brill publishing the letter of love and concord, a revised diplomatic edition with historical and...

8/21/2019 Brill Publishing the Letter of Love and Concord, A Revised Diplomatic Edition With Historical and Textual Comment…

1/488


2/488

Te Letter of Love and Concord


3/488

Te Medieval Mediterranean

Peoples, Economies and Cultures, 400–1500

Managing Editor

Hugh Kennedy SOAS, London

Editors

Paul Magdalino, St. AndrewsDavid Abulaa, CambridgeBenjamin Arbel, el Aviv

Larry J. Simon, Western Michigan University Olivia Remie Constable, Notre Dame

Frances Andrews, St. Andrews

VOLUME 88


4/488

Te Letter of Love and Concord

A Revised Diplomatic Edition with Historical

and extual Comments and English ranslation

By Zaroui Pogossian

LEIDEN • BOSON2010


5/488

On the Cover : Te meeting of rdat, Constantine, Sylvester and Gregory. Miniature fromMatenadaran MS. 1920 fol. 183 v . With kind permission of the Mashtots Institute of AncientManuscripts, Matenadaran, Yerevan.

Tis book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Letter of love and concord. EnglishTe letter of love and concord : a revised diplomatic edition with historical and textual

comments and English translation / by Zaroui Pogossian.p. cm. – (Te medieval Mediterranean : peoples, economies and cultures, 400-1500 ; v.

88)Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 978-90-04-19189-1 (hardback : alk. paper)1. Cilicia–History–Armenian Kingdom, 1080-1375–Sources. 2.

Armenians–urkey–Cilicia–History–Sources. 3. iridates III, King of Armenia, ca. 250-ca.330–Sources. 4. Gregory, the Illuminator, Saint, ca. 240-ca. 332–Sources. 5. Constantine I,Emperor of Rome, d. 337–Sources. 6. Sylvester II, Pope, ca. 945-1003–Sources. 7.Crusades–Sources. I. Pogossian, Zaroui. II. itle. III. Series.

DS156.C5L4713 2010956.4'014–dc22

2010049076

ISSN 0928-5520ISBN 978 90 04 19189 1

Copyright 2010 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, Te Netherlands.Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing,IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored ina retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Brill has made all reasonable efforts to trace all rights holders to any copyrighted material usedin this work. In cases where these efforts have not been successful the publisher welcomescommunications from copyrights holders, so that the appropriate acknowledgements can bemade in future editions, and to settle other permission matters.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NVprovided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to Te Copyright Clearance Center,222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.Fees are subject to change.


6/488

CONENS

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction and Presentation o the ext . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Presentation o the ext . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Chapter One: Te Historical and Religious Situation in CilicianArmenia in the Second Hal o the welfh and Beginning o theTirteenth Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.. Te Historical Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.. Te Armenians and the Roman Church in the th–th

Centuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Chapter wo: Te extual Environment and the Sources o theLetter o Love and Concord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.. General Remarks on the Context o the Letter o Love and

Concord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.. ravel to and Reception in Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.. Te Alliance with Constantine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.. Te Political Agenda o D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

.. Te Deeds o rdat and His Conversion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76... Te Conversion o rdat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.. Te Conversion o Constantine and His Visions. . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.. Eschatology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88.. Ecclesiology and the Ordination o St. Gregory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

... Papal Gifs to St. Gregory and Privileges in Jerusalem 106... Apostles o Armenia and the List o Relics . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

. . Da t i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 8... Dating Anew.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

.. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125


7/488

Chapter Tree: Te Description and the Relationship o Manuscripts, Grammar, Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

.. Mss Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127... A Family mss. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

.... C Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129.... F Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131.... Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140.... Te Agat‘angełos Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147.... N Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

... B Family Mss. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172.... d Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

.... D Sub-group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175.... b Sub-Sub Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176.... P Sub-Sub Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180.... E Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

... Mss Not Collated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191... Mss Not Accessed.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192... Early Editions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

.. Te Relationship o Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193... Te Division between A and B Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

.. Te B Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206... Te d Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207... Te Bg2 G r o u p. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 8

.... Te D Sub-Group .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218.... Te b Sub-Sub Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228.... Te P Sub-Sub Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

... Te E Sub-Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234.. Te A Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

... C, F and Groups Vs B Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237... Te C Group and the B Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241.... C and F Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242.... Specics o the C Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

... Te F Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245.... F vs F1F2F3F4F5L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 0.... F2F3F5L Affiliation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255.... F5L Sub-Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256.... F2F3 Sub-Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

.... F1F4 Sub-Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263


8/488

... Te Group and Ms A1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267.... Ms 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273

... Te Agat‘angełos Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275.... Sub-Groups: gg Vs Ag2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288.... UU1 Sub-Sub Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291.... K Sub-Sub Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293

... Te N Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296.... Ms N7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302.... Ms N8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303

.. Te Choice o the Base ext. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304.. Grammar and Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306

... Declensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306... Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309... Conditional Clauses .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310

.. Principles o Edition and Emandations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310

Stemmas o Manuscript Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325

Te Letter o Love and Concord (Armenian and English) . . . . . . . . . . . . 329Appendix A: Misplaced ext-Blocks .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419

Appendix : Provinces o the Eastern Roman Empire Listed in D 421Appendix : Glossary o Rare Loan-Words and Hapaxes ............ 429Appendix : List o MSS with the ext o D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441Index o Geographical Names and Ancient/Medieval Persons . . . . . . 465


9/488


10/488

ACKNOWLEDGEMENS

Tis book has a long story. It started as my Ph.D. dissertation at theMedieval Studies Department o Central European University (Budapest,Hungary). During the several years that I dedicated to this study, I hadthe privilege and honour o encountering many persons whose advice,

help and encouragement were instrumental or producing this book.I express my deep gratitude, rst and oremost, to my Ph.D. supervisor,

Pro. István Perczel. From the very rst day I discussed the idea o preparing a critical edition, Pro. Perczel did not tire o supporting my ideas or changes o ideas throughout the ve years o my Ph.D. researchand even beyond, always encouraging me to continue on and prepare thispublication. His stimulating suggestions, challenges to look deeper intothe issues and explore aspects not so evident at rst glance, have beeno paramount importance or continuing my studies even in momentswhen I was pessimistic about the end results. I am deeply indebted toDr. Erna Manea Shirinian rom the Maštoc‘ Matendaran in Yerevan,Armenia, who, rst, as the external supervisor o my Ph.D. dissertation,later, as a senior colleague and riend, has given me valuable scholarly advice and moral support or bringing my work to completion. She hashad the patience to read and re-read the drafs and semi-completed versions o this work, always providing me with to-the-point criticismor suggestions, as well as guiding me at the initial stages o my work

through the sea o available literature. Moreover, she has been invaluableor her practical help in getting microlms or microlm copies rom theMaštoc‘ Matendaran and sending them to Italy in the most improbableo circumstances. I am grateul to Father Boghos Levon Zekiyan, romthe University o Venice and the Ponticio Istituto Orientale (Rome),who has also ollowed my work rom its earliest stages. Father Levon’sknowledge and wisdom he shared with me have led me through theintricacies o the various theological and ecclesiological issues treated inthis book, or which I express my heartelt thanks to him.

While working on the book I have ofen contacted Armenologistsor other historians and philologists around the world, asking theiradvice and opinion on the many specic subjects that I had to deal with


11/488

throughout my research. I have appreciated not only their scholarly counsel but also the excitement and interest they demonstrated towards

my work. I would like to thank Drs. Peter Cowe, Peter Halfer, SergioLa Porta, Laura Minervini, Pierrancesco Porena, James Russell, FelicitasSchmieder, Michael Stone, Fr. Robert afs, Edda Vardanyan and JosWeitenberg.

Naturally, this edition would have been impossible without the goodwill and cooperation o the institutions or libraries where the numer-ous mss are preserved. I would like to thank the stuff and colleaguesat the Maštoc‘ Matendaran in Yerevan who allowed me access to themanuscripts preservedat this institution, as well as provided any required

microlms or microlm copies, always in a timely manner. My particu-lar thanks go to Anahit Hayrapetyan who helped me identiy the loca-tion o the text under investigation in several mss. Moreover, withoutthe wonderul Armenian coffees in between collations o mss preparedby my colleagues and riends o the Matenadaran, without their pleas-ant chats and the relaxing atmosphere they created in the midst o hecticYerevan, I may not have had the orce to continue to study yet anothermanuscript.

I cannot orget the emotions experienced in the delightul St. ‘orosChapel o the St. James Armenian Patriarchate o Jerusalem where Icollated the mss preserved there. I express my deepest gratitude to theArmenian Patriarch o Jerusalem, His Beatitute orkom II Manoogyanor allowing me access to these mss. I would not have been able to nishthe task during the short time I was able to stay in Jerusalem without thegenerous help o Oriord Arpik.

