THE FIFTEENTH-CENTURY BAGRATIDS AND THE INSTITUTION OF COLLEGIAL SOVEREIGNTY IN GEORGIA Author(s): CYRIL TOUMANOFF Reviewed work(s): Source:

Traditio, Vol. 7 (1949-1951), pp. 169-221 Published by: Fordham University Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27830207 . Accessed: 22/08/2012 22:04
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Fordham University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Traditio.

http://www.jstor.org

THE
The

THE FIFTEENTH-CENTURY BAGRATIDS AND INSTITUTION OF COLLEGIAL SOVEREIGNTY IN GEORGIA*

By CYRIL TOUMANOFF

end of the fifteenth century witnessed the dissolution of the medieval The three kingdoms?of (Iberia= proper kingdom of Georgia. Georgia ? five of Kakhetia and the and of Imeretia sovereign K'art'li), (Abasgia), principalities, into which that ancient and once powerful realm had found it self divided, were ill prepared now to face the onslaught of the Islamic im perialism of the Osmans and the Safawis or, finally, to prevent the nearest Christian empire, to which they had turned for aid, from absorbing them. The Partition of Georgia, and all the attendant events, need never have innova occurred ? it is safe to assert ? but for an ill-chosen constitutional

has heretofore been taken by modern Georgian historiography. A study of the working of an essentially dynastic system like coll?gial sov ereignty must needs hinge on an exact knowledge of genealogy. Here, again, modern historiography has left unanswered some questions in the genealogical or it has followed in the erring foot history of the fifteenth-century Bagratids;

tion. The Byzantine system of coll?gial sovereignty, introduced in Georgia by her Bagratid (Bagrationi) dynasty, was the decisive factor in the history of her decline and fall. Yet no cognizance of its existence in the fifteenth century

steps of its founder, the eighteenth-century Georgian polyhistor Vakhusht. It is, accordingly, the purpose of this study to correct the errors of the tradi tional historians regardings the Bagratids of the period in question and to role of the the and to fore the existence institution of coll?gial sovereignty bring in Georgian history. The task of the historian
The following

is made

difficult by the reverberations

in this study: 1-3 (Tiflis

of that

special (ed.), Les T'aqaisvili Kavazsko? Akti?Akti Sobrann?e AG?E. Dates?'Dates HG?M. recueillies Bross?t, Histoire de

abbreviations antiquit?s

are used

g?orgiennes

Arxeograficesko HG II par Wakhoucht/ la G?orgie depuis

Komissie? 1 377-406 Vantiquit?

1899, 1909, 1910). 1 and 2 (Tiflis 1866, si?cle,

1867).

du g?orgien I 1 and 2, II 1 and 2 (St. Petersburg 1849, 1850, 1856, 1857).

Introduction ? VHG (St. Petersburg 1858). Introduction?idem, II and IV (Tiflis 1914, 1924). Eris Istoria J?I. Javaxt?vili, K'art'veli

(cf. below). XIXe jusqu'au

traduite

?S.

Kakabaje

(ed.), Istoriali Sabut'ebi 3 (Tiflis 1913).

'Medieval Georgian Historical Mariam voyage IVe Rapport,

MGHL?-C.

Toumanoff,

Literature/ Dedop'lis

Traditio Varianti

1 (1943) (Tiflis

139-82. 1906). et dans

(ed.), K'art'lis-C'xovreba: T'aqaisvili QM?E. sur un IV Rapp.?M. Bross?t, Rapports l'Arm?nie (St. Petersburg 1849-1851),

dans arch?ologique 3e livraison.

la G?orgie

Tables?'Tables
traditional

g?n?alogiques/ Addition 9,HG

II 1 (a convenient epitome of VaxuSt and

Sas Sigei.?S. Kakabaje, 'Sasisxlo Sigelebis Sesaxeb/ Bulletin historique 2 (1924) 1-107. Spiski?The Chamber ofHeralds of theRuling Senate of theRussian Empire (ed.), Spiski Titulovannim Rodam i Licam Rossiyskoy Imperil (St. Petersburg 1892). ?T. Jordania (ed.), K'ronikebi da Sxva M?sala Sah'art'velos Istoriisa 2 (Tiflis 1897). 169

historiography).

170

traditio

founders of modern Georgian historiography) grow very copious beginning with the end of the fourteenth century. It is on them? the diplomata chiefly ' or charters (the Georgian term is sigel < \ of sovereigns, ) ? members of the families, lords spiritual and temporal ? that this work is principally based, preference being given everywhere to their evidence over that of the later chronicles and historians who were historiography. to the Stemma of the VII Fifteenth-Century Bagratids of Georgian I. Notes cherished by the founders

a century that opened with the invasions of Timur and closed troubled epoch ? with the disorder of the Partition ? which still affect him in the scarcity of and the absence of numismatic sources for the period. But, historiographical on the other hand, the diplomatic data (unknown for the most part to the

of Georgia and of his (1346-1360) Duke of Meschia.1 He was co wife Sindukhtar, daughter of John I Djaqeli, opted by his father c. 13552 and succeeded him in 1360.3 It was during his In September/ reign, in 1386, that Timur began his campaigns against Georgia. Bagrat of King October of that year, Timur sacked Tiflis and captured King Bagrat, Queen Bagrat was set free in 1393 at the price of apostasy.4 Anne, and their son David.
1 48 2 Tables (ed. Cf. 1.625, 2.639; Panaretus, N?os "E S. Lampros, (=Agbuga chap. Jaqeli, II. source, Duke T?epl 4 of Meschia [1907] a e ovvtos ?a 289) : David son , VH's of John wife I; e^a was Tables " a sister 2.638-40).

V. ?Son

David

of

7a

[Samc'xe],

3The
1.625.

below,

1424/1450, largely on the depends of Saraf ad-d?n Journ. Asiatique 217 [1930] (V. Minorsky, Transcaucasica/ %afar-N?ma et ?claircissements I 1.393 n.7; ? VHG [St. Petersburg 91-2; Bross?t, HG idem, Additions com and forms Part 2 of The First Continuation 1851] 386-97) of The Georgian Annals, The former possibly dating from piled in the eighteenth for this study, are (3)

History of the Invasions of Timur (ed. Taqaisvili,

c.

QM Annex II) 855; Tables

159-61). The other parts of Contin. L, of importance century (MGHL a series of entries bridging Parts 2 and 4; QM the Bridge Chronicle, on an older I and His based (4) The History 887; and of Alexander Successors, possibly source: II. of the Annals: 888-91. There Contin. QM is, moreover, QM 892-973, the open sources A fuller treatment is used of the Georgian in this study. ? for ing part of which in question will be found in chap. 1 of the present writer's doctoral the period unpublished

to the Faculty the same title as this study, submitted of the Graduate dissertation, bearing on May of Georgetown School 14, 1948. University 4 as having Hist. been Inv. Tim. under 859-64, represents apostasy Bagrat's simulated, date of his capture is wrong: chiefly to save the others with him. The duress, 1393; but

Saraf ad-d?n,Zafar-N?ma I (Calcutta 1887) 401-3 (sack of Tiflis and capture of Bagrat), 407-8 (apostasy); Panaretus 53.292 (Nov. 21, 13871); Thomas of Mecop' (Mecop'ec'i)
(trans. chronique Islamismi capture F. des N?ve, Expos? in?dite arm?nienne is mentioned of Bagrat and as but Anne guerres de a by ruse; the de Tamerlan et de I. Schah-Rukh 1860) (Z 1440 247-8) . Thomas de Medzoph, 28 Alex. Charter Timur'; Brussels 36-7:

it reappears,

correctly,

for Timur's

second

campaign

in Georgia;

pp.

858,

860.-

Yazd?

. . la d'apr?s the King'e the (ed. Soci?t?

mentions

compilation Asiatique, Paris 1829) 1 puts that event at 1385: it is an eighteenth-century ? I wish to (MGHL 179 n.13). express my gratitude to Professor V. Minorsky for the kind assistance he has given me in connectionwith the works of Saraf ad-d?n and 'Abd
al-Razzaq Samarqandi.

'impious

Chronique

g?orgienne

The

Stemma

of the Bagratid Bagr

11305. Co-king c. 1 I II. June Emperor 1367 Ann of Treb

I:

George VII fk. 1405 Co-king 1369

King of Georgia 1395-1405

II: constantine

*c. 1369, t k. 1412 of Georgia 1405-1412 King X <1. of Kutssna Natia, ( Ivhurtzidze-ChorchaneliV) Prince-Chamberlain of Georgia

(nun Nino)

p. 1412

Alexander

I The

Great

1446 =4390, f (monk Athanasius) 1412-1442 c. 1408, King of Georgia Co-king X II Orboliani. d. of Beshken i. 1410/1411 Dulandukht, of Siunia Prince d. of Alexander II. I, 1414/1415 hamar, of Imoretia; Duke f p. 1441. I N. *c. 1415, t o. X 1438

Vakhtang
* a.

IV
de

Demetrius
* a.

III

1425,John IV
Comnenus, of Trebizond Emperor (p. 1417-1429-1458)

1413, t 1416 1433 Co-king of Georgia King 1442-1446 X 1442 Sitikhatun, of Zaza I, Prince : 1444 Panaskerteli

1413, t 1453 1433 Co-king of Georgia iure King 1446-1453 X 1446 Gulashar, f p. 1475

p.

in Kakhetia 1433 Co-king of Georgia de facto King 1446-1465 in Kakhetia Anti-king 1466-1476 X 1445 Bagrat Thamar-Daria, of Georgia; d. f p. of 1510

II: George Vili * 1415/1417,f 1476

Pat

off 1

constantine
*

- 1447, t 1505 c. 1465 Co-king of Georgia King 1478-1505 c. X 1478 hamar t p. 1492

II

N.
?f?iiincod 1451 to Constantino ^Xl Palaeologus last Roman Emperor of the East 1465 George Shabu ridze, s. of the Duke of Aragvi

AlLE
1445/145)7, in Co-king Anti-kdni h

i mg

1'

di') Anne-Tina Irubakiidz

The
Abbreviations: a?ante, *=born, c ?circa, d? daughter,

House
t=died,

of Georgia
k.= killed, X?married, N.=name

The
unknown, .=

The

Stemma

of the Bagratid
11305. Co-king

Kings
c.

of Georgia Great

the Fifteenth Century

1360-1395

Bagrat

V The

1355, King X

of Georgia

II.

June

Emperor

I. Helen, 11366 III Comnenus, 1367 Anne, d. of Alexius of Trebizond; *Apr. 6, 1357, t p. 1393

II: Constantine

*c. 1369, t k. 1412 of Georgia 1405-1412 King X d. of Kutziia Natia, ( Ivlnirtzidzo-ChorchaneliV) Prince-Chamberlain of Georgia

David
* a. t p. 1386 1465

(nun Nino)

p. 1412

c. 140; Co-king in {Anti-king 1445? Imeretia

Bagrat

:-king 1433 of Georgia King L446-1453 X ulashar, f p. 1475

[etrius III 1413, t 1453

in Kakhetia 1433 Co-king of Georgia de facto King 1446-1465 in Kakhetia Anti-king 1466-1476 X 1445 Bagrat Thamar-Daria, of Georgia; d. f p. of 1510

II: George Vili * 1415/1417,t 1476

David

III

:*a. 1417, t p. 1457 Patviarch-Katholikos c. 1426-1457 off Iberia

. 1428, Co-king

Zaal
t p. 1433 1442

Th amar-Da ri t p. 1510 X VIII, King of

Georgia 1445 George

king c. 1465 of Georgia L478-1505 X 478 hamar ? p. 1492

iTANTINE II 1447, t 1505

. affiiincod 1451 to Constantine ^Xl Palaeologus latit Roman Emperor of the East 1465 George Shabu ridze, s. of the Duke of Aragvi

ALEXANDER

t k. Apr. 27, 1511 1445/145)7, c. 1460 in Georgia Co-king in Kakhetia Anti-kdng 1476-1490 of Kakhetia Kimg 1490-1511 X din, d. of the Prinet

Anne-Tina

Irubakiidze-Cholaqashvili

use

of Georgia k.?killed, X?married, N.=name

The
unknown,

Hoiuse
p.i.=post,

of Kakhetia
s.:

idied,

eorgia
Great )f Georgia 66 xius III

in the Fifteenth Century

1360-1395

\ 6, 1357, t p. 1393

Comnenus,

* a. 1386 X

David
t p.

. Olympias
VI Orbeli

1465Kakhaber

Kakhaberidze-Chidjavadze Prince-Chamberlain f a. Georgia,

(Duke of Racha?)
1405

of

c. 1408 Co-king in {Anti-king Imeretia 1445?)

Bagrat

George t 1435/1466
Co-king

c. 1408

1457 olikos
26-1457

I Zaal * a. 1428, f p. 1442 Co-king 1433

Thamar-Daria

t p. 1510 X
Georgia

VIII, King of

1445 George

1435, t 1478 in Imeretia Anti-king 1454-1465 of Georgia King 1465-1478 Helen, X t Nov. 3, 1510

* c.

Bagrat

VI
t

Gulkan
(nun Gaiane) p. 1508 X I Amivindo

Zedginidze Prince-Master of the Horse of Georgia

I 7, 1511 :tia

Vakhtang
f young

, Alexander

II

1460

t Apr. 1, 1510 in Imeretia Anti-king 1489-1491 1484-1487, of Imeretia King 1491-1510 X Thatnar, fMar. 12, 1510

Princt Lvili h et a. ia

The

House

of Imeretia

THE

FIFTEENTH-CENTURY

BAGRATIDS

171

He

died in 1395 'in the Faith and in repentance.'5 Georgian historiography has styled him 'the Great.'8 The first wife of King Bagrat was Helen {Elene), who died of the plague in 13667 and of whose origin we know nothing. There can be no doubt, however, as to her Ebenb?rtigkeit: her belonging to, e.g., one of the princely houses of the Realm; otherwise her son George VII would hardly have become king, taking precedence over his half-brothers by the princess imperial of Trebizond.8 In June 1367, Bagrat married his second wife, Anne, daughter of Alexius III She was born on April 6, 1357.9 (Grand) Comnenus, Emperor of Trebizond.
?

*Hist. Inv. Tim. 871 (no date given); also Chron. g?org. 1/2; Tables 1.625; Dates 380.
Chron. g?org. 1/2 ; Dates 380.

have no contemporary on Queen data Helen. 8 The of marrying to Ebenb?rtigkeit obtained among practice according and noble of Georgia; houses cf. VaxuSt, princely, Description Geographical

7Vaxu?t, History of Georgia (tr. Bross?t, HG

I 2) 663; Dates

378; Tables 1.625. We

the royal,

of Georgia

St. Petersburg (ed. Bross?t, Descr. 1842) par le tsar?vitch Wakhoucht, g?ogr. de la G?orgie VI: Commentaire ?/7, 22/23; J. Karst, Le code g?orgien de Vakhtang historique-comparatif can be ascertained I (Strasbourg the marriages of Georgian 1935) 246. All kings which been have of other houses contracted with other Bagratids, with members sovereign and foreign), or members houses of non-sovereign (Georgian princely tions to this rule are well known, of the Crown as, e.g., the marriage to princely was with status, of Georgia. Excep the Prince David,

lastKing's son (in 1800), which resulted in the raising of the bride's family (Abamelik')
? Tables. Cf. thus a retroactive Georgian legitimation. receiving class of the t'avad-s of princes and knights; the princely had, to composed of the the Crown, out of the original evolved aristocracy tribal-dynastic was as it was or mt'avar-s, called. That aristocracy sep'ecul-s, variously of Iberia to Strabo, Geogr. the knights or aznaur-s according 11.3.6; whereas 'third class'; Karst, S. op. cit. 203-4, 218, 237-8, 245-6, 248-9, 251-4; and Cau for the History of Georgia Moise? Masalebi Xorenskogo,' all Accordingly, house. This of the princely class were by nature was after the fifteenth of birth explicit, equality houses of the t'avad-s (or didebul-t'avad-s). They the members houses their

nobility gether

mamasaxlis-es, the 'first class' represented JanaSia, casia 6

Strabo's 'K Kritike

(1937) with

471-503. the

ebenb?rtig

in that century which status dynastic original as well as the original resembled title of mt'avar, and their position that of the closely immediate of the throne of the Holy vassals Roman cf. Karst, op. cit. princely Empire; II four cases Introduction lxxix.? The 1937) 228, 169 n.2; 160-2; Bross?t, (Strasbourg adduced IV Rapp. of the royal house with certain by Bross?t, 6-25, of intermarriages as unbecoming cannot families which were lit. 'impassable') (uxvedri, regarded of other similar marriages. number impair what has been said, in view of the overwhelming of kinship, were objected to on religious These four alliances questions (probably grounds of Iberia, pre to the Katholikos in amends vows, etc.) and resulted religious being made princely sumably in order to obtain, post factum, the necessary 53.292 dispensations (capture (cf. below, by Timur); note on Inv. VHI's George ?Panaretus daughter). 21.280 (birth),

in the eleven century, alone had escaped the weakening of the princely division resulted from the Partition of Georgia; they thus retained

royal case of

29.286-7

Tim. 859. The date of Anne's death is unknown. Bross?t mistook that of her double
sister-in-law, was mother Panaretus 1379 Eudocia, the Empress Eudocia, Theodora Cantacuzena, Anne's 16.277-8, 21.280. formerly Gulk'an-Xatun on March a ( cousin brother, I 2.653 n.3. Anne's 2, 1395, for her own; HG of the Eastern Roman John VI; Emperor on Oct. Manuel the Emperor 6, III, married a a ), Bagrat V's sister; Panaretus 48.289-90,

(marriage),

Hist.

172
George

traditio

? Son of Bagrat V10 by his first wife.11 He became a (Giorgi) VIL with father his in co-king 1369,12 replaced him actively during his captivity,1* and succeeded him in 1395.14 There exist but three charters of this monarch.1* in a battle against George VII died in 1405,16 killed, according to Vakhusht, the Tatars at Nakhidari in Somkheti.17 I.? Son of Bagrat V and brother of George (Kostantine) VII.18 There exists only one charter issued by him: 4 Jul. 3 Const. I. 1408 (AG 3.461). We know that, of the sons of Bagrat V, the eldest, George, was born of his firstmarriage; the youngest, David, of the second.19 That Bagrat's other children, his daughter Olympias and his son Constantine, were likewise Constantine Anne Comnena's children, albeit not explicitly mentioned as such in the avail able sources, is patent from their names. These, as well as the name of 'Al exander', borne by Constantine's eldest son, had until then been (and Olympias1 has since remained) rather rare inGeorgia and unknown among the Bagratids.

The

reason why they now appeared is clear: these names were unquestionably due to their bearers' Comnenian mother and grandmother. Analogous cases may be recalled: a Bagratid princess, who had married the future Emperor An clronicus I, had brought into the Comnenian the name dynasty of Trebizond

50.291, (1936) House Eles

Trebizond,

the surname of Grand house of Comnenus, by the imperial adopted 'The Foundation of the Empire of Trebizond/ 11 Vasiliev, Speculum for Anne's own surname, Panaretus of the 29.286.?-The tradition 36-7; family of OrbeliCani)-Barat'a?vili claims that a daughter of Bagrat married V, Thamar, 54.293.?For cf. A. abbey confirmation. this tradition is found only in the charter (gujar) Since, however, of Befania, in 1704, its acceptance must be withheld until copied Cf. E. T'aqaisvili, 'Esce Odin iz Istocnikov Istorii Gruzii Carevica of the East. children Div. of Bagrat of Mecop' 37. V of the Imp. Russ. Archae cf. below, n.28.

Orbeli-Barat'asvili.

of the Orbelian further Vaxusta

: Gudzar Baratovix iz Betanii,' Zapiski ? For other possible 8.113-28. ological Society 10 Hist. Inv. Tim. 866, 867, 868, 871; Thomas 11 Tables 1.625; cf. below, n.19. 12 Cf. below, chap. II. 13 Inv. Tim. 866. Hist. 14 Ibid. 871; Tables 380. 1.625; Dates

of the Georgian Era. The numeral (k'oronikon) 89, expressed by the letters p.t'. of the can be easily an error for 83, in Georgian: Military Alphabet (mxedruli), p.g., since the letter g. in an erroneous, horizontal looks like the letter tl. of that alphabet. And position the year 83 G.E. indeed to A.D. 1395 which is the 26th year after George's corresponds to the co-kingship elevation 10 Cf. note on Constantine in 1369. I.

15 Of 1393 (r?sum?, IV Rapp. 9), Jul. 9, 1399 (r?sum?, IV Rapp. 9), and 1401 or, rather, 1395 (r?sum?,HG II 2.461). The regnal year of the first act is 24, that of the last 26: the date of the latter is incorrect.The year 1401 is the year 89 of theXIV Paschal Cycle

17 History (HG I 2) 677; Dates 380. 18 Charter 4 Jul. 3 Const. I. 1408 (AG 3.461) mentions both his fatherBagrat and his brotherGeorge; Thomas ofMecop' 37, 75-6; Saraf ad-din, II (Calcutta 1888) 512.
above, who Comnena, lfl Cf. n.ll. was a co-king in 1369, could not have already George, born in 1357 and who married in 1367. For David, been a son of Anne 53.292. cf. Panaretus

THE

FIFTEENTH-CENTURY

BAGRATIDS

173

of the King-Prophet another the official ancestor of the Bagratids;20 David, II of Georgia, had given to one princess of Trebizond, the wife of Demetrius of her sons the typically Comnenian name of Manuel;21 and the Byzantine wife of David IV of Abasgo-Imeretia had named one of her sons Michael, another Constantine, and a third one Alexander.22 Precisely so, this imperial

more

princess of Trebizond, Bagrat V's consort, brought with her into the Bagratid house the revered name of the founder of 'New Rome/23 as well as the heroic names of theMacedonian conqueror and of his mother. The co-optation of George VII in 1369 may have been called for by the birth of Anne's first son, to ensure George's rights in the face of a half-brother by a far Constantine, in VTPs ambassador extraordinary to Tamerlane 1401 ;24and, in 1402, he came for a second time to the Court of Timur, at Min g?l, being then 'at war' with his royal half-brother; although the official illustrious mother. Constantine was George

20 Cf. Vasiliev, The Foundation of the Empire of Trebizond 6; Toumanoff,On the Relationship Between the Founder of the Empire of Trebizond and the Georgian Queen Thamar,' Speculum 15 (1940) 299ff. 21The Hist, of the 176] Mongol Invasions [last part of The Georgian Annals; MGHL (ed. T'aqaisvili, QM) 719, 720, 734; Tables 1.624. This Comnenian princess must have been a daughter of Manuel I of Trebizond by his third,Georgian wife, Rusudan; she married Demetrius II in 1277,according to Vaxust (HG I 2) 591 n.l, 579 n.3. Bross?t sug
gested Empress reading that she must have been of Trebizond of Panaretus a to whence is called she fled Manuel's and not, (1285) 5.268: e of the same Theodora, daughter ; ibid. His however, suggestion, * e a a , a a to her have Bagratid ,mistaking parentage. been parents, is based a the She fled who on later became an * last five words erroneous e a to refer

cf. e.g.,W. Miller, Trebizond: theLast Greek Empire (London 1926) 30. Since Theodora
have married Demetrius 'first daughter', II.?The there must only other

a *\? as is correct,

from Trebizond;

or others, who could another, was the father of named Manuel

daughter of the Emperor Michael VIII

Tables

Tables passim. 22 According

Smbat IV (t616/617) ; cf. J. Marquart, Osteurop?ische und ostasiatische Streifz?ge (Leipzig 1903) 436; cf.Toumanoff,The Early Bagratids/ Le Mus?on 62 (1949) 1-2, 38;
to the Georgian sources, David IV

on the other hand, 4.642. a natural married that David Pachymeres, reports of Michael's the wife of his brother, the Despot daughter sister-in-law, John, and daughter of the Sebastocrator Constantine De Mich. 3.21. Two of David's Tornices; Palaeologo sons were named and Michael, for his queen's Constantine maternal presumably grand and for the Emperor father Tornices (who may have been her father after all?). Curiously mistook David's wife for a daughter enough, a recent student of the Palaeologan genealogy of the Despot John himself ;A. Th. Papadopulos, Versuch einer Genealogie der Pafoiologen,

Palaeologus; Hist. Mong.

