220 Stephen H. Rapp Jr.

Davit' Muskhelishvili, Sak'ąrt'velos istoriuli geograp'iis clzirit'adi sakit'khaltt

(Fundamental Questions on the Historical Geography of Georgia),2 vols. (T'bilisi.
1971 and 1980); Russian summaries, 'Osnovye voprosy istoricheskoi geogralii
10
Gruzii', 230-5 and 245-51 respectively

Armenian sources
T' engiz PaPuashvi|i, Rant' a da kakht' a samep' o ( VI il-XI s s. ) (Kingdom of t he Raniałt ;t
and Kakhet'ians, 8th-I1th Century) (T'bilisi, 1982)
StePhen H. Rapp Jr., 'Imagining history at the crossroads: Persia, Byzantium, and thc
architects of the written Georgian past', 2 vols., Ph.D. dissertation, IJniversity ol'
Michigan (Ann Arbor, 1997) TIM GREENWOOD
cFrom
bumberązi to basileus: writing cultural synthesis and dynastic change in
medieval Georgia (K'art'li)', in Antony Eastmond, od., Eastern Approaches rtl
-
Byzantium (Aldershot, 200I), l 0 1-1 6 '|'ltn srnłrEGIC SIGNIFIcANcE oF HIsToRIC ARMENIA has long been recog_
|Yflię| in Medieval Georgian Historiography: early texts and Eurasian contextłl,
CSCO, vol. 60l, subsidia 113 (Louvain,2003) ltiscd. Straddling the borders of neighbouring powers-whether Rome and
- |)crsia or Byzantium and the caliphate-it linked the Anatolian and Iranian
J.M. Rogers, 'The Mxargrdzelis between east and west', Bedi Kartlisą 34 (1976),
315ł6 ;llłtteaux and afforded access into the steppe world to the north and
Akaki Shanidze (Chanidzó), 'Le Grand Domestique de l'Occident, Gregorii Mcsopotamia and the Jazirato the south. All of these routes could be utilised
Bakurianis-dze, et le monastdre góorgien fondó par lui en Bulgarie', Bedi Kartlisu rrr blocked in Armenia. It possessed that ideal combination of remote moun-
(l97l), 133-66
28
litinous terrain and accessible river valleys which could be exploited
Jemal SteP'nadze, Sak'art'velo XII saukunesa dą XIII saukunis pirvel meot'khedshi
(Georgia in the ]2th Century and in the First Quarter of the ]3th Century) (T'bilisi, lilr either defensive or offensive warfare as the situation required.
1985); Russian suilrmary, 'Gruziia v XII v. i pervoi chetverti XIII v.', 188-9 llrrsurprisingly, this landscape was studded with fortresses and other strong-
Zaza Skhittladze, Istoriul pirt'a portretebi garejis mravalmt'is k'olagiris monastershl 1lrlints. There was one further strategic consideration, namely the long-
(T'bilisi, 2000); English summary, 'Historical figures at Kolagiri Monastery in the stitnding tradition of Armenian service in the military forces of one or
Gareja desert', 108-24 rltlrer of the neighbouring powers.
Giorgi Tcheishvili (Cheishvili), 'Georgian perceptions of Byzantium in the eleventh [n the course of the eleventh century historic Armenia underwent dra-
and twelfth centuries', in Antony Eastmond, od., Eastern Approaches ttt tttittic political upheaval, as the Armenian kingdoms of Vaspurakan (in
200l), 199ł09
By z antium (Aldershot,
l()2l), Ani (1045) and Kars (1064) were absorbed by the Byzantine empire.
CYril ToumanofĘ 'On the relationship between the founder of the empire ol' '|'his Byzantine
Tiebizond and the Georgian Queen Thamar', Speculum 15 (1940), 29g_3I2 occupation proved short-livęd; Ani fell to the Seljuks in 1064
(Medieval lttld after Mantzikert (1071), the Empire was excluded for good from historic
Georglan historical literature (VIIth-XVth centuries)', Traditio l
(1943), 139-82 Ąrmenia. Thereaftęr only the small kingdoms of Loii-Tashir north of Lake
- (Caucasia
and Byzantine studies', Traditio 12 (tg56),409ł5 Scvan and Bałk'in eastern Siwnik'remained, along with shadowy Armenian
and Georgia', in Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 4.1 (Cambridge, lllrds in Vaspurakan and Taron. However historic Armenia represents only
- 1966),593_637
-Armenia rllte of the centres of Armenian settlement in this period. During the second
lrirlf of the eleventh century, a patchwork of independent and quasi-
irrclependent Armenian principalities emerged in Cilicia and northern Syria.
liqueezed once again between rival powers, some proved short-lived but oth-
et,s, through a combination of military ability, judicious alignment and good
lilrtune, became morę permanent featuręs of that fractured and fluid politi-
t:itl landscape. The latter is attested most strikingly by the Rubenid dynasty
wltose rise to prominence after the death of Gogh Vasil in 1112 culminated
irl the coronation of Leo in January 1198 or 1199. Intriguingly the above
tlcscription of historic Armenia largely suits Lesser or Cilician Armenia as
wcll. It too straddled a frontier zolue, affording access into the Anatolian
;llateau and northern Syria, although admittedly along different corridors; it

l'nlt,eedings of the Brltlsh Academy 13ż,221-252. O The British Academy 2007,

 ARMENlAN SOURCE 223
2ż2 Tim Greenwood

l,rrt,lrllcl irccounts, nrrt simply within the Armenian historical

tradition but
too combined natural and man-made defęnces with good communicatitllts:
illstl itcross different historical traditions hitherto separated from one another
and it too contained reserves of experienced soldiers.
lry linguistic barriers. In relation to at least one of the Armenian Sources,
This strategic signifi.cance, and the long_standing engagement trl'
lrrtttlcly the Chronicle of Smbat Sparapet, this may prove to be extremely
Armenians in the service of neighbouring powers, whether Sasaniatt.
rrtlrritble as this text seems to draw upon both Byzantine and Latin sources.
Byzantine, Seljuk or Latin, has prompted scholars of the Near East in the
medięval period to consult Armenian historical sources. There WaS a well"
ll rcpeats a prediction of Peter the Hermit in relation to the First Crusade
,wtttlse
full history and the names of the princes are recorded bY the Frank
established Armenian tradition of writing history which continued in thil
period, both in respect of historic Armenia and, increasingly, Cilicirur lllslorians, i Fiang patmagirk'n'.| Dćdćyan has suggested that Smbat had,
this prediction in William of Ęre's History and argued that he
Armenia. The majority of these works do not possess an exclusivelY lrrttntl
r.rploited works by Niketas Choniates and George Akropolites as we11.2 This
Armenian focus, commenting regularly upon non-Armenian matters. For
lcxt may bridge several separate historical traditions and serves aS an imPort-
scholars faced with meagre or contentious historical traditions in their own
llttt reminder that Armenian historical sources should not be treated as if
fields, these histories have afforded an important, different perspective. Therc
llrey were somehow sealed from non-Armenian influences.
has, however, been something of a tendency to 'cherry-pick' Armenian his,
torical texts for information ręlevant to the specific research interest and to
ll tlre Byzantine empire is defined in geographical rather than institutional
ignore the remaindęr of the work. Armenian histories tend to be much morc
lt |,tlls, all of the Armenian historical works covering the period need to be
tńan simple vehicles for the preservation of bare factual information. TheY
lrtkcn into consideration. The temporary Byzantine occupation of
are frequently complex compilations which need to be handled with care and
Vrrspurakan and Ani in the ęlevęnth cęntury justifies interest in historic
exploitód only after careful textual scrutiny. This does not mean that
Ą1,1nenia under successive, non-Byzantine regimes down to 1204. Likewise,
Armenian histories necessarily lack accuracy, nor that theY have no Part ttl
tlrc Armenian, Latin, Turkic, Fatimid and Ayyubid polities in Cilicia and
play in a prosopographical exercise-in fact quite the reverse. It is simPlY
liyria developed in regions which had been within the boundaries of the
ihat they have their own strengths and shortcomings and these need to bc
llyr,irntine empire in 1025. All of thę Armenian sources bar one report events
identified and acknowledged before historians of the medieval Near East can
rlr both historic Armenia and Cilician Armenia, although there is an under-
begin to utilise them.
rlirtrdable stress upon one or other region, depending upon where the author
The study of Armenian history as a scholarty discipline continues to
rrl' llre work was based and thę materials at his disposal. The one excePtion is
adhere to a fairly rigid profi.le, according to which priority has been afforded
llre late-thirteenth_century History of Siwnik', compiled by Step'anos
to those periods in which there was an independent kingdom of Armenia. ( )rbclean, since the primary focus of this work is thę sequence of kings and
one of the consequences of this approach is that those Sources relating to
llishops of Siwnik', a region to the east of the kingdoms of Vaspurakan and
periods when there was no kingdom of Armenia have not been studied in
Ąrri which was never incorporated within the borders of the EmPire.
anything like the same detail as those sources which do consider Armenian
llrlwever since this source records the actions of many of the leading figures
kingship. Unfortunately the sources relevant for the period 1025-1204 fall
ttr the Caucasus during this period, it has been included in the survey.
targely *itt in such a gap. These histories have not been subjected to repeatecl ,fhe
Armenian sources may be divided into two categories: firstly, histor-
textual criticism and evaluation and do not currentĘ inhabit an active theatrc
compositions, and secondly, other sources which include prosopograPh-
of academic dispute or controversy. In the short term at least, it is hard to
lr,itl
lt.itl data, including colophons, inscriptions, charters, letter collections and
see any dramatic upswing in scholarly interest. This relative dearth of source
t,rltttemporary, non-historical texts which indicate the intellectual concęrns
criticism means that it remains very difficult to assess the merits of one
llll(l interests of well-known Armenian scholars.
Armenian source over another where they are found to contradict, ancl
equally hard to assess the Armenian evidence against Greek, Arabic or Latin
sources. Is it the case for example that non-Armenian sources have tradition-
ally been preferred simply because they have been more thoroughly studied
or available in translation rather than because they necessarilY contain a morc
reliable account? An invaluable, though secondary function of thc
| |itttbat Sparapet, Chronicle, I00,
l )ćttćyan, La chronique attributće au Connćtable Smbat, 30.
prosopography of the Byzantine World (PBW) project is that it will identify
 224 'I'lłn (ireenwood AlłMl]NlAN otJRCE 22s

HISTORICAL COMPOSITIONS trhlr, l. Arnrcnian Sourecs

liłlltt,cc Scope Datc Mss. Edition(s) Translation(s)

Table l gives a simple guide to the current state of scholarship in respect tll
Pages

each of the Armenian historical texts. The bibliography follows the srtttlt. t Ąt istirkcs l000-1072 Before 25+ Yuzbashyan Canard 1973 l05ll24
sequence. Although the table is mostly self-explanatory, the fourth colunrtl l itstivertts'i 1080 Mar.2865 1963 [9]
Jer.34I
headed Mss. states the total number of manuscripts for each text, incluclittlł
comPlete and Partial copies, as reflected in the catalogues of six major ctll
' ('rrtltinuator 1020- After 1
patkanean Thomson 1985 151326
rrl"I"ovma after 1l2l ll21 l887
lections of Armenian manuscripts: the Matenadaran in Erevan, tlrc At,tsruni
monastery of St James in Jerusalem, the Armenian Catholic Mkhit'arisr
l Ą MrtttIrew of 951-1lż9 c.l129 39+ Anonymous Dulaurier 400l465
monastery on the island of San Lazaruo in Venice, the Mkhit'arist Library ill l lrlussa Mat.6686 1869; [3] l 858;
Vienna, the Bibliothćque nationale in Paris, the British Library in Londtllr Yien.574 Mlk'-Adam. Dostourian 1993
and the Bodleian Library in Oxford.3 These figures represent the minimulll l898 [9l
number of manuscripts as there are other collections which have not beclt |ll ( arcgory 1136-1162 c.l162 ,I
Ibid. Ibid. 83/83
consulted. This column also highlights individual manuscripts of particulłtl lllc l)riest
significance. The next column identifies the standard edition or editions, thc I liittlluól Adam- c.ll80 66+ Tćr-Mik'elean ZohrablMai 421160
date of Publication and, in square brackets, the total number of manuscriptrł Ąrrcts'i c.1 180 Ven.873 1893 [l3] 18l8;
Jer.339"I Brosset 1876
consulted in the course of preparation of that edition. The final column gives
Mat.36l3
the number of pages of text which contain potentially relevant information.
: M khit'ar Paroyr c.1l93 Margaryan None
Several observations may be made. Aristakes' History is the only extanl 1

