Author Archives: Admin

THE VOCABULARY OF VAHAN TERYAN’S POETRY – 2019-3

Summary

Mary V. Hovhannisyan
It is indisputable that the study of speech art of the writer’s creative work is closely related to the period of regularities typical for both national and fiction languages. It touches upon the main features, ways and prospects of their development. On the one hand, works of the leading speech masters specify not only the development tendencies of literature, but also the national language. On the other hand, it is not enough to study thoroughly the period, literary trend that the writer followed, type and genre of the writer’s creative work.

It is necessary to study the language and the style of the writer. To study the speech art of the writer’s work means to introduce the individuality, which is specific to the author, to identify the peculiarities of the writer’s style by having the literary language as a starting point.

Teryan was very skillful to apply various opportunities of different stylistic layers of Armenian literary language vocabulary, word meaning and usage. The uniqueness of poet’s speech art is the in word-selection art that obviously reflected in the meaningstylistic specific usage of cooperative words. Parallel to stylistic delicate sense of cooperative words, terms of non-active word-layers also get peculiar display. Ethnoverbal and dialectical words, comparisons, phrases which are not specially popularized in Teryan’s speech characterize amazing figurativeness of things and phenomena. Archaism and barbarism are characterized on the basis of stylistic-expressive usage. As neologisms give his poetry a unique colouring, they are quite important for profound understanding of Teryan’s artistic manner. Word-forming models of V. Teryan’s neologisms are particularly important for the formation of new verbs: the unusual use of some suffixes are also rather unique. Special attention is paid to the examples of neologisms in the field of semantics and unusual meanings that Teryan gave to neologisms created by his predecessors. It is difficult to overestimate the stylistic significance of neologisms and their role in his art. One of the factors of Vahan Teryan’s speech art uniqueness is the word-selection art obviously reflected in the meaning-stylistic specific usage of ethno-verbal and dialectical words. Ethno-verbal and dialectical words, comparisons, phrases, which are not specially popularized in Teryan’s speech, are characterized by amazing figurativeness of things and phenomena. Ethno-verbal and dialectical words which have their suitable verbal place create the sonority of the paragraph, the rhyme and the whole poem.

THE MYTH OF THE RING OF GYGES – 2019-3

From Hakob Paronyan to John Tolkien 

Summary

Albert A. Makaryan, Astghik V. Soghoyan
The periodical “Theatre: Friend to Children” (1876-1878, Constantinople) has its unique place in the context of H. Paronyan’s literary heritage. At first glance by contradicting to the latter’s perception of worldview, that is, comic and not being fitted into the widespread definition of pattern of “satiric author” Paronyan’s literary works for children supplement Paronyan’s satire and give them new emphasis and shades: if laughter is the ruthless mean for criticising the despicable features of the society, then the advice written in fatherly language educates the future society by eradicating those condemnable things just at the moment of their emergence.

The primary principal adopted by Paronyan is not to decieve children. Lie is the most criticised and condemned sin in the context of the author’s literary heritage for children, and the writer chosses the road of not decieving which is also expressed in the genre system of literary works published in the periodical: the prefered genre of Paronyan is realistic creation.

In the structure of the periodical the magic gets negative shade and meaning. In his periodical the great satirist gives place only to two fairy tales (“Red Varduk” and “The Ring of Gyges”) by trying to break the children’s faith in magic through them. He not only just presents those works but also tries to show logically the impossibility of the events described in them: the wolf can’t speak like man and the ring of invisibility doesn’t exist.

In the article the work “The Ring of Gyges” is analysed in the realationship of source-reproduction: this small work is a peculiar cultivation of the myth about Gyges based on versions by Plato and Herodotus. If the latters had referred to the myth from the perspective of history and philosophy, then the Armenian author has worked it out as a work for children adapting it to the worldview of the children. It is noteworthy that years after the reproduction by Paronyan the English writer J. R. R. Tolkien has put the same myth at the basis of his masterpieces, i.e., novels “The Hobbit” and “The Lord of the Rings” by creating his works on the motive of the found ring of invisibility. The article observes the worked out version by Paronyan also in the context of parallels with those works.

THE AGE OF ASHOT III THE MERCIFUL – 2019-3

Part I. Strengthening of the Armenian kingdom (953-966)

Summary

Arman S. Yeghiazaryan
The reign of Ashot III the Merciful (953-978) is one of the most discussed one in the history of Armenia. This is due to the fact that during this period Ani became the capital of Armenia and gradually became the focus of the civilizational accomplishments of the Armenian people, and it was then that the collapse of the kingdom of Armenian Bagratids began.

Despite these important circumstances, the history of the reign of Ashot III the Merciful is still not fully researched. There are many questions for which the historian must find answers.

Ashot III the Merciful ascended to the throne in 953 and immediately set about choosing a new capital. The facts show that the attempt to liberate the ancient capital of Armenia, Dvin, immediately after the accession in 953, served to resolve this issue. The attempt was unsuccessful after which Kars remained the capital of Armenia for 8 years.

It should be noted that the liberation of Dvin was part of Ashot III the Merciful’s big plan to subjugate the Muslim emirates of the Arax river valley. And if the attempt to liberate Dvin failed, the rest of the plan was implemented with great success. The emirates of the Arax river valley from Dvin to Nakhijevan were subordinated to the king of Armenia, who appointed his governors there.

Until 961, when Ani was declared the capital of the kingdom of the Bagratids, Ashot III the Merciful was busy strengthening and improving the state. It should be noted that he inherited a united, powerful and developed kingdom from his father, the king of Armenia Abas (929-953) and managed to continue its further strengthening and development.

At the beginning of Ashot III the Merciful’s reign, the Hamdanids state, whose troops were defeated by the Armenian army in 959 in the southwestern border of the Armenian kingdom threatened the Armenian kingdom. For the second time the enemy was defeated in Taron canton.

Although the name “The Merciful” is attributed to him because of the beautification of the church and help to the poor and sick, it should be noted that he was also a gifted person and king.

THE ORGANIZATIONS OF ARMENIAN NARODNIKS AND NATIONALNARODNIKS IN 1880-1890S – 2018-3

Part one: New found ratifications on the activity of “The Union of the Patriots”

Summary

Mkrtich D. Danielyan

Key words – Armenian narodniks; national narodnik organization; Police Department; «The Union of Patriots»; ARF Dashnaktsutyun; archive ratifications; Karapet Ter-Khachatryan; leaflet; letter-article; Davit Nersisyan; Tamara Adamyan.

The best representatives of East Armenian youth have actively participated in the heroic and sacrificing struggle of 1870-1880s of Russian narodnikism against the despotism of tsarist Russia by initially joining narodnik then Armenian national-narodnik organizations and groupings. At the crucial moment of transition from the political goals of narodnikism to the issues of Armenian national-liberation movement the best representatives of East Armenian youth in 1882 founded in Moscow the organization of “The Union of Patriots” which in its embryo soon revealed the ideology and main peculiarities of the activity of newly formed organizations and particularly of ARF Dashnaktsutyun. But since this organization, founded in Moscow and subsequently united with the Armenian national-narodnik grouping of Tiflis, has been distinguished by the secretive practices typical for underground structures, the vast majority of the ratifications referring to its history has remained secret for the scientific circles. They are mainly preserved in the Central History State Archive in Moscow, in the State Archive of Russian Federation (Moscow), in the Archive of Russian Foreign Ministry (now the archive of foreign ministry of Russian Empire, Moscow) and in the State Archive of Russia (Saint Petersburg).The first flying sheet of the “Union of the Patriots” entitled “An Invitation for the Armenian Youth” (April, 1882) which the organization has managed to copy with the use of hectograph machines and spread among the youth, the letter-article “The Response of the Former Student to his Fellow-Student”, as well as, the materials on investigations carried out by tsarist Police Department about the revolutionary underground activities of Karapet-Ter-Khachatryan, Davit Nersisyan, Tamara Adamyan and other figures are especially noticable.

THE ORIGIN OF THE CONCEPT “TRIBUTE TO HOMELAND” – 2019-2

And attampts of its implementation in the First Republic of Armenia

Summary

Narine M. Nushervanyan

Key words – community, immigration, Republic of Armenia, community department, supporting unions, diplomatic representatives of the Republic of Armenia, tribute to homeland, Egyptian Armenian Relief Authority, national constitution.

For the first time, the article introduces the concept of “Tribute to Homeland”, the dynamics of its development and its ratification by the Government of the First Republic of Armenia. Its roots go back to Western Armenian National Constitution (1860) and originally was taken as a “National Tax” as a form of obligatory payment and not as chasity.

After the Armenian Genocide, the “National Tax” was transformed into “Tribute to Homeland” aiming to help Armenian refugees, orphans and the First Republic of Armenia. Once again tax collection became mandatory and it was implemented in the Armenian communities to coordinate irregular donations. The Government of the First Republic has ratified the concept of the “Tax for Homeland” with a separate draft, which envisaged the mandatory collection of taxes in the Armenian communities for reconstruction, immigration and support of refugees.

Though the Turkish-Armenian war (1920) and the Sovietization of Armenia prevented the full implementation of these programs, however, it is obvious that the Government of the First Republic has always focused on issues of refugees, dealt with the resettlement of the Armenians and the revival of the country.

THE UNPRINTED MEMOIRS OF TOVMAS NAZARBEKYAN – 2019-2

Military activities in Caucasus front since July, 1914 up to April 26, 1916
Copy-book 2: since January 1, 1915 up to May 12, 1915

Summary

Ruben O. Sahakyan

Key words – Tovmas Nazarbekyan, Khoy, F. Chernozubov, Hakob Zavriyan, St. Bartholomew monastery, Derik, Dilman, Mukhanjik, Yerevan, Igdir, Smbat Boroyan, Andranik, Abdurrezak, Hakob Choloyan, Van, Shatakh, Armenian governorship of Van, Ishkhan, Aram, Vardan, Dro, Hamazasp, Berkri.

In the second copy-book of memoirs by general T. Nazarbekyan the military activities that took place since January 1 up to May 12,1915 are described. From this part of memoirs of the general three main events can be distinguished: 1. the battle of Dilman, 2. the formation of the Ararat regiment and 3. self- defense of Van and the foundation of governorate.

During Dilman battle that took place on April 16 up to April 18, 1915 general T. Nazarbekyan took brilliant victory over Turkish-Kurdish prevailing forces saving the territory of the viceroy of Caucasus from Turkish invasion. It can be stated without exaggeration that the battle of Dilman in its significance is equal to the battle of Sarighamish. It’s not a coincidence that general T. Nazarbekyan was granted St. Georgi’s 4th level award and the French medal “Médaille militaire”, which is less known to the public.

During the battle the Armenian 1 voluntary group headed by Andranik that was carrying out the defense of one of the important defending positions was distinguished.

In his memoirs the general underlines the formation of the Armenian 5th or Ararat regiment that included the 2nd, 3rd and 4th groups. Due to self-sacrifice of the Armenian volunteers it became possible to help the Armenians in Vaspurakan.

T. Nazarbekyan gives rather detailed information about the reasons and proceedings of the self-defense of the Armenians of Van during April-May of 1915, as well as about the formation of Armenian governorate. He proudly states that the Armenians not having enough forces managed to confront the TurkishKurdish forces. The general believed that the guarantee of the victory was the resistance of the Armenian blocks of Van, namely, Aygestan and Kaghakamej, as well as, of the Armenians of the province of Shatakh.

Henrik Edoyan: Light on the left, Yerevan, “Zangak” publishing housе, 2018, 150 pages. – 20192

Summary

Suren S. Abrahamyan

Key words – Henrik Edoyan, Paul Valerie, the Road, polytheism, language-location, view, poetics, system, time, book, culture.

The article discusses the collection of “Light on the Left” by Henrik Edoyan, evaluates collection’s literary significance in its second cycle, which has started from “Three Days without Time” (2005) collection and continues till now. The main issue of the collection, that author rises, is the question of the book that develops the integrity of Edoyan’s poetical system, as well as the unity of poetics and worldview. Hence, the analyzer not only evaluates Edoyan’s new collection as the formation of historical poetry, but also appreciates Edoyan’s poetry in the modern literary process.

THE UNPRECEDENTED RESPOND OF WORLD KNOWN INTELLECTUALS – 2019-2

To Armenian Pogroms in Azerbaijan in late 1980s – early 1990s

Summary

Narek A. Mkrtchyan Gevorg A. Tshagharyan

Key words – ‘‘The New York Times’’, open letter, Nagorno Karabakh, Sumgait, universal intellectuals, Armenian pogroms, international community, Michel Foucault, Edward Said, genocide, Antonio Gramsci, indifference, ‘‘Circle of Humanity’’.

In the last years of Soviet Union, the humanity faced several genocidal episodes like ethnic cleansings, destruction of cultural heritage of a nation, massacres, pogroms etc. More than seven decades after the Armenian Genocide, the Armenian nation was condemned to become a victim of ethnic cleansing and atrocities planned by the authorities of Soviet Azerbaijan. As a result of international indifference, the Armenian communities of Azerbaijan, particularly in Sumgait (February 27-29, 1988), Kirovabad (November 21-27, 1988) and Baku (January 12-19, 1990) have been subjected to atrocities. The aim of the paper is not the examination of these events, but the representation and study of an open letter signed by the internationally recognized intellectuals of the second half of the XX century. Being a joint initiative of the Helsinki Treaty Watchdog Committee of France and intellectuals from the Collège International de Philosophie, Paris the letter was published in “The New York Times” on July 27, 1990. Unfortunately, the letter had skipped the eyes of wider public in Armenia and abroad. The uniqueness of the letter can be measured by its content and the prominence of the signatories. It is more than obvious that the message of intellectuals was aimed at warning international community that necessary measures should be taken to prevent and save Armenians from another genocide. We translated the material from English into Armenian and provided it with introduction containing information about the signatories of the letter. Among them stand out Jurgen Habermas, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Jacques Derrida, Jean-François Lyotard, Sir Isaiah Berlin, Emmanuel Levinas, Paul Ricoeur, Charles Taylor, Luc Ferry and others. On the other side, the letter is discussed within the context of different theoretical approaches in order to shed light on the nature, position and influence of intellectuals on the world of crises.

CAMPAIGN OF ASSYRIAN KING TUKULTI-NINURTA I (1243-1207 BC) KUTI, ŠUBARI AND NAIRI – 2019-2

Summary 

Artak S. Sargsyan

Key words – Countries of Nairi, country of Kuti, country of Šubari, battle of Nihriya, Katmuhi (Kadmian Tsavdek), Alzi-Agdznik, Teburzi-Dersim, Hayasa-Azzi, mountains of Muzur, basin of the Euphrates, Makan (Magnana, Machkan), Upper Sea, MusruArinni (Miյas, Arin).

The article explored the route of the campaign of Aššur king Tukulti-Ninurta I, in the first year of his rule, on Kuti, Šubari and Nairi. As a result, it was found that the Assyrian army reached Korduk, through the basin of the Great Zab or the Tigris, and captured the Kutians countries Ukumani (surroundings of Komana and Gefshe), Mehri (Mehri Nar), Šarnida (Shirnak or Shahidinan), Elհunia (Eruh) and Babհi (area of Tigers merger). Then the army of Aššur passed the Šubarians countries Katmuhi (Kadmian Tsavdek), Kašiiari mountainous region (Tour-Abdin), Mummi (Maymunik), Bušše (Bsherik), Alzi (Agdznik), Madani (Maden), Surra (Siri, between Maden and Balu ), Nihani (Nexri, north-east of Balu), Alaia (Alevor, north-east of Hozat), Teburzi (Dersim), Purulumzi (in the basins of the Pahin and Mzur rivers)) and captured the great sanctuary Purulumzi (possibly Kamah). Then the Assyrians reached the Upper Euphrates, between Kamah and Erznka, and entered into Nairi. There they faced 40 (43) kings of Nairi, reached the southern border of the country Makan (comparable to ant. Magnana, mod. Machkan), located on the shores of the Upper Sea (Black Sea) – between Trabzon and Gyumushkhane. In the country of Nairi, the Assyrians also occupied the Azalzi (probably Ariza-Eriza-Erznka) and Šepardi countries. On the way back, they probably crossed the Euphrates near Tommisa, entered Kommagene, captured about thirty thousand Hittite soldiers and returned to Assyria. It is obvious that the Assyrians, in this early period, under the “countries of Nairi” meant the territory of Hayasa-Azzi, known from Hittite sources, located in the south of the East-Pontian mountains, towards Mzura, Pahin, Palu and Agdznik. King Aššur on the path of the parokha gave at least five major battles-the first, in the mountains of Iauri (on the southern slopes of Korduk), against the allied forces of the kutians, the second against Alzi, and the allied forces of the Šubarian kings (somewhere in Agdznik, north-west or west of Bsherik, between him and Maden). The third major battle took place near Nihriya, probably on Nfrkert or on the right bank of the Aratsani, north-east of Balu (near Nexri): The fourth battle took place against the allied forces of Nairi, in the Upper Euphrates basin, probably after overcoming the mountains of Mndzur, possibly, near Erznka. The fifth collision occurred again with the Hittites, on the right bank of the Euphrates, probably in the Kommagene area.

This unprecedented Assyrian invasion had great military-political and economic significance. Tukulti-Ninurta I temporarily controlled the districts of Korduk, Moks (Musru-Arinni), Arghana-Maden, Dersim and, possibly, Gumushkaneterritory with rich construction materials and metal mines.

THE PLAN TO ESTABLISH AN ARMENIAN SETTLEMENT IN MADAGASKAR IN 1925-1926 – 2019-2

1940s Madagaskar Plan to Solve the Jewish Issue: A comparative Analysis

Summary

Edita G. Gzoyan

Key words – League of Nations, settlement of Armenian Refugees, Yerevan Project, Armenian Genocide, Madagaskar, French colony, Final Solution, Madagascar Plan, resettlement of the Jews.

The League of Nations played an important role in the resettlement of the Armenian refugees and formation of Armenian Diaspora after the Genocide. One of the initiatives of the League was connected with the saving of the Armenian refugees and their resettlement to other parts of the world. The rather interesting project of the Armenian refugees in Madagaskar was elaborated (1925-1926) as an alternative to the so-called Yerevan Project – the resettlement of Armenian refugees in Soviet Armenia. The project of resettlement of the Armenians in Madagaskar was not implemented due to lack of interest among the Armenian refugees and other concerned circles.

Meanwhile, if in 1925-1926 the League of Nations considered the resettlement of Armenians in Madagaskar as salvage to their refugeehood, then in 1940s the Third Reich viewed the transfer of Jews to Madagaskar as an alternative to Final Solution of the European question.