Quick viewing(Text Mode)

Identifying Kyros of Alexandria

CEU eTD Collection

IDENTIFYING KYROSOFIDENTIFYING ALEXANDRIA MA Thesis in Medieval Studies Studies Medieval in Thesis MA Central European University European Central Nikoloz Aleksidze Aleksidze Nikoloz May 2009 2009 May Budapest Budapest

CEU eTD Collection

Central European University, Budapest, in partial f partial inUniversity, Budapest, European Central Thesis submitted to the Department of Medieval ofStud Medieval Department tothe submitted Thesis Accepted in conformance with the standards oftheC thestandards with conformance in Accepted IDENTIFYING KYROSOFIDENTIFYING ALEXANDRIA ______of the Master of Arts degree in Medieval Studies Studies inMedieval degreeArts of Master theof Chair, Examination Committee Committee Examination Chair, Nikoloz Aleksidze Aleksidze Nikoloz Thesis Supervisor Thesis May 2009 2009 May Examiner Examiner Examiner () (Georgia) Budapest Budapest by ulfillment of the requirements requirementsof the ulfillment EU EU ies, ies, CEU eTD Collection

Central European University, Budapest, in partial f partial inUniversity, Budapest, European Central Thesis submitted to the Department of Medieval ofStud Medieval Department tothe submitted Thesis Accepted in conformance with the standards oftheC thestandards with conformance in Accepted IDENTIFYING KYROSOFIDENTIFYING ALEXANDRIA ______of the Master of Arts degree in Medieval Studies Studies inMedieval degreeArts of Master theof External Examiner Examiner External Nikoloz Aleksidze Aleksidze Nikoloz (Georgia) (Georgia) Budapest Budapest May2009 by

ulfillment of the requirements requirementsof the ulfillment EU EU ies, ies, CEU eTD Collection

Central European University, Budapest, in partial f partial inUniversity, Budapest, European Central Accepted in conformance with the standards of theof thestandards with conformance in Accepted Thesis submitted to the Department of Medieval ofStud Medieval Department tothe submitted Thesis IDENTIFYING KYROSOFIDENTIFYING ALEXANDRIA ______of the Master of Arts degree in Medieval Studies Studies inMedieval degreeArts of Master theof ______External Supervisor External Nikoloz Aleksidze Aleksidze Nikoloz Supervisor (Georgia) (Georgia) Budapest Budapest May2009 by

ulfillment of the requirements requirementsof the ulfillment CEU CEU ies, ies, CEU eTD Collection bibliography. I declare that no unidentified and il and unidentified no that declare I bibliography. I, the undersigned, undersigned, the I, Budapest, 25 May 2009 2009 25 May Budapest, su been has thesis deg academic an highereducationfor of institution the of part no that declare also a on infringes thesis the of part no and others, of p as information external such only and research my is thesis present the that herewith declare Studies

ioo AleksidzeNikoloz , candidate for the MA degree in Medieval Medieval in degree MA the for candidate , ny person’s or institution’s copyright. I copyright. institution’s or person’s ny legitimate use was made of the work work the of made was use legitimate exclusively my own work, based on based work, own my exclusively ree. ree. ______bmitted in this form to any other other any to form this in bmitted oel ceie i nts and notes in credited roperly Signature Signature CEU eTD Collection Rasson for the tremendous work she hasbycorr done worktremendousshe the for Rasson writi thesis of period whole the for intellectually distance, great a from although who Perczel, most István the even noticing of ability his for amazement and suggestions his for and thesis my rereading and Ga Niels supervisors, two my to due are thanks Many

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i

ng. Finally I would like to thank Judith thank to like would I Finally ng. critique, (I should also express my express also should (I critique, ecting our works. works.our ecting a spotn m mrly and morally me supporting was ul, for his patience while reading while patience his for ul, minor inconcistencies) and to to and inconcistencies) minor CEU eTD Collection Bibliography...... Appendices...... Conclusions...... The Doctrine...... The IV...... Chapter Kyros in Alexandria...... in Kyros ...... III Chapter ...... theCaucasus in Herakleios I...... Chapter yo nGoga...... Georgia in Kyros ...... II Chapter Introduction......

IV.5. The Christology of Kyros...... TheChristology of IV.5. Severoand Apollinarios Early“Monenergisms”: IV.4. bythe Byzant of Monotheletism The evaluation IV.3. .... Monotheletism towards approaches Previous IV.2...... questionis Status Introduction: IV.1. Kyrrhos...... ofMopsu –Theodore tradition Antiochian The6. IV. IV.7. Two directions of Monotheletism...... directionsof Two IV.7. III. 2. Kyros in Muslimsources...... Kyros2. in III. I.1 h aueo yo n fhsrl ...... rule hisof Kyrosof and The1.nature III. 5. Methodology...... 5...... Structure 4. I .I aia...... In3.Lazika II. western and of thechurches of The2.relations II. . ore ...... Sources 3. I. 3. The Armenian Sources on the Invasion ofHerak the Invasion Sourceson Armenian The 3.I. Herakleios...... Policyof Religious The 2.I. Georgiain Campaign of Herakleios’ Period The 1.I. II. 1. In1....... II. 2. Previous study...... Previous 2. oftheproblem...... Thestatement 1. V .a n ciiyi h odtoso w .... two of theconditions inOne a.activity5. IV. V .b aifci ...... Satisfactio b.5. IV. IV. 5. c. One theandric activity...... One c.theandric 5. IV. II. 4. Preliminary4.conclusions...... II. II. 1. e. Kyron’s international policy...... 1.international Kyron’s e. II. onKyron...... sources 1. Georgian a. II. I .d h clsatclplc fKrn...... Kyron ofpolicy Thed.1. ecclesiastical II. a Armenian bythe of Kyron 1.TheEvaluation c. II. .... ofKyron education andTheb.provenance 1. II. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF ...... ii ......

......

...... eastern Georgia ...... 41 ...... 41 Georgia eastern ...... 61 n Sources...... 12 Sources...... 12 n leios ...... 22 ...... 22 leios estia, Nestorios, Theodoretof Nestorios, estia, ine authors...... 57 ine authors...... 57 ...... 56 ...... 56 ...... 29 ...... 29 s of Antioch ...... 59 ...... 59 Antioch of s uthors...... 31 uthors...... 31 ...... 10 ...... 10 ...... 47 ...... 47 ...... 26 ...... 26 ...... 55 ...... 55 ...... 1 ...... 1 ...... 91 ...... 91 ...... 82 ...... 82 ...... 55 ...... 55 ...... 78 ...... 78 ...... 68 ...... 68 ...... 26 ...... 26 ...... 7 ...... 7 ...... 4 ...... 4 ...... 42 ...... 42 ...... 26 ...... 26 ...... 47 ...... 47 ...... 3 ...... 3 ...... 8 ...... 8 ...... 10 ...... 10 ...... 63 ...... 63 ...... 51 ...... 51 ...... 60 ...... 60 ...... 1 ...... 1 ...... 55 ...... 55 ...... 65 ...... 65 ...... 45 ...... 45 ....49 ....49 ....38 ....38 ....17 ..74 ..74 ..27 ..27 33 33

CEU eTD Collection politically affiliated with the Persians and dogmat and Persians the with affiliated politically fin was it of Council the at 551 in precisely, Byzantium John Haldon, Haldon, John 1. The statement of the problemthestatement Theof 1. sh to started Church Caucasian the of unity the 451 diplomatic and political o crucial a became religion an became when kingdom moment very Caucasian the From the in century fourth the of half Egypt. and the– forces hostile the be and empire the in stability the undermining thus t was Antichalcedonism where regions two were There leadership the under denominations Christian other with AntiChalcedonians, the togeth and Chalcedonians Herakleios the Persians Chris the major opposing most two the fighting unite would which with Along , of patriarch Sergios collaborator, (London: Variorum, 1985); Paul Goubert, Goubert, Paul 1985); Variorum, (London: Michael Whitby, Whitby, Michael 1 denominations Christian where already. twocenturies than morefor showdowns and peace seen never i and, affiliation, political the determed directly the where offensive, Persian the to vulnerable most empi the of regions two in felt wasespecially This two the cases many in although fronts, two these on “disord religious considerable and invasion Persian On the reign of Herakleios and religious situation religious and Herakleios of reign the On After taking the throne Emperor Herakleios faced tw faced Herakleios Emperor throne the taking After (London: Variorum, 1982); Nina Garsoian, Garsoian, Nina 1982); Variorum, (London: (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Wal 2003); Press, University Cambridge (Cambridge: Byzantium in the Seventh Century Seventh the in Byzantium Emperor and his Historian his and Maurice Emperor

Introduction Byzance avant l’Islam avant Byzance . 2 . nd in the period see: Walter Kaegi, Kaegi, Walter see: period the in . edn. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997 Press, University Cambridge (Cambridge: edn. . 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988). 1988). Press, Clarendon (Oxford:

rei Bten yatu ad h Sasanians the and Byzantium Between 1 n Egypt – a province which had almost had which province a – Egypt n

decided to create a theological doctrine doctrine theological a create to decided tool. After the Council of Chalcedon in Chalcedon of Council the After tool. ically were strong AntiChalcedonians, AntiChalcedonians, strong were ically re – in the Caucasus, one of the regions ofthe one Caucasus, the in– re – religious and political – overlapped. overlapped. – political and religious – ally broken – the became Armenians the – broken ally coming in several cases a support for for support a cases several in coming er”. Therefore he had to wage a war a wage to had he Therefore er”.

eiiu sad f h population the of stand religious te ad ial atr n century one after finally and atter of the Church of Constantinople. Constantinople. of Church the of o Amna Krl ad Albania and Kartli Armenia, of s . 2 vols. (Paris: Geuthner, 1951 – 1965); 1965); – 1951 Geuthner, (Paris: vols. 2 . ter Kaegi, Kaegi, ter h ie ta i sol as unite also should it that idea the tian denominations of the time – time the of denominations tian o great threats to the empire, the empire, the to threats great o e ot iey ped n was and spread widely most he had been having bloody bloody having been had fficial religion in the first the in religion fficial Army, Society and Reigion in Reigion and Society Army, r ih i longtime his with er Emperor of of Emperor Heraclius ); . CEU eTD Collection because the Copts and almost every religious or eth or religious every almost and Copts the because perspective the Caucasus had a strong need of religof need strong a had Caucasus the perspective Ancient Church) (SanktPeterburg: Aksion Estin, 200 Estin, Aksion (SanktPeterburg: Church) Ancient

a mere “accident”. mere a th and himself emperor the was teaching Monenergist a Thus, one. is activity Christ, in natures two are Christ al in Herakleios well. as hypostases naturestwo of confession two of confession the that argued discus he whom with Oneeyed, the Paul Monophysites The 622. in Erzrum) (modern Theodosiopolis or Karin and Persians the against war waging was Herakleios Constantinople of patriarch by o told story as controversy official The theologians. imperial the from longes the be Councils ofEcumenical period thein controversies to out turned controversy Monothelite on based union a create to Zeno and Justinian after activity one exercising Monotheletism Caucasus. the in time sojourn Herakleios’ same of idea the that coincidence no thewas it Therefore, at human, and politic both Empire Roman the backto them bring to strategically two these Thus rule. Roman the hated 3 2 w all at not and Persians the by occupied was which i moment the butfor chapters next the in discussed dogmati the of details Some Chalcedon. of creed the su Persian under time that at although Kartli while the union. the possibili a was there where and other each to close Monophys where region the was this suggests Bolotov a once was doctrine the of birthplace the that fact Bolotov, 438. 438. Bolotov, Болотов, Василий Bolotov] [Vasilii 3

2 This information sounds highly improbable, but wha but improbable, highly sounds information This

Лекции по истории древней церкви древней истории по Лекции 2 6), 438475. 438475. 6),

ccording to Sergius the initiator of the of initiator the Sergius to ccording premacy, still seems to have confessed have to seems still premacy, t should be clear that from the imperial the from that beclear should t ious unity. The same applied to Egypt, to applied same The unity. ious ty, even if a rather theoretical one, for for one, theoretical rather a if even ty, and had perhaps the strongest backing backing strongestthe perhaps had and crucial regions needed a strong hand, strong a needed regions crucial an oae i te acss A V. As Caucasus. the in located gain legedly answered that although there although that answered legedly ally and dogmatically. dogmatically. and ally was the last attempt of the emperors emperors the of attempt last the was i dnmnto nEyt literally Egypt in denomination nic was based in the Armenian town of town Armenian the in based was Crsooia cmrms. The compromise. Christological a e whole controversy was a result of result a was controversy whole e plce nte acss il be will Caucasus the in policies c itism and Dyophysitism came very came Dyophysitism and itism tot oe oa Cpi support, Coptic local some ithout re he met the head of the Severan the of head the met he re is: letters his of one in Sergios f the beginning of Monothelite Monothelite of beginning the f ol ncsaiy ed o the to lead necessarily would Christ having two natures, divine natures, two having Christ i te itr o dogmatic of history the in t n oe il aoe during arose will, one and e te sus f at. Paul faith. of issues the sed (Lectures on the History of the the of History the on (Lectures t matters is the is matters t CEU eTD Collection background of Kyros will demonstrate that the idea the that demonstrate will Kyros of background igahe o tee he nmsks Krs f Alex of Kyros namesakes, three these of biographies compromise had to and could emerge precisely inthe precisely toemerge andcould had compromise osdrd pout f osatnpltn theologi Constantinopolitan of product a conclus considered general more to present the of aim the not is lead which Monotheletism, should This other. the h explain to and hand one the on stand dogmatic his . roo Mtskheta. deep its also has Monotheletism, just than more whi doctrine the concerned, am I as far as moreover th that accepting by only explained be can Mtskheta h dcrn wih ol ltr e ald Monothelet called be later would which doctrine the argu will I as and, Alexandria, of patriarch future po that Cauca the from from way the and all intertwined Lazika inextricably in met Kyron and Herakleios th of end the by persons, two the chapters next the Armen and Georgian the of separation final the into the with union a establish to trying was Kartli of an Georgian the on region the in disturbance a made lxnra sad fr h Greek the for Coptic stands a Alexandria, AlMukaukas, that state to first the were en the at Bolotov V. and Butler A. by independently identificati the towards step first The literature. Previous 2. study

The identification of Kyros of Alexandria’s backgro Alexandria’s of Kyros of identification The ny fw er bfr Hrkeo cm t te Cauc the to came Herakleios before years few a Only h qeto o te dniy f yo o Alexandria of Kyros of identity the of question The Κεκαυκασιωένος 3

on was made almost simultaneously and simultaneously almost made was on e, the former patriarch of Kartli, created created Kartli, of patriarch former the e, Armenians, which eventually backfired eventually which Armenians, e third decade of the seventh century century seventh the of decade third e ian churches. As I will try to show in show to try will I As churches. ian ey were one and a single person, and person, single a and one were ey of such a union based on a dogmatic a on based union a such of d Armenian border. Kyron, patriarch Kyron, border. Armenian d thesis. If presently Monotheletism is Monotheletism presently If thesis. is political and theological policy on policy theological and political is Caucasus region. region. Caucasus ch Kyros elaborated, which was far was which elaborated, Kyros ch u t Eyt Krs f hss the Phasis of Kyros Egypt. to sus maig h oe h ws a was who one the “meaning o te ieenh etr. They century. nineteenth the of d s. wl age ute ta the that further argue will I ism. s n h borpy f yo of Kyron of biography the in ts nraKrs f hssKrn of Phasis/Kyron of andria/Kyros and Arabic name for Kyros of of Kyros for name Arabic and a togt te Caucasian the thought, cal os n h eegne of emergence the on ions und will try to cast light on on light cast to try will und n o ter ae became fates their on int s o nw n scholarly in new not is ss aohr esn had person another asus, CEU eTD Collection Armenians Византийский Временник Византийский ganyofisa qarTvelTa somexTagan qarTvelTa ganyofisa Zaza Alexidze (: Mecniereba, 1975). Mecniereba, (Tbilisi: Alexidze Zaza Sapara] Sapara] Armenians and ) ed. Zaza Alexidze (Tbilisi Alexidze Zaza ed. Georgians) and Armenians truth. theto himclose on information any him and however, mythologized, extremely is figure His n historical Coptic and Arabic every almost of hero Al of Kyros of life The figure. popular a not is he A and Georgian in only mentioned isKartli of Kyron 1978). 1978). edition of the the of edition beg the at Caucasus the in situation ecclesiastical Alexandr of Kyros of biography the on study special 7 6 5 4 Sources 3. caucasified”. been has who one “the or Caucasian” same person as Kyros of Alexandria had been establi been had Alexandria of Kyros as person same Georgians and Armenians and Georgians 84 bt h ter ws ae fly lbrtd and elaborated fully later was theory the but 1894, editions. these in th for partly and chapter second the in presented material study patriarc the this with Kartli in of Kyron stated of correspondence was Phasis of Kyros and comments and a vast study.vast a and comments [The Book of Letters] Letters] of Book [The Butler, Alfred discusse willbe identification the of details The aii Bltv “ итри меаоа рки” (On Ираклия” императора истории “К Bolotov, Vasilii For the moment, sources on Kyros of Phasis and Kyro and Phasis of Kyros on sources moment, the For iay nw ih ws hd n h ietfcto of identification the on shed was light new Finaly, rei aaei gnoiavs aTeT d somexTa da qarTvelTa ganyofisaTvis safareli. arseni y ktns Z Aeiz peae tee dtos a editions these prepared Alexidze Z. Ukhtanes. by The Arab Conquest of Egypt of Conquest Arab The Book of Letters of Book epistoleTa wigniepistoleTa 19 (1908), 68124. 68124. (1908), 19 and of the of and 7 The possible identification of Kyron the Katholiko the Kyron of identification possible The

, of a treatise by Arseni of Sapara of Arseni by treatise a of , (The History of Severance of the Georgians from the from Georgians the of Severance of History (The

, , History of the Severance of the Georgians from the from Georgians the of Severance the of History . Revised by P.M. Fraser (Oxford: Oxford University Oxford (Oxford: Fraser P.M. by Revised . d Zz Aeiz (bls: eneea 16) [Ars 1968); Mecniereba, (Tbilisi: Alexidze Zaza ed. d in the third chapter. chapter. third inthe d 4 : Mecniereba, 1980); [Ukhatnes] [Ukhatnes] 1980); Mecniereba, :

inning of the seventh century with the the with century seventh the of inning in the third chapter has been analyzed analyzed been has chapter third the in arratives of the period is more known. more is period the of arratives exandria/Al Mukaukas, who was the the was who Mukaukas, exandria/Al ia has been done since Butler’s work. work. Butler’s since done been has ia rmenian narratives and even in thosein andeven narratives rmenian so, it is quite difficult to collect on collect to difficult quite is it so, 4 the History of Emperor Herakleios) Herakleios) Emperor of History the eosatd y . Butler. A. by demonstarted shed even realier by F. PereiraF. by realier even shed o te rein. ot f the of Most Armenians. the of h Te at ht uaks a the was Mukaukas that fact The e first time, based on the the on based time, first e yo o Pai ad n the on and Phasis of Kyros n of Kartli are very scarce. scarce. very are Kartli of n

(On the Separation of the the of Separation the (On On the Division of the the of Division the On og ih critical with long uxtanesi, istoria istoria uxtanesi, Armenians) ed. Armenians) s of Kartliof s Press, Press, eni of of eni 6 No 5 in CEU eTD Collection Letters Letters History Baptism of the Nation Called TzadCalled Nation the of Baptism According to the Armenian Sources, 300610 300610 Sources, Armenian the to According Armenians Georgians Sapara of Arseni by treatise historicalpolemic h Amna Cuc i te 5 the in Church Armenian the given.is Churches Armenian ecclesiast of period the around events the on story h Goga ad rein itrcl artvs inc narratives historical Armenian and Georgian The Great, of which only the response of the latter has latter ofthe onlyresponse the ofwhich Great, 10 9 8 correspondence between Armenian Church officials an officials Church Armenian between correspondence Armenians the from Georgians the of Severance of nvriy rs) 2022 Bso Uhae o Seba of Ukhtanes Franchuk, Bishop 250252; Edward Press), University Basmajian, Gabriel Hacikyan, Agop is part of the of part is eeec o te erin fo Armenians from Arzoumanian, Zaven Dr. Lauderdale: (Fort Arzumanian Georgians the of Severence Universitetsforlaget, 1981); Gobun Babian, Babian, Gobun 1981); Universitetsforlaget, Katholikos of the Armenians (607–613) and Kyros the Kyros and (607–613) Armenians ofthe Katholikos correspon main The Churches. two the between schism a century seventh the of beginning the in relations d is collection this of part One centuries. seventh an religious on officials state and Church Armenian of Armenia of For the editions and study of of study and editions the For Frivold, Leif see: Letters of Book The On See: Arseni of Sapara. Sapara. of Arseni See: n te orsodne f yo o Krl wt the with Kartli of Kyron of correspondence the and , which he analyzes and in many cases strongly inte stronglycasesmany in and heanalyzes which , h Bo o Letters of Book The The main sources may be classified in the following the in classified be may sources main The w iprat ouet o Krn f ati r a co a are Kartli of Kyron on documents important Two The treatise The h hsoia ad oeia treatise polemical and historical The order: following the in parts three of consists , , 10 , , The Life and History of the Bagrationis’ Bagrationis’ the of History and Life The was written by the katholikos of Kartli Arseni of Arseni Kartli of katholikos the by written was The History of Severance of the Georgians from the the from Georgians the of Severance of History The History in Three Parts Parts Three in History The History of the Severance of the Georgians from from Georgians the of Severance the of History The the History the

th 8 n 6 and i a Amna cleto o crepnec o the of correspondence of collection Armenian an is . The main source which Ukhtanes uses is the is uses Ukhtanes which source main The . of Ukhtanes see: see: Ukhtanes of The Incarnation: A study of the Doctrine of the Inc the of Doctrine the of study A Incarnation: The The Relations between the Armenian and Georgian Chu Georgian and Armenian the between Relations The by Bishop Ukhtanes of Sebastia (c. 9351000). The 9351000). (c. Sebastia of Ukhtanes Bishop by (AnteliasLebanon: Armenian Catholicosate of Cilici of Catholicosate Armenian (AnteliasLebanon: th etre acrig o h Bo o Letters of Book the to according Centuries Tasain Itouto ad omnay y Zaven by Commentary and Introduction Translation, , 5

1985). 1985). stia, stia, n h Dvso o Gogas n the and Georgians of Division the On On the Division of Armenians and the the and Armenians of Division the On survived. survived. edicated to the Georgian and Armenian and Georgian the to edicated by Ukhtanes. Ukhtanes. by ical schism betwwen the Georgian and Georgian the betwwen schism ical Nourhan Ouzounian (Detroit: Wayne State State Wayne (Detroit: Ouzounian Nourhan itr o Amna Pr II Hsoy f the of History III, Part Armenia, of History round the period of the ecclesiastical ecclesiastical the of period the round The Heritage of Literature Armenian of Heritage The History of the Patriarchs and Kings Kings and Patriarchs the of History by Sumbat Davitisdze, Davitisdze, Sumbat by Katholikos of Kartli. ofKartli. Katholikos lude the the lude dgai mtes n h fifth the in matters dogmatic d d Kyron of Kartli in Kartli of Kyron d rpolates for polemical reasons. reasons. polemical forrpolates ig iue ae baa the are figures ding order: 1. Historical narratives: Historical 1. order: oa Pp Geoy the Gregory Pope Roman Sapara, where the detailed the where Sapara, ovrin f Kartli of Conversion Armenians lcin f the of llection the Armenians the , and , The Book of Book The The History The arnation in arnation Book of Book a, 2001). 2001). a, On the the On (Oslo: (Oslo: II, ed. ed. II, rches a , 9 :

CEU eTD Collection /i0 rm h bgnig f h tnh etr) T century). tenth the of beginning the from N/Sin50 part is a hagiographical text on the life of St. Nin St. of life the on text hagiographical a is part u Great the Alexander of invasion the from provided Armenia Bagrationis of our Georgian kings, on Where They Ca They Where on kings, Georgian our of Bagrationis eebr 1999) Dezember under the name of the the of name the under dto (hrenh etr) ad h Sni edition Sinai the and century), (thirteenth edition editi Shatberdi The editions: three in survived has 925.to 897 from ofArmenia katholikos the Versions of the ‘Conversion of Georgia’.” of ‘Conversion the of Versions Orietali Christianorum Scriptorum Corpus Aleksidze: acss Amna Goga Albania) Georgia, (Armenia, Caucasus Georgian translation edited by Elene Tsagareisvili Tsagareisvili Elene by edited translation Georgian 14 13 12 11 Traditio, 1943). 1943). Traditio, history of Kartli is through the prism of this ideaofthis prismthe through isKartli of history Bagra the of descent Davidic the on is claim famous drasxanakerteli, somxeTis istoria somxeTis drasxanakerteli, Kartli] Kartli] Thom W. Robert by Adaptation Armenian the and Texts Adaptation Armenian Medieval The History: Caucasian (1900); (1900); half of the eleventh century by Sumbat Davitisdze. Davitisdze. Sumbat by century eleventh the of half 2000), 570576; , Toumanoff, Cyril 570576; 2000), Unification,” Georgian of Era the in Authority official religion by the king of Kartli. Kartli. kingtheof by religion official vol. 1. (Delmar, NY: Caravan Books, 1998). [English 1998). Books, Caravan NY: (Delmar, 1. vol. agrt arp n Oie Wdo, Lf o S. Nin St. of “Life Wadrop, Oliver and Wadrop Margaret c'xovreba: c'xovreba: over Kartliover A town in Armenia, modern Gyumri. Gyumri. modern Armenia, in A town Dras of John on studies and editions major the For On

o Sma Dvtsz se Sehn ap “ubt Da “Sumbat Rapp, Stephen see: Davitisdze Sumbat For The Conversion of Kartli of Conversion The qarTlis cxovreba qarTlis tas. y rkr asuin Alna Shlr P Scholars (Atlanta: Maksoudian Krikor by transl. , e ova mnsrt érin iatqe N50 sinaitique Géorgien manuscrit nouveau Le The History of Armenia of History The The Conversion of Kartli of Conversion The

The Life and the History of the Bagrationis’ Bagrationis’ the of History the and Life The The Georgian Royal Annals and Their Medieval Armeni Medieval Their and Annals Royal Georgian The ) 12 The history starts from Adam and ends with the yea the with ends and Adam from starts history The e. enr eb (ina Asra Aaey f Sci of Academy Austrian (Vienna: Seibt Werner ed. , Conversion of Kartli of Conversion e. . axhihii, o. . Tbls: saxelg (T'bilisi: 1. vol. Qauxch'ishvili., S. ed. , see: G. Patsch. “Die Bekehrung Georgiens”. Georgiens”. Bekehrung “Die Patsch. G. see: Medieval Georgian Historical Literature (VIIXV Cen (VIIXV Literature Historical Georgian Medieval

13 by Hovhannes Draskhanakertsi (John of Drasxanakert of (John Draskhanakertsi Hovhannes by

11 ( , , is the first surviving Georgian historical narrati historical Georgian surviving first the is

h Hsoy f Armenia of History The In In eeae e Itrainln ypsos We, . b 9. (Wien, Symposions Internationalen des Referate Die Christianisierung des Kaukasus/ The Christianiz The Kaukasus/ des Christianisierung Die Journal of the American Oriental Society Oriental American the of Journal (Tbilisi: Mecniereba, 1965). 1965). Mecniereba, (Tbilisi: : In the first part of a short history of Kartli is Kartli of history short a of part first the In : 6 translation by R. W. Thomson, 1996.]. 1996.]. Thomson, W. R. by translation xanakert see: Yovhannes Drasxanakertc'i, Drasxanakertc'i, Yovhannes see: xanakert um, Lovanii : Peeters, 2001 ; Zaza Aleksidze, “Four Aleksidze, Zaza ; 2001 Peeters, : Lovanii um,

of . The Original Georgian Georgian Original The Chronicles. Georgian the of son (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996); [The Life of of Life [The 1996); Press, Clarendon (Oxford: son . . o.” o.” o and on the reception of Christianity as Christianity of reception the on and o Eiin n aiié Itouto pr Z. par Introduction facsimilé, en Edition , (/i8 f h tnh etr and century tenth the of (N/Sin48 s (Full title: title: (Full tda ilc ad Ecclesiastic and Biblica Studia ress, 1987); [Ioane Draskhanakerteli] Draskhanakerteli] [Ioane 1987); ress, is a historical narrative from the first first the from narrative historical a is tionis. The whole perspective on the on perspective whole The tionis. iiz ad h Vcblr o Political of Vocabulary the and vitisdze on (around the 970s), the Chelishi Chelishi the 970s), the (around on tl h nnhcnuy Te second The century. ninth the ntil me From and Since Whe they rule rule they Whe Since and From me o needn txs r united are texts independent wo an Adaptation an ), the Armenian text along with the the with along text Armenian the ), The life and History of the the of History and life The ences, 1999), 9–16.; Rewriting Rewriting 9–16.; 1999), ences, ami, 1955), repr. as K'art'lis K'art'lis as repr. 1955), ami, Bedi Kartlisa Bedi r 1000. Sumbat’s most Sumbat’s 1000. r , new intro. By S. Rapp, Rapp, S. By intro. new , , 120/4 (Oct. Dec., Dec., (Oct. ,120/4 turies) . No33. (1975); (1975); No33. . , , at 1 part. V, a, (New York: York: (New History of of History ation of ation ve. It ve. is 12. 12. is ioane ioane 14

) CEU eTD Collection background of his Christological thinking. Strangel thinking. Christological his of background etr o a, nicin hitlg i a a that way a in Christology Antiochian say, to better personal correspondance, 2009. 2009. correspondance, personal suspected Nestorianism in thisteaching. in Nestorianism suspected Ky that argued be will it where thesis, present the who provid be will doctrine the others’ and his of of analysis initiator the and creator its indeed was elaboration the in figures leading the of one only this to ma Contrary Peter. and Paul the Honorius, Sergius, among mentioned even not sometimes was Kyros n place proper a have not does Kyros Monotheletism, are advanced regarding the identity of the two. two.ofthe identity regarding the advanced are discu is Mtskheta of Kyron with Alexandria of Kyros disposition. our at material source nonwritten and biograph Kyron’s reconstruct to try will I sources. identity, their of thesis the for argues and Phasis region. region. study proper a without impossible is Monotheletism t understanding opinion my in because Caucasus, the sour available the of all discuss will I sown. were th Caucasus the in was it because precisely Empire, kingdo Caucasian the of selfidentification the for was Caucasus the of invasion Herakleios’ that argue seem might chapter the of title the Although event. att the to and Caucasus the of invasion Herakleios’ 15 Structure 4.

The idea of analyzing Kyros’ theology through an A an through theology Kyros’ analyzing of idea The h ls catr il el niey ih h theolo the with entirely deal will chapter last The The second chapter deals with the biographies of Ky of biographies the with deals chapter second The h frt hpe o te rsn tei wl b ded be will thesis present the of chapter first The

15

7

ntiochian prism was proposed by István Perczel in in Perczel István by proposed was prism ntiochian based mainly on Georgian and Armenian Armenian and Georgian on mainly based ros managed to restore the Nestorian or Nestorian the restore to managed ros of the Monothelite doctrine, but that he that but doctrine, Monothelite the of ed in the fourth and the last chapter of chapter last the and fourth the in ed y based on the entire corpus of written of corpus entire the on based y ces on Herakleios’ religious policy in policy religious Herakleios’ on ces to be only of a local interest, I would I interest, local a of only be to itudes of local historians towards this towards historians local of itudes , I would suggest that Kyros was not was Kyros that suggest would I , s s el s o te hl Roman whole the for as well as ms y enough in the existing histories of histories existing the in enough y a crucial moment for the region and region the for moment crucial a n h tid hpe te eain of relation the chapter third the In ssed and some additional arguments arguments additional some and ssed at the first seeds of Monotheletism Monotheletism of seeds first the at ot only in modern Church histories. Church modern in only ot e otoes. hs a thorough a Thus, controversy. le f h rl o Hrkeo i the in Herakleios of role the of lot ooy hratr ever thereafter nobody almost e itr o te mrec of emergence the of history he gy of Kyros and the possible possible the and Kyros of gy ron of Kartli and of Kyros of of Kyros of and Kartli of ron n eeirh, ln with along heresiarchs, in icated to the of Emperor Emperor of the to icated CEU eTD Collection popular hero of Coptic and Arabic historiography bu historiography Arabic and Coptic of hero popular

ealis h ifrain f h nraie lk t like narratives the of information the Herakleios for reason The subject. the on gather can one that using am I four last thein while hypercritically, firs the In three. other the in that from different narratives. narratives. mainly him, on decisive saying something for hinder Kyros regards what as and Lazika in Herakleios with in context one in only mentioned is Phasis of Kyros forgo completely almost is he and Mstkheta of Kyron sources. the of nature scarce the of because mainly char hypothetical the stress I Alexandria. of Kyros Methodology 5. Georgian historiography. historiography. Georgian pol religeous his say to is that Kyron, of “merits” supp is Kyros on Also data. linguistic and documentary theological, information scarce the while data, confirme not is ba Herakleios on is information Kyron Caucasian while narratives, the of hero great the Pha of Kyros theyhowexpla importantly, andmost Alexandria, interdependent of Kyros on narratives the name two other the on information the all considers Alexandr an better can of namesakes these of one on information Phasis/Kyros of Mtskheta/Kyros of Kyron sourc nonwritten or written other any by confirmed

One might notice that my approach towards the sourc the towards my approach that notice might One The main aim of the thesis is to restore, at least least at restore, to is thesis the of aim main The The figure of Herakleios is a vivid contrast to tha to contrast vivid a is Herakleios of figure The 8

almost every bit and piece of information of piece and bit every almost t chapter the sources are studied almost studied are sources the chapter t icy, are attributed to Herakleios in the the in Herakleios to attributed are icy, it will be shown later that some of the of some that later shown be will it almost every text, that is his meeting his is that text, every almost There are no biographies written of written biographies no are There this is first of all that in the case of case the in that all of first is this due to the legendary character ofthe character legendarythe to due d even can only be understood if one if understood be only can even d in each other. other. in each sakes. Thus, I will try to show how show to try will I Thus, sakes. es. At the same time, in the case of case the in time, same the At es. t exactly this popularity is a serious a is popularity this exactly t tten in the Georgian historiography, historiography, Georgian the in tten acter of the whole reconstruction, reconstruction, whole the of acter of Alexandria, he is an exteremly exteremly an is he Alexandria, of ey vr etoe. eod the Second mentioned. ever rely b ay rhelgcl r other or archaeological any by d he hypothetically, the biography of biography the hypothetically, t of Kyros. First, Herakleios is Herakleios First, Kyros. of t sis and Kyron of Kartli are are Kartli of Kyron and sis ovrin f Kartli of Conversion lemented by archaeological, archaeological, by lemented a wl ty o hw that show to try will I ia es in the first chapter is quite quite is chapter thein first es s not is CEU eTD Collection possible to retrieve credible information from thes from information credible retrieve to possible will I and fact this Despite subjective. and biased

of Sapara is that they are are of a strong polemica strong a of are are they that is Sapara of no grounds to suspect their credibility. credibility. their suspectto grounds no An important problem of dealing with the texts like texts the with dealing of problem important An 9

l nature and therefore might be heavily be might therefore and nature l e authors and in many cases there are there cases many in and authors e r t age hs ae, t hud be should it later, this argue to try those of Ukhtanes and Arseni and Ukhtanes of those CEU eTD Collection for the present thesis the main points should suffi should points main the thesis present the for ed. Ilia Abuladze (Tbilisi: Mecniereba, 1963), 95 1963), Mecniereba, (Tbilisi: Abuladze Ilia ed. Kartli started to shatter.to started Kartli bls. codn t Goga sucs ( sources Georgian to According Tbilisi. 20 19 18 17 16 the Persian Empire and the highest authority became authority highest the and Empire Persian the (53 Anushirvan Khosrau of reign the During 428). in a (having Kartli in kingship the abolished Persians Persian the accept to had (Kartli) Georgia ente eastern (Lazika) Georgia western influence: of spheres Pers the between established was peace” “eternal an an Rome between war long a provoked which Persians, Gurgen, year, same the In supremacy. Roman accepted L the 523 In Kartli. of kings the from independent the in Soon authority. central the against rebel to kingship was abolished. abolished. was kingship Zeglebi 1, V-X saukuneebi saukuneebi 1, V-X Zeglebi during century sixth the of decades last the around [The Life of Kartli 1] 1] Kartli of Life [The fourth in Sassanian in province a of ruler A unknown. are his of reign dates The overview brief following the in point every Almost [ h Cneso o Kartli of Conversion The After the death of King Vakhtang Gorgasali (c. 502) (c. Gorgasali Vakhtang King of death the After qarTlis cxovreba 1. cxovreba qarTlis 17 ] ] (The Monuments of Old Georgian Hagiographical Lite Hagiographical Georgian Old of Monuments (The Herakleios in the Caucasus Caucasus the in Herakleios During the reign of Vakhtang’s son Dachi son Vakhtang’s of reign the During moqceva

Á qarTlisa Chapter I

ed. Simon Khaukchishvili. (Tbilisi: Saxelgami, 1955 Saxelgami, (Tbilisi: Khaukchishvili. Simon ed. ce. ce. The Life of Kartli of Life The 96. 96. – sixth centuries. They were usually appinted where appinted usually were They centuries. sixth – 10 Á

. Zveli qarTuli hagiografiuli literaturis literaturis hagiografiuli qarTuli Zveli . of the sixth century Caucasus is being debated, bu debated, being is Caucasus century sixth the of

520s western Kartli – Lazika became Lazika – Kartli western 520s “And the Emperor Herakleios cleansed Herakleioscleansed Emperor the “And supremacy. As a result around 541 the 541 around result a As supremacy. lready abolished kingship in Armenia in kingship abolished lready the reign of King Hormizd IV (579– IV Hormizd King of reign the azs rebelled against the Persians and Persians the against rebelled azs a Persian Persian a ians and Romans which divided the divided which Romans and ians 1–539) Kartli was incorporated into incorporated was Kartli 1–539) king of Kartli rebelled against the against rebelled Kartli of king e Rmn oiin hl the while dominion Roman red d Persia in the Caucasus. In 532 In Caucasus. the in Persia d , 20 the Christian faith andleft” faith Christian the the unity of the kingdom of kingdom the of unity the

The Conversion of Kartli of Conversion The marzpan 18 the nobles started nobles the 19 rature, I. 5 I. rature, , who resided in resided who , th 10 ). ). th the c.) c.) 16 ) t

CEU eTD Collection ewe te hrhs f ati n Amna n befo and Armenia and Kartli of Churches the between period, namely the tenth and eleventh centuries, ex centuries, eleventh and tenth the namely period, invasion. Georgia in situation the was Such again. once over ofthe veryend the until dominion Roman the under suggest might one blundered, much very are century the Although again. began Caucasus the for war the Armeni and Georgia of all the in and rebellion Mamikon Vardan of leadership the under rule Persian 57 Around titles. Roman the received were Kartli of first ruler of Kartli from the Bagrationi family. family. Bagrationi the from Kartli of firstruler Guaram Bagrationi as the as Bagrationi Guaram ore o ti pro. lot l o te available the of all Almost period. this on sources s that fact the is century seventh the of beginning 22 21 ( princes the 590) I emperor. the with dealings some had have even may accord Herakleiosand, of those to related directly narratives Georgian in figure central the became he ofHe person the on focuses source every time, same between schism as period the for figures crucial such and Churches the including sources, Georgian the ofHerakleios. reign ofthe perception apocalyptic a mythologized is Herakleios of invasion the around histor eighteenthcentury an Bagrationi, Vakshushti Kyron Katholikos mention authors two Only them. to seve the of events The century. seventh the from is meoTxe-meeqvse saukuneebSimeoTxe-meeqvse Fr h hsoy f ati f h pro se [Davi see: period the of Kartli of history the For of head the (literary word Georgian A h frt hn ta te tdn o Goga histor Georgian of student the that thing first The Almost all the major events and many of the histori the of many and events major the all Almost 22

(Georgia in Fourth to Eigth Centuries) (Tbilisi: M (Tbilisi: Centuries) Eigth to inFourth (Georgia erismtavari o Krl dcdd o nttt lcl uhrt an authority local institute to decided Kartli of )

eristavis 21

of Kartli. From that moment on the on moment that From Kartli. of ) for the prince of princes, supposedly Guaram was was Guaram supposedly princes, of prince the for ) 11 t Musxelishvili] Musxelishvili] t

ing to some indications, Kyron of Kartli of Kyron indications, some ing to

the katholikos of Kartli, Kyron. At theAt Kyron. Kartli, of katholikos the nth century seem to have been obscure been have to seem century nth . The activities of Kyros of Phasis are are Phasis of Kyros of activities The . cept cept 1 the Armenians also rebelled against against rebelled also Armenians the 1 ian. One thing is evident: the period the evident: is thing One ian. erin hoils ae o later a to date chronicles Georgian rakleios and his role in the Caucasus; Caucasus; the rolein his and rakleios sicth century, when the Persians took took Persians the when century, sicth nd is heavily influenced by a general a by influenced heavily is nd a entered Roman protection. In In protection. Roman entered a ltl ifrain s ie b the by given is information little o n order to understand the reason for reason the understand to order n sources about the end of the sixth the of end the about sources a. ati lo ok at n that in part took also Kartli ean. ht t ht ie ati a still was Kartli time that at that eoe h eceisia schism ecclesiastical the before The Conversion of Kartli of Conversion The Asn o Spr (I . and c.) (XI Sapara of Arseni daviT musxeliSvili, saqarTvelo saqarTvelo musxeliSvili, daviT the Georgian and Armenian Armenian and Georgian the e h pro o Hearkleios’ of period the re cal figures were omitted from from omitted were figures cal y notices in studying the the studying in notices y ematiane, 2003), 200300. 200300. 2003), ematiane, erismtavaris chose d , which , the the

