«Հայ Ժողովրդի Ներդրումը Քաղաքակրթութեան Գանձանակին»

Դկ. Տ. Ներսէս աւագ քհն. Ներսէսեան, Աւագ աւանդապահ Բրիտանական գրադարանում 1975-2012թ, 5 Նոյեմբեր 2015

Որեւէ մէկը, որ դոյզն չափով տեղեակ է, թէ ինչպէս են թանգարանները, գրադարանները եւ    պատկերասրահները հարստացնում եւ համալրում իրենց մշակութային գանձերը, պիտի զզուշանար տեսակէտ յայտնելու Զէյթունի Աւետարանի Ջ. Պոլ Գետտի (J. Paul Getty) թանգարանի սեփականութիւնը դարձած պատառիկների վերականգման փորձի մասին (Ոսկան Մխիթարեան, «Մենք ենք մեր գանձերուն իրաւատէրը», 1 Նոյեմբեր 1015թ.): Մշակութային գանձերը սեփականութիւնը չեն միայն դրանց ստեղծողների, այլ մաս են կազմում մարդկային քաղաքակրթութեան «գանձարանի», եւ բախտաւոր է այն ազգը եւ ժողովուրդը, որ իր լուման է ներդրել այդ «գանձանակի» մէջ:

Թանգարանների հավաքածոները հարստանում են բազմաթիւ միջոցներով.

Ա.Նուիրատուութեամբ
Բ. Գնումներով
Գ. Մշակութային գանձերի գրաւում պետութեան կողմից՝ ի դիմաց մահուան տուրքի (Death duty) կամ նուիրատուութիւն՝ փոխան մահուան տուրքի
Դ.Պատերազմական աւար
Ե. Մշտական պարտքով (Permanent Loan) [0րինակ: Pictures from the Gulbenkian Collection lent to the National Gallery, London, 1937]

Այս  հիմնական միջոցներով են թանգարանները եւ գրադարանները հարստացնում իրենց ունեցուածքը եւ հետեւաբար ասել, որ Զէյթունի պատառիկների վերադարձը ձախողուեց, որովհետեւ հարցը «լուրջ ու մանրազնին փնտռտուքի, հետազօտութեան եւ վերլուծումի կը կարօտի», սխալ մեկնակէտ է: Ոչ մի թանգարան եւ գրադարան մինչեւ այսօր իր հավաքածոյից ոչ մի իր չի վերադարձրել իր «իրաւատէրին»:

Բրիտանական Գրադարանի ձեռագրային հավաքածոյին մեր պաշտօնավարութեան ընթացքին աւելացրել ենք աւելի քան 92 բացառիկ ձեռագրային նմոյշներ՝ բոլորը գնուած աճուրդային վաճառքներից: Այստեղ համառօտաբար տամ անունները այն անհատների, որոնց ձեռագրերը վաճառքի են հանուել հաստատութեան կամ ժառանգների կողմից.

Ասպետ Տօնապետեան
Արտաշես Տէր Խաչատրեան ( 47 ձեռագիր )
Յակոբ Գէորգեան (Hagop Kevorkian Fund, որի հայկական ձեռագրերի վաճառքն սկսուեց 1967 թ. եւ տեւեց մինչեւ 1985թ. (ԱՄՆ)
Յարութիւն Հազարեան (ԱՄՆ)
Յովսէփ Փուշման (ԱՄՆ)
Նազարէթ Ադամեան (Watertown) Զէյթունի աւետարանի պատառիկների տէրը՝ նախքան դրանց վաճառքը Ջ.Պոլ Գետտիի գրադարան-թանգարանին (ԱՄՆ)
Ռուբէն Տէր Արութիւնեան (ԱՄՆ)
Տիգրան Խան Քելեկեան
Ֆրեդերիկ Ֆեյդիի [տես Vrej Nerses Nersessian, A Catalogue of the Armenian manuscripts in the British Library acquired since the year 1913 and of collections in other libraries in the United Kingdom, The British Library, 2012, 2 vols.pp.1202; Vrej Nersessian, ‘A treasure in Heaven: An armenian illuminated Gospel Book (Rouben Ter Arutunian Gospel Ararat Summer 1995, pp.39-42); Vrej Nersessian, Sotheby’s Western Manuscripts and Miniatures, Thursday 26th November,1989’(Harutiwn Hazarian collection ms.nos.137-176)].

Այս պատկառելի հավաքածոները վաճառքի հանուեցին հաւաքողների ժառանգների կողմից: Յակոբ Գէորգեանի հավաքածոյից Բրիտանական գրադարանի հավաքածոյի թագն ու պսակն է Աւագ վանքի աւետարանը (Or.13654), որը նախկինում մաս է կազմել Ղալաթայի Ազգային գրադարանի: Յակոբ Գէորգեանի հավաքածոյին էր պատկանում նաեւ Լեւոն Գ. թագաւորի Ժամագիրքը (1269-89)՝ այժմ Բրիտանական Գրադարանի Ձեռագիր համար Or.13993): Այս ձեռագրի նկարագրութիւնն, ինչպէս վերոյիշեալ հավաքածոների նկարագրութիւններն ու գնահատումները, ինձ էին վստահուած: Վերջին ձեռագրի նկարագրութեան օրերին Լոնդոն էր գտնւում մի մեծահարուստ հայ (այժմ հանգուցեալ): Օգտուելով առիթից, ձեռագիրը տարայ հիւրանոց ցոյց տալու նրան՝ մտածելով, որ նկատի ունենալով ձեռագրի պատմական եւ գեղագիտական (գրիչը եւ մանրանկարիչը Սարգիս Պիծակ) արժէքը, պիտի խանդավառուի եւ գնի: Մեծ հիասթափութիւն էր, երբ առանց ձեռագրին նայելու եւ ինձ առիթ տալու բացատրել ձեռագրի կարեւորութիւնը, անմիջապէս տուեց իր վճիռը՝ «կազմերը լաւ վիճակի մէջ չեն»:

Վստահ եմ շատ հայեր յիշում են 14 Մարտ, 1967 թուականի Երեքշաբթի օրը, երբ Sotheby's & Co ընկերութիւնը հրատարակեց Օքսֆորդի Գալուստ Կիւլպէնկեան Հայագիտութեան Պրոֆեսոր Չարլզ Դաուսեթի պատրաստած Twenty-three important Armenian illuminated Manuscripts կայանալիք աճուրդի ցուցակը: Սա ծրագրուած վաճառքն էր Երուսաղէմի Սուրբ Յակոբեանց վանքից գողացուած 23 ամենաընտիր ձեռագրերի, որոնց մէջ առաջին եւ երկրորդ համարներն էին կրում Թորոս Ռոսլինի կողմից մանրանկարուած 1262թ. Չորս Ավետարանը եւ նաեւ Հեթում թագաւորի աւետարանը՝ մանրանկարուած Հռոմկլայում  1268/69թ.: Հեղինակիս սեփականութիւնն է սոյն տպագրուած ցուցակի ‘Galley proofs’-ը, որտեղ իւրաքանչիւր ձեռագրի տակ մանր գրերով կան Բրիտանական թագարանի (Բրիտանական գրադարանը դեռ չկար որպէս առանձին հաստատութիւն) տնօրէնի ծանօթագրութիւնները՝ թելադրելով Թանգարանի խնամակալութեանը փորձել գնել բոլոր ձեռագրերը՝ նշանակուած գումարների սահմաններում: Ծանօթագրութիւնները եւ գնահատականները չափազանց հետաքրքրական են եւ շատ տարբեր այն հայ բարերարից, որը որոշեց մի ակնթարթում մերժել պատեհութիւնը ձեռք բերելու ազգային մշակոյթի մի գանձ: Հայ ձեռագրական երկու խոշոր մասնագէտների, յանձինս Պրոֆ. Ս. Տէր Ներսէսեանի եւ Ակադեմիկոս Լեւոն Խաչիկեանի, աճուրդի ցուցակը տեսնելուն պէս ահազանգ հնչեցրին եւ երջանկայիշատակ Վազգէն Ա. Ամենայն Հայոց Կաթողիկոսի միջնորդութեամբ կասեցրին աճուրդը: Դատավարական բոլոր ջանքերը՝ Sotheby's ընկերութիւնից իմանալու անունը այն անձնաւորութեան, որ ձեռագրերը յանձնել էր աճուրդին, անցան ապարդիւն: Աճուրդի Ընկերութիւնը ընդունեց, որ ձեռագրերը պատկանում են Երուսաղէմի Միաբանութեանը, բայց Ընկերութիւնը պահպանելով իր 'Vendor Secrecy' օրէնքը, չբացայայտեց ձեռագրերը գողացողի կամ գողացողների ինքնութիւնները: Հայկական Բարեգործական Ընդհանուր Միութիւնը 500,000 անգլիական ֆունտ ստեռլինգ վճարելով կասեցրեց աճուրդը եւ ձեռագրերը վերադարձրեց Սուրբ Երուսաղէմ: Երուսաղէմ վերադարձնելու հիմնական պատճառներից մեկն էլ այն էր, որ Իսրայելեան կառավարութիւնը դրանք համարում էր իր պետական հարստութիւնը: Ոչ ոք ժամանակին չհարցաքննեց Իսրայելեան կառավարութեանը, որ եթէ դրանք իր երկրի պետական հարստութեան մասն են, ապա ինչպէս պատահեց, որ 23 ձեռագիր յայտնուեցին Լոնդոնում՝ առանց պետութեան իմացութեան: Ինչպէս գիտենք, ձեռագրերի վերադարձից յետոյ, 1975թ. հանգուցեալ Եղիշէ Պատրիարք Տէրտէրեանը վաճառքի հանուած Թորոս Ռոսլինի ձեռագրերից մէկը նուիրեց Վազգեն Ա. Ամենայն Հայոց Կաթողիկոսին եւ նա էլ իր հերթին նուիրեց Երեւանի Մաշտոցի անուան Մատենադարանին (Երուսաղէմի նախկին Nօ 3627-ը դարձաւ  Երեւանի Մատենադարան No 10675 համար ձեռագիրը):

Հեղինակի տեսակէտը, որ Թուրք կառավարութիւնը «Աղթամարի Սուրբ Խաչ եկեղեցին աւելի լաւ կրնայ հոգ տանիլ, քան Պոլսոյ Պատրիարքութիւնը» արտայայտութիւնը ամբոխավարութիւն է, ճիշտ այնպէս, ինչպէ՞ս Ջ. Պոլ Գետտիի թանգարանից պահանջել Զէյթունի աւետարանի պատառիկները: Աղթամարի Ս. Խաչ վանքը այսօր գտնւում է Թրքական հողի վրայ եւ հետեւաբար համարւում է թուրք պետութեան սեփականութիւնը, ճիշտ այնպէս, ինչպէս Սուրբ Այա Սոֆիայի Մայր տաճարը Կ. Պոլսում: Աղթամարը կը մնայ թրքական սեփականութիւն մինչեւ այն օրը, երբ  կղզին կը դառնայ Մայր Հայաստանի մի մասը, թէեւ սրանից չի կարելի հետեւցնել, որ յոյներն էլ կարող են հետ պահանջել Այա Սոֆիան կամ Պարթենոն տաճարի՝  Բրիտանական Թանգարանում տեղաւորուած մասունքները, որի իրաւական տէրն էր Լորդ Էլգինը՝ նախքան դրանց փոխանցումը թանգարանին: Բրիտանական Թանգարանի Ուրարտական սրահի ցուցանմուշների մէջ կան երկու կարմիր կաւէ կուժեր, որոնք նուիրել է Էրմիտաժ թանգարանի տնօրէն Պիոտրովսկին կամ Գառնի տաճարի մի խոյակը, որը նուիրատւութիւնն է Կապիտան Ջ. Բուկանեն Տելլֆերի ( տես՝ Դկ. Տ. Ներսէս  (Վրէժ) Ներսէսեանի, «Հայաստանը Բրիտանական Թանգարանում'’, «Գիտութիւն»՝ ՀՀ Գիտութիւնների ազգային ակադեմիայի թերթ, Դեկտմբեր 12 (2009),1-5):

