Download PDF | Lynn Jones - Between Islam and Byzantium_ Aght'amar and the Visual Construction of Medieval Armenian Rulership-Routledge (2007).
161 Pages
Acknowledgements
This book had a very long gestation; I therefore have many people and institutions to thank. I would like to express my gratitude to the Department of Art History at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for a University Fellowship, a Departmental Travel Grant and a Dissertation Research Grant. I thank the Kress Foundation for a Dissertation Travel Grant; the staff and Senior Fellows of Dumbarton Oaks, where I began work on this project as a Junior Fellow; the National Endowment for the Humanities, for providing me with a year in which to expand the focus of the book, and the Mellon Foundation for awarding me a Foreign Area Fellowship at the Library of Congress, during which I untangled Bagratuni ceremonial.
There are, literally, too many people who have encouraged, corrected and informed me over the years for me to thank each one individually. I will single out for praise Leslie Brubaker, Peter Brown, John Cotsonis, Anthony Cutler, Antony Eastmond, Helen Evans, Nina Garsoïan, Anne D. Hedeman, Tia Kolbaba, Derek Krueger, Peter Kuniholm, Katherine Jolivet-Lévy, Eunice Maguire, Christina Maranci, Maria Mavroudi, Maryanne Newton, Scott Redford, Nancy Sˇevcˇenko, Nicole Thierry, Alice-Mary Talbot and Father Vertanès Oulouhodjian, librarian, San Lazzaro degli Armeni. For their help with images, drawings and all things technical, I am indebted to Mary Jaye Burns, Rachel Freyman, Jean Hudson, Lesley Langa, Daniel Schwartz and Margie West. My particular thanks go to Henry Maguire, for allowing me to convince him that a dissertation on this subject was possible; to the late Michael Brown, who generously gave me years of individual lessons in classical Armenian, and to Robert Ousterhout, in whose seminar I first discovered Aght‘amar. I am fortunate to have produced this work under the gimlet eye of John Smedley, Medzaskanch and editor extraordinaire.
It is, however, largely thanks to the support and knowledge of two people that I was able to bring this work to completion: Annemarie Weyl Carr, a never-failing light of inspiration and encouragement, and Levon Avdoyan, who was patient and generous with his knowledge and only rarely made fun of my accent. It goes (almost) without saying that despite this communal outpouring of help, should there be errors in the pages that follow, I alone am responsible. My most personal thanks go to my husband David, who repeatedly went above and beyond the call of expected duty in order that I could be physically or mentally away. His generosity, encouragement and occasional editing skills got me through many a dark day, and I am grateful. I am also grateful to our son Hatcher, who has, thus far, not begrudged me my absences, and who reminds me daily of the joys to be found in life. I dedicate this book to them both.
A note on translation I have used a modified version of the standard Hübschmann-MeilletBeneviste system of translation throughout this volume. Because this book is intended for an audience that is largely unschooled in the Armenian language, I have striven throughout for consistency and simplicity, and have tried to avoid translations that do violence to the English language.
An introduction to the historical context
The pages that follow focus on the visual expression of rulership in Armenia during the years 884/85–1045 ce, a time commonly, if inaccurately, referred to as the Bagratuni period. It was during this time that the palace church of the Holy Cross at Aght‘amar and the city of Ani were built, to list only the most famous of the surviving monuments. While there is a sizeable literature on the royal art and architecture of this period, the paucity of surviving comparanda has too frequently resulted in the monuments being presented in sterile isolation, explained only internally through an analysis of their own components. There has been little attempt to interpret the message of these works through the study of their original contexts. There has also been no attempt to integrate them within the chronological scope of the period, or across the socio-political divisions that existed during those years.
What I propose is a reconstruction of the visual expression of rulership of this period through the analysis of objects and texts associated with the two most prominent Armenian families, focusing on art, ceremonial and royal deeds. There is a wealth of contemporary texts that have been edited and (mostly) translated into languages accessible to western readers. These texts have much to offer: they provide descriptions of cities, buildings and works of art that have long since disappeared. They are also rich with descriptions of ceremonial, a prominent and visual component of medieval Armenian rulership, and provide invaluable details about the diplomatic missions and gift-giving that provided some stability in a turbulent time. Through these new details, these texts grant us a new perspective on the society and the people who created the art and architecture examined in the following pages.
