VOLUME 3 be: JOURNAL | OF THE SOCIETY FOR | ARMENIAN STUDIESRyseell and N. G. Wilson, Menander Rhetor Baited with Translation and (Oxford, 1981), p xx. ‘pp. 49-52, quoting the Armenian text in part From R. Nadeau, “The Progymnasmats of Aphthonius in Translation” Speech 49 (1952), 273: ef, Clark. p. 197, and Russell and Wilson. p. xxvii : ‘Greck,” in Hammond and Scullard. eds, The Osford Classical Dic. 48, On thetorical education in the Byzantine pericd, see G. 1. Kustas, “The Func "tion and Evolution of Byzantine Rhetoric” Viator 1 (1870), 65-73, and H. Hunger. Die Hochsprochliche profane Literatur der Byzontiner, Handbuch der Altertumswissenschat, 2 vols (Munich, 1978), 1.92-120, 48. On the meanings of frftJseragvyn, see above, n. 3. 50. CE. Isocrates Panegyricus 18; Punathenaicus 95: Pseudo-Cicero Ad Herennium ‘36.11: Philo De Vite Mosis 2.1 ‘Cl, Aristotle Rhetoric 1367636; Cicero De Oratore 284.341; Quintilian Institutio Oretoria 37.1 ‘52. Note that at the beginning of the proem Mashtots' is acclaimed as perfect man land at the end as s just man. ‘83. See E. Demirchian, ed. Haykokan Hamabarbar, 2 Koriwn “Vark' Mashtots' {Armenian Concordance, 2: Keriwn, Life of Mashtots’) (Erevan, 1972; eprined in Koriwn, Vark* Mashtots'), pp. 55-56. ‘54. Contrary to Abeghian, who sees the proem as an apology for the ensuing historical ‘account (pp. 13-16; cf. Maksoudian, pp. xiv-xv); and Akinian, who considers it a later Staton by the muthor ("Fatiatnn vaste & hetttsYorapet Knnativn bnagir” [History of the Life of St. Mashtots’ Vardapet: Research and Text] in Mbhitar ‘onagirk’ (Vienna, 1949}, p. 183) 55. Anaximenes Rhetorica ad Alexancrum 144156; cf. Cicero Partitiones Oratoriae 22.74. 56. Cf Aristotle Rhetoric 1366b3-6, 37196785, 19; Ccero De Oratore 2.85.345-347: ote. 57. On portents, miracles, or divine acts, cf. Cicero Partitiones Oratoriae 21.73: ‘Quintilian Intitutio Oratoria 3.7.11. 58. Xenophon (Memorabilia 1.2.117) states that all teachers demonstrate to their disciples that they themselves practice what they teach citing Socrates as an example. ‘On the predominance of the Socratic example, see B. Fiore, The Function of Personal Example in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles (Rome, 1986), passim. 59. Cf. Aristotle Rhetoric 19681125: “Point out... that he has done it better than ":""The comparison should be with famous men who are themselves great” ‘ch Cicero De Oratore 2.86.348). ‘to Romans 91-3. ‘to Exodus $1:18-82:19, ‘from the context, there seems to be a conflation, if not confusion, (cf. 18:5) and 2 Cor, 2:13 (ct. 8.28) Ifthe allusion is more to the ‘would be to Titus and not Timothy, and an early scribal 20:30; 21:25; Philo De Posteritate Caini 144; ‘a way, the reader is taken back to the personal ‘at the beginning of the treatise (22.18). 4 Soe. for Armenion St 8 (1987) Printed in the United States of Amerion . Peter Cowe A HITHERTO UNRECOGNIZED CHRONICLE TO THE YEAR A.D. 1272 As the clash of arms proclaimed the Mongol arrival in Armenia Anatoli, so vividly recounted in the History ofthe Natio of ech 80 has the Armenian scholarly press resounded with claims and ‘counterclaims over the authorship of that work. In fact, each edition has supported a different contender! The contemporary publications of T. Sawalaniants” and K. Patkanian* (1870) ascribed it to Vardan the Historian and a certain Maghak’'ia the Monk, respectively. This already marked a volte face for Sawalaniants' who, a decade earlier, had ex- pressed himself in favor of Grigor Aknerts',‘ a candidacy to which he would revert in 1891.* Subsequently, this view was upheld by Blake and Frye in the work's third edition* which brought together the texts of the two preceding. Let us begin with a brief review of therelative merits of each of the three scriptions. ‘Vardan was selected because he studied under Vanakan Vardapet as apparently did the author.” Moreover, he had had a hand in the translation of Michael's chronography (along with the Syrian priest Ish6kh)* which was immediately followed by the “History of the Na- tion of Archers” in MS Jer 32 and of which the latter has been viewed as a form of continuation. It was also felt that the order of events paralleled that of Vardan’s own history? Asif to clinch matters, reference was made to the occurrence of the name Vardan in the lower margin of MS Jer 32. However, Bogharian’s full description of the manuscript permits us to discount this figure instead as one of the monastic community at Akner. Meanwhile, the fact that the author alludes to Vardan by name along with three other pupils of Vanakan significantly detracts from the plausibility of the case!* Oskian further erodes its credibility by outlining both factual and structural discrepancies between the two accounts’ It becomes Aurion’ Nore: The Chronicle is contained in MS 82 of the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, hereafter referred to as MS Jer 32. © 1987 Society for Armenian Studies16S Peter Cowe sly untenable when we recall that the final events narrated, the the Great (February 1, 1272)" took place after Vardan’s death in 12 and would therefore necessitate postulating @ continuator Turning to the case for Maghak‘in we find that, though enjoying ‘ longer tradition remounting to Ch'amch‘ian.” it merely hangs from the interpretation of a particular formula in a colophon. MS Jer 960, ‘snother witness to the work, was copied in 1602 for Maghak’ia Vardapet ‘The latter, following @ common scribal practice, took as his model the colophon of Step'annos, abbot of Akner, who had commissioned MS Jer See meeting bs ove name, but ming one other ey Foretu grel (see App. sec. G, below) he substituted grets'i which See eapetedinn och ta cin cctborsip of th piece ‘Turning to Grigor Aknerts'i, I must admit from the outset that the arguments adduced in his support are generally far stronger than those we have just considered. The identification was already current at the time of Vardan Baghishets'i (4. 1705) to whom Akinian ascribes a lis of Armenian historians!* At all events, the writing is first evinced in Matenadaran MS 2271 of the vear 1724. There we encounter a rather confusing entry for “Grigor history also concerning the nation of Tat‘ars up to the time of Catholicos Kostandin the Great" (in office 1221-12671 Another point in his favor is that not only is Grigor scribe of the earliest extant witness to the work (MS Jer 32) but the date of execu tion (1273) closely approximates to the lates incidents recorded. Sawale niants’ confirms his position by directing attention to Grigor’s state ment at the conclusion of Michael's chronicle (see App, sec B) "by God's will, we shall also write (grests'uk’ the forty-four years lacking in it Here he takes as his point of departure not the original conclusion of 1196" but rather the termination of Vardan's continuation, that is, 12 a point corroborated by Step'annos (App., sec. G) Accepting the above ascription as genuine, Akinian proceeded to ‘erect superstructure upon it with the assistance of other colophons ‘originating at the same monastery from which, unfortunately, he drew a number of questionable inferences. Grigor being a very common Arme- nian name, it is hardly surprising that it frequently appears in his data. Distinguishing the various individuals is rendered even more complex by the paucity of personal details the scribe of MS Jer 32 discloses. all we know is that at the time of writing his parents and brother mere already dead (App., sec. H. this manuscript is the earliest of the group to mention a scribe ses itis one of his first efforts and therefore sug- born around 1250." Similarly, as he does not recognized Chronicle to AD 1272 17 state his formal ecclesiastical rank'* and the figures appearing in the other documents are styled k'ahanay, Akinian concludes that he was never accorded the degree of vardapet. Bogharian’s full publication of on the testimony of deed been granted the ars, The impression of couse the process of copying ed B.D. and Hf) and admite he was unable to ¢ the assignment "as we were extremely weal, snl piedl 0 ns on Akinian's deduc sible sources. If we are led low so obviously tha he is native t elled to ascribe the formants rather that Grigor was e several features of MS claim to having studied w than himself. Thi sib 2 which are diffe and invite us to broach anew the quest for the elusive author If we were to pull together what Grigor and his patron Step'annos tell us about the work, we should expect it to commence where Michael's chronicle left off, that is, and to furnish information on events m of the exact figure of forty-four years istic treatment akin to Michael's prac tice. As patrons normally exercised some authority over the way their commissions were executed, we might suppose the title to be “History of the Tatars” which comes first to Step'annos’s mind and is only then glossed by the phrase “nation of archers.” Similarly, the tone would be ‘admonitory, underscoring the abbot's meditations on the theme sic transit gloria mundi (App. sec. G). Here we may compare the conch sion to Aristakes' History: “But as to what we have written in this book - we have set all of this down .... so that looking upon our writing you would be terrified by the face of the Lord and tremble with dread at his strength; and so that through confession and atonement done in advance you might stay His punishments!" ‘When we turn to internal evidence, however, the number of cor respondences is limited. Certainly the history concludes with recent events, but it picks up much earlier than 1229 and never explicitly refers to Michael's compilation. Even if we allow the appropriateness of an ethnographical introduction, we note that the first fixed date given