¹ Preliminary Note on the Transcription of the Georgian Alphabet. The Georgian alphabet is perfectly adapted to the language. Every sound in Georgian is represented by a single letter of that alphabet. However, some Georgian sounds can be rendered into English only by a combination of letters; others can be only hinted at because English possesses no corresponding sounds. Thus two systems have been adopted in this study for rendering Georgian words into English. The one is that of literal transcription, the other, that of phonetic transcription or transliteration. According to the former, every single letter of the Georgian alphabet is made to correspond to a single letter of the English alphabet—often with diacritical marks. Literal transcription is used mainly in the notes. According to the other system, that of phonetic transcription or transliteration, Georgian sounds are—when necessary—expressed, or nearly expressed, by combinations of English letters. This system is used—chiefly for aesthetic reasons—in the English text of the study Here are the two transcriptions of certain Georgian letters, first the literal then the phonetic:Google Scholar

These transcriptions are likewise applied to the corresponding Russian, Armenian, Arabic, and Persian sounds. Except that the Russian equivalent of the 15th letter and the first letter in the transcription of the Russian iotated vowels is rendered by “j”; that the 26th letter of the Russian alphabet is rendered by “y”; and that the Armenian equivalent of the 26th Georgian letter is literally transcribed as “ł”.—As regards the geographical appellations, Graeco-Latin equivalents are preferred to the less familiar autochthonous forms. In default of such equivalents, the names of larger territorial divisions (kingdoms, principalities, etc.) have been latinized, through the substitution of the suffix -ia for the corresponding Georgian territorial suffix -et'i .Google Scholar

² It is important to bear in mind that, from the point of view of the Mediterranean World—geopolitically the correct one—, Georgia lies in “Cis-Caucasia”; the term “Trans-Caucasia” is due to the much later, and far less natural, point of view of the Russian Empire. From the beginning, Cis-Caucasia was Asianic (of Asia Minor) and, therefore, Mediterranean, rather than Iranian, and still less anything else. The archaeological discoveries of 1936–1940 in the Calka region west of Tiflis have brought to light the existence, in about the fifteenth–fourteenth century B.C., of a highly developed Bronze-age civilization of Asianic, Proto-Hattian affinities in what is now central Georgia. Cf. Ušakov, P, “The Hatti Problem:—On the Question of the Genesis and Interrelation of the Indo-European and Kartvelian Languages” (in Russian), Travaux de l'Université Staline à Tbilissi (Tiflis), XVIII (1941), 93, 109, 111–112. Moreover, the Caspians—perhaps heirs to the Calka Culture—whom the Georgian tribes encountered upon their migration to Cis-Caucasia, may have also been near-Proto-Hattian, cf. op. cit., pp. 90, 109.Google Scholar

³ The Kaška—of Proto-Hattian and Japhetite affinities and originating from the Marmora coast—first appear in the Hittite records in the mid-fourteenth century B.C., a menace to the Hittite Empire from the Pontic regions. Instrumental in bringing about that empire's downfall in the twelfth century, the Kaška moved southwards and met the Assyrians: a part of them was repulsed and settled in Pontic Caucasia as the Kόλχοι of the Greek records, another part formed a state in Cappadocia, vassal to the Assyrians in the eighth century.—The Muška—representing most probably the pre-Indo-European, Japhetite population of Phrygia—first appear in the Assyrian records of the mid-twelfth century, when, after the collapse of the Hittite Empire, they founded a state of first-rate importance in Cappadocia, which was also referred to in the Bible as Mosoch.—The Muška's close southerly neighbor was the people-state of Tabal-Tibar, the Thubal of the Bible. It occupied parts of Cilicia and Cappadocia and was a vassal of Assyria from the eleventh century B.C. Both the Tabalians and the Mushkians possessed a high degree of civilization and a renown for metallurgy. Dislodged by the Cimmerian invasion of the seventh century, they both moved northeastwards to the sources of the Tigris and Euphrates, where, in the next century, we find them as the Mόσχοι and the Tιβαρβνοί of the Greeks, settled in the vicinity of other kindred Japhetites (like the Matieni-Mitannians, Saspeires-Subarians, Allarodii, Chald(ae)i-Urartians, Chalybi, Coeti, Taochi, Phasiani, etc.) and forming (together with the kindred Macrones, Mossynoeci, and Mares), as vassals of the Achaemenid Empire, the XIXth Satrapy of Darius.—The appear in the Greek records of the sixth century as ∑ινῆλοι or as the composite Muška-Son people of Mοσσύνοικοι in the XIXth Satrapy.—The K'art'(uel)—of Khaldo-Urartian affinities—appear in the fifth century as the Kαρδοῦχοι of Xenophon. Google Scholar

This historical introduction does not purport to be anything more than a mere outline, and to furnish it with an adequate apparatus criticus (which the above statements would require, were this study dedicated to this and not its present subject) has been judged superfluous. A few works, however, may be cited, especially as what may be termed Proto-Georgian history has not yet been sufficiently treated in the West. These are: Ivane J̌avaxišvili, The History of the Georgian People (in Georgian), I and II (Tiflis, 1913) ff.; idem, the article on Georgian History in The Great Soviet Encyclopaedia (in Russian), XIX (Moscow, 1930), 558 ff.; Allen, W E. D., A History of the Georgian People (London, 1932)—these works are referred to here for the rest of this historical outline. Also:—Ušakov, On the Quest. of the Genesis and Interr of the Indo-Europ. and Kartv. Langu.; Simon J̌anašia, “Thubal-Tabal, Tibareni, Iberi” (in Georgian), Bulletin de l'Institut Marr de Langues, d'Histoire et de Culture matérielle, I, (1937), 185–245; idem, “The Most Ancient National Reference to the Original Habitat of the Georgians, in the Light of Near Eastern History” (in Georgian), Bulletin de l'Institut Marr, V–VI, (1940) 633–694; Marr, N., Selected Works (in Russian), I (Leningrad, 1933); Khudadov, V N (Xudadov), “The Xaldo-Urartians after the Downfall of the Vannic Kingdom” (in Russian), Revue de l'Histoire Ancienne, II, 3 (1938), 122 ff.; Lehmann-Haupt, C. F., “On the Origin of the Georgians”, Georgica, IV–V (1937), 43–79; Tseretheli, M. “The Asianic (Asia Minor) Elements in National Georgian Paganism”, Georgica, I, 1 (1935), 28–66; Cavaignac, E., “L'extension de la zone des Gasgas à l'Orient”, Revue hittite et asianique, III (1931), 101–110. Moreover various articles in The Cambridge Ancient History may be consulted, e.g., Campbell Thompson, R., “Assyria”, C.A.H. II, 239, 249; Hogarth, D. G., “The Hittites of Asia Minor”, ibid., p. 271; Sidney Smith, “The Supremacy of Assyria”, op.cit. III, 55 (for the Kaška-Colchi);— Thompson, R. C., pp. 247, 248, 249; Hogarth, D. G., pp. 272, 274; idem, “The Hittites of Syria”, C.A.H. III, 137–138; idem, “Lydia and Ionia”, ibid., p. 503; Gray, G. B. and Cary, M., “The Reign of Darius”, IV, 195 (for the Muška-Moschi);— Langdon, S. H., “The Dynasties of Akkad and Lagash”, C.A.H. I, 418; Hogarth, “The Hittites of Asia Minor”, p. 272; Smith, S., “The Supremacy of Assyria”, p. 55; Hogarth, , “The Hittites of Syria”, p. 137; Gray, and Cary, , “The Reign of Darius”, p. 195 (for the Tabal-Tibareni);— Langdon, S. H., “The Sumerian Revival”, C.A.H. I, 458–459 (for the Kart-Carduchi); as well as Albrecht Götze, “Kleinasien” in Kulturgeschichte des Alten Orients (Munich, 1933), pp. 49, 95, 118, 168, 187 (for the Kaška), 108, 187 (for the Muška), and 185 (for Tabal); Hall, H. R., The Ancient History of the Near East (London, 1932), pp. 386, 488; and, finally, various articles, treating of the different Caucasian peoples mentioned by the Greek authors, in Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll, Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft.—Regarding the K'art'vels-Carduchi connection, and the absence of such connection between the Carduchi of Xenophon and the modern Kurds, see Lehmann-Haupt, op.cit., pp. 43 ff, 60 ff. For the linguistic division of the Georgians into the following three branches: (1) Thubal-Cain or Ibero-M-egr-elian and (2) Suanian, and (3) K'art'velian and Mušk-Mesxian, see Marr, op.cit., p. 48 etc. For the Japhetic theory, cf. below, n. 8. Google Scholar

⁴ The name κόλχις is derived from the Kaška-Colchi, the first Proto-Georgians to settle in Cis-Caucasia. Google Scholar

^4a This name is due to an immigration to Pontic Georgia of the Tabal-Tibareni, cf. n. 6.Google Scholar

⁵ The Caucasian Albanians (A҇nuans) were a Japhetite people, of possibly Chalybian affinities, culturally Armenianized; cf. Allen, , History, p. 19 etc.; for an excellent outline of Albanian history and geography, cf. Acad. Krymskij, A. E., “Pages from the History of Northern or Caucasian Azerbaijan (Classical Albania)” (in Russian), Collection of Articles Dedicated to S. F Oldenburg (ed. by the Academy of Sciences of U.S.S.R.: Leningrad, 1934), pp. 289–305. Google Scholar

⁶ The word Iββρία is derived from the root Tabal-Tibar(en)-Iber The presence of the Tabal-Tibareni in Colchis must no doubt have given rise to its Georgian name of Egrisi, through the mutation Iber-Eger. Cf. Gugushvili, A., “Ethnographical and Historical Division of Georgia”, Georgica, I, 2 and 3 (1936), 53–71.Google Scholar

⁷ The name M∊σχία appears in the Byzantine chronicles (e.g., Cedrenus, II [Bonn.], p. 572), and, since it seems preferable to replace, wherever possible, the local and less familiar forms by their Classical equivalents, the form Meschia(n) will be used throughout instead of Meskhia(n), or Mesxet'i, Mesxia(n). Google Scholar

⁸ The term “Japhetite” is due to the late Georgian Professor Nicholas Marr, and has been used by him and his school at different stages of the development of their theory to designate different things. The best English survey of Marr's theory (and its development) will be found in Gugushvili, A., “Nicholas Marr and His Japhetic Theory”, Georgica, I, 1 (1935), 101–115. It is beyond the scope of this study to pass any judgment on the later stages of this theory's development, which tend to see in the Japhetite languages no longer an individualized group, but an epoch in the development of languages in general. All this is, of course, beyond the possibilities of historical research, and the formulations of Marr's school border on what one may term “Marxian metaphysics” That part of the theory, however, which admits of verification by history and philology and which is based on strict historical and philological research, is beyond all doubt of a very great value and significance. It not only faces the fact of the existence, in the history of the Mediterranean World, of a number of peoples whose languages are outside the Semitic, Hamitic, Indo-European, or Uralo-Altaic complexes, but it also boldly recognizes an intrinsic relationship between these languages (and peoples) and explains whatever affinities have been found between some of them.Google Scholar

