THE FAITH PRESS, 7
TUFTON STREET, LONDON SWI, London, 1960
© Vardapet Karekin Sarkissian, 1960.
CONTENTS
FOREWORD
.........................................................
page 5
PREFACE
.......................................................................7
INTRODUCTION............................................................9
PART I. THE ARMENIAN TRANSLATIONS................13
1. Translation of the Holy Scriptures..................................13
2. Translation of Liturgies................................................19
3. Translation of the Patristic
Literature............................20
PART II. THE ORIGINAL LITERATURE.....................31
I. The Main Branches........................................................32
2. Individual Writers..........................................................39
PREFACE
THE present booklet is based on a paper
which I read in S. Edmund Hall, Oxford, in the Trinity
Term, 1958, at a meeting of the Oxford Branch of the
Fellowship of S. Alban and S. Sergius. The text has
remained almost unchanged. It reflects very clearly the
characteristics of a talk rather than an exposition. The
idea of its publication was too far from my mind when I
prepared the talk. And its present appearance in print
certainly cannot do full justice to the nature of the
theme discussed in it. In fact, it is simply impossible
to compress such a huge amount of material into such a
tiny space. However, there were three reasons which
seemed to me to justify its publication in the present
form. Firstly, the urgent suggestions of some friends
could not be disregarded or resisted. Secondly, there was
hardly anything in English on this subject. Thirdly, more
important than the first two, I thought that English
students of Theology and Church History could find in it
a first help in enlarging their knowledge of Christian
Literature. It is not difficult at all to notice that the
study of the Christian Literature generally is confined
to its Græco-Roman region. Although this is the major
stream of Christian tradition especially in connection
with Western Christendom, none-the-less, it would not be
unimportant to know also of other streams comparatively
of smaller importance but surely of distinct character
and value. I thought also that this booklet could be
equally of some help to the young generation of Armenians
who are born or live in English-speaking countries,
namely, in the United States of America. To many of them
who are sincerely interested in the history of their
Church and Nation this booklet may serve as a hint to the
literary aspect of their Christian culture. It was for
this third reason that the footnotes were added to the
original text, first, to substantiate some of the
statements made therein and, secondly, to point to
further reading for those who might be interested in the
subject with a deeper concem. The bibliographical data is
chosen from the literature extant in foreign languages.
This is, therefore, an 'Introduction' in the strictest
sense of the term. In other words, a kind of preliminary
treatise on a vast and richly varied subject. It may
serve, I hope, as the basis for a study on a larger scale.
The difficulties which I felt at almost every step of
this study were, basically, twofold: firstly, the natural
temptation of generalization which could not be avoided
and, secondly, the selection which had to be made on
almost every page of this paper. The indulgence of my
readers can be the only excuse for the gaps I left and
the deficiencies which resulted from such difficulties. I
must thank Mr. John Chalikian who out of his love for the
Armenian culture generously contributed towards the
publication of this booklet. My thanks are due also to
Revd. A. M. Allchin, M.A., B.LITT. (OXON) who read the
manuscript through and made countless suggestions for the
improvement of the English expression: and finally to the
Revd. C. S. C. Williams, Chaplain of Merton College,
Oxford, for his Foreword.
VARD K. SARKISSIAN
WYCLIFFE HALL June 18th, 1959 On the day
of the Holy Translators SS. Sahak and Mashtots
INTRODUCTION
SOME seventy years ago an Anglican
chaplain, A. Saunders Dyer, in the city of Calcutta,
while vehemently protesting in a letter addressed to the
editor of The Guardian against a statement charging the
Armenian Church with the heresy of Eutyches, yet
confessed that in his own parish, in India, the same kind
of false impression was quite common among many Anglicans,
and that there was a widespread ignorance noticeable both
with the Armenians and Anglicans as to each other's
Christian tradition. 'The ignorance,' he wrote, 'displayed
by the Armenians concerning the Church of England is very
great; but I think the English ignorance of the Church of
Armenia is greater. Only the other day I was trying to
interest a lady member of the Church of England - a
communicant - in the Armenian Church, and she asked the
question: 'And do the Armenians believe in our Lord Jesus
Christ?'
But now, obviously, this ignorance has
passed on to history. I am sure that times are changed.
The twentieth century has marked, indeed, a considerable
advance in the way of mutual understanding. So there is
no need for me to tell you that the Armenians are
Christians-many of you would know even what sort of
Christians they are! - by recounting the story of their
1 The Guardian,
December 12th, 1888, p. 1899: 'The Armenian Church
not Eutychian,' by A. Saunders Dyer. On the other
side of the coin, Armenians also usually think of the
Church of England as being one of the constituent
bodies of the Protestant Churches which took their
origin from the Reformation movement of Luther. J. M.
Neale, the most amply informed English scholar on
Eastern Christendom, speaking of the Anglican
Memorial Church at Constantinople, through which he
thought Anglicans might be better known to Eastern
Christians, related the following interesting story
as an example of ignorance or misinformation of the
Armenians about the Anglican Church: 'The Memorial
Church at Constantinople will, we hope, set forth our
Church in a truer light than that in which Eastem
eves have yet beheld it. It will soon be impossible
for the most ignorant Armenian priest to tell his
congregation, "You wish to know whether the
English are Christians. They are Christians; they
even have the Eucharist, such as it is. Once a year
the minister goes up into the pulpit with a large
basket, containing pieces of bread, on his arm. These
he flings about among the people, who thus have a
scramble for it in the church. They also have another
religious ceremony, called the National debt, which
consists in offering a large sum of money every year
to the Emperor of the French; a ceremony much
disliked, and murmured at by the people" ' (Essays
on Liturgiology and Church History, pp. 256-7; see
the whole chapter, 'Prospects of the Oriental Church,'
pp. 256-82, London, 1863).
Christian life in the past or at the
present time. What I do intend to do is again to say that
they are Christians, but to say it in a different way;
not by describing their Christianity or their history
directly, but by trying to give you a picture~however
schematical it may be - of their achievements in the
field of Christian Literature.
What is the place of the Armenian
Christian literature in that vast field of Christian
literary tradition which is so closely related to the
whole civilization of mankind and has so deeply affected
its life in the past centuries? This is the question to
which I will try to give an answer in this paper,
inadequate and incomplete though it must be within the
limits of a single lecture.
I chose this method of telling you
something of the Armenian witness to Christ, because this
literary aspect of the Christian tradition of the
Armenians is often overlooked, owing to their tragic
history especially in its latest phase during the first
two decades of the present century. That history, in fact,
has created a widespread and quite dominant impression of
them as being a constantly persecuted, intermittently
massacred and permanently suffering people. As Adrian
Fortescue, a Roman Catholic historian of Eastem
Christianity, puts it in a rather striking expression:
their very name suggests horrors and blood.' 2 Or, as
Archdale King in his study of the 'Rites of Eastern
Christendom' says in a slightly different context: 'The
history of Armenia makes sad reading.' 3 Though one may
easily see the glorious aspect of Christian martyrdom in
these massacres, as the Armenians them-
2 Adrian Fortescue,
The Lesser Eastern Churches, p. 382, London, 1913. 3
Archdale A. King, The Rites o/ Eastern Christendom,
vol. II, p. 533, Rome, 1947. So widely dominant has
been this impression that in a dictionary such as the
Ox/ord Dictionary of the Christian Church one can
read: 'The Armenians have suffered persecution
intermittently throughout their history, and a large
proportion of the whole nation has been massacred by
the Turks, and later by the Soviets, between 1893 and
the present time' (see art. 'Armenia').
The great Norwegian
explorer and philanthropist, Fridtjof Nansen, who had
been deeply touched by the tragedy of the Armenian
people, gives a PI'uurC of them by quoting a poet: 'Generation
on generation Like the long dark billows They roll on
and cease to be While Time slowly dies. Ah, why these
holocausts of anguish, woe, and pain?' J. P. JACOBSEN
(Quoted in Armenia and the Near East by Fridtjof
Nansen, p.227, London, 1928.)
It has been a touching
experience to me to have come across people in this
country who have told me so sympathetically that
their knowledge of the Armenian people goes back to
their early days of childhood and is connected with
their experience of Sunday School life, when they
were often asked to pray and to give their pennies to
the suffering people of Mount Ararat. And I am afraid
to say that with many of them that knowledge has
remained there, being now only a moving souvenir of
the Sunday School days!
selves do, none-the-less, it would be
wrong and unjust to think of them as being everything in
Armenian Christianity. There are other achievements of
this Church which are, indeed, worthy of deep concern and
genuine appreciation by the Christian Church as a whole,
as well as by the particular branches or bodies in that
Church.
And one of these achievements is,
undoubtedly, the Armenian Literature which, in its own
way, is a living witness to the Christian faith made by
this people so often forgotten or ignored.
***
Let me first say what are the limits of
my paper so that the subject of this talk may be clearly
understood and placed in its proper context.
By 'Armenian Christian Literature' here I
understand everything written in the Armenian language,
excluding the pre-Christian period and the non-religious
domains of Armenian literature. Therefore, it must not be
thought that the whole of the Armenian literature is
being pictured or discussed here; although one is fully
justified in thinking that the predominant aspect of the
Armenian literature being Christian it follows that we
have here the Armenian literature in its truest and best
picture both in size and in depth, in quantity and
quality, to use the ordinary expression.
Another limitation to the content of this
paper comes from my intention to confine this talk to the
literature of that period which lies beween the fifth and
the fourteenth centuries of Armenian Christian history;
simply because there we have the most valuable part, the
kernel of the Classical Literature.4
4 By this term we
understand the literature written in the Armenian
classical language in which Armenian literature was
shaped and developed until the nineteenth century
when the spoken vernacular came into predominance
over the classical. The nineteenth century is the age
of transition from the ancient classical to the
modern literature. Whereas the latter achieved a very
successful career, mainly under the influence of the
French literature, the former was preserved in the
Liturgy of the Church and in the writings of the
Church Fathers.
The best way to put this huge amount of
literature in an intelligible form, and within all the
restrictions of such a short paper as this, is I think to
divide it into two parts which are, by their very nature,
quite distinct from each other:
(I) The Armenian Translations, in which
we will try to show the general Christian literature,
more specifically the Patristic Tradition, as echoed and
preserved in the Armenian language and tradition.
(2) The Original Literature, which sprang
up from that transplantation of the Christian literature
in Armenia where it was given a shape of a national
character and gradually took colour from the historical
experience of the Armenian Church and nation.
Part 1
THE ARMENIAN
TRANSLATIONS
THE term 'translation' as understood to-day
- a very current technical means of rendering some books
or articles from one language into another - cannot give
us the full meaning which the word has in its historical
setting in the case of the Armenian literature. This may
be seen clearly through the following picture which gives
us the mere sketch of the results of these translations:
I. TRANSLATION OF THE
HOLY SCRIPTURES
The revolutionary age in the Armenian
history is not the fourth century which was opened in
Armenia with the official acceptance of Christianity as
the 'established' religion of the country and the State (sometime
between A.D. 278 and 313). 5 Although this is the
greatest moment, the turning point of the Armenian
history, it did not, in fact, very much affect the life
of the people as a whole. It was an official, formal
conversion which needed the deepening of Christian faith
and practice in the life of the nation.6
5 Scholars and Church
historians have displayed a large variety of opinions
about the precise date. The generallly accepted one
is A.D. 301. But from the early fifth century up to
the present time they all agree that, as Sozomen the
historian said it once and so briefly, The Armenians,
I have understood, were the first to embrace
Christianity' (see Eccl. Hist., Book II, ch. VIII, in
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. II,
p. 264); cf. L. Duchesne, The Early History of the
Church, vol. III, pp.366-9, London, 1924; B. J. Kidd,
A History of the Church, vol. III, p.429-20, Oxford,
1922; J. R. Palanque. L’Expansion Chrétienne I,
Les Eglises des Royanmes d’Extrême Orient, in
Fliche et Martin, Histoire de l'Eglise, t. 3, p.490,
Paris, 1936.
6 Christianity had
been spread in Armenia before this oflicial
conversion which was the work of S. Gregory called 'the
Illuminator,' the greatest Apostle of Armenia, and of
King Tiridates III, one of the most eminent figures
of Armenian political history. Actually the Armenian
tradition traces the preaching of the Gospel in
Armenia back to the Apostolic Age. S. Thaddeus (John
14:22-4) and S. Bartholomew (John I: 43-51) have been
always regarded as the founders of the Armenian
Church, which has been always called 'Apostolic.' All
the historical evidence at hand points to an early
expansion of Christianity in Armenia. The best
documentary account of this early Christianity may be
found in Fr. Tournebize, Histoire Politique et
Religiense de' l'Arménie - a special chapter, 'Etude
sur Ia conversion de l'Arménie au Christianisme,' pp.401-552,
particularly pp.402-21, Paris, 1920; cf. Simon Vailhé,
'Formation de I'Église Arménienne' in Echos d’Orient,
t. XVI (1913). pp. 209-22, 193-211; Simon Weber, Die
Katholische Kirche in Armenien, pp. 55-86, Freiburg
in Breisgau, 1903.
