendix a

յայսմհետէ մեծաւ խոցմամբ վիրաւորելոց է Քրիստոս յանարժան քահանայից, քան զխաչիլն և զչարչարիլն ի հրէիցն, զի պակասն ի նոցանէ վճարելոց է ի սոցանէ. և լսելոց է եթէ «Ընկեր, վասն որո՞յ մտեր յայս հարսանիսս։»† Յայնժամ կապեալ ոտիւք և կապեալ ձեռաւք հանեն զնա ի խաւարն արտաքին, և զոր ժողովեացն կուտի կորստեամբ ի վերայ նորա։ Որդեակք իմ, ահա այս ամենայն լինելոց է ի յետին ժամանակս, զի արձակեցաւ Սատանայ ի հազար ամէ կապանացն զոր կապեաց Քրիստոս խաչիւն իւրով. և յայսմհետէ երևեսցին ճշմարիտ հաւատացեալքն Քրիստոսի՝ կալով ընդդէմ նորա ի պատերազմ, զի ունի պատերազմել ընդ սուրբսն՝ որք պատուիրանաւն Աստուծոյ պահպանեալ կան ի կարգս ճշմարիտ խոստովանութեանն Քրիստոսի Աստուծոյ մերոյ, որք կան յազգս ազգս։ Այսուհետև լինին յարձակմունք այլազգեաց՝ անիծեալ որդւոցն Քամայ, պիղծ զաւրքն Թուրքաց, ի վերայ ազգաց քրիստոնէից, և ի սուր սուսերի մաշի ամենայն երկիր. սովով և գերութեամբ անցանէ ամենայն ազգ հաւատացելոցն

1 յանարժան] D անարժան; H L յանարժան պատարագչաց 1–2 քահանայից,] A քահանայիցն 2 քան] F H I J L X քանզի ‖ զխաչիլն] L խաչեալն; V X Y զխաչելն; I J խաչելն; B D F H O W Z զխաչեալն ‖ զչարչարիլն] B D H I J L O W Z զչարչարեալն; F V Y զչարչարելն ‖ հրէիցն,] A F V X Y հրէից ‖ զի] H L om. ‖ պակասն] H L զպակասն 2–3 վճարելոց] B վարժելոց 3 ի սոցանէ.] F Jer K V X Y om. ‖ է] H L է որ ասէ ‖ վասն որո՞յ] K ընդէ՞ր; I վասն; F վասն որդոյ ‖ մտեր] D O W մտել ‖ յայս] D I J O V W Y Z այս; H L այսր ‖ հարսանիսս] Y I հարսանիս; K om.; H L որ ոչ ունէիր հանդերձ հարսանեաց և այլն ‖ †] X intermittit 4 կապեալ] O կապել ‖ կապեալ] J O W կապել 5 զոր] L om. ‖ ժողովեացն] W ժողովեաց; B K ժողովեցան ‖ կուտի] H L կուտէ ‖ նորա։] F նոցա 6 Որդեակք] L Յորդեակք; W Որդեակ ‖ այս] F յայս ‖ ի] D H I J L O W Z om. ‖ ժամանակս,] F Jer K V Y ժամանակն 7 Սատանայ] F սատանայի; B աստ ‖ ի] F K om. ‖ ամէ] F O յամէ; K ամեա 8 յայսմհետէ] Jer K V Y om. ‖ հաւատացեալքն] I հաւատացեալսն; J հաւատացեալն 9 պատերազմ,] F Jer V պատերազմն ‖ ունի] Y V ունի ի ‖ պատերազմել] C H L պատերազմիլ ‖ սուրբսն՝] H I J L սուրբն ‖ որք] K om. 10 պահպանեալ] W պահեալ 10–11 խոստովանութեանն] K խոստովանութեամբ; B D F H I J Jer L O V W Y Z խոստովանութեան 11 մերոյ,] J W H Z C D I L մերոյ, այս էր պատճառն որ խաւարեցաւ արեգակն։ ‖ յազգս ազգս։] D յաղագս ազգս; H ազգս յաղագս 12 յարձակմունք] I արձակմունս; D J K O Z արձակմունք ‖ այլազգեաց՝] Y V այլազգեացք; A այլազգեաց՝ պիղծ զաւրքն թուրքաց ‖ անիծեալ] Jer W om. ‖ որդւոցն] H L յորդւոցն ‖ պիղծ] Jer W om. 12–13 պիղծ զաւրքն թուրքաց,] A om. 12 զաւրքն] Y զաւրք; K զաւրացն 13 ազգաց] W ազգացն ‖ մաշի] F V մաշեց; Jer K Y մաշեսցեն 13–14 ամենայն] Jer K զամենայն 14 երկիր.] H յերկիր ‖ սովով] Y սով ‖ գերութեամբ] I J գերութեամբք ‖ հաւատացելոցն] B D H I J Jer K L V W Y Z հաւատացելոց 3 հարսանիսս] HL has restored the original verse in full. Cf. Matthew 22:11–14.

5

10

text of selected excerpts from the chronicle

205

wound by unworthy priests, greater than his crucifixion and torture by the Jews, for what was omitted by them will be accomplished by these; and one will hear, ‘Friend, why have you come to this wedding?’10 Then, tying him by the feet and tying him by the hands, they drag him to the outer darkness, and his possessions are heaped in perdition upon him. My sons, behold all this will happen in the final era; for Satan whom Christ bound with his cross has been freed from his thousand-year bonds; and henceforth true believers in Christ will appear standing against him in battle, for he must battle against the saints who, protected by the commandment of God, stand in the ranks of the true confession of Christ our God, and who exist throughout all nations. Hereafter there are invasions by foreigners,11 the cursed sons of Kʿam, the filthy forces of the Turks, upon the Christian nations, and all the earth is consumed by the edge of the sword. All the nations of the faithful in Christ pass through famine and captivity. Many

10 11

One subgroup of manuscripts restores the original verse: ‘why have you come in here when you have no wedding garment?’ Cf. Matthew 22:11–14. Five manuscripts of the Vienna group read ‘… confession of Christ our God; this was the reason that the sun darkened. Those who stand for this nation henceforth will become deliverance from outsiders …’ The others preserve ‘invasion’ rather than ‘deliverance’; it is unclear which reading the scribe intended.

206

appendix a

Քրիստոսի. յանմարդ դառնան բազում գաւառք. բառնալոց է զաւրութիւնք սրբոց յերկրէ. քակտին բազում եկեղեցիք ի հիմանց. խափանեսցի խորհուրդ խաչին Քրիստոսի. ի բազմանալ անաւրէնութեանցն խափանին տաւնախմբութիւնք սրբոցն։ Գրգռին որդիք ընդ հարս, ատեցողք լինին հարք առ որդիս, յարիցեն եղբարք ի վերայ միմեանց, սպանութեամբ և արեան հեղութեամբ ջանան կորուսանել զիրեարս։ Ուրանան զգութ և զսէր եղբայրութեանն, ցամաքեսցի արիւն եղբայրութեան նոցա, և այսպիսի գործովք հաւասարակից լինին անաւրինացն. և յազգաց անաւրինաց ծփի երկիր, և ցաւղ արեան զգենուն բոյսք անդաստանաց, և զամս վաթսուն սրով և գերութեամբ աւերելոց է երկիր։ Եւ յայնժամ ելցեն ազգն արիականքն որք են Ֆռանգ, և բազմութեամբ զաւրաւք առցեն զսուրբ քաղաքն Երուսաղէմ, և ազատի ի ծառայութենէ սուրբ գերեզմանն աստուածընկալ։ Եւ զկնի այսորիկ զամս յիսուն տագնապի երկիր սրով և գերութեամբ ի զաւրացն Պարսից, և ևթնապատիկ առաւել քան զորս յառաջ կրեցին

1 յանմարդ] K անմարդ ‖ բազում] K բազումք ‖ գաւառք.] L գաւառաւք 1–2 զաւրութիւնք սրբոց] O զաւրութիւն սրբոց; C D H J զաւրութիւն սրբոցն; W Z զաւրութիւն սրբոցն; L սրբոցն զաւրութիւն; I զաւրութիւն սրբոցն 2 քակտին] K քակին ‖ բազում] B K բազումք ‖ խափանեսցի] D խափանեսցի ի; F K Y B V H Jer L խափանեսցին ‖ խորհուրդ] K V Y խորհուրդք 3 ի] B ի ի ‖ անաւրէնութեանցն] F K V Y անաւրէնութեանց; Jer անաւրէնութեան 4 սրբոցն։] D H I J L O W Z սրբոց ‖ որդիք] H L om. ‖ հարս,] H L հարս, յորդիք; A B հարցն ‖ լինին] B լին ‖ որդիս,] H L յորդիս 5 արեան] H L արիւն; O յարեան 6 զգութ] B զգայութիւն ‖ զսէր] K սէր ‖ եղբայրութեանն,] E G Jer V Y եղբայրսիրութեանն; F K եղբայրսիրութեան; L Z եղբայրութեան 7 ցամաքեսցի արիւն եղբայրութեան] F om. ‖ այսպիսի] K այնպիսի 8 անաւրինացն.] H ցանաւրինացն; L յանաւրինացն ‖ անաւրինացն. և յազգաց] K om. ‖ յազգաց] F V Y ազգաց; J յազգացան ‖ անաւրինաց] F Jer V Y անաւրինացն ‖ երկիր,] H L յերկիր 9 անդաստանաց,] H L յանդաստանաց ‖ վաթսուն] K բազումս ‖ է] F V Y էր 10 երկիր։] K զերկիր; H L յերկիր 11 Եւ] F om. ‖ ազգն] H ազգք; K արիական; I J L ազգ; O Y ազգքն ‖ արիականքն] K ազգքն; A Jer արիականք ‖ որք] D F H I J Jer L O V W Y Z որ ‖ Ֆռանգ,] H L Ֆռանգք ‖ և] K om. ‖ բազմութեամբ] W զբազմութեամբ 12 զաւրաւք] K զաւրաց և ‖ առցեն] J I առցեն զերուսաղէմ; H L անցանեն զերուսաղէմ ‖ զսուրբ] H I J L սուրբ; D om. ‖ քաղաքն] D զքաղաքն ‖ Երուսաղէմ,] D F Z յերուսաղէմ; H I J L om. ‖ ծառայութենէ] A գերութենէն 13 գերեզմանն] L գերեզմանին; Jer Գերեզման ‖ աստուածընկալ։] H L յաստուածընկալ; K Քրիստոսի 14 զամս յիսուն] H K L om. ‖ երկիր] H L երկիր զամս յիսուն; A երկիր ի զաւրացն պարսկաց 15 ի զաւրացն պարսից,] A om. ‖ պարսից, և] L om. ‖ ևթնապատիկ] K զևթնապատիկ ‖ առաւել] B om. ‖ զորս] K զաւրսն; F զաւրք ‖ յառաջ] Y առաջն; C D E F G H I J Jer L O V W Z յառաջն ‖ կրեցին] W կրեցի

5

10

15

text of selected excerpts from the chronicle

207

districts become depopulated. The power of the saints will disappear from the earth. Many churches are razed to their foundations. The mystery of Christ’s cross will be suppressed. As impiety proliferates, the feast days of the saints will be suppressed. Sons are provoked against fathers, fathers develop hatred toward sons, brothers will arise against each other, through murder and bloodshed they strive to destroy one another. They deny the compassion and love of brotherhood, the blood of their brotherhood will dry up, and through such deeds they become companion to the infidel. And the land is troubled by infidel nations, and the plants of the field are clothed in bloody dew, and for 60 years the earth will be desolated through sword and captivity. And then the nation of valiant ones will come, known as Franks, and with a multitude of troops they will take the holy city Jerusalem, and the holy tomb that held God is freed from captivity. And after this the earth is ravaged for 50 years by the forces of the Persians through sword and captivity, and [it will be] seven times more than what the faithful have already suffered, and all the nations of the faithful in Christ

208

appendix a

հաւատացեալքն, և ահաբեկին ամենայն ազգք հաւատացելոց Քրիստոսի. և ի բազմութենէ նեղութեանցն յուսահատին զաւրք Հռոմայեցւոց. բազում անցումն և կոտորած կրեն յազգէն Պարսից, և ընտիր ընտիրս ի քաջ զաւրականացն խողխողեն սրով և գերութեամբ, մինչև ի փրկութենէ յուսահատին զաւրքն Հռոմայեցւոց։ Եւ զկնի յիսուն ամացն սկիզբն առնուն ի զաւրանալ առ սակաւ սակաւ. և ուր ուրեք լինի մնացեալ յառաջին գնդէն, և ամ յամէ յառաջ գան և հաստատին իբրև տեղապահ գոլով աշխարհաց և գաւառաց։ Եւ յայնժամ որպէս ի քնոյ զարթուցեալ՝ լինի թագաւորն Հռոմայեցւոց, և հասանէ որպէս զարծուի ի վերայ զաւրացն Պարսից ահագին բազմութեամբ՝ որպէս զաւազ առ եզր ծովու։ Ելցէ որպէս զհուր բորբոքեալ, և յահէ նորա դողան ամենայն արարածք, և Պարսիկք և ամենայն զաւրք այլազգեացն արասցեն զփախուստ իւրեանց յայնկոյս մեծ գետոյն Ջահունից։ Եւ յայնժամ թագաւորն Հռոմայեցւոց տիրելով տիրէ ամենայն աշխարհի զամս բազումս, և նորոգումն առնու ամենայն երկիր, և շինութեան հիմն արկանի, և այնպէս նորանայ նա որպէս զկնի ջրհեղեղին. բազմանան ծնունդք մարդկան և անասնոց, բղխեսցեն աղբերք զգնացս ջրոց, պտղաբերին

1 հաւատացեալքն,] A F I J Jer K L O V W Y Z հաւատացեալք ‖ ահաբեկին] H L ահա բնակին ‖ ազգք] B D H I J L W Z ազգ ‖ հաւատացելոց] D հաւատացելոց ի 2 ի] I J om. ‖ բազմութենէ] F Y բազմութենէն ‖ նեղութեանցն] H նեղութենէնցն; K նեղութեանց ‖ զաւրք] H L զաւրքն ‖ Հռոմայեցւոց.] C D H L հոռոմոց 3 անցումն] F սնեցումն ‖ և] F V Y om. ‖ կրեն] H A O կրեն ի ‖ յազգէն] F V Y ազգէն ‖ և] O և և ‖ ընտիր] H L յընտիր ‖ ընտիրս] F H K L ընտիր ‖ ի] K om. 4 փրկութենէ] D փրկութենէն; O W H L փրկութենէն և; Z փրկութեան և; J I փրկութենէ և 5 զաւրքն] K զաւրք ‖ յիսուն ամացն] A B ամացն; K այսորիկ ‖ առ] B om. 6 ուր] K ուրեք ‖ լինի] K լինին ‖ մնացեալ] K մնացեալք ‖ յառաջին] H L յառաջի; Z առաջին ‖ գնդէն,] J գնտին; D H L O W Z գնդին ‖ և] K om. ‖ յառաջ] Y յառաջք 7 գան] F V քան ‖ աշխարհաց] D Z յաշխարհաց 8 Եւ] A B om. ‖ թագաւորն] Z թագաւոր ‖ Հռոմայեցւոց,] D E F G Jer V Y հոռոմոց; I J հռոմայեցւոցն 9 հասանէ] Y հասանէր ‖ զարծուի] A B D I J O W Z զարծիւ ‖ ահագին] H L յահագին 10 որպէս] F V om. ‖ զաւազ] F զաւազաւ ‖ առ] F om. ‖ եզր] K եզրն ‖ յահէ] F V Y ահէ 11 Պարսիկք] D I J W Z պարսիկ ‖ ամենայն] J ամենայնն; K om. ‖ ամենայն զաւրք] H L om. ‖ զաւրք] D I J W Z զաւրքն ‖ այլազգեացն] H L այլազգեաց զաւրս 12 արասցեն] K om.; H Y L արասցեն ի ‖ զփախուստ] B D I O Z զփախուստն; F H L W փախուստն; Jer V Y փախուստ ‖ իւրեանց] K առցեն ‖ մեծ] K om. ‖ Ջահունից։] D F I J O V W Y Z Ջանունից; C Ջահունեաց; A Ջահունեաց; B Ջանունեաց; H L Ջանունիցին 13 աշխարհի] D յաշխարհի 14 զամս] H L ամս ‖ բազումս,] K բազումք ‖ և] K om. ‖ առնու] D H I J L O W Y Z առնէ ‖ ամենայն] H L յամենայն ‖ երկիր,] I J W երկրի ‖ շինութեան] H զշինութեան 15 արկանի,] B արկանէր; A արկանէ ‖ նա] A B F Jer K V Y om. ‖ որպէս] I J որ ‖ ջրհեղեղին.] Jer K Y V ջրհեղեղին. և ‖ ծնունդք] W ծնունդ 16 մարդկան] K մարդոց ‖ զգնացս] I գնացս

5

10

15

text of selected excerpts from the chronicle

209

are terrified.12 And the forces of the Romans will be in despair over the multitude of tribulations. They suffer much death and massacre at the hands of the Persian nation; they slaughter the most elite of the brave soldiers with sword and captivity, until the Roman forces despair of salvation. And after fifty years they begin to strengthen little by little; and wherever there are remnants of the former armies, year after year they advance and settle as lieutenants in the lands and districts. Then as if waking from sleep the king of the Romans arises and comes like an eagle against the Persian forces with a fearful multitude like sand on the shore of the sea. He will come inflamed like fire, and out of fear of him all creatures tremble, and the Persians and all the foreign forces shall take their flight13 to the other side of the great Gihon14 river. And then the Roman king will take and rule the whole land for many years; and all the earth will receive renewal, and the foundation for building will be laid, and so it will be renewed like after the flood. The offspring of men and beasts multiply, fountains will gush forth streams of water, the fields bear more fruit than before. And thereafter famine15 will

12 13 14

15

One subgroup reads ‘behold all the nations of Christ’s faithful dwell.’ Punctuation in Matenadaran ms 5587 gives ‘all creatures and the Persians and all people tremble, and the foreign forces shall take flight’. The Armenian form of this name is J̌ahuni. Dostourian has taken it to refer to the Pyramus river in Cilicia, which is known in Arabic as the Jeyḥān, but the pseudoMethodian origin of this prophecy renders that implausible. The Gihon, one of the four rivers flowing from Eden (c.f. Genesis 2:13) and referred to as ‘the river of Persia’ by the Syriac historian Bar Hebraeus (The chronicle of Gregory Abûʿl Faraj, p. 196), is a much more plausible identification. Matenadaran ms 1731 reads ‘Zion’.

