104 Ghazar P'arpec'i, op.cit.,
I.5 p. 10. Hereafter GHP.
105 GHP, III.62 pp. 234-35; Letter,
p. 404.
106 Letter, p. 404, 432-33.
107 Abeghyan, p. ,345.
108 Ibid., pp. 345-47.
109 GHP, I.5, p. 10.
110 GHP, I.18, p. 71.
111 GHP, III.7B, p. 311.
112 GHP, I..17, pp. 55-70.
113 Abeghyan, pp. 355-57; N. Bolaryan,
"A Newly-Discovered Fragment of P'arpec'i's History of
Armenia [Noragyt Hatvac Ghazar P`arpec'u Hayoc' Patmutyan]"
Banber Matenadarani, 8 (1967):263-73.
114 Agat'angelos and P'awstos, GHP,
I.1-3, pp. 1-5.
115 Koriwn, GHP, I.9, p. 23.
116 GHP, III.73, p. 285.
117 GHP, III.93, p. 367.
118 GHP, II.57, p. 214.
119 GHP, III.74, p. 290.
120 GHP, II.57, p. 214.
121 The author dates important events
to the regnal years of Iranian monarchs (II.47, p. 179; II. 57,
p. 214; III.6l, p. 234; III.66, p. 252, etc.) and uses Persian
units of measurement for distance throughout his work (II.55,
p. 203; II.57, p. 219; III.75, p. 292). He provides interesting
information on the judicial and other prerogatives of such Iranian
officials as the hazarapet (II.43-45, pp. 159-69), ambarapet,
maypet, master of the wardrohe (II.55, P. 205), pustipansalar
(III.71, p. 275), and marzban; on the lives and deaths
of Yazdgard II; Hormizd III (III.6O, p. 228), Valash, and the
rebel Zareh (III.94, p. .370). P'arpec'i is a major source on
King Peroz, and perhaps the only contemporary historian whose
descriptions of this king's administrative policies, court life,
eastern wars, and "crimes", have survived. Furthermore,
the History of Armenia contains detailed information on
Iranian religious and administrative policies toward Armenia and
Syria, including the treatment of prisoners and the peculiar form
of penal servitude called mshakut'iwn in Armenian. By
no means lastly, P'arpec'i provides a wealth of geographical information
on Iran which has yet to be examined by specialists.
122 C. Toumanoff, Studies,
pp. 151-52, n. 6. Theodosius (379-395) was forced to accept this
peace since the empire was in internal turmoil and greatly shaken
by its recent encounters with the Goths. The late fourth and the
entire fifth century were times of great peril for the Byzantine
state. With the death of Theodosius in 395 the empire was split
into two parts and one of the emperor's sons was enthroned in
each Arcadius in the east and Honorius in the west. The west was
perpetuall subjected to invasions by the Visigoths, Huns, and
Ostrogoths. After 480, no one in the west bore the title emperor.
The eastern part of the empire also was subjected to invasions
after 439 when Vandal fleets destroyed the security of Mediterranean
harbors. Few if any of the Byzantine emperors of the late fourth
and fifth centuries were outstanding leaders. Under Arcadius 395-408
and Theodosius II (408-450) power was exercised by Theodosius'
sister Pulcheria and her nominal husband Marcian (450-457) who
was ruling during the time of Armenia's Vardananc uprising. Not
surprisingly with the state under increasing attack, the next
two occupants of the throne Leo I (457-474) and Zeno (474-491)
were military men. In fact Leo himself was placed on the throne
by his commanding officer, the successful Alan general Aspar.
In addition to attacks from without,
the Byzantine state also had to cope with problems from within,
especially its spiritual disunity. Antagonisms over precedence
among the sees of Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople and
the condemnation of Nestorianism (432) and Monophysitism (451)
as heresies not only divided Bzantine society from within but
also alienated the state from areas such as Egypt, Syria, and
Armenia. Thus in a period of barbarian invasion, weak leaders,
and internal division, Byzantium had no intention of provoking
Iran into war on its eastern borders and instead followed a conciliatory
and yielding policy in all encounters with Iran.
