Sasanian Echoes and Apocalyptic Expectations: a Re-Evaluation of the Armenian History Attrib- Uted to Sebeos

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 thematic 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 decades, 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 passages that convey the presumed thoughts and opinions of the protagonists by way of direct speech or correspondence, and impersonal narratives 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 written 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 expressed 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 examine 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 underlying 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 identification 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 distinguished 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 between 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 identification 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 connection 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. The chapter divisions and headings do not provide any assistance in this respect because they were inserted in the nineteenth century. For the most part, the compiler chose not to cite the sources or to announce 11 Uxtanes Urhayec‘i Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘, Va¥arsapat, 1871, ch. 35. The extracts are examined by J.-P. MAHÉ, Critical Remarks on the Newly-Edited Excerpts from Sebeos, in T.J. SAMUELIAN and M.E. STONE, Medieval Armenian Culture (University of Pennsylva- nia Armenian Texts and Studies, 6), Chico CA, 1984, p. 218-239. They are quoted in ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 429-433. The headings of the two extracts read ‘From the history of Herak¥ concerning the sack of Jerusalem and the conveying into captivity of the holy wooden cross to Persia’ and ‘In relation to the holy cross from the histories of Herakl’. 12 S. MALXASEANC‘, Step‘anosi Taronec‘woy Patmut‘iwn Tiezerakan, St. Petersburg, 1885, p. 7. 13 V. HAKOBYAN, Kanonagirk‘ Hayoc‘, 2 vols., Erevan, 1964, 1971, vol. II, p. 214 (= HAKOBYAN, Kanonagirk‘). SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 327 when he moved from one source to another. However close textual scrutiny reveals that the individual components were not broken down and absorbed into a seamless narrative. Instead they were patched together. The transition between successive extracts is often abrupt, being charac- terized by a sudden change of subject or of literary style, or by an unexpected leap forwards or backwards in time. These dislocations disrupt the narrative progression and allow us to discern several distinct sources. a) Documents The presence of several original headings in the manuscript was noted above. Three of these introduce complete documents. The two letters exchanged between the Armenian Catholicos Komitas and Modestos, the acting head of the church in Jerusalem after its capture by the Per- sians in 614, are both prefaced by a short heading: ‘To Lord Komitas’ and ‘The Response of Kumitas (sic.)’14. The third heading appears immediately above the lengthy draft document prepared in defence of the Armenian doctrinal position found towards the end of the text15. There may be a fourth heading although this introduces a fragment from a separate letter, inserted incongruously between the exchange of correspondence involving Komitas and Modestos16. As both Thomson and Howard-Johnston have concluded, these ecclesiastical documents should be accepted as authentic17. Prima facie there is a significant correlation between the incidence of headings in the manuscript and contemporary, authentic documents. b) The ‘Royal History’ Towards the beginning of the History attributed to Sebeos, the manuscript contains another original heading made up of two elements:

14 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 116.15 and 118.18. It is intriguing to note that both letters are perceived in terms of Komitas, even though it was Modestos who had composed the first; this suggests that they were filed in an Armenian collection of correspondence. 15 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 148.22-26: ‘Copy of the reply to the letter which came to Armenia from the king of the Romans Constans, which the bishops of Ar- menia and the Catholicos Nerses wrote with the nobles and the commander T‘eodoros lord of Rstunik‘’. 16 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 118.8-9: ‘And this is the letter of reply which the Armenians wrote to Jerusalem, to the emperor’. The fragment which follows looks as though it derives from the introduction to a letter composed on the occasion of Heraclius’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem on 21st March 630, when the True Cross was restored. Could these letters have been extracted from a folder of Armenian ecclesiastical correspondence with Jerusalem? 17 THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. liv-lvi and lxiii. 328 T.W. GREENWOOD

‘Chronological Text’ and ‘Royal History’18. Successive passages record the rule and deposition of Hormizd IV, the rebellion of Bahram Chubin and the flight and eventual restoration of Khusraw II19. The titles preface passages describing the crisis in the Sasanian succession at the end of the sixth century. As with the earlier headings, they refer to an anterior work exploited by the compiler, one that had something to do with Sasanian royal history. This brings us face to face with a difficult and contentious issue, namely the Sasanian historiographical tradition. Be- fore considering the contribution of this text, it is worth reviewing, albeit briefly, the current state of debate. All historians of the Sasanian empire have come up against the same fundamental problem: how to overcome the almost complete lack of contemporary records and literature, historical or otherwise, in Middle Persian. The approach taken by the majority has been to examine those non-Persian texts containing passages about Sasanian Persia and to argue that these reflect traces of that tradition20. Since the bulk of the relevant passages have been preserved within Arabic historical compositions, these have attracted the greatest attention. Nöldeke was the first scholar to pursue this line of enquiry, in his translation and commentary of the relevant sections of al-™abari’s Ta’rikh al-rusul wa’l-muluk, and his work remains the cornerstone of modern scholarship21. In his analy-

18 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 72.1-2; THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. 13, n. 89: ‘Matean Zamanakean’ or ‘Chronological Text’ and ‘Patmut‘iwn t‘agawo- rakan’ or ‘Royal History’. 19 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 72.28-80.11. 20 See for example A. CHRISTENSEN, L’Iran sous les Sassanides, Copenhagen, 1944 (= CHRISTENSEN, L’Iran); F. ALTHEIM and R. STIEHL, Ein asiatischer Staat. Feudalismus unter den Sasaniden und ihren Nachbarn, Wiesbaden, 1954; R.N. FRYE, The History of Ancient Iran, Munich, 1984; K. SCHIPPMANN, Grundzüge der Geschichte des sasani- dischen Reiches, Darmstadt, 1990. The minority view has been to adopt a far more sceptical attitude, arguing that the versions of Sasanian history presented by the Arabic historians are likely to have undergone distortion, suppression and invention in the course of transmission and that these cannot be relied upon. See, for example, J. HOWARD-JOHN- STON, The Two Great Powers in Late Antiquity: A Comparison, in A. CAMERON, The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East III. States, Resources and Armies, Princeton, 1995, p. 157-226. Howard-Johnston relies upon material evidence in his reconstruction of the main structural features of the Sasanian empire. However it is important to remember that material evidence has often been interpreted through the literary sources, thereby reducing its value as an independent witness. Also see J. WIESEHÖFER, Ancient Persia, Lon- don, 1996, p. 159. Wiesehöfer classes works of ‘Perso-Arab historiography’ as tertiary sources because their transmission of Sasanian material went through several stages: ‘it was written down and revised or edited in the late Sasanian period, translated and arranged in the early Islamic period, and made to conform with the specific Muslim conception of history. To what extent information about the early Sasanian period was inten- tionally disturbed or organically altered in this process cannot altogether be determined.’ 21 T. NÖLDEKE, Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit der Sasaniden aus der arabischen Chronik des Tabari, Leiden, 1879 (= NÖLDEKE, Sasaniden). SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 329 sis of the sources for al-™abari’s version of Sasanian history, Nöldeke detected two principal lines of narrative within al-™abari’s Ta’rikh, run- ning parallel to one another, and maintained that one of these derived from the lost Arabic translation of a lost Pahlavi Book of the Lords or Khwaday-namag, made by Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ in the eighth century22. Al- though he did not identify the origin of the other strand, beyond suggesting that it was from a later work, Rubin has recently revisited this subject and argued that this second strand also derives from the same translation made by Ibn al-Muqaffa‘23. The eagerness of both scholars to trace these strands of Sasanian history back to Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ is understandable, particularly as both strands appear to preserve reliable information. Their interpretation renders the chain of transmission from Pahlavi text to al-™abari’s Ta’rikh as short as possible, thereby reducing the opportunity for reworking by intermediate writers. At the same time, it links the translation from Pahlavi into Arabic to a named scholar. However on closer in- spection, the connection between the lost translation by Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ and either narrative strand in al-™abari’s Ta’rikh is assumed rather than proven. Al-™abari does not acknowledge Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ as a source. Nöldeke based his attribution upon a similarity between al-™abari’s narrative and the account of Sasanian history preserved in Ibn Qutaybah’s Kitab al-ma‘arif, even though Ibn Qutaybah only refers directly to Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ in another of his works, the Kitab ‘uyun al-akhbar24. The chain is not as secure as it might appear. Rubin’s argument is no less elaborate, positing the existence of two versions of the Arabic translation by Ibn al-Muqaffa‘, one longer and one shorter Siyar al-muluk, with the former containing both strands25. This provides the second strand of narrative with a secure provenance, thereby supporting Rubin’s contention that the description of Khusraw I Anusharwan’s administrative reforms found within that second strand is authentic26. Yet the proposition that the lost Khwaday-namag translated by Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ necessarily preserved valuable historical information about the Sasanian empire remains an assumption, based largely on its eighth-century translation by

22 NÖLDEKE, Sasaniden, p. xx-xxii. 23 Z. RUBIN, Al-™abari and the Age of the Sasanians, in L. CONRAD, Al-™abari: A Me- dieval Muslim Historian and his Work (Princeton, forthcoming), p. 80-81 (= RUBIN, Al- ™abari). I am very grateful to Professor Rubin for his permission to cite this article. 24 NÖLDEKE, Sasaniden p. 121, n. 1 and p.126, n. 4. 25 RUBIN, Al-™abari, p. 80. 26 Z. RUBIN, The Reforms of Khusro Anushirwan, in A. CAMERON, The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East III. States, Resources and Armies, Princeton, 1995, p. 227-297 (= RUBIN, Reforms); RUBIN, Al-™abari, p. 79 and n. 70. 330 T.W. GREENWOOD

Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ and his scholarly reputation. Neither of these guarantees the historical reliability of the Pahlavi source. In much the same way, although Nöldeke and many other scholars have argued that Firdawsi’s Shahnama should be regarded as proof of the ‘fundamental historicity’ of al-™abari’s Ta’rikh because it reflects the lost Khwaday-namag in a collateral line, this argument assumes that this Khwaday-namag was historically reliable; it does not prove its historical accuracy27. In fact as Rubin and others have noted, by the tenth century, there was a great proliferation of translations and would-be translations bearing the title Khwaday-namag or Siyar al-muluk al-Fars. Hamzah al-Isfahani possessed eight such books and the author of one of these, Bahram ibn Mardanshah, claimed to own twenty whilst another scholar, Musa ibn ‘Isa al-Kisrawi asserted that he had read and compared many and found them all to be different28. Instead of seeking to establish a link between the relevant material that has survived in later works and the lost translation produced by Ibn al-Muqaffa‘, tempting though that is, it seems pref- erable to envisage that an unknown number of parallel, arguably contradictory, accounts of Sasanian origin survived in written form long after the collapse of the Sasanian empire, and were translated, reworked and developed to a greater or lesser extent over time. This is not to deny that the passages recording Sasanian history in al-™abari’s Ta’rikh do not stand out within that composition as a whole. It is significant, for example, that these passages derive their basic chronological structure from the reigns of Sasanian kings rather than following the annalistic framework of individual year-entries used subsequently by al-™abari. It is clear that this biographical structure reflects the form of earlier sources. However questions about the original content of such sources and the degree to which they were altered in the course of transmission will remain hidden if one limits the search for traces of the Sasanian historiographical tradition to these later Arabic texts. Without independent corroboration, their historical reliability cannot be assumed. This has prompted scholars to examine other potential havens for Sasanian historical writing. The best known of these is a sixth-century Greek history text composed by Agathias. He was a lawyer and historian based in Constantino- ple who sought to pick up the historical thread from where Procopius had left off writing his History. Agathias died a short time before the succession of the emperor Maurice in 582, having, it seems, advanced

27 NÖLDEKE, Sasaniden, p. xxiii-xxv; RUBIN, Al-™abari, p. 81; RUBIN, Reforms, p. 234- 236. 28 RUBIN, Al-™abari, p. 78-79. SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 331 the work only to 55929. Just over thirty years ago, Cameron produced a detailed commentary upon an excursus on Sasanian dynastic history incorporated by Agathias into his composition30. Agathias stated that his study of successive Sasanian kings, from Shabur I to Khusraw I Anusharwan had been based on material extracted and translated by an interpreter named Sergius from the basilik¬n âpomnjmoneumátwn or ‘Royal Annals’ to which he had been given access during a visit to Per- sia31. Ostensibly therefore, Agathias’ excursus represents the earliest witness to a Sasanian historical tradition and the keeping of official Sasanian records. However when Cameron examined the excursus, she found that it did not fit comfortably with Agathias’ confident assertions about its origin. In the first place, the survey of Sasanian history is brief and incomplete. Indeed it seems that Agathias had to rely upon Procopius for his portraits of Bahram V and Kawad I, perhaps implying that the source used by Sergius did not extend beyond 48832. More seriously, its tone is the opposite of what one would have anticipated in official Sasanian annals. Several of the greatest Sasanian kings are disparaged whilst less successful rulers are praised. Thus Shabur I is described as ‘wicked’, someone who ‘did great harm to the Romans’ and who was ‘puffed up with pride’ when enjoying his ‘ill-won gains’33. By contrast, Yazdagird I, tradition- ally ‘the sinful one’ with many character flaws, is described by Agathias as ‘friendly and peaceful who never once made war on the Romans’34. Walash, who is usually portrayed as being hated by the Zoroastrian clergy for his favour towards Christians, is described as ‘mild and gentle of character’35. It is very hard to see how these portraits could have been lifted from official Persian records36. Moreover events receive similar treatment. Thus the surrender of Nisibis is viewed within the excursus as

29 R. KEYDELL, Agathiae Myrinaei Historiarum Libri Quinque, Berlin, 1967, Preface 14-21 (= KEYDELL, Agathiae); J. FRENDO, Agathias the Historian, Berlin, 1975, p. ix-x (= FRENDO, Agathias); A. CAMERON, Agathias, Oxford, 1970, p. 1-11 (= CAMERON, Aga- thias). 30 A. CAMERON, Agathias on the Sassanians, in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 23-24 (1969), p. 69-183 (= CAMERON, Sassanians). 31 KEYDELL, Agathiae, IV.30.2-4. They are also described as t¬n Persik¬n bibl¬n and to⁄v Periko⁄v xeirográfoiv: Agathiae, IV.30.2 and IV.30.5. 32 KEYDELL, Agathiae, IV.27.1-2 and IV.27.6-29.5; CAMERON, Sassanians, p. 151, 155 and 158: ‘The account of Cavadh is interesting based as it is largely on Procopius…he openly corrects Procopius only once yet in the vaguest terms and without giving an alternative version’. 33 KEYDELL, Agathiae, IV.24.2-4. 34 KEYDELL, Agathiae, IV.26.8. 35 KEYDELL, Agathiae, IV.27.5. 36 CAMERON, Sassanians, p. 113. 332 T.W. GREENWOOD part of a ‘shameful, disgraceful truce, so bad that it is even now harmful to the Roman state’37. This surely reflects a Roman rather than a Sasanian view of that truce. Cameron advanced two arguments for the limited coverage and hostile tone of Agathias’ presentation of Sasanian dynastic history. Agathias himself stated that Sergius took ‘the names and dates and principal events and put them into Greek’38. Cameron understood this to mean that the interpreter had summarized the records he was shown39. For Cameron, this explained the discrepancies between Agathias’ skeletal account and subsequent versions of Sasanian history40. Secondly she argued that Sergius was also responsible for giving the work both a Syrian — and hence Roman — and a Christian spin. This explained the particular sympathies adduced within the excursus. Agathias had no way of evaluating the material he received from Sergius and had to take it on trust that it all came from the ‘official’ source41. Cameron therefore interpreted the excursus as based upon an abbreviated translation of the Royal Annals, themselves selective, all seen from the viewpoint of and thus reflecting the attitude of the interpreter, Sergius. However if one accepts all of these qualifications and strips away all of the material that is in some way compromised, there is very little left that may be attributed with confidence to an official Sasanian history. Rather than working from the premise that Agathias’ statement for the origin of his Sasanian excursus is true, and then having to excuse the character of much of the material, it seems much easier to turn the argument the other way around, in other words to postulate a different source for that material and then consider how and why Agathias went to such pains to assert a Persian origin. It seems more probable that Agathias had access to an incomplete, hostile summary of Sasanian dynastic history, reflecting Christian and Roman sympathies, which he then had to supplement with information derived from Procopius.42 This interpretation avoids the otherwise complicated argument, that Sergius not only abbreviated the Royal Annals but also reworked them. It also sidesteps the difficult issue of assessing the likelihood that a Roman interpreter would have been afforded access to official Sasanian records at any time, least of all after decades of warfare.

37 KEYDELL, Agathiae, IV.25.7; CAMERON, Sassanians, p. 145-146. 38 KEYDELL, Agathiae, IV.30.4. 39 CAMERON, Sassanians, p. 114. 40 CAMERON, Sassanians, p. 166. 41 CAMERON, Sassanians, p. 113. 42 It would also explain the otherwise problematic presence of a Seleucid date at the start of the excursus. See KEYDELL, Agathiae, IV.24.1. SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 333

Why then did Agathias assert such an impressive origin? It is possible that he genuinely believed that he had obtained information excerpted from an official source. But there is a persuasive alternative proposition, that Agathias invented this fiction for his own purposes. The excursus concludes by explaining the origin of the material and stating that, in the event of conflict between Agathias’ presentation of Persian history and that of Procopius, his should be preferred43. The close relationship between the two historians has long been recognized. In the Preface to his work, Agathias acknowledges his debt to Procopius, admitting his intention to pick up from where Procopius left off44. In this passage, Agathias openly holds himself out for comparison with Procopius. The elaborate origin for his Sasanian excursus allowed him to proclaim his superior historical skill; in securing such an exotic source, he had surpassed even Procopius. Nor did Agathias have to look very far for his inspiration. Herodotus, Thucydides and Diodoros all relate how the keeping of Per- sian royal records was an Achaemenid practice45. The debt owed by Agathias to all three authors was recognized long ago, even though the nature and extent of that imitation is disputed46. Therefore Agathias ap- propriated this tradition and applied it to the present day in order to advance his reputation as a historian. This does not mean that Agathias’ Sasanian excursus is without historical merit or historiographical interest. Agathias was able to locate and exploit a written source for Sasanian dynastic history, albeit one that took a hostile approach towards its subject. As we shall see, the biographical character of that source is significant. However there are good reasons to doubt whether official historical records were maintained at the Sasanian court during this period. Furthermore the incomplete and inimical nature of the excursus makes it inconceivable that it could have been made from such records. In summary therefore, not only are there serious drawbacks in attempting to reconstruct the Sasanian historiographical tradition solely on the basis of relevant passages preserved in later Arabic historical compositions; the excursus on Sasanian history incorporated by Agathias within his Histories cannot be used as evi-

43 KEYDELL, Agathiae, IV.30.5. 44 KEYDELL, Agathiae, Preface 21-32. 45 Herodotus VII.100.1, VIII.90.4; Thucydides I.129.3; Diodorus II.32.4 46 A. CAMERON, Herodotus and Thucydides in Agathias, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 57 (1964), p. 32-53. Cameron challenges Franke’s thesis that Agathias had intimate knowledge of Herodotus’ text, arguing that he confined his imitation to images from the accounts of the battles of Thermopylae and Platea and hackneyed quotations from lexical handbooks. She added that Agathias’ Thucydidean borrowings were selective, obvious and familiar. 334 T.W. GREENWOOD dence for the keeping of official records at the Persian court or as an example of contemporary Sasanian historical writing. Having recognized these problems, let us return to the History attributed to Sebeos. Although the potential contribution of Armenian texts to the reconstruction of Sasanian history has long been recognized, the possibility that Armenian historical texts may also have a contribution to make to the reconstruction of the lost Sasanian historiographical tradition has tended to be ignored47. Yet the conjunction of the heading ‘Royal His- tory’ and the Sasanian orientation of the passages beneath indicate that the History attributed to Sebeos may supply a fresh insight into this complex subject. Before embarking on a study of these passages, it is worth stressing that this text has two principal strengths, both of which are discussed below. There can be no doubt that it was compiled in the mid-seventh century. It therefore predates all of the Arabic reflections of Sasanian historical writing by at least two centuries. Secondly its particular interpretation of current circumstances rapidly became obsolete. It did not become a popular or influential text in the corpus of Armenian literature. This peripheral quality ensured that it was not reworked or updated. In other words, its version of Sasanian history is both early and unlikely to have been tampered with in the course of transmission. As the heading ‘Royal History’ indicates, the text records events and circumstances in the lives of successive Sasanian kings from Hormizd IV down to the accession of Yazdagird III. Perhaps unsurprisingly in the light of his longevity and achievements, Khusraw II Abarwez is afforded the greatest exposure. However he is portrayed in a very particular way. His reign is presented in three phases: a disputed succession and unset- tled early years, the long war against Byzantium and his own dramatic deposition and execution in 62848. In each phase, Khusraw II is viewed primarily in terms of his interaction with his principal opponents: Bahram Chubin, the emperor Maurice, his maternal uncles Binduyah and Bistam, Heraclius and ultimately his son Kawad II Sheroy49. The relationships are defined through a blend of narrative and direct and reported speech. These passages tell us more about the original author’s understanding of, and explanation for, the recent past and should not be interpreted as necessarily reflecting the genuine attitudes of the protago-

