Among classical Armenian sources, the
History of Taron attributed to the otherwise
unknown Yovhannes (John) Mamikonean, is a peculiar work. The author
of this medieval romance claims to have compiled it in 680-81
from shorter, earlier accounts written by the abbots of the monastery
of Glak in the district of Taron (in southwestern historical Armenia,
to the west of Lake Van). Actually, scholars are convinced that
the work is an original composition of a later period (post-eighth
century), written as a deliberate forgery.
The History of Taron,
despite its name, is not a history. Rather, it is a relatively
short "historical" romance in five parts, purporting
to describe significant events occuring in the district of Taron
during the Byzantine-Iranian wars when the shah of
Iran was Xosrov II (590-628). During Xosrov's reign Taron
was frequently invaded by the Iranians. The History describes
the actions of five generations of Mamikoneans (Taron's princely
house), in defending and avenging the district. Each section or
cycle of the story is devoted to the exploits of one of the defenders:
Mushegh, Vahan, Smbat, his son Vahan Kamsarakan, and the latter's
son Tiran. The heroes are at times superhumanly brave or duplicitous,
wise or cunning, humble or bombastic, humane or brutally merciless
as the situation requires. Above all, they are the holy warriors
of St. Karapet (their patron saint), and they zealously defend
the monastery of Glak as well as all the churches and Christians
in the district. Much of the narration describes battles fought
and the cunning tactics used by the Taronites to defeat the invading
Iranians.
Despite some recent, unsuccessful attempts
to rehabilitate the History and to substantiate the author's
seventh-century claims, there are compelling reasons for
suspecting a later date. First, it is apparent that the author
made use of a number of Armenian sources composed after the end
of the seventh century. In addition to the works of P'awstos Buzand
(fifth century) and Sebeos (seventh) from whom he drew inspiration,
John Mamikonean was familiar with Ghewond (ninth) and Movses Xorenac'i
(ninth) and wove into his History identifiable episodes
from each. Second, the work contains chronological impossibilities;
and few if any of the Mamikonean heroes are historically identifiable
personages. Third, women in the society described by John Mamikonean
apparently did not enjoy the right of church attendance along
with men (see episode # 1). This circumstance seems to place John
in an era of strong Islamic influence (eighth to twelfth centuries)--though
to my knowledge none of the authentic Armenian historical sources
makes any mention of the segregation of women in church in any
period. The religion of the Mamikonean heroes also points to a
late date. Theirs is a vengeful and fanatical Christianity of
the borderlands, akin to the religion of the Islamic ghazzi
warriors. Their prayers are addressed not to God or Christ directly,
but to their patron saint, Karapet, who appears among them and
literally fights their difficult battles.
John Mamikonean wrote in a pseudo-historical style, attempting to emulate P'awstos and Sebeos. He frequently provides purely imaginary figures of the combatants' troop strength and casualty figures. He provides homey--and incorrect--etymological information about the place names of Taron. There is, moreover, a marked tendency on his part to revel in the gory details of war's cruelties. To John, the enemy is barely human. He would have us believe that the Armenians are fighting the Zoroastrian Iranians, but John most likely was describing the invaders of his day, Arabs or even Saljuqs. The author's obsession with acts of vengeful brutality may provide a clue to the work's date. One senses that John Mamikonean wrote this romance as wish-fulfillment literature for the beleaguered Armenians of a difficult time.
Some scholars--having adjudged
the work a medieval forgery, finding it neither historical nor
particularly fine literature--dismiss the History of
Taron as valueless. However, if this romance belongs to
the ninth to twelfth centuries as we believe, then it would be
profitable to analyze it in connection with the other great epics
of the same period: the Byzantine Digenes Akrites,
the Iranian Shahname, the Armenian David of
Sasun, and the Turkish Danishmendname and Book
of Dede Korkut. Admittedly, the History
of Taron is a poor relation compared with these
international classics. But in point of fact its composition may
have preceded the others.
John Mamikonean was self-conscious
about his work and was afraid that future scribes would try to
change his composition or ridicule it. Thus he wrote in his concluding
colophon: "When you make a copy of this, let nothing appear
ridiculous to anyone. Instead, rewrite my exemplar fully and without
deletions..." Today, many centuries later, despite changed
literary tastes, John still has an audience, and with good reasons.
First, the History of Taron remains the sole
extant example of an original medieval romance in Armenian. Without
a doubt there were others, though, regrettably, none has reached
us. Most significant is the fact that the History of
Taron contains a rare example of medieval Armenian folk
poetry ("Beasts devoured..." see episode #3), another
genre for which we possess few specimens. Yet the real reason
John Mamikonean still has an audience is his ability to entertain.
The so-called "critical edition"
of the classical Armenian text of the History of
Taron was published by Ashot Abrahamyan (Erevan, 1944)
but because of its many errors has not won acceptance from scholars.
Much preferred is the older Mxitarist edition (Venice, 1823, repr.
1889), from which the present translation was made in 1975. For
additional bibliography see M. Abeghyan's Erker I (Erevan,
1966, repr. of 1936 ed.) pp. 188-89, 303-24 (in Armenian);
K.V. Aivazian, Istoriia Tarona i armianskaia
literatura IV-VII vekov (Erevan,
1976); and L. Ter-Petrosyan's "K voprosu o datirovke
'Istorii Tarona'", in Banber Erevani Hamalsarani
3(1977)pp. 143-59. The transliteration used in this translation
is the Hubschmann-Meillet system.
Robert Bedrosian
(New York, 1985)
Return to Historical Sources Menu