Հեղինակի այն յայտարարութիւնը, որ մի թանգարան չի կարող սեփականատէրը դառնալ օտար «ազգային մշակոյթի հարստութեան», չափազանց տղայական միտք է: Թանգարանը սեփականատէրն է առարկայի, բայց ոչ մշակոյթի: Երկրագնդի վրայ չկայ մի թանգարան կամ գրադարան, որի հավաքածոները չկազմեն  մասնիկները քաղաքակրթութեան՝ ստեղծուած տարբեր ազգերի եւ ժողովրդների կողմից: Մի պահ պատկերացրէք, եթէ ամէն ազգ կամ ժողովուրդ պահանջի իրեն պատկանող մասունքի  վերադարձը, ապա ոչ մի հաստատութիւն չի կարող շարունակել իր առաքելութիւնը որպէս մարդկային մտքի եւ տաղանդի ստեղծագործութեան պահապանը եւ դաստիարակիչը: Թանգարանների եւ գրադարանների մէջ պահուած մշակութային նմուշները «յիշատակարաններն» են այն ժողովուրդների, որոնք ստեղծիչներն են եղել, եւ որոնք ներկայացնում են իրենց ներդրումը համաշխարհային մշակոյթի «գանձանակի» մեջ:

Զէյթունի Սուրբ Աստուածածին եկեղեցու Աւետարանը՝ ընդօրինակուած Հռոմկլայում,1256թ., նկարազարդել է Թորոս Ռոսլինը՝ Կոստանդին Ա. Բարձրբերդցի կաթողիկոսի պատուէրով, որն այժմ գտնւում է Երեւանի Մաշտոցի անուան մատենադարանում (ձեռ.No.10450): Զէյթունի Աւետարանի մասին գրել են Մեսրոպ Եպսկ. Տէր-Մովսէսեանը (1913թ), Արտաւազդ Արք. Սիւրմէեանը (1936թ), Գարեգին Արք. Յովսէփեանցը (1943 թ), Պրոֆ. Ս. Տէր-Ներսէսեանը (1952 թ): Մայիսի 4-ից Օգոստոս 7 եւ 18 Օգոստոսից  23 Հոկտեմբեր 1994 թուականներին Զէյթունի Աւետարանի ութ խորանները ցուցադրւում ենTreasures in Heaven: Armenain Illuminated Manuscripts  ցուցահանդէսում նախ՝ The Pierpont Morgan Library, New York (4 May-7 August,1994) եւ ապա The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore (28 August-23 October,1994) գրադարաններում: Երեւում է, որ այս ցուցադրումներից անմիջապէս յետոյ Ջ. Պոլ Գետտիի թանգարանը գնում է պատառիկները սեփականատիրոջից անձնական պայմանագրով (1976թ. երբ Ջ. Պոլ Գետտի կտակը բացեցին, յայտաբերեցին, որ նա 700 միլիոն դոլլար էր կտակել իր թանգարանին):

Հազիւ ստանձնել էի Բրիտանական Գրադարանի Արեւելեան Քրիստոնեական բաժանմունքի աւանդապահութիւնը (Curatorship), երբ մխրճուեցի մի վերադարձման (restitution) պահանջքի հարցի մէջ՝ Եթովպիայի կառավարութեան կողմից: 1867թ. երբ անգլիական կառավարութիւնը մի արշաւանք կազմակերպեց Եթովպիայի Թէոդորոս կայսրի դէմ, անգլիական բանակին ուղեկցում էին մի քանի մասնագէտներ, որոնց պարտականութիւնն էր հաւաքել Բրիտանական Թանգարանի համար մշակոյթի նմուշներ՝ այդ թւում ձեռագրեր: Պատերազմի նախօրեակին Թէոդորոս կայսրը կուտակել էր աւելի քան 10,000 ձեռագրեր վանքերից՝ զարդարելու համար այն եկեղեցին, որը նուիրուելու էր «Աշխարհի Ամենափրկչի» պատուին կառուցուելիք Մագդալայի բերդում: Երբ անգլիական բանակը գրաւեց Մագդալայի բերդը, Թէոդորոս կայսրը ինքնասպանութիւն գործեց, իսկ անգլիական բանակը թալանեց Մագդալայի մատենադարանի  7,000-ի մօտ ձեռագրեր: 1868թ. Օգոստոսի 28-ին այդ հաւաքածոյի 350 լաւագոյն ձեռագրերը յանձնուեցին Բրիտանական թանգարանին: Այս պատկառելի հաւաքածոյի այլ մասունքներ  մաս են կազմում Windsor Palace արքայական պալատի գրադարանի, Բոդլէեան գրադարանի, Կեմբրիջի Համալսարանի: Ողջ հավաքածոյից միայն մի ձեռագիր Վիկտորիա թագուհին վերադարձրեց Եթովպիայի Յովհաննէս Կայսրին՝ վերջինիս խնդրանքով: Դա Kebra Negast (Glory of the Kings) [«Թագաւորների Փառք»]-ը հատորն էր, որի վրայ նորընծայ թագաւորները կատարում էին իրենց հաւատարմութեան ուխտը [Տես՝ Vrej Nersessian, 'The Ethiopian collection of Manuscripts in the British Library', Proceedings of the First International Conference on the History of Ethiopian Art, Warburg Institute, October 21-22.1986, The Pinder Press, London, 1989, pp.62-69]: Եթովպական կառավարութիւնն իր Լոնդոնի դեսպանատան միջոցով բազմաթիւ անգամներ պահանջեց ձեռագրերի վերադարձը՝ ականաւոր Եթովպագէտների հովանաւորութեամբ, բայց ամէն անգամ գրադարանը առանց որեւէ երկմտանքի մերժեց: Պահանջքների մի դրական արդիւնքն այն եղաւ, որ ես հաւաքածոն դարձրի աւելի մատչելի ընթերցողներին, լաւագոյն նմուշների միկրոֆիլմերը  տրամադրուեցին ազգային գրադարանին Ադիս Աբբեբայում, եւ ամենայատկանշականը՝ քաջալերեցի ձեռագրերի ցուցադրումը միջազգային ցուցահանդէսներում՝ առանց վախի, որ դրանց վերադարձը Լոնդոն Եթովպական Պետութիւնը կարող էր իրաւաբանական գետնի վրայ արգիլել: Մինչեւ 1868թ. այդ ձեռագրերը երբեք չէին ցուցադրուել: Դրանք առաջին անգամ ցուցադրուեցին 'The Christian Orient’  (1978)  ցուցահանդէսում'   քոյր եկեղեցիներին (Հայերէն, Ղպտերէն, Ասորերէն) առընթակից: Այս ցուցահանդէսի համար Մայր Աթոռի աջակցութեամբ Լոնդոն բերուեց 1225թ. մի հոյակապ խաչքար, որը  յետոյ նուիրուեց Բրիտանական Թանգարանին: Այս առաջին ցուցահանդէսից յետոյ 1993 թ. տեղի ունեցաւ ‘African Zion: The Sacred Art of Ethiopia’ ցուցահանդէսը Բոլթիմորում, իսկ 2001թ. Փարիզում եւ ապա Ջերոնիայում ‘L’Arche Ethiopienne. Art Chretien D’Ethiopie’: Այս համագործակցութիւնը բարելաւեց  յարաբերութիւնները երկու հաստատութիւնների միջեւ, թէեւ ոչ մի գրաւական չկայ, որ ձեռագրերը վերադարձնելու պահանջքը կ՚անհետանայ: Մի բան պարզ է, որ աշխարի բոլոր թանգարանները եւ գրադարանները յամառօրէն հետեւում են միանման քաղաքականութեան, որն է՝ ոչ մի դէպքում տեղի չտալ մշակութային գանձերի վերադարձի պահանջքներին:

Ջ. Պոլ Գետտիի Թանգարանի դէմ ծախսալից դատական գործողութիւնը, ետ վերցնելու համար Թորոս Ռոսլինի կողմից մանրանկարուած պատառիկները, երբեք պիտի չյաջողուէր յօգուտ Արեւմտեան Թեմի Առաջնորդարանին: Դա արկածախնդիր, չմտածուած գործողութիւն էր, որը ոչ մի պատիւ չբերեց հայ ժողովրդին: Մենք կարիքը չունենք Ջ. Պոլ Գետտիի տնօրէնութեան հաստատումին, որ պատառիկները հայ մանրանկարիչ Թորոս Ռոսլինին են պատկանում եւ հետեւաբար հայ մշակոյթի մասնիկներ են: Սա պէտք է համարել առաջին անփորձ մօտեցումը մշակութային մի մասունքի վերականգնումի 'restitution'՝ բոլորովին չփաստուած եւ անհիմն պատճառաբանութիւնների հիման վրա: Յիշեցնենք թէ՝ առաջին յաջող, առանց որեւէ թատերականութեան, մշակութային գանձի վերադարձը տեղի ունեցաւ 2011 թ., երբ Թորոս Ռոսլինի ձեռքով 1272 թ. մանրանկարուած «Կեռան Թագուհու Աւետարանից» պոկուած երկու մանրանկարները վերադարձուեցին Երուսաղէմ եւ ներդրուեցին ձեռագրի մէջ՝ շնորհիւ մեր անաղմուկ ջանքերին եւ յոյն սեփականատիրոջ վեհանձն վերաբերմունքին [տես՝ Rev. Dr. Nerses Vrej Nersessian, The repatriation of an Armenian cultural treasure.The Gospel of Queen Keran, Sis, Cilicia,1272 A.D=Հայոց Կեռան Թագուհու Աւետարանի պոկուած երկու մանրանկարների դարձը Երուսաղէմ, Լոնդոն, 2011, էջ. 36; 'Կը վերականգնուի մեր «Գանձերու Գանձը» Կեռան Թագուհիի Աւետարանը', Սիոն,1-4(2015), էջ .29 ]:

«Որ յամենայն ժամ ուսանին եւ երբեք ի գիտութիւն ճշմարտութեան ոչ հասանեն» (Բ Տիմ Գ .7)

The impact of the Genocide of 1915 on the Armenian Orthodox Apostolic Church

In Memoriam of the 100^th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide 1915-2015.               

The approximately two million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were more dispersed than those of the Russian Empire and Safavid Persia. They made a sizeable element in Constantinople, the coastal cities, and in Cilicia, the fertile region along the Mediterranean Sea, where an Armenian kingdom had held sway from the eleventh century through to 1375.Yet, despite this broad distribution, most Turkish Armenians still inhabited their historic plateau lands, Adana, Aintab, Baghesh, Bitlis, Edesia( Urfa, Edessa)Erznka(Erzinjan), Evdokia(Tokat),Hadjn,Karin, Erzerum), Kharpet (Kharput,Harput), Kesaria(Kaiseri ,Caesaria), Marash, Mush, Sivas (Sebastia),Van, and Zeitun forming the six vilayets (provinces).

 Persian Armenia lay in the khanates of Erevan, Nakhijevan, and Kharabagh. In 1826-27 the Armenians lent military and political support to the Russians in anticipation not only of liberation from the rule of the Persians, but also of achieving a base for an autonomous Armenian state. In 1826, Archbishop Nerses Ashtaraketsi when primate of the Dioceses of Nor Nakhijevan and Besarabia (later Catholicos of All Armenian as Nerses V, Ashraraketsi Shahazizian,1843-57), in a famous ‘Appeal to the Armenian Nation’, reminded Armenians that the Russians were coming not in their own self-interest but for the peace, security ,and well-being of the Armenians. He asked Armenians, in the name of their glorious forefathers, for the sake of God and Christianity, not to spare either their goods or their lives for the success of the Russians. The Archbishop himself led a detachment of Armenians volunteers against the Persians.

