7Th-10Th Centuries)*

THE SENSE OF AN ENDING Eschatological Prophecy and the Armenian Historiographical Tradition (7th-10th Centuries)*

From the earliest historical writings in Armenian, eschatological proph- ecy1 has played a prominent role in the interpretation of socio-political change. A recently published collection presented several facets of how apocalyptic texts and eschatological prophecies figure in that tradition2. None of the contributions to that volume, however, specifically addresses the role of eschatological prophecy in Armenian historiography of the seventh to tenth centuries. This article attempts to partially fill that lacuna by examining how eschatological prophecy was employed in the Arme- nian historiographical tradition in response to the Arab invasions of the Caucasus of the seventh century and to the continuation of Arab political dominance in the region into the early tenth3. While this question has not been the focus of a separate study, certain aspects of the role of eschatological prophecy in reaction to the Arab invasions of the seventh century have received scholarly treatment. Tim Greenwood, in particular, has emphasized the role of “apocalyptic” in the History attributed to Sebēos. Some of his arguments, however, deserve to be revisited, especially his assessment of the History as an apocalyptic text and his analysis of other witnesses to seventh-century Armenian eschatological expectations. In addition to re-evaluating this material, this article will propose that the eighth-century History of Łewond also preserves evidence for the heightening of eschatological tensions in Armenia in the seventh century as well as in the second half of the eighth following

* I would like to extend my deep appreciation to Prof. Alison Vacca of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, for her gracious feedback and encouragement. The first part of the title of this essay is a nod to Frank Kermode’s 1967 book of that name. 1 I use the phrase “eschatological prophecy” to refer to predictions of an end, whether that be the End of the World (to eschaton in the technical sense), or the end of a political order such as the Caliphate. The prediction can be an “actual” prophecy created or reported by an author that refers to a future moment, or it can reflect the interpretative fulfillment of a biblical prophecy. 2 Bardakjian – La Porta, Armenian Apocalyptic. See also Garsoïan, Reality and Myth, p. 136-143. 3 This essay does not address the interpretation of foreign invasion and domination as a tool of divine punishment for sins shared by Armenian and other Eastern Christian historiographical traditions; on which see, for example, Garsoïan, Reality and Myth; Thomson, Christian Perception, p. 40; Hoyland, Seeing Islam, p. 524-526.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 363 29/11/16 06:05 364 s. la porta

the ‘Abbāsid revolution. I will argue, however, that Łewond himself not only does not share the eschatological expectations and interpretative framework of his contemporaries, but also actively tries to suppress them. Finally, this article examines whether an end-time perspective regarding Muslim Arab rule can still be discerned in the tenth-century histories of T‘ovma Arcruni and Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i. Through- out this essay, I try to bring the Armenian examples into conversation with other eschatological expectations in neighboring traditions in order to highlight how the Armenian evidence fits into a broader Eastern Med- iterranean framework.

1. Revisiting Sebēos

The seventh-century History attributed to Sebēos represents one of the earliest Christian attempts to include the rise of the Arabs4 within its historiographical scope5. The compiler of this text begins by briefly recount- ing the rebellion of Vahan Mamikonian in the 480s against the Sasanian Shāh Pērōz, but quickly passes to the middle of the sixth century and completes his narrative with the victory of the Caliph Mu‘āwiya after the first Arab civil war (fitna) in ca. 661, the likely point of composition of the History. His account presents the rise of the Arabs as a continuation of Armeno-Byzantine-Sasanian conflict, and its author famously uses the four-beast / four-kingdom schema of Daniel 7 to explain the change in the socio-political topography of the region following Arab ascendancy6. In his explanation, the four beasts of Daniel’s vision indicate the four kingdoms of the earth, which are distinguished geographically rather than chronologically. Thus, the first beast represents the kingdom of the west, that is, of the Greeks; the second beast, that of the east or of the Sasanians,

4 I will refer to what is often called the rise of Islam as the rise of the Arabs when dis- cussing seventh-century narratives as it is clear that the political implications of the Arab military victories were foregrounded in the authors’ imagination. The religious “threat” posed by Islam seems to have only emerged later. See also the comments of Thomson, Muhammad, p. 830-831; for the analogous situation among Syriac writers, see Penn, Envi- sioning Islam, p. 53-63. 5 Edition: Sebēos, Patmut‘iwn; English translation with commentary: Thomson – Howard-Johnston, Armenian History. As noted above, Greenwood, Sasanian Echoes, has provided a detailed treatment of the eschatological elements in the History. I will therefore not repeat all of his arguments nor all of the questions he addresses, but point out the significant eschatological themes in the work and those instances where my interpretation differs from his. 6 Sebēos, Patmut‘iwn, p. 141-142; Thomson – Howard-Johnston, Armenian History, p. 105. On the Book of Daniel in the Armenian tradition, see Cowe, Reception.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 364 29/11/16 06:05 THE SENSE OF AN ENDING 365

including the Persians, Medians, and Parthians; the third, the kingdom of the north, which is Gog and Magog and their companions, a likely reference to the invasions of the Western Turkic Khaganate, aligned with the Emperor Heraclius, in 626 and 628/97; and the fourth beast, the kingdom of the south or the kingdom of the sons of Ishmael, “‘which shall be greater than all [other] kingdoms; and it will consume the whole earth’8.” Greenwood has studied the composition of the History in detail and has convincingly showed that the last third of the work, in which the three references to Daniel are found, should be attributed to the pen of the compiler of the History himself and be seen to reflect his own concerns9. In the final chapter of his work, the author humbly claims that his narrative has been constructed “in accordance with the unintelligent thought of my own mind” (ěst anhančar xorhrdoy mtac‘s imoc‘), but he has found confirmation of his account in the prophetic writings10. There follows a litany of biblical citations that he interprets as predicting the Muslim defeat of the Roman Empire. For the compiler of the History, then, prophecy provided a logical explanation and ‘proof’ for his own interpretation of historical events. Greenwood further argues, correctly in my opinion, that the compiler’s application of the Danielic schema represents more than just a way of endowing the past with significance, it reveals his own perspective that the end was imminent11. Reacting to the first Arab fitna (656- 61) and the brief resurgence of Byzantium and of the pro-Byzantine party in Armenia, Sebēos educes a quotation forged from Is. 13:6 and Jer. 46:21 to support his analysis of the eventual destruction of the Caliphate as well, which “will be fulfilled in its own time” (kataresc‘i i žamanaki iwrum)12.

7 Greenwood, Sasanian Echoes, p. 376-377, thinks that the compiler had difficulties finding a suitable power in the recent past that could be identified with the northern kingdom. Based on the “Table of Contents” of the work, which mentions Heraclius’ meeting with the king of the T‘ētalac‘ik‘ (to be identified with the Western Turkic Khaganate) and the sending out of a large number of people, he tentatively suggests that the text may have originally contained passages that covered these invasions. On the identification, see now Greisiger, Messias, Endkaiser, Antichrist, p. 229-230. 8 Dan. 7:23. 9 Greenwood, Sasanian Echoes, p. 375. 10 Sebēos, Patmut‘iwn, p. 176-177; Thomson – Howard-Johnston, Armenian His- tory, p. 152. Greenwood, Sasanian Echoes, p. 373, remarks that this is not just a sign of false humility, but reflects an actual admission on the part of the compiler of the chronological incoherence of the text at points. 11 Greenwood, Sasanian Echoes, p. 377-388. 12 Sebēos, Patmut‘iwn, p. 177; Thomson – Howard-Johnston, Armenian History, p. 153. On the textual complexity of the conclusion of Sebēos’ account, see Thomson – Howard-Johnston, Armenian History, p. 151-152, n. 923.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 365 29/11/16 06:05 366 s. la porta

I would also suggest that the compiler’s view of the imminence of the eschaton may rest behind his reorientation of Daniel 7 from a temporal axis to a spatial one, an uncommon reading that explicitly contradicts the text. By flattening out or compressing history, so to speak, he is able to both heighten the intensity of the coming end as well as express it as a global phenomenon encompassing all four directions of the earth and not just as a local event13. On the other hand, Greenwood’s arguments that the lack of an Anti- christ episode in the History is indicative of a greater sense of urgency in the compiler; and that the presence of that episode in the Apocalypse of Ps.-Methodius represents a way of distancing the end from the present are unconvincing14. In my opinion, Greenwood does not pay enough attention to the question of genre when comparing the History attributed to Sebēos with apocalyptic literature of the period. While there are common aspects of perspective between the compiler of the History and the author of Ps.- Methodius, they are writing in two very different genres. The compiler of the History did not compose an apocalypse, nor does his work contain an apocalypse; it is a work of historiography that employs eschatological motifs and interpretative moves that are also used in apocalyptic texts. Granted that a seventh-century author may have possessed different generic expectations than a modern literary critic, nevertheless, it is clear that he chose to compose his text in a very different literary tradition from Ps.- Methodius or other apocalypses. Thus, I cannot concur with Greenwood’s assessment that the History attributed to Sebēos should be considered “the first apocalyptic text to confront the rise of Islam15.” The compiler of the History attributed to Sebēos was by no means unique in his contextualization of the Arab victories over the Byzantine and Persian Empires within an eschatological schema, although he seems to have been the first to recast the fourth beast and kingdom as that of the Arabs, an interpretative move that would become more common in apocalyptic visions by the early eighth-century16. The Doctrina Jacobi nuper baptizati, a Christian apology written in Greek ca. 634, held that Rome was the fourth beast of Daniel, and that the Arabs were the little horn and “the abomination of desolation,” while Muḥammad was a false prophet and the Antichrist17. The military conquests of the Arabs and their subsequent

13 Cf. also Thomson, Christian Perception, p. 38. 14 Greenwood, Sasanian Echoes, p. 383-384. 15 Greenwood, Sasanian Echoes, p. 383 (italics mine). 16 Cf. Gospel of the Twelve Apostles and the Vision of Enoch, as well as the Coptic Apocalypse of Ps.-Athanasius and the difficult-to-date Fourteenth Vision of Daniel, Hoy- land, Seeing Islam, p. 534; Suermann, Use of Biblical Quotations, p. 78, 87-88. 17 Kaegi, Initial Byzantine Reactions, p. 141-142.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 366 29/11/16 06:05 THE SENSE OF AN ENDING 367

governance also inspired a number of apocalyptic visions throughout East- ern Christianity, the most famous of which is that of Ps.-Methodius, as well as among Zoroastrians and Jews18. Although eschatological interpretation of the rise and rule of the Arabs was not common among seventh- century historiographers, the History is not the only text to employ it. For example, in his Rīš Mellē (Epitome), a chronicle of world history composed in 687, Jacob bar Penkāyē presents the first Arab fitna as a form of divine retribution19 and the natural disasters, plague and famine that occurred during the second fitna as an indication of the “destruction of the Ishmaelites” and possibly of the world. The only thing missing, he reflects, is “the advent of the Deceiver20.” Moreover, it is possible that eschatological overtones were attributed to states of fitna within the Arab Muslim tradition as well during the first civil war21. The author of the History therefore formed part of a larger interpretative tradition expressed in genres throughout the Eastern Mediterranean that viewed the transformations of the political landscape of the Near East as the beginning of the end-times. The compiler’s eschatological perspective was also not unique in the Armenian historiographical tradition. The History of Ałuank‘ (Caucasian Albania), although assembled in the tenth century by Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i, preserves earlier material which similarly read contemporary political changes within an eschatological framework22. Book II, chapters 9-16 describes the final stages of the war between Heraclius and Khosrow II, the Turkic invasions of 626 and 628/9, and the destruction they inflicted

