In 2013, the Matenadaran Institute of Ancient Manuscripts published the long-awaited volume of the speeches and sermons of YovhannÄs Pluz Erznkacâi (i.e. from Erznkay, present-day Erzincan, Turkey), one of the most illustrious Armenian authors of the 13th century.1 Prepared by two devoted scholars of Erznkacâi, the late Armenuhi Ter-Srapyan and the late Edvard Baghdasaryan, this publication represents the first volume of what will be a series of publications of Erznkacâiâs works, offering the first edition of many homilies, sermons and speeches delivered by Erznkacâi in various cities of Cilicia and Greater Armenia, as well as in Jerusalem and Tâiflis (Tbilisi).
This paper presents a translation of select chapters from Sermons 1, 8, 10, 29, and 30,2 in which Erznkacâi uses the specific subjects of royal images and urban feasts for comparative and exegetical purposes. Although the author does not specify his sources â and, in fact, mentions these two subjects in figurative language aimed at enhancing and better explaining the principal themes of his speeches â one can detect in these 13th-century writings many elements of aesthetic thinking with an origin in the Greek milieu. The selected excerpts will show that Erznkacâi was a bearer of the Platonic concept of the archetype and its image, which likely entered his writings through the works of previous Armenian authors and Church Fathers. Particularly influential for Erznkacâiâs aesthetic reflections seem to be the Cappadocian Fathers â or âgreat
Although frequently invoked in his exegetical preaching, the reception of royal images is not, in itself, Erznkacâiâs focus. He often uses examples involving artistic portraiture as a means of explaining the principle of the imitation of God, which was of particular relevance to kings, since they were considered to be the earthly counterparts of Christ, the Heavenly King. This analogy â omnipresent in many medieval Christian societies â shaped also Cilician Armenian political theology, to which Erznkacâi himself greatly contributed.3 The politics of Cilician royal portraiture reflected this theology in many ways. Therefore, the below-translated excerpts from Erznkacâiâs sermons may disclose something useful about the philosophical and theological grounds of artistic practices in medieval Armenia.
Before proceeding to the translated passages, a few words should be said about Erznkacâiâs audiences, as well as about the contents and contexts of the selected sermons. At least three of them (1, 8, and 10) were composed in Cilician Armenia. Sermon 1, consisting of 15 chapters, is the authorâs commentary on Psalm 140 and was read in âthe famous and great hermitage of Drazark.â4 Sermon 8, consisting of 38 chapters, was composed on the occasion
Sermon 8, chapter 1 Sermon 8. YovhannÄs vardapet E(r)znkayecâiâs [sermon] on the feast of the Christâs birth and baptism, delivered at the public celebration in the royal residence city of Sis.13
Chapter 1. ⦠We can also witness that the laws of the sovereigns are so arranged that when a new sovereign king occupies the kingdomâs throne and sends the royal orderâs decree into the country, amid the citiesâ huge crowds of people and in numerous buildings of the streets, the good news is announced, and everyone rejoices; and various festivities fill all the squares of the city, decorating the streets with linen covers painted with all manner of flowers, with branches of trees and flowers; and with the beauty of delicious fruits every door and shop is made resplendent. And various craftsmen hurry to decorate the streets, each with his own art. And thus, they express the joy of their hearts in public view.
Sermon 10, chapter 9, and other texts
Sermon 10. On the prophet Davidâs âSuch knowledge is too wonderful for meâ [Psalm 138:6], delivered by YohanÄs vardapet E[r]znkayecâi in Anawarza to the bishop and vardapet Grigor.15
Chapter 9. And then he [David] said: âSuch knowledge is too wonderful for me.â What I desire and wish for is to attain Your knowledge, which
is unattainable even for angels. To me and my nature, wonderful and astonishing is the knowledge of You and of my Created form. As, for example, when someone hears the name of a valiant and mighty king and the multiple qualities of his wisdom and sees the royal deeds of his greatness, (s)he heartfully desires to see the beauty of his person. But because this is unattainable whether due to the distance or the immense multitude of the [kingâs] troops and the impossibility of entering his royal palace, then when (s)he sees the kingâs painted image adorned with costly decorations in a certain place, (his) her desire is filled by the vision of that image pictured in multicolour paints, and then (s)he marvels at that, saying with great fascination: âIf the royal image is so wonderful and terrific and is so marvellously executed in art, then how much more magnificent and worthy of admiration must the real and crowned king be?!â16 In such a way, also the prophet, wishing to search out the nature and power of the Divine and the greatness of His wonderful deeds, and seeing the inaccessibility of His greatness and the infinity of His nature â and he himself being only created in His image and in His appearance and merely reflecting the likeness of the beauty of the archetype â turned his thought into wonder, saying: âSuch knowledge is too wonderful for me.â And, behold, I enjoy Your Creative love; and because You know everything in advance and because out of non-existence you led [all things] into existence, I believe, although I am unable to comprehend all things of Yours. And not only all things of Yours, but I am even unable to attain the knowledge of myself as created in Your image and form. Rather, the knowledge of Your Creation, even of my Creaturely nature, is too wonderful [for me].
This quotation is taken from Erznkacâiâs picturesque tenth sermon which, as mentioned in its title, is the theologianâs commentary on the psalmistâs words âSuch knowledge is too wonderful for meâ. In an indirect way, Erznkacâi provides his Anawarza audience with a mode of perception of royal images. That mode proceeds from the assumption that the âwonderful and terrificâ royal image is a substitute for the kingâs physical presence â albeit never a perfect, equal substitute. The inferior, imitative status assigned to the royal image, along with the impossibility of gaining access to see the king in person, enhanced the viewerâs fascination with and admiration of him. Erznkacâi parallels the unfulfillable desire to personally see the mighty and wise king with the inaccessibility of Godâs knowledge. This desire could only be satisfied by contemplating the kingâs âmarvellously executedâ images, for just as the divine knowledge was unreachable to the prophet David, so the real king was inaccessible to ordinary people.
Erznkacâi continues his commentary with a discussion of the archetype and similitude to the archetype. Even being created in Godâs image and appearance, the prophet was unable to reach Godâs knowledge because he was not the archetype himself but merely reflected âthe likeness of the beauty of the archetype.â So it is with the kingâs image: although marvellously executed, it does not represent but merely imitates the archetype â that is, the king himself. This notion of likeness to and imitation of the archetype is central to Erznkacâiâs oratorial works, with his interpretations coming close to both the Platonic and Aristotelian concepts of mimesis. He often describes God as the archetype that can and should be imitated but can never be reached. To explain to his audience the necessity of maintaining likeness to the archetype, Erznkacâi draws frequent comparisons to (royal) artistic images. Among many examples of this, I would like to include in this discussion two passages â one from Sermon 1 and the other from Sermon 8 â which were read by Erznkacâi in Drazark and Sis, respectively. In the latter sermon, while commenting on the parable of the two debtors (Lk. 7:40â50), Erznkacâi says:17
Sermon 8, chapter 20. ⦠And what is the meaning of the coin that is made of gold and possesses the kingâs image (for all those who are created in deiform likeness and in the munificent image of Him must preserve the likeness of the archetype)?
In Sermon 1, Erznkacâi goes on to explain the necessity of maintaining likeness to the original with reference to the desire and love that one feels towards the person who is portrayed. It is because of this admiration that the artist is eager to reproduce âthe form and the likeness of the originalâ as genuinely as possible:18
Sermon 1, chapter 4. ⦠or, when someone creates the beautiful image of a living rational person and adorns it with royal honour, with the colours of paints and various hues, the form and the likeness of the original are depicted on wood not for completing the imperfection of the living [person], but the likeness of the original are created in beautifully glaring paints in order to satisfy the desires of the heart that feels yearning and love towards the living [person].
The passageâs description of figurative painting on wood points to a panel painting tradition â attested in other Armenian texts as well, though no extant examples are known. Erznkacâi shows an interest in artistic issues in many of his other works as well. On one occasion, for instance, he writes about how various craftsmen prepared the kingâs crown and robes:19
Artists and other connoisseurs first prepare the material for the upcoming work and then, travelling through art, they create the upcoming object in an orderly and appropriate manner.20 And let us confirm these words with a demonstration. If a craftsman takes it upon himself to create with art and wisdom a kingâs crown or a royal cirani,21 he first searches for the material, collects gold and silver, beamy pearls and precious stones, silk and the sea conch,22 and other materials; and after embroidering these together by hand, he makes the chain(s) of the kingâs crown or colours the cirani. In the same way, Moses, the eye of the divine word,23 by the order of God, first collected the material necessary for the sanctuary â blue and purple, scarlet and fine linen, and other materials that people brought him â and then from these materials he made the tabernacle of the testimony [cf. Ex. 25:1â16].
Sermon 29, chapter 14
Sermon 29. [Sermon] of YohannÄs about the deceased in Christ and the mystery of manâs creation and death, from the word of the wise man, which says: âGod created man incorruptible and made him according to His own munificent imageâ [Wisdom 2:23].25
Chapter 14. For He first said âimage,â and then âaccording to likenessâ [cf. Gen. 1:26]. As, for example, those who depict royal and princely images, draw on wood the archetypeâs beautiful appearance by means of colours in order to transmit to the image the beauty of the
archetype. Similarly, our Creator painted His beauty into the image, in that way demonstrating to us His power not by means of certain substances of red or black colours but â instead of these â purity, happiness, [and] remoteness from all evil.26 As, for example, those who write the images of princes by the likeness and put on them ciranis27; they demonstrate by this the royal power, and it is said customarily: âThe image [is] the king!â So also with human nature; since it is established to rule over others with all likeness to the king,28 it was raised up as a living image: instead of being clothed in ciranis, it is clothed in virtue rather than in all garments of kingship; instead of a gold sceptre, it is established with immortal beatitude; and instead of a royal crown, it is adorned with the crown of justice.29
Sermon 30, chapter 23
Sermon 30. Speeches on the Lordâs word âI am the good shepherdâ [Jn 10:11 and 14] composed by the blessed vardapet YohannÄs E[r]znkayecâi on the request and demand of the valiant vardapet [*the name is missing] [and read] at the door of the Surb Karapet Church.31
Chapter 23. And again, by saying âI am the [good] shepherd,â He makes it clear that it was He whom the prophets and the righteous took as
example: some imitated His death â since some of them were put to death â and others lived and reigned [in imitation of Him]. As, for example, a kingâs image is depicted during his childhood, during his youth, in his old age, and also during his reign; in the same way, all these shepherds, each one in his own time, were images of Christâs appearances [meaning prefigurations of Christ â G.G.S.]. Since the image of the king that is painted in his youth preserves the same likeness of the boyish form, likewise [the one] at full maturity and in old age. And when he accepts the crown, the likeness is similarly kept in each of his images.32 In the same way, all the saints are depicted as the image of Christâs pastorship â¦
In what follows in chapter 23 are explanations of the ways in which various biblical characters prefigured Christ in their own times. Thus, Abel, who was a shepherd and whose sacrifice was favoured by God, was himself killed by his brother Cain. Or, Jacob, a shepherd too, was persecuted by his brother and then became a shepherd for Labanâs flocks â in that way prefiguring Christ, the
Just as Christ was prefigured by various Old Testament shepherds, so too a king â as the archetype â should be recorded in likenesses from various moments of his life.33 In this sermon chapter, Erznkacâiâs biblical commentary emerges as a source of information regarding medieval practices of royal portraiture. As attested in Sermon 30 and preserved in illuminated manuscripts, a king could indeed be portrayed at several different ages: long before his enthronement, at his coronation, and as the reigning king. A fortunate extant case is the series of images of King Lewon ii, which support and provide material witness to Erznkacâiâs account. Chronologically, the first surviving image of Lewon represents him as a young prince and was likely produced on the occasion of his knighting ceremony which took place in 1256 (Figure. 1.1). The next image of the future king is to be found in a richly illustrated Gospel manuscript, created in 1262 on the occasion of his marriage to the lady Keá¹an (Figure. 1.2). The third and fourth images, both executed in the 1270s, represent the newly enthroned king. In one miniature, he is depicted together with his family, asking for divine intercession (Figure. 1.3), and in the other, he is kneeling and praying in front of the Eucharistic table (Figure. 1.4). Probably, it is also Lewon ii whose representation is meant in the royal images inserted into a marginal ornament of the Lectionary of Crown Prince Hetâum (Figure. 1.5) â an important royal manuscript that was created for his son and successor Hetâum in 1286, three years before Lewonâs death.
Whether Erznkacâi ever saw these or other images of Cilician kings must remain a matter of speculation. However, a reconstruction of certain circumstances may make this suggestion less hypothetical. As noted in the introduction to this article, Erznkacâi spent the last phase of his life in Cilicia and died in Akner, which was one of the most significant monastic centres, closely connected with the royal family. It was to this monastery that Queen Keá¹an offered the sumptuous Gospel manuscript she had commissioned in 1272 â now widely known as the Queen Keá¹an Gospels (J2563).34 Erznkacâi, who was greatly interested in art and was in contact with King Lewon ii, likely saw this manuscript, which also features a miniature of the royal family (Figure. 1.3).
YovhannÄs Pluz Erznkacâi is one of the key authors whose works offer us precious glimpses into the spiritual culture and aesthetic thinking of 13th-century Armenia. The few excerpts chosen for translation here reveal this significance with regard to two specific subjects â urban celebrations and royal images. Erznkacâi approaches the first subject from a broad social perspective, allowing us to explore the ways in which commoners could partake in the urban feasts organized on the occasion of a kingâs enthronement. Looking through the eyes of a guest, Erznkacâi narrates this tradition with intriguing details which, because of their commonness, would have gone unnoticed by local Cilician authors, most of whom had courtly or pro-courtly origins.
The second subject, concerning artistic images, is far more intensely present in Erznkacâiâs writings. His remarks, emphasizing the aesthetics and reception of painted images, are evocative in helping to understand the philosophical and theological grounds of artistic productions. Thus, the practice of fashioning a kingâs image âin deiform likenessâ (Sermon 8, ch. 20) is attested by contemporary royal images (cf. images of King Lewon and Christ in Figure. 1.3) that Erznkacâi may have had the opportunity to contemplate personally in the milieu of the court of King Lewon ii. Also evident in these visual sources is the tradition of depicting the king at different moments of his life, which Erznkacâi invokes for comparative and exegetical purposes (Sermon 30, ch. 23).
The selected excerpts reflect a non-conflicting combination of the Platonic and Aristotelian concepts of mimesis, something Erznkacâi inherited from patristic works, sometimes following the Church Fathers verbatim, as in the case of Gregory of Nyssa. Although the kingâs images should properly reflect his royal appearance and should be âexecuted marvellously,â still, they can never replace the king in person, for they are merely reflections of the king (it is in this context of the archetypeâs primacy that Erznkacâiâs expression âthe beauty of the archetypeâ should be understood â an expression rooted in the works of the previous authors he consulted). In this sense, the use of the concept of mimesis is Platonic, which insisted that imitation is inferior to archetype and cannot replace it by representation. However, in most of the instances in which Erznkacâi applies the concept of the archetype and its image â even though in a derivative way, the principal aim is not so much to underscore the inferiority of the artistic production compared to its living original, but to highlight the potential of the image which is capable of partially replacing the archetype and therefore offering the possibility of approaching it. This positive and didactic use of mimesis is closer to the Aristotelian understanding of imitation and can also be favourably situated within the spiritual currents of the
The frequent evocation of artistic portraiture in Erznkacâiâs exegetical preaching served to explain one of the principal tenets of medieval Christian piety â the imitation of God â whereby the believer, being created in Godâs image and likeness (Gen. 1:26), could achieve the fulfilment of the divine image by conducting himself in imitation of God. The audience for whom Erznkacâiâs speeches were delivered was constantly reminded that the state ruler exemplifies the ideal imitation of God and that each member of society is likewise able to exercise his or her likeness to God by employing their spiritual virtues and their capacity to rule over other creatures.
Acknowledgements
Research for this paper was carried out in the framework of the project âRoyal Epiphanies: The Kingâs Body as Image and Its Mise-en-scène in the Medieval Mediterranean (12thâ14th Centuries),â funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (project no173045, University of Fribourg, Switzerland). I would like to sincerely thank Jesse S. Arlen for his careful reading of the first draft of this article.
YovhannÄs Erznkacâi (Hovhannes Yerzynkatsi), Matenagrutâiwn, hator A. Äaá¹er ew kâarozner [Works, volume i â Speeches and Sermons], eds. Armenuhi Yerzynkatsi-Ter-Srapian, and Edvard Baghdasaryan (Yerevan, 2013). Throughout this essay, Armenian letters are transliterated according to the Hübschmann-Meillet-Benveniste system. To indicate the collections of Armenian manuscripts, I follow Bernard Coulieâs system of acronyms as given in his Répertoire des manuscrits arméniens. Liste des sigles utilisés pour désigner les manuscrits (Association Internationale des Ãtudes Arméniennes): M = Yerevan, Matenadaran â Mesrop MaÅ¡tocâ Institute of Ancient Manuscripts, and J = Jerusalem, Armenian Patriarchate.
In the cited edition from 2013, the text of Sermon 1 is based on the manuscripts M2173, M2992, and M2854. Sermons 8 and 10 are based on M2173 and M2854, Sermon 29 on M2173 and M7032, and Sermon 30 on M2173 and M218.
Peter S. Cowe, âTheology of Kingship in 13th-Century Armenian Cilicia,â Hask hayagitakan taregirkâ 11 (2007â2008), pp. 417â430.
Erznkacâi, Speeches and Sermons, pp. 34â53. Previously published in: Edvard Baghdasaryan, and Mesrop Aramean, âYovhannÄs Erznkacâu I ÄX saÅmosn Äaá¹Ç,â [YovhannÄs Erznkacâiâs Sermon On Psalm 140] Gandzasar 7 (2002), 384â408. See also (for fragmentary citations from M2173): Edvard Baghdasaryan, âHovhannes Erznkacâin arvesti u azgagrutâyan masin,â [YovhannÄs Erznkacâi on Art and Ethnography] Lraber hasarakakan gitutâyunneri [Herald of the Social Sciences / Armenian National Academy of Sciences] 9 (1971), 75; Armenuhi Srapyan, âHovhannes Erznkacâu geÅagitakan hayacâkânerÇ,â [YovhannÄs Erznkacâiâs Aesthetic Thoughts] Patma-Banasirakan handes [Historical-Philological Journal] 3 (1985), 103; Ead., âArvesti Çmbá¹numÇ Hovhannes Erznkacâu gorcerum,â [The Perception of Art in YovhannÄs Erznkacâiâs Works] Banber Erewani hamalsarani [Bulletin of Yerevan University] 2/65 (1988), 133.
Erznkacâi, Speeches and Sermons, pp. 122â46.
Ibid., pp. 167â206. See also (for fragmentary citations from M2173): Srapyan, âHovhannes Erznkacâu geÅagitakan hayacâkânerÇ,â p. 103; Ead., âArvesti Çmbá¹numÇ,â p. 135.
As shown by his later activities and especially by the initiation of the Council of Sis, the future catholicosâs doctrinal orientation was at odds with the Christology of the Armenian Church. In this regard, Erznkacâiâs preaching activities in Anawarza and the praise and promotion of the Armenian Churchâs Christology seem to have been incompatible with the vision of Anawarzaâs archbishop and later catholicos Grigor, who is often represented as a latinophile. Taking this evidence into account, Baghdasaryan suggested that Erznkacâi must have visited Anawarza and read this sermon during the reign of King Lewon ii (1270/71â1289) (see Baghdasaryanâs comments in: Erznkacâi, Speeches and Sermons, pp. 167â8), for it was after Lewonâs death and with the succession of the Franciscan king Hetâum ii (1289â1307, intermittently) that the debates on union with Rome became more insistent within the Armenian Church and the royal court.
Ibid., pp. 501â19. See also: Srapyan, âArvesti Çmbá¹numÇ,â p. 134.
Erznkacâi, Speeches and Sermons, pp. 520â44. See also (for fragmentary citations from M2173): Srapyan, âArvesti Çmbá¹numÇ,â p. 134; Lewon XaÄâikyan, âHay arvesti patmutâyan karewor skzbnaÅbyurnerÇ,â [Important Primary Sources for Armenian Art History] in The Second International Symposium on Armenian Art, Yerevan, 12â18 September 1978, Collection of Reports, 4 (Yerevan, 1981), p. 42; Sirarpie Der Nersessian, Miniature Painting in the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia from the Twelfth to the Fourteenth Century, vol. 1 (Washington, D.C., 1993), p. 154 (English translation based on XaÄâikyanâs fragmentary citation from M2173).
Erznkacâi, Speeches and Sermons, pp. 147â66. On this sermon, see also: Edvard Baghdasaryan, âHovhannes Erznkacâin Kilikiayi zinvorakan kazmakerputâyunneri masin,â [YovhannÄs Erznkacâi on the Military Organizations of Cilicia] Banber Matenadarani [Bulletin of Matenadaran] 16 (1994), 44â57; Cowe, âTheology of Kingship,â pp. 422â3.
For Erznkacâiâs travels to Cilicia and his death, see: Edvard Baghdasaryan, Hovhannes Erznkacâin yev nra xratakan arjakÇ [Hovhannes Erznkacâi and His Advice Literature] (Yerevan, 1977), pp. 25â34; Baghdasaryanâs Introduction to Erznkacâi, Speeches and Sermons, pp. 22â8. See also: Armenuhi Yerzynkatsi-Srapian, Hovhannes Erznkacâi Pluz: KyankâÇ ew gorcÇ [The Life and Work of Hohannes Erznkacâi Pluz] (Yerevan, 1993), pp. 38â9; Seta B. Dadoyan, âYovhannÄs Erznkacâi Bluz,â in Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History, 4 (1200â1350), eds. David Thomas, and Alex Mallett (Leiden, 2012), pp. 572â3.
The sermons are not the only written products left from Erznkacâiâs activities in Cilicia. The idea for his Compilation of Commentary on Grammar had also emerged as a result of his Cilician sojourn in the first half of the 1280s, when he was asked by catholicos Yakob Klayecâi to teach grammar at local monasteries. This work was completed in 1291 in the Surb Minas Monastery of Erznkay. See: Roberta Ervine, âYovhannÄs Erznkacâi Pluzâs Compilation of Commentary on Grammar as a Starting Point for the Study of Medieval Grammars,â in New Approaches to Medieval Armenian Language and Literature, ed. Jos Johannes Sicco Weitenberg (Amsterdam, 1995), pp. 149â66; Baghdasaryan, Hovhannes Erznkacâin, p. 27. Apart from this, Erznkacâi prepared an abbreviation of his famous Xrat hasarakacâ kâristonÄicâ (Instruction for All Christians), whose longer version was initially composed in Erznkay. Preserved in two main versions and in a few hundred copies â a sign of its continuous popularity within Armenian society â this remarkable piece of medieval advice literature is addressed to both the religious and secular classes, aiming to regulate various aspects of their spiritual and religious life. For the text of Xrat hasarakacâ, see: Baghdasaryan, Hovhannes Erznkacâin, pp. 139â201, also pp. 48â61. In this publication, the scholar is unsure about the Cilician origins of the abbreviated version of the Xrat hasarakacâ, whereas in his latest study he suggested that it was written in Cilicia. See Baghdasaryanâs comments in: Erznkacâi, Speeches and Sermons, p. 22, n. 35.
Sermon 8. ÕÕ¸ÖÕ«Õ¶ Õ Õ¸Õ¾Õ°Õ¡Õ¶Õ¶Õ§Õ½ Õ¾Õ¡ÖÕ¤Õ¡ÕºÕ¥Õ¿ Ôµ(Ö)Õ¦Õ¶Õ¯Õ¡ÕµÕ¥ÖÖÕ¸Õµ Õ« Õ¿Ö Õ¶Õ« Ô¾Õ¶Õ¶Õ¤Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¥Ö ÕÕ¯ÖÕ¿Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶ ÕÖÕ«Õ½Õ¿Õ¸Õ½Õ«, Õ¡Õ½Õ¡ÖÕ¥Õ¡Õ¬ Õ« Õ©Õ¡Õ£Õ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ«Õ½Õ¿ ÖÕ¡Õ²Õ¡ÖÕ¶ Õ« ÕÕ«Õ½, ÕµÕ¡Õ¿Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¿Ö Õ¶Õ¡ÕÕ´Õ¢Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶.