The writings of the contemporary Armenian historians thus allow us to set those objects that remain more clearly in their original context, and to see their messages from perspectives that are closer to those who created and viewed them. Medieval Armenia was made up of a collection of principalities ruled by nakharars, members of the hereditary Armenian nobility.1 The most important families were the Bagratuni, with lands in the north, and the Artsrunik‘ in the south (Figure 1.1).2 Regional loyalties dominated, and ideas of Armenian unity were largely conceptual – reflecting adherence to a common language or to a common Christian confession rather than to the pre-eminence of any single political entity. From the end of Arsacid rule in 428 until 884/85 there was no king of Armenia; instead it was the prince (ishkhan) and, in the ninth century, the presiding prince (ishkhan ishkhanats‘), who was recognized as the authority over all other Armenian princes.3 Armenia was not autonomous; during the period covered in these pages it was a vassal state of the Abbasid caliphate – the Arminya of Arabic records.
The country was administered by a resident governor, or ostikan, appointed by the caliphate, whose principal residence was in Partaw, in modern-day Azerbaijan.4 The prince of Armenia was entrusted with the collection and forwarding of taxes to the ostikan, was prevented from minting his own coins, and was required to provide military service when necessary. Byzantium had no similar in situ political representative in Armenia, but nevertheless considered Armenia to be its vassal state. Accordingly, it responded in kind to each Islamic recognition of Armenian princes and nobility. Even the term ‘Armenia’ is problematic; the country was only briefly unified under the rule of a single king who was acknowledged by all the nakharars. In 884/85 Prince Ashot Bagratuni was invested by the ostikan, and as Ashot I, became Armenia’s first medieval king. Ashot’s successors faced formidable challenges, including the increasing strength of the ostikan’s control of the country and the eastward expansion of the Byzantine empire into Armenian territory.5 Bagratuni rule was further undermined by civil wars that raged constantly amongst the Armenian noble houses and by nakharars intent on usurping Bagratuni power or on freeing themselves from Bagratuni suzerainty.
In 908 Gagik Artsruni, grandson of Ashot I, established the independent southern Armenian kingdom of Vaspurakan. By the second half of the tenth century rivalries within the Bagratuni family further partitioned what is generally (if confusingly) referred to as the kingdom of Armenia. While the main branch of the Bagratuni family continued to rule this northern kingdom, members of the minor branches of the family were granted possession of lands that traditionally fell under the king of Armenia’s suzerainty, resulting in the establishment of several petty kingdoms, including Taro¯n, Siunik‘, Kars and Tashir-Dzoraget.6 We know little of the history of the southern Armenian kingdom of Vaspurakan beyond the life of the founder of the Arstruni dynasty, Gagik Artsruni.
From 919 until the death of Gagik Artsruni some time after 943, Vaspurakan was the most powerful kingdom in Armenia. Gagik was the target of continuous attack by the ostikan(s), and his military prowess seems only to have increased with age. In the late 930s he joined forces with the Bagratuni king Abas, rescuing Abas from certain death with his timely arrival, and subsequently defeating the Arab armies.7 In 940 we find Gagik summoned to the Arab-controlled town of Khlat (modern Khilat) on the northwest shore of Lake Van, where he swore an oath of vassalage to the Hamdanid emir Sayf al-Dawla, who presented Gagik with ‘great honours’.8 In the Arabic account of this meeting, Gagik is titled ‘king of Armenia and Iberia’. He is given the same title in an account of a second summons which occurred the same year, where his name is given pride of place over the other attendant Armenian nakharars and the Bagratuni king.9 Gagik’s authority was also recognized in Byzantium. The emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (905–59), listing the forms of address given to the Armenian kings gives the title archo¯n to¯n archonto¯n to both Abas Bagratuni and Gagik Artsruni, while addressing all other nakharars as archo¯n. 10
The final historical reference to Gagik dates to the year 943, when adeposed ostikan sought refuge with Gagik on the island of Aght‘amar.11 It is not known when or how Gagik met his death. His son Derenik is only briefly mentioned by historians, and Vaspurakan fades from recorded history until its last king, Senek‘erim, cedes the kingdom to the emperor Basil II in 1021–22 in exchange for the city of Sebastia in Cappadocia.12 The Bagratuni kingdom of Armenia came into ascendancy after the reign of Gagik Artsruni, but was politically weakened by division. While the fragmentation of Armenia began in 908 with the ostikan’s recognition of a king of Vaspurakan, the greatest blow to unified Bagratuni rule was inflicted by Ashot III (r. 952/53–977), who began the practice of awarding royal titles to members of his extended family.
