SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS

SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS

SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS:A RE-EVALUATION OF THE ARMENIAN HISTORY ATTRIB-

UTED TO SEBEOS

Introduction

One cannot fail to be impressed by the broad chronological and the-matic parameters of the History attributed to Sebeos1. In time it extendsfrom the Armenian rebellion of 572 under Vardan Mamikonean down tothe volatile conditions within Armenia in spring 655. Four additionalnotices, tacked on to the original conclusion, advance the reach of thework by a further six years to the conclusion of the first fitna and thetriumph of Mu‘awiya in 6612. In content, the work recounts episodesfrom the lives of prominent Armenian princes and successive ArmenianCatholicoi as well as reporting a selection of the military engagementsfought within the boundaries of what was then perceived to be Armenia.However the historical vision of the text is not restricted to Armenian-focused material. These passages are set in the context of events thattake place far beyond the geographical confines of Armenia. The textrecords the deposition of the Persian king Hormizd IV and the long reignof Khusraw II, the bitter and protracted warfare between the Persian andRoman empires after 603 and the dramatic Arab conquests in the NearEast which brought about the elimination of one empire and the emascu-lation of the other.

Yet it is important to recognize that the above comprises a superficialoverview of the scope of the History attributed to Sebeos. The depth ofits coverage is a different matter altogether. Although it spans nine dec-ades, the composition is stretched very unevenly over that period andcontains unexpected gaps. Thus whilst the text depicts the progress ofthe unremitting warfare in the Near East between 603 and 628, andrecords campaigns affecting Armenia with some diligence, it does notconsider the involvement of Armenian princes3. Internal Armenian af-

1 G.V. ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, Erevan, 1979 (= ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Se-beosi). English translation and historical commentary in R.W. THOMSON and J. HOWARD-JOHNSTON, The Armenian History attributed to Sebeos (2 Parts), Liverpool, 1999 (=THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos).

2 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 174.37-176.21. These are discussed in THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, Part I, p. 151, n. 923 and Part II, p. 281-287.

3 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 106.8-128.26.

324 T.W. GREENWOOD

fairs and perceptions during this twenty-five year period are consistentlyignored4. This is a notable omission in the light of the earlier narrativesdescribing the actions of Armenian princes in the last decade of the sixthcentury5. Elsewhere the coverage is frustratingly incomplete. The recordof the dismemberment of the Sasanian state jumps from the battle ofNihawand in 642 to the murder of Yazdagird III in 652 without contem-plating the intervening decade of hard-fought campaigns6. This unevencharacter is reinforced by sudden shifts in chronology, in content and inliterary style. The History attributed to Sebeos fluctuates between pas-sages that convey the presumed thoughts and opinions of the protago-nists by way of direct speech or correspondence, and impersonal narra-tives reporting the sequence of events in a sober, restrained fashion7.

These preliminary observations all point to the same conclusion, thatthe History attributed to Sebeos is a compilation of discrete extracts,taken from various sources and then combined in roughly chronologicalorder. Whilst the range of the text is obvious and impressive, its depth ofcoverage is variable, reflecting the content of the sources available to thecompiler and his exploitation of them.

As a composite work, the History attributed to Sebeos needs to behandled with particular care. On one level, it reflects the compiler’s ownperception of, and explanation for, recent history. Those passages writ-ten by the compiler himself give the best indication of what he thoughtabout his own times, although his selection of material for inclusion isalso a useful guide. But at the same time, the text preserves something ofthe original perspective, structure and content of the underlying sourcesquarried by the compiler for material. Evidently the compiler wasreluctant to rewrite the extracts he took from these sources. As we shallsee below, several thematic inconsistencies within the text have beencaused by the clash between the views of the compiler and those ex-pressed in his sources. In order to gain a better understanding of the textand its compiler, the History attributed to Sebeos has been subjected tothorough critical scrutiny. For it is only after careful appraisal of the

4 The career of Smbat Bagratuni in the service of king Khusraw II (ABGARYAN,Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 96.18-104.9) and the account of the capture of Karin and the exileof the Catholicos Abraham (ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 111.32-112-8) providethe only exceptions.

5 The two Vahewuni rebellions: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 87.12-90.7; thefate of those Armenian rebels at the hands of Khusraw II: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwnSebeosi, p. 94.5-23 and 95.23-96.14.

6 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 141.10-22 and 163.29-164.6.7 Compare the conversation between Muse¥ Mamikonean and Khusraw II (ABGARYAN,

Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 80.17-84.14) and the sequence of Persian campaigns inside Arme-nia after 603 (ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 107.31-111.31).

SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 325

whole composition and its constituent parts that individual passages canbe used with confidence in any historical reconstruction, whether asrecords of historical fact or as expressions of contemporary opinions andvalues.

This textual evaluation will consider how the History attributed toSebeos was put together, defining the sources available to the compiler,his arrangement of the extracts derived from them and the imprint of hisown understanding of recent events and historical causation. It will ex-amine the circumstances under which the text was compiled and howthese determined the shape and form of the text. It will propose, tenta-tively, the identity of its compiler and, more confidently, its patron. Themotivation for the writing of history is rarely selfless and reasons under-lying the composition may be discerned. Finally the strengths and weak-nesses of this text for scholars of Armenian and Near-Eastern historywill be assessed.

1) Attribution and Title

Before defining the underlying sources, it is worth touching brieflyupon the traditional attribution and title of the text. The single completeextant manuscript of the text, Matenadaran 2639, copied in the seven-teenth century, is untitled and anonymous8. However the first editor ofthe work, Mihrdatyan, had no hesitation in following the double identifi-cation of the author and work by Sahxat‘unyanc‘ as the ‘History ofSebeos, bishop of the Bagratunik‘, on the emperor Heraclius’9. Thomsonhas usefully reviewed the previous research on this issue and distin-guished three separate questions10. Is the text the History of Heraclius?Was it compiled by a historian named Sebeos? Was this Sebeos also abishop, specifically a bishop of the Bagratunik‘? In relation to the firstquestion, Thomson examined a passage in the tenth-century History ofUxtanes’ Urhayec‘i which borrows explicitly from a History ofHeraclius; furthermore he investigated two extracts defined as derivingfrom the History of Heraclius and preserved by chance in liturgical col-

8 This was implicitly recognized by M. Gyumusxanec‘i who described the text in1828 as ‘Patmut‘iwn mi anhe¥inak’ or ‘anonymous History’; see Matenadaran 3801,fol. 209b.

9 H. Sahxat‘unyanc‘ in Matenadaran 3801, fol. 142b: ‘Patmut‘iwn Sebeos’ or ‘Historyof Sebeos’ (1833); and fol. 98a: ‘Sebeosi episkoposi Bagratuneac‘ zHerakl kaysri e’ or‘of Sebeos, bishop of Bagratunik‘, concerning Herakl, the emperor’ (1837). T‘. MIHR-

DATYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi episkoposi i Herakln, Constantinople, 1851.10 THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. xxxiii-xxxviii.

326 T.W. GREENWOOD

lections11. Even a superficial comparison between these extracts and thisanonymous text is sufficient to show that there is no relationship be-tween them. Thomson concurred with Mahé: ‘it is clear that a historicalwork dealing with Heraclius did exist in Armenia, that only fragmentssurvive and that it was not identical with the text now attributed toSebeos’. With this first question conclusively resolved, the remainingquestions become tangential. Although it is clear that by the end of thetenth century, the work entitled ‘History of Heraclius’ was associatedwith an author named ‘Sebios’12, and that one Sebeos bishop of theBagratunik‘ had been a signatory to the canons of the Council of Dvin in64513, neither observation is relevant to this text. The traditional identifi-cation can no longer be sustained; this text is not the History ofHeraclius by Sebeos.

The longevity of this erroneous identification presents something of aproblem. Consistent reference to the text as the History of Heraclius bySebeos means that it would be very confusing to adopt a new title; itmight be misinterpreted as a newly-discovered text. Therefore it shall bereferred to as the History attributed to Sebeos; this preserves the connec-tion with the previous scholarship whilst intimating the necessary doubt.

2) The Underlying Sources

Unfortunately none of the original sources available to the compilersurvive independently of the History attributed to Sebeos. Therefore weare faced the task of trying to work out what he had in front of him fromthe shape and form of the text itself. Admittedly Matenadaran 2639does contain occasional internal headings purporting to introduce thesource of the subsequent passage, but such explicit references are excep-tional. The chapter divisions and headings do not provide any assistancein this respect because they were inserted in the nineteenth century. Forthe most part, the compiler chose not to cite the sources or to announce

11 Uxtanes Urhayec‘i Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘, Va¥arsapat, 1871, ch. 35. The extracts areexamined by J.-P. MAHÉ, Critical Remarks on the Newly-Edited Excerpts from Sebeos, inT.J. SAMUELIAN and M.E. STONE, Medieval Armenian Culture (University of Pennsylva-nia Armenian Texts and Studies, 6), Chico CA, 1984, p. 218-239. They are quoted inABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 429-433. The headings of the two extracts read ‘Fromthe history of Herak¥ concerning the sack of Jerusalem and the conveying into captivity ofthe holy wooden cross to Persia’ and ‘In relation to the holy cross from the histories ofHerakl’.

12 S. MALXASEANC‘, Step‘anosi Taronec‘woy Patmut‘iwn Tiezerakan, St. Petersburg,1885, p. 7.

13 V. HAKOBYAN, Kanonagirk‘ Hayoc‘, 2 vols., Erevan, 1964, 1971, vol. II, p. 214 (=HAKOBYAN, Kanonagirk‘).


when he moved from one source to another. However close textual scru-tiny reveals that the individual components were not broken down andabsorbed into a seamless narrative. Instead they were patched together.The transition between successive extracts is often abrupt, being charac-terized by a sudden change of subject or of literary style, or by an unex-pected leap forwards or backwards in time. These dislocations disruptthe narrative progression and allow us to discern several distinct sources.

a) Documents

The presence of several original headings in the manuscript was notedabove. Three of these introduce complete documents. The two lettersexchanged between the Armenian Catholicos Komitas and Modestos,the acting head of the church in Jerusalem after its capture by the Per-sians in 614, are both prefaced by a short heading: ‘To Lord Komitas’and ‘The Response of Kumitas (sic.)’14. The third heading appears im-mediately above the lengthy draft document prepared in defence of theArmenian doctrinal position found towards the end of the text15. Theremay be a fourth heading although this introduces a fragment from aseparate letter, inserted incongruously between the exchange of corre-spondence involving Komitas and Modestos16. As both Thomson andHoward-Johnston have concluded, these ecclesiastical documents shouldbe accepted as authentic17. Prima facie there is a significant correlationbetween the incidence of headings in the manuscript and contemporary,authentic documents.

b) The ‘Royal History’

Towards the beginning of the History attributed to Sebeos, the manu-script contains another original heading made up of two elements:

14 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 116.15 and 118.18. It is intriguing to note thatboth letters are perceived in terms of Komitas, even though it was Modestos who hadcomposed the first; this suggests that they were filed in an Armenian collection of corre-spondence.

15 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 148.22-26: ‘Copy of the reply to the letterwhich came to Armenia from the king of the Romans Constans, which the bishops of Ar-menia and the Catholicos Nerses wrote with the nobles and the commander T‘eodoroslord of Rstunik‘’.

16 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 118.8-9: ‘And this is the letter of reply whichthe Armenians wrote to Jerusalem, to the emperor’. The fragment which follows looks asthough it derives from the introduction to a letter composed on the occasion of Heraclius’triumphant entry into Jerusalem on 21st March 630, when the True Cross was restored.Could these letters have been extracted from a folder of Armenian ecclesiastical corre-spondence with Jerusalem?

17 THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. liv-lvi and lxiii.

328 T.W. GREENWOOD

‘Chronological Text’ and ‘Royal History’18. Successive passages recordthe rule and deposition of Hormizd IV, the rebellion of Bahram Chubinand the flight and eventual restoration of Khusraw II19. The titles prefacepassages describing the crisis in the Sasanian succession at the end ofthe sixth century. As with the earlier headings, they refer to an anteriorwork exploited by the compiler, one that had something to do withSasanian royal history. This brings us face to face with a difficult andcontentious issue, namely the Sasanian historiographical tradition. Be-fore considering the contribution of this text, it is worth reviewing, albeitbriefly, the current state of debate.

All historians of the Sasanian empire have come up against the samefundamental problem: how to overcome the almost complete lack ofcontemporary records and literature, historical or otherwise, in MiddlePersian. The approach taken by the majority has been to examine thosenon-Persian texts containing passages about Sasanian Persia and to ar-gue that these reflect traces of that tradition20. Since the bulk of the rel-evant passages have been preserved within Arabic historical composi-tions, these have attracted the greatest attention. Nöldeke was the firstscholar to pursue this line of enquiry, in his translation and commentaryof the relevant sections of al-™abari’s Ta’rikh al-rusul wa’l-muluk, andhis work remains the cornerstone of modern scholarship21. In his analy-

18 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 72.1-2; THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos,p. 13, n. 89: ‘Matean Zamanakean’ or ‘Chronological Text’ and ‘Patmut‘iwn t‘agawo-rakan’ or ‘Royal History’.

19 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 72.28-80.11.20 See for example A. CHRISTENSEN, L’Iran sous les Sassanides, Copenhagen, 1944 (=

CHRISTENSEN, L’Iran); F. ALTHEIM and R. STIEHL, Ein asiatischer Staat. Feudalismusunter den Sasaniden und ihren Nachbarn, Wiesbaden, 1954; R.N. FRYE, The History ofAncient Iran, Munich, 1984; K. SCHIPPMANN, Grundzüge der Geschichte des sasani-dischen Reiches, Darmstadt, 1990. The minority view has been to adopt a far more scep-tical attitude, arguing that the versions of Sasanian history presented by the Arabic histo-rians are likely to have undergone distortion, suppression and invention in the course oftransmission and that these cannot be relied upon. See, for example, J. HOWARD-JOHN-

STON, The Two Great Powers in Late Antiquity: A Comparison, in A. CAMERON, TheByzantine and Early Islamic Near East III. States, Resources and Armies, Princeton,1995, p. 157-226. Howard-Johnston relies upon material evidence in his reconstruction ofthe main structural features of the Sasanian empire. However it is important to rememberthat material evidence has often been interpreted through the literary sources, thereby re-ducing its value as an independent witness. Also see J. WIESEHÖFER, Ancient Persia, Lon-don, 1996, p. 159. Wiesehöfer classes works of ‘Perso-Arab historiography’ as tertiarysources because their transmission of Sasanian material went through several stages: ‘itwas written down and revised or edited in the late Sasanian period, translated and ar-ranged in the early Islamic period, and made to conform with the specific Muslim con-ception of history. To what extent information about the early Sasanian period was inten-tionally disturbed or organically altered in this process cannot altogether be determined.’

21 T. NÖLDEKE, Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit der Sasaniden aus derarabischen Chronik des Tabari, Leiden, 1879 (= NÖLDEKE, Sasaniden).


sis of the sources for al-™abari’s version of Sasanian history, Nöldekedetected two principal lines of narrative within al-™abari’s Ta’rikh, run-ning parallel to one another, and maintained that one of these derivedfrom the lost Arabic translation of a lost Pahlavi Book of the Lords orKhwaday-namag, made by Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ in the eighth century22. Al-though he did not identify the origin of the other strand, beyond suggest-ing that it was from a later work, Rubin has recently revisited this sub-ject and argued that this second strand also derives from the same trans-lation made by Ibn al-Muqaffa‘23.

The eagerness of both scholars to trace these strands of Sasanian his-tory back to Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ is understandable, particularly as bothstrands appear to preserve reliable information. Their interpretationrenders the chain of transmission from Pahlavi text to al-™abari’sTa’rikh as short as possible, thereby reducing the opportunity for re-working by intermediate writers. At the same time, it links the transla-tion from Pahlavi into Arabic to a named scholar. However on closer in-spection, the connection between the lost translation by Ibn al-Muqaffa‘and either narrative strand in al-™abari’s Ta’rikh is assumed rather thanproven. Al-™abari does not acknowledge Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ as a source.Nöldeke based his attribution upon a similarity between al-™abari’s nar-rative and the account of Sasanian history preserved in Ibn Qutaybah’sKitab al-ma‘arif, even though Ibn Qutaybah only refers directly to Ibnal-Muqaffa‘ in another of his works, the Kitab ‘uyun al-akhbar24. Thechain is not as secure as it might appear. Rubin’s argument is no lesselaborate, positing the existence of two versions of the Arabic translationby Ibn al-Muqaffa‘, one longer and one shorter Siyar al-muluk, with theformer containing both strands25. This provides the second strand of nar-rative with a secure provenance, thereby supporting Rubin’s contentionthat the description of Khusraw I Anusharwan’s administrative reformsfound within that second strand is authentic26. Yet the proposition thatthe lost Khwaday-namag translated by Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ necessarily pre-served valuable historical information about the Sasanian empire re-mains an assumption, based largely on its eighth-century translation by

22 NÖLDEKE, Sasaniden, p. xx-xxii.23 Z. RUBIN, Al-™abari and the Age of the Sasanians, in L. CONRAD, Al-™abari: A Me-

dieval Muslim Historian and his Work (Princeton, forthcoming), p. 80-81 (= RUBIN, Al-™abari). I am very grateful to Professor Rubin for his permission to cite this article.

24 NÖLDEKE, Sasaniden p. 121, n. 1 and p.126, n. 4.25 RUBIN, Al-™abari, p. 80.26 Z. RUBIN, The Reforms of Khusro Anushirwan, in A. CAMERON, The Byzantine and

Early Islamic Near East III. States, Resources and Armies, Princeton, 1995, p. 227-297 (=RUBIN, Reforms); RUBIN, Al-™abari, p. 79 and n. 70.

330 T.W. GREENWOOD

Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ and his scholarly reputation. Neither of these guaranteesthe historical reliability of the Pahlavi source. In much the same way,although Nöldeke and many other scholars have argued that Firdawsi’sShahnama should be regarded as proof of the ‘fundamental historicity’of al-™abari’s Ta’rikh because it reflects the lost Khwaday-namag in acollateral line, this argument assumes that this Khwaday-namag was his-torically reliable; it does not prove its historical accuracy27.

In fact as Rubin and others have noted, by the tenth century, there wasa great proliferation of translations and would-be translations bearing thetitle Khwaday-namag or Siyar al-muluk al-Fars. Hamzah al-Isfahanipossessed eight such books and the author of one of these, Bahram ibnMardanshah, claimed to own twenty whilst another scholar, Musa ibn‘Isa al-Kisrawi asserted that he had read and compared many and foundthem all to be different28. Instead of seeking to establish a link betweenthe relevant material that has survived in later works and the lost transla-tion produced by Ibn al-Muqaffa‘, tempting though that is, it seems pref-erable to envisage that an unknown number of parallel, arguably contra-dictory, accounts of Sasanian origin survived in written form long afterthe collapse of the Sasanian empire, and were translated, reworked anddeveloped to a greater or lesser extent over time. This is not to deny thatthe passages recording Sasanian history in al-™abari’s Ta’rikh do notstand out within that composition as a whole. It is significant, for exam-ple, that these passages derive their basic chronological structure fromthe reigns of Sasanian kings rather than following the annalistic frame-work of individual year-entries used subsequently by al-™abari. It isclear that this biographical structure reflects the form of earlier sources.However questions about the original content of such sources and thedegree to which they were altered in the course of transmission will re-main hidden if one limits the search for traces of the Sasanian histo-riographical tradition to these later Arabic texts. Without independentcorroboration, their historical reliability cannot be assumed. This hasprompted scholars to examine other potential havens for Sasanian his-torical writing.

The best known of these is a sixth-century Greek history text com-posed by Agathias. He was a lawyer and historian based in Constantino-ple who sought to pick up the historical thread from where Procopiushad left off writing his History. Agathias died a short time before thesuccession of the emperor Maurice in 582, having, it seems, advanced

27 NÖLDEKE, Sasaniden, p. xxiii-xxv; RUBIN, Al-™abari, p. 81; RUBIN, Reforms, p. 234-236.

28 RUBIN, Al-™abari, p. 78-79.


the work only to 55929. Just over thirty years ago, Cameron produced adetailed commentary upon an excursus on Sasanian dynastic history in-corporated by Agathias into his composition30. Agathias stated that hisstudy of successive Sasanian kings, from Shabur I to Khusraw IAnusharwan had been based on material extracted and translated by aninterpreter named Sergius from the basilik¬n âpomnjmoneumátwn or‘Royal Annals’ to which he had been given access during a visit to Per-sia31. Ostensibly therefore, Agathias’ excursus represents the earliestwitness to a Sasanian historical tradition and the keeping of officialSasanian records.

However when Cameron examined the excursus, she found that it didnot fit comfortably with Agathias’ confident assertions about its origin.In the first place, the survey of Sasanian history is brief and incomplete.Indeed it seems that Agathias had to rely upon Procopius for his portraitsof Bahram V and Kawad I, perhaps implying that the source used bySergius did not extend beyond 48832. More seriously, its tone is the op-posite of what one would have anticipated in official Sasanian annals.Several of the greatest Sasanian kings are disparaged whilst less success-ful rulers are praised. Thus Shabur I is described as ‘wicked’, someonewho ‘did great harm to the Romans’ and who was ‘puffed up with pride’when enjoying his ‘ill-won gains’33. By contrast, Yazdagird I, tradition-ally ‘the sinful one’ with many character flaws, is described by Agathiasas ‘friendly and peaceful who never once made war on the Romans’34.Walash, who is usually portrayed as being hated by the Zoroastrianclergy for his favour towards Christians, is described as ‘mild and gentleof character’35. It is very hard to see how these portraits could have beenlifted from official Persian records36. Moreover events receive similartreatment. Thus the surrender of Nisibis is viewed within the excursus as

29 R. KEYDELL, Agathiae Myrinaei Historiarum Libri Quinque, Berlin, 1967, Preface14-21 (= KEYDELL, Agathiae); J. FRENDO, Agathias the Historian, Berlin, 1975, p. ix-x (=FRENDO, Agathias); A. CAMERON, Agathias, Oxford, 1970, p. 1-11 (= CAMERON, Aga-thias).

30 A. CAMERON, Agathias on the Sassanians, in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 23-24(1969), p. 69-183 (= CAMERON, Sassanians).

31 KEYDELL, Agathiae, IV.30.2-4. They are also described as t¬n Persik¬n bibl¬nand to⁄v Periko⁄v xeirográfoiv: Agathiae, IV.30.2 and IV.30.5.

32 KEYDELL, Agathiae, IV.27.1-2 and IV.27.6-29.5; CAMERON, Sassanians, p. 151, 155and 158: ‘The account of Cavadh is interesting based as it is largely on Procopius…heopenly corrects Procopius only once yet in the vaguest terms and without giving an alter-native version’.

33 KEYDELL, Agathiae, IV.24.2-4.34 KEYDELL, Agathiae, IV.26.8.35 KEYDELL, Agathiae, IV.27.5.36 CAMERON, Sassanians, p. 113.

332 T.W. GREENWOOD

part of a ‘shameful, disgraceful truce, so bad that it is even now harmfulto the Roman state’37. This surely reflects a Roman rather than aSasanian view of that truce.