(cf. note

on Alexander

Inv. 703, 721, 747;

I)

married

Tornicii may have been descended 1269-1408 (Munich 1938) 4-5 and Gen. Table. ?The from the Bagratid princes of Taraun; N. Adontz, 'Les Taronites ? Byzance,' Byzantion 11 (1936) 21-46.
23 Hist.

'Emperor [lit. 'King of the Byzantines'] Comnenus who is of the House

Constantine*. here).

Mong.

Inv.

719,

qualifies

the Trapezuntine

father-in-law

of Demetrius

II

as

of the great

24 Hist. Inv. Tim. 880; Saraf ad-d?n, II 379 (the name of George's brother is not given

174

TRADITIO

chronicler pretends that he was again on a mission.25 Georgian I date (as his charter shows) from 1405. The regnal years of Constantine death. Since We must assume, therefore, this to be the year of George VII's to Constantine was not co-opted by his father, it is difficult presume that his so. Ac half-brother, with whom he was not on friendly terms, should have done cording to the system of chronology evolved by Vakhusht, and accepted by to the Georgian historiography, George died in 1407 ;26 but then, according same system, Constantine would have died two years later (in 1414) than he actually did.27 Obviously, this error is due to the fact that Vakhusht knew rather the length of Constantine's reign than the exact dates of his accession

and death, both of which events he postdated by two years. I fell in the war against the Qara-Qoyunlu Constantine chieftain, Qara the Prince of and of Shirvan the with in alliance he which King waged Yusuf, Shakki. He was captured in a battle, north of the Araxes, in 1412, and slain own hand. Three hundred Georgian knights perished with by Qara-Yusuf's him.28 The date of his death is confirmed by the fact that the regnal years of his successor are computed from 1412.29 For Constantine's wife, cf. the note on Alexander
25 Ibid. 26 Dates

I.30

512-4; 380;

Hist. HG

Inv.

Tim.

882. People of the Georgian of of the Kings Table

(London Georgia,' 27 Cf. 28'Abd Rawdat

I 2.664, 667 n.2; W. E. D. Allen, A History 'The Chronological-Genealogical 1932) 126; A. Gugushvili, 1.1-2 (1936) 126-127. Ge?rgica preceding al-Razzaq note.

Matta! (Lahore 1360/1941) 243; Mir-X?wand, al-sacdayn Samarqand?, 4 (1934) 757. cited by V. Minorsky, of Islam 'Tiflis,' The Encyclopaedia al-saf?', of King Constantine. with the death is a certain chronological There difficulty connected crossed the Araxes to 'Abd al-Razzaq, 12, 815= shortly after ?a'ban Qara-Yusuf According taken place fell must have of Georgia in which the King Nov. 25, 1412, so that the battle sometime Febr. in the Winter of 1412-1413. 21 and Mar. 21, 1412, as the throne between his son, ascended Yet Alexander, and the charter is proved (cf. below, n.51); by his charters and Dec. of Alexander the accession written between K'uc'na, deceased should from

of the Prince-Chamberlain 7, 1412 below, weight,

as to Constantine's leaves no doubt being (cf. below, n. 47), documents of the contemporary information The n.45, IV). in its final form dates than this work which in my estimation, states that Constantine was slain

then (cf. carry more 1470. ? 'Abd

to David, in addition sources ; yet the word Georgian of a foreign author ought not to be accepted or 'brothers-in-law' etc., and this information a from other sources. confirmation without unconditionally 29 Cf. below, n.51. 30 who 'the Second' I has been Constantine by the older historians occasionally styled as 'the First'. ruler of that name But, then, the tenth-century counted Abasgian usurping the never First' nucleus 383-4, other been Abasgians usurping taken into account which is as (another Constantine, in establishing and it ought to be; the ordinal For two Georges, numbers and Demetrius) have of the

al-Razzaq sible that,

It is quite admis together with his brothers. in the brothers unmentioned had other younger the King sense of 'relatives/ 'brothers' may be used here in a broader

of Georgia,

op. cit. 126-7. (cf. e.g., Gugushvili, in the ninth of the Georgian State) 385-9.

at present Constantine the Abasgian subjection the tenth century, until

legitimate Kings is referred to as 'the of 978, Iberia cf. J II (the 378,

and

the

fifteenth-century

bagratids

175

? Third son of David (Davit'). Bagrat V, his second by Anne of Trebizond; he was captured, together with his parents by Timur, in 1386.81 He is last mentioned in the Zedginidze Petition32 as making his submission to Bagrat VI (q.v.) in 1465. Difficult though itmay be to think of him as still alive at this late date, we must nevertheless admit that the 'Prince royal (batonisvil) David' of 1465 was the son of Bagrat V, for the only other David in the royal was c. the III Katholikos of David died 1457. The who Iberia, family (q.v.) as of this and his the David's last prestige great age position surviving mem ber of a preceding generation of the royal house may account for the fact that the above source explicity mentions his recognition of Bagrat VI.33 Olympias (Ulumpia). ?

of Bagrat V and sister of the then reign Daughter ing King George VII, as revealed by her charter of 1399/1405 (r?sum?, IV. Rapp. 10) .34 By this instrument she institutes an agape35 for the late Prince Chamberlain of Georgia, Kakhaber in it her son Sazverel is Chidjavadze; also mentioned: Sazverel Chidjavadze last appears in a document of 1488.36 The Prince-Chamberlain and his consort Ul < urn> pia are mentioned Kakhaber also in a synodicon (MS No. 54) fromMt. Sinai.37
31Panaretus Thomas 53.292; V and Constantine I. Bagrat 32 Undated fifteenth-century 33 The Bridge Ch,. of Mecop' document 37, 75-6; cf; by Tables a 1.625 and of the the notes House on of

addressed

Zedginije to theKing of Georgia; ed. AG 4; cf. J IV 93, 88-9.

province a wholly 887, relates of Didoet'i and of his

member

Kakhetian

and Kakhetia'; George VII, 'King of Iberia of the latter's marriage to Nat'ia, George; and of the their son, the great Alexander. toricity married was of this in 1367 tale (cf. note on Alexander Even the ten-year-old Anne. could not have been born

story of David's imaginary flight to the of being proclaimed there, after the death of his reign and that of his son, another King of the Prince-Chamberlain daughter K'uc'na; from other arguments the his Apart against I), if David its very chronology is untenable. Bagrat had been their first son (which he let us say, 1369. Alexander I, on the other

not), he before, was at the most about hand, was born in 1390, when his presumed grandfather twenty! 34 The date of the document is determined of mention approximate by the combined as 'King of Kings', VII (cf. below, George 1395-1405, and of i.e., King-regnant jhap. II), the Katholikos of Iberia, Elias, 1399-1419 6 [1924] 1271). (e.g., R. Janin, 'G?orgie,' DThC ? was neither known nor mentioned to Vaxust in the Hist. Inv. Tim.; therefore Olympias who could not well dismiss Bross?t, of Bagrat only as a doubtful member her in Tables (1.625) altogether, placed of this document family. And yet the evidence can in no way be vitiated in Georgian by the silence, not unusual chronicles, regarding of the royal house; cf. The Founder and the Georg. daughters oj the Emp. oj Trebizond Thamar Queen 305ff., 309ff. 35 a commemmorative In the Georgian or distribution Church the term agapi meant meal V's of victuals, service on a pagan offered to the anniversary though the poor, ecclesiastics, of the departed. The its name deriving and foundations; passers-by, accompanying celebration of agapae (which from an early Christian practice) or the seems was funeral to be assured her charter

survival,

Palestinskiy Sbornik 6 (1888) 220.

in perpetuity s.v. 'G?orgie' by legacies Janin, DThC 1264; Javaxisvili, Sak'art'velos Ehonomiuri Istoria I (Tiflis 1903) 93ff.; Bross?t, Introduction cxiv. 36 Ed. Sas. Sigei 25 37 A. C'agareli, 'Pam?tniki Zeml? i na Sina?,' Starin? Gruzinskoy Sv?toy 'Pravoslavn?y

176
That

traditio

were Kakhaber VI ; though this is by no means certain.38 The Kakhaberidzes a branch of the Liparitid house, known later under the name of Orbeli or Orbeliani.39 They were enfeoffed of Racha, from the eleventh or twelfth cen to the to have maintained themselves in appear tury thirteenth, though they it till the fifteenth.40 The princely house of Chidjavadze continued to play an important role in Imeretia down to the end of that kingdom.41 son of Constantine Alexander I.?-Eldest (Alek'sandre) I, as is attested by the charter 4 Jul. 3 Const. I. 1408 (AG 3.461), which begins with the words: son of Bagrat, and Our be Tn the Name the Bagratid, of God, Constantine 1 loved sons, Alexander, Bagrat, and George . . . / and by the charter 25 Dec. son refers to Constantine Ts Geo. VIII. 1447 ( 259-60), inwhich Alexander's brother, George VII as Our grandfather's brother.' This utterly invalidates assertion that Alexander was a son of George VII.42 Vakhusht's Although

Olympias's mother was Anne of Trebizond has been determined above on or Constantine the son of Chidjava (note I). Her husband, Kakhaber was a scion of the House of the Kakhaberidzes, Dukes of Racha, Chizhava, as is proved by his inscription in the Kakhaberid family-abbey of Mghvime, in that duchy, in Imeretia. According to the interpretation of that inscription of Racha, as by a recent authority, he appears to have been himself a Duke

some modern Georgian scholars have accepted the evidence of the primary sources for this matter,43 the eighteenth-century error of Vakhusht has to this day been perpetuated by other, especially western, historians.44 King Alexander's mother and, consequently, King Constantine's wife was and of his of Georgia, Kutzna Natia, daughter of the Prince-Chamberlain our at little information There is wife Rusa (Rusudan).45 disposal regarding
38 Materiali Uscel' G. Ceret'eli, po Kviril'skomu ,' 'Arxeologiceska? Progulka ? to Olympias' husband 7 (1898) 93ff. Ceret'eli refers, erroneously, For the House of Orbeliani, cf. note on Alexander o Ktitorax 'K Voprosu MgVime et d'arch?ologie 4 (1926) 126-7. ? I. In po Arxeologii as Kaxaber

Kavkaza III. 39 40

S. Kakabaje, caucasien d'histoire

to the House of Raca passed 41 98. The Kakhetian Spiski 42 1.625. ?In his Cf. Tables the time of Our grandfather's c'uenisa,

de l'Institut Bulletin Imeretii/ the fifteenth century, the Duchy 48-9. of ?'xe(t)ije; Descr. Geogr. ibid.; Vaxust, of it. house of Cavcavaje may be a branch charter, of Timur 'at jmisa papis so definitely

militating against Vaxust's genealogical construction; IV Rapp.

for the erroneous notion that Alexander door. I was be to VaxuSt's laid exclusively error, found in the Continuations from Bethania arisen from a certain It seems

mep'et'-mep'isa

of the invasion VIII George speaks of Kings the King brother, George1=zamsa was perplexed Bross?t by this document, giorgissa.

20. The

of the Annals

the son of a King George cannot, however, to have been a common eighteenth-century and in one of VaxuSt's sources, the charter in 1704 the filiation (cf. above, n.9), of Bagrat VI and (q.v.). between it appears

responsibility

of the Barat'ads have

44

43 Cf. e.g., J IV 7-20; Gugushvili, Chron.-Geneal. Table 126-7.

Cf. Allen, 126. Bross?t History the Br?dge Chron. (cf. above, was somewhat and n.33),

Abbey, copied confusion regarding

to

Vaxust,

45This is proved by the combined evidence of the following sources: (I) A fifteenth

by the divergence puzzled the documents; cf. Tables 1.625.

THE

FIFTEENTH

CENTURY

BAGRATIDS

177

house of Khurtzidze, Queen Natia's family: itmay have been the Meschian no means certain.46 Kutzna himself, as his own charter of 141247 this but is by at Constantinople until the time of King (Z 209) reveals, was Ambassador Alexander's birth. I was Alexander
century mercy MS

born in Kakhetia48
has: 'May God have

in 1390.49. By
mercy on the soul

1408, he was
of Alexander,

co-opted
illustrious

on the soul of his mother, now the former Nat'ia, 208. ed. [nun] Nino'; (The a wrong name to Alexander's Chron. this 887, while Bridge giving father, concurs with a daughter his mother, document in naming of the Prince-Chamberlain K'uc'na, Nat'ia; 20 Sept. 1 Alex. Charter I. 1413 (K 3.7-10; Alexander n.33).?(II) 220) whereby above, founds an agape dertaken, after

among all the kings and Sovereign Lord ofAll the East even to theWest; may God have

of agapae

for his grandmother who had directed his education and had un Rusa, of Timur, the devastations the restoration of the primatial at cathedral in the course of which he died. to bring that she undertook (J IV 14 supposes Mc'xet'a, as the latter after Queen had taken Nat'ia the veil. But this is unlikely, up Alexander would and hardly Alexander Alex. have ascended wife, the death of Constantine I, in the winter of 1412 ; the throne, aged twenty-two, cf. below.) immediately thereafter; I is in agreement with this charter: it mentions the Prince-Chamber Rusa, taken who brought up her grandson, King Alexander; p. 888.).? (III) that step before

(The Hist.

lain K'uc'na's

Charter 19Alex. I. 1431 [I] (r?sum?, IV Rapp. 15) whereby the King institutesan agape himself (Z 209) : in connectionwith the restoration of the Abbey of Ulumba, he founds
agapae for his wife Queen Rusa, Nat'ia King [the Alexander latter's wife, [then else for the Prince-Chamberlain (though no name is given).? (IV) Charter of 1412 of K'uc'na

King George [VII], and Queen Rusudan (erstwhileprotectress of the family). Cf. J IV 15-6. It is difficult to see why Javaxisvili should so hesitatingly have admitted what is so
unmistakably 46 In his been in the light of the above combined patent charter K'uc'na his forefather, mentions of of Georgia under Queen Rusudan evidence; the same (1223-1245). J IV But, 13-6. as having unfortunately, praenomen,

Constantine,

reigning, hence mentioned first], King she would not preceed the following],

Prince-Constable

between the constableship of Zacharias II Mxargrjeli, who died in 1212( The Histories and Eulogies of theSovereigns [part of The Georgian Annals : MGHL 175-6] ed. T'aqaisvili,
QM 1233/4 525), and that of his nephew to 1250 (Hist. Mong. Inv. Prosy ank{ praenomen III Mxargrjeli, who filled that office from Avak-Sargis for the date of his accession, cf. G. Yovsepyan, the incumbents of it are not 1928] 98-100), [Valarsapad 570-668;

kam Xalbakyank' to us. The known

Materialov
This A

ing to his charter), may or Xurc'ije of Xurc'ikije

walls of the church at Nebaxt'evi, near the village of Brili, in the Gori district; M.
Xaxanov considers

is treated more fully in the dissertation problem K'uc'na fresco portrait of the Prince-Chamberlain it, and the church, as belonging

for the Description of the Peoples and Localities of Caucasia 35 [1905] 1-60).
referred is found to the to above, n.3 (pp. 80-83).? on one of the three remaining century; '?kspedicii

K'urc(ik born by K'uc'na's (accord (Xurceik), grandfather to the Meschian that he belonged feudal house suggest possibly cf. T'aqaisvili, ?kskursii (for which etc.,' Sbornik 'Arxeologiceski?

sixteenth

na Kavkaz/ Materiali po Arxeologii Kavkaza 7.65. He may possibly have postdated both the building and the painting. 47 The date of this undated document is determined by the fact that Alexander is
mentioned as

wife Rusa (fDec. 7, 1412; cf. n.49) as still living.Agapae might, to be sure, be founded in the lifetimeof their eventual beneficiaries.
48

king-regnant

(after

Febr.

21/Mar.

1412;

cf. nn.45

and

51)

and

K'uc'na's

49 Charter 10 Sept. 8 Alex. I. 1420 (K 3.10-12;

This

is implied

in K'uc'na's

charter.

226) states that Alexander was aged

178

TRADITIO

some time by his father;50 and he succeeded him on the throne of Georgia 51 He abdicated between February 21 and March in 1442 and be 21, 1492. came a monk under the name of Athanasius.52 His death occurred between 'the Great', adopted in 7, 1446.53 His appellation own dates from his almost Georgian historiography, day.54 II Orbeliani, The King married, first, Dulandukht, daughter of Beshken Prince of Siunia.55 This must have taken place c. 1410/1411.56 By 1414/1415, August 26, 1445 and March

of the restoration of Mc'xet'a, after the destructions 20 Sept. 1 Alex.1.1413 (K 3.7-10; 220) we learn that it was his Rusa who had begun that work and died in the course of it (cf. above, n.45 II). grandmother as still living in It is clear, then, that Alexander continued the work. Rusa appears merely K'uc'na's of Alexander after the accession (Febr. 21/Mar. 21, 1412; cf. charter, written twenty-two Timur. But when he undertook from the charter n.51) agape (Dec. 1412. ; she is mentioned for Rusa's 7, according as deceased the in the latter's charter of Sept. 20, 1413. Since on St. Ambrose's to take place soul, instituted day by that act, was assume to the Byzantine we may that she died on Dec. 7, calendar), was of in 1412, when restoration left to him the task twenty-two, been the King born was in 1390; aged cf. J IV 10-11. The charter twenty-four when he began knew J IV 11. Bross?t copy; 22 Sept. 7 Alex.I. 1419 the restoration, but the only this act and con

aged Being must have Alexander (Z 224) document states that

cluded that Alexander was born in 1389, since he counted his reign from 1413; IV Rapp,
12, 13. 50 Cf. below, 51 J IV 7-10 chap. II. the basis

is a seventeenth-century

3.10;

2201 to 29 Alex. I. 1441 [K 3.241).

(on

of the analysis

of 18 charters,

from 20 Sept.

1 Alex.

I.

1413

[K

cf. J IV 35-6. S2Hist. Alex. I. 889; following note; 53 Charter . . . son of the King of Mar. 21), issued by 'George 7, 1446 (r?sum?, IV Rapp. = a a charter of of Kings and monk, the blessed , i.e., 'late'] Alexander'; [sanatrel son of the King of Kings issued by 'King Demetrius, Alexander'; 26, 1445 (Z 257), Aug. been have referred had Alexander died before the issuance of this document, he would to as claims of his 'late' that in it. Hist. the King Alex. I. 891 records his death (cf. below). after 1445. Thomas developed Besk'en II an ulcer of Siunik' of the stomach a year after of Mecop' 146, murder the supposed

54 Aeneas Sylvius (Pope Pius II), Epistolarum lib. I (Basel 1571) 852: George VIII's
is described of Mecop' as Nicohus 144. Besk'en orator Georgii Alexandri r?gis. magni fled to the Court of Georgia, having been despoiled the fortress-city and received from Alexander ??h-Rux, that Alexander N?ve of of

father-in-law,

ambassador 55 Thomas his princedom Lori. Thomas his

by the Timurid have us believe would

ibid. 144-146. father-in-law; revival of the Orbeliani possible

name is revealed Queen's by of Kings, the Lord Alexander and the Queen of Queens, the Lady Dulanduxt'. by 'the King These words lost. It is its initial part having been figure at the end of the document, difficult to see why Javaxisvili should have hesitated to accept this text as an evidence so is not expressly Dulanduxt only because 19-20. the lost opening J IV part contained; else could she have been? What Her of Queens, shows her to be the wife of title, Queen a king-regnant II n.27). of a sovereign's Of all the female members (cf. below, chap. ? a specification ? and occasionally his mother but then with family, only his consort were mentioned was in royal diplomata. not Alexander's and Since Dulanduxt mother for the praenomen called and of Alexander's do not first wife what because we know

of in 1437/8, the poisoning caused, to his fear of a this may have been due suggests ? The cf. below). ibid. 153-154 (for the Orbelianis, power; 1 Alex. issued the charter 20 Sept. I. 1413 (K 3.7-10; 220),

THE

FIFTEENTH

CENTURY

BAGRATIDS

179

must have died or been repudiated, to make way for Queen Dulandukht second wife, the heires of Imeretia.57 The Liparitid house, known Alexander's since the eleventh century under the name of Orbeli or Orbeliani,58 is now believed by specialists to be descended from the Armenian dynastic race of the Mamikonids.59 in Georgia, c. 876,60 to the end of the From its appearance
since Alisan her relationship is not further specified, we must of Mecop', that Alexander assume was that she was his wife. ? of Besk'en; L.

Sisakan
vague

states,

(Venice 1893) 96 and Stemma ad p. 92. The text of Thomas

citing Thomas

a brother-in-law

to admit of the interpretation that Besken II was a grandson and not (as enough a great-grandson is correct) of B?rt'el II of Siunik', Thomas makes nevertheless it quite clear that Besk'en IFs paternal uncle was B?rt'el Alisan 96 n.2. IPs grandson; 56 n.65. Cf. below, 57 Hence the unhappy relations with his father-in-law, Besk'en of Siunik'; possibly or not Alexander hence for in addition, (whether was, also, presumably responsible silence act of entering a monastery; his expiatory and hence, finally, the official death), case his first wife. of the Georgian chroniclers On the analogous regarding II of Georgia's after the repudiation of his first wife and the official repentance . Avalishvili, 'The Cross from Overseas,' 1.2-3 (1936) regarding her, cf. Ge?rgica of

144, it is true, is

Be&'en's David silence 3-11.

58'0rbeli' is the territorialepithet derived from the castle of Orbet'i (Samsvilde), in the Duchy of Samsvilde, in Lower Iberia (cf.Vaxust, Geogr. Descnption 166/167). The older
form 'Orbeli' Armenian of was later The name branch name of the gens. the collective by 'Orbeliani', originally replaced was were under also known the called '?rbelean'. The Liparitids

59

. Adone'

'Baguas!'.

(Adontz), Armeni?

Epoxu Yustiniana (St. Petersburg 1908) 402-4; E.