CEU eTD Collection patriarchate), and the autocephaly of the Church du Church the of autocephaly the and patriarchate), y ig hraa (hr cnuy .., Constantine B.C.), century (third Pharnavaz King by Kartli (c. 540–602); finally, the invasion of Herakleios a ofHerakleios theinvasion 540–602);finally, (c. the and A.D.), century fourth the of (middle Mirian t and Macedonian the Alexander of invasion the are: annalist the which at instances three These rulers. a merely a is it otherwise narrative, a of form the erin itr ad t rl i uiesl history. universal in role its and history Georgian his Georgian the of aims and scope the to attention Conversion of Kartli of Conversion 24 23 PeriodTheHerakleios’ 1.Campaign I. of Georgia in the in roleofHerakleios the toclarify needs one espec events, and figures key these of omission the Church. Georgian the to autocephaly brought who one ki Christian officially first the – Mirian kingdom, fi central three and Autocephaly; Christianization, Bonnaud, Bonnaud, unity and Orthodoxy flourished in the kingdom. kingdom. thein flourished Orthodoxy and unity orthec “salvation” historyof wholethein moment i the namely century seventh the that argue would I long a but history of moment single a in act single othe the for as well as narrative this For Georgia. The Conversion of Kartli, 95130. 95130. Kartli, of Conversion The Uiesl n h sne f h eueia epr. F empire. ecumenical the of sense the in Universal : the founding of the kingdom by Pharnavaz and the the and Pharnavaz by kingdom the of founding the : hs tee r tre oa pit i hsoy s pr as history in points focal three are there Thus, h rl o Hrkeo i Goga hsoigah b historiography Georgian in Herakleios of role The

Looking closely at the at closely Looking Le systeme de l’histoire de systeme Le ’s

program is to tell the history of the process of Ch of process the of history the tell to is program (Paris: Fayard, 1989). 1989). Fayard, (Paris:

Conversion of Kartli of Conversion 12

or the idea of the universal history see: Robert Robert see: history universal the of idea the or Georgian and Armenian narratives. narratives. Armenian and Georgian chronicle, partly only a list of kings and kings of list a only partly chronicle, ng, and Vakhtang – a great king and the the and king great a – Vakhtang and ng, nd the “final cleansing” of the faith.ofthe “finalcleansing” the nd ic structure turns into a proper narrative proper a into turns structure ic term process with a beginning and end. and beginning a with process term gures: Pharanavaz – the founder of the the of founder the – Pharanavaz gures: onversion of Kartli, after which peace, which after ofKartli, onversion ring the reign of Vakhtang Gorgasali Gorgasali Vakhtang of reign the ring , only three passages in the text take text the in passages three only , sucs hitaiain a nt a not was Christianization sources r he founding of the of kingdom the of founding he ially of Kyron of Msthketa himself, Msthketa of Kyron of ially torical sources, how they perceived perceived they how sources, torical 23 nvasion of Herakleios is a closing closing a is Herakleios of nvasion n te hitaiain f King of Christianization the and nttto o te ahlks (or katholikos the of institution As the title itself suggests suggests itself title the As sne by esented y nlg, hr ae three are there analogy, By first idea of Georgian unity, Georgian of idea first ecomes clear if one pays pays one if clear ecomes nSources The Conversion of of Conversion The ristianization in ristianization 24 The

CEU eTD Collection been posed of how trustworthy the sources actually sources the trustworthy how of posed been both religious and military, played a crucial role role crucial a played military, and religious both ealu (14) Cii ad Confrontation and Crisis (610641): Heraclius brought radical and longterm changes for the regio the for changes longterm and radical brought Professor Albert van Roey for his Seventieth Birthd Seventieth forhis Roey van Albert Professor Peeters, 2002), 95112. 95112. 2002), Peeters, The problem is to distinguish what is historical fa historical is what distinguish to is problem The rema that do Herakleios did what But it. “baptized” pclpi Pohce drn te eg o Heracliu of Reign the during Prophecies Apocalyptic 26381. Wout Jac. van Bekkum, “Jewish Messianic Exp Messianic “Jewish Bekkum, van Jac. Wout 26381. ealis Krhnoii, in Kirchenpolitik,” Alexanderleg Herakleios’ syrischen der Entstehung “Die Reinink, Confrontation 29 28 27 26 25 pe the of ideas apocalyptic general Georgia the by of nurtured structure the into fit to needed he sources that mind in keep must a one when narratives, Georgian Therefore Herakleios. and Constantine Great, points liminal these triggered who figures imperial Tvrs d vrklva uT d hsxrede Rm aleq warvida da daudva. ese sjuli hmsaxurdebdnen queyanasa yovelsa sju moigona da winaswarmetyuel TÂT aramed amxila, iyo da aswava romelmanca ara xuTTa Jamsa mas rameTu varskulavTa yovlisasa. da mTovaresa teacher of true faith in those times, to teach and and teach to times, those in g faith true of invisible teacher an serve to and stars five and moon the Caucasus. t of process the shapes; religious and geopolitical Caucasia three the onward, century seventh the From capital city and personally took part in military c military in part took personally and city capital thein changes introducing and kingcoming alien an Herakleios remained in the memory of Georgia as the as Georgia of memory the in remained Herakleios whole kingdom [of Kartli] and left. left. and Kartli] [of kingdom whole H odrd fih o te hl kndm o Kartl [of kingdom whole the for faith a ordered “He Alexan tradition, semihistorical figur this to key According the were two These Great. the Constantine Here and after I will mention Caucasus as a single a as Caucasus willmention I after and Here 15692. Kaegi, word use wouldrather I An says: wholepassage The 19. Kartli, Life of The Fr h aoaytc da aon Hrkeo se G see: Herakleios around ideas apocalyptic the For Herakleios is widely regarded as one of the few lat few the ofone as regarded widely is Herakleios 29 I h hsoy fCuau teivso o Herakl of invasion the Caucasus of history the In e. ert . enn ad enr H Sot (Louv Stolte H. Bernard and Reinink J. Gerrit ed. ” myth than fe Cacdn Suis n hooy n Cuc His Church and Theology in Studies Chalcedon: After

legend legend da ubrZana aleqsandre azons, rata pativscemdnen mze pativscemdnen rata azons, aleqsandre ubrZana da to stress the foundational meaning of Herakleios’ i Herakleios’ of meaning foundational the stress to e. ert . enn ad enr H Sot (Louv Stolte H. Bernard and Reinink J. Gerrit ed. , to show, but he himself made up a faith ordered it ordered faith a up made himself he but show, to ay geopolitical entity. entity. geopolitical 13 od, the father of all, for there was not a prophet prophet a not was there for all, of father the od, d he [Alexander] ordered Azon to worship the sun an sun the worship Azonto ordered [Alexander] he d (OLA 18; ed. C. Laga, et al.; Louvain: Peeters, 19 Peeters, Louvain: al.; et Laga, C. ed. 18; (OLA

s,” s,” ende als politischreligiöse Propagandaschrift für für Propagandaschrift politischreligiöse als ende ectations in the Age of Heraclius,” Heraclius,” of Age the in ectations ampaigns. The Reign of Heraclius (610641): Crisis and and Crisis (610641): Heraclius of Reign The .J. Reinink, “Heraclius, the New Alexander: Alexander: New the “Heraclius, Reinink, .J. he final unification of and Lazika and Iberia of unification final he in the history of Kartli: Alexander the Alexander Kartli: of history the in ct and from what is another myth another is what from and ct sandre. sandre. n after Alexander the Macedonian and Macedonian the Alexander after n e “rae” h kndm f Kartli: of kingdom the “created” der are which deal with his sojourn in the in sojourn his with deal which are history of a people. people. ofa history li ese aleqsandre. mefobasa Sina missa missa Sina mefobasa aleqsandre. ese li i da moZRuari sjulisa WeSmaritisa, WeSmaritisa, sjulisa moZRuari da i riod. nd n h mmr o Georgians? of memory the in ined “avto hsoy” hc was which history,” “salvation n n ae eet i te Caucasus. the in events later in third great “king” who came and came who “king” great third a a ocee ucin o the for function concrete a had kndm rcie ter final their received kingdoms n s o te omto o Kartli. of formation the for es ] n left” and i] 25 ain: Peeters, 2002), 8194; Gerrit J. J. Gerrit 8194; 2002), Peeters, ain: e Roman emperors who left the left who emperors Roman e ayig ealis rl in role Herakleios’ nalyzing 28 eRtsa uxilavsa, dambadebelsa dambadebelsa uxilavsa, eRtsa Te ciiis f Herakleios, of activities The But the question has not yet not has question the But ispasadul role. double a plays eios 26 ad Constantine and tory Offered to to Offered tory The Reign of of Reign The nvasion. nvasion. for the the for sa da da sa 27 ain: ain: and and 85), 85), of d d CEU eTD Collection problematic. Though, they do not say anythingsayabout not they do Though, problematic. Unification,” Unification,” royal . But the chronicle has another aim, t aim, another has chronicle the But dynasty. royal a world the of creation the from course, of starts, which repeats the Greek narratives. narratives. Greek the repeats which itra o te lvnh etr, hn eri was Georgia when century, of aim main The greatambitions. eleventh the of historian Davi Sumbat example, For writing. was historian the the lives of the members of and dynasty Bagrationi of members the of lives the 33 32 31 30 Aft asa wellc as kingdom asa to exist ceased Albania position. proPersian a i.e. faith Chalcedonian prevaile finally faith Chalcedonian the and started pig 2 rtre vcoiu t te iy f Ganza of city the to victorious returned 628 spring Kha the left He 627. in Tbilisi assaulted and ridge Kha the with and Lazika through passed and campaign su In Pontus. to returned Herakleios 625626 winter oor i Krl ad h asut f bls bt re but Tbilisi of assault the and Kartli in sojourn are chronicles historical Georgian Kartli. through ot some to according and Armenia via Constantinople ki Caucasian united a of idea the century) eleventh of Lazs, Abazgs and Iberiansand Abazgs Lazs, of Ganza – Phasis of Kyros with Khoi issues Cristological discussed Nakchevan – (Dvin Atropatene invaded ( Armenia crossed 623 April in and Pontus in winter t against offensive took first Herakleios major route, accepted traditionally a prepare to started 621, havingthrow and withAvarsthe truce a established Kaegi, 12256 12256 Kaegi, north southwestern, were Iberians and Abazgs Lazs, Ecp a eeet cnuy oplto “h Wonder “The compilation century eleventh an Except

See Stephen Rapp, “Sumbat Davitisdze and the Vocabu the and Davitisdze “Sumbat Rapp, Stephen See The attitude towards Herakleios was equally determi equally was Herakleios towards attitude The The march route of Herakleios in the Caucasus was: was: Caucasus the in Herakleios of route march The Journal of the American Oriental Society Oriental American the of Journal

30 joined him. The campaign ended with failure and in and failure with ended campaign The him. joined The Life and the History the and Life The 14 western, and central Georgians. Georgians. central and western, , Vol. 120, No. 4 (Oct. Dec., 2000), 570 576. 576. 570 2000), Dec., 4(Oct. No. 120, Vol. ,

ful Stories of the Deeds from the Old Books”, Books”, Old the from Deeds the of Stories ful lary of Political Authority in the Era of Georgian of Era the in Authority Political of lary quarters near Nikomedia. He spent the spent He Nikomedia. near quarters d there. Armenia finally chose the anti the chose finally Armenia there. d nd argues for a Davidic descent of the of descent Davidic a for argues nd ultural entity. entity. ultural ngdom was flourishing in Georgia and Georgia in flourishing was ngdom oo: n his troops from Thrace to the east in east the toThrace troopsfrom his n . In the spring of 624, the allied army allied the 624, of spring the In . zars there and invaded Persia and in and Persia invaded and there zars constructing the whole story is still still is story whole the constructing Erzerum – Kars – Shiraq – Dvin) and Dvin)–Shiraq – Kars– Erzerum mmer 626 Herakleios started another started Herakleios 626 mmer how they came to power.to came they how his travel to Egrisi (Lazika).Egrisi tohis travel oe r es nnmu aot his about unanimous less or more er several decades of uncertainty uncertainty of decades several er

i Atropatene. in k tisdze has a concrete mission as a as mission concrete a has tisdze By that time (the beginning of the of beginning (the time that By zars as allies he crossed the Likh the crossed he allies as zars e esas Acrig o the to According Persians. he e sucs ne gi passed again once sources her

of Bagrationis of uie kndm with kingdom united a ) I Pnu h mt and met he Pontus In k). ned by the period in which which in period the by ned n 1, Herakleios 619, In 31 H rtre to returned He is to chronicle to is 33 The story The 32

the CEU eTD Collection blessed two local princes Gageli and Metsekevneli. Metsekevneli. and Gageli princes local two blessed the single rule of a member of Bagrationi dynasty, dynasty, Bagrationi of member a of rule single the “salvation” history and on the other hand, as the i the hand,as other theon historyand “salvation” bodies the transferred Metsekevnelis the Sinai Mt. recently the to according Namely, sources. Georgian of house Albanian the of existence The inaccurate. source Georgian by provided information the of most Herakleios’ activities in Kartli, but he adds some headds but in Kartli, activities Herakleios’ 36 35 34 (1025–1028). VIII andConstantine (976–1025) Slayer historiogr Georgian in role crucial a play K emperors of invasion Herakleios’ from narrative the starts be enmity and opposition of story the tell to wants oppositio in formed was idea this importantly, most ag gla olss. a RaT jai vs d da da qvisa juari aRmarTa da d Seipyra. cixisTavi misi da gamoiRo, tfilisisa igi cixe gumbaTi aRasrula soflisasa. da eklesiisa, RmrTismSobelisa gulsa dadga yovel ars ubrwinvales igi romeli eklesiasa, Senebad varaz erekle naTel-sca da xuzaSani, hqvian romelsa Tqua sadidebeli igi mefisa ereklesi. xolo kadrebisa xolo ereklesi. mefisa igi sadidebeli Tqua erin history. Georgian mTavarsa, naTel-sca da warvida baRdads. baRdads. warvida da naTel-sca mTavarsa, mefema gardabaniT da gagelissa. varaz gardabans igi The Life of Kartli. p. 374375. 374375. p. Kartli. of Life The Ge term firsttime the for when period theis This 22945. 1, Life Kartli of The blessed him and left for left Baghdad. himand blessed Sumbat repeats Sumbat

ne gi fudto mts r acie wt Herak with ascribed are myths foundation again Once hrh f h Hl Mte o Gd n fnse is d its finished princ and the summoned he God and Lal for of left he Gardabani Mother Holy the of Church laid and cross stone a erected he here in And stood village. and Burduj to went he And Churches. the of Church a erect to started he And people. his of all bles and Khuzashani, called place the on camped and Ga to went he Tbilisi of fortress the left he After hs Hrkeo ws cnrl iue n h Georgi the in figure central a was Herakleios Thus, 35 O te n hn, e a se a te fnlzr of “finalizer” the as seen was he hand, one the On The Convesrion of Kartli of Convesrion The da mivida gardabans, varaz gagelisasa, da dailaSqra da gagelisasa, varaz gardabans, mivida da

36 with one language and one faith. faith. one and language one with orgia orgia

15

Sakartvelo, almost word by word, while describing while word, by word almost nitiator of “national” history. history. of “national” nitiator additional information. information. additional n micvala lals, da uwoda mewekevnelTa mewekevnelTa uwoda da lals, micvala n a drahkniTa piri aRuvso amisT aRuvso piri a drahkniTa gagelsa da yovelsa ersa missa. da iwyo iwyo da missa. ersa yovelsa da gagelsa of the from one place to place one from family royal the of tween the Greeks and Georgians and Georgians and Greeks the tween misT Ta eklesiaTa. da warvida burdujs da da burdujs warvida da eklesiaTa. Ta the Metsekevneli is attested in other in attested is Metsekevneli the py Hrkeo, ai te Bulgar the Basil Herakleios, aphy: discovered N/Sin50 manuscript on manuscript N/Sin50 discovered n to the Greeks. Therefore, Sumbat Therefore, Greeks. the to n . xolo man jibRu wariRo kala da da kala wariRo jibRu man xolo . n sol nt hn, huh that though, think, not should One 34 artli. Once again three Byzantine Byzantine three again Once artli. sete prl yhlgcl or mythological purely either is s

rdabani, to Varaz Gageli, Gageli, Varaz to rdabani, emerges, describing the territory under under territory the describing emerges,  – the most splendid one splendid most the – s tyavi gahÃada da mefesa miswia miswia mefesa da gahÃada tyavi s the foundation of the of foundation the sed Varaz Gageli and Gageli Varaz sed e Metsekevneli and Metsekevneli e h mdl o the of middle the n ocpin f united of conception an eo, n mroe, he moreover, and leios, dva safuZveli wmidisa wmidisa safuZveli dva ome and from from and ome h Georgian the adgilsa mas, mas, adgilsa  s, rameTu rameTu s, CEU eTD Collection ro t te nain fHrkeo. Neither Herakleios. of invasion the to prior Kartli Kartli house did not exist yet. One could also suggest tha suggest also could One yet. exist not did house Mt. Sinai) Sinai) Mt. th from Complex Monastic Gareja in material Unknown

eae sns ts atl enwra xl koleqcii axali xelnawerTa qartul Mtis sinas Sesaxeb iyo mamisa T naTes mamisa iyo iyo romeli vaxtangisi, mefisa didisa naTesavi 39 38 37 invasion. Arab the of beginning the at another oe eel mfmn dla aaZri T saganZurni adflna mefeman erekle romel they were already an advanced dynasty in the Kingdo the in dynasty advanced an already were they dahflvida. the roots of the great families are directly connec directly are greatfamilies ofthe roots the activitie building important the all almost that is seen especially when dealing with the case ofKyron case the withwhen dealing especially seen person his medieval in history seventhcentury the of accounts say, to better fac or, this invasion call Herakleios’s would I Herakleios. of contemporary a (71 III Stephanoz father, his mixed author the that one happened which events of witness a be to claims full also is tr text a The narrative. buried Georgian medieval him to connected somebody or Herakleios As for mentioning of Gagelis, that may be a scriba a be may that Gagelis, of mentioning for As Alexidze] [Zaza The Life of Kartli 1, 24756. 24756. 1, Kartli of Life The is a good example of how the period of Heracleanin of period the how of goodisexample a Another text, attributed to Leonti Mroveli, Mroveli, Leonti to attributed text, Another It remains a mystery why nothing is said either abo either said is nothing why mystery a remains It Her around topos another is treasure of burying The which that deaf emir assaulted and which belongsno which and assaulted emir deafthat which the all hid brother and father my for lands, these Herakle King when years my in young was I that Know burying was latter KingthatHerakleio knows he And Kartli. of kingdom the when father his with was he Mirian, of descendant the of Vakhtang king great of of son the is he Archil, this is who know you ’t Desert Monasticism – Gareja and the Christian East Christian the and Gareja – Monasticism Desert

 ssa Tana, raJams igi dahflvides saganZurTa samefosa saganZurTa dahflvides igi raJams Tana, ssa

zaza aleqsiZezaza , ,

“garejidan sinas mTamde: ucnobi masala samonastro k samonastro masala ucnobi mTamde: sinas “garejidan r uya T vn r ee ri? s as e stefano Ze ars ese arCil? ese ars vin Tu uwyia, ara t this was an attempt of Gagelis to legitimize thei legitimize to Gagelis of attempt an was this t 16 l or other kind of error because at that time the G the time that at because error of kind other or l The Conversion of Kartli of Conversion The

 sni, rameTu erakleca uSuenebda, sadaca sadaca uSuenebda, erakleca rameTu sni, 37 e New Collection of Georgian Manuscripts from from Manuscripts Georgian of Collection New e s are more or less close to that period and period that to close less or more are s ted to Herakleios. Herakleios. toted B te is hl o te ihh century eighth the of half first the By 1–735), with Stephanoz II (639–663) – (639–663) II Stephanoz with 1–735), Georgian historiography. This can be can This historiography. Georgian avisagan mirianisa, Zisa qasresa. da ese ese da qasresa. Zisa mirianisa, avisagan the katholikos of Kartli. ofKartli. katholikos the (2001). (2001). hundred years earlier. The reason is is reason The earlier. years hundred f ncrnss Aci (738–762) Archil anachronisms. of h Mrydm f rhl ig of King Archil of Martyrdom The m of Georgia.of m l oe cnaiae ams all almost contaminated role, al dan dan t of blurring a contamination. contamination. a blurring of t treasure in that fortress, fortress, that in treasure Stephanoz, descendant Stephanoz, vasion was blurred: blurred: was vasion aue s eetd y every by repeated is easure the son of Kasre. And Kasre. of son the w to the Greeks.theto w ut Kyron or about the events events the about or Kyron ut akleios. The information that information The akleios. (From Gareja to Mount Sinai: Sinai: Mount to Gareja (From s buried his treasure.his buried s h tesr o the of treasury the qarTlisaTa; da igica icis, icis, igica da qarTlisaTa; ios passed through passed ios 38 But the main point main the But o Jase nor Juansher nor 39

ompleqsis ompleqsis r rule. rule. r zisi, zisi, ageli ageli CEU eTD Collection Kartli Mittelaklterliches Reich an Don und Wolga und Don an Reich Mittelaklterliches citadel of the city. city. the of citadel 144 (Kaegi, city a for name proper a as considered erimstavari bls. e o te ore mnin ealiss re Herakleios’s mention sources the of Few Tbilisi. (orca liberated who one the and conqueror a as him

43 42 41 40 PolicyReligiousHerakleios The 2. ofI. period. that from left were Herakleios foundation the Only erased. been have already could cen eleventh the in this; in interested were Sumbat Jbhkaa” hs ih ma te vc kaa” O khagan”. “vice the mean might this per “Jibghokhakan” second the viceroy, Khazar the of title the was Patriacrh of Jerusalem in 632634. 632634. in Jerusalem of Patriacrh prosopograph been yet not has Jibgho of person The A ahda i Tiii i ws is bit y Vak by built first was it – Tbilisi in cathedral A

Kala gives an account of Herakleios’s campaign: campaign: ofHerakleios’s account givesan

(kala) (kala) baptized and they mingled with the Christians and t and Christians the with mingled they and baptized fortress th And came. Herakleios Greeks the of king the Then s patriarch. a as command. Lord’s theby Jerusalem rebuild to started Life of Wood the brought he And captu Baghadad. and destroyed Babylon to came Herakleios king And king. his tore and fortress the of head the captured and o Jibgho soon And Khosrau. fight to Babylon to went Although Herakleios was a popular hero in Georgian in hero popular a was Herakleios Although n bod loe te hrhs Ad h eprr cle emperor the And churches. the flooded blood and But perish. or baptized be either should worshipers

Christians to gather in the churches and all the the all and churches the in gather to Ujarma Christians and Mtsketa Tpilisi, to messengers the sent already finished building Sionibuilding finished already eev wa yu eev. n h lf Jibgho left he And deserve. you what receive regar prophets the of words the are these For said: ra the of horns the destroy will and come will west wor the found and Daniel of book the brought he and Adarnase in 639. in639. Adarnase

40 – a Georganized form for Arabic Arabic for form Georganized a – called upon him and called him a goat, but the kin thebut goat, hima himcalled upon and called 42 Ad e et n bfr h cm t Tiii te ha they Tpilisi, to came he before and left he And

, (Leipzig: Koehler & Amelang, 1978). 1978). Amelang, & Koehler (Leipzig: , 43 and only the dome was left. And the king the And left. was dome the only and 17 145) Kala is a just a word for the main fortress, o fortress, main the for word a just a is Kala 145) o fe h hgn ossKlnauti mentions Kalankatuatsi Movses khagan. the after son htang Gorgasali in fifth century and later rebuilt rebuilt later and century fifth in Gorgasali htang

Qaa’lah Qaa’lah ically identified. According to one theory, Jibgho Jibgho theory, one to According identified. ically n see: Svetlana Pletnjowa, Pletnjowa, Svetlana see: Khazars n tury the memory of the actual events actual the of memory the tury ptured, according to the point of view)of point the to according ptured, iiu policy; ligious 41 – fortress. Sometimes it is mistakenly mistakenly is it Sometimes fortress. – l n aoaytc yh around myths apocalyptic and al t fgt h frrs and fortress the fight to they didn’t wish to be to wish didn’t they he king took the sword the took king he knad et tt the to it sent and skin ding me and you will you and me ding m of the east. And he And east. the of m And he put Modestos put he And narratives, most of them see them of most narratives, e commander of the of commander e n odrd l the all ordered and vertook the fortress fortress the vertook magi ds: The goat of the of goat The ds: nd h Christian the aned , turned back and back turned , e Koru and Khosrau red g wasstubborn g n te fire the and The Conversion of of Conversion The ve Chasaren, Chasaren, r the r by by

CEU eTD Collection but rather a messenger or a prophet and secondly it secondly and prophet a or messenger a rather but in the Church could not be explained. explained. be not could Church inthe how Otherwise union. the receiving not and meant is Boston: Brill, 2008), 66. Here we encounter a mistr a weencounter Here 66. 2008), Brill, Boston: Church

fer g mia aalsÁ a eure rai g verZisa igi rqani “uku Semusrnes erakle: da dasavlisaÁ mzisa igi religious character of this campaign,” this of character religious Frequent aid. divine to claims vindicate to used he mo cou and, took here “Herakleios like it, from literally conclusions information this Receiving topos. a epr xar mf d Smsa add d babilo da baRdadi Semusra da mefe xuasro Seipyra da u mefesa da gahxada tyavi merme da aevso, drahkaniT k Sina dReTa mcireTa jibRo aman xolo mefisa. xuasro brZol kalas jibRo dauteva Sen”. misagebeli ukmoiqca da iwyo brZanebiTa RmrTisa brZanebiTa iwyo da ukmoiqca liig ht h vcis f ealis codn t according Christians. proPersian Herakleios or of Monophysites victims the that claiming of action this call Some interpretations. different berZenTaman. da u da berZenTaman. divine mission. mission. divine perceive was he – Herakleios towards sources the of 47 46 45 44 193194 193194 Conversion to according Kartli of History Political qarTlis socialuri da politikuri istoria moqceva istoria politikuri da socialuri qarTlis supported was stand antiChalcedonian whose meant, Hrkeo efrs o soe clsatcl unity ecclesiastical rstore to efforts “Herakleios keis ala aa eal mfmn fls d mcx da tfiliss ra mefeman erakle tfiliss aman moslvamde aklda. vidre da eklesiasa munve. kualad warvida da irmi yvla ea amrT mfmn i mefeman warmarTTa zeda yovelTa vidremdis n miale au osnn xl mT monaTvla maT xolo moisrnen. anu moinaTlnen anu ixiai ids d gnmd eal mfmn sjuli mefeman erakle barTlome. iyo kaTalikozi da stefanoz ganwmida da diodes. sisxlisani Cyril Hovorun, Hovorun, Cyril sug correctly as faith, Christian the cleaning “In 144. Kaegi, Liter Hagiographical Georgian Old of Monuments The Á Ta yovelni qristeanni eklesiaTa Sina Semokrben da y da Semokrben Sina eklesiaTa qristeanni yovelni Ta à i daipyra da danieli wigni moiRo da moiZia sityua moiZia da moiRo wigni danieli da daipyra i , but that all the Christians should enter the Chur the enter should Christians the all that but , was Barthlomeos II. Barthlomeos was faith and left. And And left. and faith The mention of the Book of Daniel is an apocalyptic an is Daniel of Book the of mention The The expression: “the emperor cleaned the Christian Christian the cleaned emperor “the expression: The À u s erT ys sityua iyos esreT ese Tu Will, Action and Freedom: Christological Controvers Christological Freedom: and Action Will, à mo cixis Tavman kala Tavman cixis mo Erismtavari 44

Á Ta Senebad ierusal Senebad Ta Á 45 at that time was Stephanoz and Katholikos Katholikos and Stephanoz was time that at T TfilisiT mefesa erakles gamoZraxvad, xolo man man xolo gamoZraxvad, erakles mefesa TfilisiT T Á is not acceptable. This rather shows the attitude the shows rather This acceptable. not is winaswarmetyuelisa gested by scholars, the extermination of Monophysit of extermination the scholars, by gested of Kartli) (Tbilisi: Tbilisi State University Pres University State Tbilisi (Tbilisi: Kartli) of anslation of the source. First of all all of First source. the of anslation 18 46 the magi could mingle with them and be exterminate be and them with mingle could magi the is not said that said not is by Persia.” [Mikheil Gogoladze] Gogoladze] [Mikheil Persia.” by

A lgty ifrn itrrtto says: interpretation different slightly A à ch. In entering the Church a mere physical entrance physical mere a Church the entering In ch. d max ada Herakleios a “Churchdogmatic” policy, policy, “Churchdogmatic” a Herakleios ature, 9596. 9596. ature, kan miawia. movida erakle mefe babilovans babilovans mefe erakle movida miawia. kan Á ara indomes, zakuviT Tana aRerivnes, aRerivnes, Tana zakuviT indomes, ara Á ad da igi warvida babilovnad brZolad brZolad babilovnad warvida igi da ad nsel from the Book of Daniel, which Daniel, of Book the from nsel ee lo eodd n Georgia.” in recorded also were ala gamoiRo da igi cixisTavi Seipyra, Seipyra, cixisTavi igi da gamoiRo ala qarTlisa mis mzisa aRmosavlisani”. da Tqua Tqua da aRmosavlisani”. mzisa mis eot o h Bbe enocd the reinforced the to resort eTas da uJarmas ganavlinna qadagni, qadagni, ganavlinna uJarmas da eTas ovelni moguni da cecxlis msaxurni msaxurni cecxlis da moguni ovelni À a a aoaytc iue wt a with figure, apocalyptic an as d  qristesi da warvida. erisTaobda erisTaobda warvida. da qristesi n. a oRbn Zl cxorebisa Zeli moaRebina da ani. Á misa. da modisto dasua patriarqad. patriarqad. dasua modisto da misa. sioni gaasrules, xolo juarisa juarisa xolo gaasrules, sioni li. da eklesiaTa Sina mdinareni mdinareni Sina eklesiaTa da li. ese viTarmed: “maSin movides vaci vaci movides “maSin viTarmed: ese evr daig oe general some drawing reover, all Christians would be united in the in united be would Christians all o this sentence were local local were sentence this o ies in the Seventh Century Seventh the in ies Á maSin Camovlo eraklim mefeman mefeman eraklim maSin Camovlo CemT at ad et i sbet to subject is left” and faith insertion in the text and a and text the in insertion Á s mixedviT mixedviT s  s, me migago mrCobeli mrCobeli migago me s, Qadagi mixeil gogolaZe, gogolaZe, mixeil (The Social and and Social (The is not a priest priest a not is (Leiden s, 2004), 2004), s, es is is es 47 Á d d , ,

CEU eTD Collection Neither the first nor the second interpretation soun interpretation second the nor first the Neither aas n efre Crsint. o erin sourc Georgian No Christianity. enforced and pagans Samoagdes stefanoz da mokles. da daipyra keisarman keisarman daipyra da mokles. da stefanoz Samoagdes ebrZodi da qalaqisaTa karTa gamovidis yovelTa dReTa ameaT sasTd end eia xveiaa d stefano xolo tfilissa, moadga da mefe erakle cxovrebisasa. movida ganmagrn da Zelisa sparsTagan, gandgoma ineba ara Zebnad stefanoz sparseTad dasavleTiT warmoemarTa miiyvanna da igi ganZlierda saberZneTi. found in thein found on information negative only The heresy.” “imperial

48 ealis saig ie osipr. h tid rea third Herakleios The worshippers. fire slaying Herakleios’ pas the follows directly sentence this construction source. any or this in said is kind this of nothing ai ri T erTi, kaci and Juansher. The only indication of Herakleios’ r Herakleios’ of indication only The Juansher. and topos befitting a “holy” king. abefitting “holy” topos “cleani and worshippers fire the sen slaying Herakleios this that suggest rather would I poli Chalcedonians. aggressive an such about anything record which the union; a create to trying meantime the in while Te ie f ati 23 223. Kartli, of Life The position in Tpilisi. King Herakleios arrived and la and arrived Herakleios King Tpilisi. in position cut down Stepanoz and killed him. So the emperor seemperorthe him.So killed and Stepanoz down cut Then Greeks. the against fought and gates city the Daily warrior. resolute and valiant a was Stepanoz cit the fortified he So Persians. the against Step rebel Kartli. to came he First Life. of Wood the out P attacked and troops innumerable gathered slew He west. He Herakleios. brou and powerful of grew He Greece. ma seized and name Phocas a the Greece by in Maurice, appeared Emperor there this after years Some mtavari c been had Tpilisi of Sioni the and Cross Venerable set had he since year seventh the in returned Kartli Xuasro to He road Life. King of Wood the slew away took and and Baghdad Persia entered Herakleios King h sm ifrain s eetd lot od o wo for word almost repeated is information same The . . t s ihy mrbbe ht e ol hv slaughte have would he that improbable highly is It Life of Vakthang Lifeof  i ark esia sxlT rke aa mka foka mokla aman erakle. saxeliT keisrisa, mavrik si

of Kartli. Then King Herakleios took away the foot the away took Herakleios King Then Kartli. of xolo Semdgomad amissa raodenTame weliwadTa gamoCnda weliwadTa raodenTame amissa Semdgomad xolo by Juansher: Juansher: by

19

ds reasonable to me, first of all because ofall first me, to reasonable ds a cixe-qalaqni, da dadga tfilissa Sina. Sina. tfilissa dadga da cixe-qalaqni, a tfilisi. tfilisi. Secondly, judging from the syntactic syntactic the from judging Secondly, Turqni, da Sekribna spani uricxvni da da uricxvni spani Sekribna da Turqni, eligious policy is that he slaughtered slaughtered he that is policy eligious re are no known sources whatsoever sources known no are re s berZenTa. maSin ukue mas wyobasa Sina Sina wyobasa mas ukue maSin berZenTa. s ae n hc te uhr describes author the which in sage g Crsint – n hr, another short, in – Christianity ng” z iyo m queli iyo z ec i a oia cnlso of conclusion logical a is tence mvd prea qrl. aman qarTls. pirvelad movida a ealis rlgos ciiy is activity religious Herakleios’ o i te eiiu plc of policy religious the is son y y ealis gis Anti against Herakleios by cy rcrs ntig bu the about anything records e out. The Church of the of Church The out. id siege to Tpilisi. But Tpilisi. to siege id ompleted by Adarnase, by ompleted dl ad ok p his up took and adels he made forays out of out forays made he in one encounter they encounter one in ized Tpilisi.ized nz i nt ih to wish not did anoz ersia in order to seek to order in ersia ght Turks from the from Turks ght rd by Sumbat Davitisdze Davitisdze Sumbat by rd n related to the the to related n ln te same the along à . He captured captured He . red the Monophysites Monophysites the red s keisari, da daipyrna daipyrna da keisari, s h Emperor the rest and nails and rest edari da SemmarTebeli: SemmarTebeli: da edari 48

saberZneTs saberZneTs CEU eTD Collection brought it to the kingdom of the Greeks, Constantin Greeks, the of kingdom the to it brought he troops of multitude a with and wagon a on it put pass Kartli with the Cross, the the Cross, the with Kartli pass аыкня о ряогуисо филологии армяногрузинской по разыскания by Herakleios or about his travel to Egrisi. The na The Egrisi. to travel his about or Herakleios by philology taeo: h cpue f euae b te Persians the by Jerusalem of capture The Strategos: Cross and the Narrative on King Herakleios King on Narrative the and Cross to According Jerusalem. in action same his of image orientalium, scriptores georgi 203]. Ed. and trans. and Ed. 203]. georgi scriptores orientalium, 51 50 49 ae pro (h egtet cnuy, hc indica which Herakleios: of activities foundational century), eighteenth (the period later ofm southwest thein Acampsis theRiver Arrian to t connecting ridge the of valleys broad the through

aia i. ai iy eal ayes iia saydri didisa mier kacTa awyuers morwmuneTa gansrulna mieriTgan vidremdis erakle iwyo maSin mis. xatisa movida awyuers. Sina ekudersa mciresa daesvenebina RmrTismSobelsa gamoesaxa da mieca pirvelwodebulisa pirvelwodebulisa mieca da gamoesaxa RmrTismSobelsa The Life of Kartli, 224. 224. Kartli, of Life The 236. History, Caucasian Rewriting [Nicholas Marr] Н. Марр, Марр, Н. Marr] [Nicholas No Georgian source mentions anything about the Mono the about anything mentions source Georgian No h ifrain ht ealis ok eis rm Ge from relics took Herakleios that information The Adarnase, Adarnase, M to given been had which Christ, Jesus Lord our of John, Babila and Tabor. Adarnase died, and his son hisdied, and Tabor.Adarnase Babilaand John, Katho three Adarnase of time the In away. them took no did emperor the But God. from gifts these remove and made into a Bishopric.intoa made and finished was which Atskhuri of Church great the of to began emperor the And icon. the venerate and see S Atskhuri. at chapel the in Andre put and to it brought given who and Virgin Holy the by made icon the wonder the about heard and Samtskhe to came he And n eea mnsrps f h tx tee s n inte an is there text the of manuscripts several In ); Antiochus Monachus. Monachus. Antiochus );

mtavari movida samcxes, da esma saswaulT-moqmedeba xatisa m xatisa saswaulT-moqmedeba esma da samcxes, movida них таи: лнне еуаиа есм в 1 г 614 в персами Иерусалима Пленение Стратиг: Антиох f ati iprue ad egd h eprr o t not emperor the begged and importuned Kartli, of La Prise de Jerusalem par les Perses les par Jerusalem de Prise La

main road of Kartliof road main 51

G. Garitte (Louvain, 1960). 1960). (Louvain, Garitte G. 9 10) ( (1909) 9 , 20 in 614) Изд., пер. и комм. Н. Марра. Марра. Н. комм. и пер. Изд., 614) in , after having regained the Holy Cross, “he Cross, Holy the regained having after ,

keisari erakle xilvad da Tayuaniscemad Tayuaniscemad da xilvad erakle keisari rrative of his invasion in Kartli sounds Kartli in invasion his of rrative , da mier Seqmens saepiskoposo. saepiskoposo. Seqmens mier da , took it on the main road of Kartli and Kartli of road main the on it took ople.” he basins of the Chorokhi (according (according Chorokhi the of basins he odern Georgia) and rivers. rivers. Euphrates and odernGeorgia) really did exist and was a pathway pathway a was and exist did really sa saZirkuelisa Sagdebad da Senebad, Senebad, da Sagdebad saZirkuelisa sa Texts and studies in ArmenoGeorgian ArmenoGeorgian in studies and Texts n Amna text Armenian one e te tog rdto o the of tradition strong the tes andriasT 50 etn adto fo a much a from addition resting Stepanoz succeeded. Stepanoz o the emperor came to came emperor the o Although in reality he did notdid he reality in Although [Corpus scriptorum christianorum christianorum scriptorum [Corpus t heed his request and request his heed t build the foundation foundation the build irian by Constantine. Constantine. by irian later by faithful men faithful by later likoi passed away: away: passed likoi ri my e h mirror the be may orgia working nature of nature working te Firstcalled, the w thelite heresy introduced heresy thelite  s, da mas moesvena da da moesvena mas da s, is, romeli wmidasa wmidasa romeli is, On the Holy Holy the On . . 49 (Antiochos (Antiochos есы и Тексты o

CEU eTD Collection baptizing of the magi might be another literary top literary another be might magi the of baptizing Cons by handed relics the him with takes by passing mesamed mravliTa ZiebiTa da daamtkices marTali. da da marTali. daamtkices misT cilobad winaaRudgnen arRaravis raÁTa weriliTa, da ZiebiTa mravliTa mesamed ori buneba ori Semokrben karnu-qalaqs da gamoiZion sarwmunoebaÁ kr sarwmunoebaÁ gamoiZion da karnu-qalaqs Semokrben episkoposTa da moZRuarTa somxiTisaTa da miwera wign miwera da somxiTisaTa moZRuarTa da episkoposTa does not mention anything about this heresy. heresy. this about anything mention not does o essence the what known definitely have should who grea this Even Sapara. of Arseni polemicist century that this fact was subject to deliberate omission. omission. deliberate subject to was thisfact that i that mean not does however, all, at mentioned not royal the concerned it as far so only Herakleios in stories these from draw can one conclusion only The 52 passe back way the on Persians, the fight to leaves cap nowhere, of out and suddenly appears Herakleios o based is which information, legendary rather like eun wryeia maTisaT warwymedisa Sewuxna t called he there While Lazika. to went and himself aga fight to Theodoros son his to part another gave se he parts: three into army his dividedar Herakleios events the and Georgia of invasion Herakleios’s Persian the While Confessor. Theophanes by recorded Arseni of Sapara, 90. 90. Sapara, of Arseni signing the document so that nobody would object to objectwould nobody so documentthat A the signing the And truth. the received they study f much in after acc there gathered and everybody Chalcedon So Christ. of in council natures the of Creed the study gather to princes, the and Ezr Katholikos to damnation. letter their of priests and for bishops the of council worried big a summon was and Armenians the an Armenia to came Herakleios Emperor while a After h dgai atvt o Hrkeo i Amna s r is Armenia in Herakleios of activity dogmatic The Á qrist

À si somexTa. da moiwivnes yovelni erTobiT winaSi mef winaSi erTobiT yovelni moiwivnes da somexTa. si movida herakle mefe somxiTs da ixila wvalebaÁ somex wvalebaÁ ixila da somxiTs mefe herakle movida Â

uelei mqeia d bZn kreba brZana da miqceviTa. unebliebiT s 21

ebisaT os. The fact that Herakleios’s heresy is heresy Herakleios’s that fact The os. nt one part of it to defend the city and city the defend to it of part one nt i ezra kaTalikozisa da aznaurTa, ra aznaurTa, da kaTalikozisa ezra i  n Herakleios’ real travel to Georgia. to travel real Herakleios’ n t did not exist in Georgia, but rather but Georgia, in exist not did t is that these sources were interested interested were sources these that is inst Sain and the third part he took he part third the and Sain inst s. s. yat o Goga Te tr of story The Georgia. of dynasty f Monenergism/Monothelitism was, Monenergism/Monothelitism f dgai plms o te period, the of polemist dogmatic t oc aan itros n while and victorious again once s atn gv o h ig f Kartli. of king the to gave tantine daemorCilnes somexni ficiT ficiT somexni daemorCilnes e uk o te at kon as known east, the of Turks he Á s were attacking Constantinople, Constantinople, attacking were s ue te iy cen te faith, the cleans city, the tures s qalkidonisa da cnan WeSmaritad WeSmaritad cnan da qalkidonisa s at the city of Karin and Karin of city the at ound the capture of Tbilisi is Tbilisi of capture the ound it.” Armenia and wrote a wrote and Armenia ot f h kn and king the of ront mnas byd by obeyed rmenians d saw the heresy of heresy the saw d 52 ecorded by the eleventh eleventh the by ecorded p te re two true the ept

e ree to ordered He isa da gamoiwuliles gamoiwuliles da isa Á didi yofad yofad didi TaÁ da friad friad da TaÁ Ã el- Á T T CEU eTD Collection rein ore gv mc dtie ifrain on information detailed Caucasus. much give sources Armenian the Monothelite controversy in the region. Theques region. the in controversy Monothelite the k the Kyron of oblivion into falling the for reason contamination historical of explanation The Kartli. oee, hs no ws n bet f cursing of object an was union this however, unio ecclesiastical an joined had Armenia time that The an of that writing. from different be might was author Armenian author the which in period the on Georgi between different is personality his towards (John the Katholikos), Asoghik and other sources li sources other and Asoghik Katholikos), the (John A Armenia. namely, Caucasus, the through Cross True 55 54 53 ArmenianThe 3.InvasionI. the ofSources on Herak from armies twoofthe and meeting the watched Persians Lazika left (Herakleios) king The Persians. the burnt theythrough passed they Everyplace khagan. who Ziebiel, of command the under Adraigan into way g the crossed Khazars The him. killed Khosrau angry mir divine a through Meanwhile, allies. as Khazars, okn mtos f ees n Mve Daskhurantsi.” Movses and Sebeos of methods working travel of the Holy Cross to Armenia to Cross Holy the of travel o h sbet ee i i ueu t so te kind the show to useful is it here, subject the to Confrontation Sources Attributed to Sebeos to Attributed Sources Literally Literally o Historians “Armenian Johnston, JamesHoward See: 447 Confessor, Theophanes