Cameron advanced two arguments for the limited coverage and hos-tile tone of Agathias’ presentation of Sasanian dynastic history. Agathiashimself stated that Sergius took ‘the names and dates and principalevents and put them into Greek’38. Cameron understood this to meanthat the interpreter had summarized the records he was shown39. ForCameron, this explained the discrepancies between Agathias’ skeletalaccount and subsequent versions of Sasanian history40. Secondly sheargued that Sergius was also responsible for giving the work both aSyrian — and hence Roman — and a Christian spin. This explained theparticular sympathies adduced within the excursus. Agathias had no wayof evaluating the material he received from Sergius and had to take it ontrust that it all came from the ‘official’ source41. Cameron therefore in-terpreted the excursus as based upon an abbreviated translation of theRoyal Annals, themselves selective, all seen from the viewpoint of andthus reflecting the attitude of the interpreter, Sergius.

However if one accepts all of these qualifications and strips away allof the material that is in some way compromised, there is very little leftthat may be attributed with confidence to an official Sasanian history.Rather than working from the premise that Agathias’ statement for theorigin of his Sasanian excursus is true, and then having to excuse thecharacter of much of the material, it seems much easier to turn the argu-ment the other way around, in other words to postulate a different sourcefor that material and then consider how and why Agathias went to suchpains to assert a Persian origin. It seems more probable that Agathiashad access to an incomplete, hostile summary of Sasanian dynastic his-tory, reflecting Christian and Roman sympathies, which he then had tosupplement with information derived from Procopius.42 This interpreta-tion avoids the otherwise complicated argument, that Sergius not onlyabbreviated the Royal Annals but also reworked them. It also sidestepsthe difficult issue of assessing the likelihood that a Roman interpreterwould have been afforded access to official Sasanian records at anytime, least of all after decades of warfare.

37 KEYDELL, Agathiae, IV.25.7; CAMERON, Sassanians, p. 145-146.38 KEYDELL, Agathiae, IV.30.4.39 CAMERON, Sassanians, p. 114.40 CAMERON, Sassanians, p. 166.41 CAMERON, Sassanians, p. 113.42 It would also explain the otherwise problematic presence of a Seleucid date at the

start of the excursus. See KEYDELL, Agathiae, IV.24.1.


Why then did Agathias assert such an impressive origin? It is possiblethat he genuinely believed that he had obtained information excerptedfrom an official source. But there is a persuasive alternative proposition,that Agathias invented this fiction for his own purposes. The excursusconcludes by explaining the origin of the material and stating that, in theevent of conflict between Agathias’ presentation of Persian history andthat of Procopius, his should be preferred43. The close relationship be-tween the two historians has long been recognized. In the Preface to hiswork, Agathias acknowledges his debt to Procopius, admitting his inten-tion to pick up from where Procopius left off44. In this passage, Agathiasopenly holds himself out for comparison with Procopius. The elaborateorigin for his Sasanian excursus allowed him to proclaim his superiorhistorical skill; in securing such an exotic source, he had surpassed evenProcopius. Nor did Agathias have to look very far for his inspiration.Herodotus, Thucydides and Diodoros all relate how the keeping of Per-sian royal records was an Achaemenid practice45. The debt owed byAgathias to all three authors was recognized long ago, even though thenature and extent of that imitation is disputed46. Therefore Agathias ap-propriated this tradition and applied it to the present day in order to ad-vance his reputation as a historian.

This does not mean that Agathias’ Sasanian excursus is without his-torical merit or historiographical interest. Agathias was able to locateand exploit a written source for Sasanian dynastic history, albeit one thattook a hostile approach towards its subject. As we shall see, the bio-graphical character of that source is significant. However there are goodreasons to doubt whether official historical records were maintained atthe Sasanian court during this period. Furthermore the incomplete andinimical nature of the excursus makes it inconceivable that it could havebeen made from such records. In summary therefore, not only are thereserious drawbacks in attempting to reconstruct the Sasanian historio-graphical tradition solely on the basis of relevant passages preserved inlater Arabic historical compositions; the excursus on Sasanian historyincorporated by Agathias within his Histories cannot be used as evi-

43 KEYDELL, Agathiae, IV.30.5.44 KEYDELL, Agathiae, Preface 21-32.45 Herodotus VII.100.1, VIII.90.4; Thucydides I.129.3; Diodorus II.32.446 A. CAMERON, Herodotus and Thucydides in Agathias, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift,

57 (1964), p. 32-53. Cameron challenges Franke’s thesis that Agathias had intimateknowledge of Herodotus’ text, arguing that he confined his imitation to images from theaccounts of the battles of Thermopylae and Platea and hackneyed quotations from lexicalhandbooks. She added that Agathias’ Thucydidean borrowings were selective, obviousand familiar.

334 T.W. GREENWOOD

dence for the keeping of official records at the Persian court or as an ex-ample of contemporary Sasanian historical writing. Having recognizedthese problems, let us return to the History attributed to Sebeos.

Although the potential contribution of Armenian texts to the recon-struction of Sasanian history has long been recognized, the possibilitythat Armenian historical texts may also have a contribution to make tothe reconstruction of the lost Sasanian historiographical tradition hastended to be ignored47. Yet the conjunction of the heading ‘Royal His-tory’ and the Sasanian orientation of the passages beneath indicate thatthe History attributed to Sebeos may supply a fresh insight into thiscomplex subject. Before embarking on a study of these passages, it isworth stressing that this text has two principal strengths, both of whichare discussed below. There can be no doubt that it was compiled in themid-seventh century. It therefore predates all of the Arabic reflections ofSasanian historical writing by at least two centuries. Secondly its par-ticular interpretation of current circumstances rapidly became obsolete.It did not become a popular or influential text in the corpus of Armenianliterature. This peripheral quality ensured that it was not reworked orupdated. In other words, its version of Sasanian history is both early andunlikely to have been tampered with in the course of transmission.

As the heading ‘Royal History’ indicates, the text records events andcircumstances in the lives of successive Sasanian kings from HormizdIV down to the accession of Yazdagird III. Perhaps unsurprisingly in thelight of his longevity and achievements, Khusraw II Abarwez is affordedthe greatest exposure. However he is portrayed in a very particular way.His reign is presented in three phases: a disputed succession and unset-tled early years, the long war against Byzantium and his own dramaticdeposition and execution in 62848. In each phase, Khusraw II is viewedprimarily in terms of his interaction with his principal opponents:Bahram Chubin, the emperor Maurice, his maternal uncles Binduyahand Bistam, Heraclius and ultimately his son Kawad II Sheroy49. Therelationships are defined through a blend of narrative and direct and re-ported speech. These passages tell us more about the original author’sunderstanding of, and explanation for, the recent past and should not beinterpreted as necessarily reflecting the genuine attitudes of the protago-

47 CHRISTENSEN, L’Iran, p. 77-79. See also P. GIGNOUX, Pour une Évaluation de laContribution des Sources Arméniennes à l’Histoire sassanide, in Acta Antiqua Acade-miae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 31 (1985-1986), p. 53-65.

48 Contested accession: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 72.28-84.32; Near-easternwarfare: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 106.8-126.10; deposition of Khusraw II andsubsequent political turmoil: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 126.11-130.34.

49 See for example the negotiations between Khusraw II and Maurice: ABGARYAN,Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 76.8-77.4 and 80.17-81.


nists. Khusraw II is allowed to inhabit certain contexts only, carefullyselected by the author.

Close examination reveals further complexities in the text’s approachto Sasanian history. Just as Cameron observed inherent Christian andSyrian sympathies within Agathias’ excursus, so unmistakable Arme-nian and Christian influences can be detected in this text’s coverage ofSasanian affairs. Thus prior to the decisive battle in 591, Khusraw II’srival, Bahram Chubin negotiates with the Armenian prince Muse¥Mamikonean, offering him swathes of Armenian territory in return forhis support50. As Thomson has observed, the definition of the Armenianterritory offered by him to Muse¥ bears an uncanny resemblance to apassage in an earlier Armenian text, that of Agat‘ange¥os, describing thearea converted by St. Grigor the Illuminator. Or again, when reportingthe agreement between Khusraw II and Maurice in 590, the partition ofArmenia is presented as the principal condition and is defined in thegreatest detail51. Finally the provocative letter allegedly sent by KhusrawII to Heraclius in 624 is based upon several pertinent Old Testament pas-sages, foremost among which is Isaiah’s description of Sennacharib’sultimatum to king Hezekiah52. The description of Heraclius’ reaction tothis letter is based upon the reaction of Hezekiah reported by Isaiah53.Both the letter and the subsequent passage were influenced by the sameBiblical passage and can only have been composed by a Christian.Given that the text is a compilation, a further question arises: were theseArmenian and Christian sympathies already present in the underlyingsource exploited by the compiler for his account of Sasanian history orwhether they were added by the compiler?

The underlying source does not survive as an independent text. How-ever something of its original structure and content prior to any rework-ing and inflation by the compiler of the History attributed to Sebeos maybe recovered by turning to a later, tenth-century Armenian historicalwork put together by T‘ovma Arcruni54. Until now it has always been

50 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 77.18-79.6 and THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON,Sebeos p. 21, n. 151.

51 The offer by Khusraw II of specified Syrian and Armenian territory in return formilitary assistance from emperor Maurice and peace thereafter: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwnSebeosi, p. 76.8-18; the definition of the territory that was actually conceded: ABGARYAN,Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 84.24-29.

52 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 123.15-33; Isaiah 36.16-17, 19-20. THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. 80, n. 496 and n. 498.

53 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 124.1-5; Isaiah 37.1, 14. See also THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. 80, n. 500.

54 K‘. PATKANEAN, Patmut‘iwn Tann Arcruneac‘, St. Petersburg, 1887; repr. Tiflis,1917; Delmar NY, 1991 (= PATKANEAN, T‘ovma). English translation by R.W. THOMSON,Thomas Artsruni: History of the House of the Artsrunik‘, Detroit, 1985 (= THOMSON,Thomas Artsruni).

336 T.W. GREENWOOD

assumed that T‘ovma simply turned to a copy of the History attributed toSebeos for his account of late sixth and early seventh-century Sasanianhistory55. In fact, it seems far more likely that the relationship betweenthe two Armenian texts is indirect. T‘ovma did not exploit the Historyattributed to Sebeos. Instead he drew upon the same source for Sasanianhistory previously used in the compilation of that earlier text.

In the Preface to his work, T‘ovma addressed his sponsor, almost cer-tainly Gagik prince of Vaspurakan, and stated the central purpose of hiswork:

‘In the narrative of this book I shall indicate the genealogy and nature/con-dition of your ancestors…I shall set out in this history the least and small-est remnants of records relative to events and places from the earlier andprevious historians of our native lords of the family of Arcrunik‘ so thattheir valour and virtue may be clearly revealed by name, place and time. Ishall enquire into the essential thoughts as the inspiration for the structureof these words: who they were, and when, from whom, where, how, howmany, what sort they were, in what manner they conducted themselves andto which heads they submitted.’56

Given this very precise statement of intent, it is most surprising to dis-cover that the four members of the Arcruni family who are mentionedexplicitly at different points in the History attributed to Sebeos do notappear in T‘ovma’s History57. Admittedly three of these figures occuronly in lists of names without further definition but the killing of VasakArcruni by the Persians is described briefly. Apparently even his en-emies mourned his death, recalling his ‘valour and bravery’. On the ba-sis of T‘ovma’s own conception of the remit of his composition, onewould have expected at least Vasak to feature somewhere in the text.T‘ovma’s ignorance of all four Arcruni family members, and indeed anyArmenian with the exception of Muse¥ Mamikonean, strongly suggeststhat he did not have the History attributed to Sebeos at his disposal. Nev-ertheless, the near-verbatim correspondence between the two texts stillneeds to be explained58. If T‘ovma did not have the History attributed to

55 THOMSON, Thomas Artsruni, p. 35: ‘his account of the fall of the Sasanian dynasty istaken verbatim from that writer’s (i.e. Sebeos’) History’. In THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. xxxv, Thomson reiterated this view: ‘But none of his (T‘ovma’s)sources did he copy so exactly as Sebeos…’ Howard-Johnston accepted this approach:THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. 156-157.

56 PATKANEAN, T‘ovma, p. 3-4. The above translation differs in several respects fromthat in THOMSON, Thomas Artsruni, p. 63-64.

57 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 94.14: Vardan; p. 101.13: Varazsapuh; andp. 112.13-19: Vasak, son of Sahak the prince of Arcrunik‘.

58 The offer by Khusraw II of specified Syrian and Armenian territory in return formilitary assistance from emperor Maurice and peace thereafter: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwnSebeosi, p. 76.8-18 and PATKANEAN, T‘ovma, p. 85-86; the definition of the territory con-


ceded: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 84.24-29 and PATKANEAN, T‘ovma, p. 88; thesiege and capture of Jerusalem: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 115.23-116.13 andPATKANEAN, T‘ovma, p. 89; and the events surrounding the deposition of Khusraw II andthe accession of Kawad II: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 126.25-129.24 andPATKANEAN, T‘ovma, p. 94-96. T‘ovma’s description of Heraclius’ campaign in 624(PATKANEAN, T‘ovma, p. 92) corresponds closely with that found in the History attributedto Sebeos (ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 124.22-27), both in terms of substance andlanguage. However it contains additional material, noting for example that Heracliuspassed through Sirak, that Ormi was attacked as well as Naxcavan and that the regions ofHamadan and May were plundered in addition to Ganjak in Atrpatakan. Although thisdiscrepancy has previously been explained in terms of the loss of material from the His-tory attributed to Sebeos in the course of transmission, the new indirect relationship be-tween the texts asserted above permits the argument that the two compilers exploited theunderlying source slightly differently.

59 Resonances in respect of the Jewish revolt in Edessa and subsequent discussionswith Muhammad: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 134.21-35 and PATKANEAN, T‘ovma,p. 98-99. Dissonances: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 135.1-137.3 and PATKANEAN,T‘ovma, p. 99-101 and 102-103.

60 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 130.34 and n. 450. The phrase is ‘ays e’, ‘it isthis’, corrected by Abgaryan to ‘amen’.

Sebeos in front of him, he can only have had one of the principal sourcesincorporated within that text.

The argument that T‘ovma did not exploit the History attributed toSebeos also explains why the description of the Arab conquests and thecareer of MuÌammad found in book II chapter 4 of T‘ovma Arcruni’sHistory is so different to the record of these events in the History attrib-uted to Sebeos. With the exception of two short notices, distantly relatedto material found in the earlier text, T‘ovma’s version is independent. Itsupplies a pejorative account of MuÌammad’s life, his teaching and in-spiration59. By contrast, the History attributed to Sebeos contains a farmore balanced and dispassionate summary. The most straightforwardexplanation for this sudden divergence is that the common source endedwith the succession of Yazdagird III, compelling both compilers to fash-ion their own reconstructions. T‘ovma’s recourse to a new chapter at thispoint is consistent with this argument, as is the presence of a parentheti-cal phrase at the equivalent place in the History attributed to Sebeos60.These thematic and structural arguments indicate that the commonsource concluded with the accession of Yazdagird III.

Therefore book II chapter 3 of the History of T‘ovma Arcruni pro-vides invaluable information about the structure and content of this ante-rior source, the projected ‘Royal History’. Two principal features of thatsource stand out. Firstly it is clear that its presentation of Sasanian dy-nastic history possessed a distinctive Armenian and Christian characterbefore it was exploited by the compiler of the History attributed toSebeos. The passages attesting these characteristics, defined above, oc-

338 T.W. GREENWOOD

cur in both texts. The common source was an Armenian rather than aPersian composition. At the same time however, the Sasanian orientationof that source is unmistakable. The outline of the reign of Khusraw IIobtained from the History attributed to Sebeos and sketched aboveemerges in even sharper relief. Narrative passages reporting his acces-sion and demise are separated by an impressionistic summary of thethree decades of Persian-Roman warfare in which the military action hasbeen condensed into four set-pieces: a description of the fall of Jerusa-lem in 614, a report of the lengthy speech made by Heraclius before thePersian commander Sahen in 615, the derogatory letter from Khusraw IIto Heraclius and the latter’s reaction, and several confused fragmentsabout Heraclius’ campaigns after 62461. As we shall see, this profile ofthe reign of Khusraw II is far from unique.

The above analysis does not establish a direct link between an originalPahlavi source and the History attributed to Sebeos. It extends the chainof transmission, postulating an Armenian composition focused primarilyupon Sasanian dynastic history, a work for which the second of theoriginal headings would be well suited. If the History attributed toSebeos preserves an impression of the Sasanian historiographical tradi-tion, it does so through this underlying Armenian composition. This be-ing so, to what extent was that composition based upon or influenced bythe Sasanian historiographical tradition?

Given the dearth of sources in Pahlavi, it is impossible to prove a di-rect relationship between the ‘Royal History’ incorporated within theHistory attributed to Sebeos and such a text. However in addition to itsconsistent interest in Sasanian history, three separate arguments can beadvanced which, when taken together, constitute persuasive evidence fora close connection between that text and a Pahlavi original.

The first hurdle to overcome is to show that material originally inPahlavi could become embedded within contemporary Armenian com-positions. The long recension of a seventh-century Armenian geographi-cal compilation known as the Asxarhac‘oyc‘ illustrates that process oftransition62. A short passage towards the end of that work has long been

61 All four passages are found in both texts. Capture of Jerusalem: ABGARYAN,Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 115.5-116.13 and PATKANEAN, T‘ovma, p. 89. Heraclius’ speechto Sahen: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 122.12-123.7 and PATKANEAN, T‘ovma,p. 89-91. Khusraw’s letter to Heraclius and his reaction: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi,p. 123.15-124.5 and PATKANEAN, T‘ovma, p. 91-92. Heraclius’ campaigns: ABGARYAN,Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 124.5-126.35 and PATKANEAN, T‘ovma, p. 92-94.

62 A. SOUKRY, Asxarhac‘oyc‘ Movsesi Xorenac‘woy, Venice, 1881 (= SOUKRY,Asxarhac‘oyc‘), reprinted, together with a facsimile of the unique manuscript upon whichit was based, in R.H. HEWSEN, Ashkharhatsoyts, Delmar NY, 1994. English translationand commentary in R.H. HEWSEN, The Geography of Ananias of Sirak (Asxarhac‘oyc‘),Wiesbaden, 1992 (= HEWSEN, Geography).


appreciated as an invaluable guide to the provincial structure of the lateSasanian empire63. Less well known is its contribution to our under-standing of the formation of the Asxarhac‘oyc‘. As Hewsen has noted,the text departs from its structural template, Pappus of Alexandria’s nowlost Khorographia Oikoumenike, itself based upon Ptolemy’s Geogra-phia, to incorporate a separate passage defining the four divisions of theSasanian empire and their administrative subdivisions64. Thereafter thetext picks up from where it left off and, following Ptolemy once more,revisits this same area in the context of the Parthian empire. The disrup-tion caused by this short passage shows that it must be an interpolationfrom another source. Critically it uses Pahlavi expressions transliteratedinto Armenian for the four administrative divisions within the Sasanianempire: K‘ust i Xorbaran, K‘ust i Nmroj, K‘ust i Xorasan and K‘ust iKapkoh65. Each is followed by an Armenian explanation; so ‘K‘ust iXorbaran which is the western region’, ‘K‘ust i Nmroj which is the mid-dle region which is south’, ‘K‘ust i Xorasan which is the region of theeast’ and ‘K‘ust i Kapkoh which is of the Caucasus mountains’. Moreo-ver we find that the Pahlavi terms for region in the Caucasus again re-quire Armenian equivalents: ‘Armn (which is) Hayk‘, Varjan which isVirk‘, Ran which is A¥uank‘…’66. The need to define Armn is particu-larly striking. The transliteration from Pahlavi, coupled with the evidentneed to provide the equivalent Armenian term, proves that this Sasanianadministrative summary was originally in Pahlavi. Although the circum-stances under which that passage was translated into Armenian cannotbe determined, its presence within the Asxarhac‘oyc‘ proves that writtenPahlavi documents were available and accessible to contemporary Ar-menian authors.

Secondly, the History attributed to Sebeos is not the only Armenianhistorical work to interpret events primarily through the actions and de-

63 SOUKRY, Asxarhac‘oyc‘, p. 40; HEWSEN, Geography, p. 72. See J. MARQUART,Eransahr nach der Geographie des Ps. Movses Chorenac‘i, Berlin, 1901.

64 HEWSEN, Geography, p. 28-32 and 234, n. 8.65 J. MARKWART, A Catalogue of the Provincial Capitals of Eransahr, Rome, 1931,

p. 25, where Kust, Kustak is identified as the Middle Persian for side or flank: see alsoHEWSEN, Geography, p. 228, n. 2. This short Pahlavi treatise of uncertain date is also di-vided into four quarters: Kust-i xvarasan, Kust-i xvarbaran, Kust-i nemoc and Kust-iAturpatakan. The sequence is different but three of the four are identical to those found inthe Asxarhac‘oyc‘. This treatise is an intriguing fusion of administrative and epic infor-mation, which may illustrate how Sasanian records, or the tradition of Sasanian record-keeping, were transformed, gaining a literary function as their original administrativefunction reduced.

66 SOUKRY, Asxarhac‘oyc‘, p. 40; HEWSEN, Geography, 72. The Asxarhac‘oyc‘ con-tains another much more detailed description of the Caucasus: SOUKRY, Asxarhac‘oyc‘,p. 33; HEWSEN, Geography, p. 65, 65A.

340 T.W. GREENWOOD

cisions of Khusraw II. Although the History of A¥uank‘ attributed toMovses Dasxuranc‘i was compiled in the second decade of the tenthcentury, it preserves extracts taken from much older sources, one ofwhich traced the turmoil that engulfed the region of A¥uank‘ after 62467.Once again the Persian king is the central figure. The narrative recordsthe negotiations conducted by both Khusraw II and Heraclius with aTurkic leader named Sat‘, as a result of which he joined forces withHeraclius against Khusraw68. The warfare is portrayed as, and by impli-cation understood in terms of, a personal struggle between these figures.Their exchanges should not be viewed as a reflection of the offers andthreats made by the parties but rather as an attempt by the author to ex-plain the subsequent devastation of A¥uank‘ by Sat‘ and the end ofSasanian control. The narrative then veers away to record the origins, theprogress and the aftermath of the coup against Khusraw II69. Its accountis different from, but largely complementary to, that found in the Historyattributed to Sebeos70.

Just as Armenian and Christian concerns can be detected within therelevant passages from the History attributed to Sebeos, so the impres-sion of Khusraw II within the History of A¥uank‘ possesses an Albanianperspective. This focus is developed through the fusion of these passageswith local records describing in remarkable detail the devastating impactof enemy (i.e. Roman and Turkic) forces upon A¥uank‘ in the period624-63071. Again it is important to stress that it is not possible to iso-late a Persian text within the History of A¥uank‘. Nevertheless the profileof Khusraw II is essentially similar to that found in the History attributedto Sebeos. Both texts reflect a similar understanding of historical causa-tion and the principal role of Khusraw II. They both articulate his deter-mining role through spurious exchanges with his leading opponents.

67 V. ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Ka¥ankatuac‘i: Patmut‘iwn A¥uanic‘ Asxarhi, Erevan,1983, p. 127.4-170.15 (= ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i). English translation byC.J.F. DOWSETT, The History of the Caucasian Albanians by Movses Dasxuranc‘i (LondonOriental Series, 8), London, 1961, p. 76-92 (= DOWSETT, History).

68 ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 133.16-135.4 and 140.17-143.20.69 ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 146.7-149.14.70 Thus both texts allege that Khusraw’s uncompromising treatment of one of his gen-

erals, Rocveh, aroused great antagonism and precipitated his downfall: ARAK‘ELYAN,Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 145.3-146.4; ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 127.16-24.

71 Wintering of Heraclius: ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 131.20-133.11; cam-paigns of Jebu Xakan: ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 135.5-137.19; the pressuresupon Viroy: ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 149.18-163.22. Collectively, thesepassages provide a remarkable insight into the political, social and administrative struc-tures operating within a peripheral province of the Sasanian kingdom, as well as contem-porary attitudes and expectations for the future. These will be examined in greater detailin a forthcoming article.


