¹ Armeniǎ v epoxu Yustiniana (St. Petersburg 1908).Google Scholar

² For the Mamikonids, cf. ‘The Fifteenth-Century Bagratids and the Institution of Collegial Sovereignty in Georgia’ in this issue, I n.59.Google Scholar

³ Vasiliev, A. A., Justin the First. An Introduction to the Epoch of Justinian the Great (Dumbarton Oaks Studies I; Cambridge, Mass. 1950) 259–262.Google Scholar

⁴ Bell. pers. 1.12.1-13.Google Scholar

⁵ Christensen, A., L'Iran sous les Sassanides (2nd ed. Copenhagen 1944) 350.Google Scholar

⁶ Cf. op. cit. 356–357 Google Scholar

⁷ Op. cit. 348.Google Scholar

⁸ Markwart, J., Osteur. u. ostas. Streifzüge (Leipzig 1903) 431.Google Scholar

⁹ For Juanšer's Hist. of King Vaxtang Gorgasal , cf. Traditio 5 (1947) 341 and n.14; Tarchnišvili, M., ‘Sources arméno-géorgiennes de l'histoire ancienne de l'Eglise de Géorgie,’ Le Muséon 60 (1947) 42; Le Muséon 62 (1949) 35 n.3; cf. Traditio 1 (1943) 169-171.—Other sources include a chronicle of Iberian monarchs appended to the Conversion of Iberia (cf. infra n.24). This chronicle is brought down to the epoch of Guaram, son of Ašot I, and bears traces of dependence on Juanšer. Its date must lie somewhere between that of the death of Ašot I (traditionally 826) and the year 973, when the Šatberdi Codex, where it is found, was copied (Traditio 1.150).Google Scholar

¹⁰ For the origin of that sobriquet (also=Gurgaslan), cf. Hist. Vaxt. Gorg. Q[ueen] A[nne Codex] (Tiflis 1942) 121= Q[ueen] M[ary Variant] (Tiflis 1906) 160; cf. Brosset, M., Hist. de la Géorgie I 1 (St. Petersburg 1849) 178 nn.1, 2.Google Scholar

¹¹ This subject merits a special and detailed study; only a few salient examples can be given here.Google Scholar

¹² For this revolt, cf. Grousset, R., Hist. de l'Arménie (Paris 1947) 215–226. —The chronology of this revolt is somewhat different in Grousset, but this is what follows from the text of Lazar P'arpec'i, Hist. Armen.: Vaxtang revolts in the 25th year of the Great King Pērωz (Laz. 58); this date can be either 484 or 482 depending on whether the regnal years were counted from the beginning of Pērωz's revolt against his elder brother Hormizd III or from his definitive accession to the throne after the latter's death, cf. P Peeters in Anal. Boll. 53 (1935) 279 n.1; it is obviously 482. (First) Winter passes (Laz. 61). Battle of Akesga (Laz. 62-62). (Second) Winter passes (Laz. 65). Spring (Laz. 66). Zarmihr arrives in Armenia (ibid.). Pērωz departs for the Hephtalite war and orders Zarmihr to chastise Vaxtang (Laz. 68). Iberia invaded; Vaxtang flees west; Šāhpuhr viceroy of Armenia (Laz. 69). Pērωz killed in the war; the news reach Armenia (Laz. 73): this took place in 484 (Christensen, , op. cit. 294).Google Scholar

¹³ The first part of the name gurg or gorg (Old Pers. wrkaina=Pehl. cf. Justi, F., Iran. Namenbuch [Marburg 1895] 355–356) is paronymous with Gurgen= — Various older historians tended to regard Gorgasal as distinct from — Brosset, , Additions et éclaircissements à l'Histoire de la Géorgie (St. Petersburg 1851) 85 (Brosset thought the latter to have been a local dynast, not a king, of Iberia); Marquart, , Streifzüge 431 (he ignored the former); Javaxišvili, I., K'art'vel eris istoria I (Tiflis 1913) 188-190, cf. 193-196; Gorgaje, S. E., ‘Cerileba sak'art'velos istoriidan,’ L'Ancienne Géorgie 2 (1913) 66-67. Their error was due to the fact that, instead of following the synchronisms found in the source itself, they followed the erroneous chronological system set up by the eighteenth-century Georgian polyhistor Vaxušt, according to which Vaxtang Gorgasal reigned from 446 to 499. Gorgaje, on the other hand, proposed different regnal years for that sovereign — 450-503. Nevertheless he argued against the identification proposed in this review on the ground that since Lazar does not mention Vaxtang's sobriquet, it must have been a later invention; op. cit. 63. To this it should be replied that, firstly, the Armenians were in a better position than the Romans to differentiate between the King's name and his sobriquet, and used only the former, as is in fact often done in the Hist. Vaxt. Gorg. itself; and, secondly, that, according to that source, Vaxtang acquired the sobriquet in question only after his interference in Armenia. Thus, to his new allies, the Romans, the King's freshly acquired nom de guerre was easily more familiar than his praenomen. Google Scholar