Ghazar's attitude toward the Byzantine
empire is generally favorable. At the very opening of his work
he writes that streams of wisdom flowed and flow to this day from
the city of Constantinople (I.3, p. 7). He himself was educated
in Byzantine territory and notes with pride that Catholicos Sahak,
Vardan's grandfather, was "more learned in Greek, rhetoric,
and philosophy, than certain Greek scholars" (I. 10, p.
28). Xorenac'i connects both Sahak and his grandson Vardan with
the Byzantine empire during the reign of Theodosius II, who allegedly
authorized Sahak's teaching activities in the western sector and
appointed Vardan sparapet (MX, III.57).
Vardan must have had important
ties with Byzantine officials, since he planned to move to Byzantine
territory rather than live as an apostate in Iranian-controlled
Armenia (GHP II. 30, p.114). Now at the time of this dramatic
move and at the urging of marzpan Vasak Siwnik', the naxarars
convinced the Mamikoneans to abandon their would-be exile and
swore that they would participate in an uprising against Iran.
The rebels sent letters to Emperor Theodosius II, the sparapet
of Antioch, and to the princes of Aghjnik', Angeghtan, Cop'k',
Hashtyank', and Ekeghyac' asking for aid (LP II.33, p. 129).
However, aid was not forthcoming. But Ghazar does not blame Theodosius
for this. Instead he attributes the Byzantine decision to the
meddling of the sparapet of Antioch, Anatol, with the assistance
of some Syrian advisor, P'lorent (II. 4l, p. 151) as well as to
Theodosius' sudden death. Another instance of Ghazar's sympathy
or at least neutrality toward the Byzantine empire appears in
his description of Catholicos Giwt on trial before King Peroz.
Giwt was charged with twice sending messengers to Emperor Leo
who allegedly "wanted to help (the Armenians)" but did
not (III.63, p. 240). These Byzantine decisions were consistent
with the Empire's earlier policy of non-intervention in the east
during the fifth century. Despite the attacks and treaty-breaking
of Iranian kings Vahram V Gur (420-438) and Yazdgard II (438-457),
Byzantium was forced to follow a policy of conciliation. Thus
in 443 Theodosius II agreed to pay Yazdgard tribute in order to
buy peace, and thus the decision not to aid the Armenian rebels
in 450/ 1.
Thirty years later marzpan
Vahan Mamikonean warned a second group of naxarars that
if they rebelled against Persia, they should expect no help from
Byzantium, for that state was "weak and prone to breaking
oaths" (III. 66, p. 255). If Byzantium was unable to furnish
military aid, it nonetheless did not deny the Vahaneans access
to its territory since Vahan regrouped his forces on land called
Roman by Ghazar (III.78, p. 313). V. Ishkanyan has tried to show
on the basis of passages from Ghazar and Eghishe that in fact
neither the Vardaneans nor the Vahaneans truly expected aid from
Byzantium. It is not improbable that such men of affairs as sparapets
Vardan and Vahan knew the internal situation in Byzantium in their
own times. The actual state of affairs is reflected in Ghazar's
History. He relates with little bitterness the encounters
with Byzantium by Armenian delegations seeking aid, as if he himself
did not expect anything. Not being a source of support and not
a participant in affairs, Byzantium is essentially left out of
P'arpec'i's narration. See V.K. Ishkanyan, "On the Question
of Byzantine Orientation at the Time of the Vardananc' War (Byuzandakan
Koghmnoroshman Harc' Vardananc' Paterazmi Zhamanak", Patma-banasirakan
Handes, 3 (1966):53-70, and "The Rebellion of Marzpan
Armenia against Persia, and Byzantium" by the same author,
Patma-banasirakan Handes, 4 ( 1963):51-62.
123 Adontz, p. 1 79.
124 Ibid.
125 GHP I.15, p. 48.
126 GHP, II.40, p.150.
127 GHP, III.66, p. 257.
128 GHP, III.79, p. 315.
129 GHP, III.98, pp. 383-86. For Armenia,
administratively a part of Iran, certain features of Iran's internal
life had great significance. First, during the late fourth and
fifth centuries a fierce struggle was taking place in Iranian
society between the kings and the nohility. This was an unequal
contest with the nobles usually having the advantage. So of Shapur
II's successors, Artashir II (379-383) was dethroned while Shapur
III (383-388) and Vahram IV (388-399) were killed by the nobles
(Christensen, pp. 110, 253). Supposedly Yazdgard I (399-421 )
was murdered by the nobels who attempted to supplant his line
on the throne with that of a collateral branch (Christensen, p.
