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.

Press the Backspace key to return to text of article