They both devote significant attention to his demise and the accession ofKawad II. These parallels indicate that both texts preserve material de-rived from the same literary genre, one that concentrated upon the livesof Sasanian kings. It is very significant that Agathias’ Sasanian excursusadopts the same royal biographical approach.

Further support for the contention that the History attributed to Sebeospreserves traces of Sasanian historical literature emerges from a com-parison between that text and the several duplicate but separate strandsof material about Sasanian Persia preserved by al-™abari72. In the lightof the obvious gulf between these texts in terms of language, date andcontext of composition, the value of such a comparison might at first ap-pear questionable. However a striking thematic, stylistic and structuralcoincidence may be detected. This is hard to explain unless one acceptsthat both compilations reflect the influence of the same historical tradi-tion, encountered at first hand by Armenian writers in the seventh cen-tury and inherited and exploited by later Islamic historians in the eighthand ninth centuries. Since these Armenian and Arab compilations existindependently of one another and clearly did not have access to the sameunderlying sources, their likenesses can only be explained in terms oftheir exploitation of sources of a similar nature.

As we observed above, the account of Persian history within al-™abari’s Ta’rikh is structured around the Sasanian royal line. The pri-mary division is by king rather than by individual year, betraying a bio-graphical rather than an annalistic concern. There is a standard way ofreporting the transition from one king to another. Having stated the dura-tion of the previous king’s reign, the lineage of his successor is definedand his character is assessed, often in terms of his treatment of hisnobles. The description of the accession of Hormizd IV attests all ofthese elements:

‘At this point Kisra Anusharwan died after a reign of forty-eight years.Then there assumed the royal power Hurmuz. He was the son of KingAnusharwan and his mother was the daughter of Khaqan the Elder’73.

72 M.J. de GOEJE, Ta’rikh al-rusul wa-al-muluk, 13 vols., Leiden, 1879-1901, vol. I (=AL-™ABARI); English translation and commentary by C.E. BOSWORTH, The History of al-™abari Volume V: The Sasanids, the Byzantines, the Lakmids and Yemen, New York,1999 (= BOSWORTH, al-™abari).

73 AL-™ABARI, p. 988, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 294-295. This is a consistent form ofwords throughout the description of Sasanian history. See for example the account of thedeath of Sabur and the accession of Hurmuz I (AL-™ABARI, p. 831, BOSWORTH, al-™abari,p. 39-40): ‘There are differing views on the length of Sabur’s reign. Some authorities putit at thirty years and fifteen days, others at thirty-one years, six months and nineteen days.Then after Sabur, son of Ardashir, son of Babak, the royal power was assumed by his sonHurmuz. He was called “the Bold” and resembled Ardashir in bodily constitution and

342 T.W. GREENWOOD

The narrative then contains two distinct accounts of his character andpolitical aspirations. The first is defined as deriving from reports goingback to Hisham ibn MuÌammad:

‘This Hurmuz, son of Kisra, was well educated and full of good intentionsof benevolence toward the weak and destitute but he attacked the power ofthe nobles so that they showed themselves hostile and hated him, exactly ashe in turn hated them. When he assumed the crown, he gathered roundhimself the members of the nobility of his kingdom. They enthusiasticallycalled down blessings on his head and offered up thanks for his father.Hurmuz gave them promises of benevolent rule; he was anxious to behavetoward his subjects with justice but implacable against the great men of thekingdom because of their oppressing the lowly folk.’74

This is followed slightly later by a separate, contradictory account of hischaracter whose opening phrase indicates movement to another source:

‘It is said that Hurmuz was a successful and victorious commander whonever set his hand to anything that he did not attain. He was, more-over, well educated, skilful, shrewd but bad-intentioned, a defect he in-herited from his maternal relations, the Turks. He removed the noblesand killed 13,600 from the religious classes and from those of good familyand birth. His sole aim was to win over the lower classes and to make themfavourably disposed toward him. He imprisoned a great number of thegreat men and degraded them and stripped them of their offices andranks.’75

Whether one accepts the first judgment, that Hormizd IV was ‘full ofgood intentions’ or the contradictory statement in the second analysis,that he was ‘bad-intentioned’, these three passages correspond veryclosely in terms of content and sequence to a parallel passage in the His-tory attributed to Sebeos:

‘And it happened after the death of Kisra son of Kawad that his sonHurmuz ruled over the country of Persia, whose mother, named Kayen,was the daughter of Khaqan, great king of the T‘etalac‘ik‘, the wife ofKisra his father. Although very distinguished from his paternal ancestors,he was still more distinguished and ferocious from his maternal side. Forhe eliminated all the nobles and ancient families from the country of Per-sia.’76

appearance but did not come up to him in judgment and skilful management. Neverthe-less he was outstanding for his fortitude in battle, boldness and massive build. Hismother, according to what is said was one of the daughters of King Mihrak, whomArdashir killed at Ardashir Khurrah.’

74 AL-™ABARI, p. 988-989, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 295.75 AL-™ABARI, p. 990, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 297.76 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 72.28-73.5. In this instance, I have followed the

convention for Persian names used by Bosworth rather than the Armenian form to illus-trate the proximity of these passages.


This introduction to the reign of Hormizd IV reiterates his descent, theidentity of his mother, his character and his treatment of the noble fami-lies, precisely the concerns found in al-™abari’s Ta’rikh. Without priorknowledge, there is no reason to suppose that these passages appear inworks compiled in different centuries and in different languages.

This correspondence is not limited to the description of the accessionof Hormizd IV. It can also be seen in the parallel accounts of the politi-cal turmoil following Khusraw II’s downfall, and specifically theplethora of short-lived kings and queens77. Both texts continue to em-ploy the Sasanian succession as their structural framework. Both definethe lineage of the claimant, the duration of their kingship and sometimestheir political support. Furthermore both conclude with the accession ofYazdagird III without embarking upon a full description of the Arab ad-vances into Persia, their victories, the decade of determined resistanceundertaken by Yazdagird III in the east and his eventual assassination.These are reported elsewhere.

It is important to stress that the two accounts of the Sasanian succes-sion after Khusraw II are not identical. They contradict one another onseveral occasions. Thus al-™abari’s narrative includes three additionalclaimants78. Furthermore his account attributes the murder of FarrukhHurmuz, iÒbahbadh of Khurasan, to Queen Azarmidukht whilst the Ar-menian text describes how the hramanatar Xorox Ormizd, isxan ofAtrpatakan, was killed by Azarmidukht’s sister, Queen Bor79. Howeverthe circumstances of his death are virtually identical — he is tempted byan offer of marriage to meet the queen at night and without his retinueand then assassinated. The one major discrepancy is that responsibilityfor the deed has been transferred from one daughter of Khusraw II to an-other. Despite these factual inconsistencies, the two accounts approach

77 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 127.36-130.34; AL ™ABARI, p. 1045-1067,BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 381-410, although over half of this is taken up with the list ofjustifications pleaded by Shiruyah and counterclaims presented by Khusraw II (AL

™ABARI, p. 1046-1058, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 382-395).78 AL-™ABARI, p. 1064, 1065-1066, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 405 and 407. The three

additional claimants are Jushnas Dih, Kisra III, son of Mihr Jushnas and FarrukhzadhKhusraw. However closer investigation suggests that Jushnas Dih and Fayruz II may beone and the same person, as indeed Khurrazadh Khusraw and Farrukhzadh Khusraw ap-pear to be. Although the mysterious Hormizd in the History attributed to Sebeos is notmentioned by al-™abari, coins minted in the name of ’WHRMZDY have been discoveredwhich indicate that someone of this name did control some part of the Sasanian empire.Although the list provided by al-™abari is longer, it seems that the list in the History at-tributed to Sebeos is more accurate. Neither list makes it clear that several of these kingsheld power concurrently rather than consecutively.

79 AL-™ABARI, p. 1064-1065, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 406-407; ABGARYAN, Pat-mut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 130.18-25.

344 T.W. GREENWOOD

the issue of the Sasanian succession in the same way, implying a com-mon archetype.

A comparison of the treatment of the reign of Khusraw II reinforcesthis sense of proximity. As one might anticipate, al-™abari devotes con-siderable attention to Khusraw II. The account of his reign opens with adescription of the events surrounding the deposition of his fatherHormizd IV, the revolt of Bahram Chubin and the eventual triumph ofKhusraw Abarwez80. The narrative then provides a highly schematic andimpressionistic summary of the warfare after 60281. Without warningthis is interrupted by an extract from the Qur’an, and its scholarly inter-pretation82. Thereafter the text supplies several passages, each with itschain of authorities or isnâd83. This marks a departure. The earlierSasanian-focused narratives do not include asânid; the most they con-tain is an occasional passive ‘it is said’. The following passages focusprimarily upon the military success and subsequent disaffection of thePersian commander Sahrvaraz and various portents and prognosticationspresaging the downfall of Khusraw II and the Sasanian dynasty84. Thenarrative switches abruptly to consider, at considerable length, the lastyears of the Lakhmid domination in al-Hirah and the military encounterat Dhu Qar85. Then comes a section investigating Persian influence overthe Yemen, a subject discussed much earlier in the work86. Finally itconcludes with a hostile summary of the reign of Khusraw II, criticizingthe fabulous wealth he had accumulated, and making dire astrological

80 AL-™ABARI, p. 995-1001, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 305-317. This is in fact the sec-ond account of these events, the first, shorter narrative being included under the reign ofHormizd IV: AL-™ABARI, p. 991-994, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 298-305.

81 AL-™ABARI, p. 1001-1005, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 317-323. Al-™abari envisagesthree commanders — Rumiyuzan, Shahin and Farruhan/Shahrbaraz — and three tar-gets — Syria/Palestine, Egypt and Alexandria and Constantinople. AL-TABARI, p. 1002,BOSWORTH, al-Tabari, p. 318-319. An indication of al-™abari’s uncertainty, or the confu-sion of his source, is that having specified the third commander and target, the text revertsback to the killing of al-Fuqa (Phokas) and the accession of Hiraql (Heraclius). It is possi-ble that the chronological confusion found at this point in the History attributed to Sebeoswas caused by a parallel deficiency within the ‘Royal History’. For an alternative argu-ment, blaming the compiler for the confusion, see THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos,p. lxxii-lxxiii.

82 AL-™ABARI, p. 1005-1006, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 324-326 and n. 761: Surat al-Rum, Qu’ran XXX, 1-5.

83 For example AL-™ABARI, p. 1006, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 326: ‘There related to usal-Qasim — al-Husayn — Hajjaj — Abu Bakr — ‘Ikrimah, who said…’

84 AL-™ABARI, p. 1005-1015, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 324-338.85 AL-™ABARI, p. 1015-1039, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 338-373.86 AL-™ABARI, p. 1039-1040, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 373-375 and n. 916. Bosworth

notes that this resumes the story broken off at AL-™ABARI, p. 988, BOSWORTH, al-™abari,p. 294.


predictions for the future87. If we exclude those passages with a mani-festly Arabic origin, a familiar pattern emerges. Events are perceivedpredominantly from the perspective of Khusraw II. His thirty-eight yearreign is presented narrowly through the same contexts which feature soprominently in the History attributed to Sebeos and the History ofA¥uank‘, namely his accession and his deposition. The narrative showslittle knowledge of or interest in the long years of warfare. The succes-sive campaigns of Heraclius from 624 have been compressed to a singleadvance to Nisibis and his victory over Rahzadh/Rocveh at Nineveh88.The description of this battle fulfils the same role in al-™abari’s compila-tion as it does in both the History attributed to Sebeos and the History ofA¥uank‘. It allows Khusraw II to be portrayed as the unsympathetic ruler,contemptuous of the fate of his subjects89. As we have noted above, thisfinal engagement also enables Khusraw II to regain centre-stage in timeto be criticized by his subjects. This introduces the account of his depo-sition. Therefore although there are numerous factual differences, theprofile of Khusraw II and his reign is remarkably consistent within bothArmenian texts and al-™abari’s Ta’rikh. Since they did not exploit oneanother directly or draw on common sources, the most straightforwardexplanation is that these texts all reflect traces of the same Sasanian his-torical tradition.

Four principal conclusions emerge from this extended analysis.Firstly, the History attributed to Sebeos does not contain a translation ofan original Pahlavi ‘Royal History’ or recension thereof. Instead it pre-serves an impression of such a work via an intermediate Armenian com-position, a composition that was also exploited by T‘ovma Arcruni at thebeginning of the tenth century. Several characteristics of that ‘RoyalHistory’ can be discerned. Unsurprisingly it was biographical in nature,focused upon and arranged around successive Sasanian kings. This dy-nastic orientation determined the scope of the work, limiting it to thosesituations in which the king occupied centre-stage — hence the concen-tration upon times of transition between kings. This afforded an opportu-nity to judge the character and achievements of the former king and an-ticipate his successor. The personality of the king tends to be revealed

87 AL-™ABARI, p. 1041-1045, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 375-381.88 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 126.11-35; AL-™ABARI, p. 1003-1004,

BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 321-323.89 AL-™ABARI, p. 1004-1005, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 323. The History attributed

to Sebeos contains a remarkably similar criticism: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi,p. 127.17-19.

346 T.W. GREENWOOD

through first-person exchanges with his principal opponents. Such pas-sages convey the author’s perception of recent history; they should beunderstood not as accurate expressions of a king’s motivation but ratherexplanations for his conduct and decision-making.

This observation introduces the second conclusion. If one accepts theproposition that the History attributed to Sebeos preserves an impressionof a Pahlavi ‘Royal History’, albeit indirectly, it appears that this form ofhistorical writing comprised a blend of fact, anecdote and imaginativereconstruction rather than dispassionate historical records. In otherwords, it would be wrong to assume that Sasanian dynastic historieswere necessarily concerned with historical accuracy. The argument thatsuch texts were deformed during the course of transmission into andthrough Islamic historical compilations ignores the very real possibilitythat they were never that ‘historical’ to begin with, but a complex com-bination of historical and other materials.

Thirdly, if one accepts this same proposition, it follows that the His-tory attributed to Sebeos cannot be used as a fully independent witnessof Sasanian history. In much the same way that the Chronicle ofTheophanes cannot be treated as a control against which to test the ex-pressions of seventh and eighth century Near-Eastern history foundwithin the Syriac historiographical tradition because it draws upon thatsame tradition — through the postulated Chronicle of 750, attributed toTheophilos of Edessa — so the History attributed to Sebeos cannot beused in this way because the ‘Royal History’ draws upon the pre-exist-ing Sasanian historiographical tradition90.

Finally the History attributed to Sebeos and the History of A¥uank‘both illustrate the penetration of Sasanian historical traditions at a pro-vincial level. They both explain local circumstances in terms of the per-sonality and decisions of the Sasanian king. Since Armenia and A¥uank‘had been part of the Sasanian empire for three centuries, the cultural in-fluence of the latter upon peripheral regions should be expected. This fu-sion of national and local history is significant. The Syrian and Christian

90 C. MANGO and R. SCOTT, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, Oxford, 1997,p. lxxxii-lxxxvii. See also R. HOYLAND, Seeing Islam as Others Saw it, Princeton, 1997,p. 400-409 and 427-432 (= HOYLAND, Seeing Islam). Conrad has also detected materialof Muslim origin within Theophanes: see L. CONRAD, Theophanes and the Arabic His-torical Tradition: Some Indications of Intercultural Transmission, in ByzantinischeForschungen, 15 (1990), p. 1-44. However as Hoyland has observed, this does not seemto derive from Theophilos: HOYLAND, Seeing Islam, p. 405, n. 63. The likelihoodthat Theophanes drew upon Muslim sources, albeit indirectly, also means that hisChronicle cannot be used as a control against which to test the Islamic historiographicaltradition.


sympathies detected within Agathias’ version of Sasanian dynastic his-tory attest a similar process of cultural transmission and transformation.

c) The Heroic Biographies

In addition to the three freestanding documents and the ‘Royal His-tory’, the compiler had access to several sources that recorded thelives of prominent Armenian princes from the recent past. By tracingthe shifts in focus from one figure to another within the text, fiveseparate biographies, as well as several additional fragments may bedistinguished. These record the deeds of Smbat Bagratuni, Muse¥ Ma-mikonean, Varaztiroc‘ Bagratuni, T‘eodoros Rstuni and a group oflesser figures who participated in an ill-conceived conspiracy againstKhusraw II91.

The thirty-year career of Smbat Bagratuni in first Roman and thenPersian service (589–616/617) receives the greatest coverage in the text.The relevant passages stand out not only by virtue of their attention uponSmbat but also through their disruption of the linear chronological pro-gression of the text92. However close evaluation indicates that they donot supply a consistent historical reflection of the recent past. Insteadthey comprise a complex combination of apparently authentic and pat-ently fabulous episodes, which enable Smbat to be presented in anumber of contexts. Whilst appreciating the value of these passages asillustrations of how an Armenian prince was perceived, or wished to beperceived, this fusion of historical and epic material merits cautioustreatment.

91 Smbat Bagratuni: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 91.32-93.4 and 96.18-104.9;Muse¥ Mamikonean: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 81.5-84.19; Varaztiroc‘: ABGA-

RYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 128.36-129.4, 132.12-133.23 and 143.11-45.5; T‘eodorosRstuni: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 134.2-6, 138.8-139.6 and 145.6-147.2; Arme-nian rebels: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 87.12-90.7, 94.5-23 and 95.23-96.14.

92 For example, Smbat’s role in a failed Armenian rebellion against emperor Mauriceand his ordeal in the arena at Constantinople have been securely dated using the evidenceof Theophylact Simocatta to 589; see M. and M. WHITBY, The History of TheophylactSimocatta, Oxford, 1986, iii.8.6-8 and n. 31 (= WHITBY, Theophylact) and M. WHITBY,The Emperor Maurice and His Historian, Oxford, 1988, p. 127 and 291 (= WHITBY,Maurice). However the instances of military recruitment and disaffection which promptedhis rebellion are located in the History attributed to Sebeos after the restoration ofKhusraw II in 591: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 92.1-93.34. This extract is there-fore a misplaced cast-back. By contrast, the final extract, which reports his eventual vic-tory over the K‘ushans and the rewards he received from Khusraw II in 615, is a cast-forward in time: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 102.25-104.9. Subsequent passagesleap back in time to record the deposition of Maurice, the outbreak of war in 603, thePersian campaigns in Armenia and Mesopotamia, the accession of Heraclius and the cap-ture of Jerusalem: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 106.8-116.13.

348 T.W. GREENWOOD

In relation to his career in the service of Khusraw II, the narrative islargely precise and dispassionate, recording his appointment as marzpanof Vrkan and subsequent promotions, his leadership of campaignsagainst rebel forces loyal to Bistam and against K‘ushan invaders as wellas the rewards he received from a grateful sovereign93. Significantly,Smbat is not given a perfect record as a commander. His campaignsagainst the K‘ushan marauders in 614–615, although ultimately success-ful, included a sharp reverse in a village called Xroxt. This prompted anofficial investigation by a royal intendant named Sahrapan Bandakanthat exonerated Smbat but blamed the commander of a relief force,Datoyean, who paid with his life94. This description of the sophisticatedresponse to this defeat on the part of the Sasanian administration, cou-pled with the recognition that Smbat was not always victorious, intimatethat this account is authentic. Moreover the passages reporting his mili-tary achievements are interleaved with four separate, meticulous lists re-cording the material and honorific rewards that Khusraw II showeredupon Smbat95. The honours and powers granted to Smbat are reported inremarkable detail without overlap or repetition. A similar precision in-forms the biography of a prince of A¥uank‘, named Juanser, long ex-cerpts from which appear in the History of A¥uank‘96. Successive pas-sages narrate how Juanser served first the Sasanian king Yazdagird III,then the emperor Constans II and finally the caliph Mu‘awiya97. Thesetoo are punctuated with records of the numerous honours, titles andluxury gifts lavished upon him by each ruler in turn98. Although pre-

93 Appointment as marzpan and duration for eight years: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwnSebeosi, p. 96.18-20 and 100.1-4. Campaigns against rebels and external threats:ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 96.26-39, 98.2-17, 99.14-20 and 101.6-103.13. Titles,honours and gifts presented by Khusraw II to Smbat: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi,p. 96.18-25, 99.28-35, 101.1-8 and 103.14-104.6.

94 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 101.23-102.24.95 See footnote 93 above for the four passages. To give an example from the second of

these, after his defeat of the rebel troops in 601, Smbat received a letter of thanks fromKhusraw II and was promoted ‘above all the marzpans of his lordship and he sent to himall kinds of gold serving vessels, royal clothing, gilded covers and breeches adorned withprecious stones. His son who was called Varaztiroc‘, whom he had brought up as one ofhis own sons and who was esteemed by the whole of the royal court, he appointed to theoffice of butler, to serve wine to the king himself’: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi,p. 99.29-35.

96 ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 172.21-201.15 and 221.3-230.18.97 Service to Yazdagird III: ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 172.21-177.2; ser-

vice to Constans II: ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 180.13-186.10; service toMu‘awiya: ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 192.8-201.15.

98 Rewards from Yazdagird III: ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 175.4-16; re-wards from Constans II: ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 181.19-182.6; rewardsfrom Mu‘awiya: ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 197.13-199.2.


served in different texts, the two biographies display the same balancebetween the achievements of a local prince in the service of an externalpower and the rewards he obtained in return. Their coincidence is reas-suring. Evidently princely biographies could be rooted in historical real-ity.

Yet the excerpts charting the successful career of Smbat Bagratunimust be set against passages of manifestly legendary material. SmbatBagratuni is introduced in the text as an Armenian rebel, condemned bythe emperor to wrestle with a sequence of ferocious animals in the hip-podrome in Constantinople99. Great stress is placed upon his physicalstrength. This heroic representation of Smbat is developed in a later pas-sage when he is portrayed as a champion, defeating the K‘ushan king insingle combat:

‘They reached the battlefield and drew up their lines opposite each other.Then the king of K‘ushans sent a message to Smbat, saying: ‘What advan-tage is it that such a host engage in battle to destroy our armies? And howwill my and your valour be recognized? But come, let us fight you and mealone, I having come as a champion (axoyean) from my side, and you fromyours, so that today my valour may be known to you.’ Then putting hishand on his heart, he said: ‘Behold, I am ready to die.’ Advancing fromeither side, they rapidly approached each other. Between the two battle-lines they fought with each other. They were not able immediately to over-come the other, because they were both men of gigantic strength and fullycovered in armour. But help came from on high: the armour of the K‘ushanking, chain-mail from Bahl and a solid cuirass, was split by Smbat’s lance,and he powerfully struck him as a corpse to the ground and slew him.’100

The whole character of this passage is epic rather than historical — withreasoned discourse between the combatants prior to battle, single combatbetween the two battle-lines and a particular interest in the size and ar-mour of the two champions. Nor is it unique; similar descriptions can befound elsewhere in Armenian literature. The Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘or Epic Histories, dated by its most recent commentator to the 470s, in-cludes an account of a confrontation between king Varazdat and thesparapet Manuel Mamikonean101. Once more it is the physical strengthand the armour of Manuel which receive particular attention:

‘King Varazdat took the forces of his camp and reached the place of com-bat, well-armed organized and prepared for battle, and likewise the other

99 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 92.25-93.34. Compare WHITBY, Theophylact,iii.8.6-8 and WHITBY, Maurice, p. 291.

100 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 102.28-103.7.101 N.G. GARSOIAN, The Epic Histories (Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘) (Harvard Armenian

Texts and Studies, 8) Cambridge MA, 1989, p. 11 (= GARSOIAN, The Epic Histories).