210

appendix a

անդաստանք առաւել քան զառաջինն։ Եւ այնուհետև անկանի սով ի աշխարհն Պարսից զբազում ամս, մինչև յարձակեալ զմիմեանս ուտիցեն։ Եւ յահէ զաւրութեան թագաւորին Հռոմայեցւոց բազում իշխանք Պարսից ելցեն ի քաղաքաց և ի գաւառաց իւրեանց, և առանց պատերազմի զփախուստ արասցեն յայնկոյս Ջահուն գետոյ. և զամենայն ժողովս մթերից իւրեանց զամաց բազմաց՝ զոսկւոյ և զարծաթոյ, և զամենայն բազմութիւն գանձուցն որպէս զհող կամ զքարակոյտս, այնչափ համարով առցեն յաշխարհէն Պարսից, և բարձեալ տարցեն յաշխարհն Հռոմայեցւոց. և զամենայն մանկունս և զաղջկունս և զկանայս տարցեն ի գերութիւն յաշխարհն Հռոմայեցւոց. աւերակ և անմարդ լինելոց է տունն Պարսից ի զաւրացն Հռոմայեցւոց, և հաստատի ամենայն իշխանութիւն երկրի ի ներքոյ ձեռին թագաւորին Հռոմայեցւոց։ †Զայս այսպէս ասաց սուրբ վարդապետն Յովհաննէս, և արձակեալ յուղարկեաց զիշխանսն Հայոց խաղաղութեամբ, և գնացին յաշխարհն իւրեանց։

1 քան զառաջինն։] C D E F G H I J Jer L O V W Y Z քան զառաւել; K քան զառաջին; B om. ‖ անկանի] K սկսանի; F I L անկան ի ‖ սով] B D H I J Jer K L O V W Y Z սովն; F սիովնի ‖ ի] H L պարսից ‖ աշխարհն] A B D I J Jer O W Z յաշխարհն; Y յաշխարհհն 2 Պարսից] H L om. ‖ զբազում] K L բազում ‖ յարձակեալ] F արձակեալ ‖ զմիմեանս] I միմեանս ‖ Եւ] Y om. 3 զաւրութեան] H L om. ‖ Հռոմայեցւոց] W հռոմոց ‖ բազում] K բազումք 4 զփախուստ] B D F H I J O W Z զփախուստն 5 յայնկոյս] O J W H Z D I L յայնկոյս ի ‖ Ջահուն] K Ջահունայ ‖ գետոյ.] Y գետոյն; I J գետոց; K om. ‖ ժողովս] H L ժողովս ի 6 զամաց] W om. ‖ զոսկւոյ] O զոսկոց ‖ զարծաթոյ,] D H Jer K L Z արծաթոյ ‖ զամենայն] F Jer K V Y ամենայն ‖ բազմութիւն] B D F H I J K L O W Y Z բազմութիւնս ‖ գանձուցն] K գանձուց 7 կամ] H L և ‖ այնչափ] A H K L անչափ; O յանչափ ‖ համարով] L համարելով; V համարէն; K և անքանակ; Y համարին ‖ յաշխարհէն] K V աշխարհէն 8 յաշխարհն] H L V Y աշխարհն ‖ Հռոմայեցւոց.] W հռոմոց 9 զաղջկունս] H L յաղջկունս; B զաղչկունսն ‖ զկանայս] B D I J O W Z զկանայսն ‖ յաշխարհն] F K V Y աշխարհն 10 աւերակ] A B F Jer V Y աւերակս; D H I J L W Z om. ‖ անմարդ] F Jer անմարդս ‖ անմարդ լինելոց ... և] D H I J L W Z om. 11 իշխանութիւն] D I J իշխանութիւնն; H յիշխանութիւնն ‖ երկրի] D H L յերկրի ‖ ներքոյ] H L ներքս ի ‖ ձեռին] H L ձեռն 11–12 Հռոմայեցւոց։] D հռոմոց 13 †] X resumit ‖ Զայս] B F L W X Յայս ‖ այսպէս] Y սոյնպէս; K om. ‖ արձակեալ] X արձակեաց 14 յուղարկեաց] H L յուղարկեալ ‖ զիշխանսն] B զիշխանն; F Jer V X Y զիշխանս ‖ գնացին] B գընացի ‖ յաշխարհն] F K O V աշխարհն

5

10

15

text of selected excerpts from the chronicle

211

fall on the Persian land for many years, until they attack and consume each other. And out of fear of the might of the Roman king many Persian princes will leave their cities and districts, and will take flight without a battle to the other side of the Gihon river. And [the Romans] will take all their collections of gold and silver accumulated over many years, and all the multitude of treasures [heaped up] like dirt or piles of stones in such measure, from the Persian land, and bear them off to the Roman land. And they will take all the boys and girls and women to the Roman land in captivity. The nation of the Persians will become desolate and depopulated by the forces of the Romans, and all the sovereignty of the earth will settle in the hand of the Roman king.’ Thus spoke the holy vardapet Yovhannēs and, letting them go, sent the Armenian princes away in peace, and they went to their own land.

212

appendix a

Author’s Prologue to Book Two of the Chronicle Արդ ահա մինչև ցայս վայրս բազմաջան և աշխատաւոր քննութեամբ գտեալ գրեցաք զշարագրական գրեալս զհարիւրից ամաց, զորս ի բազում ժամանակաց հետաքննեալ հասու եղաք, ընդ այնքանեաց տեսողացն և լսողացն որք էին ի հին ամաց ծնեալք, և ընդ ընթերցողսն յառաջին պատմագրացն որք ականատեսք էին լեալք ամենայն եղելոցս և նեղութեանցս այսոցիկ զոր վասն մեղաց կրեաց տունն Հայոց։ Եւ ահա որ զայս բազում անգամ զմտաւ ածեալ եմ, վասն այս յետին ժամանակին գրել զդառնաշունչ կոտորածսն, զայս սոսկալի բարկութիւնս զոր կրեաց ազգս Հայոց ի գիսաւոր և ի պիղծ եղիմնացւոց ազգէն Թուրքաց, և յեղբարց իւրեանց Հոռոմոց. և վասն այսորիկ հարկ եղև ի մտաց խորհրդոյս իմոյ, անդադար յուզմամբ իբրև զմեծ իմն համարելով, գտանել զայս գործս կատարածի. և վասն այսորիկ ժողով արարի և գրեցի մինչև ցայս վայր զերիս ազգացս և զհայրապետացս և զայլ պէսպէս քննութեանց զազգաց և զթագաւորաց զորս յառաջ 1 ահա] Jer K V Y om. ‖ ցայս] B ցայց; Y om. ‖ վայրս] X վայր; Y ցվայրս; D I J W Z վարս ‖ և] O և և 2 գրեցաք] K գրեցաք ի; F գըրեցջաք ‖ զշարագրական] K ժամանակական ‖ գրեալս] X գրեալսն ‖ զհարիւրից] H L զհարիւր; K X հարիւրից ‖ ամաց,] K ամացն ‖ զորս] W զոր ‖ ի] K om. 3 հետաքննեալ] W հետա; F հետաքննեալ եալ ‖ եղաք,] F ելաք ‖ ընդ] C H L W ըստ ‖ այնքանեաց] D I J O W X Z այնքանեացս; H L այսքանեացս 4 էին] X է ‖ ի] A B X om. ‖ ծնեալք,] I J ծնեալքն ‖ ընդ] K W om. ‖ ընթերցողսն] K ընթերցողք; X ընթերցաւղն ‖ յառաջին] B D I J K O W Z առաջին ‖ պատմագրացն] A B Jer պատմագրացս 5 եղելոցս] K եղելոցն; Jer եղելոց ‖ նեղութեանցս] F K X նեղութեանս ‖ այսոցիկ] X այսոսիկ; H L W յայսոցիկ 6 զոր] X որ ‖ կրեաց] F կրաւնեաց; D H I J L W X Z om. ‖ տունն] D I J O W X Z տուն; H L տանն ‖ Եւ] K Եւ է ‖ ահա որ] F Jer X I Y V ահաւոր; K ահաւոր քան ‖ զայս] K զայս դառնաշունչ կատարած 6–7 բազում անգամ ... այս] K om. 7 զմտաւ] B զմաւտ ‖ եմ,] D F H I J L W X Z իմ ‖ այս] D յայս ‖ յետին] H I J L յետինս ‖ ժամանակին] D F I J K O W X Z ժամանակիս; L ժամա; H ժամագրել ‖ գրել] B գրեալ; Y գրել զդառնայ; H om.; K որ զմտաւ ունիմ գրել ‖ զդառնաշունչ] Y շունչ; K և 7–8 կոտորածսն,] Z կտրածսն; W կտծսն; A B D H I J Jer L O կատարածսն; V Y կտրծսն; K թողուլ 8 զայս] K իմացումն յապագայից եղբարց Պէսպէս ‖ զոր] K զորս ‖ ազգս] H L X զազգս 9 եղիմնացւոց ազգէն] W Եղիմնացոց ազգին; H L եղիմնացւոց յազգէն; Jer ազգէն Եղիմնացւոց ‖ և] F Jer V X Y om. ‖ յեղբարց] A B D F H I J K L O V W X Z եղբարց ‖ իւրեանց] F իւր նոցա; X L իւրոց ‖ և] L om. 10 եղև] Jer եղև և ‖ իմոյ,] F Jer K V X Y om. ‖ անդադար] V Y յանդադար 11 գտանել] K տեսանել ‖ գործս] D գործ ‖ կատարածի.] V Y կտրածի; D I J W Z կտրծի 11–12 և վասն այսորիկ] K om. 12 ժողով] A B D F I J Jer O V W X Y Z զաւրաժողով; K հարցաժողով ‖ զերիս] K երիս; X զչորս 13 զազգաց] X յազգաց; K ազգաց ‖ զթագաւորաց] W X թագաւորաց ‖ յառաջ] B I առաջ; H L յառաջն 7–8 կոտորածսն,] The ambiguously abbreviated readings for this word are retained in the apparatus here and below.

5

10

text of selected excerpts from the chronicle

213

Author’s Prologue to Book Two Now indeed up to this point, through fatiguing and laborious examination, we have found out and written this historical work about [the events of] 100 years, which we have put together [after] having enquired for a long time, from a great number of those who saw and heard who were born in years past, and through the readers of earlier historians who have become eyewitness to all these occurrences and troubles that the Armenian people have borne because of their sins. Now I have considered this many times, to write for this later time about the violent massacres, this dreadful wrath, which the Armenian nation bore at the hands of the hairy and filthy Ełimnacʿikʿ nation of the Turks, and of their Roman brothers. And because of this it became necessary to my mind to find16 this work completed through ceaseless research, like for something reckoned great. And because of this I made a collection and I wrote up to this point about the three nations and about the hayrapets and about various other enquiries concerning nations and kings, of which I spoke earlier, and which later we will yet call the beginning of the

16

Bzommar ms 449 reads “see”.

214

appendix a

ասացաք, և որ զկնի դեռ ևս ասասցուք զսկիզբն կատարածիս, զոր ինչ եղև յաւուրս հարցն մերոց, որք էին տեսեալ բազում անգամ աչաւք իւրեանց. զոր և իմ իսկ խորհեալ զխորհուրդս զայս, և զութ ամ անհանգիստ քննութեամբ կացի, և զայս ամենայն յաւժարեցի ի տեսութիւն և ի մատենագրութիւն ածել գրով, վասն զի մի՛ ի չարաշունչ դառնութեան ժամանակս կորիցի այս ամենայն և մոռասցի։ Եւ վասն այսորիկ ես Մատթէոս Ուռհայեցի և վանական զաշխատութեան զգործ իմ ոչինչ համարեցայ, այլ թողի զայս յիշատակ սիրողաց ժամանակագրութեանց, զի յորժամ ի հանդէս քննութեան ելցեն յաղագս ժամանակաց անցելոցն, դիւրաւ կարասցեն գտանել զժամս և զժամանակս, և զկատարած բարկութեանն ի վերայ ժամանակացն գտանիցեն, և այնու զմտաւ ածեալ յիշեսցեն զաստուածասաստ բարկութիւնն՝ զոր վասն մեղացն ընկալաք զհատուցումն յարդար դատաւորէն յԱստուծոյ, և վասն այսորիկ կողմանց կողմանց զկորուստ հաւատացելոցն և զխրատս զոր անաւրէն ազգաւ խրատեաց զմեզ տէր Աստուած մեր. և ահա որ ոչ կամեցաք 1 և] K որ ‖ և որ ... ասասցուք] H L om. ‖ և որ ... ինչ եղև] B om. ‖ որ] K և ‖ դեռ ևս] Jer թերևս ‖ ասասցուք] K ասելոցեմք ‖ զսկիզբն] Jer V Y սկիզբն ‖ կատարածիս,] W կտրիս; Z կտծիս; D J Y կտրծիս; V կտրածիս; K զգործս և զբանս 2 տեսեալ բազում անգամ] Jer K V Y բազում անգամ տեսեալ ‖ իւրեանց.] F X իւր ետ նոցա 3 իմ] L յիմ ‖ իսկ] H K L om. ‖ զխորհուրդս] Jer K V Y խորհուրդս ‖ զայս,] F Jer K V W X Y այս ‖ զութ] D H I J K L V W Z ութ; Y ըստ ութ ‖ քննութեամբ] A B om. 4 կացի,] W կարացի ‖ յաւժարեցի] B F Z աւժարեցի; K յաւժարեցայ ‖ ի] H I J L W om. ‖ մատենագրութիւն] I J W իմաստենագրութիւն; L յիմաստագրութիւնն; C H յիմաստագրութիւն ‖ ածել] B ածեմ 5 դառնութեան] H L om. ‖ ժամանակս] K ժամանակիս ‖ կորիցի] B D F H I J Jer K L V W X Y Z կորիցէ 6 ես] B D F H I J Jer L O V W X Y Z om. 7 զաշխատութեան] H L զաշխատութեանս ‖ զգործ] A Jer K V Y զգործս ‖ համարեցայ,] H համարեցան; L համարեացն ‖ զայս] F O Jer X K V զայս ի; Y սա ի 8 սիրողաց] X սիրողացն ‖ քննութեան] D H I J L O W Z քննութեանց; X քննութեամբ 9 անցելոցն,] A անցելոց ‖ դիւրաւ] F X դիւր; Jer K դիւրս ‖ կարասցեն] V Y աւգտակարեսցեն; F X տակաւ արասցեն ‖ զժամս] Jer K V Y զժամ 10 զժամանակս,] K զժամանակ ‖ զկատարած] J L V Y զկտրած; F X զկոտորած; D I Z զկտրծ; B զկատարածի; K զգործն; W զկտծ ‖ բարկութեանն] B բարկութիւնն; K X բարկութեան ‖ ժամանակացն] K X ժամանակաց 11 այնու] A O այնու ևս; B այնու և ‖ զոր] A B D F H I J Jer K L O V W X Z զորս 12 մեղացն] H L մեղաց մերոց ‖ ընկալաք] L ընկալայք ‖ յարդար դատաւորէն] H L արդարադատէն; C յարդարադատէն; D I J K O V W Y Z արդար դատաւորէն ‖ յԱստուծոյ,] A B I J K O V W Y Z Աստուծոյ 13 վասն այսորիկ] Jer վասն այսոցիկ ‖ կողմանց կողմանց] A B F K O V X Y կողմանց; G ոմանց; H զկողմանց; L զկողմանց կողմանց ‖ հաւատացելոցն] D F H I J Jer K L O V W X Y Z հաւատացելոց ‖ զխրատս] A զխրատ ‖ զոր] D H I J O W Z զորս; L om. 14 անաւրէն] B անաւրէնն ‖ որ ոչ] X որոց; H L զոր ոչ 4 մատենագրութիւն] The variant reading իմաստ(ն)ագրութիւն is not an attested word, but իմաստագործութիւն is attested. The variants may be based on that.

5

10

text of selected excerpts from the chronicle

215

end, which came to pass in the days of our fathers, who had often seen [these things] with their own eyes. So indeed I had this intention, and for eight years I was engaged in unceasing research, and I was eager to put all this in writing as witness and as a document, so that all these eras might not perish in evil bitterness and be forgotten. And therefore I, Mattʿēos Uṙhayecʿi, a monk, have reckoned as nothing my work of labour, but I leave this record for those who love chronicles, so that when they enter into an examination of past times, they will easily be able to find the times and the epochs,17 and they might learn of the fulfilment of wrath over the eras, and having pondered that, they might remember the severe divine wrath which we received in return for our sins from the righteous judge God; and the ruin of the faithful everywhere because of these [sins] and the punishment which our Lord God imposed on us by means of an impious nation; and indeed we did not want

17

The Venice group reads ‘they will find easily useful’; Matenadaran ms 1731 and its copy read ‘they will easily do by slow degrees’.

