Thomas Artsruni: History of the House of the Artsrunikʻ

Citation preview

•

'*

History

of the House of the Artsrunik‘ THOMAS ARTSRUNI

Translation

u

and Commentary by

Robert

W Thomson

Byzantine Texts in Translation

30T w

•

r

$30.00

Thomas

Artsruni’s vivid description of

southern Armenia under Muslim domination in the second half of the ninth century is more than a record of the caliph’s brutal attempts to subdue an unruly province. Thomas speaks for life in

the

Armenian

nobility of the ninth

and

tenth centuries, portraying the ethos of traditional life before the collapse of

Armenian independence driving forces of social

later.

life in

The

Thomas’s

day are vividly described. Included in this unique history of southern Armenia is an account of the fall of the Sasanian dynasty in which Khosrov II was put to flight by Heraclius, who then ravaged Ctesiphon and seized the treasures of the Sasanian capital.

A

later section details the splendid

decorations of AIt‘amar at Lake Van, where the Armenian king Gagik built a palace with “domes like heaven, ornamented with gold and shining with light.”

Because Armenia was an outlying region where the Byzantine and Arab empires clashed, Thomas’s history provides valuable information for

Armeno-

Arab-Byzantine relations and for those interested in the history of western Asia, Islam, and Christianity.

(

continued on back flap)

History of the

House

of the Artsrunik'

BYZANTINE TEXTS

IN

TRANSLATION

Advisory Board

Harry

J.

Magoulias, General Editor

Barry Baldwin

John W. Barker

George T. Dennis Emily Albu Hanawalt Peter Topping

THOMAS ARTSRUNI History of the

House of the Artsrunik Translation

and Commentary by

Robert W. Thomson

Wayne

State University Press

Detroit

Copyright

by

Wayne

©

1985

State University Press, Detroit, Michigan 48202.

rights are reserved.

No

part of this

book may be reproduced without

formal permission.

Library of Congress Cataloging

Thomas

Publication Data

in

Artsruni, Vardapet, 10th cent.

History of the House of the Artsrunik'.

(Byzantine texts

in translation)

Bibliography: p. Includes indexes. 1.

—

—

Armenia History Bagratuni dynasty, 885-1045. II. Title. I. Thomson, Robert W., 1934.

III.

DS186.T4913

Series.

1985

956.6'2

ISBN

0-8143-1784-7

Grateful acknowledgement

is

85-3228

made

to

Agnes Nigoghosian for assistance in

in the

publication of this volume

memoriam Levon Mugurdichian.

T o Jasper

and

Crispin

Contents

Preface

9

Transcription of Armenian

12

Note

13

to the

Reader

Abbreviations

14

Introduction

15

Thomas

Artsruni, History of the

House of the Artsrunik

‘

59

The Author's Preface

61

Book

I

67

Book

II

143

Book

III

189

Anonymous Continuators

325

Anonymous Book IV

332

Continuators,

Bibliography

388

Index of Scriptural Quotations

and Allusions

395

Index

399

Map

414

Preface

Historical writing forms one of the most original genres of early and medieval Armenian literature. Although many histories have perished through the ravages of war and rapine, earthquake and fire, few of those that do survive have been entirely neglected by modern scholars. But these works are often perused more for their information about other peoples with whom the Armenians came in contact than for an understanding

own Armenian context. Thus the History Artsrunik by Thomas (T ovmay) Artsruni

of the histories in their

of the House of the has probably been studied most frequently in recent times by historians of the Muslim world. For it provides important evidence for the penetration of Arabs into southern Armenia in the ninth century. Art historians have also been drawn to this work, which contains many descriptions of the building of churches and castles in the area south and east of Lake Van, the homeland of the Artsrunik However, Thomas does not seem to have attracted much attention as a writer. The amount of secondary literature devoted to his style or to his sources and his use of them is quite remarkably meagre. Yet he was thoroughly conversant with the great works of Moses Khorenatsi and Etishe, from whom he learned his attitude to historical writing; he used a wide range of historical and literary sources, both Armenian and foreign; he integrated many of the popular “apocryphal" tales into Armenian history; and he is the first to bear witness to local legends and traditions dealing with Vaspurakan. The most interesting aspect of his History is the way he conveys the spirit of the Armenian nobility of his time. More than any other writer (except perhaps the much earlier P‘awstos Buzand, who described the clash of k

‘

4

.