Ąllcts'i Haykazean- Mat.2678 l983

Source from the eleventh century. We know of one other eleventh_century Il;ragments] Third
Armenian history which is now lost, that composed by yovhannćs Crusade
Taronets'i, focused upon the history of the Bagratuni family, and written ilt ł, Michael the Adam-l l95 1246 76+ Jerusalem l870 Langlois 1868 l4ll532
two Parts, the first from Adam until the coronation of Ashot I Bagratuni in }iyrian and Jer.32 I2]; and
August 884 and the second from Ashot until c.1050. Six works belong to thcl |ill translation] 1248 Mat.5904 Jerusalem l87l l42l526
twelfth century and at least one more, by Yovhannćs Sarkavag (d. tl29) is tl]
lost. Of the six, thę Continuątion of T'ovma is extremely brief, the surviving ' Kirakos Grigor- Before
St 53+ Melik'- Brosset 1870 981399

fragments of the History of Mkhit'ar Anets'i aręlargely irrelevant, covering

( iirndzakets'i 1266 l27l Awhanjanyan Będrosian 1986
196l |47]
events which date almost exclusively to the period beforę t020, and tho
lt virrclan creation- Before 25+ Emin 186l [2]; Thomson 1989
Chronicle of Michael the Syrian is strictly not an Armenian text, being com- 461164
Ąrcwelts'i 1267 1271 Yen.877 Alishan 186212]
posed in syriac. However I have chosen to include it because there arę twtl Ven,879
seParate Armenian translations-or more accurately adaptations-of this
't Srnbat 951-1274 Bęfore 9+ shahnazareants' Der Nersessian 1961255
work, completed in 1246 and 1248; these comprise the earliest witnesses ol' Sparapet 1276 Ven.875 l859 1959
[2];
this work. The two recensions adopt different chronologies; substantively Agólean l956 Dódóyan 1980
they are very close. LŃęr Armenian historical texts exploited this work, usu- tl]
ally without acknowledgement. Indeed therę is an argument that this work l(} Mkhit'ar Creation- After 8+ Patkanov 1867 Brosset 1869 9184
1289
Ayrivanets'i 1297? Mat.582 12]
Mat.1723

3 Full references appear in

the bibliography. 'Mat.'identifies the manuscript as belonging ttl l l Step'anos Sisak-1299 1299 32+ (15+ Emin 1861 [2] Brosset 1864 451363
Matenadaran, Erevan; 'Jer.'indicates the Monastery of St James in Jerusalem; 'Ven.' idęntifics ( )rbelean only ch.66)
the collection of the Armenian Catholic Mkhit'arist monastery in Venice, founded by Mkhit.ar
of Sebasteia in 1717 on the island of San Lazarro; and 'Vien.' indicates the Mkhit.arist
monastery in Vienna, founded in 1810 after a group of monks had broken away from Venice ill
1773 and settled in Vienna.
 226 Tim Greenwood
insPired a revival in Armenian historical writing in the second half ol' llrtl
thirteenth century. The remaining five texts were all compiled after l2()4 lrrrt
have been included because they contain material not found in eirrllcl
Sources; again there is at least one work, by Vanakan Vardapet, which lrrrł
been lost. As we shall see, these later text arę far from being indepentlellt
of the earlier works.
Taking the editions and the manuscripts together, the obvious conclusirltt
is that almost all of these texts lack modern editions. Setting aside concertlh
about accuracy, the very age of these editions may prove to be something tll
a stumbling-block, with access outside specialist collections a serious prtlll
lem. Fortunately the Leiden Armenian Database includes four of the elevctt
texts-Aristakćs, T'ovma Artsruni, Kirakos Gandzakets'i and Vardrtlt
Aręwelts'i-whilst the Digital Library of Classical Armenian Literature httrr
five-the Same four, plus Mkhit'ar Anets'i.a Of the editions, in my view, otlly
the 1961 edition of Kirakos Gandzakets'i by Melik'-Awhanjanyan comci
closę to being critical in the sense that he consulted almost all of the relevattl
manuscriPts, setting aside five fragments found in the Matenadaran collgc-
tion. The other texts all lack critical editions. Perhaps most surprising is the
recent edition of Aristakes by Yuzbashyan, which is commonly cited as beinp
critical. Whilst he drew upon the oldest extant copy of the text, Mat.2865, hc
was unable to consult the important collections outside the Soviet Union,
including those in Jerusalem, Vienna and Venice. Thus despite thę fact thrtl
Jer.34I was copied in 1599 in Bitlis, making it the second oldest manuscripl
to contain this text, it was not apparently utilised by Yuzbashyan. The oldesl
manuscript of Matthew of Edessa appęars to be Mat.6686, dated 1582.
although I do not know whether this was consulted for the 1898 edition,
Since there are at least thirty-nine manuscripts containing this texr,
Dostourian's statement that the number of extant manuscripts is not large is
misleading.s Reputedly, this text survives in more than one recension bul
much work clearly remains to be donę. Thę two independent Armeniall
recensions of Michael the Syrian's Chronicle also require extensive work.
Jęr.32 is unquestionably the earliest, being dated 1273 and, containing mar-
ginalia referring to none other than Vardan Arewelts'i, who was closely
involved in both translations. Mat.2I52 arrd Mat.5904 also bear thirteenth_
century attributions whilst Mat.9309 is dated 1397 and was copied in
a See http://wwdlet.leidenuniv.nVvtwĄV'eitenberg/pĄects_weitenberg.htm1 for the
Armenian Database ('LAD') and http://sunsite,berkeley.edu/-aua for the Digital Library ol'
Classical Armenian Literature ('DLCAL'). Both databases contain a mixture of scanned antl
manuallY entered texts, with varying degrees of precision and hence reliability. In order to con-
sult LAD, please contact Professor Jos Weitenberg (weitenberg@rullet.leidenuniv.nl).
5 Dostourian, Armenia and the Crusades,
xi.
liOURCI]S ż27
^ltMliNlAN
lpltlutlcm. There are at least two separate Armenian continuations of
\llr,ltitcl's Chronicle, one brief, the other rather more substantial and extend-
lllll tltlwn to 1229. Alishan's ędition of Vardan Arewelts'i's Historical
l lltttpilution dręw upon only two manuscripts but their close proximity to the
rlnlt, ttl' composition of the text suggests that there would be little to gain
llrltlt tt detailed investigation of all the other manuscripts. Ven.877 was com-
lttlxsitlned by Step'anos Orbelean (d. 1304) whilst Ven.879 is dated t307.
Wlrllst these are not autographs, they were copied within a generation. The
rlltc glaringly deficięnt edition is that of Samuel Anets'i. This is significant
ttrrl ltlttst because the text had several continuators. The oldest extant manu-
rltl;lt is Ven,873, copied in 1206 at the monastery of Sanahin. Mat.3613,
rl*llltg fiom the thirteenth century, was copied in the monastery of Hotomos,
|llłl l() the north of Ani by one Mkhit'ar Anets'i; his relationship to the his-
lłtlllltl of the same name is unclear. Jer.3397 appears to contain completely
ttłw tnaterial for the years 1181 and l189. Fortunately these passages have
lrlctt quoted in full in Bołarian's excellent catalogue entry.6 Quite evidently
łltts ctlition is the least satisfactory. But having pinpointed all of these prob-
lt'tlrs. the next question must be-do these deficiencies adversely affect a
|tlll|i()pographical exercise? Thę answer must be 'Unlikely, and even if they
rlrl, lhcre is almost nothing that can be done about it.'
'l'here is again a wide range in the quality
of the translations and the
,llllltnentaries which sometimes accompany them, varying from excellent, as
tlr lltc case of Professor Thomson's two contributions, to average, as in the
, itsc tll- Dostourian, whose commentary does little more than identify paral-
l,,l itccounts without any attempt at assessment or comparative analysis.
t illliltd and DĆdóyan supplied commentaries to their respective translations
,,l Al,istakćs and Smbat Sparapet, giving parallel ręferences but againtended
lrl shy away from making any assessment as to the relative worth of the
rr'sltcctivo tęxts. It is worth noting that Canard's French translation of
,\llstirkćs follows Yuzbashyan's Russian translation in omitting long sections
,rl thcological discourse and speculation. This is not particularly helpful for
r,'ltrllars interested in contemporary Armenian perceptions of, and explana-
ltrltls for, the Turkic invasions, although it will not have any effect upon a
|ll(ls()pography. Neither Der Nersessian nor DĆdóyan translated the whole of
lrrlrat Sparapet's Chronicle, picking up after 1159 and 1165 respectively.
,,\lthough their decision not to translate those passages which were lifted
llr lltt M&tthew of Edessa's History and Gregory's continuation can be justi-
Leiden lrt,tl on the grounds that they are unoriginal, it doęs prevent the non-
,\rlttenian specialist from comparing Smbat's version with the original and
lltllitrian, Mayr ts'uts'ak,vo|, l0, 288-91.
]2tj '
l'i t t t ( i t,t,l, t t lt,t lt l, l Nl^N s()tll{(,l S ].]()
^l(l\,|l
thereby studying thccriteria by wlriclr Slrlbat sclcctctl tlr rcjcctccl lllittct,iitl l,,r
his composition, It also ignores several passages whiclr arc not lbund in cit ll,,r
Matthew or Gregory's Historys. Are these interpolations from parallcl tc\l Cont. T'. A. Il l2l]
or are they in fact present in one or more of the manuscripts that have ycl l, ,

be consulted? Direct access to the earlier part is currently afforded tllllr

through Langlois' translated excerpts from an older, inferior edition, irlr,l l@ c.1l29l
Dulaurier's translated excerpts in the Recueil des historiens des croisadc,l, I

r l Grego.v !Ęil.r!I1116ł
found this volumę to be dangerously deficient with regard to Samućl Anets'r I

It seems that not only was the text lopped to conform to the set chronoltl1,1
cal parameters; it was also filleted, with all the material deemed irrelevirrrt
being excised. This meant that a good deal of information that would be ctrtl
sidered relevant, particularly for PBW was omitted. This has prompted mc t,,
be wary of the translations in this compilation and I have avoided citing thcln Slrmuel Anets'i [c.1180] Mkhit'ar Anets'i [c.1 l93]
I
when alternatives exist. Finally it is worth noting that several translatitlll.,
appear only in rare nineteenth-century Russian publications and have }et lo
be reprinted or otherwise reproduced. Michael the Syrian [1199]
As noted previously, there is a dearth of close textual scrutiny and soul,t,,, Kirakos |c.1267l Separate translations Iż46 and 1248
criticism for the majority of these texts. The bibliography identifies what lit
tle relevant secondary literature exists beyond the short commentaries aIltl
footnotes which accompany some but not all of the translations. The majttl
ity of the articles tend to be descriptive and short rather than analytical tlr
Vardan Arewelts'i [pre
comparative. The overriding impression is that whilst many of these text:,
benefited from scholarly attention in the second half of the nineteenth ccrl
tury, the initial interest did not act as a spur to further textual scrutiny, eithcr
at an individual level or by way of comparison. Unsurprisingly thereforr,. -| Srnbat Sparapet [c.1274]
therę has bęen almost no comparative work between the Armenian historics
and contemporary non-Armenian sources, whether Byzantine, Arabic tlr
Latin-and thus it is hard to see how historians have selected one accoulll Mkhit'ar Ayrivanets'i [c,1297]
over another when they contradict one another. To give one example, in rellr
tion to the origin of the Rubenid dynasty, Matthęw of Edessa does not spec Step hnos Orbelean |c.Iż99]
ify whether it was Constantine or his father the eponymous Rubćn who wits
one of the soldiers of King Gagik II Bagratuni; Vardan Arewelts'i and Smbirt ćLcst' Histories (Ani-based)
Sparapet describe him as one of the nobles of Gagik; the Armenian adaptir Yovhannćs Taronets'i [to 1050]
tions of Michael the Syrian statę that Rubćn was descendęd from both roy:rl
Armenian lines, the Bagratuni and Artsruni.8 Not only is there contradictiorl.
there must be doubt as to whether therę was any link at all between tlrc Vanakan Vardapet [d. l25l]
Rubenids and these dynasties.
Actual borrowing, whether or not acknowledged
-,- - - : Asserted, but unsubstantiated borrowing

