MJ

Boghos, Like you have indicated in another thread today that there are inherent insecurities in the Turkish society, there are such insecurities also in Armenian society. It is especially apparent on the example of our younger people. The fact of the matter is that Armenian women have been very popular in Asia Minor and Europe in the medieval centuries. There are renowned Armenian historians of the 11th century, as well as at least few romantic novels of the 19th (?) century (by Alexander Duma, for example), which attest to this fact. Moreover, Aristakes Lastivertsi (11th century) claims that the trouble of Armenia where due to the [behavior?] good looks of Armenian women. Everybody had their eyes on them. And I think it is quite natural. The era he describes has been an era of massive exodus/exile of Armenian men from Armenia for variety of reasons – jobs, religious freedoms, curiosity, apathy, etc. In some sense, the situation is similar even in our days. According to an article I read few days ago, the number of marriage age women in Armenia outnumbers the number of men by 1/3. What I don’t get regarding the emotions around this matter can be formulated as simple as this, “What’s the big deal about it?” Since when have Armenians become a puritanistic society?

Good approach, in my view. Few things need to be seen in a proper historical and political context: 1. Karabagh has almost never been part of Armenia (at least for about 1600 years), but it has never been part of Azerbaijan, either, first of all since nothing of the kind as Azerbaijan has existed prior to 1918. 2. In 1918-1920, while being an overwhelmingly Armenian populated entity, and voting about 20 times in favor of Armenia, Karabagh has been disputed by the Republics of Azerbaijan and Armenia, however, this dispute has not resulted in a resolution. 3. In late 1920 the then head of the Azerbaijani Government has declared officially the recognition of Karabagh (and Nakhichevan) as part of Armenia. There is an opinion that it has been done just to entice the Government of the Republic of Armenia 9consisting of ARF functionaries) into the laps of the Russian dominance. 4. Subsequently, in 1923, Karabagh has been placed under Azerbaijan by the signature of Stalin on behalf of the so called Kav-Burro (Caucasian Burro - a Communist Party Organ). Given the independence of Armenia/Caucasus from Russia at the time, legally speaking, that signature had no power. Therefore, one may conclude that Karabagh has never been part of Azerbaijan even after 1923. True, the subsequent Soviet Constitutions have described Karabagh as part of Azerbaijan, but given the totalitarian character of the Soviet Empire, there is not much legal merit in the recognition of Karabagh as part of Azerbaijan (what was good for Baltic States, which also where described as part of USSR according to the Soviet Constitution should be good for Karabagh, too.) Therefore, I think the Minister of Foreign Affairs may be standing on robust conceptual and legal foundations.

17 ÝáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ, 2001Ã. г۳ëï³Ý-ºíñáå³ÛÇ ËáñÑáõñ¹ ÷áñÓ³·Çï³Ï³Ý ËÙµÇ Ñ³Ý¹ÇåáõÙÁ êïñ³ëµáõñ·áõÙ ÜáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ 15-16-Á êïñ³ëµáõñ·áõ٠ϳ۳ó³í г۳ëï³Ý-ºíñáå³ÛÇ ËáñÑáõñ¹ ÷áñÓ³·Çï³Ï³Ý µ³ñÓñ³ëïÇ×³Ý ËÙµÇ 3-ñ¹ ³ß˳ï³Ýù³ÛÇÝ Ñ³Ý¹ÇåáõÙÁ, áñÇÝ Ù³ëݳÏó»Éáõ Ýå³ï³Ïáí êïñ³ëµáõñ·áõÙ ¿ñ ·ïíáõÙ ÐÐ ³ñ¹³ñ³¹³ïáõÃÛ³Ý Ý³Ë³ñ³ñ ¸³íÇà гñáõÃÛáõÝÛ³ÝÇ ·É˳íáñ³Í å³ïíÇñ³ÏáõÃÛáõÝÁ£ ä³ïíÇñ³ÏáõÃÛ³Ý Ï³½ÙáõÙ ¿ÇÝ ÐÐ Ý»ñùÇÝ ·áñÍ»ñÇ ÷áËݳ˳ñ³ñ ÐáíѳÝÝ»ë ÐáõݳÝÛ³ÝÁ, Ý»ñùÇÝ ·áñÍ»ñÇ ÷áËݳ˳ñ³ñ, Ý»ñùÇÝ ½áñù»ñÇ Ññ³Ù³Ý³ï³ñ ñÇ·áñ ñÇ·áÛ³ÝÁ, É˳íáñ ¹³ï³Ë³½áõÃÛ³Ý ³í³· ¹³ï³Ë³½ ²Éµ»ñï ØÏñïãÛ³ÝÁ, ³ñ¹³ñ³¹³ïáõÃÛ³Ý Ý³Ë³ñ³ñáõÃÛ³Ý Ï³éáõóí³Íù³ÛÇÝ µ³ñ»÷áËáõÙÝ»ñÇ í³ñãáõÃÛ³Ý å»ï ÜÇÏáÉ³Û ²éáõëï³ÙÛ³ÝÁ£ ºíñáå³ÛÇ ËáñÑáõñ¹Á Ý»ñϳ۳óÝáõÙ ¿ÇÝ ºÊ É˳íáñ ù³ñïáõÕ³ñáõÃÛ³Ý Çñ³í³Ï³Ý ѳñó»ñáí ·É˳íáñ ïÝûñ»Ý Ç ¹Á ì»ÉÁ, ºÊ ³Ý¹³Ù ï³ñµ»ñ »ñÏñÝ»ñÇó Å³Ù³Ý³Í ¨ Çñ³í³Ï³Ý ѳñó»ñáí ·É˳íáñ ïÝûñÇÝáõÃÛ³Ý ÷áñÓ³·»ïÝ»ñÁ£ гݹÇåáõÙÁ ï»ÕÇ ¿ áõÝ»ó»É ºíñáå³ÛÇ ËáñÑñ¹ÇÝ ³Ý¹³Ù³ÏóáõÃÛ³Ý Å³Ù³Ý³Ï Ð³Û³ëï³ÝÇ ëï³ÝÓÝ³Í å³ñï³íáñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ, Ù³ëݳíáñ³å»ëª ùñ»³Ï³ï³ñáÕ³Ï³Ý ÑÇÙݳñÏÝ»ñÇ Ñ³Ù³Ï³ñ·Ç µ³ñ»÷áËáõÙÝ»ñÇ Çñ³Ï³Ý³óÙ³Ý ßñç³Ý³ÏÝ»ñáõÙ: ²ß˳ï³Ýù³ÛÇÝ »ñÏáõ ûñ»ñÇ ÁÝóóùáõÙ Ù³Ýñ³Ù³ëÝ ùÝݳñÏí»É »Ý ùñ»³Ï³ï³ñáÕ³Ï³Ý ÑÇÙݳñÏÝ»ñÇ ÷á˳ÝóÙ³Ý Ñ»ï ϳåí³Í ûñ»Ýë¹ñ³Ï³Ý ¨ ϳ½Ù³Ï»ñåã³Ï³Ý ËݹÇñÝ»ñÁ, áñÇ ³ñ¹ÛáõÝùáõÙ Ùß³Ïí»É ¿ ѳٳÉÇñ ·áñÍáÕáõÃÛ³Ý Íñ³·Çñ£ ºíñáå³ÛÇ ËáñÑñ¹Ç ·Ý³Ñ³ï³Ï³Ýáí, г۳ëï³ÝáõÙ µ³í³Ï³Ý ËáñÁ ¨ Ñ»ï¨áÕ³Ï³Ý ³ß˳ï³Ýù ¿ ï³ñí»É ³Ûë áõÕÕáõÃÛ³Ùµ ¨ ³ñ¹ÛáõÝùÝ»ñÝ ëå³ëí³ÍÇó ³í»ÉÇÝ »Ý£ ²Ûó»ÉáõÃÛ³Ý ÁÝóóùáõÙ ÐÐ ³ñ¹³ñ³¹³ïáõÃÛ³Ý Ý³Ë³ñ³ñÁ ѳݹÇåáõÙÝ»ñ ¿ áõÝ»ó»É سñ¹áõ Çñ³íáõÝùÝ»ñÇ »íñáå³Ï³Ý ¹³ï³ñ³ÝÇ Ý³Ë³·³Ñ Èáõ½Çáõë ìÇɹ³µ»ñÇ, ºÊ É˳íáñ ù³ñïáõÕ³ñÇ ï»Õ³Ï³É гÝë øñÇëïÇ³Ý ÎñÛáõ·»ñÇ, ºÊÊì É˳íáñ ù³ñïáõÕ³ñ ´ñáõÝá гɻñÇ, ºÊ É˳íáñ ù³ñïáõÕ³ñáõÃÛ³Ý Çñ³í³Ï³Ý ѳñó»ñáí ·É˳íáñ ïÝûñ»Ý Ç ¹Á ì»ÉÇ, ØÇç³½·³ÛÇÝ Çñ³í³Ï³Ý ѳٳ·áñͳÏóáõÃÛ³Ý ïÝûñ»Ý سñÇ-ú¹ÇÉ ì»¹»ñÏ»ÑñÇ ¨ ºÊ ݳ˳ñ³ñÝ»ñÇ ÏáÙÇï»áõ٠г۳ëï³ÝÇ Ñ»ï³Ý¹³Ù³Ïó³ÛÇÝ å³ïñ³íáñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ Ï³ï³ñÙ³ÝÁ Ñ»ï¨áÕ ËÙµÇ Ñ»ï£ ÐÐ ³ñ¹³ñ³¹³ïáõÃÛ³Ý Ý³Ë³ñ³ñÁ ½ñáõó³ÏÇóÝ»ñÇÝ ï»Õ»Ï³óñ»É ¿ ³ÛÝ ³é³çÁÝóóÝ»ñÇ Ù³ëÇÝ, áñáÝù г۳ëï³ÝáõÙ í»ñçÇÝ ßñç³ÝáõÙ ï»ÕÇ »Ý áõÝ»ó»É ëï³ÝÓÝ³Í å³ñï³íáñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ ³éáõÙáíª ûñ»ÝùÝ»ñÇ ÁݹáõÝáõÙ, ûñÇݳ·Í»ñÇ Ùß³ÏáõÙ, ºÊ ÏáÝí»ÝódzݻñÇ ëïáñ³·ñáõÙ áõ í³í»ñ³óáõÙ ¨ ³ÛÉÝ£ Æñ³í³Ï³Ý ѳñó»ñáí ·É˳íáñ ïÝûñ»ÝÇ Ñ»ï ùÝݳñÏí»É »Ý ݳ¨ Çñ³í³Ï³Ý µÝ³·³í³éáõÙ ºÊ-Ç Ñ»ï ѳٳ·áñͳÏóáõÃÛ³Ý Ñ³ñó»ñÁ£

quote:Originally posted by Twilight Bark: They don't need to do it forever. Just long enough to make the whole matter "ancient" enough to look irrelevant. And they don't need to fool everybody all of the time either. They just need to fool their own population. Complicity of the "intelligentsia" is not that hard to accomplish, since their superficial interests coincide. They don't need to fool anyone outside, but merely intimidate their allies into silence. And Turkey has been brilliant at all counts. Those among Armenians who like to believe that Turks are stupid, ignorant simpletons are only enjoying the bliss of ignorance themselves. TB, I find your observation being absolutely and incredibly accurate. There is only one perspective, by which recognition of the Genocide by Turkey is relevant to Armenia - Turkey's becoming of a civil society, respecting Human Life and Human Rights. First of all, it is for Turkey's own good. Second, it is good for Armenia to have such neighbor, rather than what she has now. [ November 17, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

Dear Ali, Indeed, the Ottoman Empire would've not been undermined by the Armenian Statehood, even if Armenians had pulled chunks of its Eastern territories. As I have mentioned once in this forum, and as TB puts it very astutely, Turkey didn't have any use for these territories then, and I would add, again, that it has no use for them even now. However, I do think that this was the primary reason behind the Genocide no matter how inflated the “danger” of it might’ve been conceptualized. The thing is that what we would call “Armenian nation,” didn’t exist at the time of the Genocide. Armenians had long stopped being a nation, and had turned themselves into a religious community (in fact, by in large, the same concerns the Armenian Diaspora even today). There was no will outside small groups of revolutionaries operating in Istanbul and Tiflis, and to a less degree in European cities, to see an Armenia Statehood. The vast segments of Ottoman Armenians just didn’t care, as long as they had the privilege of attending Armenian Church ceremonies every Sunday, and baptizing their children, conducting wedding and burying their dead according to Armenian religious ceremonies – to a overwhelmingly large degree, this is what the Armenian Church amounts to even in our days. What had been irritating the Ottomans was the aspiration of Armenian Revolutionaries to turn the religious minority into a national-political entity. And they felt threatened, but threatened of what? Part of all that was their brutality, part of it was their arrogance (this can be traced all the way to our days), part of it was their desire to poses the Armenian property (to partially compensate the displaced Turks from Balkans, and perhaps to “bribe” Kurds to buy their loyalty in the WWI), etc. However, contrary to TB’s opinion, I think pan-Turkism was a very minor factor in the Genocide, though some highest profile Ittehat members cherished such hopes/concepts. Armenians on the territory of Ottoman Empire, and even the Armenian Statehood on the territory of its Eastern provinces where not an obstacle for pan-Turkist aspirations. If any obstacle, it would’ve been the Armenians on the territory of Eastern (Russian) Armenia, but primarily the Russian forces, which until 1917 where in a pretty good shape and victorious in WWI. One has to consider also that the agenda of Armenian Revolutionaries was not the Independence of Eastern Armenia, nor “United” Armenia as they would claim today. To the contrary, the independence of Eastern Armenia from Russia was against the political doctrine of the primary revolutionary force at the time – ARF/Dasnak, and even to such degree that when in 1918 Eastern Armenia found itself under circumstances of what is called “forced” independence (bardadrvadz angakhutiun), the ARF burro fiercely opposed it, and for a while even sabotaged it. The responsibility of establishing the Republic of Armenia was undertaken by an all time Armenian hero, previously known from the defense of Van, a nominal member of ARF, an absolutely non-partisan person by mentality and character - Aram Manugian. After the death of Aram (this is how the people has addressed him), and on the basis of his titanic work of few months, the ARF burro rushed to occupy the chairs of the governance of Armenia, perhaps so that to destroy in a period of a year everything that Aram had accomplished. Note also that much in the same spirit, ARF opposed the independence of Armenia in the period of 1988-1991 (don’t make me to give more details ). They reversed their course even later than the Social-Democrat Hnchags and Liberal-Democrat Ramgavars did, when it looked like the sky was falling apart on their heads. There was nothing more absurd that you might expect in the Armenian political spectrum, from the surface, though things where quite logical for those who understand Armenian history and politics beyond the empty clichés. Back to the topic. I can contemplate here an option that the Ottoman Empire might’ve had in the view of the circumstances alluded above. That is the establishing in 1915 a “Western” Armenian statehood under the protectorate of Turkey on the territory of its Eastern provinces, and in the spirit of the much experimented Russian strategy (300 years old, by now), it could’ve used “Western” Armenia as a buffer zone against Russia and, moreover, threaten Russia’s grip of Eastern Armenia, thus eroding the support of Armenian volunteers given to the Russian Army. I mean, rather than the Russian Czar contemplating the idea of free and independent Armenia (meaning “Western” Armenia, because in the lexicon of the time, Armenia has meant “Western" Armenia), same way Turkey might’ve contemplated the idea of Free, Independent and United (Eastern and Western) Armenia, thus weakening the Russian influence in Eastern Armenia (though then, we might’ve perhaps faced potential Genocide from the Russian side). Things where not rationally analyzed at the time, and I don’t think due to lack of strategic thinking from the Turkish side. It was just an outcome of attitude, brutality, arrogance and greed, as I mentioned above, which prevented the Turks to accept in their minds the potential independence of Armenia. (Allegorically thinking, has it ever happened that you have worked for someone for long time, and he/she has gotten so used to your subordination, that any advancement of your has been hindered or sabotages by your boss?) To summarize, I think the argument that Turkey eliminate its Armenian minority out of self-preservation lacks serious merit. Armenians where not a threat to Turkey, even if they would’ve succeeded in gaining independence and succeeding the Eastern Anatolian territories. To the contrary, it might’ve much benefited Turkey. [ November 17, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

²Ü вê²ð²Î²ÚÜàôÂÚ²Ü Ðºî в𲴺ðàôÂÚàôÜܺðÆ ì²ðâàôÂÚàôÜ Ð³Õáñ¹³·ñáõÃÛáõÝ Ù³ÙáõÉÇ Ñ³Ù³ñ 17 ÝáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ, 2001Ã. ÐÐ ² ݳ˳ñ³ñÁ ѳݹÇå»É ¿ è¸ ¨ Îáõµ³ÛÇ ³ñï·áñÍݳ˳ñ³ñÝ»ñÇÝ ÜáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ 16-ÇÝ ÐÐ ³ñï³ùÇÝ ·áñÍ»ñÇ Ý³Ë³ñ³ñ ì³ñ¹³Ý úëϳÝÛ³ÝÁ, زÎ-Ç 56-ñ¹ Ýëï³ßñç³ÝÇÝ Ù³ëݳÏóáõÃÛ³Ý ßñç³Ý³ÏÝ»ñáõÙ, ѳݹÇå»ó èáõë³ëï³ÝÇ ¸³ßÝáõÃÛ³Ý ³ñï·áñÍݳ˳ñ³ñ Æ·áñ Æí³ÝáíÇ Ñ»ï: гݹÇåÙ³Ý Å³Ù³Ý³Ï ùÝݳñÏí»É »Ý éáõë-³Ù»ñÇÏÛ³Ý Ñ³ñ³µ»ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇÝ, ÇÝãå»ë ݳ¨ È»éݳÛÇÝ Ô³ñ³µ³ÕÇ Ë³Õ³Õ ·áñÍÁÝóóÇ ³ñ¹Ç íÇ׳ÏÇÝ ³éÝãíáÕ Ñ³ñó»ñ: ÜáõÛÝ ûñÁ ݳ˳ñ³ñ úëϳÝÛ³ÝÁ ѳݹÇå»É ¿ ݳ¨ زÎ-Ç ¼³ñ·³óÙ³Ý Íñ³·ñÇ (UNDP) ºíñáå³ÛÇ ¨ ²äРѳñó»ñáí ï³ñ³Íù³ÛÇÝ Ï³é³í³ñÇã γÉÙ³Ý ØÇë»ñÇ Ñ»ïª ùÝݳñÏ»Éáõ г۳ëï³ÝáõÙ Çñ³·áñÍíáÕ Íñ³·ñ»ñÇ ÁݹɳÛÝÙ³Ý Ñݳñ³íáñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ: ܳËáñ¹ ûñÁª ÝáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ 15-ÇÝ, ÐÐ ³ñï·áñÍݳ˳ñ³ñ ì³ñ¹³Ý úëϳÝÛ³ÝÁ زÎ-áõ٠ѳݹÇåáõÙ ¿ áõÝ»ó»É Îáõµ³ÛÇ ³ñï·áñÍݳ˳ñ³ñ ü»ÉÇå» ä»ñ»½ èáù»Ç Ñ»ï: ÎáÕÙ»ñÁ ùÝݳñÏ»É »Ý »ñÏÏáÕ٠ѳñ³µ»ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ ÁݹɳÛÝÙ³Ý Ñݳñ³íáñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ, ÇÝãå»ë ݳ¨ ѳٳ·áñͳÏóáõÃÛáõÝÁ ÙÇç³½·³ÛÇÝ Ï³½Ù³Ï»ñåáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñáõÙ: ÜáõÛÝ ûñÁ ݳ˳ñ³ñ úëϳÝÛ³ÝÁ ѳݹÇåáõÙ ¿ áõÝ»ó»É ݳ¨ ²Ù»ñÇϳÛÇ Ññ»³Ï³Ý ÏáÙÇï»Ç Ý»ñϳ۳óáõóÇãÝ»ñÇ Ñ»ï: øÝݳñÏí»É »Ý ²Ù»ñÇϳÛáõÙ Ñ³Û ¨ Ññ»³Ï³Ý ѳٳÛÝùÝ»ñÇ ÙÇç¨ Ñ³ñ³µ»ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ ¨ г۳ëï³Ý-Æëñ³Û»É »ñÏÏáÕ٠ѳñ³µ»ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ ½³ñ·³óÙ³Ý Ñ»é³ÝϳñÝ»ñÁ: гݹÇåÙ³Ý ÁÝóóùáõÙ ÏáÕÙ»ñÁ ϳñÍÇùÝ»ñ »Ý ÷áË³Ý³Ï»É Ý³¨ ÎáíϳëÇ ¨ ØÇçÇÝ ²ñ¨»ÉùÇ ï³ñ³Í³ßñç³ÝÝ»ñáõÙ Çñ³íÇ׳ÏÇ Ù³ëÇÝ: ì»ñç:

Given that Armenian "sluts" have elevated prostitution to the level of Art (judging from the affiliation of the material to the Arts forum), all this sounds quite terrific. We are the first, again. Therefore, indeed "hurray for Armenian sluts".

²Ü вê²ð²Î²ÚÜàôÂÚ²Ü Ðºî в𲴺ðàôÂÚàôÜܺðÆ ì²ðâàôÂÚàôÜ Æ ·ÇïáõÃÛáõÝ Éñ³ïí³ÙÇçáóÝ»ñÇ 16.11.2001Ã. 2001Ã. ÝáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ 19-Çó 22-Á г۳ëï³ÝáõÙ å³ßïáÝ³Ï³Ý ³Ûóáí ·ïÝí»Éáõ ¿ ÚàôܺêÎú-Ç É˳íáñ ïÝûñ»Ý ÎáÇãÇñá سóáõñ³Ý: ܳ Ïáõݻݳ ÙÇ ß³ñù ѳݹÇåáõÙÝ»ñ ¨ ÏÙ³ëݳÏóÇ ÚàôܺêÎú-Ç Ñáí³Ý³íáñáõÃÛ³Ùµ ÝáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ 20-Çó 22-Á ºñ¨³Ýáõ٠ϳ۳ݳÉÇù §ì»ñ³ÍÝáõݹ Ùß³ÏáõÛÃÇ ÙÇçáóáí¦ Ëáñ³·ñáí ÜíÇñ³ïáõÝ»ñÇ ÏáÝý»ñ³ÝëÇ µ³óÙ³ÝÁ: äñÝ. ÎáÇãÇñá سóáõñ³ÛÇ å³ßïáÝ³Ï³Ý ³ÛóÇ Íñ³·ÇñÁ سÙáõÉÇ Ù³ëݳÏóáõÃÛáõÝÝ Áëï ÙÇçáó³éáõÙÝ»ñÇ Ïóí³Í ųٳݳϳóáõÛóÇ Ñ³Ù³Ï³ñ·áõÙ ¿ ÐÐ ²Ü гë³ñ³Ï³ÛÝáõÃÛ³Ý Ñ»ï ѳñ³µ»ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ í³ñãáõÃÛáõÝÁ /Ñ»é. 56 25 43/: ÜáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ 21-ÇÝ, Å. 16.00-ÇÝ, ÐÐ ²Ü-áõÙ Ïϳ۳ݳ åñÝ. ÎáÇãÇñáÛÇ Ù³ÙÉá ³ëáõÉÇëÁ: ä³ßïáÝ³Ï³Ý ³ÛóÇ ßñç³Ý³ÏÝ»ñáõÙ åñÝ. سóáõñ³Ý Ïáõݻݳ å³ßïáÝ³Ï³Ý Ñ³Ý¹ÇåáõÙÝ»ñ ÐРܳ˳·³Ñ è. øáã³ñÛ³ÝÇ, ²Ä ݳ˳·³Ñ ². ʳã³ïñÛ³ÝÇ, í³ñã³å»ï ². سñ·³ñÛ³ÝÇ Ñ»ï, ³ß˳ï³Ýù³ÛÇÝ Ñ³Ý¹ÇåáõÙÝ»ñ ²Ü ÷áËݳ˳ñ³ñ Â. سñ·³ñÛ³ÝÇ, ÎñÃáõÃÛ³Ý ¨ ·ÇïáõÃÛ³Ý Ý³Ë³ñ³ñ È. ØÏñïãÛ³ÝÇ, Øß³ÏáõÛÃÇ, »ñÇï³ë³ñ¹áõÃÛ³Ý ¨ ëåáñïÇ Ñ³ñó»ñÇ Ý³Ë³ñ³ñ è. Þ³éáÛ³ÝÇ Ñ»ï: äñÝ. سóáõñ³Ý ϳÛó»ÉÇ Ý³¨ سÛñ ²Ãáé êµ. ¾çÙdzÍÇÝ, áñï»Õ ÏѳݹÇåÇ Ø³Ûñ ²ÃáéÇ ·ñ³ë»ÝÛ³ÏÇ Õ»Ï³í³ñ ö³é»Ý êñµ³½³Ý ²í»ïÇùÛ³ÝÇ Ñ»ï ¨ ϳÛó»ÉÇ ·³ÝÓ³ñ³Ý: Ø»Í ºÕ»éÝÇ Ñáõ߳ѳٳÉÇñáõ٠ݳ ϳÛó»ÉÇ ºÕ»éÝÇ Ã³Ý·³ñ³Ý, ͳÕÏ»åë³Ï ϹÝÇ ¨ ͳé ÏïÝÏÇ ºÕ»éÝÇ ½áÑ»ñÇ ÑÇß³ï³ÏÇÝ: ºñ¨³ÝÇ å»ï³Ï³Ý ѳٳÉë³ñ³ÝáõÙ Ïϳ۳ݳ ѳݹÇåáõÙ ¹³ë³Ëáë³Ï³Ý ϳ½ÙÇ ¨ áõë³ÝáÕáõÃÛ³Ý Ñ»ï, åñÝ. سóáõñ³ÛÇÝ ÏßÝáñÑíÇ å³ïí³íáñ ¹áÏïáñÇ ÏáãáõÙ: ܳ˳ï»ëí³Í ¿ ³Ûó»ÉáõÃÛáõÝ Ø³ï»Ý³¹³ñ³Ý ¨ ê. ö³ñ³ç³ÝáíÇ Ã³Ý·³ñ³Ý: §ì»ñ³ÍÝáõݹ Ùß³ÏáõÛÃÇ ÙÇçáóáí¦ ÜíÇñ³ïáõÝ»ñÇ ÏáÝý»ñ³ÝëÁ ÎáÝý»ñ³ÝëÁ ï»ÕÇ Ïáõݻݳ ë.Ã. ÝáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ 20-Çó 22-Á, ÐРγé³í³ñáõÃÛ³Ý ÀݹáõÝ»ÉáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ ï³ÝÁ /سßïáóÇ åáÕ., 47/: سÙáõÉÇ ÙáõïùÁ µ³óÙ³Ý ÝÇëïÇÝ ³ñïáݳ·ñí³Í ¿ /ÝáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ 20-ÇÝ, Å.10:00- 11:00/: Èñ³óáõóÇã ï»Õ»ÏáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ Ñ³Ù³ñ ¹ÇÙ»É ²Ü гë³ñ³Ï³ÛÝáõÃÛ³Ý Ñ»ï ѳñ³µ»ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ í³ñãáõÃÛáõÝ, ϳ٠ÚàôܺêÎú-Ç Ð³Û³ëï³ÝÇ ²½·³ÛÇÝ Ñ³ÝÓݳÅáÕáíÇ ·É˳íáñ ù³ñïáõÕ³ñ, ïÏÝ. ì³ñ¹áõÑÇ ²ë³ïáõñÛ³ÝÇÝ, Ñ»é. 56-69-11: î»Õ»Ï³Ýù Øß³ÏáõóÛÇÝ Å³é³Ý·áõÃÛ³Ý å³Ñå³ÝáõÙÁ áõÝÇ ÑëÏ³Û³Ï³Ý Ý߳ݳÏáõÃÛáõÝ ó³Ýϳó³Í ÅáÕáíñ¹Ç ³½·³ÛÇÝ ÇÝùÝáõÃÛáõÝÁ å³Ñå³Ý»Éáõ ·áñÍáõÙ: г۳ëï³ÝÇ å³ñ³·³ÛáõÙ Ùß³ÏáõóÛÇÝ Å³é³Ý·áõÃÛáõÝÁ, ѳïϳå»ëª ׳ñï³ñ³å»ï³Ï³Ý ųé³Ý·áõÃÛáõÝÁ, ٻͳå»ë íï³Ý·í³Í ¿. ¹ñ³ å³ï׳éÝ»ñÁ ½³Ý³½³Ý »Ýª ùñÇëïáÝ»áõÃÛ³Ý Ñáõß³ñÓ³ÝÝ»ñÇ å³Ñå³ÝÙ³Ý Ñ³ñóáõÙ ËáñÑñ¹³ÛÇÝ Çß˳ÝáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ ¹ÅϳÙáõÃÛáõÝÁ, µÝ³Ï³Ý ³Õ»ïÝ»ñÁ, ѳïϳå»ëª 1988Ã. ³í»ñÇã »ñÏñ³ß³ñÅÁ, í³Ûñ»ñÁ í»ñ³Ï³Ý·Ý»Éáõ ¨ å³Ñå³Ý»Éáõ ѳٳñ ³ÝÑñ³Å»ßï ýÇݳÝë³Ï³Ý ÙÇçáóÝ»ñÇ ³Ýµ³í³ñ³ñáõÃÛáõÝÁ: гÛÏ³Ï³Ý Ùß³ÏáõóÛÇÝ Å³é³Ý·áõÃÛ³Ý å³Ñå³ÝáõÙÁ ٻͳ·áõÛÝ Ý߳ݳÏáõÃÛáõÝ áõÝÇ Ý³¨ г۳ëï³ÝáõÙ ½µáë³ßñçáõÃÛ³Ý ËóÝÙ³Ý Ñ³ñóáõÙ: гñáõëï ÉÇÝ»Éáí ½µáë³ßñçÇÏÝ»ñÇ Ñ³Ù³ñ Ý»ñϳÛáõÙë Ù»Í Ñ»ï³ùñùñáõÃÛáõÝ í³ÛÉáÕ å³ïÙ³Ï³Ý Ñáõß³ñÓ³ÝÝ»ñáí ¨ ÑÇݳíáõñó ÏáÃáÕÝ»ñáíª Ð³Û³ëï³ÝÁ ³Ûëûñ ãáõÝÇ ¹ñ³Ýù å³Ñå³Ý»Éáõ ¨ ѳٳå³ï³ëË³Ý Ó¨áí Ý»ñϳ۳óÝ»Éáõ ³ÝÑñ³Å»ßï ϳñáÕáõÃÛáõÝÁ: ÚàôܺêÎú-Ç Ð³Û³ëï³ÝÇ ³½·³ÛÇÝ ÏáÙÇï»Ý ¨ زÎ-Ç ¼³ñ·³óÙ³Ý Íñ³·ÇñÁ ݳ˳ӻéÝ»óÇÝ Ùß³ÏáõóÛÇÝ Å³é³Ý·áõÃÛ³Ý í»ñ³Ï³Ý·ÝÙ³ÝÁ ¨ å³Ñå³ÝÙ³ÝÝ áõÕÕí³Í Íñ³·ñ»ñÇ Ý³Ë³·ÍÙ³Ý ¨ ¹ñ³Ýó ýÇݳÝë³íáñÙ³Ý ³ÕµÛáõñÝ»ñÇ áñáÝÙ³Ý ·áñÍÁÝóóÁ: ²Ýóϳóí³Í ݳ˳å³ïñ³ëï³Ï³Ý ³ß˳ï³ÝùÇ ³ñ¹ÛáõÝùáõ٠ѳïáõÏ ýáñÙ³ïáí ݳ˳å³ïñ³ëïí»óÇÝ ¨ ÏáÝý»ñ³ÝëÇÝ ÏÝ»ñϳ۳óí»Ý 26 Íñ³·Çñ, áñáÝó Ñ»ÕÇݳÏÝ»ñÝ »Ýª ÐÐ Øß³ÏáõÛÃÇ, »ñÇï³ë³ñ¹áõÃÛ³Ý Ñ³ñó»ñÇ ¨ ëåáñïÇ Ý³Ë³ñ³ñáõÃÛáõÝÁ, ÐÐ ä³ïÙáõÃÛ³Ý ¨ Ùß³ÏáõÛÃÇ Ñáõß³ñÓ³ÝÝ»ñÇ å³Ñå³ÝáõÃÛ³Ý í³ñãáõÃÛáõÝÁ, ÐÐ ²ñ¹Ûáõݳµ»ñáõÃÛ³Ý ¨ ³é¨ïñÇ Ý³Ë³ñ³ñáõÃÛáõÝÁ, ¼µáë³ßñçáõÃÛ³Ý ½³ñ·³óÙ³Ý í³ñãáõÃÛáõÝÁ, ´³µéÉáõ ·ÛáõÕÇ Ñ³Ù³ÛÝùÁ, §ø³ñ»¹³ñ³Ý¦ ¨ §Ê³ã»Ý – 91¦, §Éáñdz¦ ѳë³ñ³Ï³Ï³Ý ϳ½Ù³Ï»ñåáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ, гÛÏ³Ï³Ý ×³ñï³ñ³å»ïáõÃÛ³Ý Ñ»ï³½áïáõÃÛáõÝ ÙÇç³½·³ÛÇÝ Ñ³ë³ñ³Ï³Ï³Ý ϳ½Ù³Ï»ñåáõÃÛáõÝÁ, ²1+ ³ÝÏ³Ë Ñ»éáõëï³ÁÝÏ»ñáõÃÛáõÝÁ, §ä³ïÙ³Ï³Ý í»ñ³Ï³Ý·ÝáõÙ¦ êäÀ-Ý, ÚàôܺêÎú-Ç Øß³ÏáõóÛÇÝ Å³é³Ý·áõÃÛ³Ý µ³Å³ÝÙáõÝùÁ /Íñ³·ñ»ñÁ Ý»ñϳ۳óÝáÕ ·ñùáõÛÏÁ Ñݳñ³íáñ ÏÉÇÝÇ ëï³Ý³É ÜíÇñ³ïáõÝ»ñÇ Ï»Ýý»ñ³ÝëÇ Å³Ù³Ý³Ï/: ì»ñç:

Hello Thorny, You are working too hard to find contradictions, here, Thorny. Removing their oppressors is not our goal, as I have said before. However, it is the outcome of our operations. Our goal is Al-Qaida, as well as giving any other government a signal that this is what awaits them, if they harbor, cultivate and protect terrorists. I wasn’t saying that this (removing Taliban for grave abuses) is what is declared to be the intention of the U.S. government, in Turkish media (although I am not aware of what kind of speeches speechifiers happen to deliver). I’m talking about what I hear (read, “read” Americans saying around (on forums). I'm sure you don't mean to imply that, so why do the "oppressors" and the "we're onto them"? But the fact of the matter is that the ones “in the forums” don’t make policy. Other than the “openly” there, the same can be said of Belgium and Germany, to an extent (and certainly Greece and Syria). I don’t think Germany and Belgium openly harbor, cultivate or protect terrorists. IF they do, they would be held responsible, I think. However, the fact is that Syria does. Don’t know of Greece as of lately. I expect that they would pay another look at their policies in the near future. Where did I get my impressions from? Well, obviously, MJ, I’ve had quite some contact with Americans and Canadians (though haven’t come around to seeing just what is supposed to make them different) in my younger years (wish I had now, so I could learn more with my relatively more developed sense), both fellow students and teachers. Of course, compared to your experience, it is “an ear on the camel” (size-/quantity-wise - as we say in Turkish), but I’m also thinking that you perhaps have a very “select” group to interact with (quality-wise) as far as the dinners go. I’m not saying the people I interacted with were hicks or what have you, either. And, well, running in parallel with Americans’ not knowing much about other countries and nations, I have found quite a significant portion of the population of my school to have the inability to understand other cultures or to not possess the desire to learn about them (so it is not just about lack of exposure). Most were too indifferent or immersed in their “embassy-happy-hour” isolation and only so-so in their attitude. Exceptions were often too extreme cases and were of those who had made a living style out of it (had one teacher who had taught in Iran, Egypt, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh [probably in that order]). This is also typical of all people. The “common” people don’t know much about others. It may be more so in the case of Americans, and they recognize it. It is natural in some ways – America is/(has historically been) separated from the rest of the world by two oceans. And less they know about others, more they think that they are the “best culture” or represent “the chosen.” And I disagree that the government’s knowing all there is to know does it all. The ordinary citizen’s best involvement in his/her government is that which comes along with making the right choices, but how can this be true with foreign policy (especially in a country so dominating in almost everything) if there is a lack of interest there? It is true that the imbedded elements within the structure of the state will be resistant to change (as seen in the case of the Armenian Americans who are now disappointed in Bush), but the people SHOULD be able to make a difference and give it a bit of a shape. Thorny, the American reality provides vehicles for ordinary people to become part of the governing structures. It is a true democracy. Ideally, the government consists of professionals. They should know what they are supposed to know about the world. Foreign policy is not something for the “ordinary people” to decide. Foreign policy in every country is elitist. However, the principles of foreign policy are resulted from the culture of the “common people.” Therefore the participation of “ordinary people” is not based on their “knowledge” but the cultural landscape they establish. I never find the level of interest here enough, either. That said, I’m not saying being America-centered (or being centered on one’s country) is not understandable, given there are Turks who are America-centered-wannabes, but I do think it is not just an overwhelming generalization when it comes to Americans. (And generalizing is not a bad thing, is it? We do use generalizations when trying to explain the reasons behind Turkish knee-jerks to their country’s policies, especially on this forum where the Armenian Genocide is a concern. Obviously, not all Turks are as defensive, but use of generalizations gets our points through.) The think is, America is more than a country. It is a mentality. Therefore, anyone may be American. As to generalizations, I am aware of many undue generalizations in this forum, but I feel you should be above it.

Ali, Maybe someone else may help us to find the original text. AS far as the numbers are concerned, I distinctly remember the letter saying "thousands of Armenians from all over the world." Additionally, I think that letter was taken from the ATAA (Assuming my abbreviation is correct Web site. So we can find it again. Unfortunately, right now, I cannot devote time to it.)

Ali, I don't think Nubar *****'s letter gave any numbers. Additionally, I don't think that anybody has removed it from its original thread.

I just thought of "Gatoghigos," which is another foreign to Armenian word. Anything else?

Dear Arpa, Should I also use "ghusin" instead of "lusin?" Just kidding. But it may be observed that the name Paul or Pavel is the Greek/Roman version of the Biblical Jewish name Savugh. In that sense I can understand where the "gh" in "Bavghikians" may come from. However, the name "Paul" is borrowed from Greek/Latin, not Hebrew, if I understand correctly. Why "Bavghikian?" By the way, I don't mind the "gh" in Panlikians. I just mind the misplaced angry faces. P.S. Isn’t it interesting that the two examples brought in above regarding the “ldzord kirer” are “Bavghikian” and “Yerusaghem?” Could you give some other examples? I am curious.

To second Arpa in some ways, I would also like to add that according to some contemporary Jewish Historians, the Ottoman Jews have barely "made it" without becoming a subject of Genocide in the Ottoman Empire. Some of it has been at the expense of Armenians, which is well documented by certain Jewish sources. P.S. The reason I am using here the words "some" and "certain" is that I am away from home, where I could check the sources and be more specific. [ November 13, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

Hagarag, Endhagarage. You are nuts, sonny, therefore, this would be the last time you get a reply from me.

No. You are of zero significance. People like you in Armenia would be treated with sympathy on the grounds of their metal condition.

Hagarak, I shoud say endhagarage.

quote:Originally posted by hagarag: The material of Rev. Clark shows that some of the premises that I have made regarding Armenians, which you have labeled me deranged for expressing, have some academic merit. Why are you so full of venom, Martin? I think you have to read the material of Rev. Clark, again, and then have to read your materials, again. If you still don't get it, maybe you should try again. As to the venom... don't flatter yourself.

quote:Originally posted by aurguplu: mj, does "khiyar" mean "cucumber" in armenian, and "an idiot" by extension? just curious. regards, ali suat Ali, Indeed, "khiyar" is in use in Armenia as a vulgarized substitute for cucumber. It is not an Armenian word - I don't know if it is Turkish, Arabic or Persian. I am not sure that it refers exactly to "idiot" or something similar, though in this particular case that may be inferred, too. [ November 12, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

quote:Originally posted by khodja: And I may not be as mentally diseased as some of you here have claimed. I don't see how does the material of Rev. Clark address the issue of your mental condition.

In a short while, I am going to move the last material to a more appropriate thread.

Armenian History. By Rev. William Clark ARTICLE VIL—ARMENIAN HISTORY. THE ancient history of the Armenians, though involved in the obscurity that reigns over the infancy of all the nations of antiquity, is yet, in many respects, comparing it with the early history of other old nations, somewhat brighter and less confused. It is a peculiar characteristic of Armenian history, that it occupies a perfectly natural position, taking hold of sacred history with one hand, in a spirit of reverence and love, and of profane history with the other, in sympathy with its truth and authority. Its way, through all that traditional and uncertain period of the distant past, is strangely illumined by mysterious and almost sacred lights, which burn more and more brightly the more attentively we consider them. And we venture the prediction, that, in the degree it becomes the subject of faithful research and study, the evidences of its truth will multiply, and still more, that new additions and elucidations will also be given to our present stock of ancient history relating to other nations. Many reasons might be given for this prediction, showing it to be well founded, reasons drawn from the locality of the Armenian people at the original starting point of our race, reasons drawn from the fact of their acknowledged high antiquity, and also from their uninterrupted and intimate relations with the oldest monarchies of Asia, and with all those mighty peoples of the past, rising up giant-like, in darkness, in central and northern Asia, and sending forth, from time to time, their portentous clouds, which successively spread themselves over the continent of Europe. The Armenians, as a nation, have ever been stationed on the Ararat watch-tower, within sight of and looking out upon, all the great movements of the numberless hosts of nations, peoples, and tribes, that Asia, in the time of her strength and glory, brought out upon the great stage of the historic past. It is our firm conviction that there are many questions relating to ancient history, yet to be solved, by attention to the history, the literature, the language, and the monuments of Armenia. There are many links in ancient history that yet remain to be supplied. The old Greek and Roman historians do not give them. They must be sought for elsewhere. Monuments, ruins, buried treasures, manuscripts still preserved in monasteries, caves, and sepulchers, inscriptions on tables of stone, old coins and old nations dug up from the past, these are yet to give us light in our researches, till the beautiful distinct light of sacred history blends and harmonizes with that of profane; and every contribution made by the scholar, the historian, the antiquarian, or the numismatist, to secure this result, deserves the reward of the world’s approbation and gratitude. The ancient kingdom of Armenia is one of these curious old relics of the past; and, though the history of this kingdom may not be so important or interesting as that of other eastern kingdoms, yet it should be studied for the light it throws upon the nations and great empires which successively established themselves in this region. One finds in its history the history of the primitive empires of Babylonia, Assyria, Persia, and Media; and though as a kingdom it was less vast and populous than many of those surrounding it, yet, by its native energy and resources, it was frequently able to contend with them, and regain an independence it had temporarily lost. More than fifteen centuries before our era, it is said to have been one of the most powerful monarchies of the East, having its own laws, its own constitution, its dynasty of kings, its language and its literature. There were stone built cities, large and flourishing, upon the plains of Ararat long before the founding of Rome. But we purpose not, in this Article, to give a philosophy of Armenian history, as affecting or throwing light upon the history of other nations, but rather to introduce the reader to merely one old family or people, still full of life and activity, and which traces back its descent in a direct, continuous, and distinct line, to the first family of the Ararat homestead. The Armenians, according to their history, are the descendants of Haigor Haieus, whose genealogy was as follows: Japhet, the son of Noah, begat Gomer, who was the father of Togarmali and Ashkenaz. Togarmah was the father of Haicus, from whom are descended the Haiks or Armenians. Among themselves they have ever been known, even to the present day, by the name of Haiks or sons of Haicus. Following the traditional history of the Armenians, which we shall do in this Article, we are told that this Haicus, soon after the deluge, and while Noah was yet living, proceeded to the plain of Shinar, and there resided for a long period. During this time there occurred the building of the tower of Babel, the confusion of tongues, and the founding of Nineveh. It is said by the eminent Armenian historian, Moses of Chorene that in this work of building the tower, Haicus was concerned as one of the prefects or directors. The history of this event, curious as a specimen of antiquity, is thus given by the same historian “Terrible and illustrious were those who first came from the gods in the beginning of the world, when men began to multiply. And among them there was found a race of giants, of immense structure, with limbs and bodies of vast size and strength, who, filled with arrogance, conceived the wicked purpose of building a tower, and while they were thus occupied, a divine and terrible wind, sent by the anger of God, defeated this proud work of the giants, already carried high. There was also distributed to each one of them an unheard of speech, which caused a great confusion. One of these giants was named Haicus, mighty in throwing, the spear and bending the bow.” A short time after, Bel, or Nimrod, succeeded in establishing his authority in Babylonia, and demanded that all render to him divine homage. Haicus refused to obey, and, taking with him his sons and daughters, and sons sons, brave men, in number about three hundred, together with many home-born servants and strangers attached to him, he left Babylonia, and went northward into the region of Ararat. Pd, or Belus, sent messengers after him, demanding his return and obedience, but not being successful, the tyrant Belus himself went forth to battle with Haicus, and being pierced by an arrow thrown by the latter, was slain. The place where this tyrant was buried received the name Kerezman, i. e. sepulcher, which name it retains to the present day. Haicus is therefore styled “the first champion of religion, for having refused to pay adoration to the statue of Belus, and for killing the latter as being the first introducer of idolatry among mankind.” According to a very ancient tradition, this first king of the Armenians was a man of extraordinary beauty, possessing an imposing figure and wonderful strength; in height tall, with sharp, penetrating eyes, and hair of silken softness. The Armenians have ever felt proud to be called the sons of Haicus. Their old songs and traditions describe his many noble and virtuous qualities, and these songs and chants have been sung in the mountains and valleys about Ararat for nearly four thousand years. Frequently the traveler is startled by their wild music, as he silently threads his way through some dark gorge, or carefully winds along the almost perpendicular side of some towering cliff in that old land. Haicus, it is said, after having established his authority in the region of Ararat, introducing many laws and wise regulations, founding cities, and thus securing the prosperity of his people, died at the age of nearly four hundred years, about 2028 before Christ, and a few years before the birth of Abraham. He left a numerous family, consisting of twelve sons and twenty-four daughters. The right of primogeniture was sacredly regarded then as now among the Armenians, and the first born son, Armenag, became the ruler of this Ararat kingdom. Two of his brothers removed to the region near lake Van, and gave their names to their descendants, two distinct families, well known among this people to the present day. In the time of Armuenag and his immediate successors, many cities were built in Armenia, among which was Armavir, said to have been very large and beautiful, built of hewn stone, about 2000 before Christ. This city is probably the Armouria mentioned by Ptolemy. At that early period it was one of the central points of the world. Its princes extended their rule east to the shores of the Caspian, and west far beyond the Euphrates. Its situation, so far as can now be determined, was a little north of the river Araxes, near a branch of the same, now called Kasagh. About 1850 before Christ, it was very strongly fortified by Harma, an Armenian king of great renown. He surrounded it by walls higher and thicker than those which heretofore enclosed it. These walls were all of stone, of huge dimensions. He also embellished it by the erection of several magnificent palaces, and ornamented the adjacent country by building pleasure houses and caravanserais for the entertainment of travelers. It may at this period have almost rivaled Nineveh in strength and beauty, for it seems to have been built after a similar manner, of great size, with vast and extensive gardens within the walls, and was also the capital of a kingdom which often successfully contended with the kingdom of Assyria. As Abraham is said to have planted a grove and built an altar unto the Lord, so these Armenian kings are said to have planted groves of poplar in and around their first cities, and in these groves were altars, where the first-born of the family officiated, as priest, in offering to God acceptable sacrifices. It is an interesting fact that these poplar groves have ever been esteemed sacred. From the fact that altars were first reared in them there came the belief that they were the dwelling-place of Jehovah, and in later times, when religion was corrupted, they were still considered the terrestrial residences of the gods. It was, therefore, the custom to consecrate children to these groves, believing that such would be under the special care of the gods, and ever be eminently successful. The Armenian king, Anushavan, 1725 B. C., was consecrated to these groves in his infancy, and, on this account, was surnamed the Poplar. The trembling of the leaves of these groves by the gentlest breeze, as well as by the most violent wind, was a long time an object of magical science to which the wisest devoted themselves. The primitive religion of the Armenians, according to tradition, was patriarchal and pure. Founded upon the faith held from the patriarchs, it consisted in the adoration of the true God, sorrow over that forfeiture which our race sustained by the fall, and the expectation of a Supreme Restorer. The worship was the simplest possible, consisting of prayer and a bloody sacrifice. “The father of the family at the same time, as pontiff and king, ruled the members thereof with a wise equity. He offered to the Most High, as the chosen mediator, prayers and victims, terminated all differences, and under this patriarchal regime all enjoyed peace.” As Armenian geography throws much light upon the history of Armenia, so the history of the Armenian nation throws light on the geography of the country. For instance, the king Aramais, son of Armenag, gave his name to Armavir, which was the ancient capital of Armenia for the space of eighteen hundred years. So Manavaz, brother of king Armenag, 2000 years B. C., gave his name to the city Afanavazagerd, called at the present day Manasgerd, i. e. the city of Manas or Manavaz. The king Amassia, 1940 B. C., building many places at the foot of Mt. Ararat, called the mountain Massis, a name by which it is still known among the Armenians. Sometimes, however, they give it the name of Ararat. Gelam, son of Amassia, building his habitation near a lake not far from Ararat, gave his name also to the lake, a name it has borne to the ciA ime (? –MJ) with very slight variations. It is written Gelam, Gegham, and sometimes Sevan. His grandson, Garni, built a city which received the same name, and this name it has ever retained. Such instances might be multiplied almost indefinitely, showing also this interesting fact, that the most ancient geography of this land, given by Ptolemy, Strabo, Plutarch, Ctesias, Arrian, and Pliny, is constructed from an Armenian geography still older. The names are all Armenian, or plainly derived from Armenian names. Take for instance the name of the old Armenian city Nakhchevan. By Ptolemy it is called Naxuana. Its etymology, however, is clearly Armenian, composed of two words, Nakh, which signifies first, and Chevan, place of descent or encampment. In the Armenian language it signifies, therefore, the first place of encampment or descent, and is believed to be actually the place where Noah first encamped after leaving the ark, and hence, the oldest city in the world. It was certainly one of the oldest, and, for a very long period, one of the most powerful cities of the ancient Armenian kingdom. Its situation was not far from Mt. Ararat, and in a region frequently described by travelers, as one of the most fertile and attractive in Asia. Gelam, who is said to have ruled over the Armenians from 1908 to 1858 B. C., and who gave his name to the lake above mentioned, had two sons, Harma and Sissag, or Sissac. From the latter descended the people who were called Sissagans, and who were, perhaps, the same as the Sacae of Strabo and Ptolemy; as we find them occupying precisely the same locality, and distinguished by many of the same characteristics. Some very interesting notices of this people are found in ancient Armenian history, and these notices are all the more interesting from the fact that it is the opinion of some, that these Sissagans were the Sakai-suni, mentioned by Turner as the ancestors of the Anglo-Saxons. About eighteen hundred years before Christ, in the time of Isaac and Jacob, the Armenian nation was both powerful and prosperous, and also of very large extent. Its kings fought against the Babylonians and Medes, and extended their conquests over the territory of Pontus and Cappadocia. Aram, son of Harma, became ruler about this time, and it was owing much, it seems, to his wisdom, power, and policy, that the national authority and limits were greatly extended. It is said that this king gave much attention to the study of various arts and arms among his people, which rendered them, at that time and in succeeding centuries, so powerful and respected as a nation. For the prudent and manly bravery he displayed in the service of his country, he became renowned and feared among other nations. Moses of Chorene says, “he chose rather to suffer death in defense of his country, than to see it in subjection to foreigners.’~ The Medes, impelled by avarice and jealousy,, at this time made an incursion into Armenia under the conduct of Neuchar, who was an implacable enemy of king Arani, but the latter, with an army of fifty thousand men, overcame them, took the prince Neuchar prisoner, led him to Armavir, and ordered him to be hung up at the top of a high tower. A nail was driven through his forehead, and he was thus left suspended from the wall, that he might serve as an object of derision to the passers-by. About this time, too, Barsham, prince of Babylon, invaded Armenia with forty thousand infantry and five thousand cavalry. Aram attacked and defeated him, with great slaughter; the Babylonian prince being also slain in the conflict. He then marched with forty thousand men into Asia Minor, west of the Euphrates, conquered the country, and commanded all the inhabitants to learn the Armenian language. It was at this time he built the city of Cesarea (Kaisareieh) or Mazaca, as it is called by old Greek writers. This name, however, is plainly of Armenian origin, from Meeshak, the name of the Armenian general in this expedition, who is said to have been a relative of the king Aram, and who was left as his deputy in Cappadocia with a force of ten thousand men. This expedition, bringing the most of Asia Minor under the Armenian power at that early period, can be verified, or at least rendered probable, by many interesting testimonies. For instance, the most ancient Greek historians speak of striking similarities between the inhabitants of Cappadocia, Phrygia, and Armenia, in their language and customs, so much so that the Armenians and Phrygians were sometimes said to be the same people. So the Armenians were spoken of by some ancient writers as a colony of the Phrygians; and the Cappadocians as a colony of the Armenians. The different languages of the three, on account of their striking resemblance, have been called different dialects of a common language. Concerning the reign of this Aram, king of the Armenians, we have testimony from both Herodotus and Ctesias. From him the Armenians were called by other nations Arameans or Armenians. It is remarkable how this old traditional history of the Armenians, which has lain neglected so long, when carefully examined, takes upon itself more and more the character of true history. Events are related in a simple and natural manner, free from the extravagance and mythologic character of the history of many other old nations, and, when there are rays of veritable historic light piercing far back into that darkness, we find in Armenian history no violent contradictions to this light. The Armenian king, Aram, is said to have had a powerful foe in Ninus, king of Assyria, who was also a descendant of Belus, formerly slain by Haicus. Remembering the death of his ancestor by the Armenian king, he ever meditated revenge, but, though he was at times in war with Aram, he was not successful in subduing him. Ninus and Aram were at that time the two great kings of Asia. But Arah, the son and successor of Aram, had not the same good fortune as his father in conflict with the Assyrian power. his contemporary, as ruler of Assyria, was Semiramis; and the following interesting story is related of these two rulers. Semiramis, having heard of the great beauty of the person of Arah, who was surnamed, from a child, Arah the handsome, sent him an offer of her hand and crown, and requested him to visit her. But as she was known to be a voluptuous woman, and of loose principles, Arah drove her ambassadors out of his country. This caused a war, and the queen, with a vast army, invaded Armenia, determined to get possession of the person of the beautiful king, compel him to marry her, and share with her the rule of the two kingdoms, Assyria and Armenia: When about to meet the forces of Arah, she therefore commissioned her generals to spare him, and bring him alive into her presence. But the issue was disastrous to the Armenians, and in the conflict, much to the grief of the queen, king Arah himself was slain. Semiramis grieved sorely over his death, and took his little son, twelve years of age, and placed him on the throne of his father. After remaining a few days on the plains of Ararat, “the Assyrian queen,” says the historian, “returning southward, it being the season of summer, greatly admired the beauty of the country, the flowery and fertile valleys and plains, the clear springs which everywhere gushed forth, the rivers flowing with a murmuring noise, and the purity of the air.” “It is necessary,” she said, “in a country where the climate is so healthy, and the waters so pure, to build a city and a royal residence, in order that we may pass the summer in Armenia, in the midst of all possible delights and enjoyments, while the colder seasons we will continue to spend in Nineveh.” After surveying very many situations, she at length arrived at the shores of a salt sea. Here she discovered all the natural conditions which she desired for her city, and at once sent orders to all parts of her empire that twelve thousand laborers should come for its erection. She sent also for six thousand artisans, workers in wood, stone, copper, and iron, each one skillful in his art. In obedience to her orders, multitudes of laborers and artisans soon arrived. The queen superintended the entire work, and, by the force of her continued exertions, achieved, in a few years, the building of a most magnificent city, which became ever after her royal summer residence. “It was enclosed with walls of massive strength, in which were gates of brass. She built, also, in the city a number of magnificent palaces, ornamented and figured with rare and costly stones of various colors. Dividing the city into wide and spacious streets, she distinguished the different quarters by colors veriegated and beautiful. She constructed splendid baths, brought the waters of the river within the walls, and distributed them everywhere for watering the gardens. The environs of the city were also ornamented with beautiful edifices, and groves of fruit-bearing and ornamental trees, and vineyards producing wine of superior quality. Within this city the queen placed an immense population.” Such is the account given of the work of Semiramis by a historian of the fifth century. At that time the city bad long been in ruins, and a description of these wonderful ruins is also given by the same author, and explorations recently made confirm all that Armenian history says of this work of Semiramis. Though this city is known to us by the name of Van, yet, among the Armenians, from the earliest times, it has been called Shamiramaqerd, i. e. the city of Semiramis. There is also a river in the mountains near the city, which the Kurds of the region have ever called the river of Semiramis. This beautiful scrap of Armenian traditional history, the more it is examined, either by the remarkable ruins of the city referred to, or by the character universally ascribed to this Assyrian queen by all ancient authors, comes more and more into the region of probability. Armenia, by the wars of Semiramis, became tributary to the Assyrian Empire for about eighty years, when it recovered again its independence, 1660 B. C. From this time, during many centuries, Armenia was a power among the old monarchies of Central Asia, and, in her conflicts with them, was sometimes successful, and sometimes unsuccessful, but, at all times, prosperous and possessing a good degree of independence. During the reign of Pharnak, 1531—1478 B. C., the kingdoms of Central and Northern Asia are said to have been invaded by Sesostris, king of Egypt, and after his departure from Armenia, a large number of fortresses were built by Pharnak to protect himself and his country against similar future invasions. While his son and successor, Sour, was ruler of the kingdom, the children of Israel took possession of Canaan, and, according to tradition, many of the aborigines of that country took refuge in Armenia under the conduct of a leader named Canaanidas, a man, as the records state, of immense riches. From him the Gunthunians or Gentunians, who are well known in the annals of Armenian history, are descended. One old writer says, “The Gentunians were Canaanites, and descended from those who, being expelled from their country by Joshua, the leader of the Israelites, sailing from the port of Acre, passed first to Thorsin, (Tarsns ?), and from there crossed over to Africa, where they left a monument of their coining, bearing this inscription, ‘We, the prefects or leaders of the Canaanites, fleeing from the robber Joshua, have come to inhabit this place.’ One of these became greatly distinguished in Armenia, and the founder of a celebrated family, frequently referred to in the history of the country.” In after times, they received hereditary gifts from Valarsaces I, king of Armenia in the second century before Christ. They were thus honored from having constituted, during his reign, his chief body-guard. During the reign of Gar, another of their kings, Byzantium, now Constantinople, is said to have been founded. Zarmair was another distinguished and warlike king. In his reign occurred the fatuous siege of Troy, and, being an ally of the Assyrians and Trojans, he went, with a large body of troops, to the assistance of the latter. lie is said to have been slain, however, by the troops of Achilles. The names of many other kings might be given, who distinguished themselves, either in war or in improving and strengthening their own kingdom. During the reign of Pazoug, (1035—985 B. C.), who was called the long-lived, from the length of his reign, the temple of Solomon was built at Jerusalem. Paroyr is said to have united with Arbaces, prince of the Medes, and Belesis, surnamed Nabonazar, prince of Babylon, in a conspiracy against Sardanapalus, the Assyrian Emperor. After the expulsion of the latter from Nineveh, Assyria was governed by Tiglath pileser; then by his son Shahnaneser, who took Samaria, carried the ten tribes into captivity, placing them in Chalach and Cheebor, by the river Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes. Shalmanezer was succeeded by his son, Sennacherib, who, in an expedition against the Jews, then governed by king Hezekiab, lost the whole of his army by the sword of the avenging angel. On his return to Nineveh lie was plunged into the bitterest grief on account of the defeat and destruction of his soldiers ; and, conceiving it to be the anger of the gods, he thought of appeasing them by the sacrifice of his sons, Adrammelech and Sharezer, on the altar of the idol Nisroch. They, however, learning the purpose of their unnatural father, and seizing their opportunity, slew him in the temple of their gods, and took refuge in Armenia. They were kindly received by Paroyr, and large estates were given them. To Sharezer was given a territory in the southwestern part of Armenia bordering on Assyria, and to Adrammelech a country southeast of that of his brother. From the latter are descended the great tribes of the Arzrunians and Gunnians. The posterity of these two Assyrian princes, after some centuries, became so numerous that they established an independent kingdom called Vasburagan. We have also the testimony of Berosus, according to Josephus, to the fact that these sons of Sennacherib fled into Armenia. The same event is recorded in the Scriptures as follows: “And it came to pass as he was worshiping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adraminelech and Sharezer, his sons, smote him with a sword, and they escaped into the land of Armenia.” Another king, Haikak II, who ruled from 607 to 539 B. C., joined Nebuchadnezzar in his expedition against the Jews, and on the latter being led into captivity, Haikak took one of the chiefs named Sembat, with all his family, and brought him into Armenia. From this prince descended the family of the Bagratians, members of which afterwards became rulers, who shed luster on the Armenian nation. It is certain that this family possessed great wealth and dignity under the Arsacidae, as they were advanced to very high places of honor and influence in the government. The same family is still well known among the Armenians in the Russian Empire, and some of them there hold high civil and military offices. From 859 to 1079 A. D., it was a reigning family in Armenia, with a succession of thirteen kings. The capital of this kingdom was Ani, situated in the Ararat region, the remarkable ruins of which still bear witness to its former greatness and magnificence. This family, as now existing in Russia, can be regarded as one of the most ancient royal families in Europe, the descent of which is historically proved. It is a well known fact, that long before the Christian era the Jewish population in Armenia was very large, and it continued thus even to the third, fourth, and fifth centuries of our era, when, in the desolating wars of the Persians, they either perished or were carried into captivity. Sapor IT drove a million of them out of Armenia, and probably more than this number were slain by the sword. Of all the nations upon the earth, among which the Jews have been scattered, no nation, perhaps, has treated them with so much kindness, and distinction even, as the Armenian. For many, many centuries, it was the custom for a royal Jewish family to place the crown upon the head of the Armenian kings. We come next to speak of the renowned Tigranes, or Dicran, sometimes called Tigranes I, who ruled the Armenians from 565 to 520 B. C., and was contemporary, friend, and ally of Cyrus, king of Persia. “He was,” says Moses of Chorene, “of all our kings, the most powerful, the wisest and bravest of princes and warriors. lie raised our nation to a high elevation, and extended our territory even to its ancient limits. It was bowed down under a yoke, and he placed it in a position to impose its yoke upon many other nations. There was everywhere an abundance of gold, silver, and precious stones. Such as formerly had no weapons, were now furnished with bucklers and coats of mail. The sight alone of our soldiers assembled together, the fire and shining of their weapons, were sufficient to put our enemies to flight. Tigranes established peace, promoted general improvements, and enriched all the country with streams of oil and honey.” His personal appearance, the historian says, was dignified and commanding, and in the old songs that were sung to the sound of cymbals, in celebration of his excellences and virtues, be is described as a prince prudent and moderate in the desires of the flesh, Pill of wisdom, eloquent; and beneficent in all that concerned humanity. In the many wars in which he was engaged, he had wonderful success. He defeated the Greeks, and compelled them, a long time, to pay him tribute. With Cyrus, he made alliance offensive and defensive, and with him he waged war with Astyages or Ahasuerus, king of the Medes, overcame him, and took possession of his territory. With him he conquered Croesus, king of Lydia, and seized his kingdom, and with him, too, he besieged and took Babylon, which was given to Darius, uncle of Cyrus, who ruled as king. There are many proofs of this alliance in the taking of Babylon, and among them onein the Scriptures: “Set ye up a standard in the land, blow the trumpet among the nations, prepare the nations against her, (Babylon), call together against her the kingdoms of Ararat, Minni, and Ashkenaz, appoint a Captain against her, cause the horses to come up as the rough caterpillars.” With reference to his expedition against Astyages, Moses of Chorene relates, that he took more than 10,000 prisoners, together with Anouish, the chief of the women of the king, and a great number of princesses, all of whome he brought into Armenia, and gave them a settlement in the region of Nakhchevan, upon the river Araxes. This transfer of the Medes into Armenia is authenticated by chants which the inhabitants of that vine country have ever sung, in which there is mention made of them as the descendants of the dragon, “for Astyages,” says the historian, “in our language, signifies dragon.” The exploits of king Tigranes occupy a long space in Armenian history, and his many virtues and superior qualities are highly extolled. He greatly enlarged and enriched his kingdom, building numerous fortified towns . and cities, among which was Tigranocerta, now Diarbekir, situated on the Tigris. This place, with a large extent of country in its environs, lie gave to his sister Tigrana, and ordered the canton, in which the new city was built, to render obedience to this princess. Some place this city of Tigranocerta further east, upon one of the branches of the Tigris, but the one referred to by old Armenian writers was evidently that which is now called Diarbekir. In confirmation of this, the latter city is now called, as it ever has been, among the Armenians, Tigranagerd, i. e., the city of Tigranes. After a prosperous reign of forty-five years, in which his glory had eclipsed that of all Armenian rulers before him, Tigranes died, five years after the death of his great ally, ‘Cyrus. Yahakn, the son and successor of Tigranes, was also a brave and warlike ruler, and, on account of his great personal courage and strength, was usually called, by his subjects, Hercules the Second. Songs in his praise were composed and chanted to the sound of cymbals. “We have heard them,” says the historian of the fifth century, “with our own ears.” There are described in these celebrated chants, amongst a variety of other valiant actions, his combats and victories with the dragons. This alludes, doubtless, to his wars with the Medes. In the country of the Iberians a statue was erected to him, in commemoration of his many great qualities, and before this statue sacrifices were offered, according to pagan custom. He was raised to the rank of the gods. From this prince the tribe of Vahunians are descended, many of whom officiated as priests in temples which they had erected to their ancestor. From 371 to 351 B. C., Armenia was ruled by a king of the name Van, who, having enlarged and embellished the city of Semiramis, gave to it his own name. It preserved, however, a long time its ancient name, together with the new, and at length, about the middle of the second century before our era, Valarsaces, the first king of the Arsacidae in Armenia, again restored the city, and also its ancient name. At the time of Alexander the Great, Vahey, king of the Armenians, being an ally of the Persians, went to their assistance with an army of forty thousand infantry and one thousand cavalry, but, like Darius, he was defeated; consequently, Armenia at this time came under the Macedonian yoke. It was ruled for one hundred and sixty-four years (323 to 159 B. C.)by governors; the first appointed by Alexander himself, the others by his successors. Some came from Macedonia, and others from Selcucia, the capital city of the Seleucidae, in the East. Many of these treated the Armenians with great cruelty, and, as a consequence, there were frequent attempts to regain their independence. Others were, however, mild in their rule, and introduced many of the Grecian arts and customs, together with their religion. Several of the gods worshiped by the Greeks were brought and placed in the temples of Armenia. The ancient religion of the country seems to have undergone various modifications, according as it was influenced by different religious ideas coming in from surrounding nations. For instance, the early patriarchal religion is said to have existed in Armenia till about 1700 B. C., when Assyrian influence began to prevail, introducing Sabeism. From this time, the Chaldean religion exercised its authority till about 725 B. C., when Sabeismn degenerated into Magism, i. e., the worship of fire. This was introduced from Persia. The conquests of Alexander brought in Grecian idolatry, so that, under the Macedonian rule, there was a confused mixture of the two. Some superstitions were also introduced from Scythia, and it is said that several statues of the gods were brought even from India. In the time of Alexander, Armenia was a rich and prosperous country, possessing, according to Strabo, Pliny, and other ancient authors, rich mines of gold and silver, and abounding in precious stones. Alexander, it is said, sent Messon to the mines in Armenia, but he was strangled by the inhabitants of the country. The horses of Armenia were also very celebrated, and, when employed in war, were completely covered with armor; hence the Armenian cavalry was a terror to the surrounding nations. Mention is made of Armenian generals, who fought with Darius against Alexander at Arbela. About 189 B. C., the capital Artaxata is said to have been founded. Delightfully situated on the Araxes, the almost sacred river of the Armenians, surrounded on all sides by plains exceedingly rich and beautiful, the grand entrepot of trade between the eastern and western world, the rich staffs of India, Persia, and China filling her extensive markets, adorned, too, with many magnificent temples and palaces, it was a long time the largest commercial city, and most splendid capital of the ancient Armenian kingdom. In ancient history the building of this capital is ascribed to the influence of Hannibal, the great Carthaginian general. It is said that when the Romans took Carthage, Hannibal fled to Antiochus the Great. Soon after, however, the latter, in war with the Romans, being defeated, was required to deliver up their old and inveterate enemy. But Antiochus, having a very high regard for Hannibal, secretly assisted him in fleeing to Armenia. Here he was welcomed by the Armenian ruler, Artaces, and soon became his favorite and confidant. He also rendered great assistance to the king in perfecting and strengthening the administration of his government. “Hannibal,” says the Armenian historian, “during his sojourn with Artaces, drew the plan of a city afterwards built by the latter near the river Araxes, which is connected with the river Medzamore, and he called it after his own name, Artashat. To this place, which afterwards became one of the greatest cities in Armenia, Artaces transferred the scat of his government.” Strabo and Plutarch also say that Autiochus the Great, king of Syria, compelling Hannibal, the chief enemy of the Romans, to leave his kingdom, this Carthaginian general, persecuted by an evil fortune, fled to Artaces, and, being with this prince suggested to him the design of building the city of Artaxata, which was named in honor of its founder. Strabo says it was very favorably situated on almost an island made by the waters of the Araxes, which surrounded every part with the exception of one point, and this was defended by a fosse and a rampart. We now come to a period of Armenian history embracing about five hundred and eighty years, from 149 B. C. to A. D. 422, when there existed in northern Central Asia the Parthian dynasty, or, as it is sometimes called, the dynasty of the Arsacidae, a kingdom of mysterious power and great extent, a powerful rival and foe of the Roman Empire of the west. And perhaps this interesting period of Oriental history is one of the obscurest portions of the past. If we look into our best histories of this age and region of the world, we find hardly any thing that is satisfactory. From the death of Alexander to the reign of Ardeshir, about five centuries, the extant annals of the East exhibit almost a complete blank. Persian authors of this period are exceedingly vague and contradictory. “They have evidently,” says Sir John Malcolm, author of the History of Persia, “no materials to form an authentic narrative, and yet, when we refer to the pages of Roman writers, we find this period abounds with events of which the vainest nations might be proud, and that Parthian monarchs, whose names even cannot now be discovered in the history of their own country, were the only sovereigns upon whom the Roman arms, when that nation was in the very zenith of its power, could make no impression.” This great Parthian power had most intimate and friendly relations with the Armenians, and though the latter were nominally subject or tributary to the former, they had their separate kings, and enjoyed a great degree of prosperity and independence. The Roman Emperors frequently endeavoring, however, during this time, to extend their rule over Armenia, there were many severe conflicts, in which the Armenians were greatly harassed, and in which, too, they suffered great losses. But what is quite remarkable, is the fact, that the brightest light which shines upon he history of this Parthian power of the East comes from Armenian sources. An interesting history of the Arsacidae Parthians could be compiled from Armenian historical writers. The name Arsacidae was from the name of the first prince of this dynasty, Arsaces, said to have descended from Abraham by Keturah. This prince first established himself in the city of Bahl, in Bactriana, and, by his great qualities, extended his sway over the Parthians, Medes, Persians, and Babylonians. In process of time Armenia was added to this power, and was given to the brother of the Parthian king, whose name was Valarsaces. This brother had greatly distinguished himself as a general of the Parthian forces. Under him, Cappadocia, Pontus, Lazicia, Chaldea, and Egeria had been subdued and made tributary to the Parthian power. As a reward for his valor, the king invested him with legal authority over Armenia, and gave him the large and populous city of Nisibis for his capital. Being distinguished for his literary taste and scholarship, and wishing, it is said, to know the origin of the Armenians as a people, the events that had taken place in their country, and the rulers who had preceded him, he made many inquiries concerning their history. Having learned that there were old Chaldean manuscripts in the possession of his brother, which gave sonic account of the Armenians, he sent a Syrian, a very learned man in the Chaldean language, to examine them. During the examination there was found a manuscript in the Greek character, with this title: “This book, containing the annals of ancient history, was translated from Chaldean into Greek by order of Alexander the Great.” In this book, and in other manuscripts found in these old archives, many important facts were recorded, relating to the whole period of Armenian history from Haicus to the time of Alexander. These the learned Syrian extracted, and returned to Nisibis. This discovery afforded great joy to the king Valarsaces, who preserved the history with great care. Other histories were also discovered, which are referred to by Armenian authors. The name of the Syrian who explored these old archives was Mar Abas, of Catina, who lived about 140 years B. C. He is one of the principal authorities consulted by the celebrated Armenian historian, Moses of Chorene, of the fifth century, and much weight is attached to his testimony. The king Valarsaces, by his energy and wisdom, greatly improved the state of his kingdom. He divided the former into provinces, over which he appointed princes. He also formed his army into legions, after the manner of the Romans. Bagarat, his counselor, a descendant of the Jew Sembat, to whom we have already referred, was appointed by him to the hereditary office of placing the crown upon the king’s head at his coronation. This Bagarat is said to have been a Jew of excellent character, and of the greatest service to Valarsaces, from his intimate acquaintance with the laws of God. The descendants of this individual were called Bagratians, at present a family well known, as has already been said. The descendants of the two Assyrian brothers, Adrammelech and Sliarezer, became, by the appointment ‘of this king, two great satrapial families, under the names Arzrunians, or Ardzrunians, and Gunnians, or Kenounians. The former word is composed of two words: ardzer, eagle, and ouni, having: i.e., those who bore the standard of the eagle before the king; Kenounian is from keenee, wine, and ouni, having: i.e., those who furnished the king with wine. About 120 B. C., a Bulgarian colony was established in the northwestern section of the kingdom, near the city now called Kars. This is the first notice we have of the Bulgarians in history, and for this notice we are indebted to Moses of Chorene. His account of them relates to a period some seven hundred years earlier than what is mentioned by any other historian. And we might here speak of many similar notices relating to other nations, found in Armenian history, if our object was to show the value of Armenian historical literature. This subject has not yet received the attention of which it is worthy, and it is to be hoped that some Orientalist will, ere long, turn his attention to so interesting a field of research. The King Artaces II, who ruled from 111 to 89 B. C., is said to have subdued the whole of Asia Minor. Assembling a numerous army, he entered Europe, conquered Thrace and Greece, destroyed the chief cities in those countries, cute red the Morea, and defeated the Lacedemonians. During his reign, many idolatrous temples were erected, and statues of the Roman and Greek deities introduced. It is said that this king, in one of his expeditions into Western Asia, found three well-executed statues, brazen and gilded, of Diana, Hercules, and Apollo, from the hands of Dipaenus and Scyilis, two celebrated Cretan artists. These he sent to Armavir, the much loved old capital of the kingdom. At the time of his expedition into Greece, he also discovered and sent into Armenia five other statues; viz, Jupiter, Diana, Minerva, Vulcan, and Venus. The latter was also called Anaites, and her most splendid temple, at this period, was at Erzingan, a city situated upon the Euphrates. The king gave his daughter, Artashama, in marriage to Mithridates, the great and valiant chief of the Georgians, descendant of Mithridates, the first minister of Darius. The successor of Artaces was Tigranes II., his son, who, immediately on coming to the throne, nominated his brother-in-law, Mithridates, prime minister. The first year of his reign he was invaded by the Greeks, who were repulsed with great loss, giving him possession of nearly all Asia Minor. Returning to Armenia, he placed this portion of Asia in charge of Mithridates, appointing him king of Pontus and the regions about the Mediterranean. Many countries are said to have been subdued by this Tigranes, and their kings were kept captive at his court, to render more splendid the daily state in which he lived. This fact is authenticated by various historians. “We are informed,” says the historian, “that many unfortunate kings, prisoners at his court, were obliged to stand in his presence with their arms folded on their breasts, in token of the absolute power he had over them.” Four of these wretched monarchs were in constant attendance upon him, dressed in their regal robes, and, when he went forth in public on horseback, these kings were compelled to precede him on foot. Mithridates’ court and kingdom were no less splendid; he is said to have ruled over twenty-two distinct nations, all the different languages of which he spoke with fluency, so as never to need the aid of an interpreter. His wars with the Romans are well known to the readers of ancient history. Tigranes, at one time, marched to meet Lucullus, the Roman general, with 360,000 men, all clad in iron armor. He conquered Assyria, Phenicia, and Cappadocia. When he made peace with Pompey, to each soldier of the Roman army “he gave one hundred and fifty pieces of silver, to every lieutenant one thousand, and to the captains ten thousand each.” In alliance with the Persian King Bacur, he is said to have taken Jerusalem, where he found immense treasures, and took a multitude of the Jews captive. Many of these he placed in the city of Fan, others in Armavir and the regioii around. The posterity of these captives in Fan became so numerous, that, when the city was taken by Sapor II, about the middle of the fourth century, he destroyed eighteen thousand houses of Jews. Tigranes made Nisibis his capital, which was then one of the largest and most strongly fortified cities in the East. Strabo says that, having attained the height of his prosperity, he founded a city which he named Tigranocerta, and peopled it with the inhabitants which he had collected out of twelve Grecian cities. There is much confusion among ancient writers with respect~ to the situation of this city, and it probably arises from confounding two cities of the same name, the one built by Tigranes I., on the Tigris, and now called Diarbekir, and the other on the Nymphius, a branch of the Tigris, and built by Tigranes II. The latter king is, however, said to have rebuilt the city of his predecessor, so that which of the two was the Tigranocerta of the Greeks, it is difficult to determine. Tigranes the Second, or Tigranes the Great, as he is sometimes called, was succeeded by his son, Ardavast, about fifty years before Christ. This ruler is said to have been the author of some tragedies and of a history in Greek. He had a prosperous reign of about twenty-five years, when, on account of his friendship towards the Parthians, he was regarded by the Romans as an enemy. Not wishing to hazard a war with the Armenian king, the Roman general, Mark Antony, determined to get possession of his person by strategy. Wherefore, on the return of the latter to Egypt, he invited Ardavast to visit him, but; there being some suspicion of treachery, the proposal was declined. Antony next asked the daughter of the king in marriage for his son. This was also refused. Antony then marched towards Armenia, circulating the rumor that he had undertaken an expedition into Persia and wished to meet the Armenian king in consultation, but the suspicions of the latter could not be overcome. Finally, however, after the most solemn assurances of safety had been given, he consented to a conference, but no sooner had he arrived than he was arrested and fettered with golden chains. The sons of the king were also seized, chains put upon them, and the whole family were carried to Egypt and presented to the queen Cleopatra. They were here obliged to suffer many indignities, being led as trophies in the Roman processions of triumph, and forced to prostrate themselves in doing homage to Cleopatra herself. As they manifested some reluctance in performing these humiliating ceremonies, they were threatened with great severities, and, after some time, were put to death. Alexander, son of Antony and Cleopatra, was now made for a little time ruler in Armenia. Thus we have briefly traced the ancient history of the Armenians, down to the time of Christ. The notices we have now given, however, of this interesting people, furnish only a glimpse of the treasures of their old records. These records, it is true, are a mixture of historical verity and fable, but they are worthy of a more attentive examination than they have yet met with in English literature. http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa...ABQ0722-0022-51 [ November 11, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ][/QB]

How about Hovhanness, for starters?

I advise everyone to have the patience to read the entire material posted above.

The Paulicians. [New Englander and Yale review. / Volume 42, Issue 177, November 1883] Rev. William Clark 778 The Pctulician8. [Nov., ARTICLE [iLTHE PAULICIANS. THE important agency of the Paulician~ in the church, or in the progress and development of Christianity, has never yet, as it seems to me, been fully recognized. Tudeed there has been hardly any other opinion entertained respecting them than that they were some unimportant heretical sect which troubled for a time the early church and then passed away. By church historians they have usually been regarded as some off-shoot or remnant of the Manicheans, Gnostics or other oriental sects, and entitled only to a suspicious consideration. They have been judged as to their tenets, philosophical or doctrinal, but not in respect of their real elements of life and power, that is, as a moral and religious agency; they have been judged as the representatives of a theological system in relation to the ortho- doxy of the church, and not as a development of its spiritual and religious life. Even those who have spoken of them most favorably have represented them as an erratic growth of a portion of the church, rather than a fresh infusion and a beautiful exhibition of the apostolic spirit. They have been seen through an obscure and hostile medium, hence it is not strange their excellencies are distorted. We are acquainted with them only through their enemies and persecutors, but a careful examination of even these testi- monies will convince us that there has scarcely ever been since the time of Christ any religious movement which, in its glo- rious results, has more powerfully affected the universal visible church than that which began among the Paulicians on the banks of the Euphrates in the seventh century. The object of this article will be to establish and illustrate this important fact, and in doing this I shall refer to various matters connected with their origin, growth and subsequent religious history in their descendants and adherents in different lands and under 4ilifferent names. About the middle of the seventh century, when the Saracens 1883.] The Paulician8. 779 conquered Persia, they also made an irruption into Armenia as far as Mt. Ararat, and after having laid waste the entire country with fire and sword, enriched with spoils, they returned to Damascus leading many of the Armenians captive. Though thus conquered by the Saracens, through the intrigues of the Greek emperor, they were afterwards persuaded to declare in his favor. This enraged the Saracens who again made prepara tions to invade Armenia determined to give it up entirely to pillage and ruin. Just at this time, however, on account of a sedition among the Saracen troops, the then ruling caliph was killed. He was succeeded by Moawiah, a man of different character, who prevailed upon the Armenians to return to the obedience of the Saracens. So mild and generous was the gov- ernment of this caliph that many Armenians in other lands then returned to their own country, and hence we have the fol- lowing account of the origin of the Paulicians: In 660 a Christian deacon, who had been made captive by the Saracens and carried into Syria, returning home stopped at a little village, Mauanalis by name, situated near the Euphrates, and here for some days was hospitably entertained at the house of one of the villagers whose name was Constantine. In return for his kindness the deacon, on leaving the village, pre- sented to his host two manuscripts which he had brought with him out of Syria, containing the four gospels and the epistles of St. Paul. These manuscripts Constantiuc faithfully read and studied, and soon became enlightened respecting the many pre- vailing errors and corruptions which had then crept into the Christian church. The visions and miracles, as well as the relics and images which the people worshiped soon appeared in their true lightas base impositions introduced by the monks and priests. But this man was by no means satisfied to read these sacred books by himself; he made them known also to others. Pros- elytes rapidly gathered around him, and, seeing the impossi- bility of reforming the dominant church, he separated himself from it and founded a new church on the principle of reforma- tion from all error, according to the teaching of the gospels and of the letters of Paul. From this circumstance they adopted and received the title of Paulicians. 780 The Paulician~. There is every reason to believe that this sect was of Armenian origin and that in its growth and power in Asia it was composed of those belonging to the Armenian nation~ There is no evidence that the Greek element entered in any important degree into the Panlician movement. The Syrian element may have been represented in a very slight degree. The name adopted by them seems clearly to be of Armenian origin. The termination Ian or ean is what is frequently em~ ployed in the Armenian language to give a generic quality to a proper name, and this generic quality may be either a patro- nymic or it may relate to sect, as in the present case. Thus, in Armenian we have for Paul Boghas, and Boghosean signifies pertaining to the family of Boghos, or being an adherent of l3oghos. Transferring this word into the Greek as was then done by writers under the Greek empire, we have Pauliklan or IiIao)~xaz.oe, and hence Paulicians. It is contended by some that this name was not adopted by themselves but given them by their enemies. Their historian, Petrus Siculus, says they were thus called from one Paul, of Samosata. As this histo- rian was their most bitter enemy and wished to brand them as Manicheans, he propagated this fiction; but at the same time he testifies that they condemned this Paul from whom he asserts they received their name. He says, Promptissime etiam damnunt Paulum Samosatenum. So that, according to his testimony, they derived their name from a person they con- demned, and whose Manicheism they abjured. Other writers, as Photius and Cedrenus, certify that the Paulicians condemned Paul of Samosata. There are others who trace the nafrie, of this sect to a later Paul, an Armenian, one of their teachers, but this appears not probable. Though there were doubtless Armenians of this name among their first and principal teach- ers, yet nothing is more evident than that the name was from Paul, the apostle. The very names their teachers adopted most clearly proves this, as Sylvanus, Tychicus, Timothy,. Epaphroditus, etc. They called themselves Paulicians because they loved and admired the writings of the great apostle~ This is the most natural and most reasonable way of account- ing for their name. That the Paulicians were Armenians appears also from the 1883.] The Paulicians. 781 fact that they were found at first oniy in Armenian cities, Argaum, Karahissar, Divrik; all these were Armenian cities, and have remained such to the present. Indeed the entire region where the Paulician movement originated, spread and became powerful, was Armenian in its population, hence we are authorized to conclude that this Panlician reform was a reform or awakening among the Armenians. In addition to this, we have the testimony of Armenian writers. Here they are called Armenians, and we are told that they were a source of the greatest agitation among the people of their nation. The Paulicians called the orthodox Armenians image-worshipers, and in consequence of the trouble caused by the former, a large meeting of the Arme- nian church was held at Tovin at which were present nearly all the bishops of Armenia Major and Minor. Here the IPaulicians were anathematized and thirty-two canons were adopted for the future government of the church. The ortho- dox Armenian church had departed at this time as far from the simplicity of the gospel as had the Greek, and hence a reform that aimed at the removal of any of its corruptions was promptly met by an anathema. The character of the political administration of the Byzan- tine Empire, as well as the character of the population of the Asiatic portion, would also indicate this to have been an Armenian movement. Finlay, in his history of the Byzantine Empire at this period says: The predominant influence in the political administration was in the hands of the Asiatics, and particularly of Armenians who filled the highest offices, civil and military. The family of Leo the Isaurian was of Armenian descent. Leo V. was an Armenian. Of the numer- Otis pretenders who assumed the title of emperor, the greater part were Armenians. Artavasdes, who rebelled against his brother-in-law Constantine, was an Armenian. So also Thomas, who revolted against Michael IL Many of the Armenians in the Byzantine Empire at this time belonged to the oldest and most illustrious families of the Christian world, and their con- nection with the remains of Roman society at Constantinople, in which the pride of birth was so highly cherished, is a proof that Asiatic influence had eclipsed Roman and Greek in 782 The Paulician8. the government of the empire. The population of the Asiatic portion of the empire was largely Armenian. The terrible desolations made by the Persians and Saracens drove a vast number into Asia Minor. Hence we are led to the conclusion that the great Paulician reform or development in Asia was principally and distinctively Armenian. Constantine and his followers devoted themselves heart and soul to the work of gaining converts to this new apostolic church. Adhering firmly to the simple doctrines of the gospel, and boldly and zealously preaching them, they rejected and condemned those tenets and practices which stood directly opposed to its teach- ings. They had found a pure gospel and would have a pure church. Images made without hands according to the orthodox church, were to the Paulicians the common work of a mortal artist, to whose skill alone the wood and canvas were indebted for their merit and value. Miraculous relics were only a heap of bones and ashes destitute of life or virtue, or of any relation perhaps with the person to whom they were ascribed, and the true and vivifying cross was a piece of sound or rotten wood~ The Mother of God was robbed of her celestial honors, and saints and angels were no longer needed to mediate in heaven~ Thus they were sincere and zealous preachers of the gospel~ and converts flocked to them in multitudes. They were evi- dently, too, men of ability, thoroughly versed in the sacred writings, as well as in all the errors and corruptions of the church; though simple and austere in their lives, they were mighty in wielding the truth of God, at the same time relying much for their success upon the divine influence of the Holy Spirit. They despised the wealth and pride of the prelacy, and censured its pomp as inconsistent with the gospel. Their great aim was, like the Apostle they so much admired, to preach simply Christ and Him crucified. But as it was in the time of the Apostle, so now these Paulicians were subjected to severe and cruel persecutions. Their writings and tenets were pro- scribed by the Greek emperors of Constantinople. Their books, says Gibbon, were delivered to the flames, and all who should presume to secrete such writings or profess such opinions. were devoted to an ignominious death. The divine and orthodox emperors, as Petrus Siculus calls 1883.] The Paulicians. 783 them, had before this been very zealous in consigning to the flames the books of the Manicheans wherever they could be found, and slaughtering without mercy the culprits themselves, and dooming to death and confiscation all who gave them pro- tection, and now their holy activity was extended to the Pauli- cians. No sooner had the sect sprung into existence under the Emperor Constans II. than it began to be persecuted. These persecutions continued with great severity under the reigns of his successors Constantine Pagonatus, and Justinian the Second. Many Armenians were driven to seek protection among the Saracens, where they enjoyed religious toleration and were advanced to posts of honor and influence. The naval and many land successes of the Arabs at this time were owing to the skill of the Armenians who had joined them, having fled from the persecutions of the Byzantine rulers. By the earnest and self-denying labors of Constantine and his disciples, however, even in those times of persecution, many churches were formed in the regions of Pontus and Cappadocia, that part of Asia Minor where are now many of the mission stations of the American church. Malatia, Kharp~t, Arabkir, Divrik, Sivas, Caesarea, etc.; this was their missionary ground. Constantine, as says the church historian Neander, to desig- nate his profession as an apostolic reformer, took the name of Sylvanus, and so it became the custom afterwards for the more distinguished of the sect to call themselves by the names of the several companions of Paul, a custom which may rightly be regarded as marking the distinct aim which they had before them. Constantine labored about twenty-five years, and dur- ing this time he saw many of his countrym~n abandon error and embrace the truth. For the more successful prosecution of his work, he had located himself at Karahissar, a place further north, and in the midst of a larger Armenian popula- tion. In 684, one of the last years of the reign of Constantine Pagonatus, that emperor sent his minister, Simeon by name, into these regions armed with civil and military power, and ordered him to punish with death the leader of this sect and all his obstinate adherents, and deliver to the bishops all who were disposed to recant, to be properly disciplined and instructed. Gibbon, in speaking of the execution of this order, says: By 784 The PctuUcians. [Nov., a refinement of cruelty, Simeon placed the unfortunate Syl- vanus before a line of his disciples, who were commanded, as a price of their pardon and proof of their repentance, to mas- sacre their spiritual father. They turned aside from the impi- ous office, the stones dropped from their filial hands, and of the whole number only one executioner could be found, and this was Justus, his own ungrateful adopted son, who afterwards proved a base and treacherous Judas. The greater part of those who were handed over to the bishops persisted in main- taining their old opinion, upon which Simeon undertook to bring them over to the pure doctrines of the church, but strongly impressed with their remarkable sincerity, he came at length to regard them with favor. Just at this time he returned to Constantinople, but after remaining there three years, where he was compelled to conceal his own honest convictions, he secretly returned into Armenia and joined himself to the followers of Constantine, and finally became the head of the sect, occupying the place of him whom he had caused to be stoned, and took the apostolic name of Titus. He labored three years with great success, inducing large numbers to join the Paulicians, when he was betrayed by the same treacherous Justus who had stoned Constantine. At the suggestion of this Justus, the Emperor Justinian II. directed in 690 a new examination into this heresy, the result of which was that Titus and many others with him were burned at the stake. With reference to this Simeon, the historian Petrus Siculus accounts for his conversion by saying that he was possessed with the devil, possideretur a diabolo. His martyrdom and that of his associates is described in the following words: Itaque extrudo ad acervum ingenti rogo incensi et cremati omnes fuerunt. A certain Paul was then placed at the head of the sect, and in him and his son Genesius upon whom was bestowed the name Timothy, the life and vigor of the Paulicians revived anew. In spite of internal dissensions which now began to show themselves, the sect increased and flourished. The names Zacharias, Epaphroditus, and Bahanes, are mentioned as their ministers and religious teachers. 1883.] The Pctulicictn8. 