REMARKS on the PORTRAIT of PRINCE LEWON* (Ms Erevan 8321)

REMARKS ON THE PORTRAIT OF PRINCE LEWON* (Ms Erevan 8321)

LEVON CHOOKASZIAN Yerevan State University Alex Manoogian street, 1 Yerevan ARMENIA

The artistic heritage of T{oros Roslin, the outstanding mid-13th century Cilician miniature painter, holds an exceptional place in the history of Armenian book painting. Roslin’s notable contribution to Armenian miniature painting is largely determined by the innovations which he introduced. Of these new themes, the portraits depicted by T{oros Roslin are of special importance. Having been first represented in Armenian book painting, they provide a rich material to perceive the uniqueness of the immortal master’s art and to fully appreciate the high level of his art. We are indebted to T{oros Roslin for reviving the tradition of portraying royal family members; a tradition known from the specimens of the old Armenian book painting. Based on the work of this great artist, this beautiful practice evolved, and numerous portraits of 13th-14th century Cilician historical figures were created. Of this pleiad, the first extant portrait by T{oros Roslin is that of Prince Lewon (later King Lewon II of Cilicia). It depicts the future sovereign between the ages of 14 and 15 (fig. 1). As the Prince is known to have been born in 1236, it is supposed that the portrait was

* The research for this paper could not have been accomplished without the aid of a Soros Visiting Senior Research Fellowship for 1992 from the Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts of the National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. and a 1992-1993 Fel- lowship from the Getty Grant Program, Santa Monica, California, which allowed me to work in the museums and libraries of the United States. My thanks must be given to the staffs of those institutions for their aid and cooperation as well as to Prof. B. Marshak of the State Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg (Russia), late Prof. X. Muse¥yan (Yere- van) and Mr. M. Cevahircyan (Yerevan) for their advice. I am deeply grateful to Prof. Charles R. Garcoian of the Pennsylvania State University (University Park, PA), for his kindness in reading my text to eliminate mistakes in English [The article has been read over by Dr Jean-Michel Thierry (M.T.), who has suggested some additional references].

REArm 25 (1994-1995) 299-336. 300 L. CHOOKASZIAN

Fig. 1. Portrait of Prince Lewon (Erevan, Mastoc‘ Matenadaran, Ms. 8321), Miniature attributed to T‘oros Roslin. THE PORTRAIT OF PRINCE LEWON (MS EREVAN 8321) 301 created in 12501. In A. Mat{evosyan’s opinion, the miniature was made on the occasion of the Prince’s fifteenth birthday in 1251, the year that his mother, Queen Zabel, died2. For many years, the portrait decorating a separate parchment folio had been torn from its original manuscript and glued to another. Several years later this invaluable piece was returned to its original volume: a Gospel at the Mastoc{ Matenadaran in Yerevan (Ms. 8321)3. There is no signature of T{oros Roslin in this manuscript; however, specialists studying the Prince’s portrait and other miniatures therein, have unani- mously attributed them to the great artist. In fact, they are the first pieces of the outstanding master to have come down to us. Since no other samples from the initial period of T{oros Roslin’s artistic biography have been preserved, the illustrations in this manuscript represent works of great importance in Armenian miniature painting. Due to the portrait of the Prince and other extant illustrations from the original manuscript we can conceive the painter’s artistic style before 1256, i.e. the illumination of the Zeit{un Gospel, the oldest manuscript bearing Roslin’s signature (Yerevan, Matenadaran, Ms. 10450). In the portrait, Roslin depicted Lewon en face, standing in full length under a blue arch. The arch here is supported by two thin red columns. Two angels with liturgical fans are depicted above the Prince’s head. The angel on the left is in a blue garment with a pink mantle, and the angel on the right has a brown mantle over blue attire. Lewon is standing in front of the throne which is covered in a spread and upon which a pink cushion is placed. Before proceeding to the artistic discussion of the portrait, it should be noted that five portraits created during five different years, representing Lewon, have come down do us, with the miniature under study being the oldest among them4. Possibly other portraits representing Lewon were also made at that time, but they have not been preserved. In the 13th century one and the same sovereign was not usually por- trayed very often either in Byzantium, or in the West; therefore the five portraits of Lewon are an exceptional and surprising occurrence in the

1 TER-MOVSESEAN, 1910, pp. 11-17; G. YOVSEP{EAN, 1943, p. 20. [On Lewon’s portrait and others in Cilician Miniature, in DER NERSESSIAN 1993, t. 1, pp. 54, 154-162. M.T.] 2 MAT{EVOSYAN, 1984, p. 266. 3 GEVORGYAN, 1967, pp. 143-156. 4 KORKHMAZIAN, et al. 1984, ill. 89; SOTHEBY and Co., 1967, pp. 4-5; DER NERSESS- IAN, 1977, p. 148, fig. 107; NARKISS, STONE, SANJIAN, 1979, p. 63, fig. 77; MUTAFIAN, 1988, t. II, figs. 164, 167; DURNOVO, 1946, pp. 68-69, ill. 1. 302 L. CHOOKASZIAN history of art. T{oros Roslin is the author of the two portraits out of five; authors of the others are unknown. The abundance of portraits should be explained either by commissions and directions given from the Cilician palace or by the peculiar attractiveness and charm of Lewon’s image. What was Lewon like in life? How was he characterized by his contemporaries? Fortunately, much evidence has been preserved about him. Among biographical data there is one fact that seems to be noteworthy: it is connected with his adolescence and it is chronologically close to the year when Roslin made his first portrait. According to Roslin’s contemporaries, King Het{um I of Cilicia organized a grand equestrian festival in the town of Misis (Mopsuestia) on November 17, 1256, with the participation of Prince Lewon. Many honourable guests were invited, among them Bohemond, duke of Antioch, Julian, lord of Sidon, their wives and offspring, a great number of Crusader knights, clergymen and other on-look- ers. Het{um I and all the people present enjoyed this public feast greatly5. One may imagine that day’s magnificent parade of Crusader knights and Armenian nobility with their family armorial bearings on their garments, horse-cloths, shields and banners, the festive mood of those present, the music and signals of bugles and cymbals. Other sources mention that Prince Lewon was not only a remarkable horseman, but also a brave warrior, he had participated in tournaments and distinguished himself in action. The colophon of 1263 preserved within the pages of the Gospel of 1249 (Mastoc{ Matenadaran, Ms. 7690) confirms that it is written by the son of Het{um I6. The author of this colophon is likely to be Prince Lewon, and not T{oros, his brother. It is known that Lewon was a connoisseur of old manuscripts; he was named “bibliophile” by his contemporaries. He is the author of the famous Union Charter of Akner7. He even wrote verses devoted to the prominent monastery of Tat{ev8. T{oros Roslin and other 13th-century scribes state with anguish that Lewon was taken captive in the battle of Mar fought against the Egyptian Mamelukes in 1266, and was sent to Egypt; his brother T{oros fell in action. Contemporaries testify that in captivity the Prince displayed fortitude and faithfulness to his native land and church; he even encouraged his captive companions-in- arms, inspiring them with hope9.

5 SMBAT SPARAPET, ed. 1956, p. 231; ALISAN, 1885, p. 248. 6 MAT{EVOSYAN, 1984, pp. 320-321. 7 PO™OSYAN, KATVALYAN, 1979, p. 417. 8 MNAC{AKANYAN, 1979, p. 421. 9 VAHRAM RABUNI, ed. 1859, pp. 224-226; Ararat, 1871, pp. 385-386. THE PORTRAIT OF PRINCE LEWON (MS EREVAN 8321) 303

Being introduced to Sultan Beibars, Lewon astonished him by his wisdom and courageous behaviour. While in Egypt he took part in equestrian festivities and excelled his rivals in skill10. The capture of the Prince caused pain and distress to his people. It is reflected in the numerous colophons and folk songs of the time11. The public duel at the race course between the Sultan and the Prince is celebrated in these songs12. The colophon of the Lectionary of 1286 (Matenadaran, Ms. 979) also tells us about this fact. The manuscript was ordered by Lewon’s son, King Het{um II13. It is known that Lewon had been set free, being exchanged with Songhorashkhar, Beibars’s favourite, captured by the Mongols, allies to the Cilician Armenians14. T{oros Roslin had repeatedly mentioned Lewon’s name in his colophons. In the Gospel of 1262 (Jerusalem, Armenian Patriarchate, Ms. 2660) the artist states that the Prince resembled his father, i.e. Het{um I, in behaviour. Roslin characterized Lewon as a truth-lover, hating injustice. In the Gospel of 1260 (Jerusalem, Armenian Patriar- chate, Ms. 251) Roslin refers to the offspring of Het{um and Zabel as “God-given” and in the Gospel of Het{um I of 1266 (Matenadaran, Ms. 5458, fragment 1454) Lewon is called “born-in-the-purple”. No doubt Lewon was loved and esteemed both in his milieu and by his people. Thirteenth-century Armenian historiographs glorified the royal family members and especially Lewon, in their works. There is much noteworthy information about him in the versified history by the outstanding 13th-century philosopher Vahram Rabuni (written at Lewon’s urgent request), also in his “Anointment Speech” (made at Lewon’s coronation on January 6, 1271)15. We would like to especially stress the facts on the Rubenids in Rabuni’s works. Rabuni and others mention that the Rubenids descended from Prince Ruben, a warrior and relative to Gagik Sahnsah, the last Bagratid king. Lewon is linked to the Bagratids through his mother Zabel, a Rubenid. These facts, as will be seen, are of essential importance for our further discussion. The portrait of Prince Lewon represents a most interesting person who lived a life full of historical events and played a significant role in the history and culture of his time, especially in the fate of the Cilician Armenian state.

