Title: In Subversive Service of the Sublime State: Armenians and Ottoman State Power, 1844-1896
Summary: A detailed look at the Armenian Apostolic Church and the varying systems and levels of power at play within it.
Author: Richard Antaramian, Assistant Professor of History at USC
About the piece: Doctoral dissertation, submitted in 2014, University of Michigan, 245 pages
Access the piece here
Read this if you want to learn more about:
- How members of the Armenian Apostolic church were able to use their positions within the church to mold the political and social fabric of the Armenian millet
- The difference between Catholicosates (Etchmiadzin, Sis and Aghtamar) and the Patriarchates (Constantinople and Jerusalem) and the power dynamic between each location.
- Antaramian writes, “The Catholicos of Etchmiadzin is the supreme spiritual leader of all the world’s Armenians. The seat is located in present-day Armenia, immediately west of Yerevan. The spiritual jurisdiction of the Patriarchate was considered a diocese (tem), which ruled over prelacies (arajnordutiun).” (17) He also goes on to explain how multiple Catholicosates came into existence throughout Armenian history.
- The “30 Years War” between Khrimian Hayrik and Boghos “Hayanun Sheikh” Melikian
Some interesting points:
- What happened in the Armenian millet is important not just for Armenians as a “parochial history,” but also because it has implications for Ottoman history.
- Church power dynamics:
- Apostolic Armenians of the Ottoman Empire were subjects of the Ottoman Empire, but they were also part of the diocese of Echmiadzin which was led by the Patriarchate of Istanbul. (p. 56)
- The Patriarchate of Istanbul got its spiritual legitimacy from Etchmiadzin (which was then located in the Russian Empire) and political legitimacy from the Ottoman central government. The Patriarchate was seen as Etchmiadzin’s representative in the Ottoman Empire. This “provided spiritual justification to the Ottoman state’s use of the Patriarchate as a political office.” (p. 59)
- Etchmiadzin used the Patriarchate of Istanbul to keep its two challengers, Sis and Aghtamar at bay. Although Istanbul would benefit from this protection, both Sis and Aghtamar remained outside the spiritual jurisdiction of the Istanbul Patriarchate. (p. 59)
Antaramian’s doctoral dissertation fulfills two important functions which are lacking in Ottoman studies. First, it details the inner machinations of the Armenian millet and uncovers history which has mostly been forgotten or understudied. Secondly, it shows how the internal workings of this community were important not just for the microcosm of Armenian studies, but for Ottoman history at large. Antaramian argues that in Ottoman history, non-Muslim stories usually take a back seat to “the larger imperial experience and [are] confined to the narratives of parochial national histories.” (p. 120)
What does this mean exactly? That often, when discussing what happened to the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire, it is seen as a very specific example, relevant only to Armenians and not indicative of larger, important trends or events in Ottoman history. Often, what happened to the Armenian millet in the 19th century is viewed separately from the Tanzimat reforms and the tumultuous state of affairs within the empire, but Antaramian shows that the Armenian millet was entrenched in these developments and what was taking place in the Armenian millet has broader implications.
Though the meat of the text lies in showing how the Armenian church held power and what it could do with it, Antaramian also provides an excellent breakdown of general topics in Armenian history that are not easily found for English-speaking audiences such as the Armenian National Constitution and the Patriarchate of Istanbul and how they worked with or against each other, the difference between the religious positions of kahana and vardapet, and the complex relationship between the Catholicosates at Etchmiadzin, Sis, Aghtamar and the Patriarchates of Istanbul and Jerusalem.
One of the most interesting elements of his dissertation is his illumination of the “30 Years War” between the famed Patriarch and Catholicos Mkrtich Khrimian “Hayrik” and Boghos “Hayanun Sheikh” Melikian, a clergyman known for abusing his position in often vicious, reprehensible ways. In fact, a document from 1874 declares “beginning with his [Boghos’] ordination as a celibate priest… every day, without exaggeration, he has committed one crime or one scandal,” and was the “cause of the moral and material death of the [Armenian] community of Van.” (p. 132) This is in stark contrast to Khrimian who was revered by many during his lifetime and has since been raised to saint-like status upon his passing. Antaramian asserts that each wielded power independent from what was granted them by the state and used that to “change or reinforce political and social structures.” (p. 122) Antaramian paints a vivid picture of the two opposing figures starting with Khrimian openly challenging Melikian and his nefarious cronies.
This feud, itself a compelling story, is also a critical example of themes and events which have yet to be fully explored in the annals of Armenian history. This might go hand-in-hand with an assertion Antaramian makes early in his dissertation that, “recent scholarship has attempted to reconsider and recast Armenian historical agency as Ottoman. These efforts often fail, however, because they are unable to develop a proper appreciation for Armenian social and political institutions, namely the Church.” (54) Luckily, Antaramian exerts significant effort to reexamine this agency while taking into account an institution of paramount importance to Armenian identity.