Western science has been continually confronted with the problem of a few languages from the Pyrenees to the Caucasus and the Persian Gulf, such as Basque, Georgian, Sumerian, which could not be fitted into any recognized linguistic groups. Moreover, affinities between various Caucasian, Asianic, and Aegean languages (such as Georgian, Mitannian, Subarean, Elamite, Sumerian, Xaldian, Xurrian, Proto-Hattian, Lycian, Lydian, Etruscan, etc.), and their distinctness from any other linguistic group have now been generally attested (cf., e.g., Ušakov, On the Quest. of the Genesis and Interr, of the Indo-Europ. and Kartv. Languages; George Cameron, G., History of Early Iran [Chicago, 1936] chapt. 1; Speiser, , Mesopotamian Origins [Philadelphia, 1930] etc.) Google Scholar

It is this distinct element that Marr has termed Japhetite. The name itself, to be sure, is purely arbitrary As “Japhetic”, it used to be synonymous with “Indo-European”; Marr chose it because, according to the Bible, Japheth was the father to Thubal and Mosoch, who symbolize the two leading Proto-Georgian tribes (cf. Marr, , Selected Works, p. 23 n. 3). This linguistic group, which may represent likewise a cultural and ethnic entity, appears to have been the earliest formative element in the culture of the Mediterranean world, which to this day bears its onomastic traces (cf. Marr, , op.cit.; J̌avaxišvili History, I–II; idem, Introduction à l'Hist. du peuple géorgien, II: “La structure originelle et la parenté des langues géorgienne et caucasiennes” [in Georgian] [Tiflis, 1937], 3–91).—The most interesting of these onomastic traces is perhaps the identity of the names of Eastern Georgia and Spain: both Iberia (their inhabitants: Iberians) to the Classical world (already Appian, Mιϑριδάτ∊ιος, XV, 101 [Loeb, 1932], 430/431, wondered at that homonymity), as well as the similarity of the names: Basque and Abasgian [A-Bask <Mοσχ] (the Iberians of Spain and the Basques have been ascribed descent also from Thubal, cf. Harispe, Pierrc, Le Pays basque [Paris, 1929] p. 14 ff.).Google Scholar

⁹ Western Georgia or Colchis was called λαζική since the third century, when the tribe of or λάζαι had obtained a hegemony there. The name is derived from the tribe-root cf. Marr, , Selected Works, p. 225; Allen, , History, p. 25. As regards the name Lazi, the older view is that it represents the Suanian territorial prefix La and Zan, an equivalent of , Allen, , p. 54, n. 4; Marr, however, finally came to the conclusion that the root Laz is a derivative of the tribe-root Laš-Roš, found in the names Pe-las-gi, Et-rus-ci, Les-gi, U-raš-tu (Urartu), etc. (cf. op.cit., p. 170, n. 2, as well as pp. 110, 139, 225, 295, etc.) Google Scholar

¹⁰ Three main dynasties had hitherto reigned in Iberia: the Pharnabazids (IVth century B.C. to Ist century A.D.), the Arsacids (a branch of the Armenian line, Ist–IIId centuries), and the Chosroids (claiming to be a branch of the Sassanids, IIId–VIth centuries), who continued to reign in Iberia even after the official Persano-Byzantine abolition of kingship, in the sixth century, as presiding princes (Erist'avt'-Mt'avar-s or “Arch-Dukes”) down to the eighth century; cf. Gugushvili, , “The Chronological-Genealogical Table of the Kings of Georgia”, Georgica, I, 2 and 3 (1936), 109 ff; Brosset, M. F, Histoire de la Géorgie, II, 1 (St. Petersburg, , 1856), “Tables généalogiques”, 619 ff; Ferdinand Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch (Marburg, 1895), “Stammbaum der Herrscher von Georgien”, p. 404 ff. Google Scholar

¹¹ On the Bagratids, cf. below, I, No. 4 and notes 25, 28. Google Scholar

¹² Cf. Blake, Robert P, “The Georgian Version of Fourth Esdras from the Jerusalem Ms.”, The Harvard Theological Review, XIX (1926), 303–304.Google Scholar

¹³ The title Erist'avi, a compound of Eri [genitive: Eris] (“army”, “people”) and T'avi (“head”), is a functional equivalent of the Iranian office of Satrap, on the pattern of which it was purportedly instituted; of the Byzantine στρατβγός in which sense it is often rendered by medieval Georgian authors; and a—semantic as well as functional—counterpart of the Germanic feudal term Herzog, i.e., “Duke” Cf. Marr, Selected Works, p. 328 (for the Xaldo-Urartian title Ir-Ta—“kinglet”, “dynast”); Marr, N and Brière, M., La Langue géorgienne (Paris, 1931), p. 629; Allen, , History, pp. 237–243; Karst, J., Corpus Juris Ibero-Caucasici, I, Code de Vakhtang VI, 2; Commentaire historique-comparatif (Strasbourg, 1935), 203–204, 216, 218–219, 228–229, 238. Google Scholar

¹⁴ The hereditary character of the dignity of Curopalates—an unique case in Byzantine institutional history—which was conferred on the Iberian dynasts, has been noticed already by DuCange, , Glossarium graec., I (Lyons, 1688), 739.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Pontic Georgia came to be called by this name after an imperial duke of the Georgian tribe of the Abasgi had founded there in the eighth century a kingdom independent of the Empire. Cf. J̌anašia, S. N., “The Date and Circumstances of the Rise of the Abasgian Monarchy” (in Russian), Bulletin de l'Institut Marr, VIII (1940), 137 ff. —The Abasgi, in Georgian: Ap'xaz-ians, originated from the present-day northwesternmost province of Abkhazia (Ap'xazet'i) and derive their name from the tribe-root Mušk-Mοσχ-(a- = the definite article) Bask, cf. Marr, Selected Works, p. 224; Allen, , History, p. 28. Aβασγία is the Byzantine term for the medieval kingdom of Pontic Georgia dominated by the Abasgians (Ap'xaz), which is to be distinguished from their province of Abkhazia; both are Apxazet'i in Georgian, cf. Gugushvili, , Ethnog. and Hist. Division of Georgia, p. 54 ff.; Marquart, J. (Markwart), Osteuropäische und ostasiatische Streifzüge (Leipzig, 1903), p. 174 ff. Google Scholar

¹⁶ Cf. Avalichvili, Z., “La succession du Curopalate David d'Ibérie, Dynaste de Tao”, Byzantion, VIII (1933), 177–202; Gugushvili, , The Chron.-Geneal. Table, p. 121 ff. Google Scholar

¹⁷ This term, dating from the eleventh century, is rendered here by Georgia, which is due to the Crusaders' corruption of the Persian GurǰnistāMn, Arabic (J̌urǰn) KurǰnistāMn, and Syriac GurzāMn (cf. the Russian Gruzija, the German Grusien)—all of which were, in turn, derived from the root Eger-Iber (cf., e.g., J̌anašia, S., Thubal-Tabal, Tibareni, Iberi, passim).—and which at that time was the exact equivalent of Sak'art'velo, i.e., the whole of the Georgian lands. Cf. Gugushvili, , Ethnogr and Hist. Division of Georgia, p. 68. —On the forthcoming pages, Georgia will be used in this broad sense; Iberia will render Ka'rt'li; Abasgia will stand for the mediaeval Ap'xazian kingdom of Pontic Georgia and Abkhazia will be used for the province of Ap'xazet'i, whence the Abasgi-Ap'xaz originated. Google Scholar

¹⁸ The principal Georgian lands at that time were: (1) the Kingdom of Abasgia; (2) the Kingdom of Iberia; (3) the Bagratids' own principalities in Meschia, i.e., Tao, Klarǰnet'i with the great city of Artanuǰni (Adranutzium), Šnavšet'i, Ačara, Artani (Ardahan), Ispiri (in Armenian: Sper—the cradle of the Bagratid race), etc.; (4) the easternmost, Albanian kingdom of Kaxet'i and Heret'i (the name Kax-et'i may have been derived from the root Kaška-Kόλχ[οσ], cf Allen, , History, p. 63, n. 1.) annexed in 1103; and (5) the Arab Emirate of Tiflis (established since the eighth century), incorporated in 1122.Google Scholar

¹⁹ These territories included the former Armenian kingdoms of Ani, Kars, and Lori, , and the Armenian principality of Siunia; Muslim Arran (southern part of ancient Albania); and—as vassal states—the Muslim Caspian kingdom of Šīrwān and the highlanders of Oset'i-Alania. In this connection one may also mention the important rôle of Georgia in the foundation of the Empire of Trebizond, which was given a due appreciation in a recent article by Vasiliev, A. A., “The Foundation of the Empire of Trebizond (1204–1222)”, Speculum, XI (1936), 3–37; cf. also Toumanoff, C., “On the Relationship between the Founder of the Empire of Trebizond and the Georgian Queen Thamar”, Speculum, XV (1940), 299–312. Google Scholar

²⁰ The reigns of David II (1089–1125) and Queen Thamar (1184–1212), and the achievements of the poet Šnot'a Rust'aveli, the philosopher John Petrici, etc., are generally held as an apogee. For an example of the amenities of life, the recently (1936) investigated ruins of the North Armenian Castle of Anberd, of the Pahlavid family, typical of the epoch, with its hot-water tubes leading to the bathroom and heating the floors, may be cited; cf. Orbeli, Joseph, in The Monuments of the Epoch of Rust'aveli (Leningrad, 1938), pp. 159–170 (in Russian).Google Scholar

²¹ George IV the Resplendent (1212–1223), the son of Queen Thamar and her Bagratid cousin-consort, was succeeded, in the minority of his son David, by his own sister Queen Rusudan (1223–1245) who, instead, had her own son, also David by name, proclaimed as her co-King (as David IV) in 1234. After the Mongol invasion of the same year, the two Davids found themselves in Qaraqorum, where the Great Khan finally decided to recognize both the lawful David V and the usurping David IV as co-Kings of Georgia, in 1250. Cf. Allen, , History, pp. 109–120; Gugushvili, , The Chron.-Genal. Table, pp. 123–124. Google Scholar

²² Imeria is a Latinization of Imeret'i (Imeretia is a pleonasm); the name is derived from the term Lixt'-Imier or “Trans-Lixia” (the Lixi mountains separate the two Georgias), though some are inclined to derive it from the root Eger-Iber, cf. Gugushvili, , Ethnogr and Hist. Division of Georgia, p. 69.Google Scholar

²³ Thus, for instance, in 1268 Sargis I J̌aqeli, Prince of Meschia, transferred his feudal allegiance from the King of Georgia to the Genghisid Ilkhan of Persia, cf., e.g., Gugushvili, . The Chron.-Geneal. Table, pp. 125–126.Google Scholar

²⁴ It is to be remarked, however, that the senior, Iberian, line kept the prestige and pretentions of lawful Kings of Georgia, even after the partition. Google Scholar

