iwn and ishxanut'iwn, tanute'rut'iwn; or of tun and its feudal counterpart, nahang (190). Social relations as revealed in the Arsacid and later sources are marked by a great complexity, owing, first, to the amalgamation of the two distinct elements, dynasticist and feudal, and second, to the fact that, as in all feudal societies, these relations were not regulated by abstract legal considerations, but evolved from concrete experience and the balance of conflicting interests. All one can do is attempt to unravel the threads of dynasticism and of feudalism which, without the benefit of articulate theorizing, must not have been clearly distinguished even by the contemporaries themselves. The relationship of king and princes was expressed by the terms te'r, te'rut'iwn and car'ay, car'ayut'iwn. Here the feudal element manifests itself with clarity and presents a striking parallelism to that of the medieval West, even, as Adontz has shown, to the point of occasional terminological coincidence. The former two terms can indeed express dynasticist overlordship no less than feudal, but the latter two are exact semantic and functional equivalents of famulus or 'vassal' and of servitium or obsequium (191). The bond between lord and vassal was grounded in a contract implicit in two acts: the oath of fealty (uxt), whereby the latter promised faithful service and subordination to the former, in exchange for his assurance of lordship and protection (192); and a ceremony of investiture with some insignia or symbolic objects (193). This bond entailed definite obligations: military service, court service, and feudal aids.

The military service of the Armenian Princes included, in the first place, appearance before the king on summons at the head of their mounted troops and taking part in his wars (paterazm = ost) or raids (aspatak = chevauchée). It was precisely with the number of horse that each princely State was sup-