|
|
:: Armenian Program |
| Program | History | Faculty | Courses | Events |
 
|
ARMENIAN CONSTANTINOPLE RICHARD G.
HOVANNISIAN ARMENIAN CONSTANTINOPLE
ABSTRACTS UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES ARMENIAN CONSTANTINOPLE - AN INTRODUCTION Richard G. Hovannisian, AEF Chair in Modern Armenian History, UCLA The
history and culture of Armenian Constantinople are so rich and varied that a
two-day conference, however full and interdisciplinary, can only touch on
highlights and point to the wealth of material on the Armenian presence in and
contributions to the imperial city. The
Armenian connection with Constantinople dates back to the earliest period
after the proclamation of Christianity as the official religion of the
Armenian kingdom. Both scholars and religious leaders attending ecumenical
councils made their way to the city of Constantine, Kostandnupolis,
often referred to simply as “Polis” or “Bolis”—the City. The
collective Armenian role in Constantinople escalated in the seventh and eighth
centuries as hundreds of Armenian nobles were forced to seek haven in the
Byzantine Empire
during the Arab occupation of Armenia and in the wake of the frequent Armenian
rebellions led by noble nakharar
families such as the Mamikonian. In
Byzantium the Armenian nobles became an important element within the dominant
elites and figured in numerous military and political events. Some rose to the
rank of emperor, and there were those who attained prominence within the
established Orthodox Church. They were kings and princes, rebels and usurpers,
intellectuals and diplomats—all operating within the Byzantine context. The
importance of the Armenian element has now been clearly demonstrated in
studies by noted scholars such as Peter Charanis, Sirarpie Der Nersessian,
and Aleksandr Kazhdan. Under
Ottoman rule, the Armenian community of Constantinople/Istanbul grew rapidly
and came to include all strata of society. Armenians of the empire were placed
under the religious-civil jurisdiction of the Armenian Patriarch of
Constantinople, as the Ermeni millet, a
convenient and practical system of control for the Ottoman rulers but also a
means of self-perpetuation of the Armenians, even as second-class citizens. Constantinople
was unquestionably the most important Armenian center of the Ottoman Empire,
just as Tiflis was the largest and most active Armenian center of the Russian
Empire, in both cases cities beyond the historic bounds of Armenia yet where
the Armenians
did not regard themselves as living in Diaspora. The cultural history of Armenian Constantinople is so rich
that separate courses can be given on Armenian literature, theater and drama,
art and architecture, music, schools and education, church and religion, and
other aspects of this, the strongest Armenian community of the empire. The
hopes and emotions, aspirations and disappointments, failed reform programs
and nascent
resistance movements of the nineteenth century gave way to new hopes and
emotions evoked by the Young Turk revolution. Yet ironically it was the Young
Turks who were to spell the end of the Ottoman Armenians, leaving the isolated
community of Istanbul in very different and difficult circumstances of trying
to maintain an identity and a continuing presence in this great crossroads
city—Constantinople—Bolis.
Constantinople and Early Armenian Literature Robert
Thomson, Gulbenkian Chair in Armenian, Oriental
Institute, Oxford University Ever
since Constantine the Great established his new capital at Byzantium in 330,
calling it Constantinople after himself, Armenians were frequent visitors.
Over many centuries an Armenian community gradually developed, that
process greatly accelerating after the fall of the city to Mehmed Fatih in
1453. In my presentation I shall
speak only of the earliest period, concentrating on the importance of the
Armenian link with Constantinople in the development of early Armenian
literature.
After
reviewing Armenian descriptions of the "New Rome," I shall discuss
the evidence for Armenian visitors. They
went to Constantinople for various reasons, but in this paper I shall
concentrate on those visits, which were productive for the future of Armenian
scholarship, beginning in the fifth century. What Greek texts were brought back to Armenia?
Where were they translated? What
influence did they have back home? In
the sixth and seventh centuries there were numerous formal exchanges between
imperial authorities in Constantinople and Armenia.
What impact did these have on the shaping of Armenian literary
traditions? Related questions deal with the routes by which Armenian
visitors traveled, and the possible evidence for Armenians residing in
Constantinople at this early period.
The
survey ends in the early 700s with the work of Stepannos, later bishop of
Siunik. There is valuable
evidence in colophons and seals for his collaboration with local officials.
No less interesting is the later development of legends concerning the
activities of some of these early travelers. Armenian
Officers in Constantinople from the 7th through 9th
Centuries: The Imperial Temptation Mikael
Nichanian, UniversitJ de Paris-IV The seventh and eighth centuries inaugurate the massive appearance of Armenian officers in the political arena of Constantinople. Until the sixth century, Armenians are present in Constantinople as a small and negligible minority, symbolized by Narses the cubicularios and famous general of Justinian I. From the seventh century on, they start to represent a significant military force and form a political network. From that time, all Byzantine emperors in Constantinople have to count on this force, which at times even threatens the foundations of the imperial power. The first cases of rebellion against the emperor in Constantinople by Armenian officers and the first cases of military unrest leading to the seizure of the imperial throne in the history of Byzantium appear in this seventh century. For the seventh century the most famous instances are the rebellions of Narses against Phocas in 603, of Vahan against Heraclius in 636, of Valentinus Arshakuni in 642 against Heraklonas, son of the emperor Heraklius, of Mezez Gnuni against Constant II in 668. For the eighth century, we observe the first successful seizure of imperial power in Constantinople by an Armenian officer, Philippikos-Vardan in 711 and the two-year long rebellion of Artavasdos curopalate, who held Constantinople against the emperor Constantine V from 741 to 743. In the ninth century, the monostrategos Vardan, called “Tourkos,” tried a coup d’Jtat in 803 against the emperor Nicephorus and in 808 Arshavir the questor also tried against the same emperor. Finally, the son-in-law of Arshavir became emperor in 813 and was known as Leo V; the most famous case of a Byzantine emperor with an Armenian background is of course that of Basil the Macedonian who founded the so-called Macedonian dynasty in 867. These rebellions are not the acts of Armenians from a provincial district of the empire struggling for an autonomous Armenia, but the initiatives of Byzantine officers present at the heart of the empire in Constantinople, who constituted a part of the empire and its Constantinopolitan aristocracy and who felt a legitimacy in their aspiration to the throne. Through these centuries, the common feature of these officers is their large Armenian and aristocratic network and their military background linked to a reputation of victory. They offer a special case of social openness to foreigners in an empire, traditionally rather open to foreign soldiers, but especially open in this particular historical moment of military decline due to Arab invasions and conquests of the seventh to eighth century. In the context of military weakness of the empire and of lack of legitimacy of the emperors, unable to face the Arab challenge, the succession to the throne is very rapid and the Armenian officers apparently more able than others to take advantage of the situation. The examples we gave at the beginning to show the strong presence of Armenian officers at the top of the imperial power in Constantinople are only the most prominent ones. Reading the sources, one quickly realizes the depth of this Armenian network at the top of the Byzantine aristocracy of Constantinople. In our study, we will try to show that this presence has not only a political expression but also a very significant social one with numerous mixed marriages within the circles of the high aristocracy of Constantinople. It manifests itself by the rank that these Armenian families held at the imperial court in Constantinople. One hypothesis we will try to develop in this paper is that the cause of this comparative competitiveness of Armenian officers of the Byzantine army is their military expertise against Arab armies and their network in the high aristocracy of Constantinople. Thus, we will try to study the social and political openness of the Byzantine Empire toward the Armenians during a moment of military weakness, as a key to the empire's capacity to survive the extraordinary threat represented by the Arab invasions and sieges of Constantinople in 674 and 716. Ninth Century: Emperor Basil and Patriarch
Photius Erna
Manya Shirinyan, Mashtots Matenadaran, Erevan In
September of 867 Michael III was murdered and Basil I (the Macedonian, 867-886)
seized his place as emperor. At that time the Patriarch of Constantinople was
Photius (circa 815-897)—the man of universal knowledge. As the other friends
of Michael Photius became persona non
grata and was ejected from the patriarch's palace, and Ignatius restored.
Moreover the Eighth General Council (Fourth of Constantinople) confirmed his
deposition, and excommunicated him. The bishops of his party received light
penance, but Photius was exiled to a monastery in Armenia. During
the seven years spent here he tried everything to regain his power
(reorganizing his party, writing letters to his friends, etc.). The situation
improved thanks to the forgery that was composed by Photius who convinced
Emperor Basilius with his "Genealogy" that both of them belonged to
the same Armenian royal family. The document also included a prophecy
foretelling Basil's greatness. This forged work was made to look
old.
Moreover, it was written in Armenian. Basil was flattered and pleased. In 876,
he recalled Photius and appointed him tutor to his son Constantine. Photius
became again very popular and in 877,when Ignatius died his party demanded
that Photius should succeed him. The emperor was now on the side of Photius.
An embassy was sent to Rome and Pope John VIII (872-882) acknowledged him as
patriarch.
That
is how Photius of Constantinople, one of the most famous scholars of all the
Middle Ages, thanks to his Armenian origin and fictitious, forged writing
about it returned his patriarchal see. Patterns of Contact and Communication: Constantinople and Armenia, 860-976 Tim
Greenwood, Oxford University The
century after 860 witnessed the expansion of the Byzantine Empire eastwards,
as it sought to first neutralize and then capture the Arab strongholds located
on and behind the frontier in Cilicia, Cappadocia, and western Armenia. At the
same time, the Byzantine Empire came into contact once more with Armenian
princes and the Armenian Church. From
the outset, it is clear that there was one guiding principle behind imperial
policy: under no circumstances were Byzantine forces ever to engage Armenian
princes in battle. Instead the empire relied upon a network of diplomatic
contacts, with both the preeminent and the lesser Armenian princes. The
surviving Armenian and Greek sources shed much light upon the development and
expansion of this web of clients, and the various responses from the princes
themselves. A progression, from occasional to regular
communication can be detected. High-ranking imperial honors may be distributed
by imperial envoys but increasingly seem to require attendance upon the
emperor in person in Constantinople, with useful opportunities for involvement
in imperial ceremonies in the Great Palace. These honors were not limited to
the leading prince of a particular
district but were also distributed to his heirs and other, potentially rival,
family members. From
the 920s, a new aspect of the relationship emerges, in which the emperor is
invited to prefer one prince over an immediate rival, in order to safeguard
that individual's territories
and/or to protect transmission of the same to his heirs. Occasionally the
prince sought to secure his future by offering his interests in Armenia in
exchange for properties within the Byzantine Empire. A disputed succession
afforded the emperor an ideal pretext for direct intervention. Admittedly in
923, Romanus Lecapenus' attempt to gain control
of the city of Ardanoudj failed and highlighted that diplomacy alone did have
its limitations. Nevertheless, this close interest in the various Bagratuni
branches prefigures the absorption of several Armenian principalities within
the Byzantine Empire later in the tenth century and ultimately the kingdom of
Ani. The
Byzantine military campaigns on the eastern frontier supply a suitable context
for the variations in the pattern of contact between Armenia and
Constantinople. The relationship between the Greek and Armenian churches
provide a second critical context. The intermittent ecclesiastical
correspondence between the Greek patriarch and the Armenian Catholicos after
860 reveals how that relationship developed, from the initial contact at the
accession of the patriarch Photius, through the letters of patriarch Nicholas
Mystikos down to the theological concerns of Anania Mokatsi in the mid 950s.
