SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS: A RE-EVALUATION OF THE ARMENIAN HISTORY ATTRIB- UTED TO SEBEOS Introduction One cannot fail to be impressed by the broad chronological and the- matic parameters of the History attributed to Sebeos1. In time it extends from the Armenian rebellion of 572 under Vardan Mamikonean down to the volatile conditions within Armenia in spring 655. Four additional notices, tacked on to the original conclusion, advance the reach of the work by a further six years to the conclusion of the first fitna and the triumph of Mu‘awiya in 6612. In content, the work recounts episodes from the lives of prominent Armenian princes and successive Armenian Catholicoi as well as reporting a selection of the military engagements fought within the boundaries of what was then perceived to be Armenia. However the historical vision of the text is not restricted to Armenian- focused material. These passages are set in the context of events that take place far beyond the geographical confines of Armenia. The text records the deposition of the Persian king Hormizd IV and the long reign of Khusraw II, the bitter and protracted warfare between the Persian and Roman empires after 603 and the dramatic Arab conquests in the Near East which brought about the elimination of one empire and the emascu- lation of the other. Yet it is important to recognize that the above comprises a superficial overview of the scope of the History attributed to Sebeos. The depth of its coverage is a different matter altogether. Although it spans nine dec- ades, the composition is stretched very unevenly over that period and contains unexpected gaps. Thus whilst the text depicts the progress of the unremitting warfare in the Near East between 603 and 628, and records campaigns affecting Armenia with some diligence, it does not consider the involvement of Armenian princes3. Internal Armenian af- 1 G.V. ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, Erevan, 1979 (= ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Se- beosi). English translation and historical commentary in R.W. THOMSON and J. HOWARD- JOHNSTON, The Armenian History attributed to Sebeos (2 Parts), Liverpool, 1999 (= THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos). 2 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 174.37-176.21. These are discussed in THOMSON/ HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, Part I, p. 151, n. 923 and Part II, p. 281-287. 3 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 106.8-128.26. 324 T.W. GREENWOOD fairs and perceptions during this twenty-five year period are consistently ignored4. This is a notable omission in the light of the earlier narratives describing the actions of Armenian princes in the last decade of the sixth century5. Elsewhere the coverage is frustratingly incomplete. The record of the dismemberment of the Sasanian state jumps from the battle of Nihawand in 642 to the murder of Yazdagird III in 652 without contem- plating the intervening decade of hard-fought campaigns6. This uneven character is reinforced by sudden shifts in chronology, in content and in literary style. The History attributed to Sebeos fluctuates between pas- sages that convey the presumed thoughts and opinions of the protago- nists by way of direct speech or correspondence, and impersonal narra- tives reporting the sequence of events in a sober, restrained fashion7. These preliminary observations all point to the same conclusion, that the History attributed to Sebeos is a compilation of discrete extracts, taken from various sources and then combined in roughly chronological order. Whilst the range of the text is obvious and impressive, its depth of coverage is variable, reflecting the content of the sources available to the compiler and his exploitation of them. As a composite work, the History attributed to Sebeos needs to be handled with particular care. On one level, it reflects the compiler’s own perception of, and explanation for, recent history. Those passages writ- ten by the compiler himself give the best indication of what he thought about his own times, although his selection of material for inclusion is also a useful guide. But at the same time, the text preserves something of the original perspective, structure and content of the underlying sources quarried by the compiler for material. Evidently the compiler was reluctant to rewrite the extracts he took from these sources. As we shall see below, several thematic inconsistencies within the text have been caused by the clash between the views of the compiler and those ex- pressed in his sources. In order to gain a better understanding of the text and its compiler, the History attributed to Sebeos has been subjected to thorough critical scrutiny. For it is only after careful appraisal of the 4 The career of Smbat Bagratuni in the service of king Khusraw II (ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 96.18-104.9) and the account of the capture of Karin and the exile of the Catholicos Abraham (ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 111.32-112-8) provide the only exceptions. 