18 Hoyland, Seeing Islam, ch. 8, p. 257-335. In the Zoroastrian tradition, several texts interpreted the end of Sasanian rule and the rise of the Arabs within eschatological frame- works. Although these texts may date to the ninth century, it is possible that they preserve seventh-century reactions to the end of Zoroastrian political power. The apocalyptic vision of Grigor Lusaworič‘ (Gregory the Illuminator) found in the narrative of the conversion of Armenia to Christianity attributed to Agat‘angełos may have been inspired by apocalyptic elements in the Zoroastrian conversion narrative, see La Porta, Vision of St. Grigor. The Arab military victories were apparently regarded positively at first by some Jewish circles as punishment against the Byzantine Empire for its persecution of Jews and as the vehicle of their deliverance. The perceptions of others, however, apparently soured over the course of the seventh and eighth centuries as Jewish expectations of deliverance went unfulfilled, Hoyland, Seeing Islam, p. 308. 19 Brock, North Mesopotamia, p. 60-61. 20 Brock, North Mesopotamia, p. 72-73; see also Hoyland, Seeing Islam, p. 198-199. 21 Yücesoy, Messianic Beliefs, p. 38. 22 Edition: Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i, Patmut‘iwn; English translation: Dowsett, History of the Caucasian Albanians. The authorship of the work was also misattributed to Movsēs Kałankatuac‘i; on questions of authorship and dating, see Dowsett, History of the Cau- casian Albanians, p. xvii-xx. The compiler of the text seems to have worked in the late tenth century, but to have used an eighth century source for bk. II. Based on a notice in bk. III, ch. 22, the last hand to have added to the text lived in the twelfth century.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 367 29/11/16 06:05 368 s. la porta

on Ałuank‘. The composition of the text, which suffers from chronological inconsistencies, has challenged scholars. Greenwood has argued that these chapters form a textual whole dating to the 630s and that the anachronisms found in it can be attributed to a later redactor who probably worked in the 680s23. Zuckerman, however, has proposed that we may discern two sources, which he labels Source A and Source B, in the passages24. He argues that Source A comprises chs. 9-11; and Source B comprises chs. 12-16. According to Zuckerman, Source B reflects an eyewitness account of the times, including the fall of the Sasanian Empire and the rise of the Arabs, and its author probably wrote his text not much later than the 640s. By contrast, the author of Source A emphasizes the amount of time that has elapsed since these events occurred, does not presume to have experi- enced them himself, and contains errors and anachronisms. Zuckerman observes that the two sources largely present the same historical material, although from different perspectives, since Source A was written “many years after” what transpired, while Source B was a contemporary eyewitness. Finally, Zuckerman contends that chs. 9-11 formed the first part of the elaborate panegyric on the renowned Ałuank‘ prince Juanšer that occupies chs. 18-28 of Book II. The latter recounts the deeds of the prince up to the thirty-third year of his reign, which corresponds to 669/70. 670, therefore, should be taken as the date of its composition as there is no indication that Juanšer was not alive when it was written25. The chronological difference between Source A, written ca. 670, and Source B, written ca. 640, explains the anachronisms and errors in the former and the greater accuracy of the latter. The two sources were possibly fused together by an eighth-century redactor upon whom Dasxuranc‘i relied in the tenth. I tend to agree with Zuckerman’s conclusion that we are dealing with two sources for chapters 9-16, although I am not convinced that his Source A (chs. 9-11) constituted part of the panegyric of Juanšer in chs. 18-28. I would also feel comfortable dating Source B (chs. 12- 16) even closer to the events described, i.e., to the 630s rather than to

23 Greenwood, Sasanian Echoes, p. 386-388. The eschatological outlook shared by both chapters 9 and 16 as well as thematic and linguistic connections are the reasons he provides for why he thinks the chapters form a textual unit. 24 Zuckerman, Khazars and Byzantium, p. 404-417. Zuckerman’s conclusions were presumably reached in 1999 when he presented his paper at the colloquium on which his essay is based. Cf. his remark on p. 405, n. 19 that he was aware of the single textual unit thesis. See also, Shapira, Armenian and Georgian Sources, p. 340-345. 25 The death of Juanšer is reported later in the text, book II, ch. 34, Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 224; Dowsett, History of the Caucasian Albanians, p. 144-145.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 368 29/11/16 06:05 THE SENSE OF AN ENDING 369

the 640s26. Source A, which anachronistically refers to the Turkic invaders as Khazars in ch. 1127, may have been composed shortly after 685 when the Khazars invaded Transcaucasia for the first time28. Both sources, however, contour their narratives through the employment of biblical prophecy that reveals the eschatological tension of the period. The chronologically prior Source B identifies the Turkic invaders of 626 and 628/9 as the armies of ‘the North’29 and represents their king and his ‘son’ as a lion and whelp. Although the animal designations are indebted to the Bible30, it may be an association derived from the Byz- antine lion whelp metaphor found in various apocalyptic texts31. The

26 Zuckerman’s reason for dating this source to the 640s seems to be mention of the rise of the Arabs which he thinks the author of his source witnessed, p. 405. The text asserts that after the death of Shāh Kawād II in 628, “the kingdom was about to be removed from the house of the Sasanians and given to the hands of the children of Ismael” (Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 149; Dowsett, History of the Caucasian Albanians, p. 92). This may imply that the author thought the Sasanians to be finished soon after the end of the reign of Kawād II, possibly following the Persian defeats at the battle of Qādisiyyah (636) or of Nahāvand (641). Greenwood, Sasanian Echoes, p. 380, remarks that Sebēos similarly understood the reign of Kawād II’s father, Khosrow II (d. 628), to mark the beginning of the eschatological process. The ninth-century historian T‘ovma Arcruni also understood the period between Khosrow II and Yazdgerd III to initiate the end of the Sasanians, see below, n. 74. On the crisis of legitimacy of the Sasanians beginning with the reign of Kawād II, see Daryaee, When the End is Near. On the other hand, Greenwood, Sasanian Echoes, p. 388, takes the text to refer to the extinction of the Sasa- nian dynasty in 651 after the death of Yazdgerd III, which he dates, however, to 653. If this is the case, the author could not have lived in the 630s or 640s, but must have written post-651. If we are to still accept a date of ca. 630 for the composition of these chapters, this piece of information must be considered a later interpolation, an ‘update’ possibly made by the eighth-century redactor who merged the two sources. 27 As both Greenwood, Sasanian Echoes, p. 387 and n. 21, and Zuckerman, Khazars and Byzantium, p. 410, note, this is the only time the designation Khazar (Xazirk‘) appears in the Armenian text. In his English translation, Dowsett inserted “Khazar” in several places where the subject is not defined in order ‘to clarify’ the meaning of the passage. In doing so, he unfortunately further obscured it. 28 Zuckerman, Khazars and Byzantium, p. 430. 29 In ch. 16, he calls them the “cauldron of the North” (katsayn hiwsisoy: Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 169; Dowsett, History of the Caucasian Albanians, p. 106) alluding to Jer. 1:13-14. On the relationship of the king of the North to Heraclius’ Turkic allies, see Zuckerman, Khazars and Byzantium, p. 412-413. For our purposes here, however, the biblical topos of the enemy from the north is more significant than the historical situation, on which see below. 30 Cf. Gen. 49:8, Jer. 51:38, Ezek. 19:3. 31 See Alexander, Byzantine Apocalyptic, p. 172-173. Bousset, Antichrist Legend, p. 77, traced the origin of the metaphor to the wars of Heraclius against Khosrow II; cf. Greisiger, Messias, Endkaiser, Antichrist, p. 151-156 for the propagation by Heraclius of the lion cub image. In these traditions, however, Heraclius is the young Lion, while in the Syriac Apocalypse of Ezra (11th-12th c.?), his Turkic allies are depicted as the Leopard of the North (Baethgen, Beschriebung, p. 207; Hoyland, Seeing Islam, p. 278, Greisiger, Messias, Endkaiser, Antichrist, p. 227-228). The History attributed to Sebēos,

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 369 29/11/16 06:05 370 s. la porta

author understands their invasion of Ałuank‘ in 628 and the famine that accompanied it as the fulfillment of Amos 5:19. Similarly, the author presents a subsequent famine and plague that followed the invasion as the actualization of Jer. 22:19, Jer. 16:7, and Amos 8:10. The eschatological expectations built up in these passages, however, are relieved in chapter 16 as the Turkic occupation of Ałuank‘ ended in 629/30 due to internal conflict in the Khaganate. The author explains the delivery of Ałuank‘ from the Turkic invaders as divine retribution for their pride that sur- passes biblical precedents32. This transformation of the representation of the Turkic invasions and occupation from an end-time drama to the manifestation of theodicy points to a contemporary adjustment in the interpretation of the historical context as the situation evolved and suggests the narrative was written very soon after these events occurred. The later Source A exhibits a similar, though not identical, eschatological interpretative lens as Source B. The author prefaces his account in ch. 9 with an explicit citation of Jesus’ warnings of the end-time in Mt. 24:6-7, 29 and 25:13. He also remarks that he will relate what happened “suppressing the fear and dread that still possess us,” indicating that he continued to live in a time of anxiety. Finally, he portrays the Turkic armies as “the universal wrath” in terms evocative of depictions of the armies of Gog and Magog33. As noted above, given the anachronistic mention of the Khazars, this perception of the Turkic invasions in all likelihood slightly post-dates 685. Source A’s placement prior to Source B restores the eschatological tension that was resolved in the latter as the implication from Source A’s “preface” to the entire episode is that the time of “fear and dread” persists, although the exact hour of the end is unknown. Regardless of whether these chapters preserve two discrete sources, one from ca. 630 and another from ca. 685, that were fused together or one account from the 630s that was updated in the 680s, they do present us with two seventh-century perspectives that share an eschatological employment of prophecy to interpret the historical events of their time.

