Monastic Life in the Armenian Church: Glorious Past - Ecumenical Reconsideration Volume 14 (Orientalia - Patristica - Oecumenica) 3643910665, 9783643910660

Citation preview

Nachträgliche Korrekturen sind kostenpflichtig)

freigegeben:

OPOe 14

Jasmine Dum-Tragut is Assoc. Professor of Armenian Studies and Director of the Center for the Study of the Christian East (ZECO) at Salzburg University (Austria). Dietmar W. Winkler is Professor of Patristic Studies and Ecclesiastical History and Associate Director of the Center for the Study of the Christian East (ZECO) at Salzburg University (Austria).

LIT www.lit-verlag.ch

9*ukdzfe#.y-n -*

Monastic Life in the Armenian Church Glorious Past – Ecumenical Reconsideration

Monastic Life in the Armenian Church

978-3-643-91066-0

Jasmine Dum-Tragut, Dietmar W. Winkler (eds.) Jasmine Dum-Tragut, Dietmar W. Winkler (eds.)

Monasticism is a vital feature of Christian spiritual life and has its origins in the Oriens Christianus. The present volume contains studies on Armenian Monasticism from various perspectives. The task is not only to produce historical studies. The aim is also to contribute to and reflect on monasticism today. Authors come from the ¯ Armenian Apostolic Catholicosate of Ejmiacin, the Holy See of Cilicia, the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, and the ArmenianCatholic Church as well as from the Benedictine and Franciscan Orders of the Catholic Church. The experts reflected on the glorious past of Armenian monasticism and agreed to evaluate future challenges ecumenically to give more insight into both past and present Armenian monasticism.

orientalia – patristica – oecumenica vol. 14

LIT LIT

Jasmine Dum-Tragut, Dietmar W. Winkler (eds.)

Monastic Life in the Armenian Church

orientalia – patristica – oecumenica herausgegeben von/edited by

Dietmar W. Winkler (Universität Salzburg)

Vol. 14

LIT

Monastic Life in the Armenian Church Glorious Past – Ecumenical Reconsideration edited by

Jasmine Dum-Tragut and Dietmar W. Winkler

LIT

Cover image: John Hayter (1800 – 1895), Armenian Monk Venice 1818, drawing (Original: British Museum).

Printed with the support of Typesetting: Gunther Winkler and Dietmar W. Winkler

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISBN 978-3-643-91066-0 (pb) ISBN 978-3-643-96066-5 (PDF) A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

©

L

IT VERLAG GmbH & Co. KG Wien, Zweigniederlassung Zürich 2018 Klosbachstr. 107 CH-8032 Zürich Tel. +41 (0) 44-251 75 05 E-Mail: [email protected] http://www.lit-verlag.ch Distribution: In the UK: Global Book Marketing, e-mail: [email protected] In North America: Independent Publishers Group, e-mail: [email protected] In Germany: LIT Verlag Fresnostr. 2, D-48159 Münster Tel. +49 (0) 2 51-620 32 22, Fax +49 (0) 2 51-922 60 99, e-mail: [email protected] e-books are available at www.litwebshop.de

CONTENTS Editor’s Note Jasmine Dum-Tragut / Dietmar W. Winkler

3

ARMENIAN MONASTICISM IN CONTEXT Monasticism in Oriental Christianity today: A survey Dietmar W. Winkler Brief History of Monasticsm in Armenia Hovhannes Hovhannisyan The cultural impact of Armenian Monasticism: A brief note on the role of Armenian Monasteries in medieval Armenian society Jasmine Dum-Tragut

7 17

25

MODELS OF ARMENIAN MONASTICISM Monasticism in Armenian Patristic Literature Vardapet Ruben Zargaryan

45

21st Century Celibate Priesthood in the Armenian Church: The Brotherhood of the Holy See of Cilicia Archbishop Nareg Alemezian

61

The Brotherhood of the St. James Monastery and the Symbolism of Armenian Jerusalem Roberta Ervine

81

Tracing female Monasticism in Armenia: The Łap‘an Nunneries Jasmine Dum-Tragut

105

Table of Contents

2

Mekhithar (Mxit‘ar) and the Armenian Monasticism in Communion with the Roman Church: Highlights in the Mechitarian Movement amd its Ecumenical Challenge Archbishop Levon B. Zekiyan Medieval Armenian Congregations in Union with Rome Martin Seidler

137 149

ORIENT AND OCCIDENT: MONASTIC SPIRITUALITY AND FORMATION A Penitential Peculiarity in Armenian Monasticism of the Early Second Millennium Archbishop Daniel M. Findikyan

161

Franciscan Spirituality and Witness Johannes Schneider OFM (Salzburg/Austria)

183

Benedictine formation today Gottfried Glaßner OSB

195

Educating “Western” Monks: “Das Kolleg St. Benedikt” – an example Paulus Koci OSB

203

Authors

215

Illustration Credits

217

EDITOR’S NOTE Jasmine DUM-TRAGUT / Dietmar W. WINKLER Salzburg / Austria

From the perspective of the sociology of religion, monasticism seems to be a common phenomenon in all major religions. It is the desire to seek God through a life of prayer and asceticism, fasting and poverty usually including a degree of seclusion from the world. The Christian monk or nun seeks God through following Christ in an essential way, with prayer, reading and work as life’s daily framework to proceed towards the spiritual goal. Monasticism is a vital feature of Christian spiritual life and has its origins in the Oriens Christianus. Consequently, the “Centre for the Study of the Christian East” (ZECO – Zentrum zur Erforschung des Christlichen Ostens) of the University of Salzburg (Austria) has started a research focus on monasticism in collaboration with representatives of the Oriental Orthodox Churches. It is evident, that research on monasticism over the last half century has seen manifold revisions in our understanding of the history of Christian monasticism. But the task of our research focus is not only to produce historical studies. The aim is also to contribute to and reflect on monasticism today. Hence an ecumenical reconsideration and exchange is indispensable in a globalized world, where Christians have to witness together, be they in a minority situation (e.g. the Middle East) or in a growing secularized world (e.g. Europe). We are very much convinced that monasticism – though sometimes seen as a stumbling block for ecumenism – is on the contrary a strong bridge between the Churches of East and West. Our studies on monasticism started with a workshop on “Monastic Life in the Armenian Church” in Salzburg 2013. Participants came from the Armenian Apostolic Catholicosate of Ējmiacin, the Holy See of Cilicia, the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, and the Armenian-Catholic Church as well as from the Benedictine and Franciscan Orders of the Catholic Church. The experts reflected on the glorious past of Armenian monasticism and agreed to evaluate future challenges ecumenically. Most of the presentations from the workshop are published in this volume, enriched by further studies to give more insight into both past and present Armenian monasticism.

4

Editor’s note

The first part of the book puts Armenian monasticism into context. Overviews on monastic life in the oriental orthodox churches and its history in Armenia are given, as well as an insight into the cultural impact of Armenian monasteries. The second part presents various models of Armenian monasticism looking for its traces in patristic literature, presenting the brotherhoods of the Holy See of Cilicia and of Sts. James Monastery in Jerusalem. Female monasticism is explored as well as the ecumenical challenge of the Mekhitharist Movement and Medieval Congregations in Union with Rome. The third part focusses on monastic spirituality and formation and presents the Armenian, Franciscan and Benedictine perspectives in an ecumenical exchange. The transliteration of Armenian used in this book, including the transliteration of personal names and place names, follows the common Hübschmann-Meillet transliteration system. We express our thanks to all who helped to make this book possible, especially the authors for their valuable contributions, Mr. Gunther Winkler for his initial technical support in formatting and the Foundation PRO ORIENTE, who supported the workshop and the publication of this book.

Salzburg, September 2018

Արդ մաղթեմք աղաւթիւք զմեզ յիշեսջիք, որք ի գիրքս յայս հայիք եւ վերծանէք: Now we wish, remember us with prayers, you who look into this book and read it. (Editors colophon, based on a traditional Armenian colophon of the 11 th c.)

ARMENIAN MONASTICISM IN CONTEXT

Monastery Gełard (4th, 10th-13th c.), Village Gołt, Armenia (south elevation)

MONASTICISM IN ORIENTAL CHRISTIANITY TODAY A BRIEF SURVEY Dietmar W. WINKLER Salzburg / Austria

Monasticism is an essential quality of the ecclesial life in the OrientalOrthodox, Eastern Orthodox and Catholic life until today and may have a “transcultural role … in order to mediate between East and West”1. When the International Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches “decided to study more in detail ‘the visible bonds of communion’ (cf. NCMC n. 23), that manifest and strengthen communion among the churches2, monasticism and its complexity of interrelations between East and West were certainly part of the investigation. Therefore the Joint Commission could conclude: “Monasticism in the Western church owes much of its inspiration and forms to the monastic movements of Egypt, Palestine, and Asia Minor. These were transmitted and adapted to the western context above all through the writings of St. John Cassian, who had spent many years in Palestine and Egypt. Later in the fifth century the compilation of texts from the monastic tradition known as the Apophthegmata Patrum (Sayings of the Fathers) came to be the common heritage of all the churches both of the East and of the West. In its various redactions (alphabetic and systematic) and numerous translations (Greek, Coptic, Ge’ez, Armenian, Arabic, Latin), including the Syriac Paradise of the Fathers, it provides a treasury of monastic wisdom shared by all the churches.”3 Still today, Monasticism could be a mediator between East and West, although sometimes it appears to be a stumbling-block, especially when monasteries lost their ability to communicate. “The more one is imbued with one’s own unabridged tradition the less one is inclined to see it adulterated through

1 2

3

FARRUGIA, Monasticism as a bridge between East and West, 81. Common Document of the International Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, “The Exercise of Communion in the Life of the Early Church and its Implications for our Search for Communion Today (Rome 2015), pt. 2. The abbreviation NCMC refers to the first official document of this dialogue: “Nature Constitution and Mission of the Church” (2009). Ibid. pt. 49.

8

Dietmar W. Winkler

contacts with other traditions.”4 However, if there is a sound theology combined with spirituality the more open-minded one could be. In other words, “if monks were to open up the unitive vision underlying their vocation, by readily identifying themselves with the faith of their Church making charity their first norm, they would become privileged members of dialogue.”5 An essential precondition of a fruitful exchange is knowledge of each other. Therefore, this paper is supposed to give a general overview of the present state of monasticism in the Christian Orient. Geographically this would mean to cover an area between the Caucasus in the north and Ethiopia in the south, between the Mediterranean Sea in the west and China in the east. These Christian traditions are not one single church but belong to different cultures, ethnicities and liturgical traditions. Furthermore, because of modern migration, Christian Oriental Churches today are dispersed all over the World, i.e. Europe, the Americas, Australia, and Africa. The study and research on the Christian Orient as such has a cross-cultural and interdisciplinary approach, including not only various different scholarly disciplines such as theology, history, archeology, philology, linguistics, byzantine, Islamic, central Asian studies etc. but also various different languages such as Armenian, Syriac, Coptic, Georgian and Ge’ez. Hence it becomes clear that this presentation, by its very nature, has to by superficial and sketchy. Since current research made it clear that there is “no single origin and no unified development of monasticism”6, I would like to focus on traditions – Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, and Ethiopic – rather than on Churches, because, despite later church divisions, the cultural, patristic, spiritual and liturgical roots and heritage of the various Oriental Orthodox Churches and their Oriental Catholic counterparts are the same. 1. Syriac Monasticism One would expect to start with Egypt, where the cradle of monasticism is supposed to be, evoking the famous ascetics Anthony the Great (c. 251-356) and Pachomius (c. 292-346). “The real origins of monasticism, however, lay in ascetic tendencies and movements that existed from the time of the earlies Christian communities. The most fertile ground of early Christian ascetism was Syria, an inclusive geographical label covering several regions of various ascetic traditions”7. Syriac Christianity traces its origins back to the early Christian community of Antioch, where – according to Luke’s Acts of the Apostles – the followers of Jesus were called “Christians” for the first time (11,26). From here further 4

FARRUGIA, Dialogue in Silence, 135. FARRUGIA, Monasticism as a bridge between East and West, 108. 6 RUBENSON, Ascetism and monasticism, 647. 7 STEWART, Monasticism, 346. 5

Monasticism in Oriental Christianity today

9

Christian missions had been carried out not only to the gentiles but also to eastern Syria, Mesopotamia, and Persia.8 The whole area was Aramaic speaking and it was the Aramaic dialect of Edessa – called Syriac – which became the language of this important branch of Christendom. East Syriac Christianity spread beyond the Tigris, in the Persian Empire, while West Syriac Christianity was mainly within the Roman Empire. There is evidence of anachoretic communities around Nisibis already at the end of the third century, probably a spontaneous development and not influenced by Egyptian monasticism, probably more by Manichean monasticism. Syriac Christianity gave birth to very interesting ascetic movements, like the sons and daughters of the covenant.9 Those were male and female ascetics. They were either betūlē (virgins male and female) living a celibate life, or qaddīshē (saints), who were married but continent.10 They could live in small groups in the villages and were by that a sign of Christian ascetism within the communities. Probably the best known of the unique Syrian ascetics are the Stylites with its famous pioneer St Simon Stylites (c. 389-459). In the Middle Ages Sylites were well-known to spend years or decades in the open on their columns. Coenobitic lifestyle became noticeable before the end of the fourth century with the famous monastic East and West Syriac communities on Mount Izla or Tur Abdin (Mountain of the servants of God).11 Abraham of Kashkar in the sixth century was the most important reformer: Celibacy became the norm, along with poverty, fasting, silence, prayer, mutual labor and study. Along the Silk roads East Syriac Monasticism spread to Central Asia and China, Tibet, Mongolia and India. Unfortunately the East Syriac “Assyrian Church of the East” has no monastic communities today. But its Catholic counterpart, the “Chaldean Church”, has the Antonite Order of St Hormisdas, and two female congregations both established only in the 20th century, the Daughters of Mary Immaculate and the Daughters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.12 The richness of Syrian Orthodox, i.e. West Syriac monasticism is well known. In its heydays, in the Tur Abdin, which sometimes has been called the Mount Athos of Syriac Christianity, practically every village had a monastery.13 But like in the East Syriac Tradition, also here all this came to an end during the massacres of the Mongol invasion of Timur Lenkh in the 14th century. But the destruction was not total. Monasticism survived, and there are efforts to 8 9 10 11 12 13

Cf. BAUM/WINKLER, The Church of the East. Cf. WINKLER, Die Söhne und Töchter des Bundes, 243-257. Cf. TEULE, Les Assyro-Chaldéens, 140-143. Cf. TAMCKE, Die Christen vom Tur Abdin. Cf. SAKO, The Chaldean Catholic Church, 28-31. Cf. HOLLERWEGER, Lebendiges Kulturerbe Turabdin.

Dietmar W. Winkler

10

revitalize it today. Six monasteries in the Tur Abdin, and one each in Mosul/Iraq and Jerusalem have monks today. However, most of them have only one or two. Mor Malke in the Tur Abdin has three monks; and the main monastery, Mor Gabriel, counts three monks and 13 sisters. About ten Sisters are also at the patriarchal monastery of Marad Sednaya, who currently had to move to Achane in Lebanon because of the political circumstances. In the Netherlands a new monastery has been found in Glarne/Losser which counts about half a dozen monks.14 Syriac monastic life is still vibrant in the Catholic Syriac Churches, especially the Maronite Church, which goes back to a Syriac monastery itself. The name “Maronite” derives from a fourth and fifth century monk, Mar Maron, who lived an ascetic life in the region of Cyr, located between Aleppo and Antioch. After his death, a monastery was built not far from his tomb on the banks of the Orontes River in 452 to create a community for the solitary monks who were scattered in the mountainous region of Cyr and to defend the Christological doctrine defined at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Here it is not the place to account the history of the Maronites15, but we should mention the various monastic orders: Maronite Lebanese Order (ca. 350 monks), Maronite Order of the Blessed Virgin Mary (ca 110 monks), Maronite Antonine Order (ca. 160 monks), and Congregation of the Maronite Lebanese Missionaries of Kraim (ca. 130 monks). Furthermore there are various Religious Institutes and Covenants for women with more than 800 sisters in the Maronite Church. Also the SyroMalabar Church in India has a rich life of an enormous amount of religious institutes. However, not all of them are in the Syriac tradition. 2. Coptic Monasticism At least from the early fourth century onwards, the monastic movement became an important feature of Egyptian Christianity.16 In particular two names are associated with the development of monasticism throughout the Christian world: Anthony and Pachomius; the first represents the ideal eremitical or anachoretic life, the other serves as the patron of coenobitical monasticism. 17 “Fourth- and fifth-century Egyptian monastic texts like the Life of Anthony and the thousands of apophtegmata, the sayings of the monastic elders, gave the early Christian world the themes and figures that reshaped its understanding of ascetism. Foremost among them was the idea of monasticism as a life of withdrawal into the desert”18

14 15 16 17 18

Cf. ROBERSON, The Profile of Eastern Monasticism Today, 100f. Cf. SUERMANN: Die Gründungsgeschichte der Maronitischen Kirche. Cf. DASSMANN, Christusnachfolge durch Weltflucht, 28-45. Cf. SHERIDAN, Coptic Christianity, 37-46. STEWART, Monasticism, 348.

Monasticism in Oriental Christianity today

11

It was only the advent of Islam in the seventh century which initiated a gradual decline of the flowering Coptic monasticism, although the monasteries remained intellectual centers.19 Up to the 14th century most of the monasteries were depopulated and fallen into ruins. The few communities that did survive became the destination of scholars and adventurers in the 18th and 19th century, looking for ancient manuscripts in orphaned dusty libraries. However, the 20th century became witness of one of the most amazing developments in the Christian Church: The renaissance of Coptic monasticism.20 While about half a century ago there were only nine Egyptian monasteries with a bit more than 200 monks, already by the mid 1980ies the number of monks had already tripled. Today there are more than 30 monasteries with up to 100 monks each, and six female monasteries where most of the Sisters are working as ordained Diaconesses in social and charitable areas.21 The renewal began during the pontificate of Pope Cyril VI (1959-1971) and was continued under Pope Shenouda III, who died in 2012 and cannot be seen without the connection to the Coptic Sunday School movement, which has been the driving power of renewal since the 1940ies and greatly increased the theological literacy of the Copts.22 Since 1950 collaborators of the Sunday school movement became monks, most of them well educated, from the ranks of physicians, architects and engineers, e.g. the present Pope, Tawadros II, is a pharmacist.23 “The renewal of religious life in Egypt has also affected women’s communities. In 1965 Anba Athanasios in the diocese of Beni Souef founded a community of women consecrated to service called Daughters of Mary. The community has been growing rapidly, and today bishops clamor to have them in their dioceses where the sisters work in parishes as sacristans, teachers, catechists, etc.”24 The monasteries play a fundamental role in the Coptic Church today.25 All the bishops are taken from these communities. Furthermore, the monasteries are very popular centres of spiritual life and today well accessible by desert roads. On Sundays and especially on certain holidays hundreds of faithful populate the monasteries. Thus a new function of the Coptic monastery can be detected: They became spiritual centres for the laity. Therefore some of the monasteries, like Deir Anba Bishoy in Wadi Natrun, has also an extensive complex of buildings to host groups such as youth and pilgrims for their retreats. On the 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Cf. PIETRUSCHKA, Netzwerke der Mönche: Koptische Klöster als intellektuelle Zentren in islamischer Zeit, 55-68. Cf. GLASSNER, Erneuerung im Zeichen der Mönche. Das Aufblühen der koptischen Klöster und das Reformwerk des Mattâ al-Maskîn, 93-104. Cf. HOFRICHTER, Blühendes Mönchtum in Ägypten, 5-7. Cf. REISS, Erneuerung in der Koptisch-Orthodoxen Kirche. Cf. WINKLER, Neuer Papst mit neuen Perspektiven? Tawadros II. und der Beitrag der Koptisch-Orthodoxen Kirche zur Ökumene, 155-168. ROBERSON, The Profile of Eastern Monasticism Today, 97. Cf. SHERIDAN, The Role of Monasticism in the Egyptian Church, 237-252.

Dietmar W. Winkler

12

initiative of Pope Tawadros II a new complex, called “Logos-Centre” has been built in the same monastery, among others to host scholars for ecumenical conferences on an international level. 3. Armenian Monasticism Since the present volume is devoted to Armenian Monasticism and containes more specialized articles, only a few remarks may suffice here. By the 5th century, a basic pattern of monasticism developed, which included a common life and worship, apostolic works, study and preaching the Gospel. Armenian monasticism became predominant to link personal spiritual perfection to an active pastoral care. More than one thousand monasteries covered the area of greater Armenia of which about 900 are very well documented. “But this may account for only about half of the real total, if we could include other areas of the country about which little is known, or consider the 70 monasteries that existed in the Holy Land in the 7th century. These large numbers should not be surprising, given the fact that it was expected that every village of any consequence should have its own monastery, a reality that has been borne out by archeological evidence.”26 Most of the monasteries were male monasteries, but there is also the tradition of women monasteries in Armenia, less numerous though. In the 11th and 12th centuries, in the monasteries religious studies and education got more into the focus of Armenian monastic life. There was interest in Greek classical philosophy, science and medicine, manuscript culture and illumination, rhetoric, poetry, music etc. However, after the so-called “Silver Age” of Armenian literature in the 12th century – especially in the Kingdom of Cilicia – monasticism experienced a gradual decline. The reasons might be manifold, one of them are for sure the political circumstances, from the Mongolian invasion (13th century) to the Armenian genocide in the 20th century.27 The institutions, which come closest to a monastic community today are the socalled brotherhoods. There are three of them in the Armenian Apostolic Church: The brotherhoods of the Mother See of Holy Ējmiacin, of St James/Jerusalem and of the Holy See of Cilica28. However, within the Armenian Catholic Church a monastic congregation became important and well known for its Armenian cultural and scholarly impact: The Mekhitharist.29 Its founder Mekhithar (Mxit'ar) of Sebaste (16761749) was born as Manuk Petrosean in Anatolia in the Ottoman Empire. He was an Armenian orthodox who converted to the Catholic Church and was ordained a priest in 1696. His life goal was to raise the educational, scholarly, religious 26 27 28 29

ROBERSON, The Profile of Eastern Monasticism Today, 94. Cf. WINKLER, Die Armenisch-Apostolische Kirche, 3-13 Cf. the articles of Nareg ALEMEZIAN and ROBERTA ERVINE in this book. Cf. the article of Boghos Levon ZEKIYAN in this book.

Monasticism in Oriental Christianity today

13

and spiritual level of the Armenian nation. He became known as a “Father of the Armenian Renaissance”. In 1701 he formed a religious community with sixteen companions on the basis of the rule of St Anthony, which was confirmed by Pope Clement XI as monks under the rule of St. Benedict. The first monastery was established in Modon on the Pelopones, which was Venetian territory at the time. Because of the Ottoman conquest monks fled to Venice, where they got the Island of San Lazzaro, which is still the headquarters of the congregation. In 1773 an independent Mekhitharist community was established in Trieste, which belonged to Austria, and got confirmed by empress Maria Theresia. During the Napoleonic wars they took refuge in Vienna, were the Mekhitharist monastery was established in 1807.30 The famous Viennese Mekhitharist library is a treasure containing more than 200,000 volumes and 3,000 ancient manuscripts. There are not too many Mekhitharist monks today; the extension of the order is necessarily restricted. But these Benedictines of the East are well known pastors, writers, scholars and educationists, devoted to the service of Armenian culture and Christianity. 4. Ethiopian Monasticism Throughout history the Ethiopian Church was closely associated with the Coptic Church. According to tradition the evangelizer of the Ethiopians was St Frumentius, a Roman citizen from Tyre who had been shipwrecked along the coast of the Red Sea. Eventually he brought to conversion the son of the emperor of Aksum, whose name was Ezana.31 Ezana later introduced Christianity as a state religion. Thus two “oriental” regions had Christianity as a state religion before the Roman Empire and before the Constantinian shift: Armenia in 301 and Aksum/Ethiopia in 330. Frumentius got ordained a bishop by Athanasius of Alexandria and since that time up to 1959, practically all bishops in Ethiopia were Egyptian Copts appointed by the Coptic Patriarchate. It is said that monasticism in Ethiopia has been introduced around 480 by the so-called “Nine Saints”, monks who came from the Eastern Mediterranean, most likely from Syria and Egypt.32 They probably brought with them the rule of St Pachomius which still provides the basic structure of most Ethiopian monasteries. “The Nine Saints founded the earliest monastic communities and began the massive project of translating the Scriptures and other patristic writings into Ge’ez, the old Ethiopian liturgical language.”33 However, there is barely information about monasticism up to the 13th century. From there on two main monastic traditions can be identified, based on two famous monks: Tekle Haimanot († 1313) and Ewastathewas († 1352). The two 30 31 32 33

Cf. HOVAGIMIAN, Die Mechitharistenkongregation in Wien, 41-44. Cf. STOFFREGEN-PEDERSEN, Les Éthiopiens. Cf. CHAILLOT, The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church Tradition, 152-190. Cf. ROBERSON, The Profile of Eastern Monasticism Today, 98.

14

Dietmar W. Winkler

represent different styles of monastic practice, also due to their ethnic and linguistic diversity. Thekle Haimanot was the founder of the famous monastery of Debre-Libanos and he himself became kind of Abbot General of all the related monasteries. His version of monasticism took root in the south, west and partly northern areas of Ethiopia, i.e. mainly the Shoa regions. Ewastathewas initiated a more independent type of monasticism, but prohibits non-ordained members of the community to assume positions of leadership. These are monasteries mainly in the Tigre-regions and todays Eritrea. Nevertheless each community has also its own traditions based on the charism of its respective founder. The monks are devoted to prayer, fasting, manual labor and reading sacred books, but not engaged in pastoral work. There are also famous nuns as founders of monasteries, such as Krestos Samra (15th century) or Welete Petros (17th century), who found independent monasteries. But often a monastery of nuns is not located too far away from a monastery of monks, and they may even share the same church and sometimes the same kitchen. Within the cenobite life there might be also idiorhythmic monks – eating and working alone, but praying together with the others. “The vitality of Ethiopian monasticism is witnessed by the sheer numbers of monks in the country”34. The about 800 monasteries with – all together – several thousand monks and nuns are often located in remote and inaccessible areas. It might be the case, that the Ethiopian church has more nuns and monks than all the other Eastern Churches together, inclusive the Greek and Slavic Churches.35 Conclusion This brief sketch demonstrates a great variety of the present situation of monasticism from the remote mountains of Ethiopia to the Caucasus. While in some churches monasteries have virtually ceased to exist, in others there was continuous development or an amazing renewal. In any case the monastic ideals as such remained conscious in all the Oriental Churches, at least as individual asceticism on the way towards spiritual perfection. History identifies many varieties of monasticism and certainly new forms will yet emerge. And history also realized that in the past the termination of monasticism has been an impoverishment of the ecclesial communities.

34 35

Cf. ibid., 99. Cf. STOFFREGEN-PEDERSEN, Les Éthiopiens, 161.

Monasticism in Oriental Christianity today

15

Bibliography BAUM Wilhelm/WINKLER Dietmar W., The Church of the East. A concise history. London/New York 2003. CHAILLOT Christine, The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church Tradition. A brief introduction to its life and spirituality. Paris 2002. DASSMANN Ernst, Christusnachfolge durch Weltflucht. Asketische Motive im frühchristliche Mönchtum Ägyptens, in: Albert Gerhards/Heinzgerd Brakmann (eds.), Die koptische Kirche. Einführung in das ägyptische Christentum. Stuttgart 1994, 28-45. FARRUGIA Edward G., Dialogue in Silence. The Ecumenical Relevance of the Consecrated Life, in: Prasanna Vazheeparampil/James Palackal (eds.), Tradition in Transitition. The Vitality of the Christian East. Rome 1996, 135-143. FARRUGIA Edward G., Monasticism as a bridge between East and West, in: Prasanna Vazheeparampil/James Palackal (eds.), Tradition in Transitition. The Vitality of the Christian East. Rome 1996, 9-110. GLASSNER Gottfried, Erneuerung im Zeichen der Mönche. Das Aufblühen der koptischen Klöster und das Reformwerk des Mattâ al-Maskîn, in: Albert Gerhards/Heinzgerd Brakmann (eds.), Die koptische Kirche. Einführung in das ägyptische Christentum. Stuttgart 1994, 93-104. HOFRICHTER Peter, Blühendes Mönchtum in Ägypten, in: Information Christlicher Orient Nr. 25 (2007) 5-7. HOLLERWEGER Hans, Lebendiges Kulturerbe Turabdin. Wo die Sprache Jesu gesprochen wird. Linz 1999. HOVAGIMIAN Vahan, Die Mechitharistenkongregation in Wien, in: Erich Renhart/Jasmine Dum-Tragut (eds.), Armenische Liturgien. Ein Blick auf eine ferne christliche Kultur. Graz/Salzburg 2001, 41-44. PIETRUSCHKA Ute, Netzwerke der Mönche: Koptische Klöster als intellektuelle Zentren in islamischer Zeit, in: Heike Behlmer/Martin Tamcke (eds.), Christen in Ägypten (Göttinger Orientforschungen IV. Reihe: Ägypten 60). Wiesbaden 2015, 55-68. REISS Wolfram, Erneuerung in der Koptisch-Orthodoxen Kirche. Die Geschichte der koptisch-orthodoxen Sonntagsschulbewegung und die Aufnahme ihrer Reformansätze in den Erneuerungsbewegungen der Koptisch-Orthodoxen Kirche der Gegenwart (Studien zur Orientalischen Kirchengeschichte 5). Hamburg 1998. ROBERSON Ron, The Profile of Eastern Monasticism Today, in: Edward G. Farrugia (ed.), Devotion to Life. The Cost of Full Religious Commitment. Proceedings of the Second Encounter of Monks East and West. Malta 1994, 91-120. RUBENSON Samuel, Ascetism and monasticism, I: Eastern, in: Augustine Casiday/Frederic W. Norris (eds.), The Cambridge History of Christianity Vol. 2: Constantine to c. 600. Cambridge 2007, 637-668. SAKO Louis, The Chaldean Catholic Church. A Story of Being. Kirkuk 2009. SHERIDAN Mark, Coptic Christianity, in: Idem., From the Nile to the Rhone and Beyond. Studies in Early Monastic Literature and Scriptural Interpretation. Rome 2012, 37-46. SHERIDAN Mark, The Role of Monasticism in the Egyptian Church, in: Idem., From the Nile to the Rhone and Beyond. Studies in Early Monastic Literature and Scriptural Interpretation. Rome 2012, 237-252.

16

Dietmar W. Winkler

STEWART Columba, Monasticism, in: Philip E. Esler, The Early Christian World vol. I. London/New York 2000, 344-366. STOFFREGEN-PEDERSEN Kirsten, Les Éthiopiens. Turnhout 1990. SUERMANN Harald, Die Gründungsgeschichte der Maronitischen Kirche. Wiesbaden 1998. TAMCKE Martin, Die Christen vom Tur Abdin. Hinführung zur Syrisch-Orthodoxen Kirche. Frankfurt/Main 2009. TEULE Herman, Les Assyro-Chaldéens. Chrétiens d’Irak, d’Iran et de Turquie. Turnhout 2008. WINKLER Dietmar W., Die Armenisch-Apostolische Kirche. Geschichte, Gegenwart und ökumenischer Dialog, in: Der Christliche Osten 52 (1997) 3-13. WINKLER Dietmar W., Die Söhne und Töchter des Bundes. Askese und Geist im frühen syrischen Christentum, in: Renate Egger-Wenzel (ed.), Geist und Feuer. Festschrift anlässlich des 70. Geburtstages von Erzbischof Dr. Alois M. Kothgasser SDB (Salzburger theologische Studien 32)Innsbruck/Wien 2007, 243-257. WINKLER Dietmar W., Neuer Papst mit neuen Perspektiven? Tawadros II. und der Beitrag der Koptisch-Orthodoxen Kirche zur Ökumene, in: Heike Behlmer/Martin Tamcke (eds.), Christen in Ägypten (Göttinger Orientforschungen IV. Reihe: Ägypten 60). Wiesbaden 2015, 155-168.

BRIEF HISTORY OF MONASTICISM IN ARMENIA Hovhannes HOVHANNISYAN Yerevan / Armenia

The article briefly analyzes one of the less studied issues in Armenian Church history: The history of monasticism, its foundation, ideological background, development, transformation and contemporary situation. Due to the elimination of the culture of monasticism and the lack of interest by scholars, the history of Armenian monasticism was deemed within a larger history of Eastern monasticism, which usually did not provide the particularities of Armenian monasticism. Many contemporary researchers also try to look on this question from this point of view though the Church canons provide much information to perceive the local specifics. Historical and philosophical background The philosophical roots of monasticism date back to the pre-Christian period where the words ἀσκέω (to train, to exercise), ἂσκησις (training, exercise) ἀσκητής (athlete) were used to describe three basic spheres of human life – physical, moral and religious. The moral aspect of this word was more underlined by the philosophy of Sophists1. In the works of Pythagoreans and especially in the works of Philo of Alexandria the religious aspect of the word started to prevail (καθαραν ευσεβειαν ασκειν)2. Later the idea of ascetism was introduced into Christianity where this concept got a different meaning and got significantly transformed from the Old Testament to the New Testament. According to this approach Christian theologians and early fathers constructed the concept of monasticism on the concept of ascetism which was widely known in the Antique world and Christianity needed to dress up the idea adequately and introduce into its system. The text of the Old Testament mostly emphasizes ascetism as training of body, will and thought, and the core Christian idea of ascetism to reconstruct the terrestrial life in accordance with the soteriological doctrine was not yet developed enough.3 Only after the 1 2 3

СИДОРОВ, Древнехристианский аскетизм, 8-9. СМИРНОВ, Терапевты, 120. СИДОРОВ, Древнехристианский аскетизм, 9-26.

Hovhannes Hovhannisyan

18

conceptual works of Clement of Alexandria and Origen the concept of ascetism got an entirely new Christian meaning and the Christian Church started to use the term in that sense4. Christian ascetism means to achieve spiritual and religious perfection, to get union with God which requires inner and outer determination and which may be reached through different means such as temperance, restraint, prayer, oaths, rejection of terrestrial pleasures, etc. Christian ascetism with its theoretical and practical implications is closely connected with the earthly life of Jesus Christ, and later the Christian church interpreted monasticism as “living with Christ and living in Christ”. During the apostolic and post-apostolic periods until the fourth century, the Christian church was mainly able to survive because of the ideology of ascetism, as the first martyrs of Christianity were inseparable from the idea of Christian ascetism5. The thought of ascetism was mostly developed in the works of the Cappadocian fathers, Athanasius of Alexandria, Cyprian of Carthage, Augustine, etc. Later ascetism was mainly considered the temperance way of life and behavior, rejection of all worldly and was preserved mostly in monasteries. The monasteries became the educational centers. For example, in Armenia the threelevel education was mostly implemented by monks in their monasteries. In Christian literature the establishment of a monastic movement is considered to have taken place in the 4th century after the persecutions of Christians by Roman emperors. In its first period monasticism was not a formed and established movement but it was rather represented by hermits and anachorets. After the 4th century, when Christianity transformed from a persecuted to a public religion, the Christian Church had to adapt to a new world order and to introduce some pagan elements in its system. It started to construct amicable relations with State authorities. Such kind and new approach was contradictory to the ideology of monks and they gradually started to isolate themselves from the church and from the society as well. However, there are many cases in Christian history when Monasteries or monks supported the official Church against the State or other religious or secular organizations. Basic principles of Monasticism Monasticism is the historical form of fulfilling an ascetic ideal which is based on the dualistic worldview, the interaction of the earthly and the celestial. The contrast of body and soul took place by the aspiration to achieve the benevolent and valuable in a spiritual sense. The intensity of this dualistic worldview leads the ascetics to more concentration on the celestial, the rejection of evil and the

4 5

СКАБАЛЛАНОВИЧ Западное монашество 1, 123. ФЛОРОВСКИЙ Отцы , 5.

Brief History of Monasticism in Armenia

19

concentration on improvement and perfection of personality and human soul 6. The ascetic life indicates not only the individual salvation but also the group salvation as monks, who prefer to live in monasteries and have common benefit from their organizational life. Certainly, their ideal was Jesus Christ and his apostles, and that is why many of them thought that the example of their life may become as well as a good tool to preach Christianity as to spread Christian values and involve more people in the Christian community. Before the establishment of organized monasteries the majority of ascetics preferred to live and to die in obscurity. Many of them lived in caves near water sources, abandoned cemeteries or in very simple houses. One vivid example of such ascetic life was the first Catholicos of the Armenian Apostolic Church, Gregory the Illuminator, who in the last period of his life left his position and went to the mountain Sepuh in the Daranali province (Manyac‘ Ayr, Upper Armenia) to die in a cave in obscurity. He is a recognized saint by almost all Christian Churches7. The inner life of monasteries was very well organized and each monk had his specific duties. In the morning and in the evening all members gathered for prayer, which was led by the senior monks. The rules within the monasteries were quite strict and even severe. The Armenian monastic system was more like the system established by Basil of Caesarea. It was called secular monasticism as he had to leave the monastery and become the head of the diocese while keeping the rules of his monastery. Armenian monasticism was represented in both types of monasticism – anachoretic and coenobitic. However, later the second type was more popular, which intended monastic life under the supervision of a senior monk8. The first condition when entering the monastery is the refusal of the own person. This presupposes the rejection of a secular life which was not limited only to the rejection of marriage. This symbolized also a beginning of a new life. The future members should throw away their secular clothing and have common clothing in the face of the monastery. The clothing of monks should be very simple without any sign of richness or luxury. The clothes should be similar for all of the members of the monastery9. Other attributes of monastic life were the specific place of living, the monk’s labor, common gathering for praying and agape (love suppers). During the gatherings the monks organized disputes and discussions on the interpretation of the Bible and other major parts of Christian literature and lifestyle. In case of a violation of the rules of a monastery the monks received very severe punishments. The highest punishment was the exile from the monastery.

6 7 8 9

СИДОРОВ, Древнехристианский аскетизм, 9-10. ԱԳԱԹԱՆԳԵՂԵԱՅ ՊԱՏՄՈՒԹԻՒՆ, գ. Ժէ, 139-150. KALLISTOS, Orthodox Church, 18-25. СИДОРОВ Древнехристианский аскетизм, 410.

20

Hovhannes Hovhannisyan

Specifics of Armenian Monasticism The church of Cappadocia had great influence on the formation of the Armenian Apostolic Church as well as its monastic life10. The first Catholicos, Gregory the Illuminator, as well as his successors were educated in Caesarea where they got knowledge of the structure of monastic life and its rules. Later they constructed the Armenian monastic life based on those Cappadocian rules. After Gregory the Illuminator, Catholicos Nersēs the Great played an essential role in the establishment and development of new monasteries as well as nunneries. He received a Greco-Roman education and was peer of Basil of Caesarea. According to legend, during his anoint the dove of Basil disappeared and came down on the head of Nersēs11. This mythical story shows the ideological connection between Basil and Nersēs and also indicated the influence of Caesarian theology and monastic life on the same spheres within the Armenian Apostolic church. During the first period of his activities, Nersēs the Great copied the same behaviors which he had seen in Caesarea establishing hospitals, elder’s houses, nunneries, monasteries, etc. In 354, Nersēs convened the first local Church council in Aštišat where a lot of canons were approved among them canons and rules concerning the monastic life in Armenia were adopted. During the council the clergy also discussed the adaptability of rules and canons of Basil by the Armenian Church12. During the governing period of Nersēs, monastic life in Armenia was essentially developed. Following the example of Basil, Catholicos Nersēs established a lot of rules for punishment in order to prevent the monks from becoming indolent and lazy. This kind of interaction between Basil and Nersēs was evidence of the amicable church relations between Greeks and Armenians, which had great significance not only for the monastic life but also for the Armenian Apostolic Church in general. These reforms within the Church entailed the deterioration of the relations between State and Church and eventually caused the death of Catholicos Nersēs. The Armenian monastic life usually started during the stable periods of the late stages of reign of the Aršakuni (66-428) and the Bagratuni (885-1045) dynasties. Several churches joined together and formed a monastery with its own rules and canons while also having the rules of the Roman Imperial Church from the first three Ecumenical Councils (Nicea 325, Constantinople 381, Ephesus 431) and the Church Fathers. Like the orthodox tradition with “black” (celibate) and “white” (married) clergy, Armenian monks followed the same line as Coptic and other Eastern Christian traditions do. Monks never got married and are stricter in their 10

ԹՕՓՃԵԱՆ, Ծագումն, 360-361. ՓԱՒՍՏՈՍ ԲՈՒԶԱՆԴԱՑԻՈՅ, 81. 12 ՓԱՒՍՏՈՍ ԲՈՒԶԱՆԴԱՑԻՈՅ, 84. 11

Brief History of Monasticism in Armenia

21

lifestyle, especially in fasting and clothing. There is a legendary story about an Armenian Catholicos in the 8th century, Hovhan Ōjnec‘i, who went to an Arab governor to ask him for a favor for the Armenian nation. The governor looked at his luxurious clothes and told him that if the head of the Church is wearing such rich garments, why he should give any privileges to the Armenians and their church. And in that moment the Catholicos threw away his clothes and showed his shirt underneath, made from camel wool, which was quite painful to wear. During the Middle Ages Armenian monasteries were quite powerful. They even possessed villages and taxes were collected by monks which sometimes raised complains and protests from the villages. However, they usually had the support of noble families and many representatives of noble and royal families had their graves in or near the monasteries (e.g. Sanahin, Hałpat, Gełard etc.). Science and education of the Church were mostly in the hands of monks as well as the Bible study, exegeses and interpretation. When the monks as an own class had disappeared, the same traditions were adapted by the church and the tradition continues up to our days. In the early Middle Ages monasticism in Armenia was mostly developed after the Arab invasion. In the 9th to 10th century more than twenty monasteries were established in Greater Armenia. Among them is the Monastery of Narek – located in the South of Lake Sevan, famous by Armenia’s most renowned medieval religious poet, Gregor of Narek (950-1010)13. Other eminent monasteries were Glajor and Tat‘ev, which also served as Armenian universities in the middle ages. The famous teachers of these universities were Gregory of Tat‘ew, Hovhan of Vorotn, Esayi of Niš, etc. The monasteries served not only as intellectual centers but also as development centers of art, medicine, agriculture and culture, e.g. manuscript illumination, xač‘k‘ars (Armenian cross-stone), etc. During the 13-14th century Armenian Monasticism was greatly spread in the Cilician Kingdom as well, where the Armenians had such prominent figures as Nersēs of Lambron, Nersēs Šnorhali (the Graceful), and Gevorg of Skevr̥a. Life within Armenian monasteries expected physical sacrifice, austere life, intellectual activity, taking care of their own living while surviving in a severe climate. Theology and bible studies became the limelight of the residents of Armenian Monasteries. A celibate priest called hieromonk by giving a vow for celibacy gets a vełar, a special head-cover which shows his renunciation of secular and worldly affairs. A celibate priest is called abeła, who after successful defense of his thesis receives the rank of archimandrite (vardapet) which symbolizes the title and position of a teacher within the Church. Later the archimandrites may become bishops by ordinations. All these ranks are considered as monks and they as 13

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF MONASTICISM, 86.

22

Hovhannes Hovhannisyan

celibates live in the Church though the secular life is not so separated from their religious life as it was in the case of monasteries. The Armenian Church has four major centers – Mother See Holy Ēĵmiacin (in Armenia), Great House of Cilicia (Antelias, Lebanon), Patriarchate of Constantinople (Istanbul, Turkey) and the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. They all are independent and have their monasteries, but they all follow the same rules of Armenian Apostolic church in the regulation of the life of monks, clergy or monasteries. There is also a historically important Catholic Armenian monastery in St. Lazzaro near Venice. There the monk Mx‘itar founded a brotherhood in 1712 which became a significant place for scholarly publications of ancient Armenian versions of otherwise lost ancient Greek texts and other important scholarly works. They are called Mxit‘aryan miabanut‘yun (brotherhood of Mekhitharists) and continue their work up to our days. The contemporary situation of Armenian monasticism does not look like the monasticism of ancient times. Sometimes it is even hard to speak about monasticism as monks and clergy are the same people and there is not a division between them in the Church. The celibate clergy who live in the Church are called monks and their family is the brotherhood of the Church. The celibate priests (abeła), archimandrite (vardapet), supreme archimandrite (cayraguyn vardapet), bishop (episkopos) form the highest class of clergy or monks within the leadership of the Catholicos. There is not enough academic literature to explain why Armenian monasticism disappeared and merged with the church structure. There were some unsuccessful attempts for revival of ancient form of Armenian monasticism. There is a public opinion that the only attribute of monasticism that survived is the celibacy of higher clergy. Conclusion Due to the lack of information in primary sources on the development of Armenian monasticism scholars have to make generalizations based on the monastic tradition in Eastern Orthodox Christianity. The loss of monastic tradition and its adaptation within the Church made it even harder to construct an overall picture of Armenian monasticism, its roots, rules and canons within the monasteries, the relationships of monasteries with official Church structures and secular authorities. The absence of many vivid monk names in the history of the Armenian Church was also the result of the non-systematic development of monasticism in Armenia. Notwithstanding of this fact, a number of monasteries (e.g. Tat‘ev, Sanahin, Hałpat, Gełard) played a huge role in the preservation of Church tradition as well as the development of education, art, Bible studies, theology and other disciplines which supported Armenian identity, culture and Church through centuries. Monasticism was a kind of a “fundamentalist” movement which tried to preserve old traditions of the Armenian Apostolic church, which developed, transformed and altered during the centuries.

Brief History of Monasticism in Armenia

23

Armenian monasticism was primarily influenced by the canons of Basil of Caesarea and later by Eastern orthodox traditions. It developed mainly in the early Middle Ages. After the collapse of the Armenian kingdom in 9th century the monasteries were opened only within 13th to 14th centuries. After that period, Armenian monasticism started to decline and got adapted to the official system of the Armenian Church. Contemporary Armenian monks are not isolated in the monasteries but realize public activities within the Church and the society. Bibliography ԱԳԱԹԱՆԳԵՂԵԱՅ, Պատմութիւն Հայոց, Վենետիկ 1835. Agat‘angełeay Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘, Venetik 1835. [Agat‘angełos History of the Armenians] ENCYCLOPEDIA OF MONASTICISM. Johnston, W. (ed.), London 2013. ՓԱՒՍՏՈՍ ԲՈՒԶԱՆԴԱՑԻՈՅ Պատմութիւն հայոց, Վենետիկ 1933. P‘awstos Buzandac‘ioy Patmut‘iwn hayoc‘, Venetik 1933. [P‘awstos Buzandac‘i‘s History of the Armenians] ФЛОРОВСКИЙ Г., Отцы первых веков, Кировоград 1993. Florovskij, G., Otcy pervyx vekov, Kirovograd 1993. [Fathers of the first centuries] KALLISTOS W., The Orthodox Church, London 19932 СИДОРОВ, А., Древнехристианский аскетизм и зарождение монашества, Мocква 1998. Sidorov A., Drevnexristianskij asketizm i zaroždenie monašestva, Mosvka 1998. [Ancient Christian ascetism and the emergence of monasticism] СКАБАЛЛАНОВИЧ, М., Западное монашество в его прошлом и настоящем. Киев 1917, т. 1. Skaballanovič, M., Zapadnoe monašestvo v ego prošlom i nastojaščem, Kiew 1917, t. 1. [Western monasticism in its past and present time] СМИРНОВ Н., Терапевты и сочинение Филона Иудея «О жизни содержательной». Киев 1909. Smirnov, N., Terapevty i sočinenie Filona Iudeja “O žizni soderžatel‘noj”, Kiev 1909. [Therapeutae and the work of Philo of Alexandria “De vita contemplativa”] ԹՕՓՃԵԱՆ, Յ., Ծագումն հայ վանականութեան, in: Լոյս շաբաթաթերթ 1905,15,360-363. T‘ōp‘čean, Y, Cagumn hay vanakanut‘ean, in: Loys šabat‘at‘ert‘ 1905, 15, 360-363. [Origin of Armenian monasticism]

Monastery Hałpat (10th-13th c.), Village Hałpat, Armenia (North Elevation)

THE CULTURAL IMPACT OF ARMENIAN MONASTICISM A BRIEF NOTE ON THE ROLE OF ARMENIAN MONASTERIES IN MEDIEVAL ARMENIAN SOCIETY Jasmine DUM-TRAGUT Salzburg / Austria

Պիտոյ է ժուժկալել' որչափ հնար է. Յուսով աղօթել, հաւատով աշխատել, գոհությամբ ճաշակել. Ս. Թաթուլ1 One has to endure, as much as possible. To pray with hope, to work with belief and to relish with contentment. St. T‘at‘ul

Being an essential constituent of national consciousness and pride of Armenian people, the Armenian Church and its monasticisms have always been affected by political and economic situation in Armenia. The changing periods of foreign domination, concomitant oppression and of statehood with flourishing culture and growth of national ethos are thus reflected in the history and development of the Armenian monasticism. Or in other words, the growth and strength of Armenian monasticism were always directly proportional to the political stability in the country. This strong enmeshment with the secular history of Armenia, the lack of a clear separation between the church and the state, and the importance of the Church in national leadership in times of foreign domination, presumably shaped the development and formation of Armenian monasticism rather than theological or christological principles. As often mentioned in relevant literature, in contrast to the Latin tradition, Armenian monasteries did not belong to orders. This lack of various orders in Armenian monasticism shall also explain the differences in tasks and functions in secular and religious life of the Latin and the Armenian monks and nuns. 1

T‘at‘ul was a pupil of St. Mesrop and St. Sahak who, after the battle of Avarayr in 451, withdrew into a cave and lived there as a hermit monk. He is a saint of the Armenian Church, and is he is commemorated on the Monday following the 5 th Sunday after the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross. Cf. Քրիստոնյա Հայաստան հանրագիտարան, Երևան 2002, 378. (Encyclopedia Christian Armenia) Լիակատար վարք և սուրբ հարանց, հատոր 7, 27.

26

Jasmine Dum-Tragut

A striking difference, however, from the Latin, particularly the Benedictine tradition is that Armenian monks themselves never worked in agriculture, animal husbandry, wine-growing and the like. Depending on the size and importance of a monastery, the surrounding villages had to provide the inhabitants of monasteries and hermitages. Thus, monasticism remained a movement mainly devoted to meditation and prayer in Armenian Christianity, but there was a noticeable development of monasteries pursuing educational goals. It was mainly in the period after the 10th c. that many monasteries developed into cultural centers and centers of education, science and art. Through this functional specialization, the Armenian monasteries began to differ more and more. Thus, just as each Latin order had its own rule and functions, it seems that each Armenian monastery had its own rule and function. Similar to the Latin West, where various orders contributed to the preservation and development of knowledge, science, art and culture throughout the Middle Ages, the Armenian monasteries were the most prominent feature of the cultural and scientific landscape of Armenia. In the following we will try to briefly describe the importance and impact of Armenian monasticism on the culture and traditions of the Armenian people and to illustrate them by means of a few examples.

Map of monastic centers in late medieval Armenia

The Cultural Impact of Armenian Monasticism

27

1. Monasteries and Armenian theology and spirituality The essential substance of monasticism, i.e. living a life of simplicity, isolation from others and often ascetism made monasteries centers of spirituality. Armenian spirituality quasi evolved from monasteries. This is, in particular, often regarded as being linked to seclusion and meditation in hermitic places. Spirituality is expressed in distinct prayers, hymns and even poetry that was produced in Armenian monasteries. These written and sung expressions of Armenian spirituality formed a very specific literary genre, often linguistically complex, characterized by metaphors and oriental-like mysticism. Grigor Narekac‘i (951-1003) and his Book of Lamentation, called “Narek”, is the most famous representative of Armenian spirituality, mysticism and spiritual literature.2 Monasteries also served a further aspect of spirituality: as repositories of important, often miraculous relics or as the last resting place of Armenian church fathers and saints. Some of the monasteries were often associated with visionary experiences of Armenian church fathers or saints in their founding history. As such, they were, of course, places of special worship and thus often attracted pilgrims. Although the custody of relics played a crucial role in all monasteries - not only for monastic spirituality but also for popular piety - some monasteries have gained in importance mainly because of their relics. This is in particular true for those monasteries in which first-class relics or biblical relics were kept, specially venerated were the pieces of the True Cross. In the Armenian tradition, three monasteries are famous with pieces of wooden cross: namely the Xotakerac‘ Vank‘ in Vayoc‘ Jor (now in Ēĵmiacin’s cathedral museum)3; the Monastery of Varag in Van (Vaspurakan)4 and the Monastery of Glak in Tarōn,

2

3

4

Grigor Narekac‘i was a monk and polymath, a saint of both the Armenian and Catholic Church, who spent his ascetic and humble life in the monastery of Narekavank‘. He was declared a Doctor of the Church by Pope Francis in 2015 and he is commemorated in the Armenian Church together with the St. Translators on the Saturday before the 5 th Sunday after the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross. Cf. Քրիսոնյա Հայաստան 2002, 239-243.Cf. http://www.stgregoryofnarek.am/intro.php Xotakerac' vank', the monastery of the “grass-eaters“ or K‘arakopi Vank‘, near the village of Xač‘ik in Vayoc‘ Jor, Armenia (10th c.); 39°37′18″N 45°12′20″E. The relic was kept for several centuries in this remote monastery, and was embedded in a silver reliquary in 1300 by order of the noble family of Pr̥ošyan. The monastery is in ruins today. The monastery Varagavank‘ was erected in the 7th-11th century, according to the tradition, the piece of the cross relic was brought by S. Hr̥ip‘sime and S. Gayane to this place. The monastery, now in sad condition, is located in Yukarı Bakraçlı,Turkey (8°26′59″N 43°27′39″E). In the 12th c. the relic was brought to the Northeast into a safe monastery established in the 12th c in Tavuš. This monastery was renamed into Nor Varagavank (near the village Varagavan, Tavuš, 40.925°N 45.2018°E). Until today the feast of the Cross of Varag is celebrated in the remains of Nor Varagavank‘, on the Sunday nearest September 28th.

28

Jasmine Dum-Tragut

i.e. S. Karapet (so-called Cross of Cicar̥n)5. Other significant relics are the lance, which has been kept in the monastery of Gełard6 for centuries (now in Ēĵmiacin’s cathedral museum), as well as the head of John the Baptist, which was reportedly kept in the monastery Ganjasar.7

Yesayi Nč‘ec‘i teaching (Skevr̥a monastery, Cilicia J365, 1288)

Monasteries also helped to advance, maintain and even defend theological doctrines and promote liturgy and liturgical “literature”, such as missals, rituals, hymnals, lectionaries, hagiographies etc. Moreover, monasteries also served as suitable forums to advance, maintain and even defend their specific theological doctrines. Particularly the abbots and learned vardapets, as main representatives of the medieval Armenian monasteries, kept the role as zealous defenders and protectors of Armenian 5

6

7

There is a story about the theft of the cross by a man called Cicar̥nik, on the command of a local prince. Afterwards a church was built in a remote place which was then called Cicar̥n. cf. ԾՈՎԱԿԱՆ, Ն Հայկական խաչեր, Երուսաղեմ 1991 (reprint), 117. Gełard is located near the village of Gołt in Armenia’s province of Kotayk‘ (0.140425°N 44.818511°E), and literally means „lance“. It was founded in 4th c., but was established as cenobitic monastery in 12th-13th cc., the hermitage’s old name „Ayrivank‘“ (Cave monastery) was changed to Gełard in the 13th c. because of this holy lance. The lance was kept there for centuries. Cf. LA PORTA, S.: Monasticism and the Armenian tradition, in: MURZAKU, Monasticism in Eastern Europe and Former Soviet Republics, 337f. The monastery of Ganjasar, built between 10th and 13th century, is located in Martakert province of the Republic of Karabakh. (40°03′25″N 46°31′52″E), and is now the seat of the Armenian archbishop of Karabakh. It was completely renovated and is a cultural heritage of Karabakh. Cf. http://www.gandzasar.com/

The Cultural Impact of Armenian Monasticism

29

theology and faith. Throughout the centuries of changing foreign rule, the monasteries have become the centers of Armenian Christianity, struggling against the oppression and loss of Armenian Christian faith in general, but also defending the doctrines and theology of the Armenian Church. The latter applies to the monasteries of Syunik‘, especially to the monastic universities of Glajor and Tat‘ew and their fight against the growing influence of the Catholic Church following the Church union in 1198 in the Cilician Kingdom.8 In fact, the theological treatises of the respective abbots and vardapets opposed the movement of the unitors and the spread of Western, i.e. Latin doctrines into the Armenian tradition. Thus, especially three generations of Syunik’s influential monastic leaders, Esayi Nč‘ec‘i (1260-1338)9, Hovhanněs Vorotnec‘i (1315-1386)10 and Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i (1346-1409)11 stopped the Catholic influence as representative of Armenian medieval thinkers with the power of the written word, making use of the literary and scientific heritage of Catholic preachers as well. The knowledge of Greek and Latin classics and theologians helped these prominent abbots and vardapets of Syunik’s medieval monasteries to defend the Armenian Apostolic Church. An outstanding example of such literature is Tat‘ewac‘is Գիրք հարցմանց „Book of Questions“. This book, of which the original manuscript is preserved in Yerevan as an autograph M3616, dated 1397, is a form of dialogue in which Grigor answers to the questions from students on various theological topics.12

8

9

10

11

12

The union of the Armenian Apostolic church of Cilicia with the Catholic Church was not accepted and even resisted by the bishops and nobles in Eastern Armenia. In several Armenian synods between the end of the 12th and the second half of the 14th century, the pro-Latin and anti-Latin forces in the Armenian Apostolic church discussed this mainly politically motivated church unions. Esayi Nč‘ec‘i, Archbishop, Abbot and founder of Glajor university. Among his many works, his correspondence with the Cilician king Het‘um „Թուղթ Եսայեայ վարդապետին պատասխանի ընդդէմ պարոն Հեթմոյ“, Letter of Vardapet Esayi as answer against Lord Het‘um, Dated 1321, M 573 and M 96522) is one of the most impressive apology of the Armenian theology and christology regarding a) the nature of Christ b) the adding of water to wine and c) the dates of Birth and Baptism of Christ. Cf. Քրիստոնյա Հայաստան հանրագիտարան 2002, 317-318. Hovhan(nēs) Vorotnec‘i, pupil of Nčec‘i and mentor of G. Tat‘ewac‘i, educated in Glajor university, teacher and vardapet, abbot of Aprakunis Vank‘, Vorotnavank‘ and Tat ‘ew and saint of the Armenian Apostolic Church. His knowledge of Scholastics made him a one of the smartest defenders of Armenian doctrines. cf. Քրիստոնյա Հայաստան 2002, 409 ff. Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i, pupil of H. Vorotnec‘i, vardapet, abbot of Tat‘ew and saint of the Armenian Apostolic Church is regarded a great defender of the faith and is often called the “Second Gregory the Enlightener.” He is commemorated on the Saturday before the 4 th Sunday of the Great Lent. cf. Քրիստոնյա Հայաստան 2002, 247 ff. cf. TSAGHIKYAN, Grigor Tatevatsi and the sacraments of initiation, 75f. It is one of the most copied books of the Armenian Church and was already printed in 1729 in Constantinople. Some six of the still many existing copies of this Book of Questions have been co-authored or at least supervised by Grigor himself, namely: M 813 (1401, Tat‘ew), M 4072

Jasmine Dum-Tragut

30

By doing so, he only attempted to prove the „wrong“ theology of the Latin church and curtail Catholic influence. Thus, using the often quoted „Monasteries kept the faith alive“, with regard to Armenian monasteries we may also say „Armenian monasteries kept the Armenian faith alive“.

Amaras Monastery, 4th-19th cc.

2. Monasteries and education One of the key missions and objectives of monastic communities was education and pursuit of theological study. The long tradition of teaching in monasteries started in Armenia from the 5th c., with St. Mesrop Maštoc‘. According to the biography of his pupil Koriwn13 and historical reports by Armenian chroniclers from the 5th and later centuries, immediately after having created the Armenian alphabet, Mesrop and his pupils started to teach the new alphabet in several regions of Armenia: He therefore dispatched messengers to the provinces in the half of the Armenian nation to have many youths gathered and to have provisions made for their maintenance at suitable places, where the blessed one resumed his teaching, educating those who had been gathered.14

Following the Armenian tradition Mesrop founded the first monastic school in the monastery of Amaras. 15

13

14 15

(1406 Tat‘ew), M 3104 (1407 Tat‘ew), M 9247 (1407 Tat‘ew), M 918 (1407, Jerusalem) and M 921(1409, Tat‘ew). Cf. Koriwn is the most popular pupil of St. Mesrop Maštoc‘, who after his master’s death wrote his biography. This work from the first half of the 5 th c. represents the first genuine Armenian work in Armenian literature. http://armenianhouse.org/koryun/mashtots-en.html. KORIUN, “The Life of Mashtots”, ch. XVI. trans. NOREHAD. The monastery Amaras is said to have been founded by St. Gregory the Illuminator and been reestablished by St. Gregory’s grandson St. Grigoris (died 381), who is also buried there. The monastery is located in the province of Martuni of the Republic of-Karabakh, near the village

The Cultural Impact of Armenian Monasticism

31

The forerunners of the later monastic universities and academies served at many places to educate youth within the parameters of Armenian theology and traditions. As the schools, the Armenian early universities were in principle clerical. The first academies were founded in the period of feudal kingdoms, right before the Seljuk invasion, among them the academies of Sanahin and Ani. The Academy of Sanahin, perhaps founded by Grigor Magistros Pahlavuni16 in the first half of the 11th century, still has the small hall of the academy, joining the churches S. Astvacacin and S. Amenaprk‘ič‘, usually labeled “Seminary of Magistros”. The same polymath Grigor Magistros also taught in the university of Ani. This university, flourishing from the 11th to 13th centuries, however, differs from other contemporary universities through its taught subjects and the very specific faculties of philosophy and life sciences. Thus, the university of Ani is regarded the first medical university in Armenian history. The most important universities were those established in the 13th and 14th century, Glajor and Tat‘ew. Glajor was founded 1280 by Nersěs Mšec‘i, and though it operated only until 1340 and was immediately followed by Tat‘ew, it was the most influential university and cultural center in the Armenian medieval period.17 The students, monks, vardapets being educated at Glajor spread their knowledge to all corners of the Armenian world and layed foundation stones of many new monasteries, manuscript centers, monastic schools and academies. Written sources, i.e. colophons, teaching aids, reports of chroniclers of these universities help us to understand the organization, curricula and course of studies at an Armenian monastic university. 18 As in Europe, the studies were characterized by the seven liberal arts: In the Trivium grammar, logic, and rhetoric were taught, in the Quadrivium: arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music theory. After finishing these basic studies, the clerical student could attend higher faculties e.g. Theology, Law, Medicine. Among the languages taught was Classical Armenian, Classical Greek, and perhaps depending on the sphere of influence also Arabic, Persian or

16

17 18

of Sos, about 60km southeast from Karabakh’s capita Step‘anakert, 39.684°N 47.057°E. cf. Քրիստոնյա Հայաստան 2002, 441. Grigor Pahlavuni (990-1058) was a descendant of the princely Pahlavuni family. Being highly educated, knowing also perfectly Greek and Syriac, as layman, he became governor of the Byzantine province of Edessa after the annexation of Ani by the Byzantine Empire. He translated many Greek and Syriac treatises into Armenian, was but also trained as physician and a renowned teacher at several monastic academies, and founder and builder of monasteries such as Keč‘ar̥is and Havuc‘ T‘ar. He also left some scientific works, such as his Commentary on Grammar. His fame among the Armenian people originates from the legend about the controversy on the language of the Holy Scriptures with the Arabic poet and scholar Manuč ‘ē in Constantinople in 1045. As a product of this controversy he rhymed the bible in 1,016 lines, called Հազարտողեան առ Մանուչէ (Thousand-line poem to Manučē),Cf. Քրիստոնյա Հայաստան 2002, 236f. cf. NERSESSIAN, The Bible in the Armenian translation, 45. Cf. ԱԲՐԱՀԱՄՅԱՆ, Գլաձորի համալսարանը. Երևան 1983. Cf. ՄԱԹԵՎՈՍՅԱՆ, Հայոց միջնադարյան համալսարանը, in: Լրաբեր 1984,1, 62-71.

Jasmine Dum-Tragut

32

Turkic languages. We do know from several vardapets and their students about their language skills. Interestingly, some monasteries were already specialized in faculties for art (manuscript production, stone sculpture, architecture, music).19 Most of the teachers were clericals, but not all pupils attending schools became clericals. The admission to higher studies was however reserved to future clergy and monks. In their function as centers of education, Armenian monasteries contributed to the survival of Armenian wisdom and sciences and in particular of Armenian Arts. Their role in the 19th c. Armenian national revival as intellectual centers of the Armenian people should also not be dismissed.

The monastery of Sanahin has one of the oldest monastic academies 10th-14th c.

3. Monasteries and the written word Education, the sharing of knowledge and traditions, the development and consolidation of theological and christological principles, but also the discussions with other Christian denominations, whether Catholic-Latin or Byzantine-Orthodox, is closely related to the medium of the written word. In the Armenian Christian tradition, the written Armenian word is of great importance, and the production of written words was predominantly the task of the clergy. As in other Christian cultures and monasteries, manuscript production was one of the main tasks of educated monks and priests. And throughout the Armenian history it was carried out exclusively by clergy employed in monasteries or churches. With the advancing christianization of the country, increasing literacy and the intensified establishment of monasteries 19

Some examples, among the most famous faculties of architecture, sculpturing and manuscript illumination is the monastic university of Glajor, for musical education (cantors), enhancing liturgical traditions by composition of new liturgical music, melodies and hymns and copying particularly hymnal books (Šarakan) or song books (Manrusum) rank the monasteries Narekavank‘, Skevr̥a, Drazark or Karmir Vank‘ in Western Armenia and Hałarcin in Eastern Armenia. Cf. LA PORTA, Monasticism and the Armenian tradition, 335ff.