Together with the canons of the council of Shirakavan, these texts define this
second intersection between Constantinople and Armenia. The Theodicy of Arakel Baghishetsi: Elegy on the Capital City of Stamboul
Leonardo
Alishan, Salt Lake City
Arakel
Baghishetsi's Elegy On the Capital City
of Stamboul(1453) is the last major lamentation on the fall of a sacred
city in Armenian literature, a genre distinguished by Catholicos Nerses
Shnorhali’s Elegy On the Fall of
Edessa in the twelfth century. “Weak in inventiveness” and crude in
diction as Arakel’s poem sometimes is, it has only been utilized by
historians as another “source” for the fall of Byzantium. Whereas this
approach may help us to get a few more details on why and how
Constantinople fell, it inevitability leaves a number of far more significant
questions unaddressed. The
present paper is concerned not with the ‘how’ and ‘why’ but rather
with what the fall of
Constantinople meant to Arakel and his Armenian contemporaries. Consequently,
among many other questions, it must be asked: why did Arakel write such
an elaborate elegy on Constantinople when he lived in Bitlis? Why did he write
it on a Greek city when the Byzantine opinions of the Armenians had
consistently been far more derogatory than complimentary? And why did he
compose this long elegy worthy of a major catastrophe at a time when “the
once proud capital was ruling little more territory than could be seen from
its own walls”? Through
a study of the poem’s archetypal weltanschauung
which, as Mircea Eliade has observed, is “not a matter of theoretical
speculation, but of a primary religious experience that precedes al
reflections on the world,” the present essay attempts to address these and
other culturally significant issues. Constantinople’s transformations from
and invincible civitas dei to
a vanquished civitas terrena
and finally to a fallen civitas dis,
as well as the significance of the cross as its axis
mundi, along with a number of other religious symbolisms, inevitably
lead us to the conclusion that Arakel’s elegy is not so much on the fall of
Constantinople as it is on the collapse of theophanic cosmogony. Thus it is
qualitatively as different as can be, say, from the elegiac poems composed by
the surviving Armenian poets of the genocide on their hometown, namely, the
geographical identical and philosophically antithetical city of
Constantinople! Arakel’s poem is not merely on a personal tragedy but, more
important, on a temporal, that is, “temporary,”
Christian calamity. Yet,
as will be seen, Arakel was the abbot of a monastery himself and could not
allow the linear progression of time, “history,” to stop at this tragic
point. After all, if time had been generated with the fall of Adam, it had
also been graced with the coming of the Son of God (“the Second Adam”)
among men and by so doing, creating a center, an in illo
tempore, which “valorized” time (the “zero” in Christianity
that precedes 1 A.D. and follows 1 B.C.). Basing his faith in the same
prophetic tradition, Arakel believed that linear history would ultimately come
to an end, as promised, in a just and final judgment. Consequently, even this
Christian catastrophe had to make “Christian sense.” So it comes as no
surprise that Arakel transformed the fall of Constantinople to the larger
context of a Divine Comedy. By
deploying this essentially religious weltanschauung
and the application of celestial archetypes, Arakel arrived at an
“understanding,” a “digestion” of history. His elegy went beyond mere
versification and became a (humble) Millesque theodicy which attempted to
explain “God’s ways to man.” The
present paper argues that the best way to understand what history was to
Armenians such as Arakel is to avoid what Jacob Burckhardt criticized as
“judgment by egoism” and to apply the same sacred archetypes, which Arakel
had applied to history, to Arakel’s poem itself. Whereas the events leading
to the fall of Constantinople fail to explain how the Armenians managed to
transcend this and centuries of other temporal catastrophes, a deeper
comprehension of Arakel’s poem and many other neglected poems like his,
helps us to better understand how our forefathers preserved their
sanity while surviving the dark days and made it possible for us to be what we
are, today. The Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople:
Its Rise and Role Kevork
Bardakjian, Marie Manoogian Chair in Armenian, University
of Michigan-Ann Arbor
The
administrative-religious position Mehmed II created for the Armenians in
1461 may have been called a "Patriarchate" but in fact it was
initially a vicariate with limited local jurisdiction.
It in due course evolved into a universal Patriarchate for the
Armenians of the empire due to a number of factors this paper will explore.
The
position was sanctioned by the most powerful ruler in the region at the new
center of his realm, a city with a glorious past, tradition and prestige.
Located here was the central bureaucracy that governed a vast
multi-ethnic and multi-religious empire.
Imperial sanction and immediate proximity to the source of ultimate
power in the empire endowed the Patriarchate with special and formal
privileges. But Mehmed II did not
create a system with an elaborate mechanism; he merely appointed a head for a
non-Muslim religious community. The
Armenian Patirarchate's position and relationship to the Ottoman authorities
was inspired by, and was remotely akin to, that of the Greek Patriarchate.
But the latter was an old, universal institution, with a venerable
multi-ethnic tradition. By
contrast, the Armenian position was created for a single religious community,
the Armenians; and its mechanism of government, like its jurisdiction, was to
evolve over a long period of time.
Initially,
the Armenian Patriarchate must have had a simple mechanism for running the
affairs of its flock in the City and its immediate vicinity.