¹⁴ At 16, Vaxtang waged war on the Ossetians and attacked for 3 years the Roman dominions in Western Georgia; QA 98-103=QM 129-136;—then he married; QA 104=QM 136-137.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Christensen, , op. cit. 289–290.Google Scholar

¹⁶ QA 136-137=QM 180-181.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Cf. Stein, , 92–101.Google Scholar

¹⁸ QA 105-120=QM 138-158: Vaxtang's earlier expedition against the Empire (472; cf. Priscus, , De legat. gent. 22 [ap. Const. Porph. Excerpta hist. PG 113. 701], his interference in Armenia, and his penetration into Pontus.Google Scholar

¹⁹ QA 138-139=QM 183-184. There are, moreover, references to the Emperor's contact with the Huns (‘Khazars’); QA 121, 123=QM 159, 162; and the detail of Probus, the Emperor Anastasius I's nephew, sent to the Huns in order to obtain aid for Iberia, is given in the misplaced and disfigured reference to one Palekartos, son of the Emperor's sister; QA 110-118=QM 145-156; cf. Procopius, , Bell. pers. 1.12.6-11.Google Scholar

²⁰ It has been thought (e.g., Marquart, , Streifzüge 431; Vasiliev, , Justin I 270-172) that Vaxtang-Gorgasal proceeded from Lazica to Constantinople. All that Procopius says, however, is that ‘afterwards, the Iberians presented themselves in Byzantium’ (Bell. pers. 1.12.14), which may mean that only some of the fugitives who followed the King, not necessarily the King himself, did so. It is interesting that Vaxtang's great adversary, Kavādh I, also died at the age of 82 or 80; Christensen, , op. cit. 296 n.6.Google Scholar

²¹ QA 140-141=QM 185-187. It has been assumed by some (e.g., Marquart, , loc. cit. ; Bury, J. B., Hist. Later Rom. Emp. II [London 1931] 170 and n.3) that the Iberian prince Peranius, who was a general in the Roman service, was a son of King Vaxtang-Gorgasal. Actually, the words of Procopius, that the King (Bell.pers. 1.12.11) imply rather that Peranius was the eldest of his brothers. Google Scholar

²² QA 141=QM 188.Google Scholar

²³ For the Conversion of Iberia, cf. Traditio 1. 149-153; Tarchnišvili, , op. cit. 34-37. For Leonti Mroveli, cf. ibid. 37–42; Traditio 5. 341 n.13; cf. Traditio 1. 166-169.Google Scholar

²⁴ Conv. of Iber ed. Žordania, , K'ronikebi I (Tiflis 1892) 39; Hist. Kings Iber. QA 82= QM 109. — When dealing with expressions like ‘in the 14th’ or ‘in the 15th year’, an allowance must obviously be made for one year; thus, the 4th year after St. Nino's arrival in Iberia can be either 327 or 328, etc. Google Scholar

²⁵ Cf. DACL 5.350-384; T'aqaišvili, E., “Georgian Chronology and the Beginnings of Bagratid Rule in Georgia,’ Georgica 1. 1 (1935) 9–11.Google Scholar

²⁶ Cf. idem in Sbornik Materialov Kavkaza 28 (1900) 16 n.3. — Conv. of Iber. 27; in the 10th year after the year 310 ‘after the Ascension’, the Empress Helena journeyed to Jerusalem in search of the True Cross (320); and in the 14th year, St. Nino arrived in Iberia (324). —According to Annianus, AM. 5838=A.D. 337; DACL loc. cit. Google Scholar

²⁷ Cf. preceding note.Google Scholar

²⁸ Conv. of Iber. 29. According to the Hist. Kings Iber., 3 years passed before St. Nino began her preaching (QA 58); and the King hesitated for a year after the Queen's conversion (QA 64).Google Scholar

²⁹ Tarchnišvili, , Sources 30–37, 40-41; cf. Traditio 1. 149-153.Google Scholar

³⁰ Life of St. Nino ed. T'aqaišvili in Sbornik Materialov 42 (1912) 16 (the word ‘Saturday’ and much of the subsequent passage are lost with a missing folio of the Šatberdi Collection of 973, but are found in the Čeliši Collection of the XIVth c.); Hist. Kings Iber. QA 66=QM 89 (QA has erroneously: June 20).Google Scholar

³¹ Life of St. Nino 32; Hist. Kings Iber. QA 76=QM 101. —For the sequence of events in connection with the Conversion of Iberia, as presented by various sources (Rufinus, the Conv. of Iber., Life of St. Nino, Mroveli's Hist. Kings Iber., and Movsēs Xorenac'i), cf. Tarchnišvili, , Sources 32 etc. Google Scholar

³² The story of the apparition of a luminous Cross in the sky, following the raising of the crosses by St. Nino is an obvious adaptation of an account of the similar event in Jerusalem in 351 ( Tarchnišvili, , Sources 37); even the raising of the crosses by the Illuminatrix appears to have been a later addition to the primitive narrative (ibid. 34-37); but the felling of the sacred tree strikes one as an authentic detail.Google Scholar

³³ Cf. de Mas-Lattrie, L., Trésor de chronologie (Paris 1889) 350, 380: within the limits of historical possibility, March 25 fell on a Friday in 337 and July 20 on a Saturday in 334, since in 337 Easter fell on April 3 and in 334 it fell on April 7; cf. Hist. de la Gé. I 1 122 n.4.Google Scholar

³⁴ For the traditional dates of the Conversion of Iberia cf. Hist. de la Gé. I 1. 128 n.4; for the most recent study, cf. Tarchnišvili, M., “Die Legende der hl. Nino und die Geschichte des georgischen Nationalbewusstseins,’ Byz. Zeitschr. 40 (1940) 48–75.Google Scholar

³⁵ QA 83=QM 110. The Chronique armén. (XIIIth c adaptation of a part of the Georgian Annals; cf. Traditio 1. 161; 5. 344) has the 34th year and the Brosset MS of the Annals, the 35th (Hist. de la Gé. I 1. 131 n.1). This date was apparently obtained by computing from the beginning of St. Nino's apostolate (327/328+15/14=362). — St. Mirian (Meribanes) was being cajoled by the Roman government into an alliance c. 361; Ammianus Marcellinus 21.6.8.Google Scholar

³⁶ Bell. pers. 2.28.20-21. This has been accepted by Vasiliev, , op. cit. 271, and Stein, 294; but cf. Marquart, , op. cit. 432. Stein would doubt the authenticity of the visit of to Constantinople in 535, as recorded by Theophanes, A.M. 6027 (PG 108. 476) and would regard it as a repetition of the story of 295 n.1. Yet, as we have seen, Procopius does not mention the King of Iberia's arrival in Constantinople; and the other Iberian ruler is mentioned also by Malalas (PG 97. 633); cf. Marquart, , loc. cit. — It has become traditional in modern Georgian historiography to consider the abolition of the kingship as having occurred between the flight of Vaxtang-Gorgasal and the ‘Eternal Peace’ of Justinian and Chosroes of 532, wherein the Romans are held to have tacitly recognized the fait accompli ( Javaxišvili, , K'art'vel eris istoria I 194-197; A. Gugushvili in Georgia 1. 2-3 (1936) 115; Allen, W, A History of the Georgian People [London 1932] 376-377). The only reference to the Iberian affairs in the ‘Eternal Peace’ was a clause providing that the Iberian émigrés at Constantinople might decide for themselves whether to return to their homeland or to remain in the Empire; Procopius, , Bell. pers. 1.22.16. The only tacitly admitted clause was the Roman recognition of the continued Iranian suzerainty over Iberia (cf. Stein 294), which, of course, had nothing to do with an abolition of the Iberian monarchy. Cf. the foll. n.Google Scholar