10 SAMUEL ANEC{I, ed. 1893, p. 222. 11 MNAC{AKANYAN, 1956, pp. 228-232, 543-545. 12 ORDOYAN, 1989, pp. 96-97. 13 Ararat 1871, pp. 385-386. 14 SMBAT SPARAPET, ed. 1956, pp. 249-251; MIKAELYAN, 1952, p. 344. 15 MADOJAN, 1992, pp. 31-39. 304 L. CHOOKASZIAN

The portrait of Lewon is notheworthy not only as a work representing a certain historical figure, the future Armenian king, but also as a piece bearing historical and cultural documentation on the time. Unfortunately, the attire of the Armenian kings and their offspring have not come down to us. One may judge their garments by only such rare representations as Lewon’s. It is clear with Lewon and the Cilician nobility, that their attire could not have been inferior to that of their kin- dred Byzantine and Crusader aristocracy, or that of non-related Seljuk and Mameluke sovereigns and elite in luxury and splendour. It can be assumed that the Byzantine attire should have been exemplary in the sense of richness and magnificence16. Lewon’s family ties and inter-allied connections with neighbouring states permanently nourished the fashion claims of the Cilician Armen- ian court, and through mutual gifts of garments they were alternately involved in increasing the elegance dominant in their apparel. The Cilician nobility kept up the latest fashions and dressed in accordance to the taste prevailing on the territory, occupied by the Crusaders in the middle of the 13th century. The study of the Crusader miniature painting from this viewpoint permits ascertaining that the habit of wearing heraldic attire was widely spread among the Western knights who had arrived in the Holy Land; coats of arms appeared not only on their man- tles and shields, but also on their horse-cloths17. It should be recalled that the Armenian princes bore their coats of arms on banners and garments hundreds of years before the Europeans had come to the East. Later, in the 12th-13th centuries, the Cilician Armenian noblemen, having adopted the habits, manners and titles of the Western knights, may have given due consideration to the fashion in heraldic attire as well and attach the same significance to the heraldry as did the Europeans. Prince Lewon’s attire deserves the special attention of those engaged in the history of Armenian costume, as it is a unique specimen of Armenian heraldic attire, in our view. The garments of the Prince have been repeatedly described, but separate details in the design of the fabric have been neglected, details that need a thorough examination. The Prince’s garment decorated with ultramarine blue medallions is clearly seen from under his red mantle; gold brown lions with a red disc overhead are distinctly observed in them. The king of beasts is shown in

16 HOUSTON, 1963, pp. 156-161. 17 BUCHTHAL, 1986, p. 86, n. 1, p. 90, pls. 83, 130d, 136a, d; FOLDA, 1976, pp. 84, 101, 114, 136, pls. 6, 7, 8, 13, 15, 67, 68, 70-72, 75-77. THE PORTRAIT OF PRINCE LEWON (MS EREVAN 8321) 305 motion, walking rightward, with its tail and front foot raised. The golden moon is marked out in radiant hues in the depth of the dark-reddish disc. The medallion circles are marked off by a chain of golden dots. If these dots are to be taken as stars, the heavenly bodies will be thus complete. Consequently, the lion is shown in the vicinity of the sun, the moon and the stars. This subject-matter is not found on the extant old Armen- ian textile specimens, or Armenian miniatures representing kings, princes and noblemen in sumptuous attire. The heraldic nature of the composition under study is determined by the lion (it decorates numerous Western coats of arms) and other motifs, also by the colour chosen for the king of beats. It is remarkable that the lions are mostly golden or red-coloured in heraldic representations18. Maybe, Lewon’s coat of arms is represented on his garments. Other- wise the lion in the medallion would not have been depicted on the Prince’s attire shown in the portrait of Levon and his wife Keran in the Gospel of 1262, illuminated by T{oros Roslin (Jerusalem, Armenian Patriarchate, Ms. 2660). Unfortunately, in the second portrait of Lewon, his mantle disguises that part of the medallion, where the sun and the moon should have been depicted19. The lion on the Rubenids’ coat of arms also testifies to the heraldic meaning of the medallion in the first portrait of the Prince20. As mentioned above, Zabel, the Prince’s mother, descended from that noble family in Cilicia. It should be recalled that the very name “Lewon” means “lion”. Due to the same heraldic meaning the king of beasts was invariably depicted on Cilician coins minted all along the existence of that Armenian kingdom. It was no casual occurrence that the Cilician kings had chosen the image of this beast as basic motif; they followed the truly Armenian tradition, stemming from the heraldry of the Bagratids of Ani, but we shall touch upon this question a bit later. Attaching utmost importance to Lewon’s attire, it is necessary to always bear in mind that because of terrible ordeals fallen upon the Armenian people, uncountable wars, loss of statehood, fall of the Cilician kingdom, the Mongol yoke and further Turkish and Persian domination, and the eventual systematic annihilation of the Armenian nobility and elite, specimens of the garments of the Armenian aristocracy have not survived over time. In this regard, the details of Lewon’s attire, especially ornaments, deserve particular consideration.

18 OSWALD, 1984, S. 259. 19 SOTHEBY and Co., 1967, pp. 4-5; KORKHMAZIAN DRAMPIAN, HAKOBIAN, 1984, ill. 89. 20 SAKISSIAN, 1940, p. 43. 306 L. CHOOKASZIAN

Despite tremendous cultural losses and disasters, we have information on the fabrics and garments of the Cilician Armenians. Many of the per- sonages from the Old and New Testaments, represented in the miniatures of Cilician manuscripts, wear various clothes. The 13th and 14th- century Cilician artists, Sargis Picak in particular, depicted ryal aristocracy and common people dressed in multi-coloured garments decorated with diverse patterns21. Those numerous specimens, as well as fabric samples miraculously preserved in the bindings of Cilician manuscripts give an extensive idea on the coloured and ornamented textiles, produced in the Armenian Mediterranean kingdom. From ancient times Cilicia was well known as the most important centre of textile industry and carpet-weaving, as well as the cultivation of cotton. Egypt, during Greek-Roman domination, imported fabrics from here22. High-quality carpets, silks, ready-made clothes were produced in medieval Cilicia and exported to other countries23. The Cili- cian textile production was of high quality and aroused admiration in neighbouring and distant lands. The Italian traveller Marco Polo, the Arab historiographer Ibn Batuta spoke of Cilician fabrics with great fascination24. Although sharing basic common features with Western, Byzantine and Islamic garments, Prince Lewon’s attire differs greatly in design. To be certain, it will suffice to compare the design of the Prince’s attire with the ornamentation used in more or less similar textiles. The quest of most general ties between Lewon’s attire and the textiles of neighbouring states shows that fabrics compared are often and chiefly ornamented with medallions. These circular motifs function as frames, where masters of the Sassanian and Byzantine schools located their ornaments25. Asian and Regensburg examples are also known, which have only medallions or circles26. This comparatively simple principle was developed, and at a certain stage in their work, medieval masters started depicting animals (one or several) in the medallions, filling them with ornamental patterns and images of creatures within the frames27.

21 HAC{UNI, 1923, p. 263, figs. 75-76, 82, 88-93; ™AZARYAN, 1980, figs. 14, 21, 40, 46-49, 54-55, 58, 60, 66. 22 TARAJAN, 1978, p. 42. 23 ALISAN, 1885, pp. 31, 189; DAVT{YAN, 1981, p. 18. 24 DAVT{YAN, 1981, p. 17. 25 COLE, 1899, p. 29-30, fig. 1; HOUSTON, 1954, pp. 184-187. 26 KENDRICK, 1925, pls. XX, XXI. 27 COLE, 1899, p. 30. Similar Persian (6th-10th cc.), Egyptian (8th-13th cc.), East- THE PORTRAIT OF PRINCE LEWON (MS EREVAN 8321) 307

Individual fabric specimens preserved in the bindings of Armenian manuscripts are of the same nature. The Armenian letters found on them testify to the Armenian origin of these textiles28. Similarities between Armenian and other examples of medallion motifs reveal an international character in medieval textile production. However, a more detailed examination of all related fabrics shows that there are closer concepts bringing together the samples compared. Thus the range of the closely related textiles can be narrowed down to the types which have medallions with a pair of lions facing each other29. Narrowing the range of textiles compared, we can concentrate our attention on a small group of four specimens that most closely resem- ble that which was used for Prince Lewon’s attire. All the samples in this group are decorated with medallions involving only one lion. Of the sister specimens, the first one (Ravenna, National Museum) is considered Byzantine and is attributed to the 9th-10th centuries30. A miniature from the Greek manuscript containing John Chrysostom’s speeches (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Coislin 79) gives an idea of the second lion-ornamented textile. The Byzantine emperor Nicephoros Botaniates (1078-1081) is represented with his high-ranking officials in this miniature31. The well-known expert of Armenian carpets V. Gantzhorn has recently mentioned that the fabric of the attire worn by the noblemen beside the emperor is Armenian32. In his opinion, that sort of attire corresponds to the garments of Gagik Arcruni and Gagik Bagratuni of Kars. V. Gantzhorn writes: “It is not clear whether the figure depicted here, described as the highest judge and highest curator of the vestiary, is an Armenian, which the head- dress would indicate. Beginning in 1022, after the incorporation of Armenian regions, numerous Armenian princes stayed at the Court of Byzantium, among them king Gagik II of Ani”.

Asian (7th-8th cc.), Byzantine (8th-11th cc.), Sicilian (12th-13th cc.) specimens as well as other fabrics found in France (12th c.) and textiles, originating from the Seljuk Iconium have been preserved. O. VON FALKE, 1936, Abb. 67, 68, 70, 79, 100, 102, 107, 109, 110, 113, 114, 126, 130, 154, 167-177, 179, 185. 28 ARAK{ELYAN, 1958, pp. 272-273; K{IWRTEAN, 1968, figs. 1, 2, 8, 9. 29 Numerous similar Byzantine (10th-14th cc.), Italian (12th-13th cc.) textiles and certain specimens, such as the Arabian fabric of 1231 (from the Caliphate of Cairo) and the Seljuk piece, bearing Sultan Key Kubad’s name, from Iconium, are known. O. von FALKE, 1936., Abb. 182, 193-199, 201-203, 205-206, 216-218, 222, 224-226; EBERSOLT, 1923, fig. 54; COX, 1914, p. 96, pl. 7; SCHMIDT, 1958, Abb. 149. 30 VOLBACH, 1966, ill. 66. 31 O. von FALKE, 1913, S. 6, Abb. 222; OMONT, 1929, pl. LXIII. 32 GANTZHORN, 1991, Abb. 161, pp. 114, 116. 308 L. CHOOKASZIAN

The third specimen is the Pluviale attributed to the 11th-12th centuries or a later period (before 1295) from the treasure vault of the Cathedral of Anagni, Cyprus. This piece is decorated with medallions, representing either a walking winged lion or a two-headed eagle; at other times, a pair of birds with their backs to each other is shown on both sides of a plant33. The same geometrical motif is always depicted between the medallions. V. Gantzhorn considers this fabric to be of Armenian origin as well. As regards this, he writes: “Cyprus at this time was closely allied with the Kingdom of Armenia Minor (i.e. Cilicia — L.Ch.)”. In his opinion: “The piece of embroidery can be regarded as representative of early Armenian pieces”34. According to V. Gantzhorn, “In the Chris- tian cult the use of the animal symbols was widespread, extending from Armenia to Anatolia, Byzantium, Italy and even as far as Spain during the High Middle Ages. We find early examples in stone reliefs in Aghtamar at the beginning of the 10th century. Mention should also be made at this point of exhibits in the museums of Konya, Iznik, Istanbul and of the floor mosaics in San Miniato al Monte (Florence)”35. The last, fourth specimen, comprising the small group of fabrics being compared with Prince Lewon’s attire is a 12th-century Byzantine piece, likewise decorated with medallions representing winged lions36. Despite common features, Lewon’s attire differs greatly from all art works mentioned, as their design includes neither the sun, nor the moon and the stars. Before discussing such compositions as a whole, comprising the lion in combination with heavenly bodies, the tradition of decorating textiles with the image of the king of beasts should be considered. The tradition of decorating fabrics with lions was quite a regular occurrence. Artists choosing patterns for garments and textiles were not guided by a sudden inspiration, when giving preference to one or another motif. Their choice was well thought-out in this regard. The creation of garments containing lion motifs enabled the artist to assign the symbolic meaning of the king of beasts to the sovereign and other high-ranking officials37.

