User:Yerevantsi/sandbox/Khrimian


 * Mkrtich Khrimian

https://archive.org/details/armeniatravelsst01lync/page/236/mode/1up?view=theater Lynch on Khrimian

https://archive.org/details/armeniatravelsst01lync/page/246/mode/1up?view=theater Hayrik

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=yale.39002032127632&view=1up&seq=28

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=yale.39002032127632&view=1up&seq=33&skin=2021&q1=ararat Such is a brief outline sketch of one of the great men of the last and present centuries, a true servant of God. Probably no prelate who has filled the throne of Etchmiadzin, since the time of St. Gregory the Illuminator (the first Catholicos), was so beloved by his flock, and so renowned throughout Christendom for his piety and large-heartedness.

http://echmiadzin.asj-oa.am/977/ Խրիմյան Հայրիկի նամակագրությունը ծովանկարիչ Հ. Այվազովսկու հետ

http://echmiadzin.asj-oa.am/11783/ Խրիմյան Հայրիկ՝ Արծիվ Վասպուրականի

http://echmiadzin.asj-oa.am/8624/ Խրիմյան Հայրիկը, Իսահակյան, Ավ.

http://echmiadzin.asj-oa.am/2942/ Խրիմյան Հայրիկը Իսահակյան, Ա.

http://echmiadzin.asj-oa.am/8622/ Խրիմյան Հայրիկի մահը

http://echmiadzin.asj-oa.am/7285/ Խրիմյան Հայրիկի և Բաքվի Շեյխ ուլ Իսլամի համատեղ կոչը հայ և ադրբեջանցի ժողովուրդներին 1905 թվականին

http://echmiadzin.asj-oa.am/2939/ Կարծիքներ Խրիմյան Հայրիկի մասին

http://echmiadzin.asj-oa.am/7125/ Ցարական կառավարությունը և Ամենայն Հայոց Կաթողիկոսի ընտրությունները

Khrimian spoke metaphorically of the ‘dish of liberty’ from which Serbs and Bulgarians served themselves using ‘iron ladles’ (weapons and force). Armenians went to get their fill, but they only had ‘paper ladles’ (petitions and promises), which dissolved and were useless to serve liberty.83 They therefore remained hungry. The moral of the story was clear: in order to obtain freedom, arms had to be used. As a man of the cloth,Khrimian never openly advocated violence and revolution. He remained cryptic in his pronouncements and did not accept that his message was responsible for Armenian revolutionary activity. More than a decade after his sermon he said that he remained ‘convinced that no nation can make its voice heard without force.… [But that it was not] possible to have the Armenian people rise up and free itself from oppression with a couple of… guns. [Nor was it] possible to bring the Ottoman empire to its knees or with a couple of demonstrations have the bastard European diplomacy side with the Armenian people’ (cited in G. Libaridian, Ideology of Armenian Liberation,pp. 165–6). However, as his own words suggest, it seems that he objected more to the inefficient means of the revolutionaries rather than the principle of using force.

Khrimian’s ‘iron ladle’ message became—and still is—the most widely used metaphor for rallying Armenians in support of radical policies. It reoriented Armenian nationalism toward a new and revolutionary direction, and pervaded the very essence of Armenianness, imbuing collective identity with an unprecedented sense of national purpose. Not only had the message come from such a respected church leader, but it was also based on the realities of the Armenian homeland and its abandonment by the international community. It was a call to arms emanating not from theoretical arguments regarding world revolution, but from the hard realities of Armenian life and politics. Through its simplicity and in its use of familiar images to express new and radical ideas it undermined the sense of victimhood, voiced the profound frustration felt by Armenians, called for action (without explicitly defining how), and focused attention on conditions in Armenia itself rather than on abstract constitutional issues or social theories. As such, ‘Khrimian characterized the shift in Armenian political thought from an abstract nationalism to concrete populism,’85 and in the process he himself entered national consciousness as a hero who fought for liberation.

--










 * http://luma.asj-oa.am/1113/ Խրիմեան Հայրիկի յիշատակին 1908


 * Armen Gakavian (1997) Homeland, Diaspora and Nationalism: The Reimagination of American-Armenian Identity Since Gorbachev, University of Sydney pp. 21-22 "He was, relatively speaking, a progressive. Louise ... Perhaps Khrimian Hairig's greatest achievement was to provide a link between the metropolis and the interior, between the urban and provincial classes"


 * Add 1, Reports in Professional Journalism, Volume 1, Medill School of Journalism, Northwestern University, 1961, p. 22 "Born in Van. oldest and most nationalistic province of Armenia, Khrimian was patriarch of Constantinople before he established at Van in 1855 ... Communists are attracted because he was a "progressive champion of the masses," nationalists  ..."

-


 * Defending the importance of the use of vernacular language, Khrimian established journals in the vernacular such as Artsvi Vaspurakan, The Eagle of Van, (1855-1863) and Artsvik Tarono, The Little Eagle of Taron, (1963-1868). The primary goal of both of these journals was to utilize the vernacular language in order to awaken the national and patriotic consciousness of the peasantry. In addition to this ambitious objective, the journals carried out a mission to acquaint the Patriarchate of Constantinople with the conditions of the Armenians of Eastern Anatolia.178 Minassian states that the activities of Khrimian during his religious service made Varag, a district of Van, “the cradle of the national movement and one of the symbols of the Armenian cultural rebirth.”


 * The observations he made during his travels to regions that had considerable historical, cultural, and religious importance, such as Echmiadzin, Ararat, and later Jerusalem and Cilicia, strengthened his patriotic and religious feelings.


 * Khrimian, quite ahead of his time, aimed to make “Armenia” a core notion among Armenians.


 * Khrimian also depicted Armenia as the Chosen Place. He wrote that God had selected this beautiful and heavenly part of the earth, and had distributed it to the sons of Hayk so that they would cultivate the land and enjoy its plentiful benefits. Then he connected this holiness to agricultural production by pointing out that Europeans, with their education and intelligence, were able to produce much more, although their lands were not as fertile as those of Armenia. He thereby also implied the significance of education, and he lamented the circumstances of Armenia, saying that Armenians had neglected these soils that grow gold. [46] He wrote that God loved the Jewish nation, but to Armenians, instead of a dry and sunburned climate, he had offered a pleasant country. Khrimian called upon Armenians to wake up since “God has loved you twice more, and will love you if you” overcome ignorance and work to become more wise. [47] Whereas to attract his people’s attention he depicted Armenia as a God-given place, he also chose to emphasize the fertility of this land as well as the importance of education.


 * In 1862, Khrimian moved to the St. Karapet Monastery in Taron and initiated a similar project. St. Karapet Monastery had significant income and received donations; yet, most of it went in the pockets of the monastery’s monks and a number of the local, rich Armenians. [51] When Khrimian moved to the monastery, he established an economic council that would redirect the funds to other projects for the community–a move that gained many opponents who found themselves without their former incomes. [52] Khrimian not only faced opposition in the monasteries where he was based, but in other places as well. The clergy in Akhtamar was completely against his efforts to improve education and bring in innovations to Vaspurakan. [53] The Vartapet of the Monastery of Narek had also opposed Khrimian. [54] Opposition was so strong against these attempted reforms that Khrimian’s enemies reportedly attempted to assassinate him. [55] To alleviate this opposition, Khrimian had to change the mentality of the many local power-holders.


 * Despite implying the need for resistance in both his sermons and writings, when the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) and the Social Democratic Hentchakian Party began their struggles in the 1890’s, Khrimian “refused to support any of the organized revolutionary activities or groups.” [60] At the very least, one can interpret Khrimian’s resistance as simply individual resistance, carried out to preserve the Armenian language and traditions, and reject conversion to Islam, as well as to Protestantism and Catholicism (as missionaries of the latter were becoming increasingly successful at converting Armenians).


 * Repressive measures against the Armenians increased considerably during Prince Golitsyn’s tenure as governor general of the Caucasus (1896–1905). Golitsyn crudely implemented a policy of forced Russification. The most severe blow came in June 1903 when a decree was issued in violation of the 1836 Polozhenie dictating that all properties of the Armenian church (including the schools) were to be managed by the Russian state. Armenians resisted the order en masse and Khrimian Hairik,now Catholicos of Ejmiatzin, refused to hand over the church deeds.

Another important genre was ‘provincial literature’—i.e. literature written by authors in the Armenian provinces of the Ottoman empire. These writers offset the snobbery of the Constantinople elite and were much more reflective of the conditions, needs and aspirations of Armenian peasants and the lower classes in the interior of the empire. They put them at the centre of attention instead of the ‘decadence’ of urban life in the capital. The towering figure in this genre was Father Mkrtich Khrimian (1820–1907). His book Hravirak Ayraratian (Invitation to Ararat) (1850) ‘was fashioned after the classical model of Virgil’s Pastoral Poems…[and was] an exhortation to love the land and to liberate it from oppression[.It] had a tremendous impact on the minds of the enlightened people.’21 Through Khrimian and similar intellectuals from the interior the Armenians of the provinces were knocking on the doors of the Constantinople elite to draw its attention to the appalling conditions of the Armenian peasantry.

Khrimian’s activism extended from education to writing and publishing, from verbal support for revolutionary activism to diplomacy. For example, in 1855 he began publishing the periodical Artzvi Vaspurkan (Eagle of Van), the first journal published in western Armenia, although initially it was set up and printed in Constantinople. Through this journal a written forum was provided to the voice of Armenians in the provinces. The publication was also instrumental in the awakening of the Armenian masses in the interior as it printed articles and stories on Armenian history, cultural figures (Mesrop Mashtots, Movses Khorenatsi etc.), heroic fighters, kings and princes.

Moreover, Khrimian’s basic framework of analysis and outlook was the Armenian nation rather than the ethno-religious community. He talked of national rights and freedoms and he clearly tied these to the Armenians of the provinces and their territory in the Ottoman empire. Khrimian linked salvation to earthly conditions, to the importance of leading a moral life and to the collective responsibility for the betterment of the nation. In his sermons and writings he focused on the ideas of ‘progress, education, freedom, self-consciousness and human dignity’.86 As a church leader Khrimian interpreted religion not as an ideology to accept present conditions as Godgiven, but as a moral basis that should lead to progress and collective liberation in earthly life.87 He symbolised the concluding ‘act’ of the transition—began by Israel Ori, Joseph Emin and the Shahamirian publishers in Madras a century or more earlier—from a religious interpretation of Armenian suffering to a political understanding.

Both Portukalian and Khrimian were crucial figures in the transformation of Armenian political identity.The most obvious change was the move towards the radicalisation of political thinking based on nationalist principles. Both sanctioned the use of arms, although they stopped short of advocating outright revolution (Portukalian did at times call for a revolutionary movement, but he did not take part in such activities, nor was he consistent in his views). Furthermore, Portukalian and Khrimian were instrumental in situating Armenia—the actual Armenian provinces of the Ottoman interior— on the map of nationalist thinking. They perceived the home-

land not only as the subject of liberation, but also as its agent and contributor. Through their and their followers’ efforts, the homeland and its people entered the multilocal nationalist project as the ‘ground point’, supplementing the eastern and western points. Armenian nationalism, therefore, was not limited to European-inspired liberal or radical trends; rather it developed an indigenous basis which asserted itself forcefully on the plane of national identity formation and its politics. There were two elements to the provinces’ contribution to this dynamic.