Fathers at the Mechitarist Congregation both in Venice and Viennaalso kindly opened the doors o their libraries to me and allowed me

to study the manuscripts preserved there in the perect calmness andtranquility within their venerable walls.I express my thanks to the stuff o Biliothèque Nationale de France,

Paris or allowing me access to the mss preserved there.I am thankul to the stuff and colleagues at the Central European

University, Medieval Studies Department, particularly Ph.D. programmecoordinators Dorottya Domanovszky and Csilla Dobos, as well as Anna-bella Pál who helped me in all organizational matters related to the rststage o this work. I would also like to thank my colleagues at John

Cabot University and the American University o Rome, Drs. Alessan-dra Grego, Luca De Caprariis, Gene Ogle, Barbara Roggema, ShannonRussell, James Walston and many others who have always been ready to


12/488

listen to my ideas and give valuable, ofen resh suggestions coming romscholars working in different elds, and bringing a new perspective to the

issues at hand.Te editor Marcella Mulder rom Brill publishing house has patiently

ollowed the various stages o editing and production o this book, orwhich I thank her deeply. I am also thankul to the copy-editor AlisonBryant without whose work its English would have been much less fluent.I nished the nal version o this work while I was a Humboldt ellow at the University o übingen. I express my gratitute to the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation or its generous support in covering the nalcopy-editing costs.

Last but not least, I thank my amily. Teir love, affection and supportprovided the conditio sine qua non I would not have managed to nishthis study. I dedicate my work to Vasco, Arechi and Giulia Soa.


13/488


14/488

INRODUCION AND PRESENAION OF HE EX

Tis study is concerned with a text known as Letter 1 o Love and Con-cord between the Great Emperor Constantine and the Holy Pope Sylvester and rdat, King o the Armenians, and Holy Gregory, the Illuminator o the Armenians. Tis Letter was composed in the Armenian Cilician milieu,

sometime in the last decade o the twelfh century. It has traditionally been repudiated as a latinophile alsication, not necessarily worthy o being examined too thoroughly. Fortunately, many contemporary schol-ars have abandoned this attitude, especially taking into consideration theact that orgeries tell us much about the mentality and ideology o thetime period when they were created.2 Te purpose o this study is topresent a revised diplomatic edition o this text based on an initial ullcollation o mss and a sample collation o mss (o which aremaintained in the apparatus), as well as to provide a historical intro-duction, textual comments and to propose a likely date or its compo-sition.

P

Beore embarking on a historical, textual or philological analysis, it isnecessary to present the text o the Letter o Love and Concord , dividing it

into sections that will appear in the same order both in the Armenian text

1 All abbreviations or authors/titles o sources or literature are resolved in the Bib-liography, where the reader can nd all the ull reerences. Te Bibliography is dividedaccording to: Sources (Armenian, Greek or Latin); Manuscript Catalogues; Dictionariesand Secondary Literature.

‘Letter’ is a verbatim translation o the Armenian t‘ułt‘ or gir andhas been traditionally translated this way. A better word in this context would be a pact o love. I have, however,kept the traditional translation or the sake o continuity and to avoid uture conusionwhich the difference in the title may cause. All reerences to mss will be given according to

the sigla accepted by the Association Internationale des Études Arméniennes. Cr Coulie.2 Te studies o Uluhogian and Shirinian , or example, have emphasised

this point.


15/488

and the English translation.3 Te division o the text is my interpolationinto the text and is based on ‘themes’ as they appear in this text. At this

point no comments will be provided.Te D4 is entitled: Letter o Love and Concord between the Great

Emperor Constantine and the Holy Pope Sylvester and rdat, King o the Armenians, and Holy Gregory, the Illuminator o the Armenians.

. It starts with an official proclamation o Constantine, ‘Great and AugustKing o Kings’ that this is his ‘testament.’ Ten Pope Sylvester, whois toldto have powers rom East to West to bind and loose, on his part statesthat this is also his ‘decretal.’

–. Te story goes on, narrated by Constantine, about the visit o rdat

and Gregory to the holy places in the West, as well as to honour the‘splendidly crowned’ Pope, the newly converted Emperor, and his am-ily (his mother Helen and his children). Full o joy or such an event,Constantine and Sylvester go out to meet rdat and Gregory with greatpreparations. Upon their meeting, they gloriy Christ and proceed tothe palace where they spend many days in bodily and spiritual east-ing.

. For the occasion, taxes are cancelled, prisoners are liberated and Gregory the Illuminator blesses the salt to be sent to the ‘the sacricial victims,’lest the holy sacrice be perormed in a pagan manner. Gregory’s con-ession o aith is proclaimed in all the churches throughout the Empire.

. When rdat and Gregory prepare to leave, a great assembly is convened,attended by dignitaries both rom Armenian (e.g. the seventy thousandthat went with rdat) and Roman sides. rdat and Constantine sign anofficial pact o alliance, having mixed ‘Christ’s blood’ in the ink, andsolemnly take an oath to stay aithul to each other ‘until the end o theworld’.

. Constantine issues an edict to some eastern provinces o the Empire,which he enumerates, proclaiming that he is assigning all these territo-ries (mainly in the East, but also in Arica) to rdat, who is to be sec-ond only to him and the head in his stead in these lands. Te governors

o these provinces are to provide military assistance to rdat in his waragainst Šapuh (the Persian King o Kings) and are not to contradict theorders o the Armenian King in any way.

3 Tere is no consistencyin dividingthe text into sections in the manuscript tradition.While some mss have rubricatedtexts, others do not. Te division o thetext into sectionsis mine. In doing so, I have ollowed the content o each section and tried to make thedivisions as logical as possible without breaking the flow o the text.

4 Te Armenian title o the Letter o Love and Concord has traditionally been abbrevi-

ated as ‘ułt‘ dašanc‘ (lit. letter o covenants/pacts). In order to introduce some variationin terms and to avoid repetition, I will use interchangeably the Letter o Love and D, theArmenian abbreviation o its title. All reerences will be given to corresponding sectionsand lines as they appear in this edition.


16/488

. Te coronation o rdat by Constantine: the latter puts a crown with‘precious gems and purls’ on rdat’s head, dresses him with sea purple

and, moreover, gives him his ather’s ‘priceless belt.’. Tis episode is ollowed by the enumeration o exaggeratedly lavish gifsthat Constantine bestows upon rdat. His wie ‘Mak‘sintēs’ and his sister‘Kostasia,’ in their turn prepare presents or the wie and sister o rdat,as does his son ‘Kostas’ or the son o rdat, Xosrov. Luxurious presentsare given also to the princes that accompanied rdat.

. Constantine makes territorial donations to the Armenian king. Toseinclude the city o Bethlehem, the First Armenia and Cappadocia,which, the text claries, were taken away rom the Armenians by Cae-sar Pompey. Te borders o rdat’s ‘proper homeland’ are dened: romMount Argaeus to Mount Ararat, rom the river Gayl to the river igris.Te Emperor asks rdat to leave warriors behind, who are namedarmēnk‘ [Armenians], as body guards o the Emperor.

. A prophecy is pronounced by Constantine about the all o the ‘Houseo rdat’ and the ‘slavery’ o the Armenians under the indels. Teirsalvation will come rom God and they will be succoured by the off-spring o Constantine. Tis event will take place when the relics o theSuk‘iaseank‘ martyrs, which Constantine himsel had buried, will be re-discovered.

. Te Emperor recounts all the miracles o healing that St. Gregory per-ormed while in Rome.

. Moreover, rdat ought and killed a dragon and a unicorn that hadappeared on the Capitoline hill and who were devastating the surround-ing area. rdat gives hal o the unicorn’s horn as a talisman and anti-poison to Constantine, receiving in return, a part o the relic o the rueCross which Empress Helen had brought rom Jerusalem.

–. Constantine tells how rdat narrated the story o his conversion: thetortures o St. Gregory, the martyrdom o the St. Hṙip‘simeank‘ virgins,rdat’s transormation into a wild boar, his salvation through baptismby Gregory, and the evangelical activities o St. Nunē in Georgia.

–. Constantine describes his own conversion: his Vision o the Cross on ‘the

banks o the Danube’ and how by using this sign he won a victory; hisalling back into paganism because o pressures rom his wie, his pun-ishment through leprosy, his healing through baptism by St. Sylvester,his submission to the will o seven Patriarchs and saints whom he enu-merates as St. Sylvester, St. Gregory, St. Anthony, St. Nicholas o Myra,St. Macarius o Jerusalem, St. James o Nisibis and St. Ephrem o Uṙhay (Edessa).

. All churches or monasteries are declared exempt rom taxes, and Arme-nian and Roman inhabitants are given various tax incentives, as opposedto the non-Christian subjects o the Empire. Te taxes o some categorieso the population, such as the indels, owners o mines, and merchantsare specied.