too, designates the third beast, identified with Gog and Magog and presumably the West- ern Turkic Khaganate, as a Leopard, Sebēos, Patmut‘iwn, p. 142; Thomson – Howard- Johnston, Armenian History, p. 105. Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i’s source thus seems to have taken the metaphor in a different manner from that promoted by Imperial propaganda. 32 Cf. bk. I, ch. 16, where the text proposes that the Hephthalite attack against Shāh Pērōz was foreseen by Is.13:3-8 as divine retribution for the Sasanian’s arrogance. 33 See the comments of van Donzel – Schmidt, Gog and Magog, p. 38-39, where the anachronistic label “Khazar” is repeated. The terms used, however, are neologisms in Armenian. See also, Greisiger, Messias, Endkaiser, Antichrist, p. 217-242, esp. p. 224- 228, for the identification of the Turkic invaders with Gog and Magog and a discussion of this passage.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 370 29/11/16 06:05 THE SENSE OF AN ENDING 371

Although they do not speak directly to the Arab invasions, they do provide evidence that the compiler of the History attributed to Sebēos was not alone in seeing foreign invasion of the Caucasus as the prophetic fulfillment of the end. In addition to the History attributed to Sebēos and the passages preserved in the History of Ałuank‘, Greenwood also mentions the Seventh Vision of Daniel (7Dan) as another possible seventh-century eschatological reaction to the Arab invasions that may have influenced the compiler of the History attributed to Sebēos34. This apocalyptic text was originally composed in Greek between 484 and 491, but seems to include an inter- polated reference to the Arab invasions of the seventh century35. The date of the text’s translation into Armenian is unknown; the earliest manuscript of the text dates to the twelfth century36. The first attestation of its title, which much have been added in the Armenian tradition, is in Mxit‘ar Ayrivanec‘i’s list of apocryphal books in ca. 1285, although we are not certain of the contents of the text to which he was referring. Whether the allusion to the Arab invasions was added in the Greek tradition or by the Armenian translator or in the subsequent Armenian tradition is not clear. Greenwood bases his association of the History attributed to Sebēos and 7Dan primarily upon the phrase “the race of the Kark‘edovmayec‘i empire” with reference to those who brought an end to the Armenian Aršakuni dynasty in the preface to the History37. Like scholars before him, Greenwood links the Kark‘edovmayec‘i with the toponym Kark‘edovn/ Kark‘edon that appears in 7Dan in connection with the Persians in the list of prophetic disasters that will befall cities and provinces at the beginning of that work38. I am not convinced, however, that the two readings reflect the same place. The presence of Kark‘edovn/Kark‘edon in 7Dan is likely attributable to a scribal error in Greek of Carthage (Karxēdōn) for Chalcedon (Xalkēdōn), a locale which fits in the list of cities given

34 Greenwood, Sasanian Echoes, p. 385. 35 See La Porta, Seventh Vision, for an English translation and introduction to 7Dan with a bibliography of editions, previous translations, and studies. 36 In La Porta, Seventh Vision, p. 415-416, I speculated that the work may have been translated into Armenian in the sixth century, but the evidence is by no means conclusive. 37 The sole surviving ms. of the History – codex 2639 of the National Manuscript Library of Armenia (Matenadaran) dated to 1672 – actually reads Kark‘edomayec‘i, but it was “corrected” by T‘adēos Mihrdatean, the first publisher of the text, and was followed by all subsequent scholars although there seems to be little justification for doing so, see Bartikian, “Azgn Kark‘edomayec‘i išxanut‘eann”, p. 85-86. Bartikian contends that the phrase is not a scribal error, as some have suggested, but refers to Karěkā dě-Mēšān/Mayšān (Gk. Charax Spasinou) and has nothing to do with the usual interpretation of Carthage. See also his study of the seal of Ašuša bdeašx, Bartikian, Gugarac‘ Ašuša. 38 See the studies mentioned in the articles by Bartikian cited in the previous note.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 371 29/11/16 06:05 372 s. la porta

in that text39. As the History does not exhibit any other connections with the text of 7Dan, this single piece of circumstantial evidence does not in my opinion provide sufficient support for Greenwood’s hypothesis that the compiler of the History was familiar with 7Dan. Given the uncertainties of the date of translation of 7Dan and of the exact meaning of the interpolation, the most that can be said regarding it is that a Greek apocalypse from the end of the fifth century was possibly updated to account for the Arab invasions of the seventh century in either the Greek or Armenian tradition sometime before the twelfth century.

2. Łewond: Swimming Against the Tide

In addition to the testimony of the History attributed to Sebēos, there is another historiographical witness to the application of eschatological interpretations of prophetic texts to contextualize the Arab invasions and civil wars in the seventh century. The evidence is found in a passage contained in Łewond’s History composed in the eighth century40. In his depiction of the conquest of Duin in 64041, Łewond finds an explicit comparison with the “prophetic lament” of Ps. 78(79):1-3: “O God, heathens entered your inheritance, profaned your holy temple, and cast the corpses of your servants as food for the birds of the skies and the bodies of your saints to the beasts of the land. And there was no one to bury them.” Łewond explains that just as all these calamities happened in the past, it had become fitting that they occurred “to us,” which intimates that the author was a contemporary of the events42.

39 La Porta, Seventh Vision, p. 412-413, n. 12, and on the confusion of Carthage and Chalcedon in Greek, Alexander, Oracle, p. 112, n. 48. 40 Edition: Łewond, Patmut‘iwn; English translation: Arzoumanian, History of Lewond. An online English translation with notes by R. Bedrosian can also be found on his Historical sources page at rbedrosian.com. Prof. Alison Vacca and myself are currently preparing a diplomatic edition of the text based on the oldest manuscript (Matenadaran codex 1902=M1902) and a new English translation with historical commentary. Transla- tions of the text are my own, although for convenience I also provide a reference to the equivalent text in Arzoumanian, History of Lewond. The date of Łewond has been challenged by Greenwood, A Re-assessment, but his arguments are not wholly convincing, see below, n. 57. On the dating of the text, see also Mahé, Le problème. At the time of writing this essay, the new translation of Łewond into French by J.-P. Mahé and B. Martin- Hisard was not available to me. 41 Łewond, Patmut‘iwn, p. 8-11; Arzoumanian, History of Lewond, p. 51-52. The date of the attack is based on the History attributed to Sebēos, Sebēos, Patmut‘iwn, p. 138-139; Thomson – Howard-Johnston, Armenian History, p. 100-101. For problems with Łewond’s chronology, see Greenwood, A Re-assessment, p. 135. 42 Łewond, Patmut‘iwn, p. 10; Arzoumanian, History of Lewond, p. 51. Pace Green- wood, A Re-assessment, p. 146-147, who considers this passage to be the product of

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 372 29/11/16 06:05 THE SENSE OF AN ENDING 373

There are resonances with other prophetic texts, however, that are implicit in Łewond’s portrayal of the attack on Duin43. He observes that Armenian forces under T‘ēodoros Ṙštuni were unable to reach the Joroy pass in time to defend it because the Arabs attacked with the speed of “winged serpents” (ōjk‘ t‘ewawork‘), an allusion to the oracle against Philistia in Is. 14:2944. Describing the massacre inside Duin once it was taken, Łewond comments that the clergy were massacred by “insolent and cruel” (žpirh ew anołorm) enemies, a phrase found in Jer. 6:2345. In both scriptural allusions the terms are marked as they refer to the unidentified foe from the north46. In his selection of biblical allusions, Łewond or, more likely, his source may have been drawing upon an exegetical tradition that associated the lament of the Psalmist with the enemy from the north within an eschatological context. Already in the post-Exilic prophetic tradition, the foe from the north was mythologized and identified in Ezek. 38:15 with the eschatological armies of Gog. More proximate to the time of Łewond, the seventh-century author of the Apocalypse of Ps.-Methodius similarly links the enemies from the north with an allusion to Ps. 78(79):3 when he ‘prophesies’ that after the invasion of the men from the north many will die “and there will be no one who will be able to bury them47.” This combination of an invasion by the enemy from the north and Ps. 78(79):3 may thus represent an eschatological formula known in the region. In addition to the prophetic scriptural allusions, the episode on the sack of Duin possesses another textual reference. Łewond recounts that in the attack the “delicate women” (tiknayk‘ p‘ap‘kasunk‘) of Duin were beaten mercilessly and dragged to the marketplaces48. The phrase “delicate women” is the same as that used by the historian Ełišē to describe the women of Armenia in the aftermath of the defeat of Vardan Mamikonean at the battle of Avarayr in 45149. The image here, however, has clearly been repurposed. Whereas Ełišē’s use of delicacy emphasizes the women’s

Łewond’s hand, see also below. On p. 152, he cautiously takes this use of the first person to suggest that Łewond may have had a particular attachment to the city of Duin, although he prudently does not insist on the point given our knowledge of the author. In my opinion, it is more likely that it was present in a source contemporary with the events upon which Łewond relied. 43 These are not pointed out by Greenwood, A Re-assessment, nor are they indicated in any of the published translations or editions of Łewond’s work. 44 Łewond, Patmut‘iwn, p. 9; Arzoumanian, History of Lewond, p. 51. 45 Łewond, Patmut‘iwn, p. 10; Arzoumanian, History of Lewond, p. 51. 46 On the ‘foe from the north’ in the prophetic books of the Bible, see Childs, Enemy. 47 Ps.-Methodius, Apokalypse, XIII, 19. 48 Łewond, Patmut‘iwn, p. 10; Arzoumanian, History of Lewond, p. 51. 49 Ełišē, Vasn Vardanay, p. 201; Thomson, Eḷishē, p. 246.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 373 29/11/16 06:05 374 s. la porta

ability to overcome their nature, rise to the occasion, and hold society together despite the fact that they had not been accustomed to hard work or physical difficulties, its reemployment in Łewond’s History underscores the savagery of the attackers. The evocation of Ełišē, if it was present in Łewond’s source and not added by him, nevertheless points to an Arme- nian literary context for the provenance of this material. Given the above evidence, I suggest that Łewond’s text attests to earlier Armenian eschatological speculations on the early Arab incursions into the region in a manner similar to, though not identical with, that articu- lated in Sebēos. If the Ełišean reference was not added by Łewond, then I would favor a literary rather than an oral source for this material. This narrative provided not only an account of a specific historical event, but a re-enactment of a charged biblical confrontation between Israel and the enemy from the north that is tied to both a future eschatological battle and an eschatologically-charged historical one50. Notwithstanding the use of the first person plural in his account of the events of Duin in 640, another piece of evidence indicates that this material did not originate from Łewond himself, namely, that he did not share the eschatological perceptions of his source. In contrast to the compiler of the History attributed to Sebēos, Łewond does not employ eschatological prophecies to give shape and order to the socio-political transformations of the seventh and eighth centuries; nor does he ever evoke them to point to the fulfillment of anticipated social-political change. In fact, his use of prophecies seems intended to counter such interpretative acts by localizing their implications. For example, in the account mentioned above, the scope of impact of the prophetic texts is restricted to the city of Duin during this one attack; Łewond does not employ them to provide a hermeneutical framework for the early Arab invasions in general. We may notice a similar application of prophetic discourse in other parts of his History. In a manner reminiscent of Sebēos’ presentation of the first Arab fitna, Łewond presents the second and third Arab fitna-s as the actualization of biblical prophecy. His scope, however, is far more limited than that of Sebēos. According to Łewond, the second Arab fitna of 680-692 realized the fulfillment of Ps. 36(37):15: “Their swords shall enter into their hearts and their bows shall be broken51.” Although Łewond welcomes the respite from attacks granted to Christians by the Arab civil

