一一一ー

ー一一一

ヤ｛〈凶凶内同凶

ロ民話建設自民主将諸説話認さ－－

円－ON

CHC『舎E吋

23ιヨSヨE白川日ιdcgLO》V

ヨコd芯

（ト円。）戸

ロ44d将〈向〈υ〈内問凶凶〈品〈

詰MwdFEES－

05g

凶〉〈出

リハHA出国凶凶’HU凶出回凶。

リ両国国’HU凶白

主計百時計一hd

ιD弘己己Jコ ’HJプDr

｝

D

66 CBα3.RH ['. C.

Jblr rf山山凶作z.r2_wL.1・勾btn吋 wbnιめ凶作dF山守山1_npnLfJJwbz_pf111l1

( J.fJ.山 ・ I-J.fJ. V '!:・ 4aubp}, bpp "r4fl'r d凶 b山 t1.戸b l;pん ιLll.rz tf.山 f’.／•fα印刷Lfrw）凶L1_凶作， 2.Ju’［＇'J.U[wbnLfJJw1’ll'f凶b (V 'f:・ をbubpfr9 - J/J 'I・1_bp2)、〈山d叫山門fr 4w'l.JnLJ pnlnl' bp4pwJwublψ 〈凶d山F f!_b'f:（，叫 f,,,,・,,《 IJ.'lnι凶b♂》 wb1_山Jp丘 3.(,bu1J凶l''l.匂山b山Q凶bll'f凶b伊Tf'!:・ 1_hpffr9), ht’l’ 《 lJ.'lnLwb♂》 ／，'J.['nLJf'f!_ 山 pinw9nlnLU l;p ~山Jn9 αplLblfr9 4n'l Jhpf!_ 4山 f

ρL凹 fr.ppnι IJ.p9wfup Jpw9Ju’＇l inwp凶匂ε： ~hinlLwpwp, IJ.'l1_w1φ9 wz_fz山 f’〈／，勾出回UnL的出b nLUnLUbwuppnLfJJnL1’E 句bin.pI; 4fl'wr41fr ruin 山J守 bz_•f川d凶d凶b山Q山ll'f凶Lbbpfr:

RESEARCH INTO THE HISTORY OF AGUANK

H. SVAZYAN

Abstract

At the beginning of the 1st century B. C., in the neighbourhood of Great

Hayq (Armenia) a state was formed, which was named “Aguank”，“Albania”， or

“Arran”. In academic literature, it is known as Caucasian Albania. The name “Aguank”was formed in Eastern Armenia, from Armenian words “agu＂，“alu” (which mean sweet). These words describe this state as a land, which has a fa-vourable climate, and is very fruitful. Later, during Armenian-Roman relati-

onships, the Armenian word was taken by Romans who named it “Albania”． Caucasian Albania was populated by 26 tribes which differed from each

other in their religion, language, and habits. They were all called “Albanians”． Hence, the name of the country and the name of its population do not have ethnic origins.

The river Kura marks the boundary between Great Hayk and Caucasian Albania. Until the middle of 5m cen加ry,the Kura was the boundary between

these two countries. In this period, the Sassanid Empire abolished the royal power in Caucasian Albania and created a provincial system of government (Marzban system). Thence, the Persian Marzbans ruled the Caucasian Albania.

In parallel with this, the Sassanids separated the Armenian regions Artsakh and

Utik and annexed it to this new administrative region of their empire. Thus, Utiq and Artsakh were also considered as parts of Caucasian Albania. At the

end of the sixth cen加ry,Aguank province was divided into s~eral small admi-

nistrative parts. Artsakh and Utik joined and formed their united principality.

However, they kept their name "A思iank”．Thus, the toponym Aguank was not always confined to the same region. In

accordance with administrative-regional changes, it changed its meaning and

meant the land that emerged due to these changes.

NERSES SNORHALI IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY RUSSIAN THEOLOGY

K. HAMADA (Japan, Tokyo)

l'he pu中oseof the present article is to explore the process of development of

llw study of the Armenian Church in Russia. This article was motivated by an 111 llclc written by Orthodox priest Tigrij Xaeatryan in the journal of the St. 11utcrsb町 gAcademy of Theology, Xristianskoe Ctenie .(Christian Readings) Nり・ 29 (2008), entitled, "Analysis of some presuppositions for theological dinlogues between Russian Orthodox and Armenian Churches”・ Itis well I< nown that the Russian Orthodox Church and the Annenian Church have been 11lrcngthening their friendship and cooperation in recent years. Dialogues on

11¥cological themes are also considered inevitable for the development of the

1・clationship between the two churches. Xacatryan indicates some problems tha t

川ightprohibit m1 山 r蜘 standinin spite of the close relationship between th巴RussianOrthodox and Arm巴niarl

;hurches, no serious study about Armenian Christology has ever existed thus

far in Ru~sian theological study, and problems about the confession hav巴beenexamined only“superficially”1. The present article aims to reveal the reason for

this“superficiality" in the s旬dyof Armenian theology in Russia and to point out problems to be solved in theological themes for the development of mutual

understanding between the two churches. In order to deal with this problem, it is necessary to investigate the basis

of the study of Armenian th巴ologyin Russia. On this account, this article will focus on Nerses Snorhali. Nerses Snorhali is the only Armenian theologian and

saint who has a certain degree of recognition in the Rus~ian Orthodox Church. For instance, at the official meeting of three Patriarchs' in the Soviet Union,

which was held in Tbilisi and EJmiac;:in in 1950, the Patriarch of Moscow and

All th巴Rus’，AleksijI, in his greeting speech at EJmiac;:in Cathedral, mentioned N巴rsesSnorhali and admired his attempt at reconciliation between the Arme-

nian and Bvzantine Orthodox Churches3. Becaus~ of the intem1ption of theological sh均 duringthe Soviet e叫

Russian theology today is based on the heritage of Imperial Russia. The study ofNerses Snorhali by Russian theologians had reached a certain achievement in

the nineteenth century, after the annexation of Eastern Armenia by the Russian Empire. This article reveals the process of introduction of this great Armenian

theologian to Russian theological studies and the reaction to his works from

1 Xa'laTp朋 T.AHOAU3 HeKomopbは npegnoCblAOK6oroCAOBCKOTO guaAOI'Q PyccKOU

npaBOCAGBHOU u ApMRJ-lCKOU LJepKBeii. XpucmuaHCKOe 'LmeHue, 2009, N 29, c. 215. 2 The Patriarch of Moscow andペIIthe Rus’Aleksij /, the Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia

Kalis/rate and 1he Catholicos ofAll Armenians Gevorg VI. 3 >KypHGA MocKOBCKOI'O nampuapxama, 1950, N 9, c. 18.

68 K.H.αma diα

Russian theologians and clergy, through investigation of their works and letters.

In addition, since the development of Armenology in nineteenth-century Russia

cannot be separated from the political context of that period, the article is also based on historical resources about the politics of the Russian Empire regarding

Armenians and the EJmiac;:in Catholicos, examined by such historians as V.G. Tunyan and P. W. Werth.

From the beginning of the nineteenth cen印ry, Imperial Russia faced problems concerning the newly acquired territory in the Caucasus, inhabited by

various peoples and tribes with various confessions. In the Orthodox areas in

the Caucasus, Georgia and Ossetia, Orthodoxy was used as a method for

stabilizing the authority of the empire and for assimilation. The Russian

administration had rapidly proceeded with the “Russification”of the Georgian

Orthodox Church. In 1811, the Russian Empire abolished the Georgian Patri-

arch and established the Georgian Exarch, who belonged to the Holy Synod of

the Russian Orthodox Church. The sphere of Russification of the Georgian

Church was not limited to its structure, language, and education, but also

extended to its economy. V. G. Tunyan mentions that the plan of nationalization

of the property of the Georgian Church proceeded from 1840 to 18504. In

Ossetia, where the Alanian Eparchy had existed under the jt凶sdictionof the

Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople from the tenth to the fifteenth cen印ry,the

‘Committee of Religious Affairs in Ossetia" and its successor, th巴“Societyfor

the Restoration of Christianity in Ossetia'', built up an energetic campaign of

enlightenment and “restoration of OrthodoxyベRussianmissionaries built

schools and churches, where Russian was the dominant language, sent Russian

bishops to Ossetian villages or young locals to the Academy in Moscow or St. Petersburg, and distributed Russian Bibles or prayer books.

In the examples of Georgia and Ossetia, it is clear that Orthodoxy gave the

Russian Empire both the justification and the methods for the assimilation into

the empire of newcomers whose languages, culture, and ethnicity were very 出fferentfrom those in Russia. In the case of Armen

r巴lationshipbetween Orthodoxy and their faith was more complicated for

several reasons. First, the Am1enian Apostolic Church was not a branch of the

Orthodox Church, and it had different dogma, liturgical tradition, and organiza-

tion; therefore a more complicated process was required to adapt the Armenian

Church to批 Russiansystem of religious politics. Second, because of the lar唱

Annenian populations in Persia and Turkey, the Armenian Apostolic Church

was not just a subject of internal politics but was also a serious diplomatic

problem for the Russian autocracy. It should also be mentioned that in the

nineteenth cen同ry,with the decline of the Ottoman Empire, Western Great

Powers stretched out their influence into the Middle East. The Russian Empire

4 TyHSIH B. r. LfepKOBHGfl noAumuKa COM.agepJKGBUfl B 3aKGBKG3be 1801-1853, E., 2005.

5 Regarding the mi』sionin Osselia, see lieJI.兄esH. PyccKue Muccuu Ha OKpauHax, BAaguKaBKa3, 2008.

Nerses Snorhafi in nineteenth-c巴nturvRussiαn Theola笠V 69

hue! already acquired the right to protect the Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman

I ¥mp ire by the treaty of Kuchuk-Kainarji in 1774, and after the Catholicos of

HJmiac;:in came under the rule of the Russian Empire, affairs involving Anne-

nian Patriarchs in the Middle East also became some of the most important

diplomatic issues of the Russian Empire. It is well-known that the constitution regarding the Armenian Apostolic

:hurch－“Polo:lenie", promulgated in 1836, set a certain limit to the power' of the

ljmiac;:in Catholicos with enforcement of the power of the synod and the control

f the Chief Procurator. However, it is also true that

authority and sta旬sof the EJmia早inCatholicos.“Polo:lenie”emphasizes that the

EJmiac;:in Catholicos is the spiritual leader not only for Russian Armenians, but

also for Armenians abroad, allowing foreign participation in the election of the

Catholicos6. It also declares that the right of preparation and distribution of the

Holy Myron for the liturgy belongs only to the EJmiac;:in Catholicos. As P.

Werth mentions，“Polozenie”was carefully constructed to balance the internal

and diplomatic interests. The intention of the Russian government to retain the high authority of the Catholicos among Annenians abroad is seen in “Polo-

芝巴me’’．These two different aspects of the politics regarding the Armenian Apostolic

Church sometimes brought about a confrontation between the policies of the

Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MF A) and of the Ministry of Internal Affairs

(MIA). The policy of the MF A was to promote the authority of the Catholicos

and to strengthen the ties of EJmiac;:in with foreign Annenians, especially in the

Ottoman Empire, for the purpose of making them potential allies of the Russian

Empire through orders of the Catholicos. The MIA, on the other hand, intended

to assimilate Armenians, following the example of other Christian areas of the

Caucasus. This intention of the MIA is revealed as a secret project of union

between the Orthodox and the Armenian Apostolic Churches.

In the autumn of 1843, Catholicos Nerses Astarakec'i, for the pu中oseof meeting Czar Nikolaj (Nicolas) I, visited St. Petersburg, where he was forced to

stay until the spring of 1844 because of his poor physical condition. Before his

departure, the dir巴ctorof the Department of Religious Affairs of Foreign

Confessions in the MIA, V. V. Skrypcin, made a proposal to the Catholicos in

the name of the Czar about the “union of Armenian Church with Orthodox"7.

However, the Catholicos denied the proposal with“emphatic words”8, being afraid of causing any confusion and schism within the Annenian Church.

After Nerses Astarakec’i returned to EJmiac;:in in the spring of 1846, Minister

of Foreign Affairs Nessl’rode sent a diplomat, Aleksandr Nikolaevic Murav'ev,

to Georgia and Armenia in order to investigate problems regarding Christians in

6 Werth P. Imperial Russia and the Armenian Catho/icos日Ihome and abroad (SI口VICEurasian Studies. N 10. Slavic Research Center, University of Hokkaido, 2006, p. 209).

7TyH包R B. f.，もz.i・凶z/u 目，~£ 92: & LnLJb回 b'/_nLJ;

70 K. Hamada

the Caucasus. He traveled to Georgia and Armenia from 1846 to 1847, and

when he visited Catholicos Nerses at EJmiac;;in, he again brought up the proposal of union between the Orthodox and Armenian Churches. However, Nerses Astarakec’i, who was ve1y conscious of the problem of the division between Russian Armenians and Turkish Armenians, denied the proposal, which would make ~hat division more serious to an extent that would be impossible to restorey. Accepting the denial of union, Murav’ev returned to St. Petersburg and reported that it would be hard to realize the plan of union under the Catholicos Nerses and that it should be discussed when a new Catholicos was elected in the future. He also presented some conditions for the union: the fonnal elements-language, liturgies, ceremonies, and calendar should follow Armenian tradition, but regarding the dogmatic problem, the Armenian Church should accept the Chalcedon Creed of “two natures, one hypostasis" and should recognize the seven Ecumenical Councils. Murav’ev also insisted that the Catholicos of

EJmiac;;in s~1ould be given the same status of autocephaly as the other Orthodox Patriarchs •v.

However, because of the strain of diplomatic relations in the Middle East in the middle of the nineteenth century, Russian politics regarding the Armenian Church were inclined toward th巴policyof the MF A, and the plan of union was not undertaken in practice.

The main motivation for the union between the Orthodox and Armenian Churches was the political interest of the Russian Empire, but it should not be ignored that “church union" or the “unity of the Christian Church”was also an actual subject in the field of theology in that period. The ideology of the “unity of all Christians" appeared in thc time of Czar Aleksandr I, during the Holy Al・liance against Napoleon, and it continued developing in a philosophical context.

The idea of the “ecumenical church”developed in polemics between Westernism and Slavophilism in Russian philosophy, starting with Caadaev, who insisted that the Russian 01thodox Church should convert to Catholicism to become free from secular authority11. Slavophiles, on the other hand, considered Orthodoxy as the center of unity not only for Russia itself, but also for the whole ~orld. Xo1吋akov,whose ecclesiology is revealed in the work "One Church”へconsideredthe 01thodox Church as the only Christian church that preserved the apostolic tradition in the present day, because of a number of schisms, but he held that in future, the whole world should be united as One Holy, Ecumenical, and Apostolic church.

The concept of the“ecumenical church”or of the “restoration of Christian unity”was also discussed in the context of the relationship between Russia and

9 L，，ι.； f, ur lnz nιJ, ~－2 96: 10 L，凡.；f,"'"'z”，＿J;

11 Q11M6aena E. H. A. C. XoMnKon n 110AeJ11uKe CAann11ocjJUAon u pyccKux KamoAu-

KOB 110 BOllpOCQ/11 BceAeJICKOU L(ep悶 u.A目 C.XoMnKon: MblCAum白 b, llO:Jm, ny6AU・ t(ucm, m. I, M., 2007, c. 133.

11 XoMSIKOB A. C. L(epKODb ogHa, M., 2005, c. 3・47.

Nerses Snorhali in nineteenth-centurv Russian Theo/o史V 71

the Christian East. It was pointed out in the previous chapter that the Russian Empire in the nineteenth centu1y actively committed to the expansion of its inf1uence among Christians in the Middle East. The Russian Orthodox Church also played an important role in strengthening the ties between the Russian and Eastern Patriarchs. For example, the Russian Religious Mission in Jerusalem was founded in J 84 7 for the pu中oseof the “visible unity of Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch and Russia and mutual contact"13, as well as for the protection of Russian pilgrims and Christians.