²⁵ These Erist'avates, which then became Principalities = Mt'avarates, were (1) Meschia or Samexe, under the house of J̌aqeli, (2) Guria, under that of Dadian-Gurieli, (3) Mingrelia or Samegrelo (or Odiši), under that of Dadiani and later (4) Abkhazia, under that of Šnarvašij̄e, and (5) Suania (Svanet'i), first under the house of Gelovani, then under that of Dadešk'eliani. The term Mt'avari (“Sovereign Prince”) is derived, like T'avadi (“Prince”), from T'avi (“head”); it is used to render from Greek both the noun ἄρχων and (in compound words) the prefix ἀρχι-, cf. Marr-Brière, , La Langue géorgienne, p. 636; Allen, , History, pp. 239 (his derivation of the term is unacceptable), 240; Karst, , Corpus Juris Ib.-Cauc., I, 203–204, 215, 216, 221 ff., 228 ff., 231, 238. Google Scholar

²⁶ Such as Muslim and Armenian cities and princedoms, Caucasian highlanders, etc. Google Scholar

²⁷ Karst, J, Littérature géorgienne chrétienne [Paris, 1934], p. 12, cf. pp. 11–13. Rudenko, B. T., A Grammar of the Georgian Language (in Russian), (ed. by the Academy of Sciences of U.S.S.R.: Moscow-Leningrad, 1940), p. 11: “We know only the literary monuments of the Christian period. but the literary style and elaborate language of these monuments, as well as some other characteristics, leave hardly any doubt as to the fact that the literary tradition of the Georgian language, in some form or other, had its inception in the still earlier, pre-Christian culture of this people.” Google Scholar

²⁸ Cf., e.g., Marr-Brière, , La Langue géorgienne, p. ix; Karst, , op.cit., p. 40.Google Scholar