50 On the eschatological dimension of the Armenian war against the Persians, see La Porta, Vision of St. Grigor. 51 Łewond, Patmut‘iwn, p. 15; Arzoumanian, History of Lewond, p. 54.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 374 29/11/16 06:05 THE SENSE OF AN ENDING 375

war and attributes the killing of Muslims by Muslims to divine justice and retribution, he does not extrapolate further on other possible ramifi- cations of Arab internal discord52. When treating the third Arab fitna of 744-47, Łewond employs biblical prophecy in an even more specific manner, localizing its application to Caliph Marwān II’s subjugation of Syria and siege of Damascus, in which he sees the completion of Amos 1:3-553. The Armenian version of the biblical text in 1:5 reads, following the LXX, that the Lord will destroy the men of Ḥarrān. As Łewond himself indicates, the evocation of Ḥarrān facilitated the association of the pericope with Marwān’s siege of Damas- cus as Ḥarrān served as one of his bases54. Although the biblical prophecy predicts that the men of Ḥarrān will be destroyed, Łewond explicitly reinterprets it so that it will be the inhabitants of Ḥarrān who will destroy Damascus. He further provides his own exegesis of v. 3a, “for three acts of iniquity of Damascus, or for four, I will not turn from it,” to explain the transgressions the citizens of the city committed to engender the Lord’s wrath. In addition to the three sins of murder, theft, and acting upon lustful desires, they committed a fourth by not expecting punishment for their actions and justifying them as divinely sanctioned. Again, instead of taking a broad interpretation of this act of internal Muslim violence, Łewond holds a very narrow exegetical lens to unpack the correspondences between the siege of Damascus and Amos 1:3-5, even replicating in his explanation the unusual use of the preposition ‘on’, ‘above’ (i veray) which occurs in the biblical passage. Thus, despite Łewond’s willing- ness to take individual events in the second and third Arab fitna-s as the fulfillment of certain biblical prophetic verses, he restrains himself from reading into them an end to Caliphal rule as Sebēos was tempted to contemplate. In his reassessment of Łewond’s History, Greenwood draws a comparison between the author’s treatment of the sack of Duin and that of Damascus. He remarks upon the similar structure of, and the employment of biblical prophecy in, both episodes and concludes that the similarities in their construction indicate “the direct involvement of Łewond in their composition55.” He contextualizes his discussion of these similarities within Łewond’s more general concern with urban history, which, as Greenwood

52 This laconic treatment of the second Arab fitna contrasts starkly with the chronicle of John bar Penkāyē and the apocalyptic texts, such as that of Ps.-Methodius, composed in its wake. 53 Łewond, Patmut‘iwn, p. 117-118; Arzoumanian, History of Lewond, p. 116-117. 54 Hawting, Marwān II, p. 623-624. 55 Greenwood, A Re-assessment, p. 147.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 375 29/11/16 06:05 376 s. la porta

observes, represents a new trend in Armenian historiography56. While Greenwood’s insight is sound and perspicacious, I think it can be further nuanced. In particular, although I do not disagree that Łewond contoured the structure of both passages, it may be useful to point out two differences between the treatments of the attack on the cities. First, Łewond’s explication of the text of Amos is more exegetically textured than his application of Ps. 78(79). The exegetical techniques of hook-word association and of mimicking syntax found in Łewond’s interpretation of Amos in his account of the siege of Damascus are not found in his application of Ps. 78(79) with reference to the sack of Duin. Second, Łewond’s portrayal of the sack of Duin is far more literarily allusive than that of the siege of Damascus. As noted, the former contains not only one biblical prophetic reference, but three, including the eschatologically marked association of the peoples from the north with Ps. 78(79). Łewond’s account of the siege of Damascus, while highly descriptive, does not appear to contain any specific allusions to other prophetic texts beyond the explicit citation of the verses from Amos. Echoes of Ełišē’s History are similarly not discernible in his remarks on the violence committed during the attack on Damascus, but this discrepancy may be attributable to the fact that at Damascus it was Arab Muslims who were killed and not Armenian Christians, as at Duin. The dissimilarities between the accounts of the two attacks likely reflect differences present in the source material from which Łewond worked. As argued above, the use of eschatologically marked phrases in his account of the sack of Duin suggests that Łewond had recourse to an eschatological interpretation of the Arab invasions for Łewond himself does not evince any such hermeneutic lens in his History. By contrast, his portrayal of the siege of Damascus, which occurred a century later during his own lifetime, was likely composed by the author himself and patterned upon the episode at Duin. His use of the first person singular in this instance therefore reflects his own interpretation of the verses of Amos. Despite these differences, Greenwood is certainly correct that the structural correspondences between the two passages are meant to link the attacks in the reader’s mind. The correspondences between these two episodes point to a coherent approach to prophetic discourse in the History. A remarkable feature of the passages is how Łewond limits the implications of prophecy to the explanation of specific circumstances. Whereas Sebēos and, later, John bar Penkāyē and Ps.-Methodius amongst others are willing to contextualize

56 Greenwood, A Re-assessment, p. 152-153.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 376 29/11/16 06:05 THE SENSE OF AN ENDING 377

the sudden Arab expansion and the Arab fitna-s within an eschatological framework, Łewond, by localizing the scene of the action to the cities of Duin and Damascus, neutralizes any eschatological implications or expectations of greater socio-political transformation these events may have borne, and limits their effects to the immediate context. We may observe that he similarly constrains his interpretation of the second Arab fitna. This dampening of “prophetic hope” culminates in Łewond’s explicit rejection of the prophetic ‘nonsense’ of the monk who encouraged the Armenian nobles to rebel against the Caliphate in 774/557. Relying on a prophecy apparently related to that attributed to the Patriarch Sahak in the fifth- to sixth-century History of Łazar P‘arpec‘i58, this monk misled the nobles into thinking that the end of Muslim rule had arrived and that the Armenians would shortly achieve the restoration of their kingdom. Despite the counsel of Ašot Bagratuni, Prince of Armenia, who cautioned that such a rebellion would end in their ruin, the nobles pushed ahead with their plans and were eventually slaughtered. A similar limited application of prophecy is discernible in the correspondence attributed to the Emperor Leo and the Caliph ‘Umar included in the History59. Although the Armenian text of the correspondence was clearly translated from Greek and was not of Łewond’s creation60, I think

57 Łewond, Patmut‘iwn, p. 172-173; Arzoumanian, History of Lewond, p. 131-132. Greenwood, A Re-assessment, p. 112, argues that this passage is not a prophetic expres- sion of an unfulfilled desire for Armenian independence, but that it actually refers to the establishment of the Bagratuni kingdom in 884. It comprises one of the arguments Green- wood puts forth to support a ninth-century date for the History. His argument, however, is unconvincing. There is no sense that Łewond approved of this expectation at all, and it seems inconceivable, if not outright dangerous, that once the Bagratuni kingdom had been established that he would explicitly reject a prophecy predicting its rise as prophesying “empty nonsense”. 58 Łazar, Patmut‘iwn, p. 29-37; Thomson, History of Łazar P‘arpec‘i, p. 65-72. Sahak foresees, in a manner reminiscent of Daniel and Nersēs in the Buzandaran (III.xiv; IV.xv; Garsoïan, Epic Histories, p. 89, 142), the end of the patriarchate and monarchy. A significant difference, however, is that he also prophesies that “soon the monarchy will be renewed from the Aršakuni family and the priesthood from the progeny of the worthy patriarch Grigor.” Although it is not certain whether the prediction of the restoration of the Aršakuni monarchy and of the Grigorid patriarchate formed part of the original prophecy (and therefore a later interpolation), it proved to be productive in subsequent employments of the vision, see Muradyan, Vision. 59 The correspondence occupies a large portion of the text, Łewond, Patmut‘iwn, p. 42-98; an English translation of it, heavily dependent upon the French of Chahnazarian, Ghewond, can be found in Jeffery, Ghevond’s Text, upon which Arzoumanian, History of Lewond, p. 70-105, relied. 60 Jeffery, Ghevond’s Text, p. 274-275, held that the Armenian was a translation from Greek; he is followed by Arzoumanian, History of Lewond. Gerö, Byzantine Iconoclasm, p. 164-171, however, posited that the correspondence was originally written in Armenian.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 377 29/11/16 06:05 378 s. la porta

we may be justified in speculating that if Łewond included the correspondence in his text, he was at least in general accordance with the defense of Christianity attributed to Leo. It is therefore worth looking at how prophecy is employed within that text, especially as the prophets and prophecy figure prominently within it. A repeated accusation of ‘Umar against Christianity is that Christians follow the words of the prophets rather than only those of Jesus. Leo in his response is at pains to defend the reliability of prophetic texts and show how they point towards the incarnation of the Logos and the establishment of the sacra- ments. The correspondence thus portrays prophecy as primarily con- cerned with typological exegesis rather than as a method of historical interpretation. A particular dispute emerges, however, over the interpretation of Isaiah 21:7: “I saw two riders: one rider on an ass and one rider on a camel61.” According to ‘Umar, this verse foretold the prophetic equality of Jesus and Muḥammad. Leo retorts that the ass refers to the Jews and the camel to the heathens. After the fall of Babylon, Satan led the ass and camel to the Arabian desert and gave them to the Arabs. He then deceived them into following the errors of both and into calling their barbarous killings and raids to procure captives ‘the way of God’. This latter idea would seem to be echoed by Łewond in his exegesis of Amos 1:3a when he asserts that the inhabitants of Damascus were guilty of thinking their iniquities were divinely sanctioned. Moreover, at no point does Leo claim that Muslim rule will come to an end. He does remind ‘Umar that the Persians reigned for 400 years, thereby alluding to the possibility of a termination of Arab dominance, but asserts that Christians will receive their reward in the next life after suffering persecutions in this world. Leo’s

He also thinks that it was a later invention inserted into the text, possibly in the eleventh- twelfth century, composed to expand upon T‘ovma Arcruni’s mention of the correspondence in the tenth century. The language of the correspondence suggests that it is indeed a translation. 61 Łewond, Patmut‘iwn, p. 45, 95-96; Jeffery, Ghevond’s Text, p. 278, 327-328; Arzoumanian, History of Lewond, p. 71, 102-103; Thomson, Muhammad, p. 838-839, 850, 855. Dispute over this verse is also recognized in the later Armenian historiographers T‘ovma Arcruni (early 10th c.), Mxit‘ar Anec‘i (12th-13th c.), and Kirakos Ganjakec‘i (13th c.). As Thomson observes, this prooftext of Muḥammad’s prophetic calling does not figure in Greek polemics, but it is known in Syriac as it appears in the East Syriac Catholi- cos Timothy’s dialogue in 781 with the Caliph al-Mahdī (reg. 775-785). Timothy interprets the rider on the ass as Darius and that on the camel as Cyrus, Mingana, Timothy’s Apology, p. 37. The interpretation of this verse as referring to a prophet of the Ishmaelites appears very early in a passage in the Secrets of Rabbi Simon ben Yoḥai, which is apparently contemporary with the Arab invasions. According to the text, the verse reveals that the Arabs will liberate the Jews from the Byzantines, Hoyland, Seeing Islam, p. 309-310.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 378 29/11/16 06:05 THE SENSE OF AN ENDING 379

reply thus conforms to both Łewond’s conception of prophecy and his resignation towards Arab power. Łewond, of course, benefited from hindsight in all of the instances noted above and knew that the desired results – whether of the completion of the world or of Caliphal rule – did not occur. His narrative, however, provides further testimony to the popularity of eschatological interpretation in the Eastern Mediterranean in the seventh and eighth centuries. His account of the attack on Duin almost certainly attests to another form of eschatological interpretation of the early Arab invasions. His treatment of the second and third Arab fitna-s indirectly reveals that Armenians may have conceived eschatological responses to these civil conflicts that Łewond has tried to constrain. Finally, his explicit mention of the use of prophecy as an encouragement for the Armenian nobles to rebel and put an end to Caliphal dominance attests to the receptivity of Armenian elites to eschatological prophecy. While the events of the rebellion are cast as a response to a purely local prophecy, it is worth noting that the onset of the year 800CE and 200AH also bore eschatological overtones in both Western Christendom and Islam, and therefore the Armenian nobles’ antici pation may have formed part of a wider phenomenon of intensification in eschatological expectation62. On the other hand, Łewond’s own approach to these events underscores that, however popular such eschatological interpretations may have been, there were alternative views that also circulated among Armenian elites which downplayed reading eschatological meaning into these events and rejected prophecy as either a ‘predictor’ of socio-political change or an overarching hermeneutic of history. This is not to say that they rejected the interpretative power of prophetic discourse per se, but found it most valuable to restrict its use. Movsēs Drasxanakertc‘i’s History may again provide further support for the building of eschatological expectations in Armenian historiography towards the end of the eighth century. The beginning of bk. III, ch. 20, entitled “the events which happened in Ałuank‘ in the third century of the Armenian era” (=751-850 CE), provides a brief report on the ‘Abbāsid revolution63. The text remarks that at that time the tyranny of

62 Cf. the remark of Cook, Apocalyptic Year, p. 42, that a “strong surge in apocalyptic feeling during the early ‘Abbasid age (132-247/749-861) has been recorded in numerous sources”; see also Yücesoy, Messianic Beliefs, p. 50-58; Landes, Lest the Millennium be Fulfilled, p. 191-203; and below. The year 200AH is equivalent to 815/6 CE and fell in the middle of the fourth Arab fitna. 63 Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 324-325; Dowsett, History of the Caucasian Albanians, p. 212-213, where it is ch. 19.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 379 29/11/16 06:05 380 s. la porta

the Arabs spread throughout the land, a development which it asserts should be understood through the words of Paul that the Judge is at the door and the Day of Judgment is nigh (James 5:9). In this context it refers to the Arabs as the “precursors of the Antichrist, the children of perdition” (karapetac‘ Neṙinn` ordwoc‘n korstean). The chapter then recounts the sending of the Armenian patriarch Esayi (sed. 775-788) to meet with the representative of the ‘Abbāsids in Partaw64. In chapter 1 of bk. III the Arabs are also described as the “precursors and armies of the Antichrist” (karapetk‘ ew zōrk‘ Neṙinn)65, but the remainder of the book after chapter 20(19) does not exhibit any eschatological interpretation of Arab rule in the Caucasus. The only other reference to the Antichrist in bk. III is to the Ałuank‘ Catholicos Nersēs Bakur who was deposed for his Chalce- donian tendencies by the Armenian Catholicos Ełia I (sed. 703-717) and arrested by the Arab authorities. Dasxuranc‘i’s text notes that Nersēs “occupied the patriarchal throne for fourteen years as an orthodox priest, and for three and a half years as a heretic resembling the Antichrist who prepares to come in the last days66.” I would therefore suggest that the remarks concerning the Arabs reflect the sentiments of a late eighth- early ninth-century source that was disturbed by the ‘Abbāsid revolution and the slaughter of the Armenian nobles in 775 and saw in them the inception of the last times. Dasxuranc‘i seems to have been more impressed by the “exhaustion” of the Arabs, whose rule in Transcaucasia he observes was brought to an end by the Daylamite Musāfirids67, as well as by the Russian invasion of the Ałuank‘ capital of Partaw/Barda‘a in 943-44. The latter bear some of the hallmarks attributed to the armies of Gog and Magog reminiscent of the earlier Turkic invaders. They are described as “a people of strange and foreign appearance” (ayladēm, ōtaranšan azg) who attacked “from the lands of the north… rushing like a tempest” (i kołmanc‘n hiwsiswoy… ěnt‘analov ibrew zmrik), but this typology is not further developed68.

64 On this episode, see also Łewond, Patmut‘iwn, p. 167-168, Arzoumanian, History of Lewond, p. 148-149. 65 Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 289; Dowsett, History of the Caucasian Alba- nians, p. 187. 66 “kalaw zat‘oṙn ułłap‘aṙut‘eamb ams ŽD ew i č‘arap‘aṙut‘eann ams G ew kēs, nmaneal Derak‘ristosi Neṙinn, or handerjeal ē linel i yetin awursn,” Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 297; Dowsett, History of the Caucasian Albanians, p. 192. For the three and a half years for the rule of the Antichrist, cf. Dan. 7:25, 12:7; Rev. 11:2, 13:5; and Alexander, Byzantine Apocalyptic, p. 216. 67 Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 337; Dowsett, History of the Caucasian Alba- nians, p. 223-224. See Minorsky, Studies, p. 161; Minorsky, Caucasia IV, p. 514-529. 68 Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 338; Dowsett, History of the Caucasian Alba- nians, p. 224.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 380 29/11/16 06:05 THE SENSE OF AN ENDING 381

3. The End is Near… Maybe

By the tenth century, the original Arab invasions could no longer be seen as signs of the imminent end, nor could the conflicts amongst Arab factions signal the end of the Caliphate. This did not mean, however, that eschatological prophecies ceased being used by Armenian historiographers. Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i’s inclusion in his tenth-century History of the eschatological predictions associated with both the Turkic and Arab invasions of the seventh century as well as of the ‘Abbāsid revolution of the eighth point to how persistent these prophecies remained, even when they would seem to have been obsolete. Other authors, however, responded differently to the continuation of the Caliphate. Writing at the beginning of the tenth century, T‘ovma Arcruni relies heavily on biblical texts to shape his History of the House of Arcrunik‘69. He employs the fulfillment of biblical prophecy in several instances to rhetorically enhance his narrative, and especially to describe the campaign of the ‘Abbāsid general Būgha. Nonetheless, an overarching eschatological perspective to T‘ovma’s work is not readily discernible70. Instead, T‘ovma casts his account of Armenian-Muslim relations in the ninth century in the mold of Ełišē’s History of Vardan and the Armenian War. As Thomson has argued, T‘ovma’s indebtedness to Ełišē exceeds merely the borrowing of imagery for rhetorical effect; rather, it presents the current struggles between Armenians and Muslims as the continuation of an older conflict and allows Armenian readers to interpret the current situation through that historical lens, possibly seeing themselves in the heroes of the fifth century71. Another important aspect of the Armenian-Sasanian conflict, however, that may have inspired contemporary readers was that the Sasanian Empire came to an end. If the two historical situations did parallel each other, then it stands to reason that Arab and Islamic dominance would also be lim- ited72. We may observe the expectation of the finite nature of Arab rule present in a series of prophetic passages in bk. II of T‘ovma’s History in which the author builds upon this correspondence when he discusses the end of the Sasanian Empire and rise of Islam.

69 Edition: T‘ovma Arcruni, Patmut‘iwn; English translation: Thomson, History of the House of Artsrunik‘. 70 Cf. Thomson, Christian Perception, p. 40. 71 Thomson, History of the House of Artsrunik‘, p. 50; see also Garsoïan, Reality and Myth, p. 126-127. 72 Cf. the remarks made by Leo to ‘Umar in the correspondence preserved in Łewond noted above.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 381 29/11/16 06:05 382 s. la porta

In bk II, ch. 3, T‘ovma includes a prophecy of “the ancient historian,” concerning the defeat of the Sasanian Empire by Heraclius73. Subsequently, in the same chapter, T‘ovma remarks that the Persian Empire was weakened and split apart on account of the chaos over succession between the death of Khosrow II in 628 and the accession of Yazdegerd III in 632, with whom “the Persian kingdom came to an end74.” According to T‘ovma, the weakened Sasanian Empire recalled the prophecy of Daniel in which he saw the statue of mixed materials (Dan. 2.31-45)75. T‘ovma then passes to the rise of Islam and the life of Muḥammad in which he presents a variant of the legend of Sergius Baḥīrā76. In relating that account, T‘ovma compares the revelation Muḥammad received to the conception of the Antichrist by a daughter of the tribe of Dan. After summarizing the “teach- ings” of Muḥammad, T‘ovma again invokes a prophecy by “the ancient historian77.” Although this prophecy is not identical to the earlier one, it evinces the same structure and is clearly meant to complement it. It predicts that God will judge the Arabs more than anyone else, striking them with heavy blows, and proclaims that “the whole world will see you smoking, and fire will never leave you for ever. Like a furnace for potters will you burn, and you will have no rest78.” Thomson sees in the phrase “a furnace for potters” (hnoc‘ xec‘agorcac‘) a reference to Hos. 7:7-879; however, the word potter (xec‘agorc) does not occur in that verse, nor anywhere else in the Armenian Bible. Thus, the reference to a ‘furnace’ seems to be more general and may also refer to Ps. 20:10 (21:9), where