47 CHRISTENSEN, L’Iran, p. 77-79. See also P. GIGNOUX, Pour une Évaluation de la Contribution des Sources Arméniennes à l’Histoire sassanide, in Acta Antiqua Acade- miae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 31 (1985-1986), p. 53-65. 48 Contested accession: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 72.28-84.32; Near-eastern warfare: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 106.8-126.10; deposition of Khusraw II and subsequent political turmoil: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 126.11-130.34. 49 See for example the negotiations between Khusraw II and Maurice: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 76.8-77.4 and 80.17-81. SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 335 nists. Khusraw II is allowed to inhabit certain contexts only, carefully selected by the author. Close examination reveals further complexities in the text’s approach to Sasanian history. Just as Cameron observed inherent Christian and Syrian sympathies within Agathias’ excursus, so unmistakable Arme- nian and Christian influences can be detected in this text’s coverage of Sasanian affairs. Thus prior to the decisive battle in 591, Khusraw II’s rival, Bahram Chubin negotiates with the Armenian prince Muse¥ Mamikonean, offering him swathes of Armenian territory in return for his support50. As Thomson has observed, the definition of the Armenian territory offered by him to Muse¥ bears an uncanny resemblance to a passage in an earlier Armenian text, that of Agat‘ange¥os, describing the area converted by St. Grigor the Illuminator. Or again, when reporting the agreement between Khusraw II and Maurice in 590, the partition of Armenia is presented as the principal condition and is defined in the greatest detail51. Finally the provocative letter allegedly sent by Khusraw II to Heraclius in 624 is based upon several pertinent Old Testament passages, foremost among which is Isaiah’s description of Sennacharib’s ultimatum to king Hezekiah52. The description of Heraclius’ reaction to this letter is based upon the reaction of Hezekiah reported by Isaiah53. Both the letter and the subsequent passage were influenced by the same Biblical passage and can only have been composed by a Christian. Given that the text is a compilation, a further question arises: were these Armenian and Christian sympathies already present in the underlying source exploited by the compiler for his account of Sasanian history or whether they were added by the compiler? The underlying source does not survive as an independent text. How- ever something of its original structure and content prior to any reworking and inflation by the compiler of the History attributed to Sebeos may be recovered by turning to a later, tenth-century Armenian historical work put together by T‘ovma Arcruni54. Until now it has always been

50 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 77.18-79.6 and THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos p. 21, n. 151. 51 The offer by Khusraw II of specified Syrian and Armenian territory in return for military assistance from emperor Maurice and peace thereafter: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 76.8-18; the definition of the territory that was actually conceded: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 84.24-29. 52 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 123.15-33; Isaiah 36.16-17, 19-20. THOMSON/ HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. 80, n. 496 and n. 498. 53 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 124.1-5; Isaiah 37.1, 14. See also THOMSON/ HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. 80, n. 500. 54 K‘. PATKANEAN, Patmut‘iwn Tann Arcruneac‘, St. Petersburg, 1887; repr. Tiflis, 1917; Delmar NY, 1991 (= PATKANEAN, T‘ovma). English translation by R.W. THOMSON, Thomas Artsruni: History of the House of the Artsrunik‘, Detroit, 1985 (= THOMSON, Thomas Artsruni). 336 T.W. GREENWOOD assumed that T‘ovma simply turned to a copy of the History attributed to Sebeos for his account of late sixth and early seventh-century Sasanian history55. In fact, it seems far more likely that the relationship between the two Armenian texts is indirect. T‘ovma did not exploit the History attributed to Sebeos. Instead he drew upon the same source for Sasanian history previously used in the compilation of that earlier text. In the Preface to his work, T‘ovma addressed his sponsor, almost cer- tainly Gagik prince of Vaspurakan, and stated the central purpose of his work: ‘In the narrative of this book I shall indicate the genealogy and nature/condition of your ancestors…I shall set out in this history the least and small- est remnants of records relative to events and places from the earlier and previous historians of our native lords of the family of Arcrunik‘ so that their valour and virtue may be clearly revealed by name, place and time. I shall enquire into the essential thoughts as the inspiration for the structure of these words: who they were, and when, from whom, where, how, how many, what sort they were, in what manner they conducted themselves and to which heads they submitted.’56 Given this very precise statement of intent, it is most surprising to dis- cover that the four members of the Arcruni family who are mentioned explicitly at different points in the History attributed to Sebeos do not appear in T‘ovma’s History57. Admittedly three of these figures occur only in lists of names without further definition but the killing of Vasak Arcruni by the Persians is described briefly. Apparently even his enemies mourned his death, recalling his ‘valour and bravery’. On the basis of T‘ovma’s own conception of the remit of his composition, one would have expected at least Vasak to feature somewhere in the text. T‘ovma’s ignorance of all four Arcruni family members, and indeed any Armenian with the exception of Muse¥ Mamikonean, strongly suggests that he did not have the History attributed to Sebeos at his disposal. Nev- ertheless, the near-verbatim correspondence between the two texts still needs to be explained58. If T‘ovma did not have the History attributed to

55 THOMSON, Thomas Artsruni, p. 35: ‘his account of the fall of the Sasanian dynasty is taken verbatim from that writer’s (i.e. Sebeos’) History’. In THOMSON/HOWARD- JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. xxxv, Thomson reiterated this view: ‘But none of his (T‘ovma’s) sources did he copy so exactly as Sebeos…’ Howard-Johnston accepted this approach: THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. 156-157. 56 PATKANEAN, T‘ovma, p. 3-4. The above translation differs in several respects from that in THOMSON, Thomas Artsruni, p. 63-64. 57 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 94.14: Vardan; p. 101.13: Varazsapuh; and p. 112.13-19: Vasak, son of Sahak the prince of Arcrunik‘. 58 The offer by Khusraw II of specified Syrian and Armenian territory in return for military assistance from emperor Maurice and peace thereafter: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 76.8-18 and PATKANEAN, T‘ovma, p. 85-86; the definition of the territory con- SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 337

Sebeos in front of him, he can only have had one of the principal sources incorporated within that text. The argument that T‘ovma did not exploit the History attributed to Sebeos also explains why the description of the Arab conquests and the career of MuÌammad found in book II chapter 4 of T‘ovma Arcruni’s History is so different to the record of these events in the History attributed to Sebeos. With the exception of two short notices, distantly related to material found in the earlier text, T‘ovma’s version is independent. It supplies a pejorative account of MuÌammad’s life, his teaching and in- spiration59. By contrast, the History attributed to Sebeos contains a far more balanced and dispassionate summary. The most straightforward explanation for this sudden divergence is that the common source ended with the succession of Yazdagird III, compelling both compilers to fashion their own reconstructions. T‘ovma’s recourse to a new chapter at this point is consistent with this argument, as is the presence of a parentheti- cal phrase at the equivalent place in the History attributed to Sebeos60. These thematic and structural arguments indicate that the common source concluded with the accession of Yazdagird III. Therefore book II chapter 3 of the History of T‘ovma Arcruni provides invaluable information about the structure and content of this anterior source, the projected ‘Royal History’. Two principal features of that source stand out. Firstly it is clear that its presentation of Sasanian dynastic history possessed a distinctive Armenian and Christian character before it was exploited by the compiler of the History attributed to Sebeos. The passages attesting these characteristics, defined above, oc- ceded: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 84.24-29 and PATKANEAN, T‘ovma, p. 88; the siege and capture of Jerusalem: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 115.23-116.13 and PATKANEAN, T‘ovma, p. 89; and the events surrounding the deposition of Khusraw II and the accession of Kawad II: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 126.25-129.24 and PATKANEAN, T‘ovma, p. 94-96. T‘ovma’s description of Heraclius’ campaign in 624 (PATKANEAN, T‘ovma, p. 92) corresponds closely with that found in the History attributed to Sebeos (ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 124.22-27), both in terms of substance and language. However it contains additional material, noting for example that Heraclius passed through Sirak, that Ormi was attacked as well as Naxcavan and that the regions of Hamadan and May were plundered in addition to Ganjak in Atrpatakan. Although this discrepancy has previously been explained in terms of the loss of material from the His- tory attributed to Sebeos in the course of transmission, the new indirect relationship between the texts asserted above permits the argument that the two compilers exploited the underlying source slightly differently. 59 Resonances in respect of the Jewish revolt in Edessa and subsequent discussions with Muhammad: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 134.21-35 and PATKANEAN, T‘ovma, p. 98-99. Dissonances: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 135.1-137.3 and PATKANEAN, T‘ovma, p. 99-101 and 102-103. 60 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 130.34 and n. 450. The phrase is ‘ays e’, ‘it is this’, corrected by Abgaryan to ‘amen’. 338 T.W. GREENWOOD cur in both texts. The common source was an Armenian rather than a Persian composition. At the same time however, the Sasanian orientation of that source is unmistakable. The outline of the reign of Khusraw II obtained from the History attributed to Sebeos and sketched above emerges in even sharper relief. Narrative passages reporting his accession and demise are separated by an impressionistic summary of the three decades of Persian-Roman warfare in which the military action has been condensed into four set-pieces: a description of the fall of Jerusa- lem in 614, a report of the lengthy speech made by Heraclius before the Persian commander Sahen in 615, the derogatory letter from Khusraw II to Heraclius and the latter’s reaction, and several confused fragments about Heraclius’ campaigns after 62461. As we shall see, this profile of the reign of Khusraw II is far from unique. The above analysis does not establish a direct link between an original Pahlavi source and the History attributed to Sebeos. It extends the chain of transmission, postulating an Armenian composition focused primarily upon Sasanian dynastic history, a work for which the second of the original headings would be well suited. If the History attributed to Sebeos preserves an impression of the Sasanian historiographical tradition, it does so through this underlying Armenian composition. This being so, to what extent was that composition based upon or influenced by the Sasanian historiographical tradition? Given the dearth of sources in Pahlavi, it is impossible to prove a direct relationship between the ‘Royal History’ incorporated within the History attributed to Sebeos and such a text. However in addition to its consistent interest in Sasanian history, three separate arguments can be advanced which, when taken together, constitute persuasive evidence for a close connection between that text and a Pahlavi original. The first hurdle to overcome is to show that material originally in Pahlavi could become embedded within contemporary Armenian compositions. The long recension of a seventh-century Armenian geographical compilation known as the Asxarhac‘oyc‘ illustrates that process of transition62. A short passage towards the end of that work has long been

61 All four passages are found in both texts. Capture of Jerusalem: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 115.5-116.13 and PATKANEAN, T‘ovma, p. 89. Heraclius’ speech to Sahen: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 122.12-123.7 and PATKANEAN, T‘ovma, p. 89-91. Khusraw’s letter to Heraclius and his reaction: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 123.15-124.5 and PATKANEAN, T‘ovma, p. 91-92. Heraclius’ campaigns: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 124.5-126.35 and PATKANEAN, T‘ovma, p. 92-94. 62 A. SOUKRY, Asxarhac‘oyc‘ Movsesi Xorenac‘woy, Venice, 1881 (= SOUKRY, Asxarhac‘oyc‘), reprinted, together with a facsimile of the unique manuscript upon which it was based, in R.H. HEWSEN, Ashkharhatsoyts, Delmar NY, 1994. English translation and commentary in R.H. HEWSEN, The Geography of Ananias of Sirak (Asxarhac‘oyc‘), Wiesbaden, 1992 (= HEWSEN, Geography). SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 339 appreciated as an invaluable guide to the provincial structure of the late Sasanian empire63. Less well known is its contribution to our understanding of the formation of the Asxarhac‘oyc‘. As Hewsen has noted, the text departs from its structural template, Pappus of Alexandria’s now lost Khorographia Oikoumenike, itself based upon Ptolemy’s Geogra- phia, to incorporate a separate passage defining the four divisions of the Sasanian empire and their administrative subdivisions64. Thereafter the text picks up from where it left off and, following Ptolemy once more, revisits this same area in the context of the Parthian empire. The disruption caused by this short passage shows that it must be an interpolation from another source. Critically it uses Pahlavi expressions transliterated into Armenian for the four administrative divisions within the Sasanian empire: K‘ust i Xorbaran, K‘ust i Nmroj, K‘ust i Xorasan and K‘ust i Kapkoh65. Each is followed by an Armenian explanation; so ‘K‘ust i Xorbaran which is the western region’, ‘K‘ust i Nmroj which is the middle region which is south’, ‘K‘ust i Xorasan which is the region of the east’ and ‘K‘ust i Kapkoh which is of the Caucasus mountains’. Moreo- ver we find that the Pahlavi terms for region in the Caucasus again re- quire Armenian equivalents: ‘Armn (which is) Hayk‘, Varjan which is Virk‘, Ran which is A¥uank‘…’66. The need to define Armn is particularly striking. The transliteration from Pahlavi, coupled with the evident need to provide the equivalent Armenian term, proves that this Sasanian administrative summary was originally in Pahlavi. Although the circumstances under which that passage was translated into Armenian cannot be determined, its presence within the Asxarhac‘oyc‘ proves that written Pahlavi documents were available and accessible to contemporary Ar- menian authors. Secondly, the History attributed to Sebeos is not the only Armenian historical work to interpret events primarily through the actions and de-

63 SOUKRY, Asxarhac‘oyc‘, p. 40; HEWSEN, Geography, p. 72. See J. MARQUART, Eransahr nach der Geographie des Ps. Movses Chorenac‘i, Berlin, 1901. 64 HEWSEN, Geography, p. 28-32 and 234, n. 8. 65 J. MARKWART, A Catalogue of the Provincial Capitals of Eransahr, Rome, 1931, p. 25, where Kust, Kustak is identified as the Middle Persian for side or flank: see also HEWSEN, Geography, p. 228, n. 2. This short Pahlavi treatise of uncertain date is also divided into four quarters: Kust-i xvarasan, Kust-i xvarbaran, Kust-i nemoc and Kust-i Aturpatakan. The sequence is different but three of the four are identical to those found in the Asxarhac‘oyc‘. This treatise is an intriguing fusion of administrative and epic information, which may illustrate how Sasanian records, or the tradition of Sasanian record- keeping, were transformed, gaining a literary function as their original administrative function reduced. 66 SOUKRY, Asxarhac‘oyc‘, p. 40; HEWSEN, Geography, 72. The Asxarhac‘oyc‘ contains another much more detailed description of the Caucasus: SOUKRY, Asxarhac‘oyc‘, p. 33; HEWSEN, Geography, p. 65, 65A. 340 T.W. GREENWOOD cisions of Khusraw II. Although the History of A¥uank‘ attributed to Movses Dasxuranc‘i was compiled in the second decade of the tenth century, it preserves extracts taken from much older sources, one of which traced the turmoil that engulfed the region of A¥uank‘ after 62467. Once again the Persian king is the central figure. The narrative records the negotiations conducted by both Khusraw II and Heraclius with a Turkic leader named Sat‘, as a result of which he joined forces with Heraclius against Khusraw68. The warfare is portrayed as, and by implication understood in terms of, a personal struggle between these figures. Their exchanges should not be viewed as a reflection of the offers and threats made by the parties but rather as an attempt by the author to explain the subsequent devastation of A¥uank‘ by Sat‘ and the end of Sasanian control. The narrative then veers away to record the origins, the progress and the aftermath of the coup against Khusraw II69. Its account is different from, but largely complementary to, that found in the History attributed to Sebeos70. Just as Armenian and Christian concerns can be detected within the relevant passages from the History attributed to Sebeos, so the impression of Khusraw II within the History of A¥uank‘ possesses an Albanian perspective. This focus is developed through the fusion of these passages with local records describing in remarkable detail the devastating impact of enemy (i.e. Roman and Turkic) forces upon A¥uank‘ in the period 624-63071. Again it is important to stress that it is not possible to iso- late a Persian text within the History of A¥uank‘. Nevertheless the profile of Khusraw II is essentially similar to that found in the History attributed to Sebeos. Both texts reflect a similar understanding of historical causation and the principal role of Khusraw II. They both articulate his deter- mining role through spurious exchanges with his leading opponents.

67 V. ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Ka¥ankatuac‘i: Patmut‘iwn A¥uanic‘ Asxarhi, Erevan, 1983, p. 127.4-170.15 (= ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i). English translation by C.J.F. DOWSETT, The History of the Caucasian Albanians by Movses Dasxuranc‘i (London Oriental Series, 8), London, 1961, p. 76-92 (= DOWSETT, History). 68 ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 133.16-135.4 and 140.17-143.20. 69 ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 146.7-149.14. 70 Thus both texts allege that Khusraw’s uncompromising treatment of one of his gen- erals, Rocveh, aroused great antagonism and precipitated his downfall: ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 145.3-146.4; ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 127.16-24. 71 Wintering of Heraclius: ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 131.20-133.11; campaigns of Jebu Xakan: ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 135.5-137.19; the pressures upon Viroy: ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 149.18-163.22. Collectively, these passages provide a remarkable insight into the political, social and administrative struc- tures operating within a peripheral province of the Sasanian kingdom, as well as contemporary attitudes and expectations for the future. These will be examined in greater detail in a forthcoming article. SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 341

They both devote significant attention to his demise and the accession of Kawad II. These parallels indicate that both texts preserve material derived from the same literary genre, one that concentrated upon the lives of Sasanian kings. It is very significant that Agathias’ Sasanian excursus adopts the same royal biographical approach. Further support for the contention that the History attributed to Sebeos preserves traces of Sasanian historical literature emerges from a comparison between that text and the several duplicate but separate strands of material about Sasanian Persia preserved by al-™abari72. In the light of the obvious gulf between these texts in terms of language, date and context of composition, the value of such a comparison might at first appear questionable. However a striking thematic, stylistic and structural coincidence may be detected. This is hard to explain unless one accepts that both compilations reflect the influence of the same historical tradition, encountered at first hand by Armenian writers in the seventh century and inherited and exploited by later Islamic historians in the eighth and ninth centuries. Since these Armenian and Arab compilations exist independently of one another and clearly did not have access to the same underlying sources, their likenesses can only be explained in terms of their exploitation of sources of a similar nature. As we observed above, the account of Persian history within al- ™abari’s Ta’rikh is structured around the Sasanian royal line. The primary division is by king rather than by individual year, betraying a biographical rather than an annalistic concern. There is a standard way of reporting the transition from one king to another. Having stated the duration of the previous king’s reign, the lineage of his successor is defined and his character is assessed, often in terms of his treatment of his nobles. The description of the accession of Hormizd IV attests all of these elements: ‘At this point Kisra Anusharwan died after a reign of forty-eight years. Then there assumed the royal power Hurmuz. He was the son of King Anusharwan and his mother was the daughter of Khaqan the Elder’73.