785 With Leo the Isaurian as emperor in 717, commenced what has been termed the Iconoclastic period of the Byzantine Em- pire, which lasted about a century. This period was distin- guished for the new life and vigor which was infused into the administration and policy of the government. With Leo, the eastern Roman Empire was reformed and became what properly is called the Byzantine. Leo was an Iconoclast, and hence was regarded as a heretic by the Greek orthodox church. He was also of Armenian descent. And now commenced a new era of prosperity for the Pauli- cians. There were many points of sympathy between them and the Iconoclasts. Both united in condemning picture-wor- ship, to which the Greeks and Armenians were so much at- tached. The Iconoclasts were also for the most part Armen- ians, and hence there was a national bond of union between them and the Paulicians, yet the Iconoclasts were not neces- sarily Paulicians, as they only condemned picture-worship and in all other respects conformed to the church. The numerous converts, however, made during this century and the next were from the Iconoclasts. Leo commenced his great work of eccle- siastical reform by an edict ordering all pictures in churches to be placed so high as to prevent the people from kissing them, and prohibiting prostration before these symbols, or any act of worship being addressed to them. Strong representations were made by the Patriarch and Pope Gregory IT., but Leo was firm. He also befriended the Paulicians, and through his reign they extended their labors through nearly every part of Asia Minor. At this time there arose a new reformer, Sergius by name, who contributed greatly to the extension of~ this sect far be- yond its former limits. He was won over to the Paulicians in the following manner, as given by Neander: He once met with a woman belonging to this sect who asked him whether he had ever read the gospel? Sergius replied in the negative, adding that this was a thing which belonged exclusively to the clergy that the mysteries of Holy Scripture were too exalted for laymen. Hereupon the woman said, the Holy Scriptures are intended for all men, and they are open to all, for God wills that all should come to the knowledge of the truth. But the clergy who forbade them to be studied by the laity wished to 786 like Paulician~. [Nov., withhold from the latter the mysteries of the divine word, lest they should become aware of corruptions which the clergy had introduced into them. For the same reason it was only single portions of scripture torn from their proper connection, which were publicly read in the churches. She then asked him whom it was our Lord meant in Matt. vii. 22, where he speaks of those who would plead that they bad wrought miracles and prophe- sied in His name, but whom he would nevertheless refuse to acknowledge as his. These are those, said she, whom you call saints, of whom you say that they perform miraculous cures, expel evil spirits, whom you honor while you neglect to honor the living God. These words made a deep impression on the mind of Sergius, which led to his faithful study of the Scriptures and to his conversion. This account of Neander was taken from the history of Petrus Siculus, and it is a remarkable testi- mony of a rabid and violent enemy of the Paulicians to the gospel simplicity of their system of faith. His violent declama- tions seem all the more bitter and intense from the fact that the Bible and the Bible alone was the religion of the Paulicians. Sergius became a teacher under the name of Tychicus, and for the space of thirty-four years he incessantly acted the mis- sionary, traversing every part of Asia Minor for the advance- ment and confirmation of the Paulician communities, and for the spread of the Paulician doctrines. He frequently visited the same regions and cities where the apostles and early minis- ters established churches, and here he too organized and built up large Paulician communities. Six of these churches repre- sented those to which St. Paul had addressed his epistles. In speaking of himself he says: I have run from east to west and from north to south till my knees are weary, preaching the gospel of Christ. Like the Apostle Paul, he maintained him- self by the labor of his own hands. According to Photius he followed the trade of a carpenter. His style of preaching was to present first and chiefly the simple doctrines of a practical Christianity, and by these he gained monks, nuns, and ecclesias- tics in large numbers to the gospel. Petrus Siculus, his bitter enemy, can say nothing against his character or his sincere and earnest piety, only that he turned many from the orthodox faith and made many converts to the devil. His life was closed 1883.] The Paulieian8. 78T by martyrdom, he being cut into two pieces by an axea re- markable instance, according to this same historian, of the just judgment of God, Justo tandem Dei judicio securi dissectus Ut qui Ecciesiam Dci dissecuerat in ignem missus est sempiter- num. The remarkable success of Sergius and his disciples was owing partly to the religious toleration of the Emperor Niceph- orus, who would not be prevailed upon by either Pope, Patri- arch or church to persecute the Paulicians. Another cause of success was to be found in the very great efforts made by Ser- gius and his co-laborers to disseminate the Scriptures. Many were constantly employed in copying manuscripts of the gospels and Epistles of Paul, and circulating them among the people. In studying the history of the Paulicians one cannot fail to be struck with the very great importance they ever attached to~ this agency in their missionary work. From the days of Con- stantine they made the greatest possible exertions to bring the Scriptures into contact with the people, and on this account more than any other, perhaps, they became the objects of the bitterest hate and persecution of the priests and higher clergy. The Scriptures were, however, very widely disseminated at this time, and the precious seed was sown broadcast over the most of Asia Minor. An important movement had occurred some time before this which had contributed to introduce the Paulician doctrines into Europe and scatter over the west the seeds of the reforma- tion. Under the reign of Constantine Copronymus, 741775, when the Saracens were making invasions into the southeastern part of the empire, where the Paulician movement had been marked with unusual success, this emperor, finding it impossi- ble to retain possession of the country removed the Christian population to Thrace, where he founded several flourishing col- onies. These Armenian colonies were drawn from the Asiatic cities Douche, Malatia, Divrik, Samosata, indeed from all the cities of that region where the Paulician sect arose and gained its first adherents. This transportation of a large population from the Euphrates into Europe was in accordance with the spirit and practice of the times. The Byzantine emperors transferred entire populations from one place to another as a 188 The Paulicians. [Nov., matter of policy. In the transportation of the Paulicians made by Constantine Copronymus there entered the motive of secur- ing his western frontier in Europe against the incursions of the Bulgarians. These enterprising and loyal Armenians formed a cordon of strong posts that most effectually restrained, for a long period, the enemies of the Byzantine empire. With the reign of Michael I. (812) the work of persecution was revived anew. It was proposed in the senate as one of his first measures to put the leaders of the Paulicians to death in order to intimidate their followers and thus compel them to become orthodox Christians. This cruel measure was opposed by the senate, but finally prevailed. Leo V., the Armenian, who came to the throne in 813, being an iconoclast, checked the work of persecution for a time, and under this wise and effi- cient emperor justice was administered with rare equity, but, during the reign of his successor, Michael II., the Paulicians by excessive taxation, oppression, and persecution were excited to rebellion, and this rebellion was so formidable and far-reach- ing that Constantinople even came near falling into their hands. It was headed by an Armenian, a distinguished general in the Byzantine army, and continued with various success for more than three years. The armies and fleets on each side were large and powerful and many extensive districts in central Asia Minor were almost depopulated. When the regency of Theodora commenced, pictures, images, relics, and ceremonies became the great objects of veneration. The Paulicians, says Finlay, were the heretics who at this time irritated the orthodoxy of Constantinople. These were enemies of image worship and showed little respect for the authority of a church establishment, for their priests devoted themselves to the service of their fellow creatures without forming themselves into a separate order of society or attempt- ing to establish a hierarchical organization. Their social and political opinions were viewed with as much hatred and alarm by the ecclesiastical counsellors of Theodora as the philan- thropic principles of the early Christians bad been by the pagan emperors of Rome. The same calumnies were circulated among the orthodox against the Paulicians which had been propagated amongst the heathen against the Christians. The 1883.] The Pctulician8. 789 populace of Constantinople was taught to exult in the tortures. of those accused of Manicheism as the populace of Rome had delighted in the cruelties committed on the early Christians as the enemies of the human race. Theodora sent her inquisi- tors into all the Paulician districts, and during her short reign she is said to have extirpated by the sword, the gibbet and the flames more than one hundred thousand of these religionists. A far greater number escaped into other lands and many fled to the Saracens for protection. Large numbers, for instance, escaped into the province of Melitene (Malatia) where the Sar- acen emirs granted them protection and assisted them to form in some instances schemes of revenge. Long-continued and severe persecutions prompted them more than once to rebel against the Byzantine government, and these revolts, says Gibbon, were wars for religious liberty. As were the ilussites of Behemia and the Calvin ists of France, such were the Paulicians of Armenia. About this time com- menced a rehellion against the persecuting government under a valiant Armenian, of the name of Carbeas, who commanded the guards of the emperor in the east. Hearing that his father had been crucified for his adherence to the doctrine of the Paulicians he fled to the Emir of Melitene and by his aid col- lected an army and invaded the empires. The emir introduced this Armenian general to the caliph and he also promptly ren- dered him and his adherents every possible assistance both with money and troops. These Armenian Paulicians were the protestants of the east 1100 years ago. True, at this time, worldly ambition and revenge were at work. The former pure, spiritual religion which once characterized them became mingled with worldly passion. They massacred the governors and inquisitors sent by the emperor to punish and extirpate them. In the mount- inns between Sivas and Arabkir they built and fortified the city of Tephrice (Divrik), and here in their stronghold they long dwelt in a state of independence, making frequent incur- sions into various parts of the Byzantine empire. These incur- sions were carried on most vigorously for more than thirty years, and the armies of the empire were forced to act almost entirely during this time on the defensive. The Paulicians~ ~79O The Paulicictn8. [Nov., assisted by the Saracens, were everywhere successfuL The brother and son of the empress, Theodora, were both com- manders of the imperial forces against the heretics, and both were defeated and compelled to flee before them. Under Chrysochier, the son and successor of Carbeas, they extended their conquests still further. In alliance with the faithful Moslems, says Gibbon, he boldly penetrated into the heart of Asia, the troops of the frontier and the palace were repeatedly overthrown, the edicts of persecution were answered by the pil- lage of Nice and Nicomedia, of Ancyra and Ephesus. The latter city was for some time in their possession, and its mag- nificent cathedral was turned into a stable for mules and horses. The Paulicians vied with the Saracens in their contempt and abhorrence of images and relics. The Emperor Basil, the Macedonian, was reduced to sue for peace and to offer a ransom for the distinguished captives that had fallen into their hands. Some of these captives belonged to the chief families of Constantinople. For their ransom he sent an embassy to iDivrik but was unable to effect any peace- able arrangement. The chief person of this embassy was the celebrated historian Petrus Siculus to whom we have often referred. He has left us a valuable account of this people, though the intense bitterness of his enmity pervades every part of it. IDuring his residence among them he learned that the Paulicians had sent ambassadors into Bulgaria to induce the king of that newly converted country to form an alliance with them, and had also sent missionaries to persuade the people to receive their doctrines. Basil made his first attack upon the Paulicians in 871, but after some slight successes he came near being entirely defeated, losing the greater part of his army, and he escaping only by the valor of one of his brave officers. Recovering after a few years from his defeat he resolved to capture and destroy all the cities that had been for so long a time the strongholds of the rebellion. For this work he called into requisition all the resources of his empire. With an immense army he ravaged the territory of Melitene, sent one of his gen- erals to capture Samosata and Sozopetra, while he himself crossed the Euphrates and laid waste the country as far as 1883.] The Paulician8. 791 Asanias. He fought a battle with the Emir of Melitene but was not altogether successful, not venturing either to besiege Melitene or Divrik. After ravaging all the territory around these cities he returned to Constantinople leaving one of his generals to prosecute the war. Finally, however, the Paulician general, being compelled to invade Cappadocia in order to sustain his troops, his camp was surprised and he was slain. His head was sent to Constanti- nople, that the emperor Basil might fulfill a vow he had pre- viously made that he would pierce it with three arrows. Div. rik and other strongholds were soon after taken and the Paulicians of those places exterminated or dispersed with terri- ble cruelty. Nevertheless, though their cities and strongholds were ruined the spirit of independence survived in the mount- ains of all that part of Asia Minor and for more than a century longer they defended their religion and liberty and maintained their alliance with the Moslems in opposition to their persecu- tors. They were the Waldenses of Asia, believers in the same gospel that is now being received by the protestant Armenians, Turks, and K~rds scattered over these same wild, rugged mountains. There are numerous caves in these mountain fast- nesses, several of which the writer has visited, and these were probably the dwelling-places of those Armenian Paulicians. There are still remains of artificial walls and fountains or wells in these hiding places, showing that they were once inhabited. In many cases their openings are high up on the perpendicular sides of the mountains and can only be entered by ladders or by ropes letting one down from above. Some are very exten- sive, with many divisions, partly artificial and partly natural. In these caves were their churches and dwelling-places, and here, more than a thousand years ago, was heard the voice of prayer and song. In the city of Divrik, that was so long the Paulician stronghold, in 1855 there was organized an Armenian protestant evangelical church. It is a significant fact that these early protestants of the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries in the midst of their persecu- tions were in a measure protected by the Moslems. As a power the Moslems were the only people at that time who 792 The Paulician8. knew anything of religious toleration, and practiced it in many oases towards those they did not consider idolaters. The same toleration was shown towards the Persian sect of fire-wor- shipers who had no images but adored the sun and fire as the purest emblems of the Divinity. The generous policy of the Moslems towards the Paulicians, however, and their strong arm of power enabled them long and successfully to resist the errors and corruptions of the oriental church and preach the pure gospel throughout all western Asia. It has been already mentioned that about the middle of the eighth century large numbers of Paulicians were transported into Europe by the Emperor Constantine Copronymus. Thes& colonies on the western frontier of the empire during the twG centuries that followed became rich and populous. Having had constant communication with the Armenians of Asia and large accessions from them from time to time, the distinctive Paulician tenets also of the east were successfully transferred to the west, and the zealous and self-sacrificing labors of Con- stantine on the Euphrates and of Sergius in Ephesus, in Phil- adelphia, Thyatira, and Pergamus were repeated by others equally devoted to the truth in the cities of the Balkan and the Adriatic. Those in the tenth century were multiplied by a more numerous colony which the emperor John Zimisces transported from the Asiatic provinces into the many valleys near the Balkan. The oriental clergy, says Gibbon, would have preferred their destruction, but this warlike emperor esteemed their valor. Their attachment to the Saracens was pregnant with mischief, but in the west, on the banks of the Danube against the barbarians of Scythia, their service was valuable to the empire. Their transferrence in both instances was a military measure in accordance with the settled policy of the Byzantine emperors. Tn Europe a greater degree of reli- gious toleration was granted them, and hence very many left their old seats in Asia where they were continually subjected to persecutions, for a home more peaceful in Europe. In European Turkey they held for a long time the city of Philip- opolis and the surrounding region; they occupied also the strongholds of Thrace, the villages and castles of Macedonia and Epirus, and their large markets became the entrepOts of 1883.1 like Pauhician8. 