216

appendix a

զսպառնալիսն և զխրատն Աստուծոյ մոռացուցանել ի վերայ մեր։ Արդ արժան է միշտ և հանապազ լսել զխրատն Աստուծոյ մերոյ, և դարձեալ ի նոյն պատուհասն մեղաց դեգերեալ շրջիմք, զոր ընկալաք ըստ արժանեաց մերոց զհատուցումն. նա և այլ ևս ունիմք ասել ձեզ ամաց ութսնից զաշխատութենէ Մատթէոսի Ուռհայեցւոյ և վանաց երիցու։

5

Author’s Prologue to Book Three of the Chronicle The witnesses C, H, I, J, L, W, and Z lack this section of text, and are excluded from the apparatus. The text of Y was unavailable when this edition was prepared, hence also omitted. Ի յամէ չորեքհարիւրերորդէ ի հինգհարիւրերորդ յիսներորդ ի գիրս այս ժողովեցաք զգործ ժամանակաց հարիւր և յիսնից ամաց, և յայսմ տեղւոջ լռեալ դադարեցաք ի հարստաւոր քննութենէս մերմէ, վասն զի այլոց ոմանց թողաք զայս մարտ մտաց և պայքարումն խորհրդոց, և մեր յետ ելանելոյ տեղի տալով հանճարեղացն և իմաստուն արուեստաւոր քննողաց, ըստ բանի սրբոյ առաքելոյն Պաւղոսի որ ասէ, «եթէ ոք յայտնեսցէ առաջինն լռեսցէ։» Եւ այս եղև ի հայրապետութեանն տանն Հայոց տեառն Գրիգորիսի

2 է] Y է մեզ ‖ լսել զխրատն Աստուծոյ մերոյ] L զխրատն Աստուծոյ լսել ‖ զխրատն] X խրատն ‖ մերոյ,] K om. ‖ և] K և մեք 3 պատուհասն] D F H I J Jer L O W X Z պատուհաս ‖ մեղաց] D F H J Jer L O W X Z մեղացն; K om. ‖ դեգերեալ] K դեգերիմք ‖ շրջիմք,] K om. ‖ զոր] A B D F I J Jer K O V W X Y Z զորս ‖ ընկալաք] L ընկալայք ‖ արժանեաց] H L արժանեացն 4 ունիմք] X ունիք; K om. ‖ ութսնից] X om. ‖ զաշխատութենէ] H L զաշխատութիւն 5 Մատթէոսի] F X մաթէոս ‖ Ուռհայեցւոյ] H L յուռհայու 6 Ի] K Արդ ի ‖ յամէ] A F Jer K O V յամի B D X յամին ‖ չորեքհարիւրերորդէ ի հինգհարիւրերորդ] A B O չորեքհարիւրերորդի հինգհարիւրերորդի; K չորեքհարիւր և; Jer չորեքհարիւրերորդի և; V չորեքհարիւրերորդի հինգհարիւրերորդի և; F X D չորեքհարիւրերորդի ‖ յիսներորդ] A B D F Jer K O V X յիսներորդի ‖ այս] D F Jer O V X աստ; B այլ 7 զգործ] K ըստ ‖ հարիւր և յիսնից] Jer K V հարիւր և յիսուն ‖ ամաց,] X ամացն 8 հարստաւոր] A B O յարուեստաւոր 9 զայս] B զոր ‖ պայքարումն] F պաքսամուրն; X պաքսամուր; G K մաքառումն ‖ մեր յետ] Jer K V յետ մեր 9–10 ելանելոյ] F X ելանելով 10 արուեստաւոր] O յարուեստաւոր; K հարստաւոր 11 սրբոյ] Jer V սրբոյն ‖ սրբոյ առաքելոյն] X om. ‖ յայտնեսցէ] A B D F Jer K O V X յատենի; A B D F Jer K O V X ելցէ, ‖ առաջինն] V յառաջինն 12 Եւ] X om. ‖ հայրապետութեանն] K հայրապետութեան ‖ տանն Հայոց տեառն] B O տան Հայոց տեառն; K Հայոց տէրն; V Հայոց տանն տեառն; Jer Հայոց տանն տէր 6 յիսներորդ] None of the texts gives a sensical reading in context. The only possible interpretation in this context, given the numbers in question, is ‘from the 400th year to the 550th’. 11 յայտնեսցէ] This is a corrupted quote of 1Cor 14:30, which reads ‘եթէ այլ ումեք որ նստիցին՝ յայտնեսցի, առաջինն լռեսցէ։’ The words յատենի ելցէ have therefore been emended to յայտնեսցէ.

10

text of selected excerpts from the chronicle

217

the threats and warnings to us from God to be forgotten. Now it is fitting, always and ever, to heed the warning of our God, and again we turn back to the same punishment18 for frequent sins, a consequence which we have received as we deserved. We have that and even more to say to you about the labour of 80 years of Mattʿēos Uṙhayecʿi, the elder of a monastery. Author’s Prologue to Book Three From the 400th year to the 550th we have collected in this book the deeds spanning 150 years19 and, having fallen silent in this place, we have ceased our productive20 investigation, for we left this battle of minds and struggle of wills to others, and then we withdrew, giving way to men of wit and wise and artful scholars, according to the words of the holy apostle Paul, who said ‘If someone has a revelation, let the first keep silent’.21 And it was in the reign of the Armenian katholikoi Lord Grigor and Lord Barseł

18 19 20 21

Bzommar ms 449 reads ‘again we frequent the same punishment’. Bzommar ms 449 reads ‘the eras one after another’ or ‘according to the eras’. Matenadaran ms 1896 reads ‘skilful, artful’. Cf. 1Cor. 14:30.

218

appendix a

և տեառն Բարսղի, յորժամ եղև առաջին սկիզբն երկրապատմութեանս, և էր ի հայրապետութեանն Հոռոմոց որ ի Կոստանդնուպաւլիս՝ Նիկաւլայ, և ի հայրապետութեանն Անտիոքայ Յովհաննու, և ի հայրապետութեանն Երուսաղէմայ Սիմէաւնի, և ի հայրապետութեանն Աղէքսանդրու Յովհաննու, և ի հայրապետութեանն տանն Ասորւոց Աթանասի։ Եւ ի յԱդամայ էին ամք ժամանակաց վեց հազար և վեց հարիւր և տասն, և արդ զամս տասն ոչինչ արարաք հոգս վասն այս ժամանակագրութեանս, և թողեալ էաք ի բացեայ զարուեստ գրչութեանցս. և տեսանելով մեր հանապազաւր զաստուածասաստ բարկութիւնս հեղեալ ի վերայ քրիստոնէից, և ամ յամէ անկեալ և գլորեալ լինէր զաւրութիւն զաւրաց հաւատացելոցն, և տեսաք զի ոչ ոք ունէր ի մտի զայս խնդրել կամ ի գիրս հաւաքել, զի ապագայիցն յիշատակ լիցի այս կատարածս և նեղութիւնս առ բարի ժամանակն յորժամ տացէ տէր Աստուած զխոստացեալսն յետին ժամանակին, յորժամ տացէ Աստուած հաւատացելոց զժամանակն, որ լի իսկ իցէ ամենայն ուրախութեամբ. և ապա մեր յառաջ եկեալ յայնժամ բազում ուրախութեամբ որպէս թէ յԱստուծոյ

1 եղև առաջին] K V եղև յառաջին; A եղև; X առաջին ‖ սկիզբն] A սկիզբն առաջին ‖ երկրապատմութեանս,] D E G Jer K V X երկրպագութեանս 2 էր] Jer K V om. ‖ որ] Jer K V om. ‖ Նիկաւլայ,] K տէրն Նիկաւլայ 3 և ի հայրապետութեանն ... Յովհաննու] F X om. ‖ ի հայրապետութեանն Անտիոքայ] Jer V ի յԱնտիոքայ հայրապետութեանն; K յԱնտիոքայ հայրապետութեան ‖ Յովհաննու,] K տէրն Յովհաննու ‖ և] O om. ‖ և ի] B Jer K V om. 3–4 ի հայրապետութեանն Երուսաղէմայ] Jer ի յԵրուսաղէմայ հայրապետութեանն; K V Երուսաղէմայ հայրապետութեանն; X ի հայրապետութեան Երուսաղէմայ 4 Սիմէաւնի,] K տէրն Սիմէաւնի ‖ և] F om. ‖ և ի] B K om. ‖ ի հայրապետութեանն Աղէքսանդրու] Jer V ի յԱղէքսանդրու հայրապետութեանն; K ի Աղէքսանդրու հայրապետութեանն; X ի հայրապետութեան Աղէքսանդրու ‖ Յովհաննու,] K տէրն Յովհաննու 5 ի] K om. ‖ հայրապետութեանն] A X հայրապետութեան; V Ասորւոց; Jer յԱսորւոց ‖ տանն] D om. ‖ Ասորւոց] V հայրապետութեան; Jer K հայրապետութեանն ‖ Աթանասի։] K տէրն Աթանասի ‖ ի] K om. ‖ յԱդամայ] K յԱդամայէին ‖ էին] K X om. 6 ժամանակաց] Jer K V om. ‖ վեց հազար և վեց հարիւր և տասն,] B զհազար և զհարիւր և տասն 7 այս] K այսր ‖ ժամանակագրութեանս,] A B K O ժամանակագրութեանցս ‖ բացեայ] K բաց 8 զարուեստ] K զարհեստ ‖ գրչութեանցս.] B K գրչութեանց ‖ մեր] O մեք 9 ամ] K V յամ ‖ և] Jer K V om. 10 զաւրութիւն] K զաւրք ‖ զաւրաց հաւատացելոցն, և] X զաւրաց հաւատացելոց; B D F O V զաւրաց հաւատացելոց և; K հաւատացելոց և; Jer զաւրաց և հաւատացելոց և 10–13 տեսակ զի ... ժամանակին,] X om. 10 ոք] B որ 11 խնդրել] D խնդրել և ‖ ապագայիցն] B K V յապագայիցն 12 կատարածս] D V կտրծս 13 զխոստացեալսն] K զխոստացեալ ‖ յորժամ տացէ] F X om. ‖ տացէ] O K տացէ տէր 13–14 Աստուած հաւատացելոց] X om. ‖ Աստուած հաւատացելոց զժամանակն,] F om. 14 իցէ] K է 15 յայնժամ] K om. ‖ յԱստուծոյ] K O V Աստուծոյ

5

10

15

text of selected excerpts from the chronicle

219

when the beginning of this world history first arose. And it was in [the era of] the Roman patriarchate of Nicholas at Constantinople, and of the Antiochene patriarchate of Yovhannēs, and of the patriarchate of Simeon in Jerusalem, and of the patriarchate of Yovhannēs in Alexandria, and of the patriarchate of Athanasios of the Syrian nation. And from Adam there were 6610 years of time, but we took no notice of the ten years with respect to this chronicle and, having neglected [it], we were far from artfulness in writing. And when we saw every day the severe divine wrath poured out upon the Christians, and [that] year after year the strength of the armies of the faithful passed away and fell, we saw that no one had the intention to pursue this or to collect [it] in writing, so that there might be a record of this destiny and tribulation for future times, for the good era, when God will give what he promised in the later time, when God will give to the faithful the era that will indeed be full of every joy. So we then forged ahead with great joy as if this were commanded to me by God, to thus collect these

220

appendix a

այս հրամայեցաւ ինձ, զայս այսպէս ի գիր հաւաքել և ապագայիցն թողուլ զայս յիշատակս. և թէպէտ ոչ է սա հոգևոր հմտութեամբ զարդարեալ, կամ արուեստ հոգևոր, և կամ շաւիղս առաքինութեան ինչ, այլ զխրատն տեառն, զոր վասն մեղաց ազգի ազգի յանցանաւք ի բարկութիւն շարժեցաք զտէր Աստուած ի վերայ մեր, և ի նմանէ առաք զխրատս զայս գաւազանաւն նորա. և արդ պարտ և արժան է ոչ մոռանալ զսա որք կենդանիքս են ժամանակիս, այլ գրել յիշատակել զսա ծնանելոցն, եթէ այս է մեղաց պտուղն զոր ցանեցին հարքն մեր, և ևթնապատիկ ժողովեցին։ Եւ վասն այսորիկ ես Մատթէոս՝ որ անարժանս եմ ողորմութեանն Աստուծոյ, զամս բազումս քաջաջան քննութեամբ կացի, և արիաբար մտաւք ի քաղաքս Միջագետաց Յուռհա ժողովեալ գրեցաք մինչև ցայս վայր, և զամաց երեսնից դեռ ևս առաջի կայ ի գրի հաւաքել. և արդ ահա այս վարդապետաց և կորովի գիտնականաց էր գործ և ոչ մերում տկարութեանս և կամ սակաւ գիտութեանս։ Բայց այս սովորութիւն է Աստուծոյ, զի ի տկարաց և ի նուազից գործ ինչ պիտանացու պահանջէ. որպէս տեսանեմք զերամս մեղուացն և զարմանամք ընդ դասապետութիւնսն նոցա, եթէ որպէս ոչինչ և ի թեթև մարմնոյն ամենայն որդիք մարդկան յագին քաղցրութեամբն նոցա, և ի պէտս սրբոց մատչին գործք նոցա, և առաջի թագաւորաց փառաւորի. և կամ մեռեալ որդն որ գայ 1 այս] F X յայս; K տւաւ ‖ հրամայեցաւ] D E F Jer V X համարեցաւ; K om. ‖ զայս] K այս ‖ այսպէս ի] K O այսպիսի ‖ գիր] B գիրս ‖ հաւաքել] B D F Jer O V հաւաքեալ 2 յիշատակս.] K յիշատակ ‖ թէպէտ] F A O X D B թէպէտ և ‖ զարդարեալ,] K զարդարեալ, և 3 արուեստ] X արուեստս ‖ հոգևոր,] X հոգևորս ‖ և] Jer om. ‖ կամ] F X կայ ‖ շաւիղս] Jer շառաւեղս ‖ ինչ,] K om. ‖ այլ] X այլ առաքինութեան ինչ այլ ‖ զխրատն] K զխրատ 4 մեղաց] K մեղաց մերոց և ‖ ազգի] D F Jer V X om. ‖ յանցանաւք] K յանցանք ‖ շարժեցաք] K շարժէաք 5 ի վերայ] K om. ‖ գաւազանաւն] K գաւազանաւ 6 և] X om. ‖ որք] K որ ‖ են] Jer եմք ի; K V եմք 7 գրել] X գրել զսա; A B գրել և ‖ յիշատակել] K յիշատակ 9 ես] X ես Ր ‖ Մատթէոս՝] K Մատթէոսս ‖ անարժանս] Jer K անարժան ‖ ողորմութեանն] X ողորմութեան; Jer V ողորմութեամբն; K Ողորմութեամբն 10 քաղաքս] X քաղաք; K քաղաքն ‖ Միջագետաց] K om. 11 Յուռհա] B K O ուռհայ ‖ գրեցաք] K գրեցի 12 կայ] F կայի ‖ ի] F X om. ‖ հաւաքել.] B X հաւաքեալ ‖ ահա] K om. ‖ այս վարդապետաց և կորովի] K այս կորովի վարդապետացս; D F X այս վարդապետացս և կորովի; Jer V այս վարդապետացս կորովի և 12–13 գիտնականաց] D գիտնականացս 13 տկարութեանս] A B D F Jer O V տկարութեանցս ‖ գիտութեանս։] A B D F Jer O V X գիտութեանցս 14 ի] F X om. ‖ նուազից] K նուաստից 15 պահանջէ.] K յարտայայտէ ‖ տեսանեմք] F V X տեսանեմ ‖ մեղուացն] O X մեղաւորացն; V մեղացն 16 դասապետութիւնսն] K դասապետութիւնս ‖ նոցա,] K նոցա, Եւ 17 որդիք մարդկան] Jer K մարդիք; V մարդկան ‖ յագին] A B D F Jer O V X յագենան ‖ քաղցրութեամբն] D F Jer V X քաղցրութեամբ; K քաղցրութեանց ‖ պէտս] D պէտ 18 գործք] A B O գործքն; K գործ ‖ առաջի] K առաջի փառաւոր; B յառաջա ‖ փառաւորի.] Jer V փառաւոր; K om. ‖ և] K և իշխանաց գայ։ Եւ ‖ որդն] V որդին

5

10

15

text of selected excerpts from the chronicle

221

things in writing and to leave this record for the future. And although this is not adorned with spiritual prowess or spiritual artfulness or any gleam22 of virtue, still [it is] the admonishment of the Lord; because of the sins of all nations, through transgressions we moved the Lord God against us in anger, and we received this chastisement from him through his staff. And now it is necessary and proper that those living in this time not forget this, but write and record it for those to come—that this is the fruit of sins which our fathers sowed and collected sevenfold. And because of this I, Mattʿēos, who am unworthy of the mercy of God,23 spent many years in diligent research and, having collected [records] with a valiant will in the Mesopotamian city of Uṙha, I wrote up to this point, and there still lies ahead [the history] of 30 years to collect in writing.24 Now this was really a work for vardapets and skilled scholars and not for our weakness nor for our sparse knowledge. But this is God’s habit, that He requires25 some useful work from the weak and the inconsequential;26 just as we see the hives of bees27 and we marvel at their organisation, for despite their nothingness, all the sons of man enjoy the sweetness from their light bodies, and their products are presented for [use of] the saints, and it is praised before kings;28 or also the dead worm which comes back to life and, through its labours, decorates the

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The Jerusalem edition reads ‘shoots, offspring’. Some manuscripts of the Venice group read ‘I Mattʿēos who am unworthy, through the mercy of God [have spent many years …]’. Matenadaran ms 1767 and Venice ms 901 both read ‘collected in writing’. Bzommar ms 449 reads ‘he declares/expresses’. Bzommar ms 449 reads ‘humble/inferior’. Venice ms 887 reads ‘hives of sins’; Venice ms 901 reads ‘hives of sinners’. Bzommar ms 449 reads ‘kings and princes’.

222

appendix a

և կենդանանայ, և վաստակաւք իւրովք ի գոյնս գոյնս զարդարէ զթագաւորս և զիշխանս, և ամենայն եկեղեցիք նովաւ հարստանան պէսպէս զարդարանաւք. այսպէս և տկարութիւնս մեր համարձակութիւն էառ, և առաջի հռետորաց և իմաստնոց հզաւրաց և խորին հանճարեղաց և քաջակիրթ քննողաց խաւսեցաք զայս, և յանձն արարաք զմատենագրութիւնս մեր նոցա, վասն զի արկցեն ի բովս և քննութիւն արասցեն,† և մեք ոչ ընդդիմանամք, վասն զի մերս ընդդէմ գիտնականաց ոչ ունի դիմագրութիւնս. որպէս և այն թեթև թռչունն, թէպէտ և ձայնովն ընդդիմանայ բազմաց այլ մարմնովն տկարանայ, այն որ կոչի ծիծառն. սակայն նա զմերս ունի նմանութիւն առ զարմանալի գործ բնակութեանն իւրոյ, թէ զիարդ յոչընչոյ բնակութիւնս կազմէ և ի բարձունս առանց հիման կառուցանէ, շաղախաբեր և շիղաբեր վաստակս հնարով հնարէ, և ամրութիւնս պնդագոյնս հաստատէ և որդւոց իւրոց զնա տացէ ժառանգութիւնս, զոր և այլ յաղթանդամ թռչնոց անհնար է զայն գործել, արծուոյ ասեմ և նմանեաց նորա, վասն զի զայլ քաջութիւնս մեծաւ կարողութեամբ առնեն հաւքն քաջաթռիչքն. բայց զայն զոր գործեաց թեթև թռչունն՝ զայն ոչ կարեն առնել։ Արդ այսպիսի աւրինակաւս հանճարեղք և գիտնականք զամենայն քննութիւնս հին և նոր կտակարանացն Աստուծոյ կարող են առնել, և ի յայտ բերել ահաւոր և լուսաւոր քննութեամբ. †բայց

1 գոյնս] B K գոյն ‖ գոյնս] K զգոյնս 2 և ամենայն ... հարստանան] X om. ‖ ամենայն] K զամենայն ‖ եկեղեցիք] O յեկեղեցիք; V եկեղեցիքն; K ոք ‖ հարստանան] A K հարսնանան 3 և] K om. 4 հզաւրաց] A K om. ‖ հանճարեղաց] K հանճարեղ եղբարց 5 խաւսեցաք] K խաւսել ‖ յանձն] A B D F Jer O V X յանձին ‖ արարաք] X արար 6 զի] V om. ‖ ի բովս] X զբովս ‖ և] B D K om.; Jer և ի ‖ քննութիւն] B F Jer K O V քննութեան; X զքննութիւնս ‖ արասցեն,] B D F Jer K O V om. ‖ †] X intermittit 7 մերս] K մեր ‖ գիտնականաց] A B F O գիտնակաց ‖ դիմագրութիւնս.] K դիմագրութիւն ‖ թեթև] V թեթև ի 8 թռչունն,] K թռչուն ‖ և] K om. ‖ մարմնովն] O մարմնով և; B մարմնով 9 սակայն] F սակայն սակայն ‖ զմերս] Jer K V om. ‖ ունի] Jer K V ունի զմեր ‖ նմանութիւն] Jer V նմանութիւնս 9–10 զարմանալի] D զարմանալ ի; K ի զարմանալոյ 10 բնակութեանն] A B բնութեանն; Jer K բնակութեան ‖ յոչընչոյ] K յոչնչէ ‖ բնակութիւնս] Jer K V բնակութիւն 12 հնարով] K հնարելով ‖ պնդագոյնս] K պնդագործս ‖ և] Jer զի 13 ժառանգութիւնս,] K ժառանգումն ‖ յաղթանդամ] K ազգ 14 վասն] K om. ‖ զայլ] Jer այլ ‖ քաջութիւնս] F V քաջութեանս 15 հաւքն] K հաւքն քաջասիրտք և ‖ քաջաթռիչքն.] Jer K V քաջաթռիչք ‖ գործեաց] F ծործծեաց 16 զայն] K om. ‖ առնել։] Jer V առնուլ զայն ‖ աւրինակաւս] K աւրինակաւ ‖ հանճարեղք] D հանճարեղքն; F հանճարելքս 17 գիտնականք] D գիտնականքն ‖ քննութիւնս] K om. 18 †] X resumit 2 հարստանան] Readings ABO, as well as K, seem to agree on հարսնանան (are wed), but that makes little sense in this context. 5 յանձն] The lemma, which appears only in K, is the more classically correct reading; this usage may have shifted in post-classical times.

