^{page 465 note 1} Published by Patkanean, K. and appended to his edition of the History attributed to Sebêos (St Petersburg, 1879), but with separate pagination; the text exists in a unique manuscript now no. 2678 of the collection of the Matenadaran (i.e. Manuscript Library) in Erevan, Armenian S.S.R.Google Scholar

^{page 465 note 2} Ed. and Russian trans. by Emin, M., 2 vols. (Moscow, 1861);Google Scholar by Aliŝan, L. (Venice, 1862).Google Scholar Despite the conclusions of Muyldermans, J. to the contrary (La domination arabe en Arménie [Louvain/Paris, 1927), pp. 29 and 37;Google Scholar cf. R. E. Arm, p. 333, n. 10), Aliŝan's edition, at least for the section containing the Mxit'ar fragment, is superior to Emin's, not only because he had access to much older manuscripts, but also because he had a better knowledge of oriental languages. To settle the debate on editions of Vardan one need only consider that when Patkanean appended the excerpt in Vardan at the end of his edition of Mxit'ar (pp. 49–52) he used Aliŝan's edition and not that of his fellow Russian Armenian, Emin. As for the manuscript tradition of Vardan, the four oldest — Library of the Mechitarist Congregation in Venice, nos. 516 (dated c. 1300) and 1244 (dated 1307), the Matenadaran, Erevan, no. 3074 (also dated 1307), and Museo Borgano, The Vatican, Arm. MS no.30 (dated 1630, but probably from an original of 1274) — display no major divergencies one from the other or from the printed texts. The writer would like to take this opportunity to thank again the Research and Conference Grant Program of the American University in Cairo for a grant during the summer of 1970 which allowed him to examine these manuscripts (as well as many others) in person.

^{page 465 note 3} Ed. Patkanean, pp. 2, 46–8,Google Scholar also reproduced in Zarbhanalean, G., The History of Ancient Armenian Literature [in Arm.], vol. 1 (Venice, 1897), p. 725.Google Scholar For biographical material on Mxit'ar, in addition to works already cited in R. E. Arm, p. 332, n. 6, one may consult Somal, P. S., Quadre della Storia Letteraria di Armenia (Venice, 1829), p. 106;Google ScholarAliŝan, , Snorhali and His Time [in Arm.] (Venice, 1873), pp. 126–8;Google ScholarLazikean, A., New Armenian Bibliography and Encyclopaedia of Armenian Life [in Arm.] (Venice, 1909–1912), vol. 1, cols. 2013–14;Google ScholarAčařean, H., Dictionary of Armenian First Names [in Arm.], vol. 3 (Erevan, 1946), pp. 369–70;Google ScholarHovsêp'ean, G., ‘Mxit'ar of Ani, Scribe and Miniaturist’ [in Arm.], Hask Yearbook, vol. 1 (Antelias, 1948), esp. pp. 192–4, which discusses four different Mxit'ars of Ani living during our period, the one of the title not being the Mxit'ar of this paper.Google Scholar

^{page 466 note 1} Ed. Patkanean, p. 15, with details in R. E. Arm, p. 334; the list will be found in the next paragraph of the text below.Google Scholar

^{page 466 note 2} Vardan, , ed. Venice, , p. 137, ed. Moscow, p. 180;Google ScholarMxit'ar of Ayrivank', ed. Emin, (Moscow, 1860), p. 64.Google Scholar It is also mentioned by Arakel, of Tabriz, , History (seventeenth century), ed. (Valaršapat, , 1884), p. 84,Google Scholar and probably copied from the latter in an eighteenth- century chronology which has only recently been published, Polarean, N., ‘Chronology’ [in Arm.], Banber Matenadarani, vol. 9 (1969), p. 259.Google Scholar The name of the author is given as Očiê in older manuscripts and as Očik'ê in later ones as well as Aŕakel and the eighteenth-century chronicle. Ačaŕean, loc. cit., suggests the possibility that Mxit'ar of Ayrivank' understood it as a date, i.e. ŔČIÊ = 1127, and that later it was mistakenly entered in Aŕakel under 1187, but this should probably be rejected, for all of the oldest manuscripts of Vardan agree exactly in understanding it as a name; Mxit'ar of Ayrivank' places the event just before 1191 and after 1181, and Aŕakel and the eighteenth-century chronicle also clearly regard it as a name.Google Scholar On the other hand, Brosset's more reasonable, yet still problematic, suggestion that it is a poor Armenian rendering for Persian zîj, a book of astronomy, deserves further investigation, Mém. de l'Acad. vol. 4 (1862), no. 9, pp. 5–6;Google Scholar see R. E. Arm, p. 333, n. 10 for full citation. Ališan expresses the same opinion, but without reference to Brosset, Šnorhali, p. 127.Google Scholar