While these petty kings proliferated, Armenia was also being inexorably absorbed by Byzantium. By the first quarter of the eleventh century, the rulers of Taro¯n, Vaspurakan and most of Siunik‘ had ceded control to the Byzantine emperor, and the dispossessed rulers emigrated to Byzantine Cappadocia.13 In 1045 the Bagratuni king of Ani, Gagik II, was also forced by the Byzantine emperor to abdicate and move to lands in Cappadocia.14 Gagik of Kars, another member of the Bagratuni family, relinquished his northern Armenian kingdom to the emperor and moved to Tzamandos in Cappadocia in 1063. 15 By 1064 the Seljuks had captured most of the Armenian territories from Byzantium, including Ani and Vaspurakan.16 The defeat of the emperor at Manzikert in 1071 effectively ended Byzantine rule in Armenia, and at the same time ended any remaining vestige of independence in the historic lands of Armenia. The new Armenian kingdom of Cilicia, officially established in 1198 but in existence since the late tenth century, carried on the tradition of Armenian independence, to be followed in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries by the revival of Greater Armenia.17
Two contemporary historians offer much information on the early years of this period. John (Yovhanne¯s) Draskhanakerttsi‘ was the catholicos of the Armenian Church from 897/98 to 924/25. Known as John Catholicos, he wrote The History of Armenia to illustrate the fatal consequences of civil war to the feuding nakharars. He came to know his subject well. He began writing his book under the patronage of the Bagratuni kings, but was forced by civil war and the ostikan’s persecution to flee south. He finished his work on the island of Aght‘amar, under the protection of Gagik Artsruni.18 A second important text for this period is The History of the House of the Artsrunik‘, written by Thomas [T‘ovma] Artsruni, a kinsman of Gagik Artsruni and a contemporary of John Catholicos. The work was commissioned by Gagik to glorify the ancestry and accomplishments of his family. Thomas records events through 904, when the narrative is taken up by an anonymous continuator who retells many events related previously by Thomas, and then continues the history of Gagik’s reign.19
Historical context: Ninth–tenth centuries
An understanding of the nature of any visual expression of Armenian rulership is impossible without an understanding of the contemporary political situation. The defining event of this period began in 852, when the Armenian nakharars united against the caliph’s imposition of new taxes. The caliph, al-Mutawakkil (847–861), dispatched his general Bugha to suppress the revolt. Thomas Artsruni tells us that in the course of the first campaign, the prince of Vaspurakan, Derenik Arstruni, and his son Ashot were captured by Bugha. They were bound, ‘set on camels under tent-like canopies’ and taken first to Azerbaijan and then to the Abbasid capital of Samarra (836–883), where they were imprisoned.20 While Thomas is concerned only with the Artsrunik‘, almost all nakharars, from all prominent Armenian families, were imprisoned in Samarra.
The captive Artsrunik‘ submitted to what Thomas Artsruni terms the ‘ruinous error in being false to the orthodox and pure apostolic confession of faith’.21 Like the majority of the imprisoned nakharars, when faced with a choice to convert to Islam or die in prison, they chose apostasy. Among the few who remained free were Smbat, the Bagratuni prince and sparapet, or commander-in-chief, and his eldest son Ashot. Both Thomas Artsruni and the catholicos attest to Bagratuni collaboration with Bugha, and recognize that such co-operation was essential to the preservation of Armenia.22 When Smbat sparapet was seized and imprisoned in 853/54, Ashot was permitted to remain in Armenia to oversee the collection and forwarding of taxes to the caliphal court.23 He was first elevated to the title of sparapet; when his father died in Samarra, he was declared presiding prince and invested by the ostikan.24
With much of the Artsruni nobility imprisoned, the principality of Vaspurakan was controlled by Gurge¯n Apupelch Artsruni. His exploits reveal much about the prevailing political conditions in Armenia, and serve well as examples of the shifting, and to modern eyes, often startling range of alliances during this unstable time. Gurge¯n Apupelch first allied with a renegade Bagratuni prince who had seized a Byzantine fortress near the rich silver mines of Sper in northern Armenia. According to Thomas Artsruni, Gurge¯n fought the imperial army that had been sent to recapture the fortress with such valour and ferocity that the Byzantine general described his worthy foe in letters to the emperor. The emperor, Michael III (842–867), was so impressed that he invited Gurge¯n to Constantinople, hoping to enlist his services. While Gurge¯n declined, he did convince his fellow Armenians to return the contested fortress to Byzantine control.25 Gurge¯n then presented himself in service to the Bagratid sparapet Smbat. The sparapet sent news to Bugha, praising Gurge¯n’s military exploits against the Byzantines: ‘May you be pleased, valiant general, with his brave deeds against the Greek army.’26
