The History of the Armenians
is the product of an author about whom certain biographical details
exist. This information is found in Ghazar's History and
in his Letter to the marzpan of Armenia, Vahan Mamikonean
(marzpan 485-ca.506). According to these documents, Ghazar
was from P'arpi village in the Aragacotn district and perhaps
was a Mamikonean relative. He was educated at the home of bdeshx
Ashusha of Iberia (Georgia) along with Hmayeak Mamikonean's children
Vahan, Artashes, and Vard. Subsequently, under the tutelage of
Aghan Arcruni, Ghazar became a cleric who received part of his
education in Byzantium. According to the Armenist Manuk Abeghyan,
from 484 to 486 Ghazar was a hermit in Siwnik', but left his cave
when his childhood friend, the now marzpan Vahan Mamikonean,
invited him to Vagharshapat to become abbot of the monastery there.
For reasons not entirely clear, Ghazar eventually was expelled
from the monastery by jealous monks. It was then that he wrote
his Letter to Vahan, refuting the charges levelled against
him. At Vahan's request, Ghazar returned to Armenia from his place
of refuge, Amida on Byzantine territory. Likewise at Vahan's request,
Ghazar wrote his History of the Armenians. This work is
a panegyric to the Mamikonean family generally, and especially
of the rebels Vardan and his nephew Vahan, who was Ghazar's childhood
friend and lifelong patron.
[ii] The text of Ghazar's History
contains one serious lacuna: apparently one or more pages were
removed in III.74. which presumably contained a description of
the deaths of Vasak Mamikonean and Sahak Bagratuni as well as
the names of the naxarars (lords) who fell in the same
battle. Also, several lines are missing or out of place in the description of Vahan's battle
near Mt. Jrvez with the famous Iranian commander Zarmihr Hazarawuxt, which confuses the outcome of the battle. One long section, the "Vision of St. Sahak",
in which Sahak speaks of the fall of the Arsacid kingdom and the
discontinuation of the priesthood in the line of Gregory the Illuminator,
is recognized today as a later interpolation, and is not translated
here. The discovery of a lost fragment of P'arpec'i in 1967, which
describes the creation of the Armenian alphabet, has cleared away
the confusion found in the History regarding when this
event occurred and also cleared Ghazar of the one serious criticism
raised by Abeghyan regarding reliability.
Ghazar P'arpec'i cites three authors
as sources: Agat'angeghos, P'awstos Buzand, and Koriwn. He is
reluctant to rely on P'awstos' History since he discovered
in it many passages of an anti-clerical and vulgar nature that
led him to suggest that bishop P'awstos' work was corrupted by
some uneducated person. Ghazar also appears to have used a Life
of Alexander and Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History.
Likewise the author cites oral informants most notably Arshawir
Kamsarakan and his son Nerses, and a Syrian merchant "Xuzhik",
all of whom were participants in the events described.
P'arpec'i is a reasonably trustworthy
historian. True, certain of his biases, especially his religious
worldview occasionally lead him to attribute incorrect causes
for some events. Nonetheless, he does know the correct sequence
of Iranian and Byzantine kings as well as of Armenian kat'oghikoi.
His veracity on certain details and events may be confirmed
by other sources. In addition to being our major source on military,
political, and religious developments in fifth century Armenia,
Ghazar's History is also a major untapped source on the
[iii] history of fifth-century Iran. For example, the author dates
important events to the regnal years of Iranian monarchs, and
uses Persian units of measurement for distance throughout his
work. He provides interesting information on the judicial and
other prerogatives of such Iranian officials as the hazarapet,
ambarapet, maypet, master of the wardrobe, pustipansalar,
and marzpan; on the lives and deaths of Yazdgard II, Hormizd
III, Valas, and the rebel Zareh. P'arpec'i is a major source on
shah Peroz, and perhaps the only contemporary historian
whose descriptions of this monarch's administrative policies,
court life, eastern wars, and "crimes" has survived.
Furthermore, the History of the Armenians contains detailed
information on Iranian religious and administrative policies toward
Armenia and Syria, including the treatment of prisoners and the
peculiar form of penal servitude called mshakut'iwn in
Armenian. By no means lastly, P'arpec'i provides a wealth of geographical
information on Iran which has yet to be examined by specialists.