The Cultural Impact of Armenian Monasticism

33

between the end of the 9th century and the 14th century (i.e. the feudal kingdoms until the fall of Cilicia) by noble families and bishops, the function of monasteries as educational institutions and the training centers of the clergy, the need for "books" arose due to several reasons. First, the performance of church service, daily prayers and monastic routine was depending on liturgical books. With a growing numbers of churches and monasteries throughout the Armenian world, there was a constant need for gospels, missals, rituals, lectionaries etc. Second, the development, maintenance and defense of Armenian theology and doctrines led to an increased production of new commentaries, exegetical works, and theological treatises. Starting from the 10th/11th century, clergy relentlessly produced also religious and even secular poetry for the use in monastic schools and for the lay people. Third, there was also a growing demand for teaching aids and study books at the medieval universities of Armenia, and monasteries thus produced manifold copies of older or new translations of Greek philosophy, natural sciences, the works of Armenian church fathers, philosophers and chroniclers, as well as translations of Arabic or Persian sciences.

Page of a Gospel Manuscript, 15th-16th century. CHG 229-98, f. 46v.

Almost each monastery had its scriptorium, often with a division of labor and skills in the various steps of manuscript production, and of course, with quite differing degrees of artistic design. Some of these scriptoria were also supported by Armenian nobles or high-rank clergy, and they employed the best trained scribes and artists. Today, almost 30,000 Armenian manuscripts are preserved, dating from the 9th to the 19th century, produced in monasteries in various regions. At least one third of these manuscripts are illuminated or decorated and 5,000 to 7,000 contain one or more miniatures. The Four Gospels was the most illustrated Armenian text. Interestingly, almost all preserved, illuminated

Jasmine Dum-Tragut

34

Armenian manuscripts dated before 1300 are gospels. Secular manuscripts with miniature painting are quite rare and date not early than the 13th c., among them the History of the Armenians of Agat‘angełos, Ełišē’s History of Vardan and the Battle of Avarayr and the Alexander Romance.20 Despite the achievements of book printing21, the Armenian scribes of the 17th-18th helped to boast manuscript production. Some manuscript centers were even still productive until the 19th century. 4. Monasteries and the Arts Armenian monasteries are as such an expression of Armenian art. In their churches, the craftsmanship and creativity of Armenian architects, master builders and sculptors combine. Within their walls thousands of manuscripts of different contents were written and copied by clerical hands, and often illuminated and decorated. Within their walls Armenian literature was formed in scientific-theological treatises, spiritual and late-medieval love poetry, and spiritual music and hymns were composed and sung. The monastery itself, many aspects of the monastic activities and the lived spirituality in liturgical rituals were both sources and transmitter of Armenian art. The increasing building activity and the founding of monasteries after the Arab period and the consolidation of the Armenian Principalities from the late 9 th to the end of the 14th century also resulted in a development of architecture. Of course, classical architectural elements of the pre-Arab art have always been revived, and thus preserved the classical Armenian Church architecture. Nevertheless, new architectural elements have emerged from the erection of monastic complexes between the 12th and 14th centuries, which are characteristic only for Armenian monastic buildings and not for churches. Because of the expansion of monasteries special square halls were attached to the western entrance of the churches. These halls, called Gavit‘ or žamatun,22 were used as prayer rooms, meeting rooms and also mausoleum for the clergy or nobles. This distinctive Armenian type of a narthex was very often much bigger than the church. The other profane buildings of monasteries that served the live and tasks of monks and nuns, such as kitchen, refectory, library, scriptorium, rooms and cells often match the monastery’s churches’ or gavit‘s’ architectural and sculptural beauty.23 Moreover, architecture and sculpture was also a special discipline in Armenian universities, as with scribes and 20 21 22 23

Cf. KOUYMJIAN, Dated Armenian manuscripts as a statistical tool for Armenian History, 425439. First printed Armenian book 1512 in Venice, a book for prayers of Fridays. (Ուրբաթագիրք). The Armenian lexem գաւիթ gavit‘ denotes a hall, entrance hall, whereas the other word, ժամատուն žamatun, literally house of/for hours, means a special place for the hours. For example the famous libraries of Sanahin (10th-12th c) and Gošavank‘ (13th c.), the refectories of Hałarcin (13th c.) and Hałpat (13th c.), the dwellings and cells in Tat‘ew, Tat‘ew Haranc‘ Anapat hermitage, etc.

The Cultural Impact of Armenian Monasticism

35

illuminators, architects and masons were usually to find among the monks and vardapets.24

Western Elevation of the monastery Gošavank‘ (12th-13th c.)25

In the scriptoria of Armenia monasteries manuscripts, first, primarily gospel books were illuminated. As mentioned above, several monasteries also provided faculties or classes for manuscript production and miniature painting in the monastic universities and even schools during the flourishing period of Armenian manuscripts from the 11th to the 14th century. The geographical distance as well as differing influences (Byzantine, Syriac, Iranian, Latin etc.) and distinguished artists contributed to development of various schools of miniature painting.26 Each school has its distinct characteristics in miniature painting, in its iconography, its naturalistic, classicistic or naïve style, in the design of the persons, in coloring etc. These characteristics make Armenian miniature paintings even if from more or less the same year look quite different. Armenian illuminated manuscripts are often named after their place of origin 27,

24

25 26 27

The most famous representative is Momik (Vardapet), architect, illuminator and mason/sculptor of the famous school of Glajor in the 14th c., creator of the famous churches of S. Astvacacin of Areni (1321)and the mausoleum church for Burt ‘el Orbelean in Noravank‘ monastery (1339), of several cross-stones and manuscripts. From right to left: Chapel of S. Grigor the Illuminator (1231), Church of S. Astvacacin (11916) and its Gavit (1197), passage, Refectory (first floor) and Library (1291). See KOUYMJIAN, On Armenian miniatures https://web.archive.org/web/20110719181637/ http://armenianstudies.csufresno.edu/arts_of_armenia/miniatures.htm Some famous examples: Skevr̥a Evangeliary 1198 (Nat.Lib.Pol), Hr̥omkla Gospel J251, 1260; Hałpat Gospel M6288, 13th c.; Glajor Gospel, LSU170/466, 1300-1307; Awag Vank‘ Gospels, 1200-2 LOB Or13654; Havuc‘ T‘ar̥ Gospel 1214, V 151/161.

Jasmine Dum-Tragut

36

i.e. the monastery in which they were produced, after their commissioner28, but never after their scribe or illuminator. Here, major emphasis is placed on Armenian architecture and miniature painting because of their dominant role in Armenian art. Without doubt, also other arts have been cultivated, taught and promoted in Armenian monasteries, such as wood carving, metalwork and engraving (manuscript covers, reliquaries, liturgical vessels etc.), but the most representative body of art works from various periods is architecture and miniature painting.

Hałpat Gospel, M6288 “Entry into Jerusalem”

5. Monasteries and the people – social functions of monasteries The medieval Christian monasteries have contributed to the development and preservation of culture, art and sciences, which applies equally to both Latin and to Armenian Christianity. What social roles and functions, however, have monasteries fulfilled for their people outside the monastery walls? What is the legacy of Armenian monasteries in the social field? In the traditional medieval society monasteries took charge of some social functions, the most important was undoubtedly education, as stated above. Places of feudal retreat and national defense First of all we have to call into mind, that Armenian monasteries were feudal Church estates, financed and supported by local noble families. The common 28

Some famous examples: Queen Mlk‘ē Gospel V 1144/86; Lectionary of King Het ‘um II, Cilicia 1286 M979; Gospel of Smbat Sparapet 14th c. Crimea, M7644; Breviary of King Levon I, Cilicia 1269-59, LOB Or13993; Psalter of King Levon III, Cilicia 1283, LOB Or13804 etc.

The Cultural Impact of Armenian Monasticism

37

people had to pay taxes and tithes and supplied monasteries with food and agricultural products. Noble families were very often the founders and patrons of prominent monastic complexes, they had churches and other monastic structures erected and occupied leading positions in the Armenian Church and in monasteries from their own ranks.29 The strong ties between monasteries and ruling aristocratic families led to the historical importance of monasteries as a retreat for noble family members and often as their last resting place, but also as secular bastions of Armenian independence struggle against warring or passing hordes.30 Places for travelers, pilgrims and refugees Being often located over major trade or travel routes, also in remote places in the Armenian highland, monasteries, however, offered rest and shelter for nobles, but also for common travelers. Many monasteries had their own guesthouses for travelers, later on also for refugees or pilgrims, as we learn also from very early written sources. In the Յաճախապատում Yačaxapatum, a collection of speeches and discourses, which is usually attributed to St. Gregory the Illuminator, the author speaks about the tasks of the steward and the various functions within the monastic community. Thus, he writes, that the steward is also responsible for travelers, and the own տեսուչ հիւրոց, Guest-master, had to take care of the need of the travelers: եւ մի՛ աղմկել առ խնդիրսն, այլ սիրով եւ անխռով զամենեսեան յուղարկել բանիւք եւ իրաւք։31 And to not feel disturbed by the(ir) demands, but send them all willingly and calmly, with words and deeds.

It seems also, that some monasteries were also used as shelter and asylum where people who were accused of crimes could flee and be protected by the church. Monasteries and the common people In contrast to many catholic monastic orders, Armenian monks and nuns did not directly contribute to the cultivation of practical arts in agriculture or animal husbandry. The various officers in the monastic community overseeing farmers 29

30 31

For example the Zakarian family, that was one of the most influential nobles in the 13th-14th century in Armenia, first being vassals to Georgian king until 1236, then vassals to the Mongols and holder of Ani until the 1330. During their reign they had churches and monasteries renovated, established and built, among them monasteries such as Bĵni, Gošavank‘, Mat‘osavank‘, Hor̥omayr, Axt‘ala, Sanahin, Har̥ičavank‘, K‘obayr and Gełard. Among the prominent so-called fortress-monasteries are for example Axt‘ala, Hr̥omkla, Tat‘ew, Halijor Nunnery and Gndevank‘. Յաճախապատում ճառք, Վենետիկ 1954, ch.23, 74 (Faithful speech).

38

Jasmine Dum-Tragut

rather cared for the farmer’s honest and correct records of grain and products of animal husbandry, for tithes and taxes, than to help the farmers in their physical work.

Monastery S. Karapet in Muš before its destruction in 191532

Places of healing and medicine Other than catholic monasteries in Europe, Armenian monasteries had no infirmaries or hospitals for the lay and common people, they only cared for their own community. Thus, there is no European-like tradition of practical monastic medicine to find, rather a sort of “theoretical” monastic medicine. As a matter of fact, Armenian medicine emerged mainly through the manuscript production in monastic scriptoria, the translation of the medical works of the Greek, Arabic and Persian traditions, and through the highly productive medical faculties at monastic universities, as mentioned above. The Armenian medical heritage that is quite often tied to scholars among the monastic clergy seems to have evolved on the turn to the 10th to 11th century under the reign of the Bagratid dynasty. Thus, the first Armenian medical book, a compilation of the contemporary knowledge, was written by an anonymous physician in the early 11th century in Ani, at the same time as Ibn Sīnā (980-1037) compiled his trend-setting, highly influential medical encyclopedia “The Canon of Medicine”. This anonymous Armenian medical book was revised during the reign of King Het‘um I (12131270/1) in the Cilician Kingdom, and is therefore labeled “Gagik-Het‘umean Medical Book”.33 Ani had become the center of Armenian medicine already in 32

33

S. Karapet monastery used to be the most renowned monastery in Western Armenia, dating back to its foundation in the 4th c. by Grigor the Illuminator. It had relics of St. John the Baptist and is famous in folk belief as place of demons and specific miracles and healing. It was in function until the late 19th century. Located near the village of Çengilli köyü in Muş Province of Turkey (38.961068°N 41.191697°E) it is nowadays completely demolished. The medical book was commissioned by king Gagik I. Bagratuni. Two complete copies of this unique medical book are kept in Jerusalem (J370) and in Venice (V1281), some chapters are contained in other manuscripts kept in Yerevan (M8382) and Vienna (W310).

The Cultural Impact of Armenian Monasticism

39

the 10th century, and after its fall, the medical school and its famous physicians found a new home in the principality and later kingdom of Cilicia. There, in 1184, Mxit‘ar Her̥ac‘i wrote the first medical book in the Armenian vernacular of Cilicia.34 Intensive contacts between Syrian, Arabic and Armenian physicians, all of them serving at royal courts and the common people. Little is known about the fact that section and even vivisection were practiced at certain times in this monastic medical faculties, which definitely shaped the quite distinct Armenian medical heritage, which culminated in the work of Amirdovlat Amasiac‘i (1492-1496).35 Nevertheless, monasteries were places of healing both body and soul. Several monasteries, their wells, their monks and vardapets, especially ascetically living hermits, were often said to have healing powers. The same is true for relics kept in monasteries and especially "sacred" manuscripts produced and stored in the monasteries, such as some specific gospel books or the already mentioned “Book of lamentation” by Grigor Narekac‘i, which is known as remedy in folk tradition until today. As such a sort of healing places, monasteries used to attract both pilgrims and sick people in search of bodily healing and salvation. Tenets of Prayer expressed in practical words born of much grief on repentance on counsel for the benefit of the soul, on self-discipline, on the rules of contrite living, on dedication and commitment, on exposing the unseen, on confession of sins, on disclosure of secrets, on laying open of the covered up, on reproach for the hidden. powerful salves for incurable wounds, effective medicines for invisible pains, multisymptom remedies for the pangs of turmoil, for the passions of all temperaments, occasions for tears, impulses to prayer, prepared in response to the requests of the hermit fathers and the multitude in the desert, called the book of lamentations written by the monk Gregory of Narek Monastery.36

34

35

36

There is a complete copy of this medical book „The consolation of fevers“ written in Constantinople in 1637-39 is kept in the Biblitheque Nationale Paris, P246. This medical book is also of utmost importance for Armenian linguistics and philology, it is the first book written in the contemporary vernacular and not in classical Armenian. Cf. VARDANYAN, Medieval Armenian medicine and its relation to Greek and Arabic medicine, 201f. Amirdovlat Amasiac‘i (1420-1496) was an outstanding physician, writing in Middle Armenian and serving both the court and the common people. His medical books manifest the high stage of development of Armenian medical tradition in the late medieval period, but also the influences from both classical Greek and medieval Arabic medicine. His most famous manuscript is his last work, a compendium of over 3,000 plants and plant names as well as other materia medica, Անգիտաց անպէտ, „Useless for ignorants”. Cf. VARDANYAN, Amirdovlat Amasiatsi, a Fifteenth-Century Armenian Natural Historian and Physician. Armenian medical books and treatises have not yet been thoroughly studied and edited, and thus, have not yet been analyzed with modern medical knowledge. http://www.stgregoryofnarek.am/book.php?parent_id=1&type=2&type_1=none

Jasmine Dum-Tragut

40

6. Summarizing and closing thoughts This brief article barely scratches the surface of the immense endeavors and the influence of Armenian monasticism on various aspects of Armenian national identity, culture and arts and its role in Armenian Christianity. It also illustrates that the impact of Armenian monasticism has two quite differing sides. Armenian monastic communities do have their big share in the development and continuity of the Armenian people and Armenian Christianity through the spread, preservation and defense of Armenian spirituality, through the achievements of Armenian Church fathers and scholars in science and art. Their share in charitable works serving the Armenian common people is, however, almost irrelevant. This fact is reluctantly investigated, since it represents the reverse side of feudal monasteries and huge monastic centers, either in eastern as in western Christianity. No question, the cultural-historical significance of the monasteries cannot be overstated. The monastic clergy has developed Armenian Christianity in its theological, spiritual, cultural and artistic aspects and has preserved it for future generations. This, however, was without doubt quite often at the expense of common people. Using St Tat'ul as leading figure in monasticism in late 5th/early 6th century, saying, "The purpose of a religious order is for this world and live for Christ"37 and the enagmatic personality of Małak‘ia Ōrmanean (1841-1918), patriarch of Constantinople, stating in 1911, "Today the sole mission of the monasteries is to prepare celibate clergy for their sacerdotal functions"38 as brackets, one can grasp the overwhelming spiritual dimension and clerical orientation of Armenian monasticism. This also marks, to our understanding, fundamental contrasts in the historical development and socio-cultural importance of monasticism between the Armenian Apostolic and the Catholic Church: spirituality and relationship or even distance between clergy and the people of the Church. Bibliography HOVHANNISYAN V., A Glance at Monasticism in Armenia: History and Relevance,” in: “In Search of the Precious Pearl, ed. FARRUGIA, E. Rome: 2005, 45-85. KORIUN, “The Life of Mashtots”. Translated from Old Armenian (Grabar) by Bedros NOREHAD. Yerevan 1981. http://armenianhouse.org/koryun/mashtots-en.html KOUYMJIAN D., Dated Armenian manuscripts as a statistical tool for Armenian History, in SAMUELIAN T., STONE M. (eds.), Medieval Armenian Culture. Chicago 1893, 425439. LA PORTA S., Monasticism and the Armenian tradition, in: MURZAKU I.a. (ed.), Monasticism in Eastern Europe and Former Soviet Republics, London 2016, p. 335ff 37 38

Cf. Լիակատար վարք …, Հատոր Է. Վենետիկ 1813. Cf. ORMANIAN, The Church of Armenia, 143.

The Cultural Impact of Armenian Monasticism

41

NERSESSIAN V., The Bible in the Armenian translation, Los Angeles 2001 ORMANIAN M., The Church of Armenia. Her history, doctrine, rule, discipline, liturgy, literature, and existing condition. Translated from French edition by Gregory MARCAR. London 1912. TSAGHIKYAN D., Grigor Tatevatsi and the sacraments of initiation. PhD University of Edinburg 2014. VARDANYAN S., Medieval Armenian medicine and ist relation to Greek and Arabic medicine, in: GREPPIN J. (ed), The Diffusion of Greco-Roman Medicine into the Middle East and the Caucasus. Delmar 1999, 199-209. VARDANYAN S., Amirdovlat Amasiatsi, a Fifteenth-Century Armenian Natural Historian and Physician. New York 1999. ԱԲՐԱՀԱՄՅԱՆ Ա., Գլաձորի համալսարանը. Երևան 1983. ABRAHAMYAN A., Glajori hamalsaraně. Erewan 1983. (The university of Glajor) ԾՈՎԱԿԱՆ, Ն Հայկական խաչեր, Երուսաղեմ 1991 (reprint). COVAKAN N., Haykakan xač‘er. Erusałem 1991.(Armenian crosses) Լիակատար վարք եւ վկայաբանութիւն սրբոց որք կան ի հին տօնացուցի եկեղեցւոյ Հայաստանեայց. Հատոր Է. Վենետիկ 1813. Liakatar vark' ew vkayabanut'iwn srboc' ork' kan i hin tōnač’uc’i ekełec’ woy Hayastaneayc’' հատոր ē (7) Venetik 1813.[Complete Lives and Martyrdoms of the Saints Appearing in the Ancient Book of Feast-Days of the Armenian Church, vol. 7) ՄԱԹԵՎՈՍՅԱՆ, Ա.: Հայոց միջնադարյան համալսարանը, in: Լրաբեր 1984,1, 6271. MAT’EVOSYAN A., Hayoc’ miĵnadaryan hamalsaraně, in: Lraber 1984,1,62-71. (The medieval Armenian university) Յազգապատում Ս. Գրիգոր Լուսաւորչի Yazgapatum S. Grigor Lusaworč’i, http://www.digilib.am/book/1596/1972/16600/%D5%85%D5%A1%D5%B3%D5% A1%D5%AD%D5%A1%D5%BA%D5%A1%D5%BF%D5%B8%D6%82%D5%B4 %20%D5%B3%D5%A1%D5%BC%D6%84 Քրիստոնյա Հայաստան հանրագիտարան, Երևան 2002. K’ristonya Hayastan hanragitaran, Erewan 2002. (Encyclopedia Christian Armenia)

Armenian Monks (early 18th century)

MODELS OF ARMENIAN MONASTICISM

Monastery Sanahin (10th-13th c.), Village Sanahin, Armenia (west elevation)

MONASTICISM IN ARMENIAN PATRISTIC LITERATURE Vardapet Ruben ZARGARYAN Ēĵmiacin / Armenia

Although monasticism is one of the most significant and influential phenomenon of the Armenian Church, there is no clarity among scholars regarding its origin and development. Is Syria, with its anchorites, the cradle of the Armenian monasticism or rather Cappadocia? And if the origin can be traced back to Cappadocia, which specific monastic form inspired the Armenian monasticism? The radical form of Eustathius of Sebaste or rather the more moderate cenobitism of his disciple, St. Basil the Great? Concerning the origin of monasticism in Armenia one does not consider a unique source. It is a complex religious phenomenon combining different influences mainly from Syria and Cappadocia. In Armenia, the forms of anchoretic and cenobitic lives are both attested, and cannot always be clearly distinguished. Undoubtedly, there were solitaries living in an anchoretic manner on the edge of the monasteries. A fifth century compilation of epic histories attributed to a certain P‘awstos Buzand entitled Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘ presents a certain elderly քորեպիսկոպոս chorbishop Daniēl of Syriac origin, who embodies, in an exemplary manner, the complexity of the Armenian monastic phenomenon. He is the prototype of the holy monk and at the same time of the holy pastor, i.e. solicitous in the care of the flock entrusted to him and able to intervene actively in the political and social life of the period.1 Legends with traces of ascetic way of life and sometimes, clear references to circles of Armenian hermits are abundantly found in the earliest pieces of Armenian literature. Already, as early as the fifth century we find well developed stories and traditions woven around the ascetic practices of the fourth century saint and enlightener of Armenia, St. Gregory the Illuminator. These traditions confirm the fact that St. Gregory himself loved the ascetic way of life and preferred spending his time in seclusion. According to Agat‘angełos, the author of the fifth century History of the Armenians, St. Gregory “imposed on himself his customary fasting and prayer, vigils, tearful supplications,

1

Cf. GARSOÏAN, Epic Histories, 86ff. (Buzandaran III, 14) There is an early translation of Buzand’s history by M. Lauer, cf. LAUER, Des Faustus von Byzanz Geschichte Armeniens, Köln 1879.

Ruben Zargaryan

46

austerities, world-lamenting cares”.2 He refused the King’s offer to stay with him in the palace. Not only did Gregory himself live an ascetic life, but also invited his disciples to imitate him. Agat‘angełos mentions that St. Gregory’s established monastic and ascetic communities in Armenia: St. Gregory “established many and innumerable groups of monks in both inhabited and uninhabited areas, in populated plains, caves and retreats of the mountains”.3 Soon, this became a way of life for the followers of St. Gregory. One of his disciples, Albianos whom Gregory appointed overseer, “at frequent intervals went out to deserted mountains where he made himself an example.”4 The comments made by Agat‘angełos are reinitiated by the most influential Armenian historian, Movsēs Xorenac‘i who commenting on St. Gregory last days, mentions: After illuminating the whole of Armenia with the light of divine knowledge, banishing the darkness of idolatry and filling all regions with bishops and teachers, he – because of his love for mountains and solitude and a secluded life with tranquility of mind to speak to God without distraction – left his own son Aristakes as his successor and remained in the mountain ‘Cave of Mane’.5

It’s interesting enough that Xorenac‘i’s tradition attributes the existence of earlier circles of hermits, including women, to the same cave. It was in that cave, according to the same historian, that St. Gregory lived the rest of his life until his death. While both Agat‘angełos and Xorenac‘i emphasize the ascetic way of life St. Gregory and his followers lived, none of them is aware of organized cenobitic communities at this period. One may find circles of hermits who would retreat in deserted areas for a period of time, but not communities with a daily liturgical cycle and a rule of life. Historians agree that the monastic movement in Armenia was organized and matured through the ministry and leadership of the fourth century father of the Armenian Church, Catholicos Nersēs the Great (329-373 C.E.), a descendant of St. Gregory the Illuminator. St. Nersēs is accredited for organizing the sporadic circles of hermits that existed before his time into communities of brothers with a liturgical canon and a rule of life and mission. St Nersēs ascended the patriarchal throne in 354. With the consent of king Aršak II, he convened the first national ecclesiastical synod (354-356 C.E.). One of the accepted canons of the synod was the stabilization of monastic life. Before the synod the religious people wandered and some of them settled in the houses of the laity. Many lived in villages or in monasteries. Wanting to provide for their needs, St. Nersēs ordered the construction of three types of houses reserved for these religious people:  2 3 4 5

The first type was for the brothers or those living in a community. THOMSON, Agathangelos, 365. THOMSON, Agathangelos, 379. THOMSON, Agathangelos, 381 THOMSON, Xorenac‘i, 244.

Monasticism in Armenian Patristic Literature



47

The second type was for hermits. It was a kind of monastery where, despite living together, they were doing penance in solitude.

 The third was for those who lived alone in barracks. For all of them it was compulsory to live in one of these types of houses). Movsēs Xorenac‘i calls such monastic institutions եբբայրանոց ełbayranoc‘ (brotherhood), the others մենաստան menastan (hermitage) and the last as huts where they were living alone: “He also built in the desert and uninhabited regions monasteries and hermitages and huts for solitaries.”6 St. Basil the Great has had an enormous influence on the monastic organizational process of St. Nersēs. After his election as Catholicos of Armenians, St. Nersēs traveled to Caesarea to receive – according to the old Armenian traditions – the Episcopal Ordination from Eusebius, bishop of Cappadocia. There he met St. Basil whose influence on St. Nersēs is evident especially in monastic rules. St. Nerses brought Basil’s rule to Armenia and they became the common rules of life in the Armenian monasteries for centuries. We would like to make some references on Armenian patristic literature regarding the use of the Rules and Constitutions of St. Basil: 

According to the tenth century historian Asołik, Maštoc‘, the founder of the Sevan monastery (in 897), imposed the rules of St. Basil to the monks and brothers who followed him.7



On occasion of the foundation of the monastery Kamrĵajor, the same Asołik (who was also one of the founders of this monastery) asserts that the rules concerning poverty were regulated according to the rules of St. Basil.8



Asołik reports also that the two cenobitic monasteries of Hałpat and Sanahin were regulated according to the regulaes of St. Basil the Great, as well as the monasteries of Narek and Hor̥omos.9



Catholicos Nersēs IV. Klayec‘i, commonly known as Nersēs Šnorhali (1102-1173), wrote a Թուղթ ընդհանրական „Universal Encyclical”, in which he describes how Christians should behave, but as well the hierarchy of the Armenian Church and the tasks of the monks. He quotes St. Basil as a kind of legislator, but also the rules of St. Isahak and St. Basil as two statutory percepts of Armenian monasticism.10

6 7

8 9 10

THOMSON, Xorenac‘i, 271. Step‘anos Asołik or Step‘anos Taronec‘i called Asołik, an Armenian historian of the 11th century, wrote a պատմութիւն տիեզերական Universal History in three books. Ստեփանոսի Տարօնեցիոյ ասողական պատմութիւն տիեզերական. Պետերբուրգ 18852, 160. ՏԱՐՕՆԵՑԻ Պատմութիւն տիեզերական, 160. ՏԱՐՕՆԵՑԻ, Պատմութիւն տիեզերական, 173ff. ՏԱՐՕՆԵՑԻ, Պատմութիւն տիեզերական, 181. Cf. Շնորհալի Թուղթ ընդհանրական, Կոստանդնուպօլիս 1825.

48

Ruben Zargaryan

Taking into consideration the fact that the rules of St Basil have been adopted into Armenian monasticism, we would like to present some rules dealing with the monastic life from different points of view. This shall highlight how these rules functioned as foundations of monastic life of the fifth century also in Armenia. The so-called “Lesser Monastic Rules” (regulae brevis tractatae) are for most part written as “compact rules in the form of questions and answers”: Rule 74: Question: “We ask for instruction from Scripture about the following: Are those who leave the fellowship and wish to lead a solitary life or who join a chosen few to pursue the same aims of virtue to be separated from the others?” Answer: “The Lord said many times: ‘… the Son can do nothing on his own …’ (John 5:19) ‘for I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me’ (John 6:38). And the apostle testifies that: ‘For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want’ (Gal 5:17), thus, everything done of one’s own choice is strange to the God-fearer. A detailed answer was given in the Greater Monastic Rules.” Rule 85: Question: “Is it allowed to have property in the community of brothers?” Answer: “This is against the testimony of the faithful. In Acts it is stated: ‘…and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common’ (Acts 4:32). Anyone who claims to own something is separating himself from the Church of God and the love of God.” Rule 106: Question: “What punishment in the community of brothers should be executed for the conversion of sinners?” Answer: “Time and type of the punishment is at the discretion of the superior who considers age, state of mind and the nature of sin.” Rule 188: Question: “How should we meet our relatives and friends when they come?” Answer: “As the Lord has shown and taught when he was told ‘…Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you (Luke 8:20). And ‘… Jesus replied, > Who is my mother, and who are my brothers? < … For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother’ (Matt 12:48-50).” Rule 313: Question: “Are we allowed to work in the presence of visitors?” Answer: “We are not allowed stop any work that is executed according to the rule, even in the case of a friendly visit, … , because the Apostles state in Acts ‘… It is not right that we should neglect the word of God in order to wait at tables’ (Acts 6:2).”11

The process of establishing monastic life by St. Nersēs included also the building of nunneries and virgin hermitages. P‘awstos Buzandaran mentions also

11

The above cited rules are based on the German translation; see: http://www.unifr.ch/bkv/kapitel3044-1.htm. Cf. SILVAS, The Rule of St Basil in Latin and English.

Monasticism in Armenian Patristic Literature

49

…the destruction of the walled and fortified dweelings-of-virgins in various distrias and towns that the same Nersēs had built for them, for the care over their well-kept vows. For the blessed Nersēs built these dwellings in every district during his lifetime so that all those who were consecrated virgins might assemble there in fasting and prayers, and receive their food from the world and their families. 12

This paragraph clearly indicates that “consecrated virgins” existed in and before the time of St. Nersēs. We learn from this paragraph also that these women, who were scattered all over Armenia, consecrated themselves to a religious life through a vow that they took. The author clearly states that they were praying, fasting and eating together, which means they practically lived in that location. Their families, however, did not totally abandon them. They continued supporting them by providing them and their community members with food.13 The testimonies on Armenian monasticism in the beginning of the fifth century reach us mainly from Łazar Parbec‘i and Koriun, later from Movsēs Xorenac‘i. As mentioned above, Armenian monasticism took hold at the beginning of the fourth century and was established on a solid foundation thanks to the reforms of Nersēs the Great. After his death monasticism gradually began to crumble and was reconstructed by individual high-rank clergy throughout history. The new monasticism was flourishing during the time of Catholicos Sahak Part‘ew. Speaking of Sahak, Movsēs Xorenac‘i reports that he received 60 rigorous disciples. Sahak walked among them and taught rules to them and also taught in the desert. Koriun writes in his Biography that Maštoc‘ gathered innumerable groups of monks in inhabited and uninhabited places, in prairies, on mountains and in caves. In his person they saw a perfect example. Accompanied by a few disciples he went to mountains and spent the whole day eating grass. He did drink wine, but was filled with spirit, learned from spiritual books, was lit up with spirit in the service of God, in prayer and supplication and made demands for peace for all. Maštoc‘ spent many days immersed in this type of practice and stopped only when he was consulted by priests in need for spiritual advice. Throughout his life he acted for himself, his disciples and for the world.14 This literary work of Koriun contains crucial information about this stage of Armenian monasticism. First of all, we note that Maštoc‘, leading himself an ascetic life, founded various monasteries. Furthermore, this biography provides information about the way of life and about the occupations of the inhabitants of the monasteries. Monastic Life The monastic way is oriented toward the Christian ideal. It introduces the style of renunciation to earthly and temporal things, e.g. the pleasures of the world 12 13 14

GARSOÏAN, Epic histories, 209. (V,31). Cf. POGOSSIAN, Female Ascetism, 184 f. KORIWN, Life of Mashtots, Chapter XXII, 45 ff.

50

Ruben Zargaryan

and a comfortable life. It tries to follow the example of our Lord in order to tend to union with God. The features of monastic asceticism can be given as following: 

The detachment from earthly life by means of mortification of the flesh, a strict fast until hunger and thirst, deprivation of sleep, residence in hermitages and/or in caves.



The desire for union with God through sacred studies, prayer and divine praise.

Koriwn, commenting on his master’s love for asceticism and monastic discipline, says: He experienced many kinds of hardships in keeping with the precepts of the gospel. He subjected himself to all types of spiritual discipline – solitude, mountaindwelling, hunger, thirst, and living on herbs, in dark cells, clad in sackcloth with the floor as his bed. Often, in the twinkling of an eye, he would end a night’s pleasant rest and quit much needed sleep by standing vigil. 15

Maštoc‘ carried out all of this for many years and attracted a lot of disciples, as Koriwn further describes: He selected a few pupils from each monastery and retired with them to the mountains to live in caves. They secluded themselves in caverns and ended the day by receiving their daily nourishment from herbs ... There they did not become drunk with wine, but were filled with spirit and their hearts were ever ready to praise with hymns the glory of God ... There they prayed tearfully and pleaded to God, the lover of mankind, for the reconciliation of the life of all men. 16

In his letter entitled Բան խրատու յաղագս միանյանց Ban xratu yałags mianjanc‘ A Word of Advice Concerning the Solitaries Ełišē, another leader of the monastic movement in fifth century Armenia, describes the rigor of asceticism and the exemplarily life of monasticism in the southern regions of Armenia: escape from families, a life of piety and chastity, seclusion in narrow huts shared by two or three, rough and simple clothing and a bed of herbs. This is how Ełišē characterizes the monks: Men who are in the flesh yet willingly have offered themselves to worship God. From their boyhood years they contemplate on disciplining themselves in hardships and difficulties. They leave their homeland and retreat to deserted and undeveloped places ... they escape to the niches and outskirts of deserted areas.17

Such monks were called “միայնացեալք” miaynac‘ealk‘ (solitaries) and their hermitage “միայնանոց” miaynanoc‘ (place of solitude, retreat)

15 16 17

KORIWN, Life of Mashtots, 27. Ibid., 45. ԵՂԻՇԷ Բան խրատու, 159. Translation into German, see WEBER, Worte der Ermahnung über die Einsiedler (BKV), 287-98, here 291. https://www.unifr.ch/bkv/kapitel3777.htm.

Monasticism in Armenian Patristic Literature

51

Another important source depicting Armenian monasticism during the fifth century are the Ճառք Čar̥k‘, „Homilies“ by Yovhannēs Mandakuni (420-490, Catholicos 478-490). Among his numerous works, Mandakuni also left a collection of 31 discourses that offer valuable insights into the life of monasticism in Armenia at the end of fifth century. In his third discourse, entitled Թուղթ վասն պահոց պնդութեան T‘ułt‘ vasn pahoc‘ pndut‘ean A Letter Concerning Strict Fasting, Mandakuni makes a reference to the fasting practices of many ascetics whom he calls “blessed fathers”. He defines this group of religious men as those who have rejected the temporary pleasures in order to gain eternal goodness. Having stayed away from their homes and belongings, they suffered numerous difficulties. With hunger, thirst, and pitiful clothing, they exposed themselves to torments. Many among them were satisfied by eating grass, while others lived only on fruits.18

Hohan Mamikonian, the Armenian historian of the seventh century, asserts for his time the existence of a very strict form of the herbivorous asceticism. Here the monks were secluded from all carnal delights and were eating nothing but herbs. This class of monks of severe abstinence has always had his followers in Armenia through the ages. In the province of Syunik‘, according to 13th c. historian, bishop Step‘anos Ōrbelean, the so-called Խոտակերաց վանք xotakerac‘vank‘ Monastery of herbivors, literally grass-eaters was a prospering monastery that became a real center of ascetism in the 13th century. In the following, we quote the whole text describing the tenor of life of such monks: There was a vast multitude of them, [hermits] who had distanced themselves from [fine] clothing and physical food, spread out among rocky places and ravines and occupying themselves with constant prayer. They would assemble together on Sundays to participate in the divine sacrifice [communion] where they enjoyed only bread and wine. On other days, some lived in caves, others in narrow cells, some out in the open, silent and not speaking a word, sustaining life with only seeds and vegetables. Some of them built a chapel in a narrow valley close to [g280] a delicious source [of water]. This spot is now named Uroy k‘ar [Ur’oy Rock] and their graves are there, providing very great healings. Others built an altar in another broad valley and dwelled there. 19

The tenor of life of those ascetics differed not much from the life of the herbivorous monks reported by -Yovhannēs Mamikonean (supposedely 7th century)20 and from the exemplary life of the southern monks having been 18

19 20

ՄԱՆԴԱԿՈՒՆԻ Թուղթ պոհոց. http://www.digilib.am/book/208/213/3166/%D5%83%D5%A1%D5%BC%D6%84. There is a good translation of Mandakunis discourses into German to be found in WEBER, Ausgewählte Schriften armenischer Kirchenväter, 35-45, here 38. http://reader.digitalesammlungen.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb11099911_00041.html Cf. BEDROSIAN, Ōrbelean’s History, 124. The historical work of Mamikonean „History of Taron“ is closely connected with that of Zenob Glak. Cf. L. AVDOYAN, Pseudo-Yovhannēs Mamikonean.

Ruben Zargaryan

52

described by Ełišē in the 5th/6th century. In fact, the main features are: life in piety and in perpetual prayers; in segregation of society by staying in hermitages and mountains and/or in solitary cells accompanied often by private orisons; monks conform to strict rules: eating legumes, wearing simple garments and keeping silence; on Sundays all ascetics assemble in the main church and taste the Eucharistic bread. The fundamental idea that dominates the monastic life in the texts of Armenian canonical rights may be summarized in this way: 

A monk is a Christian follower of Christ. In order to reach this aim, he rejects the world and earthly cares and commits himself to piety and divine things.



The Christian perfection that he should cultivate embraces chastity, fraternal charity, hospitality, humility, obedience, patience, silence, prayer, fasting, mortification and in general all the Christian virtues in a perfect manner. By doing so, a monk renders himself as a host and an offering accepted by the Lord.



Cenobitic life is prescribed as a form of monasticism in the monastic rules and as such has to be evaluated more than anchoritic life.

Herein, the canon of St. Sahak the Great presents the obligation accepted by the monks: I would also remind all you that are vowed to religion in resthouses, inasmuch as you have withdrawn from the earthly life and have given yourselves up to God and to the things of God; let your actions resemble your nominal professions, and let reverence, watchfulness, love of the services be dear unto you. Uphold in yourselves the exemplar of the angelic life, love of strangers and love of your brethren (Canon 35).21

The 15th canon of the council of Šahapivan22 exhorts the monks: If one shall stay in belief, or wants to be solitary to keep the virginity and the pureness and to reach the eternal life], let him stay with friends, with righteous ones and with those who live alone so that they enrich each other with the love of Christ. […] If somebody wants to be monozone or wants to be solitary to conserve the virginity and holiness and get to the eternal life, let him stay with the brothers…and monozones, enriching one another with the love of Christ And there shall be no habit to live in solitude! For how can one know the order and the conditions of faith? Or can be conscious of his misdemeanors, or show his obedience and love towards his friends? […]

21 22

CONYBEARE, Canons of Sahak, 838. The Council of Šahapivan (444) approved resolutions regarding the responsibilities of higher clergy. The canon is believed to represent the first Armenian ecclesiastical constitution.

Monasticism in Armenian Patristic Literature

53

Let not anybody to be solitary; for how then can someone acknowledge the order and condition of faith, or be conscious of his sins, and express the obedience and the charity towards his brothers […] Let this be a rule for everyone who wants to remain in belief, who wants to live in solitude or as virgin (celibate) and to commit himself to monastic life […] Let this be a canon for everybody who wants to be monozone, virgin or assume to be a hieromonk (աբեղայութիւն) […]23

Obviously, cenobitic monasticism was much more appreciated than anchoretic monasticism. The practices of the Christian and evangelic virtues such as obedience, charity and temperance prevail over those of solitary life. St. Nersēs Šnorhali (1102-1173) defines in his Թուղթ ընդհանրական T‘ułt‘ êndhanrakan Universal encyclical the monastic way of life as follows:24 With your prayers and good works, you are the pillars of the earth and a fortress against the enemy. You are angels in the body and stars giving light to the earth. Your Father, who is in heaven, is glorified by their good and shining deeds. 25

A monk shall never abandon the constant exercise of virtues for his own sanctification. St. Nersēs exhorts to the monks: I beg you all, do not extinguish the light in the lamps of your faith by diminishing the oil of mercy and holiness. Don’t, for the sake of material things, separate your souls from the warmth of the fire of Christ’s love which he casts upon the earth for your salvation. Don’t yield to the lure of alien fire that may enter your hearts, but use it to burn incense to God in the prayers and mystery of Divine Liturgy. First let each one be cleansed by confession from unclean thoughts and deeds and virtuously offer oneself as a living sacrifice to the living God.26

St. Nersēs also points out that the attachment to earthly things cannot be associated with the practice of angelic virtue: Let none of you turn into a pillar of salt like the wife of Lot by turning back to worldly attractions, to the delights of frailty, or to the desire for material things. After her punishment Lot’s wife was not like salt, the spice for food, - she was stone; nor was she placed usefully like a stone in a structure, for she was salt. And it is like this with all who leave the world, as Lot did from Sodom, for those who rise to the ranks of clergy (angelic since they are travelers with the angels to the mountain), and return from there for love of the world and stumble into the frailty of sin, like the woman who turned her face to Sodom.27

23 24

25 26 27

Cf. Original Text in ԱԿԻՆԵԱՆ Շահապիվան, 159f. Upon his election as catholicos, Šnorhali in 1166 wrote his Universal encyclical to the Armenians. It has turned into an important document of worship, ritual, rules of contact and canons in the Armenian Church. ՇՆՈՐՀԱԼԻ թուղթ ընդհանրական, 16. ՇՆՈՐՀԱԼԻ թուղթ ընդհանրական, 16. ՇՆՈՐՀԱԼԻ թուղթ ընդհանրական, 17.

Ruben Zargaryan

54

The Religious Profession Today, according to the ‘western’ code of canon law the public enunciation of the religious profession is essential. It would be interesting to find similar Armenian traditions in early Armenian Christianity: The late fifth century collection of the 23 discourses traditionally attributed to St. Gregory the Illuminator, and known as Յաճախապատում Yačaxapatum Homilies, is another source of information concerning monastic life in Armenia. The last of the 23 discourses is the most interesting regarding monasticism because it deals directly with monastic obligations and monastic rules in general. This 23rd discourse has several hints about the religious profession. Here is the most important content: Those who have renounced this world and offered themselves to God as a submission to the truth of the holy fathers, to suffer celibacy for the sake of the promised good news, shall remain n careful in their words, thoughts and deeds, so that r that the insidious serpent does not bite them. 28

In another part the phrase is repeated: “But you, who are dedicated to God, fight the good fight, and capture these (my) advices to keep in mind the enemy of the enemy of the anchorites.”29 Then the discourse speaks of a dedication and a vow and corresponding obligations. In this collection of discourses the concepts of vow, contract and oath, which are repeated, are eloquent enough to prove that the monks of the fifth century had a certain religious profession. The similar concept of the religious profession/ vow is also expressed in the 15 th canon of the Council of Partav.30 It prohibits the religious to leave their monastery in which they made vows and to which they dedicated themselves. One shall note that the term commonly used for similar occasions in Armenian is ‘contract’ or ‘agreement’, connoting also of offer, promise and contract. 28

29

30

ԳՐԻԳՈՐ ԼՈՒՍԱՎՈՐԻՉ Յաճախապատում, 23,1. http://www.digilib.am/book/1596/1972/16600/%D5%85%D5%A1%D5%B3%D5%A1%D5% AD%D5%A1%D5%BA%D5%A1%D5%BF%D5%B8%D6%82%D5%B4%20%D5%B3%D5 %A1%D5%BC%D6%84. There are German translations of the homilies in J. SCHMID, Reden und Leben des hl. Gregor des Erleuchters, Regensburg 1872, 251. http://reader.digitalesammlungen.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb11108811_00255.html and in S. WEBER, E. SOMMER, Ausgewählte Reden aus dem Hatschachapatum vom hl. Mesrop, in Ausgewählte Schriften der armenischen Kirchenväter I, 237-318. ԳՐԻԳՈՐ ԼՈՒՍԱՎՈՐԻՉ Յաճախապատում, 23, 5. See SCHMID, Reden des hl. Gregor, 252. http://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb11108811_00256.html The Council of Partaw took place in 768 in the town of Partaw, which at that time was the seat of the Caucasian Albanian catholicosate. The result of the council is part of the Armenian Book of Canons, containing 24 canons usually labeled „The canons of Catholicos Sion“. Most of the canons refer to marriage laws, but the first canons regulate the ranks, rights and obligations of clergy as well as the rules in monastic life. ՔՐԻՍՏՈՆՅԱ ՀԱՅԱՍՏԱՆ; 859860. Cf. M. STONE, Armenian Canon lists I: The Council of Partav, in The Harvard Theological Review Vol. 66, 4, 1973, 479-486.

Monasticism in Armenian Patristic Literature

55

One can follow, that the three vows of obedience, chastity and poverty, as given in today’s ‘western’ code of canon law, are three elements also having been professed also in Armenia. Thus a certain act of renunciation of the world and of offering oneself to the Lord existed in Armenia. It is equally obvious that obedience, chastity and poverty constituted the crucial elements of the profession. It does not seem, however, that these elements were specifically distinct from other virtues of evangelic perfection such as mortification, prayer, community life, etc. The candidate, who intended to take his vows, separated himself from the world and offered himself to God. This included the whole surrender of the will and to renounce the delights of the flesh and temporal goods. The Daily routine of the Monks31 From the earliest times, the practical utility of work and occupation has been considered as an effective way of self-sanctification. Engagement has been regarded as an antidote to temptations as well as a means of promoting the Christian charity. Therefore holy founders distributed daily hours into hours of prayer and of useful work. The daily routine of the monks, both in monasteries and in hermitages, was built up by the following occupations: prayer, manual, intellectual and apostolic work. The primary means for the successful culmination of asceticism is prayer: prayer is the preparation for the glorification of God. The singing of the Divine Office is one of the major preoccupations of the monks, both of the cenobites, and of those living in solitude within the confines of the monastery. The most important prayers are during the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice. Ełišē, in his advice addressed to monks, describes the monks’ manner of singing the Divine Office: Waking up they form a circle … with sweet agreement and humble calmness. The leaders of the groups sing sweet-melodic spiritual songs. And the others, paying careful attention to the tones, follow the singing and join in. And thus the entire multitude of sounds are harmonious and in unison. In this manner they continue their audible worship lengthily. Then they all kneel and pray in silence. Following the leader of the prayer they all stand up and continue their praise. … they find it fitting to wake up early at night and spend the evening praying until morning.32

In a reform executed in the seventh century by Simeon Vardapet Ayrivanec‘i, one of the focal points was the restoration of the recitation of the 150 psalms of David in choral singing. Asołik (or Step‘anos Tarōnec‘i), the 11th century historian, after exposing all monastic foundations and monastic reforms of his era, writes that the monks 31 32

Cf. DUM-TRAGUT, The impact of Armenian monasteries on Armenian culture and sciences, in this volume. ԵՂԻՇԷ Բան խրատու, 161.

56

Ruben Zargaryan

used to sing praises – the songs of David – by night and day. In his Պատմութիւն տիեզերական Patmut‘iwn tiezerakan Universal history he also points out that catholicos Sargis I (992-1016), being a former monk of the Sevan monastery, continued his conventional monastic exercises also during his patriarchate: “during night and day he completed the order of worship of the monastic rules, with heartfelt prayers, through the holiness of fasting and selfmortification”.33 Kirakos Ganjakec‘i, a 13th century historian, praises the piety of Prince Hasan Jalal and tells about him that he – like a monk – performed the Divine Office by standing day and night. […] a pious and God-loving man, mild and meek, merciful, and a lover of the poor, striving in prayers and entreaties like one who lived in the desert. He performed matins and vespers unhindered, no matter where he might be, like a monk; and in memory of the Resurrection of our Savior, he spent Sunday without sleeping, in a standing vigil. He was very fond of the priests, a lover of knowledge, and a reader of the divine Gospels.34

A part of the monastic routine of monks other than prayers and singing is already described in the discourses attributed to St. Gregory the Illuminator. As given above, particularly the 23rd discourse contains many advices for the monastic life. Thus, the author recommends the monks to do exactly the work entrusted to them by the Superior. The text of this Yačaxapatum usually dated to the 5th century tells us that beside the usual deeds of charity and of the education of the youth, the erection and management of many hospitals and sanatoriums as well as care for the sick, lepers and elderly were entrusted to monks under the jurisdiction of the bishop. In addition to manual labor which was a common occupation for simple nonclerical monks, the main occupation for hieromonks – after prayer – was studying. The study of sacred as well as profane things was done almost exclusively in monasteries. Monasteries were the primarily centers for the formation of the clergy, for both the monastic celibate clergy and for the secular clergy. Education and the pursuit of theological study were naturally one of the main missions and objectives of the monastic communities in Armenia. In Lieu of a Conclusion: Yačaxapatum and Life in a Monastic Community in early Armenian Christian period (5th-6th cc.) As stated above, the 23rd discourse is mainly addressed to ճգնաւոր čgnawor, i.e. hermits, here rather ascetics, as contemporaries of the 5th and 6th century. A 33

34

ՄԱԼԽԱՍԷՆԱՑ Տարօնեցի 258f. There is a German translation, cf. GELZER, BURCKHARDT, Stephanos von Taron, 197. https://ia600203.us.archive.org/6/items/scriptoressacri01unkngoog/ scriptoressacri01unkngoog.pdf BEDROSIAN, History of Kirakos Ganjakeci, ch. 30. http://www.attalus.org/armenian/kg9.htm#31.

Monasticism in Armenian Patristic Literature

57

group of ascetics is an organized community, which has an abbot, cellarer, guest-master and other offices. The responsibilities and privileges of the abbot of a monastery are well described in this discourse. It encourages the abbot to be modest and provident with his brother. His ministry includes teaching and instructing. One of his main responsibilities is instructing his brothers wisely, according their capabilities and installing in each of them the fear of the Lord and modesty towards his brothers. He is the ultimate authority within the community. Nothing can be done in the monastery without his permission. All the monks holding an office in a monastery, such as the steward and the guestmaster, report to him and abide by his orders. And anyone who thinks, does or says anything against his will is required to do penance. For he who disrespects a leader, disrespects God.35

Finally, an abbot, according to this discourse, is the father of the community, who is benevolent and good willing and an example in […] prayer, fasting, humility, meekness, straightness, truth, watchfulness […]. He is called spiritual father and those born of him are spiritual sons according to their ascetic ranks; upon them he has more authority than their natural parents.36

The author of the Yačaxapatum advises the cellarer of the monastic community “to consider himself a cellarer of God; to administer the deposits of God to the faithful with awe and fear, and to take care of the vessels.”37 The cellarer is warned not to lose pots and vessels because of laziness or to throw them away because they look old. “Everything is granted by God”, adds the author, “for the need of the brotherhood”38. The cellarer must execute his work without partiality and with accuracy: “with the fear of God let him manage accurately according to the order of the abbot”.39 His responsibilities include also taking care of the elderly, the sick, those who are weak and the travelers, in such a way that they all may receive according to their need. The community has its own guest-master. The Yačaxapatum directs the guestmaster to take care of the needs of the travelers ‘joyfully’. It advises him not to complain concerning their demands. Nevertheless the discourse also warns the guest-master of the monasteries not to interrupt or cancel his rules on fasting and prayer because of his duties and responsibilities towards the guests: “let all

35 36 37 38 39

ԳՐԻԳՈՐ ԼՈՒՍԱՒՈՐՉ յաճախապատում, 36. ԳՐԻԳՈՐ ԼՈՒՍԱՒՈՐՉ յաճախապատում, 88 and 91. ԳՐԻԳՈՐ ԼՈՒՍԱՒՈՐՉ յաճախապատում, 67. ԳՐԻԳՈՐ ԼՈՒՍԱՒՈՐՉ յաճախապատում, 68. Cf. also the Rule of St. Benedict: “A generous pound of bread is enough for a day whether for only one meal or for both dinner and supper. In the latter case the cellarer will set aside one third of this pound and give it to the brothers at supper. Should it happen that the work is heavier than usual, the abbot may decide--and he will have the authority to grant something additional, provided that it is appropriate” (RB 39:4-6).

Ruben Zargaryan

58

workers be thoughtful at the hour of prayers, so that they may not fall into the judgment of those who are lazy”.40 In addition to the abbot, cellarer and guest-master, the Yačaxapatum tells us also about other offices in a monastery. Among them is the overseer of farmers. He advises farmers to show honest records of the gain and to gather harvest in the granary, so that there is always enough to give out to those who are in need. The overseer recommends: “to give the abundance of their work to the house of the Lord and each of them will receive their reward from the Creator according to their labor”.41 This text grants us a deep insight into monastic life in the early period of Armenian Christianity in the 5th and 6th century, before the development of monastic life was interrupted by the invasion of Muslim Arabs in the 7th c. and was later on perhaps never the same as described in this Advice to ascetics. Bibliography Ակինեան Ն, Շահապիվանի ժողովին կանոնները: ուսումնասիրութիւն եւ բնագիր, in Հանդէս Ամսորեայ 1949, LXIII, 79-190. N. AKINEAN, Šahapivani žołovin kanonnerê: usumnasirut‘iwn ew bnagir, in Handēs Amsoreay 1949, LXIII, 79-190. [Canons of Council of Šahapivan] BEDROSIAN R., Kirakos Ganjakets‘i’s History of the Armenians. Online http://www.attalus.org/armenian/kgtoc.html CONYBEARE F.C., The Armenian Canons of St. Sahak, Catholicos of Armenian, in: American Journal of Theology 1898, 2, 828-48. Online:https://archive.org/details/TheArmenianCanonsOfSt.SahakCatholicosOfAr menia390-439 Սրբոյ Հօրն մերոյ Եղիշէի վարդապետի Բան խրատու յաղագս միանձանց, in: Մատենագրութիւնք, Վենետիկ 1859, 159-165. Srboy Hōrn meroy Ełišēi Vardapeti Ban xratoy yałags mianjanc‘, in: Matenagrut‘iwnk‘, Venetik 1859, 159165. [Ełišē’s Word of Advice about solitaries]. Online: http://greenstone.flib.sci.am/gsdl/collect/haygirq/book/exishe1859.pdf GARSOÏAN N., The Epic Histories attributed to P‘awstos Buzand, Cambridge, Massachusetts 1989. Սրբոյ հօրն մերոյ Գրիգորի Լուսաւորչի յաճախապատում ճառք եւ աղօթք, Վենետիկ-, 1954. Srboy hōrn meroy Grigori Lusavorič‘i yačaxapatum čar̥k‘ ew ałot‘k‘, Venetik 1954. [Grigor Lusavorič’s homilies and prayers] Online: http://www.digilib.am/book/1596/1972/16600/Յաճախապատում ճառք ՏԵԱՌՆ ՅՈՎՀԱՆՆՈՒ ՄԱՆԴԱԿՈՒՆՒՈՅ ՃԱՌՔ, Վենետիկ 18602.Tear̥n Yovhannu Mandakunwoy čar̥k‘, Venetik 18602. [Homilies of Y. Mandakuni] POGOSSIAN Z., Female Ascetism in Early Medieval Armenian, in: Le Museon 2012, 125, 1-2, 169-213.

40 41

ԳՐԻԳՈՐ ԼՈՒՍԱՒՈՐՉ յաճախապատում, 75. ԳՐԻԳՈՐ ԼՈՒՍԱՒՈՐՉ յաճախապատում, 79.

Monasticism in Armenian Patristic Literature

59

ՆԵՐՍԷՍ ՇՆՈՐՀԱԼԻ Թուղթ ընդհանրական, Վենենտիկ 1830. Nersēs Šnorhali, T‘ułt‘ ěndhanrakan, Venetik 1820. [Šnorhali’s Universal Encyclical] Online:http://greenstone.flib.sci.am/gsdl/collect/armbook/books/nerses_chnorhali18 30_index.html STEP‘ANNOS ŌRBELEAN’s History of the Province of Syunik, transl. R. Bedrossian, Long Branch, NY 2012-15. THOMSON R., Moses Khorenats‘i History of the Armenians, Ann Arbor 2006. THOMSON R., Agathangelos History of the Armenians, Albany 1976. ՄԱԼԽԱՍԵԱՆՑ Ս.:, Ստեփանոս Տարօնեցոյ Ասողկան Պատմութիւն տիեզերական, Ստ. Պետերբուրգ 18852. Malxaseanc‘, S., Step‘anos Tarōnec‘oy Asołkan Patmut‘iwn tiezerakan, St. Peterburg 18852. [Step‘anos Tarōnec‘i Asołik’s Universal History] ՔՐԻՍՏՈՆՅԱ ՀԱՅԱՍՏԱՆ հանրագիտարան, Էջմիածին 2002. K‘ristonya Hayastan. Hanragitaran. Ēĵmiacin 2002. [Christian Armenia. Lexicon.] Translations Cited Basilius von Cäsarea, Regulae brevius tractatae: http://www.unifr.ch/bkv/kapitel30441.htm Rule of St. Benedict: http://christdesert.org/Saint_Benedict/Study_the_Holy_Rule_of_ St_Benedict/index.html Further Reading GRÖNE Valentin, Ausgewählte Schriften des heiligen Basilius des Großen, übersetzt, (Bibliothek der Kirchenväter, 1 Serie, Band 48), Kempten 1877. SILVAS Anna, The Rule of St Basil in Latin and English, a revised critical edition, Collegeville 2013.

Monastery Narekavank‘ (10th c.), Village Narek, Turkey. Completely destroyed in 1915

THE BROTHERHOOD OF THE HOLY SEE OF CILICIA: 21ST CENTURY CELIBATE PRIESTHOOD IN THE ARMENIAN CHURCH Archbishop Nareg ALEMEZIAN Nicosia / Cyprus

My presentation will analyze a celibate priesthood and not a monastic order, because, strictly speaking, today the Armenian Church does not have monasteries and monastic orders. Celibate catholicoi, patriarchs, bishops and priests live and serve at the four hierarchical administrative headquarters of the Armenian Church1 or its dioceses and parishes. Taking into account that from 1973 to 1981 I studied at the Theological Seminary of the Holy See of Cilicia, in Antelias-Lebanon, and in 1981 I joined its Brotherhood, I have the competency to focus only on my context. 1. The Church: The Prototype of the Brotherhood of the Holy See of Cilicia The Christian community is composed of men and women who live the Christian life in communion with God through Jesus Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit, and in relationship with other Christians in the Church.2 1

2

Today the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church has four Hierarchical Holy Sees: (i) The Catholicosate of All Armenians, Holy Ēĵmiacin-Armenia; (ii) The Armenian Catholicosate of the Great House of Cilicia, Antelias-Lebanon; (iii) The Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, Jerusalem-Israel; (iv) The Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople, Istanbul-Turkey. These Sees are intimately linked to each other in terms of faith, dogma and liturgy, constituting the genuine unity of the Armenian Church. The Armenian Church serves its people in the Republic of Armenia and throughout the worldwide Diaspora. Armenians mostly look to their Church for spiritual, national, cultural and political guidance. The majority of the Armenians belong to the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church, but there are tiny Armenian Catholic and Armenian Protestant Churches. In 1831 the Armenian Catholics were officially recognized as a separate community by the Ottoman Regime as well as the Armenian Protestants in 1848. According to the International Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches (IJCTD): “The word Church (ekklesia) relates to the assembly of faithful convened by God the Father in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. The intimate relation between the faithful and the Holy Trinity and also among the

62

Archbishop Nareg Alemezian

The Church is a living community united in the Christian love “that comes from a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere faith” (1 Tim 1:5). To be a Christian is to be freely part of this community of faith, prayer and service, and to be committed to following Christ and to the urgent realization of his Reign as God’s will and human’s longing (cf. Mark 1:14). The good news brought to us by Christ ushers in a new reality. It creates a common bond through sharing and participation, which forges a pilgrim people whose lives are fashioned after the example of the fellowship of the Christians of the first century described in Acts 2:42-47 (cf. Acts 4:32-35; Rom 12:1-8; 1 Cor 12). The notion of discipleship of Jesus Christ invites us to expect that God will lead us to new experiences and enable us to grow in our faith. The search for Christian identity in discipleship to Jesus Christ culminates with life in Christ (cf. John 10:10; Rom 6:23; 2 Cor 2:14; 1 John 5:11-12), through the Church and for the Reign of God (cf. Matt 6:33; John 18:36; Col 1:10-14). Participation in the life of Christ is a significant theme in Orthodox theology. It begins with one’s baptism, understood as death, burial and resurrection with Christ (cf. Rom 6:4), and also as initiation into discipleship (cf. 1 Pet 2:21). The sense of oneness with the Lord and participation in his life is re-established with participation in the Eucharist, as we partake of his sacred body and blood. As in baptism, so also in the Eucharist, the same theology of participation in the life of Christ is conveyed.3

3

faithful themselves is expressed in New Testament Greek by the term koinonia, which means communion/fellowship. St. John declares to his readers “what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship (koinonia) with us; and truly our fellowship (koinonia) is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3) St. Paul blesses the Corinthians with the prayer that “the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the communion (koinonia) of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Cor 13:13) [NRS]” (IJCTD (ed), Nature, Constitution and Mission of the Church, Paragraph I.6/ January 29, Rome 2009, cf. The Pontifical Council For Promoting Christian Unity, Information Service N. 131 (2009/I-II, 14f [Biblical citations in the document are taken from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, Collins, 1973]. During the baptismal service in the Armenian Church, the candidate is thrice immersed in the water with the following words: “[Name] the servant of God, coming from the state of catechumen to baptism, is now being baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Redeemed by the blood of Christ from the servitude of sin, he/she becomes an adopted child of the heavenly Father, a coheir with Christ and a temple of the Holy Spirit” (Armenian Apostolic Church of America, The Rituals of the Armenian Apostolic Church, New York 1992, 39). In the prayers of baptism and confirmation the theology of incorporation in the life of Christ is expressed: “Fill this child with your heavenly grace and grant him/her the joy to be named a Christian and make him/her worthy of baptism of the second birth of the holy font. And by receiving your Holy Spirit let him/her be body and member of your holy Church. And by leading a blameless Christian life in this world may he/she attain all the good things of the world to come with help of your saints, glorifying your unchangeable dominion” (Ibid. 23).

The Brotherhood of the Holy See of Cilicia

63

The sense of oneness with the Lord is further communicated through the drawing power of the Cross (cf. John 12:32 and the subsequent “Farewell Discourse”). The Christian community is sustained by the sacrificial love of Jesus Christ on the Cross (cf. 1 Cor 2:2), which interpretively becomes the Eucharistic celebration of shared sacrifice of communion of love celebrated within the Church as thanksgiving (Gk. eucharistia) to God for making us his people and each other’s brothers and sisters in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.4 The union of the Godhead in the Holy Trinity inspires this newly-created community of Christians to express its distinctive life-in-common through the experience of Christian agape as koinonia, which makes the Church the mystical Body of Christ (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-30). The Church becomes a supernaturally united living community of one heart, one will and one purpose where members dwell in God’s love and heed Christ’s commands in sharing the other’s burden, relying on each other and supporting each other by the sustenance of the Holy Spirit (cf. Gal 5:16), while faithfully and patiently pursuing God’s mission entrusted to them. There are some who have responded to this call to follow the Christian way of life as consecrated people, to live a harmonious life in closeness to God, to seek him constantly and to grow into perfection in him. Such a commitment often takes the form of monasticism. Monastic life may be deemed as the church within the church and it endeavors to be the climax of the transformation of conversion realized in the Church by the Holy Spirit.

4

“Clean him/her with your truth and by the shining grace of the Holy Spirit, in order that he/she may be a temple and the dwelling place of your divinity, so that he/she may walk in the paths of righteousness and be able to stand with courage in front of the awesome stage of your only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ” (Ibid., 43). During the doxology of the Holy Eucharist in the Armenian Church, the celebrant prays: “And now I beseech you, let this be to me not for condemnation but for the remission and forgiveness of sins, for health of soul and body and for the performance of all deeds of virtue; so that this may purify my breath and my soul and my body and make me a temple and a habitation of the all-holy Trinity; so that I may be worthy, together with your saints, to glorify you with the Father and with the Holy Spirit, now and always and unto the ages of ages. Amen”. FINDIKYAN, Divine Liturgy, 43. In the Canon for Pentecost in the Hymnal of the Armenian Church, we chant: “The holy Apostles rejoiced with your coming, as they called to unity those who were scattered by the confusion of tongues. … Love, begotten of Love, sent you who are Love to unite unto himself his own members through you, his Church that he built. … Today the children of the Church joyfully celebrate the coming of the Holy Spirit, by whom they were adorned in bright and luminous garments” (St. Nersess Armenian Seminary (ed), Theological Treasures of the Armenian Church, in: http://www.stnersess.edu/classroom/resources/sharagans/index.php).