. Te author o the narration switches rom Constantine to Pope Sylvester.Te latter, inspired by the example o Constantine, decides to honour


17/488

Gregory as well by ordaining him ‘pope, patriarch and hayrapet ’, equalin dignity to the Sees o Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria. Gre-

goryandhissuccessorsaretoldtobeautocephalousandtohavetherightto receive their ordination rom their own bishops. Besides representingthe Pope in the Asian lands and having a decisive voice when electinga patriarch or the other three oriental Sees—Jerusalem, Antioch andAlexandria—the Armenian Catholicos is to have jurisdiction over theChurches o Georgia and Albania.

. A miracle o light appears upon Gregory’s head during a Eucharisticcelebration. Constantine alls at his eet and asks or the benediction o the world and o his Empire rom the Illuminator.

. Upon such a great proo o sanctity, the pope is eager to increase Gre-gory’s honours by giving him other precious gifs, such as parts o therelics o Sts. Paul and Peter and, in some mss, the lef arm o ApostleAndrew, the Pope’s own vestments which he wears during the ordina-tion rites—the mitra, the ring, the staff, and the Episcopal orarium or pallium. Te enumeration o presents goes on.

. Among territorial donations given to the Armenian Catholicos are cer-tain holy places in Jerusalem, such as the Martyrion o St. James, a place(an altar) or the liturgy in the Church o the Resurrection (Anastasis)as well as a place on the Golgotha, on the upper part o the Dome o theHoly Sepulchre and a lantern that hangs on it.

–. o conrm the authority o Gregory, Sylvester enumerates the various

holy relics that are kept in Armenia. He repeats that Gregory has author-ity over Armenians, Greeks, Georgians, Albanians, Syrians and Persians.

. Te closing paragraph states that this ‘edict’ was produced by the orderso Constantine and Sylvester, in Armenian and in Latin, each to be keptin respective royal chancelleries.

In order to propose some plausible hypothesis as to the purpose andtime-rame o the composition o this text, it is necessary to examinethe historical, religious and textual environment when it was most likely composed.

Chapter will ocus on the historical and religious situation in Arme-nian Cilicia in the twelfh and beginning o the thirteenth centuries.Chapter will discuss the sources o D: textual, oral, conceptual andhistorical, revealing some sources previously not mentioned by scholars,or indicating specic sections o those sources that have already beenidentied. Based on this analysis, as well as on the possible intentionsor the creation o this alse document, a plausible date or its composi-tion will be proposed. ext-critical issues, the description o manuscriptsand their relationships, as well as some reflections on the language andgrammar o D, are explained in Chapter . Ten, a revised diplomaticedition o D based on nineteen manuscripts is presented, ollowed


18/488

by an English translation. Further comments on the text, ofen cross-reerenced to respective chapters, are provided in the ootnotes o the

English translation.


19/488


20/488

HE HISORICAL AND RELIGIOUSSIUAION IN CILICIAN ARMENIA IN HE

SECOND HALF OF HE WELFH AND BEGINNINGOF HE HIREENH CENURY

All scholars who have, in one way or another, dealt with the Letter o

Love and Concord agree that it was created sometime during the Cili-cian period o Armenian history, that is, roughly, between the twelfhand the ourteenth centuries. In order to understand or what purposesuch a document was orged in Cilician Armenia, it is imperative to havea clear idea o the country’s political and religious milieu, especially thepolitical/royal ideology developed by the ruling dynasty o the Rubenids,and the new currents o thought in contemporary ecclesiological cir-cles.

.. H S

Te eleventh century witnessed a large emigration o Armenians west-ward. Troughout the tenth century but especially in the rst hal o theeleventh, Armenian territories were being slowly annexed to the Byzan-tine Empire and the raids o urkish tribes arriving rom the East, startingin the third decade o the eleventh century, were depriving the coun-

try o its previous economic stability and well-being.1

As a result, the

1 Tree actors played a decisive negative role in Armenia’s loss o independence by its major ruling houses: internal disagreements and centriugal tendencies o Armenianprincely amilies, the appearance o various urkish tribes in Asia Minor, with theeventual onslaught o the Seljuks, and the Byzantine policy o annexation o Armenianterritories. Different scholars attribute different weight to each o these actors. Someo the important analyses o this historical period in Armenia are: Bartikian ;Dédéyan ; Der Nersessian A; and oumanoff . Te annexation o various

Armenian territories by the Byzantine Empire was not necessarily condemned by allArmenians in the tenth century as it was occurring. Some viewed it as the triumphantadvance o protectors o the true aith, as suggested in Tomson . In her variousstudies, Arutjunova-Fidanjan has demonstrated that neither did tenth and early eleventh


21/488

emigration touched not only the upper classes o the society who wouldpursue a military or bureaucratic career at the Byzantine court, but also

the mass o peasants who ollowed their noble lords. Many o the Arme-nian princes established semi-independent principalities in Cappadociaand, as the Seljuks pushed urther West, in Cilicia. In act, all o these ter-ritories had had Armenian populations long beore the eleventh century,but their presence was never as compact as was the case afer their massimmigration.2 Tese Armenian principalities were theoretically vassalso the Byzantine Empire but held a large autonomy in internal affairs.From among them two major amilies emerged in the twelfh century:the Rubenids and the Het‘umids. Te ormer was more inclined towards

gaining an independent status rom the Byzantine court and uniting various Armenian princes o Cilicia under its hegemony. Tis policy clashed with the interests o the rival Het‘umid amily which continu-ously maintained a philo-Byzantine attitude.3 Moreover, the Rubenidsalso attempted to give ideological legitimacyto their attempts at strength-ening their rule over all Armenians o Cilicia. Te twelfh century his-torian Matt‘ēos Uṙhayec‘i (Matthew o Edessa) presents Prince ‘orosRubenid (the grandson o the ounder o the Rubenid dynasty—Ruben)as the avenger or the blood o the last Armenian Bagratid king Gagik II.At an opportune moment, according to the historian in , ‘orosoccupied the castle o the Mandalē brothers—the alleged murderers o Gagik but also relatives o his own wie—and ordered them to bring the

century historians object to the Byzantine Empire’s eastward advance. Tey expresseda benevolent attitude towards Byzantium’s political but not religious hegemony. Teseattitudes changed to extremely negative ones in the eleventh century when Armenia,lef without its leading princely houses which traditionally held their own armed orces

and provided military deense or their territories, became devastated by the advanceo the Seljuk orces. Contemporary historians rightly or wrongly blamed Byzantium orthe ensuing catastrophic events, such as the painul deeat at the Battle o Manazkert in/. Cr Arutjunova-Fidanjan . For the most recent analysis on this topic, crDédéyan .

2 For geographical characteristics and an overview o this once Roman, then Byzan-tine province o Cilicia, as well as the Armenian presence here throughout centuries, crAlishan ; Mikayelyan , –, – or a geographical description and – ora brie history o Cilicia beore the ormation o Armenian Principalities on its territory.

3 Tere is vast literature on Cilician Armenia. I will rerain rom overburdening thisootnote and mention only some o the most important works. Other reerences can be

ound elsewhere in the ootnotes, wherever appropriate, and in the bibliography. Some o the most important studies (chronologically) are as ollows: ournebise , –or the period o our interest; Mikayelyan ; Der Nersessian B; Sukiasyan ;Boase , –; Hamilton ; Halfer ; and Dédéyan .


22/488

sword and the vestments o King Gagik to him.4 When these were duly brought orth ‘oros and his entire army ‘cried bitterly’ at the sight o

the last Armenian king’s royal clothes. ‘oros proceeded to loot the trea-sures o the castle, while one o the Mandalē sons committed suicideby leaping rom a ‘high pitched rock’. Te dialogue between the otherMandalē brother and ‘oros, as recounted by Uṙhayec‘i, embodies thedeeply rooted eelings o resentment among many Armenians againstByzantines, whose policy o expansion in the tenth century was believedby eleventh century historians to have weakened the military might o Armenian princes and led the way to the all o Armenia to Seljuk orces:“ ‘You are an Armenian and we are Roman princes. How will you respond

to the Roman Emperor or judging Romans?’ Ten ‘oros was outragedand the colour o his ace changed. Picking up an iron bar with a crook he violently attacked him and said, ‘And who were you that killed a coura-geous man and an anointed King o the Armenians? And how will yourespond to the Armenian nation?’”5 ‘oros killed the man and gloriedthe Lord or being able ‘to take revenge or the blood o Gagik, King o the Armenians’.6

Several details in this story reported by Matt‘ēos Uṙhayec‘i revealthe contemporary Armenian attitudes towards Byzantines, perhaps notshared by all, but certainly by many. Moreover, the episode brings orthaspects o royal ideology that are akin to concepts expressed in the Letter o Love, as shall be seen in Chapter . First, one cannot but observethe thoroughly embittered eelings o Armenians against Byzantines ex-pressed in ‘oros’ outrage at their having killed an ‘anointed king o Armenians’. Te specic mention o ‘anointment’ echoes the aura o piety or even sacrality that this rite conerred upon a king.7 ‘oros and hissoldiers probably expressed the sentiments o many Armenians when

they ‘cried over’ the vestments o King Gagik as i crying over preciousrelics. Moreover, to strengthen the link between this last Armenian king,Gagik II, and the Rubenids, Matthew o Edessa mentions twice in hisChronography that the ounder o the Rubenid dynasty was a soldier in

4 ME , –. All translations rom Armenian, Greek or Latin sources aremine, unless otherwise indicated.

5 ME , .6

Ibid.7 Te anointment oa king may not have been initially part o the Bagratid coronationrite, but became increasingly important since the tenth century. Cr Jones /, –, esp. –.