33 Ibidem, fig. 162. 34 Ibidem, p. 116. 35 Ibidem, p. 114. As regards Gantzhorn’s last case in point, it should be added that, according to tradition, San Miniato (St. Minas) was an Armenian king. This is evidenced by the corresponding Latin inscription of the mosaic, representing the saint, on the cathedral wall. SOULIER, 1921, p. 29. 36 O. von FALKE, 1936, Abb. 203. 37 DUPONT-AUBERVILLE, 1875, s.p. THE PORTRAIT OF PRINCE LEWON (MS EREVAN 8321) 309

Among various beasts related to royal power, the lion was one of the first. Among the animals “qui, dans les temps anciens, figurèrent presque exclusivement sur les étoffes, le lion fut certainement un des premiers types employés à leur décoration. Originaire des pays où l’on fabriquait les plus précieux tissus, la crainte qu’il inspira, le symbole de force qui de tout temps s’attacha à son image, le signala pour en orner les vêtements de ceux qui avaient la puissance” (M. Dupont- Auberville)38. That is why the lion is represented golden-coloured both on Prince Lewon’s attire and other fabrics. Fortunately, certain Armenian samples, decorated with the image of the king of beasts, have come down to us. Of these are the 10th-13th century embroidered fabric with the figures of a lion and its cub, found at the excavations in Ani, and the lion-ornamented specimen discovered during the excavations of the cemeteries at the 14th-century Armenian settlement in the city of Bolgar (Ural)39. The embroidered lion-ornamented fabric preserved in the manuscript of 1290 (Matenadaran, Ms. 2816) is also noteworthy in this very aspect40. Neither medallions, nor heavenly bodies are present in these three textiles. The ornamentation of the Armenian Prince’s attire is richer in motifs and far superior to the decoration of the above-mentioned Armenian samples. Presumably, the presence of the lion in Armenian textiles is greatly determined by the worship of the king of beasts in Armenia. It is remarkable that archeological findings of the recent decade comprise the bones of this beast, which evidence its existence in Armenia as early as the Bronze Age. Perhaps this is the reason why the representation of the lion appears in Armenian art during the entire course of its development. Thus it is quite a natural occurrence that this motif is found on Lewon’s attire. Innumerable images of this beast have been preserved in the decoration of the 11th-14th century and later Armenian manuscripts. They are especially frequent in Cilician miniatures. Medieval Armenian artists perpetuated various movements, postures and turns of the lion; due to this, we can form a true notion of the Armenian masters’ observation and skill, as they managed to give an accurate representation of the beast’s outward appearance, character, habits, its agility and menace.

38 Ibidem. 39 ABRAHAMYAN, 1956, fig. 81, p. 206; DAVT{YAN 1981, pp. 60-61. 40 DAVT{YAN, 1981, p. 62. 310 L. CHOOKASZIAN

Turning back to the heraldic significance of the ornament on Prince Lewon’s attire it is worth noting that the composition, built up by the combination of the lion and heavenly bodies is not an isolated, unique instance in Armenian art. A group of non-textile samples with the same subject-matter, created long before T{oros Roslin’s miniature, are in existence. With rare exception, these art works are characterized by the lion-and-the sun combination, as given in the Prince’s portrait, i.e. the beast is represented with the heavenly body overhead. On the Armenian territory, the most ancient surviving monument, showing the beast and the sun together, is of the Urartian period. The fresco (8th-7th cc. B.C.), showing a pair of lions with the sun on both sides, in the smaller hall at the palace of Erebuni, is implied. Scholars, studying this fresco, have neglected the integral theme of the lion and the sun, because the heavenly body here was not perceived as such41. K. Hovhannisyan writes that the lions are standing in front of “… a large figure resembling a square, the sides of which are incurvated, and wherein a circle ornamented with a rosette and other elements is inserted”42. The second and the third specimens of this period representing the theme of the lion and the sun are the bronze shields of Argisti I and Sardur II (Yerevan, State History Museum of Armenia)43. Unfortunately scholars have not observed and analyzed the fragments showing the lion and the sun in their ornamentation. In these liturgical monuments the lion-and-the sun fragment is perhaps linked with the worship of Sivini, god of sun. Unfortunately other pieces from Armenia of this period, representing the theme of the lion and the sun are unknown to us, though it should be assumed that they existed. Such assumption is based on the mythological contents of the theme and available pre-Christian, non-Armenian works, the discussion of which will follow. The fourth Armenian monument with the representation under study is of the Christian period. The case in point is one of the canon-tables (fol. 3b) in the Gospel of Queen Mlk{e of 862 (Venice, Mekhitharist Congregation Library, Ms. 1444/86). The arch of the canon-table presents two lions, facing each other, with a disc of the sun above each

41 HOVHANNISYAN, 1973, pls. 10, 14. 42 Ibidem, p. 65. 43 LANG, 1970, fig. 29, p. 101; PIOTROVSKI, 1959, pl. XXXVII, pp. 168, 226-227; ID., 1962, figs. 38, 39, ill. XXII, pp. 69-70. THE PORTRAIT OF PRINCE LEWON (MS EREVAN 8321) 311 lion’s head44. Scholars have repeatedly concentrated their attention on the figures of the pair of animals, but the disc fell out of their view. Unlike the Erebuni frescoes, the miniature in the Gospel of Mlk{e gives cause for numerous reflections and becomes a peculiar key to a better comprehension of similar Armenian creations. ™. Alisan was the first to take notice of the lions in the miniature of the Gospel of Mlk{e. He writes: “… there is a royal symbol in an arch, a flower between two lions”45. In ™. Alisan’s opinion, it was the coat of arms of the Arcrunis, the Armenian kings of Vaspourakan. V. Hac{uni mentioned that ™. Alisan’s opinion was not convincing; besides other canon-tables in the Gospel of Mlk{e represented sea animals46. Further studies of this miniature likewise touched upon the pair of beasts only, considering them to be leopards47, lions48, panthers49, or tigers50. Scholars, studying medieval coats of arms, often identify lions with leopards, because of their likeness; however, the location of any other beast except the lion next to the sun, in fact, misrepresents the oldest, historically built-up, mythological-semantic composition; we shall soon touch upon it below. It is noteworthy that of the scholars studying the representation in the Gospel of Mlk{e, only ™. Alisan, K. Weitzmann, L. Durnovo and E.M. Ruprechtsberger have observed the heraldic nature of the fragment with the lions. Without the slightest hesitation it may be asserted that the fragment with the lions presents an unusual ornamental composition in the Armenian miniature painting, which is not found in the canon-tables of the Armenian manuscripts any more. According to the colophons of the Gospel of 862, Queen Mlk{e was the third receiver of the manuscript, i.e. she had not commissioned the codex. Her husband Gagik Arcruni was born in 879; thus he could not have been the commissioner or the receiver of the manuscript either. According to the colophons, he was the second owner of the Gospel. It is interesting that the colophons in the manuscript of 862 differ in chronology. In M. Canasean’s opinion, Gagik Arcruni had had the name of the first receiver erased, it being probably the name of an Arcruni prince51. It seems Gagik could not have done so, because he profoundly

44 CANASEAN, 1966, ill. 6. 45 ALISAN, 1901, p. 280, note 2. 46 HAC{UNI, 1930, p. 69. 47 WEITZMANN, 1933, S. 6; BRENTJES, FRANZ, RUPRECHTSBERGER, 1989, S. 49. 48 DER NERSESSIAN, 1937, p. 22. 49 DURNOVO, 1979, p. 172. 50 M. CANASEAN, 1966, p. 25. 51 Ibidem, p. 22. 312 L. CHOOKASZIAN revered the memory of his family members. The following circumstance cannot be disregarded: it was Gagik who had commissioned the reliefs of Sahak and Hamazasp, the two Arcruni princes, at the church of the Holy Cross on the island of A¥t{amar52. He also wanted the church to have the exact shape of the sepulchre-church of his ancestors in Soradir (7th century)53. A descendant of the Arcrunis, Gagik who appreciated the deeds of his predecessors, might have certainly taken pride in the fact that his relative had been the commissioner and first recepient of such a splendid manuscript as the Gospel of 862. But here another question arises: whose name would have been unde- sirable for Gagik Arcruni? Upon consideration, perhaps it may have been any of the Bagratids. We cannot overlook the fact that Gagik Arcruni acted treacherously towards his uncle, the Armenian king Smbat Bagratuni, when the Arabs conferred a crown on him in 90854. T{ovma Arcruni, the historiographer of the Arcruni family, relates that Gagik married twice, his first wife being king Smbat’s brother Sapuh Bagratuni’s daughter. Thus Mlk{e was Gagik’s second wife. It seems that the Gospel of Mlk{e was one of the gifts, brought by Sapuh Bagratuni’s daughter to Vaspurakan. It should be believed that one of the Bagratids was the first commissioner and owner of this manuscript, i.e. the codex was copied in their domain, even in Ani or some adjacent territory. From the afore-mentioned, it follows that the heraldic theme under study is the coat of arms of a Bagratuni, relative to Gagik Arcruni. What would have hindered the Bagratids in accepting for their coat of arms the image of the king of beasts so frequently represented in the Armenian art? It should not be neglected that the figure of the lion repeatedly appeared in the heraldic fragments of the monuments created in the domain of the Prosean family, who were less ancient and less powerful than the Bagratids and who were in power after them55. Does the figure of the lion seen on the objects provenant from Ani or build- ings in Ani have only decorative significance? Is it accidental that the names Smbat and Abbas, meaning “lion” in Arabic were widespread among the Bagratids for centuries56? The above reasoning suggests that