T'aqaisvili,

and of Bagratid in Georgia/ the Beginnings Rule Chronology 1.1 (1935) 20-1. Like the Mamikonids, the Liparitids claimed Chinese imperial Ge?rgica of en-Bakur descent and the gentilitial title of (later Jambakur), i.e., 'Son of Heaven cf. Marquart, China' (=Pers. 133-4; Streif z?ge t'ien-tzu; bagp?r=Ind. devaputra=Chm. des Mami Namenbuch F. Justi, Iranisches 1895] 240). Cf. H. Sc?ld, 'L'origine [Marburg 'Georgian 'Die Herkunft der 131-6; K. Mlaker, des Morgenlandes f?r die Kunde Zeitschrift op. cit. chaps. 10, 11; J. Laurent, UArm?nie Histoire de VArm?nie (Paris 1947) Grousset, (1925) M? (ed. J. Saint-Martin, 'Disserta ; J. Saint-Martin, Additions 213-5, 257-64, 317-29,

5.1 des ?tudes arm?niennes coniens/ Revue Wiener Mamikonier und der Titel Cenbakur/ 39 (1932) 133-45; Justi, op. cit. 424-5; Adone', 290-1, moires entre Byzance 641. Cf. et l'Islam (Paris 1919) Stephen ?rbelean, et g?ographiques historiques The

90; R. History of the Orbelians sur l'Arm?nie 1819) II, Paris

M?mories tion sur la famille des Orb?lians/ II; Bross?t, were as the Mamikonids 92-8. ? the hereditary High Sisakan 334-9, 346-61 ; Alisan, Exactly were enfeoffed of the office of Armenia Constables 282-3, 370), so the Liparitids (Adone', carried on by the and the struggle against the Bagratids, of Georgia; of Prince-Constable of a family feud. The had the character and by the latter in Georgia, former in Armenia

policy of the early Liparitids was pro-Armenian (cf. Allen, History 86) and it was to Armenia that the principal branch of the house retired after the disgrace of 1177 (cf. below). It will be recalled that a Mamikonid prince, Artavazd, later imperial Strategus of the Anatolics, fled to Georgia in 771 and held fiefs there (cf.Grousset, op. cit. 324) and
that there have been other

from the Mamikonid

Chahnazarian, ancestors Histoire come

dynasty (N. Marr

. . . par

Georgian

houses,

. . .Gh?vond

in Xristianskiy Vostok
[Paris 1865] (at a 13 n.2).

e.g.,

the T'umanids,

deducing It

their

descent

[1913] 2.144-145; G.
is true that Stephen our

?rbelean, Archbishop of Siunik' (11304), the historian of his house, alleged that his
had to Georgia directly from China remote epoch before era)

180
Kingdom, and in the Russian mit of the feudal hierarchy

TRADITIO

Empire thereafter, this house occupied the sum of the country.61 In the eleventh century, the reached the apogee of their might and remained, for a century, Liparitids leaders of the feudality in its struggle against the growing power of the Bagratid Crown.62 Finally, however, the King of Georgia succeeded, in 1177, in crush ing the recalcitrance of this house and in expelling to Armenia branch. That branch, then, acquired the Principality of Siunia;63 branch that Queen Dulandukht belonged.64
and later) omitted by which all mention the same made the of their Armenian nationalism historian family

its principal itwas to this

affected

nascent

origin and trace that house directly fromJudaea to Georgia (cf.Streifz?ge 391-403;MGHL 154-5; The Early Bagratids 22-3). Actually, the firsthistorical Liparitids appear inGeorgia
in the ninth century 60 Ca. 876, Liparit ? the epoch I 'took of the decline of the of the Mamikonids lands of T'rialet'i Ana and in Armenia. reared the castle of

have been But past. then, his sources must of the Georgia of the eleventh (and century their Armenian of the Bagratids, omit Sumbat,

Klde-Karni';
(ed. QM 61 224;

The Chronicle of Iberia [part of The Georgian Annals ; cf.MGHL

ed. QA: S. Qauxc'isvili, K'art'lis-C'xovreba: Dedop'liseuli Nusxa,

possession

173-174]
Tiflis

and the officesof Constable of the Van

Muxrani and P'anaskerteli)

as and The House of Orbeliani in the seventeenth centuries, ranked, eighteenth cf. above, n.8) and was enfeoffed the 'undivided' fourth among (mt'avar-s, princes of Iberia and Xunani of Samsvilde of South Sabarat'iano, the Duchies of the princedom comprising of Prince-Master of the Palace of Georgia; Vaxtang VI,

1942) 164. These fiefs lay in Lower Iberia; Vaxust, Geogr. Description 190/191.

(Sabarat'iano) and (jointly with the Houses of

King of Georgia, Code of Laws ?35 (ed. J. Karst, Code g?orgien du roi Vakhtang VI, Strasbourg 1934); VaxuSt, Geogr. DescHption 40/41, 46/47; Heraclius II, King of Georgia,
A

Gruzinskie Dvor?nskie Akti i Rodoslovn?? Rospisi, Moscow

39-43 [List of the last I occupants 228ff.; Russkago V. of the great Comment. g?orgien: (vol. 12 of Utverzdenie N.

Short

Description

of the Princely

and Noble

Houses

of Georgia

1893) vi; Akti 2 (Tiflis 1867)

Code ; Karst, Zakavkaz'em St. Petersburg

(cited

by M.

Xaxanov,

1901) 9; Pr. Peter Dolgorukov, Rossiyska? Rodoslovna? Kniga III 475-6; II (1855) 62-3; Spiski 36-7, 67-8.
e2Thus East, in 1045-1046 Prince-Constable forced King Liparit of Georgia, IV Bagrat

offices of Georgia] Crown Grazdanskoe Ivanenko, Upravlenie na Kavkaz? ed. V. A. Potto, Vladicestva

(St. Petersburg 1856)

Iberia, of the Con

stantine IX Monomachus, to cede to himself one half of the Realm (south of the Kur) ; Chron. Iber. (ed. Qauxc'isvili=QA) 185-91=QM 260-7; Cedrenus (PG 122) 304-5; cf.Allen, History 85-94, 102-3. (On the pages of CMH 4 [1923] 166, the powerful Liparit IV has become 'Liparid,King of Georgia', possibly via Ibn al-A0ir's 'Lifarit, King of the Apxaz',
II 214-6.) cf. Saint-Martin, M?moires 63 how It is difficult to understand Romanus tion old Justi, Geneal. 8 of The Emperor in chap. S. Runciman, who, with a great penetra and His Reign (Cambridge 1929), has presented Lecapenus the could have confused frontier of the Eastern the picture of the Caucasian Empire, of Siunik' established Trees' between (cf. Grousset, Hist, de Iran. Namenbuch Sisakan 426-7; Alisan, there only after 1177; pp. 362-7; 262 and 263, L'Arm?nie 275-6; Laurent, the the second Siunian dynasty, cf. Runciman, 'The op. cit. 153, 160ff. and as of 'Orbelians referring to the first dynasty 6-19) 291, with 245; 92-8, Stemma ad p. 92; Justi, Iran. Namen VArm.

and Upper of T'rialet'i, Lower IV, Duke Argvet'i, and general of the Roman and Magister Empire of the Emperor of Georgia, the mediation through

house

Orbelians, Siounia'. 64 Bross?t,

Additions

Alisan,

Sisakan

THE

FIFTEENTH-CENTURY

BAGRATIDS

181

mother the Queen in 1234, to the exclusion of her nephew, also David (V), the son of her late brother, King George IV ? although it was for the protection of the nephew's minority that King George had provided for her succession to the throne. The Mongols, who in the meantime had enforced their suzerainty on as joint-Kings of Georgia, in 1250. Georgia, finally recognized the two Davids Eight

Shortly after his accession, c. 1414/1415, the King married his second wife, Thamar, daughter of Alexander, Duke of Imeretia.65 The House of Imeretia, in the female line, was descended from the great Queen Thamar's Bagratid and her consort, son ofMughithaddin-Tughril-Shah, daughter, Queen Rusudan the Seljukid Prince of Erzerum.66 Their son David (IV) was co-opted by his

in IV Narin, Rusudan's years later, however, David son, seceded now as an to be called (Western Abasgia independent Georgia), Imeretia, Of the four generations of David Nariii's posterity, the last three are known almost exclusively from Vakhusht ? which information must be accepted for the lack of any other? and the chronology computed by the 'Georgian Gibbon' stands in need of revision. The fortunes of the Imeretian Seljukids appear to in reverse proportion to those of Georgia. have waned and waxed Profiting by her weakness, the independence
sovereign.67

they continually strove to secure both the royal dignity and of her sceptre, only to find themselves again reduced to the that sceptre again. position of vassal dukes, when stronger hands wielded Thamar's father, and his brothers after him, seem to have proclaimed them selves kings, taking advantage of the invasions of Timur in Georgia. Never theless, the Kings of Georgia not only deprived the Seljukid house of all hope buch 446.? The historian Stephen ?rbelean, Archbishop of Siunik* (tl304), was BeSk'en
IFs as early as 1413 in the charters of their III appear (qq.v.) in which Queen this is likewise the year is mentioned Dulanduxt father, King Alexander; Thamar first in the charter in a document 10 Sept. 8 Alex. (cf. n.55). I. appears Queen Vaxtang 65 great-great-granduncle. IV and Demetrius

begin

to figure in documents, Since the two sons by Dulanduxt together with Thamar. c. 1410/1411; in 1413, Alexander's must have taken place first marriage appear already sons appear and since the first two of Thamar's in 1417, Alexander must have married for the second time Mong.

1420 (K 3.10-12; 226) and possibly in the acephalous charter 29 Sept. 5 Alex. I. 1417 (Z 223-4) ; J IV 19. It is in 1417 that Alexander's sons George VIII and David (qq.v.)

(HG II 1) 249; cf. Tables 625; J IV 19-20.

66 Hist. Inv. 571 calls him

c. 1414/1415.

According

to Vaxust,

that

event

occurred

in 1414; Upon

History

of the Iconian Realm by his father Q?l?j-Arsl?n II, in 1192, T?gril-S?h received Abulustayn sh?h b. Kilidj-Arsl?n,' The Encyclopaedia of Islam Suppl. 5 (1938) 251.A vassal ofGeorgia,
caused, according T?gril-S?h, order to marry Queen Rusudan; from Rusudan's unless we prince so construe ad-din History to Ibn al-A0?r, 12.270, his son Isfom recorded 620, n.2. to embrace s.v. 'Tiflis' in appanage; but he exchanged it, in 1200-1201, for Erzerum; cf. .V. Zetterst?en, T?ghril

'son of Ortul',

i.e., of T?gril(-S?h).

the division

who succeeded his fatherT?gril-S?h in Erzerum in 1225,must be distinct din-Jah?n-S?h,

consort, like his chaps. whose name has Fida, not been ad HG in the available as to infer that the passage of Ab?'l ann. H I 2.501 sources, he was

ibid.; Minorsky,

Encycl.

Christianity 756. Rukn

in ad

named Mug?0 67 Cf. Allen,

father; 9, 10.

cf. Bross?t,

182

traditio

of achieving independence, but even temporarily dispossessed Thamar's broth Demetrius. her must become brother's Thamar have er, forfeiture, Through heiress of Imeretia ; and inmarrying her, King Alexander may have sought to legitimize, as it were, in the eyes of the feudality his acquisition of that im portant fief, which to many must have looked like a despoliation of a great house.

who was

of Imeretia.68 (See page 183.) Bagrat VI and the Bagratid Royal House A charter issued by Queen Thamar in 1433 (AG 2.330) has come down to us. It is a rather curious one, in that she styles herself mep'e, which designates a reigning sovereign of royal rank, and not dedop'al, which is used of a sov ereign's wife.69 This may be due to a conscious imitation of the great Thamar, a queen-regnant suo jure;70 or she may have assumed that title as heir to the Seljukid kingdom of Imeretia.71 and George. ? Bagrat Sons of Constantine I,72 elevated by him to the co-kingship c. 1408.73 More will be said of them in the note on Bagrat VI. Empress 1425 John ( a The

After his marriage, however, Alexander appears to have restored her as a vassal duke of Imeretia brother, the last Seljukid Demetrius, (perhaps because he was already then known to be childless, or perhaps only nominally). It will not be devoid of interest to append here the stemma of the Imeretian Seljukids, which will be referred to below, in connection with the origin of

of Trebizond. ? Daughter I. She married in of Alexander a and ) (Grand) Comnenus, co-Emperor, subsequently of Trebizond She must have been a (c. 1417-1429-1458).74 Emperor-regnant, and possibly even older than her full daughter of the Princess Orbeliani, c. for her father married a second time c. 1411/1412; brothers, being born and been younger than ten when she mar she have could 1414/1415 hardly ried. The
68 For

Emperor
Imeretian Table

John IV was
and

a grandson
above

of Manuel

III

and Gulkan
Inv.;

the

History
pour

Chron.-Geneal.

Hist. Mong. Inv. 571; art. 'Kaikhusraw II/ The Encyclopaedia of Islam 2 (1927) 639-40.
69 70 71 Cf. MGHL For Some Thamar scholars 157 n.44. Georgian knows no distinction 103-8. the Great, cf. Allen, History at first believed the charter to have of genders. been actually Cf. below, II n.27. the

et de chronologie de g?n?alogie 123, 125, 128 ; E. de Zambaur, Manuel ? Rusudan's l'Isfom (Hanover 1927) 143-4; and above, nn. 22, 66. daugh of in 1236, her second II, Sultan ter, Thamar cousin, Giy?0 ad-d?n-Kayxusraw married, the occasion; who of the lion and the sun to commemorate chose the emblem Iconium, l'histoire de

(HG I 2) 647, 668, (II

Seljukids

the

stemma,

cf. Hist.

1) 245-9; Dates;

Tables 4.642. 1.624-5; Gugushvili,

Mong.

VaxuSt,

issued

Great and proposed the emendation of the date 121 of the XIV Paschal Cycle of G.E. (1433) to 421 of theXIHth (1201) ;T'aqaisvili, AG 2.371-372. 72 Charter 4 Jul. 3 Const. I. 1408 (AG 3.461) ; chartersof Alexander I of 1414 (K 2.3-4), Sept. 22, 1419 (Z 224), Sept. 10, 1420 (K 3.10-12; 226), Jan. 6, 1424 (Z 228). BHdge Chr.
887 mentions doubtfully arrival at the them admitted court as Alexander's by Bross?t of S?h-Rux brothers. in Tables of Alexander's 1.625. Not ? mentioned The Matla' representative by Vaxust, but they were 432 records the al-sa'dayn and of the sons of Con

by Thamar

stantine, at the end of 1420. 73 Cf. below, chap. II. 74Laonicus Chalcocondyles,

De

reb.

turc. 9

(PG

159.456).

the

fifteenth-century

bagratids

183

Stemma

of the
Izz

Imeretian

Seljukids

Sultan

II ad-dln-QUij-Arsl?n of Iconium (1156-1192) ad-dln-T?gril-??h

Prince of Abulustayn (1192), then of Erzerum (1201), t 1225 (third son)

Ab?'lharie-Mugie

Rukn Prince

1250)

ad-din-Jah?n-S?h of Erzerum (1225

Ismat-Xatun

N. m.

son (Mugie 1224

ad-din

f) of

Georgia (1223-1245)

Rusudan,

Queen

m.

Sultan of Iconium (1236-1246)

1236 Giyde

Thamar ad-Dln

David
Kayxusraw II

IV Narin

of Georgia (1234-1258) co-King and King of in Abasgia, secedes m. N. d. of the Imeretia (1258-1293) Michael VIII Emperor Palaeologus

(?)

King of Imeretia (1293-1326)

Constantine

Michael I King of Imeretia (1326-1329) (Charter of 1326, ed. AG 2. 26)

Alexander

King of Georgia (1289 1292) m. Oljat, d. of the

Ilkhan Abaqa.

Vaxtang

II

Meschia

Bagrat I the Little subdued by George V of Georgia Duke of Imeretia (1330-1372)m. 1358 N. d. of Qvarqvare II, Duke of

Duke
1378)

Alexander

revolts against Ba of Im grat V, and King m. Anne

of Imeretia (1372

King of Imeretia (1389 1392) killed

George

King of Imeretia (1396 1401) killed

Constantine

II

eretia (1387-1389)

Duke

possessed by George VII

restored t s.p. by Alexander 1455

Demetrius I of Imeretia

dis

t p. 1441 m.
Alexander I

Thamar

1414-1415
I

King

of Georgia

184
Eudocia of Georgia;

traditio

moved.75

thus, he was his consort's double second cousin once re or been repudiated? ? The Empress must have died ? before 1438, to Pero Tafur, who then visited Trebizond, John IV had a when, according Turkish wife.76. Eldest son of King Alexander, by his first wife, having been born before 1413.77 He was raised to the co-kingship by his father in 1433,78 succeeded him in 1442, and died without issue in 1446.79 In 1442, Vakhtang married IV. ?

Vakhtang Meschian

of Khvedureti and Kareli. These formed the princedom of the house, later a name derived from the patronymic of Tzitzishvili, known as Satzitziano, which was borne by Zaza Ts posterity.84 The Queen died in 1444.85
75 For John Traveler Byzantion V's queen, V. por de diversas libros partes del mundo raros o ?vidas 8, espa?oles curiosos IV Spanish Italy/ Bagrat a Tero and his dates, 81-96 ; A. Vasiliev, cf. Miller, Trebizond Tafur, and of the XVth to Constantinople, and His Visit Trebizond, Century ? was of Anne, the brother 99-101. Manuel III of Trebizond 7 (1932) and the husband of Bagrat's sister Gulk'an-Eudocia ; cf. above, note on

The Sitikhatun, daughter of Prince Zaza I Panaskerteli.80 house of Panaskert,81 whereof the territorial epithet of Panaskerteli is derived, had come into prominence with Zacharias of Panaskert, who, to some with other feudal in down 1192 the second rebellion of gether lords, put Duke and of Klardjeti Guzan, Shavsheti, against Queen Thamar ;82 the house 83 been had Queen Sitikhatun's subsequently enfeoffed of the Duchy of Tao. to Lower Iberia, where father, Prince Zaza I, removed in 1467 fromMeschia he obtained from Constantine II (then a co-king of Bagrat VI, qq.v.) the fiefs

e viajes de Pero Tafur Tafur, Andan?as de la Espada, Collecci?n (ed. Marcos (1435-1439) Madrid 159-60. 1874) where Vaxtang 78 Cf. below, 79 Hist. Alex. 1447. 80 Hist. Alex. P'anaskerteli.' brothers Constantine and his Alex. always precedes II. Tables Chron. g?org. Demetrius; 1.625; Hist.

Bagrat 76 Pero

77 His father's charters from20 Sept. 1 Alex. I. 1413 (K 3.7-10;

Alex. 38-9; I. 889-91; Chron. chap. I. 890-1;

220) to 1442 (Z 253),

Tables 2/3 1.625. puts his death at

cf. J IV

g?org.

I. and

I. 889; the Chron. T'aqa

in the charter of Bagrat III of Imeretia of 1511 (Sas. Sigei. 28), togetherwith his elder
Zacharias IPs and C'ic'i. Zacharias of 1467 P'anaskerteli, (Sas. on the other 30-31), together letters-patent Sigei. been the oldest in 1442, must have Zaza. who married father, Prince Sitixat'un, of the eight known children of Zaza I. 81 on the patrimonial castle of the family, was situated in the Duchy of Tao, P'anaskert, the river of the same name, a tributary of the Coroxi; 118/119. VaxuSt, Geogr. Description 82 Hist, and Eul. of the Sov. 445. 83 Rodoslovna? II 45-6. T'aqa Duke of Dolgorukov, Kniga P'anaskerteli, Rossiyska? defeated the Turkomans with the invading of Georgia Sac'ic'iano c. 1302, at T'ort'omi ? comprising Castle; Hist. Kareli Mong. and in is mentioned hand, with his elder brothers

appears

1 625. Both the Hist. ; Tables g?org. 2/3 ('Sil-Xat'un') and sister of T'aqa call her 'daughter of the P'anaskertel seem ? in the available documents ? late in life, it should

Tao,

Inv. 767. 84 Invested

other seigniories,and the hereditary officesof Constable of the Royal Banner (Tiflis) and (jointly with the Houses of Muxrani and Orbeliani) of Prince-Master of the Palace of

princedom

Xveduret'i,

the

fifteenth-century

bagratid8

185

? Demetrius Second son of Alexander (Dimitri) III. I, by his first wife, was he erred in making born, like his elder brother, before 1413.86 Vakhusht him a younger brother of George VIII first appears in the (q.v.) : Demetrius

When

charter 20 Sept. 1 Alex. I. 1413 (K 3.7-10; 220), and in all his father's acts he precedes George, the earliest mention of whom is found in the charter 29 from Sept. 5 Alex. I 1417 (Z 223-4). Vakhusht, moreover, omitted Demetrius the list of the Kings of Georgia.87 Demetrius was co-opted by his father in 1433.88 He was sent by him as ambassador to Shah-Rukh, Timur's son.80 Alexander I renounced the throne in 1442 in favor of Vakhtang IV, was left as a co-king with the latter, whereas Alexander's third son, the co-King George The passage had been appanaged in Kakhetia. (VIII), in the Hist. Alex. I. relating the old King's abdication has been often miscon strued to mean that, while Vakhtang was made King of Iberia and George

Demetrius

given Kakhetia, Demetrius was installed as King of Imeretia.90 Of Demetrius we possess two diplomata only, one issued while he was co-king with his broth er, on August 26, 1445 (Z 257) and the other, undated, by 'the King of Kings Demetrius' (Sas. Sigei. 10-11).
Georgia ? the House of P'anaskerteli-C'ic't?vili

as fifth among the six 'undivided' ranked cf division of Sac'ic'iano between the two The n.8). (mt'avar-s, princes above, lines of the house, status into Upper and Lower, the loss of its dynastic in the entailed seventeenth century. Cf. Vaxtang VI, Code ?35; Vaxust, 40/41, 46/47, Geogr. Descr?ption of Iberia Upravlenie surname, member of Zakavakaz'em C'ic'isvili the house II I (and 45 II Ross. Rod. Kniga 9; Dolgorukov, must have been the name Sac'ic'iano), C'ic'i, calls him and her not, as has been nephew), C'ic'iSvili because 45-6, 62-63.? derived from

202/203; Heraclius II, Short Description v; Akii 2.39; Karst, Comment. I 228; Ivanenko,
second earlier

Grazdanskoe The an

called

brother Queen's (Dolgorukov found already under Alexander of that King's undated charter House of P'anaskerteli-C'ie'isvili of Cicianov; under the name 85 Dates 381. where Alex. 87 88 Demetrius

from supposed, this patronymic

the is

(1412-1442) ? (AG 2.28). was 91-3.

the witnesses figures among of Georgia, the annexation the Russian Upon of the Empire received into the princely nobility

: David

Spiski

86 His father's charters from20 Sept. 1 Alex. I. 1413 (K 3.7-10;

I. 890-1; Cf. Tables Cf. below, always cf. Tables 1.625. chap. II. follows 1.625; Vaxtang; cf. J IV his own charter of Aug. 16ff.

220) to 1442 (Z 253),

26, 1445, (Z 257) ; Hist.

90 Hist.

9VaxuSt,History (HG II 1) 145; Dates

Alex. I. 890: 'And when [Alexander]

381.
set up first son Vaxtang in Iberia and brother Demetrius; younger Demetrius' brother George/ younger [his] latter's] and justifies as this passage the comma

The word mast'an

Demetrius imeret's was ('in

his [=the Imeretia, together with him he established and he set up in Kakhetia, in the year 1445, as King, in Imeretia while Vaxtang nevertheless, was

('together with him') precludes an interpretation to the effect that

in Iberia, translated after Bross?t, follows: 'Lorsque

le roi Alexandre installa son filsWakhtang dans le Karthli, il pla?a en m?me temps sur le tr?ne d'Im?r?th Dimitri, son second fils, et en 1445 ... George, fr?re cadet de ce dernier en Cakheth'; HG I 2.682. JavaxiSvili seems inclined to accept the passage in this eense ; J IV 36. This interpretation was caused, no doubt, by the passage of the textwhich mentions the appanaging of Alexander's third son inKakhetia, and by the inability of so

Imeretia').