Only rarely does any source mention anything about anything mention source any does rarely Only The evaluation of Herakleios’s invasion of the Cauc ofthe invasion ofHerakleios’s evaluation The Another popular cycle around Herakleios deals with deals Herakleios around cycle popular Another The Chosen Words Chosen The 54

” ed. Gerrit J. Reinink and Bernard H. Stolte (Louv Stolte H. Bernard and Reinink J. Gerrit ed. ” . Translated by R. Thomson. (Liverpool: Liverpool U Liverpool (Liverpool: byThomson. R. . Translated equivalent of Georgian Mravaltavi – the literal tr literal the – Mravaltavi Georgian of equivalent

. Although these stories do not have a direct relati direct a have not do stories these Although 22

f Heraclius: An examination of aims, sources and and sources aims, of examination An Heraclius: f

The Reign of Heraclius (610641): Crisis and and Crisis (610641): Heraclius of Reign The atholikos of Kartli, Kyros of Phasis and Phasis of Kyros Kartli, of atholikos

is possible, but there might be another another be might there but possible, is for Armenians. Generally speaking, speaking, Generally Armenians. for n with Herakleios. In the later period, period, later the In Herakleios. with n tion is – what was the reason? reason? wasthe what –is tion an and Armenian sources. It depends depends It sources. Armenian and an ke the the ke down villages and cities andcaptured cities and villages down acle Theodorus defeated Sain and an and Sain defeated Theodorus acle of popular narratives which existed existed which narratives popular of the city ofTiflis.the city eleventhcentury author, because by because author, eleventhcentury ates of the Caspian and forced their forced and Caspian the of ates ain: Peeters, 2002), 4162; 4162; 2002), Peeters, ain: et o et h Kaas The Khazars. the meet to went uthors like John of Draskhanakert Draskhanakert of John like uthors held the second office after the after office second the held approach of a seventhcentury seventhcentury a of approach Tshar’ntirs asus and generally the attitude attitude the generally and asus the story of the travel of the the of travel the of story the the Kyron the katholikos of katholikos the Kyron the ealis tae t the to travel Herakleios’ leios leios anslation of “Polycephala”. “Polycephala”. of anslation niversity Press. 1999). 1999). Press. niversity 55 53

tell stories of the of stories tell The Armenian Armenian The on

CEU eTD Collection policy. The religious policy of Herakleios is menti is Herakleios of policy religiousThe policy. Herakleios himself supposedly attended. supposedly himself Herakleios su was synod a 632, in Soon, union. the rejected he w he that Ezr, threatened also Herakleios exchange. an Kolb of revenue the of third one received having Ez Draskhanakert, of John to based According Ezr Monenergism. Katholikos with union a achieve to tried men is Ezr Katholikos with union ecclesiastical the to the Monophysite formula. Monophysite the to the at Chalcedon rejected finally Odzun of Hovaness 58 57 56 i no is there again, Once monasteries. and churches in as just and Cross True the of restoration the of the in again once was Herakleios Herakleios. around heretical and condemned by the Armenian Church. The Church. Armenian the by condemned and heretical as the Chalcedonian heresy. heresy. Chalcedonian the as

Elias. Elias. a John before right and Ezra after katholikoi Five M or Monenergism of whatsoever mention no is There The Armenian History Attributed to Sebeos to Attributed History Armenian The ihs n etbihd eahet o slir and soldiers land. whole theover stores of detachments g established the until and camp wishes Greek w the t home in returned resided he he visited Thereafter gift, this Asorestan, receiving and of gift; a land o the council sathekingfor the him.asked with He communicated to the anathematize went not Catholicos did it but heretics; anathematiz hand, king’s the in written him to sent Immed king. the from faith of statement a requested territ the leave to unable was Catholicos the Since authority your hold you do and Catholicos, another bor shall we agreed “Otherwise, emperor. the with the communicate the of territory to the in him according to go to land Ezr Catholicos the all Armen from of came control Gnuni Mzhezh general Greek the Then 57

58

, 9192. 9192. , 56 The union was kept until 726 when Katholikos when 726 until kept was union The 23 re usually considered as Chalcedonian and therefore and Chalcedonian as considered usually re

se are: Nerses III, Anastasius, Israel, Sahak III a III Sahak Israel, Anastasius, III, Nerses are: se onotheletism in Armenian sources. They refer to it to refer They sources. Armenian in onotheletism oned in a single case, when the story ofstory the when case, single a in oned Georgian sources he is the founder of founder the is he sources Georgian ndication about Herakleios’ religious Herakleios’ about ndication d the revenues from the salt mines in mines salt the from revenues the d ould establish a parallel hierarchy if hierarchy parallel a establish ould center of a semimythological cycle cycle semimythological a of center ind Te tr i ht Herakleios that is story The tioned. Council of Manazkert and returned and Manazkert of Council mnd n hooipls which Theodosiopolis in mmoned n h cmrms frua of formula compromise the on ory of his authority, he authority, his of ory Greek borders, and to and borders, Greek r yielded to temptation after after temptation to yielded r iately a document was document a iately n Nsois n all and ing lt [mines] of Kolb as ofKolb lt[mines] on the Persian side.” Persian the on ith great ceremony. ceremony. great ith nrl aife his satisfied eneral make for ourselves ourselves for make h dsrbto of distribution the Cacdn The Chalcedon. f e. e od the told He der. e ig and king, he a ad took and ia, nd

CEU eTD Collection Armenian Heresy Armenian possibility, that in the middle of the Monothelite Monothelite the of middle the in that possibility, omno o ter wih a cnend y h sixt the d fathers seventy by and hundred one condemned by Constantinople was which theirs of communion faith the is which energy, one and will one nature, traqtati da misi gamoZaxili Zvel somxur mwerlobaSi somxur Zvel gamoZaxili misi da traqtati explained by the polemical character of the treatis ofthe character polemicalthe by explained the On Armenians. Monophysite of faith the already counci the at achieved compromise the been have not wil one natures, two but Paul, and Pyrrhus Sergius, and will one nature, “one that is here problem The oohlts i te erin rnlto o te Gr the the of where translation found, Georgian yet the have is Monotheletism I which text only and one Constanti of Church the with collaborating even was how case, the not is This same. the doto Monenerg requested of condemnation the after that indications Counc the by condemned and doctrine Monothelite the reall Chur Armenian the by condemned were who Katholikoi, insertion, Monothelite a on based compromise, with union the of basis the was that Monothelitism i Cross Truethe around thatlike cycles, legendary Theodosiopolis”of synod the at signed Monon on based union “a as such claims the do where accepting for reasons the sources the of testimony Herakleio of formula Monothelite or Monenergist any councils Church of history the of author the Odzun, Her between compromise dogmatic a on achieved union the Dogmatikon of Arseni Vachesdze Arseni of Dogmatikon the 61 60 59 On the Christilogy of the Monothelites see the fou the see Monothelites the of Christilogy theOn 65. Hovorun, [Zaza Alexidze] Alexidze] [Zaza polm rss ee nml, ht oe f h Arm the of none that namely, here, arises problem A To conclude, there were several attitudes towards H towards attitudes several were there conclude, To aa lqie asn vCs i “omtkni Sesu “dogmatikonSi” Zis vaCes arseni aleqsiZe, zaza : “The evil Armenians say that after the union the union the after that say Armenians evil “The :

and a reaction on it in the Armenian literature) literature) Armenian the in it on reaction a and 59 come from? Logically speaking, this is the only the is this speaking, Logically from? come rth chapter. chapter. rth 24

e. n Armenian texts, or on his activities in activities onhis or texts, Armenian n ever, the Armenian Church at that time that at Church Armenian the ever, 61 l and one activity. This formula could could formula This activity. one and l of Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and all the the all and Paul Pyrrhus, Sergius, of the union was purely political. Then political. purely was union the of Armenia mention anything about about anything mention Armenia of

the Armenian Church. Even if such if Even Church. Armenian the

A atMnpyie raie nldd in included treatise antiMonophysite (An other hand, however, this might be might this however, hand, other l of Theodosiopolis because it was it because Theodosiopolis of l n atvt” a nt h fih of faith the not was activity” one otoes i wud e exactly be would it controversy rn te eg o Constantine.” of reign the uring ol wtot n polm. The problems. any without nople il of 681. Or there should be some be should there Or 681. of il e text eek akleios and Ezr, nor does John of John does nor Ezr, and akleios s te rein hrh was Church Armenian the ism ergist formula was accepted and accepted was formula ergist ch, should have been adherent to adherent been have should ch, ocre te te et five next the then occurred y s. According to the unanimous unanimous the to According s. erakleios. First of all there are there all of First erakleios. rein ae cue in accused are Armenians Hl Snd ald in called Synod Holy h na sucs eto a mention sources enian Thirty Chapters of the the of Chapters Thirty li antimonofizituri antimonofizituri li Son of God has one has God of Son Mravaltavi 1 (1971). (1971). 1 60

CEU eTD Collection between the Churches, except the special treatise o treatise special the except Churches, the between Kartli and Armenia and Kartli patriar the Kyron. – Mtskheta of activities the through but “emperor” Caucasus. the invaded Herakleios before decades two niain f h Ipra hrs; erin sources Georgian heresy; Imperial the Chu of standard indication the than events the of story different I obscure. so was century seventh the of half first this was a pure Chalcedonian doctrine. doctrine. Chalcedonian pure wasa this a introduced Herakleios that or compromise u dogmatic this that say not do sources Armenian The heresy. f Ezr Katholikos curse and blame rather they issue; sour Armenian the Even stand. dogmatic Herakleios’s 62 more, nothing and ArmentheFor new doctrine. the introduce to trying me sources the of none that is problem The Georgia. admit one nature of Christ after the incarnation. incarnation. the after Christ of nature one admit Although Armenians tended to call any faith Chaced faith any call to tended Armenians Although The “cleansing of the faith” has really happened th happened really has faith” the of “cleansing The This was important to show at this place in the the the in place this at show to important was This . . 62 wie h Gogas i nt ae n polm a a at problems any have not did Georgians the while

25

onian or even more strictly, Nestorian, that did n did that Nestorian, strictly, more even or onian t seems that the Caucasian sources tell a tell sources Caucasian the that seems t f Arseni of Sapara of Arseni f ians, this is a mere Chalcedonian faith faith Chalcedonian mereis a this ians, ntions Herakleios being a heretic and heretic a being Herakleios ntions ces do not attack Herakleios on thaton Herakleios notattack do ces It was done not by the hand of an of hand the by not done was It r ujcig o h Chalcedonian the to subjecting or h f ati te ahlks of katholikos the – Kartli of ch new doctrine, but for all of them of all for but doctrine, new o o ee rcr te schism the record even not do c hsois Tee s o direct no is There histories. rch nion was achieved because of a a of because achieved was nion ough, but that happened almost almost happened that but ough, sis in order to explain why the the why explain to order in sis On the Division of Division the On l with ll ot ot CEU eTD Collection resa, tn. codn t Asn o Sapara, of Arseni to According stand. proPersian, position of the Georgian Church during these times these during Church Georgian the of position the in stable not was situation dogmatic the period Armenia and the Synians” the and Armenia accepted finally Armenia council this At (548557). by Dvin in called was council second a when 554, or Kartli of Church the century sixth the of end very 65 64 63 Kartli InII. 1. depending on whether the Roman emperor was Chalcedo was emperor Roman the whether on supportin depending respectively was which Persia, and Empire b determined strongly was Caucasus the in situation stric a was Justinian while tendencies Chalcedonian In 506 a council was convened in the Armenian city Armenian the in wasconvened council a 506 In t accepted Albania and Kartli, Armenia, of churches Arseni of Sapara, 40. Sapara, of Arseni 45. Letters, of Book The Georgia. and Armenia in layer social high A

Some Some 65 aznaurs did not take communion with the Armenians. Thus, u Thus, Armenians. the with communion take not did

Kyros in Georgia Kyros Georgia in 63 They say: We have this faith as well as your faith as well as thisfaith have We say: They wrote me something proper to ravings of a sick man sick a of ravingsproperto wrotemesomething Chapter II We communicate the faith here and with you too. too. you withhere and faith the communicate We 26

was Chalcedonian. The last attempt of attempt last The Chalcedonian. was empire itself – Anastasius had Anti had Anastasius – itself empire is still not completely clear, until 551 until clear, completely not still is h “erin, n fut pr of part fourth one “Georgians, the he the Armenian katholikos Nerses II Nerses katholikos Armenian the atoohst. h religious The antiMonophysite. t h Athleoin therefore AntiChalcedonian, the te iar bten h Roman the between rivalry the y g Nestorians or Monophysites, Monophysites, or Nestorians g Henotikon Vrthanes Kherdol to Abrahamto Kherdol Vrthanes nian or antiChalcedonian. The antiChalcedonian. or nian of Dvin, where the Caucasian the where Dvin, of of Zeno. During this During Zeno. of ntil the ntil too. too. 64 . .

CEU eTD Collection zwischen 451 und 780 und 451 zwischen 1952). 1952). than thirty years. years. thirty than w two the or Stepanoz of rule the during again once erin hrhs codn t te rein Sources Armenian the to According Churches Georgian etr, 99; Karekin 1999); Peeters, Garsoian, Nina 2001); Cilicia, of Catholicosate

second time.” second yice Kirchen Syrischen TerMinasean, Ervand 1984); Inc, Pr Arms Lebanon: again: “And at that time Stepanoz was Stepanoz time that at “And again: Herakleios, of story the with finished having Then, atoe n the and Bartlome Kyro time that at that Sapara), of Arseni Ukhtanes, “ 68 67 66 Georgian sourcesa. KyronII. 1. on to enforcethe supposed whoKyron,was of Mtskheta Kartli of Church the over take to side Armenian the The Book of Letters of Book The wh o Armenia, and Kartli of separation ecclesiastical katholikos was Bartlome time that at that says it too Kartli of katholikoi the lists Kartli, of kings the period, katholikos was Kyron and the the and Kyron was katholikos period, the 593637; 593637; History, Medieval Cambridge acsa Cvlzto 2 vl , 20) 1210 Z 142150; (2008), 3, vol 2, Civilization Caucasian t of fact the hides deliberately or mistake a makes Bartlom named someone havebeen might there Kartli, salsmn o Ntoa Cuce i te Caucasus the in Churches National of Establishment The Book of Letters, 189. 189. Letters, of Book The 96. Kartli, of Conversion The O te clsatcl iuto i te acss in Caucasus the in situation ecclesiastical the On The first problem is that we know according to theto according know we that is problem first The The chronicle part of the the of part chronicle The La Narratio de Rebus Armeniae Rebus de Narratio La 67 So according to the to according So (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1904); Cyril Toumanoff, Toumanoff, Cyril 1904); Hinrichs, C. J. (Leipzig: . Georgika (1981), 3436; Babian, Gobun. Babian, 3436; (1981), Georgika . erismtavari , the the ,

Sarkissian, Sarkissian, ed. J.M. Hussey, vol. 4.1. (Cambridge: Cambridge U Cambridge (Cambridge: 4.1. vol. Hussey, J.M. ed. History

a Aans ad o Stepanoz. not and Adarnase was h Cucl f hleo ad h Amna Church Armenian the and Chalcedon of Council The of Ukhtanes and all of the Armenian texts dealing dealing texts Armenian the of all and Ukhtanes of Conversion of Kartli of Conversion , critical edition and commentary G. Garitte, (Louv Garitte, G. commentary and edition critical , Conversion of Kartli of Conversion L'eglise armenienne et le grand schisme d'orient schisme grand le et armenienne L'eglise erismtavari 27 erismtavari the sixth – seventh centuries see: Zaza Alexidze, Alexidze, Zaza see: centuries seventh – sixth the Die Armenische Kirche in ihren Beziehungen zu den zu Beziehungen ihren in Kirche Armenische Die z Alexidze, aza

,” The Caucasus and Globalization: Religion and and Religion Globalization: and Caucasus The ,” . When it mentions Stepanoz mentions it When . en acording to other data, that is to say, to is that data, other to acording en and Bartlome was katholikos for the for katholikos was Bartlome and eeitne f yo. h problem The Kyron. of existence he ere ruling together in Kartli for more for Kartli in together ruling ere , 300610. 300610. , The Conversion of Kartl says once says Kartl of Conversion The ws ahlks f ati n not and Kartli of katholikos was n was the appointment to the see of see the to appointment the was proArmenian policy. proArmenian Krl. hs s h pro o the of period the is This Kartli. f , while listing the the listing while , e, but at this point the author either either author the point this butat e, The Relations between the Armenian and Armenian the between Relations The a Aans n nt Stepanoz. not and Adarnase was Kaukasien und der christlich Orient Orient christlich der und Kaukasien Barthlome became katholikos became Barthlome

sources (sources „Armenia and Georgia“, in in Georgia“, and „Armenia (AnteliasLebanon: Armenian Armenian (AnteliasLebanon: 68 Atr yo hd left had Kyron After The Book of Letters of Book The niversity Press, 1966) 1966) Press, niversity erismtavaris 66

erismtavari erismtavari ain: Peeters, Peeters, ain: (Antelias . (Louvanii: (Louvanii: . with and The The , , CEU eTD Collection polemics and the person who enforced and finally es finally and enforced who person the and polemics between the Georgian and Armenian Churches, where K where Churches, Armenian and Georgianthe between

He is considered to be one of the responsibles for for responsibles the of one be to considered is He Kyron in his polemical text text polemical his in Kyron mentioned by the the by th mentioned was option Another beginning. the from forgotten him mixed historians situation, real the restoring eith was This cases. both in confused very is order The was. he known is it than later much katholikos but known, well is married was Kyron that fact The accidentaly by the later generations. generations. later the by accidentaly pers was and influence Persian resisted who Kartli, protagoni main the Kyron, that improbable, be would de is text whole the although twice, only mentioned 74 73 72 71 70 69 Samoel, Iovel, Aelali, Tavpachag, order: in Kartli auth the when passage, next the in more even arises evlale, iovel, samovel, giorgi, k giorgi, samovel, iovel, evlale, much later, is called “filthy” – a common Armenian Armenian common a – “filthy” called is later, much in the old Armenian translation of the the of translation Armenian old the in anyt knows source Armenian or Georgian other no and was Kyron/Kyrion because improbable highly be would edited by Ilia Abuladze (Tbilisi: Georgian Academy Academy Georgian (Tbilisi: Abuladze by Ilia edited Unfortunately we do not have any other information information anyother have not we do Unfortunately i.e. Gregory the Illuminator Illuminator the Gregory i.e. Armeni in bishop the became who Syrian Julianite A 552596. in Albania of katholikos The Alba for name wasGeorgian a Hereti period By that 97 Kartli, of Conversion The qarTlis cxovrebis Zveli somxuri Targmani somxuri Zveli cxovrebis qarTlis ever the bishops of Armenia should be ordained by h by ordained be should Armenia of bishops the ever Syrian In addition to this source another Georgian author author Georgian another source this to addition In ahlks f Hers, of of Kyron Katholikos Georgians, the of katholikos the when And commandment which Gregory of Caesaria of Gregory which commandment patriarch four up gave and Church Catholic Holy the 73 the Armenians convened a council in Dvin, renounce Dvin, in council a convened Armenians the ovrin f Kartli of Conversion . “xolo kaTalikozni, romel evnonisiTgan momarT iyvn momarT evnonisiTgan romel kaTalikozni, “xolo . On the Division of Georgians and Armenians. and Georgians of Division the On 71

Abaz  rion, izid-bozid, petre. da ese cxrani colosanni iy colosanni ese cxrani da petre. izid-bozid, rion, 72 sw ta b te ad f bih the Abdisho of hand the by that saw, , Life of Kartli of Life n te te in other the and convening the Council of Dvin. Dvin. of Council the convening

28 of Sciences Press, 1953), 261. 261. 1953), Press, Sciences of on these katholikoi. katholikoi. these on ( The old Armenian translation of the Life of of Life the of translation Armenian old The nia, resp. Hers means Albanians. Albanians. means Hers resp. nia,

an during the patriarchate of Nerses II (548557). (548557). II Nerses of patriarchate the during an 74 Giorgi, Kyron, Izidbozid and Petre.and Izidbozid Kyron, Giorgi, gave to their Church, that for that Church, their to gave ih h ohr ahlki r e was he or katholikoi other the with er done deliberately and later, while later, and deliberately done er place of Kyron in the chronological the in Kyron of place the same Kyron, who is said to be to said is who Kyron, same the reference to Kyron of Mtshketa.of Kyron to reference iae t te omtc opposition dogmatic the to dicated the problem is that he is said to be to said is he that is problem the ctd o ti, a js forgotten just was this, for ecuted tablished the Chalcedonian faith in faith Chalcedonian the tablished r it nn mrid ahlki of katholikoi married nine lists or hing about second Kyron. Besides Kyron. second about hing yron was the leading figure. figure. leadingthe was yron t hr wr to yos one Kyrons, two were there at not a common name in Georgia in name common a not – Arseni of Sapara – mentioned – Sapara ofArseni – st in the ArmenianGeorgian ArmenianGeorgian the in st the Book of Letters, Letters, of Book the ates and betrayed the betrayed and ates is see, and that now that and see, is tkea n the and Mtskheta d and cursed and d Here es TavfaCag, TavfaCag, es

Kyron is Kyron u this but Kartli), vnes.” 70 It 69

CEU eTD Collection bishop. bishop. s ra ese sivnielTa episkoposman, da iqmna ciloba iqmna da episkoposman, sivnielTa

rameTu somxiTman brZaneba somxiTman rameTu aaraqTgn a adace aRTquma gardaaqcies da k sapatriarqoTagan wmidisa aRsarebisagan gandges SeCuenebiT da dvins eklesiisa, ukunisamde ara ganSorebad misgan misgan ganSorebad ara ukunisamde eklesiisa, Bishop Ukhtanes gives detailed data on Kyron’s back Kyron’sdataon detailed gives Ukhtanes Bishop In the first chapter of his of chapter first the In ecclesiastical from Armenia. Armenia. from ecclesiastical kaTalikozman herTa abaz, rameTu rameTu abaz, herTa kaTalikozman clsatcl cim we Krn xeld h Arme the expelled Kyron when schism, ecclesiastical

Kartli. 78 77 76 75 b.provenanceTheeducationKyron II. 1. andof h hrs ahrn o wih e upsdy eae l became supposedly he which Monotheletism. of adherent heresy the for reason the that argue will I thesis the of rest fr erased deliberately point certain a at was Kyron Kartli earlyer of Conversion the for As him. on information little very that much so scarce, extremely is Kyron on sources Arseni of Sapara, 81. 81. Sapara, of Arseni Armenian strong a Had Georgia. southern in town A Te otatr poic o Getr rei, whi Armenia, Greater of province northeastern The Arseni Safareli, 81. 81. Safareli, Arseni 78 Á y hmevs We al hs eae nw t kathol to known became this all When themselves. by A much more detailed biography of Kyron is given on given is Kyron of biography detailed more much A t Persia of king the from order an received Armenia arguement started between Armenia and Kartli. Armeniaand between started arguement h ls mnin f yo i we Asn describes Arseni when is Kyron of mention last The

h ktoio o Hr ad rgl h ktoio of katholikos the Grigol and Hers of katholikos the ns emrtd k SeSmaritad cnes A te ey is gac oe ol ntc ta the that notice would one glance first very the At

, Kyron is mixed up with other katholikoi. This sho This katholikoi. other with up mixed is Kyron , d vTra xls aaiomn aTeT k qarTvelTa kaTalikozman ixiles viTarca “da Á miiRo sparsTa mefisagan ÃelT-dasxmaÁ episkoposebis ÃelT-dasxmaÁ mefisagan sparsTa miiRo History of the Severance of the Georgians from the the from Georgians the of Severance the of History  in aaiomn aa hra aaiomn a grigo da kaTalikozman herTa abaz kaTalikozman, rion

à lT adS auiaT kreba asurisaÁTa abdiSo eliTa Á didi Soris somxiTisa da qarTlisa.” qarTlisa.” da somxiTisa Soris didi Á igi, romeli daudva wmindaman grigoli kesaria kesaria grigoli wmindaman daudva romeli igi, 29

diaspora and was allowed to have its own Armenian Armenian own its have to allowed was and diaspora à elT-dasxmaÁ ebiskoposebisa somxiTisaÁ da da somxiTisaÁ ebiskoposebisa elT-dasxmaÁ Kyron being forgotten should have been have should forgotten being Kyron ch was always trying to gain political and and political gain to trying always was ch om the chronciles and dyptychs. In the In dyptychs. and chronciles the om aTolike eklesiisa da ganeyennes oTxTa oTxTa ganeyennes da eklesiisa aTolike ground: ground: ore, icse aoe lk the like above, discussed sources, Arseni in the eleventh century has century eleventh the in Arseni 76

in ihp f Tsurtavi of bishop nian o ordain the bishops the ordain o ly by the Armenian authors. authors. Armenian the byly tr ta i t sy of say to is that – ater nomto i Georgian in information the events just before the the before just events the Synians, ks yo, Abaz Kyron, ikos Á yves somexTa qalaqsa qalaqsa somexTa yves  ron mcxeTisaman da da mcxeTisaman ron uld suggest that suggest uld 75 a TaviT T TaviT a a big a Armenians 77 from  siT, siT, li li

CEU eTD Collection Emperor Maurice and his Historian his and Maurice Emperor rvnne s tetd by attested is provenance ztbrov;ivn noxa 5 & za3l &s [ararovysd cidov;ivn5 o cidov;ivn5 go [ararovysd &s za3l & 5 noxa ztbrov;ivn Nigobolis ka.akacy.n my/ i ant pnagi & Go.onia37 Ho- 3yrgirn yr;yal Yv Ha3ox1 & Wrax wasn ztbrov;ivn esa wr o 52 o 582. to 572 of wars Persian h taken was he probably but Nikopolis, in been have ar There was. it claims Ukhtanes as just too, Greek territory who was also the highest spiritual author spiritual highest the also was who territory 86 85 84 83 82 81 80 79 as the bishop of the monastery in Dvin, granted him granted Dvin, in monastery the of bishop the as Eliva of Movses was Armenians the of katholikos the abou havebeen would he Armenia tohe returned time Press), 169; The Book of Letters, 210; on the Persi the on 210; Letters, of Book The 169; Press),

Movses (574–604) writes to Kyron:to writes (574–604) Movses n hs ae hr i n priua rao t mistr to reason particular no is there case this in pole the Despite scholarship. Armenian and Georgian The Book of Letters, 128. 128. Letters, of Book The 2022. Ukhtanes, form of territory the on province Roman eastern An identified. not is Skutri of location exact The Arm with bordering Georgia, of region southern The unit. administrative Armenian An See Nerses Akinian, Akinian, Nerses See Acrig o . aasihii h coeikps w chorepiskopos the Javakshishvili I. to According Kyron had studied in the and therefore and Empire Roman the in studied had Kyron He was by land and by origin a Georgian, from the from Georgian, a origin by and land by was He scholarship and other evil matters by which hebrok which bymatters evil otherand scholarship Gail called river the at Nikopolis, of city big the and in the Armenian languages. When he went to the the the in to years fifteen went for there lived he he Romans, When languages. Armenian the in and rm vlae ald Skutri called village a from From Armenia Minor he returned to the Persian part Persian the to hereturned Minor Armenia From Thus, according to Ukhtanes, Kyron was Georgian by Georgian was Kyron Ukhtanes, to according Thus, from it and had lived in the country of the Romans. ofthein country thelived had itand from country that from were you provenance and ethnicity coun that of superior the as you appointed and will towards love your and life past your trusted Having

a r ,ahv acv Wa` cvr }vqx i }avaqax` cavare i Wrax` i azcav & a,qarhav er Sa iin aoio Vrac katolikos Kirion h Bo o Letters of Book the 85

(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), 262268. 262268. 1988), Press, Clarendon (Oxford: Hr h sae fr n diinl ite yas so years, fifteen additional an for stayed he Here 81 ad e a euae bt i te Georgian the in both educated was he and [ iin h Ktoio o Georgians of Katholikos the Kirion row oro,yxav i men]1i oro,yxav row ity. On the function of the chorepiskopos in the Ca the in chorepiskopos the of function the On ity. 30 an war around the Caucasus see Michael Whitby, Whitby, Michael see Caucasus the around war an omox pnagyxav ant ams hncydasan i cava-in ` or go[i or ` cava-in i hncydasan ams ant pnagyxav omox er Lesser Armenia. Armenia. Lesser er enia. enia.

[yxyal` 3yzr cydo3n` or go[i Ca3l1 Yv war=yal & ovs & war=yal Yv Ca3l1 go[i or cydo3n` 3yzr [yxyal` as the highest priest of a certain administrative administrative certain a of priest highest the as we te ahlks f h Armenians the of katholikos the when , s te uhr Bsds hs Georgian his Besides, author. the ust the title of title the e various reasons why Kyron might Kyron why reasons various e ostage in his early youth during the during youth early his in ostage rd (574604), who appointed Kyron Kyron appointed who (574604), rd mical and biased nature of the text, the of nature biased and mical t 20 to 25 years ofyears25age. to 20 t gavar

. There he studied their their studied he There . 84 e off from us.off from e gavar try, while although by although while try,

us, we fulfilled your fulfilled we us, of Armenia. During this time this During Armenia. of called Kolonia called should have been fluent in fluent been have should , you had alienated had you , ethnicity and was fluent in fluent was and ethnicity chorepiskopos cy.]e ` or go[i Sgovdri7 & ovner ovner & Sgovdri7 go[i or ` cy.]e 79 ad f h the the of land of Javakhetiof ] (Vienna: Mkhitarist Mkhitarist (Vienna: ] 83

82

86 , in , 80

and gave and , y the by ucasus ucasus The The yal yal

CEU eTD Collection political authority too.authority political o hv bcm a ahlks eoe h ae f thir of age the before katholikos a become have not the Geogian Law Geogian the least was under the influence of the Armenian Churc Armenian ofthe influence under the was least co Kart the of Church take the time to that at was because katholikos, that do to way only the however, receive to planned have might Kyron century. sixth became He years. ten least at for Armenia in stayed might be the case that Kyron got married while inwhileh married gotKyron that the case be might Besides, rule. ecclesiastical and worldly combining demonstrate his secular power and political ambitio political powerand hissecular demonstrate a-hasarag zamyna3n a,qarhn unt ivrow i,qanov;yamp1ivrow unt a,qarhn zamyna3n a-hasarag a,qar lavavk hantyr2 zybisgobosovnsn inkn a- =o.owe Situation in the Caucasus in the sixth century]. century]. sixth the in Caucasus the in Situation 90 89 88 87 Javakshishvili] [Ivane see: c.TheKyron byEvaluation ofII. 1. the a Armenian the him when Kyron was in Armenia, the bishops and generall and bishops the Armenia, in was Kyron when Georgian Law] vol. 2, part 2 (Tbilisi: Tbilisi Stat Tbilisi (Tbilisi: 2 part 2, vol. Law] Georgian

Ukhtanes, 22. 22. Ukhtanes, t until granted be no can Patriarch a of title The 87. Sapara, of Arseni [Zaza Alexidze] Alexidze] [Zaza As soon as he returned to his fatherland, he receiv he fatherland, his to returned he as soon As

yo i si t hv be a tog oiia ruler political strong a been have to said is Kyron summoned the bishops, the princes, the nobles, the the nobles, the princes, c the city his bishops, and the see summoned his diocese, his reached he When erismtavaris was arranged according to his will, he let an evil an evil will, helet his to according arranged was he when And supremacy. his under country whole the gavar of Airarat. It is to be noted that according to Ar to according that noted be to is It Airarat. of , 7. 7. , Isg 3or=am yhas Givron i wijag ivro3 i,qanov;yann i,qanov;yann ivro3 wijag i Givron yhas 3or=am Isg zaza aleqsiZe, “religiuri situacia kavkasiaSi VI sa VI kavkasiaSi situacia “religiuri aleqsiZe, zaza of the country and got the upper hand over them an them over hand upper the got and country the of 87 So in Armenia Kyron should already have had an exp an had have already should Kyron Armenia in So vn javaxiSvili ivane Matsne e University Press, 1929), 67. 67. 1929), Press, University e , , he age of thirty five. See: Javakshishvili, Javakshishvili, See: five. thirty of age he aTl smrls soi [ istoria samarTlis qarTuli 31

3 (1973). (1973). 3 hin & zi,qans & znaqarars5 & novaje nokavk hantyr2 hantyr2 nokavk novaje & znaqarars5 & zi,qans & hin

is office ofoffice is ns: ns: although this is a pure assumption, it assumption, pure a is this although katholikos of Kartli by the end of the of end the by Kartli of katholikos the see while he was still in Armenia, in still was he while see the h, i.e., Persia. i.e., h, i a, f o athleoin at antiChalcedonian, not if was, li tyfive; y clergy was exercising a strong a exercising was clergy y plan into hisheartinto plan ed the patriarchal see. He could could He see. patriarchal the ed mno wt te Armenian the with mmunion & i ka.ak ivryanx` or go[i Mxqy;a35 Mxqy;a35 go[i or ivryanx` ka.ak i & n ati Vros anecdotes Various Kartli. in saw that everything everything that saw chorepiskopos 88 seni of Sapara, at the time the at Sapara, of seni le Msht he Mtskheta alled mtavaris uthors teeoe e ut have must he therefore 89 ukuneSi”

d brought d h Hsoy f the of History The n the and 90 The History of of History The [The Religeous Religeous [The

. . erience in erience

CEU eTD Collection oeia tps u te at ht yo ws o of not was Kyron that fact the but topos polemical wit believe to reasonable is it heart”, his in plan oiia oe tu Krn okuo hmef h pol the himself upon took Kyron thus one, political t princes the subjected having too, rule, political For example, in one letter he says: heletter one in example, For t with correspondence his from visible is ambitious rule. his and Kyron of nature tyrannical the stress Kar of politics international the in maker la decision as because Kartli, in authority political strong

im5 manavant ;e5 & kan zamyna3n ungyrs im1 ungyrs im1 zamyna3n kan & ;e5 manavant im5 'a- arka3i 3arka3ix & hasdadyax5 a-avyl myr zhavads 91 him. Movses informed Vrthaness: Vrthaness: informedMovses him. allegation of letter first the Kyron sent Vrthaness h terrified Alexandria of Kyros later as just again brin character, inexorable and harsh his for or famous give and Kartli of princes the convoke could and ma decison the was he that know we letters his From a religeous that fact the been have might influence uhrt,js ste arac o Aeadi had Alexandria of patriarch the as just authority, The Book of Letters, 90. 90. Letters, of Book The brought it to him, having read it he got outraged w outraged got he it read having him, to it brought fellows. mo even and fathers my than successful more me he made Kings of King the of glories the from faith, our mor even Church our glorified Lord our person my In Here once again if we leave aside the polemical nat polemical the aside leave we if again once Here sc mn hw e a sern ad mrctn Arm imprecating and swearing was he how man, sick a and Katholikos called so the to letter the pass to news, the bring not could and you to come not could retur hejust and servant my throughsent I country katholik socalled the to wrote youthat letter The This is a rather harsh statement of a powerful rule powerful a of statement harsh rather a is This

91

aaat i iom Dr soa mr yyyi mr a myr zygy.yxis myr Asdova/ Der 3imovms zi Manavant

32 ax zis avyli my/axo3x7 & 3a-a]atem arar5 kan zhars kan arar5 3a-a]atem & my/axo3x7 avyli zis ax

is opponents and not only theirs. When theirs. only not and opponents is s, no one dared to pass the message to to message the pass to dared one no s, h Ukhtanes that Kyron was exercising was Kyron that Ukhtanes h he Armenian katholikos Abraham too. Abraham katholikos Armenian he later. And Kyron did indeed exercise exercise indeed did Kyron And later. ffiliation was strogly determining the determining strogly was ffiliation e w wl se h ide ws the was indeed he see, will we ter l. h Amna hsoin always historians Armenian The tli. hmef Te esn o sc an such for reason The himself. o Once again, this might be a fully fully a be might this again, Once ig er o i sronig, once surroundings, his to fear ging tcllaesi o te onr too. country the of leadership itical ker in the matters of external policy external of matters the in ker es o hm Mroe, e was he Moreover, them. to ders hml ntr ad a quite was and nature humble a os and to the lords ofthat lords the to and os r who has full civil and Church Church and civil full has who r how then although they although then how ned. Due to tiredness he tiredness to Due ned. ith an evil heart, pale as pale heart, evil an ith glorified me too and too me glorified of how nobody dared nobody how of ure of the text and the “evil the and text the of ure e, and strengthened and e, re than any of my of any than re na n hw it how and enia yi a/-x35 & ba3/a-axo3x5 vyli n n CEU eTD Collection rvd ay motn cus o eosrcig i t his reconstructing to clues important any provide expul the even or bishop Nestorian a of appointment 94 93 92 d.ecclesiasticalThe II. 1. Kyronpolicy of two Churches. Movses, the katholikos of the Armenia ofthe katholikos theMovses, Churches. two i the was Kyron of act this against Movses expelled Kartl from Movses named bishop Armenian an expelled b Nestorian a received Kartli of katholikos alreday and Armenia of Churches the between schism the for the the Movses katholikos by trusted much was he contrary, suspici anything noticed nobody Armenia to returned with acquainted become have could he where Kolonia, bee have could beliefs early these but clearly surrounding, he Armenia) to adjacent it, of part souther The Heritage of Armenian Literature, 253. 253. Literature, Armenian of Heritage The province. Persian a – Khuzhastan from A person 102. Letters, of Book The gavar Now I hear that the divisions crept into your flock your into crept divisions the that hear I Now accepted by thebyfaithful. accepted o not should that he but honor, such knowing of worthy be never should shocked deeply was I hands. your It is very difficult to reconstruct Kyron’s dogmati Kyron’s reconstruct to difficult very is It it.write di nor answer an write he did neither that happened Although it would be naive to suppose that the reas the that suppose to naive be would it Although

khuzhik that heard: we what is That witnesses. faithful of the because believe did I later but first credence to rule. The first suspicion he attracted, which wa which attracted, he suspicion first The rule. to

93 92 came to you and received the ordination of the epi the of ordination the received and you to came

