Former HHK Member Samvel Fardanyan Teaches History Lessons to Pashinyan

The former member of the National Assembly from the Republican Party of Armenia, political figure Samvel Fardanyan, has made an extensive post on his Facebook page, which we present below.

“Have you noticed that Nikol Pashinyan often makes a fuss about King Pap? He makes a fuss in both relevant and irrelevant contexts—not only in Armenia but also in Iran, Russia, and the United States. He makes a fuss without having even a superficial knowledge of either King Pap or the period he lived in. He makes a fuss with the same enthusiasm and the same level of ignorance as he does when he talks excessively about Artsakh, foreign policy, the banking system, and the economy. Could it be that Nikol Pashinyan’s consciousness has deteriorated to the point where he does not understand a simple fact—that when it comes to political agenda issues, if you are irreparably frivolous, you can say whatever comes to your mind (after all, Armenia has seen presidential candidate 'eposologist' and 'savior' Arshak Sadoyan), but history requires depth, knowledge, and seriousness.

As Vano said, at least don’t enter the temple of history. At least don’t confuse the temple of history with a pigsty. For the sake of separating us from one another, at least don’t desecrate that temple. That is a sacred place that unites us all like a language.

So why is the 'angel of hatred' making such a fuss about King Pap, and how much does he understand about what he is fussing over? One psychologist noted that 'this may be a consequence of Nikol Pashinyan subconsciously identifying himself with King Pap.' The hypothesis that in certain cases of pathologies 'the patient' can even declare himself Napoleon, Davit of Sasun, or Vardan Mamikonian is best left to specialists.

Let’s turn to another question: how well does Nikol Pashinyan understand the historical material about which he speaks so much, and what is the reality here? Of course, it would be very desirable for specialists in our early medieval history from academic and educational institutions to express their views on this matter; since they remain silent, I will try to fill that gap within the limits of my modest and certainly not narrow professional knowledge.

My concise remarks will be formulated not in a narrow scholarly context with source references but rather in an essayistic genre, aiming to make the subject more accessible to a broader audience. The historical sources on the reign of King Pap are three: Pavstos Buzand, the father of history Movses Khorenatsi, and the Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus. There is no fourth source. Buzand discusses the topic in considerable depth, Khorenatsi is a bit more concise, while Marcellinus touches upon King Pap’s reign much more briefly. Therefore, any opinion or conclusion can only be credible in one case—if it has a scholarly basis drawn from these three works. If it lacks this basis, that opinion is already unserious—mere storytelling. Of course, this does not relate to well-founded inquiries and scientific interpretations, which are based on questions about the impartiality of the mentioned sources, and which, undoubtedly, have the right to exist as subjects of research. But that is the merit of the professional community of historians. That is an entirely different opera.

I genuinely do not know whether Nikol Pashinyan has ever read at least one of these three sources when launching the fuss he has raised about King Pap, or whether he has settled for scattered, poorly digested information he has heard here and there but still has the right to exist as inquiries and interpretations. I am not even confident that when he speaks excessively about King Pap, Nikol Pashinyan has familiarized himself with the works of Leo, Hrants Armeyan, Yeghiazaryan Muradyan, or others, even to lend a semblance of seriousness to his claims and messages.

Most likely, he has read neither the former nor the latter. He is presumably impressed by Stepan Zoryan’s historical novel 'King Pap' or the wonderful series 'The Alternative History of King Pap' by one of our best contemporary historian-journalists, Hrant Ter-Abrahamyan. But if a university graduate educated in philology does not distinguish a historical source from a work of fiction—a historical novel—this already indicates that they were right all along not to award Nikol Pashinyan a degree in journalism and philology. If he has read and still does not comprehend the genre and subtext of Hrant Ter-Abrahamyan’s 'Alternative History,' including its political codes, and has not extracted 'his homework' from that material, this in turn requires a completely different diagnosis—this time for the country’s Prime Minister.

Leaving science to scientists, Nikol Pashinyan must somehow be explained and made to understand that each nation—whether in the east, west, south, or north—compiles, edits, and sometimes revises and re-edits its history entirely through the lens of contemporary and upcoming priorities and realities, and this is a political axiom. Therefore, one does not need to be a genius to think about at which phase of history the active reassessment of the stories of our early medieval period began in Armenia, particularly during the reign of Arshak II and his son King Pap, which he has presumably heard something about here and there.

Carefully review this phase of historical reassessment, and you will note that it was mainly carried out during the initial phases of Soviet power and its consolidation. It was done exclusively for one political purpose—to cast doubt on the historical contributions of the Armenian Apostolic Church to the Armenian people, its historical utility—contrasting ecclesiastical authorities with secular authorities of the time, which had ample historical objective basis within our historiography and characterized early developed medievality. It is precisely in this context that nearly all those works—scientific, semi-scientific, and journalistic—that heroize Arshak the Second and King Pap were born, in opposition to existing sources and the Armenian Apostolic Church. Even the artistic-cultural accompaniment had a notable feature—Nikol Chukhajyan’s famous opera 'Arshak B' was also revived from obscurity and fully presented to the Armenian audience during this period. It was then that Zoryan authored his well-known historical novel.

The problem is absolutely not to compare our early medieval secular and spiritual authorities or to gain black and white insights from them, which Nikol Pashinyan strives for—while being dissatisfied with how we handle our present and not-so-distant past. The issue lies in the rational perception of the historical past. In Nikol Pashinyan’s case, as it appears, that absence is complete—his thirst for ignorance.

The other important observation pertains to the conflicts between King Pap and the Armenian Apostolic Church involving Nerses the Great, his successor Catholicos Shahak I of Manazkert, and so on, which Nikol Pashinyan endlessly loves to harp on. Certainly, King Pap is one of the most controversial figures in our history and deserves a proper and objective evaluation, consisting of critical discourse based on the mentioned sources. But should this be done with such ignorance and complete nakedness?

Someone must take it upon themselves, nonetheless, to undertake a humanitarian mission and explain to Nikol Pashinyan that early medieval periods—from the 4th to the 5th centuries—were the initial phase of the establishment of feudalism not only in Armenia but also among neighbors in the Roman Empire, Sasanian Persia, and beyond their borders. It was precisely through land ownership forms that the distribution of power was determined—between the king, the church, the noble houses, the freemen, and other groups of citizens—since land was the main source of income. Furthermore, it should be explained that even before the establishment of feudalism and prior to Christianity, during the pagan period, the priestly clan was indeed one of the largest landowners and landholders.

It should also be explained that after converting to Christianity, the Christian church became one of the greatest landowners and the entire early medieval period in Greater Armenia, as well as not only in Greater Armenia, evolved through a natural political struggle between secular and spiritual powers regarding the land. It should additionally be conveyed that the previously referenced Catholicos Shahak I of Manazkert, who after the poisoning of Catholicos Nerses the Great, was appointed not in Caesarea but by Armenian bishops at the behest of King Pap, belonged to the ancient priestly lineage known as the Aghbanians, who, after the acceptance of Christianity, became the servants of the Armenian Apostolic Church and, as competitors to the lineage of Gregory the Illuminator, continued to be major landlords and influential political actors.

It may also be worth explaining to Nikol Pashinyan to become acquainted with the history of the period preceding King Pap’s reign—after King Trdat—to understand what fierce struggles were evolving for the seat of the catholicosate between the representatives of the Illuminator and the Aghbanians and how many catholicoses died not due to natural causes. It might also be wise to explain that the Armenian Apostolic Church declared, established, and gradually developed its independence from the universal church over time—primarily due to the specifics of the establishment of Christianity in our country—then within the dogmatic realm—through the adoption of decisions by ecumenical councils and their rejection; this occurred through a prolonged inter-church struggle.

Finally, does Nikol Pashinyan even understand that, through ill-considered remarks, ignorant perspectives, and in such a light while citing King Pap, he is inherently conveying a great signal of alarm and expectation of disaster to the Armenian people? Is Nikol Pashinyan aware that, fundamentally, our Arshakuni kings of the 4th century—Arshak II, his son Pap, Varazdat, and Pap’s son Arshak III—never managed to maneuver correctly amid the heightened geopolitical competition existing at the time between the two great powers—the Roman Empire and Sasanian Persia, which ultimately cost Armenia its independence just 13 years after King Pap's reign, dividing it between the two giant empires and predetermining the subsequent unfavorable trajectory of events for us?

PS: Nikol Pashinyan needs introspection—to understand that one cannot speak about something one has no understanding of at all. This is the sole purpose of this article. Let us hope that he never again, at least after reading this incomplete piece, steps foot barefoot into the cave of history and gets lost, or God knows, gets misled there.