186
Upon the death

traditio

of Vakhtang III became de jure IV in 1446, Demetrius as the of is evidenced King-regnant Georgia, but, by royal documents of the was ? his brother years 1447-1465, younger George, co-King in Kakhetia, ? the de facto King of Georgia, weakness owing probably to Demetrius^ from 1446 to 1465.91 Demetrius III died in 1453 (or 1452).92 He was married, after 1446, to Queen Gulashar, of whose origin nothing is known to us and who is last mentioned in the documents in 1475.93

George VIII. ? Third son of King Alexander, the first by his second wife, George was born c. 1415/1417.94 In 1433 his father co-opted him and gave him the Kingdom

(AG 2.12; 3.462), and his letters ;96 from the charter of the Duke of Aragvi of April 13, 1465 (K 2.15-8) ; from those of his successor Bagrat VI iq.v.), and from contemporary historians.97 His reign began c. December 25, 1446, from are in the which date his regnal years computed royal documents.98 His usurpa tion, however, set a precedent perilous to himself: the revolt of Bagrat VI (in Imeretia) and of theWestern Dukes99 came to a head in 1462; three years
scholars as having

in appanage.95 the death of Vakhtang of Kakhetia Following was and not the of Georgia, Demetrius IV, George, rightful III, King-regnant as is evident from his own diplomata, ranging from 1447 (Z 259-60) to 1463

many

regarded his sons accentuate

text must be This the fact of co-optation to accept (cf. below, chap. II). his realm among to the tradition I divided that Alexander contributed ? to of the Seljukids served from the fact that the revolts (cf. ibid.). Apart sov renascent of Western the title of the Georgian the separatism Georgia,

'of Abasgia and Iberia' since the eleventh (cf. (=Imeretia) century, ereigns had been, ? in the above text for George's installa For the date 1445, given chap. II, n.28). below, VIII and below, cf. note on George tion in Kakhetia, chap. II, n.46. 01 VIII. Cf. below, note on George 92 I. 891; 381. J IV 37 accepts the latter In 1453; Hist. in 1452: Vaxust, Dates Alex. seems was killed by a horse while hunting; 381. The former date Dates date. Demetrius preferable Imeretia; because cf. below, it brings chap. II. the King's death closer to the date of Bagrat VI's revolt in

93 Charters of their son, Constantin II, of 1466 and 1475 (AG 2.13 [for the date cf J IV

to identify Queen with I. 891. Bross?t Gulasar 92-31 and AG 2.31) ;Hist. Alex. attempted I a Queen 1471 in the Chron. death is reported sub anno whose g?org. 3/4; HG Gulk'an, must Gulk'an of the charter of 1475. Queen 2.684 n.5. He was not aware of the existence be

94 His father'scharters from29 Sept. 5 Alex. I. 1417 (Z 223-4) to 1442 (Z 253) ; his own
of Mar. 7, 1446 (r?sum?, IV Rapp. 21); Hist. Alex. I. 890-1; cf. Tables 1.625; cf. 95

a different

person,

perhaps

the

consort

of one

of King

Alexander's

brothers

(qq.v.).

charter Cf.

J IV 16ff. 20, 40.

96 Cf.

98J. IV 41-2 (on the basis of nine charters,from3 Geo. VIII. 2 Sept. 17Geo. Vili. [AG 2.12]).
99 Cf. note were

below, chap. II. note on Bagrat VI, n.127. 97 Phrantzes ; cf. below, n.198.

1448 [

3 29;

2601 to
sovereign of Dadian

Gurieli), Meschia
Suania

princes,

on Bagrat VI. those of Abkhazia

The

Western

(of the House

(of the House

of Gelovani)

of Jaqeli), Mingrelia
; cf. Gugushvili,

who Dukes, of Sarvasije),

became subsequently Guria (of the House Table

(of the House

of Dadian),
132-3;

and
Allen,

History 135-7. It is difficultto agree with JavaxiSvili that, at the end of the fifteenth

(of the House

Chron.-Geneal.

THE

FIFTEENTH-CENTURY

BAGRATIDS

187

later the King was captured by Qvarqvar? and Bagrat III, Duke ofMeschia, wrested from him the Crown of Georgia.100 as is of Kakhetia, George VIII, nevertheless, retained his old appanage evidenced by his royal diplomata of February 22 and March 22, 1468 (r?sum?, IV Rapp. 22; and Akti 1.6 No. 4) ?the last which are known of him? for was from VI then reigning elsewhere in Georgia.101 Kakhetia became Bagrat that moment an independent State; the first step towards the Partition of

or I of Kakhetia, died in 1476,103 Georgia had been made.102 George VIII, are I of Kakhetia, from which date the regnal years of his son, Alexander computed in his charters.104. In 1445, King George married his first cousin Daria (Nestan-Darejan) of

was a fief and Guria formed parts of Mingrelia; J IV 110, 162. Guria century, Abkhazia as early as 1352 (D. of the secundogeniture of the Dadianis, from Mingrelia, separate Putesestvie i Adcare 1872] 335; a [St. Petersburg po Gurii Bak'raje, Arxeologiceskoe

[also: AfterMamia
charter dynasty disaster princes

] paid his respects to the Emperor of Trebizond in 1372; Panaretus 44.228). I Gurieli, younger son of Liparit I ofMingrelia (mentioned inGeorge VIIFs
[AG 3.462]), to the Russian the Dukes annexation and, then, Princes of 1829. Mamia, of Guria by formed one continuous a son-in-law the way, was

of 1463 down

of theEmperor David ofTrebizond; to him theEmpress Helen Cantacuzena fled after the
the Christian of 1462 (Chalcocondyles, De reb. turc. 9.488). among Furthermore, Pius of Pope of the East in the proposed crusade II, in ready to take up armes rex Mingreliae and G or gora (Bendias) 1459-1460, we find not only Bendian (Mangreliae) marchio and Mania dux Georgianae, but also Rabia dux Anocasiae (Fabia) (Anogosiae) Annales Lucas Wadding, (Aeneas 849-50; Sylvius, Epist. Bendian VI). 153, 60; cf. note on Bagrat is, of course, Bediani of Bedia, the Dadianis, derived from the province occasionally Eul. Sov. 411; Hist. used Mong. Inv. 583, 605, 656; VII Rapp. 13 [Rome Minorum 1735] ? a territorial of epithet used as a praenomen (cf. [Bross?t,

Goriae

Hist.

livraison 1849] 42-3, 44-5). In 1459 this term designated Liparit I

Barbaro son and and Contarmi successor it of the Prince I (Iosafa of Mingrelia, Barbaro, Samandavle

(tl470), but when

Rapports,

V*

Secondo Volume delle Navigation!

Viaggio Contarmi Gorgora

used by is a further corruption of Auogasia, Anocasia 2, 5 [ibid. 114, 115, 119]). for Abkhazia from the context; (this appears op. cit. 6.119. Cf. Avegie, Anegie, soci?t? de ed. La l'Orient lor Abkhazia: Intin?raire i.V.). latin, 1882, index fran?ais dux Georgianae is Qvarqvare III (also styled 'the Second'), Duke of Meschia

et Viaggi, Venice

Viaggio

they could refer only to his elder a a Tana 10 [ed. Ramusio,

1559, 96] ; Ambrogio Contarmi,

and Atabeg of Georgia (tl466). When Barbaro (Viaggio nella Persia 27, 28 [ed. Ramusio,

Baadur

refer to his successor 109, 1101) and Contarmi they must speak of Gorgora, (op. cit. 6.120) as of Meschia refers to the princedom I (1466-1475). Chalcocondyles (op. cit. 9.460) a a e ? a, and to the Dadiani a as h fiefs, somewhat confusedly, if a e * [Dioscurias-Suxum] a a Aa $ a a a?devrela, MiyiceXitap e?a a a a a ?as. a, a a, a 100 Cf. J IV 77-101. 101 Cf. ibid. 97. 102 It is in this sense that one must to Eastern Georgia, replacing

George

between them in order to facilitate for the latterthe subdual of Constantine, son ofDemet rius (III); History (HG I 2) 687, (II 1) 250. Cf. J IV 94-7; Kakabaje, Sas. Sigei. 31.
103 Contin.

statements interpret VaxuSt's there in 1466, and Bagrat

the return of regarding of peace the conclusion

104 The chartersof Jan. 23 and 24, 1479 (Z 300-1;

II.

894.

301).

188
Georgia.105

TRADITIO

She appears in her husband's charters of August 27,1458 (AG 2.11), January 30, 1460 (K 3.34-6; 277-8), June 12, 1460 (AG 1.2; 278-9), and 1463 (AG 3.462), in every case together with their 'first born' son Alexander (I of Kakhetia) ; as well as in the latter's diplomata of January 23 and 24,

1453 (AG 2.10) mentions Our consort, the Lady Queen of Queens Tha mar\ These data admit of two interpretations. Either we must assume that George VIII was twice married: first to Thamar and then to Daria,106 which

VIII.

1479 (Z 300-1;

301) and of 1503 (Z 319). But the charter6 Aug. 7 Geo.

King of Georgia (fl469, sic),109 son of Alexander I, and (2) George I, King of to be the son of one Kakhetia (f1492).110 The latter was said by Vakhusht a duke in Kakhetia, and elected King David, supposedly called from Didoeti of Kakhetia in 1465 by the local nobility who were unwilling to submit to Bagrat VI (q.v.).111 This David is, however, a fictitious figure: the whole story is a variation of the one found in the Bride Chronicle, dealing with Bagrat V's son of the same name (q.v.).112 Then, showing himself at pains to explain the
105 Hist. Alex. I. 890; cf. note on Thamar-Daria 106 So J IV 43-4. 107 Cf. above, n.105. 108 own son Alexander of Kakhetia Thus, George's II and great-nephew of George, married and Bagrat VI.

mitted by traditional historiography. First, Vakhusht, its founder, represented George as older than Demetrius his brother (q.v.). Then, out of the one his torical person, George VIII, at first King of Georgia and then King of Ka two different personages: khetia, the 'Georgian Gibbon* made (1) George,

old Georgia, for women. This polyonymy usually reflected the especially twofold cultural background of the country, Hellenistic-Christian on the one on and case the In other. the of hand, Caucasio-Iranoid, King George's wife, the biblical Thamar' would represent the one, the epic 'Nestan-Daredjan', the other. Other instances of polyonymy can be found in the royal house.108 of the This, as well as the lack of further evidence preclude our acceptance thesis that George was married twice and incline us to consider the two names as referring to the one consort of that sovereign. In connection with the person of George VIII several errors have been com

implies a rejection of the information given in the Hist. Alex. I.;107 or we may surmise that both names were borne by one and the same person. Cases of several (usually two) distinct, not hyphened, names were not infrequent in

of Irubak'ije who was called both Anne and T'inat'in; David VIII
stantine bore who three names; Thamar, Nestan-Darejan, David VIII's great-grandson, Catherine

(q.v.)

married

25. King Rostom, was named

a princess of the House of Orbeliani who and Miraingul; Tables cf. IV Rapp, 1.626; a princess married of the House of Abasije loc. cit. This becoming custom had, a religious.

of Georgia, son of Con

a princess

of the House

of course, nothing 109 . 382. Dates 111

and Gulduxtar; (K'et'evan) Tables, a new name upon in common with assuming

110 History (HG II 1) 148.

and (for the source) error; J IV 3. It 93-7. is rather interesting to note JavaxiSvili's

Ibid. 144-8, 11. 112 Cf. above, nn.33 admission

unwilling

of VaxuSt's

the

fifteenth-century

bagratids

189

genuity'.113 Thus, great doubt was raised regarding the Bagratid origin of the Kings of Kakhetia.114 At present, this notion has been rejected by modern Georgian historians.115. III. ? Fourth son of Alexander David in I, born before 1417.116 Already the charter 10 Sept. 8 Alex. 1. 1420 (K 3.10-12; 226), when he was only three is spoken of as a monk, and in that of 6 Jan. 12 Alex. I. 1424 years old, David (Z 228), less than four years later, he ismentioned as a monk and as destined for the Katholikate of Iberia. In view of his tender age, these references to his monastic status can signify only that he was destined for the Church.117

origin of his David, Vakhusht hesitatingly propounded the opinion, without son of Al sharing with us his reasons, that David was a son of Demetrius, exander I (i.e., Demetrius III). He added, however, that, should anyone wish to know more and demand other (!) proofs, he might well 'tax his own in

King Alexander's chartersof 1426 (Z 229), January21, 1428 (Z 231), 1435 IV Rapp. 16), 1438 (K 3.18-20), and 1439 (r?sum?, IV Rapp. 16) (r?sum?,
( 2.4-6), and 1434 ( 242) mention the Katholikos Theodore, and those of 1440 (Z 247-8), act of 1441 (r?sum?, IV Rapp. and 16-7), George VIII's to March 1446 Katholikos Shio. IV refer the Then, in 7, Rapp. 21) (r?sum?, 1447 the diplomata of the last-named sovereign of December (Z 259-60), 25, 1448 (r?sum?, IV Rapp. 261), and 21), December 25, 1449 (K 3.29-32; as Katholikos. 1457 IV David reappears Rapp. 21), (r?sum?, May 3, In the years 1426-1439, when he was aged from about ten to twenty-three, otherwise it appears, could hardly have been spoken of as Katholikos David, Theodore than by anticipation. One might assume that the other Katholikoi, were his and Shio, mentioned in the years 1427-1434 and 1440-1446, predecessors in the primacy of Georgia and that David himself came to it only c. 1447. Yet the existence of at least three acts of Alexander I? his charters of January ? invalidates this assumption. These instruments, 21, 1428, 1435, and 1439 lands and serfs, prove whereby that sovereign granted to the Katholikos David
113 Cf. dynasty Georgia, loath and n.111. from Constantine (descended II, q.v.) in the mid-eighteenth but was deprived doubts on the Bagratid lines of the dynasty origin (cf. also ? which century claimed of even the whole its Iberian and of once-united share by

230), 1428 (K 3.13), 1429 (K 3.13-4;

speak

of David

as already Katholikos

235-236), 1431 ( 237-8), 1433 [III]

of Iberia;

whereas

those of 1427

(Z

114Vaxust, the discontented illegitimate scion of the eldest, Iberian line of the Bagratid ? (descended fromAlexander I ofKakhetia, q.v.) must not have been
of the more note on Bagrat successful, VI). rival, Kakhetian the

Kings ofKakhetia
to cast Imeretian

115 J IV 94-7, 139; S. Kakabaje, Sas. Sigei. 31; idem, Sah'art'velos Mohle Istoria: Axait Saukuneebis Epok'a (Tiflis 1920) 4; Gugushvili, Chron.-Geneal. Table 129-30; but cf. Allen, History 140. 116 His father's charters from29 Sept. 5 Alex. I. 1417 (Z 223-4), where he follows George J IV 17-8. (VIII), to 1439 (r?sum?,IV Rapp. 16) ;Hist. Alex. I. 891; cf. Tables 1.625; cf.. 117 It will be recalled that in the Churches of the Byzantine Rite, Catholic as well as
non-Catholic, the episcopate is recruited from the regular clery.

190
that the latter actually was

traditio

age of about ten; and itmay be conjectured that Theodore and Shio were, 1427-1446, merely his locum tenentes with the title of Katholikos.118 Zaal. ?

thatDavid was indeedappointedby his fatherto that office at the cordingly,

in

Primate

of Georgia.

It must

be concluded,

ac

Fifth son, sixth and last child of Alexander I. He must have been born sometime before 1428 and died after 1442? the first and last years in which his name appears in the available sources.119 In 1433, Zaal was elevated by his father to the co-kingship.120 Thamar-Daria ? son of of Bagrat, (T'amar-Nestan-Darejan). Daughter I.121 She married in 1445 her cousin George, co-King of King Constantine Kakhetia and subsequently King of Georgia and then (George (George VIII) She is last mentioned in 1510.123 I) of Kakhetia.122 VI. ? The origin of Bagrat VI and of the Royal House of Imeretia, from him, has been left unascertained descended by modern Georgian his toriography.124 Bagrat VI began to reign inGeorgia in 1465, as is indicated by Bagrat the regnal years of his charters of November
118 Hist. death, Alex. I. 888-91 records the Katholikoi

6, 1468

(AG 2.30),
upon

1472
the

(con
latter? official is of

Theodore

and

c. 1447, the Katholikate son of Alexander of David, it is obvious that in view of his age, the situation position, exact. It is interesting to note the introduction substantially what amounted to an imitation of coll?gial sovereignty.

Sio and, I. Whatever

David's

as presented by this source into the Georgian Church The attempt to explain I's

of Iberia, indicate

the coll?gialKatholikate ofDavid, Theodore and ?io by suggestingthat,while David was

the others were of Abasgia (J IV 18 n.l) is inadequate. Alexander charters

away

of 1431, 1433 [III], 1434, 1440, and 1441, dealing with the last-named prelates, definitely
that they belonged complete, is far from especially des orgines list of Abasgia The katholikal i.e., Iberia. Georgia, to the end of the fifteenth century; M. Tamarati, nos 409. ? Some historians (Rome 1910) jours jusqu'? to the three chronological in our one David, persons according prior III or IV cit. 409; and (1435-1439), Mcxet A. Natroev, fact that some to Eastern

L'Eglise g?orgienne have fancied three different groups David IV

i Ego Sobor Sveti-Cxoveli (Tiflis 1900) 343-55; Janin, DThC

difference in the numerals after the above katholikal names like Tamarati historians, thus Natroev 454.) him;

of documents, II or III David i.e., David (1426-1428), or V (1447-1457), I's son; Tamarati, Alexander op.

s.v. 'G?orgie' 1271. (The

to the

is due

count the Katholikos David of 859-861 while others 408, omit on the ground An acceptance of this division, that only the last son (born c. 1417), is precluded could refer to the King's group of documents by the very first document of the first group, the charter of 1426, wherein Alexander mentions King

Our among his children

Katholikos, The David III,

son, the Katholikos of Iberia, David'. Thus there was but one
1426-1457.

119 His father'schartersfrom21 Jan. 16Alex. I. 1428 (Z 231) to 1442 (Z 253) ; cf.J IV 18.
last-mentioned charter is a seventeenth-century

in the years

120 Cf. below, chap. II. 121 VI. Cf. note on Bagrat 122 Hist. Alex. I. 890; cf. notes 123 II. 950. Contin. 124 Cf. J IV 80-4; Gugushvili, of which below. VaxuSt, more

in that of 1433 [I] (K 3.15-16;

239-40); cf. ibid. n.2.

copy;

before

this, Zaal

is mentioned

on Bagrat

VI

and George Table 129.

VIII. Others repeat the version of

Chron.-Geneal.

the

fifteenth-centtjby

bagratids

191

1460: AG 1.2; firmation of the charter 12 June 14 Geo. VIII. 278-9), and 1475 (AG 2.31). His reign is attested by a number of monuments, such as his own charters, that of Shalva II, Duke of Ksani, of 1470 (AG 3.578), the Zed (AG 4), the reports of the Venetian ambassadors Barbaro and ginidze Petition Contarmi,125 and various other Georgian and Western sources. The date of his death, 1478, given in Contin. II,12? is confirmed by the diplomata of his suc cessor Constant?i? from that date. II (q.v.), wherein the latter's regnal years are computed

However, before his accession as King of Georgia in 1465, Bagrat must have arisen as an anti-king. His charter of 1466 (Z 287-8), issued in the first year of his reign, computes his regnal years from 1454. There is, indeed, a diploma in November issued by him, as a king, in 1457 (Sas. Sigei. 16-9). Writing 1459 to Philip the Good of Burgundy, in connection with the proposed crusade III of Georgia and Qvarqvare against the Ottoman Turks, both George VIII of Meschia the East

refrained frommentioning Bagrat among the Christian princes of ready to take up arms.127 But the Georgian Ambassadors, who bore announced to Pope Pius II that among the letters of George and Qvarqvare, was also Pancratius Iberorum.128 It appears that, through the efforts the allies of the Papal Nuncio, Lewis of Bologna, a truce had been reached between the conflicting Georgian princes.129 Yet the crusade, so ardently desired by the came to naught, owing to the refusal of the King
14.98; Viaggio nella Persia 27.109,

Pope,

of France

and the

125 alla Barbaro, Viaggio 5.119, 6.120. 126 IL 895. Contin. 127 Aeneas Sylvius, Epist. of Apr. 22, 1459; n.99. ibid. Irex]

Tana

28.110;

Contarmi,

2.115,

850-1 For

tioned in the similar letter of David, Emperor of Trebizond to the Duke

849. ? the other Georgian princes about to join

; George

VIIPs

letter is dated

Nov.

5. Nor

is Bagrat the

men cf.

of Burgundy,
crusade,

above, 128 Pancratius of the Eastern traditional ? rebellious a

vocantur; qui nunc Georgiani (speech of the Ambassadors Iberorum, are the 13.153 (Pancratius, Annales Minorum UayKp?rios Uayicp?reios, The of Baglalrat; cf. Justi, Iran, Namenbuch Graeco-Latin 57). renderings allies)

of Georgia as is clear from his charters, used the royal style of the Kings Bagrat, of the realm the perennial in its central dichotomy formula, expressed, style which da and Iberia'zzap'xazi'a and Eastern of Western Georgia: 'King of Abasgia composed It is curious II n.28. et Iberorum cf. below, k'art'velt'a chap. rex); (Abasgorum mep'e

rex called have been in the West should in Abasgia who revolted that Bagrat, (Imeretia) who was reduced or Georgianiae Iberorum by (cf. following note), whereas VIII, George er sarum, which, that revolt to Eastern alone, should have been referred to as rex Georgia in Javaxisvili's opinion, as rex Persarum, Minorum and omitted is a mutilation et maioris It is Armeniae, describes of rex Abasgorum: J IV 67-9. Wadding et minoris cui pater fuit Alexander; Iberiae, the letters mentioned only that, whereas interesting only to Bagrat and left out George. before the

George Annales

13.153.

referred Bagrat, George exclusive. claims of the two were mutually The 129 js clear from the speech of the Ambassadors This the Ambassadors

from the Eastern

Princes

Pontiff, in 1460; Annales Minorum 13.153. Indeed, in his rescript to Lewis of Bologna, of Oct. 4, 1458,Pius II mentions both Bagrat (rexGeorgianiae) and George (rexPersarum) ; ibid. 60. This is the only time the two rivals are mentioned together.

192

TRADITIO

end, taken prisoner by him.135 Bagrat, then, moved into Eastern Georgia and became a legitimate King of Georgia; he was recognized by the aged Prince son V's and Constantine David, Bagrat (g.i;.)136 (II, q.v.), son of Demetrius by III and nephew of George VIII, who became a co-king with Bagrat VI.

and which may only later be filled in with whatever is acceptable in the sec ondary works. This framework is as follows.131 About 1463, King George VIII wrested Kutais, the capital of Imeretia, from Bagrat,132 into whose hands itmust have fallen c. 1454, from which date the latter computed one set of his regnal years. Thereupon Bagrat waged war on the King. George VIII was ? defeated and fled133 from Imeretia presumably. Next, King George waged a punitive expedition against Qvarqvare III of Meschia,134 but was, in the

Duke of Burgundy to take part in it; and the internal conflict in Georgia must have flared up anew.130 Our sources concerning the story of Bagrat VPs advent are so scanty and the information of the later chronicles is so misleading that a framework must first be established which should be based exclusively on primary material

became King of Georgia.137 Contin. II puts Bagrat's accession at 1454.188 Vakhusht relates that Bagrat revolted in Imeretia against George, at the III of Meschia and with the support of the other instigation of Qvarqvare Western Dukes;130 that he defeated the King at Chikhori in 1462, was crowned at Kutais, and recognized the Western Dukes' independence of the Crown; that George was captured by Qvarqvare in the battle by the lake Panavari, in 1465, while on a punitive expedition against him; and that thereupon Bagrat became King of Georgia.140 The battle of Chikhori and the subsequent cap are recorded by various paschal annals (kinklos tivity of King George VIII
130 Tamarati, 131 Cf. J IV 3.462) was L'Eglise 77-9. g?orgienne 458-9.