94

33

satrd hl h ws tyn in staying was he while shattered n mpetus for the discord between the the between discord the for mpetus grew up in an antiChalcedonian antiChalcedonian an in up grew ns wrote to Kyron: Kyron:to ns wrote sion of the Armenian one, it seems seems it one, Armenian the of sion ous in his “orthodoxy” and, on the on and, “orthodoxy” his in ous so i cmuin Bsds he Besides, communion. in ishop since he received a monastery and monastery a received he since elg. n eri (aey the (namely Georgia In heology. of Kartli, was much later when he when later much was Kartli, of the Chalcedonian faith. When he When faith. Chalcedonian the news reached me by way by me reached news certain man, a Nestorian a man, certain c stand; even his letters do not do letters his even stand; c . leel te rts o the of protest the Allegedly i. on for the schism was only the only was schism the for on , to which I gave little little gave I which to , d he let anybody else anybody let he d s actually the official reason official the actually s be punished and not and punished be nly such a man man a such nly scopate from scopate CEU eTD Collection preserved where he answers Kyron’s letter on how to howon letter Kyron’s heanswers where preserved problem is tha Kyron assigned a Nestorian Bishop to Bishop Nestorian a assigned Kyronthais problem Kis were students of a same Nestorian tutor. tutor. Nestorian sameofa students were Kis 98 97 96 95 ran and privileges the all them leave and communion Nes anathematize and Councils, Ecumenical the accept a Gregory’s Kartli. in Nestorians of number growing rebaptized, be should they whether or Chalcedon of is itwhether communion, inthem receive to how and letter A Church. Western the with contacts some had w behalf, own his on only acting not was Kyron that Quiricus or Quirinus. Quirinus. or Quiricus

ht yo floe Geoys ntutos n appo and instructions Gregory’s followed Kyron that 3& .naik osvngx [r vmn i a wa [ar i ybisgobos a.antavor ovsmanx [ar ovsovmnagixk & a.antagixk a3l& or y.&7 naqasaxyal orbes cydo35 Ca3l 3yzr yrgokyan pnagov;yamp Go.onia3` cava-en i Ho-omox` 3a,qarhen go3s5 dya-nago.mn i waryxav qsdov;yamp & qisd5 isg account of these events in a very polemical manner: veryinpolemical a ofevents these account The Book of Letters, 227. 227. Letters, of Book The 22. Ukhatnes, theolo Kyron’s/Kyros’ reconstructing of attempt An te Latin full the For 12041208. col. PL77. Migne, lteay o toe ofsig w ntrs, u h the but of natures], agency two c confessing the those in of coloured [litteraly: earlier h even Chalcedon, faith, of their Council himself the to loyal was Kyron Thus ee h stain see oecmlctd Ukhtan complicated. more even is situation the Here Khuzhik bishop secretely from Movses the katholikos the Movses secretely from bishop Khuzhik

overseer of the aliens [i.e. of the heretics].ofthe[i.e. aliensofthe overseer Kyr So teacher. evil same the of students evil were accomplic were both but village, same the from even the from Romans, the of land the ca He w Lord. the and enraged and land austere Lord’s the was to came he For bishop. a as ruthlessness, a appointed [Kyron] He the river Gail. I suppose that they were not only f only not were they that suppose I Gail. river the si being them of both Zutarima, called Nikopolis to 2y-natre ybisggobos mi qov=ig nysdoragan7 orovm ano orovm nysdoragan7 qov=ig mi ybisggobos 2y-natre

khuzhik

etra. n a si aoe e ran the ordaind he above said as And Nestorian. khuzhik gavar Nestorian called Kis, which means means which Kis, called Nestorian & i xamakov;ivn xasmamp pargaxo3x zDer1 Sa ygyal a- ygyal Sa zDer1 pargaxo3x xasmamp xamakov;ivn i & gar/ym o[ mia3n cava-agix mimyanx lyal ` gam cy.agi gam ` lyal mimyanx cava-agix mia3n o[ gar/ym 34 gy will be given in the fourth chapter. fourthchapter. inthe given be will gy i cy.]en` or go[i Zovdarmia35 myr2 i Nigobolis1 Yv Yv Nigobolis1 i myr2 Zovdarmia35 go[i or cy.]en` i

xt cf. appendix 1. Note that Gregory calles Kyron Kyron calles Gregory that Note 1. appendix cf. xt rtabydax7 & 2y-natre zna avdaradysov[` a3sinkn a3sinkn avdaradysov[` zna 2y-natre & rtabydax7 of Kolonia, from the village close village the from Kolonia, of 97

a Nestorian perish. Nestorian a deal with the Nestorians who repent,who Nestorians with the deal hen dealing with the Nestorians, but Nestorians, the with dealing hen enough for them to accept the creed creed the accept tothem for enough also how to deal generally with the with generally deal to how also nswer was that if Nestorians repent, Nestorians if that was nswer inted a Nestorian bishop, but the the but bishop, Nestorian a inted s hy had. they ks f oe rgr I 5064 is (540–604) I Gregory Pope of torius, he should receive them in them receive should he torius, on appointed him as the himas appointed on vn Gis go[ivr5 or e qsdov;ivn1 Kanzi er Kanzi qsdov;ivn1 e or go[ivr5 Gis vn rom the same the rom tuated at the banks of banks the at tuated rnwd t y the by it renewed e olours of Diphysites Diphysites of olours of the Armenians.ofthe es in the heresy and heresy the in es me [to Kyron] from Kyron] [to me es suspects that Kyron and Kyron that suspects es t rtlsns he ruthlessness ith vn hde in hidden aving 95 Oe ih suggest might One 96 gavar Ukhtanes gives Ukhtanes or 98

na na yn yn x5 x5 CEU eTD Collection bring them closer to him. He called a special counc special a called He him. to closer them bring arran to tried he that is fact the but Nestorianism, but generally Nestorians in Kartli. Kartli. in Nestorians generally but nobles and bishops.and nobles have we stage this at writings Kyron’s to According hr ws o a i dfeec bten h Chalcedo the between difference big a not was there Nestorianism of him accused sometimes and Armenians h Nsoin n omno atr i repentance. his after communion in Nestorian the the supsicious makes Nestorians by populated region fact The too. experience religeous personal own his poli the only not that later this argue to try will Per the from therefore and Church Armenian the from delibe a or Kyron of flaw serious a was this Either fr Movses of banishment of issue the on scandal the Kart of rulers the with consultations continual his 103 102 101 100 99 mentioned in an Armenian source. source. Armenian inan mentioned

orthodox.” an written not has he but Nestorians, the accepting “ confessses, himself he As Nestorians. the towards Kyro by communion in received was who Nestorian only nt vros hita dnmntos ne te rul the under denominations Christian various unite compromise dogmatic a on even perhaps and tolerance Kyr of policy ecclesiastical the suggests, Alexidze diocese Armenian an tolerated he region single a In co the unite to tried Chalcedonian a himself Kyron, to come back to the fold after they have acknowledg have they after fold the to back come to exchange greetings with him.” him.” with greetings exchange this Although I would not agree with idetyfying Nestori idetyfying with agree not would I Although 22530. Letters, of Book The 69. Letters, of Book The The Book of Letters, 82. 82. Letters, of Book The The heritage of Armenian Literature, 254. “I conclu “I 254. Literature, Armenian of heritage The khuzhik Ukhtanes suspected that Kyron was cooperating with cooperating was Kyron that suspected Ukhtanes ’s iniquity we rejected him at once and expelled hi expelled and once at him rejected we iniquity ’s 103 So it could be suggested that Kyron’s policy regar policy Kyron’s that suggested be could it So 100 So judging according to his religious policy one c one policy religious his to according judging So

35 ed their faults and have repented. But when we hear we when But repented. have and faults their ed ans with Chlacedonians every time the Nestorians ar Nestorians the time every Chlacedonians with ans

ded that it is lawful not to reject all those who w who those all reject to not lawful is it that ded tical goal was the motivation of Kyron but Kyron of motivation the was goal tical ge relationships with the Nestorians and Nestorians the with relationships ge ything else on the faith, that we are not are we that faith, the on else ything li. Everything seemed to go well until well go to seemed Everything li. 102 once he [Movses] was angry at me forme at wasangry he[Movses] once rate act as a signal of final separation final of signal a as act rate il on that issue and consulted with the with consulted and issue that on il untry and its religious denominations. denominations. religious its and untry om the bishopric of Tsurtavi occured. occured. Tsurtavi of bishopric the om o te erin Church, Georgian the of e I as ses ht i ws o the not was Kis that seems also It m from among us, charging people not to to not people charging us, among from m ht ae Nsoin ihp o a to bishop Nestorian a gave that n a bsd n n lot total almost an on based was on lis f yo ta h received he that Kyron of claims n a etra oe o. s Z. As too. one Nestorian a and o rud t “cue hm of him “accuse” to grounds no to achieve a political result – to – result political a achieve to sian dominion. I would say and and say would I dominion. sian too, although for the Armenians the for although too, in ad h Nestorians. the and nians ad e a seil policy special had he and n the Nestorians against the against Nestorians the ded not only one bishop one only not ded an conclude that conclude an 101 hence ish ish 99 d d e e

CEU eTD Collection betrayed the faith of Jerusalem. When katholikos Ab katholikos When Jerusalem. of faith the betrayed interpolation to diminish Kyron’s theological abili theological Kyron’s diminish to interpolation servant of the Persians. As regards the faith, he k he faith, the regards As Persians. the of w servant communion in being while that argued he world the th idea common the Manipulating politics. the about says: oneand hethis skips accusation Armenian K although enough, Interestingly natures.” “two the ( Illuminator the Gregory of and Jerusalem of faith late. toowas already manipulations,it just were 106 105 104 o= nnrn oi Mr 2r ak ak3 /-3 e /a-a3k arka3i harkn 2yr zhavad ymk5 arka3i arka3ix & /a-a3k & ;ebed no3nbes5 Myr ;ovi1 anhnarin 3o3= h /a-a3s ;acavorax avdar unt /a-a3ix arka3i arka3ix lyal ein5 [er y.yal & o[ mi der5 or amyna3n azci zi azci amyna3n or der5 mi o[ & y.yal [er ein5 lyal 3arka ork ymk5 yranyli a-avyl &s or[a' a33=m Dyark5 i aayd5 r o]3 spvyn 2r3 - y py myz a- 2yro3 srpov;yant ovnik1mi pni i qa'anyxak7 zo.]o3n or a,agyrds5 zim 3 & ca3i zi in25 er bard Pa3x ovsanin1 & ovsovxanyn or ar2agyl5 ybisgobosovns gameak ;e er5 cryal or Yv yn1 ;acavorov;ivnk ori, ori, ;e cryxeks5 tovk orbes kan zamyna3n ungyrax imox1 Yv arka3ix arka3 no3nbes arka3 arka3ix Yv imox1 ungyrax zamyna3n kan avy myro3 a,qarhi azadi isg havads7 krisdoneix zmyr The Book of Letters, 6972. 6972. Letters, of Book The Constantinopl of Flavian to I Leo of Tomethe I.e. I fc w cn o b sr, hte ti i really is this whether sure, be not can we fact In Now as what regards the faith, the council and the and council the faith, the regards what as Now As one can see, Kyron just skipped the issue of fai of issue the skipped just Kyron see, can one As side Armenian the from allegation grave second The country did not let.not did country migh tim bad they the but us, that to holiness your so from greetings you, to students sent have should b received have and Church holy your in prayed have I indeed But learn. might theyw and teach might they you if course, of teach, might they that so us to wanted you that wrote you Jerusalem...When of faith a have we kings, of king the of servants the are we yo th and we And of Jerusalem. of servants faith the the had meanwhile were father your re as we well that as and Ours king alien an with faith common have servant the we, that you for unimaginable is it say

106 Isg a3n5 or wasn havadox & =o.owo3n & dovmarin crya dovmarin & =o.owo3n & havadox wasn or a3n5 Isg

vr avrens i wyra3 ;o.yal er5 orbes a3s der y;o.5 & & y;o.5 der a3s orbes er5 ;o.yal wyra3 i avrens vr a.av;s ga3i i sovrp ygy.yxist & i 2en] avrhnei7 gam avrhnei7 2en] i & ygy.yxist sovrp i ga3i a.av;s ties, as Ukhtanes does. does. Ukhtanes as ties, 3ix arka3i /a-a3ov;yan hasyal ymk1 Zi min[ yrgink & yrgink min[ Zi ymk1 hasyal /a-a3ov;yan arka3i 3ix ca3in & ovsovxanein7 ;e gamik ar2agyxek5 ;o. zi ca zi ;o. ar2agyxek5 gamik ;e ovsovxanein7 & ca3in 36 li kan zamyna3n a,qarhax5 & pari an2ins imo3` lavac imo3` an2ins pari & a,qarhax5 zamyna3n kan li e. e. zyrovsa.emi ovnimk & galxovk1 Zi ;e xa3=m qonsovnt xa3=m ;e Zi galxovk1 & ovnimk zyrovsa.emi der e Ho-omox5 orbes & diryax a,qarhi7 & [e a3sbes [e & a,qarhi7 diryax & orbes Ho-omox5 e der avadi i zovcax ovnyl & zpnagan ha.ortagixs ovranal` ha.ortagixs zpnagan & ovnyl zovcax i avadi rein7 pa3x wasn [ar =amanagis & a,qarhi garyax garyax a,qarhi & =amanagis [ar wasn pa3x rein7

in5 & zhavad zYrovsa.ymi ovnein1 Yv myk & tovk tovk & myk Yv ovnein1 zYrovsa.ymi zhavad & in5 104 Kyron’s diplomatic tactic, or later Armenian Armenian later or tactic, diplomatic Kyron’s

c. 257–331) and received the heresy of heresy the received and 257–331) c. ept insisting that the Georgians never Georgians the that insisting ept at there can not be two emperors in emperors two be not can there at raham discovered that these words words these that discovered raham rn nwr eey on o the of point every answers yron t Bznim e ean the remains he Byzantium ith nd will always have the the have always will nd th and directly started to speak to started directly and th es and the needs of the the of needs the and es should have come and come have should s of the , of king the of s ish, send them so that so them send ish, Tome lessing from you or I or you from lessing was that Kyron betrayed the the betrayed Kyron that was to send the bishops the send to kn o kns but kings of king e hv bogt the brought have t u as well, although well, as u et h relatives. the ject 105 and that you that and l er5 & za3s cryal er5 ;e ;e er5 cryal za3s & er5 l manavant manavant ar2agyl ar2agyl yrgir yrgir n or or n ein ein o3n o3n 5

CEU eTD Collection before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very Light, of Light God, of God worlds, all before Marzpan Marzpan Councils, saying that this is his faith and that th that and faith his is this that saying Councils, gave and longer any issue the discuss to going not visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ Jesus Lord one in And invisible; and visible Father the God, one in believe “I this: like sound close to himself. himself. to close whenkat away, right Kyron against reacted he said, resistance Armenian the of rid get to order in act expelling that, seems It all. at faith Chalcedonian the in faith his compromised even He Armenians. the ba to tried he character, ruthless his showed Kyron h ls lte o Krn ouetd in documented Kyron of letter last the 110 109 108 107 their faith from of Gregory the Illuminat the ofGregory times the from faith their says: says: “mistake great a commits Kyron it quoting while But Father the with substance himself. Kyron’s answer was equally irritated butirritateds equally was answer Kyron’s himself. is Jerusalem now Jerusalem, of faith the has Kyron t reality in that suggesting and Jerusalem of faith him accused directly Abraham now him, manipulating I can’t find the explanation for such a mistake, it mistake, a such for explanation the find can’t I While giving an account of the First Council of Ni of Council First the of account an giving While 8891. Letters, of Book The 7679. Letters, of Book The 43 Sebeos, to Attributed History Armenian The See: similar to the Father the to similar To the third letter of Abraham, Kyron, completely o completely Kyron, Abraham, of letter third the To

Kyron’s second letter is even more obscure: An answ An obscure: more even is letter second Kyron’s The second letter of Abraham is already quite irrit quite already is Abraham of letter second The of

Vrkan His main argument still is still that the Geo the that still is still argument main His Vrkan ; by whom all things were made...” made...” were things all whom by; . thus quoting the exact opposite of the Nicean cre Nicean the of opposite exact the quoting thus .

is highly improbable that this is a mere mistake.. mere a is this that improbable highly is h Bo o Letters of Book The Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all thi all of and earth, and heaven of maker Almighty, , the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Fat his of begotten God, of Son begotten only the , 37 God of very God, begotten, not made, made, not begotten, God, very of God ” instead of saying one substance with the father, father, the with substance one saying of instead ”

. . cea Kyron quotes the Nicean creed, which should should which creed, Nicean the quotes Kyron cea e discussion is closed on that.on closed is discussion e or. againt the policy of Kyron. As Movses As Kyron. of policy the againt of the Armenian bishop was a forced forced a was bishop Armenian the of till diplomatic. till lance and not strain the relations with relations the strain not and lance holikos started to bring the Nestorians bringtothe started holikos i ws pa o wrs O course Of words. of play a was his 108 a brief account of four Ecumenical Ecumenical four of account brief a sense that he was not stressing his stressing not was he that sense n ad o hrtc js a Kyron as just heretics of hands in

of lying that they both have the have both they that lying of utraged, answered that he was he that answered utraged, ated. He saw that Kyron was Kyron that saw He ated. er to Smbat Bagratuni Smbat to er Utl h vr ed when end, very the Until . rgians have not changed changed not have rgians ed – the faith of the the of faith the – ed 109

110 being of one of being This wasThis .. .. Homians. Homians. 107 the ngs ngs her her he he CEU eTD Collection brave opposition to the Persians as well as the att the as well as Persians the to opposition brave place, conducted by Kyron. The whole country was pr was country whole The Kyron. by conducted place, uncompromising Armenian antiChalcedonians. antiChalcedonians. Armenian uncompromising

n ut ap] nyl [ iy znbs asn Asyn qavsin1 zin[bes cidyn a3tr & ha.ortimk o[ angyal parpa] unt in[ The nobles of Kartli wrote a letter to Vrthaness Kh Vrthaness toletter wrotea ofKartli nobles The sa be can same The unpredictable. completely seemed Ukhtanes confirms that Kyron already hadsomeagree already that Kyron confirms Ukhtanes received also he that of top on and faith, Armenian a not did he hand other the on Chalcedonian, was he fr invasion possible the about aware was and Romans th infer I dominion. Persian under still was Kartli sense political the in although Chalcedonians, were those in that is fact The not. or Chalcedonian was Ka of stand dogmatic the what clear not still is It 112 111 e.Kyron’s international II. 1. policy The keeper of the throne throne the of keeper The The Book of Letters, 45. 45. Letters, of Book The el s or at, o. e omnct te at h too. faith the communicate We too. faith, your as well say: They about. speaking is he what know not does i h sy ntig o h kn [.. esa ] Persian [i.e. king the to anything say he did d the agr on emperor in the inform was not could he he so that Greeks, will, Kyron’s knew trusted a he servant, Orthodoxy, God’s and man good a Armenians, It is not surprising that the Armenians were puzzle were Armenians the that surprising not is It Some Some ma, bu wo I led si ta h ws the was he that said already I whom about Smbat, tha me to seems It strange. quite is statement This 112

aznaurs wrote me something proper to ravings of a sick man sick a of ravings to proper something me wrote φύλαξ το θρνου το φύλαξ & zor araryaln isg e a- is azad aranx omanx a3nbes a3nbes omanx aranx azad is a- e isg araryaln zor &

of the Armenian κatholikos in 604607 – he was one was he – 604607 in κatholikos Armenian the of 38

5 myk & za3s ovnimk havad & za3t5 avrinax asd asd avrinax za3t5 & havad ovnimk za3s & myk 5 empt to create a union. On the one hand one the On union. a create to empt times in the purely dogmatic stand they stand dogmatic purely the in times rtli was prior to the schism, whether it whether schism, the to prior was rtli erdol. t yo hd oe elns ih the with dealings some had Kyron at they did not want to draw strict lines. strict draw to want not did they Nsoin ret n communion. in priest Nestorian a ment with the Romans: Romans: thewith ment id about the lay of Kartli. of nobility lay the about id eparing for some serious changes. serious some for eparing m h ws, ec hs im and firm his hence west, the om mt o en dfeet rm the from different being to dmit 111 d; Kyron’s behavior must have must behavior Kyron’s d; Vrthaness says: says: Vrthaness sm cnprc hd taken had conspiracy some t We have this faith as faith this have We eas h ke it knew he because eeds of Kyron. Nor Kyron. of eeds r ad ih you, with and ere a ad im in firm and man eet ih the with eement Marzpan e` ork i hivantov;yan hivantov;yan i ork e` of the the of , who , the mostthe CEU eTD Collection both. Both Maurice and Phocas were strongly involve strongly were Phocas and Maurice Both both. and all the Orthodox countries and join you? join and countries Orthodox the all Ortho and counts the of multitude the betray we can “How says: Roma the of kingdom the therefore and Arians the of Pers of king “The theology: political conceptual of d giva and diplomat able wasan He accusations. the This known. is cre to want Jerusalem not did Kyron Persia. from independence of patriarch the and pope corre His bishops: Orthodox the with communications Ky that impo seems It be katholikoi. two to of excommunication out turned this but faith, of issues the Kings and make friends and unity with an alien king alien an with unity and friends make and Kings Roman is evident, but what was the reward for the c the for reward the was what but evident, is Roman 117 116 115 114 113 ir o.s ce - paa & - ma7 e gyxovsxe ;e Smpad7 a- & 'a na kanzi zarka35 'a-avorysxe ;eAsdova/ Apraham tar2yal5 a- cre ;ov.;sn 3ivr hram nora & Givroni` unt e miapan y;e ga3syr5 zgams k /ano3x7 arka3i o[ & na Givrone5 i zyryals ga3syr Givr zgams cider ov..a'a-ov;yan5 havads i hasdadovn have been very interested in having local support i support having inlocal very interested been have h could to refers Ukhtanes whom emperor The Empire. in politics own its made and state strong a already first the By unification. political final their to K of unification ecclesiastical the towards further the of granting the exactly been have might reward Ukhtanes, 40. Ukhtanes, See Whtiby, 276305. 276305. Whtiby, See durin Alexandria of Kyros of policy the to Compare 68. Letters, of Book The 68. Letters, of Book The As one can see, until the very end Kyron tried to s to tried Kyron end very the until see, can one As odce udr i order, his under conducted about informed an Kyron with agreement wasin he that too, emperor was he Meanwhile pointless. be would baa hd odrdi hslte o yo hw he how Kyron to letter his in wondered had Abraham the emperor as the emperor blessed our country. ourcountry. blessed emperor asthe emperor the Smba to and Abraham to letters his in says he which Y v man zre sxk ; mrbn r ao5 3 p a3r Ha3ox5 er marzban ;e asaxak` zorme Smpadn` Yv

because quite suspicious are Kyron’s words, words, Kyron’s are suspicious quite because anzi cider ` y;e o[in[ avcdi7 miancama3n & imaxyal & miancama3n avcdi7 o[in[ y;e ` cider anzi an` ase` cor/n a3n7 kanzi gar/is da3 myz pann Givro pann myz da3 gar/is kanzi a3n7 cor/n ase` an` 39 -avoryax -avoryax g the Arab conquest of Egypt. Egypt. of conquest Arab gthe

oni` y;e 2a3nagix y.& Ho-omox5 o[ garax zcaxovxanyl garax o[ Ho-omox5 y.& 2a3nagix y;e oni` soa zasn z n z,ah mr yox Yv gyxo3x1 myr za,qarhs na zi zga3srn5 Asdova/ decade of the seventh century Kartli was Kartli century seventh the of decade n the Caucasus.the n artli and Egrisi, which would have led have would which Egrisi, and artli ia is the lord of the Romans as well as well as Romans the of lord the is ia dependent from Persia or the Roman the or Persia from dependent iplomatic answer with the knowledge knowledge the with answer iplomatic dom ” ate a tension with the Armenians yet, Armenians the with tension a ate ooperation with the Romans? the with ooperation title of archbishop of Lazika, a step a Lazika, of archbishop of title sbe n edd ih h mutual the with ended and ssible d in antiPersian politics and would and politics antiPersian in d 115 spondence at least with the Roman the with least at spondence ron had a plan to establish strong establish to plan a had ron ns is not alien to us” and later he later and us” to alien not is ns 113 Thus the fact that Kyron is pro is Kyron that fact the Thus dox bishops, the kings and the the and kings the bishops, dox 114 v be Muie r hcs or Phocas or Maurice been ave ettle the discord and not tackle not and discord the ettle

ol hv ld o political to led have would . Kyron himself did not reject not did himself Kyron . d that everything was everythingthat d t that may God bless God may that t ari5 & paryba,d5 & havadarim5 & & havadarim5 & paryba,d5 & ari5 ol bta te ig of King the betray could h wl o the of will the 117

116 ni` zor ni` isg er er isg The

CEU eTD Collection uey eiiu mtvs I ol sget ht both that suggest would I motives. religious purely

ahlks f ati t l ad eeal o n rep no of generally and all at Kartli of katholikos ne given is officials Church the of list The faith. Chalcedonian were who those and beginning the from b had who Those groups: two in council the attended of details the gives former the which in (641–668) Armenia of katholikos the Nerses of letter a quotes Kartli. The most logical place, frequently used for used frequently logicalmostplace, The Kartli. taking were Persians the when century, seventh the th in allies proPersian and Persians the among figure unpopular strong find to trying was he Caucasus; Kyron’s actions. actions. Kyron’s this, on agreed have never would hand, other the on a and rule Persian the against treason a was Kyron han one the on authors, Armenian other and Ukhtanes ther or politics the by purely determined was stand compromis who those was notamong he and exile into Ky time that by that mea migh silecne this likehood 121 120 119 118 diseaseand stomach a specifiedcontracted not are Ukth to According Kyron. Katholikos as him mentions from flee to forced Chal was and attempt the his in succeed on based them, with union a make to hoping h “rein Faith.” “Armenian the th ordered he where Council” “Persian socalled the King Vakhtang and then Gurgen, both found asylum i asylum found both Gurgen, then and Vakhtang King 11617. Sebeos, to Attributed History Armenian The stand. antiChalcedonian the I.e. 262. Letters. of Book The

Kyron became an uncompromising opponent of Persian Persian of opponent uncompromising an became Kyron It is difficult to judge, due to the nature of the of nature the to due judge, to difficult is It After capturing Jerusalem, supposedly around 617, K 617, around supposedly Jerusalem, capturing After 119 Te uevsr f h cucl a Sbt Bagratuni. Smbat was council the of supervisor The

40

n Lazika. nLazika. xt but there is no mention of Kyron the the Kyron of mention no is there but xt political exile, was Lazika.was exile, political died in severe pain. severeindied political movement. Arseni of Sapara, of Arseni movement. political ns (641–661) to Emperor Constans II Constans Emperor to (641–661) ns e was something more behind it. For it. behind more something was e Kartli. From this moment on, no text no on, moment this From Kartli. claiming that Kyron was moved by moved was Kyron that claiming ron had already left Kartli and gone and Kartli left already had ron Armenians. In the second decade of decade second the In Armenians. at all the Christians should receive receive should Christians the all at esn wr bhn te oi of logic the behind were reasons sources, whether Kyron’s dogmatic dogmatic Kyron’s whether sources, h cucl h dvds hs who those divides he council, the d, it was clear that these actions of actions these that clear was it d, ed. ed. Rmn ad hrfr ws an was therefore and Romans e eettv fo Kartli. from resentative vr Krn a fre t leave to forced was Kyron over, taness Kyron, whose whereabouts whereabouts whose Kyron, taness e srat o te esa king Persian the of servants een u hd eevd h Armenian the received had but eoin at. yo dd not did Kyron faith. cedonian hosrau (590–628) convened (590–628) hosrau 118 oiac i the in dominance

121

120 Sebeos I all In CEU eTD Collection patriarchate of Kyros.of patriarchate been some single authority over these two regions w regions two these over authority single some been Nation 1 Nation Monuments) (Tbilisi: Georgian Academy of Sciences P Sciences of Academy Georgian (Tbilisi: Monuments) shaped churches are built all over Georgia – in Laz in – Georgia over all built are churches shaped o beginning the In authority. ecclesiastical single ecclesiastic an like something by tied closely were se and sixth the in that suggest arguments more Two Marr and I. Javakhishvili in the sixth and seventh seventh and Geo western the invade sixth to began elements linguistic the in Javakhishvili I. and Marr 125 124 123 122 Thechurchesrelations theII. 2. of and of western

kavkasiaSi VI saukuneSi” VI kavkasiaSi 103110 103110 archbishop ofEgrisi archbishop kathol the Kyron that says directly who 897–925) in Draskhanaker Hovanes by provided is problem this to suggest would One relations. close in were Georgia t of beginning the by archaeology) and (linguistics stronger. stronger. that evident, is thing one but century sixth the of tie the kind what exactly of clear, not still is it century, something like unity may already have exis have already may unity like something century, Alexidze Z. as but studied, fully yet not is Kartli A for Lazika, modern Samegrelo. Samegrelo. modern Lazika, for name A Georgian [Ivane Javakhishvili] Javakhishvili] [Ivane Te ok f etr, 90; lo Zz Alexidze] [Zaza also 191201; Letters, of Book The [iri hbnsvl] ири Чбншии Памятн Чубинашвили, Гиоргий Chubinashvili] [Giorgi ). (Tbilisi: Tbilisi University Press, 1979) Press, University Tbilisi (Tbilisi: ). The question of the relationship between the Church the between relationship the of question The hs s h mi cu fr h ietfcto. o ac So identification. the for clue main the is This

125 ivane javaxiSvili, qarTveli eris istoria 1 istoria eris qarTveli javaxiSvili, ivane 123 [The Religeous Situation in the Caucasus in the si the in Caucasus the in Situation Religeous [The or the metropolitan of Lazika: Lazika: of metropolitan orthe Another interesting coincidence: According to the the to According coincidence: interesting Another

, 56. 56. 41 s between Egrisi and Kartli were in the turn turn the in were Kartli and Egrisi between s

ress, 1948), 8283. 8283. 1948), ress, the bonds were becoming stronger and stronger becoming were bonds the proposes, by the beginning of seventh seventh of beginning the by proposes, he seventh century eastern and western and eastern century seventh he te eet cnuy h sm cross same the century seventh the f al unity and were maybe even under a under even maybe were and unity al ika and in Kartli – coinciding with the with coinciding – Kartli in and ika

rgian linguistic area. linguistic rgian hich would unite them. The solution The them. unite would hich ted between these two Churches.two these between ted aa aleqsiZe. zaza hti ti aetee hud have should there case this in that ики типа Джвари (The Crossshaped Crossshaped (The Джвари типа ики ks f ati a mawie the meanwhile was Kartli of ikos tatsi (katholikos of the Armenians the of (katholikos tatsi et cnuis ati n Lazika and Kartli centuries venth etre te atr Georgian eastern the centuries odn t nnrte sources nonwritten to cording of Lazika and the Church of Church the and Lazika of eastern Georgia ( xth century] century] xth h Hsoy f h Georgian the of History The

“religiuri situacia situacia “religiuri 124 Matsne At this stage this At studies of N. of studies 3 (1973), (1973), 3 122

CEU eTD Collection exactl when is problem The Herakleios. with meeting sources Armenian or Georgian no are there knowledge Tbilisi State University Press, 1937), 9. 9. 1937), Press, University State Tbilisi aia n dsuss h ise of issues the discusses and Lazika h s cle “esa cucl h hd o le and activit his he continued where Lazika, to– eparchy flee to had he council” “Persian called so the After yet. Empire Roman the from backup sufficient f policy His ruler. proByzantine a and country the po a was He Egrisi. of archbishop the meanwhile was saqarTveloSi 128 127 126 Lazika InII. 3. ahlkst ws oe oe te ag o Lki It Likhi. one.which from out find to impossible of range the ot some from information this has Draskhanakertatsi over moved was katholikosate Georgia western the over influence his had already title in the Armenian sources.Armenian the in title enforcin for or policy proRoman the to back Kartli Roma the from eparchy Georgian western the received 628 and notedabov As Persia. and Byzantium between divided 616 years the between not and rule Kyron’s 123. 123. Javakhishvili 1, 301. 301. 1, Javakhishvili [Ioane Drasxanak’ert’eli] Drasxanak’ert’eli] [Ioane Se h Bo o Ltes 18 11 [io Janashi [Simon 171; – 168 Letters, of Book the See Synod Kyrion as the archibishop of Kartli, ofGugar ofKartli, archibishop the as Kyrion Synod t ordained Armenians] the of katholikos [the Movses Kyros of Phasis emerges in history for the first ti first the for history in emerges Phasis of Kyros So to sum up, according to the Armenian sources Kyr sources Armenian the to according up, sum to So s oe b I Jvkihii ti suc indicates source this Javakhishvili, I. by noted As (Feudal Revolution in Georgia) (Tbilisi: Georgian Georgian (Tbilisi: Georgia) in Revolution (Feudal ioane drasxanakerteli ioane 128

energeia 127 This could have been true only in the period of period the in only true been have could This 42

. Translated and edited by Ilia Abuladze. (Tbilisi: (Tbilisi: Abuladze. Ilia by edited and Translated n hit ih i. o h bs o my of best the To him. with Christ in a] a] y now as the bishop of Lazika. Lazika. bishopof the as now y ailed in Kartli, because there was not was there because Kartli, in ailed g Dyophisitism and hence his second his hence and Dyophisitism g simon janaSia, janaSia, simon her source, but for the moment it is it moment the for but source, her the intervention of the Persians and Persians the of intervention the e, it might be suggested that Kyron that suggested be might it e, upsdy i s t hs western his to so did supposedly n te odr o te Georgian the of borders the and n emperor as a reward for turning for reward a as emperor n litical and ecclesiastical leader of leader ecclesiastical and litical which would mention him or his or him mention would which Academy of Sciences Press, 1949), 122 1949), Press, Sciences of Academy ti meig apnd n at and happened meeting this y me when he meets Herakleios in Herakleios meets he when me hn bra n Lzk were Lazika and Iberia when k and ofEgrisi. and k ht h ktoio o Kartli of katholikos the that he head of the Holy the of head he s la ta Hovanes that clear is on the katholikos of Katli of katholikos the on feodaluri revolucia revolucia feodaluri 126

CEU eTD Collection places. hs etn to pae n aia r n Hierapolis, in or Lazika in place took meeting this Herakleios whether clear, completely not also is It met Herakleios. Herakleios. met S and w Kyros Theophanes to according Thus, Athanasios convictions. of that to agreeing were three all that saw and Constantinople Kyros of stand Phasi dogmatic of bishop the called and Athanasius theolo patriarch in engaged was he where Hieropolis in stayed eris erns eet te tr ams wr fo word almost story the repeats Kedrenos Georgios Monothelit a Kyros calls directly he that exception 131 130 129 Th to According campaign. Herakleios’ of stage what vol. III (Cambridge: Cambrdige University Pres, 199 Pres, University Cambrdige (Cambridge: III vol. See: J.R Martindale, “Cyrus, Patriarch of Alexandr of Patriarch “Cyrus, Martindale, J.R See: 142. Kaegi, 461; Confessor, Theophanes

Theophanes Confessor, 461. Confessor, Theophanes 130 rpudd n rtn oe aua wl ad n ener one and will natural one writing in propounded bishop ofAlexandria. bishop isl o Sra oii, h sn f aoie paren Jacobite of son Fo the energy. origin, one the Syrian and of will himself one the on fou and Sergios questioned with he whom Phasis, of bishop Kyros, Constantin of bishop Sergios, to wrote and language discon was emperor The enquired single. or double also Christ, in and Christ the how namely wills, the in and energy the concerning united are and that council the natures accept to pretended he So makeAntioch. would he Chalcedon, of Council the accepted he Herakleios and religion, about discussion a emperor S to native is that cunning the with filled was who skil The him. to came Athanasios, Jacobites, the of Hi in was Herakleios emperor the while year this In Theophanes Confessor tells the story that on his wa his on that story the tells Confessor Theophanes

heresy. And when George of Alexandria had died, Kyr died, had Alexandria wouldof George when And heresy. nature latte the but Rome, of one Pope John, to men two the of recognized, was empe the matter this in assured Being acknowledged. activity one only th For tw them. with these agreement in of was too, views Athanasios, the with satisfied being emperor,

For the full Greek text cf. appendix 2. appendix cf. text Greek full the For 131

43 2), 377378. 377378. 2), ia”. ia”.

The prosopography of the Later Roman Empire Roman Later the of prosopography The e, so according to Kedrenus Kyros had Kyros Kedrenus to according so e, met Kyros once or twice, or whether or twice, or once Kyros met with each other in their Monenergist Monenergist their in other each with s hohns lis o i both in or claims, Theophanes as eophanes it happened in 627/628.in happened it eophanes as already a Monothelite when he when Monothelite a already as fr oni. e oprd the compared He council. for s ia dbts ih h Jacobite the with debates gical yrians, took up with the with up took yrians,

y to the Caucasus, Herakleios Caucasus, the to y ople, he also called in called also he ople, erapolis, the patriarch the erapolis, promised him that if that him promised u ad ikd man, wicked and ful r did not accept their their accept not did r ror wrote the opinion the wrote ror etd y hs novel this by certed defined be would se e latter knew that if that knew latter e mn fud that found men, o ofse te two the confessed ris te arac of patriarch the ergios, s cnesd and confessed ts, y n hit The Christ. in gy of the emperor emperor the of os was sent to be to sent was os i ptirh of patriarch him d i agreeing him nd Sris being Sergios, r wr wt te only the with word r hrb be thereby 129 ,

CEU eTD Collection Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum Historiae Annuarium accept their doctrine their accept together and stand Monothelite a taken already had Monothelites, Monothelites,

h ifrain f hohns n Gogo Kedrenos Georgios Sergios of letter One Phasis: of and Kyros on documents Theophanes of information the ht letter. that (Turnhout: Brepols, 2003), 118. 118. 2003), Brepols, (Turnhout: Athanasius.” of Kyros with Herakleios in Lazika, in Herakleios with Kyros of Oaks, 1979), 2142; J. Polemis, Polemis, J. 2142; 1979), Oaks, sometimes as the patriarch of Alexandria and someti and Alexandria of patriarch the as sometimes can conclude from his letter to Sergios of Constant of Sergios to letter his from conclude can Mono accept to him by persuaded contrary on was and Kyro that seems it Constantinople of Council Second latt the by doctrine the accept to persuaded he was Monenergism/Monothe of initiator and author the was 142 141 140 139 138 137 136 135 134 133 132 and Constantinople of Sergios to wrote Emperor the will and energies confess one should how on Emperor H to talked he before even inclinations Monothelite Herakleios in Lazika, discussed with him the Christ the him with discussed Lazika, in Herakleios historio the by attested unanimously and undisputed n ta ltr e a taserd o Alexandria. to transferred was he later that and Vetus ey etr e s etoe a te arac o Ale of patriarch the as mentioned is he letter very Se by Lazs the of metropolitan the as referred also On Kyros of Phasis and his transfer to Alexandria Alexandria to transfer his and Phasis of Kyros On 25. 534, 2, II, ACO 586 17; 584, 15; 16; 578, 562, 20; 526, 2, II, ACO 1–530. 528, 2, II ACO 7–592. 588, 2, II ACO 14–590. 588. 15–21, 584. II, ACO a. 333 91, PG Homologetes. Maximus ButtnerWobst T. Bekker, I. For a detailed analysis of Kyros’ writings see cha see writings Kyros’ analysis of detailed a For KH Tean “i dm nsais iats zugesch Sinaites Anastasios dem “Die Themann, K.H. [Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, Series Washi Series Byzantinae, Historiae Fontium [Corpus Georgius Cedrenus Ioannis Scylitzae opera Scylitzae Ioannis Cedrenus Georgius 138 132 I te cs f h svnh cmncl oni Kyro Council Ecumenical seventh the of acts the In John Zonaras also suggests that when Herakleios as Herakleios when that suggests also Zonaras John n fud u ta te wr bt o te ae posit same the on both were they that out found and , Ioannis Zonarae epitomae historiarum libri xvii libri historiarum epitomae Zonarae Ioannis , 133 and almost the same is told by PseudoAnastasius. by told is same the almost and Theodori Dexii Opera Omnia Opera Dexii Theodori 14 (1982), 7786. 7786. (1982), 14

136 letter of Kyros to Sergios, to Kyros of letter pter 4 of the present thesis. thesis. present the of 4 pter 44 , 2. , 2.

see also J.M. Duffy, and J. Parker, Parker, J. and Duffy, J.M. also see , 2 vols. (Bonn: Weber, 1:1838; 2: 1839), 736. 736. 1839), 2: 1:1838; Weber, (Bonn: 2vols. , 141 ngtonensis 15] (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Dumbarton D.C.: (Washington, 15] ngtonensis riebene Synopsis de hareresibus et synodis,” synodis,” et hareresibus de Synopsis riebene er, because if we follow the acts of the the of acts the follow we if because er, inople. rgios in his letter to Honorius. In this In Honorius. to letter his in rgios Te ny usin s hte Kyros whether is question only The ological problem of problem ological erakleios: “He [Athanasius] asked the asked [Athanasius] “He erakleios: with Sergios persuaded Herakleios to Herakleios persuaded Sergios with [ adi a well. as xandria to Kyros, to graphers about Kyros: That he met he That Kyros: about graphers me as bishop of Phasis. of bishop as me Corpus Christianorum, Series GraecaSeries Christianorum, Corpus s spoke about this with Herakleios with this about spoke s theletism. At least this is what one what is this least At theletism. s in Christ, single or double, and double, or single Christ, in s eim oehr ih ego, or Sergios, with together letism , vol. 3. (Bonn: Weber, 1897), 213. 1897), Weber, (Bonn: 3. vol. , 142 called Kyros of Phasis, Phasis, of Kyros called But as I will argue later, not later, argue will I as But , we have the following following the have we , 135 137 the story of the dispute the of story the answer of Sergios onSergios of answer ked Kyros, the latter the Kyros, ked 140 S to at are facts two So energeia i mentioned is s 134 The 139 Other than Other

Kyros is Kyros and will and o that ion Synodicon Synodicon both 55]

CEU eTD Collection Not everything in his meeting with the Emperor is r is Emperor the with meeting his in everything Not appointed the patriarch of Alexandria.” Alexandria.” of patriarch the appointed distingui already was He Constantinople. with first wa Kyros But Church. Orthodox the join to Armenians specia under that Kyros to separation clear was It Katholikos. the in resulted which movement strong a aiu hsoin, oh re ad Armenian. and Greek both historians, various H of army the in part crucial a taking where t Abazgs of course political the for responsible was Kyros figures is important. important. is figures Hildesheim: Olms, 1963), 311313; The Armenian Hist Armenian The 311313; 1963), Olms, Hildesheim: 145 144 143 Preliminary II. conclusions 4. tho to connected h were Phasis moreover, of Kyros Bolotov, of activities V. by noticed already was This even later was he that much so period the of events the and controversywhole ofthe initiator the was persua was Kyros that case the just not was it only ooo’ iesae aty erroneous, partly are ideas Bolotov’s the of writings The history. Church the from erased the Caucasus. Caucasus. the h about and iss background Kyros’ about knew Herakleios that on consulted Herakleios whom first the was i very been have to seems Kyros Herakleios. of army L the guided who Kyros been have would it therefore unde been have should it Georgia, western of region Bolotov, 453. Bolotov, The Church of Kartli has not been under the Armeni the under been hasnot Kartli of Church The Se fr example: for See, As no political authority is known in Lazika at tha at Lazika in known is authority political no As

yo o Pai hs las en ed mseiu f mysterious a held been always has Phasis of Kyros As I have already pointed out, both Kyros of Phasis of Kyros both out, pointed already have I As “ Kyros of Phasis is one of the most interesting figu interesting most the of one is Phasis of Kyros

hohns chronographia Theophanis

144 te at ht e nutvl cnetd hs two these connected intuitively he that fact the vl 1 e. . e or Lizg Tunr 18, r 1883, Teubner, (Leipzig: Boor de C. ed. 1, vol. , l conditions it would have been possible to persuad to possible been have would it conditions l andom. Not long before that in Kartli Kyron has sta has Kyron Kartli in that before long Not andom. 45 hd n eecsd get uhrt ad ial wa finally and authority great a exercised and shed an supremacy by the end of the sixth century. century. sixth the of end the by supremacy an

ory Attributed to Sebeos, 216. 216. Sebeos, to Attributed ory of part of his Diocese from that of the Armenian Armenian the of that from Diocese his of part of s careful and wanted to establish good relationship good establish to wanted and careful s 145 one who elaborated the doctrine. doctrine. the elaborated who one Wie bzi ws northwestern a was Abazgia While former were burned as a result of the of result a as burned were former ded to accept Monotheletism, but he but Monotheletism, accept to ded r the jurisdiction of the see of Phasis, of see the of jurisdiction the r erakleios is unanimously attested by attested unanimously is erakleios appointed patriarch of Alexandria. of patriarch appointed nterested in the affairs in Kartli. He Kartli. in affairs the in nterested e ein Te at ht as and Lazs that fact The region. he e f yo o Kartli. of Kyron of se is role in the religious situation in situation religious the in role is ue and, maybe, exactly because because exactly maybe, and, ue z ad bzs no onn the joining into Abazgs and azs res in history and maybe even mystical: mystical: even maybe and history in res t time, one might conclude that conclude might one time, t ntcd ht oeo the somehow that noticed e and katholikos Kyron were were Kyron katholikos and gr, h ifune the influenced who igure,

143 Although e the e rted rted epr. s s s CEU eTD Collection under lifeofhis yearsten lastthe spent he where tra soon was He Herakleios. with together now union Phas of Kyros rule), Persian the from fugitives the epar western (his Lazika for left he supposedly and Egrisi. of archbishop of title the had Kyron Kartli t suggested be can it far so presented evidence the because Church Georgian of diptychs the from erased he – Kyron with same The Council. Ecumenical Sixth 46

the much hated name of AlMukaukas. ofhatednameAlMukaukas. much the Soon after Kyron had to leave Kartli, leave to had Kyron after Soon is emerged and conducted a policy of policy a conducted and emerged is hat besides the title of katholikos of katholikos of title the besides hat chy and a usual political asylum for asylum political usual a and chy he was a heretic too. In the light of light the In too. heretic a was he serd o h seo Alexandria of see the to nsferred hud ae en deliberately been have should CEU eTD Collection politics through dogmatic compromises. dogmatic through politics plausible if the identification of Kyros with Katho with Kyros of identification the if plausible h Amnas n koig l te ocig ons o th perhaps points had touching he Moreover the theologies. Chalcedonian all knowing and Armenians the politics, Church and diplomacy in background strong

147 146 in Constantinople for example. The reason for this for reason The example. for Constantinople in not do convictions Monothelite his and “proselyte” rul patriarchal the of intricacies the know not did appare who Phasis, Kyrosof precisely whyis arises ye n 3 Ahnsu ws hre o uig extreme using of charged was Athanasius 335 in Tyre W too. authorities, civic controlled and influenced not dominated was power patriarch’s the fr Alexandria Especially emperor. the by appointed compe authorities more much were and power and influence strong andecclesiastica ofkindwhat political understand review brief a Church, no Egyptian the is of it development Although politician. Church experienced an See Kyron’s Nestorian and Armenian policy. policy. Armenian and Nestorian Kyron’s See 518. Butler, n 3 Krs eae arac o Aeadi. h le The Alexandria. of patriarch became Kyros 631 In As early as the thirdfourth centuries onwards the the onwards centuries thirdfourth the as early As

Kyros in Alexandria Chapter III Chapter III 147 The situation in Egypt was strongly in need ofneed in strongly was Egypt in situation The 47

and shall go before the Roman Emperor, Emperor, Roman the before goshall and and be made governor with double office office double madegovernorwith be and e in Alexandria? Moreover he was a new wasa he Moreover Alexandria? in e l situation Kyros inherited. inherited. Kyrossituation l likos Kyron is accepted. Kyron had a had Kyron accepted. is Kyron likos ntly had nothing to do with Egypt and Egyptand do with to nothing had ntly seem to have been as deep as of those those of as deep as been have to seem ehrjsl o nta tecucl of council the at not or justly hether choice of Herakleios becomes more becomes Herakleios of choice having polemicized for years with years for polemicized having m h pro o Ahnso of Athanasios of period the om only the church but on occasions occasions on but church the only t t s tl nee, n re to order in needed, still is it at t the place here to study the the study to here place the t bget xeine n doing in experience biggest e clergy in Egypt was exercising was Egypt in clergy ilne gis te et of sect the against violence “Then shall the Antichrist rise Antichrist theshall “Then et n uig hn h civic the than ruling in tent Cacdna ad Anti and Chalcedonian f of a ruler and of bishop.” ofbishop.” rulerand ofa gitimate question which which question gitimate The Life of Shanûdah of Life The 146

CEU eTD Collection taais n Cntnis Telg ad oiis i Politics and Theology Constantius: and Athanasius between these two Monophysite parties. Monophysite two these between be noted that this Timothy had the nickname nickname the had Timothy this that noted be away, chased was he soon but Alexandrians), the by Nestorian controversy for Cyril of Alexandria, by h by Alexandria, of Cyril for controversy Nestorian Antiquity History 15/2 History h reIreie.O h pltc drn te tim the during politics the On Israelites. true the (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). 2007). Press, University Cambridge (Cambridge: a later period and has never been as popular as the as popular as been never has and period later a University Press, 2001); Khaled Anatolios, Anatolios, Khaled 2001); Press, University power. political extreme his describe to name mock uins. h nx svrl eae udr h reign the under decades several next The Julianism. (Leiden: Brill, 1994); Daniel Keating, Keating, Daniel 1994); Brill, (Leiden: Arabic name Arabic imperial Orthodoxy. imperial try was Justinian hand, one On rivalries. religious exercising military power along with the economic p economic the with along power military exercising Oxford University Press, 2004). 2004). Press, University Oxford Leo (457–474) and as a result another Timothy was a was Timothy another result a as and (457–474) Leo Ti two between see patriarchal the over began fight Dioskoros Cyriland after Church Alexandrian the in McGuckin, McGuckin, 152 151 150 149 148 i the with o series the of politically beginning the was rule Athanaisos’s interfering of and Meletians influence, if not even greater, was exercised by Cyby wasexercised greater, notifeven influence, group was that of the the of that was group religiou in diverse extremely became Egypt century, is ws akd y h Theodosians the by backed was first of John and Antioch of Severos – influence strong a The title of the patriarch of Alexandria was eithe was Alexandria of patriarch the of title The O te oiia ad eieu stain n ae A Late in situation religeous and political the On antiChalc the – (535566) Theodosios of Followers Ewr Rci Hry “h Ptirht o Alexandr of Patriarchate “The Hardy, Rochie Edward On Cyril’s policy see: Norman Russel, Russel, Norman see: policy Cyril’s On During the reign of Justinian Egypt was once again again once was Egypt Justinian of reign the During hog tm, h Aeadin hrh eae consi a became Church Alexandrian the time, Through fe te oni o Cacdn n epcal a th at especially and Chalcedon of council the After (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993); 1993); Press, University Princeton (Princeton: t Crl f lxnra Te hitlgcl Controv Christological The Alexandria: of Cyril St. , (June 1946), 81100. 81100. 1946), (June , Melchite 150 Akephaloi for Egyptian and Syriac Church authorities who wer who authorities Church Syriac and Egyptian for

. After 518 two theologians came to Alexandria who Alexandria to came theologians two 518 After . h Aporaino Dvn Lf i Crl f Alexan of Cyril in Life Divine of Appropriation The Athanasius 151 yi o Alexandria of Cyril 152 wie h scn gv brh o h tahn of teaching the to birth gave second the while o Ahnso o Aeadi se Tmty . Barne D. Timothy see: Alexandria of Athanasios of e

r archbishop or the pope, while the title title the while pope, the or archbishop r 48 first two. He was sometimes even called pharaoh pharaoh called even sometimes was He two. first is opponents, as designing the Egyptian persecutor persecutor Egyptian the designing as opponents, is The mockname pharaoh began to be used during the the during used be to began pharaoh mockname The (London: Routledge, 2004). 2004). Routledge, (London: ntique Egypt see: Roger S. Bagnall, Bagnall, S. Roger see: Egypt ntique edonian patriarch of Alexandria. Alexandria. of patriarch edonian

te osatna Empire Constantinian the n Egypt in the Byzantine World Byzantine the in Egypt Basilikos ia: A study in National Christianity,” Christianity,” National in study A ia: ing to enforce Orthodoxy and suppress and Orthodoxy enforce to ing ril of Alexandria.of ril f violence in the Church.the in violence f mothys, (one of them chosen illegally illegally chosen them of (one mothys, too, and after the death of Markian a Markian ofdeath the after and too, ower. s sects. One such antiChalcedonian antiChalcedonian such One sects. s ppointed as an archbishop. It should It archbishop. an as ppointed Halicarnassus. The doctrine of the the of doctrine The Halicarnassus. order was restored under Emperor under restored was order f utna pse wt rivalry with passed Justinian of (London: Routledge, 2000); John A. A. John 2000); Routledge, (London: ry Is itr, hooy n Texts and Theology History, Its ersy. Gek lentv t te later the to alternative Greek a pra tae Te eid of period The trade. mperial

Violence and unrest continued continued unrest and Violence bgnig f h sixth the of beginning e torn into two parts by by parts two into torn 149 derable landowner, landowner, derable

(Cambridge: Harvard Harvard (Cambridge: , ed. by R.S. Bagnall, Bagnall, R.S. by ed. , 148 e forcing the forcing e Patriarch Egypt in Late Late in Egypt dria The same The (Oxford: (Oxford: Church Church is of of is had of of s, a a

CEU eTD Collection prepared the way for the Arab conquest; and the tra the and conquest; Arab the for way the prepared o oa rl ipsil; h trn wo misgoverne who tyrant the impossible; rule Roman to power his of best the to out stamping after years, geniu hims making evil after who the but Egypt, in was union religious this For Kyros. of choice making After the death of Coptic Archbishop AndronicusArchbishop Coptic of death the After peacf existed contrats in Church, Coptic The Egypt. Ro the by Alexandria of reoccupation the before not Press, 2008), 208229. 208229. 2008), Press, Egypt was at arms.at was Egypt har wasmuch Copts the against Justin of policy The Church Coptic the of power the secured who chosen, out the union grew into the calamities which Egyptwhich calamities thegrewinto unionthe out the with union a creating with entrusted was Kyros w antiChalcedonians other and Copts the easily how During politics. to as well as Church the to unity Cyprus, and his successor, George seems have been o been have seems George successor, his and Cyprus, Mel the 606–616) (p. Almoner the John Copts. the to Churc Melchite the Egypt of rule Persian the during received both ecclesiastical and civic authority civic and ecclesiastical both received was Egypt and rivalries ecclesiastical by torn was 158 157 156 155 154 153 natureThe 1. III. of rule his andKyros of openl was Theodora hand, other the on and Copts the historians, but whose identity with Kyros is nowab is Kyros with identity whose but historians, fa evil of whos of man riddle the ruler mysterious that — the Mukaukas was This enemy. the to surrender

Kaegi, 257. 257. Kaegi, 3. Butler, Menze, Volker See: Aziz S. Atiya, “Andronicus”, in in “Andronicus”, Atiya, S. Aziz See: 170. Butler,

. ulr ecie te det f yo i vr exp very in Kyros of advent the describes Butler A. In autumn of 631 Kyros moved from Lazika to Egypt. to Lazika from moved Kyros 631 of autumn In This was the situation in Egypt when Kyros received Kyros when Egypt in situation the was This Justinian and the Making of the Syriac Orthodox Chu Orthodox Syriac the of Making the and Justinian 154

Coptic Encyclopedia Coptic the Coptic belief by persecution, made Coptic alleg Coptic made persecution, by belief Coptic the solutely certain. Butler, 175. 175. Butler, certain. solutely 49 elf a name of terror and loathing to the Copts for for Copts the to loathing and terror of name a elf e name and nation have hitherto confused and baffle and confused hitherto have nation and name e itor who at the critical moment delivered it over b over it delivered moment critical the at who itor

e kon fewrs n gpin itr a Al as history Egyptian in afterwards known me, s who not only wrecked the Emperor's hopes of of hopes Emperor's the wrecked only not who s d the country into hatred of the Empire, and so so and Empire, the of hatred into country the d 155 esv wrs Hrkeo cutd iatr in disaster courted Herakleios words: ressive 158 and was entrusted to bring peace and peace bring to entrusted was and 1, 13132. 13132. 1, the Persian wars Herakleios had seen had Herakleios wars Persian the has not seen for two centuries.twoseen for nothas uly and flourished under Persian rule. Persian under flourished and uly sher than that of Justinian. The whole The ofJustinian. that than sher h declined greatly, giving supremacy giving greatly, declined h in 622, Benjamin (p. 622–661) was 622–661) (p. Benjamin 622, in h cne o tee ipts Kyros disputes. these of center the Monophysites, but as it later turned later it as but Monophysites, mans in 627 that George set foot in foot set George that 627 in mans throughout the whole of Egypt, but Egypt, of whole the throughout chite patriarch, even had to flee to flee to had even patriarch, chite nly nominally appointed. nominally nly ere switched sides to the enemy. enemy. the to sides switched ere y sympathized with the Copts. the with sympathized y the see. The whole empire whole The see. the rch Before Kyros’ arrival and arrival Kyros’ Before . (Oxford: Oxford University University Oxford (Oxford: . 157 156 It was It

iance iance ten ten 153 d d y

CEU eTD Collection rprd n t poet hmevs I ses ht K that seems It themselves. protect to and prepared loy details. bloody describ is which started, Copts the of persecutions nomto ta Krs a cmn wt a am. Aft army. an with coming was Kyros that information would why otherwise ruler, ruthless a as reputation 166 165 164 163 162 161 160 159 flee.to need the seen Alexa towards advancing Kyros about news the 631 in languages. languages. denounced even by Herakleios and exposed to public to exposed Herakleiosand byeven denounced It is clear that Kyros had a strict nature; he was he nature; strict a had Kyros that clear is It form his even and Greeks the by later and Copts the and also a bishop. a also and al which on point the but persons possible all with Mtskheta. Kyronof and Kyros re the notice to not impossible is it but argument, surrender ofEgypt. surrender lk, hc mgt ae en h bs mmn fr th for moment best planningto not was whoKyros appointed Herakleios the been have might which alike, brought Cross the of restoration the and Jerusalem t used have should emperor The policy. Herakleios’s 682; A. Grohman, “AlMukawkas”, in in “AlMukawkas”, A.Grohman, 682; yo rcie bt te ihs eceisia aut ecclesiastical highest policy.fiscal Egypt’s the for responsible both received Kyros p the and Egypt of governor the called was Mukaukas On the Coptic policy of Kyros see: Aziz S. Atiya, Atiya, S. Aziz see: Kyros of policy Coptic the On 280. Kaegi, 174. Butler, C the of persecution Kyros’ the on details the For in I”, “Benjamin Müller, G. C. Detlef See: Kaegi, 29596. 29596. Kaegi, 281287. Kaegi, I il o b jdig h sucs n yo’ ue d rule Kyros’ on sources the judging be not will I

160 163 Te ponmn o Krs ih b cniee a a as considered be might Kyros of appointment The 164 He was the one who negotiated with the andf Arabs the negotiatedwith onewho the was He 159

He also sent encyclical letters to all the bishops the all to letters encyclical sent also He

Encyclopedia of Islam of Islam Encyclopedia 162 Coptic Encyclopedia Coptic The Coptic and Arabic sources mixed Mukaukas mixed sources Arabic and Coptic The 50 opts see Butler. p. 18093. 18093. p. Butler. see opts

“Cyrus AlMuqawqas”, in AlMuqawqas”, “Cyrus ue to my incompetence in the Coptic and Arabic Arabic and Coptic the in incompetence my to ue 6, 71215. 71215. 6, l of them agree is that he was a ruler a was he that is agree them of l ebac bten h caatr of characters the between semblance ed in many Coptic sources in all the all in sources Coptic many in ed Benjamin need to flee? There is no is There flee? to need Benjamin euphoria to the Copts and Orthodox and Copts the to euphoria er supporters too. supporters er dishonor. make peace at all.at make peace his moment when the liberation of liberation the when moment his hated almost by everyone, first by first everyone, by almost hated refect of Alexandria. He was also was He Alexandria. of refect 2, 375. 375. 2, ndria spread and Benjamin have Benjamin and spread ndria r i arvl sre o severe of series a arrival his er rs led hd n infamous an had already yros uin f h to instead two; the of union e oiy n cvc oe. Al power. civic and hority 166 This is not a conclusivenota is This Coptic Encyclopedia Coptic 165 161 and monks to be to monks and Later on he was he on Later inally signed the inallysigned

alr of failure 3, CEU eTD Collection both patriarch and ruler “the misbeliever governor, misbeliever “the ruler and patriarch both based the historical novel novel historical the based lxnra (eeo o Uhuan Makrizi,). Ushmunain, of (Severos Alexandria” Herakleio ofname the in finances of controller the Egy of governor the was he Dukmak) Ibn Khaldun, Ibn t of some to According AlMukaukas. of identity his source The Muqauqis. or AlMukaukas as him to refer supposed to have a family and therefore he ignored ignored he therefore and family a have to supposed trustwort as information this accept not did Butler li was and family a had still patriarch, a although Kyro to back turning again once by it explaining of infor strange rather this of credibility the reject form of narratives similarto narratives of form the of most that argues he Therefore invasion. Arab of orcommanders rulers possible all with him mixed forg having authors Arabic the that is makes Butler an one referrto Maryam, them of all Abu Butler, A. to Kyros: according for historians Arabic the among 169 168 167 Kyros 2.sources MuslimIII. in decisive in disproving it. The story is given by Qu by given is story The it. disproving in decisive res have to and regard, chivalrous with her treated t only Bilbais, reached and treasures, and servants besieg was Caesarea that learning when, Herakleios, o was she that relates He Wakidî. by told Mukaukas, fancy of the Arabian Nights, must be banished from from banished be must Nights, Arabian the of fancy a is It formed. was Mareotis Lake that so flooded, waste time in dissecting this legend: the fact that fact the legend: this dissecting in time waste unreality speaks of the the of speaks unreality A by Armant of name old the as given is `Armanûsah' Butler, 500. 500. Butler, 498508; Butler, Bte, 1. o uh a b blee o te entert the of believed be may much So 216. Butler, rbc ore gv dtie ifrain n yo o Kyros on information detailed give sources Arabic Interestingly according to one author, AlMukaukas AlMukaukas author, one to according Interestingly

Grohman, 71215. Grohman,71215. wife Armenosa of Egypt Egypt of Armenosa of AlMukaukas, and tells a story about a vineyard vineyard a about story a tells and AlMukaukas, of Thousand and One Nights and Thousand

by the Very Rev. C.H. Butcher, D.D. It is worth add worth is It D.D. Butcher, C.H. Rev. Very the by AlMukaukas was Patriarch of Alexandria would alon would Alexandria of Patriarch was AlMukaukas atremère ( atremère b bsee b `m' fre. Ar s ad o hav to said is `Amr forces. `Amr's by besieged be o tored her with all her jewels to her father. I need I father. her to jewels her all with her tored 51 the domain of history. history. of domain the pity that these myths, which are often inspired by inspired often are which myths, these that pity d y h Aas se eund o gp wt al her all with Egypt to returned she Arabs, the by ed n her way to Caesarea to marry Constantine, son of of son Constantine, marry to Caesarea to way her n

bû Sâlih (p. 279). Ibn `Abd al Hakam with similar similar with Hakam al `Abd Ibn 279). (p. Sâlih bû mation, I would suggest as one possibility possibility one as suggest would I mation, aining legend about Armanûsah, daughter of Al Al of daughter Armanûsah, about legend aining 167 sted among the nine married katholikoi married nine the among sted s (Eutychius); to yet other authors he is he authors other yet to (Eutychius); s who was both prefect and patriarch of patriarch and prefect both was who Mém. Hist. et Géog. Géog. et Hist. Mém. otten the real identity of AlMukaukas AlMukaukas of identity real the otten hy, mainly because a patriarch is not is patriarch a because mainly hy, Tre ifrn nms ee popular were names different Three d the same person. The point that A. that point The person. same the d Christian Egypt before or during theduring or Egyptbefore Christian se stories are legendary and have a have and legendary are stories se hem (Baladhuri, Tabari, Abu Salih, Abu Tabari, (Baladhuri, hem . hs information. this o Msht wo a i known, is as who, Mtskheta of n s are far from being unanimous on unanimous being from far are s 168 pt and Alexandria, others call him call others Alexandria, and pt

had a wife and daughter. A. daughter. and wife a had AlAraj and AlMukaukas, AlMukaukas, and AlAraj Aeadi. hy mainly They Alexandria. f t. i. p. 53), and upon it is it upon and 53), p. i. t. which she owned and and owned she which 169 Rte ta to than Rather ing that that ing not not e be be e the the e e

CEU eTD Collection jurij ibn karkab ibn jurij Κεκαυκασιωνος ih hv be a Eyta wo a mvd o Lazika to moved Egypt. was who Egyptian an been have might B caucasified”. mo any convicning been sound not does had argument Bolotov’s who one “the or Caucasian” mixe historians Arab the and George for form Arabic 173 172 171 170 Kartli. of iutnosy n idpnety once t te C Bolotov. the to connected independently and simultaneously improbab sosound notdoes Kyros on information the Alexidze on the name of Mukaukas. Arabic sources re sources Arabic Mukaukas. of name the on Alexidze mountains. mountains. the to adjacent directly region the been have would the Caucasus, called nor considered been never have Lake Erzerum, between “t territories the of that account name mock and pejorative the hence Copts, the hss Pt) n h cuty f h Lz. ugn a Judging Lazs. the of country the in (Poti) Phasis and nor a Greek.a nor and Caucasu the from was Kyros whom for Butler, A. with the become consequently he did how so, If Caucasus. th supposition the is unlikely more Even too. realm a was but origin Egyptian of be to need necessarily him him met experi Almoner, the John or the Salophakiolos the Timothy had who Monophysites Egyptian the “Tome” persecut the started Kyros of agents harsh the when Kyro of translation the makes The descent. Egyptian in the Caucasus without his will too – for refusing for – too will his without Caucasus inthe “We should take into consideration that Herakleios that consideration into take should “We 15. Herakleios, of History theOn Bolotov, See. 28p. I, chapter See Butler, 525. 525. Butler, o Kekaukasiwmevno" o 172 h nm Auaks a I ae led pitd out pointed already have I as AlMukaukas, name The motn lnusi aaye hv be cnutd b conducted been have analyses linguistic Important Hs ruet s o cnicn frt f l becaus all of first convincing not is argument His 170 171 Kyros would have moved to Egypt together with his with together Egypt to moved have would Kyros Bt are ht uaks hud e n rbc rende Arabic an be should Mukaukas that agree Both . The first name Thefirst .

173 mcig ae o Krs enn “h oe h once who one “the meaning Kyros for name mocking a

Kyros would have been ethnically alien to both to both to alien ethnically been have would Kyros of the present thesis. thesis. present the of , “completely caucasionized” “a wild person”. An Eg An person”. wild “a caucasionized” “completely ,

jrj has been interpreted mainly in two ways: either it either ways: two in mainly interpreted been has to pay taxes. Bolotov, 72. 72. Bolotov, taxes. pay to ion of the “Acefals” who rejected the “Synod” and t and “Synod” the rejected who “Acefals” the of ion 52 ccording to his name name his to ccording s to the See of Alexandria even more motivated. And motivated. more even Alexandria of See the to s the news of Kyros’ appointment with a grief, callin grief, a with appointment Kyros’ of news the met Kyros when the latter was the metropolitan of of metropolitan the was latter the when Kyros met

ence of pious and loved “Popessynodites” as as “Popessynodites” loved and pious of ence at Kyros might have been exiled to the to exiled been have Kyros might at Van, and the southwestern Caspian Caspian southwestern the and Van, only place of origin for a Caucasian a for origin of place only le. le. ey oua nm i te Persian the in name popular very oten lps f h Caucasian the of slopes southern fer to him as to as him to fer metropolitan of Lazika? I agree agree I Lazika? of metropolitan s region and neither an Egyptian an neither and region s re, when he suggests that Kyros that suggests he when re, e acsa” n tkn into taking and Caucasian” he uau b A Bte ad V. and Butler A. by aucasus d Kyros with his predecessor predecessor his with Kyros d yn ti pit however, point, this eyond y A. Butler and later by Z. Z. by later and Butler A. y te ae yo de not does Kyros name the e n te mvd ak to back moved then and Kyros n h itouto, was introduction, the in family, considering this, considering family, yptian could have appeared appeared have could yptian he should have been of of been have should he jurij ibn mena ibn jurij the Greeks and to and Greeks the ig f Greek of ring sd o e a be to used is an is and he he g g

CEU eTD Collection oua i Wsen rein n i a opst of composite a is and Armenian Western in popular Armanusah, rvnne f yo mgt ae en nw bt later but known been have might Kyros of provenance Armanusah Armen. emerged in an Egyptian realm and moreover not in a a in not moreover and realm Egyptian an in emerged uaks duhe atse i Aaiis tr me story AlWakidi’s in attested daughter Mukaukas’ (jrj/krj). ethnonym ethnonym because trustworthy more sound might secon hypothetical, The Kyros. than known less much was and Egypt ex not did he that mention to not soil, Egyptian on ru no almost exercised he because George, Patriarch 178 177 176 175 174 George patriarch further: further: of explanation Caucasian the to trail the followed

el,bcueh ie n rei utlteae of age the until Armenia in lived he because realm, the death of Kyros of Alexandria is the same as tha as same the is Alexandria of Kyros of death the did not exist at all.at notexist did The Book of Letters, 25860. 25860. Letters, of Book The Herakleios of History theOn Bolotov, 178; Butler. Although this can not be considered as a proper ar proper a as considered be not can this Although 258. Letters, of Book The 523. Butler, but a blunder or a series of blunders in copying. A copying. in blunders of series ora blunder a but nte srn agmn spotn hs acsa pr Caucasian his supporting argument strong Another derived from “Gregorius.” Now if we suppose that suppose we if Now “Gregorius.” from derived word The krkb son of Gregory, and George son ofMînâ.George son and of Gregory, son po perfectly is it Hence today. Armenians and Copts as appears o equivalent Gregorycommon the is “Karkûr” form The oneworld. favorite that very a was also name the that Noteand Armenian, Gregory”. of “son Ka Ibn for mistake a is Karkab Ibn that explanation 177 175 It is logical to conclude that Kyron gave his daug his gave Kyronthat conclude to logical is It I i rte dfiut o mgn ta te Arabic the that imagine to difficult rather is It jrj was just created in the Arabian folk or literary t literary or folk Arabian the in created just was — an extremely probable supposition — we have the the have we — supposition probable extremely an — as Z. Alexidze suggests, has a clear Armenian etym Armenian clear a has suggests, Alexidze Z. as a itrrtd s h nm Gog. s for As George. name the as interpreted was 174 krkb 178 or it might be connected to the Arabic ethnonym fo ethnonym Arabic the to connected be might it or

occurs far too late in Arabic literature to repres to literature Arabic in late too far occurs

53 t of Kyron of Mtskheta. According to Ukhtanes (see. Ukhtanes to According Mtskheta. of Kyron of t gument for the thesis it is worthwhile noting that noting worthwhile is it thesis the for gument , 18. 18. ,

176 the name but does not develop this ideathis develop not does but name the ercise any sort of political authority in in authority political of sort any ercise

le in Egypt and hardly even stepped even hardly and Egypt in le 35. It is improbable that the name the that improbable is It 35. Armen o te otmoay ot the Copts contemporary the for bû Sâlih says that that says Sâlih bû re oe Ti nm i still is name This one. Greek krkr hter name from the Armenian the from name hter rkar and that it means it that and rkar epaain atog still although explanation, d n a frotn n the and forgotten was on ssible that Kyros was Kyros that ssible toe aoe Te name The above. ntioned radition, where such a name a such where radition, ore cnue hm with him confused sources karkab + f “Gregory” among among “Gregory” f in that part of the the of part that in was corrupted into corrupted was vnne s h nm of name the is ovenance ology. It could not have not could It ology. anush Gio” in “Grigor” A Bte himself Butler A. , ent anything anything ent te agtr of daughter the , r Georgian – Georgian r simple krkr is gurj even even

CEU eTD Collection ulig f h costp cuce i Lzk ad K and Lazika in churches crosstype the of building on sources reliable no practicallythere are above, sur not is This data. archaeological and linguistic t support to exist data textual it no see, can while one As Mtskheta, of Kyron and Alexandria of Kyros thisissue. to conclusion neede be will Egypt in activities some building for Georgian open left be might it still Alexandria, of woul Thebes provincial in church small single a why hy very is argument this Although community. church tra the him with brought have could who Alexandria, them of one and ways several in explained be might The centuries. fifthseventh theto dated is church G in even century ninth the in built longer no were Egy in known activity building Georgian no is there V ag not de does Tarkhnishvili M. centuries, ninth/tenth Monneret Although existed. churches tripartite liturg the by but constructional the by not defined basilica. threechurch a called type Georgian a of b in However, age. old 179 very a “heretic”. a of end usual the is what demonstrating at also poison, drank according or disinter heavy a with died Alexandria illn heavy some with died latter the 108) Ukhtanes, P of Kyros and Kyron of case the in as again, identificat the Once of support in advanceed be can data studies on the Georgian church discovered in Thebes in discovered church Georgian the on studies oo o Wle Eig Crum,Egy en Georgien l’art de vestige “Un Tarkhnishvili, Ewing Walter of Honor Uo onrt e ilr, Ua hea i io georg tipo di chiesa “Una Villard, de Monneret Ugo h Blei o te yatn Isiue II Institute Byzantine the of Bulletin The

pte”, pte”, 54 ess and severe pains in a very old age while Kyros Kyros while age old very a in pains severe and ess to some other information he committed suicide and and suicide committed he information other some to

Bedi Kharthlisa Bedi iano nella necropoli Tebana,” Coptic Studies in in Studies Coptic Tebana,” necropoli nella iano oth cases this might be a polemical insertion insertion polemical a be might this cases oth the life of Kyros of Alexandria. Alexandria. Kyrosof oflife the building of Georgian churches in Egypt in churches Georgianof building The architectural form of the church is is church the of form architectural The ree with him, saying that in that period that in that saying him, with ree rsn, eas, s a pitd out pointed was as because, prising, cl ed. n gp n bprie or bipartite no Egypt In needs. ical pt and besides, churches of this type this of churches besides, and pt o. s n h cs o te intensive the of case the in As ion. i odr o ec aoe decisive amore reach to order in d d be commissioned by the patriarch patriarch the by commissioned be d eieain A eaae td of study separate A deliberation. in the mid 1940s. mid the in oga Te ped f hs ye of type this of spread The eorgia. pothetical and raises questions like questions raises and pothetical rl, . lxde ons u two out points Alexidze Z. artli, s akd y eti aon of amount certain by backed is ih b te iue f yo of Kyros of figure the be might iin oehr ih Georgian a with together dition he theory of a single identity for identity single a of theory he lat ae te hrh o the to church the dates illart VI – VII, 1959. 1959. VII, – VI hasis, some archaeological archaeological some hasis, (1950), 495500; Mikheil Mikheil 495500; (1950), 179 The church is church The of of

CEU eTD Collection 181 180 Introduction:IV.1.

hooia lgc. fe al e a cniee a M a considered Monothelite a also beingthese along Chalcedonian, was he all After legacy. theological needed be will doctrine Monothelite the of analysis spirituali inrootsa concrete havehad would which philosoph any there Was question: following the ask Christo the during positions dogmatic different the philosoph the of also but debates dogmatic the only statem Kyros’s behind lurked have could the that possible system is it as far as restore to try will I Farrell (South Canaan, PA: St. Tikhon, 1990), 56. 56. 1990), Tikhon, St. PA: Canaan, (South Farrell For the Byzantine sources mentioning Kyros of Phas of Kyros mentioning sources Byzantine the For The Disputation with Pyrrhus of Our Father among th among Father Our of Pyrrhus with Disputation The Although I partly touched on the theology of Kyros of theology the on touched partly I Although Status questionisStatus

The Doctrine Doctrine The Chapter IV 55

is Did not Nestorius, who indeed maintained maintained indeed whoNestorius, not Did e Saints, Maximus the Confessor the Maximus Saints, e rather say that there was but one energy? oneenergy? wasbut there thatsay rather concrete theological and philosophical philosophical and theological concrete ty? To answer this question a thorough questiona this answerTo ty? along with the close study of Kyros’s of study close the with along logical controversies, it is justified to justified is it controversies, logical and a Monenergist.anda ical system behind Kyros’s theology, Kyros’s behind system ical icotheological positions underlining positions icotheological ns Gvnteiprac o not of importance the Given ents. npyie a etra ad a and Nestorian a onophysite, in the previous chapters, here here chapters, previous the in that there were twowere there that Maximos Homologetes Maximos 181

, trans. Joseph P. P. Joseph trans. , prosopa 180 , ,

CEU eTD Collection Kirchengeschichte by the usage of the notion of notion the of usage the by er Shagr “De ooisrg: u ie neue einer zu Honoriusfrage: “'Die Schwaiger, Georg seventhcentury Monothelite heresy and calls this p this calls and heresy Monothelite seventhcentury Jugi Jugie. M. by supported is theory same The did. E Sixth the that wrote who Beck, HansGeorg does So would be needed, a subject rather remote from the p the from remote rathersubject a beneeded, would S to according was orthodoxy what of overview large unorthod or orthodox howof notion the on touch Iwillnot was. Monothelites question the of evaluation York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 65 65 2004), Press, University Oxford York: The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (6001700) (6001700) Christendom Eastern of Spirit The 185 184 183 182 Previoustowards IV.2. approaches Monotheletism Society, Society, Chapman, John vast: quite is issue this condemnation Honorius’ Pope of fact problematic the Georg Kreuzer, “Die Honoriusfrage im Mittelalter un Mittelalter im Honoriusfrage “Die Kreuzer, Georg eetd h hmn il n Christ. in will human the rejected traditiona the supporting was Hefele Joseph Charles By was. Honorius Pope unorthodox or orthodox how of b limi sometimes thus elabora ideologized Churches, Catholic Monotheletism and Orthodox been concerning theories have main to The seem centuries twentieth of Apollinarism from which it apparently sprang. apparently it which from Apollinarism of J. Antioch. of Severos from taken activity and will o mixture a of kind a was Monotheletism that theory Tixeront, Joseph Bathrellos, Demetrios

M. Jugie, “Monothélisme”, in in “Monothélisme”, Jugie, M. The discussion on the Orthodoxy of some Monothelite some of Orthodoxy the on discussion The The literature discussing Monotheletism and its nat its and Monotheletism discussing literature The 1907) ; Jaroslav Pelikan, Jaroslav ; , 88 (1977), 8597. 8597. (1977), 88 , History of Dogmas of History Person, Nature and Will in the Christology of Saint of Christology the in Will and Nature Person, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique théologie de Dictionnaire The Christian Tradition: A History of the Developme the of History A Tradition: Christian The κνησις

, iii, 2nd ed. (London: Herder, 1926), 168 168 1926), Herder, (London: ed. 2nd iii, , The Condemnation of Pope Honorius. Honorius. Pope of Condemnation The

183 by the Monothelites in the same way as Apollinarios as way same the in Monothelites the by Smwa ltr eac Gue pooe the proposed Grumel Venance later Somewhat (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Press, Chicago of University (Chicago: 56 by the Council of Constantinople. The literature o literature The Constantinople. of Council the by d in der Neuzeit”. Neuzeit”. der in d

n Untersuchung des alten Falles,” Falles,” alten des Untersuchung n s is stipulated by the Catholic theologians due to due theologians Catholic the by stipulated is s 184 orthodoxy at all, because in this case a case this in because all, orthodoxyat Tixeront called Monotheletism a form a Monotheletism called Tixeront urpose of the present thesis.presentof the urpose roblem a terminological confusion. terminological a roblem e generally denies the existence of a of existence the denies generally e This theory was mainly motivated mainly was theory This l idea that Monothelites completely Monothelites that idea l f diphysitism and of the idea of one of idea the of and diphysitism f ting the whole debate to the issue the to debate whole the ting cumenical Council condemned an condemned Council cumenical , x (1929), cols. 230723, at 2310. 230723, cols. x(1929), , . yi o Aeadi n others and Alexandria of Cyril t. the end of the nineteenth century nineteenth the of end the te poiin ewe the between opposition the y ure focuses in general on the the on general in focuses ure x h Crsooy f the of Christology the ox Päpste und Papsttum, Papsttum, und Päpste e i te ieenh and nineteenth the in ted Maximus the Confessor the Maximus (London: Catholic Truth Truth Catholic (London: nt of Doctrine of nt 1974 Zeitschrift für für Zeitschrift 182 , 150154; ), 8 ( 8

1975) (New (New , 2: , 185 n ;

CEU eTD Collection propounded in writing one natural will and one ener one and will natural one writing in propounded Church Dolan, trans. Anselm Biggs (London: Burns and Oates and Burns (London: Biggs Anselm trans. Dolan, otmoay tde o Mnteeim lo e a re a theology. Cyrillian see also Monotheletism on studies Contemporary cetd oohlts bcue e a o Jcbt o Jacobite of was he because Monotheletism accepted n one confessing to lead automatically would Christ co that thought he because doctrine novel this with say Kyros, and Athanasios with meeting Herakleios’s Confes Theophanes Christology. antiChalcedonian of Monophysiti with associated closely was and authors in although, compared always Monophysitism. to erroneously, was and memory, the in generatio later the for Actually Christ. in actions ra two Chris between Cyrillian the to turn to tendency a sometimes pending was Monotheletism “oneness,” Christolog and philosophical single a with even not t straightforward a be to doctrine whole the expect bac and people milieux by political and elaborated cultural wi theological, was proceeding It before Councils. clear Ecumenical of made be to la longest the date that to is was and century, a half thing One a were Monenergism and Monotheletism Monotheletism. 188 187 186 evaluation ofThe byMonotheletismByzantIV.3. the t mere a of matter a was which Christology outdated doc this of invention the for Kyros crediting while Theophanes Confessor, 461. 461. Confessor, Theophanes Louth, Andrew Hner Bc, Jsiins ucsos Monoener Successors: “Justinian’s Beck, HansGeorg , ii: , h tr Mnteeim one cnuig o oh co both to confusing sounded Monotheletism term The The Imperial Church from Constantine to the Early M Early the to Constantine from Church Imperial The Maximus the Confessor the Maximus 187 Here I will attempt a different theoretical approa differenttheoretical a willHereattempt I

(London: Routledge, 1996), 55. 55. 1996), Routledge, (London: 57 , 1980), 45763. 45763. 1980), ,

ns this aspect of Monenergism was left was Monenergism of aspect this ns sting heretical movement in the history the in movement heretical sting gism and Monothelitism,” in in Monothelitism,” and gism heory with uniform argumentation and argumentation uniform with heory trine saw a revival of Apollinarism in Apollinarism of revival a saw trine tology and understanding of wills and wills of understanding and tology nfessing one activity and one will in will one and activity one nfessing gons Teeoe e hud not should we Therefore kgrounds. ical basis. Because of the notion of notion the of Because basis. ical gy in Christ”.in gy sm, suspecting that it was a variety a was it that suspecting sm, s that Athanasios was very content very was Athanasios that s sor for example, when recounting when example, for sor tr i Hm a fr ego, he Sergios, for as Him; in ature riooy n ntig more. nothing and erminology iddle Ages iddle n ongoing issue for more than a than more for issue ongoing n ia o a eieet f the of refinement a or vival oig rm ey diverse very from coming ii ad cnesd and “confessed and rigin my opinion, completely completely opinion, my ia opsts n had and opposites dical n uhr ineauthors , ed. Hubert Jedin and John John and Jedin Hubert ed. , tmoay n later and ntemporary 188 h h aayi of analysis the th ch. ch. John of Damascus of John History of the the of History 186

CEU eTD Collection reality they were the same.the were they reality Monothelite although that saying two, these equates (Berlin: De Gryoeter, 1981), 55. 55. 1981), Gryoeter, De (Berlin: should have been basing himself on some other sourc other some on himself basing havebeen should eeal mnin h to n h sm context. same the in two the mention generally f oohlts/oeegs. endo Scholarios, Gennadios Monotheletism/Monenergism. of (Paris: Maison de la bonne presse, 1930), 156. 156. 1930), presse, bonne la de Maison (Paris: δόγασιν σχυρς ντιποιούενοι. ντιποιούενοι. σχυρς δόγασιν ναιρο δογατίζουσιν, νέργειαν ίαν κα θέληα δ δύο Οτοι βεβαιωθέντες. Σεργίου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως 194 193 192 191 190 189 it. activity and volition.and activity wh of advocate ac two and volitions two with natures two an confessed view, second the while Christ, of will t and activity the of subject sole the was Divinity and activity one confessing towards Alexandria One Monotheletism: of tendencies opposite of radically statement this that propose would I Monophysite. Theophanes, Neither Monotheletism. of choice his in pr the but Monophysitism, alleged their be to seems accepte Athanasios’s eagerly and Sergios’s In Kyros. who and Athanasios people three have we Theophanes

nnmuey rdt yo o Aeadi fr creatin for Alexandria of Kyros credit unanimousely Research, 1983). 1983). Research, ed. 3. Writers Byzantine Thessalonian in Kokkinos) 1464. to 1454 from Constantinople of Patriarch Kotter, B. John 189 Although one can not claim that Theophanes was pur was Theophanes that claim not can one Although Diekamp, F. See: See for example: example: for See ers opee d Gogs Gnais Scholarios (Gennadios) Georges de completes Oevres The later commentators and Church historians were historians Church and commentators later The Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos von Johannes des Schriften Die Doctrina Patrum de Incarnatione Verbi Incarnatione de Patrum Doctrina Φιλοθου Κκκινου δογαυτικά ργα. Μερος Α’ Μερος ργα. δογαυτικά Κκκινου Φιλοθου 194

191 Μονοθελται, ο π το λεξανδρεας Κύρου τν ρχ τν Κύρου λεξανδρεας το π ο Μονοθελται,

The same is to be said about other later theologia later other about said be to is same The ντες δι τούτου τν τν φύσεων δυάδα κα τος πολι τος κα δυάδα φύσεων τν τν τούτου δι ντες ν π Χριστο φύσεις πρεσβεύουσι κα ίαν πόστασ ίαν κα πρεσβεύουσι φύσεις Χριστο π ν 58 es. es.