350 T.W. GREENWOOD

even better prepared. And the sparapet Manuel reached the same placewith his own contingent and on the plain of Karin there occurred the en-gagements of the contingents of both attacking each other. King Varazdatand the sparapet Manuel carrying lances came forward charging againsteach other as champions (axoyeank‘). When King Varazdat lifted up hiseyes, he looked as he advanced and saw the sparapet Manuel in the great-ness of his stature, the splendour of his person, the extremely strong andimpenetrable iron armour from head to foot completely, also the robustnessof his person and the solidity of his armour-clad charger, also bearing inde-structible trappings, he compared and measured him in his mind to a talland inaccessible mountain.’102

Or again, book ii chapter 1 of the History of A¥uank‘ manages to com-bine the two epic contexts noted above, namely the arena and the battle-field, in a single passage. It acclaims the athletic prowess of a prince ofSiwnik‘ named Babik, as proved in a public competition, and thenmoves on to describe how a king of the Huns challenged the Sasanianking Sapuhr to single combat. Babik later fought on his behalf:

‘He exhibited many deeds of valour in the Olympiads of the Persians, no-one recognizing him. Then the Hun invaded from Honk‘, named Honagur;he plundered the country of Persia and sent to Sapuh and said, ‘Why isthere shedding of blood? Come, let us fight in single combat, you and me.’And the Hun himself had equipped his broad figure with a fifty-substance/woven coat of mail, and his terrible head with a helmet studded with nailsand his forehead of three spans provided with a copper plate and holdinghis fantastical lance from tall pine trees and his gleaming sword, and he ter-rified the on-lookers.’103

This description resonates with the account in the History attributed toSebeos quoted above in several respects. In addition to the elaborate de-scription of the Hun’s size, armour and weaponry, the passage reportsthe challenge from one leader to the other in direct speech, justifying thecontest as a means of avoiding unnecessary bloodshed. Therefore itlooks as though Armenian princely biographies regularly included suchdescriptions of single combat. These passages were used to establish andemphasize the personal courage and martial prowess of the particularArmenian prince.

Such episodes are not restricted to the Armenian epic tradition. Whenwe turn back to al-™abari’s Ta’rikh, we find that Khusraw II is presentedin a very similar situation. Before fleeing to the emperor Maurice in 590,

102 K‘. PATKANEAN, P‘awstosi Buzandac‘woy, Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘, St. Petersburg,1883; reprinted Delmar NY, 1984, V.37, p. 203-204. The above translation is made fromthis edition rather than the fourth revised Venice edition (1933) used in GARSOIAN, TheEpic Histories.

103 ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 109.16-110.3.


Khusraw II engages three leading Turkish warriors ‘unequalled amongthe rest of the Turks for their equestrian skills and their strength who hadundertaken to Bahram that they would kill Abarwiz (i.e. Khusraw)’.Khusraw kills them ‘one by one with his own hand’104. A later passagereports how ‘Abarwiz went out to engage Bahram in single combat. Hewrested Bahram’s spear from his hand and battered his head until thespear broke’105. In this respect there are close ties between Sasanianroyal history and Armenian princely biography. Both depicted the indi-vidual king or prince in the same heroic context, presumably with theintention of bolstering their reputations. This coincidence forges anotherlink between Armenia and Sasanian Persia and reinforces the contentionthat they enjoyed a common cultural heritage, at least at an elite, aristo-cratic level. Although speculative, it is tempting to envisage that the lostWahram-Coben-namag, focused upon Bahram Chubin, had features incommon with these fragments from Armenian heroic biographies. Oneshort passage from al-™abari’s Ta’rikh supports this contention: BahramChubin is reported to have killed Shabah, king of the Turks, with a sin-gle arrow, allegedly one of the three most impressive shots ever106.

Of course, the proposition that Armenian historical texts drew uponsources of an epic nature is hardly new. The heroic character of theBuzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘ was recognized as long ago as 1879 by aneditor of the text, Patkanean107. More recently, Garsoïan has identifiedthree principal strands of material within the work: a ‘Royal History’,covering the reigns of the last Arsakuni kings of Armenia, an ‘Ecclesias-tical History’, describing the hereditary succession of figures from thehouse of Saint Grigor the Illuminator to the headship of the Armenianchurch, and a ‘Mamikonean History’, reporting the achievements ofleading members of this princely family over four successive genera-tions108. Garsoïan defined passages from these Gestae by their ‘ahisto-

104 AL-™ABARI, p. 994, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 304. There is a second, duplicate ac-count of this contest: AL-™ABARI, p. 998, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 309.

105 AL-™ABARI, p. 1000, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 314.106 AL-™ABARI, p. 992, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 302. The use of an arrow rather than a

lance is extremely interesting, implying that in the traditions surrounding Bahram, thearcher was prized above the lancer or swordsman.

107 K. PATKANEAN, Bibliographicheskii ocherk armianskoi istoricheskoi literatury,St. Petersburg, 1879.

108 GARSOIAN, The Epic Histories, p. 2-3, 32-35. Intriguingly Garsoïan differentiatesthe ‘Ecclesiastical History’ from the others, arguing that it belongs to a hagiographicalrather than a purely epic tradition. Yet it too is biographical, focused upon successivegenerations from one house. It looks to be identical in origin and function to the Arsakuniand Mamikonean Histories; the only difference is that this princely house obtained, andretained, status through ecclesiastical rather than secular office.

352 T.W. GREENWOOD

rical and at times transcendental character’. She envisaged that they hadan oral origin and that they had to be worked into a more sober narrativeof historical events109.

The presence of heroic biographical material within the History attrib-uted to Sebeos marks an important cultural continuity inside Armeniabetween the late fifth and early seventh centuries. The aristocratic ethosthat Garsoïan detected within the Epic Histories was still flourishingover a century later, the separate princely houses providing both the im-petus and the social milieu for such compositions. The deeds of particu-lar princes were still considered worthy of recollection. However insteadof comprising largely epic material, both the heroic biography of SmbatBagratuni — and that of Juanser — combined historical and epic mate-rial. Moreover, rather than been transmitted orally and then embedded inan historical narrative drawn from elsewhere, the concentration of au-thentic historical material in both biographies indicates that they existedin written form from an early date. The genre seems to have undergoneone important modification. The pagan imagery derived from Iranianmythology that was detected by Garsoïan in the Epic Histories and else-where is absent from the History attributed to Sebeos110. Instead, bothSmbat and Juanser are portrayed as pious Christians. Smbat rebuilt thecathedral of Saint Grigor in Dvin and involved himself in the appoint-ment of a new head of the Armenian Church; the life of Juanser includesa highly personal prayer packed with fascinating details about his fam-ily, composed on the occasion of the transfer of a fragment of the TrueCross, given to him by Constans II, to his newly-constructed church inGardman111.

From the evidence of the passages focused upon Smbat Bagratuni, itis clear that, in the seventh century at least, this biographical genre per-mitted, perhaps even encouraged, the conjunction of fabulous and au-thentic material. The real achievements of the individual prince supplieda necessary historical foundation for the biography but these were em-broidered with imaginary episodes, allowing the individual to be por-trayed in standard epic contexts. It seems that the biography of SmbatBagratuni available to the compiler still contained a good deal of genu-ine information, reflecting the prominence of his reputation when aliveand the relative proximity of his death only a generation before.

109 GARSOIAN, The Epic Histories, p. 32.110 GARSOIAN, The Epic Histories, p. 51-54. Thus k‘aj, identified by Garsoïan as re-

flecting supernatural valour, is not applied to Armenian princes in the History attributedto Sebeos, with the exception of T‘eodoros Rstuni, who is both k‘aj and astuacaser, ‘pi-ous’ in the same clause: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 134.2.

111 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 100.1-18, ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i,p. 187.9-190.4.


The extracts reporting certain incidents in the life of Muse¥ Mami-konean demonstrate a different balance between heroic and historical,weighted more heavily towards the former. Muse¥ Mamikonean is pre-sented primarily in terms of his relationship with a perfidious KhusrawII, whose hostile presentation is at odds with the neutral tone found else-where in the text112. His own nobility of character and self-confidence isvery deliberately held up for comparison with the treacherous intent andcowardice of Khusraw. The passages are full of direct speech and inter-nalized descriptions, conveying the thought-processes and emotions ofthe central figures. When a wary Muse¥ resolves to attend upon KhusrawII in spite of his suspicions, the Persian king is described as being‘frightened’ and attempting to hide his deceit. This character develop-ment imparts an artificial quality, whose prominence in Sasanian dynas-tic history was noted previously. This contrasts with the previous biogra-phy; we learn almost nothing about the thoughts and sayings of SmbatBagratuni, except in those passages with an epic quality113.

This is not to say that these passages about Muse¥ lack historicalmerit. They portray a leading Armenian prince being summoned with hisforce of two thousand cavalry by his Sasanian sovereign. Muse¥ antici-pates two reasons for the summons: despatch to another theatre of waror reward for recent service in the campaign against Bahram Chubin114.Even if this is the perception of the author, it mirrors the basis of the re-lationship between Khusraw II and Smbat Bagratuni and Yazdagird IIIand Juanser. It confirms that the provision of military forces in return forpower, prestige and wealth lay at the heart of Armenian service to theSasanian kings. These passages also give an impression of how theSasanian king lived when outside the palace environment, the role andimportance of personal attendance and the protocol involved in that cer-emony. But these are incidental features which provide a background tothe primary function of the passage, namely the characterization ofMuse¥ Mamikonean. Indeed the anecdotal, literary tone of all the ex-tracts focused upon Muse¥ Mamikonean hints at an oral rather than awritten origin.

There is one further element in the passage which distinguishes itfrom the first postulated biography. Towards the end of the account,

112 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 81.5-84.19.113 Smbat is exhausted by his struggle in the arena: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi,

p. 93.21; the miraculous discovery of a fragment of the True Cross by Yovsep‘: ABGA-

RYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 98.20-99.27; the offer of single combat from the K‘ushanking: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 102.30-34.

114 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 81.32-37.

354 T.W. GREENWOOD

Muse¥ Mamikonean intones darkly: ‘Unless that man (Khusraw II) iskilled, through him the whole territory of the Roman empire will be de-stroyed.’115 Implicitly, this prophetic statement reveals the pro-Romansympathies of the author, although whether these were shared by Muse¥himself is impossible to know. It might be thought that his subsequentdeath on campaign in the Balkans evinces a personal loyalty to the em-peror but the unique situation faced by Armenian princes after 591should not be forgotten116. Pinned between the two great powers actingfor once in concert, Armenian princes had no alternative to military ser-vice in the forces of one or other power. In any event, this predictionstrongly indicates that this version of Muse¥’s biography dates from atime when the East Roman empire appeared to be on the brink ofcollapse, either following the fall of Syria in 613 or, more probably, afterthe loss of Egypt in 619. There is no hint of the remarkable recoveryunder Heraclius in the following decade, nor of the fate of Khusraw II.

Three other separate clusters of biographical material may be detectedin the History attributed to Sebeos. The first group of passages reportseveral incidents from the lives of Varaztiroc‘, the son of Smbat Bagra-tuni, and his own son, confusingly named Smbat as well. Although thefirst extract records his appointment by Kawad II as marzpan of Arme-nia in 628, subsequent extracts locate both Varaztiroc‘ and his sonSmbat firmly within the orbit of Heraclius and Constans II117. They areportrayed primarily in the context of the factional struggles that swirledaround the emperor in Constantinople. There is a clear correlation be-tween those passages which report conflict in Constantinople and thosewhich comment upon Varaztiroc‘ or his son, Smbat. The passage record-ing the conspiracy of Athalarikos against his father Heraclius focuses inparticular upon the lenient treatment afforded to Varaztiroc‘118. A subse-quent passage reports the executions under Constans II of GeorgMagistros and Manuel, the father-in-law of Smbat, and Smbat’s role inthe same119. Whilst Howard-Johnston is surely correct in suggesting thatthe underlying source blended Constantinopolitan and Armenian poli-tics, it seems most straightforward to understand this as a Bagratuni bio-graphical work, forged in the context of these conditions, rather than ‘a

115 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 83.28-30.116 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 90.12-91.7.117 Varaztiroc‘: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 128.36-129.4, 132.12-133.23 and

143.11-45.5. Smbat: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 166.22-163.19.118 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 132.12-133.23. The passage is prefaced by a

long account tracing the origin of the relationship between Varaztiroc‘ and Heraclius.119 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 166.22-163.19. An earlier passage (ABGARYAN,

Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 143.11-145.2) reports the fall of Valentinus but this is again givena Bagratuni context through its reference to the recall of Varaztiroc‘ from exile.


record of notable events kept at the Catholicosate in Dvin (possibly bySebeos himself)’120. The function and the flexibility of the biographicalgenre permitted, indeed encouraged such a blend of material, producinga work which explained the successive changes of fortune in the careersof Varaztiroc‘ and his son Smbat in terms of the political intrigue andinstability at the heart of the empire. Such a work displays similar con-cerns to those identified above in relation to Smbat Bagratuni: service toan external authority, the titles and material rewards available to the in-dividual princes and instances of direct contact between emperor and cli-ent. The only difference is that Varaztiroc‘ and his son were embroiledin court politics in Constantinople rather than Ctesiphon.

Since three successive generations of Bagratuni princes are presentedin the text, it is tempting to envisage that all three biographies derivefrom a single Bagratuni history. As we have seen, the ‘Mamikonean His-tory’ in the Epic Histories narrated the lives of four Mamikonean princesfrom successive generations. More particularly, several references unitethe three collections of material. Thus in rewarding Smbat, Khusraw IIalso favoured his son Varaztiroc‘, raising him as one of his own sonsand eventually naming him ‘Javitean Xosrov’121. Varaztiroc‘ is identi-fied by this very title in the passage recording the circumstances inwhich he switched allegiance to Heraclius122. This occurred long afterthe death of his father Smbat and so cannot derive from the latter’s biog-raphy. The same extract recounts that while Varaztiroc‘ received the titleof patrik and ‘royal residences, silver cushions and many treasures’, hisson Smbat was favoured by the senekapet (sacellarius ?) of Heraclius123.Subsequently, when Varaztiroc‘ was recalled from exile in 645/646,again his son Smbat was honoured, this time with the titles of ‘firstspat‘ar among all the spat‘ars’ (i.e. protospatharios) and kantitat124.This interest in the honours bestowed on the son is unique to the pas-sages of Bagratuni family history and links the three generations.Finally it is significant that Varaztiroc‘ is often called by his heredi-tary Armenian title, aspet125. The repeated use of this shorthand to iden-

120 THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. lxix and 254.121 Royal upbringing and responsibilities: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 99.33-

35; given the title ‘Javitean Xosrov’: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 103.18-19.122 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 132.12-13.123 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 132.31-35.124 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 143.16-17.125 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 129.10, 132.18, 132.22, 132.25, 133.17, 138.1,

143.13, 144.1, 144.15, 144.20, 162.30. It is also worth noting that Varaztiroc‘ is called theson of Xosrov Sum and Smbat the grandson of Xosrov Sum long after his death, and inpassages oriented towards Roman, not Persian affairs: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi,p. 143.13-14 and 162.30-31.

356 T.W. GREENWOOD

tify Varaztiroc‘ shows that these passages were derived from a singlesource.

A fourth collection of extracts traces the career of T‘eodoros, lord ofRstunik‘. Again it follows the standard pattern, describing his militaryexploits and the rewards he obtained from first Constans II and thenMu‘awiya in return for loyal service126. In content and tone, the extractsare far closer to the biography of Smbat Bagratuni than that of Muse¥Mamikonean. T‘eodoros is shown in defeat as well as in victory. At notime does he engage in direct speech and his presumed thoughts arerarely anticipated or expressed. Arguably therefore his biography com-prised a factual record of his achievements. This suggests that literaryand epic episodes came to be grafted onto a biography only as thememory of the historical figure faded. One further observation should bemade. In contrast to the positive presentations of the Bagratuni andMamikonean princes, the presentation of T‘eodoros within the text is notuniformly favourable. Whilst he is depicted as a ‘pious and valiantprince’ who inflicted losses upon his enemies127, he is later responsiblefor negotiating a ‘pact with death’ and ‘an alliance with hell’ when hedecided to reposition Armenia under the protection of Mu‘awiya in652128. These pejorative phrases fit very uncomfortably within a eulogiz-ing biography of T‘eodoros and can only reflect the judgement of anothersource. This inconsistent treatment is most probably due to a clash be-tween the positive image of T‘eodoros within the underlying source andthe compiler’s own hostile judgement on his recent political realignment.The presence of this inconsistency indicates that the compiler did not re-write the sources at his disposal. We shall return to this issue again.

Unlike the previous biographies, which concentrated upon single indi-viduals or a sequence of close relatives, the final postulated sourcetraced the sorry fates of several apparently unrelated Armenian nobles,drawn from different houses, who rebelled against Khusraw II in 594.Not only is the revolt itself described; later passages describe the variousways in which all the rebels met their deaths129. Even the three who splitaway from the group at an early stage and came to terms, submitting

126 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 134.2-6, 138.8-139.6, 145.6-147.2 and 169.11-17.

127 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 134.1-6.128 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 164.15.129 Samuel Vahewuni: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 89.5-90.2; Atat Xorxoruni:

ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 104.22-105.20; Mamak Mamikonean: ABGARYAN,Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 94.5-23 and 95.25-6; Step‘anos Siwni: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwnSebeosi, p. 94.5-23 and 95.27-96.2; Kotit lord of Amatunik‘: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwnSebeosi, p. 94.5-23 and 95.3-5; T‘eodoros Trpatuni: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi,p. 89.32-90.2.


both themselves and their forces to Khusraw II, were not spared130.Mamak Mamikonean died in Dvin some days after arriving there onmilitary business. Kotit, lord of the Amatunik‘ was assassinated whiletravelling to Nisibis as a messenger of Khusraw II. Step‘anos Siwni be-came embroiled in a bitter struggle with his uncle Sahak for the headshipof the house of Siwnik‘, which ended with his execution at the hands ofKhusraw II. These notices appear consecutively in the text131. Theseconnections make it highly probable that these passages all derive from asingle source, one that was not restricted to one individual or family butwhich extended across several houses. It is worth stressing that with theexception of Kotit, none of the nobles are identified as holding the title‘ter’, the lord or head of the family. Even Samuel Vahewuni, who leadsa second rebellion against the Roman authorities, with fatal conse-quences for all involved, is defined as a ‘sepuh’, a secondary figurewithin such a family. Therefore this source is likely to have comprised ashort narrative focused upon a nexus of lesser figures who did not meritindividual biographies but who were nevertheless capable of significantcollective action. It is the action of rebellion against Khusraw II and hisresponse that gives a unity to these passages. In other words, they arefashioned around an event, not an individual prince.

As we have seen, the heroic biographies tend to be focused upon theachievements and personal qualities of individual Armenian princes, ascourageous commanders and warriors and as pious Christians. It there-fore seems highly likely that such works were generated within a milieuthat prized such success, promoting the reputation of the prince, and byextension, that of his immediate family. And it is the princely house it-self which supplies the most appropriate context for the sponsorship andperformance of such works, whether written or oral. The princely biog-raphy was by its very nature not a populist work of ‘folk literature’, nora sophisticated work of great intellectual endeavour, but rather a workwhich reflected the manners and preoccupations of a narrow, aristocraticelite, keen to attract tangible support by demonstrating the valorous ex-ploits, whether genuine or invented, of current or previous family mem-bers. They were not created within a scholarly vacuum, devoid of pur-pose or connection with contemporary life. Instead they were both pas-sionate and partisan, designed to promote the individual or his familyamong his peers and rivals.

The proposition that the compiler utilized several separate biographies

130 Mamak Mamikonean, Kotit lord of the Amatunik‘ and Step‘anos Siwni: ABGA-

RYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 88.15-18.131 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 95.25-95.5.

358 T.W. GREENWOOD

explains how the focus shifts repeatedly within the text from one promi-nent Armenian prince to another. It justifies the presence of similar con-cerns and contexts within different entries whilst admitting that eachcould possess individual features. However there is a strange quality tothe selection of extracts from these sources. The text does not describedisputes between princely families. The Armenian houses do not con-front one another in the History attributed to Sebeos. Instead the texttends to illustrate the relationships of the princes to one or more of thegreat powers. Even the split between T‘eodoros Rstuni and Muse¥Mamikonan in 652 is reported principally in terms of supra-national re-lations132. It is possible that this was a period of unprecedented harmonybetween the various princely houses. However it seems more likely thatthis characteristic should be explained in terms of the compiler’s choiceof material for inclusion. In other words, the History attributed to Sebeosretains a particular impression of several heroic biographies, one thatwas not necessarily representative of the genre as a whole but which re-flected the particular concerns of the compiler.

d) The List of Persian Commanders and Governors

Aside from the postulated ‘Royal History’, the text contains one fur-ther source of possible Persian provenance, namely a list of the Persiancommanders (zawravark‘) and governors (sahmanakalk‘) appointed toArmenia133. It is clear from the systematic structure and consistent lan-guage of the four separate sequences that this list originally extendedfrom the assassination of Suren in 572 down to the death of Roc Vehanat the battle of Nineveh in December 627 and that it was broken up anddistributed across the text by the compiler134. No attempt was made tointegrate this material with surrounding passages, even when there is anobvious overlap. By way of example, both of these episodes — the mur-der of Suren and the death of Roc Vehan — are reported independentlyelsewhere in the text135. Although the four blocks of material were in-serted in approximately the right place, inevitably they each cover long

132 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 164.13-166.25 and 169.1-17.133 THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. lxv-lxvi.134 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 70.10-71.22, 105.21-31, 111.27-31 and 113.29-

34. Each entry follows a similar pattern: the name of the individual, significant militaryengagements undertaken by him, including location and outcome, and usually the dura-tion of his appointment. The language of each notice is also distinctive, opening with‘Apa’, ‘Then’ and usually ‘Apa ekn’, ‘Then he came’. They conclude ‘ekac‘ ams X ewgnac‘’, ‘He stayed X years and he went’. A very unusual phrase for a skirmish or engage-ment, ‘arar kriv’, is also used repeatedly.

135 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 67.27-31 and 126.11-35.


periods of time and so disrupt the chronological progression. Thus thefirst section records the appointments from before the death of KhusrawI until ‘the end of the peace between Persians and Greeks and betweenthe two kings Maurice and Khusraw’, a spread of some thirty years; ittakes a further thirty-four pages of Abgaryan’s critical edition for themain narrative to reach this point in time136.

As for the origin of this source, Howard-Johnston has advanced theattractive proposition that it was taken from a register of successive Per-sian administrators and commanders and a brief summary of theirachievements that was kept at Dvin137. However it is possible that thisputative source was more than a simple list. Arguably it also includedthose passages which record the successive Persian campaigns under-taken in both Armenia and Mesopotamia between 603 and 612138. Thesenotices name the individual Persian commanders and report the circum-stances and outcome of any engagement. In structure therefore, they re-flect the outline of the terse entries discussed above; the difference issimply one of depth. The linguistic pattern is also similar. Thus the no-tice recording the actions of Senitam Khusraw begins with the familiar‘Apa ekn Senitam Xosrov’, ‘Then came Senitam Xosrov’ and concludes,after listing the cities taken by him, with the standard ‘gnac‘’, ‘hewent’.139 The entry commenting upon Astat Yeztayar begins in almostidentical fashion, ‘Isk Astat Yeztayar ekn’, ‘Then came Astat Yeztayar’,and also ends by listing the cities he captured, followed by a final‘gnac‘’140. These coincidences of both content and language suggest thatthe underlying source contained longer narrative passages, which in thisinstance focused simultaneously upon two separate theatres of warfare.This proposition also provides a complete solution for the otherwise in-explicable lacuna in the list for the period 603–612. These passagesbridge the gap between the appointments of Hoyiman/Yemann at the

136 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 105.16. Having finally reached this point intime, it is significant that the compiler reverted back to this source straightaway.