The data of the historiographie sources substantially agree with, and fur ther amplify those of the above framework, while deviating from them on certain points. The Hist. Alex. I. mentions briefly the struggle of George and Bagrat over the throne of Georgia, which began after 1453 (i.e., 1454) and inwhich the former, at first victorious, was vanquished by the latter, who then

132Zedg.Petition (cf. above, n.32) 22; cf. J IV 89. George VIII's

133Zedg. 134 Fragment cf. J IV granted Petition at Kutais. MS, ed. cf. J IV 89. 22-3; of an undated fifteenth-century confirms 24;

charter of 1463 (AG

13SZedg. Petition 24; the charter of co-King Constantine II of 1466 (AG 2.13; for the
date, 92-3) the story of his uncle's 91-2, 93; above,

301 ; cf. J IV

89-90.

firming,in 1472,a diploma of George VIII of 1460,Bagrat states that he 'took possession' (davipqant') of the 'Royalty of the Two Thrones' (on the royal style, cf. above n.128;
below, chap. II n.28). 137H?t. Alex. I. 891-2. 138 II. 892. Contin. 139 For the Western Dukes,

136Zedg. Petition

cf. J IV

capture ; cf. J IV 91-3. son of Bagrat note on David,

V.

In

con

140 History (HG I 2) 685-7, (II 1) 249-51.

cf. above,

n.99.

the

fifteenth-century

bagrattds

193

es).141 The reign of Bagrat VI is described by Vakhusht,142 at the end of the Hist Alex. /., and at the beginning of the Contiti. IT.148 It is the last three works that contain information wholly divergent from the actual truth, espe cially as regards the provenance of Bagrat VI. his own origin, Bagrat Regarding dence. In his charters of 1457 and

Had

himself supplies us with first-hand evi 1466, he refers to the Trince Our father George.'144 In his diplomata (e.g., those of 1466,1475) he applies to himself the full royal style of the Bagratids, including the dynastic denomination of Jes and (in the latter document) mentions sian-Davidian-Solomonian-Bagratid,145 and others of Our House/ thus unequivocally 'Queen Thamar indicating his as ex is It assertions to consider these difficult Bagratid origin. extremely a reasons a of outsider.146 for pressive legal fiction, adopted political by usurping

All

this been the case, the sources would most certainly have registered the fact of usurpation and recorded in a specific way the alien origin of one who had infringed upon the lawful dynasty's hereditary right.147 Quite to the contrary, Bagrat VI, like George VIII (although from a strictly legal point of view both usurped the crown, one from Demetrius III, the other from the latter's son Constantine II), is never considered a usurper in either the prima ry or the secondary sources at our disposal (except Vakhusht, of whom later) . concur in averring his Bagratid of them (except Vakhusht) origin. It is obvious, then, that itwas that origin that made his rule, once established, as uncontested as that of George VIII. The only George in the royal stemma who can have been Bagrat's father is the son of Constantine

I and brother of Alexander I. The Venetian Ambas sador, Ambrogio Contarmi, who saw Bagrat VI in 1475, says that he was then about forty years of age.148 Consequently, he must have been born c. 1435. was born in 1390 and whose the brother of who younger George, Alexander, son was c. Zaal born could very well have been the father of youngest 1428, VI. that raised to the co-kingship by his The fact had been who Bagrat George, 141The Annak of theBook ofHours No. 2; The C'xeije Chronicle of theHymnal No. 6 (ed. Z) 281 ; both record only the battle of C'ixori ; The Chonicle of the Ikort'a Horologion
(ed. Kakabaje, g?org. 2-3/4. K'ronika the Ikort'is No. In last-named source, 6 ?amn-GuIanisa, Tiflis 1911) 4; as well as Chron. to the capture: the phrase daicira relating raep'e as le roi fit prisonnier rendered by Bross?t Qwarqwar?. case ending -m(an).

is incorrectly quarqvarem tqu<ie>t' is the agent, as is indicated Qvarqvare by the dative-pronominal 142 loc. cit. History, 143 Hist. Alex. I. 891 ; Contin. II. 892-3. 144 The founds an agape charter of 1466 (Z 287-8) for the mamisa 145 an c'uenisa giorgisa.

repose

of the

soul

patronisa

Vaxtang VI, Code ?152; Karst, Comment. I 201, II (Strasbourg 1937) 250.
148 Contarmi, 5.119. Cf. J IV 105.

For the Bagratid claims of Davidic the above nomina origin, of which gentilia were cf. MGHL 22-3. expression, 154-6; below, chap. II n.28; The Early Bagratids 146 Cf. J IV 83-4, where the question is left undecided. 147 the dynastic For of the Georgians, cf. Vaxust, legitimism Geogr. Description 10/11;

194

TRADITIO

father, is spoken of but as 'Prince'149 cannot impair our assumption. Co-kings were often mentioned without the royal title150 and, what ismore, George him self never figures with it in the diplomata of his brother Alexander I.151 George, the father of Bagrat VI, must have died between 1435, when the latter was born, and 1466, when an agape was founded for the repose of his soul. The erroneous notions of the secondary sources concerning Bagrat's filiation

son of George, To be sure, Bagrat, Bagrat, brother of King Alexander'.152 son of Constantine. There is an cannot h?ve been a brother of Alexander, obvious confusion here between two historical personages: King Alexander's younger brother Bagrat, on the one hand; and, on the other, his nephew Bagrat

themselves lend support to the above conclusion. At the end of the Hist. Alex. I. and at the beginning of Contin. II Bagrat VI is declared to be a brother of Alexander I ; and both of them are said to be sons of a George. Accordingly, 'the brother of is described as 'King Alexander's Bagrat brother, Bagrat', and son of King George Bagrat', and 'the son of George, King Alexander

VI, the son of his youngest brother, George. The above descriptions of Bagrat VI are nothing else but erroneous variations of a correct archetypal phrase, which must have read somewhat as follows: 'Bagrat, son of George, brother of Alexander.'153 This imbroglio of the eighteenth-century historiographical works accounts, also, for the origin of the tradition that Alexander I was the

son of a George.154 It may be well further to analyze the confused data of these works regarding and to endeavour to the two Bagrats ? Alexander's brother and nephew ? some vestiges of truth. disentangle therefrom of The Georgian Annals (I) A comparison of the two Continuations (which one one with form work: the product of the Chron. g??rg.1 reveals redaction) a number of passages which are practically identical in the two works, being based, obviously, on the same source, except that Contin. I adds to the names
149

? makes much of it ; J IV 80-4 ; cf. below, 'Prince' Javaxisvili is used here chap. II. an honorific for rendering patron, to sovereigns, epithet of a very restricted kind, applied members of their families, and to the highest personages in the feudal-administrative and an to 'Prince' state ? ecclesiastical hierarchies. The word in its inchoate corresponded epithet clature family, medieval of Great a fixed title as it has been preserved, nomen e.g., in the ceremonial it is used Prince' of the sovereign, where his ('Puissant etc.) Britain, as well as the three upper of the peerage. It also to the degrees corresponded sense of suzerain; from which it was in its feudal in this patr?nus, derived, rather than

sense it had a wider application. 150 Cf. below, chap. II. 151 and Bagrat and Cf. note on George 152 : (lines 23-4) mep'is Hist. Alex. I.891 da je mep'is giorgisa mep'isa, alek1 sandresi. Alexander King bagrat; is called

n.72 Contin. son of

(charters

from

1414 to 1424).

alek'sandres

(line 27) jma alek(sandre jma bagrat, II 892: je giorgisa jma mep'isa bagrat, also in the Bridge Chr. 887 'King George'

(cf. above, n.33). 153 alek'sandre jmisa. je giorgisa Bagrat, mep'isa 154 Cf. note on Alexander; nn.152, 33. above, 155 cf. MGHL For these eighteenth-century compilations, nn.3, 4; below, n.202.

159-61,

179, n.13;

cf. above,

the

fifteenth-centuby

bagratids

195

the epithet Of Imeretiz'(imeret'isa), and Contin. II explains the unspeci fied mention of some fourteenth and fifteenth-century Kings of Georgia in : the Chron. g?org. by the words 'Bagrat of Imeretia' (bagrat imeret'isa)
Chron.

1/1.

1392: The Mingrelians killed King

George. passed

g?org.

Contin. I 3: Bridge Chr. 887 And theMingrelians killed King George

King In the same year the great of Imeretia died. And Con Bagrat as king, ascended stantine, son of Bagrat, and he reigned for seven years, and was of Imeretia. at Chalagha.

1395: The
away.

Great King

Bagrat

1402: King Constantine was killed

at Chalaghni.

killed

Contin. II 893
2/4. 1462: Uzun-Hasan-Khan came to 1462: chia, Uzun-Hasan-Khan aided Qvarqvare; came they to Mes aided Meschia, Qvarqvare; they encountered the King at Chikhori, won. and the Atabeg encountered won . . .

King Bagrat of Imeretia at Chikhori,

and 1455: the Atabeg Qvarqvare of Imeretia, Qvarqvare took and King captive in a shut him

1465: Qvarqvare
captive.

took the King

Bagrat fortress.

Now, we know that itwas Bagrat V the Great of Georgia (q.v.) who died in and shall it is to discover that Constantine 1395, I, his son, that the presently Chron. g?org. refers; furthermore, the contemporary documents (cited earlier) of Georgia who was defeated at Chikhori by prove that it was George VIII III. The Bagrat VI and was later captured by the latter? ally, Qvarqvare above insertions in Contin. I and JJ, suggestive of the Imeretian Seljukids,156 are therefore utterly worthless. The chronicles, clearly, refer to Bagrat V, Constantine of Georgia. I, and George VIII The I: Hist. Alex. Contin. I 4 contains (II) after the story of the abdication
George Imeretia, married he

mediately
890. 891. And took When and

the following passages, of Alexander I.157

im

King Imeretian King took

of the Imeretian Daria, daughter Then, when King. the son of Constantine, the King of Imeretia, expelled to Imeretia Alexander then there came died, Bagrat, King Constantine. He expelled Vakhtang [IV], son of King

Alexander Bagrat. son of the

Alexander

Imeretia.

Tmeretian King Constantine' of the above texts is identical with the a few son 'the of Imeretia/ mentioned of Constantine, great King Bagrat I of in the with the historical Constantine that pages earlier, is, Bridge Chron., as error the date death The the Chron. of his of g?org. regards Georgia. (1402) is easily explained. Through a curious lapse, the chronicler recorded The VII the reign of Constantine I immediately after that of Bagrat V, omitting George He must, however, have been cognizant of the length of (1395-1405). Constantine's reign, and computed it from the death of Bagrat (1395+7= 156 For the Seljukid house of Imeretia, cf.note on Alexander I.
157 Cf. note on Demetrius III and n.90.

196

TRADITIO

son of Constantine, referred to in our 1402).158 This being so, the Bagrat, can no be other than Alexander brother. Fs texts, Consequently, George VIIFs same source, was her hus this to the consort, Bagrat's daughter, according band's first cousin. Indeed, Contin. II speaks of her as a Bagratid.159 Whether Bagrat,

tory put together in the eigtheenth century by a group of savants who had very confused notions of the fifteenth.160 It has just been seen how the notion that Alexander I was the son of King George (VII) came into being; in the light could not be Alexander's of it, Bagrat the son of Constantine, brother, but Bagrat VI the son of George, could. The version of Vakhusht of Bagrat VI's provenance has been adopted by Bross?t and has survived to this day in Georgian historiography161 despite its rejection by some scholars.162 It is utterly fantastic and is the result of

ever actually revolted in Imeretia brother of Alexander, as is recorded in the Hist. Alex. I., is impossible to ascer against Vakhtang IV, tain for the lack of further evidence. It may seem strange that he is not men tioned, in that work, as Alexander's brother, and that, instead, Bagrat VI is as such. This compilation contains many disguised shreds of his represented

his combining the following three historical circumstances, which he had half 6, First, in his charter of November forgotten or imperfectly understood. 1468 (AG 2.30), issued jointly with Demetrius Ill's son Constantine II (q.v.), whom he co-opted in order to legitimize his own position,163 Bagrat qualifies his more lawful colleague as Our brother.' That this is a mere expression of

own indications of his parentage, courtesy is borne out not only by Bagrat's but also by the wording of another such joint diploma of the two co-sovereigns, of 1475 (AG 2.31).164 Second, it is a fact that Bagrat VI, son of George, was a nephew of Alexander I. Third, it was in Imeretia that Bagrat revolted VIII. against George Of these facts Vakhusht appears to have been cognizant, in one way or an other, and he must have combined them to evolve his filiation of Bagrat VI. 158 The 'King George* of the Chron. g?org. (Of Imeretia' in the Bridge Chr.), who was killed in 1392, may disguise George VII; or thismay constitute the only reference,outside
to the 130), may (q.v.). Imeretian very well duke have of that been name

Vaxu?t, g?org.

Seljukids). C'ala|ni, unidentifiable in Georgian historical geography (Cf. Bross?t, Chron.

the place north of the Araxes where Constantine I perished note

(cf. note

on Alexander

I:

Stemma

of

the

159 Contin. II. 905: she ismentioned as themother of Alexander I ofKakhetia

on George 179-81. VIII.

(qv.) ; cf.

160 On the Commission ofKing Vaxtang VI for the redaction of the Annals, cf.MGHL 161 Cf. Tables 4; Allen, History 135.

163-6,

162 of his own. But the author reaches no conclusion J IV 78-105. 163 Cf. below, chap. II. 164 are the name of Constantine's III and Gulasar, In this document, parents, Demetrius . . a as no to doubt not leave that are such son in way they Bagrat's parents: placed . . . Constantine, and Our mother Demetrius of mothers, of the King of Kings the Lady Gulasar [bestow]

King of Kings Bagrat etc'

this firm,

irrevocable,

and

indisputable

[instrument]

...

and We

. . .

THE

FIFTEENTH-CENTURY

BAGRATIDS

197

The

membered by him that Bagrat VI had been a nephew of Alexander I and that he revolted in Imeretia. He may, moreover, have drawn upon sources which of the Annals, the epithet 'of Imeretia', contained, like the two Continuations so liberally if erroneously bestowed on the Georgian ancestors of Bagrat VI. So the logical outcome of the interplay of these half-remembered notions could be but what Vakhusht166 has written on the subject, namely, that Bagrat was a son ofDemetrius, the Seljukid Duke of Imeretia, whose sister was King Alex

charter of 1468, issued by Bagrat and his 'brother' Constantine, must have given rise to a vague notion that Bagrat's father, like Constantine's, was named Demetrius.165 At the same time, though itwas forgotten by Vakhusht that Constantine II had been Demetrius Ill's son, itmust still have been re

ander I's queen, by which connection he became that King's nephew. Vakhusht represented him as being, also, a Duke of Imeretia, with George VIII's sanction; as revolting against his suzerain and as taking possession, in 1466, of Eastern Georgia; which he then lost to George, who had returned from his captivity, and which he regained in 1471 and kept until 1477. As a consequence of this ver sion, a Seljukid origin, Bagratid only in the female line,was ascribed to Bagrat VI continuation

but temporarily seized the Georgian throne.167 The true filiation of Bagrat VI, accepted in this study, is confirmed by the and textual imbroglios in the historical light it sheds upon the genealogical the of writings eigtheenth century.168
165 Even fusion in his own for the day, Bagrat's literal-minded. The act of courtesy of George towards VIII's some con caused co-king charter of 1460, which Bagrat his

and his descendants, the House of Imeretia, so as to make it the direct of the extinct ducal house of Imeretia. Moreover, Bagrat, as the usurping outsider which this tradition has made him, has not been considered as a King of Georgia, the sixth of his name, but as Bagrat II of Imeretia who

VI confirmedin 1472 (AG 1.2; 278-9), referredto the formeras the latter's 'uncle*. 1?? History (HG 1 1) 685-7, (II 1) 249-51.
167 Bagrat was called cf. note on Alexander

copyist

as a successor 'the Second' to the Seljukid Imeretian duke, Bagrat I; I.? Whether VI had been Duke of Imeretia before his Bagrat a be merely that assertion revolt, as is asserted op. cit. 685, 249, or whether by VaxuSt, ? of his imputed is The consequence arrange beyond Seljukid origin, genealogical proof. ment in Genealogia IV Ap'x. da Kart'. (Tiflis by S. Kakabaje, proposed Bagrat Mep'isa

1912) is nothing but a rearrangementof the Seljukid stemma as found inVaxust :Bagrat I the Little ismade identicalwith King Alexander's brother of the same name; and Bagrat
son of the of a the basis son named on cf. J IV 81-2. ? A criticism of the sources George; so as to give precedence sources over the of values, to the primary have his speculations; and realization of the fact ones, would spared Kakabaje on one of the sources two Continuations of the Chron. depend g?org., and con latter's scale insertions, would have prevented Javaxisvili from the attempt to reconcile

VI,

secondary that the

tain unwarranted

the divergencies of the chronicles regardingthe battle ofCixori and the capture ofGeorge VIII; cf. J IV 85-6, 91-2.
168 The

high price by King Bagrat, son of a brother of Alexander; itwas later restoredby Leo I, King ofKakhetia, in 1535,according to Timothy Gabasvili who visited theHoly Land in the eighteenth century;Bross?t, Additions 201.

Georgian

Monastery

on Mount

Calvary

was

ransomed

from

the Muslims

at

198

traditio

Bagrat VPs consort was called Helen, as is revealed by his charter of 1475 II of Imeretia and by an undated charter, confirmed by his son, Alexander on She died November 3, 1510.169 (q.v.) (AG 2.358). ? Gulkan (Gulk'an). a number of monuments: Sister of Bagrat VI, whose existence is known by

and his consort, Helen, daughter of the Treasurer, Sargis Mkhetzidze of the Horse, sister of the King of Kings Bagrat and of the Prince-Master ? on Mkhetzidze died Amirindo July 11, 1531.171 [I] Zedginidze.170 Sargis on cross a church The silver in the of (Ill) Chala, mentioning inscription Grand Amirindo

at Kaspi, in Bagrat's sister, makes a grant to the Abbey of Shio-Mghvine on Inner Iberia. ? from icons Con The two the Sokhastiri (II) inscriptions in Imeretia, mentioning the vent, dependent on the great Abbey of Gelati,

(I)

The charter of 1508 (Z 326;

2.25-6), bywhich thenunGaiane, King

Gulkan

of the Horse and Palatine of Gori, and Zedginidze, Prince-Master his consort, the Princess Gulkan.172 Now, both Chala and Kaspi are Zedginidze fiefs; and, it will be remembered, it is customary in the Christian East to assume a monastic name beginning with the same letter as the one previously and the Princess borne in the world: thus the identity of the nun Gaiane is established.
II.

As Bagrat

VI

was

named
her

in honor of his uncle and

in 1507; gives and D. for this Nov. error, 30,

169Contin. note Tables 4.642. 170 Bross?t, 34. ? For

on Alexander XI

905; but Chron. II of Imeretia. Rapp. (3e cf. P.

g?org.

4/5

records citing

death

cf.

Bross?t, 45

the d; N.

latter

sources,

1519! Opis'

livraison)

c and

Kondakov

Pam?tnikov Drevnosti
Amirindo I, 171 Chron. The

N?kotorix Xramax
Korbelasvili,

i Monast?r?x Gruzii (St. Petersburg 1890)

'Amilaxvart'a Sagvareulos Istoriuli sargis Gujrebi/ as mourut

Bak'raje,

L'Ancienne G?orgie 2 (1911-13) 2.109; he ismentioned also in a document of 1453 (Z 267). Mkhh?tzi, fils de Sargis) ; Contin. II. 914.He also figures in a document of 1488 (Sas. Sigel.
25). has House to of Mxec'ije, the end of survived 172 Bross?t, g?org. 7/6 (Bross?t incorrectly translated miic'vala mxec'ije

Geogr. Descnption 46/47; Spiski 63.

VI Rapp. (3e livraison)

later Mxeije the Georgian

(Fxeije), kingdoms

of ancient and ?kspedicii

Abkhazian

dynastic Empire; 46-7;

origin, Vaxu?t,

the Russian na Kavkaz

laje, 'Sel. Kvemo-Cala, Goriysk. U?zda, Tiflissk. Gubernii/ Sbornik Materialov 29 (1901) 39-41. This inscriptionmust belong to Amirindo I and not to Amirindo II who was
Prince-Master name become Spain, of the House and Constable

117; Xaxanov,

A. Mik'e

3.219; cf. Mik'elaje

39). In the firstplace, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries,the

office-fief of Prince-Master were of the heads of the House had Amilaxvar) (Amilaxor, of Zedginije (as, e.g., in contemporary office of Almirante called by their hereditary of the Horse inclusion II. conjunction of the of the latter office in the inscrip sources

of Upper

Iberia

in the years

1754-1774

(AG

of the hereditary the surname the Dukes

of Medina

de Rioseco

de Castilla) ; so that they would be called 'the Amilaxvar Amirindo, or 'Amirindo the
Amilaxvari', tion marks of the time without it as the surname one considerably of Amirindo II anterior of Zedginije. The to Amirindo finds the Likewise, in the available

never

of Amilaxvar

with that of Palatine of Gori : the formerofficeappears in them either alone or in con junction with that of Constable (of the Right). Finally, the family tradition of the Amilaxvaris has it that a son of Joatham I (and Amirindo I was his son) married a princess royal (cf. below, n.174) ; the above Mxec'ije inscriptionsconfirmthis.

THE

FIFTEENTH-CENTURY

BAGRATIDS

199

VI

ficant father with his renowned nephew and namesake who had preceded Bagrat on the throne, and an additional corroboration of the filiation of the latter and his sister as accepted in this study. The House of Zedginidze, which subsequently assumed the name of its prin is traceable to the middle of the fourteenth cipal office-fief, of Amilakhvari, an rose It to especial prominence with Joatham I (the father of century.175

his great-grandfather Bagrat V, so also his sister was apparently called Gulkan, after Bagrat V's sister who became Empress of Trebizond.173 The family tradi tion of the Zedginidzes represents the Princess Royal who entered their house as a daughter of George VIII:174 an understandable confusion of her insigni

theplot formed AmirindoI), who at the riskofhis lifesavedGeorgeVIII from

him in 1465.176 In consequence of this act of loyalty, the House of was the of enfeoffed of Prince-Master of Horse offices of the Zedginidze Georgia (Amilaxvar), Constable of the Right, and Palatine of Gori, as well as of num erous fiefs, including the sepulchral abbey and cathedral of Samtavisi, which against

note on Bagrat made V and n.9. ? This Korbelasvili (Amila above, probably VI 's sister; 1st loc. of Gulk'an, the existence cit.) recognize Bagrat Sagv. Gujrebi, for the he represents he gives her as the wife of another whereas however, Zedginije; reason of Amirindo than that her I the name of Helen, wife for no other apparently xvart'a daughter member ascribes reliable mentions was so called. Moreover, Joatham Fs he takes the of the house: a wife when named dealing uncle, whom inscription he makes, at Cala to refer to still another Prince-Master is not Tables of very 4.642 gratuitously,

173 Cf.

theHorse

of Joatham I!) and Palatine of Gori and to whom he (before the enfeoffment
op. cit. 163 n.4, 109. On Gulk'an; the matrimonial alliances with the whole, Korbelasvili ? of the Zedginijes.

soeur du roi Bagrat, and places ? Sargis Mkh?tzidz? mari?e El?n?, fille d'une her mother, III of Imeretia! VFs Bagrat fille, as a sister of Bagrat grandson, 174 Ross. Cf. Dolgorukov, Rod. Kniga III 469-70. Joatham Fs son, T'aqa II, is said to have married the Princess, which is an error.

