Author Archives: SimonVratsian


Some considerations upon the science examining the politics

Ludvig G. Vardanyan
To distinguish political science as science or discipline it is important to lay down the goals and questions that make it defferent from the other social and humanity disciplines, as well as substantiate its real place in the scientific system.

The political science is complicated by its special subjectof research. In general, social-political science can study the regularities and tendencies of such and such sphere of life as well as its seperate institutions. main issues, facts, phenomena. Thraditionally, the value of the political science is determined by the ability of exploring the cause-effect relationships in the society. That means that these abilities or opinions may become a base and give the opportunity to precieve the repeatability of the events. defining as a result some “objective” and always reproducing forms between politics and life’s other aspects’ inter-dependence, some modes of human behavior, state organization methods and so on.

Political science is examined in this article to wide extent, as a general theory of politics, at the same time it is considered to be a totality to different disciplines, which coheres by the general object of the research. Each scientific sphere or discipline has its own conceptual framework and research tools. Nevertheless two types of knowledge can be differed: empirical and theoretical and each of them has its particular methods of research. It is justified in this article that political science is particular by its nature and may show up also as “empirical” science, which is certainly to be discussed and substantiated in the sequel.



Romik Kh. Kocharyan
This article considers three meanings of the “open hermeneutics” and demonstrates that two aspects of the first meaning are present in Dilthey’s theory in such a way, that the second aspect is in the basis of the first, and, moreover, his conception appears to us as just the embrio of the second meaning, which later was completed by H. G. Gadamer’s conception of philosophical hermeneutics. In Dilthey’s conception the possibility of being of human sciences is self-understood by epistemological inquiry, and his conception of hermeneutics is formulated as the universal methodology of human sciences. The goal of Diltey’s methodological reflection is to understand and interpretively explicate the calling and truth of human sciences. He defined the own subject, experience and method of these sciences, in contrast to natural sciences. In his viewpoint, the goal of human sciences is not the establishing of general laws and concepts, but the understanding and interpretively revealing of the uniqueness of the individual phenomena as such. The subject of understanding is composed of three classes of expressions of life: the first is presented by concepts, judgments, and more complex structures of thought, the second class consists of actions, the third – of expressions of lived experience, the latter is just the preferable subject of understanding, and according to these classes there are elementary and higher forms of understanding.



Sargis G. Petrosyan
According to Strabo, companions of the legendary ancestor and the eponym of the Armenians, i.e.Armenos, once settled downpartlyin Sispiritis, partly in Qalakhene and others-outside of the Armenian highland-in Adiabene (in the
North-East of Mesopotamia). Until now there has been no genuine comparativehistorical approach in assessing the information about Thessaly Argonaut Armenos. The theme of Armenos, in our opinion, is inseparably linked with the Armenian ancient stories about Aramanyak, which is connected both with the origin of husbandry and the ancient Armenian ethnos. The fact is that the IndoEuropean husbandry tribes played a dominant role in the formation of the ancient Armenian ethnic community. Ancient Armenian stories mention that Hayk, ethnarch of the Armenians, after the birth of his elder son Aramanyak, goes to the land of Ararad.

At the end of the VIII Millennium BC in the basin of the Western Tigr is the culture of the first settled down farmers and cattle breeders was formed. Within this region, at the foothills of the Armenian Tavros in the future Armenian district Angeltun the early agricultural settlement of Chayonyou is situated. The excavations of Chayonyou revealed poly residues of cultivated plants– wheat, peas, lentils and vetch.


Part IV: National-public activity in 1914-1917


Sargis R. Melkonyan-Candidate of Historical Sciences
In the previous parts of our study dedicated to Garegin I Hovsepyan, which were published in the issues of 2018 (N 1 (61), 2 (62), 3 (63)) of journal “Vem”, we thoroughly presented his student years and the programs of the great scholar and church leader for the reformation of the Armenian Church. The current publication, continuing a series of our articles on Hovsepyan, we present to the reader the national-public activities of Garegin Hovsepyan in 1914-1917 as the Head of the General Committee of Fraternal Assistance of St. Etchmiadzin and as the rector of the Gevorgian Theological Seminary.

ector of the Gevorgian Theological Seminary. During the years of the First World War, due to genocide and deprivation of the homeland of Armenians organized by the Turkish government, many refugees from the western provinces of Armenia found their salvation in St. Etchmiadzin. For organizing the salvation and care of these refugees and orphans in December 1914, by order of Catholicos Gevorg V Surenyants, the General Committee of Fraternal Assistance was established in Etchmiadzin, which from September 1915 to August 1916 was led by Archimandrite Garegin Hovsepyan. Under his leadership, the committee implemented the following activites.

