¹ C. Diehl, Բյուզանդիայի պատմության հիմնախնդիրները [The main problems of Byzantine history], Yerevan 2005, 125.

² Sarkissian, K., The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian Church, New York 1975Google Scholar.

³ H. Bart'ikian, Թեոփանես Խոստովանողը, նրա «Ժամանակագրությունը» և հայ–բյուզանդական հարաբերությունները VII–VIII դարերում [Theophanes the Confessor, his ‛Chronology’ and Armenian-Byzantine relations in the seventh to eighth centuries], Yerevan 1983, p. xxix.

⁴ Kapeller, J. Preiser, Christian Roman Empire: Byzantium between imperial monotheism and multiplicity, fourth to ninth century CE (and beyond), Berlin 2024, 194Google Scholar.

⁵ Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc'i, History of Armenia, trans. and comm. Krikor H. Maksoudian, Atlanta, Ga 1987, 133.

⁶ Photios is one of the most outstanding and famous figures of the Greek Church, a prominent scholar and theologian of the ninth century. His mother, Eirene, was an Armenian by nationality, the sister of Aršawir Kamsarakan: Օտար աղբյուրները Հայաստանի և հայերի մասին [Foreign sources about Armenia and Armenians], XV: Թեոփանեսի շարունակող [Theophanes Continuatus], trans., foreword and notes by H. Bartikyan, Yerevan 1990, 104; N. Adonc’, Մամիկոնյան իշխանուհին բյուզանդական գահի վրա [The Mamikonyan princess on the Byzantine throne], i, Yerevan 2006, 285; Codeso, P. and Dominguez, O., ‘Deconstructing Photios: family, relationship and political kinship in Middle Byzantium’, REB lxxi (2013), 125–6, 133Google Scholar. In 858 Photios took over the patriarchal throne from Patriarch Ignatius (847–58, 867–77) by means of fraud and deceit. At the time he was a secular figure, a chancellor at the court of Emperor Michael iii (842–67). After receiving the whole range of clerical degrees within six days, he appeared at the head of the Byzantine ecclesiastical hierarchy. He enjoyed the patronage of Vard Mamikonyan, the most influential figure in Byzantium at that time: N. Adonc’, Վարդ Մամիկոնյան (856–66) [Vard Mamikonyan (856–66)], i. 386.

⁷ In 867 Photios firmly rejected the supremacy of the pope. At a Council of Constantinople in 867 he condemned and excommunicated Nicholas i, who had refused to recognise him as the lawful patriarch – thus bringing about the Photian Schism – and in letters to other bishops had represented him as a persistent adversary of the West. Two years later, a further council convened in Constantinople (869–70) condemned and anathematised Photios: Dvornik, F., The Photian schism: history and legend, Cambridge 1948, 120–58Google Scholar: Chrysos, E., ‘The Council of Constantinople in 869–70: a minority council’, Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum xlix (2018/19), 138–61Google Scholar.

⁸ P. Ananean, ‛Փոտ պատրիարքի թղթակցութիւնը հայոց հետ’ [Correspondence of Patriarch Pհotios with the Armenians], Bazmavep cxlvi/1–4 (1988), 18.

⁹ In the Middle Ages, the conventional concept of ‘Hellenisation’ had a dual application: on the one had it represents a layer of figures of Armenian origin but Byzantinised in language, culture and service; on the other the presence of figures bearing the linguistic and cultural stamp of their environment but serving their own national culture: P. Muradyan, ‘Հայոց դպրությունը Կոստանդնուպոլսում (v–x դարեր)’ [Armenian education in Constantinople (fifth to tenth centuries)], PBH cxlvii–viii/1–2 (1998), 153.

¹⁰ At that time there was an organised Armenian community in Constantinople, suggesting that they retained a distinct cultural identity within the empire: Shirinian, M. E., ‘Armenian elites in Constantinople: Emperor Basil and Patriarch Photius’, in Hovhannisian, R. and Payaslian, Simon (eds), Armenian Constantinople, Costa Mesa, Ca 2010, 53–72Google Scholar.