5

10

15

text of selected excerpts from the chronicle

223

kings and princes in all sorts of colours, and all the churches are enriched with various ornaments. Thus boldness has taken our weakness, and we have spoken this before rhetors and mighty philosophers and the deeply wise and well-versed researchers, and we have recommended our history to them, so that they might cast [it] into the furnace and carry out an examination, and we do not oppose [this], because we have no insolence toward those who are knowledgeable. Indeed like that frail bird, although with its voice it is the equal of many, still it is weak of body: the one called the swallow. Nevertheless it bears a resemblance to our endeavours in its amazing work of nest-building,29 in the way in which it builds this home from nothing and fixes it high up without any foundation; it applies itself with diligence to the labour of carrying mud and straw, and it guarantees very firm stability and could give [the nest] as an inheritance to its sons, and it is impossible for other stronger birds30 to do this. I speak of the eagle and the like, for the high-soaring birds do other valourous deeds with great ability, but they cannot do that thing which the frail bird does. Now in this manner the intelligent and the learnèd are able to conduct all the examinations of the old and new testaments of God, and to clarify them through awesome and brilliant examination, but this I shall say certainly

29 30

The Vałaršapat pair read ‘amazing work of nature’. Bzommar ms 449 reads ‘nations’.

224

appendix a

զայս հաւաստապէս ասացից և առանց երկբայութեան, վասն զի այս որ ի մէնջ քննեալ գծագրեցաւ. անհնար է եթէ այլ ոք կարող լինի զայս գտանել և կամ հաւաքումն առնել միահամուռն ազգաց և թագաւորաց, հայրապետաց և իշխանաց. զամենայն ժամանակս թուականութեամբ ի գիրս հաւաքել, վասն զի վճարեալ հատան առաջինքն որք ականատեսք էին ամենայն ժամանակացն։ Արդ զայս ոչ ոք է կարող առնել, զոր ինչ մեք արարաք, զի զոր ինչ գրեցաք գրեցաւ, զի զամս հնգետասան ունէաք զայս գործ քննութեանս, զոր ի մատենագրութիւնս ընթերցեալ գտանէաք զթուականութիւնս ժամանակացն ի յիշատակարանս գրոցն, և ընդ ծերսն ի քննութիւն մտեալ դեգերէաք անդադար քննութեամբ, և հաւաքեալ գրեցաք ի գիրս զայս ինչ։ Եւ արդ ես Մատթէոս՝ այսու եղէ ցանկասէր և կամեցայ դառնալ ընդ նոյն բնաբան պողոտայն, զոր աւրինակ ոք ի բազում ժամանակաց շրջեալ ի վերայ համատարած մեծի ծովուն ովկիանոսի, և ցնորեալ բազում նեղութեամբ, և զկնի երթիցէ ի տունն իւր խաղաղութեամբ. և զմտաւ ածեալ յիշեսցէ զսէր բազում շահիցն, յայնժամ ոչինչ ի յանցեալ նեղութիւնսն մտաբերէ, և առ ոչինչ համարելով զամենայն ինչսն զոր ի ծովուն նաւակոծեցաւ, այլ

1 հաւաստապէս] O հաստատապէս ‖ և] K om. ‖ երկբայութեան,] V երկբայութեանն ‖ զի այս որ] D F X զի այսորիկ; K այսր գրոցս որ; Jer V այսորիկ 2 մէնջ] X մէնջն; D F O V մէջն ‖ քննեալ] K եթէ ‖ գծագրեցաւ.] Jer V գծագրեցաք; K om. ‖ անհնար] X անհնարին ‖ ոք] A B Jer om. ‖ զայս] K om. 3 առնել] B առնել և ‖ միահամուռն] K միահամուռ; B կահամուռն առնել ‖ հայրապետաց] K հայրապետացն 4 թուականութեամբ] K թվականութեամբն ‖ ի գիրս հաւաքել,] K om.; F X ի գիրս հաւաքեալ; A B ի գիր հաւաքել 5 զի] F X om. ‖ վճարեալ] V X զվճարեալ ‖ որք] X որ ‖ ականատեսք] X ականատես; V յականատեսք ‖ ամենայն] V յամենայն; K յայնմ 5–6 ժամանակացն։] K ժամանակաց 6 զոր] D զաւր 6–7 զոր ինչ ... զի] K om. 7 հնգետասան] K տասն և հինգ ‖ զայս] K om. ‖ գործ] F գոր ‖ զոր] K զորս 8 մատենագրութիւնս] K մատենագրութեանս ‖ զթուականութիւնս] A B O զթուականսն; K զթվականութեանս ‖ ժամանակացն] K ժամանակաց 9 ի] K և զորս ‖ յիշատակարանս] K յիշատակարան ‖ գրոցն,] D K գրոց ‖ և] K որոնէաք և զորս ‖ ի] K խաւսակցեալ ‖ քննութիւն] K քննէաք ‖ մտեալ դեգերէաք] K om. 10 քննութեամբ,] K դեգերմամբ ‖ և] K Վասն այսորիկ այսքան ինչ կարի աշխատանաւք ‖ հաւաքեալ] B հաւաք ‖ գրեցաք] F գերեցեաք ‖ ի գիրս ... ինչ։] K om. ‖ զայս] B այս 11 Մատթէոս՝] K Մատթէոսս ‖ եղէ] B եղև ‖ ցանկասէր] K ցանկացաւղ ‖ կամեցայ] K կամ ‖ դառնալ] K գտանել ‖ ընդ] K ըստ 12 աւրինակ ոք] F X աւրինակաւք; K աւրինակ, եթէ ոք 13 մեծի] F մեծ ի 14 զկնի] X զկնի ալեկոծութեան; F A O Jer D K V զկնի ալեկոծութեանն ‖ տունն] A B D K O X տուն 15 զսէր] B զսէրն ‖ ի] O X om. 15–16 ի յանցեալ ... ոչինչ] B om. 15 յանցեալ] K յանցանել ‖ նեղութիւնսն] A նեղութեանցն 16 այլ] X om. 3 միահամուռն] The reading in B is garbled, and could also be կամամուռն or կամպամուռն. None of these possibilities seems to make sense.

5

10

15

text of selected excerpts from the chronicle

225

and without doubt, for this was sketched out having been researched by us. It was impossible for anyone else to find this or to make a collection [in writing] about all the various nations and kings, hayrapets and princes, to gather all the eras chronologically, because the forerunners who were eyewitnesses to all the eras have died and fallen away. Indeed no one is able to do this thing that we did, for what we wrote is written, because for 15 years we have been engaged in this work of research. Having read compositions,31 we found the dates of the eras in colophons of books, and having entered into research with old men we have engaged ceaselessly in research, and when we had collected32 these things we wrote them in this book. And so I, Mattʿēos, became passionate about this and I wished to return33 along that same thematic thoroughfare, like one who roamed for many years about the great universal ocean sea, and was driven mad by many tribulations, and after the tempest would go to his home in peace. And upon contemplation he might remember his love of great profit, then he bears nothing in mind of his past troubles, and with great eagerness hastens to return to the same sea-voyaging. So by this example let us also return to

31 32

33

Bzommar ms 449 reads ‘this composition’. Venice ms 901 reads ‘captured’. Bzommar ms 449 has a substantially different reading here: ‘… and things that we sought in colophons, and things that we investigated through unceasing pursuit of conversation with old men; therefore having collected so many things through a great deal of work we wrote them [down].’ Bzommar ms 449 reads ‘I am/stand to find’.

226

appendix a

փութայ մեծաւ փափագանաւք դառնալ ի նոյն ծովագնացութիւնս. այսպիսի աւրինակաւս և մեք դարձցուք ի մեր թողեալ կէտ գրոյն, և գտաք զբնաբանն զառաջին զոր թողեալ էաք, յորժամ էաք ի յամս հինգհարիւր և յիսուն։ Եւ արդ՝ սկսաք ասել այլ ևս զամաց քսան և ևթանց և երեսնից լիցի վճարումն գրոցս, վասն զի աճեաց թուականութիւնս Հայոց բազում նեղութեամբ, և ի նոյն հայրապետութիւնս տեառն Գրիգորիսի և ի թագաւորութեանն Յունաց Ալէքսին դարձաք յաւժարական մտաւք, և սկսաք առ ի պատմել զկոտորածս և զնեղութիւնս չար ժամանակիս այսորիկ։ Եւ ոչ արարաք զսա ի պէտս սնափառութեանց՝ որպէս կարծեալ ոմանց, այլ յիշատակս և ի յազդումն առ յապա ժամանակին. և ոչինչ զմտաւ ածի զտկարութիւն մտաց և զանկարողութիւն ի գիտութենէ հմտութեանց, այլ որք կատարեալք են գիտութեամբ հին և նոր կտակարանացն Աստուծոյ՝ նոքա են կարողք քերականական արուեստիւք զբանսն սրբել, և զամենայն սխալանս բանիցն պայծառացուցանել ըստ աստուածատուր շնորհացն՝ որ տուաւ նոցա։ Իսկ մեք ըստ տխմար մերոյ գիտութեանս զայս քննեալ մաքրութեամբ և գրեցաք 1 փութայ] D Jer K V փութով; O փութամ ‖ դառնալ] D K դառնայ ‖ նոյն] X նա ‖ ծովագնացութիւնս.] K նաւագնացութիւնս 2 աւրինակաւս] D K աւրինակաւ ‖ գտաք] X գտեալ 2–3 զբնաբանն] D զբնական; E F G X զբնականն; Jer K V զբնաբան 3 զառաջին] D F Jer O V զառաջինն; K առաջին ‖ էաք] Jer K V էր 4 ասել] A ասել և ‖ այլ ևս] X այլ և; K ևս այլ; A B զայլ ևս ‖ զամաց] Jer K V ամաց ‖ քսան և ևթանց] D F O V X քսան և հնգանց; K քսան և երկուց; B քսան և հնգաց; A քսան և հնգից ‖ երեսնից] K երեսնից որ և 5 գրոցս,] A B գրոցն ‖ աճեաց] B աճեալ; K անց ‖ Հայոց] K om. 6 հայրապետութիւնս] X հայրապետութեանս; Jer հայրապետութեան; K հայրապետութեանն 6–7 թագաւորութեանն] Jer թագաւորութեանս; V X թագաւորութեան 7 մտաւք,] D կամաւք ‖ սկսաք] Jer սկսանիմք; F սկսան; K V սկսանի 8 զկոտորածս] A B զկատարածն; D V X զկտրծս; F K O զկատարածս 9 որպէս կարծեալ ոմանց,] K om.; A D F Jer O V X որպէս կարծել ոմանց ‖ այլ] F O Jer X D K V այլ ի ‖ յիշատակս] K յիշատակ 10 յազդումն] Jer K V սաստումն; D F X յաստումն ‖ առ] F A O X D B V առ ի ‖ յապա] K ապա; B O X յապայ ‖ զմտաւ] K մտաւ ‖ ածի] X ածէ ‖ զտկարութիւն] X զտկարութիւնս; K om. 11 մտաց] K զմտաց տկարութիւնս ‖ զանկարողութիւն] B զանկարողութեանց; K զանկարաւղութիւնս ‖ ի գիտութենէ հմտութեանց,] B om. ‖ որք] F ոք ‖ կատարեալք] A B D F O X կատարեալքն 12 գիտութեամբ] X գիտութիւն ‖ նոքա] K նոքա կարաւղք ‖ կարողք] A B կարող; K om. 13 քերականական] A B D F O V X քերական ‖ զբանսն] O զզբասնսն; D K զբանս ‖ սրբել,] K սրբագրել ‖ սխալանս] A O B զսխալանս; Jer K V սխալանս իմոց 15 տխմար] B ախմար ‖ մերոյ] A om. ‖ գիտութեանս] A գիտութեանս մերոյ; X գիտութեան; K գիտութեանց ‖ զայս] K այսքան ‖ և] Jer K V om. 4 քսան և ևթանց] The clue to the reading here is the frequent occurrence of իեանց; the անց ending is grammatically valid for ևթն but not հինգ, suggesting that the original reading was in fact իէ and not իե. 9 որպէս կարծեալ ոմանց,] The reading in B, though in a minority, makes more grammatical sense.

5

10

15

text of selected excerpts from the chronicle

227

the point in the book at which we left off, and we found the earlier text34 that we had left, when we were in the year 550. And so we began to speak about another 27 years and there are 30 years to the end of this book, for the [years of the] Armenian era have grown35 amid many tribulations; and we returned to that patriarchate of Lord Grigor and to the Greek reign of Alexios with willing mind, and we began36 to narrate the massacres and the tribulations of those evil times. And we did not do this out of vainglory, as some have supposed, but [as] a record and as a warning37 to the future. And I have paid no heed to weakness of mind or incapacity for the understanding of experience, but those who are accomplished with knowledge of the Old and New Testaments of God are able to purify the words with grammatical skill, and to elucidate all the mistakes in the words according to the God-given grace which was granted to them. Now we researched this with purity according to our simple understanding and we wrote down many compositions

34 35 36 37

Several manuscripts read ‘natural’. Bzommar ms 449 reads ‘passed’. The punctuation in Matenadaran ms 1767 gives ‘willingly. And mindfully we began’. Three manuscripts of the Venice group read ‘rebuke’.

228

appendix a

զբազում մատենագրութիւնս զորս գտաք վասն նեղութեանց ժամանակացս այսոցիկ, զոր ի տեղիս տեղիս գրեալ էին և թողեալ էին զայն իւրեանց յիշատակ, զոր և մեր ժողովեալ զայն ամենայն բազում հոգաբարձութեամբ. և լսեցաք յայլոց ոմանց պատուականաց որք հասու էին ժամանակացն և նեղութեանցն, և անսխալ հասեալ էին ի վերայ ժամանակացն և թուականացն, և ընդ ծերս ունէաք խաւսակարգութիւնս և քննութիւնս որք տեղեակ էին անցեալ ամացն, ըստ բանի մարգարէին որ ասէ, հարցջիր դու ցհարս քո և ասասցեն քեզ, ընդ ծերսն՝ և պատմեսցեն քեզ։ Արդ այսպիսի աւրինակաւս անհանգիստ եղեալ մեր, և զամենայն հոգս զբաղանաց թողեալ էաք, և զամենայն ցանկութիւնս արհամարհեալ էաք, և միշտ և հանապազ զայս ունէաք պայքարումն մտաց, զորս դարձեալ սկսաք ի գործ երկրապատմութեանս ըստ երանելի վարդապետին Գրիգորի նիւսացւոյ որ ասէր, դարձեալ ես ծերունիս յասպարիզի. զորս և մեր մնացեալ այլոց ոմանց թողաք զայս քննել, և ահա տեսանէաք զամենեսեան հրաժարեալ ի պատմագրութենէ աստի, և տեսանէաք մեք զի ժամանակս գնալով գնայր, և հոսմունս և ծորմունս և

1 մատենագրութիւնս] F Jer V մատենագրութեանս ‖ գտաք] G տեսաք ‖ վասն] O վասն վասն ‖ ժամանակացս] K ժամանակաց 2 այսոցիկ,] A B D F K V X այսորիկ ‖ տեղիս] X om. ‖ էին] Jer K V om. ‖ իւրեանց] Jer յիւրեանց 2–3 իւրեանց յիշատակ, ... զայն] B om. 3 մեր] A O մեք ‖ բազում] K զամենայն 4 լսեցաք] F սլեցեաք ‖ յայլոց] K V X այլոց ‖ ժամանակացն] Jer K ժամանակաց 5 նեղութեանցն,] Jer K V նեղութեանց ‖ անսխալ հասեալ ... և] K om. 5–6 ժամանակացն և թուականացն,] D F Jer V X om. 6 խաւսակարգութիւնս] K զխաւսակարգութիւնս ‖ և քննութիւնս] X om. ‖ որք] K որ ‖ տեղեակ] V տեղեալ; A D K տեղեակք 7 ամացն,] K ժամանակաց ‖ հարցջիր] F հաջիր ‖ ցհարս] D F Jer O V ընդ հարսն; X ցհարքս; B ցարսն ‖ քո] Jer om. 7–8 քո և] B D F O V om. ‖ քո և ... քեզ,] X om. 8 ասասցեն] K պատմեսցեն ‖ ասասցեն քեզ,] O om. ‖ քեզ,] A B քեզ, և ‖ ընդ] K om. ‖ ծերսն՝] K ցծերս քո ‖ պատմեսցեն] K ասասցեն ‖ Արդ] F X այրդ ‖ այսպիսի] B այսպիս; X այդպիսի ‖ աւրինակաւս] K աւրինակաւ 9 մեր,] A մեզ ‖ զբաղանաց] X զբաղմանաց 10 ցանկութիւնս] F X ցանկութիւնք ‖ և] O om. 11 պայքարումն] K մաքառումն ‖ զորս] A B D F Jer O V X զոր ‖ ի գործ] D F Jer K V X om. ‖ երկրապատմութեանս] K երկրպագութեանցս; O երկրապատմութեանցս; D F Jer V երկրպագութեանց; B երկրա պատմութեանս 12 նիւսացւոյ] B D F V X նիւսացոյ; K նիւսացւոյն 13 ծերունիս] B ծերունից ‖ զորս] K զոր ‖ այլոց] A B յայլոց ‖ թողաք] X թողեալ; Jer K V om. 14 պատմագրութենէ] F X պատմագրութեան; D պատմագրութենէն; B պատմագրութեանն 15 տեսանէաք] K հայէաք ‖ մեք] K om. ‖ և] K ի ‖ հոսմունս] B D F O V X հոսմանս; K հոսումն ‖ և] K ի ‖ ծորմունս] D ծորմանս; K ծորումն; X զծորմունս 15–230.1 զպակասութիւնն] D F Jer K V զպակասութիւն; B պակասութիւնն; X պակասութիւն 8 ասասցեն] Cf. Deuteronomy 32:7. K’s use of պատմեսցեն here, and ցծերս below, follows certain versions of the biblical text including that of Zohrab.