From the Arab domination to the rise of the Armenian Bagratuni kingdom (640-884), freedom of religion was assured by a contemporary agreement between the Arabs and the Armenians cited by the ninth century Arab historian  al-Baladhuri- 

  ‘In the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful. This is a treaty of Habib ibn Maslamah with the Christians, Magians and Jews of Dabil (Dvin) including those present and absent, I have granted you safety for your lives, possessions, churches, places of worship, and city wall. ‘Thus you are safe and we are bound to fulfil our covenant, so long as you will fulfil yours and pay the poll tax and kharaj. Thereunto Allah is witness; and it suffices to have him as  witness’

Two hundred years after the Ottoman Empire was founded on the ruins of the Byzantine Empire, the unification of the Armenian people was formally legitimated by the institution of the Armenian millet. In 1461, the Ottoman government invited Yovakim Bishop of Bursa (1461-78) to Constantinople and bestowed upon him the title of Patriarch, entrusting him with the ecclesiastical and civil government of all the Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire. The investiture, initially involving only the Armenians, was extended and every soon covered other ethno-religious groups: Copts, Syrians, Jacobites, and Ethiopians. Thus, along with the Greek patriarch, who looked after all the Chalcedonian Christian communities, there emerged the Armenian patriarch who represented all the non- Chalcedonian Christians. The millet was a fairly typical institution in the Ottoman Empire. It gave the ethno-religious minorities in the Empire, a juridical status and a specific form of organisation that on one hand sanctioned the difference between Armenians and Ottoman citizens, permitting non-parity and possible discrimination, therefore; and that, on the other, was a link and a bond that guaranteed a minimum of protection and  representation within the state structure. The Armenians did not meet insuperable obstacles in preserving their national identity, and although some were constrained to embrace Islam and more were subjected to economic exploitation, they learned to live with their Muslim overlords and neighbours. This situation changed radically by the nineteenth century as a consequence of the gradual demise  of the Ottoman Empire.

Since the emergence of the Ottoman Empire, over the years many Armenians had adopted the Turkish language [the entire Bible in Turkish in Armenian letters was available as early as 1842 ], culture, and Islam to escape their second-class status within the ethno-religious administrative system, the Ermeni millet. The Armenian Patriarchate had jurisdiction over all the Armenians of the Empire, except the Catholicate of Sis (Cilicia), Aght’amar, and Patriarchate of Jerusalem. In 1827 Sultan Mahmud II in a gesture of defiance against the Allied Powers banished the Catholic Armenians who were part of the Armenian millet from the capital. As a consequence thousands suffered, many perishing from cold and rigours of the journey. The Treaty of Andrianople (1820) provided not only for the return of the Catholic Armenians but also the right to have their own church and separate administration. By Imperial decree issued on 24^th, 1831, the Armenian Catholics were granted independent status as a separate millet, and eventually raised to the status of Patriarchate on April 17^th, 1834.  Shortly later the Evangelical Armenians announced in July 1^st, 1846, the formation of the First Evangelical Armenian Church of Constantinople. Those who chose to maintain their national religious identity were required to pay heavy taxes, comply with orders regarding the devshirme, the forced collection of Children to serve in the Ottoman janissary  corps and submit to restrictions under imperial and religious laws.

Sultan Abdul Mejid (r.1839-61) responding to domestic and European pressures for structural reform, introduced the Tanzimat reforms in the Ottoman Empire, which consisted of the Hatt-i Sherif of Gulhane (Noble Rescript of the Rose Chamber) declared on November 3, 1838, followed by the Hatt-i-Hymayani ( Imperial Rescript ) on February 18,1856, in the aftermath of the Crimean War. Under these reforms, the sultan promised equality for Muslims and non Muslims regardless of sect and creed. His Muslim subjects, however, viewed the principal of equality before the law for non Muslims as a violation of ‘ Islamic law and tradition ’.In parallel, the sublime Porte in 1847 ratified the establishment of the Armenian spiritual Council (religious) and the Supreme council (laymen), both under the directorship of the Armenian patriarchate at Constantinople. In 1863 the government also issued an imperial decree ratifying the Armenian National Constitution [Ազգային Սահմանադրութիւն].

 The thought of taking arms for self-defence was the last resort  in the process of the Armenian cultural and political revival, with personal and collective emancipation being at the core of the movement. The example set by the Greeks and other Balkan peoples and their success in gaining freedom was inspiring, and the allegorical admonition of Archbishop Mkrtitch Khrimyan called Hayrik meaning Father (b.1892-d.1907 Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople from  1868-79 &  Catholicos of All Armenians,1892-1907) to follow the path of armed struggle instead of continued petitions of supplication. Khrimyan Hayrik shortly after returning in deep despondency to Constantinople from the Berlin Congress of 1878, to which he had attended as head of the Armenian delegation, in the Armenian cathedral in the Kum Kapu he preached a memorable sermon filled with metaphors. He told his congregation the following parable-

   « Պերլինի մեջ հոգեճաշ [requiem meal] հարիսա կցրվեին բոլոր հպատակ ազգերին,ինձի ղրկեցիք,որ հայերին ընկած մասը առնեմ բերեմ,ես ալ պտուկն առի ու վազեցի...Դուք ինձի շերեփի տեղ թուղթ տվիք ,այդ թղթի կտոր որչափ որ խոթեցի տաք հարիսային մեջ,թուղթ թացացավ ,լխկեցավ,մեջն ընկավ,ես ալ պարապ թողի,ետ եկա.մոռցա առաջուց մի քանի հատ զեյթունցի տանեի հետս, անոնք շերեփ ունեին,կարելի է ամանին տակեն ,քովերեն բան մը փրցունեին» In Berlin[Congress]  requiem meal of harisa was being distributed to all the subjugated nations, you send  me as well to take and bring to you the portion reserved for us Armenians  and I took the pan and ran …You gave me in place of ladle a piece of  paper ,and that piece of paper the more I dipped into the harisa, the wetter it got, eventually it crumbled, and I left it and returned empty handed …I  forgot to take with me a couple of Zeituntsis, they had ladles, they could have scrapped  the bottom of the pot, the sides and come away with something’.

 The Balkan peoples had come to Berlin with their iron ladles (erkat’e sherep) and ate of the tasty harisa [oat and meat porridge] But the Armenians had only paper petitions, and when they timidly placed their paper ladle (t’ught’e sherep) into the harisa pot, the paper crumbled and the Armenians received  nothing. Despite Khrimyan’s generally conservative disposition, his message came to be regarded by many as a revolutionary call to forge an ‘iron ladle’ through self- reliance and self-defence. In 1879 he resigned and returned to Van as primate of the diocese of Vaspurakan. There he encouraged the formation of several secret voluntary groups called ‘ Black Cross [Սեւ Խաչ] in Van, ‘In defence of the Homeland’[ Պաշտման Հայրենեաց] in Karin and several similar organisations for Evdokia and Marzvan. The Ottoman government deprived him from his post of primacy, recalled him to Constantinople and exiled him to Jerusalem, where he remained until 1892, when he was elected Catholicos of All Armenians. The Turkish government would not free him of his Turkish citizenship and exile. It took 13 months of intense Russian pressure the Turks relented and allowed him to leave Jerusalem for Armenia. Seventeen months after his election in   25^th September, 1893 he was consecrated Catholicos of All Armenians on the Feast day of the Holy Cross of Varag.

  The literature of witness has had a significant impact on our understanding of the 20^th century.  Bishop Grigor Balakian’s memoir Armenian Golgotha, belongs to this genre of literature.  Grigor Balakian a graduate of the Theological Seminary of Armash, a priest and later a bishop in the Armenian Orthodox Church, was among the Armenian intellectuals rounded up on the night of April 24, 1915 and deported. He was one of the very few that survived the ordeal against all odds, who in his Armenia Golgotha brings together a survivor’s account, eyewitness testimony, historical background and context, and political analysis. In a crucial chapter, ‘Plan for the Extinction of the Armenians in Turkey’, Balakain gives us an eleven-point outline of the Young Turks’  ‘final solution’, which remains  an invaluable source for our understanding of the unfolding events of 1914-18.

As Balakian reveals, the CUP[ Ittihad ve Terakki, the Committee of Union and Progress, the ruling government of the Ottoman empire in 1915]  ‘Law of Deportation’ and the confiscation of wealth (Temporary Law of Confiscation and Expropriation) resulted in organised, as well as ad hoc acts of plunder and theft of Armenian property. Balakian makes clear that deportation ‘was synonymous with murder’ and that the ‘relocation” of Armenians was merely a charade – as the Constantinople post-war courts-martial trials would confirm from Turkish testimony.

The absorption of Armenians into Islamic Turkish life through forced conversion and abduction is a recurrent theme of the genocidal process. In a moving scene in the chapter ‘Gazbel to Hajin’  Balakain tells the story of him sitting at a dinner table with a family of Islamized Armenians who beg him to bless their table give them Holy Communion, and hear their confessions. CUP’s pan Turkic ideology – its advocacy of homogeneous Turkey, free of Christian minorities especially Greeks, Assyrians, and Armenians – was not only a racist and xenophobic platform but a motivating factor in the final solution for the ‘Armenian Question’ which emerged out of the  much wider ‘Eastern Question’. Balakian hears German soldiers referring to Armenians as ‘Christian Jews’ and ‘bloodsucking usurers of the Turkish people’.  Such remarks demonstrate the ideological relationship Germans and Turks were forging in their shared view of Armenians, to whom the Germans extended and applied anti-Semitic notions. He observes that Turkish government officials often justified their violence against all Christians as ‘just retribution’ for their dominance in Turkey’s economic life, characterising Armenian Christians as ‘ferocious leeches’. 

In 1828 Eastern Armenia came under the rule of Tzarist  imperial  Russia. To consolidate its power over Armenia, in 1836 Tsar Nicholas I instituted the Polozhenie (Statute), which restricted the activities of the Armenian Church in political matters and required that the Catholicosate at Ejmiadsin conduct its relations with the outside world through the Russian ministry of foreign affairs. Russian authorities greatly appreciated the role of the church in Armenian community life and sought to utilize its influence to promote and protect Russian interests in the region. By 1885, in its six dioceses of Russia (Erevan, Karabagh, Tbilisi, Shemakh,  Astrakhan, and New Nakhijevan) and in the region of Kars, the Armenian Church controlled some 330 schools, 247 of which were for boys and 83 for girls. In 1903 the tsarist government decided to curtail the dominant socioeconomic position of the Armenian Church. In 1903  an Imperial decree   ordered the transfer and control and administration of all church properties, both movable and immovable, to the Ministry of Agriculture and Public Domains and to the Ministry of the Interior. In this act the Armenians in the homeland and in the diaspora saw clearly the intention of the Russian authorities to undermine their cultural and religious autonomy. The mass active resistance, occurring at the same time as the outbreak of the 1905 Russian revolution, forced the tsarist regime to reconsider its policies in its effort to stabilise the situation in the Transcaucasia and  annulled  the decree and the Armenians were allowed to reopen their church schools which had reached 34, 845.

                   The destruction of the church’s religious and cultural stewardship 

                                                                                     ‘Armenia is our victim’,  David Lloyd George

David Lloyd George described Armenia as a land ‘soaked with the blood of innocents’, and declared that it was one of countries which would never be restored to the blasting tyranny of the Turk’. Lloyd George was one of the prominent representatives of British imperialist diplomacy, who sacrificed the Armenian question on the sacrificial altar of imperialism. After retiring from politics had the courage to confess the truth ‘If it was not for our unholy interference – he wrote in his memoirs,-the majority of Armenians in compliance with the demands of the Treaty of San Stefano in 1878 would have passed under Russian protection. He admits ‘Armenia is our victim’ and that ‘Armenia was sacrificed on the altar of the victory created by us’. British policy had fatal consequences and led to the inevitable massacres of Armenians in 1895-97 and 1909, and 1915.We gave the Turks the possibility of implementing their heinous crime’. 

As usual the clergy received first attention. ‘It is necessary’ read one of Talaat’s orders, ‘above all to work for the extermination of the Armenian clergy’. Thirty four high ranking celibate clergy were murdered along with 4,000 married priests. Among them were the primates of Erzerum, Trebizond, Ceasarea, Bitlis, Mush, Sert and Erznjan and there parish priests of every church and village. The Bishop of  Diarbekir  ‘was mutilated, drenched with alcohol, and burnt alive in the prison yard, in the midst of a carousing crowd of gendarmes, who even accompanied the scene with music’.According to the official ecclesiastical records attached by Archbishop Ormanian( 1896-1908) to his most influential work The Church of Armenia (1896-1908), there were 3,722,00 members of the Armenian Church before the first World War, with 100 dioceses,3,909 parishes and 3,788 churches, with one third of the Armenian population having been massacred ,forcibly converted to Islam, forty years later, in 1954,the membership of the Armenian Church reached and even slightly surpassed its former number. In the new statistics compiled by bishop D.Poladian,for the 3nd edition of Ormanian’s The church of Armenia the number of Armenian Church members appears as 3,674,757,but this time only with 26 dioceses,446 parishes and 417 churches. The Catholic Armenia church also was targeted. According to Catholic Armenian sources eight bishops, 106 priests, 55 nuns, and over 80.000 catholic Armenians.The Armenian Evangelical community also suffered great looses. In 1914, Armenian Evangelicals all over the world numbered about 70.000 of which approximately 51,000 lived in Turkey. The community had 137 organised churches with 82 ordained ministers and 97 preachers. In the aftermath of the genocide the Armenian Evangelicals counted 14,000 members, 31 churches with twenty five ordained ministers and thirteen preachers. American missionaries entered the Middle East in the early decades of the nineteenth century with the grandiose purpose to Christianise the nations of the Ottoman Empire. Their programmes among the native Armenians in the Ottoman Turkey had expanded to such an extent that at the turn of the century the Kharpert mission was considered the most successful not only in the Ottoman Empire but throughout the world.The missionaries from the United States, Germany and Great Britain achieved a  great deal  by encouraging the reform-minded element in the population, helped to raise expectations but  they were unwilling or unable to support in the long run. In characterizing the policies of the European Powers in the Ottoman empire, the US minister, John A.G. Leishman, had complained: ‘ they do just enough to do harm, but not enough to do good’.

According to the statistics of the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople [A.Kh.Safrastyan, 'Կոստանդնուպոլսի Հայոց Պատրիարքարանի կողմից Թուրքիայի Արդարադատության եվ Դավանանքների Մինիստրության ներկայացված Հայկական եկեղեցիների եվ վանքերի ցուցակներն ու թաքրիրները[The statistical lists and documents of Armenian churches and monasteries compiled by the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople and presented to the Turkish Ministry of Justice and Faiths,1912-1913. In 1914 there were 210 monasteries and 700 monastic churches. Also, there were 1,639 churches outside the jurisdiction of the monasteries. More than a hundred monasteries were then enjoying full prosperity. These were not isolated for prayer alone, but according to a national tradition they were cultural, theological and creative centres. These were museums that housed manuscripts, stone crosses, reliquaries, countless objects of religious art. Among them were the monasteries of St Karapet (Saint John) and Monastery of Surb Arak’elots [Apostles, Kars ,930-43 ], Monastery of Varag or Yediklise, The Seven Churches (Van,1231). Aghtamar or Church of the Holy Cross, located on the island of Aght’amar,Van ( 915-and 921) Awag Vank’ or Monastery of Mount Sepouh (Erzinjan,13^th century) and Karmir Vank in the vilayet of Erzerum, Monastery of St Narek not to mention St Nshan in Sivaz, Monastery and theological seminary in Armash near Contantinople, the Catholicate of Cilicia. In the multi volume studies on the monasteries of Vaspurakan, Taron, and Sebastia   by Father Hamazasp Voskian  published between 1940 and 1953 shed light on the existence of 573 monasteries in the provinces  of Erzerum, Van and Bitlis, 13 others in the immediate vicinity of the city of Sivaz.   Georg Mesrop  estimates  more than 200 the number of monasteries destroyed by the Turks during the thirty-year period  preceding   the war (1880-1914. In 1915 in their determination ‘to dispose the Armenian question once and for all’, the Turkish nationalists turned their fury on all that, by their mute presence, could bear witness in favour of the legitimate owners of the devastated  regions. Ecclesiastical edifices, functioning as monuments of architecture, centres of art and learning were too eloquent. Consequently, they were pillaged and desecrated by bands imbued with racist propaganda, shelled or blown up, set on fire. Vahan, Papzian [Koms,1876-1973], Ottoman Deputy for Bitlis in  the Young Turkish Parliament of Constantinople, quotes   ‘Either no trace of Turks or no trace of Armenians should remain in this country’, declared  by Djevdet Bey,  Governor  of Van. Lord  Kinross a Turkish sympathiser to the extent of considering the Genocide of 1915 1918 as an ‘unfortunate political necessity’  in his book Within the Taurus,he speaks, however, with some regret, as a connoisseur, of the Armenian civilization, describes the ruins of Ani  as totally abandoned  ‘ the demolition of the crosses and of the walls with their frescoes is tragic’.The French explorer, F.Balsan, relates in his travels The Surprises of Kurdistan  records the words of his escort Setke  Bey  ‘ the elimination of the Armenians was an urgent salutary work. Their very name must no longer have a sense, their memory, their monuments, their least traces must disappear. It is the order’ .Further on speaking of the Armenian Church of St Step’anos (St Stephen) of Deir (on the Turkish-Iranian border) relates this cynical comment of his escort and Turkish officers, ‘ It is the last Armenian church. I hope so, at least’. Then he translates the words of a Turkish subaltern ‘They do not despair of ‘finishing it off’, one of these days however hard its stones are. It is all a question of having explosives… Whenever they receive explosives, the church, too, receives its share’.

The Armenian has always had an inborn love genuine  admiration for culture, science and the arts no way better demonstrated that in the following rare incident. In the forced flight towards the regions occupied by the Russians, in 1915, the Armenians of Mush carried with them, at the cost of indescribable sacrifices, the great Homiliary of Mush dated 1204 [Mat. Ms. no.7729], and the splendid wooden doors of the Apostles Monastery of Mush 1134.The former is now one of the glories of the Matenadaran and the latter is in The State History Museum of Armenia. The rescuing of this manuscript bears witness to the devoutness of the Armenians and their untiring efforts to save a manuscript which, according to the words frequently used by Armenian scribes, was regarded a ‘captive’ by infields and those who would rescued it  ‘were worthy to receive their fitting reward’ wrote the scribe Kostandin Vahkatsi  inn the colophon of his manuscript of the Four Gospels  in 1413. The rescuing of a manuscript means more than building a church’. The Homiliary of Mush weighs 32k, measures 70.5 x 50cm and consisted of 660 parchment leaves. The Manuscript was kept in the Apostles Monastery in Mush. Two women fleeing from the massacres, in 1917 take refuge in the courtyard of the Apostle’s Monastery, and see the monumental manuscript and decide to rescue it. The manuscript being too heavy they split it into two halves taking one half with them and burying the second half with care .The ladies deliver the first half to the Armenian Ethnographic  Society in Tiflis. Two years later in 1919 a Polish soldier serving in Baku sales the second half of the manuscript to the Armenian Benevolent Union. During the endless wanderings, the manuscript has lost some  of its folios. From the 660 folios 601 have survived, while another 17 folios are in the Library of the Mkhitharists in Venice, and one folio in the Mkhitharist library in Vienna. In 1977 the Institute of Ancient manuscripts received two folios of the same manuscript from the State Lenin Library in Moscow. After 1915 Matenadaran received 1,545 manuscripts belonging to the monasteries in Lim, Ktuts, Aghtamar,Varag, Mush and  Van .

Suren Kolanjyan in his series of articles devoted to the loss of Armenian manuscripts   between 1894 -96, 1909 and 1915 gives a detailed account of the losses of Armenian religious manuscripts in his ‘Հայկական կոտորածները եվ մեր ձեռագրական կորուստները.   Among the most significant collections destroyed for ever were the holdings of the monasteries of Holy Cross church of Sebastia (T.Gushakian,1923),Monastery of St Karapet of Ernjak ( M. Smbateants,1904), of the Monasteries of Vaspurakan ( E.Lalayan,1915),Karmir Vank of Ankiwrya ( (B.Kiwleserian,1957) and of the Monastry of Galatia ( B.Kiwleserian,1961)and of the Monastery of St Karapet and the Church of St Daniel (T.Palian,1963).

Among the British Library’s collection of Armenian manuscripts the most outstanding is a MS.Oriental 13654 , given  the name the Awag Vank’ Gospels, bought in 1975 by the writer  formerly belonging to the late Hagob Kevorkian of New York. This manuscript, consisting of 384 vellum folios measuring 37 x 29 cm is among the largest of ancient Armenian manuscripts. The manuscript was commissioned by Bishop Ter Sargis, as a memorial for their paternal uncle Ter Awetik,copied by the scribe Vardan in 1200-02 ,in the monastery of Awag Vank’ on Mount Sepuh in Erzinjan. The scribe Vardan is the same Vardan who copied the  Mush Homiliary  (Mat. MS.7729).The manuscript was brought to Constantinople by a group of refugees fleeing from persecution in August 1605 and presented to the Church of St Nicholas. There is a notice dated 1609 which states ‘  in this year, the year 1058[20 October 1608] severe ,enormous affliction came again upon thrice wretched nation which has seen  much misery when a sever command came from the king[Sultan Ahmed I,1603-17] to drive us Christians from this town, saying “ Go to your own country”; and we do not know what the end will be. We have been trampled upon as “the mite of the streets” and the Lord has “abhorred his heritage greatly”.  In the eighteenth century the manuscript became part of the collection of the Monastery Library at Galatia, and was catalogued by Babgen vardapet Kiwleserian between 1902 and 1907. During the massacres of 1915 the entire collection of the Galatia monastery was lost. The manuscript was among the Armenian manuscripts of  Hagop Kevorkian Collection(New York), which sold in 1975,and  was acquired by the British Library. As with many manuscripts, the memorial notices provide a commentary on the times, which the Armenian American writer Michael  Arlan  Jr. has likened to ‘ messages in bottles, messages from some long ago sea wreck, messages written by men’. For Armenians a manuscript is the ‘child in Zion’  through its colophon called hishatakaran, literally ‘ place of memory, which binds every Armenian to the saving powers of the Armenian Church and other members  of the Armenian Christian congregation 

The Catholicate of Cilicia.

By early summer 915,the Turkish ultra-nationalist dictatorial triumvirate ( Enver, Talaat and Mehmet Jemal Pashas) has  succeeded in its systematic deportation and massacre of innocent Armenians in the provinces and Cilicia, while Catholicos Sahak Khapayan was busy dispatching appeals to Patriarch Zaven  Eghiaian (1913-15;1919-22) in Constantinople and to foreign embassies beseeching them to intercede on behalf of the Armenian population and to stop the unprecedented atrocities against his constituency. On early morning hours of 24^th April,1915 in a surprise move the Istanbul police and members of the Young Turks spread out over the city arresting several hundred leaders of the Armenian community across the entire spectrum of society (politicians, intellectuals, poets journalists, physicians, writers, teachers, primates and priests. The objective was to break the backbone of the Armenian community by removing its leaders, thus making the surviving Armenians powerless. After hiding the detainees in several jails in the city, the Turks transported them out of town and shot or stabbed to death each and every one at several locations in the country which was described  as  ‘German method - and Turkish execution’

Catholicos Sahak Khapaian  on 19 July 1915 sent his last batch of appeals to Patriarch Zaven in Constantinople. His activities displeased the officials of the Ottoman government. They decided to silence him by sending him to a small town where he could cause no further embarrassment. Following the instruction of the Interior Ministry in Istanbul, the governor of Aleppo ordered Khapayan to leave ‘ quietly’ in two days for the city of Idlib located 35 miles southeast of Aleppo. Khapayan appealed to his old friend Mehmet Jemal Pasha, requesting that he be allowed to leave for Damascus or Jerusalem since his impoverished staff and retinue were deprived of their normal means of survival. On 15 October 1915 a curt telegram from Justice Minister Ibrahim Bey instructed the Catholicos to depart for Idlib, to which he complied. However, on 21 October, 1915, Catholicos Sahak decided to leave Idlib and depart for Jerusalem. He visited Aleppo one more time. In June 1916,the triumvirate devised a plan in which the hierarchy of the Armenian Church in the Ottoman Empire would completely sever its ties with the ‘Russian dominated Catholicos in Ejmiadsin’. Thus the Armenians would have only one head with his seat in the distant Jerusalem, accountable  directly to the authority of the Turkish government. On 1 August, 1916 an official document prepared by a governmental committee, was signed off by Sultan Mehmet V, Rashidi ( 1909-18), the Grand Vizier, six ministers and Mustafa Bey. The new edict, entitled ‘Regulations for the Conduct of the Armenian Catholicate /Patriarchate’ promulgated the elimination of the Armenian millet and the abolition of the National Constitution of 1863. The document consisted of an introduction, three chapters and thirty-nine articles. Article 1 ordered the abolition of the four Holy Seats – Cilicia, Aght’amar (already defunct in 1895 ),Constantinople and Jerusalem. A new office of Catholicos/ Patriarch of the Ottoman Empire would be installed in Jerusalem away from the capitol, thus reducing its status to a small regional religious entity under the authority of the local governor. The spiritual and temporal authority of the Catholicos in Ejmiadsin would be completely neutralised..

 Although the regulations provided special procedures for the election of a Catholicos /Patriarch by the  Armenians, the triumvirate ignored  this provision and Catholicos Sahak Khabayan was appointed  for the post at the recommendation of Jemal Pasha. In May 1916, while on a visit to Jerusalem, Jemal Pasha summoned Catholicos Sahak for a private  ‘friendly’ meeting, during which he told to him in private ‘ my government does not wish to allow a Catholicos subject to our enemy [the Russians] to become the moral and spiritual leader of the Armenians living within our borders’. He then informed him that the government had resolved to abolish all four Holy Seats within Ottoman territories and that he was selected as the only head of the Armenian Church with the title of ‘Catholicos/Patriarch of All Armenians’ in the Ottoman Empire. It is said Khapayan declined the post using his old age as an excuse. Promising financial and moral support, Jemal Pasha assured the catholicos that if he accepted the appointment, persecution of the Armenians would end. On the morning of Friday 11 August, 1916 two government functionaries in Istanbul paid a visit to Patriarch Zaven Ter Yeghiayan, handed him a letter from the Deputy Minister of Justice and Religion, addressed to him as ‘Former’ Patriarch of Constantinople, ordering him that effective immediately, he was relieved of his post as Patriarch and all the four Holy Seats under Ottoman rule would be replaced by a single leader and that the 1863 National Constitution was null and void. On 21 September, 1926 accompanied by  military policemen, Patriarch Zaven was escorted out of town  into exile in Bagdad, his birthplace. In his place Khapayan pursuant to article 24, he formally confirmed Bishop Gabriel Jevahijian as his Vicar in Istanbul. His second major step was to comply with the provisions of Article 5, which required him to form two councils - one, religious containing 12 clergy, and the other, mixed consisting of four clergy and eight lay members. 

The Cloister Caravan – Վանքին Կարաւանը

In July 1915 the Turks drove more than 100,000Armenians from the vilayet of Adana and Marash into the Mesopotamian desert. This was the end of the Armenian presence in Cilicia. Catholicos Sahak II remained for 15 years in Aleppo.In 1930 the catholicostae moved to its present location in Ant’elias ,in the Labanon, north of Beirut.[

On 3^rd September 1915 the brotherhood of the Catholicate of Cilicia gather the treasures of the eight hundred year old See into large, specially prepared  leather cases, awaiting for the order to depart.13^th September ,the Sunday Feast Day of Exaltation of the Cross, the monks and the handful of Armenians remaining in Sis,hand over the keys of the monastery to the government and depart. The journey from Sis to Aleppo lasted 23 days, part of the treasures in spite of several adventures, misfortunes and attacks that occurred along the way the Vank’in Karavane[ Վանքին Քարավանը] ( Cloister Caravan) reached Aleppo and delivered into the safe hands of Catholicos Sahak II(1849-1939,Catholicos from 1903-1939).In 1998 the rescued treasures were made accessible to the public in the recently opened Kilikia Museum in the centre of the Catholicate in Antelias in Lebanon where the historical See located itself in 1930.  Hermann Golltz and Klaus E.Goltz,  Rescued Armenian Treasures from Cilicia, Dr.Ludwig Reichert Verlag, Wiesbaden,2000] 

The Theological Seminary of Armash

 Those first in the line of the enemy’s sight were the graduates of the Theological Seminary of Armash, the promising generation raised under the spiritual and intellectual guidance of M. Ormanian and  Eghishe Durian (1921-30).After the declaration of the National Constitution in 1860, there was the need to establish a well functioning establishment that would prepare the leaders of the church of the future. In 1889, Patriarch Khoren Ashegian(1872-88),established  the Seminary of Armash  under the  abbotship of  Ormanian adjacent to the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople. It was the general desire to turn the ancient Monastery  of Armash that had existed since the 17^th century into the ‘Venice of the Turkish Armenians’ .

 In the period between 1889-1914 the  Seminary prepared 34 celibate   church leaders know as the 'Armashaklan generation' .They all occupied key positions in the life of the Armenians Church. A great number of them became primates or diocesan bishops in the remote provinces of Turkish Armenia looking after their spiritual needs of an oppressed people stricken at heart by the afflictions caused by the Turkish atrocities. Some of them perished as victims of the Turkish massacres, thus giving the example of Christian martyrdom as the supreme expression of their faithfulness to Christ. From among the graduates those who survived, became highly respected figures of the twenthieth- century Armenian hierarchy, whose literary, intellectual activities led the recovery of the Armenian Church in the Diaspora among them were - Babgen Kiwleserian(1868-1936) Catholicos of Cilicia,Eghishe Durian(1860-1930, Armenian Patriarch of  Jerusalem, Archbishop  Shahe Gasparian (1882-1935) Zawen Ter Eghiyian (1868-1922 )Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople, T’orkom Gushakain ( 1874-1930) Armenian Patriarch of Jerusalem.

In 1919 a silent film on the Armenian genocide was made based on the memoirs of a survivor Arshalouys[Aurora]Mardigian.The documentary called ‘Ravished Armenia’ is based on the book called The Auction of souls [The Auction of souls. The story of Aurora Mardigian, the Christian girl who survived the great massacres. Interpreted by H.L.Gates, London 1919].The film is made up of postcards of which  the final scene is a crucifixion scene, but unlike the Christian image of Christ on the Cross which depicts the triumph of life over death. There are eight crosses in a row to which are nailed eight naked, young Armenian women. The film offers a panoramic view of the eight crosses and their victims, it focuses on a single sufferer. Nailed to the cross, she is helplessly alive. One could tell from her facial expressions that her cognitive functions were alive as she awaited the painful doom of her crucifixion. The scene symbolically expressed much that the Turks wanted to convey about their behaviour towards both the Armenians and their religion.

The perpetrators took the most sacred symbol of Christendom and turned it into a blasphemous obscenity, symbolically proclaiming absolute Muslim dominance .But something else was also conveyed by this brutal act: women are the child bearers. Their wombs carry the next generation. The message was clear: ‘We express our utter contempt for you and your religion. We intend to destroy your future. You have no human rights. We can do with you what we wish’.

Catholicos Gevorg V Sureneants (incumbency 1911-1930) on the Feast day of Easter in his Easter greetings ponders over the sacrifice of his people calling it ‘  Second Easter’ ,which the Armenian people celebrate with its millions of martyrs in the name of Christianity’.  

‘Holy God, holy and mighty, holy and immortal. who wast crucified for us’, connects us to God, in as much as the second Person of the Holy Trinity(.i.e.God Himself) becomes a human being Who in turn turns Himself into us, the church, for propitiation and for remission of sins, at the rite that defines the church, namely the Divine Liturgy.

Now that the human sacrifice of 1915 has been sanctified like those of the Battle of Avarayr of 451, we can of them in the words of Eghishe they ‘bore their countless sufferings with great patience, placing their hopes in God and beseeching with prayers, that he might not suffer them to witness the destruction of their holy churches…since we recognise the  Holy gospel to our Father and the Apostolic Catholic Church our mother. let no evil meddler come between us to separate us from her’.

The Armenian melody sung for the feast of the Holy Cross says 

 ‘The cross appeared in the beginning, blossoming in the garden planted by God.

It was a comfort to Seth, a presage to the father Adam. We have put our trust in that wood, on which our Lord Jesus was nailed.

We humble ourselves and worship this holy sign that holds god up to us [ Աստուածընկալ]’

Appendix -

  The names of the senior clergy killed in 1915 

For a full text with biographies see: T’eodik, Յուշարձան Նահատակ Մտաւորականութեան (Memorial to the martyred intellectuals),2^nd.ed.Erevan, 1985; A.Hatityan, ‘ Նոր Ղեվոնդյանք’ (New Ghewondians),Ejmiadsin,2-3-4(1965),58- 70. 

Armenian  Apostolic Orthod Orthodox  Church

1.Bp.Khosrov Behrikian (1868-1915)                               2.Bp.Smbat Saatet’ian( 1871-1915)

3.Mkrtitch Vardapet Jghlatian(18…1915)                        4. Sahak Ds.Vard.Odabashian(1875-1915)

5.Artavazd Ds.vard. Galenderian (1876-1915)                 6.Pargev Ds.vard.Danielian(1888-1915)

7.Psak Ds.vard.Ter Khornian(1882-1915)                        8.Shawarsh Ds.vard.Sahakian( 1881-1915)

9.Suren vrad.Galemian(18…-1915)                                 10.Gegham vard.T’evek’elian(18… 1915)

11.Hamazasp vard.Eghisian(1864-1915)                         12. Bp.Nerses Danielian(1868-1914)

13.Bp.Hakob Ashot P’ap’azian(1847-1914)                     14. Bp.Khoren Dimak’sian(1864-1914)

15.Bp.Eznik Galbak’sian(1864-1915)                               16.Gevorg Ds.vard.T’ourian (1872-1915)

17.Vardan Ds.vard.Hakobian (1846-1914)                    18.Anania Ds.vard.Hazarapetian (1861-1915

19.Eeremia vard.Liforian(1875-1915)                           20. Sahak vard.Sargisian (… 1915)

21.Hovsep’ vard.Sogomonian(1860-1915)                   22.Nerses vard.Mkrtchian(1864-1915)

23.Abgar vard.Yot’neghbayrian (… 1915)                   24.Barsegh Ds.vard.Makerian (1850-1915)

25.Sahak vard.Tcholak’ian                                           26.Yocvhannes vard.Mavian(1858-1915)

27.Ohan vard.Kyumishkhanei                                    

28-32.The brotherhood of the Monastery of St Karapet:

Eghishe vard.Paluni,Komitas vard.Ardsruni,Eghishe vard.

Karapetian,step’anos vard.Baghdasarian,Karapet vard.Lariian. 

Catholic Armenian Church   

1.Bp.Anreas Tchelepian (1848-1915)                               2. Bp.Step’anos Israyelian (1866-1915)

3.Bp.Hakob T’op’alian( 1855-1915)                                 4.Bp.Lewon K’eshenian( 1860-1915)

5.Bp.Karapet K’tchurian(1847-1915)                               6.Bp.Hovsep’ Melik’set’ian

7.Bp.Mik’ayel Khatchatrian(1846-1915)                          8.Bp.Ignatios Maloian(1878-1915)

Mkitharist Congregation of Venice & Vienna

1.Step’anos vard.Sarian(1865-1915)                                  2.Karapet vard.Ter Sahakian(1882-1915)

3.T’ovmas vard.Odabashian 91887-1915)                         4.Poghos vard.Gasparian ( 1878-1915)

5. Matt’eos vard.Hachian (1867-1915).

Protestant Armenian Community

1.Prof. karapet Soghikian(1874-1915)                             2. Prof.Mkrtitch Vorberian (1870-1915)

3.Prof.Hovhannes Pouniganian(1873)                              4. Prof.Nikoghos T’enek’enian(1863-1915)

5.Prof.Tonapet K.Lyoulehian(1876-1915)                      6.Prof.Arak’el K.Sivaslian(1859-1915)

7.Prof.Hovhannes Hakobian(1862-1915)                       8.Prof.Hovhannes Arozian(…)

9.Prof.Zesi Mat’osian[42 years old]                                 10.Prof.Lout’fi Papikian[30years old]

11.Prof.Arshak Roumian [30 years old]

                           

“For the memorial and salvation of all the Armenians, whose names the Lord knows” 

[Armenian  inscription in a mosaic in the apse of the sixth century funerary chapel in the Musrara Quarter of Jerusalem] 

Revd. Dr Nerses Vrej Nersessian

April 2015

Observing the scribe at work: knowledge transfer and scribal professionalism

This is the text of  a lecture delivered to the Friends of the Bodleian Library on Tuesday 29 October 2013,  which was published in The Bodleian Library Record  Vol.27, Number 1 (April,  2014), pp.71-84.

Of what use are my creations, when my sight has failed? But nurse the hope, at least, they’ll be of use to coming generations.

[Matenadaran, Erevan, MS.1418, dated 1280 AD]

The last Catalogue of the one hundred and twenty-four Armenian manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, was begun in 1883 by the Rev. Sukias Baronian, until his death in 1904, by which time sixty- three manuscripts had been described. In 1912 F.C.Conybeare (Hon Fellow of University College, Oxford) was hired to complete the catalogue. The text of the whole catalogue was in print before the end of 1914 and appeared in 19181. According to a list compiled by David Barrett from the Department of Oriental Books in the Bodleian Library in 1982, the collection had increased by thirteen manuscripts. The decision taken by the British Library to publish a sequel to their catalogue of Armenian manuscripts2 prompted the author to include in the new research descriptions of collections in other United Kingdom Libraries and museums, among them those of the Bodleian Library. The project begun in 1987 has culminated in the publication of A Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts in the British acquired since the year 1913 and of collection in other libraries in the United Kingdom3.

Soon after the invention of the Armenian alphabet by Mesrop Mashtots in 406 and the completion of the translation of the Bible into Classical Armenian by 413, scriptoria were founded as centres of creative writing as well as translations4. The Armenian historian Ghazar P’arp’etsi remarks that ‘when the holy Armenian Patriarch Sahak had brought this great spiritual labour to completion [i.e. the translation of the Bible] …the ranks of scribes were increased, and they emulated each other… The churches were rendered glorious; the martyria of the saints received lustre, continually embellished by vows and gifts’. The historian is here referring to the donations of manuscripts to churches and shrines, ‘which when tasted by wisdom seeking men became sweet in their palates’. Movses Khorenatsi whose History is the most influential work in Armenian literature, in his account of the origin of the Armenian script, says St Sahak and St Mesrop bringing together a group of ‘intelligent, well spoken children from every province of Armenia instructed the youngest students among them in the art of copying [արուեստ գրչութեան]’5.Until the twelfth century the copying of manuscripts had been developed in the Armenian scriptoria attached to the monasteries and universities in Armenia and in the communities abroad, who transmitted the art of copying by scribes professional and un-professional from one generation to another. With the proliferation of scriptoria it was expected that soon or later the ‘art of copying’ would be put on a professional basis. Texts dealing with concrete problems of manuscript reproduction by Aristakes Gritch [գրիչ] (2nd half of the 12th c), Gevorg Skevratsi (1245/47-1301) and Grigor Tat’evatsi (1346-1410) are devoted to scribal art6. Armenian scribes in their colophons never indulge in self-adulation, on the contrary, the expressions of humility and self–deprecation expressed by often repeated phrases like ‘ the miserable petty scribe’, ‘a much sinful soul’, ‘falsely named a scribe’ ‘ ‘foolish scribe who bears the name of a priest but is lacking in deeds’ and ‘I, the unworthy copyist of this most glorious Lectionary’ are evidence of their approach to the task of copying manuscript.

A scribe named Step’anos working in the Crimea, who is the copyist of a Grammar in 1357 gives a very personal appraisal of the scribal art [արուեստ գրչութեան].

‘As it is impossible for the birds to pull a yoke and make a furrow, and for the oxen to fly, so also no one can attain mastery of the great art of manuscript [արուեստին մեծի գրչութեան] without studying it. And should anyone be audacious enough to undertake [copying manuscript], he will fail, and he will corrupt the art [զարուեստն] and adulterate the text,like the uninteligent food provider that is a butcher who cannot distinguish the joints [of the animal] and unskilfully cuts the flesh from the limbs and the rest. But there are other foolish and stupid man this [art] is like a pearl on the nose of a pig or like a golden necklace around the neck of a donkey; but he who is intoxicated with its love, he alone appreciates its sweetness’ [Khatchikyan, 14th Century Colophons, Mat. Ms. no. 2371, pp. 426-27]. On the other end there are numerous scribes who plead with the reader ‘not to blame them for the large script [խոշորութեան գրոյս] for I was ignorant in the art of writing [ախմար էաք յարհեստ գրչութեան] [Khatchikyan, 14th Century Colophons ,Mat.Ms.no.3651,p.118]. It is also the case that many wished to leave a memory of their piety and plead with the reader to be merciful regarding the errors for in the end ‘my love triumphed over the art and allowed me to copy’ [Khatchikyan, 15th Century Colophons, Part II,Mat,MS.no.1301,p.5].
The manuscript has traditionally been the Armenian religious object par excellence, comparable to the reliquary in the Catholic West and the icon in the Orthodox tradition. Armenian manuscripts were the locus of faith, to be treasured and guarded. Just as the Byzantine emperors sometimes carried an icon as a palladium, during their military expeditions, the Armenians took with them the Holy Gospel. Manuscripts, especially endowed with miraculous powers, were given special names, for instance ‘Saviour of All’ (Ամենափրկիչ), or ‘Resurrect-or of the Dead’ (Մեռելահարոյց), or ‘Red Gospel’ (Կարմիր Աւետարան), or ‘Awag Gospel’ [Superior] (Աւագ Վանքի Աւետարան), and ‘Earthquake Gospel’ (Ժաժկանց Աւետարան). The c.30,000 extant manuscripts, despite destruction wrought by time, testifies to the important place they occupied in the spiritual lives of the people. The manuscripts were thought of as pledges for the salvation of the donors, as imperishable treasures set in heaven, and this is one of the reasons also why Armenian manuscripts are rarely anonymous productions. The commissioners, as well as the scribes, the artists, the binders, the restorers, and those who rescued a manuscript from ‘captivity’, all wished their names and those of their relatives, to be recorded as testimony of their pious act, so that they might be recalled in the prayers of all those who would have the occasion to use or recopy the manuscript. From very early on the act of commissioning, receiving, restoring and rescuing manuscripts was considered a religious obligation. The words of Christ ‘Lay not up for yourself treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: but lay up for yourself treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt; and where thieves do not break through nor steal’ (Matt.VI: 19-20). This understanding is beautifully expressed by a scribe in a colophon of a Gospel he copied in 1620 ‘The ways of doing good and nearing God are many, the greatest being martyrdom, then by the life of monasticism and finally by purchasing books of the scriptures for the glory of God, to aid personal salvation and benefit of the public’.

The scribes of Armenian manuscripts provide information not only on the scribes, the artists, the recipients, the binders, the restorers but they also provide eyewitness or contemporary accounts of historical events, which occurred during the copying of the manuscript. On this evidence, the colophons are unique primary sources not only for the history of Armenia but also of the countries neighbouring Armenia. The use of the Armenian colophon as a primary source for historical research is witnessed as early as the thirteenth century, by the Armenian historian Step’anos Orbelian and in modern times by Arak’el Davrizhetsi, Mik’ael Chamchian, Maghakia Ormanian7. The collection and publication of these colophons has been the focus of Armenian codicology since the 18th century8.

The format of the colophon as a genre are well established and followed by all scribes. A typical colophon begins with the praise ‘Glory be’ («Փառք») reiterating the Armenian Churche's Trinitarian doctrine as expounded by the First Three Ecumenical Councils (Nicaea 325; Constantinople 381 and Ephesus 431). This section is then followed by remarks pertaining to the text, with theological observations. Next is mentioned the name of the commissioner of the manuscript, sponsor, or purchaser of the manuscript, ending with a plea to remember him or her and their ‘blood relatives’ («արեան մերձաւորաց»). The final section begins with the words ‘copied’ («Արդ գրեցաւ») in which the scribe identifies himself, his status, chronological data supported by the name of the incumbent Catholicos, abbot of the monastery in which the manuscript was copied, names of the foreign rulers.

‘Glory to the singular power and the Trinitarian confession ,the consubstantial, equally resplendent, uniform, coequal, sublime and self-existent essence and union, the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, now and forever, amen’

This book emanating from the soul, which is called [title of book],was completed in the year [date in the Armenian era], in the canton of [name], during the catholicate of [name of the catholicos], in the celestial, most renowned, angel-inhabited and God – inhabited monastery, which is called [name], and which is like the heavenly Jerusalem, under the protection of [name of the saint or saints] during the primacy of our holy congregation of [name of the primate/abbot] who is pure in life, humble by nature, affable in speech, generous in heart like Abraham, at the feet of the prelate [name], copied by the most sinful and artless scribe [name]. This manuscript was received by a certain monk called [name], who is diligent and valorous in virtuous deeds, bred in a monastery, instructed and nurtured at the feet of [name], shining like a lantern in the church, and the fragrant like God-pleasing incense, and like a rational swallow perched in a temple, and like a bee yearning for the divine dew-drop. Thus he longed for this book and had it copied for his own enjoyment and in memory of his parents. I beseech you all, who should encounter this book, to ask God’s mercy for him and for me, the unworthy scribe [name] who began to copy this by the grace of God and completed it with His help. For the merciful God heeds those who intercede for others, for what is within your means to do is our, most urgent need. And may Christ God have mercy upon you who should remember us, as well as upon us who are hopeful’

The colophons are also replete with information on:

• Motives for sponsorship or commissioning of manuscripts;
• Motives for the reproduction of manuscripts;
• Scribes and the art of manuscript production;
• The conditions under which manuscripts were copied; and
• Injunctions and warnings to the future generations on the need to protect and preserve manuscripts. 

The great cost of the production of manuscripts, and the deep sense of veneration with which manuscripts were regarded account for the abundance of various kinds of warnings with respect to the proper handling of manuscripts, as well as anathemas against those who violated these injunctions.

As an illustration of the spirit in which scribes worked, and estimated the value of their labour, is best illustrated with the aid of the following selection of colophons, in Armenian ‘Յիշատակարան’ (‘place of memory), derived from the verb ‘յիշեմ' meaning 'to remember', 'to recollect', ‘to record’ 'which figure most often in manuscript is both typical and memorable. The scribe regarded the fruits of his labour as an ‘indelible memorial’ to himself on earth

‘Long after my hand has withered
And the body itself turned to dust,
This writing shall continue to be read’
(Matenadaran MS.no.1418)

In this statement ‘this writing shall continue to be read’ is more than just a sentimental instruction. Given the tangible and intangible values of manuscripts, preservation was a matter of great concern, and the scribes, especially in later manuscripts, beg the readers not to scribble in the margins, not to cut the pictures or thumb the pages; they instruct them not to let the wax drop on the book and to hold it with cloth. But the good care was not sufficient, and a scribe writes

‘In times of wars and invasions carry the manuscripts to the cities and bury them, but in times of peace take them out and read them, for closed books are like idols9. The scribe’s comparing of closed books to idols should also be taken as a warning to owners of manuscripts to refrain from extreme form of veneration, against which the Armenian theologian Vrt’anes Kerthogh (550-620) had in his treatise ‘Յաղագս Պատկերամարտից' warned against:

‘When we bow down before the Holy Gospel, or when we kiss it, we do not bow before the ivory or the purple colour…but before the word of the Saviour written on the parchment…For we attain the invisible through what is visible; and the pigments and the pictures are memorials of the living God and of His servants10. 

 

The scribe Vardan, who copied Eghishe vardapet’s History of Vardan and the Armenian War, in 1310 in Van writes11 –

‘Thus no one has ownership over this, neither my close relatives or others. The owner and those with authority over it is God and the Apostles. And if they should ask for this for purposes of reading or copying it, let this [request] not be denied, for the reason for my copying it was that everyone might benefit from it’ (Matenadaran, Erevan MS.no.4809).

The scribe Kostandin Vahkatsi, in the colophon of a manuscript he copied in 1413 and presented to the Church of Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem writes -

Let no one remove it from this place
Let no one hand it over to an infidel.
Should there be any fear from the enemies.
Let them put it in safekeeping in the fort
or take it to the island of Cyprus;
And when the danger has passed
Bring it back to this place
And receive their fitting reward
[Khatchikyan, 15th Century, Jerusalem [MS. no. 159], p. 158]

The added interesting point here is that those who saved manuscripts were considered worthy of ‘fitting reward’ [Եւ վարձս առցեն ըստ վաստակի].

The scribe Lazar, who copied a Book of Chants in 1424 now in the Matenadaran collection, writes in his colophon-

‘I plead you who may encounter this Ganjaran to take good care of this book and [not to handle it] without a cloth/// not to wet the fingers at all and not to turn the pages in vain and he who tears off any folios from this may God cut off his life, and he who takes good care of it may God adorn his soul and make him worthy of Paradise’ [Khatchikyan, 15thCcentury, vol.I MS.no. 8188, pp.322-23]. Another scribe, Matteos who copied the Lectionary dated 1459 pleads ‘For God’s sake, keep it away from candle and oil and hold it with a white cloth, I beg you’ [Khatchikyan,15th Century, Vol. II, Matenadaran MS.no.6272, p.120].

Garianes, a lady recipient of a Lectionary dated 1412, which she donated to the Church of the Holy Virgin Mary in memory of her husband, her parents and ‘blood – relatives’ [արեանառու ազգականացն], gives this warning to her children and distant relatives:

‘If any among my children or relatives contemplates selling or mortgaging this book or cuts the pages, let Christ cut off his life and place him among the infidels. Priests, deacons and servants of the church take good care of this book, do not keep it without cover [this is a reference to the habit of leaving the readings open for the following day] or lay it on the stone without cover’ [Khatchikyan 15th Century, Vol.I, Matenadaran MS.no.7448, p.140].

Finally, it is imperative to emphasise that the scribes themselves regarded colophons important and passed specific injunctions and warning against those who mishandled them. In a manuscript on the Life of St John Chrysostom, dated 1101, the scribe Mat’eos instructs –

‘Those who read intellectually the life of the saints or copy, in your prayers render worthy the labour of the workers, so that through the prayer of the patriarch may [they] share in his resurrection. I entrust those who wish to copy this manuscript, the command that no one should dare to deface the colophon of the authors, for he will also be deprived of the book of life’ [Mat’evosyan, 5-12th Century, no.168, p.136].

The scribe Abraham who is responsible for copying a manuscript containing The life of St Gregory Nazianzus, in 1101 gives this warning to future scribes of his manuscript-

‘And you faithful children of the Church offer the same reverence and when copying do not abbreviate the colophon and dishonour his memory [Mat’evosyan, 5-12th Century, no.169,p.137].

The scribe Nerses instructs future receivers of his manuscript of the Eulogy on St Gregory the Illuminator by St John Chrysostom , dated 1140, not to forget to-

‘Add a little memorial of your own each time the manuscript changes hands, so that your names will also be recorded on the ‘tablet of life’ of Christ of immortal memory’ [Mat’evosyan, 5-12th Century, no.190,p.161].

I wish to conclude this section with a quotations from a colophon found in a manuscript of a Miscellany [Ժողովածու] copied by the scribe Sahak in Poland in 1640. He writes-

‘This was copied by the hands of an inexperienced and uneducated servant of God the adolescent Sahak, son of Grigor. Now humbly, I beseech you, fathers and lords, who come across this book of mine be forgiving in regard to the mistakes and lack of ornamented letters. But be not surprised because I am just a child, that is 11years and 4 months less. Particularly I am not well versed in the art of calligraphy. But the command, fear and reproach of my teacher forced me to complete such a divine treasure to the best of my ability,by the grace of God to whom be fitting glory and honour’ [Hakobyan & Hovhannisyan,17th Century (1621-1640)].

During the winter of 1604-1605, Shah Abbas ordered 20,000 Armenians from the city of Julfa along the Arax river, to be deported to Isfahan, which in a short period formed the nucleus of one of the most remarkable Armenian colony in the diaspora. It even came to the point of constituting a real state within a state under the administrative rule of the k’alant’ar, who had widespread powers, but its real strength resided in the economy, because Armenians had taken over most of the commercial activities of the city. The intense intellectual and artistic activities, which flourished until the beginning of the 18th century, can only be explained by their numerous commercial links with other parts of the world. The accumulated wealth of the rich merchants, the wealthy khodjas created a dynamic and influential centre which gave birth to cultural reawakening movement in Armenia itself and among the Armenian communities in India, Syria, Constantinople, Amsterdam, Venice, Vienna, Russia and Poland. In 1638 Khatchatour Kesaratsi (1590-1646) established a printing press in the church of the All Saviour’s (Amenaprkitch) and printed a Book of Psalms in 1638, the Lives of the Saints,1641, Missal,1641 and Breviary 1641-42. The only existing copy of the Book of Psalms is in the Bodleian Library. In 1666, with the help of the Armenian merchants from Julfa the first complete Bible in classical Armenian was printed in Amsterdam11.

The collection of the Armenian manuscripts of All Saviour’s cathedral is one of the richest constituent of the cultural heritage of New Julfa. The monastery from the very beginning of its establishment became a centre of manuscript production and continued long after the founding of Armenian printing in Venice in 1513. Itinerant scribes and painters from other parts of the Armenian diaspora were attracted by and settled in New Julfa.

Among the Armenians who were relocated from Armenia to New Julfa by Shah ‘Abbas the Great in 1604-1605 were the artists Mesop of Khizan and Yakob Jughayetsi [of New Julfa]. Mesrop of Khizan is the most prolific scribe and artist, who has copied, illuminated and restored over 44 manuscripts between 1608 to 1652, and is well represented in the collections in the United Kingdom.

Among the first manuscripts bearing his name is the Bodleian Library’s manuscript of the Four Gospels dated 1609, the colophon of which provides a vivid account of the re-settlment of Armenians in Isfahan -

‘In the Armenian era 1058 [i.e.AD 1609] under the shelter of the Church of Holy Virgin Mary, during the Catholicate of Ter Melkiset’ Catholicos of All Armenians [had declared himself catholicos in 1593 as a rival of David IV of Vagharshapet, 1590-1629] and during the primacy of Archbishop Mesrop over our village Julfa (գեաւղիս Ջուլայոյ) and in the reigh of Shah ‘Abbas who in 1052 [1603] came with a large army upon the royal city (թագաւորանիստ քաղաքին Դավրէժոյ] Davrezh, to avenge his sire’s blood, and he utterly destroyed the race of Austman (զազգն աւսմանայ) by his valour and his resources; and crossing the Eraskh (Araxes), he entered the canton of Ararat and attacked the fortress at Erevan (յԱրեւանա) and he slew the enemy, and laid waste all the country in the year 1053(AD 1604). Mourning fell upon Armenia, for he destroyed and made desolate all houses and dwellings, so that men fled and hid themselves in fortresses and clefs of rocks. Some he found and slew, others he led captive and sent to that city of Shawsh or Aspahan (Isfahan) which Daniel saw in the wilderness…and settled us on the south bank of the river Zandar, which is salty [Conybeare translated salty as another name for the river Zandar], where we built houses and dwellings and churches for our worship and named the village Tchajoghay and Jougha [Չաջողայ եւ ոչ Ջուղա “unlucky Jougha and not Jougha”], for though the king’s heart was well disposed towards the Christians, yet the inhabitants of the city were cruel and [were] opposed and blaspheming of our practices… for the nature of the soil is evil and hot and dry and we were full of bodily ills…’12.

In the British Library’ Ms. Oriental MS. 5737 a Gospel copied by the scribe Mesrop, he says -

‘This Holy Gospel was completed in the Great Armenian era 1057 (AD 1608 [not 1607]), the name of the place which I need not repeat, during the primacy of brave and courageous rabounapet (teacher) Simeon vardapet, whose soul may God rank among the twelve apostles, for by preaching the word of God he comforts the woeful and mourning hearts of all Christians in this land of the unlawful. During the catholicate of Catholicos Ter Melk’iset, and Dawit’ Catholicos of All Armenians, and during the primacy over our diocese of Mesrop, and during the reign of the wise Shah ‘Abbas ‘the red headed [կարմիր գլխոյ]’ The Safavid Turkoman tribesmen were known as Qizilbash, a Turkish word meaning ‘red-head’, because they wore a red bonnet with twelve folds symbolising the Twelve Shi’i imams.

He ends his colophon with this message-

‘By God’s grace I began, and by his mercy completed this holy Gospel in this city of Shosh, which is translated Aspahan, where Daniel saw the vision of the kings of Persia…However, in this embittered time all the believers of Christ have been left prisoners of the Persians, without hope of rescue. Remembering Nerses’ words, that there shall come the race of Franks, and then be a renovation of the Christian churches and all the faithful’13.

The reference to Nerses I Part’ev (353-373) is meant to remind Armenians of the mission the former undertook to renew a covenant of peace and alliance with the Romans14. The vision of Daniel is told in Chapter 4:vv.21-22 and is the reading of the Three children in the burning furnace read in the Armenian Church during the celebration of the Evening Divine Liturgy celebrated on the eve of Christmas and Easter.

British Library’s Ms.Add.18, 549, which is a splendid manuscript of the Four Gospels on fine white vellum copied in Sis, the capital city of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia in 1280 during the reign of King Levon by the scribe Step’annos Vahkatsi in 1280, found its way to New Julfa and in 1618, where Mesrop of Khizan a renowned artist was hired by the ‘patrons of patron khodjay Nazar to restore the manuscript to its former glory. Mesrop gives this account of his work -

‘Once more, remember in Christ the last owner of this holy Gospel Paron of Parons, khodjay Nazar who acquired it with money honestly earned by toil, and had it repaired, illuminated and adorned with gold, and with lapis lazuli, and all kinds of colours. therefore, Mesrop dpir (clerk) of Khizan repaired afresh this book, and illuminated it with gold and lapis lazuli and all sorts of colours in union, unto the glory of holy Church, and for the use of the children of Sion, for a goodly memorial of himself and of his parents’. The artist Mesrop concludes the principal colophon with this memorial to himself…

‘I, therefore, Mesrop, the dpir (clerk) of Khizan, repaired afresh this book, and illuminated it with gold and lapis lazuli and all sorts of colours un unison. I laboured much, and completed it in the land of the Persians, in the city of Aspahan, in reign of Shah ‘Abbas, who by dint of courage conquers his enemies; and in the tenure of our own patriarch Ter David and of Ter Melk’iseth, Catholicos of all Armenians, in our own era 1067(A.D.1618), it was completed and bound ’15.

Wealthy merchants in New Julfa acquired, repaired and rebound, adorned with new illuminations earlier manuscripts (BL.Add.18,549, Add.15,411,Or.82,Or.5737,Or.2680). The new owners who paid for the work had colophons copied into them. For example-

‘I have had this precious garden, this fragrant orchard, this pure and shining book restored in memory of myself and of my parents, my wife, and my children. Blessed is he with a child in Zion’. In the opinion of the Vardan Baghishetsi, an artist representing the Vaspourakan school of artists active between 1569-78, ‘the restoration of thirty or forty manuscripts, saving them from deterioration and destruction has more value than building a church’16.

The ‘child in Zion’ is the manuscript itself through the colophon – called yishatakaran, literally,‘place of memory – it carries on the name and the memory of its owners, tying him to the saving powers of the Armenian Church.

The Armenian alphabet and the manuscript is the principal tool for the founding and preservation of Armenian political and cultural identity. The alphabet and the literature continued to serve their initial objectives throughout the centuries, with independence, without independence and when under foreign occupation. The manuscript is a historical –cultural monument, a forceful expression of its historical development, created under specific conditions, place and time. Those who copied manuscripts, those who commissioned the copying of manuscripts, those who saved manuscripts from captivity, protected it, repaired it, were the defenders of the Armenian faith, language and literature and were therefore worthy of praise and worthy of having memorials.

In the colophon of a royal Psalter [British Library, MS. 13804] copied for King Leo II (Levon,1269-89) king of Cilician Kingdom of Armenia by the scribe Yohan and illuminated by the celebrated artist of the Cilician school of miniaturists, after an eulogy on the Book of Psalms, the colophon sates ‘Falling in love with this all-embracing treasure-house of good things, the pious and godly king of the Armenians, King Levon, heir and inheritor of the crown of this kingdom of the Armenian people…at whose command this Psalter of David was written for the embellishment of the church and for the instruction of the children of New Sion, and having his own wish to sing and psalm [սաղմոսել] and speak with God leisurely [անըզբաղապէս] and to leave a memorial to his good deeds for the future times. Copied in the Armenian era 732 in the capital Sis the city of royal residence. Those who use this remember’17.

In conclusion I cannot resist quoting the striking statement found in a Gospel which King Het’um I (1226-69), the founder of the Het’umide dynasty of Cilician Armenia had it copied for him in 1293 ‘ to plant’ it in the Church he had built in the fortress of Korikos.

‘In there and for the illumination of souls, the Gospel of Christ was necessary to be in the Eden of the Church, as was the tree of life in the Garden of Eden’. King Het’um takes three measures to protect his land and people against the enemy. First, he built a fortress, on the island facing Korikos. Next, he built a church in the new fortress, and lastly, ‘he planted’ the life giving book of the Gospels in the Church. He explains:

‘It is necessary to explain the reason for having a copy of this Gospel. At the end of time that we have reached, all the world is suffering like a man who has aged and has reached the end of his life; he suffers because the strength of his limbs has diminished and he laments because of the loss of his senses. In the same way, because the world has aged, the action of the good deeds has decreased and the fire of the evil has increased and spread, so the different parts of the universe suffer chagrin’. Het’um characterises the Gospel’s life giving qualities thus –

‘Because the Gospel is a herald of the promises, of the joyful enjoyments and the dignity of life without sorrow, it [the Gospel] announces the coming down of God to earth and the rising of man to heaven; it speaks to humankind about the sharing of life with the angels and cohabitation with them; it communicates to us the divine virtues that Jesus planted on earth’ [Mat’evosyan, 13th Century Colophons,Mat.MS.no.5613,p.719]18. This is exactly what the Armenian Church declares every Sunday in its Liturgy ‘In this dwelling of holiness and place of praise, in this habitation of angels and the place of expiation of men, before these holy signs and the holy place that hold God up to us [աստուծընկալ] and are resplendent, we bow down in fear and worship’. The holy signs are the Gospel and the cross on the altar.

This best encapsulates the distinctive spiritual, deeply passionate devotion the manuscripts of the scriptures hold in the private and public life of scribes and sponsors of manuscripts.


Bibliography

1.Rev. Sukias Baronian and F.C.Conybeare, Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library (Oxford, 1918).

2.F.C.Conybeare, A Catalogue of the Armenain manuscripts in the British Museum ( London, 1913).

3.Vrej Nerses Nersessian, A catalogue of the Armenian manuscripts in the British Library acquired since the year 1913 and of collections in other libraries of the United Kingdom (London, 2012).

4.Fr.Krikor Maksoudian, The origins of the Armenian alphabet and literature ( New York,2006).

5. The History of Lazar P’arp’ec’i, translated by Robert W.Thomson (Atlanta, Georgia,1991), p.51; Movses Khorenatsi,History of the Armenians,M.Abeghian & S.Yarou tiwnian ed.(rep.Erevan, 1991), Chapter 53,p.327.

6.Khatcheryan,Levon G., Գրչության արվեստի լեզվական-քերականական տեսությունը միջնադարյան Հայաստանում[ The liguistic-grammatical theory concerning “ Art of writing” in medieval Armenia].This significant study publishes the critical texts of the three theoretical treatises with introduction and commentary.

7.Step’anos Orbelian, Սյունիքի Պատմություն: Թարգ.,ներած.,եւ ծանոթ.,Ա.Ա. Աբրահամյանի(Erevan,1986).Orbelian(1260-1304)likeEghishe(400?-464?)author of History of Vardan and the Armenian War, define their Histories as «Յիշատակաց մատեան» and « Յիշատակարան եւ պատմութիւն».

7. Arak’el Dawrizhetsi, Գիրք Պատմութեանց: Աշխ. Լ.Ա.Խանալարյանի(Erevan,1990), Mik’ayel Chamchian, Պատմութիւն Հայոց ի սկզբանէ աշխարհի մինչեւ ցամ տեառն 1784…բովանդակեալ եւ յերիս հատորս տրոհեալ(Venice1784-86;facm.reprint Erevan,1985);Maghak’ia Ormanian,Patriarch, Ազգապատում:Հայ Ուղղափառ եկեղեցւոյ անցքերը սկիզբէն մինչեւ մեր օրերը յարակից ազգային պարագաներով պատմուած (2nd printing, Beirut, 1959-61).

8. Published colophons of Armenian manuscripts in chronological order-

a.Garegin I Catholicos [Yovsep’eants], Յիշատակարանք Ձեռագրաց :Հատոր Ա (Ե.դարից մինչեւ 1250թ)[ Colophons of Armenian manuscripts from the 5th century to 1250](Ant’ilias,1951).

b.A.S.Mat’evosyan, Հայերեն Ձեռագրերի Հիշատակարաններ Ե-ԺԲ ԴԴ.[ Colophons of Armenian manuscripts ,5th to 12th century] (Erevan,1988).

c.A.A.Mat’evosyan, Հայերեն Ձէռագրերի Հիշատակարաններ ԺԳ դար [Colophons of Armenian manuscripts of the 13th century] (Erevan, 1984).

d. L.S.Khatchikyan, ԺԴ Դարի Հայերեն Ձեռագրերի Հիշատակարաններ [Colophons of 14th century Armenian manuscripts] ( Erevan, 1950).

e. L.S.Khatchikyan, ԺԵ Դարի Հայերեն Ձեռագրերի Հիշատակարաններ:Մասն Առաջին (1401-1450 թթ) [ Colophons of 15th century Armenian manuscripts.Part I( 1401-1450);Part II(1451-1480); Part III (1481-1500) ( Erevan, 1955,1958,1967).

f.V.Hakobyan & A.Hovhannisyan, Հայերեն Ձեռագրերի ԺԷ Դարի Հիշատակարաններ (Colophons of 17th century Armenian manuscripts).Vol.I ( 1601-20), II (1621-40) ,III (1641-1660) ( Erevan,1974, 1978,1984).For a review on the I volume of this compilation see L.Khatchikyan, ‘ԺԷ դարի Հայերեն ձեռագրերի յիշատակարանների Առաջին Հատորը’,Աշխատութիւններ Հատոր Ա (Erevan,1995), pp.333-86.

g.Avedis K.Sanjian, Colophons of Armenian manuscripts,1301-1480.A source of Middle Eastern History.Selected,translated,and annotated ( Cambridge, Mass.,1969).The colophons selected and translated are from the three volumes by L.S.Khatchikyan.

h. A. Mat’evosyan, Հայերեն ձեռագրերի հիշատակարանները միջնադարյան հայ մշակույթի ուսումնասիրության սկզբնաղբյուր[The colophons of Armenian manus cripts as primary source for the study of Armenian culture] ( Erevan,1998).

9. Sirarpie Der Nersessian, The Chester Beatty Library. A catalogue of the Armenian manuscripts (Dublin, 1958), Vol. I, p. xxi.

10.Norayr Pogharian,Archbishop, Հայ գրողներ (Jerusalem 1971),pp.55-58; S. Der Nersessian, ‘Une apologie des images du septieme siecle’, Etudes Byzantines et Armeniennes = Byzantine and Armenian Studies (Louvain,1973),Vol. I, pp.379- 803.

11.Vrej Nersessian, Catalogue of early Armenian Books 1512-1850 (The British Library,1980), pp.21-24.This is a Union Catalogue of the holdings of the British Library and the Bodleian Library.

12.Rev.Sukias Baronian and F.C.Conybeare,Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library,MS.Arm.d.13,pp.107-12.

13.F.C.Conybeare,A Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts in the British Museum,MS.Or.5737, pp.42-44.

14.The most detailed account of the embassy is found in P’awstos Biwzand, The Epic Histories ( (Biwzandaran ).Translation and Commentary by Nina G.Garsoian ( Cambridge, Mass., 1989), Bk IV,Chapter V,p.116. See also her ‘ Quidam Narseus? Note on the mission of St Nerses the Great’, Armeniaca.Melanges D’Etudes armeniennes (Venise,1968),pp.148-64.

15. Vrej Nersessian, Armenian illuminated Gospel-Books (The British Library, 1987), pp.32-36.

16. G.V.Abgaryan, The Matenadaran ( Erevan,1962), p.12.

17.Vrej Nersessian, A catalogue of the Armenian manuscripts in the British library,pp.107-15.

18. The manuscripts produced during his reign of King Het’um (1289-1303) and Catholicos Kostandin I Barjrberdtsi (1221-1267) ‘ rival in quality the best products of Medieval art’ S.Der Nersessian) had inherited from his parents King Levon and Queen Keran a manuscript of a Psalter copied in 1268,to which he attached a colophon in 1293, after he had given up his throne to his nephew Levon III ‘ And I Het’um recognising my unworthiness, before I am called by Him, retired and exchanged the throne for the monk’s cassock and changed my name Het’um to Yovhannes. For this I plead with you to remember my above mentioned parents in your prayers to Christ, and me Het’um, and not to forget me in your prayers ,and you will be remembered [in return]’.See Matevosyan, 13th Century Colophons , MS.no.573, p.705.Cf. Jacob G.Ghazarian, The Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia during the Crusades.The intergration of Cilician Armenians with the Latins 1080-1393 (London, 2000), p. 56 ; Kirakos Ganjaketsi, Պատմութիւն Հայոց (Erevan, 1961),Chapter 58, p.370.


Rev. Dr. Vrej Nersessian. Former Head of the Christian Middle East Section in The British Library (1975-2012). A lecture of the same title was presented to the Friends of the Bodleian on Tuesday 19th October 2013 in the Convocation House, Bodleian Library, Oxford.