65 Ghazar P'arpec'i, op.cit., I.15.

66 P'awstos Buzand, S.T. Malxasyanc' trans. (Erevan, 1968), pp. 18-19. On the dprut'iwnk', ibid., pp. 6-7.

67 There are references in the text to a P'awstos of Greek nationality (III,end), a bishop P'awstos who ordained the future Catholicos Nerses the Great deacon (IV.3), a P'awstos who was one of a twelve-memher council to assist Nerses as Catholicos (VI.5), and a P'awstos who buried Nerses (V.24). If these are all the same figure and the author then he would have been living in the 50s and 60s of the fourth century during the time of Nerses Catholicos. Now, because of P'awstos' appellation Buzand(eay) and the fact that he is said to be of Greek nationality, some scholars have argued that P'awstos was a late fourth century Greek bishop who wrote in Greek (his History being translated into Armenian in the fifth cemtury); or perhaps he was an Armenian from Byzantine-controlled Western Armenian (Buzanda); a fifth century cleric educated in the Byzantine empire; or simply P'awstos from an Armenian town called Buzanda (Malxasyanc' pp. 25-29). The question of P'awstos identity is by no means a new one. This question was raised already in the late fifth century hy Ghazar P'arpec'i who refused to believe that any Bishop P'awstos could have included certain vulgar and anti-clerical passages that he laments discovering in P'awstos' History. The offended Ghazar thinks that the bishop's History was later corrupted by an uncultured person who assumed the distinguished name of P'awstos (after the bishop P'awstos found in the text) to increase the prestige of his compilation of stories (Ghazar P'arpec'i, op.cit., I. 3-4). Who P'awstos was and what should be understood by Buzandeay are still unsolved problems. See also note 220.

68 Malxasyanc', pp. 29-30.

69 Professor N. Garsoian in her article on fourth century Armenia "Politique ou orthodoxie? L'Armenie au quatrieme siecle" Revue des Etudes armeniennes, n.s. IV ( 1967) pp. 297-320), has provided an explanation for P'awstos' unfavorable statements ahout certain Armenian kings, starements which are directly contradicted in contemporary Byzantine sources. Because of the fused nature of religious and political allegiance in this period, the Armenian kings politically allied with Byzantium were required to follow "every twist and turn of the Imperial Arianizing policies," a situation which probably prompted the murders of the Armenian Athanasian Catholicoi Yusik and Daniel (c. 348) and Nerses (c. 373) by Arianizing mon- archs. By placing side by side two chronological tables showing the political and religious developments in the Byzantine Empire and in Armenia, professor Garsoian very convincingly shows the correlation between Imperial religious policies and the religio-political events taking place in Armenia. P'awstos, who is orthodox (Athanasian), has nothing but hatred for Armenia's Arianizing kings and he accuses them of spiritual and moral bankruptcy. What is important for our purposes is that P'awstos' bias in the case of the kings is systematic. He has given us a sort of chronology for the fourth century which, though lacking absolute figures, very neatly dovetails with more easily datable events in Byzantine History. P'awstos Buzand s information on the Mamikonean sparapets of fourth century Armenia is also systematically biased and likewise is contradicted by the reliable Byzantine writer Ammianus Marcellinus (b. ca. 330) who not only lived in the very times he described but even travelled to the East in 363 with Emperor Julian. On Ammianus see note 220 below.

70 Under naxarar law operating in the fourth and fifth centuries, a clan's holdings could be appropriated by the crown only if every male member of the clan in question was killed. If but one male baby was preserved, when the child reached maturity he could reclaim his family's lands--and the king was obliged to recognize the validity of the claim. The Mamikoneans appear as defenders of the naxarar rights in their capacity as preservers and nourishers of innocent and helpless children from clans which kings Xosrov II, Tiran, and Arshak tried to exterminate. Thus P Vach'e raised the son of rebel bdeshx Bakur of Aghjnik' (PB III.9); Vasak and Artawazd raised Rshtuni and Arcruni children whom they had saved--withdrawing from court and even returning to Tiran his son Arshak whom they had been raising--in order to restore two naxarar clans (PB III. 18); finally, by protecting and raising the little Kamsarakan prince Spandarad, Vasak Mamikonean prevented king Arshak from appropriating for long the Kamsarakan holdings in Sirak and Arsharunik' (PB IV.l9).

71 P'awstos Buzand (PB) History of Armenia [P'awstosi Buzandac'woy Patmut'iwn Hayoc'], K. Patkanean, ed. (Venice, 1889), III.11.

72 PB, V.l.

73 Ibid., V.44.

74 PB, III.8.

75 PB, III.18.

76 PB, III.20.

77 PB III. 5-6.

78 lbid.

79 PB, III.8.

80 PB, V.15-16.

81 PB, IV.32.

82 PB, IV.55.

83 PB, V.37.

84 PB, V.4. Each of the two occasions when Mamikoneans do kill "royal men" may be justified on the grounds that the executors were acting under the orders of the king. Thus (1) sparapet Vach'e brought to Xosrov the bleeding head of the king's Arsacid relative Sanesan. But Sanesan had rebelled against Armenia and, perhaps a greater sin to P'awstos, had murdered the 12-year-old Grigoris II, son of the Armenian Catholicos Vrt'anes and grandson of St. Gregory (PB III..6); (2) On king Arshak's express instruction Vardan Mamikonean, older brother of the sparapet Vasak, killed Arshak s nephew Gnel, allegedly for coveting the crown (PB IV.15).