72 M.J. de GOEJE, Ta’rikh al-rusul wa-al-muluk, 13 vols., Leiden, 1879-1901, vol. I (= AL-™ABARI); English translation and commentary by C.E. BOSWORTH, The History of al- ™abari Volume V: The Sasanids, the Byzantines, the Lakmids and Yemen, New York, 1999 (= BOSWORTH, al-™abari). 73 AL-™ABARI, p. 988, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 294-295. This is a consistent form of words throughout the description of Sasanian history. See for example the account of the death of Sabur and the accession of Hurmuz I (AL-™ABARI, p. 831, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 39-40): ‘There are differing views on the length of Sabur’s reign. Some authorities put it at thirty years and fifteen days, others at thirty-one years, six months and nineteen days. Then after Sabur, son of Ardashir, son of Babak, the royal power was assumed by his son Hurmuz. He was called “the Bold” and resembled Ardashir in bodily constitution and 342 T.W. GREENWOOD

The narrative then contains two distinct accounts of his character and political aspirations. The first is defined as deriving from reports going back to Hisham ibn MuÌammad: ‘This Hurmuz, son of Kisra, was well educated and full of good intentions of benevolence toward the weak and destitute but he attacked the power of the nobles so that they showed themselves hostile and hated him, exactly as he in turn hated them. When he assumed the crown, he gathered round himself the members of the nobility of his kingdom. They enthusiastically called down blessings on his head and offered up thanks for his father. Hurmuz gave them promises of benevolent rule; he was anxious to behave toward his subjects with justice but implacable against the great men of the kingdom because of their oppressing the lowly folk.’74 This is followed slightly later by a separate, contradictory account of his character whose opening phrase indicates movement to another source: ‘It is said that Hurmuz was a successful and victorious commander who never set his hand to anything that he did not attain. He was, moreover, well educated, skilful, shrewd but bad-intentioned, a defect he inherited from his maternal relations, the Turks. He removed the nobles and killed 13,600 from the religious classes and from those of good family and birth. His sole aim was to win over the lower classes and to make them favourably disposed toward him. He imprisoned a great number of the great men and degraded them and stripped them of their offices and ranks.’75 Whether one accepts the first judgment, that Hormizd IV was ‘full of good intentions’ or the contradictory statement in the second analysis, that he was ‘bad-intentioned’, these three passages correspond very closely in terms of content and sequence to a parallel passage in the His- tory attributed to Sebeos: ‘And it happened after the death of Kisra son of Kawad that his son Hurmuz ruled over the country of Persia, whose mother, named Kayen, was the daughter of Khaqan, great king of the T‘etalac‘ik‘, the wife of Kisra his father. Although very distinguished from his paternal ancestors, he was still more distinguished and ferocious from his maternal side. For he eliminated all the nobles and ancient families from the country of Per- sia.’76 appearance but did not come up to him in judgment and skilful management. Neverthe- less he was outstanding for his fortitude in battle, boldness and massive build. His mother, according to what is said was one of the daughters of King Mihrak, whom Ardashir killed at Ardashir Khurrah.’ 74 AL-™ABARI, p. 988-989, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 295. 75 AL-™ABARI, p. 990, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 297. 76 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 72.28-73.5. In this instance, I have followed the convention for Persian names used by Bosworth rather than the Armenian form to illustrate the proximity of these passages. SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 343

This introduction to the reign of Hormizd IV reiterates his descent, the identity of his mother, his character and his treatment of the noble families, precisely the concerns found in al-™abari’s Ta’rikh. Without prior knowledge, there is no reason to suppose that these passages appear in works compiled in different centuries and in different languages. This correspondence is not limited to the description of the accession of Hormizd IV. It can also be seen in the parallel accounts of the political turmoil following Khusraw II’s downfall, and specifically the plethora of short-lived kings and queens77. Both texts continue to employ the Sasanian succession as their structural framework. Both define the lineage of the claimant, the duration of their kingship and sometimes their political support. Furthermore both conclude with the accession of Yazdagird III without embarking upon a full description of the Arab ad- vances into Persia, their victories, the decade of determined resistance undertaken by Yazdagird III in the east and his eventual assassination. These are reported elsewhere. It is important to stress that the two accounts of the Sasanian succession after Khusraw II are not identical. They contradict one another on several occasions. Thus al-™abari’s narrative includes three additional claimants78. Furthermore his account attributes the murder of Farrukh Hurmuz, iÒbahbadh of Khurasan, to Queen Azarmidukht whilst the Ar- menian text describes how the hramanatar Xorox Ormizd, isxan of Atrpatakan, was killed by Azarmidukht’s sister, Queen Bor79. However the circumstances of his death are virtually identical — he is tempted by an offer of marriage to meet the queen at night and without his retinue and then assassinated. The one major discrepancy is that responsibility for the deed has been transferred from one daughter of Khusraw II to another. Despite these factual inconsistencies, the two accounts approach

77 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 127.36-130.34; AL ™ABARI, p. 1045-1067, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 381-410, although over half of this is taken up with the list of justifications pleaded by Shiruyah and counterclaims presented by Khusraw II (AL ™ABARI, p. 1046-1058, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 382-395). 78 AL-™ABARI, p. 1064, 1065-1066, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 405 and 407. The three additional claimants are Jushnas Dih, Kisra III, son of Mihr Jushnas and Farrukhzadh Khusraw. However closer investigation suggests that Jushnas Dih and Fayruz II may be one and the same person, as indeed Khurrazadh Khusraw and Farrukhzadh Khusraw appear to be. Although the mysterious Hormizd in the History attributed to Sebeos is not mentioned by al-™abari, coins minted in the name of ’WHRMZDY have been discovered which indicate that someone of this name did control some part of the Sasanian empire. Although the list provided by al-™abari is longer, it seems that the list in the History attributed to Sebeos is more accurate. Neither list makes it clear that several of these kings held power concurrently rather than consecutively. 79 AL-™ABARI, p. 1064-1065, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 406-407; ABGARYAN, Pat- mut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 130.18-25. 344 T.W. GREENWOOD the issue of the Sasanian succession in the same way, implying a common archetype. A comparison of the treatment of the reign of Khusraw II reinforces this sense of proximity. As one might anticipate, al-™abari devotes considerable attention to Khusraw II. The account of his reign opens with a description of the events surrounding the deposition of his father Hormizd IV, the revolt of Bahram Chubin and the eventual triumph of Khusraw Abarwez80. The narrative then provides a highly schematic and impressionistic summary of the warfare after 60281. Without warning this is interrupted by an extract from the Qur’an, and its scholarly inter- pretation82. Thereafter the text supplies several passages, each with its chain of authorities or isnâd83. This marks a departure. The earlier Sasanian-focused narratives do not include asânid; the most they contain is an occasional passive ‘it is said’. The following passages focus primarily upon the military success and subsequent disaffection of the Persian commander Sahrvaraz and various portents and prognostications presaging the downfall of Khusraw II and the Sasanian dynasty84. The narrative switches abruptly to consider, at considerable length, the last years of the Lakhmid domination in al-Hirah and the military encounter at Dhu Qar85. Then comes a section investigating Persian influence over the Yemen, a subject discussed much earlier in the work86. Finally it concludes with a hostile summary of the reign of Khusraw II, criticizing the fabulous wealth he had accumulated, and making dire astrological

80 AL-™ABARI, p. 995-1001, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 305-317. This is in fact the second account of these events, the first, shorter narrative being included under the reign of Hormizd IV: AL-™ABARI, p. 991-994, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 298-305. 81 AL-™ABARI, p. 1001-1005, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 317-323. Al-™abari envisages three commanders — Rumiyuzan, Shahin and Farruhan/Shahrbaraz — and three tar- gets — Syria/Palestine, Egypt and Alexandria and Constantinople. AL-TABARI, p. 1002, BOSWORTH, al-Tabari, p. 318-319. An indication of al-™abari’s uncertainty, or the confusion of his source, is that having specified the third commander and target, the text reverts back to the killing of al-Fuqa (Phokas) and the accession of Hiraql (Heraclius). It is possible that the chronological confusion found at this point in the History attributed to Sebeos was caused by a parallel deficiency within the ‘Royal History’. For an alternative argument, blaming the compiler for the confusion, see THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. lxxii-lxxiii. 82 AL-™ABARI, p. 1005-1006, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 324-326 and n. 761: Surat al- Rum, Qu’ran XXX, 1-5. 83 For example AL-™ABARI, p. 1006, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 326: ‘There related to us al-Qasim — al-Husayn — Hajjaj — Abu Bakr — ‘Ikrimah, who said…’ 84 AL-™ABARI, p. 1005-1015, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 324-338. 85 AL-™ABARI, p. 1015-1039, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 338-373. 86 AL-™ABARI, p. 1039-1040, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 373-375 and n. 916. Bosworth notes that this resumes the story broken off at AL-™ABARI, p. 988, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 294. SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 345 predictions for the future87. If we exclude those passages with a manifestly Arabic origin, a familiar pattern emerges. Events are perceived predominantly from the perspective of Khusraw II. His thirty-eight year reign is presented narrowly through the same contexts which feature so prominently in the History attributed to Sebeos and the History of A¥uank‘, namely his accession and his deposition. The narrative shows little knowledge of or interest in the long years of warfare. The successive campaigns of Heraclius from 624 have been compressed to a single advance to Nisibis and his victory over Rahzadh/Rocveh at Nineveh88. The description of this battle fulfils the same role in al-™abari’s compilation as it does in both the History attributed to Sebeos and the History of A¥uank‘. It allows Khusraw II to be portrayed as the unsympathetic ruler, contemptuous of the fate of his subjects89. As we have noted above, this final engagement also enables Khusraw II to regain centre-stage in time to be criticized by his subjects. This introduces the account of his deposition. Therefore although there are numerous factual differences, the profile of Khusraw II and his reign is remarkably consistent within both Armenian texts and al-™abari’s Ta’rikh. Since they did not exploit one another directly or draw on common sources, the most straightforward explanation is that these texts all reflect traces of the same Sasanian historical tradition.

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

87 AL-™ABARI, p. 1041-1045, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 375-381. 88 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 126.11-35; AL-™ABARI, p. 1003-1004, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 321-323. 89 AL-™ABARI, p. 1004-1005, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 323. The History attributed to Sebeos contains a remarkably similar criticism: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 127.17-19. 346 T.W. GREENWOOD through first-person exchanges with his principal opponents. Such passages convey the author’s perception of recent history; they should be understood not as accurate expressions of a king’s motivation but rather explanations for his conduct and decision-making. This observation introduces the second conclusion. If one accepts the proposition that the History attributed to Sebeos preserves an impression of a Pahlavi ‘Royal History’, albeit indirectly, it appears that this form of historical writing comprised a blend of fact, anecdote and imaginative reconstruction rather than dispassionate historical records. In other words, it would be wrong to assume that Sasanian dynastic histories were necessarily concerned with historical accuracy. The argument that such texts were deformed during the course of transmission into and through Islamic historical compilations ignores the very real possibility that they were never that ‘historical’ to begin with, but a complex combination of historical and other materials. Thirdly, if one accepts this same proposition, it follows that the His- tory attributed to Sebeos cannot be used as a fully independent witness of Sasanian history. In much the same way that the Chronicle of Theophanes cannot be treated as a control against which to test the expressions of seventh and eighth century Near-Eastern history found within the Syriac historiographical tradition because it draws upon that same tradition — through the postulated Chronicle of 750, attributed to Theophilos of Edessa — so the History attributed to Sebeos cannot be used in this way because the ‘Royal History’ draws upon the pre-existing Sasanian historiographical tradition90. Finally the History attributed to Sebeos and the History of A¥uank‘ both illustrate the penetration of Sasanian historical traditions at a provincial level. They both explain local circumstances in terms of the personality and decisions of the Sasanian king. Since Armenia and A¥uank‘ had been part of the Sasanian empire for three centuries, the cultural influence of the latter upon peripheral regions should be expected. This fusion of national and local history is significant. The Syrian and Christian

90 C. MANGO and R. SCOTT, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, Oxford, 1997, p. lxxxii-lxxxvii. See also R. HOYLAND, Seeing Islam as Others Saw it, Princeton, 1997, p. 400-409 and 427-432 (= HOYLAND, Seeing Islam). Conrad has also detected material of Muslim origin within Theophanes: see L. CONRAD, Theophanes and the Arabic His- torical Tradition: Some Indications of Intercultural Transmission, in Byzantinische Forschungen, 15 (1990), p. 1-44. However as Hoyland has observed, this does not seem to derive from Theophilos: HOYLAND, Seeing Islam, p. 405, n. 63. The likelihood that Theophanes drew upon Muslim sources, albeit indirectly, also means that his Chronicle cannot be used as a control against which to test the Islamic historiographical tradition. SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 347 sympathies detected within Agathias’ version of Sasanian dynastic history attest a similar process of cultural transmission and transformation. c) The Heroic Biographies In addition to the three freestanding documents and the ‘Royal His- tory’, the compiler had access to several sources that recorded the lives of prominent Armenian princes from the recent past. By tracing the shifts in focus from one figure to another within the text, five separate biographies, as well as several additional fragments may be distinguished. These record the deeds of Smbat Bagratuni, Muse¥ Ma- mikonean, Varaztiroc‘ Bagratuni, T‘eodoros Rstuni and a group of lesser figures who participated in an ill-conceived conspiracy against Khusraw II91. The thirty-year career of Smbat Bagratuni in first Roman and then Persian service (589–616/617) receives the greatest coverage in the text. The relevant passages stand out not only by virtue of their attention upon Smbat but also through their disruption of the linear chronological progression of the text92. However close evaluation indicates that they do not supply a consistent historical reflection of the recent past. Instead they comprise a complex combination of apparently authentic and pat- ently fabulous episodes, which enable Smbat to be presented in a number of contexts. Whilst appreciating the value of these passages as illustrations of how an Armenian prince was perceived, or wished to be perceived, this fusion of historical and epic material merits cautious treatment.

91 Smbat Bagratuni: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 91.32-93.4 and 96.18-104.9; Muse¥ Mamikonean: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 81.5-84.19; Varaztiroc‘: ABGA- RYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 128.36-129.4, 132.12-133.23 and 143.11-45.5; T‘eodoros Rstuni: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 134.2-6, 138.8-139.6 and 145.6-147.2; Arme- nian rebels: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 87.12-90.7, 94.5-23 and 95.23-96.14. 92 For example, Smbat’s role in a failed Armenian rebellion against emperor Maurice and his ordeal in the arena at Constantinople have been securely dated using the evidence of Theophylact Simocatta to 589; see M. and M. WHITBY, The History of Theophylact Simocatta, Oxford, 1986, iii.8.6-8 and n. 31 (= WHITBY, Theophylact) and M. WHITBY, The Emperor Maurice and His Historian, Oxford, 1988, p. 127 and 291 (= WHITBY, Maurice). However the instances of military recruitment and disaffection which prompted his rebellion are located in the History attributed to Sebeos after the restoration of Khusraw II in 591: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 92.1-93.34. This extract is therefore a misplaced cast-back. By contrast, the final extract, which reports his eventual victory over the K‘ushans and the rewards he received from Khusraw II in 615, is a cast- forward in time: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 102.25-104.9. Subsequent passages leap back in time to record the deposition of Maurice, the outbreak of war in 603, the Persian campaigns in Armenia and Mesopotamia, the accession of Heraclius and the capture of Jerusalem: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 106.8-116.13. 348 T.W. GREENWOOD

In relation to his career in the service of Khusraw II, the narrative is largely precise and dispassionate, recording his appointment as marzpan of Vrkan and subsequent promotions, his leadership of campaigns against rebel forces loyal to Bistam and against K‘ushan invaders as well as the rewards he received from a grateful sovereign93. Significantly, Smbat is not given a perfect record as a commander. His campaigns against the K‘ushan marauders in 614–615, although ultimately successful, included a sharp reverse in a village called Xroxt. This prompted an official investigation by a royal intendant named Sahrapan Bandakan that exonerated Smbat but blamed the commander of a relief force, Datoyean, who paid with his life94. This description of the sophisticated response to this defeat on the part of the Sasanian administration, coupled with the recognition that Smbat was not always victorious, intimate that this account is authentic. Moreover the passages reporting his military achievements are interleaved with four separate, meticulous lists recording the material and honorific rewards that Khusraw II showered upon Smbat95. The honours and powers granted to Smbat are reported in remarkable detail without overlap or repetition. A similar precision in- forms the biography of a prince of A¥uank‘, named Juanser, long excerpts from which appear in the History of A¥uank‘96. Successive passages narrate how Juanser served first the Sasanian king Yazdagird III, then the emperor Constans II and finally the caliph Mu‘awiya97. These too are punctuated with records of the numerous honours, titles and luxury gifts lavished upon him by each ruler in turn98. Although pre-

93 Appointment as marzpan and duration for eight years: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 96.18-20 and 100.1-4. Campaigns against rebels and external threats: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 96.26-39, 98.2-17, 99.14-20 and 101.6-103.13. Titles, honours and gifts presented by Khusraw II to Smbat: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 96.18-25, 99.28-35, 101.1-8 and 103.14-104.6. 94 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 101.23-102.24. 95 See footnote 93 above for the four passages. To give an example from the second of these, after his defeat of the rebel troops in 601, Smbat received a letter of thanks from Khusraw II and was promoted ‘above all the marzpans of his lordship and he sent to him all kinds of gold serving vessels, royal clothing, gilded covers and breeches adorned with precious stones. His son who was called Varaztiroc‘, whom he had brought up as one of his own sons and who was esteemed by the whole of the royal court, he appointed to the office of butler, to serve wine to the king himself’: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 99.29-35. 96 ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 172.21-201.15 and 221.3-230.18. 97 Service to Yazdagird III: ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 172.21-177.2; service to Constans II: ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 180.13-186.10; service to Mu‘awiya: ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 192.8-201.15. 98 Rewards from Yazdagird III: ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 175.4-16; rewards from Constans II: ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 181.19-182.6; rewards from Mu‘awiya: ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 197.13-199.2. SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 349 served in different texts, the two biographies display the same balance between the achievements of a local prince in the service of an external power and the rewards he obtained in return. Their coincidence is reas- suring. Evidently princely biographies could be rooted in historical reality. Yet the excerpts charting the successful career of Smbat Bagratuni must be set against passages of manifestly legendary material. Smbat Bagratuni is introduced in the text as an Armenian rebel, condemned by the emperor to wrestle with a sequence of ferocious animals in the hip- podrome in Constantinople99. Great stress is placed upon his physical strength. This heroic representation of Smbat is developed in a later passage when he is portrayed as a champion, defeating the K‘ushan king in single combat: ‘They reached the battlefield and drew up their lines opposite each other. Then the king of K‘ushans sent a message to Smbat, saying: ‘What advan- tage is it that such a host engage in battle to destroy our armies? And how will my and your valour be recognized? But come, let us fight you and me alone, I having come as a champion (axoyean) from my side, and you from yours, so that today my valour may be known to you.’ Then putting his hand on his heart, he said: ‘Behold, I am ready to die.’ Advancing from either side, they rapidly approached each other. Between the two battle- lines they fought with each other. They were not able immediately to overcome the other, because they were both men of gigantic strength and fully covered in armour. But help came from on high: the armour of the K‘ushan king, chain-mail from Bahl and a solid cuirass, was split by Smbat’s lance, and he powerfully struck him as a corpse to the ground and slew him.’100 The whole character of this passage is epic rather than historical — with reasoned discourse between the combatants prior to battle, single combat between the two battle-lines and a particular interest in the size and armour of the two champions. Nor is it unique; similar descriptions can be found elsewhere in Armenian literature. The Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘ or Epic Histories, dated by its most recent commentator to the 470s, includes an account of a confrontation between king Varazdat and the sparapet Manuel Mamikonean101. Once more it is the physical strength and the armour of Manuel which receive particular attention: ‘King Varazdat took the forces of his camp and reached the place of combat, well-armed organized and prepared for battle, and likewise the other

99 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 92.25-93.34. Compare WHITBY, Theophylact, iii.8.6-8 and WHITBY, Maurice, p. 291. 100 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 102.28-103.7. 101 N.G. GARSOIAN, The Epic Histories (Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘) (Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies, 8) Cambridge MA, 1989, p. 11 (= GARSOIAN, The Epic Histories). 350 T.W. GREENWOOD

even better prepared. And the sparapet Manuel reached the same place with his own contingent and on the plain of Karin there occurred the engagements of the contingents of both attacking each other. King Varazdat and the sparapet Manuel carrying lances came forward charging against each other as champions (axoyeank‘). When King Varazdat lifted up his eyes, he looked as he advanced and saw the sparapet Manuel in the great- ness of his stature, the splendour of his person, the extremely strong and impenetrable iron armour from head to foot completely, also the robustness of his person and the solidity of his armour-clad charger, also bearing inde- structible trappings, he compared and measured him in his mind to a tall and inaccessible mountain.’102 Or again, book ii chapter 1 of the History of A¥uank‘ manages to com- bine the two epic contexts noted above, namely the arena and the battlefield, in a single passage. It acclaims the athletic prowess of a prince of Siwnik‘ named Babik, as proved in a public competition, and then moves on to describe how a king of the Huns challenged the Sasanian king Sapuhr to single combat. Babik later fought on his behalf: ‘He exhibited many deeds of valour in the Olympiads of the Persians, no- one recognizing him. Then the Hun invaded from Honk‘, named Honagur; he plundered the country of Persia and sent to Sapuh and said, ‘Why is there shedding of blood? Come, let us fight in single combat, you and me.’ And the Hun himself had equipped his broad figure with a fifty-substance/ woven coat of mail, and his terrible head with a helmet studded with nails and his forehead of three spans provided with a copper plate and holding his fantastical lance from tall pine trees and his gleaming sword, and he ter- rified the on-lookers.’103 This description resonates with the account in the History attributed to Sebeos quoted above in several respects. In addition to the elaborate description of the Hun’s size, armour and weaponry, the passage reports the challenge from one leader to the other in direct speech, justifying the contest as a means of avoiding unnecessary bloodshed. Therefore it looks as though Armenian princely biographies regularly included such descriptions of single combat. These passages were used to establish and emphasize the personal courage and martial prowess of the particular Armenian prince. Such episodes are not restricted to the Armenian epic tradition. When we turn back to al-™abari’s Ta’rikh, we find that Khusraw II is presented in a very similar situation. Before fleeing to the emperor Maurice in 590,

102 K‘. PATKANEAN, P‘awstosi Buzandac‘woy, Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘, St. Petersburg, 1883; reprinted Delmar NY, 1984, V.37, p. 203-204. The above translation is made from this edition rather than the fourth revised Venice edition (1933) used in GARSOIAN, The Epic Histories. 103 ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 109.16-110.3. SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 351

Khusraw II engages three leading Turkish warriors ‘unequalled among the rest of the Turks for their equestrian skills and their strength who had undertaken to Bahram that they would kill Abarwiz (i.e. Khusraw)’. Khusraw kills them ‘one by one with his own hand’104. A later passage reports how ‘Abarwiz went out to engage Bahram in single combat. He wrested Bahram’s spear from his hand and battered his head until the spear broke’105. In this respect there are close ties between Sasanian royal history and Armenian princely biography. Both depicted the individual king or prince in the same heroic context, presumably with the intention of bolstering their reputations. This coincidence forges another link between Armenia and Sasanian Persia and reinforces the contention that they enjoyed a common cultural heritage, at least at an elite, aristocratic level. Although speculative, it is tempting to envisage that the lost Wahram-Coben-namag, focused upon Bahram Chubin, had features in common with these fragments from Armenian heroic biographies. One short passage from al-™abari’s Ta’rikh supports this contention: Bahram Chubin is reported to have killed Shabah, king of the Turks, with a single arrow, allegedly one of the three most impressive shots ever106. Of course, the proposition that Armenian historical texts drew upon sources of an epic nature is hardly new. The heroic character of the Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘ was recognized as long ago as 1879 by an editor of the text, Patkanean107. More recently, Garsoïan has identified three principal strands of material within the work: a ‘Royal History’, covering the reigns of the last Arsakuni kings of Armenia, an ‘Ecclesias- tical History’, describing the hereditary succession of figures from the house of Saint Grigor the Illuminator to the headship of the Armenian church, and a ‘Mamikonean History’, reporting the achievements of leading members of this princely family over four successive genera- tions108. Garsoïan defined passages from these Gestae by their ‘ahisto-

104 AL-™ABARI, p. 994, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 304. There is a second, duplicate account of this contest: AL-™ABARI, p. 998, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 309. 105 AL-™ABARI, p. 1000, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 314. 106 AL-™ABARI, p. 992, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 302. The use of an arrow rather than a lance is extremely interesting, implying that in the traditions surrounding Bahram, the archer was prized above the lancer or swordsman. 107 K. PATKANEAN, Bibliographicheskii ocherk armianskoi istoricheskoi literatury, St. Petersburg, 1879. 108 GARSOIAN, The Epic Histories, p. 2-3, 32-35. Intriguingly Garsoïan differentiates the ‘Ecclesiastical History’ from the others, arguing that it belongs to a hagiographical rather than a purely epic tradition. Yet it too is biographical, focused upon successive generations from one house. It looks to be identical in origin and function to the Arsakuni and Mamikonean Histories; the only difference is that this princely house obtained, and retained, status through ecclesiastical rather than secular office. 352 T.W. GREENWOOD rical and at times transcendental character’. She envisaged that they had an oral origin and that they had to be worked into a more sober narrative of historical events109. The presence of heroic biographical material within the History attributed to Sebeos marks an important cultural continuity inside Armenia between the late fifth and early seventh centuries. The aristocratic ethos that Garsoïan detected within the Epic Histories was still flourishing over a century later, the separate princely houses providing both the im- petus and the social milieu for such compositions. The deeds of particular princes were still considered worthy of recollection. However instead of comprising largely epic material, both the heroic biography of Smbat Bagratuni — and that of Juanser — combined historical and epic material. Moreover, rather than been transmitted orally and then embedded in an historical narrative drawn from elsewhere, the concentration of authentic historical material in both biographies indicates that they existed in written form from an early date. The genre seems to have undergone one important modification. The pagan imagery derived from Iranian mythology that was detected by Garsoïan in the Epic Histories and elsewhere is absent from the History attributed to Sebeos110. Instead, both Smbat and Juanser are portrayed as pious Christians. Smbat rebuilt the cathedral of Saint Grigor in Dvin and involved himself in the appointment of a new head of the Armenian Church; the life of Juanser includes a highly personal prayer packed with fascinating details about his family, composed on the occasion of the transfer of a fragment of the True Cross, given to him by Constans II, to his newly-constructed church in Gardman111. From the evidence of the passages focused upon Smbat Bagratuni, it is clear that, in the seventh century at least, this biographical genre permitted, perhaps even encouraged, the conjunction of fabulous and authentic material. The real achievements of the individual prince supplied a necessary historical foundation for the biography but these were em- broidered with imaginary episodes, allowing the individual to be portrayed in standard epic contexts. It seems that the biography of Smbat Bagratuni available to the compiler still contained a good deal of genuine information, reflecting the prominence of his reputation when alive and the relative proximity of his death only a generation before.