Ghazar's attitude toward Iran and its
policies is one of unequivocal hatred. This is quite understandable,
since as panegyrist of the Mamikoneans who fought with their lives
against Iran, he cannot support Iranian policies. Iranian administrative
policy included a definite religio-cultural policy. Thus, not
only as a Mamikonean sympathizer, but as a Christian cleric, he
cannot tolerate either the implications or the actualities of
Iranian domination. P'arpec'i's reaction to Iranian religious
policies is expressed in several ways: by repudiation of all things
Zoroastrian, exultation over Zoroastrian reverses, refutations
of Zoroastrian beliefs, elevation of Christian martyrs into epic
heroes, and humiliation of the Syrians whose influence in Armenia
was encouraged by Iran.
P'arpec'i also has definite opinions
about Armenia's nobility, the naxarars. He divides this
aristocracy into two groups, the oath-keepers and the oath-breakers,
i.e., those naxarars who fought loyally on the side
of the Mamikoneans against Iran and those apostates who sided
with Iran and so converted to Zoroastrianism. Those naxarars
who were traditionally loyal to the Mamikoneans receive great
praise from Ghazar who, in his [iv] descriptions of the numerous
battles fought, heroically describes their feats of individual
bravery. These are the naxarars imprisoned in Iran after
the Vardananc' whom Ghazar portrays as angels on earth and living
martyrs. In jail these pious naxarars recalled the moving
words of the priest Ghewond; when released from captivity, they
secretly kept the relics of the martyred priests; and, while serving
in the Iranian army, they conducted open and secret religious
meetings. Occasionally the author speaks of "all the naxarars",
such as the group of nobles who urged kat'oghikos Sahak
to translate the Bible into Armenian, or the group urging the
deposed Sahak to resume his duties as kat'oghikos. However,
in both instances, Ghazar apparently is referring to Christian
rather than Zoroastrian naxarars. Likewise the expression
"all the naxarars", who slay by lapidation the
lord Zandaghan for telling Vasak Siwnik' details of the planned
revolt, refer to the Christian pro-Mamikonean rather than the
Zoroastrian, pro-Iranian naxarars. Throughout the fifth
century the naxarars were strong, independent, and therefore
untrustworthy allies. The natural enmity which existed among rival
naxarar houses also received great impetus from the divisive
policies of Iran.
For P'arpec'i, Vardan and Vahan Mamikonean
epitomize resistance both to Zoroastrian Iran and to the apostate
naxarars. There are some general similarities between the
descriptions of Vardan and Vahan. However, it is in the personality
of Ghazar's friend and patron, Vahan, about whom the information
is more detailed and intimate, that one sees most clearly the
author's attitude toward the Mamikoneans. Because P'arpec'i considered
both the Vardananc' and the Vahaneanc' religious wars, his Mamikonean
leaders are holy warriors. They are the protectors of the faith
par excellence. In war they are noble fighters; in war
and peace they care for the poor like good shepherds; uncle and
nephew are both portrayed as democratic leaders. The author's
pro-Mamikonean bias is apparent also in his defence of that family
against charges made by Armenia's enemies—the apostate naxarars.
Beyond this, Ghazar wishes his reader to understand that the Mamikoneans
are the equals of the highest [v] Iranian nobility (if not the
monarchy) which deeply admires their prowess. Ghazar's elevation
of the Mamikoneans concludes with a hint that the Mamikoneans
may in fact be supernatural beings.
The present translation was made from
the classical Armenian edition of G. Ter-Mkrtch'ean and St. Malxasean
(Ghazaray P'arpec'woy patmut'iwn hayoc' ew tught' arh Vahan
Mamikonean, Tiflis, 1904) in 1980. This translation does not
include the Letter to Vahan Mamikonean. For a more detailed
discussion of P'arpec'i see R. Bedrosian, The Sparapetut'iwn in Armenia in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries, Armenian Review 36(1983) pp. 6-45, and Dayeakut'iwn in Ancient Armenia, Armenian Review 37(1984) pp. 23-47. For additional bibliography and studies of fifth-century Armenia see C. Toumanoff, Studies in Christian Caucasian History (Georgetown, 1963) [especially part II, States and Dynasties of Caucasia in the Formative Centuries , and Part V,
The Armeno-Georgian Marchlands]; his article,
"Armenia and Georgia," [Chapter XIV in The Cambridge Medieval History, vol. IV, The Byzantine Empire, part I, (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 593-637]; and N. Adontz, Armenia in the Period of Justianian (Lisbon, 1970). The transliteration employed in this translation is a modification of the Hubschmann-Meillet system.
Robert Bedrosian
New York, 1985
The following chronological tables may be useful as accompaniments to the translation. The tables open in separate windows, for persistence. Additional tables are available on another page of this site: Chronological Tables. Maps are available on our Maps Page.
Return to Historical Sources Menu
Return to History Workshop Menu