As the empire annexed new territories, the jurisdiction of the
Patriarchate expanded to cover the Armenian communities in these regions.
But such extension of jurisdiction was neither automatic nor
immediate and nor voluntary. For
all these communities were under the administration of the Mother See of
Echmiadzin or, locally, under the Catholicosates of Aghtamar and Sis, and the
Patriarchate of Jerusalem. Another factor was the intermediary role it played
in response to appeals for assistance in inter-communal affairs (e.g. the
perennial conflicts over the Holy Places).
The activities of Latinizing missions and Armenian Catholics
constituted a grave threat to the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate, to the
dogma of the Church of Armenia, and to Armenian identity.
In all similar situations, the Patriarchate acted and reacted as a
central authority. This burden
fell upon the Patriarchate as older hierarchies (Aghtamar, Sis and Jerusalem)
had always had local jurisdiction and were removed from the center of power.
Similarly, the Mother See, nearly always in enemy territory (Persian or
Russian), played a secondary role. By
mid-eighteenth century, the Patriarchate had consolidated its power as the
overall Patriarchate for the Armenians of the empire.
A mechanism, no matter how faulty, was in place.
The Patriarchate ran the community in an unofficial partnership (forged
early on in its history) with
a circle of self-made men (known as khojas,
chelebis, amiras, etc.).
Parallel
to the administrative evolution of the Patriarchate, Constantinople also
emerged as the cultural center of the Armenians of the empire, especially from
about the 18th century on. Printing
presses, literary activities (including polemical literature), schools,
periodicals, societies, the emergence of modern Western Armenian, etc.
propelled the Armenian
community of cosmopolitan Constantinople into a position of cultural
leadership. The
"millet" system was institutionalized in the second half of the 19th
century. The Patriarchate faced
and responded to new, fateful challenges and political aspirations.
Hitherto a "religious" community, the Armenians now aspired
to nationhood. Yet, even though
the "Constitution" created a national administration, the Patriarch
in effect remained
the sole representative of the community before the Porte.
This mechanism enabled the patriarchs to make requests for reforms,
which led to the rise of the Armenian Question.
The Armenian political parties chose an alternative route and many of
their members held positions within the Armenian administration.
Under the Young Turk regime, the Armenian political parties, especially
the ARF, as unofficial and unwilling partners of the Patriarchate, played a
vital role in the destiny of the Armenian population
of the empire. After the
Genocide, although it retained its official title, the Armenian Patriarchate
of Constantinople was in effect reduced to a see. The
Revelations of a Colophon in a 1623 Constantinople Bible Ina
Baghdiantz McCabe, Darakjian/Jafarian Chair in Armenian History, Tufts
University
A
1623 Armenian Bible was shown as part of an exhibition of the Gulbenkian
Collection *Only the Best* at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York in
the winter of 1999. It was
of great interest, not only for its exquisite illustrations and craftsmanship,
but also because it was commissioned by Khwâja Nazar head of the Armenians of
New Julfa. The Bible
was copied in a Constantinople workshop, not in the suburb of Isfahan
where Khwâja Nazar resided. New Julfa was then a new settlement with no
official scriptoria. Constantinople
had a great influence on New Julfa. Bibles
were commissioned from the well-known scriptoria in Constantinople, and then
exported to New Julfa, where they served as models in the local scriptoria.
At the end of the bible are three colophons, the last one written in
Tiflis in 1796. In the first and longest colophon lies the Armenian version of
the title held by the head of New Julfa.
This title of "prince
of princes" along with evidence from Safavid edicts brings new light on
the surprisingly elevated status of the head of the New Julfans. The
text of the colophon seems to confirm that although the Bible was finished in
Constantinople in 1623 (year 1072 of the Armenian era), it was probably taken
to New Julfa a few years later, in 1629. Was it in New Julfa that this first
colophon was written? Who
bestowed this title on Nazar? The
colophon spans nearly four pages, it was written to describe the circumstances
of the Julfan exile. Was the colophon written in New Julfa or in
Constantinople? It clearly states that the manuscript was copied by the scribe
Hagob for the "prince of princes" Khwâja Nazar and his sons
Sarfrabek, Eliaz, and Haykaz. Through this Bible and several other sources an
attempt is made to analyze the socio-economic and cultural ties between two
wealthy merchant communities, the Armenians of Constantinople and the New
Julfans in Iran. The two communities are usually looked at separately but the
paper argues for the necessity to explore the many ties between the two
groups, and attempts to demonstrate the fluidity of the boundaries between
them. Lucy
Der Manuelian, Dadian/Oztemel Chair in Armenian Art and Architecture, Tufts
University This
paper, illustrated with slides, will focus on the Armenian imperial architects
who built the most famous monuments of the Ottoman Empire, and the Armenian
goldsmiths, rug weavers, painters, and Iznik and Kutahia pottery masters who
created other treasures of the empire. Istanbul, capital city of the Ottomans,
reflects the wealth and power of the Ottoman Empire, through its
architecture—its splendid palaces, multi-domed mosques,
minarets, medreses, pavilions, administrative buildings, tombs,
and bridges. Their
luxurious adornments, of imperial quality, are often brilliantly colored
tiles, priceless Hereke and Kum Kapu carpets, Iznik and Kutahia ceramics, and
gold and silver objects. But
what is startling is that the most splendid architectural monuments--those
that define the power and might of the Ottoman Empire--were built by Armenian
architects. These Armenians,
appointed as imperial architects and Chief Court Architects by the Ottoman
sultans built those considered the most famous monuments of the empire.