64

Archbishop Nareg Alemezian

2. The Monastic Community: The Paradigm of the Brotherhood of the Holy See of Cilicia Monasticism has been an essential part of the Early Church as a characteristic of a totally Christ-centered way of life. It is more than taking spiritual vows and living a personal/communal rule of life in a contemplative tradition. It remains a mystery of communion of faith and love of God, while monks strive to live out their baptismal calling of belonging to Christ (cf. Matt 18:20) and serving the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Christ, the ideal for monks, emptied himself to be filled with the charismas of obedience, celibacy and poverty for the glory of God (cf. Phil 2:7). A monastic community is a group of like-minded monks, who attempt to live a life of dedication to God preserving the deeply held vows of obedience, celibacy and poverty. The commitment of the monks is to seek God and each other in their community and to respond to their ministry, which upholds the values of identity, unity, cooperation and community in creating the perfect “other world” of communal prayer inspired by their encounter with God and each other: community life of friendship characterized by fraternal love, trust and respect, and fruitfulness of common mission sustained by shared vision and sublime vocation. The monastic communal life is challenged by individual differences, communication skills and group dynamics because monks come together not for the sake of living together but to support each other along the common inward/upward journey they are called to take together as their way of life and team work. Despite the human limitations and failures, in trusting God for the up-keeping of the monastic community, monks become more trustworthy toward each other and more available for the community’s life and mission under God’s care. By the participation of each monk, the monastic community is made not merely an institution but a home ever to be built by the values of the Gospel. The organizational style and the set of rules, geared to integrate the monks into the community, are considered disciplines necessary for spiritual growth. Living in this kind of monastic community where the corporate identity is clearly spelled out, the necessity for continuous and meaningful belonging is nurtured and basic life needs are met. Each monk knows that he is accepted as he is and receives the support he is looking for, while being reassured of his valuable contribution. In this kind of healthy environment gifts are shared and the personal character of each monk is cherished, open dialogue is directed between superior and monks, and in the event of problems, unity of action emerges from the common faith, vision and commitment, and active participation is secured for better decisions and common service (cf. Eph 4:1-6). Above all, in this context of a committed communal life the soul’s relation to

The Brotherhood of the Holy See of Cilicia

65

God is affirmed and the community appreciated as an ineffable gift from God and a sign of his glory (cf. Matt 5:16), a realization of the prayer of Jesus addressed to his Father, “The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one” (John 17:22). All these are achieved not through the human efforts of the community but by the transforming breath of the Holy Spirit, who renews the community to meet the challenges of the changing times and conditions as it continues to lead the life in Christ as fully as possible. 3. The Brotherhood of the Holy See of Cilicia Today My Brotherhood is a community of celibate men in the service of God, who try to live in communion with the Holy Trinity and the world. Its members are not a group joined together by a legal contract as a social entity. Our living together in prayer, love and service needs to make us servants of Jesus Christ, who has given us to one another by the bond of fraternal love and who calls us to accept one another as his friends (cf. John 15:12-17). Our common life and ministry is sustained by the profound transforming grace of the Holy Spirit (cf. John 14:1517). The special calling of the Brotherhood as a distinct community is sustained by divine care and maintained by the group’s response to it. In prayer, and especially vis-à-vis the Eucharistic presence of Jesus Christ, we participate in the redemptive love of Jesus Christ and orient ourselves as a Brotherhood towards love of creation and our neighbors through the power of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the spirituality of the brothers gives a sacramental value to our lives and labor. The spirit of poverty, celibacy and obedience is rooted in simplicity and humility (cf. Luke 14:11).5 A simple and humble member of the Brotherhood will influence the lifestyle of other members and that of lay people, teaching them by his Christ-like example to cultivate love, compassion and hospitality (cf. Matt 5:7; 11:29; Rom 12:16).6 In the Brotherhood, Christian spirituality is a relationship of love and grace in Christ, expressed through prayer and service sustained by faith. When brothers 5

6

Simplicity and humility are already introduced at the ordination of sub-deacons, when the bishop asks God to: “… grant them humility, meekness and modesty and blow your Holy Spirit on them to become worthy day and night to contemplate on your sanctuary and commandments.” ԿԱՆՈՆ ՁԵՌՆԱԴՐՈՒԹԵԱՆ ԴՊՐԱՑ; 81.. Yovhannēs Erznkaci (1230-1276) puts Christian love at the core of the communitys life, and exposes the inter-connectedness of love and humility. He writes: “In your hearts inflamed by love, you are purified as temples of the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Cor 3:16) and become dwellings of the Only-Begotten Son of God (cf. John 14:2, 2:19-22). … Humility is the source of grace. The genuine humble person is neither saddened by insults nor delighted by praise; and he is not after glory” ԵՐԶՆԿԱՑԻ Յաղագս միաբանութէան, 459, 467.

66

Archbishop Nareg Alemezian

live in the sanctifying presence of Christ, they are called to take him to the world for the transformation of the world through their koinonia, kerygma and diakonia. The opening Article 1 of The Rule of the Brotherhood summarizes the responsive openness of the community to be gathered as disciples of Christ, to grow into a community and to care for others: The Brotherhood of the Holy See of Cilicia is composed of celibate clergymen, who are called to the service of God, the Armenian Church and people; who have vowed to live in a fraternal and communal manner, with Christian love and the spirit of obedience inspired by said Rule, and whose calling is to preach the Gospel of Christ and fulfill the spiritual and other needs of the Armenian nation, as well as the maintenance and development of Armenian culture, through their service to the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church.7 4. The Mission of the Brotherhood of the Holy See of Cilicia The mission of my Brotherhood is the same as that of the Holy See of Cilicia and invariably that of the Armenian Church, but with special attention to the needs of the Armenian people in the Diaspora. The Brotherhood carries out its mission in a variety of settings both at its headquarters in Lebanon and through the dioceses of the Holy See. To effectively fulfill their mission, brothers need proper formation, solid identity and clear sense of ministry. In the prayerful life led in Christ within the community of brothers and the Church at large, the Brotherhood seeks to enhance the image of God (cf. Gen 1:27) in people it serves. To serve God well, formation becomes the lifelong quest of the Brotherhood for transformation in Christ by the Holy Spirit (cf. 2 Cor 5:17). To know itself better, the Brotherhood develops a common sense of belonging to God and to each other, and cultivates a Christ-like identity of being and serving in obedience, following the example of Christ.8 To become a genuine disciple of Christ, the Brotherhood embraces the notion of missio Dei. To carry on God’s work in the world, the Brotherhood strives in the path of perfection (cf. Matt 5:48) and aspires to be more dependent upon grace (cf. Acts 4:33) as it faithfully responds to the ever-emerging expectations of its environment. Formation, identity and ministry as a religious vocation culminate in participation in God’s mission to the world. The Brotherhood carries out this task by proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ and administering the sacraments of the Church, and by becoming the prophetic voice of the Reign of 7 8

ՄԵԾԻ ՏԱՆՆ ԿԻԼԻԿԻՈՅ ԿԱՆՈՆԱԳՐՈՒԹԻՒՆ, 1. [Unpublished. Only for Brotherhood circulation]. St. Nersēs Šnorhali (1101-1173) considers Christ-likeness the most demanding undertaking in ones discipleship, and goes on to remark: “Willingly stripping oneself of everything for the sake of Christ is the most difficult of all [responses]. I do not say impossible!” ALJALIAN, Nersēs Shnorhali, 33.

The Brotherhood of the Holy See of Cilicia

67

God on earth — while continuing as a praying, liturgical community, sharing in the life of God. The Rule of the Brotherhood has 86 articles and is a facilitator for the spiritual formation to take place, the identity to be molded and the ministry to be followed. Through the Rule several charismas are brought together to equip the brothers to participate in the building up of the Armenian Church (cf. Eph 4:12) through their concerted efforts. The Rule is charismatic; it binds the brothers to Jesus and to his authority and service, and transforms their personal responsibilities to a communal ministry. The Rule is also disciplinary; it oversees the harmonious life and service and, when necessary, introduces corrective measures for the betterment of all. The Armenian Church is conscious of its primary call to be obedient to the imperatives of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It serves to praise God (cf. Eph 3:1621), to teach the Word of God (cf. 2 Tim 2:2; 2 Tim 3:16-17), to proclaim the salvation of God (cf. Rom 1:16) and the good news of the Reign of God (cf. Acts 8:12), and to build up the body of faith in love (cf. Eph 4:15-16) in the variety of the members of one body in Christ (cf. Rom 12:4-5). The Armenian Church does all this only to fulfill the one God-given mandate, which is to take Christ to the world. Having penetrated all aspects of Armenian life, the Christian faith has strongly impacted the course of Armenian history. The history of the Armenian people and that of their Church are identical. Armenian Church and nation, and religion and culture are inextricably intertwined and no line of demarcation could be drawn between them. Their intimate interaction is always strong. The Church is a symbol of national unity, holding together the Armenians scattered throughout the world. The good of the Church and the interest of the nation are always in harmony. Christian faith and Armenian national identity are thoroughly mixed together in the Armenian ethos. In the construction of Christian Armenian identity, this fusion sometimes leads to ethnocentrism and tempts some Armenians to put the nation above the Gospel. The Armenian Church is the church of the nation. All Armenians are integral elements in it. Christianity and ‘Armenian-ness’ bestow mutual sense of belonging to the nation and become one of its unique characteristics. The Church gives a corporate Christian identity to the nation and a new quality of life in God through the spiritual transformation of the Holy Spirit. Through the inculturation of Christianity the Church turns out to be the embodiment of all achievements and longings of the people by synthesizing the Christian faith and national culture, piety and patriotism.9 Loyal to its long-standing calling, the Armenian Church makes the Christ-event a living reality in the life of its people. The Brotherhood undertakes this noble task by simultaneously 9

For concrete historical examples, see TERIAN, Patriotism and Piety, 13-77 [especially the introduction].

68

Archbishop Nareg Alemezian

communicating the message of God and the teachings of the Armenian Church to strengthen the faith of the people in God and to attend to their spiritual and national needs.10 The Armenian Church is the rock of faith (cf. Matt 7:24; 16:18) and the courageous shepherd (cf. Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2) of its people in obedience to its role of conveying God’s love (cf. John 15:9-10; 1 John 4:7) and Christ’s peace (cf. John 14:27). The harmonious nation-building endeavors bear fruits when talents entrusted to the people are profitably invested in the Church (cf. Matt 25:14-30) for a Christocentric life. Armenians enjoy the democratic spirit of their Church by serving in its various administrative structures without discrimination of gender. Nowadays more youth and women secure their presence and involvement in the leadership of the Church and participate in its life, even though the ordained ministry is open to both male and female up to the diaconate only.11 Up to the 19th century the Armenian Church supervised the educational, literary, cultural, social and national demands of the nation. The pressing majority of educators, teachers and artists came from the rank of the clergy, and the national leadership of the people was entrusted to the clergy. Today, the Brotherhood 10

11

The following characteristic statement on the Christian and national role of the Armenian Church made by Patriarch Eghishē Tērtērean, during a conference on The Mission of the Armenian Church Today, organized in Jerusalem, in 1980, remains forever relevant: “The Armenian Church is a national church because of historical circumstances related to its birth and development. … Religious affection and national ideal have strengthened each other and became moral values sustaining our centuries-old history, from the very beginning of the first century AD. Ironically, this reality has been the weakness and the forte of our Church, which, as a two-edged sword, has wore off and sharpened our national life. … The Armenian Church has always been a unifying fiber both religiously and socially.” EGHISHĒ TĒRTĒREANS SPEECH, 51-52. Two hierarchs of the Armenian Church underline the fact that people are actively involved in the life of the Armenian Church. Patriarch Maghakia Ōrmanean writes: “Among the Armenians the clergy are not looked upon as absolute masters and owners of the Church. This Church, since its institution, has belonged as much to the faithful as to the ministers of worship. In virtue of this principle, and apart from sacramental acts, for the performance of which ordination is indispensable, nothing is done in ecclesiastical administration without the co-operation of the lay element.” ŌRMANEAN, Church of Armenia, 151. Catholicos Aram I in his on-line dialogue with the youth appeals for a participatory Church: “One of the characteristic features of our Church is the full participation of the people in the Churchs total life. Men and women, disabled and youth, people from all walks of life without any discrimination contribute, in one way or another and on a larger or smaller scale, to the witness of the Church. The Armenian Church is not strictly a clerical Church, it is open to the people. Laity takes an active part in almost all aspects of the Churchs life and mission, including decision-making structures and processes, and often with a determining voice. The people-based and people-oriented character of the Church must be further enhanced. However, the nature and the limits of the participation of laity in church matters and structures be clearly defined” (Catholicosate of Cilicia (ed) [Armenian Orthodox Church], ‚Youth, http://www.armenianorthodoxchurch.org/v08/index.htm).

The Brotherhood of the Holy See of Cilicia

69

continues its missionary engagement of Christian and Armenian formation and leadership under much more demanding conditions, especially with the growth of its dioceses and dispersion of its people. The Armenian Diaspora is not a homogenous entity anymore. The dense communities of the Middle East are replaced by the vast communities all over the globe. The constant mobility of the people and the danger of assimilation require the Church to be attractive enough to integrate the new generations of Armenians with the national values. These new circumstances oblige the Brotherhood to exert additional efforts to disseminate the gospel message and to forge a theologically resonant life of being Armenian faithful in Christ, the source of our salvation (cf. Ps 87:6; Heb 5:9). To be loyal to the Armenian Christian identity, the Brotherhood boldly meets the challenges of the Christian faithful to pursue a holistic ministry. In the globalized and secularized world the Brotherhood is called to cultivate active church-people relations and faith-culture interaction through the revitalization of its pastoral care, evangelical fervor and diaconal outreach to discern its prophetic role. Hence, the pursuit of human rights and dignity, peace and social justice, national determination and love of homeland, go together with the Christian ministry and national service of the Brotherhood in the Diaspora by presenting the Christian faith in a national context rather than preserving the national culture in a spiritual environment. a. Formation Each member of the Brotherhood has been through a long and complex process of personal formation in his Armenian family, school, and almost always, Sunday school. While in the Theological Seminary, the brothers have also gone through training in organizational formation for ordained ministry. The climax of this formation has been the consecration to God in the total self-giving to Christ by the empowerment of the Holy Spirit to fulfill the mission of God in the Armenian Church at the headquarters or in the wider ministry setting. The Armenian family is the main agent of communicating the culture to the next generations. Morally and spiritually healthy Armenian families are the foundation stones of the Armenian society and bring a crucial contribution to the formation of the future brothers.12 The Armenian school and the Sunday school play a pivotal role in the Armenian communities in communicating and 12

St. Nersēs Šnorhali urges Armenian parents to not ignore the Christian education of their children, because parental influence leaves an ingrained mark on them: “Furthermore, we give the following commandment to all believers in general, that you nourish your children in the fear of God, admonishing them during the days of their childhood to be God-loving, merciful, prayer-loving, and teach them the word of prayer and keep them from learning filthy words and swearing oaths; a parents influence becomes an indelible memory, taking firm root in the minds of children especially when they are young. For this you will receive the reward of your good deeds from the Lord.” ALJALIAN, Nersēs Shnorhali, 82.

70

Archbishop Nareg Alemezian

cultivating Christian values. The Brotherhood takes special care of a wellorganized network of Armenian schools and Sunday schools. The Armenian Church, school and Sunday school co-exist in Diaspora Armenian communities, and their formational mission is inter-connected. In short, the Armenian family, school and Sunday school are the extension of the Armenian Church. The Theological Seminary education and formation prepare the brothers for their future ministry and enable them to reach the fullness of their spiritual and intellectual potential as devoted and motivated clergy. Typically, the Theological Seminary is “the heart and the mind of the Church,” where members of the Brotherhood, candidates for married priesthood and lay leaders are equipped for their respective work. The Theological Seminary is a boarding school with junior and senior sections, where seminarians study for eight years and learn to live together in a healthy communal atmosphere under the supervision of their dean, assistant celibate priests and clergy and lay teachers, who become their principal mentors. Their spiritual, pastoral, pedagogical and parental role (cf. Gal 4:19; 1 Tim 1:2) enables the seminarians to apprehend what it means to be a Christian and to live the gospel message for the sake of God and one another. At the conclusion of the Theological Seminary studies, the sacrament of ordination transforms the monk, who puts off the old self and puts on the new (cf. Eph 4:24; Col 3:9-10) by receiving a new name and becoming a new creature in Jesus Christ. Now he is a Christ-centered servant of the Church for life, to contribute to the transformation of the society where he will be called to minister in his total self-giving to God and advancement in the Light and Life (cf. John 1:4; 8:12).13 After ordination many brothers continue their higher professional studies in various universities in Lebanon and abroad. The Brotherhood affirms its dedication to God in obedience and growing awareness of the “putting on Christ” (cf. Rom 13:14) and the reality of the sharing of spiritual gifts in the Church. One finds the gifts of the Spirit (cf. Isa 11:2; 1 Cor 12:4-11) in all its institutions, especially in the monastery whose life and mission he has come to adopt. The brothers live in a monastic world where discipline and freedom are constructed within a relational framework of the fatherhood of the superior – the head of the Church and the Brotherhood, the 13

Life commitment in the priesthood and the creation of a new man in the ordained brother are expressed in the prayers of the priestly ordination in the Armenian Church: “Christ God, hope of salvation and fortress of steadfastness, keep this your servant unshaken forever, who responded to your divine invitation of priesthood, to fulfill your will. Vest him with a robe of happiness and a garment of glory. Strengthen him with perfect abstinence. Make him to vigorously endeavor for good deeds. To be modest, prayerful, spotless, prudent, humble, meek and clean in heart to keep his priesthood pristine by leading a saintly life and remain pure in everything by your blessing and will…” and “God clothes you the new man created in the image of God to live in justice, sanctity and truth, and to obey the Church by embracing Gods love day and night.” See ԿԱՆՈՆ ՁԵՌՆԱԴՐՈՒԹԵԱՆ ՔԱՀԱՆԱՅԻ; 109-111, 155.

The Brotherhood of the Holy See of Cilicia

71

Catholicos14 – and the brotherhood of the monks, where their needs are met and their service is implemented by their observance of the Rule by which they govern their lives. The Rule continues to shape the formation of the Brotherhood by preserving it on its path of God-centeredness, utilizing the riches inherent in each of the spiritual gifts and setting criteria for mutual accountability in the fellowship of one common identity, exchange and sharing of responsibilities among the brothers in their unified mission. b. Identity In their monastic life brothers follow Christ by utilizing the charismas of the Holy Spirit as they do in their service to God for the benefit of the Armenian Church. Their participation in Christ’s life of prayer and service makes them coworkers of the new creation (cf. Gal 6:15) and tireless respondents to the divine invitation to discipleship. This spiritual commitment preserves the dignity and personal freedom of each monk and makes him sensitive to the needs of his brothers. Further, it builds up an invaluable shared identity in the community life of fraternal fellowship. The Brotherhood seeks to know what it means to be in Christ through its corporate relational identity, its community life shaped by the practice of the Christian faith for the nurture of its communal soul of prayer, discipleship, friendship and service.15 Such corporate identity helps replace the personal longings, needs and egos of each member of the Brotherhood and sets the solid foundation of unselfish, effective and flourishing communal service. The combined personal-communal identity helps in the “separation” from the world to encounter Christ and each other in a brotherhood fostered by Christian love for the spiritual enrichment and fulfillment of all within the community, for 14

15

The headship of the Catholicos is underlined in a prayer of the ordination and consecration of a Catholicos: “Lord, grant him a prudent heart to ardently keep all your commandments, to love you with all his might, heart and mind, to walk in the paths of righteousness in truthfulness, pure heart and sincere faith, and to be enriched by good deeds, according to your goodwill. May he remain firm and wholesome in his authority and rank in your presence and in the Universal and Apostolic Church founded and established on the rock of faith put by the apostles and prophets.” See ԿԱՆՈՆ ՁԵՌՐՆԱԴՐՈՒԹԵԱՆ ԵՒ ՕԾՄԱՆ ԿԱԹՈՂԻԿՈՍԻ; 39. St. Grigor Narekaci (950-1003), defines this communal soul in terms of the rational soul in the individual and the relational harmony in heaven: “When it [the rational soul] acts through the right intellect, it does not fail at all in its likeness to the heavenly beings. And each of its [three] parts has its peculiar virtue. The virtue of the intelligent part is discretion; the virtue of the tempered part is valor; and that of the desiring part is chastity. The work of discretion is to think and make choices between good and bad. The work of valor is to bravely and valiantly execute that which is chosen by discretion. And the work of chastity is to kindle in the love of God [that which is] in accordance with the choice and execution, thus making the antecedent ones stronger in their natural capabilities by the warmth of that love.” See ՆԱՐԵԿԱՑԻ, խրատ, 39.

72

Archbishop Nareg Alemezian

a joint mission led by collegial leadership, mutual obedience and sharing of gifts. This framework of candid friendship dissolves the human loneliness, disappointments and fragilities and dawns the brotherly life of communal prayer and service in a healthy community and joyful companionship of shared identity discovered by lectio divina, when the Gospel is followed, proclaimed and expressed in all life’s endeavors (cf. Phil 1:27). The reading of the Bible enables the brothers to grasp their life and ministry as a discipleship in the prayerful, obedient pursuit of knowing Christ and yearning for a Christ-centered perfection. Preaching the Gospel and serving God are inseparably evoked by the commitment of the Brotherhood for the realization of the Reign of God in their midst and the society at large through spoken words to the people of God by the grace of the Holy Spirit (cf. 2 Pet 1:21). The dedication of the brothers to God in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit at work within the Brotherhood is maintained pragmatically by the traditional monastic vows of poverty, celibacy and obedience. The vow of poverty for the sake of the Gospel –although loosely maintained– is the joyful confidence in God for sharing of his gifts in his Church and storing riches for the life to come (cf. Matt 5:3; John 10:10; 15:11; 1 Tim 6:17-19; Phil 4:4-5).16 The vow of celibacy (cf. Matt 19:12) is not simply bodily chastity and sexual rejection, but a full commitment to the formation of an ideal community where the mystery of purity of heart, intimate companionship, mutual care and unselfish service is expressed through Christian brotherly love.

16

Frieda Haddad highlights this in a brilliant definition of the vow of poverty: “The vow of poverty is not in fact about external poverty, it is not possessing anything. It is rather not being possessed by anything, be it money or other worldly belongings. It is being free from what is “mine”, being able to say the prayer of Jesus fully: that which is mine is yours and that which is yours is mine. It is recognizing that “the earth is the Lords and the fullness thereof: the world, and they that dwell therein” (Ps 24:1). It is being able really and truly to live the Eucharistic prayer which the church assembled offers at every Divine Liturgy right after the epiclesis: “Thine own, out of Thine own, we offer to Thee entirely and for all things.” … He who seeks to be “poor” in this sense understands the meaning of the self-emptying of God in the incarnation: “though he was rich, yet he became poor, that we through his poverty might be rich” (2 Cor 8:9). Therefore poverty is an emptying of oneself for others in the likeness of the Lord” See HADDAD, Orthodox Spirituality, 69. St. Nersēs Šnorhali advises the monks in the monasteries to follow obediently their vow of poverty: “Renounce completely everything you receive, whether plants or other things, as the sin of greed, as harmful plants from good seeds. Do your work not for the accumulation of possessions, but for the will of God. Lodge your earthly treasure in heaven and from physical labor accumulate treasure for your souls”. ALJALIAN. Nersēs Shnorhali, 31. Ełišē Vardapet (400-464), paraphrases Jobs nakedness (Jb 1.21) and contemplates: “I see almost all wallowed in worldly possessions. But will not my human nature reprimand me? I was created naked, I was placed naked in paradise, I was dispelled from there naked, I was born naked and I will depart from this earth naked.” ԵՂԻՇԷ Բան խրաոու, 162.

The Brotherhood of the Holy See of Cilicia

73

The vow of obedience is our surrender to God’s will (Ps 143:10) in love, patience, humility, freedom and joy (cf. 2 Cor 6:6; Prov 3:34; Phil 2:3; Gal 5:13; Ps 16:11; John 16:22) to cultivate in the brothers inner peace and serenity.17 Obedience is not a tiresome burden; it ensues from a longing felt in the hearts of the brothers. The bond of mutual obedience-in-love of all brothers frees them from egoism (cf. Matt 6:24-34), makes them die to themselves so that Christ may live in them (cf. Gal 2:20) and enables them to grow to full stature of Christ (cf. Eph 4:13). Obedience to God, community life, Rule, superior and brothers open up channels of communal dialogue, mutual understanding, spiritual vitality and fruitful service in the imitation of Christ, who said, “I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me” (John 6:38).18 Celibacy, poverty and obedience for the Reign of God are supplementary to the life of prayer, which is the cornerstone of the monastic life of the Brotherhood.19 Daily prayer hours and especially the offering of the Sunday Holy Eucharist invigorate the joy of human companionship and sense of community and confer the foretaste of the eschatological table of Christ by the outpouring of the Holy 17

18

19

The vow of obedience is underlined starting from the ordination of acolytes in the Armenian Church, when the bishop prays to God for the candidates and says: “Grant them your grace and keep them away from all perils, because out of their free lifestyle, which they had so far, they came to enter under the yoke of your service and received your grace. See ԿԱՆՈՆ ՁԵՌՆԱԴՐՈՒԹԵԱՆ ԴՊՐԱՑ; 15. In reprimanding certain monks of his day, St. Nersēs Šnorhali makes a brief but rather rich analysis of obedience and freedom: “They often respond with words of still graver foolishness to those who advise them against moving about aimlessly, saying that God created them free, and, since they have free will, they cannot see why they should place freedom in the service of mankind. If only they would put the freedom which God bestowed on them to good use, and remain free of sin! Evil and harmful service is servitude to sin, as Christ says: ‚Everyone who commits sin is a slave to si, (John 8:34). And the service to God and for the sake of God to the church, and for the church to the prior, is justice and not sin, as the Apostle affirms: ‚Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ (Eph 5:21); and Christ himself commands that ‚the greatest among you will be your servant (Matt 23:11)“. See ALJALIAN, Nersēs Shnorhali, 35-36. St. Grigor Tatewaci (1344-1409), reflecting on Matt 6:33, “But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness”, writes: “Some do not strive for the Reign of God, but shy away from it. Others strive for the Reign of God, but do not find it. Others strive for the Reign of God and find it, but do not maintain it. Others strive for the Reign of God, find it and maintain it. Thus, there are four kinds of people in the world. First, those who do not strive for the Reign of God, but shy away from it are those who during all their lives perform evil deeds. Second, those who strive for the Reign of God, but do not find it are those who pursue vainglory and please humans, and are lost in their chasing after glory. Third, those who strive for the Reign of God and find it, but do not maintain it are those who believe for a while and during trials give up, for the temporary life deprive themselves from the eternal life, for a short time enjoy in this world and suffer eternally in hell. Fourth, those who strive for the Reign of God, find it and maintain it are those who unite themselves in love with God, ignore the worldly pleasures and nothing can separate them from the love of Christ, as the apostle says” See ՏԱԹԵՒԱՑԻ Ձմեռան հատոր, 333-334.

74

Archbishop Nareg Alemezian

Spirit on the Brotherhood. In prayer and ministry the Brotherhood responds to the sacrifice of Christ and God’s invitation to become his children (cf. John 1:12) by the renewal of its calling to preach the Gospel and to distribute the body and blood of the Lord to his people. The eucharistic liturgy of the sacrificial offering of Christ is a celebration of praise, forgiveness, sacrifice and transformation as the brothers and the faithful are called to model the Trinitarian communion of love in the sanctification of the Holy Spirit and the inauguration of the eschatological community of the people of God. Obedient response to God by the brothers puts the self-giving authority of Christ at the center and transforms them to servants in constant renewal of the vows of celibate love, evangelical poverty and total obedience. The Brotherhood understands holiness as a divine calling (cf. Lev 11:45) that embodies the spirit of sacramentality in its life of faith, prayer and service, both to the Brotherhood and beyond. It is not only concerned with personal and communal sanctification, but also longs to seek the gracious face of God in the communion of saints in heaven – as it heeds the universal call to holiness within the Church.20 The Brotherhood considers the mystery of conversion in the caring presence of God and by the transforming power of the Holy Spirit as becoming the face of Christ in the world (cf. 2 Cor 4:6; Acts 3:14) for the furtherance of the Reign of God. Perpetual metanoia drives the brothers to remain a renewed community focused on Christ and sustained by mutual love, tolerance, forgiveness and acceptance of one another, to carry co-responsibilities for service in the Church and following Christ’s example of servant-leadership. The spirit of communal unity is characterized as communion of faith and love of God, because it exists for the realization of the love of Christ by putting aside the divergent ways of self-achievement and reaching the maturity of fraternal, unconditional acceptance of each other in self-giving love. A communal response to the love of Christ is conditioned by the authority of the superior and obedience of the brothers. The only final authority vests in Christ and all obedience is rendered to him harmoniously enhancing one another. In principle authority and obedience in the Brotherhood are practiced in conciliarity, which allows the brothers to contribute in the proper areas of ministry in consultation with community leadership. The authority of the superior and the obedience of the brothers to him and to one another are expressed in mutual love, trust, respect and accountability for the building up of 20

Vardan Arewelc'i (1200-1271), highlights the inter-connectedness of the Scriptures and holiness in the life of a priest: “The high rank of priesthood is based on two foundations: the knowledge of the Holy Bible and the holiness of the individual. If a candidate to the priesthood lacks one of these he is considered as a building without foundation, because if he has the knowledge of the Holy Bible and lacks in good works or vice-versa, he is not fit for the priesthood.” ԱՐԵՒԵԼՑԻ Յաղագս քականայութեան, 343.

The Brotherhood of the Holy See of Cilicia

75

the Brotherhood. The participation of all in the decision-making process compliments authority and obedience, and guarantees the unity of vision and the positive impact of the ministry. The virtue of communal obedience is the Christian structure of power in the form of self-sacrifice of bearing our cross (cf. Matt 16:24) based on the example of Christ’s obedience to the death on the cross (cf. Phil 2:8). Christian authority is a gift of service and a sign of unity for the common good of the brothers. It builds up the Brotherhood in love and justice by securing clear direction, open dialogue, fair understanding, active participation, shared responsibility and communal decision-making for the availability of the brothers to the service of God. The superior exercises his authority in response to the mutual obedient love, respect, trust, loyalty and support of the brothers. In following Christ on a daily sacrificial basis, brothers filially obey the superior who represents him, and in obedience to one another they seek their affinity with God and union with Christ in the fellowship of their community life and ministry. c. Ministry The ministry of the Brotherhood is spelled out in the opening lines of Article 1 of the Rule cited above, which sets the tone of its witness and mission. Today, fifty-three celibate clergymen (one Catholicos, twenty bishops and thirty-two priests21) form the Brotherhood and serve in cross-cultural contexts at the headquarters and in its dioceses. In rendering their service the brothers rely on God, who is the raison d’être of their faith and existence, the owner of their mission, the inspiration of their ministry and the fulfiller of their vision. Brothers keep Christ at the center of their lives, listen to the Word of God, live the gospel message and make the preaching of the Gospel of the Reign of God to the Armenian people (cf. Mal 2:7) their number one task through their corporate obedient fellowship in the Holy Spirit. The Brotherhood is called to draw the Armenian people to the Reign of God (cf. Rom 14:17) and to the gospel of their salvation in Christ (cf. Eph 1:13), helping them become the temple of the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Cor 6:19). The holistic sacred ministry of the brothers goes beyond the spiritual transformation of the people and it extends to the daily material needs of the faithful, as the diaconal mission of the Church. The Brotherhood has an evangelical obligation of solidarity with the marginalized and the underprivileged (cf. Matt 25:34-36; Luke 1:53; Luke 6:37; Rom 12:20; 1 Tim 6:17-19).22 21 22

The ordained clergy has more intermediary ranks in the Armenian Church (e.g. archbishop), but I am avoiding those details for the sake of more clarity. For St. Nersēs Šnorhali prayer and diakonia go together as feeding the soul and the body: “Since the body is secondary to the soul, it is necessary first to take care of the souls nourishment which is prayer and good works and then the nourishment of the physical body. For the master first eats the food prepared and served by the servants, the servants then eat

76

Archbishop Nareg Alemezian

The maintenance and development of the Armenian culture covers the educational, intellectual and cultural mission of the Brotherhood. Historically, Christian and national formation go hand in hand for the Armenian people,23 thus enabling the Brotherhood to dwell on both, simultaneously. The Brotherhood is not a self-contained entity, but rather exists to serve God through the Armenian people in obedience to the calling of the Armenian Church and for the transformation of the society at large. Some members of the Brotherhood live and work at the headquarters and the nearby theological seminary, assisted by almost forty lay employees. 24 The rest are in diocesan service. According to the Rule, at the headquarters a brother is expected to diligently fulfill one of the following responsibilities: of grand sacristan; choirmaster; Theological Seminary dean; librarian; museum director; publications director; printing house director; ‘Hask’ official periodical editor; bookstore director; chief steward; pantry chief; hospitality director; and property manager. Brothers live their corporate spiritual, intellectual and communal lives envisaged in the Rule only at the headquarters, because in the dioceses and parishes they mostly reside alone. Common denominators of the ministry of the Brotherhood are belonging to the Armenian Church, sharing the same Christian faith and Armenian culture, and serving Armenians in the Diaspora created after the 1915 Genocide. In 1045, after the fall of the Armenian Kingdom of Bagradits, masses of Armenians migrated to Cilicia and the headquarters of the Church settled there.25 During the First World War Turks perpetrated the first Genocide of the 20th century and massacred one million five hundred thousand Armenians. In 1921, when the French forces evacuated Cilicia, a second wave of massacres ordered by Kemalist Turkey took the lives of another 300,000 Armenians. The rest of the Armenians were forced to leave their homeland and found refuge mostly in Syria and Lebanon. The headquarters in Cilicia was also confiscated

23 24

25

from the scraps of the master. Since in us the body is the servant, the soul is the master, and the will of the mind is the judge, it is right for the judge to keep the other two in order: first, to feed the soul with spiritual food, through service of the body, and then to care for the body, by the wisdom and stewardship of the soul. So in these and similar good works, you should be demanding of your brotherhood” ALJALIAN, Nersēs Shnorhali, 42. See TERIAN, Patriotism and Piety, 13-40. The Benedictines underline the special place of their employees: “Among our many partners in ministry the men and women who earn their living by working for the Society have a special place. We could not fulfill the mission to which God calls us without the contribution of their many skills which complement our own.” Rule of Society St. John the Evangelist, 70. The continuous upheavals in Armenia forced the kingdom to move to safer places. The Armenian Church center moved as well to different locations together with the political authority. Thus, in 485 the Catholicosate was transferred to Dvin, then to Joravank and Ałtamar (927), Argina (947) and Ani (992). In 1045, after the fall of the Armenian Kingdom of Bagradits, masses of Armenians migrated to Cilicia and the Catholicosate settled there. It was first established in Tavblur (1062), then Čamendav (1072), Covk (1116), Hr̥omkla (1149) and Sis (1293), where it remained for seven centuries.

The Brotherhood of the Holy See of Cilicia

77

and ruined by the Turks. Catholicos Sahak II followed the exile of his flock and in 1930 he established the headquarters of Cilicia and its Brotherhood in Antelias. The Holy See of Cilicia became the leading force in the worldwide Armenian Diaspora through its network of dioceses. Catholicoi Sahak II (1902-1939), Babgēn I (1930-1936), Petros I (1940), Garegin I (1943-1952), Zareh I (19561963), Xoren I (1963-1983) and Garegin II (1977-1995) occupied the throne of the Holy See in Antelias. The current Catholicos is His Holiness Aram I, who was elected and consecrated in 1995. The Brotherhood considers Catholicoi Sahak II and Babgēn I the founders of the revived Catholicosate in Lebanon. The succeeding Catholicoi safeguarded their inspiring vision and sacred legacy, and inspired the Brotherhood to continue serving God and his people with an ever-renewed vigor and onwardlooking commitment. Catholicos Sahak II was the linkage of centuries-old historical Holy See of Cilicia and its Brotherhood. Although the headquarters and its Brotherhood have been in Lebanon for over eighty years, they long for their homeland and strive for their return to the historic headquarters. Conclusion Today Armenians live in a new world context dominated by the features of globalization, secularization and pluralism. Speedy technological progress is significantly impinging on our lifestyles, insights, norms and values. The Armenian Diaspora exists between the continuous and emergent intergenerational tension of assimilation and integration. Most Armenians in the Diaspora find their homeland, culture, corporate identity and spiritual longings in their Church. Overcoming the dichotomy between ancient/Armenian and new/local identities, and adoption of an integrationist approach to diverse traditions, beliefs, practices and values in the Armenian Diaspora, the Armenian Church has the paramount task of securing a sense of dignified attachment and belonging to both the nation and the host countries.26 The Armenian Church has to co-create a coherent Armeno-local environment and maintain a careful balancing. The Armenian Church remains the protector of cultural and national values, but is called not to abandon its foremost calling of being the messenger of the gospel message. With its active involvement in the daily life of the Armenian people, the Brotherhood is the herald and the architect of affirmation and commitment of both national and local identities.

26

In 1890, Catholicos Mkrtič‘ I, in his encyclical addressed to the Armenians in the United States of America, picks up this issue: “Live with each other in peace and in love, so that you may preserve your existence in a foreign land where many languages are spoken. Let your honest way of life and your civilized demeanor gain respect for you in the eyes of the nonArmenians. Give no one cause to trouble or hate you.” History of the Western Diocese, 150.

Archbishop Nareg Alemezian

78

The deeper lesson of the 1915 Genocide for the Armenians is a Christian conscious response to this tragic experience and its aftermath. It has been over 95 years and still the primary concern for the Armenian Church is the physical well-being and political survival of the nation. It is important for the Brotherhood to embark on the renewed ministry of providing the daily spiritual bread to the Armenians and make the Reign of God a tangible life-giving presence in the post-Genocide Armenian community of faith. Young Armenians especially are looking for formation, reflection and action in the Christian life of discipleship, witness and service. Only the Church can train them to truly be the faithful servants of God, who raises the dead and gathers back his people (cf. Ps 106:47; Ps 126:4-6; Ezek 37:12-14). Armenians look to their Church for the realization of their salvation and the Brotherhood has to respond in the spirit of the Apostles: “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” (Acts 16:31). I conclude by the wisdom of Yovhannēs Gar̥nec‘i (1180-1245) as an inspiration for my Brotherhood to be able to face the many emerging challenges: “The foundation of all virtues is humility, the anchor is love, the pillar is hope, the mighty tower is faith and the culmination of all goodness is compassion, without which no one is able to see the Lord.”27 Bibliography ALJALIAN, A. (ed.), St.Nersēs Shnorhali, General Epistle, trans. and intro. New Rochelle 1996. Armenian Apostolic Church of America, The Rituals of the Armenian Apostolic Church. New York 1992. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem(ed), Eghishē Tērtērean’s speech, in: Sion 54/ no.710, Jerusalem 1980. ԾՈՎԱԿԱՆ, Ն., Սուրբ հորն Յովաննէսի Գառնեցոյ խրատ կրոնաւորաց, in Sion,11-12, Jerusalem 1953. Covakan, N., Surb Horn Yovannēsi Gar̥nec‘oy xrat Kronaworac‘, in: Sion no.11-12, Erusałem 1953. [Counsel by the Holy Father Yovannēs Gar̥nec’i to Monastics] ԵՂԻՇԷ Վարդապետ, Բան խրատու յաղագս միանձանց, Վենետիկ 1859. EŁIŠĒ, VARDAPET, Ban xratu yałags Mianjanc‘ Venetik 1859. [Advice to Hermits]. ԵՐԶՆԿԱՑԻ, ՅՈՎՀԱՆՆԷՍ, Յաղագս միսնսնութեան եղբարցս, in Theological Journal 6, Gandzasar 1996. Erzĕnkac‘i, Yovhannēs, Yałags Miabanut‘ean Ełbarc’s, in: Theological Journal 6, Gandzasar 1996. [On the Unity of Brothers] ԳՐԻԳՈՐ ՆԱՐԵԿԱՑԻ Խրատ ուղիղ հաւատքի եւ առաքինի մաքուր վարքի, Անթելիաս 2002. Grigor Narekac‘i, Xrat Ułił Hawatk‘i ew Ar̥ak‘ini Mak‘ur Vark‘i, Antelias 2002. [Advice on Orthodox Faith and Virtuous Conduct]. ԳՐԻԳՈՐ ՏԱԹԵՒԱՑԻ, Ձմեռան հատոր, Երուսաղեմ 1998.Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i, Jmer̥an Hator, Yerusałem 1998. [Winter Volume of Sermons] FINDIKYAN, D., The Divine Liturgy of the Armenian Church, New York 2000. 27

ԾՈՎԱԿԱՆ Գառնեցոյ խրատ, 319.

The Brotherhood of the Holy See of Cilicia

79

HADDAD, F.,‘Orthodox Spirituality: The Monastic Life, in: The Ecumenical Review 38/ no.1, Hoboken 1986. International Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches (ed), Nature, Constitution and Mission of the Church, Paragraph I.6/ January 29, Rome 2009 [Interim Unpublished Document]. ԿԱՆՈՆ ՁԵՌՆԱԴՐՈԹԵԱՆ ԴՊՐԱՑ, ԿԻՍԱՐԱԿԱՒԱԳԱՑ, ՍԱՐԿԱՒԱԳԱՑ, Անթիլիաս 2006. Kanon Jer̥nadrut‘ean Dprac‘, Kisasarkawagac‘, Sarkawagac‘, Ant‘ilias 2006. [The Canon of the Ordination of Acolytes, Sub-deacons and Deacons]. ԿԱՆՈՆ ՁԵՌՆԱԴՐՈԹԵԱՆ ՔԱՀԱՆԱՅԻ, Անթիլիաս 2003. Kanon Jer̥nadrut‘ean K‘ahanayi, Ant’ilias 2003. [The Canon of the Ordination of a Priest]. ԿԱՆՈՆ ՁԵՌՆԱԴՐՈԹԵԱՆ ԵՒ ՕԾՄԱՆ ԿԱԹՈՂԻԿՈՍԻ, Անթիլիաս 1995. Kanon Jer̥nadrut‘ean ew Ōcman Kat‘ołkosi, Ant’ilias 1995. [The Canon of the Ordination and Consecration of a Catholicos]. ՄԵԾԻ ՏԱՆՆ ԿԻԼԻԿԻԿՈՅ ԿԱԹՈՂԻԿՈՍՈՒԹԵԱՆ ՄԻԱԲԱՆՈՒԹԵԱՆ ԿԱՆՈՆԱԳՐՈՒԹԻՒՆ, Անթելիաս 2007. Meci Tann Kilikioy Kat‘ołikosut‘ean Miabanut‘ean Kanonagrut‘iwn, Antelias 2007. [The Rule of the Brotherhood of the Catholicosate of Cilicia]. [cave: Unpublished. Only for Brotherhood circulation]. Youth’, http://www.armenianorthodoxchurch.org/v08/index.htm. ŌRMANEAN Maghakia, The Church of Armenia, New York 1988. Society of St. John the Evangelist, The Rule of the Society of St. John the Evangelist, Cambridge/MA 1997. St. Nersess Armenian Seminary (ed.), Theological Treasures of the Armenian Church, in: http://www.stnersess.edu/classroom/resources/sharagans/index.php. ՎԱՐԴԱՆ ԱՐԵՒԵԼՑԻ, յաղագս քահանայութեան, in: Մեծ Մաշտոց, ՊՈԼԻՍ 1807. Vardan Arewelc‘i, Yałags K‘ahanayut‘ean, in: Mec Maštoc‘, Polis 1807. [On Priesthood] Western Diocese of the Armenian Church (ed), History of the Western Diocese 80 Years of Service, Burbank 2008. Further Reading TERIAN, A., Patriotism and Piety in Armenian Christianity, Crestwood 2005.

Holy See of Cilicia, Antelias (Lebanon)

THE BROTHERHOOD OF THE STS. JAMES MONASTERY AND THE SYMBOLISM OF ARMENIAN JERUSALEM Roberta ERVINE New Rochelle, NJ / USA

1. Introduction The Armenian presence in the Holy Land has been one of the most stable elements in the whole of Armenian history and culture. Tracing their community’s origins back to the fifth century if not earlier,1 the Armenians of Jerusalem belong to the oldest continuously functioning Armenian entity outside the Armenian homeland. Its size has fluctuated across the centuries, but to all intents and purposes the Jerusalem Armenian presence has always been there, and its influence cuts across all the confessional lines and political boundaries that at various times have divided sectors of the Armenian people from one another.2 Armenians in Jerusalem have survived the 1

2

In the Letter on the Holy Places written by Jerome’s disciples Paula and Eustochium to Marcella (386) Armenians are mentioned among those present in the Holy Land, but it is not clear from the context whether as residents, pilgrims, or some combination. On connections between the Armenian Quarter and the Roman forces stationed in Jerusalem see WILSON, C.W. Golgotha and the Holy Sepulchre, London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1906, 142-148 (https://archive.org/details/golgothaandholy00wilsgoog); idem, The Camp of the Tenth Legion at Jerusalem and the City of Acha, in: Palestine Exploration Quarterly 27 (1905)., 138-144. For a differing view see GEVA, H., The Camp of the Tenth Legion in Jerusalem: An Archaeological Reconsideration, in: Israel Exploration Journal 34 (1984), 239-254. Also TUSHINGHAM A.D. et al, Excavations in Jerusalem 1961-1967 Vol. 1 Excavations in the Armenian Garden on the Western Hill, Toronto1985, and GIBSON, S.,The 1961-1967 Excavations in the Armenian Garden, in: PEQ 119.2 (1987), 81-96. For information on Armenians in the Holy Land institutions of Mar Saba, St. Euthymius, and St. Theodosius, see Cyril of Scythopolis, Lives of the Monks of Palestine 1991. (hereafter, LIVES OF THE MONKS OF PALESTINE). On Armenians at the monastery of St. John Choziba see ԱՂԱՒՆՈՒՆԻ, Հայոց հին վանքերն ու եկեղեցիները, 369-375 (hereafter, ANCIENT ARMENIAN MONASTERIES). The earliest monks at Mar Saba were Armenian according to GAGOSHIDZE, G., Georgian Churches Dedicated to St. Sabas the Purified, in: PATRICH, Sabaite Heritage, 363. PATRICH, Sabas 46 states that Armenians comprised the second largest ethnic group at the monastery. Ironically, in the early 17 th century Serbian monks attempted to sell Mar Saba to the Armenians, although the Greek Patriarchate intervened to stop the sale. See THOMAS J., CONSTANTINIDES A. (eds.), Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents: A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders’ Typika and Testaments 5 vols., 2000, 1312. On Armenian monks at St. Theodosius see PATRICH, Sabas, 178.

82

Roberta Ervine

comings and goings of diverse regimes, from the Roman and Byzantine Empires through the Crusader kingdom and the Ottoman Empire to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the state of Israel. Threatened with extinction time and time again, the community has manifested a longevity that is nothing short of miraculous. The history of Armenians in Jerusalem is not only long but complex. It is the combined history of three interrelated groups: 1) the brotherhood of the Monastery of the Sts. James 2) the permanent lay community residing primarily in the vicinity of the monastery and 3) the transient population of Armenian pilgrims. The Monastery of the Sts. James is the center of all Jerusalem Armenian life. The Monastery, its head and its brotherhood serve and interact with the other sectors of the population. As the seat of an autocephalous patriarchate, the Armenian Monastery of the Sts. James is one of the four independent administrative units governing the Armenian Church at the present time.3 Its official status as a patriarchate dates to 1311, when the Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt ruled the area.4 However, its head had been a functioning patriarch much longer than that. Indeed, the monastery recognizes the 7th century bishop Abraham as the first patriarch.5 In certain periods the religious community of the Sts. James included significant numbers of lay brothers and nuns as well as monks. 6 Whatever its composition, however, the monastic brotherhood traces its origins to a religious community of unspecified size and composition founded in the mid-fifth century.7 The 3

4

5

6

7

The others are the Catholicosate of Ēĵmiacin, the Great House of Cilicia, and the Patriarchate of Istanbul. The number of administrative centers has differed at various time, in response to specific situational needs. On events surrounding this recognition see MUTAFIAN, C., Prélats et souverains arméniens à Jérusalem à l’époque des croisades: légendes et certitudes (XIIe–XVe siècle) in: Studia Orientalia Christiana Collectanea 37 (2004): 109-151 and LAPORTA, S., The Armenian Episcopacy in Mamluke Jerusalem in the Aftermath of the Council of Sis (1307), in: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 17 (2007), 91-114. The first name listed by Maghakia Ormanean in his Ազգապատում, Antelias: 2001-2005, III.iii, addendum 47-48 (hereafter, Ազգապատում) is that of Abraham (638-669). As Ormanean, himself a patriarch of Istanbul (1896-1908) and special envoy to Jerusalem (19141917) points out, the history of Jerusalem’s Armenian bishops from the 7th to the 12th century stands in need of further research and verification. On the Armenian nuns of Jerusalem, see ERVINE, R., Women Who Left the World: The Armenian Nuns of Jerusalem, in HUMMEL,T., Hintlian, CARMESUND, U. (eds.), Patterns of the Past, Prospects for the Future: The Christian Heritage in the Holy Land, London 1999, 124134 (Hereafter, Patterns of the Past) and ERVINE, R., Children in Zion. Faithful Armenian Women and Jerusalem, Modern Greek Studies Yearbook. ԱՂԱՒՆՈՒՆԻ Միաբանք 1929. (Hereafter, Members of the Brotherhood). According to the Life of St. Euthymius, in 444 a Roman noblewoman named Bassa founded “the martyrium of St. Menas”, now incorporated into the north wall of the Sts. James Cathedral (Lives of the Monks of Palestine, 46 [49.20]). PRINGLE, The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, vol. 3169 states that Bassa founded a house for women in the

The Brotherhood of the Sts. James Monastery Jerusalem

83

Armenian brotherhood has been and remains at the center of the Armenian Holy Land.8 Its responsibilities encompass the oversight of community affairs both within and outside the monastic compound, including property management, pilgrimage, and guardianship of the Armenian faith tradition and identity. The monastic authority oversees the remnants of what were once larger Armenian communities in Jaffa, Ramla, Bethlehem, Beit Hanina and Ramallah, Nazareth, Haifa, Acre, and until recently, Gaza (as well as Amman, in Jordan).9 In addition, the monks have traditionally borne responsibility for a rigorous schedule of liturgical observance at all of the holy sites where Armenians have rights to worship, including both the universal Christian sites and the specifically Armenian shrines (including St. Grigor the Illuminator in Jerusalem, St. John the Forerunner at the Jordan River).10 Each of these places, as well as many no longer in the Patriarchate’s control, is worthy of a volume in itself.11

8

9

10

11

vicinity of the martyrium. Pringle appears to subscribe to the erroneous notion that the Chapel of St. Menas was built by Georgians in the late 11th or early 12th century, though the chapel clearly belongs to the earliest period of the church’s construction (as Pringle himself states on 172). In the days of Ottoman rule the Armenian communities in Jordan, Egypt, southern Lebanon and Syria also constituted part of the “Holy Land” and were under the Patriarchate’s jurisdiction, though they are now outside the boundaries of Israel/Palestine. The communities in Jordan still fall within the Jerusalem Patriarchate’s purview today. Those in Egypt have been outside its jurisdiction since 1839, whilst Damascus, Lattakieh and Beirut remained subject to the Patriarchate until 1929. At least one family whose matriarch migrated to Jerusalem from Gaza still remains resident in the Sts. James compound. For succinct information on the Armenian Holy Archangels Monastery in Gaza see ANCIENT ARMENIAN MONASTERIES, 403-412. Over and above their liturgical responsibilities, members of the Sts. James Brotherhood also have used their talents in other fields to enhance the monastery’s life. At various times in its history, the brotherhood had among its ranks gifted scribes and copyists, painters and builders. The 17th century female scribe Mariam, a protégée of Catholicos Nahapet (1691-1705), also worked in Jerusalem for a time. See MENESHIAN, Women Deacons. See also here DUMTRAGUT, J., Diakonninnen in der Armenisch-Apostolischen Kirche, in: WINKLER, D.W. (ed.), Diakonat der Frau. Befunde aus biblischer, patristischer, ostkirchlicher, liturgischer und systematisch-theologischer Perspektive, Berlin, Wien 20132, 71-88. The shrines that fall within the Patriarchate’s purview have changed over the centuries. For an early medieval list see the text of ԱՆԱՍՏԱՍ Վասն վանորէից and the differing opinions on its reliability: SANJIAN, A. K., Anastas Vardapet’s List of Armenian Monasteries in the Seventh Century Jerusalem: A Critical Examination, in: Le Muséon 82 [1969], 265-292; DER NERSESSIAN, S., L’Art arménien, Paris: 1977, 54. THOMSON, Bibliography 100; GARSOÏAN, Témoignage d’Anastas 257-267 and A. TERIAN, “Re-reading the Sixth-Century List of Monasteries by Anastas Vardapet,” (forthcoming). Whatever the list’s reliability, its entries were symbolic of the concern Armenian noble houses felt for the upkeep of their faith presence in the Holy Land, a concern which later caused them to buy back a number of their lost properties from the Emperor. The same concern is mirrored in subsequent updatings of Anastas’ list, of which the most recent was produced by Bishop Astvacatur Tēr Hovhannēseanc‘, ՀՈՎՀԱՆՆԷՍԷԱՆՑ Ժամանակագրական Պատմութիւն Ս.

Roberta Ervine

84

2. The monastery and the Armenian lay community The lay community that resides in the immediate vicinity of the Monastery of the Sts. James comprises three distinct segments. Each segment entered the Holy Land at a different time. Jerusalemite identity is particularly strong among the sector of the Armenian lay community that refers to itself as the k‘ałak’ac’is (literally, the “citizens” or “city dwellers”).12 As the oldest of the three community groups, the details of the k‘ałak‘ac‘is Holy Land roots lie shrouded somewhere in the mists of the Crusader kingdom.13 In modern times they are a highly indigenized, comfortably bicultural and exceptionally cohesive group. Arabic is their primary language, although they also speak a unique dialect of West Armenian.14 The k‘ałak‘ac‘is have tended to marry among themselves, and the interrelationships of their clans are complex. The Holy Archangels church within the compound of the Sts. James Monastery serves as their parish church and maintains their records of births, marriages and deaths. They have their own social organizations and their own prerogatives within the greater community. For example, on Holy Saturday the honor of carrying the Holy Fire from the Edicule to the Armenian patriarch waiting in the balcony of the Holy Sepulchre rotunda is traditionally given to a member of this community. Very little is known about the size of the Holy Land’s Armenian k‘ałak‘ac‘i population over the course of its history. However, a new and numerous segment was added to the lay community in the early twentieth century, as a swelling tide of refugees flooded into the Holy Land following the events of the Genocide, raising the number of Jerusalem’s Armenians to some 20,000 souls.15

12 13

14

15

Երուսաղէմի vol. I, 11. To the historian bishop, Anastas’ list was a living document and he treated it accordingly, making no effort to distinguish between the original text and his own comments on it. See TERIAN, Armenian Community 218-219. The k‘ałak‘ac‘is themselves often speak of much earlier origins for their community. While they retain a strong sense of their special identity and a large body of oral traditions, their history has yet to be studied in any depth. See a preliminary study of the dialect by Bert VAUX, The Armenian Dialects of Jerusalem, in M. E. STONE, R. R. ERVINE and N. STONE (eds.), The Armenians in Jerusalem and the Holy Land Leuven, 2002, 231-254. (Hereafter, Armenians in Jerusalem) Another survey was conducted in 2001 by Theo Maarten Van Lint; the unpublished report available online at http://www.hum.huji.ac.il/~armenia/pdf/Report_Theo_Maarten_van_Lint_2001.pdf. The last investigations were taken by Dum-Tragut between 2008-2011, still in progress. Cf. DUMTRAGUT, J., Die Armenier in Jerusalem", in: Europa Ethnica 2011, 3-4, 2, 115-120 and DUMTRAGUT, J.: Hinter den Mauern des Armenischen Viertels – Jerusalemer Armenisch?, in: Chilufim, Salzburg 2017, 129-156. On Jerusalem Armenians in the early 20th century see DER MATOSSIAN, B., The Armenians of Palestine 1918-48 (2011). http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/historyfacpub/121.

The Brotherhood of the Sts. James Monastery Jerusalem

85

Frictions inevitably arose during the absorption of this massive and diverse refugee population. In recent years, there has been a gradual draining away of its descendants as a result of political and economic pressures arising from the establishment of the state of Israel and the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Armenian communities in Israel/Palestine were cut off from their compatriots in Lebanon and Jordan (formerly sources of large pilgrimage income, as well as other types of support), creating economic, demographic and emotional upheaval within the lay community.16 As the Genocide-era lay community has ebbed away, the size of the lay community has once been increased by a modest flow of Armenians from the former Soviet Union. How the new tensions created by this latest influx will be resolved is a vital issue for the Armenians of the Holy Land in the twenty-first century.17 3. Armenian pilgrims and the Monastery The monastic brotherhood also provides for and to some extent depends on pilgrim groups.18Jerusalem is a place to which Armenians, like other Christians, flock from all parts of the world, drawn by what one can only describe as the city’s spiritual magnetism. They remain for widely varying periods of time. 19 There has been a continuous flow of Armenian pilgrim traffic from at least the 16

17

18

19

On this time period see EORDEGIAN, M., The Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem and the State of Israel, (1948-1967), Jerusalem 2007. Those pressures have increased with the blockage of traffic to and from the West Bank, causing many Holy Land Armenians to seek a new life elsewhere. It is a tension which affects the clergy community as well as the laity, since the student body of the Alex and Marie Manoogian Seminary, from which the monastery’s clergy most often arise, is now almost entirely composed of youths from the former Soviet Union rather than from Lebanon and Syria as was the case previously. The Armenians residing outside the Holy City but within the Holy Lands might be considered another sub-group within the larger lay community. As mentioned above, there still exist longstanding Armenian communities in Israel (Jaffa, Ramla, Haifa, Nazareth, Acre), the West Bank (Bethlehem, Beit Hanina/Ramallah) and Jordan. Some came into existence to support the pilgrimage experience of Armenians in the Holy Land. Jaffa’s Monastery of St. Nicholas was the primary landing point for Armenian pilgrims arriving by sea, while the Monastery of St. George in Ramla was a major stopping point on those pilgrims’ journey up to Jerusalem. For pilgrims making the pilgrimage overland, Nazareth was an important stop. Pilgrim records from the 18th century show that some individuals came by sea with the large group pilgrimages organized out of Istanbul, and remained in the Holy Land for a period of half a year. Others came for shorter periods, travelling overland. See R. ERVINE, “Changes in Armenian Pilgrim Attitudes between 1600 and 1857: The Witness of Three Documents,” in Armenians in Jerusalem, 81-94. Still others came and remained, joining the Holy Land community as lay brothers, nuns, or clergy. A few married into the Armenian lay community. The seventeenth century pilgrim Simeon Lehac‘i came as part of an extended pilgrimage to holy sites (1608-1619); reaching Jerusalem in 1616, he was induced to remain for a number of months as secretary to the Patriarch of the day, Grigor Parontēr.

86

Roberta Ervine

fourth century onwards, sometimes sparse but at other moments very heavy indeed.20 This flow of pilgrims has affected the history of each individual Armenian shrine. A huge, largely untapped reservoir of inscriptions and of passing references to Jerusalem and Jerusalem pilgrims in colophons still begs to be investigated.21 Indeed, a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, or a period of residence there, was a kind of hagiographical sine qua non for the Lives of holy figures. Even as late as the 18th century the imprint of St. Grigor the Illuminator’s fingers was shown on a stone in the north wall of the Edicule housing the Tomb of Christ in the Holy Sepulchre Church22, and medieval tradition linked him with the acquisition of holy sites by the Armenians.23 Not illogically, it also connected King Trdat with the original construction of shrines; for a client Christian king to have taken part in the new, Christian imperial building program at the major sites of Christian pilgrimage seemed both plausible and appropriate, though there are no specific written or physical records confirming that he did so.24 St. Hr̥ip‘simē and St. 20

21

22 23

24

According to Cyril of Scythopolis, the holy Euthymius, father of Palestinian cenobitic life was himself an Armenian from Melitene. In 428 he was visited by a group of 400 Armenians en route from Jerusalem to the Jordan River. The Lives of the Monks of Palestine, 22-23. The oldest Armenian inscriptions in the Holy Land, found in Nazareth, date to the first half of the fifth century as well. They include the names of the Armenian pilgrims Anania and Babkēn who visited not only Nazareth but Sinai, leaving their names in both places. STONE, Armenian Inscriptions 315-322. For later inscriptions see STONE, Further Armenian Inscriptions 321-337. On early Armenian pilgrimage see STONE, Armenian Pilgrim in the Early Byzantine Era 173178 and STONE, Pilgrimage before the Arab Conquest 93-109. One of the best compendia for details on pilgrims who came to Jerusalem and either made significant gifts to the holy places or decided to stay in the Holy Land is still Members of the Brotherhood. Building on the work done by Patriarch Mesrop Nšanian, Michael E. STONE has been the major collector of Armenian inscriptions in the Holy Land. His series “Epigraphica Hierosolymitana” in the Revue des Études arméniennes and his volume The Armenian Inscriptions from the Sinai (Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies 6), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982 are the most serious attempts so far to bring together and contextualize a significant body of the Jerusalem inscriptions. The recent publication of a trove of inscriptions from ritual objects in the Sts. James Cathedral by its long-time sacristan Very Rev. Fr. Parseł KALEMDARIAN (private publication, Jerusalem 2014) is a welcome addition to the body of material. HORN, Iconographiae Monumentorum 42 and Plate II, where the exact location of the imprints is indicated. ԳԱՆՁԱԿԵՑԻ, Պատմութիւն Հայոց 6-7 says that Grigor acquired Golgotha, St. James, and a place to celebrate the divine liturgy adjacent to the Holy Resurrection / Anastasis. (hereafter, Kirakos). Kirakos‘s contemporary Vardan Arewelc‘i lists the places Grigor acquired as the Manger, Golgotha, the convent of St. John the Forerunner, and that of the Sts. James. See also Ներբողեան երիցս երանեալ Պարթեւն Գրիգորիոս Լուսաւորիչ Հայաստան աշխարհիս, Վենետիկ 1853, 39-82 (where the panegyric is attributed to Vardan Bardzrberdc‘i). This is not to deny that parts of the Armenian structures in Jerusalem are very ancient indeed. Certain portions of the Sts. James Cathedral, St. Savior monastery and Holy Archangels Church, for example, can be dated to the first century; others, to the fourth or fifth. Care was

The Brotherhood of the Sts. James Monastery Jerusalem

87

Nunē, enlightener of the Georgians, had early connections with Jerusalem as well.25 While it is not possible in the scope allotted here to speak at depth of Armenian pilgrimage to the Holy Land, one may nonetheless mention a very few of the many examples: Mesrop Maštoc‘ is said to have brought back a gilt reliquary of the Holy Cross from his pilgrimage,26 and his disciples reportedly made a pilgrimage to the Holy City themselves after his death, in quest of a new leader.27 David the Invincible Philosopher, Anania of Širak, Catholicoses Grigor II the Martyrophile (Vkayasēr), Grigor III Pahlawuni, Nersēs Šnorhali and Nersēs of Lambron as well as a long list of other Armenian luminaries, including the last officially canonized saint of the Church, St. Grigor of Tat‘ew, made their way to the Holy City.28 Women were among the notable pilgrims. Kirakos Ganjakec‘i mentions Xorišah, the mother of Hasan Jalal, prince of Xačēn (modern-day Arc‘ax).29 After the death of her husband Vaxt‘ank in 1214 she went to Jerusalem and devoted herself to its welfare for the duration of her life.30 Also early in the 13th century the great Cilician homilist and teacher Vardan Aygekc‘i produced a prayer book specifically for the use of Holy Land pilgrims, keyed to the sites most often visited. The book came into its own again in the 18th century when pilgrimage underwent a new spurt of growth and organization under Jerusalem’s Patriarch Grigor the Chain-bearer. In that period, many pilgrimage groups, each numbering several hundred souls, were

25

26

27

28 29 30

evidently taken over the centuries to establish new constructions on the site of old, maintaining a physical connection to the holy site commemorated. LERNER, C., Sara Miapor: An Armenian Character in The Life of St. Nino, in: The Armenians in Jerusalem, 115. The same emotional impulse that established a detailed link between the first Christian king of Armenia and the building of the holy places also prompted Catholicos Matt‘ēos Kostandnupolsec‘i (1858-1865) to defend the genuineness of the Tashanc‘ T‘ught‘or letter of agreement between Trdat and Constantine (AZGAPATUM III. ii. §2745-2747). ԿԱՂԱՆԿԱՏՈՒԱՑԻ Պատմութիւն Աղուանից աշխարհի, A. 27 (hereafter, Movsēs). The historian carefully heads the chapter, “an epic history”. The relic of the cross was brought to Gis; the story of its later recovery is told in Movsēs, B. 29. Ibid, A. 28. The heading of this chapter includes the phrase “composed as related” [շարագրած...զրուցատրաբար] indicating that its material is traditional rather than historical. The rationale for the pilgrimage is that “the enlightenment of our eastern land, having come through St. Eghisha, originated from Jerusalem.” LAPORTA, Tat‘ewac‘i‘s 97-110. Hasan Jalal ruled Xačen (Greater Arc‘ax) from 1214 until his death sometime in the early 1260’s. She “remained there many years, with great asceticism, astonishing all who saw her. For she spent all that she had upon the poor and needy, like Helen, wife of Abgar, and fed herself by her own handiwork.(...) And God glorified the one who had glorified Him: an arch of light stood above her grave, exhorting others to similar good works.” For other women who came to Jerusalem and stayed see Patterns of the Past, 124-134.