5

10

15

text of selected excerpts from the chronicle

229

which we found about the tribulations of those times, which were written in various places and had left that record of their own, and we collected all of it with great solicitude, and we heard from38 other respectable men who comprehended the times and the troubles, and unerringly understood the times and the epochs, and we held interviews and examinations of old men who were well-acquainted with years past, according to the words of the prophet who says ‘Question39 your fathers and they will speak to you, question old men and they will tell you.’ Now in this way we have been tireless, and have abandoned all the concerns of our [own] affairs, and have disdained all our [own] desires, and constantly held this struggle in mind, so again we began the work of world history according to the blessed vardapet Gregory of Nyssa who said ‘again I, an old man, am in this arena.’ And so, waiting for someone else, we abandoned this enquiry, and indeed we saw everyone shrink from this history-writing, and we saw that time continued to pass, and the outpouring and trickling and diminution of time was evident

38 39

Matenadaran ms 1731 reads ‘we whistled’. Matenadaran ms 1731 reads ‘Bark’.

230

appendix a

զպակասութիւնն մեզ ցուցանէին, և զոչ կալ դադարման մարդկութեանս ի վերայ երկրի, այլ զփոփոխմունս աստեացս ի հանդերձեալսն ի յայտ բերէին. վասն զի անցաւոր են ամքս և ժամանակքս, այսպէս անցաւորք են ծնունդք նորա, և զոր աւրինակ մշտնջենաւորք են հանդերձեալքն, այսպէս և անկատարածք են ծնունդք նորա. և երանի որք հանդիպեսցին այնմ ուրախութեանցն, և երանի որք կերիցեն ճաշ արքայութեանն Աստուծոյ։

1 մարդկութեանս] D մարդկութիւնս; A մարդկութեան 2 աստեացս] A B D F O X յաստեացս ‖ հանդերձեալսն] X հանդերձեալ; K հանդերձեալն ‖ ի] K om.; X տէրն ի 3 անցաւոր] D K O անցաւորք ‖ ամքս] X ամք ‖ ժամանակքս,] Jer V ժամանակ; D F K X ժամանակս ‖ անցաւորք] F V անցաւորքն ‖ են] K են և; F V X om. ‖ ծնունդք] D ծնունդ 4 հանդերձեալքն,] X հանդերձեալք են 4–5 հանդերձեալքն, այսպէս ... են] B om. 5 ծնունդք նորա.] F O X ծնունդ նորա; K նորա ծնունդք ‖ երանի] K երանի այժմ բարեգործաւղաց; V երանի այժմ ‖ որք] V որ ‖ հանդիպեսցին] X հանդիպեսցեն ‖ ուրախութեանցն,] Jer K V ուրախութեանց 6 որք] K որ ‖ կերիցեն] K կերիցէ ‖ արքայութեանն] A D F Jer յարքայութեանն; X յարքայութեան

5

text of selected excerpts from the chronicle

231

to us, and that there is no cessation of mankind upon the earth, but it has made clear the transformation of the present into the future. For these years and times are transient, just as their offspring are transient, and in this way eternity is the future, and thus its offspring is endless. And blessed are those who have attained that joy, and blessed those who partake of the feast of the kingdom of God.

appendix b

Lists of Rulers of the Period Byzantine Emperors, 951–1129 945–959 959–963 963–969 969–976 976–1025 1025–1028 1028–1034 1034–1041 1041–1042 1042 1042–1055 1055–1056 1056–1057 1057–1059 1059–1067 1067–1071 1071–1078 1078–1081 1081–1118 1118–1143

Constantine vii Porphyrogenitos Romanos ii Nikephoros ii Phokas John i Tzimiskēs Basil ii Constantine viii Romanos iii Argyros Michael iv the Paphlagonian Michael v the Caulker Zoe and Theodora Constantine ix Monomachos Theodora Michael vi Bringas Isaac i Komnenos Constantine x Doukas Romanos iv Diogenes Michael vii Doukas Nikephoros iii Botaneiates Alexios i Komnenos John ii Komnenos

Armenian Kings in Ani, 951–1045 928–952 952–977 977–989 989–1020? 1020?–41 1020?–40 1042–1045

Abas i Ašot iii Ołormac Smbat ii Gagik i Yovhannēs-Smbat i Ašot iv Kaǰ Gagik ii

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004330351_012

appendix c

List of All Known Manuscripts Manuscripts Containing Full or Substantial Texts of the Chronicle

Sigil

Manuscript number

Date

V W F J B P D H C L I X A K

Venice, Mekhitarist Library, ms 887 Vienna, Mekhitarist Library, ms 574 Yerevan, Matenadaran ms 1731 Yerevan, Matenadaran ms 5587 Yerevan, Matenadaran ms 1767 (Vałaršapat Բ) Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Arménien ms 191 Yerevan, Matenadaran ms 3519 (Vałaršapat Դ) Yerevan, Matenadaran ms 1768 Yerevan, Matenadaran ms 3071 (Vałaršapat Ա) London, British Library, ms or 5260 Yerevan, Matenadaran ms 1769 Venice, Mekhitarist Library, ms 901 Yerevan, Matenadaran ms 1896 (Vałaršapat base) Bzommar, Monastery of Bzommar, ms 449 Rome, Armenian Hospice, ms 25 Yerevan, Matenadaran ms 3520 (Vałaršapat Ե) Venice, Mekhitarist Library, ms 913 Venice, Mekhitarist Library, ms 917 Jerusalem, Armenian Patriarchate, ms 1107 (St. James) Jerusalem, Armenian Patriarchate, ms 1051 Jerusalem, Armenian Patriarchate, ms 3651 Oxford, Bodleian Library, ms Arm e.32 Yerevan, Matenadaran ms 8232 Yerevan, Matenadaran ms 8159 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Arménien ms 200 Bzommar, Monastery of Bzommar, ms 644 Yerevan, Matenadaran ms 2855 Yerevan, Matenadaran ms 3380 Vienna, Mekhitarist Library, ms 243 Venice, Mekhitarist Library, ms 986

1590–1600 1601 1617 1617 1623 1642–1647 1647 before 1661 1651–1661 1660 1664 1669 1689 1699 17th c. 17th c. 17th c. 17th c. 17th c. (unknown) 17th c. 1700–1705? 1709 1716–1719 1728 1775–1805 18th c. 18th c. 18th–19th c. 1830–1835

E Y Z

O

Q

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004330351_013

234

appendix c

Sigil

Manuscript number

Date

G

Yerevan, Matenadaran ms 8894 Yerevan, Matenadaran ms 6605 Yerevan, Matenadaran ms 2644 (Vałaršapat Գ) Yerevan, Matenadaran ms 2899 Vienna, Mekhitarist Library, ms 246

1848 1849 1850–1857 19th c. 19th c.

Manuscripts Containing Excerpts of the Chronicle

Manuscript number

Date

Yerevan, Matenadaran ms 6686 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Arménien 140 Yerevan, Matenadaran ms 1775 Yerevan, Matenadaran ms 1781 Oxford, Bodleian Library, ms Arm d.7 Munich, Staatsbibliothek, Cod. Arm. 9

1582 1652 1671 1756 18th c. 1801

Maps

Map 1. The region of Syria around the time of the First Crusade

236

maps

Map 2. Eastern Anatolia in the eleventh century

maps

237

Bibliography Primary Sources Albert of Aachen. Historia Ierosolimitana (History of the Journey to Jerusalem). Ed. by S. Edgington. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007. Anna Komnēnē. Alexias. Ed. by D.R. Reinsch and A. Kambylis. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2001. Anna Komnēnē. The Alexiad. Ed. by I.-I. Sewter E.R.A. (Edgar Robert Ashton). London: Penguin, 2003. Aṙakʿel of Tabriz. Book of History. Trans. by G.A. Bournoutian. Costa Mesa, ca: Mazda Publishers, 2010. Aristakēs of Lastivert. Patmutʿiwn Aristakisi Lastivertcʿwoy. Ed. by K.N. Yuzbašyan. Yerevan: Haykakan ssṛ Gitutʿiunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun, 1963. Aristakēs of Lastivert. Récit des malheurs de la nation arménienne. Trans. by M. Canard and H. Berberian. Brussels: Éditions de Byzantion, 1973. Bar Hebraeus, Gregory Abuʿl Faraj. The chronicle of Gregory Abûʿl Faraj. Ed. by E.A.W. Budge. Gorgias historical texts 6–7. Piscataway, nj: Gorgias Press, 2003. Constantine Porphyrogenitus. De Administrando Imperio. Trans. by R.J.H. Jenkins and G. Moravcsik. Washington, dc: Dumbarton Oaks, 1993. Eusebius of Caesarea. Eusebius’ ecclesiastical history: according to the text of Burton. en. Clarendon Press, 1925. Fulcher of Chartres. A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem. Ed. by H.S. Fink. Trans. by F.R. Ryan. New York: W.W. Norton, 1973. Garitte, G., ed. La Narratio de rebus Armeniae. Louvain: L. Durbecq, 1952. Garsoïan, N., ed. The Epic Histories Attributed to Pʿawstos Buzand (Buzandaran Patmutʿiwnkʿ). Trans. by N.G. Garsoïan. Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University, 1989. The Deeds of the Franks and the Other Pilgrims to Jerusalem (Gesta Francorum). Ed. by R.M.T. Hill. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962. Grigor Narekacʿi. Matean ołbergutʿean. Ed. by G. Trapizoni and J.R. Russell. Delmar, n.y.: Caravan Books, 1981. Ibn al-ʿAdīm, Kamāl ad-Dīn ʿUmar Ibn Aḥmad. Everything desirable about the history of Aleppo: Bughyat al-ṭalab fī taʾrīkh Ḥalab. [Faks.-Ausg.] Publications of the Institute for the History of Arabic-Islamic Science. Frankfurt/M: Institute for the History of Arabic-Islamic Science, 1986. Ibn al-Athīr, ʿIzz al-Dīn. The Annals of the Saljuq Turks: Selections from al-Kāmil fīʾlTaʾrīkh of ʿIzz al-Dīn Ibn al-Athīr (1029–97). Ed. by D.S. Richards. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2002.

bibliography

239

Ibn al-Athīr, ʿIzz al-Dīn. The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athir for the Crusading Period: From alKāmil fīʾl-taʾrīkh. Part i (1097–1146). Ed. by D.S. Richards. Crusade Texts in Translation 13. London: Ashgate, 2006. Ibn al-Qalānisī. The Damascus Chronicle of the Crusades. Ed. by H.A.R. Gibb. University of London historical series 5. London: Luzac, 1967. Iōannēs Kinnamos. Ioannis Cinnami epitome rerum ab Ioanne et Alexio Comnenis gestarum. Ed. by A. Meineke. Bonn: E. Weber, 1836. Iōannēs Skylitzēs. Synopsis historiôn. Trans. by J.-C. Cheynet and B. Flusin. Paris: Éditions P. Lethielleux, 2003. Išōx. Girkʿ i veray Bnutʿean. Ed. by S. Vardanyan. Yerevan: Matenadaran, 1979. Kirakos Ganjakecʿi. Kirakos Gandzaketsi’s History of the Armenians. Ed. and trans. by R. Bedrosian. New York: Sources of the Armenian Tradition, 1986. Kirakos Ganjakecʿi. Patmutʿiwn Hayocʿ. Ed. by K.A. Melikʿ-Ohanjanyan. Yerevan: Haykakan ssṛ Gitutʿiunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun, 1961. Koriwn. Varkʿ Maštocʿi. Ed. by K.H. Maksoudian. Delmar, ny: Caravan Books, 1985. Leo the Deacon. Leonis diaconi Caloënsis Historia libri decem: et liber de Velitatione Bellica Nicephori Augusti. Ed. by C.B. Hase. Weber, 1828. Leo the Deacon. The History of Leo the Deacon: Byzantine Military Expansion in the Tenth Century. Trans. by A.-M. Talbot and D.F. Sullivan. Washington, dc: Dumbarton Oaks, 2005. Łewond. Łewond Vardapet: discours historique. Ed. by B. Martin-Hisard, J.-P. Mahé, and A. Hakobean. Monographies (Centre de recherche d’ histoire et civilisation de Byzance (Paris, France)); 49. Paris: ACHCByz, 2015. Mattʿēos Uṙhayecʿi (Matthew of Edessa). Patmutʿiwn Mattʿēosi Uṙhayecʿwoy. Jerusalem, 1869. Mattʿēos Uṙhayecʿi (Matthew of Edessa). Urfalı Mateos vekayi-nâmesi, 952–1136 ve Papaz Grigor’un zeyli, 1136–1162. Ed. and trans. by H.D. Andreasyan. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1962. Mattʿēos Uṙhayecʿi (Matthew of Edessa). Žamanakagrutʿiwn. Ed. by M. Mēlikʿ-Adamean and N. Tēr-Mikʿayēlean. Vałaršapat, 1898. Mattʿēos Uṙhayecʿi (Matthew of Edessa). Žamanakagrutʿiwn. Ed. and trans. by H. Bartʿikyan. Yerevan: Erevani Hamalsarani Hratarakčʿutʿyun, 1973. Mattʿēos Uṙhayecʿi (Matthieu d’Édesse). Chronique, 962–1136, avec la continuation de Grégoire le prêtre jusqu’en 1162. Ed. and trans. by E. Dulaurier. Paris, 1858. Mattʿēos Uṙhayecʿi (Matthieu d’Édesse). Récit de la première croisade: extr. de la Chronique de Matthieu d’Édesse. Ed. and trans. by E. Dulaurier. Paris, 1850. Michael the Syrian. Chronique. Ed. by J. Chabot. Paris, 1899–1910. Movsēs Xorenacʿi. History of the Armenians. Ed. and trans. by R.W. Thomson. Caravan Books, Aug. 2006. Movsēs Xorenacʿi. Patmutʿiwn Hayocʿ. Ed. by M. Abełean, S. Harutʿiunean, and R.W. Thomson. Caravan Books, 1981.

240

bibliography

Mxitʿar Ayrivanecʿi. Histoire chronologique. Trans. by M.-F. Brosset. 1869. Mxitʿar Goš. The Lawcode (Datastanagirkʿ) of Mxitʿar Goš. Ed. by R.W. Thomson. Vol. 6. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2000. Nikephoros Bryennios. Histoire. Ed. by P. Gautier. Brussels: Byzantion, 1975. Niketas Choniatēs. Nicetae Choniatae Historia. Ed. by J.L. van Dieten. Vol. 11. Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1975. Pseudo-Methodius. Die syrische Apokalypse des Pseudo-Methodius. Ed. by G.J. Reinink. Vol. 540–541. Leuven: Peeters, 1993. Rapp, S.H., ed. Kʿartʿlis cʿxovreba: the Georgian royal annals and their medieval Armenian adaptation. 1st ed. Delmar, ny: Caravan Books, 1998. Raymond D’Aguilers. Historia francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem. Ed. by J.H. Hill. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1968. Samuel Anecʿi. Hawakʿmunkʿ i grocʿ patmagracʿ. Ed. by A. Tēr-Mikʿēlean. Vałaršapat: S. Ēǰmiacni tparan, 1893. Sebēos. Sebeosi Patmutʿyuně ev Ananuni aṛegtsvatsě. arm. Ed. by G.V. Abgarian. Erevan: Haykakan ssṛ Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun, 1965. Sebēos. The Armenian history attributed to Sebeos. Ed. by R.W. Thomson, J.D. HowardJohnston, and T. Greenwood. v 31. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1999. Smbat Sparapēt. La chronique attribuée au connétable Smbat. Trans. by G. Dédéyan. Documents relatifs à l’histoire des Croisades. Paris: P. Geuthner, 1980. Smbat Sparapēt. Taregirkʿ. hy. S. Łazar, 1956. Stepʿanos Asołik (Stephen of Tarōn). Histoire universelle. Trans. by F. Macler. Paris: Éditions de Byzantion, 1917. Stepʿanos Asołik (Stephen of Tarōn). Stepʿanosi tarōnecʿwoy asołkan patmutʿiwn tiezerakan. Erkrord tpagrutʿiwn. Ed. by S. Malxasian. St. Petersburg, 1885. Stepʿanos Orbelian. Histoire de la Siounie. Trans. by M.F. Brosset. St. Petersburg, 1864– 1866. Thomson, R.W., ed. Rewriting Caucasian History: the Medieval Armenian Adaptation of the Georgian Chronicles. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Tʿovma Arcruni. History of the House of the Artsrunik. Trans. by R.W. Thomson. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1985. Tʿovma Arcruni. Patmutʿiwn Tann Arcruneacʿ. Ed. by M.H. Darbinyan-Melikʿyan. Yerevan: Matenadaran, 2006. Tʿovma Mecopʿecʿi. Patmagrutʿyun. Ed. by L. Xačʿikyan. Yerevan: Matenadaran, 1999. William of Tyre. A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea. Ed. by E.A. Babcock and A.C. Krey. New York: Octagon Books, 1976. Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd al-Antaki. ‘Histoire de Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd d’ Antioche, part 1’. In: Patrologia Orientalis. Ed. by I. Kratchkovsky. Trans. by A.A. Vasiliev. Vol. 18. Paris: Brepols, 1924. Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd al-Antaki. ‘Histoire de Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd d’ Antioche, part 2’. In: Patrologia

bibliography

241

Orientalis. Ed. by I. Kratchkovsky. Trans. by A.A. Vasilev. Vol. 23. Paris: Brepols, 1932. Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd al-Antaki. ‘Histoire de Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd d’ Antioche, part 3’. In: Patrologia Orientalis. Ed. by I. Kratchkovsky. Trans. by F. Micheau and G. Troupeau. Vol. 47. 4. Turnhout: Brepols, 1997. Yovhannēs Drasxanakertcʿi. History of Armenia. Trans. by K.H. Maksoudian. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.