7 RHC I,445-68.
8 Matthew of Edessa, History,3lż; Yardan Arewelts'i, Historicul Compilaticln, 1l'|; llł,ttt(, l. An impression of the links between the Armenian sources and their relative
Smblrt
Sparapet, Chronicle,1l2; Michael the Syrian (l870),4l7; Michael thc Syriarl (l87l),41l. r, , ,r lIltl|.|,l,itpIlical values
 230 Tim Greenwood
Although this dearth of textual analysis cannot bę remedie<l quicklx l
have attempted to represent the relationships between the Armenian sourccl
in the form of a simple diagram (Fig. 1). The hatched lines reflect connectionr
that are asserted in the later text but which remain, to my mind, unsubstan.
tiated. The solid lines reflect actual borrowings, whether or not acknow.
ledged. The font size reflects my current thinking on the relative importancc
of these texts for the prosopography. The value of this exercise is underminetl
by the very obvious fact that we do not have all the pieces. In addition to the
three 'lost'histories cited at the bottom of Figure 1, each of which seems ttl
have originated from Ani or a monastery nearby, very little relevant materiat
can be recovered of Mkhit'ar Anets'i's work. If nothing else, this diagram
illustrates how closely the majority of the Armenian historical texts arc
related to one another. This is a very narroq conservative historical tradi.
tion, one in which authors exploited older histories, many of which survivc,
The original title of Vardan Arewelts'i's composition, literally Historicąl
Compilation, is a very accurate reflection of his work, drawing upon a very
broad range of earlier Armenian historical works, themselves largely extant,
From apractical perspective, once the original source for aparticular episodc
has been identified, it should be ręlatively straightforward to cite the later
works which quote the same episode. This exercise will also highlight fresh
detail preserved in the thirteenth-century histories.
Looking at the Armenian historical sources for this period, two distinct
groups may be discerned. It is clear from their identical start date (95l)
that there is a direct relationship between the History of Matthew ol'
Edessa and, to a slightly lesser extent his continuatoq Gregory the Priest,
and the composition of Smbat Sparapet-indeed so close is their relation-
shiP that as we have seen, neither Der Nersessian nor Dćdćyan thought it
worth translating the overlapping section. It seems more than simply co-
incidental that these three authors all had a Syrian or Cilician provęnance:
Matthew was resident in Edessa, Gregory his continuator in K'esun and
Smbat served his brother King Het'um I. They seęm to form one distinct
'grouP' of Armenian historians whose works reflect an interest in contem-
Porary history. Excluding Step'anos Orbelean's History of Siwnik', all thc
other Armenian histories, both known and lost, seem to have originated in
the region of Ani. These histories too reveal a broad uniformity in their
understanding of what a historical composition should comprise. With onc
excePtion, each author began with Adam, Creation or Paroyr Haykazean,
the first, mythic king of Armenia, and each author extended his work in
strict chronological sequence down to the present day. Only Kirakos differs
in this respect, beginning instead with the conversion of Armenia to
Christianity. Whilst the conventions of historical writing appear to havc
AltMliNlAN souRcrjs 23l
lrllrlwctl the writer to covcr rcccnt history, this is placecl in each work in the
,ltlllLlxt ol world history stretching back to the beginning of time. why
,lttltlltl this be?
Ąlthough such a question is incapable of a complete answer, the surviv-
rltP, Prefaces are Very revealing. Samuel Anets'i states, 'Lęt
us apply ourselves
lrl both these ones for their assistance, I mean Eusebios and Movsęs
Nlttlrenats'i. And having begun from Adam, let us reach to Noah and from
lllct'c as far as Abraham and from therę to the birth of christ and then
ilt'('()rding to the K'ronikon, through the lineages, let us finish at the present,
'll||itting what is superfluous, including what is important.'9In other words,
liltlllU l went back to Eusebios' Chronicle andnot his Ecclesiastical History.|o
lll |irct, it is clear from Brosset's work that Samuel strove to organise his work
rlll similar PrinciPles to those in Eusebios. The insistence on chronological
;rlcr,:ision, even when this generates two notices of the same event under dif-
lłrcttt dates, then begins to make sense. Samućl's modęl for the writing of his-
llll'Y WaS therefore the Chronicle of Eusebios. This work was composed in two
The first Part, commonly called thę Chronographia, consists of short
;rrtrls.
|'llssitges excerPted from pre-existing sources which record the different
r lttrlnological systems employed by different peoples
of the ancięnt world
lrrltl lists of their kings. This survives only in Armenian translation and,
tl('c()rding to Karst, was translated directly from Greek.l1 The second part,
l)w Chronological Canons, comprises parallel columns of lists of kings syn-
,lrrrlnised with each other, together with brief notices inserted at thę appro-
lrtiittc Year mentioning important persons and events. These were translated
rltltl Latin by Jerome and extendęd down to 378 but also exist in Armenian
tlittlslation, perhaps via an intermediate version in Syriac. Neither part can
lrltvc been translated into Armenian before the first decades of the fifth cen-
ltll'Y, aS the Armenian script was not devised until around ło 400. However
llrlllr Parts existed in Armenian translation by the last quarter of the seventh
l ('llturY, judging from thę contents of the so-called Anonymous
Chronicle,
',t)lllotimes attributed to Anania Shirakats'i.12 Although the date of transla-
lttltl is unknown, it is very tempting to associatę it with Armenian activity in
lt'l'tlsalem, Particularly since a lectionary detailing liturgical rites in Jerusalem
'' Sltmućl Anets'i,
Chronicle,3.
"' ,l. Aucher, ed,, Eusebii Pamphili caesariensis episcopi, Chronicum bipartitum,2 vols. (Venice,
lxltt); J. Zohrab, ed., A. Mai, tr., Eusebii Pamphili cąesariensis episcopi, Chronicum libri
duo,
',t li;rtorum Veterum Nova Collectio 8 (Rome, 1833), 1406;
repr. PG 19,99-598; J. Karst, ed.,
l|tł ()hronik des Eusebius aus dem armenischen i)bersetzt, Die griechischen christlichęn
',, lrrillsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte 20 (Leipzig,191l).
'I Kilrst, Die Chronik, XXXVIII-XLIII.
'' ll. Sargisean, Ananun Zhamanakagrut'iwn (Venice, lDOĄ;
A.G. Abrahamyan, Anania
\ lti x ń u l s' u m at e na gru t' yunć (Er ev an, 19 44), 3 57 -9g .
232 Tim Grc,enwoocl
at the very beginning of the fifth century survives only via its Armcltirttl
translation.l3
Nor was Samućl the only Armenian historian to adopt this approłtclt
Mkhit'ar Anets'i acknowledged his dębt to Eusebios by beginning his list tll
sources with his 'History of the Church and the K'ronikon'.la Kirakos refers lrr
'the great Eusebios who left two books, the K'rovnikon, begun from the lirlt
man Adam . . . up to the coming of Christ and to here, the leaders and kingl
of several peoples. And the History of the Church, beginning at the shining łll
the sun of righteousness, the times of kings and the preaching of the holy
apostles, which of them did what and to which region each of them went atttl
how they were martyred. And the action and courage of holy bishopr
and notable men and advancing up until the days of the pious Constantine
and there he ended.'ls Vardan's text refers to Eusebios in the contcxl
of an Old Testament chronological calculation.l6 The debt of Mkhit'rll
Ayrivanets'i to Eusebios is even more obvious, since he inserted marginrll
ten-year divisions, though whether this is a diręct borrowing or an indirecl
one through Samuel Anets'i and/or Michael the Syrian is unclear. Nor were
these references to Eusebios simply copied verbatim by successive authors,
for each citation is differęnt. Thę first Armenian historian to base his whclle
work upon the demands of chronological precision was Step'anos Taronets'i
just after the year ło 1000.17 Although I cannot expand upon this subject
here, it is my view that this text reflects the author's millenarianism, hir
conviction that the Sęcond Coming would coincide with the year 1000. Thc
key point to note however is that his History attests the link betweetl
Eusebios, chronology and the writing of history. In the absence of any sectl-
lar sponsor-which was certainly the case in historic Armenia during the
period-I believe that clerics justified their continuing interest in the writing
of history on the basis that the correct calculation of time was an appropri-
ate exercise for them, as Eusebios had demonstrated in antiquity. The onrl
exception appears to be Kirakos. Why did he start with St Gregory thc
Illuminator, credited with the conversion of Armenia at the start of thtl
fourth century? Although speculative, it seems significant that in his prefacc.
quoted above, he cited Eusebios' other work, his Ecclesiasticąl History with
such approval. That work ended with Constantine, the exact contemporary
13 A. Renoux, Le codex armćnien Jćrusalem l21,2 vols., PO l63 (35.1) and l68 (36.2) (Brepols.
1969,19"7l); Ch. Renoux, Le lectionnaire de Jćrusalem en Armćnie: Le Ćaśoc'.Introduction łl
liste de manuscrits, PO 200 @a.Ą (Tvnhout, 1989).
la Mkhit'ar Anets'i, History, 73. l8-19.
15 Kirakos, History, 5.1-1 1.
16 Vardan Arewelts'i, Historical Compilation, 20.
'7 S. Malkhazean, Step'anos Taronets'woy Patmut'iwn Tiezerakan (St Petersburg, l885). I alrr
currently engaged in producing a new translation of, and commentary upon, this text.
SOURCES 233
^RMliNlAN
lrl lil Grigor. Thus, howcvcr imperfectly, it is at least possible that
F.tlilktls tried to write history along the lines established by Eusebios in his
ł ,l lł,titt,łtical History.Whether or not one is persuaded by the above, it
tą t'lt:itr that the historical tradition, at least in historic Armenia, was
i, r l t tttlrdinarily conservative.
lht' r'olative strengths of these Armenian historical sources for prosopogra-
lrlly itrc set out in the bibliography. Al1 of them have a contribution to make.
llrlce works howevęr deserve particular attęntion. Aristakćs' History is a
ll'v }i()urce, being the only extant eleventh-century source and hence a near-
r rl|t|tlmporary record. since the work is devised around the imperial
succes-
łirl11 111d summarises the character and achievements of successive emperors
.lll(l clnpresses, it is possible that Aristakćs exploited a Greek source. Thę
l||l'licllce of an indiction date in the text-almost unprecedented in an
Ąlltlcnian source-supports this contention.l8 Aristakęs supplies a detailed
trtt;ll'cssion of thę short-lived Byzantine administration in Ani and
Vrlr;lurakan, specifying a large number of namęs, titles and offices, including
lllrrsr-: awarded to Armenians. By contrast, although those passages detailing
\r'l;ttk raids are dated precisely and specify their targets, named individuals
,ll(' t'ilre. These passages seek to record and understand the fate of the inhab-
lllllllti of those towns which were captured. They are generally described as
li||ll(:l'lts and seem to be prose analogues to the twelfth-century elegies written
l,t Ncrsćs Shnorhali on the fall of Edessa in lI44 and by thę katholikos
I ll l ,()r Tłay on the fall of Jerusalem in 1187: neither mentions a single indi-
, trlttitl by name.l9 In my view, it is very striking that the Seljuk attacks are
l,tt'sr:nted in terms of the devastation of urban centres rather than the
,lr,slrttction of noble families and their territories. The explanation for this
ll ll()t obvious. It may reflect a significant change in Armenian society
,ltrt ittg the decades of relative peace aftęr 990, specifically a deliberate
rlt,lrrilitarisation under Byzantine direction and the promotion of an urban
, tlllttrę in which Armenians participatęd. Alternatively, it may be drawing
llJl()ll a familiar Old Testament precedent, the capture of Jerusalem by the
ll,rllylonians and the subsequent exile of God's people.2o The circumstances
rlr rvhich such laments were produced is also unclear but they may have bęen