272). Thus during the period 385-428 when the Armenian naxarars
deposed or expelled four kings, the Iranian nobility was engaged
in the same work. Christensen wrote that during the reigns of
Vahram V Gur (421-438) and Yazdgard II (438-457), government was
wholly in the hands of the nobles (Christensen, pp. 277, 263).
Following the death of Peroz in 484, a successful general Zarmihr
put Valash on the throne, but this king was dethroned and blinded
by the nobles in 488 (Christensen, pp. 296-971. Valash's successor
Kavadh also was deposed in 497.
A second feature of fifth century
Iran--the eastern war--also had an effect on affairs in Armenia.
Almost every Iranian king who ruled in the fifth century fought
against invading tribes on the eastern border such as the Hepthalites
and Chionites. Vahram IV, Vahram V, and Yazdgard II all fought
the invaders (Christensen, pp. 280, 287). Peroz (457-484) died
fighting in the east and Iran ,was obliged to pay tribute (Christensen,
pp. 290, 293, 294). Finally, Peroz' son Kavadh grew up as a hostage
among the Hepthalites and a Hepthalite army later helped him regain
his throne. For Arrnenia it should be noted that both the Vardananc'
and the Vahaneanc' occurred when Iran was fighting in the east.
The death of Peroz in war coupled with the diminution of the treasury
were important factors forcing Valash to make peace with Armenia
in 485.
130 The increasing power which the Zoroastrian clergy wielded in fifth century Iran meant that its orthodox policies increasingly had the force of law within the state. With the conversion to Christianity of Byzantium and Armenia in the early part of the fourth century, on both sides of the Byzantine-Iranian frontier religious and political policics hardened and consolidated. An Iranian monarch would see practitioners of Orthodox Christianity living within Iran as potential enemies of the state since the centers of the Christians' spiritual leadership were on Byzantine soil. Urged on by a zealous Zoroastrian clergy whose support the monarch needed, the persecution of Christians became official policy.
In Persarmenia the Iranians resorted
to various means to convert the population. Outright persecution
was employed at the advice of Mihr Nerseh hazarapet of
Kings Vahram V and Yazdgard II (Christensen, p. 280). This latter
monarch is said to have killed his Christian daughter and to have
massacred the Christians of Syria in 446 (Christensen, pp. 283,
289). The persecutiion of Christians coupled with excessive taxation
generated rebellions four years later in Armenia, in Albania during
460 and in Iberia during 482. From the demands made of Valash
by the rebel Vahan Mamikonean (484), it is clear that attempts
to convert had continued until that time and that the Iranian
court was preferentially advancing the Armenian apostates and
giving them lavish gifts. Among the methods the Iranian government
used to prevent the possibility of subversion from its Christian
communities was the encouragment of a confessional break between
the Christians under its domination and those in Byzantium. At
the Synod of Markabka (424) the Christian church of Iran was declared
independent of Byzantium. Thenceforth Iranian kings encouraged
Syrian rather than Byzantine Christianity among Christian communities
under their domination, including those in Armenia.