²⁹ Cf. ibidem, p. 74 ff.; Kekelij̄e, K. Prof., The History of Georgian Literature (in Georgian), I (Tiflis, 1923), 119–124; J̌avaxišvili, I., “The Ancient Georgian Historical Writing”, in The Aims, Sources, and Methods of History, Before and Now (in Georgian), I (Tiflis, 1921), 13–26; Paul Peeters, S. J., “Sainte Šnoušanik martyre en Arméno-Géorgie (+13 déc. 482–484)”, Analecta Bollandiana, LII (1935), 5–48; 245–307 Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 1} Georgice: Mok'cevay K'art'lisay by Diakoni, Grigol.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 2} Kekelij̄e, , Hist. Georg. Lit., pp. 125–126; J̌anašia, , The Most Ancient National Reference to the Orig. Habitat of the Georgians, p. 691, cf. pp. 635–647 Also, Karst, , Litt. géorg. chrét., pp. 66–67, 101; Tseretheli, , The Asianic Elements in Nat. Georg. Paganism, pp. 29, 35. Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 3} T'aqaišvili, E., Three Historical Chronicles (in Georgian), (Tiflis, 1890), pp. xviii–xx, xlv–lxxix; idem, “Description of the Mss., etc.” (in Russian), Sbornik Materialov (Collection of Materials) for the Description of the Localities and Peoples of Caucasia, XL (1909), 53–55,—The Šnatberdi Collection is described on pp. 36–55; J̌anašvili, M., “K'art'lis-Cxovreba—Life of Georgia” (in Russian), Sborn. Materialov, XXXV (1905), 135–136; Kekelij̄e, , op.cit., pp. 97, 571; Karst, , op.cit., pp. 58, 64.—The name of the Collection is derived from the Abbey of Šnatberdi on the (Chorokhi, classical Acampsis) river, in the ancient province of Shavshia (Šnavšet'i), where it was found. Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 4} T'aqaišvili, , op.cit., Sborn. Mat., XLI (1910), 44–47; Archimandrite Ambrose (Xelaia), “The Variant of The Conversion of Iberia” (in Georgian), L'Ancienne Géorgie, I (1909), 1–29.—The name of the Collection derives from the Abbey of in the former Duchy of where it was discovered.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 5} T'aqaišvili, , Sborn. Mat., XL, 47; XLII (1912), 57–59.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 6} Kekelij̄e, , “The Literary Sources of Leonti Mroveli” (in Georgian), Bulletin de l'Université de Tiflis, III (1923), 23–27; Kakabaj̄e, Sargis, Historical Researches (in Georgian), (Tiflis, 1924), pp. 67–85; Melikset-Bekov, L. M., “The Scythian Problem in Connection with the Question of the Sakians, Kaspians, and Berians” (in Russian), Masalebi (Materials) for the History of Georgia and Caucasia (ed. by the Georgian branch of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences), 1937, vii, 523–525; J̌avaxišvili, , Anc. Georg. Hist. Writ., pp. 88–89. Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 7} Melikset-Bekov, , op.cit. , p. 524; J̌avaxišvili, , op.cit., pp. 86–89, 89–90; idem, History, p. 68. Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 8} Cf. Gugushvili, , The Chron.-Genal. Table, pp. 109–110.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 9} Cf. Lehmann-Haupt, , On the Origin of the Georgians, p. 43 ff. Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 10} Cf. Džavaxov, Prince I. (J̌avaxišvili, ), “The Polity of Ancient Georgia and Ancient Armenia” (in Russian), Teksty i Razyskanija (Texts and Researches) in Armeno-Georgian Philology, VIII, i (1905), 17–18; Gorgaj̄e, S. R., “Essays on Georgian History” (in Georgian), Moambe (Bulletin), 1905, Nos. ix, x, xi–xii and L'Ancienne Géorgie, I (1909), ii, 43–68, II (1911–1913), ii, 1–84; Kakabaj̄e, S., “Problems of the Genesis of the Georgian State” (in Georgian), Bulletin historique, I (1921), 11 ff.; Gugushvili, , The Chron.-Geneal. Table, pp. 146–148, 112–113; Allen, , History, p. 376; Amiranašvili, , “The Greek Inscription from the Vicinity of Mexet'a”, Izvestija (Bulletin) of the State Academy of Material Culture History, V (1927), 409–411; idem, “Greek Inscriptions of the Georgian Museum”, Bulletin of the Georgian Museum, IV (1928), 191–196 (both works in Russian). Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 11} Historia Ecclesiastica, I, x, in Migne, , Patr. Lat., XXI, 480–482 (end of the fourth century).Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 12} Cf. T'aqaišvili, , Sborn. Mat., XXVIII (1900), 104 n. 3; Karst, , Litt. géorg. chrét., pp. 66–67 Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 13} Kakabaj̄e, S., Historical Researches, p. 85; idem in his Report of July 13, 1923 to the Historico-Ethnograph. Society, cf. Kekelij̄e, , Hist. Georg. Lit., p. 126, n. 1; Melikset-Bekov, , The Scythian Problem, pp. 522, 524–525, 547— Kekelij̄e's, argument (op.cit., pp. 125–126) that Gregory the Deacon cannot have lived earlier than the seventh century—because his works show borrowings from Moses Xorenaci, who lived, according to Kekelij̄e, , in the seventh century—cannot stand. In the first place, the floruit of Moses is still a matter of dispute, and, secondly, it is Moses who seems to have borrowed from Georgian sources, not vice versa , J̌anašia, N., “On the Criticism of Moses of Xorene” (in Russian), Masalebi, 1937, vi, 492. Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 14} T'aqaišvili, , Sborn. Mat., XXVIII, 93 n. 1, 104 n. 3, 60 n. 2.—An episode absent from this ninth-century version of the Life, but inserted in it about the twelfth century, must have been borrowed directly from Rufinus, ibid., p. 80 n. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 15} J̌anašia, , On the Criticism of Moses of Xorene, p. 492.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 16} Karst, , Lit. géorg. chrét., p. 67 ff.; J̌anašia, , op.cit., pp. 480, 492. Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 17} The title of Catholicus (Kat'olikozi)—an abbreviation of the Greek for “Universal Delegate”—was taken by the Primates of Iberia, while they were under the jurisdiction (before the acquisition of autocephaly) of the Patriarchs of Antioch, in the fourth–fifth century Cf. Janin, R., “Géorgie” in Dictionnaire de Théol. Cath., VI (1924), 1251–1253; Tamarati, M., L'Eglise géorgienne (Rome, 1910); cf. Leclercq, Dom H., “Katholikos” in Dictionnaire d'Archéol. Chrét. et de Liturgie, VIII (1928), 686–689. Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 18} J̌anašvili, , K'art'lis-Cxovreba, pp. 119, 135–136; Karst, , Litt. géorg. chrét., p. 101. Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 19} Georgice: Divani Mep'et'a.—The Persian loan-word (dīwān) to the Georgian as well as the English vocabulary is retained in the title of this work with all its original equivocal meaning: at once an “assembly”, an “account”, and a “book” Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 20} Avalichvili, , La Succession du curopalate David d'Ibérie, pp. 117–202; J̌avaxišvili, , History, II (Tiflis, 1914), 412; Allen, , History, pp. 83–84; Gugushvili, , The Chron.-Geneal. Table, pp. 121–123; Brosset, M. F, Histoire de la Géorgie, II, 1 (St. Petersburg, 1856), Add. ix “Tables généalogiques”, i. Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 21} J̌anašvili, , K'art'lis-Cxovreba, p. 121; Karst, , Litt. géorg. chrét., p. 102; Brosset, , Additions et éclaircissements à l'Histoire de la Géorgie (St. Petersburg, 1851), ix, 173–174; idem, “De l'état religieux et politique de la Géorgie jusqu'au XVIIe siècle”, Bulletin scientifique, V (1839); Bak'raj̄e, D., Articles on the History and Antiquities of Georgia (in Russian), (St. Petersburg, 1887), i, 4–5; idem, The History of Georgia (in Georgian), (Tiflis, 1889), pp. 273–275. Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 22} L'Ancienne Géorgie, II, 48.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 23} J̌anašia, , The Date and Circumstances of the Rise of the Abasgian Monarchy, pp. 138–139.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 24} Georgice. Cxovreba da Bagratoniant'a, K'art'velt'a Mep'et'asa: T'u Sadat' Amas K'ueqanasa Igini, Anu Romlit' Upqries Mat' Mep'oba K'art'lisa, romeli a҇cera Sumbat j̄eman Davit'isman (The History of, and Information regarding the Bagratidae, Our Georgian Kings: As to Whence They Came to This Land and Since What Time They Hold the Kingship of Iberia, which is written by Sumbat, , the son of David).Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 25} T'aqaišvili, , Three Historical Chronicles, p. cix; Avalichvili, , La succession du curopalate David d'Ibérie, p. 180; T'aqaišvili, , “Georgian Chronology and the Beginnings of Bagratid Rule in Georgia”, Georgica, I, 1 (1935), 17; Koričašvili, D., “Who was the Author of the Chronicle of Sumbat?” (in Georgian), L'Ancienne Géorgie, I (1909), ii, 36–42: he conjectures that Sumbat was a son of David the Little, son of the Curopalates Adarnase (d. 983), who was a brother of King Bagrat the Sot of Iberia (937–994) and a son of the Curopalates Sumbat (954–958); if this were true, our Sumbat would thus be a second cousin of Bagrat III, cf. Gugushvili, , The Chron.-Geneal. Table, p. 119. For the whole problem of the Bagratid dynasty (Armenice: Bagratuni; Georgice: Bagratuniani, Bagratovani, then Bagrationi), cf., e.g., Brosset, Additions, ix “Histoire des Bagratides géorgiens, d'après les auteurs arméniens et grecs, jusqu'au commencement du XIe siècle”; Marquart, J. (Markwart), Osteuropäische und ostasiatische Streifzüge, Exkurs iv “Der Ursprung der iberischen Bagratiden”, pp. 391–465; idem, “Die Genealogie der Bagratiden und das Zeitalter des Mar Abas und Ps. Moses Xorenac'i”, Caucasica, VI, 2 (1930), 11 ff.; Laurent, J., L'Arménie entre Byzance et l'Islam (Paris, 1919), pp. 83–86; Toumanoff, , The Founder of Trebizond and Queen Thamar, p. 299 n. 4. Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 26} J̌avaxišvili, , Anc. Georg. Hist. Writ., p. 195.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 27} T'aqaišvili, , Georgian Chronology, p. 23.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 28} According to Sumbat, the Iberian Bagratids descended in direct male line from the short-lived house of the Dukes of Klarǰet'i, founded by Guaram, I, one-time Curopalates of Iberia (575–600). Sumbat makes this Guaram, a Bagratid, and of the house of David. Historically, however, the origins of the family of Guaram are quite unknown, and the Bagratids came to Iberia from Armenia, the country of their origin, not earlier than in the eighth century Of the sons of Ašot II the Blind Bagratuni (Prince of Sper and Daruink', Prince-Patrician of Armenia [732–748, d. 761]), the elder, Smbat VII, continued the Armenian line; and the younger, Vasak, Prince of Taraun (c. 750–772), married to an Iberian Chosroid princess, founded the Iberian line. Vasak's son acquired great domains in Georgia, and his grandson, Ašot the Great, became Duke and Curopalates of Iberia. Cf. Allen, , History, pp. 377–378; T'aqaišvili, , “Historical Materials” (in Georgian), L'Ancienne Géorgie, II (1911–1913), iii, 57; idem, Georgian Chronology, pp. 17–23; Marquart, , Streifzüge, “Der Ursprung der iberischen Bagratiden” Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 29} It may be noted, in this context, that the peculiarly Georgian version of the Davidic claim of the Bagratids, found in Sumbat, appears to be as old really as the claim itself. For, contemporaneously with the casual remark—the first in Armenian historical literature—on the Davidic descent of the Armenian Bagratids, found in The Hist. of Armenia (cap. 8) of Catholicus, John, the Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus expressed, in De administrando imperio (cap. 45), the Georgian, extra-Armenian version of the Davidic claim of the Iberian Curopalatae.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 30} J̌avaxišvili, , op.cit. , p. 196.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 31} T'aqaišvili, , Georgian Chronology, p. 17; idem, Sborn. Mat., XXVIII, 42 n. 1, 117 n. 1 (p. 118), 120 n. 3, 124 n. 3, 134 n. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 32} J̌avaxišvili, , op.cit., pp. 196–197; cf. also J̌anašvili, , K'art'lis-Cxovreba, pp. 120–121; Karst, , Litt. géorg. chrét., p. 102. Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 33} Georgice: Cxovreba Mep'et'-Mep'isa T'amarisi (The Life or History of the Queen of Queens Thamar) by Basili, , Ezos-Moj̄҇uari. The Georgian royal title “King of Kings” or “Queen of Queens”: mep'et'-mep'e, adopted in 994 (cf. Gugushvili, , The Chron.-Geneal. Table, p. 122), is rendered here simply as “King” or “Queen” For the absence of genders in Georgian titles, cf. below, n. 44.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 34} J̌avaxišvili, I., “The Newly-Discovered K'art'lis-Cxovreba and the Work of the Hitherto Unknown Second Historian of Queen Thamar” (in Georgian), Bulletin de l'Université de Tiflis, III (1923), 186–216.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 35} Leningrad: The U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences, 1938.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 36} Ibidem, pp. 206–207. —Cf. Basil, (ed. Dondua, , The Monuments of the Epoch of Rust'aveli), p. 64; The Histories and Eulogies of the Sovereigns (French transl. Brosset, Hist. de la Géorgie, I, 1 [St. Petersburg, 1849]), p. 459. Šnanij̄e, A. G., “The Evidence of the Bilingual, Graeco-Pehlevi Inscription from Armazi for the History of the Term Ezoysmoj̄҇uari in Ancient Georgia” (in Russian), Mitteilungen d. Akademie d. Wiss. d. Georgischen S.S.R., Bd. II, Nr. 1–2 (1941), 181–187 Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 37} J̌avaxišvili, , loc.cit. ; Dondua, , op.cit., pp. 35–36. —For the redactions of The Georgian Annals, cf. below, II A. Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 38} J̌avaxišvili, , op.cit. , pp. 204–205.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 39} Abulaj̄e, I., “On the Question of the Historical Work of Šnot'a Rust'aveli” (in Russian), Recueil Rousthavéli (Tiflis, 1938), pp. 161–169. —The first redaction of Anthony I's Grammar has not yet been published, ibidem, p. 163 n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 40} Ibidem, pp. 166–169.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 41} Georgice: Ap'xazt' Mep'et'a K'ronika.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 42} Ms. No. 85 of the former Ecclesiastical Museum of Tiflis. Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 43} Žordania, T., Chronicles and Other Materials for Georgian History (in Georgian), I (Tiflis, 1892), iv ff. Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 44} The Georgian equivalent of “King”, Mep'e denotes a reigning monarch of royal rank, whether man or woman. Like all the Georgian nouns, and adjectives, Mep'e has but one form irrespective of genders; the wife of a king—as well as of a sovereign prince (Mt'avari) or duke (Erist'avi)—is Dedop'ali; cf. Marr et Brière, La Langue géorgienne, Nos. 72, 73 (p. 60), 46 (p. 43), 306 (p. 266), and pp. 685, 626.—Thamar was Queen-regnant, i.e., Mep'e; her full title was Mep'et'-Mep'e, i.e., “Queen of Queens”; and it is not correct to say that Thamar was proclaimed King, after her father (cf., e.g., Allen, , History, p. 103).Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 45} The Contemporary Chronicler of George Laša [= the Resplendent] (in Georgian), (Tiflis, 1927).Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 46} Georgice: Xvarazmelt'a Šnemoseva Sak'art'veloši da K'veqnis Aoxeba (The Invasion of Georgia and Devastation of the Land by the Khwarizmians) by Abuserij̄e T'beli.—Georgian Bishops, as a general rule, were referred to—like the feudal lords they were—by the territorial epithets derived from their sees. Thus the Archbishop of Tiflis (T'bilisi) was called the T'bileli, that of Ruisi—the Mroveli (the prefix m- indicates the agent, cr. Marr et Brière, La Langue géorgienne, p. 46), that of —the the Bishop of T'bet'i—the T'beli. Cf. the pre-revolutionary French custom of referring to Bishops as, e.g., Monsieur de Noyon, de Meaux etc. Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 47} For the genealogy of Abuserij̄e T'beli's family, cf. Brosset, , “Traité géorgien du comput écclesiastique, composé et écrit en. 1233, etc.”, Mélanges Asiatiques, V, 4 (1866), 423.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 48} Ms. No. 85 of the former Ecclesiastical Museum of Tiflis. Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 49} II, 118 ff.; cf. Kekelij̄e, , Hist. Georg. Lit., pp. 347–349; J̌anašvili, , K'art'lis-Cxovreba, p. 143. Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 50} Georgice: J̄egli Erist'avt'a.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 51} This house, after the Russian annexation of Georgia, assumed the title of Princes Eristov-Ksanskij, cf., e.g., Dolgorukov, Prince Peter, The Book of Russian Genealogy (in Russian), III (St. Petersburg, 1856), 464 ff. Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 52} This fact led Brosset, at one time, to assume that the work itself was, or but included, a history of the Abbey, Additions, xxi, 372 n. 1, 376 n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 53} Chronicles, II, 1–40; Additions, xxi “De l'origine des eristhaws du Ksan”, 372–385.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 54} Cf. J̌anašvili, , op. cit., pp. 125–126; Karst, , Litt. géorg. chrét., p. 104.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 55} T'aqaišvili, , “Description of the Mss.”, Sborn. Mat., XXXVI (1906), 109, 112–113, 91.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 56} With the omission of the opening part = T'aqaišvili, ed., pp. 850–855.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 57} Fuller bibliographical data will be found below, II A. Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 58} These parts are: (1) the History of David VII (1346–1360)—the opening part omitted by Brosset in the Georgian Hist. de la Géorgie; (2) that of Bagrat V and his son George VII (1360–1395–1405), or of the Invasions of Timur; (3) a short intermediary chronicle; and (4) the History of Alexander I and his successors (1412–1442–1453). Though the composite character of this compilation has been noticed, its four distinct parts have not been accounted for; this, the present author endeavors to do in an article on The Georgian Historiography and the Fifteenth-Century Bagratids, which he hopes to publish soon. Brosset was aware of only two parts, since he published the opening one (on the reign of David VII) separately T'aqaišvili, , also, divides the Contin. I into two main parts: (1) the opening, Hist. of David VII, and (2) the part containing a History of Timur's invasions, based on an “unknown source”; the rest being based on various original documents (Sborn. Mat., XXXVI, 90–91). J̌anašvili, considers only the Contin. II as a “Continuation of the Annals”, and mentions of the Contin. I only part 2, as The History of the Invasions of Timur, which he recognizes as an original source (K'art'lis-Cxovreba, pp. 125–128). Moreover, the preface to the Continuations, found in the so-called J̌anašvili, Ms. of The Georgian Annals (of the mid-eighteenth century), shows the following division of the Contin. I: (1) it omits the opening part (absent also from the text of the Ms.) and mentions (2) the History of Bagrat V and his successor and (3) that of Alexander and his successors (T'aqaišvili, , Sborn. Mat., XXXVI, 114–132). The combined evidence of these, added to the patent distinctness of the above-mentioned short intermediary chronicle, completes the above division of the Contin. I. Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 59} J̌anašvili, , op. cit. , pp. 126–128; Karst, , op. cit., p. 104. Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 60} I.e., between The Hist. of the Mongol Invasions (the last part of the Annals), The Monument of the Dukes, and The Chron. of the Meschian Psalter and the works that come after it. Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 61} J̌anašvili, , loc. cit. ; Karst, , loc. cit. Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 62} T'aqaišvili, , op. cit. , p. 103.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 63} Ibidem, p. 60.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 64} Ibidem, pp. 114–132.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 65} Cf. below, II A, at n. 19. Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 66} J̌anašvili, , op. cit., pp. 127–128, after von Tiesenhausen, W, in Zapiski (Bulletin) of the Eastern Division of the Imp. Russ. Archaeol. Society, I, 208–216; cf. Karst, , op. cit., p. 104. —For Al-Qalqašandī, cf. Brockelmann, C. in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, II (1927), 699–700; his work was composed after 1387 Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 67} One of the titles thus accorded to the Kings of Georgia is “Supporter of the Pope”—an interesting remnant of the pre-Cerularian days. Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 68} For the similarity between this History and the , cf. the text in Hist. de la Géorgie, 1, 2, 650 ff., with the outline of the latter work in Minorsky's, V article “Tiflis” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, IV (1934), 757 ff., and also Brosset, Additions, xxii, “Expéditions de Timour en Géorgie” Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 69} Cf. Cl. Huart, in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, IV, 318.Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 1} The first name, K'art'uelt'a-Cxovreba, first appears in the text of the Annals, after The Martyrdom of King Arčil, and is derived, according to Professor J̌avaxišvili, , from the first two words in the title of the initial work in the Annals. That is Leontius' History of the Kings of Iberia = Georgice: Cxovreba K'art'uelt'a Mep'et'a = Latine: Historia Iberorum Regum, which gave its name to the whole of the corpus: K'art'uelt'a Cxovreba = Iberorum Historia. The second name is probably due to the fourth work in the Annals—The Chronicle of Iberia (Matianē K'art'lisay)—whose original name seems to have been Cxovreba K'art'lisay, i.e., Historia Iberiae, and which must have given rise to the present form of the name of the Annals: K'art'lis-Cxovreba. Cf. J̌avaxišvili, , Anc. Georg. Hist. Writ., pp. 201–203. —As has been noted above, K'art'li is rendered throughout this work as Iberia, and Sak'art'velo as Georgia .Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 2} Published in Armenian as The Abridged History of Georgia (Venice, 1884) and, in a French translation, by Brosset, , Additions, pp. 1–61.Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 3} Ibidem, p. 61, n. 2; Žordania, , Chronicles, I, xx ff., xxix. T'aqaišvili, , Sborn. Mat., XXXVI, 40. Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 4} Cf. Karst, , Litt. géorg. chrét., p. 106; Bak'raj̄e, , Articles, ii, 16–17; Brosset, Les Ruines d'Ani, II (St. Petersburg, 1861), 160.—Mxit'ar Ayrivaneci, e.g., is the only Armenian author to mention the existence of a diarchy in Iberia, in the first and second centuries, which is directly due to his using the Georgian sources, cf. Melikest-Bekov, L., “Armazi” (in Russian), Masalebi, 1938, ii, 30. Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 5} The mention of the Annals is made in his History of the Orbelians, which constitutes the 66th chapter of his monumental History of Siunia; French transl. and parallel Armenian text, Saint-Martin, J., Mémoires historiques et géographiques sur l'Arménie, II (Paris, 1819), 64; cf. Brosset, , Additions, xvi, 260 and n. 1; 262 and n. 1. Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 6} T'aqaišvili, , “Description of the Mss.”, Sborn. Mat. XXXVI, 59.Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 7} J̌avaxišvili, , Anc. Georg. Hist. Writ., II, 7.—The Queen of Georgia for whom the Ms. is named must be the consort of Bagrat VII (1614–1619), Anne, daughter of King Alexander II of Kakhia, cf. Hist. de la Géorgie, II, 1, Add. ix “Tables généal.,” i and ii.Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 8} Ta'qaišvili, , op. cit. , pp. 55, 108.Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 9} Ibidem, pp. 54–58; cf. Allen, , History, p. 316. —For an outline of the general political background of the Era of Decline, cf. ibid., cap. IX and X, pp. 109–127 Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 10} T'aqaišvili, , pp. 54, 59–60, 108–109.—It was believed for a long time that the Vatican Library had an old Ms. of the Annals (Brosset, , Chronique géorgienne [Paris, 1831], p. xlvii n. 1; Bak'raj̄e, Articles, ii, 15 n. 3), but apparently it was a copy of Vaxušt's History of Georgia, and not of the Annals, cf. T'aqaišvili, , p. 59.—The connection between the recently discovered Queen Anne Ms. of the Annals and the Mcxet'a Archetype is yet to be established. Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 11} Mary, (Mariam), d. 1682, was a daughter of Manučar I Dadiani, reigning Prince of Mingrelia (1582–1611), by his second wife, Princess Thamar J̌aqeli of Meschia. She was married successively to (1) Simon, , Prince of Guria, 1621, (2) Rostom, , King of Georgia, 1638, and (3) the latter's successor (and adopted son) King Vaxtang, V, 1658; cf. Brosset, , Hist. de la Géorgie, II, 1, Add. ix “Tables généalogiques”, i, v, vi; T'aqaišvili, , p. 32 ff.—The exact date of the Ms. is unknown, because the last folio, which must have contained it, has been lost. But the nineteen mementoes throughout the Ms., by the hand of the copyists of the text, mention Mary, Queen of Georgia, by whose order this Ms. of the Annals was copied, and her first-born son, Prince Otia (Gurieli; by Simon, of Guria). This work, therefore, must have been done between 1638, when Mary became Queen of Georgia, and (Jan. 25) 1645, when Prince Otia of Guria died. The date 1646, found on his tomb at the Mexet'a Cathedral, must be taken to refer to its erection and not to the Prince's death; T'aqaišvili, , pp. 29–34; Bak'raj̄e, Articles, ii, 15–16. Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 12} T'aqaišvili, , p. 41; Bak'raj̄e, loc. cit.;—for a description of the Ms. itself, cf. T'aqaišvili, , p. 27 ff. Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 13} Formerly Prince T'eimuraz of Georgia's Ms.; ibidem , p. 46 ff. Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 14} Ibidem, pp. 74, 47 ff., 52–54, 70, 108–110.Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 15} Ibidem, pp. 60–61, 63.Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 16} Vaxtang VI, b. Sept. 15, 1675, d. March 25, 1734, was Regent of Georgia, 1703–1711, and King of Georgia, 1711–1714, 1719–1723; he abdicated and emigrated to Russia in 1724. He was a grandson of the above-mentioned Queen Mary Dadiani, and the second son of Prince-Regent Leo (d.1709) by his first wife, Princess T'ut'a Gurieli of Guria (d. 1678); cf. Brosset, , Hist. de la Géorgie, II, 1, Add. ix “Tables généal.”, ī, vi; Gugushvili, , The Chron.-Geneal. Table, p. 134. Besides the work of revision of the Annals, Vaxtang was also the author of the great legal code bearing his name (cf. Karst, , Le Code géorgien de Vakhtang VI, Corpus Juris Ibero-Caucasici, I [Strassbourg, 1934]), as well as of another juridical work, Dasturlamali, treating of the constitution of the Crown and the Court (cf. Karst, . Litt. géorg. chrét., p. 114); he was responsible, moreover, for the introduction of printing into Georgia (cf. Allen, , History, p. 316). Cf. Kekelij̄e, , Hist. Georg Lit., p. 361 ff. Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 17} The date must lie somewhere between Vaxtang's accession to the regency in 1703 (cf. Gugushvili, , op. cit. , p. 134) and the latest date—1705—assigned by T'aqaišvili, to the Academy of Sciences Ms. which shows traces of the earliest stage of the KV Redaction and whose latter part has remained untouched by it; cf. T'aqaišvili, , pp. 108–109, 110. Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 18} Vaxtang was the fifth among the Bagratid kings of that name, but the sixth of that name among all the Kings of Iberia and Georgia: the first one being Vaxtang Gorgasali, of the Chosroid dynasty, cf. Brosset, , Hist. de la Géorgie, I, 1, 15 n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 19} Cf. T'aqaišvili, , p. 38; Hist. de la Géorgie, I, 1, 15 .—The earliest complete Ms. of the KV. Redaction—that of the Rumjancev Museum—copied before 1709, has a somewhat different preface, in that Vaxtang VI speaks in the first person: all the other prefaces were probably composed by the Commission, T'aqaišvili, , p. 10. Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 20} Cf. T'aqaišvili, , pp. 72–114. —Bak'raj̄e, , Articles, ii, 11–20; Žordania, , Chronicles, I, iv–xx; J̌anašvili, , K'art'lis-Cxovreba, pp. 228–235, are inclined to deny the very existence of the KV Redaction, and to attribute the tremendous task of the revision of the Annals, as well as the authorship of the above preface, to T'eimuraz, Prince, fourth son of the last King George XIII (b. June 3, 1782, d. Oct. 25, 1846)! T'aqaišvili, , pp. 41–54, 70–72, however, unanswerably refutes their arguments. Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 21} T'aqaišvili, , p. 109 ff. —The Academy of Sciences, Ms., copied before 1705, was revised only in its opening part: from the middle of the reign of Thamar to the end it is almost identical with QM.—going back, as it does, together with QM., to the same archetype, ibid., p. 110. The latest Ms.—Prince P'alavandišvili's—of the KV Redaction dates from August, 1761, ibid., p. 113.—Here is a list of the chief variants of The Georgian Annals:—group I consists of the Mss. of the incomplete KV Redaction; group II comprises the Mss. of the almost completed KV Redaction, covering the whole of the Annals and showing most of the corrections and insertions; group III is composed of the Mss. of the complete KV Redaction, with all the insertions and corrections, and including, moreover, the two Continuations of the Annals.—The Rumjancev Museum Ms. represents an intermediary, transitional type between groups I and II; and the Mingrelian Ms. a transitional type between groups II and III.Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 22} Vaxušt, Sexnia Čxeij̄e, Papuna Orbeliani, Oman Xerxeulij̄e, David and Bagrat of Georgia, and P'arsadan Giorgiǰanij̄e.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 1} Cf. above, I, n. 46. Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 2} Marr, Nicholas, in Kavkazskij Vestnik (Caucasian Messenger), 1902, No. 3, passim ; J̌anašvili, , K'art'lis-Cxovreba, pp. 118–119; Karst, , Litt. géorg. chrét., p. 101. Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 3} Kekelij̄e, , Hist. Georg. Lit., pp. 238–239; cf. J̌avaxišvili, , Anc. Georg. Hist. Writ., p. 170; Kakabaj̄e, , On the Ancient Georgian Chroniclers of the XIth Century (in Russian) (Tiflis, 1912), pp. 19–36. Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 4} Marr, , “Hagiographical Materials According to the Georgian Mss. of the Iviron” (in Russian), Zapiski of the East. Division of the Imp. Russ. Archaeol. Soc., XIII, 1, 84.—Kekelij̄e, , op. cit., p. 238 and n. 4, seems to be unduly cautious about accepting this obvious identification; cf. also J̌avaxišvili, , loc. cit. Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 5} Kekelij̄e, , op. cit. , p. 240.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 6} Georgice: Cxovreba K'art'veult'a Mep'et'a da Pirvelt'agant'a Mamat'a da Nat'esavt'a (The History of the Kings, and of the Original Patriarchs and Tribes, of the Iberians). K'art'veuli is an archaism for K'art'veli/K'art'ueli .Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 7} Kekelij̄e, , op. cit. , p. 239.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 8} Cf. Allen, , History, p. 16.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 9} More particularly by The Cave of Treasures , J̌avaxišvili, , The Polity of Ancient Georgia and Ancient Armenia, pp. 20, 26–27; T'aqaišvili, , Sborn. Mat., XXXVI, 62–63; Karst, , op. cit., p. 44. Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 10} Kekelij̄e, , op. cit., p. 246; idem, The Literary Sources of Leonti Mroveli, pp. 38–41; J̌anašvili, , K'art'lis-Cxovreba, pp. 195–203. —The ŠnāMh-NāMme of Firdousi appeared in 1011 and was translated into Georgian in the same century; the XwadāMy-NāMma҇ was translated into Arabic in the eighth century, by ‘AbdallāMh ibn al-Muqaffa’ (cf. also, e.g., Cl. Huart, , Littérature arabe [Paris, 1912], pp. 211–212.). Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 11} QM., pp. 10, 11.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 12} Kekelij̄e, , Hist. Georg. Lit., pp. 245–246, and The Lit. Sources of L. M., pp. 30–38. —Kekelij̄e, , however, tends to exaggerate Leontius' indebtedness to Moses; thus, e.g., he considers that even the Georgian socio-political term Mamasaxlisi (ethnarch or paterfamilias), mentioned in The Hist. of the Kings of Iberia, is Leontius' adaptation of the Armenian equivalent, Tanutēr, found, among other authors, in Moses. But Mamasaxlisi is one of the most ancient and autochthonous Georgian socio-political terms, traceable to the tribal times (cf. J̌avaxišvili, , History, I–II, 229–230; Allen, , History, cap. xix, p. 221 ff.; Karst, , Corpus Juris Ibero-Caucasici, I, 2, 245–246, 248, 251–252); it appears in Georgian literature already in the sixth-century Martyrdom of St. Eustace of Mcxet'a (Sabinin, M., The Paradise of Georgia [in Georgian; St. Petersburg, 1882], p. 315; cf. Harnack, A. and Dschawachoff, I. [J̌avaxišvili, ], “Das Martyrium des heil. Eustathius von Mzchetha”, Sitzungsberichte d.kgl. Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin [1901], p. 875 ff.); i.e., half a millennium earlier than Leontius; and, moreover, Moses himself has now been proved to have drawn upon Georgian sources (cf. J̌anašia, S. N, On the Criticism of Moses of Xorene, pp. 473–503). Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 13} Cf. J̌anašia, , The Most Ancient National Reference to the Orig. Habitat of the Georgians, passim. Kekelij̄e, , Hist. Georg. Lit., 246, considers that Leontius must have had in his hands some ancient, pre-eighth-century Georgian source, because he not only displays an Armenophile tendency (such as, e.g., admitting the seniority of Haos, the eponymous patriarch of the Armenians, over his brother K'art'los, from whom the Georgians claim descent, etc.), impossible in his age of fully grown Georgian nationalism (cf. Sumbat's, History of the Bagratids, [No. 4])—but also because of his use of the term Egrisi which disappeared with the establishment of the Kingdom of Abasgia-Apxazet'i in the eighth century; cf. idem, The Lit. Sources of L.M., p. 55. —Leontius also makes references to The Book of Nimrod (Nebrot'iani) which may have belonged to the now lost pagan literature of Iberia, Karst, , Litt. géorg. chrét., p. 12 and n. 1; J̌anašvili, , op. cit., p. 131; but which, on the other hand, may or may not have been the piece of apocryphal literature discovered in 1900 by the latter author (in a seventeenth-century Ms., and published by him in Sborn. Mat., XXIX [1901]) which bears the same name; cf. Kekelij̄e, , Hist. Georg. Lit., p. 248. Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 14} The coordination of the local heroic genealogies with the Tabula populorum of Genesis cannot be regarded as a wholly artificial and historically groundless grafting of the local and different, on the newly-acquired Christian tradition, as is the case with younger peoples (as, e.g., the Slavs who traced themselves, through the Noricians, to the posterity of Japheth, cf. Cross, Samuel H., The Russian Primary Čhronicle [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1930], pp. 136–137). The Georgian tradition, on the contrary, appears to be but another and independent reflexion of the same historical background as is reflected in the Bible, and only later coordinated with it. This is but natural in view of the geopolitics of the Proto-Georgian period.Google Scholar

Thus, e.g., this tradition makes the various peoples of Cis-Caucasia descend from one ancestor T'argamos (= T'orgom of the Armenian tradition); of his eight sons, Haos (= the Armen. Hayk) was the eponymous founder of the Armenians; K'art'los, that of the Kartvelians; and Egros (the last son), of the Western Georgians (cf. Allen, , History, p. 16). Now the choice of the biblical Thogorma for their father is most significant: this is no mere ad-hoc choice of a later bookish historian, but a reflexion of an historical reality Thogorma, as will be remembered, was—according to Genesis—the son of Gomer and nephew of Thubal and Mosoch—who stand, as we have seen in the introduction to this study, for two of the most important Georgian tribes, Tabal and Muška! Moreover—historically—Tilgarimum (Thogorma) was actually the capital of the state of Tabal-Thubal in Cappadocia-Gimir-(Gomer) (cf., e.g., Hall, H. R., The Ancient History of the Near East, p. 488). Google Scholar

Now Haos represents, of course, the Haiasa, i.e., the non-Indo-European, Asianic-Japhetite element with which the Indo-European elements of the future Armenian nation mingled, and from which that nation derives its name (Hay, pl. Hayk') (cf. Lehmann-Haupt, , On the Origin of the Georgians, p. 70). The brothership of Haos and K'art'los is an allegory of the relationship between the Georgian tribes and the Haiasa, which is implicit in the linguistics of the Armenians and the Georgians, as well as in Professor Marr's equating the tribe-root Ion-Hon-Hai with that of one of the Georgian tribes: Son-Čan (Selected Works, I, 115, 225, 48). It is true, to be sure, that in the Georgian tradition, K'art'los is made the father of Mcxet'os (Muška-Mosoch) and the elder brother of Egros (Eger-Iber-Tibar-Tabal), but this must be an imprint of the later ascendancy of the Kartvelians over the older Moschi-Meschians and Tibareni-Tabalians. Furthermore, the table of the linguistic division of the Georgians, drawn up by Marr (op. cit., p. 48), shows the three main branches: (1) Ibero-Megrelian and Čano-Lazian (called by Marr Thubal-Cain), (2) Svanian (Son), and (3) Kartvelian, and Meschian, (K'art'-Mosoch), which fully correspond to the main branches of the posterity of T'argamos, i.e., (1) the youngest son Egros (Eger-Iber-Thubal), (2) the eldest Haos (Hai-Hon-Son), and (3) the second K'art'los with his son Mcxet'os (K'art'-Mosoch). Google Scholar

