Former Republican Samvel Farmanian Gives Lessons in History to Pashinyan

Former Republican MP Samvel Farmanian has made an extensive post on Facebook regarding Nikol Pashinyan, which we present below.

“Have you noticed that Nikol Pashinyan often makes a fuss about King Pap? He makes noise, both appropriately and inappropriately, not only in Armenia but also in Iran, Russia, and the United States. He thunders away, even without having a superficial knowledge of either King Pap or the time he lived in. He speaks with the same enthusiasm and bare-footedness as he does when discussing Artsakh, foreign policy, the banking system, and the economy. Is it possible that Nikol Pashinyan, as I have known him, is so dulled in his consciousness that he does not understand a simple fact: political agenda matters require depth, knowledge, and seriousness? (After all, Armenia’s presidential candidate is the ‘eposologist’ and ‘savior’ Arshak Sadoyan.) History, after all, requires depth; do not confuse the temple of history with a stable. At least do not defile that temple which is a sacred bond that unites all of us.

So why does the ‘messenger of hatred’ make so much noise about King Pap, and how much does he understand what he is shouting about? A psychologist noted that ‘this may be a consequence of Nikol Pashinyan’s subconscious self-identification with King Pap.’ We will leave the hypothesis, wherein, in certain pathological cases, ‘the patient’ may even declare themselves Napoleon, Davit of Sasun, or Vardan Mamikonian, to the experts.

Let us then turn to the next question: how well does Nikol Pashinyan grasp the historical material he talks about so much, and what is the reality here? It would, of course, be very desirable for specialists in early medieval Armenian history from academic and educational institutions to express their views on this matter. Since they remain silent, I will attempt to fill that gap myself within the limits of my humble and by no means narrow professional knowledge. I will also formulate my brief statements not within a narrow historical framework, with bibliographic references, but in a journalistic genre, with the aim of making the material readable for a wider audience.

There are three historical sources regarding the reign of King Pap: Pavstos Buzand, the Father of History Movses Khorenatsi, and the Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus. There is no fourth. Buzand provides a rather extensive account, Khorenatsi is a bit more concise, while Marcellinus offers an extremely brief reference to the period of King Pap's reign. Hence, any opinion or conclusion can only be credible if it is based on the sources provided by these three works. If that foundation is lacking, that opinion is already ridiculous—mere tale-telling.

Of course, this does not pertain to substantiated questions and scientific interpretations based on the objectivity of the mentioned sources, which, without a doubt, has the right to exist as research material. But that requires the expertise of historians. It is another matter altogether.

I genuinely do not know if Nikol Pashinyan has ever read even one of these three sources while initiating his uproar around King Pap or if he has been satisfied with snippets he heard here and there, poorly digested but nonetheless existing questions and comments. I am not even sure that while talking about King Pap, he has referred to the works of Leo, Hrant Armen, Yeghiazar Muradyan, or others to at least lend superficial seriousness to his statements and messages.

Most likely, neither the first nor the second nor even the last. He is presumably influenced by Stepan Zoryan's historical novel ‘King Pap’ or by the splendid series ‘The Alternative History of King Pap’ by one of our finest contemporary historian-journalists, Hrant Ter-Abrahamyan. But if a university graduate with a philological education cannot distinguish between a historical source and a work of fiction—a historical novel—this already indicates that the powers that be were right in not awarding Nikol Pashinyan that journalist-literary diploma. And if he has read and yet failed to comprehend Hrant Ter-Abrahamyan's ‘alternative history’ genre and its subtext, its political codes, failing to extract ‘his homework’ from that, this, in turn, indicates a completely different diagnosis—this time for the Prime Minister of the country.

Leaving science to scientists, Nikol Pashinyan needs someone to somehow explain and make him understand that every people, whether in the East, West, South, or North, elaborates, edits, and sometimes re-arranges and re-edits their history to present it to their generations exclusively in light of current and future realities and priorities, and that is a political axiom.

Thus, one does not need to be a great genius to think about which phase of history in our country began the active reconsideration of our early medieval period, especially the reign of Arshak II and his son King Pap, about which Nikol Pashinyan may have heard something.

Carefully review that phase of historical revisionism and you will note that this has mainly been done in the initial phase of Soviet power and its consolidation. And it was done exclusively for one political purpose—to undermine the historical service rendered to the Armenian people by the Armenian Apostolic Church, its historical value—contrasting the spiritual powers with the secular powers of the time, which had fully objective historical foundations in our historiography and characterized the early and developed middle ages.

It is precisely in this context that almost all those works—scientific, semi-scientific, or journalistic—that heroize Arshak II and King Pap were born, contrasting them with the existing sources and the Armenian Apostolic Church. Even the renowned Tigran Chukhachyan's opera ‘Arshak B’ was revived from oblivion and presented fully to Armenian audiences during that very period. That was when Zoryan authored his famous historical novel.

The issue is not absolutely comparing our early medieval secular and spiritual authorities or obtaining the black and white sides of history from them, which Nikol Pashinyan strives for in every possible way, nor conducting himself thus regarding our present and not-so-distant past. The issue is in a rational perception of the historical past. In Nikol Pashinyan’s case, as it appears, that is completely lacking—his thirst for ignorance.

Another important observation relates to the oppositions King Pap had with the Armenian Apostolic Church, concerning Nerses the Great, his successor Shahak I of Manazkert, the consecration by Armenian bishops instead of in Caesarea, and so on, about which Nikol Pashinyan endlessly loves to make noise. Certainly, King Pap is one of the most controversial figures in our history and deserves due and objective evaluation, along with a critical reading of the indicated sources. But should this really be done by someone who is utterly ignorant and completely bare of understanding?

Someone has to take on a humanitarian mission and explain to Nikol Pashinyan that the early medieval period—the 4th to 5th centuries—was the initial phase of the establishment of feudalism, not only in Armenia but also among our neighbors in the Roman Empire, and the Sasanian Persia and beyond its borders. In that historical phase, it was the landownership forms that determined the distribution of power between the king, the church, noble houses, the free, and other groups of citizens, as land was the main source of income. Someone must also explain that even before the feudal and pre-Christian period, the priests' dynasty was considered one of the largest landowners.

They need to explain that after the adoption of Christianity, the Christian church became one of the largest landowners, and all of early medieval history in Greater Armenia, and not just in Greater Armenia, unfolded with natural political struggles between secular and spiritual authorities over land amidst the establishment of feudalism.

Furthermore, it should be pointed out that the so-frequently cited Shahak I of Manazkert, who, after the poisoning of the Catholicos Nerses the Great at the behest of King Pap, was consecrated by Armenian bishops, belonged to the priestly lineage of the Abgarians, who, after the acceptance of Christianity, became the servants of the Armenian Apostolic Church and, as rivals to the lineage of Gregory the Illuminator, continued to be significant feudal landowners and influential political players.

Nikol Pashinyan should be reminded to also familiarize himself with the history of the period preceding King Pap's reign following Tirdat the Great to understand the fierce struggle that occurred for the cathedra position between the representatives of the lineage of the Illuminator and the Abgarians and how many bishops died under suspicious circumstances.

It probably makes sense to explain that the Armenian Apostolic Church has gradually declared, established, and developed its independence from the universal church primarily due to the peculiarities of establishing Christianity in our country and later also within the doctrinal framework as well; a result of prolonged inter-church struggles that ensued because of the decisions made and not accepted at ecumenical councils.

Ultimately, does Nikol Pashinyan realize that by making such unthoughtful remarks, unwittingly and referencing King Pap amidst such ignorance, he transmits a message of anxiety and a precursor of catastrophe to the Armenian people? Is Nikol Pashinyan informed that, broadly speaking, our Arshakuni kings in the 4th century—Arshak II, his son Pap, Varazdat, and Pap's son Arshak III—could not be successful in navigating through the fierce geopolitical competition between the two powerful empires of their time—the Roman Empire and Sasanian Persia—thereby resulting in Pap’s reign, just 13 years later, leading to the effective loss of Greater Armenia's independence and its partitioning between the two great powers, which also predetermined the unfavorable progression of events for us?

PS: Nikol Pashinyan needs to engage in self-criticism to understand that one cannot speak on a topic one does not grasp at all. This is the sole purpose of this article. Let us hope that after reading even this incomplete snippet, he will never again walk barefoot into the cavern of history and lose himself—or, who knows, get lost in there.