1. From the staff of the Teaching Department of Gevorgian Seminary a separate department of specialists was organized, which was supposed to deal with the salvation and research of the cultural values of the Armenians preserved during the genocide.
2. For providing refugees with clothing the Work House was opened, thanks to which many refugee women were provided with jobs.
3. A school for refugee children was opened adjacent to the parish schools of Vagharshapat.

In the article, we presented especially in detail the travel and collection of donations of Garegin Hovsepyan in St. Petersburg and Moscow in the spring of 1917 for preserving Gevorgian Seminary and taking care for orphans. In this regard, we have published an unpublished document, in which Hovsepyan presents the results of his trip to Catholicos Gevorg V Surenyants.

During this journey for the first time to St. Petersburg and for the second time to Moscow, Garegin Hovsepyan was able to collect the necessary amount, with the help of which it was possible to ensure the work of the Gevorgian Theological Seminary before its closure due to the war, and then due to the revolution.


Military operations on the Caucasus Front from July 1914 to April 26, 1916
Copy-book 5 and 6: from August 14, 1915 to December 31, 1915


Ruben O. Sahakyan-Doctor of Historical Sciences
In the 5th and 6th notebooks of his memoirs, General T. Nazarbekyan describes the military operations that took place on the Caucasus (Russian-Turkish) Front from August 14, 1915 to December 14.

The commander again revisits the examination of the issue of the tragic retreat of July 1915. According to him, the retreat caused great discontent among the Armenian society. News was spread that the Russian government wanted to liquidate volunteer groups, as well as refusing to give autonomy to Western Armenia. The discontent of the Armenian public and political circles was further heightened when they learned that the Russian authorities were taking effective steps to resettle the Alashkert Valley with Russians and Cossacks. This tendency became clearer under the newly appointed Viceroy and Commander-in-Chief of the Caucasus Army Nikolay Romanov-Jr. Moreover, he was taking steps to win over the Kurds fighting against the Russian army on their side. Whereas, the Kurds remained loyal to the Ottoman Empire, and more precisely, the war was a convenient occasion for them to plunder and “cleanse” the territories from the Armenians.

On November 18, 1915 the brigade of Th. Nazarbekyan was reorganized into the 2nd Caucasian Rifle Division. Th. Nazarbekyan describes the large-scale fortification works being carried out at the defense sites occupied by the Caucasian 4th Army Corps. Rumors were circulating within the troops that the units would be wintering at the locating sites, so they were thoroughly being prepared for it. Barracks, bathhouses, canteens, warehouses, etc., were being built.

In fact, Commander of the Caucasian Army, General N. Yudenich was preparing for the Erzrum (Karin) capture operation and the news of a hibernation on the spot were misinformation intended to deceive the enemy and not to reveal the offensive operation in advance. N. Yudenich was in a hurry to seize Erzurum as it became known that the Allies – the British and the French, had decided to finally halt the Gallipoli landing operation, the ultimate goal of which was was the capture of Constantinople. It was clear to N. Yudenich that the Ottoman troops stationed in the straits would be directed against the Russians in the spring of 1916, so he decided not to delay but to seize Erzrum – the last powerful Turkish stronghold in Western Armenia.

Th. Nazarbekyan notes with regret that the advancement of the division led by him was accompanied overcoming many obstacles, especially emphasizing the harsh climatic conditions and the almost non-existence of shelters, in the result of which not only humans but also pack animals suffered.



Ashkhen Ed. Jrbashyan-Candidate of Philological Sciences
The review addresses the main issues related to the new edition of the National Armenian Educational and Cultural Fund “Levon Shant. The Man and the Work”, dedicated to the 150th anniversary of the outstanding writer. The article gives a clear idea of the content, topics and structure of this publication. The members of the editorial board (Vachagan Grigoryan, Serzh Srapionyan and Vartan Petrosyan) placed in this book the memories of the people of different generations about Levon Shant; the authors give original, noteworthy assessments of his political and pedagogical activity. In addition, the publication contains valuable excerpts from outstanding literary works dedicated to Shant, which characterize and generalize the literary heritage of the great writer and playwright.

Particularly important are those articles and materials that are published in Armenia for the first time. The reader gets a fairly complete picture of Levon Shant as a writer, politician and educator.

