The Isaurian Nomos Stratiotikos in the Legal System of Cilician Armenia

Full text

Azat Bozoyan
The Isaurian Nomos Stratiotikos
in the Legal System of Cilician Armenia
To the blessed memory of Ludwig Burgmann,
Byzantine scholar
Introduction:
Two Drivers of 12th Century Armenian Law
The second half of the 12th century is marked by the appearance of two great personal-
ities shining in the firmament of Armenian literature and legal thinking. Each of them
served the Armenian Church and made a huge contribution to the development of Ar-
menian public thought. These two near-contemporary authors are Nerses of Lambron
(1150–1198) and Mxitar Goš (1130/40s?–1213). Both were ministers of Armenian Church
who shone as authors and cressets of legal thought in the second half of the 12th century.
The former passed his short life in Cilicia and North Syria, received education at the
spiritual centres of the Skevra monastery situated near the fortress of Lambron in the
Taurus Mountains and later at the Holy See of Hromkla, reached the highest holy orders
of archbishop of Tarse in Armenian Church hierarchy, and was sent to Constantinople
as an envoy; the latter was born and received primary education in the city of Gandzak,
Shakashen district of Utik (Gandzak) province of Greater Armenia (presently Ghyanja,
Azerbaijan), continued his education in Cilicia and Trans-Euphratia, then passed into
spiritual and religious work in Gandzak under direction of Step
anos, Catholicos of Alba-
nia (Ałuank’ oder Arc
ax), before later serving in Desert of Dasn under the patronage of
Vaxt
ang, prince of Hat
erk
. At the end of the 1180s he moved to the monastery of Getik
1I followed the scholarly activity of Ludwig Burgmann with admiration. Beginning in 1987 I participat-
ed in the conferences dedicated to the reception of Byzantine law organized by Ludwig Burgmann and
Dieter Simon in Yerevan, Tbilisi and Bavaria. In the 1990s I was invited several times by Ludwig Burg-
mann for visits of several months at the Institute of the History of Medieval European Law in Frankfurt
am Main, preparing the critical edition of the Armenian translation of the byzantine “Military Con-
stitution”. I also participated in the publication of the “Bibliographie zur Rezeption des byzan tinischen
Rechts im alten Russland sowie zur Geschichte des armenischen und georgischen Rechts” by Ludwig
Burgmann and Hubert Kaufhold (Burgmann/Kaufhold [1992] 89–185). I also enjoyed the warm hos-
pitality of Ludwig and his family. Those memories accompany me to this day.
2In more detail see Akinean (1956).
3In more detail see Voskean (1926) 123–192; comp. Mxitar (1975) VII–XLII, Mxitar (2000) 16–20.
4Augé (2011) 257–267.
5Location unknown.
Open Access. © 2024 bei den Autor*innen, pub liziert von De Gruyter. Dieses Werk ist lizenziert unter einer
Creative Commons Namensnennung – Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 4.0 International Lizenz.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111331126-006

64 Azat Bozoyan
and, after the disastrous earthquake of 1191, he founded the monastery of Nor Getik
(presently Gošavank
) in Kayen (presently Tavuš) province and was the prior of that
hermitage to the end of his life.
It is worth noting that the forefather of Nerses of Lambron, Oshin– ancestor of the
Hetumyan princely family– moved to Cilicia in the 70s of the 11th century, most probably
from his estate of Mayreac
 urk
 (or Mayrēur), located in the district of Vaykunik
 (ac-
cording to “Ašxarhac
uyc
”), Arc
ax province of Great Armenia, which is mentioned both
in Armenian annals and in epigraphy.
We should also emphasize that the spiritual and literary activities of Nerses of Lam-
bron greatly contributed to the international recognition of Cilician Armenian state-
hood, while Mxit
ar Goš contributed to the formation of the Zakarian principality within
the boundaries of the Georgian kingdom and to the strengthening of the hierarchical
structure of the Armenian Church in Eastern Sides. Both Nerses of Lambron and Mxit
ar
Goš are known in Armenian Literature as authors of programmatic literary works of
different genres (history, commentarie, interpretation, apology, epistle, ecclesiastical
canons, fable, homilie, etc.). Both authors made a huge contribution in the devel-
opment of legal thought in Armenia. The most important contribution of Nerses of
Lambron were his translations of Byzantine (Ecloga privata with its addenda Nomos
stratiotikos, Nomos Mosaikos, etc), Syriac (Syrian-Roman Code Book, Sententiae Syriacae
[Kurze Sammlung]) and Latin (Procedure of the King’s Anointment, Benedictine Rule, etc.)
secular and canonic legal treatises, which he methodically made with the assistance of
the native clergymen– Syrian (Bar Vahbun), Greek (Constantin of Hierapolis) and Latin
(Kilam). One of the most important motives for translating these works was creating
equal legal conditions for the main Christian groups within the multinational Cilician
Armenian state.
The most important accomplishment of Mxit
ar Goš in the field of law was his com-
pendium The Book of Law, representing a generalization of the centennial Armenian
legal thought in the field of canonical and secular jurisprudence. Both Nerses’s trans-
lations of legal treatises and The Book of Law by Mxit
ar were copied in numerous manu-
scripts, this being the best proof of demand in the Armenian milieu. Appearance of the
mentioned works by both authors was connected with the orders of the Catholicos of
6See the biography of Mxit
ar Gosh in Bozoyan (2014) 63–68.
7See Samouel (2014) 195.
8For a comprehensive examination of all sources mentioning the place name, see Hakobyan (2020)
263–266, 269–270.
9On the literary heritage of Nerses of Lambron, see Akinean (1956). The literary heritage of Mxit
ar
Goš is published under my editorship in two volumes of the “Matenagirk
 Hayoc
” series (Mxitar [2014]).
10See Akinean (1956) 247, 265, 269, 287; Bozoyan (2010) 278–280.
11See Mxitar (2014). See the English translation of the Book of Law in Mxitar (2000).