Secondary Sources Ačaṙyan, H. Hayocʿ Anjnanunneri Baṙaran. Beirut: Erevani Petakan Hamalsaran, 1972. Ačaṙyan, H. ‘Matt‘ēos Uṙhayec‘i’. In: Handes Amsorya 66 (1952), pp. 350–354. Ališan, Ł. M. Ayrarat bnašxarh Hayastaneayc‘. Venice: S. Łazar, 1890. Ališan, Ł. M. Širak. Tełagrutʿiwn Patkeracʿoycʿ. Venice: S. Łazar, 1881. Amouroux-Mourad, M. Le comté d’Edesse: 1098–1150. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique. Paris: P. Geuthner, 1988. Andrews, T.L. ‘The Chronology of the Chronicle: An Explanation of the Dating Errors Within Book 1 of the Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa’. In: Revue des études arméniennes 31 (2008–2009), pp. 259–282. Angold, M. ‘Belle Époque or Crisis? (1025–1118)’. In: The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire, c. 500–1492. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008, pp. 583–626. Arutjunova-Fidanjan, V.A. ‘L’image de l’empire byzantin dans l’ historiographie arménienne médiévale (xe–xie s.)’ In: L’Arménie et Byzance: histoire et culture. Paris: Centre de recherches d’histoire et de civilisation byzantines, 1996, pp. 7–17. Arutjunova-Fidanjan, V.A. ‘The Ethno-Confessional Self-Awareness of Armenian Chalcedonians’. In: Revue des études arméniennes 21 (1988–1989), pp. 345–363. Asbridge, T.S. The Creation of the Principality of Antioch, 1098–1130. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2000. Asbridge, T.S. The First Crusade: A New History. en. Oxford University Press, 2004. Ashraf, A. Iranian Identity iii. Medieval Islamic Period. London. Augé, I. Byzantins, arméniens & francs au temps de la croisade: politique religieuse et reconquête en Orient sous la dynastie des Comnènes, 1081–1185. Paris: P. Geuthner, 2007. Bardakjian, K.B. A Reference Guide to Modern Armenian Literature, 1500–1920. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2000. Bartʿikyan, H. ‘The religious diplomacy of Byzantium in Armenia during the tenth and eleventh centuries’. In: Armenian studies: Études armeniénnes: in memoriam Haïg Berbérian. Ed. by D. Kouymjian. Lisbon: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 1986, pp. 55–62.

242

bibliography

Bedrosian, R. Ghewond’s History: Translator’s Preface. Bianquis, T. ‘Sayf al-Dawla, Abu ʾl-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. Abi ʾl-Haydjāʾ ʿAbd Allāh b. Ḥamdān b. Ḥamdūn b. al-Ḥārith Sayf al-Dawla al-Taghlibī.’ In: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Ed. by P. Bearman et al. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Bournoutian, A.A. ‘Cilician Armenia’. In: The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times, vol. 1. Ed. by R.G. Hovannisian. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2004, pp. 273–291. Boyadjian, T. ‘Mxitʿar Anecʿi’. In: Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle. Ed. by G. Dunphy. Brill, 2010, p. 1133. Boyadjian, T. Samuel Anecʿi. Ed. by G. Dunphy. Leiden, 2010. Boyadjian, T. Stepʿanos Orbelian. Ed. by G. Dunphy. Leiden, 2010. Boyle, J.A. The Cambridge History of Iran: The Saljuq and Mongol Periods. Vol. 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968. Bozoyan, A. Byuzandiayi arevelyan kʿałakʿakanutʿyuně ev Kilikyan Hayastaně žb dari 30–70-akan tʿvakannerin. Yerevan: Haykakan ssṛ Gitutʿiunneri Akademiayi Hratarakčʿutʿyun, 1988. Brock, S. ‘Studies on the First Century of Islamic Society’. In: Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity. Ed. by G.H.A. Juynboll. Papers on Islamic History 5. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1982, pp. 9–21. Brock, S. ‘Syriac Sources for Seventh-Century History’. In: Byzantine and modern Greek studies 2 (1976), pp. 17–36. Buckley, P. The Alexiad of Anna Komnene: Artistic Strategy in the Making of a Myth. English. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, May 2014. Cahen, C. La Syrie du Nord a l’epoque des croisades et la principaute franque d’Antioche. P. Geuthner, 1940. Cahen, C. ‘The Historiography of the Seljuqid Period’. In: Historians of the Middle East. Ed. by B. Lewis and P.J.M. Holt. London: Oxford University Press, 1962. Chap. 5, pp. 59–78. Čʿamčʿean, M. Patmutʿiwn Hayocʿ. Petros Vałvazeancʿ, 1784. Canard, M. and R. Mantran. ‘Iḳrīṭish’. In: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Ed. by P. Bearman et al. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Cowe, P. ‘Armenian Immigration to the Sebasteia Region, Tenth–Eleventh Centuries’. In: Armenian Sebasteia/Sivas and Lesser Armenia. Ed. by R.G. Hovannisian. Vol. 5. ucla Armenian History and Culture Series: Historic Armenian Cities and Provinces. Costa Mesa, ca: Mazda Publishers, 2004. Chap. 4, pp. 111–135. Cowe, P. ‘Medieval Armenian Literary and Cultural Trends’. In: The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times, vol. 1. Ed. by R.G. Hovannisian. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2004, pp. 293–326. Dadoyan, S.B. The Armenians in the Medieval Islamic World, Volume One: The Arab Period in Armīnyah, Seventh to Eleventh Centuries. New Brunswick, nj: Transaction Publishers, Nov. 2011.

bibliography

243

Dadoyan, S.B. The Armenians in the Medieval Islamic World, Volume Two: Armenian Realpolitik in the Islamic World and Diverging Paradigms. Transaction Publishers, Feb. 2013. Dédéyan, G. ‘Le rôle complémentaire des frères Pahlawuni Grigor iii, Catholicos, et Saint Nersès Šnorhali, Coadjuteur, dans le rapprochement avec les Latins, à l’ époque de la chute d’Édesse (v. 1139–v. 1150)’. In: Revue des études arméniennes 23 (1992), pp. 237–252. Dédéyan, G. Les Arméniens entre Grecs, Musulmans et Croisés: étude sur les pouvoirs arméniens dans le Proche-Orient méditerranéen (1068–1150). Bibliothèque arménologique de la Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian. Lisbon: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, 2003. Dédéyan, G. ‘L’immigration arménienne en Cappadoce au xie siècle’. In: Byzantion 45.1 (1975), pp. 41–117. Der Nersessian, S. ‘The Armenian Chronicle of the Constable Smpad or of the ‘Royal Historian’’. In: Dumbarton Oaks Papers 13 (1959), pp. 143–168. Dorfmann-Lazarev, I. Arméniens et Byzantins à l’époque de Photius: deux débats théologiques après le triomphe de l’orthodoxie. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 609. Leuven: Peeters, 2004. Dostourian, A.E. Armenia and the Crusades: The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa. Belmont, ma: University Press of America, 1993. Dostourian, A.E. ‘The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa (Matteos Urhayetsi)’. In: Armenian Tigranakert/Diarbekir and Edessa/Urfa. Ed. by R.G. Hovannisian. Vol. 6 ucla Armenian History and Culture Series: Historic Armenian Cities and Provinces. Costa Mesa, ca: Mazda Publishers, 2006. Chap. 7, pp. 155–164. Dowsett, C.J.F. ‘Armenian Historiography’. In: Historians of the Middle East. Ed. by B. Lewis and P.J.M. Holt. London: Oxford University Press, 1962. Chap. 22, pp. 259– 268. Dowsett, C.J.F. ‘A Twelfth-century Armenian Inscription at Edessa’. In: Iran and Islam: in memory of the late Vladimir Minorsky. Ed. by C. Bosworth. Edinburgh: University Press, 1971, pp. 197–227. Eddé, A.-M. ‘Kamāl al-Dīn ʿUmar Ibn al-ʿAdīm’. In: Medieval Muslim Historians and the Franks in the Levant. Ed. by A. Mallett. Leiden: Brill, Sept. 2014, pp. 108–135. Ellenblum, R. The Collapse of the Eastern Mediterranean: Climate Change and the Decline of the East, 950–1072. Reprint edition. Cambridge University Press, Dec. 2013. Ervine, R. ‘Antecedents and Parallels to Some Questions and Answers on Genesis in Vanakan Vardapet’s Book of Questions’. In: Le Muséon 113 (2000), pp. 417–428. Espenak, F. and J. Meeus. Eclipse Predictions by Fred Espenak and Jean Meeus (nasa’s gsfc). Felix, W. Byzanz und die islamische Welt im früheren 11. Jahrhundert: Geschichte der poli-

244

bibliography

tischen Beziehungen von 1001 bis 1055. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1981. France, J. Victory in the East: A Military History of the First Crusade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Frankopan, P. The First Crusade: The Call from the East. Random House, May 2013. Frankopan, P. ‘The Foreign Policy of the Emperor Alexios i Komnenos (1081–c. 1100)’. PhD thesis. University of Oxford, 1998. Fried, J. ‘Awaiting the End of Time around the Turn of the Year 1000’. In: The apocalyptic year 1000: religious expectation and social change, 950–1050. Ed. by R. Landes. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 17–63. Gabrieli, F. ‘The Arabic Historiography of the Crusades’. In: Historians of the Middle East. Ed. by B. Lewis and P.J.M. Holt. London: Oxford University Press, 1962. Chap. 7, pp. 98–107. Garsoïan, N. L’église arménienne et le grand schisme d’ Orient. v 574. Leuven: Peeters, 1999. (Peeters Leuven) 2877233960 (Peeters France). Garsoïan, N. ‘L’Histoire attribuée à Movsēs Xorenacʿi: Que reste-t-il à en dire?’ In: Revue des études arméniennes 29 (2003–2004), pp. 29–48. Garsoïan, N. ‘Reality and Myth in Armenian History’. In: The East and the Meaning of History: International Conference (23–27 November 1992). Studi orientali 13. Rome: Bardi, 1994, pp. 117–145. Garsoïan, N. ‘The Aršakuni Dynasty (a.d. 12–[180?]–428)’. In: The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times, vol. 1. Ed. by R.G. Hovannisian. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2004. Chap. 4, pp. 63–94. Garsoïan, N. ‘The Byzantine Annexation of the Armenian Kingdoms in the Eleventh Century’. In: The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times, vol. 1. Ed. by R.G. Hovannisian. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2004. Chap. 8, pp. 187–198. Garsoïan, N. ‘The Emergence of Armenia’. In: The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times, vol. 1. Ed. by R.G. Hovannisian. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2004. Chap. 3, pp. 37–62. Garsoïan, N. ‘The Independent Kingdoms of Medieval Armenia’. In: The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times, vol. 1. Ed. by R.G. Hovannisian. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2004. Chap. 7, pp. 143–186. Garsoïan, N. ‘The Marzpanate (428–652)’. In: The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times, vol. 1. Ed. by R.G. Hovannisian. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2004. Chap. 5, pp. 95–115. Garsoïan, N. ‘The Problem of Armenian Integration into the Byzantine Empire’. In: Studies on the internal diaspora of the Byzantine Empire. Ed. by H. Ahrweiler and A.E. Laiou. Washington, dc: Dumbarton Oaks, 1998. Greenwood, T. ‘A Reassessment of the History of Łewond’. In: Le Muséon 125.1–2 (2012), pp. 99–167.

bibliography

245

Greenwood, T. ‘Armenian Neighbours (600–1045)’. In: The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire, c. 500–1492. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008, pp. 333–364. Greenwood, T. ‘Armenian Sources’. In: Byzantines and Crusaders in Non-Greek Sources, 1025–1204. Ed. by M. Whitby. London: British Academy, 2007, pp. 221–252. Greenwood, T. ‘Failure of a Mission? Photius and the Armenian Church’. In: Le Muséon 119.1–2 (2006), pp. 123–167. Greenwood, T. ‘Sasanian Echoes and Apocalyptic Expectations: A Re-evaluation of the Armenian History Attributed to Sebeos’. In: Le Muséon 115.4 (2002), pp. 323–397. Greenwood, T. ‘The Armenian Presence in Edessa after the Muslim Conquest’. In: Armenian Tigranakert/Diarbekir and Edessa/Urfa. Ed. by R.G. Hovannisian. Vol. 6. ucla Armenian History and Culture Series: Historic Armenian Cities and Provinces. Costa Mesa, ca: Mazda Publishers, 2006. Chap. 6, pp. 137–153. Halfter, P. Das Papsttum und die Armenier im frühen und hohen Mittelalter: von den ersten Kontakten bis zur Fixierung der Kirchenunion im Jahre 1198. Forschungen zur Kaiser- und Papstgeschichte des Mittelalters 15. Cologne: Böhlau Verlag, 1996. Harris, J. Byzantium and the Crusades. a&c Black, Aug. 2006. Hayrapetean, S.P. A History of Armenian Literature: From Ancient Times to the Nineteenth Century. Delmar, ny: Caravan Books, 1995. Hewsen, R.H. Armenia: A Historical Atlas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997. Hillenbrand, C. The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999. Holmes, C. Basil ii and the Governance of Empire (976–1025). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Holmes, C. ‘Byzantine Historians at the Periphery’. In: 21st International Congress of Byzantine Studies. London, Aug. 2006. Howard-Johnston, J.D. ‘Crown Lands and the Defence of Imperial Authority in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries’. In: Bosphorus: Essays in Honour of Cyril Mango. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1995, pp. 75–100. Jotischky, A. ‘Ethnographic Attitudes in the Crusader States’. In: East and West in the Crusader states: context, contacts, confrontations: acta of the congress held at Hernen Castle in September 2000. Ed. by K.N. Ciggaar and H.G.B. Teule. Vol. 3. Leuven; Uitgeverij Peeters, 2003, pp. 1–19. Karst, J. Historische Grammatik des Kilikisch-Armenischen. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1970. Kennedy, H. The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates. Harlow, uk: Pearson Education Limited, 2004. Kévorkian, R.H., ed. Arménie entre Orient et Occident: trois mille ans de civilisation. Paris: Bibliothèque nationale de France, 1996. Kʿiwrtean, Y. ‘Yovhannēs Vardapet Kozeṙn’. In: Handes Amsorya 81.1–3 (1967), pp. 1–16. Köhler, M. Alliances and Treaties between Frankish and Muslim Rulers in the Middle East:

246

bibliography

Cross-Cultural Diplomacy in the Period of the Crusades. Translated by Peter M. Holt. Revised, edited and introduced by Konrad Hirschler. Brill, Apr. 2013. Korobeinikov, D. ‘Raiders and Neighbours: The Turks (1040–1304)’. In: The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire, c. 500–1492. Ed. by J. Shepard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Chap. 19, pp. 692–727. Kouymjian, D. ‘Armenia from the Fall of the Cilician Kingdom (1375) to the Forced Emigration under Shah Abbas (1604)’. In: The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times, vol. 2. Ed. by R.G. Hovannisian. St. Martin’s Press, 1997. Chap. 1, pp. 1–50. Kouymjian, D. ‘Problems of Medieval Armenian and Muslim Historiography: The Mxitʿar of Ani Fragment’. In: International Journal of Middle East Studies 4.4 (1973), pp. 465–475. Laiou, A.E. and R.P. Mottahedeh. The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World. English. Washington, d.c.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2000. Landes, R. The apocalyptic year 1000: religious expectation and social change, 950–1050. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Lint, T.M. v. ‘The Formation of Armenian Identity in the First Millenium’. In: Church History and Religious Culture 89.1 (June 2009), pp. 251–278. Ljubarskij, J. ‘New Trends in the Study of Byzantine Historiography’. In: Dumbarton Oaks Papers 47 (1993), pp. 131–138. MacEvitt, C. ‘The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa: Apocalypse, the First Crusade, and the Armenian Diaspora’. In: Dumbarton Oaks Papers 61 (2007), pp. 157–181. MacEvitt, C. The Crusades and the Christian World of the East: Rough Tolerance. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008. MacLean, S. ‘Review article: Apocalypse and revolution: Europe around the year 1000’. In: Early Medieval Europe 15.1 (2007), pp. 86–106. Magdalino, P. The Empire of Manuel i Komnenos, 1143–1180. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Magdalino, P. ‘The Medieval Empire (780–1204)’. In: The Oxford History of Byzantium. Ed. by C. Mango. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Chap. 7, pp. 169–213. Magdalino, P. ‘The Pen of the Aunt: Echoes of the Mid-Twelfth Century’. In: Anna Komnene and her times. Ed. by T. Gouma-Peterson. New York; London: Garland Publishing, 2000, pp. 15–44. Magdalino, P. ‘The Year 1000 in Byzantium’. In: Byzantium in the Year 1000. Ed. by P. Magdalino. Brill, 2003. Chap. 10, pp. 233–270. Mahé, J.-P. ‘Basil ii et Byzance vue par Grigor Narekacʿi’. In: Travaux et mémoires 11 (1991), pp. 555–573. Mahé, J.-P. ‘Confession religieuse et identité nationale dans l’ église arménienne du viie au xie siècle’. In: Des Parthes au Califat: quatre leçons sur la formation de l’ identité arménienne. Paris: De Boccard, 1997, pp. 59–78.

bibliography

247

Mahé, J.-P. ‘Entre Moïse et Mahomet: Réflexions sur l’historiographie Arménienne’. In: Revue des études arméniennes 23 (1992), pp. 121–153. Mahé, J.-P. ‘L’Église arménienne de 611 à 1066’. In: Évêques, moines, et empereurs (610– 1054). Ed. by C. Hannick et al. Vol. 4. Histoire du Christianisme des origines à nos jours. Paris: Desclée, 1993. Chap. 2, pp. 457–547. Maksoudian, K.H. ‘Armenian Communities in Eastern Europe’. In: The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times, vol. 2. Ed. by R.G. Hovannisian. St. Martin’s Press, 1997. Chap. 2, pp. 51–80. Maksoudian, K.H. Chosen of God: The Election of the Catholicos of All Armenians From the Fourth Century to the Present. New York: St. Vartan Press, 1995. Maksoudian, K.H. ‘The Chalcedonian Issue and the Early Bagratids: The Council of Širakawan’. In: Revue des études arméniennes 21 (1988–1989), pp. 333–344. Mallett, A. Medieval Muslim Historians and the Franks in the Levant. Brill, 2014. Marr, N.Y. ‘Skazaniye o katolikose Petre i uchenom Ioanne Kozerne’. In: Vostochnyya zametki. St. Petersburg, 1895, pp. 9–34. Mat‘evosyan, T.I. ‘Matt‘ēos Uṙhayec‘u “Patmut‘ean” Tarənt‘erc‘umnerə Bagratunineri veraberyal’. In: Patma-banasirakan Handes 2 (1987), pp. 120–125. Meillet, A. Altarmenisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitäts-Buchhandlung, 1913. Mélikoff, I. ‘Dānishmendids’. In: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Ed. by P. Bearman et al. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Michael Attaleiatēs. Historia. Ed. by A. Kaldellis and D. Krallis. Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library. Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 2012. Micheau, F. ‘Ibn al-Athīr’. In: Medieval Muslim Historians and the Franks in the Levant. Ed. by A. Mallett. Leiden: Brill, 2014, pp. 52–83. Mosshammer, A.A. The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era. Oxford University Press, Oct. 2008. Nagy, K. ‘Archbishop Vardan Hunanean’s Two Unpublished Letters of 1687 to the Holy See on the Armenians in Transylvania’. In: Haigazian Armenological Review 32 (2012), pp. 309–320. Palmer, A., S.P. Brock, and R. Hoyland. The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles. Liverpool University Press, 1993. Peacock, A.C.S. Early Seljūq history: a new interpretation. Routledge studies in the history of Iran and Turkey. London: Routledge, 2010. Pogossian, Z. ‘The Last Emperor or the Last Armenian King? Some Considerations on the Armenian Apocalyptic Literature From the Cilician Period’. In: The Armenian Apocalyptic Tradition: A Comparative Perspective. Ed. by K.B. Bardakjian and S. La Porta. Leiden: Brill, 2014, pp. 455–503. Połarean, N. Hay Grołner (5–15 tar). Jerusalem: Tparan Srbocʿ Yakobeancʿ, 1971. Połarean, N. Mayr cʿucʿak hayerēn jeṙagracʿ srbocʿ Yakobeancʿ. Vol. 11. Jerusalem: Tparan Srbocʿ Yakobeancʿ, 1991.