The most valuable material, published in this book, is the autobiographical exposition of Levon Shant, recorded by Vardges Aharonyan in the USA from the lips of an already elderly writer. The reader gets informed about Shant’s childhood and youth, about the years of his studies in Etchmiadzin, about the periods of his stay in the Caucasus and Europe, about well-known political events and about some significant episodes of his life related to his formation as a writer. Many of these facts are well known, but the assessments of L. Shant himself, his worldview and experiences give great value to the autobiographical narrative. The reader makes sense about the environment of Constantinople, Tiflis and its cultural atmosphere, the life of large and small European cities and, finally, the years of the First Republic, which became crucial for the formation of Shant as a person and politician.

We can insist that this publication is a valuable contribution to the Shant studies.


Comparative Examination


Sarkis M. Mkrtchian
What is Pan-Azerism? What is the difference and what does it have in common with Pan-Turkism? The study proves that these two concepts are closely related.

At present, given that the conditions for raising and implementing pan-Turkic ideas are not favorable, the panturkists have promoted pan-Nazism, for which there is favorable land and with which anti-Iranian forces and countries are interested.

As those Pan-Turkic organizations and figures who pursue the idea of the creation of Whole Azerbaijan outwardly do not use the words Pan-Turkism and Great Turan, even though all of their programs and words refer to the principles of Pan-Turk theorists.

Pan-Azerism, like Pan-Turkism, is an expansionist ideology. But if it is a mean for the panturkists towards creation of Great Turan, for Iranian-minded figures it is a historically-based project on the way to returning lost territories of Iran.

Atrpatakan intellectuals have played (and have) an important role in the preservation, strengthening of the Iranian identity and struggle against pan-Turkic programs, who consider themselves to be Azeris rather than Turks, for the simple reason that the spread of Turkish language in Atrpatakan has only changed the language of that society, but not identity, yet language is not the sole criteria for nationality.

Therefore, the pan-Azerists with pan-Turkic thinking believe that the northern and southern regions of the Arax River were, for thousands of years, a part of the Turks’ homeland, which later fell under the rule of Iran, and by the treaties of Gulistan (1813) and Turkmenchay (1828) it was divided between Iran and Russia.

And Iranian-minded pan-Azerists believe that by the two treaties mentioned above, Aran and Shirwan which used to be inseparable parts of Iran, were cut off from Iran and annexed to tsarist Russia due to the misguided policy of the kings of Qajar dynasty and in the early 20th century for various political reasons, already renamed, came to exist as a separate independent republic.

Since the second view has a serious scientific basis, it should serve as a guiding idea also for us in our understanding of the relationship between PanTurkism and Pan-Azerism.

MARCH 16 OR 18? – 2020-1

The signing deadlines of the 1921 Russian-Turkish Treaty of Moscow


Ararat M. Hakobyan-Doctor of Historical Sciences
Considering the issue of the deadlines of signing the 1921 Russian-Turkish “Friendship and Brotherhood” Treaty of Moscow from the distance of about a century, the following may be stated.

1. In the history of international diplomacy such cases are unique that the two internationally unrecognized states – the RSFSR and Kemalist Turkey, discussed and jointly decided on territorial-border issues of Armenia – an independent third state, without its knowledge and involvement. That is to say, the 1921 Treaty of Moscow is illegal and invalid and cannot contain any obligation for the successor modern Republic of Armenia to recognize that treaty.

2. The second political-diplomatic oddity that is the main focus of this publication is that the two negotiating parties – the Russian and the Turkish sides, dictated by their great-power interests, even falsified the exact day of the signature of the Treaty of Moscow. It was actually signed on March 18, 1921, but “March 16” is recorded on the document, and to this day this erroneous historical date continues to be circulated in historical literature.

Much related to the history and the fate of the Armenian people, the 1921 March 16 or 18 calendar games around the Moscow treaty date in diplomacy can be characterized as a peculiar historical falsification (fake) that shows once again that Armenia’s distant and close, sometimes friendly and allied states often resorted to violating the legitimate interests of the Armenian people, through seizing, dividing between each other and appropriating the vital territories of their historic homeland. The abovementioned episode is an instructive experience and lesson in the millennia-old Armenian history, from which one must learn, draw appropriate conclusions, gain historical and political experience on the way to the consolidation of our modern-day independent statehood.


By the example of A. de Saint-Exupéry’s “Night Flight” novel


Davit V. Petrosyan-Doctor of Philological Sciences
The article discusses several peculiarities of the author’s inner time within the artistic narrative.