52 ORBELI, 1968, pp. 87-88; DER NERSESSIAN, 1965, figs. 24, 25. 53 DER NERSESSIAN, 1977, p. 86. 54 CANASEAN, 1966, p. 27, n. 23. 55 HAB vol. 1, pp. 2, 19; vol. 4, p. 538. 56 YOVSEP{EAN, 1969, ill. 12, 13, 15, 26, 27, pp. 24-26, 56; MAT{EVOSYAN 1989, no. 2, pp. 119-122, figs. 3-5. THE PORTRAIT OF PRINCE LEWON (MS EREVAN 8321) 313 the image of the lion could not have been neglected by the Bagratids. Except for G. Yovsep{ean, scholars studying the portrait of King Gagik of Kars and his family in the 11th-century Gospel (Jerusalem, Armenian Patriarchate, Ms. 2556) have disregarded the fact that the king’s throne is supported by lions with their backs turned to each other57. It is known that the Sassanian and Hephthalite kings were seated on such thrones58. Lions with their backs turned to each other represented the symbol of the sun59. The form of the throne, where Gagik II is seated, is an additional argument in favour of our conclusion. The fifth Armenian piece, which combines the lion with the sun, is also related to the Bagratids’ domain, Ani in particular. For the fifth time the subject-matter depicting the sun and the lion appears on the main gates of Ani. In his “Ruins of Ani”, I.A. Orbeli describes this representation in the following way: “At the main gates of the city there is a bas- relief, showing a running tiger with a sphere and a cross overhead; that is probably the coat of arms of Ani (13th century)”60. N. Marr, V. Hac{uni and other scholars consider the beast to be a lion61. Independently of one another, A. S. Mnac{akanyan and B. Arak{elyan considered the bas- relief to be the Bagratids’ coat of arms62. We also hold this viewpoint. I.A. Orbeli refers to the disc of the sun over the lion’s head as a sphere, but he does not make any comments about the meaning of the cross. It seems to us that the cross is a later addition in the coat of arms of the Bagratids. The bas-relief of the lion with the cross and the sun is, in our opinion, the Bagratids’ coat of arms. As the sixth and seventh examples, the theme of the sun and the lion appears in the decoration of two wooden lecterns (State History Museum of Armenia). These pieces of art date from the 13th century and origi- nate from Ani63. Their decorations indicate that the bas-relief of Ani is not a chance occurrence, but a meaningful and justified representation. The cross, as a motif, manifests itself likewise in the fragment of the lecterns. B. Arak{elyan writes about the representation on the lectern dating from 1273: “… the cross is supported by the lion’s back, on the circle reminiscent of the disc of the sun”64.

57 DER NERSESSIAN, 1977, fig. 75. 58 TREVER, 1960, pp. 267-269; MIXALEVIC, 1972, p. 110. 59 UPTON, ACKERMAN, “Furniture”, in POPE 1981 vol. VIb, p. 2637. 60 ORBELI, 1963, p. 11. 61 MARR, 1934, p. 78; HAC{UNI, 1930, p. 37. 62 MNAC{AKANYAN, 1955, p. 505; ARAK{ELYAN, 1958, pl. XXVIII. 63 STEPANJAN, CAKMAKCJAN, 1971, ill. 160; MNAC{AKANYAN, 1955, pp. 186-188, fig. 452. 64 ARAK{ELYAN, 1958, vol. 1, p. 207. 314 L. CHOOKASZIAN

It is noteworthy that the same theme is represented on the lectern of 1678 from the church of St. Gevorg in Naxijevan65. It might be interesting to imagine all this through the contemporary perspective of citizens of Ani and how they perceived the bas-relief on the stronghold gates and decorative fragment of the lecterns. Is it possible to observe the Bagratids’ coat of arms through their eyes? What meaning did they see in this depiction? It seems to us the answers to these questions may be found in Armenian folklore. According to a popular belief, “the sun is riding astride the lion that has a sword in hand to defend it from evil spirits”66. It is beyond any doubt that the lion in the bas-relief of Ani defends or watches over the sun and the cross, or the lion and the sun together defend and watch over the cross. According to the Christian mentality, this reasoning may only refer to the rulers of the Bagratid dynasty, who fought against the Arabs and Seljuks, adherents of a different faith, and who defended the interests of Christianity in their lands. This interpretation is consonant with the national Armenian artistic concept, as it gives an insight into the xac{k{ars, the Armenian monuments, especially into those which have a circle or a disc in the base of the cross, i.e. the sun, defending or watching over the cross. For a thorough interpretation of the sun-and-lion theme, it is necessary to approach it in different ways, considering the subject-matter not only within the range of similar Armenian monuments, but also within a wider scope of artistic pieces, which were created in the lands inhabited by historical neighbours and adjacent to the vital territory of the Armen- ian people. The search for specimens similar to the art of other peoples reveals the existence of ancient monuments that provide new materials regarding the sources and the development of the sun and the lion theme. Investigations in this field represent the possibility of better understanding the symbolic content of the theme and the ability to elucidate its inherent mythological-semiotic meaning, heretofore veiled from the eyes of the 20th-century viewers. It appears that works that contain the subject-matter in question come forth from the depth of millennia (starting from the 4th mill.)67. The representation of the winged sun and two lions, defending it, on a seal (circa 1450 B.C.), a piece of art from the state of Mitanni, exempli- fies the most ancient analogous samples, specified by scolars68.

65 MNAC {AKANYAN, 1955, pp. 187-188, fig. 453. 66 LALAEAN, 1897, p. 217; ABE™YAN, 1975, p. 498; AVDALBEGYAN, 1969, p. 45. 67 HARTNER, 1938, p. 119. 68 TANAVOLI, 1985, p. 36; CONTENAU, 1948, p. 620. THE PORTRAIT OF PRINCE LEWON (MS EREVAN 8321) 315

An astonishing sample of the theme of the sun and the lion is pre- sented on the seal of the Persian king Artaxerxes (ruled in 404-358 B.C.) (St. Petersburg, Hermitage Museum, Department of South-Russian Art, no. 285). Here, in front of the God on the lion stands the king with his hands piously spread. Sunbeams radiate from the God’s sides; he is the sun-god, or the god of sun69. Interesting samples of the theme of the sun and the lion are known from the Sassanian art: the 1st-2nd century black stone seal (private collection) is noteworthy as such70. Seals, gems, and talismans, likewise important for the examination of this subject-matter, are preserved in the British Museum in London. One of them is a Sassanian piece and shows the lion with the moon overhead. Another Sassanian seal represents a swastika, i.e. the symbol of the sun, next to the king of beasts71. The moon is carved beside the lion on the two London examples, but in one instance, a human figure (the god?) with a sphere (the sun?) in hand is standing on the beast and the stars are shown next to it. In the second instance, there is representation of an indistinctly outlined spider or swastika72. These examples, though similar to the Sassanian seals, belong to the culture of gnostics, “the most developed and affluent early Christian sect”73. Representations containing the king of beasts and the sun are known from later centuries as well. The hewn stone sculpture, where the sun is located between the deer and the lion, preserved on an architectural monument in Tigranakert (Diarbekir) is noteworthy among them74. The Arabic inscription bears the exact date of the sculpture: 909-910. In connection with the theme in question, evidence that is found in the poems “Shahnamah” and “Vis and Ramin” also deserve mention. It provides descriptions of Iranian banners, in which the lion is depicted in the vicinity of the moon and the sun75. In the opinion of A.A. Romaskevic, engaged in the study of representations of the king of beasts, the theme of the lion and the sun, is related to the cult of Mithra, protector of warriors76. He writes: “According to Avesta, Mithra is the deity of the light spread in the sky. This deity is neither the sun, nor the moon, nor the stars. How-

69 SLOMANN, 1967, vol. 1, p. 123, vol. 2, fig. 617. 70 TANAVOLI, 1985, p. 36, fig. 48. 71 ACKERMAN, 1981, vol. 2, p. 789, vol. 7, Pl. 255w. 72 EVE, 1897, ill. 99.8, 99.9. 73 Ibidem, p. 81. 74 SLOMANN, 1967, vol. 1, p. 169, vol. 2, fig. 737. 75 ARTIN PACHA, 1902, p. 64; KASRAWI TABRIZI, 1930; ROMASKEVIC, 1939, p. 212. 76 ROMASKEVIC, 1939, p. 213. 316 L. CHOOKASZIAN ever, as the combination of these celestial bodies, he represents an all-hear- ing, omniscient, all-seeing being who vigilantly watches over the world… he sends bodily strength and good heirs”. “… He protects from… the attacks of “demons”… he is in constant combat… against the enemies of light, he destroys the dwellings of evil powers, entire evil tribes, and evil peoples. … He bestows victory upon those who worship him…”77. It seems most convincing that the aforementioned Armenian monuments that contain the depiction of the lion and the sun — especially the decoration of Prince Lewon’s attire — are related to the description of Mithra in Avesta. The earliest evidence on Mithraism is connected with the times when the Arians came to Iran and India. With the rise of the Achaemenian empire Mithraism penetrated Babylon and Asia Minor78. In ancient world Mithraism was spread not only in Iran, but also in Armenia, the vast territory from India to Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, including the British Isles and Germany, the Black Sea basin, as well as the Balkans, Rome and Spain79. Mithraism was not only a national religion, but also international; this is made evident by the sacred places and churches linked with the worship of Mithra in Europe and Asia. The god of the sun Areg-Mithra-Mihr was greatly revered in pagan Armenia. Armenian and Roman written sources contain individual facts on the statues and temples dedicated to this god. The Roman historiographer Dion Cassius gives the earliest evidence concerning the worship of this god among the Armenians. In his historical account he describes how the Armenian king Trdat met emperor Nero in Rome, in 65 A.D. and records Trdat’s salutatory address to Nero: “I came to you, to my god, to bow before you as to Mithra”80. Dion Cassius’s information is complemented by another important event. As K.V. Trever mentions, coming back from Rome in 66 A.D., Trdat rebuilt the temple of Garni (ruined during Corbulon’s campaign) and dedicated it to Mithra, god of sun81. According to Trever’s assumption, the former temple of Garni was also dedicated to the god of sun82. We can also find data on the statues and temples of Mithra in Movses Xorenac{i’s History of Armenia. The 5th-century authors E¥ise and Eznik

77 Ibidem [According to TURCAN 1989, p. 200, the presence of the lion in the cult of Mithra would be only “un épiphénomène astrologique”. As to the astral significance of the lion, see the Nemrut Dag sculptures (CUMONT, 1929, p. 115, fig. 8) and the Cizre ibn Omar’s bridge (PREUSSER, 1911, pl. 40) M.T.] 78 TANAVOLI, 1985, p. 12; CUMONT, 1956. 79 BLAWATSKY, KOCHELENKO, 1966; HINNELS, 1971. 80 TREVER, 1953, p. 62; RUSSELL, 1987, pp. 261, 268. 81 TREVER, 1953, p. 63. 82 Ibidem p. 91. THE PORTRAIT OF PRINCE LEWON (MS EREVAN 8321) 317