rrrlcnded to commemorate the fate of these centres in a liturgical context,
lłlltc:tioning as collective martyrdoms and celębrated by former inhabitants of
lll()l,ic centres now in exile. Although its individual detail is not extensive,
Al istakćs, History,l03: And this occurred in five hundred and six of our era, in which it was
lłl IlIliln
diktion ten.,
Scc bibliography, Laments, p.252 below.
" .) Kings 24,25; Jeremiah 21-52; Lamentations.
234 Tim Greenwood
Aristakćs has a significant contribution to make to prosopography F l'lrc third key Armenian historical source for this project is the History of
should be tackled at an early stage.
Important as it is, even Aristakes' History is overshadowed by the }listltt l
of Matthew of Edessa. In my opinion, this is the single most importttltl
Armenian source for the project. The lack of a scholarly edition and crltll
mentary is therefore all the more frustrating. The work is dividęd into thltt,
parts: the first covering the period 400-500 Armenian Era (ło 951-105l ). llt+
second covering the fifty years between 1051 and 1101 and the third covorittlt
the last thirty years. As has been noted above, the underlying sourc(tt
employed by Matthew are opaque. However the opening section of the rrce=
ond part records Matthew's own views on his composition. By his own tcsll
mony, Matthew had collected and collated historical writings about the throę
nations, the Armenians, Turks and Romans as well as 'patriarchs and varitltł;
other inquiries of peoples and kings'.2l This is an accurate reflection of Btltll
1. Its end date, 1051, coincides with the conclusion of Yovhannes Taronets'i'r
lost History of the Bagratunik'.It is tempting to envisage that Matthew mtty
have had access to this. Intriguingly his text contains sevęral documenlr,
including a letter from the Emperor John Tzimiskes to Ashot III Bagratuni itr
974.22 Whilst it is hard to envisage circumstances in which he could hłtvr,
viewed the original letter, it does seem possible, even likely, that Yovhanll i
would have had access to such records eighty years beforę. Thęrę is clearly rr
good deal of other material being exploited as well, not least a cluster tll
notices about Edessa after 1031. The course of Book 2 marks a changc rll
focus away from historic Armenia and Sebasteia and towards Mesopotanlilr,
northern Syria and Antioch. Book 3 accęlerates this trend, to the extent thrrl
there is barely a single reference to Byzantine, Seljuk or historic Armęniiltr
affairs, although Davit' king of Georgia suddenly, and surprisingly, appeilri
at the very end of the History and Georgians also feature in the final entricn
in the Continuation, spec7fically in relation to the cities of Ani and Duin. llt
my opinion, Matthew's history originally concluded with the two noticcl
under the year 577 (ll28l29). The final notice is dated eight yęars later and il
focusęd upon events around K'ęsun involving 'our prince Baldwin', the lorrl
of K'esun.23 It seems to me that Gregory the Priest and not Matthew wirr
responsible for this notice; his link is with K'esun rather than Edessa ancl lrc
included a long funeral oration composed for Baldwin. This reattributitltt
produces a gap of eight yęars between the end of Matthęw's History and llrc
start of thę Continuation rather than between the penultimate and finitl
notices in the original text.
21 Matthew of Edessa, History,1334.
22 Matthew of Edessa, History, ż3-33,
23 Matthew of Edessa, History,464.
SOURCES 235
^l{MliNlAN
irrlllttl Sparapet, specifically those notices covering the period after l l65. The
il,r|k is already well known for preserving a full list of those lords who
,tllr'tttlcd the coronation of Leo in Tarsos but it contains a mass of other
l+'lt'Vllllt information which will both overlap and complemęnt that found in
llrrl1 Ąppęnian sources.
OTHER ARMENIAN SOURCES
Mrlvilrg away from the complexities of the Armenian historical composi_
iltl||li. let us consider briefly four othęr categories of evidence: colophons,
tlllt'l'iptions, charters and contemporary, non-historical texts, including
r rrll'{J}iPofldence, biblical commentaries and other scholarly treatises
pt,ltc:ritlly.
'lWo major collections
of relevant Armenian colophons have been pub-
|llltt:tl. by Yovsćp'ean and, more recently (1988), Mat'evosyan. Mat.evosyan
trrt'lrttled 253 colophons from this period, of which I94 arę specifically dated.
\lrlY-three, approximately one-fifth, date from the eleventh century and one
lrrllttlred and ninety, approximately four-fifths, were produced in the twelfth
r r'llltlt}. This total,253, is a minimum figure and
shoutd be expected to rise.
l\,-lirt"cvosyan reproduced somę but not all of the colophons previously pub-
lrrlrcd by Yovsćp'ean. Volumes 10 and 11 of Bołarian's Jerusalem catalogue
,ttltl volumes 4-8 of the Venice catalogue have been published since 1988.
\l;rt'evosyan was unable to consult the full catalogues of those manuscripts
l'tt'scrved in Vienna, the Bodleian Library in Oxford or the Bibliothćque
rrrtlittnale in Paris. However the Department of Comparative Linguistics in
l t'itlcn plans to issue a simple CD-ROM database of colophons, including a
ttlt'ltt number of unpublished examples contributed by Mat'evosyan himself,
,rrltl this should provide a more complete, and accessible, collection.
'I'he potential
contribution of these colophons is significant. They usually
,,;lt'cif,Y the
scribe, the date, the place of composition and the sponsor. Several
hltrlwn historical figures are identified as the sponsors. Indeed thę relatively
l,rlgo number of translations associated with Grigor VkayasćE katholikos
llt'lween 1065 and 1105, not only implies that some part of his personal
lrlll'łtry has been preserved; their colophons also allow us to date his travels in
tlrc Near East more precisely.za Equally the colophons reveal the existence of
' Mat'evosyan, Hayeren dzeiagreri hishatakaranner,I|o. 168, describes how, 'in the one thou-
tlne hundred and second year of the coming of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ, and in the
.,rtttl
trrt'hundred and sixtieth year of our own era, and in the seventeenth year of the reign of tho
rrlitttt Alćks', Grigor arrived at thę holy mountain'which is called Black'and undertook
rr,rttslation work 'in the thirty-sixth year of my holding office'.
 236 Tim Greenwood
a number of active communities scattered across the Near East. The evictcttr.t,
is often surprising. Thus, for example, a collection of hagiographical matcl.irll
commemorating the martyrdoms of Saints Evdok'sia, Maiinos, Romel atlrl
Makaros was translated from Greek into Armenian tn 1092 in the Armenilltt
mayrk'ałak' or capital of Melitene, some thirty-five years after the sack rll
the city in 1057.25 Or again, a Gospel dated 1099 and copied by eittc
Aharovn/Aaron not only contains-or purports to contain-a contemptll,
ary sketch of the First Crusade, including the fall of Antioch and the captulr,
of Jerusalem; it also records that it was finished in thę mayrk'ałak' ul
Ałek'sandr, at the monastery of Yovhannćs/John the Evangelist.26 This sup
Plies unique evidencę for the existence of an Armenian monastic communiry
in Alexandria. Several sources record significant Armenian settlement ilt
EgYPt in the last quarter of the eleventh century in general terms but tltc
location of this settlement is hardęr to pinpoint.
Potentially therefore Armenian colophons have a significant contributiolt
to make to this pĄect. I say potentially because the vast majority have yet ttl
be translated. Without a published translation, any reference would be linr-
ited to the Armenian edition and I suspect that this would be of littlę value
to all but a handful of scholars. Howevęr a brief survey has shown that many
of these colophons are short and almost all of them are straightforward.
The ePigraphic material is at a similar stage of research. To date, some
151 Potentially relevant inscriptions have been identified. This figure includes
five inscriptions from Cilicia, four of which are incomplete. Twenty-six, aboul
one-sixth, date from the eleventh century, with the remaining five_sixths, l25
in total, carved in the twelfth century. Thus there is a broad correlation in thc
distribution of both colophons and inscriptions across the period, wittr
aPProximately eighty per cent of the material dating from the twelfth anrl
earlY thirteenth centuries. There is a very obvious downturn in the number ol'
inscriptions after 1060 and this lasts until approximately 1150; thereafter they
become far more numerous and distributed across a greatu number of loca-
tions, although the number of sites remains relatively small. By way of exanr-
ple, the key monasteries of sanahin and Hałbat account for no fewer that 3l
of the inscriptions.
As with the colophons, the inscriptions range in length from no morc
than a few words to several sentences. The majority tend to mark the foun-
dation, exPansion or repair of a church or monastic complex or a particulat,
bequest to a religious community, usually in return for prayers and serviccs
25 Mat'evosyan, Hayeren
dzeiagreri hishatakaranner, no. 136.
26 Mat'evosyan, Hayeren
dzełagreri hishatakaranner, no, I40.
ARMnNlAN SOURCES 237
lrlt lltc scrul of the sponsor ancl strmetimes his immediate family. Since the
ł|lrlll}i()I is usually known from another source, the inscriptions allow titles,
,,lllt'cs trnd other details associated with him to be compared. Moreover there
rrlc lt l'Cw inscriptions which had a very different purpose. The western fagade
rrl lhc cathedral in Ani bears a public inscription in Armenian dating from
llrc pcriod of the shortJivedByzantine administration.27 It records that the
lllltllislros and katepan of the east, BagarutVkhats'i, reduced the taxes due on
r r't lilin commercial transactions 'through the charity of the holy autocrator,
lrtrrg Constantine Duk'; both the original duty and the reduced figure are
plvctl. This inscription therefore supplies unique information about the
llyrirntine approach to the government of Ani immediately before its fall in
lll(l4, Whilst few inscriptions are as useful as this, it illustrates their potential.
Ąp,ltilt, however, very few have bęen translated.
lll contrast to the numęrous colophons and inscriptions, only two char_
lt'ls itre relevant to this project. Both date from 1201 and were produced in
llrr chancellery of King Leo I in 1201. One confirmed certain privileges to
( ictttlese traders whilst the second accorded privileges to Venetians. These
w,crc published by Langlois as long ago as 1863 but do not seem to be well
htttlwn.
llris introduction has sought to focus upon those ources which have the
ptr:ittest prosopographical value and has not attęmpted to ęncompass thę
lrllirlity of Armenian scholarly activity and endęavour across the period.
M;rny of the key figures in the Armenian intellectual tradition, such as
t iligor Magistros, Nerses of Lambron and Nersós Shnorhali, are mentioned
rrr the historical sources and will theręforę generate prosopographical entrięs.
lllcse entries will require at lęast a basic knowledge of their scholarly out-
1rtl1.28 Frustratingly almost none of the ninety-six letters of Grigor Magistros
lrirve been translated and this pivotal figure for the study of mid_eleventh-
t clltury Armenian and Byzantine politics, administration and scholarship
tt'tltitins, for the moment, tantalisingly out of reach.29 The correspondence
tll Nersćs of Lambron has yet to be translated. Yet, with the exception of
' Mahó, Ani sous Constantin X',407,
" An impression of scholaĄ output, and the present state of research, may be obtained
lltln1 ffu611.on's invaluab7e Bibliography. Abńef survey of this indicates that there are at least
lw('llty-nine Armenian scholars from this period. The vast majority are mentioned in the historical
l (}lllpositions.
"' 'l'he letters of Grigor Magistros were edited and published
almost a century ago but, to my
l lttlwledge, only three have beęn translated. In May 2003, Professor T.M. van Lint addressed a
in Oxford at which he
r tlttlbrence suggested that a new edition and full translation and
, {,l|ltnentary on this important collęction was now long overdue.
238 Tim Grecnwood lt M liN l^ N S()LJ R(]l,iS 239
^