According to the theorists, the time living within a person reflects the path of his soul, emphasizes the necessity for the existence of an individual in earthly life.

The inner time gets specific shapes in the artistic composition. In general, between the concepts of “the author’s inner time” and “artistic time” there are some nuance differences. It concerns especially the time borders of the author and the composition’s heroes, the ways of their manifestation, the process of the activities development within the narrative, etc.

A. de Saint-Exupéry’s “Night Flight” novel is one of the characteristic expressions of what is said above, where the writer successfully combined the characteristic features of the author’s inner and artistic times of the narrative. To this end, in addition to the heroes, two deep images of nature – heaven and night were masterfully created in the novel.

As space, the heaven enlivens when it fills with time. Accordingly, each hero is shaped by his own spatial-time measurements. Typologically, the heroes are engaged in two groups:
a) heroes who look at the heaven from the earth;
b) heroes (pilot, radioman) who watch the earth from the heaven.

Accordingly, in line with the spiritual state of the characters, first of all the importance of a permanent present, and in fateful moments – the heavenly time leading to eternity is given importance to. In the most dramatic part of the narrative, the earth and the body of the hero remain in the present, and the soul moves on to the “doors of paradise”– to the eternity.

The night also plays a key role in the novel. With the personification of the latter, new layers are opened in the interrelations of the heaven, earth and heroes. The night obtains particular importance with its mysterious and unpredictable qualities, which enable the author to reunite characters in the context of the inner time at the end of the narrative and to create a collective biography absorbed in artistic time. These, after all, reflect the continuity of human existence living in earthly and heavenly times.


Dedicated to the Memory of Leonardo da Vinci


Shushanik G. Zohrabyan-Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Arts
The theme of the composition, the search of his own ways in art are quite clearly expressed in the oeuvre of jeweller, engraver Ara Ghazaryan. Ara Ghazaryan’s art is in touch with the Armenian and fine arts in general. This is where the vivid imagination, simplicity and immediacy of his worldview originate. When starting a new artwork, he elaborates on the sketch, finding the appropriate silhouette and layout, achieving a complete acquistion of form and content.

Such is the composition entitled “Temple” (2019), which is distinguished by its artistic features and technical qualities, whose unique form of composition derives from its content. It consists of 108 pieces, made of 18 and 22-carrat gold and silver “Argentium”. Armenian apricot wood has also been used. The height of the “Temple” is 108 mm and the width is 45 mm. Ara Ghazaryan has performed the artistic processing of his artwork by enameling, using partitioning, relief and ornamental methods. The four sides and the top of the dome are crowned with red rubies and three rows with 18 encrusted diamonds in each row, represented in Ghazaryan’s favourite shapes, octagonal and round. The dome also has 18 windows. The harmonious choice of colors is made with the relations of red, blue, green, and gold.

Ara Ghazaryan’s worldview is reflected not only in his creative expressions and means, but also in their significance and application. Ghazaryan has covered the temple with glass, and placed a microscope under the dome, which allows you to see the smallest chessboard in the world. His own creation, included in the Guinness Book of World Records (2017; 6.5 gram, 15.3×15.3 mm dimensions) made of 18K white and yellow gold and Brazilian cherry wood. The biggest of the chess pieces are the King and the Queen (each 4.8 mm, with diamond removable crowns), and the smallest are the soldiers (2.3 mm each). Four more diamonds lie at the base of the chess board.

Ara Ghazaryan has placed the “Temple” in a hand, drawn in the shape of a unique ornament and graphically delineated with fine lines of Mount Ararat (made of silver “Argentium” and placed on lapis lazuli stone), which has become a unique pedestal for the “Temple”.

He made what is considered to be the most complex and technically very variable part of the human body. Ara Ghazaryan delivers a powerful message to the viewer. The hand is not here just as the main tool of creation, but also as an important focus of representation, which has an esthetic and symbolic contents. The power in the hand is the power to love, to hate, to create, to destroy. For Ara this is the Hand which creates miracles since the beginning of human history and gives it to civilizations. We can also say that with this Hand Ara Ghazaryan also pays tribute to Leonardo da Vinci.

The thematic-compositional artworks are the vivid expressions of the clear thinking, style, artistic language of Ara Ghazaryan. Each of his created item becomes a miracle of handmade work, not just an object, but also a spirit or character that has an amazing emotional impact on the viewer.