175 The earliest recorded member of this family is Dogorsnel Zedginije, in the mid
century, Pam?tniki in an Gruzinskoy 'a Prince greatly to Timur records

fourteenth C'agareli, sons, 242) Saraf

Janibeg, submitted ad-d?n

from Mt. in the synodicon (MS No. 54) Sinai; inscription of his Starini op. cit. 121 n.43. One 220; KorbelaSvili, II renowned in Iberia* (Hist. Inv. Tim. 875; Saraf ad-din 102 n.3) and of Gori in 1400. He was a Palatine (Korbelasvili, chap, the 'TifhV 757. and Bagrat VI. capture ? of the fortress of Zar?t(=Gori?) ; cf.

in the next

Isfom s.v. Minorsky, Encycl. *7?Cf. notes on George VIII

Joatham

Korbelasvili 102, 104, 107, 109. His relative, the author of the Zedginije Petition, describes how Joatham (his name is not given in that fragmentary MS) took George VIIFs place in the royal bed, in order to save the incredulousKing from the plot and to prove to him
who and how he was, as a result, severely wounded its existence; to the Amilaxvari had access but who must archives, by have the conspirators. Vaxust, used other sources than

I was DogorsnePs

great-grandson

the Petition (J IV 88-91) relates practically the same story;History (HG I 2) 685-7. He gives us the name of Joatham and states that he was murdered and that itwas his children who profited by the royal largess. Possibly Joatham died soon after of the wounds he had received.Cf. Almanach de Gotha 1930ff. ('Amilach vary') : thereGeorge VIII is called
VII; also Dolgorukov, Ross. Rod. Kniga, loc. cit.

200
constituted

traditio

is shown by the regnal years of his charters,184 and also by the chronicles.185 II recovered Imeretia from Bagrat VI's son Alexander Constantine (q.v.)y who had revolted there, following the death of his father, in 1479 and in 1486/7, losing it to him in 1484 and, finally, in 1488.186 In 1490-1491, on the advice of
177 was Samilaxoro or in Inner Samilaxaro, Iberia, on situated Gori, Samt'avisi, comprising of the Kur; the left bank Kaspi, Vaxust, before K'vemo-Cala Geogr. etc., Descnption

older tradition dating from Vakhusht, and rejected by modern Georgian his (himself represented by torians,181 which made him a son of George VIII Vakhusht as an elder brother of Demetrius).182 Constantine was co-opted by Bagrat VI c. 1466183 and succeeded him upon the latter? death, in 1478, as

the Princedom of Samilakhvaro.177 This princely family played a in to role end the of leading Georgia Kingdom, and in the Russian Empire.178 II. ? Constantine Son of Demetrius III, as is proved by the documentary data179 and attested by the historiographie sources.180 This invalidates the

240/241ff.;Saamilaxvros Davt'an
elevated honors Qvarqvare 178 In Dukes Joatham's immediately III and eldest after never

(ed. Kakabaje,
II because

Tiflis 1925). George VIII

himself afterwards he the King died) was

must have
to the new

Cf. Vaxtang VI, code ?35; Vaxust, Geogr. Description 42/43 46/47); Akti 2.39; Karst,
Comment. Rod. above, Crown signify Georgia, at was, above, n. 175). Kniga I 228; Grazdanskoe Ross. Zakavkaz'em 9; Dolgorukov, Ivanenko, Upravlenie III 496-7, II 62-3; Spiski 1930 ff. ('Amilachvary') de Gotha (cf. 6; Almanach ? of the Zedginijes The with the immediate office-fiefs of the enfeoffment n.61). was taken, in later tradition and the last three of the above works), to (cf. Vaxust status. Nothing could be farther from the truth: in status the princely Russia, Age, as, let us say, in pre-Petrine of dynastic least in theory, a matter (cf. origin, not of creation by the Crown in the sources I's great-uncle called prince (cf. above, n.8). Joatham Janibeg was their elevation before the Silver The might of this house is sufficiently demonstrated to the princely

above, the cadets being house; the family was received

by captured ruled in Georgia. again as third (after the and eighteenth the seventeenth this house ranked centuries, of Aragvi and of K'sani) of Iberia the 'undivided' cf. (mt'avar-s among princes a surname of the became of the heads It was then that the name Amilaxvar n.8). called among Amilaxvarislvili. the princes After the Russian under annexation the name of the Empire of Georgia, of Amilaxvari.

son, T'aqa the event,

(or Joatham soon

sufferingfor its loyalty to the defeated George VIII,

it had to be won over by his

Constantine makes reference

by

the

fact

that,

far from

to his father,theKing ofKings Demetrius and his mother Gulasar (cf. above, n.164) ; in that of 1466 (AG 2.13 ; for the date date cf. J IV 92-3) he calls George VIII his uncle and
aid' Gulasar ; and in the charter of the nun Nino speaks of Our of 1477 (K 2.20-1), he is referred to as 'son of Demetrius'. 180 II. 895. Hist. Alex. I. 891 ; Contin. of the K'vat'axevi Convent,

alliance. successful rival, Bagrat VI, by way of a matrimonial 179 In his joint charter with Bagrat VI, of 1475 (AG 2.31),

181 J IV 136; Kakabaje,

Table

Sas. Sigei. 31 and Sak'art'vehs Mokle

Chron.-Geneal. 183 Cf.

182 Vaxust, History (HG II 1) 11; Tables 1.626; cf.Allen, History 138.
below, chap. II. 185 Chron.

126-7.

Istoria 4; Gugushvili,

184 Charters of 1487 (Z 305-6), 1488 (Z 306), 1492 (Z 309-10; 18? VaxuSt, History (
ealogy is incorrect). g?org. 3/4 ; Contin. II. 895 ; a paschal chronicle ed.

3.41-2); cf. J IV 134-5.

298.

II 1) 13-5,251-3; J IV 140-2;Kakabaje, Sas. Sigei, 26 (his gen

the

fifteenth-century

bagratids

201

a council composed of the lords spiritual and temporal of the Realm, Con stantine concluded peace with the rival kings established in Kakhetia and Imeretia (the sons of George VIII and Bagrat VI, respectively), ratifying their
independence.187

died in 1505,188 having married c. 1478 Queen Thamar, King Constantine whose origin is unknown to us, but regarding whose Ebenb?rtigkeit (as in the case of other queens whose origins we cannot ascertain) there can be little doubt.189 She appears in the King's diplomata of 1487 (Z 305-6), 1488 (Z 3.41-2). 306), and 1492 (Z 309-10; Constantine II was the founder of the House of Georgia, which reigned until its dispossession N. Princess. by the House of Kakhetia, in 1744.190 of George VIII, betrothed in 1451 to Constantine Daughter the last Roman Emperor of the East, who perished in the fall Palaeologus, two years later. The betrothal was ratified by an imperial of Constantinople son of chrysobull.191 She married, subsequently, Prince George Shaburidze, of Aragvi, as is revealed by the latter's charter of 1465.192 Vameq, Duke The tragic death of the Emperor Constantine XI must have caused his fiancee to take some steps towards embracing the religious life; else it would be difficult to understand why her marriage with Shaburidze should have been called 1465 ?

XI

'blameworthy' and (K 2.15-8), whereby of Iberia. Katholikos

'contrary to religion' in the charter of April 23, the Duke of Aragvi made amends for it to the

187 Table Chron.-Geneal. op. cit. 149, 253, 211; J IV 158-69; Gugushvili, Vaxust, 188 Dates in 1503: Chron. II. 904. 384; Tables 1.626;?or g?org. 3/5; Contin. 189 Tables 1.626; cf. J IV 136; cf. above, n.8. 190 ? Tables 1. Of the House extinct of Georgia, the elder Royal line became and the younger line of the Princes of Muxrani received And still flourishes, as the eldest of the Bagratid race, having been the name of Bagration of Muxrani. succeeded in 1744 Princes in 1659 to the throne (cf. note of Georgia on Alexander and Princes Spiski 3. 1-2; the princes among elder branch of the of the Russian

131.

surviving

in 1658, line

of Georgia, but was replaced I of Kakhetia). Its descendants Bagration. 10, 12, 31-2. cf. Lebeau, Cf. ibid.;

line of Muxrani, on it by the House bore Ross. XXI

under Empire now extinct, of Kakhetia titles Kniga (Paris of II 1836)

the Russian Rod

Dolgorukov, du Bas-Empire

5-14, III 9, 458-9, 17-22; 191 Annales Phrantzes, 44-6. wife years old he his

Histoire

219-22; E. de Muralt, Essai de Chronographiebyzantine (St. Petersburg 1871) 873; J IV 192 Javaxisvili, loc. cit., is inclined to doubt the identityof the imperial fianc?ewith the
of George Saburije. of age at the time that He contends of her betrothal there must the former, being at least thirteen or fourteen of Constantine have been too XI, would judged or twenty-eight; of the time in 1465, at twenty-six and that have been another daughter to George VIII, who

married Saburije. But George VIII married in 1445; his daughter, even if the elder of
seven could not have than about been more at the time of her betrothal children, so V marrying Anne Comnena, in 1465 she was about ten) ; aged twenty. Duke that he was of this alliance have been protestations Vameq's 'greatly unworthy* might for by the bride's called status. For the difficulties in connection this with quasi-imperial (cf. Bagrat cf. above, n.8.

for marriage by is of the opinion

the standards

marriage,

202

traditio

The House of Shaburidze, which claimed descent from the Sassanids and to which belonged the queen of Vakhtang III of Georgia,103 had once before lost the Duchy of Aragvi and now, despite the royal alliance, lost it again; for in his charter of June 28, 1474 (Z 291), granted to the church of the Na Shaburidze refers to (Inner Ibera), Vameq tivity of Our Lady at Bodorna himself as 'duke in name only'.19* Kakhetia and I of Son of George VIII of Georgia in born when he father's before his first appears (q.v.) ; 1457, c. him in and death 1460.196 charters,195 1476, co-opted by Upon George's Alexander succeeded him in Kakhetia197 and was murdered by his own son, George II the Evil, on Low Sunday, i.e., April 27, 1511.198 King Alexander married a princess of the House of Irubakidze-Cholaqash vili whose name is variously given in the sources: as Anne and as Tinatin,199 and who is first mentioned in her husband's charters of January 23 and 24, 1479 (Z 300-1; 301). Her family, originating fromDaghestan and established inKakhetia in 1320, was enfeoffed of the office of Prince-Master of the Palace Alexander I of Kakhetia. ?

of Kakhetia.200 The house founded by Alexander reigned in Kakhetia annexation of 1801.201 Georgia, until the Russian

and, after 1744, in

Caucasian Archaeology (Tiflis 1875) 41-2. From the House

Aragvi passed to the House Uspenskiy 195 Cf. to those of Turmanije and ?armeuli, loc. cit.;

193 Hist. Mong. 1.624. ?Vaxtang from 1301 to 1307. III reigned Inv. 763; Tables 194 43 (1913) Sbornik Mater?alov 57-9; D. Bak'raje, T'aqaisvili, 'Arxeolog. ?kskursii,' 'Kavkaz of the Friends Drevnix of the Society Pam?tnikax of Xristianstva,' Zapiski century, and, finally, in the sixteenth G. Sadzagelov-Iverieli, 'Ananurskiy 7.70.

of Saburije, the Duchy of

of Sidamoni; T'aqaisvili, Kavkaza Sobor,' Materiali po Arxeologii note on George J IV 43-4. VIII; 19eCf. below, chap. II. 197 on George an elder to Alexander II. 894, 905, ascribes Cf. note VIII. ? Contiti. brother Vaxtang, and Alexander who is said to have between VIII (I) George reigned own diplomata and to have died mention VHI's in 1510. This is quite spurious. George and those of the latter prove him to have begun his only one, 'first-born' son, Alexander, to Vaxtang is a trace of the less reference death. This reign in 1476, the year of George's exact earlier stages with of the .V. Redaction of Bagrat VI of the Annals (qq.v.). (cf. MGHL 163-4) and is due to a confusion II. 906. 199 the children blinded

198 Vaxust, History (HG II 1) 149; Dates 384; Tables 2.634; Chron. g?org. 4/6; Contin.
George also his younger note brother on George Demetrius. VIII and Easter n.108. fell on Apr. 20 in

1511; cf.L. de Mas Lattrie, Tr?sor de chronologie (Paris 1889) 467.

Tables 2 634; cf. IV Rapp. 32;

200 The C'olaqaSvilis constituted one of the two 'undivided' princely houses of Kakhetia the Empire under the name of Celokaev (Colokaev); VaxuSt, Geogr. Description 46/47; Heraclius II, Short Description (ed. Iveria 1884No. 5) 33-4; P. Ioseliani, Rod Kn?zey Celokaevvx (Tiflis 1866); Dolgorukov, Ross. Rod. Kniga III 477-8, II 62-3; Aktl 2.38-43; Spiski 96, 99 (cf. above, n.61). ?To this house belonged the last Kings of Georgia, Heraclius II (1762 201Tabhs 2. 1798) and George XIII (XII) (1798-1801),whose posterity bore, after the Russian an
nexation, the Russian title of Princes of Georgia. A collateral branch, descended from (cf. above, n.8) ; after the Russian annexation, they were confirmed among the princes of

the

fifteenth-century

bagratids

203

Vakhtang. ? This elder son of Bagrat VI, who must have died vita parentis, is known from the undated diploma of Bagrat to Absalom Gelovani, Duke of Suania (confirmed by Alexander II of Imeretia ;AG 2.488) and from another, also undated, charter of the same to the Abbey of Gelati (Introduction ccii).202 Alexander II of Imeretia. ? Second son of Bagrat VI, as is revealed by the latter's diploma to the Duke of Suania, confirmed by Alexander (AG 2.358). He attempted to seize Imeretia after his father's death, in 1478, but failed in 1479. In 1484, fromwhich date he computes his regnal years in his documents (charter of 1495 [Z 311]) he wrested Imeretia from Constantine II of Georgia (q.v.), losing it to him again in 1486/7 and securing it definitely in 1488.203 appears Dasavlet' King Russian
Alexander

II died on April 1, 1510,204 having married Queen Thamar, who in his diplomata of 1495, 1502 (Z 311, 318-9) and 1509 (ed. Kakabaje, Sak'art'velos cf. J. IV 141, 142, 219), whose death oc Sabut'ebi; curred on March 12, 1510,205 and of whose origin we know nothing.206 Alexander Alexander annexation of Imeretia, which founded the House of that kindom in 1810.207 reigned until

the

son Demetrius was I's blinded, received into the (cf. above, n.198) younger of the Russian of (Davidov-)Bagration(-ov) under the name ; nobility princely Empire cf. ibid.; Dolgorukov, Ross. Rod. Kniga III 32, 34. 17-22, 458, 471-4; Spiski 202 son of Tables 4.642. ? The confusion of this Vaxtang with his brother Alexander's the same name, who revolted his brother, Bagrat III of Imeretia (Chron. against g?org. 4/5) ascribed even issued diplomata as king a composite (Introduction cciii), produced figure, II as an elder brother to Alexander I of Kakhetia (cf above, n.197) ; by the Contin. of the cf. Bross?t, HG II 1.322 n.3, 329-30 n.l. This is an added proof of the dependence on (a source of) the Chron. of the Annals two Contin. cf. note on Bagrat VI. g?org.; 203 Cf. note on Constantine his regnal years II. Yet Alexander's charter of 1509 dates an error; J IV 141.? from 1494, which because is probably is called 'the Second', Alexander and 'the

a Seljukid as Alexander duke of Imeretia, who revolted there in 1387, is counted First'. dukes cf. note on Alexander For the Imeretian I of Georgia. 204 or the Contin. II. 905; Dates the month 1510 (but without 384: both give Chron.

day); the is obviously incorrect: g?org. 4/5 has April 1, 1507. The year of the latter date of Alexander, his wife, and his mother, the deaths entry G. E. 195 (=A.D. 1507), recording and the struggle and Vaxtang, is found for the succession III between his sons, Bagrat error results from writing the k'oronikon the years 1509 and 1511. The between 195, in

in Georgian r.z.?. Cf. Bross?t, (mxedruli) r.z.e.f instead of the correct 198=1510, Georgian II 1 322 n.3, 329-30 n.l. HG 205 1 for her latter work has April Chron. II. 905. The 384; Contin. g?org. 4/5; Dates or day for that of Alexander, due to a misreading is obviously which death, but no month of the sources. 206 Cf. above, 207 4.? Tables of n.8. The House the of Imeretia titles Princes was subdivided Bagration in several of cf. ibid.; of Princes Imeretia, after bearing, Princes Bagration, Ross. Rod. Dolgorukov, branches

the Russian Princes

? Kniga III 5-8; Spiski 11, 44.

revealed Alexander accepted.

annexation, and Imeretia,

Instead of the above-mentioned children of Bagrat VI, as

Bagration-Davidov;

II. 892 gives Bagrat two sons, named the Constin. sources, by the documentary account and of this eighteenth-century and David. In view of the unreliability cannot of David be the existence of confirmation in the absence by some other sources,

204
II. The The Institution

traditio

of Coll?gial

Sovereignty

in Georgia

at our disposal of the fifteenth century; all the historical material no to and without of the history of it; points it, satisfactory understanding that century and of the Partition of Georgia, which concluded it, can be at as has been remarked elsewhere, this feature seems, tained. Nevertheless, never to have been recognized as a system, let alone surprisingly enough, polity studied, in Georgian historiography. The phenomenon of what may be termed pluralistic monarchy1 in different polities. Two main aspects or types are observable the practice of co-optation of the heir; the other, the system of ereignty. The arrangement called dynastic condominium can be has obtained in it. One is coll?gial sov

of the genealogy of the Bagratid dynasty in the fifteenth a framework for this chapter, which is to deal with the con century provides stitutional problem of coll?gial sovereignty and its historical application. The system of coll?gial kingship appears to be a salient feature of the Georgian

elaboration

considered as still another aspect of pluralistic monarchy. the first two are whereas But, marked by the plurality of dynasts in the unity of the Crown, the third one is characterized by the plurality of crowns in the unity of dynasty. All the three types have existed in Georgia. This study, however, is con

Iberia (the nucleus Its first instance occurred in the tenth century. When of the Georgian State) was regained in 975 from its Abasgian conquerors, it was offered, not to its legitimate and heretofore titular king, Bagrat II the was a he to future III. but the As his grandson, still minor, Foolish, Bagrat his father Gurgen mounted

or co-optation of the heir is found in various countries and at Association itself. It different epochs, and it appears to be almost as old as monarchy or the desired the of succession in from securing legitimate springs necessity the face of unfavorable circumstances. It can be witnessed in Capetian France, Plantagenet England, or the Seleucid realm. And it was widely practised in Georgia, where it appears to be a purely autochthonous growth.

cerned only with the system of coll?gial sovereignty, which was prevalent in that country, especially in the fifteenth century, and which conditioned the break-up of its unity. Before approaching this system, a glance at the cognate in Georgia, may be of interest. practice of co-opting the heir, as manifested

in the Iberian throne. In 978, the young Bagrat herited, through his mother, the crown of Abasgia and, upon Gurgen's death in 1008, succeeded his father in Iberia, the old Bagrat II having passed away in 994.2 This case presents an interesting juridical situation. Until his death.
1 a contradictio in adiectu, this term is no more semantically Though self-contradictory or 'polyarchy' are inadequate, for they have decidedly too than the thing itself. Oligarchy' a connotation; or 'polyarchic mon non-monarchical and, for that matter also, 'oligarchic'

the number of its holders, the power under It is to be emphasized that, whatever archy'. monarchical. such a system remains unimpairedly 2 'La succession du curopalate David de Cf. J II 419-23; Z. Avalichvili, d'Ib?rie, dynaste con Table 8 (1933) ; Gugushvili, 120-2. For the Abasgian Chron.-Geneal. Tao,' Byzantion quest of Iberia, cf. above, chap. I n.30.

the

fifteenth-century

bagratids

205

Bagrat the Foolish was de jure King of Iberia; but, from 975, his son Gurgen was king de facto. Since the royal dignity of either one does not appear to have been questioned, itmust be assumed that Gurgen was, de jure, a co-king with his father.3 It happened, accordingly, that the king-regnant de jure was de facto a co-king (Bagrat II) ; whereas the de jure co-king was de facto the reigning sovereign (Gurgen). The same situation will be repeated in the case III and George VIII.4 of Demetrius of the heir, before the fifteenth century, occurred also in the Co-optation II (c. 1085 instances: and his son David following George II (1072-1089)

Thamar

1089) ; the latter (1089-1125) (and his father George II [1098-1112]) and his sonDemetrius I (1125; 1125-1155) ;5 III (1156-1184) and his daughter George 1212; 1212-1223) ;7 Queen Rusudan (1223-1245) and her sonDavid IV (1234 1245; 1250-1258) ;8David VII (1346-1360) and his son Bagrat V (c. 1355 1360) ;? the latter (1360-1395) and his son George VII (1369-1395; 1395
1405).10 (1179-1184) ;e that Queen (1184-1212) and her son George IV (1205

influence. in the fifteenth, and in both cases under Byzantine can at in still to this be similar observed another, Georgia system Something IV and in David David 1250-1258.11 in the of rule V, joint earlier, instance, Yet, it appears not as a fixed system of monarchy, but rather as the only solu tion of a dynastic complication by way of legitimizing a powerful anti-king. centuries and 3The quarrel, in 988, between Bagrat the Foolish and his cousin David of Tao on the

from co-optation of the heir in that Coll?gial sovereignty is distinguishable it represents a fixed constitutional system of pluralistic monarchy, honorific in character and irrespective of circumstances; whereas the latter is but an opportunistic adaptation to the exigencies of the moment. Coll?gial kingship was practised twice in the Georgian polity, in the thirteenth and fourteenth

one hand, attempt 4

QM 240-1; Stephen Asotik, Universal History 3.28 (tr.F. Macler, Paris 1917, 134). 6Cf. Jordania,K'ronikebi 1 (Tiflis 1892) 255-8,259, 266-7,268-9,300ff.
7 Ibid. 294. Inv. 582-3. Mong. is revealed by the charter solely VII, on of 1355 (resume, IV Rapp. 8), issued been by the sHist. 9 This Cf. notes 5 Cf. MGHL on Demetrius 174 n.63. HI and George VIII in chap. I; and below.

and his son Bagrat, may have been caused by Gurgen's and, on the other, Gurgen to relegate his father to a de jure position 174-5= Iber. QA of co-king. Cf. Chron.

son of the Great King David'. Bross?t (ibid.) was inclined to doubt the authenticity of
this document his father, David terms was

'King

. . .

optation of the heir, which is here presented with a special clarity in the correlation of
the

could not the ground that Bagrat was obviously Bross?t still alive. cf. below.

have

ignorant

in 1355, since King of the system of co

10 This is attested by George VIFs

'King'

and

'Great King';

charter of 1393 (r?sum?, IV Rapp. 9), written in

was at a loss before this renewed in the manifestation lifetime of refers to George I. as king of Bagrat

his 24th

V; 857, 866, 867 (in 1386 and 1393).