The Isaurian Nomos Stratiotikos in the Legal System of Cilician Armenia 65
All Armenians Grigor IV Tła and the Catholicos of Albania Step
anos. This means that
creation and development of legal treatises in Armenian was from the very beginning
a matter of national importance for the Church. The Book of Law, being the most com-
plete compilation of the Armenian legal thought, was built into the basis of the court
procedures everywhere in Armenia and, after being redacted by Smbat Sparapet (the
Constable) 1260s, constituted the foundation of the official jurisprudence in the Cilician
Armenian state. Nerses’s translations, for their part, were used as addenda, which often
expanded the boundaries of The Book of Law’s applicability. This is why the Ecloga
by Nerses and The Book of Law by Mxit
ar were permanently copied into a number
of versatile legal compendia and completely translated during the Late Medieval or
New period into Kipchak, Latin, Polish, Georgian and Russian. Together, these writings
comprise an instrument that governed the administration of justice in the Armenian
colonies on the one side, and the Code of Law officially recognized as governing legal
procedures in the Armenian communities of Genoan Crimea, Rzech Rzeczpospolita,
Poland, Georgia and Russia on the other.
The Holy See of Homkla and the Military
After the fall of the Bagratid Kingdom, the Byzantine Empire spared no efforts to
make the Armenian nobles with their regiments and the Holy See with its Patriarch
move away from the borders of the invaded Armenian state. A significant number of
princely families and their regiments resettled in Cappadocia, North Syria and Cilicia,
while the Catholicosate that had initially moved to Sebastia continued looking for a
better residence, moving then to Tavblur, Camndav, Honi, Maraš, and later to Karmir
Vank
 of K
esun, the fortress of Cov, before finally establishing itself in Homkla. The
patriarchs of the Pahlavuni dynasty, who took the patriarchal power in their hands in
these troublesome times, with the support of other noble families managed to over-
come numerous hardships and build a rather dynamic hierarchical system. Armenian
clergy headed by the Armenian Patriarchy assumed responsibility for coordinating the
national institutions and the role of arbiter in sharpening disputes between various
12Nerses of Lambron translated these legal treatises by order of Catholicos Grigor IV Tła (see Kauf-
hold [1997] 7–8), while the customers of Mxit
ar Goš were the Catholicos of Albania Stephanos and the
Catholicos of All Armenia Grigor IV Tła (see Mxitar [2014] 96–99, 134–135).
13On the main manuscripts of the Book of Law, see Bozoyan (2014) 71–79; and on compendia of Nerses’s
translations of legal treatises, see Kaufhold (1997) 20–72.
14See the bibliography of translations of these works and their public significance in the mentioned
countries in Burgmann/Kaufhold (1992) 162–171; Bozoyan (2020) 176–177; Haroutyunyan (2020) 321–342.
15See Juzbašjan (1988) 117–174.
16See Ormanean (1912) col. 1245, 1263, 1277–1278, 1296–1299, 1311–1316, 1327, 1335, 1349–1350, 1355–1357,
1374–1376.

66 Azat Bozoyan
principalities, and insofar as in the 12th century the Catholicosate was located in the cas-
tle of Homkla in TransEuphratia, adjacent to Cilicia, the initiatives aimed at solving the
problems most important for the spiritual and cultural life of the Armenian population
came from there. Such a mighty signal was the Universal Letter [T
uł ěndhanrakan]
of Nerses Šnorhali, sent to all congregations, in which the Armenian Catholicos admon-
ished
…nous soyons guéris de nos maladies spirituelles et que nos sens affaiblis soient fortifies. S’il y a
une poutre devant nos yeux qui nous aveugle, que nous la retirions d’abord pour être capable de
voir la paille des autres et l’enlever!
Applying to all classes of the population– the priesthood (monks, priors, bishops and
priests), princes, farmers, merchants, artisans and women – after admonishing the
princes, the Catholicos of All Armenians addressed separately the military and its role
in the society: “To the military estate: riders and infantry”, soldiers who were at the dis-
posal of the princely states in Armenia Proper, Cilicia, North Syria and Egypt. By plac-
ing the military after the princes and before officials (governors, agents, landlords– ta-
nuters), Nerses Šnorhali emphasized their importance in the life of Armenian society.
In both Proper Armenia and in Cilicia the military was one of the most honoured
social estates. According to Šnorhali’s social scale, the military came third after clergy
and aristocracy. By applying in turns to all mentioned estates of Armenian society,
Šnorhali set appropriate rules for moral and spiritual behavior. The mentioned epistle
of Nerses Šnorhali contains his vision for the structure of the Armenian society, where
the Armenian Catholicos reserved a special place for a) the clergy (black and white);
b) princes, high ranking officials and the military; and c) merchants, artisans (urban
population) and farmers.
The Catholicos urged the servicemen to obey their master even if they were not
fully repaid by the latter, because they would be rewarded by God for their merit. He
urged that they not conspire whether by word or deed against their master, his fortress
or property, as this would be perceived by God as injury done against himself, because
those who do wrong have no faith and represent more evil than the faithless who are
17See Bozoyan (1988) 219–220.
18Nerses (1995) 72, comp. Vanérian (2007) 284.
19Nerses (1995) 53, 153–155. It should be emphasized that, as a public institution, the Holy See in
Homkla had its own military garrison (see Danielyan [2019] 184–199, 199–266; Danielyan [2020] 34–35).
20Nerses (1995) 53.
21Interesting parallels to such a perception of society in Cilician Armenia are found in popular lit-
erature of the 11th to 12th centuries in France and Europe, which were thoroughly and consistently inves-
tigated by French medievist and historian George Duby in his famous monograph The Three Orders:
Feudal Society Imagined(1978). SeeDuby (1978) 277–298. Notably, Nerses Šnorhali marks out women as
a separate order, which is unparalleled in Western European or Byzantine thought. See Nerses (1995)
161–162, comp. also with Winkelmann (1978) 161–224.