D. Kaikames. (Thessalonica: Centre for Byzantine Byzantine for Centre (Thessalonica: Kaikames. D. posefuly pointing out at these two trends, he surel he trends, two these at out pointing posefuly , vol 3 ed. M. Jugie, L. Petit, X. A. Sideridas, Sideridas, A. X. Petit, L. Jugie, M. ed. 3 vol , 192 his activity passed through the humanity humanity the through passed activity his (Munster: Aschendorf, 1907), 270. 270. 1907), Aschendorf, (Munster: Mawie h sm sucs almost sources same the Meanwhile s anathematized the Monophysites, in Monophysites, the anathematized s oblem remains what motivated Kyros motivated what remains oblem tivities, and namely, one hypostatical one namely, and tivities, , vol. 4. Patristische Texte und Studien 22 22 Studien und Texte Patristische 4. vol. , te doctrine. the g case the cause of this acceptance acceptance this of cause the case o ayoy le ald yo a Kyros called else anybody nor f hs ws olwn Crl of Cyril following was these of Theophanes might hint at two two at hint might Theophanes n hit sgetn ta the that suggesting Christ, in (The Dogmatic Works of Philotheos Philotheos of Works Dogmatic (The c, o y id ws Kyros, was mind, my to ich, unanimous in their evaluation their in unanimous 190 Mnteeim Sergios, Monotheletism, d fr xml, completely example, for 193 ν S, codn to according So,

εληφότες, π δ το το δ π εληφότες, ns, who ns, ναρίου ιν, ν ιν, y CEU eTD Collection problem arises when, according to the Monothelite d Monothelite the to according when, arises problem be very strict about the terminology and in the app the in and terminology the about strict very be hleo a cntttn Crs’ uiy I ti i this If unity. th Apollinarios call to misleading methodologically Christ’s constituting as reali Chalcedon common the is, that hypostasis, of but nature energeia Ap even But it. to subordinate completely flesh the ol la twrs h cnlso ta te il and will the that conclusion the towards lead would th of doctrine the with simultaneously will one and cpct o te aue ( nature the of capacity a wil and acting as long as activity one and will one of Severos or o confesses one If Laodecia Christ? in nature one confessing of Apollinarios call we can which is substituted by the Logos. The Divine intel Divine The Logos. the by substituted is which human complete a not is flesh The Christ. of nature 197 196 195 Apollinarios Early “Monenergisms”:Severo IV.4. and

Divine Divine ( movement Hovorun, 7. 7. Hovorun, 7. Hovorun, 5. Hovorun, example, for See, energeia n Gd s o te lv o mn nr f isl, al Himself, of creature nota islatter the while ofGod creature nor man, of slave the not is God and m Also greater. is what than lesser being it, reach the human human the I suggest that when using the terms Monotheletism o Monotheletism terms the using when that suggest I For Apollinarios the animated flesh and the Divine the and flesh animated the Apollinarios For lhuh pliais rfre t cl te ua a human the call to preferred Apollinarios Although in Christ and admited that that andadmited Christ in σαρκικακινήσει , 197 [energeia] his theory is far from what is generally called Mo generallycalled is what theoryfrom far hisis φσις ), to stress the complete dependence of the humanit the of dependence complete the stress to ), takes part in the Divine Divine the in part takes

, ht s o te usac ( substance the of is, that ), 59

ling is considered, following Aristotle, Aristotle, following considered, is ling e first Monenergist. efirst ne nature, he automatically confesses automatically he nature, ne lect is selfmovable ( selfmovable is lect e two natures. In fact, logically, this logically, fact, In natures. two e lication of these terms. For example example For terms. these of lication ity because it lacks the human the lacks it because ity liais i nt ofs ol one only confess not did ollinarios the the y f h to aue dfnd by defined natures two the of ty octrine, one professes one activity one professes one octrine, of man or of himself.orof man of energeia cret te, t ol be would it then, correct, s energeia an is the slave of God of slave the is an nic Mnteie, both Monothelites, Antioch Logos are parts of the single the of parts are Logos so is the former the the former the is so r Monenergism, one should should one Monenergism, r ctivity not not ctivity οσα a fr s t can it as far as , sAntioch of r poete nt of not properties are ). The philosophical philosophical The ). nenergism. nenergism. 195 ατοκίνητος

energeia

196

y on the on y bt a but , ) nous,

and and CEU eTD Collection argue that Kyros did not doubt about the idea of on of idea the about doubt not did Kyros that argue S asking and doubted Kyros only that reason the was rela Theophanes Kyros on nothing says he While Kyros. to acceptable fact, In doctrine. this to approach gives Theophanes Kyros. of person the in again once Christ. in nature one of idea ultimate the to lead na one of doctrine the However, Christ. in activity Christ’s single nature but is an integral part of i of part integral an is but nature single Christ’s in This acts. Logos the which through instrument an Chirst of “flesh Severos, For natures. two Christ’s L condemned Severos himself. is Christ as single as f the of i him foryet, this, accept would he ornot whether precision. Sergiosfor will,asked one let a wrote Sergios, than theology in sophisticated human being and stresses that the only subject ofC subject onlythe thatstresses and being human activ the on teaching Nestorian the opposed Severos 199 198 Christology TheKyros IV.5. of Hovorun, 18. 18. Hovorun, 18. Hovorun, energeia body and through adhering together it had this as a as this had it together adhering through and body oy s ra; h Lgs os o at hog te e the through act not does Logos the organ; as body

It should be noted that Theophanes mentioned that S that mentioned Theophanes that noted be should It himFor Antioch. of Severos to true holds same The The incarnate has done and said this, for it is uni is it for this, said and done has incarnate The as a cithara player strikes the cithara.thestrikes player acithara as thus and tool a uses artisan an which in way the in Nestorio of ravings the as being, human Godbearing as the soul too, which is peculiar to every one of one every to peculiar is which too, soul the as

n te il codn t ntr. yo, h ws u was who Kyros, nature. to according will the and

60 199

t. t was unacceptable to attribute the unity the attribute to unacceptable was t 198 tural will and activity would inevitably would activity and will tural ter where he as if doubting the idea of idea the doubting if as he where ter hrist’s activity is Logos: is activity hrist’s endowed with a rational soul” is just is soul” rational a with endowed h cu t slig hs rbe lies problem this solving to clue The It should be noted at this point that point this at noted be should It ’s background theology and on what what on and theology background ’s e will and will e interesting information on Kyros’s Kyros’s on information interesting ity as coming from a Godbearing Godbearing a from coming as ity o o aciig w atvte to activities two ascribing for eo e ta Sriss da a not was idea Sergios’s that tes tuet s o dtcal from detachable not is strument ris o caiiain I would I clarification. for ergios ted hypostatically to the to hypostatically ted completes the work nor work the completes us, has chosen its own its chosen has us, n organ for the deeds, the for organ n the activity is single in Chirst Chirst in single is activity the ergios professed one professed ergios s would have it, nor it, have would s tiscly united xtrinsically energeia dutdy much ndoubtedly in Christ at all, all, at Christ in natural

CEU eTD Collection be the formula of Leo. For the antiChalcedonians, antiChalcedonians, the For Leo. of formula the be Der MonenergetischMonotheletische Streit Streit MonenergetischMonotheletische Der

Kyros, in his first letter addressed to Sergios. Sergios. to addressed letter his first in Kyros, o and in even clear dilemmamade was This Christology. Antiochian this from escape an found Kyros done? a have should what but Christology, Leo’s refuting 204 203 202 201 200 theOne a. inIV. 5. activity conditions two of condemned by the Lateran Synod. He was one of the v the of one was He Synod. Lateran the by condemned A paraphrase of Is. 21:12. 21:12. Is. of A paraphrase 140:3. Ps. of A paraphrase follows translation My 3:21. Sir. of A paraphrase These are the Akephaloi, a group of antiChalcedon of group a Akephaloi, the are These Aciihp f osata Cpu. e ol hv h have would He Cyprus. Konstantia, of Archibishop odrn te da o drs te rsn rpr ( report present the address to idea the pondering lsens, aig eoe ovne ta ete on either that convinced become having blessedness, deep sear neither thee, for high too are that things out my report, being deemed worthy, o You Honoured by G by Honoured You o worthy, deemed being report, my correc be would I certainly, or, accepted, to be would according For, me. to happen would two following w Mens witn o rais te ot oy Arc holy most the Arkadios, to Cyprus, written Meekness the own command divine a by encountered having courage, c Godimitating Emperor’s] [the His obtained having G by strengthened Ruler our of traces allpious the divided my soul. Either I would follow the injuncti the a follow would I Either soul. mind my divided my entered thoughts various God, by honoured aig on ti tets I eetd hs statemen this the of letter honorable most the rejected it against forward I treatise this Chr found Jesus Lord Having our of activities two about speaking Orthodo immaculate our teaching piously treatise Godloving, that of aim entire The manner. divine most would listen to the one who said:onewho the listento would ol Ptirh ego, rm yo te neir to inferior the Kyros from Sergios, Patriarch world theto shepherd, kind the to lord, honorable my To A problem which was faced any time, when referringwhen time, any faced was which problem A hn cniee te iiey nprd ecig of teaching inspired divinely the considered I when fi while, long a for this in myself examined Having 200 and so, and

203 against Paul the head of those without bishops, without ofthose the Paulhead against having put a lock on my lips. my on lock a put having

(Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang, 2001), 19697. 19697. 2001), Lang, Peter Mein: am (Frankfurt Seek and stay with me with Seek stay and 61 the Greek text of Kyros. Kyros. of text Greek the ians following the theology of Severos of Antioch. Antioch. of Severos of theology the following ians

ery first Monothelites. See: Friedhelm Winkellman, Winkellman, Friedhelm See: Monothelites. first ery eld office between 625 and 641, when he was was he when 641, and 625 between office eld interpreting Dionysios was easy, thus easy, was Dionysios interpreting 201 the very first document ascribed to ascribed document first very the Cacdna” oeegs have Monenergist “Chalcedonian” I would keep silence, or I or silence, keep would I ch the things that are too are that things the ch holy Leo, which clearly which Leo, holy father of fathers and the and offathers father ted in what I say in this in say I what in ted on: on: nally I decided to write to decided I nally ναφορν od. At the same time, same the At od. c aan ih h hl of help the with again nce s rieoty and praiseworthy is ondescension, I drew I ondescension, ad re t bring to tried and t to one activity in Christ was Christ in activity one to o: hn was I When you: s atr h union. the after ist O teacher, O xy, but it prohibits it but xy, . citr ete I either Scripture 202 o bt o the of both or e od [od raie f Your of treatise 204 nd two opinions opinions two nd

or Thrice Your written inwrittenthe t m Lord my to ) θεοτίητοι bso of hbishop s eek not not eek ], of ], CEU eTD Collection to Herakleios and then to Sergios and consequently consequently [ and contradiction Sergios to then and Herakleios to s complete a be to seems letter the content the and On uniform. be not can letter the of interpretation hoooialoe f h frt ouet i te Mo the in documents first the Council. of Ecumenical chronologicallyone Sixth the of session thirteenth 207 206 205 Leo heno this avoidTo nature. one mean would activity is that interpreted, be to it want would Athanasios in activity one that is letter this in fears Kyros just and speaking is he what about mind clear a had contr the On presented. usually is it as assurance, seem new not a to convert to about just is who Chalcedonian does letter This striking. is Monenergism “accepted Kyros which with willingness moreover and

Winkelmann, 57. 57. Winkelmann, ap cf. text Greek full the For 588590. 2, II, ACO the See agit utraque natura quod proprium est cum communion cum est proprium quod natura utraque agit preserve it for bearingfruit. for it preserve proclaims two activities in communion withoth each communion in activities two proclaims and so, having gladly received the seed of the word the of seed the received gladly having so, and – respect this in least at – imitate perhaps should You of education Godproclaiming the by illuminated uneduc our that order in Christ, Jesus Saviour, u our the of parts impassible and passible the activity Scr divine the to according enclose, to able are we wh it, of ac two of speaking avoid we if that, obviously more morsels precious receive to worthy deemed teac godlyspoken Your in refuge take to had I that cont avoid to and i quiet keep to taught reproduced was I moment and order the of copy a contained also ment had It order. pious aforementioned the showing This letter of Kyros was presented as the first doc first the as presented was Kyros of letter This inspiredness for reading, [the letter] being called being letter] [the reading, for inspiredness subm to report honourable an compose to ordered was start discussion Our Lord. holy most my of teaching Tome of Pope Leo I to Flavian of Constantinople. Constantinople. Flavianof to I Leo Pope of κιστα ντιλγειν κιστα παιδευην

206

]. But on the other hand the amazing easiness amazing the hand other the on But ]. pendix 3. 3. pendix 62

the one hand, according to the structure the to according hand, one the ary, one gets the impression, that Kyros Kyros that impression, the gets one ary, hit ih b itrrtd n h way the in interpreted be might Christ ubordination to the imperial will, first first will, imperial the to ubordination

faith and needs much explanation and explanation much needs and faith pushes Sergios to confirm this. What this. confirm to Sergios pushes tes the main Chalcedonian formula of formula Chalcedonian main the tes n Mnpyie a, hr one where way, Monophysite a in the greasy and fertile soil, fertile and greasy the t lo em t hv been have to seems also It to belong to a straightforward straightforward a to belong to ument of the Monothelites at the at Monothelites the of ument a copy [ copy a e eevs hi wl without will their receives he iptures, into one unique one into iptures, wa wud ae b called be later would what ” ohlt controversy. nothelite dcbe iooi of oikonomia ndicible tivities after the union, the after tivities hing, asking for being for asking hing, atedness, having been having atedness, er, ing from this point, I point, this from ing radicting, understood understood radicting, sown in it, it would it it, in sown e s enn. t that At meaning. ts r Godtaughtness, it Godtaughtness, r . This is one Christological Christological one is This . oe ta Pu but Paul that ioned 205 ich would clarify clarify would ich t o or Godly your to it according to theto according ντίγραφον ] and ] 207 The CEU eTD Collection en rnfre t Aeadi. n 3 Krs create Kyros 633 In Alexandria. to transferred been Theodosians the socalled socalled the Theodosians b.Satisfactio IV. 5. capaci volitional own their having both and Christ, conditions the in that is says basically Kyros what co the is other the and proposes Kyros that formula way, way, anath The anathemata. nine of consists It doctrine. idea. Sergios’ help toelaborate order in presented data, historical the to according Besides 6. 3. 2. 1. 5. 4.

belong the passions and the miracles, but professes but miracles, the and passions the belong Kyros himself provided the answer to the question a question the to answer the provided himself Kyros iie oo” codn t S. yi, unconfusably, Cyril, St. to according Logos” “o Divine Son one Christ, one Divinity, from and is, humanity, that natures, two from confess not does Whoever another ( another Whoever does not confess that to the one and the sa the and one the to that confess not does Whoever the Divine Logos, let him be anathema! beanathema! him letLogos, Divine the him be anathema! be anathema! him third the on risen was and buried was died, flesh, became Mary, an God evervirgin and of Mother glorious Spirit Holy the from incarnate became Fath and the heaven from intemporally ages the before born was Trini Holy the of one “the confess not does Whoever hee de nt ofs te ahr h Sn n the and Son the Father the confess hy three and Divinity Trinityasone consubstantial not does Whoever sense [ sense evervir and Lady our that confess not does Whoever

h uin h feh rm h sm hl Mte o Go himbeanathema! let indivisible, and of Mother holy from proceeded He way this in and union, hypostatic same the in and from rational a by animated us, to consubstantial flesh the union the crea Mary evervirgin and God of Mother Holy the of union closest the by that confess, not does Whoever κυρίως

λλου κα λλου λλου ] and in truth the Mother of God, having conceived havingGod, of Mother the truth in and ] satisfactio. ), let him behim anathema! let ), h at eae bcbn o te Monothelite the of backbone a became act The 63

of two natures, human and Divine, in Divine, and human natures, two of above, Herakleios called upon Kyros upon called Herakleios above, emata were declared in the following following the in declared were emata ties, the the ties, nfession of one activity in Christ. So Christ. in activity one of nfession

postases, let him be anathema! beanathema! him let postases, tellectual soul, by a natural and natural a by soul, tellectual a at f no wt the with union of act an d day according to Scripture, let Scripture, to according day bit later, when hehadalready when later, bit that they belong to one and and one to belong they that her, being one, unconfusable unconfusable one, being her, me Lord of ours Jesus Christ Jesus ours of Lord me God the Word in the womb the in Word the God activity ted for himself according to according himself for ted unchangeably, inalterably, inalterably, unchangeably, man, suffereded in his ownhis in suffereded man, rm h dvnt ad the and divinity the from ty” the Word of God, who God, of Word the ty” e nant ntr o the of nature incarnate ne er, who came down from from down came who er, i Mr i i te proper the in is Mary gin or ay te oy and holy the Lady, our d in Christ is still one. still is Christ in , hc [ls] is [flesh] which d, oy prt the Spirit, Holy and given birth to givenbirth and CEU eTD Collection

208 For the full Greek text cf. appendix 4. 4. appendix cf. text Greek full the For 7. 9. 8.

en rsd y h iefbe n ucnual ad i and unconfusable and ineffable the by erased been being discernable only in theory by the one contemp one the by theory in only discernable being Son performing the divine and the human things thro things human the and divine the performing Son an flesh, proper His of sufferings the suffering of su human, was He as same far so flesh, in man as suffered the natures, two as His”, “in of condition another and one to according this, to only and c this being manhood,” the in perfect and Godhead the in t Cyril wise most the as same” the and “one not and H that says but Mary, evervirgin and God of Mother l the most our from born been in and incarnate become having same the Father, th the of by “one begotten is eternally he that confess not does natures, two Chris Jesus Lord one our that saying while Whoever, n Nsois n al h wr tikn o ae thin are himbeanathe let teaching, their of element single or thinking were who all and Nestorius and Theodor against written those especially Cyril, St. do who and writings, his and Mopsuestia of Theodore whic letter the and Cyril, Saint of faith right the The of writings those anathematize not does Whoever Holy consubstantial Trinity”, let him be anathema! beanathema! him let Trinity”, consubstantial Holy Lord our is which hypostasis, complex one is, that have been or are thinking like them, let himbeana letthem, likethinking or been are have in died but repented, not have and Cyril holy most contradict manner, any in who, those all and Aigeia a Mak Eutychios, illfamed Eunomios, the Areios, Nestorios, Apollinarios, anathematize not does Whoever a separation into two, let him be anathema! be anathema! lettwo,him into separation a rational and understands but God,” animated of Word the of flesh rational time same the at God, of Word same the at is “it Anasthasius: Saint to according out [elements], those Dionysius St. to according same time he does in no way separate the two, becau two, the separate way no in does he time same imagi vain the in and fantasy fake a in than rather union, unconfusable an in things two being as mind th that given these, in bein inseparable and indivisible Son and Christ same the and one the t and union, remains there while unconfusable, and inalterable

64

h is attributed to Ibas, as well as well as Ibas, to attributed is h e perceiver perceives these in his in these perceives perceiver e d the same being one Christ and Christ one being same the d ma! thema! thema! of which the unity was made, was unity the which of nations of the mind, but at the at but mind, the of nations time flesh and the flesh of the of flesh the and flesh time

but having remained incapable remained having but the same St. Cyril said, having said, Cyril St. same the this expression in the sense of sense the in expression this aught, “the same being perfect perfect being same “the aught, e and Theodoret and Andrew Andrew and Theodoret and e wl a Krs n Jh of John and Kyros as well s ed the twelve chapters of the of chapters twelve the ed s tms f h peet age present the of times ast lating these in mind as being being as mind in these lating this error, and all those who those all and error, this 208 se their cutting into two had two into cutting their se eu Crs, oe rm the from “one Christ, Jesus Hl Tiiy, h Logos the Trinity”, Holy e ugh “ugh es not accept the writings of writings the accept not es er aua ad hypostatic and natural heir e was “one” and “another” “another” and “one” was e ig ie hm b i fr a for it be them, like king holy immaculate Lady, the Lady, immaculate holy in an actual contemplation contemplation actual an in rcgie a remaining as recognised g i t b cnepae in contemplated be to is t ontemplated, according to to according ontemplated, frn ad o suffering not and ffering

odoret, which are against against are which odoret, ls ad nmtd and animated and flesh cmrhnil union, ncomprehensible one theandric energy theandric one edonios, the heretic heretic the edonios, ” ” CEU eTD Collection Neochalcedonian theology interpreted the Cyrillian e Cyrillian the interpreted theology Neochalcedonian being the counterformula of “one complex nature” o nature” complex “one of counterformula the being Gaios: to Areopagite

210 209 One theandric c. IV. 5. activity adversus Monotheletas adversus eet catr bt tl udr tit conditions. strict under still but chapter, seventh a here mentioned not was wi natures” two “in Diphysite Monophysites the flatter to insertion rhetorical fo pure a in expression this accept would Diphysite as Diphysites by confessed equally is natures” two willi and acting thesisthat their for argument the hyposta the to not and nature the to refers oneness could Monophysites while hypostatical is Orthodoxy i in understood have could party every passions and f the anathema third the in example For statements. δροβαφς 1985), 57; 57; 1985), Second Council ofConstantinople. Council Second 8 anathemas with together anathema, this suggests, “o the uses it importantly The Most it. upon interpretation. elaborates this accepted never have – West diff a with Diphysites Other nature. human, Wo second, divine the of nature One natures: two indicating István Perczel, personal correspondance, 2009. 2009. correspondance, personal Perczel, István Sinaita. Anastasius See: n cud ugs ta te rhdx at cle t called party Orthodox the that suggest could One The sixth anathema does not say anything decisive e decisive anything say not does anathema sixth The The expression, one theandric activity, originates activity, theandric one expression, The Theophanis chronographia, Theophanis 209

eas, codn t te, en poi i dd not did it prolix being them, to according because,

. Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca 12. Ed. K. H. H. K. Ed. 12. Graeca Series Christianorum Corpus . Sermo iii in constitutionem hominis secundum imagin secundum hominis constitutionem in iii Sermo

vol. 1, 739. 739. vol. 1, 210

65

ng is a hypostatical capacity. capacity. hypostatical nga is sis and Monothelites would have seen have would Monothelites and sis act that to Christ belong both miracles miracles both belong Christ to that act and 9, reiterates the teaching of of the of of teaching the reiterates 9, and n h sxh etr, h socalled the century, sixth the In ne complex hypostasis” of Justinian, Justinian, of hypostasis” complex ne rm. It looks like this statement was a was statement this like looks It rm. xpression on one incarnate nature as nature incarnate one on xpression el s oohsts atog no although Monophysites, as well f Severus of Antioch. As I. Perczel I. As Antioch. of Severus f t all. It was only pointed out in the the in out pointed only was It all. t s w wy Te aees o the for sameness The way. own ts h hi blvd xrsin The expression. beloved their th erent stance – for example in the the in example for – stance erent ae nesod hs s ht the that as this understood have it aahm acps t and it accepts anathema sixth rd, but incarnate, providing the the providing incarnate, but rd, ither. The expression “from the “from expression The ither. in a letter of Ps. Dyonisios the Dyonisios Ps. of letter a in Uthemann (Tunhout: Brepols, Brepols, (Tunhout: Uthemann oti mn concrete many contain em Dei neconon opuscula opuscula neconon Dei em i document his CEU eTD Collection been even more acceptable for the Theodosians. I th I Theodosians. the for acceptable more even been rvkd ue eae fr h nx cnuy a the was century next the for debates huge provoked and did not falsifyit with “one Theandric energy”. energy”. Theandric “one with falsifyit not did and oeegs cnlso ot f h Doiin express Dyonisian the of out conclusion Monenergist and Direct Text Traditions.” Traditions.” Text Direct and the idea of single Divine energy in Christ here but here Christ in energy Divine single of idea the theandric theandric M a in Cyril interpret to easy very been have would n did why and formula Monenergist the for Dionysius Dyonisian “new theandric theandric “new Dyonisian ot xlcty one ot t h Ltrn Council. Lateran the at out pointed explicitly most Thi doctrine. Monenergist the for point key the was usually is It Kyros. of theology the for important ruet o te Monenergists the for argument 217 216 215 214 213 212 211 Antiochian Christology. Antiochian theandr “new expression the shown has Perczel I. As o Pyrrhos later and Kyros out. pointed Monoenergism osatnpe wee hy ee aial agig t arguing basically were they where Constantinople, Lateran Council. Lateran against Pyrrhus that he “inmutavit dictionem beati beati dictionem “inmutavit he that Pyrrhus against “one theandric theandric “one Although Kyros was not the first who interpreted D interpreted who first the not was Kyros Although II ACO Kyros. against accusation Martin’s Pope See PseudoDionysi of Christology “The Perczel, István ACO II, 1 142, 153. 153. 142, 1 II, ACO Pyrrhos of Tome” “Dogmatic The See 136. 1 II, ACO Kyros, to letter Sergius’ See. CorpDyonys u a ‘en fo mn a byn mn, n ws abo was and men’, beyond was men from ‘being as but qeto wih oial aie i, h dd Kyros did why is, arises logically which question A h svnh ntea wee h Doiin insertion Dyonisian the where anathema, seventh The ‘not man, a not was He summarily, speak to even For o, o tig hmn s a, u eecsn fr us for exercising but man, as human things do nor having not God, rest the for and man; born been truly theandric energy theandric This passage has provoked controversies which have have which controversies provoked has passage This energeia II, 161, PG 3, 1027. 1027. 3, PG 161, II, energeia 217

” and “one theandric theandric “one and ” Le Muséon Le 212 wr interchangeable. were ” of God having become aman. havingofGodbecome

energeia

, 117 (2004), 40946. 40946. (2004), 117 , . . ACO II, 1 152. 152. 1 II, ACO 215 ” with “one theandric theandric “one with ” ltr uig h cucl f aea ad of and Lateran of council the during later he drew these conclusions from “new Theandric ener Theandric “new from conclusions these drew he

Dyonisii”, ACO II, 1 153; 153; 1 II, ACO Dyonisii”, energy 66 yonisius in this way. Severos of Antioch already sa already Antioch of Severos way. this in yonisius

us the Areopagite: The Fourth Letter in Its Indirec Its in Letter Fourth The Areopagite: the us , 1. 142, 3537; the accusation of Bishop Deusdedit Bishop of accusation the 3537; 142, 1. , 216 i nt s i a te poet of opponents the as big as not is ” Te su ws any eae a the at debated mainly was issue The ugse ta te eet anathema seventh the that suggested ink that the difference between “new “new between difference the that ink s point was the most scandalous and and scandalous most the was point s onenergist way and this would have would this and way onenergist ic activity” clearly leads towards the towards leads clearly activity” ic ot he continue in Cyrillian terms? It terms? Cyrillian in continue he ot h ms iprat on which point important most The hat “new theandric theandric “new hat f Constantinople and Makarios of Makarios and Constantinople f 211 ion. hnig n isrin f the of insertion and changing

energeia e hns iie as Divine things ne 214 as not being man’, being not as atd ni mdr times. modern until lasted ed o drs Pseudo address to need Ti bcm te main the became This s ae i te most the is made, is a certain certain a e a, having man, ve ,” 213 tu daig a drawing thus energeia new new and ” gy” gy” w w t t

CEU eTD Collection en opeey aife, n i hr hd en an been had there if and satisfied, completely been because he is one – nature, hypostasis and energeia and hypostasis nature, – one is he because oeegs way. inter Monenergist to first the was Antioch of Severos that fact those who, concerning this (question) teach about d about teach (question) this who,concerning those asc we then one, is Christ if that So appellations. Becasue the reason of salvation, which has establis has which salvation, of reason the Becasue duality; every of rejection than other interpreted ac theandric new the us in performed he being human Dyonisius wise utterly of statement the undesrtand new manner. as the one theandric nature and hyposta and nature theandric one the as manner. new them in its own way. In the case of “one theandric “one of case the In way. own its in them e which and misleading very were which formulae the defe great a saw they Theodosians; the were content 222 221 220 219 218 reasonable.quite sounds this and differe no is there that believed sincerely Antioch confessing one nature of Christ through the one ene one the through Christ of nature one confessing Chalcedon, with communicated have who we not is “It sometimes astonishingly sloppy.astonishingly sometimes o and, diplomatic and careful very hand, one the on betr not does Kyros it. on fruit no and leaves only comparis Armenian the resembles closely way washy a ucs; yo ws otn ad a wiig victorio writing was and content was Kyros success; d nothing say literally which th arguments between theological difference no was there fact in that way and opponents, Monophysite with dealt them of Both written in written i it that mean not does stated, not is natures” two easily could one natures” two “from says Kyros that See Hovorun, 19. “As we have already developed in developed already have we “As 19. Hovorun, See the See ACO II, 2, 602 – 607. –607. 602 2, II, ACO of “mistake” the on 111 footnote two, chapter See Confes Theophanes of Chronicle The example for See It seems to me that this was exactly where Kyros wa Kyros where exactly was this that me to seems It h cmoiin n te htrc lsl rsml t resemble closely rhetoric the and composition The Dogmatic Tome Dogmatic δροβαφή, 219 in a masterly diplomatic way, so that the Theodosi the that so way, diplomatic masterly a in Tu, hooin, h wr ahrns f eeo w Severos of adherents were who Theodosians, Thus, of patriarch Pyrrhos (ACO II, 1 152). 152). 1 II, (ACO Pyrrhos patriarch of

221 218

and we confess the incarnate God who operated in th in operated who God incarnate the confess we and hed two natures, together with them has established has them with together natures, two hed yads of natures and activities after the unity.” unity.” the after activities and natures yadsof n, o o a, o hg muti, n poes one profess and mountain, high a to say, to so end, 67 , (which are also composite); also we anathematize anathematize we also composite); also are (which , sis and also as the one incarnate nature of GodLog of nature incarnate one the as also and sis Kyron of Mtskheta. Mtskheta. of Kyron the Areopagite, who says that: Since God became a a became God Since that: says who Areopagite, the tivity, of the one composite (activity), it can not can it (activity), composite one the of tivity,

sor, 461. 461. sor, full breadth in other writings, we understood and and understood we writings, other in breadth full ay his . His theological language is language theological His style. his ay nce, whether one says “new” or “one” “one” or “new” says one whether nce, s not true. All the points were indeed indeed were points the All true. not s energeia rgy.” rt hs ynsa epeso i a in expression Dyonisian this pret accusation from the Chalcedonians Chalcedonians the from accusation ecisive. The union was seemingly a seemingly was union The ecisive. have objected that even though “in though even that objected have at of the Chalcedonian faith in this in faith Chalcedonian the of at te te hn, ey aig and daring very hand, other the n both of them, argued in the same the in argued them, of both e two parties, and both advance advance both and parties, two e on of Kyron’s faith to a tree with tree a to faith Kyron’s of on but rather Chalcedon with us by us with Chalcedon rather but ach party could have understood have could party ach s etr t Sergios. to letters us 220 This accusation of writing in writing of accusation This s gambling, he was choosing choosing was he gambling, s ” Kyros was counting on the on counting was Kyros ” a o Krn f Mtskheta. of Kyron of hat ans were saying: were ans 222 ud have ould N less No new new be be os. os. all all – – is is CEU eTD Collection personally think that he confessed the exact opposi exact the confessed he that think personally problem posed by Areios and Apollinarios. Apollinar Apollinarios. and Areios by posed problem Church. dogm preceding the pos all accepting the formally to language, adapted Diphysitism Antiochian of kind a Monop a in bishop was and surrounding Monophysite a as terminology Monophysite the towards inclination Monophys his of because exactly perhaps union, this ot the on But wording. his explain best might which a achieve to was goal main Kyros’ that mind in keep Kyros is sometimes “accused” of having had some Mo some had having of “accused” sometimes is Kyros theology 224 223 Dio and Athanasios for was it as just was, aim main oppositio his by formed was Theodore of Christology cre not if elaborated, was and tradition Antiochian i the Christ, in nature one with associated heavily for sound might it as odd As Theodor Christ. in what activities at look a have us let Now Kyrrhos ofTheodoret ThetraditionAntiochian Theodore IV. 6. – Mopsu of us.”to came w who us not was “It saying: even were and document soul, while the human mind ( mind human the while soul, i only is Christ of humanity the which to according subject ultimate only the was Word, the God Logos, the second chapter. chapter. second the was Kyros that curious somehow is It (20/02/2009). Bolotov, 460. 460. Bolotov, ahlc nylpda Krs f lxnra http:// Alexandria. of Kyros Encyclopedia. Catholic 224 bcue f h saeet lk “rm w natures”, two “from like statements the of because 223

nous ) had been replaced by the divine Logos. For him th him For Logos. divine the by replaced been had ) 68 “accused” in Nestorianism too as I have pointed out pointed have I as too Nestorianism in “accused”

te of what Monophysitism was, that is, is, that was, Monophysitism what of te ated, by Theodore of Mopsuestia. The Mopsuestia. of Theodore by ated, someone for whom Monotheletism is Monotheletism whom for someone e i raiy hd ep ot i the in roots deep had reality, in dea n his body, animated by an irrational an by animated body, his n o Mpusi si o wls and wills on said Mopsuestia of e well. Kyron of Mtskheta grew up in up grew Mtskheta of Kyron well. ios had created a created had ios union with the antiChlacedonians, antiChlacedonians, the with union her hand he was entrusted to make to entrusted was he hand her tc eeomns n h imperial the in developments atic oo o Tro, o vroe the overcome to Tarsos, of doros n to Areios and Apollinarios. His Apollinarios. and Areios to n t bcgon, hs xlis his explains this background, ite www.newadvent.org/cathen/04597c.htm www.newadvent.org/cathen/04597c.htm ent to Chalcedon, but Chalcedon Chalcedon but Chalcedon, to ent osatnpe I theological II tConstantinople f h “ua” ciiy and activity “human” the of yie hrh Hwvr I However, Church. hysite nophysite tendencies in his in tendencies nophysite u oe hud always should one but estia, Nestorios, ΛόγοςΣάρξ theory, in in e CEU eTD Collection prosopon of the two entities. Theodore rejected the rejected Theodore entities. two the of prosopon Nestorius synonymous for synonymous Nestorius prosopon his cooperation in the proposed works to the one w one the to works proposed the in cooperation his ea with cooperating and other each from independent Theod to according Christ, In Logos. the by assumed a indwelled Logos the Thus, Theodore. by elaborated and expressions other with together emphasis, much others among authors, Patristic by him before used further elaborated on the traditional concepts of concepts traditional the on elaborated two further the of combination the selfstandin explain were To Christ combination. in Logos the and human the includin faculties, human his and humanity Christ’s main His Christ. of humanity complete the stressing

rud ht h uiy a acrig to according was unity the that argued th that argued and hypostasis,” for “according with has its own capacity to will and to act. toact. willand to own capacity its has 226 225 a created theory, this to opposition in Theodore, Logos. influe involved dynamic also unity “vital, of principle this a Apollinarians Grillmeier A. to according eetees i te odtos f w wls n a and wills two of conditions the in explanat Nevertheless, The Christ. in activity and will one about Hovorun, 11. 11. Hovorun, 10. Hovorun,

hs hie a md scr i hm n h cooperati the in him in Logos. secure made was choice this whil will, own his by way this to fast held good…He proportion in Word the God of cooperation the also according himself formed he love indissoluble With , which for him as well as later for Saint Cyril an Cyril Saint for later as well as him for which , 226

hypostasis

. . prosopon 69

indwelling idea of unity according to nature and nature to according unity of idea the Cappadocian Fathers, but without but Fathers, Cappadocian the hc ws o hm s el s for as well as him for was which g human activity and will. Therefore will. and activity human g drgto o te iiiy f the of divinity the of derogation a o fr hs is n i ter o the of theory his in lies this for ion e unity was according to a common a to according was unity e ch other. “The Divine Son furnished furnished Son Divine “The other. ch ho was assumed.”was ho ore, there are two sources of action, of sources two are there ore, i ws o eed h raiy of reality the defend to was aim without the theoretical framework framework theoretical the without a ad h woe a was man whole the and man selfstanding realities, Thodore Thodore realities, selfstanding ette, w ra big in beings real two entities, g nce of Logos”. So for the the for So Logos”. of nce and to the good, receiving good, the to d Nestorios was synonimous synonimous was Nestorios d tos hooe tl speaks still Theodore ctions Λόγοςνθρωπος to his own choice of choice own his to e on the other hand other the on e g ok f God of work ng assumption 225 So each nature each So , which were which ,

theory thus thus theory CEU eTD Collection prosopon prosopon by depended on the question of whether of question the on depended rm hs a ocpul miaec ws born: was ambivalence conceptual a this, From id without union”, “hypostatic a terms, Cyrilian in the domain of Trinitarian theology, and identified and theology, Trinitarian of domain the teachi Cappadocian the earlier as just Christology, Chalcedonian terms. Chalcedonian orig the save to thus and latter the do to tendency kn o Aeada slto. t eaae te con the separated It solution. Alexandran of kind a hitlg o Tedr o Mopsuestia of Theodore of Christology volitional union (union volitional prop other the and Christ, in humanity and divinity

thesis was further elaborated by Nestorios. For Nest For Nestorios. by elaborated further was thesis 229 1963). Press, Clarendon Norris, A. Richard 228 227 theologians, both identifying nature and nature identifying both theologians, n wrhp I i te a Gd per ad reveals and appears God way the is It worship. one will and one activity. These manifestations do notdo Thesemanifestations oneactivity. and will capacit volitional and energetical the where space,

Theodore prefers to use to prefers Theodore Fr oe f h wrs n h Crsooy f Theodo of Christology the on works the of some For 11. Hovorun. István Perczel, personal correspondance, 2009. 2009. correspondance, personal Perczel, István prosopon en o te ae sec, u i i wog f appli if wrong is it but essence, same the of being dominion. natures unconfused and undivided, indicates a singl a indicates undivided, and unconfused natures benevol to ofunityaccording way time the same the been havenot could itotherwise essence; different well as single will and willand single as well h ie o te nt acrig o aue s ny t only is nature to according unity the of idea The h Grin nt f h dbt bten h Alexandr the between debate the of knot Gordian The hrfr, o Tedr, iln ad cig s ca a is acting and willing Theodore, for Therefore, being a weak term, henceforward the meaning of the the of meaning the henceforward term, weak a being . The letter of Theodoret of Cyrus to John of Aigei of John to Cyrus of Theodoret of letter The . Manhood and Christ: A Study in the Christology of T of Christology the in Study A Christ: and Manhood 227 κατ' εδοκανκατ' νωσις

229

prosopon

energeia Aaet Geoin 8 (oe Aaet Gregoriana Analecta (Rome: 82 Gregoriana Analecta , , as it denotes one common honor, one greatness, an greatness, one honor, common one denotes it as , ), was the Council of Chalcedon, which had broughthad which Chalcedon, of Council the was ), prosopon , which are followed by a single powerand single a by followed are which , hypostasis 70

was defined by defined was re of Mopsuestia see: Francis A. Sullivan, Sullivan, A. Francis see: Mopsuestia of re appear separately but always as one.as butalways separately appear ies manifested themselves, that is one is that themselves, manifested ies ng had separated these two notions in notions two these separated had ng prosopon , but one proposing a natural union of union natural a proposing one but , entifying this with a “natural union.” “natural a with this entifying inal tenets of Antiochian theology in in theology Antiochian of tenets inal hypostasis orios, the the orios, et of cept sn a rspc o eegtc or energetic, or prosopic, a osing isl i Christ. in himself free from confusion. At confusion. from free ence, while preserving while ence, e e u i apid o the to applied if rue with d o h big of beings the to ed prosopon prosopon heodore of Mopsuestia Mopsuestia of heodore en a tog em and term strong a being hypostasis prosopon pacity of the the of pacity hypostasis a shows that there was a was there that shows a a ad h Antiochian the and ian hypostasis of both as both of yottc union hypostatic rm aue in nature from was a common a was 228 , or , , proposing, proposing, , Theodore’s hypostasis prosopon (Oxford: (Oxford: , 1956); 1956); , The The

d . .

CEU eTD Collection proved by Pyrrhos in his debate against Maximos against debate his in Pyrrhos by proved aet xml o te otCacdna rnwl of renewal postChalcedonian the of example patent Diodoros of Tarsus. Tarsus. of Diodoros of Theodore of tradition Christological Antiochian w tradition previous only The Christ. of hypostasis activit divinehuman one as manifested are activity n atn i coeain ( cooperation in acting and reali independent being both Christ, in natures two human and divine activity in Christ. in activity divine and human Anti whole the of summary a is expression this that capacities in a single way – that is a humandivine ca a is that – acting way single a and in capacities volitional their having both divinity 232 231 Louvain.be/issue.php?journal_code=MUS&issue=3&vol=1 230 PseudoDionysius the Areopagite: The The Areopagite: the PseudoDionysius hi in activity” theandric new of kind “a of meaning h frt eso o te hr cucl f Constanti of council third statement: Makarios the of session first the

117/34 (2004), 409446, also online: online: also 409446, (2004), 117/34 n hs otia faeok ht n cud et und best could one that Monotheletism. framework doctrinal this in Pe I. to According concepts. new the with operating Disputation, 51. 51. Disputation, 2009. correspondance, personal Perczel, István Fr h agmn aot n nicin ihst bac Diphysite Antiochian an about argument the For h fc ta wa Krs a dfnig a o Antio of was defending was Kyros what that fact The To summarize the creed of Kyros in one sentence, we sentence, one in Kyros of creed the summarize To How did the expression “one theandric energy” fit i fit energy” theandric “one expression the did How i activity his S follow fully I but number, the about speak not do archbish honorable most The activity? one Yo confessed said: Constantine emperor pious The words. these abo in about spoke Leo memory the to venerable that Chr in activities two confess not do I Lord, my me, said Antioch, of archbishop venerable the Makarios,

231

theandric gt tau natura….. utraque agit Te ot iu eprr ad S hw o you do how So said: emperor pious most The .