All this seems to point to an extremely ancient—and essentially correct—historical memory In this context, the similarities between Leontius and Moses of Xorene, which Kekelij̄e would ascribe entirely to the former's borrowing from the latter, may be due also to the fact that Moses, likewise, records the ancient Japhetite, pre-Indo-European Armenian tradition, which is cognate with the Georgian preserved by Leontius, . The Grecism of Leontius—or perhaps of the earlier source he used—is patent in the form of the ethnarchal names (K'art'los, Egros, etc.), cf. Kekelij̄e, , op. cit., p. 240. —Cf. J̌avaxišvili, , Anc. Georg. Hist. Writ., pp. 172–181. Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 15} Leontius, naturally, used the Armenian version of Agathangelus, and not its Georgian adaptation of 1081; Kekelij̄e, , op. cit., p. 245; Melik'set'-Begi, L., The Life of St. Gregory the Parthian [= the Illuminator of Armenia] (in Georgian, Tiflis, 1920), passim.—Cf. Kekelij̄e, , op. cit., pp. 245–249; idem, The Lit. Sources of L.M., pp. 23–27; J̌anašvili, , K'art'lis-Cxovreba, pp. 119–120, 131. Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 16} Cf. above, I, No. 1. Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 17} Cf. J̌anašvili's, interesting (though far from exhaustive) attempt to present side by side parallel passages from the Georgian text and from Tacitus and Dio, op. cit., pp. 216–220; cf. Gorgaj̄e, , Essays on Georgian History, passim.—For the whole work, cf. also Žordania, , Chronicles, I, xxix–xxxiv.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 18} Georgice: Cxovreba Vaxtang Gorgaslisa Mep'isa Mšobelt'a, da šemdgomad T'wt' Mis Didisa da Msaxurisa Mep'isa, Romeli Umetesad Sxuat'a Gant'k'mulad Gamočda Qovelt'a Mep'et'a K'art'lisat'a (The History of King Vaxtang Gorgasali's Parents, and then of That Great and God-Serving King Himself, Who Manifested Himself More Glorious than All the Other Kings of Iberia).Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 19} Cf. J̌avaxišvili, , History, I, 188 ff. Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 20} For the dates of Arčil II, cf. below, No. iii/13. Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 21} QM., p. 215; cf. J̌avaxišvili, , Anc. Georg. Hist. Writ., 186; HG^f., p. 256, and n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 22} J̌anašvili, , K'art'lis-Cxovreba, p. 120; Karst, , Litt. géorg. chrét., p. 102. —However, because of their acceptance of the traditional and erroneous chronology of Arčil II, these authors place J̌uanšer half a century too early; cf. below. Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 23} Chronicles, I, xxxiv ff. Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 24} Ibidem, p. xxxv ff. Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 25} Cf. J̌avaxišvili, , op. cit. , pp. 187, 191.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 26} Cf. Kekelij̄e, , Hist. Georg. Lit., p. 153 ff. Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 27} J̌avaxišvili, , op. cit. , pp. 187–188.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 28} On the Anc. Georg. Chroniclers, pp. 19–36.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 29} Kekelij̄e, , op. cit. , pp. 243–244.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 30} Chronicles, I, xxxv.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 31} To question the authority of the notice in the text which ascribes the authorship of the work to J̌uanšer (as does Kekelij̄e, , op. cit., p. 243) is extremely dangerous; for it is precisely due to a similar notice in the same text that we owe the information on Leonti Mroveli's authorship (QM., p. 211). If the notice on J̌uanšer is indeed misplaced (after Mroveli's Martyrdom of Arčil), so too is the notice on Mroveli (after The Hist. of Vaxtang). But what matters is not the place of the notices in a text unified by one redaction, but their sense: the notice on J̌uanšer clearly ascribes to him The Hist. of Vaxtang, of all the other works; and that on Mroveli ascribes to the latter The Hist. of the Kings and the story of St. Nino's conversion of Iberia (a part of it), as well as The Martyrdom of Arčil. Prof. J̌avaxišvili, , moreover, recognizes the authenticity and value of these notices, cf. Anc. Georg. Hist. Writ., pp. 169, 186, 198, 202 etc. Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 32} QM., p. 208 = HG^f., p. 248; cf. QM., p. 215 = HG^f., p. 256.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 33} QM., p. 208 = HG^f., p. 248. —J̌avaxišvili's, half-hearted attempt (op. cit., p. 189) to identify our J̌uanšer with the monk Hilarion-J̌uanšer, mentioned in an Athonite Ms. from the Iviron Monastery, is not convincing because he does not give the date, or even epoch, of the Ms. and also because the name J̌uanšer alone is not sufficient for an identification, as it was rather popular in old Georgia (cf., e.g., Justi, Ferdinand, Iranisches Namenbuch, p. 123).Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 34} J̌avaxišvili, , op. cit. , pp. 186–187 Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 35} Allen, , History, p. 77; J̌avaxišvili, , op. cit., p. 191. Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 36} QM., p. 191 = HG^f., p. 221. Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 37} J̌avaxišvili, , op. cit. , pp. 189, 190.—J̌uanšer's dependence on the XwadāMy-NāMma҇ is also attested by the following facts: (1) the omission of all mention of Bahram čobin's expedition to Suania and of his defeat, and the description of his revolt as starting from Rey immediately after his Turkish campaigns; (2) the omission of all mention regarding Chosroes II's part in the murder of his father; and (3) the mention of Chosroes' marriage to the daughter of the Emperor Maurice.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 38} Cf., e.g., Higgins, Martin J., “The Persian War of the Emperor Maurice (582–602)”, I, The Catholic University of America Byzantine Studies, I (1939), 38.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 39} Georgice: Čameba Čmidisa da Didebulisa Močamisa Arčilisi, Romeli Ese Iqo Mep'e K'art'uelt'a (The Martyrdom of the Holy and Great Martyr Arčil, Who Was King of the Iberians).Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 40} Kekelij̄e, , Hist. Georg. Lit., pp. 239, cf. 249–251, 585–586.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 41} Ibidem, p. 250. —Though they are referred to as Kings, by the legitimism of the later chroniclers, the last Chosroids did not enjoy that title, or the position it implies, in their lifetime. For kingship was abolished in Iberia by the Persians, and the fait accompli tacitly recognized by the Romans, in the “Eternal Treaty” of 532 (cf. J̌avaxišvili, , History, pp. 193–197; Allen, , History, pp. 377–378; Gugushvili, , The Chron.-Geneal. Table, p. 115). The Chosroids—the lawful dynasty—were thenceforth reduced to the position of a great noble house. This house, then, together with other feudal princes, exercised, under a Persian Viceroy (MarzpāMn), an oligarchic rule over Iberia (cf. J̌avaxišvili, , op. cit., pp. 213–220; Gugushvili, , op. cit., pp. 115–117; Marquart, , Osteur. u. ostas. Streifzüge, pp. 431–433). What Arčil II did succeed to, after his brother, must have been merely his family princedom, and whatever political influence his house may have had in Iberia. Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 42} The Paradise of Georgia, p. 332.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 43} History, II (Tiflis, 1914), 352–353.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 44} QM., pp. 200, 212, 214. Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 45} Ibidem, pp. 211, 211–212.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 46} Marquart, , op. cit., p. 394 and n. 4, and ff., 395 n. 1; Minorsky, , “Tiflis”, The Encycl. of Islam, IV, 752–753.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 47} Marquart, , op. cit. , pp. 402, 415–416, cf. p. 433.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 48} Loc. cit .Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 49} Cf., e.g., Muir, Wm. Sir, The Caliphate, Its Rise, Decline, and Fall (Edinburgh, 1915), p. 397;—the Caucasian-Khazar campaign of MarwāMn lasted 118–122 A.H. Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 50} Georgice: Matianē K'art'lisay.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 51} QM., p. 329; J̌avaxišvili, , Anc. Georg. Hist. Writ., pp. 200–201.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 52} Ibidem, pp. 201–203; this name may have given rise to that of the Annals themselves, cf. above, II A, n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 53} J̌avaxišvili, , op. cit. , pp. 203–204.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 54} QM., p. 257; cf. Cedrenus II (Bonn.), 503, A.M. 6542. Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 55} QM., pp. 280, 281.—The QA. Ms., which has its folios confused, is based on corrupt texts and is, therefore, taken by itself not always of value; it further lacks the major part of the story of George II's reign (= QM., pp. 278, 1.21–280, last line) and, consequently, also the story of the taking of Anakop'ia by that king. The Chronique armén., nevertheless, has preserved both, like the QM. Ms. and other Mss. of the Annals (J̌avaxišvili, , op. cit., pp. 205–206). The above-cited remark of the author of The Chron. of Iberia proves that the story of the reign of George II forms an integral part of The Hist. of the King of Kings. This J̌avaxišvili, indeed recognizes (op. cit., pp. 206–207, 213–214) and thus vitiates his own earlier statements to the effect that the story of George II is rather a part of The Chron. of Iberia (ibid., pp. 199, 200). This earlier opinion of J̌avaxišvili, was based on the one fact that in QM. the title of the work “The Hist. of the King of Kings” is found on p. 281, and that nothing separates George II's reign, begun on p. 277, from the preceding Chron. of Iberia. But then, likewise, nothing separates, in the QM. Ms., the latter work from The Martyrdom of Arčil (p. 216)! On the other hand, as J̌avaxišvili, himself admits, it is undeniable that both the story of George II and that of his son, the “King of Kings” David II, are one and the same narrative. Moreover, QM., p. 281, on which the title of his narrative is now found, is not the end of the reign of the one, nor the beginning of the reign of the other: that division is on p. 287 Thus, e.g., the taking of Anakop'ia is mentioned on p. 280, but the reasons for it, its political background, on p. 281. Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 56} Cf. J̌avaxišvili, , op. cit., p. 206; Žordania, , Chronicles, I, xxiv.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 57} J̌avaxišvili, , op. cit. , pp. 199, 209–210.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 58} Ibidem, pp. 211–212.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 59} Ibidem, pp. 208–209; Kekelij̄e, , Hist. Georg. Lit., p. 249; also: Žordania, , op. cit., pp. xxxviii–xlii (this author tends to see two chronicles in this work); T'aqaišvili, , Sborn. Mat., XXXVI, 107; XXVIII, 117 n. 1, 177 n. 2; J̌anašvili, , K'art'lis-Cxovreba, pp. 120–121, and Karst, , Litt. géorg. chrét., pp. 105–106 (these two authors do not distinguish sufficiently between The Chron. of Iberia and Sumbat's Hist. of the Bagratids, No. 4). Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 60} Georgice: Cxovreba Mep'et'-Mep'isa. The KV Redaction has added Davit'isi (David). As QM. gives no Christian name to the king in question, the full English equivalent of the Georgian royal title is given here; David II was indeed “King of Kings” par excellence in Georgian history.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 61} Žordania, , op. cit. , pp. xlii–xlvi; J̌anašvili, , op. cit., pp. 121–123; Karst, , op. cit., p. 103; J̌avaxišvili, , op. cit., pp. 214–215—the latter author is not so sure, p. 215, of the Anonymus' ecclesiastical state; though, no doubt, he is correct when he states that the work is not of an exclusively theological character; in fact Žordania, exaggerates when he speaks, p. xlv, of the “theological imprint” borne by the work. Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 62} J̌avaxišvili, , op. cit. , p. 216.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 63} Although the historical tradition founded by Prince Vaxušt and followed by Brosset (e.g., HG^f., II, 1, Add. ix “Tables généal.”, i) makes David II succeed his father upon his death (in 1088, according to Vaxušt, cf. Žordania, , op. cit., p. 233), The Hist. of the King of Kings, on the contrary, relates that George II himself elevated his son to the throne (QM., p. 287); and, moreover, both this work and the yet unedited Chronicle of the Kings of Abasgia (No. 6) (Žordania, , loc. cit.) give 1089 as the date of David's accession. Now, The Hist. of the King of Kings does not mention the death of George II at all, and The Chron. of the Kings of Abasgia gives it sub anno 1112 (Žordania, , op. cit., p. 239). This is supported by a number of documents, of the years 1089/1091 and 1103, in which King George is mentioned, either together with his son David or alone (Žordania, , op. cit., pp. 234, 236, 240–241). Already Bosset, at a later date, arrived at the conclusion that George II reigned jointly with David II in the years 1089–1092 (Introduction à l'H.G., p. lxiv); it is now obvious that, in view of the misfortunes of his reign (cf. Q.M. pp. 277–287), George II ceded the crown to his son, but retained the royal title to his death: in other words became a co-King with him (Žordania, , op. cit., pp. 240–241; Paxomov, E. A., “The Georgian Coins” [in Russian], Zapiski [Bulletin] of the Numismatic Division of the Imp. Russ. Archaeol. Society , I, iv [1910], 65 ff.). David II himself had become a co-King with his father some time before he became a King-regnant in 1089; a document of 1085 mentions: “Our Kings, George the King of Kings and Caesar [this Byzantine title was acquired, no doubt, because of the marriage of his sister with, first, the Emperor Michael VII and, then, the Emperor Nicephorus III] and His Son David, King and Sebastus” (Žordania, , op. cit., pp. 232–233; Paxomov, loc. cit.). Thus the dates of the two kings are: George II, King-regnant 1072–1089, co-King 1089–1112; David II, co-King c. 1085–1089, King-regnant 1089–1125. Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 64} Cf. J̌avaxišvili, , op. cit., pp. 213–224;—As has been noted before, n. 55, the title of this work is misplaced in QM.: it should be on p. 277 and not 281. QA. omits a part of George II's reign and the title of the work as well, ibid., pp. 205–206.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 65} Georgice: Istoriani da Azmani Šnaravandt'a.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 66} For George III's dates, cf. Žordania, , op. cit. , pp. 255–258, 259, 268; for Thamar's, , ibidem, pp. 266–267, 268–269, 300 ff. She was co-opted by her father in 1179, ibid., pp. 266–267.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 67} Cf. Žordania, , op. cit., pp. xlvi ff.; J̌anašvili, , K'art'lis-Cxovreba, pp. 123–124; Karst, , Litt. géorg. chrét., pp. 103–104. Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 68} Cf. Dondua, , Basili, the Hist. of Queen Thamar, pp. 36–37.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 69} Zordania, , op. cit., p. l ff.; J̌anašvili, , loc. cit. ; Karst, , loc. cit.—For the office of Grand Chancellor (Mčignobart'-Uxucesi) and its connection with the Abasgian See of cf. Berj̄enišvili, N., “The Vazirate in Feudal Georgia: Čqondidel-Mčignobart'-Uxucesi” (in Georgian), Bulletin de l'Institut Marr, V–VI, (1940), 391–412; Allen, , History, p. 264. Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 70} Cf. Berj̄enišvili, , op. cit. , pp. 397–412. —Žordania, , p. l ff., tends to regard the Archbishop-Chancellor Anthony Glonis-T'avisj̄e as the author of this work. But this prelate is for the last time mentioned in The Hist. and Eul. at the beginning of the first decade of the thirteenth century (Q.M., p. 468), before 1205, the earliest date of Theodore, and could not therefore have written this History, which is brought down to 1212. Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 71} This title is due to modern historiography: the Annals do not give this History any specific appellation. Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 72} Džavaxov, Prince I. A. (= J̌avaxišvili, ), “The Anonymous Georgian Historian of the XIVth Century” (in Russian), Bulletin de l'Académie des Sciences de Russie, XVII (1917), 1483–1486; J̌anašvili, , op. cit., pp. 124–125 (he attempts, pp. 125, 143, to identify this Meschian Anonymus with Abuserij̄e [No. 8]); Karst, , op. cit., pp. 103–104. Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 73} J̌avaxišvili, , The Anonym. Georg. Hist., pp. 1483, 1485; T'aqaišvili, , “Description of the Mss.”, Sborn. Mat., XXXVI, 60–61, 63.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 74} J̌avaxišvili, , op. cit., pp. 1485–1486; Vladimircov, B., “An Anonymous Georgian Historian of the XIVth Century On the Mongol Language” (in Russian), Bulletin de l'Académie des Sciences de Russie, XVII (1917), 1487–1501; J̌anašvili, , op. cit., pp. 124–125; Karst, , loc. cit. Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 75} J̌avaxišvili, , op. cit. , p. 1484.Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 1} Some, ascribed to Ephrem Minor (Ep'rem Mcire, b. 1027, d. 1100, great Doctor of the Church, Georgian, cf. Kekelij̄e, , Hist. Georg. Lit., pp. 259–283; J̌avaxišvili, ; Anc. Georg. Hist. Writ., pp. 145–169; Karst, , Litt. géorg. chrét., pp. 30–31), constitute an adaptation from the Syriac of one of the versions of The Cave of Treasures; others are attributed to St. Basil, the Great.—These writings are published by T'aqaišvili, in Annex I to his edition of QM. = pp. 786–849. Cf. T'aqaišvili, , “Description of the Mss.”, Sborn. Mat., XXXVI, 62–63; cf. Karst, , op. cit., p. 44. Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 2} T'aqaišvili, , op. cit., pp. 74–77, 107 and in Sborn. Mat., XXVIII, 117 n.1., 42 n. 2, 124 n.1.Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 3} T'aqaišvili, , Sborn. Mat. XXXVI, 86–87 Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 4} These insertions are: (1) a detailed narrative of the translation of Our Lord's Tunic to Mcxet'a, taken from The Life of St. Nino: HG^g, I, 40–41 = HG^f, 54–55. Mroveli is based on this text (cf. QM., pp. 78–82; HG^g, I, 80 = HG^f, pp. 106–107), so that this insertion merely repeats what is told later on in the same work (T'aqaišvili, , op. cit. , pp. 81–82; cf. Karst, , op. cit., p. 68 ff.); Google Scholar