these lettęr collections, my impresston is that these contemporary scholir1,!y BIBLIOGRAPHY

non-historical works will not have a significant contribution to makc lrl
prosopography.
llĄ N DBooKS, SURVEYS, PROSOPOGRAPHIES

CONCLUSION l l Ąchaiyan, Hayots' andzannuneri baiaran (Dictionary of Armenian Names),5 vols.

(l irovan, 1942-62; repr. Beirut, I97 2)
In the context of prosopography, the Armenian sources appear manageable, l'l,incipal Armenian prosopographical resource, listing all textual references to
ttitnred individuals across Armenian literature down to 1500; each entry num-
Al1 of the Armenian historical works have been edited and translatetl,
lrcred, the list of names being organised chronologically; very brief biographical
although these publications vary greatly in quality. In addition to recordinl tlctails; restricted to Armenians and Armenian texts only.
Armęnian history, collectively these sources supply useful and occasionally tr,l Ąltrouroux-Mourad. Le comtć d'Edesse 1098_1150 (Paris, 1983)
unique information about eleventh-century Byzantine history and thc ll!i, Anasyan, Haykakan matenagitut'yun (Armenian Literature), 2 vols. (Erevan,
plethora of successor states which emerged on fórmer imperial territory aftcl l()59,1976)
I07l, whether Seljuk, Fatimid, Latin, Ayyubid or Armenian. The Histor.l,s \ ll, t)adoyan, The Fatimid Armenians, Islamic History and Civilization, Studies and
'l'oxts 18 (Leiden, 1997)
attributed to Aristakós, Matthew of Edessa and Smbat Sparapet should hc
ł i l)ćdóyan , Les Armćniens entre Grecs, Musulmans et Croises. Etude sur les pouvoirs
given priority but the contribution of the other sources, including colophonl
ttrmćniens dans le Proche-Orient mćditerranćen (1068-1150),2vols., Bibliothćque
and inscriptions, should not be ignored.
itrmónologique de la Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian (Lisbonne, 2003)
1,ong-anticipated work on the emergence of a patchwork of Armenian principal-
ilics and settlements in Cilicia and northern Syria. Volume 1 is titled Aux origins
TRANSCRIPTION OF ARMENIAN tlc l'ótat cilicien: Philardte et les premiers Roubeniens; volume 2 is titled 'De
|'ljuphrate au Nil: le reseau diasporique'.
In order to assist the reader in the pronunciation of Armenian words, the sys" 'L'ccumónisme de Grigor III et de Nerses Śnorhali', REA 23 (1992),237_52
tem prescribed in Revue des ćtudes armćnienneshas not been employed. Thc l{ W. Thomson, A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 AD
('|'urnhout , 1995)
' after a consonant indicates the aspirated form. The final letter was devel-
lissential reference work; comprehensive guide to primary sources and all associ-
oped in the time of the crusades to assist the writing of foreign words, ;ttod secondary literature down to 1992.
including #t, -fu v,'Frank' and # r b tr,'frćre'. 'The crusaders through Armenian eyes', in A.E. Laiou and R.P. Mottahedeh,
crls., The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World
gd zhi
ćh
a b e Z ć ć
++
to l
(Washington, DC, 2001), 7 I-82
lu F b 1 t E F l
kh ts kh dz ł ch m y n sh ()
('rrlalogues
l, } ł1 d 1 d ł J fu
2 t,
N l}ołarian, Mayr ts'uts'ak dzełagrats' Srbots' Yakobeants' (Grand Catalogue of
ch' p ji S v t r tS' Wp'k' ,htmes Manuscripts ), II vols. (Jerusalem, 1966-95)
St.

ź ą 2IL u 4 ul tl ll Lłł, lixcellent catalogue with full descriptions of the collection housed in the
nronastery of St James in Jerusalem, the largest outside the Matenadaran,
aW f ('hemchemean, Mayr ts'uts'ak hayerżn dzełagrats' Matenadaranin Mkhit'areants' i
o # W:netik (Grand Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts of the Mkhit'arist Library
in Venice), vols.4-8 (Venice, 1993-8)
l]xcellent modern catalogue providing full description of re-numbered manu-
scripts in the SanLazarro monastery in Venice, the second largest collection out-
side thę Matenadaran.
l (', Conybeare, A Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts in the British Museum
(London,1913)
240 Tim Greenwood
O. Eganyatr, A. Zayt'unyan, P. Ant'abyan, Ts'uts'ak dzeiagrats' Mashtot,l'i urlvrttt
Matenadarani (Catalogue of Manuscripts of the Mashtots' Matenadaran) , 2 voll
(Erevan, 1965, 1970)
Brief descriptions of the manuscripts of the largest collection; a new catalogue
was begun several years ago but only the first volume, covering some four hundrctl
manuscripts, has been published; other volumes prepared but awaitiltlł
publication.
R. Kóvorkian, A. Tćr-Stepanian, Catalogue des manuscripts armćniens de ht
Bibliothdque nationale de France (Paris, 1998)
Excellent modern catalogue providing full descriptions.
B. Sargisean, Mayr ts'tlts'ak hayerćn dzeiagrats' Matenadaranin Mkhit'areants' i lllx}n events in Vaspurakan (southern Armenia); describes the departure of King
Venetik (Grand Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts of the Mkhit'arist LibrąĄ,
in Venice), vols. 1 and2 (Venice, I9I4,1924)
B, Sargisean and G. Sargsean, Mayr ts'uts'ak hayerEn dzeiagrats' Matenadaraniłt
Mkhit'areants' i Venetik (Grand Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts of tlr
Mkhit'arist Library in Venice), vol. 3 (Venice, 1966)
Y Tashean, Ts'tlts'ak hayerEn dzeiagrats' Matenadaranin Mkhit'areants' i Vienrut
( Catalog der armenischen Handschriften in der Mechitaristen-Bibliothek zu Wien ) ,
vol. 1 (Vienna, 1895); H. Oskean, vol. 2 (Vienna, 1963); O Sek'ulean, vol. ,l
(Vienna, 1983)
PRIMARY SOURCES
Histories and chronicles
Aristakes Lastivertt s' i, Hist ory
Covers 1000-72; records expansion of Byzantine control over Armenia, the Seljuk
attacks and the Mantzikert campaign; arranged by imperial reign; written before
1080; l05/I22 pages relevant; used by Vardan Arewelts'i and allegedly by Mkhit'ar
Anets'i and Kirakos Gandzakets'i; reveals close knowledge of places and events itt
western Armenia and imperial By zafiine history.
Edition:
K.N. Yuzbashyan, ed., Patmut'iwn Aristakisi Lastivertts'woy (History of Aristak<lr
Lastivertts'i) (Erevan, 1963). Fordigitalversions, seebothLeidenArmenianData-
base (http://wwillet.leidenuniv.nUvtWlV'eitenberg/projects_weitenberg.html) antl
Digital Library of ClassicalArmenian Literature (http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/-aua)
Standard edition but not critical, being based upon only 9 of 25+ mss.; separatc
indices of personal names and places and peoples.
Translations:
(1) M. Canard and H. Berbórian, Aristakćs de Lastivert, Rćcit des malheurs de lu
nation armćnienne. Traduction franęaise avec introduction et commentair(,
Bibliothdque de Byzantion 5 (Brussels, 1973)
Standard translation; reasonably reliable but omits long passages of theologi-
cal discourse interpreting present circumstances; includes introduction ancl
commentary by way of notes; combined index,
SOURCI]S 24l
^lłMliNl^N
l,') K.N. Yuzbashyan, Ptlvcslvtlvunic vardapeta Aristakesa Lastivertts'i (Narrative of
wrdapet Aristakes Letstivcrtts'il (Moscow, l968)
Also incomplete, omitting the same passages of theological discourse.
t l) V. Gevorgyan, Aristakes Lastivertts'i Patmut'yun (Erevan,I97l)
\l, n l ndary Lit erature :
tiA. ManuĘan, Aristakes Lastivertts'i matenagrut'yan banasirakan k'nnut'yun
( Philological Study ) (Erevan, 1977)
('rltltinuator of T'ovma Artsruni, History of the House of Artsrunik'
( 'tlvors 1020-after ll2l; a disjointed narrative but important because it is focused
lir'tlnekoerim to the Byzantine empire c.I02l, Seljuk raids, the rule of protocuropalates
Ąlldlmseh at the beginning of the twelfth century and his two successors, Aluz and
K lrcdenik; written perhaps one generation after the death of Abdlmseh in II2I; 15
Illułcs; not exploited in subsequent historiographical tradition.
|,)llition:
K', Patkanean, ed., T'ovmayi vardapeti Artsrunwoy Patmut'iwn tąnn Artsruneats'
(History of the House of Artsrunik' of vardapet T'ovma Artsruni) (St Peters-
burg, 1887; repr. Tiflis, I9t7; repr. Delmar, NY 1991), 305 18. For digital versions,
see http://wwWlet.leidenuniv.nUvtdlVeitenberg/projects_weitenberg.html
lrttp://sun site.berkeley.edrr/-aua
Standard edition, based upon the one surviving ms.; single index.
liunslations:
(l) R.W. Thomson, Thomas Artsruni History of the House of the Artsrunik'.
'I'ranslation and commentary (Detroit, MI, 1985), 368-83
Introduction and complete, accurate translation with brief notes; single index.
t.l) V. Vardanyan, T'ovma Artsruni ew Ananum, Patmut'yun Artsrunyats' tan (T'ovma
Artsruni and Anonymous, History of the House of Artsrunik') (Erevan, 1978; repr.
l 985)
Mirtthew of Edessa/Matt'ćos Uihayets'i, History
('()vcrs 951-1129; arranged in three unequal books; Book 1covers the period
tlSl 1051 and records the history and demise of the Armenian kingdoms of
Vlrspurakan and Ani and their interaction with theByzantine empire, although there
ts ltlso a cluster of notices reporting affairs in Edessa after 1031; Book 2 records the
1rritld 1051-1101 and marks a change in focus, away from historic Armenia and
l()wards northern Syria and Antioch; Book 3, reporting events from the period
l101-29, accelerates this trend, to the extent that there is barely a mention of events
llt:yond these geographical limits; written c.II29 (contra the traditional date of 1136),
,Rl0l465 pages relevant; used by Samuól Anets'i, Vardan Arewelts'i, Smbat Sparapet
,rrld allegedly by Kirakos Gandzakets'i; a principal source, although its own sources
lcltlain unidentified and much of its content still awaits scholarly assessment.
('tlntinuator Gregory the Priest/Grigor Erets'
('rlIltinues from the end of Matthew's composition, 1136-62; focus shifts way from
lltlcssa and towards K'esun, including a long funeral elegy for count Baldwin; written
,,.ll62:83 pages; intriguing information about Georgian princes and their ambitions
 _,)-ł -] l'i tt t ( ; r(,t,t l ll,( )( )l l f \lłl\ll Nl.,\N s()lll{( l,S ]-l ł

ilt ArtllcItiit itIld AIli. iIllplyillg tIllrt (il,cgtlI,y hitd ltcccss ttl lt vct,y tlillL.l-crll st.1 ,,l ,lllrrl'lrI' ĄYl'ivltIlcls'i. t,rlllsltlet,s (,vcl)ls il) btlth histtllic A1,1llctlilt ltIltl tltlrthcrtt
cotrtetcts alrd sources; a short but inrportatrt work. , lr.r/( llicilr. irr 1lltt'lictllltl, llrtc twcllih-ccIltury Rubcllicl histtlry; ol- lirrritcd
Editions: ] l, , ,( )l)()ll1,1l1lhical vitluC.
(l) AnonYmous, Patmut'iwn Matt'ćosi Ui,hayets'wo1, (History of Mutthev, tlf' I*ll,,l1l,t |,ltIt,lt1,1'.'
(Jerusalem, l869) \ l('I Mik'elean, ed., Hawak'munk' i grots' patma7rats' (Compilation of Historical
Based on three mss.; brief index, not infallible. ll t,itittg,ł ) (Ejmiatsin, l893)
(2) M. Melik'-Adamean and N, Tćr-Mik'ayelean, eds,, Patmut'iwn M(Ill't,t,:t lt;rsctl on 13 mss. but 66* mss. survive;not set out in tabular form and so difficult
UłhaYets'woy (History of Matthew of Edessa) (Yałarshapat, 1898)-not sectt lll i1l[glp..t; brief notes but no index. A new edition presently being prepared in
Based upon the earlier edition and a further six mss.; however the work survir. . \l lltotlia.
in at least 39 mss., and it is known that it exists in more than one recellsirllr
l,, t t,l, lt tI i tll1,| :
although this has yet to be properly explored; the number of rnss. contitillilr1,
t