248

bibliography

Połarean, N. Mayr cʿucʿak jeṙagracʿ srbocʿ Yakobeancʿ. Vol. 4. Jerusalem: Tparan Srbocʿ Yakobeancʿ, 1969. Pryor, J.H. and M.J. Jeffreys. ‘Alexios, Bohemond, and Byzantium’s Euphrates frontier: a tale of two Cretans’. In: Crusades 11 (2012). issn: 1476–5276. Rapp, S.H. Studies in Medieval Georgian Historiography: Early Texts and Eurasian Contexts. Vol. 601. Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium: Subsidia 113. Peeters Publishers, 2003. Reinink, G.J. ‘Ps. Methodius’ Concept of History’. In: The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East i: Problems in the Literary Source Material. Ed. by A. Cameron and L.I. Conrad. Princeton, nj: Darwin Press, 1992. Chap. 4, pp. 149–187. Richards, D.S. ‘Ibn al-Athīr and the Later Parts of the Kāmil: A Study of Aims and Methods’. In: Medieval Historical Writing in the Christian and Islamic Worlds. Ed. by D.O. Morgan. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 1982, pp. 76–108. Riley-Smith, J. The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading. London: The Athlone Press, 1995. Rubenstein, J. Armies of Heaven: The First Crusade and the Quest for Apocalypse. en. Basic Books, 2011. Runciman, S. A History of the Crusades. London: Cambridge University Press, 1954. Sanjian, A.K. ‘Grigor Magistros: an Armenian Hellenist’. In: To Ellēnikon: Studies in Honor of Speros Vryonis, Jr. Ed. by J.S. Allen, J.S. Langdon, and S. Vryonis. New Rochelle, ny: Aristide D. Caratzas, 1993, pp. 131–158. Sauvaget, J. ‘Ḥalab’. In: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Ed. by P. Bearman et al. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Schlumberger, G. ‘Deux chefs normands au xie siècle’. In: Revue historique 16 (1881), pp. 289–303. Schmidt, A.B. and P. Halfter. ‘Der Brief Papst Innozenz’ii. an den armenischen Katholikos Gregor iii.: Ein wenig beachtetes Dokument zur Geschichte der Synode von Jerusalem (Ostern 1141)’. In: Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 31 (1999). 1, pp. 50– 71. Segal, J. Edessa ‘The Blessed City’. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970. Seibt, W. ‘Die Eingliederung von Vaspurakan in das byzantinische Reich’. In: Handes Amsorya 92 (1978), pp. 49–66. Seibt, W. ‘Übernahm der französische Normanne Hervé (Erbebios Phrangopolos) nach der Katastrophe von Mantzikert das Kommando über die verbliebene Ostarmee?’ In: Studies in Byzantine Sigillography. Ed. by J.-C. Cheynet. Berlin / New York: Walter de Gruyter, May 2010, pp. 89–96. Shepard, J. ‘Cross-purposes: Alexius Comnenus and the First Crusade’. In: The First Crusade: Origins and Impact. Ed. by J. Phillips. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997. Chap. 6, pp. 107–129.

bibliography

249

Shepard, J. ‘‘Father’ or ‘Scorpion’? Style and Substance in Alexios’ Diplomacy’. In: Alexios i Komnenos: Papers of the Second Belfast Byzantine International Colloquium, 14– 16 April 1989. Ed. by M. Mullett and D. Smythe. Belfast: Belfast Byzantine Enterprises, 1996. Chap. 5, pp. 68–132. Shepard, J. ‘Scylitzes on Armenia in the 1040s, and the Role of Catacalon Cecaumenos’. In: Revue des études arméniennes 11 (1975–1976), pp. 269–311. Sirinian, A. ‘On the Historical and Literary Value of the Colophons in Armenian Manuscripts’. In: Armenian philology in the modern era: from manuscript to digital text. Ed. by V. Calzolari and M.E. Stone. Handbook of oriental studies. Section 8, Uralic & Central Asia. Leiden: Brill, 2014, pp. 65–100. Thomson, R.W. A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 a.d. Turnhout: Brepols, 1995. Thomson, R.W. ‘Aristakes of Lastivert and Armenian Reactions to Invasion’. In: Armenian Karin/Erzurum. Ed. by R.G. Hovannisian. Vol. 4. ucla Armenian History and Culture Series: Historic Armenian Cities and Provinces. Costa Mesa, ca: Mazda Publishers, 2003, pp. 73–88. Thomson, R.W. ‘Bitlis and Armenian Histories’. In: Armenian Baghesh/Bitlis and Taron/ Mush. Ed. by R.G. Hovannisian. Vol. 2. ucla Armenian History and Culture Series: Historic Armenian Cities and Provinces. Costa Mesa, ca: Mazda Publishers, 2002. Chap. 6, pp. 105–117. Thomson, R.W. ‘Ełišē’s History of Vardan: New Light from Old Sources’. In: Classical Armenian Culture: Influences and Creativity. Ed. by T.J. Samuelian. Scholars Press, 1982. Thomson, R.W. ‘Supplement to A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 a.d.: Publications 1993–2005’. In: Le Muséon (2007), pp. 163–223. Thomson, R.W. ‘The Concept of ‘History’ in Medieval Armenian Historians’. In: Eastern Approaches to Byzantium: Papers from the Thirty-third Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Warwick, Coventry, March 1999. Ed. by A. Eastmond. Vol. 9. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001, pp. 89–99. Thomson, R.W. ‘The Historical Compilation of Vardan Arewelcʿi’. In: Dumbarton Oaks Papers 43 (1989), pp. 125–226. Thomson, R.W. ‘The Maccabees in Early Armenian Historiography’. In: Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 26 (1975), pp. 329–341. Thomson, R.W. ‘‘Vardapet’ in the Early Armenian Church’. In: Le Muséon 75 (1962), pp. 367–384. Topchyan, A. ‘The Armenian Version of the Apocalypse of Ps.-Methodius’. In: The Armenian Apocalyptic Tradition: A Comparative Perspective. Ed. by K.B. Bardakjian and S. La Porta. Leiden: Brill, 2014, pp. 362–378. Tyerman, C. God’s War: A New History of the Crusades. London: Penguin Books, 2007. Tyerman, C. The Debate on the Crusades, 1099–2010. en. Oxford University Press, Aug. 2011.

250

bibliography

Walker, P.E. ‘The “Crusade” of John Tzimisces in the Light of New Evidence’. In: Byzantion 47 (1977), pp. 301–327. Whittow, M. ‘How the East Was Lost: The Background to the Komnenian Reconquista’. In: Alexios i Komnenos: Papers of the Second Belfast Byzantine International Colloquium, 14–16 April 1989. Ed. by M. Mullett and D. Smythe. Vol. 4. Belfast Byzantine Texts and Translations 1. Belfast: Belfast Byzantine Enterprises, 1996. Chap. 4, pp. 55– 67. Whittow, M. The Making of Byzantium, 600–1025. University of California Press, 1996. Winkler, G. ‘Our Present Knowledge of the History of Agat‘angełos and its Oriental Versions’. In: Revue des études arméniennes 14 (1980), pp. 125–141. Xačʿikyan, L. ‘Yakob Sanahnecʿi žamanakagir xi dari’. In: Banber Erevani Hamalsarani 13.1 (1971), pp. 22–47.

Index Aaron of Bulgaria 60, 90 Abas i Bagratuni of Kars 50 Abas i Bagratuni, king of Armenia 46, 47, 156, 161 Abbasids 77, 101–104, 106, 108–111, 113, 133, 142, 180 Abgar, king of Edessa 9 Abuʿl-Hajji 20 Abuʿl-Uswār, emir of Dvin 53, 59 Abukab, strategos of Edessa 10, 87 Adana 21 Ak Koyunlu 164 al-Mutīʿ li-ʾllāh, Abbasid caliph 161 Alans 48, 59 Alar 87 Alberic of Ostia 153, 153n76 Albert of Aachen 124, 126, 133, 134 Aleppo 40, 87, 103, 109–111, 117, 156, 165, 170 Alexiad 96, 114, 134 Alexios Komnenos 61n52, 64, 95–98, 97n99, 98n104, 99, 100, 114, 123–125, 131, 134, 135, 151 Alp Arslan ibn Dawud, Seljuq sultan 62, 104, 113, 113n51, 113n53, 114, 115, 116, 118 Amida 62, 93, 173 Amrdōlu 8, 170 Anania i Mokacʿi, katholikos of Armenia 48, 143–146, 161 Anazarba 21, 67, 69, 109–111 Ani 19, 26, 38, 39, 47–50, 52–55, 58–60, 58n41, 62, 63, 66, 71, 88, 89, 100, 116, 119, 146–148, 150, 152, 163 Anjewacʿikʿ 20, 48 Anna Komnenē 40n66, 64, 66, 96, 114, 134 Antioch 1, 7, 11n37, 40, 40n66, 41, 42, 45, 47, 64, 66, 67, 69, 90, 93, 97, 97n99, 102, 104, 115, 117, 124, 125, 130, 131n37, 134, 140, 151, 153, 159n7, 181 Apirat, prince of Armenia 48, 53 Aplłarip of Bira 69, 131, 137n72 Aplłarip, sparapet of Vaspurakan 48 Apocalypse 2, 19, 24n4, 30, 32, 36, 112, 121, 127, 138, 177, 179 Millenarian 14, 31–32, 177 of Pseudo-Methodius 33–36, 36, 42, 128, 177, 178

Apusahl-Hamazasp, brother of Senekʿerim Arcruni 144, 145 Apusahl, son of Senekʿerim Arcruni 62–63, 88, 89, 92, 94, 148–149 Aqsunqur, emir of Aleppo 117 Arabia 35 Arabs 21, 24–26, 28, 61, 74, 77, 81, 87n59, 102, 103, 105, 107, 109–112, 121, 123, 130, 137 Aṙakʿel of Tabriz 163, 164 Arcʿax 164 Arcn 118 sack of 5, 19, 39, 58n41, 60, 61, 89, 148 Arcruni family 20, 26, 44, 48, 51, 66, 71, 72, 88, 96 Aristakēs Lastivertcʿi 2, 13, 17–19, 22, 26, 27, 30–32, 37, 49, 52, 54, 55–61, 75, 85, 87, 89, 90, 94, 115, 118, 120, 143, 155, 163 Arkni 90 Armenian Chalcedonians 11, 65, 67n80, 79, 141, 143 Armenians 1021 civil war 47, 48, 52–55, 72, 178 Christian identity 13, 24, 29, 43, 44–45, 105, 136 Historiographical tradition 12–13, 23–27, 27, 29, 37, 40, 43, 45, 46, 57, 59n43, 71, 101, 105–107, 112, 114–116, 118, 119, 127, 133, 139, 160, 175, 180 imperial protection of 105, 119, 151, 179 in Byzantine service 11 Iranian heritage 105–107 migrations 2, 10, 11, 20, 51, 58, 63, 70, 75, 80, 86, 89, 148 relations with Byzantium 27, 39, 62–63, 88, 116, 118, 148–149, 179 relations with Crusaders 68–70, 97, 126, 130, 151, 153–154, 180, 181 relations with Muslims 24–25, 26, 27, 39, 50, 101, 105–108, 114–115, 116, 179 religious disputes 39, 63, 77, 79, 92, 96, 99, 107, 122, 140, 143–144, 146, 152, 179 weakness of leaders 39, 49, 52, 55, 59, 72, 99, 148, 150, 178 Ašot i Bagratuni 25, 31, 46, 77, 156 Ašot ii Bagratuni 46

252 Ašot iii Ołormac 47–49, 82, 83, 143, 156, 161, 164 Ašot iv Kaǰ 48, 49, 52, 53–55, 58, 59, 72, 156 Ašot Bagratuni, prince of Tarōn 80 Atom, son of Senekʿerim Arcruni 62–63, 88, 89, 92, 94, 148, 149 Avetikʿ, scribe of Aleppo 170 Azerbaijan 53, 117 Badr ad-Dīn Luʾluʾ 103 Baghdad 29, 47, 84, 101, 104, 115, 143 Bagrat iii of Georgia / Bagrat ii of Abkhazia 49, 50, 54 Bagrat Bagratuni of Tarōn 80 Bagrat of Ravendan, brother of Goł Vasil 124, 125–126 Bagrationi family 42, 43, 49, 70, 73 Bagratuni family 17, 24, 25n7, 31, 32, 44, 47, 49, 71, 72, 86, 108, 156, 164 of Ani 26, 38, 55, 63, 66, 116 of Tarōn 50, 80, 85 Baldwin, lord of Kesun 158 Baldwin i of Jerusalem (Baldwin of Boulogne) 1, 41, 42, 124–126, 124n17, 130, 132, 133, 136–138 Baldwin ii of Jerusalem (Baldwin of Le Bourcq) 109, 125, 126, 131, 131n38, 132 Balik, emir of Kharberd 132–133 Bardas Phokas 19, 50, 54, 80, 84 Bardas Skleros 50, 84 Barkyaruq ibn Malik-Shah 104, 117, 120, 123 Barseł i Pahlawuni, katholikos of Armenia 5, 119, 150–153 Barseł, priest of Kesun 158, 173 Basil Lekapenos 82 Basil the Bogomil 96, 96n93 Basil ii the Macedonian 19, 21, 31, 32, 38, 39, 48–51, 80–87, 88–90, 99, 100, 119, 142, 143, 147, 157, 170 as protector of Armenians 51, 62, 75, 85– 87, 88, 90, 99, 100, 143, 179 Eastern campaigns 16, 31, 38, 51, 52, 54– 57, 142, 157 Basra 137 Berkri 57 Bibliothèque Nationale de France 172 Bira 69 Bitlis 8, 170, 171 Bǰni 48, 53

index Black Mountain 86, 87 Bohemond of Taranto 45, 67, 118, 124–126, 133–135, 159n7 Borderlands 101–102 British Library 168 Bulgaria 21, 47, 80, 81, 84–86, 88, 165 Buzan, emir of Edessa 117 Buzandaran 13, 166 Byzantium abdication of responsibility 91–94, 99– 100 annexation of Armenian lands 1, 10, 19, 26, 38, 39, 48, 50, 54, 55, 57–60, 85, 88– 90, 108, 157, 170 Armenians in imperial service 78–79, 85 internal warfare 54–55, 84, 85, 89, 118 loss of Eastern territories 39, 60, 61–62, 94–95, 101 Bzommar 167 Caesarea 9, 63 Cairo 111, 123 Cappadocia 2, 10, 35, 63, 67, 72, 99, 104 Chalcedon, Council of 11, 39, 46, 49, 139 Chalcedonian Christianity 29, 34, 39, 45, 78–80, 90, 96, 97, 140–144, 147, 152, 179 Chronicle Dates of authorship 127, 152, 155, 157 dates of authorship 3–8 Jerusalem edition 4, 7, 172–173, 174 Modern reception 14, 28–29, 30, 177 Prophetic timeline 23, 36, 44, 53, 66, 71, 72, 129, 141, 178, 181 Vałaršapat edition 18, 38n62, 173–174 Cilicia 2, 7, 8, 10, 35, 64, 67, 98, 100, 101, 122, 124, 137n72, 140, 154, 159, 162, 163, 179 Armenian principality 7, 44, 63n63, 67, 73, 153, 159, 162, 164, 181 Classicising historiography 14 Constantine i the Great 167, 168 Constantine vii Porphyrogennetos 77n9 Constantine viii the Macedonian 39, 82, 84, 86, 87, 99, 100, 146 Constantine ix Monomachos 39, 58, 60, 63, 89, 93, 99 Constantine x Doukas 29, 62, 63, 83, 91–94, 99, 148, 149, 169 Constantine, hetaireiarch 89n63

index Constantine, lord of Gargar 69 Constantine, Rubenid lord of Cilicia 67, 67n83, 68n83, 104 Constantine, son of Habel 63 Constantinople 1, 7, 9, 29, 39, 47, 54, 58, 62, 63, 67, 76, 78, 80, 85, 88–90, 92–98, 100, 116, 131, 135, 147–150, 152, 156, 165–167 Covkʿ 152 Crete 21, 80, 109, 111 Cross of Hacʿuni 167 Crusaders role in prophecy 129–130 Cyrrhus 126 Dānishmand 45, 67, 118–119, 126, 131, 135 Damascus 102, 115 David curopalates Bagratuni 19, 48, 49–51, 54, 59, 87 David iv Bagrationi 42, 70–71, 73 David Anhołin 59 David Arcruni 55, 56, 62 David, son of Habel 63 Dawatanos, doux of Edessa 62, 93 Daylamites 53, 103, 109 Demetrios i Bagrationi 42, 70, 71 Derenik Arcruni 20, 48, 111 Dioskoros Sanahnecʿi 146, 147, 152 Dseł 168 Easter dating disputes 31, 83, 136, 140, 146 Edessa 1, 2, 4, 9–11, 12, 16, 20, 21, 29, 40, 41, 47, 62, 64–67, 69, 70, 74, 82, 87, 89, 93, 96, 98, 109–112, 115–118, 120, 122, 124, 130, 133, 135, 137, 141, 151, 153, 156–158, 160, 177, 180, 181 archives 21 Armenian clerical community 11 Crusader county of 8, 40, 124, 125, 132, 133, 152, 153 Egypt 35, 102, 103, 109–111, 150, 151 Ēǰmiacin 159–162 Ekełeacʿ 59 Ełišē 13, 13n43, 24, 139n1 Ethnographic labels, use by Uṙhayecʿi 108– 110 Eusebius of Caesarea 25, 26 Fatimids 40, 69, 102, 103, 111, 123, 126, 131, 133, 136