Fourth Letter Fourth 230 The idea of this expression is that humanity and humanity that is expression this of idea The s Fourth Letter, see István Perczel, “The Christolo “The Perczel, István see Letter, Fourth s 71 in its Indirect and Direct Text Traditions” Traditions” Text Direct and Indirect its in

kground of PseudoDionysios and the doctrinal doctrinal the and PseudoDionysios of kground 17 232 ochian tradition stressing the common the stressing tradition ochian

hich this thesis corresponds to, is the is to, corresponds thesis this hich

way. Dionysios’s Fourth Letter is a is Letter Fourth Dionysios’s way. , n mawie n wl ad one and will one meanwhile and ), ties and having independent activity independent having and ties rczel’s proposal, it should be exactly exactly be should it proposal, rczel’s and later by Makarios of Antioch at Antioch of Makarios by later and , ht s o a, oig rm the from coming say, to is that y, oseta Nsois n, partly, and, Nestorios Mopsuestia, ol. atclry neetn is interesting Particularly nople. aiis ee aietn these manifesting were pacities Antiochian Diphysite theology, theology, Diphysite Antiochian aint Dionysios and call and Dionysios aint rtn Krss eso of version Kyros’s erstand nto this system? I would say say would I system? this nto ist and I do not think not do I and ist could say that he confesses confesses he that say could : As what concerns concerns what As : op Makarios said: I said: Makarios op ut two activities in activities two ut spoe ht he that suppose u chian origin is further further is origin chian http://poj.peeters Le Muséon Muséon Le gy of of gy CEU eTD Collection αιες επε βασιλες εσεβέστατος βασιλες επεν λλ αν νργειαν νο νργειαν αν λλ επεν βασιλες εσεβέστατος ριθν ο λέγω, λλ θεανδρικν ατο τν νέργεια τν ατο θεανδρικν λλ λέγω, ο ριθν arise in Him. inHim. arise pa the let He did so willing specially by only that I the of moment very the from humanity his credited whi aphthartodocetism, diphysite century, sixth the doctr another to refer to seems allusion Makarios's es ti vrin f oohlt telg. n this In theology. Monothelite of version this least πικρίνω. 235 234 233 λ’ ο τν ν ααί τ λξι Λέοντα λήξει τ ακαρί ν τν νο οδ λλ’ n o te nicin hitlg. h sbet f a a as Christ of is Makarios subject The Christology. Antiochian the of and Makarios stated his statedcreed: Makarios See Rm 6:4: „let us walk in the novelty of life” – life” of novelty the in walk us „let 6:4: Rm See ACO II, 2, 215216. For the full Greek text cf. ap cf. text Greek full the For 215216. 2, II, ACO ACO, II, 1, 34. 34. 1, II, ACO,

new godmanlyactivity. new has He man, become having Word the the God but man, as to according God, as confess not thing divine the “did He we that Dionysios fact, In Christ. Jesus hs tsiois e sd n h dcmn submitted one confessing document the in used we testimonies whose Sergios,Pa Honorius, with as well as Councils Five we and faith of confession a composed already have Augusti honorable and holy the to according these," sa the and one had He passions, these all receiving “ because thoughts, human and wishes bodily without Makarios said: I do not reason.notIdo said: Makarios a understand hs ofsin ds ey rcos e information new precious very adds confession This Therefore we confess one Lord Jesus Christ in the i the in Christ Jesus Lord one confess we Therefore d anything assumed not has he that say we therefore ah aue rsre ad oe oehr n one in together come and preserved nature each ra but, union the of because abolished been not has one in unconfu natures perfect two in stays he incarnation the of one is Christ Jesus Lord our that confess I tha clearly shows again once Makarios of stand This Holy Trinity did not assume another assume not did Trinity Holy hypostasis

γρ ο τν ενρκν νέργειαν; θεανδρικν τν νοες γρ Πς prosopon prosopon

Μακάριος σιώτατος ρχιεπίσκοπος ντιοχείας επεν ντιοχείας ρχιεπίσκοπος σιώτατος Μακάριος [e h dfnto o Cacdn. ie ta the that Given Chalcedon]. of definition the [see ” theandric hypostatical prosopon and one and

235 activity? The most honorable archbishop archbishop honorable most The activity? hypostasis and as a as and

will and will 233

ι ατς σω δο νρεα φσνα Κωνσταν φήσαντα. νεργείας δύο ήσεως τς ατς δι’

ες λγοντα. ες ine that was much discussed earlier, in the second second the in earlier, discussed much was that ine ssions of the mortal nature – a consequence of the of consequence a – nature mortal the of ssions ν κατ τν γιον ιονύσιον. Κωνσταντνος εσεβέστ Κωνσταντνος ιονύσιον. γιον τν κατ ν hypostasis pendix 5. pendix 72 ncarnation with the characteristics of the risen bo risen the of characteristics the with ncarnation , “so that the difference of the natures the of difference the that “so , h wie ul acpig h to aue o Christ of natures two the accepting fully while ch, referring to the resurrection. I. Perczel suggests Perczel I. resurrection. the to referring

prosopon

αάις ιττς ριπσοο επεν ρχιεπίσκοπος σιώτατος Μακάριος theandric

Μακάριος σιώτατος ρχιεπίσκοπος επενσιώτατος Μακάριος

. At the eight session of the council council the of session eight the At . otia saeet aais is Makarios statement doctrinal even after the incarnation, incarnation, the after even ctions and willing according to to according willing and ctions Holy Trinity and after the after and Trinity Holy activity in our one Lord one our in activity me power to endure all endure to power me

ul, Peter and the others, the andPeter ul, mage of renovation,of mage sably and unseparably unseparably and sably γώ, δέσποτα, δύο νεργείας ο λέγω,νεργείας δύο δέσποτα, γώ, nor the human things human the nor ther, the properties of properties the ther, t he was a follower of Kyros Kyros of follower a was he t ne. On this issue we issue this On ne. eriving from the sin. the from eriving agree with the holy the with agree having one will for will one having prosopon o h udrtnig f at of understanding the to ecig f Saint of teaching o h Emperor, the to lived a kind of a of kind a lived One of the the of One n one and 234

γ οκ οκ γ half of of half τνος τνος dy, so so dy,

, that that , sin – – sin γ ατος ατος , , CEU eTD Collection person of course has the capacity to will, but his but will, to capacity the has course of person υιʇτητος αυʆτω παρ τος λοιπος αʆνθρπους πρσεσ αʆνθρπους λοιπος τος παρ αυʆτω υιʇτητος God’s. again once This God. from will separate a have not Makario of disciple the Stephen, when further shown te mn n n xetoa mne bcue f i u His of because manner exceptional an in men other πθη ibid. 980 D981 A. D981 980 ibid. Nestorios was Maximos Confessor. His debates with e with Hisdebates Confessor. Maximos was Nestorios no who debate, whole the in person only The though. onewillan confessing meanwhile and Christ in will 238 237 236 p unblamable and natural “the called later Damascus Antiochians the led This Letter. Fourth Dionysios’s a – exceptional Christ’s of that – doctrine Antiochian Dionysios of expression the through – reviving Maximos says: Maximos xmt rm h cneune o sn wie willingl while sin, s our neededfor was ofthis whenever death, including consequences the from exempt different a himself upon took Logos the Mopsuestia,

Cf. Theodore, Theodore, Cf. Disputation, 17. Perczel, ) in Christ. That is to say, according to this doct this to according say, tois That Christ. in ) 237 etro avctd Te otie f n wl i tw in will one of doctrine The advocated: Nestorios Ecthesis The Antiochian background of the Christology of Mak of Christology the of background Antiochian The invented by him.by invented But according to what you say if if say you what to according But hs wo a oe il vniae i [Nestorios’] his vindicate will, one say who Those g not did Alexandria of Kyros of “Nestorianism” The nris n vc vra nris with energies versa, vice and energies ute, euig yro’ tei o te hypostati the on thesis Pyrrhos’s refuting Further, olwn te ae rnils ete t sy ht b that say a person one is to there Godhead Holy the either of operation principles, same the following Along with these terms Constantine of Apamea confe ofApamea Constantine terms these with Along

36. 36.

De incarnatione De

etfe,avctsad ere oe il wih i which will, one decrees and advocates testifies, 238

(PG. 66, 985 B): “It is clear that He possesses th possesses He that clear is “It B): 985 66, (PG.

τι τ εʆξαρετον, τ πρς αυʆτν [τν Λγον] εʇνσε Λγον] [τν αυʆτν πρς τ εʆξαρετον, τ τι prosopa 73

prosopa in o te od” ( Word]” [the to nion willing is completely identical to that of that to identical completely is willing humanity, which is in fact expressed in expressed fact in is which humanity, e nrdcd ln wt the with along introduced be alvation. d one theandric activity in Him. Him. activityin onetheandric d is an Antiochian teaching: Adam as a as Adam teaching: Antiochian an is rine, originally stated by Theodore of Theodore statedby originally rine, to denying what later Saint John of John Saint later what denying to s said that before the fall Adam did Adam fall the before that said s xPatriarch Pyrrhos makes it clear: itclear: Pyrrhos makes xPatriarch mr nbe hmnt ta ours, than humanity noble, more , sin” (assions” ie rvvl fte ecig of teaching the of revival a ticed , then you are compelled, compelled, are you then , ey motn eeet f the of element important very acpig hs passions, these accepting y 236 s well, or because of because or well, s a caatr of character cal cue f h one the of ecause

teaching, for their their for teaching, ssed, admitting the natural the admitting ssed,

arios and his followers is followers his and arios cmltl unnoticed completely o τ φυσικ κα δι̙λητα δι̙λητα κα φυσικ τ o πρδηλον γρ εʆκεινο, ωʇς της της ωʇς εʆκεινο, γρ πρδηλον xcl what exactly s prosopa e sonship above all the all above sonship e was ι energeia ). Cf. also also Cf. ). , , CEU eTD Collection Nestorian florilegia, which were eventually included eventually were which florilegia, Nestorian n ws vn erhn fr ro o ti identifica this of proof for searching even was and one activity according to nature or according to according or nature to according activity one the whether ti according divided are florilegia The rm h Atohas nld Tedr o Mopsuestia of Theodore include Antiochians the from of Theod by presented Christology the is Monotheletism perfec The Cyrillian. call would I Monotheletism of Ma by later and Kyros by presented as Monotheletism trie have IAbove Sergios. from other the and Kyros 242 241 240 239 ofdirections TwoMonotheletismIV.7. and Ibas of . ofEdessa. Ibas and council. wh the bring will I Makarios, and Kyros of that and between contrast the demonstrate To Constantinople. the at read Theodore of words the in clear is Phasi This l of Pharan of Kyros Theodore by by second the one and – undercurrent “takeoffs” two speak, to so would I Thus, nature. one of confession Monophysite underst Cyrillian of terms in is Pharan of Theodore contrar the On willing. common a by activity common A sixth century Nestorian philosopher from Dershah from philosopher Nestorian century A sixth the of text Greek full the For 332334. 1. II, ACO 15. Hovorun, 57. Disputation, theandric Maximos was very eager to identify Monotheletism wi Monotheletism identify to eager very was Maximos was the union, as Nestorios and his party mainained partyhis Nestoriosand union,as the was o said Nestorios as relational, is union their that O operations. three are there Hypostases, three the I would suggest that Monotheletism had two main str main two had Monotheletism that suggest would I

activity in Christ or the cooperation of divinity of cooperation the or Christ in activity

74

florilegia

r, Persia. Persia. r, prosopon thirteenth session of the third council of council third the of session thirteenth “heretic” was confessing one will and will one confessing was “heretic” anding, thus tending more towards the towards more tending thus anding, ole text as quoted at the session of the of session the at quoted as text ole cf. appendix 6. appendix cf. d to show the Antiochian character of character Antiochian the show to d in the acts of the Lateran Council. Lateran the of acts the in t example of this alternative trend in trend alternative this of example t tion. ore of Pharan. There are no hints at hints no are There Pharan. of ore Theodore of Pharan’s Christology Pharan’s of Theodore karios of Antioch. A second stream second A Antioch. of karios propose that Monothetelitsm had, Monothetelitsm that propose f Christ, for the one energy one the for Christ, f Pu te Persian, the Paul , eaning towards Monophysitism. Monophysitism. towards eaning , h Crsooy rsne by presented Christology the y, 240 or in their writings.theirin s with a strong Antiochian Antiochian strong a with s Spoel h cletd the collected he Supposedly yu ih maintain might you r eams, one originating from originating one eams, hypostasis and humanity producing a producing humanity and th Antiochian Christology Christology Antiochian th

. The quotations quotations The . 242 239 Theodulos,

241

CEU eTD Collection notion of notion

Logos. Logos. humanaction the All activity. divinehuman any for pains, the wounds, the opening in the chest, the na the chest, the in opening the wounds, the pains, th as such passions, are really and called properly oe, r f oe aua mvmn o te ua bei human the of movement natural some of or power, S our about told is economy saving the to belonging body. Therefore all this is and is being called one called being is and is this all Therefore body. body and the soul, was done unitarily and inseparab and unitarily done was soul, the and body animated and perceiving living being, and so also t also so and being, living perceiving and animated perfo movement natural ofthe elements the speaking bu habitude by passions called improperly are which o perception the tiredness, sleep, food, for desire was performed by the body, whether we speak of the the of speak we whether body, the by performed was intellec the of mediation the through and, an divinity impetus its received originally human, or divine without assured are we this all through Therefore, divine. willis this and and becau high himself, Christ to belongs most which will, divine one truly is elements, great or small e the to beginning the from Inhumanation entire the humanit his to or divinity his to belonging whether it So nature. que human the the to or of divine the independently to refers God, h of we work whatever the that is us, Christ for clear is it this from So Here again humanity is considered as an instrument instrument an as considered is humanity again Here ours. of Saviour same the oneand of inte the through passing and Logos the of the power from and flowing say to so and beginning its having Therefore for Theodore the sole source of activity of source sole the Theodore for Therefore Christ. samethe oneand of oneactivity confess theseof interruption and initiation Logosthe the almigh the to attribute to justified we are wanted, an hunger fatigue, sleep, allowed economy wise most to the soul, or to the body, or to the composition composition the to or body, the to or soul, the to whethe Christ, Lord the about told is whatever that organon

of kind some to due Logos) (the He earlier Because I think that this exposition demonstrated clearly f clearly demonstrated exposition this that think I , intorduced by Severos of Antioch. Antioch. of Severosby intorduced , 75

s and passions were just “allowed” by “allowed” just were passions and s f pains, grief and sadness, sadness, and grief pains, f (conditions); therefore wetherefore (conditions); ty and allwise activity of activity allwise and ty of the two, I mean of the of mean I two, the of activity of the whole, as whole, the of activity any doubt that whatever that doubt any hose conditions that are that conditions hose is pious to call all this, all call to pious is y, one activity... so that so activity... one y, se he has only one will one only has he se is Logos and there is no place place no is there and Logos is nd, including whatever including nd, r belonging to God, or God, to belonging r cos te et, the death, the cross, e ul n rtoa soul, rational and tual iling, the spitting, the spitting, the iling, ly without separation, separation, without ly rmed by means of the of means by rmed ear or believe about about believe or ear d its cause from the the from cause its d t which are properly properly are which t llectual soul and the the and soul llectual d thirst whenever he whenever thirst d iie ciiy and activity divine idm n virtue and wisdom vor hit b it be Christ, aviour eebig ey uh the much very resembling to wehr this whether stion g sc a the as such ng, o h inquiry the rom wonderworking wonderworking iie and divine CEU eTD Collection eas n suc wih pas bu te no, be union, the about speaks which source no because avoids the using the word activity to denote the ea the denote to activity word the using the avoids or did Christ that all of subject one only is there although that, emphasised which Council, Ecumenical con to seems Theodore human. a as Christ of actions no does and tenet Cyrilian definite a has Pharan of the Armenians. On the contrary the anonymous treati anonymous the contrary the On Armenians. the condi the in energyone willand one about anything compl to be that claim and council this would at achieved compromise reconstruction for option Another sug to reasonable be it would fact, doctrine the to similar MonoenergismMonothetetism of matter a Armenians As the with union the where Theodosiopolis, intere the andcarried doctrines elaborated clearly the of Monoenergism and Monotheletsim that clearly a far too thesis my push to want not would I study. th because Honorius, or Constantinople of Peter and he other of Christology the analyze to try not will the from comes Christ of actions and passions human seen have we as controversy, Monothelite entire the 243 in Christ. Christ. in Armenians the ACO II 2 602606. For the Greek text cf. appendix appendix cf. Greektextthe For 602606. 2 II ACO Contrary to the texts emanating from Kyros’ circles Kyros’ from emanating texts the to Contrary Inhumanation are one activity of God. oneof activity are Inhumanation that professed and believed s be should the it rightfully and arguments these all From activity. saving Saviour our Christ of inhumanation the about stated Christ. same act one called rightly be would this all slapping Of course I am not saying that Antiochian Diphysiti Antiochian that saying not am I course Of accuses the Armenians of confessing one nature, on nature, one confessing of Armenians the accuses Per consequent, from all this we should conclude th conclude should we this all from consequent, Per

76 7. 243

sts of diverse parties. parties. ofdiverse sts suffered – the divine Logos. He even He Logos. divine the – suffered rthly t this stage, because I understand quite understand I because stage, this t resiarchs of Monotheletism like Paul like Monotheletism of resiarchs tions of two natures being adopted by adopted being natures two of tions the union was a purely political act political purely a was union the ls ay eeec t psin or passions to reference any luse t se ese seem irrelevant for the present the for irrelevant seem ese of Theodore of Pharan was adopted? wasPharanadopted? of ofTheodore human nature but from divinity. I divinity. from but nature human n h eape f hooe of Theodore of example the on iu i te ieto o te Fifth the of direction the in tinue seventh century were strictly and strictly were century seventh there are two natures in Christ, Christ, in natures two are there oikonomia Thirty Chapters of the Heresy of of Heresy the of Chapters Thirty a ahee, ht vrey of variety a that achieved, was ivity of the one and the and one the of ivity all those proper to the to proper those all Armenian or other, mentions mentions other, or Armenian is truly one divine and divine one trulyis , this exposition by Theodore by exposition this , sm was the only leitmotif of leitmotif only the was sm tl rjc ay dogmatic any reject etely clk, lal and clearly uchlike, et ht t h cucl of council the at that gest of Logos. None of the of None Logos. of e will and one energy one and will e at whatever is whatever at CEU eTD Collection rbeai t epan y oc aan trig back turning again, once by, explain to problematic ae o a omtc opoie Mnteeim could Monotheletism compromise. dogmatic a on based Antio Kyros’s angles human and historical the From stil is thisissu Ileave point thisat However, criticism. Kyros for aw background am theological I Antiochian orthodoxy”. “Imperial emerging newly a into t opportunity perfect a saw Herakleios with meeting thinking indeed was Kyros apparently, that, though, ant the and Severos by understood as “Monoenergism” ther that Sergios of example the on also and Pharan e led hd xeine atog a unsuccessful an although experience, had already He p doctrine unial the accepted former the which with b a consecrated Mtsk of Kyron and Phasis of Kyros of identification and Kartli to called he whom friend a had Nestorians, the among Nikopolis in up grew who Kyron’s plan which he had already during hisoffice during hadalready he which plan Kyron’s 77

e for further studies. studies. further for e as katholikos of Kartli. ofKartli. katholikos as e was also a strong tendency towards tendency strong a also was e heta might also explain the eagerness the explain also might heta o implement his Antiochian teaching Antiochian his implement o roposed by Herakleios and Sergios. and Herakleios by roposed o yo te ahlks f Kartli, of katholikos the Kyron to Nestorian teacher and a Nestorian a and teacher Nestorian n nicin em ad when and, terms Antiochian in n, n rig o rae union a create to trying in one, hpteia ad il trigger will and hypothetical l so svrl er ltr The later. years several ishop hleoin. h pit is point The iChalcedonians. are that my proposal of an an of proposal my that are ae en raiain of realization a been have chian stance will not be very be not will stance chian CEU eTD Collection e opee ni w acp ta Krn f Mtskheta, of Kyron that accept we until complete be Nikopolis. Here he supposedly grew up in a Nestorian Nestorian a in up grew supposedly he Here Nikopolis.

During the Persian wars he was probably taken as a as taken probably was he wars Persian the During biographyof ofthe summary tentative givea to try c by explained be best can and interwoven logically the that and person same the and one are Alexandria Constantinople (680/1). (680/1). Constantinople (541) Lateran of Council the d by stomach first some anathematized of br because which died name he 641 a In AlMukaukas, happiness. of nickname mock a him Arabs the by such as known was He Egypt. of viceroy th granted also was He Monophysites. local the with h elaborated he Here Alexandria. of see the – union received he services these to Due issues. Caucasian Armenian the with union the creating in emperor the Herak met he cooperator the became and Monotheletism, 622 confessed Around Lazika. of metropolitan and beca he katholikos of title the lost having Egrisi, was he council, Persian the during 616) (or 614 in c Armenian and Georgian the 608 In Mtskheta. in see approxim of age the at century sixth the of end the was and Armenia to returned he Afterwards teacher.

The process of identification of Kyros AlMukaukas AlMukaukas Kyros of identification of process The He was born in the late 560s in southern Georgiaan southernin 560s late the in wasborn He Conclusions Conclusions 78

me the bishop or archbishop of Phasis of archbishop or bishop the me this reconstructed person: person: reconstructed this ately forty he received the patriarchal patriarchal the received he forty ately forced to flee to his western eparchy, eparchy, western his to flee to forced hostage and lived for fifteen years in years fifteen for lived and hostage h rca ofc o te oiy of policy the for office crucial the events of the life of the “three” are are “three” the of life the of events rossreferencing. Here I will finally finally will I Here rossreferencing. received the monastery in Dvin. By Dvin. in monastery the received e title of prefect of Alexandria and Alexandria of prefect of title e s hitlg adcetd union a created and Christology is n ltr y h tid oni of Council third the by later and hurches were finally separated and separated finally were hurches s and generally consulting him on him consulting generally and s of Herakleios and Sergios, helping Sergios, and Herakleios of surrounding and had a Nestorian a had and surrounding yo o Pai ad yo of Kyros and Phasis of Kyros and local population, who gave who population, local and isease and was posthumously posthumously was and isease d was a Georgian by ethnicity. byethnicity. Georgian wasa d eo i pro i Lazika, in person in leios started by A. Butler will not will Butler A. by started uh mr tro than terror more ought CEU eTD Collection

7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. identifi onlythe by beexplained can facts Several 10. 9. 8.

Caucasian mountains i.e. from Kartli, rather thanratherf Kartli, from i.e. mountains Caucasian fro was he that suggests name The origin. Caucasian h name The The name of his daughter ofhis name The was married and had a family. hadafamily. and married was a into take we if becomeexplicable will Alexandria sources Arabic of information strange otherwise The with Armenia. Armenia. with AntiChalcedo the with dealing in experience ant Kyros’ the with union of act the conduct to Alexandria appo later and Phasis in Kyros consulted Herakleios Phasis. Phasis. Egrisi of metropolitan the was indeed he that fact metr the Kyron call sources Armenian why reason The Council and before that by the Council of Lateran. ofLateran. Council bythat the before and Council hereti a as condemned was f he deliberately that is was historiography Mtskheta of Kyron why reason The and leads the regional ecclesiastical politics. politics. ecclesiastical regional the leads and a Georgia western in later years several and Kartli K point certain a at that names, in coincidence The at u dfntl nt es, lot h woe ide whole the Alexandria. and almost i pushed and Monotheletism called later least, Christology cr he spirituality, by not and education by Nestorian A definitely by the be explained can Monoenergism/Monotheletism but Last Both Kyron and Kyros died by some strange stomach d stomach strange some by died Kyros and Kyron Both yo, oh en voet n eteey tit n t on strict extremely other.theon diplomatic and violent being both Kyron, see Kyros of nature and character the this, Besides AlMukaukas niae hs rvnne nml ta h ws of was he that namely provenance, his indicates Armanusah 79 has a clear Armenian etymology. etymology. Armenian a hasclear

cation of Kyros with Kyron: Kyron: Kyros with of cation rom Pontus. Pontus. rom and therefore the archbishop of archbishop the therefore and ccount that Kyron of Mstkheta Mstkheta of Kyronthat ccount bishop called Kyros emerges emerges Kyros called bishop eated a clandestine Nestorian clandestine a eated on the family of patriarch of patriarch of family the on t b te ae s ht of that as same the be to m inted him as the patriarch of patriarch the as him inted t as far as to Constantinople Constantinople to as far as t yron is forced to flee from from flee to forced is yron c by the Sixth Ecumenical Ecumenical Sixth the by c nians and his relationships relationships his and nians iChalcedonians, owing to to owing iChalcedonians, te ein lsr o the to closer region the m isease in a very old age. very oldage. aisease in biography of Kyros/Kyron. Kyros/Kyron. of biography opolitan of Egrisi was the was Egrisi of opolitan e n hn ad very and hand one he rotn y Georgian by orgotten of a CEU eTD Collection itr o mrec o Mnteiecnrvry and controversy Monothelite of emergence of history main two in conducted be should studies future the “expor the of examples the of one was Kyros center. dogma a creating of attempts the of all almost hand d all towards radiated which centuries, seventh and va of birthplace a truly and controversies dogmatic C of fall the to down region the in Christianity of A and Persian Roman, the of borders the at location theology dogmatic and politics where microcosm a of t in is that most the needed was it where place the Con in court imperial the at elaborated “imperial and created called so the hand other the On victory. en really Theodosians ThisMonophysite the that successful Phasis. of Kyros by Nestorianism of revival Monotheletism/Monen thesis, the in argue to tried I and ofMonotheletism emergence the studyof the for comp a then theory, this accept we If Caucasus. the the of reevaluation and examination the to further byhi wasforgotten and alike Armenians thefor and ant and Chalcedonians for Copts, and Greeks the for H them. to Egypt surrendered who and Arabs the with Fina union. of theology new a created and character reg the in union ecclesiastical the the for responsible conducted predecessors his even Ge and of Herakleios unification further the for stimulus the gave th of formation final the for responsible was Kyros theolog authoritative an both became He region. the

1. Further study Further 1. Wherever the hypothetically single Kyros stepped hi stepped Kyros single hypothetically the Wherever h ietfcto o Krs uaks ih yo of Kyron with Mukaukas Kyros of identification The 80

onstantinople Caucasus was a trigger of of trigger a was Caucasus onstantinople he Caucasus. The Caucasus was a kind a was Caucasus The Caucasus. he dogmatic and ecclesiastical situation in situation ecclesiastical and dogmatic o. n gp h soe hs ruthless his showed he Egypt In ion. rious heretical movements in the sixth the in movements heretical rious s own people. people. own s irections of the Empire. On the other the On Empire. the of irections ian and an influential political leader. political influential an and ian stantinople, but rather being born in born being rather but stantinople, rabic empires. From the introduction the From empires. rabic thought that the union was their own their was union the that thought ergism was a clandestine attempt of attempt clandestine a was ergism e independent Church of Kartli and Kartli of Church independent e Monenergism. One the one hand, as hand, one the One Monenergism. iChalcedonians, alike for the Arabs the for alike iChalcedonians, ters” of this unificatory theology. In theology. unificatory this of ters” needed be will approach new letely directions, towards reevaluating the reevaluating towards directions, l h wste n h negotiated who one the was he lly was interwoven due to its strategic its to due interwoven was eey wl nt em n more any seem not will heresy” odciga ytmtcsuy of study systematic a conducting its in Caucasus the had union tic is name became an object of curse curse of object an became name is orgia, through his hand emperor emperor hand his through orgia, s foot, he played a crucial role in role crucial a played he foot, s evr f yo ws o much so was Kyros of deavor acsa plc ad e was he and policy Caucasian tkea hud lead should Mtskheta CEU eTD Collection an regionthein dogmaticcontroversies ofthe core less or more a create to order in eastern Church and theology dogmatic the of development the 81

full image of what was happening at the at happening was what of image full d in the whole of the empire. empire. ofthe wholethein d rcie n h Cuau and Caucasus the in practice CEU eTD Collection Redeuntes Nestorianos veram de incarnato Verbo fide Verbo incarnato de veram Nestorianos Redeuntes etraa hrso err cnua sn, u a ma ad cum sunt, confusae errore hareseos Nestorianae Ec principis apostolorum Petri beati ad praesentium

moiin mnu, u crsai ucin, i pr ait unctione, chrismatis aut manuum, revert impositione Ecclesiam ad si sunt, baptizanti invocatione etc. Episcopum, Quiricum Ad LXVII. Epistola 1204-1208. PL077.col. Migne, to Kartli. Great the Gregory Pope of Letter The 1. Appendix ua hriai ii et og, us iiut loca dividunt quos longe, est nihil chartitati Quia caeteris et Quirinoepiscopo, vel Quirico Gregorius s ordinibus. propriis in venerentur,suscipiendos anathematizent, Nestorium si atque Scripturis; ex li priis. n ubs sct pe i, studui ait, ipse sicut quibus, In perdidisse. aliis J in easque accepisse, epistolas nos ad asseruit se visceribus fuerint unity. Hi vero haeretici qui in in qui haeretici vero Hi unity. fuerint visceribus fid verae professionem propter isti vel acceperint, imp per illi vel cum recipit, confessione vera sola refor Oriens catholicae Ecclesiae sanctae ingressum unctio per Occidens, manus impositionem per Arianos si ad fidei professione sola aut manus, impositione redeun Ecclesiam sanctam ad cum baptizantur, nomine didicimus institutione Patrum antiqua an quidem Et visceribusadj Ecclesiae matris ejusdem confessione bap debeant utrum revertuntur, Ecclisiam catholicam Appendices Appendices 82

stis inquirere sacerdotes ac plebes quae quae plebes ac sacerdotes inquirere stis num matris Ecclesiae revocentur. Unde revocentur. Ecclesiae matris num erosalymorum urbe cum rebus quoque rebus cum urbe erosalymorum rntts oie iie baptizantur, minime nomine Trinitatis episcopis in Hiberia catholicis: Hiberiacatholicis: in episcopis ungi ut quolibet apud haresim in Trinitatis Trinitatis in haresim apud quolibet ut stoe mns prtm sanctum Spiritum manus ositionem clesiam veniens fraternitatis vestrae fraternitatis veniens clesiam a. oohsts eo t lo ex alios et vero Monophysitas mat. i aca e uiesls Ecclesiae universalis et sanctae ei Eos qui in haeresi cum Trinitatis Trinitatis cum haeresi in qui Eos nu, o bpiads sd aut sed baptizandos; non antur, m docendos, quam hic ipse firmat firmat ipse hic quam docendos, m tizari, an certe solius verae fidei fidei verae solius certe an tizari, i quas recipit Ecclesia synodos synodos Ecclesia recipit quas i iungat epistola. Lator itaque itaque Lator epistola. iungat ofessione fidei reconciliandos. reconciliandos. fidei ofessione e vr snt crsai ad chrismatis sancti vero nem t, aut unctione chrismatis, aut aut chrismatis, unctione aut t, yo te ahlks of Katholikos the Kyron trem electorum omnium omnium electorum trem CEU eTD Collection Nec potest hoc ipsum iteratum dici baptisma, quod, s quod, baptisma, dici iteratum ipsum hoc potest Nec sanctae in positi errore in quod fuit non baptisma es t ia aeterna vita et Deus ce nil Dmn, it ii iu dicis sicut mihi fiat Domini, ancilla Ecce ait: Christum. Quem verum Filium quid esse sentiat apert sentiat esse quid Filium verum Quem Christum. e quid Sed omnipotentem? Patrem nisi insinuat, DEum subjunxit: illico dederit, sensum 13). 13). Fi descendit, coelo verbu de qui nisi coelum, in est ascendit persona itaque Una minuit. non sua auxit, suae enim Incarnationis n erat. non factum, quod dicimus suscipiendo carnem vero Verbum 14). I, (Joan. quia saeculorum, fine in hominem factum in existentem ipsum credant, Christum Jesum nostrum h et Dei eudemque unum venientes ut sunt, docendi catholicam confessione Ecclesiam sanctam ad obscurat, unigeniti Incarnationem similes, perfidiae Judaicae Tri sanctae in quia vero Nestoriani datum. erat non Eccl sanctam ad cum alii, sunt multi similes quorum pravum quemdam esse sensu perverso Spiritum sanctum C illi et quia Cataphrygae, et Bonosiaci sunt sicut Certe cum hunc sancta Virgo conceptura esset, et lo et esset, conceptura Virgo sancta hunc cum Certe est Hic homo. est factus saecula ante Verbum Filius non Deus verus utique homo, est verus qui Christus, occulta mentis eorum discutitis, atque eos per vera per eos atque discutitis, eorum mentis occulta coe suo in ordinibus, propriis eis servatis vestra, quoq promittan venerari et recipere se recipit, Ecclesia Venerandes anathematizantes. haereses reliquas cu Nestorium eumdem fateantur, congregatione vestrae reve Nestorii errore perverso a quicunque veritatem Scimus quia Filius Dei venit, et dedit nobis sensu nobis dedit et venit, Dei Filius quia Scimus Quia Filius Dei in coelo, erat Filius hominis qui l qui hominis Filius erat coelo, in Dei Filius Quia S iiu jxa etri lu Vru, lu esse alius Verbum, alius Nestorii juxta igitur Si . t onsau Du verum Deum cognoscamus Ut 83 (Luc. I, 38) .... Hanc ergo nativitatis ejus ejus nativitatis ergo Hanc .... 38) I, (Luc. ebm ao atm s, aiai i nobis in habitavit est, factum caro Verbum

t; et absque ulla dubitatione eos sanctitas eos dubitatione ulla absque t;et tu recipiat, ut dum et per sollicitudinem sollicitudinem per et dum ut recipiat, tu lius hominis qui est in coelo in est qui hominis lius Trinitatis nomine minime perceperunt. perceperunt. minime nomine Trinitatis hristum Dominum non credunt, et isti et credunt, non Dominum hristum m scientiam recta quae tenere debeant tenere quae recta scientiam m o ceets sa heees error haereseos suae credentes, non esset et vita aeterna. Sed unigenitus unigenitus Sed aeterna. vita et esset quentem ad se angelum audiret, ait: audiret, angelum se ad quentem icut dictum est, in Trinitatis nomine Trinitatis in est, dictum icut nitatis nomine baptizantur, sed eos eos sed baptizantur, nomine nitatis m ius ostendit: ostendit: ius ergo verus Deus et vita aeterna. aeterna. vita et Deus verus ergo rtuntur coram sancta fraternitatis fraternitatis sancta coram rtuntur ytro ngntr ars nostra Patris unigenitur mysterio divinitate ante saecula, et ipsum et saecula, ante divinitate oquebatur in terra. terra. in oquebatur e cr, iu is ait: ipse sicut caro, et m tiam de omnipotente Filio Jesum Filio omnipotente de tiam sa vnut bpiatr quia baptizantur, veniunt, esiam ominis Filium, Deum Dominum Dominum Deum Filium, ominis (I Joan. V, 20). Qui nobis quem nobis Qui 20). V, Joan. (I onbs eucbs us et suis, sequacibus omnibus m e yoo qa universalis quas synodos ue oie Mnau credunt, Montanum hominem e ea fdi imtt et firmitate fidei verae de n mted qo ea, sed erat, quod amittendo on . Quem hoc loco verum verum loco hoc Quem . Hic estHic , inquit, inquit, , hm Jesus homo t Hinc Joannes Hinc (Joan. III, (Joan. Nemo verus

CEU eTD Collection ίν υι θλσν α α έγιν ν ρσ Χριστ ν νέργειαν ίαν κα θέλησιν φυσικν ίαν γράψαντεςΧριστ ν ατο κα ίαν κείνηννωσιν, τελ λεξανδρείας το πι τ Θεοδώρ, νωθες κα δ λεξανδρείας, πίσκοπος Γεωργίου αρεσιν. τν ατν φοτέρων ώης, πάπαν τν ωάννην, πρς γράφει τούτ γ φύσις ία κα κε ερηται, νέργεια ία νθα τι, θανάσιον τν κα ερε βουλν τν στοιχήσας φοτέρων τε γάρ, Σέργιος νέργειαν. ίαν κατν θέληα ν ε ρωτήσας τοτον κα πίσκοπον, Φάσιδος τν Κρον, Κονσταντινουπλ τν Σέργιου, πρς γράφει ξενοφωνηθες Χριστ ν λέγειν τατα δε πς τ θεληάτων, τν κα ρώτη φύσεις νωένας Χριστ ν δύο τς ολογήσας ντιοχε ποιεν ατν πατριάρχην ποδέξηται, σύνοδον πισχνε λόγους πίστεως περ βασιλέα τν πρς κινήσας κακοργος κα νρ δεινς ακωβιτν, τν πατριάρχης εραπ ν ντος ρακλείου βασιλέως το τει τ Τούτ 331-32. 1963): Olms, Hildesheim: chronographia Theophanis meet on Herakleios Confessor Theophanes 2. Appendix multip dona suoadhunc inamore vobisque custodiat, mul Trinitas itaque Sancta glorientur. fine quanto sine Domino retributio, crescat gloriae aeterne Deum rapiat ore hostis antiqui ab eos facitis, ordinibus contrariet eis nullam mansuetudinem per et docetis, vl 1 E. . e or Lizg Tunr 18. r 1883. Teubner, (Leipzig: Boor de C. Ed. 1. vol. , 84

Συρογενς κα γονέων ακωβιτν πάρχων, πάρχων, γονέωνακωβιτν κα Συρογενς φυσικν νέργειαν. φυσικν ρεν ατν συφωνοντα τ Σεργί ες τ τ ες Σεργί τ συφωνοντα ατν ρεν is; et tanto vobis apud omnipotentem omnipotentem apud vobis tanto et is; ίας. δ ποκριθες δέξατο τν σύνοδον σύνοδον τν δέξατο ποκριθες δ ίας. το ατ ράκλειος, ε τν ν Χαλκηδόνι Χαλκηδόνι ν τν ε ράκλειος, ατ το σκόπ τς Φαράν, ποίησε τν δροβαφ τν ποίησε Φαράν, τς σκόπ orantes pro nobis sua vos protectione protectione vos sua nobis pro orantes atem vel difficultatem de propriis suis propriis de difficultatem vel atem ωίεα. εαωες βσλ ν βασιλες δ βεβαιωθες νωρίζεται. liciora concedat. liciora τ τν Σύρων φύτ πανουργί, κα πανουργί, φύτ Σύρων τν τ σέ τε τν βασιλέα περ τς νεργείας τς περ βασιλέα τν τε σέ ολόγησε κα γραψεν. δ βασιλες βασιλες δ γραψεν. κα ολόγησε , διπλ οναδικά; δ βασιλες βασιλες δ οναδικά; διπλ , όλει, λθε πρς ατν θανάσιος, θανάσιος, ατν πρς λθε όλει, ω κπν ποκλα δ κα δ προσκαλεται πσκοπον, εως συφωνοντα ατος. γίνωσκε γάρ, γάρ, γίνωσκε ατος. συφωνοντα o cliii, u vbsu in vobiscum qui colligitis, tos υήατς οτλεα Κρος ποστέλλεται ευτήσαντος, τν γνώην δ ο κατεδέξατο κατεδέξατο ο δ γνώην τν ing Kyros. Kyros. ing

epr. CEU eTD Collection ακαρίου Λέοντος τν πάντιον πιστολν δύο νεργεί δύο πιστολν πάντιον τν Λέοντος ακαρίου ερηκς ατν κωλύουσαν. λέγεσθαι νωσιν τν ετ 1. 588-590 2,II, ACO Se to Alexandria of Kyros Theofletter 3. Appendix διασώσ. εκαρπίαν πρς ποδεξάενον κατ τν κα γν εθαλ κα πίονα τν ιήσηται τούτ φωταγωγηθ ν θεοδιδάκτων τν παιδεύσεως θεοφανος το οκονοίας ρρήτου τς παθς κα παθητν τε τό νεργε δύο δυνά νέργειαν νικν γουν πως ίαν ες παραιτούενοι διασαφούντων, τηλαυγέστερον δεόενος γν καταφεύγειν διδασκαλαν θεφραστον υετραν την γειν συχίαν τηνικατα ον εκότως πεδέχετο. νον κελ τς το κα ν λλ φαύλου, το Παύλου κείνου ηθείση τς δοκοσαν κα λεγοένην εναι ντίγραφον ε ν θεοπνεύστων τν ναφορν πάντιον λόγου το β ναφανδν δεσπότης, ου πανάγιός διδάσκει καθς νεργείας δ δύο θρησκεύων, ρθοδοξίαν ν ώητον ς θεοφιλς κα παινετς κεφα ς συνταγείσ, θεοπρεπς το Παύλου κατ Κύπρου ρχιεπίσκοπον γιώτατον ερ ατν τς κελεύσει θεί ετελάβανον παρρησίας θεο τς κα δ α δεσπότου ν θεοστηρίκτου το τούτοις ν οσιν ναφεροένοις τος π διορθωθείην περιγένητ οι τούτου κ κάτερα κα θάτερον δυον κατ διδασκαλίαν θεόπνευστον ν τρισακαρίστων τν πα κα ζήτει ζητν λέγοντος το κούσοιι σκήσω κ ρεύνα σου βαθύτερά κα ζήτει σου ψηλότερά εριζ ψυχν τν γνώαις δυσ κα λογισο εσεσαν ρθθνι ο τν αοσν νφρν ντα τ νατεναι ναφορν παροσαν τν οι Προθυηθέντι Ετα κανς αυτν ν τούτ βασανίσας τότε κα κα τότε βασανίσας τούτ ν αυτν κανς Ετα

85

ξιωθείς, θεοτίητοι, τν πανευσεβν χνν χνν πανευσεβν τν θεοτίητοι, ξιωθείς, εθα π πσι τος θείοις λογίοις συγκλείειν συγκλείειν λογίοις θείοις τος πσι π εθα όην. ρά γε, φησί, πεισθείην τ διδάσκον διδάσκον τ πεισθείην φησί, γε, ρά όην. ς εσεβος κελεύσεως νήην γρ ποιετο γρ νήην κελεύσεως εσεβος ς αι γάρ, φησίν, ποδειχθείην πάντως πάντως ποδειχθείην φησίν, γάρ, αι κα κιστα ντιλγειν παιδεθοην, π δ π παιδεθοην, ντιλγειν κιστα κα ρ’ ο ένε; ένε; ο ρ’ ας ετ τς λλήλων δηλαδ κοινωνίας, δηλαδ λλήλων τς ετ ας εύσεως σου κα τν γγεγραένον ατ ατ γγεγραένον τν κα σου εύσεως σωτρος ν ησο Χριστο, να τς να Χριστο, ησο ν σωτρος α κλεθρα πιβαλν τος χείλεσι σιγν χείλεσι τος πιβαλν κλεθρα α οσαν. νθένδε λοιπν ρηθέντος ν ν ρηθέντος λοιπν νθένδε οσαν. π το δεσπότου ν ησο Χριστο ησο ν δεσπότου το π ληθς πας ν σκοπς εσεβς τν τν εσεβς σκοπς ν πας ληθς αβαλλόενον το λόγου κόκκον σένως σένως κόκκον λόγου το αβαλλόενον ς νάγνωσιν γχειρίζεσθαι κελευόην, κελευόην, γχειρίζεσθαι νάγνωσιν ς ων τιίων ατς κεραιν ξιωθναι ξιωθναι κεραιν ατς τιίων ων τυ ο σγααάες τυχν συγκαταβάσεως ατο ιήτου rgios. rgios. έεο κ ρφρι ερν το πειρώην προφέρειν κα νένευον ν άβνν ππινς τι πεπεισένος, λάβανον, νον ττς νυεν ρς ράιν τν ρκάδιον πρς ντυχεν ότητος ν ν τ παίδευτον σως κν ν κν σως παίδευτον τ ν ν εττ υ επτ διάφοροι δεσπότ ου θεοτιήτ αώο τν νπσόω άλα νεπισκόπων τν λαιώτου γράφειν παρρησιαζόην, τε τν τν τε παρρησιαζόην, γράφειν ίας λέγειν ετ τν νωσιν νωσιν τν ετ λέγειν ίας CEU eTD Collection „ Χριστός, ησος σύνθετο πστασιν αν γουν ναλλοιώτως, τρέπτως, κατ σεσαρκωένην“ φύσιν λόγου θεο το „ίαν υόν, θεότητό τουτέστι φύσεων, δύο κ ολογε οχ τις Ε θ Κεφάλαιον στω. σεσαρκωέν λόγον θεν τν ε ς εναι, κα θεοτόκον ν λήθειαν δέσποιναν γίαν τν ολογε οχ τις Ε ε Κεφάλαιον τε να ντα, σύγχυτόν ατς ξ προελθεν καοτως νοερ κα τε λογικ ψυχ ψυχωένην οούσιον ν νωσιν καθ’ αυτ ποστσαι Μαρίας ειπαρθένου κα λ θεν τν νώσεως κρας ατς ξ ολογε οχ τις Ε δ Κεφάλαιον νάθε κα λλου“, „λλου θαύατα,λλ’ κα πάθη τ ν κυρίου νς κα ατο το ολογε οχ τις Ε γ Κεφάλαιον κ θεοτόκου νδόξου στω. νάθεα κατ γραφάς, τς έρ γίας τς ποθανόντ κα σαρκ δί τ ν παθόντα νανθρωπήσαντα, δεσποίνης τς κα ορ τν κ κατελθόντα κα πατρός, τν το κ γεννηθέντα τριάδος“ γίας τς να „τν ολογε οχ τις Ε β Κεφάλαιον νάθεα στω. ποστάσεσιν, πνε γιον κα υν κα πατέρα ολογε οχ τις Ε α’ Κεφάλαιον 594.2, II, ACO The 4. Appendix σάος ο αο κιος ατν σαρκωθέντα ατν τν καιρος ανος το δ σχάτοις ν ϊδίως τν ολογε, ατν τν τριάδος“ γίας τς θεω δυσ ν Χριστν ησον ν κύριον να τν τις Ε ζ Κεφάλαιον ες ν τς γίας οουσίου τριάδος“, τοιοτος, ν τοιοτος, τριάδος“, τς ν γίαςες οουσίου satisfactio.

