History of Armenia

(modern-day Diyarbakır). From here, he wrote his Letter to Vahan Mamikonyan, in which he defends himself against the accusations of the hostile monks and exposes their true faces. The letter was brought and handed to Vahan by the "great nobleman" Hamazasp Mamikonyan, which became the reason for Ghazar's return. It is probable that after this return, Vahan Mamikonyan, instead of the abbacy, proposed to Ghazar another task—one more useful from every perspective: to write the History of Armenia.

Ghazar calls his History the "Third History," considering Agathangelos the first and P'awstos the second. As the successor to P'awstos, he begins narrating the affairs of the Armenians from the point where P'awstos had stopped, that is, from the division of the Arsacid kingdom into two parts, which took place in the year 384, and continues until the year 486, which is the year of Vahan’s election as governor. The History has three major divisions. The first contains the historical material from the division of the Arsacid kingdom until the death of St. Sahak and Mesrop-Mashtots (439). The second contains the first religious war with its preceding and following circumstances (440–461). The third contains the second religious war, or more accurately, the biography of Vahan Mamikonyan, who was, if not the author, then the soul, the leader, and the one who concluded it with success. The History ends with the oration of Catholicos Yohan, where he speaks in the church of Vagharshapat during the time of the invocation performed on the occasion of Vahan Mamikonyan’s appointment as governor.

This work of Ghazar is a precious source for the history of our fifth century. The first part has relatively little that is new or unknown to us from other sources, except for the beautiful and interesting description of the Ararat plain and the Vision of St. Sahak 1.

1) Regarding this vision, see Gr. Khalatyants, "Ghazar Parpetsi," p. 120–127.

The second part is interesting not only for the numerous small and large wars regarding Vardan and the war led under his leadership, with which the information provided by Yeghishe and Ghazar about this war complement each other, but also for its more impartial attitude. Thanks to this, the acting historical figures are illuminated more accurately than would have been possible using only Yeghishe’s source.

The third part, which is the only source for approximately 25 years of our history, showcases the spirit and views of Ghazar in their full greatness. Let us set aside the laudatory tendency regarding Vahan Mamikonyan and the Kamsarakan brothers, which becomes natural and understandable when we keep in mind the author's intimate friendly connection with these heroes, their high position, and especially the fact that Ghazar is writing precisely at the suggestion of Vahan Mamikonyan—that is, by the standards of the centuries, he must officially be his panegyrist. In this part, Parpetsi appears most of all as a progressive, broad-minded, enlightened, and political man. The pages where he explains the destructive, immoralizing consequences of the system of apostasy, and the conditions that Vahan proposes to Nikhor, upon which alone they can be conquered by the Persians, are worthy of the pen of an enlightened statesman of the present century—it is as if the author were a man living and observing in the twentieth century. It is difficult to explain more firmly and convincingly how harmful that orientation was, when the apostates received office and honor, while those who remained firm in their religion were persecuted and despised, and how, by sponsoring this opportunistic conversion, all base instincts gradually appeared and prevailed, while virtue and courage vanished from the Armenian world.

Gh. Parpetsi's second work is his Letter to Vahan Mamikonyan, in which, as we said, he defends himself...