Ko¥bac{i also provide information that is critical of Mihr83. According to Xorenac{i, the worship of the god of the sun in Armenia was retained even after Trdat, “under the reign of semi-mythological king Va¥arsak, and the statue of the god was formerly placed in Armawir, the ancient capital, then moved to Bagaran and finally set up in Artasat”84. Trever assumes that the statue could have been set up in the temple of Garni as well85. In her opinion, links with the worship of Mithra may be observed in the royal portraits of the coins of Tigran II and Artavazd II (1st c. B.C.). Symbols of the god of the sun, i.e. an eagle on either side of the rosette, are shown on the crowns of these sovereigns86. Trever is convinced that “the four-horsed chariot, in which the sun- god drove across the sky, on the coins of Artavazd II, as well as the image of the horse (dedicated to the god of sun, according to Xenophon) on the coins of Tigran IV, are manifestations of his cult at the end of the 1st century B.C.”87. The worship of Mithra had an equally significant place in Zoroastrianism, with those of Ahuramazda and Anahit, and was more ancient as compared with the latter two88. In E¥ise’s words: “Mihr was called the solar god” (E¥ise, ch. 8). He was basically the god of light, justice, truth, incorrupt friendship, and the realization of alliances89. The worship of Mithra has left a deep trace in the history of the Armenian language. The Armenian word “mehean” (which means a shrine, a heathen temple) originates from the name of the god — Mihr- Mehr; “Mehekan”, the seventh month in the Armenian calendar and “Mihr”, one of the days of the month, are called by his name90. Mascu- line names of Mehruzan (Meruzan), Mehewandak, Mehendak (Mehr and andak), Mehar, Mehen, popular among the Armenian nobility, were derived from the same root91. In later centuries, “according to people’s recollections, Mihr, the god, continued to live a dual existence in the persons of the two Mhers, the grandfather and the grandson, in the epic Dawit{ Sasunc{i92.

83 Ibidem p. 65. 84 Ibidem p. 63. 85 Ibidem p. 64. 86 Ibidem p. 62, pl. 58.1. 87 Ibidem p. 93. 88 FNTK{LEAN, 1931, no. 9, p. 265. 89 Ibidem. 90 TREVER, 1953, pp. 63, 93; RUSSELL, 1987, p. 263. 91 FNTK{LEAN, 1931, p. 266; RUSSELL, 1987, p. 263. 92 TREVER, 1953, p. 64. 318 L. CHOOKASZIAN

The Armenian heroic epic which still retains the memory of the god Mihr, has excited people’s imagination for centuries93. The survivals of the cult of Mithra in the Middle Ages were preserved not only in the epic, but they are also attested by the 7th-century Armen- ian historiographer Movses Ka¥ankatuac{i (Dasxuranc{i). Referring to Prince Sahli Smbatean94 (a descendant of the Bagratids in N. Adonc{‘s opinion), Ka¥ankatuac{i mentions that the Prince belonged to the “Zarmihrakan royal family”. The word “Zarmihr” is of Persian origin and consists of “Zar” (gold) and “Mihr” (sun-god)95. It is likely that Ka¥ankatuac{i referred to the Bagratids as Zarmihrean. It should also be taken into account that the Bagratids’ surname retains the root “bag”, i.e. god, among the families who ever ascended the throne of Armenia. The name of the great grandfather of the family was Bagadat; hence the Parthian form of Bagarat. Bagadata was an old Persian name which in the opinion of the noted Armenologist and linguist Hr. Acaryan, means “given or created by good Mihr” and corresponds to the Armenian name of Astuacatur96. N. Adonc{ considers “Baga” to be Ahuramazda97. These ethymological considerations suggest that Movses Ka¥ankatuac{i’s information alludes to the worship of Mithra in the milieu of the Bagratids. Accepting Hr. Acaryan’s viewpoint, it may be assumed that in the case of the sun and the lion, or the cross, the sun and the lion, we are concerned with the so-called “speaking” coat of arms, whose content corresponds to the significance of the family name. In this connection it is appropriate to recall I.A. Orbeli’s specifications on the incidence of eagle representations, particularly in the design of architectural monuments in the domains of Armenian and Georgian branches of the Orbelyan princes. I.A. Orbeli explained this occurrence through the meaning of the surname of “Orbelyan” in Georgian, i.e. he inferred this occurrence from the Georgian word “orbi” denoting “eagle”98. If our assumption regarding Mithra-worship among the Bagratids is correct, then the appearance of the sun and the lion on the lecterns and gates of Ani, i.e. representation of the theme connected with Mithra-worship in Armenia, coming forth from the depth of centuries, becomes apparent.

93 AWDALBEGEAN, 1929; MELIK{-OHANJANYAN, 1946. 94 ADONC{, 1948, pp. 127-128. 95 AnjB, vol. 2, p. 175. 96 Ibidem, vol. 1, p. 355. 97 ADONC{, 1948, p. 114. 98 ORBELI, 1968, vol. 1, pp. 120-121. THE PORTRAIT OF PRINCE LEWON (MS EREVAN 8321) 319

One should think that the Cilician Armenians knew a lot about the heraldry of ancient Armenian sovereigns, and that the decoration of royal garments and emblems was made according to the old Armenian royal coat of arms99. There are objective historical factors that make possible the existence of Mithraism survivals in medieval Armenia at the times of T{oros Roslin. K.V. Trever is of opinion that “… Christianity was so close to Mithraism in its content that transition from the worship of Mihr to that of Christ involved no difficulty”100. The existence of Armenian sun- worshippers identifying Christ with the sun attests to a slow and com- plex process in overcoming the survivals of Mithraism101. G. Fntk{lean writes: “From the association of sun-god, light and justice, it is likely that the title “The Sun of Justice” given to Christ in our hymnals was an epithet describing Mihr in the prayers of pagan times, which was replaced by the worship of Jesus under Christianity”102. Christianity, especially Armenian Christianity, bore individual survivals of Mithraism for centuries. However, there were still Armenian sun-worshippers even in the 12th century, many centuries after the establishment of Christ’s teachings in Armenia proper. It is not inconceivable that those people were preservers of Mithraism and its tradi- tions103. The 11th-14th century Armenian authors have left valuable facts about Armenian fire-worshippers who must be considered bearers of Zoroastrianism, which also represents Mithraism104. The sun occu-

99 N. Marr’s opinion on the sculptural portraits of the Bagratid kings may serve an additional argument in favour of this assumption. In due course the famous scholar had pointed to ancient traditions in the principles of depicting the Bagratids. In the sculptures of the Ani monarchs, N. Marr observed peculiarities of attire and hairstyle typical of the Arsacid portraits on the coins issued by them. N. Marr explains the manifestation of old Armenian traditions of the Arsacid period in the Bagratids’ portraits and their similarity in features with the portraits of some Parthian kings on the coins by the circumstance that the Bagratids considered themselves direct successors of the Arsacids and were guided by yearnings to revive and recreate the former borders of ex-Armenia. Cf. MNAC{AKANYAN, 1969, pp. 105-106. 100 TREVER, 1953, pp. 63, 93. 101 Surprising information is found in an Arabian historical work, according to which in the mid-12th century Armenian sun-worshipping horsemen served under the Arabs in the fortress of Damascus. Cf. CANARD, 1966, pp. 201-203. 102 FNTK{LEAN, 1931, p. 266. 103 In the 12th century there were fire-worshippers also in Cilicia. Cf. BARTIKIAN, 1968, p. 272. 104 Grigor Magistros (11th c.), Nerses Snorhali (12th c.), Mxit{ar Gos (died in 1214), Catholicos Mxit{ar (14th c.), as well as other later authors wrote about Armenian fire- worshippers. Cf. ALISAN, 1895, pp. 90-93; ORBELI, 1856, pp. 22-23. 320 L. CHOOKASZIAN pied an important place in Armenian popular beliefs for quite a long time105. Mithra was not only the god of sun, but also the patron and protector of oaths106. According to the 5th-century authors mentioned above, the custom of swearing on the sun, the moon, and the stars was most likely connected with that belief107. It is noteworthy that the custom of swearing on the sun still exists among the Armenians. Prolonged maintenance of Mithraism survivals in the Armenian reality may be explained by the spread of Iranian culture, and particularly, knowledge of Iranian literature within the circles of Armenian intellec- tuals. The coincidence in the description of banners in “Shahnamah” and representation of medallions on Prince Lewon’s attire is not accidental108. The writings by T{oros Roslin’s contemporaries, also by later Armenian poets evidence that the poem was widely known109. Many of Roslin’s contemporaries knew “Shahnamah” by heart. It was quite natural that the poem was well known at the Cilician court as well. Persian civilization and literature have been a source of inspiration for many Armenian cultural figures110. Armenian medieval reality, according to some scholars, contains numerous facts and events that are considered to be old Iranian. On the one hand, insufficient study of Armenian culture, and on the other hand, poor understanding of the material culture and art of Armenia, have in due course created a musunderstanding about numerous motifs, representations, and mythological themes. Although common to both Armen- ian and Iranian cultures, these phenomena have been solely attributed to old Iran. Even some outstanding Iranists and Orientalists have not been able to resist this temptation. If we take the definition “old Iranian” as a matter of convention, we may state that the Armenian civilization has been a peculiar custodian of “old Iranian” traditions.

105 A.G., 1929, nos 10-11, p. 634-650, no 12, pp. 752-759. 106 ACKERMAN, in POPE 1981, p. 802. 107 HAC{UNI, 1910, pp. 8, 131. 108 Echoes of “Shahnamah” are revealed in pre-Roslinian Armenian literature. In the writings by Grigor Magistros (11th c.) there are passages concerning Rostam that are absent from Firdousi’s “Shahnamah”. CHOOKASZIAN, 1963, pp. 93-103; ID., 1964, pp. 321-329. 109 Kostandin Erznkac{i (13th c.), Grigoris A¥t{amarc{i (15th c.), etc. are meant. CHOOKASZIAN, 1963, pp. 128-168. 110 There are noteworthy facts evidencing that Frik, who is considered to be a representative of the 13th-century Cilician literature, was versed in the Persian language. CHOOKASZIAN, 1963, pp. 112-127. THE PORTRAIT OF PRINCE LEWON (MS EREVAN 8321) 321

Fig. 2. Medallion on the Penbox (Qalamdan), Bronze engraved and inlaid with silver and gold, Signed: the work of Mahmüd ibn Sunqur, 1281 (POPE, 1981, vol. XII, pl. 1336).