Already at the time of Shapur II's
invasion of Armenia in 363, according to Xorenac'i, the Armenian
apostate Meruzhan Arcruni had been instructed to uproot Greek
learning in the country and had burned books written in that language
as part of the campaign (MX, III.36; See also H.G. Melk'onyan,
"Armeno-Syrian Cultural Relations during the IV-Vth Centuries
(Hay-Asorakan Mshakut'ayin Haraberut'yunner IV-V Darerum)",
PBH, 2 (1963):127-138). Apparently he was successful in the undertaking
because the same author notes that Sahak first translated the
Bible from Syriac since no Greek Bibles were found or permitted
in Persarmenia (MX, III.54). Syrian infIuence was strong too on
the creation of the Armenian alphabet and on the material first
selected for translation into Armenian. Characters for an Armenian
alphabet had been sought by Mashtoc' in a Syrian milieu (MX, III.53;
III.60; III.62) for which Sahak was reprimanded by Emperor Theodosius
II (MX, III.57). Iran furthered this Syrian cultural diffusion
by taking a more active part in Armenian religious affairs after
the Synod of Markabka. P`arpec'i notes that in 428 with the deposition
of the last Armenian Arsacid Artashes IV, the Iranian king Vahram
V also deposed Catholicos Sahak and replaced him with a Catholicos
presumably from another line named Surmak (GHP, I.14, p. 43).
Surmak was replaced by the Syrians Brgisho (or Bardesh) and Shmuel
(GHP, I. 15, p. 20). On Bardesh see Bogharyan p. 271. Yazdgard
II had Catholicos Yovsep' arrested and executed with other Armenian
clergy as instigators of the rebellion of 450/ 1 (GHP, II.42,
p. 155; II.57, pp. 212-213) and Peroz deposed the pro-Greek Catholicos
Giwt (GHP, III.64, p. 243).
131 In speeches placed in the mouths
of marzpan Shapur Mihran and the Zoroastrianizing hazarapet
Mihr Nerseh, Ghazar stresses the importance which the Persians
gave to control of Armenia from an administrative and spiritual
point of view. Shapur Mihran states that by controIling Armenia,
Iran would easily control Iheria and Albania (GHP, III.88 pp.
434-45). Mihr Nerseh likewise convinces Yazdgard II that if the
Armenians were Zoroastrian they would draw away from Byzantium,
and Iberia and Albania would follow suit (GHP, II.2O, p. 82).
The author sees Iranian administrative policies as sinister and
assimilatory. Vahram V is described as overjoyed at the Armenian
naxarars' request that he appoint for them a Persian governor
"to uncover disloyalty" (GHP, I..14, p. 47). Earlier
under Yazdgard I (399-421) Iran's assimilatory policies are underlined
by Ghazar and denounced. He has Yazdgard observe that by placing
his son Shapur on the Armenian throne and through intermarriage,
Armenians "who are unfamiliar with Persian law peacefully
will learn to fear the Persians" (GHP, I.12, P. 34). P'arpec'i
does not have a kind word for any Iranian monarch or his appointees
with the exception, of course, of marzpan Vahan. In fact
the only Iranian official Ghazar speaks of with a modicum of respect
is the marzpan Andekan who ruled briefly following the
Vahaneanc' uprising and then wisely recommended to King Valash
that Vahan be named marzpan in his place (GHP, III.98,
pp. 383-86).
132 No matter how bad the Christian,
he is still better than a Zoroastrian. Ghazar has Catholicos Sahak
warn the naxarars that he cannot support their request
to depose King Artashes IV who, though sinful, still does not
worship the elements (GHP, I.13, p. 42). At trial before King
Vahram V, Sahak declaims that while Artashes is an unworthy Christian,
nonetheless by Persian standards he is beyond reproach (GHP, I.14,
p. 46). The author approvingly describes the rebuff given by Armenian
nobelwomen to the Zoroastrian mages sent to convert them (c. 449.
GHP, II.32, p. 122). He also reports the subsequent massacre of
the mages and the extinguishing of their fires, descriptions which
ring with triumph and contempt (GHP, II.32, p. 127). In addition
the author himself moves to the attack in numerous important polemical
passages in which he refutes Zoroastrian theology (as he understands
it) always trying to make that theology seem as ridiculous as
possible (for example II.20, pp. 74-78; II.24, pp. 89-90; II.44,
pp. 162, 165-66) .
133 Concomitant with the denigration
of Zoroastrianism is the elevation of Christianity and especially
its clerical defenders whom Ghazar turns into heroes. There is
much of the supernatural in the author's description of Christian-Zoroastrian
combats and encounters. Before the battle of Awarayr, for example,
the soldiers are represented praying throughout the night and
light radiated from the face of the presbyter Ghewond who preached
to the men (II.38, pp. 142-43). Before a major battle with the
Persians, Vahan prayed together with Catholicos Hovhan and it
is to the efficacy of these prayers that the successful outcome
of the fight is attributed (III.7l, pp. 275-56; III.72, p. 279).