88

Roberta Ervine

regularly received at Sts. James and given a carefully orchestrated pilgrimage experience visiting the central sites of Christianity.31 Some stories of specific pilgrims are especially interesting. The historian of the Caucasian Albanians, Movsēs Kałankatuac‘i, includes an account by the monk Hovsēp‘ from Arc‘ax of his pilgrimage in the era of Heraclius, on the eve of Islam’s takeover of Jerusalem. His pilgrimage was inspired by a certain Mxit‘ar, from Tanjik, who with two friends had gone to Jerusalem and there received relics of Sts. Stephen and George. On the way back to Arc‘ax Mxit‘ar added to these a relic of St. Andrew, and the whole collection came to rest in Hovsēp’s care. Motivated by Mxit’ar to seek out a relic of St. John the Baptist, Hovsēp‘ departed for Jerusalem himself with two companions, K‘ristosatur and Sargis. Finding everyone there “tainted with and approving of the universally destructive Council [of Chalcedon],” he returned discouraged, but found a relic of the Baptist, as well as relics of Sts. Stephen and Thomas at Puhavank‘ in Gełark‘unik‘, much nearer home.32 In the Cilician era, taking the road to Jerusalem could lead to worldly opportunities as well for clergy pilgrims it was natural while passing through Cilicia to pause and pay respects to the Catholicos seated there. On his return from a Jerusalem pilgrimage in 1240 Vardan the Great was asked to stay in Cilicia and teach for the Catholicosate from 1241-1246. His disciple Hovhannēs Pluz Erznkac‘i had a similar experience in 1281, teaching for Catholicos Hakob I Klayec‘i from 1281-1283. At around the same time, the elderly bishop Hayrapet of Siwnik‘, “being overcome by love for his Lord,” also went on pilgrimage to Jerusalem. On his return he stopped to see Cilicia’s Armenian King Lewon II (1270-1289) who, it turned out, had long desired to be a member of the brotherhood at Tat‘ew, where Hayrapet had just finished building and renovations. The bishop returned home laden with royal gifts for his institution,

31 32

ERVINE, Holy Places Prayerbook 223-235. MOVSĒS, B. 50. here is a small notice of this passage in Handēs Amsōreay 1896: 185 accompanied by a reference to BROOKS, E.W., An Armenian Visitor to Jerusalem in the Seventh Century, in: The English Historical Review 11 (1896),93-97. In 1196 the great teacher and writer Mxit‘ar Goš made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem following the successful completion of his church built in honor of the Holy Mother of God. In his absence, famine afflicted his monastery, and half the brotherhood perished. Learning of this tragedy on his homeward journey, Mxit‘ar prayed, taking Christ’s Mother to task for her negligence in caring for the place dedicated to her while he had been “on pilgrimage to the light-emitting Tomb” of her Son. Mxit‘ar stopped to pray again as he neared the monastery. This time he was called in a vision to the tent of Christ, commander of the heavenly host, for an interview with Son and Mother. Christ gave to Mxit‘ar a cup, a cruet, and a plate of wafers. By the agency of these, one dead brother was restored to life, and the famine was brought to an end. “Yet another story of the wonderful vardapet Mxit‘ar” [Միւս եւս պատմութիւն սքանչելի վարդապետին Մխիթարայ] an addendum to the main text of KIRAKOS, 237-243.

The Brotherhood of the Sts. James Monastery Jerusalem

89

including altar frontals, a crystal and gold cross, chalices of solid silver, “and many other gifts.”33 By the same token, the sanctity accessed through pilgrimage brought tangible benefits to the monastery, as grateful pilgrims made gifts to perpetuate their presence in the Holy City.34 The royalty of Cilicia (among them Lewon II, T‘oros II, Het‘um II, and the dowager queen Mariun, who died at St. James and is buried there)35 enriched the monastery vastly, enlarged the cathedral, endowed the St. T‘oros chapel, and enclosed the Holy Archangels’ complex that forms the eastern edge of the Armenian compound, among other benefactions.36 But a pilgrimage to the Holy Land could also be a dangerous undertaking. Step‘anos Ōrbēlian in his History of Siwnik‘ tells of the province’s bishop Sargis, whose pilgrimage to Jerusalem happened to coincide with the taking of Jerusalem by the Khwarizmian Turks in 1246. “Finding the blessed bishop Lord Sargis at the Lord’s Tomb in psalmody with three companions, they cut off his head, and his blood spilled across the top of the Lord’s Tomb. Thus was he

33

34 35 36

ՕՐԲԷԼԻԱՆ Սիսական ch. 67. (Hereafter ŌRBĒLIAN). The urge to take something tangible with them on their return home drove pilgrims to tattoo themselves with symbols of the city and their pilgrimage, carry off bits of rock or soil, and buy objects from holy sites. Some even modified their home environment in homage to Jerusalem. The ninth century historian Grigor Arcruni describes in some detail Prince Gagik’s construction of an elaborate “Jerusalem” for local pilgrimage in Vaspurakan:“Right beneath Amrakan, where he had built a church to St. George, on the height, he built a church, constructed in wonderful fashion, ... dedicated to Holy Sion in the holy city of Jerusalem. To the right of the altar he built on the same foundation [a chapel] dedicated to the Crucifixion of the Lord at Golgotha. Above it he constructed a church [dedicated] to the Upper Room....On the left side of the altar he built a church in commemoration of the Resurrection of Christ on the third day....Above that he built a church to the Ascension to heaven …and in commemoration of the Second Coming.... He also built on the rock of Amrakan on the eastern and western sides banqueting halls decorated in gold, with verandahs, improving what had earlier been constructed by his father Derenik. On the southern side he provided a staircase cut in the rock to the cistern, rising from below up to the summit of the rock with easy access and egress.” Armenian pilgrims took to heart the Armenian version of Isaiah 31:9, “Blessed is the one who has offspring in Zion.” See ՊՈՂԱՐեԱՆ, Վանատուր 273-276 (hereafter, VANATUR) Tradition adds that Mariun’s grand-daughter Penna also came to Jerusalem, and was buried with her there. The magnificent, carved wooden door leading into the Basilica of the Nativity in Bethlehem was another gift of King Het‘um I (1227), and his amber and gold staff resides in the Cathedral treasury. The Armenian altar at the Tomb of Mary bears an inscription of Het‘um II and its construction is traditionally ascribed to him. The ongoing tradition of gifts to Jerusalem is clear not only from inscriptions but from the later lists of offerings made to the monastery in the Ottoman period. Gifts included gold and silver lamps, brass candlesticks, carpets, bolts of cloth, manuscripts and other church furnishings. The manuscript biography of Grigor Parontēr (SJ 322) includes an extensive list, and a manuscript list compiled by Grigor the Chainbearer is in a private New York collection.

90

Roberta Ervine

crowned by Christ our God with a martyr’s blood.”37 Before this, Catholicos Grigor the Martyrophile (1066-1105) had narrowly escaped being put to death as a hostage during the Crusader conquest of the city in 1099,38 and Nersēs of Lambron was in Jerusalem when the city fell to Saladin in 1187.39 Exhortations to pilgrimage resounded across the ages. Grigor of Tat‘ew’s homily On Going to Jerusalem40 is typical of the genre—Moses and David and Isaiah longed for the Holy City; how much more to be revered and desired is it for us now! not least because it is to be the scene of the Last Judgment, the place of ultimate justice. Hence it is incumbent upon everyone to go there, as if going to meet Christ, and in the flesh to be face to face with him, and to see him and the place of his incarnation. Some four hundred years later, Hanna Vardapet’s History of this Holy and Great City of God, Jerusalem, written to encourage pilgrimage in the days of Grigor the Chain-bearer, began in much the same fashion, recounting the spiritual significance Jerusalem had held for a long roster of biblical characters.41 Jerusalem has inspired not only generosity but intense loyalty. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, periods when life in Jerusalem as an Ottoman city was made almost impossibly difficult for Armenians by a confluence of circumstances mostly outside their control, the Monastery of Sts. James benefited from the extraordinary dedication of two patriarchs. Both of them are remembered as saints in the monastery’s liturgical prayers: Grigor Parontēr headed the monastery in the seventeenth century,42 while Grigor the Chainbearer served as Patriarch almost exactly a century later. The two patriarchs’ selfless devotion and acute sense of vision twice rescued the Patriarchate from almost certain demise—not least of all because they gathered around themselves coteries of individuals who emulated their utter dedication to the ideal of Sts. James. The stories of their lives and deeds still inspire today’s Jerusalem clergy.43 37

38 39

40 41 42 43

Ōrbēlian visited the Holy Land himself in 1337, procuring there a manuscript of the Psalms which some five centuries later made its way back into the collection of the Sts. James monastery. See the notice in SION 192. ՈՒՌՀԱՅԵՑԻ, Ժամանակագրութիւն ch. 156. His mother Šahandułt made a pilgrimage in 1169. For the colophon to Lambronac‘i’s Commentary on the Psalms containing this information see TASHIAN, Catalog der armenischen Handschriften 333. ՁՄԵՌԱՆ ՀԱՏՈՐ, 610-613. ՀԱՆՆԷ, Պատմութիւն Երուսաղէմի1807. Grigor’s first experience of Jerusalem had been as a youthful pilgrim. See VANATUR, 318-331. The late Bishop Gureł Kapikian, long-time overseer of the Holy Places for the Armenian Patriarchate, of whom more will be said below, used to pray regularly at the tombs of the two Patriarchs, deriving from them the inspiration for his restoration work in the Armenian holy places; his meticulous diaries are an indispensable record of the Holy Places in the 20 th century.

The Brotherhood of the Sts. James Monastery Jerusalem

91

Jerusalem was a center of such importance at the end of Parontēr’s reign that it served as the Seat of a short-lived “Catholicosate of the Armenians in Ottoman Turkey,” established by Ełiazar Aintabc‘i in 1664.44 Pilgrimage in those days continued. Łazar the Scribe records in a colophon dated 1677 that one pilgrim group was set upon by thieves, and some were killed.45 After a precipitous decline that followed Ełiazar’s ill-starred venture, the status of the Holy Land’s Armenian community revived again in the first half of the eighteenth century, under Grigor the Chain-bearer.46 In addition to large, coordinated pilgrimage groups, individual pilgrims of importance were also drawn to the Holy Land. In 1743, for example, the Abbot of the great Monastery of the Holy Forerunner in Mush came on pilgrimage and remained for a year.47 Despite the vicissitudes of the nineteenth century, which began with the invasion of Napoleon and continued on through the Crimean War and its aftermath,48 pilgrimage did not stop. In 1868 a group of 160 pilgrims arrived in the Holy Land from Cilicia, “with more yet to arrive.”49 An anonymous notation in a calendar for 1891 records that “as of today the pilgrims number 300.” Since the late 20th century onward, the numbers of pilgrims has shrunk, and their pilgrimages are of shorter duration. However, the connection between the Armenian Patriarchate and its pilgrims continues. Recently the Monastery renovated a part of the Holy Archangels complex in order to resume its ancient practice of providing modest pilgrim accommodation.

44

45 46

47

48

49

Ełiazar spent much time in hiding or actually imprisoned during the period of contention that followed this arrangement. He was later elected Catholicos of Ēĵmiacin (1681) and served there until his death a decade later. SJ900, an excerpted commentary on Matthew’s Gospel copied in Sts. James for Bp. Sahak Amasiac‘i. See BROTHERHOOD AND VISITORS, 288. On the reign of Grigor, see ERVINE, R., Grigor the Chainbearer (1717-1744): the Rebirth of the Armenian Patriarchate, in: O’MAHONEY, A. et al. (eds.), The Christian Heritage in the Holy Land, London1995, 112-128. SJ 3694, p. 23. In 1773 a certain bishop Martiros, who had transferred to the Sts. James brotherhood from that of Ēĵmiacin as the result of a pilgrimage, went on a further pilgrimage to the monasteries of the Thebaid. He took with him a Tałaran that he had begun copying in Jerusalem. BROTHERHOOD AND VISITORS, 265-266. This time period saw the establishment of the Status Quo, which still governs Christian rights and responsibilities in the Holy Places. On the complexities of holy places worship in the 20 th century see EORDEGIAN, M., British and Israeli Maintenance of the Status Quo in the Holy Places of Christendom, in: International Journal of Middle East Studies 35.2 (2003), 307-328. SION (1868-1869): 48.

Roberta Ervine

92

4. The Spiritual Significance of Armenian Jerusalem Jerusalem as the ultimate authority on faith and practice The Sts. James brotherhood is cognizant of its responsibility as a guardian of the faith. Given Jerusalem’s spiritual importance, it is not surprising that in the fourth-century world where there was competition between multiple Christian religious centers, the recently Christianized Armenians looked to Jerusalem as the arbiter of Christian practice. Macarius, Jerusalem’s bishop (324-334) and one of those responsible for the great Constantinian building program there that grew out of the Council of Nicaea (325),50 received a letter from the Armenians inquiring as to the proper forms for baptism, sanctification of the holy chrism, and the Eucharistic bread and wine. The response of Macarius to St. Grigor the Illuminator’s son and successor, Catholicos Vrt‘anēs (333-340),51 stands as the first letter in a definitive collection of Armenian writings on doctrine, the Book of Correspondence (Գիրք թղթոց).52 In the fifth century the choice of the Jerusalem Lectionary as normative for the Armenian Church indicated a continued deference to Jerusalem’s religious authority. Despite the fact that the rubrics of that lectionary could not be literally followed in Armenia, they were nonetheless preserved intact—some of them into the 18th century. This longevity was especially apparent in the rubrics for Lent and Easter Week, when the faithful are immersed in a liturgical reliving of the events at the end of Christ’s life.53 While one could not physically assemble at the Lazarium, or at Golgotha or at the Martyrium or on Holy Sion as the Jerusalem rubrics specified, one could be there in spirit and in holy imagination. The appeal to Jerusalem as the root of orthodoxy was reconfirmed in the context of the growing rift between the Georgian and the Armenian churches over the course of the late sixth and early seventh century. As the Georgian church drew nearer to a definitive split from its Armenian counterpart, the Armenian Catholicos Abraham Ałbat‘anec‘i (607-615) consistently referred to Jerusalem as the source of pristine faith, a faith which, according to his understanding, had been sadly corrupted by Chalcedon’s influence. The Georgian Catholicos Kirion I (595-610) quite naturally maintained the opposite opinion; the pristine faith

50 51 52

53

THOMSON, Jerusalem and Armenia77-91. Abraham Terian argues for the dates 327-340. See TERIAN 2008. ՊՈՂԱՐԻԱՆ, Գիրք թղթոց 1-9. Hereafter, BOOK OF CORRESPONDENCE. The initial compilation of the Book of Correspondence is traditionally placed in the reign of Catholicos Komitas (615-628). The introduction to the 1901 Tiflis edition links the compilation with the 8th century Catholicos Hovhannēs Ōdznec‘i. The collection was subsequently augmented; the last letter included is from the Catholicos Kostandin Barjrberdc'i (1221-1267) to the Cilician king Het‘um I (1226-1270). RENOUX, Le lectionnaire de Jérusalem 472-473.

The Brotherhood of the Sts. James Monastery Jerusalem

93

rested with the Chalcedonians. However, both men agreed that the primal faith flowed forth from Jerusalem’s uniquely orthodox spring.54 In a quotation in the thirteenth century compilation, Writings of the Foundation or Root of Faith, Catholicos Komitas (615-628)55 traced to Jerusalem the tradition of celebrating of the Nativity and the Epiphany together on January 6: “We have not received this from Artemius and Juvenal but from James and from Cyril of Jerusalem…We accept the Jerusalem tradition as you do that of Artemius and Juvenal.”56 The Holy Land was also the model of monastic life. There is a homily On the Transfiguration, attributed to the fifth-century writer Ełišē but perhaps dating from as late as the seventh century, which describes in glowing terms the monastic discipline of the monks on Mt. Tabor.57 Their devotion to liturgy, seen in their thrice-daily communal prayers and daily Eucharist, is presented as particularly admirable. So too is the mutual love of the monks, expressed in their care for the elderly among them, and in their spirit of hospitality. Interestingly, these observations were made in the context of the writer’s own pilgrimage to the Holy Land undertaken, as he says, “not individually, but with numerous companions.” In the eighth century Step‘anos of Siwnik‘, later bishop of that province (735), responded to a query from the bishop of Antioch regarding Armenia’s faith. After stressing the apostolic origins of the Armenian church and wrestling with the issue of whether the divine and the human both suffered in Christ, Step‘anos refers the matter of why the Armenians do not celebrate the Annunciation on 54

55

56

57

BOOK OF CORRESPONDENCE, especially letters 77-87. In his correspondence with the Armenian catholicosal locum tenens Vrt‘anēs K‘ert‘oł (604-607) Bishop Movsēs of C‘urdaw, who was deeply involved in the split, mentions that the Georgian Catholicos has referred Vrt‘anēs’s most recent letter to the patriarch of Jerusalem for response. BOOK OF CORRESPONDENCE, letter 63, 283. The same is stated by the historian ՈՒԽՏԱՆԷՍ, Պատմութիւն Հայոց B.47. Catholicos Komitas was compiler of the Seal of, which includes several lengthy quotations from the Jerusalem patriarchs John and Cyril as well as from “Eusebius of Jerusalem” and “Philoxenus of Jerusalem.” ԱՅԳԵԿՑԻ, Գիրք հաստատութեան 241-242. See also BOOK OF CORRESPONDENCE, letter 84. Respect for Jerusalem’s status did not necessarily translate into financial support for its institutions. The letter of Jerusalem’s Patriarch Modestus to Komitas contains a very eloquent appeal for funds to assist in the restoration of the city’s monuments after the devastation of the Persian invasion, recalling the importance of Armenian pilgrimage to the Holy City before the invasion. Komitas’ response makes no allusion to any financial contribution, although it offers a litany of scriptural consolations. The letters appear as chapters 35 and 36 in the History of Sebēos [Պատմութիւն Սեբէոսի], ed. G. V. Abgaryan, Erevan, 1979. For the text of this homily see his ԵՂԻՇԷ ՎԱՐԴԱՊԵՏԻ ՄԱՏԵՆԱԳՐՈՒԹԻՒՆՔշ 213239 (English translation by F. C. CONYBEARE, Italian translation by B. L. ZEKIYAN, French translation bei LELOIR, L. Also see THOMSON, R.W., A Seventh-Century Armenian Pilgrim on Mount Tabor, in Journal of Theological Studies, 18 (1967), 27-33. For salient comments on early Armenian monasticism see GARSOÏAN, Problem of Early Armenian Monasticism, 177236.

Roberta Ervine

94

March 25 or Christmas on December 25 to ancient Jerusalem tradition: “We recognize the origin of faith to be from Jerusalem; the Apostles arranged the canons in Jerusalem, and James the Lord’s brother set the lections in Jerusalem, and the patriarch Cyril confessed the same.”58 Together with its status as the arbiter of faith, Jerusalem also bore the onus of living up to its apostolic heritage. Writing in the late tenth or early eleventh century concerning events of the seventh, Step‘anos Asołik (935?-1015?) emphasized the presence of Jerusalem’s Patriarch Zak‘aria (609-632) in the group interrogated by the victorious Sasanian king after his conquest of Jerusalem. The king confessed himself confused as to which variety of Christianity was the true one. According to Asołik Zak‘aria and the (unnamed) others replied, “If we had not turned away from before God, He would not have turned away from us,” the implication being that Chalcedonian deviation from Jerusalem’s ancestral orthodoxy had caused the city’s downfall.59 In the last years of the twelfth century, we are told, a dispute between the Armenians and the Georgians over the date of Easter was settled by Queen T‘amar and her military commander Zak‘aria, who sent a joint delegation of Georgians and Armenians to Jerusalem, “to see what was the true [date of the celebration].” They found that the Muslim governor of the city, having been notified of the disagreement between his subject populations, determined to resolve the issue by putting out the lamps in the Holy Sepulchre Church and closing the doors, to see whether God might indicate His preferred date by a miracle. No affirming light appeared on Holy Saturday according to the Byzantine calculation, whereas it did so on the Armenian date. The delegation of observers reported back to T‘amar that not only was the Armenian tradition affirmed, but adherents of the opposing opinion were soundly beaten throughout the Islamic dominions.60 The last letter included in the Book of Correspondence is from Catholicos Kostandin I Barjrberdc‘i (1226-1267) to the Cilician king Het‘um I (1227-1270) on the Papal claim to primacy. The Catholicos stresses that Jerusalem’s claim to primacy is at least equal to that of Rome: “Peter’s God was crucified in Jerusalem. Why is not Jerusalem then the commander of the whole world?”61 Jerusalem and polemical miracles The role of Jerusalem as arbiter of the faith made it the setting of choice for polemical showdowns. In some of them the brotherhood of the Sts. James were involved either as witnesses or as participants. A number of contentious

58 59 60 61

BOOK OF CORRESPONDENCE, letter 89, 494-514; here, 497-499. ԱՍՈՂԻԿ, Պատմութիւն տիեզերական գլ. 2. KIRAKOS, 110-111. BOOK OF CORRESPONDENCE, letter 97, 657-665; 658.

The Brotherhood of the Sts. James Monastery Jerusalem

95

miracles were vouchsafed by the Almighty to the faithful as an encouragement to stand firm in one or another particular belief.62 Perhaps the earliest polemical miracle recorded by the Armenians was that described in 560 by Bishop Grigoris Arcruni, who was in Jerusalem during the period when Justinian had decreed a change in the date for the celebration of the Feast of the Presentation. The bishop’s letter, written to the faithful back home in the region around Lake Van, exhorts the Armenians there to stand firm in their traditional mode of celebration. For the consolation of true believers in Jerusalem who continued to celebrate that event on the traditional date of February 14, Grigoris relates, water flowed from a pillar while the service was being held. The following year, when imperial pressure was again exerted upon believers to change the date of the feast, an angel descended to imprint on a column the mark of Christ’s nail-pierced hand. Too, an image of the Virgin and Child appeared, accompanied by miracles of healing.63 As late as the 13th century, Vardan Arewelc‘i in his Žłlank‘ tells several wonderful Holy Land miracle stories. In one, Vardan meets an old monk who recounts how he and six others went on pilgrimage to Jerusalem and Sinai. Despite opposition from local Greek monks, they spent three days on the mountain. Returning with shining faces, they were served at table by Moses himself, whose presence vindicated their religious confession in the eyes of their erstwhile detractors.64 62

63

64

Nor have such miracles ceased. One modern miracle, more political than religious in its thrust, is that of the weeping icon of the Virgin Mary on the south side of the east wall in the Second Prison of Christ chapel in the north transept of the Holy Sepulchre Church, a place invested with great significance for Palestinian Christians. During the first intifada in the 1980’s, an Armenian schoolgirl observed tears in the eyes of the Mother of God; by the year 2000, the soot from candles lighted before the icon by the faithful had rendered the image completely obscure. During the early years of the second intifada, a depiction of the Virgin on a column in Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity was also seen to emit water. This phenomenon was a great source of consolation to the faithful of the city, then intermittently under curfew. ՊՈՂԱՐԵԱՆ, Թուղթ յԵրուսաղեմէ 33-36. See the analysis of this and other documents in TERIAN, Armenian Writers 3-5. In the BOOK OF CORRESPONDENCE, letter 89, Step‘anos Siwnec‘i records the miracles of the water gushing from a pillar, the appearance of the Virgin and Child the next year on the same pillar, and the healings. His account goes on to describe how an image of the aged Simeon with the infant Jesus in his arms appeared on the same pillar on February 14. Step‘anos relates that he obtained this information “from the letter of the Jerusalemites.” KIRAKOS, 22-23 also repeats Grigoris’s story, adding a bloody portent in the heavens to the list of miracles that took place in the first year. SJ 898. As the manuscript is not available in print, we give the episode in full, as follows: “In Sinai there was a Greek monastery, and they received us with great love. They told us a tale: “Some thirty years ago, forty of your compatriots came to us on pilgrimage. We did not pay them much attention, because they were Armenian. Towards evening, they wanted to ascend the mountain to pray. We advised them—‘Don’t go. Anyone who goes up the mountain to pray either dies, or comes back crippled.’ They didn’t heed us, but asked for a guide. We did not give them one. They went anyway, and were three days on the mount. We considered them lost. After the third day, someone came running and said, ‘The

Roberta Ervine

96

In the same vein, Kirakos Ganjakec‘i describes at length the pilgrimage in 1222-1223 of his older contemporary, the wonder-worker Hovhannēs Gar̥nec‘i (1180?-1263). As related to Kirakos by Vardan the Great, who in turn heard it from a Jerusalem priest, a miraculous vision during the pilgrimage verified the Armenian date for celebrating the Feast of the Annunciation.65 Armenians and the Holy Fire The monastic community of Sts. James oversees one of the most potentially contentious of all Holy Land miraculous events. The annual service of the Holy Fire commemorates Christ’s Harrowing of Hell and is celebrated on Holy Saturday.66 According to Armenian tradition, it was Grigor the Illuminator who

65

66

Armenians are coming, and they are all ablaze!’ We went out to meet them with cross and Gospel, and we saw that they were indeed all alight. Fear overcame us, and we could go no farther; when they reached us, the light was extinguished. We set a table, and an elderly bishop served them. When he sat down, they said, “Let that fine old man who served us wine be seated also.” The elderly bishop said, “It was I who served you.” “No,” they replied. “An old man of beautiful appearance took the wine from you and gave it to us.” We showed them our entire brotherhood, and they said, “No, it was none of them.” But when we showed them pictures of Moses and Elijah, they pointed to Moses and said, “That was he.” So we understood that it had been Moses.” The same story is to be found in KIRAKOS, B, 204-205. In that version of the story, however, the Armenian group comprised forty when it went up, and forty-two when it returned to the monastery: the two extra “pilgrims” were Moses and Elijah, who would allow no one but themselves to serve the Armenian group. A menologion in the Vienna collection (Haysmawurk‘ 10, old # 8A, 16th c., 73b2-74b1) gives a slightly different pedigree for the story: “On this day is the remembrance of the miracles which took place among the pilgrims to Mount Sinai. A priest named Hohannēs Bjnec‘i told Vanakan Vardapet...” SJ 898 ibid: “The young priest said, ‘Before you came into the church, I was praying in the upper gallery, and suddenly the painted picture of the angel Gabriel which stands opposite the all-holy Virgin Mary spoke aloud and said, “Rejoice, happy one. The Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.” All the depicted paintings of the saints began to speak as well, uttering the same, for a long time. I was astonished and gave glory to God.’ Having looked into the matter by calendarical calculations, I discovered that it was the thirtieth day of the month of Areg, and the seventh of April, or the seventeenth of Nisan. This vision and miraculous apparition testifies to the accurate Armenian celebration; as we say, the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin was on the thirtieth of Areg and the seventh of April, not as the other nations, especially the Greeks, contest, saying without sense that it was the twenty-fifth of March.” According to the Anglican Archdeacon DOWLING, T. E., The Greek Fire in the Church of the Resurrection, Jerusalem, in: Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly (1908), 151-153, there is mention of a precursor to the Holy Fire in the story of Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem (180192). This says that while the deacons were keeping the Easter vigil, oil failed; Narcissus had them draw water from a nearby well. He prayed over it, and told them to pour it into the lamps. It became oil, and some was preserved as a specimen of the wonder.

The Brotherhood of the Sts. James Monastery Jerusalem

97

initiated the Holy Fire.67 Although the historical record of the Holy Fire service’s development is not continuous, it is clear that the symbolic portrayal of the light Christ brought to the world expressed itself in the miracle of a physical light appearing from the Tomb of Christ without human agency. 68 The light’s appearance became a kind of Divine imprimatur used to validate the correct celebration of Easter or, more broadly, the correct faith of a community.69 The importance of the Fire as a sign of approval for proper observance is noted in the Annals of Smbat Sparapet (1208-1276). His entry for the year 1006 concerns the disturbances in Constantinople and Jerusalem over the date of Easter: “And they celebrated it on the Feast of the Lord’s Entry [into Jerusalem, i.e. Palm Sunday]. They did likewise in Jerusalem. Because of their arrogance they deviated from all the [other] nations, and the Light did not ignite on that Easter.” The result, he goes on to add, was a massacre of the faithful in the Holy Sepulchre by the Muslims. 70 A century later, Mxit‘ar Ayrivanec‘i relates in his history that the Fire did not appear in 1101 because the Franks, as the new Roman Catholic Crusader overlords of the holy places were called, had allowed women to serve in the Holy Sepulchre.71 Vardan Arewelc‘i (the Great) relates the prodigiously ascetic pilgrimage to Jerusalem of a certain Hovhannēs Tuec‘i, who not only went barefoot to the 67

68

69

70 71

KIRAKOS says that Grigor hung a lantern over the tomb and asked God to light it “with immaterial light on the feast of the holy Passover; that miracle continues to this day.” For a medieval Armenian it was not hard to imagine that St. Grigor might have hung a lamp at the Tomb. The Holy Fire has left its mark on Armenian terminology: Christ’s tomb is often referred to as the “light-emitting Sepulchre”. The 16th century poet T‘adēos T‘oxat‘c‘i produced a poem on pilgrimage. Its refrain shows that the importance of the Holy Fire was undiminished in his day: In the city of Jerusalem / All nations gather/and rejoice together. / The light emerges at Armenian Easter. Armenian, Ethiop and Syrian / Process around the Holy Tomb / in quest of the Light-giver. / The light emerges on Armenian Easter. / Christmas in Bethlehem / The world gathered there / sang “Glory in the highest.” / The light emerges on Armenian Easter. / On the banks of the Jordan river / Christ is baptized with water; / all are cleansed from their sins / The light emerges on Armenian Easter.” ՊՈՏՈՈՐԻԱՆ, Ութ տաղեր Թադէոս Թոխաթցիի 79-280. Miracles of a polemical nature were not granted only to Armenians, of course, and in the memory of the faithful, at least, these miracles are not things of the past: There is a famous split column in the cluster of pillars adorning the present Holy Sepulchre entrance on its western side. Any local Greek Orthodox believer will tell you that the split occurred in the 18 th century, when the Armenians unjustly refused the Greeks entrance to the Holy Fire service— the fire forced its way out to the excluded faithful through the column, splitting it in the process. Naturally, there are Armenians who repeat the story, with the roles reversed. Posters of the pillar with a lighted candle standing in the split are a popular pilgrimage souvenir. ՍՄԲԱՏԱՅ ՍՊԱՐԱՊԵՏԻ ՏԱՐԵԳԻՐՔ, 20. The historian (1208-1276) was the brother of Cilicia’s King Het‘um I. ԱՅՐԻՎԱՆԵՑԻ, Պատմութիւն Հայոց 61. Vardan Arewelc‘i adds that the light did eventually appear on that Sunday, at the ninth hour, and “the entire land was astonished.” ԱԼԻՇԱՆ, Հաւաքումն պատմութեան, repr. 148..

Roberta Ervine

98

Holy City but, once he got there, remained standing in the Anastasis for the whole of Lent, observing a complete fast in silence. Throughout his fast, he contemplated the question of whether it was truly God who lit the Armenian lamp with the Holy Fire. Assisted by a Roman Catholic cleric who admired his ascetic endurance, Hovhannēs was able to hang three lamps inside the tomb, representing the three Christian communities (Roman Catholic, Byzantine and Armenian). When the door of the Tomb was opened, the lamp symbolizing the Armenian faith was found alight.72 The affirming descent of the fire on Holy Saturday for one group did not necessarily imply God’s displeasure with others’ variant celebrations. Deacon Abraham Samuēlian was eyewitness to the Holy Fire service in 1729, a year in which the date of Easter was not the same for the Greeks as for the Armenians. This calendarical phenomenon, known as tzr̥azatik, was feared as the occasion for violent clashes between groups trying to celebrate Palm Sunday and others trying to celebrate Easter on the same day. A foresightful arrangement between Jerusalem’s Armenian and Byzantine Church authorities specified that no Armenians would be allowed into the Holy Sepulchre Church during the Byzantines’ Easter celebration. In return, the Byzantines would forbid their faithful to be present during the Armenian Easter services a week later. The compromise worked. But a question lingered in the minds of the Armenian faithful: was God pleased with this arrangement or not? Would both Holy Saturdays be blessed with the Holy Fire? Deacon Abraham describes the tearful anticipation of the Armenians on that Holy Saturday morning, and their gratification when the fire did indeed return for the second time in as many weeks.73 The Holy Places as an expression of Armenian Christian identity Their prominence at the Holy Land’s holy sites is a significant, symbolic statement of the Armenians’ Christian identity. Thus the loss or jeopardizing of the Armenian presence at any holy site cast a shadow on the self-image of the 72 73

Ibid, 201-202. Also see the comments of ZIMMER, Sünde-Strafe-Schema 132-159. SJ 681, dated 1729, 21-100; here, 78-79: “...suddenly, while our Patriarch was still standing and reading the prayers, by the high providence of God lamps in seven places were lit, by themselves, without anyone’s hand: at the Stone of Unction, on our altar to the Myrrh-bearing Women, in the Garden, and the lamp of the Holy Illuminator at the Tomb door—in full view of everyone. And while they were all standing amazed at this miracle, God performed another marvelous and great wonder, for the three lamps of the Greek Catholicon took light as well, a witness to the true Light and to our Armenian nation’s orthodox Pascha. (The Patriarch then entered the Tomb) and lingered inside the space of a minute; he came out at once, full of light, and the light shone forth, great as the sun, and this was a grand and astonishing wonder, that he had so quickly received the light and come out illumined. His face shone like the rays of the sun (...) You should have seen, dear reading brother, the joy of our Armenian people at that moment...”

The Brotherhood of the Sts. James Monastery Jerusalem

99

faith. This is as true today as it was fourteen hundred years ago, and as the overseers of the Holy Places the monastic brotherhood of the Sts. James is charged with keeping this image bright and strong. The actions of the most respected Armenian patriarchs of the Holy Land show their vital concern for the visible presence of their faith in the Holy Places. Grigor Parontēr made it his business to obtain an extension of the gallery at the Holy Sepulchre, which enhanced the holdings — and thus the visible presence — of the Armenian faith there.74 Just prior to Grigor the Chain-bearer’s appointment as Patriarch in the early 18th century, his close friend and colleague Hovhannēs Kolot was dispatched from Istanbul to the bankrupt monastery of Sts. James as fully-empowered vekil charged with straightening out its affairs. The first thing he did was to redeem from pawn the Armenian lamps that had once hung in front of Christ’s Tomb. Although the lamps were relatively insignificant in value, their reinstatement clearly symbolized to him the Armenians’ intention to resume their rightful place among the Christian communities. Although the light of the Armenians had gone out for a time, so to speak, it was being relit. The work of renovating the Holy Sepulchre’s Armenian sections in the twentieth century was informed by the same intense psychological certainty that every centimeter of space in the Holy Places has a deep significance, and that every aspect of the community’s history of rights and obligations in connection with them is sacred. The restoration work was undertaken by my own mentor in matters of the holy places, the late Bishop Gureł Kapikian. As his Holy Places diaries make abundantly clear, it was his intention to express all of Armenian Christian history within the decorative program of the renovated Armenian sections in the Holy Sepulchre Church.75 Hand in hand with this visceral awareness of the connection between the Armenians and the Holy Land goes a deep conviction among both clergy and laity in Jerusalem that the Armenian holy sites are protected by the real presence of the saints. Of the numerous precious relics housed in the St. Sargis 74

75

In exchange for three bays of their gallery, he gave the Roman Catholic authorities a useful closet plus the Armenian lamp that hung before the altar in what was called “the Garden,” the area commemorating the meeting between Christ and Mary Magdalene following the Resurrection. The altar is set in the north transept of the church, immediately in front of the door to the Roman Catholic patriarchal chapel The didactic program of Armenian faith history is overwhelmingly evident in the restorations: the mosaic floor in the St. Grigor chapel depicts the earliest churches in the Armenian homeland; the excavated chapel behind the St. Helena chapel’s main altar is dedicated to St. Vardan. The floors are covered in copies of sixth century Armenian mosaics from the Mt. of Olives, and carvings from the Bagratid capital at Ani are embedded in the walls. A Cilician manuscript illumination was rendered in mosaic behind the gallery altar, and a copy of the Ałt‘amar Pantocrator adorns a wall. A mosaic inscription in the St. Grigor chapel honors the victims of the 20th century Genocide as martyrs, and a mosaic copy of a modern painting of the battle of Avarayr greets the faithful at the top of the gallery stairs.

100

Roberta Ervine

chapel of the Sts. James Cathedral, special importance is attached to those of St. Grigor the Illuminator and St. Hr̥ip‘simē concealed within the monastery’s altars. The continued spiritual presence of St. James the Great, known as the “Brother of the Lord” and first bishop of Jerusalem, is expressed when his symbolic seat in the choir of the cathedral is ceremonially vested on his feast day. The head of St. James the Less, son of Zebedee and brother of John the Evangelist, inhabits its own chapel in the north wall of the church, where it is venerated multiple times a day. During the 1948 and 1967 wars, Jerusalem Armenians reported seeing St. James patrolling the roof of his cathedral and deflecting falling missiles from it. For Jerusalem Armenians, the preservation of the monastery in the face of the many dire threats to its existence over the centuries is evidence of divine care for their national, Christian survival in a world where that survival has more than once been put in jeopardy. In short, the Armenians and their patriarchate in the Holy Land have a fascinating and complex history, yes. But more significant than that is the living symbolism of the Patriarchate and its sacred holdings. If, as has been said, the loss or endangerment of the Armenian presence at the holy sites casta a shadow on the self-image of the faith and the faithful, it behooves the Armenians of today, both inside and outside the brotherhood, to consider the future significance of that presence very carefully, and to keep the Holy Land’s Armenian community and institutions vital. Bibliography CYRIL OF SCYTHOPOLIS, The Lives of the Monks of Palestine, tr. R. M. Price, Kalamazoo 1991. DOWLING, T.E., The Greek Fire in the Church of the Resurrection, Jerusalem, in: Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly (1908), 151-153. ERVINE, R., Women Who Left the World: The Armenian Nuns of Jerusalem, in: Hummel, T., Hintlian, K., Carmesund, U. (eds.), Patterns of the Past, Prospects for the Future: The Christian Heritage in the Holy Land, London 1999, 124-134. ERVINE, R., Vardan Aygekc‘i’s Holy Places Prayerbook, in Ervine, R. (ed.), Worship Traditions in Armenia and the Neighboring Christian East, Crestwood, NY 2006, 223-235. GARSOÏAN, N., Introduction to the Problem of Early Armenian Monasticism, in: RÉarm 30 (2005-2007), 177-236. GARSOÏAN, N., Le témoignage d’Anastas vardapet sur les monastères arméniens de Jérusalem à la fin du VIe siècle, in: Mélanges Gilbert Dagron (Travaux et Mémoires 14), Paris 2002, 257-267. repr. in idem, Studies on the Formation of Christian Armenia [Variorum Collected Studies Series, 959], Burlington, VT2010, 257-267). HORN, E., Iconographiae Monumentorum Terrae Sanctae (1724-44), in: Hoade, E. (ed), Jerusalem 1962.

The Brotherhood of the Sts. James Monastery Jerusalem

101

LAPORTA, S., Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i’s Pilgrimage to Jerusalem, in: Stone, M.E., Ervine, R., Stone, N. (eds.), The Armenians in Jerusalem and the Holy Land, Leuven 2002, 97110. LERNER, C., Sara Miapor: An Armenian Character in The Life of St. Nino, in: Stone, M.E., Ervine, R., Stone, N. (eds.), The Armenians in Jerusalem and the Holy Land, Leuven 2002, 111-119. MENESHIAN, K., Women Deacons in the Armenian Apostolic Church Revisited, in: Armenian Weekly, April 13, 2014. http://armenianweekly.com/2014/04/13/womendeacons-in-the-armenian-apostolic-church-revisited/. PATRICH, J. (ed.), The Sabaite Heritage in the Orthodox Church from the Fifth Century to the Present, Leuven 2001. PATRICH, J., Sabas, Leader of Palestinian Monasticism: A Comparative Study in Eastern Monasticism, Fourth to Seventh Centuries, Washington 1995. PRINGLE, J. The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, vol. 3, The Churches of Jerusalem. Cambridge 1993. RENOUX, A., Le lectionnaire de Jérusalem en Arménie: le Jashoc‘ I. Introduction et liste des manuscript (Patrologia Orientalis 44/4), Tournhout 1989. STONE, M.E., ERVINE, R., STONE, N. (eds.), The Armenians in Jerusalem and the Holy Land, Leuven 2002. STONE, M., Further Armenian Inscriptions from Nazareth, in: REarm 26 (1996-1997) 321-337. STONE, M., Armenian Inscriptions of the Fifth Century from Nazareth, in: REarm 22 (1990-1991), 315-322. STONE, M., Holy Land Pilgrimage of Armenians before the Arab Conquest, in: Revue Biblique 93.1 (1986), 93-109. STONE, M., An Armenian Pilgrim to the Holy Land in the Early Byzantine Era, in: REarm 18 (1984), 173-178. TASHIAN, H., Catalog der armenischen Handschriften in der K.K. Hofbibliothek zu Wien, Wien 1891. TERIAN, A., Macarius of Jerusalem: Letter to the Armenians, A.D. 335 (AVANT 4), Crestwood, NY 2008. TERIAN, A., Armenian Community of Jerusalem, in: Bulliet R.:W., Matar, P., Simon, R. (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East, 4 vols., London and New York 1996, vol. 1, 218-219. THOMSON, R. W., A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 A.D., Brepols 1995 THOMSON, R.W., Jerusalem and Armenia, in: Studia Patristica 18.1 (1989), 77-91. THOMSON, R.W., A Seventh-Century Armenian Pilgrim on Mount Tabor, in: Journal of Theological Studies, 18 (1967), 27-33. ZIMMER, M., Das Sünde-Strafe-Schema: Biblisch-christliche repräsentationsdiskurse in den Texten der armenischen Schriftsteller zur Zeit der Turko-mongolischen Invasionen, in: Prager, L. (ed.), Nomadismus in der ‘Alten Welt’: Formen der Repräsentation in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart, Münster 2012, 132-159. Աղաւնունի, Մ., Հայոց հին վանքերն ու եկեղեցիները, Երուսաղեմ 1931. Aghawnuni, M. Hayoc‘ hin vank‘ern u ekełec‘inerě, Erusałem 1931. [Ancient Armenian Monasteries and Churches]. ԱՂԱՒՆՈՒՆԻ, Մ., Միաբանք եւ Այցելուք. Երուսաղեմ 1929. Mkrtič‘ Aghawnuni, Mianbank‘ ew Ayc‘eluk‘. Erusałem 1929. [Members of the Brotherhood and Visitors]

102

Roberta Ervine

ԱՅԳԵԿՑԻ, Վ. Գիրք հաստատութեան եւ արմատ հաւատոյ, Հայրապետյան, Շ., Քեոսեյան, Հ., Երևան 1998. Vardan Aygekc‘i, Girk‘ hastatut‘ean ew armat hawatoy, Hayrapetyan, Š., K‘eoseyan, H. (eds.), Erewan 1998. [Fundamental Writings and Root of Faith]. ԱՅՐԻՎԱՆԵՑԻ, Մ., Պատմութիւն Հայոց, Եմին, Մ., Մոսկվա 1860. Ayrivanec‘i, M. Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘, Ēmin, M. (ed), Moskva 1860. [History of Armenia by Ayrivanec‘i]. ԱՍՈՂԻԿ, Ս., Պատմութիւն տիեզերական, Պետերուրգ 1885. Asołik, S., Patmut‘iwn tiezerakan, Peterburg 1885. [Universal History by Step‘anos Asołik]. ԱՐԵՒԵԼՑԻ, Վ., Պատմութիւն Հայոց, Ալիշան, Ł., Վենետիկ 1862. (reprint Delmar NY 1991) Arewelc‘i, V., Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘, Ališan Ł. (ed), Venetik 1862. [Compilation of History]. ԳԱՆՁԱԿԵՑԻ, Կ., Պատմութիւն Հայոց, Երևան 1961. Ganjakec‘i, K. Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘, Erewan 1961. [History of Armenia by K. Ganjakec‘i]. ԳԻՐՔ ԹՂԹՈՑ, Պողարեան, Ն. (խմբ.), Երուսաղեմ 1994. Girk‘ T‘łt‘oc‘, Połarean, N, (ed.), Jerusalem 1994. [Book of Correspondence] ԿԱՂԱՆԿԱՏՈՒԱՑԻ, Մ., Պատմութիւն Աղուանից աշխարհի. Kałankatuac‘i, M., Patmut‘iwn Ałuanic‘ ašxarhi. [History of the Land of Albania] http://titus.unifrankfurt.de/texte/etcs/arm/movskal/movskt.htm ԿՈՄԻՏԱՍ, Կնիք Հաւատոյ, Անթելիաս 1914/1998. Komitas, Knik‘ hawatoy, Antelias 1914/1998. [Seal of Faith]. ՀԱՆՆԷ ՎԱՐԴԱՊԵՏ, Պատմութիւն սրբոյ եւ մեծի քաղաքիս Երուսաղէմի, Պոլիս 1807. Hannē Vardapet, Patmut‘iwn srboy ew meci k‘ałak‘is Erusałemi, Polis 1807. [History of this Holy and Great City Jerusalem]. ՆԵՐԲՈՂԵԱՆ ԵՐԻՑՍ ԵՐԱՆԵԱԼ ՊԱՐԹԵՒՆ ԳՐԻԳՈՐԻՈՍ ԼՈՒՍԱՒՈՐԻՉ ՀԱՅԱՍՏԱՆ ԱՇԽԱՐՀԻՍ, in: Սոփերք 5, Վենետիկ 1853, 39-82. Nerbołean eric‘s eraneal Part‘ewn Grigorios Lusaworič‘ Hayastan ašxarhis, in: Sop‘erk‘ 5, Venetik, 1853, 39-82 [Panegyric on St. Grigor] ՁՄԵՌԱՆ ՀԱՏՈՐ, Պոլիս, 1740; facs. repr. Jerusalem, 1998, 610-613. Jmer̥an hator, 1740. [Winter Volume]. ՊՈՂԱՐԵԱՆ, Ն., Մարիուն (Մարիամ) թագուհի, in: Պողարիան, Ն. Վանատուր. Երուսաղեմ 1993, 273-276. Połarean, N., Mariun (Mariam) t‘aguhi, in: Połarean, N., Vanatur. Erusałem 1993, 273-276. [Queen Mariun (Mariam)]. ՊՈՂԱՐԵԱՆ, Ն., Գրիգոր Պարոնտէր պատրիարք, in: Պողարիան, Ն. Վանատուր. Երուսաղեմ 1993, 318-331. Połarean, N., Grigor Parontēr patriark‘, in: Połarean, N., Vanatur. Erusałem 1993, 273-276. [Patriarch Girgor Parontēr]. ՊՈՂԱՐԵԱՆ,Ն., Թուղթ յԵրուսաղեմէ ի Հայս վասն Տեառնընդառաջին, Սիոն (1964), 33-36. Połarean, N., T‘ułt‘ yErusałemi i Hays vasn Tear̥něndar̥aĵin, Sion (1964), 33-36. (Letter from Jerusalem to Armenia Concerning the Feast of the Presentation of the lord] ՊՈՏՈՒՐԻԱՆ, Մ., Ութ տաղեր Թադէոս Թոխաթցիի, Բազմավէպ (1920), 274-282. Poturian, M., Ut‘ tałer T‘adēos T‘oxat‘c‘ii, in: Bazmavēp (1910), 274-282. [Eight Poems of T‘adēos T‘oxat‘c‘i]. ՍՄԲԱՏԱՅ ՍՊԱՐԱՊԵՏԻ ՏԱՐԵԳԻՐՔ, Շահնազարիան, Գ. (խմբ), Մոսկվա 1856. Smbatay sparapeti taregirk‘, Šahnazarian, G. (ed.), Moskva 1856. [The Annals of Smbat Sparapet].

The Brotherhood of the Sts. James Monastery Jerusalem

103

ՍՐԲՈՅ ՀՕՐՆ ՄԵՐՈՅ ԵՂԻՇԷ ՎԱՐԴԱՊԵՏԻ ՄԱՏԵՆԱԳՐՈՒԹԻՒՆՔ, Վենէտիկ 1859. Srboy hōrn meroy Ełišē vardapeti Matneagrut‘iwnk‘, Venetik 1869. [Works of our holy Father Ełišē Vardapet]. (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015041466346;view=1up;seq=11). ՏԷՐ ՀՈՎՀԱՆՆԷՍԵԱՆՑ, Ա., Ժամանակագրական Պատմութիւն Ս. Երուսաղէմի, Հ. 1, Երուսաղեմ 1890. Astvacatur Tēr Hovhannēseanc‘, Žamanakagrakan patmut‘iwn S. Erusałemi, Erusałem 1890. [Chronological History of Holy Jerusalem] ՈՒԽՏԱՆԷՍ, Պատմութիւն Հայոց, Վաղարշապատ 1871. Uxtanēs, Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘, Vałaršapat 1871. [History of Armenia by Uxtanēs], B.47. ՈՒՌՀԱՅԵՑԻ, Մ., Ժամանակագրութիւն, Երուսաղէմ 1896. Ur̥hayec‘i, M., Žamanakagrut‘iwn, Erusałem 1896. [Chronicle by M. Ur̥hayec‘i]. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044024056707;view=1up;seq=3. ՕՐԲԷԼԻԱՆ, Ս., Պատմութիւն նահանգին սիսական, Փարիզ 1859 (Թիֆլիս 1910). Ōrbēlian, S., Patmut‘iwn nahangin sisakan, P‘ariz 1859 (T‘iflis 1910). [History of Siwnik‘] Օրմանեան, Մ., Ազգապատում, Անթելիաս 2001-5. Ōrmanean, M., Azgapatum, Ant‘elias 2001-5.

Entrance to the Armenian Convent of St. James in Jerusalem

Entrance to St. James Cathedral in Jerusalem

TRACING FEMALE MONASTICISM IN ARMENIA: THE ŁAP‘AN NUNNERIES Jasmine DUM-TRAGUT Salzburg / Austria

Շնորհիւ Տեառն սկսայ եւ ողորմութեամբ նորին կատարեցի զսուրբ աւետարանս ի մեծ թուականիս Հայոց ՌՃԺԲ ամին ի յանապատն Շօռոթայ, գոր կոչի Ս. Աստուածածին. Thank to the Lord I started and with his mercy I finished this holy gospel in the year of the great Armenian era 1112 in the hermitage of Šor̥ot‘, which is called S. Astvacacin. (W904,1665, Šor̥ot‘, Scribe unknown, Owner: Mariam, f. 281a.)

When one talks about the fact that Armenian monasticism is generally understudied, one must also admit that the history of Armenian female monasticism attracts even less scientific attention. Some studies on the early history of cenobitian monasticism in the pre-Arab period refer to written sources and help to analyze the opaque tradition of Armenian women’s monasteries and the role of Armenian women’s convents and hermitages, among them the studies of Hac‘uni, Covakan, Garsoïan, Pogossian and lately Mkrtč‘yan.1 A few scholars have drawn attention to the last important Armenian womens’ orders outside of the actual Armenian territory (that is, in the diaspora) and their last representatives, namely the famous convents of S. Katarinē Vank‘ in Nor Julfa (Isfahan)2, Iran, the S. 1

2

Հացունի, Վ. 1923 Կուսաստանք Հայաստանի մէջ (Nunneries in Armenia), further on Hac‘uni. ԾՈՎԱԿԱՆ, Հայ գրչուհիներ, in ՍԻՈՆ Ապրիլ-Մայիս, 133-135 (Armenian female scribes) further on Covakan. GARSOÏAN, Introduction to the problem of Early Armenian Monasticism. POGOSSIAN, A Brief Note on Female Monasteries in Armenia: V-XIV cc, 109117. POGOSSIAN, Female Ascetism in Early medieval Armenia. ՄԿՐՏՉՅԱՆ, Հայկական ձեռագրերի հիշատակարանները կանանց մենաստանների և կուսակրոն կանանց վերաբերյալ (The colophones of Armenian manuscripts refering to hermitages’ women and celibate women), further on Mkrtč‘yan. The convent of St. Katharine (Սուրբ Կատարինէ կուսանաց անապատ) in Isfahan was established and built in 1623 close to S. Hovhannes-Church and has a long history of education and workshops. In the first years they number of nuns reached about 33. At the beginning of the 20th c. some buildings were turned into orphanages and workshops, and a

106

Jasmine Dum-Tragut

Step‘anos Kusanac‘ Anapat in Tiflis3, Georgia and the Galfayan Kusanac‘ Anapat in Istanbul4; the studies on Armenian nunneries in the homeland are fragmentary. Unfortunately, there is no satisfying information regarding the existence and development of female religious communities since the late 4th c., and also the information gathered from archaeological, architectural and written sources of the later periods do not allow us to trace a continuous history of female monasticism in the Armenian Church. Obviously, female monasticism used to stand in the shadow of male monasticism and was never a widespread phenomenon: the number of monasteries and retreats for women was much lower than that of men, and thus also the number of consecrated women. This is often ascribed to differing social prestige: it seems, that though consecrated virgins were praised for their spiritual qualities or for their high moral reputation, and there was no popular understanding and perhaps even some social hostility particularly among women that devoted their life to living in ascetism.5 Some narratives and travel diaries of Armenian high rank clericals throughout the late medieval period up to modern times serve as crucial sources of information on female monastic centers in Armenia. Even more scattered is the information given by nuns themselves, i.e. in the colophons of Armenian manuscripts, giving their names as commissioners, owners, scribes, binders and even illuminators. Many nunneries and nuns’ hermitages would have been forgotten, just vanished in time, if there were not remains written on parchment and paper and built from stone. In this article, we will discuss the history and manuscript production of consecrated women and nunneries that flourished in the south of Armenia, in the historical province of Syunik‘, mainly in the second half of the 17th century in the shadow of the mighty monastery of Tat‘ew: the so-called kusanac‘ anapat (lit. virgins’ hermitage)6 of Šinuhayr, Halijor and Šor̥ot‘. We will provide some insight into the world of female manuscript production of these

3

4

5 6

carpet factory. The girl’s school was opened in 1856, with a separate building in 1900. The doors of the monastery were finally closed in 1954. Established in 1727 in Tiflis, mainly opened for girls from both prominent and poor families to guarantee high education and to host orphan girls. It was established by two nuns having come from Nor Julfa’s St. Katariana’s convent. n the 19th c. the Mother superiors and some nuns of this convent also became deaconesses. See ԽՈՒՑԵԱՆ, Թիֆլիսի Ս. Ստեփանոս կուսանաց անապատի պատմութիւն. (The history of St. Step‘anos nunnery in Tiflis) The Galfayan convent has been founded in 1866 by Srbuhi Galfayan, mainly for caring for orphans. This convent is still existing in Istanbul, belonging to the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul. See POGOSSIAN 2012, 211. This term, literally „place/hermitage of virgins“, denotes a solitary dwelling place or hermitage for celibate and/or consecrated women, i.e. nuns. As GARSOÏAN (2007, 194ff.) and POGOSSIAN (2012, 212) point out, that this term was used in the early time of Armenian monasticism only in the broad meaning as dwelling place for young (virgin) women/men and that it has become the exclusive term by semantic narrowing only to label a nunnery in late medieval period.

Tracing Female Monasticism in Armenia

107

three convents, and try to fathom the life and social background of female scribes.7 I. Historical sketch: Syunik‘ from the 17th century until Soviet Period In the early 16th century the eastern part of Armenia had been annexed by Shah Ismail I (1487-1524), and it remained part of Safavid Iran until the first half of the 19th century. After his horrendous destruction of Eastern Armenia in the beginning of the 17th century, Shah Abbas of Persia (1571-1629) ordered the deportation of more than 300,000 Armenians to Persia and left most parts of Eastern Armenia devastated and populated by a majority of Muslim tribes. Eastern Armenia and thus also Syunik‘ as part of the Safavid Empire continued to be theater of war between Ottomans and Safavids. During a very short period of peace, many destroyed and abandoned monasteries in the province of Syunik‘ could be renovated and filled again with consecrated men and women. This contributed to the last flaring-up of Armenian monasticism and of manuscript production in the 17th century. In 1722 the principality of Kapan was established to unite the noble families of Syunik‘ into one state to fight against the Muslim oppression, i.e. the Persian and Ottoman empires. Davit‘ Bek led the national liberation movement directly supported by Mxit‘ar Sparapet and Avan Yuzbaši, and headed also the struggles in Syunik‘ and Karabakh against the Safavid Persians during the Russo-Persian War 1722-1723. Some years later, in 1726-1728 the Armenians fought again under the leadership of Davit Bek against Ottoman armies in the Battle of Halijor, a convent they had chosen to turn into a fortress. His death in 1728 was also the symbolic stimulus for the end of the monastic renaissance in Syunik‘. Some years later, the new Iranian dynasty under the Qajars under Āghā Mohammad Khān-e Qājār (1742–1797), saw their first objective in bringing the Southern Caucasus again fully under Persian control. Syunik‘was incorporated again into Qajar Persia, partly into the Nakhchivan Khanate in 1747 and partly into the Karabakh khanate in 1750. At the beginning of the 19th century, the southern region of Armenia were gradually seized by Tsarist Russians who sought to control the former Persian khanates Erivan and Karabakh at the beginning of the 19th c. At that time, when Eastern Armenia was liberated from Muslim dominion with the annexation to Tsarist Russia in 1828, another population flow, this time however, from Persia to Armenia, came in. At that time, only very few monasteries in Syunik‘ were still populated. But some of them had remained centers of liberation and resistance until the first decades of the 20th century. Thus, following the Anti-Soviet February Uprising in 1921, as last attempt of an Armenian independent state, Garegin Nždeh declared the 7

The study on the nuns’ hermitages and their manuscript production in historical Syunik‘ is work in progress.

Jasmine Dum-Tragut

108

former historical province of Syunik‘ territory of the Republic of Mountainous Armenia, which existed only until mid-July of the same year.

Map of Syunik‘ in 17th/18th c. showing the principality of Kapan

II. A glimpse into history of female monasticism in Syunik‘ in the 17th c. Before entering the history of nunneries of Syunik‘, we shall have a brief look at the dominant and most impressive monastery of Syunik‘, which owned most of the villages and monasteries of the region and was highly influential through its clergy, university and manuscript school: the monastery of Tat‘ew. II.1. The monastery of Tat‘ew8 The Tat‘ew plateau looking onto the deep gorge of river Vorotan was known as ritual place since pre-Christian time, and was christianized by means of a small church perhaps in the 4th c. The attested Christian history of the monastery dates back to the midst of the 9th century, when it became the seat of the bishop of Syunik‘ and a new church was constructed between 895 and 906, replacing the older one. Despite repeated destruction and looting of the monastery by Seljuk tribes, it could be re-established with the efforts of the Ōrbelyan family in the 13th century. It was under this Armenian noble family, that the monastery grew 8

Քրիստոնյա Հայաստան Հանրագիտարան, Երևան 2002, 994-998.

Tracing Female Monasticism in Armenia

109

in influence not only as one of the largest monastic communities with several hundreds of monks, but also as the principal center of Armenian Christianity and culture throughout the Mongolian period. With the founding of a university in 14th century it became one of the most important places of the Armenian Church. Although having experienced a renaissance during the 17th and 18th centuries, it was gradually perishing through the repeated attacks of Āghā Mohammad Khān-e Qājār (1742–1797) and by the later annexation of Armenia into the territory of orthodox Tsarist Russia in 1828. Though, it was this monastery, which had become a real bastion of Armenian Christianity, first again Latin Church and Unionist movements in the Armenian Church in the 14th to 15th c., later against Muslim tribes. It was also the place of the annunciation of the independent Republic of Mountainous Armenia in April 1921.

Monastery of Tat‘ew

Hundreds of monks, the monastic complex, the cultural center, the scriptorium and the university could not have survived without the support of hundreds of villages. As other Armenian monastic centers, Tat‘ew levied tithes from its owned villages, and the number of these villages ranged from 60 up to 260 villages according to various authors (cf. Ališan 1893, 242 ff). These villages’ tithes and the financial support from noble families benefitted not only to Tat‘ew Monastery but also to those monasteries and retreats geographically closely located or being owned by Tat‘ew’s bishops’, vardapets’ or abbots’ families. Ownership relations, geographical vicinity and familial ties of Tat‘ew’s vardapets with Syunik’s nunneries of the 17th c. may explain this “accumulation” of historically important nunneries in this rather remote region

110

Jasmine Dum-Tragut

of Armenia. Some of the vardapets and abbots of Tat‘ew might have supported, even promoted the establishment of nunneries under the (direct?) influence of Tat‘ew monastery during the period of the Ōrbelean family. Some of them were even installed as superiors, as father confessors or as teachers in the convents. Later on, some other influential families and clericals may have done the same to re-establish and re-activate already existing nunneries during a period of a last renaissance of Armenian monasticism in the 17th century. II.2. The nunneries in the shadow of Tat‘ew The first mention of nunneries and nuns’ hermitages can be found in the written sources of the 13th century. The villages Šinuhayr9, Halijor10 and Šor̥ot‘11, being owned by the monastery of Tat‘ew, had been known for a rather long period for their churches and male monasticism. Step‘anos Ōrbelean, bishop of Syunik‘ in the 13th century and owner of Tat‘ew monastery narrates in his history of Syunik‘ about the villages and places that were holdings of the monasteries and provides detailed information about the monasteries and hermitages of his time. In chapter 71, he gives a short list of monasteries in his diocese, namely three nunneries, i.e. the Surb Astvacacin (Mother of God) hermitage of Šinuhayr and of Halijor and the Amenap‘rkič‘ (All-Saviour) hermitage at Manlewi.12 He even lists tithes and taxes the villages and the smaller monasteries had to pay to the church in chapter 74, among them in the district of Geghak‘uni also the nunnery of Kot‘13, in the district of Haband the villages of Šnoy herk‘ (=Šinuhayr) and Halē (=Halijor village). 9

10

11

12

13

The village is nowadays called Շինուհայր Šinuhayr (39°26′03″N 46°18′56″E ), its name in various historical sources varies from Šnherk‘, Šner, Šēnhēr, Šenahayr, to Šinher. See Բարսեղյան Հ. Հայաստանի և հարակից շրջանների տեղանունների բառարան 1986, 4, 125. (Dictionnary of placenames of Armenia and surrounding regions), further on Barsełyan. Halijor, a village which is close to the town of Goris and the Monastery of Tat ‘ew, and the neighbouring village of Šinuhayr (39.2437°N, 46.1743°E). In history it was known under its former names Halē or Halis, cf. Barsełyan 3, 307. It is home of the famous (Halijor) Haranc‘ anapat (17th c.), fathers’ hermitage, another cultural heritage of Syunik‘. Šor̥ot‘ was a small village in the region of Julfa. It was mainly known as religious and cultural center in late medieval period. It is now the village of Şurud in Azerbaijanian Nakhchivan (39° 9′ 5″ N, 45° 47′ 42″ E). Cf. BEDROSIAN, Step‘annos Orbelean’s History of the State Sisakan, 252, Chapter 72, 53. The hermitage of Ma(n)lew is located 16 km north from the village of Alvank ‘ (38° 56′ 18″ N, 46° 20′ 42″ E) in Syunik‘, in the region of Mełri.The preserved nunnery consisting of a threenave basilica, called All-Saviour, and a surrounding fortification wall and courtyard, are dated to 17-18th century, it is but much older. In a list of Tat‘ews own village, there is a note that Malew kusanac anapat paid in 1781 5,600 dahekan to Tat‘ew, which means it was still working in the late second half of the 18th c. The monastic complex is a registered cultural heritage of Syunik‘, cf. www.armmonuments.am, monument No. 8.9.16. Kot‘ or Kot‘avank is located near the village Nerk‘in Getašen in Armenia’s province of Gełark‘unik‘ (40° 8′ 28.93″ N, 45° 15′ 53.05″ E). It was already founded in 9-11th c. The main

Tracing Female Monasticism in Armenia

111

The further history of the mentioned hermitages is not traceable before the 17 th century. In June 1668, Zak‘aria from Agulis went on pilgrimage to the “Łap‘an“ monasteries, accompanied by the primate of Agulis, Petros Vardapet:14 Նախ եւ առաջ գնացինք Յալիձորու կուսանաց անապատն: Սորայ հայրն է Տեր Միքայէլ: Այս անապատումն ունէր Հ կուսանք ապաշխարող. First we went to the Halidzor Nuns Monastery. Its abbot was Ter Mik‘ayēl. The monastery had seventy penitential virgins (nuns). Երրորթ գնացինք Շնէհերու կուսանաց անապատն. Սորայ հայրն է մղդսի Մարքարէ. Սորայ ունէր կ կուսանք ապաշխարող: Our third destination was the Shnêher Nuns Monastery. The abbot here was maqdasi Mak‘ar. It had sixty penitent nuns.

From the travel accounts of catholicos Abraham III. Kretac‘i (1734-1737) we learn that during his diocesan trips in Syunik‘, he visited the nunneries of Šinuhayr and Šor̥ot‘ in 1735. According to his report, they were already destroyed and in a very sad condition. He also mentioned the even worse condition of the nunnery of the village of Tiwi.15 Եւ անտի անցեալ զգետն Որոտան ձիով, որ է ի մէջ մատրան եւ Շէնհէրու կուսանաց անապատին, ելանք ի վեր ի կուսանաց յանապատն: Եւ տեսի զաւեր նորա եւ զամայութիւն, որում բնակէին աւելի քան զՃԾ (150) կուսանսն: Իսկ այժմ միայն ԲԺ (20)-ան ապաշխարողս կային, եւ սոքա եւս շիւարեալք, եւ տարակուսեալք, եւ յուսահատեալք. (…) Եւ յետ երկուց աւրուց գնացի ի Գաղ եւ ի Շոռոթ եւ ի վանքն Շոռոթու եւ յանապատն: (…) Եւ անտի ի Տիւի, գիւղ որում կայր աւեր, եւ վանքն՝ ամայի, եւ կուսանաց անապատն Է (7) միայն ապաշխարող

14 15

church, S. Astvacacin, a domed cruciform church on a central plan, was erected by Prince Grigor Supan II. in 886. It was completely renovated in 2014, and is a registered cultural heritage, (Kot‘avank‘) Gełark‘unik‘ 4.66.7. http://www.armmonuments.am http://hushardzan.am/ 1551 cf. CUNEO 1988, 371, No.186. English translation see BOURNOUTIAN, 2003, p. 82-83. Original: Առաքել Ագուլեցի Օրագրությունը 1938, f. 65 ՂՈՐՂԱՆՅԱՆ Ն.: Աբրահամ Կրետացի պատմութիւն; 1973, 8, Խը (The history by Abraham Kretac‘i). Tewi was a small Armenian village in the Ordubad region. It is now Tivi, located in Azerbaijanian Nakhchivan (39° 7′ 28″ N, 45° 53′ 29″ E). The nuns’ hermitage was int he southern part of the village, but was already abandoned at the end of the 18 th century. The official list of destroyed Armenian monuments in Nakhchivan just gives St. ThovmaMonastery of Tewi founded in 14th c., destroyed in the 19th c., but no information about the fate of the nuns’ hermitage.