23/488

Gagik’s army, while in one occasion his text, at least in some manuscripts,reads that Ruben was ‘one o the sons’ o Gagik.8 However, more than

sixty years ago the armenologist Adontz demonstrated that historically there is no hard proo or the Bagratid origin o the Rubenids and thatthe mention o Ruben as ‘one o the sons’ o Gagik is almost certainly ascribal error.9 More recently it has been suggested that the homeland o the Rubenids was probably South-Western Armenia.10 Yet, the connec-tion with the Bagratids survived in Armenian historical sources, suchas the work o Samuēl Anec‘i, and was repeated with some variations by others as well, such as Vahram Rabun, Het‘um Patmič‘ and a short anony-mous history o the Rubenids, but, signicantly, not by Smbat Spara-

pet. Te lack o this latter witness is what makes the Bagratid origin o the Rubenids even more suspect.11 Te act that ‘oros was hailed by his contemporaries as the avenger o Gagik’s blood could legitimate hisrule as the latter’s spiritual heir. His brother Prince Levon I may havegone even urther in trying to ashion himsel as a rightul successoro the Armenian royal dynasty, and the Aršakunis at that. Analyzing apanegyric composed by Michael Italicos or Emperor John Comnenus,Bartikian has argued that Levon I had declared himsel king—perhapscalling himsel basileus—and being o Aršakuni descent. He tied a dia-dem around his head and wore purple shoes, or which he was bitterly mocked by the Byzantine poet.12 Such audacity was symbolically highly charged and underlined the Armenian prince’s determination to break ree o Constantinopolitan subordination. In response, John Comnenusorganised a military expedition to re-conquer Cilicia and Syria in – in which he was largely successul against all potential rivals, suchas Armenians, Latins or Muslims.13 Levon I was terribly punished or hisroyal pretensions: he was taken prisoner to Constantinople with his wie

8 ME , .9 Adontz B, –, esp. –.

10 Dédéyan , –.11 Adontz B, –, esp. –.12 Evidence or this is ound in a panegyric composed by Michael Italicus and dedi-

cated to Emperor John Comnenus and his conquests in Cilicia and Syria. Bartikian points out that according to the panegyric Levon used a diadem, i.e. a band tied aroundone’s head and not a crown—stemma—in which case he would symbolically equate him-

seltoanemperor,tooar-etchedapretensionthatLevonwasintelligentenoughtoavoid,and wore purple shoes. Moreover, he was mocked as being ασιλσκς or having pre-tended to be a ασιλες.

13 Angold , –.


24/488

and two o his ve sons—Ruben and ‘oros.14 Subsequently, Ruben waskilled and Levon I was poisoned and died in exile, but the other son—

‘oros—managed to escape around , return to Cilicia and slowly gain control o his ather’s lost territories. In these re-conquests he wasaided by the political situation in the Levant, since Byzantium was pre-occupied with the Second Crusade passing through its territory, whileEdessa had allen to the orces o Zengi in and this Latin principality could not be actively involved in local power politics.15 By around ‘oros Rubenid had conquered most o the Cilician territory, includ-ing the cities o arsus, Adana, Anazarbus, Sis and Mamistra. However,by this date Byzantium had not only survived the passage o the Sec-

ond Crusade through its territory, but Manuel Comnenus elt that hisEmpire weathered the situation with a reinorced sense o superiority over western armies and rulers.16 As a result, Byzantine armies, led by Andronicus Comnenus, hastened to retaliate and soon besieged Mamis-tra. In this operation members o other Armenian princely houses—particularly those o the Het‘umids—ought against ‘oros in the Byzan-tine army.17 A more serious military expedition to Cilicia was led by Manuel Comnenus himsel in /, when the Emperor intended notonly to curb ‘oros’ independence but also to punish him or the brutalplunder o Cyprus, in which the Armenian Prince had participated alongwith Reginald o Antioch. By humbly agreeing to be a loyal vassal o theEmperor, as well as through astute diplomatic moves, ‘oros was ableto make peace with Manuel and to gain his personal reedom.18 Never-theless,his efforts to achieve ull independence rom the Byzantine courtneverceased,andweretobecontinuedbyhisbrotherMlehwhoseovertly

14 Grigor Erec‘ in ME , ; Boase , , where this author says that theByzantine re-conquest o Cilicia was completed in /. For genealogical tables o Cilician rulers Rüdt-Collenberg , able I (Rup.) or the Rubenids.

15 Mikayelyan , –; Der Nersessian B, –; or the appraisal o the Byzantine political situation in this period and ears about a possible attack onConstantinople by Crusaders cr Angold , –.

16 Angold , ; but the ailure o the Second Crusade strengthened the eel-ings o resentment against the Byzantine Empire among westerners. Manuel Comnenuswas blamed or having brought on this disaster by some contemporary historians andByzantines were described as treacherous and hypocritical, cr Ibid, and Laiou ,esp. –.

17

ME , ; Der Nersessian B, ; Boase , .18 Der Nersessian, History , gives the date ; whereas Mikayelyan , –, indicates that Manuel’s aggressive moves towards Cilicia had started already in to culminate in ; Boase , proposes ; Cr also Angold , .


25/488

pro-Moslem oreign policy and alliance with Nur ad-Din raised populardisapproval.19 Afer Mleh’s death in his nephew Ruben ruled Cilicia.

Ruben and his brother Levon, (the uture king),20 were sons o Step‘anē(the third brother o ‘oros and Mleh) who was ound dead in afer a east organised by the Byzantine governor o arsus, AndronicusEupobrenus.21 He was reputedly boiled alive, and this event kept anti-Byzantine passions high.22 While Ruben continued to strive or indepen-dence rom Byzantium, it was his brother Levon, who took the rule o Cilicia in , who would build on his predecessors’ achievements andbe destined to be crowned as King o the Armenians in . Te authoro the Letter o Love had Levon in mind when describing King rdat, as

shall be discussed in Chapter . It is thereore appropriate to analyse thepolitical circumstances o Levon’s reign, rst as prince, later as king andsome aspects o royal ideology that will be ound also in D.

Soon afer Levon took control o Cilicia in it was to becomethe only Christian state large enough in the Levant to be in a positionto lend military support to Latin rulers in the East or to an imminentwestern campaign in the Holy Land. Only ve months afer his acces-sion as the leading Rubenid Prince, Jerusalem ell to Salah al-Din23 andthe Latin states in the Eastern Mediterranean were drastically weakened.Te Byzantine Empire did not are well at this time either. During hisshort reign, the newly ascended Isaac II Angelos (–) was toothoroughly entangled with problems o affirming his dynasty on theimperial throne and putting down serious rebellions in the Balkans, or

19 Because o this policy Mleh is besmirched by Armenian historians, both medievaland some modern. Cr Alishan , –, or an extremely unavorable appraisal o Mleh’s pro-Muslim policy. For a more balanced approach to the issue, including a critical

analysis o relevant sources, cr Mikayelyan , –; as well as er-Łevondyan, –; Mutaan , –.

20 In documents that have come down to us, Levon signed his name ofen in Greek asLeo ollowed by his name and title in Armenian: Լևոն թագաւոր Հայոց—Lewon Kingo the Armenians. Cr Langlois , –. On the coins issued during his reign, theredoes not seem to have been a uniormity in spelling, thus we nd versions as ԼԵՒՈՆ,ԼԵՒՆ, ԼԵՈՆ—Lewon, Lewn, Leon. Cr Bedoukian , . I will consistently use thetranscription Levon commonly used in scholarly literature. He was the second princeo the Rubenid house with this name, thus Prince Levon II Rubenid. However, he wasthe rst king o Cilician Armenia and it is more appropriate to call him King Levon I.Nevertheless, in secondary literaturethere is no consistency; Levon appears both as King

Levon I or King Levon II. On this issue, cr Schlumberger .21 Der Nersessian, B, ; Mikayelyan , .22 Boase , .23 Alishan , or the dating.