85 PB, IV.24.

86 Procopius, History of the Wars, H. Dewing, tr. (London, 1912), I.v.40.

87 Ibid., I.v.28; PB, IV.54.

88 Thus, while Vasak Mamikonean's name appears in P'awstos' list of notables accompanying bishop P'aren to Caesarea for ordination as Catholicos (PB III. 17), the Mamikonean name is noticeably absent from the group of naxarars taking P'aren's successor Sahak Aghbianos to the same city and returning with him to king Tiran (339-350). (Or else the Mamikoneans were present but PB suppressed their name. The list of the group accompanying Sahak is more vague than most (III.17). It is no wonder that in his saga P'awstos minimizes the Mamikonean association with Tiran: for the Arianizing Tiran had murdered P'aren's two predecessors, the Catholicos Yusik and Daniel (c. 348), and it was during Tiran's reign that the Mamikoneans withdrew from court. It is one thing to accompany a future Catholicos to Caesarea for ordination and quite another to deliver up to an Arianizing king his own hand-picked candidate from a rival line. The delegation traveling with P'aren to Caesarea was the last to accompany a cleric who, though perhaps not a Gregorid and one who "Reprimanded no one" (i.e., Tiran), still appears to have been somewhat acceptable to the author (PB III.l6; Adontz, pp. 274-275). Following P'aren's death soon afterward, subsequent delegations sent to accompany crown-selected Albianid Catholicoi included the arch-fiend Hayr mardpet. Vasak, accompanying P'aren, had been part of the last group of "loyalists", pro-Gregorid representatives of the most noble families including Mehendak Rshtuni, Andok Siwnik', and Arshawir Kamsarakan (PB III.l6). Dramatically and with swords drawn, Vasak and Artawazd Mamikonean withdrew from court to their patrimonial holdings in Tayk', protecting the little sons of the Rshtuni and Arcruni clans from Tiran's attempt to exterminate them (PB III.18). Thus in defense of the orthodox religious values cherished by P'awstos, the Mamikoneans withdrew from court, just as the Athanasian Gregorid Catholicos Nerses did later (c. 359) during king Arshak's Arianizing period (Garsoian, "Politique ou orthodoxie?" p. 309; PB IV.15). The Mamikoneans reappear at court only after Arshak has sought them out, in a period of orthodox reaction in Byzantium (c. 363) PB IV.2. The orthodox Nerses is ordained Catholicos and again a Mamikonean name appears among the naxarars accompanying Nerses on a journey to Byzantium. The Mamikoneans return to court in IV.2. In IV.3, an assembly including military leaders but not the sparapet specifically, has Nerses ordained deacon against his will. The Mamikonean name is not mentioned among the naxarars accompanying Nerses to Caesarea for ordination, although Mamikonean relatives (Kamsarakan and Siwnik') are present (IV.4). Perhaps chapter 3 should precede 2, or perhaps P'awstos did not want to associate the Mamikoneans with a forced ordination. And yet it is "Bishop P'awstos" himself who performs the ordination! )

The absence or presence of St. Nerses at Arshak's court likewise may be the key to another difficulty. During the reign of Arshak (350-364) acting under royal orders, Vardan Mamikonean (sparapet Vasak's brother) killed the innocent Arsacid cadet Gnel, Arshak's nephew (PB IV.15); Vasak killed Vardan (PB IV.l8); Vahan, another brother, apostasized, destroyed churches, and even murdered his Christian relative Hamazaspuhi (PB IV.50). In each disgraceful instance that the Mamikoneans appear in an unfavorable light, Nerses was not at court or (as in the case of Vasak's execution by Shapuhr) Nerses' advice to the naxarars to unite around Arshak, Vasak, and Andok Siwnik' was rejected (PB IV.51). With Nerses back at court under Pap, the new sparapet Mushegh tried to undo some of the damage: Zoroastrian fire-temples were destroyed and many pro-Persian naxarars were killed (PB V.l).

According to P'awstos, Pap had Nerses murdered (c. 373) and once more appointed Aghbianids to the Catholicosate (PB V.24). However the author seems to foreshadow Pap's swing to Arianizing policy earlier in. his narrative, at V.4. There, before a battle Mushegh accepted Nerses' prayers over his standards, but he refused the horse and spear of his lord Pap. Pap had questioned Mushegh's loyalty, and with good reason, since for P'awstos the Mamikoneans cannot be loyal to Arianizing kings without disastrous consequences. A final insult is hurled at the memory of Pap who was murdered by the Byzantines, for when Mushegh, Hayr, and the other princes met and decided not to avenge their king through the blood feud, they broke an ancient and honored convention of this society, feeling perhaps that Pap was not worth avenging (PB V.29).

89 PB, IV.ll.

90 PB, IV.23.

91 PB, IV.59.

92 PB, V.2.

93 PB, III. 11.

94 PB, V.35.

95 PB, V.36.

96 PB, V.37.

97 PB, IV.54.

98 PB, IV.50.

99 PB, V.2.

100 PB, V.37.

101 PB, V.42.

102 PB, V.44.

103 PB, V.38.

Press the Backspace key to return to text of article