'
l t l
/,ohrab, ed., A. Mai, tr., Samuelis presbyteri aniensis, temporum usque cld suam
Gregory's Continuatiolz is unknown.
lt!'l(ll(lt't ratio e libris historicorum in Eusebi Pamphili Chronicorum canonum
Translations: l1\4iltrn, 1818), 1-80; repr. PG 19, 599-742
(1) E.Dulaurier, Chronique de Matthieud'Edesse (962-]136) avec la continuatirltt,l, l rlll Latin translation of both parts down to 1179: organised in tabular form with
Grćgoire le Pr tre jusqu'en Il62 (Paris, 1858)-not seen ltricl' notes; single index.
(2) H. Bart'ikean, Zhamanakagrut'yun( Chronicle] (Erevan, 1g13) , t l\1.1l Brosset,'Samouel d'Ani, Tables chronologiques', tn Collection d'historiens
Introduction, translation and commentary-not seen. lll,tllćniens, vol. 2 (St Petersburg, l876), 339483
(3) A. Dostourian, Armenia and the Crusades, ]Tth to ]2th Centuries; The Chronicll, ,,t llltlls]ates only part 2,but includes continuation after ll79 down to 1358; no
Matthew of Edessa, Translation, commentary and introduction (Lanham, M l llttlcx.
l993)
,, , l)lt(llr.y Literature:
Based uPon 1898 edition; adequate but not infallible translation; the introductiolr
and commentary are of limited value and require careful handling; single in<lcx
r, \' Abgaryan, 'Koinak Sparapeti avandut'yunć Samvel Anets'u
/,hamanakagrut'yunum" (The legend of Koinak Sparapet in the "Chronicle" of
Secondary Literature: SlrIlluel Anets'i)', Lraber (1964lI), 804
H. Achaiean, 'Matt'ćos Uihayets'1', Handćs Amsoreay 67 (t953),3504 \l lll'tlsset,'Samouel dAni: revue gónćrale de sa chronologie', Bulletin de l'Acadćmie
K. Kostanean, Matt' eos Uihavets' i' (Yałarshapat, 1899) ,lt,,r Sc:iences de St. Pćtersbourg 18 (1873), 40242
R,I. Mat'evosYan, 'Matt'eos Uihayets'u "Patmut'ean" tarćnt'erts'umllcl.. t \ Mat'evosyan, 'Samuel Anets'u "Zhamanakagrut'yan" avartman t'vakanć ew
Bagratunineri veraberyal (Concerning the "History" of Matthew of Edessa as ;l
lllttviratun (The date and the sponsor of the "Chronicle" of Samuel Anets'i)',
source for the Bagratid period)', Patmabanasirakan Handćs 117 (1987t2),120 5 l \ l l lnabanasirakan Hrlndes l34 (I992l I), I 56-62
H. PĆrPerean, 'Bnagrakan k'ani mó srbagrut'iwnner Matt'ćos Uihayets,l
"Zhamanakagrut'ean" mej ew Ch'mshkiki kołmó Ashot Ołormatsi ułłultts \lk llit'ar Anets'i, Historyl Chronicle
namakin verjabanó (Several textual anomalies in the "Chronicle" of Matth w tll t lrrl,illally covered period from the legendary Paroyr down to the expulsion of the
Edessa and postscript on corrections to the letter from Tzmisces to Ashot tlrt, lr.rltlis from Jerusalem in 1187 but only fragments survive, extending for the most
Merciful)', Sion (1950),54 7 and 87-9 |
,. t l tl own
r to the death of the Bagratid King Gagik I in 1 020; arranged in three parts;
l,.llt l covered the period from Paroyr to the death of Yovhannćs-Smbat, son of
samućl Anets'i/samuel of Ani, compilationl chroniclel chronology
',.ri'ik I, in 1041; part2 ran to the ordination of Lord Barseł;part 3 extended to the
Covers Adam to c.1 179; arranged in two parts; part 1 runs from Adam to the birth tll ,.rllltlrc of Jerusalem; exploited by Vardan Aręwelts'i and perhaps by Step'anos
Christ and part 2 extends from there to 1179; closely modelled upon Eusebitls' t llllclcan; with the exception of occasional notices,
and its list of katholikoi, reaching
Chronological Canons, with several columns of figures calibrating, in the relevant scc t, , lltc cnd of the thirteenth century, the published
text is not relevant to PBW.
tion, OlYmPiads, years from the birth of Christ, regnal years of Byzantine emperors.
l,ltlitllt:
Years of Princes, kings and katholikoi of Armenia and years of the Armenian Era, irl ll ( ;- Margaryan, ed., Mkhit'ar Anets'i. Matean ashkharhavćp hanclisaranats'
that order; brief marginal entries but also longer digressions which interrupt tht,
1 Mlihit'ar Anets'i Manuscript of historical scenes) (Erevan, 1983). For digital
columns, recording, for example, the fall of Ani in 1t24;written c,1180 but several dil
vcrsion, see http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/-aua
ferent continuations whose scope and significance has yet to be fully establishetl,
llrtroduction and commentary on the surviving fragments, cited in full; single
421160 Pages relevant; extensive overlap with Books l and 2 of Matthew of Edessa brrl
illtlcx.
not, it seems, Book 3 or Gregory's continuation, perhaps implying the use of commtltl
Sources rather than a direct relationship-thus Samuel's harsh portrait of Alexitls l l t,ttt,1,1ttlion:
'.JrlJ11,.
Komnenos is not found in Matthew's work; exploited by Kirakos Gzrnc]zakets,i ittltl
 , IfL \rf śl:Ilwraru
Sculndary Litarature;
D. Kouymjian, 'Mkhitoar of Ani on the rise of the Seljuks', at,ą o (l969), 33l 53
'The Mxit'ar of Ani fragment', International Journal oJ' Middle East Studlłs 4
(1973),465-75
- thc text was based; differences revealed through comparison with
Michael the Syrian, Chronicle
Two separate Armenian versions of this Syriac work exist, both of which are adapltt
tions of the text rather than simple translations or abridgements and hence have ltlt
independent value; both start with Adam and extend beyond the original conclusirltl
in l196, oną briefly,to 1226 (l87O-ironically the longer version) and the other, ilr
more detail, to 1229 (187l-the shorter version); both versions include notices trtt
imperial Byzantine history down to Andronikos I Komnenos, the Seljuk attacks antt
settlement, the emergence of Armenian principalities in Cilicia and northern Syritt,
with particular attention upon the Rubenids, the Kingdom of Jerusalem and othcl
crusader states, the campaigns of alah al-Dirr/Saladin, the capture of Jęrusalem anrl
other cities and the power struggle within his family after his death; the sequence ol
events is almost identical in both but the specific dates applied to these events arc
entirely independent of one another; initially the chronology found in the 187l etli"
tion is more accurate but the position later reverses, with dates from the 1870 editioll
found to be more accurate; traditionally the first version has been dated 1246 and
attributed jointly to Ishoh the Priest and vardapet Yardan Arewelts'i, whilst the sec-
ond has been dated 1248 and attributed to Vardan alone; however this interpretation
is hard to square with either edition; I4ll53zpages of l870 edition and t42t526 pages
of l871 edition relevant; relationships to previous Armenian texts presently unclear:
direct influence upon the histories of Vardan Arewelts'i, Smbat Sparapet, Mkhit'ar
Ayrivanets'i and perhaps Step'anos Orbelean; in the light of independence from
original Syriac work, of some importance.
Editions:
(1) AnonYmous, Teain Mikhayali Patriark'i Asorwoy Zhamanakagrut'iwn (Chronicll,
of Lord Michael, Syrian Patriarch) (Jerusalem, 1870)
Based on 2 mss.; no introduction or index; comprises an unfortunate conflation ol'
material from both recensions, as the footnote at 511 indicates; the distribution of'
the surviving76+ mss. between the two recensions remains unclear.
(2) Anonymols, Zhamanakagrut'iwn ew yałags k'ahanayut'ean teain Mikhay1li
Asorwots' Patriark'i (Chronicle and Concerning the Priesthood of Lord Michael,
Patriarch of the Syrians) (Jerusalem, 187l)
Based on 1 ms.; introduction and single index.
Translations:
(1) V. Langlois, Chronique de Michel le Grand, patriarche des syriens jacobites, traduite
Pour la prĆmiĆre fois sur la version armćnienne du pr tre Ischók (Venice, 1868),
281-36I
A translation of the recension upon which the 1870 edition of the text was largely
based; as noted above, additional passages from the other recension, published
in 1871, were interpolated into the 1870 edition, creating a hybrid; hence this
translation is currently the only published witness to the exact form of one of the
recensions; no index.
ĄKMtsNtłąN lrUUKUE żc)
(]) li. DulaurieĘ 'Extrait de la Chronique de Michel Syrien, traduit de l'armćnien', in
RIIC Documents armćnien,y, Tome prćmier (Paris, l8ó9), 309409
A partial translation derived from the recension upon which the l87l edition of
Langlois'trans-
lirtion will therefore be significant.
,\łulndary Literature :
|, llaase, 'Die armenische Rezension der syrischen Chronik Michaels des GroBen',
( )riens Christianus n.s. 5 (191 5), 60-82, 27 I-84
Ą,ll, Schmidt, 'Die zweifache armenische Rezension der syrischen Chronik Michaels
des GroBen', Le Musćon 109 (1996),299-319
Kirakos Gandzaketśi, History of Armenią
'tlvors period from the time of St Grigor the Illuminator at the start of the fourth
(
rt,lttury down to 1266; records history and demise of Bagratuni kingdom, the
rc(|ucnce of katholikoi and their achievements, with brief inserts on Byzantine and
|icliuk history; several other discrete passages, recording, for example, the line of bish-
rrlls of Hałbat, notable Armenian scholars, including Mkhit'ar Gosh, thę confęssion
rll' lirith by Nerses Shnorhali dated 116516 and the dominant position achieved by
/,,łk'aria and Ivanó in historic Armenia at the end of the twelfth century; few notices
rll' significance for the period bętween 1070 and 1140 and little on Cilicia or northern
Syria before the coronation of Rubenid prince Leo (Levon/Lewon) II as King Leo I
rrl l l98 or l199, although the Second Crusade features briefly; arranged into sixty-five
t,ltapters but these divisions unevenly distributed across the work; thus chapter 1,
tlcvised around the sequencę of kątholikoi of Armenia, extends from St Grigor down
lrl the death of Grigor VI Apirat in 1203 and runs to some 11l pages; episodic and
tlisorganised, reflecting its composite nature;written in1266, or vefy shortly after, and
lll any event before 127I; ll2l399 pages relevant; extensive borrowings of material,
llrough not specific datęs from the History of Samuel Anets'i, as well as the lost works
lly Yovhannes Sarkawag and Vanakan Vardapet; relationship to Aristakes and
Matthew of Edessa unproven; exploited by Vardan Arewelts'i; of limited prosopo-
11raphical value, at least up to the third quarter of the twelfth century, although it is
wtlrth recalling that it supplies much important information about thirteenth-century
ctlnditions, and in particular Armenian responses to, and interaction with, the
Mongols.
l,)dition:
K.A. Melik'-Awhanjanyan, ed., Kirakos Gandzakets'i Patmut'yun Hayots' (History of
Armenia) (Erevan, 1961). For digital version, see either
http://www/let.leidenuniv. nl/vtw/TV'eitenberg/projects_weitenberg.html or
http //sunsite. berkeley. edu/-aua
:
Critical edition, with comprehensive introduction and single index.
'franslations:
(l) M.Brosset, Deux historiens armćniens. Kiracos de Gantzac, XIIF s. Histoire
d'Armćnie; Oukhtanćs d'Ourha, X" s. Histoire en trois parties (St Petersburg, 1870),
I_194
Full annotated translation; no index.
Khanlarjan, Kirakos Gandzakets'i Istoriia Armenii (Moscow, 1976)-not
'r' 3.f
 246 Tim Greenwood
(3) V.D. Aiak'elYan, Kirakos Gąndząkets'i Hayots' Patmut'yun (Erevan, 1982) tl(tl
seen
(4) R- Bedrosian, Kirakos Gandzakets'i's History of the Armenians (New York, 19lłól
Adequate, though not infallible translation which omits passages of theologit:rll
discourse; marginal references to the pages of Melik'-Awhanjanyan's edition iu1l
Plied bY Bedrosian confusing, as they relate to the preceding rather than subsc
quent Passa8es and therefore seem to be wrong by a factor of 1; very shorl
introduction; no index.
Secondary Literature:
V.D. Aiak'elYan, 'Bnagrakan ułłumnerKirakos Gandzakets'u "Patmut'yun hayots."
erkum (Textual corrections to the "History of Armenia" of Kirakrrri
Gandzake ts' 7)', Patmab anasir akan H andć s 45 (I9 69 t 2), 63-7 4
V.D. Aiak'elyan, 'Kirakos Gandzakets'i', Patmabanasirakan HandEs 56(lg7ztl),48--62
Z. Arzoumanian, 'Kirakos Ganjakec'i and his History of Armenia', in T.J. Samueliatt
and M.E. Stone, ęds., Medieval Armenian Culture (Chico, CA, 1984) ,262-7l
H.H. Oskean, 'Kirakos Gandzakets'i', HandEs Amsoreay
36 (lg22),89_94,2l4_2l
Vardan Arewelts' iNardan Vardapet, His t ory l His t or ic al Compilationl
chronicle
Covers Period from Creation down to 1267; extremely condensed history which cont.
bined extracts from Aristakes, the 7ost History of Yovhannes Sarkawag; Matthew ol'
Edessa, Mkhit'ar Anets'i, the Armenian translation of Michael the Syrian, the losl
work of Vanakan Vardapet and Kirakos Gandzakets'i, sometimes conflating separalc
accounts to create a new, composite version; significant overlap with earlier worksl
however an important source for early Seljuk and Ghaznavid ńirtory, derived front
Mkhit'ar Anets'i's 7ost History, who in turn exploited a Persian source written before
l148; elsewhere vardan records that Mkhit'ar translated a persian zić or astronom.
ical almanac in 1187, supporting the contention of a Persian original-hence thc
Presence of Hijri dates, the relative accuracy in the rendering of Muslim titles and the
ęxtensive use of Arabic and Persian words; also new material about local affairs ilt
Ani and the rise of the Shaddadids, and for events more generally in historic ArmeniH.
Loii and Duin, perhaps from Yovhannes Sarkavag; these alternate with reports
focused uPon Cilician Armenia derived from known sources; with rare exceptions.
twelfth-century Byzantium is not in Vardan's fięld of vision; completed 1267;46t164
pages; for vardan, Armenians, whether in historic Armenia or cilicia, remain
centrc-
stage; with the exception of those new notices referred to above, a compilation and
conflation of earlier extant works and thus of limited value.
Editions:
(1) J.-B. Emin, ed, Hawak'umn Patmut'ean. Vseoschaia istoriia Vardana velikogłt
(Moscow, 1861)
Based on two manuscripts, one undated, the other copied in 15l4 from an earlior
example dated 1425.
(2)Ł. Alishan, Hawak'umn Patmut'ean Hayots' (Compilation of Armenian History)
(Venice, 1862; repr. Delmar, NY 1991 with introduction by R.W. Thomson). Sce
also digital versions, at
httP://wwdlet.leidenuniv.nl/vtwĄVbitenberg/projects_ weitenberg.html or
http //sunsite. berkeley. edu/-aua
:
so[JRC[is 247
^ltMliNIAN
llirscd on Venice 877 (lilrnrcrly San Lazarro ms.516), dated 130l and owned by
StcP'anos Orbelean, who die<J in l304, and Venice 879 (formerly San Lazarro ms.
1244|, dated 1307 but containing the text only down to l236-the point reached
hY Vardan in 1265 when his manuscript was stolen by bandits and recovered eight-
ccll months later in a market in Tiflis. Although this edition cannot be described
lts critical, it should be treated as supplying an accurate version of the work since
llrc two manuscripts consulted were copied within a generation of the completion
tll'the work.
lłlttt,ylution:
lł W. Thomson,'The Historical Compilation of Vardan Arewelc']', DOP 43 (1989),
lż5-226
Virluable introduction and complete, accurate translation, accompanied by useful
lltltes; no index.
\l, l, ndary Literature :
tl
|'',l)'. Ant'abyan, 'Vardan Arewelts'|', Patmabanasirakan HandEs 59 (I972l4), 59-66
Il',l". Ant'abyan,'Yardan Arewelt ou "Patmut'yan" ałbyurneró (The sources for the
"History" of Vardan Arewelts'i)', Banber Matenadarani 14 (1984), 78-105
|",|". Ant'abyan, Vardan Arewelts'i. Kyank'nu gortsunEut'yunó (His Life and Works),
2 vols. (Erevan, 1987, 1989)
M, l]rosset, Analyse critique de l'Histoire de Vardan', Mćmoires de l'Acadćmie
impĆriale des Sciences de St. Pćtersbourg, 7" Sórie, Tome 4, no. 9 (St Petersburg,
ltt62), 1-30
l Muyldermans, 'LJne source de l'Histoire lJniverselle de Vardan l'historien' , Shinarar
2120 (1957),13
lł.W. Thomson,'Vardan's Historical Compilation and its sources', Le Musćołr 100
(l987),343-52
( i.l}.T'osunyan, 'Vardan Arewelts'u "Havak'umn patmut'ean" erkó (The "Historical
(lompilation" of Vardan Arewelts'i)', Banber Erevani Hamalsarani(I993t2),172-5
}ilrrbat Sparapet/Smbat the Const able, Chronicle
( 'rlVtjfs 95I-I274; at least two recensions, one of which is preserved in a single manu-
',r'l'ilrt, Venice 875 (old 1308); both appear to derive from a single archetype now lost
l;tlltcr than having a direct relationship to one another; a significant proportion of the
tvllt'k is based upon the History of Matthew of Edessa and his Continuator, Gregory
tlrc Priest, although several additional passages have been inserted, notably into
t il'cgory's continuation, recording the death of prince Het'um of Lambron, the death
rll' .Iohn II Komnenos, the fall of Edessa in II44 and the triumphal entry of Manuel
l Ktlmnenos into Antioch in 1159; diverse sources for the latter part of this work have
||cc11 suggested, including William of Tyre, Niketas Choniates, George Akropolites,
tlre Armenian adaptation of Michael the Syrian (though which recension is unclear)
.rrrd Kirakos Gandzakets'i; a complex, composite work drawing upon both Armenian
,rltd non-Armenian sources and thus exceptional in Armenian historiography; the
rcccnsion in Ven. 875 has preserved a considerable amount of detail from the latter
1lirrt which is missing from the other recension; it supplies a detailed record. of events
rrr Cilicia after l159, with a particular focus upon the rise of the Rubenids; thus for
('xilmple, it supplies a list of the princes and clerics and their districts under Rubenid
,,rrzcrainty at the time of coronation of King Leo I (January
1198 or 1199); however
248 l'i t l t (i t,t,t,t ttt,ttt ltl ,\ l{ l\l l N li\ N S( )l Jlą( 'l .S ]4()

historic Armenia has not disappezrred ft,orrl vieq ets thc acctltttll tll'tllt, l,rll , r
,,tt, lt tt l, I .i l t,t'ttl ttrc.'
KarinlErzurum in |20I to Rukn al-Din attests;composed belbrc l2]6.196/]\\ |,,,,,, l l ll,rllltyltll. 'Stllbltt S1lltt,ltlle tc, erv "'litt,cgl,k'i" lrełirrtrki Illrrts'ć (Slrllllr1 S1lllt,ltllct ltlltl
relevant if one includes the overlap with Matthew of Edessa; otherwisc _]4/]\\. rrr,l, llt, ;,trllllctlt tll' authorship ol' the "Chronicle")', Pulntulruntt,;irulitttt lIttttth,,s, J)_
cates an on-going engagement with, and knowledge of, the Byzantirrc 0lll|)llr r, l 1,1 ,lllll ). 243 54
'lll, ,
important source of information for prosopography, particularly in relatitrrl ltl ( ,
I t, rIt,\;lll. '1,os listes "fóodales" du pseudo-Smbat', Cahier.v tlc t,il,ilisulitltt ttt<lliłlltlc
and northern Syria, including Antioch, during the second half of the twclli lt (,t,l l l tl t 1,(|()E()|,25 42

Editions:
',rrl,. l;lsyitl1, 'Smbat Sparapetó orpes patmich', awrensget ev awrensgir (SIllblrt
t ;tllcl its annalist, lawyer and legislator)'
(1) O.Yovhannćseants', ed., Smbatay Sparapeti ełbawr Het'mtly aiujnur tlll,,t, , Banber Erevani Hamul,surttni (l97 4I l )
' ,| ,.
r

l ()
Hayots' Patmut'iwn (History of Smbat Sparapet Brother of King Hcl'uttt l'l,,tt,,,, l tl{

King of Armenia) (Moscow, 1856) l.,,r,tli;lll (: N. Bołarian),'Smbat Sparapeti "Taregirk'ó" (The "ChroIriclc" tll'
',lrllr;Il Sllirrapet)', Sion (1960), 304-5
First edition, based on a single ms. from Ejmiatsin; opens with notice clltlt,rl 'l l

final entry dated Iż74; a|so includes a short, intriguing continuation dowlt l(t I l l l ll lrrl .tl Ayrivanets't, ChroniclelHistory
brief introduction; no commentary or index. ,, .|,t,lirld liom Creation to 1289; divided into three parts; part 1 tells cll'tlrc six
(2) K. Shahnazareants', ed., Smbatay Sparapeti Patmut'iwn (Parts,1859) Il()l , t,
,,r
, , rl ( 'lcittion; part2 records history from Adam to the birth of Christ; part 3 ctlv-
Based upon the earlier edition and a second ms, from Ejmiatsin. tlr, 1lt,litlcl since Christ down to 1289; extremely abbreviated, with 6,48] ycilrs
(3) S. Agólean, Smpatay Sparapeti Taregirk' (Chronicle of Smbat Sparapat) (Vt,trr,, r rrlllr,tl irlttl 69 pages of text; marginal Armenian Era dates at ten-year itrtervltls.
l 956) ir,,rlt,Ir :;1lccific
, entries may also be dated; chronologically suspect; exploited Sanrucl
Not critical, being based exclusively upon Venice 875, the only ms, identilie,l tl,,, ,,, l l tlrt,Armenian adaptation of Michael the Syrian (though which recensitrn is
far which preserves the second recension; little engagement with the cltt'll.,t ,,l, ,l rt,l\\ rl), rlccasional additional information and focus remains broad, with Cilicirr.
tions; single index. r,
,, ,r Byzantium and Georgia all featuring, albeit intermittently; writtcIl
] "\l,tllcnia,
Translations: '}/}i.l |)llges relevant; of very little prosopographical significance.
(1) V.Langlois,'Extraite de la chronique de Sempad, seigneur de liltl,,,r,,,,
Connótable d'Armóne; suivie de celle de son continuateur', MćtItt,tl,,, , l lrrlll, ccl., Mkhit'aray Ayrivanets'woy Patmut'iwn hayots' (History of'Artltt,ltitt
l'Acadćmie impćriale des Sciences de St. Pćtersbourg,7" Sórie, Tome 4, llrl (, l', I l l, Ayrivanets'i/ (Moscoq 1860)
ltit' ttr
Petersburg, 1862) ,, lllll(xluction; text, prepared on basis of single ms,; brief notes; no index.
Brief introduction; single long annotated extract translated from the scctltt,l,,t, I l';tlliltnov, ed., Mkhit'aray Ayrivanets'woy Patmut'iwn zhamanakttgruktttt
tion of Shahnazareants', although aware of the Moscow edition, ct)vclllt1, ll, , l11,,11a1|11,qjcal History of Mkhit'ar Ayrivaners'i) (St Petersburg,1867)
period 1091-1331; no index. ,,, lllll()(lllction, notes or index; prepared on basis of a more complete ms. whilst
(ż)E. Dulaurier, RHC. Documents armćniens. Tome premier (Paris, l869),6l() ,l , , .11 |i rtrlwledging the earlier edition,
Translated extract, prepared on basis of copy of best ms. in Ejmiatsin atltl llr, r

published editions; covers period l098-1331; no separate index, fef rctlt,t,l |,, r,,,
merged into general indices for the whole volume.
(3) S Der Nersessian,'The Armenian Chronicle of the Constable Smpacl ()t (ll li,
"Royal Historian"' , DOP l3 (1959), 143-68
Introduction, textual analysis and annotated translated passages frollr Ą,,,,l, ,,,
edition, beginning with Manuel Komnenos' entry into Antioch in l l59; liIrrlt, ,l
'those passages which are not restricted to the local history of Cilicilt'; rlrlrlt llt
the passages derived from Matthew of Edessa and those inserted into 1hltt lt,l t II
lll,,,,,,1,|,'IJistoire chronologique par Mkhithar d'Airivank', Mćmtlira:; tl,,
l,,t,l,',tttic impćriale des Sciences de St. Pćtersbourg, 7'Serie, Tome 13, no. 5 (Sl
l', r, r ,l,rll,g, l869), Próface and 1-110
,,, t, tt l Li lt,t utu.re:
, llt,,.,,t,(, 'l'ltu<les sur l'Histoire armónienne Mkhithar d'Airavank', Bullt,titt tlt,
l, ,t,li,tttit, intpcriale de St Pćtersbourg 8 (1865), 39I4I0
l l rlrll \ llllyźlll, Mkhit'ar Ayrivanets'i. Kyank'n u stełtsagortsut'yunć ( Lili, tttnl

index. l 'ttl 1t 11| l ( l l l,cvan, l 98 5)

(4) G. Dódóyan, La chronique attributće au Connćtable Smbat. Introdut,lit)lt, lt,tttltt, t,, l,,\ .(,|)'ell|ltsL, 'Mkhit'ar Ayrivanets'i. Noragiwt ardzanagrut'iwn cw ct,kcl
et notes (Paris, 1980) ,\lllllt';rl Ąyrivanets'i. A newly found inscription)', Sion (l930), 395 ]. (l9tl),
Introduction, textual analysis and annotated translated passages litllll Ą1,,,|, ,,, | ,l, \() 2, ll8 l20, l48 l50,18+,7,214-16,237 9,277 9
edition, also beginning at 1159 but comprehensive thereafter; divisitltts iltst,t It ,l I
|
]l )l ;lllliwr Mkhit'ar Ayrivanets'u masin (Concerning a new sourcc tll' Mklrit'lrl,
Dódóyan and not found in any edition of the text; separate indiccs ()l' llilltl,,, ,,, '
\ l l\.Irrt,ls'i)'. Iijnliut,sin (194515), 17-21
places.
(5) A.G. Galstyan, Smbat Sparapet, Lelopi,ł (Erevan, l974) tttlt sccIl
250 'I'im Grctłt|Ą,orld A lt M l iN lA N s()(] l{(,liS 25l

