Two Armenian Historians: Kirakos of Gandzak and Ukhtanes of Edessa

VIII
INTRODUCTION.

value, appears to have been collated, for the margins carry repairs of omissions made by the copyist, and in another hand.

The Preface is hardly more than an insignificant phraseology, and a series of amplifications on evangelical texts, related above all to charity. Here are the only interesting facts for secular readers that it seems possible to me to draw from the nine large pages it fills. It bears the title: "Response to the letter of Anania and promise to fulfill his requests." Then Oukhtanès reports the following:

Anania, abbot of the convent of Narec—to the S. of Lake Van, in the Armenian province of Vaspouracan—and whom our author qualifies as "my spiritual father, universal vartabied learned monk," had made Oukhtanès hold, through the mediation of the priest Philippos, a letter where, it seems, he begged him to write a history of Armenia and had several times proposed an interview; he, had refused the request of his friend, alleging his weakness, his lack of knowledge, and had replied in this sense, by a letter which was carried by the priest Simon. Anania, however, had insisted and had met personally with Oukhtanès, who reports the fact in these terms:

"In that time then, when you went to the holy pontiff Khatchic, honored by God, and carried to him, as a gift and spiritual offering, the book called 'Root of the Faith,' against the Diphysites, which the Holy Spirit, dwelling in you, had dictated to you, in that time you spoke to me from mouth to ear, of the History that I had to write. If you desire to know in what place that happened, I will tell you; as also, if it pleases you, I will explain to you in what terms and in what season. It was on the bank of the Akhourian; we had recited the prayers of the Holy sacrifice to the God of powers, attributed to St. Athanasius, in summer, in the month of tré the fourth month of the Armenian calendar, a Sunday, the 11th of the month (1), at the 9th hour." It is impossible to specify better, except for the year, which is missing, the time of the meeting of the two ecclesiastics. Anania had succeeded in overcoming the scruples of Oukhtanès, and the latter promised to fulfill his request. Such are the circumstances in which was written the work we are dealing with. It is not to my knowledge that any European Armenist has profited from it before I gave long extracts from it in my Additions and clarifications to the History of Georgia, p. 107 sqq.

It is known that the Armenian catholicos Khatchic sat 972—992, besides tré is the 4th month of the Armenian year: the 11th of this month is therefore the 101st day of the year, including the initial, for all the months are here 30 days. (2)

1. It is by error that I printed "the 10 of tré" in the Additions and clarifications to the history of Georgia, p. 124; for the text bears աւուր տրէի day of tré.

2. I will make a remark, of little importance in substance, even in my eyes, on the etymology of the names of the first four Armenian months. Navasard can very well be explained by the two Sanskrit words nava "new" and sard, precisely "autumn," by extension "year,"

following what my colleague M. Schiefner and Professor M. Kossovitch assure me (in Chinese one says: "Thousand autumns" i. e. 1000 years; see The two young educated girls I, 114). it is therefore the new year—beginning in autumn. In Persian نوا has the same meaning as nava; سرد, like the Armenian ցուրտ cold signifies "cold." As for the name of the 2nd month, հոռի, and the 3rd, սահմի, they have the most perfect con-