The Isaurian Nomos Stratiotikos in the Legal System of Cilician Armenia 67
obedient and loyal to their masters even though they err in true faith and divine laws.
The abovementioned referred not only to Christians but also to the faithless (= Muslims)
under whose command (the Fatimids and the Seljuks) the Armenian military served at
the time:
Mais si un chrétien est sous la souveraineté d’un musulman (= aylazgwoy) et qu’il se nourrit et
s’habille de ce qu’il reçoit de lui, il faut qu’il lui montre la même fidélitéet qu’il le serve sanshypo-
crisie.
Šnorhali corroborated this postulate by quoting St. Paul’s: “Slaves, obey your masters”
(Colossians3, 22). Here the Catholicos commented upon the Apostle’s words, saying:
“…the masters of the servants were not Christians, but idolaters.” According to
Šnorhali, the Apostle had tried to show the pagans the truth of Christian faith, since
Christians hate guile before the Lord and love being faithful to him. According to
Šnorhali, the Apostle said this so that the pagans could not abuse the Christian religion,
as they could whenever they found a Christian in a state of treachery against them.
In this section, the Catholicos equated pagans and Muslims, thus re-directing St Paul’s
admonition to the Muslims. Reference to this postulate was dictated by the abundance
of Armenian servicemen in Byzantine, Georgian, Seljuk and Fatimid armies. The best
example of it comes from Fatimid Egypt of the 11th to 12th centuries, where Catholicos
Grigor Vkayaser founded an Armenian diocese headed by bishops and the commander
of the Armenian forces, Vahram, achieved the highest rank. No such attitude towards
Muslims existed in Armenian literature until Šnorhali. This change was connected to
the role the Armenian military played in foreign armies, which helped the Catholicosate
occupy a relatively stable place in international relations.
Catholicos Nerses also called upon the senior servicemen to be just towards their
subordinates, that they not mercilessly oppress the poor, be satisfied with whatever
was due to them, and be compassionate and loving towards everybody. He admonished
them not to neglect God’s Commandments, not to breach the holy fast by the unlawful
appropriation of paupers’ property and by shedding the blood of innocents. According
to Catholicos Nerses, a soldier may kill only during war, by king’s order, since on the Day
of Judgment God will judge the deeds of each soldier without favoritism, and each sol-
dier will answer for any illegal confiscation from the poor and for property stolen from
his master. According to Catholicos, the soldiers of all believers should be most afraid
22See Nerses (1995) 53, 153–155.
23Nerses (1995) 154; Vanérian (2007) 341.
24Nerses (1995) 154; Vanérian (2007) 341.
25Nerses (1995) 154.
26On the history of the Armenian colony in Egypt see: Dadoyan (1997) 80–178, comp. Dadoyan (2013)
65–143; Danielyan (2020) 160–161.
27Nerses (1995) 155.

68 Azat Bozoyan
of the wrath of Godand should therefore keep the commandments, since they could
any time face the unsheathed swords of the enemy. For that very reason, he advised the
military to be guided by godliness, justice, piety, fasts, prayers and mercy rather than by
earthly arms, so that God could forestall and prevent and force the enemy to retreat.
With such fighting squads the Zak
aride princes led their subordinates to war by
the order of the Georgian king. In Armenia too the feods of Armenian princes were
defended by fighting forces of the local princes. On the other hand, while trying to ac-
commodate to the political power of the Seljuks that occupied their land, the Armenian
principalities preserved at the territory of the Bagratid kingdom collaborated with the
Georgian kingdom to strengthen their own sovereignty.
No matter how hard Nerses Šnorhali tried to consolidate the legal field, the con-
ceptions of the Catholicos when looking at the Armenian world through the windows
of Homkla could not be the same as those of the Armenian clergy and ruling order
in Proper Armenia, which came to discord year after year. A witness to this was the
long-lasting dispute between the priesthoods of North Armenia and Cilicia continuing
throughout the 12th and 13th centuries, accompanied by exchange of correspondence and
councils convened in Cilicia and Ani. This discord, and differing concepts of the North
Armenian archimandrites, were mentioned in Lambronaci’s letter addressed to prince
Levon Rubinean in 1193/4 AD, where he warned:
Les gens de Tzoro’ked nous détournent des Latins, et vous aussi, et ne veulent pas que nous adop-
tions leurs coutumes, mais celles des Perses, au’ milieu desquels ils vivent et don’t ils vivent et don’t
ils ont pris les usages.
The Dzoragetians mentioned by Nerses of Lambron comprised the Armenian clergy of
the Gugark
 region bordering Georgia, the center of which was the monastery of Hałpat.
Reference to the Military’s Problems
in the Book of Law by Mxit
ar Goš
The first ever Armenian compendium of civic law– the Book of Law by Mxit
ar Goš–
was created in Northern Armenia under the auspices of the Zak
aride princedom, most
probably in 1184. Of special importance is the preamble of that code, where the author
discusses the issues of legal theory and practical enforcement of the laws, which set
28Nerses (1995) 155.
29On the importance of these letters, see: Mnac’Akanyan (1972) 50–52, comp. also with Muradyan
(2011); Melikset-Bek (2016); Bozoyan (2021) 73–78.
30RHC (1869) 597.
31Mxitar (2014) 70–71.

The Isaurian Nomos Stratiotikos in the Legal System of Cilician Armenia 69
the comprehensive basis for Armenian law. Reminding the reader that, according to
the church canon, ecclesiastical councils should be convened twice a year in all con-
gregations and catholicosates, Mxit
ar Goš suggested putting the acts of such councils
into circulation, thus expanding his Code.
In his Book of Law, Mxit
ar Goš dealt with the military and military sciences in 11
articles. Some of these articles (Redaction A, Ch.2) referred to the problem of distribu-
ting the trophies and prisoners of war following battle, according to which, if the king
was personally participating in the hostilities, both the trophies and prisoners belonged
to him, but if he did not participate, the king should be given only gold and the tenth
part of the trophies and prisoners. A ninth part of the trophies should go to church.
Money and standards should be given to the master of the district and fortress, silver
to princes, copper and iron to their troops. Brocade and silk should go to king, smart
wool and fine linen to princes, rug and denim to the troops. If the troops attacked
the enemy or his property by order of the commander, they should give half of the
loot to the commander, but if they acted on their own, they were not obliged to share
their trophies with anyone. The commander was not responsible for the death of a
soldier during the war (Redaction A, 222). The soldier should not buy arms at his own
expense, just as clergy eat gratis from the Church table (Ch.40). It is worth noting that
the commander could not take newlywed men to war (Ch.123). Following John the
Baptist, the legislator recommended the soldiers do no more than ordered (Ch.220).
In Article 225, Mxit
ar Goš refers to the Byzantine Kliterologion and lists several types of
guards at the royal court (vestitor, kantitor, proxetor, eskopotir, strator, decanion, kyrsor,
etc). Chapter220 of the Book of Law provides information about the social status of
soldiers, establishing that the azats (freeborn) cannot exhort the soldiers but can only
remove them from their ranks. Likewise, the soldiers cannot exile or scold the villagers
(shinakan), etc. The abovementioned shows that Mxit
ar did not take into consideration
numerous peculiarities connected with soldiering. Although the military was referred
to in a number of articles, the Book of Law contained no specific articles concerning
their status, rights and responsibilities.
32Mxitar (2014) 89–135.
33Mxitar (2014) 131–132.
34Mxitar (2014) 140–152, especially 147.
35Mxitar (2014) 148.
36Mxitar (2014) 147.
37Mxitar (2014) 189.
38Mxitar (2014) 248.
39Comp. Luke3, 13.
40See Mxitar (2014) 343–352; Bartikjan (1989) 201; Bartikjan (1991) 255–257, comp. Bury (1911) 20–23.

70 Azat Bozoyan
As earlier in the case of Canon law, Mxit
ar Goš called for filling this gap in his Code:
Accordingly, it is fitting for the same to happen to the details of this lawcode, that as often as some
new situation occurs, it too should be scrutinised and included in the lawcode, after the laws have
been made and studied. If anyone were to consider this, he would find all the books gradually
coming to completion at various times, whether by one person or by many– just as the Book of
Genesis was written by Moses not all at once and not at a single time; and the [book] of the twelve
prophets not by one person and not at one time.
Thus, Mxit
ar did not consider his work fully completed:
In accordance with the model of these just demonstrated, so too should be the undertaking of this
text. Whether by us and not at one time, or by many and at various different times, let there be
authority to complete only what is lacking, by accurate examination and irreproachable laws.
So, delivering his book to the favour of All Armenian Catholicos Grigor Tła, Mxit’ar Goš
acknowledged that it was not complete and called for its completion with new articles
by any interested persons, and especially ecclesiastical councils yet to be convened.
As we see, the amendments should also refer to the secular or civil legislation to be
completed by further judicial acts in the course of time. It was that very important mes-
sage of Mxit’ar, which Nerses of Lambron tried to follow by means of translation, that
expanded the legal field of Cilician Armenia.
The Significance of Translating the Monuments
of Isaurian Legislation for Strengthening the Role
of the Military
The importance of the military, strongly emphasized by Nerses Šnorhali, motivated
Nerses of Lambron, who, at the end of the 12th century undertook to translate the monu-
ment of the 8th century Byzantine law– the Ecloga and its Addenda, specifically Nomos
Stratiotikos (“The Military Law”), from Greek to Armenian.
By this translation, Nerses of Lambron attempted to complete the Armenian Book
of Law and the legal landscape of Cilicia with Byzantine laws and regulations governing
military behavior that were missed in the Book of Law by Mxit’ar Goš.
These products of Nerses Lambronaci’s legal activity were directly connected to
the law of the Isaurian dynasty period. Lambronaci’s Armenian translation of one of
41Mxitar (2014) 343–352; comp. Mxitar (2000) 103–104. Continuing his idea, the author refers to the
Bible, specifically the Gospels and the letters of St. Paul, which are the base of the dogma.
42See on it in Mxitar (1975) XLVI–XLVIII; See Mxitar (2014) 132; comp. Mxitar (2000) 104.

The Isaurian Nomos Stratiotikos in the Legal System of Cilician Armenia 71
the redactions of the Byzantine Ecloga private, along with a number of its Addenda
(Nomos Mosaikos, novels of Emperor Justinian and Queen Irene, Relation Degrees Kin-
ship with its explanation), was made in 1196–1198 from a worn Greek manuscript kept
at the fortress of Lulua. The Ecloga included articles referring to civil, judicial and crim-
inal law as well as some notable articles concerning the military. Numerous Greek
manuscripts of that redaction, dating back to the 11th–13th centuries, prove that in the
Komnenos period this redaction was the most important instrument governing the set-
tlement of legal disputes within the boundaries of the Byzantine Empire.
Most probably this group of documents had long been in circulation in the region
of Cilicia and other Armenian principalities in the region subjected to the Byzantine
Empire, where it served as a guide for such principalities as well as for the princes of
the Rubenid and Hetumid dynasties. A witness to the application of these treatises in
the Armenian milieu are the preserved Armenian manuscripts, many of which bear the
traces of later redactions or commentaries aimed at facilitating Late Medieval readers’
understanding of obscure expressions and foreign concepts and terms unintelligible or
strange to Armenians.
In the 12th century, the military became one of the most important estates both in Cil-
icia and in Proper Armenia. This social stratum, alongside the aristocracy, had a special
place in the life of Armenian society. The military was the main fighting force, organized
in squads that were mobilized by Armenian nobility far from their homeland to defend
the interests of the Armenian population living in Cappadocia, Cilicia and North Syria.
Armenian military forces in these regions had been gradually consolidating around the
Rubinide principality, which succeeded by the 1170s in establishing dominance over the
main feudal families in Cilicia and North Syria. In case of war, these families with their
squads had to appear before the Prince of Cilicia Levon Rubinide (1185–1198). The feudal
state emerging in Cilicia tried to imitate a number of functions of the Byzantine and the
crusader system of state governance, where the most important role was assigned to
the army and the armed forces were the integral part of the nobility. By translating the
Byzantine eclogue and its addendum, Nerses of Lambron attempted to complete the Ar-
menian Book of Laws, as well as to create rules for the Armenian nobility to manage the
defense structures of the Cilician state. His translation included 56 articles regulating
army relations as shown in table 1, the Armenian translation of the 12th century did not
quite correspond to any of the three published Greek redactions of Nomos Stratiotikos
known to us until present. Partial correspondence of Lambronaci’s translation to the
structure and subject of articles contained in the original Byzantine legal texts suggests
43Ecloga (1983); comp. Martin-Hisard (1988–1989) 146–148; Humphreys (2015) 81–93. See also Hum-
phreys (2015) 125–127; Ecloga (2017) 13–21.
44Kaufhold (1997) 16–19.
45See also Humphreys (2015) 125–127; Ecloga (2017) 13–21.
46Ecloga (1983).

72 Azat Bozoyan
that Lambronaci’s translation was made either from some unknown Greek version of
Nomos Stratiotikos, or was subject to processing by Nerses of Lambron for adapting it
to Armenian reality. However, to resolve this riddle we would need a close scrutiny of
all available Armenian and Byzantine legal manuscripts in total.
Table 1: The table illustrates that the Armenian translation of the 12th century did not quite correspond to
any of the three published Greek redactions of the Nomos Stratiotikos known to us until present.
Armenian text Zachariä v. Lingenthal  Ashburner  Korzenszky 
   
  + 
   
   –
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
 aaa
 bbb
   
   
 a (?) (?) (?)
 b (?) (?) (?)
 –  
 (?) (?) (?)
   
   (?)
 – (?) –
 (?) – –
 (?)  –
 –  
 –  
 – – –
 , (?)  (?)
 –  
   
   
47See Basmajean (1902) 321–323.
48See Zachariä von Lingenthal (1894) 450–453, Russian translation cf. Kučma (1971) c. 276–283.
49See Ashburner (1926) 75–79.
50See Korzenszky (1931) II, 80–879.

The Isaurian Nomos Stratiotikos in the Legal System of Cilician Armenia 73
Armenian text Zachariä v. Lingenthal  Ashburner  Korzenszky 
 –  (?)
 –  
 – a
 – a–
 – b–
 – c–
 –  
   
   
 –  
   
 (?)  
   