Bugha was indeed pleased, and allowed Gurge¯n to remain with Smbat, free from the threat of Arab reprisals. During this seminal period, historically referred to as the time of captivity, there were many azats, or lesser nobility, of Vaspurakan who remained free. Seeking to increase their territorial holdings, many raided adjacent lands, including those that Bugha had previously granted to the Bagratuni. In response, the general sent Arab troops to battle the azats, who suffered heavy losses until the arrival of Gurge¯n Apupelch, who had received permission from the Bagratuni sparapet to join the battle, siding with the azats – even though the lands in dispute were recognized as Bagratuni lands. After Gurge¯n’s arrival, the azats rallied, and with his help they ‘removed all the tribes of Muslims who were living’ in Vaspurakan.27 Bugha next sent an army against Gurge¯n that was composed of troops from an Arab emirate and ‘those of the nobility of Vaspurakan who had joined the royal [caliphal] army’.28
This force was also thoroughly routed by Gurge¯n’s troops. Bugha rather belatedly recognized Gurge¯n’s skills and in 854 raised him to the rank of prince and general in his own army, ‘to be trusted in his [Bugha’s] own stead’.29 In sum, within a span of two years Gurge¯n Apupelch Artsruni had allied with a renegade Bagratuni prince against Byzantine forces and then convinced that prince to make concessions to the Byzantines. He vowed allegiance to the Bagratuni sparapet, an Armenian in the service of Bugha. The Bagratuni sparapet then allowed Gurge¯n to join in battle with the lesser Artsrunik‘ nobility against the caliphate – in order to repossess Artsrunik‘ lands that had been granted to the Bagratuni. When Bugha’s armies, composed at least in part of Armenians from Vaspurakan, failed to defeat him, Gurge¯n’s military prowess was recognized and rewarded by Bugha with a powerful post in the caliphal army. This is just one of many biographies from the period that present a modern reader with nearly incomprehensible complexity.
Arab–Armenian interactions were not always hostile. Members of the Zurarid emirate in particular intermarried with both the Bagratuni and Artsrunik‘ families in alliances that pre-dated the insurrection of 852. Musa bin Zurara fought with Bugha against the Bagratuni in Taro¯n, but was also married to the sister of Bagarat Bagratuni, prince of Taro¯n.30 Musa’s son, known in the Armenian texts as Aplmaxr, married an Artsrunik‘ princess, creating an alliance that allowed him to claim Artsrunik‘ aid in his territorial struggles against a rival emir.31 In turn, the Artsrunik‘ princes were able to call upon Aplmaxr for aid in eliminating their Bagratuni-imposed regent. According to John Catholicos, Aplmaxr also secretly converted to Christianity.32
The relationship between the Bagratuni and the ostikans was much less cordial. While Ashot I ruled as presiding prince (862–884/85), the Bagratuni and their vassal lords were required to provide military aid to the ostikan. Subsequent events illustrate the continually shifting balance of power between the ostikan and the Bagratuni during this period. When the would-be usurper Yamanik was unsuccessful in his siege of Partaw, he turned to the caliph for official recognition as ostikan. The nakharars, led by Ashot, communicated their opposition against Yamanik to the caliph, who followed their wishes and appointed another candidate. When this new ostikan turned on Ashot he was captured by the combined Armenian forces, acting under Ashot’s command, and physically expelled from Armenia.33 In 884/85 Ashot was recognized as king of Armenia. The ostikanate of Arminya was then allowed to lapse, and of the former duties exacted of Armenian nobility, only the collection of caliphal taxes remained in place.
The main focus of Bagratuni–Arab tension now shifted to the traditional Bagratuni capital of Duin, which was also a major trade centre and home to the Catholicos of Armenia. While he was still presiding prince, Ashot had expelled the ostikan from the city. Duin remained under Bagratuni control throughout Ashot’s reign, but after becoming king, he transferred his capital to the city of Bagaran. When Ashot I died in 890, his son Smbat found his right to succeed contested by his uncle, and during the struggle for succession, Duin came under the control of two Arab brothers. Smbat attacked the city and seized the fleeing rebels. After reclaiming the city, he sent the captured brothers in chains to the Byzantine emperor Leo VI (886–912).34 Smbat had little time to savour his victory, for within the next year, 893/94, Duin was struck by an earthquake that destroyed most of the city, including the catholicos’ palace and the cathedral.
The catholicos relocated to the Bagratunicontrolled city of Vagharshapat (modern-day Echmiadzin).35 Duin remained in the ostikan’s hands, and was used as a military base in his later battles against Smbat. Early in Smbat I’s reign as king, the ostikanate of Arminya was reestablished and joined with that of Azerbaijan.36 This reinstatement of the ostikan to a position of direct control over Armenia had dire consequences for Bagratuni rule, consequences that laid the foundations for the rise of Gagik Artsruni. Bagratuni kings and nakharars were again required to provide the ostikan with military aid, an obligation that had been in abeyance during Ashot I’s rule. The Sadjid ostikans were eager to foster mistrust amongst the nakharars, seeking to destabilize Bagratuni rule and to usurp the Bagratuni king’s right to send taxes to the caliph.37 It is this political development that led to the investiture of Gagik Artsruni as king of Vaspurakan, and to the death of his uncle and former suzerain, Smbat I. These events will be examined in the following chapters.
Good rulership
Given the realities of Islamic and Byzantine aggressions, continual civil wars and an ever-changing kaleidoscope of internal and international alliances, what were the expectations to which an Armenian ruler was held? What defined good rulership? Chapters 3–5 examine the limited artistic evidence. The remainder of this chapter and Chapter 2 detail the answers found in the contemporary texts. Thomas Artsruni repeatedly notes that a prince’s foremost duties are the establishment of prosperity in the land and the care of the Armenian people. He ascribes a proper concern for this duty to both Bagratuni and Artsrunik‘ rulers.
Thomas quotes approvingly a letter Ashot I wrote to the ostikan complaining of oppressive taxation: ‘It is the duty of kings who govern the world to watch over and care for the prosperity of the country, to lighten the tyrannous yoke of heavy burdens and soften the severity of painful demands for taxes, lest the productive capacity of the country be completely destroyed.’ Ashot argues that kings should arrange their internal policies to ensure ‘that the land may be prosperous and peaceful and royal [that is, caliphal] taxes come in regularly.’38 According to Thomas, when Gagik and Gurge¯n Artsruni shared the rule of Vaspurakan, their reign was a paradigm of harmonious co-operation: ‘By their reforms they restored to order what had been disturbed, brought back those who had been deprived of or removed from their ancestral lands and homes, settled the confused and turbulent state of the county into a course of calm and peace, and permitted each and every inhabitant of the country to live in security, undisturbed by marauders within or without.’39
This motivation – a concern for their people – is repeatedly stressed by Thomas: ‘So they began to create prosperity and peace for the land through equitable justice, care for orphans and widows, vigilance in charity for the poor and embellishment of the church.’40 After Gurge¯n’s death, Thomas praises Gagik in the same terms, noting that he ‘was unstintingly mindful of all necessities, and accomplished everything that might serve the prosperity and peace of the land, involving himself in every useful activity’.41 Thomas takes care to note that Gagik is not solely concerned with the material well-being of his subjects, but that he is also a valiant defender of the Christian faith: ‘he was also ready to shed his blood and virtuously lay down his life for his sheep, like a good shepherd’.42 Of Derenik Artsruni, Gagik’s father, Thomas notes: ‘Derenik daily increased and improved the prosperity and peace of the country, building, maintaining, administering. In his days there was a respite from brigands and marauders across the land; the rites of the holy church of Christ were splendidly and properly performed; there was no fear or suspicion anywhere.’43
Thomas contrasts Gagik’s selfless interest in fulfilling his princely duties with a more corrupted example of Armenian rulership. He describes a nakharar who plotted against the Artsrunik‘: ‘His eyes on the desire for ambition – the gathering of troops, the forming of cavalry, the giving of gifts to magnates and lords of the land, the summoning of everyone to support and aid.’44 By stressing that this man wished only for personal power and glory, Thomas effectively contrasts his vainglorious ambitions against the stable and sober rule of the Artsruni princes.45 The catholicos was possessed of a weary pragmatism, and recognized that the Armenian Church could not survive if the country was constantly at war. Throughout his text, he urges that the first duty of Armenian princes involves the fulfilment of the secular obligations to the caliphate. Of Gagik’s submission to the ostikan’s taxation he says: ‘He [Gagik] acted accordingly for many years, so that the holy foundations of the Church remained undisturbed. Prosperity, peace, and renovation as well as security prevailed naturally over the land. Abundance and fertility were granted by the grace of God, and in this way they lived in their homes, as if in a peaceful haven.’46
The catholicos frequently singles out rulers who have worked for the establishment of peace and prosperity. John extols the rule of Ashot I, emphasizing his ability to bring order to the ravaged country, thus increasing the prosperity of Armenia: ‘Banishing from their midst brigandage and murder he turned all of them into obedient, law-abiding people.’47 Such peace could only be achieved by the strict observation of the hierarchy of Armenian power; the catholicos notes repeatedly that the nakharars should observe the sovereignty of the Bagratid king, obeying his judgments and following his example. John singles out for particular praise those nakharars who remain within their own lands, tending to the needs of their own people without attempting to enlarge their territory. He praises, for instance, Vasak, a prince of Taro¯n, for yielding more consistently to Ashot I than did Derenik Artsruni: ‘and heeding his words of advice with care, kept them in his mind as precepts, whereby he brought a greater degree of prosperity on his domain and lived in peace in accordance with all the manifestations of piety’.48
He notes approvingly that the prince of Vaspurakan was able to bring prosperity to his land because he was willing to accept the guidance of Ashot I: ‘He [Derenik] busied himself peacefully with building and made his ancestral domain a safe place, secure from all plundering troops, in which to live.’ When, however, Derenik ceased to value the advice of his royal father-in-law, John states that ‘he could not achieve his former success’.49 Describing a peaceful interlude in 907, John writes: ‘in those days, the Lord came down to the land of the Armenians. He protected everyone, and granted them success in all their undertakings. Each one lived in his own patrimony, and taking possession of the land that was his own, cultivated the vineyards and built orchards of olive and fruit trees.’
The nakharars, he continues, were then able to erect ‘churches built with solid stones that were cemented with lime mortar’, and he notes with favour particular princes who surpassed the others in their church-building.50 John consistently praises those rulers who find peaceful ways of negotiating their disputes. Praising Gagik Artsruni, he writes: ‘Thus, the incursions of the enemy were stopped, and the domain of king Gagik enjoyed a life of peace and tranquility, safe from the attacks of outsiders.’51 His praise of Gagik increases in the latter part of his book, and while this no doubt reflects the move of the catholicos to Aght‘amar, it is also consistent with his earlier diatribes against civil strife: ‘At this time, king Gagik, having come to his sense by his own clear thinking, made the impossible possible and devoted the rest of his life to the benefit of the people.
For he strove heartily to keep himself away from wickedness, emulate closely his creator and according to the apostolic precept, “if possible, so far as it lies [with you], live at peace with all men”.’52 John emphasizes that Gagik achieved this relative peace by cooperating with the caliphate, ‘though against his will’: ‘danger had taught him how to save himself and assist many others’.53 The catholicos was no meek cleric; he acknowledges the need for military force against those who will not follow the lawful order. Of Gagik, he notes approvingly that ‘against those who were stubborn, wicked and hostile to peace, he waged destructive war, and fell upon them with great forces until he had brought them to submission’.54 Nevertheless, he reserves particular condemnation for those nakharars who are unwilling to resolve disputes by any other means. Following the death of Smbat I, it is apparent that the catholicos increasingly despairs of Ashot II’s desire for a peaceful resolution of his dispute with his cousin the anti-king.
After Ashot II had plundered the lands of his rival, the catholicos ‘with bitter tears uttered many scolding words and expressed my utter disgust at the son of king Smbat’.55 While the disputants frequently agree to the terms of peace arranged by the catholicos, John notes that they ‘did not abide by their noble promises’.56 There was little the catholicos could do to rein in the warring claimants to royal office; while he may have threatened both of them with excommunication, he was apparently unwilling to actually pronounce such an anathema upon a future Bagratuni king of Armenia.57 After Ashot II was formally invested as king in 916, he still refused to obey the catholicos’ advice, and John’s criticism of him becomes increasingly severe. He now expresses the opinion that Ashot II’s warlike behaviour is bringing about God’s disfavour, resulting in the defeat of his army: ‘However, Ashot the son of king Smbat, putting his hopes in the strength of his forces, and his own valour, boasted arrogantly and haughtily, whereat the Lord was perhaps displeased’.58 The catholicos makes it abundantly clear that while it is the duty of the nakharars to obey the king of Armenia, that king must obey the catholicos.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق