Article

Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘ (The Epic Histories)

1. Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘ is an account of the Kingdom of Armenia from AD 330 until its eventual decline and partition in 387. Whilst the narrative is largely based in the fourth century, the text also contains references to events in the third century, including the treaty of 297CE and aspects of the life of James of Nisibis.35 This late fifth century composition of anonymous authorship arguably provides the most detailed account of fourth-century Armenia. It is a composite text, comprising of different gestes, identified by Garsoïan as the Aršakuni (Royal), the Mamikonean and the Ecclesiastical.36 Garsoïan has postulated a composition date of the late fifth century, based on the fact that much like the History by Agat‘angełos, Buzandaran appears informed by the Life of Maštoc‘ and is referenced by the History of Łazar P‘arpec‘i.37 As Greenwood notes, the reference in the History by Łazar allows us to be confident that the text was written in the late fifth century.38 Of the three gestes identified by Garsoïan, the composition is dominated by a particular focus on the Mamikonean naxarar family.39 It has led Bedrosian to argue that Buzandaran is a partisan account of the Mamikoneans in Armenian affairs.40 This is perhaps an extreme assessment, but emphasis on the family frequently informs our picture of events and this must be approached with caution. However, Buzandaran is of exceptional value by providing a coherent basis for the study of social practices
2. The History of Łazar P‘arpec‘i
3. The History of Łazar P‘arpec‘i, is a late fifth century text which, as Thomson argues, can be placed in a secure social setting at a reasonably certain point in time.52 The author of the text recalls that he was a ‘playmate’ of the naxarar Vahan Mamikonean, educated and raised in the fifth century Mamikonean household.53 This allows Łazar’s composition to be situated alongside his contemporary; a prominent fifth century individual. It is also clear that this historical work was influenced by a patron and a purpose. The author records that Vahan Mamikonean urged Łazar to complete a sponsored history.54 Łazar states that ‘just as he (Vahan) cared for the affairs of Armenia, even more so does he consider this appropriate and suitable – to push forward and write of the affairs of Armenia’.55 It is not only evident that the text was created to validate his patron’s leading political role, but also to act as a mechanism to voice Vahan’s historical interpretation of fifth century events. Whilst it is hard to separate Łazar’s voice from that of his patron, this evidence suggests a strong Mamikonean influence on this text.
4. Letter Regarding the Separation of the Nestorians from the Holy Church (555AD)
5. The second council of Dvin convened in 554/5 AD. Amongst the complex circumstances of the council, the various actors involved, and its doctrinal outcomes, the proceedings addressed and rejected the confessional position of the Church of the East.71 The council itself has been preserved in a number of documents and records, which have been subject to more in-depth study, most recently by Garsoïan and Greenwood.72 Whilst the present article will not seek to further explore the various aspects of doctrinal argumentation, it will consider one particular letter from the corpus of material relating to the council; one addressing the subject of Nestorianism, written in the 25th year of Khusro, King of Kings, 555CE. The letter, composed by Nerses, Catholicos of Armenia, Meršapuh, Bishop of Taron and the Mamikoneans, and Petros, Bishop of Siwnik was addressed to two Armenian Bishops: Grigor Bishop of Mardpetakan and Grigor Bishop of the Arcruni.73 The letter reiterates the separation of Nestorians from the Armenian Church and sets out a range of prohibitions designed to limit contact between Armenians and Nestorians.74 Strikingly, amongst the list of forbidden practices we find dayekut‘iwn.7
6. The History of Vardan and the Armenian War by Ełišē
7. The compositional context of The History by Ełišē is challenging to establish. It is an account of events in the mid-fifth century, leading up to and including the conflict of AD 451. The author claims to be an eyewitness and addressed his work to the patronage of an unattested figure: David Mamikonean.77 This uncertain sponsorship alerts us to the same hagiographical trope identified in the History by Agat‘angełos, which used an ‘eyewitness’ as a device to imagine past events in a later period.78 In fact, as Thomson argues, there is no compelling evidence to suggest the text was connected to the fifth century. He instead demonstrates that Ełišē drew parallels from John of Ephesus, whose narrative history extends to AD 585.79 This suggests the text could not predate the late sixth century. Ełišē’s Yazdegerd II and John’s Xosrov I are represented along similar lines; both are depicted comparing different belief systems. As Greenwood argues, the image of the Persian court as a place of intellectual discourse and religious debate is a feature of the later Sasanian period and these shared textual elements appear to support a late sixth century date.80 Thomson contends that Ełišē’s work is more easily understood as an expansive adaptation of Łazar, and this study accepts it as a sixth century composition.