109 GARSOIAN, The Epic Histories, p. 32. 110 GARSOIAN, The Epic Histories, p. 51-54. Thus k‘aj, identified by Garsoïan as reflecting supernatural valour, is not applied to Armenian princes in the History attributed to Sebeos, with the exception of T‘eodoros Rstuni, who is both k‘aj and astuacaser, ‘pious’ in the same clause: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 134.2. 111 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 100.1-18, ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 187.9-190.4. SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 353

The extracts reporting certain incidents in the life of Muse¥ Mami- konean demonstrate a different balance between heroic and historical, weighted more heavily towards the former. Muse¥ Mamikonean is presented primarily in terms of his relationship with a perfidious Khusraw II, whose hostile presentation is at odds with the neutral tone found elsewhere in the text112. His own nobility of character and self-confidence is very deliberately held up for comparison with the treacherous intent and cowardice of Khusraw. The passages are full of direct speech and inter- nalized descriptions, conveying the thought-processes and emotions of the central figures. When a wary Muse¥ resolves to attend upon Khusraw II in spite of his suspicions, the Persian king is described as being ‘frightened’ and attempting to hide his deceit. This character development imparts an artificial quality, whose prominence in Sasanian dynastic history was noted previously. This contrasts with the previous biography; we learn almost nothing about the thoughts and sayings of Smbat Bagratuni, except in those passages with an epic quality113. This is not to say that these passages about Muse¥ lack historical merit. They portray a leading Armenian prince being summoned with his force of two thousand cavalry by his Sasanian sovereign. Muse¥ anticipates two reasons for the summons: despatch to another theatre of war or reward for recent service in the campaign against Bahram Chubin114. Even if this is the perception of the author, it mirrors the basis of the relationship between Khusraw II and Smbat Bagratuni and Yazdagird III and Juanser. It confirms that the provision of military forces in return for power, prestige and wealth lay at the heart of Armenian service to the Sasanian kings. These passages also give an impression of how the Sasanian king lived when outside the palace environment, the role and importance of personal attendance and the protocol involved in that cer- emony. But these are incidental features which provide a background to the primary function of the passage, namely the characterization of Muse¥ Mamikonean. Indeed the anecdotal, literary tone of all the extracts focused upon Muse¥ Mamikonean hints at an oral rather than a written origin. There is one further element in the passage which distinguishes it from the first postulated biography. Towards the end of the account,

112 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 81.5-84.19. 113 Smbat is exhausted by his struggle in the arena: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 93.21; the miraculous discovery of a fragment of the True Cross by Yovsep‘: ABGA- RYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 98.20-99.27; the offer of single combat from the K‘ushan king: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 102.30-34. 114 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 81.32-37. 354 T.W. GREENWOOD

Muse¥ Mamikonean intones darkly: ‘Unless that man (Khusraw II) is killed, through him the whole territory of the Roman empire will be destroyed.’115 Implicitly, this prophetic statement reveals the pro-Roman sympathies of the author, although whether these were shared by Muse¥ himself is impossible to know. It might be thought that his subsequent death on campaign in the Balkans evinces a personal loyalty to the emperor but the unique situation faced by Armenian princes after 591 should not be forgotten116. Pinned between the two great powers acting for once in concert, Armenian princes had no alternative to military service in the forces of one or other power. In any event, this prediction strongly indicates that this version of Muse¥’s biography dates from a time when the East Roman empire appeared to be on the brink of collapse, either following the fall of Syria in 613 or, more probably, after the loss of Egypt in 619. There is no hint of the remarkable recovery under Heraclius in the following decade, nor of the fate of Khusraw II. Three other separate clusters of biographical material may be detected in the History attributed to Sebeos. The first group of passages report several incidents from the lives of Varaztiroc‘, the son of Smbat Bagra- tuni, and his own son, confusingly named Smbat as well. Although the first extract records his appointment by Kawad II as marzpan of Arme- nia in 628, subsequent extracts locate both Varaztiroc‘ and his son Smbat firmly within the orbit of Heraclius and Constans II117. They are portrayed primarily in the context of the factional struggles that swirled around the emperor in Constantinople. There is a clear correlation between those passages which report conflict in Constantinople and those which comment upon Varaztiroc‘ or his son, Smbat. The passage recording the conspiracy of Athalarikos against his father Heraclius focuses in particular upon the lenient treatment afforded to Varaztiroc‘118. A subsequent passage reports the executions under Constans II of Georg Magistros and Manuel, the father-in-law of Smbat, and Smbat’s role in the same119. Whilst Howard-Johnston is surely correct in suggesting that the underlying source blended Constantinopolitan and Armenian politics, it seems most straightforward to understand this as a Bagratuni biographical work, forged in the context of these conditions, rather than ‘a

115 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 83.28-30. 116 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 90.12-91.7. 117 Varaztiroc‘: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 128.36-129.4, 132.12-133.23 and 143.11-45.5. Smbat: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 166.22-163.19. 118 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 132.12-133.23. The passage is prefaced by a long account tracing the origin of the relationship between Varaztiroc‘ and Heraclius. 119 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 166.22-163.19. An earlier passage (ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 143.11-145.2) reports the fall of Valentinus but this is again given a Bagratuni context through its reference to the recall of Varaztiroc‘ from exile. SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 355 record of notable events kept at the Catholicosate in Dvin (possibly by Sebeos himself)’120. The function and the flexibility of the biographical genre permitted, indeed encouraged such a blend of material, producing a work which explained the successive changes of fortune in the careers of Varaztiroc‘ and his son Smbat in terms of the political intrigue and instability at the heart of the empire. Such a work displays similar concerns to those identified above in relation to Smbat Bagratuni: service to an external authority, the titles and material rewards available to the individual princes and instances of direct contact between emperor and cli- ent. The only difference is that Varaztiroc‘ and his son were embroiled in court politics in Constantinople rather than Ctesiphon. Since three successive generations of Bagratuni princes are presented in the text, it is tempting to envisage that all three biographies derive from a single Bagratuni history. As we have seen, the ‘Mamikonean His- tory’ in the Epic Histories narrated the lives of four Mamikonean princes from successive generations. More particularly, several references unite the three collections of material. Thus in rewarding Smbat, Khusraw II also favoured his son Varaztiroc‘, raising him as one of his own sons and eventually naming him ‘Javitean Xosrov’121. Varaztiroc‘ is identified by this very title in the passage recording the circumstances in which he switched allegiance to Heraclius122. This occurred long after the death of his father Smbat and so cannot derive from the latter’s biography. The same extract recounts that while Varaztiroc‘ received the title of patrik and ‘royal residences, silver cushions and many treasures’, his son Smbat was favoured by the senekapet (sacellarius ?) of Heraclius123. Subsequently, when Varaztiroc‘ was recalled from exile in 645/646, again his son Smbat was honoured, this time with the titles of ‘first spat‘ar among all the spat‘ars’ (i.e. protospatharios) and kantitat124. This interest in the honours bestowed on the son is unique to the passages of Bagratuni family history and links the three generations. Finally it is significant that Varaztiroc‘ is often called by his hereditary Armenian title, aspet125. The repeated use of this shorthand to iden-

120 THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. lxix and 254. 121 Royal upbringing and responsibilities: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 99.33- 35; given the title ‘Javitean Xosrov’: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 103.18-19. 122 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 132.12-13. 123 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 132.31-35. 124 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 143.16-17. 125 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 129.10, 132.18, 132.22, 132.25, 133.17, 138.1, 143.13, 144.1, 144.15, 144.20, 162.30. It is also worth noting that Varaztiroc‘ is called the son of Xosrov Sum and Smbat the grandson of Xosrov Sum long after his death, and in passages oriented towards Roman, not Persian affairs: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 143.13-14 and 162.30-31. 356 T.W. GREENWOOD tify Varaztiroc‘ shows that these passages were derived from a single source. A fourth collection of extracts traces the career of T‘eodoros, lord of Rstunik‘. Again it follows the standard pattern, describing his military exploits and the rewards he obtained from first Constans II and then Mu‘awiya in return for loyal service126. In content and tone, the extracts are far closer to the biography of Smbat Bagratuni than that of Muse¥ Mamikonean. T‘eodoros is shown in defeat as well as in victory. At no time does he engage in direct speech and his presumed thoughts are rarely anticipated or expressed. Arguably therefore his biography comprised a factual record of his achievements. This suggests that literary and epic episodes came to be grafted onto a biography only as the memory of the historical figure faded. One further observation should be made. In contrast to the positive presentations of the Bagratuni and Mamikonean princes, the presentation of T‘eodoros within the text is not uniformly favourable. Whilst he is depicted as a ‘pious and valiant prince’ who inflicted losses upon his enemies127, he is later responsible for negotiating a ‘pact with death’ and ‘an alliance with hell’ when he decided to reposition Armenia under the protection of Mu‘awiya in 652128. These pejorative phrases fit very uncomfortably within a eulogiz- ing biography of T‘eodoros and can only reflect the judgement of another source. This inconsistent treatment is most probably due to a clash between the positive image of T‘eodoros within the underlying source and the compiler’s own hostile judgement on his recent political realignment. The presence of this inconsistency indicates that the compiler did not rewrite the sources at his disposal. We shall return to this issue again. Unlike the previous biographies, which concentrated upon single indi- viduals or a sequence of close relatives, the final postulated source traced the sorry fates of several apparently unrelated Armenian nobles, drawn from different houses, who rebelled against Khusraw II in 594. Not only is the revolt itself described; later passages describe the various ways in which all the rebels met their deaths129. Even the three who split away from the group at an early stage and came to terms, submitting

126 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 134.2-6, 138.8-139.6, 145.6-147.2 and 169.11- 17. 127 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 134.1-6. 128 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 164.15. 129 Samuel Vahewuni: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 89.5-90.2; Atat Xorxoruni: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 104.22-105.20; Mamak Mamikonean: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 94.5-23 and 95.25-6; Step‘anos Siwni: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 94.5-23 and 95.27-96.2; Kotit lord of Amatunik‘: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 94.5-23 and 95.3-5; T‘eodoros Trpatuni: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 89.32-90.2. SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 357 both themselves and their forces to Khusraw II, were not spared130. Mamak Mamikonean died in Dvin some days after arriving there on military business. Kotit, lord of the Amatunik‘ was assassinated while travelling to Nisibis as a messenger of Khusraw II. Step‘anos Siwni became embroiled in a bitter struggle with his uncle Sahak for the headship of the house of Siwnik‘, which ended with his execution at the hands of Khusraw II. These notices appear consecutively in the text131. These connections make it highly probable that these passages all derive from a single source, one that was not restricted to one individual or family but which extended across several houses. It is worth stressing that with the exception of Kotit, none of the nobles are identified as holding the title ‘ter’, the lord or head of the family. Even Samuel Vahewuni, who leads a second rebellion against the Roman authorities, with fatal consequences for all involved, is defined as a ‘sepuh’, a secondary figure within such a family. Therefore this source is likely to have comprised a short narrative focused upon a nexus of lesser figures who did not merit individual biographies but who were nevertheless capable of significant collective action. It is the action of rebellion against Khusraw II and his response that gives a unity to these passages. In other words, they are fashioned around an event, not an individual prince. As we have seen, the heroic biographies tend to be focused upon the achievements and personal qualities of individual Armenian princes, as courageous commanders and warriors and as pious Christians. It therefore seems highly likely that such works were generated within a milieu that prized such success, promoting the reputation of the prince, and by extension, that of his immediate family. And it is the princely house itself which supplies the most appropriate context for the sponsorship and performance of such works, whether written or oral. The princely biography was by its very nature not a populist work of ‘folk literature’, nor a sophisticated work of great intellectual endeavour, but rather a work which reflected the manners and preoccupations of a narrow, aristocratic elite, keen to attract tangible support by demonstrating the valorous exploits, whether genuine or invented, of current or previous family members. They were not created within a scholarly vacuum, devoid of purpose or connection with contemporary life. Instead they were both pas- sionate and partisan, designed to promote the individual or his family among his peers and rivals. The proposition that the compiler utilized several separate biographies

130 Mamak Mamikonean, Kotit lord of the Amatunik‘ and Step‘anos Siwni: ABGA- RYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 88.15-18. 131 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 95.25-95.5. 358 T.W. GREENWOOD explains how the focus shifts repeatedly within the text from one prominent Armenian prince to another. It justifies the presence of similar concerns and contexts within different entries whilst admitting that each could possess individual features. However there is a strange quality to the selection of extracts from these sources. The text does not describe disputes between princely families. The Armenian houses do not confront one another in the History attributed to Sebeos. Instead the text tends to illustrate the relationships of the princes to one or more of the great powers. Even the split between T‘eodoros Rstuni and Muse¥ Mamikonan in 652 is reported principally in terms of supra-national re- lations132. It is possible that this was a period of unprecedented harmony between the various princely houses. However it seems more likely that this characteristic should be explained in terms of the compiler’s choice of material for inclusion. In other words, the History attributed to Sebeos retains a particular impression of several heroic biographies, one that was not necessarily representative of the genre as a whole but which reflected the particular concerns of the compiler. d) The List of Persian Commanders and Governors Aside from the postulated ‘Royal History’, the text contains one further source of possible Persian provenance, namely a list of the Persian commanders (zawravark‘) and governors (sahmanakalk‘) appointed to Armenia133. It is clear from the systematic structure and consistent language of the four separate sequences that this list originally extended from the assassination of Suren in 572 down to the death of Roc Vehan at the battle of Nineveh in December 627 and that it was broken up and distributed across the text by the compiler134. No attempt was made to integrate this material with surrounding passages, even when there is an obvious overlap. By way of example, both of these episodes — the murder of Suren and the death of Roc Vehan — are reported independently elsewhere in the text135. Although the four blocks of material were inserted in approximately the right place, inevitably they each cover long

132 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 164.13-166.25 and 169.1-17. 133 THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. lxv-lxvi. 134 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 70.10-71.22, 105.21-31, 111.27-31 and 113.29- 34. Each entry follows a similar pattern: the name of the individual, significant military engagements undertaken by him, including location and outcome, and usually the duration of his appointment. The language of each notice is also distinctive, opening with ‘Apa’, ‘Then’ and usually ‘Apa ekn’, ‘Then he came’. They conclude ‘ekac‘ ams X ew gnac‘’, ‘He stayed X years and he went’. A very unusual phrase for a skirmish or engagement, ‘arar kriv’, is also used repeatedly. 135 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 67.27-31 and 126.11-35. SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 359 periods of time and so disrupt the chronological progression. Thus the first section records the appointments from before the death of Khusraw I until ‘the end of the peace between Persians and Greeks and between the two kings Maurice and Khusraw’, a spread of some thirty years; it takes a further thirty-four pages of Abgaryan’s critical edition for the main narrative to reach this point in time136. As for the origin of this source, Howard-Johnston has advanced the attractive proposition that it was taken from a register of successive Per- sian administrators and commanders and a brief summary of their achievements that was kept at Dvin137. However it is possible that this putative source was more than a simple list. Arguably it also included those passages which record the successive Persian campaigns undertaken in both Armenia and Mesopotamia between 603 and 612138. These notices name the individual Persian commanders and report the circumstances and outcome of any engagement. In structure therefore, they reflect the outline of the terse entries discussed above; the difference is simply one of depth. The linguistic pattern is also similar. Thus the notice recording the actions of Senitam Khusraw begins with the familiar ‘Apa ekn Senitam Xosrov’, ‘Then came Senitam Xosrov’ and concludes, after listing the cities taken by him, with the standard ‘gnac‘’, ‘he went’.139 The entry commenting upon Astat Yeztayar begins in almost identical fashion, ‘Isk Astat Yeztayar ekn’, ‘Then came Astat Yeztayar’, and also ends by listing the cities he captured, followed by a final ‘gnac‘’140. These coincidences of both content and language suggest that the underlying source contained longer narrative passages, which in this instance focused simultaneously upon two separate theatres of warfare. This proposition also provides a complete solution for the otherwise in- explicable lacuna in the list for the period 603–612. These passages bridge the gap between the appointments of Hoyiman/Yemann at the

136 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 105.16. Having finally reached this point in time, it is significant that the compiler reverted back to this source straightaway. 137 Although no such registers survive in Persian, al-™abari’s Ta’rikh confirms that such records were maintained at a later date, listing the annual appointments to governorships, usually at the end of each year. See, for example, the final notice to Year 60: AL-™ABARI, vol. II, p. 295, I.K.A. HOWARD, The History of al-™abari Volume XIX, The Caliphate of Yazid b. Mu‘awiyah, New York, 1990, p. 90; and the final notices to Year 120: AL-™ABARI, vol. II, p. 1666-1667, K.Y. BLANKINSHIP, The History of al-™abari Volume XXV, The End of Expansion, New York, 1989, p. 194. 138 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 107.1-111.26. 139 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p.109.3; ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 110.11. The cities captured: Ang¥, Gaylatuk‘ and Erginay in Armenia and Cxnakert in Mesopotamia, near Dara. 140 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 111.11. The cities captured: the city of Hasteank‘, Jit‘aric, Sata¥a, Arastiay and Nikopolis. 360 T.W. GREENWOOD end of the second sequence and Sahen Patgosapan at the beginning of the third141. One final observation should be made. The coverage afforded to each Persian governor or commander is uneven. All those who undertook military campaigns within Armenia or who passed through Armenia receive considerably more exposure than those who held office during peacetime; in other words the text shows a particular interest in those who fought. Thus the twelve-year period from the appointment of Hratrin Datan as marzpan in 590 until the succession of Hoyiman/ Yemann, which coincided with the period of good relations between Maurice and Khusraw II, is covered by a bare list of names, with no information on their conduct or administration142. Likewise the appointment of Sahrayeanpet as marzpan, probably in 612, marks a reversion to that spartan coverage, broken only by the military activities of first Sahrap¥akan and then Roc Vehan143. Although there is no obvious explanation for this, it seems highly probable that this was caused by the compiler’s approach to this source rather than the nature or the shape of the source itself. e) The List of Catholicoi Although the History attributed to Sebeos is largely concerned with great power politics and their impact upon Armenia and Armenians, it also contains a valuable summary of Armenian ecclesiastical history. Fragments within the text indicate that the compiler exploited a work centred upon the sequence of Armenian Catholicoi. The first extract comprises a very brief account of the division of the Armenian Church after 591144. Whilst the original incumbent Movses retained his authority in the Persian sector of Armenia, a second ‘anti-Catholicos’, Yovhannes, was appointed in the Greek protectorate145. The notice refers in passing to the translation of ‘all the vessels of the church of Saint Grigor in