Vasak Mamikonean and those who fell with him in Iberia all had
illuminated faces before battle (III.74, p. 288).
Catholicoi Sahak before King Vahram
V and Giwt before Peroz speak with heroic boldness and somewhat
arrogantly, condemning Zoroastrianism and defending their faith
(I.14, p. 46; III.63-64, pp. 241-47). Ghazar adds that the Christians
of Ctesiphon, Xuzhastan, the hishop of Hrew and all the presbyters
and deacons (presumably Nestorians) feared the deposed Giwt (III.63,
p. 241) who resolutely continued to or- dain bishops and priests
while under house arrest in Persia (III.64, p. 247). The hero
Giwt brazenly told Peroz' messenger that the latter would not
have the courage to address the king the way he himself would
(III.64, p. 244). And supposedly at trial Peroz even believed
the veracity of Giwt's defense, but dethroned him anyway "in
order that the Christians not believe his laws were weak"
(III.64, p. 243).
The deaths of all the Armenian
clergymen executed in Iran either for failure to convert or for
their active participation in the uprisings are recorded as martyrdoms
replete with denunciations of Zoroastrianism and an abundance
of miracles. This is true for all the clerics executed by Yazdgard
II; Samuel the presbyter, T'at'ik, the Catholicos Yovsep', the
priest Ghewond, bishop Sahak Rshtuni (II.57, pp. 212-140), and
for the layman Yazd Siwnik' (III.76, pp. 301-3). The influence
of these martyrs even transcended death since the powers of their
bones are repeatedly asserted, especially, it is interesting,
by the Persians themselves who took great pains to see to it that
these holy relics did not fall into the hands of Christians (II.50,
p. 184; II.57, pp. 214-15; III.64, p. 246). P'arpec'i also places
in the mouths of certain Iranian officials unlikely statements
demonstrating the speakers' awe and respect for the Christian
faith. Following the execution of the Ghewondean priests, for
instance, an earthquake occurred causing the Iranian officials
to remark that the powers of the Christians are great and that
they themselves are lost (II.57, p. 218). Similarly marzpan
Shapur mused that Vahan's successful warriors "appeared to
be aided by some unseen force" (III.83, p. 328).
134 Ghazar reacts unfavorably to Iranian
attempts to encourage Syrian influence in Armenia. By the late
fourth century Syrian influence was very strong in the country.
Ghazar portrays Mashtoc', creator of the Armenian alphabet, as
concerned about the extent of this penetration (I.9, p. 24). Mashtoc'
himself was a product of this cultural phenomenon since, as Ghazar
says, Mesrop was reluctant to translate the Bible from Greek,
being insufficiently familiar with Greek grammar. However, he
knew Syriac (I.10, p. 29). Naturally Ghazar has nothing but contempt
for the Syrian Catholicoi appointed to the leadership of the Armenian
church. Beyond this, the author manifests resentment for all Syrians.
P'lorent, a Syrian adviser to Theodosius II, is held partly responsible
for the emperor's refusal to assist the Vardaneans (II.41, p.
151). Vahan was accused before Peroz by "his foolish associate
Vriw, son of a Syrian, who like all Syrians is a blabber-mouth
and a liar" (III.65, p. 250). Finally Ghazar, like his hero
Vahan, is outraged by Peroz' statement that the Armenian detachment
in his army is even worse than the worst--the Syrian (III.65,
p. 250). After demonstrating his military prowess hy fighting
off the Persians, the triumphant Vahan rhetoricaIly asked Valash's
peace-negotiator Nixor, "Are we (Armenians) like real Aryans,
or like the Syrians?" (III.92, p. 364).
135 GHP, II.36, p. 136. See also note
143 below.
136 GHP, II.30, p. 117; II.33, p. 129;
II.34, p. 130; II.39, p. 147, 149; II.42, p. 154; III.68, p. 260;
III.69, p. 265; III.7l, p. 277.