They include mosques and mosque complexes such as the Suleymaniye,
considered by many as the supreme architectural monument of the Ottoman
period, the Sehzade Mehmed Mosque, Mihrimah Mosque, Rustem Pasha Mosque and
Selimiye Mosque in Edirne, all built in the 16th century by the architect
Sinan. He was appointed the chief
imperial architect by Suleyman the
Magnificent and his two immediate successors, Selim II (1566-1574) and Murad
III (1574-1595). Although Sinan
is usually identified by authors as "an Ottoman architect" or as
"a Christian forced by the Ottomans to serve in the Janissary
corps," or sometimes as a Greek or "probably a Greek," he can
be identified as an Armenian through a document in the imperial archives and
other evidence. He is considered
the greatest architect in Ottoman history, and sometimes referred to as the
greatest architect who ever lived because of the huge number of structures he
designed and built. From
the late l8th to the late l9th c., nine
imperial architects of Armenian descent designed and constructed other major
works, which, like Sinan¹s, are among the most famous Ottoman structures..
They include the most famous palaces, Dolmabahche (considered one of
the finest l9th century palaces in the world), Beshiktash, and the three
versions of Chiragan palace, and also mosques, palaces, pavilions, domes,
minarets, tombs, ministry buildings, barracks, hospitals and other structures.
These architects of four generations of the Balian family served six
Ottoman sultans for this about
l00 years. Their lives and work
have been documented by Dr. Pars Tulaci in his monumental book about the family. Like
Sinan, these imperial architects built prolifically in Istanbul and its
environs, marking the landscape with landmark buildings. Most are still in
use, and many are registered by the Turkish government as historical
monuments. This paper will also touch on Armenians who invented and/or created
and played a pre-eminent or leadership role in the luxury crafts of the empire
mentioned above. These include their role in the design and production of
Iznik pottery, their establishment of the Kutahia tile factory, an Armenian
family¹s invention of the famed Kum Kapu rugs, and gold and silver work. Cyrus Hamlin and American Missionary Education in Constantinople Barbara
Merguerian, Armenian
International Women’s Association In
1837, the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions in Boston
appointed Cyrus Hamlin to head a high school in Constantinople. Over the
following several decades, Hamlin became a major figure in the American missionary
process of building in the Ottoman capital a Western-style higher educational
system, one which attracted mainly Armenian students. Representing
an unusual combination of idealism and pragmatism, Hamlin emphasized
a utilitarian education which was highly innovative for his times. He
encountered opposition on several fronts -- from the conservative elements in
the Armenian clergy, from the shortsightedness of Turkish officials, and from
disagreements with fellow missionaries. He was a strong advocate of the development
of Western Armenian as a literary language at a time when such a view
was widely ridiculed by many, and he firmly supported quality higher education
for Armenian students at a time when his missionary superiors mandated
a different policy. His abilities as an educator and as an achiever earned
him a solid reputation as the founder of Bebek Seminary and of Robert College,
both in Constantinople. Cyrus
Hamlin was one of the most respected missionaries among the Armenians. A description
and analysis of his career in Constantinople illuminates the diverse
cultural elements at play in Constantinople at the time and also offers
interesting perspectives on the Armenian community during the momentous
middle decades of the nineteenth century.
The Nineteenth Century Armenian Community of
Constantinople Ohannes
Kilicdai, Bosporus
University, Istanbul The
Ottoman Empire was a multiethnic society. One of the main components of this
society was the Armenian community. Although Armenians were dispersed to every
corner of the empire, Istanbul, as the capital, was an important center for
them as for other communities. The social and cultural life of the Armenians
in Istanbul is a complicated issue. In this paper I will explore some factors
for understanding the life of the Armenian community from the late nineteenth
to early twentieth century Social
and political organization of the Armenians had some pillars, two of which
were the neighborhoods (tagh) and
societies (clubs). Neighborhood committees were contributing to the
maintenance of society through caring for schools and churches, governing
incomes, and settling disputes. Societies, on the other hand, mostly busied
themselves with philanthropic works and some social services. It should be
mentioned that there was a power relation between neighborhoods which might
have led to conflicts from time to time. Two
other important issues that occupied the Armenians of the capital city were
education of women and the situation of the provincial Armenians. The
education of women presents a relatively good picture. Families were
encouraged to send their daughters to school. In many neighborhoods there was
a separate school for girls. It seems that those Armenians gave importance to
the education for all children. The
problems of the provincial Armenians were matters of deep concern. Some of the
major issues were a) conversion of to Catholicism, b) poverty, c) assaults on
Armenian villages by Kurds, d) corruption of state officials who exploited
Armenians peasants. Although the Armenian bodies in Istanbul tried to solve
these problems, they could not achieve much.
These
are the points raised in this paper, but they are very far from being complete
and final. These are the impressions that should be clarified through further
research. Three Literary Views of Armenian
Constantinople and Its Inhabitants Victoria
Rowe, University of Toronto The
Zartonk or Renaissance of the
Western Armenians began in Smyrna but reached its
zenith in the city of Constantinople. The
vibrant Armenian literary life of Constantinople
produced great poets, dramatists and prose writers who, if not born in
Constantinople, often lived and published literary journals there. These
writers included such figures as Daniel Varuzhan, Hagop Baronian and Krikor
Zohrab. It was in the
Constantinople literary milieu that a circle of Armenian women writers began
to publish poetry, short stories, novels and plays in the Armenian journals
and publishing houses of the Zartonk
period. Largely forgotten today
(with the possible exception of Zabel Yesayan), at the time these women
writers attracted both the criticism and praise of the Armenian literary
elite. Some, like Srbouhi Dussap
(1841-1901), were criticized for radical ideas and excessive use of
romanticism, while others like Zabel Yesayan (1878-1942/3), were praised as
talented and intelligent. While
the Armenian women writers of the capital display varying degrees of talent,
employ different writing styles and follow either the romantic or realist
literary schools dominant in the Constantinople literary scene, they share
with each other an urban sensibility and a concern with the problems facing
the Armenian women and men of Constantinople.