253 Feodosiyya 165 First Crusade 1, 7, 14, 19, 22, 29, 36–38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 64, 67, 68, 70, 72, 97–98, 123–125, 130, 138, 140, 148, 151, 159, 177, 178 contemporary accounts 133–135 modern historiography 121–122 role in prophecy 57 role of Armenians 125 Fulcher of Chartres 133, 134, 136 Gabriel of Melitene 69 Gagik-Abas i Bagratuni of Kars 70 Gagik i Arcruni 20, 142n15, 143, 144 Gagik i Bagratuni 30, 31, 46, 48–50, 52, 54, 74, 156, 157, 161 dating of reign 47–48 Gagik ii Bagratuni 39, 58, 59, 63, 66, 67n83, 72, 83, 89, 93, 116, 148–149, 153, 165n23 Galeran of Puiset 132 Ganjak 70, 71 Ganji, captor of Berkri 57 Gargar 8, 69 Geōrgios Maniakēs 87, 89 Gēorgē, anti-katholikos of Armenia 149 Georgia 42, 43, 52, 70–71, 73, 85, 144n21, 164 Georgians 28, 42, 49, 53, 60, 86, 116 Ghaznavids 104 Gihon river 35, 36, 178 Giorgi i of Georgia / Giorgi iii of Abkhazia 19, 38, 39, 49, 54–56, 85, 86 Giorgi ii of Georgia 70 Goł Vasil 8, 44, 67–68, 69, 73, 104, 124–126, 131, 152, 179 Godfrey i of Jerusalem (Godfrey of Bouillon) 41, 124, 125, 127 Greece 35, 92 Greeks 2, 3, 11, 18, 27, 29, 31, 34, 35, 41, 59, 63, 74–76, 83, 88, 91–94, 99, 100, 105, 107, 122, 147, 150, 154, 161 Gregory vii (pope) 140 Gregory Abuʿl-Faraj bar Ebrōyō 134, 136 Grigor i the Illuminator 13, 105, 106, 162 Grigor ii Vkayasēr, katholikos of Armenia 5, 65, 66, 95, 126, 140, 149–150, 150, 151, 153, 169 Grigor ii, patriarch of Constantinople 167 Grigor iii Pahlawuni, katholikos of Armenia 8, 83, 152–154 Grigor Bagratuni of Tarōn 80

254

index

Grigor Erēcʿ Continuation of Chronicle 173 Grigor Erēcʿ 1, 3, 4, 8n24, 158–159, 159, 160, 162 Grigor magistros Pahlawuni 14, 32, 53, 58– 60, 65, 79, 90, 149 Grigor, scribe in Constantinople 167 Gugark 164

Jerusalem 1, 8, 23, 24, 29, 33, 36, 40–42, 57, 68, 97, 121–123, 125, 127–134, 136, 138, 140, 151, 153, 175, 178, 180 Armenian Patriarchate 166, 172 Council of 140, 153, 154, 181 Joscelin of Courtenay 8, 109, 125, 131n38, 132, 137 Justinian i 77

Habel, Armenian nobleman 63, 90 Hamdanids 82, 103, 109 Harkʿ 145 Harpik 63, 90 Harran 87n59, 116 battle of 136, 137n72 Hebron 35 Her 20, 56, 85, 111, 142 Hervé, Norman mercenary 62, 93 Hisn-Mansur 65 Hoja Mahmoud Hamtʿecʿi 170 Holy Sepulchre 136, 140, 147 Honi 150

Kamāl ad-Din 134 Kapan 59 Kaputru battle of 19, 39, 58n41, 116 Kara Koyunlu 164 Karapet Halačean 167 Karin 62 Kars 55 Katakalon Kekaumenos 60, 90 Kerbogha 130 Kesun 3, 4, 8, 67, 104, 137n72, 158, 179 Kharberd 45, 64, 132, 135 Khazars 104 Khurasan 104 Kirakos Ganjakʿeci 143, 144n21, 163, 168 Koriwn 23–24, 170 Ktrič, Seljuq renegade 158 Kurdistan 103 Kurds 115, 179

Iberia 54 Iberians 49, 55, 59 Ibn al-Athīr 61n53, 102, 103, 115–117, 121, 134, 135, 136, 137n72 Ibn al-Qalānisī 102, 134, 135 Ikhshīdids 109, 111 il-Ghazi, emir of Ganjak 70 Imad ad-Din Zengi 153 Innocent ii 153 Iōannēs i Tzimiskēs 21, 22, 48, 81–84, 86, 99, 100, 142, 145 letter to Ašot iii 48, 82–83 Iōannēs ii Komnenos 7, 97n99, 98, 99, 153, 154, 181 Iōannēs Skylitzēs 18, 21, 102 Iōannēs Zōnaras 18 Isaac Komnenos, brother of Alexios 96 Isaac i Komnenos 90–91, 94, 118 Isauria 35 Isfahan 170 Ishākhā 162, 168, 169 Ismail, emir of Azerbaijan 117, 120 Israyēl vardapet Hamtʿecʿi 170 Išxan Arǰkʿtʿuni, disputed ruler of Edessa 66 Iwanē 118

Lambron 69 Last World Emperor 33, 36, 42, 57, 129, 137, 154, 177 Łazar Pʿarpecʿi 13, 170 Leo the Deacon 20, 21, 81, 82, 102 Leo Tornikios 89 Letter of Pontius Pilate 168 Lewon, general of Tarōn? 83n36 Lewon, Rubenid lord of Cilicia 7, 153, 160, 164 Lewon, son of Habel 63 Lewon i, king of Cilicia 7 Łewond 13, 13n43, 25, 26–28, 83, 106, 107, 114, 120, 130, 139n1, 160, 170, 171 Life of St. Nersēs 162, 165, 167, 169, 170, 173 Liparit, prince of Georgia 60, 90, 116, 118 Livorno 167 Lviv 165, 167–169

255

index Maiyafariqqin 115 Malik-Shah ibn Alp Arslan 64, 66, 104, 105, 114–117, 119–120, 123, 150, 151 Mamikonean family 24 Mamistra 124 Mamlan, emir of Atrpatakan 50, 59 Mandalē, sons of 63 Manuscripts Bzommar ms 449 166 Bzommar ms 644 167 Jerusalem ms 1051 166, 173 Jerusalem ms 1107 173 Jerusalem ms 3651 173 London ms or5260 156n1, 168 Matenadaran ms 1731 169, 170 Matenadaran ms 1768 156n1, 168 Matenadaran ms 1896 158, 165, 170–171, 174 Matenadaran ms 3071 168 Matenadaran ms 3519 169 Matenadaran ms 5587 156n1, 168, 169 Matenadaran ms 6686 165n23 Paris ms 191 166, 172 Paris ms 200 172 Venice ms 887 156, 165–166, 166, 168 Venice ms 901 170 Venice ms 913 166 Venice ms 986 172n35 Venice group 165–167, 169 Vienna ms 574 156, 167–168, 169 Vienna group 167–169, 169 Manzikert 61, 62, 113n53, 114 battle of 39, 61, 61n52, 62, 64, 75, 94–96, 99, 115, 119, 179 Marash 69, 150, 158, 179 Mark the Hermit 30, 129 Markos, metropolitan of Caesarea 63 Maštocʿ 9 Matenadaran 169, 174 Mattʿēos Uṙhayecʿi biography 3, 9, 12 Dates of authorship 177, 181 dates of authorship 3–8 Education 127 education 3, 13, 14, 16, 23, 40 life and death 152 Maurice 140

Mekhitarists 175 of Venice 156, 159, 172 of Vienna 156 Melitene 58, 61, 67, 69, 87, 116, 118 Merzivon 165 Mesopotamia 28, 60, 76, 103, 181 Mesrop of Vayocʿ J̌or 162 See also Life of St. Nersēs Methodius of Olympus 33 Michael iv 37, 58, 59, 62, 87–88, 99 Michael v 88, 89, 100 Michael vi Stratiōtikos 90, 91, 93, 118 Michael vii Doukas 64, 95–96, 99 Michael the Syrian 134, 136, 147, 151n68, 154, 168n26, 180 Mopsuestia 21 Mosul 61, 103, 104 Movsēs Xorenacʿi 9, 13, 21, 25, 25n8 Muḥammad ibn Marwan 10n32, 25 Mxitʿar Anecʿi 162, 163 Mxitʿar Ayrivanecʿi 163, 163n17 Mxitʿar Goš 12n41 Naṣr ad-Dawlah, emir of Harran 87n59 Neilos, heretic of Constantinople 96 Nersēs Šnorhali 8, 152, 153, 166 Nicaea 124 Nikephoros ii Phokas 21, 79–84, 86, 99, 110 Nikephoros iii Botaneiates 61n52, 64, 95– 96, 99 Nikephoros Bryennios 158 Nikephoros Melissenos 95–96 Nikephoros ‘Crook-neck’ Phokas 55, 56, 84, 85 Nikephoros Xiphias 55, 56, 84 Niketas Pegonites 93 Oghuz 104, 113 omens, natural or astronomical 115, 129, 130, 172 Ōšin, lord of Lambron 69 Ottomans 164, 165

14, 32, 40,

Pałin 61 Pahlawuni family 8, 48, 58, 65, 95, 123 Palestine 82, 180 Parthia 9, 46, 59n43, 77 Pechenegs 21, 76, 90, 96 Peros, Byzantine katepano 90

256

index

Persia 13, 24, 46, 47, 77, 101, 106, 117 Persian as ethnic label 109, 113 Persians as opponent of Christians 33, 35– 36, 38, 41, 42, 44, 57, 68, 72, 73, 87, 89, 92, 116–118, 123, 128, 129, 131, 161, 178 Petros Getadarj, katholikos of Armenia 31, 32, 55, 56, 58, 89, 93, 145–148, 150, 152, 153 Petros Maxsouten 165 Philaretos Brachamios 10, 29, 64–66, 67–69, 95, 96, 104, 115, 117 apostasy of 40 fall of 64, 66, 118, 119, 150–151 relations with church 150 religious beliefs of 65 rise of 64, 99, 100 Uṙhayeci’s view of 40, 64–66, 72, 95, 114, 116, 119, 141, 153, 179 Phoenicia 82 Photios, patriarch of Constantinople 78, 142 Pōłos of Marash, anti-katholikos of Armenia 150 Pōłos of Merzivon 165, 166 Prophecy of St. Nersēs 30n22, 66, 177 of St. Sahak 66, 177 Qarakhanids 51 Qirwash ibn al-Muqallad

61

Raban 67, 179 Ravendan 126 Raymond of Aguilers 133 Raymond of St. Gilles 97 Richard of Salerno 118 Robert Guiscard 124 Romanos ii Porphyrogennetos 21, 80, 81, 161 Romanos iii Argyros 87 Romanos iv Diogenes 60, 63–65, 75, 76, 94– 96, 99, 122 Rome 24, 46, 77, 77n7, 140, 150, 150n61, 167 Ruben, progenitor of Rubenid line 67, 68n83 Rubenids 8, 44, 63n63, 67n83, 68, 68n83, 73, 154, 159, 160, 179, 181

Safavids 164, 165 Sahak iii, katholikos of Armenia 25 Samanids 51 Samosata 21, 21n68, 74, 80, 81, 100, 111, 124 Samuēl Kamrǰajorecʿi 147 Samuēl of Ani 17, 162–163 Samuel, tsar of Bulgaria 84 Sanahin 152, 168 Šapuh Bagratuni 13n42 Sargis Haykazn 32, 58, 59 Sargis, nephew of Petros Getadarj 150 Sargis, scribe of Isfahan 170 Sargis, scribe of Sanahin 168 Sargis i Sewancʿi, katholikos of Armenia 145–146, 146 Saruǰ 124, 132 Sasanian Empire 47, 77, 106, 107 Sayf ad-Dawlah 82, 111, 111n37 Sebasteia 20, 51, 58, 61, 62, 66, 88, 89, 91, 92, 94–96, 148 Sebēos 13, 24, 24n4, 26, 28, 107, 120, 170 Seljuqs 26, 39, 44, 67, 75, 89, 101, 102, 104, 110, 113, 116, 118, 119, 123, 127, 133 Senekʿerim Arcruni, king of Vaspurakan 20, 39, 49, 51, 55, 62, 86, 88, 99, 113, 157, 170 Sewawerak 87 Sharaf ad-Dawlah 104, 117 Sicily 35 Sinjar 33 Širakawan, Council of 78, 140, 142 Siwnik 164 Slavs 28 Smbat Sparapet 85, 157–162, 163 Smbat-Yovhannēs i Bagratuni 32, 38, 39, 48, 49, 52, 53–56, 58, 59, 72, 86, 88–89, 146, 147, 156 Smbat, disputed ruler of Edessa 66 Smbat i Bagratuni 46, 156, 161 Smbat ii Bagratuni 48n7, 49, 156, 156n1, 164 Stepʿanos Asołik 2, 13, 15, 17–20, 26, 46, 47, 49, 50, 72, 81, 82, 85, 115, 139, 143, 145 Stepʿanos of Siwnik 34 Stepʿanos Orbelian 34, 143, 145, 180 Stepʿanos Sewancʿi, katholikos of Armenia 144–146 Stephen Lichoudes 60, 61, 113n51 Sulayman, emir of Antioch 117

257

index Syria

2, 7, 10, 18, 19, 22, 28, 31, 33, 64, 66, 67, 70, 72, 75, 76, 82, 94n85, 98–101, 104, 122, 124, 140, 153, 163, 177, 180, 181 Syrian histories 135 See also Gregory Abuʿl-Faraj bar Ebrōyō See also Michael the Syrian Syrians 1, 9, 11, 28, 90, 99, 122, 136, 140, 153, 181 Tabriz 165 Tancred de Hauteville, nephew of Bohemond 124, 125, 131n38 Târgu Mureş 169 Tarōn 46, 50, 79, 80, 83n36, 85 Tarsus 21 Tʿatʿul, lord of Marash 69 Taykʿ 48–50, 50n17, 54 Tell Bashir 124 Tʿēodoros Alaxōsik, anti-katholikos of Armenia 150, 151 Theodora the Macedonian 63, 84, 90, 99 Tiberias 131n37, 132 Tiflis 29, 71 Timūr Lang 164 Tʿlxum 93, 113n51, 118 Tʿoṙnik of Sasun 66 Tʿoros i, Rubenid lord of Cilicia 160, 164 Tʿoros ii, Rubenid lord of Cilicia 7 Tʿoros curopalates of Edessa 1, 41, 65, 122, 124, 130, 141, 153 Tʿovma Arcruni 13n42, 20, 26, 51, 107 Tʿovma Mecopʿecʿi 162, 164, 166, 168, 169 Trdat iii, King of Armenia 13, 77, 105, 106 Trebizond 31 Triaditza 81, 84 Ṭughril Bey ibn Mikayel 61, 62, 104, 113, 113n53, 114 Turkan Khatun 117 Turks appearance in Armenia 27, 38, 39, 51, 85, 112–113 as ethnographic label 109 role in prophecy 36, 39 Tutush (Abu Saʿid Taj ad-Dawla) 116, 123 Urban ii

122, 123

Vahan i Siwnecʿi, katholikos of Armenia 143–146

Vahram Pahlawuni of Egypt 126 Vahram Pahlawuni, defender of Ani 58, 59, 88 Vałaršapat 173 Varag 53 Holy Cross of 53 Vardan Arewelcʿi 17, 163 Vardan Bałišecʿi 170–171 Vardan Mamikonean 24, 106, 107 Vardan Yunanean 167 vardapets 12 Vasak Pahlawuni 53 Vasil (locum tenens of Edessa) 8–9 Vasil Apokapēs 61 Vasil Pahlawuni, lord of Gargar 8 Vasil the Younger 8, 69 Vaspurakan 20, 26, 38, 47, 48, 51–52, 52, 55, 57, 60, 61, 85, 109, 112, 113, 142, 142n15, 143–148, 157, 170 Vayocʿ J̌or 164 William of Tyre

134, 136

Xačʿatur 93 Xačʿik Anecʿi, katholikos of Armenia 92–93, 148, 149, 152 Xačʿik Aršaruni, katholikos of Armenia 144, 145 Xačʿik Kafayecʿi 169 Xtrik, emir of Berkri 57 Yaghi Siyan, emir of Antioch 104 Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd 52, 54, 82, 102, 111, 134, 147 Yakob Sanahnecʿi (Kʿarapʿnecʿi) lost history of 16–17, 32, 38, 53n27, 74, 83, 85, 86, 181 Yakob Sanahnecʿi (Kʿarapʿnecʿi) 37, 45, 63, 148, 149, 152 Yakob, scribe of Bitlis 174 Yathrib 34 Yazdgerd ii 106 Yerevan 169, 170, 174 Yovhan / Yunan, bishop of Alania 48 Yovhannēs Drasxanakertcʿi, katholikos of Armenia 13, 26, 107, 142, 170, 171 Yovhannēs Kozeṙn (Tarōnecʿi) 2, 14, 16, 17, 30, 43, 44, 56, 66, 72, 144, 150, 157, 163, 180

258

index

Prophecies 14, 17, 30–37, 39–40, 42, 43, 49, 65, 99, 128, 141, 143, 147, 177, 178 First 16, 38, 56 Second 38, 39, 40–41, 57, 71, 74, 101, 109, 137, 177 Yovhannēs Sarkawag 17 Zakʿaria i Jagecʿi, katholikos of Armenia 142

78,

Zakʿaria, scribe of Yovhannovankʿ 168 Zatik, son of Połtn (scribe) 168, 169–170 Zengids 103, 153, 154 Zenob 168 Zoe the Macedonian 84 Zoroastrians 12, 13, 77, 106 Zōrvri-Kozeṙn 65 Zubayda 117