5 The two Vahewuni rebellions: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 87.12-90.7; the fate of those Armenian rebels at the hands of Khusraw II: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 94.5-23 and 95.23-96.14. 6 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 141.10-22 and 163.29-164.6. 7 Compare the conversation between Muse¥ Mamikonean and Khusraw II (ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 80.17-84.14) and the sequence of Persian campaigns inside Arme- nia after 603 (ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 107.31-111.31). SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 325 whole composition and its constituent parts that individual passages can be used with confidence in any historical reconstruction, whether as records of historical fact or as expressions of contemporary opinions and values. This textual evaluation will consider how the History attributed to Sebeos was put together, defining the sources available to the compiler, his arrangement of the extracts derived from them and the imprint of his own understanding of recent events and historical causation. It will ex- amine the circumstances under which the text was compiled and how these determined the shape and form of the text. It will propose, tenta- tively, the identity of its compiler and, more confidently, its patron. The motivation for the writing of history is rarely selfless and reasons under- lying the composition may be discerned. Finally the strengths and weak- nesses of this text for scholars of Armenian and Near-Eastern history will be assessed. 1) Attribution and Title Before defining the underlying sources, it is worth touching briefly upon the traditional attribution and title of the text. The single complete extant manuscript of the text, Matenadaran 2639, copied in the seven- teenth century, is untitled and anonymous8. However the first editor of the work, Mihrdatyan, had no hesitation in following the double identifi- cation of the author and work by Sahxat‘unyanc‘ as the ‘History of Sebeos, bishop of the Bagratunik‘, on the emperor Heraclius’9. Thomson has usefully reviewed the previous research on this issue and distin- guished three separate questions10. Is the text the History of Heraclius? Was it compiled by a historian named Sebeos? Was this Sebeos also a bishop, specifically a bishop of the Bagratunik‘? In relation to the first question, Thomson examined a passage in the tenth-century History of Uxtanes’ Urhayec‘i which borrows explicitly from a History of Heraclius; furthermore he investigated two extracts defined as deriving from the History of Heraclius and preserved by chance in liturgical col- 8 This was implicitly recognized by M. Gyumusxanec‘i who described the text in 1828 as ‘Patmut‘iwn mi anhe¥inak’ or ‘anonymous History’; see Matenadaran 3801, fol. 209b. 9 H. Sahxat‘unyanc‘ in Matenadaran 3801, fol. 142b: ‘Patmut‘iwn Sebeos’ or ‘History of Sebeos’ (1833); and fol. 98a: ‘Sebeosi episkoposi Bagratuneac‘ zHerakl kaysri e’ or ‘of Sebeos, bishop of Bagratunik‘, concerning Herakl, the emperor’ (1837). T‘. MIHR- DATYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi episkoposi i Herakln, Constantinople, 1851. 10 THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. xxxiii-xxxviii. 326 T.W. GREENWOOD lections11. Even a superficial comparison between these extracts and this anonymous text is sufficient to show that there is no relationship be- tween them. Thomson concurred with Mahé: ‘it is clear that a historical work dealing with Heraclius did exist in Armenia, that only fragments survive and that it was not identical with the text now attributed to Sebeos’. With this first question conclusively resolved, the remaining questions become tangential. Although it is clear that by the end of the tenth century, the work entitled ‘History of Heraclius’ was associated with an author named ‘Sebios’12, and that one Sebeos bishop of the Bagratunik‘ had been a signatory to the canons of the Council of Dvin in 64513, neither observation is relevant to this text. The traditional identifi- cation can no longer be sustained; this text is not the History of Heraclius by Sebeos. The longevity of this erroneous identification presents something of a problem. Consistent reference to the text as the History of Heraclius by Sebeos means that it would be very confusing to adopt a new title; it might be misinterpreted as a newly-discovered text. Therefore it shall be referred to as the History attributed to Sebeos; this preserves the connec- tion with the previous scholarship whilst intimating the necessary doubt. 2) The Underlying Sources Unfortunately none of the original sources available to the compiler survive independently of the History attributed to Sebeos. Therefore we are faced the task of trying to work out what he had in front of him from the shape and form of the text itself. Admittedly Matenadaran 2639 does contain occasional internal headings purporting to introduce the source of the subsequent passage, but such explicit references are excep- tional.