The Medieval Armenian Symbol of Eternity in the Art of the Twelfth-Century Italian Sculptor Nicholaus: A Veiled Performance

The medieval Armenian symbol of eternity – a whirl sign – is engraved in the forehead of five bull sculptures dated to the first half of the twelfth century, attributable to the workshop of the Italian sculptor Nicholaus. The whirl is an ancient sacred symbol associated with eternal life, not specific to any religion or culture, that has persisted for millennia. The following carvings display a closely resembling geometric whirl engravure: in the apse frieze of Koenigslutter Kaiserdom (Lower Saxony), in the pulpit of Sacra di Carpi (Modena), in the “Creation of animals” panel of S. Zeno Basilica (Verona), in the Verona Cathedral porch, and in the Ferrara Cathedral narthex. This symbol, generally ignored by Western Christian art after the Carolingian period, was revisited by the Nicholaus workshop. We argue that the small, hitherto overlooked whirl engraving made by these artists in the bull head of Koenigslutter, Carpi, Ferrara and Verona was a veiled ornamental performance displaying the symbol of eternity to signify the concept of life in the hereafter. Here the immediate inspiration source was likely Armenian, because in the early twelfth century the geometric whirl symbol of eternity was foreign to Italian religious decorations while it was deeply rooted in Armenian Christian art. Nicholaus and his atelier were familiar with the leaved cross and the whirl – traditional Armenian motifs symbolizing life in the hereafter – and were inspired by them in some of their works. In the decorative reliefs of S. Zeno Basilica façade, Verona Cathedral porch and Koenigslutter Kaiserdom frieze, various examples of the geometric whirl metamorphosis into naturalistic foliate whirl are extant, witnessing the Nicholaus atelier’s versatile sculptural performance in conceptualizing everlasting life.

Performance, Memory, and the Archive: A Conversation with Arsinée Khanjian

The notion of performance holds a profoundly polysemic nuance within the field of the humanities and the arts. For the present issue of the Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies, we challenge the traditional significance of perfoming arts by unveiling how artistic practices disclose important avenues for (re)thinking the question of memory and archive as well as Armenianness, cultural and diasporic identity, the female body, and political engagement. To reflect upon these various issues, we sat down with Arsinée Khanjian and shared our experiences of viewing artistic performances as well as our understanding of the significance of performance for Armenian studies.

So, Did We Really Find Yesayan?

This think piece aims to locate the problematic interest in the work of Zabel Yesayan into the heart of much broader question of the fate of Armenian literary studies and criticism. The critique presented here provides a quick glance over the timeline of this interest through the touchstones accomplished over the last two decades. It is then followed by a series of issues that lie behind this fetishizing attitude. Some of these are namely the predominant and privileged status of the discipline of history, the misleading state of Yesayan translations in both Armenian and Turkish, and the illiterate – both in the literal and figurative senses of the word – (therefore scandalous) state of existing academia. My conclusory remarks, returning to what I describe as “Yesayan fever,” are part of an attempt for a rhizomatic reading that would liberate the author from the overloaded feminist and genocide-based readings.

Zabel Yesayan, “Chronicle – The Role of the Armenian Woman during the War”

The following is a translation of a lecture delivered in French by Zabel Yesayan at the Engineers Hall on 17 January 1920. The talk was originally published, seemingly without much editing, in the French Revue des études arméniennes 2 (1922): 121–138. The lyricism of this nationalist panegyric and ode to the Armenian woman exposes the author’s raw emotions, as she describes the exodus of Armenians from their homeland during World War I, their struggle, their resilience, and the crimes committed against them. Zabel Yesayan’s speech is altogether révolté – in the sense of moral and political indignation – and righteous. It also reveals with poignant and at times excruciating details, the gendered violence that conventional political narratives often silence about women, especially during genocide. The page numbers referenced below in brackets correspond to the page numbers in the Revue des études arméniennes publication. I have maintained as much as possible the orality of this speech, delivered in florid, melodramatic, nineteenth-century oratory style. I have, however, added punctuation when the lack thereof led to confusion or unintelligibility.

The Liberation of non-Muslim Women and Children in Turkey

Zabel Essayan’s incisive report, “The Liberation of non-Muslim Women and Children in Turkey” (1919), documents how the Ottoman government and its proxies targeted women and children with specific forms of genocidal violence. Written in the immediate aftermath from a position of exile, the report is translated in its entirety into English and interpreted for its value to recent developments in gender and genocide studies. While the report has been discussed by scholars as a document of witness, rarely has Zabel’s writing been examined in depth for its analysis of specific forms of sexual atrocity central to genocidal design nor as an explicitly feminist text that calls for Armenian women to assume a central role in the post-war recuperation effort.