137 Although no such registers survive in Persian, al-™abari’s Ta’rikh confirms thatsuch records were maintained at a later date, listing the annual appointments togovernorships, usually at the end of each year. See, for example, the final notice to Year60: AL-™ABARI, vol. II, p. 295, I.K.A. HOWARD, The History of al-™abari Volume XIX,The Caliphate of Yazid b. Mu‘awiyah, New York, 1990, p. 90; and the final notices toYear 120: AL-™ABARI, vol. II, p. 1666-1667, K.Y. BLANKINSHIP, The History of al-™abariVolume XXV, The End of Expansion, New York, 1989, p. 194.

138 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 107.1-111.26.139 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p.109.3; ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi,

p. 110.11. The cities captured: Ang¥, Gaylatuk‘ and Erginay in Armenia and Cxnakert inMesopotamia, near Dara.

140 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 111.11. The cities captured: the city ofHasteank‘, Jit‘aric, Sata¥a, Arastiay and Nikopolis.

360 T.W. GREENWOOD

end of the second sequence and Sahen Patgosapan at the beginning ofthe third141.

One final observation should be made. The coverage afforded to eachPersian governor or commander is uneven. All those who undertookmilitary campaigns within Armenia or who passed through Armenia re-ceive considerably more exposure than those who held office duringpeacetime; in other words the text shows a particular interest in thosewho fought. Thus the twelve-year period from the appointment ofHratrin Datan as marzpan in 590 until the succession of Hoyiman/Yemann, which coincided with the period of good relations betweenMaurice and Khusraw II, is covered by a bare list of names, with no in-formation on their conduct or administration142. Likewise the appoint-ment of Sahrayeanpet as marzpan, probably in 612, marks a reversion tothat spartan coverage, broken only by the military activities of firstSahrap¥akan and then Roc Vehan143. Although there is no obvious expla-nation for this, it seems highly probable that this was caused by the com-piler’s approach to this source rather than the nature or the shape of thesource itself.

e) The List of Catholicoi

Although the History attributed to Sebeos is largely concerned withgreat power politics and their impact upon Armenia and Armenians, italso contains a valuable summary of Armenian ecclesiastical history.Fragments within the text indicate that the compiler exploited a workcentred upon the sequence of Armenian Catholicoi. The first extractcomprises a very brief account of the division of the Armenian Churchafter 591144. Whilst the original incumbent Movses retained his authorityin the Persian sector of Armenia, a second ‘anti-Catholicos’, Yovhannes,was appointed in the Greek protectorate145. The notice refers in passingto the translation of ‘all the vessels of the church of Saint Grigor in

141 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 105.25 and 111.27.142 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 71.13-22, partially overlapping with 105.21-4.143 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 111.28-9 and 113.29-34.144 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 91.11-24.145 Several other texts report this schism. See for example M. EMIN, Yovhannu

kat‘o¥ikosi Drasxanakertec‘woy Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘, Moscow, 1853; reprinted Tiflis,1912; Delmar NY, 1980, p. 72-3 (= EMIN, Yovhannes Drasxanakertc‘i). English com-mentary and translation by K.H. MAKSOUDIAN, Yovhannes Drasxanakertc‘i. History ofArmenia, Atlanta GA, 1987, XVII.14-16 (= MAKSOUDIAN, Yovhannes). According toMaksoudian, the protestation in that work that the ‘anti-Catholicos’ Yovhannes ‘hadnever gone astray after the Chalcedonian heresy’ should be interpreted as an interpola-tion: MAKSOUDIAN, Yovhannes, p. 250, #14-16.


Dvin’ to the city of Karin146. This apparently incidental detail is impor-tant in tracing the outline of the underlying source because a later pas-sage records that Yovhannes and ‘all the vessels of the church’ were for-cibly removed to Ahmatan147. It is only through the first extract that themeaning of this reference can be understood; the church in question wasthat of Saint Grigor in Dvin. This connection proves that both extractswere taken from the same source148.

In total, five other short passages, scattered through the remainder ofthe text, should be attributed to this projected source149. These fragmentsreveal two important features. In the first place, the source treated eachCatholicos in the same way. It recorded their place of origin, previousecclesiastical appointment and any building activity, viewed in terms ofthose churches they had founded or renovated, as well as a brief descrip-tion of their period of office. Secondly it had an ambivalent attitude to-wards the Greek Church. In spite of the fact that his appointment wasinstigated by emperor Maurice and designed to undermine the authorityof the incumbent Movses, Yovhannes is described in the text as ‘blessedand aged’. In much the same way, K‘ristap‘or’s successor Ezr is de-scribed as ‘a humble and gentle man who did not wish to provoke any-one to anger and no indecorous word came from his mouth.’150 He is notcriticized for his communion with Heraclius and the controversial Coun-cil of Karin, convened in 632 to bring about a union between the twochurches, is all but ignored151. The account neither celebrates nor dispar-ages his conduct, preferring to report the fact of his participation in thesacrament with Heraclius and the material rewards he received152. The

146 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 91.21-3.147 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 111.32-112.8.148 This proposition is also supported by the double reference to the exile of

Yovhannes to Ahmatan in the last sentence of the first extract and the first sentence of thesecond: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 91.23-24 and 112.1-4. Both passages refer to‘Ahmatan sahastan’.

149 The succession of Komitas and the completion of the church of Saint Grigor:ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 112.7-8; the reconstruction of the church of SaintHrip‘sime by Komitas and the replacement of the wooden roof on the cathedral:ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 121.5-28; the appointment of K‘ristap‘or in succes-sion to Komitas and his rapid dethronement in favour of Ezr: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwnSebeosi, p. 129.4-21; the union of the Greek and Armenian churches under Ezr at the ini-tiative of Heraclius: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 131.32-132.11; and the construc-tion of the Church of the Holy Angels/Zvart‘noc‘ by Nerses III: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwnSebeosi, p. 147.21-31.

150 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 129.19-21.151 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 131.32-132.11. Ezr is not ‘berated’ in the

text for this union, as Howard-Johnston asserts: THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos,p. lxiv.

362 T.W. GREENWOOD

History attributed to Sebeos therefore preserves an account of recentchurch history that was not fiercely antagonistic towards the GreekChurch. At the same time, it does not appear to have been as sympa-thetic as the Narratio de Rebus Armeniae, which had no compunction inopenly describing two early seventh-century Catholicoi, Abraham andKomitas, as heretical, aïretikóv153. Instead it seems to have avoidedboth extremes, adopting a non-confrontational, indeed non-judgemental,approach.

There are several precedents for such a source. In addition to the sepa-rate List of Catholicoi composed by Yovhannes Drasxanakertc‘i in 897,the final chapter of book iii of the History of A¥uank‘ comprises a com-plete sequence of the Catholicoi of A¥uank‘, including their origins andlength of tenure but passing over any building works154. The Narratio it-self is slightly different, containing a much fuller history of the Arme-nian Church, and in particular the evolution of its relationship with theGreek Church, from a Chalcedonian perspective. However a separate listof Catholicoi, attached to it by way of an appendix and identified byGaritte as an independent text, is very similar in design to the fragmentsfound within the History attributed to Sebeos155. Maksoudian has pro-posed that Yovhannes Drasxanakertc‘i exploited another list of Arme-nian Catholicoi in his History156. When one compares Yovhannes’ ac-count of the sequence of Armenian Catholicoi with the account in theHistory attributed to Sebeos, there are several thematic and linguisticcoincidences that point to the use of the same list by both compilers157.However there are significant differences as well. Not only does the His-tory compiled by Yovhannes Drasxanakertc‘i report additional informa-tion about each Catholicos158; it also adopts an unreservedly hostile atti-tude towards the Greek Church. Ezr is castigated for his agreement with

152 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 132.7-8. Ezr requested and was given the salt ofKo¥b as a present, but it is unclear whether it was a permanent concession of a mine, theprofits from such a mine or tax receipts due on mineral production.

153 G. GARITTE, Narratio de Rebus Armeniae (Corpus Scriptorum ChristianorumOrientalium, 132; Subsidia, 4), Louvain, 1952, §110 and 116 (p. 41 and 42) (= GARITTE,Narratio). French translation by J.-P. MAHÉ, La Narratio de Rebus Armeniae, in Revuedes Études Arméniennes, N.S. 25 (1995-1996), p. 436.

154 Samueli k‘ahanayi Anec‘woy hawak‘munk‘ i groc‘ patmagrac‘, Va¥arsapat, 1893,p. 272-277; ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 341.21-347.4.

155 GARITTE, Narratio, p. 401-445.156 MAKSOUDIAN, Yovhannes, p. 43.157 Thus Yovhannes is credited with the construction of the church at Awan: EMIN,

Yovhannes Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 72. When Abraham and Yovhannes died in the same year,the former custodian (p‘akakal) of the martyrium of Saint Hrip‘sime and bishop ofMamikonean Taron, Komitas, succeeded as Catholicos: EMIN, Yovhannes Drasxana-kertc‘i, p. 74.

158 For example the detail that Ezr came from the village of Paraznakert: EMIN,Yovhannes Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 76.


Heraclius and the favourable impression of him quoted above has beenexpunged159. At the same time, the image of K‘ristap‘or is also reversed;he now distinguishes himself through virtuous deeds, strict fasting andnightly vigils160.

How is this uneasy pattern of correspondence and difference to be ex-plained? As noted above, the list of Catholicoi available to the compilerof the History attributed to Sebeos downplayed doctrinal differenceswith the Greek Church and the divisive issue of the status of the Councilof Chalcedon. However, by the time that Yovhannes Drasxanakertc‘icame to use the list, it had undergone substantial revision and now pos-sessed a pronounced anti-Chalcedonian spin, hence the criticism of Ezrand praise for K‘ristap‘or. Intriguingly, it seems that whoever revisedthe list assumed that K‘ristap‘or must have been anti-Chalcedonian andthat it was his doctrinal stance that had brought about his deposition.However the History attributed to Sebeos simply notes that his downfallwas precipitated by his slander of the aspet; he was ‘a proud andhaughty man with a tongue as sharp as a sword’161. His theological con-victions are never mentioned.

Having detected a reluctance to engage in doctrinal polemic in thissource, it is nevertheless true that elsewhere the History attributed toSebeos contains trenchant criticism of the Greek Church and Chalcedon.The introduction setting out the circumstances under which the draft Ar-menian Defence was sealed and the brief portrait of Nerses III bothevince a strident antipathy, a hostility which sits uncomfortably with theabove162. Again this contradiction is best explained as a consequence ofthe composite nature of the text and the reluctance of the compiler to re-write his materials. We shall return to the issue of internal inconsistencyshortly.

f) Other Sources

Howard-Johnston has argued on the basis of content that two othersources may be discerned within the text, a ‘Persian Source’ and a ‘Pal-estinian Source’163. In relation to the former, he proposed that four sepa-rate notices were extracted from it, each outlining a major developmentin the struggle for power between the Sasanian kingdom and the nascentIslamic caliphate164. Although Howard-Johnston doubted whether it was

159 EMIN, Yovhannes Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 77-79.160 EMIN, Yovhannes Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 76.161 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 129.8-12.162 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 147.32-148.20 and 166.33-168.39.163 THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. lxix, 225 and 239-40.

364 T.W. GREENWOOD

possible to demonstrate that the four extracts were taken from a specificindependent written source, in fact they display several correspondencesof content, language and perspective that collectively support his conten-tion. Thus the invaders are described consistently as ‘of Ismael’ or‘Ismaelites’, never ‘Tacikk‘’, ‘Hagarac‘ik‘’ or ‘aylazgik‘’, the standardexpression for Muslims in later texts165. Two of the four extracts openwith a chronological synchronism devised by combining Persian andGreek regnal years166. Whilst not identical in sequence and structure, thecoincidence of these synchronisms within a text that is so sparing in itsuse of explicit dates is significant. Perhaps surprisingly, the four pas-sages are not focused upon the determined resistance of Yazdagird III.The Sasanian king plays an incidental role in these extracts, at least incomparison with successive princes of Mark‘ (the Armenian form ofMedia) whose actions and/or territories provide these passages with athematic integrity. Even the account of the death of Yazdagird III is re-ported in the context of the treacherous conduct of the prince of Media.The passage opens with the following: ‘The prince of Mark‘, concerningwhom I stated above that he went to the east to their king and havingrebelled, fortified himself in one place…’167. Contrary to this assertion,the text does not contain any earlier passage reporting these events. Thecompiler seems to have borrowed this sentence from the underlyingsource without realizing that it did not apply to, or make sense within,his own work. In order for an error of this nature to occur, that sourcemust have been written.

These characteristics support the contention that the extracts derivefrom a single, written source, one that was interested in recent Persianhistory from a Median perspective. Media’s relative proximity to Arme-nia, its intermittent involvement in contemporary Armenian, and moreparticularly Albanian, affairs and the presence of a long passage at theend of the text reporting a very recent rebellion in Media all provide cir-cumstantial support for this focus168. Having said this, three features ofthese extracts make it very unlikely that they were taken directly from a

164 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 137.4-29, 139.9-22, 141.10-22 and 163.29-164.6. These report the battle of al-Qadisiyyah and its aftermath, Arab operations in Ara-bia and the Persian Gulf, the battle of Nihawand and the death of Yazdagird III. See alsoTHOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. 243-246, 247-249, 251-253 and 264-266.

165 Forces of Ismael: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 137.5, 137.26 and 141.18;children of Ismael: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 139.9; Ismaelites: ABGARYAN,Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 141.13, 17 and 163.31.

166 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 141.10-11 and 163.29-31.167 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 164.1-2.168 See for example the antipathy between Varaztiroc‘ and Rostom, prince of

Atrpatakan: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 132.12-35; negotiations between Con-


work in Pahlavi. Before advancing to besiege Ctesiphon in 637, theforces of Ismael are described as having gathered in ‘the regions of theeast’169. However from a Sasanian or Median perspective, this wouldhave been the western or southern region. Secondly the account of thebattle of al-Qadisiyyah highlights the involvement of Armenian detach-ments, their leadership, numbers and the losses sustained170. It seemsunlikely that a Persian text would select these details for inclusion. Fi-nally the sentence quoted above reporting the treachery of the prince ofMedia refers to Yazdagird III as ‘their’ king. These characteristics onceagain indicate an Armenian composition, albeit one focused on Mediaand Median affairs.

By contrast, the case for a single ‘Palestinian Source’ remains un-proven. For Howard-Johnston, this was the source of three notices, spe-cifically those reporting the origins of Islam, two Arab victories in Pal-estine and the conditions in Jerusalem in the aftermath of the Arab cap-ture of the city171. As Howard-Johnston has observed, the first combinestwo separate explanations for the sudden appearance of the Arabs172.One supplied a local context for the conquests, linking them directly to arecent Jewish revolt in Edessa, swiftly suppressed by Heraclius’brother173. The other summarized MuÌammad’s life and teaching, stress-ing descent from Abraham through Ismael and hence a legitimate claimto Palestine174. Rather than treating the first as spurious and the secondas authentic however, I would contend that they reflect two distinct butnevertheless contemporary reactions to events. The first construed theArab conquests as a product of local conditions, connecting them (mis-takenly) with recent Jewish unrest in Edessa. The second accordedMuÌammad and his teaching a central role. Having found two differentaccounts, it seems that the compiler decided to weld them together. It is

stans’ representative T‘umas and the prince of Media which resulted in the arrest ofT‘eodoros Rstuni: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 143.19-25. For the sustained cam-paigns of the prince of Mark‘ against Juanser, prince of A¥uank‘, see ARAK‘ELYAN,Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 176.18-180.12. Rebellion of Media: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwnSebeosi, p. 172.19-173.17. This modifies Howard-Johnston’s proposition that the postu-lated source originated in Khuzistan: THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. lxix and248-249.

169 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 137.6.170 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 137.13-15 and 137.18-19: ‘There was there

Muse¥ Mamikonean, son of Davit‘, the Armenian commander with three thousand fully-armed men and Grigor, prince of Siwnik‘, lord, with 1000 men…and they killed Muse¥with his two nephews and Grigor lord of Siwnik‘ with one son’.

171 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 134.20-137.3 and 139.25-140.22.172 THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. 238-240.173 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 134.21-35.174 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 135.1-17.

366 T.W. GREENWOOD

worth noting that T‘ovma Arcruni’s History contains a version of thefirst but not the second, reinforcing the argument that they derive fromseparate sources175. The third notice is very different in character to thefirst two. It reports the desecration of a Muslim ‘place of prayer’ in Jeru-salem shortly after the Arab take-over. Its focus is limited to Jerusalem.It identifies the Arabs as ‘Hagarac‘ik‘’, a term found on only one otheroccasion in the text. These extracts do not betray any obvious linguisticor thematic similarities. They should be treated as discrete fragmentsfrom unknown sources and not bundled together into a single ‘Palestin-ian Source’ simply on the basis of their loose geographical coincidence176.

g) The Compiler as Author

Before examining how the compiler arranged the above sources andwhy he put together such a text, there is one further potential source toconsider, namely the compiler himself. Those narrative passages writtenby the compiler have a particular value. From a historiographical per-spective, they indicate the breadth of his historical vision and experienceand the circumstances under which he was working. At the same time,such passages attest the political and social conditions then existingwithin Armenia, as viewed by a contemporary. Although that impressionmay be incomplete, it reveals the perceptions of a contemporary andthus has a potentially decisive contribution to make to any reconstruc-tion of early medieval Armenian social structure177.

The obvious place to search for passages of the compiler’s own com-

175 PATKANEAN, T‘ovma, p. 98-99.176 The text attests direct communication between the Armenian church and the au-

thorities in Jerusalem on two occasions: in the aftermath of the capture of the city in 614(the correspondence between Komitas and Modestos) and following the restoration of theTrue Cross by Heraclius in March 630 (the short extract sandwiched between the two let-ters): ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 118.8-17. That correspondence also alludes toArmenian pilgrims visiting the holy places in Jerusalem and Palestine, a practice con-firmed by two chapters in the History of A¥uank‘: ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i,p. 280.5-285.6. Chapter 50 records the visits of Mxit‘ar and Yovsep‘ to Jerusalem in thelate 630s; chapter 51 describes the various holy sites in Jerusalem. A short text appendedto the Asxarhac‘oyc‘ and titled M¥onac‘ap‘k‘ (‘Itinerary’), includes a description of theroute between Dvin and Jerusalem. I have argued elsewhere that this text was composedbetween 660 and 750 (T.W. GREENWOOD, The Armenian Presence in Edessa after theMuslim Conquest, in R. HOVANNISIAN, Proceedings of the Sixth UCLA Conference onHistoric Armenian Cities and Provinces, Tigranakert/Diarbekir and Edessa/Urfa, CostaMesa CA, Forthcoming). The inclusion of this route implies that Armenians continued totravel to Jerusalem after the Arab conquest, as one might anticipate given the significantArmenian presence inside Jerusalem through several monastic communities. Collectivelythese references indicate regular and persistent contact between Armenia and Jerusalemduring the seventh century and thus provide a context in which information about condi-tions in Jerusalem and Palestine came to lodge in an Armenian historical text.

177 This subject will be examined in a forthcoming article.


position is at the end of the text, as the underlying sources gave out andhe was forced to rely upon his own knowledge and first-hand experi-ence. The last passage from the Bagratuni princely biography, reportingthe political machinations of Smbat aspet in Constantinople, is situatedimmediately after the draft Armenian Defence document178. This is fol-lowed by the final extract from the so-called ‘Persian Source’, reportingthe death of Yazdagird III in 652179. With the exception of the account ofthe rebellion in Media, no other passage beyond this point in the text hasbeen ascribed to any of the above sources180. The remaining passagespossess a narrower chronological and thematic focus in comparison withthe remainder of the text181. They cover the events of barely three andhalf years, from 652 until the middle of 655. This concentration of mate-rial contrasts with the patchy treatment of the previous decade. At thesame time, with the exception of the account of the Arab assault uponConstantinople in 654, these pages attest a shrinking of the text’s histori-cal horizons; the narrative is restricted to matters arising within theboundaries of Armenia182. Finally the final passages, comprising somefourteen pages in Abgaryan’s critical edition, variously contradict andduplicate several earlier passages. When taken together, these featuresall indicate that these passages were composed by the compiler himself.Let us study these features in a little more detail, starting with the incon-sistencies and repetitions but moving on to examine two particular pas-sages.

i) Inconsistencies: The Image of T‘eodoros Rstuni and the Attitude toChalcedon

As noted above, the text is inconsistent both in its treatment ofT‘eodoros, prince of Rstunik‘, and its attitude towards the Greek Churchand the Council of Chalcedon. Both these inconsistencies emerge at theend of the text. Previously T‘eodoros Rstuni is presented as a coura-geous leader who organized the defence of Armenian territory183. It isonly when he negotiates the agreement with Mu‘awiya in 652 that he

178 Smbat Bagratuni and the swirl of court politics in Constantinople: ABGARYAN,Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 162.2-163.19. Draft Defence of Armenian doctrinal position:ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 149.27-161.34.

179 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 163.9-164.6.180 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 172.9-173.17.181 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 164.7-177.9.182 Arab assault: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 169.30-171.27.183ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 134.2-6. The failed attack on the retreating Arab

forces after the capture of Dvin in 640: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 138.8-139.6.The battle after the capture of the fortress of Arcap‘k‘ in 643: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwnSebeosi, p. 145.6-147.2.

368 T.W. GREENWOOD

suddenly comes in for harsh criticism, as the prince who made ‘a cov-enant with death’ and ‘an alliance with hell’184. This unexpected hostilitytowards T‘eodoros occurs immediately after the description of the deathof Yazdagird III, the last passage to be attributed to one of the abovesources. In my opinion, it reflects the opinion of the compiler185. Sec-ondly as we have seen, the List of Catholicoi ignored or at leastdownplayed instances of antagonism or disagreement between the Ar-menian and Greek Churches. The draft document prepared in defence ofthe Armenian doctrinal position also adopts a conciliatory approach186.Although it maintains that the Armenian faith should be accepted as theorthodox and true faith and rejects the decisions reached at Chalcedon, italso presents a carefully constructed sequence of arguments which em-phasize a common doctrinal and historical inheritance with the GreekChurch rather than stressing differences of ritual or liturgical practice187.However two other passages evince an uncompromising, hard-line atti-tude towards the Greek Church188. The first describes the circumstancesin which the draft Armenian statement of faith was composed; it insiststhat liturgical disagreements had arisen between Greeks and Armeniansand that the Armenians considered the Greeks to be ‘impious’ for ac-cepting Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo189. The second passage openswith a short, uncomplimentary portrait of Catholicos Nerses III; whilstacknowledging his virtuous conduct, Nerses is condemned for conceal-ing ‘a bitter poison in his heart’ and secretly planning to convert all Ar-menia to the confession of Chalcedon190. The passage goes on to de-scribe the visit of Constans II to Dvin in 653 and a service held in the

184 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 164.15.185 This proposition is confirmed by the identification of Mu‘awiya as the Anti-Christ,

‘nerin’: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 164.27-28; see 4 (b) below.186 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 148.27-161.34.187 It is instructive to contrast this studious avoidance of contentious subjects with the

so-called Discourse of Sahak III, recently examined by van Esbroeck, which dates fromthe end of the seventh century. This contains a vigorous defence of the use of unleavenedbread and pure wine and downplays the common inheritance through Constantine.M. VAN ESBROECK, Le discours du Catholicos Sahak III en 691, in G. NEDUNGATT andM. FEATHERSTONE, The Council in Trullo Revisited (Kanonika, 6), Rome, 1995, p. 323-454.