¹¹ The letter asserts the primacy of the Greek language as the language of Scripture and the Church: N. Akinean, ‘Թուղթ Փոտայ պատրիարքի առ Զաքարիա կաթողիկոս Հայոց մեծաց’ [The letter of Patriarch Photios to greater Armenian Catholicos Zakaria], HA lxxxii/1–3 (1968), 75–8; cf. Greenwood, T., ‘Failure of a mission? Photios and the Armenian Church’, Le Museon cxix/1–2 (2006), 137Google Scholar. The authenticity and authorship of the letter are today beyond doubt, verified by many factors: N. Ananean, ‛Փոտ պատրիարքի թղթակցութիւնը’ [Correspondence of Patriarch Pհotios], cxlvi. 24–39; Greenwood, ‘Failure of a mission?’, 134–42. The author of the letter had access to the Bibliotheca and the person with the best opportunity is the purported author of the letter, Photios himself. Greenwood asks the logical, key question: ‘Why should anyone spend over one thousand, one hundred lines creating a subtle and profound sequence of arguments in favour of the Chalcedonian definition of faith, and then attribute it to another’: ‘Failure of a mission?’, 141.

¹² The letter has been published several times in parts and in translations. It was published for the first time by A. Mai, Spicilegium Romanum, x, Rome 1839. It then found its place in J. Migne's Greek patrology series: PG, Epp. ed. J. Migne, Paris 1900, cii, liber i, epp. ix–x, pp. 703–14 and then in A. Papadopulo-Keramevs, ‘Թուղթ Փաւտայ պատրիարքի առ Զաքարիա կաթուղիկոս Հայոց մեծաց’ [The letter of Patriarch Photius to the greater Armenian Catholicos Zakaria], Палестинский сборник [Orthodox Palestinian Collection] xxxi/xi/1 (1892), 179–210. The complete text, comparing different manuscripts, was published by the distinguished Armenologist N. Akinean: ‘Թուղթ Փոտայ պատրիարքի’ [The letter of Patriarch Photios’], HA lxxxii/1–3 (1968), 65–100; lxxxii /4–6 (1968), 129–56. Vardapet Vardan compiled an extensive extract from Pհotios's writings. He reenumerates the church councils mentioned by Photios and their main participants: ‘The historical compilation of Vardan Arewelcʹi’, ed. and trans. R. Thomson xliii (1989), 184–6; Հաւաքումն պատմութեան Վարդանայ վարդապետի [The historical compilation of scholar Vardan], Venice 1862, 82–5. There is a point of view which asserts that the original source of the letter was a medieval Armenian manuscript that has not been preserved։ cf. Garitte, G., La narratio de rebus Armeniae, edition critique et commenatire, CCSO, cxxxii/4, Louvain 1952, 379Google Scholar. The facts outlined in the introduction to Photios's paper bear a striking resemblance to the facts contained in the Narratio de rebus Armeniae: H. Bart'ikian, ‘Narratio de rebus Armeniae: հունարեն թարգմանությամբ մեզ հասած մի հայ–քաղկեդոնական սկզբնաղբյուր’ [Narratio de rebus Armeniae: an Armenian-Chalcedonian source that has reached us in Greek translation], Banber matenadarani vi (1962), 460–70.

¹³ N. Akinean, ‘Վահանայ Նիկիայ եպիսկոպոսի բանք’ [The speeches of Vahan, bishop of Nicaea], HA lxxxii/7–9 (1968), 258.

¹⁴ P. Ananean, ‛Փոտ պատրիարքի թղթակցութիւնը’ [Correspondence of Patriarch Pհotios], Bazmavep cxlvii/1–4 (1989), 38.

¹⁵ N. Adonc’, Վասիլ I կայսեր տարիքն ու ծագումը (867–886) [The age and origin of Emperor Basil i (867–86)], Yerevan 2012, 162.

¹⁶ V. Alek'sanyan, ‘Հայ–բյուզանդական եկեղեցական հակամարտությունը 9–րդ դարի երկրորդ կեսին’ [The Armenian-Byzantine Church confrontation of the second half of the ninth century], Vēm hamahaykakan handes lxxiv/2 (2021), 43.