26/488

urcoman raids and centriugal tendencies in Asia Minor.24 Te experi-ence o the First and Second Crusades had made Byzantines increasingly

weary o another similar venture, with armies or disorganised, raucouscrowds crossing their territory. Besides, the constant ear that a Crusadecould eventually turn against Constantinople was also in the back o theirminds.25 Isaac’s handling o the Tird Crusade, especially the disastrouspassage o Frederick Barbarossa’s armies through the Balkans—eitherbecause Isaac was in no effective control o these territories or becausehe was ar rom being a competent diplomat—only exasperated antago-nistic eelings between Latins and Byzantines.26

When Levon took control o the Rubenid principality his main con-

cerns were the greatest Islamic ruler o the Near East—Salah al-Din—and various urcoman tribes that periodically plundered the territory o Cilicia.27 Nevertheless, Levon was quite aware that the all o Jerusalemto Salah al-Din in strengthened his political position as a Chris-tian state in the Levant, and receiving a crown rom a Western Emperorwould provide him with a ormidable license in becoming an ever moreimportant actor in the politics o the Latin states in the East. 28 Giventhese circumstances and keeping with a long tradition o independent-mindedness in his amily, Levon sought to elevate his status to that o anindependent king, that is, receiving a de jure recognition o his Princi-pality as a Kingdom. He turned his sights to the West in an attempt atassuring his coronation by the Emperor o the Holy Roman Empire.29

24 Isaac II had to put down a second rebellion by his trusted general Alexius Branasexactly in . Te rebellion o Balkan chiefains Peter and Asen also occurred at thistime and spread to the whole peninsula, eventually playing a signicant role in Isaac’sdownall in . Angold , –.

25 For a detailed overview o sources which indicate the ever-present possibility o a

Crusader attack on Constantinople cr Laiou .26 For the Tird Crusade, cr Johnson, , esp. – on Barbarossa’s passagethrough the Balkans. Johnson and Laiou argue that Barbarossa had no real interest inattackingConstantinople andCharles Brand has argued that even Henry VI, who seemedto pursue an aggressive policy against Byzantium, ‘was preparing or conquest o theByzantine Empire [only] in the distant uture.’ Brand , . Yet Byzantine ears o amilitary expedition against their state were real and the relationship between the Easternand Western empires remained tense throughout the end o the twelfh and beginning o the thirteenth centuries.

27 Halfer , ; Mikayelyan , –.28 Halfer , – or some urther considerations on this aspect, including

western attitudes to Armenians as ‘brave soldiers.’29 Halfer , , demonstrates convincingly that originally Levon’s intention wasto receive a crown only rom the Emperor and not the Pope. It is not altogether clear why he later chose to send an embassy with a similar request to Pope Celestine III as well. It is


27/488

Pope Clement III, on the other hand, viewed Levon as a strong mili-tary leader and one who could lend valuable support to a new Crusade.

Te Pope wrote a particularly cordial letter to the Armenian King andCatholicos in , asking their backing or the imminent army o theCrusaders.30 Clement III, like his predecessors or even European histo-rians who visited the Holy Land or lived there, may have overestimatedthe might and the number o Armenians who could come to the aid o the Crusaders.31 Yet, given the strength o Salah al-Din, who constantly threatened Levon’s domains, as well as Levon’s other Muslim neighbourKilidj Arslan, the Armenian prince could support a Crusade only i hewere sure o its success and i such a venture could strengthen his own

position in the Levant. Te promise o a crown could serve the latter pur-pose. In act, according to a colophon written by Nersēs Lambronac‘i,the most eminent participant o the Tird Crusade—Emperor Frederick Barbarossa—had promised to crown Levon upon his arrival to Cilicia,which, however, was not to take place because o Barbarossa’s death in while swimming in the Kalykadnos River (Lat. Calycadnus).32 Lam-bronac‘i, nevertheless, translated the Rite o the royal coronation rom aLatin example that he received, according to his own testimony, romHerman, Archbishop o Münster.33

Frederick Barbarossa’s death delayed Levon’s coronation or eight longyears and it seems natural that the Armenians should have regretted thisevent, especially given the act that some o them were openly riendly toBarbarossa and his army as it crossed the Balkans. In act, the Armeni-

quite understandable why the Pope would be interested in getting involved in the projecto elevating the Armenian Prince’s status, as a means o extending or strengtheninghis influence over this Christian state as well as counter-balancing the influence o the

Western Emperor in the Levant.30 Te text o this letter, preserved only in itsArmenian translation, has beenpublishedin various occasions, and most recently by Ananean , –. On Cilicia’s impor-tance as one o the most ‘vital Christian states in the Levant’ at this period, cr Der Ners-essian B, –; and Halfer , – or the signicance attached by PopeClement III to Armenian help in his Crusader project. er-Petrosyan , vol. , –, suggests that the idea to request a crown rom the West in exchange or Levon’s mili-tary aidduring the newly planned (Tird)Crusade wasprobably conceived afer receivingthis letter.

31 Tere seems to have been a common overestimation o the number o Armenians,or example, under the jurisdiction o the Armenian Catholicos. Tis is the case, or

example, o Otto o Freising, cited in Halfer , . On the same issue see also Ibid,.32 Yovsepean , .33 Ibid.


28/488

ans living in the region o Philippopolis were accused by Greek authorsas traitors or having collaborated with Barbarossa as he approached

Tessaloniki.34 Prince Levon, in his turn, sent delegations to Barbarossawhile the latter was approaching Cilicia in order to demonstrate his goodwill. Yet, the situation was not that simple and diplomatic moves were justas complex. Ensuring the alliance o a strong western power stationedrelatively ar away—i.e. the Holy Roman Empire—at a price o a nom-inal vassalage could be denitely benecial or Cilician Armenia. Yet,Levon was anxious about keeping his small domain independent romthe effective control o any western or eastern ruler. Accepting a crown,and, thus, a legal dependence rom Barbarossa, the strongest and most

respected ruler in the West—the Emperor o the Holy Roman Empire—may have turned out to be a double-edged sword. It could bring prestigein Levantine political dealings, but it could also create a possible dangero eroding or down-grading one’s political independence. Te GermanEmperor’s domineering presence in the East could have justiably causeduneasinessintheleaderoaterritorywhoconstantlyhadtoplayabalanc-ing act between strong powers that surrounded it, such as the ByzantineEmpire, the Seljuk Sultanate o Rum and the Ayyubids, especially i oneconsiders Barbarossa’s alliance with Kilidj Arslan. Such may have beenthe political considerations—apart rom an ever-present possibility thatone’s territories may be looted by soldiers o even an allied army—thatcompelled Levon to convince Barbarossa to change his route and reachPalestine without crossing Cilicia.35 Moreover, Baha ad-Din ibn Shaddadclaims that the contemporary Catholicos Grigor łay, whose residenceo Hṙomklay was outside o Levon’s rule and in the territory controlledby Salah al-Din, wrote a letter to the Sultan inorming him about Bar-barossa’s entry into Cilicia and gave a detailed account o the state o his

army beore and afer the Emperor’s death.36

Given the close relationship

34 Dédéyan , –, esp. –.35 Mikayelyan , –. er-Łevondyan , –. Tese authors rely on

Muslim historians, such as abu Shama and ibn Shaddad to support this argument. IbnShaddad in his Biography o Salah al-Din includes a long letter written by CatholicosGrigor to the Ayyubid Sultan. See the note below.

36 Mikayelyan , –; and ibn Shaddad in Nalbandyan , –, ully quoting the letter. Alishan , , vehemently protested against the authenticity o these letters. Yet, other scholars have questioned this attitude and explained the purpose

o the letter as a political/diplomatic move on the part o Grigor łay whose residencewas under Salah al-Din’s control. For an overview o different opinions and a balancedappraisal o the issue, cr Halfer , , esp. note and Mnac‘akanyan ,. Mutaan , – provides an overview o all sources which indicate that


29/488

between Levon and the Catholicos it is unlikely that the Prince wasunaware o Grigor łay’s letter.37 Tus, since the outcome o Barbarossa’s

exploits in the East could have had unpredictable consequences on Cili-cian Armenia, its ruler probably tried to prevent any undesirable out-comes by making a priori overtures to Salah al-Din through the Catholi-cos Grigor łay. Tis was simply realpolitik.38 As it turned out, Levon’scautions were unnecessary since Barbarossa died beore reaching the ter-ritories under the Prince’s control.