11 Cf. above, chap. I, note

(ibid.) again regnal year. Bross?t Inv. Tim. And yet the Hist. co-kingship. on Alexander

206

TRADITIO

for it. It is significant, moreover, that in both cases this system was inaugurated by the children of Comnenian princesses. This can not have been a mere It is true, to be sure, that in the Empire of Trebizond coincidence. itself, whence the two Comnenian Queens of Georgia came, the practice of pluralistic monarchy appears never to have passed beyond the phase of co-optation of ? the heir; nevertheless, the Trapezuntine like the culture and the very polity ? was derived from the of Trebizond Weltanschauung Megalocomnenian By zantine Empire.12 And the salient feature of the Byzantine imperial con stitution was precisely the institution of coll?gial severeignty. So the imperial princesses of Trebizond, scions and relatives of great Eastern Roman dynasties, were no doubt thoroughly conversant with the Byzantine, and not only with matrimonial the derivative Trapezuntine, political forms. Thus, the Bagratido-Comnenian alliances constituted, as itwere, the channel through which these forms could be and were transmitted to influence and mould the Georgian

It is thus nearer to the pratice of associating the heir, though lacking in its purposefulness. on the other The two cases of coll?gial sovereignty have the appearance, hand, of a definitely constitutionalized system of monarchy, and no dynastic IV and David V, presents itself to account necessity, as in the case of David

but must be heir with the imperial title, as inaugurated by the Antonines; considered rather as based, together with that practice, upon the older tribuni cian and proconsular collegiality. As a matter of fact, moreover, the pluralistic imp?rium from the age of the Antonines to the end of the third century was, for all its tendency towards coll?gial forms, in reality never anything but an
12 It will be recalled of a that ? * a th? a used the Eastern Roman sovereigns that it took a considerable , and

polity. e a and of the earlier Roman The coll?gial character of the Byzantine ?a same character of the proconsular imp?rium is usually traced back to the It cannot, con imp?rium and the tribunician potestas of republican Rome.13 sequently, be regarded as evolved merely out of the practice of associating the

imperial diplomatic to induce A or a rather

style

early Trapezuntine a

selves, theoreticallyat least, as the legitimateheirs of the Roman Empire (of the East),
as titular Roman Emperors, merely resident at Trebizond in expectation of

on the part of the Palaeologi, then newly established at Constantinople, pressure a ? one of them to change, a a a a after 1282, his title to a Uepareias. In other words, , *1? the early Grand Comneni them regarded

Constantinople ; for in the Byzantine ideology of the period, there could be but one Roman Empire. Cf. Vasiliev, The Foundation of the Emp. of Trebizond 30ff.;Miller, Trebizond 26ff.; D. Zakythinos, Le chrysobulle d'Alexis III Comn?ne en faveur des V?nitiens (Paris 1932) 92. 13 J.B. Bury, The Constitution of theLater Roman Empire (Cambridge 1910) 16ff. For
Roman

dans l'Empire romain aux IVe et Ve si?cles/Revue des ?tudes anciennes 46 (1944) 47-64,
280-298.

Impenum

cf. also E. Kornemann, imperial collegiality DoppelpHnzipat romanum and Berlin 1930) ; J. R. Palanque, (Leipzig

'Coll?gialit?

und Reichsteilung im et partages

THE

FIFTEENTH-CENTURY

BAGRATIDS

207

opportunistic adaptation to circumstances.14 It was left to the reforms of Dio cletian finally and definitely to fix the imperial power in coll?gial forms. e a appears to be, like the Roman emperorship The coll?gial imp?rium ? ?a the itself, a unique institution peculiar to the Roman Empire. Nevertheless, Roman imperial power was a child not only of the republican institutions of divine monarchies.15 Accordingly, it would Rome, but also of the Hellenistic seem inadequate to limit the search for the origins of its coll?gial character to the Roman republican past alone. And, indeed, the Hellenistic East, which contributed to the formation of the Roman emperorship, provides numerous instances of pluralistic monarchy to account, in part at least, for the imperial coll?gial forms. There, co-optation of the heir was practised, for instance, by the Seleucids and the Ptolemies.16 And, what is most important, a full-fledged system of coll?gial sovereignty actually obtained among the latter, arising not from the purely opportunistic practice of associating the heir, but from the fixed and purely honorific system of the brother-and-sister theogamies adhered to by them.17 influence on the formation of the imperial Now, the question of Ptolemaic and his associates has been raised and successfully ideology of Diocletian in the affirmative in recent historical literature.18 It may be suggested, furthermore, that, besides shaping the imperial th?ogonies of the Jovians and the Herculians, that influence had also a share in Diocletian's establishment of the (tetrarchie) coll?gial form of the Roman imp?rium.19 answered
14 Cf. A. Paillard, (Paris Br?hier, Histoire 1875) 7-188. des titres imp?riaux his ? Byzance,' son Antiochus his Byzantinische I in 293; the Zeitschrift latter (281 de la transmission du pouvoir imp?rial ? Rome et ? Con

stantinople 15 Cf. L. 16 Thus,

15 (1906) 161-78.

'L'origine I

association as

262/1), in 266, his son Antiochus II (261-247) etc. Likewise, the followingLagids practiced
of the heir: son, the

e.g. Seleucus

(305-280)

co-opted

283-245); the latter and his son Ptolemy III

another problematic co-king

Ptolemy

(305-283/2)

and

(Nov. 12/13,247; 245-221) as well, perhaps,

(266-258) ; Ptolemy IV Philopator

son Ptolemy

II Philadelphus

(284;

(221-203) and his son Ptolemy V Epiphanes (209 ; 203-181); Ptolemy VI (181-169) and his two sons Ptolemy Eupator (153/2-C.150)and Ptolemy Philopator (bef. 145 ;d. 145); and
Cleopatra 17 The and VI (51-30) and his theogamic can be sister) coll?gial observed son Ptolemy Caesar XIV (44-30). of the Lagids brother (for the most kingship part between cases: in the following the Soteres I and Berenice I Ptolemy

Ptolemy

(posthumously) ; theAdelphi Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II; the Euergetae Ptolemy III and Berenice II; the Philopatores Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III; Ptolemy V and Cleopatra I; thePhilometores Ptolemy VI, Cleopatra II, and Ptolemy VII ; theEuergetae Ptolemy VII, Cleopatra II, and Cleopatra III ; thePhilometores Soteres Cleopatra III and Ptolemy VIII ; the Philometores Ptolemy IX and Berenice III; the Philometores Soteres Cleopatra III and Ptolemy IX; the Phitodelphi Philometores Soteres Ptolemy VIII and Berenice III; Ptolemy X and Berenice III ; the Philopatores Philadelphi Ptolemy XI and Cleopatra VI ; the Philopatores (?) Cleopatra VI and Ptolemy XII; and the Philopatores Cleopatra VI and Ptolemy XIII.
18

19 Cf. W. Seston, Dioct?tien et a T?trarchie (Paris 1946) 249: 'R?sum?: La T?trarchie

J. Maurice,

'Les

Pharaons

romains,'

Byzantion

12

(1937)

71-103.

208
An examination onstrates

TRADITIO

of the two principal aspects of pluralistic monarchy dem that coll?gial sovereignty possesses, besides the strictly functional character which belongs to co-optation of the heir, also a purely honorific note. This new trait appertains to it exclusively and distinguishes it from both the type of association of the heir and the by-type of dynastic condominum ; and the essential inherence of this new trait may bear out the suggestion that the Empire's theogamous coll?gial sovereignty derived in part from the Ptolemaic collegiality, which was based on religious and therefore honorific, and not on political and consequently opportunistic, considerations. At all events, whatever its origin, this peculiarly Romano-Byzantine aspect inGeorgia twice, on each occasion of pluralistic monarchy made its appearance

influence. It is not devoid of interest, therefore, to compare under Byzantine the working of this system in the Empire and inGeorgia. In the Empire, despite the collegiality of sovereignty, only one, the senior power; whereas his colleagues were, emperor exercised the full monarchical as Bury puts it,mere sleeping partners, enjoying but the dignity and the ex pectation imperial achieved imperial supreme Although imperial was made

between the emperor-regnant, invested with the plenitude of sov of Philotheus, the former and his co-emperors. In the Kletorologion ereignty, e in to his colleague, the a contradistinction is denominated a ?a e e e Book of VII .21 Ceremonial Constantine The constantly ) ?a ( e a or and the makes the distinction between the ?a e a a came to designate e ] .22 In the eleventh century, ?a a [?a a the senior Augustus, though the title of a might occasionally be applied also to co-emperors.23 The latter were, likewise, referred to by the title of
a un fondement tout religieux.' of The possibilities Roman of Egyptian Empire, loc. influences, however, of are not

of succession. The imperial power being elective in principle, the continuity was Dynastic dignity was essentially non-hereditary. of all the members the and of the of co-optation, practice through in transmit the alone the senior this emperor way, could, college, the This in situation found nomenclature. expression imperial power.20 all the members of imperial college were equally invested with the dignity, nevertheless, beginning in the ninth century, a distinction

Roman Empire (London 1931) I 5-7.? Exceptions to this rule are found in the (usually distinct imperial organizations which existed between the two) parallel and territorially reformsof Diocletian and the end of theWestern imperial line, and in the rise and the
Byzantine at least, 16-7. Theodora, 1308. 23 of the Holy Roman which recognition Emperors, to a resuscitation of the Western half of the Roman was the joint exception in the eleventh century. rule, in the East, was tantamount, in theory Bury, Constitution Empire: of the last Basilids, Zoe and

taken into account. 20 Bury, Constitution

the Later

cit. and History

the Later

Another

21 Philotheus, Kletorologion, apud Constantine Porphyrogenitus,De 22 Constantine, De

Bury, Constitution

cenm. (PG 143)

cerim. 989, 993, 1000, 1028, 1029, 1036, 1173.

21; DuCange, Gloss, graec. I (Lyons 1688) 156-7.

THE

FIFTEENTH-CENTURY

BAGRATIDS

209

e .2* Nevertheless, e invariably desig a the plural form ol a ?a nated all the Augusti.25 A similar situation prevailed in Georgia. There, under the system of col l?gial sovereignty, only one, the senior colleague was king-regnant. He issued the official documents and was invested with the plenitude of the royal power. His co-kings were 'sleeping partners' who enjoyed the co-equality of dignity ? and expectation (if any) of succession. Small wonder, then, that historians with all the dearth of historical material for the centuries under discussion; a dearth greater still at the formative epoch of Georgian historiography ? were led to overlook altogether the extraneous constitutional development transplanted on Georgian soil, and that they counted only the kings-regnant

mep'e didi-mep'e ('king'), and occasionally ('great king').27 Co-kings were mentioned with, or frequently without, the title of King; in either case, the full royal style of the Kings of Georgia28 followed, on occasions, not only the
24 I 7 n.l. Bury, Hist. Later Rom. Emp. 26 be noted, It must that one modern however, of co-kings in Georgia ? the existence recognized co-kingship. 25 Bury, loc. cit. Georgian though not, historian, it seems, has S. Kakabaje, of the system of

as kings at all ;which is as though one were to count but the senior Augusti among the Romano-Byzantine rulers, overlooking their co-emperors.26 In official documents (letters-patent, writs, etc.), the title of the king was almost regnant invariably mep'et'-mep'e ('king of kings'), seldom .only

122. In the case of Abasgia; cf. J II 412; Gugushvili, Chron.-Geneal. Table son, King case suggests, the genitive this title implied not so much what of Georgia, i.e., 'king over other kings', as the superlative (of kingship) occasionally degree by that case expressed and M. Bri?re, La Langue [Paris 1931] 79 ?96.2b), (N. Marr g?orgienne i.e., 'great king, from among other kings'; in a word, a monarch of others, an autocrat. wholly independent ea a a was a semantic a of the Byzantine Thus raep'ei'-mep'e , of ?a equivalent which of a mep'etf-mep'e the distinctions mep'e below; 28 The in the fifteenth constitutional consort century. The counterpart of queens'). of ('queen Georgian dedep'alt'-dedop'al being devoid a queen-regnant of gender, the great Thamar) be styled (like might ? uses of royal titles, cf. or mep'et'-mep'e. of the above-mentioned For instances n.9. for 'Great King' cf. above, it also became was was of Georgia of geopolitical Kings composed royal style of the fifteenth-century The former were fixed, the latter variable. The and honorific formulae epithets. of Western and of the Georgian State: the union the historical development Georgia, perennially separated by the Lixi mountains, and the acquisition a

27 The title of King of Kings was adopted by Gurgen, fatherof Bagrat III (cf. above) upon the death of his own father Bagrat II, in 994. Gurgen was thenKing of Iberia and his

formulae reflected Eastern

of

other kingdoms.They were as follows: (A) Of Abasgia (and) Iberia, (B) Albania, Kakhetia, and Armenia, King; (C) Sahansah and Sirvansah [the title of the Kings of Armenia and that of the vassal Kings of Shirvan] ; (D) Lord of the Two Thrones and Realms, Hither and Thither of the Lixi-s. The epithets included: (E) King of Kings [acquiring under
the system of coll?gial sovereignty the specific constitutional meaning of king-regnant as

distinct fromhis co-kings] ; (F) God-crowned (or variants) ; (G) Sovereign and Autocrat ofAll the East (and variants). The relative position of these formulae and epithets varied
the name with E was conjoined considerably. Epithet surname of Jessian-Davidian-Solomonian-Bagratid. dynastic of the monarch Cf. Bross?t, as was also the IV Rapp. 39-48;

210

TRADITIO

name of the senior king, but also those of his colleagues.29 Thus, the mep'et' e a a a of the mep'e of the Georgian polity corresponds to the ?a e or to The and alone its variants. the the raep'e ?a Imperial constitution, never the of the title of occasional omission of king co-kings (and royal as regnant) in the official documents has been exploited by Djavakhishvili an argument against the existence of co-optation:80 Instances of omission of the title were used by him as a ground for explaining away its occasional oc
currence.

as Vakhtang's of Trebizond,32 David (VI), was recognized by the Mongols was to in reduced but He succeeded co-kingship by 1292, co-king. Vakhtang III and he continued till his his younger brother Vakhtang (1301-1307); death in 1310 as a co-king with the latter's successor and his own son, George In the meantime, the youngest son of Demetrius VI the Little (1307-1318). II by another marriage, with Natela, daughter of Beka II, Duke ofMeschia,33 was set up as a co-king in Iberia, in 1299. He was George (V), later known as

The first instance of coll?gial sovereignty in Georgia belongs to the years their suzerainty over the Mongols, who had established 1291-1318. When II the Devoted, Georgia in 1243, barbarously executed in 1289 King Demetrius who had given himself up in order to save his people, the throne passed to son of the Seljukid, David IV.31 Upon the death II (1289-1292), Vakhtang eldest son by a Princess of the Ilkhan Arghun in 1291, however, Demetrius'

for George the Little in 1307; and in 'the Illustrious.' He became Regent 1318 he replaced his nephew as king-regnant. With the death of George the Little, the system of coll?gial sovereignty came to a natural end.34

Cara Georgia III po Povodu Vosstani? Kn?zey Orbel-i

29 30 31 32 For J IV Cf. examples, 19, 36-7, chap. above, cf. below. 102-3, 135. I, note on Alexander 745; Bek'a IPs I. other 4.7.

na Carici Tamari 'Gramota S. Kakabaje, Velikoy et d'arch?ologie caucasien d'histoire 3 (1925) l'Institut

Ima

Gelat

ot

111-20;

1177 g.' ibidem 4 (1926) 123-5.

idem,

de 1193 g.', Bulletin 'Gramota Gruzinskogo

Alexius II of Trebizond, nephew of the queen of Demetrius II;

6.269; Pachymeres, 34 The scantiness on Andronico Palaeologo sources of documentary Inv. Hist. Mong. the near-contemporary De

Above, chap. I, n.21. 33 Hist. Mong. Inv. 734,

daughter

married,

in 1297,

ibid. 758; Panaretus

rely exclusively

the Emperor

(MGHL 176). The followingchronological table is based on it (the names of co-kings are indented) : Demetrius II theDevoted, tl289 David (VI) 1291 (ibid. 746) David VI, 1292-1301 (ibid. 749-63) George (V) in Iberia, 1299 (ibid. 758-9) Vaxtang III, 1301-1307 (ibid. 758-9) David (VI) George (V)
Vaxtang II, 1289-1292 (Hist. Mong. Inv. 744-7)

forces one to for the period of the anonymous Meschian

Chronographer

THE

FIFTEENTH-CENTURY

BAGRATIDS

211

III to the Outwardly, the elevation of David VI, George V, and Vakhtang royal dignity, while others sat on the throne of Georgia, depended on their are not known to have intro suzerains. Since, however, the Mongols Mongol duced coll?gial kingship in any other of their dependencies and are known to have always respected local political forms, there can be no doubt that, in the case of Georgia, they merely sanctioned the Byzantine practice, which pre the nephew of a and sented itself to the children of a Comnenian princess as means the of their empress35 Trapezuntine only satisfying dynastic ambi
tions.36

Anne was a daughter of the Emperor Alexius III and Theodora Cantacuz^na,37 and a sister of the Emperor Manuel III, who appears to have been the first of the Grand Comneni to have espoused the system of pluralistic monarchy at Trebizond.38

its second appearance The Byzantine system of coll?gial sovereignty made in Georgia in the fifteenth century? this time with consequences of vital im portance for the country's history. It is the instance under discussion in the present study. As in the first case, the system was adopted by the descendants Anne Comnena, the consort of Bagrat V. Queen of a Princess of Trebizond:

George VI the Little, 1307-1318 {ibid. 781-5) George (V) Regent (ibid. 782) David (VI) tl310 (ibid. 783) George V the Illustrious,begins as king-regnant,1318 (ibid. 785)
Needless stemming to say, the numbers and the of different stand fact of in need from Vaxust, to accept kings are those of the traditional historiography of revision. the Illustrious should Thus, George sovereignty in Georgia. Bross?t, however,

be 'the Sixth' and George the Little 'the Fifth'. All this is due to the inability of older
historians par Vaxtang

admitted the following: (1) David VI:

coll?gial

roi du vivant de Vaxtang II, but d?pos? et remplac?

to the Hist. Mong. it is said is contrary III. This (766) Inv., where that, III 'did not go against his brother David' and where the upon becoming king, Vaxtang as king at his death not David, was the latter is mentioned (783). However, Vaxtang, as is evident of pp. 762-81, as well as from the from the context thereafter, king-regnant narrative Little: roi of his war

. . . sous la tutelle de George V.? V the Illustrious: roi du temps (4) George . . .But the Hist. Mong. Inv. does not indicate that 1818-1346 V, 1299-1801 puis to it in 1299. He was set up, of his royal dignity after his elevation he was ever deprived as king-regnant 'to replace' David, with the intention it is true, by the Mongols (758-759). de David George only held Cf. Tables 1.624.

(2) Vaxtang III:

David and George V.?(3) r?gne du vivant de ses fr?res

against

the Sultan

of Egypt

(QM

772-7,

notes

;cf. MGHL

George VI the

178).?

and David remained throughout Georgia, sovereign however, Since, or else an anti-king. therein; Tiflis, he was at best a co-king appanaged 35 n.33. Cf. above,

typically Byzantine character of the system adopted in Georgia will become apparent upon comparing the above list of the kings (n.34) with any table of the Eastern
Of

36 The

Emperors.

the heir by its purely honorific character, it has been resorted to occasionally for purely

course,

although

coll?gial

sovereignity

is distinguished

from

co-optation

of

Manuel

also. considerations practical 37 V. Cf. above, chap. I, note on Bagrat 38 Trebizond 73, refers to pluralistic Miller,

III

is the firstTrapezuntine sovereign indicated as having practiced it.

monarchy

as old-established

in Trebizond,

yet

212
Bagrat

TRADITIO

V himself, according to the Bagratid custom dating from the tenth son in 1369 and heir, George. George VII century, co-opted only his eldest ascended the throne after him in 1395 and died without issue in 1405.39 But his successor, Constantine I, Bagrat's son by his second wife, Anne Comnena, co-opted in characteristically Byzantine fashion, between 1405 and 1408, all of his sons: Alexander (I), Bagrat, and George. In his charter of July 4, 1408 (AG 3.461) the royal style follows the names both of Constantine and his three sons. What is more, although the ending of word 'Kingis)' is deleted in the

so that it is impossible to determine its number, the epithet 'Sov (of All the East etc.)' is in the plural (xelmcip'ed-t'uit* ereign and Autocrat Even if the singular were used, as it often is in such mp'lobel-mpqrobelt'asa). cases, the implication would still remain the same, once the royal style fol can on occasions replace the plural by the lowed the names, for Georgian document inKing Alexander I's own diplomata, his brothers Bagrat and without the royal title.41 There can be little doubt that this George figure action of King Constantine was, like his own name and those of his sister and eldest son, derived from his maternal relatives, the Comneni and the Cantacu singular.40 But
zeni.42

I (1412-1442), succeeding Constantine I, co-opted all of his sons: and Zaal, save one: David, (VIII), (IV), Demetrius (III), George Vakhtang the third son in Kakhetia. destined for the Church; and he appanaged This we have took place in 1433. Of the eldest son, Vakhtang (IV), only one Alexander

diplomata of 1433 [I, II]

charter issued while he was still a prince royal, in 1429 (r?sum?, IV Rapp. 14) ;43 he appears as King with the King of Kings, his father, in the latter's

(K 3.15-6;

239-40; and

3.17) and 1438 [I] (K

Heracleonas, in 638; Constane II (641-668) and his sons Constantine (IV), Tiberius (IH) and Heraclius in 659; Basil I (867-886) and his sons Constantine in 869, Leo (VI) in 870, and Alexander in 871; Romanus I Lecapenus (919-944), his sons Christopher in 921, Porphyrogenitus ; John V Palaeologus (1355-1390) and his sons Andronicus (IV) in 1379 and Manuel (II) in 1386; cf.DuCange, Familiae augustae byzantinae (Paris 1680)
117-9, 1871) cousin 120, 138-41, Stephen and Constantine in 923, and the former Emperor-regnant Constantine VII

39 Cf. above, n.lO and Chap. VII. I, note on George 40 Marr and Bri?re, La Langue 266. g?orgienne 41 Above, chap. I, n.72. 42 The of coll?gial instances following Byzantine sovereignty context: Heraclius and his sons Constantine(III)-Heraclius, (610-641)

will

be

recalled

in this

co-opted

in 613, and

(St. Petersburg 1855) 270-2, 290, 446, 450, 452, 498, 502; ibid. 1061-1453 (St. Petersburg
? Constantine 700, 708. of the Roman Emperor Fs maternal John VI a was Theodora grandmother, Cantacuzena, Cantacuzenus who in 1348 reduced (1347-1355), to co-emperorship, and to it his own elevated that Vaxtang and said above been perhaps Demetrius in the Introduction, were donations issued of their families were co

142, 146-7, 239-43;

Muralt,

Essai

de

Chronographie

byzantine,

395-1067

the reigning Emperor John Palaeologus son Matthew; cf. below, n.47. 43 This charter to assume led Kakabaje Sigei. or confirming (letters-patent) conferring not only by reigning sovereigns, Georgia and temporal. spiritual kings from that date; Sas. 12. As

has

charters in feudal and lords

and privileges but also by members

THE

FIFTEENTH-CENTURY

BAGRATIDS

213

(before his assumption of the supreme power) in his charter of March . . . son of the King of Kings 7,1446 (r?sum?, IV Rapp. 21) 'King of Kakhetia, Alexander'. This charter is written in George's thirteenth regnal year, which means that he became king in 1433? the very year in which the royal style first appears, in the diplomata of Alexander I, following the name of George and those of his brothers.46 in 1442 and was followed on the throne by his eldest Alexander I abdicated son Vakhtang as king-regnant, with the younger Demetrius IV (1442-1446) as co-kings. When Vakhtang died, without issue, in and George (ofKakhetia)