112

Jasmine Dum-Tragut And there, after having passed the Vorotan river on horseback, which is between the chapel and the virgins’ hermitage of Šēnhēr, we arrived in the virgins’ hermitage. And I saw its desolation and its depopulation; here used to live more than 150 nuns. And now only some 20 penitants were still here, and even those were in bewildered, full of doubts and discouraged (…) And after two days I went to Gał and to Šor̥ot‘, and into the monastery and hermitage of Šor̥ot‘. (..) And there in Tiwi, a village, in which there was desolation, and a monastery, depopulated. In the nuns hermitage there are only seven penitents.

Catholicos Simeon I. Yerevanc‘i (1763-1780) mentioned several nunneries in the region of Gełark‘unik‘ in his travel accounts. Gełark‘unik‘ formerly belonged to the historical province of Syunik‘, thus also the nunneries such as Kot‘ anapat, Ilkavank‘16, Dap‘uc‘vank‘17 and another anapat in the same village of Noratus.18 Ունի եւս զանապատս ընդ ձեռամբ իւրով, զԴափուցվանք, որ է Կուսանաց՝ առընթեր Նորատսոյ: Զանապատ մի եւս Կուսանաց, ի նոյն Նորատուս գեղջն: Զանապատ մի եւս, յԻլկէվանք գեղջն, որ եւս է կուսանաց (IE) And another hermitage in its (=Syunik‘s) possession, is Dap‘uc‘vank‘ which is a nunnery, close to Noratus. And one more convent, in the same Noratus village. And one more in the village Ilkēvank‘, which is also a nunnery.

F. Łukas V. Inčičean (1758-1833) mentioned in his Geography, written 1806 in Venice, all villages of historical Syunik‘, among those also the villages of Šnher (Šinuhayr) close to Tat‘ev, Halijor close to „Xaban“ (=Kapan) and Šor̥ot‘, but only for the latter he gave some more information:19 Երկու մենաստանք են առ շոռոթին. (…) Իսկ միւսն մեծ վս կանանց կուսանաց. որ է ‘ի մի ծայր աւանին յորում յռջագոյն‘ Ի ժմկս 16

17

18 19

Il(i)kavank‘ is a small monastery (40°16’10.1"N 45°09’30.0"E) which is better known as Par̥avivank‘ (i.e. monastery of the old woman). It is located close to the village of Lanĵałbyur. The church is older than its later function as nunnery’s church, it is dated to the 10 th century. It is completely renovated and is a registered historical monument of Gełark ‘unik‘, no. 3.38.1.2. cf. http://hushardzan.am/3661. Cf. CUNEO 1988, 364, No. 178. Dap‘uc‘vank‘is another name for the Church of S. Grigor Lusavorič‘ in the south-eastern borders of the village of Noratus. (40°22’04.3"N 45°11’01.2"E) ). The name derives from Arm. դափ dap‘ for tambourine, there is no explanation for this name given by catholicos Yerevanc‘i. According to inscriptions it was errected in the 9 th-10th c. as single-nave church, but was then modified into a domed church by a certain Xač‘atur. The fortifications walls enclosing also a courtyard date from 13th-17th century and were part of the small nunnery. Dap‘uc‘vank‘ is completely renovated, a small but beautiful Armenian church, also a registered historical heritage of Gełark‘unik‘, cf. http://www.armenianheritage.org/hy/ monument/Noratus/1021. Սիմէօն կաթուղիկոս Երեւանցի, Ջամբռ, 1873, ԻԵ (online resource) ԻՆՃԻՃԵԱՆ, Աշխարհագրութիւն չորից մասանց աշխարհի. Հատոր Ա, Վենետիկ 1806. He desribes Šor̥ot‘ on p. 269, and lists Halijor on p. 271 and Šinuhayr on p. 274.

Tracing Female Monasticism in Armenia

113

խաղաղութե բնակէին մինչեւ 50 եւ 60 կուսանք ‘ի շոռոթայ և ‘ի շրջակայ գիյղօրէից. Այլ այժմ գրեթէ թափուր է ‘ի բնակչաց: There are two hermitages at Šor̥ot‘. (…) And the other big (is) a hermitage for women. Which is at one end of the village, and in which in former days, in times of peace, used to live up to 50-60 nuns, from Šor̥ot‘ and surrounding villages. But today almost no inhabitants are left.

In Sisakan (1893), a detailed description of the Armenian historical province Syunik‘, Łevond Ališan (1820-1901) provided some information about female monastic orders in Southern Armenia. Thus, in his list of monasteries and hermitic places, he specified the following monasteries as nunneries: Šinuher, Halijor, Nortus as well as Ilkevan and Hoč‘anc‘.20

The three “Łap‘an“ Monasteries 20

Hoč‘anc nuns’ hermitage is known also through the reports of Ar̥ak‘el Davrišec‘i (15901670), in his history’s chapter 11. Cf. ԽԱՆԼԱՐԵԱՆ, Լ.: Առաքել Դաւրիժէցի, Գիրք պատմութեանց, Երևան 1990. (online resource) The village Hoč‘anc‘ or Hunč‘ak (Azerbaijanian Hoçaz) is located in K‘ašat‘ał region of today’s Republic of Karabakh. Two monks, Kirakos and T‘ovma, founded a small hermitage and church and are also buried there. The preserved church, dated 1621, about 1,4 km northeast of the village (N39°40’53.3’’N, 46°28’24.1’’E) of Hunč‘ak was later identified as St. Step'anos Church, but the hermitage of the monks, which might have been used later as nuns’ hermitage could not be found. It was only in 2016, that by chance, cave churches were discovered in nearby cave systems which were intenfied by specialists as the hermitage. The hermitage and church of Hočanc‘ are registered as cultural/historical monument in Karabkh, No. 125. www.monuments.nkr.am Cf. KARAPETYAN, Armenian cultural monuments in the region of Karabakh, 2001, 157. Cf. http://www.aravot.am/2016/08/16/726539/ (about Russian speleologists investigating the caves of Hočanc‘ in 2016).

Jasmine Dum-Tragut

114

It seems that by the beginning of the 20th century, most of Syunik’s nunneries had literally been reduced to rubble, or at least heavily desolated and depopulated; only two of them have survived until today, primarily because of their “strategically defensive position” during the period of Armenian independence battles up to the 20th c.: the most famous Łapan-nunneries Šinuhayr and Halijor. Šor̥ot‘ Kusanac‘ anapat, however, suffered a bitter fate in 2005 and does not exist anymore.21 III. The Łap‘an-Nunneries III. 1. Šinuhayr The history of the village on the slopes overlooking river Vorotan, can be traced back to the early days of Christianity, it used to be one of the biggest and richest villages in this region of Armenia and was owned by Tat‘ew monastery since the early medieval period. The inscriptions found in the monastery of Noravank‘ underline the importance of this village and the early existence of a monastery in it.22 In the third quarter of the 17th century Šinuhayr achieved fame for its newly established virgins’ hermitage. The first reference to this nunnery can be found in the above mentioned travel account of Zak‘aria of Agulis dated June 1668. This source is, however, some years younger than the main inscription on the main Church St. Astvacacin, dated 1676, in which Mahtesi Az(a)ri from Agulis tells about the construction of the church in the memory of his father Mahtesi Earłuli, his mother Hr̥ip‘simē, his wife Oski, and his sons, Petros and Beniamin:23 Ազղմամբ Սուրբ Հոգւոյն ես ամենամեղս մահտէսի Ազրիս որ եմ տեղեավ Ագուլեաց դաշտէն, եկի ի ժողովարանն կանանց եւ ետու շինել զեկեղեցիս շրջապատաւք եւ սուրբ տամբք: Under the influence of the Holy Spirit, I, big sinner Mahtesi Azri being a local from the plain of Agulis, came to these women’s meeting house (chapel) and had this church here built, with surroundings and holy houses.

The convent might have been (re)founded in the middle of the 17th century. Most of the manuscripts in the nuns’ hermitage were written before the documented visit of Zak‘aria of Agulis and, surprisingly, also before the “construction” of the church, dated according to the inscription to 1676. And 21 22 23

Cf. http://raa.am/Teghekagir/naxijevan_teghekanq_e.html (August 31st, 2017), SwitzerlandArmenia Parliamentary Group (ed.) “The destruction of Jugha”, Bern: 2006, 76-77. This inscription is placed on the northern wall of Smbat’s tomb, dated 1275. See Cf. Բարխուդարյան Barxudaryan, III, 1967, 234, No. 765. This inscription is placed inside of the church, on the sanctuary’s southern arch. Cf. Բարխուդարյան Barxudaryan, II, 58, No 148.

Tracing Female Monasticism in Armenia

115

before the church’s renovation in 1720 by Beniamin of Agulis, son of Mahtesi Az(a)ri of Agulis, as documented in the building’s inscriptions.24 Ես անարժան մահտեսի Բենիամին որ եմ յերկրէն Գողթնեաց Դաշտէն, եւ եմ որդի մահտեսի Ազարին, որ ետ շինել տաճարս: եւ ես (…) նորոգել (…) Թվին Հայոց ՌՃԿԹ I, the unworthy Mahtesi Beniamin, who I am from the country of Gołt‘n, and the son of Mahtesi Azari, who had this church built. And I had it renovated 25 (…) in the Armenian year 1169.

In the same year, the refectory and some other buildings were added by Hohvannes from C‘łna and his son Astvacatur, as witnessed by the inscriptions in the tympanum of the western entrance of the refectory.26 The preserved colophons of more than a dozen manuscripts of the second half of the 17th century, grant us some insight into the activities and organization of the nunnery of Šinuhayr.

Šinuhayr nuns’ hermitage in hiberanation, part of the fortifcation wall Church of S. Astvacacin

24 25

26

This inscription is placed inside oft he church, on the sanctuary’s southern pillar. Cf. Բարխուդարյան Barxudaryan, II, 59, No 149. According to the studies of Barxudaryan, the last three lines of this inscription „Յիշեցէք ուստա Մուրատն որ է յերկրէն ՔրդաստաՆի. Yišec‘ěk‘ usta Muratn or ē yerkrēn K‘rdstani. „Remember master Murat from the country of Kurdistan“ do not belong to the same text. They refer rather to an inscription of the very architect and master builder of the church, a certain Master Murat from Vaspurakan. See Բարխուդարյան Barxudaryan II, p. 59, inscription No 150. Cf. Բարխուդարյան, II, 59, No. 151, reads as follows: Շինեցաւ Թվ ՌՃԿԹ յիշատակ է սեղանատունս որ ի երկրէն ի Գողտնիեաց ի գեղջէն Ցղնցի Դլանի որդի Ոհանէսին եւ իր որդի Ածատուրին: „This was built in the year 1169, this refectory here, for the memory of the son of Dlan, Ohanēs and his son Acatur from the country of Gołtn, from the village of C‘łna.“

116

Jasmine Dum-Tragut

Thus, the first mentioning of a nunnery and female scribe in Šinuhayr is given in a gospel-book dated 1640 copied by a nun-scribe named Margarit.27 ի յայսմ ամի գրեցաք զսուրբ Աւետարանս ի յերկիրս Ղափան, ի գեաւղս Շէնհէր, ընդ հովանեաւ Ստաթէի սուրբ վանից եւ անապատաց եւ Սուրբ Ստեփաննոսի եկեղեցոյն…( ) Աստուած ողորմի ասէք մեզ’ Ղազար եւ Մարգարիտ գրչիս եւ ( ) մեր հոգեւոր մայր’ Խոսրով ապաշխարողին… In this year we wrote the holy Gospel in the country of Łap‘an, in the village Šnuhayr, under the auspices of the holy monasteries and hermitages of Stat‘ē (=Tat‘ew) and of the church of S. Step‘annos. […] Say God have mercy for us, Łazar and me, the scribe, Margarit and our spiritual mother, the penitent Xosrov …

In the colophon of a Psalter book, 1645, the scribe Łazar of Šnuher, again names his sister Margarit as co-scribe, but also remembers the commissioner of the manuscript, celibate Hr̥ip‘simē and his celibate niece, Sop‘ia:28 Գրեցավ զՍաղմոս Դաւթի (…) ձեռամբ Ղազար [պիտակակոչի] եւ քեռն իմոյ Մարգարիտի,… Աստուած ողորմի ասել ստացողի սբ տառիս Հռիպսիմէ կուսակրօն հաւատավորի …եւ եղբոր դստեր կուսակրօն Սոփիային: This Psalm of David (…)was written by the hand of [word unclear] Łazar , and my sister Margarit (…) May God have mercy with the commissioner of this holy scripture, celibate nun Hr̥ip‘simē…and the celibate daughter of my brother, Sop‘ia…

Margarit appears as scribe of some other manuscripts, followed by other nuns like Hełinē, Marinos, Mariam and Hr̥ip‘simē, and she seems to have also been trained in manuscript illumination.29 The nuns’ hermitage of Šinuhayr was also a place where manuscript were commissioned, as we know from several colophons, mainly commissioned by the mother superior or the father superior. In the colophon of M7113, a Hymnal book produced in 1654, one can read that a scribe named Astvacatur k‘ahanay (priest Astvacatur) has copied this hymnal book:30 ի խնդրոյ սրբասնունդ դստերն իմոյ’ Հէրիքնազ հաւատւոր սարկաւագուհոյն եւ այլ դստերացն իմ’ Հռիփսիմին, Սառին, 27

28 29 30

Հայերեն ձեռագրերի ԺԷ դարի հիշատակարաններ, հատ. Բ, 826, No 1219. Բանբեր Մատ. No 10, Avetaran 1640. This manuscript is part of a private collection, the K ‘yurtyanCollection in Wichita, Cansas, USA. Cf. Մկրտչյան Mkrtč‘yan 2013, 91. Հայերեն ձեռագրերի Ժէ դարի հիշատակարաններ հ.Գ, 181, No. 311. Cf. Մկրտչյան Mkrtč‘yan 2013, 92. The gospel of 1640 contains beautiful illuminations of all four evangelists and canon-tables, even with the use of gold. M7113. Հայերեն ձեռագրերի Ժէ դարի հիշատակարաններ հ.Գ, 627, No. 958. Cf. Մկրտչյան Mkrtč‘yan 2013, 91.

Tracing Female Monasticism in Armenia

117

Գուլասարին, Աննային, Հէղինին, Մարթին եւ ամենայն արեան մերձաւորացն իմոց.31 ..at the request of my chaste (lit. nourished in purity) daughter, nun and deaconess Hērik‘naz and my other daughters, Hr̥ips‘imě, Sar̥a, Gulasara, Anna, Hełinē and Mart‘inē and all consanguineous relatives of mine…

A certain Marinos writes in the colophon of Šnorhali’s “Jesus the son”, dated 1650, about her celibate brother, priest Mesrop and her sisters Hełinē and Varvara and all her consanguineous relatives:32 Յիշեցէք զանպիտան գծող սորա զՄրինոս, եւ զծնաւղսն իմ () եւ զեղբարքն իմ’ Մեսրոպ կուսակրօն քահանայն եւ Յովսէփն, զքոյրքն’ Հեղինէն եւ Վառվառ..(…) Remember the worthless scribe (of it), Marinos, and my parents () and my brothers, celibate priest Mesrop and Yovsēp‘, and the sisters, Hełinē and Var̥var̥ (…)

In a later co-production of the scribes Hełinē and the above mentioned Marinos, an amazing copy of the book of sermons of Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i of 1656,33 they remember each other and again their brother, Mesrop. In her colophon, Marinos writes: Այլ եւ յիշեցէք զրաբունայպետ վարդապետն զՄեսրոպ եւ զանարժան գրիչս զՄարինոս… Թողութիւն շնորհեցէք. Քանզի արտասուօք գրեցի, յորժամ յիշեցի զմայրն իմ’ զՀեղինէն զսիրտ իմ նուաղեցաւ եւ աչք իմ շլացաւ, զի ոչ կարացի գրել ստուգիւ: (…) եւ առաւել յիշեցէք (….] զրաբունապետ վարդպետն իմ զՄեսրոպն եւ ուսուցիչն իմ’ զՀեղինէն, որ բազում աշխատանք ունի ի վերա իմ… And remember the archvardapet and vardapet Mesrop and me, the unworthy scribe Marinos. Please grant forgiveness. Since I wrote in tears, when I remembered my mother, Hełinē, and my heart collapsed and my eyes became blunt, so that I could not write properly…. And furthermore remember…the archvardapet, my vardapet Mesrop and my teacher, Hēłinē, who has so much work with me. 31 32

33

Հայերեն ձեռագրերի Ժէ դարի հիշատակարաններ հ.Գ, 608, No. 984. M7112 Cf. Մկրտչյան Mkrtč‘yan 2013, 91, 94. Հայերեն ձեռագրերի Ժէ դարի հիշատակարաններ հ.Գ, 399, No.634. M8579. Cf. Մկրտչյան Mkrtč‘yan 2013, 92. In some publications and entries, Marinos is seen as male scribe. This might be disproved by the contents of the same manuscript’s colophon, when Marinos writes that this copy was written under the auspices of S. Astvacacin and in the dwellings in Šinuhayr hermitage. This definitely refers to the nunnery’s scriptorium; moreover, in another manuscripts she is clearly a female, Marinos. Though Marinos is in general a male personal name, it was used also for females, as pseudonym or taken after professing vow or being ordained. Հայերեն ձեռագրերի Ժէ դարի հիշատակարաններ հ.Գ, 715, No. 1034. M4043. Cf. Մկրտչյան Mkrtč‘yan 2013, 93.

118

Jasmine Dum-Tragut

Hełinē, in fact, was Šinuhayr’s most productive scribe in the 40ies, some fivesix manuscripts can be traced back to her gifted hands. The mentioning of a Hełinē in the above mentioned copy of 1656 by a scribe named Marinos as “teacher” and another copy of the “Life of the fathers” dated to the 17th c., by a scribe Marianē calling herself the pupil of Hełinē34, also prove the transmission of knowledge in manuscript production in Šinuhayr’s nunnery. One of the last female scribes of Šinuhayr was Mariam, who among others, copied Grigor Tat‘ewac‘is Oskep‘orik and book of sermons in 167335 Ձեռամբ տկար եւ ապիկար’ սուտանուն Մարիամ հաւատոր եւ կուսան կոչեցեալ անուամբ եւեթ (….)36 With the hands of the weak and infirm nun Mariam, with her pseudonym as virgin called with this name…

In the same year, another nun-sribe, Er̥inē copied a book of hours as a present for Mahtesi Karapet and his brother Tēr Bałtasar Ceruni.37 The (last preserved and known manuscript was both copied and commissioned by celibate nun Hr̥ip‘sime, as a gospel book in 1694.38

Entrance to S. Astvacacin Main inscription on tympanon 34 35 36 37 38

M794. Since this manuscript contains no information about the exact date and place of its production, this can only be regarded as our assumption. M1455, Šinuhayr 1673. This manuscript also contains some illuminations and ornate letters, perhaps also created by Mariam’s hands? Cf. ALIŠAN 1893, 259. Cf. ALIŠAN 1893, 259. M4088, Šinuhayr 1673. M8513, Šinuhayr 1694.

Tracing Female Monasticism in Armenia

119

By the end of the 17th century, the scriptorium of the Šinuhayr nunnery had become one of the most productive and famous “female” manuscript centers. This might have required an extension of the monastic complex with a small gavit‘ and a refectory in 1720. The enclosing walls with small integrated rooms and two entrances in the west and east were only added in the 19th century. Moreover, during the most prosperous time of the convent, there seemed to be an exchange of knowledge and teaching between the nunneries of the historical province of Syunik‘. This is how we learn about the fact, that nuns were even trained in illuminating manuscripts. In a gospel manuscript kept in Vienna, dated 1650-60 and written in Varand, a scribe Katarinē gives some information about the nunnery of Šnuher and its nuns. One of them, Gayianē, might have come from there. She has illuminated this gospel. After having finished the copy and after having it checked by mother superior, Mariam, Katarinē was sent to Šinuhayr to the supervision of the father confessor, who taught her in hymnal singing and writing.39 Other nuns were trained in preparing the material for manuscript production and for binding, as can be seen from a few words written in the colophon of a Hymnal book, M5099, 1647 written by Hełinē40 զկոյսակրօն քոյրն իմ’ զՄարիանէ () եւ զթղթի կոկողն կոյս Յուստիանէն. (…), (and remember) also my celibate sister, Marianē (and) the paper-smoother, virgin Yustianē.

The nunnery and manuscript center was unfortunately also affected from the regional independence battles led by Davit‘ Bek, which contributed to its destruction and decline. In October 1813 the village and its monasteries were passed to the Russian invaders, becoming a part of the later Zangezur region. Until 1845 Šinuhayr even hosted the seat of the regional spiritual government, but was then moved to neighbouring Tat‘ew. At that time we do have names and news about the activities of monks and fathers, but nothing any longer is heard about what happened to the nuns. Some notes on architecture41 The monastic complex differs in its architecture very much from others. Only here, the nature influenced directly the architectural composition. The natural position of the fortification walls, the rocks and the inclination towards the gorge of Vorotan River are perfectly combined.

39 40 41

Հայերեն ձեռագրերի Ժէ դարի հիշատակարաններ հ.Գ, 627, No. 938. Հայերեն ձեռագրերի Ժէ դարի հիշատակարաններ հ.Գ, 256, No. 422. Cf. Մկրտչյան Mkrtč‘yan. 2013, 92. Cf. CUNEO 1988, 415, No.218. Հասրատյան Hasratyan 1973, 33-37.

120

Jasmine Dum-Tragut

The convent is located directly in the village, which is in general quite exceptional for convents, especially for hermitages. The complex comprises the church of S. Astvacacin, a gavit‘, a refectory, fortification walls and dwellings in this walls. The church, gavit‘ and refectory are located in the southern part of the complex, the other buildings in the north. These two parts are connected by means of a court-like corridor, in which there is also the entrance of the complex. The Church of St. Astvacacin was built (and rebuilt in 1720) as a three-nave basilica on a rectangular plan with a pair of cruciform pillars; in the east side, on both sides of the half-circular sanctuary, there are rectangle vestries. There is only one entrance at the southern side, which opens to the gavit‘. The latter was attached to the church’s southern side, on a rectangular floor plan in the 17th c. The refectory is adjacent to the southern side of the church, and is much lower than the church (3.6 m); the roof of the refectory serves as courtyard for the church, whereas the entrance to the gavit‘ opens immediately in the direction of its roof. According to the inscription on the western entrance tympanum of the refectory, it was constructed in 1720 on a rectangular floor plan, with two vaults and two entrances, at the east and west. The fortification walls enclose the whole complex at the northern and eastern side, towards the village with about 5-6 m, but on the south and west there is the natural rock overlooking the gorge of river Vorotan. They were only built in the second half of the 17th c.

Floorplan Šinuhayr nuns’ hermitage

Tracing Female Monasticism in Armenia

121

Nowadays, the old village of Šinuhayr and its hermitage are abandoned in a state of hibernation. The convent itself is fallen into ruins, but still not badly preserved. Nonetheless, the monastery, the church and even some tombstones are officially registered as national historical monuments.42 III.2. Halijor Halijor Kusanac‘ Anapat is the correct and original name of the 17th c. convent, which is located overlooking the Ołĵ-River, close to the capital of Syunik‘, Kapan43, and was later turned into a fortress and is thus today rather known as Halijor fortress. The convent was obviously founded in the first half of the 17th c. Similar Šinuhayr’s hermitage, the first mentioning of a retreat for nuns can be found in colophons. In this case, it is M 1327, namely a manuscript dated 1653 narrating about mother superior Hr̥ip‘sime. During his visit in 1668, Zak‘aria of Agulis counted 70 penitent nuns in the small convent. The exact date of the building of the main church of the convent’s complex, S. Astvacacin is unknown, but according to the traditions, it was renovated in 1723, by Davit‘ Bek himself. Before that, in 1711, the convent gained sad notoriety as crime scene in the murder of Ar̥ak‘el Episkopos, superior of the Tat‘ew monastery.

Halijor nuns’ hermitage (fortress) today

During the 18th century, the famous Armenian military commander and liberator Davit‘ Bek and his chief lieutenant and successor Mxit‘ar Sparapet used the site as their main headquarters as well as an administrative center for Syunik‘ in their fight against the forces of the Ottoman Empire and the Persians. Between 1723 and 1727, Bek along with other soldiers, bishops, and priests defended the 42 43

Mon.No. 8.73.2.3. http://hushardzan.am/4892. Halijor fortress 39.2192°N, 46.3533°E. Both on internet and in some publications, it is often misleadingly localised in the village of Halijor, which is close to the town of Goris and the Monastery of Tat‘ew, and the neighbouring village of Šinuhayr.

Jasmine Dum-Tragut

122

fortress in a seven-day siege from an invading army of Ottoman Turks. Even the nuns took part in defending their fortified convent. Bek died at the fortress after coming down with an illness in 1728. After David Bek’s death, the Ottoman army captured the convent-fortress Halijor and notified the defenders that they would take control of the fortress but leave the battalion and residents unharmed. With the establishment of the short-term princedom of Łap‘an, Halijor remains the seat of a local princely family named Melik-Parsadarnyan. The convent of Halijor was smaller than that of Šinuhayr, and thus also its scriptorium produced less manuscripts. But also here, the nuns were taught in manuscript producing and some of their manuscript are still preserved. Most of the manuscript preserved are commissioned and/or copied by mother superior, Hr̥ip‘simē.44 Գրեցաւ սա ի յերկիրս Էճանան, ի գեաւղս Հալիձոր (…) յիշեցէք տէր Մելիքսէթս եւ զվերակացու Անապատիս` մահդասի Միքայէլս, որ գրել ետուն զսուրբ գիրքս վասն փրկութեան հոգոյ` (…) եւ զեղկելի գծողս եւ զանապատիս մայրապետ՝ զՀռիփսիմէն եւ մարանապետ՝ Ուստիանէն։45 This was written in this land of Ēčanan, in this village of Halijor (…). Remember Tēr Melik‘sēt‘ and the overseer of this hermitage, Mahtesi Mik‘ayel, who had this holy book written for the salvation of the (his) soul (…) and also the pitiful scribe and this hermitage’s superior, Hr̥ip‘sime and the cellarer, Ustianē.

The prominent celibate and defensive women of the Halijor convent were also mentioned in another manuscript, M7113: a Hymnal book copied in Halijor in 1654 by a scribe named Ełi(sabet‘)46 մայրապէտ սբ կուսանոցի Հռիփսիմէն ( ) եւ մարանապէտ Ուստիանէն (…), remember mother superior of the Holy hermitage, Hr̥ip‘simē and the cellarar Ustianē.

Some notes on architecture47 The walls of the convent-fortress are laid out in an irregular quadrangle site plan. Within the walls of the fortress are the remains of the church of S. Astvacacin and a chapel as well as the foundations of what had once served as 44 45 46 47

M1327, Halijor kusanac‘ anapat, 1653. M1327, Halijor kusanac‘ anapat, 1653. Հայերեն ձեռագրերի Ժէ դարի հիշատակարաններ հ.Գ, 551-2, No. 849. Մկրտչյան Mkrtč‘yan 2013, 96. M7113, Halijor kusanac‘ anapat, 1654. Հայերեն ձեռագրերի Ժէ դարի հիշատակարաններ հ.Գ, 608, No. 928. Cf. Մկրտչյան Mkrtč‘yan 2013, 91. Cf. CUNEO, 1988, 422, No 221. Հասրաթյան, 1973, 46-49 . Halijor Fortress was completely renovated, and is a registered historical-cultural monument of Syunik‘. Cf. http://www.armmonuments.am, mon. No. 8.1.8.1. or http://hushardzan.am/4109.

Tracing Female Monasticism in Armenia

123

dwellings and other secular structures. Two arched portals lead into the convent from the exterior fortification walls to the north and the south. At the southwestern corner of the fortified wall is a tower and from the north to the east there is a terrace. Outside of the fortified walls, to the east side of the church is a smaller domed single-nave church, the village church. The church is built on a rectangular floor plan as single-nave church with two vestry rooms in the east. A small bell tower is situated above the sanctuary. The church has no gavit‘, but there are two-story building at the northern and southern side of the church, and the two entrances of the church open to these buildings. It seems that the original roof of the church was later on substituted by a flat roof to level with the second floor of the adjacent building.

Floorplan of Halijor nuns’ hermitage (fortress)

III.3. Šor̥ot‘ The third of the so called Łap‘an monasteries having flourished both as convent and as manuscript center was Šor̥ot‘. As a matter of fact it seems to have been the most productive „female“ manuscript center of the 17th century, not only in the region of historical Syunik‘. The village located in the Ernĵak province, was a renowned place of the Armenian church, having a church and monastery of St. James (s. Hakob), which was erected in 1642 on the remains of the older medieval church of the 13th century by Simeon Vardapet. The convent of S. Grigor Lusavorič‘, founded during medieval period and being a famous cultural center, is located outside of the village of Šor̥ot‘. The third church, S. Astvacacin, the main church of the nuns’ hermitage is located at the north-east of the village. Close to it was also the convent’s cemetery, in which at the time of Ališan there were still tombs of nuns to find.48 In the 17th century, the small 48

Cf. ALIŠAN 1893, 353.

124

Jasmine Dum-Tragut

village was famous for its manuscript center; more than 100 manuscripts had been produced, of which about 40 are preserved in Yerevan’s matenadaran.49 Parts of the church buildings were destroyed by an earthquake in 1840, but the buildings and the convent were finally demolished in 2005 by a kind of culturecide in this area of nowadays Azerbaijanian Nakhchivan.50

The remains of S. Astvacacin Church of Šor̥ot’s nunnery (before its final destruction in 2005)

Among the earliest preserved manuscripts of Šor̥ot‘ are the works produced by a scribe named Margarit‘ in the late 1640ies. Scribe Margarit produced many manuscripts for her noble brother Aristakes Xlat‘ec‘i. In 1653 she was asked to copy the famous Book of Questions of Grigor of Tat‘ew. The colophon of the manuscripts contains the words of its commissioner, Margarit’s brother Aristakēs:…51 Արդ ես Արիստակէս ետու գծագրել զայս գիրքս հարցմանց’ ի լաւ եւ ընտիր օրինակէ, ձեռամբ հարազատ քէռն իմոյ Մարգարտի, ի կուսանստանն Շօռոթու (…) I Aristakēs,(…) gave this book of Questions to draw from a good and exquisite copy in the hand of my legitimate sister Margarit in the women’s convent of Šōr̥ot‘. (…) Այս եւ զարժանի յիշման զերանուհի կոսակրաւն նազելի հարազատ ըստ արեան եւ ոչ վարուց քոյրն իմ Մարգարիտ (…) (…) in this memory keep my worthy, blessed, celibate, charming, blood-related and not leading a similar life as me, my sister Margarit

Some years later, in 1659, the inspiring example of gifted nun Margarit made another nun, Goharinē, to produce another copy of the Narekac‘i‘s Book of Lamentation (“Narek”).52

49 50

51 52

Cf. ԱՅՎԱԶՅԱՆ, Շոռոթի և Գաղի եկեղցական ճարտարապետական հուշարձանները, Էջմիածին 1977, 47. (The monuments of church architecture of Šor̥ot‘ and Gał) Location see 39°9’14.81"N 45°47’22.95"E. http://az.geoview.info/holy_virgin_church_xvii_ centuryvillage_shorot_historical_armenian_province_nakhchevan_at_present_time_this_armei an_church_in_all_probability_ruined_by_azerbaijanian_vandals,73085316p M800, Šor̥ot‘ 1653. Հայերեն ձեռագրերի Ժէ դարի հիշատակարաններ հ.Գ, 550, No. 848. M11033 Šor̥ot‘, 1659

Tracing Female Monasticism in Armenia

125

A colophon of a “Narek,” which Ališan describes as copy produced by a scribe Gohar(inē), however, dated by Ališan 1687-7, reads the following:53 Ես կոյսակրօն Գոհարս եղէ ցանկացող եւ եռափափագ սիրով ստացող այս հոգիշունչ մատէնիս (…) յիշատակ (…) եւ հոգեւոր քոյրն իմ Մարիամին’ որ յայսմ աւուր փոխեցաւ առ Քրիստոս. Եւ հոգեւոր դստերց իմոց’ Էղիսաբեթին եւ Դովլաթին եւ Սանդուխտին… I, the celibate Gohar, was the desirer and the owner of this inspiring book with highly longing love (…) for the memory of my paternal aunt, celibate Dowlvat‘, and for my spiritual sister Mariam, which passed to the Lord today. And for my spiritual sisters, Ełisabet‘, Dovlat‘ and Sanduxt…“

Another nun, named Šušan, copied books of Xorenac‘i and Eliše, which represents a rather rare compilation and contains also a very informative and rare colophon. She mentions a range of „sisters“, among them her celibate sisters Mehrič and Sar̥a, her celibate sisters Mariam and Ełisabet‘, and her christ-loving brother, Vardapet Aristakēs Smbec‘i. In a copy of a hymnal book, M8551, dated 1666, another scribe, names Šusan as the commissioner of this manuscript. The same Šušan is said to be the niece of Tēr Aristakēs, master and vardapet, and that her homeland Noršinik.54 Some notes on architecture55 Little is known about the monastery and the Church of S. Astvacacin. The church might have been erected in the early 17th century, but was rebuilt by a certain Priest Vardan in 1631. The church in the north east of the village was already in a half-destroyed condition when Ališan wrote about it in his Sisakan. It was a quite simple construction, single-nave church with four lateral extensions and a semicircular apsis and two small rectangular vestries at its sides.

Floorplan of S. Astavacin, Church of Šor̥ot‘ nuns’ Hermitage 53 54 55

Cf. ALIŠAN 1893, 353-354. Please note, that the M11033 could not be checked for its colophon yet. M8551 Šor̥ot, 1666. Cf. Ališan 1893, 354. CUNEO 1988, 474-5, No.271. He also has a picture of the remains of the church before its destruction. Հասրատյան Hasratyan 1973,1; 90.

126

Jasmine Dum-Tragut

IV. Instead of conclusions The material and sources investigated so far, do not allow yet for scientific conclusions and explanations to find out reasons for such a accumulation of female monasticism and women’s manuscript production in this very limited region and period of the Armenian history. What follows are rather thoughts. One impulse to the foundation of convents and nuns’ hermitages and manuscript centers might have been the historical changes in the Armenian highland. In 1629, reforms started with the new catholicos Movses III. Tat‘ewac‘i (1629-1632), a kind of revival of Armenian monasticism, and – quite understandable, primarily in his native region, the region surrounding Tat‘ew monastery. He was also said to believe and promote the education of women and the role of women in church. It was also Movses who was responsible for the founding of S. Katarinē convent in Julfa.56 Thus his positive attitude towards of female monasticism and educated women might have influenced the founders of new nunneries and women’s hermitages and their fathers superior. Another reason might be the revival and rise of some clerical and noble or at least healthy families in the region of Syunik‘. Intense family ties between clergymen and celibate women may have stimulated an increase of the number of nuns, whenever daughters of clerical and/or noble families were entrusted to monasteries or they themselves chose the monastic life. Without doubt, clergymen helped to establish manuscript production among learned women, who get trained from their own relatives to copy, illuminate, and bind manuscripts, and also how to transmit this specific tradition and knowledge to a younger generation of their female kinship or young novice-women. From reading some lines of the colophones one can discern kinship relations between nuns/female scribes nuns with clergy of a nearby located monastery, even with fathers superior and confessors at their own convents, and fathom the role clergymen played in the promotion of their talented female relatives. In fact, we know almost nothing about these nuns-scribes, about their daily life, their work and their biographies. But reading between the lines of colophons we gain some knowledge about their social affiliation, kinship relations and biographies. And learning about the life, activities and fate of even just a few of these female scribes/nuns may help us to better understand the monastic life in Armenia. IV.1. The Life of Hełinē, or the story of manuscript producing sisters in Šinuhayr Hełinē is known as productive scribe and teacher in Šinuhayr. Her first preserved manuscript dates from 1644 (M6333, Hymnal book), her last from 56

For comparable changes regarding female monasticism and scribal activities in Catholic female orders see BEACH, Women as Scribes, Cambridge 2004

Tracing Female Monasticism in Armenia

127

1659 (Tat‘ewac‘i’s book of sermons). Reading the colophons of her manuscripts and of those, mentioning her name, helps to fit the pieces of a scribe’s life puzzle together. In colophon of a 1647 copied Hymnal Book, Hełinē calls Mesrop and Hovsep‘ her brothers and quoted the name of her parents and of her celibate sister, Marianē. 57 Hełinē was obviously the offspring of a pious family, her father, Xač‘atur, was as Mahtesi a wealthy and highly esteemed man, and one of her brothers, namely Mesrop, had become a celibate priest. Interestingly, through her short statements about her family, we can also follow the career of her brother Mesrop, in 1647 he was an archdeacon, in 1650 already a priest and in her last in 1659 a vardapet.

Armenian nuns (17th c.) in Syunik‘

And her celibate sister Marianē? This might have been Marinos, the female scribe having copied two manuscripts with Hełinē. The assumption of two scribe-sisters Hełinē and Marinos (=Marianē?) is substantiated by Marinos’ colophons quoting the names of her brothers (Mesrop and Hovsep‘) and of her parents (Xač‘ik and T‘umanałan)58 and calling Hełinē in all her colophons her sister, both spiritual and bodily.59 The young sister, Marinos, was even taught 57

58 59

Հայերեն ձեռագրերի Ժէ դարի հիշատակարաններ հ.Գ, 256, No. 422. M5099, Šinuhayr, 1647. Hełinē recalls her parents Mahtesi Xačatur and T‘umaynałan, brothers Yovsep‘ and archdeacon Mesrop, and her celibate sister Marianē. Հայերեն ձեռագրերի Ժէ դարի հիշատակարաններ հ.Գ, 399, No. 634. M8597, Šinuhayr 1650. Հայերեն ձեռագրերի Ժէ դարի հիշատակարաններ հ.Գ, 716, No. 1034. M4043 1656.

Jasmine Dum-Tragut

128

by Hełinē in manuscript production (1656), and another pupil referring to Hełinē as teacher, a certain Marianē might even be the sister of Hełinē. But, perhaps this was also an earlier manuscript of Hełinē’s sister Marianē, who later on called herself Marinos? Anyhow, Hełinē seemed to have been a caring sister and teacher, a celibate woman having dedicated her life to the production of manuscript and having been much under the control of her high-rank clerical brother Mesrop. Զեղկելի, զթարմատար գծող Հեղինէս յիշել աղաչեմ անմեղադիր լինել, զի ձմեռն էր եւ թանակն աւեր, ոչ կարացի ըստ պատշաճին գրել: I beg to remember this pitiful and useless (vain) scribe, me Hełinē, and not to blame (her), since it was winter and the ink was spoiled, I could not write properly. (1656, G. Tat‘ewac‘i Book of Sermons, M4043)

IV.2. The Life of Margarit or The story of a wandering nun-scribe The name of Margarit appeared first as a nun-scribe in the hermitage of Šinuhayr in a colophon of a gospel book copied in 1640.60 According to the colophons of M5964, a Hymnal book, and of a gospel of 1642, a copy produced by her brother Łazar, more information is given about Margarit’s background.61 Margarit was the daughter of the priest Kirakos and T’urvand, had three brothers, the priest Alek’sian, already deceased in 1641; Aristakēs vardapet, and Łazar, the priest and scribe; two sisters, Łimat’ and a Hełině, who had also died in 1641. Her brother Łazar was married to Hr̥ipsimē and had two sons, Kozmasin and Alēksanios and one daughter Šahanduxt. Her spiritual mother was then Superior Xosrov (uhi). Margarit came from a priest’s family, presumably having lived in the region for several generations. All her brothers were clergymen, but she was the only one of the girls who had been sent to or had chosen monastic life. She might have been under the strong influence of her clerical kinship, and she was probably highly educated and quite young when she entered Šinuhayr monastery. A trained and experienced scribe, Łazar, her brother, who served in monastery of St. Step’anos of Šinuhayr taught her in the art of manuscript production. Łazar has also produced several manuscripts in Šinuhayr (e.g. M3720, 1631 Gospel; M6991, 1634 Gospel; M5954, 1642 Hymnal book; M7300 ,1655 Gospel), a few years before the first co-production of brother and sister in the village of Šinuhayr. In the 40ies, Margarit was busy in producing and even in teaching, the last manuscript from Šinuhayr’s scribe Margarit is dated 1645.

60 61

Բանբեր Մատ. 10, 1640. Հայերեն ձեռագրերի Ժէ դարի հիշատակարաններ հ.Բ, 826, No 1219. Cf. Մկրտչյան Mkrtč‘yan 2013, 91. Հայերեն ձեռագրերի ԺԷ դարի հիշատակարաններ, h.Գ, 52, No. 83. Մկրտչյան Mkrtč‘yan 2013, 91.

Tracing Female Monasticism in Armenia

129

There was also another Margarit, a scribe of the hermitage of Šor̥ot‘. Reading the colophons, we were quite puzzled to find out, that there are so many parallels in family details and in colophon writing style so that we can conclude, Margarit of Šinuhayr and Margarit of Šor̥ot‘ are the same person! In 1653’s colophon of the copy of Tat‘ewac‘i’s Book of Questions, the commissioner of the manuscript, Aristakes Xlatec‘i states that he had his sister Margarit, who was living in Šor̥ot‘, copy this book in 1653. Later he asks the reader in his colophon to remember him: Արիստակէս վարդապետ Խլաթեցի, եւ զծնօղս իմ’ Կիրակոս քահանայն եւ զԹուրվադէն, եւ զհանգուցեալ եղբարսն իմ’ տէր Ղազարն եւ զտէր Աղեքսիանոսն, եւ եղբօրորդեակն իմ’ միւս տէր Ալէքսիանոսն փոխեալն ի Տէր, եւ զայլ եղբօրորդիսն իմ’ Կոզմաս վարպետն եւ զտէր Յովանէսն, եւ զսիրասնոընդ որդեակն իմ’ Ստեփաննոսն եւ Կիրակոսն; եւ զհանգուցեալ մանկունքն’ Ալէքսիանոսն եւ զՅովհաննէսն, զՍուքիասն եւ զԿիրակոսն, եւ զհամակամ հարազատ քոյրն իմ’ զՄարգարիտն եւ զՂիմաթն…… … Vardapet Aristakēs Xlat‘ec‘i, and my parents, priest Kirakos and Turvadē, and my deceased brothers, Tēr Łazar and Tēr Ałek‘sianos, and his brother’s sons, the other Ter Alēk‘sanos, already gone tot he Lord, and the other brother’s sons, master Kozmas and Tēr Yohvaněs, and my sons born from love, Step‘annos and Kirakos, and the deceased children Alēk‘sianos and Yovhannēs, Suk‘ias and Kirakos and my unanimous and legitimate sister, Margarit, and Łimat‘.

Perhaps Margarit was ordered to move to Šor̥ot‘ in the late 1640ies, or her brother, the noble vardapet Aristakes Xlatec‘i took her with him from Šinuhayr to Šor̥ot‘ when he became the father superior of Šorot‘. Her latest known copy from Šinuhayr dates from 1645, her first copy produced in Šor̥ot‘ from 1648. And in Šor̥ot‘ she was even more productive, we have more than a handful of manuscript certainly attributed to scribe Margarit and some from Šor̥ot‘ without an indication of a scribe, but which could have been copied by her. We also know from the undated manuscript M8768 that she even taught others in manuscript production.62 The latest preserved and known copy of Margarit’ hands was written in 1673, more than 20 years after her first manuscript copied in Šinuhayr. Moreover, the colophon of M1735, a Miscellany produced in Šorot‘ in 1664-1669. This Miscellany was commissioned by her brother Aristakēs Vardapet and was first copied by Margarit’s nephew and Lazar’s son, Aleksianos, a նորընծա քահանայ „newly ordained priest“, who had started to copy the book but had suddenly died. Thus according to Aristakēs words քեռն իմոյ սաստկավէր Մարգարիտ his „heavily wounded“ sister Margarit finished it in 1669.63 From the long colophons in this manuscript we learn, 62 63

M8767, Šor̥ot‘, 17th c. M1735, Šor̥ōt‘ 1659.

130

Jasmine Dum-Tragut

however, that Margarit, the productive scribe, had some unfortunate and fateful last years in Šor̥ot‘: մեղօք վարանեալ, կենօք տատանեալ եւ ի խորս անօրէնութեան կործանեալ շարաւալից հոգով „wavered by sins, shaken by life, and fallen down into deep unrightousness, with apurulent soul”. A nun of a clergymen’s family, being highly esteemed by her clerical brothers for her good and tidy hand, and having spent more than three decades in piously producing manuscript, at least – based on preserved manuscripts – from 1640 to 1673, which means, perhaps, more than half of her life. Except from biographical data, the colophons also prove, first, that whole families with clerical background helped to populate and develop monastic culture in the nunneries-hermitages of Syunik‘: clerical fathers and their offspring, clerical and celibate siblings and other consanginous relatives supported and trained each other in sciences and manuscript production, spending years of their lives together in monastic life. Second that some lively exchange between the male and female clergy of monasteries and convents, as well as of monastic schools and scriptoria was quite common. Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i stated at the beginning of the 15th century, that it was popular in historical Syunik to mix the clerical ranks and functions. Moreover, he noticed an embarrasing exchange between clerical woman and men: whereas monks used to live in villages and towns, women preferred to stay in convents and hermitages, some even, as Tat‘ewac‘i uttered, that clerical woman and men even used to share table and house. Some of these clerical women, even if living in a convent, were not celibate or consecrated nuns, but but rather secular nuns, mainly in the administrative function of mother superiors.64 The surprisingly productive female scribes in the 17th in this region throw some light on the understudied role of women’s monasteries and their contribution to the treasure of Armenian manuscripts and even to the transmission of knowledge of manuscript production. Of course, these were not the first female scribes in the history of the Armenian Church, some manuscripts were produced and illuminated, some really authored by and some other manuscripts were also copied in the same period of the 17th and early 18th c. in other hermitages in other regions of Armenia.65 Walking down on cobblestone to the old village of Šinuhayr and entering the still standing fortified walls of the hermitage and its church at the end of the abandoned village, makes on still feel the spirit of the women of the hermitage. They tried to revive Armenian monasticism and were among the last and latest centres of manuscript production in a changing world of printed books. The Łap‘an monasteries differ in many things from other convents, in their natural strategic position and in their architecture, but mainly through their nuns64 65

Hac‘uni 1923, 74f. Hac‘uni 1923, 75f.

Tracing Female Monasticism in Armenia

131

scribes. Each manuscript witnesses the history of this mountainous region of Southern Armenia and its centre Tat‘ew, but also the history of each of this unusual, learned and strong women trying to preserve and transmit the wisdom and knowledge of the Armenian tradition for further generations. Margarit, Hełinē, Mariam, Hr̥ip‘simē, Ełisabet‘, Marinos and Gohar. And all the others, not being mentioned in colophons. Մարգարիտ գրչի հիշատակարան Զողորմելի եւ ողբալի գծողս եւ զվեհապտիւ հարազատին իմ’ զՂազար ծերունի քահանային եւ զԱրիստակէս վարդապետին, եւ զծնօղսն մեր յիշեցաք ի Քրիստոս Աստուածն մեր, եւ Աստոած ձեզ յիշէ: Colophon of the scribe Margarit Remember in Christ, our God, this wretched and lamentable scribe and my relative, most reverend archpriest Łazar and Vardapet Aristakēs, and our parents, and God will remember you. (M1735, Šor̥ot‘, 1664-1669, f. 140a)

V. List of manuscripts from Łap‘an nuns’ hermitages 66 a) Šinuhayr nuns’ hermitage Matenadaran, Yerevan:  M6333, 1644, Շարակնոց (Hymnal book), Scribe Hełinē  M5099, 1647, Շարակնոց (Hymnal book), Scribe Hełinē 67  M8597, 1650, Ներսէս Շնորհալու Բանք չափաւ, հանելուկք (Nersěs Šnorhali Versified words, riddles), Scribe Marinos  M7113, 1654, Շարակնոց (Hymnal book), commissioned by Hēriknaz hawatawor  M7300, 1655, Ավետարան (Gospel), Scribe Lazar, in memory for his sisters in Šinuhayr Mariam and Margarit‘  M4043, 1656, Քարոզագիրք Գ. Տաթեւացու (G. Tat‘ewac‘i Book of Sermons), Scribe Hełinē and Marinos  M1455, 1673, Ոսկէփորիկ Գ. Տաթեւացու (G. Tat‘ew‘ac‘i Oskēp‘orik), Scribe: Mariam hawat(aw)or  M4088, 1673, Ժամագիրք Սաղմոսարան Տօնացոյց (Book of hours, psalter, calendar of feasts) 1673. Scribe Erinē68 66

67

This list does not claim for completeness, the published colophons, and most available catalogues have, however, been checked (i.e. all catalogues of manuscript collections in Armenia; in Europe – except a part of the Venice collection – the catalogues of manuscripts in the United States, Turkey, Lebanon. Unfortunately, the huge collection of Jerusalem manuscripts has not been checked yet.) This is work in progress. Cave! The colophon contains no indication of the place of production, the name of the scribe and a comparison with other colophons allow for assuming this manuscript also as a product of the manuscript center of Šinuhayr.

Jasmine Dum-Tragut

132

     

M8513, 1694, Ավետարան (Gospel), Scribe/commissioner: Hr̥ip‘simē M932, 1650-60, Ավետարան (Gospel), Varand. A scribe Katarinē and an illuminator Gayane give information about the nunnery Šinuhayr and its nuns. (perhaps former pupils?) Perhaps also from Šinuhayr: Matenadaran, Yerevan: M794, 17th c. Վարք հարանց (Life of the fathers), Scribe: Marianē, according to colophon the pupil of Hełině. M1341, 17th c., ժողովածու (Miscellany), scribe Hełinē M3879, 17th c., Քարոզագիրք Գ. Տաթեւացու (G. Tat‘ewac‘i Book of Sermons), Scribe Hełinē

In unpublished catalogue of Ter-Avetisyan’s catalogue of Manuscripts of Darašamb St. Step‘anos:  Cod. 464, 1659 Քարոզագիրք Գ. Տաթեւացու (G. Tat‘ewac‘i Book of Sermons), Scribe Hełinē69 K‘yurtyan-Collection, Wichita, USA, cf. Բանբեր մատենադարան 10, 1977, 20  Ավետարան (Gospel), 1640. Scribes: Margarit‘ and Lazar Mentioned in the unpublished descriptions of Ł. P‘irłalemean70  Յայսմաւուրք (Synaxarion), 1644, Scribe Margarit.71  Սաղմոսարան (Psalter), 1645. Scribes: Lazar and sister Margarit.72 Mentioned by Covakan 1954, 134 referring to Kar.T‘ 1594, p. 177. 

Ոսկիփորիկ Գ. Տաթեւացու (G. Tat‘ewac‘i Oskip‘orik), 1651, Scribe Mariam koys.

b) Halijor kusanac‘ anapat Matenadaran, Yerevan:  M10916, Աղոթագիրք (Prayerbook) 1650. Commissioned and owned by Marian k‘uyr. 68

Cf. COVAKAN 1954, 134, ԺԵ. Հայերեն ձեռագրերի Ժէ դարի հիշատակարաններ հ.Գ, 853, No. 1298. Մկրտչյան Հ.2013, 92. 70 Cf. Matendaran „Unprinted collections of manuscripts“, Փիրղալեմյան, Ղ.: Նշխարք պամութեան Հայոց, հատոր Ա, M6332, 1864-1868. 71 Հայերեն ձեռագրերի ԺԷ դարի հիշատակարաններ, h.Գ 152, No 252. Մկրտչյան Հ. 2013, 91. Փիրղալեմյան Ա, 780. 72 Հայերեն ձեռագրերի ԺԷ դարի հիշատակարաններ, h.Գ, 181, No 311. Մկրտչյան 2013, 91. Փիրղալեմյան Բ 539. 69

Tracing Female Monasticism in Armenia

 

133

M1327, ժողովածու (Miscellany), 1653, scribe Hr̥ip‘simě Mayrapet. M7113, Շարակնոց (Hymnal book), 1654, scribe Ełi(sabet‘?), commissioned by Hr̥ip‘simē Mayrapet, Mariam and the cellarar Ustianē

Mentioned in Covakan 1954, 134 referring to Կար թ 1894:  1653, Մեկնութիւն ժամագրքի Խոսրով Անձեւացւոյ. (Xosrov Anjewac‘i Commentary of the book of hours), scribe: Hr̥ip‘simě kuys mayrapet Perhaps also from Halijor:  M2390, Ներսէս Շնորհալու Բանք չափաւ (Nersěs Šnorhali Versified words) 1664, scribe: Hr̥ip‘simē, ոwner: Sanduxt kusakrown  M3660, Սաղմոսարան (Psalter), 17th c., scribe: Hr̥ip‘simē  M7802, Խորհրդատետր (Missal), 1690, scribe: Sanduxt kusakrawn, owner: Mayrapet Hr̥ip‘simē. c) Šor̥ot‘ kusanac‘ anapat Matenadaran, Yerevan  M5921, Գ. Նարեկացու Մատեան ողբերգութեան (G. Narekac‘I Book of Lamentation), 1648, scribe Margarit  M800 Գիրք հարցմանց Գ. Տաթեւացու (G. Tat‘ewac‘i Book of Question), 1653, scribe Margarit, owner: brother Aristakēs Xlat‘ec‘i  M9433 Ավետարան Gospel, 1655, owner/commissioner: Mariam koys.  M4168, ժողովածու (Miscellany), 1659, scribe unknown but commissioned by Շոռոթի կանայք „Women of Šor̥ot‘“  M11033 Գ. Նարեկացու Մատեան ողբերգութեան (G. Narekac‘i Book of Lamentation), 1659, scribe: Gōharinē kusakrawn; owner: Yovaněs vardapet.  M7162 Ժամագիրք, Պարզատոմար (Book of hours, Calendrical manual), 1662, scribe: Margarit, owner: Hr̥ip‘simē kusakrōn  M8551 Շարակնոց (Hymnal book), 1666, scribe unknown, owner and commissioned Šušan kusakrōn  M1735 ժողովածու (Miscellany), 1669, scribe Margarit‘, copied for her brother Aristakēs Xlat‘ec‘i  M9240 ժողովածու (Miscellany), 1671-2, scribe: Margarit, copied for Aristakēs Vardapet  M7234 Ավետարան (Gospel), 1673, scribe Margarit Łat‘ec‘i, copied for her brother Aristakēs Łlatec‘i

Jasmine Dum-Tragut

134



M8768 Գ. Նարեկացու Մատեան ողբերգութեան (G. Narekac‘i Book of Lamentation), 17th c., scribe: A pupil of scribe Margarit

Mentioned by Ł. P‘irłalemyan: 73  Ավետարան (Gospel), 1647, scribe Margarit Mentioned by Covakan 1954, 134 following Ališan 1893, 354:74  Աղոթագիրք Գ. Նարեկացու (G. Narekac‘i Prayerbook), 1687-88, scribe: Goharinē koys  Աղոթագիրք Գ. Նարեկացու (G. Narekac‘i Prayerbook), 1687-88, scribe: Marinos koys  Պատմագիրք Եղիշէ խորենացի (Book of history, Ełišē, Xorenac‘i), 1664, scribe: Šušan koys Norašinkec‘i  Մեկնութիւն առակաց Սողոմոնի (Commentary of Solomon’s proverbs), 1666, scribe Šušan koys Norašinkec‘i  Ներսէս Շնորհալու Գիր հաւատոյ (Nersēs Šnorhali Letter of Consolation), 1669, scribe: Margarit koys  Ավետարան (Gospel), 1676. Scribe: Margarit koys. Perhaps from Šor̥ot: Mekhitharist library Vienna  W904 Ավետարան (Gospel), 1665, scribe unknown, commissioned and owned by Mariam. Bibliography ԱԼԻՇԱՆ Ղ., Սիսական. Վենետիկ 1893. Ališan, L.: Sisakan. Venetik 1893 (Ališan’s encyclopedia about Syunik‘). ԱՅՎԱԶՅԱՆ, Ա., Շոռոթի և Գաղի եկեղցական ճարտարապետական հուշարձանները: Էջմիածին 1977. AYVAZYAN A., Šorot‘i ew Gałi ekełec‘akan čartarapetakan hušarjannerě, Ēĵmiacin, 1977 (The church-architectural monuments of Šor̥ot‘ and Gał). Առաքել Ագուլեցի Օրացրութունը Երևան 1938. Ar̥ak‘el Agulec‘i Ōragrut‘yuně. Erewan: 1937 (The diary of Ar̥ak‘el Agulec‘i). ԲԱՐԽՈՒԴԱՐՅԱՆ Ս., Դիվան հայ վիմագրության, պրակ II. Գորիսի, Սիսիանի և Ղափանի շրջաններ. Երևան 1960. BARXUDARYAN S., Divan hay vimagrut‘yan, prak II. Gorisi Sisiani ew Łap‘ani šrĵanner. Erewan 1960 (Archive of Armenian inscriptions, vol. 2, Surroundings of Goris, Sisian and Kapan). 73 74

Հայերեն ձեռագրերի ԺԷ դարի հիշատակարաններ, h.Գ, 265, No. 434. Փիրղալեմյան Ա 798. Cf footnote 70. Unfortunately both authors did give neither the repositories/catalogues nor the catalogue number of these manuscripts! We could not trace the manuscripts so far, not in the catalogues checked so far.

Tracing Female Monasticism in Armenia

135

ԲԱՐԽՈՒԴԱՐՅԱՆ Ս., Դիվան հայ վիմագրության, պրակ III. Վայոց ձոր. Երևան 1967. BARXUDARYAN S., Divan hay vimagrut‘yan, prak III. Vayoc‘ jor. Erewan 1967 (Archive of Armenian inscriptions, vol. 3, Vayoc‘ Jor). ԲԱՐԽՈՒԴԱՐՅԱՆ Ս., Դիվան հայ վիմագրության, պրակ IV. Գեղարքունիք. Երևան: Հայկական ՍՍՀ ԳԱ հրատարակչություն. BARXUDARYAN S., Divan hay vimagrut‘yan, prak IV. Gełark‘unik‘. Erewan 1973 (Archive of Armenian inscriptions, Vol. 4, Gełark‘unik‘). ԾՈՎԱԿԱՆ Ն., Հայ գրչուհիներ, in ՍԻՈՆ 1954 Ապրիլ-Մայիս, 133-135. COVAKAN N., Hay grč‘uhiner, in: SION 1954, April-Mayis, 133-135 (Armenian female scribes). ԽԱՆԼԱՐԵԱՆ Լ., Առաքել Դաւրիժեցի, Գիրք պատմութեանց: Երևան 1990: XANLAREAN L., Ar̥ak‘el Dawrižec‘i Girk‘ patmut‘eanc‘. Erewan: 1990 (The history of Ar̥ak‘el Davrižec‘i). Հայերեն ձեռագրերի ԺԷ դարի հիշատակարաններ, հատ. Բ (1621-1640 թթ.), ՀԱԿՈԲՅԱՆ Վ. Երևան 1978. Hayeren jer̥agreri ŽĒ dari hišatakaranner, hat. B (1621-1640t‘t‘.), HAKOBYAN V. (ed.). Erewan 1978 (Colophons of Armenian manuscripts of the 17th c., vol 2, 1621-1640). http://serials.flib.sci.am/openreader/nyut_hay_jogh_patm_9/book/content.html Հայերեն ձեռագրերի ԺԷ դարի հիշատակարաններ, հատ Գ (1641-1660 թթ.), ՀԱԿՈԲՅԱՆ Վ. Երևան 1984. Hayeren jer̥agreri ŽĒ dari hišatakaranner, hat. G (1641-1660t‘t‘.), HAKOBYAN V. (ed.), Erewan 1984 (Colophons of Armenian manuscripts of the 17th c., vol 3, 1641-1660). http://serials.flib.sci.am/openreader/nyut_hay_jogh_patm_10/book/content.html ՀԱՍՐԱՏՅԱՆ Մ., Սյունիքի XVII-XVII դարերի ճարտարապետական համալիրները: Երևան 1973: HASRAT‘YAN M., Syunik‘i XVII-XVIII dareri čartarapetakan hamalirnerě. Erevan 1973 (The architectural complexes of Syunik‘ in the 17th and 18th cc.). ՀԱՑՈՒՆԻ Վ., Կուսաստանք Հայաստանի մէջ, in Բազմավէպ 1923, 80, 2, 12-17; 80/43-47; 80/72-78. HAC‘UNI V., Kusastank‘ Hayastani mēĵ, in: Bazmavēp 1923, 80, 2, 12-17; 80,43-47; 80/72-78 (Nunneries in Armenia). ՄԿՐՏՉՅԱՆ Հ., Հայկական ձեռագրերի հիշատակարանները կանանց մենաստանների և կուսակրոն կանանց վերաբերյալ, in Էջմիածին 2013,Բ, 89-101. MKRTČ‘YAN, H.: Haykakan jer̥agreri hišatakarannerě kananc‘ menastanneri ew kusakron kananc‘ veraberyal, in: Eĵmiacin 2013, B, 89-101 (Colophons in Armenian manuscripts referring to women’s hermitages and celibate women). ՂՈՐՂԱՆԵԱՆ Ն.: ԱԲՐԱՀԱՄ ԿՐԵՏԱՑԻ, Պատմութիւն. Երևան 1973. LORŁANEAN N., Abraham Kretac‘i: Patmuti‘wn. Erewan 1973 (The History of Abraham Kretac‘i). Պատմութիւն նահանգին սիսական արարեալ Ստեփաննոսի Օրբելեան արք եպիսկոպոսի Սիւնեաց. Փարիզ 1857. Patumut‘iwn nahangin sisakan arareal Step‘annosi Ōrbelean ark‘ episkoposi Siwneac‘. P‘ariz 1857 (History of the State Syunik‘ written by Step‘annos Ōrbelean Archbishop of Syunik‘). Սիմէօն կաթուղիկոս Երեւանցի, Ջամբռ, Գիրք,որ կոչի յիշատակարան արձանացուցիչ,հայելի եւ պարունակող բնաւից որպիսութեանց Սրբոյ Աթոռոյս,եւ իւրոց շրջակայից վանօրէիցն, Վաղարշապատ 1873: Simēōn kat‘ułikos Erewanc‘i, Jambr̥, Girk‘, or koč‘i yišatakaran arjanac‘uc‘ič‘, hayeli ew parunakoł bnawic‘ orpisut‘eanc‘ Srboy At‘or̥oys, ew iwroc‘ šrĵakanayic‘ vanōrēic‘n. Vałaršapat 1873 (The travel diary of Catholicos Simēōn Erewanc‘i). Քրիստոնյա Հայաստան. Հանրագիտարան. Երևան 2002: K‘ristonya Hayastan. Hanragitaran. Erewan 2002 (Christian Armenia. Encyclopedia).

136

Jasmine Dum-Tragut

BEACH A., Women as Scribes: Book Production and Monastic Reform in XIIth Century Bavaria. Cambridge 2004. BEDROSIAN R., Step‘annos Orbelean’s History of the State Sisakan (no indication of year). https://archive.org/stream/HistoryOfTheStateOfSisakan/Orbelean_History#page/n0 /mode/2up BOURNOUTIAN G., The History of Vardapet Arak‘el of Tabriz. Vol. 1-2. Costa Mesa 2005/6. CUNEO P., Architettura armena dal quarto al diciannovesimo secolo, vol 1, Roma 1988. GARSOÏAN N., Introduction to the problem of Early Armenian Monasticism, in: Revue des études arméniennes, 2007, 30, 7, 177-236. KARAPETYAN S., Armenian historical monuments in the region of Karabakh. Yerevan 2001. POGOSSIAN Z., A Brief Note on Female Monasteries in Armenia: V-XIV cc.”, in: E. FARRUGIA (ed.), In Search of the Precious Pearl: Fifth Encounter of Monks from East and West at Dzaghgatzor Monastery Armenia.). Rome 2005, 109-117. POGOSSIAN Z., Female ascetism in early medieval Armenia, in: Le Muséon 2012, 125,12, 169-213.

MEKHITHAR (MXIT‘AR) AND THE ARMENIAN MONASTICISM IN COMMUNION WITH THE ROMAN CHURCH: HIGHLIGHTS IN THE MEKHITHARIAN MOVEMENT AND ITS ECUMENICAL CHALLENGE Archbishop Boghos Levon ZEKIYAN Venice / Istanbul

Venice, San Lazzaro, and the Armenian Rebirth of the Eighteenth Century „Charming Venice, glorious Lady / ... You will always recall my lyre / You, glory of brush and chisel…”, from a poem written by Daniel Varužan (1884 1915), a great Armenian poet at the beginning of the century, entitled „Venetik” and published in 1913 shortly before he became the victim of the atrocious Genocide in 1915. For Varužan, as for Armenian sensitivity in general, Venice is not only the exotic city par excellence, the preferred reference of romantic reminiscences, or the singular biosphere for developing unrepeatable inner thoughts. Rather, Venice is actively and effectively present in intellectual and spiritual life, not only in the Diaspora culture, but also in the Armenian fatherland. In fact, in the unanimous judgment of variously-inclined historians, the wave of cultural rebirth which permeated Armenian life during the XVIII century after almost two centuries of poorly-rewarded efforts due to turbulent political circumstances and heavy foreign control, disseminated from Venice thanks to the miraculously prolific cultural and religious work of Abbot and his monastic order. We must ask ourselves, however, what considerations persuaded a government such as the Serenissima Republic which was not at all inclined to improvisation, to partially repeal one of its recent laws - which banned the founding of new religious institutions in the city - in order to accommodate a small group of foreigners who, from a superficial view, could have presented all of the features of adventurous Utopians, albeit courageously. There is no doubt that the acquaintances made by Mxit‘ar in Modone with eminent Venetian individuals such as Admiral Alvise Sebastiano Mocenigo who later became Doge (1722 1732), and Angelo Emo, governor of Morea, should have considerably influenced the decision. It does not seem, however, that these acquaintances can sufficiently explain the exceptional nature of the reception and autonomous rights which were granted.

