Moses of Xoren

Moses of Xoren #

Introduction #

by Robert Bedrosian

Մովսէս Խորենացի (Moses Xorenatsi), vardapet.

The History attributed to Moses of Xoren consists of three Books plus a fourth short section of legends placed between Books One and Two. Book One, in 32 chapters, contains an account of the prehistory of the Armenian people and of the lands they came to inhabit, including information about the early patriarchs and legends—material which long predates the writing of Armenian with its own alphabet (5th century A.D.). Book Two, in 92 chapters, describes the rise and rule of the Arsacid clan in Persia and Armenia, the origins of the great lordly (naxarar) clans, the historical periods of the Roman Republic and Roman Empire, and local events through the fourth century including the Christianization of the country. Book Three, in 68 chapters, describes fifth-century events including the creation of the Armenian alphabet by Mesrop, and of a Christian literature using that alphabet. Book Three ends with the deaths of Saints Sahak and Mesrop. The author says that he himself lived in this period, participated in translating works from Greek into Armenian, and wrote his History at the request of a patron, Sahak Bagratuni.

Moses’ composition includes frequent asides to Sahak Bagratuni and also questions to him. Not only does Moses praise Sahak for his foresight in requesting a general history of Armenian antiquities, but asks if he wants more or less writing on a particular ruler or theme. Apparently Sahak loved folktales, and Moses—occasionally showing exasperation—complies and supplies them, while blaming Sahak’s youth for the interest. Moses complains that the inclusion of so much fantasy compromises his plans for the structure of the work. Perhaps the separated section of fables between Books One and Two was based on this consideration. In any case, Xorenats’i’s composition is an astonishing and beautiful piece of work. The Classical Armenian is awe-inspiring, with words and usages not seen elsewhere, and the material is carefully and gracefully arranged. The content is dazzling in its variety and richness.

Moses’ History is best regarded as a “cultural object.” The historical period embraced in its three Books extends from the first millenium B.C. to the mid-5th century A.D. However, despite its title, it is much more than a history. It also contains invaluable information about the archaeology, ethnography, culture, and folklore of the Armenians and their predecessors in Asia Minor, the Caucasus, and Mesopotamia, as well as some information about the related history of neighboring peoples.

Controversy surrounds many aspects of the work. There is an extensive literature devoted to its study. We will refer readers to this material rather than attempting to summarize the arguments involved. A general appreciation of the volume of scholarly writings on Moses and his work may be had by a look at Petros Hovhannisyan’s 440 page bibliography and study.1 Hovhannisyan’s edition catalogs and characterizes the many publications of the Classical Armenian texts, the translations, and studies that deal with Xorenats’i’s History, other works attributed to him, and the enigmatic author himself.

For almost two hundred years, the main controversy has concerned the date of the author. Moses claims to be living in the late 5th century, but the work shows signs of later hands. The two positions—either 5th-century or a later date—are reflected in scholarly articles by Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare for the 5th century, and Cyril Toumanoff for later centuries. The absolutism and acrimony which had often characterized this discussion finally began to change in the late 20th century.

In the introduction to their French translation of Moses of Xoren’s History, Jean-Pierre and Annie Mahé emphasized the multidimensional nature of the work and suggested that, like other legitimate 5th-century sources (such as Agat’angeghos’ History), underwent some changes over the centuries and that, like Agat’angeghos’ work, what has come down to us may not be an unaltered text. This very reasonable proposal would neatly account for the variety of post-5th century phenomena observed in the work over the past two centuries, and would allow those championing 7th-9th century dates to also claim partial victory. To us, it would also account for the various voices purporting to be Moses discernible in the complete work. Some of these, with their questionable diction and biographical information, would be later editors pretending to be the original author. The Mahés also consider Moses’ Classical Armenian to be so vibrant as to suggest that Classical Armenian may have been his spoken language, unlike later authors.a The Mahés’ 80-page introduction constitutes a foundational text for the study of Moses’ History. The Mahés discuss the verifiable historical worth of the three Books, chapter by chaper, but conclude that Moses is often mistaken in his facts when they can be checked against other sources. Even so, none of his factual errors—such as conflating several kings with the same name, or merging royal dynasties—disqualify him from being a 5th-century author. Historical accuracy is only part of the story. Moses’ work has extraordinary value on matters of archaeology, ethnography and culture. For example, the Western discovery of Urartian cuneiform was based on Moses’ descriptions, and so was the identification of Aramaic-inscribed stones which delimited borders. His comments on the Hellenistic temple at Gar’ni have been confirmed by Greek inscriptions. One of the most important works on Moses’ History in over a century is Aram Topchyan’s The Problem of the Greek Sources of Movsēs Xorenac’i’s History of Armenia. In this balanced investigation, the author meticulously compares Moses’ references to the Greek sources with their originals (extant or fragmentary), and makes some remarkable discoveries in favor of Moses’ assertions. The author’s introduction contains a discussion of the history of scholarly criticism of Moses’ History, which is probably the best available, and also quite humorous.

Welcome changes have been introduced into the discussion also by Giusto Traina,6-8 who finds that the substantial information about Parthian and Sasanian institutions and history provided by Moses does not reflect a date much beyond the 5th century. Perhaps the level of detail provided may in fact confine the material to the 5th century.

The present edition #

The translation below was made from the critical edition of the Classical Armenian text. It is a result of our dissatisfaction with Robert W. Thomson’s English translation10 and also a desire for an accurate, copyright-free edition. Thomson’s publication was greatly criticized for its biases and methodological problems; the work was reissued with some corrections and additional bibliography in Based on its language and content, this source probably dates from the late 5th century, as Armenian tradition claims. Its first editing and promulgation would have occurred in the 6th century. During the reign of Byzantine emperor Justinian (527–565) it might have had its geographical terminology “modernized” by an editor. The late 6th century happened to be a time of anti-Mamikonean sentiment, after Vardan II Mamikonean’s failed rebellion against the Persians in 571-572 and his subsequent flight to Constantinpole. This was the start of the family’s long decline in Armenian affairs. Thus the strong anti-Mamikonean sentiment in Xorenats’i does not necessarily have to reflect an 8th-century or post-8th-century reality, as has usually been thought. It could be a reflection of Moses’ own negative sentiments of the 5th century further enhanced with each subsequent edition, beginning as early as the 6th century.

References #

  1. Hovhannisyan, P. (2013). Movses Xorenats’i bibilography. Erevan.
  2. Toumanoff, C. (1961). On the Date of Pseudo-Moses of Chorene. Hande’s Amso’reay, 467-476.
  3. Conybeare, F. C. (1901). The Date of Moses of Khoren. Byzantinische Zeitschrif, 10, 867-878.
  4. Mahé, J. P., & Mahe, A. (1993). Khorenats’i’, Histoire de l"Arménie. Paris.
  5. Topchyan, A. (2006). The Problem of the Greek Sources of Movses Xorenac’i’s History of Armenia. Leuven.
  6. Traina, G. (2001). Mosé di Khoren II 49, Mitridate di Pergamo e gli ebrei. In R. B. Finazzi & A. Valvo (Eds.), Pensiero e istituzioni del mondo classico nelle culture del Vicino Oriente (pp. 297-303).
  7. Traina, G. (2007). Moïse de Khorène et l’Empire sassanide. In R. Gyselen (Ed.), Des Indo-Grecs aux Sassanides: données pour l’histoire et la géographie historique (pp. 158-179).
  8. Traina, G. (2011). 428 AD: An ordinary year at the end of the Roman Empire. Princeton University Press.
  9. Abeghean, M., Yarut’iwnean, S., & Malxaseants’, S. (Eds.). (1913). Movses Xorenac’i’s History of the Armenians [Մովսիսի Խորենացւոյ Պատմութիւն Հայոց]. Tiflis.