73 T‘ovma Arcruni, Patmut‘iwn, p. 93; Thomson, History of the House of Artsrunik‘, p. 159-160. Thomson, p. 159, n. 2, remarks that this prophecy is “reminiscent of the prophecy concerning Tyre in Ezek., chs. 26-27.” While this is true in a general way, the passage echoes several verses from the prophets: cf. the ‘woe’ form of the prophecy to Is. 10:5 amongst others; the reference to the trampling by hooves to Ezek. 32:2; the evocation of woodcutters to Jer. 46:22; and the consummation of sons and daughters to the ‘woe’ of Moab in Jer. 48:46. 74 T‘ovma Arcruni, Patmut‘iwn, p. 98; Thomson, History of the House of Artsrunik‘, p. 164. Cf. n. 26 above. 75 T‘ovma Arcruni, Patmut‘iwn, p. 98; Thomson, History of the House of Artsrunik‘, p. 164. 76 Roggema, The Legend, p. 171, observes that T‘ovma’s use of the double name ‘Sargis Bhira’ reveals either direct or indirect knowledge of Syriac or Christian Arabic sources. Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i also mentions Baḥīrā, but does not know the double name. On the Baḥīrā legend and the figure of Muḥammad in Armenian, see also Thomson, Arme- nian Variations; and Thomson, Muhammad. 77 T‘ovma Arcruni, Patmut‘iwn, p. 103; Thomson, History of the House of Artsrunik‘, p. 169. 78 “Ew aṙhasarak amenayn tiezerk‘ cxeal tesanic‘en, ew i k‘ēn amenewin hurn oč‘ pakasesc‘ē yawitean, ibrew zhnoc‘ xec‘agorcac‘ ayresc‘is, ew k‘ez oč‘ ełic‘i hangist,” T‘ovma Arcruni, Patmut‘iwn, p. 103; Thomson, History of the House of Artsrunik‘, p. 169). 79 Thomson, History of the House of Artsrunik‘, p. 169, n. 5.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 382 29/11/16 06:05 THE SENSE OF AN ENDING 383

God will make His enemies like a fiery furnace when He appears, or Mal. 4:1 where the prophet declares that: “Behold, the day of the Lord will come burning like a furnace, and it will burn them, and all the Philis tines and all those who work iniquity will be the stubble.” The word Philistine (aylazgi, lit. of another nation)80 in this verse is the same as that often used by Armenian authors to refer to Muslims and may have thus triggered the association with the Arabs in the prophecy. Regardless of the allusion, the prophecy points to the punishment of the Arabs, perhaps at the end of days. The prophecy does not seem to have been engendered by any of the Arab fitna-s, at least as employed by T‘ovma, as he situates it at the inception of Islam, immediately prior to recording the death of Muḥammad. Given the parallelism with the earlier prophecy about the defeat of the Sasanian Empire, T‘ovma’s intent here is apparently to signal to his readers in a general way and without any specific chronological speculation that Arab rule, too, will come to an end. T‘ovma’s slightly later contemporary, Catholicos Yovhannēs V Drasxanakertc‘i (sed. 898-929)81, similarly does not contextualize the rise of the Arabs within an end-time narrative, although he too presents Muḥammad and his followers in a negative light82. His portrayal of the governor of Armenia, the Sadjid emir Yūsuf (901-28), and his attacks, however, is constructed around the fulfillment of several prophecies from Isaiah and Jeremiah and evokes many eschatological motifs83. After the

80 On the use of this term in Armenian, see Thomson, Christian Perception, p. 38-39. 81 Armenian text: Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn; English translation: Mak- soudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i. 82 Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 101. The passage on Muḥammad was removed from the Jerusalem printing of the text not to offend the authorities. 83 Cf. Drasxanakertc‘i’s account of the attack of Yūsuf in 910 (Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 277-279; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 168) citing Ps. 68:21(69:20); Isaiah 51:17, 19-20; 3:3, 8-9. He refers to Zachariah 5:1-2 and cites Hos. 13:7-8 while describing the context of Yūsuf’s execution of Armenian nobles (Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 281-282; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 169- 170), and notes that the survivors hid in caves and rocky crags (Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 285; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 171; see also below, n. 94). Similar to Łewond, he also evokes Ełišē’s depiction of the hardships of women after the battle of Avarayr (Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 285-286; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 171). Continuing with the attacks of 910, he notes that Yūsuf’s action fulfilled the prophecy of Is. 3:2-4, and that the Lord “showed us what to expect in the future, in the days of retribution” (ec‘oyc‘ mez yawurs vrēžxndrut‘iwn meroy` zinc‘ lineloy ēr yapa žamanaki), Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 290; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 173. He also labels Yūsuf the “insidious serpent of Dan” (daranakal ōjn Danay; cf. Gen. 49:17 and below, n. 87) and characterizes him as “agitated like a boil- ing cauldron” (ibrew zkat‘say yeṙandean; cf. Jer. 1:13-14 and n. 29 above), Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 295, 297; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 175, 176.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 383 29/11/16 06:05 384 s. la porta

martyrdom of King Smbat Bagratuni, Yovhannēs describes Armenia as open to attack from all sides, destroying the prosperity of the realm and bringing to realization the prophecy of Is. 1:784. The question is whether his descriptions represent mere rhetorical flourishes; and, if not, are they indicative of an eschatological worldview? Some light on Yovhannēs’ employment of the fulfillment of biblical prophecy and eschatological imagery is shed by his letter to the Byzantine Emperor, Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos85. The purpose of the letter was to inform the Emperor of the afflictions that have beset the Armenian kingdoms and to request an imperial invasion of Armenia. Yovhannēs remarks that “as long as all the nations acknowledged fear of you as a protective bastion against the enemies86,” the “confederate of Beliar” (martakic‘ beliaray) did not assault the Church. Once the Armenian kingdoms were not responsible to the Empire, however, “the venom of the insidious serpent of Dan defied your righteous majesty, and there was no one to seek vengeance from our slanderer87.” The narrative Yovhannēs presents the Emperor resembles a recapitu- lation of episodes from the Antichrist legend recast to suit the current context. The description of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire as the “protective bastion” (lit. the protective wall of fortitude) reflects the interpretation of the Roman Empire as “the restraining power,” to katexon, in 2 Thess. 2:6 which holds back the son of Perdition88. The phrase, “insidious serpent of Dan” (daranakal ōjin Danay) alludes to the prophecy of Jacob in Gen. 49:17 that “Dan will be an insidious serpent on the path” (ełic‘i dan` ōj daranakal). Several interpretative traditions, including Hippolytus and the Apocalypse of Ps.-Methodius, attest that this verse was understood to refer to the birth of the Antichrist who was to be from the tribe of Dan89. In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Jacob

84 Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 322-323; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 185. Cf. also the subsequent description of the depredations of the kingdom in ch. 53, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 325-332; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 186-189. 85 Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 340-354; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 192-197. 86 “Ew k‘anzi yaytni ēr amenayn azgac‘ pahpanakan parisp amrut‘ean erkiwłi jeroy ěnddēm t‘šnameac‘n,” Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 343; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 193. 87 “zanxul ełew t‘oynk‘ daranakal ōjin Danay yirawadat mecut‘enē, ew oč‘ xndrec‘aw partapanut‘iwn vrižuc‘ č‘araxōsin meroy,” Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 344; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 193. 88 Bousset, Antichrist Legend, p. 123-126; Alexander, Byzantine Apocalyptic, p. 183. 89 Bousset, Antichrist Legend, p. 171-174; Alexander, Byzantine Apocalyptic, p. 50-51, 195-196.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 384 29/11/16 06:05 THE SENSE OF AN ENDING 385

relates that he knows that the children of Dan will distance themselves from God “for I have read in the writings of Enoch the Just, that your prince will be Satan90.” Dan, too, in this chapter bears associations with Beliar, against whom the Messiah will battle, although the evidence is too scant to suggest that Yovhannēs may have had this tradition in mind when he refers to the Arabs as the confederate of Beliar. According to Yovhannēs, Muslims and apostates in particular have des- ecrated the Christian churches, offering “impious sacrifices and impure victims” (zenumn anōrēnut‘ean, ew…zohs płcut‘ean)91. This occupation and desecration of churches mirrors the Antichrist’s establishment of himself in the Temple in Dan. 9:27, Mt. 24:15, and Mk. 13:14, as well as many apocalyptic texts92. It also alludes to the defilement of the temple lamented in Ps. 78(79):1, which Yovhannēs continues to paraphrase (v.2- 3a) in his description of how the Muslims disparaged the Christian dead: “they cast the corpses of the ones holy to the Most High as food for beasts and as for the birds of the skies. In vain, the blood of the clergy of the church [was shed] like the water poured around Jerusalem93.” Describing the survivors of Muslim attacks, Drasxanakertc‘i asserts that both nobles and commoners “were all scattered throughout the face of the earth, and took refuge on mountains, in caves and crevices without any clothing, hungry, daunted and terrified,” echoing the end of times predicted in Mt 24:16; Mk 13:14; Rev 6:1594. Yovhannēs then informs the Emperor of the martyrdom of the Armenian king, Smbat Bagratuni, and explains how the land is without a defender or savior95. With similar biblical overtones, he tells the Emperor of his

90 “vasn zi kardac‘i es i girs Enovk‘ay ardaroy, zi išxan jer satanay ełic‘i ,” Yovsēp‘eanc‘, Ankanon Girk‘, p. 109; English translation: Issaverdens, Uncanonical Writings, p. 427. The reference to the writing of Enoch the Just is not to the Armenian text of that name. 91 Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 345; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 194. 92 Bousset, Antichrist Legend, p. 160-166; Alexander, Byzantine Apocalyptic, p. 203-206; cf. also the Vision of Ps.-Shenute, Hoyland, Seeing Islam, p. 281. 93 “i kerakur gazanac‘ ew i gēšs t‘ṙč‘noc‘ erknic‘ arkin zdiakuns marmnoc‘ srboc‘ Barjreloyn, ew tarapart ariunk‘ kłerc‘ ekełec‘woy ibrew zǰur hełan šurǰ zErusałēmaw,” Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 345; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 194. Cf. the source of Łewond’s description of the sack of Duin in 640 discussed above. 94 “c‘an ew c‘ir c‘ndmamb sp‘ṙealk‘ ěnd eress erkri, łōłealk‘ ew t‘aguc‘ealk‘ i lerins yayrs ew i p‘apars, merkut‘eamb ew sovov ew sasanut‘eamb ew dołmamb ahi,” Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 345; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 194. 95 Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 346-348; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 194-195. His lament is couched in biblical analogies to the Babylo- nian captivity, the conquest of Hazael, and the rule of Antiochus. Cf. Ps.-Methodius XIII, 6