^{page 466 note 3} Mxit'ar actually says as a preface to the short history in the Vardan fragment, ‘A great deal of effort was exerted in discovering [the history of] the sultans who were Turks, and by the grace of God I found it [to be] as follows’; ed. Venice, p. 94; ed. Moscow, p. 127. The great effort was probably research into non-Armenian as well as Armenian sources; Ališan comments much to the same effect,Google Scholaribid.

^{page 466 note 4} Aristakês of Lastivert, critical ed. (Erevan, 1963) and Russian trans. (Leningrad, 1968),Google Scholar both by Yuzbašyan, K. N.; Samuel of Ani, critical ed., A. Tér-Mik'elean (Valaršapat, 1893);Google Scholar for Kozeŕn and a discussion about the surviving parts of his lost history see below, pp. 467–8, n. 4. It is most interesting that Ališan felt the lost history of Kozeŕn contained an account of the Seljuk invasions, but unfortunately he does not say on what grounds he bases this (Hayapatum [in Arm.], vol. I (Venice, 1901), p. 90).

^{page 467 note 1} On Hovhannês Sarkawag see below in the text; Matthew of Edessa, ed. (Jerusalem, 1869) and a later edition based on a more complete text (Valaršapat, 1898),Google Scholar Fr. trans., Dulaurier, E. (Paris, 1858);Google ScholarMichael the Syrian, ed. (Jerusalem, 1871),Google Scholar Fr. trans., Langlois, V. (Venice, 1868),Google Scholar but on the question of the various and divergent Armenian versions see Chabot, J.-B., Chronique de Michelle Syrien, vol. 1 (Paris, 1899 [actually pub. 1924]), pp. L–LI;Google Scholar Mxit'ar Goš, Albanian Chronicle, trans. and commentary, Dowsett, C. J. F., BSOAS, vol. 21 (1958), pp. 472–90;CrossRefGoogle Scholar on Vahram see Ališan's comment in Vardan, ed. Venice, p. 94, n. 3, and Hayapatum, vol. I, p. 92, cf. R. E. Arm, p. 333, n. 12.Google Scholar This latter Vahram is probably not to be confused with Vahram of Edessa who wrote a rhymed history of the Kings of Cilician Armenia despite comments in some eighteenth-century manuscripts, for which see Anasyan, H. A., Armenian Bibliology [in Arm.], vol. 1 (Erevan, 1959), p. LV.Google Scholar

^{page 467 note 2} Samuel, pp. 96–8,Google Scholar quoted in Ališan, , Hayapatum, vol. 2, pp. 336, 358–9,Google Scholar and Zarbhanalean, p. 609.Google Scholar Kirakos of Ganjak, critical ed. Melik'-Ôhanjanyan, K. A. (Erevan, 1961), p. 84;Google Scholar Kirakos probably took his excerpts from Samuel rather than from Sarkawag's text directly, for which see Oskean, H., Literary Researches [in Arm.] (Vienna, 1926), p. 39.Google Scholar

^{page 467 note 3} On the author and the work see, Ališan, , Souvenirs of the Armenian Fatherland, vol. 2 (Venice, 1921 ²), pp. 248–73;Google Scholaridem, Hayapatum, loc. cit.; Ačaiean, op. cit. vol. 3, pp. 571–2;Google ScholarLazikean, op. cit. vol. 2, cols. 107–8;Google ScholarAbrahamean, A., Eight Lectures [in Arm.] (Antelias, 1955), pp. 79–96;Google ScholarZarbhanalean, pp. 609–20;Google ScholarSamuel, pp. 96–8;Google ScholarOskean, op. cit. pp. 2–64, esp. 37–41.Google Scholar