Fig. 3. Medallion on the Bronze, engraved and inlaid, 12th or 13th century vase, inlaid with silver and copper, Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore (After A.U. Pope, vol. XII, Tokyo, 1964-65 pl. 1317A). 322 L. CHOOKASZIAN

It would be difficult to imagine that the centuries-old relations connect- ing Armenian and Iranian cultures (which are consistently found in the Armenian language, and Armenian works of art and literature) had not been represented in T{oros Roslin’s infinitively rich and diverse miniatures. While studying the medallions on Prince Lewon’s attire, it is not unusual to find the theme of the sun and the lion in the Moslem art. It is a well-known fact that Muslims were strongly influenced by Iranian civilization. Consequently, it is common to find a simultaneous use of the lion and the sun represented in the art of Mohammedan states of the East and in the epoch of T{oros Roslin. The theme of the sun and the lion is very frequent in the monuments of Mohammedan peoples, living on the territories adjacent to Central Armenia and Cilicia. In their iconographical features such pieces can be divided into two groups. The first (fig. 2) profoundly differs from the medallion composition on Lewon’s attire, as here the king of beasts is shown on the background of the rising sun111. The monuments of the second group seem best suited to be compared with the design of the Prince’s attire, as the lion therein is represented below the sun (fig. 3). This group includes mainly applied art specimens made of bronze (12th-13th cc.)112. Specialists are of opinion that representations of the sun and the lion have an astrological content113, and were widely spread as a decorative motif in Persia in the middle of the 13th century114. This theme is represented on the coins issued by the Seljuk sultan Ghi-yas ad-Dim Kay Khusrow (1236-1246) in Sebastia, in 1240 and 1243, also in Konya, in 1241 and 1242115. Among identical works, these coins are distinguished by their exact dates. In addition, they may be classified among the second group of works. A comparison between these coins and medallions on Lewon’s garment provides evidence that the moon is placed within the disc of the sun only in the design of the Prince’s garment. The second group of examples do not reveal it at all, with the exception of a bronze object, where the moon is represented

111 HARTNER, 1938, figs. 2, 14; POPE, 1981, vol. XII, pl. 1336; vol. X, pl. 721. 112 HARTNER, 1938, fig. 1; POPE, 1981, vol. XII, pls. 1311 A, 1314 A, 1317 A. 113 HARTNER, 1938, p. 115; ACKERMAN, “Standards, Banners and Badges” in POPE, 1981, vol. VI, p. 2778. 114 ACKERMAN, in POPE, 1981, vol. VI, p. 2778. 115 ARTIN PACHA, 1902, pp. 62-64; TALBOT RICE, 1961, p. 271, pl. 79; BRENTJES, 1973, Abb. 101, 102; LANE POOLE, 1877, pl. V, 190, 200, 216, 230; TANAVOLI, 1985, pp. 36-38, fig. 50. THE PORTRAIT OF PRINCE LEWON (MS EREVAN 8321) 323 next to the sun116. Consequently, the works compared did not serve as a prototype for Lewon’s attire. The resemblance of medallions to Muslim samples is only expressed by the combination of the sun and the lion, not by the performance of the subject-matter. The works of the second group, especially the Seljuk coins, represent the sun with eyes, a mouth, etc. missing from Roslin’s miniature. The presence of the king of beasts and luminaries might be explained by the astrological significance of the composition, but it does not seem satisfactory despite the international pervasiveness of medieval astrology, acceptable for the Christians, Muslims, Judaists, “heathens” and others117. The interpretation connected with astrological content is not acceptable even for the Seljuk coins118. This is based on the information of Abu-l-Faraj, a beautiful, poetic legend. According to Abu-l-Faraj, the device of the lion surmonted by the sun was the horoscope (Sun in Leo) of Kay Khusrow’s beautiful “… Georgian wife of whom the Sultan was so enamoured that he wished to put her image on his coinage, but by the persuasion of his courtiers was induced to content himself with her horoscope” (St. Lane Poole)119. Hitherto this is the sole explanation of the unusual, non-traditional design on the Seljuk coins, irrespective of Abu-l-Faraj’s information, true or invented. It should be noted that the Seljuk coins in circulation seldom had any depiction of a creature120. Specialists consider the 12th-13th century coins of the Muslim East as being generally “characterized by samples of epigraphical nature, without a subject-matter”121. The images of the sun and the lion on Prince Lewon’s garments can be explained to possess greater significance than their astrological content. The spread of Iranian mythology in the East could have played a significant role in this matter. Depiction of this theme on the Seljuk coins utterly corresponds to the Iranian orientation and passion for the Iranian culture among the ruling circles in the Sultanate of Konya. It is known that the Seljuks came into contact with the Iranian culture as early as the 11th century, in Middle Asia. Up to the 1270s Persian was the official language at court and divans. Writings in Persian were envis-

116 POPE, 1981, vol. XII, pl. 1311 A. 117 HARTNER, 1938, p. 143. 118 ACKERMAN, in POPE 1981, vol. VI, p. 2778. 119 ARTIN PACHA, 1902, p. 64; TANAVOLI, 1985, pp. 36-38; LANE POOLE, 1877, pp. VIII-IX. 120 LANE POOLE, 1877, pp. VII-IX. 121 BYKOV, 1957, p. 120. 324 L. CHOOKASZIAN aged for the upper classes in society122. Sultan Ala ad-Din Kay Kubad I even wrote verses (rubayis) in Persian and on his order the verses of “Shahnamah” were engraved on the fortress walls surrounding Konya; the Seljuks derived their strength from the descriptions of feats by Persian heroes123. It is also known that in the Seljuk environment there was an inclination for old Iranian names, reminiscent of “Shahnamah”124. Even the names of their monarchs are taken from the old Iranian mythology. The names of sultans Kay Kavus, Kay Kubad, Kay Khusrow coincide with the names of the kings from the legendary Kayanian dynasty (Kay Kavus, Kay Kubad, Kay Khusrow)125. T. Talbot Rice mentions that the images of the sun and the moon on Kay Khusrow’s purple banner is related to “Shahnamah”. She is of the opinion that “… certain passages in the Shahnamah suggest that representations of the sun and moon had a political rather than a magical meaning, for king Kay Khusrow, whose violet banner displayed both orbs, remarked that he had heard the Mobeds say that when the Moon of the Turans (the Turks) reaches its zenith it will be vanquished by the sun of Iran”126. To better understand the evolution of heraldic images representing the sun and the lion, it is necessary to focus on the extent of popularity of both the subject-matter and the figure of the lion in the Seljuk environment. It is interesting to discover the frequency of the king of beasts image in the Seljuk art at the time when Prince Lewon’s portrait was created. V.A. Gordlevskii, the great expert in Seljuk history, expressed an opinion that the Seljuks were fascinated by this figure127. For them, the lion symbolized royal power128. The name “Arslan” (lion) was popular among them129. However, Seljuk works representing the beast are not very high in number130. The image of the lion, as we have mentioned, is known from innumerable Armenian works. They were created during the past two thousand years, long before the Seljuks appeared in the basin of the Mediterranean Sea. In this respect, examination of the Mameluke monu-

122 GORDLEVSKII, 1941, pp. 65, 187, 193. 123 Ibidem, p. 194. 124 Ibidem, p. 188. 125 Mify Narodov Mira, vol. 1, Moscow, 1980, pp. 610-633. 126 ARTIN PACHA, 1902, p. 64; TALBOT RICE, 1961, p. 169. 127 GORDLEVSKII, 1941, p. 84. 128 TALBOT RICE, 1961, p. 270. 129 GORDLEVSKII, 1941, p. 84. 130 TALBOT RICE, 1961, pls. 52, 77, 79. THE PORTRAIT OF PRINCE LEWON (MS EREVAN 8321) 325 ments, who had abundant contacts with the Cilician Armenians, gives rise to remarkable contemplations. The figure of the beast under study encounters in the Mameluke art, but it is rare in the Saracens’ heraldry131. It is the coat of arms of the Mameluke sultan Beibars who took Prince Lewon captive132. According to some Egyptian authors of the period, Beibars’s lion “points to his bravery”133. The king of beasts is represented in all the monuments he built in Egypt and Assyria134. Moreover, the very name Beibars means “lion”, i. e. we are concerned with a “speaking” coat of arms in this case as well135. The heraldic lion of the Saracens was usually shown walking, with its right paw raised (or the left one, if walking to the right) and the tail twisted. They are reminiscent of Armenian examples in these features. The Saracenic lion is often depicted with another animal, or playing with a ball (the significance of which, as L.A. Mayer writes, is not clear), or in the vicinity of some other creature136. It is noteworthy that the lion first appears as Beibars’s coat of arms on the gates called Harran in Urhay in 1211/12-1220/21137. The same beast appears also on the coins minted by this sultan138. The scarceness and later date of the lion representations in the Seljuk art, also in the art of Mamelukes of Egypt, leads to the assumption that they point not only to Iranian influence (where the beast had been frequently represented) in these Mohammedan states, but also resulted in contacts with Armenia, the country where numerous paintings, sculptures, applied art objects were ornamented with the figure of the king of beasts. The appearance of the sun-and-the lion theme in the land of the Seljuks may be considered, with some reservation, as a consequence of their fascination with the Iranian civilization. Our skepticism about the Iranian factor is conditioned by the opinions of the English scholar E.T. Rogers139. At the end of the 19th century, he expressed the opinion that the Persians had borrowed the representation of the sun and the lion from the Armenians. The scholar was not familiar with the group of

131 MAYER, 1933, pl. I. 1-7. 132 Ibidem. p. 9. 133 Ibidem. p. 7. 134 ARTIN PACHA, 1902, pp. 60-61. 135 Ibidem. p. 67. 136 MAYER, 1933, p. 9. 137 Ibidem. 138 ARTIN PACHA, 1902, p. 66; MAYER, 1933, p. 110. 139 Bulletin de l'Institut Égyptien, no. 1, 1880, 2e série, p. 85 (Non vidi). ARTIN PACHA, 1902, p. 68, note 3. 326 L. CHOOKASZIAN

Armenian pieces under study, especially the earliest examples, Urartian art works. It is not improbable that the Persians might have borrowed this representation at the time when after the collapse of Urartu (6th century B.C.), these regions fell under the rule of Achaemenian Iran, Erebuni becoming the centre of a satrapy140. Another fact is of importance in this respect. In the opinion of Yacoub Artin Pacha (C{rak{ean), a scholar with much credit for the study of Oriental, especially Iranian heraldry, it was upon the influence of the Armenians, having migrated to Africa-Abyssinia after the fall of the Cilician Armenian Kingdom that the Abyssinian kings adopted the coat of arms with the walking crowned lion141. To the number of Armenian monuments preserving the survivals of Mithra-worship can be added yet another piece, which has only recently been made available for scholars to study. It is a large depiction in wood (from the collection of Jack Gevorkian, New York), carved within the principles of Armenian xac{k{ars (cross-stones), which probably had been the door of some architectural monument. Its surface, ornamented with sculptures, consists of four parts, the largest of which represents a cross. The upper section of this wooden piece includes a fragment where the theme of the sun and the lion is essential, but different from the above-mentioned Armenian examples. Here, in the centre a human figure is represented holding one lion under each arm as though trying to strangle them. Under the lions facing each other, there is a disc, which is unmistakably the sun142. The fragment of this work, having no inscription in Armenian, is reminiscent of “lion-shaping” (i.e. lion-tearing) Mher from the epic Dawit{ Sasunc{i. In the connection with this fragment, it is appropriate to cite a passage from the work of the Persian scholar P. Tanavoli, who studies lion representations in the art of Iran. “In the ancient literature it is said that after his birth Mithra tamed all the creatures and elements of the world, then struggled with the sun and brought it under his power and subsequently enjoyed an intimate relationship with it. The lion, the symbol of Mithra, has responsibility for watching over the sun”143. This door was probably made in the 6th-9th centuries, though physicists from the University of Arizona were obliged to date it from the 3rd-6th centuries upon carbon dating process. It is not inconceivable that the fragment in question is

