https://ror.org/04ttnw109Introduction
In the mid-19th century, the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire found themselves at a pivotal historical juncture. A subset of Armenian intellectuals, particularly among the clergy, had emerged as prominent figures of the time, demonstrating a profound sense of readiness and foresight regarding the imperative of striving for an independent –or at the very least, autonomous– Armenia. Among these was Mkrtich Khrimian, a prominent leader within the Armenian Apostolic Church. Underlining the degree to which Khrimian distinguished himself from his intellectual peers over his lifetime, Catholicos of all Armenians, Vazken I, evoked and adapted Victor Hugo’s famous quote in 1957 to proclaim that “every Armenian has two fathers, his own and Khrimian Hayrig”[1] . This assertion underscores the deep reverence and importance accorded to Khrimian in the Armenian collective consciousness, which has elevated him to the status of a revered symbol of the Armenian people.
As an esteemed spiritual leader, publisher, educator, and devout patriot, Khrimian Hayrik has been the focus of numerous studies on Armenian and Ottoman history, including several biographies written in Armenian that highlight his exceptional role as a historical figure[2] . The past fifty years have seen the publication of several new and original scholarly studies on Khrimian, especially since the 2000s. Hay Zhoghovrdi Patmut’yun, for example, offers a distinctive portrayal of this renowned cleric[3] , while Khrimian’s most comprehensive and extensive biography was authored by Kostandyan in 2000[4] . A burgeoning body of scholarly literature addressing Khrimian Hayrik has particularly begun to emerge in recent years. Within the Turkish academic sphere alone, Yavuz’s MA thesis offers a comprehensive exploration of Khrimian’s biography based on Ottoman archival materials[5] , while his select articles delve into specific aspects of Khrimian’s life and work[6] . Focusing on the role of religion in Turkish and Armenian nationalism, Tekkoyun’s MA thesis also examines Khrimian’s life and career[7] . Additionally, several scholarly works, in both Turkish and English, evaluate Khrimian Hayrik within defined thematic frameworks. For example, Güllü discusses Khrimian’s role and patriarchate term while presenting the history of the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul in his 2015 book[8] . Likewise, Cora examines Khrimian’s engagements as pertinent to the social and economic history of Erzurum/Karin in his 2016 doctoral thesis[9] . Among these various works, Richard Antaramian’s PhD, completed in 2014[10] and published in 2020, is particularly notable[11]. In this book, Antaramian critically reassesses traditional approaches to the history of late Ottoman Armenians and the development of Armenian nationalism. He offers a fresh perspective that challenges established academic narratives, focusing extensively on the life of Khrimian Hayrik and portraying him as an “Ottomanist mediator”. Over the past decade, there has been a notable increase in studies that cite Antaramian, echo his arguments, or contextualize similar figures within a broader framework. A prominent example is Dzovinar Derderian’s doctoral dissertation, which, inspired by Antaramian, examines four figures from Van—Khrimian, Srvandztiants, Tevkants, and Topuzean—and similarly characterizes Khrimian. In her analysis, she portrays him as a reformer, asserting that his activities were carried out not only in Van but also throughout the Empire[12]. This influence is evident in recent scholarship, suggesting that the interpretation of Khrimian as an Ottomanist mediator or reformer has become a widely accepted approach[13].
Khrimian’s historical portrayal in both Armenian and Turkish historiography has been characterised by a shared narrative that predominantly emphasises his nationalist character. Indeed, while Antaramian roots Khrimian’s identity in Ottomanism, this presents a divergence from prevailing nationalist narratives. This article delves into the enduring legacy of Mkrtich Khrimian, examining his pivotal role as both a prominent Church leader and an influential political figure. By comparing perspectives within Turkish and Armenian historiography, this study explores the two diametrically opposed views that Khrimian should be primarily viewed as either an Ottomanist or a nationalist.
Before delving into the specificities of Mkrtich Khrimian’s contributions and the diverse interpretations of his legacy, it is crucial to clarify the core terms that underpin this discourse—nationalism and Ottomanism. Understanding these concepts within their historical context not only facilitates a deeper compréhension of Khrimian’s actions and ideologies but also enhances our grasp of the broader socio-political dynamics of the period. Nationalism, in this context, refers to the ideological movement promoting the self-determination and political autonomy of a distinct group, where “self-determination” is not used in its post-World War II legal sense, but rather denotes a broader aspiration for communal autonomy and national self-expression. This manifested distinctly among various ethnic entities within the Ottoman Empire, while Armenian nationalism, influenced by European ideas, sought cultural preservation and, for some, political autonomy or independence[14]. On the other hand, Ottomanism was a reformist concept aimed at creating a cohesive Ottoman identity that transcended ethnic and religious divisions, promoting equality and unity in response to the empire’s internal crises and the external pressures of nationalism[15]. Armenian elites and the broader community responded to Ottoman policies intended to unify various ethnic and religious groups in diverse ways. Whereas some segments of the Armenian population, particularly those with reformist inclinations, expressed enthusiastic support, believing in the potential for genuine equality and reform within the Ottoman framework, others, especially revolutionaries, were far more sceptical, viewed Ottomanism as a strategic ploy designed to suppress their aspirations for autonomy or independence[16]. It is important to acknowledge, however, that a commitment to Ottomanism and allegiance to one’s ethnic or religious identity were not inherently in conflict with one another. It is certainly possible to identify historical figures who demonstrated a firm commitment to both Ottomanism and their ethnic identity[17]. However, the case of Khrimian does not appear to be one that can be appropriately evaluated within this particular framework.
Before addressing whether Mkrtich Khrimian should be characterised as a nationalist or an Ottomanist, examining his brief biography is essential. This biographical overview provides the necessary context to understand the evolution of his thoughts and actions within the socio-political milieu of the time. By tracing Khrimian’s early life, education, and key experiences, we can gain insights into the influences that shaped his ideological stance and subsequent role in Armenian and Ottoman affairs. This contextual foundation is crucial for an analysis of whether Khrimian’s legacy aligns more closely with the tenets of nationalism or Ottomanism.
1. Khrimian’s Formative Years and Ecclesiastical Rise
Mkrtich Khrimian, baptised “Little Mgrdich”, was born on 4 April 1820 in the Aygestan (Bağlar) quarter of Van, near the Hanguysner Surp Asdvadzadzin Church (Dere Kilisesi). His father passed away during his childhood[18]. While Lynch describes Khrimian’s family as affluent, involved in Crimean trade (reflected in their surname)[19], Ottoman archives present a more modest portrayal, suggesting pastoral roots[20]. Despite these discrepancies, his formative experiences, including education under his uncle and five or six years as a weaving supervisor, shaped his multifaceted perspectives and future impact on Armenian society[21]. Khrimian’s informal education took place in parochial schools on the islands of Lim and Ktuts on Lake Van and later at Varak Monastery, where he studied classical Armenian, history, and ecclesiastical literature[22]. His marriage in 1845 to Mariam, daughter of Hovannes Sevifgen, marked a significant turning point. The union, in line with Armenian custom, produced a daughter, Takuhi[23]. However, the tragic loss of both his wife and young daughter deeply affected him and influenced his future endeavours[24].
According to Peroomian, Khrimian’s brief marriage was followed by extensive travel, partly to evade military conscription[25]. After journeying through eastern Ottoman regions and a pilgrimage to Echmiadzin, he arrived in Istanbul in May 1848. Initially aspiring to further his education, he instead worked as a cobbler before becoming a teacher at a girls’ school in Hasköy. His impassioned lectures on the Armenian homeland earned him the titles “Hayastantsi Varzhapet” and “Vanetsi Varzhapet”[26]. Determined to visit Jerusalem, Khrimian saved diligently for a pilgrimage, which further cemented his status within Armenian literary circles. By 1852, he had gained recognition among Istanbul’s Armenians, granting him access to elite networks, including prominent families like the Ayvadians, Odians, and Balians. These connections, particularly with the Odians, proved instrumental in his later involvement in Ottoman public affairs[27]. Khrimian also undertook assignments for the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul. In late 1852, he travelled to Cilicia to research the Catholicosate of Sis, teaching at the Catholicosate monastery during his visit[28]. Returning briefly to Istanbul, he later returned to Van in 1853, where he paid homage at the graves of his wife and daughter. This act of devotion led to his dedication as a spiritual guide for his people[29].
Grieving the profound loss of his family, Khrimian turned to spirituality, deciding to pursue a religious vocation[30]. On 14 February 1854, he was ordained as a priest by Bishop Kapriel Shiroyan at Akdamar Monastery on Lake Van, becoming a Vartabed[31]. His tenure in Van, marked by enthusiasm and a close rapport with his community, was eventually marred by tensions with colleagues, prompting his return to Istanbul[32]. There, Khrimian became a preacher for the Patriarchate, residing in Üsküdar and gaining renown for his eloquent, patriotically charged sermons[33]. Recognising the influence of the press, he launched the periodical Artsvi Vaspurakan (The Eagle of Van) in June 1855[34]. However, weary of city life, he returned to Van in late 1856, establishing a printing press at Varak Monastery, where he resumed the periodical as its abbot [35].
In 1861, Khrimian was reassigned to Sourp Garabet Monastery in Muş, where he fostered a vibrant intellectual environment akin to Varak[36]. He launched another periodical, Artstvik Tarono (The Eagle of Muş), and established a school to educate local youth. His efforts earned him appointment as Bishop of Muş by Kevork IV of Istanbul in Echmiadzin in 1868[37]. While Khrimian contended with challenges in Muş, internal discord within Istanbul’s Armenian community led to the resignation of Patriarch Bogos Taktakian II. In August 1869, Khrimian was elected as the 71st Armenian Patriarch of Turkey by the General Assembly[38]. This position granted him significant influence within the Armenian community and a critical role in advancing its interests.
2. From the Patriarchate to the Catholicosate
During his tenure as Patriarch in Istanbul, Khrimian became widely admired for his philanthropic initiatives, which included fundraising for Armenian hospitals, churches, and other charitable institutions[39]. These efforts reflected his deep concern for the welfare of Armenians, particularly those in the provinces. He saw addressing their hardships as a moral and political imperative, repeatedly emphasising this priority in his public addresses. Armenian historian Sarkissian notes that Khrimian demonstrated an unyielding resolve to tackle these issues “either fairly or otherwise.”[40]. His speeches during his candidacy for the Patriarchate revealed a clear vision: “Do not regard me solely as the Patriarch of Istanbul; rather, I represent Armenia’s afflictions and wounds. While I am unfamiliar with the strategies employed by my predecessors in presenting Armenian grievances to the Sublime Porte, I intend to pursue a more efficacious course of action”[41]. This bold rhetoric signalled a departure from previous approaches, focusing on a more active engagement with the Sublime Porte on behalf of Armenian grievances.
Despite his popularity among many Armenians, Khrimian’s agenda and assertive style alienated some amiras, who viewed his actions as dangerously provocative. When their warnings were ignored, they boycotted assembly meetings, further escalating tensions. Their opposition angered Khrimian, who reportedly vowed to confront them individually and stated that “You will see! I will make the amiras know their place, and I will deal with each one of them individually until I destroy them”[42]. By late 1873, realising that securing their support was impossible, he resigned as Patriarch, announcing his decision to the Armenian National Assembly. Following his resignation, he was appointed as a preacher at Surp Krikor Lusavoriç Church in Kuzguncuk[43], where he also continued his literary and intellectual pursuits while closely monitoring developments regarding “the Armenian Question”[44].
The conclusion of the 1877-78 Ottoman-Russian War brought the Armenian Question to international prominence. The Treaty of San Stefano included provisions for Armenian protection, but concerns over Russian territorial gains prompted its revision at the Berlin Congress[45].
Aware of the considerable interests at stake, Patriarch Nerses formed a delegation led by former Patriarch Khrimian to attend the Berlin Congress[46]. Khrimian, selected to lead the Armenian delegation, prepared extensively for the Congress, travelling to major European capitals such as Rome, Paris, and London to lobby for support. In Berlin, he engaged in intense discussions with international diplomats, advocating for Armenian reforms. However, the Congress’s final treaty clauses fell far short of expectations. Upon returning to Istanbul, Khrimian delivered an impassioned sermon at Kumkapı, eloquently articulating his disappointment. Using the metaphor of a “paper ladle,” he lamented the Armenians’ lack of tangible power to secure their rights, a message that resonated deeply within the community[47].
In December 1879, Khrimian was appointed Bishop of Van, where he actively sought to implement the reforms promised at the Berlin Congress[48]. Through persistent correspondence with European powers and the Russian Tsar, he highlighted the “oppression and maltreatment” faced by Armenians and urged intervention. Initially, his appeals were directed to the Russian Tsar[49], followed by subsequent communications to the Queen of England, seeking intervention[50]. Between 1879 and 1885, Khrimian’s activities in Van, including his perceived connections with revolutionary groups, attracted Ottoman scrutiny. In response, the authorities transferred him to Jerusalem. However, Khrimian ultimately relocated to Echmiadzin, the spiritual centre of the Armenian Church[51].
In 1891, following the death of Catholicos Maghar, Khrimian was elected Catholicos of All Armenians with overwhelming support[52]. As Catholicos, he tirelessly fundraised for Armenian communities, advocating for their welfare and rights. His efforts were particularly focused on resisting Tsar Nicholas II’s Russification policies, which included confiscating Armenian Church properties. Despite numerous appeals, Khrimian was unable to secure an audience with the Tsar to address these grievances. Seeking alternatives, he approached Sultan Abdulhamid II, requesting the relocation of the Catholicosate to the Ottoman Empire. However, the Sultan declined, advising Khrimian to “maintain his current position” in Echmiadzin[53]. Khrimian’s approach reflected his belief that the Ottoman Empire, despite its challenges, posed a lesser threat to Armenian identity than Russian policies.
Visiting Khrimian in the final days of his life, the renowned Armenian poet and writer, Avedik Issahakkian, noted that, “Hayrik is ailing; his time is short.” Khrimian passed away on 29 September 1907. Reflecting on this encounter later, Issahakkian remarked, “While he may have been in the company of eminent individuals, to his people, he was above all a cherished paternal figure, known affectionately as Hayrik”[54]. Khrimian had become distinguished not only as a literary luminary but also as a multifaceted servant of the Armenian community. Assuming roles as varied as educator, author, poet, clergyman, bishop, Patriarch of İstanbul, and Catholicos of all Armenians, one of his most remarkable traits was his nationalism.
3. Hayrik’s Armenian Nationalism
Armenian writer William Bairamian asserts that “[b]efore the revolutionaries, there was Hayrig”[55], highlighting Mkrtich Khrimian’s foundational role in fostering Armenian nationalism. His influence is widely acknowledged within both Armenian and Turkish historiographies, which consistently recognise Khrimian as a pivotal figure in the development of Armenian national identity during the 19th century. This period saw Armenian intellectuals, including poets, writers, and clergy, drive a social awakening influenced by broader nationalist movements, with Khrimian at the forefront[56].
Armenian historiography often portrays Khrimian as a key figure in cultivating Armenian collective consciousness and advancing nationalist thought[57]. Nalbandian identifies him as the precursor to Armenian revolutionary organisations,[58] while Panossian underscores his influence on political thinking and the evolution of Armenian nationalism[59]. Libaridian highlights Khrimian’s shift from abstract nationalism to a more populist approach, connecting him to the broader liberation movement[60]. These perspectives frame Khrimian as a symbol of both intellectual leadership and grassroots activism within Armenian society[61].
Turkish historiography similarly acknowledges Khrimian’s impact, though interpretations are often more critical. Uras describes him as a fervent advocate for the Armenian Question, collaborating with rebel leaders and emphasising rebellion[62]. Gürün presents Khrimian as a vocal proponent of Armenian autonomy[63], while Kocaş positions him as instrumental in preparing the Armenian rebellion movement[64]. These examples highlight that many scholars view Khrimian as a precursor to the revolutionary movement or see his activism within the broader context of national identity formation and the struggle for autonomy. In addition to such perspectives, the last years have seen the emergence of a new viewpoint on Khrimian’s role and legacy. A departure from established interpretations, this innovative perspective has emerged from contemporary studies on Armenian history. When scrutinised in light of existing scholarship, as well as Khrimian’s actions and rhetoric, it offers further insight into Khrimian Hayrik’s true historiographical significance.
4. Nationalist-Separatist Cleric or Ottomanist Mediator / Proponent of Ottoman Integration?
A novel scholarly perspective on Khrimian, diverging from the above nationalist narratives, examines this significant figure through the framework of Ottomanism. Antaramian, the main proponent of this approach, challenges conventional interpretations by presenting Khrimian as an advocate of Tanzimat (reorganisation) reforms[65]. He argues that Khrimian aligned with Ottoman state authorities seeking to centralise governance and extend influence to provincial regions. According to Antaramian, Khrimian perceived Tanzimat policies as a solution to the challenges faced by provincial Armenians, including pressures from local Muslim power brokers and Armenian clergy. By gaining the support of Armenian bureaucrats and reorganising communal institutions, Khrimian is depicted as a vanguard of the Ottoman reform program. Most notably, Antaramian suggests that Khrimian incorporated local knowledge and culture into an “Ottomanist repertoire of action,” reflecting his strategic approach[66]. This so-called repertoire included imperial centralisation and legitimacy structures intertwined with religious, ecclesiastical, and provincial political semiotics. Antaramian elaborates that Khrimian and his clerical allies positioned the Armenian Church as a scaffold for imperial bureaucracy during the 19th century, using Ottomanism as a framework to achieve this. He identifies amiras as key collaborators with the Ottoman government and argues that Khrimian developed strategies rooted in imperial politics, focusing on the central state’s authority. These strategies, as Antaramian explains in somewhat abstract terms, involved “imperial ideology (centralization) and legitimacy structures, the entwined semiotics of religious politics (and its ecclesiastical and liturgical expressions) and provincial culture”[67]. His analysis attempts to clarify these ambiguous and challenging concepts through his scholarly works, in a bid to render them tangible and comprehensible to his readers. Derderian adopts a similar stance, showing how the discourses of clergymen such as Khrimian affirmed Istanbul’s centrality while shaping national sentiment. She argues that Khrimian’s efforts served both to shape “affective notions of the patria and the nation” and to render Istanbul “the centre of power” [68].
Antaramian further posits that Khrimian’s provincial familiarity provided a unique advantage in aligning with centralisation efforts. He suggests that Khrimian’s writings in Artsvi Vaspurakan prioritised land and agency, empowering inhabitants and assigning them an active political role within the centralising framework[69]. Nalbandian, however, contends that Artsvi Vaspurakan simultaneously contained nationalist rhetoric. For instance, articles include terms like “revolt” and messages advocating resistance against oppression, which contradict the Ottomanist discourse Antaramian attributes to Khrimian[70]. The journal’s content, published after its establishment in Van in 1858, reflects nationalist expressions between the lines. Phrases such as “If you don’t help your nation, what is another nation for?” and “The love of the nation is dear” emphasise national loyalty and unity, subtly promoting nationalism[71]. Additionally, it is referred to oppressive forces as a “dark gang,” implicitly criticising Ottoman authorities and calling for collective action. These elements reinforce themes of national awakening and resistance, encouraging Armenians to unite against perceived injustices[72]. Notably, the journal featured articles that called for unified action, reinforcing a sense of national consciousness and collective responsibility[73]. One notable article, The Prayer of the Old Women of Van, dated 1862-63, explicitly calls for “freedom for the Armenian nation”, highlighting Khrimian’s advocacy for Armenian libération[74]. Another piece discussing the “re-sewing of the national attire” metaphorically symbolises the revitalisation of Armenian nationalism[75]. Such language and imagery indicate that Khrimian promoted the preservation and restoration of Armenian identity, diverging from the Ottomanist framework. References to maintaining national symbols and culture suggest that Khrimian viewed nationalism as a living and dynamic force, rather than a relic of the past.
While Khrimian appeared to engage with Tanzimat reforms to advance education, cultural empowerment, and political organisation for Armenians, his ultimate aim seems to have been a form of Armenian self-determination—understood here as mentioned above, not in its modern sense, but rather as a quest for increased communal autonomy and national self-expression within or beyond the Ottoman framework. The opportunities provided by Tanzimat reforms may have been utilised as a platform to further nationalist goals, demonstrating the limitations of Ottoman reformism in addressing the growing momentum of nationalist movements in the 19th century.
As mentioned earlier, one of Khrimian’s notable qualities was his progressive approach in establishing the school in Van and fostering the education of his students. While his status as a progressive is unquestionable, there is a compelling argument against identifying him as an Ottomanist, as no evidence suggests that the teachers he trained or the students graduating from his schools adhered to Ottomanist ideals. Examining the profile of his most prominent student and assistant, Garegin Srvandztiants, provides valuable insight. In 1862, during the Zeytun uprising, Srvandztiants authored a lengthy article titled Let’s Begin Our Work Again. In this piece, he celebrated the courage of the people of Zeytun, urging them to persevere and remain steadfast in their struggle. He expressed the belief that everything should be sacrificed for the nation, with the hope that the nation would always hold such sacrifices in high regard. He also encouraged Armenians to persist in their efforts, even in the face of adversity, asserting that their perseverance would ultimately lead to success[76]. Such statements reveal no alignment with Ottomanist thought but instead reflect a clear nationalist perspective. This interpretation aligns with assessments of Khrimian’s own nationalist outlook. He has been described as embodying the spirit of his time, representing a new, resolute determination within the Armenian community. His influence extended to educating a generation of young Armenians eager to participate in their nation’s struggle for freedom, a movement that eventually contributed to uprisings and the emergence of political parties[77]. These elements collectively affirm the nationalist dimension of Khrimian’s ideology, distinguishing it from any Ottomanist alignment.
Likewise, an examination of the trajectories of students graduating from the educational institutions Khrimian founded highlights that many subsequently organised revolutionary committees and became involved in endeavours of armed resistance. According to Peroomian, these schools trained a generation of “future intellectuals” to assume the leadership of educational and cultural life in Vaspurakan. When “Ottoman maltreatment” became unbearable, these intellectuals spearheaded secret self-defence groups, organising the struggle for the betterment of Armenian life. Among them were prominent leaders of emancipation and revolutionary movements, such as the Tevkants brothers, Khoren Khrimian, Mesrop Papazian, Panos Terlemezian, Poghos Natanian, and Mkrtich Terlemezian (Avetisian)[78]. These individuals were notable Armenian nationalist figures during the 1880s and 1890s. Avetisian, for instance, was one of the founders of Armenekan, the first Armenian revolutionary political party[79]. The nationalist character of Khrimian’s publishing activities and the students he mentored are unequivocal. Perhaps Khrimian’s most renowned association with nationalism, however, is his famous sermon before the doors of Kumkapı Church in Istanbul.
5. Evaluating the Impact of the Iron Ladle Sermon on Armenian Nation
Khrimian Hayrik’s legacy is chiefly built on his famous speech, variously referred to as the “Sermon on the Sword”, the Iron Ladle Sermon or similar[80]. For many historians, the Treaty of Berlin and Khrimian’s subsequent speech marked a turning point in how Ottoman Armenians would advocate for and organise themselves[81]. This seminal sermon, delivered at the Patriarchate upon his return from the Berlin Congress in 1878, is the focal point for the nationalist ethos attributed to Khrimian Hayrik, as Dasnabedian describes it, one of the early signs of the coming revolution[82]. Symbolically laden, this address is widely regarded as a nationalist manifesto, resonating as a clarion call to action. To contextualise it within its broader historical continuum, the 1880s witnessed the nascent formation of organizations primed to undertake armed resistance in alignment with Khrimian’s vision, while the 1890s bore witness to the eruption of armed insurrections, epitomising the fruition of his ideological impetus.
Addressing the Armenian people directly, Khrimian recounted his experience at the Congress, where he had hoped to secure support for the Armenian Cause. He described the scene at the Congress vividly, likening the distribution of concessions to a cauldron of harissa (a traditional porridge), with representatives of larger nations wielding their “iron ladles” (or weapons) to claim their share. As delegates from Bulgaria, Serbia, and other regions boldly used their swords to claim their portion, Khrimian found himself armed only with a petition, which proved insufficient in the face of political realities where weapons spoke louder than words. He lamented the absence of Armenian warriors from Zeytun, Sassoun and other regions, emphasising the need for strength and self-reliance in achieving liberation. The end of his sermon is perhaps his most famous incitation:
“Fellow Armenians, you have certainly well understood what weapons could have accomplished and what they do accomplish! Thus, my dear and blessed Armenians, hailing from the provinces, when you return to the Homeland, as a gift to your friends and family, take them each a weapon. Buy weapons upon weapons –and then buy more. Before all else, place the hope of your liberation upon yourself. Give your mind and arms strength– a person must depend on himself in order to be saved”[83].
Later, Khrimian emphasised that the congress conveyed a clear message: strength dictates rights, politics is ineffective, and justice lies at the edge of the sword. He urged Armenians to embrace iron, asserting that their salvation could only be achieved through strength and determination[84]. Building on this point, Khrimian further urged Armenians to recognise the power of weapons in securing their rights and advocated that they arm themselves upon returning home, thereby highlighting the importance of self-defence and self-determination. He concluded by stressing the necessity for Armenians to rely on themselves for their salvation and liberation.
Antaramian offers a reinterpretation of Khrimian’s Iron Ladle sermon, challenging its traditional portrayal as a nationalist call for armed rebellion, territorial secession, and alignment with European powers. He argues that this view oversimplifies the complexities of Armenian political dynamics and Khrimian’s nuanced stance on violence. According to Antaramian, the sermon emphasised the Armenians’ aspiration to acquire arms for self-defence, a theme Khrimian had previously addressed during his tenure as Patriarch in his Report on Repressions in the Provinces[85]. While Antaramian frames Khrimian’s advocacy for armament as consistent with centralisation efforts, scholars like Koushagian and Payaslian highlight a shift in Khrimian’s ideology. They argue that after the Treaty of Berlin, Khrimian transitioned from supporting reforms to endorsing armed revolutionary nationalism, moving away from incremental strategies to champion national independence[86]. This ideological evolution underscores the complexity of Khrimian’s trajectory, raising questions about the alignment of his early stance on self-defence with his later nationalist objectives.
Khrimian’s expressions of sentiment, as elucidated by Ara Baliozian, resonate significantly: “Until when are you going to be butchered like sheep by the savage and ignorant Kurds? You are man! You have a pair of hands. Do you think you can have freedom without blood? Freedom will not be given to you as a gift”[87]. These words, underscored as they are by a fervent emphasis on independence, indicate a deeper aspiration for armed acquisition that goes beyond mere self-defence. Such pronouncements must be contextualised as characteristic of Khrimian’s nationalist ethos – a characterization echoed by many Armenian scholars. Indeed, Libaridian portrays Khrimian not solely as a proponent of imperial centralisation but also as a staunch advocate for the nationalist aspirations of his people. He states that throughout Khrimian’s career, beginning as founder and editor of Ardsvi Vaspurakan in 1858, and long before he came to be known as Hayrig, Khrimian had made occasional references to the need for Armenians to become armed. In 1861, he thought that the spirit of the times invited people to undertake revolution[88].
Khrimian’s own retrospective reflection on the sermon, articulated nearly a decade later, lacks clarity regarding the true nature of his call to arms. Seeking to address any confusion surrounding his sermon by denying any responsibility for activities it may have inspired, particularly those of the Hnchakian movement, Khrimian declined to elaborate on his intended message. Instead, he opted to clarify what his metaphorical language did not signify. In his address, Khrimian expressed his belief that nations often need to forcefully assert themselves to make their voices heard and gain recognition. However, he emphasises that he did not advocate for the Armenian people to achieve liberation solely through armed uprising or violence[89]. In short, Khrimian’s message in the sermon was intentionally vague, leaving room for interpretation.
While Khrimian refrained from explicitly elucidating his stance on arms, his interactions with revolutionary committee members sympathetic to armed resistance indicate a tacit alignment with such sentiments. These affiliations ultimately resulted in heightened scrutiny and his exile to Jerusalem. Moreover, insights from government reports of Khrimian’s conduct shed light on his disposition towards armed struggle. One such report[90] claims that Khrimian was observed circulating throughout the capital, urging and inciting people to armed action. He advocates acting against oppression, implying that the shooting of Derviş Pasha (aide-de-champ and senior advisor to Abdulhamid II) would serve as a symbol of rebellion, criticising people’s lack of foresight and suggesting that those who follow his advice will be blessed.
Other narratives surrounding Khrimian’s engagements with pro-armament Armenian revolutionaries also cut against assertions positing him as an advocate for Ottoman centralisation. For example, his harbouring of three Russian Caucasian Armenians subject to Ottoman surveillance for suspected involvement in “subversive activities” at his residence in Üsküdar, and his “clandestine participation” in an Armenian revolutionaries’ meeting in Beyoğlu, precipitated a notable shift in the State’s perception of him[91]. These incidents culminated in Khrimian’s subsequent exile to Jerusalem[92]. Later, in 1896, as the revolutionary and military efforts of the Dashnaks were starting to gain momentum, Khrimian began to openly support the revolutionary movement as seen in a letter to the Armenians of Van on September 20, 1896, which solidified his alignment with nationalist causes[93]. His statement in this context further underscores his nationalist sentiments: “Although your losses are great and your martyrs numerous, know ye my sons that without blood the freedom of your nation and the welfare of your people cannot be achieved”[94].
The reception of Khrimian’s image in later nationalist movements further illustrates how he has been reinterpreted far from the framework of Ottomanism. According to Payaslian, following the Russian confiscation of Armenian church properties, the church—particularly under Khrimian’s leadership—welcomed the activism of revolutionary parties, especially the Dashnaktsutiun[95]. Many scholars emphasise Khrimian’s influence on the evolution of Armenian nationalism. Nora Bairamian notes that political entities such as the Ramkavar and Dashnak parties appropriate his image to validate their ideological positions and attract support. Of particular interest is the case of ASALA, a terrorist organisation that strategically mobilised Khrimian’s legacy to justify its violent tactics. The group’s publication, Hayastan, frames Khrimian’s rhetoric as part of a militant tradition, portraying him as a symbol of resistance. Similarly, Azdak, the newspaper of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, situates Khrimian within the broader discourse of Armenian revolution, highlighting his views on rebellion alongside other intellectual figures[96]. While these appropriations do not constitute direct historical evidence of Khrimian’s intentions, they illustrate the extent to which his legacy has been detached from the ideals of Ottomanism and reimagined within nationalist narratives. That such groups have persistently referenced Khrimian suggests not a simple continuity, but rather a meaningful shift in how his figure is remembered and politically mobilised—one that challenges the idea of Khrimian as a consistent Ottomanist actor.
Considering the interplay of Khrimian’s rhetoric and actions, it becomes evident that his contributions cannot be neatly categorised into a single ideological framework. However, by examining the consistent nationalist themes in his words and deeds, it is clear that to classify Mkrtich Khrimian as a nationalist, both his rhetoric and actions must be considered. In his speeches and writings, Khrimian frequently used terms such as “nation” and “homeland,” emphasising the importance of Armenian identity and self-determination. He sacralised Armenian territory, linking religious and national identity to the land, and promoted education as a key tool for strengthening national consciousness. His focus on cultural renewal within the Armenian community further supports his nationalist vision. Politically, Khrimian advocated for Armenian rights at events like the Berlin Congress and supported revolutionary movements, signalling his alignment with nationalist aspirations. Rather than relying on a single piece of evidence, his consistent promotion of Armenian autonomy across his body of work points to a broader nationalist agenda. By evaluating both his words and deeds, it becomes clear that Khrimian’s legacy is deeply rooted in Armenian nationalism.
Conclusions
Mkrtich Khrimian’s legacy has been subject to various interpretations in both Armenian and Turkish historiography, reflecting the complexities of his historical role and ideological stance. While Richard Antaramian’s assertion of Khrimian as an “Ottomanist mediator” provides a novel perspective, it fails to align with the broader trajectory of Khrimian’s rhetoric and actions. Antaramian’s characterization of Khrimian as a proponent of Ottoman centralization and reform is challenged by substantial evidence pointing to Khrimian’s alignment with Armenian nationalist aspirations. By framing Khrimian’s engagement with Tanzimat reforms as a calculated strategy to empower the Armenian community, rather than a genuine commitment to Ottoman integration, his actions emerge as fundamentally nationalist in orientation.
Throughout his career, Khrimian consistently prioritised the self-determination and cultural preservation of the Armenian people. His publications, such as Artsvi Vaspurakan, demonstrate a clear nationalist rhetoric, advocating for unity, resistance against oppression, and the revitalisation of Armenian identity. The themes of national awakening, collective action, and self-reliance evident in his writings and sermons stand in stark contrast to the Ottomanist framework proposed by Antaramian. Moreover, his iconic Iron Ladle Sermon, often cited as a nationalist manifesto, underscored the necessity of strength and self-reliance in achieving Armenian liberation - a message that inspired revolutionary movements and further solidified his status as a nationalist leader.
The trajectory of Khrimian’s students and followers provides additional evidence of his nationalist influence. Many of those educated under his guidance became leaders of revolutionary movements and contributors to the Armenian struggle for autonomy. Figures such as Garegin Srvandztiants and other prominent revolutionaries drew inspiration from Khrimian’s teachings, advocating for resistance and the pursuit of national freedom. Such outcomes are incompatible with the notion of Khrimian as an Ottomanist, as they reflect a legacy deeply rooted in nationalist ideology.
Furthermore, Khrimian’s active support for revolutionary committees in his later years and his alignment with movements such as the Dashnaktsutiun reveal an ideological shift that firmly embraced nationalist aspirations. His rhetoric sacralised Armenian territory and linked national identity to the land, reinforcing the foundational elements of Armenian nationalism. The appropriation of Khrimian’s image by nationalist organisations, including the ARF and ASALA, further attests to the resonance of his nationalist ethos within the collective Armenian consciousness. If Khrimian were genuinely an Ottomanist, such groups would not have so readily adopted his legacy to further their causes.
In conclusion, Mkrtich Khrimian’s contributions and ideology are best understood within the framework of Armenian nationalism rather than Ottomanism. His persistent advocacy for Armenian rights, cultural renewal, and self-determination, coupled with his influence on revolutionary movements, underscores his alignment with nationalist objectives. While Antaramian’s reinterpretation offers valuable insights into the complexities of Khrimian’s engagements with Ottoman reforms, it ultimately fails to account for the broader nationalist themes that define Khrimian’s legacy. By examining both his rhetoric and actions, it becomes evident that Khrimian was not an Ottomanist mediator but rather a fervent advocate of Armenian nationalism.