^{page 467 note 4} An additional note attached to offprint copies only of the writers article in R. E. Arm, vol. 4, correctly identified Kozerann/Kozrann with Hovhannês of Tarôn, an eleventhcentury author of several works including a History of the Bagratids, believed to be lost. He is mentioned by a large number of contemporary and later authors. For fuller details see čai-ean, vol. III, pp. 566–7; Zarbhanalean, pp. 570–I, 788,Google Scholar is not aware that Hovhannês of Tarôn and Kozeon are one and the same person, probably repeating the mistake of Mxit'ar of Ayrivank', ed. Emin, p. 23,Google Scholar and an eighteenth-century manuscript (Anasyan, op. cit. p. LIV)Google Scholar where the two names are listed separately. MS. no. 1775 of the Matenadaran in Erevan contains the first pages of the beginning of Kozeon's history (folios 8^v–16^r), which according to the heading in the manuscript was a history of the house of the Bagratids (f. 8^v). Abgaryan, G.quotes verbatim the opening paragraphs of this history, Banber Matenaá.arani, vol. 6 (1962), pp. 50–1,Google Scholar and again in his ‘The History of Sebê and the Enigma of the Anonymous (Erevan, 1965), pp. 128–30, and maintains that the first chapter of the pseudo-Sebêos (the so-called Primary History of Armenia) belongs to the lost part of the History of Kozei-n. An examination of the surviving pages of this history does not reveal much of interest; beginning with Adam and Eve in Paradise and continuing about the Hebrew prophets and kings, it goes up to the birth of Christ (f. 16^r). The history was to be in two parts: (I) from the beginning of the world to 887 when the first Bagratid King Mot was crowned, (2) from the reign of Aot to the author's own days (c. 1050). It is possible, indeed very likely, that the second part discussed the Seijuk invasions, which occurred during the author's floruit, as Ališan had himself surmised (see p. 466, n. 4 above). The author would like to thank L.Xaĉikyan, Director of the Matenadaran, and B. Č‘ugaszyan, Assistant Director, for kindly making available photographs of the manuscript text of the Kozefn fragment.Google Scholar

^{page 468 note 1} Samuel, p. 98;Google ScholarKirakos, p. 84, in the variants at the foot of the page; for Mxit'ar, ed. Venice, p. 96, ed. Moscow, p. 129, the passage to be translated shortly in the text. The final section of the extant introduction of Mxit'ar's work also uses the form azgn Turk'ac', Sarč'ukik'n, ‘the nation of the Turks, the Seljuks', ed. Patkanean, p. 48.Google Scholar Ališan felt very strongly that Sarkawag's history began with the origin and development of the Seijuks Hayapatum, vol. 1, p. 95, col. I.Google Scholar

^{page 468 note 2} Ed. Patkanean, passim; Zarbhanalean, pp. 725–6.Google Scholar

^{page 468 note 3} See the passage given in the text, below, and the discussion in R. E. Arm, p. 351.Google Scholar

^{page 468 note 4} Italicized words in parentheses indicate the Armenian spelling found in the text; when not so indicated the Armenian either has already been given or is identical or very close to the accepted form.Google Scholar

^{page 469 note 1} Tentatively it would seem that Armenian Mat'an is a badly transcribed form for Arabic manât, ‘idol', in its generic sense, but originally Manât, one of the pagan idols of the Ka'bah, which was closely, though incorrectly, associated by Muslim writers with Somnâth, especially with regard to Mahmu^d's campaign there in 416/1025–6.Google Scholar

^{page 469 note 2} Other localities mentioned in the text are easily identifiable; Taŕabi, however, presents some problems. It would seem too far removed to be either Târâb near Bukhârâ (Barthold, V., Turkestan, 2nd ed. [London, 1968, p. 115 n.)Google Scholar or Dârâb-jird in Fars (Le Strange, G., Lands of the Eastern Caliphate [Cambridge, 1905], pp. 248, 288–9),Google Scholar though Ališan identifies with the latter (Vardan, ed. Venice, p. 95, n. 4).Google Scholar

