The History of the Armenians,
attributed to P'awstos Buzand, describes episodically and in epic
style, events from the military, socio-cultural, and political
life of fourth century Armenia. This work is one of the most
problematical of the Armenian sources, and one of the most tantalizing.
The classical Armenian employed is rich and earthy; the style,
clear and direct, perhaps reflecting the author's awareness that
his work would be read aloud. Controversy surrounds almost every
aspect of this History: the format of the extant (versus
the original) text; the author's identity; and where, in what
language, and when it was written. There is an extensive body
of scholarly literature devoted to these and other questions.
Below, briefly, we shall outline some of the major hypotheses.
The present text of P'awstos exists
in four "Books" or dprut'iwnk'. Instead of being
numbered Books I, II, II, and IV as one would expect, the first
book of the extant text is titled Book III ("Beginning")
and is followed by Books IV, V, and VI. The word "Ending"
appears in the chapter heading of Book VI. The late fifth century
historian Ghazar P'arpec'i cites a passage from the text of P'awstos
which he claims was found in Book II.15; however, in our text
this same passage is in Book IV.15. In other words, Ghazar's
"P'awstos Book I" is now our Book III ("Beginning").
The Armenist St. Malxasyanc' speculated that this curious fact
could be explained as follows: toward the end of the fifth century,
after Ghazar P'arpec'i used it, the text of P'awstos Buzand was
placed by an editor as the third history in a book of many histories.
This would explain why the History opens with Book III,
since the first two books were each one-book histories. Then,
Malxasyanc' continued, the editor wrote in the words "Beginning"
and "Ending" to inform the reader that this particular
section was one complete history in the compilation. The editor's
hand also is visible in the History's two forwards; in
tables of chapter headings arranged in lists preceding each book;
in the chapter headings themselves; and in a statement at the
end of Book III claiming [ii] that the work was written in the
fourth century by "the great historian P'awstos Buzand".
Furthermore, Malxasyanc' noted that the fifth century editor
employed the first person singular while the fourth century P'awstos
Buzand used the plural when referring to himself.
There are references in the text to
a P'awstos of Greek nationality (III, Ending), a bishop P'awstos
who ordained the future kat'oghikos Nerses the Great deacon
(IV.3), a P'awstos who was one of a twelve-member council to assist
Nerses as kat'oghikos (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. 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 century); or perhaps
he was an Armenian from Byzantine-controlled Western Armenia (Buzanda);
a fifth century cleric educated in the Byzantine empire; or simply
P'awstos from an Armenian town called Buzanda. The question of
P'awstos' identity is by no means a new one. This question was
raised already in the late fifth century by 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's History of the
Armenians, I. 3-4). Who P'awstos was and what should be understood
by Buzandeay are still unsolved problems.
The question of the dating of this work
is of direct concern. Certain facts seem to place the author
(P'awstos) in the fifth century. First, P'awstos is familiar
with the name of only one Byzantine emperor (Valens) for almost
the entire span of his History, i.e., A.D. 319-384, when
in fact during this period emperors Constantine, Constantius,
Julian, Jovian, Valens, Gratian, and Theodosius the Great ruled.
Since Armenia was in frequent contact with Byzantium during that
time, a fourth-century writer naturally [iii] would know the emperors'
names. P'awstos, living in the fifth century, had only a vague
recollection of fourth century emperors and so styled them all
Valens. Again, P'awstos contends that the Armenian king Arshak
(350-67) ruled during the time of the Iranian shah Nerseh
(293-302) and the Byzantine emperor Valens (364-78), when in fact
these last two autocrats were not even contemporaries. Another
important proof of the History's fifth-century date is
its source material, which includes the Armenian translation of
the Bible (430's) and Koriwn's biography of Mashtoc'. Finally,
in kat'oghikos Nerses the Great's curse of the Armenian
Arsacids which appears in IV.15, Nerses seems to prophesy the
end of the Arsacid kingdom.
P'awstos lacks chronology in the strict
sense: he does not mention in which king's regnal year an event
occurred or how long each king reigned. However, he does know
the correct sequence of Armenian kings from Xosrov II Kotak (330-39)
to Varazdat (374-78) and mentions each one by name. Despite numerous
problems associated with the text, P'awstos' information still
has the greatest value; although he lacks numerical chronolgoy,
the thematic unity on occasion substitues for an absolute chronolgoy.
This is due to his systematic biases.
As a historian of the Mamikonean naxarar
house, P'awstos' desire is to portray the Mamikoneans as the defenders
par excellence of Armenia. To P'awstos, the Mamikoneans are not
merely the only legitimate military defenders of the country,
but also the loyal defenders of the Arsacid family, defenders
of the Church, and defenders of naxarar rights. The contradiction
which arises from the fact that P'awstos simultaneously has made
the Mamikoneans defenders of kings and of the naxarars-two
usually inimical groups-appears to have been resolved by the author
by a second assumptions: that the Mamikoneans are in fact the
equals of the Arsacids.
P'awstos' History is a treasure
of early Armenian literature, invaluable for historians, anthropologists
and linguists, for Armenists and Iranists. The present translation,
which was completed in 1981, was made from the classical Armenian
text of Venice, 1933 (the fourth reprint of the Venice 1889 edition),
[iv] K. Patkanean, ed., P'awstosi Buzandac'woy Patmut'iwn Hayoc'.
For additional bibliography on P'awstos, see St. Malxasyanc' modern
Armenian translation (Erevan, 1968); for more detail on P'awstos'
biases, R. Bedrosian, The Sparapetut'iwn in Armenia
in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries, Armenian Review
36(1983) pp. 6-45, and Dayeakut'iwn
in Ancient Armenia, Armenian Review 37(1984) pp. 23-47. For studies of the fourth and fifth centuries
see C. Toumanoff, Studies in Christian Caucasian History
(Georgetown, 1963) and N. Adontz, Armenia in the Period of
Justinian (Lisbon, 1970). The transliteration employed in
this translation is a modification of the Hubschmann-Meillet system.
Robert Bedrosian
New York, 1985
Return to Historical Sources Menu