chapter 8 The History of the Chronicle

Whether due to his own death or for other reasons, Uṙhayecʿi’s work on the Chronicle ended around 1131. What became of his text thereafter? Quite a few works of the medieval era fell into near-oblivion shortly after they were finished, without leaving a mark on the subsequent historical record until many centuries later. This was not to be the fate of Uṙhayecʿi’s text. His determination to see that the history of his era be written down, his concern that the lack of even his own inadequate testimony would be a grave loss to the future, was not without reason, and the evidence suggests that the Chronicle almost immediately became an authoritative source within the Armenian tradition after the close of the history of Aristakēs. The purpose of this chapter is to trace, as far as possible, the story of the text once it was written—whether it existed in multiple versions, when and where evidence of its use appears in the later medieval period, how it shaped and was shaped by the study of Armenian history in later periods, and the modern reception of the text. The story of the Chronicle is a complex one whose details must remain partially obscure, even as we find the text itself spread far and wide. Nevertheless there is a tendency to regard the Chronicle as a single work together with its continuation, and to attribute a positive intention to the form in which it is normally published—that Uṙhayecʿi’s account began abruptly with a report of the famine in 401, that he left the work unfinished after 1129, that the (presumably sole) autograph came into the possession of his continuator and was transmitted in that form to later generations. Although the state of the textual transmission renders it impossible to be certain on any one of these points, it is a worthwhile exercise to trace the various possibilities, that we may avoid unwitting unsubstantiated judgment.

The Text of the Chronicle

Most of the manuscripts of the Chronicle belong to one of two main groups. The first contains the full text including its continuation, and the second contains a version that is cut off abruptly shortly before the close of Book Two. Although the two versions are textually very similar, there are a number of small but significant details that distinguish them. Probably the most common

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004330351_009 156 chapter 8 distinguishing difference comes in the notation of time periods. Within the first entry of Book One, for example, Uṙhayecʿi writes about a plague of locusts that followed a famine in and around Edessa, either two years (in the long version) or five years (in the short version) later. A further elaboration of these small characteristic discrepancies must await the appearance of a new critical edition. The primary obstacle to making sense of these versions, and the relation- ship between them, is the fact that more than 450 years elapsed between the composition of the Chronicle and the production of the first extant copies. The longer version appears in a manuscript written between 1590 and 1600, proba- bly in Aleppo, and now held by the Mekhitarist library in Venice. The shorter version appears very shortly thereafter, in a manuscript written in 1601 in Con- stantinople and now held by the Mekhitarist library in Vienna. One of the most striking variations between the two versions, appearing relatively early in the text, concerns an account of the royal lineage of the Bagratuni kings up to Gagik i. Shortly before the description of the coronation of ‘Gagik’ Bagratuni in 410 (961/2), the reader finds some variation of the following in all copies of the shorter version of the Chronicle.

Ի նա նստաւ Աշոտ թագաւոր՝ որդի Աբասայ՝ ամս իէ. Աշոտ որ ողորմածն կոչիւր, որդի Աբասայ, որդի Սմբատայ, որդի Աշոտոյ առաջին թագաւորութեան բագրատունեաց ազգէն։ Յետ Աշոտոյ Սմբատ ամս ժգ, ի թվին նիթ. և Գագիկ որդի Աշոտոյ՝ եղբայր Սմբա- տայ ամս իթ և ապա Յովհաննէս և Աշոտ ամս ի։1

In 401 Ašot the son of Abas reigned for 27 years. Ašot, who was called Ołormac (Merciful), was the son of Abas, son of Smbat, son of Ašot the first of the kingdom from the Bagratuni clan. After Ašot Smbat for 13 years, in the year 429 (980/1). And Gagik son of Ašot, brother of Smbat, for 29 years and then Yovhannēs and Ašot for 20 years.

In light of the notorious confusion in the text concerning who held the Bagratid throne when (see above, p. 48), this addendum is rather enlightening in that it traces the succession more or less accurately. Ašot iii Ołormac was indeed king in 401, and his lineage and the sequence of his successors are traced correctly. A straightforward interpretation of this textual artifact would be that it is a later

1 Matenadaran ms 5587, f. 254r. One variation, found in Matenadaran ms 1768 and copied in British Library ms or5260, has Smbat’s reign begin in 424 (նիդ) and last for 24 (իդ) years.