 (?) (?) –
   –
   
   –
  – 
   
 –  –
   –
 a– 
  b,  –
   –
Summary
The study of the Military Law and the Book of Law by Mxit’ar Goš, along with other mon-
uments of Armenian Law, may enable the Armenologists to make an in-depth analysis
of the role the military played in Medieval Armenian society, picking out peculiarities
specific to Armenian military service in various countries of the Near East. Such studies
are extremely important for clarifying and investigating their role in medieval feudal
society of Armenia.
Acknowledgments
The research was performed within the auspices of research project 21T-6A286, ap-
proved by the Science Committee of the Republic of Armenia.

74 Azat Bozoyan
Bibliography
Akinean (1956): P.Nerses Akinean,
Ներսէս
Լամբրոնացի արքեպիսկոպոս Տարսոնի․ կեանքն եւ գրական
վաստակները, հանդերձ ազգաբանութեամբ Պահլաւունեաց եւ Լամբրոնի Հեթմեանց, Վիեննա,
Մխիթարեան տպարան
[Archbishop of Tarson Nerses of Lambron: life and literary legacy, together
with a geniology of the Hetumids and Pahlavids of Lambron] (National Library 179), Vienna.
Ashburner (1926): William Ashburner, “The Byzantine Mutiny Act”, in: The Journal of Hellenic Studies 46/1
80–109. (repr. in: Ioannes and Panagiotes Zepos [eds.], Περὶ στρατιωτικῶν ἐπιτιμιῶν. Leges imperatorum
Isaurorum et Macedonum II.A [Jus Graecoromanum], Aalen 1962, 75–79).
Augé (2011): Isabelle Augé, Églises en dialogue: Arméniens et Byzantins dans la seconde moitié du XIIe siècle
(Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium 633– Subsidia 124),Louvain.
Bartikjan (1989): Hrach Bartikjan, “        
  [On the Byzantine clitorology in Mkhitar Gosh’s Trial and its Armenian trans-
lation]”, in: Journal of History and Philology 3, 197–204.
Bartikjan (1991): Hrach Bartikjan, “Βυζντινο κλητορλγιο στν Κδικα το ρενου νοικο Mkhithar
Goš (†1213)”, in: Nikolaos Oikonomides (ed.), Το Βυζάντιο κατά τον 12o Αιώνα: Κανονικό Δίκαιο, Κράτος καί
Κοινωνία (Diptycha Etaireias Byzantinon kai Metabyzantinon Meleton 3), Athens, 239–259.
Basmajean (1902): Karapet Basmajean, “
Զինուարական օրէնք Ներսիսի Լամբրոնացւոյ
[Military law book of
Nersis of Lambron]”, in: Banaser 4/11, 321–323.
Bozoyan (1988): Azat Bozoyan,
Բյուզանդիայի արևելյան քաղաքականությունը և կիլիկյան Հայաստանը
ԺԲ դարի
30–70-
ական թվականներին
[Eastern policy of Byzantium and Cilician Armenia in the 30s–
70s of the 12th century], Yerevan.
Bozoyan (1997): Azat Bozoyan, “   ‘ ’ [Ancient
Armenian translation of the Byzantine ‘Military Law’]”, in: Herald of Social Sciences 3, 108–116.
Bozoyan (2010): Azat Bozoyan, “
Այլազգի թարգմանիչները հայ մատենագրության մեջ
[Foreign translators
in Armenian Literature]”, in: Gagik Ter-Vardanyan (ed.), Levon Khatchikyan: 90 Materials of the Inter-
national Conference dedicated to the ninetieth Anniversy of the founding director of Matenadaran (Yerevan,
October 9–11, 2008), Yerevan, 273–282.
Bozoyan (2014): Azat Bozoyan, “
Մխիթար Գոշը և նրա տեղը Հայոց մատենագրության մեջ
” [Mxit’ar Goš
and his Place in Armenian Literature], in: Azat Bozoyan (ed.), Armenian Classical Authors XIX, Book 1,
Yerevan, 47–85.
Bozoyan (2020): Azat Bozoyan, “
Հայ իրավունքի պատմության միջնադարյան հուշարձանները
” [Medieval
monuments of the history of Armenian law], in: Vahan Ter-Gevondyan (ed.) Matenadaran. Medieval and
Early Modern Armenian Studies, Issues on History and Culture, Yerevan, 152–179.
Bozoyan (2021): Azat Bozoyan, “
Հայոց եկեղեցու նվիրապետական համակարգն ու Զաքարյանների
հովանու ներքո ԺԳ դարի սկզբին տեղի ունեցած ժողովները
” [The System of the order in the Ar-
menian Church and Councils held in the early 12th century under the patronage of the Zakarids], in:
Vahan Ter-Gevondyan (ed.), Festschrift in honor of Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s 75th Anniversary, Yerevan, 55–83.
Burgmann/Kaufhold (1992): Ludwig Burgmann and Hubert Kaufhold, Bibliographie zur Rezeption des byzan-
tinischen Rechts im alten Rußland sowie zur Geschichte des armenischen und georgischen Rechts, unter
Mitwirkung von Azat Bozoyan, Igor’ Čičurov, Sulchan Goginava, Kirill Maksimovič und Jaroslav Ščapov,
Frankfurt a. Main.
Burgmann (2009): Ludwig Burgmann, “Die Nomoi Stratiotikos, Georgikos und Nautikos”, in: Zbornik Radova
Vizantološkog Instituta 46, 53–64 (repr․ in: Ludwig Burgmann, Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur byzantinischen
Rechtgeschichte, Frankfurt a. Main 2015, 455–466).
Bury (1911): John B.Bury, The Imperial Administrative System in the Ninth Century, with a revised Text of the
Kletorologion of Philotheos (British Academy Supplemental Papers 1), London.

The Isaurian Nomos Stratiotikos in the Legal System of Cilician Armenia 75
Dadoyan (1997): Seta B.Dadoyan, The Fatimid Armenians: Cultural and Political Interaction in the Near East (Is-
lamic History and Civilization, Studies and Text 18), Leiden et al.
Dadoyan (2013): Seta B.Dadoyan, The Armenians in the Medieval Islamic World: Paradigms of Interaction Sev-
enth to Fourteenth Centuries, 1 (2011): The Arab Period in Armīnyah Seventh to Eleventh Centuries, 2 (2013):
Armenian Realpolitik in the Islamic World and Diverging Paradigms– Case of Cilicia Eleventh to Fourteenth
Centuries, 3 (2014): Medieval Cosmopolitanism and Images of Islam Thirteenth to Fourteenth Centuries, New
Brunswick/London.
Danielyan (2019): Gagik Danielyan, “Arabic Sources on the History of the Armenian Catholicosate of Homkla”,
in: Azat A.Bozoyan (ed.), Cilikian Armenia in the Perceptions of Adjacent Political Entities (Historical-Philo-
logical Essays), 184–266.
Danielyan (2020): Gagik Danielyan,
Հայերը ԺԴ դարի մամլուքյան Կահիրեում. Խիզանաթ ալ-Բունուդ
(Ḫizānat al-Bunūd)
հայաբնակ թաղամասը
[Armenians in 14th century Mamluk Cairo. izānat al-Bunūd],
in: Studies in Oriental Sources 2, 160–197.
Danielyan (2021): Gagik Danielyan (ed.),
Կիլիկյան Հայաստանի պատմության մամլուքյան սկզբնաղ-
բյուրները
(I)․
Իբն աբդ ալ-Զահիր
[The Mamluk sources of the history of Cilician Armenia (I). Ibn Abd
al-Zahir] (Arab Sources IV: Foreign sources about Armenia and Armenians 20), Yerevan.
Duby (1978): Georges Duby, Les trois ordres ou l’imaginaire du féodalisme (Bibliothèque des Histoires), Paris.
http://tankona.free.fr/duby1978.pdf (seen 14.03.2024)
Ecloga (1983): Ludwig Burgmann (ed.), Ekloga. Das Gesetzbuch Leons III. und Konstantinos’ V., Frankfurt a.Main.
Ecloga (2017): Mike Humphreys, The Laws of the Isaurian Era. The Ecloga and its Appendices. Translated with
introduction and commentary, Liverpool.
Hakobyan (2020): Aleksan Hakobyan,
Արքայատոհմերն ու իշխանատոհմերը Բուն Աղուանքում եւ Հայոց
Արեւելից կողմանքում Անտիկից մինչեւ ԺԳ դար
(
պատմա-աղբիւրագիտական քննութիւն
) [The
Royal and Princely Houses of Proper Albania and Eastern Regions of Armenia from Antiquity to the
13thcentury (historical and source study examination)], Yerevan.
Haldon (1995): John Haldon, State, Army and Society in Byzantium. Approaches to Military, Social and Admin-
istrative History, 6th–12th Centuries (Variorum, Collected Studies Series CS 504), London.
Haroutyunyan (2020): Gagik Haroutyunyan (ed.),
Սահմանադրական մշակույթի արժեբանական
ակունքները հայ ժողովրդի հազարամյա տարեգրության ծալքերում
[The value-based origins of the
constitutional culture in the folds of the thousand-year chronicle of the Armenian people], Etchmiadzin.
Humphreys (2015): Michael T.G.Humphreys, Law, Power, and Imperial Ideology in the Iconoloclast Era, c.
680–850, Oxford.
Juzbašjan (1988): Karen Juzbašjan, Армянские государства Эпохи Багратидов и Византия IX–XI вв. [Ar-
menian States of the Age of Bagratids and Byzantium of the IX–XI centuries], Moscow.
Kaplan (1992): Michel Kaplan, Les Hommes et la terre à Byzance du VIe au XIe siècle. Propriété et exploration du sol
(Byzantina Sorbonensia 10), Paris.
Kapoïan-Kouyoumjian (1988): Angèle Kapoïan-Kouyoumjian, L’Égypte vue par des Arméniens (XI–XVII), Paris.
Kaufhold (1997): Hubert Kaufhold (ed.), Die armenischen Übersetzungen byzantinischer Rechtsbücher, Erster
Teil: Allgemeines, Zweiter Teil: Die “Kurze Sammlung” (Sententiae Syriacae), hrsg., übers. u. erläutert (For-
schungen zur Byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte 21), Frankfurt a. Main.
Korzenszky (1931): Eleonóra Korzenszky (ed.), Leges poenales militares e codice Laurentiano LXXV, 6 primum ed.,
Budapest (repr․ in: Ioannes Zepos and Panagiotes Zepos [eds.], Ποιναλι Νόο στρατιωτικό. Leges
imperatorum Isaurorum et Macedonum II.A [Jus Graecoromanum], Aalen 1962, 75–79).
Kučma (1971): Vladimir Kučma, “Νόο στρατιωτικό (      
  [On the question of the connection of three monuments of Byzantine military law])”,
in: Vizantijski Vremmenik 32, 276–283.
Martin-Hisard (1988–1989): Bernadette Martin-Hisard, “La version Arménienne de l’Ecloga de Léon III.”, in:
Revue des Études Arméniennes 21, 145–158.

76 Azat Bozoyan
Melikset-Bek (2016): Leon Melikset-Bek, ‘
Վարդապետք Հայոց Հիւսիսային կողմանց’ եւ նրանց
ինքնութիւնը. Հայ-վրացական հարաբերություններ
(
պատմագրական հետազոտության փորձ
) [Ar-
menian scholars of the nordern Regions and their Identity. Historical-Philological Researches, transl.
from the Georgian by R.Bayramyan], Etchmiadzin.
Mnaċakanyan (1972): Asatur Mnaċakanyan (ed.),
Գրիգոր Տղա, Բանաստեղծություններ և պոեմներ
[Grigor
Tła, Verses and Poems], Yerevan.
Muradyan (2011): Muradyan,
ԺԱ
 –
ԺԳ դարերի հայ-վրացական դավանական խնդիրները և Մխիթար
Գոշի
‘
Առ վրացիսն
’
թուղթը
․
Աղբյուրագիտական քննություն և բնագրեր
[The Armenian-Georgian
theological issues of the 11th–13th centuries and Mkhitar Ghosh’s letter ‘On the Georgians’. Source study
and texts], Etchmiadzin.
Mxitar (1975): Xosrov T’orosyan (ed.),
Մխիթար Գոշ, Գիրք Դատաստանի
[Mxitar Goš, Law Book], Yerevan.
Mxitar (2000): Robert W.Thomson, The Lawcode [Datastanagirk’] of Mxit’ar Goš, transl. with commentary and
indices (Dutch Studies in Armenian Language and Literature 6), Amsterdam/Atlanta GA.
Mxitar (2014): Azat Bozoyan (ed.),
Մատենագիրք Հայոց
,
հտ
․
ԺԹ. Մխիթար Գոշ
[Mxit’ar Goš, Book of Law]
(Armenian Classical Authors XIX/1), Yerevan, 87–922.
Nerses (1871): Armenian Patriarchate (ed.),
Ընդհանրական թուղթք սրբոյն Ներսիսի Շնորհալւոյ
[General
Epistles of Nerses Šnorhali (the Gifted)], Jerusalem.
Nerses (1995): Edouard Baghdasaryan (ed.),
Ներսես Շնորհալի
,
Թուղթ Ընդհանրական
[Nerses Šnorhali,
General Epistle], Yerevan.
Ormanean (1912): Malachia Ormanean,
Ազգապատում
․
Հայ ուղղափառ եկեղեցւոյ անցքերը սկզբէն
մինչեւ մեր օրերը, յարակից ազգային պարագաներով պատմուած
[Azgapatoum: Happenings of the
Armenian Orthodox Church from the Beginning to the Present Day, told with Concornitant National
Circumstances], Constantinople.
RHC Doc. Arm. (1869): Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (ed.), Recueil des Historiens des croisades,
Documents arméniens (1869–1906), 1, Paris.
Samouel (2014): Karen Mat’evosyan,
Սամուէլ Անեցի եւ շարունակողներ, Ժամանակագրութիւն Ադամից
մինչեւ
1776 [Samuel Aneci and his successors, Chronology from Adam to 1776], Yerevan.
TIB 2 (1981): Friedrich Hild and Marcell Restle (eds.), Kappadokien (Kappadokia, Charsianon, Sebasteia und
Lykandos) (Tabula Imperii Byzantini 2. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Denkschriften der
phil.-hist. Klasse 149), Vienna.
Vanérian (2007): M.Mariam Vanérian, La correspondance de Saint Nersês Chnorhali avec les Arméniens (Thèse
Doctorat de l’Université Paul Valéry, Montpellier III: Histoire et civilisation, Juin 2007).
Voskean (1926): P.Hamazasp Voskean,
Մատենագրական քննութիւններ
, III:
Գ. Մխիթար Գոշ
[Literary
Studies III: Mxitar Goš] (National Library 112), Vienna, 123–192.
Winkelmann (1978): Friedhelm Winkelmann, “Zum byzantinischen Staat (Kaiser, Aristokratie, Heer)”, in:
Friedhelm Winkelmann, Helga Köpstein, Hans Ditten, and Ilse Rochow (eds.), Byzanz im 7. Jahrhundert:
Untersuchungen zur Herausbildung des Feudalismus (Berliner byzantinische Arbeiten 48), Berlin, 161–224.
Zachariä von Lingenthal (1894): Karl Eduard Zachariä von Lingenthal, “Wissenschaft und Recht für das Heer
vom 6. bis zum Anfang des 10.Jahrhunderts”, in: Byzantinische Zeitschrift 3, 450–453.