140 HOVHANNISYAN, 1973, p. 8. 141 ARTIN PACHA, 1902, p. 67. 142 FIEY, 1985, pp. 88-100. 143 TANAVOLI, 1985, p. 36. THE PORTRAIT OF PRINCE LEWON (MS EREVAN 8321) 327 the coat of arms of a Bagratid, and the door was part of a building erected in his domain. In conclusion, it may be said that in Armenian specimens the theme of the sun and the lion manifested an influence on the survival of the old heathen beliefs which at that time existed in the Persian reality as well. An examination of Prince Lewon’s garment shows that its ornamental composition originated from the Bagratids’ coat of arms and includes the Prince’s genealogical peculiarities. Moreover, it is evident that this ornamental design was composed with a good knowledge of old Armen- ian mythological-religious traditions. As a rule, in old times those who created coats of arms were well- versed in the history, literature and art of their own people. It is quite possible that Prince Lewon’s coat of arms could have been painted by T{oros Roslin, who, as seen in his miniatures, was a versatile intellec- tual, versed in his native, as well as Oriental and Western cultures. The ornamental design under study on the Prince’s garment does not emulate the sister specimens of heraldry mentioned above, a fact that provides evidence that the medallion composition was unique. It may be asserted with some certainty that such heraldic representations are not known from the Byzantine civilization144. It is also noteworthy that Prince Lewon’s coat of arms differs greatly from the distinction heraldic signs of the Western knights145. It is beyond question that the author of the Armenian Prince’s ornamental emblem was well-versed in medieval European collections of coats of arms146. In view of these considerations it may be concluded that Prince Lewon’s portrait is of exceptional interest not only to art historians studying T{oros Roslin’s art, but also scholars researching the history of the Cilician state, and Orientalists investigating Armenian-Iranian, Armen- ian-Seljuk relations. The same can be said about specialists on Armenian- European connections, ethnographers and philologists interested in ancient Armenian beliefs and experts in Armenian historical costumes and heraldry. Prince Lewon’s portrait is an astonishing piece, where, imperceptible to the uneducated eye, cultural traditions of the East and the West are interlaced.

144 CERNOVODEANU, 1982, pp. 409-422. 145 ADAM, 1950, pp. 38-46. 146 ADAM-EVEN, JÉQUIER, 1952, pp. 28-36; 1954, pp. 55-80; NEUBECKER, 1990; ID., 1991. 328 L. CHOOKASZIAN

BIBLIOGRAPHIE

ABE™YAN (M.) 1975 Erker (Works), Erevan, 1975. ABRAHAMYAN (V. A.) 1956 Arhestner¢ Hayastanum, D-ZErd dar (The Crafts in Armenia, 4th- 18th centuries), Erevan, 1956. ACKERMAN (PH.) 1981 “Sassanian Seals”, A Survey of Persian Art, vol. 2 et 7, New York. ADAM (P.) 1950 “Contribution à l'héraldique de l'Orient latin” Revue Française d'Héraldique et de Sigillographie, 6e année, 1950, bulletin no. 14. ADAM-EVEN (P.), JÉQUIER (L.) 1952/1954 “Un armorial français du XIIIe siècle, l’Armorial Wijnbergen”, Archives Héraldiques Suisses (Lausanne) 66 (1952), 68 (1954). ADONC{ (N.) 1948 Patmakan usumnasirut{iwnner (Studies in History), Paris, 1948. A. G. 1929 “Arew¢ haykakan zo¥ovrdakan hawatalik{nerum” (The Sun in Armenian Popular Beliefs), HA 10-11, 1929. ALISAN (™.) 1885 Sisuan, Venice, 1885. 1895 Hin hawatk{ kam het{anosakan kronk{ Hayoc{ (Ancient Beliefs or Armenian Heathen Religion), Venice — San Lazzaro, 1895. 1901 Hayapatum (History of Armenians), Venice — San Lazzaro, 1901. ARAK{ELYAN (B.) 1958 K{a¥akner¢ ew arhestener¢ Hayastanum 9-13rd darerum (The Cities and Crafts in Armenia in the 9th-13th Centuries), vol. 1, Erevan, 1958. Ararat 1871 “Yisatakaran t{agaworakan Casoc{in kam hamarot patmut{iwn Rubinean isxanac{” (The Colophon of the Royal Lectionary or Concise History of the Rubenids). ARTIN PACHA (YACOUB) 1902 Contribution à l’étude du blason en Orient, London, 1902. AWDALBEGEAN (T{.) (AVDALBEGYAN) 1929 Mihr¢ hayoc{ mej (Mihr among the Armenians), Vienna, 1929. 1969 Hayagitakan hetazotut{yunner (Armenological Studies), Erevan, 1969. BARTIKIAN (H.) 1968 “Les Arewordi (Fils du Soleil) en Arménie et Mésopotamie et l’épître du Catholicos Nerses le Gracieux”, REArm 5 (1968). THE PORTRAIT OF PRINCE LEWON (MS EREVAN 8321) 329

BLAWATSKY (W.), KOCHELENKO (G.) 1966 Le Culte de Mithra sur la côte septentrionale de la Mer Noire, Leiden, 1966. BRENTJES (B.) 1973 Die Söhne Ismaels, Leipzig, 1973.

BRENTJES (B.), FRANZ (H. G.), RUPRECHSTBERGER (E. M.) 1989 Armenien Kunst und Geschichte im 1. Jahrtausend, Linz, 1989 (Linzer Archäologische Forschungen, Bd. 18/1). BUCHTHAL (H.) 1986 Miniature Painting in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, London, 1986. BYKOV (A. A.) 1957 “Perezitki antic{nosti na monetax Zengidov i Ortokidov” (Survivals of Antiquity on the Zengee and Urtuk Coins), Trudy Gosudarstvennogo istoriceskogo (Travaux du Musée historique d’Etat), vyp. XXVI (1957), (Numizmaticeskii sbornik [Bulletin numismatique], 2nd part), ed. by D. B. Silov, Moscow.

CANARD (M.) 1966 “Une mention des Arewordik{ dans un texte historique arabe”, REArm 3 (1966). CANASEAN (M.) 1966 Haykakan manrankarc{ut{iwn (Armenian Miniature Paintings), Venice — San Lazzaro, 1966.

CERNOVODEANU (D.) 1982 “Contribution à l’étude héraldique byzantine et postbyzantine”, XVI Internationaler Byzantinistenkongress (Wien, 4-9 October 1981), Akten II/2, Wien, 1982. CHOOKASZIAN (B. L.) 1963 Hay-iranakan grakan arnc{ut{yunner, 5-18rd dd., Hetaxuzumner (Armenian-Iranian Literary Relations, 5th-18th cc., Investiga- tions), Erevan, 1963. 1964 “Échos de légendes épiques iraniennes dans les ‘Lettres’ de Grigor Magistros”, REArm 1 (1964).

COLE (A. S.) 1899 Ornament in European Silks, London, 1899. CONTENAU (G.) 1948 La Civilisation des Hittites et des Mitannis, Paris, 1948.

COX (R.) 1914 Les soieries d’art depuis les origines jusqu’à nos jours, Paris, 1914. CUMONT (F.) 1929 Les religions orientales dans le paganisme romain, Paris, 1929. 1956 The Mysteries of Mithra, New York, 1956. 330 L. CHOOKASZIAN

DAVT{YAN (S.) 1981 Drvagner haykakan mijnadaryan kirarakan arvesti patmut{yan (Sketches in the History of Medieval Armenian Applied Arts), Erevan, 1981. DER NERSESSIAN (S.) 1937 Manuscrits arméniens illustrés des XIIe, XIIIe et XIVe siècles de la Bibliothèque des Pères Mekhitaristes de Venise, Texte, Paris, 1937. 1965 A¥t{amar, The Church of the Holy Cross, Cambridge, Mass., 1965. 1977 L’Art arménien des origines au XVIIe siècle, Paris, 1977. 1993 Miniature painting in the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia XII- XIVc., Washington, 1993, 2 vol.

DUPONT-AUBERVILLE (M.) 1875 L’Ornement des tissus, Paris, 1875. DURNOVO (L. A.) 1946 “Portretnye izobrazenija na pervom zaglavnom liste C{asoc{a 1288g.” (Portraits on the First Title Page of Lectionary of 1288), Te¥ekagir 4 (1946) 63-70. 1979 Ocerki izobraziteljnogo iskusstva srednevekovoi Armenii (Essays on the Pictorial Art of Medieval Armenia), Moscow, 1979. EBERSOLT (J.) 1923 Les arts somptuaires de Byzance, Paris, 1923. EVE (G. W.) 1897 Decorative Heraldry, Practical Handbook of its Artistic Treat- ment, London, 1897. FALKE (O. VON) 1913. 1930 Kunstgeschichte der Seidenweberei, Berlin. FIEY (J. M.) 1985 “Sur un panneau historique en bois sculpté”, Annales d’Histoire et d’Archéologie de l’Université Saint-Joseph (Beyrouth) 4 (1985). FNTK{LEAN (G.) 1931 “Hayoc{ mej zradastakanut{iwn¢” (Zoroatrianism among the Armenians), Hayastani Kochnag (New York) 9 (1931).

FOLDA (J.) 1976 Crusader Manuscript Illumination at Saint-Jean d’Acre, 1275- 1291, Princeton, 1976. GANTZHORN (V.) 1991 The Christian Oriental Carpet, Köln, 1991. GEVORGYAN (A.) 1967 “Levon Errord t{agavori Avetaran¢” (The Gospel of King Levon III), BM 8 (1967).

