Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-15T19:58:41.501Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Caucasia and Byzantine Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2016

Cyril Toumanoff
Cyril Toumanoff*
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

All too slowly, but nevertheless, it is to be hoped, steadily, Byzantine scholars are becoming aware of the special importance of studies dealing with Christian Caucasia — principally Armenia and Georgia — for the studies ex professo their own. That this claim of Caucasiology to a place of special importance in Byzantine studies is no empty boast, an examination of the nature of the Byzantine-Caucasian relations will make amply clear. In the domain of Geistesgeschichte, Caucasia experienced a profound influence of Byzantine civilization. It came, in fact, to form to a very considerable extent a part of that civilization. But, quite unlike Byzantium's younger dependencies, Caucasia's soil had been previously irrigated by waters from other cultural streams, the Iranian, the Syrian, and, together with Byzantium though independently of it, the Hellenistic. The cultures of medieval Armenia and of medieval Georgia were, moreover, rich, vigorous, and original — Armeno-Georgian architecture was, above all the other arts, a thing of originality and beauty; — and what they, in turn, contributed to that of Byzantium is still far from being adequately appraised.

Type
Bibliographical Studies
Information
Traditio , Volume 12 , 1956 , pp. 409 - 425
Copyright
Copyright © Fordham University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Toumanoff, C., ‘Christian Caucasia between Byzantium and Iran: New Light from Old Sources,’ Traditio 10 (1954) esp. 113–125, 184–186.Google Scholar

2 Louis Bréhier, Le Monde byzantin I: Vie et mort de Byzance (Bibliothèque de Synthèse historique. L'Évolution de l'humanité 32; Paris 1948). Google Scholar

3 Vasiliev, A. A., History of the Byzantine Empire , 324–1453 (Madison 1952).Google Scholar

4 Ostrogorsky, Georg, Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates (Byzantinisches Handbuch im Rahmen des Handbuchs der Altertumswissenschaft 1.2; 2nd ed. Munich 1952; trans. Hussey, J., History of the Byzantine State, Oxford 1956).Google Scholar

5 Ernest Stein, ‘Introduction à l'histoire et aux institutions byzantines,’ Traditio 7 (1949–1951) 97. — It must be owned that general histories can at times achieve a remarkably keen appraisal of problems involved without the benefit of necessary languages, if translations are available and, especially, if the author is an historian of the caliber of the late René Grousset. Google Scholar

6 Gérard Garitte, La Narratio de rebus Armeniae. Édition critique et commentaire (CSCO 132, Subsidia 4; Louvain 1952); cf. Christian Caucasia 110–113. Google Scholar

7 Garitte, , Narratio 370–375, 16. Garitte's remarks, in this volume, deal with the ‘Letter to Zacharias,’ the ‘Letter to Ašot’ being another part of the same document. The upshot of these investigations is not of course to deny that Photius ever actually wrote to these two personages, but to demonstrate that the Armenian monument in question is not a rendering of what Photius could have written.Google Scholar

8 Cf. Franz Dölger, Der griechische Barlaam-Roman, ein Werk des hl. Johannes von Damaskos (Studia patristica et byzantina 1; Ettal 1953); Lang, D. M., ‘St. Euthymius the Georgian and the Barlaam and Ioasaph Romance,’ Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 17.2 (1955) 306–325; also Halkin, F. in Analecta Bollandiana 71 (1953) 475–480; Lourdos, B. in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 48 (1955) 215; Nuc'ubije, S. in Mnat'obi 1956 No. 3. 144–154; Michael Tarchnisvili, Geschichte d. kirchl. georg. Lit. (cf. the following note) 394–395, 136 n. 2, 172 n. 5. Wenger, A., in Revue des études byzantines 13 (1954) 164–165.Google Scholar

9 Michael, P. Tarchnišvili, Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur (Studi e Testi 185; Città del Vaticano 1955).Google Scholar

10 Kekelije, Korneli, K‘art'uli literaturis istoria. Jveli mcerloba I (meore ševsebuli da sescorebuli gamoc'ema; redattori Baramije, A.; Tiflis 1941).Google Scholar

11 Kekelije, K. and Baramije, A., K'art'uli literaturis istoria I, Jveli k'art'uli literatura (v-xviii ss.) (Tiflis 1954). — The third edition of this work (Tiflis 1951) has not been available either to Fr. Tarchnišvili and Dr. Assfalg or to the present writer.Google Scholar

12 The distinction between influence and jurisdiction does not appear to have been fully grasped, so far as Iberia is concerned, by the late Javaxisvili, Professor I. in his monumental K'art'veli eris istoria I (4th ed. Tiflis 1951) 315–325. As for West or Pontic Georgia (Egrisi), the local ecclesiastical organization was part of the Constantinopolitan patriarchate, its ranking prelate being the Metropolitan of Phasis; Tarchnišvili, in Enciclopedia Cattolica 6 (1951) 66; Janin, R., ‘Géorgie,’ DThC 6 (1924) 1261‘; Goubert, P. Byzance avant l'Islam (Paris 1951) 223; also Vasiliev, A., Justin the First (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1950) 255–268; Toumanoff, ‘Chronology of the Kings of Abasgia and Other Problems,’ Le Muséon 69 (1956) 74 n. 3.Google Scholar

13 Cf. Christian Caucasia 166–184. Google Scholar

14 Or Merč'ule, according to Ingoroqva, P., Giorgi Merč'ule, k'art'veli mcerali meat'ε saukunisa (Tiflis 1954), esp. 17–23. To add to T 105–107: Ingoroqva's ed. of the same, Tiflis 1949.Google Scholar

15 Besides the feasts of Georgian saints, the Iberian Church retained several feasts which had become obsolete in the rest of the Church, e.g., that of the Holy Cross on Easter Monday; T 29–30. Google Scholar

16 T - Einleitung 4: Bildungs- und Literaturzentren in Altgeorgien, Klöster, I. 60–79.Google Scholar

17 Ibid. II. Schulen 53–60.Google Scholar

18 On the pattern of the Primary History of Armenia, for which see Marr, N. in Byzantina Chronica 1 (1894) 293–299.Google Scholar

19 The same division was adopted by this author in ‘Medieval Georgian Historical Literature (vth-xvth Centuries),’ Traditio 1 (1943) 149–153 (where the facts of publication and recension will be found) and in ‘Iberia on the Eve of Bagratid Rule: An Enquiry into the Political History of Eastern Georgia between the VIth and the IXth Century, ‘Le Muséon 65 (1952): Excursus B (‘ The Royal List of the Conversion of Iberia and Sumbat's History of the Bagratids’) 237–244, except that in these two studies Nos. 4 and 5 are considered as one part. With the above Excursus (overlooked by T) and with Excursus A 235–236 the forthcoming three paragraphs are substantially identical.Google Scholar

20 This dating was accepted in the above-cited studies (supra, n. 19). Google Scholar

21 In his K'art'veli eris istoria I, for instance, the late Prof. J̌avaxišvili, dean of the Georgian historians, invariably refers to the Royal List as the Conversion of Iberia (k'art'lis mok'-c'evis matiane) and adduces its evidence before that of either Leontius of Ruisi or uanšer (on whom later). This tends to weaken some of his arguments. Google Scholar

22 The Queen Anne Codex of the Georgian Annals, ed. Quaxč'išvili, S. (Tiflis 1942) (hereinafter A) 21–22 = The Queen Mary Variant of the Georgian Annals, ed. T'aqaišvili, E. (Tiflis 1906) (hereinafter M) 25–26, A 24–25 = M 28–29. Because of the confusion frequent in early Georgian texts between the letters b and š, which resemble each other in the ecclesiastical minuscules, the name of the kings in question is written Arbak. Google Scholar

23 Žordania, T. ed. (Z), K'ronikebi I (Tiflis 1892) 14, 17 = E. T'aqaišvili ed. (Tq), in Sbornik Materialov dlja opisanija … Kavkaza 41 (1910) 49.Google Scholar

24 A 22 = M 26. 25 Z 14 = Tq 49. Google Scholar

26 Cassius, Dio, Hist. rom. 37. 1; Appian, Bell. mithr. 103.Google Scholar

27 A 27–31 = M 32–36 (corrupt forms in M.). 28 A 28, 29. 29 Z 17 = Tq 50. Google Scholar

30 This ‘Diarchy’ of early Georgian historiography is generally recognized as a projection to the first century of the division of Iberia between a Roman and an Iranian vassal, in 370–378; cf. Iberia on the Eve of Bagratid Rule (n. 19 supra; henceforth: Iberia) 23 n. 4. Google Scholar

31 Melikset-Bekov, L., ‘Armazni,’ Masalebi sak'art’ velos da kavkasiis istoriisat'vis 1938 No. 2, 31.Google Scholar

32 Z 55 = Tq 63. The Čeliši variant of the Conversion and the accompanying works (which dates from the fourteenth-fifteenth century; cf. Med. Georg. Hist. Lit. 149–150) records the martyrdom of St. Susan without referring to the Vitaxa Va(r)sk'en. — For the Princes of the Armeno-Georgian march of Gogarene and their title of vitaxa = πιτιάξης = bdeašx = pitiaxš, see Iberia, Excursus A (‘The Vitaxae of Gogarene’) 230–237.Google Scholar

33 See, e. g., T 83–86. For Vaxtang I's dates see Christian Caucasia 162–166; Traditio 7. 483–487. Google Scholar

34 A 141 = M 188. Google Scholar

35 Cf. Brosset, M., Histoire de la Géorgie I 1 (St. Petersburg 1849) 180 n. 3; J̌avaxišvili, K'art. eris ist. I 289.Google Scholar

36 J̌avaxišvili, , op. cit. I 240 n. 3, notes the error of the Royal List (which he calls Conversion of Iberia) without perceiving its cause. — Because of the misplacement, uanšer's information regarding St. Susan's martyrdom has not received from the historians and hagiologists the attention it deserves.Google Scholar

37 Cf. Iberia 23 n. 4. Google Scholar

38 A 86 = M 114–115: no name of the commander is given. For the significance of this Georgian title, here applied to Iranians, see Iberia 28–30. Google Scholar

39 Z 42–43 = Tq 60: k'ram xuar bor zard, sparst'a mep'isa pitiaxši. Google Scholar

40 A 87–88 = M 116: his name is uprob (A), ubraab (M), ubarab (in the eighteenth-century King Vaxtang VI Redaction of the Annals). Google Scholar

41 Z 44 = Tq 61: pitiaxšman varaš. Varaš is a variant of the same name as in Leontius; see supra n. 22 for the confusion between b and š. Google Scholar

42 A 90 = M 119: his title is erist'av ranisa = ‘viceroy, i. e. marzbān, of Albania.’ Google Scholar

43 Z 47 = Tq 61. Google Scholar

44 A 141–142 = M 188: carmogzavna igi … erist'avad ranisa. — Under the Great King Pērōz (459–484), Vač'e II, Arsacid King of Albania, was constrained to abdicate (Eliseus, Hist. 1; Moses of Kłaankatuk’, Hist. Alb. 1.10), but after a thirty years’ interval, his brother, the last Albanian Arsacid Vač'akan III, was restored by the Great King Valač (484–488) (Moses 1.17). All this while Iranian viceroys, seated at Partav on the right bank of the Kur, ruled the kingdom (Moses 1.18, 2.11); cf. Krymskij, A. E., ‘Stranicy iz istorii Severnogo ili Kavkazskogo Azerbejdžana (Klassičeskoj Albanii),’ S. Ol F.'denburgu: Sbornik Statej (Leningrad 1934) 295, 290. Very possibly there were earlier instances of Iranian viceroys in Albania, as in the case of Barzabod (at n. 42) and of Pērōz (at n. 45).Google Scholar

45 A 73, 84 = M 98, 112. Leontius represents this as King Mirian of Iberia's gift of Albania to his son-in-law Pērōz; but there can be no doubt that the King of Iberia had no rights in Albania and that the only way in which a Mihranid such as Pērōz (Iberia 234–235) could at that epoch rule Albania was by being the Great King's viceroy in it. For the Vitaxae of Gogarene see ibid. 230–237. Google Scholar

46 There are a number of other similarities, many of them verbatim, between the Royal List and uanšer which cannot, however, be regarded as proving the dependence of the former on the latter, as they may be due to a source or sources in common; Iberia 241 n. 24. Google Scholar

47 The fact that the Royal List, Part Two brings the history of Iberia down to the seventh century (the campaigns of Heraclius) need not be taken as indicative of the date of its composition. The History of Leontius, for instance, is brought down to the fifth century, but it was written in the seventh-eighth century (T 91–94). Google Scholar

48 This briefer List is analyzed in Iberia 242–244, where — to repeat — it is incorrectly regarded as one with the Royal List, Part Two. Google Scholar

49 Z 69 = Tq 66. For Stephen I see Iberia 199–200. Google Scholar

50 Z 66 = Tq 66; cf. Christian Caucasia 176 nn. 294, 295. The historian Sumbat, who in part depends on the List, also makes Stephen I survive the events of 627; Iberia 247 n. 45. The evidence of uanšer, naturally, outweighs that of the List and of the early part of Sumbat. Google Scholar

51 Or, to be exact, in the years 786/800; Iberia 20. uanšer, the ‘pure’ historian, is not dealt with directly in T. Google Scholar

52 Cf. Iberia 241 n. 24. Google Scholar

53 Ibid. 203–208.Google Scholar

54 Ibid . 209 n. 41.Google Scholar

55 K 4th ed. 91; T 414. Google Scholar

56 Iberia 203-218, Genealogical Table ad p. 258.Google Scholar

57 David III (II) of Georgia (1089–1125) was the last Georgian sovereign to be invested with a Byzantine title (Panhypersebastos). Google Scholar

58 Cf. Iberia, Excursus B 244–252; Medieval Georgian Historical Literature (n. 19 supra) 154–156. It is regrettable that, in spite of recent research, the traditional errors regarding the origin of the Georgian Bagratids should have been perpetuated in Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels: Fürstliche Häuser 3 (1955) 247. Google Scholar

59 Cf., e.g., Hofmann, G. ‘Texte zum Religionsgespräch vor Kaiser Dukas, Konstantin X.,’ Miscellanea Galbiati G. 3 (1951) 249–262. — The translation of the Liturgy of St. Peter into Georgian — not from the Greek, but, as is most likely, from the Latin — appears to have been made in connection with St. Hilarion the Iberian's sojourn at Rome, in the ninth century; T. 39, 445.Google Scholar

60 Save one — to act as a liaison officer: Cap. 24 of the typikon has (in Tarchnišvili's translation): ‘Praeterea praecipio hoc et lege confirmo ne unquam in monasterio meo domicilium habeat graecus sacerdos vel monachus praeter unum solum monachum qui litteras sciens chartas conscribere et ab hegumeno ad principem mitti possit de rebusque monasterii curam habere. Haec autem ea ratione statuo tanta cum firmitate quod, cum Graeci natura sint violenti et avidi et astuti, timeo ne quid detrimenti et incommodi offerant monasterio aut adversarii loci evadant idque in ditionem suam redigere conentur, hegumenatu occupato, vel cum alterius cuiusdem rationis forma et suum facere monasterium cupiant quod semel et saepius vidimus ab eis factum propter gentis nostrae innocentiam et cordis simplicitatem. Alioquin Deo favente verae orthodoxiae eorum sequaces sumus ac confessores, eorumque discipuli.’ Tarchnišvili, Typicon Gregorii Pacuriani (CSGO 144, Scriptores Iberici 4; Louvain 1954) 37–38 = Georgian text (Scriptores Iberici 3) 61–62; for the Greek text see Petit, L., in Byzantina Chronica 11 (1904).Google Scholar

61 The course of studies in these academies included Theology, Philosophy, Rhetoric, Grammar, Mathematics, Geometry, Astronomy, Music, and Law; T 57. Google Scholar

62 Pelopidas Étienne Stephanou, S.J., ‘Jean Italos, philosophe et humaniste,’ Orientalia Christiana Analecta 134 (1949) 119. Google Scholar

63 See supra n. 8. Google Scholar

64 Cf. van de Oudenrijn, M. A., Eine alte armenische Übersetzung der Tertia Pars der theologischen Summa des hl. Thomas von Aquin (Berne 1955).Google Scholar

65 See also Tarchnišvili, ‘A propos de la plus ancienne version géorgienne des Actes des Apôtres’, Le Muséon 69 (1956) 347–348. Orbeliani did not complete this undertaking.Google Scholar

66 The text of the Treaty of Protectorate, of 24 July 1783 (o.s.), concluded by King Heraclius II of Georgia and the Empress Catherine II of Russia, is found not only in Tamarati, M., L’Église géorgienne (Rome 1910) 89 -90 (T 306 n. 1), but also in Karst, J., Code géorgien du roi Vakhtang VI: Commentaire ou Précis du Droit ibéro-caucasien I (Corpus juris ibero-caucasici, Première Section: Droit national géorgien codifié I 2) 2 (Strasbourg 1937) 399–404. — It may be added here that reference ought to have been made to vols. II 2 and 3 (1938, 1939, 1940) of this corpus for the Codes of George the Illustrious and of Bek‘a and Abua of Meschia (fourteenth and fifteenth centuries) and for the Nomokanon of 1543/1549 (T 435, 437).Google Scholar

67 Karst, , op. cit. I 2.1 (Strasbourg 1935) 63 and I 2. 2. 566 (Glossaire juridique-philologique).Google Scholar

68 See Christian Caucasia 163 and n. 237. Google Scholar

69 Cf. Iberia 28–30, esp. n. 11 (p. 30). Google Scholar

70 Histoire de la Géorgie II 1 (St. Petersourg 1856) 626; Toumanoff, ‘The Fifteenth-Century Bagratids and the Institution of Collegial Sovereignty in Georgia,’ Traditio 7.215.Google Scholar

71 Cf. ibid. 188. Google Scholar

72 Cf. in this connection Garitte, Catalogue des manuscrits géorgiens littéraires du Mont Sinaï (CSCO 165, Subsidia 9; Louvain 1956). This MS collection is important ‘non seulement pour l'histoire de la langue et de la littérature géorgiennes, mais aussi pour les études de critique textuelle biblique, de patrologie grecque et de philologie byzantine,’ idem, ‘Les manuscrits géorgiens du Sinaï,’ Bedi Karthlisa 23 (N.S.) Janvier 1957. Google Scholar