Материал: Payaslian S., The History of Armenia From the Origins to the Present

church revealed the persistence of pre-Christian customs long after the conversion.

Mindful of the reality that Christianity could not be imposed on the population through sheer military force and political pressure, the Armenian Church and Trdat the Great also relied on education to Christianize and transform the public’s pagan cultural values and customs. Such measures were particularly necessary to counter the spread of Syriac, southern Christianity, which in fact remained popular among the Armenians in the Lake Van basin. Moreover, there was considerable opposition to the church among the pro-Persian nakharar houses. They viewed the conversion to Christianity as undermining relations with the neighboring empire. The Trdat-Grigor alliance had forced the opposition leadership underground but failed to destroy them completely, and they frequently rebelled against both the government and the church. In the meantime, the Armenian government and the church adopted a pro-West, pro-Hellenistic orientation. As the center of Armenian Christianity gravitated from the Lake Van basin to Vagharshapat and the Lake Sevan basin in the far north-northeastern edges of Armenia, the divisions between southern and northern nakharar dynasties and between the pro-West and pro-Persian parties crystallized. The reign of Trdat the Great ended in 330, leaving Armenia in total disarray. The failure to solve these problems, according to the traditional view, led Trdat to abdicate the throne and to choose the life of a monk shielded from the turbulence outside. Other historians believe that the pro-Persian nakharars assassinated him.43

In matters of geopolitics, the consolidation of monarchical power and the institutionalization of the church increasingly, and ironically, posed a serious political challenge to the successors of Trdat the Great when securing some form of balance between the Roman and Sasanian empires became of paramount importance. During the reign of Khosrov III (r. 330–338), who succeeded Trdat the Great, the Arshakunis, the nakharars, and the church were divided among pro-Roman, pro-Sasanian, and pro-neutrality factions. The centrifugal tendencies of these factions (e.g., the rebellions led by the bteshkh Bakur with Persian support against Khosrov) weakened the kingdom. The adoption of Christianity thus added a religious dimension to its already precarious geopolitical situation and internal affairs.44

The declaration of toleration for all religions including Christianity in the Edict of Milan in 313 by Constantine I (ruler of the West, 312–324; emperor, 324–337) and his adoption of Christianity strengthened Armenian Christianity. Constantine also established his eastern imperial capital at the small town of Byzantium on the Bosporus in 324 and renamed it Constantinople, thus setting the foundation for the Byzantine empire. Internal divisions plaguing Rome enabled the Sasanian king Shapur II

(r. 309–379), one of the longest-reigning monarchs in Persian history, to advance his armies westward across Mesopotamia and the Syrian desert and northward to Armenia. Clearly dissatisfied with the geopolitical situation created by the Nisibis treaty since 297, Shapur II launched his devastating military campaigns against Armenia and extended political support to the pro-Persian nakharars (e.g., Sanatruk in Paytakaran province and bteshkh Bakur in Aghtsn) to remove western influences. The Armenian monarchy’s alignment with Rome involved palace intrigue and machinations against the opposition in the political and religious institutions. King Tiran (r. 338–350), supported by Emperor Constantius II, ordered the assassination of the grandson of Grigor Lusavorich, Catholicos Husik I (341–347 or 342–348), and the Syrian bishop Daniel. Years later, King Pap, who sought to weaken the church, sent Husik’s grandson Nerses the Great into exile and ordered his assassination, but in retaliation Pap was assassinated as well.45

Meanwhile, the Roman emperor Julian and Shapur II were at war with each other. Julian died in 363, and his successor, the emperor Jovian, signed a treaty of peace, according to which he ceded western Armenia to Shapur II. The much-resented Treaty of Nisibis appeared to be finally nullified.46 Having lost Rome’s support and under constant attack by Shapur II, Arshak II (r. 350–368), Tiran’s successor, ruled an Armenia mired in internal dissension and discontent. After negotiations and machinations, Arshak was taken to Persia and killed. Shapur II incorporated Armenia into the Sasanian empire and installed pro-Persian nakharars vassals. By then his military campaigns had caused the destruction of several major cities, including Ervandashat, Artashat, and Tigranakert.47 As one historian has pointed out, “the Sasanians took the lion’s share of Armenia, while the Romans had to be content with a small area mainly around Mount Ararat.”48

The death of Shapur II in 379 created an opportunity for the resolution of the Roman-Sasanian conflicts through the partition of Armenia in 387 under the Treaty of Ekeghiats between the emperor Theodosius I (r. 379–395) and Shapur III. The boundary dividing Greater Armenia under this treaty ran from the east of Theodosiopolis (Karin; Erzerum) in the north, to the east of Martyropolis in the south, to the west of Nisibis in Mesopotamia, granting nearly 80 percent of Greater Armenia to Persia. Arshak III (r. 379–389) thus ruled as an Armenian “king” but also as a vassal for Byzantium and over a much smaller Armenia. Khosrov IV (r. 384–389, 417–418) ruled as a vassal for the Sasanians in Persian Armenia. After Arshak III’s death in 389, Byzantium refused to appoint an Armenian king, effectively terminating the Arshakuni kingdom in Byzantine Armenia, although some members of the dynasty retained their nakharar houses.49

(administrative, judicial, religious) authority.53 The absence of an Armenian king at the center allowed the nakharars greater autonomy, although the Sasanian king and his representative viceroy held ultimate political power. In the early stages of marzpanate rule, the Sasanians were tolerant of local interests, but they remained intensely hostile toward the Armenian Church. It was not surprising, therefore, that a government determined to dominate a people would not tolerate the presence of a competing power, military, religious, or otherwise. As soon as he assumed power, the marzpan Vehmihrshapuh commenced a campaign to weaken the Armenian Church. He replaced Catholicos Sahak in 428 with the more pliable Syrian patriarchs, Brkisho (428–432) and Samuel (432–437), and imposed severe restrictions on the privileges enjoyed by the clergy, on the church finances, and on the uses of church estates. The primary cause of this ostensibly religion-driven policy originated in the Persian domestic political economy. The Sasanian monarchy had come under considerable pressure from the nobility in Persia to rely on outside sources for a larger share of state revenues. Keenly aware of the potential domestic political repercussions of financial problems, Bahram turned to Armenia for revenues, a policy that met stiff resistance among the Armenian secular and religious institutions. The geopolitical competition against the Byzantine empire only heightened the saliency of the Armeno-Persian conflict.

Armeno-Persian relations deteriorated rapidly with the accession of Yazdgird II (r. 439–457) and his famed Prime Minister Mihr-Narseh, who had served under Yazdgird I and Bahram. Yazdgird II intensified the campaign to destroy the Armenian Church. In 447 he dispatched Denshapuh as his plenipotentiary, ostensibly to supervise the population census. Soon, however, a series of edicts issued by Denshapuh made it obvious that he had been entrusted with powers far exceeding even those of the newly appointed marzpan Vasak Siuni. The first edict terminated the privilege of tax-free status the church had enjoyed since its establishment during the reign of Trdat the Great. Henceforth, clergy at all levels were required to pay the head tax. The second edict increased taxes across the board. Still another edict removed the authority of the catholicos as the head of the mets datavorutiun (supreme court) and granted it to the Persian mogpet (Zoroastrian religious leader).54

The Armenian Church and its supporters naturally viewed these policies as an all-out attack. The Sasanian leaders, whether staunchly Zoroastrian or not, had shown little tolerance for Christianity and attempted to impose their religion so as to establish their hegemonic rule in Armenia and to isolate it from Byzantine influences. The Armenian nakharars were again divided between pro-Roman/Byzantine and proPersian factions. Among the latter supporters, many had converted to Zoroastrianism in return for guarantees for lower taxes and other privileges.55 Catholicos Hovsep I Hoghotsmetsi (437–452) and Sparapet Vardan

Mamikonian led the pro-Christian, pro-Byzantine, and vehemently antiSasanian nakharars against the marzpan, Vasak Siuni and his supporters. In 449–450 the anti-Sasanian nakharars readied their ranks for rebellion, with the expectation that the Byzantine military would come to their aid. To address the escalating crisis, an Armenian council at Artashat in 450 headed by Catholicos Hovsep I and the marzpan Vasak Siuni—despite their disagreements on a range of issues—formulated a statement to the Persian king declaring their loyalty to the Sasanian empire but also to Christianity. This declaration certainly represented a compromise between the pro-Persian and pro-Byzantine factions attending the conference. Not so easily satisfied, Yazdgird II ordered an Armenian delegation to Ctesiphon. Upon their arrival, he demanded immediate conversion to Zoroastrianism. Faced with certain death in case of refusal, the Armenian leaders decided to feign conversion. Immediately after their conversion was made public, some members of the entourage, especially the clergy, dispatched the urgent news to Armenia: Members of the Armenian delegation, among them Vardan Mamikonian, had accepted Zoroastrianism.56

Upon their return to Armenia, they were greeted with open rebellions organized by the church and pro-Byzantine nakharars. Vardan Mamikonian departed for Constantinople to seek military assistance rather than face further hostility at home. Vasak Siuni, fearful of losing control over the situation, proposed a secret plan to the catholicos to secure protection for ecclesiastical leaders and nakharars identified as anti-Sasanian. The church, according to Vasak Siuni’s scheme, would mobilize further rebellions, and he, as the marzpan, would arrest the leaders ostensibly to put down the rebellions but in fact to place them in prison so as to ensure their and the nation’s physical safety against the imminent retaliation by Yazdgird. Meanwhile, they would dispatch a petition to Constantinople for assistance.57

An Armenian delegation met with the Byzantine emperor Theodosius II, who listened attentively to the details of the crisis and promised to respond as soon as possible. While the Armenian delegation waited in suspense for his decision, Theodosius went on a hunting excursion on the banks of the Licos River, where his horse inexplicably kicked him, causing the emperor to fall into the river with a broken backbone. His death on July 28, 450, forced the Armenian delegation to wait for the coronation of his successor, Marcian, which took place on August 24. Unlike Theodosius, Marcian had extensive military experience, and wary of unnecessary military entanglements, he refused to commit his troops. To make matters worse, Marcian sent a secret message informing Yazdgird of his decision in the Armenian matter. By the time the Armenian delegation returned home, the unity forged among the nakharars and the clergy by Vasak Suini’s secret plan had dissipated.58