86

α, τριάδα οούσιον, ίαν θεότητα ν τρισν τρισν ν θεότητα ίαν οούσιον, τριάδα α, κα διαίρετον, νάθεα στω. στω. νάθεα καδιαίρετον, ς τε κα νθρωπότητος, να Χριστόν, να Χριστόν, να νθρωπότητος, κα τε ς ανν κα σαρκωθέντα κ πνεύατος γίου γίου πνεύατος κ σαρκωθέντα κα ανν κ το πατρς γεννηθέντα θεν λόγον, ν λόγον, θεν γεννηθέντα πατρς το κ σάρκα ξ ατς τς γίας θεοτόκου τν τν θεοτόκου γίας τς ατς ξ σάρκα α κα ταφέντα κα ναστάντα τ τρίτ τρίτ τ ναστάντα κα ταφέντα κα α ησο Χριστο το ληθινο θεο τά τε τε τά θεο ληθινο το Χριστο ησο νώσει φυσικ τε κα καθ’ πόστασιν πόστασιν καθ’ κα τε φυσικ νώσει α στω. αστω. όγον ν τ γαστρ τς γίας θεοτόκου γίας τς γαστρ τ ν όγον θεν λόγον, τν πρ αώνων χρόνως χρόνως αώνων πρ τν λόγον, θεν τν ν γίοις Κύριλλον σύγχυτως, σύγχυτως, Κύριλλον γίοις ν τν ρεσθαι λέγων τας φύσεσιν οχ „να „να οχ φύσεσιν τας λέγων ρεσθαι ον κυήσασαν κα τεκοσαν, νάθεα νάθεα τεκοσαν, κα κυήσασαν ον ιπάρθενον Μαρίαν κυρίως κα κατ κατ κα κυρίως Μαρίαν ιπάρθενον , πρ σ ατς κρο ν κύριος ατς στν περ ν, κα τεχθέντα κ τς παναγίας κα κα παναγίας τς κ τεχθέντα κα α ειπαρθένου Μαρίας κα κα Μαρίας ειπαρθένου α άθεα στω. άθεαστω. CEU eTD Collection άλιστα τ κατ Θεοδώρου κα Θεοδωρίτου κα νδρέου κα Θεοδωρίτου τκατ Θεοδώρου άλιστα ACO, 215-216. 215-216. ACO, ofAntioch. of CreedMakarios 5. Appendix στω. νάθεα φρονούντων, πεφρονηκότων καατν νς συγγ τ δέχεται ο τις ε Θεόδ κα κα ατο, το πιστολήν, συγγράατα βα λεγοένην τν κα Κυρίλλου, τ Θεοδωρτου συγγρατα τ ναθεατζει ουκ τις Ε θ Κεφάλαιον νάθεαστω. τ τος κα ποθανόντας, πλάν τοιαύτ τ ν λλ’ το κεφαλαίοις δώδεκα τος τρόπον δήποτε οον καθ’ Αγ τος ωάννην κα Κρον κα δυσώνυον τν Ετυχέα Μακεδόνιο Ενόιον, ρειον, ναθεατίζει οκ τις Ε η Κεφάλαιον κλαβάνει τοιαύτην τν τ ν έρος διαιρέσει π θ α λογική, ψυχος σρξ α σάρξ, λόγου θεο α κατ λέγων νωσιν, περινόητον κα σύγχυτον> <κα τ δη νρηένης ς οδας δ διιστσι διαπλάσασι, <ο> λλ’ ποιούενος, θεωρίαν τν ατν πραγατικν λλήλοις τ δύο καθ γνωριζόενον, υν κα Χριστν διαιρέτως τούτοις ν κα ένοντα, νωσιν πόστασιν σύγχ κα τρεπτα διασκοπν ν τ τατα κα γέγονε, θ ιονύσιον γίοις ν τν κατ νεργεί“ θεανδρικ νε υν κα Χριστν να ατν τν κα πάθεσι, σαρκς ένοντ νθρωπος, καθ σαρκ νθρωπίνως ν πάσχοντα λλο“, κα λλο κατ’ πάσχοντα κα πάσχοντα ατν κα τοτο κατ κα ατόν“, τν τέλειον νθρωπότητι σοφώτα τν κατ ατν“ τν κα „να οχ κα τερον“, Μα ειπαρθένου κα θεοτόκου ν δεσποίνης χράντου 87

φωνήν, νάθεα στω. στω. νάθεα φωνήν, γιωτάτου Κυρίλλου κα ετανοήσαντας, ετανοήσαντας, κα Κυρίλλου γιωτάτου εωρί όν διακρίνων τ ξ ν νωσις νωσις ν ξ τ διακρίνων όν εωρί ργοντα τ θεοπρεπ κα νθρώπινα „ι νθρώπινα κα θεοπρεπ τ ργοντα συγχύτως συνηνεγένα καθορ τ ν, ν, τ καθορ συνηνεγένα συγχύτως ν, πολινάριον τν αρετικόν, Νεστόριον, Νεστόριον, αρετικόν, τν πολινάριον ν, κα χωρίστως τν να κα τν ατν ατν τν κα να τν χωρίστως κα κατ τς ρθς πστεως το ν γίοις γίοις ν το πστεως ρθς τς κατ τον Κύριλλον „ν θεότητι τέλειον κα ν κα τέλειον θεότητι „ν Κύριλλον τον οια ατν φρονήσαντας φρονοντας, φρονοντας, φρονήσαντας ατν οια κα Νεστορίου κα τν τ οια ατος ατος τοια κα τν κα Νεστορίου όνον „ν δύο“ θεωρούενον „φύσεσι τν τν „φύσεσι θεωρούενον δύο“ „ν όνον τν γιον θανάσιον „α γρ σάρξ, σάρξ, γρ „α θανάσιον γιον τν εο λόγου σρξ ψυχος λογική“, λλ’ λογική“, ψυχος σρξ λόγου εο υτα ετ τν ατν φυσικν κα καθ’ καθ’ κα φυσικν ατν τν ετ υτα α δ ς θεν παθ ν τος τς δίας δίας τς τος ν παθ θεν ς δ α ς ες δύο διατος δι τν φραστον φραστον τν δι διατος δύο ες ς ίς λ „τρν οτν οδ „κα οδε τοτον“ „τερον λλ’ ρίας, ς ατς ν γίοις φησε Κύριλλος, Κύριλλος, φησε γίοις ν ατς ς εώτας κα πάντας τος ντειρηκότας τος πάντας κα εώτας φαντασί ψευδε κα διακένοις νο νο διακένοις κα ψευδε φαντασί άτ τ γο Κρλο κα Κυρίλλου γίου το ράατα ρν Μοετα κ τ κα Μοψουεστίας τν ωρον CEU eTD Collection νήην ήτρας τν πρς ατν νδιάθετον χων οκείωσιν. οκείωσιν. χων νδιάθετον ατν πρς τν ήτρας „ γρ ν θέληα χων πρς ποδοχν τν ποδοχν πρς χων θέληα ν γρ „ ολογοε καινότητος εκόνι ν νθρωπίνων λογισν δύναιν πρς ποονν τούτων ποονν πρς δύναιν „οτε γρ τ θεα κατ θεν οτε τ νθρώπινα κατ κατ νθρώπινα τ οτε θεν κατ θεα τ γρ „οτε Χριστο ησο ν κυρίου <νς> το π ποστατικν Appendix 6. The 6. Appendix όο κιή τν τν ενρκν νρεα πεπολιτε ιονύσιον νέργειαν θεανδρικν τν τινα καινήν λόγου ατ κ ιδιε ατν α τν νρεα π α πρς προσκύ τν κα χοντα διαίρετον ατν τν ξουσίαν νέργειαν τν κα ατν διέδειξεν κα αυτ συνηέν ατ γνώης ταυτότητι λόγου το διεκρίθη ο τεχθες δειχθες λόγου το πρόγνωσιν τν Κατ νανθρωπήσεως περ κ 2 το ατο Το 2 2 ν νώθη τ θε λόγ κατ πρόγνωσιν κ σπέρατος σπέρατος κ πρόγνωσιν κατ λόγ θε τ νώθη ν προαγοέ ξουσίαν ατν τν κα ίαν κατ νέργειαν σωτρ επν λεπρν τν πρς καθαρίσθητι Θέλω, Μοψουεστ γενοένου πισκόπου σεβος το 1 Θεοδώρου 1 1 αρετικν. διαιρούντων τν Χρήσεις 332-334.I, ACO ολογίανκα γρ γίας τς να Χριστν ησον ν κύριον τν ολογ συνόδων ε ι τς ρίς έοε ατν προσλαβεν ατν λέγοεν αρτίας τς κ τν τι οτε 3 Νεστορίου κ τς λεγοένης ατ „πιφανος υήσεω „πιφανος ατ λεγοένης κ 3 τς Νεστορίου 3 3 τερον πρόσωπον κα ετ τν νανθρώπησιν ες τς τς ες νανθρώπησιν τν ετ κα πρόσωπον τερον δόηο αέα φσω κ πόωο κ κα πρόσωπον ν ες κα φύσεως τν κατέρας δι διότητος νρηένης διαφορς φύσεων τν τς διαιρέτως „οδαο κα συγχύτως φύσεσιν τας τελείαις δυσ 2 1 3

α ας πδδκν επτ χήει πεποιήε χρήσεσι δεσπότ τ πιδεδώκαεν ας ν κα νρο τ τ εφοο, εγο κ αλυ α Πέ κα Παύλου κα Σεργίου θεόφρονος, το τε νωρίου .

Florilegia πίστεως δη πρότερον ξεθέεθα κα σύφρονές σεν σύφρονές κα ξεθέεθα πρότερον δη πίστεως

of the Heretics. Heretics. ofthe πάντων “ κατ τν γιον κα κκριτον Αγουστνον. περ τούτο περ Αγουστνον. κκριτον κα γιον τν κατ

παθν τούτων πάντων ίαν κα τν ατν εχε εχε ατν τν κα ίαν πάντων τούτων παθν 88

νησιν σότητος νό παραλλάσσουσαν. παραλλάσσουσαν. νό σότητος νησιν νην, ο λόγ φύσεως, λλ’ εδοκίας, καθ’ εδοκίας, λλ’ φύσεως, λόγ ο νην, ν τν να κύριον ν ησον Χριστόν. ησον ν κύριον να τν ν κ τς παρθένου δίχα σπορς νθρωπος νθρωπος σπορς δίχα παρθένου τς κ ίας κ τν ες τ θαύατα λόγου β β λόγου θαύατα τ ες κ ίας τν α πόστασινίαν ς“ λόγου β β λόγου ς“ γίας αάλκο, ετα τ κα τε αθεντίαν παράλλακτον, τν ν ν προσώπ καποστάσει ι, ι, καποστάσει προσώπ ν ν σθαι“ ολογοεν κατ τν γιον γιον τν κατ ολογοεν σθαι“ κα θεανδρικν ατο τν νέργειαν. νέργειαν. τν ατο θεανδρικν κα νθρωπον λλ’ νδρωθέντος το νδρωθέντος λλ’ νθρωπον δειξε ίαν εναι τν θέλησιν, ίαν τν τν ίαν θέλησιν, τν εναι ίαν δειξε

ος καθ’ ν εδοκήσας νωσεν ατν ατν νωσεν εδοκήσας ν καθ’ ος δίχα γρ σαρκικν θεληάτων κα κα θεληάτων σαρκικν γρ δίχα νσν σζνς λν τς λλον σζοένηςδ νωσιν, τριάδος εναι κα ετ κα εναι τριάδος αυδ γενόενος νθρωπος ξ ατς ξ νθρωπος γενόενος αυδ

τριάδος ο προσέλαβε, δι τοτο τοτο δι προσέλαβε, ο τριάδος α οοονε θέληα ν ολογοντες θα, ρυ α τν οπν ν λοιπν, τν κα τρου

υτεοσς“πι ον συντρεχούσης.“πειδ τν τε γίων πέντε γίων τε τν

σάρκωσιν ν σάρκωσιν

θεο θεο υ υ CEU eTD Collection ία δύναις. δύναις. ία ίαν ξίαν κα τν ατν τιήν. τιήν. ατν ξίαν κα τν ίαν κα δίψαν προσήκατο πότε κα βουλήθη, κα άλιστα άλιστα κα βουλήθη, κα πότε προσήκατο δίψαν κα ο σοφωτάτην κα θείαν τινα διά προηγουένως πειδ 602-606. 2II ACO Pharan. of Theodore Creedof The 7. Appendix κηί γρ ω λγι ς α θεοσέβει σ κα ς λέγει λό τν κ διδασκαλί θεί οτως τ στηρίχθη κα διδάχθη γρ κκλησία π δικαίως κα τς πιστολς ναθεατισθείσης βα λεγοένης τς κ 9 9 9 τν φύσεων σύγχυτον δείκνυται κα τ τς εδοκίας εδοκίας κα τς τ δείκνυται σύγχυτον φύσεων τν ταυ γνωης κα βουλς νοσις εδοκαν κατ’ οκον ο ία γέγονε, ο φύσις ία δ ε γέγονεν. ο φύσις νέλα ν πρς λόγου θεο το οσίαν κατ’ πειδ κρ περ κ το Πέρσου Νεστοριανο διακόνου 6 Παύλου 6 6 δύνα ία κα αθεντία στν ία φύσεων δύο Τν π εραπολίτην τν λέξανδρον πρς κ 5 τς ατο Το 5 5 διαιρούενον. κα θελήατος βουλς τερότητι τ πάσης παρ προσκυνούενον τι κα ξί πρόσωπον, γέγον ν λλος κα λόγος θες ν λλος Οκ δ λόγου πραγατείας ατς κ 4 τς ατο Το 4 4 διάθεσιν. ατ προγνωσθεσαν ξουσίας τς τ νθρωπον προώρισεν ν ναλαβν λόγος ρε δεσποτείαν κα τε νέργειάν θέλησιν, τν ατν οσία κατ’ ο φύσεις, τς φυλάττοεν συγχύτους ν ν ον τ ξίωα το βασιλέως κα τς εκόν κα τς βασιλέως το ξίωα τ ον ν ν διαθήκης νέας κα τς παλαις τς γ τν λόγου δευτέρου το κ Νεστοριανο Θεοδούλου 7 7 7 ξίωα τς εκόνος κα το ταύτην προστησαένου θεο προστησαένου ταύτην το κα εκόνος τς ξίωα πά παρ βασιλείας τς τιν τν λοιπν δ φαν ατο κλόγου 8 το ατο Το 8 8 9 9 6 5 4 7 7 8

89

νοπρόσωπος Χριστς οκ στιν πστασις. πστασις. στιν οκ Χριστς νοπρόσωπος υστήριον ονάδι βουλήσεως διαδείκνυται. διαδείκνυται. βουλήσεως ονάδι υστήριον , ία δ φον νέργεια. φον δ ία , ραφέντων παρ’ ατο περ τς συφωνίας τς περ ατο παρ’ ραφέντων ίσεως λόγου λόγου ίσεως κονοίαν πνον <κα> κάατον κα πεναν κα κάατον <κα> πνον κονοίαν ν, ξίας σότητι δεικνυένας. γρ θες θες γρ δεικνυένας. σότητι ξίας ν, ος, ία δ φον νέργεια. νέργεια. φον δ ία ος, γων τν ακαρίων πατέρων δύο φύσεις, φύσεις, δύο πατέρων ακαρίων τν γων ις τοι δυναστεία κα ν πρόσωπον κατ πρόσωπον ν κα δυναστεία τοι ις ττητι κρατουένη, να κα τ διάφορον τ κα να κρατουένη, ττητι ιστολς ιστολς ν, γνώην δ συνηένας δι κα ίαν ίαν κα δι συνηένας δ γνώην ν, δικαίως κα τν ν τούτοις κίνησιν κα κίνησιν τούτοις ν τν κα δικαίως λόγ, πρς ατν ο διεκρίθη δι τν δι διεκρίθη ο ατν πρς λόγ, εν νθρωπος ν γρ ν φοτέρων τ τ φοτέρων ν γρ ν νθρωπος εν ντων κοίζεται. ν ν γρ λοιπν τ τ λοιπν γρ ν ν κοίζεται. ντων βεν νθρωπον ο γέγονεν νωσις, ία ία νωσις, γέγονεν ο νθρωπον βεν ς κτίσεως, ηδεν τρόπ χρόν χρόν τρόπ ηδεν κτίσεως, ς τς γα πτς συνόδου πέπτης γίας τς α πίσταται. κα ξ ρχς ρχς ξ κα πίσταται. α CEU eTD Collection κα λεγέσθω. πιστευέσθω δια νανθρωπήσεως ωο Χιτ νανθρώπησιν Χριστο σωτρος άτν α τν ίν ε α λ δκίς ί θε ία δικαίως άλα κα γε ε οίων τν κα πάντων καθήλωσις, τ πτύσατα, τ πτύσατα, τ καθήλωσις, φιβολας π νθρώπινα, θεα ετε ετε οκονοίας, σωτηριώδους [φιλογας] πσης χωρς ρα τούτων ι θεϊκόν. κα τοτο στι ν θέληα τ θέληα θεϊκν δ ι Τ νέργειαν. θείαν κα ψηλοτάτην ταύτης σα κα τέλους έχρι ρχς π νανθρώπησιν ε νθρωπότητος κα τς ατο θεότητος τε τς τατα τ ετε προσεοικότα φύσει θεί τ ετε πιστεύοεν, σα παντα θεο ργον τι σαφς, τούτων κ ρα χοεν κα λέχθησαν. κα πάντα εσ δυνάεως ς λου νέργεια ία κα τοτο δι κα προϊόντα σώατος γαθότητος κα σοφίας λόγου το τς κ ρ πράττετο, διαιρέτως κα ρ α οναδικς σώατος, πράττετο, διαιρέτως κα α οναδικς σώατος, σώατ ετε ψυχς, ετε θεο, ετε Χριστο, δεσπότου ξετάσε τς δι λόγος ν παρέστησεν οαι κανς νέργειαν προσαγορεύοεν. καΧριστο νς ατο νεργεί λόγου το πανσόφ κα πανσθενε τ ρείαν α τ ο Χριστο νς ατο το κα νοερς κα λογικς ψυχς πουργετο παρ το σώατο το παρ πουργετο ψυχς λογικς κα νοερς νίηι, ύη κ δνα, κ πάθη κα δηονίαν, κα λύπην ντίληψιν, ρχοειδς έν, οον επεν, κ το θείου τν νδοσι τν θείου το κ επεν, οον έν, ρχοειδς ε α φσκν ια ο θώο κνσν οον κίνησιν, νθρώπου το τινα φυσικήν κα ετε ατ δέ, περ κυρίως στ κα λέγεταικα στ κυρίως περ δέ, ατ προσαγορεύεται. κυρίως δ φυσικς κινήσεως φυσικς δ κυρίως προσαγορεύεται.

νρεα οίθ ον ν κ ατς πνα α τ κατ τ παντα παντς κ ν ον Νοείσθω νέργεια

ία θεία τε κα σωτηριώδης ντως νέργεια.κ τούτων τούτων νέργεια.κ ντως σωτηριώδης κα τε θεία ία απίσατα, πάντα τατα ρθς ν κα δικαίως κληθείη κληθείη δικαίως κα ν ρθς τατα πάντα απίσατα,

πάθη, σταυρός, νέκρωσις, ο ώλωπες, τειλ κα τειλ ώλωπες, ο νέκρωσις, σταυρός, πάθη,

δι το ψύχου κα ασθητικο ζου πεφύκασι, ζου κα ψύχου ασθητικο το δι κα

90

κατ σύγχρησιν νοάτων κ τς συνηθείας συνηθείας τς κ νοάτων σύγχρησιν κατ ν κα τν ατίαν τν κα ν

ερ το σωτρος ν σωτρος το ερ τροφς ρεξιν, πνον, κάατον κα πόνων πόνων κα κάατον πνον, ρεξιν, τροφς περ στν ατο το Χριστο, ατο γρ ατο Χριστο, το ατο στν περ νρπν, α κτ το ί νέργεια ία τοτο κατ κα νθρωπίν, νς κα το ατο σωτρος ν τατα τατα ν σωτρος ατο το κα νς ος το συναφοτέρου, ψυχς λέγω κα κα λέγω ψυχς συναφοτέρου, το ος σεβς νόασται. ... ς εναι πσαν τν τν πσαν εναι ...ς νόασται. σεβς ς, χόενα ν καί, οον επεν, πηγάζοντα πηγάζοντα επεν, οον καί, ν χόενα ως, τι πάντα σα στόρηται περ το το περ στόρηται σα πάντα τι ως,

προσάπτοεν, κα ντεθεν ίαν το το ίαν ντεθεν κα προσάπτοεν, ετε θαυατοποιόν τινα δύναιν εποις δύναιν τινα θαυατοποιόν ετε δι έσης [δ] ψυχς νοερς κα κα νοερς ψυχς [δ] έσης δι όεα κί ψχς έω κα λέγω ψυχς καί, ν χόενα ρ τ κ εάα ίν ληθς ίαν εγάλα κα τε κρά παιδευεθα, τιπντα <τ> τς τς <τ> τιπντα παιδευεθα, ε ρσο κ κύν κα κούοεν κα Χριστο περ νρεα πάντα νέργεια ο

λάβανε, δι έσης δ τς δ έσης δι λάβανε,

Χριστο νιστόρηται. Χριστο

τ> τς <τ> ν το το ν ία γε γε

CEU eTD Collection 1987. Press, Scholars Α’ Α’ Kokkinos] Philotheos of Works Dogmatic [The 1964. Mecniereba, Tbilisi: Abuladze. IliaEd. c.)] Drasxanakertc'i, Yovhannes. Drasxanakertc'i, [The Book of Letters] of Book [The Zaz 1980. Ed. Georgians]. and Armenians the of Separation Trans. Joseph P. Farrell. South Canaan, PA: St.Tik PA: Canaan, Farrell.P. South Joseph Trans. the among Father Our of Pyrrhus with Disputation The 1983. Research, Byzantine

[ [Arseni of Sapara] of [Arseni 1999. Press. University Liverpool Sebeos to Attributed Sources Armenian The E 1960. 203] georgi scriptores orientalium, christianorum Monachus. Antiochus 1985. Brepols, Tunhout: Uthemann. Monotheletas adversus opuscula Anastasius Sinaita. Anastasius literaturis Zeglebi, 1 Zeglebi, literaturis h Cneso o Kartli of Conversion The in

hsaoin yatn Writers Byzantine Thessalonian arseni safareli. ganyofisaTvis qarTvelTa da somexTa da qarTvelTa ganyofisaTvis safareli.arseni Sermo iii in constitutionem hominis secundum imagin secundum hominis constitutionem in iii Sermo epistoleTa wigni a rs d Jrslm a ls Perses les par Jerusalem de Prise La [Monuments of Georgian Hagiogrpaphical Literature, Hagiogrpaphical Georgian of [Monuments History of Armenia. of History ] Cru Crsinrm eis rea 2 E. . H. K. Ed. 12. Graeca Series Christianorum Corpus . moqceva Bibliography Bibliography Primary sources sources Primary . d D Kiae, hsaoia Cnr for Centre Thessalonica: Kaikames, D. Ed. 3. Á . qarTlisa 91 Ed. Zaza Alexidze. Tbilisi: Mecniereba,Tbilisi: 1968.Alexidze. Zaza Ed. . Translated by Robert Thomson. Liverpool: Liverpool: Thomson. Robert by Translated .

Φιλοθου Κκκινου δογατικά ργα. Μέρος Μέρος ργα. δογατικά Κκκινου Φιλοθου

trans. by Krikor Maksoudian. Atlanta: Maksoudian. Krikor by trans. hon, 1990. hon, . n tas G Grte Louvain, Garitte. G. trans. and d. Aeiz. bls: Mecniereba, Tbilisi: Alexidze. a Á Saints, Maximus the Confesso. the Maximus Saints, , qarTuli hagiografiuli hagiografiuli qarTuli ,

[Corpus scriptorum scriptorum [Corpus em Dei neconon neconon Dei em

1 (VX1 [On the[On

CEU eTD Collection La Narratio de Rebus Armeniae Rebus de Narratio La e ova mnsrt érin iatqe N50 sinaitique Géorgien manuscrit nouveau Le Rewriting Caucasian History: The Medieval Armenian Armenian Medieval The History: Caucasian Rewriting Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskosvon Johannes des Schriften Die Medieval Armenian Adaptation Armenian Medieval oni Znre ptme itrau lbi xvii libri historiarum epitomae Zonarae Ioannis 1955 1952. Peeters, [ 1998. Books, CaravanNY: Delmar, 1. vol. presse,1 bonne dela Paris:Maison Sideridas. X.A. Scholarios(Gennadios) Georges de completes Oevres Louvain Orietalium. Christianorum Scriptorum Corpus Chronicles. Chronicles. 1975. Ed. Armenians] the from Georgians ofthe Severance [Ukhatnes] 1963. Olms, Hildesheim: chronographia Theophanis 1996.Press, Clarendon Oxford: synodis.” synodis.” zugeschr Sinaites Anastasios dem “Die K.H. Themann, 1981.Gryeter, De22. Berlin: Studien Saxelgami, 1955; repr. as Kartlis cxovreba: cxovreba: Kartlis as repr. 1955; Saxelgami, Kartli] of Life [The ope Scylitzae Ioannis Cedrenus Georgius Weber, 1897. Weber, The Life of Karti of Life The Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum Historiae Annuarium Original Georgian texts and the Armenian adaptation Armenian the and texts Georgian Original uxtanesi, istoria ganyofisa qarTvelTa somexTagan somexTagan qarTvelTa ganyofisa istoria uxtanesi,

] qarTlis cxovreba

aTi cxovreba qarTlis vl 1 E. . e or Lizg Tunr 18. r 1883. Teubner, Leipzig: Boor. de C. Ed. 1. vol. , . English trans. by R. W. Thomson. New intro. S. Rap S. intro. New Thomson. W. R. by trans. English . Ciia dto adcmetr G Grte Louva Garitte. G. commentary and edition Critical . . Ed. by Simon Qauxchishvili.Tbilisi: Saxelgami, Qauxchishvili.Tbilisi: Simon by Ed. . . 2 vols. Ed. I. Bekker. Bonn: Weber, 18381839. Weber, Bonn: I.Bekker. vols. 2Ed. . . Vol. 4. Ed. J.B. Kotter. Patristische texte und texte Patristische Kotter. J.B. Ed. 4. Vol. . 92 14 (1982): 5894. 5894.(1982): 14 e. . axhsvl. vl 1 T'bilisi: 1. vol. Qauxchishvili., S. ed. ,

h Goga Ryl nas n Their and Annals Royal Georgian The Fciie dto. nr. . Aleksidze. Z. Intro. edition. Facsimile , . vol. 3. Ed. T. ButtnerWobst. Bonn: Bonn: ButtnerWobst. T. Ed. 3. vol. . 930. 930. Zaza Alexidze. Tbilisi: Mecniereba, Mecniereba, Tbilisi: Alexidze. Zaza . vol 3. Ed. M. Jugie, L. Petit. and Petit. L. Jugie, M. Ed. 3. vol . : Peeters, 2001. 2001. Peeters, : iebene Synopsis de haeresibus et haeresibus de Synopsis iebene Adaptation of the Georgian Georgian the of Adaptation by Robert W. Thomson. W. Robert by Te itr of History [The epr. in: p. CEU eTD Collection akss h hitaiaino acss (Armenia Caucasus of Christianization the Kaukasus/ ______. ______Dezemb 12. bis 9. (Wien, Symposions Internationalen Geor of ‘Conversion the of Versions “Four ______. ______. ______. (1981): 3436. 3436. (1981): Armenian literature] Armenian

Churches National of “Establishment Zaza, Alexidze, 1910. Press, Mkhitarist

Situation in the Caucasus in the sixth century] century] sixththein Caucasus thein Situation and Globalization: Religion and Caucasian Civilizat Caucasian and Religion Globalization: and raie netd n h Dgaio o Asn Vache Arseni of Dogmatikon the in inserted treatise Anatolios, Khaled. Anatolios, f erin aucit fo M. Sinai]. Mt. East. Christian from Manuscripts Georgian of Co Monastic Gareja in material Unknown Sinai: Mount 3467. 2001): Sebastia. of Ukhtanes Bishop kna, Nerses. Akinian, 1985. ZavenArzoumanian, Dr. Lauderdale: Fort Armenians from Georgians the rqai a ii aoaii vl oxr mwerlobaSi” somxur Zvel gamoZaxili misi da traqtati 916. 1999): ofSciences, Academy Austrian eae sns ts atl enwra xl koleqcii axali xelnawerTa qartul Mtis sinas Sesaxeb

. . rlgui iuca aksai I saukuneSi” VI kavkasiaSi situacia “religiuri

Kuain n dr hitih ret wshn 5 u 451 zwischen Orient christlich der und “Kaukasien grjdn ia mad: coi aaa aoato k samonastro masala ucnobi mTamde: sinas “garejidan asn vCs i “omtkni Ssl antimonofiz Sesuli “dogmatikonSi” Zis vaCes “arseni

Mtras f n nentoa cneec) d Z S Z. Ed. conference) international an of (Materials iin aoio vrac katolikos Kirion Athanasius Mravaltavi . London: Routledge, 2004. 2004. London:Routledge, . History of Armenia, Part III, History of the Severen the of History III, Part Armenia, of History Tas ito ad omnay r Zvn Arzumanian Zaven Fr. commentary and intro. Trans. . 1 (1971), 133153. 133153. (1971), 1 Secondary sources sources Secondary [ iin h Ktoio o Georgians of Katholikos the Kirion 93

Matsne

Desert Monasticism – Gareja and the the and Gareja – Monasticism Desert ion ion er 1999)er 3 (1973): 103110. 103110. (1973): 3 gia.” in the Caucasus.” Caucasus.” the in , Georgia, Albania) Georgia, , 2 sdze mplex from the New Collection Collection New the from mplex , No 3, (2008): 142150. 142150.(2008): 3,No

In

. Ed. Werner Seibt (Vienna: Seibt Werner Ed. . n rato o i i the in it on reaction and Die Christianisierung des des Christianisierung Die

dan dan [An antiMonophysite antiMonophysite [An nd 780.“ 780.“ nd Te Religeous [The hrlde (Tbilisi: khirtladze Fo Grj to Gareja [From The Caucasus Caucasus The , , Referate des des Referate ompleqsis ompleqsis ] Georgika

Vienna: ituri ituri ce of of ce .

CEU eTD Collection ______. ______. itr o te Church the of History rein hrh n h 5 the in Church Armenian Ages Egypt in the Byzantine World 300700World Byzantine the in Egypt Chapman, John. Chapman, 1980. Oates, and 1985. ek Hner. Jsiins ucsos Monoener Successors: “Justinian’s HansGeorg. Beck, Confessor Demetrios. Bathrellos, Empire Constantinian

Garsoian, Nina. Nina. Garsoian, 1981. Universitetsforlaget,

Clayton, Paul. Clayton, Памят Гиоргий, o Academy Georgian Tbilisi: Monuments] Crossshaped Чубинашвили, Giorgi] [Chubinashvili, rvl, Leif. Frivold, 2007. Press, University 1907 Timothy. Barnes, Gobun. Babian, Bagnall, Roger S.Roger Bagnall, 2001. 300610. Sources, Armenian the to Diekamp, F., Diekamp, 2007. tas Asl Bgs d Hbr Jdn n Jh Do John and Jedin Hubert ed. Biggs, Anselm trans. , . . . New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. 2004. Press, University Oxford New York: . L'eglise armenienne et le grand schisme d'orient schisme grand le et armenienne L'eglise Doctrina Patrum de Incarnatione Verbi Patrum de Incarnatione Doctrina The Christology of Theodoret of Cyrus of Theodoret of Christology The h Icrain A td o te otie f h Inc the of Doctrine the of study A Incarnation: The The Relations between the Armenian and Georgian Chu Georgian and Armenian the between Relations The The Condemnation of Pope Honorius. Honorius. Pope of Condemnation The rei bten yatu ad h Sasanians the and Byzantium between Armenia Egypt in in Egypt Late taais n Cntnis Telg ad oiis i Politics and Theology Constantius: and Athanasius , Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001. 2001. Press, University Harvard Cambridge: , ii: , Person, Nature and Will in the Christology of Saint of Christology the in Will and Nature Person, th h Ipra Cuc fo Cntnie o h Ery M Early the to Constantine from Church Imperial The n 6 and AnteliasLebanon: Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia of Catholicosate Armenian AnteliasLebanon: th etre acrig o h Bo o Letters of Book the to according Centuries . Ed. by Roger S. Bagnall. Cambridge: Cambridge Cambridge: Bagnall. S. Roger by Ed. . . Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. 1993. UniversityPress, Princeton Princeton: . 94

. Munster: Aschendorf, 1907. 1907. Aschendorf, Munster: . . Oxford: Oxford University Press, Press, University Oxford Oxford: . f Sciences Press, 1948. 1948. Press, Sciences f London: Catholic Truth Society, Truth Catholic London: im n Mnteiim” in Monothelitism.” and gism . Louvain: Peeters, 1999. 1999. Peeters, Louvain: . a. 56.Lno: Burns London: 457463. lan. ники типа Джвари. [The [The Джвари. типа ники . London: Variorum, Variorum, London: . rches According According rches arnation in the the in arnation Maximus the the Maximus Oslo: . n the the n iddle iddle , , CEU eTD Collection ______. ______. ealu (14) Cii ad Confrontation. and Crisis (610641): Heraclius ______. ______. Revolution in Georgia in Revolution 1979. 1979. Nation Georgian the John. Haldon, Detroit:Way Ouzounian. Nourhan and Franchuk Edward Literature. Armenian of Heritage The Alois. Grillmeier, Paul Goubert, ore ad okn mtos f ees n Mve Da Movses and Sebeos of methods Working and Sources Her of Historians “Armenian JamesHoward. Johnston, 19 Press, StateUniversity Tbilisi (Tbilisi:2 Part [Javakhishvili, Ivane] Ivane] [Javakhishvili, 4162. Peeters,2002): (Leuvain: Stolte 2004 Press, University Keating, Daniel. Daniel. Keating, 2003. Press, ad, dad ohe “h Ptirht o Alexandr of Patriarchate “The Christianity,” Rochie. Edward Hardy, 1997. Press, University Kaegi, Walter. Walter. Kaegi, [Janashia, Simon] Simon] [Janashia, Century Hovorun, Cyril. Hovorun, . Leiden: Brill, 2008. 2008. Brill, Leiden: . Army, Society and Religion in Byzantium in Religion Societyand Army, qarTuli samarTlis istoria. istoria. samarTlis qarTuli . Byzance avant l’Islam Byzance . avant Church History History Church yatu i te eet Century Seventh the in Byzantium ealu Eprr f Byzantium of Emperor Heraclius Will, Action and Freedom: Christological Controvers Christological Freedom: and Action Will, The Appropriation of Divine Life in Cyril of Alexand of Cyril Lifein Divine of Appropriation The eu e Crsu m lue dr Kirche der Glauben im Christus der Jesus janaSia simon. feodaluri revolucia saqarTveloSi. revolucia feodaluri simon. janaSia , vol 1]. Tbilisi: Tbilisi University Press, 1979. 1979. Press, University Tbilisi 1].Tbilisi: vol , ]. Tbilisi: Georgian Academy of Sciences Press, 194Press, Sciences Academyof Georgian Tbilisi: ]. javaxiSvili ivane. qarTveli eris istoria 1 istoria eris ivane. qarTveli javaxiSvili 15 No.2 (June 1946): 81100. 81100. 1946): (June No.2 15 . 2 vols. in 3. Paris: Geuthner, 19511965. 19511965. Geuthner, Paris:3. vols.2in . Vol. 2. Ed. Agop Hacikyan, Gabriel Basmajian, Gabriel Hacikyan, Agop Ed. 2. Vol. 95 [

The History of the Georgian Law Georgian the of History The 29. 29. e. ert . enn ad enr H. Bernard and Reinink J. Gerrit ed. ” Cmrde Cmrde University Cambridge Cambridge: . . London: Variorum, 1982. 1982. Variorum, London: . 2 . aclius: An Examination of Aims, of Examination An aclius: ne State University Press, 2002 2002 UniversityPress, State ne nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge: ed. a A td i National in study A ia: skhurantsi.” skhurantsi.” . vol. 1. Freiburg: Herder, Herder, Freiburg: 1. vol. . ria ies in the Seventh Seventh the in ies , Oxford: Oxford Oxford: , [ 9. 9. The History of of History The The Reign of of Reign The [ ] Vol. 2. Vol. ] Feudal CEU eTD Collection Mopsuestia A. Richard Norris, philology разыскания по армяногрузинской филологии армяногрузинской по разыскания Press, Press, Vol. 2: Vol. Pelikan, Jaroslav. Jaroslav. Pelikan, Patsch, Gertrud. “Die Bekehrung Georgiens.” Georgiens.” Bekehrung“Die Gertrud. Patsch, th to Fourth in [GeorgiaהEig ׃[Me Tbilisi: Centuries Mshlsvl, Davit] [Muskhelishvili, 495500.

Studies in Honor of Walter Ewing Crum. Crum. Ewing Walter of Honor in Studies georg tipo di chiesa “Una Ugo. Villard, de Monneret Press,2008. University Oxford Volker. Menze, Texts and Theology Pletnjowa, Svetlana. Pletnjowa, McGuckin, John A. John McGuckin, 614 г. г. 614 Louth, Andrew. Louth, [ P.B. Kotter. Kreuzer, Georg. Georg. Kreuzer, 1981. Gruyter, De22. Berlin: Studien in Its Indirect and Direct Text Traditions.” Traditions.” Direct Text Indirectand Its in PseudoDionysi of Christology “The István. Perczel,

Papsttum Marr, Nikolai] Марр, Николай. Марр, Nikolai] Marr, 1974 [Antiochos Strategos: The capture of Jerusalem by t by Jerusalem of capture The Strategos: [Antiochos The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (6001700). Christendom Eastern of Spirit The

] 9 (1909). (1909). 9] 8. Stuttgart: Hiersemann Verlag, Hiersemann Stuttgart: 8. , . .

Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963. 1963. Press, Clarendon Oxford: i Shitn e Jhne vn Damaskos von Johannes des Schriften Die Maximus the Confessor the Maximus utna ad h Mkn o te yic rhdx Chu Orthodox Syriac the of Making the and Hnrufae m itlle ud n e Neuzeit der in und Mittelalter im Honoriusfrage Die h Crsin rdto: Hsoy f h Development the of History A Tradition: Christian The . Leiden: Brill, 1994. 1994. Brill, Leiden: . St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controv Christological The Alexandria: of Cyril St. aho ad hit A td i te hitlg o T of Christology the in Study A Christ: and Manhood Die ChasarenDie uxlSii ai. aaTeo VVI saukuneebSi IV-VIII saqarTvelo daviT. musxeliSvili Антиох Стратиг: Пленение Иерусалима персами в персами Иерусалима Пленение Стратиг: Антиох . Leipzig: Koehler & Amelang, 1978. 1978. Amelang, & Koehler Leipzig: . . London: Routledge, 1996. 1996. Routledge, London: . The Bulletin of the Byzantine Institute Institute Byzantine the of Bulletin The Le Muséon Le 1975. 96

Bedi Kartlisa Bedi [

Texts and studies in ArmenoGeorgian ArmenoGeorgian in studies and Texts matiane, 2003. 2003. matiane, us the Areopagite: The Fourth Letter Fourth The Areopagite: the us iano nella necropoli Tebana.” Coptic Tebana.” necropoli nella iano 117 (2004): 409446. 409446. (2004): 117 Chicago: University of Chicago Chicago of University Chicago: vl 4 Ptitsh txe und texte Patristische 4. vol. , he Persians in 614] 614] in Persians he 33. (1975): 288337. 288337.(1975): 33. ersy. Its History, Its ersy. Ppt und Päpste . f Doctrine of rch edr of heodore Тексты и и Тексты Oxford: . 2 (1950): (1950): 2 , ,

CEU eTD Collection Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte für Zeitschrift Kirchen Ecclesiastica (1959): 3233. (1959): aknsvl, ihi. U vsie e ’r Georgi l’art de vestige “Un Mikheil. Tarkhnishvili, 1956. Gregoriana, Analecta Rome: A. Francis Sullivan, neuen einer zu Honoriusfrage: “Die Georg Schwaiger, 1984. Prelacy, Church Armenian Lebanon: Karekin. Sarkissian, Norman. Russel, eiaen Ervand. TerMinasean, 2001. Lang, Peter Friedhelm. Winkellman, Tixeront, Joseph. Tixeront, Whitby, Michael. Michael. Whitby, N St. of “Life Wardrop. Oliver and Margary Wardrop, Uni Cambridge Cambridge: 593637. 4.1.vol. Hussey, In Georgia“, and “Armenia Cyril. Toumanoff, , Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1904. 1904. Hinrichs, C.J. Leipzig: , 5, No. 1 (1900). (1900). 1No. 5,

Cyril of Alexandria Cyril History of Dogmas History of Emperor Maurice and his Historian Emperorhis and Maurice The Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia of Theodore of Christology The Church, Armenian the and Chalcedon of Council The i Amnsh Krh i irn eihne z dn S den zu Beziehungen ihren in Kirche Armenische Die Der MonenergetischMonotheletische Streit. Streit. MonenergetischMonotheletische Der 88 (1977): 8597. 8597.(1977): 88 . London: Routledge, 2000. 2000. Routledge, London: . . Vol. 3. 2nd ed. London: Herder, 1926. 1926. Herder, London: 2nd3.ed. Vol. . 97

The Cambridge Medieval History, Medieval Cambridge The en en Egypte”, Egypte”, en en . Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. 1988. Press, Clarendon Oxford: . versity Press, 1966, 1966, Press, versity nescug e atn Falles,” alten des Untersuchung ino.” ino.” . Analecta Gregoriana 82. Gregoriana Analecta . ei KharthlisaBedi Frankfurt am Mein: am Frankfurt Studia Biblica et et Biblica Studia Antelias ed. J. M. J. ed. yrischen yrischen 67

Top View