793 trade between central and western Europe on the one hand, and Asia on the other. As now the Armenians control the trade of an extensive region in southern Russia, north of the Azof, so then, by their skill and enterprise, they controlled the commerce of southeastern Europe and were active to extend its spirit over the entire continent. When they were treated with justice and moderation by the Greek emperors, they were ever the most distinguished soldiers and officers of the empire, so much so that their courage was regarded with astonishment by the pusillanimous Greeks. So also were they the empires most faithful and active commercial agents. But when their rights and privileges were violated they became formidable enemies. They were remarkable for their industry and the vigor they displayed in conducting their local affairs. Their lands were well cultivated, says a Byzantine historian, and bravely defended, and their commercial dealings extended over a great part of western Europe. Their moral education was excellent though their religious opinions were deficient in Gre- cian orthodoxy. They adhered to the pure gospel here as in Asia Minor and opposed the sirnony and corruption of the Greek church. From about the middle of the ninth century, when the Biil- garians received Christianity through the efforts of the Mission- aries Methodius and Cyril, there was much intercourse between them and the Paulicians. There existed many points of syrn- pathy between them, both in opposition to the fiscal severity of the imperial government, and also to the gross corruptions then prevailing in the church. Both suffered from the excessive arrogance and tyranny of the Greeks, and both were largely engaged in the overland trade between Europe and Asia, hence the Paulician missionaries found great success with their Euro- pean neighbors. At the close of the eleventh century, when the emperor Alexius marched against the Normans, twenty-eight hundred of these Paulicians joined his army, as the military contingent they were bound to furnish; but having lost three hundred men in the defeat at IDyrrachium, the remainder, instead of rallying in the imperial camp, returned home. After the con- clusion of the war Alexius determined to punish them for their VOL. VI. 53 794 The Paulicians. [Nov., desertion and destroy their communal system, and in this he partially succeeded, by sending his troops among them who deprived them of their property, and with great cruelty drove them from their homes, but this only provoked a rebellion in which the Paulicians completely defeated the Byzantine forces, slew both their generals and extended their depredations over all the European part of the empire. They long maintained themselves in opposition to the power at Constantinople, but just at the close of the reign of Alexius they were subdued. They still continued powerful, however, arid their religious efforts extended abroad more widely the more they were dis- tressed at home. Missionaries in large numbers joined their caravans of trade, and by the Danube and around the Adriatic they went into the various parts of central and western Europe. According to the best testimony given us they had appeared in Italy as early as the very beginning of the eleventh century. The frequent relations between Bulgaria and Italy caused by the wars of the Greek empire with the Normans, brought many into Sicily, Puglia, and Lombardy. The spirit of trade and manufactures operated powerfully at that time to introduce them into Italy and the south of France. They manufactured beautiful cloths of all kinds, fine textures and brilliant colors, which were in great demand, hence many of them received the name of Tessitori or weavers. As early as 1017, at Orleans, in the south of France, one of their missionaries from Lombardy made numerous converts, both laic and clerical, to their doc- trines. Great numbers were early found in the country of Albigeais, in Frau~e, and by 1030 they had not only extended themselves over Italy and France but even into Snain. In Italy these Paulicians received the names of Paterines, or Cathari, and in France, from the large numbers found in the country of Albigeais, they were called Albigenses, from the fact also, perhaps, that one of their principal settlements was near the town of Albi. Before the thirteenth century these Paulicians, or the Cathari, their natural descendants, had nnmerous churches planted all the way from Thrace to Gas- cony. In the beginning of this century, says Gibbon, their Primate resided on the confines of Bulgaria, and governed by his vicars the filial congregations of Italy and France. The 4883.1 The Paulicians. 795 IPapal inquisitor, iReinarius, testifies that these congregations or churches formed a chain that extended from Bulgaria to the Atlantic. It is said that they received the name of Paterines and Cathari first in Milan where they were found in great numbers in 1140, and where for more than two hundred years they had great influence, so much so that a street where they resided and met for worship was called via dei Patar~ In the Piazza de Mercardi, a sq nare still containing some of the old remains of Milan, is to be seen a building called Palazzo della J?agione. It is where, in earlier times, the magistrates of the common- wealth of Milan and the ducal courts of justice were held in after times.. On this building in a small niche stands the effigy of one of the chief persecutors of these religionists. He is represented mounted on his steed in full armor in curious costume, and beneath is the following inscription: Qui solium struxit Catharos ut debuit uxit. This recounts his brave deeds in extirpating the Paulician heresy. Here in Milan also the Archbishop Eribert caused to be erected on the public square a cross and a funeral pile and the Cathari were forced to choose one or the other; they however covered their faces with their hands, and threw themselves into the flames. They had at this time congregations at Modena; Brescia, Viceuza, Verona, Viterbo, Orvieto, and several in iRimini, Bagnalo, iRomandiola and other places. IReinerius says that in 1259 there were sixteen large churches in Italy and France, that the church in Alba consisted of five hundred members, at Concorezzo fifteen hundred, Bagnolo two hundred. They had bishops or elders, pastors and teachers, and also messengers, that is, men employed in traveling to administer to the relief and comfort of the poor and persecuted, and the sick. Their bishops received ordination from Bulgaria, as we learn from the following testimony: Primis temporibus quibus bacrisis Cathorum in Lombardia multiplicari coepit, primum habuerunt Episcopum quendam Marcum nomine sub cujus regimine omnes Lombardi et Tusci et Marchioni regebantur. Iste Marcus ordinem suum habitat de Bulgaria. These Paterines in Italy undoubtedly comprised the original Paulician missionaries who had come into the country in large 796 The Paulicictns. [Nov., numbers from Bulgaria, and also their converts. It is probable that a large part of the bishops, missionaries, and principal teachers of these religionists were Armenian Paulicians, but the membership of the churches was made up largely of native converts. iReinarius gives testimony in accordance with this opinion. The actual Cathari in western and central Europa he thinks not to have exceeded four thousand, but the believers were innumerable. The actual Cathari, says Faber, were probably the physical descendants of the Paulician emigrants, while the believers were the native proselytes they made in Europe. The Paulicians were in France a long time before they received the name of Aibigenses, and were represented by his- torians as emigrants from other regions. The councils of Tou- louse (1119), of Lombez (1176), and the general council of the Lateran (1139), did not condemn them as Albigenses but as heretics, Cathari, Paterini, etc. Spanheim and Basnage say that there were many among the Albigenses who had come from the east into these and other western countries. They were known in France before the time of Peter Waldo, from whom the Waldenses are said to have derived their name. Their enemies also testify to their great antiquity. The name of Albigenses they did not receive till after the council of Loin- bez (1176), and in all that time they were spoken og not as of recent origin, but as strangers who had come into the country about a hundred years before. Dr. Allix states, on the author- ity of Ademar Cabamensis, that they had been driven by the emperor of Constantinople out of his dominions, and that they had appeared in France after having in their progress westward previously shown themselves in Lombardy. Gibbon, in closing his account of this people, uses the fol- lowing remarkable words: It was in the country of the Albi- geais, in the southern province of France, that the Paulicians were most deeply implanted, and the same vicissitudes of mar- tyrdom and revenge which had been displayed in the neigh- borhood of the Euphrates, were repeated in the thirteenth cen- tury on the banks of the Rhone. The insurgents of Tephrice (lDivrik) were represented by the barons and cities of Lan- guedoc. Pope Innocent III. surpassed the sanguinary fame of 1883.1 like Paulicians. 7,97 Theodora. The visible assemblies of the Paulicians or Albi- geais were extirpated by fire and sword and the bleeding rein- nant escaped by flight, concealment, or Catholic conformity. Large numbers fled to the mountains of northern and western Italy, some to the Waldenses, and to the Valtellina and Enga- dine in Switzerland. Some passed from Gascony into Eng- land, some into Flanders, and multitudes into Germany and Bohemia. It is remarkable that these early efforts for religious reforma- tion took place in what were then the finest a~nd most civilized regions of the world. It was thus in the Byzantine empire in the seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries. And especially was this the case in central and western Europe. Italy and the south of France were then in advance of other countries in refinement and civilization. Languedoc, Provence and the sur- rounding countries were peopled by an industrious and intelli- gent race of men addicted to commerce and arts and especially to poetry. They had formed a proven9al language distinct from the Walloon, Roman, or French, which was distinguished by more harmonious infiexions, by a richer vocabulary, by expressions more picturesque, and by greater flexibility. This was studied by all the genius of the age, and became the finest and most elegant of all the languages of modern Europe. It was in this lovely region the Paulicians found sympathy and success. As they had been the most enlightened and intelligent class in Asia Minor, so they sustained the same character in Europe. The inquisitor, Reinarius, says that in all the cities of Lombardy and Provence, and in other kingdoms and nations there were schools of heretics. They also disputed publicly, and summoned the people to those disputations, besides preach- ing in the markets, the fields, the houses, etc. In the district of Pavia alone there were forty-one of these Paulician schools. In France some of them sent their sons to be educated at the University of Paris, and their schools for females were so cele- brated that in them were educated the daughters of the nobility. IFrom the testimony of their enemies we know that the greater part of the barons and nobles loved and protected them against the persecutions of the church. The same missionary character which distinguished them in The Pctulicians. Asia was more strikingly exhibited in Europe. The author of the Belgian Chronicle says: the error of the Albigenses pre- vailed to that degree that it had infected as many as a thousand cities, and if it had not been repressed by the swords of the faithful I think it would have cor1~upted the whole of Europe. This may be regarded as a confession that had it not been for the terrible crusades against these religionists in France and Italy, and the invention of the inquisition, the Lutheran refor- mation would have taken place about two centuries before it actually did. In Bulgaria, Croatia, IDalmatia, and Carinthia, as well as in many cities in Hungary, the Paulicians of the Byzantine empire established churches in the eleventh and twelfth centu- ries soon after coming into Europe, and again in the thirteenth in Dalmatia and Croatia it is reported that many churches owed their rise to the labors of one Bartholomew, of Carcas- sone, an Albigensian, coming from the south of France. In Bohemia and the country of Passan it has been computed that there were not less than eighty thousand Christians of this class in 1315. They traveled, as did the apostles, from city to city,. working at their trades. or selling their wares, and preaching the gospel as they had opportunity. IReinerius gives us an interesting account of the manner in which they made con- verts even among the great ones of the earth, and a mode so successful that they are known to have proselyted not only thc princes of the House of Toulouse with other nobles, but also the King of Aragon. How the Albigenses were related to the XATaldenses it is difficult precisely to determine. Some writers regard them as different branches of the same sect inhabiting different coun- tries, and deriving its name from its local residence; others, however, as Pr. Faber, regard them, and I think with more reason, as two distinct witnesses of the church, originally inde- pendent, but having intimate relations at an early period. The original Albigenses are sometimes called the physical descend- ants of the Paulicians and the Waldenses their theological descendants. The striking missionary character belonging to the Paulicians was imparted to the Waldenses, as the latter, if they existed, had remained quietly in their native valleys till 1883.1 The PauUcian8. 799 they came in contact with the former. History informs us that in 1165 very many were driven by persecution from the south of France and they planted themselves in the valleys of Piedmont. These were not the followers of Peter Waldo but another people, probably the Albigenses. These early inter. minglings and associations, together with the horrible persecu- tions that were first visited upon the Albigenses, prepared the way for the first geographical and ecclesiastical amalgamation of the two sects in the valleys of Piedmont. Indeed, we have evidence of this from the testimony of their persecutors who say that routed from the south of France by the Montfort per- secutions, they fled, some into the Alps, where they found secure concealment both for life and doctrine. Part migrated into Calabria, part into Germany, through the eastern Alps, and fixed their seats in Bohemia, Poland, and Livonia, and others still turned their course westward and found refuge in Britain, and some even in America. About the beginning of the fifteenth century the absorption of these two sects seems to have become complete. We have thus traced the Armenian Paulicians from the banks of the Euphrates, in eastern Asia Minor, to the Alps of Switzerland. From 660 to 1405 their history is marked and distinct, and during all this period they alone constituted the truest representatives of an evangelical, spiritual, and missionary church. Full of energetic, spiritual life they were ever struggling to throw off from the visible establishment the accretions and observances that were destroying its life. They wrestled mightily in opposition with what had been wrapped around it, and endeavored to impart life to a church and a world by the simple gospel. The gospel was their great weapon, and this they were bound to use to enlighten a world; hence their missionary zeal. Over the whole extent of the great Byzantine empire they carried this gospel though imperial armies and fleets opposed them. But this was not enough. With a strong and living missionary agency they gave life to Italy, the south of France, the north of Spain, Flanders, Belgium, Germany, Bohemia, Hungary, and Poland. They sent thousands of living streams over all the continent so that there is not a country in Europe where there have been manifestations of spiritual life but these cannot be traced back to and connected with Paulician agencies. Thus the Armenians did the great preparatory work for the reformation. This agency,as I remarked at the commencement of this Article, it seems to me we have not fully recognized, and we have not credited to the Armenians, as we ought to have done, the great work they accomplished. Will not the church of the west, after so long a time, recognize her obligations to these Christians of the east, and repay by enlarged missionary and educational efforts the great work they accomplished long ago for Europe and for America? http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa...BQ0722-0042-105 [ November 11, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]