3.20-1), with the royal style following the names of himself and his brothers as well as that of their father; he figures, together with his brothers, without the royal title, but with the royal style in the same position in the charter of 1438 [II] (K 3.18-20) ; and he ismentioned without any royal title before, or royal style after, his own or his brothers' names in other acts of Alexander I.44 De metrius (III), the second son, left a diploma dated August 26, 1445 (Z 257), son in which he calls himself (in the reign of Vakhtang IV) 'King Demetrius, of the King of Kings Alexander';45 and the third son George entitles (VIII) himself

III (1446-1453) became king-regnant, but de jure only, for 1446, Demetrius the third brother, George VIII (1446-1465), made himself de facto reigning King ofGeorgia, reducing Demetrius, and then elevating his own son Alexander, to the position of co-kings. George VIII possessed the plenitude of sovereignty, and the state documents,
44 JavaxiSvili hesitates to accept the fact of Vaxtang's co-optation and endeavors to of of

explain it away by declaring as doubtful the charterof 1438 [I] ; J IV 19. But the act of
1433 which

as practiced in fifteenth-century monarchy Georgia. 45 as is his wont, to explain Javaxisvili, attempts his charter of 1445 as unreliable, kingship by dismissing

the learned historian is due, no doubt, to his lack of insight in the system of coll?gial
away the fact it is a of Demetrius's later copy, and co

[I], for instance, wherein Vaxtang Javaxisvili does not question),

is also mentioned alone suffices

to prove

as king (and the authenticity that fact. The hesitancy

because

urging the fact that the original act of George VIII

Demetrius was without king; the never J IV

mentions

of Dec. 25, 1449 (K 3.29-32;

261)

by

to him, that this must royal dignity: signify, according 36-7. He confuses here two distinct problems: (1) Deme trius' co-kingship and As regards the latter, the (2) his de jure status as king-regnant. sources scholar's is invalidated adduced As below. Georgian argument by the diplomatic for the former, it is borne out by other evidence than the charter he adduces. In 1446 Demetrius George latter's reduced royal Demetrius title (not to the de infrequent facto in the of a co-king, hence position cases of co-kings) in 1449. the omission of the

46It is true that theHist. Alex. I. 890, 891, states that George was established as King of Kakhetia in 1445; but this is completely outweighed by the charter of March 7, 1446.
Bross?t IV mentions 22. an inscription on the altar the of the church of of the Abbey above of the chronicle

Moreover, George';

King, the Despot Archangels at Gremi (Kakhetia), dated 1441, 'under the truly faithful erroneous on the ground that George became King of Georgia in 1446 (1447 is a fapsus calami) ; J IV 36. But the point in question is not his becoming King of Georgia, but his being made a co-king inKakhetia. Kakabaje is right in considering 1433/4 as the date
of the elevation of George to the co-kingship with Kakhetia as appanage; Sas. Sigei. 12. Rapp. Javaxisvili considers information the

214

TRADITIO

all issued by him alone in the years 1446-1465, entitle him 'King of Kings'.47 also is so entitled (by the legitimism of his son) in Nevertheless, Demetrius the charter of 1475 (AG 2.31), issued jointly by Bagrat VI and Constantine II, as well as in his own, undated diploma (Sas. Sigei. 10-11). In the charter 30 Jan. 13 Geo. VIII. 1460 ( names of both George VIII

3.34-6) the full royal style follows the 277-8; son and his Alexander; while that of 1463 (AG one 3.462) and another, undated (cf. J IV 44) mention the King of Kings George and his son, King Alexander.48 George was superseded in 1465 by his cousin Bagrat VI, who had arisen in 1454 as an anti-king in Imeretia and, possibly, as an avenger of Demetrius III,

who had died a year before. Bagrat VI reigned in Georgia until his death in 1478, having co-opted, probably from the beginning of his reign, the son and heir of Demetrius (II). The latter entitles himself King in III, Constantine Sigei. 30-1) and is so entitled in the charter of the nun Nino of the Kvatakhevi Convent of 1477 (K 2.20-1) ; in his joint charter with Bagrat VI of November is 'King of Kings', but 6, 1468 (AG 2.30) he is called patron,49 while Bagrat the royal style follows both names; and in their other joint diploma of 1475 is 'King'.50 It would (AG 2.31), while Bagrat is 'King of Kings', Constantine the crown of be only natural that Bagrat, having wrested from George VIII III, should have co-opted Demetrius'

his diplomata of 1466 (AG 2.13; forthe date cf. J IV 92-3) and 1467 (Sas.

which the latter had deprived Demetrius subdued heir.51

in the meantime, upon his release from the captivity which a George VIII, in year before, 1465, had made the advent of Bagrat possible, retired to his old
47

For

Byzantine

Emperor-regnant and

II Phocas and, later,by John I Tzimisces ; that of Isaac II Angelus by his son Alexius IV ;
that of John V 153, 204, 239, 260; 48 Cf. above, chap. I, note on Alexander can be made with the action comparison and elevated co-regency 49 On the significance that 1478; to it his own of this title, Palaeologus cf. following by John VI note. Cantacuzenus For I, who I. n.149. : DuCange, Fam?li?? 149, 150,

examples, Constantine

one will VII

recall

the reduction I Lecapenus

by Romanus

of the lawful to co-emperorship II by Nicephorus ; that of Basil

of Kakhetia. of Romanus sons;

a similar reduced Familiae

Byzantine Constantine 142, 146-7.

instance, to VII

three

DuCange,

50Javaxisvili discards the charter of 1466 as unreliable, but, being unable to dismiss
of 1477, argues that perhaps of course, J IV 135. This, on Constantine the other II), Constantine is contradicted the Georgian much succeeded by the historian joint Bagrat regnal finally in that year, years abandons his and and not in acts of Constantine's

cf. above,

chap.

which itwould be difficultto explain But, then,he ignores the charters of 1467 and 1475,
away.

(cf. note

and

argument.

of 1468, inwhich the one is 'King' and the other patron; J IV 102-3. But that titlewas
and in this charter the royal style follows to kings (cf. above, chap. I. n.149) applicable the two names (cf. below). 51 son Con of Alexius I Comnenus, VII's The Byzantine instance co-opting Michael

On

hand,

he makes

of the

charter

of Bagrat

Constantine

stantineDucas upon dethroning the usurper Nicephorus III Botaniates, will be recalled:
Familiae 164.

DuCange,

THE

FIFTEENTH-CENTURY

BAGRATIDS

215
in

appanage 1476.52

of Kakhetia,

where he remained, a sort of anti-king, till his death

is presented by Alexander I's charters of 1433 [I, II] (K 3.15 sons of the the all alone of wherein (IV), 6; Vakhtang 239-40; 3.17), follows the where but entitled is of royal style Kings Alexander, King, King not only his father's name and his own, but also those of his brothers, who, The position of the royal as has been seen, were all co-opted by Alexander. names besides the reigning sov others the of after style in official documents, the was thus indicative of co-optation (whether royal title be used or ereign, for instance, Bag not) in the fifteenth-century Georgian State.54 Consequently, in II's third son, who received the Principality of Mukhrani rat, Constantine was his co-opted by appanage and never came to the throne of Georgia, but father c. 1488 (as is indicated by the position of the royal style after his name A similar case and in the royal acts), is referred to as King in various epigraphic sources.55 The realm which Constantine II received had already been diminished under of the ex-King of Kings George his predecessor by the secession, inKakhetia, It was now further reduced by the defection, VIII and his successor Alexander. the son Alexander in Imeretia. Meanwhile, final after 1489, of Bagrat VI's

II Bagrat VI was succeeded as King of Kings of Georgia by Constantine all of his sons his co-kings. Beginning with his (1478-1505), who made charter of 1488 (Z 306), the royal style follows the names of both Constantine In that and his sons: David (VIII), George (IX), Bagrat, and Demetrius. eldest the of is entitled while Constantine moreover, Kings, King document, son David is 'King'. This is not, obviously, an exclusive use of the title, but rather another instance of the use of the singular for the plural in Georgian.53

of Meschia, Guria, Mingrelia, Ab separatism of the great Western Duchies the revolt of Bagrat VI in reins been which had and Suania given by khazia,
52 53 Cf. above, chap. I, notes on George VIII and Bagrat VI.

of the royal family to all the members In this way the title patron, though belonging to the eldest of a sovereign's in the singular, (cf. above, chap. I, n.149), was often applied, 'son' (je) the singular of the noun one often finds in the documents sons. What is more, sons. a monarch's of all eldest to the only applied 54 it is, e.g., decisive In his opinion the point combatted is precisely This by Javaxisvili. called patron II is merely (cf. above, nn.50, 53) in his joint charter with that Constantine of both. VI of 1468 (AG 3.20) even though the royal style follows after the names Bagrat in all the cases when to consider as cases of a co-optation have he argues, one would Else,

officialdocuments the royal style followed the names of both the reigning sovereign and his sons,which, to his mind, would be an absurdity; J IV 102-3. Yet this is precisely the
historical sons truth. We have I were seen that Constantine in the very was of Alexander co-opted year a co-king the when of Bagrat VI and that the royal style began Kavkaza to follow

Countess P. S. Uvarov, 'Koblianskoe Uscel'e/ Materiali po Arx. Kavk. 4 (1894) 72-4: the ?
royal

acts. in that King's their names 85 Cf. Ceret'eli, 'Arxeologiceskaa title of Bagrat cf. above, of Muxrani

Progulka

etc.' Materiali

po Arxeologii

7 84-85;

the founderof the branch of the Princes ofMuxrani, the eldest extant line of the Bagratid
dynasty; chap. I, n.190.

evoked

the author's

astonishment

(p. 74).

Bagrat

was

216

TRADITIO

1454-1465, found expression in the severance of all ties connecting these fiefs with the Crown of Georgia.56 Unsuccessful in his efforts to restore the unity of Georgia, Constantine II was obliged to ratify what was now an accomplished fact. He, accordingly, as King of Kakhetia in 1490 and recognized Alexander I, son of George VIII, Alexander II, son of Bagrat VI, as King of Imeretia in 1491 ; and he sanctioned Thus the Partition the independence of at least one of the duchies, Meschia.57 of the United Kingdom of Georgia had taken place. The appanaging in Kakhetia of George upon his elevation to the (VIII) new was a I Alexander co-regency by development in the history of coll?gial one in which and made the Partition possible.59 Super sovereignty Georgia,58 this the of conjunction ficially, Byzantine coll?gial formswith territorial separa tion may seem to bear resemblance to that of the coll?gial imp?rium with as instituted by Diocletian. But in reality this was a re surgence of the idea immanent in the Georgian polity, from beneath the veneer forms assumed in the Middle Ages. It is important, therefore, of Byzantine to examine here this idea and that of the Romano-Byzantine polity. The Roman Empire was a unique polity and evolved a unique political territorial division

ideology. Its chief characteristics were, perhaps, the principle of the unity and imp?rium and that of elective succes indivisibility of the coniunctissimum sion.60 It was only because the deeply ingrained principle of the unity of the Empire and the non-hereditary character of the imperial dignity were ac cepted without question, that there could exist, within that unity, a plurality
56 57 For these fiefs, cf. above, chap. accept I, note chap. I, .99. II. case of George V in Iberia, in 1299 ; cf.

Cf. above, 58 we Unless n.34 (4).

on Constantine

as a precedent

the doubtful

above,

to protect in 1433, Alexander have the future of his third son, may co-kingship sought on the part of who was his first by the second marriage, encroachments against possible his elder half-brothers, him and his eventual of an appanage ? like by assuring posterity of Orl?ans ex that of the Dukes to be sure, as usual in France. The was, co-optation tended only ad personam, longer royal, of succeeding Constantine in appanage, whereas the appanage would have remained in the princely, no course of events, had no prospect of George posterity (who, in the normal can be witnessed to the throne). the same situation in the case of Precisely

59It is quite possible that,upon the elevation of his elder sons (and of George) to the

third son and co-king Bagrat, who was given the Principality of Muxrani in 1512, and whose constituted the house of the Princes of Muxrani, posterity first princes of the blood of Georgia, The choice of the (cf. above, n.55; chap. I, n.190). easternmost of Kakhetia have been determined to remove may province by the desire from any contacts with his mother's where the connection of George heritage, Imeretia, IPs was to the unity of the realm. As we know, this precaution was of Muxrani baton too, that the title of the Princes of no avail. ? It is interesting, an equivalent

local separatismwith the ambition of the Seljukids had only too often proved detrimental e * ; and the earlyKings of Kakhetia were likewise referredto by
(muzran-baton),

of thePalaeologan

sources. that title in some Georgian 60 I 5-7, 16-8. Cf. Bury, History

THE

FIFTEENTH-CENTURY

BAGRATIDS

217

of coequal rulers and even of coequal, parallel, and territorially distinct im perial organizations. The autochthonous Georgian idea of polity was very different. It was one of an hereditary feudal monarchy, sprung from the aboriginal tribal condi tions of Caucasia, under the influence of Hellenistic and Iranian political and cultural forms.61 It was, on the one hand, very much like the medieval Western tribal political idea, born, likewise, of the blending of the Celto-Germanic ways with the political and cultural forms of Rome. Accordingly, the social and political structure of Georgia is strikingly similar to that of medieval Eu architecture resembles Romanesque: rope; exactly as, let us say, Georgian

both being (as Focillon has said, referring to the latter resemblance) the re sults of two different experiments conducted with similar components.62 On the other hand, the Georgian polity found itself mirrored and magnified in that of neighboring Iran, and Armenia. the feudal character of There, too, the Sassanid period resulted from the fusion of two elements: the conditions of the tribal aristocracy under the Achaemenids, and the Hellenistic influences in the Seleucid and the Arsacid period.63 The affinity of Christian Georgia with the rest of Christendom was always outweighed by two rival factors. One was the geographic proximity of heathen of Byzantium, whose polity repre Iran; the other, the cultural ascendancy sented a survival in the Christian world of the pagan Roman State. The seem ing destruction of the Iranian cultural tradition by wholly alien Islam strength

ened Byzantine This influence in Georgia. resulted, among other things, in the superimposition of Byzantine political forms upon the Georgian polity. The subsequent re-emergence of the Iranian culture, after the fury of theMus lim domination had been spent, coincided with the Byzantine decline and en

the Iranian Great King stood vassal kings; under the King of Georgia, local dynasts: princes and dukes, some ruling former kingdoms. The Georgian idea of the King as primus inter pares at the summit of the
61 For Georgian the preface N. Adone', feudalism, cf. Bross?t, Etudes Introduction lxv-lxvi; Allen, History chaps. 19,

couraged the revival of the kindred political forms peculiar to Georgia. Both Iran and Georgia were feudal confederacies. The King of Kings of Iran ruled over a number of vassal kingdoms; the King of Kings of Georgia ? ? seven confederated kingdoms.64 The unity reigned over the traditionally of such a polity reposed on feudal subordination and hierarchization. Under

21, 22. 62 In 63 Cf.

to J. BaltruSaitis, Armenia Epoxu

sur Vart m?di?val 383; R.

en G?orgie Kherumian,

et en Arm?nie d'une

(Paris 1930).
Yustiniana

f?odalit? oubli?e/ Vostan 1 (1948-1949) 7-56; A. Christensen, L'Iran sous les Sassanides
(2nd 64

'Esquisse

either the title of Sahansah was counted as distinct from that of King of Armenia, or it was remembered that the Kingdom of Kakhetia, annexed by David II, was originallyOf
Kakhetia and Heret'i.'

Bross?t,

ed. Copenhagen 1944) 15-27, cf. 510-4. Introduction Code lxv; Karst,

g?org.:

Comment.

220;

cf. above,

n.28:

218

TRADITIO

? feudal hierarchy had less in common with the Byzantine conception of an at least theoretically ? elective and autocratic Caesar than with the Iranian or, a fortiori, with theWestern idea of the monarch. However, the growing royal power in Georgia's Golden Age became, to the detriment of feudalism, subject to the influence of the Byzantine autocratic ideology. Georgia's drifting into the Cerularian schism rendered that influence all the more powerful. Yet the ideology of 'New Rome' was never fully realized there, because of its incompatibility with local conceptions. Nevertheless, its influence was powerful enough to change the outward form, at least, of the Georgian mon archy; to the extent, for instance, of an introduction of the Byzantine system of autocratic coll?gial sovereignty. But, since the unique Romano-Byzantine polity could not be transplanted on the feudal soil of Georgia, that form, devoid of con tent, remained dangerously empty.

The resurgent local political idea, aided by regional separatism and dynastic ambition, filled that form. When Alexander I co-opted his younger son and, at the same time, appanaged him in the former kingdom of Kakhetia, he .acted, not so much like a Roman Emperor setting up several parallel imperial organ izations, as like a Great King of Iran sending one of his sons to be the vassal king of, let us say, Armenia or Atropatene. Iran could afford appanaging younger sons in vassal kingdoms, because the of rank and the incommensurability of king and Great King the guaranteed unity of the empire. Rome could afford to have several co or because of the theoretical equal rulers imperial organizations, co-equal indivisibility of the Empire and the non-hereditary character of the imperial dignity. Georgia, a smaller political unit, was able to maintain the unity of her federated realm so long as the subordination of feudatory to king subsisted. subordination

in the fifteenth century, the Byzantine coll?gial form, emptied of the Roman tradition of elective monarchy and indivisible empire, and unaided by the slight titulary distinctions between senior and junior colleagues, was a syncretism of political traditions superimposed on the Georgian polity?: which resulted in the coexistence of several kings in a kingdom whose own But

conceptions, and in dynastic and feudal tradition was alien to the Roman which the subordination of kings to the King of Kings, effective under Iranian Thus the disruption of the United King conditions, could not be maintained. dom of Georgia was inevitable. system of coll?gial sovereignty, as adopted by the Bagratid dynasty, it easy for the energetic George VIII to usurp the royal power from his elder and apparently fain?ant brother Demetrius III: he had merely to ex The and their titles, King

made

Upon Demetrius' death, Bagrat VI in Imeretia, where separatist tendencies had long flourished under the Seljukids; and, a decade later, he supplanted George on the Georgian throne. His triumph was due largely to the support he VIII One usurpation, then, begat rose as an avenging anti-king

change their respective roles of co-king and king-regnant and King of Kings. another.

THE

FIFTEENTH-CENTURY

BAGRATIDS

219

had received from the five Western Dukes in exchange for a recognition of their independence. In this way the realm had already suffered diminution. in the case of George Now, the conjunction of co-kingship with appanage, The loss of the unavoidable. VIII, made his subsequent secession inKakhetia Georgian throne no longer meant the loss of the royal dignity; nor the loss of the Georgian kingship, the loss of a kingdom. The co-optation, moreover, of his son Alexander, while George was still King of Kings, assured the legal succession even after George's death. continuity of the Kakhetian

The King of Kings Constantine II, succeeding Bagrat VI, found himself and the recalcitrance of theWestern Dukes, weakened by the loss of Kakhetia as well as harassed by external enemies,65 and thus unable to cope with the son of Bagrat VI, true to the con separatism of Imeretia, where Alexander, ception that the royal dignity should be hereditary, had rebelled as anti-king. the facility of co-optation and the precedent of its conjunction with sons of the two to recognize the two Alexanders, led Constantine as of of Imeretia; of Kakhetia and Georgia, Kings usurping Kings-regnant but what he no doubt envisaged as another, temporary extension of appanaged collegiality, proved to be the ratification of a permanent partition of the realm. The fact of appanaged collegiality might at least have been tantamount to a reversion to the system of dynastic condominium as practiced by the early Finally, appanage

Georgian Bagratids,66 had only the unity of the dynasty subsisted to bind the plurality of crowns; but the dynastic strife had rent even that unity.67 The Partition of Georgia, thus, occurred almost imperceptibly, in the course of the fifteenth century, through the introduction of a foreign constitutional development and its relation to the local political conceptions and separatist tendencies. A fatal step towards the disaster was taken, albeit unwittingly, one of his co-kings in one of by Alexander I the Great, when he appanaged his kingdoms; and so the traditional ascription to him of the act of Partition

s.v. Tiflis' Cf. Allen, History enemies were 758. The 138; Minorsky, Encycl. of Islam and his son Sultan Ya'q?b. the Aq-Qoyulu chieftains, Uz?n-Hasan 66 of Asot the posterity the Great, of Iberia until the Among (813-829), Curopalates unification of Bagrat III (978-1014). 67 of Alexander I of Kakhetia and Constantine The relations II may give an indication

65

that somethingvery vaguely like dynastic condominium existed during the reigns of these twomonarchs. In his chartersof Jan. 23 and 24, 1479 (Z 300-1 and 301), 1503 (Z 319), and 1505 (Z 325; 3.42) the formerentitles himselfmerely King; thiswas no doubt due to an accord with Constantine, which found it legal expression in the Treaty of 1490; J IV 139.
the Imeretian rulers last king, Solomon is more, Constantine never ? from the final instalment to regard themselves II ? ceased II appears to have been of Alexander II to the as Kings of Kings to abandon constrained reign of Georgia. Formula D

But What

of the

of the royal style (cf. above, n.28) after his treatywith Alexander of Imeretia in 1491; J IV 138.Thus the old geopolitical dichotomy of Georgia appeared anew. Cf. Introduction
lxxxiv.

220
stands

TRADITIO

in a way vindicated.68 It remains to add, by way of an epilogue, that, its nefarious role once accomplished, the Byzantine practice of coll?gial sov ereignty passed out of the polity of a disrupted Georgia. Georgetown University.

68J IV 94-9 VaxuSt refuted that ; notion, but it had arisen soon after the Partition, for in 1589King Alexander II ofKakhetia told the Russion Ambassador, Prince Zvenigorod skiy that the unity of Georgia had been broken into three kingdoms by his forefather; S. B?lokurov, SnoSeni? Rossii s Kavkazom I (Moscow 1889) 169-70. The statement from
the Hist. Alex. I. referred to above (chap. I, n.90) has been often interpreted in that sense.

Anti-kings Alexander I Imeretia 1387-1389 of Constantine II Imeretia 1396-1401 of George I1389-1392 Imeretia of

(VI) Bagrat in Imeretia 1454-1465

(VIII) George I Kakhetia of 1466-1476 Alexander I Kakhetia of 1476-1490

Alexander II in Imeretia 1478-1479,

1484-1487, 1488-1491

George (VIII) Kakhetia in [Bagrat 1433-1466 1445?] Georgia, Imeretia of in

(1490-1511) I Alexander (1491-1510) II

Kings The United Georgia, 1490-1491 of before Table The Chronological Kings op in the op Georgia the Fifteenth Century

Kakhetia Imeretia Georgia, The Kings Kakhetia, of 1490 the Imeretia 1491 Treaties and after of and

(I Bagrat Mukhrani) of 1488 c.

Co-kings George (VII) 1369-1395 (I) Alexander 1408-1412 c. Demetrius (III) 1433-1446 Vakhtang (IV) 1433-1442 (II) Constantine 1465-1478 c. (VIII) David 1488-1505 c. Alexander c. 1460-1478 (IX) George 1488 c. Bagrat 1408 c. George c. 1408 Zaal 1433

Demetrius 1488 c.

Kings-regnant de de (1446-1465) facto (1446-1453) (1465-1478) Constantine II (1478-1505) Bagrat VI

(Iberia) Georgia

(1478-1505) II Constantine

Bagrat V Great the

Alexander the I Great jure (1442-1446) (1395-1405) Demetrius III (1360-1395) Constantine I (1405-1412) (1412-1442) Vakhtang IV George VIII George VII