141 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 105.25 and 111.27. 142 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 71.13-22, partially overlapping with 105.21-4. 143 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 111.28-9 and 113.29-34. 144 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 91.11-24. 145 Several other texts report this schism. See for example M. EMIN, Yovhannu kat‘o¥ikosi Drasxanakertec‘woy Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘, Moscow, 1853; reprinted Tiflis, 1912; Delmar NY, 1980, p. 72-3 (= EMIN, Yovhannes Drasxanakertc‘i). English commentary and translation by K.H. MAKSOUDIAN, Yovhannes Drasxanakertc‘i. History of Armenia, Atlanta GA, 1987, XVII.14-16 (= MAKSOUDIAN, Yovhannes). According to Maksoudian, the protestation in that work that the ‘anti-Catholicos’ Yovhannes ‘had never gone astray after the Chalcedonian heresy’ should be interpreted as an interpolation: MAKSOUDIAN, Yovhannes, p. 250, #14-16. SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 361

Dvin’ to the city of Karin146. This apparently incidental detail is important in tracing the outline of the underlying source because a later passage records that Yovhannes and ‘all the vessels of the church’ were forcibly removed to Ahmatan147. It is only through the first extract that the meaning of this reference can be understood; the church in question was that of Saint Grigor in Dvin. This connection proves that both extracts were taken from the same source148. In total, five other short passages, scattered through the remainder of the text, should be attributed to this projected source149. These fragments reveal two important features. In the first place, the source treated each Catholicos in the same way. It recorded their place of origin, previous ecclesiastical appointment and any building activity, viewed in terms of those churches they had founded or renovated, as well as a brief description of their period of office. Secondly it had an ambivalent attitude towards the Greek Church. In spite of the fact that his appointment was instigated by emperor Maurice and designed to undermine the authority of the incumbent Movses, Yovhannes is described in the text as ‘blessed and aged’. In much the same way, K‘ristap‘or’s successor Ezr is described as ‘a humble and gentle man who did not wish to provoke any- one to anger and no indecorous word came from his mouth.’150 He is not criticized for his communion with Heraclius and the controversial Coun- cil of Karin, convened in 632 to bring about a union between the two churches, is all but ignored151. The account neither celebrates nor disparages his conduct, preferring to report the fact of his participation in the sacrament with Heraclius and the material rewards he received152. The

146 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 91.21-3. 147 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 111.32-112.8. 148 This proposition is also supported by the double reference to the exile of Yovhannes to Ahmatan in the last sentence of the first extract and the first sentence of the second: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 91.23-24 and 112.1-4. Both passages refer to ‘Ahmatan sahastan’. 149 The succession of Komitas and the completion of the church of Saint Grigor: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 112.7-8; the reconstruction of the church of Saint Hrip‘sime by Komitas and the replacement of the wooden roof on the cathedral: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 121.5-28; the appointment of K‘ristap‘or in succession to Komitas and his rapid dethronement in favour of Ezr: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 129.4-21; the union of the Greek and Armenian churches under Ezr at the ini- tiative of Heraclius: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 131.32-132.11; and the construction of the Church of the Holy Angels/Zvart‘noc‘ by Nerses III: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 147.21-31. 150 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 129.19-21. 151 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 131.32-132.11. Ezr is not ‘berated’ in the text for this union, as Howard-Johnston asserts: THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. lxiv. 362 T.W. GREENWOOD

History attributed to Sebeos therefore preserves an account of recent church history that was not fiercely antagonistic towards the Greek Church. At the same time, it does not appear to have been as sympa- thetic as the Narratio de Rebus Armeniae, which had no compunction in openly describing two early seventh-century Catholicoi, Abraham and Komitas, as heretical, aïretikóv153. Instead it seems to have avoided both extremes, adopting a non-confrontational, indeed non-judgemental, approach. There are several precedents for such a source. In addition to the separate List of Catholicoi composed by Yovhannes Drasxanakertc‘i in 897, the final chapter of book iii of the History of A¥uank‘ comprises a complete sequence of the Catholicoi of A¥uank‘, including their origins and length of tenure but passing over any building works154. The Narratio itself is slightly different, containing a much fuller history of the Arme- nian Church, and in particular the evolution of its relationship with the Greek Church, from a Chalcedonian perspective. However a separate list of Catholicoi, attached to it by way of an appendix and identified by Garitte as an independent text, is very similar in design to the fragments found within the History attributed to Sebeos155. Maksoudian has proposed that Yovhannes Drasxanakertc‘i exploited another list of Arme- nian Catholicoi in his History156. When one compares Yovhannes’ account of the sequence of Armenian Catholicoi with the account in the History attributed to Sebeos, there are several thematic and linguistic coincidences that point to the use of the same list by both compilers157. However there are significant differences as well. Not only does the His- tory compiled by Yovhannes Drasxanakertc‘i report additional information about each Catholicos158; it also adopts an unreservedly hostile attitude towards the Greek Church. Ezr is castigated for his agreement with

152 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 132.7-8. Ezr requested and was given the salt of Ko¥b as a present, but it is unclear whether it was a permanent concession of a mine, the profits from such a mine or tax receipts due on mineral production. 153 G. GARITTE, Narratio de Rebus Armeniae (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 132; Subsidia, 4), Louvain, 1952, §110 and 116 (p. 41 and 42) (= GARITTE, Narratio). French translation by J.-P. MAHÉ, La Narratio de Rebus Armeniae, in Revue des Études Arméniennes, N.S. 25 (1995-1996), p. 436. 154 Samueli k‘ahanayi Anec‘woy hawak‘munk‘ i groc‘ patmagrac‘, Va¥arsapat, 1893, p. 272-277; ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 341.21-347.4. 155 GARITTE, Narratio, p. 401-445. 156 MAKSOUDIAN, Yovhannes, p. 43. 157 Thus Yovhannes is credited with the construction of the church at Awan: EMIN, Yovhannes Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 72. When Abraham and Yovhannes died in the same year, the former custodian (p‘akakal) of the martyrium of Saint Hrip‘sime and bishop of Mamikonean Taron, Komitas, succeeded as Catholicos: EMIN, Yovhannes Drasxana- kertc‘i, p. 74. 158 For example the detail that Ezr came from the village of Paraznakert: EMIN, Yovhannes Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 76. SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 363

Heraclius and the favourable impression of him quoted above has been expunged159. At the same time, the image of K‘ristap‘or is also reversed; he now distinguishes himself through virtuous deeds, strict fasting and nightly vigils160. How is this uneasy pattern of correspondence and difference to be explained? As noted above, the list of Catholicoi available to the compiler of the History attributed to Sebeos downplayed doctrinal differences with the Greek Church and the divisive issue of the status of the Council of Chalcedon. However, by the time that Yovhannes Drasxanakertc‘i came to use the list, it had undergone substantial revision and now possessed a pronounced anti-Chalcedonian spin, hence the criticism of Ezr and praise for K‘ristap‘or. Intriguingly, it seems that whoever revised the list assumed that K‘ristap‘or must have been anti-Chalcedonian and that it was his doctrinal stance that had brought about his deposition. However the History attributed to Sebeos simply notes that his downfall was precipitated by his slander of the aspet; he was ‘a proud and haughty man with a tongue as sharp as a sword’161. His theological con- victions are never mentioned. Having detected a reluctance to engage in doctrinal polemic in this source, it is nevertheless true that elsewhere the History attributed to Sebeos contains trenchant criticism of the Greek Church and Chalcedon. The introduction setting out the circumstances under which the draft Ar- menian Defence was sealed and the brief portrait of Nerses III both evince a strident antipathy, a hostility which sits uncomfortably with the above162. Again this contradiction is best explained as a consequence of the composite nature of the text and the reluctance of the compiler to rewrite his materials. We shall return to the issue of internal inconsistency shortly. f) Other Sources Howard-Johnston has argued on the basis of content that two other sources may be discerned within the text, a ‘Persian Source’ and a ‘Pal- estinian Source’163. In relation to the former, he proposed that four separate notices were extracted from it, each outlining a major development in the struggle for power between the Sasanian kingdom and the nascent Islamic caliphate164. Although Howard-Johnston doubted whether it was

159 EMIN, Yovhannes Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 77-79. 160 EMIN, Yovhannes Drasxanakertc‘i, p. 76. 161 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 129.8-12. 162 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 147.32-148.20 and 166.33-168.39. 163 THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. lxix, 225 and 239-40. 364 T.W. GREENWOOD possible to demonstrate that the four extracts were taken from a specific independent written source, in fact they display several correspondences of content, language and perspective that collectively support his contention. Thus the invaders are described consistently as ‘of Ismael’ or ‘Ismaelites’, never ‘Tacikk‘’, ‘Hagarac‘ik‘’ or ‘aylazgik‘’, the standard expression for Muslims in later texts165. Two of the four extracts open with a chronological synchronism devised by combining Persian and Greek regnal years166. Whilst not identical in sequence and structure, the coincidence of these synchronisms within a text that is so sparing in its use of explicit dates is significant. Perhaps surprisingly, the four passages are not focused upon the determined resistance of Yazdagird III. The Sasanian king plays an incidental role in these extracts, at least in comparison with successive princes of Mark‘ (the Armenian form of Media) whose actions and/or territories provide these passages with a thematic integrity. Even the account of the death of Yazdagird III is reported in the context of the treacherous conduct of the prince of Media. The passage opens with the following: ‘The prince of Mark‘, concerning whom I stated above that he went to the east to their king and having rebelled, fortified himself in one place…’167. Contrary to this assertion, the text does not contain any earlier passage reporting these events. The compiler seems to have borrowed this sentence from the underlying source without realizing that it did not apply to, or make sense within, his own work. In order for an error of this nature to occur, that source must have been written. These characteristics support the contention that the extracts derive from a single, written source, one that was interested in recent Persian history from a Median perspective. Media’s relative proximity to Arme- nia, its intermittent involvement in contemporary Armenian, and more particularly Albanian, affairs and the presence of a long passage at the end of the text reporting a very recent rebellion in Media all provide cir- cumstantial support for this focus168. Having said this, three features of these extracts make it very unlikely that they were taken directly from a

164 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 137.4-29, 139.9-22, 141.10-22 and 163.29- 164.6. These report the battle of al-Qadisiyyah and its aftermath, Arab operations in Ara- bia and the Persian Gulf, the battle of Nihawand and the death of Yazdagird III. See also THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. 243-246, 247-249, 251-253 and 264-266. 165 Forces of Ismael: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 137.5, 137.26 and 141.18; children of Ismael: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 139.9; Ismaelites: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 141.13, 17 and 163.31. 166 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 141.10-11 and 163.29-31. 167 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 164.1-2. 168 See for example the antipathy between Varaztiroc‘ and Rostom, prince of Atrpatakan: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 132.12-35; negotiations between Con- SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 365 work in Pahlavi. Before advancing to besiege Ctesiphon in 637, the forces of Ismael are described as having gathered in ‘the regions of the east’169. However from a Sasanian or Median perspective, this would have been the western or southern region. Secondly the account of the battle of al-Qadisiyyah highlights the involvement of Armenian detach- ments, their leadership, numbers and the losses sustained170. It seems unlikely that a Persian text would select these details for inclusion. Fi- nally the sentence quoted above reporting the treachery of the prince of Media refers to Yazdagird III as ‘their’ king. These characteristics once again indicate an Armenian composition, albeit one focused on Media and Median affairs. By contrast, the case for a single ‘Palestinian Source’ remains un- proven. For Howard-Johnston, this was the source of three notices, specifically those reporting the origins of Islam, two Arab victories in Pal- estine and the conditions in Jerusalem in the aftermath of the Arab capture of the city171. As Howard-Johnston has observed, the first combines two separate explanations for the sudden appearance of the Arabs172. One supplied a local context for the conquests, linking them directly to a recent Jewish revolt in Edessa, swiftly suppressed by Heraclius’ brother173. The other summarized MuÌammad’s life and teaching, stressing descent from Abraham through Ismael and hence a legitimate claim to Palestine174. Rather than treating the first as spurious and the second as authentic however, I would contend that they reflect two distinct but nevertheless contemporary reactions to events. The first construed the Arab conquests as a product of local conditions, connecting them (mis- takenly) with recent Jewish unrest in Edessa. The second accorded MuÌammad and his teaching a central role. Having found two different accounts, it seems that the compiler decided to weld them together. It is stans’ representative T‘umas and the prince of Media which resulted in the arrest of T‘eodoros Rstuni: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 143.19-25. For the sustained campaigns of the prince of Mark‘ against Juanser, prince of A¥uank‘, see ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 176.18-180.12. Rebellion of Media: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 172.19-173.17. This modifies Howard-Johnston’s proposition that the postulated source originated in Khuzistan: THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. lxix and 248-249. 169 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 137.6. 170 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 137.13-15 and 137.18-19: ‘There was there Muse¥ Mamikonean, son of Davit‘, the Armenian commander with three thousand fully- armed men and Grigor, prince of Siwnik‘, lord, with 1000 men…and they killed Muse¥ with his two nephews and Grigor lord of Siwnik‘ with one son’. 171 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 134.20-137.3 and 139.25-140.22. 172 THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. 238-240. 173 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 134.21-35. 174 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 135.1-17. 366 T.W. GREENWOOD worth noting that T‘ovma Arcruni’s History contains a version of the first but not the second, reinforcing the argument that they derive from separate sources175. The third notice is very different in character to the first two. It reports the desecration of a Muslim ‘place of prayer’ in Jeru- salem shortly after the Arab take-over. Its focus is limited to Jerusalem. It identifies the Arabs as ‘Hagarac‘ik‘’, a term found on only one other occasion in the text. These extracts do not betray any obvious linguistic or thematic similarities. They should be treated as discrete fragments from unknown sources and not bundled together into a single ‘Palestin- ian Source’ simply on the basis of their loose geographical coincidence176. g) The Compiler as Author Before examining how the compiler arranged the above sources and why he put together such a text, there is one further potential source to consider, namely the compiler himself. Those narrative passages written by the compiler have a particular value. From a historiographical perspective, they indicate the breadth of his historical vision and experience and the circumstances under which he was working. At the same time, such passages attest the political and social conditions then existing within Armenia, as viewed by a contemporary. Although that impression may be incomplete, it reveals the perceptions of a contemporary and thus has a potentially decisive contribution to make to any reconstruction of early medieval Armenian social structure177. The obvious place to search for passages of the compiler’s own com-

175 PATKANEAN, T‘ovma, p. 98-99. 176 The text attests direct communication between the Armenian church and the authorities in Jerusalem on two occasions: in the aftermath of the capture of the city in 614 (the correspondence between Komitas and Modestos) and following the restoration of the True Cross by Heraclius in March 630 (the short extract sandwiched between the two letters): ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 118.8-17. That correspondence also alludes to Armenian pilgrims visiting the holy places in Jerusalem and Palestine, a practice confirmed by two chapters in the History of A¥uank‘: ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 280.5-285.6. Chapter 50 records the visits of Mxit‘ar and Yovsep‘ to Jerusalem in the late 630s; chapter 51 describes the various holy sites in Jerusalem. A short text appended to the Asxarhac‘oyc‘ and titled M¥onac‘ap‘k‘ (‘Itinerary’), includes a description of the route between Dvin and Jerusalem. I have argued elsewhere that this text was composed between 660 and 750 (T.W. GREENWOOD, The Armenian Presence in Edessa after the Muslim Conquest, in R. HOVANNISIAN, Proceedings of the Sixth UCLA Conference on Historic Armenian Cities and Provinces, Tigranakert/Diarbekir and Edessa/Urfa, Costa Mesa CA, Forthcoming). The inclusion of this route implies that Armenians continued to travel to Jerusalem after the Arab conquest, as one might anticipate given the significant Armenian presence inside Jerusalem through several monastic communities. Collectively these references indicate regular and persistent contact between Armenia and Jerusalem during the seventh century and thus provide a context in which information about conditions in Jerusalem and Palestine came to lodge in an Armenian historical text. 177 This subject will be examined in a forthcoming article. SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 367 position is at the end of the text, as the underlying sources gave out and he was forced to rely upon his own knowledge and first-hand experience. The last passage from the Bagratuni princely biography, reporting the political machinations of Smbat aspet in Constantinople, is situated immediately after the draft Armenian Defence document178. This is followed by the final extract from the so-called ‘Persian Source’, reporting the death of Yazdagird III in 652179. With the exception of the account of the rebellion in Media, no other passage beyond this point in the text has been ascribed to any of the above sources180. The remaining passages possess a narrower chronological and thematic focus in comparison with the remainder of the text181. They cover the events of barely three and half years, from 652 until the middle of 655. This concentration of material contrasts with the patchy treatment of the previous decade. At the same time, with the exception of the account of the Arab assault upon Constantinople in 654, these pages attest a shrinking of the text’s historical horizons; the narrative is restricted to matters arising within the boundaries of Armenia182. Finally the final passages, comprising some fourteen pages in Abgaryan’s critical edition, variously contradict and duplicate several earlier passages. When taken together, these features all indicate that these passages were composed by the compiler himself. Let us study these features in a little more detail, starting with the inconsistencies and repetitions but moving on to examine two particular passages.

i) Inconsistencies: The Image of T‘eodoros Rstuni and the Attitude to Chalcedon As noted above, the text is inconsistent both in its treatment of T‘eodoros, prince of Rstunik‘, and its attitude towards the Greek Church and the Council of Chalcedon. Both these inconsistencies emerge at the end of the text. Previously T‘eodoros Rstuni is presented as a courageous leader who organized the defence of Armenian territory183. It is only when he negotiates the agreement with Mu‘awiya in 652 that he

178 Smbat Bagratuni and the swirl of court politics in Constantinople: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 162.2-163.19. Draft Defence of Armenian doctrinal position: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 149.27-161.34. 179 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 163.9-164.6. 180 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 172.9-173.17. 181 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 164.7-177.9. 182 Arab assault: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 169.30-171.27. 183ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 134.2-6. The failed attack on the retreating Arab forces after the capture of Dvin in 640: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 138.8-139.6. The battle after the capture of the fortress of Arcap‘k‘ in 643: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 145.6-147.2. 368 T.W. GREENWOOD suddenly comes in for harsh criticism, as the prince who made ‘a covenant with death’ and ‘an alliance with hell’184. This unexpected hostility towards T‘eodoros occurs immediately after the description of the death of Yazdagird III, the last passage to be attributed to one of the above sources. In my opinion, it reflects the opinion of the compiler185. Sec- ondly as we have seen, the List of Catholicoi ignored or at least downplayed instances of antagonism or disagreement between the Ar- menian and Greek Churches. The draft document prepared in defence of the Armenian doctrinal position also adopts a conciliatory approach186. Although it maintains that the Armenian faith should be accepted as the orthodox and true faith and rejects the decisions reached at Chalcedon, it also presents a carefully constructed sequence of arguments which emphasize a common doctrinal and historical inheritance with the Greek Church rather than stressing differences of ritual or liturgical practice187. However two other passages evince an uncompromising, hard-line attitude towards the Greek Church188. The first describes the circumstances in which the draft Armenian statement of faith was composed; it insists that liturgical disagreements had arisen between Greeks and Armenians and that the Armenians considered the Greeks to be ‘impious’ for accepting Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo189. The second passage opens with a short, uncomplimentary portrait of Catholicos Nerses III; whilst acknowledging his virtuous conduct, Nerses is condemned for conceal- ing ‘a bitter poison in his heart’ and secretly planning to convert all Ar- menia to the confession of Chalcedon190. The passage goes on to describe the visit of Constans II to Dvin in 653 and a service held in the 184 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 164.15. 185 This proposition is confirmed by the identification of Mu‘awiya as the Anti-Christ, ‘nerin’: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 164.27-28; see 4 (b) below. 186 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 148.27-161.34. 187 It is instructive to contrast this studious avoidance of contentious subjects with the so-called Discourse of Sahak III, recently examined by van Esbroeck, which dates from the end of the seventh century. This contains a vigorous defence of the use of unleavened bread and pure wine and downplays the common inheritance through Constantine. M. VAN ESBROECK, Le discours du Catholicos Sahak III en 691, in G. NEDUNGATT and M. FEATHERSTONE, The Council in Trullo Revisited (Kanonika, 6), Rome, 1995, p. 323- 454. 188 This inconsistent treatment of the relationship between the two churches hints at the presence of two opposing factions within the Armenian Church, one seeking to conciliate, the other determined to resist. 189 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 147.32-148.20. Although strictly speaking this lies outside the final fourteen pages, it occurs towards the end of the text and its tone con- tradicts not only what has gone before but even the tone of the draft Defence itself. I believe that this passage should be ascribed to the compiler, explaining the circumstances under which that document came to be prepared but also revealing his personal antipathy towards any ecclesiastical union or doctrinal reconciliation. 190 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 166.33-167.9. SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 369 cathedral of Saint Grigor, during which the liturgy was celebrated in ‘the Roman language’ and conducted by a ‘Roman priest’191. One Armenian bishop refused to participate but justified his action in an interview with Constans II, a discussion which also unmasked Nerses’ duplicitous conduct. Critically both these passages occur at the end of the text. In my view, their antipathy towards the Greek Church and Chalcedon reflects the compiler’s own vehement opposition to any accommodation between the two churches.

