Category Archives: APPENDIX


Zina A. Avetisyan

The beginning of the 17th century became an essential start of educational and cultural awakening for the Armenian nation. Closing the bitter pages of the wars, the Armenian people devoted themselves to the work of spreading enlightenment, which was done through the work of book printing. The development of the Armenian typography along with “Sharaknots”, “Saghmosaran” and “Mashtots”, gave birth to some monumental works such as “History” of Arakel Davridzetsi published by Voskan Erevantsi, “The History of Armenia” by Movses Khorenatsi, the first modern Armenian world atlas “Hamatarac ashkharatsoyts” published by the Vanandetsi.


Newly discovered testimonies about Alexander Tairyan in the archive of Alexander Yeritsyan

Haykaz J. Hovhannisyan

The activities of the Armenian businessman and philanthropist Alexander Tahiryan are not properly covered in the Armenian historiography, and scattered information about him in the historical
literature does not reflect and does not characterize his undeniable influence in the Armenian social- political and economic life in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.


Artsrun A. Avagyan

Hakob Mndzuri is one of the famous figures of the Armenian classical literature. Like many other Western Armenian miraculously rescued writers he has had a complicated and tragic fate. He dedicated his whole life to the people and nature of his native province, to the revival of the animal world and national customs and anything that is called homeland. Most of  Mnzuri’s works are about the relationship of people with animals that describe everyday life, where the only goal is hard work, which human beings would not be able to accomplish without the help of domestic animals.


Marine D. Ghazaryan

This article is dedicated to the study of topographical images in the prose of
Diaspora Armenian writer Hakob Mndzuri. Mndzuri’s prose stands out for its complete and
comprehensive images of the place, written with the knowledge of an artist formed from
close contact with native nature. Those images help to develop an idea about the geography
of this or that part of Western Armenia and are important in order to get a broad picture of
the national identity. 



The true story of Israel Ori’s life and activities

Ararat M. Hakobyan

The outstanding figure of the Armenian liberation movement and struggle of the late 17th and early 18th centuries – Israel Ori, with his selfless, but contradictory, sometimes adventurous life and activities, is considered the firstborn (herald) and initiator of the Russian political orientation of the Armenian people. On his way from the West to Russia, he sometimes resorted to falsification of documents in order to arouse the interest of Russian political leaders and encourage them towards the issue of the liberation of Armenia. Documentary records of his Western Russian political, negotiating, diplomatic activities, two “Palatinate” and “Moscow” plans for the liberation of Armenia, although unrealistic for the time, are considered an innovation in the history of the Armenian political thought. He was the first figure who brought the Armenian liberation movement and diplomatic negotiations out of the religious-confessional level (diaper) of the clergy and put them on the military[1]political foundations of a practical, secular content.

The ultimate goal of the liberating ideas of I. Ori was the complete liberation of Armenia from the Persian-Turkish tyranny and the creation of an autonomous Armenian statehood (kingdom) initially under the auspices of the Western European powers, and then of Russia, as evidenced by the two programs he drew up, as well as the map of Great Armenia presented to Tsar Peter.

A valuable documentary collection compiled by philologist, historian K. Yezyan, and other supporting materials enable us to conclude that the beginning of the Russian orientation of the Armenians is considered not the second half of the 17th century and not even the turn of the 18th century, but the 1720s, i. e.: the time when in anticipation of the so-called Caspian campaign of Peter the Great, the liberation struggle of Artsakh and Syunik flared up.

All this means that the Russian political orientation of the Armenian people has a history of three centuries. But this does not mean that the Armenians unanimously stood on the positions of this orientation. Historiographical objectivity requires noting that due to the dictates of the times and circumstances, especially at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, in particular, during the discussion of the Armenian issue, the Armenian socio-political circles mainly and involuntarily represented other – Western orientations, but in both cases did not achieve significant positive results.

At the same time, it should be noted that there is no need to put a big barrier in the issue of the Western European and consequently Russian political orientation of the Armenian people, since already Russia of Peter the Great with its system of political, state-legal and cultural values aspired to become a European country. And as for the liberation of Armenia, in practical terms it was closer to Armenia, and the latter’s liberation by Russia was more realistic. In other words, if we compare and evaluate the missions of the two political directions of Israel Ori, then from the viewpoint of civilizational orientation, in a broad sense it can be considered European-Russia.