The literary world of their poetry, novels and plays is Constantinople.
In
the course of this paper I will examine selected literary texts by three significant
women writers,(significant meaning those who gained popularity among
the Constantinople literary establishment and/or influenced subsequent writers),
which explore the lives of the Constantinople Armenians of various social
classes and treat specific issues confronting the Armenians of Constantinople.
These authors, texts and issues include: Srbouhi Dussap’s novel Siranush
(1884), which examines the conflict between the amiras and the newly emerging
intellectual class from the perspective of the amira’s daughter; Zabel
Yesayan’s novel Erb Aylevs Chen Sirer [When They Are No Longer In Love] (1914) which
portrays the hopelessness and exploitation of the Armenian working-class in
Constantinople and finally Sibyl’s play Harse
[The Bride] (1918) which addresses the issue of snobbery and treachery among
the middle classes of Constantinople. Each
of these selected literary texts reveals an aspect
of the Constantinople social reality. A
chronological and thematic examination of these writings enable us to see the
directions in which Armenian women’s writing evolved and what sort of issues
were considered crucial in the Constantinople literary scene.
The Armenian Dialect of Istanbul Bert
Vaux, Harvard University The
Bolis dialect can be difficult to pigeonhole, because of the massive and
continuous influx of Anatolian (and recently, Soviet) Armenians into the city
over the past several hundred years. The linguistic fluidity engendered by
this stream of change has been compounded by the significant alterations in
the surrounding languages that once exercised influence on the dialect: Greek
is for the most part no longer spoken in Istanbul, and Turkish after the
period of Mustafa Kemal has severed and expunged its linguistic connections to
Arabic and Persian. In
spite of its mutability, many Armenians cherish two beliefs concerning Bolis
dialect: that it has a particular linguistic structure superior to what we
find in rural Armenian dialects; and that it is the source of Standard Western
Armenian. In this talk I demonstrate via careful examination of the linguistic
features of the Bolis dialect that both
of these beliefs are incorrect. I show moreover that there are actually two
Bolis dialects, one characteristic of older generations and one spoken by the
last few generations of Bolsetsis. The former variety is the one described in
1941 by Hrachia Adjarian, himself a speaker of this older dialect, and
features a significantly different consonant system than what Armenians today
identify with Bolis; ban 'thing' for
example is pronounced [ban], in
contrast to Standard Western [pan],
and similarly dzan 'voice' rather
than Standard Western tsayn, etc.
The latter form of the dialect is spoken by all but the oldest Bolsetsis one
encounters today and shares for the most part the pronunciation features of
the standard language, with occasional exceptions such as dandzi klox 'idiot' (vs. Std. dantsi
klox), ask 'nation' (vs. Std.
azk). Both varieties of Bolis dialect differ significantly from Standard
Western Armenian in other respects as well; compare in the lexical domain hepchu
unel 'to sneeze' (vs. SWA prnkdal),
payringun 'good evening' (SWA pari
irigun), oyrort 'lady' (SWA oriort),
chukali ~ adjoz 'chamberpot', mufufdji ~
muxufdji 'gossip(er)', tonton
~ chonchon 'little boy's genitals', etc. In the morphological domain we
find differences such as Bolis chem i
kar 'I'm not coming' vs. SWA chem
kar; this particular feature is also found in some early grammars of
Western Armenian produced in Istanbul (cf. Kazandjian 1924). The
picture that emerges from comparison of the Bolis dialect with Standard
Western Armenian is that the latter clearly is not based on the former. In the
final section of this talk I consider why the Bolis dialect would not have
been the source for the literary language, and identify other dialects that
were involved in its formation. Armenian Painters of Constantinople at the
Turn of the Late Nineteenth Century and Early Twentieth Century Levon
Chookaszian, UNESCO Chair of Armenian Art History, Erevan
State University The
history of Armenian painting of the 19th century is impossible to
imagine without the painters who were active in Constantinople at that time.
Among the first to be mentioned must be the four representatives of the
Manasse family, Rouben, Sebouh, Gaspar, and
Alexandre, who were mainly working for the imperial court. Oumed
Hovhannes Beyzad (1809-1874), his student Abraham Sakayan (1821-1876), Bedros
Srabian (1833-1898), Krikor Guetcheoghlou (1875-), Sarkis Diranian
(1854-1918), Mgrdich Jivanian (1848-1906), Haroutioune Jivanian, Simon
Hagopian (1857-1921), and
others are those Armenian painters of the 19th century whose legacy is still
waiting its accurate explorer. Their biography and heritage is not very well
known, but even today the works of some of them in auctions of Constantinople
are periodically sold. The
native of Constantinople, Zakare Zakarian (1849-1923), after leaving Turkey in
1867 and settling in Paris, received recognition
among French painters and art critics. He was a friend of Edgar Degas and was
portrayed by him. In 1883 by the efforts of the famous Armenian sculptor
Ervand Vosgan (1855-1914) the State Fine Arts School was founded in
Constantinople. The idea of the establishment of this school was greatly
supported by Osman Hamdy Bey (1840-1910), the director of the Museum of
Ottoman Antiquities of Constantinople. For thirty years Ervand Vosgan served
as the inner director, and in the mean time the teacher of sculpture of Fine
Arts School. The other teachers were foreigners, mainly Italians, like
Salvator Valeri the most famous among them. The students of the school were
non-Turks, the majority being Armenian teenagers. The
majority of the most remarkable Armenian painters of the 19th-20th
centuries are either graduates of this school or studied there for some years.