ii) Repetition: The Letters from Khusraw II/Mu‘awiya to Heraclius/ Constans II These final pages not only include contradictory passages; they also contain one highly significant repetition. The account of the Arab attack upon Constantinople in 654 opens with a letter purportedly sent from Mu‘awiya to Constans II on the eve of that assault192. The letter is clearly fabricated. Even if one were to admit the possibility of such a letter, it is inherently improbable that it would have come into the posses- sion of an Armenian or that it would have been translated into Arme- nian. On closer scrutiny, an unmistakable similarity with an earlier item of correspondence can be detected, namely the ultimatum allegedly sent by Khusraw II to Heraclius prior to the second Persian siege of Constan- tinople in 626, in which he gloried in Persian military success and scorned the efficacy of Christ’s protection over the Roman empire. Both letters conclude in almost identical terms. Khusraw’s letter ends: ‘For that Christ who was not able to save himself from the Jews, but they killed him on a cross, how is he able to save you from my hands?’193 The letter of Mu‘awiya finishes with the same sentence: ‘Otherwise, that Jesus, whom you call Christ, since he was not able to save himself from the Jews, how is he able to save you from my hands?’194 This duplication is more than mere coincidence. It attests the role of the compiler as author. Evidently he perceived a similarity between the two attacks on Constantinople in 626 and 654, both from the east and both threatening the very existence of the Roman Empire, and decided to use the earlier account as a literary template upon which to fashion his own narrative. He not only borrowed the idea of correspondence between the protagonists; he even lifted the final, disparaging sentence. The proposition that Mu‘awiya’s letter was fashioned by the compiler

191 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 167.9-168.39. 192 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 169.30-170.4. 193 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 123.30-2. 194 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 170.2-4. 370 T.W. GREENWOOD does not mean that it lacks all historical merit. I believe that it supplies a contemporary perception of the terms that might have been offered by Mu‘awiya in those circumstances, perhaps even reflecting the recent experience of the compiler in relation to local, regional settlements with the Arabs. Each condition of the proposed settlement can be implied from other notices at the end of the text. The first concession demanded by Mu‘awiya, that Constans II should disband his forces, is echoed in the Arab administration of Media195. This describes how an excessive tax burden and the abolition of ‘the cavalry and the office of prince of the country’ prompted a sudden rebellion196. The offer to make Constans a ‘great prince’ mirrors, at least in conception, the extended authority over Armenia, Iberia, A¥uank‘ and Siwnik‘ awarded to T‘eodoros Rstuni by Mu‘awiya197. The threatened confiscation of three-quarters of the treasures of Constans II may underpin the otherwise cryptic reference to the seizure by T‘eodoros Rstuni of ‘all the treasures of the land’ belong- ing to the church, the princes and the merchants198. The guarantee of security in return for the payment of tribute offered to Constans duplicates the protection afforded to T‘eodoros Rstuni, who obtained military assistance from his Arab allies on demand199. The letter of Mu‘awiya therefore requires very careful analysis. It can be interpreted in the light of the Armenian response to, and experience of, the Arab expansion into Transcaucasia. But it remains a confection, artfully constructed by the compiler on the basis of the letter from Khusraw II to Heraclius, which, as we have seen, is itself an imaginative reconstruction200.

iii) The Account of the Arab assault upon Constantinople in 654 The contention that Mu‘awiya’s letter is of very doubtful authenticity has important repercussions. It has a necessary effect upon the interpretation of the subsequent account of the failed Arab attack against Con- stantinople in 654201. That narrative comprises three parts: the preparations for the attack, the reaction of Constans II and the fate of the ar- mada. When revisited, all three are found to contain features which en-

195 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 169.33-4. 196 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 172.25-29. 197 Offer to Constans II: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 169.34; appointment of T‘eodoros Rstuni: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 169.14-17. 198 Confiscation from Constans II: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 169.35-170.1; appropriation by T‘eodoros Rstuni: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 166.4-8. 199 Security in return for tribute offered to Constans II: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 170.1-2; security in return for nominal tribute enjoyed by T‘eodoros Rstuni: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 169.1-5. 200 See discussion of this letter in 2 (b) above, and n. 52. 201 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 170.5-171.27. SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 371 gender suspicion rather than trust in their historical accuracy. Thus the account of Mu‘awiya’s naval preparations is coloured by exaggeration: ‘300 huge ships with a thousand men of elite cavalry per ship’ and ‘five thousand light ships and he gathered in them a few men for the sake of speed, one hundred men per ship’202. Furthermore Thomson has noted that the detailed description of the siege equipment being transported by ship derives from the first book of Maccabees203. Secondly, the reaction of Constans II to Mu‘awiya‘s letter mirrors the reaction of Heraclius to Khusraw’s letter discussed previously, thereby confirming a direct relationship between the two passages. The response of Constans II is based upon a series of Biblical quotations and allusions, foremost amongst which is Isaiah’s description of Hezekiah responding to Sennacherib’s offer of terms. Intriguingly this also supplied the basis for the account of Heraclius’ reaction to Khusraw’s letter, discussed previously204. Finally the narrative interprets the destruction of the Arab fleet by a violent storm in terms of divine intervention, imagining the despair of the Arabs in the face of the power of God: ‘And God saved on that day by his out- stretched right hand the city through the prayers of the pious king Con- stans…And it happened that when the Ismaelites saw the fearsome hand of the Lord, their heart broke.’205 Although it is conceivable that the compiler was aware of a failed assault upon Constantinople in 654, this analysis of the account suggests that he need not have had any more than a vague impression of the course of events. In such circumstances, he reverted to a narrative of his own composition, one that unashamedly emu- lated a passage inserted earlier in the composition for which he was not responsible. In spite of being surrounded by an abundance of short notices supplying a coherent and historically accurate account of contemporary conditions within Armenia, this passage of the siege of Constan- tinople is an elaborate reconstruction pieced together by the compiler.

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

202 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 170.9-12. This totals 350,000 men and 5,300 ships! 203 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 171.1-8; THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. l and 145, n. 889. 204 Heraclius: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 124.1-5; Constans II: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 170.24-33. Both exploit Isaiah 37.1. 205 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 171.19-24. 372 T.W. GREENWOOD that it is the actual text of the agreement. Given his harsh condemnation of T‘eodoros, it is hard to envisage under what circumstances the compiler could have had access to such an agreement. It seems more appropriate to adopt a sceptical approach and understand the agreement as a literary construct whose terms were deduced from subsequent events206. Thus the provision that no tribute was to be paid in the next three years simply reflected the actual non-payment in 652, 653 and 654. The mysterious discretion to pay ‘as much as you may wish’ may reflect contemporary uncertainty over current liability for tribute although it may possibly represent wishful thinking on the part of the compiler. The other terms anticipate the consequences of the alliance between T‘eodoros and Mu‘awiya. Thus the promise of support for T‘eodoros if he was attacked was fulfilled when he was threatened by Constans II in 653207. The concession that Arab commanders should not be installed in Armenian for- tresses simply reflected the current situation inside Armenia. Although the presence of such a document at the end of the text indicates that agreements between Arabs and local populations were negotiated at this time, there must be serious doubt over its authenticity. The above evaluation shows that the compiler’s own contribution to the text was significant. As the text approached the present-day, he became increasingly responsible for its authorship. This explains the limited chronological span of the last fourteen pages of Abgaryan’s critical edition and the narrowing of the historical focus to conditions inside Ar- menia. However the compiler’s views were not wholly consistent with those expressed by other underlying sources that he had exploited; this explains the hostility towards T‘eodoros Rstuni and the pro-Chalce- donian faction within the Armenian Church. Finally the terms of T‘eodoros Rstuni’s treaty with Mu‘awiya, the letter from Mu‘awiya to Constans II and the account of the assault upon Constantinople should all be attributed to the pen of the compiler; whilst important because they reflect the perceptions of a contemporary, these passages do not re- spectively draw upon original documents or dispassionate, eye-witness narratives. They need to be treated with great circumspection.

3) The Structure of the Text

The History attributed to Sebeos comprises a series of extracts arranged in approximately the correct chronological order. For the most part, the text displays a linear progression through time. However it is clear that the compiler did not impose a rigid chronological framework.

206 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 164.18-27. 207 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 169.1-5. SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 373

Admittedly the text contains twenty dates, but they are distributed unevenly within the text. Their irregular position and the variations in the formulation of these dates indicate that they derive from several of the underlying sources exploited by the compiler208. Significantly, the latest notices do not contain any dates, indicating that adherence to a strict chronological structure was not a primary concern of the compiler. Therefore the apology for the disorganized nature of the text that introduces the original conclusion does not stem from false modesty but represents a genuine admission that several episodes were in all probability in the wrong place209. On two occasions, even passages with specific dates have been muddled, attesting the low priority afforded to chronological precision by the compiler. In both instances, this confusion seems to stem from the combination of extracts from different sources210. This combination also explains the presence of three separate notices referring to the death of Heraclius211. In the absence of a rigid chronological skeleton around which to ar-

208 Compare ‘on the 19th day (of the siege of Jerusalem) in the month Margac‘ which was the 28th day of that month, in the 25th year of the reign of Apruez Xosrov’ (ABGA- RYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 115.28-9) and ‘in the twentieth year of Yazkert king of Per- sia, in the eleventh year of emperor Constans who was called after the name of his father Constantine, and in the 19th year of the lordship of the Ismaelites’ (ABGARYAN, Pat- mut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 163.29-30). The first is sensitive to day and month and is constructed exclusively around a Persian regnal year; the second is a complex synchronism, using three dating systems to identify the year, but is not date-specific. 209 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 176.22-4: ‘Now although having narrated in vain I may have organized the details of this history in accordance with the unintelligent thought of my own mind and not in accordance with the worthy grace of knowledge…’ Howard-Johnston has pinpointed several chronological errors: THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHN- STON, Sebeos, p. lxxii-lxxiii. 210 Thus a reference to the ‘twenty-first year of king Xosrov’ (ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 111.32) is followed ten lines later by mention of the ‘twentieth year of king Xosrov’ (ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 112.9). My explanation is that the first derives from the List of Catholicoi whilst the second reporting the campaigning of Sahen was taken from the list of Persian governors and commanders. Later on, the text specifies ‘the fifth year of his (Constans’) reign’ (ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 143.18) but then backtracks to ‘the second year of Constans, in the month of Hori, on the 23rd day of the month, a Sunday, during the morning…’ (ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 146.11- 12). The first is linked to affairs in Constantinople and thus the Bagratuni source; the second identifies the date when the fortress of Arcap‘k‘ fell to the Arab raiders and is associated with the postulated Rstuni source. 211 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 137.30-138.4, 138.5-7 and 140.35-37. The first stems from the Bagratuni source because it alleges that when on his deathbed, Heraclius’ prime concern was to pardon the aspet. I believe that the second should be linked to the Rstuni source. The first extract taken from that source notes ‘anmiaban leal amenayn azatac‘n’, ‘and all the azatk‘ being disunited’: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 134.1. Having mentioned the death of Heraclius, this extract repeats ‘k‘anzi anmiaban leal isxanac‘n meknec‘an i mimeanc‘’, ‘because all the princes being disunited, they separated from one another’. The use of a similar phrase is persuasive but not decisive since it is a common complaint. The third introduces the appointment of Valentinus and may also derive from the Bagratuni source. 374 T.W. GREENWOOD range his material, the compiler adopted a straightforward alternative. He selected the narrative source of greatest substance and with the greatest chronological reach and simply inserted other materials into that text. The projected ‘Royal History’ provided the compiler with a basic framework for the first two-thirds of the text, into which his chosen extracts were pasted at approximately the correct place212. He did not dissect his materials for the sake of chronological precision. Thus the list of Persian governors and commanders of Armenia was divided into four large sections rather than being teased out into individual entries. In the same way, the career of Smbat Bagratuni is covered in successive passages, despite the disruption this causes to the chronology. However the ‘Royal History’ extended only as far as the accession of Yazdagird III in 632. For the final third of the text, the compiler had to employ a different approach to organization. It is therefore highly significant that several passages in this final third open with a short distinctive phrase introducing the material to follow. The verb is always in the first person subjunctive and is limited to carec‘ic‘, ‘I shall describe…’ or asac‘ic‘, ‘I shall speak of…’.213 Such first-person subjunctives signify a movement from one extract to another and thus assist in distinguishing the component parts. More importantly, they supply a unity to the final third of the text. The first such phrase appears in the opening sentence of the narrative describing the advent of the Arab expansion: ‘I shall describe the stock of Abraham….’214. The last occurs at the end of the original conclusion: hastatec‘ic‘, ‘I shall confirm…’215. Their distribu- tion is consistent with the proposition that they were employed by the compiler to introduce a change of subject. With two important exceptions, such phrases are not found in the first two-thirds of the text. Nor do they appear in the parallel passages in chapter 3 of T‘ovma Arcruni’s History, a work that, as we have seen, reflects the ‘Royal History’ but not the History attributed to Sebeos. These distinctive phrases should be attributed to the pen of the compiler.

212 This is not the only postulated ‘Royal History’ to be used in this way. The account of Khusraw II in al-™abari’s Ta’rikh includes two long passages which look as though they have been inserted into a pre-existing narrative, the first focused upon later Lakhmid history and the second reporting events in Yemen: AL-™ABARI, p. 1015-1040, BOSWORTH, al-™abari, p. 338-375. 213 Carec‘ic‘: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 134.18 and 161.38. Asac‘ic‘: ABGA- RYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 139.25, 162.22 and 166.33. 214 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 134.18. 215 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 176.24-25. SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 375

4) The Apocalyptic Perspective

The final third of the text reveals that the compiler took over responsibility for more than the arrangement of the various extracts into a coherent whole. Once outside the framework of the ‘Royal History’, he was in a much better position to impart his own interpretation of the dramatic events of recent years and his own understanding of historical development. In order to appreciate the circumstances under which he was working and the decisive influence they had on his perception of the past, we must turn back to the final notices of the text216. a) The Historical Context and the Response of the Compiler From 652 Armenia had been the northern sector of the front-line in the renewed hostilities between the Arabs and the Romans. In that year, the leading Armenian prince, T‘eodoros lord of Rstunik‘, switched allegiance from Constans II to Mu‘awiya, prompting an extended journey eastwards by the emperor himself in 653 to shore up his support217. Fol- lowing his hasty departure back to Constantinople, the Arabs and their clients (notably T‘eodoros) regained control over Armenia. However the failure of the Arab assault against Constantinople in 654 and a further defeat in Cappadocia forced their partial withdrawal from Armenia and, against expectation, allowed Roman forces to return218. The text reports that the Roman commander Maurianos sacked the fortress of Dvin and besieged the fortress of Naxcavan, downstream from Dvin on the River Araxes. This indicates that his offensive, probably to be dated to spring 655, penetrated deep into Armenia219. But for a second time in three years, the Arabs counter-attacked and succeeded in driving the Roman forces out of Armenia220. The text records the grim consequences of this campaign for the whole region: ‘(the army of Ismael) ravaged all the land of Armenia, A¥uank‘, and Siwnik‘, and stripped all the churches. It took hostage the leading princes of the country, and the wives and sons and daughters of many people.’ Thus it was evident to the compiler of the text that supra-national forces had had, and were continuing to have, a devastating impact upon the material wealth, the social cohesion and the religious life of Armenia and its Caucasian neighbours. His world was under severe threat.

216 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 164.13-177.9. 217 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 164.13-168.35. 218 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 169.30-171.37. 219 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 174.4-10. 220 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 174.11-14. 376 T.W. GREENWOOD

In these circumstances, the compiler was not content simply to describe what was happening; he attempted to understand why it was happening. As that world was under God’s sovereignty, the contemporary chaos could only be part of God’s plan and specifically a reflection of God’s anger with his people. He therefore turned to the Bible for an explanation of the fundamental political upheaval then underway in the Near East, as the existing superpowers crumbled in the face of Arab expansion. Inevitably, his attention was attracted to those passages that predicted the future course of human history. In his search, he found a series of prophetic statements that seemed to match what was going on around him. The collapse of the old bipartite political order and the unexpected emergence of a single new dynamic polity appeared to corre- late with the devastation anticipated in an apocalyptic vision of the prophet Daniel221. On no fewer than three separate occasions, the compiler breaks off from his narrative to present the advent of the Arab conquests and their consequences as the fulfilment of Daniel’s prophecy222. On each occasion he equates the nascent caliphate with the fourth beast of Daniel’s vision: ‘This fourth, arising from the south is the kingdom of Ismael, just as the archangel explained (to Daniel), “The fourth beast, the fourth kingdom, shall arise, which shall be greater than all kingdoms; and it will consume the whole earth”.’223 The first part of Daniel’s prophecy describes four beasts, interpreted later in the chapter as four kingdoms, which would arise on the earth. The compiler saw that the recent political upheaval could be fitted into this systematic prophecy. He proposed that the first beast, the kingdom of the west, represented the Roman Empire and that the second, the kingdom of the east, was the Sasanian Empire224. With less conviction, he identified the kingdom of the north with ‘Gog and Magog’225. Whilst this may represent the Turkic power that had intervened briefly and deci- sively in the Caucasus on the side of Heraclius in his final campaigns against Khusraw II, the present form of the text suggests that the compiler had difficulty matching this third element of the prophetic vision with the recent past; the actions of the third beast are not recorded in the extant text. However it is also possible that the work did once contain

221 Daniel 7. 222 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 141.23-142.15, 161.38-162.21 and 176.22- 177.9. 223 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 141.23-142.15. 224 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 141.27-142.4. 225 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 142.4-8. SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 377 relevant passages. The Table of Contents refers to ‘the advancing of Heraclius into the northern regions to the king of the T‘etalac‘ik’ and ‘the sending of a terrible multitude of peoples’ but these events are not covered in the work itself226. Therefore the supra-national quality of the History attributed to Sebeos was not simply a whim of the compiler. It stems from his eschatological interpretation of contemporary circumstances and his perception of what stage in God’s predetermined plan for the world had been reached. He detected a correspondence between Daniel’s prophecy, with its unitary, coherent view of historical development, and the recent history and present conditions pertaining to the Near East. This required him to describe not only the actions of the fourth beast but also to trace the recent history and fate of the first three beasts — hence his concentration upon Roman, Persian and Islamic history and his interest in the warfare between them. His inclusive approach to Near- Eastern history — and interest in the destinies of secular kings and empires — reflects the universal quality of Daniel’s prophecy. It was applicable to the whole world. At the same time, this apocalyptic interpretation justifies the text’s highly individual approach to Armenian history. Armenia and Armenians appear only in the context of relevance to or relationship with one or other of the beasts. The non-Armenian orientation of the Table of Contents supports this contention; it gives us valuable insight into the compiler’s perception of his own composi- tion227. However the compiler did more than simply use Daniel’s prophecy to construct a transcendent scheme of meaning for recent and current events. The original conclusion to the History attributed to Sebeos reveals that he anticipated further turmoil in the future as the End of Time approached: ‘Just as it was fulfilled to those first (ones), so likewise to these last (ones) it shall be fulfilled until eternity according to the word of the Lord who says, “Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass.” “For fire will flame up,” he says, “From my anger it shall burn and de- scend to the lowest hell”.’228

226 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 65.20-22. Table of Contents: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 64.24-66.6. Conceivably the relevant passages have dropped out in the course of transmission. Alternatively it is possible that the Table reflects the in- tended rather than the final form of the text. 227 With the exception of the first entry, the rebellion of Vardan Mamikonean against Khusraw I, and one tangential reference to its border, neither Armenians nor Armenia feature in the Table of Contents. 228 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 176.26-30. 378 T.W. GREENWOOD

Having emphasized once more the destructive character of the fourth beast, the text ends with a quotation combining two prophetic verses, one from Isaiah and the other from Jeremiah: ‘Then at the going out of the Words he says “The day of their destruction is close; the Lord has arrived upon them in readiness.” And this too will be fulfilled in its own time.’229 This anticipates the imminent collapse of the Arab polity. The text concludes not with a summary of the recent past but rather a prediction for the future, a future in which evil, in other words the fourth beast, would be subject to divine judgement. Critically, this moment of transition from history interpreted as prophecy to prophecy itself occurs in the final paragraphs of the text. For an eschatological work, the History attributed to Sebeos contains a unique balance between history and prophecy, favouring the former to such an extent that the text’s apocalyptic character has tended to be ignored. Therefore the History attributed to Sebeos is not an objective work of historical scholarship pieced together by someone motivated solely by the preservation of material for future generations. Rather it is a collection of historical proofs which, when pasted together, justified the apocalyptic conviction of the compiler. The extracts chart the unfolding of the Last Days and in so doing, define how far that process has advanced. Thus although the text supplies much invaluable information about events that would otherwise be vague or dimly visible, it was shaped by a particular understanding of the structure and end of human history230. The compiler placed the decades of crisis in the Near East within a Biblical schema of universal meaning. The text represents a personal, highly sophisticated response to the longstanding chaos and confusion witnessed by the compiler within Armenia but enveloping every part of his known world. The compiler’s apocalyptic interpretation not only explained the past and the present. As we have seen, it also determined the selection of material for inclusion. It may even have conditioned the compiler’s particular concern for correct doctrine, as demonstrated by his decision to include the whole of the draft Defence of the Armenian faith231. How-