Afer Barbarossa’s death Levon did not give up his hopes or a royalcrown. Moreover, at the turn o the twelfh century he was justied toeel one o the strongest rulers in the Near East, given the act that all

o the major rulers, such as Salah al-Din (died ) and Kilij Arslan(died ) had recently died, while Byzantium at this time had “becomethe ‘Sick Man o Europe’”.39 At the end o May , Levon’s ambas-sadors visited the court o Emperor Henry VI while he was in Milan,reiterating Levon’s request or a crown, and in they were receivedby Pope Clement III.40 wo years later, in , an embassy was sent toConstantinople headed by Nersēs Lambronac‘i.41 Te great theologianwas charged with the mission o trying to reach a compromise regardingthe union o Armenian and Byzantine churches, but he most likely per-

Armenians may have been playing a ‘double game’ between Salah al-Din and Frederick Barbarossa, earing the latter’s claims to ‘Roman Emperorship’, but appreciating hispotential help against the Ayyubid Sultan Salah al-Din. According to this author we may say, with the benet o hindsight, that the death o Barbarossa, especially because it was,shortly aferwards, ollowed by that o Salah al-Din in , had a positive outcome orCilician Armenia.

37 A poem penned by Grigor łay on the all o Jerusalem, where he lavishly praises

Levon or his courage demonstrates the positive nature o their relationship at this time.Van Lint , –. Te relationship may not have been always rosy, especially towards the end o Grigor’s lie (), as hypothesised by Mnac‘akanyan in his ‘Intro-duction’ to G , –.

38 Tis opinion is urther developed by Mikayelyan , –. Dédéyan ,cautiously and rightly states that the intricacies o the diplomatic correspondences be-tween Levon, Barbarossa and Salah al-Din need urther elaboration, perhaps with urtherexamination o Arabic sources, which is beyond my own eld o competence.

39 Angold , . For urther details with citations rom sources on Levon’s grow-ing importance in the last ve years o the twelfh century cr also er-Petrosyan ,–.

40

Halfer , – or a minute discussion on dates, and Halfer , orthe specic date o the embassy to Milan.41 We know about Lambronac‘i’s visit to Constantinople rom a colophon written by

him. Yovsepean , .


30/488

ormed also a diplomatic mission entrusted to him by Prince Levon.42

Lambronac‘i returned rom this embassy quite disappointed, as is evi-

dent in the colophon written by him in at the end o a collectiono patristic and dogmatic letters (o Armenian and Greek authors) thathe intended to use in his conversations with Constantinopolitan reli-gious and political leaders.43 Tis disappointment is even more impres-sive when one considers Lambronac‘i’s previous admiration or Greek learning.

Interestingly, Levon was designated as king in some Armenian sourceseven beore his coronation. Tus, a colophon o a manuscript o a Hym-nary rom /, states that it was written:

ԸստխնդրոյքրիստոսասէրԼևոնիարքայիՀայոց, որկոչիԼևոնԵրկրորդ…

… upon the request o Christ-loving Levon, King o the Armenians, whois called Levon the Second …44

Moreover, he was called autokrator in a letter o Nersēs Lambronac‘iaddressed to him in .45

Levon’s actual coronation nally took place on January , in theCathedral Church o St. Sophia in arsus. Te papal legate in charge o crowning Levon was Conrad o Wittelsbach—Archbishop o Mainz.46

42 Mikayelyan , –.43 Yovsepean , .44 Mat‘evosyan , .45 Tisis a amous andmuch-quoted letter where Lambronac‘i deends himsel against

the charges o bishops rom Northern Armenia who condemned his openness to influ-ences rom Latin and Greek ecclesiastical traditions as a betrayal o ancestral Armeniancustoms. Here Lambronac‘i comments also on the various Latin habits that had becomecommon in the court o Prince Levon II. Among others, he cites some o the new terms

that had entered into the common language o the high society, such as Sir, Liege, Bail,etc. (pp. –). But the more amiliar Greek terminology also survived; or example,such denominations as Sebastos or Prok‘simos (rom pro-xenos), etc. In the title o theletter Levon is characterised as išxołn mer ink‘nakalut‘eamb—ruling [us] as an autokra-tor . NL , –. Cr also Dulaurier , liv. For the date o the letter PołareanB, .

46 Halfer , on the coronation o Levon as a joint action o the Papacy and theEmpire, o Pope Celestine III and Emperor Henry VI, even i by January Henry VIwas dead. Cr Ibid, –, or a detailed analysis o the circumstances and the dating o the event. See also Mikayelyan , – and Der Nersessian, B, , note ,where the author discusses in detail the controversy between the dates (proposed by

Alishan, accepted by ournebizeandOrmanean) and or Levon’s crowning. Te year is based on the testimony o theChronicle attributed to Smbat Sparapet,which omitsthe name o Nersēs Lambronac‘i as one o the participants o the ceremony. All otherArmenian historians, however, indicate as the date o Levon’s coronation.Moreover,


31/488

Tere was, however, a condition to his crown: to bring about the unionbetween the Armenian and Roman Churches.47

Levon’s crowning lef an indelible impression on contemporaries. Tey hailed him as the renovator o the long-lost independence o Arme-nians.48 Moreover, his status was recognised both by the Holy RomanEmpire and the Byzantium Empire, even i it is not altogether resolvedwhose crown he received rst: the one rom the Byzantine Emperor Alex-ius III Angelos, or that rom Henry VI and Pope Celestine III. Sources arenot consistent on this issue. Tus, one contemporary colophon written in in the Catholical residence o Hṙomklay speaks only about a crownsent by the Byzantine Court:

… սա միայն ստացաւ զաւգոստական զծիրանափայլ պատմուճանն ևընկալաւ աւծումն որպէս զմեծն Տրդատ, կամակցութեամբ արիականազգին Յունաց, բերեալ նմա նշան զխաչանիշ թագն: Եւ նորա պատ-ուասիրաբար կոչեցեալ զհոգևոր տէր Գրիգորիոս, զի երթիցէ և աւծցէզնա սրբարար և մաքրագործակ մեռոնաւն և պսակեսցէ զգլուխն խա-չանշան դրոշմաւ:

… he [Levon] was the only one to obtain the august purple mantle andreceive anointment as the Great rdat, by the concordant will o the bravenation o Greeks, who brought him a crown with a cross. And he [Levon],

in an honourable manner, called the spiritual lord Grigorios, in order thathe may go and anoint him with the holy and puriying miwron49and crownhis head with the cross-shaped sign.50

in a colophon Nersēs Lambronac‘i (who died in July ) wrote about the coronationo the Rubenid Prince, thus conrming that it did take place in the year . Halfer (asquoted above) came to the same conclusion based on a detailed chronological analysis o Conrad’s itinerary in Italy and in the East, using mainly western sources. Later, however,he accepted based on the work o Prinzing-Schmidt on the Lemberg Evangelium, crHalfer , p. note . Te latest analysis on the issue is that o er-Petrosyan ,

vol. , where he avours dating. I have accepted this conclusion and indicated as the date o Levon’s coronation.

47 Te religious background o this union and reactions to it are treated in the nextsection (.) o this chapter.

48 Alishan , quotes various contemporary Armenian historians, even i notalways giving their names or exact sources where he ound these quotations. Tis authorhimsel continues in the long Armenian tradition o veneration or Levon, as Alishancompares Levon to the greatest rulers o his time, Frederick Barbarossa and Salah al-Din,ibid, . For the most recent analysis o the subject cr er-Petrosyan , –.

49 Miwron is a transcription o Greek µρν or µρων, in Armenian, as in Greek,signiying the holy oil, the oil o chrismation, used or ritual rites, such as baptism,

ordination o priests, etc. Cr NBH, .50 Mat‘evosyan , . Tis colophon is written in a manuscript containing Com-mentaries on the General Epistles by Sargis Šnorhali, reprinted rom Alishan , –. Hac‘uni , – describes the Cilician crown, which usually was adorned


32/488

Tis brie colophon has much interesting data on the coronation o Levon. First o all, it only talks about a Byzantine crown and implies that

the coronation was perormed only by the Armenian Catholicos. More-over, the ordination rite described here has similarities with a late (at leastsince the tenth century) Bagratid investiture ceremony, especially the cer-emony o anointing the king by the current Armenian Catholicos andthe placing o a crown on his head by the Catholicos. Te colophon alsomentions a purple mantle and a crown sent by the Byzantine Emperor toLevon, which echoes the dressing o the Bagratid King Ašot II in purpleclothes upon his visit to the Byzantine capital in .51 Moreover, in theLetter o Love Constantine the Great presents a purple mantle to rdat.

