Author Archives: Admin

A PATH TO SHIRAZ BY SAMVEL MURADYAN – 2017-3

Summary

Knarik A. Abrahamyan

Key words – Hovhannes Shiraz, poetry, literary criticism, literary continuity, monograph, creative history, biographer, comprehensive analysis.

Hovhannes Shiraz is an author who kept the figure of Newest Armenian Literature with his national shapes. And it’s something strange that his some creative characters were obscure for literary critics. Samvel Muradyan’s two toms come to answer many questions. In this article we have tried to show the scientific value of author’s research.

LONG-AWARE SCIENTIFIC WORK – 2017-3

Summary

Avag A. Harutyunyan

Key words – Ararat Uprising, Khoyboun, ARF Dashnaktsutyun, Kemalists, USSR, Reza Shah, Artashes Muradyan, Red Army, Soviet intelligence, blockade, defeat.

The monograph is devoted to the most important stage of the Armenian-Kurdish political and military cooperation, which until now has not been the subject of a special study in Armenian historiography.

In the context of the Ararat Uprising, ha have analyzed the political, military, chronical and geographical features of the Kurdish movement, the conditions for the awakening of the Kurdish national identity, the evolution of the Kurdish nationalist circles in the sense of cooperation between Hoybun and the AR Federation (Dashnaktsutyun), the mechanisms for forming the Hoybun, political goals of the new stage of the Armenian-Kurdish relations.

THE CLASSIC OF LITERARY CRITICISM – 2017-3

Summary

Petros A. Demirchyan

Key words – literary criticism, scientific character, historicity, system, rationalism, ideology, methodology, sociology, romanticism, literary school, literature history, literature theory.

The prominent literary critic, educator Sergey Sarinyan dedicated his longterm conscious life to the development of native literary criticism and to the development of literary criticism. His literary-scientific biography, covering more than six decades, went through the walls of the Institute of Literature after M. Abeghyan of the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia, from the post-graduate student (1949) to the Academician / 1996. The five-volume edition of «The Armenian New Literature History’ (1962-1979), the two-volume edition of «The History of Armenian Criticism’ (1985, 1998), were published by his active participation. He, by scientific sophistication and diligence specific to him, governed the third and fourth volumes covering the period of Armenian New Literature of the new six-volume ecdition of «The History of Armenian Literature’ the first of which was published in 2015 by the «Gitutyun’ Publishing of the RA National Academy of Sciences and the second one is almost ready for publication.

He managed to summerize his aesthetic-philosophical interpretations of the pages of two centureis Armenian Literature in the six volumes edition of his literary heritage devoted to literature history and theory, literary schools, literature methodology, and creation of classical writers’ works /1988 – 2015/. Based on the peculiarities of the time, the scientific search of that generation pursued a revision of values that seemed to be steadfast before, which implies the examination of the scientific material not only from the historical, but also the contemporary aspects of literary criticism and criticism, methodological commonality .the basis of which is science.

THE CHALLENGE OF STATEHOOD – AR Federation and the political status of both parts of Armenia in 1917 – 2017-3

Summary

Lilit Hr. Hovhannisyan

Key words – ARF Dashnaktsutyun, Western Armenia, Eastern Armenia, Transcaucasia, autonomy, independence, the right of nations to self – determination, H. Zavriyan, Rostom (Stepan Zoryan), Russian Provisional Government, Armenian question, Armenian separate army corps.

In 1905 «Caucasus Project» ARF Dashnaktsutyun brought up a proposal out of necessity to settle of the issue of Western and Eastern Armenia’s political status separately. In 1907 the idea was fixed in the Party program, and in 1914 it was approved by the Eighth General Assembly of ARF. It was set a task to achieve broad autonomy for Western Armenia within the Ottoman state, and to demand autonomy for Eastern Armenia within the Federal Republic of Transcaucasia; the latter was to be an integral part of the Russian Federative Republic. After annexation of Western Armenia by the Russian army in 1915 – 1916 only one change was made in demand of autonomy for Western Armenia – that is the word «Ottoman« was replaced by the word «Russian«, respectively. The claim of Western Armenia’s autonomy did not contradict to idea of it’s independence, moreover it was considered to be a feasible intermediate phase on the way of the real preparing for and attaining independence for the Western Armenia.

The victory of the February revolution in Russia in 1917 created prerequisites for the realization of the program aims of ARF Dashnaktsutyun. Thanks to the efforts of ARF, in particular H. Zavriyan, Lip. Nazaryants and A. Chilingirian, on April 26 (May 9) Russian Provisional Government adopted decision «On governance of the war by right conquered regions of Turkish Armenia«, by which the civil administration of Russian army conquered Western Armenia was withdrawn from the Caucasian authorities, as well as military authorities of Caucasian Front and was handed over directly to the Provisional Government henceforth the final decision on the province’s status due to the peace treaty. So, a status of a separate administrative unit in the Russian state was passed to Western Armenia. This decision, as well as the instructions, given by the Provisional Government on May 15 to the General Commissioner of Western Armenia, established a legal basis to consolidate Armenians in western armenian territories and to achieve the autonomy. In late 1917, about 150 thousand Armenian refugees returned to their homeland – Western Armenia. The socio – economic, political and cultural life of Western Armenians became organized and noticeably active.

It was important also to ensure the physical security and protection of Armenian population and Armenia not only from Turk’s and Kurd’s attacks and robbery, but also from the possible attacks of the Turkish army. For this purpose ARF Dashnaktsutyun (Rostom (Stepan Zoryan) and Lip. Nazaryants) made efforts to move the Armenian soldiers and officers of the Russian army to Armenia and create an Armenian separate army corps, due to the Provisional Government’s policy of the nationalization of the army. So was founded the Armenian national army. This played a decisive role not only to save the Armenian people from physical extermination during the Turkish invasion to Western Armenia and Transcaucasia in 1918, but also to restore the independent statehood on the small part of historical Armenia.

The problem of the political status of Eastern Armenia was essential as well for ARF. In the summer of 1917 the Party brought forth a project to the Russian central and Transcaucasian local authorities on administrative repartition of Transcaucasian region, worked out by Av. Shakhatunyan. According to the project, it was proposed to separate mountainous regions largely populated by Armenians from the Muslim – dominated lowland regions, so as to found an Armenian Canton in the Armenian highlands, including therein the Erivan Province, the mountainous – Armenian part of the Elizavetpol Province, the Akhalqalaq county from Tiflis Province, the Armenian part of the Borchaloo county, Kars and Kaghzvan counties of the Kars region. The Georgians and the Tatars were against the creation of the Armenian Canton, having territorial claims towards the Armenian territories, while the Provisional Government did not realize it because of its short existence.

In conditions of the Russian army’s defeats in Western Front, as well as the Provisional Government’s political crisis, the increasing Bolshevik threat the ARF Dashnaktsutyun raised the issue of self – determination and independence of Western Armenia, strengthening political ties with the US and European countries in order to obtain guarantees of international supervision, if necessary. But the realization of this idea became impossible in 1917 because of the Bolshevik government’s yielding policy towards Quadruple Alliance countries in the name of prompt signing of separate peace treaty, as well as the German – Turkish military and diplomatic pressure, the withdrawal of Russian troops from Western Armenia, the insufficiency of human, economic and military resources therein.

THE COUNCIL OF ALEXANDRIA IN 633 – 2017-3

Summary

Sargis R. Melkonyan, Samvel S. Mkrtchyan

Key words – the Council of Alexandria, Ezdras I, Emperor Heraclius I, Sergios I of Constantinople, Cyros of Phasis, Theodoros of Pharan, monotheletism, «mia energeia», «mia thelema», chalcedonism, antichalcedonism.

Almost all medieval Armenian sources report about the Council in Theodosiopolis/Karin in the first half of the 7th century with the participation of the Catholicos of the Armenian church Ezdras I and Heraclius, the emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire, where an unia was adopted between two sides. The same sources say that the Catholicos Ezdras was deceived by the Greeks in this Council and took chalcedonism. But a careful analysis of Armenian and Greek sources shows that the religious politics of the empire concerning the anti-chalcedonian churches of the Egyptians, Assyrians and Armenians were not completely chalcedonian. Unfortunately none of Armenian sources saved that document which served as a basis for the adoption of the union. But it was preserved the unional document with the Egyptian ant-chalcedonites, which was adopted in the local Council of Alexandria in 633.

In this article this union between Egyptian monophysites and chalcedonians is investigated in the context of the new unional politics of Eastern Roman Empire from the beginning of the VII century to 633. Its basis was the doctrine «mia energeia» (mia enjervgeia) of Christ. In this article has first been realized the Armenian translation of the unional text of the Council of Alexandria, which consists of nine chapters. It was also carried out a separate analysis of this document. As a result of it, mutuallyacceptable versions of several Christological controversial formulas between monophysites following Cyrill-Alexandrian traditions and chalcedonians were found.. In addition, it becomes clear that this unional document is not based on chalcedonism, because the basic Christological formulas were interpreted in the cyrilian sense and the formula «mia energeia» try to explain with the expression of St. Dionysius the Areopagite «theandrike energeia». There is no mention of the Council of Chalcedon in 451. These facts prove that doctrine laid at the basis of the unional politics of Emperor Heraclius and Patriarch Sergius in the first half of the 7th century was not exactly chalcedonism.

KAREN JEPPE AND ALEPPO RESCUE HOME – 2017-3

Summary

Edita G. Gzoyan

Key words – Armenian Genocide, forced transfer of children, League of Nations, Aleppo Rescue Home, Karen Jeppe, humanitarian assistance, Armenian women and genocide, eyewitness testimonies.

Forcible child transfer is one of the five genocidal acts listed in Article II of the Genocide Convention listed co-equally with acts of killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and measures to prevent births. Forcible child transfer was part of the Armenian Genocide administered by the Turkish authorities.

This article deals with the issue of forced transfer of children and women during the Armenian Genocide. It presents the humanitarian efforts of the League of Nations to save the Armenians from Muslim captivity. To this end the League of Nations established a Commission of Enquiry with its headquarters in Aleppo and Constantinople.

The Aleppo Rescue Home was administered by the League of Nation Commissioner Karen Jeppe who saved Islamized Armenians from the French zone of occupation. In the League of Nations Archives 1464 individual surveys of the rescued Armenians are kept, from which 573 were girls and women. These are eyewitness testimonies that represent the policy of forced child transfer during the Armenian Genocide. The testimonies of these female inmates also represent and affirm the organizational pattern of the Armenian Genocide.

IVAN AYVAZOVSKY – THE WORLD AS THE WIND FROM THE SEA – 2017-3

Summary

Ruben S. Angaladyan

Key words – Ivan Aivazovsky, Armenian community, Armenian themes, the spiritual and heroic history of Armenia, portraits of outstanding Armenians, Russian sailors, pulse of historical homeland.

The purpose of the work is to show how well the art of Ivan Aivazovsky (1817-1900) fits into the Armenian world and if the great seascapeist can be considered as a Russian as well as Armenian painter.

As a man, he was not alien to his roots, he felt like an Armenian and was proud of his creative and spiritual people. He greatly respected Armenian traditions, in fact, was brought up in a traditional Armenian family, and therefore the Armenian community was always top-priority for the artist. He created more than 40 canvases on Armenian themes. Some of them are dedicated to the spiritual and heroic history of Armenia, others are portraits of his family and friends, as well as portraits of outstanding Armenians – Catholicos of All Armenians Mkrtich Khrimyan, Minister Loris-Melikov, Mayor of Nor Nakhichevan Kh. Khalibyan.

He received encouragement, attention, and then – really high recognition in Russia. He loved Russia’s devotion to the sea, admiring the courage of Russian sailors. But he never moved away from the native Armenian people and wherever he was, he was always feeling the pulse of his historical homeland.

17-18th CENTURIES KHACHKARS PLACED ON THE WALLS OF CHURCHES – 2017-3

Summary

Arsen E. Harutyunyan

Key words – Khachkar (cross stone), memorial inscription, church, arrangement, rosette, east, window, the front of altar bema, benefactor.

Khachkars (cross-stones) take a special place in a number of monuments of Medieval Armenia, about which numerous albums, researches and articles have been published. Our immediate reference is related to the khachkars placed on the walls of the churches dating from the 17-18th centuries and and created simultaneously with them. These khachkars have so far not been awarded any attention yet.

As shown by our research, the discussed khachkars are primarily distinguished by their compositional features. In particular, they are characterized by: simplicity of decorative ornaments, ornamental belt and cross in the form of braids, undecorated areas on the cross, the absence of a rosette at the base of the palmettes. The latter circumstance can be explained by the fact that the khachkars were usually built into the upper part of the church walls, and the church itself took the role of the rosette in this case. Similarly, the placement of the khachkars above the window is explained, when the window replaces the rosette forming the compositional unity with the cross, and, being conditioned by the semantics of light, obviously symbolizes Christ and the «star-light» coming of the cross.

The examined cross-stones primarily decorate the eastern walls of the churches, which symbolizes the idea of the direction of the Second Coming of J. Christ. Similar khachkars were also built in the central part of the outer walls, above the main entrance, into the base of the altar, etc. Apparently, this is explained by the perception of the khachkar as an intermediary between the God and the believer.

Some memorable inscriptions are often placed on the built-in khachkars. The latter transmit documentary information about the creation of the building, the customer and his relatives, the caretaker of the church, and sometimes the master-builder of the church.

The examined type of late medieval khachkars is distinguished mainly by its compositional, functional and memorable features, thanks to which the art of creating khachkars found its new and original manifestation also in the 17th-18th centuries.

NEW METHOD OF SUBSTANTIATION OF ThE THEORY OF SEVEN CASES – 2017-3

Summary

Bagrat S. Nersisyan, Karine Zh. Sahakyan

Key words – syntagma, paradigm, abstract grammatical meaning, morpheme, grammatical synonymy, homonymy, absoluteness, accusativity, possessiveness, being dative, initiality, accompanying.

In this article, we attempt to single out seven cases in the literary Eastern Armenian language on the basis of the abstracted grammatical meanings of the cases, which are expressed by the corresponding morphemes. We believe that the paradigm and the syntagma need to be compared and not opposed, as a result of which it turns out that the case wordform is not only a morphological but also a syntactic category.

In our opinion, the accusative is a separate, independent case, since it cannot be characterized by the grammatical meaning of unlimitedness, absoluteness, which are inherent only in the nominative case. The accusative case of inanimate objects depends on the semantics of the transitive verb and is therefore characterized by accusativity. Nominative and accusative cases of the inanimate objects are grammatical homonyms.

The genitive and the dative are also independent cases: the genitive is characterized by being possessive, and the dative – by being dative. These are incompatible grammatical meanings. Therefore, despite the fact that these cases are formed by the same morphemes, they are not polysemantic wordforms, but homonymous different wordforms. Using the abstracted grammatical meanings inherent in the corresponding case forms put forward by E. Aghayan and G. Jahukyan, we come to the conclusion that each case is characterized by its inherent grammatical meaning. These are: nominative – unlimitedness, absoluteness, accusative – being accusative, genitive – possessiveness, dative – being dative, initial case – being initial, instrumental case – accompanying, local case – being at.

THE ORIGIN AND PHONEMIC VALUE OF THE OLD ARMENIAN Ղ(L) AND GH Լ(Ł) – 2017-3

Summary

Vardan Z. Petrosyan

Key Words ռ Pre-Armenian, liquid sonorant, Velar sound, fricative sound, sub-phoneme.

The ղ(ł) and լ(l) sonorants of Old Armenian were the main speech variations of the pre-Armenian sonorant phoneme <*l> and were in a sub-phoneme relation with each other. In the 5th century, at the initial stage of Classical Armenian, ղ(ł)-լ(l) contrast appearse specially at theending position of the word. It had a function of semantic distinction (phonological). However, innative Armenian it was excluded for ղ(ł) toappear at the beginning of aword. This means that here, in this position, they were in an additional relation of distribution (sub-phonological). Most apparently, the phonemicization of ղ(ł) as a velar sound is ther esult of divergent developments.