229 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 177.7-9. 230 Thus for example the text contains a short isolated passage reporting a new burst of construction activity on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 139.25-140.22. Although there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of this notice, it may owe its inclusion to a prophetic passage in Daniel 8:9-12 reporting how the little horn of the south would overthrow the place of the sanctuary or perhaps Daniel 11.30-31, which anticipates the forces of the man of sin profaning the Temple of God. 231 The text does not specify exactly who will be redeemed at the Second Coming. However it is possible that the compiler’s antipathy to the Chalcedonian Greek Church SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 379 ever this expectation of an imminent end does not infuse the whole text, but is limited, with one very significant exception, to the final third of the text for which the compiler had assumed a greater responsibility. He did not revise or rework extracts from existing sources, even when these preferred a different understanding of historical development. Thus the first two-thirds of the text maintains a conventional approach to causation, perceiving events primarily in terms of the actions and decisions of leading personalities. Although several passages acknowledge the possibility of divine intervention in human affairs, there is no attempt to con- nect the political instability and decades of warfare between Rome and Persia with the Last Days and the Second Coming232. The solitary exception is provided by a single short passage, located immediately beneath the original headings ‘Chronological Text’ and ‘Royal History’233. It provides a vital connection between that part of the text constructed around the projected ‘Royal History’ and that part which attests the greater involvement of the compiler. In so doing, this short passage confirms the integrity of the text. It is fiercely antagonistic towards Khusraw II, calling him the ‘Sasanian brigand’ and ‘the destroyer and the corrupter, cursed by God’. He is identified as the origin of the calamities that have befallen the world, the one who ‘consumed with fire everything beneath’ and who ‘disturbed the sea and the dry land in order to bring destruction upon the whole earth’. Moreover the invective envisages ‘the one of the south, aroused with great passion’; ‘like a tempest (mrrik) it burst out and rushed (p‘ot‘orkeal ent‘ac‘eal) to destroy everything beneath’234. The destructive activities of Khusraw II had preceded those of the Arabs but were directly linked to them in the divinely predetermined schema. The Arab conquests could only be com- prehended in the context of the previous decades of warfare. Within the first two-thirds of the text, this short passage is unique in terms of its breadth of historical vision, its eschatological interpretation of events and its hostile presentation of Khusraw II. It therefore contra- dicts the neutral or even slightly favourable image of Khusraw devel- attests a personal conviction that only those who had held fast to true orthodox belief, as defined according to Armenian tradition, would be saved. See ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 148.27-161.34 for the draft document and R.W. THOMSON, The Defence of Armenian Orthodoxy in Sebeos, in I. SEVCENKO and I. HUTTER, AETOS. Studies in Hon- our of Cyril Mango, Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1998, p. 329-341. 232 See for example Khusraw’s taunting letter to Heraclius and his response, located in the postulated ‘Royal History’: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 123.15-124.5. 233 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 72.3-20. 234 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 72.15. The past tense indicates that this is historic, not prophetic. 380 T.W. GREENWOOD oped in many subsequent passages. In the draft Defence of Armenian orthodoxy, Khusraw II is portrayed as the arbiter of a prolonged theological disputation who came down in favour of the Armenian confession of faith; this is a most surprising role for someone previously ‘cursed by God’235. However this short passage does correspond linguis- tically and thematically with the three passages outlining the compiler’s apocalyptic interpretation of events in the final third of the text. The first of these refers to the one ‘who kindled and consumed with fire the sea and dry land’ as the ‘Ismaeli brigand’236; this should be understood as a conscious and deliberate echo of the earlier reference to Khusraw II as the ‘Sasanian brigand’ who ‘consumed with fire everything beneath and disturbed the sea and the dry land’237. Moreover in these later passages, the kingdom of Ismael is specifically described as ‘arising from the south’ and is likened to ‘a tempest which rushes and bursts out to appre- hend all the earth’238. This imagery is identical to that found in the earlier passage. These exact verbal correspondences confirm that the compiler was responsible for writing this short introductory passage239. The compiler viewed Khusraw II as the harbinger of the apocalyptic process, thereby justifying the inclusion of passages focused upon his reign. But he did not meddle with the original perspective and interpretation of the sources exploited by him for the narrative of events during the reign of Khusraw II. Rather he prefaced the postulated ‘Royal History’ with a brief exposition on Khusraw’s primary role in God’s plan for the world, and left the sources to speak for themselves. Thus far, we have seen how Daniel’s apocalyptic vision provided the compiler with a coherent, Biblical view of historical development and how it governed his selection of material. But it may have had a third influence, namely upon the composition of one of the narrative passages at the end of the text. The final updating scholium appended to the original conclusion reports the conflict that broke out inside the Arab polity

235 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 149.4-151.33. 236 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 141.23-4: ‘Bayc‘ zahagin a¥ets henin Ismayeli or borbok‘eac‘ hrdeheal zcov ew zc‘amak‘’. 237 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 72.3-5: ‘hen Sasanakan…or hrdeheal boc‘a- coyc‘ zar i nerk‘oys amenayn d¥ordeal zcov ew zc‘amak‘’. 238 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 142.10-14 and 162.16-19: ‘Like a tempest (mrrik) it shall race (ent‘asc‘i) from the south, coming from the desert, from that terrible place. That is the great and terrible desert from where the storm of these nations burst (p‘ot‘orkeal) and seized all the land…’ 239 The presence of two of the distinctive first-person subjunctive phrases within this passage provides additional corroboration: carec‘ic‘ (ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 72.7) and asac‘ic‘ (ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 72.19). See above, n. 213. SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 381 after 655240. It presents the first fitna as a violent competition for military and political supremacy between four rival regional powers, a version of events that is substantially different to the twofold division consistently reported within the Islamic historical tradition241. However this account needs to be read in the context of the next stage in Daniel’s vision. The prophet describes how the fourth beast had ten horns, how another little horn developed and how three of the ten were plucked up by their roots242. When he sought an explanation, Daniel was told that ten kings would arise out of the kingdom of the fourth beast: ‘After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he shall subdue three kings.’243 Whilst there are several obvious distinctions between these verses and the outline of events in the final scholium, there seems to be a broad coincidence both in the number of kings who are defeated and the emergence of a single, superior king. Thus the account of the first fitna contained within the History attributed to Sebeos appears to be based upon the next stage of Daniel’s vision. It reflects what the compiler anticipated should have been happening on the eve of the End of time. It cannot be accepted at face value244.

240 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 175.32-176.21. The two other scholia concen- trate upon Armenian matters: the six-year exile of Nerses III and his return in 659: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 174.37-175.7; the switch of allegiance by Hamazasp Mamikonean and other Armenians to Constans II, with fatal consequences for those Ar- menians being held hostage by the Arabs: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 175.8-31. Both develop themes found at the end of the original text. This continuity suggests that the compiler was responsible for adding these additional passages. 241 THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. 284-287. 242 Daniel 7.7b-8. These verses are quoted previously in the text, proving that the compiler was aware of their content: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 142.14-15. 243 Daniel 7.24. 244 The apocalyptic perspective has one further, indirect contribution to make in respect of unravelling the composition of the History attributed to Sebeos. Since we can be sure that the compiler was responsible for writing the four passages of apocalyptic interpretation and explanation, those passages displaying close verbal correspondences may also be attributed to the pen of the compiler. Textual comparison confirms that he was the author of two of the passages attributed to him previously on other grounds. As Thomson has noted, the description of the agreement between T‘eodoros Rstuni and Mu‘awiya as ‘a covenant with death’ and ‘an alliance with hell’ is based on two verses in Isaiah, specifically 28:15b and 28:18a (ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 164.15; THOMSON/ HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. 136 and n. 838). Significantly the hostile introduction to Khusraw as ‘the destroyer and the corrupter’ found beneath the original headings employs the opposite halves of both verses, Isaiah 28.15a and 28:18b (ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 72.15; THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. 13 and n. 95). This coincidence is too extraordinary to be accidental. The only person who could have written both passages was the compiler himself. The identification in the later passage of Mu‘awiya as ‘the servant of Anti-Christ’ is consistent with the apocalyptic tone of the text (ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 164.27-28: nerin arbaneakn). Secondly the description of the destruction of the Arab fleet in 654 is full of verbal correspondences. Thus the image of God’s anger as a tempest, mrrik mec, recalls the description of the Arabs as the tempest, 382 T.W. GREENWOOD b) The Apocalyptic Tradition Of course, the compiler of the History attributed to Sebeos was far from being the first writer to detect an eschatological te sonance within the progress of recent human history or to anticipate that the End was imminent. There was a long tradition of Jewish, Christian and Zoroas- trian apocalyptic literature245. As Magdalino has shown, the sixth century within the Byzantine world was ‘a time of intense and intensifying eschatological apprehension’246. He and others have noted that apocalyptic expectation reached a climax in the immediate aftermath of Heraclius’ triumph over Khusraw II in 628. Mango has observed that the restoration of the True Cross to Jerusalem in March 630 was celebrated in ‘deliberately apocalyptic style’247. Several contemporary texts predicted that the End was close at hand248. Furthermore the attempts by Heraclius to forcibly convert Persians and Jews and unify the several separate Near-Eastern churches within a single confession have been interpreted as both necessary and appropriate actions on the part of a Christian emperor preparing for the Second Coming249. Hitherto scholars interested in seventh-century apocalyptic materials have been presented with a serious problem. Lack of evidence has forced them to leap from the apocalyptic ferment of the early 630s to the mrrik, seen over Babylon (ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 171.10; ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 162.6). The churned-up sea, d¥rdec‘aw covn, recalls d¥ordeal zcov (ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 171.10-11; ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 72.5). The whirling wind, ho¥mn p‘ot‘orkeal, is strongly reminiscent of zmrrik awdoy t‘ruc‘eal p‘ot‘orkeal entats‘eal, mrrik i haravoy ent‘asc‘i and mrrik azgac‘s aysoc‘ik p‘ot‘orkeal, phrases which appear in two of the apocalyptic passages (ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 171.12; ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 72.15; ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 162.16 and ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 162.17-18). There can be little doubt that one person was responsible for all of these passages. 245 B. MCGINN, Visions of the End, Columbia NY, 1979, p. 1-36 (= MCGINN, Visions). For Zoroastrian material, see P. GIGNOUX, L’Apocalyptique iranienne est-elle vraiment la source des autres apocalypses?, in Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 31 (1985-1988), p. 67-78. 246 P. MAGDALINO, The History of the Future and its Uses, in R. BEATON and C. ROUECHÉ, The Making of Byzantine History: Studies presented to Donald M. Nicol, Aldershot, 1993, p. 7 (= MAGDALINO, History of the Future). 247 C. MANGO, Byzantium. The Empire of New Rome, London, 1980, p. 205 (= MANGO, Byzantium). See also C. MANGO, Deux Études sur Byzance et la Perse Sassanide, in Travaux et Mémoires, 9 (1985), p. 112-114 and 117; and C. MANGO, The Temple Mount, AD 614–638, in J. RABY and J. JOHNS, Bayt al-Maqdis. ‘Abd al-Malik’s Jerusalem, Ox- ford, 1992, p. 6 and 15-16. 248 See for example, G. GARITTE, La Passion géorgienne de Sainte Golindouch, in Analecta Bollandiana, 74 (1956), p. 439; A.-J. FESTUGIERE, Vie de Théodore de Sykéon, Brussels, 1970, I, p. 106; WHITBY, Theophylact, v. 15.5-11. George of Pisidia, Hexae- meron, in Patrologia Graeca, 92 (1865), 1575. 249 MAGDALINO, History of the Future, p. 19. SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 383 several Syriac apocalypses composed in the very different circumstances of the last decade of the seventh century, most notably the Apocalypse of Ps. Methodius250. The History attributed to Sebeos represents one of the missing links in the chain of seventh-century apocalyptic writing. It supplies the earliest systematic explanation for the rise of Muslim power, one that fitted into the conventional framework of the successive kingdoms in Daniel's prophecy. Although the Ps. Methodius Apoca- lypse remains an original and highly influential response to the unexpected recovery of Arab rule after the second fitna and to the very real danger of apostasy by large numbers of Christians, it was not the first apocalyptic text to confront the rise of Islam251. That privilege must now be accorded to this Armenian text. The History attributed to Sebeos differs from the later Syriac apocalypses in several key respects. It is not pseudonymous252. There is no attempt within the text to work out how many years of human history were left before the Second Coming, usually calculated by reference to the weeks of years mentioned by Daniel253. Quite simply, the compiler was convinced that he was living through the chaos of the Last Times and that the end was imminent. In such circumstances, eschatological computation was pointless. Nor does the text refer to the advent of a Last World Emperor or Endkaiser, a figure who seems to have developed out of the Alexander Romance and who has no Biblical basis. As Reinink and others have observed, the Apocalypse of Ps. Methodius is the first text to incorporate such a character254. That text anticipates the emergence of a king of the Greeks who would unite all Christians and

250 G. REININK, Die syrische Apokalypse des pseudo-Methodius (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 540-541; Scr. Syri, 220-221), Louvain, 1993. 251 G. REININK, Ps.-Methodius: a Concept of History in Response to the Rise of Islam, in A. CAMERON and L. CONRAD, The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East I: Problems in the Literary Source Materials, Princeton, 1992, p. 149-187 (= CAMERON and CONRAD, Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East I). 252 In addition to Ps. Methodius, see Ps.-Ephraem’s Sermon on the End of Time, edited by E. BECK, Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones III (Corpus Scriptorum Chris- tianorum Orientalium, 320; Scr. Syri, 138), Louvain, 1972, p. 60-71 and translated by H. SUERMANN, Die geschichtstheologische Reaktion auf die einfallenden Muslime in der edessenischen Apokalyptik des 7. Jahrhunderts, Frankfurt, 1985, p. 12-33; and also the Apocalypses of Simon Kepha, James son of Zebedee and John the Little, discussed by H.J.W. DRIJVERS, The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles: A Syriac Apocalypse from the Early Islamic Period, in CAMERON and CONRAD, Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East I, p. 189-213. 253 Daniel 9.24. The cosmic week, in which each day represented a thousand years, was also used to work out how much time was left for mankind; see Revelation 20.4-6. 254 G. REININK, Pseudo-Methodius und die Legende vom römische Endkaiser, in W. VERBEKE, D. VERHELST and A. WELKENHUYSEN, The Use and Abuse of Eschatology in the Middle Ages, Leuven, 1988, p. 82-111. 384 T.W. GREENWOOD defeat the cruel tyrants from the desert, the sons of Isamel. Although Gog and Magog and the twenty-two nations would break through Alex- ander’s gate of the North and come upon the land of Israel, in fulfilment of Ezekiel’s prophecy, they would also be defeated. The Last Emperor would then go to Jerusalem to give up his crown, an event that would usher in the time of the Antichrist. These new scenes in the apocalyptic drama seem to have been devised to justify the traditional identification of the Roman empire as the fourth beast rather than the caliphate. The sons of Ismael represented a temporary chastisement from whom true believers would soon be delivered. By implication therefore, those believers should remain steadfast in their faith because relief was at hand. There is a sharp contrast between this complicated sequence, in which the time of the Antichrist was still some way off, and the simple eschatological process depicted by the History attributed to Sebeos. The Armenian text had no difficulty in identifying the forces of Ismael as the fourth beast. Given the speed with which the Sasanian and Roman empires had been overtaken, the compiler envisaged that a similar fate was in store for the caliphate. As the Last Times were already well underway, there was no need to expand the eschatological drama by inserting new elements. The limited scope of the compiler’s apocalyptic vision can be seen in two other respects. In the first place, the compiler was content to interpret the recent past and the present crisis through Daniel’s vision and other Old Testament images of God’s wrath. The synoptic apocalypse found in the Gospels (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21) did not influence the vision of the compiler255. Nor did he exploit Paul’s oblique reference in II Thessalonians 2:7-8 to the withholding or restraining power, whose removal would bring about the entry of the Antichrist256. The compiler preferred the prophetic experiences reported in the Old Testament. Sec- ondly he was not prepared to look very far ahead. He predicted that ‘they (i.e. the sons of Ismael) will be consumed by fire’ and ‘the founda- tions of their mountains, that is the tyrannies of their great princes, will burst into flames’257. But he did not go on to describe the time of the Antichrist, the Second Coming and the final vindication of the faithful. Again this reluctance to anticipate the future has served to conceal the true apocalyptic nature of the text. There is one incidental reference that

255 For a brief summary of this New Testament apocalypse, see MANGO, Byzantium, p. 201-202 and MAGDALINO, History of the Future, p. 4. 256 This phrase was interpreted as representing the Roman Empire, meaning that the world was destined to last as long as the Empire did. 257 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 176.31-32. SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 385 may explain this. After detailing the terms of the agreement between the prince of Ismael (Mu‘awiya) and T‘eodoros Rstuni, the text states ‘In this way, the servant of Antichrist split them away from the Romans’258. Whether one takes ‘the servant’ to refer to Mu‘awiya or to T‘eodoros, it implies that the Antichrist was already present on earth. As far as the compiler was concerned, the Parousia was imminent. Whilst the Syriac apocalypses described the Antichrist in great detail but saw him as a future apparition, the compiler of the History attributed to Sebeos believed that he was a present reality. One further issue needs to be addressed, namely whether the History attributed to Sebeos represents a unique witness to the presence of apocalyptic expectations within Armenia at this time or whether it forms one of a group of works with a similar perspective. Although the evidence is insubstantial, it seems that the text is not alone in its eschatological interest. The first hint that this approach was not unique derives from a solitary reference at the very beginning of the text. In front of the Table of Contents, there is a short summary defining those subjects which would not be covered. This opens with the demise of the Arsakuni monarchy at the start of the fifth century and the dominance of the Kark‘edovmayi empire, by which the writer meant Persia259. Thomson noted that Kark‘edovn, previously interpreted as an error, is equated with Persia in an Armenian apocalyptic text entitled ‘The Sev- enth Vision of Daniel’260. This rare word establishes an important connection between the History attributed to Sebeos and that text. It appears that the compiler may have had access to, and been influenced by, an existing apocalyptic commentary in Armenian261. Although pieced together at the start of the tenth century, the History of A¥uank‘ preserves an impression of a seventh-century source which also applied an apocalyptic interpretation to recent history. As we have noted previously, Book ii chapter 9 introduces six chapters which report the final decisive stage in the warfare between Heraclius and Khusraw II after 624 and the devastating impact which these events had upon

258 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 164.27-28: nerin arbaneakn. 259 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 64.26. 260 THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p.1, n. 3. For the Seventh Vision of Daniel, see S. YOVSEP‘EANC‘, Ankanon Girk‘ Hin Ktakaranac‘, Venice, 1896, p. 235-250, at p. 244. This text has attracted very little attention. 261 If this connection is correct, it justifies the presence of the otherwise isolated passage describing the failed attempt by Maurice to recover Daniel’s body from Saws/Susa. It may be that the miracle associated with Daniel’s body was included to illustrate the prophet’s continuing holiness, and by implication the efficacy of his apocalyptic vision: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 85.27-86.19. 386 T.W. GREENWOOD

A¥uank‘262. A number of important parallels in style, content and perspective between these chapters and the postulated ‘Royal History’ have already been proposed. However it is also worth looking carefully at the introductory chapter. Chapter 9 opens with a sudden and sustained panegyric to the achievements of the author, praising his history as ‘astonishing’ and composed for ‘the hearing of the whole world…to which the accounts of earlier ages are not equal.’ It disparages the ‘worldly, spiritual, philosophical constructs of secular, clever, eloquent story-tellers’. It outlines the author’s intention: ‘to set a foundation and beginning of an account of the times and events which came to pass through this country of A¥uank‘.’263 The peculiar location of these bold claims, hidden deep within Book ii, strongly suggests that they were not made by the compiler of the History of A¥uank‘ but derive instead from an antecedent source. The passage goes on to argue explicitly that the events under discussion should be interpreted as part of God’s plan: ‘For it has come and apprehended us at the same time and has been completed, that which our Saviour mentioned in the life-giving Gospel in the time of his suffering, in accordance with the enduring of the listening of these chosen twelve concerning his descending. He said, “You shall hear of battles and an abundance of famines (will) occur and swords/plagues and earthquakes and signs in the sun and in the moon and in the stars and disorders of people, like the agitating of the waves of the sea.” And the same Lord himself forewarned, “Be careful, because you do not know the day or the hour”.’264 Evidently the author of this passage believed that the Last Times were being played out, quoting prophetic statements from Matthew’s Gospel to justify that expectation265. This has important repercussions for the apocalyptic vision identified in the History attributed to Sebeos because it confirms that that text was not unique in its attitude and response to contemporary circumstances. Unfortunately the task of identifying the underlying sources for these chapters and tracing their evolution into their present form is far from straightforward. The composition of these chapters will be re-examined in a future publication devoted to the whole text but two preliminary observations should be made. Firstly there are clear thematic and linguistic

262 Book ii chapter 9: ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 127.4-128.10. Book ii chapters 10-16: ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 128.13-170.15. 263 ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 127.4-10 and 20-22. 264 ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 127.11-18. 265 Matthew 24:6, 7, 29, 36 and 25:13. SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 387 links between chapters 9 and 16. The introduction refers to the ‘dread and fear which still possesses us’ but attributes the ‘countless losses of the barbarous enemies encircling round us’ to the ‘powerful and benevolent right hand of God’266. Chapter 16 develops these themes. It opens by describing how the prince of the north established ‘dread and fear’ over the land and ends by recalling the ‘terrible and horrible reckoning that was rendered upon the heads of our enemies’, by which it means the unexpected implosion of the Turkic confederation267. Again the author attributed this to divine intervention: ‘it is the Lord who makes his enemies weak’ and ‘the Lord performed great things for us’268. The most appropriate context for the writing of the introduction seems to be the immediate aftermath of the removal of the Turkic threat, dated by the text to the second year of Artasir (629/630)269. This context would also suit the slightly muddled logic of chapter 9. Whilst asserting an apocalyptic interpretation for the dramatic events of the recent past, the introduction also views the latest development, namely the miraculous deliv- ery of A¥uank‘ from Turkic oppression, as evidence of God’s active intervention in this world and His concern for the fate of his servants. Whilst not exactly incompatible, these sit somewhat uncomfortably together. Unfortunately, this proposed date is undermined by the presence of three anachronistic references within these chapters. Khusraw’s criticism of Heraclius in chapter 11 as one who ‘travelled wandering and in flight from my presence to the islands of the west’ is misplaced because it was Constans II, Heraclius’ grandson who ventured westwards, after 662270. Mention of Khazars in the same passage is equally suspicious, given that they emerged only in the 680s271. Finally when recording the death of

266 ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 128.2-7. Dread and fear: ‘zah ew zerkiw¥’. 267 ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 166.15-17: ‘isxann hiwsisoy…ed zah ew zerkiw¥’ and ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 169.20-21. 268 ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 169.3-4 and 170.4-5. 269 ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 166.14. The reversion to Persian regnal years as the preferred dating mechanism unites chapter 16 with the previous chapters. Linguis- tic parallels confirm the close relationship between these chapters. The statement in chapter 9, ‘I have forgotten the sequence of my discourse’ (ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 127.20: ‘ew morac‘ay zkarg banin’) is echoed in chapter 16, ‘Let us turn to the same sequence of discourse’ (ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 170.4: ‘Ayl mek‘ i noyn darjc‘uk‘ i karg banic‘n’). 270 ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 133.18-19. 271 It is important not to be misled by Dowsett’s translation. Arak‘elyan’s edition reveals that there is only a single reference to Xazirk‘ in these chapters: ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 133.16. Dowsett’s multiple references should be understood as a misguided attempt by him to clarify the text. In fact his elaboration does the text a considerable disservice, implying that it is repeatedly incorrect. Elsewhere, Jebu Xak‘an is described, far more appropriately, as the king of the Huns, ‘t‘agawor Honac‘’: ARAK‘E- LYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 139.21. 388 T.W. GREENWOOD

Kawad II, chapter 13 adds that ‘the kingdom was about to be removed from the house of the Sasanians and given to the hands of the children of Ismael’272. This prefigures the death of Yazdagird III in 653 and the end of the Sasanian line. Collectively these casts-forward indicate that this material was expanded or reworked towards the end of the seventh century. Thus there are several textual difficulties that need to be resolved in respect of these chapters. However whether one views the apocalyptic passage in chapter 9 as the product of the early 630s or the 680s — and I incline towards the former rather than the latter — its existence indicates that the apocalyptic expectation of the compiler of the History attributed to Sebeos was not unique273.

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

272 ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 149.11-14. 273 I prefer the earlier date for two principal reasons. In the first pace, there are verbal correspondences between chapters 9 and 16, correspondences that are not repeated later in Book ii when reporting the advent of the Khazars after 680. Secondly, the apocalyptic passages are solely focused upon a northern threat and make no mention of the Arab conquests or the collapse of Sasanian Persia. It seems hard to believe that these events would not have impinged upon the understanding of the author, unless he was active before these events occurred, namely in the early 630s. SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 389

5) The Date of Composition

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

6) The Commission of the Text

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

274 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 173.31-174.36 and 176.22-177.9. THOMSON/ HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. 149, n. 923 explains the original order of the final notices. 275 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 177.7-9: ‘And then at the end of the description he says, “The day of their destruction is near, the Lord has readily apprehended them.” And this too shall be accomplished in its own time.’ 276 It is tempting to conjecture that the first notice, concerning the exile of the Catholicos Nerses, was inserted into a gap on the penultimate folio of the original manuscript and that the other two were added to the final folio, beneath the concluding peroration. This would explain why they are split up. 277 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 174.37-175.7, 175.8-31 and 175.32-176.21. 390 T.W. GREENWOOD justifying the purpose of that history278. The History attributed to Sebeos lacks both elements. Thomson noted that there was no ‘overt suggestion that he was encouraged in his task by a person in higher authority’ and suggests that the compiler may have ‘assumed that the purposes of history had already been sufficiently expounded by his predecessors’279. As we have seen, the combination of discrete passages of apocalyptic explanation and relevant extracts proving the unfolding of the Last Times distinguishes this text from previous Armenian historical compositions. Al- though it drew upon historical materials, it is not a conventional history. Thus we should not be surprised that it lacks any explanation for the writing of history. Those passages of eschatological analysis supply a complete justification. However this does not address the issue of patronage. The opening passages of the text provide a first glimpse of the political sympathies of the compiler. After noting the end of the Arsakuni kingdom, the text summarizes the circumstances and consequences of the rebellion of Vardan Mamikonean against Yazdagird II in the middle of the fifth cen- tury280. The compiler asserts that he will not be covering these episodes in his work, since ‘all that has been written by others as that same His- tory indicates’, but this very protestation requires explanation. It is difficult to understand why the compiler should elect to outline what he was not going to cover unless that précis had some purpose or relevance to his own composition. This ‘same History’ is the only written source to be defined in the History attributed to Sebeos. The compiler therefore thought of his own work in the context of an earlier history that had a distinct Mamikonean perspective; this reflects knowledge of, and possibly access to, that Mamikonean historiographical tradition281. Having begun by stating expressly what would not be covered in the text, the compiler then inserted the Table of Contents, whose non-Arme- nian orientation has been noted above282. The passage which follows that Table reverts back to fifth-century affairs, recording the successful re-

278 THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. xliv-xlvii. See for example PATKANEAN, T‘ovma, p. 3-4, 45 and 76. 279 THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. xlvii. 280 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 64.32-65.15. 281 Two of the recorded features of the ‘same History’ do not tally with any extant account of the rebellion of Vardan Mamikonean. Vardan is called ‘the Red’ and the place where those taken prisoner were later martyred is called T‘earkuni. Furthermore the passage implies that no text covered events after their martyrdoms, thus ignoring the History of ™azar Parpec‘i, whose work concludes with the appointment of Vahan Mamikonean as marzpan in 485. These indicate that the tradition available to the compiler was very different to the extant record. 282 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 65.16-66.6; see above, n. 226 and 227. SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 391 bellion by Vahan Mamikonean against the Persian king Peroz and his subsequent appointment as marzpan by Peroz’s successor Kawad I283. Moreover before the text turns to the list of Persian commanders and governors of Armenia, there is space to mention, fleetingly, Vahan’s successor, his brother the patrik Vard and finally the rebellion of Vardan almost a century later284. He too was a member of the Mamikonean house, although he is not specified as such in the text. Therefore the first four Armenian princes mentioned in the History attributed to Sebeos all belonged to the Mamikonean house. This consistent focus is significant because these figures do not have any function in the remainder of the text. Evidently the Mamikonean context was forged for particular reasons. The final notices of the History attributed to Sebeos displays the same Mamikonean focus. A rivalry between two Mamikonean princes, Hamazasp and Muse¥, dominates the text285. Both receive conspicuous and extended coverage. The compiler even uses shorthand to identify them, referring to them by their Christian names only, omitting not only their family name but also their respective titles and honours286. Since it is highly likely that the compiler wrote these passages himself, this fa- miliarity is significant. Of the two figures however, one is preferred. Unlike Muse¥, Hama- zasp is given a short, personal eulogy287. The form of this panegyric is highly unusual. The principal quality displayed by Hamazasp is that he is ‘a lover of reading and study’. At the same time, the eulogy concedes that he lacked military expertise. This represents a startling admission on behalf of any Armenian prince, let alone someone holding the title ‘prince of Armenia’. Hamazasp was in the process of remedying this in- experience, beginning ‘to carry out with fervent haste acts of bravery in accordance with the abilities of his ancestors, seeking from on high leadership and success for his own valour.’ Who would be a more appropriate patron for a historical composition with a pronounced Mamikonean spin than a Mamikonean prince who was a lover of learning and eager to emulate the achievements of his ancestors? Hamazasp Mamikonean seems ideally suited to the role of sponsor of the History attributed to Sebeos. The position of the eulogy in the text supports this proposition. In the original composition, it was situated immediately in front of the

283 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 66.12-67.22. 284 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 67.23-31. 285 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 171.38-172.7 and 175.8-31. 286 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 171.38-9. 287 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 174.29-36. 392 T.W. GREENWOOD final, apocalyptic conclusion. The first scholium has disrupted this order and thus obscured its prominence288. Nor is this text unique in identifying its patron at the very end. The History of A¥uank‘ contains a similar eulogy at the conclusion of its narrative praising a contemporary prince as a lover of learning289. The clear preference for the Mihrakan line of princes within that text is consistent with the proposition that a prince claiming descent through that line commissioned the work. Thus it is highly likely that Hamazasp Mamikonean was the patron of the History attributed to Sebeos. The care with which the second updating scholium lists the titles and gifts bestowed upon Hamazasp by Constans II seems to confirm this identification290.

7) The Identity of the Compiler

We saw above how the text came to be wrongly identified as the work of one Sebeos bishop of the Bagratunik‘. Who else could have been responsible for the work? Although the text does not name the compiler, it reveals clues as to his identity. It is almost certain that the compiler was a cleric. Both the eschatological interpretation of recent history and apocalyptic expectation attest a close knowledge of the Bible. This is also revealed in those passages identified previously as being of the compiler’s own composition. As Thomson has noted, there are significantly more Biblical allusions in the second half of the text: ‘when describing in his own words events closer to his own days, his recourse to Biblical imagery became more frequent.’291 Furthermore the text contains three authentic ecclesiastical documents whose inclusion is most conveniently explained by the proposition that the compiler was a senior cleric. The most plausible origin for the letters exchanged between

288 Specifically the exile and return of Nerses III: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 174.37-175.7. 289 ARAK‘ELYAN, Movses Dasxuranc‘i, p. 341.2-7: Sahak/Sewada, ‘a seeker of book- knowledge’, ‘xndro¥ gragitut‘ean’ and someone who ‘appointed writers in his house’, ‘ew dprapets i tan iwrum kargeac‘’. 290 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 175.8-12. There is one further observation to make, although this is little more than a conjecture. The text contains a very full account of those Armenian princes who attended upon Constans II at Karin in 652 and the consequences of their attendance: ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 165.17-166.25. Aside from the critical importance of this passage for discerning and tracing Armenian social relations, it is also significant for the principal role it affords to Muse¥ Mamikonean and his reward by Constans II, and the relative lack of interest in Hamazasp’s support of his father-in-law T‘eodoros Rstuni. Could it be that in 652, our compiler had backed Muse¥ rather than Hamazasp? 291 THOMSON/HOWARD-JOHNSTON, Sebeos, p. xlix-l. SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 393

Komitas and Modestos is in the archives of the Catholicos, perhaps at his residence in Dvin, near to the cathedral church of Saint Grigor292. The draft ‘Defence’ document justifying the Armenian Christological position seems to have been preserved at the same location293. In his audience with Constans II, the recalcitrant bishop who refused to participate in the Eucharist asserted that the document ‘is now with him’, namely the Catholicos Nerses III, and urged that a search be made to substantiate his claims294. That audience took place in the residence of the Catholicos. This incidental reference implies that there was an ar- chive in the immediate vicinity of the audience chamber. That same passage may reveal the status of the compiler. The conversation between the bishop and the emperor is remarkable for its style and precision, comprising a series of short questions and answers295. Although Thomson warns that this too may be a literary invention, it is significant that it does not constitute a verbose critique of the respective theological positions or liturgical traditions but rather a terse, pithy exchange. It is therefore distinguished from all the contrived speeches and letters discussed above. The private nature of the discussion and the criticism of the Catholicos by Constans II both suggest that this may be an eye-witness account. The obvious candidate is the recalcitrant bishop himself. Thus it seems highly likely that the compiler was a senior cleric. He may well have been the bishop who refused to participate in the sacrament with Constans II, Nerses III and his fellow Armenian bishops. Having argued above that Hamazasp Mamikonean was the sponsor of the work, it follows that a bishop or senior cleric with close ties to the Mamikoneank‘ is the most probable candidate; he would have had both the ability and the incentive to compile this text. There is one final piece of evidence from the text in support of this contention. Aside from Muse¥ and Hamazasp Mamikonean and T‘eodoros Rstuni, the only Ar- menian prince to be named in the final notices of the text is the blessed and pious Artavazd Dimak‘sean, betrayed by his brother to the ‘merci- less executioner’ Habib, who we are told was residing at Aruc of Asnak296. This was a well-established Mamikonean centre in Araga- c‘otn, the site of a palace, fortress and fifth-century church, and the fu-

292 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 116.15-121.2. There is an alternative argument, that these letters were lodged in a collection of the correspondence of Komitas. Prior to his elevation to the position of Catholicos, he held the rank of bishop of the Mami- koneank‘. This would support a Mamikonean origin once more but would not explain how a copy of the draft ‘Defence’ also came to be incorporated. 293 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 148.27-161.34. 294 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 166.33-168.32, especially 168.20-4. 295 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 168.1-32. 296 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p.173.38-174.3. 394 T.W. GREENWOOD ture location of a magnificent new church commissioned by Grigor Mamikonean and completed in 669/670297. Could it be that the text contains this specific but incidental detail because the compiler himself was based at Aruc? In search of a named individual, the Canons of the Council of Dvin, convened in 645, do not include a bishop of the Mamikoneank‘ in the list of signatories, but this list has long been recognized as incomplete, the product of the contemporary confessional divide within the Arme- nian church298. It is possible that doctrinal antagonism between the Catholicos Nerses and the unnamed bishop precluded the latter’s attendance at that Council, but this is purely conjectural.

8) The Current Standing of the Text

The above evaluation shows that the History attributed to Sebeos is a work of no little sophistication. As we have seen, the compiler had access to a range of sources from which he pieced together a text justifying his confident expectation the Last Days had arrived. The text comprises a series of historical proofs supporting his apocalyptic interpretation of recent history and present circumstances299. Daniel’s vision of the four beasts not only provided the compiler with a complete Biblical frame of reference for historical development in which human history was part of a predetermined divine plan; it also guided the scope and content of the text. But having made his selection of material, the compiler did not revise the extracts themselves. Thematic and chronological dislocations within the narrative enable us to trace the divisions between extracts. Moreover the text contains several contradictory statements attesting conflict between attitudes expressed in the underlying sources and the

297 For the palace, see A. KHATCHATRIAN, L’Architecture arménienne du IVe au VIe siècle, Paris, 1971, p. 62-65. There are also a number of column bases and capitals scattered around the seventh-century cathedral church at T‘alin that can only come from a separate building comprising free-standing columns. This is an architectural feature which is never found in church design, where pillars are always used. The church at Yereruk is surrounded by similar column bases, capitals and columns which clearly belong to a separate structure. The inscription on the church at Aruc: ‘In the 29th year of Constans, in the month of Mareri which is the 15th day this holy cathedral was founded by the hand of Grigor Mamikonean prince of Armenia and He¥ine the wife of the same for the intercession of the builders this…Christ God.’ This and other inscriptions will be discussed in a forthcoming article on Armenian epigraphy in the seventh and eighth centuries. 298 HAKOBYAN, Kanonagirk‘, vol. II, p. 214. 299 ABGARYAN, Patmut‘iwn Sebeosi, p. 72.3-20, 141.23-142.15, 161.38-162.8 and 176.22-177.9. SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 395 personal opinions of the compiler. These internal inconsistencies tend to emerge in passages located at the end of the text written by the compiler himself. Their presence confirms that the compiler did not rewrite the materials at his disposal. Scholars of Byzantine, Sasanian and early Islamic history, eager to supplement their own meagre or problematic historical traditions, have all been attracted to the unique vantage point afforded by this text300. However they need to be aware of the circumstances in which material relevant to their own concerns came to be embedded in this Armenian text. The incorporation of passages of non-Armenian material allowed the compiler to trace the recent history of three of Daniel’s four beasts. The History attributed to Sebeos is not an objective survey of recent Near-Eastern history but rather a carefully crafted composition advocat- ing an apocalyptic interpretation of the past and present and anticipating the imminent end of time. The impression of Near-Eastern history that emerges from the text is invaluable but it should not be treated as complete or infallible. Thus the text concentrates upon successive Sasanian defeats and glosses over the years of tenacious resistance in Media and the Iranian highlands. This delay in the triumph of the fourth beast did not fit easily into the compiler’s apocalyptic conception of historical development and was therefore shelved. Likewise the text is keen to high- light instances of internal discord and rebellion within the Byzantine world and passes over the means by which Heraclius and then Constans II were able to survive the shock of the Arab conquests and stabilize the eastern frontier. In other words, not being Greek, Syriac or Arabic in provenance is not a sufficient reason for unquestioning acceptance of the historical accuracy of this Armenian text; it possesses its own historiographical challenges and shortcomings. For these same reasons, scholars interested in early medieval Arme- nian social and political history do not obtain a complete picture from the History attributed to Sebeos. Although the compiler elected to use several different Armenian sources, he focused upon the interaction of Armenian princes with the Roman, Sasanian or Arab powers, disregard- ing intra-Armenian rivalries, conflicts and circumstances. Whilst the history was composed in Armenian, it is far from being a History of Arme-

300 See for example P. CRONE and M.COOK, Hagarism. The Making of the Islamic World, Cambridge, 1997, p. 3-9. Whilst accepting the need for caution when interpreting the version of the origins of Islam provided by the History attributed to Sebeos, the authors are happy to exploit other parts of the text as proof of Judeo-Arab intimacy and the messianism of MuÌammad’s message. These passages need to be understood on their own terms. They fall within the spectrum of anticipated Christian responses to the advent of the Arab conquests and cannot be taken as indicative of Islamic belief at this time. 396 T.W. GREENWOOD nia. It is perhaps this supra-Armenian quality that has served to diminish its value and importance in the eyes of Armenian scholars. Those Arme- nian historical texts focused exclusively or predominantly upon Armenia have attracted the greatest attention. These works portray, and have in turn contributed towards, a sense of Armenian national feeling and self- identity. The History attributed to E¥ise contemplates the interaction of church and state, and the quandary that fifth-century Armenians found themselves in, owing loyalty to a non-Christian sovereign301. It became the standard expression of Armenian resistance in the face of foreign oppression through the observance of archetypal Armenian traditions, circumstances with which many future generations of Armenians would identify. The History of Movses Xorenac‘i defines Armenian nationality in terms of the Arsakuni kingdom, the conversion of the country to Christianity and the sequence of Armenian patriarchs heading a unified and independent church, from Saint Grigor down to the blessed Sahak302. It presupposes and stresses Armenian unity. The History attributed to Sebeos does not fit neatly into these conceptions of Armenian history. Therefore its contribution to the study of early medieval Armenian history has tended to be downplayed or interpreted in the light of these other works. However, if one accepts the proposition that the History attributed to Sebeos was completed no later than 655, the text takes on a new and vital importance. Whilst the Histories of E¥ise and Movses Xorenac‘i comment on earlier periods of Armenian history and thereby seem to be natural starting points from which to begin to reconstruct Armenian social history, it has proved difficult to judge the degree to which each text has undergone reworking over time. Moreover the dating of both texts remains contentious. The History attributed to Sebeos possesses several historiographical advantages over these better-known texts. Its date of composition is secure. Moreover, it was the product of very specific circumstances. When the Last Times failed to materialize, it rapidly became obsolete, thereby ensuring that it was not revised. The History attributed to Sebeos therefore affords a unique insight into seventh-century Armenia. Those passages composed by the compiler himself represent a snapshot of the social and political circumstances then operating within

301 E. TER MINASYAN, E¥ishei vasn Vardanay ew Hayoc‘ Paterazmin, Erevan, 1957. English translation and commentary by R.W. THOMSON, E¥ishe: History of Vardan and the Armenian War (Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies, 5) Cambridge MA, 1982. 302 M. ABE™EAN AND S. YARUT‘IWNEAN, Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘, Tiflis, 1913; repr. Delmar NY, 1981. English translation and commentary by R.W. THOMSON, Moses Khorenats‘i: History of the Armenians (Harvard Armenian Studies and Texts, 4), Cambridge MA, 1978. SASANIAN ECHOES AND APOCALYPTIC EXPECTATIONS 397

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

Oriental Institute, Oxford University Tim GREENWOOD Pusey Lane Oxford, OX1 2LE U.K.

303 Without going into detail, the History attributed to Sebeos tells us almost nothing about the nature of the relationship between princely families and the patchwork of dis- tricts; the transmission of land within and between families; the role of the Armenian church as land-owner; or the relationship between town and country. Nor does it tell us anything about the vast majority of Armenians who did not enjoy rank or status. But it does allow us to begin to disentangle the nature of princely authority, the reciprocal rights and responsibilities between greater and lesser figures, ties that were based primarily upon the provision of military service. It also enables us to see the plethora of titles and social terms — Armenian, Persian and Roman — by which a prince could be defined, depending upon the context of the reference.