“Prolegomenon to the Millennial History of the Western Armenian World – From ‘Kingdoms’ to an Awakening ‒ Politics and Culture ‒ The First Phase Tenth to Fifteenth Centuries” by Prof. Seta B. Dadoyan is the third in the Book Series of the Western Prelacy entitled “Fundamentals and Phases in the Making of the Western Armenian World” (by the same author).

In her Conclusion to the book, Dadoyan explains the purpose of the Series: “There can be no foresight without hindsight, there is always a need to understand the past, to know where/what one comes from, to think about where/what one is going, or must go to. This is the purpose of the Western Prelacy Book Series.”

In addition to being a critical study of the Armenian historical evolution in the Near Eastern World and appropriate historiography, the book is a summa. It is an ultimate theoretical summation of various hypotheses and theories in the first two volumes of the Series, also her entire scholarship.

The first in its kind, and as per the title, the Prolegomenon is not just an ‘introduction’, but a critical-discursive preamble to writing the history of the Western Armenian World. It traces the extraordinary metamorphosis and the persistence of the Armenians with their political and religious institutions west and south of the mainland after the middle of the tenth and through the next, following the fall of all dynastic powers and the massive move of the people. As such, and as per the title, the book is a Prolegomenon to the unwritten millennial history of the Western Armenian World, that still awaits comprehensive analysis

The study stops at the end of the Early or Proto-Awakening in the fifteenth century precisely because of the circumstances of the Western Armenian World, as she demonstrates. The next phases in the Western Armenian World during the Ottoman and soon the Safavid periods are different themes for other studies.

Methodologically and in objectives, Dadoyan’s study is an argument in favor of her historiographic model of ‘Western-and-Eastern Armenian Worlds’, as opposed to and in refutation of the traditional ‘Center-and-Periphery’, ‘Hayrenik‘-and-Sp‘iwṛk‘’ paradigms. First introduced by the philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, a paradigm (from Greek and Latin) is a universally recognized framework of theories, beliefs, values, and techniques that guides a scientific or another community. It dictates which questions are valid to ask, and establishes the accepted methods for finding answers to them.

Covering broad and unchartered areas in Near Eastern and Armenian interactive histories, Dadoyan’s entire intellectual career and publications of the past decades (in sixteen books and over a hundred articles) stand as arguments against most mainstream, often semi-epic Armenocentric paradigms, also the practices of so-called ‘contemporary’, ‘objective’ Armenian historical thinking/writing.

In her view, if all things Armenian were looked upon and analyzed as per the lived experiences of the Armenians ‒ of all classes, backgrounds and faiths ‒ both on the native land and their much larger Habitat west and south of it, there would be a totally different and definitely brighter and more intriguing Armenian history.

In favor of critical, dialectical, and interdisciplinary historiographic perspectives and methodology, the Prolegomenon, her sixteenth book, is in turn a critical study of hitherto unperceived and undetected aspects and paradigm cases that radically alter assumed images and accounts of the historical evolution of the Armenians in the vast Near Eastern region. Dadoyan observes that by the tenth century the broad region was predominantly Muslim.

Previously, after the seventh century and gradually, most Armenians in their homeland and habitats, were under Muslim rule, except for Cilicia (from 1080s to 1375) and much later the First Republic (1918). However, she points out, the subject of fourteen centuries of Islamic-Armenian interactions, and Armenian political, cultural and social experiences and interaction in the Islamic World has never been approached as a unique area. Dadoyan therefore seems to have almost singlehandedly turned it into a discipline, writing six volumes and dozens of studies in this area in the past three and a half decades (since 1991).

As Dadoyan argues and demonstrates in the Prolegomenon, the Western Armenian World, much larger, complex and dynamic in all respects than the Eastern one, is directly related to, and simultaneously an organic part of the Near Eastern region and its peoples. The temporal and thematic gateway to this vast and mostly unexplored subject is the development of Armenian Cilicia, the longest lasting body politic, and the first episode of this world in the eleventh century. Through Cilicia the Western Armwenian World developed through and because of the patterns of its evolution between the Christian West (Chalcedonian Byzantium and Latin Crusaders) and Islamic Empires and factions.

As always, the Armenians were between two powerful poleis (states) in a complicated yet rich mesopolitan condition (meaning ‘between states’, միջնաշխարհեան, a new term by Dadoyan). In the midst and under the pressure of major and minor regional powers, the Western Armenian World grew and shaped its unique path, so did the Eastern Armenian World, but differently.

The circumstances and the responses of the people in the Western Armenian World could not be similar to the East, they were very different, hence the legitimacy, as Dadoyan points out, also the urgency to shift paradigms and initiate new research into the formation and the millennial path of the people and their institutions in this world.

This is the purpose of the Prolegomenon.

The universally granted model of center-periphery, hayrenik‘- sp‘iwṛk‘, according to Dadoyan, is not a ‘natural’ paradigm. There are no ‘natural’ and obvious beliefs, she says, and serious historiography is precisely the critical study of historical narratives, writing and accounts, both in texts and public opinion.

One of the many ‘natural’ beliefs in Armenian historical thinking/writing is depicting all things Armenian and from the beginning as a single stormy yet continuous process, the protagonist of which is the ‘Armenian nation’ azg, which is understood as a single subject with a clear and permanent essence/identity (ink‘nut‘iwn). The stage of the national narrative is the central Homeland (Hayrenik‘), that has an ambiguous, peripheral and dispersed part. Eventually, in the Soviet era and the Cold War, it was labeled as the Diaspora or Sp‘iwṛk‘. This vast entity was and is still considered the external, complementary part, or the artasahman of the hayrenik‘.

This is what Dadoyan calls the ‘center-periphery’ historiographic paradigm that dominates histories from early medieval times through medieval Armenicentric perspectives. In the Awakening the medieval versions that had almost eroded, but were revitalized by the initiative of a native of Bolis, Mkhit‘arist Mik‘ayel Ch‘amch‘iants‘ (in 1780s) to write a ‘modern’ ‘universal’ Armenian history but in the style, language and perspectives of the medieval authors.

In the Soviet Republic of Armenia that lasted seven decades (1921-1991), the hayrenik-sp‘iwṛk‘ model was heavily and intentionally politicized and became a paradigm on all levels, despite the absence of historiographic grounds. The reason was the failure to perceive Armenian historical evolution as a totality and in its regional aspects.

Dadoyan observes that the focus on the ‘center-periphery’ model in fact ends up assuming a monolithic central and authentic part, and secondary, peripheral Habitat, or the so-called Sp‘iwṛk‘. Thus, most of the Armenians in this part and centuries of historical experiences and extraordinary persistence recede into an ontological also historical twilight. They are robbed of relevance, permanence and priority. In the broad spectrum of ‘national’ narrative/s, the Habitat falls into a peripheral status and significance.

Geographically, also periodically classified and referred to, this part is still regarded a random and constantly changing accumulation of communities or hamaynk‘s, gaghut‘s, ‘outside the borders’ of the homeland or hayrenik‘, the depository of all things Armenian. By consequence, Western Armenians inevitably become non-natives, but out-of-borders aliens, artasahmantsts‘i.

One of the main themes of the Prolegomenon is the political status and role of the Armenian Church and its men in the Western Armenian World (following the fall of the consecutive Artsruni, Bagratuni, Siwni Dynastic territories and houses, and the exile of Catholicoate from Bagratid capital Ani in 1045). The only continuing institution everywhere, the Armenian Church was inevitably an integral part of the political history of the people. Yet its political history, also the political careers of its men, have never been studied as a separate and vital theme.

The reason, observes Dadoyan, in typical medieval fashion, and contrary to the record of the political careers of clergy on the ground, the Church was depicted as a ‘purely’ spiritual institution. It was intentionally and despite facts on the ground, defined as a non-political entity. Instead, the mythical-spiritual image of ‘Ghewond erets’ of Vardanants‘ was forced everywhere, (even to this day in the church-schools of USA…). The few histories of the Church are partial contributions but belong to a different discipline.

The first two books of the Series are devoted to the political aspect of the careers of Nerses IV Shnorhali and Yovhan III Ōdznets‘i, depicting both as “saints” and “diplomats.”

Nersēs IV Shnorhali – Saint and Diplomat and the Persistence of the People and the Church in the Western Armenian World/Nersēs D. Blessed Saint and Ambassador and the Survival of the People and the Church in the Western Armenian World. (2025).

Yovhan III Ōdznets’i Saint, Jurist and Great Master of Armenian Mesopolitan Culture and Diplomacy/ Yovhan G. Odznets (ruled 717-728) the Saint, Ruler and Great Master of Armenian Medieval Culture and Diplomacy. (2025)

To understand the millennial path of the Church in the Western Armenian World – also the Eastern Armenian World – Dadoyan makes another paradigm shift from an assumed ‘Armenian Ideology’ to ‘Armenian realpolitik’. Given their complicated mesopolitan circumstances, the Armenians in the Western Armenian World ‒ and the Cilicians in particular, including the clergy ‒ could not be insulated from their environment, nor have the luxury of maintaining a so-called strictly ‘national ideology’. As active and integral parts of the region, they were under pressure from all sides, says Dadoyan.

Dadoyan discusses the relevance of her theory of ‘Armenian realpolitik’ in the study of the Western Armenian World, in particular. She points out that it is probably one of the most appropriate and relevant paradigms to understand and explain most events and episodes of the Western Armenian World. For traditional, also contemporary so-called ‘objective’ historians, in turn this is a controversial concept because it cancels puristic and simplistic narratives about ‘Armenian ideology’ and assumed fixed patterns of Armenian political-cultural behavior.

Dadoyan says that the blunt pragmatism of many Armenian figures and factions, also institutions, including the Church, defies abstract and fossilized models of an ‘authentically’ Armenian identity and ideology. Instead, she suggests that interaction, mobility and migration are keys to explain change and evolution in the millennial Western Armenian World.

The Western Armenian World came about and persisted in a most coveted and tumultuous spot of the medieval Asia Minor by the realpolitik of its leaders and people. Previously too and everywhere, the Armenians made alliances with and/or fought against all the powers and factions in the region, adopting and/or rejecting whatever was most beneficial for them, or the contrary at that time.

In the Western Armenian World in particular, rarely did ideology gain priority over interest in survival, land and power, but on the other hand, and despite the odds, no native tradition and value was betrayed. They were maintained by a sheer will to persist. The immediate instance is the doctrinal status of the Armenian Apostolic Church to this day.

Unfortunately, writes Dadoyan, through the catastrophic events of the late nineteenth century and the first decades of the next, the basic concepts of the early narratives of martyrdom and death/resurrection became even more dramatic models. Following the Genocide and mass deportations, as intellectuals and artists converted the massive catastrophe into dramatic/lyrical constructs and forms, the national cycle of narratives became the ‘money’ for posterity and legitimacy.

In the past century the Republic sees itself as the locus/nucleus/center of the national narrative and the primary depository of the spiritual, intellectual and material investment in the ‘Armenian Metapolis.’ The hayrenik‘-spiwṛk‘ model in all its translations and manifestations is stronger than ever. The makers/actors of the new/old narrative based on the Homeland-Diaspora motif come from all strata, institutions and segments of the Armenian communities. There are politicians, intellectuals, poets, artists, singers, filmmakers, actors, entertainers, clergy, teachers, businessmen, travel agents, and many more. Inevitably, intellectuals are part of the same stage.

On the first page of the Foreword of the first book of the Series on Shnorhali, Dadoyan writes: “… just as knowledge is a significant factor, so is ignorance a major factor… People often make wrong judgments out of ignorance. Right action starts at self-knowledge, or sound knowledge of one’s history, both on individual and collective levels. This volume … is an attempt to provide self-knowledge of a different scope and methodology. The objective is to make so-called ‘academic’ material not only accessible but existentially meaningful and applicable.”

Summary of the Contents and the Arguments in the Four Parts of the Prolegomenon

Part One. The Beginnings in the Tenth Century and Turning Points

Dadoyan briefly traces the formative period in the tenth century and the next. It covers the situation and the events in the very broad area from the mainland to Cappadocia, and the Black Sea to the Mediterranean by the eleventh century. The regional and Armenian circumstances became the stage of the radical and permanent development of the Western Armenian World alongside the Eastern. Her primary argument in the Preface and Part One is: If Armenian history is the entire history of all the Armenians wherever they have been and are, it must cover and explain all episodes everywhere and at all times.

This has not been the case. Indeed, she discovered presented many documented paradigm cases in Arab primary sources that were hitherto unnoticed, yet they radically alter the traditional accounts of things Armenian. Dadoyan argues that there are too many discrepancies, black holes and basic historiographic errors. As a first step, she therefore suggests replacing the traditional model of center-and-periphery, by the model of Western and Eastern Armenian Worlds and start at paradigm cases that stand as counterpoints.

Part Two. The Dynastic Triangle or the Second Age of Kingdoms ‒ Twelfth to Fourteenth Centuries

In this part Dadoyan introduces what she calls her major theory of the Armenian Intermezzo. This is a novel perspective on Armenian mesopolitan history. The Intermezzo is the interval of two centuries between the gradual loss of sovereignty, or the Kingdoms and the rise of a “Dynastic Triangle”, or a ”Second Age of Kingdoms” ‒ another novel theory ‒ in Cilicia, Erznka, and Georgian Armenian Zakarian Ani. The theory of Armenian Intermezzo in her research, concerns a very specific and separate phase in both Near Eastern and Armenian histories, when the Western Armenian World began developing.

During this phase, having lost sovereignty, but not their political interests and needs, the Armenians were major players on the regional level, between the Byzantine-Christian, also Crusader-Latin worlds, on the one hand, and the Islamic Worlds, on the other. Armenian Cilicia is precisely a product and part of this phase and Armenian realpolitik. It is not a “divine gift”, as believed, to replace the Bagratid kingdom the Greeks took from them, nor another national epic episode.

The other important and totally novel argument in Part Two is Cilicia and the Dynastic Triangle or the Second Age of Kingdoms, Twelfth to Fourteenth Centuries. It is the appearance of an Armenian Dynastic Triangle or what she calls the ‘Second Age of Kingdoms’; Cilicia was on the Mediterranean, Erznka on the Western Euphrates in its north, and Zakarian Ani in their east.

While previously the Bagratunis, Artsrunus and the Siwnis, also some lesser Houses, made the First Age of Kingdoms, this was a Second Age of Kingdoms, the western parts of which are totally western. A greater part of this longest Part focuses on the political history of Cilicia, the first body politic in the Western Armenian World, from 1080s, to its fall to the Mamlūks in 1375.

Part Three. Problematics of Sovereignty, Orthodoxy and Identity ‒ The State and the Church in Cilicia focuses on the complexities of the institutional aspects of the struggles for persistence in the Western Armenian World.

Exiled from Ani in 1045, after over a century, in 1150, the Catholicosate finally settled at Hṛomklay, on Muslim land, just east of Cilicia.

Dadoyan points out that for three centuries, to the fall of the Kingdom in 1375, under extreme pressures from all sides, sovereignty and orthodoxy had to be maintained and preserved by political and religious institutions. A total of twenty-two catholicoi resided during the terms of twenty-two Cilician rulers, nine of whom were Princes, and thirteen Kings (Prince Lewon II becoming King Lewon I). Important episodes, such as Church Councils, attempts to modify doctrines as per the demands of the Catholic Church, significant figures, and popular responses are briefly discussed. Dadoyan analyzes the problematics involved in maintaining and preserving political sovereignty and doctrinal integrity at the same time.

The political and religious institutions during the Kingdom (1199-1375), and the Church in particular. This institution faced some of its most difficult challenges. Important episodes, such as the Church Councils for union with the Catholic Church, pressures, compromises and large-scale popular revolts are briefly reviewed. The doctrinal integrity of the Church was a political issue and in Cilicia the common people stood up against both their monarchs and catholicoi. Part Three also has a section on Dadoyan’s different and novel perspective on the ‘1441 Movement’ and its aftermath.

Part Four. A Mesopolitan Culture in the Western Armenian World from the Middle Ages to the Early Awakening ‒The Path to an Awakening.

Dadoyan dedicates this part to the evolution and peculiarities of the mesopolitan culture and intellectual legacy of the Silver Age in Cilicia and the Western Armenian World. Major figures, from Narekats‘i and Magistros – forerunners of the Silver Age – and the twelfth century pillars of the Age, from Grigor II, to Shnorhali and Nersēs Lambronats‘i are presented, always supported by citations. There are specific discussions about the poetry and theology of Narekats‘i, and secularization of learning by Grigor Magistros.

The unique phenomenon of the cosmopolitan City State of Erznka/Erznijān and its major figure Yovhannēs are part of this chapter too. The discussions deal with the legacies of circumstances and figures that generated the basic aspects of not only the Silver Age of Armenian culture but the early Awakening in the Western Armenian World. Dadoyan also focuses on the unique aspects of the Western Armenian intellectual, social and aesthetic cultures that practically marked an early, proto-Awakening.

—