^{page 469 note 3} Kûhistân in Syria, i.e. al-Jibâl, Minorsky, V., Hudud al-Âlam (London, 1937), p. 150. The author would like to thank Professors William Gohiman of Baldwin-Wallace College and William Hanaway of the University of Pennsylvannia for independently suggesting the more correct reading in place of the author's Khûzistân.Google Scholar

^{page 469 note 4} The words ‘with a great victory’ were inadvertently omitted from the more exact translation (of the Seijuk portion only) given in R. E. Arm, p. 339, but were properly included on page 342. In general, for specific questions on the Seljuks suggested by the Mxit'ar fragment one should consult the translation and commentary in R. E. Arm.Google Scholar

^{page 470 note 1} The passage has been published in Armenian as follows: ed. Venice, pp. 93–7;Google Scholar ed. Moscow, pp. 127–31;Google Scholar the Venice version again by Patkanean (op. cit. n. a), pp. 49–52;Google Scholar by Ališan again, Souvenirs, vol. 2, pp. 353–4;Google Scholar and partially (the initial section on Mahmûd of Ghazna) by Alboyadjian, A., History of the Armenian Emigrations [in Arm.], vol. 2 (Cairo, 1955), p. 24,Google Scholar n. I. It has been translated into French, Brosset, M. F., Additions et éclaircissements à l'histoire de la Géorgie (St Petersburg, 1851), pp. 220–2;Google ScholarEmin, Russian M. (Moscow, 1861), pp. 118–21;Google ScholarAdreasyan, Turkish H. D., ‘Müverrih Vardan Türk Fütuhati Tarihi (889–1269)’, Istanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakultesi Tarih Semineri Dergisi, vol. 1/x2 (1937), pp. 169–72; English (partial), R. E. Arm, vol. IV, pp. 339–41.Google Scholar

^{page 470 note 2} There is an added poignancy and irony to the story. Firdausî completed the Shâhnâma at the commission of Mahmûd (c. 400/1009–10), but disappointed by the terms of the payment, he fled from the Ghaznavid court and took refuge with the Bûyids, specifically, according to some authorities (e.g. Ethé), at the court of Majd al-Dawla in Rayy; see Browne, E. G., A Literary History of Persia (Cambridge, 1906), vol. 2, pp. 141, 131 n.Google Scholar

^{page 470 note 3} Ibn al-Athîr, ed. Tomberg (Leyden, 1851–1876), vol. IX, pp. 261–3 (reprint, Beirut, vol. IX, pp. 371–2);Google Scholar the dialogue has been translated at least twice — Browne, vol. 2, p. 160, and Nâzim, M., The Life and Times of Sultân Mahmûd of Ghazna (Cambridge, 1931), pp. 82–3.Google Scholar For further details on Majd al-Dawla, see Zetterstéen, K. V., ‘Madjd al-Dawla’, Encyclopaedia of Islam (1st ed.), or Islam Ansikiopedisi, vol. 7, pp. 432–2,Google Scholar and, Miles, G. C., The Numismatic History of Rayy (New York, 1938), pp. 171–97 passim.Google Scholar

^{page 471 note 1} 'Utbî, al-Ta'rîkh al- Yamînî, written in Arabic prior to 431/1039–40, the year of the author's death, ed. (Cairo, 1869),Google Scholar with a Persian version by Jurbâdhqânî (c. 602/1206), ed. A. Qawîm (Teheran, 1955). The Ta'rîkh-i Mas'ûdî of Abû'l-Fadl Bayhaqî (385/995 to 470/1077) comprises only some five of the supposed thirty-volume history, the Mujalladât; the section preserved covers the years 421/1030 to 433/1041. The Zayn al-akhbár of Gardîzî was written before 444/1053 and contains events to 432/1041. The anonymous Mujmal was written in 520/1126 according to the unique manuscript in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris.Google Scholar The author would like to thank Prof. Bosworth, C. E. of the University of Manchester for sending photocopies of the sections from Gardîzî, ed. Nâzim (Berlin, 1928), PP. 90–I,Google Scholar and the Mujmal, ed. Bahâr (Tehran, 1939), pp. 403–4, used to check this statement.Google Scholar