Te author o the colophon ound it natural to compare the rst Chris-tian Armenian King rdat with Levon, who ‘renewed’ the long-lost king-dom o the Armenians. He was not the only one to make such allusions.A ew years earlier, Nersēs Lambronac‘i in his amous letter to Levon,(where he justied himsel or his openness to other ecclesiastical tradi-tions as well as indicated various oreign influences evident in the court o Levon), again called on Levon to ollow the example o such pious kingsas ‘David and Joseph, Constantine and rdat’.52 In his Lamentation on theFall o Jerusalem, Grigor łay lauds prousely Levon’s military successes,comparing him to Alexander the Great, the hero Hayk—the legendary oreather o the Armenian nation—King rdat, and King Artašēs.53 Suchcomparisons were signicant or the developing royal ideology in theArmenian Cilician Kingdom. Tey reflect efforts o the representativeso the Rubenid house to nd more ancient origins and a direct royal con-nection o their ounder, Ruben, to previous Armenian royal dynasties. Astarting point was to claim that Ruben’s grandson ‘oros took revenge or

with pearls and precious stones, while the one sent rom the Byzantine court had also across on it. Evans , –, even i treating a later period than the rule o Levon I,has established, based on a study o royal portraits, that while originally royal portraitsand attire both in Greater Armenia and later on also in Cilicia bore strong eastern influ-ences, art historical evidence rom the middle o the th century points to a long-lastinginfluence o ‘Byzantine imagery as the ultimate symbol o authority’. In one case shecouldidentiy a Byzantine crown worn byQueen Keran, in a ms. o a Gospel rom (J),while the origin o the crowns or the King and the children, all depicted in the same ms,remain uncertain. She brings orth many other examples o Armenian princes with attireor poses typical o Byzantine portraits.

51

Cowe B; Jones /, –. For the use o purple and its ideology, cr.Chapter , pp. –.52 NL , .53 G , –.


33/488

the last Bagratid King Gagik’s death, as mentioned above, which wouldserve as a proo that the two houses were related. As such, then, the

Rubenids could make the most o this relationship and claim their ori-gins rom King David o Israel, the oreather o the Bagratid dynasty according to tradition.54

Te details o Levon’s crowning ound in Kirakos Ganjakec‘i’s History o the Armenians are different. Although not stating it explicitly, thishistorian seems to imply that the Byzantine crown was sent only aferEmperor Alexius III Angelos had become aware that a Latin crown wasimminent. He supposedly pronounced these words when sending thecrown: ‘Do not put on your head the crown [sent rom] Rome, but

[the one sent by] us, since you are closer to us than to Rome’. 55 SmbatSparapet, on the other hand, mentions that the Byzantine crown arrivedin , beore the embassy o Nersēs Lambronac‘i to Constantinople,but this is unlikely.56 Te importance o having received two crowns wasemphasised by Lambronac‘i:

… յօրում ամի [] վերապատուեցաւ թագաւոր Հայոց Լևոն, որ յՌո-բինեանց, բարէպաշտ և յաղթաւղ Աստուծով : Որոյ հռչակ արութեաննշարժեաց զմեծ ինքնակալն հին Հռոմա զՀեռի և զնոր Հռոմա Ալէքս, որպսակեցին զսա քարամբ պատուական, յեկեղեցի Տարսոնի, որ իմ ան-արժանութեամբ հովվի:

… in which year [] Levon, who was rom [the house o the] Rubi-neanc‘, pious and victorious with the help o God, was greatly honouredas the King o Armenians. Te ame o his courage had moved the greatautokrator o Ancient Rome, Henry, and o New Rome, Alexios, whocrowned him with precious stones, in the Church o arsus, which is undermy, unworthy, pastoral care.57

54 Cowe B, –, esp. . Tis legitimization would have been important also

against Byzantine imperial ideology. Even though the Byzantine Court sent a crown toLevon, he was never recognised as ασιλεσ but as ρ, since rom the Byzantine pointo view only a heir o the Aršakuni dynasty could be a basileus. Cr Bartikian , –. According to Bartikian, even Levon I may have attempted to establish a dynasticlink between his and the Aršakuni houses. er-Petrosyan , – believes that thelegend o the ‘royal, i.e. Bagratid, lineage’ o the Rubenids originated afer the coronationo Levon II as king Levon II since it appears only in th c. sources. It served at leasttwo purposes. First, to legitimise the dynasty o the Rubenids and second, to emphasiseLevon’s (and uture kings’) authority over all Armenians and not just those living inCilicia.

55 KG , . Te last entry in Ganjakec‘i’s History is related to /, cr Ibid,

–.56 Mikayelyan , .57 Mat‘evosyan , the colophon is in M (rom ), but the original was

written by Nersēs Lambronaci in , containing the Revelation o John.


34/488

As briefly outlined above, Levon’s external politics beore and aferthe coronation were aimed at gaining a ully independent status or

his realm. Politically, having received two crowns, neutralised his state.It was not dependent on either the Western or Eastern Empires. Inany case, the weakened Byzantine Empire under the dynasty o theAngeloi was in no position to dey Levon’s ambitions.58 At the same time,while Levon was nominally a vassal o the Holy Roman Emperor, hemaintained, in act, ull independence o action and owed no tributary obligations either to the Pope or to the Emperor.59 Moreover, he stroveto extend his control over the Principality o Antioch, rst throughmarriage alliances, i.e. that o his niece Alis (the daughter o his deceased

brother Ruben) to Raymond, the son o Prince Bohemund III o Antiochin . Raymond-Ruben, the issue o this marriage, was to inherit hisgrandather’s title as the Prince o Antioch, and this would mean thatde acto Levon would be the ruler o the Principality. However, whenBohemund III died (in ) his younger son, Bohemund IV challengedthe young Raymond-Ruben and a long dispute, known as the Antiochenesuccession wars broke out. Tis would last rom till , ending,eventually, with an apparent victory o Levon’s party and the anointingo Raymond-Ruben as Prince o Antioch. His reign, however, would notlast long, as he was ousted by the local nobility in and fled thecity. Tis thirteen-year long dispute or the legitimate successor o thePrincipality involved not only Levon and Bohemund IV, but also very closely Pope Innocent III, the Hospitallers and the emplars, as well asthe high nobility o Armenian Cilicia and the Principality o Antioch.60

Each side, Levon or Bohemund, tried to influence papal legates whowere supposed to provide an impartial verdict as to the rightul heir o Antioch. A solution through diplomatic means, however, was next to

impossible, and the eventual, seemingly victorious but short-lived, entry o Levon to Antioch took place only due to the occupation o one o thecity’s gates by the King’s men during the night. Tis long conflict not only demonstrates Levon’s aspirations at expanding the territories under his

58 Mikayelyan , . For the signicance o having received two crowns cr er-Petrosyan , –.

59 Halfer , –, based on a detailed study o imperial and papal documents

concluded that Levon did not owe any tributary obligations as a eudal vassal o theGerman Emperor or o the Pope.60 Cr Mikayelyan , –, or a brie overview o the conflict; Cahen ,

–, remains a seminal study or its in-depth analysis o the subject.


35/488

control, but also his ability to use both diplomatic (that can be tracedthrough numerous letters exchanged between him and Innocent III) and

militarymeansorreachinghisgoals.Inconclusion,Levonwasoneothemost ambitious and able kings o his time and his contemporaries werewell aware o these traits. Moreover, he remained in the consciousness o the Armenians as the glorious reviver o their long-lost independence. Itis no wonder then, that in a climate o renewed interest in legends aboutthe rst Christian Armenian king rdat and the revival o the Armenianroyal dynasty at the End o times, Levon would tacitly become theirmodel. In particular, this seems to be the case in the Letter o Love and Concord .

.. A RC – C

Troughout the twelfh century official contacts between the heads o Armenian and Roman Churches intensied.61 Te same century alsowitnessed a new breath in negotiations aimed at re-establishing a unionbetween Armenian and Byzantine Orthodox Churches.62

Some o the surviving letters exchanged between various popes andcatholicoi—aimed at solidiying or, depending on the time-rame, clar-iying the terms and the validity o a conessional union between thetwo Churches—have allowed scholars to explore the details o Roman-Armenian relations starting with the rst Crusades and later. Variousstudies dedicated to the subject assert that the two Churches were on dis-tinctly cordial terms in the twelfh century and several Popes explicitly recognised the orthodoxy o the Armenian Church. Yet, there were ups

and downs in the relationship o the two churches even in the twelfhand also later centuries, not least due to the fluctuations o the politi-cal orces in the Christian East. What has not been given much atten-tion by scholars is the evidence that discussions and negotiations withthe Church o Rome in the twelfh and thirteenth centuries provided an

61 Hamilton ; Halfer ; and Tomson , –. A less elaborate versiono this section has been published as Pogossian , –.

62

Some o the most important works on the Armenian-Byzantine dialogue o thisperiod include: ékéyan ; Zekiyan , –; and Idem , –. On thepolitical background andits influence on ecclesiastical relations, Bartikian ; Bozoyan, where on – there is a review o literature on the subject; and Idem .


36/488

impetus or absorbing new terms, concepts, and orms o argumentationby Armenian authors and polemicists. Tis process o development can

be compared to the influence o doctrinal debates in Late Antiquity onthe shaping o ideas and concepts during the ormative period o not only Armenian, but also generally Caucasian, theology.63 During this orma-tive period, even i in this earlier case the range o issues and their impor-tance was more signicant, the leaders o Armenian and other Cau-casian churches were pushed to acquire a more proound understand-ing o theological-philosophical concepts underpinning Christologicaldebates. Consequently they demonstrated much more sophistication inapplying methods and the necessary vocabulary o logical argumentation

pertinent to the issues o the time and in support o their own positions.64Similarly, as a result o discussions with representatives o the RomanChurch, including the written correspondence with Popes, new concepts,specic to the Church o Rome, and orms o argumentation were intro-duced into Armenian theological discourse rom the second hal o thetwelfh century. In written correspondence and closer everyday contactswith representatives o the Latin Church in the East new issues wereraised—such as the primacy o the Roman Church and its authority overallotherChurches—thatpreviouslyhadnotbeendealtwithbyArmenianecclesiastical leaders. Tis orced the late twelfh- and early thirteenth-century Armenian theologians to develop and crystallise new concepts,particularly regarding the place o the Roman Church, in general, andin relation to the Armenian Church, in particular. Tese concepts canbe traced in official letters and polemical writings, as well as in sourcescommonly considered to be legendary. Te Letter o Love and Concord alls into the latter category. Some o these new ideas, especially as aras universal ecclesiology and the place o the Armenian Church within

this hierarchy is concerned, suraced also in twelfh-century negotiationswith Byzantine religious and imperial authorities. By underlining thesenew elements and describing the overall context o this specic stage o development within Armenian theology, one is better able to appreciatethe ecclesiological ideology propagated in the Letter o Love and Con-cord .

63 For an overview, see, or example, Cowe , –, esp. – or the early Christian period.

64 Ibid.


37/488

Te twelfh century papal letters,65 to contemporary Armenian catho-licoi, leave the impression that the heads o the two Churches thought

to be in communion with each other, even i differences in certainliturgical praxis existed. A letter o Innocent II (–) rom 66

to Catholicos Grigor III Pahlawuni (–) stated:

We heard about your orthodox aith rom the letter which our brotherAlberic, Archbishop o Ostia, brought. Having read it, we grateully gaveglory to God or having preserved you rmly in the orthodox aith amidother nations.67

While the Pope admitted that Armenians were orthodox in aith, he

demanded that certain liturgical changes be carried out. Tose wereas ollows: mixing water with wine in the Eucharistic chalice,68 and

65 welfh-century papal letters, albeit not all o them, have been preserved only intheir (medieval) Armenian translation. Unortunately, the Armenian side o the corre-spondence has not survived. Most recently, papal letters have been edited and publishedalong with their Italian translation in Ananean . One o the letters has been trans-lated (with an ample introduction and comments) into German also by Andrea BarbaraSchmidt and Peter Halfer, Cr Schmidt-Halfer : –.

66 Dating o the letter in Schmidt-Halfer , .67 Ananean , . By ‘other nations’ in Armenian ‘aylazgeac‘ mǐ ȷi’ the Pope reers

to Muslims.68 Ibid, . Te Armenian Church is the only one to use pure wine, not mixed with

water, or the Eucharistic celebration. Tis idiosyncratic tradition has been attested sincethe sixth century. In a private conversation with Pro. Nina Garsoian, she stated herconviction that this tradition stems rom the common usage o drinking unmixed winethat was wide-spread in the Iranian cultural sphere as opposed to the Roman customo drinking wine mixed with water. Her article on this issue had not appeared at thetime o the nal redaction o this book. It is worthwhile quoting the celebrated phraseo the sixth-century Catholicos Movsēs Ełiwardec‘i, when he reused to participate ina council convened at the will o Emperor Maurice around : ‘I will not cross theRiver Azat [the dividing line between the Byzantine Empire and Sasanian Iran], nor

eat oven-baked bread [i.e. leavened bread used by the Greeks or the Eucharist] ordrink warm water [i.e. wine mixed with water]’, in Garitte , . On the subjectsee also, Mécérian , –; Zekiyan , –, esp. on this subject; andHanssens , –, and esp. – on celebrating the Eucharist with unmixedwine. Recently Cowe has convincingly argued that this liturgical practice became closely linked to Armenian Christological belies on more than one level. Te mixing o waterwith wine could symbolise two natures in Christ (to which Armenians were opposed).But this practice (o mixing) could also imply the corruptibility o Christ’s flesh, whicha strong Julianist current within the Armenian Church did not admit as orthodox.From this point o view the Eucharistic wine mixed with water, or the leavened bread,were considered to symbolise a corruption afer the union, thus becoming symbolically

unacceptable or the Eucharistic celebration.For a detailed discussion and sources, Cowe, –, esp. and Idem , –, esp. –. For an overall viewo Julianistor aphthartodocetist trends in the Armenian church, cr Meyendorff , –. osummarise, holding tight to the tradition o unmixed wine and unleavened bread was a


38/488

celebrating the Birth o Christ on December , rather than January .69

Here is how the Pontiex Maximus justied his demands:

Even i there were twelve [apostles] chosen by Christ, Peter was appointedas the head o the apostles and the rst among them. Likewise, this [See],which is his chair, is higher than all others.70

Tus, Innocent II appealed to the authority o the Roman Church rstand oremost. Ten, he insisted on the inallibility o the Roman Church,since ‘no heresy ever entered this Church … and [there was] no erringrom the apostolic way’.71 Based on these premises, the Armenians hadto ‘ollow the orders and habits’ o the Roman Church. And nally, the

Pope brought orth other arguments, such as the practice o all otherChristian nations, as well as testimonies rom Latin and Greek ChurchFathers which were to prove the allacy o these two liturgical pecu-liarities o the Armenian Church. owards the end o the letter, justbeore praising the Armenians or their endurance in an environmentsurrounded by Muslim states, Innocent II repeated his requests or litur-gical changes:

And again we repeat and make itknown to you, holy brother, that it is abso-lutely necessary to mix water during the service o Christ’s Holy Mystery.

We again beg you to listen to us and be equal to us in [administering] this

liturgical usage closely linked to Christological belies, and thus any changes would havehadarreaching symbolic anddoctrinal implications that the Armenians were not willingto accept.

69 Te Armenians ollowed a Jerusalemite tradition o celebrating Christmas on Jan-uary , which was passed on to Armenian Lectionnaries translated in the fh century in Jerusalem. Renoux , –. Afer Chalcedonian controversies, the Armeniansheld ast to the tradition o celebratingsimultaneously Christ’s humanbirth in Bethlehemtogether with His divine birth symbolised by His baptism in the river Jordan. Cr Renoux

, –. Several sources rom the sixth century indicate the importance o suchan idiosyncratic liturgical calendar as a way o opposition to the Byzantine, i.e. Chalcedo-nian, Church. Various treatises on the Epiphany by Armenian authors rom the sixth toseventh centuries that have come down to us stress the importance o celebrating in oneday, January th, ‘la naissance du Christ à Bethlehem et sa naissance éternelle, symbo-lisée par la voix du Père lors du baptême au Jourdain’. Renoux , . O course, as any liturgical usage (e.g. see the note above), the celebration o the Nativity and the Baptismin the same day also held a strong doctrinal symbolism, namely, it affirmed the unity o Christ’s two natures. o celebrate the two easts separately would mean, or the Arme-nians, to divide the natures o the Saviour. Cr Renoux Ibid. Here, as in the case o theEucharistic wine and bread, the liturgical usage which originally did not necessarily stem

rom doctrinal considerations, was later linked to a doctrine that was believed too sacredto be altered.70 Ananean , .71 Ibid.


39/488

Holy Mystery, and by [doing] so you would proclaim your love and con-cordance with the Holy Church and with us, since this Catholic Church

is your mother and head and it is necessary to approve o and ollow thewishes o the mother. And her wishes are: to ollow her ways in [celebrat-ing] the Birth o Christ and the Mystery o the Sacrice and not to err romthis motherly road.72

Another letter, this one rom Lucius III (–), written orty yearsaferthatoInnocentII,onDecember,,andreceivedbyCatholicosGrigor łay (–) in 73 started with an even larger exposé onthe Roman primacy, saying, inter alia,

brill publishing the letter of love and concord, a revised diplomatic edition with historical and...

Documents