The Arshakunis: From Garni to Etchmiadzin – 2/7 –

 No other Armenian kingdom has impacted in the shaping of the Armenian nation more than the Arshakunis, the Arsacid Dynasty (Արշակունիներ).  Who were the Arshakunis? This will me my second blog about this dynastic family and their converting  Armenia to a Christian nation state.  Vahe H Apelian

 

LtoR: Garni Temple and Etchmiadzin Cathedral

Many of us has seen the temple of Garni in Armenia. Some of the readers of my blogs may have also visited the temple. They may have also asked. What on earth a Roman temple doing in Armenia?  Well, the temple is attributed to having been erected by the order of the first Arshakuni dynasty king Drtad I, who was crowed by the Emperor of Rome, Nero. It also turns out that King Drtad I was also a Zoroastrian high priest.

It makes sense, does it not? Burrowing from the title of one of Levon Shant’s works, “The Old Gods – Hin Astouatsner – Հին Աստուածներ», both the Roman Empire and ancient Armenia worshiped their own pagan gods. But what does not make sense is the preservation of the Garni pagan temple. After his namesake, King Drtad III had the nation adopt Christianity as its religion, historian claimed that he had all the pagan temples destroyed. It appears that he had the temple at Garni, the first king King Drtad had it erected, saved. That makes sense too. Does it not?  Yes,  Drtad I and Drtad III were kings and ruled a vast country but adhered to different reglions, but they were family members as well. Both were Arhakunis. They were blood relatives. It is said that “blood is thicker than water.”

I bet most of us know the fascinating tale of Drtad III’s conversion to Christianity and about Gregory held in the dungeon – Khor Virab; about the king Drtad III’s infatuation with young Roman Christian women who had found refuge in Armenia escaping persecution in Rome; about King’s sister Khosrovatought’s vision, the king’s order to have the Armenian nation adopt Christianity. Anyone interested may resort to the internet and find much written about that historic happening. But, I am not going to dwell in this blog about what historians have written, but what my mother and Sarkis Zeitlian said about King Drtad III forcing his nation to convert to Christianiy. 

King Dread III and Gregory the Illuminator at the Echmiadzin courtyard gate

I will start with Unger Sarkis Zeitlian who was an ardent Armenian nationalist. Two personify Armenian nationalism for me, Sarkis Zeitlian whom I also knew personally and Karegin Njteh of whom I have read. Decades ago, during a lecture to the ARF Zavarian Student Association, reconciling the outward opposites of the ARF ideology - socialism and nationalism - Unger Sarkis Zeitlian said that it is the intense drive to carve their own place in their region and have their own culture in distinct to others in the region, were the motivations that drove Armenians from the get-go and that included accepting Christianity as a religion. In short, adopting Christianity was as much a testament of the Armenian nationalism, as finding resonance in the Christian faith.

In hindsight what Sarkis Zeitlian said makes sense. Armenia after all was the easternmost Roman dominion. It was Emperor Nero who had crowned king Drtad and had his dynastic kingdom established at the bottle neck of East and West. The Roman Empire worshiped its gods and persecuted Christians. It simply does not make  political sense for Drtad III,  the first king’s namesake, to anger the powerful Roman Empire and adopt Christianity as its state religion when its master Roman Empire not only had not, but also persecuted that religion.  Surely, the conversion was a can be regarded a statement to the Roman Empire, that its easternmost allied dominion, a country named Armenia, is not its vassal state. Of course, I am not ruling out the element of faith for the kingly conversion. All I am driving is that it is not reasonable to claim that it was only faith, against all earthly considerations, that drove King Drtad III to convert his subjects to Christianity that would not seat well with its powerful patron, the Roman Empire. It would take a dozen more years for Rome to accept Christianiry as its religion. 

The other plausible explanation for King Drtad III to have Armenia he ruled convert to Christianity, was offered to me by my mother who taught history to elementary and middle school students in the Armenian schools she taught. I have no recollection of Armenian history course being taught in Armenian HS.  What we learned was the Armenian Cause, She said that the pagan priests had become immensely rich and were oppressing the people (կեղեքել is the word she used) and had them toll on the large tracts of lands the pagan temples possessed. In short, the institution of the pagan worship had become so powerful that it undermined the Armenian King’s authority and treasury. By converting the nation to Christianity, King Drtad III with a master stroke pulled the carpet from the underneath pagan priests and instead of the pagan institution, had a new religion established whose head, he would appoint and would have him as a political ally as well. Of course, King Drtad III would have relied on popular support to venture into such a monumental change that would alter the course of the Armenian history. Surely he would have to grapple with resistance. Gregory was a blue blood. He was the son of Parthian prince Annak who had killed the Armenian King Khosrov. In retaliation the Armenians had his father and the rest of the family wiped out. But he was whisked away and brought up as a Christian. Even though his father had killed an Arshakuni king, by appointing Gregory as the head of the Christian religion he established, King Drtad III assured, or so he thought, that he established a heridatry ecclesiastical dynasty that would be an ally to his secular dynastry.  

But human nature for territoriality, appears never to be subjucated, even by religion. Converting the Armenian nation to Christianity and appointing its head, King Drtad III did not appear to erase church and the secular state conflict, about which later on.