138

Archbishop Boghos L. Zekiyan

It seems that the answer to this question must be searched for in the truly rich tradition of political, cultural, religious, and economic relations which, beginning from the era of Armenian rule in Cilicia, mutually involved both the Armenians and the Venetians. In prior studies I dealt extensively with this subject1. Here I would simply emphasize once again that, from amongst the various factors, the beneficial treatment which Armenian merchants bestowed on the Venetian economy during its period of decline without a doubt plays a special role. In 1640, the Venetian Senate ordered „every advantage to this meritorious nation which trades large sums of money“. Shortly thereafter, during the gloomy war years with Crete (1645-1669) when Armenian trade appeared as practically the only source of support for the exhausted Venetian economy, the Serenissima Republic decided on special measures „so that the trade of the Armenians, which we can say is unique at this time for the city, could be collected easily and be delivered promptly”. This related, in fact, to a report by the Five Wise Men „concerning the crisis of the present time, and extremely limited trade of this city, this Nation greatly supports it; the effort of the cities and the Levant being in its hands, according to the outgoing and incoming custom“. Several later decrees by the Senate as well as more than one contribution of the Five Wise Men speak of the Armenians as a „well-deserving and most favored Nation“; „recommended by the public acts“ and „welldeserving as well as useful to and accepted by your Highness“2. The Origins of the Mekhitharist Congregation in Constantinople Mxit‘ar3 named Manuk at his baptism (= child, a common name used among Armenians in honour of the Christ Child), was born in 1676 in Little Armenia in the town of Sebaste/ Sebastia (today Sivas) which maintained its dignified rank as a merchant city even during the Ottoman era. When he was fifteen years old, Mxit‘ar entered the historic monastery of Surb Nšan (Holy Sign = Holy Cross). At the monastic ceremony in which he received his vestments, he was called by the name of his grandfather, Mxit‘ar (= Comforter, a name given in honor of the Holy Ghost). Unfortunately, the Armenian monasteries went through a period 1 2 3

For references see ZEKIYAN, Il monachesimo mechitarista a San Lazzaro e la rinascita armena del Settecento, 221-222. Cf. ALISHAN, [signed P.L.A.], Geonomia armena col rapporto alla Mostra Veneto-Armena, 4; ZEKIYAN, XoÞa Safar ambasciatore di Shah Abbas a Venezia, 359. Regarding the life and work of Mxitar see: NURIKHAN, Il Servo di Dio Abate Mechitar; French version ibid.: L’Abbé Mékhitar; ZEKIYAN, Mechitar di Sebaste rinnovatore e pioniere. For the history of the order and bibliographic information see: MATFUNIAN, Der Orden der Mechitaristen, 193; ZEKIYAN, Mékhitar de Sébaste; AMADUNI, Mechitar e Mechitaristi. See also the moreover meticulous work by ARAT, Die Wiener Mechitaristen Armenische Mönche in der Diaspora; although it only deals with the history concerning the Mekhitharistist branch in Vienna and contains some oversights regarding the separation of the two branches, the extensive bibliography which often refers to both the Venetian and Viennese branches is useful.

Mekhithar and Armenian Monasticism

139

of decline beginning in the late fifteenth century due to their almost exclusive intent on preserving their acquired heritage, therefore continuously losing a sense of healthy progress. The idealist adolescent felt unsatisfied. He began peregrinations through the vast territory of historic Armenia from Sebaste to Erzurum all the way to Ēĵmiacin without his demanding needs being met. In 1691, Mxit‘ar had his first encounter with Western Christianity in Erzurum when he met a Jesuit scholar, perhaps the famous philologist and orientalist Jacques Villote. He profoundly impressed the young speaker and was probably the person who gave Mxit‘ar the idea of going to the West to pursue what he was looking for. As an ordained presbyter at the age of twenty, Mxit‘ar began to contemplate the notion of founding a new order. Impelled by this ideal, Mxit‘ar arrived in the capital of the empire, Constantinople (Konstantaniyye, Konstantiniye)4, where he showed the project to one of the most illustrious vardapet5 of the time, Xač‘atur Ar̥ak‘elean, a former student of Propaganda Fide and vicar of the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople, Melk‘isedek‘, suggesting that he assumes responsibility for the initiative. The vardapet politely declined the proposal believing that it could not possibly be realized. Mxit‘ar did not give up. A group of approximately ten young people had already united with him. In 1700 in Constantinople and in modest accommodations in the district of Pera (Beyoğlu), Mxit‘ar began community life and an apostolate with them, supported by the preaching of his own lips. On the 8th of September 1701, the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the small group solemnly sealed their consecration with God under the maternal protection of the Holy Virgin. 4

5

I use this name not for an old times nostalgia, but for historical accuracy, since the city was officially called Istanbul only after proclamation of the Turkish Republic in 1923 according to the general policy of changing the old toponyms substituting them with Turkish names. Even in scholarly publications it is often presumed that the name of the city was changed by its Ottoman conqueror, Fatih Sultan Mehmed II. I would like to add that in this particular case of toponymic change, the most probably Greek derivation of the new official name, Istanbul, went unnoticed. Vardapet, literally „expert, scholar” (the word which translates the „expert“ or „rabbi“ of the Gospel), is a hierarchical figure typical of the Armenian Church. Chosen from the celibate clergy according to monastic tradition and recognized as vardapet at the end of a rigorous curriculum studiorum with a special liturgical rite connected to the awarding of the magisterial „staff“ (gawazan) which distinguished their rank, they were the theologians and official preachers. They enjoyed special canonic privileges and were highly considered by both believers and the upper echelons of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Saint Mesrop Maštoc (362439), inventor of the Armenian alphabet (c. 405), is traditionally considered to have been the first vardapet of the Armenian Church from whom all later vardapet of subsequent epochs uninterruptedly and consecutively received the power and privileges of their rank. On the vardapet rank and its historical function in the Armenian Church, see: AMADOUNI, Le rôle historique des hiéromoines arméniens, 279-305; THOMSON, Vardapet in the Early Armenian church, 367-384.

140

Archbishop Boghos L. Zekiyan

Mxit‘ar was able to stay in Constantinople for only a short time since he was forced to secretly escape persecution in the imperial territory, because of his communion with Rome, and find shelter at Modone in Morea, under Venetian rule. In 1715, the Ottoman conquest of the peninsula would force him to a new exile which was unfortunate for him at the time but in our opinion a godsend for his work. This time, however, he would discover a second homeland in the heart of Europe in one of the major centers of Western culture: Venice. Mxit‘ar and the Armenian Church In order to place these latest subsequent developments in the life and work of Mxit‘ar in their correct context and order of importance, clarification must be made, albeit brief, regarding both the position of the Armenian Church from a theological and ecclesiastical point of view as well as Mxit‘ar’s viewpoint. The Armenian Church belongs to the category of so-called pre-Chalcedonian Churches because of their rejection of the Council of Chalcedon. They profess a purely nominal „monophysism” in the wake of Cyrillic-Ephesian Christology. The first formal and official rejection of Chalcedon by the Armenian Church seems to have occurred around the middle of the VI century. In any case, a strong pro-Chalcedonian tendency will remain in Armenia for some time yet, even if minor6. There has been much discussion on the reasons which led the Armenians to side against Chalcedon. I wish to avoid unilateral emphasis on positions relating to a purely theological or exclusively political plan. It seems to me that a group of factors – summarized under the generic category of ‘religious policy’ and therefore including theology, rights, culture, and secular policy – could explain the anti-Chalcedonian tendencies of the Armenians. In any case, in spite of the rejection of Chalcedon, Armenian Christology always remained within the substantive Christian orthodoxy of professing Jesus of Nazareth true man and true God, perfect in His Divinity and fully man in His Humanity similar to us in everything except in sin. That is to say, the official doctrine of the Armenian Church, as expressed by its most influential Fathers and scholars in its liturgy and teachings, never maintained commingling of the human and divine qualities of Christ or even the absorption or assimilation of humanity on behalf of the divinity thus reducing the reality and concreteness of humanity. Furthermore, detachment of the Armenian Church at that time took place with regard to the 6

Extensive literature exists on Chalcedon and the Armenian Church: For an initial approach, see: SARKISSIAN, The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian Church; ZEKIYAN, La rupture entre les Eglises Géorgienne et Arménienne au début du VIIe siècle, 155-174; MAKSOUDIAN, The Chalcedonian Issue and the Early Bagratids. The Council of Shirakawan, 333-344; ARUTJUNOVA-FIDANJAN, The Ethno-confessional Self-Awareness of Armenian Chalcedonians,, 345-363; ANANIAN, Recherches sur lhistoire de lEglise Arménienne [in Armenian]; LIDOV, Lart des Arméniens chalcédoniens, 479-495; GARSOÏAN, LÉglise Arménienne et le grand schisme d’Orient.

Mekhithar and Armenian Monasticism

141

patriarchal see of Constantinople or rather the Byzantine Church. From the XI century onward, in fact, when the Armenians came into direct contact with the Church of Rome, they initially established a warm relationship of reciprocal esteem and trust. Unfortunately, Rome also gradually developed a suspicious and humiliating attitude towards the Armenian creed, rite, and rights which was usually based on a poorly-hidden superiority complex and an obvious desire to predominate, not at all different from the previous, secular, and unfortunately, not so prudent Byzantine attitude7. It is in this historical-theological-political context that various fundamental types of ecclesiastical attitudes were formed among the Armenians. Let us mention them here very briefly according to their main ecclesiological attitude. For this I will refer to the research I carried out on the subject several years ago pointing out its basic conclusions8. In that article I had identified four main tendencies beginning from the XIV century: a) the fully autonomous tendency: in general, good relations with all Christians but without dependence on anyone; b) at the opposite pole: the Fratres Unitores tendency9 which asserts the need not only for hierarchical communion but complete ritual-disciplinary conformity with the Church of Rome as well, with the Latin rite obviously as the basis; c) those in favor of communion with Rome but only open to certain limited modification of the rite and discipline: a fairly common attitude among Uniate communities and quite typically characterizing the Uniate movements during the post-Tridentine era; d) those in favor of communion with Rome but convinced of the integrity of the Armenian faith and liturgical-canonical procedures and intent on maintaining them: for many reasons, this attitude almost appears as an ‘ecumenical’ ante litteram inspiration according to the Roman Catholic concept realized by the Vatican Council II (1962- 1965). These tendencies co-existed and challenged each other within the Armenian Church with varying equilibriums of force depending on the time and place and without very precise demarcation lines. In order to be more precise perhaps we could also add, almost as a subgroup, the position of certain representatives found in the first tendency who displayed rather irenic attitudes even in the theological field, primarily in subsequent centuries. The tendency linking up with the Fratres Unitores excluded, whereas the other groups had illustrious 7 8

9

For more information, see: ZEKIYAN, Riflessioni preliminari sulla spiritualità armena, 333-365, in part. 355-358. ZEKIYAN, Les disputes religieuses du XIVe siècle, 305-315, in part. 310-312. An English version of the same study was presented later at the New York Convention „The Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia. At the Crossroads of the Crusades” (12-14 Nov., 1993) and was published under the title: ibid., The religious Quarrels of the 14th Century, 106-125. „Armenian” branch, which arose among the Fratres Peregrinantes, of the Fratres Praedicatores; cf. LOENERTZ, La Société des Frères Pérégrinants, 104-105, 141-150, 185-198; VAN DEN OUDENRIJN, Linguae haicanae scriptores [with an extensive bibliography]; PETROWICZ, I Fratres Unitores nella Chiesa Armena, 309-347; MATFUNIAN, Die lateinische Mission in Grossarmenien bis zur Mitte des 18. Jahrhunderts, 165-174.

142

Archbishop Boghos L. Zekiyan

representation all the way up to the highest echelons of the Armenian Church. Even the fourth tendency which we qualified as ‘ecumenical’ ante litteram – although the weakest with respect to the others – included illustrious representatives up through the echelons of the Armenian hierarchy: for example, among Mxit‘ar's contemporaries, we recall the previously-mentioned patriarch Melk‘isedek’ of Constantinople whose vicar, Xač‘atur Ar̥ak‘elean, had declared unity with Rome but with an ‘ecumenical’ approach. The same Catholicos of Ēĵmiacin Nahapet I of Edessa, in office when Mxit‘ar visited the patriarchal monastery, would later be deposed for a brief period due to his acceptance of Rome. However he could return (was reinstalled?) to the patriarchal throne, because of the general esteem he enjoyed. Even among the upper echelons, therefore, there was considerable wavering in tendencies within the Armenian Church. The same Mxit‘ar would later state that almost half of the bishops of his nation shared more or less the same viewpoint as he did. He therefore did not agree with the opportunity of erecting an Armenian catholic patriarch since this institution would have definitively drawn borders and sanctioned separation. This effectively happened while Mxit‘ar was still alive in 1742 with the creation of the Armenian Catholic Patriarch of Cilicia at Bzommar in Lebanon10. Nevertheless, more than one attempt to unite through an ‘ecumenical’ understanding was made even after this date, primarily promoted by the Mekhitharists of Venice11. Unfortunately, extremist tendencies from both parties prevailed and, with the creation of the catholic primatial see in Constantinople in 1829 (which in 1867 would assume the patriarchal title of Cilicia as well), union would cease to be considered and the respective confessional denominations would be defined once and for all. This stands in sharp contrast to Hovhannes Kolot (1715-1741), patriarch of Constantinople, who enthusiastically announced from his pulpit of the historical Armenian church of Galata the publication of the Commentary of Mxit‘ar on the Gospel ... according to St. Matthew (1737) − a true summa of the Christian doctrine in exegetical style which includes more than a thousand pages − exclaiming: „Today a new light in the Armenian Church has come forth; this book is a treasure given to us by God”12. Considering these words we can only resignedly regret the path taken by history just a few years after Kolot’s time. Mxit‘ar, a Great Pioneer of Ecumenism Apart from the frequent use and abuse of the term „ecumenical”, it seems to me that „unitatis redintegratio” research which will be put forward, favored and 10 11 12

For details and bibliography cf.. B.L. ZEKIYAN, Il monachesimo mechitarista a San Lazzaro, 233-234. Regarding such attempts, see: ՈՒԹՈՒՆՋՅԱՆ, Պոլսահայ համայնք, 201-212. ՃԵՄՃԵՄՅԱՆ Չամչեանի պատմություն, 897-910. ՃԱՄՃԵԱՆ, Հայոց պատմութիւն, հատոր գ, 775. KIULESERIAN, Hovhannes Kolot, 9.

Mekhithar and Armenian Monasticism

143

promoted by the identically-named document of the Vatican II on Ecumenism, defines the ecumenism officially assumed by the Roman Catholic Church in its essential ecclesiastical purpose and sense13. If so, the fundamental principle of searching for a basis for unity despite/ acknowledging apparent differences can be considered as the basic ecumenical methodology. With ecumenism understood in these terms, the Christian community unfortunately does not exactly boast, in general, a rich history of ecumenical figures and events. The Armenian Church, instead offers a relatively consistent tradition in this respect in which saint Nersēs Šnorhali (1102- 1173, Catholicos from 1165) stands out. He definitely figures as one of the rare and great prophets of the ecumenical spirit and theology of the entire Christian culture. Mxit‘ar, abiding by the explicit testimony of biographies, was an avid reader of the Armenian Fathers and scholars ever since his youth. With the express intent to understand and clarify their Christology and ecclesiastical positions, he undoubtedly knew Šnorhali well and was moreover inspired by him to continue a tradition which, although minor, remained alive even in subsequent centuries.

Mxit‘ar of Sebaste * Feb. 7, 1676 Sebasteia † Apr. 27, 1749, San Lazzaro

Mxit‘ar creatively assimilates and transposes the principles formulated by Šnorhali14 in the circumstances of his time. Still very young, he goes out in order to preach harmony, love, and brotherhood between Armenian factions 13 14

Cf. regarding this and the remainder ZEKIYAN, Un singolare itinerario di spiritualità dalla frontiera alloikumene, 37-41. For a detailed explanation see: ZEKIYAN, Un dialogue oecuménique au XIIe siècle, 420-441; repr. with light variants under the title: St Nersês Šnorhali en dialogue avec les Grecs, 861883; ZEKIYAN, Les relations arméno-byzantines après la mort de St. Nersês Šnorhali, 331-337; ZEKIYAN, The Armenian Community of Philippopolis and the Bishop Ioannes Atmanos Imperial Legate to Cilicia, 363-373; ZEKIYAN, Nersès de Lambron and Nersès Shnorhali, 12234 and 134-50. See also: ANANIAN, Narsete IV Klayetzi, 750-753; E. SUTTNER, Eine Ökumenische Bewegung im 12. Jahrhundert und ihr bedeutendster Theologe, 87-97; KHATCHADOURIAN, The Christology of St. Nerses Shnorhali in Dialogue with Byzantium, 413434.

144

Archbishop Boghos L. Zekiyan

which are confessionally opposed, trying to mediate in any case not only between them but also with the Latin world which was directly involved and partially responsible for the situation. Mxit‘ar speaks and acts with the precise intention to: a) remove the shadows of fanaticism; b) emphasize the things which unite instead of those which divide; c) highlight basic possible convergences despite apparent divergences which do not touch the substance of faith; d) convince about the need for compromise on everything that is not required by the faith’s substantial unity. He was unfortunately greatly misunderstood during his time and was practically an unheard vox clamantis in deserto. Misunderstood to the bitter end by the ‘autonomist’ groups, misunderstood by the ‘Latinophiles’, misunderstood after all by the Roman Curia itself, even if ‘tolerated’. For Mxit‘ar the problem was not at all the one of changing ‘confessional denomination’ or in blunt terms, an „abjuration of the Armenian schism” or „conversion” according to the coercive values of the era which, in spite of everything, still exists today. He was of the firm conviction that the traditional faith of the Armenian Church was substantially orthodox in the Christian sense of the word, notwithstanding certain peculiarities of its own in the formulation of dogma. He was furthermore convinced that it could not deal with a formal separation of the Armenian Church, at least in its totality, from the Catholic communion. He therefore negatively judged the position of the Latinophiles, not only because they alienated or lessened Armenian identity but also because they tended to create a community distinct from its hierarchy which, in his opinion, would preclude the path to any eventual understanding − which is exactly what happened. Finally, Mxit‘ar had his own view regarding the truly vexing question of communicatio in sacris; a view which was based on both his now clear convictions regarding the faith and identity of the Armenian Church and his pastoral and missionary experience. Unfortunately, we cannot confront such an intricate question at this time. Therefore, the lengthy series of articles by Mardiros Abadjian (Martiros Apačian)15 could be a learned and shrewd guide. The Work of the Mekhitharists In spite of the turbulence connected with the separation from the Motherhouse of Venice of a group of monks who first settled in Trieste and then in Vienna in the Austrian empire16, the long priorate (1749-1800) of Mxit‘ar’s immediate successor, Abbot Step‘anos Melk‘onian, constituted one of the most fruitful 15

16

ABADJIAN, La questione della «communicatio in sacris» nel secolo XVIII e la formazione del patriarcato armeno cattolico, 129-182, 141; 1983, 215-232, 146; 1988, 155-172, 14; 1989, 244-258, 148; 1990, 146-161, 413-418, 149; 1991, 461-476, 150; 1992, 202-214; More succinctly: WILLEBRANDS, Mekhithar e lunione dei cristiani, 417-436. Both branches now united again in the General Chapter, celebrated with the participation of all their members, on July 19th, 2000.

Mekhithar and Armenian Monasticism

145

periods in the life of the order; on the contrary, the period in question gave the final boost to that intense ecclesiastical, spiritual, missionary, cultural, and scholastic activity which would later have a fairly strong and broad impact on the entire Armenian population in the fatherland and on the diaspora all the way in far-off India. It is rightly acknowledged as the Golden Age of the order's history; a phase which reaches its peak between approximately 1780 and 1850. During these years, the following writings were published: History of the Armenian people from their beginning until 1784 (1784-1786) in three volumes by Mik‘ayēl Č‘amč‘ian; the Commentary on the Psalms (1815) by the same author in ten volumes; the large theological works by Gabriēl Avetik‘ian, nicknamed „The terrible theologian” at the Sapienza; the numerous volumes of biographies of Saints and Fathers by Mkrtič‘ Awgerian (known in classical philology as Johannes Baptista Aucher); the publication of the New Theasurus of antique Armenian, Nor Bar̥girk‘ Haykazean lezui (1836-1837), considered one of the most exemplary and immortal works of Armenian philology. The following events also occurred during the same period: a) the two abovementioned attempts at ecclesiastical union (1809, 1820), founded on an exemplarily ecumenical bases, whose failure was certainly not a result of their promoters; b) the launching of the scholastic system among the Armenian people; c) the systematic promotion of publishing for the public and periodic printing which brought about the founding of the magazine Bazmavep in 1843, the oldest magazine in Italy still published today and the fourth oldest in the world. During the second half of the century, the youngest Viennese school added contributions of primary importance and originality to this massive work, such as the works by Fathers Gat‘êrčian (Caterdjian), Tašian (Dashian), Hovnanian, and Sipilian, inspired by the newly developing Germanic philology and the increasing influence of its criteria and methodology. During those decades, rather, another phenomenon of an absolute luminary arose in Venice: Father Łevond Ališan who could have been considered to embody an entire academy all by himself. An evolution instantly repeated in the circles of the Armenian Academy of Sciences. It was, in fact, the ray of hope of these worthy academicians who already at the beginning of the nineteenth century persuaded Napoleon to save the San Lazzaro monastery from confiscation, the only one at that time which remained unharmed amongst the various monasteries and convents of Northern Italy. If from the religious point of view the term ‘ecumenism’ best qualifies the Mekhitharist concept and work, from the cultural point of view it can best be described by that which we call ‘Christian humanism’. Man was their central point: man in its totality, in the complex multiplicity of his immanent and transcendental dimensions. Work therefore involved vast areas of interest: from the scientific production of Armenian works in various fields and from the translation of classical Western masterpieces ranging from Homer to Montale in versions which were often incomparable to the treaties and manuals on religion,

146

Archbishop Boghos L. Zekiyan

history, pedagogy as well as on beekeeping, fowl breeding, sericulture, accounting, navigation, agriculture, and so on. The Mekhitharist commitment, in the exclusively religious sphere as well as in the humanistic field, expressed itself not only through writings and publications, but equally through live contact with the people. This was sought after and realized primarily in the numerous, widely-disseminated, and quite prestigious schools of the order. Among the 29 institutions founded by the Fathers of Venice from 1746 (Elisabethopolis [Dumbrăveni in Transylvania/Romania]) to 1956 (Buenos Aires) and among the 11 institutions founded by the Fathers of Vienna from 1774 (Trieste) to 1979 (Los Angeles), the Moorat and Raphael ‘Venetian’ Colleges (Padua, Venice, Paris) and the ‘Viennese’ School of Constantinople/Istanbul merit special mention since they were among the major educational centers of the new generations of Armenians for a century and a half. Other proof of this unique religious-cultural-humanistic commitment on behalf of the Armenian nation, is the profuse loving care the Fathers applied in collecting and preserving the treasures of Armenian spirituality and civilization: manuscripts, antique coins and seals, liturgical objects, all kinds of relics, and specialized libraries which are proudly displayed to visitors and kindly made available to scholars in both of the monasteries in Venice and Vienna. An Armenian scholar and writer, Aršak Č‘ōpanean, said: „A people which generated a spirit like Mxit‘ar's cannot despair”. Notwithstanding various impending difficulties, the Mekhitharist monasteries in Venice and Vienna, immersed in the heart of Europe and Christian civilization, even today stand as rays of hope for the Armenian people, extended through their third millennium of history. Bibliography Primary Sources ABADJIAN M. La questione della «communicatio in sacris» nel secolo XVIII e la formazione del patriarcato armeno cattolico, in: Bazmavep 139, San Lazzaro/Venezia 1981, 129-182. ALISHAN L.M. (ed), [signed P.L.A.], Geonomia armena col rapporto alla Mostra Veneto-Armena, nell'occasione del terzo Congresso geografico internazionale, San Lazzaro – Venezia 1881. ՃԱՄՃԵԱՆ Մ., Հայոց պատմութիւն, հատոր գ, Վենետիկ 1786. Čamčean, M., Hayoc‘ Patmut‘iwn, h. 3, Venetik 1786. [History of the ARmenians, Vol. 3] KIULESERIAN B., Il Patriarca Hovhannes Kolot, [Azgayin Matenadaran / Bibliothek national]. Wien 1904. LOENERTZ R., La Société des Frères Pérégrinants, Roma 1937. MATFUNIAN V.G., Die lateinische Mission in Großarmenien bis zur Mitte des 18. Jahrhunderts, in: Die Kirche Armeniens, (Die Kirchen der Welt, Bd. XVIII), Stuttgart 1978, 165-174.

Mekhithar and Armenian Monasticism

147

OUDENRIJN VAN DEN M.A., Linguae haicanae scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum Fratrum Unitorum et Fratrum Armenorum Ordinis S.Basilii citra mare consistentium quotquot hucusque innotuerunt, Bern/ München 1960. PETROWICZ G., I Fratres Unitores nella Chiesa Armena, (Euntes Docete XXII) Roma 1969, 309-347. ZEKIYAN B.L., Les disputes religieuses du XIVe siècle, prélude des divisions et du statut ecclesiologique postérieurs de l'Église Arménienne’, in: Actes du Colloque Les Lusignans et l'Outre-Mer [sous la dir. de J.-P. ARIGNON, Programme com'Science, Conseil Régional Poitou-Charentes], Poiters 1993, 305-315. Armenian translation: ibid., in: Echmiadzin 1, n.s. 2000, 106-125. English version: ibid: The religious Quarrels of the 14 th Century Preluding to the Subsequent Divisions and Ecclesiological Status of the Armenian Church’, in: Studi sull’Oriente Cristiano I, Roma 1997, 164-180. ZEKIYAN B.L., Un singolare itinerario di spiritualità dalla frontiera all'oikumene. Riflessioni sulla spiritualità armena, Chiese cristiane d'Oriente, in: Religioni e Sette del Mondo No. 4, Bologna 1995, 37-41. ZEKIYAN B.L., XoÞa Safar ambasciatore di Shah ’Abbas a Venezia, in: L’Oriente Moderno LVIII, Roma 1978. Further Reading AMADOUNI G., Le rôle historique des hiéromoines arméniens, in: Il monachesimo orientale (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 153), Roma 1958, 279-305. AMADOUNI G., Mechitar e Mechitaristi, in: Dizionario degli Istituti di Perfezione, n.s. ANANIAN P., Narsete IV Klayetzi in: Bibliotheca Sanctorum IX, Roma 1967, 750-753. ԱՆԱՆԵԱՆ Պ., Քննութիւն հայ եկեղեցւոյ պատմութեան Ե. եւ Զ. դարերու շրջանին, Վենետիկ 1991. Ananean, P., K‘nnut’iwn hay ekełec‘ioy patmut’ean E ew Z dareru šrĵanin, Venetik 1991. [Recherches about the history oft he Armenian church in the 5th and 6th centuries] ARAT M.K., Die Wiener Mechitaristen Armenische Mönche in der Diaspora, Wien/ Köln 1990. ARUTJUNOVA-FIDANJAN V.A., The Ethno-confessional Self-Awareness of Armenian Chalcedonians, in: Revue des Etudes Arméniennes XXI 1988-89, 345-363. GARSOÏAN N., L’Église Arménienne et le grand schisme d’Orient, (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 574, Subs. 100), Leuven 1998. LIDOV A., L'art des Arméniens chalcédoniens, in: 5th International Symposium on Armenian Art. Proceedings [Venice 30 May3 June], San Lazzaro – Venezia 1992, 479-495. ՃԵՄՃԵՄՅԱՆ Ս., 1809 Ի Պոլսոյ միութենական շարժումը եւ Հ. Միքայել Չամչեան, Հանդէս ամսորեայ 1010, 1987, 897-910. Čemčemean, S., 1809 I Polsoy miut‘enakan šaržumě ew H. Mik‘aeyel Č‘amc‘ean, in: Handēs Amsoreay 101, 1987, 897-910. [The movement for union of 1809 in Constantinople and Father M. C‘amč‘ean] ՃԵՄՃԵՄՅԱՆ Ս., Հ. Միքայել Չամչըանի պատմություն հայոց արձագանքը, Բազմավէպ CL 1992, 147-162. Čemčemyan, S., H. Mik‘ayel Č‘amč‘eani patmut‘yun hayoc‘ arjagank‘ě, in: Bazmavěp, CL, 1992, 147-162. [THE ECHO OF THE HISTORY OF ARMENIANS OF FATHER M. C‘amč‘ean] KHATCHADOURIAN H., The Christology of St. Nerses Shnorhali in Dialogue with Byzantium, in: Miscellanea Francescana 78, n.s. 1978, 413-34. MAKSOUDIAN K., The Chalcedonian Issue and the Early Bagratids. The Council of Shirakawan, in: Revue des Etudes Arméniennes XXI, n.s., 1988/89, 333-344.

148

Archbishop Boghos L. Zekiyan

MATFUNIAN V.G., Der Orden der Mechitaristen, in: Die Kirche Armeniens (Die Kirchen der Welt, Bd. XVIII), Stuttgart 1978, 193. ՄԻՐԶՈՅԱՆ Հ., XVII դարի հայ փիլիսոփայական մտքի քննական վերլուծություն, Երևան 1983. Mirzoyan, H., XVII dari hay p‘iliso‘ayakan mtk‘i k‘nnakan verlucut‘yun, Erewan 1983. [A Critical Analysis of the Armenian Phiolosophical of the 17th century] NURIKHAN M., Il Servo di Dio Abate Mechitar, sua vita e suoi tempi, San Lazzaro – Venezia 1914. French version: ibid: L’Abbé Mékhitar, sa vie et son temps (16701750), San Lazzaro – Venezia 1922. ՈՒԹՈՒՆՋՅԱՆ Ա., Պոլսահայ համայնքի միությունը և Մ. Չամչճան, Բանբեր Երևանի Համալսարանի 1978, 3/36, 201-212. Ut‘unĵyan, A., Polsahay hamaynk‘i miut‘yuně ew M. Č‘amčyan, Banber Erewani hamalsarani 1978, 3/36, 201-201. [The question of union of the Armenian communities of Constantinople and M. Č‘amč‘ean] SARKISSIAN K., The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian Church, London 1965/ New York 1975. SUTTNER E., Eine ‘Ökumenische Bewegung’ im 12. Jahrhundert und ihr bedeutendster Theologe, der armenische Katholikos Nerses Schnorhali (Kleronomia 7/1), Thessalonikē 1975, 87-97. THOMSON R., Vardapet in the Early Armenian church, in: Le Muséon LXXV, n.s. 1962, 367-384. WILLEBRANDS Card. Johannes, Mekhithar e l'unione dei cristiani, extr. from Bazmavep 145, San Lazzaro – Venezia 1977, 417-436. ZEKIYAN B.L., The Armenian Community of Philippopolis and the Bishop Ioannes Atmanos Imperial Legate to Cilicia, in: Between the Danube and the Caucasus. Oriental Sources on the History of the Peoples of Central and South-Eastern Europe, Budapest 1987, 363-373. ZEKIYAN B.L., Un dialogue oecuménique au XIIe siècle: les pourparlers entre le catholicos St. Nersès Šnorhali et le légat impérial Théorianos en vue de l'union des Églises arménienne et byzantine, in: Actes du XVe Congrès International d'Études Byzantines - Athènes, Sept. 1976, IV, Histoire. Communications, Athènes 1980, 420-441. repr. with light variants under the title: St Nersês Šnorhali en dialogue avec les Grecs: un prophète de l'oecuménisme au XIIe siècle, in: Armenian Studies, Études Arméniennes in memoriam Haïg Berbérian, Lisboa 1986, 861-883. Id., Les relations arméno-byzantines après la mort de St. Nersês Šnorhali, in: XVI. Internationaler Byzantinistenkongress. Akten, II/4, (Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 32/4), 331-337. ZEKIYAN B.L., Mechitar di Sebaste rinnovatore e pioniere, San Lazzaro – Venezia 1977. ZEKIYAN B.L., Mékhitar de Sébaste, in: Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, XI, Paris 1981. ZEKIYAN B.L., Il monachesimo mechitarista a San Lazzaro e la rinascita armena del Settecento, in: La Chiesa di Venezia nel Settecento, (Contributi alla Storia della Chiesa Veneziana 6), Venezia 1993, 221-222. ZEKIYAN B.L., Nersès de Lambron’ and ‘Nersès Shnorhali, in: Dictionnaire de Spiritualité XI, Paris 1981, 122-134 and 134-150. ZEKIYAN B.L., Riflessioni preliminari sulla spiritualità armena. Una cristianità di «frontiera»: martyria ed apertura all’oikumene, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 61, n.s. 1995, 333-365. ZEKIYAN B.L., La rupture entre les Eglises Géorgienne et Arménienne au début du VII e siècle. Essai d’une vue d'ensemble de l'arrière-plan historique, in: Revue des Etudes Arméniennes XVI, n.s. 1982, 155-174.

MEDIEVAL ARMENIAN CONGREGATIONS IN UNION WITH ROME Martin SEIDLER

Salzburg / Austria

In 1356 the latinisation of Armenian Christianity entered a new phase. The Roman Pontiff Innocent VI approved two Armenian monastic congregations during this year, which adopted Latin uses without compromise. The friars obeyed western monastic rules, studied in their convents Latin theology and philosophy and translated Roman liturgy into their Armenian language. In January, the pope accepted the constitutions of the fratres unitores1, a movement getting started in 1330 in Greater Armenia. Six months later Innocent VI put together several Armenian convents of basilian monks in Italy and established the congregation, which was called the fratres domorum Armenorum citra Mare consistentium2. Armeno-Latin Interaction in Cilicia The crusading movement came along with an intensive contact with eastern Christianity. Particularly after the battle of Manzikert in 1071 Armenians migrated from the Armenian Highland to Cilicia,3 where they established a Kingdom with the aid of the Franks, which was the center of a cultural transfer between Latin and Armenian Christianity.4 A new political and military situation in the levant required a new orientation for Europe in the beginning 14th century. The Armeno-Mongol alliance were no longer an option to guarantee peace and the security of the kingdom after 1

2

3 4

The friars are called ‚եղբարք միաբանողք’ (‚ełbark‘ miabanołk‘’) and ‚կարգ սրբոյն Գրիգորի Լուսաւորչին’ (‚karg srboyn Grigori Lusaworč‘in‘) is used for the name of their congregation. Cf. OUDENRIJN, Linguae Haicanae Scriptores, 19; OUDENRIJN, Uniteurs et Dominicains d’Arménie [1956], 94f. Van den Oudenrijn mentions several names used for this congregation of Armenian monks. In Latin: Bartholomitarum, Basiliani, Armeni, Augustiniani, fratres domorum Armenorum citra Mare consitentium, fratres ordinis Armenorum citra Mare consistentium, fratres Armeni, fratres Armenorum or fratres ordinis Armenorum. In Armenian: եղբարք Արամեանք կարգի սրբոյն Բասիլիոսի, (որ յայսկոյս ծովու (ełbark‘ Arameank‘ kargi srboyn Basiliosi, (or yayskoys covu))). Cf. OUDENRIJN Linguae Haicanae Scriptores, 245. Cf. MUTAFIAN, L’Arménie du Levant, I 53f. On thist periode see GHAZARIAN, The Armenian Kingdom in Cilicia during the Crusades; Halfter, Das Papsttum und die Armenier im frühen und Hohen Mittelalter; HAMILTON, The Latin Church in the Crusader States.

150

Martin Seidler

Mamluks had gained the predominance in the region since 1260 and the new Mongol ruler Ghâzân had become Muslim in 1295.5 Fighting for the survival of the Kingdom the Armenian kings requested help of western Christianity6, but the bishops of Rome assured their help only under the condition of an Armenian church union with the pope. The Armenians made concession on several synods during the 13th and 14th century. In 1251 they agreed to the filioque doctrine,7 in 1307 a synod in Sis accepted the seven ecumenical councils, a variation of the trisagion, the celebration of Christmas on December 25th and the addition of water into the eucharistic chalice.8 The Mendicant Orders in Greater Armenia The situation in the Armenian Homeland was completely different due of lacking political or military dependence and due to scarce contacts with western Christianity. The Cilician efforts to latinize the Armenian Church were refused by Armenian churchmen of Greater Armenia, such as Archbishop Step‘anos Ōrbelian9, who argued for sustaining the Armenian tradition founded by St Gregory the Illuminator. While Latin ecclesiastical structures were established in Cilicia since the beginning of the crusades (archbishop’s sees in Mamistra and Tarsus, later bishoprics in Ayas and Korykos)10 an increasing penetration of Latin Christianity in the Armenian Highland can be observed particularly by the mendicant orders since the end of the 13th and the beginning of the 14th century. The Mission to eastern Christianity was deep-rooted in the identity of the Franciscan and Dominican order. The Franciscan friars possessed in the vicariat tartaria orientalis houses in Erzurum, St. Thaddaeus, Salmast, Karpi, Tiflis, Sultânîya and Tabriz.11 Of particular interest is the contact with the Armenian archbishop Zacharias of St Thaddaeus, the first important center of Roman Christianity in Greater Armenia in the 20s and 30s of the 14th century, where first attempts translating scholastic literature into Armenian language were made. The Franciscan missions in Greater Armenia declined in the course of the controversy on the question on poverty.12 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12

Cf., MUTAFIAN, L’Arménie du Levant, I 176. Cf. ibid., I 187.192. Cf. LA PORTA, The Filioque Controversy in Armenia, 89-91. Cf. BUNDY, The Council of Sis, 1307, 53f; BUNDY Armenian Relations with Papacy, 29. Cf. COWE, The Armenians in the Era of the Crusades, 421f; GHAZARIAN, The Armenian Kingdom, 71; COWE, The Role of Correspondence, 52. Cf. MUTAFIAN, L’Arménie du Levant, I 588-594. Cf. COWE, The Armenians in the Era of the Crusades, 419; RICHARD, La papauté et les missions d’Orient au Moyen Age, 304; BALDWIN, Missions to the East in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries, 491. Cf. RICHARD, La papauté et les missions d’Orient au Moyen Age, 203-206; MUTAFIAN, L’Arménie du Levant, I 74-576; MUTAFIAN, Franciscains et Arméniens (XIIIe - XIVe siècle), 262f; LA PORTA, Armeno-Latin Intellectual Exchange in the Fourteenth Century, 276f.

Medieval Armenian Congregations in Union with Rome

151

The Dominican activity in the east based on the Societas fratrum peregrinantium propter Christum, a „society“ without any geographical limitations which was clealry established for the purpose of mission.13 The influence of the Dominican friars in the Armenian Highland grew with the creation of the archiepiscopal seat at the Ilkhânid capital of Sultânîya by Pope John XXII in April 1318. One month later, the Roman pontiff added six suffragan sees to the new archdiocese, whose bishops usually belonged to the Order of Preachers.14 Under it was Marâgha, whose first bishop was essential for the development of the fratres unitores. The Union of K‘r̥na In 1328 some Armenian Monks visited the Dominican Bishop Barolomeo da Poggio in Marâgha. Among them was Vardapet John of K‘r̥na, who had studied as pupil of Esayi Nč‘ec‘i in Glajor, which was one of the most important medieval cultural centers. Two years later, the Armenians could convince the first Bishop of Marâgha to move his seat with a group of Dominicans to the convent of K‘r̥na, which is situated in the present-day Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic of Azerbaijan. This contact of these western Dominicans with Armenians triggered the Union of K‘r̥na in 1330.15 In the assembly the Vardapets16 accepted Latin Christianity without any compromise. They adopted both the rule of St. Augustine and the Dominican constitutions. In 1337 the Armenian version of the Dominican missal and breviary could be finished. The convent of K’̥rna became an active center, where Latin theology and philosophy where translated into Armenian to acquire knowledge about western scholasticism. The monks of K’̥rna completely and radically abandoned their traditional Armenian form of Christianity. In the 30s and 40s of the 14th century European Dominicans and Armenians cooperated and produced a remarkable corpus of Armenian versions of Latin works.17 Nearly all translations originated from the collaboration of the 13 14 15

16 17

Cf. BALDWIN, Missions to the East in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries, 492f. Cf. ibid., 505f; RICHARD, La papauté et les missions d’Orient au Moyen Age, 169-195. Cf. OUDENRIJN, Uniteurs et Dominicains d’Arménie [1956], 97-99; OUDENRIJN, Linguae Haicanae Scriptores, 24-27; RICHARD, La papauté et les missions d’Orient au Moyen Age, 217f; MUTAFIAN, L’Arménie du Levant, I 577f; COWE, The Franciscan and Dominican Mission, 136. On the Vardapets of the conference in K‘ṙna see OUDENRIJN, Uniteurs et Dominicains d’Arménie [1956], 110-112. Cf. OUDENRIJN, Uniteurs et Dominicains d’Arménie [1958], 111-115.117-124; OUDENRIJN, Linguae Haicanae Scriptores, 73-243; MUTAFIAN, L’Arménie du Levant, I 683f; LA PORTA Armeno-Latin Intellectual Exchange in the Fourteenth Century, 283f; OUDENRIJN, Conspectus brevis textuum ordinem praedicatorum, 424-426; COWE, The Franciscan and Dominican Mission, 136f; TER-PETROSYAN, Ancient Armenian Translations, 11-13; TER-VARDANIAN, La littérature des milieux uniteurs (XIIe-XVe siècle), 64.

152

Martin Seidler

Armenian Yakobos Targman, who has joined the Order of Preachers,18 and his western friar Peter of Aragon.19 On the one hand they translated works and sermons of persons, who were present in K‘r̥na, such as Bartholomeo da Poggio, John of K’̥rna, John of Swineford or Peter of Aragon. They compiled treatises about canon law, christology or moral theology and they composed commentaries on well-known medieval philosophical works. On the other hand, they translated the most important handbooks of Dominican theology like the third part of the Summa Theologiae written by Thomas Aquinas or the Compendium theologicae veritatis, in fact composed by Hugh Ripelin of Strasburg but in Armenian ascribed to Albertus Magnus. This library enabled the fratres unitores to study western philosophy and theology. The translations even spread to the adversaries of the Union. The activity of the main monastery in K‘r̥na declined in the years 1347 and 1348, when two of the protagonists John of K‘r̥na and Peter of Aragon died and the nearly all friars fell victim to the Black Death.20 It seems, however, that the movement had made progress in consolidation of the order in 1344. John K‘r̥nec‘i was called for the first time ‚Ֆրա’ (Fra) and was elected prior of the convent (վերախնամող’ veraxnamoł) in the translations of that year. The congregation consisted of about 14 monasteries at its zenith.21 Papal Recognition of the Fratres Unitores Approved by Pope Innocent VI on 31 January 1356 the congregatio S. Gregorii Illuminatoris entered a new phase in its history, which will lasted until 1583, when the fratres unitores were dissolved into an ordinary Dominican province. The papal bull delivers insights in the conventual life of the friars: They observed the Dominican version of St Augustine’ s Rule and the constitution of the Order of Preachers with some concessions concerning fasting and property. Like the order of St Dominic, they celebrated a general chapter every year. The friars of one convent voted for a prior, who required confirmation by the head of the congregation, the վերախնամող (veraxnamoł). The priors elected the վերախնամող (veraxnamoł). Pope Innocent VI granted the right of visitation

18 19 20 21

Cf. OUDENRIJN, Uniteurs et Dominicains d’Arménie [1958], 115f; OUDENRIJN, Linguae Haicanae Scriptores, 25. Cf. ibid., 26; OUDENRIJN, Uniteurs et Dominicains d’Arménie [1958], 110. Cf. ibid., 124f. In the 14th century there must be massive fluctuation of the number of members. Cf. ibid., 121f; OUDENRIJN, Linguae Haicanae Scriptores, 27f.205f; LA PORTA, Armeno-Latin Intellectual Exchange in the Fourteenth Century, 281f. On the different convents see OUDENRIJN, Uniteurs et Dominicains d’Arménie [1958], 130-133; OUDENRIJN, Linguae Haicanae Scriptores, 33f. For the Armenian Dominican province see LONGO, Relazioni d’Armenia, 222-226.

Medieval Armenian Congregations in Union with Rome

153

to the master general of the Dominican order.22 Hence the deep connection between the fratres unitores and the ordo praedicatorum was fixed.23 It was decisive for the further history of the order, that the two delegates of the unitors to the papal court, Fra T‘ovmas and Awagter, came from St Nicholas Monastery in Caffa. The Crimea under Genoese rule was generally an important Armenian center in the 14th century.24 Until 1475, when the Republic of Genoa lost control over the peninsula, the St Nicholas Monastery constituted the central point of the fratres unitores.25 At that time the order returned to its country of origin and the convent of Aparan became the Unitor’s headquarter.26 The Armenian Response to the Latinophile Movement The Opposition of Armenian-apostolic churchmen to the միաբանողք (miabanołk‘) became more vigorous in the course of the second half of the 14 th century. According to Mxit‘arič‘ Aparanec‘i, a famous member of the fratres unitores and author of the apologetic book ‚գիրք ուղղափառաց’ (girk‘ ułłap‘ar̥ac‘),27 the dispute even turned into to a violent conflict in Greater Armenia, after counterparts of the union had established a monastery at Aprakunik‘ next to K‘r̥na on the other bank of Ernjak river in 1376/77.28 The opponents succeeded and regained some convents. Among them were Małak‘ia Łrimec‘i and the famous Yovhannēs Orotnec‘i, who wrote a theological treatise against the Chalcedonean teaching of the two natures in Christ.29 The most important contrahent of the latinophiles was without doubt Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i. In his ‚Book of questions’ (գիրք հարցմանց girk‘ harc‘manc‘) Grigor argued 22 23

24 25

26 27 28 29

Cf. Bullarium ordinis FF. Praedicatorum, II 246f; OUDENRIJN, Uniteurs et Dominicains d’Arménie [1958], 125f; OUDENRIJN, Linguae Haicanae Scriptores, 29. The papal bulls of the next century show, that the fratres unitores had to struggle for their rights. For instance the decisicions of 1374 and 1381, that members of the order desiring to join the ordo praedicatorum have to say their profession once again, indicate the autonomy of the congregatio S. Gregorii Illuminatoris. Otherwise the bull from 1381, that the head of the order has to be confirmed by the general master of the Dominicans, was another step towards the full integration in the Order of Preachers. Cf. ibid., 31f; OUDENRIJN, Uniteurs et Dominicains d’Arménie [1958], 127f. Cf. COWE, The Religious Significance of the Armenian Community of the Crimea in the 13th15th Centuries, 45-49; MUTAFIAN, L’Arménie du Levant, I 704-709. Cf. OUDENRIJN, Linguae Haicanae Scriptores, 29f; COWE, The Religious Significance of the Armenian Community of the Crimea in the 13th-15th Centuries, 45-49; OUDENRIJN, Uniteurs et Dominicains d’Arménie [1958], 131f. Cf. ibid., 132; MUTAFIAN, L’Arménie du Levant, I 684. On Mxit‘arič‘ Aparanec‘i see OUDENRIJN, The Monastery of Aparan, 282-303. On the ‚գիրք ուղղափառաց’ (girk‘ ułłap‘aṙac‘) see OUDENRIJN, Linguae Haicanae Scriptores, 215-228. Cf. LA PORTA, Armeno-Latin Intellectual Exchange in the Fourteenth Century, 286-288; COWE, The Franciscan and Dominican Mission, 140. Cf. OUDENRIJN, Uniteurs et Dominicains d’Arménie [1961], 104-106; LA PORTA, ArmenoLatin Intellectual Exchange in the Fourteenth Century, 285f.

154

Martin Seidler

against diophysite Christology and the Filioque as well as against Latin liturgical uses like the mixed chalice or the celebration of Nativity of Christ on 25th of December.30 Although refuting Roman tendencies both Yovhannēs Orotnec‘i and Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i were interested in western scholastic thinking. Books translated by the fratres unitores could be found in their libraries, and the curricula in their monasteries were influenced as well as their works by Latin theology and philosophy.31 Basilian Monks in Italy Armenians already transcribed manuscripts in Italy, as for example in Rimini or Salerno, in the 13th century.32 The migration to Italy increased during the time, when the Mamluks invaded the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, especially since the loss of Hr̥omkla in 1292 and of territory in 1298, and this migration wave continued during the whole 14th century. Armenian churches, monasteries and hospices prospered in many cities.33 Furthermore, we are aware of Armenian bishops in Italy in the 14th century. Sometimes conflicts arose from their episcopal activities.34 In particular the convent of Genoa35 was of importance for the development of the fratres domorum Armenorum citra Mare consistenitum. In 1307 Pope Clement V permitted basilian monks, having fled from the Black Mountain36 in Cilicia, to erect a church or chapel in this Ligurian city. The Armenian friars devoted the sanctuary to St Bartholomew. This is also the main reason, why the Armenian basilians in Italy are often labeled ‚Bartholomites’. In 1317 John XXII finally conceded that visitors of San Bartolomeo degli Armeni can receive 30 31

32 33

34

35 36

Cf. ibid., 290f; OUDENRIJN, Uniteurs et Dominicains d’Arménie [1961], 106-108. On Tat‘ew and Grigor see MUTAFIAN, L’Arménie du Levant, I 680-683. Cf. LA PORTA, Armeno-Latin Intellectual Exchange in the Fourteenth Century, 289-291; COWE, The Franciscan and Dominican Mission to the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia and Greater Armenia, 140. Cf. MUTAFIAN, L’Arménie du Levant, I 701-704. On Italian cities with Armenian presence see ZIKYAN, Le colonie Armene del Medio Evo in Italia, 851-905; OUDENRIJN, Linguae Haicanae Scriptores, 250-271; OUDENRIJN, Notulae de domibus Bartholomitarum, 247-267. Archbishop Arakiel ordained latin priests. Opponents complained that he had not even been baptized in the Roman rite. The question of rebaptizing and reordaining was a main conflict between the different Christian traditions. On the Italian bishops see Richard, La papauté et les missions d’Orient au Moyen Age, 197f; OUDENRIJN Linguae Haicanae Scriptores, 271f; DELACROIX-BESNIER, I monaci Basiliani in Italia, 209f. On the debate of rebaptizing see DE VRIES Die Päpste von Avignon und der christliche Osten, 110-114; COWE, The Franciscan and Dominican Mission to the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia and Greater Armenia, 138f; OUDENRIJN, Uniteurs et Dominicains d’Arménie [1961], 96-102. Cf. OUDENRIJN, Linguae Haicanae Scriptores, 259-262. On Armenian convents of the Amanus see MUTAFIAN, L’Arménie du Levant, I 602-604; MECERIAN, Histoire et institutions de l’église Arménienne, 306-308.

Medieval Armenian Congregations in Union with Rome

155

an indulgence. The history of the convent in Genoa can be considered exemplary for the houses of Armenian basilian monks. Having arrived from Armenia, they got in contact with Roman Christianity, as shown in papal bulls.37 A process of latinisation began rapidly. Several manuscripts of the 14 th century indicate that the Armenians in Italy used an Armenian version of the Roman missal translated by the Franciscan friar Pontius.38 The fratres domorum Armenorum citra Mare consistenitum Only six months after his recognition of the fratres unitores, Pope Innocent VI combined the Italian convents of Armenian monks, who developed and existed autonomously until then, to the fratres domorum Armenorum citra Mare consistentium. The form of organization described in the papal bull of 30 June 1356 resembles the canonical form, which was given to the fratres unitores of Greater Armenia. The Italian monks had to follow the same monastic rules, and the general master of the Dominican order had the right of visitation.39 Moreover, Innocent VI ordered that the first prior generalis must be a member of the Order of Preachers for the purpose of the monastic life’s renewal.40 The massive migration from Cilicia declined after the end of the Armenian Kingdom, and the congregation decided to accept Italian novices. Therefore the Armenian nature of the fratres ordinis Armenorum citra Mare disappeared already in the course of the 15th century. Some convents passed over to other congregations.41 Only having 40 members in 4 houses Pope Innocent X dissolved the order on 29 October 1650.42 Both the fratres unitores of Greater Armenia and the fratres ordinis Armenorum citra Mare represent an extreme latinization of Armenian Christianity. The Unions of the Armenians living in 17th century in Lemberg or in the 18th century in Lebanon preserved at least their Armenian liturgy. The friars of the two orders brought a massive cultural transfer: Latin medieval theology even influenced the opponents of the union. Otherwise the fratres unitores caused hard conflicts and divisions within Armenian Christianity. Their history remains ambivalent. 37 38 39 40

41 42

Cf. RICHARD, La papauté et les missions d’Orient au Moyen Age, 197; DELACROIX-BESNIER, I monaci Basiliani in Italia, 209. Cf. OUDENRIJN, Linguae Haicanae Scriptores, 285f. Cf. ibid., 273-275. A bull of 7 July 1356 nominated the Dominican friar Petrus de Strozzis. It remains perplexing that Gregorio Bitio, an elementary source for the history of the order, didn’t know him. Cf. ibid., 276-281. Cf. DELACROIX-BESNIER, I monaci Basiliani in Italia, 210; OUDENRIJN, Linguae Haicanae Scriptores, 280. Cf. ibid., 283f.

156

Martin Seidler

Bibliography BALDWIN, Marshall W.: Missions to the East in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries, in: Zacour, Norman O. / Hazard, Harry. W. (Ed.): The Impact of the Crusades on the Near East, Wisconsins: 1985 (= A History of the Crusades V), 452–518. BULLARIUM ORDINIS FF. PRAEDICATORUM. Sub auspiciis SS. D. N. D. Clementis XII, Pontificis Maximi, opera Reverendissmi Patris F. Thomae Ripoll, Magistri Generalis, editum.Tomus secundus. Ab Anno 1281 ad 1430, Rom: 1730. BUNDY, David D.: The Council of Sis, 1307, in: Laga, Carl / Munitz, Joseph A. / Van Rompay, Lucas (Ed.): After Chalcedon. Studies in Theology and Church History. Offered to Professor Albert Van Roey for his Seventieth Birthday, Leuven: 1985 (= OLA 18), 47–56. BUNDY, David D.: Armenian Relations with the Papacy after the Mongol Invasions, in: The Patristic and Byzantine Review 5 (1986) 19-32. COWE, S. Peter: The Armenians in the Era of the Crusades 1050-1350, in: Angold, Michael (Ed.): The Cambridge History of Christianity. Volume 5. Eastern Christianity, Cambridge: 2006, 404–429. COWE, S. Peter: The Religious Significance of the Armenian Community of the Crimea in the 13th-15th Centuries, retrieved from http://armenianlegacy.eu/files/historical_contribution/cowe.pdf. [18th Nov. 2017] COWE, S. Peter: The Role of Correspondence in Elucidating the Intensification of LatinArmenian Ecclesiastical Interchange in the First Quarter of the Fourteenth Century, in: Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies 13 (2013/2014) 47-68. COWE, S. Peter: The Franciscan and Dominican Mission to the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia and Greater Armenia, its Reception, and the Resulting Interchange, in: Aram 25/1&3 (2013), 127–149. DELACROIX-BESNIER, Claudine: I monaci Basiliani in Italia (secoli XIII-X), in: Mutafian, Claude (Ed.): Roma – Armenia, Rom: 1999, 208-211. GHAZARIAN, Jacob G.: The Armenian Kingdom in Cilicia during the Crusades. The Integration of Cilician Armenians with the Latins 1080-1393, Richmond: 2000. HALFTER, Peter: Das Papsttum und die Armenier im frühen und hohen Mittelalter. Von den ersten Kontakten bis zur Fixierung der Kirchenunion im Jahre 1198, Köln: 1996 (= FKPG 15). HAMILTON, Bernard: The Latin Church in the Crusader States. The Secular Church, London: 1980. LA PORTA, Sergio: The History of the Filioque Controversy in Armenia, in: St. Nersess Theological Review 8 (2003) 85-116. LA PORTA, Sergio: Armeno-Latin Intellectual Exchange in the Fourteenth Century. Scholarly Traditions in Conversation and Competition, in: Medieval Encounters 21 (2015), 269–294. LONGO, Carlo: Relazioni d’Armenia (1583-1640), in: AFP 67 (1997) 173-226. MECERIAN, Jean: Histoire et institutions de l’église Arménienne. Évolution nationale et doctrinale. Spiritualité - Monachisme, Beirut: 1965. MUTAFIAN, Claude: Franciscains et Arméniens (XIIIe - XIVe siècle), in: SOC.C 32 (1999) 221–276. MUTAFIAN, Claude: L’Arménie du Levant. (XIe-XIVe siècle), 2 Vol., Paris: 2012.

Medieval Armenian Congregations in Union with Rome

157

OUDENRIJN, Marc-Antoine van den: The Monastery of Aparan and the Armenian Writer Fra Mxitarič, in: AFP 1 (1931) 265-308. OUDENRIJN, Marcus Antonius: Linguae haicanae scriptores. Ordinis praedicatorum congregationis fratrum unitorum et ff. armenorum ord. s. basilii citra mare consistentium quotquot huc usque innotuerunt recensebat, Bern: 1960. Oudenrijn, Marc-Antoine van den: Conspectus brevis textuum ordinem Praedicatorum eiusque scriptores utcumque spectantium qui armenio extant sermone typis vulgati, in: AFP 20 (1950) 424-430. OUDENRIJN, Marc-Antoine van den: Notulae de domibus Bartholomitarum seu Fratrum Armenorum citra Mare consistentium, in: AFP 22 (1952) 247-267. OUDENRIJN, Marc-Antoine van den: Uniteurs et Dominicains d’Arménie, in: OC 40 (1956) 94-133. OUDENRIJN, Marc-Antoine van den: Uniteurs et Dominicains d’Arménie, in: OC 42 (1958) 110-133. OUDENRIJN, Marc-Antoine van den: Uniteurs et Dominicains d’Arménie, in: OC 43 (1959) 110-119. OUDENRIJN, Marc-Antoine van den: Uniteurs et Dominicains d’Arménie, in: OC 45 (1961) 95-108. OUDENRIJN, Marc-Antoine van den: Uniteurs et Dominicains d’Arménie, in: OC 46 (1962) 99-116. RICHARD, Jean: La papauté et les missions d’Orient au Moyen Age, Rom: 1998. TER-PETROSYAN, Levon: Ancient Armenian Translations, New York: 1992. TER-VARDANIAN, Guevorg: La littérature des milieux uniteurs (XIIe-XVe siècle), in: Kévorkian, Raymond H. (Ed.): Arménie entre Orient et Occident. Trois mille ans de civilisation, Paris: 1996, 62-64. VRIES, Wilhelm de: Die Päpste von Avignon und der christliche Osten, in: Orientalia Christiana periodica 30 (1964) 85-128. ZEKIYAN, Levon B.: Le colonie armene del medio evo in Italia e le relazioni culturali italo-armene (Materiale per la Storia degli Armeni in Italia), in: Ieni, Giulio / Zekiyan, Levon B. (Ed.): Atti del primo simposio internazionale di arte armena (Bergamo, 28-30 Giugno 1975), Venezia: 1978, 803-929.

Monastery Sałmosavank‘ (13th c.) Village Sałmosavan, Armenia (west elevation)

ORIENT AND OCCIDENT: MONASTIC SPIRITUALITY AND FORMATION

A PENITENTIAL PECULIARITY IN ARMENIAN MONASTICISM OF THE EARLY SECOND MILLENNIUM Archbishop Michael Daniel FINDIKYAN New York / USA

Two simultaneous dynamics distinguish monastic life in Armenia in the early centuries of the second millennium: the flourishing of monasticism in general as witnessed, among other markers, by a surge in the construction of monastic buildings;1 and a growing ideological divide between Armenia’s northern and eastern monasteries on the one hand, and the ecclesiastic center in Cilicia.2 Underlying and perhaps even fueling these two dynamics is an unmistakable penitential spirituality that is discernible in the Armenian Church at this time, which is traceable to the northern and eastern monasteries of Greater Armenia beginning in the tenth, and continuing at least through the fourteenth centuries. One thinks instinctively of St. Gregory of Narek’s Book of Prayers, with its highly refined and trenchant theology of penance,3 which opened the millennium and indelibly shaped Armenian spirituality thereafter.4 The repository and vehicle for the perpetuation of that deeply penitential vision was the Church’s liturgical tradition, every facet of which became imbued with a stark sense of mankind’s sinfulness and futility in alienation from God. More perhaps than any neighboring Christian tradition, the Armenians developed a treasury of specifically penitential hymns of various classes, most notably the five anonymous, cantata-like penitential compositions known as Թագաւոր 1

2 3

4

A phenomenon that had begun already before the turn of the millennium under the Bagratid ascendancy in northern Armenia, but which continued after the dynasty’s rapid decline following the death of Gagik I in 1020. DER NERSESSIAN, Armenia in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries 325. COSTA, L’Architettura armena, 61-72. THIERRY, Armenian Art 119-122. See ԱԼԻՇԱՆ, Սիսուան 86-97; ՍԱԱՏԷԹԵԱՆ Լամբրոնացի. Աշխատասիրութիւն 99104; HAKOBYAN, Nerses Lambronac‘I, 68-70, 80-81. See Saint Grégoire de Narek théologien et mystique, Papers presented at the Colloque international tenu à l’Institut Pontifical Oriental; Saint Grégoire de Narek et la Liturgie de l’Église, Colloque international organize par le Patriarcat arménien catholique à l’Université Saint-Esprit de Kalsik (USEK), Liban. See for example, Daily Prayers for the Week by Hovhannes of Gḁrni [Yovhannēs Gar̥nec‘i] (ca. 1180-1245) and Գիրք աղօթից ասացեալ Սրբոյն Եփրէմի Խուրին Ասորւոց [Book of Prayers by St. Ephrem the Syrian], (Jerusalem: 1933). Cf. St. Ephrem the Syrian Prayers, trans. MATHEWS Jr. The Armenian Prayers attributed to Ephrem the Syrian, ed. and trans. MATHEWS Jr.

162

Archbishop Michael Daniel Findikyan

յաւիտեան [Eternal King] that conclude the Night Hour Office [Գիշերային ժամ],5 and the over one hundred so-called Ողորմեա [Have mercy] šarakanhymns based on Ps 50(51). This Psalm, the penitential prayer par excellence, was already a fixed component of the Morning Hour Office [Առաւօտեան ժամ] at the turn of the eighth century when the erudite Step‘anos of Siwnik‘ penned his commentary on the Armenian Liturgy of the Hours.6 Today it finds its place in virtually every Armenian Church service,7 a diffusion unknown in any other tradition. Later, conceivably during the period under consideration, chains of these penitential hymns also came to be chanted during the monastic Night Vigil of Wednesdays, Fridays, and during Lenten and fasting seasons.8 Noteworthy as well are many of the hymns of St. Nersēs “the Gracious” Šnorhali (†1173) including the somber, 36-strophe Աշխարհ ամենայն [All the World], sung during the ferial Night Office.9 All of these hymns bemoan the inherent, depraved tendencies of men and women; they plead for divine mercy as humanity’s only hope for redemption, while they celebrate God’s philanthropy in Jesus Christ. The Armenian Church’s understanding of penance is further reflected in her traditionally severe fasting practices. It is no doubt significant that in Armenian the Lenten season came to be designated simply աղուհաց, “salt and bread.” The thirteenth-century historian Kirakos Ganjakec‘i notes that it was the custom in the eastern regions of Armenia to shift various liturgical feasts to the nearest Sunday not for convenience, nor to lessen the burden of the protracted church services, but so as not to disrupt the regular Wednesday and Friday fasts.10 The same rigorist outlook, possibly championed by the Latin Crusaders, fueled the development, early in the millennium, of ever more stringent policies regarding private confession and penance.11 In a famous letter to the eleventh-century 5 6

7 8

9 10

11

ŽAMAGIRK‘, 145-157. FINDIKYAN, Commentary on the Armenian Daily Office 360-361. While the hymns composed to accompany the Psalm may have existed at this early era, Step‘anos commentary makes no mention of them. Especially in the three midday hours of the third, sixth and ninth hours, called Ճաշու ժամ, each of which begins with Psalm 50(51). ŽAMAGIRK‘, 383-428. ՕՐՀՆՈՒԹԻՒՆ ԱՊԱՇԽԱՐՈՒԹԵԱՆ, 87-95. The texts, along with my English translation of these hymns and musical scores can be accessed at http://www.stnersess.edu/armenianhymnal.html. ŽAMAGIRK‘, 31-35. Կիրակոս Գանձակեցւոյ պատմութիւն [83, 84, 85. In reality, the Armenians’ fixation on Sunday is associated with the ancient Christian understanding of the first day of the week as the dies dominica, “the day of the Lord.” BRADSHAW, JOHNSON Origins of Feasts, Fasts and Seasons, 3-28. See for example: The Penitential of David of Ganjak, ed. C.J.F. DOWSETT. Other authors of similar works include Movsēs Ganjakec‘i (†c.1140) and Movsēs Erznkac‘i (†mid-14th c.). See DOWSETT, “Movsēs Erzingaci’s ‘Advice on Confession’, 135-149. For a general overview see CARR, “Penance Among the Armenians, 65-100.

A Penitential Peculiarity in Armenian Monasticism

163

Catholicos Grigor II Vkayasēr [the Martyrophile] (1065-1105), the Syrian Patriarch Yohannan Bar Šušan (1064-1073) rails against what he considers to be the Armenians’ excessively severe penitential practice:12 Concerning the manner of confession, [the Armenians] do not conduct themselves according to appropriate principles. Instead, they list [every] kind of sin that could ever be committed in the world, as well as those that will never be committed. And when one wishes to confess his sins and to receive forgiveness, the priest is seated and [the penitent] reads to him in order, one by one, all that he has done, as well as what he has not done, and things like this that he has never even heard of nor imagined…

It is however another, much more unusual manifestation of medieval Armenian monasticism’s austere ethos that will occupy the remainder of this paper. Beginning in the twelfth century, and continuing through at least the turn of the fifteenth century we find scattered references in Armenian literary sources to the very strange custom in some northern and eastern monasteries of banishing all of the faithful from the church, shutting the main doors and reserving entry exclusively to the liturgical celebrant of the day. All of the people and even the non-presiding clergy and monks, not just catechumens and unrepentant sinners, were effectively excommunicated. They attended all of the liturgical services, including the Eucharist, from behind the closed main doors of the church. This bizarre usage seems to be at the root of several highly unusual practices that have become customary in the Armenian Church specifically during Great Lent, which present a range of problems for the Armenian Church today: the closing of the sanctuary curtain for the duration of Great Lent, and even more peculiar, the unilateral suppression of Holy Communion for all the faithful during the entire Lenten period. The practice of celebrating the Eucharist without distributing Holy Communion is otherwise entirely unknown in Christendom. Seemingly related as well are a number of contradictions and problems connected to the solemnity known as the “Great Carnival” [Բուն բարեկենդան]. Depending upon how one interprets the conflicting information in the liturgical books, this day is either a day of feasting and celebration that leads up to Great Lent; or it is already the sober first day of Lent.13 Ambiguities in the function and rubrics of the ceremony of the “Opening of the Door” [Դռնբացէք], conducted in the evening of Palm Sunday, that is, on the threshold between Lent and Holy Week, also likely derive from this era.14 Our knowledge of the medieval monastic practice of sealing off the churches to the faithful can be pieced together from scattered allusions in a number of 12

13 14

ՎԱՐԴԱՆԵԱՆ, Յովհաննէս Ժ. 85-86. French translations in NAU, Lettre du Patriarche Jacobite Jean X (1064-1073) au Catholique arménien Grégoir II (1065-1105), 192-193 and, Grégoire de Narek Tragédie: Matean ołbergut‘ean. Le livre de lamentation, introduction, traduction et notes par Annie et Jean-Pierre MAHE, 122. FINDIKYAN, Goc‘ Patarag, 77-93. FINDIKYAN, The ‘Opening of the Door’ Ceremony, 22-41.

164

Archbishop Michael Daniel Findikyan

ecclesiastical writings from the period beginning with the famous correspondence between Catholicos Nersēs IV Šnorhali and Theorianos, the emissary of Byzantine Emperor Manuēl Komnenos shortly before the Catholicos’ death in 1173AD,15 and ending rather suddenly with assorted remarks in the writings of St. Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i just inside the fifteenth century. Our most explicit and detailed surviving testimony to the usage, however, comes from the pen of the young, precocious bishop of Tarsus in the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, Nersēs of Lambron (Lambronac‘i, 1153-1198).16 In a letter of his edited more than 150 years ago but almost completely overlooked by modern scholars, Nersēs vehemently condemns the practice of barring the faithful from the church, in addition to other usages that he considered reprehensible, but which were observed in certain monasteries in northeastern Armenia, in particular the monasteries of Hałbat and Sanahin, both of whose fractious abbots Nersēs mentions by name.17 As a prelude to a larger investigation into the origin of the problematic customs just mentioned, and an evaluation of the validity of their inherent radical penitential spirituality for the Armenian Church today, the current paper will be limited to examining this letter’s testimony concerning Nersēs Lambronac‘i’s condemnation of the practice of prohibiting the faithful from entering the church.18 In so doing, our aim will be first, to better understand the origin and 15

16

17

18

The circumstances are masterfully presented with analysis and thorough bibliography in TERIAN, To Byzantium with Love, 131-151. For the relevant documents in English translation see ARAM I, Saint Nersēs the Gracious and Church Unity. See also ZEKIYAN, Համամիութենական տրամախօսութիւն մը ԺԲ. դարուն [An Ecumenical Dialogue of the 12th c.], 591-636. French translation in idem, St. Nersēs Šnorhali en dialogue avec les grecs, 861-883. On Nersēs Lambronac‘i see the survey and bibliography by ZEKIYAN, Nersès de Lambron, cols. 122-134. The most important studies are: ALISHAN, Sisuan, 86-95; Smbat Saatēt‘ean, Ներսէս Լամբրոնացի. Աշխատասիրութիւն պատմական, մատենագրական եւ վարդապետական [Nersēs Lambronac‘i: An Historical, Literary and Doctrinal Study]; AKINEAN, Ներսէս Լամբրոնացւոյ կեանքն եւ գրական վաստակները [The Life and Literary Works of Nerses Lambronac‘i], 80-251; GUGEROTTI, L’Interazione dei ruoli in una celebrazione come mistagogia; ASHJIAN, St. Nerses of Lambron; Nersēs di Lambron, Introduction and notes by ZEKIYAN, trans. by ZEKIYAN and LANZARINI. Nersēs also mentions these two monasteries and his two notorious adversaries in a separate letter addressed to Prince Lewon II (who would be enthroned as King Lewon I in 1197AD), in which many of the details concerning the custom of dismissing the faithful and closing the doors are corroborated. Նորին Ներսեսի Լամբրոնացւոյ թուղթ առ քրիստոսազօր իշխողն մեր ինքնակալութեամբ Լեւոն ի նուաստ Ներսիսէ որ ի Տարսոն սրբոյ եկեղեցւոյն պաշտոնեայ [Of the Same Nersēs Lambronac‘i, A Letter to Our ChristStrengthened Monarch Prince Lewon from Lowly Nersēs, Servant of the Holy Church of Tarson] in ԳՐԻԳՈՐԻ ԿԱԹՈՂԻԿՈՍԻ ՏՂԱՅ ԿՈՉԵՑԵԼՈՅ ՆԱՄԱԿԱՆԻ 207-248. For the circumstances surrounding the letter see ORMANIAN I, 1514ff. Nersēs’ other writings, especially his famous letter to King Lewon, fully corroborate the observations made here, yet a full analysis of this additional testimony is beyond the confines of this paper.

A Penitential Peculiarity in Armenian Monasticism

165

form of the strange practice; second, to discern how those monasteries justified the practice; and third, to discover what Nersēs might teach us about protecting, and, where appropriate, reforming the liturgical traditions of the Armenian Church today. The letter in question is actually a protracted treatise. It bears the title, “In Response to the Inquiry of Brother Presbyters: An Examination of the Rites of the Church and Explanatory Definition of Innovations that have Entered from Outside.”19 The letter was published in 1847 together with Nersēs’ famous commentary on the Divine Liturgy, in whose shadow it has been obscured and entirely passed over by scholars. As far as I can tell, neither Saatēt‘ean, Ormanian, Hakobyan, Ashjian nor any of the authoritative surveys of medieval Armenian literature including Zarbhanalean and Abeghyan mention, much less analyze the letter.20 Only Ghewond Alishan refers to it incidentally in his inventory of Nersēs’ writings, dismissing it as “a letter against the quackery of the monks of Hałbat, which it was fitting for [Nersēs] to write as a sort of Ciceronian self-defense.”21 Nersēs was consecrated bishop of Tarsus at the tender age of 23. The young prodigy’s astounding intellectual gifts, lofty theological vision and youthful zeal are in full display in the letter, which serves as his rebuttal to specific accusations that had been lodged against the young Archbishop by a coterie of monks from northern Armenia led by one Grigor Tutēordi, the Primate of the Monastery of Sanahin22 and Tawit‘ K‘obayrec‘i,23 Primate of the Monastery of Hałbat‘. Often referred to by their contemporaries as “the Armenian vardapets of the northern regions,”24 or, by Nersēs himself as “the natives of Joraget,”25 the valley above which rise the Hałbat and Sanahin monasteries, these resolutely traditionalist monks were staunch critics of the efforts of Catholicos

19 20

21 22 23

24 25

ԼԱՄԲՐՈՆԱՑԻ, Ի խնդրոյ հայցմանց 21-40. Henceforth, “Nersēs.” Nersēs Akinean lists the work, without further comment, in his inventory of Lambronac‘i’s works. ԱԿԻՆԵԷՆ, Ներսէս Լամբրոնացի 140. The surveys of medieval literature seem to file the work anonymously among Nersēs’ “letters” or “various discourses on the church,” e.g. ԶԱՐԲՀԱՆԱԼԵԱՆ Հայկական հին դպրութեան 659; ԱԲԵՂՅԱՆ, Հայոց հին գրականության պատմություն II, 139; THOMSON, Bibliography 175. «թուղթ…ընդդէմ բաջաղանաց Հաղբատեցւոց, զոր եւ մարթ է կիկերոնական իմն ջատագովութիւն անձին գրել». ԱԼԻՇԱՆ, Սիսուան 87. a.k.a. Grigor Son of Tutay. ԱՃԱԾՅԱՆ Հայոց անձնանունների բառարան, I.567-568. An illustrious scholar and prolific author to whom are attributed numerous exegetical, theological and mystagogical writings. Having lived as a hermit in the Monastery of K‘obayr, he became a monk of Hałbat and later its abbot. ԱՃԱՌՅԱՆ Հայոց անձնանունների բառարան, II.41-42. «վարդապետք հայոց հիւսիսային կողմանցն». See, for example, the heading to their letter to Catholicos Grigor IV Tłay in ԸՆԴՀԱՆՐԱԿԱՆ ԹՈՒՂԹՔ 307. Ձորագետացիք. The name also includes the Monasteries of Hałarcin, Xorakert and Getik. ORMANIAN, I, 1461-2.

166

Archbishop Michael Daniel Findikyan

Grigor IV (known as “Tłay” [the Youth] (†1193) to establish a union with the Byzantine Church. Ormanian writes:26 Holed up on the eastern frontier, detached from western relations, and faithful guardians of primitive traditions, every notion of union was suspect to the eyes of the natives of Joraget. Wary of outsiders’ proposals, they preferred to avoid all interaction with them in order to remain free of deception or of succumbing to danger.

With his superlative intellectual sweep and visceral, seemingly mystical yearning for genuine Christian love and unity among the churches,27 Nersēs became the Catholicos’ ardent and outspoken advocate (he was also his second cousin). In so doing, he opened himself up to the vitriol of the northern monks. Some years later, allied with certain bishops such as the charismatic Barseł II of Ani (†1203), the northern vardapets wrote a letter, now lost, to King Lewon I demanding that the recent election of Catholicos Grigor VI Apirat be nullified in favor of their idealogical champion Barseł. In the same context they hastened to denounce the young archbishop of Tarsus, demanding that he be dismissed from the royal palace and from the Catholicate on account of his dubious attraction to western Christians (Byzantine and Roman) and his penchant for unilaterally introducing new and foreign practices into the Armenian Church’s liturgical life. If the King held firm in his support of Catholicos Grigor, he capitulated to the northern vardapets’ outcry against Nersēs, whom he dismissed from the palace and ostensibly from his inner circle, though it is hard to believe that Lewon would so easily have cut off all contact with his long-time and trusted confidant. At the same time, the King instructed Nersēs to retract his controversial liturgical reforms. In Nersēs’ strident letter to the King, he writes:28 Our Prince Het‘um29 came and brought me a decree and order from you as if to an immature child, [stating] that I am of no use to you and that my conduct is out of order and useless, being out of line with our blessed holy fathers; and that I am going astray from their path.

Nersēs’ Response to the Inquiry of Brother Presbyters must be considered a counterpart to his letter to the King, a two-pronged effort to justify his actions and to clear his name. Nersēs feels obliged not only to respond to the northern vardapets who have condemned him, but to respond as well to the King, who, by sustaining their objections, has lent them credence. In both letters, moreover, Nersēs’ tactic is not only to refute the accusations of his antagonists point-by26 27

28 29

Idem, I, 1461. All translations herein are mine unless otherwise noted. As brilliantly displayed in his Synodal Discourse to fathers of the Synod of Hṙomklay. See ASHJIAN, St. Nersess of Lambron Champion of the Church Universal, and Nersēs di Lambron, Introduction and notes by ZEKIYAN, translated by ZEKIYAN and Lanzarini. ԳՐԻԳՈՐԻ ԿԱԹՈՂԻԿՈՍԻ ՆԱՄԱԿԱՆԻ, 213. For the entire background and a full analysis of Nersēs’ letter to the King, see Ormanian I, 1510-1523. Het‘um was the local prince and Nersēs’ elder brother.

A Penitential Peculiarity in Armenian Monasticism

167

point, but also to go on the offensive, identifying new and alien customs that the northern monks themselves have adopted. In this way Nersēs lays bare their own hypocrisy. We do not know if Nersēs had direct access to the northern vardapets’ letter to the King, or if he learned of their specific accusations against him from Het‘um or perhaps even directly from the Lewon. What is clear is that Nersēs was well aware of liturgical improprieties at the monasteries of Hałbat and Sanahin. He identifies and condemns several in his letter to King Lewon, while his Response to the Inquiry of Brother Presbyters is almost entirely devoted to refuting their practice of dismissing the faithful from the church, an aberration he only mentions in passing in his letter to the King. There can be no doubt, moreover, that Nersēs’ Response is indeed a response to some earlier correspondence, now lost, in which the vardapets had defended their unusual practice and had demanded an explanation of some of Nersēs’ own innovations. Nersēs habitually quotes and then refutes apologetic statements by the vardapets that must have been made in that earlier correspondence. Furthermore, early in his letter, Nersēs refers to “questions” [խնդիրս] they had posed, and he speaks of his readiness to provide a “written account concerning the desirable rectitude in religion and rites as you request” [փափաքելի կրօնից եւ կարգաց ուղղութիւն՝…զլուր բանի որ վասն այսորիկ, արձանագրութեամբ մաղթէք].30 Nersēs’ Response opens with an extended introduction. Seeking to elevate his dispute with the “brother presbyters” above the level of senseless bickering and blind self justification, the Archbishop gives thanks to God for giving them all the opportunity to clarify the matters at hand, and, in so doing, to be healed by God. Nersēs continues by laying out an apology for his youth, unworthiness and presumptuousness in admonishing those whom he refers to as “elders and graduates.” For four pages in the printed edition, Nersēs begs his addressees not to accuse him of judging his brothers, lest he too be judged, as the Lord cautions [Mt 7:1ff.]. He forewarns his addressees that his words will be direct and bitter, and he portrays himself as a physician performing painful surgery in order to bring about healing:31 Now when you hear these disputations and when you are criticized according to conscience because you possess one of those things that are here rebuked, accept these words as sharing your grief and reproaching the infirmity from which you are suffering. For if physicians of the body often cauterize and amputate these very limbs of ours and yet are not counted as enemies, how much more esteemed by all who desire salvation should I myself be, who yearn, with bitter words, to polish the soul’s nobility and [25] to exterminate ghastly, disfiguring vermin by the anointing of the Spirit?

The young bishop’s initial Christian modesty is offset, however, by the imperious tone that dominates the rest of the letter. The introduction already 30 31

Nersēs, 22. Nersēs, 24-25.

168

Archbishop Michael Daniel Findikyan

employs dense and pompous language that is occasionally all but impenetrable to the modern reader. Nersēs clearly seeks at the outset to establish his scholarly and theological bona fides as well as his authority to censure his brothers for maintaining what he argues to be an unorthodox and utterly unacceptable aberration. In so doing he does not hesitate to characterize them as “juvenile” [տղայական, տղայամիտ],32 for which reason he is compelled to yield to their “feebleness” [տկարութիւն].33 At the end of this extended prologue, Nersēs turns at last to the matter at hand, suddenly changing his language and tone to a more straightforward, discursive style. Henceforth until the end of the letter his procedure will be the same. He quotes or alludes to a specific assertion from the brothers’ letter, and then methodically refutes it. The brothers’ first contention is that their practice is based on the traditions of the fathers:34 As Nersēs quotes them, they claim, “We do not enter the church to pray, following the example of the first ones.” To this Nersēs responds:35 Which “first ones,” brother? Answer me! St. Gregory or Nersēs, or Sahak, or any of his sons whom we have as vicars of God, and upon whom we are grounded? [26] If they did not enter [the church], then I accept and sustain your objection and I praise your support of the truth. But if much later some others, foreign to our saints, of whom we have neither word nor memory, showed us a way, I will consider it right to honor the regulation of their blessed memory. But on what basis does [that other authority] commend you to approve this [practice] if [the Armenian forebears] were praying in the church night and day in the monumental tabernacles that stand strong until today, and which do not possess a narthex [ժամատուն] beside them? Indeed, Sahak, the holy father, seated near the Lord’s altar, saw a marvelous vision, as the history tells. 36 He and the Bagratuni kings and the patriarchs who were around them followed the same path: they built only churches as houses of prayer.

Nersēs’ first volley consists in questioning the identity and authority of the unnamed “fathers” held up by the northern vardapets in support of their unusual practice. He observes that none of the Armenian Church’s rightful “fathers” could have possibly known of the custom of dismissing the faithful into the 32 33 34 35 36

Nersēs, 21, 37. Nersēs, 26ղ, Nersēs, 25. Nersēs, 25-26. The famous and oft-quoted “Vision of Saint Sahak the Parthian, which he saw in the city of Vałaršapat when he was sitting in the holy church on the bema near to the altar of God in the holy cathedral” contains, among other details, a vivid description of architectural features and furnishings from the interior of a celestial church. See Łazar P‘arbec‘i History of the Armenians and the Letter to Vahan Mamikonean, a photographic reproduction of the 1904 Tiflis edition with a new introduction and critical bibliography by Dickran KOUYMJIAN, x, 2938. English trans. (including the citation above) in The History of Łazar P‘arbec‘i, tr. THOMSON, 65-74. AKINEAN, Ակինեան ն.: Տեսիլ Ս. Սահակայ Վիեննա 1948 [The Vision of St. Sahak] has argued that the vision is a later interpolation into the mid-fifth century text.

A Penitential Peculiarity in Armenian Monasticism

169

narthex or žamatun as he calls it, because no early church in Armenia possessed such an antechamber. The word žamatun literally means “building for the Hours,” that is, the Liturgy of the Hours; or more generally, simply “church chamber.”37 Nersēs’ use of the term makes clear that he is speaking of the gawit’, the atrium that began to be added onto the western facade of monastic churches in Greater Armenia precisely during the period of concern to us, the first few centuries of the second millennium. So if the anonymous fathers were not Armenian, Nersēs reasons, then they must have belonged to some other Christian nation. Yet, he argues, no other church any longer closes off the church sanctuary from the people; what the northern monasteries is doing is unknown anywhere else. Therefore, to support their controversial practice, the Armenian monks can only be leaning on the testimony of an unnamed, non-native tradition, which, in any case, has in the meantime discarded the practice! One may not, Nersēs insists, defend the legitimacy of a liturgical custom simply because it has been handed down from the past. He writes:38 But tell [me], whom do you confess to be your fathers? If [you confess] the apostles and the patriarchs who are still alive among us through the Godinspired words [of the Scriptures], and who lead us to all truth, then I too am their advocate, and I have learned from them and followed them. However if [you confess allegiance to] some others whose name does not appear among us, and [from whom] there is no written testimony as evidence of their orthodoxy, then we are obliged to apply philosophy in this place, and through selection to evaluate whether they are not perhaps leading us astray from the track of the saints as the elders of Israel [led the people away] from Moses. Now then, having put on a spirit of meekness and humility, come, let us examine together and compare the laws of these latter [people], which are not set in writing, and those of the first [people], who shine among us in writing and by their virtues. But since we have imparted in another place a word on the faith and on love toward Christian nations, now it remains for us to find the truth of the rites of the church, which is according to our holy fathers and the ways of the blessed ones.

Not all tradition, the Archbishop declares, is “sacred tradition.” Not everything we do in church is a “statute that your fathers established.”39 Some liturgical usages are simply customs or habits that have somehow persisted to our times, but which should not, in fact, be considered exemplary or normative. In questioning the authority of the “fathers” invoked by the monks, Nersēs reminds us that the legitimacy and value of “the rites of the church” are to be determined by each generation, through a careful process of historical study of 37

The most complete study of the origin of the Armenian narthex (also known as gawit‘) is S.X. Mnac‘akanyan, Հայկական գավիթների ճարտարապետությունը [The Architecture of Armenian Gawit‘], (Erevan, 1952) (in Russian). 38 Nersēs, 25. 39 Nersēs, 25. Cf. Dt 19:14 LXX.

170

Archbishop Michael Daniel Findikyan

their transmission and their interpretation by known and authoritative church fathers. In the same context, the vardapets cited the so-called “dismissal of the catechumens” from the Armenian Patarag (“Holy Sacrifice” or Divine Liturgy), alleging that this ancient dismissal is the foundation for their current practice of sending the faithful out of the church. The Armenian version of the ancient dismissal reads, “Let none of the catechumens, none of deficient faith and none of the penitents or impure come near this divine sacrament.”40 Nersēs maintains that the ancient dismissal was not intended to exile people from the church building, but only to restrict certain categories of the faithful from receiving Holy Communion. Otherwise, if the penitents were never allowed in the church, why should there have been a need to dismiss them? He writes:41 I accept such a divine [and] good regulation 42 that has been transmitted from the fathers to us. However according to the true power of the sacrament, I want to persuade you of it as well, because, let us understand, [the deacon] discharges [the people] from the sacrament, not from the church! At that time [the deacon] gives the command to go out only when the Eucharist is conducted; not all the time as it seems to you. The deacon’s command itself demonstrates this: you were inside [the church] until that time, and from that place inside, he sends you out. For if it were their custom always to remain outside, as it is now for us, it would have been redundant to institute this command: “Those of you who are outside, go outside and do not come near!” On the contrary, they were in the churches, and at that time they retire.

The “dismissal of the catechumens” became a universal custom in all rites in the fourth century with the rise of public penitential discipline.43 Yet it died out everywhere by the seventh century,44 even if the actual dismissal formula was preserved in the Armenian, Byzantine and other rites. Today in these rites no one is actually expected to depart from the church when they hear the deacon’s command, “Let none of the catechumens…”45 The Armenians have yet another seemingly indigenous dismissal that is even more explicitly imperative, and which precedes the Kiss of Peace: “Those of you who are not able to share in this divine mystery go to the doors and pray.”46 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

Cf. DIVINE LITURGY, 23. Translation is mine. For minor variants in the manuscript tradition see ԳԱԹՐՃԵԱՆ ԴԱՇԵԱՆ, Սրբազան պատարագամատոյցք հայոց 665-666. Nersēs, 27. Emphasis is mine. բարեկարգութիւն For the Christian East, see, for example, Canon 19 of the Synod of Laodicea, c. 360, quoted in PALMER, Sacraments and Forgiveness 72. TAFT, Catechumens 283-4, 290. DIVINE LITURGY, 23. «Որք ոչ էք կարողք հաղորդիլ աստուածային խորհրդոյս առ դրունս ելէ՛ք եւ աղօթեցէ՛ք». DIVINE LITURGY, 27. The manuscripts collated by Gat‘rčean and Tashean (1417th c.) all contain the bidding with more or less minor variations. Note that առ դրունս is

A Penitential Peculiarity in Armenian Monasticism

171

Already in the mid-tenth century, Bishop Xosrov Anjewac‘i’s Commentary on the Holy Sacrifice had a variation of this dismissal: “You who are unable to share communion, learn from one another and pray at the doors.”47 There can be no doubt that for Xosrov this was a real dismissal. “Those who are impure or defiled in spirit should leave…with mournful heart and fervent tears let them lament their exclusion,”48 he comments. Today this dismissal no longer functions as such. As for the twelfth century monks of Hałbat and Sanahin, we do not know if they knew of this dismissal, since Nersēs (albeit writing from Cilicia) mentions it neither in his letter to them, nor in his commentary on the Patarag. Yet even if he does not allude to this particular formula, in his explanation on the deacons’ command, “The doors, the doors…,”49 within his Commentary on the Holy Patarag, the Archbishop does indeed suggest that the unworthies have been escorted to the doors of the church:50 Attention to the doors51 shows that we are assembled for a sacrament, which it is forbidden for foreigners to approach. It is only for us, who, by means of this kiss were proclaimed to be in concord. Now if one is alien to this fellowship, let him not share in this mystery but rather with good heed for the doors, let him be detached52 from it. In any case, Nersēs’ counterargument remains cogent: there would be no need for any dismissal formula at all if the people were already standing outside the church. More important, Nersēs’ testimony confirms irrefutably that the practice of the northern vardapets which attracted his ire is not simply the rehabilitation of the old dismissal of the catechumens, nor even its extension to include all of the faithful (not just the penitents and catechumens). Nersēs confirms this in his Commentary on the Holy Patarag, where, in his nuanced explanation of the dismissal formula, “Let none of the catechumens…” he supports the principle of dismissing the unworthies from the church into the gawit‘ at the end of the Liturgy of the Word, while acknowledging that already in his time, no one any longer actually departed when the deacons chanted the dismissal:53

47 48 49 50 51

52 53

better translated “to the doors” or “near the doors” rather than “outside of the doors,” as we find in all printed editions, including Divine Liturgy, 27. Several manuscripts have the alternate reading «առ դուրս» [outside] instead of «առ դրունս» [to the doors]. GT, 675. «Որ ոչ կարօղ էք հաղորդել՝ ի միմեան ուսարուք, եւ առ դրունս աղօթեցէք»։ COWE, Commentary on Xosrov Anjewac‘i 132-133. Ibid. COWE’s English translation. DIVINE LITURGY, 29. Nersēs, 84. «զգուշութեամբ դրանցն» alludes to the deacon’s bidding, «Զդրունս, զդրունս. ամենայն իմաստութեամբ եւ զգուշութեամբ…» DIVINE LITURGY, 29. The bidding for the doors is a borrowing from the Byzantine liturgy: τὰς θύρας. τὰς θύρας. ἐν σοφία πρόσχωμεν. անկցորդ. ԽՈՐՀՐԴԱԾՈՒԹԻՒՆ ՍՐԲԱԶԱՆ ՊԱՏԱՐԱԳԻ. Ն. ՆԵՐՍԵՍԻ ԼԱՄԲՐՈՆԱՑՒՈՅ 70. NERSES DE LAMBRON, 148-149.

172

Archbishop Michael Daniel Findikyan Nowadays there are no catechumens among the Christians as there were previously when this tradition was established by the apostles. For the blessed ones Basil and Gregory the Theologian did away with this custom, recognizing that on this path many were being led astray into the bliss of sin. But if Saint Dionysius commands the penitents and the impure to depart together with the catechumens, we do not dismiss them. Why not? Lest we be defrauded by Satan. How so? Because the ardor of the Christians’ faith and their love toward God have declined. By exiting, the people in those times felt ashamed. They grieved over their unworthiness and they mourned. Today their love for God has cooled and they are indifferent in this regard. But now if we were able most earnestly to send them out, they would neither rejoice if they remained [in the church] nor would they grieve and worry if they went out. Moreover, they would consider it a relief to depart in order to attend to each one’s work and labor. In the face of such perplexity—that [Satan] had concealed his evil machinations within a noble tradition—the leaders of the church evaded him and ordered that the penitents remain in the church, yielding to our weakness and, by their merciful will, toppling the monument of despair. In the same way that for valid reasons they did away with the former practice of baptizing at age thirty, so also this. For they held in their hands, right and left, the weapon of righteousness with which to compete against the adversary. For if it were [the case] these days, that men would insolently seize a person and conduct him out of the church, he would never again take it upon himself to enter [the church], breaking the bridle of obedience like a rebellious horse that ran outside the track. For this reason they did well to judge such a person a sinner and to keep him in their gawit’ rather than to submerge him into the abyss of disobedience and [thereby] to evade Satan. For they knew about his evil designs.

In this passage, the Archbishop of Lambron first of all acknowledges that contrary to the wording in the ancient dismissal formula, in his time there were no longer any catechumens, making that aspect of the dismissal obsolete. As for “the penitents and the impure,” he writes, “we do not dismiss them.” By this he means that they are no longer dismissed entirely from the church to go back home. By his understanding, in ancient times, the penitents went home when they were sent out of the church. But sending the penitents away from the rest of the faithful, he argues, is no longer an effective penitential therapy. As Christian piety has declined, people no longer understand their excommunication to be a shameful sanction. One thinks of a delinquent teenager who welcomes his suspension from school as a vacation! Instead, Nersēs advocates a dismissal that separates the unworthies from the faithful and from Holy Communion, but stops short of leaving them to their leisure. They are to gather in the gawit’, where they remain in the embrace of the church, and whence they can at least follow the Eucharist, even if they may not share in it. It follows, therefore, that what Nersēs is denouncing in the monasteries of Hałbat and Sanahin is indeed something much more radical than the mere revival of the age-old preanaphoral dismissal. It must be a complete prohibition of anyone

A Penitential Peculiarity in Armenian Monasticism

173

from even entering the church, not just during the Eucharistic Prayer and Holy Communion, but for all liturgical activities. Another argument adduced by the monks in support of their practice is that when churches are dedicated and consecrated, they are anointed with holy chrism. It would thus follow, they seem to claim, that sinners should not be worthy to enter the sacred precincts of the church. Nersēs responds that it is not only churches that are anointed with chrism: at their baptism all the faithful are consecrated with one and the same holy chrism and the same Holy Spirit. Feeling compelled to provide a refresher on the Armenian Church’s theology of baptism, he writes:54 We men were dead in our sins, being alive to the world, but dead to God. Then, when we came to have faith in Him, 55 we died in the waters of the font of the world and we became alive to God. And after rising from the water, we received the seal of the holy chrism, the grace of the Holy Spirit descending upon us, which was given to mankind by Christ, and we became thenceforth a temple of God. In like manner, this church was an element without breath and without strength. We pray in it and we imprint the grace of the Holy Spirit upon it with the chrism and we strengthen that which has no strength; and through the Spirit we give life to that which has no life. And it is the same Spirit who dwelled in us and in it; [the same Spirit] that made it, through us, a temple of God and the mother of us all. Therefore, strengthened by one Spirit, why do we loathe one another?

So it is not only the church building that is a consecrated temple of God, but each baptized member of the church too is not only consecrated and anointed, but thereby made into a temple of the Holy Spirit, as St. Paul asserts [1Cor 6:19] and as the Armenian Rite of Baptism confirms. In this way, Nersēs demonstrates the fundamental error in the monks’ reasoning, which he effectively turns against them. The church is the native and inalienable home of all who have been baptized in Christ and anointed with the Holy Spirit. But what harm can there possibly be in praying outside if, as the monks further contend, quoting 1Timothy 2:8, “In every place they should lift up their holy hands without anger or doubt.”56 Nersēs replies that the church is consecrated; it is set apart as the privileged place for prayer. In support of this he cites 1Cor 11:22-23, where St. Paul writes, “Do you not have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you show contempt for the church of God?” The Archbishop then goes on to give five arguments that substantiate this claim. First, he gives an extended analogy of a king in his palace.57 The king’s power and sovereignty extend invisibly throughout his dominion, far and wide. Yet those who wish to speak with the king must come into his personal presence because his 54 55 56 57

Nersēs, 26-27. Cf. Gal 3:23ff. Nersēs, 29. Cf. 1Tim 2:8. Emphasis is mine. Nersēs, 30, 34-36.

Archbishop Michael Daniel Findikyan

174

ինքնութիւն—his essence or selfhood—are to be found uniquely in his palace. Likewise, Nersēs submits, although God’s power and sovereignty cannot be circumscribed, his ինքնութիւն is to be found in the church. “If we become negligent and do not enter his house, how can we see his face?” he asks.58 Second, praying outside the church impedes comprehension. The Archbishop states that when standing outside the confines of the sanctity of the church, the prayers are reduced to vague sounds. The “sense of meaning” [ուշ իմաստից] of our worship is lost, and with it our attention.59 When the Divine Liturgy was celebrated in Hałbat and Sanahin, only the celebrant priest was permitted to enter the church (see below). Third and even more egregious, “When standing outside, we despise the great and most supreme redemption, the mystery of the Patarag,” Nersēs objects. “We are starved of Communion with the One who offers, and of the sweetness of the sacrament.”60 Evidently the people outside the church were indeed excommunicated. Furthermore, Nersēs points out a fourth and even more fundamental contradiction in the eastern monks’ practice. Far from safeguarding the sacredness of the sacrament and motivating the faithful to live out their Christian vocation more responsibly, the general dismissal of all the people actually nullifies the essential distinction between the worthy and the unworthy. Since all the people, without distinction, are gathered together outside the church, those who are truly in need of penance lose any sense of remorse and shame that might have resulted from their being set apart from those who are worthy. Not entering the church becomes normative and the whole enterprise becomes futile. Indeed, even priests and monks in the communities of Nersēs’ detractors were exiled from the church.61 And as for you, O priest, who yesterday presided over the Patarag, why does [the deacon] today have the authority to give you the same command, to go outside with the catechumens? Or to repudiate you, a Christian and a monk, along with those who have no faith? And I ask you: By what scruple do you pray outside the church today, but enter it tomorrow?

To sanction the clergy and monks in this way subverts their divinely ordained ministry, sinful though they may be. And what is far worse, the monks defending this practice do so out of a perverted sense of piety. They readily retreat to the narthex with the sinners out of a misplaced and exaggerated sense of unworthiness. Those who have set out most diligently on the path of Christian discipleship, who claim to be crucified with Christ and dead to the 58 59 60 61

Nersēs, 30 Nersēs, 30. Nersēs, 30. Nersēs, 27-28.

A Penitential Peculiarity in Armenian Monasticism

175

world, role models for the people, they renounce their vocation, their ministry and Christ himself by abandoning themselves to the narthex. Nersēs harshly admonishes the monks for this reasoning, which he unmasks as little more than a pretense for what is actually simple laziness.62 The closed doors of the church become a convenient excuse for the faithful not to go to church at all. It is also a cause for scandal. Nersēs alleges, fifth and finally, that when the usual hierarchical distinctions are erased in this way, the people become negligent in their own commitment to Christian liturgy. He writes:63 Now whether you are a priest, deacon, or novice,64 you are the masters of this house! Why do you wish to be outside the place of your dominion, and to be relegated among the unbelievers? And behold, the unbelievers were set apart not from this church but from the sacrament. By always standing outside [the church] you are personally condemning yourself. [The church] is the priests’ throne, the novices’ dominion, the monks’ place of prayer, mother of the laypeople; and the sinners’ place of expiation.

Further down he writes:65 Now, brother, if you are not worthy to enter this house of God, how do you dare to accomplish your mediation with the people and with God? Who, when speaking with the king, does not consider himself worthy [to enter] the king’s mansion? And that is how you speak, O priest, face-to-face, lovingly, when you conduct the priestly ministry. But separated, you do not enter this place for that task. You are charged as a messenger from your people to God. If you do not enter his temple, how can you speak?

With this final strike, Nersēs draws his letter to a close.66 Nersēs’ Response to the northern monks is a pivotal document that allows us to make sense of the many fleeting and tantalizing references in Armenian literary sources from the twelfth through the early fifteenth centuries to dismissing the people from the church. Even if we allow for a degree of exaggeration in Nersēs’ polemical and emotional letter, there can be no doubt that the Archbishop is railing against an extraordinary abuse attending in the northern 62 63

64 65 66

Nersēs, 31. Nersēs, 32. GUGEROTTI, L’interazione 41-45 discusses this theme and highlights a number of illustrative examples from Nersēs’ commentary on the Patarag and his letter to King Lewon. Significantly, several of the passages cited by Archbishop Gugerotti mention “sending [the people] outside the church,” “closing the doors,” “separating” the people from the priest, and the like. Gugerotti seems to interpret these multiple references figuratively, as images of the disappearance of hierarchical distinctions as a result of radical clericalization in the northern monasteries. In the light of the Response, however, it is clear that the northern abbots were literally exiling the people from the church. ժառանգաւոր, lit. “one who has received an inheritance.” Nersēs, 39. Within the confines of this paper we have omitted treatment of Nersēs’ repeated references to Ps-Dionysius (Nersēs, 34, passim), which are no less than a Leitmotif for the entire work. See GUGEROTTI, L’interazione 120-146.

176

Archbishop Michael Daniel Findikyan

monasteries. This is not simply the rehabilitation or the broadening application of the old dismissal of the catechumens but a general, all-inclusive expulsion of all the people and non-presiding clergy from the church at all times, strange as that may seem to our modern liturgical sensibilities.

Nerses Lambronac‘i (1153-1193) Manuscript M1502 (1631), f. 562a.

In his Response, Nersēs cites the northern vardapets frequently, evidently from some previous correspondence between the protagonists. From these citations and Nersēs systematic refutations, it is evident that the vardapets were motivated by a severe, if misplaced penitential piety. Their zeal is not to be explained by simple clericalism since even the priests and monks were barred from the church. Instead, the vardapets of Hałbat and Sanahin have come to hold the church and the church’s liturgy in such high regard that in their estimation no mortal is any longer worthy of it. The monks saw themselves and their people in an ever-darkening light. For some reason, during these centuries, the monks of Greater Armenia could not face the merciful Lord nor accept his redemption. Alas, the current state of our knowledge does not permit us to explain this extremist view except to suggest that it can not be unrelated to the unrelenting waves of violence that brought death and destruction to Armenia in this era: beginning with the Byzantines in the 11th century, followed by the Seljuk and other Turkic tribes, the Mongols and the Mameluks. The sources of the period are filled with accounts of Armenian bishops, monks and theologians

A Penitential Peculiarity in Armenian Monasticism

177

confessing that their violent fate was a consequence of their own national and personal sinfulness. A similar attitude of self-loathing has also been observed among some Christian groups in their reactions to the Islamic conquest of the seventh century.67 The Armenian monks internalized their sense of desperation and it took root in their liturgical life, with reverberations that can still be felt today. Yet between the lines of Nersēs’ impassioned and erudite argumentation, we discover an elegant case study and guide to proper liturgical reform. The Archbishop effectively distinguishes between a tradition and a “sacred tradition.” The “sacred tradition” is not simply the sum total of every ritual, prayer or other liturgical or para-liturgical usage that has a precedent in history. Components of the “sacred tradition” must fit seamlessly together with every other component of the sacred tradition by means of a theological vision that the church must recapture in every new generation. One thinks of a jigsaw puzzle. Every piece must slip into its place securely and effortlessly, every notch clicking into the correct adjoining groove, such that the colorful pattern on its face completes the full picture. One may neither force the piece into position nor overlook the distorted picture that results from doing so. Using theological, historical and common sense, logical arguments, Nersēs exposes the error in the vardapets’ actions and reasoning. The universal prohibition of the clergy and faithful from entering the church is at odds with the larger sacred tradition of the church. Like a puzzle piece that is being forced into the wrong position, the arguments advanced by the vardapets in favor of their practice—noble and sincere as their intent may be—conflict with the theology and history of the church. Consequently, the “picture” that emerges, that is, the larger function of the liturgy, the nature of the church and the Gospel itself become distorted, causing fatal and systemic problems and repercussions, which Nersēs is at pains to single out. Nersēs Lambronac‘i thus provides a model for us today as we evaluate liturgical usages and traditions that have been passed down to us. Everything we do in church – every prayer we utter, every chant we intone, every gesture we make and every sacred object we ply – has a history, more or less venerable and old. Everything has been handed down to us, and has a precedent of some sort. Thus everything is, in a sense, “traditional.” But, as St. Paul himself proclaimed to the Christians of Corinth regarding another liturgical abuse, not everything is edifying: “‘All things are lawful’, but not all things are helpful. ‘All things are lawful’, but not all things build up” [1Cor 10:23]. The great challenge of the Armenian Church, and of all ancient churches today is much more than merely to safeguard its ancient liturgical and theological patronage. The role of the bishops and of all the clergy is not simply, in other words, to serve as the church’s custodians. The true task is the much more 67

See WINKLER, Christian Responses to Islam, 74-78 and the references there.

178

Archbishop Michael Daniel Findikyan

formidable endeavor exemplified in Nersēs Lambronac‘i’s Response to the northern vardapets: an ongoing, critical yet prayerful re-evaluation and reproclamation of the entire sacred tradition that is grounded in theological an historical study, and whose sights extend always beyond the individual ingredients of the tradition—the individual puzzle pieces—to the larger picture, which is nothing less than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet in spite of Nersēs’ erudite and impassioned efforts, the brother monks seem not to have been swayed. The exaggerated penitential piety of the northern monasteries seems to have continued unabated. In fact, in subsequent centuries, monasteries in northern and eastern Armenia would build ever more imposing and more elaborate narthexes, which, in some cases, were many times larger than the actual church sanctuary! The monumental narthexes built onto the sanctuaries of Hałbat and especially Sanahin are perhaps the best examples. The latter is fully five times larger in area than the sanctuary itself.68 Is there a genetic link between the tenacious if troublesome practices of the northern monasteries and the equally tenacious and troublesome custom throughout the Armenian Church today of closing the sanctuary curtain and withholding Holy Communion from the faithful at Eucharistic liturgies during Great Lent, a practice that is unattested in any liturgical book or canon to my knowledge? Anton Baumstark’s law of the preservation of ancient liturgical usages in more solemn seasons of the church year would seem to make such a prospect at least conceivable.69 Before that can be established, however, a thorough historical reassessment of the origin, development and function of the gawit‘ within Armenian architecture needs to be undertaken, a study that I hope to turn to next.

Bibliography ARAM I CATHOLICOS OF CILICIA, Saint Nersēs the Gracious and Church Unity, ArmenoGreek Church Relations (1165-1173), Antelias, Lebanon, Armneian Catholicosate of Cilicia, 2010). ASHJIAN, M., St. Nerses of Lambron, Champion of the Church Universal. His Synodal Discourse with English Translation and Annotations (New York, The Armenian Prelacy, 1993) BAUMSTARK, A., Comparative Liturgy, Westminster, Maryland, 1958. BAUMSTARK, A., Das Gesetz der Erhaltung des Alten in liturgisch hochwertiger Zeit,, in, Jahrbuch für Liturgiewissenschaft 7 (1927) 1-23. COSTA, E., L’Architettura armena del secondo periodo, IX-XIV secolo” in Architettura medievale armena. Rome, De Luca Editore 1968, 61-72.

68 69

See ŁALPAXČEAN, ALPAGO-NOVELLO, Sanahin. Originally expounded in BAUMSTARK, Gesetz der Erhaltung; BOTTE, Comparative Liturgy 123.

A Penitential Peculiarity in Armenian Monasticism

179

COWE, P., Commentary on the Divine Liturgy by Xosrov Anjewac‘i. New York, St. Vartan Press, 1991. DER NERSESSIAN, S., Armenia in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries” in Études byzantines et arméniennes / Byzantine and Armenian Studies, 2 vols. Louvain, Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1973,) I, 324-327. FINDIKYAN, M.D., Goc‘ Patarag, The Closed Curtain During Great Lent in the Armenian Church” in The Armenian Surb Patarag Or Eucharistic Holy Sacrifice, , edited by Robert Taft S.J. (Rome, Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 2012) 77-93. FINDIKYAN, M.D., The ‘Opening of the Door’ Ceremony on Palm Sunday in the Armenian Church” in The Serious Business of Worship, Essays in Honour of Bryan D. Spinks, edited by Melanie Ross and Simon Jones (London and New York, T & T Clark International, 2010) 22-41. FINDIKYAN, M.D., Saint Grégoire de Narek et la Liturgie de l’Église, In Colloque international organize par le Patriarcat arménien catholique à l’Université SaintEsprit de Kalsik (USEK), Liban, Jean-Pierre Mahé, Paul Rouhanna, Boghos Levon Zekiyan, eds. (Kaslik, Université Saint-Esprit, 2010). FINDIKYAN, MD., Saint Grégoire de Narek théologien et mystique, In, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 275 (Rome, 2006); FINDIKYAN, M.D., Daily Prayers for the Week by Hovhannes of Garni [Yovhannēs Gaṙnec‘i] (ca. 1180-1245), (New Rochelle, NY, St. Nersess Armenian Seminary, 2001) GUGEROTTI, C., L’Interazione dei ruoli in una celebrazione come mistagogia, Il Pensiero di Nersēs Lambronac‘i nella «Spiegazione del Sacrificio», Caro Salutis Cardo, Studi 8 (Padova, Edizioni Messagero Padova, Abbazia di Santa Guistina, 1991); ŁAZAR P‘ARBEC‘I HISTORY OF THE ARMENIANS AND THE LETTER TO VAHAN MAMIKONEAN, a photographic reproduction of the 1904 Tiflis edition with a new introduction and critical bibliography by Dickran Kouymjian (Delmar, NY, Caravan Books, 1985) x, 29-38. ŁALPAXCEAN, X., ALPAGO-NOVELLO, A Sanahin, Documenti di architettura armena 3 (Milan, Ares, 1970) ŁALPAXCEAN, X., ALPAGO-NOVELLO, A., Haghbat, Documenti di architettura armena 1 (Milan, Ares, 1968). KECHICHIAN, S.J., Nersès de Lambron (1153-1192) Explication de la Divine Liturgie, Traduction, Introduction et Notes Recherches IX (Beirut, Dar El-Machreq Éditeurs, 2000). MAHE, J.P., Grégoire de Narek Tragédie, Matean ołbergut’ean. Le livre de lamentation, Louvain, Peeters, 2000. NAU, F., Lettre du Patriarche Jacobite Jean X (1064-1073) au Catholique arménien Grégoir II (1065-1105), in, Revue de L'Orient Chrétien 17 (1912) 192-193 PALMER P., Sacraments and Forgiveness, Sources of Christian Theology 2 (Westminster, MD, The Newmann Press, 1959) 72. THE ARMENIAN PRAYERS ATTRIBUTED TO EPHREM THE SYRIAN, edited and translated by Edward G. Mathews Jr., Texts from Christian Late Antiquity 36, (Piscataway, NJ, Gorgias Press, 2014). TAFT, R., When Did the Catechumens Die Out in Constantinople?, in Anathemata Eortika, Studies in Honor of Thomas F. Mathews (Mainz, Phillip von Zabern, 2010) 283-4, 290.

180

Archbishop Michael Daniel Findikyan

TERIAN, A, To Byzantium with Love, The Overtures of Saint Nerses the Gracious,” in Richard G. Hovannisian and Simon Payaslian, eds., Armenian Cilicia, UCLA Armenian History and Culture Series, Historic Armenian Cities and Provinces 7 (Costa Mesa, CA, Mazda Publishers, 2008) 131-151. THE DIVINE LITURGY OF OUR FATHER AMONG THE SAINTS JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1995). THIERRY, J.M., Armenian Art. New York, Harry N. Abrams Inc. Publishers, 1987. THOMSON, R., A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 AD, Corpus Christianorum, (Turnhout, Brepols, 1995). THOMSON, R., The History of Łazar P‘arbec‘i. (Atlanta, GA, Scholars Press, 1991) WINKLER, D.W., Christian Responses to Islam in the Umayyad Period, Syriac Churches Encountering Islam, Past Experiences and Future Perspectives, Pro Oriente Studies in Syriac Tradition 1 (Piscataway, NJ, Gorgias Press, 2010). ZEKIYAN, B.L., Nersēs di Lambron, Il primato della carità. Discorso sinodale Atenapanut‘iwn, Introduction, notes, translation, Magnano, Italy, Edizione Qiqajon Comunità di Bose, 1996. ZEKIYAN, B.L., St. Nersēs Šnorhali en dialogue avec les grecs, Un Prophète de l’oecuménisme au XIIIe siècle” in Armenian Studies in Memoriam Haig Berbérian, edited by D. Kouyoumjian (Lisbon, Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 1986) 861883. ԱԲԵՂՅԱՆ, Մ., Հայոց հին գրականության պատմություն Երևան 1946. Abełyan, M., Hayoc‘ hin grakanut‘yan patmut‘yun, Erewan 1946, 2 vols. [The History of the Ancient Literature of the Armenians] ԱԼԻՇԱՆ, Ղ, Սիսուան Վենետիկ 1885. Ališan, Ł., Sisuan. Venetik 1885. [Sisuan – Syunik‘] ԱԿԻՆԵԱՆ, Ն., Ներսէս Լամբրոնացւոյ կեանքն եւ գրական վաստակները, in, Հանդէս Ամսօրեայ 68 (1954) 80-251. Akinean, N., Nersēs Lambronac‘woy keank‘n ew grakan vastaknerě, in, Handēs Amsōreay 68 (1954) 80-251.; [The Life and Literary Works of Nerses Lambronac‘i] ԱԿԻՆԵԱՆ, Ն., Տեսիլ Ս. Սահակայ Վիեննա 1948. Akinean, N., Tesil S. Sahakay, Vienna 1948. [The Vision of St. Sahak] ԱՃԱՌԵԱՆ, Հ., Հայոց անձնանունների բառարան, (Beirut, Sevan Publishing House, 1972). Ačar̥ean, H., Hayoc‘ anjnanunneri bar̥aran, Beirut 1972. [Dictionary of Armenian Personal Names] ԳԱԹՐՃԵԱՆ, Յ., ԴԱՇԵԱՆ Յ., Սրբազան պատարագամատոյցք հայոց, Վիեննա 1897. Gat‘rčean, Y. Dašean, Y., Srbazan pataragamatoyc‘k‘ hayoc‘.Vienna 1897. [Sacred Liturgies of the Armenians] ԳԻՐՔ ԱՂՕԹԻՑ ԱՍԱՑԵԱԼ ՍՐԲՈՅՆ ԵՓՐԷՄԻ ԽՈՒՐԻՆ ԱՍՈՐՒՈՑ. Girk‘ ałōt‘ic‘ asac‘eal Srboyn Ep‘remi Xorin Asorwoc‘.(Jerusalem, 1933). [Book of Prayers by St. Ephrem the Syrian] ԳՐԻԳՈՐԻ ԱԹՈՂԻԿՈՍԻ ՏՂԱՅ ԿՈՉԵՑԵԼՈՅ ՆԱՄԱԿԱՆԻ, Վենետիկ 1865. Grigori Kat‘ołikosi Tłay koč‘ec‘eloy namakani, Venetik 1865. [The Letters of Catholicos Grigor called Youth] ԶԱՐԲՀԱՆԱԼԵԱՆ, Գ., Հայկական հին դպրութեան պատմութիւն (Դ-ԺԳ դար) Վենետիկ 1897. Zarbhanalean, G., Haykakan hin darut’ean patmut’iwn (4-13 dar), Venetik 1897. [The History of Ancient Armenian Literature (4-13th c.]

A Penitential Peculiarity in Armenian Monasticism

181

ԶԵՔԻԵԱՆ, Պ. Լ, Համամիութենական տրամախօսութիւն մը ԺԲ.Դարուն, in, Բազմավէպ 135 (1977) 591-636. Zek’ian P.L., Hamamiut‘enakan tramaxōsut‘iwn mě ŽB darun, in Bazmavēp 135, 1977, 591-636. [An Ecumenical Dialogue of the 12th Century] ԽՈՐՀՐԴԱԾՈՒԹԻՒՆ ՍՐԲԱԶԱՆ ՊԱՏԱՐԱԳԻ. Բացատրութեամբ Տն. Ներսեսի Լամբրոնացւոյ արքեպիսկոպոսի Տարսոնի Կիլիկեցւոց [Meditations on the Sacred Sacrifice with Explication by Lord Nersēs of Lambron Archbishop of Tarson of the Cilicians], (Jerusalem, Saints James Press, 1842) 70. ՀԱԿՈԲՅԱՆ, Գ., Ներսէս Լամրոնացի. Երևան 1971. Grigor Hakobyan, Nerses Lambronac‘i, Erewan, Armenian S.S.R. Academy of Sciences, 1971. [Nersēs Lambronac‘i] [ՆԵՐՍԷՍ ԼԱԲՐՈՆԱՑԻ, Ի խնդրոյ հայցմանց երիցակից եղբարց քննութիւն կարգաց եկեղեցւոյ եւ բացատրապէս որոշումն արտաքուստ մտեալ ի սա նորաձեւութեանց սրբոյն Ներսէսի Լամբրոնացւոյ տարսոնի եպիսկոպոսի in Խորհրդածութիւնք ի կարգս եկեղեցւոյ եւ մեկնութիւն խորհրդոյ պատարագին, Վենետիկ 1847. Nersēs Lambronac‘i, I xndroy hayc‘mac‘ eric‘akic ełbarc‘ k‘nnut‘iwn kargac‘ ekełc‘woy ew bac‘atrapēs orošumn artak‘ust mteal i sa norajewut‘eanc‘ srboyn Nersēsi Labronac‘woy tarsoni episkoposi i Xorhrdacut‘iwnk‘ i karcs ekełc‘woy ew meknut‘iwn xorhrdoy pataragin, Venetik 1847. [Mystagogy on the Rites of the Church and Commentary on the Sacrament of the Divine Liturgy by St. Nersess of Lambron Bishop of Tarsus] ՍԱԱՏԷԹԵԱՆ, Ս., Ներսէս Լամբրոնացի. Աշխատասիրութիւն պատմական, մատենագրական եւ վարդապետական (Antelias, 1981. Saatēt‘ean, S., Nersēs Lambronac‘i. Ašxatasirut‘iwn patmakan matenagrakan ew vardapetakan, Antelias 1981. [Nersēs Lambronac‘i, A Historical, Literary and Doctrinal Study] ՎԱՐԴԱՆԵԱՆ, Ա., Յովհաննէս Ժ. Բար-Շուշանի հայոց կաթուղիկոսին գրած թուղթը, in, Ազգային Մատենադարան 101 (Vienna, Mxit‘arean Press, 1923). VARDANEAN, A., Yovhanněs Z. Bar-Šušani hayoc‘ kat‘ułikosin grac t‘ułt‘ě, in, Azgayin Matenadaran 101. Vienna 1932. [The Letter written to the Armenian Catholicos by Yovhannēs Bar-Šušan]

San Lazzaro degli Armeni, Mekhitharist monastery in Venice

FRANCISCAN SPIRITUALITY AND WITNESS Fr. Johannes SCHNEIDER OFM Salzburg / Austria

I. Introduction 1. The 16th of April: A memorable day in Franciscan history Originally this talk was scheduled for the 16th of April. In anticipating this date, only one small problem arises, which I am going to explain to you first. One of the early and most reliable sources of the beginning of the “Order of Friars Minor”, as our order was called by St. Francis, is quite a short text with a very long title: The beginning or the founding of the Order and the deeds of those Lesser Brothers who were the first companions of blessed Francis in religion. 1

The text was written about 15 years after the death of St. Francis, in the years 1240/41, by a certain Brother John of Perugia, disciple of the first companions of St. Francis, especially of Brother Giles2. The First Chapter, bearing the title: “How blessed Francis began to serve God”, begins with the following words: On the sixteenth of April, after 1207 years had been completed since the Incarnation of the Lord, God ... enlightened a man who was in the city of Assisi, Francis by name, a merchant by trade ...3

So you can understand why exactly April 16th would have been an appropriate date to speak to you about the origins of the Franciscans: According to Br. John of Perugia, this date marks the beginning of our Franciscan Order. Up to the Second Vatican Council in Franciscan rituals, April 16th was designated for the “Rite of renewal of vows”, and in some of our provinces, the “renewal of vows” is still practised on that memorable day.4

1 2 3

4

The Anonymous of Perugia = AP (headline): The Founder, 33. Cf. The Legend of Three Companions = L3C 1,4: The Founder, 67. AP 3,1-2: The Founder, 34. Abbrev. taken from Francis of Assisi. Early Documents, vol. I-II. Numbering of Verses in the Franciscan Sources according to Fontes Francescani and Franziskus-Quellen. Rituale Romano-Seraphicum Ordinis Fratrum Minorum, Romae 1955, 306: “Ritus Renovationis Votorum (16 Aprilis)”.

Fr. Johannes Schneider OFM

184

2. Spirituality and witness: a fundamental tension in Franciscan life The title which has been proposed as the subject of my talk, “Franciscan spirituality and witness”, expresses a great tension between an interior and an exterior perspective of the Gospel life. One could also put it in the words “contemplation and action”, or “mystics and mission”, or the “monastic and apostolic” way of evangelical life. The difficulty and tension from the beginning on up to our present day is the simple word “and” instead of the exclusive “or”: mystics and missions, contemplation and activity, monastic and apostolic life. A similar tension had been a constant reality in the life of St. Francis before and after his conversion to religious life. As one raised up as a “merchant by trade”, he wanted to become a knight with armour and splendour. One day he demonstrated this tension, which was deeply rooted in his heart, by sewing together “the most expensive material with the cheapest cloth onto the same garment”5, thus playing a kind of fool who is being torn apart between two contradictory realities. II. “No one ... but the Most High Himself” St. Francis’ testimony in his Testament The memorable date of April 16th recalls what St. Francis dictated in his Testament shortly before his death on the 3rd of October, 1226: Et postquam Dominus dedit mihi de fratribus, nemo ostendebat mihi, quid deberem facere, sed ipse Altissimus revelavit mihi, quod deberem vivere secundum formam sancti Evangelii. Et ego paucis verbis et simpliciter feci scribi et dominus Papa confirmavit mihi.

And after the Lord gave me some brothers, no one showed me what I had to do, but the Most High Himself revealed to me that I should live according to the form of the Holy Gospel. And I had this written down simply and in a few words and the Lord Pope confirmed it for me. 6

St. Francis emphasizes the uniqueness of God’s work in revealing to him the way of life (forma) of the holy Gospel: “no one showed me what I had to do, but the Most High Himself revealed to me ...” This way of speaking reminds one of what St. Paul wrote in his letter to the Galatians: 11

For I would have you know ... that the gospel which was preached by me is not man’s gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. (...) 15 But when it pleased God ... 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might proclaim his gospel among the nations, I did not confer with flesh and blood ... (Gal 1,11-12.15.16).

5 6

L3C 2,8: The Founder, 69. The Testament = Test 14-15: The Saint, 125; lat.: ESSER, Die Opuscula des hl. Franziskus von Assisi, 439.

Franciscan Spirituality and Witness

185

In a similar way St. Francis says: Ipse Altissimus revelavit mihi – “The Most High revealed to me”. By saying this, he does not tell us what kind of “revelation” he had received. Was it simply the revelation of the will of God by hearing or reading certain passages of the Gospel which later on entered the socalled “primitive Rule”? Or was it a kind of personal interior revelation – or even “mystical” – as St. Paul’s testimony could be understood: ut revelaret (apo-kalýpsai) Filium suum in me (en emoí) – to reveal His Son in me, or better: with-in me ...? In the case of St. Francis, it could well have been a combination of both kinds of “revelation”: a cognitive revelation on the basis of scripture and tradition by hearing Gospel passages in the Missal of the Church and at the same time. the interior experience of the living Word of God speaking personally to his heart, the latter of which in a general sense can be defined as a “mystical” experience. 1. “The Most High revealed to me”: Two kinds of revelation The phrase used by St. Francis: Ipse Altissimus revelavit mihi – “The Most High revealed to me”, expresses in itself a fundamental and constructive tension, which later on St. Bonaventure develops in his teaching of a “two-fold revelation”, necessary in order to believe and to live in faith. On the one hand, there is a so-called “material revelation”, contained in scripture, tradition and the teaching of the church; and on the other hand, a “spiritual” or “personal revelation”, which God performs in the individual by revealing Himself through His own Word, so that from this personal – so to speak “mystical” experience – the single person is enabled to accept and believe the material revelation as true and authentic.7 In the life of St. Francis, the fruitful tension between those two kinds of revelation is crucial. It helps to understand his faithful attitude towards the written word of God as contained in the holy books of the church, the sacraments, especially the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, becoming reality by the words of scripture spoken in the church, and the church as whole complex organism as the human and structural expression of the material revelation. 2. “The Lord gave and gives me such faith” In the same Testament, St. Francis explains how he was been made able to accept the so-called “material revelation” of scripture, tradition and sacramental church by saying this: 4

Et Dominus dedit mihi talem And the Lord gave me such faith in the fidem in ecclesiis, ut ita simpliciter churches that I would pray with simplicity in 7

The whole issue of the concept „revelation“ in St. Bonaventure has been thoroughly studied by J. RATZINGER, Offenbarungsverständnis und Geschichtstheologie Bonaventuras, Freiburg 2009 (regarding the Testament of St. Francis cf. p. 189 n. 37).

Fr. Johannes Schneider OFM

186

orarem et dicerem: 5Adoramus te, this way and say: “We adore You, Lord Jesus Domine Jesu Christe, et ad omnes Christ, in all Your churches throughout the ecclesias tuas, quae sunt in toto whole world ...”8 mundo, ...

And he continues: 6

Postea Dominus dedit mihi et dat tantam fidem in sacerdotibus, qui vivunt secundum formam sanctae Ecclesiae Romanae propter ordinem ipsorum, ... 10 Et propter hoc facio, quia nihil video corporaliter in hoc saeculo de ipso altissimo Filio Dei, nisi sanctissimum corpus et sanctissimum sanguinem suum, quod ipsi ... aliis ministrant

Afterwards the Lord gave me, and gives me still, such faith in priests who live according to the form of the holy Roman Church because of their orders ... And I act in this way because, in this world, I see nothing corporally of the most high Son of God except His most holy Body and Blood which they ... minister to others.9

Thus, in his last will, as it is expressed through his Testament, St. Francis witnesses that there is indeed a necessary and indissoluble tension between “spirituality / mystics” and “witness / mission” in his life as a Christian. It is the tension between the inner Word of God, expressed by phrases like: Ipse Altissimus revelavit mihi – “The Most High Himself revealed to me”; also: Dominus dedit mihi talem fidem – “The Lord gave me such faith”, and the exterior expression of the same divine revelation in the visible reality of “the churches throughout the whole world”, the “most holy mysteries”(sanctissima mysteria), as St. Francis calls the sacraments, together with the material form of the Word of God in Scripture: “His most holy names and written words” (Sanctissima nomina et verba eius scripta).10 3. “The Lord gave me brothers”: fraternity and personality A further point of tension is the “gift” of brotherhood. Before St. Francis was given his special revelation by the Most High Himself, the same Lord had (already) given to him his first brothers: Et postquam Dominus dedit mihi de fratribus – “And after the Lord had given me some brothers ...” So the gift of the brothers was – as St. Francis understands it in his retrospective – the first gift to him; and in the second place only, postquam – “after” the gift of the brothers, no one else but God alone revealed to him the way of life according to the Gospel. In his search for the evangelical form of life, Francis found first, or better: was given some brothers: dedit mihi de fratribus – “gave me some brothers”. They bear no other title than fratres – “brothers”. St. Francis does not call them 8 9 10

Test 4-5: The Saint, 124-125; ESSER, Die Opuscula, 438. Test 6-10: The Saint, 125; ESSER, Die Opuscula, 438-439. Test 11-12: The Saint, 125.

Franciscan Spirituality and Witness

187

“disciples”, “pupils” or “followers” of him, the master. According to this, he puts in his “Earlier Rule”, Chapter VI: 3

Et nullus vocetur prior, sed Let no one be called prior, but let everyone in generaliter omnes vocentur fratres general be called a lesser brother.11 minores.

And in Chapter XXII, he almost literally quotes from the Gospel (cf. Mt 23,810): 33

Omnes vos fratres estis; 34et patrem nolite vobis vocare super terram, unus est enim Pater vester, qui in caelis est. 35Nec vocemini magistri; unus est enim magister vester, qui in caelis est.

All of you are brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven. Do not call yourselves teachers; you have but one Teacher in heaven.12

This, however, creates a tension between the brotherhood, given and entrusted to St. Francis by the Most High Himself, and the interior revelation of the evangelical form of life given to him personally by the same Lord. The brotherhood which the Lord gave to him represents in a way a kind of “inner circle” or the closest and most immediate structure of the “house of the Lord”, which is the church that Francis was called to build up and to repair. So the tension between the entrusted “gift” of the brotherhood developing into a large and universal ecclesiastical religious order and St. Francis’ personal vocation to follow Christ’s footsteps represents in certain equivalent way the tension of the Franciscan movement within the whole of the Roman Catholic church. St. Francis had received his personal revelation of the form of evangelical life expressively within this brotherhood which had been given to him by the same Lord, and also within the “house of the Lord”, which he was called to “repair” and build up.13 But at the same time St. Francis remains the personal “recipient” of this revelation, which again is given to all those brothers who share the same life, and through them, if they follow his example, to the whole church. Francis always remains the founder. The brothers will call him shortly after his death – probably they had already done so during his lifetime – forma minorum,14 “the form of the minors”, which means: he is the “typical image” (in latin forma; equivalent to the greek týpos) for his brothers exactly of this very form of evangelical life which was given to him [alone], but in the midst of his brothers. So, in a certain sense, he may be called – even though this terminology never occurs in Franciscan writings – a “monk”, a “hermit”, of even a “father of the desert” in the midst of his “minor brothers”. 11 12 13 14

The Earlier Rule = ER VI 3: The Saint, 68; ESSER, Die Opuscula, 382. ER XXII 33-35: The Saint, 81-82.; ESSER, Die Opuscula, 397. Cf. L3C 13,7: The Founder, 76. The phrase contained in the II. Magnificat Antiphon of the Divine Office of St. Francis is missing in the English translation: The Saint, 344; see therefore: Fontes Francescani, 1120, and: Franziskus-Quellen, 520.

Fr. Johannes Schneider OFM

188

4. “To live according to the form of the holy gospel” Another tension occurs in the phrase: vivere secundum formam sancti Evangelii – “live according to the form of the Holy Gospel”. The concept of forma can be understood in a twofold way, that is, so to speak, in an objective-structural and in a subjective-personal sense. a) The form of life In the first sense, forma means the “form of life”. A late manuscript of the Testament has the word regulam instead of formam.15 But this is the meaning of forma. The so-called “Form of Life of Clare of Assisi” does not use the term regula at all but only has forma vitae or formula vivendi.16 In his Testament, St. Francis uses the word forma sancti Evangelii only here at the beginning. Later on he always puts regula, altogether nine times17. That St. Francis considered forma sancti Evangelii and regula to be identical in their meaning is proven by the last mentioning of regula in the Testament which says: 39

Sed sicut dedit mihi Dominus simpliciter et pure scribere regulam ...

But as the Lord has given me to speak and write the Rule simply and purely ...”18

This refers to the first form of life, of which St. Francis says: “I had it written down simply and in a few words” 19, as well as to the definitive draft of the socalled Regula bullata, confirmed officially by Pope Honorius III on November 29th, 1223. In the mind of St. Francis, there is a dynamic continuity between the very first simple vivere secundum formam sancti Evangelii, which had been revealed to him through the word of the Holy Gospel, and the final canonical Rule, which by this time had become an official ecclesiastical text. Of course, again there is a tension between the evangelical form of life revealed by the living Word of God, and the canonical rule approved by the actual Roman Pontiff in the year 1223. But for St. Francis, this obvious tension does not seem to be a contradiction at all, as he expresses in the Testament with an astounding parallelism: ipse Altissimus revelavit mihi ... dominus papa confirmavit mihi – “the Most High Himself revealed to me ... the Lord Pope confirmed it for me”. However, it is not the person of the Roman Pontiff as such, but the church als a whole, which has – in the mind of St. Francis – the authority to prove whether a certain form of life corresponds to the Gospel and to the sound tradition of religious life, and if this is the case, to approve it. 15 16 17 18 19

ESSER, Die Opuscula, 439. The Form of Life of Clare of Assisi: The Lady, 108-109. Test 29, 30, 31, 34 (2x), 36, 37, 38, 39: The Saint, 126-127. Test 39: The Saint, 127; ESSER, Die Opuscula, 444. Test 15: The Saint, 125.

Franciscan Spirituality and Witness

189

b) The form of Christ The second subjective and personal meaning of forma refers to the “form of Christ” as it occurs in the Letter to the Philippians: Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God (in forma Dei esset) ... emptied himself, taking the form of a servant (formam servi accipiens) ... (Phil 2,6-7).

In the so-called “Earlier Rule” of 1221, St. Francis defines the life of the friars minor in the following way: 1

Regula et vita istorum fratrum haec est, scilicet vivere in obedientia, in castitate et sine proprio, et Domini nostri Jesu Christi doctrinam et vestigia sequi ...

The rule and life of these brothers is this, namely: to live in obedience, in chastity, and without anything of their own, and to follow the teaching and the footprints of our Lord Jesus Christ ... 20

Not only “rule” and “life” are equivalents, but living according to this form also means to “follow the teaching (doctrinam) and the footprints (vestigia)” of Christ. The rule as form of life (forma vitae) means to cling to the teaching and footprints of Christ, that is, to Himself as the true forma vitae in person. In short: The Franciscan Rule is to live according to the evangelical form of life which again means to follow the footprints of Christ Himself, to take Christ as personal form of life, or stated in the words of St. Paul: “to be con-formed (conformed?) to the image of His Son” – conformes fieri imaginis Filii eius (Rom 8,29). From this point of view, the Rule of St. Francis is understood as a hermeneutical key to the Gospel, and the Gospel as the means to encounter and follow the person of Christ in order to be – step-by-step and in individual differentiation – “conformed to his image”. III. “To have the Spirit of the Lord and Its holy activity” contemplation and action: The Tension of the Rule This brings us to a last and probably most difficult tension in the life of St. Francis, and consequently also in the development of his Fraternity. In Chapter X of the “Later Rule”, the so-called Regula Bullata (1223), St. Francis inserts a phrase which seems to be meant by him as one of the most important goals of the whole Rule, if not the most important at all. He says: 8

sed attendant, quod super omnia desiderare debent habere Spiritum Domini et sanctam eius operationem, 9orare semper ad eum puro corde et habere humilitatem, 20

... but let them pay attention to what they must desire above all else: to have the Spirit of the Lord and His holy activity: to pray always to Him with a pure heart, to have humility and patience in persecution and infirmity, and to

ER 1,1: The Saint, 63-64; ESSER, Die Opuscula, 377-378.

190

Fr. Johannes Schneider OFM

patientiam in persecutione et love those who persecute, rebuke and find fault infirmitate 10et diligere eos qui nos with us ...21 persequuntur ...

St. Francis stresses the point: “above all else” – super omnia. This can be implied to refer to all other precepts and goals of the whole Rule and form of life. “Above all” other issues of the evangelical form of life contained in the Franciscan Rule, the brothers “must desire” (debent desiderare) this, namely: habere Spiritum Domini et sanctam eius operationem – “to have the Spirit of the Lord and His holy working [activity]”. 1. “Go with the Lord, brothers, and preach penance to all” (1C 33,7) Exactly this preeminent goal of the Rule creates probably the most difficult personal but also institutional conflict in St. Francis himself. The first conflict already appears at the very beginning, when St. Francis, together with his first brothers, returned from Rome, where they had asked for and received the first oral approval of their form of life by Pope Innocent III. According to the report in Thomas of Celano’s First life of St. Francis, written about two or three years after his death around the year 1228/9, the Pope had spoken in a friendly way to them: “Go with the Lord, brothers, and as the Lord will see fit to inspire you, preach penance to all.”22) It can be concluded from this that St. Francis had definitively asked for the permission of simply preaching penance. The Earlier Rule, indeed, contains not only a whole long chapter on preachers but also gives a model sermon of how all brothers can announce and exhort the people to do penance.23) Besides this, both Rules not only include an extra chapter on preaching but also deal with going on missions to non-Christians and nonbelievers.24) 2. “Live among the people or go off to solitary places?” (1C 35,5) Now, after their return from Rome, the brothers they were – as Celano reports – discussing among themselves: How could they carry out his [the Pope’s] commandments? How could they sincerely keep the rule they had accepted ...? How could they walk before the Most High in all holiness and religion?25

The discussion leads to the fundamental question, “whether they should live among the people or go off to solitary places”26. This means, that – even after having their form of life approved by the church – they were not sure about 21 22 23 24 25 26

Later Rule = LR X 8-10: The Saint, 105; ESSER, Die Opuscula , 370. THOMAS OF CELANO, The Life of Saint Francis = 1C 33,7: The Saint, 212. ER XVII; XXI: The Saint, 75-76; 78. ER XVI; LR XII 1-2: The Saint, 74-75; 106. 1C 34,4-6; The Saint, 213. 1C 35,5: The Saint, 214.

Franciscan Spirituality and Witness

191

their choice between an apostolic-missionary and a monastic-eremitical way of life. The above-mentioned first conflict of Franciscan identity was resolved by St. Francis himself, who after intensely praying, as Celano puts it, chose not to live for himself alone, but for the One who died for all. For he knew that he was sent for this: to win souls for God ...27

The conflict, however, remains. Not only in the fact that St. Francis himself and many of his brothers repeatedly withdraw to live a solitary life, but besides the official Rule, he draws up what is known as the “Rule for Hermitages”28). Many of the Franciscan hermitages were given to the Friars by Benedictine monks, e.g. Monte Luco near Spoleto or Fonte Colombo near Rieti. One of the hermitages most dear to St. Francis was Mount La Verna near Florence to which he retreated a couple of summers, and where, towards the end of his life, the miracle of the Stigmatisation took place. For St. Francis, the tension between active and contemplative life increased constantly. He wanted to go to France, and was hindered; to Morocco, and fell ill; to the Holy Land, and was ship-wrecked and only finally, when he got there or near the Holy Places, was he able to speak with the Sultan. On the other hand, some of the brothers most dear to him lived a contemplative life, like his first companion, Bernard of Quintavalle, or the former secular priest, Silvester of Assisi; and of course his fellow citizen, St. Clare of Assisi, who lived at San Damiano, close to the city, but in prayer and solitude. 3. “Spend my time in prayer or travel about preaching?” (LMj XII 1,3) It was St. Bonaventure, former professor of theology at Paris, then seventh Minister General of the Friars Minor, who reports another instant of St. Francis’ conflict between his vocation to constant prayer life and itinerant preaching. St. Bonaventure writes: In this matter it happened that he fell into a great struggle over a doubt which, after he returned from many days of prayer, he proposed to the brothers who were close to him: “What do you think, brothers, what do you judge better? That I should spend my time in prayer, or that I should travel about preaching?”29

Reasoning on this problem, St. Francis clearly argues in favour of prayer life, saying: I am a poor little man, simple and unskilled in speech; I have received greater grace of prayer than of speaking ... In prayer there is a purification of interior affections and a uniting to the one, true and supreme good ...; in preaching, there is a dust on our spiritual feet, distraction over many things ... Finally, in prayer we address God,

27 28 29

1C 35,6: The Saint, 214. RH: The Saint, 61-62. BONAVENTURE, The Major Legend of Saint Francis = LMj XII 1,2-3: The Founder, 622.

Fr. Johannes Schneider OFM

192

listen to him ... In preaching, it is necessary to practice great self-emptying for people ...”30

After fostering the contemplative choice, St. Francis finds one striking counterargument: But there is one thing to the contrary that seems to outweigh all these considerations before God, that is, the only begotten Son of God ... came down from the bosom of the Father for the salvation of souls ... [And therefore], it seems more pleasing to God that I interrupt my quiet and go out to labor.31

But, having “mulled over these words for many days with his brothers, he could not perceive with certainty which of these he should choose as more acceptable to Christ”. And Bonaventure concludes: “... this question he could not resolve with clarity on his own.”32) In this struggle of conscience, St. Francis had sent two of his brothers to two contemplatives, namely Br. Silvester, who – living in the hermitage of the Carceri – “spent his time in continuous prayer” on the slopes of the Monte Subasio, and to St. Clare, who lived with her sisters in the little monastery of San Damiano, which he, St. Francis, had restored with his own hands. Those two contemplatives, living their eremitical vocation within the Franciscan family, were to ask for God’s will regarding the true vocation of St. Francis. It seems to be more than obvious that, by asking a contemplative brother and a contemplative sister, St. Francis was hoping and expecting an answer clearly corresponding to his inmost desire, as he had put it down in his Rule: ... that they must desire above all else: to have the Spirit of the Lord and His holy working: to pray always to Him with a pure heart ... 33)

That is, that those two contemplatives would encourage him to do exactly what they themselves had chosen to do, inviting him: “Come to us, Brother Francis, and share our eremitical and contemplative life. Choose the better part, the one thing necessary, as Mary did at the feet of the Lord!” 4. “That the herald of Christ should preach” (LMj XII 2,6) But this was not their answer. “Through a miraculous revelation”, St. Bonaventure writes, both Br. Silvester and Sr. Clare “came to the same conclusion: that it was the divine good will that the herald of Christ should preach”.34) Upon hearing this, St. Francis rose at once and without any delay took to the roads. And the first creatures to whom he preached the Gospel while approaching Bevagna were flocks of birds, encouraging them to hear the Word of God: 30 31 32 33 34

LMj XII 1,4-9: The Founder, 622. LMj XII 1,10-12: The Founder, 622-623. LMj XII 1,13-14: The Founder, 623. LR 10,8-9: The Saint, 105. LMj XII 2,6: The Founder, 623.

Franciscan Spirituality and Witness

193

My brother birds, you should greatly praise your Creator, who clothed you with feathers ... and governs you without your least care. 35)

By doing so, St. Francis was taking literally the Lord’s precept as it is found in the Gospel of Mark: “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” (omni creaturae: Mk 16,15). Bibliography Franciscan Sources, Editions: ESSER K., Die Opuscula des hl. Franziskus von Assisi. Neue textkritische Edition, 2. erw. u. verb. Aufl. E. GRAU, Grottaferrata 1989. Francisci Assisiensis Scripta, critice edidit C. PAOLAZZI, Grottaferrata 2009. Fontes Franciscani, a cura di E. MENESTÒ / S. BRUFANI et al., Assisi 1995. Translations: FRANCIS OF ASSISI, Early Documents, vol. I: The Saint, ed. by R. J. ARMSTRONG / J. A. WAYNE HELLMANN / W. J. SHORT, New York 1999. FRANCIS OF ASSISI, Early Documents, vol. II: The Founder, ed. by R. J. ARMSTRONG / J. A. WAYNE HELLMANN / W. J. SHORT, New York 2000. FRANCIS OF ASSISI, Early Documents, vol. III: The Prophet, ed. by R. J. ARMSTRONG / J. A. WAYNE HELLMANN / W. J. SHORT, New York 2001. The Lady. Clare of Assisi. Early Documents, Revised Edition and Translation by R. J. ARMSTRONG, New York 2006. Franziskus-Quellen. Die Schriften des heiligen Franziskus, Lebensbeschreibungen, Chroniken und Zeugnisse über ihn und seinen Orden, hrsg. von D. BERG / L. LEHMANN, Kevelaer 2009. Klara-Quellen. Die Schriften der heiligen Klara, Zeugnisse zu ihrem Leben und ihrer Wirkungsgeschichte, hrsg. von J. SCHNEIDER / P. ZAHNER, Kevelaer 2013.

35

LMj XII 3,4: The Founder, 624.

Monastery of Holy Apostles, village Muš (Turkey) founded by St. Gregory the Illuminator (4th-12th c.), completely destroyed in 1915

BENEDICTINE FORMATION TODAY P. Gottfried GLAßNER OSB Melk / Salzburg

1. Describing “Benedictine” – a Challenge Taking a worldwide look on all the monasteries, abbeys, educational institutions, etc., which claim to be “Benedictine”, there is a big variety of how to live the Benedictine ideal. There are communities living in isolation with a strictly organized daily routine. They spend their time on prayer and studies and use their hands to make a living. There are abbeys which are of public benefit due to their outstanding cultural and economic value. They are incorporated in the political and economic issues of the region. Other communities can be described as more attached to the world. They dedicate their apostolate to different foci like poor relief, homeless charity or pastoral care. Thus, there are huge distinctions between the single congregations concerning the realization of the Benedictine ideal. Differences are already evident within the German language area, e.g.: -

The mission congregation of St. Ottilien with its abbeys and mission stations all over the world are strictly and centrally organized.

-

The abbeys of the Beurone Congregation – exempted from historical burdens – could restart in 19th century by following closely the Benedictine lifestyle.

-

The abbeys and monasteries of the Austrian Benedictine Congregation are characterized by a strong individual imprint and loose cohesion. This was due to the historical development in the modern area. Abbeys and monasteries were integrated in the diocesan structures of pastoral care.

If I should state an item, that - leaving the differences aside - is typical for the effect of Benedictine monasteries on its surrounding, I would mention the manifold educational institutions: schools, apprenticeship workshops, boarding schools, educational and event centers, houses for religious exercises as well as guest houses. This is connected with the “local stability” and the “local involvement” (stabilitas loci) which is typical for the Benedictines. Benedictine monks are not itinerant preachers. Neither are they educated for special operations. Their continuance in a certain place has enabled them to develop the charisma of a sensorium for people’s hardships and needs. People visit the

196

P. Gottfried Glaßner OSB

Benedictines to find accommodation during a journey, to take a rest from the daily routine and to find inner peace. It is the special atmosphere of this place with its churches, chapels, its enclosure, workshops, undertakings, farmyards and gardens, which creates the conditions for an encounter with God and for a respectful contact with each other. Due to the different conditions at all these various locations, the duties and key activities can be very dissimilar from each other: care of tourists, pilgrims and guests; preservation and restoration of valuable structure; development of close-to-nature methods for agriculture and forestry; research and development; involvement in school and education of the youth; spiritual guidance in parishes; diverse categorial pastoral care (pastoral care in schools, hospital chaplaincy, prison ministry) etc. 2. Salzburg as the Focus of the Benedictine Movement in Austria I try to shortly summarize how the Benedictine monastic spirituality is lived in Austria and point out its particular form. I especially want to focus on the region of Salzburg because the historical and geographical location of the monastery influences the peculiar religious and cultural centers of the Benedictines. 14 monasteries belong to the Austrian Benedictine Congregation: two of them are priories, the rest of them have the status of abbeys. In addition to these, there are two superiorats i.e. small communities to care for the places of pilgrimage at Maria Plain and Mariazell. Twelve monasteries were founded in the Middle Ages mostly by aristocratic families and local rulers; three of them were founded before 1000 AD (arch abbey St. Peter, Kremsmünster and Michaelbeuern). Because of the extraordinary circumstances of its foundations they are usually referred to as “Stifte”. Two priories are new foundations of the late 20th century with specific areas of responsibility: Maria Roggendorf situated in the north of Vienna is a monastery with a pastoral unit (independent priory St. Josef since 2004); and Gut Aich situated east of Salzburg provides a big range of nature healing by Hildegard von Bingen (independent priory in honor of St. Benedikt, patron of Europe, since 2004). One monastery, Seckau in Styria, belongs to the Beurone Congregation. Another monastery, St. Georgenberg-Fiecht in Tyrol, is part of the missionary Benedictines of St. Ottilien. In contrast to other monasteries of the Austrian congregation – especially old ones with long tradition sharing a common character –, the “new” monasteries differ clearly in their way of living and their key activities. There are four Austrian Benedictine nunneries which – compared to the friaries – also differ clearly in their way of living and their areas of responsibility: The abbey of Nonnberg in Salzburg, existing without any interruption, is the oldest one north of the Alps and perhaps in the whole catholic world (since 714); the priory of the Benedictines of Adoration in Vienna-Liebhartstal (since 1903); the priory of the Benedictines of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Steinerkirchen (built in 1949 by Kremsmünster); the priory of the Benedictines of St. Lioba

Benedictine formation today

197

(new foundation of the monastery St. Gabriel in 1889, translocation and refoundation in St. Johann near Herberstein in Styria in 2008).1 Common characteristics of monasteries of the Austrian congregation are called forth by having shared the same development in the German Empire and the Habsburg Empire with its political context in particular. Serious attempts to link the monasteries in Austria and Bavaria closely together and attempts to advise them to a uniform way of life as practiced in Subiaco date back to the 15th century (“Melker Reform”). After the invasion of the Protestantism in the late 16th century, these realized joint forms could be resumed when the restoration of the monasteries and the renewal of the monastic discipline in accordance with the catholic reform commenced. The monasteries themselves were put into the service of this reform. A crucial factor for the restart and the inner restoration of the monasteries was the profound theological education of the young monks which was supported by the Jesuit Order. Several young monks were sent to study in Italy (Bologna, Padua). Later on the Gymnasium and the high school of the Jesuits in Vienna became an important place for theological education for the Austrian Benedictines. Paris Lodron, archbishop of Salzburg (1619-1653), recognized the signs of the times, namely the necessity of the profound education of the catholic clergy according to the resolutions of the council of Trient (1545-1563) and founded the University of Salzburg (1623). It was of great importance for the further development of the Benedictine monasteries in Austria and Bavaria that he did not pass on the organization of the education to the Jesuits, but to the Benedictines. This made Salzburg become the center of the Benedictine erudition and of the scientific exchanges. Moreover Salzburg was an independent religious principality at that time and managed to escape the happenings of the Thirty Year’s War. The University of Salzburg, this crucial Benedictine educational foundation, called forth the mutual character of the Benedictines in Austria and Bavaria, the high scholastic standards and to a certain degree also the disengagement from the Jesuit education system setting accents of its own. Moreover the Benedictine monasticism at this time – one could call it the heyday of the baroque period – underwent an important transformation: the “re-catholization-plan” of the state and the church for the formerly protestant population had also its effect on the Benedictine monasteries and those from other orders. Monks were now more often employed as preachers, catechists and pastors in the parishes. Their activities were to a certain degree moved outside of the monastery which was against the Benedictine ideal. This development was reinforced once more during the time of the Absolutism and the Enlightenment in the second half of the 18th century. The state strongly influenced the inner responsibilities of the church and the monasteries through 1

Cf. Österreichische Eucharistiefeier.

Benediktinerkonkregation,

Direktorium

für

Chorgebet

und

198

P. Gottfried Glaßner OSB

the reorganization of the theological studies (establishment of a “Generalseminar” in Vienna), the reform of the school system and pastoral care. An important date and a kind of turning point was the raise of the age, at which one is allowed to take one’s vow, from up to then 19 years to 24 years in 1771. This waiting period became a gateway for new ideas and ideals of the Enlightenment. A lot of young monks took advantage of this time of “freedom” to study “modern” subjects and to establish contacts with the great wide world. The aim set by the government units was to force back the influence of the monasteries, or rather to subordinate them to the aims of the state. The development in Austria reached its peak during the monastic reform of Emperor Josef II (1780-1790). In particular contemplative oriented monasteries and orders were abolished. They were of no use to the general public as they did not offer charitable activities (the care for invalids or poor people), pastoral care or involvement in schools. The remaining monasteries of the Benedictine Order underwent a profound change concerning the monastic ideal. The monastic communities became priest communities with a strongly reduced communal life. Often more than half of the Friar Minor Conventuals lived and worked outside the monasteries. Teaching and caring in (boarding) schools became the most important purpose of the monastic daily routine. In Germany in 1803 all the abbeys became secular and therefore a regional prospering conventual life suddenly came to an end. The differences between the abbeys in Austria and Germany are an outcome of different historical conditions and backgrounds: Many abbeys could resist the storm of secularism in Austria, although they are still affected by all the transformations during these times. In Germany all the refounded and revived abbeys could orient themselves more to the Benedictine ideal, because they were not strained by the ideals of the Enlightenment and Josephinism. Salzburg is between borders in terms of geography, history and politics: Salzburg was a part of Bavaria and therefore it also experienced secularism after the period of the Napoleonic Wars. In 1815 at the Congress of Vienna Salzburg became a part of the Habsburg. Therefore the Benedictine abbeys in Salzburg were integrated into the common history of Austrian Benedictine abbeys. Salzburg remained an important educational center concerning the development of the Benedictines, even though the efforts reviving the tradition of the Benedictine University of Salzburg or founding a catholic university with the collaboration of the Benedictines were not successful. These plans were unsuccessful because of the political circumstances at the beginning of the 20 th century. They also became unnecessary because of the foundation of public University of Salzburg in 1962. But due to abbot Petrus Klotz from St. Peter and despite economic difficulties, the foundation of the college St. Benedikt, an educational institution for German-speaking Benedictines, succeeded in 1924. Slightly before that the foundation of a confederation of Benedictine abbeys became true in 1923/24.

Benedictine formation today

199

This confederation and the college were intended to foster Salzburg as center of Benedictine studies and research. Acknowledging the merits of the Benedictines in Salzburg St. Peter was elevated to an arch-abbey in 1928. In the time between the two World Wars and since the reopening in 1946, the college St. Benedikt, as the educational institution for German-speaking Benedictines, made a valuable contribution to the return to Benedictine ideals. This was necessary as Austrian Benedictine abbeys were covered by ideals concerning the Enlightenment. However it has to be added that the number of Benedictine students in Salzburg decreased in the past few years, mainly because of personal changes and developments in the abbeys. When I started my studies in Salzburg at the beginning of the 70s, there lived about 60 Benedictines from Austria, Germany and Switzerland at St. Benedikt next to students from other fraternities. Nowadays there are only ten Benedictines from Austria and Germany living there. In comparison to the past few years also the number of Benedictine professors teaching at the Theological University decreased. 3. Status Quo and Future Prospects Concerning the Education of Monastic Youth I want to focus on the development in Austria. Therefore I want to mention a few points which seem important to me when it comes to accessions of young monks to monasteries and their education. a) The shift to activities of pastoral care set the clear trend to the so called “monk-priesthood”. In some monasteries the tradition of “laic-monkhood” totally disappeared. In contrast, within the new Benedictine foundations of the 19th century (Beurone congregation, mission congregation of St. Ottilien), the profession of the lay-brothers and consequently the difference between hieromonks and lay-brothers was part of the monastic self-concept. A reform caused by the II. Vatican Council brought a rethinking on this issue. This led to a reconception of the difference between “hieromonks” and “Chormönche”.2 It is visible in the decisions of the main chapter of the Austrian Benedictine Congregation from 1969, 1972 and 1978 and was approbated in the “statutes of the Austrian Benedictine Congregation” in 1986 which is still valid today except of a few revisions. Today monks can simply be “Chormönch” without receiving holy orders. b) The trend of orders of pastoral care led to the necessity of pastoral and theological education. At first this education was given in form of home-studies. That meant that all the young monks were educated in their own abbey, sometimes also in abbeys next to their own one, by professors from their own convent (or by professors from the neighboring convents). The graduation at a 2

Österreichische Benediktinerkonkregation, Die Satzungen, 5-11.

200

P. Gottfried Glaßner OSB

university of theology (in Italy, Vienna, Salzburg) or at a famous theological seminary was significant for broadening one´s horizon. However until the 19 th century this kind of education was an exception. But then the foundation of the Benedictine confederation with the abbot primas based in Rome and the opening of the theological seminary in Sant Anselmo supported the importance of a consistent theological education taking place in houses of studies in a monastic atmosphere. Many Benedictines from Austria graduated at the international house of study called ¨Canisianum¨, which was founded by the Jesuits (since 1911 in a separate building). Then there was the foundation of the college St. Benedikt in Salzburg (1924, 1926 opening of the house). These two foundations can be understood as results of the efforts concerning a consistent theological and pastoral education and a monastic formation of the promotion of the young. c) Until the 18th century the one year lasting novitiate was the precondition for being incorporated into the monastic community with all the rights and duties connected to the act of profession. By entering the monastery the novices received the habit and since the Modern Ages they also got a new name. As the state changed the minimum age for the act of profession there was a necessity of making new rules concerning the access modalities. After passing the one year of novitiate there are now three years of taking the simple vows. After these three years the monks are taking the final vows, i.e. they are now finally bound to the monastic community. Despite the knowledge of the preliminarity, the taking of the simple vows at the end of the novitiate remained to be the deciding factor. This changed with the II. Vatican Council: in the wake of the new conception of the access modalities there was the possibility to extend the simple vows from three to nine years at most. Furthermore the age of entry and therefore also the job-related qualifications of the novices changed. Nowadays many candidates with professional education and preliminary studies – partly also with practical experiences – want to enter a monastery. The statues of the Austrian Benedictine Congregation recommend an ad hoc timed postulate, lasting half a year at most, before entering the novitiate. Therefore the candidate and the monastic community have the chance to get know each other better.3 The precondition for being admitted to the final profession is, as the law stands, the accomplishment of the 23rd year of one´s life.4 The spectrum got expanded and more confusing as there are a lot of special ways of theological education. The classical study path, i.e. 5-6 years of theological study after passing the one year of novitiate often including a catechetical and pastoral work experience, is rather an exception. On the other hand there is a varied offer of courses during the novitiate and in addition to the studies. In this context I would like to mention in particular the institute for Benedictine studies which was founded a few years ago under the direction of 3 4

Cf. Österreichische Benediktinerkongregation, Die Satzungen §51. Cf. Ibid, §71.

Benedictine formation today

201

Sr. Michaela Puzicha in the arch-abbey St. Peter. The offered courses on deepening knowledge on monastic traditions and spirituality find general approval. 4. Conclusions The consequent pursuit of the organization of the one-year novitiate and the education and further training of the ¨triennalprofessions¨ (young monks and nuns before taking the final vows) is a reflection on the consequent organization of monastic life in general. It seems to me that through the changed personnel situation and preconditions for candidates there is little debate on the levelling and maceration of requirements. The rich diversity of Benedictine life-forms, which is typical for Benedictine monasteries, bear the risk of slipping into individualism. Meeting brothers from other monasteries and congregations during the monastic and theological education is an essential corrective. This functions against the stabilization of certain traditions and customs and is essential for a mutual enrichment. Several abbots seem to be a bit concerned about the influence which the young monks have to deal with in a common house of studies. Of course the monasteries should take care of a good monastic atmosphere at the houses of studies and provide a theological education which is conform to the monastic ideal. But baseless fear that the young brothers (monks) might be infected by new ideas and that they might bring confusion to their own monasteries is absolutely inappropriate. Concerning the self-conception of Benedictine community and their role in church and society nowadays, I have to point out the reform-document. This document was prepared by the Monastic Committee of Benedictine Confederation in an intensive discourse in the aftermath of the II Vatican Council. It serves as a guideline for implementing the orders of the Council in the congregations and Benedictine monasteries and was adopted at the Abbotcongress in Rome in 1967.5 One of the most important results of monastic renewal pushed by the Council is that not certain achievements like charitable work, educational care, pastoral care, missionary work, social or cultural assistance, etc. are essential for Benedictine spirituality. On the contrary, the significance of the Word of God (lectio divina) and the studies of the Church Fathers are the crucial factors: ¨Therefore it stands to reason that the value of monastic life is not to be found in the work performed (diakonia), but in the vital testimony (martyria) of the communio as a prophetic sign of the eschatological Kingdom of God¨.6

5 6

Cf. NARDIN / SIMÓN, Das benediktinische Leben. Ibid, 175.

202

P. Gottfried Glaßner OSB

Bibliography Primary Sources NARDIN, Roberto / SIMÓN, Alfredo (eds), Das benediktinische Leben. Ein Reformdokument der Konzilszeit. St. Ottilien 2011. Österreichische Benediktinerkonkregation, Direktorium für Chorgebet und Eucharistiefeier der Österreichischen Benediktinerkongregation, Kirchenjahr 2013/14. Göttweig 2013. Österreichische Benediktinerkonkregation, Die Satzungen der Österreichischen Benediktinerkongregation. Göttweig 2006. Further Reading PUZICHA, Michaela, Benedikt von Nursia begegnen. Augsburg 2004.

Grigor Xlatec‘i, instructing a pupil Gospel M3714 (1419), f. 8b.

EDUCATING “WESTERN” MONKS “DAS KOLLEG ST. BENEDIKT” – AN EXAMPLE P. Paulus KOCI OSB Ettal / Salzburg

1. “Das Kolleg” – the educational center in Salzburg In 1926 the College of St. Benedict was founded by the abbots of the Austrian, German and Swiss Benedictine congregations1 on request of Pope Pius XI. It stood in the tradition of the Benedictine University of Salzburg which was founded 400 years ago but came to an end in 1810 because of the occupation of the Bavarian State. The new college built the basis for a German-speaking Catholic University and served as a place of study for Benedictines. From 1956 onwards the house was utilized by other monastic communities as well. The purpose of this college was to give the friars studying in Salzburg the possibility to live and pray according to the Rule of St. Benedict. Moreover, in 1976 the headmaster P. Paulus Kirchmayr stated that the college should become an important factor for the renewal of the Benedictine life in Austria as initiated by the Apostolic See2. Thus, from the beginning the college was never intended to simply be a student home with friars living there by chance. It has always been a place that inspires to intensify monastic life by following the signs of the time. This becomes obvious in the permanently amended and changing statutes and frameworks of the college3. On the one hand the college wants to enable young friars to study and on the other hand it wants to support the process of becoming a monk. This mission is still in place even if the conditions have altered since 1926. 2. Young people deciding for a monastic life today Today the majority in the German-speaking language area are still Christians. Moreover an area-covering religious education via the school system is in place. Nevertheless the religious praxis has changed profoundly and religious knowledge is “evaporating” - as Cardinal Wetter put it. There is still a basic 1 2 3

Cf. KIRCHMAYR, ‚Geschichte des Kollegs 1926-1976, 11. Ibid. Ibid., 12.

204

Paulus Koci OSB

knowledge but this is not supported by a religious conduct of life. For my generation being a Christian naturally meant to go to church on Sunday and receive the Holy Communion. But even for people who decide for a religious life becoming a monk, this is no longer true. This can be seen clearly in what young novices do outside the monastery, e.g. in their vacations. Thus, the requirements for the monastic education have altered in the past 40 years. Today: a) Basic knowledge on religion must be intensified. b) There is a need for training to bring religious knowledge in accordance with a religious conduct of life. c) There is also a need to train the theory and the praxis of the prayer as this is diminishing even in the so-called “well-bred catholic” families. d) Today the “normal” life style of a young man is in competition with alternative ways of life. The face-to-face conversation is superseded by Facebook communities. The celebration of a Sunday or Christian holiday is replaced by a party atmosphere of weekends and holidays. Thus Sunday mass is in rivalry concerning time and spirit. In former times the novitiate served only to find your way into the monastic life as the knowledge about a Christian as well as a catholic life was taken for granted. Today a gradually grown religious belief and a religious inner calling are replaced by imitating attractive role models with such a belief and calling. This is not unique to prospective monks; it concerns the whole priest recruitment of the mid-European church. Monastic education has to alter its criteria. Education and training in most other vocations have changed totally over the time, thus the requirements for becoming a monk need to modify too. In other vocations the market and the economic survival called for a better education. In contrast – because of the decreasing number of applicants – the church tends to lower the requirement profile for the young men. Even if there are good spiritual reasons for it we need to question ourselves if our monasteries should become a shelter for people who do not meet the criteria outside the monasteries. Moreover, how would that affect our monasteries and their tasks? Let me illustrate my arguments by taking a look on the languages young men know before entering a monastery: In former times most applicants had a good command of Latin and Greek because of their schooling. Today this is an exception. Young people have a better command of English and of the whole information technology instead. This has an effect on their thinking and life. In a world of utilitarianism and its optimization learning “dead” languages like Latin and Greek is out of place. It is not remembered that learning a foreign language does not only enable one to get into a conversation with a foreigner but also brings one closer to a different culture and world which might be of great importance for one’s life later on. Someone who has never translated an ancient text does not realize that the

Benedictine formation today

205

Word of God in Greek as well as in the forms of classical literature has to be understood and interpreted along the criteria of this literature. Today there is even another language barrier. One the one hand the Second Vatican Council favored the language of the people to visualize faith and liturgy and make it more understandable. But on the other hand today’s religious language has turned into a jargon. It is quite different from what people speak in everyday life and even church members cannot automatically access it. There is a German saying: “ein Mann – ein Wort” – “one man – one word” (An honest man's word's as good as his bond). It was an expression used to underline the importance of a clear conversation on which contracts were negotiated and reliability was claimed. In the internet age – and nearly all young people use a mobile phone – agreements can be altered at any time. This is usually regarded as an advantage but it does also change the conduct of life. On the surface it only seems to be a change of appointments, but in reality it means that the most attractive alternative can at least be tried out. On the one hand reliable conducts of life such as marriage or profession have always been challenged by other life styles options. On the other hand the pressure on reliability and permanent agreements increases with today’s range of possibilities. Let’s come back to the celebration of the Sunday Mass. Today’s transport and communication options arouse various alternatives and thereby increase the pressure to drop a good old habit every now and then. But a good ingrained habit is not always justifiable and it is not always the better alternative as the Gospel of Luke tells us: Is it not more important to care for the man who fell among robbers than to rush to the temple service?4 A vivid portrait of the people in our mid-European region is depicted in the epistles of the Revelation of St. John 2-3. Moreover the Book of Revelation as a whole describes perfectly our situation because its author tends to a certain dualism or rather has to deal with the dualism of his addressees. On the one hand this dualism brings clarification in theory but on the other it leaves the concrete human being – now and then – in a conflict. At the time of the Apocalypse people should decide for Jesus Christ. Today the modern human being is able to live in parallel worlds without getting a bad conscience. Even in our monasteries the celebration of the Lord’s Day is a vivid example for this tension. But that’s no news. In his second book of dialogues Pope Gregory the Great tells the story about a priest visiting St. Benedict: “…our Lord vouchsafed to appear to a certain Priest dwelling a good way off, who had made ready his dinner for Easter day. He spoke thus to him: "Thou have provided good cheer for thyself, and my servant in such a place is afflicted with hunger." Hearing this, the priest rose up, and on Easter day itself, 4

Cf. Lk 10, 25-37.

Paulus Koci OSB

206

with such meat as he had prepared, went to the place, where he sought for the man of God among the steep hills, the low valleys and hollow pits, and at length found him in his cave. After they had prayed together, and sitting down had given God thanks, and had much spiritual talk, then the Priest said to him: "Rise up, brother, and let us dine, because today is the feast of Easter." The man of God answered, and said: "I know that it is Easter with me and a great feast, having found so much favor at God's hands as this day to enjoy your company" (for by reason of his long absence from men, he knew not that it was the great solemnity of Easter). But the reverent Priest again assured him, saying: "Verily, today is the feast of our Lord's Resurrection, and therefore it is not right that you should keep abstinence. Besides I am sent to that end, that we might eat together of such provision as God's goodness hath sent us." Whereupon they said grace, …”5

Even St Benedict who resorted to a cave in order to search for God forgot about the date of Easter. But in contrast to many contemporaries he knows the meaning of Easter. Modern people use their I-Pad to inquire the timing of this year’s Easter holidays. But they do not know what to celebrate. They get over a killer hangover and after each they experience a new life. Thus, there is no need for an annual Easter. Cardinal Schönborn recently suggested reducing the Christian holidays as the Austrian Church could go without Easter Monday and Whit Monday. Surprisingly the movement against clerical privileges did not approve to Cardinal Schönborn’s proposal. They preferred to reschedule Ascension Day and the Feast of Corpus Christi in order to enable a better work and weekend schedule. Some people regard such discussions as the invention of the devil, some people get insecure. All in all it is obvious that the gospel-oriented Christian life is watering down. This is today’s world from where our young women and men stem entering our monasteries. In 2005 the German Bishop’s Conference commissioned the Sinus-Study to research on religious milieus. In 2011 in connection with this study a report was released under the title “Moving Milieus. Values, Sense, Religion and Aesthetics in Germany”6. I guess nobody would have associated the term aesthetics with religion after the Second Vatican Council. Taking a look at the reform of the liturgy its aim was: “… that in her the human is directed and subordinated to the divine, the visible likewise to the invisible, action to contemplation, and this present world to that city yet to come, which we seek.”7

5

6 7

Dialogue 2, 1,6-7. For English version cf.: http://www.osb.org/gen/greg/ (this website is based on: KARDONG, The Life of Saint Benedict by Gregory the Great. For German version cf. PUZICHA, Kommentar zur Vita Benedicti, Gregor der Große. WIPPERMANN, Milieus in Bewegung. Second Vatican Council: Sacrosanctum Concilum 2 (SC).

Benedictine formation today

207

This aim was already indicated by the beggar at the city gate of Amiens who directs himself towards Jesus Christ.8 Hence the Council urged pastors of souls: “… that, when the liturgy is celebrated, something more is required than the mere observation of the laws governing valid and licit celebration; it is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects.” 9

Moreover the decree on the ministry and life of priest Presyterorum Ordinis advises: “Priests therefore, as educators in the faith, must see to it either by themselves or through others that the faithful are led individually in the Holy Spirit to a development of their own vocation according to the Gospel, to a sincere and practical charity, and to that freedom with which Christ has made us free.(25) Ceremonies however beautiful, or associations however flourishing, will be of little value if they are not directed toward the education of men to Christian maturity.(26) In furthering this, priests should help men to see what is required and what is God's will in the important and unimportant events of life.” 10

Already 50 years ago it was obvious for the Council that there is a challenging tension between an understanding on earth and tidings from heaven. Thus, the Council requested solutions for that. Today’s circumstances, especially in the Western world, require even larger answers to the growing dichotomy. 3.The Educational Concept of the College of St. Benedict 3.1. The College of St. Benedict The College of St. Benedict is now the house of studies of the Austrian Benedictine Congregation. This congregation is led by an abbot president and currently consists of 14 independent monasteries, of which twelve are abbeys and two are priories. In addition to these Austrian monasteries other Benedictine monasteries from the German-speaking area also send young monks. They have already completed their novitiate with the temporal profession and commence their study of theology in Salzburg. During this educational period the young religious men are faced with the decision for their solemn profession. On successful completion of the study of theology they are qualified in accordance with the stipulations of canon law to receive holy orders. The general canon law also stipulates that: "Those aspiring to the presbyterate can be promoted to the diaconate only after they have completed the fifth year of the curriculum of philosophical and theological studies."11 The curriculum of this study is determined by the Faculty of Theology in accordance with the Apostolic See. 8 9 10 11

Cf. Vita Sancti Martini. SC 11. Second Vatican Council: Presbyterum Ordinis 6 (PO). Code of Catholic Canon Law: Codex Iuris Canonici, Can. 1032, §1 (CIC).

Paulus Koci OSB

208

During this period of study the responsibility for personal and monastic education is with the first vows monastery sharing it in cooperation with the college. Therefore, the rector of the college has to prepare an annual report on the progress of every young man forwarding it to the respective monastery superiors. 3.2. The Content of our Educational Concept Since 2007 the following concept is in effect: I. Methodical Steps 1. At the beginning of each year the student together with the training supervisor formulates his annual goals. During the year he is led to a selfevaluation. In collaboration with the training supervisor the results are forwarded to the superior at end of the year. 2. Every month (about 3 times per semester) discussions are held with the training supervisor. 3. Once a semester there will be a discussion forum on a selected reading within a group of about five clerics under the guidance of the training supervisor. 4. There is an annual training symposium II. Contentual Steps II. 1. Psycho-Social Training (Themes that should be worked on during the educational training at the college) a) Aims of psycho-social maturity - Competence to reflect one’s own life and its experiences - Clarification of one's own physical and mental possibilities and limitations - Dealing with success and frustration - Learning for the later life in the monastery by studying - Joy and failures of studying - Zeal and lust for life as a monk - Dealing with health and disease b) Self-reliance “7The concern must be whether the novice truly seeks God and whether he shows eagerness for the Work of God, for obedience and for trials.” 12 12

Rule of St. Benedict 58:7 (RB).

Benedictine formation today

209

“17When he is to be received, he comes before the whole community in the oratory and promises stability, fidelity to monastic life, and obedience. 18This is done in the presence of God and his saints to impress on the novice that if he ever acts otherwise, he will surely be condemned by the one he mocks" 13

-

Order in their lives - daily routine – relation between study and leisure time Self-determined discipline Reflection on dependencies and addictions Use of modern media, computer, internet Work (study) design Dependence on others Recognition of one’s own strengths and weaknesses Perception of life impulses from sexuality Practice of self-reliance as well as living together Enduring the tension between individual and community life Ability to deal with problems Ability to live with restrictions

c) Flexibility – mutability14 -

Internal and external mobility (for body and soul) Adaptability and ability to change Dealing with spontaneous challenges Tolerance for other people and other life concepts Readiness for action Delight in movement and mutability Transformation of sexuality

d) Solidarity of thought and deeds “9Let us open our eyes to the light that comes from God, and our ears to the voice from heaven that every day calls out this charge: 10If you hear his voice today, do not harden your hearts (Ps 94[95]:8). 11And again: You that have ears to hear, listen to what the Spirit says to the churches (Rev 2:7).”15

13 14 15

Joint-learning of how to listen and act Awareness of your own life and the life in the community Sacrificing immediate self-satisfaction in favor of others Awareness of the concerns of a community Conflict resolution skills and relationship skills Accepting and tolerating own weaknesses and those of others Awareness of one's own role and position in the community Practicing a natural and mutual assistance and consideration RB 58:17-18. Cf. RB 58:17. RB Prol. 9-11 and cf. RB 58:17; RB 5:1-19; RB 71:1-9.

Paulus Koci OSB

210

II.2.

Spiritual Training magis ac magis in deum proficiat – “more and more progress toward God”16

Aim: Training and reflection individually as collectively "coherent" Benedictine spirituality. a) Basic topics - Personal life of prayer - Communal life of prayer - Spiritual companionship - Times of retreat (silence, retreats, desert days) - A simple way of life b) “as though naturally, from habit”17 -

Learning to live before the face of God Allowing to be a beginner; not having to be perfect18 Monastery as a “school for the Lord's service”19 Spiritual life as a process of growing requiring training Internalizing monastic practices Practicing basic attitudes and concrete forms of contemplation Finding the right time for spiritual exercises Participating in the monastic office and table of fellowship Leading a spiritual life outside the monastery and on vacations

c) Friendship with God as a monk and as a brother fratres carissimi – “dear brothers”20

-

16 17 18 19 20 21

Seeing themselves as a friend of God Monastic life as a free option: being able to deal with freedom: Finding places of experience of God Exploring the communal dimension of the experience of God (God’s fellowship) - Experience life and vocation as a gift and as a demand Experience the joy of lectio divina and liturgical celebrations Finding personal relationship with Christ (“Let them prefer nothing whatever to Christ”21) RB 62:4. RB 7:68. Cf. RB 73:1-9. RB Prol. 45. RB Prol. 19. RB 72:11.

Benedictine formation today

-

211

Learning unceasing prayer

d) Ut in omnibus glorificetur Deus – “in all things God may be glorified”22 -

Becoming aware to be at the service of the Lord (monastery as a project of God) Interpreting spiritually the commitments to the Benedictine way of life Experiencing the spirituality of practical work Getting a sense of responsibility for one’s own maintenance Learning responsibility to the Creator and fellow human beings (daily routine, leisure activities, dealing with people) Experiencing obedient and humble life as a testimony Accompanying with attentive and paternal support - "chosen for his skill in winning souls"23

II. 3.

Cognitive Training

a) The monk – student: rationabiliter24 Being aware that the study comprises the following - Academic education - An exchange with other students of the same or different branch of religious study, of religious practice, of knowledge and life Being able to put the academic and personal aim into words - Aim of the current year o Formulating its aim and necessary steps o Drafting own study and exam plan - Questions o How do I wrestle for a right understanding between positive science and humanistic approach? o • Do I have the requirements for my ministry as a priest, monk, teacher, ... ? o • Why am I studying to become a priest?  • Do I have an overview of the contents of the visited study events? - Knowing own shortcomings regarding own study requirements; looking for ways to fix this / having skills to work on it - Knowing that the service of the house as well as the material resources of the abbey facilitate his study, and thus promote efficiency of it

22 23 24

RB 57:9. RB 58:6. RB Prol. 47.

Paulus Koci OSB

212

b) The monk – a matter of fact person Internalizing that the study: -

Is the formal and substantial requirement of his future life as a monk o o

Formal: Ordination Substantial: Fulfilling the demands set by people encountered and by tasks entrusted

-

Is representing a trait of the monk-ness in order to develop own cognitive abilities and to bring them in line with own spiritual life25 Recognizing the need for a process-based positioning; bringing together faith and knowledge as a priest and as a monk

-

Is serving for one’s personal freedom. This requires having professional competence which includes: o o o o o o o o

the ability to weigh the pros and cons of things and to allocate them26 the Council of Brothers (“advice of the brothers“27) the Council of the Stranger28 also other sciences have their share of truth also other people can reason about the right thing the Council of the Last (“the Lord often reveals what is better to the younger”29) of the newcomer of non-professional newcomer

c) The monk – a student, a resident, a payer -

Being one’s own time manager: managing courses, personal study, prayer and social obligations at the college Managing studies also during the semester break Taking care of a physical balance

d) The monk – between college and abbey -

Setting own clear rules of when to live at the college or at the monastery of origin

-

Knowing about obligations here and there

25 26 27 28 29

Cf. RB Prol. 47. Cf. RB 58:10. RB 3:2. RB 61:4; 61:9. RB 3:3.

Benedictine formation today

II. 4.

213

Pastoral Training

The pastoral internships during studies should give a first insight into the pastoral fields of work. These experiences gained will be of use for the internship of the diaconate later on. The internships bring together study, practice and spirituality and are accompanied by the training supervisor. a) Tasks required -

Working (doing an internship) in diverse fields of pastoral care Attending a lecture/s that matches with the internship, if possible Attending the theoretical introduction and receiving support from the internship supervisor Internship report (theory learned, internship and personal experiences in connection with the monastic life; aim - content - method) Reflection with the training supervisor

b) Internships -

Leiturgia o Catechesis of baptism o Homily o Celebration of mass

-

Martyria o Disputing with students in school on theological matters

-

Diakonia o Hospice care o Pastoral care in hospitals o Leading and implementing courses

-

Koinonia o Engagement in the life of the college

III. Aims 1. Looking for and acquiring personal maturity 2. Learning to live a life in accordance with Jesus Christ 3. Experiencing a philosophical, theological and humanistic learning process a) Becoming a life-long-learner b) Becoming a critical thinker c) Feeling one’s roots in the Christian tradition 4. Train competences for pastoral care. Becoming an effective and joyful worker in the vineyard of the Lord

214

Paulus Koci OSB

Bibliography Translations Dialogue 2 – Live of St. Benedict: http://www.osb.org/gen/greg/. (This website is based on the book of Terrence G. Kardong OSB) KARDONG OSB, Terrence G., The Life of Saint Benedict by Gregory the Great, translation and commentary, n.p. 2009. RB Rule of St. Benedict: http://christdesert.org/Saint_Benedict/Study_the_Holy_Rule_of_St__Benedict/inde x.html Literature KIRCHMAYR, Paulus, ‚Geschichte des Kollegs 1926-1976‘, in: Deo et Fratribus, Kolleg St. Benedikt 1926-1976, Salzburg n.y. [1976]. PUZICHA, Michaela, Kommentar zur Vita Benedicti, Gregor der Große. Das zweite Buch der Dialoge. Leben und Wunder des ehrwürdigen Abtes Benedict, St. Ottilien 2012. WIPPERMANN, Carsten, Milieus in Bewegung. Werte, Sinn, Religion, Ästhetik in Deutschland, Würzburg 2011. Further Reading VOGÜE, Adalbert de (ed), Dialogues. Tome 2, Livres 1à 3, edition bilingue francais-latin by Antin, P. (Sources Chrétiennes 251), Paris 1979. FRY OSB, Timothy (ed), RB 1980. Regula monachorum, the rule of St. Benedict in Latin and English with notes is a modern, Collegeville 1981. Quick Links CIC http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM PO Presbyterum Ordinis: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651207_presbyterorumordinis_en.html SC Sacrosanctum Concilium: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctumconcilium_en.html

AUTHORS

Archbishop Nareg ALEMEZIAN, Archbishop of Cyprus, Holy See of Cilicia. Former Ecumenical Officer of the Great House of Cilicia. Among others Member of the Executive Committee of the World Council of Churches. Dissertation on the Brotherhood of Cilicia. Jasmine DUM-TRAGUT, Assoc. Professor of Armenian Studies and since 2017 Director of the Center for the Study of the Christian East (ZECO) at Salzburg University (Austria). Among others Honorary Doctor of the Armenian Academy of Sciences, Visiting Professor of Armenian Studies at Hebrew University of Jerusalem and consultant of the PRO ORIENTE foundation. Roberta ERVINE, Professor of Armenian Studies at St. Nersess Armenian Seminary in New Rochelle, New York. Dissertation research in Jerusalem, where she lived in the Armenian Monastery of St. James. She taught among others for the Holy Translators Academy and at Hebrew University. Archbishop Daniel M. FINDKYAN, Archbishop and Primate of the Eastern Diocese of the Armenian Church of America. Professor of Liturgical Studies at St. Nersess Armenian Seminary in New Rochelle, New York. Member of the brotherhood of the Holy See of Ējmiacin. Fr. Gottfried GLAßNER OSB, Professor of Old Testament Studies and Hebrew Language at the Theological Seminary of the Diocese of St. Pölten (Austria); Monk and Librarian of the Benedictine Monastery of Melk, National Secretary of the Catolica Unio Austria. Hovhannes HOVHANNISYAN, Assoc. Professor of History and Religion / Theology at Yerevan State University and the American University of Armenia; Deputy Minister of Education and Science of the Republic of Armenia.

216

Authors

Fr. Paulus KOCI OSB, Rector of the College of St. Benedict of the Austrian Bendictine Confederation in Salzburg/Austria. Monk and former Prefect of the Boarding School of the Benedictine Monastery Ettal (Germany). Fr. Johannes SCHNEIDER OFM, Studies of Theology and the Arts in New York, Rome and Salzburg; Monk and Pastor of the Franciscan Monastery Salzburg; Expert on Franciscan Studies. Martin SEIDLER, Secretary of the Archbishop of Salzburg, Doctorate Studies on Armenian Liturgy at the University of Salzburg. Dietmar W.WINKLER, Professor of Patristic Studies and Church History at the University of Salzburg; Consultant of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (Vatican), Member of the Board of the PRO ORIENTE Foundation. Vardapet Ruben ZARGARYAN, Priest at the Mother See of Holy Ējmiacin, Patristic Studies at Pontificia Universitá Gregoriana in Rome and Member of the brotherhood of the Holy See of Ējmiacin. Archbishop Levon B. ZEKIYAN, Armenian-Catholic Archbishop of Istanbul, Professor of Armenian Studies and Literature at the University Ca’Foscari (Venice/Italy) and the Pontifical Oriental Institute (Rome).

ILLUSTRATION CREDITS

p. 6:

Monastery Gełard (4th, 10th-13th c.), Village Gołt, Armenia (south elevation), (http://www.armenica.org/cgi-bin/armenica.cgi? 706329993278817=2=ba=3== ==baz0019====0=2).

p. 24:

Monastery Hałpat (10th-13th c.), Village Hałpat (Armenia) (North Elevation), (http://www.armenica.org/cgi-bin/armenica.cgi?706329993278817=2=ba=1== ==baz0000).

p. 26:

Map of monastic centers (http://www.ellerman.org/vlasta/History/Armenian_ MSS/images/map_arm_centers.jpg).

p. 28:

Yesayi Nč‘ec’i teaching. From the Commentary an Isaiah, Skevr̥a monastery, Cilicia, 1299. J 365, f.2r. (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: EsayiTeaching.jpg)

p. 30:

Amaras Monastery (https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amaras_monast%C4%B1r %C4%B1#/media/File:Amaras12.jpg).

p. 32:

Sanahin monastery, photo: Jasmine DUM-TRAGUT.

p. 33:

Page of Gospel Manuscript, CHG 229,98-46v.

p. 35:

Western Elevation of Monastery Gošavank‘ (http://www.armenica.org/cgibin/armenica.cgi?608658410682441=2=ba=3====baz0016===).

p. 36:

Hałpat Gospel, Entry into Jerusalem. M 6288.

p. 38:

Monastery S. Karapet in Muš (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surb_Karapet_ Monastery#/media/File:Surb_Karapet_Monastery_Hampikian_LoC.png).

p. 42:

Armenian Monks, cf. Joseph Pitton de Tournefort, A Voyage into the Levant vol II. Performed by Command of the Late French King. Translated by John Ozell. London 1718. Digitally printed version Cambridge University Press 2014.

p. 44:

Monastery Sanahin (10th – 13th c.), Village Sanahin, Armenia (south elevation), (http://www.armenica.org/cgi-bin/armenica.cgi?706329993278817=2=ba=3== ==baz0011===).

p. 60:

Monastery Narekavank‘ (10th c.), Village Narek (Turkey), destroyed in 1915 (https://hy.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D5%8A%D5%A1%D5%BF%D5%AF%D5% A5%D6%80:Narekavank.jpg).

p. 80:

Holy See of Cilicia, Antelias (Lebanon), photo: Jasmine DUM-TRAGUT.

p. 103: Entrance to Armenian Convent of St. James in Jerusalem, photo: Jasmine DUM-TRAGUT.

218

Illustration Credits

p. 104: Entrance to St. James Cathedral in Jerusalem, photo: Jasmine DUM-TRAGUT. p. 108: Map of Syunik‘ in 17th/18th c. showing the principality of Kapan (http://www.armenica.org/cgi-bin/armenica.cgi?869289086433128=1=3== Armenia==1=3=AAA). p. 109: Monastery of Tat‘ew, photo: Jasmine DUM-TRAGUT. p. 113: The three “Łap‘an“ Monasteries, cf. R. HEWSEN, Armenia. A historical Atlas, Chicago 2002, 159, map modified by Jasmine DUM-TRAGUT. p. 115: Šinuhayr nuns’ hermitage in hiberanation, part of the fortifcation wall, Church of S. Astvacacin, photo: Jasmine DUM-TRAGUT. p. 118: Entrance to S. Astvacacin, Main inscription on tympanon, photo: Jasmine DUM-TRAGUT p. 120: Floorplan Šinuhayr nuns’ hermitage; cf. P. CUNEO, Architettura armena dal quarto al diciannovesimo secolo, vol 1, Roma 1988, p. 415, No. 218. p. 121: Halijor nuns’ hermitage (fortress) today, photo: Jasmine DUM-TRAGUT. p. 123: Floorplan of Halijor nuns’ hermitage (fortress); cf. P. CUNEO, Architettura armena dal quarto al diciannovesimo secolo, vol 1, Roma 1988, p. 422, No. 221. p. 124: Remains of Šor̥ot‘ nuns’ hermitage’s S. Astvacacin (http://www.panoramio. com/photo/73085316 p. 125: Floorplan of S. Astvacacin, Šor̥ot‘ nuns’ hermitage. Cf. P. CUNEO, Architettura armena dal quarto al diciannovesimo secolo, vol 1, Roma 1988, p. 474, No. 271. p. 127: Nuns in the 17th c. in Syunik‘. Cf. ALIŠAN 1893, between p. 258-259. p. 143: Mxit‘ar of Sebaste (* Feb. 7, 1676 in Sebasteia, † Apr. 27, 1749, San Lazzaro) https://www.europeana.eu/portal/de/record/92062/BibliographicResource_100 0126111906.html?utm_source=api&utm_medium=api&utm_campaign=VWR hX8zNo. p. 158: Monastery Sałmosavank‘ (13th c.), Village Sałmosavan, Armenia (west elevation); (http://www.armenica.org/cgi-bin/armenica.cgi?706329993278817 =2=ba=3====baz0007===). p. 176: Nerses Lambronac‘i (1153-1193), Manuscript M1502 (1631), f. 562a. p. 182: San Lazzaro degli Armeni (Stich), Mekhitharist monastery in Venice, (http://www.oslj.org.uk/2011/03/island-of-san-lazzaro-degli-armeni.html). p. 194: Monastery of Holy Apostles, founded by St. Gregory the Illuminator (4 th- 12th c.), village Muš, Turkey. It was completely destroyed in 1915 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_cultural_heritage_in_Turkey#/media/ File:Armenian_monastery_of_s_apostles_in_moush.jpg) instructing a pupil, Gospel M3714 (1419), f. 8b. p. 202: Grigor Xlatec‘i, (http://www.armeniancross.com/CultureArts/ArtHistory/VaspourakanArtists3. html).

orientalia – patristica – oecumenica hrsg. von Prof. Dr. Dietmar W. Winkler (Universität Salzburg) Andreas Schmoller (Ed.) Middle Eastern Christians and Europe Historical Legacies and Present Challenges Middle Eastern Christians have a long tradition of interacting with Europe. As other minorities they have also “emerged” through relations of European powers with the region. The historical circulation of people and ideas is also relevant for identities of Middle Eastern Christians who have settled in Europe in the past decades. This volume, stemming from an interdisciplinary workshop in Salzburg 2016, brings together both perspectives of entanglement. vol. 13, 2018, 266 pp., 34,90 e, pb., ISBN 978-3-643-91023-3

Max Deeg Die Strahlende Lehre Die Stele von Xi’an Die Stele von Xi’an ist zweifellos das historisch aussagekräftigste Monument des frühen Christentums in China. Der Inschriftenstein wird in die Zeit der Tang-Dynastie datiert, einer Blütezeit chinesischer Kultur und imperialer Expansion. Der rechteckige Steinmonolith ist gekrönt von einem Aufsatz, in dem sich der eingravierte Titel der Inschrift findet: Daqin-jingjiao-liuxing-zhongguo-bei, d. h. „Steininschrift über die Verbreitung der Strahlenden Lehre aus Daqin in China“. Der vorliegende Band bietet eine moderne deutsche Übersetzung der sogenannten „Nestorianerstele“ von Xi’an mit ausführlichem historisch-philologischem Kommentar und einer religionsgeschichtlichen Einleitung. Bd. 12, 2018, 304 S., 34,90 e, br., ISBN 978-3-643-50844-7

Rüdiger Feulner Christus Magister Gnoseologisch-didaktische Erlösungsparadigmen in der Kirchengeschichte der Frühzeit und des Mittelalters bis zum Beginn der Reformation mit einem theologiegeschichtlichen Ausblick in die Neuzeit Die Erlösung des Menschen durch Jesus Christus hat im Lauf der Kirchengeschichte unterschiedliche Interpretationen erfahren und verschiedene Paradigmen ausgebildet. Es gibt keine kirchliche Erlösungslehre schlechthin. Das kirchliche Lehramt hat sich auf kein spezifisches soteriologisches Konzept festgelegt. Die Theologie, die Erlösung wesenhaft als geschichtliches Ereignis begreift, vermag allein durch das neutestamentliche Kerygma nicht, die gesamte Tiefe und Pluriformität der Erlösung wiederzugeben. Sie hat dafür die Wirkungsgeschichte der Erlösungsbotschaft in den Blick zu nehmen. Das vorliegende Buch widmet sich der Geschichte der Erlösungslehre und zeigt insbesondere gnoseologisch-didaktische Erlösungsparadigmen in der Kirchengeschichte der Frühzeit und des Mittelalters bis zum Beginn der Reformation auf. Bd. 11, 2016, 418 S., 54,90 e, gb., ISBN 978-3-643-50776-1

Dietmar W. Winkler (Hg.) Syrische Studien Beiträge zum 8. Deutschen Syrologie-Symposium in Salzburg 2014 Unter den orientalischen Literaturen ist die syrische Literatur in ihrem Umfang und in ihrer Vielfalt die bedeutendste. Sie umfasst fast ausschließlich christliches Schrifttum und braucht für die patristische Zeit den Vergleich mit dem lateinischen und dem griechischen antiken Schrifttum nicht zu scheuen. Der vorliegende Band dokumentiert zur Publikation ausgearbeitete Beiträge des 8. Deutschen Syrologie-Symposiums, das vom 14. bis 15. März 2014 in Salzburg stattfand. Es ergibt sich ein vielgestaltiger Einblick in die gegenwärtige deutschsprachige Forschung zum syrischen Christentum. Bd. 10, 2016, 372 S., 39,90 e, br., ISBN 978-3-643-50743-3

LIT Verlag Berlin – Münster – Wien – Zürich – London Auslieferung Deutschland / Österreich / Schweiz: siehe Impressumsseite

Li Tang; Dietmar W. Winkler (eds.) Winds of Jingjiao Studies on Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia vol. 9, 2016, 448 pp., 49,90 e, pb., ISBN 978-3-643-90754-7

Wolfgang Schmidinger (Hg.) Valentin P. Svencickij – Dialoge Apologie des Glaubens und Wege zu einem spirituellen Leben Bd. 8, 2015, 272 S., 34,90 e, br., ISBN 978-3-643-50657-3

Joachim Jakob Ostsyrische Christen und Kurden im Osmanischen Reich des 19. und frühen 20. Jahrhunderts Bd. 7, 2014, 240 S., 34,90 e, br., ISBN 978-3-643-50616-0

Diliana Atanassova; Tinatin Chronz (Hg.) SYNAXIS KATHOLIKE Beiträge zu Gottesdienst und Geschichte der fünf altkirchlichen Patriarchate für Heinzgerd Brakmann zum 70. Geburtstag Bd. 6, 2014, 920 S., 89,90 e, br., ISBN 978-3-643-50552-1

Li Tang; Dietmar W. Winkler (Eds.) From the Oxus River to the Chinese Shores Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia vol. 5, 2013, 480 pp., 44,90 e, br., ISBN 978-3-643-90329-7

Grigorios Larentzakis Die orthodoxe Kirche Ihr Leben und ihr Glauben Bd. 4, 3. Aufl. 2012, 256 S., 24,90 e, br., ISBN 978-3-643-50457-9; 29,90 , gb., ISBN 978-3-643-50516-3

Wolfgang Schmidinger (Hg.) Alexander Men – Gespräche über Glaube und Kirche Bd. 3, 2010, 224 S., 19,90 e, br., ISBN 978-3-643-50244-5

Dietmar W. Winkler (Hg.) Diakonat der Frau Befunde aus biblischer, patristischer, ostkirchlicher, liturgischer und systematischtheologischer Perspektive Bd. 2, 2. Aufl. 2013, 160 S., 19,90 e, br., ISBN 978-3-643-50181-3

Dietmar W. Winkler; Li Tang (Eds.) Hidden Treasures and Intercultural Encounters Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia vol. 1, 2. Aufl. 2014, 400 pp., 39,90 e, pb., ISBN 978-3-643-50045-8

LIT Verlag Berlin – Münster – Wien – Zürich – London Auslieferung Deutschland / Österreich / Schweiz: siehe Impressumsseite

Nachträgliche Korrekturen sind kostenpflichtig)

freigegeben:

OPOe 14

Jasmine Dum-Tragut is Assoc. Professor of Armenian Studies and Director of the Center for the Study of the Christian East (ZECO) at Salzburg University (Austria). Dietmar W. Winkler is Professor of Patristic Studies and Ecclesiastical History and Associate Director of the Center for the Study of the Christian East (ZECO) at Salzburg University (Austria).

LIT

www.lit-verlag.ch

9*ukdzfe#.y-n -*

Monastic Life in the Armenian Church

978-3-643-91066-0

Jasmine Dum-Tragut, Dietmar W. Winkler (eds.)

Monasticism is a vital feature of Christian spiritual life and has its origins in the Oriens Christianus. The present volume contains studies on Armenian Monasticism from various perspectives. The task is not only to produce historical studies. The aim is also to contribute to and reflect on monasticism today. Authors come from the ¯ Armenian Apostolic Catholicosate of Ejmiacin, the Holy See of Cilicia, the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, and the ArmenianCatholic Church as well as from the Benedictine and Franciscan Orders of the Catholic Church. The experts reflected on the glorious past of Armenian monasticism and agreed to evaluate future challenges ecumenically to give more insight into both past and present Armenian monasticism.

Jasmine Dum-Tragut, Dietmar W. Winkler (eds.)

Monastic Life in the Armenian Church Glorious Past – Ecumenical Reconsideration

orientalia – patristica – oecumenica vol. 14

LIT LIT