All these three
scholars are Roman Catholics. It must be noted that
there has been a constant tendency with Roman
Catholic writers on the origins of Armenian
Christianity to overlook the pre-Gregorian period of
Armenian Christianity and to represent - under the
influence of Armenian uniates - the Armenian Church
as being founded by S. Gregory the Illuminator. The
above mentioned authors have tried to give an account
as complete as possible and as impartial as
permissible. See a summary of this early history in
Mgr. Malachia Ormanian, The Church of Armenia, first
two chapters, pp. 3-7, 2nd edition revised by Bishop
T. Poladian, London, 1955; cf. Erwand Ter-Minassiantz,
Die Armenische Kirche in ihren Beziehungen zu den
Syrischen Kirchen, ch. I, pp. 1-29, in the series
Texte und Untersuchungen, vol. 26, Leipzig, 1904; P.
Bedros Kassardjian, L'Église Apostolique Arménienne
et sa Doctrine, pp. 18-29, Paris, 1943.
For the life and the
work of S. Gregory the Illuminator, as related
traditionally, see S. C. Malan, The Life and Times of
S. Gregory the Illuminator, The Patron Saint of the
Armenian Church, translated from the Armenian,
Rivingstons, 1868. See the French translation of
Agathangelos, the historian of the conversion of
Armenia, in V. Langlois, Collection d'Historiens
Anciens et Modernes de l'Arménie, vol. I, pp. 105-94;
cf. G. Garitte, Documents pour l’étude du livre d'Agathange,
in the series of Studi et Testi, No. 127 (1946), Rome.
A schematic survey on the life and the work of S.
Gregory is given in Butler’s Lives of the Saints,
edited, revised and supplemented by H. Thurston, S.J.,
and D. Attwater, vol. III, pp.693-5, London, 1956.
And this was only possible by means of
direct access to and constant communication with the
sources or the fountains of the Christian faith - The
Holy Scriptures. A Church without the Bible in the hands
of her faithful could not stand very long and very firm
in the midst of a pagan world. The Armenian Church
Fathers were deeply conscious of the pressing necessity,
of the absolute urgency of the translation of the Bible
into Armenian. But the instrument-the Armenian alphabet-was
lacking.7 So it was in the beginning of the fifth century
when a Church divine, S. Mesrop Mashtots, succeeded in
inventing an alphabet adequate to render in writing all
the subtleties of the pronunciation 8 that the great
7 Up to the end of the
fourth century the Christian worship was conducted in
Armenia either in Greek or Syriac, according to the
knowledge of the clergy and the areas of influence of
these two languages and cultures in Armenia. In fact,
the expansion of Christianity into Armenia was the
result of a twofold activity carried on
simultaneously by Syrian missionaries from Edessa and
Nisibis (south-west of Armenia) and by Greek
missionaries from Cappadocia, namely from Ciesarea,
Sebastia and Melitene (north-west of Armenia). There
was no written language. Or, at least, if there was
any, as some Armenian scholars would contend to-day,
its use had ceased, for one reason or another, during
the first four centuries of Christian history in
Armenia.
8 The famous French
linguist, A. Meillet, characterizes the Armenian
alphabet in the following words: 'The system of the
Armenian alphabet is, as every one knows, a master-piece.
Each of the phonemes of the Armenian phonetics has
its own sign, and the system is so well founded that
it has provided the Armenian nation with a definitive
system of phonetics which has been maintained to this
day without undergoing any alteration, or needing to
receive any improvement, for it was perfect from the
beginning' (taken from a letter, March 29th, 1936,
written on the occasion of the celebration of the
fifteenth centenary of the Armenian translation of
the Bible - see the symposium of the addresses
published in Paris, 1938).
The history of the
invention of the Armenian alphabet and the life of
its author, S. Mesrop Mashtots, are related by Koriun,
a disciple of the latter, in his The Life of Mashtots.
French translation in V. Langlois, Hist. Arm., vol.
II, pp. 9-16; a German translation by Simon Weber, 'Koriun:
Beschreibung des Lebens und Sterbens des hl. Lehrers
Mesrop,' in the Ausgewählte Schriften armenischer
Kirchenväter, vol. I, pp. 196-232, published in the
series of Bibliothek der Kirchenväter, edited by O.
Bardenhewer and others, see vol. 57, Munich, 1927. Cf.
other fifth century authors, Ghazar Parbetsi, chaps.
9, 10, 11, 18, see Langlois, Hist. Arm., vol. II;
Movses Khorenatsi (usually known as Moise of Chorene),
Bk. III, chaps. 52-4, 57-8, 60, 62, 67, see Langlois,
Hist. Arm., vol. II. See a thoroughgoing study of the
problems involved in the invention of the Armenian
alphabet by P. Peeters, 'Pour l'histoire des origines
de l'alphabet arménien,' in Revue des Etudes Arméniennes,
t. IX (1929), pp. 203-37; reprinted in the collection
of the author's articles, Recherches d'Histoire et de
Philologie Orientales, in the series of Subsidia
Hagiographica, vol. I, pp. 171-207, Bruxelles, 1951;
cf. R. Grousset, Histoire de l’Arménie, pp.171-7,
Paris, 1947.
work of translation followed under the
wise guidance of S. Sahak, the learned Catholicos of the
time. It was soon completed through the enthusiastic
collaboration of the Church divines - 'Vardapets' - the
disciples and assistants of the two great saints. The
translation was first made from a Syriac version. But
later, in the middle of the thirties of the century, it
underwent a radical and detailed revision on the basis of
a Greek - Septuagint - text which was brought from
Constantinople by Armenian students who were completing
their philosophical, theological and biblical studies in
the imperial city. This new text had been considered as a
more accurate and trustworthy copy than the Syriac
version. The revision was such a radical and thorough one
that the result was almost a new retranslation following
the Septuagint Canon.
It would take a big volume or a series of
articles to study the various textual and historical
problems involved in this translation. Again, it would
take long pages to describe the stimulus and the
permanent results of this version in Armenian history and
literature. But what cannot be omitted is to point out
that it meant for the Armenian people an entire
transfiguration or transformation - if these expressions
may be allowed - which was felt not only in the fifth
century, but also in the succeeding centuries. In order
to make this point more intelligible and clearer I draw
your attention to a comparison between the Armenian
Version and the Latin Vulgate by quoting the words of a
great Armenian scholar and historian, N. Adontz: 'The
Latin Vulgate,' he writes, 'did not have the same
importance to the Latin countries as the Armenian Bible
to the Armenian people. The Latin literature had been in
existence for a long time when the Vulgate appeared;
whereas the Armenian Bible inaugurated the beginnings of
a new era in which the Armenian people learning for the
first time the use of the pen came to take their place in
the world of human civilization.' 9 What is the textual
value of this translation? It is difficult for me to say.
Biblical scholars and armenologists can give us a much
more accurate appreciation of its textual value.
F. C. Conybeare, the well-known English
scholar and a distinguished armenologist, was deeply
convinced of the high value of the Armenian translation.
Speaking of the Old Testament he says: 'For beauty of
diction and accuracy of rendering the Armenian cannot be
surpassed. The genius of the language is such as to admit
a translation of any Greek document both literal and
graceful; true to the order of the Greek, and even
reflecting its compound words, yet without being slavish,
and without violence to its own idiom. We are seldom in
doubt as to what stood in the Armenian's Greek text;
therefore his version has almost the same value for us as
the Greek text itself, from which he worked, would
possess. The same criticism is true of the Armenian New
Testament as well.'
A recent study in the text of the
Armenian version, done in a most thorough and masterly
fashion, has confirmed the above statement. This time an
Estonian scholar in exile, Arthur Vööbus, professor at
the Chicago Lutheran Theological Seminary, has made an
exhaustive investigation into the Armenian version in his
imposing work, Early Versions of the New Testament. He
tells
9 N. Adontz, The
Armenian Bible and its significance. See it in Célébration
solennelle du quinzième centenaire de la traduction
arménienne de la Bible, p. 48, Paris, 1938. The
whole booklet is rich with penetrating remarks and
considerations on the significance of the Armenian
Bible seen from various angles. It is very
characteristic that even foreign scholars of high
standing have realized the immense importance and the
tremendous role the Armenian translation played in
the national life, literature and spirituality of the
Armenian people. To quote one of them: ‘In the life
of the Armenians, whose history is one of endless
struggle and suffering, this translation work has had
the greatest significance for the consolidation of
the Christian religion and also for the
transformation of the psychology of the nation' (Arthur
Vööbus, Early Versions of the New Testament -
Manuscript studies, pp. 137-8, Stockholm, 1954).
10 Hastings, Dict. of
the Bible, vol. I, p. 152.
us that 'The ancient translators and
revisers found this idiom (i.e. the Armenian language) to
be an excellent instrument. To be sure, the Armenian
language is poorer with regard to some verbal forms, and
which are substituted by others; it is also poorer as to
the particles and participles, but it has many advantages.
It has three definite articles; it displays a great
freedom in word-order, in some respects its flexibility
surpassing even that of the Greek. This means that this
elegant language was a good instrument enabling the
revisers to render the Greek text as exactly as possible
into classical Armenian.
'It is remarkable that the version shows
more respect for the exact meaning of a word in a certain
context than for a slavish and stereotyped translation. 'Therefore,
all in all, as Conybeare once said, "for beauty of
diction and accuracy of rendering the Armenian cannot be
surpassed." Much earlier M. de la Croze called it
"the Queen of the Versions' - certainly not
undeservedly, and certainly not without keen competition.'
11
11 A. Vööbus, op.
cit., pp.162-4; see the whole chapter IV, 'The
Armenian Versions,' pp. 133-71. Felix-Nève had
already noticed the high textual value of the
Armenian version. He wrote: 'The Armenian version of
the Bible, carried out in the great literary century,
is a capital work which has always enjoyed an
authority both on account of its age, and of the
profound work of its authors; it is quoted to this
day in exegetical works. It has an eminent place
amongst the classical texts' (L'Arménie Chrétienne
et sa littérature, pp.22-3, Louvain, 1888). Georges
Cuendet, another expert on the Armenian text of the
Bible, from the University of Geneva, has tried to
show the accuracy of the Armenian translation in an
interesting article: 'Exactitude et adresse dana Ia
version arménienne de la Bible' in Handes Amsorya (philological
review of the Mekhitarist Community in Vienna), t. 49
(1936), col. 563-70. He says, 'The Armenian
translation of the Holy Scriptures is an
inexhaustible mine, whose treasures seem to be
renewed the more one makes use of them, one question
leading to another, and the solution of one problem
opening up the way to further inquiries. The more
this version is studied, the greater becomes one's
admiration for it, and one becomes more and more
convinced of the extraordinary efforts which must
have been put into it by men of great intelligence.
As has already been said with great justice (see
Macler, Le Texte Arménien de l'Evangile, 1919; S.
Lyonnet, Le Parfait en Arménien Classique, 1933) it
is most interesting to analyse the work to which the
translators gave themselves. They were skilful
theologians, careful to reproduce the slightest
details of the original; they respect its meaning
rather than its form, being altogether convinced of
the primacy of the spirit over the letter. Although a
translation alwavi runs the risk of becoming a
slavish copy of its model, the Armenian version
almost entirely escapes this danger. On the contrary,
it often becomes a veritable commentary of the
original. Nothing is more fascinating than to go over
this work of inte'ntetation by collating the Armenian
translation with the Greek text. Owing to their
extremely sure and sensitive feeling for their own
language joined with their thorough and sometimes
astonishing knowledge of Greek, they were able to
banish all merely mechanical methods' (col. 565-4).
He brings forth a number of examples in order to
substantiate the above statement, and then he
concludes, 'The Armenian version, remarkable from
every point of view, is an original masterpiece. One
does not know where to fault these writers, so
exceptional was their penetration, so great their
mastery of the subject. They undertook to nationalize
the translation of the Bible, and they succeeded to
such a degree that the whole of the Armenian
literature goei back to this source' (col. 570). For
the views of other foreign scholars of the nineteenth
century see Fr. Karekin Zarbhanelian, Library of the
Armenian Ancient Translation's, pp.238-44, Venice,
1889 (in Armenian). Here are some bibliographical
indications for the study of the Armenian Bible: Frédéric
Macler, Le Texte Arménien de l’Evangile d’après
Matthieu et Marc, thèse pour le doctorat ès Lettres
présentée à la Faculté des Lettres de l'Université
de Paris. Paris, 1919. P. Louis Mariès, 'La Texte
Arménien de l'Evangile,' an important review of
Macler's book, in Recherches de Science Religieuse, t.
X (1920), pp. 28-54. F. C. Conybeare, 'An Armenian
Diatessaron?' in Journal of Theological Studies, vol.
XXV (1923-4), pp.232-45. One of the most competent
experts on the Armenian Bible text is P. S. Lyonnet,
S.J. His studies are impressively numerous. Hereunder
I list some important ones: 'Las versions arménienne
et géorgienne du Nouveau Testament,' in Lagrange,
Introduction à l'étude da Nouveau Testament, 2nd
part: Critique Textuelle, pp.342-75, 454-60, 525-8,
575-8, 622-5, Paris, 1936. 'La version arménienne
des Évangiles et son modèle grec, l'Évangile selon
S. Matthieu,' in Revue Biblique, t. XLIII (1934), pp.69-87.
'Un important témoin du texte Césaréen de saint
Marc: La version arménienne,' in Mélanges de l’Université
saint Joseph (Beyrouth), t. XIX (1935), fasc. 2, pp.
23-66. 'Aux origines de l'Église arménienne, la
Traduction de Ia Bible et le témoignage des
historiens Armeniens,' in Recherches de Science
Religieuse, t. XXV (1935), pp. I7-87. 'Vestiges d'un
Diatessaron Arménien,' in Biblica, t. XIX (1938), pp.
121-150. 'La première version arménienne des Évangiles,'
in Revue Biblique, t. XLVII (1938), pp. 355-82. Les
origines de la version arménienne et le Diatessaron
in the series of Biblica et Orientalia, No. XIII (1950),
Rome. For his view on the textual value of the
Armenian version see the first article of this list,
p.348. E. C. Colwell, 'Slandered or ignored: The
Armenian Gospels,' in Journal of Religion, vol. XVII
(1937), pp.48-61. P. P. Essabalian, Le Diatessaron de
Tatien et la premère traduction des Évangiles arméniens
(in Armenian with a summary in French), Vienna, 1937.
See two reviews of it: (a) S. Lyonnet, in Biblica,
vol. XIX (1938), pp.214-16; (b) R. P. Casey, in
Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. LXVII (1938), pp.
96-101. A. Vööbus, 'La premiere traduction arménienne
des Évangiles,' in Recherches de Science Religieuse,
t. XXXVII (1950), pp. 581-6. A general article by Fr.
Tiran Nersoyan, The Bible in the Armenian Church - a
lecture read at the Bible House, British and Foreign
Bible Society, London, 1945. This short list of
studies on the Armenian Bible fully justifies the
assertion of the great armenologist in Louvain,
Professor Gérard Garitte: 'L'histoire de Ia version
arménienne des évangiles est une des questions les
plus controversees de la philologie biblique' (Le Muséon,
t. LXV (1952), p. 151).
This is the reason, I believe, why the
Armenian version is usually classified in the same
category of Bible texts as the Syriac and Latin versions.
In some ways it surpasses them, especially for the
accuracy in rendering the original meaning of the text.
It is taken into consideration in the second edition of
the Greek New Testament recently published by the British
and Foreign Bible Society 'with revised critical
apparatus,' London, 1958.12
12 The Armenian
manuscripts of the Bible are impressively numerous.
Hundreds of them containing the entire text of the
Bible or parts of it, especially the New Testament,
may be found in various collections of Armenian
manuscripts. The important ones are described by Fr.
Karekin Zarbhanelian in his Library of Ancient
Armenian Translations, p. 121-71. See also a list of
them in S. Lyonnet, Vers. Arm. et Georg., pp.342-6. 'The
Armenian Bible was first printed at Amsterdam in 1666,
but from a single manuscript, and the printed text
was in places adjusted to the Latin Vulgate. A later
edition, issued in 1733 by Mechitar in Venice, was
mainly a reprint of the edition of 1666. The first
critical edition was issued in 1805 at Venice under
the care of Zohrab, who used several codices, the
best of them one written in the fourteenth century.
The variants of the MSS. used are given under the
text; but without distinguishing in which codex which
variant is read. However, one codex of the Armenian
Bible differs very slightly from another. Other
editions have been published in Moscow,
Constantinople and Venice during this century; those
of Venice being particularly good and reliable' (F.
Conybeare, in Hastings, Dict. of the Bible, vol. I, p.
154). For further information about the printed text
of the Armenian Bible see S. Lyonnet, op. cit., pp.346-8.
There has been no
authorized translation of the Bible into Modern
Armenian. Attempts have been made by the Church in
the past, especially in the nineteenth century, but
the tragic events of persecution and massacre
hindered the work.. Now a translation is being
carried on. It is hoped that it will be completed in
1965.
Incidentally, the
Armenian word for the 'Bible' is 'Astvadsashounch
Matean,' or simply 'Astvadsashounch,' which means 'divinely
inspired book' or 'the Breath of God,' surely taken
from 2 Timothy 3:16. Vardapet Tiran Nersoyan has
pointed out the significance of this appellation in a
penetrating remark: 'Armenians seldom call the Sacred
Book by that rather pale name “the Scriptures,”
of onomatopa'ic origin and devoid of theological
significance. They have taken S. Paul's description
of it in 2 Timothy 3:16 and made that its name. Thus
they call it "the Breath of God" (“Asdvadzashoonch”
). If a people has the immortal desire of the
abundant life, it must needs go on breathing God’s
Breath, with which it was quickened at the very
moment of its creation. This Breath can be received
through the Word' (The Bible in the Armenian Church,
p. 1).
2. TRANSLATION OF
LITURGIES
The translation of the Holy Scriptures
was only one of the phases - though the most important of
all - of that great movement of assimilation of the
richness of the Christian tradition, taken in its
integrity, which characterized so singularly the fifth
century Armenian culture.
Besides the word of God, there was the
experience of it as lived by the whole and one body of
Christ's Church through the various ways of Christian
worship. The third, but especially the foutth century
marked the spiritual growth of the Church through the
emergence and expansion of Liturgies, feasts and other
ceremonies, and through all the elaboration and
enrichment of the pattern of Christian worship.
This part of Christian tradition also
echoed in Armenia through the translation of the various
Liturgies composed by Church Fathers, and used in the
local churches in the different provinces and countries
of the Byzantine Empire. Thus, the Liturgies of S. James,
S. Ignatius of Antioch, S. Athanasius, S. Gregory of
Nazianzus, S. Basil the Great, S. John Chrysostom, S.
Cyril of Alexandria were translated into Armenian. It was
in the general pattern of these Liturgies that the
Armenian was shaped. The final result was a harmonious
combination of elements taken particularly from the
Liturgies of S. Athanasius, S. Basil the Great and S.
John Chrysostom. There were additions of prayers composed
by Armenian Church Fathers. Later, in the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries, there were some influences from the
Roman Missal brought by the Roman missionaries
accompanying the Crusaders. Since then the Armenian
Liturgy has remained almost unchanged.13
13 There are several
English translations of the Armenian Liturgy. The
number is over ten. The most generally known is the
one contained in F. E. Brightman, Liturgies Eastern
and Western, Oxford, 1896. A recent translation is
made by Archbishop Tiran Nersoyan, The Divine Liturgy
of the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church, New York,
1952. This is the best translation which contains
both the variable and invariable parts of the Liturgy,
with a supplementary part containing a commentary and
practical explanations of an encyclopædic scope. The
exhaustive historical study of the Armenian Liturgy
is the work of Fr. Hovsep Gatergian, The Sacred
Missals of the Armenians -translations of the Greek,
Syriac and Latin Liturgies, with introduction and
critical notes - edited with further additions by Fr.
Hagop Tashian, Vienna, 1897 (in Armenian).
3. TRANSLATION OF THE
PATRISTIC LITERATURE
Here we have a highly impressive picture
of Patristic literature where the Armenian tradition is
at its best. It is needless to say what place and
significance this Patristic literature had in the thought
and life of the early Church. Its whole intellectual and
spiritual vitality and richness were poured into the
Armenian Church through the intensive activity of
translation during the fifth century, 14 which, in its
turn, gave a creative irnpulse to the thought and life of
the newly christianized people of Armenia.
The following selective list of Church
Fathers whose works were partly or integrally translated
into Armenian speaks of itself eloquently and has no need
for comment, since it may give you, in this bare form, an
idea of the extent of the literary achievements of this
century in the field of translations:
Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35 - c. 107).
Aristides the Apologist (second century).
Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130 - c. 200).
Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170 - c. 236).
Dionysius of Alexandria (d. c. 264).
Gregory Thaumaturgus (c. 213 - c. 270).
Eusebius of Cæsarea (c. 260 - c. 340).
Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373).
Gregory of Nazianzus (329-389).
Gregory of Nyssa (c. 330 - c. 395).
Basil the Great (c. 330-379).
Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-386).
John Chrysostom (c. 347-407).
Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 315-403).
Evagrius Ponticus (346-399).
Aphraates (fourth century).
Ephraim Syrus (c. 306-373).
Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444).
Besides these Church Fathers there were
others also whose works were translated into Armenian,
particularly some works of Origen, others ascribed to
Apollinarius and also works of Diodore of Tarsus and
Theodore of Mopsuestia. But during the later
controversies many of these translations were either
destroyed or discarded after being suspected of heresy or
condemned as such.
14 G. Bardy has
recognized this intenSiveneaS of the literary
activity in the fifth century and, seeing it in the
context of the Christian literature as a whole, says:
‘The speed which the leaders of the Armenian Church
displayed in appropriating all the works of the
Fathers in their national language, is perhaps
without parallel in the history of Christianity We
must see in it both a measure of protection against
the attacks and attractions which came from Persia,
and a manifestation of independence of foreign
Churches' (La question des langues dans l’Église
ancienne, t. I, p. 36, Paris, 1948).
That is the reason why we know of them
only through references in other authors or through
partly survived scanty fragments. Now, the impact of
these translations was not confined solely to the
intellectual and spiritual enrichment of the Armenian
Church Fathers and divines themselves. As might be
expected, they also gave rise to an original literature
which had its own successful career in the course of the
later centuries as we shall see a little farther on.
oreover, apart from their historical
significance and influence, these translations have also
a practical value relevant to the present time. It lies
mainly in the domain of Patristic scholarship of to-day.
Here the Armenian translations offer quite a considerable
contribution to the textual study of the Church Fathers.
And this in two ways:
(a) By the sheer comparison of the
Armenian versions with the original Greek or Syriac texts.
Sometimes in them the original texts have been preserved
in a less altered, therefore in a more accurate and
faithful, form, owing to the fact that they were
translated in such an early period as the fifth century.
Thus, in many cases, the Armenian versions have cast
light on passages or chapters or even books which have
suffered later alterations, abbreviations or loss in
their original texts.
(b) It is well known that the Patristic
literature has undergone a great deal of damage with the
loss of entire works or books of many Church Fathers. The
names of those lost books have survived and come down to
us mostly through references to them or through citations
from them preserved in various writings of Church Fathers
and in the historical treatises such as the
Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius or in the Photius'
Bibliotheca, or elsewhere.
Now, some of these writings have been
preserved in their Armenian translations; and thus, as
the original texts are not available, the Armenian
versions replace them and, therefore, Patristic scholars
are given the fortunate possibility of studies on a
larger field than the existing original texts would allow.
In order to illustrate this statement I
would draw your attention to three particular cases of
such discoveries chosen from among others:
(I) The work of Aristides of Athens which
usually has been known under the name of 'Apology' 'was
long considered lost. But to the glad surprise of
scholars the Mekhitarists of San Lazaro in Venice
published in 1878 a manuscript of the tenth century, an
Armenian fragment of an Apology bearing the title, "To
Imperator Adrianus Caesar from the Athenian Philosopher
Aristides." The majority of the scholars accepted
the fragment as the remains of an Armenian translation of
Aristides' Apology mentioned by Eusebius' (EccI. Hist.,
Bk. IV, ch. 3). 15
(2) Again for the first time the
Chronicle of Eusebius was made available to Patristic
scholars through an Armenian version discovered in the
beginning of the nineteenth century and translated into
Latin. 'The first part of the Chronicle,' writes
Bardenhewer, was unknown to us until the publication of
the Armenian version. The Greek text of both parts has
perished, save for some fragments.' 16
(3) But the most striking example is the
discovery of some writings of S. Irenteus of Lyons, whose
works seem to have been largely preserved in the Armenian
translations. Thus, many fragments - thirty-two in number
- were published and translated into
15 J. Quasten,
Patrology, vol. I, p. 192. On the discovery of this
fragment which revealed the character and content of
Aristides' work for the first time, Cardinal Pitra,
the famous Roman Catholic Patristic scholar, wrote
the following words in a letter to the editor of the
Armenian text: 'I would like to be among the first to
express my gratitude to you, in telling you of the
agreeable surprise and happy interest with which I
read the precious and magnificent little work of S.
Aristides . . . A rumour had reached me about the
discovery of the Apology of Aristides. I imagined the
Greek text and hoped anxiously for the confirmation
of the rumour. However short may be that which comes
to us from your inexhaustible Armenia, all is golden
in it, and all speaks of the golden age of
apologetics' (quoted in French in K. Zarbhanelian, op.
cit., pp.319-20; Cf. J. Rendel Harris, The Apology of
Aristides, pp.2-3, where he speaks of the high
textual value of the Armenian translation. Texts and
Studies, vol. I, No. I. See there also Renan's and
Harnack's views. It was published under the following
elaborate title: Sancti Aristidis philosophi
Atheniensis sermones duo quorum originalis textus
desideratur ex antiqua Armeniaca versione nunc primum
in Latinam linguam translati, Venice, 1878. Later the
work was discovered in its complete text in a Syriac
version by J. Rendel Harris. It was published and
translated by him in the series Texts and Studies (vol.
I, No. 1), together with Greek original fragments
edited and commented on by J. A. Robinson. The
Armenian version is widely used therein.
16 Otto Bardenhewer,
Patrology, p. 246, English translation by Thomas J.
Shahan, Freiburg in Breisgau, 1908. It was published
by P. Jo. Baptistae Aucher Ancyrani under the title
Eusebii Pamphili Caesariensis Episcopi Chronicon
Bipartitum, Nunc Primum ex Armeniaco textu in latinum
con versum Adnotationibus Auctum Graecis Fragmentis
Exornatum, Venice, 1818.
German in 1913.17 Also the fourth and
fifth books of his famous Adversus Haereses have been
found in a very accurate translation necessarily to be
compared with the existing Greek text.18 But, above all,
the entire treatise called The Demonstration of the
Apostolic Preaching otherwise known only by its title as
mentioned by Eusebius 19 was discovered in an Armenian
version in 1907 by Karapet Ter-Mekerttschian, an eminent
Armenian scholar, and edited with a German translation.20
It was received with a warm welcome in the circles of
Patristic studies being translated into Latin,21 a second
time into German,22 three times into English,23 into
French, 24 Russian,25 Italian 26 and Dutch.27
It is impossible, in the scope of this
paper, to include everything that is to be found in the
Armenian tradition of Patristic literature.
17 Dr. Herman Jordan,
'Armenische Irenaeus Fragmente,' in Texte und
Untersuchungen, vol. XXXVI, Leipzig, 1913. 18 They
were published by Lic. Dr. Erwand Ter-Minassiantz,
Irenaeus Gegen die Häretiker - Buch IV u. V in
Armenischer Version Entdeckt, Leipzig, 1910. 19 Eccl.
Hist., V, 26. 20 Lic. Dr. Karapet Ter-Mekerttschian
und Lic. Dr. Erwand Ter-Minassiantz, 'Des Heiligen
Irenaeus - Schrift zum Erweise der Apostolischen
Verktündigung,' in Texte und Untersuchungen, vol.
XXXI, Leipzig, 1907. 21 S. Weber, Sancti Irenaei
episcopi Lugdunensis Demonstratio apostolicae
Praedicationis, ex Armeno, vertit. proleg. illust..,
notis locuplet., Friburg, 1917. 22 S, Weber, Des hl.
Irenaeus Schrift zum Erweis der apostolischen Verkündigung,
in the series of Bibliothek der Kirchenväter, vol. 4,
Kempten-Munich, 1912. 23 (a) In Patrologia Orientalis,
t. XII, faic. 5, by Bishop Karapet Ter-Mekerttschian
and Dr. S. G. Wilson, with the co-operation of H.R.H.
Prince Max of Saxony, D.D., D.C.L., Paris, 1919. (b)
J. A. Robinson, The Demonstration of Apostolic
Preaching, in the series of Translation of Christian
Literature, IV: Oriental Texts, S.P.C.K., London,
1920. (c) J. P. Smith, s.j., S. lrenaeus.- Proof of
the Apostolic Preaching, in the series of Ancient
Christian Writers, No. 16, London, 1952. 24 In
Patrologia Orientalis, t. XII, by Joseph Barthoulot,
S.J., with an Introduction by J. Tixeront. Reprinted
from Recherches de Science Religieuse, t. VI (1916),
pp. 361-432. A recent translation appeared in Sources
Chrétiennes (No. 62) made by L. M. Froidevaux, Irénée
de Lyon: Démonstration de la Prédication
Apostolique, with introduction and notes. Paris, 1959.
25 Made from the German translation by Professor N. I.
Sagarda and published in the review Hristianskoe
Ctenie, t. 87 (1907). See Smith, Irenaeus, pp.151-16,
note 9; cf. K. Ter-Mekerttschian, The Seal of Faith,
Introduction, p. xxxv, Etchmiadzin, 1914 (in Armenian).
26 Ubaldo Faldati, S. Ireneo, Esposizione della
Predicazione Apostolica, Rome, 1923. See Quasten,
Patrology, vol. I, p. 293. 27 H. U. Meyboom, Leyden,
1920. See Quasten, Patrology, p.293. See a very
remarkable study on the terminology used in the 'Demonstration'
by D. B. Reynders, Vocabulaire de la 'Démonstration’
et des Fragments de S. Irénée, Chevetogne, Belgique,
1958.
The three cases mentioned above are given
as mere examples to illustrate what I only hinted at, i.e.
the importance of the Armenian translations for the
Patristic scholarship of to-day.
But I think it is necessary to add that
what is already discovered is not as significant in this
respect as what may be yet discovered. I must confess
that the study of the Armenian manuscripts is at present
far from being completed. On the contrary, besides all
the researches already made, the Armenian manuscripts
constitute a vast field of a literature that has not yet
been thoroughly investigated in terms of scientific
method and co-ordinated study. Particularly unexplored
are the Patristic texts. The number of the Armenian
manuscripts is reckoned at roughly twenty thousand, most
of them now being gathered and scientifically classified
in the National Library of the Armenian Republic in U.S.S.R.28
Other important collections are to be found in the
Armenian monastery of S. James in Jerusalem 29 and also
in the well-known sister monasteries of the Armenian
Uniate Brotherhoods coinmonly called Mekhitarist
Communities in Venice and Vienna.30 Smaller collections
may be found in the Armenian monastery of the Holy
Saviour, in Nor-Djougha, Isfahan (Persia), in the Library
of the Armenian Catholicossate of Cilicia in Antelias,
Lebanon, in the Armenian Uniate monastery of Bzommar in
Lebanon, and in the various European and American
Libraries, namely in the Bibliotheque Nationale de Paris,
the British Museum in London,
28 Excellent work is
being done on the manuscripts of non-religious
contents. Valuable new material has been found in
historical, scientific, philosophical domains. I am
sure if adequate attention also is paid to the
religious, namely to the patristic, texts it will not
be surprising to find new documents, fragments or
complete texts of important value.
29 The preparation of
the catalogue of the manuscripts was begun by
Archbishop Ardavazt Surmeyan. The first volume was
published by him in Venice, 1948. See a review of it
by J. Moyldermans in Le Muséon, t. 64 (1951), pp.
236-40. Then it was continued by Bishop Norayr
Bogharian, who already has published two more volumes
in Jerusalem. The work is being pursued by him.
30 The catalogue of
the manuscrints in Venice was prepared by Fr. Barsegh
Sarkissian. Two volumes were published (Venice, 1914
and 1919). But the work was interrupted. See a very
important article by J. Muyldermans on the Patristic
value of the manuscripts, 'Répertoire de pièces
patristiques d'après le catalogue Arménien de
Venise,' in Le Muséon, t. 47 (1934), pp. 265-92. See
also Idem, 'L'Apport des éditions Arméniennes de
Venise à la Patristique,' in Bazmavep, pp. 386-98,
1949. The catalogue of the manuscripts in Vienna is a
masterpiece of its kind. It is the work of the famous
Armenian scholar, Fr. Hagop Tashian. It is published
in Vienna, 1895.
or the Bodleian Library here, in Oxford.
There are a few other manuscripts owned by individuals or
cultural institutions.31
The reason why we were so categorical in
the above statement is not purely a hypothetical one. In
fact, a careful and searching look at the catalogues of
the Armenian manuscripts justifies us in our assurance. I
take as an example the following case. In a catalogue of
the Armenian translations compiled long ago, in 1889, by
a learned member of the Mekhitarist Community in Venice,
entitled Library of Ancient Armenian Translations,
already referred to, there is a great number of
indications of homilies or fragments attributed to Church
Fathers in the Armenian translations which have not been
found in or identified with the works already known to
scholars of the day, either in their original text or in
any other translation.32 And it must be said that the
author
31 The catalogue of
the Armenian manuscripts in the Bibliothèque
Nationale of Paris is made by F. Macler, Catalogue
des manuscrits arméniens et géorgiens de la
Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, 1908. The catalogues
of the manuscripts in the British Museum and in the
Bodleian Library of Oxford are prepared by F. C.
Conybeare, (a) A Catalogne of the Armenian
manuscripts in the British Museum, London, 1913; (b)
Catalogue of the Armenian manuscripts in the Bodleian
Library, Oxford, 1918 (partly done by Revd. Soukias
Baronian). See a catalogue of some Armenian
manuscripts in Europe by Archbishop Ardavazt Surmeyan,
vol. I, Paris, 1950. The Armenian manuscripts in The
Chester Beatty Library are now catalogued by Sirarpie
Der-Nersessian, Professor of Byzantine Art at
Dumbarton Oaks and member of the Faculty of Arts and
Letters at Harvard University. A superb work preceded
with an Introduction on the History of the Armenian
Art, 2 vols., Dublin, 1958. See for an index of
private and public libraries in Europe containing
Armenian manuscripts the richly documented article by
Jean Simon, S.J., 'Répertoire des Bibliothèques
publiques et pivées d'Europe contenant des
manuscripts arméniens,' in Orientalia, t. II (1933),
pp. 232-50. For a complete list of the catalogues of
the Armenian manuscripts see H. DJ. Sirouni, 'Les
Manuscripts Arméniens - Données Bibliographiques,'
in Studia et Acta Orientalia, vol.I (1957), pp. 265-80,
Bucarest, 1958.
32 It would be
interesting to illustrate this point by picking up
some of these homilies (this term is used here in a
very loose sense) or fragments marked in this
catalogue of the Armenian translations. Following the
author's alphabetical order we have this picture:
Twelve homilies of S. Athanasius. Numerous fragments
from the works known under the name of Apollinarius.
Fifteen homilies of S. Basil the Great Seven homilies
of S. Gregory the Theologian (Nazianzen). Two homil
ins of S. Gregory of Nyssa. Seven homlies of S.
Gregory Thaumaturgus. Five homilies of Dionysius of
Alexandria. Fifty-nine homilies under the name of
Epiphanius of Salamis. Nine fragments of S. Irenaeus.
Twenty-nine homilies of Evagrius Ponticus. Thirty-eight
homilies of S. Ephraim Syrus. Three homilies of S.
Cyril of Alexandria. Seven homilies of S. Cyril of
Jerusalem. Several fragments of S. John Chrysostom.
It would be
unreasonable to claim that what the author of the
catalogue had noted in 1889 as preserved only in
Armenian translation are still unidentifiable. Most
of them have been found; or, perhaps, they existed
but were missed by the author himself in spite of his
wide knowledge of Patristic texts. But at the same
time it is equally true, as we noted already that he
had not seen all the Armenian manuscripts, but a very
small proportion of them. In any case, the list here
is given as a mere example in order to give us a
general idea of the extent of the translations and
their contribution to patristic studies.
of the catalogue, Fr. Karekin
Zarbhanelian, had never seen the whole corpus of the
Armenian manuscripts, but had used only the collection of
his own monastery which is, by its size, only - and
roughly - one-seventh of the total number of the Armenian
manuscripts. He had consulted other catalogues of
manuscripts and had used references which wcre, indeed,
in a very poor state in his days as compared with the
present catalogues and manuscript studies. Since 1889
many new manuscripts have been found in various places
and new catalogues have been compiled which, in fact,
widen the field of Patristic literature preserved in the
Armenian translations.
So, when all has been said by way of such
a limitation, the importance of these translations
remains far greater than a 'small people's literary
activity in history.' And I believe that new researches
in the Armenian manuscripts in the light of new studies
in Patristic literature will still enlarge the sphere of
the contribution of the Armenian translations to the
general body of Christian literature.
* * *
It was not only in the fifth century that
translating was a distinctive part of the intellectual
and literary activity of Armenia. It soon became an
integral part of the Armenian ecclesiastical history.
Therefore, it must not be thought of as a work
exclusively confined to the fifth century, the 'Golden
Age' of Armenian history as it is so unanimously agreed
and accepted. It is rather a process going on through the
centuries and bringing fresh air in and giving new
impulses to the Armenian intellectual and ecclesiastical
life.33
33 'It is true,'
writes the great Bollandist scholar, P. Peeters, 'that
throughout the course of her history, Christian
Armenia continued, as it had begun, to be a country
of translators.' See 'Traductions et Traducteurs dans
l'Hagiographie orientale à l’époque Byzantine,'
in Analecta Bollandiana, t. 40 (1922), pp.241-98; see
particularly pp. 265-76. Reprinted in Le Tréfonds
Oriental de l'Hagiographie Byzantine, Appendice, pp.
164-218, Bruxelles, 1950.
In fact, the translations of the later
centuries bear eloquent testimony to the close
relationship and the constant contact of the Armenian
literature with the literary achievements of the Greek
Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches even in the
intolerant historical circumstances of the Armenian
people. The breach which came to separate the two main
bodies of the Eastern Churches, the so-called 'Monophysite'
and 'Orthodox' Churches, however, did affect disastrously
the position and the future of Christianity in the East.
It created an atmosphere of hardness and enmity between
these two branches. Yet Armenians were never entirely cut
off from the main stream of Christian intellectual life,
particularly in the Churches of Constantinople and
Alexandria, and, for the later centuries, even from
remote Rome. Separation did not mean for them complete
seclusion or enclosed isolation.
Thus, to mention but the most important
examples, the works known under the name of Dionysius the
Areopagite and the writings of John of Damascus were
studied among the Armenians through translations.
Especially the works of the former were widely read and
commented on by Armenian Church divines. There have been
not less than three different translations of his works.34
Later, in the twelfth century, when the
Armenians were brought into contact with the Roman Church
through their associations with the Crusaders, they also
came in touch with the literary and liturgical tradition
of the Westem Church. So that in the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries Letters of S. Gregory the Great, the
Rule of S. Benedict, the Roman Ordinal and many other
works were translated into Armenian. In the beginning of
the fourteenth century two writings of S. Thomas Aquinas,
On the Sacraments and Treatise on the Natures of Christ
our Lord, were also translated.35
But in the later years of the fourteenth
century and afterwards the Roman missionaries, chiefly
Dominicans, in association with their Armenian converts
tried to translate the whole liturgical literature of the
Roman Church and to substitute it in practice for the
Armenian pattern of worship.35a This attempt obviously
34 See K. Ter-Mekerttschian,
The Seal of Paith, Introduction, pp. xxxii-iv. 35 See
K. Zarbhanelian, op. cit., pp. 274-5; cf. I. Hausherr,
'Armenienne (Spiritualite'), in Dict. de Spiritualité,
t. I, cols. 866-7. 35a The most authoritative expert
on these translations and, indeed, on the whole
history of the Armenian Romanophiles or Latinisers of
the fourteenth century, commonly called Unitores (see
infra, pp. 46-7) is Professor M. A. Van den Oudenrijn,
of the University of Friburg. See among many others
the following articles and books. ‘Eine armeniache
Übersetzung der Summa Theologica des hl. Thomas im
14. Jahrhundert’ in Divus Thomas, vol.8 (1930), pp.245-78.
'Traductions arméniennes de Ia Somme Thélogique de
S. Thomas d'Aquin,' in Bazmavep (1949), pp. 313-55.
‘Notes sur quelques Ouvrages armeniens de
provenance dominicaine,' in Bazmavep, t. CIX (1951),
pp. 40-3, 61-5, 113-17. Uniteurs et Dominicains d’Arménie,'
in Oriens Christianus, Bd. 40 (1956), pp. 94-112, Bd.
42 (1958), pp. 110-33 (to be continued). Der Traktat
von den Tugenden der Seele, Ein armeniaches Exzerpt
aus der Prima Secundae der Summa Theologica der hl.
Thomas von Aquin (1337), mit Einleitung, lateiniacher
Übersetzung und Glossar, Friburg, 1942, in the
series of Collectanea Friburgensia. Eine alte
armenische Übersetzung der Tertia Pars der
Theologischen Summa des hl. Thomas von Aquin, Francke
Verlag, Bern, 1955. Das Offizium des heiligen
Dominicus des Bekenners im Brevier des 'Pratres
Unitores' von Ostarmenien, 1935. Les Constitutions
des Frères Armeniens de saint Basile en Italie, Rome,
1940. In the series of Orientalia Christiana Analecta,
No. 126. 'General Superiors of the United Brethren in
Armenia during the Fifteenth century’ - a paper
read at the Nineteenth International Congress of
Orientalists at Rome, 1935. Extract from Handes
Amsorya, t. LII (1938), pp. 66-78.
had gone far beyond the literary and
intellectual interests of the Armenian Church divines who
naturally came to oppose this infiltration of Latinism in
the Armenian Church. In so far as they were concerned in
the purely intellectual achievements of the Roman Church
they encouraged the translations and were in favour of
the relationship between the two Churches. Some of them
even learned Latin and read Albert the Great, Thomas
Aquinas and other scholastics; and although they were
influenced through their readings at least by the method
of scholasticism, none-the-less, they never lost sight of
the ethos of the purely Eastern tradition of their Church,
with its own doctrinal, liturgical and spiritual
characteristics.
At this stage of the fourteenth century
where this survey comes to its end,36 I think I am
justified in saying that the Armenian
36 There could be
added to this sketch of Armenian translations other
parts also of Christian literature. To mention them:
(a) The Acts of Martyrs or The Lives of Saints. See P.
Peeters, Traductions et Traducteurs . . . , supra,
note 33. (b) The correspondence between Eastern
Patriarchs and Armenian Catholicoi. See in this
respect the famous Book of Letters (Tiflis, 1901) - a
series of documents of primary importance for the
understanding of the Armenian doctrinal position in
Christology. The first documents including namely the
corresnondence between Acacius of Melitene. Proclus
of Constantinople and Sahak the Armenian Catholicos,
together with the 'Demonstration' of John Mandakouni,
have been translated into French and published with
an Introduction and critical notes by M. Tallon, S.J.,
'Livre des Lettres, Ier Groupe: Documents concernant
les relations avec les Grecs,' in Mélanges de l’Université
saint Joseph, Beyrouth, Liban, t XXXII (1955), Fasc.
I. Published also separately. (c) The Collections of
'Church Canons' which may be found in manuscripts.
There has been no critical and integral edition of
thi' Armenian Canon Law. There are two important
compilations in print: (i) Arsen Gheldjian, The Book
of the Armenian Canons, Tiflis, 1913; (ii) Nerses
Vardapet Meliktanguian, The Armenian Ecclesiastical
Law, Shushi, 1903. For the study of the Armenian
Canon Law it is necessary to take into account the
Code of Mekhitar Gosh, edited by Vahan Vard.
Basdamiantz, with Introduction and critical notes,
Vagharshapat, 1880. A great number of Canons are
translated in Latin and some in French. See
Codificazione Canonica Orientale Fonti, Fascicolo VII:
Disciplin Armena, Tesli vari di Diritto Canonico
Armeno (secolo IV-XVII), compiled by G. Amadouni,
Vatican, 1932. For the historical study of the
sources see P. V. Hatzuni. An article on the sources
of the Armenian Canons in the same Vatican oficial
series, Fasc. VIII, Studi Storici sulle Ponti del
Diritto Canonico Orientale, Vatican, 1932. See also
the article of J. Mécérian, 'Chronique de Droit Arménien,'
in Mélanges de l'Université de saint Joseph.
Bulletin Arménologique, 2me Cahier, IV, pp.238-46,
Beyrouth, 1953. (d) Particularly Important are the
two Compilations of Citations - Florilegium - from
Church Fathers, chiefly of Christological content,
gathered in the purpose of defending the
christological position of the Church. These two
collections of fragments have been considered as
amply rich mines of patristic literature. They are: (I)
Timothy Aelurus, Refutation of the decrees of the
Council of Chalcedon, discovered by Karapet Ter-Mekerttschian
in 1897. It was later published by him in
collaboration with Erwand Ter-Minassiantz in
Etchmiadzin, 1908. There has been no other complete
text of this work either in Greek or Syriac. See for
its importance F. Cavaliers, 'Le Dossier Patristique
de Timothee Aelure,' in Bulletin de Litterature
Ecclesiastique, t. XI (1909), pp. 93-111; J. Lebon, 'Version
armenienne et version syriaque de Timothee Flure,' in
Handes Amsorya, t. 40 (1927), pp.713-20. (2) The Seal
of Paith ('Knike Havatoy'), discovered and published
again by Karanet Ter.Mekerttschian, Etchmiadzin, 1914.
See the article of J. Lebon, 'Les Citation
Patristiques du "Sceau de Ia Foi," ' in
Revue d'Histoire Ecclésiartique, t. XXV (1929), pp.
5-32. Here he tries to identify the citations of the
Compilation with the existing works of the Church
Fathers. He confesses that there have remained some
which he has not been able to identify (see pp. 31-2).
translations have, indeed, something to
tell us about an 'Ecumenical' spirit or an openness to
the outside Christian world characterizes, among many
other features, the Armenian Church. This aspect is often
overlooked in the careless statements so wid common with
many Church historians of to-day about the 'isolation' of
this Church from the Christian world due, as they think,
to a strong sense of nationalism and a constant tendency
of particularism. This latter feature of Armenian Church
history has to be understood in the proper context of the
circumstances of their history as well as against the
background of general Church history.
Part 2
THE ORIGINAL LITERATURE
IN what I have said until now one cannot
see anything purely or typically Armenian except, perhaps,
that sense of communication with and openness to the
universal Christian tradition on the one hand, and the
language with the genuine use of it by the translators,
on the other hand.
As I noted above, this movement of
translation was an intellect'aal stream which irrigated
the soil of the Armenian cultural tradition and gave rise
to a new and richer harvest. 37
The fifth century was a time when Armenia
was divided politically and geographically into two
sections: (a) Persian Armenia - the Eastern and largest
part of Armenia under the overlordship of the Sassanid
Empire, and (b) Byzantine Armenia - the Western provinces
of the country under the rule of a Governor appointed by
the Byzantine Emperor. Armenians were
37 Again I quote here
P. Peeters, whose penetrating insight into the
significance of the Armenian translations is, indeed
stimulating: 'It must not be supposed that the
Armenian people remained in' definitely in the role
of pupils at foreign schools, and that they allowed a
sort of intellectual domination by their neighbours
to become established. Without playing on words one
can say that a large part of the foreign literature
which was assimilated did not come from outside; but
rather it was the Armenians who went to find it
outside their own frontiers. This makes a difference
which ought to be accepted, even though it is usually
ignored' (see Traductions et Traducteurs, p. 266).
After giving some
examples of how the Armenians continued to translate
the Lives of the Saints in later centurici, he says:
'These few examples, which allow one to guess at a
great many others, prove clearly that the line of the
great interpreters of the golden age did not cease to
perpetuate itself with successors on the soil of
Armenia itself. But they are not adequate to account
for the large eclecticism and openness of mind to
which the amazing variety of the Armenian
translations bears witness., This is due to more
profound causes, which have too often been overlooked
(ibid., p. 267).
One of the basic
explanations of this phenomenon he finds in the
widespread diaspora of the Armenian people all along
her history: 'At all times there were many Armenians
outside Armenia. In ancient times, as to-day, this
industrious and enterprising race was to be found on
all the commercial routCS of the Ancient World and in
all the important countries of the East and West. The
successive break-ups of the Armenian states added
still more to the somewhat unsettled mood of the
people. From the beginning of the Byzantine period
there were Armenian communities in Persia, in
Mesopotamia, in the Holy Land, at Jerusalem, in the
Jordan desert at Aleppo and Antioch and in Cyprus,
later, from the tenth century onwards' they lived in
Crimea, then in Poland, in Italy, in India, in a word,
one c'ould say, everywhere, and this would be
accurate without a trace of exaggeration' (ibid., pp.
267-8).
pressed on both sides. They were exposed
to the danger of assimilation by the Mazdean Persians who
were carrying On a carefully planned policy of
dechristianization in Armenia in order to integrate it
wholly into the Persian Empire with its Mazdean religion
and culture. On the other side, the Byzantines were
trying to draw them to their side with a closer
relationship than the one which existed before. The only
power which could maintain the unity of the nation was
the Church with an expression of her own. The national
culture was the key to it. This rnay explain to a large
extent why the original literature started so
enthusiastically and reached such a height - the 'Golden
Age' of the Armenian literature - in such a short period
of less than a century.
For one reason or another the Armenian
original literature was an established fact and, at the
same time, had an astonishingly successful development
during the fifth century. It was carried on in the later
centuries in spite of the unhappy circumstances of the
historical life of the Armenian people.
Now, the only possible way to draw the
picture of this literature is to use terms of an
introductory sketch, however inadequate it may be, in
order to grasp the whole field and the many particular
branches in their distinct features and values at the
same time.
Therefore, in a first section, in this
second part, I will try to give a general introduction to
the various domains of the Armenian original literature.
I. THE MAIN BRANCHES
Hereunder I present a schematical picture
of the main lines of the Armenian original literature: (a)
The Sacred Poetry. It is largely embodied in the
liturgical hymns used in the Church's worship. It may be
found also and partly in individual writers whose
poetical works are not included in the official hymnal of
the Church or have only partly been included.
There are pieces of sacred poetry in this
hymnal which reveal a deep and touching spiritual
devotion as well as a skilful art in expressing it in a
most gracious way. The most beautiful of them have been
recognized, for various reasons, in the hymns dedicated
to S. Mary, the Holy Virgin, the hymns of the Epiphany
and of Holy Week, as well as those of the Transfiguration,
the Ascension and Pentecost.
In the words of a Roman Catholic scholar
of Christian spirituality these hymns are 'elevations to
God, some of which must be included among the most
beautiful in all mystical literature.' 38
(b) The Liturgical Literature. It
contains the prayers, collects and whole services of
Christian worship such as the Eucharist, the Divine
Offices, the Sacraments and other services of special
benedictions or of spiritual expressions. Although large
parts of them are either direct translations from other,
mainly Greek, liturgical traditions or derive from them
in their form, yet there are many other parts in them
which are the work of the Armenian Church Fathers
themselves.39
(c) The Hagiographic Literature. To this
field belong the Lives of the Saints and the Acts of
Martyrs, not only of the Armenian saints and martyrs, but
also of those venerated in the Church Universal before
the split of the fifth century. Indeed, this part of the
Armenian literature is considerably rich; a fact which
may be explained mainly by two reasons: firstly, by the
large number of national martyrs as a result of endless
persecutions in the country and of the heroic endurance
in the faith of the people and, secondly, by the immense
influence and direct effectiveness of this type of
literature for the consolation
38 I. Hausherr, 'Arménienne'
(Spiritualité), article in Dictionnaire de Ia
Spiritualité Chrétienne, vol. I, col. 875. The
European expert on the Armenian hymns has been Felix-Neve,
Professor in the University of Louvain in the last
century who published an impressive volume on the
Armenian Christian Literature' three-quarters of
which are devoted to the study of the liturgical
hymns 'under the title, L’Hymnologie Arménienne.
See his L’Arménie Chretienne et sa Littérature,
pp. 46-247. See also N. Ter-Mikaelian, Das armenische
Hymnarium-Studien zu setner geschichtlichen
Entwicklung, Leipzig, 1905. 39 See the English
translation of large parts of this liturgical
literature in F. C. Conybeare, Rituale Armenorum,
Oxford, 1905. For the history and description of the
Armenian rites and ceremonies see R. Janin, Las
Eglises Orientales et les Rites Orientaux, 4th
edition, revised, pp. 313-33, Paris, 1955. See also
the English translation. H. Denzinger, Ritus
Orientalium, Coptorum Syrorum et Armemorum, in
Administrandis Sacramentis, t. I, Wirceburgi, 1863; I
M. Hanssens, Instituttones Liturgicae De Ritibus
Orientalibus, t. II and III, Rome, 1930, 1932; S.
Salaville, An Introduction to the Study of Eastern
Liturgies, adapted from the French by J. M. T. Barton,
London, 1938 (see many articles of the same author in
Echos d’Orient, particularly t. XVI (1913), pp 28-31,
t. XXXIX (1941-2), pp. 349-82. Alphonsus Raes,
Introductio in Liturgiam Orientalem, Rome, 1947;
Archdale A. King, The Rites of Eastern Christendom,
vol. II, pp. 521-646, accompanied with a short
bibliography.
and exhortation of the Christians. They
had to be always nourished in their faith and
strengthened in their faithfulness through the example of
the martyrs, because martyrdom was a permanent line, an
unbroken chain of events in the life of the people in
Christian Armenia all along the centuries of her history.40
(d) The Exegetical Literature. This
branch of Christian literature constituted the kernel of
religious education in Armenia. In fact, for long
centuries the Bible has served the Armenian people as the
basis, the fundamental subject of their education and
studies. So it is not difficult to imagine how large and
all-inclusive was the sphere of exegetical science,
combining within itself elements of philosophy and other
branches of human knowledge.
It is difficult to say at the moment what
is or can be its contribution to the exegetical
literature of the Christian Church as a whole, because
its relation with the general patterns of exegesis in
Eastern Christian tradition has not yet been investigated
and studied as such. It is generally believed that on the
whole it displays an allegorical and spiritualistic
interpretation of the Scriptures rather than a literary
or realistic attitude. It would not be surprising, I
believe, to find both of these two exegetical traditions
or schools as existing together in various authors and at
different periods.
(e) The Historical Literature. This
section of the Armenian Christian literature has been the
most extensively studied and, therefore, the most widely
known. Not only because it constitutes
40 See Zarbhanelian,
op. cit., pp.715-30. The ‘Lives of Saints' have
been published in Venice by Fr. Mekerdich Avguerian,
Complete Lives and Martyrologies of Saints, 1810-15.
Twelve volumes. A French translation of some Armenian
texts of the Lives of Saints' usually read in the
Church for moral instruction and exhortation, is to
be found in Patrologia Orientalis. The translation is
made by Dr. G. Bayan in collaboration with Prince Max
of Saxony, Le Synacaire arménien de Ter Israel - a
manuscript in the Bibliotheque Nationale' of Paris.
See t. V, pp.345-556; t. VI, pp.181-355; t XV, pp.
293-438; t. XVI, pp. 1-184; t. XVIII, pp. 1-208; t.
XIX, pp.1-150. The Armenian hagiographic literature
has been the special field of study of the late great
Bollandist scholar, R. Paul Peeters. See his articles
gathered together in a posthum edition, under the
title Recherches d’Histoire et de Philologie
orientales, Bruxelles, 1951. These two volumes
contain the articles published in various religious
reviews with the exception of Analecta Bollandiana,
where there are several other articles of his pen.
See a very well documented and richly bibliographical
essay on the hagiographic literature of the Armenian
Church by J. Mécérian, S.J., 'Introduction à l'Étude
des Synaxaires Arméniens,' in Mélanges de l'Université
saint Joseph, t. XXX, Fasc. 4: Balletin Armenologique,
pp. 99-188.
one of the richest departments of
Armenian literature, but also, and especially, because it
is not exclusively or primarily religious in its contents.
In fact, the Armenian historiographers do not describe
only the religious side of the Armenian history, but its
political and cultural aspects as well. And, more than
this, they provide us with quite a considerable amount of
first-hand information about the peoples, religions and
Churches in the neighbourhood of Armenia, and also about
those who came into contact with Armenia at one time or
another in the course of her history. Therefore it is not
surprising that almost all the historical works have been
studied by European scholars and historians and
translated mainly into French.
It is obvious, then, that interests other
than the solely religious concern have had their place in
the studies of Armenian historiographers who, indeed,
have rewarded the sacrifices of the scholars by their
contribution to the understanding of Eastern history.41
41 Hereto I attach a
list of the main historiographers with a aelective
bibliography of the important translations in foreign
languages, largely in French: Agathangelos (4th-5th
century). See V. Langlois, Hist. Arm., vol. I, pp. 97-194.
Phaustus of Byzantium (4th-5th century). See Langlois,
op. cit., vol. I, pp. 201-310. Eghishe (5th century).
See Langlois, op. cit., vol. II, pp. 197-251. Another
French translation by M. l’abbé Gr. Kabaragy
Garabed, Sonlévement National de l’Arménie Chrétienne
an Ve siècle contre la Loi de Zoroastre, Paris, 1844.
A fragmentary English translation by C. F. Neumann,
The History of Vartan and of the Battle of the
Armenians, London, 1830. A new and complete English
translation by D. H. Boyadjian, Yeghisheh: The
History of Vartanank, New York, 1952. Lazar of Pharbi
(5th century). See Langlois, op. cit., vol. II, pp.
253-368. Moses of Chorene (5th century?). See
Langlois, op. cit., vol.II, pp.45-175. Also Le
Vaillant de Florival, Histoire de l’Arménie, 2
volumes - the Armenian text with French translation,
Paris, 1836. Sebeos (7th century). See F. Macler,
Histoire d’Héraclius par l’évêque Sébêos,
Paris, 1904. Ghevond the Historiographer (8th century).
See G. Chahnazarian, Histoire des Guerres et des
Conqaêtes des Arabes en Arménie, Paris, 1856.
Hovhan Catholicos (9th-10th century). See Saint-Martin,
Histoire de l'Arménie, published by Layard, Paris,
1841. Thomas Ardzrouni (9th-10th century). See M. F.
Brosset, Collection d'Historiens Arméniens, vol. I,
pp. 1-266. Stephanos Asoghik (10th-11th century). See
E. Dulaurier, Histoire Universelle par Etienne Açoghik
de Daron, Paris, 1883 - only the first part; the
second part is translated by F. Macler, Paris, 1917,
preceded by an important introduction. Oukhtanes (10th
century). See M. F. Brosset, Deux Historiens Arméniens,
pp.206-351, St. Petersburg, 1870. Aristakes
Lastivertatsi (11th century). See Prud’Homme,
Histoire d’Arménie, Paris, 1864.
(f) The Theological Literature. It would
be wrong to think by this term that theology as we
understand it to-day is the only subject of the works
which come under this title. It is difficult to find in
this literature theological themes treated in the way in
which we find them treated usually in the theological
books or essays of our time. Theological themes here are
not treated in the systematic method or in the form of a
particular technical language and style which we are
accustomed to find in the books we call 'theological' to-day.
'Theological literature' here refers to that part of
Armenian Christian literature in which theology is
expounded through sermons or homilies, discourses,
exhortations, refutations, commentaries and so forth. It
is legitimate in this sense to look at the whole
religious literature of the Armenian Church as a
theological literature when this term is understood in
its largest-and original meaning. If I draw this
distinction between the other branches which I reviewed
above and this 'theological' department which I consider
now, it is merely because in the latter the doctrinal
material is much more predominantly present than in the
former. In this field of Armenian Christian literature
our attention goes very naturally to the most important
authors and works. To give some names:
Mettheos Ourhayetsi (12th century). See E.
Dulaurier, Chronique de Matthieu d’Edesse, Paris, 1858.
Samuel Anetsi (12th century). See M. F. Brosset,
Collection d’Historiens Arméniens, vol.II, pp.339-483.
Vardan Areveltsi (13th century). See J. Muyldermans, 'La
Domination Arabe en Armenie,' extrait de l’Histoire
Universelle de Vardan-Étude de Critique Textuelle et
Littéraire, Louvain, 1927. Kirakos Gantzaketsi (13th
century). See M. F. Brosset, Deax Historiens Arméniens,
pp.1-205, St. Petersburg, 1870. Stepanos Orbelian (14th
century). See M. F. Brosset, Histoire de Ia Siounie, 2
volumes, St. Petersburg, 1864-6.
On the general characteristics of the
Armenian historiography and also on some individual
writers see Félix-Nève, L’Arm. Chrét. et sa Litt.,
the section entitled 'Des Principaux monuments de la Littérature
historique de l’Arménie,' pp. 287-400. Also H.
Berberian, 'Littérature Arménienne,' pp. 794-5, in
Histoire des Littératures (Encyclopédie de Ia Pléiade),
vol. I: Littératures Anciennes, Orientales et Orales,
edited by R. Queneau, pp.791-802, Paris, 1955.
For the contribution of the Armenian
historiographers to the study of the general history see,
as an example, the first volume of Recueil des Historiens
des Croisades, Documents Arméniens by E. Dulaurier. More
than seventeen Armenian writers have been translated in
extracts and commented on. Paris, 1869. For the
appreciation of the value of this contribution see the
views of some armenologists quoted by H. Thorossian in
the Preface of his Histoire de la Litterature Armenienne,
pp. 9-14.
(i) The Stromateis (Hadjakhapatoum) -
twenty-three homilies traditionally ascribed to S.
Gregory the Illuminator. They are sometimes attributed
also to S. Mesrop Mashtots (fifth century), the author of
the Armenian alphabet.42 (ii) The Homilies (Djark) of S.
John Mandakouni (fifth century) which have enjoyed a very
high reputation and have been held in considerably high
authority by the Armenian Church divines. Some of these
homilies recently have been attributed to John
Mayragometsi, a seventh century author, under whose name
they have been found in many manuscripts. Most of the
homilies have a moral character rather than strictly
doctrinal, having been conceived with the idea and
intention of Christian instruction. Important aspects of
the people's daily life and ordinary beliefs and
superstitions are reflected there. The volume is a mine
the study of which can give a clearer picture of the
Christian struggle with pagan customs and beliefs still
persisting on the level of day to day life.43
(iii) A treatise On the Iconoclasts by
Vertanes Kertogh (seventh century) which is reckoned the
first written document preserved in defence of the
veneration of images in the Christian Church.44
(iv) The five Christological Treatises of
Khosrovik Targmanich (i.e. the translator) - eighth
century - written against the later monophysite heretical
doctrines concerning the corruptibility and
42 The best edition is
that of Arshak Ter-Mikelian, Etchmiadzin, 1894.
Another well known and commonly used edition is the
one published in Venice, 1830. A German translation
by J. M. Schmid, Reden und Lehren des heiligen
Gregorius des Erleuchters Patriarch von Armenien,
Regensberg, 1872. See also another translation, in
parts, by E. Sommer and S. Weber, 'Ausgewählte Reden
aus dem Hatachachapatoum,' in Ausg. Schr. der Arm.
Kirchenväter, vol. I, pp.254-318. Here these
homilies are ascribed to Mesrop Mashtots. See a short
notice in Félix-Nève, L’Arm. Chret. et sa Litt.,
pp.248-55. 45 Published in Venice, 1860. A German
translation by J. Blatz and S. Weber, 'Reden des
armenischen Kirchenväters Johannes Mandakuni,' in
Ausg. Schr. der Arm. Kirchenväter, vol.II, pp. 50-269.
44 The text is published in Sion (monthly review of
the Patriarchate of Jerusalem) by Archbishop Eghishe
Tourian (see 1927, pp.22-5, 61-3). A French
translation by Miss Sirarpie Der-Nersessian who has
studied the text scrupulously and commented on it in
a masterly way (see 'Une Apologie des Images du
septieme siecle,' in Byzantion, t. XVIII (1944-5), pp.
58-87). Her conclusion, which seems to be above any
doubt or contest, is very important for the history
of the Iconoclastic movement in the Eastern Church 'C'est
ainsi, mais grace aussi au hasard, que la plus
ancienne apologie des images addressee à des chrétiens,
qui se soit conservée, est une ceuvre arménienne du
septième siècle' (p.87).
incorruptibility of the body of Christ.
They have not yet been given the attention they deserve
in connection with the study of the later developments of
monophysitism.45
(v) The works of Hovhannes Imastaser (John
the Philosopher, otherwise known as John of Odsoun) -
eighth century - namely his Treatise on the Church,
Against the Paulicians and Against the Phantasiastae. All
his works have been highly appreciated as being sound and
well balanced expositions of Christian doctrine composed
in the midst of conflicting heretical movements and also
as being now most valuable documents on the history of
those heretical movements in the East.46
(vi) The Exposition of the Prayers of the
Liturgy and the Commentary of the Divine Offices of
Khosrov Antzevatsi (tenth century) simply written and
richly documented treatises very important especially for
the historical study of the Liturgy and the Divine
Offices in the Armenian Church.47
(vii) The works of Nerses Lambronatsi, an
eminent figure in the twelfth century. The most important
one is his Exposition 0/ the Holy Liturgy, a masterly
essay of its kind. Being an ardent advocate of Christian
unity Lambronatsi had acquired a wide knowledge of other
Christian traditions. He could read Hebrew, Greek, Syriac
and Latin very easily. He produced commentaries,
theological treatises, and made translations of an
incredibly wide range. A thorough study in his life and
work will bring him to the forefront of the Armenian
theologians as an outstanding figure especially in the
ecumenical field.45
45 The text is
published by Vardapet Karekin Hovsepiants (lately
Catholicos of the See of Cilicia, Antelias),
Khosrovik Thargmanich and his works, Etchmiadzin,
1903. Reprinted from the review 'Ararat' and preceded
by a long introduction. 46 The Armenian text is
published in Venice in 1834 accompanied by a Latin
translation made by R. P. J. Aucher, Doinini Johannis
Philosophi Oziensis Armenorum Catholici Opera. An
English translation of the Refutation of the
Phantasiasts is made by Leon Arpee in his A History
of Arm. Christianity, New York, 1946. See Appendix II,
Tractate of John of Otzun against the Phantasiastae,
pp. 325-54. 47 The Commentary of the Divine Offices
is published in Constantinople 1840. The Exposition
of the Prayers of the Liturgy in Venice, 1869. There
is a Latin translation of the latter made by Dr. P.
Vetter, Chosroae Magni Episcopi Monophysitici
Explicatio Precum Missae, E lingua Armeniaca in
Latinam versa, Freiburg, 1880. See also the article
of S. Salaville, 'L'Explication de Ia Messe de l'Arme'nien
Chosrov-Théologie et Liturgie,' in Echos d’Orient,
t. XXXIX (1941-2), pp.349-82. 48 His works,
especially the Commentaries and many translations
from Latin, The Exposition of the Holy Liturgy has
gone through various editions. The important ones are
(a) the Jerusalem edition, 1842, and (b) the Venice
edition, 1847. It is translated into Italian, Alcuini
squarci del Commentano di S. N. Lambronese sulla
Liturgia Armena, Venice, 1851. See for his life and
work J. Karst, 'Nersès de Lampron,' article in
Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, t. XI, col. 72-6,
cf. H. Thorossian, Hist. de la Litt. Arm., pp. 537-40.
See a short biographical notice in E. Dulaurier,
Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, Documents
Armeniens, t. I, pp. 557-603 accompanied by some
extracts of Nerses’ ecumenical writings: 'Saint
Nersès de Lampron - Notice sur sa vie et ses écrits.'
But I feel that I cannot go farther along
this line, because I know that these names by themselves
will not mean much to you. I chose them from among many
others-not an easy choice, indeed! -in order to
substantiate my previous statement on the 'theological
literature' of the Armenian Church as taken separately
from the other branches of the same literature. Now
closing this sketch I come to the second section of this
part of my paper.
2. INDIVIDUAL WRITERS
Here I have taken up the names of four
Armenian ecclesiastical writers to speak of them
individually. I have done this for two reasons: (a) they
represent in themselves different typical aspects of
Armenian theological literature; (b) the significance of
their works reaches, more distinctly, beyond the limits
of a local, national literature out into the sphere of
the inter-ecclesiastical. In other words, they belong, so
to speak, to the universal tradition of the Christian
Church. It is this second feature of their importance
which makes me think that they may meet your interests in
a more direct way than other representatives of the
Armenian Christian literature.
(a) Eznik of KoIb. An apologist of the
fifth century he was trained in Constantinople for his
higher education. On his return to Armenia between 432
and 435 - after the Council of Ephesus - he brought with
him an accurate copy of the Greek Septuagint text of the
Bible on which the revision of the former Armenian
translation from a Syriac version was made. He then took
a very active part in the work of translating,
particularly in and through this radical recension of the
Armenian Bible and through the translation of the Church
Fathers with whose works he was so well acquainted in
Constantinople.
His literary work-a masterpiece of
classical Armenian language - which fortunately has
survived in a single manuscript, unicum - is a small book
in which he tries to vindicate the truth of the Christian
faith against almost all the kinds of attacks that were
made on it from the various philosophical schools, from
the pagan religious systems and from heretical sections
within the Church itself. The treatise which now has come
to be called Refutation of the Sects, is composed of four
books: (i) Against the Pagans
(ii) Against the Religion of the Persians-Mazdaism
(iii) Against the Greek Philosophers
(iv) Against the heresy of Marcion
A careful and searching look at this
sketch of his work will reveal that Eznik's chief concern
is the Christian doctrine of God. The unity of thought
which underlies all these sections of the book is the
orthodox Christian conception of God defensively
expounded against the background of non-orthodox
conceptions. Here lies then the theological nature of the
book.49
His task consists in examining all the
existing ideas and theories on God as understood both in
His transcendent being and in His personal nature
revealed through His relation to the world and to mankind.
Thus, pagan conceptions of God, the perpetual problem of
evil, extensively dwelt upon, with all its implications
and complications for the Christian doctrine of God, the
Mazdean and Manichæan dualistic systems of theism, the
Greek philosophical ideas as found in the different
schools of Greek thought - Pythagoreans, Peripatetics,
Platonists, Epicureans, Stoïcs, etc. - all these
constitute the vast theme of Eznik's rather concise
treatise which is a condensed, sound and vigorous
vindication of Christian theism as opposed to all the
conflicting and disturbing views referred to which seem
to have been strongly responded to in Armenia. 50
49 This
characterization of his work has been done for the
first time in a masterly thesis on Eznik by a well-known
French Patristic scholar and armenologist, R. P.
Louis Mariès, Le De Deo d’Eznik de Kolb-Études de
Critique Littéraire et Textuelle, Paris, 1924.
Before him and with a distance of more than fifty
years, Eznik's work had already served another
scholar for a thesis, Ernest Mordant, Ezeik, Docteur
Arménien du Ve siécle. These présentée à la
Faculté de Théologie Protestante de Strasbourg pour
obtenir le grade de Bachelier en Théologie,
Strasbourg, 1868.
50 It is obvious that
Eanik did not write this book as a pure theoretical
exposition of the Christian doctrine of God. He wrote
it rather with a practical purpose, i.e. to refute
all the doctrines which were actually and actively
present in Armenia through representative persons,
schools and sects. 'On the one hand, the spiritual
need,' writes L. Mane's, 'aroused partly by the
movements of pagan superstition still felt from time
to time in the body of the Church, and partly by
knowledge of the literatures and, on the other hand,
the necessity of combating the pagan authorities
which tried by propaganda efforts, both violent and
peaceful, to control religious life, acted together
and resulted in the production in the Church of S.
Gregory of an original apologia of Christian truth.
While the nation, troubled to its depth, listened to
the mutter of the storm which was continually drawing
nearer, in the bishop's residence at Bagrevand (Eznik
is supposed to have been the bishop of the province
of Bagrevand in central Armenia), a work of
apologetics was coming to completion, which not only
remains one of the treasures of Armenian literature,
but which, by its penetration of mind, its
accumulated knowledge and by its brilliance of style
can take a place of honour among the intellectual
productions of the classical era of the Fathers. I
refer to the "Refutation of Heresies" of
Eznik of Kolb' (op. cit., p.9).
It may be noted very easily that in Eznik's
work there is revealed a very wide, encyclopedic
knowledge of the most crucial philosophical and
theological problems of the time. Eznik is well versed in
Patristic literature from which he quotes easily and
extensively combining all the citations in an original
plan of his own and with a personal, direct approach to
the problem.51
One of the greatest contributions of this
author to modern scholarship consists in the first-hand
material he provides on, for example, the Mazdean
religion and the Marcionite heresy. His information on
these two religious systems has, in fact, con-
51 One of the values
of his book in the sight of the modern Christian
scholar lies in this particular aspect of his work,
in which many fragments of Church Fathers' writings
have been preserved and reached us. Thus, scholars
have been able to detect large quotations from
Aristides, Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Methodius of Olympus,
Epiphanius of Salamis, Ephraïm Syrus and others. For
example, speaking of the Treatise on Free Will of
Methodius of Olympus, Quasten says: It is extensively
quoted by Eanik of KoIb, the Armenian apologist of
the fifth century, in his Refutation of the Sects,
and thus large passages are preserved for us
translated into his native language' (Patrology, vol.II,
p. 134).
This fact has given
the impression that Eznik's work is devoid of
originality. It is sometimes thought of as being
simply an amalgamation or a juxtaposition of texts
taken from here and there. But the reality is not
what it appears to be at first sight. Thus the late P.
Louis Mariès at the end of his most scrupulous
examination of Eznik's text with the strictly
rigorous method of a detailed comparison of it with
the works of Christian apologists, says in clear
terms and with a definite conviction: 'However large
are the citations, we have seen that by his way of
using them Eznik was able to remain original.'
Especially the plan and the whole conception of the
work with its unity of thought and purpose are Eznik's
own: 'This plan reveals a writer with the instinct of
a philosopher and the piety of an intellectualist
theologian. We can therefore await with confidence
the results of the inquiries of those scholars who
are busy tracking down Eznik's borrowings. We repeat,
that even if one could prove that not one stone in
the whole edifice was his own, Eznik none-the-less
would remain its architect. The simplicity and
boldness of the design of this small edifice places
it among the most important works of the apologetic
literature in this period, whether Greek or Armenian'
(op. cit., pp. 92-3; cf. pp. 194-5).
siderably served the studies and
investigations into them. 52
It is, indeed, a significant instance
that in many ways and for more than one reason the
attention of scholars has been often drawn to this little
book which has been translated and studied with keen
interest and high appreciation. 53
(b) S. Gregory of Narek. If in Eznik of
KoIb we have a representative of the Armenian apologetic
literature, in S. Gregory of Narek, otherwise known as
Narekatsi, we have the highest expression of the Armenian
mystical literature. Still to-day a popular saint in the
Church of Armenia, Narekatsi was that author of the tenth
century who exerted the deepest influence on the
spirituality of the Armenian Church and gained an
unequalled place in the piety of the Armenian people. His
capital work is called The Book of Lamentations composed
of a series of prayers which are, indeed, genuine
mystical elevations to God. Popular Armenian piety has
come to associate with this book a veneration normally
reserved for a shrine or almost equal to that of an Icon
in the Orthodox Church. Thus, pious people for long
centuries have put it - and still do put it - under their
pillows as a guard against the power of evil. They read
52 See among others
the following books and articles A. Hamack, Marcion:
Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott, Leipzig, 1924. See
Texte und Untersuchungen, t. 45. Jean Riviere, Un
Exposé marcionite de la rédemption,' in Revue des
Sciences Religieuses, t. I (1921) pp. 185-207, 297-323.
R. P. Casey, 'The Armenian Marcionites and the
Diatessaron,' in Journal of Biblical Literature, vol.
LVII (1938), pp. I85-94. C. S. C. Williams, 'Eznik's
Résumé of Marcionite Doctrine,' in Journal of
Theological Studies, vol. XLV (1944), pp.65-73. E. C.
Blackman, Marcion and his influence, London, S.P.C.K.,
1948. For his contribution to the study of
Zoroastrianism, see A. Christensen, L’Iran sous les
Sassanides, Paris, 1944. Also R. C. Zachner, Zurvan -
A Zoroastrian Dilemma, Oxford, 1955. S. Runciman, The
Medieval Manichee-A Study of the Christian Dualist
Heresy, 4th edition, Cambridge, 1955. (Here Armenian
writers of the later centuries also are consulted
quite extensively.) 53 For the first time Eznik's
work was published in Izmir (Smyrna) in 1762. Since
then it has gone through many editions, mainly in
Venice. It was first translated into French by Le
Vaillant de Florival, Réfutation des différentes
sectes des Païens, de la Religion des Perses, de la
Religion des Sages de la Grèce, de la secte de
Marcion, Paris, 1853. The second part of the book, 'Against
the religion of the Persians,' in V. Langlois, Mist.
Arm., vol. II, pp. 375-82. A new and complete
translation has been made by the late Père Louis
Mariès. Surely it will be the best of all. A German
translation by J. M. Schmid, Des Wardapet Eznik von
Kolb: Wider die Sekten, Vienna, 1900. Another one by
S. Weber, Ezniks von Kolb: Wider die Irrlehren. See
Armenische Kirchenväter, vol. I, pp.25-180, Münich,
1927.
portions of it over a sick person. The
reputation of its author's saintliness was so eminent in
and after his lifetime that a writer of the twelfth
century has given expression to it by speaking of S.
Gregory of Narek as 'an angel in a human body' (Nerses
Lambronatsi).
This spiritual writer is a typical mystic.
In his book we realize the disclosure of a rather
peculiar aspect of mysticism. His work is entitled
Lamentations (or Elegies) because in his elevations to
the presence of God while communion with God brings him
into the unspeakable joy of the divine life, yet, at the
same time, it is for him the clear mirror in which human
sinfulness, pitifulness and nothingness are revealed to
him in and through his own person which he laments and
deplores. The presence of God within him reveals him to
himself in the truest condition of human frailty and
misery. Thus, he sees himself unworthy and incapable - on
his own merits - of that blissful enjoyment of God's
presence in him. Hence his mind clings to and is absorbed
by the idea of God's immeasurable power of grace as the
only ground of spiritual firmness and safety for him. He
pictures himself as thrown into a stormy sea with the
body as a boat. The grace of God is that wind of peace in
which his soul finds rest and comfort.54
This tragedy of human condition in his
soul, his book excels in displaying with that ampleness
and richness of expression which is undoubtedly his own
and constitutes one of the greatest literary values of
his work. 55
54 This persistent
idea of grace in Narekatsi is one of the greatest
theological themes in his book. It is not unworthy of
attention to note that an Armenian protestant author
suddenly caught by this predominant idea of grace in
Narekatsi immediately is brought to think of Calvin,
the great teacher of grace in the tradition of the
Reformation. Referring to this mystic he says: Our
writer, however, is a Calvinist before Calvin' (Leon
Arpee, A Hist. of Arm. Christianity, p. 167). But he
is, I believe the victim of a hasty conclusion,
because the doctrine of grace in Narekatsi is neither
scriptural (in the technical sense of this word) nor
rational, but rat her experimental, mystkal, as being
revealed to him through his own personal touch with
the divine and through the taste of its essence and
power. Perhaps S. Augustine may be taken as an
example to understand the way of mysticism that is
found in S. Gregory of Narek. In any case,
comparisons cannot help us very much.