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 385 29/11/16 06:05 386 s. la porta

own imprisonment and release. Yovhannēs explicitly requests Constan- tine’s help not only for himself but for all Armenians since “we all drank the cup of wrath from the southern tyranny” (aṙhasarak arbak‘ zbažakn barkut‘ean i harawayin bṙnut‘enē) an allusion to Is. 51:1796. He then begs him, evoking Ps. 73(74):3: “raise your hands against the insolence of the enemy utterly” (hambarjǰik‘ zjeṙs jer i veray ambartawanut‘ean t‘šnamwoyn minč‘ew ispaṙ)97. Yovhannēs encourages the Emperor by referring to Ps. 136(137):8 that “you will inherit bliss by paying back the daughters of Babylon the harm which she meted out upon us98.” Continuing with this Psalm, he declares that he writes his letter “sitting by the rivers of Babylon, scorched by many tears, when I recall the captivity of Sion99.” As may be discerned from the above summary, Yovhannēs’ dense letter skillfully interweaves allusions to biblical verses that possess eschatological overtones, particularly to the legend of the Antichrist, with those associated with national deliverance. That the ideas expressed in it are Yovhannēs’ own is confirmed by his use of the same or similar biblical prophecies associated with the Antichrist to refer to the attack of Yūsuf in the spring of 910100. Yovhannēs’ appeal to Emperor Constantine clearly portrays the latter with messianic coloring as the combatant of the Anti- christ and Beliar, as well as the one who will exact vengeance from the enemies of the Church. On the other hand, it seems just as evident that he did not have any notion of the famous Last Roman Emperor legend in mind when sending his epistle. There is nothing specific in the letter

in which the Ishmaelites will disparage the Christians by declaring that they have no ‘savior’ (parūqā), a notion found also in the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, Kraft, Last Roman Emperor, p. 222, 224. ‘Savior’ is rendered ‘rescue’ (anarrusis) in the Greek version of Ps.-Methodius. Kraft speculates that the translator found the close association of the Last Roman Emperor with the term savior problematic and so tried through his translation “to reduce the association of the rising Roman Emperor with the Messiah, i.e., Christ.” 96 Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 349; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 195. 97 Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 350; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 195. 98 “žaṙangesǰik‘ zeranut‘iwnsn, hatuc‘anelov dstern Babelac‘woc‘ t‘šuaṙakanin, zors ew na mezn hatoyc‘,” Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 350; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 196. 99 “i gets Babelac‘woc‘ nsteal toč‘orim bazum artasuōk‘, yoržam yišem zgerut‘iwn Sioni,” Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn, p. 351; Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 196. 100 Notably the reference to Yūsuf as the serpent of Dan, and the description of the survivors of Yūsuf’s attempt to exterminate the Armenian nobles as hiding in caves. On the authenticity of the letter, see Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 37-38.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 386 29/11/16 06:05 THE SENSE OF AN ENDING 387

itself that would point to his identification of the Emperor with that figure, although he may have been familiar with the related motif of the Victorious Emperor101. It is important to recall that Yovhannēs was not attempting to write an apocalypse or an eschatological prophecy, but a letter requesting military aid, and we should therefore not expect to find all the literary elements common to the former genres. His application of prophetic verses and eschatological motifs, however, not only attests to Drasxanakertc‘i’s familiarity with apocalyptic traditions, but also shows how end-time speculations could be repurposed to suit the aims of a contemporary political agenda. One may further conjecture that at the very least Yovhannēs thought that he was appealing to Imperial ideology and that the Imperial court would be receptive to his dramatic presentation of events102. In the end, his plans did not work out as he would have liked, and Yovhannēs tarried on Mt. Sepuh for several months while presumably awaiting a response from Constantinople. The Emperor did eventually provide the Armenian Bagratuni King Ašot with troops, but the Armenian kingdoms continued to be plagued with internal fighting and no successful offensive was launched. It is not certain whether Yovhannēs felt that he was living at the end of days, but eschatological prophecy does figure most prominently in the events that occurred in his own lifetime. Given that he completed his work ca. 923/4 and that he seems preoccupied with the appearance of the Antichrist, it is plausible that Yovhannēs harbored eschatological expectations at the coming completion of the first millennium as some of his other tenth-century contemporaries103.

4. Conclusion

The above review of the use of eschatological prophecies by Armenian historiographers indicates that many of them shared similar anxieties and expectations of the end as others in the Eastern Mediterranean. The

101 On the figure of the Victorious Emperor, see Kraft, Last Roman Emperor. 102 Cf. Magdalino, History of the Future, p. 23-26; Magdalino, The Year 1000, esp. p. 253-256. 103 Landes, Fear of an Apocalyptic Year; Magdalino, The Year 1000. The prophecy regarding the solar eclipse of 1033, recorded by the eleventh-century historian Aristakēs Lastivertc‘i and more expansively in the twelfth-century by Matt‘ēos Uṙhayec‘i (Matthew of Edessa), provides evidence for Armenian concerns over the approach of the millennium of Christ’s crucifixion. See Pogossian, Last Roman Emperor, p. 459-471, bibliography cited there, and now La Porta, Persistence of History.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 387 29/11/16 06:05 388 s. la porta

dramatic socio-political changes of the seventh century due to the climax of Byzantine-Sasanian hostilities, the Arab invasions, and the first Arab fitna-s provoked anticipations of the end across the region. Likewise, expectations of the eschaton again intensified in the middle and second half of the eighth century as civil discord within the Caliphate continued, often combined with natural disasters and famine, and the eschatologically charged years of 800CE and 200AH approached. The History of Łewond and passages in Bk. III of Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i’s History, in particular, underscore that Armenian elites shared in this broader phenomenon of heightened eschatological tension. In the tenth century, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i reveals himself to have been in tune with contemporary millennialist expectations and apocalyptic traditions of the Antichrist. At the same time, these accounts do not reflect a homogenous eschatological perception of history. The sheer variety of biblical prophecies present in these texts is remarkable, and with a few notable exceptions, each source employs its own set of references. Furthermore, Łewond’s reluctance to draw broader implications from the application of prophetic texts to the crises of the seventh and eighth centuries reveals that an end- time perspective was not the only mode of interpretation possible among Armenian historiographers. Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i apparently felt no need to ‘update’ the eschatological interpretations of the seventh and eighth centuries for his tenth-century audience. This reticence suggests that while the compiler remained loyal to the eschatological expectations of his sources, he did not necessarily share those concerns for his own historical time, despite the rapidly changing political environment and the approach of the millennium. T‘ovma Arcruni’s conversation with Ełišē’s History of the war against the Sasanian Empire in the mid-fifth century enabled him to imagine the end of the Caliphate, if not read into it the end-times. The lack of specificity in his application of the prophecy leaves it open- ended, imbuing a sense of caution in his anticipation. On the other hand, Yovhannēs Drasxankertc‘i not only informed his pessimistic appraisal of the political situation of the Armenian kingdoms with eschatological significance, but also thought it expedient to re-employ it to promote his political agenda of a Byzantine invasion of Armenia.

Bibliography

Alexander, Byzantine Apocalyptic = P. Alexander, The Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition, Los Angeles, CA, 1985. Alexander, Oracle = P. Alexander, The Oracle of Baalbek. The Tiburtine Sibyl in Greek Dress, Washington, D.C., 1967.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 388 29/11/16 06:05 THE SENSE OF AN ENDING 389

Arzoumanian, History of Lewond = Z. Arzoumanian (trans.), History of Lewond, the Eminent Vardapet of the Armenians, Wynnewood, PA, 1982. Baethgen, Beschriebung = F. Baethgen, Beschriebung der syrischen Hand- schrift “Sachau 131” auf der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, in Zeit- schrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 6 (1886), p. 193-210. Bardakjian – La Porta, Armenian Apocalyptic = K.B. Bardakjian – S. La Porta (eds.), The Armenian Apocalyptic Tradition. A Comparative Per- spective (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha, 25), Leiden, 2014. Bartikian, “Azgn Kark‘edomayec‘i išxanut‘eann” = H. Bartikian, “Azgn Kark‘edomayec‘i išxanut‘eann,” aṙełcvaci lucumě’ [The solution to the mystery of “the principality of the Kark‘edomayec‘i people”], in Ēǰmiacin, (1999), n° 4, p. 85-94. Bartikian, Gugarac‘ Ašuša = H. Bartikian, Gugarac‘ Ašuša bdešxi knik‘i hunaren arjanagrut‘yan aṙełcvaci lucumě [The solution to the mystery of the Greek inscription on the seal of Ašuša, bdeašx of Gugark‘], in Patma- Banasirakan Handes, (2005), n° 1, p. 81-90. Bousset, Antichrist Legend = W. Bousset, The Antichrist Legend. A Chapter in Christian and Jewish Folklore, tr. by A.H. Keane (Text and Translation Series, 24), Atlanta, GA, 1999 [reed. of London, 1896]. Brock, North Mesopotamia = S. Brock, North Mesopotamia in the Late- Seventh Century. Book XV of John Bar Penkāyē’s Rīš Mellē, in Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 9 (1987), p. 51-75. Chahnazarian, Ghewond = G. Chahnazarian (tr.), Ghewond. Histoires des guerres et des conquêtes des Arabes en Arménie, Paris, 1856. Childs, Enemy = B. Childs, The Enemy from the North and the Chaos Tradi- tion, in Journal of Biblical Literature, 78.3 (1959), p. 187-198. Cook, Apocalyptic Year = D. Cook, The Apocalyptic Year 200/815-16 and the Events Surrounding it, in A. Baumgarten (ed.), Apocalyptic Time (Studies in the History of Religions, 86), Leiden, 2000, p. 41-68. Cowe, Reception = S.P. Cowe, The Reception of the Book of Daniel in Late Ancient and Medieval Armenian Society, in Bardakjian – La Porta, Armenian Apocalyptic, p. 81-125. Daryaee, When the End is Near = T. Daryaee, When the End is Near. Bar- barized Armies and Barracks Kings of Late Antique Iran, in M. Macuch – D. Weber – D. Durkin-Meisterernst (eds.), Ancient and Middle Ira- nian Studies. Proceedings of the 6th European Conference of Iranian Studies, held in Vienna, 18-22 September 2007, Wiesbaden, 2010, p. 43- 52. Dowsett, History of the Caucasian Albanians = C. Dowsett (tr.), The History of the Caucasian Albanians by Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i (London Oriental Series, 8), London, 1961. Ełišē, Vasn Vardanay = E. Tēr Minasean (ed.), Ełišē. Vasn Vardanay ew Hayoc‘ Paterazmin, Erevan, 1957, facs. reprod. with intro. by R.W. Thomson, Del- mar, NY, 1993. Garsoïan, Epic Histories = N. Garsoïan (tr.), The Epic Histories (Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘), (Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies, 8), Cambridge, MA, 1989. Garsoïan, Reality and Myth = N. Garsoïan, Reality and Myth in Armenian History, in The East and the Meaning of History. International Conference

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 389 29/11/16 06:05 390 s. la porta