^{page 471 note 2} An examination of the second and revised edition of the Russian translation of Bayhaqî, A. K. Arends (Moscow, 1969), which contains in the appendix 19 excerpts from the lost parts of the Mujalladât quoted by later authors, shows no mention of the episode; of course this does not absolutely exclude the possibility of its being preserved in the still-missing parts of the work.Google Scholar

^{page 471 note 3} ‘For, much as we may admire on the one hand the breadth of his documentary researches, nothing, on the other hand, indicates that he knew Persian' (Cl., Cahen, ‘The Historiography of the Seljuqid Period', Historians of the Middle East, ed. Lewis, B. and Holt, P. [London, 1962], pp. 65–6).Google Scholar Contrariwise, his brother Diya al-Dîn ibn al-Athîr seemingly knew Persian (see Von Grunebaum, G., Islam, Essays in the Nature and Growth of a Cultural Tradition [London, 1961], pp. 109, n. 9 and 178), and therefore one might conjecture that Ibn al-Athîr himself could in fact use Persian sources. The reference to Diya al-Dîn was supplied by Prof. Gohlman).Google Scholar

^{page 471 note 4} Cahen,Google Scholaribid. p. 66.

^{page 472 note 1} ‘ Of course the lost part of the Mujalladât comes to mind: however, another possibility is the work of the Bûyid vizier Abû Sa'd Manûr b. al-Husayn al-Âbî, which is named by the anonymous Mujmal as one of its sources. On Abû Sa'd see Bosworth, C. E., ‘On the Chronology of the Ziyârids in Gurgân and Tabaristân’, Der Islam, vol 40/1 (1964), p. 30, n. 10;Google Scholar the author again expresses his thanks to Prof. Bosworth for this suggestion and a copy of the article. As for the question of Mxit'ar' use of Ibn Funduq or other Arabic sources, we have no definite evidence that he did not know and use Arabic, only positive proof that he was able to use Persian (p. 466, n. 2 above). Alian's statement that the translation of the astronomical work already cited (p. 466, n. a above) was made from an Arabic book, yArab dprut'enê (Širak [in Arm.] [Venice, 1881], p. 95, col. a), must be considered an unintentional slip, for in the same work (p. 100, col. 2) he quotes the source of our information directly from his edition of Vardan (p. 137),Google Scholar ‘'i parsik lezuê’, ‘from the Persian language'. Nevertheless, Arabic as well as Persian, Georgian and other languages, Eastern and Western, were common in the city of Ani at that time (Aliŝan,Google Scholaribid. p. 96). A detailed linguistic analysis of the non-Armenian vocabulary in both the surviving introduction and the Vardan fragment needs to be made to determine if such words were borrowed from Arabic rather than Persian texts.

^{page 472 note 2} al-Muntazam, partially published (including the years under discussion), vol. 5–10 (Hyderabad, 1938–1941, with a recent reprint); Mir'ât al-zamân, still unpublished for the years under consideration, but a later section on the Great Seljuks has recently been published, Sevim, A., Mi'râtü ‘z-Zeman fî Tarih ü'l-Ayan 447/1056–479/1086 (Ankara, 1968),Google Scholar on which see Cl., Cahen, ‘A propos d'une edition…‘, Arabica, vol. 17/1, (1970), pp. 82–91;Google Scholar the Munich anonymous has not been published, but reference to the manuscript and its contents will be found in Kabir, M., The Buwayhid Dynasty of Baghdad 334/946–447/1055 (Calcutta, 1964), p. 216Google Scholar and passim. A discussion of Hilâl al-Tâbî's history will be found in Cahen, ‘Historiography', pp. 60–4.Google Scholar

^{page 472 note 3} This Fathnâma (al-Muntazam, vol. 8, pp. 38–40)Google Scholar has been translated in extenso by Bosworth, , ‘The Imperial Policy of the Early Ghaznavids', Islamic Studies, vol. 1/3 (1962), pp. 70–2.Google Scholar

^{page 473 note 1} A further discussion with full references to the literature will be found in R. E. Arm, pp. 337–8.Google Scholar

^{page 473 note 2} Gardîzî, ed. M. Nâzim, p. 64; in addition to the citations in R. E. Arm, pp. 338–9, nn. 42–5,Google Scholar see also Cahen, ‘Arslân b. Saldjûk.’, El ².Google Scholar

^{page 473 note 3} Turkish trans., Lügal, N. (Ankara, 1943), pp. 2–3 and R. E. Arm, p. 342, n. 75.Google Scholar

^{page 473 note 4} On which see the indispensable study by Cl., Cahen, ‘Le Malik-nâmeh et l'histoire des origines seijukides’, Oriens, vol. 2 (1949), pp. 31–65; cf. R. E. Arm, p. 332 and passim.Google Scholar

^{page 473 note 5} Further confirmation of this point is found in Mxit'ar of Ayrivank' (p. 2, n. 2 above; this point not presented in R. E. Arm), who, probably using Mxit'ar of Ani, places Mûsâ Yabghu (Musep'ayloy) at the head of his dynastic list of Seljuks, ed. Emin, p. 22. He again mentions Müsâ in the chronological part of his work after the year A.D. 901 [sic!], ‘…the Turkman (T'urk'man) Seljuk (Salèuk') and Mûsâ Yabghu (Musê P'aloy) and Tughril Beg (Dôllabêk)… etc.', p. 55.Google Scholar

^{page 473 note 6} There is an almost literal version of the Saljûqnâma preserved in the Râzat al-şudûr (end of 6th/izth century) by al-Râwandî, quoted here in the ed. by M. Iqbal (London, 1902), pp. 102, 104 cf. R. E. Arm, pp. 336, n. 34, p. 346, n. 91.Google Scholar

^{page 474 note 1} Cahen, C., Pre-Ottoman Turkey (London, 1968), p. 20;Google Scholar see the more detailed discussion in R. E. Arm, pp. 346–7.Google Scholar

^{page 474 note 2} For details, R. E. Arm, pp. 352–3.Google Scholar

^{page 474 note 3} Bosworth, C. E., The Ghaznavids (Edinburgh, 1963), p. 59;Google ScholarCahen, ‘Le Maliknâmeh', pp. 36–7.Google Scholar

^{page 474 note 4} Risâla, ed. ‘A. ‘Azzâwî with Turkish trans. by Yaltkaya, Ş., Belleten, vol. 4 (1940), pp. 250–66Google Scholar and 51 pages of Arabic text; a thorough discussion of the work and its author is given by Cahen, ‘Le Malik-nâmeh’, pp. 37–8.Google Scholar

^{page 474 note 5} Risâla, text p. 49, trans. p. 265.Google Scholar This section of the Risâla has been translated into English by Dunlop, D. M., The History of the Jewish Khazars (Princeton, 1954), p. 259;Google Scholarcf. Bosworth, Ghaznavids, p. 220,Google Scholar and R. E. Arm, p. 348, n. 103.Google Scholar For the Armenian usage see above, p. 468, n. i, and the text, and R. E. Arm, p. 347, nn. 98–9.Google Scholar

^{page 475 note 1} Ed. (facsimile) and abridged trans., Browne, E. G., 2 vols., GMS (London, 1910–1913), facsimile p. 434.Google Scholar

^{page 475 note 2} ‘Le Malik-nâmeh', pp. 37–8, for a complete discussion.Google Scholar

^{page 475 note 3} Raverty, H. G., The Tabakât-i Nâsirî (London, 1881–1899), pp. 116–18, n. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 475 note 4} Raverty, p. 117, n. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 475 note 5} Bosworth likewise comments (letter of 10 October 1970): ‘This leaves rather a mystery, and I can't, offhand, suggest any obvious solution, unless al-Ābî [p. 472, n. I above] or Ibn Hassûl are possible relaters of the anecdote.’Google Scholar