188 This inconsistent treatment of the relationship between the two churches hints at thepresence of two opposing factions within the Armenian Church, one seeking to conciliate,the other determined to resist.

189 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 147.32-148.20. Although strictly speaking thislies outside the final fourteen pages, it occurs towards the end of the text and its tone con-tradicts not only what has gone before but even the tone of the draft Defence itself. I be-lieve that this passage should be ascribed to the compiler, explaining the circumstancesunder which that document came to be prepared but also revealing his personal antipathytowards any ecclesiastical union or doctrinal reconciliation.

190 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 166.33-167.9.


cathedral of Saint Grigor, during which the liturgy was celebrated in ‘theRoman language’ and conducted by a ‘Roman priest’191. One Armenianbishop refused to participate but justified his action in an interview withConstans II, a discussion which also unmasked Nerses’ duplicitous con-duct. Critically both these passages occur at the end of the text. In myview, their antipathy towards the Greek Church and Chalcedon reflectsthe compiler’s own vehement opposition to any accommodation be-tween the two churches.

ii) Repetition: The Letters from Khusraw II/Mu‘awiya to Heraclius/Constans II

These final pages not only include contradictory passages; they alsocontain one highly significant repetition. The account of the Arab attackupon Constantinople in 654 opens with a letter purportedly sent fromMu‘awiya to Constans II on the eve of that assault192. The letter isclearly fabricated. Even if one were to admit the possibility of such a let-ter, it is inherently improbable that it would have come into the posses-sion of an Armenian or that it would have been translated into Arme-nian. On closer scrutiny, an unmistakable similarity with an earlier itemof correspondence can be detected, namely the ultimatum allegedly sentby Khusraw II to Heraclius prior to the second Persian siege of Constan-tinople in 626, in which he gloried in Persian military success andscorned the efficacy of Christ’s protection over the Roman empire. Bothletters conclude in almost identical terms. Khusraw’s letter ends:

‘For that Christ who was not able to save himself from the Jews, but theykilled him on a cross, how is he able to save you from my hands?’193

The letter of Mu‘awiya finishes with the same sentence:

‘Otherwise, that Jesus, whom you call Christ, since he was not able to savehimself from the Jews, how is he able to save you from my hands?’194

This duplication is more than mere coincidence. It attests the role of thecompiler as author. Evidently he perceived a similarity between the twoattacks on Constantinople in 626 and 654, both from the east and boththreatening the very existence of the Roman Empire, and decided to usethe earlier account as a literary template upon which to fashion his ownnarrative. He not only borrowed the idea of correspondence between theprotagonists; he even lifted the final, disparaging sentence.

The proposition that Mu‘awiya’s letter was fashioned by the compiler191 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 167.9-168.39.192 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 169.30-170.4.193 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 123.30-2.194 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 170.2-4.

370 T.W. GREENWOOD

does not mean that it lacks all historical merit. I believe that it supplies acontemporary perception of the terms that might have been offered byMu‘awiya in those circumstances, perhaps even reflecting the recent ex-perience of the compiler in relation to local, regional settlements withthe Arabs. Each condition of the proposed settlement can be impliedfrom other notices at the end of the text. The first concession demandedby Mu‘awiya, that Constans II should disband his forces, is echoed inthe Arab administration of Media195. This describes how an excessivetax burden and the abolition of ‘the cavalry and the office of prince ofthe country’ prompted a sudden rebellion196. The offer to make Constansa ‘great prince’ mirrors, at least in conception, the extended authorityover Armenia, Iberia, A¥uank‘ and Siwnik‘ awarded to T‘eodoros Rstuniby Mu‘awiya197. The threatened confiscation of three-quarters of thetreasures of Constans II may underpin the otherwise cryptic reference tothe seizure by T‘eodoros Rstuni of ‘all the treasures of the land’ belong-ing to the church, the princes and the merchants198. The guarantee of se-curity in return for the payment of tribute offered to Constans duplicatesthe protection afforded to T‘eodoros Rstuni, who obtained military as-sistance from his Arab allies on demand199. The letter of Mu‘awiyatherefore requires very careful analysis. It can be interpreted in the lightof the Armenian response to, and experience of, the Arab expansion intoTranscaucasia. But it remains a confection, artfully constructed by thecompiler on the basis of the letter from Khusraw II to Heraclius, which,as we have seen, is itself an imaginative reconstruction200.

iii) The Account of the Arab assault upon Constantinople in 654

The contention that Mu‘awiya’s letter is of very doubtful authenticityhas important repercussions. It has a necessary effect upon the interpre-tation of the subsequent account of the failed Arab attack against Con-stantinople in 654201. That narrative comprises three parts: the prepara-tions for the attack, the reaction of Constans II and the fate of the ar-mada. When revisited, all three are found to contain features which en-

195 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 169.33-4.196 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 172.25-29.197 Offer to Constans II: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 169.34; appointment of

T‘eodoros Rstuni: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 169.14-17.198 Confiscation from Constans II: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 169.35-170.1;

appropriation by T‘eodoros Rstuni: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 166.4-8.199 Security in return for tribute offered to Constans II: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn

Sebeosi, p. 170.1-2; security in return for nominal tribute enjoyed by T‘eodoros Rstuni:ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 169.1-5.

200 See discussion of this letter in 2 (b) above, and n. 52.201 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 170.5-171.27.


gender suspicion rather than trust in their historical accuracy. Thus theaccount of Mu‘awiya’s naval preparations is coloured by exaggeration:‘300 huge ships with a thousand men of elite cavalry per ship’ and ‘fivethousand light ships and he gathered in them a few men for the sake ofspeed, one hundred men per ship’202. Furthermore Thomson has notedthat the detailed description of the siege equipment being transported byship derives from the first book of Maccabees203. Secondly, the reactionof Constans II to Mu‘awiya‘s letter mirrors the reaction of Heraclius toKhusraw’s letter discussed previously, thereby confirming a direct rela-tionship between the two passages. The response of Constans II is basedupon a series of Biblical quotations and allusions, foremost amongstwhich is Isaiah’s description of Hezekiah responding to Sennacherib’soffer of terms. Intriguingly this also supplied the basis for the account ofHeraclius’ reaction to Khusraw’s letter, discussed previously204. Finallythe narrative interprets the destruction of the Arab fleet by a violentstorm in terms of divine intervention, imagining the despair of the Arabsin the face of the power of God: ‘And God saved on that day by his out-stretched right hand the city through the prayers of the pious king Con-stans…And it happened that when the Ismaelites saw the fearsome handof the Lord, their heart broke.’205 Although it is conceivable that the com-piler was aware of a failed assault upon Constantinople in 654, this ana-lysis of the account suggests that he need not have had any more than avague impression of the course of events. In such circumstances, he re-verted to a narrative of his own composition, one that unashamedly emu-lated a passage inserted earlier in the composition for which he was notresponsible. In spite of being surrounded by an abundance of short no-tices supplying a coherent and historically accurate account of contem-porary conditions within Armenia, this passage of the siege of Constan-tinople is an elaborate reconstruction pieced together by the compiler.

iv) The Treaty between T‘eodoros Rstuni and Mu‘awiya

The other document located in the final fourteen pages of Abgaryan’scritical edition, namely Mu‘awiya’s agreement with T‘eodoros Rstuni,needs to be treated with similar caution. Unlike the passages analysedabove, the agreement itself does not employ Biblical imagery, nor is itcoloured by obvious exaggeration. Nevertheless it seems improbable

202 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 170.9-12. This totals 350,000 men and 5,300ships!

203 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 171.1-8; THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos,p. l and 145, n. 889.

204 Heraclius: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 124.1-5; Constans II: ABGARYAN,Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 170.24-33. Both exploit Isaiah 37.1.


372 T.W. GREENWOOD

that it is the actual text of the agreement. Given his harsh condemnationof T‘eodoros, it is hard to envisage under what circumstances the com-piler could have had access to such an agreement. It seems more appro-priate to adopt a sceptical approach and understand the agreement as aliterary construct whose terms were deduced from subsequent events206.Thus the provision that no tribute was to be paid in the next three yearssimply reflected the actual non-payment in 652, 653 and 654. The mys-terious discretion to pay ‘as much as you may wish’ may reflect contem-porary uncertainty over current liability for tribute although it may pos-sibly represent wishful thinking on the part of the compiler. The otherterms anticipate the consequences of the alliance between T‘eodoros andMu‘awiya. Thus the promise of support for T‘eodoros if he was attackedwas fulfilled when he was threatened by Constans II in 653207. The con-cession that Arab commanders should not be installed in Armenian for-tresses simply reflected the current situation inside Armenia. Althoughthe presence of such a document at the end of the text indicates thatagreements between Arabs and local populations were negotiated at thistime, there must be serious doubt over its authenticity.

The above evaluation shows that the compiler’s own contribution tothe text was significant. As the text approached the present-day, he be-came increasingly responsible for its authorship. This explains the lim-ited chronological span of the last fourteen pages of Abgaryan’s criticaledition and the narrowing of the historical focus to conditions inside Ar-menia. However the compiler’s views were not wholly consistent withthose expressed by other underlying sources that he had exploited; thisexplains the hostility towards T‘eodoros Rstuni and the pro-Chalce-donian faction within the Armenian Church. Finally the terms ofT‘eodoros Rstuni’s treaty with Mu‘awiya, the letter from Mu‘awiya toConstans II and the account of the assault upon Constantinople shouldall be attributed to the pen of the compiler; whilst important becausethey reflect the perceptions of a contemporary, these passages do not re-spectively draw upon original documents or dispassionate, eye-witnessnarratives. They need to be treated with great circumspection.

3) The Structure of the Text

The History attributed to Sebeos comprises a series of extracts ar-ranged in approximately the correct chronological order. For the mostpart, the text displays a linear progression through time. However it isclear that the compiler did not impose a rigid chronological framework.

206 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 164.18-27.207 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 169.1-5.


Admittedly the text contains twenty dates, but they are distributed un-evenly within the text. Their irregular position and the variations in theformulation of these dates indicate that they derive from several of theunderlying sources exploited by the compiler208. Significantly, the latestnotices do not contain any dates, indicating that adherence to a strictchronological structure was not a primary concern of the compiler.Therefore the apology for the disorganized nature of the text that intro-duces the original conclusion does not stem from false modesty but rep-resents a genuine admission that several episodes were in all probabilityin the wrong place209. On two occasions, even passages with specificdates have been muddled, attesting the low priority afforded to chrono-logical precision by the compiler. In both instances, this confusionseems to stem from the combination of extracts from differentsources210. This combination also explains the presence of three separatenotices referring to the death of Heraclius211.

In the absence of a rigid chronological skeleton around which to ar-

208 Compare ‘on the 19th day (of the siege of Jerusalem) in the month Margac‘ whichwas the 28th day of that month, in the 25th year of the reign of Apruez Xosrov’ (ABGA-

RYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 115.28-9) and ‘in the twentieth year of Yazkert king of Per-sia, in the eleventh year of emperor Constans who was called after the name of his fatherConstantine, and in the 19th year of the lordship of the Ismaelites’ (ABGARYAN, Pat-mut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 163.29-30). The first is sensitive to day and month and is constructedexclusively around a Persian regnal year; the second is a complex synchronism, usingthree dating systems to identify the year, but is not date-specific.

209 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 176.22-4: ‘Now although having narrated invain I may have organized the details of this history in accordance with the unintelligentthought of my own mind and not in accordance with the worthy grace of knowledge…’Howard-Johnston has pinpointed several chronological errors: THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHN-

STON, Sebeos, p. lxxii-lxxiii.210 Thus a reference to the ‘twenty-first year of king Xosrov’ (ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn

Sebeosi, p. 111.32) is followed ten lines later by mention of the ‘twentieth year of kingXosrov’ (ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 112.9). My explanation is that the first de-rives from the List of Catholicoi whilst the second reporting the campaigning of Sahenwas taken from the list of Persian governors and commanders. Later on, the text specifies‘the fifth year of his (Constans’) reign’ (ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 143.18) butthen backtracks to ‘the second year of Constans, in the month of Hori, on the 23rd day ofthe month, a Sunday, during the morning…’ (ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 146.11-12). The first is linked to affairs in Constantinople and thus the Bagratuni source; the sec-ond identifies the date when the fortress of Arcap‘k‘ fell to the Arab raiders and is associ-ated with the postulated Rstuni source.

211 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 137.30-138.4, 138.5-7 and 140.35-37. The firststems from the Bagratuni source because it alleges that when on his deathbed, Heraclius’prime concern was to pardon the aspet. I believe that the second should be linked to theRstuni source. The first extract taken from that source notes ‘anmiaban leal amenaynazatac‘n’, ‘and all the azatk‘ being disunited’: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 134.1.Having mentioned the death of Heraclius, this extract repeats ‘k‘anzi anmiaban lealisxanac‘n meknec‘an i mimeanc‘’, ‘because all the princes being disunited, they separatedfrom one another’. The use of a similar phrase is persuasive but not decisive since it is acommon complaint. The third introduces the appointment of Valentinus and may also de-rive from the Bagratuni source.

374 T.W. GREENWOOD

range his material, the compiler adopted a straightforward alternative.He selected the narrative source of greatest substance and with the great-est chronological reach and simply inserted other materials into that text.The projected ‘Royal History’ provided the compiler with a basic frame-work for the first two-thirds of the text, into which his chosen extractswere pasted at approximately the correct place212. He did not dissect hismaterials for the sake of chronological precision. Thus the list of Persiangovernors and commanders of Armenia was divided into four large sec-tions rather than being teased out into individual entries. In the sameway, the career of Smbat Bagratuni is covered in successive passages,despite the disruption this causes to the chronology.

However the ‘Royal History’ extended only as far as the accession ofYazdagird III in 632. For the final third of the text, the compiler had toemploy a different approach to organization. It is therefore highly sig-nificant that several passages in this final third open with a short distinc-tive phrase introducing the material to follow. The verb is always in thefirst person subjunctive and is limited to carec‘ic‘, ‘I shall describe…’or asac‘ic‘, ‘I shall speak of…’.213 Such first-person subjunctives signifya movement from one extract to another and thus assist in distinguishingthe component parts. More importantly, they supply a unity to the finalthird of the text. The first such phrase appears in the opening sentence ofthe narrative describing the advent of the Arab expansion: ‘I shall de-scribe the stock of Abraham….’214. The last occurs at the end of theoriginal conclusion: hastatec‘ic‘, ‘I shall confirm…’215. Their distribu-tion is consistent with the proposition that they were employed by thecompiler to introduce a change of subject. With two important excep-tions, such phrases are not found in the first two-thirds of the text. Nordo they appear in the parallel passages in chapter 3 of T‘ovma Arcruni’sHistory, a work that, as we have seen, reflects the ‘Royal History’ butnot the History attributed to Sebeos. These distinctive phrases should beattributed to the pen of the compiler.

212 This is not the only postulated ‘Royal History’ to be used in this way. The accountof Khusraw II in al-™abari’s Ta’rikh includes two long passages which look as thoughthey have been inserted into a pre-existing narrative, the first focused upon later Lakhmidhistory and the second reporting events in Yemen: AL-™ABARI, p. 1015-1040, BOSWORTH,al-™abari, p. 338-375.

213 Carec‘ic‘: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 134.18 and 161.38. Asac‘ic‘: ABGA-

RYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 139.25, 162.22 and 166.33.214 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 134.18.215 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 176.24-25.


4) The Apocalyptic Perspective

The final third of the text reveals that the compiler took over responsi-bility for more than the arrangement of the various extracts into a coher-ent whole. Once outside the framework of the ‘Royal History’, he was ina much better position to impart his own interpretation of the dramaticevents of recent years and his own understanding of historical develop-ment. In order to appreciate the circumstances under which he wasworking and the decisive influence they had on his perception of thepast, we must turn back to the final notices of the text216.

a) The Historical Context and the Response of the Compiler

From 652 Armenia had been the northern sector of the front-line inthe renewed hostilities between the Arabs and the Romans. In that year,the leading Armenian prince, T‘eodoros lord of Rstunik‘, switched alle-giance from Constans II to Mu‘awiya, prompting an extended journeyeastwards by the emperor himself in 653 to shore up his support217. Fol-lowing his hasty departure back to Constantinople, the Arabs and theirclients (notably T‘eodoros) regained control over Armenia. However thefailure of the Arab assault against Constantinople in 654 and a furtherdefeat in Cappadocia forced their partial withdrawal from Armenia and,against expectation, allowed Roman forces to return218. The text reportsthat the Roman commander Maurianos sacked the fortress of Dvin andbesieged the fortress of Naxcavan, downstream from Dvin on the RiverAraxes. This indicates that his offensive, probably to be dated to spring655, penetrated deep into Armenia219. But for a second time in threeyears, the Arabs counter-attacked and succeeded in driving the Romanforces out of Armenia220. The text records the grim consequences of thiscampaign for the whole region:

‘(the army of Ismael) ravaged all the land of Armenia, A¥uank‘, andSiwnik‘, and stripped all the churches. It took hostage the leading princesof the country, and the wives and sons and daughters of many people.’

Thus it was evident to the compiler of the text that supra-national forceshad had, and were continuing to have, a devastating impact upon thematerial wealth, the social cohesion and the religious life of Armeniaand its Caucasian neighbours. His world was under severe threat.

216 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 164.13-177.9.217 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 164.13-168.35.218 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 169.30-171.37.219 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 174.4-10.220 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 174.11-14.

376 T.W. GREENWOOD

In these circumstances, the compiler was not content simply to de-scribe what was happening; he attempted to understand why it was hap-pening. As that world was under God’s sovereignty, the contemporarychaos could only be part of God’s plan and specifically a reflection ofGod’s anger with his people. He therefore turned to the Bible for an ex-planation of the fundamental political upheaval then underway in theNear East, as the existing superpowers crumbled in the face of Arab ex-pansion. Inevitably, his attention was attracted to those passages thatpredicted the future course of human history. In his search, he found aseries of prophetic statements that seemed to match what was going onaround him. The collapse of the old bipartite political order and the un-expected emergence of a single new dynamic polity appeared to corre-late with the devastation anticipated in an apocalyptic vision of theprophet Daniel221. On no fewer than three separate occasions, the com-piler breaks off from his narrative to present the advent of the Arab con-quests and their consequences as the fulfilment of Daniel’s prophecy222.On each occasion he equates the nascent caliphate with the fourth beastof Daniel’s vision:

‘This fourth, arising from the south is the kingdom of Ismael, just as thearchangel explained (to Daniel), “The fourth beast, the fourth kingdom,shall arise, which shall be greater than all kingdoms; and it will consumethe whole earth”.’223

The first part of Daniel’s prophecy describes four beasts, interpretedlater in the chapter as four kingdoms, which would arise on the earth.The compiler saw that the recent political upheaval could be fitted intothis systematic prophecy. He proposed that the first beast, the kingdomof the west, represented the Roman Empire and that the second, thekingdom of the east, was the Sasanian Empire224. With less conviction,he identified the kingdom of the north with ‘Gog and Magog’225. Whilstthis may represent the Turkic power that had intervened briefly and deci-sively in the Caucasus on the side of Heraclius in his final campaignsagainst Khusraw II, the present form of the text suggests that the com-piler had difficulty matching this third element of the prophetic visionwith the recent past; the actions of the third beast are not recorded in theextant text. However it is also possible that the work did once contain

221 Daniel 7.222 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 141.23-142.15, 161.38-162.21 and 176.22-

177.9.223 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 141.23-142.15.224 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 141.27-142.4.225 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 142.4-8.


relevant passages. The Table of Contents refers to ‘the advancing ofHeraclius into the northern regions to the king of the T‘etalac‘ik’ and‘the sending of a terrible multitude of peoples’ but these events are notcovered in the work itself226.

Therefore the supra-national quality of the History attributed toSebeos was not simply a whim of the compiler. It stems from hiseschatological interpretation of contemporary circumstances and hisperception of what stage in God’s predetermined plan for the worldhad been reached. He detected a correspondence between Daniel’s pro-phecy, with its unitary, coherent view of historical development, andthe recent history and present conditions pertaining to the Near East.This required him to describe not only the actions of the fourth beastbut also to trace the recent history and fate of the first three beasts —hence his concentration upon Roman, Persian and Islamic history andhis interest in the warfare between them. His inclusive approach to Near-Eastern history — and interest in the destinies of secular kings andempires — reflects the universal quality of Daniel’s prophecy. It wasapplicable to the whole world. At the same time, this apocalyptic inter-pretation justifies the text’s highly individual approach to Armenianhistory. Armenia and Armenians appear only in the context of relevanceto or relationship with one or other of the beasts. The non-Armenian ori-entation of the Table of Contents supports this contention; it gives usvaluable insight into the compiler’s perception of his own composi-tion227.

However the compiler did more than simply use Daniel’s prophecy toconstruct a transcendent scheme of meaning for recent and currentevents. The original conclusion to the History attributed to Sebeos re-veals that he anticipated further turmoil in the future as the End of Timeapproached:

‘Just as it was fulfilled to those first (ones), so likewise to these last (ones)it shall be fulfilled until eternity according to the word of the Lord whosays, “Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass.”“For fire will flame up,” he says, “From my anger it shall burn and de-scend to the lowest hell”.’228

226 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 65.20-22. Table of Contents: ABGARYAN,Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 64.24-66.6. Conceivably the relevant passages have dropped outin the course of transmission. Alternatively it is possible that the Table reflects the in-tended rather than the final form of the text.

227 With the exception of the first entry, the rebellion of Vardan Mamikonean againstKhusraw I, and one tangential reference to its border, neither Armenians nor Armenia fea-ture in the Table of Contents.


378 T.W. GREENWOOD

Having emphasized once more the destructive character of the fourthbeast, the text ends with a quotation combining two prophetic verses,one from Isaiah and the other from Jeremiah:

‘Then at the going out of the Words he says “The day of their destructionis close; the Lord has arrived upon them in readiness.” And this too will befulfilled in its own time.’229

This anticipates the imminent collapse of the Arab polity. The text con-cludes not with a summary of the recent past but rather a prediction forthe future, a future in which evil, in other words the fourth beast, wouldbe subject to divine judgement. Critically, this moment of transitionfrom history interpreted as prophecy to prophecy itself occurs in the fi-nal paragraphs of the text. For an eschatological work, the History attrib-uted to Sebeos contains a unique balance between history and prophecy,favouring the former to such an extent that the text’s apocalyptic charac-ter has tended to be ignored.

Therefore the History attributed to Sebeos is not an objective work ofhistorical scholarship pieced together by someone motivated solely bythe preservation of material for future generations. Rather it is a collec-tion of historical proofs which, when pasted together, justified theapocalyptic conviction of the compiler. The extracts chart the unfoldingof the Last Days and in so doing, define how far that process has ad-vanced. Thus although the text supplies much invaluable informationabout events that would otherwise be vague or dimly visible, it wasshaped by a particular understanding of the structure and end of humanhistory230. The compiler placed the decades of crisis in the Near Eastwithin a Biblical schema of universal meaning. The text represents apersonal, highly sophisticated response to the longstanding chaos andconfusion witnessed by the compiler within Armenia but envelopingevery part of his known world.

The compiler’s apocalyptic interpretation not only explained the pastand the present. As we have seen, it also determined the selection ofmaterial for inclusion. It may even have conditioned the compiler’s par-ticular concern for correct doctrine, as demonstrated by his decision toinclude the whole of the draft Defence of the Armenian faith231. How-

229 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 177.7-9.230 Thus for example the text contains a short isolated passage reporting a new burst of

construction activity on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwnSebeosi, p. 139.25-140.22. Although there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of thisnotice, it may owe its inclusion to a prophetic passage in Daniel 8:9-12 reporting how thelittle horn of the south would overthrow the place of the sanctuary or perhaps Daniel11.30-31, which anticipates the forces of the man of sin profaning the Temple of God.

231 The text does not specify exactly who will be redeemed at the Second Coming.However it is possible that the compiler’s antipathy to the Chalcedonian Greek Church


ever this expectation of an imminent end does not infuse the whole text,but is limited, with one very significant exception, to the final third ofthe text for which the compiler had assumed a greater responsibility. Hedid not revise or rework extracts from existing sources, even when thesepreferred a different understanding of historical development. Thus thefirst two-thirds of the text maintains a conventional approach to causa-tion, perceiving events primarily in terms of the actions and decisions ofleading personalities. Although several passages acknowledge the possi-bility of divine intervention in human affairs, there is no attempt to con-nect the political instability and decades of warfare between Rome andPersia with the Last Days and the Second Coming232.

The solitary exception is provided by a single short passage, locatedimmediately beneath the original headings ‘Chronological Text’ and‘Royal History’233. It provides a vital connection between that part of thetext constructed around the projected ‘Royal History’ and that partwhich attests the greater involvement of the compiler. In so doing, thisshort passage confirms the integrity of the text. It is fiercely antagonistictowards Khusraw II, calling him the ‘Sasanian brigand’ and ‘the de-stroyer and the corrupter, cursed by God’. He is identified as the originof the calamities that have befallen the world, the one who ‘consumedwith fire everything beneath’ and who ‘disturbed the sea and the dryland in order to bring destruction upon the whole earth’. Moreover theinvective envisages ‘the one of the south, aroused with great passion’;‘like a tempest (mrrik) it burst out and rushed (p‘ot‘orkeal ent‘ac‘eal) todestroy everything beneath’234. The destructive activities of Khusraw IIhad preceded those of the Arabs but were directly linked to them in thedivinely predetermined schema. The Arab conquests could only be com-prehended in the context of the previous decades of warfare.

Within the first two-thirds of the text, this short passage is unique interms of its breadth of historical vision, its eschatological interpretationof events and its hostile presentation of Khusraw II. It therefore contra-dicts the neutral or even slightly favourable image of Khusraw devel-

attests a personal conviction that only those who had held fast to true orthodox belief, asdefined according to Armenian tradition, would be saved. See ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwnSebeosi, p. 148.27-161.34 for the draft document and R.W. THOMSON, The Defence ofArmenian Orthodoxy in Sebeos, in I. SEVCENKO and I. HUTTER, AETOS. Studies in Hon-our of Cyril Mango, Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1998, p. 329-341.

232 See for example Khusraw’s taunting letter to Heraclius and his response, located inthe postulated ‘Royal History’: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 123.15-124.5.

233 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 72.3-20.234 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 72.15. The past tense indicates that this is his-

toric, not prophetic.

380 T.W. GREENWOOD

oped in many subsequent passages. In the draft Defence of Armenianorthodoxy, Khusraw II is portrayed as the arbiter of a prolonged theo-logical disputation who came down in favour of the Armenian confes-sion of faith; this is a most surprising role for someone previously‘cursed by God’235. However this short passage does correspond linguis-tically and thematically with the three passages outlining the compiler’sapocalyptic interpretation of events in the final third of the text. The firstof these refers to the one ‘who kindled and consumed with fire the seaand dry land’ as the ‘Ismaeli brigand’236; this should be understood as aconscious and deliberate echo of the earlier reference to Khusraw II asthe ‘Sasanian brigand’ who ‘consumed with fire everything beneath anddisturbed the sea and the dry land’237. Moreover in these later passages,the kingdom of Ismael is specifically described as ‘arising from thesouth’ and is likened to ‘a tempest which rushes and bursts out to appre-hend all the earth’238. This imagery is identical to that found in the ear-lier passage.

These exact verbal correspondences confirm that the compiler was re-sponsible for writing this short introductory passage239. The compilerviewed Khusraw II as the harbinger of the apocalyptic process, therebyjustifying the inclusion of passages focused upon his reign. But he didnot meddle with the original perspective and interpretation of thesources exploited by him for the narrative of events during the reign ofKhusraw II. Rather he prefaced the postulated ‘Royal History’ with abrief exposition on Khusraw’s primary role in God’s plan for the world,and left the sources to speak for themselves.

Thus far, we have seen how Daniel’s apocalyptic vision provided thecompiler with a coherent, Biblical view of historical development andhow it governed his selection of material. But it may have had a thirdinfluence, namely upon the composition of one of the narrative passagesat the end of the text. The final updating scholium appended to the origi-nal conclusion reports the conflict that broke out inside the Arab polity

235 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 149.4-151.33.236 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 141.23-4: ‘Bayc‘ zahagin a¥ets henin Ismayeli

or borbok‘eac‘ hrdeheal zcov ew zc‘amak‘’.237 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 72.3-5: ‘hen Sasanakan…or hrdeheal boc‘a-

coyc‘ zar i nerk‘oys amenayn d¥ordeal zcov ew zc‘amak‘’.238 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 142.10-14 and 162.16-19: ‘Like a tempest

(mrrik) it shall race (ent‘asc‘i) from the south, coming from the desert, from that terribleplace. That is the great and terrible desert from where the storm of these nations burst(p‘ot‘orkeal) and seized all the land…’

239 The presence of two of the distinctive first-person subjunctive phrases within thispassage provides additional corroboration: carec‘ic‘ (ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi,p. 72.7) and asac‘ic‘ (ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 72.19). See above, n. 213.


after 655240. It presents the first fitna as a violent competition for mili-tary and political supremacy between four rival regional powers, a ver-sion of events that is substantially different to the twofold division con-sistently reported within the Islamic historical tradition241. However thisaccount needs to be read in the context of the next stage in Daniel’s vi-sion. The prophet describes how the fourth beast had ten horns, how an-other little horn developed and how three of the ten were plucked up bytheir roots242. When he sought an explanation, Daniel was told that tenkings would arise out of the kingdom of the fourth beast: ‘After themanother king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he shall subduethree kings.’243 Whilst there are several obvious distinctions betweenthese verses and the outline of events in the final scholium, there seemsto be a broad coincidence both in the number of kings who are defeatedand the emergence of a single, superior king. Thus the account of thefirst fitna contained within the History attributed to Sebeos appears to bebased upon the next stage of Daniel’s vision. It reflects what the com-piler anticipated should have been happening on the eve of the End oftime. It cannot be accepted at face value244.

240 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 175.32-176.21. The two other scholia concen-trate upon Armenian matters: the six-year exile of Nerses III and his return in 659:ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 174.37-175.7; the switch of allegiance by HamazaspMamikonean and other Armenians to Constans II, with fatal consequences for those Ar-menians being held hostage by the Arabs: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 175.8-31.Both develop themes found at the end of the original text. This continuity suggests thatthe compiler was responsible for adding these additional passages.

241 THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. 284-287.242 Daniel 7.7b-8. These verses are quoted previously in the text, proving that the com-

piler was aware of their content: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 142.14-15.243 Daniel 7.24.244 The apocalyptic perspective has one further, indirect contribution to make in re-

spect of unravelling the composition of the History attributed to Sebeos. Since we can besure that the compiler was responsible for writing the four passages of apocalyptic inter-pretation and explanation, those passages displaying close verbal correspondences mayalso be attributed to the pen of the compiler. Textual comparison confirms that he was theauthor of two of the passages attributed to him previously on other grounds. As Thomsonhas noted, the description of the agreement between T‘eodoros Rstuni and Mu‘awiya as‘a covenant with death’ and ‘an alliance with hell’ is based on two verses in Isaiah, spe-cifically 28:15b and 28:18a (ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 164.15; THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. 136 and n. 838). Significantly the hostile introduction toKhusraw as ‘the destroyer and the corrupter’ found beneath the original headings employsthe opposite halves of both verses, Isaiah 28.15a and 28:18b (ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwnSebeosi, p. 72.15; THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. 13 and n. 95). This coinci-dence is too extraordinary to be accidental. The only person who could have written bothpassages was the compiler himself. The identification in the later passage of Mu‘awiya as‘the servant of Anti-Christ’ is consistent with the apocalyptic tone of the text (ABGARYAN,Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 164.27-28: nerin arbaneakn). Secondly the description of the de-struction of the Arab fleet in 654 is full of verbal correspondences. Thus the image ofGod’s anger as a tempest, mrrik mec, recalls the description of the Arabs as the tempest,

382 T.W. GREENWOOD

b) The Apocalyptic Tradition

Of course, the compiler of the History attributed to Sebeos was farfrom being the first writer to detect an eschatological te sonance withinthe progress of recent human history or to anticipate that the End wasimminent. There was a long tradition of Jewish, Christian and Zoroas-trian apocalyptic literature245. As Magdalino has shown, the sixth cen-tury within the Byzantine world was ‘a time of intense and intensifyingeschatological apprehension’246. He and others have noted that apocalyp-tic expectation reached a climax in the immediate aftermath ofHeraclius’ triumph over Khusraw II in 628. Mango has observed that therestoration of the True Cross to Jerusalem in March 630 was celebratedin ‘deliberately apocalyptic style’247. Several contemporary texts pre-dicted that the End was close at hand248. Furthermore the attempts byHeraclius to forcibly convert Persians and Jews and unify the severalseparate Near-Eastern churches within a single confession have been in-terpreted as both necessary and appropriate actions on the part of aChristian emperor preparing for the Second Coming249.

Hitherto scholars interested in seventh-century apocalyptic materialshave been presented with a serious problem. Lack of evidence hasforced them to leap from the apocalyptic ferment of the early 630s to the

mrrik, seen over Babylon (ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 171.10; ABGARYAN,Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 162.6). The churned-up sea, d¥rdec‘aw covn, recalls d¥ordealzcov (ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 171.10-11; ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi,p. 72.5). The whirling wind, ho¥mn p‘ot‘orkeal, is strongly reminiscent of zmrrik awdoyt‘ruc‘eal p‘ot‘orkeal entats‘eal, mrrik i haravoy ent‘asc‘i and mrrik azgac‘s aysoc‘ikp‘ot‘orkeal, phrases which appear in two of the apocalyptic passages (ABGARYAN,Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 171.12; ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 72.15; ABGARYAN,Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 162.16 and ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 162.17-18). Therecan be little doubt that one person was responsible for all of these passages.

245 B. MCGINN, Visions of the End, Columbia NY, 1979, p. 1-36 (= MCGINN, Visions).For Zoroastrian material, see P. GIGNOUX, L’Apocalyptique iranienne est-elle vraiment lasource des autres apocalypses?, in Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 31(1985-1988), p. 67-78.

246 P. MAGDALINO, The History of the Future and its Uses, in R. BEATON andC. ROUECHÉ, The Making of Byzantine History: Studies presented to Donald M. Nicol,Aldershot, 1993, p. 7 (= MAGDALINO, History of the Future).

247 C. MANGO, Byzantium. The Empire of New Rome, London, 1980, p. 205 (= MANGO,Byzantium). See also C. MANGO, Deux Études sur Byzance et la Perse Sassanide, inTravaux et Mémoires, 9 (1985), p. 112-114 and 117; and C. MANGO, The Temple Mount,AD 614–638, in J. RABY and J. JOHNS, Bayt al-Maqdis. ‘Abd al-Malik’s Jerusalem, Ox-ford, 1992, p. 6 and 15-16.

248 See for example, G. GARITTE, La Passion géorgienne de Sainte Golindouch, inAnalecta Bollandiana, 74 (1956), p. 439; A.-J. FESTUGIERE, Vie de Théodore de Sykéon,Brussels, 1970, I, p. 106; WHITBY, Theophylact, v. 15.5-11. George of Pisidia, Hexae-meron, in Patrologia Graeca, 92 (1865), 1575.

249 MAGDALINO, History of the Future, p. 19.


several Syriac apocalypses composed in the very different circumstancesof the last decade of the seventh century, most notably the Apocalypseof Ps. Methodius250. The History attributed to Sebeos represents one ofthe missing links in the chain of seventh-century apocalyptic writing. Itsupplies the earliest systematic explanation for the rise of Muslimpower, one that fitted into the conventional framework of the successivekingdoms in Daniel's prophecy. Although the Ps. Methodius Apoca-lypse remains an original and highly influential response to the unex-pected recovery of Arab rule after the second fitna and to the very realdanger of apostasy by large numbers of Christians, it was not the firstapocalyptic text to confront the rise of Islam251. That privilege must nowbe accorded to this Armenian text.

The History attributed to Sebeos differs from the later Syriac apoca-lypses in several key respects. It is not pseudonymous252. There is no at-tempt within the text to work out how many years of human historywere left before the Second Coming, usually calculated by reference tothe weeks of years mentioned by Daniel253. Quite simply, the compilerwas convinced that he was living through the chaos of the Last Timesand that the end was imminent. In such circumstances, eschatologicalcomputation was pointless. Nor does the text refer to the advent of aLast World Emperor or Endkaiser, a figure who seems to have devel-oped out of the Alexander Romance and who has no Biblical basis. AsReinink and others have observed, the Apocalypse of Ps. Methodius isthe first text to incorporate such a character254. That text anticipates theemergence of a king of the Greeks who would unite all Christians and

250 G. REININK, Die syrische Apokalypse des pseudo-Methodius (Corpus ScriptorumChristianorum Orientalium, 540-541; Scr. Syri, 220-221), Louvain, 1993.

251 G. REININK, Ps.-Methodius: a Concept of History in Response to the Rise of Islam,in A. CAMERON and L. CONRAD, The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East I: Problemsin the Literary Source Materials, Princeton, 1992, p. 149-187 (= CAMERON and CONRAD,Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East I).

252 In addition to Ps. Methodius, see Ps.-Ephraem’s Sermon on the End of Time, editedby E. BECK, Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones III (Corpus Scriptorum Chris-tianorum Orientalium, 320; Scr. Syri, 138), Louvain, 1972, p. 60-71 and translated byH. SUERMANN, Die geschichtstheologische Reaktion auf die einfallenden Muslime in deredessenischen Apokalyptik des 7. Jahrhunderts, Frankfurt, 1985, p. 12-33; and also theApocalypses of Simon Kepha, James son of Zebedee and John the Little, discussed byH.J.W. DRIJVERS, The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles: A Syriac Apocalypse from the EarlyIslamic Period, in CAMERON and CONRAD, Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East I,p. 189-213.

253 Daniel 9.24. The cosmic week, in which each day represented a thousand years,was also used to work out how much time was left for mankind; see Revelation 20.4-6.

254 G. REININK, Pseudo-Methodius und die Legende vom römische Endkaiser, inW. VERBEKE, D. VERHELST and A. WELKENHUYSEN, The Use and Abuse of Eschatology inthe Middle Ages, Leuven, 1988, p. 82-111.

384 T.W. GREENWOOD

defeat the cruel tyrants from the desert, the sons of Isamel. AlthoughGog and Magog and the twenty-two nations would break through Alex-ander’s gate of the North and come upon the land of Israel, in fulfilmentof Ezekiel’s prophecy, they would also be defeated. The Last Emperorwould then go to Jerusalem to give up his crown, an event that wouldusher in the time of the Antichrist. These new scenes in the apocalypticdrama seem to have been devised to justify the traditional identificationof the Roman empire as the fourth beast rather than the caliphate. Thesons of Ismael represented a temporary chastisement from whom truebelievers would soon be delivered. By implication therefore, those be-lievers should remain steadfast in their faith because relief was at hand.There is a sharp contrast between this complicated sequence, in whichthe time of the Antichrist was still some way off, and the simpleeschatological process depicted by the History attributed to Sebeos. TheArmenian text had no difficulty in identifying the forces of Ismael as thefourth beast. Given the speed with which the Sasanian and Roman em-pires had been overtaken, the compiler envisaged that a similar fate wasin store for the caliphate. As the Last Times were already wellunderway, there was no need to expand the eschatological drama by in-serting new elements.

The limited scope of the compiler’s apocalyptic vision can be seen intwo other respects. In the first place, the compiler was content to inter-pret the recent past and the present crisis through Daniel’s vision andother Old Testament images of God’s wrath. The synoptic apocalypsefound in the Gospels (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21) did not influencethe vision of the compiler255. Nor did he exploit Paul’s oblique referencein II Thessalonians 2:7-8 to the withholding or restraining power, whoseremoval would bring about the entry of the Antichrist256. The compilerpreferred the prophetic experiences reported in the Old Testament. Sec-ondly he was not prepared to look very far ahead. He predicted that‘they (i.e. the sons of Ismael) will be consumed by fire’ and ‘the founda-tions of their mountains, that is the tyrannies of their great princes, willburst into flames’257. But he did not go on to describe the time of theAntichrist, the Second Coming and the final vindication of the faithful.Again this reluctance to anticipate the future has served to conceal thetrue apocalyptic nature of the text. There is one incidental reference that

255 For a brief summary of this New Testament apocalypse, see MANGO, Byzantium,p. 201-202 and MAGDALINO, History of the Future, p. 4.

256 This phrase was interpreted as representing the Roman Empire, meaning that theworld was destined to last as long as the Empire did.



may explain this. After detailing the terms of the agreement between theprince of Ismael (Mu‘awiya) and T‘eodoros Rstuni, the text states ‘Inthis way, the servant of Antichrist split them away from the Romans’258.Whether one takes ‘the servant’ to refer to Mu‘awiya or to T‘eodoros, itimplies that the Antichrist was already present on earth. As far as thecompiler was concerned, the Parousia was imminent. Whilst the Syriacapocalypses described the Antichrist in great detail but saw him as a fu-ture apparition, the compiler of the History attributed to Sebeos believedthat he was a present reality.

One further issue needs to be addressed, namely whether the Historyattributed to Sebeos represents a unique witness to the presence ofapocalyptic expectations within Armenia at this time or whether it formsone of a group of works with a similar perspective. Although the evi-dence is insubstantial, it seems that the text is not alone in itseschatological interest. The first hint that this approach was not uniquederives from a solitary reference at the very beginning of the text. Infront of the Table of Contents, there is a short summary defining thosesubjects which would not be covered. This opens with the demise of theArsakuni monarchy at the start of the fifth century and the dominance ofthe Kark‘edovmayi empire, by which the writer meant Persia259.Thomson noted that Kark‘edovn, previously interpreted as an error, isequated with Persia in an Armenian apocalyptic text entitled ‘The Sev-enth Vision of Daniel’260. This rare word establishes an important con-nection between the History attributed to Sebeos and that text. It appearsthat the compiler may have had access to, and been influenced by, anexisting apocalyptic commentary in Armenian261.

Although pieced together at the start of the tenth century, the Historyof A¥uank‘ preserves an impression of a seventh-century source whichalso applied an apocalyptic interpretation to recent history. As we havenoted previously, Book ii chapter 9 introduces six chapters which reportthe final decisive stage in the warfare between Heraclius and Khusraw IIafter 624 and the devastating impact which these events had upon

258 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 164.27-28: nerin arbaneakn.259 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 64.26.260 THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p.1, n. 3. For the Seventh Vision of Daniel,

see S. YOVSEP‘EANC‘, Ankanon Girk‘ Hin Ktakaranac‘, Venice, 1896, p. 235-250, atp. 244. This text has attracted very little attention.

261 If this connection is correct, it justifies the presence of the otherwise isolated pas-sage describing the failed attempt by Maurice to recover Daniel’s body from Saws/Susa.It may be that the miracle associated with Daniel’s body was included to illustrate theprophet’s continuing holiness, and by implication the efficacy of his apocalyptic vision:ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 85.27-86.19.

386 T.W. GREENWOOD

A¥uank‘262. A number of important parallels in style, content and per-spective between these chapters and the postulated ‘Royal History’have already been proposed. However it is also worth looking carefullyat the introductory chapter. Chapter 9 opens with a sudden and sustainedpanegyric to the achievements of the author, praising his history as‘astonishing’ and composed for ‘the hearing of the whole world…towhich the accounts of earlier ages are not equal.’ It disparages the‘worldly, spiritual, philosophical constructs of secular, clever, eloquentstory-tellers’. It outlines the author’s intention: ‘to set a foundationand beginning of an account of the times and events which came topass through this country of A¥uank‘.’263 The peculiar location of thesebold claims, hidden deep within Book ii, strongly suggests that theywere not made by the compiler of the History of A¥uank‘ but derive in-stead from an antecedent source. The passage goes on to argue explicitlythat the events under discussion should be interpreted as part of God’splan:

‘For it has come and apprehended us at the same time and has been com-pleted, that which our Saviour mentioned in the life-giving Gospel in thetime of his suffering, in accordance with the enduring of the listening ofthese chosen twelve concerning his descending. He said, “You shall hearof battles and an abundance of famines (will) occur and swords/plaguesand earthquakes and signs in the sun and in the moon and in the stars anddisorders of people, like the agitating of the waves of the sea.” And thesame Lord himself forewarned, “Be careful, because you do not know theday or the hour”.’264

Evidently the author of this passage believed that the Last Times werebeing played out, quoting prophetic statements from Matthew’s Gospelto justify that expectation265. This has important repercussions for theapocalyptic vision identified in the History attributed to Sebeos becauseit confirms that that text was not unique in its attitude and response tocontemporary circumstances.

Unfortunately the task of identifying the underlying sources for thesechapters and tracing their evolution into their present form is far fromstraightforward. The composition of these chapters will be re-examinedin a future publication devoted to the whole text but two preliminary ob-servations should be made. Firstly there are clear thematic and linguistic

262 Book ii chapter 9: ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 127.4-128.10. Book iichapters 10-16: ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 128.13-170.15.

263 ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 127.4-10 and 20-22.264 ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 127.11-18.265 Matthew 24:6, 7, 29, 36 and 25:13.


links between chapters 9 and 16. The introduction refers to the ‘dreadand fear which still possesses us’ but attributes the ‘countless losses ofthe barbarous enemies encircling round us’ to the ‘powerful and benevo-lent right hand of God’266. Chapter 16 develops these themes. It opens bydescribing how the prince of the north established ‘dread and fear’ overthe land and ends by recalling the ‘terrible and horrible reckoning thatwas rendered upon the heads of our enemies’, by which it means theunexpected implosion of the Turkic confederation267. Again the authorattributed this to divine intervention: ‘it is the Lord who makes his en-emies weak’ and ‘the Lord performed great things for us’268. The mostappropriate context for the writing of the introduction seems to be theimmediate aftermath of the removal of the Turkic threat, dated by thetext to the second year of Artasir (629/630)269. This context would alsosuit the slightly muddled logic of chapter 9. Whilst asserting an apoca-lyptic interpretation for the dramatic events of the recent past, the intro-duction also views the latest development, namely the miraculous deliv-ery of A¥uank‘ from Turkic oppression, as evidence of God’s active in-tervention in this world and His concern for the fate of his servants.Whilst not exactly incompatible, these sit somewhat uncomfortably to-gether.