Chapter 1. ⦠ÕÕ¡Õ¥Ö Õ¦Õ¡ÕµÕ½ Õ«Õ½Õ¯ Õ¿Õ¥Õ½Õ¡Õ¶Õ¥Õ´Ö Õ¡ÖÖÕ§Õ¶Õ½ ÕµÕ¡Õ·ÕÕ¡ÖÕ°Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¬Õ¡ÖÕ¶ Õ°ÖÕ¡Õ´Õ¡Õ¶Õ§ Õ¯Õ¡ÖÕ£Õ¥Õ¡Õ¬Õ½, Õ¦Õ« ÕµÕ¸ÖÕªÕ¡Õ´ Õ¶Õ¸Ö Õ¡ÖÖÕ¡Õµ Õ¡Õ·ÕÕ¡ÖÕ°Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¬ ÕµÕ¡Õ©Õ¸Õ¼ Õ©Õ¡Õ£Õ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÕ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¶Õ½Õ¿Õ«ÖÕ« Õ¥Ö Õ£Õ«ÖÕ½ Õ©Õ¡Õ£Õ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÕ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ Õ°ÖÕ¡Õ´Õ¡Õ¶Õ« ÕµÕ¡Õ·ÕÕ¡ÖÕ°Õ¶ Õ¡Õ¼Õ¡ÖÕ«ÖÕ§, Õ« Õ¢Õ¡Õ¦Õ´Õ¡Õ´Õ¢Õ¸Õ ÕªÕ¸Õ²Õ¸Õ¾Õ½ ÖÕ¡Õ²Õ¡ÖÕ¡ÖÕ¶, Õ¥Ö Õ« ÕµÕ¸Õ£Õ¶Õ¡Õ¯Õ« Õ·Õ«Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ¡Õ®Õ½ ÖÕ¸Õ²Õ¸ÖÕ¡ÖÕ¶, Õ¡ÖÕ¥Õ¿Õ¥Õ¡Ö Õ«Õ´Õ¶ Õ°Õ¶Õ¹Õ«ÖÕ¶ Õ¥Ö Õ¢Õ¥ÖÕ¯ÖÕ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¤Õ«Õ´Õ¡Ö Õ¿Õ¥Õ½Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶, Õ¥Ö ÕÖÕ¡ÕÕ³Õ¡Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶Õ½ Õ¡Õ´Õ¥Õ¶Õ¡ÕºÕ¡Õ¿Õ«Õ¯Õ½, Õ¨Õ¶Õ¤ Õ¢Õ¸Õ¬Õ¸Ö Õ°ÖÕ¡ÕºÕ¡ÖÕ¡Õ¯Õ½ ÖÕ¡Õ²Õ¡ÖÕ«Õ¶ Õ¡Õ¼Õ¶Õ«ÖÕ¥Õ¶, Õ¦ÖÕ¸Õ²Õ¸ÖÕ¶ Õ¦Õ¡ÖÕ¤Õ¡ÖÕ¥Õ¬Õ¸Õ¾, Õ« Õ¢Õ¡Õ¦Õ´Õ¡Õ®Õ¡Õ²Õ«Õ¯ Õ¶Õ¯Õ¡ÖÕ¡Õ£Õ¸ÖÕ®Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¯Õ¿Õ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÕ¶ Õ®Õ¡Õ®Õ¯Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«Ö, Õ®Õ¡Õ¼Õ½ Õ¥Ö Õ®Õ¡Õ²Õ«Õ¯Õ½ Õ¸Õ½Õ¿Õ¸Ö Õ¥Ö Õ°Õ¡Õ´Õ¡Õ¤Õ¡Õ´ ÕºÕ¿Õ²Õ¸ÖÕ¶ Õ£Õ¥Õ²Õ¥ÖÕ¯Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ´Õ¢ Õ¾Õ¡ÕµÕ¥Õ¬Õ¹Õ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ¥Õ¶ Õ¦Õ«ÖÖÕ¡ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ¹Õ«ÖÖ Õ¦Õ¤ÖÕ¸ÖÕ¶Õ½ Õ¥Ö Õ¦ÕÕ¡Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ½, Õ¥Ö Õ¦Õ¡Õ¶Õ¡Õ¦Õ¡Õ¶ Õ£Õ¸ÖÕ®Õ¡ÖÕ¶Õ¥Õ¡ÕµÖÕ¶ Õ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÕ¥Õ½Õ¿Õ«ÖÕ¶ Õ¦Õ«ÖÖÕ¥Õ¡Õ¶ÖÕ¶ Õ¦Õ¡ÖÕ¤Õ¡ÖÕ¥Õ¬ ÖÕ¸ÖÕ©Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¦ÖÕ¸Õ²Õ¸ÖÕ½, Õ¥Ö Õ¡ÕµÕ½ÕºÕ§Õ½ Õ°ÖÕ¡ÕºÕ¡ÖÕ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¿Õ¥Õ½ Õ¦Õ¸ÖÖÕ¡ÕÕ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶ Õ½ÖÕ¿Õ«ÖÕ¶ Õ¡Õ¼Õ¶Õ«ÖÕ¥Õ¶. Erznkacâi, Speeches and Sermons, pp. 122â46, esp. 123.
In the West, this was the case, for example, for Charlemagne (800) and Roger ii of Sicily (1130); in the Byzantine Empire, for Michael ii the Amorian (820) and Constantine x Doukas (1059).
Sermon 10. Õ Õ¸Õ°Õ¡Õ¶Õ§Õ½ Õ¾Õ¡ÖÕ¤Õ¡ÕºÕ¥Õ¿Õ« ÔµÕ¦Õ¶Õ¯Õ¡ÕµÕ¥ÖÖÕ¸Õµ Õ« Õ¢Õ¡Õ¶ Õ´Õ¡ÖÕ£Õ¡ÖÕ§Õ«Õ¶ Ô´Õ¡ÖÕ©Õ«. «ÕÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ¹Õ¥Õ¬Õ« Õ¥Õ²Õ¥Ö Õ£Õ«Õ¿Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶ ÖÕ¸ յիս» (ÕÕ¡Õ²Õ´. ÕÔ¼Ô¸.6) ÕµÔ±Õ¶Õ¡ÖÕ¡ÖÕ¦Õ¡ ÕÖ Õ½Õ¥ÖÕ¥Õ¡Õ¬Õ Õ¡Õ¼ Õ¿Õ§Ö Ô³ÖÕ«Õ£Õ¸Ö Õ¾Õ¡ÖÕ¤Õ¡ÕºÕ¥Õ¿ Õ¥Ö Õ¥ÕºÕ«Õ½Õ¯Õ¸ÕºÕ¸Õ½.
Chapter 9. ÔµÖ Õ¡ÕºÕ¡ Õ¡Õ½Õ§. «ÕÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ¹Õ¥Õ¬Õ« Õ¥Õ²Õ¥Ö Õ£Õ«Õ¿Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶ ÖÕ¸ ÕµÕ«Õ½Â»Ö Ô±ÕµÕ¶, Õ¦Õ¸Ö Õ¢Õ¡Õ²Õ±Õ¡Õ´ Õ¥Ö ÕµÕ¡ÖÕªÕ¡ÖÕ«Õ´Õ Õ« ÖÕ¸ÕÕµÕ¤ Õ°Õ¡Õ½Õ¡Õ¶Õ¥Õ¬ Õ£Õ«Õ¿Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶, Õ¸Ö Õ¥Ö Õ°ÖÕ¥Õ·Õ¿Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡Ö Õ¡Õ¶Õ°Õ¡ÕÕ½ Õ§. ÕµÕ«Õ½ Õ¥Ö ÕµÕ«Õ´ Õ¢Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶Õ½ Õ°Õ¡ÕµÕ¥Õ¬Õ¸Õ¾, Õ½ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ¹Õ¥Õ¬Õ« Õ¥Ö Õ¦Õ¡ÖÕ´Õ¡Õ¶Õ¡Õ¬Õ« Õ¥Õ²Õ¥Ö Õ£Õ«Õ¿Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶ ÖÕ¸ Õ¥Ö ÕµÕ«Õ´Õ½ Õ½Õ¿Õ¥Õ²Õ®Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¯Õ¡Õ¦Õ´Õ¡Õ®Õ«Ö Ô¶Õ¸Ö Õ¡ÖÖÕ«Õ¶Õ¡Õ¯, Õ¥Õ©Õ§ Õ¸Ö Õ¦Õ©Õ¡Õ£Õ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÕ« Õ¸ÖÕ¸ÖÕ´Õ¶ Õ¦ÖÕ¡Õ»Õ« Õ¥Ö Õ¦Õ°Õ¦Õ¡ÖÖÕ« Õ¬Õ½Õ¥Õ¬Õ¸Õ¾ Õ¦Õ¡Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ¶ Õ¥Ö Õ¢Õ¡Õ¦Õ´Õ¡Õ°Õ¶Õ¡Ö Õ°Õ¡Õ¶Õ³Õ¡ÖÕ½ Õ«Õ´Õ¡Õ½Õ¿Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ¡, Õ¡ÕµÕ¬Õ¥Ö Õ¦Õ£Õ¸ÖÕ®Õ½ Õ¡ÖÖÕ¡ÕµÕ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ Õ´Õ¥Õ®Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ¡ Õ¿Õ¥Õ½Õ¡Õ¶Õ¥Õ¬Õ¸Õ¾, Õ¡Õ¼ Õ¡Õ¶Õ±Õ¸ÖÕ¯ Õ½ÖÕ¿Õ«Õ¶ Õ¢Õ¡Õ²Õ±Õ¡Õ¶Õ¡Ö ÖÕ¡ÖÕ¡Õ£Õ§ Õ¿Õ¥Õ½Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶ Õ£Õ¥Õ²Õ¥ÖÕ¯Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¡Õ¶Õ±Õ«Õ¶ Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ¡Ö Ô»Õ½Õ¯ Õ¾Õ¡Õ½Õ¶ Õ¡Õ¶Õ°Õ¡Õ½ Õ£Õ¸Õ¬Õ¸ÕµÕ¶ ÕµÕ¡Õ²Õ¡Õ£Õ½ Õ°Õ¥Õ¼Õ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÕ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶Õ¶, Õ¥Ö Õ¯Õ¡Õ´ Õ¾Õ¡Õ½Õ¶ Õ¡Õ¶Õ°Õ¸ÖÕ¶ Õ¦Õ¡ÖÖÕ¡ÖÕ¶ Õ¢Õ¡Õ¦Õ´Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶Õ¶, Õ¥Ö Õ¡Õ¶Õ´Õ¿Õ¡Õ¶Õ¥Õ¬Õ« Õ£Õ¸Õ¬Õ¸ÕµÕ¶ Õ¡ÖÖÕ¡ÕµÕ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¡ÕºÕ¡ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ«Ö Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ¡, Õ¡ÕºÕ¡ Õ¦ÕºÕ¡Õ¿Õ¯Õ¥Ö Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ¡ Õ« Õ¿Õ¥Õ²ÖÕ¸Õ» Õ¸ÖÖÕ§Ö Õ¶Õ¯Õ¡ÖÕ¥Õ¡Õ¬ Õ¿Õ¥Õ½Õ¥Õ¡Õ¬ Õ´Õ¥Õ®Õ¡Õ®Õ¡Õ Õ¦Õ¡ÖÕ¤Õ«ÖÖ, Õ« Õ¢Õ¡Õ¦Õ´Õ¥ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ£ Õ¤Õ¥Õ²Õ¸Ö Õ¶Õ¯Õ¡ÖÕ¡Õ£ÖÕ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¶Õ§ Õ¦ÖÕ¡ÖÕ¡Ö ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ¯Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ¡ Õ« Õ¿Õ¥Õ½Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶ ÕºÕ¡Õ¿Õ¯Õ¥ÖÕ«Õ¶ Õ¬ÖÕ¥Õ¡Õ¬, Õ¥Ö Õ¨Õ¶Õ¤ Õ¡ÕµÕ¶ Õ¥ÖÕ½ Õ¦Õ¡ÖÕ´Õ¡ÖÕ¥Õ¡Õ¬, Õ´Õ¥Õ®Õ¡Ö Õ½ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ¹Õ¡ÖÕ´Õ¡Õ´Õ¢ Õ¡Õ½Õ§Õ ÔµÕ©Õ§ ÕºÕ¡Õ¿Õ¯Õ¥ÖÕ½ Õ¡ÖÖÕ¡ÕµÕ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¡ÕµÕ½ÖÕ¡Õ¶ Õ°ÖÕ¡Õ·Õ¡Õ¬Õ« Õ¥Ö Õ¡Õ°Õ¡ÖÕ¯Õ¸Ö, Õ¥Ö Õ½ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ¹Õ¥Õ¬Õ«Õ Õ§ Õ¯Õ¡Õ¦Õ´Õ¥Õ¡Õ¬ Õ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÕ¥Õ½Õ¿Õ«Ö, Õ¡ÕºÕ¡ Õ¸ÖÖÕ¡ÕÕ¶ Õ¯Õ¥Õ¶Õ¤Õ¡Õ¶Õ«Õ¶ Õ¥Ö Õ©Õ¡Õ£Õ«Ö ÕºÕ½Õ¡Õ¯Õ¥Õ¡Õ¬Õ¶ Õ¡ÖÖÕ¡Õµ Õ³Õ¸Õ Õ«ÖÕ§ Õ¥Ö Õ½ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ¹Õ¡ÖÕ´Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¡ÖÕªÕ¡Õ¶Õ«Ö Ô±ÕµÕ½ÕºÕ«Õ½Õ« Õ«Õ¶Õ¹ Õ¥Ö Õ´Õ¡ÖÕ£Õ¡ÖÕ§Õ½ Õ¦Õ¡Õ½Õ¿Õ¸ÖÕ¡Õ®Õ¡ÕµÕ«Õ¶Õ¶ Õ¯Õ¡Õ´Õ¥Õ¬Õ¸Õ¾ ÖÕ¶Õ¶Õ¥Õ¬ Õ¢Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶ Õ¥Ö Õ¦Õ¡ÖÖÕ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶, Õ¥Ö Õ¦Õ½ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ¹Õ¥Õ¬Õ« Õ£Õ¸ÖÕ®Õ¸Ö Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ¡ Õ´Õ¥Õ®Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶ Õ¥Ö Õ¿Õ¥Õ½Õ¥Õ¡Õ¬ Õ¦Õ¡Õ¶Õ°Õ¡Õ½Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶ Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ¡ Õ´Õ¥Õ®Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶Õ¶ Õ¥Ö Õ¦Õ¡Õ¶Õ½Õ¡Õ°Õ´Õ¡Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶ Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ¡ÕµÕ¶ Õ¢Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶, Õ«Õ½Õ¯ Õ¦Õ«Õ¶ÖÕ¶ ÕºÕ¡Õ¿Õ¯Õ¥Ö Õ¥Ö Õ¯Õ¥ÖÕºÕ¡ÖÕ¡Õ¶ Õ£Õ¸Õ¬Õ¸Õ¾ Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ¡ Õ¥Ö Õ¶Õ´Õ¡Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶ Õ¡Õ¼ Õ½Õ¯Õ¦Õ¢Õ¶Õ¡Õ¿Õ«ÕºÕ¶ Õ£Õ¥Õ²Õ¥ÖÕ¯Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶Õ ÕµÕ«Õ¶ÖÕ¶ Õ¤Õ¡ÖÕ±Õ¸ÖÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ§ Õ¦Õ´Õ«Õ¿Õ½, Õ½ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ¹Õ¡Õ¶Õ¡Õµ Õ¥Ö Õ¡Õ½Õ§. «ÕÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ¹Õ¥Õ¬Õ« Õ¥Õ²Õ¥Ö Õ£Õ«Õ¿Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶ ÖÕ¸ ÕµÕ«Õ½Â»Ö ÕÖÕºÕ§Õ½ Õ©Õ§ Õ¡Õ½Õ«ÖÕ§, Õ©Õ§ Õ« ÕÕ¶Õ¡Õ´Õ½ Õ¡ÖÕ¡ÖÕ¹Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ Õ½Õ«ÖÕ¸Õµ ÖÕ¸ Õ¾Õ¡ÕµÕ¥Õ¬Õ¥Õ´, Õ¥Ö Õ¦Õ« Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ÕÕ¡Õ£Õ§Õ¿ Õ¥Õ½ ÕµÕ¡Õ´Õ¥Õ¶Õ¡ÕµÕ¶Õ«, Õ£Õ«Õ¿Õ¥Õ´ Õ¥Ö Õ¦Õ« Õ« Õ¹Õ£Õ¸ÕµÕ§ Õ« Õ£Õ¸ÕµÕ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶ Õ¡Õ®Õ¥Ö, Õ°Õ¡ÖÕ¡Õ¿Õ¡Õ´, Õ¡ÕµÕ¬ Õ¾Õ¡Õ½Õ¶ ÖÕ¸ Õ¡Õ´Õ¥Õ¶Õ¡ÕµÕ¶Õ«Ö Õ°Õ¡Õ½Õ¸Ö Õ¬Õ«Õ¶Õ¥Õ¬ Õ¹Õ¥Õ´ Õ±Õ¥Õ¼Õ¶Õ¡Õ°Õ¡Õ½. Õ¥Ö Õ¸ÕÕ¹ Õ¾Õ¡Õ½Õ¶ ÖÕ¸ Õ´Õ«Õ¡ÕµÕ¶, Õ¡ÕµÕ¬Õ¥Ö Õ¦Õ«Õ½ Õ½Õ¿Õ¥Õ²Õ®Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ ÕºÕ¡Õ¿Õ¯Õ¥Ö Õ¥Ö Õ¯Õ¥ÖÕºÕ¡ÖÕ¡Õ¶ Õ£Õ«Õ¿Õ¥Õ¬Õ¸Õ¾ ÖÕ¸, Õ¥Ö Õ¸ÕÕ¹ Õ¡ÕµÕ½Õ´ Õ¯Õ¡ÖÕ¥Õ´ Õ°Õ¡Õ½Õ¸Ö Õ¬Õ«Õ¶Õ¥Õ¬Ö Ô±ÕµÕ¬Õ¥Ö Õ£Õ«Õ¿Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶ ÖÕ¸ Õ¡ÖÕ¡ÖÕ¹Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶Õ¤Õ Õ¥Ö ÕµÕ«ÕÕ½ ÕµÕ¡ÖÕ¡ÖÕ¡Õ®Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¢Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶Õ½ Õ½ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ¹Õ¥Õ¬Õ« Õ¥Õ²Õ¥Ö. Erznkacâi, Speeches and Sermons, pp. 167â206, esp. 172.
Cf. the homily of Severian of Gabala on the Holy Cross, quoted by Vrtâanes KâertâoÅ in his famous 7th-century treatise against the iconoclasts: âEt lâévêque Sévérien dit: Lorsque le roi est absent et son portrait occupe la place du roi, les princes se prosternent et célèbrent les fêtes; si des paysans le voient ils se prosternent également, considérant non pas le bois mais le portrait du roi; ils ne considèrent pas la substance mais ce qui est tracé par la plume. Et si le portrait du roi mortel prend ainsi une telle puissance, combien plus la forme et lâimage du roi immortel.â See: Sirarpie Der Nersessian, âUne apologie des images du septième siècle,â Byzantion 17 (1944â1945), 61. The same passage from Severian of Gabalaâs homily is quoted by John of Damascus in his Third Treatise in defense of images (which, however, seems to have never been translated into Armenian but might be known to Armenian authors): âFor if the image of an absent Emperor fulfils the place of the Emperor, and rulers venerate it, and sacred festivals are celebrated before it, and rulers meet it, and the people venerate it, not looking at the wooden plank, but at the figure of the Emperor, who is not seen to be present by nature, but is depicted by art, how much more is the image of the immortal Emperor able, not only to strike stone, but the heaven and the whole earth?â. See: Saint John of Damascus, Three Treatises on the Divine Images, translation and introduction by Andrew Louth (New York, 2003), p. 150.
Sermon 8, chapter 20. â¦ ÔµÖ Õ¦Õ«ÕÕ¶Õ¹ Õ¶Õ·Õ¡Õ¶Õ¡Õ¯Õ§ Õ¤Õ¡Õ°Õ¥Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ Õ£Õ¸Õ¬ ÕºÕ¡ÖÕ¿Õ¸ÖÖÕ¶, Õ¸Ö Õ§ ÕµÕ¸Õ½Õ¯Õ¸Õµ, Õ¥Ö Õ¸ÖÕ¶Õ« Õ¦ÕºÕ¡Õ¿Õ¯Õ¥Ö Õ©Õ¡Õ£Õ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÕ«, Õ¾Õ¡Õ½Õ¶ Õ¦Õ« Õ¡Õ´Õ¥Õ¶Õ¥ÖÕ¥Õ¡Õ¶, Õ¸ÖÖ ÕµÕ¡Õ½Õ¿Õ¸ÖÕ¡Õ®Õ¡Õ¿Õ¥Õ½Õ¡Õ¯ Õ¶Õ´Õ¡Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶ Õ¥Ö Õ« ÕºÕ¡Õ¿Õ¯Õ¥Ö Õ¢Õ¡ÖÕ¥Ö(Õ¡Ö)Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ¡ Õ½Õ¿Õ¥Õ²Õ®Õ¡Õ¶, ÕºÕ¡ÖÕ¿Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ Õ£Õ¿Õ¡Õ¶Õ« ÕºÕ¡Õ°Õ¥Õ¬Õ¶ Õ¦Õ½Õ¯Õ¦Õ¢Õ¶Õ¡Õ¿ÕºÕ«Õ¶ Õ¶Õ´Õ¡Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶. Erznkacâi, Speeches and Sermons, p. 134.
Sermon 1, chapter 4. â¦ Õ¥Ö Õ¯Õ¡Õ´ Õ©Õ§ Õ¸Ö Õ¦Õ£Õ¥Õ²Õ¥ÖÕ«Õ¯ ÕºÕ¡Õ¿Õ¯Õ¥Ö Õ¯Õ¥Õ¶Õ¤Õ¡Õ¶ÖÕ¸ÕµÕ¶ Õ¢Õ¡Õ¶Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ Õ´Õ¡ÖÕ¤Õ¸Õµ Õ¥Ö Õ¦Õ¡ÖÖÕ¡ÕµÕ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ ÕºÕ¡Õ¿Õ¸ÖÕ¸Õ¾ Õ·ÖÕ¥Õ²Õ¡ÖÕ¥Õ¬Õ¸Õµ Õ¶Õ¯Õ¡ÖÕ¡Õ£ÖÕ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¤Õ¥Õ²Õ¡ÖÖ Õ¥Ö ÕºÕ§Õ½ÕºÕ§Õ½ Õ¥ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ£Õ¡ÖÖ Õ°Õ¶Õ¡ÖÕ« Õ¦Õ¶Õ¸ÕµÕ¶ Õ±Õ¥Ö Õ¥Ö Õ¦Õ¶Õ´Õ¡Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶ ÕºÕ¡Õ¿Õ¯Õ¥ÖÕ« Õ« Õ¿Õ¡ÕÕ¿Õ¡Õ¯Õ½ Õ¶Õ¯Õ¡ÖÕ¥Õ¬, Õ¸Õ¹ Õ¡Õ¼ Õ« Õ¬ÖÕ¸ÖÕ´Õ¶ Õ©Õ¥ÖÕ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¯Õ¥Õ¶Õ¤Õ¡Õ¶Õ¸ÕµÕ¶, Õ¡ÕµÕ¬ Õ¡Õ¼ Õ¡Õ¶Õ®Õ¸ÖÕ¯ Õ½ÖÕ¿Õ«Õ¶ Õ¢Õ¡Õ²Õ±Õ¡Õ¶Õ¡Ö, Õ¦Õ¸Ö Õ¸ÖÕ¶Õ« Õ« ÖÕ¡ÖÕ¡Õ¯ Õ¥Ö Õ« Õ½Õ§Ö Õ¯Õ¥Õ¶Õ¤Õ¡Õ¶Õ¸ÕµÕ¶, Õ°Õ¶Õ¡ÖÕ« Õ£Õ¥Õ²Õ¥ÖÕ¯Õ¡ÖÕ¡ÕµÕ¬ Õ¤Õ¥Õ²Õ¡ÖÖ Õ« Õ¶Õ¸ÕµÕ¶ Õ±Õ¥Ö Õ¶Õ´Õ¡Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶ Õ¡Õ®Õ¥Õ¬. Ibid., p. 38.
Ô±ÖÕ¸ÖÕ¥Õ½Õ¿Õ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÖ Õ¥Ö Õ¡ÕµÖÖ Õ´Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÖ Õ¶Õ¡Õ Õ¥Ö Õ¡Õ¼Õ¡Õ»Õ«Õ¶ Õ¦Õ¶Õ«ÖÕ©Õ¶ ÕºÕ¡Õ¿ÖÕ¡Õ½Õ¿Õ¥Õ¶ Õ¡Õ¼Õ¡Õ»Õ«Õ¯Õ¡Õµ Õ£Õ¸ÖÕ®Õ¸ÕµÕ¶ Õ¥Ö Õ¡ÕºÕ¡ Õ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÕ¥Õ½Õ¿Õ«ÖÕ¶ Õ³Õ¡Õ¶Õ¡ÕºÕ¡ÖÕ°Õ¸ÖÕ¤Õ¥Õ¡Õ¬Õ Õ¨Õ½Õ¿ Õ¯Õ¡ÖÕ£Õ« Õ¥Ö Õ¨Õ½Õ¿ ÕºÕ¡Õ¿Õ·Õ¡Õ³Õ« Õ¯Õ¡Õ¦Õ´Õ¥Õ¶ Õ¦Õ¡Õ¼Õ¡Õ»Õ«Õ¯Õ¡ Õ«ÖÕ¶Ö ÔµÖ Õ¡ÕºÕ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÖÕ«Ö Õ¦Õ¢Õ¡Õ¶Õ½ Õ°Õ¡Õ½Õ¿Õ¡Õ¿Õ¥Õ½ÖÕ¸ÖÖÖ ÔµÕ©Õ§ Õ¸Ö Õ³Õ¡ÖÕ¿Õ¡ÖÕ¡ÕºÕ¥Õ¿ Õ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÕ¥Õ½Õ¿Õ«Ö Õ¥Ö Õ«Õ´Õ¡Õ½Õ¿Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ´Õ¢ Õ°Õ¡Õ¶Õ¤Õ¥ÖÕ±Õ¥Õ¡Õ¬ Õ§ Õ¡Õ¼Õ¶Õ¥Õ¬ Õ©Õ¡Õ£ Õ©Õ¡Õ£Õ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÕ« Õ¯Õ¡Õ´ Õ©Õ¡Õ£Õ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÕ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ Õ®Õ«ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ«, Õ¶Õ¡Õ Õ¶Õ«ÖÕ©Õ¸ÕµÕ¶ Õ¥Õ¬Õ¥Õ¡Õ¬ Õ« ÕÕ¶Õ¤Õ«Ö, ÕªÕ¸Õ²Õ¸Õ¾Õ§ Õ¸Õ½Õ¯Õ« Õ¥Ö Õ¡ÖÕ®Õ¡Õ© Õ¥Ö Õ¬Õ¸ÖÕ½Õ¡Õ³Õ¡Õ³Õ¡Õ¶Õ¹ Õ´Õ¡ÖÕ£Õ¡ÖÕ«Õ¿Õ¶ Õ¥Ö Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶Õ½ ÕºÕ¡Õ¿Õ¸ÖÕ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶Õ½, Õ´Õ¥Õ¿Õ¡ÖÕ½ Õ¥Ö Õ¦Õ¯Õ¸Õ¶ÖÕ«Õ¬Õ¶ Õ®Õ¸Õ¾Õ¡ÕµÕ«Õ¶ Õ¥Ö Õ¡ÕµÕ¬ Õ¶Õ«ÖÕ©Õ½, Õ¥Ö Õ¡ÕºÕ¡ Õ¨Õ¶Õ¤Õ¥Õ¬Õ¸ÖÕ¦Õ¥Õ¡Õ¬ Õ±Õ¥Õ¼Õ¡Õ´Õ¢ Õ¨Õ¶Õ¤ Õ´Õ«Õ´Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶Õ½Õ Õ·Õ¡ÖÕ¡ÕµÕ¡Õ¼Õ¥Õ¡Õ¬ Õ¡Õ¼Õ¶Õ§ Õ©Õ¡Õ£ Õ©Õ¡Õ£Õ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÕ« Õ¯Õ¡Õ´ Õ¶Õ¯Õ¡ÖÕ§ Õ®Õ«ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ«Ö Ô±ÕµÕ½ÕºÕ§Õ½ Õ¥Ö Õ¡Õ½Õ¿Õ¸ÖÕ¡Õ®Õ¡Õ¢Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¡Õ¯Õ¶ ÕÕ¸Õ¾Õ½Õ§Õ½ Õ¶Õ¡Õ Õ¦Õ¶Õ«ÖÕ© ÕÕ¸ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ«Õ¶ Õ°ÖÕ¡Õ´Õ¡Õ¶Õ¡Ö Ô±Õ½Õ¿Õ¸ÖÕ®Õ¸Õµ Õ°Õ¡ÖÕ¡ÖÕ§Ö Õ¯Õ¡ÕºÕ¸ÖÕ¿Õ¡Õ¯ Õ¥Ö Õ®Õ«ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ«, Õ¯Õ¡ÖÕ´Õ«Ö Õ¥Ö Õ¢Õ¥Õ°Õ¥Õ¦, Õ¥Ö Õ¦Õ¡ÕµÕ¬ Õ¶Õ«ÖÕ©Õ½Õ¶, Õ¦Õ¸Ö Õ¢Õ¥ÖÕ§Ö ÕªÕ¸Õ²Õ¸Õ¾Õ¸ÖÖÕ¤Õ¶, Õ¥Ö Õ¡ÕºÕ¡ Õ« Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ§ Õ¦ÕÕ¸ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ¶ Õ¯Õ¡Õ¦Õ´Õ§Ö Õ¾Õ¯Õ¡ÕµÕ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶. Cited in: Srapyan, âArvesti Çmbá¹numÇ,â p. 131 (M6562, fol. 74r).
Cf. St Basil, Hexaemeron (Homily iii, chapter 10): âYet, the artist, even before the combination of the parts knows the beauty of each and approves them individually, directing his judgment to the final aim.â See: Saint Basil, Exegetic Homilies, translated by Sister Agnes Clare Way, C.D.P., The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation â vol. 46 (Washington, D.C., 1963), p. 53. In the Armenian version of the Hexaemeron, which was translated from Syriac probably in the 6th century, the quoted sentence reads: âNow the artist, even before he had begun his task, had marked in his mind the complete work of the image.â See: Saint Basil of Caesarea and Armenian Cosmology: A Study of the Armenian Version of Saint Bailâs Hexaemeron and Its Influence on Medieval Armenian Views about the Cosmos, by Robert W. Thomson, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 646, Subsidia tomus 130 (Lovanii, 2012), p. 115. Here, as in Erznkacâiâs text, the word Äartarapet is used for artist/craftsman.
Cirani (Õ®Õ«ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ«, pronounced as tzirani) is the name of the red-purple robe worn by Armenian kings. From it derives also the word ciranacin (Õ®Õ«ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ¡Õ®Õ«Õ¶, lit. born in the cirani), which is used to refer uniquely to royal birth, equivalent to Greek porfyrogenetos. For the dye used to colour royal ciranis, see the next note.
By âsea conchâ (Õ¦Õ¯Õ¸Õ¶ÖÕ«Õ¬Õ¶ Õ®Õ¸Õ¾Õ¡ÕµÕ«Õ¶) it is meant those species of dye-producing sea snails, from which the red-purple colour and their nuances were obtained, known as âTyrian royal purple,â which was used to colour royal garments in the ancient and medieval Mediterranean, and beyond. In Classical Armenian, the colour obtained from these sea snails was called cirani (red, purple, and/or their various nuances) or covu cirani (sea red, sea purple), which apparently gave its name to Armenian royal robes, called similarly cirani. For the purple dye and various species of dye-producing sea snails, see: Lloyd B. Jensen, âRoyal Purple of Tyre,â Journal of Near Eastern Studies 22/2 (1963), 104â18. For the meaning and other words deriving from royal cirani (Õ®Õ«ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ«), see: Awetikâean, SiwrmÄlean, and Awgerean, Nor baá¹girkâ haykazean lezui, vol. 1 (Venice, 1836), pp. 1016â7. For konkâil = conch (Õ¯Õ¸Õ¶ÖÕ«Õ¬, also as Õ¯Õ¸Õ¶ÖÕ¥Õ²/konkâeÅ, Õ¯Õ¸Õ¶ÖÕ¥Õ¬/konkâel), see: ibid., p. 1115. For a general overview of the symbolic use of purple in Armenian culture, see: Boghos Levon Zekiyan, âLa Porpora in Armenia: Tra mito, folklore, arte e religiosità : DallâInno di Vahagn al Bolo Armeno,â in La Porpora: Realtà e immaginario di un colore simbolico, Atti del Convegno di Studio, Venezia, 24â25 ottobre 1996, ed. Oddone Longo (Venice, 1998), pp. 276â97.
Meaning the interpreter of the divine word, the one who is able to see through Godâs word.
For the meanings of âÄartarapetâ (Õ³Õ¡ÖÕ¿Õ¡ÖÕ¡ÕºÕ¥Õ¿) in Classical Armenian, see: GabriÄl Awetikâean, XaÄâatur SiwrmÄlean, and MkrtiÄâ Awgerean, Nor baá¹girkâ haykazean lezui [New Dictionary of Armenian Language], vol. 2 (Venice, 1837), p. 176.
Sermon 29. ÕÕ¸ÖÕ«Õ¶ Õ Õ¸Õ°Õ¡Õ¶Õ¶Õ«Õ½Õ« Õ¾Õ¡Õ½Õ¶ Õ¶Õ¶Õ»Õ¥ÖÕ¥Õ¬Õ¸Ö Õ« ÕÖÕ«Õ½Õ¿Õ¸Õ½ Õ¥Ö ÕÕ¸ÖÕ°Õ¸ÖÖÕ¤ Õ½Õ¿Õ¥Õ²Õ®Õ´Õ¡Õ¶ Õ´Õ¡ÖÕ¤Õ¸ÕµÕ¶ Õ¥Ö Õ´Õ¡Õ°Õ¸Ö, Õ« Õ¢Õ¡Õ¶ Õ«Õ´Õ¡Õ½Õ¿Õ¶Õ¸ÕµÕ¶, Õ¸Ö Õ¡Õ½Õ§. «ԱստոÖÕ¡Õ® Õ°Õ¡Õ½Õ¿Õ¡Õ¿Õ¥Õ¡Ö Õ¦Õ´Õ¡ÖÕ¤Õ¶ ÕµÕ¡Õ¶Õ¥Õ²Õ®Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶Õ¶ Õ¥Ö Õ« ÕºÕ¡Õ¿Õ¯Õ¥Ö Õ¢Õ¡ÖÕ¥ÖÕ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶Õ¶ Õ«ÖÖÕ¸Õµ Õ¡ÖÕ¡Ö Õ¦Õ¶Õ¡ÕµÂ».
Chapter 14. ÔµÖ Õ¦Õ« Õ¶Õ¡Õ ÕºÕ¡Õ¿Õ¯Õ¥Ö Õ¡Õ½Õ¡Ö Õ¥Ö Õ¡ÕºÕ¡ Õ¨Õ½Õ¿ Õ¶Õ´Õ¡Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶Ö Ô¶Õ¸Ö Õ¡ÖÖÕ«Õ¶Õ¡Õ¯, Õ¸ÖÖ Õ¦Õ¡ÖÖÕ¡ÕµÕ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¥Ö Õ¦Õ«Õ·ÕÕ¡Õ¶Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ ÕºÕ¡Õ¿Õ¯Õ¥ÖÕ½Õ¶ Õ¶Õ¯Õ¡ÖÕ¡Õ£ÖÕ¥Õ¶ Õ¦Õ½Õ¯Õ¦Õ¢Õ¶Õ¡Õ¿ÕºÕ«Õ¶ Õ£Õ¥Õ² Õ¯Õ¥ÖÕºÕ¡ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ« Õ« Õ±Õ¥Õ¼Õ¶ Õ¥ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ£Õ¸Ö Õ« Õ¿Õ¡ÕÕ¿Õ¡Õ¯Õ½ Õ¶Õ¯Õ¡ÖÕ¥Õ¶, Õ¦Õ« Õ½Õ¯Õ¦Õ¢Õ¶Õ¡Õ¿ÕºÕ«Õ¶ Õ£Õ¥Õ²Õ¥ÖÕ¯Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶ ÖÕ¸ÕÕ¥Õ½ÖÕ¥Õ¶ Õ« Õ¶Õ¡, Õ¡ÕµÕ½ÕºÕ§Õ½ Õ¥Ö ÕÕ¿Õ¥Õ²Õ®Õ«Õ¹Õ¶ Õ´Õ¥Ö Õ¡Õ¼ Õ«ÖÖ Õ£Õ¥Õ²Õ¥ÖÕ¯Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶Õ¶ Õ¦ÕºÕ¡Õ¿Õ¯Õ¥ÖÕ¶ Õ·Õ¸ÖÖÕ» Õ®Õ¡Õ²Õ¯Õ¥Õ¡Õ¬, Õ« Õ´Õ¥Õ¦ ÖÕ¸ÖÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ§ Õ¦Õ«ÖÖ Õ«Õ·ÕÕ¡Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶Õ¶ Õ¸Õ¹ Õ¯Õ¡ÖÕ´ÖÕ¸Õµ Õ¯Õ¡Õ´ Õ½Õ¥ÖÕ¡Õ¤Õ¥Õ²Õ¸Õµ Õ«ÖÕ«Ö Õ¶Õ«ÖÕ©Õ¸Õ¾, Õ¡ÕµÕ¬ ÖÕ¸ÕÕ¡Õ¶Õ¡Õ¯ Õ¡ÕµÕ½Õ¸ÖÕ«Õ¯Õ Õ¡Õ¶Õ¡ÕÕ¿Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶Õ¶, Õ¡Õ¶ÖÕ«Ö Õ¥ÖÕ»Õ¡Õ¶Õ¯Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶Õ¶, Õ¡Õ´Õ¥Õ¶Õ¡ÕµÕ¶ Õ¹Õ¡ÖÕ« Õ¡ÖÕ¿Õ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶Õ¶Ö ÔµÖ, Õ¦Õ¸Ö Õ¡ÖÖÕ«Õ¶Õ¡Õ¯, Õ¸ÖÖ Õ¦ÕºÕ¡Õ¿Õ¯Õ¥ÖÕ½ Õ«Õ·ÕÕ¡Õ¶Õ¡ÖÕ¶ Õ£ÖÕ¥Õ¶ Õ¶Õ´Õ¡Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ´Õ¢ Õ¥Ö Õ¡ÖÕ¯Õ¡Õ¶Õ¥Õ¶ Õ®Õ«ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ«Õ½ Õ¦Õ¶Õ¸Õ¾Õ¡Ö, Õ¦Õ¡ÖÖÕ¸ÖÕ¶Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ Õ«Õ·ÕÕ¡Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶Õ¶ Õ¨Õ¶Õ¤ Õ¶Õ´Õ¡ Õ£ÖÕ¥Õ¶ Õ¥Ö Õ¡Õ½Õ«, Õ¨Õ½Õ¿ Õ½Õ¸Õ¾Õ¸ÖÕ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶, Õ¥Ö ÕºÕ¡Õ¿Õ¯Õ¥ÕÖÕ¶ Õ©Õ¡Õ£Õ¡ÖÕ¸ÕÖÖ Ô±ÕµÕ½ÕºÕ§Õ½ Õ¥Ö Õ´Õ¡ÖÕ¤Õ¯Õ¡ÕµÕ«Õ¶ Õ¢Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶Õ½, Õ¾Õ¡Õ½Õ¶ Õ¦Õ« ÕµÕ«Õ·ÕÕ¡Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶Õ¶ Õ¡ÕµÕ¬Õ¸ÖÕ¶ Õ°Õ¡Õ½Õ¿Õ¡Õ¿Õ¥Õ¡Õ¬ Õ¬Õ«Õ¶Õ§Ö Õ¡Õ¼ Õ©Õ¡Õ£Õ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÕ¶ Õ¡Õ´Õ¥Õ¶Õ¡ÕµÕ¶ Õ¶Õ´Õ¡Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ´Õ¢, Õ«Õ¢Ö Õ·Õ¶Õ¹Õ¡ÖÕ¸Ö Õ«Õ´Õ¶ ÕºÕ¡Õ¿Õ¯Õ¥Ö Õ¥Õ²Õ¥Õ¡Õ¬ Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶Õ¯Õ¶Õ¥ÖÕ¡ÖÕ ÖÕ¸ÕÕ¡Õ¶Õ¡Õ¯ Õ®Õ«ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ¥Õ¡Ö Õ¦Õ¡Õ¼Õ¡ÖÕ«Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶Õ¶ Õ¦Õ£Õ¥ÖÕ¥Õ¡Õ¬, ÖÕ¡Õ¶ Õ¦Õ¡Õ´Õ¥Õ¶Õ¡ÕµÕ¶ Õ¦Õ£Õ¥Õ½Õ¿ Õ¡ÖÖÕ¸Öնականագոյն⤠ÖÕ¸ÕÕ¡Õ¶Õ¡Õ¯ Õ¸Õ½Õ¯Õ« Õ´Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶Õ« Õ¥ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ´Õ¢ Õ¡Õ¶Õ´Õ¡Õ°Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶ Õ°Õ¡Õ½Õ¿Õ¡Õ¿Õ¥Õ¡Õ¬ Õ¥Ö ÖÕ¸ÕÕ¡Õ¶Õ¡Õ¯ Õ¡ÖÖÕ¸ÖÕ¶Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ Õ©Õ¡Õ£Õ«Õ¶Õ Õ¡ÖÕ¤Õ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶ ÕºÕ½Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡ÖÕ¶ Õ¦Õ¡ÖÕ¤Õ¡ÖÕ¥Õ¡Õ¬. Erznkacâi, Speeches and Sermons, pp. 501â19, esp. 507.
Cf. Saint Gregory of Nyssaâs On the Creation of Humankind: âAussi de même que les peintres, dans les couleurs quâils emploient pour représenter un personnage sur un tableau, arrangent leurs teintes selon la nature de lâobjet pour faire passer dans le portrait la beauté du modèle, imaginez de même celui qui nous façonne : les couleurs en rapport avec sa beauté sont ici les vertus quâil dépose et fait fleurir en son image pour manifester en nous le pouvoir qui est le sien. La gamme variée des couleurs qui sont en cette image et qui représentent vraiment Dieu nâa rien à voir avec le rouge, le blanc ou quelque mélange de couleurs, avec le noir qui sert à farder les sourcils et les yeux et dont certain dosage relève lâombre creusée par les traits, ni en général avec ce que les peintres peuvent encore inventer. Au lieu de tout cela, songez à la pureté, à la liberté spirituelle, à la béatitude, à lâéloignement de tout mal, et à tout le reste par quoi prend forme en nous la ressemblance avec la Divinité.â See: Grégoire de Nysse, La Création de lâhomme, introduction et traduction par Jean Laplace, notes par Jean Daniélou, réimpression de la première édition revue et corrigée (Paris, 2002), p. 96â7. In the Armenian version of On the Creation of Human Kind, which was translated in the early 8th century by Stepâannos Siwnecâi and Dawitâ Hyupatos and which Erznkacâi likely made use of, the quoted passage reads: Ô±ÖÕ¤, Õ¸ÖÕºÕ§Õ½ Õ¦Õ´Õ¡ÖÕ¤Õ¯Õ¡ÕµÕ«Õ¶ Õ¦Õ£Õ¥Õ²Õ½ Õ¯Õ¥ÖÕºÕ¡ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ¡Ö Õ« Õ±Õ¥Õ¼Õ¶ Õ¥ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ£Õ¸Ö Õ¸Õ´Õ¡Õ¶Ö Õ« Õ¿Õ¡ÕÕ¿Õ¡Õ¯Õ½Õ¶ Õ£ÖÕ¡ÖÕ²ÖÕ¶ Õ¶Õ¯Õ¡ÖÕ¥Õ¶, Õ°Õ¡Õ¶Õ¥Õ¡Õ¬ ÖÕ¸ÕÕ¥Õ¶ Õ¦Õ¨Õ¶Õ¿Õ¡Õ¶Õ« Õ¥Ö Õ¦Õ¦Õ¸ÕµÕ£ Õ¥Ö Õ¦Õ¶Õ´Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¶Õ¥ÖÕ¯Õ¸ÖÕ¡Õ®Õ½Õ¶ Õ« Õ¶Õ´Õ¡ Õ·Õ¡Õ²Õ¡ÕÕ¥Õ¬Õ¸Õ¾ Õ¶Õ´Õ¡Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ´Õ¢, Õ¦Õ« Õ«ÖÕ«Ö Õ°Õ¡ÖÕ¡Õ½Õ¿Õ« Õ³Õ·Õ´Õ¡ÖÕ¿Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ´Õ¢ Õ¦Õ½Õ¯Õ¦Õ¢Õ¶Õ¡Õ¿Õ«Õº Õ£Õ¥Õ²Õ¥ÖÕ¯Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶ Õ¥Õ¬Õ¥Õ¡Õ¬ ÖÕ¸ÕÕ¥Õ½ÖÕ« Õ¡Õ¼ Õ¶Õ´Õ¡Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶Õ¶Ö Ô±ÕµÕ½ÕºÕ§Õ½ Õ«Õ¶Õ± Õ¨Õ¶Õ¤ Õ´Õ«Õ¿ Õ¡Õ® Õ¥Ö Õ«Õ´Õ¡, Õ¥Ö Õ¦Õ´Õ¥ÖÕ¶ Õ½Õ¿Õ¥Õ²Õ®Õ«Õ¹, Õ«Õ¢ÖÕ¸Ö Õ¥ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ£Õ¡ÖÖ Õ«Õ´Õ¶ Õ¥Ö Õ¶Õ¥ÖÕ¯Õ¸ÖÕ¡Õ®Õ¸Õ¾Ö Õ¡Õ¼Õ¡ÖÕ«Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶ Õ¦Õ¶Õ¸Õ¾Õ¡Ö Õ¡ÖÕ¯Õ¡Õ¶Õ¥Õ¬Õ¸Õ¾ Õ¡Õ¼ Õ«ÖÖ Õ£Õ¥Õ²Õ¥ÖÕ¯Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶Õ¶, Õ¦ÕºÕ¡Õ¿Õ¯Õ¥ÖÕ¶ Õ·Õ¸ÖÖÕ» Õ®Õ¡Õ²Õ¯Õ¥Õ¡Õ¬Õ Õ« Õ´Õ¥Õ¦ ÖÕ¸ÖÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ¥Õ¬Õ¸Õ¾ Õ¦Õ«ÖÖ Õ«Õ·ÕÕ¡Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶Õ¶Ö ÔµÖ Õ¢Õ¡Õ¦Õ´Õ¡Õ¿Õ¥Õ½Õ«Õ¬Õ½ Õ¥Ö Õ¡Õ¦Õ£Õ«-Õ¡Õ¦Õ£Õ«Õ½ Õ«Õ¢ÖÕ¥Ö Õ©Õ§ Õ£Õ¸ÕµÕ¶Ö ÕºÕ¡Õ¿Õ¯Õ¥ÖÕ«Õ¶, Õ« Õ±Õ¥Õ¼Õ¶ Õ¸ÖÕ¸Ö Õ³Õ·Õ´Õ¡ÖÕ¿Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶Õ¶ Õ¯Õ¥Õ¶Õ¤Õ¡Õ¶Õ¡Õ£ÖÕ« ÕºÕ¡Õ¿Õ¯Õ¥ÖÕ Õ¸Õ¹ Õ¯Õ¡ÖÕ´ÖÕ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶ Õ¥Ö ÕºÕ¡ÕµÕ®Õ¡Õ¼Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶ Õ¥Ö Õ¸ÖÕ¡Õ¯Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶ Õ½Õ¸ÖÕ¡ Õ¡Õ¼ Õ´Õ«Õ´Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶Õ½ ÕÕ¡Õ¼Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ¡Õ®, Õ¥Ö Õ¸Õ¹ Õ½Õ¥ÖÕ¡Õ¤Õ¥Õ²Õ¸Õµ Õ«ÖÕ«Ö Õ½Õ¿Õ¸ÖÕ¡Õ£ÖÕ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶ Õ¦ÕµÕ¡ÖÕ¶ Õ¥Ö Õ¦Õ¡Õ¹Õ½ Õ¶Õ¯Õ¡ÖÕ¥Õ¡Õ¬ Õ¥Ö Õ¨Õ½Õ¿ ÕÕ¡Õ¼Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ¡Õ®Õ¸ÕµÕ¶ Õ¦Õ¶Õ½Õ¿Õ¡Õ£Õ¸ÕµÕ¶ Õ±Õ¥ÖÕ¸ÕµÕ¶ Õ½Õ¿Õ¸ÖÕ¥ÖÕ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ¥Õ¬Õ¸Õ¾, Õ¥Ö Õ¸ÖÕ¹Õ¡Ö Õ´Õ«Õ¡Õ¶Õ£Õ¡Õ´ Õ¡ÕµÕ½ÕºÕ«Õ½Õ« Õ«Õ¶Õ¹ Õ¶Õ¯Õ¡ÖÕ¥Õ¬Õ¸Õ¾, Õ±Õ¥Õ¼Ö Õ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÕ¥Õ½Õ¿Õ«Ö Õ£Õ«Õ¿Õ¡ÖÕ«Õ¶Ö Ô±ÕµÕ¬ ÖÕ¸ÕÕ¡Õ¶Õ¡Õ¯ Õ¡ÕµÕ½Õ¸ÖÕ«Õ¯Õ Õ´Õ¡ÖÖÕ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶, Õ¡Õ¶Õ¡ÕÕ¿Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶, Õ¡Õ¶ÖÕ«Ö Õ¥ÖÕ»Õ¡Õ¶Õ¯Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶, Õ¡Õ´Õ¥Õ¶Õ¡ÕµÕ¶ Õ¹Õ¡ÖÕ« Õ¡ÖÕ¿Õ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶, Õ¥Ö Õ¸Ö Õ´Õ«Õ¡Õ¶Õ£Õ¡Õ´ Õ¡ÕµÕ½Ö Õ¡Õ¦Õ£Õ« Õ§, Õ« Õ±Õ¥Õ¼Õ¶ Õ¸ÖÕ¸Ö Õ¯Õ¥ÖÕºÕ¡ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ« Õ´Õ¡ÖÕ¤Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¡Õ¼ Õ¡Õ½Õ¿Õ¸ÖÕ¡Õ®Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶Õ¶ Õ¶Õ´Õ¡Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶. See: Saint Gregory of Nyssa (S. Grigor Niwsacâi), Tesutâiwn i mardoyn kazmutâiwn (YaÅags kazmutâean mardoy) [On the Making of Man], critical text with introduction and annotations by Stella Vardanyan (Holy Etchmiadzin, 2008), p. 59â60 (in Armenian). The same passage from Gregory of Nyssa is also cited by John of Damascus in his First Treatise against the iconoclasts: âJust as painters transfer human forms on to tablets by means of certain colors, applying corresponding paints by imitation, so that the beauty of the archetype is transferred with accuracy to the likeness.â See: Saint John of Damascus, p. 47.
For cirani see above, notes 21 and 22.
In developing his discussion on the human capacity to rule over others Erznkacâi could also be inspired by Nemesius of Emesaâs treatise On the Human Nature, which was translated into Armenian in the same period as the similar treatise authored by Gregory of Nyssa. See Nemesius of Emesa (Nemesios Emesacâi), YaÅags bnutâean mardoy [On the Nature of Man] in Old Armenian translation, Text, Introduction and Notes by Karine Mosikyan (Yerevan, 2019)⤠For the Armenian translations of these and other patristic texts, see Jean-Pierre Mahé, âLâArménie et les pères de lâÃglise: histoire et mode dâemploi (Ve-XIIe siècle),â in La documentation patristique: bilan et prospective, eds. Jean-Claude Fredouille, and René-Michel Roberge (Laval â Paris, 1995), pp. 157â79.
This passage is almost entirely inspired by Gregory of Nyssaâs On the Creation of Human Kind: âDâaprès lâusage commun, les auteurs des portraits de princes, en plus de la représentation des traits, expriment la dignité royal par des vêtements de pourpre et devant cette image, on a lâhabitude de dire : « le roi ». Ainsi la nature humaine, créée pour dominer le monde, à cause de sa ressemblance avec le Roi Universel, a été faite comme une image vivante qui participe de lâarchétype par la dignité et par le nom : la pourpre ne lâentoure pas, un sceptre ou un diadème ne signifient pas sa dignité (lâarchétype, lui, nâen a pas) ; mais, au lieu de pourpre, elle est revêtue de la vertu, le plus royal de tous les vêtements ; au lieu dâun sceptre, elle sâappuie sur la bienheureuse immortalité ; au lieu dâun diadème royal, elle porte la couronne de justice, en sorte que tout, en elle, manifeste sa dignité royale, par son exacte ressemblance avec la beauté de lâarchétype.â See: Grégoire de Nysse, p. 95. Erznkacâi made use of the Armenian translation of On the Creation of Human Kind, in which the quoted passage appears as follows: ÕÕ¡Õ¶Õ¦Õ« Õ¦Õ¸Ö Õ¡ÖÖÕ«Õ¶Õ¡Õ¯ Õ¨Õ½Õ¿ Õ´Õ¡ÖÕ¤Õ¯Õ¡ÕµÕ«Õ¶ Õ½Õ¸Õ¾Õ¸ÖÕ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶, Õ¸ÖÖ Õ¦ÕºÕ¡Õ¿Õ¯Õ¥ÖÕ½ Õ«Õ·ÕÕ¡Õ¶Õ¡Ö Õ¯Õ¡Õ¦Õ´Õ¥Õ¶, Õ¦Õ±Õ¥Ö Õ¯Õ¥ÖÕºÕ¡ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ¡ÖÕ¶ Õ¶Õ¯Õ¡ÖÕ¡Õ£ÖÕ¥Õ¶ Õ¶Õ´Õ¡Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ´Õ¢, Õ¥Ö Õ¡ÖÕ¯Õ¡Õ¶Õ¥Õ¬Õ¸Õ¾ Õ¦Õ¶Õ¸Õ¾Õ¡Ö Õ¦Õ®Õ«ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ«Õ½ Õ¦Õ¡ÖÖÕ¸ÖÕ¶Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ Õ«Õ·ÕÕ¡Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶Õ¶ Õ¨Õ¶Õ¤ Õ¶Õ´Õ¡ Õ£ÖÕ¥Õ¶, Õ¥Ö Õ¡Õ½Õ« Õ¨Õ½Õ¿ Õ½Õ¸Õ¾Õ¸ÖÕ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¥Ö ÕºÕ¡Õ¿Õ¯Õ¥ÖÕ¶ Õ©Õ¡Õ£Õ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÖ Ô±ÕµÕ½ÕºÕ§Õ½ Õ¥Ö Õ´Õ¡ÖÕ¤Õ¯Õ¡ÕµÕ«Õ¶ Õ¢Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶Õ½, Õ¾Õ¡Õ½Õ¶ Õ¦Õ« Õ«Õ·ÕÕ¡Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶ Õ¡ÕµÕ¬Õ¸ÖÕ¶ Õ°Õ¡Õ½Õ¿Õ¡Õ¿Õ¥Õ¡Õ¬ Õ¬Õ«Õ¶Õ§Ö Õ¡Õ¼ Õ©Õ¡Õ£Õ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÕ¶ Õ¡Õ´Õ¥Õ¶Õ¡ÕµÕ¶ Õ¶Õ´Õ¡Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶Õ¶, Õ«Õ¢ÖÕ¸Ö Õ·Õ¶Õ¹Õ¡ÖÕ¸Ö Õ«Õ´Õ¶ ÕºÕ¡Õ¿Õ¯Õ¥Ö Õ¥Õ²Õ¥Õ¡Õ¬ Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶Õ£Õ¶Õ¥ÖÕ¡Ö Õ°Õ¡Õ½Õ¡ÖÕ¡Õ¯Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶ Õ¥Ö Õ¯ÖÕ¸ÖÕ¤Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶ Õ¸ÖÕ¶Õ¥Õ¬Õ¸Õ¾ Õ¨Õ¶Õ¤ Õ½Õ¯Õ¦Õ¢Õ¶Õ¡Õ¿ÕºÕ«Õ¶ Õ¥Ö Õ¨Õ¶Õ¤ Õ¶Õ¡ÕÕ¡Õ£Õ¡Õ²Õ¡ÖÕ¡ÖÕ«Õ¶ Õ¥Ö Õ¡ÖÕªÕ¡Õ¶Õ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÕ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶Õ¶, Õ¥Ö Õ¡Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ¶Ö ÕÕ¹ Õ®Õ«ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ«Õ½ Õ¦Õ«ÖÖÕ¥Ö Õ¸ÖÕ¶Õ¥Õ¬Õ¸Õ¾, Õ¥Ö Õ¸Õ¹ Õ£Õ¡ÖÕ¡Õ¦Õ¡Õ¶Õ¡Ö, Õ¥Ö Õ´Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶Õ¡Ö, Õ¥Ö Õ©Õ¡Õ£Õ«Ö Õ¦Õ¡ÖÕªÕ¡Õ¶Õ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÕ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶Õ¶ Õ¶Õ·Õ¡Õ¶Õ¡Õ¯Õ¥Õ¬Õ¸Õ¾, ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ¦Õ« Õ¸Õ¹ Õ¥Õ©Õ§ Õ½Õ¯Õ¦Õ¢Õ¶Õ¡Õ¿ÕºÕ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÕ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶ Õ¥Ö Õ¶Õ¡ÕÕ¡Õ£Õ¡Õ²Õ¡ÖÕ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶ ÕµÕ¡ÕµÕ½Õ¸Õ½Õ«Õ¯ Õ§Ö, Õ¡ÕµÕ¬ ÖÕ¸ÕÕ¡Õ¶Õ¡Õ¯ Õ®Õ«ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ¥Õ¡Ö Õ¦Õ¡Õ¼Õ¡ÖÕ«Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶ Õ¦Õ£Õ¥ÖÕ¥Õ¡Õ¬, Õ¸Ö ÖÕ¡Õ¶ Õ¦Õ¡Õ´Õ¥Õ¶Õ¡ÕµÕ¶ Õ¦Õ£Õ¥Õ½Õ¿ Õ¡ÖÖÕ¸ÖÕ¶Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶Õ¡Õ£Õ¸ÕµÕ¶ Õ§Ö Ô»Õ½Õ¯ ÖÕ¸ÕÕ¡Õ¶Õ¡Õ¯ Õ¸Õ½Õ¯Õ« Õ´Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶Õ«Õ¶Õ Õ¥ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ´Õ¢ Õ¡Õ¶Õ´Õ¡Õ°Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶Õ¶ Õ°Õ¡Õ½Õ¿Õ¡Õ¿Õ¥Õ¡Õ¬, Õ¥Ö ÖÕ¸ÕÕ¡Õ¶Õ¡Õ¯ Õ¡ÖÖÕ¸ÖÕ¶Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ Õ©Õ¡Õ£Õ«Õ¶Õ Õ¡ÖÕ¤Õ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶Õ¶ ÕºÕ½Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡Ö Õ¦Õ¡ÖÕ¤Õ¡ÖÕ¥Õ¡Õ¬. See: Saint Gregory of Nyssa, p. 57â8. The same passage from Gregory of Nyssa is also cited by John of Damascus in his First Treatise against the iconoclasts: âJust as the custom is that those who fashion images of rulers, as well as expressing their features, express the imperial dignity by garments of purple, and it is customarily called both image and emperor, so too human nature, since it is fashioned to rule everything else, is set up as a kind of living image, participating in its archetype in both dignity and name.â See: Saint John of Damascus, p. 47.
The primacy of archetype over image is well present in John of Damascus, who similarly uses examples of artistic images. Cf. Saint John of Damascus, p. 95: âFirstly, what is an image? An image is therefore a likeness and pattern and impression of something, showing in itself what is depicted; however, the image is certainly not like the archetype, that is, what is depicted, in every respect â for the image is one thing and what it depicts is another â and certainly a difference is seen between them, since they are not identical. For example, the image of a human being may give expression to the shape of the body, but it does not have the powers of the soul; for it does not live, nor does it think, or give utterance, or feel, or move its members.â
Sermon 30. Ô±Õ½Õ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÕ¡Õ®Ö Õ« Õ¢Õ¡Õ¶Õ¶ ÕÕ¥Õ¡Õ¼Õ¶, Õ¸Ö Õ¡Õ½Õ§. «Ես Õ¥Õ´ Õ°Õ¸Õ¾Õ«ÖÕ¶ Öաջ» (Õ Õ¸Õ¾Õ°. 10Ö11 Õ¥Ö 14) Õ¥ÖÕ»Õ¡Õ¶Õ«Õ¯ Õ¾Õ¡ÖÕ¤Õ¡ÕºÕ¥Õ¿Õ«Õ¶ Õ Õ¸Õ°Õ¡Õ¶Õ«Õ½Õ« ÔµÕ¦Õ¶Õ¯Õ¡ÕµÕ¥ÖÕ¸Õµ Õ¡ÖÕ¡ÖÕ¥Õ¡Õ¬ Õ« ÕÕ¶Õ¤ÖÕ¸Õµ Õ¥Ö Õ« Õ°Õ¡ÕµÖÕ´Õ¡Õ¶Õ§ Õ¾Õ¡ÖÕ¤Õ¡ÕºÕ¥Õ¿Õ«Õ¶ Õ¡ÖÕ« â¦ Õ¸Ö Õ« Õ¤ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ§ ÕÖÕ¢Õ¸ Ô¿Õ¡ÖÕ¡ÕºÕ¥Õ¿Õ«Õ¶.
Chapter 23. ÔµÖ Õ¤Õ¡ÖÕ±Õ¥Õ¡Õ¬, Õ¡Õ½Õ¥Õ¬Õ¸Õ¾Õ¶Õ Â«ÔµÕ½ Õ¥Õ´ Õ°Õ¸Õ¾Õ«Öն» (Õ Õ¸Õ¾Õ°. 10Ö11 Õ¥Ö 14), ÕµÕ¡ÕµÕ¿ Õ¡Õ¼Õ¶Õ§, Õ©Õ§ Õ¶Õ¡Õ Õ§, Õ¦Õ¸Ö Õ´Õ¡ÖÕ£Õ¡ÖÕ§ÖÕ¶ Õ¥Ö Õ¡ÖÕ¤Õ¡ÖÖÕ¶ Õ¡ÖÖÕ«Õ¶Õ¡Õ¯Õ¥ÖÕ«Õ¶, Õ¸Õ´Õ¡Õ¶Ö Õ¦Õ´Õ¡Õ°Õ¶ Õ¿ÕºÕ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÕ¥Õ¬Õ¸Õ¾, Õ¦Õ« Õ¦Õ¸Õ´Õ¡Õ¶Õ½ Õ« Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ§ Õ½ÕºÕ¡Õ¶Õ«Õ¶, Õ¥Ö Õ¸Õ´Õ¡Õ¶Ö Õ¡ÕºÖÕ¥ÖÕ¡Õ¶ Õ¥Ö Õ©Õ¡Õ£Õ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÕ¥ÖÕ«Õ¶Ö ÔµÖ Õ¦Õ¸Ö Õ¡ÖÖÕ«Õ¶Õ¡Õ¯, Õ¶Õ¯Õ¡ÖÕ« ÕºÕ¡Õ¿Õ¯Õ¥Ö Õ©Õ¡Õ£Õ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÕ« Õ« Õ´Õ¡Õ¶Õ¯Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶, ÕµÕ¥ÖÕ«Õ¿Õ¡Õ½Õ¡ÖÕ¤Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¥Ö Õ« Õ®Õ¥ÖÕ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶ Õ«ÖÖÕ¸ÖÕ´ Õ¥Ö Õ« Õ©Õ¡Õ£Õ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÕ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶Õ¶, Õ¶Õ¸ÕµÕ¶ÕºÕ§Õ½ Õ¥Ö Õ¡ÕµÕ½ Õ¡Õ´Õ¥Õ¶Õ¡ÕµÕ¶ Õ°Õ¸Õ¾Õ«ÖÖÕ½ Õ« ÕªÕ¡Õ´Õ¡Õ¶Õ¡Õ¯Õ½ Õ«ÖÖÕ¥Õ¡Õ¶Ö Õ¥Õ²Õ¥Õ¶ ÕºÕ¡Õ¿Õ¯Õ¥Ö Õ¯Õ¥ÖÕºÕ¡ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ¡Ö ÕÖÕ«Õ½Õ¿Õ¸Õ½Õ«, Õ¦Õ« ÕºÕ¡Õ¿Õ¯Õ¥Ö Õ©Õ¡Õ£Õ¡ÖÕ¸ÖÕ«Õ¶, Õ¸Ö Õ¶Õ¯Õ¡ÖÕ« Õ« Õ´Õ¡Õ¶Õ¯Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶Õ¶, Õ¦Õ¶Õ¸ÕµÕ¶ ÕºÕ¡Õ°Õ§ Õ¦Õ¶Õ´Õ¡Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶ Õ¦Õ¿Õ²Õ¡ÕµÕ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶Õ¶ Õ¯Õ¥ÖÕº, Õ¶Õ¸ÕµÕ¶ÕºÕ§Õ½ Õ¥Ö Õ¯Õ¡Õ¿Õ¡ÖÕ¥Õ¡Õ¬ Õ°Õ¡Õ½Õ¡Õ¯Õ«Õ¶ Õ¥Ö Õ®Õ¥ÖÕ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶Õ¶Ö ÔµÖ ÕµÕ¸ÖÕªÕ¡Õ´ Õ©Õ¡ÕÕ£ Õ¡Õ¼Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ Õ«ÖÖÕ¡ÖÕ¡Õ¶Õ¹Õ«ÖÖÕ¶ Õ¦Õ¶Õ¸ÕµÕ¶ Õ¶Õ´Õ¡Õ¶Õ¸ÖÕ©Õ«ÖÕ¶ ÕºÕ¡Õ°Õ¥Õ¶Ö Ô±ÕµÕ½ÕºÕ§Õ½ Õ¥Ö Õ½Õ¸ÖÖÕ¢Õ½Õ¶ Õ¡Õ´Õ¥Õ¶Õ¡ÕµÕ¶ Õ¶Õ¯Õ¡ÖÕ¥ÖÕ¡Ö ÕºÕ¡Õ¿Õ¯Õ¥Ö Õ°Õ¸Õ¾Õ¸ÖÕ¸ÖÕ©Õ¥Õ¡Õ¶Õ¶ ÕÖÕ«Õ½Õ¿Õ¸Õ½Õ« ⦠Erznkacâi, Speeches and Sermons, pp. 520â44, esp. 534. In this edition, the biblical verse âI am the good shepherdâ (Jn. 10:11 and 14) that appears in the title of Sermon 30 is mentioned in reference to 1 Cor. 12:28. This must be an accidental editorial mistake, for elsewhere in the book the same verse appears with the correct biblical reference.
The necessity of keeping the likeness in accordance with the form, which Erznkacâi mentions on this and other occasions, could be inspired, among others, by Saint Basil the Great, who mentions it in his On the Holy Spirit (chapter 18:45): âand as in works of art the likeness is dependent on the form, so in the case of the divine and uncompounded nature the union consists in the communion of the Godhead.â See: The Treatise de Spiritu Sancto, the Nine Homilies of the Hexaemeron and the Letters of Saint Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea, translated with notes by the Rev. Blomfield Jackson (Michigan, 1975), p. 28. John of Damascus, when citing Basilâs words, formulates it as follows: âAnd just as with works of art the likeness is in accordance with the form, so with the divine and incomposite nature the union is in the communion of the divinity.â See: Saint John of Damascus, p. 42. It should be however noted that the Armenian translation of the On the Holy Spirit considerably differs from the Greek version. See Yakob KâeosÄean, âS. BarseÅ Kesaracâu Surb Hogun nuiruac Äâari hayerÄn tâargmanutâiwnÇ,â [The Armenian Translation of St. Basil of Caesareaâs Homily on the Holy Spirit] Ganjasar 4 (1993), 165â214, 5 (1994), 201â240. The treatise On the Holy Spirit was known to Armenian authors also through the Refutation of the Council of Chalcedon by Timothy Aelurus, which contains excerpts from it.
It is useless to say that by âlikenessâ he does not mean physiognomic likeness.
See the manuscriptâs principal colophon (folio 273v) reproduced in: Hayeren jeá¹agreri hiÅ¡atakaranner, ŽG dar [Colophons of Armenian Manuscripts, 13th Century], ed. ArtaÅ¡es Matâevosyan (Yerevan, 1984), p. 416.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Baghdasaryan, Edvard, Hovhannes Erznkacâin yev nra xratakan arjakÇ [Hovhannes Erznkacâi and His Advice Literature] (Yerevan, 1977).
Baghdasaryan, Edvard, andAramean, Mesrop, âYovhannÄs Erznkacâu I ÄX saÅmosn Äaá¹Ç,â [YovhannÄs Erznkacâiâs Sermon On Psalm 140] Gandzasar 7 (2002), 384â408.
Der Nersessian, Sirarpie, âUne apologie des images du septième siècle,â Byzantion 17 (1944â1945), 58â87. Reprinted in her Ãtudes byzantines et arméniennes / Byzantine and Armenian Studies, tome i (Louvain, 1973), pp. 379â403.
Hayeren jeá¹agreri hiÅ¡atakaranner, ŽG dar [Colophons of Armenian Manuscripts, 13th Century], ed. ArtaÅ¡es Matâevosyan (Yerevan, 1984).
KâeosÄean, Yakob, âS. BarseÅ Kesaracâu Surb Hogun nuiruac Äâari hayerÄn tâargmanutâiwnÇ,â [The Armenian Translation of St. Basil of Caesareaâs Homily on the Holy Spirit] Ganjasar 4 (1993), 165â214, 5 (1994), 201â240.
Nemesius of Emesa (Nemesios Emesacâi), YaÅags bnutâean mardoy [On the Nature of Man in Old Armenian translation], text, introduction and notes by Karine Mosikyan (Yerevan, 2019) (in Armenian).
(Saint Basil) The Treatise de Spiritu Sancto, the Nine Homilies of the Hexaemeron and the Letters of Saint Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea, translated with notes by the Rev. Blomfield Jackson (Michigan, 1975) (orig. publ. 1895).
Saint Basil, Exegetic Homilies, translated by Sister Agnes Clare Way, C.D.P., The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation â vol. 46 (Washington, D.C., 1963).
Saint Basil of Caesarea and Armenian Cosmology: A Study of the Armenian Version of Saint Bailâs Hexaemeron and Its Influence on Medieval Armenian Views about the Cosmos, by Robert W. Thomson, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 646, Subsidia tomus 130 (Lovanii, 2012).
(Saint) Grégoire de Nysse, La Création de lâhomme, introduction et traduction par Jean Laplace, notes par Jean Daniélou, réimpression de la première édition revue et corrigée (Paris, 2002).
Saint Gregory of Nyssa (S. Grigor Niwsacâi), Tesutâiwn i mardoyn kazmutâiwn (YaÅags kazmutâean mardoy) [On the Making of Man], critical text with introduction and annotations by Stella Vardanyan (Holy Etchmiadzin, 2008) (in Armenian).
Saint John of Damascus, Three Treatises on the Divine Images, translation and introduction by Andrew Louth (New York, 2003).
YovhannÄs Erznkacâi (Hovhannes Yerzynkatsi), Matenagrutâiwn, hator A. Äaá¹er ew kâarozner [Works, volume I â Speeches and Sermons], eds. Armenuhi Yerzynkatsi-Ter-Srapian, andEdvard Baghdasaryan (Yerevan, 2013).
Secondary Sources
Awetikâean, GabriÄl,SiwrmÄlean, XaÄâatur, andAwgerean, MkrtiÄâ, Nor baá¹girkâ haykazean lezui [New Dictionary of Armenian Language], 2 vols (Venice, 1836â7).
Baghdasaryan, Edvard, âHovhannes Erznkacâin arvesti u azgagrutâyan masin,â [YovhannÄs Erznkacâi on Art and Ethnography] Lraber hasarakakan gitutâyunneri [Herald of the Social Sciences / Armenian National Academy of Sciences] 9 (1971), 75â81.
Baghdasaryan, Edvard, âHovhannes Erznkacâin Kilikiayi zinvorakan kazmakerputâyunneri masin,â [YovhannÄs Erznkacâi on the Military Organizations of Cilicia] Banber Matenadarani [Bulletin of Matenadaran] 16 (1994), 44â57.
Cowe, Peter, S., âTheology of Kingship in 13th-Century Armenian Cilicia,â Hask hayagitakan taregirkâ [Hask Armenological Yearbook] 11 (2007â2008), 417â30.
Dadoyan, Seta, B., âYovhannÄs Erznkacâi Bluz,â in Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History, 4 (1200â1350), eds. David Thomas, andAlex Mallett (Leiden, 2012), pp. 572â8.
Der Nersessian, Sirarpie, Miniature Painting in the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia from the Twelfth to the Fourteenth Century, vol. 1 (Washington, D.C., 1993).
Ervine, Roberta, âYovhannÄs Erznkacâi Pluzâs Compilation of Commentary on Grammar as a Starting Point for the Study of Medieval Grammars,â in New Approaches to Medieval Armenian Language and Literature, ed. Jos Johannes Sicco Weitenberg (Amsterdam, 1995), pp. 149â66.
Jensen, Lloyd, B., âRoyal Purple of Tyre,â Journal of Near Eastern Studies 22/2 (1963), 104â18.
Mahé, Jean-Pierre, âLâArménie et les pères de lâÃglise: histoire et mode dâemploi (Ve-XIIe siècle),â in La documentation patristique: bilan et prospective, eds. Jean-Claude Fredouille, andRené-Michel Roberge (Laval â Paris, 1995), pp. 157â79.
Srapyan, Armenuhi, âHovhannes Erznkacâu geÅagitakan hayacâkânerÇ,â [YovhannÄs Erznkacâiâs Aesthetic Thoughts] Patma-Banasirakan handes [Historical-Philological Journal] 3 (1985), 96â107.
Srapyan, Armenuhi, âArvesti Çmbá¹numÇ Hovhannes Erznkacâu gorcerum,â [The Perception of Art in YovhannÄs Erznkacâiâs Works] Banber Erewani hamalsarani [Bulletin of Yerevan University] 2/65 (1988), 127â41.
Srapyan, Armenuhi, Hovhannes Erznkacâi Pluz: KyankâÇ ew gorcÇ [The Life and Work of Hohannes Erznkacâi Pluz] (Yerevan, 1993).
XaÄâikyan, Lewon, âHay arvesti patmutâyan karewor skzbnaÅbyurnerÇ,â [Important Primary Sources for Armenian Art History] in The Second International Symposium on Armenian Art, Yerevan, 12â18 September 1978, Collection of Reports, 4 (Yerevan, 1981), pp. 39â50.
Zekiyan, Boghos, Levon, âLa Porpora in Armenia: Tra mito, folklore, arte e religiosità : DallâInno di Vahagn al Bolo Armeno,â in La Porpora: Realtà e immaginario di un colore simbolico, Atti del Convegno di Studio, Venezia, 24â25 ottobre 1996, ed. Oddone Longo (Venice, 1998), pp. 276â97.
Prince Lewon, Gospel manuscript (c. 1256?), M8321, fol. 15r
matenadaran institute of ancient manuscripts, yerevan. photograph by hrair hawk khatcherian
Prince Lewon and lady Keá¹an, Gospel manuscript (1262), J2660, fol. 288r
manuscript library of the armenian patriarchate, jerusalem. photograph by hrair hawk khatcherian
King Lewon ii and queen Keá¹an with their children, Gospel of Queen Keá¹an (1272), J2563, fol. 380r
manuscript library of the armenian patriarchate, jerusalem. photograph by hrair hawk khatcherian
King Lewon ii in front of the Eucharistic table, Breviary of King Lewon (1270s), Or.13993, fol. 9v
british library, london