¹⁷ Ch'amch’yan does not see a difference between the names Vahan and John. He clarifies that the Greeks called Vahan John։ Հայոց պատմություն [History of the Armenians], ii, Yerevan 1984, 685. The Church historian M. Ormanyan does not accept that John was renamed Vahan and assumes that he could not be Armenian։ Ազգապատում [History of the nation], Ējmiatsin 2001, 1138. Also preserved in Greek is a treatise composed by Ioannes/John, archbishop of Nicaea, addressed to Zak'aria, entitled ‘Concerning the Nativity of Christ’: Greenwood, ‘Failure of a mission?’, 133; Adonc’, Վասիլ I կայսեր տարիքը [The age and origin of emperor Basil i], 162; G. Yovsep'yan, Յիշատակարան ձեռագրաց [The colophon of the manuscripts], i, Ant'ilias 1951, 695.

¹⁸ Gհ. Alishan, Յուշիկք հայրենեաց հայոց [Stories of the Armenian homeland], i, Venice 1869, 457.

¹⁹ Akinean, ‘Թուղթ Փոտայ պատրիարքի’ [The letter of Patriarch Photios], 65–6; Papadopulo-Keramevs, ‘Թուղթ Փաւտայ պատրիարքի’ [The letter of Patriarch Photios], 180; Ch'amch’yan, Հայոց պատմություն [History of the Armenians], 682.

²⁰ Ibid.

²¹ N. Garsoian, ‘The problem of Armenian integration into the Byzantine Empire’, in H. Ahrweiler and A. Laiou (eds), Studies on the internal diaspora of the Byzantine Empire, Washington, DC 1998, 73; Greenwood, ‘Failure of a mission?’, 135.

²² Akinean, ‘Թուղթ Փոտայ պատրիարքի’ [The letter of Patriarch Photios], 65–6; Papadopulo-Keramevs, ‘Թուղթ Փաւտայ պատրիարքի’ [The letter of Patriarch Photios], 180; Ch'amch’yan, Հայոց պատմություն [History of the Armenians], 682. In two letters addressed to Pope Nicholas i, dated c. 860 and August/September 861 respectively, as well as in his encyclical letter to the patriarchs of the East in c. 860, Photios titled himself ‘bishop of Constantinople, New Rome’. The title ‘archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome’ is found in one letter, dated 883/884, and addressed to the archbishop of Aquilea. This title lays a claim to ecclesiastical supremacy. Its appearance seems to be a consequence of the bitter dispute with the papacy: Greenwood, ‘Failure of a mission?’, 135.

²³ Akinean, ‘Թուղթ Փոտայ պատրիարքի’ [The letter of patriarch Photios], 67–8.

²⁴ Ibid. 69–70.

²⁵ The universal history of Step'anos Tarōnec'i, introduction, trans. and comm. T. Greenwood, New York 2017, 153. The absence of any reference to the Catholicos Yovhannēs Gabełean travelling to Constantinople with Vardan Mamikonean and negotiating with the imperial Church is striking: ibid. 153 n. 134.

²⁶ Akinean, ‘Թուղթ Փոտայ պատրիարքի’ [The letter of patriarch Photios], 69–70. The seventh–century Armenian historian Sebeos writes about this but does not remember the council in Constantinople: Պատմութիւն ի Հերակլն [The story of Emperor Heracles], comp. G. Abgaryan, Yerevan 1979, 91.

²⁷ Akinean, ‘Թուղթ Փոտայ պատրիարքի’ [The letter of patriarch Photios], 69–71.

²⁸ V. Alek'sanyan, ‘Հայ–բյուզանդական’ [The Armenian–Byzantine],Vēm lxxiv/2 (2021), 44–5.

²⁹ V. Arutyunova-Fidanyan, ‘Полемика между халкидонитами и монофизитами и переписка патриарха Фотия’ [Controversy between Chalcedonites and Monophysites and correspondence of Patriarch Photius], Bестник Православный Свято-Тихоновский гуманитарный университет, I: Богословие, Философия, Религиоведение  [Journal of St Tikhon's Orthodox University of Humanities, I: Theology, Philosophy and Religious Studies] xxx/2 (2010), 27–8.

³⁰ Akinean, ‘Թուղթ Փոտայ պատրիարքի’ [The letter of Patriarch Photios], 67–8.

³¹ Ibid. Ch'amch’yan, Հայոց պատմություն [History of the Armenians], 681. The French historian Grusset mistakenly believes that Photios's letter was a response to Ašot Bagratuni's letter since Ašot had appealed to the empire after 862 to assert his rule: Ananean ‛Փոտ պատրիարքի թղթակցութիւնը’ [Correspondence of Patriarch Pհotios], cxlvi. 17.

³² ‛Իսկ Զաքարիա Հայոց կաթողիկոս արար ժողով ի Շիրակաւան եպիսկոպոսաց բազմաց եւ կրաւնաւորաց, առաջի Աշոտոյ Հայոց սպարապետին, քանզի անդ նստէր ի բանակի ազատակոյտ զաւրաւք իւրովք, զոր գումարեալ էր հիւսիսական կողմանց ապստամբութեան։ Անդ էր եւ Նանան ասորի, սարկաւագ մեծ եւ հռչակեալ փիլիսոփոս’։ Akinean, ‘Վահանայ … բանք’ [The speeches of Vahan], 258. Most likely, Vardan Arewelc'i also used the same colophon, but his information is inexplicably inconsistent with the facts recorded in the colophon. He reports that Photios, the Patriarch of Constantinople, in the year 318 (i.e. 869) sent the metropolitan of Nicaea, John, to him [Ašot], bearing a letter for Zak'aria in response to the question: ‘Why was the fourth council held?’: Vardan Arewelcʹi, 184; Վարդան վարդապետ [Scholar Vardan], 82. The date 869 mentioned by the narrator is not acceptable because between 867 and 877, Pհotios was dethroned. According to T. Greenwood, although Photios's letter must predate the Council of Širakawan, it is likely that it was sent to Zak‛aria by August or September 861: ‘Failure of a mission?’, 142, 150. M. Ormanean admits that he is not familiar with the original letter of Pհotios, but assumes that the correspondence took place in 864–7: Ազգապատում [History of the nation], 1136: According to the historian Viada Arutyunova-Fidanyan, no canonical document was adopted at the Council of Širakawan: the ‘documents’ of Širakawan were created by Chalcedonian Armenians, and there was no council as such: ‘Полемика’ [Controversy], 30–1. According to the material published by the historian Vazgen Hakobyan entitled ‘Collection of speeches of the ancestors’, the council had a religious agenda. The second document states that the Council of Širakawan ‘was convened to examine matters of faith’: Մանր ժամանակագրություններ XIII–XVIII դդ. [Small chronicles 13–18th centuries], ii, Yerevan 1956, 160. It is known that the deacon Nana, a prominent Assyrian scholar, participated in the council. In 812–13. Ašot Msaker (804–26) ordered him to write a brief commentary on the Gospel of John. In 813–16. Nana wrote an interpretation of the Gospel in Arabic and presented it to Ašot's son Bagarat Bagratuni (826–51): N. Akinean, Թեոդորոս Ապիկուռա եւ Նանա Ասորի [Theodorus Epicurus and Nana of Assyrian], Մատենագրական հետազոտութիւններ, i, Vienna 1922, 129–32.

³³ Akinean, ‘Վահանայ…բանք’ [The speeches of Vahan], 258 (introductory colophon), 258–62, 266–80 (treatise), 262–66 (canons of Širakawan).

³⁴ Ananean, ‛Փոտ պատրիարքի թղթակցութիւնը’ [‛Correspondence of Patriarch Pհotios’], cxlvii. 60–1; Greenwood, ‘Failure of a mission?’, 144.

³⁵ Igor Dorfmann-Lazarev maintains that these should be attributed to a non-Chalcedonian Armenian cleric rather than the Byzantine representative attending the Council of Širakawan. He therefore rejects the contention that Vahan is a corrupted form of Yovhan (John), preferring to envisage a second Armenian theologian at work։ Greenwood, ‛Failure of a mission?’, 143. The Russian author F. Roseykin suggests that Vahan/John edited Photios's letter before the Council of Širakawan: ‛Փոտի ջանքերը հայ եկեղեցին միացնելու Կ. Պոլսոյ կամ հունական եկեղեցուն’ [Photios’ efforts to unite the Armenian Church with the Constantinople or Greek Church], Ararat li/1–3 (1918), 52.

³⁶ Greenwood, ‘Failure of a mission?’, 146.

³⁷ Akinean, ‘Վահանայ…բանք’ [The speeches of Vahan], 263–6.

³⁸ Ibid. 265–6.

³⁹ Greenwood, ‘Failure of a mission?’, 147.

⁴⁰ ‘13. Եթէ ոք զՔաղկեդոնի ժողովն եւ զհետեւողս նորա հակառակ եւ կամ դիմամարտ գիտիցէ առաքելական կամ մարգարէական սահմանեալ տուչութեանն, կամ երից սրբոց ժողովոցն աւանդութեանն եւ կամ վասն ընչասիրութեան, եւ զնա ոչ նզովէ, նզովեալ եղիցի:

14. Եթէ ոք զՔաղկեդոնի Ժողովն կամ զհետեւողսն նորա, զՀինգերորդ ժողովն եւ զՎեցերորդն եւ զԵւթներորդն հետեւող եւ համախոհ գիտիցէ առաքելական եւ մարգարէական տուչութեանցն եւ երից սուրբ Ժողովոցն եւ յանդգնի նզովել կամ զրպարտել ընդ պղծոյն Նեստորի համաձայնեալ, այնպիսին զինքն նզովէ. զի գրեալ է. Եթէ ոք զոչ արժանին նզովից՝ նզովէ, յանձն իւր եւ ի գլուխն իւր նզովքն եղիցին. եւ եղիցի նզովեալ: Akinean, ‘Վահանայ…բանք’ [The speeches of Vahan], 265–6.

⁴¹ Greenwood, ‘Failure of a mission?’, 146.

⁴² Idem, ‘Armenian neighbours (600–1045)’, in Jonathan Sheperd (ed.), Cambridge history of the Byzantine Empire c. 500–1492, Cambridge 2008, 351; Greenwood, ‘Failure of a mission?’, 146.

⁴³ Greenwood, ‘Failure of a mission?’, 147; Ananean, ‛Փոտ պատրիարքի թղթակցութիւնը’ [Correspondence of Patriarch Pհotios], cxlvii. 59–61.

⁴⁴ Zak‛aria used those rules in particular in his ‛Treatise on the Nativity’: Ananean, ‛Փոտ պատրիարքի թղթակցութիւնը’ [Correspondence of Patriarch Pհotios], cxlvii. 60.

⁴⁵ Greenwood, ‘Failure of a mission?’, 161–2.

⁴⁶ K. Maksoudian, ‘The Chalcedonian issue and the early Bagratids: the Council of Širakawan’, Revue des études arméniennes (1988–9), 338.

⁴⁷ Garsoian, The problem of Armenian integration into the Byzantine empire, 73.

⁴⁸ Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon recognised the supremacy of the see of Constantinople over the Christians of the East as the new Rome. This meant that the Patriarch of Constantinople would have the right to ordain the leader of the Armenian Church, that is the Armenian Catholicos. However this canon was not ratified by Rome or the other patriarchates: Ananean, ‛Փոտ պատրիարքի թղթակցութիւնը’ [Correspondence of Patriarch Pհotios], cxlvii. 62.

⁴⁹ Encyclica epistola ad archiepiscopales thronos per Orientem obtinentes, Alexandrinum scilicet, et cgteros. ‛Nam qui incolunt Armeniam, Jacobitarum impietate impediti,contrarecte pietatis predicationem audecius se gerentes, ex eo tempore, quo sancta et numerosa Patrum nosirorum synodus apud Chalcedonem convenerat, vesiris nobiscum precibus in auxilium conspirantibus, longum illum errorem a se repellere valuere; ita ut hodie Armeniorum natio sincero et orthodoxo more Christianum cultum profiteatur, Eutychetem, Severum, Dioscorum, et Petros revera illos petrobolos jaciendis in Ecclesiam lapidibus, Julianum Halicarnassensem,necnon universam ipsorum varie diffusam dispersionem, ut et catholica Ecclesia, exsecretur, et indissolubilibus anathematum nexibus supposuerit conscrictos’: PG, Epp. i, ep. xiii, pp. 722–3; Greenwood, ‘Failure of a mission?’, 150, and ‘Armenian neighbours (600–1045)’, 351. As Jean-Pierre Mahe puts it in Greenwood, ‘Armenian neighbours (600–1045)’, ‘Le Cas prévu était la conversion de monophysites au dyophysisme et non l'inverse’; Ananean, ‛Փոտ պատրիարքի թղթակցութիւնը’ [Correspondence of Patriarch Pհotios], cxlvii. 59.

⁵⁰ Greenwood, ‘Failure of a mission?’, 150.

⁵¹ V. Vardanyan, ‛IX դարի երկրորդ կեսին պետություն և եկեղեցի հարաբերություններին առնչվող խնդիրների շուրջ’ [The problems related to the relations between the State and Church in the second half of the ninth century], PBH lxiii/2 (2003), 230.

⁵² On coming to power, the emperor Basil i (867–86) removed Photios for political reasons. Photios had taken a pronounced anti-papal position which was the main reason for the split between the two Churches, but the new emperor did not want strained relationships with the pope, whose sympathy was necessary for future conquests: N. Adonc’, Վասիլ հայազն [Basil Armenian], երկեր [scientific works], i, Yerevan 2006, 421, 424.

⁵³ Greenwood, ‘Armenian neighbours (600–1045)’, 351.

⁵⁴ Գիրք թղթոց (GT), [Book of letters], T'iflis 1901, 279–82. This letter was first published by N. Pogharyan: Մայր ցուցակ ձեռագրաց Սրբոց Յակոբեանց [The main list of manuscripts of St James], iii, Jerusalem 1968, 521–5. The same letter, with additions and full content, was also published by N. Akinean: ‘Պատճեն թղթոյն մեծի հայրապետին Կոստանդինուպոլսի Փոտայ առ Աշոտ իշխանաց իշխան’ [A copy of the letter of Photios, the great patriarch of Constantinople, to the prince of princes Ašot], HA lxxxii/10–12 (1968), 439–50.

⁵⁵ Greenwood, ‘Failure of a mission?’. ‘Photiօs seems to have opened parallel dialogue with the newly appointed Catholicos of Armenia Gēorg ii Gařnec'i (877–97), although the first exchange of letters has not survived and can only be inferred from references in later correspondence’: T. Greenwood, ‘The discovery of the relics of St Grigor and the development of Armenian tradition in 9th-century Byzantium’, in Elizabeth Jeffreys (ed.), Byzantine style, religion and civilization, Cambridge 2006, 182. The ‘Book of letters’ contains a short marginal colophon located next to the opening of this letter. It comprises two elements. The second of these reads ‘In the patriarchate of Gēorg, in the 20th [year] of the prince of princes … A[šot]’: GT  [Book of letters], 278. Based on this information, Ananean holds that the letter was written in 881: ‛Գիրք թղթոցի քանի մը խնդրական հարցեր’ [Some problematic issues of the book of letters], Bazmavep cxl/3–4 (1985), 263–4, and ‘Փոտ պատրիարքին նամակը Աշոտ իշխանին’ [The letter of Patriarch Photios to Prince Ašot], Bazmavep cxlviii/1–2 (1990), 9.

⁵⁶ V. Vardanyan, ‛IX դարի երկրորդ կեսին’ [In the second half of the ninth century], PBH ckxiii/2 (2003), 229.

⁵⁷ Akinean, ‘Պատճեն թղթոյն’ [A copy of the letter], 439–40; GT [Book of letters], 279. In the letters that the patriarch wrote to the Armenian king Ašot i, he declared himself his relative, which can be interpreted as an allusion to their common ethnic background. In one of his letters, which is only preserved in its Armenian version, Photios addressed Ašot with the word ‘hamasers’ (my kind), while in another preserved in Greek the references are more abundant and explicit: on several occasions, he used the word ‘family’ and in another the conclusive expression ‘blood relative’. As Shirinian has rightly demonstrated, Photios did not use these words metaphorically but to show a true common kinship that was highlighted by his demonstrable knowledge of Armenian history: P. Codeso and O. Dominguez, ‘Deconstructing Photios’, REB lxxi (2013), 127–8; cf. Shirinian, ‘Armenian elites in Constantinople’, 63–4.

⁵⁸ Akinean, ‘Պատճեն թղթոյն’ [A copy of the letter], 441–2.

⁵⁹ Ibid. 445–8; Greenwood, ‘Failure of a mission?’, 153.

⁶⁰ By orthodox kings, Photios means Basil i and his son and co-regent Levon vi (886–911).

⁶¹ Akinean, ‘Պատճեն թղթոյն’ [A copy of the letter], 447–50. The relationship between the rulers of the Byzantine Empire and ‘Greater Armenia’ was characterised by the term ‘spiritual son’. A well-informed author of the tenth century, Catholicos Draskhanakertc'i, testifies to this: ‘Basil, the great emperor of the Greeks, also offered terms of peace – which were in no way trivial, harmony and friendship to our king Ašot, whom he addressed as ‘‘Beloved son’’, and he communicated this to all the kingdoms in his dominion’: History of Armenia, 129; Yovhannēs Draskhanakertc'i, History of the Armenians, Ant'ilias–Libanan 2010, 444. The title of ‘spiritual son’ of the Byzantine emperor was the monopoly of the Bagratunis and began with Ašot i Bagratuni: K. Yuzbashyan, ‘Բագրատունյաց շրջանի Հայաստանը միջազգային իրավունքի տեսանկյունից’ [The Bagratids period in Armenia from the point of view of international law], PBH lxviii/1 (1975), 43.

⁶² Akinean, ‘Պատճեն թղթոյն’ [A copy of the letter], 443–6; GT  [Book of letters], 280.

⁶³ Akinean, ‘Պատճեն թղթոյն’ [A copy of the letter], 447–8; GT  [Book of letters], 281.

⁶⁴ P. Ananean, ‘Փոտ պատրիարքին նամակը’ [Letter of patriarch Photios], Bazmavep cxlviii/1–2 (1990), 10.

⁶⁵ C. Dixon, ‘Heresy, hostility and a paradise in full bloom: contextualising Photios' letter to the Armenians’, Byzantion lxxxix (2019), 213.

⁶⁶ Akinean, ‘Պատճեն թղթոյն’ [A copy of the letter], 449–50; GT  [Book of letters], 282. Greenwood writes: ‘The despatch of an embassy from Basil i to Ašot in 878 bearing valuable gifts from the emperor and news of this miraculous discovery is consistent with the amicable tone of the contemporary exchanges’: ‘The discovery of the relics’, 182; cf. ‘Failure of a mission?’, 154.

⁶⁷ Akinean, ‘Պատճեն թղթոյն’ [A copy of the letter], 449–50; GT  [Book of letters], 282. Independent corroboration for this action is to be found in a colophon dated 342 (Armenian era) (17 April 893–16 April 894) which gives a brief account of the life of Maštoc’ Yeghivardec'i (897–8), the short–lived successor to Gēorg as Catholicos: A. Mat'evosyan, Հայերեն ձեռագրերի հիշատակարաններ V–XII դդ. [The colophons of the Armenian manuscripts fifth to twelfth centuries], Yerevan 1988, 42.

⁶⁸ Gh. Alishan, Հայապատում [History of the Armenians], ii, Venice 1901, 42–8; ‛Պատմութիւն յաղագս գիւտի նշխարաց Սրբոյն Գրիգորի հայոց մեծաց Լուսաւորչի’ [History of the discovery of the relics of the great Armenian Illuminator St Gregory], Ararat xxxvi/11–12 (1902), 1179–83; Greenwood, ‘The discovery of the relics’, 177–91, and ‘Failure of a mission?’, 154–9. The relics were brought to Armenia during the reign of Basil i. Basil played a great role in reopening relations, so it can be assumed that he gave great importance to the issue of Armenia: C. Dixon, ‘Heresy, hostility and a paradise in full bloom’, Byzantion lxxxix (2019), 211.

⁶⁹ Dixon is convinced that the ‛Letter to the Armenians’ is the second document addressed to Catholicos Zak'aria: ‘Heresy, hostility and a paradise in full bloom’, 219–29.

⁷⁰ J. Darrouzes, ‘Deux Lettres inedites de Photios aux Armeniens’, REB xxix (1971), 154, 162.

⁷¹ Greenwood, ‘Failure of a mission?’ 163.

⁷² Darrouzes, ‘Deux Lettres’, 158, 160, 162. Previous commentators have sought to interpret this letter in the context of Photios's exchange with Zak'aria and have therefore dated it to the period immediately before the Council of Širakawan: ibid. 138–9.