9

PREFACE Christian and traditional values in the fourth century), he depicts the basic outlook of the Artsrunik' and other families. Not their attitudes to grand issues such as interested Moses Khorenatsd and Etishe, but their more immediate concerns of a mundane sort: power, and the ways (fair or foul) to attain it. This study of Thomas Artsruni’s History is not a contribution to the political history of ninth-century Armenia. For that the interested reader will turn to the revised edition of Laurent's

L'Armenie entre Byzance et I' Islam by Marius Canard, and to Ter-Ghevondyan’s Arab Emirates in Bagratid Armenia recently translated by Nina Garsoian. My interest is in Thomas as a writer. For the first part of his work, where he recapitulates Armenian history from the time of Noah down to the rise of Islam, my prime concern in the commentary is to identify his sources and to indicate Thomas’s divergences from prior accounts. For the longer part of the book, which covers the half century from Bugha's invasion of Armenia in 851 to the death of Prince Ashot Artsruni in 903, I am also concerned with parallels (especially in the History of John Catholicos). But of particular interest here is the way in which Thomas has adapted a wide range of sources in order to enliven his narrative. The deliberate echoes of Elishe, for example, are quite remarkable. It is to this literary aspect of Thomas's History that I devote most attention. The first edition of Thomas was printed in Ortakoy (a suburb of Constantinople) in 1852, based on the sole surviving manuscript. In 1874 M. F. Brosset translated that Armenian text into French and added extensive notes primarily dealing with dates

and the identification of

—persons.

historical

In 1887 Patkanean

published a more careful edition of the Armenian with some suggested emendations. (That edition was reprinted without changes in Tifiis in 1917.) A modern Armenian translation by V. Vardanyan appeared in 1978. This last takes into account the readings of some fragments in the Matenadaran, one of which (dated to 1172) predates the surviving manuscript of 1303. Vardanyan’s notes are helpful in the identification of obscure sites not mentioned in other historians. It is no reflection on Brosset’s pioneering translation (reprinted in 1979) to suggest that a new rendering from Patkanean’s edition may be worthwhile. There were some references that Brosset did not understand, and the Armenian text he used was often faulty. So I hope that this English translation will be of value to those who cannot read classical Armenian, even 10

— Preface

though some passages remain obscure. But as with previous translations of early

my main

Armenian

purpose

writers

—

to

is

use the English rendering as a vehicle for the notes. My aim is not to write the history of Armenia from a twentieth century point of view but to try to bring out the attitudes of historians to the problems of their own time.

Armenian

Thomas's work did not attain the classic status of Agathangelos, Moses Khorenats‘i, or Elishe; some of the reasons for this are discussed

in

the following Introduction. But

Thomas

did

capture the ethos of Armenian life around the year 900. His History reflects the dynastic rivalries of the noble families: Envy, intrigue, and murder are matched by generosity or valour. Devotion to the Christian faith, even unto martyrdom, contrasts with self-seeking apostasy to Islam. Courage on the battlefield is relieved by the delights of hunting and feasting. The splendour of wealth enables princes to build churches and castles. The respect and dignity demanded by high rank reflect the love of wordly success, which is only tempered by fear of death and retribution in the world to come. Such were the driving forces of social life in Thomas’s day, which he so vividly describes.

Thomas

not only involved in secular affairs. He has a sincere interest in spiritual matters, and devotes many pages to theological questions. His famous descriptions of churches are inspired by a love of relics and holy objects. And if his accounts of heroic martyrdoms are replete with hagiographical commonplaces, it is hardly surprising that he follows patterns set in Armenian long before his time. Thomas should be read as a spokesman for the interests of a powerful Armenian noble family of the early tenth century. His History is graphic testimony to a way of life that would endure for little more than another century before Byzantine encroachments and Turkish

But

is

invasions finally ended

Armenian independence

11

in

Vaspurakan.

Transcription of

Armenian

My

purpose in this book is to render Armenian words in a form which will not disorient the casual reader. So the system used in the Revue des etudes armeniennes for example, is not appropriate, since those unfamiliar with linguistic conventions would not ,

recognize /kh/ a

b

in x,

g

or /dz/

d

in

j.

e

z

V

e

e

zh

F

i

kh

1

dz

k

ch*

y

v

4

W

P‘

.

12

p

k*

\

j

ch

Note

to the

Reader

The page numbers of the Armenian text of Patkanean’s edition have been marked in the English translation. The notes are numbered to those page numbers, not to the page numbers of the present book.

The

transliteration of proper

names has posed various prob-

lems since the surviving text of Thomas is inconsistent in its spelling. In general have rendered standard Armenian forms. In the case of Derenik, the anonymous continuator prefers the form Deranik; this have kept in the translation but not in the notes. For Arabic names I have adhered to the Armenian rendering, but in the notes these names are transcribed in a form closer to standard English usage. Thus Yovsep* is the usual form for an Armenian of that name, but Yusup‘ renders the Arabic Yusuf. Like many Armenian writers Thomas often has long passages where the actors are not identified save by pronouns ("he,” "they,” etc.). I have been quite liberal in identifying persons by adding names in square brackets. Although this does on occasion spoil the look of the page, it does show the reader how ambiguous the original Armenian can be. I

I

13

Abbreviations

AB

BHO CSCO

DOP El

GCS

Analecta Bollandiana Bibliotheca Hagiographica Orientals, ed. P. Peeters, Subsidia Hagiographica 10, Brussels, 1910; reprinted 1954 Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium Dumbarton Oaks Papers Encyclopedia of Islam Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte

HA HTR

Handes Amsorya Harvard Theological Review

JTS

Journal of Theological Studies Nor Bargirk' Haykazean Lezui ed. G. Awetik‘ean, Kh. Siwrmelean, M. Awgerean, 2 vols., Venice 1836, 1837 Oriens Christianus Patmabanasirakan Handes

NBHL

OC PBH PG PO REA ST

TU VV

ZDMG

,

Patrologia Graeca ed. J.-P. Migne Patrologia Orientalis ed. R. Graffin and F. Revue des etudes armeniennes Studi e testi Texte und Untersuchungen en i k Vizanti iskii Vre Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenldndischen ,

,

mm

Gesellschaft

14

Nau

Introduction

The

History of the House of the Artsrunik by Thomas (T ovmay) Artsruni has survived in a single manuscript, which was written on the island of AlLamar in Lake Van in a.d. 1303. Although the exact date of composition of this History is not known, Thomas ends his account soon after 904. This means that a gap of four centuries separates original and copy. By Armenian standards that is not a long time. The biography of Mashtots (inventor of the Armenian script) by his pupil Koriun, for example, was written in the fifth century; yet the oldest surviving whole text was copied in the seventeenth 2 century. And many early historical texts are known from manuscripts copied a good thousand years after the originals were composed. Nor is it unusual for a work to be known from only one manuscript. Eznik’s treatise on God and the problem of evil, written in the fifth century, is known only from a 3 unique manuscript copied in 1280. Indeed, given the devastating ravages of war and earthquake in Armenia, it is surprising like the lost that more texts have not disappeared entirely History by Shapuh Bagratuni. The popularity and influence of a text in Armenian cannot be judged solely by the number of surviving manuscripts. Few lives can have been better known than that of Mashtots" by Koriun; on the other hand, the work of Eznik, who was Koriun's conk

‘

1

k

—

1.

The manuscript

listed in the

is

now

in

the Matenadaran. Erevan,

Armenian SSR. but

is

not

catalog of that institution's holdings, Ts'uts'ak Dze'ragrats' Masht'ots'i Anvan P. Ant'abyan, 2 vols., Erevan 1965,

Matenadarani, ed. O. Eganyan, A. Zeyt'unyan, 1970.

There

is

a brief description in the Preface to Patkanean’s edition of the

text (St. Petersburg 1887), and the colophon 2.

3.

Matenadaran 2639 (a.d. Matenadaran 1097.

1672).

15

is

reproduced

in

Khach'ikyan,

Armenian

XIV

Dari.

INTRODUCTION 4 was very rarely quoted temporary,

in later times. In

the case of

there are several extracts in manuscripts of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and one fragment dated to 1172. But it is remarkable how rarely he is quoted by name. Although Armenian writers are notorious for not identifying

Thomas

their sources,

it

was quite common

mention his own work. Lazar P'arpetsi

for a historian to

7

beginning of his 6 began the tradition (around a.d. 500). Asolik, i.e. Step'anos ot Taron, writing just after a.d. 1000, was the first to list all earlier 6 Armenian historians in chronological order. After his time it predecessors

at the

9

Yet no historian refers to Thomas Artsruni until Kirakos GandzaketsT Writing between 1265 and 1270, he lists Thomas after Levond (who wrote at the end of the eighth century) and before Shapuh Bagratuni and John Catholicos. John wrote in the 920s, while the lost work of Shapuh was

became standard

practice.

end of the ninth century. Kirakos refers to the contents of Thomas’s History as follows: "the various evils which befell our land (from the Muslims in the ninth century), which you will find in the books of Thomas, of Shapuh and of

composed

at the

other historians.”

6

Surprisingly, the later

MkhiPar of AyrivanL (modern Gel-

whose Chronicle goes down to 1328, lists "T’ovma, vardapet” before Moses KhorenatsY This implies that he was famil-

ard),

only with Book I. But Kirakos clearly placed Thomas around the year 900, which is perfectly correct. However, the surviving manuscript contains later additions (which have been included in the printed editions). The last few pages of Thomas’s own History are lost. " An anonymous author continued the story, first repeating in a different form some

iar

1

10.

Fragments of Thomas’s History are found in: Matenadaran 1404 (a.d. 1664) Matenadaran 1882 (a.d. 1619) Matenadaran 1889 (a.d. 1675) Matenadaran 1890 (a.d. 1172) Matenadaran 2559 (16th cent.) 5. Lazar, §1, refers to Agathangelos as “the first written history of Armenia,” and P'awstos Buzand as “the second written history.” 4.

6.

7. 8. 9.

to

Asolik, pp. 6-7. Kirakos, p. 7.

Kirakos, p. 79. Mkhit'ar, p. 261. Thomas's History breaks off

at the

end of

of Patkanean's edition.)

16

p. 261. (All

references are to the pages

Introduction

prime concern was to write a rhetorical panegyric of King Gagik. It is this section which contains the famous descriptions of Gagik's palace and church on Alt‘amar. earlier episodes;

his

incomplete; it breaks off before Gagik's death. 11 Another anonymous author has added local information down to the twelfth century when the manuscript was “renovated.” 12 A further addition was made in 1303 by the scribe Daniel, writing in the monastery of the Holy Cross on Alramar. A long 14 colophon was added to the manuscript in 1326. After MkhiPar's reference the History of Thomas is not cited by Armenian historians or by the chroniclers until the eighteenth century. The first great modern Armenian historian, the Mekhitarist Fr. Michael Ch‘amch ean, puts Thomas after Lazar and before John Mamikonean. Giving a brief description of his various sources, he says of “T‘ovma vardapet Artsruni” that he was one of the pupils of Saint Elishc at the turn of the fifth century, and that he provides information about Saints Vardan (Mamikonean) and Vahan Artsruni and about the deeds of the Nestorian Barsauma down to about a.d. 500. ^ Ch'amclVean published the first volume of his History in 1784, and was clearly using a text of Thomas that ended after Book II, chapter 2. Yet in 1795 KhaclVatur of Nor Julfa, writing in the journal Azdarar (Madras), presented a series of articles on Armenian history excerpted from various sources. He refers to Thomas Artsruni describing King SeneLerim going to Byzantine territory in 1021. This is not in Thomas’s History but in the section by the anonymous continuator who brought the narrative down to the This part too

is

1

'

k

1(1

twelfth century.

17

So although Thomas's work had not entirely fallen into oblivls ion witness some fragments mentioned above it was little known. And truncated versions could be mistaken for the whole text, as demonstrated by Fr. Ch‘amch‘ean's ignorance of the major section dealing with the ninth century. Only in 1852 was a

—

11.

—

Thomas, pp. 262-305.

12.

Pp. 305-318.

13.

Pp. 318-320.

14.

Pp. 321-326.

15.

Chamch'ean, Patmutiwn

16.

17.

Azdarar 1795, p. Thomas, p. 308.

18.

Sec note 4 above.

.

1

p.

14.

120.

17

INTRODUCTION even then some sections 19 omitted. The full text appeared in 1887. text published;

critical

of Islam were

anonymous continuator, 2 " refer to the author of the History of the House of the Artsrunik as Thomas (T'ovmay). However, he only mentions himself once by All sources, including the

k

zealously undertook this great work, name: “I Thomas ,,:i Thomas though devoid of wisdom, sense, and intelligence. frequently indulges in such self-deprecation, though Kirakos that is, a celibate cleric who had attained a calls him a vardapet 22 Since the group primarily responsible high level of scholarship. for serious writing in early and medieval Armenia was the better-educated clergy, such a title is to be expected. Lay scholars were rare; and Thomas’s interest in theological matters would naturally lead to the assumption that he was a vardapet even if .

.

.

—

,

he does not say so himself.

whatsoever of his own life, but he does refer on occasion to events he witnessed or about which he was informed by living persons. “I myself with my own eyes saw that man who struck him,” he says, referring to the death of the 23 In the same year Apusahak was martyred. emir Yusuf in 852. Thomas describes this in some detail, adding: “This was told us [who] had heard it from a certain by the great priest Samuel The who had been among the executioners. Persian

Thomas

gives

no

details

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

inhabitants of the province of Rshtunik‘ also know this, for many of them are still alive.” 24 And referring to Bugha’s campaign of 853, Thomas adds: “Not without witnesses is our account ... as indeed they well know who in these times survive

More vaguely Thomas refers to and were then present there. a pact between Prince Ashot Artsruni and Gurgen, then lord of Andzevatsik', made before 874, which had lasted “up to the 26 The last event described by Thomas that he present day.” witnessed personally was the death of Ashot (grandson of the was published at Ortakoy, a suburb of Constantinople. From this his French translation, published in 1874. The edition of the Armenian by Patkanean (St. Petersburg 1887) is based on a re-reading of the original manuscript. His edition, without the notes and suggested emendations, was reprinted at Tiflis in 1917 as no. 15 of the Lukasean Matenadaran. 20. Thomas, pp. 317, 318. 19.

The

edition

first

Brosset

21.

P. 76.

22.

For the

23.

Thomas,

24.

P. 130.

25.

P. 168.

26.

P. 213.

edition

made

title

vardapet see Thomson,

“

Vardapet .”

p. 120.

18

Introduction

Ashot

mentioned)

just

904: “I indeed was beside him and knew precisely his firmness in the hope of salvation.” 27 (But the previous page describes Ashot’s terror at the thought of death and fear that his wicked deeds would not be forgiven!) If witnesses from the early 850s were still alive, Thomas could not

have written

History continuator, his

The first also was (or claimed

in

much after 905. who penned the

praises of King Gagik,

contemporary of the events he described. When Gagik s father had been killed, his widowed mother touched the young Gagik, her second son, on the shoulder as she mourned and prophesied that one of her sons would avenge the spilt blood. “We were informed by those who had witnessed the events and who carried the children in their bo< soms.’ Referring to the death of Gurgen, Gagik’s younger brother (which occurred after 924?), he notes that Gagik offered masses and prayers “according to my knowledge.” 29 And describing Gagik’s wise government and patronage of building, he says: “I offer and present to you not from reports of others as fables elaborated from fictitious accounts; but having seen with my eyes, heard with my ears, and touched with my hands, I recount for you faithfully the marvels which took place.” (Just as John describes his experience of Christ, so does the panegyrist refer to " the incomparable Gagik.) 3 to be) a

Thomas

the vardapet is an unknown figure, but the patrons of his History are well-known members of the Artsruni clan. In his Introduction Thomas sets out in careful detail his objectives in writing this work, and explains that it was composed at the com-

mand

4

of “you, Grigor, lord [ter] of the Artsrunik and prince [ishkhan] of Vaspurakan.” 31 This was Grigor Derenik, born in 847, who became prince of Vaspurakan on the death of his father

Ashot

32

874, and was killed in 887. But elsewhere Thomas refers to his patron as Gagik, the second son of Grigor Derenik: “At your command. Oh Gagik general of Armenia and prince [ishkhan ] of Vaspurakan, [we] have undertaken an abbreviation of the stories of the past.” 33 And later: “To the best of our ability in

27.

P. 250.

28.

P. 267.

29.

P. 288.

30.

P.

31.

P. 3.

32.

There

291;

cf.

is

a

I

John

1.1.

convenient genealogical table of the Artsruni princes

rent, facing p. 466.

33.

Thomas,

p. 45.

19

in

Canard/Lau-

INTRODUCTION

we have composed

this

abbreviated narrative which

we have

presented to you, most valiant of literary men, Gagik of Vaspu14 If the text has survived rakan and great general of Armenia.’' intact, the conclusion must be that Thomas had begun his work in the time of Gagik’s father, probably shortly before his death, but that he did not complete the major portion of it until more than fifteen years later. But there is no indication in the History itself that Thomas took many years to write it, so the sole reference to Grigor may be a scribal error for Gagik. The anonymous continuator addresses his patron as: “My dear friend and foremost of brave men, who requested from me this History.”''' Or: “We have offered this suitable and convenient account, as far as we could, in order to fulfil your noble interests. Oh great benefactor and ancestor of a heroic and dis6 tinguished house.’” The patron is not explicitly named, but the implication is that it was Gagik. It is worth noting that “benefactor" (argasawor) is used by Moses Khorenatsi of his patron’s 7 family, that of Sahak Bagratuni.’ To Thomas's debt to Moses

we shall return later. Thomas, therefore, has not described the date or specific occasion when he undertook his History; and since the ending is missing, we do not know when he finished it. From the references to surviving witnesses noted above, one must assume that Thomas wrote before Gagik was raised to royal status in 908. Although he refers to the historian John, Catholicos 898-924, as “blessed" (eraneli) a term more appropriate to deceased pers sons the epithet may be a scribal interpolation. There is no indication that Thomas was writing twenty years after the events he describes, when the witnesses to Bugha's campaigns would have been in their eighties. If the precise occasion of the commission of the History of the House of the Artsrunik!' is unclear, its general purpose is spelled out in no uncertain terms. “In the narrative of this book I shall indicate the genealogy and nature of your [his patron’s] ancestors records relative to events [concerning the] ords of the Artsruni family, so that their valour and virtue may be clearly revealed by name, place, and time who they

—

—

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

34.

P. 76.

35.

Pp. 290-291.

36.

P. 296.

37.

Moses Khorenats'i, Thomas, p. 243.

38.

I

1.

20

.

.

Introduction

were This

.

is

.

what

.

sort they were, the

manner of

their reigns .”

a patriotic history of the Artsruni house with the

39

empha-

on genealogy and on the description of great deeds, especially wars and victories. However, Thomas will not neglect those who were victorious in the spiritual arena as well as those who triumphed on the battlefield: ‘in this history I shall expound for you, most valiant of literary men, those who for Christ's sake fought the good fight and in victory rose from earth to heaven. By their prayers may the Lord enable me to write a straightforward and true account in this book, led by the Holy Spirit with the counsel of Christ, for your pleasure and that 41 of your like .” It was certainly not new in Armenian historiography that a work would be written for a specific patron, and that it would glorify his ancestors. Lazar's History was dedicated to Vahan Mamikonean, and Moses Khorenats‘i dedicated his to Sahak Bagratuni. But Thomas was the first explicitly to limit his History to a specific family. His object was to provide the Artsrunik‘ with a pedigree and glorious ancestry second to none. Just as Moses had explained the splendid antiquity of the Bagratids which justified their new pre-eminence at the time he was writing 42 so Thomas provides the suitable background for the recent prominence to which Gagik had brought the Artsrunik\ They were no upstarts, but an ancient stock of impeccable antiquity. Unfortunately, their glory had not been recognized by all, and some of their noble deeds had been forgotten. Thomas will set the record straight. Not surprisingly, his version is not sis

41

'

—

—

entirely in accord with that of earlier writers.

—

addition to explaining the basic purpose of his work to extoll the merits of the ancestors of the Artsrunik‘ and the deeds of their worthy successors, his patrons Thomas also puts forIn

—

39.

Pp. 3-4.

The emphasis on genealogy is brought out by the reference on p. 185 to “a certain Mukat‘1 of the nobility of Vanand” (unknown from other sources), who was travelling in Northeastern Armenia “to inform himself according to custom of each person’s station and eminence of rank, whether this was due to birth or place or province or family or 40.

valour or chance. either to 41.

It

is

usual

make them known

in

books

to indicate both the event

and the place involved,

or to render them famous.”

P. 4.

The date of composition of Moses' History is one of the most controversial issues the study of classical Armenian literature. See Thomson, Introduction to Moses

42. in

Khorenats'i, with references to earlier literature. There a date

suggested; but such theories are not acceptable

century date

is

upheld.

21

in

the

in

the eighth century

Armenian SSR. where

is

a fifth

INTRODUCTION views on how history should be written. For the historian does not collect facts in a random fashion: only impor4 Thomas’s tant and appropriate events are to be set down. prime concern at the beginning of his book is with genealogy, that is, the lineage of the men who ruled over “our land" 44 Yet he does not Vaspurakan and not Armenia as a whole “attempt to consider writing about those of whom no actions or valiant deeds are known”; in that case a mere listing of names is 4" required “following the format of the other earlier historians." He is here referring to Moses Khorenatsi, who was the first Armenian to integrate Armenian legends and traditions with biblical history and the empires of the past as known from Euse-

ward

explicit

'

—

.

bius’s Chronicle.

The

topics treated by a historian are thus those relevant to the

Then the method of setting be considered. They must be recorded in

prestige of the great noble families.

them down

also has to

—

proper “style" och which implies systematically, in a suitable 4 arrangement 46 “I shall carry my account forward in order ." And that order is a chronological one. 4lS “Let us carry forward the order of our history, in detail yet briefly, for it is not the occasion for us to linger with praises and [thereby] neglect the 4 In other words, the writing thread of our historical narrative .’’ of history is the progressive unravelling of the important events of the past, which follow a connected, chronological pattern leading to the present. Extraneous digressions only confuse this pattern. “I have decided to put myself beyond reproach for not N) setting down methodically and in order my description. Since the material to be treated is so vast, the historian has to abbreviate and be succinct ." “We have composed this abbrevi.

'

1

.’" 2

out in order, briefly and in short. [and] abbreviate.’" “We shall carry forI shall summarize ward in abbreviated fashion our historical task. But do not ated narrative

shall “set

I

.

43.

Thomas,

44.

P. 20.

45.

P. 40.

46.

Pp. 5, 45.

47.

P.

48.

P. 44.

.

it

.

p. 3.

124.

49.

P. 47.

50.

P. 198.

51.

P. 45.

52.

P. 76.

53.

P.

153.

77

Introduction

blame me.

Oh

lover of learning, for not including

in this history

[Gurgen's] deeds in detail. ... we have abbreviated them into a few words, as Paul was pleased to write in the Epistle to the Hebrews: ‘Time does not suffice for describing the judges of ”M Israel and the holy prophets.' “Let us halt this discussion and hasten on, lest by stretching out this refutation we fall behind in 0> the composition that lies before us.’ The most important desideratum is reliability. “Great labour have I expended in the search for what is reliable, perusing the written works of antiquarians and many historical accounts; and have written down whatever was able to discover .”' 6 “What we could not discover for certain we did not reckon worth putting in writing. “And I did not consider it important to write down what we have not verified. ’° Commenting on the remarks of the martyr Apusahak at his trial, Thomas adds: “But because none of us was then present at the blessed one’s responses, we did not .’"' 6 consider it right to set them down in writing “Whether this was false or true is not clear to us; and I reckoned it better not to 60 write down what is not certain .” These canons for the writing of history were not invented by Thomas. He has taken them directly from the History of Moses Khorenats‘i, whom he often quotes in other contexts. Moses had spelled out an explicit philosophy of history: The historian deals with heroic exploits and notable deeds of wisdom and justice, with an emphasis on the tracing of genealogies. The historian must ensure that this elevated material (with nothing unseemly) is treated in a reliable fashion. Veracity and elegance are required in the narrative, and this is partly ensured by a strict adherence to chronology. If the historian is uncertain about the truth of his tale or the reliability of his informants, he must warn the reader. Nor, in turn, had Moses Khorenats‘i invented these rules for himself. He had taken them from the historians and 61 The interesting point as regards Thomrhetoricians of antiquity as is that he does not think of history as a means to inculcate all

his

I

I