[60]
After the fall of the city of Sis in 1375, the situation of the catholicate became very complicated. The catholicos and many dignitaries as well as King Lewon Lusignan were taken captive to Egypt. The catholicos was soon released, but it is not clear where he returned to. Under the year 1378, Fr. Michael Ch'amch'ian, presumably on the basis of sources not mentioned in his History, sums up the situation of the catholicoi as follows:
the catholicoi, even though they had their see in Sis, wandered around back and forth to and from different places and cities, wherever they could find rest, and at the proper times they came to Sis for consecrations and blessing of chrism (164).Under circumstances like this, it must have been difficult to maintain any discipline in the church. From sundry sources we learn that some of the Armenian nobility continued to survive, and a certain Kostandin was ruling as king in 1378. The same source assigns this king a reign of forty-eight years--that is, until 1424-1426 (165). Yet the nature of the relationship between the Armenian catholicoi and the above princes and King Kostandin is not clear. We do not know how Catholicos Kostandin V's successors, Po'ghos and T'e'odoros (1380-1392), were elected. Archbishop Ormanian is perhaps correct in assuming that T'e'odoros' trip to Egypt, mentioned by an anonymous chronicler, was intended to acquire the confirmation of the Mamluk sultan (166).
According to T'ovma Vardapet Metsop'ets'i--a renowned clergyman of the school of Tat'ew who was one of the main personalities involved in the transfer of the catholicate from Sis to Holy Etchmiadzin in 1441--between 1392 and 1441, six catholicoi of All Armenians, whose official residence was still in Sis, met violent deaths (167). Archbishop Ormanian's chronology of the reigns of these catholicoi is as follows: T'e'odoros II, [61] 1382-1392; Karapet I of Keghi, 1393-1404; Hakob III of Sis, 1404-1411; Grigor Khandzoghat, 1411-1418; Po'ghos II of Gar'ni, 1418-1430; Kostandin VI of Vahka, 1430-1439. Some of these dates have been questioned because of new evidence (168). T'e'odoros himself and sixteen Armenian nobles were executed by the emir of Sis in 1392. But the Muslim potentate was instigated by unnamed Christians who made slanderous remarks about the catholicos (169). This indicates that factionalism among the Armenians of Sis still prevailed and took a violent turn. That factions existed may be verified by the fact that the nobility was still in Sis until 1404 or perhaps even until 1424. A source which Fr. Ghewond Alishan identifies as the "Cilician chronicle" informs us that the nobility met at the court of Catholicos Karapet [the successor of Catholicos T'e'odoros] in 1404 and decided to migrate rather than oppose emir Ramazan's onslaught against Sis (170). These men were obviously Karapet's partisans who left the country; shortly thereafter, Karapet himself was poisoned. His successor, Hakob III must have been a partisan of the princes who had decided to remain in Sis and was, it seems, acceptable to the new Muslim potentate of Sis.
Though the Armenians were dispersed in various Islamic countries and Armenia itself was ruled by petty nomadic dynasties, the catholicoi who were set up in Cilicia became acceptable to the majority of the Armenians. This is clearly seen in the letter of St. Gregory of Tat'ew to Catholicos Hakob. He refers to the catholicos as the head of the Armenian Church and asks him to undo the anathema on the see of Aght'amar with the understanding that the catholicos of Aght'amar will be deposed at the insistence of the bishops and vardapets in Armenia proper (171). Everyone realized that the unity of the church was very important and even the catholicoi themselves wished to return the Holy See to the east. Catholicos Karapet was the first to make an attempt, but failed. His successors Hakob III and Kostandin VI never forgot that they were ex officio bishops "of Vagharshapat" (172).
According to Ch'amch'ian: "Catholicos Hakob [III]...passed away. Some of the members of the brotherhood of the patriarchate, who were ill-disposed towards him, deprived him of his life...." This event, which gives us an idea about the level of morality in the church at that time, caused "confusion concerning the election of a [newl catholicos" (173). It was confusing because Hakob III was the third catholicos to be murdered. Ch'amch'ian--though not a contemporary, he is our major source--states that "a certain vardapet Gregory, surnamed Khandzoghat, became [62] powerful and got hold of the see of Sis" (174). He was apparently tolerated because of the difficult circumstances. Yet, it is difficult to accept Archbishop Ormanian's thesis that Gregory had a complicity in the murder of Hakob III (175). We learn that the faction that opposed him tried to eliminate him, but
finding out about their plot, he suppressed them through the Muslim [aylazgi] emir of Cilicia. And at that time there was daily tumult in the see of Sis, until the [Armenians] of Sis rose against him...and banished him to a fortified stronghold, where he passed away (176).Ch'amch'ian continues on as follows:
becoming aware of the situation of the see of Sis, the bishops and vardapets in Greater Armenia mourned with a grieving heart and could not find a way to heal it, for they were in very deep difficulties because of the scourge of the enemies. But some of the renowned among them collaborated and sent men to Po'ghos Vardapet, the prior of Jerusalem...to go to Sis and restore peace. Arriving [there] he admonished the members of the brotherhood of the patriarchate to be friendly toward each other and elect a wise person to the throne of catholicos. Thereupon some of the bishops and vardapets came together and set up Po'ghos himself (177).This Po'ghos, who is introduced as the "prior of Jerusalem," was the Armenian patriarch of Jerusalem and by origin from Gar'ni in eastern Armenia. He actually became catholicos in 1419 (178), and was clearly designated by the eastern bishops and clergy to appeal to the bishops and clergy in and around Sis to come to their senses and live peacefully with one another. The way Po'ghos was set up as catholicos is described in a codex commissioned by him. The scribe of that manuscript wrote as follows:
...subsequently he became Catholicos of All Armenians through the influence of God. For the incumbent catholicos who occupied the throne was sent to exile because of his wicked work; they came [to Jerusalem] and took Lord Paughos with great honor and [63] set him on the throne of catholicos, with twelve bishops and two vardapets (179).From this colophon we learn that the bishops and vardapets who were members of the brotherhood of the Holy See and resided in the vicinity of Sis or in the city itself were responsible for setting up the new catholicos. These clergymen probably represented the different factions in the city. Po'ghos was encouraged by the Eastern clergy to go to Cilicia. The news of his election and elevation were received with much jubilation at the Monastery of Hermon (located in present-day Yeghegnadzor, Republic of Armenia), where the scribe Grigor Akhalts'khets'i writes:
In this year [1417-1418] they banished from the [Holy] see one catholics named Grigor, surnamed Khandzogh, and put under obligation the Lord Pawghos, the bishop of Jerusalem, and set him up as catholicos. The Holy Myron and his letter of blessing arrived in the east, in Armenia, and all the chief rabunis [vardapets who served as deans of schools or priors of renowned monasteries] and the rabunis [vardapets] as well as bishops and priests and princes and the entire nation rejoiced at the dethronement of the Khandzogh and the enthronement of Lord Pawghos. The entire Armenian nation was overjoyed, for he was in every way bedecked--both visibly and practically--with spiritual and physical virtues (180).It is difficult to understand the testimony of another chronicle to the effect that until 1423, when Po'ghos financed the construction of the St. Anna complex in Sis,
there was no monastery nor a resting place for the catholicos. For when bishops and monks arrived from different lands, they could not find lodging and roamed the streets of the city or stayed at the houses of laymen...for the catholicoi had no residence nor refectories and servants, nor bishops and monks, nor wonderful and magnificent sanctuaries which are befitting the office of the chief bishop (181).It is difficult to imagine that in the time after the transfer of the catholicate from Hr'omklay to Sis in 1293 the catholicoi had no residence in Sis, since [64] we find in the earlier sources references to "the house" or "palace of the catholicos." We also know that there were several churches in Sis, some of them quite magnificent. The above passage, however, is valuable in that it gives us an idea about the situation in Cilicia at the beginning of Po'ghos' pontificate. Over the years, the city had been so badly battered by the attacks of foreign forces that very little remained from the former palaces and the churches were in disrepair. In the light of the statement that there was no monastery in Sis, one would have difficulty in understanding Ch'amch'ian's reference to the "members of the brotherhood of the patriarchate" [miabans hayrapetanots'in]. This may be Ch'amch'ian's own fabrication, since we learn from our source that Catholicos Po'ghos imported monks from eastern Armenia and set them up in the newly built monastery (182). Had the catholicate had a brotherhood either in Sis or elsewhere, Catholicos Po'ghos would not have been obliged to bring monks from the east.
All of these facts suggest once again that between the fall of the city to the Mamluks in 1375 and the pontificate of Po'ghos in 1419, there was no brotherhood but rather factions in and around Sis, headed or represented by clergymen. Po'ghos, the Archbishop of Jerusalem, was sent to reconcile them so that future scandals could be avoided. As the factions could not come to an agreement about a single bishop in Cilicia, they turned to Po'ghos. It's difficult to say where the latter resided from the time of his election in 1418 until 1423--that is, until the construction of the Monastery of St. Anna. Our source states that he went on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, where he commissioned the copying of a synaxary and another book, which "he brought" with him to Sis. The copying was concluded in 1422/1423 (183). This suggests that after spending an unspecified period of time in Jerusalem, he returned to Sis where the construction of the new monastic complex was completed in 1423/1424. His death is thought to have taken place in 1428 (184). Catholicos Po'ghos must be reckoned among the six catholicoi who, according to T'ovma of Metsop', were poisoned to death (185). We do not have any information about the circumstances surrounding his death. Archbishop Ormanian's suggestion that his successor, Catholicos Kostandin VI of Vahka, was the leader of the faction responsible for his death (186) is mere conjecture.
The antecedents of Kostandin, like those of Po'ghos II, were in Jerusalem. Bishop Kostandin of Vahka, the Grand Sacristan of the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, is identified with Catholicos Kostandin VI of Vahka. In Codex 252 of Jerusalem, which is a gospel illuminated by [65] the renowned T'oros R'oslin, Bishop Kostandin states that in 1413 he was sent to Kaffa in the Crimea, where he acquired the present work. The Bishop says that he was commissioned by Catholicos Hakob and Lord Vahram, to establish peace and friendship among the priests, landlords [tanute'rk'] and the merchants [khochanin] of Kaffa (187). This information leaves no doubt that Kostandin was the confidant of Catholicos Hakob III to be chosen for the task of representing the pontiff in distant Crimea and other places. Prior to him, Archbishop Sargis of Jerusalem had been designated by Catholicos T'e'odoros in 1393 for a similar task (188). Kostandin must have been on good terms with the faction in Sis which counted among its members Catholicos Hakob himself and perhaps the above Lord Vahram--who was either a coadjutor of the catholicos (189) or the presiding prince in Sis (190). It is, however, not clear whether the Lord Vahram and the barons Karapet and T'oros, children of Asilpak, mentioned by Bishop Kostandin, resided in Sis or Kaffa. The wording of the Armenian is interesting: "i nora at'or'akalut'ean te'r Vahramin ew yishkhanut'ean hayots' paronats'n, paron Karapetin ew paron T'orosin, ordik' paron Asilpakin [during Te'r Vahram's occupation of his throne and during the rule of the barons Karapet and T'oros, children of Asilpak, who preside as princes over the Armenians]" (191). If we assume the latter to be Armenian magnates residing in Kaffa, the situation of the catholicate since 1392 may be explained as something other than a struggle between pro-Latin and nationalist Armenian factions, as Archbishop Ormanian is inclined to think. The struggle between pro-Latin and nationalist factions, which flared during the Armenian kingdom of Cilicia, could not continue until the 1390s, since the Papacy was no longer in a position to pressure the Armenians for a stronger union with Rome. It has been shown that when, four decades later in the 1430s, Pope Eugenius IV invited the Catholicos Kostandin VI to participate in a council, his letter remained unanswered. It was only due to pressure exerted by the Genoese overlords of Kaffa on the Armenians of that city--where there was a large Armenian community and where, as we saw above, Kostandin himself had gone as a bishop-- that a delegation was appointed by the catholicos to take part in the Council of Florence, as an attempt to reconcile the feuding factions (192).
The scanty facts presented above suggest that new factions had come into existence in Sis since the fall of the Armenian kingdom. The faction of "Christians," presumably Armenian and Syrian, responsible for the death of Catholicos T'e'odoros and sixteen Armenian magnates in 1393 were obviously people trusted by the Mamluk ruler or emir of Sis. These may [66] have been members of a new aristocracy trying to undermine the position of the traditional establishment of which the catholicos was a part. As for the new catholicos, Karapet of Keghi, considering his non-Cilician background--Keghi is a town in western Armenia--we must assume that he was set up on the patriarchal throne because of his neutrality. There is reason to believe that he had connections with Jerusalem, since Archbishop Sargis of Jerusalem who is listed as patriarch from 1393-1415, mentions Catholicos Karapet as his "[spiritual] father" (193).
Sargis and his brother Hovhanne's, the Grand Sacristan of the Brotherhood of St. James, must have been longtime members of the brotherhood to have reached such important positions. Sargis was probably ordained a priest by Karapet in Jerusalem. The nomination of a Jerusalem bishop would have pleased the Mamluk overlords, since Jerusalem at the time was under their domination and they probably knew Karapet. Though it is not recorded, his enthronement must have been approved by the Mamluk sultan of Egypt, as was the case with his predecessor. In 1404, when the Mamluk rule in Sis was replaced by that of Emir Ramazan, Catholicos Karapet was removed from office and eliminated. His successor, Hakob III, ascended to the patriarchal throne with the approval of Emir Ramazan of Sis. The fact that he sought the approval of the emir does not make him an accomplice in the murder of his predecessor, as suggested by some, since no one could rule without the approval of the rulers of the land. A few years later, Hakob's violent death was probably instigated by political motives, since he was in touch with the Armenians in Armenia proper and the Armenian colonies in Asia Minor, which had for the most part come under the rule of the Ottomans, who were the enemies of the Ramazanids. This may have raised the suspicions of the local emir, who incited certain Armenian clergymen to bring charges against Hakob, and had him eliminated and replaced with Grigor VIII. It is interesting to note that Grigor VIII's pontificate (c. 1414/1415-1418) (194) coincides with the period during which the Ottomans had driven the Ramazanids out of certain parts of the Cilician plain and taken from them the city of Tarsus (1415-1418) (195). On the other hand, the pontificate of Po'ghos and Kostandin VI coincides with the resurgence of Mamluk domination in Cilicia.
Prior to Kostandin VI's death in 1439, the sources mention a certain Hovse'p' as catholicos. His name appears in colophons and chronologies beginning with the year 1435. One chronicler also mentions him after Catholicos Gregory Musabe'gean (1439-1441) (196). Fr. Ch'amch'ian says that [67] according to rumor this Hovse'p' was a layman who had occupied the Holy See without ordination and was not accepted by the Armenians. Archbishop Ormanian considers him a mere pretender to the patriarchal throne, and most recently Fr. (now Archbishop) Aznaworian tried to show that he was a coadjutor. Even though Ch'amch'ian's source is still not known to us and his chronology is garbled, the core of his account--that Hovsep was a layman who held the office of catholicos but was neither ordained nor accepted by the people--is important. The word "layman" is a loose translation of the Armenian ashkharhik [literally "of the world"] which may also refer to a married priest. This Hovse'p' was probably set up as an assistant to Catholicos Kostandin VI and recognized by the Muslim government as the person in charge of the catholicate. We must assume that by 1435 Kostandin was quite advanced in years, since he was already a bishop and the Grand Sacristan of Jerusalem in 1413. Most scholars calculate his death as occurring in 1439, since Gregory IX was already mentioned as catholicos in that same year (197).
We have no specific information about Gregory IX's ascent to the patriarchal throne, but it could not have been in a manner different from that of his predecessors. Ch'amch'ian's statement that the eastern bishops had not given their consent to his candidacy--if it is authentic--may point to a premeditated plan in as early as 1439 to transfer the Holy See to Vagharshapat. From the account of T'ovma of Metsop, we know that Gregory IX Musabe'geants' was set up as catholicos and on the same day he ordained seven new bishops (198). Therefore, unlike Hovse'p', he had been consecrated and could ordain bishops. Yet T'ovma says something very important that must be taken into account. He testifies that "the newly installed catholicos did not preside, since there were slanderous accusations against him [ew nor edal kat'ughikosn och' ishkhe', zi baghays anughghays edeal une'r i veray ink'ean]" (emphasis added). T'ovma then goes on to say that he received a letter from four bishops "of the inner regions" (meaning Cilicia) which was addressed to T'ovma himself and all the eastern vardapets and bishops and contained greetings and reproaches against them for remaining supine in spite of the fact that the church was falling apart: "we have become despicable and worthless among all the nations" (199).
These words of T'ovma, if taken in regard to the catholicos, present him as a person unworthy of the high office. And that is how modern scholars have interpreted the above passage, namely as an invective against Gregory IX by T'ovma, who headed the movement that made the transfer [68] of the Holy See possible. While some scholars accept his words at face value, others consider it T'ovma's personal opinion and consequently worthless. We must note, however, the possibility of another interpretation. The above passage impresses us as a statement of fact and not opinion. Yet, we do not find any invective in it against Catholicos Gregory IX, who probably suffered as much as any of the other bishops and prelates in Cilicia. The italicized statement--"the newly installed catholicos did not preside, since there were slanderous accusations against him"-- is interesting, since the same T'ovma tells us that "slanderous accusations [baghays anughghays]" were brought against Gregory's six predecessors who were all poisoned to death. Like these catholicoi who were charged falsely and put to death, Gregory Musabe'geants' was also accused falsely; we must assume that he could "not preside [och' ishkhe']" as catholicos because of these accusations. In other words, he probably could not acquire a confirmation from the Mamluk government, a situation which could be explained if the above Hovse'p' was still officially recognized by the Mamluk subordinate of Cilicia as the person in charge of the catholicate.
Return to Historical Sources Menu
Return to History Workshop Menu