The intention of creating unity between the Clu-istian West and East was one of the main theological movements in the Russian Orthodox Cln』rchin th巴firshalf of the ninete巴nthcentury. The Metropolitan of Moscow, Filaret, was the person who presented the problem of East and West from the position of the Orthodox Church. As head of the Russian Orthodox Church and as a theologian, he believed in the potential of the Orthodox Church to unite West and East-unite the whole Christian world. Among his theological works, the interpretation of the prayer“For peace in the whole world, for the stability of the holy churches of God, and for the unity of all, let us pray to the Lord" （“O M11pe ocero MHpa, 11 6narocTOHHHH CB}!TblX 00>K1111x日epKBe凡 Hcoe.且11HeHIHIBCCX, 「oc『10.nynoMo肝 IMC河川4)very clearly shows that unionistic idea. He interprets the prayer as follows:

In this prayer "stability and unity" is wished not only for "holy ch町 ch邑Sof

God"-Orthodox, true, consisting the Ecumenicαi Church, for は αmple,Constαntinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Russiα，but αI.so for Churches de viαtedji-om Orthodoxy, for example, Cαtholic and Armeniαn Churches15.

Filaret insists that the reason why this prayer consists in two parts，“for the stability of the holy churches of God”and “for the unity of all'', is that the former is devoted to the Orthodox Churches, in which“stability”is already given, while the latter, on the other hand, is prayed for “all”， who are not included in the former part of the prayer-in other words, for the churches separated from Orthodoxy and for the restoration of their unity with the Orthodox Church16.

Following his unionistic intention, Filaret actively supported the project of union between the Anglican and Orthodox Churches, proposed by an English priest, William Palmer, who visited Russia in 1840 and 184117. Interested in the

11 A11conoi1 H. H. PyccKoe qyxon11oe u noAumu吋ecKoenpucymcmnue n Cnnmou

3eMAe u 110 5Aux<11eM BocmoKe n XIX －』!011.XX DD.，β1., 2006.

14 Cmn11TeAhφ11AapeT・M11TponoA11TMocKoncK目前.M e•1 AyxonHblii, M., 2010, c. 448.

is L，，ι，1, urlnz”，＿，f;

16 l，，凡・JJ'"''"l"'-''・ ~2 41.9: 17 Regarding tlte problem of 11nio11 wi1lrバng/ica11Ch111叫， seeCl'<mpnona Ji. IO. Mumpo・

llOAUm MOCKODCKllUφUAapem u K011maKmbl c npegcmanum創 11111u3a11ag1-11>1x KO』tφec-

cuu n cepegu』reXIX n.: no go勾！Me』1maft1poccuiicKux apxunon (Ome'lecmne11ttb1e ap-

XUBhl, M., 2010, N 4, c. 28・33).

72 K. Hamada

issue of union with the Anglican Church, Filaret invited Palmer to visit, and he answered some of Palmer’s questions. At this meeting with Palmer, another important person, Andrej Niko!aevic Muravyov, was present.

Muravyov ( 1806ー1874)is famous as the author of A Travel to the Holy

Lαnd, which was one of the best sellers among Russian intellectuals in his period. He is also known as an initiator of cl.~se ecclesiastical and diplomatic connections between Russia and the Near East ＇~ . During his service at the Asian Department of the MFA from 1832 to 1858, Muravyov devoted himself to affairs concerning the protection of Eastern Christians and their property and to support of Eastern Patriarchs. His diplomatic affairs were motivated both by his ideology of the unity of the Christian Church and by his Slavophilic thought. He made a statement that “Orthodoxy is th~ life of Russia and it unites e~9h part of her immeasurable entity not only from inside but also from outside＇＂~. He was sure that Russian Orthodoxy united all Russian people and also all Christians, divided by national or political antagonism or by theological schism. He also insisted，“only Russia can and must be charged with the great religious mission to be a mediator of West and East ... "20 Muravyov is the theologian who best represents the ideological movement of the“ecumenical church”in the time of

Metropolitan Filaret. In such a unionistic view, union with the Armenian Church, which became

one of the largest non-Orthodox Christian communities in Russia, was a theme worth discussi時 Itis not strange that Nerses Snorhali, who tried to unite the Armenian and Orthodox Churches, attracted the concern of Russian theologians of that period. The political interest of the Russian Empire in the Christian East and in the“ecumenical”atmosphere of Russian theology in the period of Filaret prepared the foundations for the acceptation of Nerses Snorhali by Russian

theologians. In Russian medieval literature, the “Armenian l~eresy” was one of the typical

examples of unorthodoxy, as seen in a work of Maksim Grek21. Because of the branding of heresy, Armenian theology was not a subject of investigation in Russian theological study for a long time.

Nerses Snorhali appeared in Russian literature almost at the same time as Armenian typography was founded in Russia by Grigor Xardaryan in St. Petersburg. In 1786, the printing house of Xardaryan published“Prayer of

IX c~rnpHOBa 11. IO.φo』1gA. H. MypanbeBa B omgeAe pyKonuceii PoccuiicKoii

rocygapcmne1moii 6u6AuomeKu u ero nocmoKoneg•iecKu ii nome』H{UαA(Ome•iecmnen·

Hbre apxuahr, N 4, M., 2010). 19 Mypan&eB A. H. MblCAb o npanoCAanuu. 1'13 nymewecmnu11 KO cn11mi,1M MecmaM

pyccxuM, Cn6., 1894, c. 9.

10 Mypan&eB A. H.刀Ononpocy o coeguuenuu I..JepKDu, C刀6.,1866, c. 7. 11恥1aKCHMfpeK. CAona npomun ap11111HcKoro 3Aonepu11目 Co•wue1-iu11 npenogo6110ro

β1aKcu~ia I'peKa B pyccKOM nepenoge，可， 2，β1..1910, c. 9.

Nerses Snorhali in nineteenth-centurv Russian TheQ/()J!Y 73

Armeniαn Pαfriar，ι・h Nerses’tran』・latedinto R川 sianρfrom the theological point of view, it is more important that Ners巴sSnorhali appears in “The Descr伊tionof the faith of the Armenian Church”， translated and published by Hovsep Argutyan (Iosiv Argutinsko・Dolgorukij)in 1799. ft was published in St. Petersburg and presented to Emperor Pavel I. In the prologue of the book, Ar忠Jtyanexplains the reason for the publication. First, it was published for the purpose of the religious education of Russian Armenians, and second, it was published to demonstrate the apologetics of the teachings of the Armenian Church, exposed to“improper accusation”23. The content of the book consists of a translation of the creed of the Armenian Church and annotations for the creed, in which Argutyan quotes the words of famous Armenian theologians-apologists such as Grigor Tatebaci, Nerses Lambronaci, and Nerses Snorhali. However, in spite of Argutyan’s close relationship with Russian administrators and hierarchs, it seems that his book did not attract a great deal of attention among Russian intellectuals.

The Institute of Eastern Languages, founded by Armenian millionaire loan Lazarev (Hovannes Lazaryan), played an extremely important role not only in the development of education among Armenian youth but also in the promotion of Armenian culture and history among Russian intellectuals. Jn 1830, Prayers of St. Patriarch Nerses in 12 languages; Armenian, Russian, Greek, Georgian,

Serbian, French, German, English, Latin, l!alian, Hungarian and Turkish was published by the Lazarev Instilllte. Some articles about the histo1y of the Armenian Church were also published in the journal of the MIA.

It is also n只cessaryto mention that in the nineteenth cen刷ry,meeting with the Christian East promoted the development of Byzantinology in the Russian Empire. The rapid development of the philological and historical study of Byzantium also inspired Russian scholars. Russian Annenology was founded by the Russian-Armenian intellectual circle, formed at the Lazarev Institute, but the history of Armenians, because of its involvement in Byzantine history, attracted Russian Byzantinists. From the series, Ser伊forum veterum nova

collectio (ten volumes, 1825-38), edited by Catholic Cardinal Angelo Mai, one text entitled“The second deputation of Theorianos with Nerses, Catholicos of Armenians"24, provided an opportunity to Russian Byzantinists to study Nerses Snorhali. In 1847, A. K. Sokolov published an article，“Contact of Armenian Church with Eastern Orthodox Church regarding the union in twelfth

11 Hepcec lllHopaAH・MoAumnaHepceca apMRHCKoro nampuapxa: nepenege11a c

apMFl/ICKOrO 110 pyccKuii fl3b1K, c刀6.,Y I'puropu11 XOAgapona, 1786.

13ApryTHHCKH必－AoAropyK目前， Uocuφ，ApxuenucKon.11cnoaeganue xpucmiw11cKoii

aep1,1 ApMllJlCKOU I..JepKDU, Cn6 .. 1799 rnepeu3ga11ue. Pocmon・Ha・Amiy, 2001), c. 5・7.

14. Theoriani disputatio sec1111da cum Ner』etePatriarha Generali Ar111e11iorn111 （θEWplαvou Ilia）、ESI<;0£U!Epα~1i;·ra Noocpoou kαOo入！KOUτwvAp~1£v1wv). Maio, A'. Scriplommνete円 1111nova

col/ectio e Vaticani.1・ codicibus. To11111S VI. Romae. 1832.

74 K. Hamada

century”25. It is an abridged translation of Mai’s text of“Deputationヘandthe author does not express any personal opinion. A more important article

concerning“Deputation”was written by A. N. Murav'ev who, as mentioned above, was involved in affairs of union between the Orthodox and Armenian

Churches. After 印 刷ming合omhis trip to the Caucasus, he published a record of the trip under the title of“Georgia and Armenia”（in three volumes, 1848), in

which he devotes pages to a chapter，“Disagreement of Armenian Church with Orthodox Church"26. Though Murav’邑vdoes not mention the names of sources,

except for the Mai version of “Deputationヘitcan be supposed that he refers to the Greek sources regarding Armenians，“Pho ti us’letter to Catholicos Zacharias of Armenia" and “Narrative about A1meniaぺwhichare records about affairs of

union between the Byzantine and Armenian Churches. He gives his opinion that the political situation of the Annenians in the fifth century as well as etlmic antagonism between Greeks and Armenians caused the schism between the

Orthodox and Armenian Churches after the Council of Chalcedon. He also

mentions that the“imperfection" of the Armenian language for the correct

understanding of Greek theological terms like “nature”or“hypostasis” prohibited Armenians from accepting the dogma，“two na同resin one hypostasis

of Christ”27 But he does not call the Armenian Church“heretical”， and he

expresses his respect for Nerses Snorhali on account of Snorhali’s having reached agreement with the Orthodox Church on the dogmatic problem. Nonetheless, for Murav'ev, 01thodoxy is the only true confession, and he criticizes the Armenian Church because it still adheres to the expression“one nature”and denies the Chalcedon Creed.

Now it is necessary to mention another important person, who discovered

Nerses Snorhali in a different way: Porfirij (Konstantin Aleksandrovic Uspenskij, 1804-1885), a Russian bishop, who played an extremely important

role in the religious and political affairs of the Russian Empire in the Christian East as a founder of a Russian religious mission in Jerusalem. From 1842 to 184 7, he stayed in Jerusalem and traveled to the ancient centers of the Christian

East, lstanbul, Cairo, Athos, and Sinai, collecting ancient icons and

manuscripts. At the same time, h巴 activelyhad contacts with non-Orthodox Christian clergy. His first contact with Armenian clergy was in 1833, meeting

with Nerses Astarakeci, who at that time was in Kishinev28 as the bishop of

Eparchy of the Armenian Church of Bessarabia29. During the mission at

15 COKOAOB A. K. CiwweHUR ApMRHCKOU L(epKDU c Bocmo•lHOJO npaBOCJ¥QBJ-1010 0

coegune11uu B Xll BeKe. npu6an11euuR K TBopellURM CB. Om40B, N 5 (67), K』~ . 1, M.,

1847, c. 88-154.

26 MypaBLeB A. H. Tpy3UR u ApMemrn, lf. 2, cn6., 1848, c. 206-256.

17 ＇（，，，ι-J !1 '" lul nιJ, ~£ 211: u The Armenian Eparchy of Bessarabia was founded in the fer.川＇to1y,annexed by the Russian

Empire a）的 theRussian－η1rkish war ( 1806・1812).511aromnopume!lbHblU JKYPHC!J¥ HOBO-

Haxu•1ena11cKoii u PoccuiicKoii Enapxuu AALJ, 2006, N 4 ( neC11a), c. 67.

19 ABrycTHH (HttKHTtt). ApxuMangpum. ApMRHCKan AnocmoJ¥bcKan L(epKOBb IJ

mpygax EnucKona nopφupun (YcneHCKOro). XpucmuaJICKQR Ky.t¥bmypa. nywKUJICKQfl

Nerses Snorhali in ni1凶 eenth-centurvRussian Theolof!V 75

1内11sulem,Porfirij many times visited Zakaria, the Armenian Patriarch of

11•111salem. In 1860‘he traveled to Cairo, and there at the cathedral of the Coptic I ht1帥 ，heparticipated in the Ii叩 withArmenian and Coptic bishops and 1 l1•1’gy. At the meeting with the Armenian and Coptic bishops, he declared that tltl＇八rmenianand Coptic Churches were not heretical, and he revealed his will tu unite these churches with the Orthodox Church30. His ecumenistic intention wns quite radical, even in cοmparison with other unionists. In the 01thodox

unionists’view，“Monophysites’＇， though they could not be called “hereticalぺNI rnyed from theれ・ueway by some unfortunate accidents, for which the) I

the wuy by union with the Orthodox Church. Metropolitan Filaret, whose unionistic

1111cntion was mentioned earlier, criticized Porfirij’s attempt at uni？~ with non-( 'halcedonic Churches because he felt that it might cause susp1c10n among ！ ~astern Orthodox Christians，“the true brothers" of the Russian Orthodox

（‘hurch31. Porfirij’s view regarding the Armenian Church is shown in his lecture in

八u忠1st1856 for an aristocratic lady32. He explains that the reason for the schism was not the “declination”of the Armenians but the political antagonism

between Greeks and Armenians, and he explains that Armenians should not be 33

blamed for accepting Monophysitism . The most important fact for the present article is that Porfirij“discovered"

Nerses Snorhali in his own way. In his 12 February, 1846 letter to Antonij, the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, he informs the Metropolitan that he has disco-

ered the Greek manuscripts, which should be considered good exaiηpies of the

“Arn Rom巴，，.To the letter he attached a copy of following manuscripts :

I. Greek Czar Manuel’s letter to the Armenian Catholicos Nerses 2. Theological dialogues between a theologian, Theorianos, and the Catho-

licos 3. Nerses’reply to Manuel He requires the Metropolitan that someone proficient in Greek sho~Ild

translate the manuscripts into Russian. He also expects that the Armeman

3noxa (no Mamepu似 QMmpagu4UOl!llblX xpucmuaHCKUX nywKUHCKUX叩 eHUU.,IJbtn.

13, cn6., 1997, c. 110.

JOもnLJf,mb'l＂ιJ, ~£ 316-317: 31 AMHTptteBcKHH A. A. PyccK白RのなOBHOflMUCCUR B UepyCQJ¥UJlle. cocm. u anmop

npeguc11. H. H. J¥uconou, M., 2009, c. 143. _

n IlopφHp目前（YcneHCK目前）.3anucKa pe•m KφpeUAUHe 3iillep B QBIγcme 1856

raga・A11eBHUKt1uαnmo6uorpaφu•1ecxue JanuCKU Enucxona nopφupun YcneNCKoro,

m. 7, C刀6.,1899.

）） も，，ι.；11u1b'lnιJ, ~£ 33: J4もnιJLmb'lnLlf, ~£ 166: 35 Unfor

1101fo11nd yet.

76 K. Hamada

version of these texts should also exist among the Russian Armenians, insisting on the necessity of comparing the Greek and Armenian versions36

Here it is necessary to note the difference between Mur v'ev and Po凶rij,each of whom“discovered”Nerses Snorhali in his own way. Murav'ev’s view is based on the fact that the difference between the Armenian and Orthodox Churches clearly exists, even though the cause of the schism is political antagonism rather than theological polemics. Consequently, he insists that for the realization of union，“correction”of the difference would be inevitable. Por日rij,on the other hand, has a more“ecumenical" view that since the differences between the two churches are only superficial, they agree with each other in essence, and there is no ne巴dof special preparation before union. However, each of the men was on the side of the Orthodox Church, and it is true that they considered union as a“retu1百円 ofthe Armenian Church to the O巾 odox.It is notewo仙 ythat Nerses Snorhali first appeared in Russian theo・logical study during the process of discussion about union, since this fact determined the direction of the study of Armenian theology in Russia in the fuれl!'e.

It has already been mentioned that in the first half of nineteenth centwy, Lazarev's circle made efforts to found Am1enology in Russia, and some Russi-an scholars became involved in studies about Armenian history and the Arme-nian Church. One of the reasons for th巴developmentof study about the Anne-nian Church is that the “Polofonie”of 1836 guaranteed the equal treatment of the Armenian Church with other“foreign confessions”. However, it is also true that the stereotype of “Armenian heresy”was still deeply rooted in Russian theology. This contradiction appears in the famous petition of Catholicos Hovannes Karpeci to Czar Nikolaj I in 184137. In the beginning of the letter, the Catholicos points out that a book published in 1838 described the Armenian Church as the “heresy of Arius", and he required the tightening of censorship in order that any libelous description of the Armenian Church should not be published. The petition was sent to the synod through the Department of Reli-gious Affairs of Foreign Confessions in the MIA and was discussed by mem-bers of the synod. Consequently, the claim of the Catholicos was considered by the synod to be justifiable, and one order was issued in the name of the Ober-Procurator: Since there is no Russian book that describes the true teaching of the Armenian Church and could be the standard for censorship, the Catholicos should designate a proper description of the teachings of the Armenian Church38.

However, because of the death of Catholicos Hovannes in 1842, the order was not fulfilled for a long time, and in 1847, the MIA again ordered Catholicos Nerses Astaralく巴C’lto present the book about the confession of the Armenian

36 も，，Lj~l mbrz，，ιJ:

37β1ame1wgapa11，φ. Apxuu KamoAuKocama, on. 126.

38も，比-JLmb1z，，ιJ:

Nerses SnorhαIi in nineteenth-centurv Russian Theolof!v 77

1 'hurch39. On January 13, 1850, the Catholicos sent a letter to the MIA, expla-111i11g that the letters of Nerses Snorhali were the “perfect and satisfying”des-, 11ption of the faith of the Armenian Chur℃h and that they should pr?nvide ll'llders with a deep understanding concerning the dogma of the church.~v He ulso sent to the MIA and to the synod a book written by Aleksandr Makarovic '<udobasev with the title, Histor

C 'hurch, concerning theれぽlflhcentur/1, consisting of a Russian translation of lhc Conciliar Epistle （かnuzfff!.1＇’1:C.wfirwltw1142) of Nerses Snorhali. Since 1hcy were presented to the synod through the MIA by the Catholicos, Nerses ~norhali's epistles attained the status of the “official”reference for the con fes-

sion of the Armenian Church. The translator Aleksandr Xudobasev was a Russian-Armenian who worked

us a translator and a diplomat in the MIA. He was also known as the linguist who composed the Armenian-Russian dictionary. He devoted his passion to the promotion of Armenian culture and literature in Russia. The important point to cmphasiz疋 isthat he also aimed at union between the Orthodox and Armenian Churches. ln a letter addressed to Xudobasev from a professor at the St. Peters-

r ・ ,,43 burg Academy of Theology, he is described as“the only promoter of union As a unionist, he actively tried to discuss the matter of union with Russian theologians. It is noteworthy that Xudobasev published his opposition to the desc1ゆtionof Murav'ev about the Armenian Church in the book, Georgia and

Armenia44. He criticized Murav'ev on account of the fact that his knowledge about Nerses Snorhali was based only on Greek sources45. On the other hand, Xudobasev also had friendly connections with Russian theologians, as discussed in the next chapter.

It is not our present concern to examine the work of Nerses Snorhali itself in detail, but it is important to indicate one particular problem in Xudotヲasev’stranslation. Though he was an experi巴ncedtranslator, he was not a specialist in theology, and inaccuracy in the translation of theological terminology is sometimes found in his works. Above all, his translation of the word λ：ailwmn ({u山 凡 finL1ffi)might be an obstacle for the correct unde凶 andingof巾Christo-

logy of Nerses Sno1・hali.The word xainumn is used by Nerses Snorhali to

explain the miracle of the Incarnation, the mystical connection of the Divinity

39 Mame11agapaH，φApxuu J¥a3apeBblX, n. 136, eg. xp. 555.

40 t，，ι-jfl t11flr£llLlf:

41 XyAo6awen A. M. Ucmopu•1ecKue naJ11mn11uKu uepoy‘1e1rnn ApMRl-lCKou LfepKDu, OmllOCfl川uecnK Xll cmoAemwo, cn6., 1847.

41 The Conciliar Epistle of Ne rs es Snorhali was published in St. Petersburg ( 178司｝，Istanbul (1825). 勾・川icu,:in{1865) and Jerusale川（1871).Xudoba.¥'ev 's translation is based on the version,

published in SI. Pe1e1:sb11rg (1788).

41 LuιJft 111/ul11L1f:

44 See clwpler 2・I.45 XyAo6awen A.ルI.npauga 6ecnpucmpacm1wro ApMJlllUllG 0 nmopoil •wcmu

nocAeg11ero co刊 11e11unA. H. MypcwbeBa, uJgmrnoro n 1848 rogy nag 3arAauueM:

“rppun u ApNelltlfl”. Cb111 ome•1ecmua, C刀6.,I 849, c. 8.

78 K. Hamada

of Christ with his body. As S. Stanbolc’yan mentions, in the Armenian Church,

the term xainumn has a special meaning, as the translation for the word

“σUyKpασl＜；ヘ usedby Church Fathers to explain the unity of Divinity with the

body46. Xat'numn is also used in Armenian translations of ancient Greek

cosmological texts. In the Armenian version of Cosmos by Aristotle de Mund,

xat'numn is used as the translation for the term“Kpασlピ＇， a mixture of two contra1y elements that consists of the whole world, in which opposite elen;~nts or principles do not perish but are preserved in a harmonic system of nature引．

Xat'numn is one of the key concepts in the Christology of Nerses Snorhali.

He defines the Incarnation of Logos as an unknowable “mixture”（xa所umn)~f the Divinity with human nature, which Christ accepted from the Virgin Marγ．．。

It should be emphasized that h巴 separatesthe “mixture”as xat'numn from the “mηixture" in the Monophysite's concept of the Incarnation, in which the human

nature is overwhelmed by Divinity and perishes, expressed in the Armenian

word Sp’of’umn c2i.pn~nu.flt)49. However, it seems that the semantic difference

between these two words had already been lost in the nineteenth cen旬ry.In the

Armenian-Russian dictionary, edited by Xudobasev himself, both xainumn and

sp’of’umn are translated into the same word, smesenie (mixture). Similarly, in

the translation of Nerses Snorhali, Xudobasev applies the word smefonie to

xathumn and also to sp’of’umn. This inaccuracy in terminology caused a certain obscurity in the Russian translation ofNerses Snorhali and led to misunderstan-

ding by Russian theologians. Xudobasev's achiev巴mentin Russian theology is not only the publication of

the translation of Nerses Snorhali. Xudobasev also had active dialogues with

Russian theologians concerning the Armenian Church. His effort brought about quite a positive reaction in the circle of theologians in St. Petersburg. First, it is

clear that Xudobasev discussed the matter of union with Nikanor, a professor in the St. Petersburg Academy of Theology. In 1852, l、Jikanorsent two lett巴rsto

Xudobasev50. In one letter, he admired Nerses Snorhali，勾yingthat“he can be

compared with Basil the Great or Gregory of Nazianzus”へandin the other, he expressed concerns about the matter of union. In Nikanor’s opinion, it would be difficult to realize a union between the Orthodox and Armenian Churches

immediately, because it was still the case that few people agreed with the idea He proposed some solutions: I) to educate A1menians, who agreed with union,

46 'i,unf叫ん，L/1,d-P FfU小 4凶 J-pjnL＇［山L't"'ltwf,bltl”＇l"9凶 l1wLp凶 b山知nιf';nLL!ihp,

Up. L勺，，小，b心，t;u’Lfi,'l-f'Ulf"'t1!19山l＇＂＂＇［＇＂ ’［＇凶 Fflu’［＇＇t'fmLb9 ljf,,t"' U，，山Jpnl9J"'LI!.

fとt’Ff1111/Jl1f1,2011, ~－f 21): 4! Aristotle de Mund. On the Co』，nos.F11r v’D. J. Aristotle, London, Cambridge, 1955,

pp. 378・379. g,,,,, ""t＂凶 ll・’山，，，，，.4,,lψιL t/...wi• ’t山’1＂吋’ if,,,,rl'L’ I;/• 1f bl'"""'Lnrzf1 bι 午川ι ＇／1U.!1t;u”zfi' I• ,f山，，／，f,,,"tl＇”ムF'I•，ιf,.p, •£/,11bu千lb 1833, 1;2 616:

4x ¥,Lrubu t'lin r~凶LP ， かnι＇Lf' l!.L'tt;,,,f,t山ftmi，，向lllLI，山，，1,.r,18刀， ~－2 89:

4Y Lnιif' wb1z”Lil, 1;£ 96: 50 PoccuiicKuii rocygapcmneHHblii ucmopu•1ecKuii apxun，φ. 880, on, 5, eg. xp目 394.

51 t，，ι，f, ＂＇＂’t”ι，・f:

Nerses Snorhali in nineteenth-century Russian Theola疋V 79

2) to educate the Armenian clergy, who were well acquainted not only with Orthodox theology but also with secular studies, and make them persuade the

Russian clergy that the “Annenian Church is not the heresy ofMonophysite, but its confession is as pure as that of Orthodox Church"52. He even recommended

“to choose two talented young students仕omthe Institute of Lazarev and send them to us to St. Petersburg Academy of Theology to finish the course"53

Among the circle of theologians of the St. Petersburg Academy of Theology, Gennogen (or Ermogen, and as a layman-Konstantin Petrovic Dbronravin,

1819-1893) actively dealt with the study of the Armenian Church. He was the author of the articles，“Short abstract of Armenian-Gregorian Church"54 and

“Teaching of Arrnenian Church”，published in the journal of the St. Petersburg

Academy of Theology, Religious dialogues (AyxonHaR 6ecegα）. Jt is note-

worthy that Gennogen, who had no knowledge of the Armenian language, was

provided materials directly by Xudotヲa~ev. According to Germogen's recol-

lecttion, Xudobasev, who was almost blind because of his old age, taught him th巴 Armenianalphabet and pronunciations and made Germogen read the book to him, and just by listening, translated it orally into Russian 5. Germogen also

ref en吋 tothe following Russian books: Letters of Net・・sesSnorhali, translated

by Xudoba~ev, <;reed of Armenian Church by Hovsep Argutyan (Iosif Argutin-sko・Dlgorukij）ペandDogma ofArmenian Church as Orthodoxy by Salantyan57.

On the basis of these materials, Germogen insisted that it was a misunderstand-

ding to consider the Annenian Church as Monophysite, because its teaching was, in spit巴ofthe difference in some expressions, the same as that of the Or-

thodox Church. However, he also criticized the fact that the Armenian Church

used the expression“one na札treof Christ”． In the 1840s, the Russian MTA made a proposal of union between the

Armenian and Orthodox Churches, but union was not achieved because the MFA considered that protecting the independence of the Armenian Church

would benefit the political interests of the Russian Empire and would strengthen

ties with Armenians in the Middle East through the authority of the EJmia平inCatholicos. However, the situation in the Ottoman Empire made the movement

toward union the more favored option among Orthodox theologians. It is well-

known that in the nineteenth century, Roman Catholic missions rapidly spread

that church’s own influence all over the Middle East, with the active support of

the French government.

51 t，，ι1 l, "'"'z，，ιd

5Jも，，ι1f,urh1znuJ「：：

54 Tep11ioreH fA06po11panw1). KpamKuii o吋epKApwrHo・TpuropuancKoii L{ep悶 u.Ayxon1wn 6ecega, N 45, 1858. Ero )Ke -Bepoy’1ettue Ap~mHcKoii l..JepKau. Ayxon11aJJ

6ecega, N 48, 1858.

55 "EpMore11”faAKllH A. K. npanoo.an』ian3m~uκ，wnegun, m. 3, /¥1., 2001.

Jd See Chapter 2・l57 U11.for/1111ate！）”the author has not succeeded yet to find this article.

80 K. Hamada

While the Russian MIA made the proposal of union between the Orthodox and Armenian Churches in the I 840s, on the other hand, the Catholic Church also tried to unite with the Armenian Church in the Ottoman Empire. In 1848, the Armenian Patriarch in Istanbul, Mateos Cxazyan, received a proposal of union from the Catholic Church. The activity of the Catholic Church in the Ottoman Empire became even more direct in the second half of the nineteenth century. With the strong int巴rferenceof the French government, the Armenian-Catholic millet was recognized by the Sultan AbdUlmecid I in 1860, and in 1867, the Roman Pope Pius IX ordained a bishop of the Armenian-Catholic Church in Cilicia58. The Russian government considered this affair as a counter-measure by Western governments against Russia, who tried to influence

Turkish Armenians thorough the EJmia~in Catholicos59. In addition, in 1868, Roman Pope Pius IX invited the Armenian Patriarch of Istanbul to the Ecume-nical Council of the Vatican, a meeting that did not come to pass because the

EJmiayin Catholicos Gever・8IV denied permission to the Patriarch60 Under these conditions, from 1864 to 1866 in “Byzantis”， the newspaper of

the Orthodox Church published in Istanbul, the Metropolitan of Cios, Gregorios, published the article entitled，“How can the union between Armenian and Orthodox Churches be realized？”. As V. G. Tunyan mentions, the union was proposed as a countermeasure against the rapid expansion of the influence of Catholicism among Christians in the Ottoman Empire01. In the article, Grego-rios proposcs concrete measures for the union:

l) Discuss the difference between Armenian and Orthodox Churches in advance and organize a commission, where various problems should be discussed in advance of union.

2) On the basis of the Ecumenical Church, the Orthodox Church should make a concession to the Armenian Church62.

Grcgorios insisted that the two churches should achieve agreement on secon-dary protヲlemsthrough the commission. Regarding the dogmatic problems, based on the fact that the Armenian Church also anathematized heretics who were anathematized in the seven Ecumenical Councils and that the Armenian Church itself was never declared as heretical in any Ecumenical Councils, G1・e-gorios considered baptism in the Armenian Church valid for the Orthodox Church. Gregorios also refers to the example of Nerses Snorhali, in which the Armenian Church reached agreement with the Byzantine Church, and he insists on the possibility of the realization of union in his days. Jn addition, he ru・gues that the Orthodox Church should allow the Armenian Church to continue using

JX Tymm B. r.γ10110JKe11ue”ApMRHCKoii L(ep悶 U 1836・1875,E., 2001, c. 113.

59 'i,，，ιJf' "''"L”ιd ~－2 114: 60も，，ιJf, "''"L”Llf 1;2 117二118:

61 L，，ιjjl m/71['1Ld ~－2 120: ~1 Tpuropuii, Mt1mpono11um XuoccKuii. KaKuM o6pa30M MOJKem ocyu1ecmnum1,rn

egm1e11ue apMRllCKOii u npanoc11anno-Kamo11u11ecKoii 4ep即 u(pyccKuii nepenog). Xpu-

cmllGllCKOe 11me11ue, cn6 .. 1868, c. 81 I.

Nerses Snorhali in nineteenth-centurv Ru;sian Theo/of!V 81

“one nature”111 their creed after the union, if only they declare their acceptance of the seven Ecumenical Councils and recognize that the Chalcedon Creed is also the true confession of Christian faith63.

In 1866, he also pu.blished another article，“About measures to achieve the union between Armeman and 01thodox Churches”， in which he refers to the dialogues bet~een Theorianos and Nerses Snorhali and tries to emphasize the ~11白川匂 6: of the Armenian Church. Based on the des叩 m of the rmem.an contession in the dialogue between Theorianos and Nerses Snorhali,

Gregonos concludes that the Armenian Church is neither Monophysite nor !heopassionist and伽 tthe chu仙叩ct仙 heChalc帥刊reedbecause of the "p.overty of their language, which ,r.revent them to understand the dogmatic des= 1ption of Ec~menica l Councils必 Thisarticle was trans t巴dinto Armenian

and published ~n an Anτ that the Arn

in Rt』ssia,but publication was not realized because of its prohibition by the N!IA, which was afraid to stimulate a nationalistic movement among Arme-nians.

Although the project of union by Metropolitan Gregorios was never discus-sed in political fields, it became ~n actual !ssue for Russian theologians after the publication of his works in Russian translation, in the journal of the St. Peters-burg Academy of Theology, Christian Readings, 1868-186967. I. Y. Troickij ¥1837-1901), in particular, actively dealt with the problem of union with the Armenian Church, becoming interested in the Armenian Church due to Metropolitan Gregorios’s articles. His concern was to inspect the possibility of nion between the Orthodox and Armenian Churches, proposed by Gregorios,

・ nd he began to deal with the letters of Nerses Snorhali, translated by Xudo-ba~ev. From 1869 to J 870, he serially published the article，“On the problem regarding the approach of Armenian Church to Orthodox Church"68, but he consider巴d~he problem of union too heavy to deal with in the article, and he continued his research in his doctoral thesis, published in 1875 under the title ‘The confession of Armenian Chu附 ，inscribed by T、forseCatholicos, on the request from God-loving monarch of Greeks Manuel必9.

6) <

b，，ιJli m／，’inL1f, l;f 811:

M fpHrop目前， 11111rp';,no1u1rX11occK11員・ O M叩似 k gocmuJKeHUJO egm刷 URAp-

M!l/ICKOll ll npaBOCAQBJ・『0・Kamo11u吋 CKoiiL(epKBu (pyccKuii nepeBog). Xpucmua11cKoe 11me11ue, cn6., 1868, c. 61.

6J l，札 Jf'111/ulnιJ, 1;2 81:

:6 Tym1リ r"no110JKe』Ill

7 See thejootnotes 60 and 62.

出 Tpo111.~KH必 M・ E. K nonpocy o c6，ぺt』」Ke1-1uuApβUIJICKOU L(epKBll C npaBOCAGBHOU.

均~；~；：ニ；：；J立』l~~＇ ~AJO~！~.：：二；~；1~：：~： ；；必：：；d， 』IQ可epma』－moe He附

co阿， Kamo11uKocoMApMRttCKuM, no mpe60Bmw10 6oroAio6oro rocygapR rpeKOB Ma-H戸lAG,C刀6.,1875.

82 K.Hamαdα

In this thesis, Troick.ij tries to compare the confession of the Armeniar 1

：：：：？必：~e:h；~~；l~~~ ~rt~~~~~a~！~.~~ with th巴Armenianlanguage. Troickij’s main pu中oseis to reveal the dogmatic

differences between the Armenian and Orthodox Churches. Though he sup~or-

he compares the doctrir of ti Arn the Mono向 s附 Hismethod of a州 mis to ir川明ethe ”m~：c…b

~；；：~：：~~；＇；ぷ：；：~：：＇.~~）~f~lむ；；i~~：：%~~l：：~~~~；ii；~·tic" indications and others like “two natures”，“one hypostas1s , and umon , as “O巾 odox"indications.十he“Monophysitic”indication,by Troickij's deftni-

tion also includes the word xainumn which is translated by Xudobasev as

；組問目指訳語Snorhali agrees with 0巾 odoxyin some aspec民 butat the same time ha s

elem巴ntsof Monophysitism, with which the Armenian Church has a tigh t

~~；~；；予；~o~ニ：；：？，I古；；：~~~~，；；~o ；~~ ~~~：~：at~a；~~：h~n：；立；：；口：；；：うSS~~：：：コ；ia:pぷ2もふ以芯に：：芯℃l~~＇~it~~eむ；0t~~~re1 ~s ~~1－~~ fぷ2： between the two churches, whereas Troick.ij insists on the existence し・

~~~~irr：！~~：s e't~~：~t~λぷ？っ：：：1；~·~st~~~~~：r~~~ ~；tよ~~；~ぷiロ

70 'i,nムJLU1b1z，，ιJ: npeguc1tonue.

71 t，，，ιJL川 b’znιJ,~2 98-103:

7｝ もnιJL111!11znιJ, ~2 175: 71もnιJLmluznLJ, ~2 331乙338:

Nerses Snorha/i in nineteenth-centurv Russian Theola位 83

dogmatic description74. At the same time, he reveals the quite optimistic

perspective that realizat間 1of the dogmatic union is just“a ma悦 rof time”75 Troickり，sth巴siswas defended at a public d巴bateheld at the St. Petersburg

Academy of Theology in April 1875, in the presence of some hierarchs and

professors of the academy. According to the record of the discussion, there were some Armenians in the audience76. At the beginning of the debate, Troickij

revealed his own stance that the schism of the Armenian Church should be understood in the context of the Christological polemics, not accepting that

political problems and interests were the main reasons for the schism and that the dogmatic problems were just seconda1y77. His effort received a certain degree of estimation from the commentators. However, I. V. Cericov, a profess-

sor of the St. Petersburg Academy of Theology and known as a distinguished scholar of ecclesiastical history, criticized Troick.ij's stance as“tendentious", saying that he overemphasized the“Monophysic”aspects in terms and expres-

sions used in the description of Nerses Snorhali78. Cericov gave the opinion that

Nerses Snorhali, preserving the doctrines and terms traditionally used in the

Armenian Church, tried to give them new 01ihodox meanings79. The record

informs us that Nerses Snorhali became a subject of discussion among Russian theologians in the last half of the nineteenth century.

From what has been discussed above, it is concluded that in the nineteenth century in Russia, Nerses Snorhali was examined by theologians, who enter-tained the idea of union between the Armenian and Orthodox Churches. Whether this idea might have been motivated by political interests, by pure

Christian love, or by the ideal of the realization of the“Ecumenical Church”， the issue of union led these theologians to study Nerses Snorhali, who was a

promoter of union with the Orthodox Church in the twelfth centu1y. The

unionistic concern improved the sta札isof the Armenian Church in Russian

theology, which had considered the church as heretical for a long time. However, since unionists explained the dogmatic differences between the two

churches as the consequence of “external” factors-political antagonism or differences in language-they were not interested in questions such as，“Why are

they different？” and they did not find any originality in the descriptions of

Nerses Snorhali. On the other hand, other unionists, who believed that dogmatic

differences did exist, from the Orthodox viewpoint, defined the“difference”in

the dogma of the Armenian Church as an“e汀or'',which should be corrected to

realize union in the future, and they did not find it important to investigate

erroneous doctrine. Therefore, it can be said that the idea of union raised

74 'i,,,LJL utf"l＂ιJ, ~2 339: 75 'i,，，ιJy，川 luznuf:

76 ny61tu 'll-lble npellUfl D C. -nemep6ypr℃Koii gyxonHoiiαKageJ1mu 06 ApMnHcKoil

LfepKBu (LfepKon11b1i1 necmnuK, N 17, Cn6., 1875, c. 2).

77 L，，ιJL 川 ＇l"LJ,~2 九8:川も，，ιJflmb1z11L1f, ~－2 56; 79 'i,，，ιJL ,,,f,,l”ιJ:

84

， ..

K. Hamada

interest in Nerses Snorhali, but at the same time, it prevented these theologians

from finding any originality. It is true that Nerses Snorhali himself was the promoter of union, and it is

impossible to understand his theology beyond that historical context. However,

it is also true that preservation of the traditions of the Armenian Church was

also the main concern of Nerses Snorhali, along with the achievement of

aπreement with the Orthodox Church. It still remains to be discussed what h巴

よdto change and what he tried to protect in the dialogues with the 0伽 dox

Church. From this viewpoint, it is necessary to examine his theology in his

original words and to understand it not on the level of terminology, but in

ぷnce.In addition, since in Russia Nerses きno削 ihas been the onl~ source

~：l;t~~~： ~1~t t~：r~~~：~l沼山山：：e~芯J~；~~： ＇~~＇；：ι：1・；ごうぷ：；コ；further investigation, in order to realize the "mu加al"understanding of the two

churches in dogmatic problems.

），じf'UじUC'l,ON.lllfl), XIX 'l-llf'fl fi.fil'、ullUStllltHlflll),fiMなBU),U℃S

4llUU'l-ll匂．（ちumjnGpw,Snljpn)

Uu中n中mu!2Lu，，凶/:J-fJ.nLU nuzrzwぜ’凶ιι よ凶J凶凡凶.［！hl凶白凶b hlthrzh9f1Lhlψp凶rztF凶V

'f:W{'j:::t uh[1凶作ゆL/7L ；；出向'f:np/:J-w~9nL{<IJ凶旬 、 ιnLU 凶uuu/_w/:J-凶p-wL ~~fl-

；：~~~；，~：；九九れに；~l~4／切！~－－：；J；~Lt；；ロ.~：·：！~~ ~~·· hL ＇［，~z.rL'l:nmhi h4hrzh9ρhpp却2＂－ 凶 um1／＿凶 /:J-wp-wL叫 wLhp紗 nunL{<IJ山方

ρLum/11 Ulj守 mwpwJ.u’jLnLflJl1ιLLhpf!_F凶g凶〈凶mh[nLh号F凶L9<;L凶Fιtf.np1nι/:J-nLJLhpf!_凶且凶2山'l:l'hlnL w1ベpwcfhl師nL{<IJnLfi／；凶江出2凶LnLJ:llju凶江rL-

~?J,:r;4 ~：;/L:f~~~·.－7+:;,}rな＇~~：~~~h；ぷ－~：UL'J：吹iス；こそψ凶，ιh4hrzh9f1L:

HEPCEC IIIHOPAAH B PYCCKO白TEOAOfliliXIX BEKA

AMAAAK. （刃ロOHl-151『 TOKJi!O)

PeJHJMe

HecMOTP冗 HaMHOfOBeKOBYIO CBH3h pyccKO訪日paBOCAaBHOHH ap-

削 HCKO負担OCTOJ'l.hCKORu;epKBH B pyccKO首 TeOAOfHHno ce目前 一

HeT 中yttAaMeHTaλhHhIX HCCAeAOBaim札口OCB兄凹eHHhlX apM佃 CKOH

u;epKBH・IloMHMO3TOf0 HMelOTC冗 orrpeAeAeHHhrepa3Hor11.acn凡 KOTO-

pbre B AaAbHeHUieM MO可「TBocrrperr兄TCTBOBaTbA珂aλ0円rAByx u;ep-

KBeH:. B C沼町 CKa3aHHOf0He06XONlMO Bb旧 日Tb3TH pa3HOri\aCH~ H

rrpeMOJKHTb. HX pe田 eHne. l1 ITOCKOAhKY Hepcec 山 HOP山 Obli¥

eAHHCTBeHHhIM peAHrH03HhIM Ae冗Tei¥eM,KOTOpbl註 6hli¥H3BeCTeH H

rrp阻3HaHpyccKO首 rrpaBOCAaBHO益 u;epKOBblO,TO HCCAeAOBaHHe OTHO-

国 eHH首 AByxu;epKBe首 CAeAyeTHa司aTb c~ H3Y可eHI羽 po;u王 Hepceca

illHopaAH B CTaHOBAeHHH 3THX OTHO田 eHHH.

Qlffifi.f-.品、~um~ ~ua Q.U'lt砂O~UluC

(XVIII 11・ 2-p11 q bu -1922)

IuUfl.US3U-b U. U.

XVIII 'f・ li.u, JftLt"-ftt，匂uimJnL/jlJuihi/_仙台fiUJbf!_,9,,Jjl1L見 Lft山 Jfc.山 J守山rzfl02山台E JbnL,J' /;(' 叫pli.JU1凶〈凶J bp~［＇叩’r funz.np 4b1impnl’E 匂．’7/nluft9C.bmn: OuJuiliJuih /,_ lbi/_wliu千z.nι4uitbpnLJqJJnLn.h凶 C.uij

•Lw丘凶見山4wtnL/jlJwh bz.uitui411L/jljuili C.wp山mli.nι,JI!.,C.n守h叩／，＿ trL-

F凶をuiliQ凶匂bpft許’叩ui9nul'f!.とEJft凶3-lift4wflnrzft4nunL/jljwh C.bm ゆ

く山＇Jmliftz.w千ni/_wJp凶匂b号b9ftli守山rzflo2UJ許φ凶空号山＇Jftli片山F山守fl'/!.:

4山m4ui"lbuXIX 'f・ I千b 4buρ 山JUh”vι/JJnLl’E q守山91ibl mi/_b9

l.U'l守山Jftli Jz.u中＇LJ/Jft 'luil'守山9J山b pt山守山ぜ凶凡nιJ: lFfttz.u. i"r2

'l-wrzpof山内号pbf.JblinLJhnL夜1uiJp勾ω句 wlib9ftp un9ft凶t叫凶b凶d-P11'l2凶 4wLnL｛＜ぞfnLLf!.許F 号山u叫 Jfhpu f[whnι/JJnLL, ,J山hp 11L Jft2凶を山江h.mp凶4山hnL/JJnLh，凶pC.bum山i/_nν

／’TILPJ’7LL Ii.. 山2許山pC.ft4 Jmwi/_npui4wLnL/JJnLL: Uui4u’JL mb'luil.山p-Jbp Q山回出p1_b9ftL 台nz.np d山6山見出を凶LnL/JJuiL, Lbp.f!ftL u，見h.mpn

'IP凶'li凶＆許，叫1_bp許， ft1 1Fbf 4凶勾d凶＆ d許f凶q守凶J許b 叫且ι師F許， 山pC.bu師凶守np/J-凶Q凶b 凶F卸

lllU，守F山b♂Fl.l'2叫b凶江nιP1凶bφn，ψψ，，LP，，ιttb1ψC.bm, np 凶L'fp山－

If IllιLnL,J l;p 守山'lf.Jo2出許φJz.w4nL{Ju’Jft1，守ftJ山守叩ム Ulj守 p.L山守山u

d山見nιd lip山師b'l叫 凶b /1L 4.凶d凶作w L Lbp'fpnLJLb沖合w:c.匂 －

,;,fpL，ザjl1LTl.b凶〈山J"rftPi山♂wL凶位 X刀II'f・会F号 4auftgJtnLJ l;p

'I f'hf.Jb LnLJh ,J凶4wp守凶4ftL,pLtf!. C.wjmbp ／；［’守b且 b凶作np守守山l'f9:1776 p・山JL C.uiuhnL,J l;p 600（，λft, 1812 p. 10000, 1868 p. 12000,

1898 p.' )1-12000, 1922-frL、3f!OOO-ft向＇h/t4ftu’J/tu. z.r2凶令山J♂許 C.wj

’・1-wrzpui4iutH1千 C.bm JpuiuftL}1: "Ihm.[! I; 4叫p/J-bl, np qJJnι且b叫〈叫Jt• l，山4z.nL/JJ凶bPi凶♂凶b山付師•LJ凶ltbl'I!. lip凶凶＆frt凶ぜら山ぜnpnLめ叫L

111/[tC.凶 JU1,j、4J，，ιfJJuiL凶＆ftc.凶,Jb,J凶凹nL{JjUl,j'f-(1776 p. 102.00{)...pg ~898 p.凶＇JL

1111¥bl /;[' l_11Lf’f bp匂 ［，＿ 4au山b守山,J'c.山uLblni340000-frY: ~－ ~nuJw­>111 C.u’1"1チ z.uinn'l pi/_ui♂凶hw41!. F山g凶mpnL,J I; qJJnLn.L山C.wjbpft

J’1,wJLnL/JJ凶 Jp，叫円Jfrb t4叩叫l'f9 z.brz1fblnι （puip♂bpfr 山内nLJ,/111111LL wJnLulinL/JJnLLbbp, om凶 puiJnι勾 u吋叩nLJfJLbp/,_ u叩 L)bph-

’i”ιJ/Jni/_, uu中u片 E’puiうh凶u師凶p4tapf!.叫昆山ihl♂山bぜ＂1凶pbpnL,J'b ，γIX 守. 1_hp2b1千t: l/uiphlft I; 4uip“ 'l • np凶Jumb'l 4.pJL凶を凶bnLJ4山ー

l’h 叩 E’z.wLw4nL/JJnLhht l1Lhb9bl OU1凶 F山 JnLU1p凶 p.[!bpLnL 4bt9w-

'I I＇：ρF山ぜ山9pl;p ~－ .P.nujUJLf!., bpp号pnLJl;p, np《ap!;11Lfチ2♂山'lUl.[!-），／，’I’t LnpwLnp f!.LmuiLfrεtbp t守山b t,J許wLwL, 9,.J子Ln.1φり C.u’Jbpt

>1111,111'l,J山b f!.hfJui9.f!ftL Jf;f位 守mLnLpb≫3:XVIII 'f • 五五F守 4hupb lb-

ゲ川，UIUJ4凶tUJιh.mpnL,J Lit山mblftl;p bi/_pn勾ω守山buipm山号F山匂Ff!.h号ー

I位。ub凶'i.i8., ~山J.12 f !Nfι凡f1pwhL fr l.1'2山Q凶＇JU1,;. 1, </..ftb'i./ii山，1893,~2 43: 111，小，，，i.山も '11.,Bnι2山d山田b凶L t;叫J~山4wL 9.JfrιιLb凶b，φ山l'f'l'1936, ~2 12:

~ •P•ou b山＼， 8., Ll｛・wlfu.,1;2 43: ’b，，ιJ），凹brznιJ',~2 28: