Universal History

while Asoghik completed his book in the year 1004. Therefore, according to St. Malkhasyants, it should be "one year" Armenian: "am mi" here, which was mistakenly turned into "20 years" Armenian: "ams i".1

Asoghik's work was famous for centuries and was often copied. Stepanos Taronetsi and his book were mentioned by Aristakes Lastivertsi (11th c.), Samuel Anetsi (12th c.), Mkhitar Ayrivanetsi (12th c.), Mkhitar Anetsi (13th c.), Kirakos Gandzaketsi (13th c.), Vardan Areveltsi (13th c.), Arakel Davrizhetsi (17th c.), and others.

Thus, reading the "Universal History," the reader concludes what death-dealing storms have passed through the Armenian world in the turmoil of the centuries, yet the Armenian people continued to exist and rebuild the destroyed villages and cities, creating various centers of spirit and culture.

Asoghik's book has given the Armenian people the strength and vitality to endure forever. This work is, truly, one of the monuments of the literature of the Armenian struggle of past centuries.

PUBLICATIONS OF THE UNIVERSAL HISTORY

Stepanos Taronetsi's "Universal History" work was first published in 1859 in Paris by Karapet Shahnazaryants, a brother of Holy Etchmiadzin, a learned and prolific vardapet doctor of theology/teacher, by comparing two manuscripts. One manuscript, according to K. Shahnazaryants, was copied in the library of the St. Hovhannes Mkrtich Amrdolu Monastery of Baghesh, and the other he himself copied in 1843 from a manuscript in the Tatev Mother Monastery of the Syunik province during his spiritual oversight.

According to K. Shahnazaryants, the textual differences between those two manuscripts were negligible: "The source of both being one, the differences were of a trivial nature; but unfortunately, in both, a part of the third chapter of the second book was missing" (p. 11). K. Shahnazaryants requested the Mkhitarist fathers by letter to fill in the gap. They replied that it was also missing in their copy. Let us add that in all known manuscripts of Asoghik, that section is missing. Manuscripts AB did not mark the omission and did not leave a space, while manuscripts ODE not only indicated that there was a gap there but also left lines, even pages, free. The scribe of manuscript O wrote: "Page 2 missing from the original; do not blame the ignorant scribe" (p. 380). In manuscript D (p. 93a), it is noted: "Page 9 left in the original" (p. 380).

There is evidence that Venice manuscript N 869 is not the other manuscript compared by K. Shahnazaryants. The second publication, which is fragmentarily supplemented from three other manuscripts, and manuscript N 869 generally coincide in the completeness of the text (e.g., T2, pages 132-135, 135-145, manuscript O, p. 395, 396-404); both contain chapters E and Z of the second part, whereas Tb is deficient in these parts and does not contain the indicated chapters E and Z.

1. Stepanos Taronetsi, pp. 393–394, note 146.