(23-27 November 1992), (Studi Orientali dell’Università di Roma ‘La Sapienza’, 13), Rome, 1994, p. 117-145. Gerö, Byzantine Iconoclasm = S. Gerö, Byzantine Iconoclasm during the Reign of Leo III with Particular Attention to the Oriental Sources, Lou- vain, 1973 (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 346; Sub- sidia, 41). Golden et al., World of the Khazars = P. Golden – H. Ben-Shammai – A. Róna-Tas (eds.), The World of the Khazars: New Perspectives. Selected Papers from the Jerusalem 1999 International Khazar Colloquium hosted by the Ben Zvi Institute (Handbook of Oriental Studies / Handbuch der Orientalistik, 17), Leiden, 2007. Greenwood, A Re-assessment = T. Greenwood, A Re-assessment of the History of Łewond, in Le Muséon, 125 (2012), p. 99-167. Greenwood, Sasanian Echoes = T. Greenwood, Sasanian Echoes and Apoca- lyptic Expectations: A Re-evaluation of the Armenian History Attributed to Sebeos, in Le Muséon, 115 (2002), p. 323-397. Greisiger, Messias, Endkaiser, Antichrist = L. Greisiger, Messias, Endkaiser, Antichrist: politische Apokalyptik unter Juden und Christen des Nahen Ostens am Vorabend der arabischen Eroberung (Orientalia Biblica et Christiana, 21), Wiesbaden, 2014. Hawting, Marwān II = G.R. Hawting, Marwān II, in C.E. Bosworth et al. (eds.), The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, vol. VI, Leiden, 1991, p. 623-625. Hoyland, Seeing Islam = R. Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, 13), Princeton, NJ, 1997. Issaverdens, Uncanonical Writings = J. Issaverdens, The Uncanonical Writ- ings of the Old Testament Found in the Armenian Mss. of the Library of St. Lazarus, Venice, 1901. Jeffery, Ghevond’s Text = A. Jeffery, Ghevond’s Text of the Correspondence between ‘Umar II and Leo III, in Harvard Theological Review, 37 (1944), p. 269-332. Kaegi, Initial Byzantine Reactions = W. Kaegi, Initial Byzantine Reactions to the Arab Conquest, in Church History, 38 (1969), p. 139-149. Kraft, Last Roman Emperor = A. Kraft, The Last Roman Emperor Topos in the Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition, in Byzantion, 82 (2012), p. 213- 257. La Porta, Persistence of History = S. La Porta, The Persistence of History: Two Armenian Reactions to the Failure of Prophecy, in I. Bueno – C. Rouxpetel (eds.), Historical Writings Between East and West, forthcoming. La Porta, Seventh Vision = S. La Porta, The Seventh Vision of Daniel. A new translation and introduction, in R. Bauckham – J. Davila – A. Panayotov (eds.), Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, Grand Rapids, MI, 2013, vol. I, p. 410-434. La Porta, Vision of St. Grigor = S. La Porta, The Vision of St. Grigor Lusaworič‘ and the Role of Apocalyptic in the Conversion of Armenia, in Bardakjian – La Porta, Armenian Apocalyptic, p. 296-312.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 390 29/11/16 06:05 THE SENSE OF AN ENDING 391

Landes, Fear of an Apocalyptic Year = R. Landes, The Fear of an Apocalyptic Year 1000: Augustinian Historiography, Medieval and Modern, in Specu- lum, 75 (2000), p. 97-145. Landes, Lest the Millennium be Fulfilled = R. Landes, Lest the Millennium be Fulfilled. Apocalyptic Expectations and the Pattern of Western Chro nography 100-800 CE, in W. Verbeke – D. Verhelst – A. Welkenhuysen (eds.), The Use and Abuse of Eschatology in the Middle Ages, Louvain, 1988, p. 137-211. Łazar, Patmut‘iwn = G. Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean – S. Malxasean (eds.), Łazar P‘arpec‘i. Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘, Tiflis, 1904, repr. Delmar, NY, 1986. Łewond, Patmut‘iwn = K. Ezean (ed.), Patmut‘iwn Łewondeay meci vardapeti Hayoc‘, St. Petersburg, 1887. Magdalino, History of the Future = P. Magdalino, The History of the Future and its Uses. Prophecy, Policy and Propaganda, in R. Beaton – C. Roueché (eds.), The Making of Byzantine History. Studies Dedicated to Donald M. Nicol (Centre for Hellenic Studies, King’s College London, 1), Alder- shot – Brookfield, 1993, p. 3-34. Magdalino, The Year 1000 = P. Magdalino, The Year 1000 in Byzantium, in P. Magdalino (ed.), Byzantium in the Year 1000 (The Medieval Mediter- ranean, 45), Leiden – Boston, MA, 2003 Mahé, Le problème = J.-P. Mahé, Le problème de l’authenticité et de la valeur de la chronique de Łewond, in L’Arménie et Byzance. Histoire et culture (Byzantina Sorbonensia, 12), Paris, 1996, p. 119-126. Maksoudian, Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i = K. Maksoudian (tr.), Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i. History of Armenia, Atlanta, GA, 1987. Mingana, Timothy’s Apology = A. Mingana, Timothy’s Apology for Christianity (Woodbrooke Studies, 2), Cambridge, 1928. Minorsky, Caucasia IV = V. Minorsky, Caucasia IV, in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 15 (1953), p. 504-529. Minorsky, Studies = V. Minorsky, Studies in Caucasian History (Cambridge Oriental Series, 6), London, 1953. Movsēs Dasxuranc‘i, Patmut‘iwn = V. Aṙak‘elyan (ed.), Movsēs Kałankatuac‘i, Patmut‘iwn Ałuanic‘ Ašxarhi, Erevan, 1983. Muradyan, Vision = G. Muradyan, The Vision of St. Sahak in the History of Łazar P‘arpeci‘, in Bardakjian – La Porta, Armenian Apocalyptic, p. 313-325. Penn, Envisioning Islam = M.P. Penn, Envisioning Islam. Syriac Christians and the Early Muslim World, Philadelphia, PA, 2015. Pogossian, Last Roman Emperor = Z. Pogossian, The Last Roman Emperor or the Last Armenian King? Some Considerations on Armenian Apocalyptic Literature from the Cilician Period, in Bardakjian – La Porta, Armenian Apocalyptic, p. 457-503. Ps.-Methodius, Apokalypse = G. Reinink (ed. and tr.), Die syrische Apokalypse des Pseudo-Methodius (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 540- 541; Scriptores Syri, 220-221), Louvain, 1992. Roggema, The Legend = B. Roggema, The Legend of Sergius Baḥīrā. Eastern Christian Apologetics and Apocalyptic in Response to Islam (The History of Christian-Muslims Relations, 9), Leiden – Boston, MA, 2009. Sebēos, Patmut‘iwn = G. Abgaryan (ed.), Patmut‘iwn Sebēosi, Erevan, 1979.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 391 29/11/16 06:05 392 s. la porta

Shapira, Armenian and Georgian Sources = D. Shapira, Armenian and Geor- gian Sources on the Khazars. A Re-evaluation, in Golden et al., World of the Khazars, p. 307-352. Suermann, Use of Biblical Quotations = H. Suermann (ed.), The Use of Biblical Quotations in Christian Apocalyptic Writings of the Umayyad Period, in D. Thomas (ed.), The Bible in Arab Christianity (The History of Christian-Muslim Relations, 6), Leiden – Boston, MA, 2007, p. 69-90. Thomson, Armenian Variations = R.W. Thomson, Armenian Variations on the Baḥira Legend, in Harvard Ukrainian Studies, 3-4 (1979-80), p. 884-895. Thomson, Christian Perception = R.W. Thomson, Christian Perception of His- tory – The Armenian Perspective, in J.J. van Ginkel – H.L. Murre-van den Berg – T.M. van Lint (eds.), Redefining Christian Identity. Cultural Inter- action in the Middle East since the Rise of Islam (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 134), Louvain, 2005, p. 35-44. Thomson, Eḷishē = R.W. Thomson (tr.), Eḷishē, History of Vardan and the Arme- nian War (Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies, 5), Cambridge, MA, 1982. Thomson, History of Łazar P‘arpec‘i = R.W. Thomson (tr.), The History of Łazar P‘arpec‘i, Atlanta, GA, 1991. Thomson, History of the House of Artsrunik‘ = R.W. Thomson (tr.), History of the House of Artsrunik‘, Detroit, MI, 1985. Thomson, Muhammad = R.W. Thomson, Muhammad and the Origin of Islam in Armenian Literary Tradition, in D. Kouymjian (ed.), Armenian Studies / Études arméniennes: in memoriam Haïg Berbérian, Lisbon, 1986, p. 829-858. Thomson – Howard-Johnston, Armenian History = R.W. Thomson – J. Howard- Johnston (tr. and comm.), The Armenian History attributed to Sebeos (2 parts), (Translated Texts for Historians, 31), Liverpool, 1999. T‘ovma Arcruni, Patmut‘iwn = K. Patkanean (ed.), T‘ovma Arcruni, Patmut‘iwn tann Arcruneac‘, St. Petersburg, 1887. van Donzel – Schmidt, Gog and Magog = E. van Donzel – A. Schmidt, Gog and Magog in Early Eastern Christian and Islamic Sources (Brill’s Inner Asian Library, 22), Leiden – Boston, MA, 2010. Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i, Patmut‘iwn = Patmut‘iwn Yovhannu Kat‘ołikosi, Jerusalem, 1867. Yovsēp‘eanc‘, Ankanon Girk‘ = S. Yovsēp‘eanc‘ (ed.), Ankanon Girk‘ Hin Ktakaranac‘ [Non-canonical Books of the Old Testament], Venice, 1896. Yücesoy, Messianic Beliefs = H. Yücesoy, Messianic Beliefs and Imperial Politics in Medieval Islam. The ‘Abbāsid Caliphate in the Early Ninth Cen- tury, Columbia, SC, 2009. Zuckerman, Khazars and Byzantium = C. Zuckerman, The Khazars and Byzantium – The First Encounter, in Golden et al., World of the Khazars, p. 399-432.

California State University, Fresno Sergio La Porta Armenian Studies Program 5245 N. Backer Ave. M/S PB4 Fresno, CA 93740, USA [email protected]

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 392 29/11/16 06:05 THE SENSE OF AN ENDING 393

Abstract — This essay examines the employment of eschatological prophecies by Armenian historiographers between the 7th and 10th centuries. Eschatological perceptions were quite common in the Armenian tradition, particularly when they also appeared in cultures throughout the region. Political upheavals such as the seventh-century Byzantine-Persian wars, the Islamic invasions, and the Abbāsid revolution, as well as the approach of eschatologically marked years such as 800CE or 200AH, and 1000CE, served as touchstones for speculation on the end of the world or for looking at the past through an eschatological lens. On the other hand, there is evidence that indicates that not all members of the Armenian literary elite shared these sentiments. This paper argues that the eighth-century historian Łewond, for example, attempted to de-eschatologize many of the criti- cal historical events that precipitated eschatological tensions.

99279_Museon_2016_3-4_05_LaPorta.indd 393 29/11/16 06:05