⁷³ Greenwood, ‘Failure of a mission?’, 163.

⁷⁴ The universal history of Step'anos Tarōnec'i., 212. The letter is known under the title ‘Answering letter Photios, written by the Armenian vardapet Sahak, by the order of the Armenian prince Ašot’: N. Akinean, ‛Պատասխանի թղթոյն Փոտայ գրեալ Սահակայ Հայոց վարդապետի հրամանաւ Աշոտայ իշխանաց իշխանի հայոց’ [The answer to the letter of Photiօs written by the Armenian scholar Sahak by the order of the Armenian prince of princes Ašot], HA lxxxii/10–12 (1968), 451–71; GT [Book of letters], 283–94. Sahak's letter is also known to later Armenian medieval historians: ‘The historical compilation of Vardan Arewelcʹi’, 186; Scholar Vardan, 85; Kirakos Ganjakets'i’, History of the Armenians, trans. from classical Armenian by Robert Bedrosian, New York 1986, § 72.

⁷⁵ Greenwood, ‘Failure of a mission?’, 159.

⁷⁶ Leo's Tome was a letter sent by Pope Leo i to Flavian of Constantinople, explaining the position of the papacy in matters of Christology. The text confesses that Christ has two natures, both fully human and fully divine. The letter was a topic of debate at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 being eventually accepted as a doctrinal explanation of the nature of the Person of Christ.

⁷⁷ GT [Book of letters], 284–5; Akinean, ‛Պատասխանի թղթոյն Փոտայ’ [The answer to Photios's letter], 455–6.

⁷⁸ GT [Book of letters], 286; Akinean, ‛Պատասխանի թղթոյն Փոտայ’ [The answer to Photios's letter], 457–8.

⁷⁹ Ibid.

⁸⁰ Greenwood, ‘Failure of a mission?’, 160.

⁸¹ GT [Book of letters], 291–2; Akinean, ‛Պատասխանի թղթոյն Փոտայ’ [The answer to Photios's letter], 467–8.

⁸² K. Yuzbashyan K., Армянские государства эпохи Багратидов и Византия IX–XIвв [The Armenian states of the Bagratid era and Byzantium ninth-eleventh centuries], Moscow 1988, 100.

⁸³ GT [Book of letters], 293; Akinean, ‛Պատասխանի թղթոյն Փոտայ’ [The answer to Photios's letter], 469–70.

⁸⁴ GT [Book of letters], 294; Akinean, ‛Պատասխանի թղթոյն Փոտայ’ [The answer to Photios's letter], 471–2.

⁸⁵ Greenwood, ‘Armenian neighbours (600–1045)’, 351.

⁸⁶ Ananean, ‘Փոտ պատրիարքին նամակը’ [Letter of Patriarch Photios], Bazmavep cxlviii/1–2 (1988), 14.

⁸⁷ Darrouzes, ‘Deux Lettres’, 140–53; J. Laurent, L'Arménie entre Byzance et l'Islam, depuis la conquête arabe jusqu'en 886, Paris 1919, 310–11; Ananean, ‛Փոտ պատրիարքի թղթակցութիւնը’ [‛Correspondence of Patriarch Pհotios’], cxlvi. 18.

⁸⁸ Greenwood, ‘Failure of a mission?’, 160.

⁸⁹ Darrouzes, ‘Deux Lettres’, 140.

⁹⁰ Greenwood, ‘Failure of a mission?’, 160–1.

⁹¹ Ibid. 161.

⁹² Darrouzes, ‘Deux Lettres’, 146.

⁹³ Greenwood, ‘Failure of a mission?’, 161.

⁹⁴ He was awarded this title in 863 or between 870 and 873 during the Byzantine campaigns against the Paulicians: Հայոց պատմություն, II: միջին դարեր (IV–XVII դարի առաջին կես), գիրք II, [History of the Armenians, II: Middle Ages (from the fourth century to the first half of the seventeenth century)], ii, Yerevan 2014, 106.

⁹⁵ Greenwood, ‘Armenian neighbours (600–1045)’, 352, and ‘Failure of a mission?’, 161.

⁹⁶ Idem, ‘Failure of a mission?’, 162.

⁹⁷ Ibid. 162–3, and ‘Armenian neighbours (600–1045)’, 351–2.