Step'anos Orbelean/Orpelean, History of the Province oJ' Siwnik' K.^. Mat'evosyttt"l. Altitlnl Zak'aryanneri hastatman zhamanakn óst norahayt
Covers period from eponymous Sisak down to 1299; focus largely upon the sequenec hishatakarani (The date of the Zakarians' settlement in Ani according to a newly
of princes, kings and bishops of Siwnik' and their actions, with external matters atltl iscovered colophon)', Pat mabanasirakan H andćs I47 (1997 l 1), 280-3
il
outsiders (apart from Armenians, Georgians and Ałuank') intruding only occasiotl- lhu,rlations:
ally and then through relationship to Siwnik'-thus the fall of Jerusalem in 1l87 is l' |)ccters,'lJne tómoignagae autographe sur le sidge d'Antioche par les croisós en
noted only because a Siwni bishop happened to be visiting and was martyred; used 1098', in Miscellanea historica in honorem Alberti de Meyer, vol. 1, Recueil de
works by Armenian historians, unspecified, with the notable exception of Mkhit'ar, travaux d'histoire de l'Universitó de Louvain, 3rd ser. 22 (Louvain,1946), repr. in
Anets'i who may be one of the sources used by Step'anos for his extended account Ilccherches d'histoire et de philologie orientales, Subsidia Hagiographica 27
of Orbelean history, beginning in 1049; also drew upon the works of Petros bishop ol' (Brussels, 1951), vol.2, l64-80
Siwnik', correspondence and documents involving princes and bishops of Siwnik"
preserved in the patriarchal residence at T'atev, and inscriptions from T'atev.
Noravank' and other sites; almost no information about Cilicia, northern Syria or thc lltscriptions
Byzantine world; the separate Orbelean family history in ch. 66 records events itt
twelfth-century historic Armenia and Georgia and their interaction with Seljuk and ł,tlitions:
other Muslim polities-brief but significant; completed in 1299; 451363 pages rele- l . Alishan, Ayrarat (Venice, 1890)
vant; in the light of its different focus and twelfth-century records relating to historic Shirak tełagrut'iwn patkerats'oyts' (Shirak. Illustrated Topography) (Venice,
Armenia, of some prosopographical importance. l88l)
Sissouan ou L'Armćno-Cilicie (Venice, l899)
Editions:
(1) K. Shahnazareants', ed., Patmut'iwnnahangin Sisakan arareal Step'annosi Orbćleałt
K.Y. Basmajean, Hayerćn ardzanagrut'iwnk' Anwoy, Bagnayr ew Marmashinu
(Armenian Inscriptions of Ani, Bagnayr and Marmashen) (Paris, 1931)
ark'episkoposi Siwneats' ( History of the Province of Siwnik' produced by Step'anos (ievorgeants', Hamaiot tełagrut'iwn łtnut'eants' Metsin Shiraka ev mayrak'ałak'in
l\4,
Orbelean, Archbishop of Siwnik') (Paris, 1860; repr. Tiflis, 1910)
Anwoy ( Brief Topography of the Antiquities of Greater Shirak and the Capital Ani)
First edition, based on a single ms.; single index.
(Alexandropol, l903)
(2) N. Emin, ed., Step'annosi Siwneats' episkoposi Patmut'iwn tann Sisakalz (Moscow
,llrlaleants', Chanaparhordut'iwn i Metsn Hayastan (Travels in Greater Armenia) , 2
1861)
vols. (Tiflis,1842-58)
Based upon single ms., with variants from earlier edition noted; no index.
K. Kostaneants', Vimakan Taregir. Ts'uts'ak zhołovatsoy ardzanagrut'eants' Hayots'
Translations:
1Chronicle in Stone. A catalogue of a selection of Armenian inscriptions/ (St
(1) M.Brosset, Histoire de la Siounie par Stćphannos Orbćlian (St Petersburg, 1864) |'ctersburg, l9I3)
Complete translation, made on basis of both existing printed editions, with anno- l l,A, Orbeli, ed., Divan hay vimagrut'yan (Corpus inscriptionum armenicarum),7 vols.
tations; chapter divisions located in same places but numberęd difTerently, being (llrevan, 1966-99)
ahead by a factor of 1; no index. N Slrrgisean, Tełagrut'iwnk' i P'ok'r ew i Mets Hays (Topography of Greater and
O' Abrahamyan, S tep' ano s Orbelyan Syunik' i Patmut' yun (Erevan, 1 986) Lcsser Armenia) (Venice, l864)
t* -nol t l Vlvsep'ean, Grch'ut'eAn aruestó hin hayots' mćj. KartEz hay hnagrut'ean (The Art

Secondary Literature: ol Writing amonq the Ancient Armenians. Album of Armenian palaeography)
A.A. Abrahamyan,'Bnagragitakan ditarkumner Step'anos Orbelyani patmakatl (Vałarshapat, l913)
erkum (Textological observations on Step'anos Orbelean's historical writing)'. l't,tttt:;lations:
Patmabanasirakan HandEs 110 (1985/3), 55-67 l ll Mahó, Ani sous Constantin X, d'aprćs une inscription de 1060', in Melanges
Z. Avetik'yan, 'Step'anos Ark'episkopos Orbelyan', Ejmiatsin (1980/9), 47*55: (iilbert Dagron, Travaux et Mómoires 14 (2002),403-14
(1980/10), 22-30 'Les inscriptions de Hoiomos', Monuments Piot 8I (2002),I47łl4
T. Hakobyan and S. Melik'-Bakhshyan, Step'anos Orbelyan (Erevan, 1960) ti t,Iluhogian,'Les óglises d'Ani d'aprds le tómoinage des inscriptions', REA 23
(l99ż),237-52
Colophons

Editions: ('hurters
G. Yovsep'ean, ed., Yishatakarank' dzełagrats' (Colophons of Manuscripts) (Antelias.
1951) l|tlition:
A.S. Mat'evosyan, Hayeren dzeiagreri hishatakaranner 5-12 dd (Colophons tll V l ,irnglois, Le trćsor des chartres d'Armćnie ou cartulaire de la chancellerie royale des
Armenian M anus crip t s Fifth-Twelfth Centuries ) (Erevan, 1 988) Iilnlpćniens (Venice, l863), l05-12: documents l and2
 252 Tim Greenwood
Letter collections
Editions:
Grigor kat'ołikosi Tłay koch'ets'eloy, Namakani; Teain Nersł,yi
Lambronąts'woy . . . t'ułt' ew chaik' (Letters of Katholikos Grigor Tłay and Lettt,r
and Homilies of Lord Nersżs Lambronars'i (Venicą l838)
Grigor Tłay ew s. Nersćs Lambronats'i, Namakani Grigori kat'ołikosi _ ..
Lambronats'woy Atenabanut'iwn T'ułt' ai Lewon fagawor, Nerboł i Hambardzumtl
K'ristosi ew i Galust Hogwoyn Srboy (Grigor Tłay and St Nersćs Lambronats'i.
Letters of Katholikos Grigor. . . and Oration of N Lambronats'i Letter to King
Lewon, Eulogy to the Ascension of Christ and the Coming of the Holy Spirit)
(Venice, 1865)
'T'vłt'Nersisi Ark'episkopi Kilikets'wots'Tarsoni pataskhani yOskann argelakan
nawori i metsn Antiok (Letter of Nerses, archbishop of Tarsos in Cilicia, in reply trl
Oskan,amonkimprisonedinAntiochtheGreat)',Chiak'al(1859) 1,3-II;2,37-44
'Pataskhani Oskan argelakan chgnawori i mętsn Antiok (Reply of Oskan, a monk
imprisoned in Antioch the Great)', in Khurhrdatsut'iwn srbazn pataragl
(Commentary on the Divine Liturgy) (Jerusalem,1842)
K'. Kostaneants', ed., Grigor Magistrosi t'ułt'erć (Letters of Grigor Magistros)
(Alexandropol, 19l0)
Translations:
E. Gjandschezian,'Ein Brief des Gregor Magistros an den Patriarchen Petro ',
Zeitschriftfńr armenisclten Philologie2(I903l4),75-80 : letterno. 5 of Kostaneant '
'Ein Brief des Gregor Magistros an den Emir Ibrahim', Zeitschrift fi}r
armenischen Philologie 2 (l903l4),234-63 : letter no. 70 of Kostaneant '
-
A.K. Sanjian and A. Terian, An enigmatic letter of Gregory Magistros', Journal
the Societyfor Armenian Studies 2 (1985-6), 85-95 : letter rro,12 of Kostaneant '
Laments
Nersćs shnorhali
Critical Edition:
M. Mkrtch'yan, ed., Ołb Edesioy (Erevan, 1973)
Translations:
(l) E. Dulaurier, 'Elógie sur la prise d'ńdesse', in RHC 1,223-68
(2) I. Kóchichian, Nersćs Śnorhali. La complainte d'Edesse, Bibliotheca Armeniaca.
Textus et Studia 3 (Venice, 1984)
(3) T.M. van Lint, 'Lament on Edessaby Nerses Śnorhali', in K. Ciggaar and,H. Teule.
eds., East and West in the Crusader States. Context, contacts, confrontation,ł,
Orientalia Lovaniensia Analect a 92 (Leuven, 1999), 49-10 5
Secondary Literature:
T.M. van Lint, 'Seeking meaning in catastrophe: Nersćs Śnorhali's Lament on Edessa',
in Ciggaar and Teule, eds., East and West (Leuven, 1999),2947
Grigor Tlay
Edition and Translation:
E. Dulaurier, 'Elógie sur la prise de Jórusalem' , in RHC I,269-307
11
Syriac Historiographi cal Sources
ew N,
WITOLD WITAKOWSKI
chg_ livtłIłcHISToRIoGRAIHv HAs oNLy THREE WoRKS which provide historical,
rlrcluding prosopographical, information for the period in question. These
llt,c the chronicles (in chronological order) by Michael the Elder (Syr. Mika'el
lłirbo, (^nkha'al Rabba; hereafter MR), an anonymous Edęssene (The
('hronicle to the Year 1234; hereafter XI234) and John Gregory BarEbroyo
(Ytlhannan Grćghoryós Bar'Ebhraya; hereafter BE), also known in Arabic as
Abu'l Faraj ('Father of what is pleasant').l
Generally the Syriac chronicles can be regarded as less important than
( ircek sources for mainstream Byzantine history, and even less for Byzantine
l)r()sopography. This is due to the fact that for most of the period 1025-1204
lltc area inhabited by the Syrians, the members of the Syrian Orthodox (i.e.
,lircobite) church to which all the three authors here examinęd belong, was
o|' tttlt directly adjacent to the Byzantine empire. Thus Byzantium did not loom
lrrrge within the geographical horizon of our historians, who were conse-
(|ucntly less interested in its affairs. The prosopographical contribution of the
chronicles for the period in question is not as rich as it is for the pre-Islamic
;rcriod, during which the Syrians lived within the RomanlByzantine empire
srl that historiographical narrative of their affairs was naturally also a narta-
livc of Byzantine affairs. As a result, for the period 1025-|204 the Syriac
r,lrronicles-and there is hardly any other kind of Syriac source that contains
lclcvant material-recede from the position of being primary sources. This
tltlcs not mean, of course, that they can be ignored. One should be aware,
lttlwever, that we do not learn much from them about the most important
cvcnts of Byzantine history and the people involved in thęm, who often
lrclonged to court circlęs or the army. An example is provided by the story of
I ln what follows the spelling of Syriac names with a so-called 'patronymic'('so-called'because
tl tltlcs not always provide the name of the bearer's father) is normalised so that the 'patronymic'
ts combined with thę preceding'Bar'('son of') but begins with a capital letter. 'Patronymics'and
llitmes with no corresponding counterparts in English are spelt according to a simplified post-
t,1ttssical Western Syriac pronunciation; at first occurrence they are accompanied by transcription
,rcc<lrding to classical Syriac rules in parentheses, as is the case here, Obsolete Latinised forms
sttch as'Bar Hebraeus' or'Barhebraeus' are avoided,
l'xlccedings of the British Academy 13ż,253-ż82. O The British Academy 2007,