(2) a narrative of how Georgia became an appanage of Our Lady: HG^g., I, 41 = HG^f., p. 55, taken from The Metaphrase of St. Nino (by Arsenius the Monk [Arsen Beri, c. 1123–1154]; Kekelij̄e, , op. cit. , pp. 314–321; and not by Arsenius of Iqalt'o [Iqalt'oeli], as supposes T'aqaišvili, , op. cit., pp. 83 n.1.) (T'aqaišvili, , p. 82); Google Scholar

(3) a detailed narrative of the legendary apostolate of St. Andrew, in Georgia, : HG^g., I, 42–45 = HG^f., pp. 56–59, instead of the short notice in QM., p. 30 (T'aqaišvili, , p. 82; cf., Karst, , p. 70 n. 2; J̌anašvili, , K'art'lis-Cxovreba, pp. 131–132); Google Scholar

(4) The Life of Peter the Iberian, Bishop of Mayuma, translated from the Syriac into Georgian in the thirteenth century: it is found in various Mss. of the KV Redaction in varying degrees of abbreviation: HG^g., I, 102–103, not in HG^f (T'aqaišvili, , pp. 72–73; cf. Kekelij̄e, , pp. 353–355; Marr, , “The Life of Peter the Iberian” [in Russian], The Orthodox Palestinian Collection, XVI, 2 [1896]).Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 5} These insertions are: (1) more fragments from The Metaphrase of St. Nino: HG^g., I, 119, 149 = HG^f., pp. 159, 200 n. 4 (T'aqaišvili, , p. 85);Google Scholar

(2) an abbreviation of The Lives of the Thirteen Syrian Fathers (dating ultimately from the tenth century): HG^g ., I, 151–158 = HG^f., p. 203 ff. (T'aqaišvili, , pp. 73–74; cf. Kekelij̄e, , pp. 580–584; Karst, , p. 79 ff.); Google Scholar

(3) a notice on the Emperor Justinian's authorization to the Iberians to have their Catholicus chosen from among themselves: HG^g., I, 154 n. 4 = HG^f., p. 202 n. 6 (T'aqaišvili, , p. 83);Google Scholar

(4) a fragment from The Life of St. Šnio of M҇vime, one of the Syrian Fathers: HG^g ., I, 159 = HG^f., p. 212 (T'aqaišvili, , pp. 82–83);Google Scholar

(5) a notice on the Second Council of Constantinople: HG^g ., I, 159 = HG^f., pp. 212–213 (T'aqaišvili, , p. 83);Google Scholar

(6) fragments from Sumbat's History of the Bagratids, concerning the Davidic origin of the Bagratids: HG^g ., I, 161–163 = HG^f., pp. 216–220 (T'aqaišvili, in Sborn. Mat., XXVIII, 42 n. 4, 124 n. 1);Google Scholar

(7) notices concerning the closing of the Council of Ačquri (Meschia) by the Emperor Heraclius, taken from The Metaphrase of St. Nino: HG^g., I, 166 = HG^f., p. 225 (T'aqaišvili, in Sborn. Mat., XXXVI, 83);Google Scholar

(8) a notice on the Gothian Bishop John, also from the Metaphrase: HG^g ., I, 168 = HG^f., p. 230 (T'aqaišvili, , op. cit., p. 83);Google Scholar

(9) fragments from The Martyrdom of Sts. David and Constantine, Princes of Arguet'i, a work of the twelfth century: HG^g., I, 173, 173–174, 174–175, 176 n. 1, 176–177, 177 = HG^f., pp. 238, 238–239 n. 1, 241 n. 4, 242 n. 6, 243 n. 1. (T'aqaišvili, , p. 81; cf. Kekelij̄e, , p. 584; Karst, , p. 64). Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 6} These insertions are: (1) fragments from Sumbat's History of the Bagratids: especially HG^g., I, 198–200 = HG^f., pp. 282–285 (T'aqaišvili, , pp. 74–77 and in Sborn. Mat., XXVIII, 117 n. 1.);Google Scholar

(2) fragments from the treatise of Ephrem Minor on the reasons for Georgia's conversion to Christianity, with some variations: HG^g., I, 159, 168, 171–172 = HG^f., pp. 213, 229–230, 235–236 (T'aqaišvili, in Sborn. Mat. XXXVI, 77–79; cf. Kekelij̄e, , pp. 259–283; J̌avaxišvili, , Anc. Georg. Hist. Writ., pp. 145–169; Karst, , pp. 30–31); Google Scholar

(3) fragments from The Lives of Sts. John and Euthymius (by St. George the Hagiorite [Mt'ačmindeli, d. 1066], cf. Kekelij̄e, , pp. 212–236, esp. p. 232 ff.; Karst, , pp. 24 ff., 88; Paul Peeters, S.J., “Histoires monastiques géorgiennes: i. Vie des SS. Jean et Euthyme”, Analecta Boll., XXXVI–XXXVII [1917–1919], 8–68): HG^g., I, 206 = HG^f., p. 293 (T'aqaišvili, , op. cit., p. 79); Google Scholar

(4) fragments from a charter of the time of Bagrat IV (1027–1072), with a reference to the Catholicus Melchisedech I: HG^g., I, 212–213, 218, 220–221, 221–222 = HG^f., pp. 301–302 n. 1, 310–311, 313, 315–316 (T'aqaišvili, , p. 79);Google Scholar

(5) fragments from The Life of St. George the Hagiorite, by his disciple George the Hieromonk [Xucesmonazoni] (Kekelij̄e, , pp. 257–259; Peeters, , Hist. monast. géorg., ii, 69–159; Karst, , p. 28 ff.): HG^g., I, 226–227, 229–230 = HG^f., pp. 324, 329–330 (T'aqaišvili, , pp. 79–80). Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 7} These insertions are some notices from contemporary documents: HG^g., I, 241 = HG^f., p. 354, n. 2 (T'aqaišvili, , p. 80).Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 8} These insertions are passages of a panegyrical character (adduced in the notes to pp. 362–536 of T'aqaišvili's, edition of QM.) as well as, in its latter part, passages taken either from the now lost second part of Basil's History of Queen Thamar (No. 5), or from an unknown “Third Historian” of that Queen (T'aqaišvili, in Sborn Mat., XXXVI, 85–87; cf. above, I, No. 5).Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 9} These insertions are: (1) some adduced in the notes to pp. 536–714 of QM. (T'aqaišvili, , op. cit., p. 87); (2) a detailed narrative of the joint campaign of King Vaxtang III (1301–1307) and QazāMn-XāMn against the Sultan of Egypt, as well as a few details concerning the victory of Bek'a I, Prince of Meschia, over the Tatars, based on an unknown source: HG^f., pp. 629–637 = QM. notes to pp. 772–777 (T'aqaišvili, , pp. 84–85, 103).Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 10} T'aqaišvili, , pp. 87–88, 66.Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 11} T'aqaišvili, , pp. 88–91, 109, 112–113.Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 12} T'aqaišvili, , pp. 102–108, 113–114.Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 13} Chronique géorgienne or The Paris Chronicle is a compilation covering the years 1373–1703. T'aqaišvili, is of the opinion that it was also done by order of Vaxtang VI, who, indeed, came to the regency of Georgia in 1703, down to which year this work is brought (T'aqaišvili, in Sborn. Mat., XXXVI, 91; XXIX [1901], 99–102; XXVIII, 189 n. 2 ff.; idem, Three Hist. Chron., pp. cxlii–cxlvii; Karst, , Litt. géorg. chrét., p. 105). It was published after a Ms. in the Bibliothèque du Roi (now Nationale), by the Société Asiatique, as Chr. géorg. (Paris, 1829), and, in a French translation, by Brosset in Paris, 1831, and in Mémoires de l'Académie Impériale des Sciences, 6^e série, V (St. Petersburg, 1841), 220–245. Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 14} Cf. von Klaproth, J., “Histoire de la Géorgie”, Journal Asiatique, 2^e série, XII (1833), 518 ff.; XIII (1834), 21 ff.; Saint-Martin, J., Mémoires hist. et géogr. sur l'Armenie, I (Paris, 1818), 44; Dubois, F de Montpéreux, , Voyage autour du Caucase, II (Paris et Neuchâtel, 1840), 7–8; Patkanov, K., “On the Ancient Georgian Chronicle.”, Žurnal of the Ministry of Public Instruction, 1883; idem, The Vannic Inscriptions and Their Significance for the History of Hither Asia, p. 201; Gren, A., “The Bagratid Dynasty in Armenia”, Žurnal of the Min. of Publ. Instr., CCXC (1893), 52 ff. (the last three works in Russian).—Even Prince T'eimuraz of Georgia (fourth son of the last King and great-great-grandson of Vaxtang VI) was inclined to ascribe the “authorship” of the Annals to Vaxtang VI, though, to be sure, he knew infinitely better than to share the above-mentioned scholars' opinion regarding the Georgian sources in general; cf. his Georgian Ancient History of Iberia (St. Petersburg, 1848). Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 15} T'aqaišvili, in Sborn. Mat., XXXVI, pp. 42–44; J̌anašvili, , K'art'lis-Cxovreba, pp. 113, 117, 128–129, 228–235; idem, “The Evidence of the Georgian Chronicles and Historians Regarding North Caucasia and Russia” (in Russian), Sborn. Mat., XXII (1897), i, 1–5; Bak'raj̄e, , Articles, ii.; Žordania, , Chronicles, I, i ff.; Toumanoff, The Founder of the Emp. of Trebizond and Queen Thamar, p. 301 n. 2.— Karst, , op. cit., pp. 105–108, despite all the evidence at his disposal, still uses the misleading expressions like: la chronique vakhtangienne, Annales dites de Vakhtang, l'oeuvre chronologique-annalistique de Vakhtang VI, etc. Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 16} Brosset, , Introduction à l'HG., pp. xiv–xxvi; HG^f., I, 1, 256 n. 1; T'aqaišvili, , op. cit., p. 38 ff.; Bak'raj̄e, , loc. cit.; Žordania, , loc. cit. Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 17} Allen, , History, p. 316; cf. Karst, , op. cit., pp. 111–112 and n. 1. Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 18} T'aqaišvili, , p. 96.Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 19} HG^f ., I, 1, 1–13.Google Scholar