Two Armenian Historians: Kirakos of Gandzak and Ukhtanes of Edessa

V
I N T R O D U C T I O N.

saying "proceeding from them." Then, in the hymn of Pentecost "Proceeding from the Father, receiving from the Son;" further on "the Spirit, which is of their essence." All this proves, along with several passages from Kiracos, that the Armenians say one thing in their creed, and develop it a little differently in their commentaries. But enough on this subject.

I will not dwell on the merits of Kiracos as a historian. His testimony on contemporary events, regarding the Mongols; on Aghovanie original: "Aghvank/Caucasian Albania", his homeland; on Georgia and notably on the Mkhargrdzélidzé princes, the stock of the Russian Argoutinski-Dolgoroukis; on the kings of Khatchen, successors to the kings of Siounie; on a host of Armenian and other personages who played an outstanding role in the middle of the 13th century: all this has been brought to light in our translation and discussed in the notes, as well as we have been able to do. It is also to him that the Geography of Asia is indebted for the interesting journey of King Héthoum to the residence of the Great Khan, the details of which are not yet fully clarified.

Among the especially remarkable facts noted by Kiracos, may I be permitted to mention first his list of the catholicoses of Aghovanie, which is much more complete, naturally, than that of Mosé Caghancatovatsi, and which reaches the time of the historian, a list accompanied by notations that make it an original work.

In second place, the double mention, with variants (p. 61, 99), of the earthquake that shook Gantzac in 1139, following which the King of Georgia, Dimitri I, rushed in and carried off the iron gates of the city, which were so remarkable for the inscription in the name of Chawir the Blessed-Cheddad, one leaf of which is still seen at the convent of Gélath, near Kouthaïs; see XIth Report on my archaeological trip, p. 40.

Finally, the details on the capture of Bagdad by Houlagou in 1258.

Relatively to chronology, Kiracos, not dealing with the origins of humanity, and going back, for the Armenian nation, only to the time of its conversion, had no need to have recourse to the eras of Julius Africanus and Eusebius.

He refers only once to the era of the Seleucids, and places the foundation of Bagdad in 1074 of the Greeks, corresponding exactly to 762/3 of the common era, but not, as he says on p. 41, to 194 of the Armenian reckoning—read 211.

Only twice does he mention the years of J.-C. Jesus Christ: 1st, he fixes the opening of the Armenian calendar in 553 of the Christian era, the 3rd year of the catholicos Mosès. 2nd. He recounts, like Sam. d'Ani, the appearance of Muhammad in 67 Armenian—618 of J.-C., p. 21, 29. In my note 5, to this last passage, instead of "of Kiracos," 62—613, read: "Sam. d'Ani," who indeed cites this date, without however adopting it. There is no cause to be astonished that the dates of the Christian era are so rare in our historian, since this era only became common in the VIth century, after the works of Dionysius the Little; that it was hardly used, even in the West, until the XIth century, and only penetrated very slowly into Asia, where other calculations had been circulating for hundreds of years.

In the interval of the 864 years that his historical summary embraces, 301—1165, the