Among the Armenian graduates of the first period of existence of the Fine Arts
School, the best known are painters Arshag Fetvajian (1864-1947) and Tigran
Yessayan (1874-1921). Notable was Arshag Fetvajian, who later became very
famous not only as a national painter, but also as an art historian and
educator. Of this generation of Armenian students of the Fine Arts School the
names of Vitchene Arslanian (1868-1942), Stepan Agayan (1870-1937),and Dork
Zakarian (1870-1940),sculptor Hagop Arabian (1867-), Ervand Demirjian
(1870-1938), Sarkis Erganian (1870-1946) have also come down to us. The
second generation of graduates of the Fine Arts School is represented by
painters Levon Serovbe Kurkjian (1872-1924), Galust (Charl Chilingarian)
(1872-1936), and Hovsep Pushman (1877-1966), Aram Bakalian (1878-1959),
miniaturist Stepan Akayan (1870-1937). Levon Serovbe Kurkjian became one of
the first Armenian painters whose works were exhibited in the Salons of French
Painters in Paris, and Hovsep Pushman gained great success in French and
American society. Also among the Armenian students of this school was Toros
Toramanian (1864-1934), a graduate of the department of architecture.
Toramanian later became the founder of exploration of Armenian medieval
architecture. At
the end of the 19th and at the beginning of 20th century, other
Armenian students attended the Fine Arts School, such as painter and art
critic Hrand Alianak (1880-1938), painters Vahram Manavian (1883-1952), Baruir
Bardizbanian (1887-1932), Harutiune Tiritian (Tirit) (1884-1953), Zareh
Galfayan (1887-1939), Levon Gazazian (1890-), architect Bazil Bogosian
(1893-), painters Avedis Muradian (1895-), Ervand Gasparian (1899-1931),
Gevorg Gapamajian (-1906), and sculptor Ara Sargsian (1902-1969). After the
Armenian Genocide of 1915 and World War I many of the students of the Fine
Arts School were obliged to leave Constantinople and settled in France, Egypt,
and the USA. The
Balian Family and the Architecture of Constantinople Sarkis
Balmanoukian, Los Angeles
Throughout
their long history, the Armenian people have created a magnificent
civilization in their ancestral homeland.
In their mastery of different trades, Armenians excelled in
architecture, building cities, fortresses, palaces, monasteries, churches, and
residential buildings. They developed their unique architectural style and had
a golden age during the 7th century A.D.
Unfortunately, only a portion of that civilization remains today, among
which exist magnificent churches and monuments that are masterpieces of world
architecture. We know only a few
names of prominent architects such as Manvel (10th century) from
Vaspurakan, Trdat (10-11th century) of Ani, and Momik (13-14th
century) from Siunik. After
losing their statehood during the middle ages, Armenian architects dispersed
to various countries. To this
day, we can trace their works and recognize their influence on religious
buildings and military fortifications in many countries.
Armenian
architects contributed to the architectural development of various peoples who
conquered their homeland, including Arabs, Seljuks, and Ottoman Turks.
However, the people who benefited the most from the experience of the
Armenian Architects were the Ottoman Turks.
In fact, the greatest architect of the Ottoman Empire as well as the
Islamic world was Sinan (16th century), an Armenian convert from
Caesaria. Armenian
architects worked in the Ottoman capital, Constantinople, many of whom often
held the title of "Royal Architect."
Among these were the nine members of the Balian family of architects.
Four generations of Balians worked for six different sultans from the
late 18th to 19th centuries, an unparalleled event in
the history of architecture. For over a century, the Balian family built magnificent
palaces, kasirs, pavilions,
mansions, mosques, military barracks, and other types of civil and military
buildings, significantly altering the face of Constantinople. The
first of the Balian architects was Bali Kalfa (?-1800), who, like his
predecessor Sinan, came from Caesaria. Starting
his career in Constantinople, Bali Kalfa quickly attracted the attention of
the sultan and was appointed to the position of Royal Architect. Two of his sons, Krikor (1764-1831) and Senekerim (?-1833),
also held the respected position. Krikor
was the first to go by the surname "Balian." In 1856, Krikor's son, Garabed (1800-1866), one of the more
outstanding members of the family, designed the most prominent palace in
Constantinople, Dolma Bahche ("Filled-Garden").
Four
out of nine of Garabed Balian's children went on to become Royal Architects:
Nigoghos (1826-1858), Sarkis (1831-1899), Hagop (1837-1875), and Simon
(1864-1894). All four studied at
the Ecole de Beaux-Arts in Paris. Although
Nigoghos and Hagop both died at a young age, their exceptional talents left
behind some of the most magnificent palaces on both shores of the Bosphorus
(e.g. Ilhamur, Chiraghan, Goksu, Beylerbey Palaces). Sarkis was the most prolific Balian architect and innovator,
and was greatly appreciated and decorated by sultans as well as by foreign
monarchs. The
many works of the Balian family in Constantinople reflect the sultans' tastes
for luxury. As a result of their
extravagant exploits, every sultan commissioned the construction of a new
palace, leading to a great number of palaces within the capital.
In their efforts, the sultans were endeavoring to modernize and
westernize their capital in the tradition of other European capitals.
Due to the Balians' Western education and training, many European
influences can be traced in their design, including French Renaissance,
Neoclassicism, Greek-revival, Baroque, and Art-Nouveau, with Baroque becoming
the predominant style. Though
influenced by European trends, the Balians' architecture was never a mere
imitation. They obtained their own unique style which was a fusion
between European and Eastern architecture.
Attributes of their designs include the lavish ornamentation and
extensive use of columns on the exterior elevations of buildings.
Interiors displayed exotic Oriental designs and decorations, accented
with Moorish influence, particularly in ceremonial halls.
These halls were decorated with majestic staircases, marble claddings,
decorated ceilings, and many elements of fantasy, to list just a few of the
norms the Balians introduced to Ottoman architecture.
The
Balian architects were considered members of Armenian nobility in
Constantinople. Actively involved
in the Armenian community's religious, social, and cultural life, they were
patrons of Armenian culture, and their residence was a gathering place for the
Armenian intelligentsia. They
built many churches, schools, and hospitals as well as a theatre for the
Armenian community. Valuable
contributors to both art and architecture, the Balians left an indelible mark
on 19th century Ottoman architecture and the city of
Constantinople. Their buildings
manifest the might of the Ottoman Empire as well as the undeniable and
multifaceted genius of these Armenian architects. The Pagan Movement and Daniel
Varuzhan Souren
Danielyan, Spiurk Scientific Educational Center, Erevan At
the beginning of the last century in the crossroads of development of the
Armenian literature, the pagan aesthetics brought about revolutions. The
clothing of the national traditions was subjected to tests by the new
expressions of European romantic imagery. This was a unique alliance between
fidelity to ethnic feelings and literary systemization experiments of the
newest poetic forms. Form and subject opened new boundaries to national
literary dimensions. The Pagan movement has been one of the most important
aspects of Armenian participation in the world literary process. There is no a
second example of this kind. First of all, what is this literary movement
about? It is worshiping nature and beauty, sharp contrast between the past and
the present, incensing of pagan freedom; all these are gateways for Western
Armenian poets. Yet ‘gateway’ should be understood in two standards. The
first ‘gateway’ deals with the imagery boundaries: it pours out from the
pagan essence of the poet seeking for the beauty of spring. This path leads to
the evaluation of the past. He also hunts for the freedom alphabet, which is
the second ‘gateway’. Freedom of art presupposes freedom of spirit and
ideals. National literary perception pursues borders of reconciliation with
national political perspectives, when the ideology of struggle shepherds the
consciousness of people into the holy battle and victory. The two main national and aesthetic levers of Pagan
Movement are intertwined and best represented in the inner layers of the works
of Western Armenian poet Daniel Varuzhan (1884 -1915). In particular, literary ‘paganism,’ according to
Varuzhan, is an escape from the harsh reality of his days—a marsh, where the
concepts of nobility and chivalry, beauty and love are trampled down. He
recaptures the vital glamor of pagan times, where strength has creative power,
and the man is a hero owing to his strength and manliness. With the loss of
paganism, in Varuzhan’s opinion, the Armenians deprived themselves of the
ideal of the strong man. They became miserable and submissive. “When are
paganism and old victories returning? We
need heroes to acquire them, not diplomacy.” This
is the focal point of Varuzhan’s art, as he searches for the hero of the
past. Worshiping love and beauty are of foremost importance in his “Pagan
Songs” (1912, Constantinople). He considers himself a priest pursuing
strength and beauty, agreeing with the variant of compromise between ‘the
utilitarianism’ and ‘beauty,’ a system of ideas, which according to the
poet is the pool of true patriotism. Constantinople
before and After the Catastrophe:
Vartan
Matiossian, Universidad del Salvador, Buenos Aires, and Hovnanian School, New
Jersey
One
of the most important and more neglected
names of the Armenian literature in the 20th century, Gostan
Zarian's life span (1885-1969) covered eight crucial decades for Armenian
history. He was active in Constantinople with the Western Armenian generation
before the 1915 Catastrophe, then lived forty years in the Diaspora and
finally went to die in Soviet Armenia. Zarian
lived in Constantinople at three different periods. He first went there in
1910-1911 from Brussels, after completing his university studies. He was a
young, French-writing poet with no knowledge of Armenian language. After an
interlude in Venice, he returned to Constantinople in 1913-1914, and renewed
his links with the most avant-garde elements of the Armenian intelligentsia.
He started one of the most audacious, even if short-lived, literary projects:
the journal Mehyan, which lasted
until June 1914. Zarian
fled from the Ottoman capital in October of the same year, shortly before
Turkey entered the war, and was able to avoid the butchery of the Armenian
literati in April 1915. After
living in Bulgaria (1914-1915) and then in Italy (1915-1921), where he
developed and important literary career, while at the same time being
actively involved in the promotion of the Armenian Cause, Zarian went back
for the third and last time to Constantinople in 1921, to try to start once
again a literary and intellectual movement. He co-founded a new journal, Partzravank, which lasted five issues, until June 1922. The
Kemalist movement disbanded the remnants of the Armenian intelligentsia,
regrouped in Constantinople after the 1918 armistice. Many of them abandoned
the city for good, Zarian among them. He accepted an invitation from the
Armenian government to teach European literature at Erevan State University.
In the subsequent years, he would write lengthily about his ambivalent
experiences in Constantinople. The Armenian Community of Constantinople and Its Contemporary Oral Tradition
Verjiné Svazlian, Institute of Archaeology
|