³⁷ It appears that the successors of Vaxtang Gorgasal no longer resided in Iberia, or at Tiflis at any rate: this is clear from the contemporary Martyrdom of St. Eustace of Mc'xet'a; instead, the Iranian viceroys sat in the capital city and ruled in concert with the local princes. The posterity of Vaxtang, on the other hand, established their residence in the province of Kakhetia. That land appears as an appanage of the Chosroid dynasty since the days of St. Mirian (cf. Leonti Mroveli QA 44,80,86,88=QM 55,107,114,116; Hist. Vaxt. Gorg. QA 126,135,136,138=QM 166,179,180,182). The Kakhetian mountains were the object of a special missionary effort of King Dač'i I (Juanšer QA 140z=QM 186) and he is referred to by the chronicle appended to the Convers. Iber. (51) by the territorial epithet i.e., Lord of a royal castle in Kakhetia. After the abolition of the monarchy, the children of Bacurius III remained in the mountainous regions of Kakhetia (Juanšer QA 142=QM 190). Kakhetia, thus, was a demesne of the royal house; and since the successors of Vaxtang were not in Tiflis, they must have been relegated to that demesne and allowed to enjoy the royal dignity in a more or less titular capacity This would explain the statement of Procopius. But the actual abolition — even of the vestiges — of the monarchy occurred after the death of King Bacurius III (c. 579-580); Juanšer QA 142-143=QM 189-90.Google Scholar

³⁸ Theological Studies 7 (1946) 214 etc. Google Scholar

³⁹ In this connection, mention could be made, e.g., of the term ‘Melkite’, i.e., Imperialist, which designated those who adhered to Chalcedonite (Papal!) orthodoxy, as well as of the title of Oecumenical Patriarch, i.e., Patriarch of the Imperial universe arrogated by the Constantinopolitan bishops.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ This basic principle of the Byzantine Establishment is manifested with clarity in the teaching of great Byzantine canonists, such as Theodore Balsamon and Demetrius Chomatenus. Thus, e.g., according to them, Caesar is above all canons as well as all laws and is possessed of the supreme power of jurisdiction in the Establishment ( Balsamon, , In canonem XVI Carthag. PG 138. 93); he is greater than the Patriarch, because he is in charge of both men's souls and bodies, whereas the latter is in charge of men's souls only (idem, Meditata sive Responsa de patr.,*** privilegiis, PG 138. 1017); he is possessed of the magisterium, for he is the supreme Doctor of the Church and he unites in himself all the privileges of the Supreme Pontificate, save only the Holy Orders (Chomatenus, , Resp. ad Const. Cabasilam in Leunclavius, , Jus graeco-romanum 5. 317). The declaration of the Constantinopolitan Patriarch Anthony IV that ‘it is impossible for Christians to have the Church, but not to have the Emperor’ ( Miklosich, and Müller, , Acta et diplomata graeca medii aevi 2 [Vienna 1862] 191 a. 1394–1397) is still another manifestation of the same principle. In other words, the duties of unifying, governing, and teaching in the Byzantine Establishment were rendered to Caesar, solely that of sanctifying remained within the exclusive competence of the ministerium. It should be added, however, that, despite the officiai caesaropapistic doctrine of Byzantine Orthodoxy, the vestigial Catholicism of some few ecclesiastics expressed itself, on rare occasions, in orthodox protestations against it (cf., e.g., Simeon of Thessalonica, De sacris ordinationibus PG 155). — For the survival and flowering of the pagan cult of Caesar in Byzantine Christendom, cf. Bréhier, L., Les institutions de l'empire byzantin (Paris 1949) 53-88.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Cf. 38 n.3, 135 n.1, 182 n.5, 191 n.3, 232 n.3, 259 n.2, 639 n.3, 641 n.1, 642 n.5, 646 n.1, 648 n.1, 651, n.1, 657 n.1, 662 n.1, 666 n.2, 675 n.1.Google Scholar

⁴² DThC 9 (1926) 2001: ‘Comme la défaillance du pape Marcellin n'est pas davantage prouvée que son martyre, il vaut mieux avec L. Duchesne se tenir sur la réserve.’ We may remark with St. Augustine (cf. ibid.) that this accusation without proof is to be rejected without discussion; and the fact that some Catholics of subsequent generations believed this story is no more proof of its validity (cf. H. Leclercq, DACL 10 [1931] 1762–1773) than the fact that some Catholics believed in the existence of Pope Joan is a proof of the veracity of that fable.Google Scholar