Unfortunately, this proposed date is undermined by the presence ofthree anachronistic references within these chapters. Khusraw’s criticismof Heraclius in chapter 11 as one who ‘travelled wandering and in flightfrom my presence to the islands of the west’ is misplaced because it wasConstans II, Heraclius’ grandson who ventured westwards, after 662270.Mention of Khazars in the same passage is equally suspicious, given thatthey emerged only in the 680s271. Finally when recording the death of

266 ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 128.2-7. Dread and fear: ‘zah ew zerkiw¥’.267 ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 166.15-17: ‘isxann hiwsisoy…ed zah ew

zerkiw¥’ and ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 169.20-21.268 ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 169.3-4 and 170.4-5.269 ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 166.14. The reversion to Persian regnal years

as the preferred dating mechanism unites chapter 16 with the previous chapters. Linguis-tic parallels confirm the close relationship between these chapters. The statement in chap-ter 9, ‘I have forgotten the sequence of my discourse’ (ARAK‘ELYAN, MovsesDasxuranc‘i, p. 127.20: ‘ew morac‘ay zkarg banin’) is echoed in chapter 16, ‘Let us turnto the same sequence of discourse’ (ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 170.4: ‘Aylmek‘ i noyn darjc‘uk‘ i karg banic‘n’).

270 ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 133.18-19.271 It is important not to be misled by Dowsett’s translation. Arak‘elyan’s edition re-

veals that there is only a single reference to Xazirk‘ in these chapters: ARAK‘ELYAN,Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 133.16. Dowsett’s multiple references should be understood as amisguided attempt by him to clarify the text. In fact his elaboration does the text a consid-erable disservice, implying that it is repeatedly incorrect. Elsewhere, Jebu Xak‘an is de-scribed, far more appropriately, as the king of the Huns, ‘t‘agawor Honac‘’: ARAK‘E-

LYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 139.21.

388 T.W. GREENWOOD

Kawad II, chapter 13 adds that ‘the kingdom was about to be removedfrom the house of the Sasanians and given to the hands of the children ofIsmael’272. This prefigures the death of Yazdagird III in 653 and the endof the Sasanian line. Collectively these casts-forward indicate that thismaterial was expanded or reworked towards the end of the seventh cen-tury.

Thus there are several textual difficulties that need to be resolved inrespect of these chapters. However whether one views the apocalypticpassage in chapter 9 as the product of the early 630s or the 680s — andI incline towards the former rather than the latter — its existence indi-cates that the apocalyptic expectation of the compiler of the History at-tributed to Sebeos was not unique273.

The History attributed to Sebeos therefore occupies a special place inthe apocalyptic tradition. It represents the earliest attempt to understandthe Arab conquests in the context of God’s predetermined plan for hu-man history. The compiler did not interpret recent history and currentconditions merely as indications that the Last Times were approaching.He understood them to be constituents of the apocalyptic process. Thereis even one reference implying that the Antichrist had already arrived.This sense of immediacy distinguishes this text from the later Syriacapocalypses. The latter seem to have taken a step back from the brink,extending the period before the End by inserting a series of new scenesin the eschatological drama. Thus the History attributed to Sebeos wasthe product of very specific circumstances and possessed an immediatecontemporary relevance. As soon as it became clear that the world wasnot on the edge of destruction, that the compiler had been mistaken inhis apocalyptic expectation, the text rapidly became obsolete. The settledconditions of Mu‘awiya’s caliphate in the aftermath of the first fitnawould have rendered such a text meaningless. It is temptingto view the Syriac apocalypses of the later seventh-century, with theirgreater complexity, as the second wave of apocalyptic writing in re-sponse to the Arab conquests, and specifically the second fitna. Of thefirst wave, whose anticipation of an imminent Parousia had been spec-tacularly disproved, only the History attributed to Sebeos now remains.

272 ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 149.11-14.273 I prefer the earlier date for two principal reasons. In the first pace, there are verbal

correspondences between chapters 9 and 16, correspondences that are not repeated later inBook ii when reporting the advent of the Khazars after 680. Secondly, the apocalypticpassages are solely focused upon a northern threat and make no mention of the Arab con-quests or the collapse of Sasanian Persia. It seems hard to believe that these events wouldnot have impinged upon the understanding of the author, unless he was active beforethese events occurred, namely in the early 630s.


5) The Date of Composition

The proposition that the compiler was at work in the middle of theseventh century depends upon several separate, mutually reinforcing ar-guments. The original conclusion of the text comprises a flurry of short,disconnected notices focused exclusively upon the state of affairs in Ar-menia that advance as far as the summer of 655, but not beyond274.These give the impression of hasty, contemporaneous composition.Moreover, as we have seen, the concluding peroration is infused withapocalyptic expectation. The Arab conquests are defined as integral tothe Second Coming. The final sentence anticipates that the next phase ofthe Last Times was about to start, when the Arabs, the agents of God’sanger, would themselves be destroyed275. Since the first fitna had not yetengulfed the nascent Muslim polity, a precise date of composition in 655would be entirely consistent with this ending. The three updating noticeswere then squeezed into the end of the manuscript, one before and twoafter that prediction of imminent destruction276. These do not advancethe historical reach of the text beyond 661 and the triumphal emergenceof Mu‘awiya from the turmoil of the first Arab civil war. This additionalmaterial is modest in length and consistent with the subjects addressedin the final notices of the work. They sketch the exile of the CatholicosNerses, the continuing struggle for supremacy between Hamazasp andMuse¥ Mamikonean and the conflict within the Muslim world277. Theinfluence of Daniel’s vision on the last has been discussed above. Thecontent and tone of all three additional scholia indicate that they werewritten and inserted by the compiler himself.

6) The Commission of the Text

What prompted the compiler to compile this text? As Thomson hasobserved, Armenian histories sometimes contain an express dedicationto the patron who commissioned the work and a passage explaining or

274 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 173.31-174.36 and 176.22-177.9. THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. 149, n. 923 explains the original order of the final notices.

275 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 177.7-9: ‘And then at the end of the descriptionhe says, “The day of their destruction is near, the Lord has readily apprehended them.”And this too shall be accomplished in its own time.’

276 It is tempting to conjecture that the first notice, concerning the exile of theCatholicos Nerses, was inserted into a gap on the penultimate folio of the original manu-script and that the other two were added to the final folio, beneath the concluding perora-tion. This would explain why they are split up.

277 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 174.37-175.7, 175.8-31 and 175.32-176.21.

390 T.W. GREENWOOD

justifying the purpose of that history278. The History attributed to Sebeoslacks both elements. Thomson noted that there was no ‘overt suggestionthat he was encouraged in his task by a person in higher authority’ andsuggests that the compiler may have ‘assumed that the purposes of his-tory had already been sufficiently expounded by his predecessors’279. Aswe have seen, the combination of discrete passages of apocalyptic expla-nation and relevant extracts proving the unfolding of the Last Times dis-tinguishes this text from previous Armenian historical compositions. Al-though it drew upon historical materials, it is not a conventional history.Thus we should not be surprised that it lacks any explanation for thewriting of history. Those passages of eschatological analysis supply acomplete justification.

However this does not address the issue of patronage. The openingpassages of the text provide a first glimpse of the political sympathies ofthe compiler. After noting the end of the Arsakuni kingdom, the textsummarizes the circumstances and consequences of the rebellion ofVardan Mamikonean against Yazdagird II in the middle of the fifth cen-tury280. The compiler asserts that he will not be covering these episodesin his work, since ‘all that has been written by others as that same His-tory indicates’, but this very protestation requires explanation. It is diffi-cult to understand why the compiler should elect to outline what he wasnot going to cover unless that précis had some purpose or relevance tohis own composition. This ‘same History’ is the only written source tobe defined in the History attributed to Sebeos. The compiler thereforethought of his own work in the context of an earlier history that had adistinct Mamikonean perspective; this reflects knowledge of, and possi-bly access to, that Mamikonean historiographical tradition281.

Having begun by stating expressly what would not be covered in thetext, the compiler then inserted the Table of Contents, whose non-Arme-nian orientation has been noted above282. The passage which follows thatTable reverts back to fifth-century affairs, recording the successful re-

278 THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. xliv-xlvii. See for example PATKANEAN,T‘ovma, p. 3-4, 45 and 76.

279 THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. xlvii.280 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 64.32-65.15.281 Two of the recorded features of the ‘same History’ do not tally with any extant ac-

count of the rebellion of Vardan Mamikonean. Vardan is called ‘the Red’ and the placewhere those taken prisoner were later martyred is called T‘earkuni. Furthermore the pas-sage implies that no text covered events after their martyrdoms, thus ignoring the Historyof ™azar Parpec‘i, whose work concludes with the appointment of Vahan Mamikonean asmarzpan in 485. These indicate that the tradition available to the compiler was very dif-ferent to the extant record.

282 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 65.16-66.6; see above, n. 226 and 227.


bellion by Vahan Mamikonean against the Persian king Peroz and hissubsequent appointment as marzpan by Peroz’s successor Kawad I283.Moreover before the text turns to the list of Persian commanders andgovernors of Armenia, there is space to mention, fleetingly, Vahan’ssuccessor, his brother the patrik Vard and finally the rebellion of Vardanalmost a century later284. He too was a member of the Mamikoneanhouse, although he is not specified as such in the text. Therefore the firstfour Armenian princes mentioned in the History attributed to Sebeos allbelonged to the Mamikonean house. This consistent focus is significantbecause these figures do not have any function in the remainder of thetext. Evidently the Mamikonean context was forged for particular rea-sons.

The final notices of the History attributed to Sebeos displays the sameMamikonean focus. A rivalry between two Mamikonean princes,Hamazasp and Muse¥, dominates the text285. Both receive conspicuousand extended coverage. The compiler even uses shorthand to identifythem, referring to them by their Christian names only, omitting not onlytheir family name but also their respective titles and honours286. Since itis highly likely that the compiler wrote these passages himself, this fa-miliarity is significant.

Of the two figures however, one is preferred. Unlike Muse¥, Hama-zasp is given a short, personal eulogy287. The form of this panegyric ishighly unusual. The principal quality displayed by Hamazasp is that heis ‘a lover of reading and study’. At the same time, the eulogy concedesthat he lacked military expertise. This represents a startling admission onbehalf of any Armenian prince, let alone someone holding the title‘prince of Armenia’. Hamazasp was in the process of remedying this in-experience, beginning ‘to carry out with fervent haste acts of bravery inaccordance with the abilities of his ancestors, seeking from on high lead-ership and success for his own valour.’ Who would be a more appropri-ate patron for a historical composition with a pronounced Mamikoneanspin than a Mamikonean prince who was a lover of learning and eager toemulate the achievements of his ancestors? Hamazasp Mamikoneanseems ideally suited to the role of sponsor of the History attributed toSebeos. The position of the eulogy in the text supports this proposition.In the original composition, it was situated immediately in front of the

283 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 66.12-67.22.284 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 67.23-31.285 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 171.38-172.7 and 175.8-31.286 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 171.38-9.287 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 174.29-36.

392 T.W. GREENWOOD

final, apocalyptic conclusion. The first scholium has disrupted this orderand thus obscured its prominence288. Nor is this text unique in identify-ing its patron at the very end. The History of A¥uank‘ contains a similareulogy at the conclusion of its narrative praising a contemporary princeas a lover of learning289. The clear preference for the Mihrakan line ofprinces within that text is consistent with the proposition that a princeclaiming descent through that line commissioned the work. Thus it ishighly likely that Hamazasp Mamikonean was the patron of the Historyattributed to Sebeos. The care with which the second updating scholiumlists the titles and gifts bestowed upon Hamazasp by Constans II seemsto confirm this identification290.

7) The Identity of the Compiler

We saw above how the text came to be wrongly identified as the workof one Sebeos bishop of the Bagratunik‘. Who else could have been re-sponsible for the work? Although the text does not name the compiler, itreveals clues as to his identity. It is almost certain that the compiler wasa cleric. Both the eschatological interpretation of recent history andapocalyptic expectation attest a close knowledge of the Bible. This isalso revealed in those passages identified previously as being of thecompiler’s own composition. As Thomson has noted, there are signifi-cantly more Biblical allusions in the second half of the text: ‘when de-scribing in his own words events closer to his own days, his recourse toBiblical imagery became more frequent.’291 Furthermore the text con-tains three authentic ecclesiastical documents whose inclusion is mostconveniently explained by the proposition that the compiler was a seniorcleric. The most plausible origin for the letters exchanged between

288 Specifically the exile and return of Nerses III: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi,p. 174.37-175.7.

289 ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 341.2-7: Sahak/Sewada, ‘a seeker of book-knowledge’, ‘xndro¥ gragitut‘ean’ and someone who ‘appointed writers in his house’, ‘ewdprapets i tan iwrum kargeac‘’.

290 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 175.8-12. There is one further observation tomake, although this is little more than a conjecture. The text contains a very full accountof those Armenian princes who attended upon Constans II at Karin in 652 and the conse-quences of their attendance: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 165.17-166.25. Asidefrom the critical importance of this passage for discerning and tracing Armenian socialrelations, it is also significant for the principal role it affords to Muse¥ Mamikonean andhis reward by Constans II, and the relative lack of interest in Hamazasp’s support of hisfather-in-law T‘eodoros Rstuni. Could it be that in 652, our compiler had backed Muse¥rather than Hamazasp?

291 THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. xlix-l.


Komitas and Modestos is in the archives of the Catholicos, perhaps athis residence in Dvin, near to the cathedral church of Saint Grigor292.The draft ‘Defence’ document justifying the Armenian Christologicalposition seems to have been preserved at the same location293. In his au-dience with Constans II, the recalcitrant bishop who refused to partici-pate in the Eucharist asserted that the document ‘is now with him’,namely the Catholicos Nerses III, and urged that a search be made tosubstantiate his claims294. That audience took place in the residence ofthe Catholicos. This incidental reference implies that there was an ar-chive in the immediate vicinity of the audience chamber.

That same passage may reveal the status of the compiler. The conversa-tion between the bishop and the emperor is remarkable for its style andprecision, comprising a series of short questions and answers295. AlthoughThomson warns that this too may be a literary invention, it is significantthat it does not constitute a verbose critique of the respective theologicalpositions or liturgical traditions but rather a terse, pithy exchange. It istherefore distinguished from all the contrived speeches and letters dis-cussed above. The private nature of the discussion and the criticism of theCatholicos by Constans II both suggest that this may be an eye-witnessaccount. The obvious candidate is the recalcitrant bishop himself.

Thus it seems highly likely that the compiler was a senior cleric. Hemay well have been the bishop who refused to participate in the sacra-ment with Constans II, Nerses III and his fellow Armenian bishops.Having argued above that Hamazasp Mamikonean was the sponsor ofthe work, it follows that a bishop or senior cleric with close ties to theMamikoneank‘ is the most probable candidate; he would have had boththe ability and the incentive to compile this text. There is one final pieceof evidence from the text in support of this contention. Aside fromMuse¥ and Hamazasp Mamikonean and T‘eodoros Rstuni, the only Ar-menian prince to be named in the final notices of the text is the blessedand pious Artavazd Dimak‘sean, betrayed by his brother to the ‘merci-less executioner’ Habib, who we are told was residing at Aruc ofAsnak296. This was a well-established Mamikonean centre in Araga-c‘otn, the site of a palace, fortress and fifth-century church, and the fu-

292 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 116.15-121.2. There is an alternative argument,that these letters were lodged in a collection of the correspondence of Komitas. Prior tohis elevation to the position of Catholicos, he held the rank of bishop of the Mami-koneank‘. This would support a Mamikonean origin once more but would not explainhow a copy of the draft ‘Defence’ also came to be incorporated.

293 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 148.27-161.34.294 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 166.33-168.32, especially 168.20-4.295 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 168.1-32.296 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p.173.38-174.3.

394 T.W. GREENWOOD

ture location of a magnificent new church commissioned by GrigorMamikonean and completed in 669/670297. Could it be that the text con-tains this specific but incidental detail because the compiler himself wasbased at Aruc?

In search of a named individual, the Canons of the Council of Dvin,convened in 645, do not include a bishop of the Mamikoneank‘ in thelist of signatories, but this list has long been recognized as incomplete,the product of the contemporary confessional divide within the Arme-nian church298. It is possible that doctrinal antagonism between theCatholicos Nerses and the unnamed bishop precluded the latter’s attend-ance at that Council, but this is purely conjectural.

8) The Current Standing of the Text

The above evaluation shows that the History attributed to Sebeos is awork of no little sophistication. As we have seen, the compiler had ac-cess to a range of sources from which he pieced together a text justifyinghis confident expectation the Last Days had arrived. The text comprisesa series of historical proofs supporting his apocalyptic interpretation ofrecent history and present circumstances299. Daniel’s vision of the fourbeasts not only provided the compiler with a complete Biblical frame ofreference for historical development in which human history was part ofa predetermined divine plan; it also guided the scope and content of thetext. But having made his selection of material, the compiler did not re-vise the extracts themselves. Thematic and chronological dislocationswithin the narrative enable us to trace the divisions between extracts.Moreover the text contains several contradictory statements attestingconflict between attitudes expressed in the underlying sources and the

297 For the palace, see A. KHATCHATRIAN, L’Architecture arménienne du IVe au VIe

siècle, Paris, 1971, p. 62-65. There are also a number of column bases and capitals scat-tered around the seventh-century cathedral church at T‘alin that can only come from aseparate building comprising free-standing columns. This is an architectural featurewhich is never found in church design, where pillars are always used. The church atYereruk is surrounded by similar column bases, capitals and columns which clearly be-long to a separate structure. The inscription on the church at Aruc: ‘In the 29th year ofConstans, in the month of Mareri which is the 15th day this holy cathedral was founded bythe hand of Grigor Mamikonean prince of Armenia and He¥ine the wife of the same forthe intercession of the builders this…Christ God.’ This and other inscriptions will be dis-cussed in a forthcoming article on Armenian epigraphy in the seventh and eighth centu-ries.

298 HAKOBYAN, Kanonagirk‘, vol. II, p. 214.299 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 72.3-20, 141.23-142.15, 161.38-162.8 and

176.22-177.9.


personal opinions of the compiler. These internal inconsistencies tend toemerge in passages located at the end of the text written by the compilerhimself. Their presence confirms that the compiler did not rewrite thematerials at his disposal.

Scholars of Byzantine, Sasanian and early Islamic history, eager tosupplement their own meagre or problematic historical traditions, haveall been attracted to the unique vantage point afforded by this text300.However they need to be aware of the circumstances in which materialrelevant to their own concerns came to be embedded in this Armeniantext. The incorporation of passages of non-Armenian material allowedthe compiler to trace the recent history of three of Daniel’s four beasts.The History attributed to Sebeos is not an objective survey of recentNear-Eastern history but rather a carefully crafted composition advocat-ing an apocalyptic interpretation of the past and present and anticipatingthe imminent end of time. The impression of Near-Eastern history thatemerges from the text is invaluable but it should not be treated as com-plete or infallible. Thus the text concentrates upon successive Sasaniandefeats and glosses over the years of tenacious resistance in Media andthe Iranian highlands. This delay in the triumph of the fourth beast didnot fit easily into the compiler’s apocalyptic conception of historical de-velopment and was therefore shelved. Likewise the text is keen to high-light instances of internal discord and rebellion within the Byzantineworld and passes over the means by which Heraclius and then ConstansII were able to survive the shock of the Arab conquests and stabilize theeastern frontier. In other words, not being Greek, Syriac or Arabic inprovenance is not a sufficient reason for unquestioning acceptance of thehistorical accuracy of this Armenian text; it possesses its own historio-graphical challenges and shortcomings.

For these same reasons, scholars interested in early medieval Arme-nian social and political history do not obtain a complete picture fromthe History attributed to Sebeos. Although the compiler elected to useseveral different Armenian sources, he focused upon the interaction ofArmenian princes with the Roman, Sasanian or Arab powers, disregard-ing intra-Armenian rivalries, conflicts and circumstances. Whilst the his-tory was composed in Armenian, it is far from being a History of Arme-

300 See for example P. CRONE and M.COOK, Hagarism. The Making of the IslamicWorld, Cambridge, 1997, p. 3-9. Whilst accepting the need for caution when interpretingthe version of the origins of Islam provided by the History attributed to Sebeos, the au-thors are happy to exploit other parts of the text as proof of Judeo-Arab intimacy and themessianism of MuÌammad’s message. These passages need to be understood on theirown terms. They fall within the spectrum of anticipated Christian responses to the adventof the Arab conquests and cannot be taken as indicative of Islamic belief at this time.

396 T.W. GREENWOOD

nia. It is perhaps this supra-Armenian quality that has served to diminishits value and importance in the eyes of Armenian scholars. Those Arme-nian historical texts focused exclusively or predominantly upon Armeniahave attracted the greatest attention. These works portray, and have inturn contributed towards, a sense of Armenian national feeling and self-identity. The History attributed to E¥ise contemplates the interaction ofchurch and state, and the quandary that fifth-century Armenians foundthemselves in, owing loyalty to a non-Christian sovereign301. It becamethe standard expression of Armenian resistance in the face of foreignoppression through the observance of archetypal Armenian traditions,circumstances with which many future generations of Armenians wouldidentify. The History of Movses Xorenac‘i defines Armenian nationalityin terms of the Arsakuni kingdom, the conversion of the country toChristianity and the sequence of Armenian patriarchs heading a unifiedand independent church, from Saint Grigor down to the blessed Sahak302.It presupposes and stresses Armenian unity. The History attributed toSebeos does not fit neatly into these conceptions of Armenian history.Therefore its contribution to the study of early medieval Armenian his-tory has tended to be downplayed or interpreted in the light of theseother works.

However, if one accepts the proposition that the History attributed toSebeos was completed no later than 655, the text takes on a new and vi-tal importance. Whilst the Histories of E¥ise and Movses Xorenac‘i com-ment on earlier periods of Armenian history and thereby seem to benatural starting points from which to begin to reconstruct Armenian so-cial history, it has proved difficult to judge the degree to which each texthas undergone reworking over time. Moreover the dating of both textsremains contentious. The History attributed to Sebeos possesses severalhistoriographical advantages over these better-known texts. Its date ofcomposition is secure. Moreover, it was the product of very specific cir-cumstances. When the Last Times failed to materialize, it rapidly be-came obsolete, thereby ensuring that it was not revised. The History at-tributed to Sebeos therefore affords a unique insight into seventh-centuryArmenia. Those passages composed by the compiler himself represent asnapshot of the social and political circumstances then operating within

301 E. TER MINASYAN, E¥ishei vasn Vardanay ew Hayoc‘ Paterazmin, Erevan, 1957.English translation and commentary by R.W. THOMSON, E¥ishe: History of Vardan andthe Armenian War (Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies, 5) Cambridge MA, 1982.

302 M. ABE™EAN AND S. YARUT‘IWNEAN, Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘, Tiflis, 1913; repr. DelmarNY, 1981. English translation and commentary by R.W. THOMSON, Moses Khorenats‘i:History of the Armenians (Harvard Armenian Studies and Texts, 4), Cambridge MA,1978.


303 Without going into detail, the History attributed to Sebeos tells us almost nothingabout the nature of the relationship between princely families and the patchwork of dis-tricts; the transmission of land within and between families; the role of the Armenianchurch as land-owner; or the relationship between town and country. Nor does it tell usanything about the vast majority of Armenians who did not enjoy rank or status. But itdoes allow us to begin to disentangle the nature of princely authority, the reciprocal rightsand responsibilities between greater and lesser figures, ties that were based primarilyupon the provision of military service. It also enables us to see the plethora of titles andsocial terms — Armenian, Persian and Roman — by which a prince could be defined,depending upon the context of the reference.

Armenia, as observed by a contemporary. Although they do not supplyas full an impression as one would like, nevertheless these notices de-serve particular attention303. However that task lies outside the remit ofthis historiographical evaluation.

Oriental Institute, Oxford University Tim GREENWOOD

Pusey LaneOxford, OX1 2LEU.K.

SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS

Documents

Transcript of SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS