A Companion to Late Antique Literature

by Scott McGill

  Armenian occupies a distinct branch of the Indo‐European language spectrum, a satem (Indo‐Iranian) variant whose nearest neighbors are now‐dead languages of Anatolia (for example, Phrygian). Its connection with Iranian culture is more than linguistic: Iranian culture of the Arsacid and Sasanian empires formed the texture and much of the content of Armenian thought and literature through late antiquity. The dynamic and often warring relationship between Byzantium and Iran also permeates the “classical” Armenian literature of late antiquity and reflects an “Iranian substrate” (Garsoian 1982) that persisted alongside its adoption of Greek and Syriac Christian topics and terminology. (Jensen, 1939; Meillet, 1936; Schmitt, 1981).

  Thus the Armenian language and its oral culture is much older than Armenian literature, which is almost entirely Christian in late antiquity and, indeed, developed as a vehicle for Christian culture. Until the early fourth century CE, the religions of Armenia were pagan (native, Semitic, and Persian in origin), with much smaller Jewish and, later, Christian communities. Written languages, where they were used, were Aramaic and sometimes Greek – for instance, in the ca. 200 BCE inscriptions at Armavir. Syriac appeared later as a spoken language in the south, and texts in Greek and Syriac likely circulated from the second century CE forward, brought by traders and missionaries. Like the dominant Persian culture around them, Armenians before the arrival of Christianity preferred oral recitations and spoken communication; the gusans, or “bards,” traveled through the region to perform epic poetry, but only scattered verses and folk traditions recorded by later Christian opponents have survived as the remains of this once‐large and flourishing tradition (Bournoutian, 1993).

  Internally, late ancient Armenians largely lacked an urban network and preferred the social organization of tribal chieftains (naxarars) with a hereditary king (tagawor); clans occupied their own regions, building fortress‐castles to guard crops and the cultivation of horses. Many laborers were the equivalent of serfs (anazat, “unfree”). The few cities in the region served as trading posts for merchants traveling east or west between the Mediterranean and East Asia. Nonetheless, Armenian speakers traveled to the major cities of the eastern Roman Empire. Their Christian communities were recorded by Eusebius, and they had traveled to Jerusalem by the fourth century, sending emissaries from Armenia but also leaving behind fifth‐century graffiti that are the earliest examples of Armenian script (Stone 1982, 1992, 1993). Between 314 and 336, Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, wrote a letter of instruction responding to the second Armenian catholicos, Vrtanes, concerning baptism and the Eucharist – witnessing to both the rise of Armenian Christian groups and their reliance on Greek for written communication.

  The spread of Christianity in Armenia, strengthening with the conversion of King Trdat and his family (traditional date 301; revised date 317), did not result immediately in a written language. Rather, churches’ religious rituals, including the liturgy, and public readings of sacred texts, including the Bible, resulted in the practice of simultaneous oral translations from Greek in the west and Syriac in the south. Such a practice presupposes a cadre of learned bilingual clergy, trained in spoken and written Greek or Syriac, who also carried out the missionary efforts dramatically portrayed in the histories of the next century. Meanwhile, the leader of Armenian Christian communities – the catholicosate – during the fourth century was a hereditary office, with father (beginning with Gregory the Illuminator) passing his office to eldest son, mirroring the Persian preference for succession among the clans and the royal dynasty; although the efforts of singular ascetics and their disciples feature strongly in the later histories, there seem to have been no large monasteries for either men or women in late antiquity. The lack of large‐scale asceticism at the time when it was spreading to the south and west suggests an Armenian culture in agreement with Persian insistence on the importance of marriage and family obligations. Such small kinship groups may have obviated the need for a library of works in the native language until Christianity became more populous in the fifth century (Garsoian, 1985).

  Written literature was nonetheless occasionally prized in Armenia from earlier antiquity. King Tigran, who ruled a large area of northern Syria and southern Armenia during the period of Roman expansion eastward, was celebrated by Greek authors for his appreciation of Greek culture, including plays; he caused the construction of a city modeled on Greek cities further to the west, and included a temple in classical form. His son, Artwawzd, was recorded by Plutarch to have written tragedies, orations, and histories. Furthermore, Armenians steadily went west to participate in Hellenistic and then Greco‐Roman civic life and culture. Prohaeresius, rhetorician in Athens and teacher of Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus, is a parade example but not the only one; he was an Armenian (and a Christian); before he became Basil’s dear friend, Gregory initially took the side of a group of Armenian students (“not a simple people, but very crafty and cunning”) hazing the great future bishop (Funeral Oration 17). Many students of the well‐known rhetorical instructor Libanius were Armenians too. Presumably they pursued careers in the west, that is, in Greek‐speaking cities of the Empire, at a time when many provincials migrated toward the metropolises of the east.

  Thus Armenian literature began much later than Armenian‐speaking culture, because, although the language was spoken in a wide range of countryside, it did not gain an alphabet and the means to compose works in the Armenian for native speakers until after the beginning of the fifth century. Thanks to the catholicos Sahak and the learned ascetic (Mesrop) Mashtots, and with the support of the Armenian royal house (tun), a group of men called the “Holy Translators” began to create an Armenian Christian library for the country. Trained in Greek and Syriac, they traveled to cities outside the territories of Armenia, where they used the new alphabet to create a group of translated works. Mashtots himself had been educated in Greek literature as a young man, and his service to the Arsacid court indicates the value of his talent. An associate, Rufinus, had a similar education. Thus it is not surprising that the translators were commissioned to journey to Antioch, Edessa/Urhai, Emesa, Jerusalem, Constantinople and Alexandria (major centers of Christian scholarship) in order to collect texts and to translate the first group of works from Greek and Syriac that would form the basis for Armenian literature. Since none of the theological disputes that resulted in the creation of separate churches, such as the Church of the East or the miaphysite churches, had yet broken out, Armenians translated the Scriptures, beginning with the Book of Proverbs, as well as liturgical books, biblical commentaries, patristic treatises, biographies and hagiographies, and histories – including the Church History and later the Chronicle of Eusebius of Caesarea. This period (405–460) has been called the “Golden Age” of Armenian literature, not only because of its translations, but also because of the creation of a native literature originating in Armenian (Inglisian, 1963).

  Probably under the direction of their sponsors, the first scholars equipped with the Armenian language turned to the translation of the Bible and liturgical books. The first biblical version translated was from Syriac, which had probably arrived in the country with missionaries coming from Mesopotamia to the south. But the increasing involvement of some Armenian bishops with Constantinopolitan clerical authorities led to the retranslation of the Scriptures from Greek, which Armenian was able to reproduce thanks to its complex features – strongly inflected, with grammatical and syntactical similarities to Greek. As with scriptural texts, liturgical texts – lectionaries (such as the fourth‐century Jerusalem Lectionary) and books of rites for ceremonies such as baptism and the Eucharist – also were created for Armenian churches through translation from Greek and Syriac. Current liturgical scholarship continues to identify various layers of transmission and tradition. The Sharakan, the Armenian hymnal, contains some liturgical poetry from the late ancient period. Hagiographies were also composed in the early period; one such is The Martyrdom of Shushanik, about an Armenian Chri
stian woman imprisoned and tormented for her beliefs by her pagan, Zoroastrian husband. Other hagiographies were inserted in the histories of the fifth and sixth centuries. These include the torments of Gregory the Illuminator and the female martyrs Gayane, Hripsime, and their companions (in Agat’angelos’s history) as well as an account of the monk Daniel (in the Buzandaran).

  In addition to books specifically for reading aloud in church in the native language, early Armenian scribes made the effort to translate the works of Christian writers who, in the fourth and fifth centuries, were already being labeled “fathers of the church” and whose work had been gathered into florilegia in support of varying theological positions. These included Ignatius, Aristides, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Dionysius of Alexandria, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil, Macarius of Jerusalem, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Evagrius of Pontus, Cyril of Alexandria, and Syriac authors including Aphrahat (identified in the Armenian translation as the notable bishop Jacob of Nisibis) and Ephrem the Syrian. They also translated the works of Origen, Apollinarius, Diodore of Tarsus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia – but these authors’ works were later destroyed, after the controversies of the fifth and sixth centuries led to their condemnation in the church of the Empire. After the final split of the eastern Armenian church from the Byzantine church, however, certain works remained available in Armenian that were destroyed in Greek. This included some of the works of Evagrius of Pontus, for instance (suppressed after 553 in the west), and the works of Philo and Pseudo‐Philo, Aristides, Eusebius, and Irenaeus (the Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching) (Thomson, 1997).

  5.1 Ecclesiastical and Theological Works in Prose

  With the exception of hymns and prayers, all of early Armenian theological literature consists of prose writings like letters, treatises, and canon laws. Poetry would not develop in Armenia until after late antiquity, apart from early hymns preserved in the hymnal the Sharakan (van Lint, 2014).

  The first theological work to be written in Armenian is the On God/Against the Sects, by Eznik Kolbac’i (390–455), or Eznik of Kolb. Eznik, one of the translators under Mashtots, drew on sources from the Greek and Syriac traditions, as well as on his own knowledge based on orally communicated teachings, to expose the errors of paganism, Zoroastrianism, Greek philosophical views, and the Christian sect of Marcionism, the other religions present in Armenia. In the first part, Eznik attempts to rebut pagan beliefs in the existence of many gods; the belief in metaphysical dualism, with its insistence upon the substantial existence of evil; and a belief in fate, resulting in moral determinism. In the second part, Eznik attacks the Zurvanite form of Zoroastrianism, and in particular its triune set of deities: Zurvan, the original divine being and his sons Ormizd and Ahriman. In the third section, Eznik rebuts Greek philosophers, including Plato and Aristotle, for their understanding of the cosmos and of God. Finally, Eznik assembles a critique of Marcionism, with its particular style of ascetic practice, as well as its rejection of the Old Testament (allegedly authored by an evil deity) and its promotion of a limited version of the New Testament (Luke, Paul, and the Acts of the Apostles) ascribed to the intervention of a good God of love. Eznik’s work attests to the presence in Armenia of a large library of early Christian controversialists because he quotes from no less than 12 previous Greek and Syriac sources, among whom were apologists, heresiologists, biblical interpreters, and doctrinal writers: the second‐century apologist Aristides, Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Methodius of Olympus, Origen, Basil of Caesarea, Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Ephrem the Syrian. The latter name demonstrates the still‐important connection between Syriac sources and Armenian writers of the fifth century.

  Eznik’s work is particularly interesting for its intricate composition in a classical Armenian free of rhetorical embellishments and reflecting the complex grammatical structure of the language. Its influence on later Armenian works was slight, however; his style gave way to a more expansive and repetitive prose, and the controversial positions he analyzed and debunked were of little interest to later authors. On God reflected the apologetic stances of the earlier Christian authors from whom Eznik quoted; later Armenian authors did not have to combat the opinions of philosophers or Marcionites. Struggles continuing against Zoroastrian Persians until the rise of Islam tended to be reflected in historical, rather than theological, works (Blanchard and Darling Young, 1998).

  Two other early works are letters of Sahak and Mashtots. The first is the response of the two to Proclus, bishop of Constantinople, and the second is Sahak’s response to Acacius of Melitene. Both are found in the later‐assembled Book of Letters (thirteenth century), and they contain correspondence of Armenians with Constantinople concerning the doctrine of the natures of Christ. At some time in the fifth century, Koriwn (390–447), one of the original group of translators commissioned by Sahak, wrote a hagiographical biography of Mashtots, describing the miraculous appearance of the Armenian alphabet, his organization of the first translation efforts, and his missionary travels to Georgia and Albania (present Azerbaijan), where he invented alphabets for their peoples as well.

  After Koriwn, six authors of theological prose represent the total of Armenian theological works, properly speaking, that comprise what remains of pre‐Islamic Armenian literature. Many of these works are theological exegeses of biblical books, often with hortatory or disputative purposes. Two works were ascribed to Gregory the Illuminator – the Teaching of St. Gregory and the Collected Discourses. The first is a long sermon allegedly preached to the court of Trdat in the early fourth century; it is included in the History of Agat’angelos. It seems to have been composed in the late fifth century. The second work, a collection of twenty‐three homilies, also was traditionally attributed to Gregory the Illuminator (or sometimes Mashtots) but is not given a historical context. This so‐called Hadjakhapatoum Djark’ contains discussions of the Trinity and Christ, with a last homily – possibly adapted from a work of Basil – containing a monastic rule. Vrt’anes K’ertol (550–620), catholicos of the Armenian church from 604 to 607, wrote Concerning Iconoclasm, a treatise that defends and explains icon veneration in the Armenian church of late antiquity, touches on the relationship between Armenians and Greeks with respect to icons, and discusses the materials used in the practice of writing icons (Maranci, forthcoming).

  Following K’ertol, the catholicos Komitas (610–628), has been credited as the author of numerous works reassigned to Yovhannes Mayravanec’ (575–667) and has also been alleged to be the author of hymns about the martyr Hrip’sime (Néve 1886).

  The final three theological authors of late antiquity are (Pseudo‐) Yovhannes Mandakuni (575–668), Yovhannes Ojnec’i (650–729), and Grigor Arsharui (650–729). The first author composed a collection of 25 sermons attributed to the genuine Yovhannes Mandakuni (420–490), intended to criticize lingering pagan practice and institute Christianizing reforms.

  Yovhannes Ojnec’i, became Catholicos in 718 and was granted the title imastaser (philosopher). A reformer of the church and of the liturgy, he presided at the councils of Div in 719 and Manazkert in 726. He wrote shorter treatises, including the Synodal Discourse, Against the Fantasiasts, and Against the Paulicians, as well as numerous sermons on the topic of the church for the dedication of churches and for liturgical offices. He also compiled canonical legislation. Finally, Arsharui wrote a commentary on the liturgical lectionary. None of these authors has been extensively studied in Western scholarship. A number of works are ascribed to “David the Invincible Philosopher,” a sixth‐century syncretistic Neoplatonist and Armenian native trained in Alexandria, to whom is credited an original work, the Definitions and Divisions of Philosophy, and commentaries on Porphyry’s Isagoge and on the Aristotelian texts, the Categories and the Prior Analytics.

  5.2 Historians

  Of all the works of late ancient Armenian literature, the histories have received by far the most modern schola
rly attention. Whereas extensive poetry and works of theological sophistication developed only later, after the end of late antiquity, with its post‐Islamic Conquest reorganization of Armenian politics and society, Armenian authors wrote histories of their own countries that are valuable not only because they provide the context for the spread, and for the difficulties among Armenians, of Christianity in the country but also because they describe the interaction of Sasanian Persian and missionary Christian culture in a region set between the two great empires of the period. They also provide a strongly differing perspective on the period from other early Christian works. Although they include hagiographical sections, catechetical orations, moralizing sermons, and accounts of miracles, as well as sometimes long sections tinged with apocalyptic discourse, and although they were written by men of the church, they nevertheless reflect the concerns of their patrons in a social world that had far more similarities to Persia than it did to its late Roman or Byzantine contemporaries.

  Although bishops (such as Sahak) were patrons or sometimes authors of theological works, the patrons of historical works were not bishops but members of noble families who wished to have their exploits recorded and celebrated in the written language in addition to (or instead of in) oral accounts. For this reason the histories recount crucial events in the history of the country from the perspective of one family or clan. They sometimes show a particular family in alliance with other families in war and trade, but they also are often in conflict with other clans, particularly as Christianity spread in Armenia with its Sassanian overlords. It was in just that situation of conflict and warfare that Armenian literature as a whole seemed to flourish. Indeed, the sections of Armenia that became part of the Roman Empire with the treaties of the fourth or sixth century did not produce a distinctively Armenian theological or historiographical tradition.