A comparative analysis of documentary materials and historical-political events of the region indicates that during the era of Israel Ori, Armenia still had no real prospect of practical liberation with the support of foreign forces, neither by Russia nor, even more so, by Western countries. In the era of Israel Ori, the Armenian people had not yet developed an indestructible political concept that in order to have a free, independent national state and protect it, one should first of all rely on the collective consciousness of the nation, on its own strengths and capabilities. And from the perspective of learning advisable historical lessons, even now, during the Third Republic, in the conditions of modern serious challenges, it is difficult to say how irreversible the political mentality and the way of actions of the Armenian public and the state power have become among us regarding the independent statehood and defense of the Motherland



To the 200th anniversary of the birth of Fyodor Dostoevsky

Petros H. Demirchyan
The influence of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s personality and his work on the development of Russian and world literary-scientific thought is enormous. Of course, Armenian literature is not an exception with its two historically formed branches The article refers to the case of two original authors representing the above-mentioned branches of Armenian literature: Raffi (Hakob Hakobyan, s/o Melik) and Yeghia Temirchipashyan, who in that sense, we consider, need more comprehensive, complete elucidation. At the heart of the monitoring mainly is the problem of the relationship between the national and the universal of literature, which gives the opportunity to examine the work of a national writer in interaction with world great minds. There can be no doubt that Raffi’s famous works, being the most powerful expression of the life and destiny of the Armenians, provided him with the right of being called “The Armenian national novelist” (A. Chopanyan). Nevertheless, Raffi’s work was also viewed in the broader context of the world literature of his time. He created characters,
which, under the national image and essence expose the soul and psychology of the human being in general. In this sense, the character Godfather Petros of the
“The Diary of a Khachagogh (Cross-thief)” with an equally cruel philosophy that contradicts the irrational laws of a society that undermines the very essence
of the human being: “I am like an evil spirit must punish people’s injustices only with injustices…” directly relates to Dostoevsky’s question in which the
essential thing is whether there is a goal that justifies the right to punish the perpetrator by depriving him of his life. F. Dostoevsky, by Raskolnikov, the
hero of the novel “Crime and Punishment” raises the issue of Conscience. Some of Raffi’s heroes are also forced to commit evil – murder and they try to
justify it with the idea of self-defense having a natural historical basis. However, in many cases, the problem goes beyond that and enters the field of
defense of the people and the homeland. In the novel “Samvel”, Samvel kills his parents because they betrayed the most important sacred things – the nation
and the homeland.

In creative parallels of F. Dostoyevsky and Raffi the issues of crime, punishment, conscience and human relations, national history, search for ways of the future are also crucial.

As for F. Dostoevsky-Y. Temirchipashyan creative parallels, at least two key factors can be considered here: the similarities between the personal nature and biography of the writers and the dominance of the Philosophy of Suffering, which, in fact, had a profound effect on their work. But divine providence finally decided, as if in spite of all this, at least in the last years of the life of great writers, to open a window of consolation before their sufferings. And just as Anna Snitkina for Fyodor Dostoevsky, likewise Ellen Nissen for Yeghia Temirchipashyan were real “guardian angels”, they were able to keep, preserve and comfort their suffering souls and hearts.

The mentioned circumstances, as a whole, give grounds to speak about not only the national, but also the universal standards and values of the creative thinking of F. Dostoevsky, Raffi and Ye. Temirchipashyan.


A view after a century

Avag A. Harutyunyan
There was an ideological-political conflict between the Armenian Revolutionary Federation-Dashnaktsutyun and the Communist Party of Armenia before the Sovietization of Armenia, after which it grew into a large-scale struggle. This time, the active, offensive side, of course, was the new authorities, who set themselves the goal of “eradicating” from the Soviet-Armenian reality everything that was connected with the name of the ARF by all possible and impossible means.

Thanks to the heroic struggle of Zangezur, in 1921 in Riga, the Communist Party of Russia had to negotiate with the ARF, with which the Communist Party of Armenia was against. Negotiations ended in failure after the Zangezur uprising ended.

In 1921 a public trial against the ARF was organized. The Communist Party of Armenia started the “liquidation” of the ARF. The Armenian Cheka was on the front line of the struggle. In 1923 the congress of the “former ARF members” took place in Yerevan’s theater which decided to “liquidate” all structures of the ARF in Armenia. The 1928 November plenum of the Communist Party of Armenia was a turning point, which reassessed the ARF, previously considered petty-bourgeois, already as big-bourgeois and fascist. The ARF was criticized by all the leaders of Soviet Armenia.

As a result of the Communist Party’s policy, ARF Dashnaktsutyun was liquidated as party in Soviet Armenia. However, that did not mean that the struggle against the ARF ceased. This is evidenced by the fact that before the collapse of the Soviet Union, all documents of the Communist Party of Armenia stressed the need to continue and intensify the struggle against the ARF. In the following years, those who had an anti-Soviet position were usually accused of being “Dashnak”. Notwithstanding the attempts of struggle abroad, the organizational structures of ARF Dashnaktsutyun in the Diaspora were preserved. And already after the collapse of the Soviet Union, after the proclamation of the Republic of Armenia, when the same Communist Party was already in an inoperable state, the ARF Dashnaktsutyun party again occupied a certain role in the new social-political system.


According to modern historical science of the Republic of Armenia (1991-2021)


Lilit Hr. Hovhannisyan
The history of the treaties of Alexandropol on December 2, 1920, Moscow on March 16,
and Kars on October 13, 1921, logically related to each other, is the most disputable and the
most difficult in terms of evaluation in the series of the international diplomatic documents on
the Armenian question.

Nevertheless, the most discussed of the above three treaties in Armenian
historiography is the Treaty of Moscow, and the most underestimated – the Treaty of Kars,
although the Armenian-Turkish relations have been regulated by this treaty since October
13, 1921. The military-political conditions and goals of signing the Kars Treaty are
examined in scientific works of G. Galoyan, H. Avetisyan, A. Melkonyan, A. Hakobyan, H.
Hakobyan and in joint study of K. Khachatryan, H. Sukiasyan and G. Badalyan. They
emphasize that the Kars Treaty is not an independent document not only in its essence and
content, but also from the point of view of political and international legal norms because
of repetition and fixation of Moscow Treaty in it. Therefore, since the latter in its turn was
signed in violation [the signatories of the treaty without any authority had interfered in the
territorial integrity of the non-signatory sovereign state (states)] of the basic principles of
international law, so the Kars Treaty does not create any legal obligation for Armenia in the
issue of territorial demarcation.

Historians St. and K. Poghosyans, A. Melkonyan, A. Marukyan and A. Papyan
analysed the Kars Treaty from the historical-legal point of view. According to them, the
Armenian part of the Soviet-Turkish border passing through the Akhuryan and Araks rivers
is just a dividing line. It does not have the status of an Armenian-Turkish state border, as
there is no any international treaty on it having legal force. The historians emphasize that
the only de jure border between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey is the
Wilsonian border, and the illegal treaties of Alexandropol, Moscow and Kars cannot be the
basis of a legal border. They also note that in case of a new Russian-Turkish
rapprochement, the «confirmation» of the former USSR border’s Armenian part as an
Armenian-Turkish border will mean from a legal point of view a change of the border
because the de jure border between Armenia and Turkey drawn by W. Wilson still in 1920
differs significantly from the Soviet-Turkish border.

The above-mentioned issues have not only scientific but also political significance, as
at present Russian-Turkish relations continue in the Kemal-Bolshevik spirit, keeping
Armenia in the shackles of Alexandropol, Moscow and Kars treaties.

After the joint aggression of Turkish-Azerbaijani armies and international terrorist
groups against the Artsakh Republic in 2020, the Armenian side, appeared in the Turkish-
Azerbaijani-Georgian-Russian «tongs», is facing the imperative of adopting a new
negotiation strategy with the mentioned states having as a primary task the avoidance of
repetition of the Kars Treaty. The Armenian diplomacy must be able to refrain from
excessive haste, to act from the position of the Armenian claims under international law,
also defend the Armenian state interests in direct and mediated discussions in the legal field
on issues related to the borders, territorial integrity and status of the Republic of Armenia
and Republic of Artsakh. And this is possible only in the case of restoration of the
international personality and economic-military potential of the Republic of Armenia got
loose by the Artsakh 44-days war, also the unity and comprehensive cooperation between
the Republic of Armenia, Republic of Artsakh and Armenian Diaspora Javakhk.



Armen Ts. Marukyan
The Kars “Treaty” of 1921 was signed with a gross violation of the norms and
principles of international law. The document signed in Kars made an attempt to “legalize”
the previous Bolshevik-Kemalist deal in Moscow, which gives reason to consider the
document signed in Kars as an annex to the illegal Moscow Treaty.

The issue of the final recognition of the document signed in Kars by Armenia still
remains topical for Turkey. It is no coincidence that this issue in a veiled form was reflected
in the Armenian-Turkish protocols signed on October 10, 2009 in Zurich, which were later
rejected by Armenia. The protocol “On the establishment of diplomatic relations between
the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey” states that “the signatories reaffirm
the mutual recognition of the border existing between the two countries, established by the
relevant treaties on the basis of international law”.

The signing of the Kars document led to significant losses of the Armenian
territories, caused serious security problems, demographic problems and psychological|
complexes, the consequences of which Armenia and the Armenian people continue to feel
to this day. Before taking any steps to neutralize the grave consequences of the Kars
document, Armenia should carry out consistent political and diplomatic work, taking into
account geopolitical and regional processes.

It is no secret that influential powers use the norms and principles of international
law in their interests and goals, sometimes violating or interpreting them in their favor.
Even if influential actors of international relations try to justify their actions by the norms
and principles of international law, the Republic of Armenia, as a subject of this law, is
simply obliged to take advantage of the possibilities of international law, defending not
only its own interests, but also the legal rights of the entire Armenian people.