8. The Encyclical Letter of Lord Abraham, Catholicos of Armenia (608)
9. Abraham I, Catholicos of Armenia, presided over a period of particular significance in the history of the Armenian church. His election as leader came during the Third Council of Dvin in 607, at a precarious moment for the Church.88 The ten-year schism which followed the establishment of the Chalcedonian Armenian Catholicosate had created a major rift within the organised ecclesiastical hierarchy and the Third Council of Dvin met to resolve this long standing issue.89 During the proceedings, the Catholicos Abraham officially condemned the council of Chalcedon and reinforced a distinct division between the Armenian and Chalcedonian churches. This decision also marked a clear separation between the Armenian and Georgian Churches, the latter of which had oriented itself increasingly toward the Chalcedonian Church prior to 607.90 As with the second council of Dvin, several documents and letters record the details and wider ramifications of the council. The aim of the present paper is not to revisit the circumstances of this doctrinal fall out, but instead to specifically examine the content of a letter written shortly after the council in 608. Composed by the newly elected Catholicos Abraham, the encyclical letter confirms the separation between the Armenian and Georgian churches, laying out ways in which the two communities should prohibit and limit their contact following the decision of the Third Council of Dvin. In similar terms to the Letter Regarding the Separation of the Nestorians from the Holy Church (555AD), we find dayekut‘iwn amongst the prohibitions.91 Fostering is referred to once in this letter. Whilst it may not tell us much about the workings of the practice in and of itself, this letter clearly contemplates fostering between Armenian and Georgian families. It provides a crucial example which reinforces evidence already identified in the History of Łazar and clearly demonstrates fostering between these two communities.
10. But did the Encyclical Letter really mark the end of the practice between Armenians and Georgians? It might be tempting to think so, though there is very little evidence which allows us to definitively argue that fostering between Armenians and Georgians ended at the beginning of the seventh century. What we can say with more certainty is that this letter serves as strong evidence to emphasise the wider, cross community context in which this practice can be found.
11. The Armenian History attributed to Sebeos
12. The Armenian History attributed to Sebeos is a narrative history stretching from the end of the fifth century until the middle of the seventh century.92 This text as Greenwood contends can be placed securely in time.93 The author has been identified as the anonymous bishop who, according to the text, refused to take communion with the Emperor Constans II during a service n Dvin in 653.94 The writer’s intimate knowledge of this exchange appears to be indicative of personal reminiscence.95 Howard-Johnston argues that the compiler gives the impression of recording news as it reached him and appears knowledgeable of the circumstances of the time.96 The volume of material increases as the narrative progresses, reaching its fullest between 653 655, where the history concludes. Six years later, the writer returned to the narrative and extended its conclusion to the first fitna of 661.97 This evidence comfortably suggests the text to be a composition of the mid seventh century. The attribution to Sebeos is the product of a complex and misleading historiographical tradition.98 However, this is so deeply embedded in the scholarship that this study will refer to the author of the text as ps. Sebeos. The text is an exceptionally valuable work which marks a turning point to a more universal and geographically expansive narrative style.99 Although it shares similar characteristics with previous Armenian sources, ps. Sebeos devotes his attention to wider events in Iran, Eastern Rome, and the early Islamic Caliphate; the Armenians in this narrative are integrated into events throughout the wider Sasanian Empire and beyond.
13. Ps. Sebeos records four instances of fostering in his composition.101 Strikingly, none of these examples are solely between Armenians. In a similar fashion to Łazar and Ełišē, the text acknowledges the existence of fostering between Armenian and non-Armenian communities, albeit in a historical sense, by referring to the fosterage of the son of Anak the Parthian.102 More significantly, The Armenian History attributed to Sebeos contains the first attestations of Armenian children being fostered by the Sasanian Persian elite. The text recalls that the son of Smbat Bagratuni, Varaztiroc‘ was ‘raised’ as a son of Shah Xosrov II, an experience shared by Vasak Arcruni and Theodoros Ṙštuni.103 Whilst the relationship dynamics are new, the terminology is familiar. Dayeak is deployed once in reference to the historical example of fostering.104 The verbal forms Snuc‘anem, snanim and an adjectival term snndakan, meaning nurtured/fostered are used once each.