History of the Armenians
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
perhaps 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, III, 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 S.
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
chronology, the thematic unity on occasion substitues
for an absolute chronology. 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 assumption: 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. For additional bibliography on
P'awstos, see S. 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).
Transliteration of Armenian names employed in this
introduction is a modification of the
Hubschmann-Meillet system.
Robert Bedrosian
New York, 1985