Chapter
I
THE
PREDECESSORS
The
amiras
became
the
leaders
of
the
Armenian
millet,
and
especially
of
the
Armenian
community
of
Istanbul,
in
the
second
half
of
the
eighteenth
century.
Long
before
that,
the
lay
leadership
of
the
millet
had
developed,
both
in
Istanbul
and
in
the
provinces,
into
a
loosely-knit
but
recognizable
elite,
about
which
relatively
little
is
known.
Any
study
of
the
amiras
must
begin
with
these
predecessors,
and,
in
turn,
a
study
of
them
requires
an
understanding
of
the
honorific
nomenclature
used.
The
titles
used
overwhelmingly
were
hoca
(or
khodja)
and
çelebi
(or
tchelepi).
These
present
problems
of
etymological
derivation,
semantic
confusion,
and
occasionally
loose
application
to
figures
of
varying
prominence.
In
threading
his
way
through
the
thicket
of
nomenclature,
the
historian
must
keep
in
mind
the
fact
that
these
titles
were
not
all
derived
from
the
same
language
or
milieu,
were
not
originally
applied
for
the
same
reasons,
and
did
not
receive
the
same
kinds
of
recognition.
Beginning
with
the
mid-seventeenth
century,
the
titles
hoca
and
çelebi
were
used
contemporaneously.
The
first
term
is
of
Persian
origin,
[1]
while
the
second
appears
to
be
Turkish.
Of
the
many
meanings
that
hoca
had
in
Persian,
Ottoman
Turkish
had
retained
several,
and
had
added
others.
The
word
was,
at
various
times,
a
synonym
for
efendi
(“gentleman”),
aga
(“lord,
master”),
and
katip
(“secretary,
scribe,
writer”);
it
was
also
used
to
mean
merchant.
[2]
The
turcologist
Siruni
adds
other
meanings:
“witch,
juggler,
turbaned,
healer,
popular
story
teller.
”
[3]
In
modern
Turkish
hoca
came
to
mean
lay
teacher
as
well
as
Muslim
teacher
(hodja).
[4]
Among
Armenians,
the
word
was
first
used
as
early
as
the
thirteenth
century
and
in
some
cases
became
part
of
the
last
name
of
individuals,
as
in
Hocapap,
Hocamir,
Hocamali,
Hocapek,
Hocacan,
Hocasar,
Hocihan.
[5]
The
hocas
of
the
Iranian-Armenian
community
are
particularly
well-known,
though
hocas
existed
in
Western
Armenian
provinces
and
in
Istanbul.
In
Armenian,
the
word
was
primarily
used
to
refer
to
established
merchants
of
the
community.
The
Turks
also
commonly
called
Armenian
merchants
hoca.
However,
the
title
is
sometimes
used
to
designate
wealthy
individuals
in
general,
and
while
it
is
safe
to
assume
that
most
prosperous
Armenians
of
the
period
accumulated
their
wealth
through
trade
and
finance,
the
fact
cannot
be
assumed
a
priori.
Furthermore,
though
wealth
and
leadership
are
almost
inevitably
linked
in
this
period,
in
the
history
of
the
lay
component
of
the
Armenian
millet,
it
cannot
be
safely
assumed
that
any
nouveau-riche
Armenian
merchant
whom
sycophants
might
honor
by
addressing
as
hoca
did
indeed
hold
a
position
of
leadership
in
the
millet.
The
origins
of
hocas
are
not
clear.
An
examination
of
the
colophons
reveals
that
the
title
was
used
predominantly
in
the
provinces.
A
colophon
dated
1401,
speaks
of
a
khavtjah
or
khotjah
Masudshah,
“one
of
the
gentlemen
of
the
city
of
Tavriz.
”
[6]
Another
colophon,
dated
1423,
mentions
“the
famous
and
honorable
great
hoca
baron
Amir.
”
[7]
Fortunately,
there
is
evidence
that
not
every
prominent
figure
of
the
community
was
automatically
honored
with
the
highly
regarded
title.
In
many
a
colophon
that
mentions
wealthy
and
prominent
members
of
a
community,
only
some
of
the
individuals
listed
are
distinguished
with
the
title
hoca,
while
others,
apparently
indistinguishable
in
prominence
and
privilege,
are
named
without
the
honorific.
In
many
instances
all
the
members
of
a
family
bear
the
title:
a
father,
his
sons,
his
brothers
and
their
sons.
[8]
In
others,
some
members
of
a
family
are
called
hoca
while
others
are
mentioned
by
their
names
only.
If
we
accept
colophons
as
a
reliable
criterion
in
assessing
the
use
of
the
title,
then
we
have
to
accept
the
fact
that
the
number
of
hocas
was
small
in
the
fifteenth
century,
and
that
use
of
the
title
became
widespread
by
the
first
quarter
of
the
seventeenth
century.
It
is
hard
to
tell
why
this
came
about.
It
may
be
that
there
were
more
prosperous
individuals
who
successfully
aspired
to
leadership;
it
may
also
be
the
case
that
as
the
title
became
more
coveted,
it
was
applied
more
frequently
to
honor
all
sorts
of
people
who
might
have
been
excluded
earlier,
when
the
informal
standards
of
the
community
were
more
stringent;
such
a
devaluation
of
titles
and
an
increase
in
their
frequency
of
use
is
not
unknown
in
the
West,
though
the
increased
occurrence
of
hoca
never
reached
the
proportions
known
in
the
West
(one
need
only
look
at
once-scarce
honorifics
such
as
“Madame”).
Finally,
it
is
worth
noting
that
the
title
hoca
is
rather
rarely
applied
in
the
fifteenth
and
sixteenth
century
documents
to
individuals
living
in
Istanbul.
This
cannot,
in
itself,
be
taken
to
indicate
that
the
title
was
in
fact
in
rare
use
in
the
capital
of
the
Ottoman
Empire.
Compared
to
provincial
areas
such
as
Van
and
Khizan,
Istanbul
produced
very
few
colophons,
and
so
the
scarcity
of
the
sample
might
distort
any
conclusions
we
might
be
tempted
to
draw.
Neither
the
colophons
nor
historical
accounts
give
any
clues
about
the
social
origins
of
hocas.
The
Soviet
Armenian
historian
Hagop
Anasian,
whose
study
of
hocas
is
the
most
elaborate
and
penetrating
to
date,
considers
them
“the
offsprings
of
the
old
Armenian
feudal
nobility.
”
[9]
Such
a
claim
is
not
fully
borne
out
by
the
historical
evidence.
Hocas
played
a
prominent
role
in
the
financial
activities
of
the
Ottoman
government,
while
in
the
Armenian
millet
they
took
control
of
national
life.
A
well-known
Armenian
scholar
evaluates
their
role
in
the
following
way:
starting
in
the
fifteenth
and
sixteenth
centuries,
hocas
were
known
as
influential
landowners,
as
rebuilders
and
benefactors
of
churches
and
monasteries,
and
as
individuals
who
commissioned
the
copying
of
manuscripts.
Taking
control
of
[Armenian]
civic
life,
they
were
often
celebrated
as
‘guardians
against
foreigners’.
It
is
probable
that
among
them
there
were
those
who
were
cognizant
of
the
decline
of
the
Armenian
church
and
people,
and
were
dreaming
of
a
brighter
future.
[10]
By
the
beginning
of
the
seventeenth
century,
hocas
had
grown
in
number
and
influence.
In
Istanbul,
they
clustered
in
the
well-known
hoca-han
(han
or
khan
was
used
to
indicate
a
“caravaasary”),
which
served
as
their
headquarters
as
well
as
the
central
marketplace.
The
seventeenth
century
Armenian
chronicler
Daranaghtsi,
points
out
in
his
succinct
observation
the
importance
of
this
han
as
well
as
the
scope
of
the
commercial
activities
of
the
hocas:
“Many
Armenian
merchants
were
found
there,
from
all
corners
of
the
world.
”
[11]
Although
the
han
burnt
down
in
1660,
a
victim
of
the
great
fire
of
that
year,
even
in
its
half
ruined
condition
it
continued
to
serve
the
hocas
for
a
long
time
thereafter.
Many
colophons,
and
the
few
extant
chronicles
available
to
us,
attest
to
the
noteworthy
charitable
activities
of
hocas.
For
example,
a
chronicler
of
the
period
has
recorded
the
names
of
eleven
hocas
as
donors
for
the
repair
and
reconstruction
of
the
St.
Archangel
church
at
Balat,
a
quarter
of
Istanbul.
[12]
In
a
colophon
dated
1656,
seven
hocas
are
mentioned
as
“honorable
princes
and
representatives”
of
the
St.
Illuminator
church
of
Galata,
a
section
of
Istanbul.
[13]
In
any
collection
of
fifteenth
to
eighteenth
century
colophons,
one
can
find
many
such
instances
attesting
to
the
generosity
of
the
hocas.
Hocas
were
so
dominant
in
the
life
of
the
Armenian
people,
both
in
Istanbul
and
in
the
provinces,
that
a
student
of
the
subject
calls
the
seventeenth
century
“the
century
of
the
hocas.
”
[14]
Hoca
Ruhitjan,
perhaps
the
most
influential
Armenian
of
the
century
and
certainly
the
outstanding
figure
among
his
peers,
was
the
Grand
Vezir’s
kürkçübasi
(“keeper
of
the
Sultan’s
furcoats”).
[15]
He
headed
a
party
in
the
internecine
struggles
centering
around
the
Patriarchate.
During
these
internal
clashes,
he
was
instrumental
in
the
removal
of
two
patriarchs.
[16]
The
ability
to
influence
the
election
or
removal
of
the
chief
cleric
of
the
Armenian
millet
remained
the
best
index
of
a
layman’s
power
within
the
community,
and
of
his
influence
at
the
imperial
court,
for
centuries
to
come;
it
is
a
recurrent
issue
during
the
period
of
amiras.
Certainly
Ruhitjan
is
not
the
typical
hoca,
but
his
behavior
and
actions
are
not
atypical
of
the
entire
hoca
class.
Their
interests
and
influence
were
limited
neither
to
the
geographical
confines
of
the
capital
nor
to
the
sphere
of
the
Armenian
church,
for
the
hoca
class,
holding
the
leadership
of
[Armenian]
national
life,
was
in
close
contact
with
the
masses
in
the
Armenian
provinces,
and
was
able
to
exert
influence
due
to
the
fact
that
it
knew
how
to
put
at
the
services
of
community
life
a
certain
portion
of
its
economic
power
and
immense
capabilities. ...
In
1671,
Hoca
Alhas
and
Hoca
Khatchadur,
originally
from
Van,
petitioned
the
central
government
in
Istanbul
and
were
able
to
obtain
a
reduction
of
part
of
the
tax
burden
of
the
people
while
some
other
taxes
were
completely
eliminated.
[17]
Perhaps
the
best
indication
of
the
hocas’
attempt
to
extend
their
influence
by
winning
the
hearts
and
minds
of
the
people
is
their
ransoming
of
the
Armenians
taken
prisoner
during
the
long-lasting
Turco-Persian
wars.
[18]
Hocas
would
also
defray
the
expenses
of
the
repair
of
monasteries
and
churches
ruined
by
frequent
earthquakes,
and
would
assist
in
the
repayment
of
public
debts,
such
as
the
huge
debt
of
the
Patriarchate
of
Jerusalem.
[19]
Naturally,
these
charitable
activities
of
the
hocas
were
not
exclusively
motivated
by
their
piousness
and
selflessness.
Part
of
it,
it
is
true,
was
the
result
of
in
grained,
almost
instinctive
habit:
the
preservation
of
Armenian
cultural
and
religious
values
and
identity
was
a
value
in
itself
to
many
of
the
leading
families
of
the
Armenian
millet.
But
these
acts
were
primarily
designed
to
gain
popularity,
ard
eventually
control,
over
the
millet.
The
hocas’
long
term
goal
was
the
liberation
of
their
nation
from
foreign
domination,
under
their
leadership
and
for
their
own
economic
interests
(these
two
points
will
be
further
discussed
later
in
this
chapter).
As
a
matter
of
fact,
after
1666
their
slogan
became
the
liberation
of
the
Armenian
fatherland.
[20]
Hocas
did
not
form
the
only
moneyed
segment
of
Armenian
society.
Many
Armenian
notables
in
Istanbul
and
the
provinces
were
called
çelebi.
Unlike
hoca,
the
origin
of
the
word
çelebi
is
not
well
established,
and
there
has
been
no
satisfactory
explanation
of
the
history
of
its
use.
According
to
most
recent
studies,
it
is
thought
to
derive
“from
the
Anatolian
Turkish
Çalab
[çäläb]
meaning
‘God’.
”
[21]
Çeleb
as
a
term
was
“applied
to
men
of
the
upper
classes
in
Turkey
between
the
end
of
the
thirteenth
and
the
beginning
of
the
eighteenth
century,
as
a
title
primarily
given
to
poets
and
men
of
letters,
but
also
to
princes.
”
[22]
While
in
Ottoman
Turkish
it
denoted
“writer,
poet,
reader,
sage,
man
of
keen
common
sense,
in
modern
Turkish
it
means
“well-educated,
”
“gentleman,
”
“man
of
refinement.
”
[23]
Its
usage
among
Armenians
was
a
reflection
of
the
Ottoman-Turkish
custom.
As
in
the
case
of
hocas,
the
assertion
is
made
that
Armenian
çelebis
included
“elements
of
the
old
[Armenian]
feudal
nobility
as
well
as
those
who
had
risen
from
the
ranks
of
artisans
in
cities.
”
[24]
Again,
there
is
no
historical
evidence
to
substantiate
the
first
contention,
while
the
latter
is
a
universally
accepted
fact.
Among
the
great
number
of
prominent
Armenians
in
the
seventeenth
and
eighteenth
centuries
who
were
called
çelebi,
the
best
known
and
perhaps
the
most
powerful
figure
was
Abro
or
Abraham
Çelebi,
a
seventeenth
century
figure
about
whom
the
illustrious
Armenian
writer
of
the
century,
Eremia
Çelebi,
has
written
extensively.
After
1644,
Abro
Çelebi
served
the
Ottoman
army
in
Crete
as
its
officially
appointed
purveyor.
In
1659
he
was
thrown
in
jail
when
his
patron,
the
Grand
Vezir
Deli
Hüseyin
Pasha,
was
decapitated
for
embezzlement.
Abro
survived
the
crisis
and
continued
serving
the
Ottoman
state,
this
time
collaborating
with
Köpülü
Oģlu
Ahmet
Pasha.
[25]
In
the
Armenian
millet
Abro
Çelebi
was
known
for
his
support
of
charitable
and
cultural
activities.
He
sponsored
the
copying
of
many
manuscripts,
the
construction
of
a
number
of
churches
and
the
repair
of
others.
He
was
a
strong
supporter
of
Bishop
Eghiazar
Ayntaptsi
in
his
struggle
with
his
numerous
antagonists.
[26]
The
mercantile
organization
he
put
together
was
essentially
a
familial
one,
and
it
is
not
surprising
to
see
that
members
of
his
family
continued
to
be
prominent
up
to
the
later
eighteenth
century.
His
brother,
Bedros
Çelebi,
was
also
a
well-known
figure,
while
his
son,
Matdeos
Çelebi,
was
wealthy
enough
as
well
as
vain
enough
to
purchase
a
certificate
of
nobility
from
the
French
king
Louis
XIV
in
1687.
In
1717,
Matdeos’s
three
sons
obtained
from
Peter
the
Great
of
Russia
special
permission
to
Open
Russian
trade
to
Armenian
merchants
of
the
Ottoman
Empire;
this
was
an
event
of
considerable
importance
in
the
economic
history
of
the
empire.
[27]
Andon
Çelebi
was
a
similar
seventeenth
century
figure
about
whom
the
contemporary
Armenian
historian,
Davrijetsi,
writes:
“this
man
was ...
so
renowned
and
famous
that
he
was
known
by
the
Ottoman
kings,
[as
well
as]
in
the
country
of
the
French,
and
of
the
Persians.
He
was
a
man
of
great
means
and
of
many
properties.
”
[28]
Andon
Çelebi,
who
had
houses
in
Bursa,
his
birthplace,
in
Izmir,
where
his
commercial
headquarters
were
located,
and
in
Istanbul,
was
wealthy
enough
to
pay
on
the
spot
and
in
cash
for
the
load
of
an
entire
caravan
coming
from
Persia,
or
the
cargo
of
a
vessel
arriving
to
Izmir
from
Europe.
[29]
Unlike
most
other
individuals
known
as
çelebi,
he
never
became
a
benefactor
of
his
people,
and
showed
little
interest
in
Armenian
community
life.
His
brother,
a
shadowy
character
who
was
in
financial
difficulties
much
of
his
life,
appears
to
have
escaped
retribution
by
converting
to
Islam.
[30]
The
sources
are
scant
about
another
prominent
çelebi.
Maghakia,
son
of
Hoca
Eremia
of
Amit
(or
Diyarbekir),
who
was
able
to
obtain
a
reduction
of
the
tax
levied
for
exemption
from
galley
slavery,
the
külrekci
akçesi,
in
1649,
during
the
grand
vezirate
of
Melik
Ahmet
Pasha.
[31]
The
Armenian
churches
in
the
capital
were
normally
obliged
to
pay
this
tax.
Furthermore,
with
his
father’s
help,
Maghakia
Çelebi
was
able
to
obtain
the
freedom
of
25
Armenian
young
men
from
galley
slavery,
again
thanks
to
his
close
relations
with
the
Grand
Vezir.
[32]
As
to
what
the
nature
of
these
relations
was,
the
sole
source
of
information
fails
to
shed
any
light
on
these
points.
Nor
does
the
source
discuss
the
occurrence
of
the
titles
hoca
and
çelebi
in
the
same
family.
As
we
shall
see
later,
such
incidents
increase
in
the
course
of
the
seventeenth
century,
when
hoca
becomes
the
more
devalued
and
frequent
honorific,
and
çelebi
retains
its
distinction.
The
seventeenth
century
Armenian
historian,
Davrijetsi,
describes
still
another
figure,
Shahin
Çelebi,
as
one
of
“the
notables
well-known
at
the
king’s
Porte.
”
[33]
Like
all
the
other
Armenian
çelebis,
he
was
a
wealthy
and
influential
person.
An
exception
to
this
rule
of
title
and
wealth
was
Eremia
Çelebi,
who
was
apparently
neither
wealthy
nor
influential
in
governmental
circles,
but
was,
nevertheless,
called
çelebi
by
the
Armenian
community.
Eremia
was
a
writer
and
a
civic
leader
of
the
Armenian
millet,
who
is
unanimously
acknowledged
as
an
early
intellectual.
The
son
of
a
priest,
he
was
not
a
cleric;
he
remains
one
of
the
very
few,
if
not
the
only,
non-clerical
learned
figures
in
early
modern
Armenian
history.
He
wrote
many
works
of
historical,
linguistic
and
literary
value,
some
of
which
have
been
translated
into
Turkish.
[34]
The
best
known
among
the
çelebis
was
the
family
of
Diuzians.
The
rise,
fall,
reemergence
and
the
eventual
disappearance
of
this
dynasty
will
be
one
of
the
focal
points
of
this
study.
It
is
worth
noting
that
their
ancestor
Sarkis,
son
of
Harutiun,
was
a
palace
goldsmith
in
Istanbul
and
the
first
of
the
family
to
be
called
çelebi,
an
honorific
title
kept
by
his
descendants
even
though
by
the
mid-eighteenth
century
the
title
amira
had
come
into
prominence.
A
student
of
the
subject
rightly
points
out
that
Armenian
Catholic
notables
generally
preferred
the
title
çelebi;
[35]
another
considers
it
an
indication
of
the
acceptance
of
“frankutiun,
”
i.
e.
“frankism”
or
catholicism.
[36]
These
assertions
are
open
to
question
as
far
as
earlier
periods
are
concerned,
but
they
were
certainly
true
for
the
eighteenth
and
nineteenth
centuries.
[37]
As
Armenian
provincial
notables
responded
to
the
lure
of
Istanbul,
and
as
hoca
became
devalued
as
a
title,
the
use
of
çelebi
as
a
honorific
began
to
have
a
special
appeal
for
those
aspiring
to
the
highest
status
and
prestige.
Since
the
word
çelebi
carried
with
it
implications
of
learning
and
polish
in
the
very
highest
Ottoman
circles,
and
the
word
hoca
was
less
esteemed
by
those
very
same
circles,
Armenian
notables
appear
to
have
made
an
effort
to
increase
its
use.
The
evidence
supports
Anasian’s
conclusion
that
çelebi
came
to
be
perceived
as
the
title
appropriate
for
“the
[Armenian]
aristocracy
of
the
capital.
”
[38]
Hocas
appear
to
have
coveted
it,
and
the
shift
from
the
use
of
that
title
by
the
fathers
to
the
use
of
çelebi
by
the
sons
is
remarkable.
Such
were
the
cases
of
Simon
Çelebi,
who
was
the
son
of
Hoca
Tovma;
[39]
Maghakia
Çelebi,
son
of
Hoca
Eremia
from
Amit
or
Diyarbekir,
mentioned
earlier;
[40]
Markas
Çelebi,
son
of
Khanents
Hoca
Tuma
from
Van;
[41]
Pegi
Çelebi
and
Peglar
Çelebi
and
Hagop
Çelebi;
[42]
Skandar
Çelebi,
son
of
Hoca
Sanos
of
Aleppo.
[43]
The
blurring
of
boundaries
between
the
two
titles
must
have
started
by
the
early
seventeenth
century,
at
which
point
we
begin
to
encounter
prominent
Armenians
who
bore
both
titles
as
a
matter
of
course.
Such
were
the
brothers
Hoca
Bedik
Çelebi
and
Hoca
Sanos
Çelebi;
the
latter
was
the
former’s
assistant
when
Hoca
Bedik
held
the
concession
for
collection
of
customs
duties
in
Aleppo.
Later,
when
Sultan
Murad
IV
named
Bedik
as
chief
customs-duties
collector
at
Erzurum,
the
two
brothers
were
instrumental
in
organizing
the
ransoming
(and
rescue)
from
slavery
of
over
a
thousand
Armenians
who
were
taken
as
booty
by
the
Tartar
army
fighting
along
with
the
Ottomans
against
the
Persians
in
the
war
of
1638.
[44]
Hoca
Bedik
was
involved
in
so
many
business
affairs
and
held
so
many
official
or
semi-official
positions
that
an
Armenian
cleric,
Simeon
Tbir
Lehatsi,
describes
him
as
“a
person
of
notoriety
who
walked
about
like
a
pasha,
with
thirty,
forty
guards;
he
had
janissaries
and
sipahis
(“cavalryman”).
His
account-books
held
as
many
as
twenty-four
entries
at
a
time,
so
diverse
were
his
sources
of
income,
which
included
“customs
[duties],
the
inspection
of
markets,
the
police
superintendency,
the
khans,
the
public
bathhouses.
”
[45]
There
are
no
contemporary
historical
accounts
that
describe
in
clear
terms
the
circumstances
in
which
an
individual
acquired
either
of
the
two
titles.
The
abundance
of
colophons
concerning
the
use
of
the
two
titles
has
not
led
to
a
clearer
understanding
of
the
underlying
situation
than
that
presented
here,
because
the
data,
though
plentiful,
lack
clarity
and
continuity.
On
the
other
hand,
few
Armenian
scholars
have
seriously
focused
upon
the
significance
that
hocas
and
çelebis
represent
for
the
early
modern
period
of
Armenian
history.
Among
those
who
have
examined
the
subject,
there
are
two
opposing
views.
One
view
holds
that
each
title
represented
a
separate
class,
with
an
identifiable
historical
role,
while
the
other
rejects
such
clear-cut
differentiation,
and
is
less
willing
to
impart
political
significance
to
the
titles.
The
first
view,
expounded
mainly
by
Soviet
Armenian
scholars
headed
by
Anasian,
not
only
accepts
the
existence
of
two
classes
but
posits
the
theory
of
a
“class
struggle”
between
them.
[46]
This
struggle
is
said
to
have
been
so
intense
that
“it
turned
into
social
upheaval.
”
[47]
Hocas,
it
is
claimed,
declared
an
unremitting
struggle
against
their
antagonists,
and
the
locus
of
the
clash
became
the
Patriarchate
of
Istanbul.
Control
of
this
administrative
center
of
the
Armenian
church
in
the
Ottoman
Empire
was
tantamount
to
dominance
over
the
Armenian
people
and
millet
within
the
borders
of
the
empire.
Without
delving
into
details,
suffice
it
to
state
that
proponents
of
this
school
of
thought
find
hocas,
who
were
numerous
and
stronger
in
the
provinces,
to
be
better
attuned
to
the
sentiments
and
aspirations
of
the
Armenian
masses
than
the
çelebis,
the
majority
of
whom
gravitated
to
the
Ottoman
capital.
This
view
maintains
that
the
çelebis
considered
themselves
natives
of
Istanbul
and
thought
of
hocas
as
newcomers.
[48]
It
finds
support
in
the
fact
that
çelebis
were
most
frequently,
if
not
exclusively,
sarrafs,
i.
e.
bankers,
and
were
therefore
closely
connected
with
the
Ottoman
Palace
and
the
feudal
environment...
In
the
seventeenth
century
they
had
already
adopted,
to
a
great
extent,
the
characteristics
of
nobility,
and
being
assimilated,
they
withdrew
into
the
regressive
positions
of
Armenian
conservatism.
[49]
The
same
view
assumes
that
the
hocas
were
not
only
closer
to
the
people,
but
that
they
attempted
to
meet
at
least
some
of
their
needs.
In
so
doing,
they
intended
to
bring
the
masses
under
their
sway
and
leadership,
and
eventually,
to
attain
their
ultimate
goal
with
popular
support:
the
liberation
of
Armenia.
The
hocas
perceived
“Turkish
military
feudalism”
as
a
hindering,
obstructive
system
in
which
their
economic,
especially
commercial,
interests
could
not
be
enhanced.
This
argument
goes
on
to
state
that
to
throw
off
this
“formidable
yoke,
”
hocas
advocated
the
liberation
of
the
Armenian
people
and
the
establishment
of
“native
rule
over
the
native
land.
”
[50]
After
securing
the
support
of
the
Armenian
masses
for
their
cause
for
outside
help;
papal
diplomacy
and
French
capital,
according
to
this
view,
presented
the
most
promising
and
attractive
prospects.
As
a
result,
on
the
one
hand
hocas
were
trying
to
convince
their
clerical
allies
in
the
Armenian
church
to
make
concessions
to
the
Catholic
church
in
Rome,
while
on
the
other
a
prominent
hoca
was
dispatched
to
Western
Europe
as
emissary
to
work
out
plans
for
the
united
rebellion
of
Armenians
and
Greeks.
[51]
In
opposition
to
hocas,
the
çelebis
are
represented
as
defenders
of
Ottoman
rule
and
the
status
quo,
because
their
economic
interests
dictated
such
a
political
orientation.
As
the
çelebis
were
bankers,
this
view
claims,
the
main
field
[of
operation]
of
their
capital
was
the
environment
of
the
palace
and
the
pashas,
and,
therefore,
their
interests
were
closely
linked
with
the
Turkish
(i.
e.
Ottoman)
bureaucracy.
[52]
The
other
view,
represented
mainly
by
Siruni,
refuses
to
accept
not
only
the
existence
of
the
class
struggle
but
of
two
separate
classes.
Siruni,
who
discusses
Anasian’s
thesis
at
quite
a
length,
dismisses
the
assertion
of
two
classes
and
draws
attention
to
the
fact
that
all
the
çelebis
were
former
hocas,
former
merchants
and
bankers,
who,
after
reaching
a
certain
position
[of
prominence],
strove
to
obtain
also
the
title
çelebi
and
a
more
conspicuous
position
in
governmental
affairs,
and
to
insure
for
themselves
authority
and
rank
within
the
Armenian
community.
[53]
It
is
difficult
to
adjudicate
the
claims
made
by
these
two
views,
but
more
doubts
are
raised
by
Anasian’s
argument.
It
is
probably
the
case
that
wealthy
merchants
from
the
provinces
made
gestures
towards
leading
a
“liberation”
movement
in
the
seventeenth
century;
this
movement
has
been
studied
in
considerable
detail
and
need
not
concern
us
here.
It
is
also
clear
that
many
of
these
merchants
bore
the
title
hoca.
Fifteenth
century
colophons
record
hundreds
of
hocas
and
no
çelebis.
[54]
In
the
collection
of
colophons
for
the
years
1601-1620
only
two
çelebis
are
mentioned,
one
of
whom
lived
in
Istanbul.
[55]
It
seems
clear
that
the
hoca-merchants
aspired
to
succeed
as
financiers
at
the
capital,
and
that
as
they
succeeded
they
aspired
to
the
title
çelebi.
Anasian
himself
admits
that
this
honorific
had
“a
special
attractiveness,
and
that
is
why
hocas
often
liked
to
be
glorified
with
[it,
though]
in
reality
they
remained
the
same
merchant-hocas.
”
[56]
All
this
does
not
support
the
idea
that
the
honorifics
represented
two
“classes”
involved
in
a
struggle
over
political
issues
about
the
liberation
of
the
Armenian
people.
It
suggests,
rather,
that
there
were
divisions
between
the
once-dominant
provincial
power-elite
(usually
hocas),
and
the
later
more
polished
urban
members
of
this
elite,
centered
in
Istanbul.
Specializing
in
finance
and
making
their
fortune
as
sarrafs,
were
hocas
who
added
the
title
çelebi,
or
the
sons
of
hocas
who
preferred
the
newer
title,
or
became
çelebis
directly
without
ever
having
carried
the
other
honorific:
Abro,
Andon
and
Eremia
çelebis,
all
of
whom
have
already
been
mentioned,
belonged
to
this
latter
category.
Soviet
Armenian
historians
have
a
tendency
to
see
class-struggle
where
other
kinds
of
clashes
are
at
issue.
The
evidence
suggests
that
Siruni
(a
Western
Armenian
historian)
is
closer
to
the
truth,
and
that
the
clashes
between
the
not-very-clearly
demarcated
groups
of
hocas
and
çelebis
represent
a
struggle
for
power
between
two
groups
of
the
Armenian
bourgeoisie.
That
there
was
competition,
rivalry,
and
even
struggle
among
the
members
of
this
class
is
a
historical
fact;
but
the
battle
lines
were
not
so
clearly
drawn
along
the
configurations
of
the
two
titles.
I
shall
return
to
this
point
in
the
conclusion
of
the
chapter.
The
study
of
this
wealthy
bourgeoisie,
which
is
the
predecessor
of
the
amiras
in
several
ways,
is
further
complicated
by
the
introduction
of
yet
another
title:
mahtesi.
Siruni
claims
that
the
individuals
who
bore
the
title,
in
Istanbul
and
in
the
provinces,
formed
a
separate
class.
[57]
The
term
mahtesi
means,
etymologically,
someone
who
has
gone
on
pilgrimage
to
Jerusalem;
[58]
it
is
derived
from
the
Arabic
word
muqaddesi
or
muqdasi,
meaning
“he
who
has
gone
to
Quds”
or
Jerusalem,
therefore,
a
pilgrim.
[59]
The
Christians
used
either
form
of
the
term
while
the
Muslims
preferred
the
use
of
hadjdji
(or
haci,
in
Turkish),
which
also
means
pilgrim,
from
the
Arabic
hadjdj,
“pilgrimage.
”
[60]
The
Armenian
word
mahtesi
had
a
number
of
variations:
mughtesi,
mghtesi,
mahtasi
or
mahdasi,
etc.
[61]
The
view
that
the
individuals
called
mahtesi
formed
a
separate
class
is
based
on
the
assumption
that
the
use
of
the
title
mahtesi
in
the
seventeenth
and
eighteenth
century
sources
leads
us
to
the
conclusion
that
it
was
given
to
a
certain
class
[of
people]
who
had
a
[prominent]
position
in
the
Armenian
nation
and
were
also
involved
in
civic
life.
[62]
Curiously,
Siruni,
makes
this
claim
even
as
he
refuses
to
accept
the
hocas
and
çelebis
as
separate
classes.
To
support
his
contention
he
cites
several
instances
where
among
the
sponsors
of
various
church
reconstructions
were
included
individuals
whose
names
were
preceded
by
the
epithet
or
adjective
mahtesi.
For
example,
he
states
“it
is
significant
that
among
the
eleven
hocas
mentioned
none
was
also
called
by
the
title
mahtesi,
”
[63]
referring
to
the
list
of
donors
for
the
reconstruction
of
the
church
of
the
Archangel
in
Balat,
a
quarter
in
Istanbul,
in
1627.
This
and
the
other
instances
he
cites
lead
to
a
totally
mistaken
conclusion,
due
to
the
fact
that
Siruni
is
careless
in
his
examination
of
the
record.
In
many
colophons
hocas
are
also
called
mahtesi.
It
is
noteworthy
that
in
four
colophons
of
the
year
1604,
there
are
three
mahtesi-hocas:
Mahtesi
Hoca
Panos,
[64]
Mahtesi
Hoca
Atom
and
his
son
Mahtesi
Hoca
Zirak;
[65]
there
are
so
many
others
that
it
is
neither
possible
nor
necessary
to
cite
them
all
in
this
space.
[66]
The
use
of
mahtesi
in
the
colophons
clearly
indicates
that
the
term
meant
a
pilgrim.
In
several
colophons
the
pilgrimage
to
Jerusalem
of
the
individual
concerned
is
recorded.
In
a
fifteenth-century
colophon
Mahtasi
Pashah-Mayr,
a
woman
in
whose
memory
her
sons
sponsor
the
copying
a
of
a
bible,
had
gone
on
pilgrimage
to
Jerusalem.
[67]
Other
such
instances
are
those
of
Mghtasi
Hovhannes,
[68]
and
Mahtasi
Margos.
[69]
The
fact
that
reference
to
Jerusalem
pilgrimage
is
made
in
rare
cases
only
reinforces
the
conviction
that
the
term’s
meaning
was
understood
by
all:
it
was
taken
for
granted
that
an
individual
called
mahtesi
must
have
actually
gone
to
Jerusalem
for
the
pilgrimage.
Unlike
hoca
and
çelebi,
mahtesi
was
a
title
also
used
by
women,
such
as
the
aforementioned
Mahtasi
Pashah-Mayr,
[70]
Mahtasi
Khanum,
[71]
Mghtesi
Atlaz,
[72]
Mghtesi
Mariam
and
Mghtesi
Vartkhatun,
[73]
Mahtasi
Knar,
[74]
Mahtesi
Lusin,
[75]
and
Mahtasi
mother
Vartkhatun.
The
enumeration
is
meant
to
demonstrate
that
the
use
of
mahtesi
by
women
was
quite
widespread,
and
not
accidental;
given
the
extremely
limited
role
of
women
in
public
life,
the
claims
made
for
mahtesi
as
a
“class”
seem
very
unlikely.
Furthermore,
the
epithet
was
also
used
by
Armenian
clerics:
Mghtesi
Der
Maghakia,
[76]
Mahtasi
Der
Tavit,
[77]
Mahtesi
Der
Garabed
and
Mahtesi
Der
Hayrabed,
[78]
“the
cleric
Mahtasi
Der
Herbed,
”
[79]
Mahtasi
der
Tavit,
[80]
Mahtasi
Der
Mgrditch,
[81]
and
Mahtesi
Der
Melkon
[82]
are
all
in
the
records.
This
is
the
only
epithet
or
title
shared
by
Armenian
clerics
and
by
laymen.
Finally,
whereas
hoca
and
çelebi
imply
wealth
and
prestige,
mahtesi
was
a
title
used
by
the
common
people,
some
not
so
well-off
economically,
who
had
been
able
to
make
the
pilgrimage.
In
two
instances
mahtesis
were
simple
workers,
[83]
It
is
likely
that
the
custom
of
calling
mahtesi
a
person
who
made
the
pilgrimage
to
Jerusalem
is
an
imitation
or
adoption
of
the
Muslim
custom
of
calling
a
pilgrim
to
the
Holy
cities
of
Mecca
and
Medina
a
hadjdj;
in
Islam
“the
word
[al]-hadjdj
so
often
added
to
Muslim
names
is
an
honorific
title.
”
[84]
To
ascribe
social
and
economic
status
and
connotation
to
the
title
mahtesi
is
sheer
conjecture.
The
assertion
that
the
mahtesis
formed
a
separate
and
distinct
class
at
best
might
be
interpreted
to
mean
that
some
of
them
were
able
to
make
significant
donations
in
order
to
have
their
names
inscribed
or
recorded
along
those
of
hocas
and
other
prominent
individuals.
In
other
words,
some
of
the
mahtesis
were
not
simply
pious
pilgrims
but
quite
rich
people
who
had
reached
a
visible
station
in
the
social
structure.
A
review
of
what
is
known
about
the
predecessors
of
the
amiras
suggests
that
interpretations
of
the
record
have
been
clouded
by
an
uncalled-for
attribution
of
importance
to
certain
groups
and
struggles,
accompanied
by
an
underestimation
of
others.
What
is
most
significant
and
must
never
be
lost
sight
of,
is
that
the
individuals
under
discussion,
whatever
their
titles,
are
the
Armenian
upper
bourgeoisie
of
the
period.
Of
course,
the
term
“bourgeoisie”
can
be
and
has
been
applied
to
a
very
wide
group,
but
it
is
possible
to
restrict
it
here.
The
Armenian
writers
understood
quite
well
what
group
or
class
they
were
writing
about;
it
is
no
accident
that
members
of
this
group
are
so
often
called
ishkhan.
The
term
means
“prince”
in
modern
Armenian,
but
in
its
meaning
are
entwined
two
different
strands:
one
derives
from
ishkhel,
“to
rule,
”
and
the
other
from
the
notion
of
aristocratic
origin.
Naturally,
the
two
were
linked
in
classical
Armenian
history.
Whether
ishkhan
implied
aristocratic
descent
from
the
feudal
nobility
need
not
concern
us
here;
what
is
necessary
to
stress
is
that
in
talking
about
the
“ruling
class,
”
such
as
it
was,
of
the
Armenian
millet,
a
“class”
which
“ruled”
subject
to
the
limitations
imposed
by
the
sovereignty
of
the
sultan
and
the
Ottoman
state.
What
can
be
safely
said
about
this
ruling
class
is
that
there
was
competition
and
rivalry
between
its
members,
who
were
divided
into
two
groups
with
no
exact
demarcation.
Geographically
speaking,
the
hocas
were
originally
largely
provincial
merchants,
while
the
çelebis
were
more
metropolitan
and
derived
their
wealth
from
manipulations
of
financial
capital.
However,
this
state
of
affairs
clearly
changed
as
hocas
migrated
to
Istanbul
from
the
provinces
and
continued
to
lead
their
followers.
[85]
This
rivalry
between
two
power
elites,
displaced
in
Istanbul,
continued
unabated
and
took
on
social
overtones.
The
perennial
competition
described
by
Armenian
chroniclers
adds
another
polarity,
that
of
“insiders”
versus
“outsiders.
”
The
“insiders,
”
in
Armenian
nersetsi,
were
those
who
had
settled
in
the
capital
for
a
long
time,
considered
themselves
“natives”
and
were
extremely
proud
of
it.
The
“outsiders,
”
in
Armenian
drsetsi,
were
the
newcomers
from
the
provinces,
who
were
also
known
as
gavaratsi,
i.
e.
provincial;
the
urban
“natives”
looked
down
on
them.
Many
colophons
and
chronicles
mention
details
of
the
disputes
between
these
two
social
elements.
The
arrogance
the
“natives”
demonstrated
towards
the
“provincials,
”
which
Arakel
Davrijetsi
does
not
fail
to
notice,
[86]
was
usually
motivated
by
the
success,
wealth
and
position
of
the
newcomers.
Armenian
provincial
notables
would
accompany
the
Turkish
pasha
named
to
a
post
in
the
capital
and
thus
arouse
the
jealousy
of
the
“insiders”
who
would
regard
the
former
as
“vulgar
and
uncivilized
(not
good
mannered).
”
[87]
This
competition,
and
sometimes
the
clash,
continued
even
though
some
of
the
“outsiders,
”
with
the
passing
of
time,
became
“insiders;
”
the
flow
of
immigrants
to
the
capital,
driven
there
mainly
by
economic
necessity
and
sometimes
by
the
political
conditions
in
the
provinces,
never
ceased.
This
social
phenomenon,
with
its
economic,
cultural
and
political
ramifications,
is
not
unique
to
Armenians
in
the
Ottoman
Empire;
but
in
its
seventeenth,
eighteenth
and
nineteenth
century
setting
it
would
help
explain
a
number
of
problems,
among
them
the
changing
forms
of
the
confusing
çelebi
and
hoca
competition.
By
the
middle
of
the
eighteenth
century,
the
emerging
amiras
became
dominant
in
the
Armenian
millet,
and
developed
a
remarkable
degree
of
control
over
the
affairs
of
the
community
and
Patriarchate.
The
amiras
inherited
and
elaborated
the
roles
and
functions
of
the
çelebis
and
hocas
who
have
been
called
their
“ancestral”
groups
and
“prototypes.
”
[88]
The
Amiras
were
to
become
power-brokers,
intermediaries
between
the
Sultan
and
his
Armenian
subjects,
philanthropists
on
a
large
scale,
lay
leaders
of
the
church
and
its
flock
and
conservative
defenders
of
the
status
quo,
which
perpetuated
their
power
and
position.
[1]
For
an
etymological,
as
well
as
historical,
examination
of
the
word
hoca,
see
Islam
Ansiklopedisi,
s.
v.
“Hace,
”
by
M.
Fuad
Köprülü,
and
“Hoca,
”
by
W.
Ivanow.
[2]
Türk
Ansiklopedisi,
s.
v.
“Hace.
”
Encyclopedia
of
Islam,
lst
ed.,
s.
v.
“Khodja,
”
by
A.
Yusuf
Ali.
The
latter
limits
itself
to
the
definition
and
study
of
“the
name
of
a
community
of
dissenting
Muslims,
mainly
to
be
found
in
the
Pundjab...
”
[3]
Siruni,
Polis,
1:
477.
Siruni’s
contention
that
the
word
was
spelled
differently
when
used
to
designate
non-Muslims
is
based
upon
one
instance,
and
therefore,
at
best,
is
tenuous.
[4]
New
Redhouse
Turkish-English
Dictionary
(1974),
s.
v.
“Hoca.
”
[5]
Hratcheay
Adjarian,
Hayots
Andsnanunneri
Bararan
[Dictionary
of
Armenian
Proper
Names]
(Erevan,
1944),
p.
526.
[6]
Levon
S.
Khatchigian,
JE
Dari
Hayeren
Dseragreri
Hishatakaranner,
Masn
Aratjin
(1401-1450)
[Colophons
of
Fifteenth
Century
Armenian
Manuscripts,
Part
One
(1401-1450)]
(Erevan,
1955),
p.
10.
[8]
Ibid.,
p.
328.
Idem,
Part
Three
(1481-1500)
(Erevan,
1967),
pp.
60-61;
Vasken
Hagopian
and
Ashot
Hovhannisian,
Hayeren
Dseragreri
JE
Dari
Hishatakaranner,
(1601-1620)
[Colophons
of
Seventeenth
Century
Armenian
Manuscripts
(1601-1620)]
(Erevan,
1974),
p.
25.
[9]
Anasian,
Azatagrakan
Sharjumnern,
p.
60.
[10]
Ashot
Hovhannisian,
Drvagner
Hay
Azatagrakan
Mtki
[History
of
the
Armenian
Liberational
Mind],
2
vols.
(Erevan,
1959),
2:
38.
[11]
Krikor
Daranaghtsi,
Jamanakagrutiun
[Chronicle]
(Jerusalem,
1915),
pp.
168-169.
[12]
Melkon
Asadur,
Erekdarean
Patmutiun
Palatu
Surb
Hreshtakapet
Ekeghetsvoy
[A
Three
Hundred
Year
History
of
the
St.
Archangel
Church
of
Palat]
(Constantinople,
1931),
p.
58.
[13]
Papken
Giuleserian,
Kolot
Hovhannes
Patriark
[Patriarch
Hovhannes
Kolot]
(Vienna,
1904),
p.
120.
[14]
Siruni,
Polis,
1:
477.
[15]
Mrmerian,
Masnakan
Patmutiun,
p.
27.
[16]
1n
the
first
instance,
Ruhitjan
and
his
collaborator
were
able
to
remove
the
unpopular
Patriarch
Tovmas
Beratsi
in
1658;
the
Patriarch
had
obtained
the
ferman
(edict)
of
his
institution
to
the
patriarchate
by
raising
the
annual
tax
from
140,
000
to
400,
000
kuruş
and
bribing
officials.
The
second
instance
relates
to
the
removal
of
the
Patriarch
Hovhannes
Mughnetsi,
in
1655;
a
group
of
influential
leaders,
headed
by
Ruhitjan,
forced
the
Patriarch
to
resign.
See
Ormanian,
Azgapatum,
2:
2513;
2518-2521
and
Asadur,
Polsoy
Hayere,
pp.
25-26.
[17]
Anasian,
Azatagrakan
Sharjumnern,
pp.
80-81.
[18]
Hagop
Garnetsi,
Teghagir
Verin
Hayots
[Topography
of
Upper
Armenia]
(Vagharshapat,
1903),
p.
34.
[19]
Daranaghtsi,
Jamanakagrutiun,
pp.
324-326.
[20]
Anasian,
Azatagrakan
Sharjumnern,
p.
83.
[21]
Encyclopedia
of
Islam,
new
ed.,
s.
v.
“Çelebi,
”
by
W.
Barthold
and
B.
Spuler.
[23]
Ibid.,
and
New
Redhouse,
s.
v.
“Hoca.
”
[24]
Anasian,
Azatagrakan
Sharjumnern,
p.
59.
[25]
Mikayel
Tchamtchian,
Patmutiun
Hayots
[History
of
the
Armenian
People],
3
vols.
(Venice,
1784-1786).
3:
698-709.
[26]
On
the
struggles
that
Eghiazar
Ayntaptsi
relentlessly
continued
to
wage
for
many
years,
see
Anasian,
Azatagrakan
Sharjumnern,
p.
72
passim;
Siruni,
Polis,
1:
516
passim;
Ormanian,
Azgapatum,
2:
2559
passim;
Tchamtchian,
Patmutiun,
3:
697.
[27]
Siruni,
Polis,
1:
485-486.
[28]
Arakel
Davrijetsi,
Patmutiun
[History]
(Vagharshapat,
1896),
pp.
338-339.
[30]
Torkomian,
Eremia
Tchelepii,
2:
547-548,
574-575,
and
3:
198-199.
[31]
Ibid.,
1:
51-52,
388-389.
[33]
Davrijetsi,
Patmutiun,
p.
287.
[34]
In
addition
to
Torkomian’s
valuable
work,
there
are
a
number
of
others,
including
Fr.
Nerses
Akinian’s
Eremia
Tchelepi
Keomiurdjian,
Keankn
u
Grakan
Gordzunetiune
[Eremia
Çelebi
Keomiurdjian,
His
Life
and
Literary
Activities]
(Vienna,
1933);
Simon
Eremian,
“Eremia
Tchelepi,
”
Bazmaveb
(1903):
367-373.
For
a
complete
listing
of
works
on
this
topic
see
Torkomian,
Eremia
Tchelebii,
1:
138,
note
1,
and
for
the
listing
of
Eremia
Çelebi’s
works
see
Akinian.
[35]
G.
Hnaser
(pseud.
),
“Hay
Vadjarakanner
ev
Arhestavorner
K.
Polsoy
metj
(JZ
ev
JE
Dar),
”
[“Armenian
Merchants
and
Craftsmen
in
Istanbul
(Sixteenth
and
Seventeenth
Centuries),
”]
Arev
(Cairo),
7
October
1955,
p.
3.
[36]
Mrmerian,
Masnakan
Patmutiun,
n.
25.
[37]
Ghazarian,
Arevmtahayeri
Katsutiune,
p.
382.
[38]
Ibid.,
p.
381;
Anasian,
Azatagrakan
Sharjumnern,
p.
67,
note
1.
[39]
H.
M.
Ughurlian,
Patmutiun
Hayots
Gaghtakanutean
ev
Shinutean
Ekeghetsvoy
i
Livornoy
Kaghaki
[History
of
the
Armenian
Settlement
in
the
City
of
Livorn
and
of
the
Construction
of
their
Church]
(Vienna,
1891),
p.
30;
Siruni,
Polis,
1.
491.
[41]
Davrijetsi,
Patmutiun,
p.
513.
[42]
Karekin
Srvandsdiants,
Toros
Aghbar
[Brother
Toros],
2
vols.
(Constantinople,
1879-1884),
2:
400.
[43]
Hagopian
and
Hovhannisian,
Dseragreri,
p.
743.
[44]
Simeon
Tbir
Lehatsi,
Ughegrutiun
[Travelogue]
(Vienna,
1936),
p.
318;
Siruni,
Poli
s,
1:
487-488.
[45]
Daranaghtsi,
Jamanakagrutiun,
p.
580.
[46]
Anasian,
Azatagrakan
Sharjumnern,
p.
62.
[53]
Siruni,
Polis,
1:
491.
[54]
Khatchigian,
Hayeren
Dseragreri,
Part
One
(1401-1450)
and
Part
Three
(1481-1500).
[55]
Hagopian
and
Hovhannisian,
Dseragreri,
pp.
274-275
and
350.
[56]
Anasian,
Azatagrakan
Sharjumnern,
p.
67,
note
1.
[57]
Siruni,
Polis,
1:
492.
[58]
Adjarian,
Hayeren
Armatakan
Bararan
[Armenian
Etymological
Dictionary),
6
vols.
(Erevan,
1926-1933),
4:
760.
Idem,
Andsnanunneri,
p.
171.
[59]
Idem,
Arnatakan,
4:
760-762.
[60]
Encyclopedia
of
Islam,
new
ed.,
s.
v.
“Hadjdj,
”
by
A.
J.
Wensinck;
Islam
Ansiklopedisi,
s.
v.
“Hace.
”
[61]
Khatchigian,
Hayeren
Dseragreri,
Part
One
and
Part
Three.
[62]
Siruni,
Polis,
1:
493.
[64]
Hagopian
and
Hovhannisian,
Dseragreri,
p.
138.
[65]
Ibid.,
pp.
143,
146,
149.
[66]
Ibid.,
pp.
29,
33,
377,
425,
590;
Khatchigian,
Hayeren
Dseragreri,
Part
One,
p.
328;
Ara
Kalaydjian,
“Tsutsak
ev
Hishatakaranner
G[alust]
Giulbenkian
Matenadarani
Hayeren
Antip
Grkeru,
”
[“Listing
and
Colophons
of
Armenian
Unpublished
Books
in
the
G[alust]
Giulbenkian
Library”]
Sion
(1969,
no.
9-10):
482.
[67]
Khatchigian,
Hayeren
Dseragreri,
Part
One,
pp.
522-523.
[68]
Ibid.,
Part
Three,
p.
369.
[69]
Hagopian
and
Hovhannisian,
Dseragreri,
p.
644.
[70]
Khatchigian,
Hayeren
Dseragreri,
Part
One,
pp
522-523.
[71]
Hagopian
and
Hovhannisian,
Dseragreri,
p.
318.
[82]
M.
E.
N.,
ed.,
“Surb
Hagopi
Sephakanutean
Khndir,
”
[“The
Problem
of
Ownership
of
the
Convent
St.
James,
”]
Sion
(1942,
no.
3-4):
89-91.
[83]
Kalaydjian,
“Surb
Hagopi,
”
p.
253;
Khatchigian,
Hayeren
Dseragreri,
Part
Three,
p.
318.
[85]
Hovhannisian,
Review
of
Anasian’s
Book,
Patma-Banasirakan
Hantes
(1963,
no.
1):
241.
[86]
Davrijetsi,
Patmutiun,
see
in
general.
[87]
Cf.
See
the
previous
note.
[88]
Anasian,
Azatagrakan
Sharjumnern,
p.
60.