GORDLEVSKII (V. A.) 1941 Gosudarstvo Seljdzukidov Maloi Azii (The State of the Seljukids in Asia Minor), Moscow-Leningrad, 1941. THE PORTRAIT OF PRINCE LEWON (MS EREVAN 8321) 331

HAC{UNI (V.) 1910 Erdumn hin Hayoc{ mej (Oaths among Ancient Armenians), Venice — San Lazzaro, 1910. 1923 Patmut{iwn hin hay tarazin (History of the Ancient Armenian Costume), Venice — San Lazzaro, 1923. 1930 Hay drosner¢ patmut{ean mej (Armenian Banners in History), Venice — San Lazzaro, 1930.

HARTNER (W.) 1938 “The Pseudoplanetary Nodes of the Moon’s Orbit in Hindu and Islamic Iconographies”, Ars Islamica, vol. V, part. 2 (1938).

HINNELS (J. R.) ed. 1971 Mithraic Studies (Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies), vol. I-II, Manchester, 1971.

HOUSTON (M. G.) 1954 Ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian & Persian Costume and Deco- ration, New York, 1954. 1963 Ancient Greek, Roman and Byzantine Costume & Decoration, London, 1963.

HOVHANNISYAN (K.) 1973 Erebuni ormnankarner¢ (The Wall-Paintings of Erebuni), Erevan, 1973.

KASRAWI TABRIZI (S. A.) 1930 The History of the Lion and Sun, Tehran, 1930 [in Persian].

KENDRICK (A. F.) 1925 Catalogue of Early Medieval Woven Fabrics, London, 1925.

K{IWRTEAN (H.) 1968 “Haykakan dipakner” (Armenian Brocade), Sion (Jerusalem), 1968.

KORKHMAZIAN (E.), DRAMPIAN (I.), HAKOPIAN (G.) 1984 Armenian Miniatures of the 13th and 14th Centuries from the Matenadaran Collection Yerevan, Leningrad, 1984.

LALAEAN (V.) 1987 “Varanda”, Azgagrakan Handes 2 (1897). [Reprint in Erger (Works), II, Erevan, 1988, pp. 11-194.]

LANE POOLE (ST.) 1877 The Coins of the Turkuman Houses of Seljuk, Urtuk, Zengee, etc. in the British Museum, London, 1877. LANG (D. M.) 1970 Armenia: Cradle of Civilization, London, 1970. ™AZARYAN (V.) 1980 Sargis Picak, Erevan, 1980. 332 L. CHOOKASZIAN

MADOJAN (A. G.) 1992 O literaturnom nasledii Vagrama Rabuni (On the Literary Heritage of Vahram Rabuni), Erevan, 1992. MARR (N. JA.) 1934 Ani, Kniznaja istorija goroda i raskopki na meste gorodisca (Ani, the Literary History of the City and Excavations of the Site), Leningrad-Moscow, 1934. MAT{EVOSYAN (A. S.) 1984 Hayeren jeragreri hisatakaranner ZG dar (Colophons of Armen- ian Manuscripts, XIIIth century), Erevan, 1984. MAT{EVOSYAN (R. I.) 1989 “Prosyanneri tohmakan zinansan¢ ew nra patma-cagumna- banakan verlucut{yun¢” (The Coat of Arms of the Proseans: Analysis of its Origin and History), PBM 2 (1989). MAYER (L. A.) 1933 Saracenic Heraldry, Oxford, 1933. MELIK{-OHANJANYAN (K.) 1946 Mit{ra-Mihr¢ Sasna eposum (Mithra-Mihr in the Sasna Epic Tales), Erevan, 1946. Mify Narodov Mira 1980 Mify Narodov Mira, Encicklopedja (Myths of the Peoples of the World, Encyclopedia), vol. 1, Moscow, 1980. MIKAELYAN (G. G.) 1952 Istorija kilikiiskogo armjanskogo gosudarstva (The History of the Cilician Armenian State), Erevan, 1952. MIXALEVIC (G. P.) 1972 “Soobscenie Nasir ad-dina Tusi o reznom izumrude xoresmsaxa Tekesa” (Message of Nasir ad-din Tusi on the Carved Emerald of Shah Tekesh of Khorezm), Srednjaja Azija i Iran (Middle Asia and Iran), Collection of Articles, Leningrad, 1972. MNAC{AKANYAN (A. S.) 1955 Haykakan zardarvest (Armenian Ornamental Art), Erevan, 1955. 1956 Haykakan mijnadaryan zo¥ovrdakan erger (Medieval Armenian Folk Songs), Erevan, 1956. 1979 “Kilikian Hayastan, Ge¥arvestakan grakanut{yun¢” (Cilician Armenia: Literature), Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia, vol. 5, Ere- van, 1979. MNAC{AKANYAN (ST.) 1969 Niko¥ayos Mar¢ ew haykakan cartarapetut{yun¢ (Niko¥ayos Marr and the Armenian Architecture), Erevan, 1969. MUTAFIAN (C.) 1988 La Cilicie au carrefour des empires, Paris, 1988. NARKISS (B.), STONE (M. E.), SANJIAN (A. K.) 1979 Armenian Art Treasures of Jerusalem, New Rochelle, 1979. THE PORTRAIT OF PRINCE LEWON (MS EREVAN 8321) 333

NEUBECKER (O.) 1990 Heraldik, Augsburg, 1990. 1991 Wappenkunde, München, 1991. OMONT (H.) 1929 Miniatures des plus anciens manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque Nationale du VIe au XIVe siècle, Paris, 1929. ORBELI (I. A.) 1856 Basni srednevekovoi Armenii (Fables of Medieval Armenia), Moscow-Leningrad, 1856. 1963 Izbrannye trudy (Selected Works), Erevan, 1963. 1968 Izbrannye trudy (Selected Works), vol. 1, Moscow-Leningrad, 1968. ORDOYAN (G. V.) 1989 “Mijnadaryan Hayastani t{aterakan xa¥ahraparakner¢” (Theatri- cal Grounds in Medieval Armenia), Lraber 3 (1989). OSWALD (G.) 1984 Lexikon der Heraldik, Leipzig, 1984. PIOTROVSKI (B. B.) 1959 Vanskoe carstvo, Urartu (Kingdom of Van, Urartu), Moscow, 1959. 1962 Iskusstvo Urartu VIII-VI (The Art of Urartu, VIII-VI cc. B.C.), Leningrad, 1962. PO™OSYAN (S.), KATVALYAN (M.) 1979 “Kilikyan Hayastani msakuyt{¢” (Cilician Armenia: Culture), Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia, vol. 5, Erevan, 1979. POPE (A. U.) ed. 1981 A Survey of Persian Art, Text, New York, 1981. PREUSSER (C.) 1911 Nordmesopotamische Baudenkmäler…, Leipzig, 1911. ROMASKEVIC (A. A.) 1939 “Izvajanija i izobrazenija lvov v Irane” (Sculptures and Repre- sentations of Lions in Iran), The Third International Congress on Iranian Art and Archeology (Reports, Leningrad, September 1935), Moscow-Leningrad, 1939. RUSSELL (J. R.) 1987 Zoroastrianism in Armenia, Cambridge, Mass., 1987. SAHNAZAREANC{ (P. K.) ed. 1859 Vahramay Rabunwoy otanawor patmut{iwn Rubineanc{ (Vahram Rabuni, Versified History of the Rubenids), Paris, 1859. SAKISSIAN (A.) 1940 “Tissus royaux arméniens des Xe, XIe et XIIIe siècles”, Pages d’Art Arménien, Paris, 1940. 334 L. CHOOKASZIAN

SAMUEL ANEC{I ed. 1893 Samueli k{ahanayi Anec{woy Hawak{munk{ i groc{ patmagrac{ (Priest Samuel Anec{i, Gatherings from the Books of the Histori- ographers), Va¥arsapat, 1893. SCHMIDT (H. J.) 1958 Alte Seidenstoffe, Braunschweig, 1958. SLOMANN (V.) 1967 Bicorporates, Studies in Revivals and Migrations of Art Motifs, vol. 1-2, Munksgaard-Copenhagen, 1967. SMBAT SPARAPET ed. 1956 Smbatay Sparapeti Taregirk{ (Chronology of Smbat Sparapet), Pref. P. S. Ag¢lean, Venice — San Lazzaro, 1956. SOTHEBY and Co. 1967 Catalogue of Twenty-three Important Armenian Illuminated Manuscripts, London, 1967. SOULIER (G.) 1921 Les influences orientales dans la peinture toscane, Paris, 1921. STEPANJAN (N.), CAKMAKCJAN (A.) 1971 Dekorativnoe iskusstvo srednevekovoj Armenii (The Decorative Art in Medieval Armenia), Leningrad, 1971.

TALBOT RICE (T.) 1961 The Seljuks in Asia Minor, London, 1961. TARAJAN (Z. R.) 1978 Naboika v Armenii (Printed Cloth in Armenia), Erevan, 1978. TANAVOLI (P.) 1985 Lion Rugs, The Lion in the Art and Culture of Iran, Basel, 1985.

TER-MOVSESEAN (M.) 1910 “Haykakan manrankarner” (Armenian Miniatures), Azgakrakan Handes (Tbilissi), 2 (1910). TREVER (K. V.) 1953 Ocerki po istorii kuljtury drevnei Armenii (Essays on the History and Culture of Ancient Armenia), Moscow-Leningrad, 1953. 1960 “Novoe ‘sasanidskoe’ bljudce Ermitaza, Iz istorii kuljtury narodov Srednei Azii” (The New “Sasanean” Dish from the Hermitage Museum, From the History of Culture of the Peoples of the Middle Asia), Issledovanija po istorii kuljtury narodov Vostoka, Sbornik v cestj akademika I. A. Orbeli (Studies in the History of Culture of the Peoples of the East, Collection of Articles in Honour of I. A. Orbeli), Moscow- Leningrad, 1960.

TURCAN (R.) 1989 Les cultes orientaux dans le monde romain, Paris, 1989. THE PORTRAIT OF PRINCE LEWON (MS EREVAN 8321) 335

UPTON (J. M.), ACKERMAN (PH.) 1981 “Furniture”, A Survey of Persian Art, ed. by A. U. Pope, vol. VI b, Text, New York, 1981. VAHRAM RABUNI ed. 1859 Cf. SAHNAZAREANC{. VOLBACH (W. F.) 1966 Il tessuto nell’arte antica, Milano, 1966. YOVSEP{EAN (G.) 1943 Niwt{er ew usumnasisut{iwnner hay aruesti ew msakoyt{i patmut{ean (Materials and Studies on the History of Armenian Art and Culture), vol. 2, New York, 1943. 1969 Xa¥bakeank{ kam Proseank{ Hayoc{ Patmut{ean mej (The Xa¥bakeans or Proseans in Armenian History), Antilias — Lebanon, 1969. WEITZMANN (K.) 1933 Die armenische Buchmalerei des 10. und beginnenden 11. Jahrhunderts, Bamberg, 1933.