55 His work and its
value have been noted by European scholars and have
won their appreciation and admiration. Thus in 1886 Félix-Nève
was already advocating the translation of this book
into a Western language: 'It is, indeed, one of the
finest glories of this ancient Church but so far
nothing has been done to make it known in the West.
It would be no small service to the sacred literature
to translate the works of this great theologian and
mystic' (L'Arm. Chrét. et sa Litt., p. 256). See the
whole section: 'Saint Grégoire de Nareg-Notice littéraire
et bibliographique,' pp. 256-68.
J. Karst, another
armenologist, looks at S. Narekatsi from the
background of the German mysticism in the Western
tradition of Christian spirituality. He says: 'Gregory
of Narek was essentially a philosopher of Christian-Armenian
mysticism, the great master and doctor of the
contemplative life, comparable wit h the great
mystical theologians of the Western Middle Ages such
as S. Bernard, Eckhard, Tauler, Suso. His
philosophico.theological teaching - a characteristic
it has in common with the German mysticism - is
clothed in a language of great poetical charm; and
although outwardly in the form of prose, it unfolds
in canticles overflowing with fervour' ('Nareg ou Narégatsi,'
article in Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholiqne, t.
XI, col. 24).
The literary beauty of
this work has attracted recently a French poet, Luc-André
Marcel, who being deeply caught by its profound
poetical power gave, through the help of Armenian
scholars and poets in Paris, an extremely graceful
translation of some prayers, with a penetrating study,
thus creating a widespread interest and admiration of
the beauty of Narekatsi's poetry. See 'Gregoire de
Narek,' edition des Cahiers dn Sud, Paris, 1954.
It would be
interesting to see where and how Luc-Andre' Marcel
sees the value of Narekatsi's poetry. I translate a
passage from his Introduction: 'Gregory of Narek
deserves threefold honours. First, because he is a
saint. And it seems that as the curtain falls on the
tragedy of six thousand years of our era, it is good
to consult all the great spiritual oracles if only by
way of forewarning or understanding. Secondly,
because he is a great poet, who raises the problem of
the eflicacy of the poetry in a very acute form.
Thirdly, because his work, which is perhaps in this
respect unique, for more than nine hundred years had
a magic power in the experience of a whole people:
this is a phenomenon which nroves its surpassing
value better than any purely iesthetic valuation' (pp.
19-20).
See also Archag
Tchobanian, 'Gregoire de Narek,' an article in
Mercure de France, November (1900), pp.369-405. This
is a literary analysis of Narekatsi's work with
extracts translated into French. Cf. Idem, Poemes Arméniens
Anciens et Modernes-Precede's d'une etude de Gabriel
Mourey sur La Poésie et l'Art Arméniens, pp.47-52,
Paris, 1902.
Two prayers are
included in the text of the Armenian Liturgy. They
are said by the priest in secret, behind the curtain,
immediately after the Accession to the altar. They
may be found in the English translations of the
Armenian Liturgy. A French translation is being
prepared for the series of Sources Chrétiennes. We
hope it will be published soon and justify, if done
in both an accurate and graceful way, the
expectations of the scholars.
There have been
several editions of the text. Commentaries have been
written in order to expound the profound spiritual
treasures of the book. Translations into Modern
Armenian have been made in order to make it available
to ordinary Armenian Christians. But we cannot go
into bibliographical details.
(c) S. Nerses Shnorhali. In S. Nerses
Shnorhali (i.e. 'the Gracious') - twelfth century - it is
very difficult to distinguish between the theologian and
the poet. No doubt he is equally both of them. In fact,
his expositions of the doctrine of the Armenian Church
are the clearest and the soundest of all the treatises on
the doctrinal position of the Armenian Church. The hymns
from his pen are the most beautiful ones in the Armenian
Hymnal. In connection with his poetical works he is to
the Armenian Church what a Romanus is to the Greek
Orthodox Church, and much more than a Wesley or a Keble
to the Anglican Church! His prayers may, indeed, be
counted among the best pieces of Christian spiritual
literature. Above all, a particular series of them,
composed in twenty-four strophes and intended for private
devotion, is translated into thirty-six languages and
published in Venice. 56
But I will not take into account either
of these two features of his work at the moment in order
to draw the figure of this Church Father, because besides,
or beneath, these two features there is one which may be,
I suppose, much more relevant for to-day and, therefore,
much more valuable in such a paper as this Nerses
Shriorhali is the ecumenical figure par excellence of
Armenian Church history and literature. His continuous
negotiations with the Byzantine Emperor, Manuel I
Comnenus (1143-80), for the reunion of the Armenian and
Byzantine Churches constitute one of the brightest
chapters in the history of the relations between the two
Churches. The story is quite well known not to be dwelt
upon. But it needs perhaps, and deserves surely, a
remembrance.
S. Nerses Shnorhali is deeply aware that
the communion in jaith exists already between the two
Churches, though they have different ways of expressing
that same faith. These differences are related to their
historical traditions which have not, however, obscured
or destroyed the orthodoxy of their faith in the Person
of Christ. The unity between them may be recovered and
inter-communion restored beyond the words and formulae,
if charity, good will and prayer become the driving
forces in the course of the negotiations. 'Let us not
examine,' he writes to the Emperor, 'in a spirit of
enmity and with useless quarrels, as it was done until
now, a procedure from which the Church derived no benefit
in all these years but was rather harmed by it; let it be
done in humility and calm. 57 He thinks that reunion must
be preceded by prayers to prepare the way, because unity
is not an end to be reached simply by human efforts and
calculated policy, but by divine guidance. Then he
suggests: Orders must be given that in all the Churches
under your (i.e. emperor's) jurisdiction prayers be made
to God that your good intention be not obstructed by
Satan, the adversary of Good, and that God may fulfil it
in His
56 Preces Sancti
Nersetis Clajensis Armeniorum Patriarchae triginta
sex linguis editae, Venice, 1882. 57 Quoted by
Sirarpie Der-Nersessian, Armenia and the Byzantine
Empire, p. 43, Harvard University Press, U.S.A., 1947.
mercy. We also, in our turn, have written
to all our Churches in the East (i.e. Cilicia) and in
Armenia Major (i.e. the fatherland of the Armenian people)
ordering them to make the same supplication to God.
Finally, let there be an end to this sickness which is of
so long standing, and to the distress of God because of
our divisions. Henceforth may God bind together the
children of the New Sion in the love of unity, and let
Him who is the source of our joy, God, rejoice with His
angels because of our reconciliation,' 58 (d) S. Gregory
of Datev. Finally, we come to the fourth writer whom I
will not hesitate to name as the Armenian Scholastic-Gregory
of Datev in the fourteenth century. He is the champion of
Armenian orthodoxy, an ardent controversialist engaged in
polemic with the Roman missionaries - Dominican and
Franciscan friars - and Armenian 'Romanizers' whose sole
mission in Armenia was to subjugate the Armenian Church
to the authority of the See of Rome, and to make her
accept all the dogmas as formulated and confessed in the
Roman Catholic Church. Gradually they had achieved quite
a wide expansion in the country; they began to gain
foothold chiefly through their educational activities
which attracted many Armenians
58 See his letter to
the Emperor in the Collection of Letters, entitled
after his famous Encyclical called Letter General, p.
105, Jerusalem, 1871. Cf. Sirarpie Der-Nersessian, op.
cit., chapter II; also my article, 'L'Unité Chrétienne
dans la Tradition de l'Église Arménienne,' in
Bulletin d'Orientations Oecnméniques, No. 15 (1958)
pp. I-II. For the historical account of the
negotiations see P. Tékéyan, Controverses
Christologiques en Arméno-Cilicie dans la seconde
moitié du XIIe siècle (1165-98) in the series of
Orientalia Christiana Analecta, No. 124, Rome, 1939.
This work must be read cautiously, because the author
being an Armenian Uniate tends to take a biased view
of the negotiations; cf. Ormanian, The Church of
Armenia, chapter XIII, 'Attempts towards union,' pp.45-50;
Leon Arpee, A Hist. of Arm. Christ., chapter XI, 'Controversies
and overtures,' pp. 131-48, particularly pp. I40-8.
So many and so varied are the works of St. Nerses
Shnorhali that it is impossible to give a list of
them here. Doctrinally and ecumenically the important
one is the collection of his letters already referred
to. A Latin translation of his works is made by J.
Cappelletti, Sancti Nersetis Clajensis Armeniorum
Catholici Opera, nunc primum ex armenio in latinum
conversa notisque illustrata studio et labore D.
Joseph Cappelletti, Venice, 1833, 2 vols. A French
translation of his exposition of the Armenian
doctrine addressed to Manuel the Emperor is to be
found in E. Dulautier, Histoire, Dogmes, Traditions
et Liturgie de l’Église Arménienne Orientale, pp.49-86,
Paris, 1855. For his literary work see Félix-Nève,
L’Arm. Chrét. et sa Litt., pp. 26-86: 'Le
Patriarche Nersès IV dit Schnorhali ou le Gracieux'
- envisagé comme écrivain; cf. Thorossian, Hist. de
la Litt. Arm., pp. 132-7.
desirous of learning from them the
elements of Western cultural and scientific knowledge.
But soon this hearty welcome of the Armenians to the
missionaries was taken by the latter as a great
opportanity of converting the Armenians into Latin
Catholicism thus, in fact, changing colours instead of
souls! The real missionary vocation, as designed by
Christ (Matt. 28: 19-2O) was being confounded with a
narrow proselytism. Even a religious community was
established in order to carry on this proselytism in a
systematic way; its members were recruited from the
converted Armenian priests. It was later attached to the
Dominican Order. Its special mission aimed at the union
of the Armenian Church with the Roman through the total
surrender and complete subjugation of the former to the
latter. It took its name, Unitores, fFom the nature of
its mission. Now, this meant going so far that it hurt
the religious consciousness of the Armenian people and,
therefore, met with strong opposition from the divines of
the Armenian Church on theological grounds. Some of them,
as we have noted already, had learned Latin and were
acquainted with the scholastic theology of the time which
was brought to the East by these missionaries. Gregory of
Datev came forward as the most learned and distinguished
theologian of this group of Armenian divines. So he led
or directed the movement of defence and counter-attack.
It is with this idea and to this end that he wrote his
books-sermons and commentaries - of which the most
important and the most influential was the Book of
Questions which has often been recognized as equivalent
in Armenian literature to the Summa Theologica of S.
Thomas Aquinas in Latin medieval literature both in
method and in content. Gregory's argumentation follows
the same discourse of question and answer, of objection
and solution given in numerical order as in the
scholastic method used in the Western medieval
theological literature. Actually, he was using the same
weapon, taken from the hands of his adversaries, but in
the opposite direction.59
59 The whole
importance of this work may be detected from a
judgment on its value by an Armenian Uniate writer: 'The
books of this author, according to Mgr. Somal, which
fate has preserved to us, are totally lacking in
beauty, but rich in errors; their eternal oblivion
would be an advantage for the Armenian literature and
Church' (see I. Hausherr, 'Arménienne' (Spiritualité),
in Did. de la Spiritualité; t. I, col. 873; quoted
from P. S. Somal, Quadro della Storia literaria di
Armenia, Venice, 1829).
His work is a thoroughgoing exposition of
Christian doctrine - with all its themes included - as
confessed and taught in the Armenian Church; not, however,
positively expounded but rather defensively, always being
compared and often contrasted with the teaching of the
Roman Church. 60 He stands constantly and firmly on the
ground of the Armenian Church's doctrinal position but
having his face turned towards the Roman Church, And this
must be understood in the context of the historical
circumstances we just outlined above. 61
An Armenian Patriarch once wrote at the
end of his Commentary on the Book of Lamentations of S.
Gregory of Narek, summing up the significance of his work:
'I built a clay door to a Golden Palace.' With the same
words I conclude now this brief survey of the Armenian
Christian Literature. I will be completely rewarded if
this compendium may serve as a door, however 'clay' it
may be, to introduce you into the Golden Palace of the
Armenian Christian Literature. Its beauty will be
revealed to an eye which penetrates deeper.
60 However his
approach to the authority in theology may be
interesting to quote: 'Now, the foundation of this
work,' he writes in the preface of his book, 'shall
rest upon the immovable rock Christ. And the whole
structure shall be fortified by four pillars, the
first erected by the apostolic preaching, the second
by the prophetical witness, the third by the truth as
elucidated by commentators, and the fourth by my
readers' truth loving assent' (quoted and translated
by Leon Arpee, A Hist. of Arm. Christianity, p. 577).
61 The Book of Questions has been published only once
(Constantinople, 1729). Two other volumes also have
been published of the same author. They are
Collections of Sermons, mostly of doctrinal content
and of polemical character, containing more than
three hundred sermons on all the themes of Christian
doctrine and moral teaching. No serious attempt has
been made to study them thoroughly and against the
background of the Western Scholasticism of the time,
which is absolutely necessary for the understanding
of S. Gregory's literary and theological heritage. No
translation of any of his works is known to me. A
brief account of his theology may be found in Leon
Arpee, op. cit., chapter XIV, 'Gregory of Datev and
the Armenian Summa,' pp. 175-6.
|
