Category Archives: MEMORY

Part I: the warm friendship of Simon Zavaryan and Hovhannes Tumanyan

Summary

Susanna G. Hovhannisyan
The social activity of the great persons – Simon Zavaryan and Hovhannes Tumanyan is one of the interesting pages of the Armenian political thought of the beginning of the 20th century. The meetings and cooperation of these two famous persons are connected to the activity of AR Federation, which was the primary force in the Armenian liberation war, as well as to the different spheres of the Armenian life activity. They were gathered with the idea of the survival and freedom of the Armenian people.

The social, national, educational and other projects of Zavaryan and Tumanyan had just one goal – to develop the social life and people in general. Nevertheless, that period full of political mess and disorder left all their projects undone.

Despite the different characters, they were holding the same views concerning the development of the national literature, the role of woman, patriotism, culture and so on. But they were in variance in the questions of foreign policy, especially in the question of Russia’s policy.

Zavaryan and Tumanyan have almost always been on the same side of the barricade, they’ve been together in the same political group – «Young Armenia», in the same party – AR Federation. They have given lectures in the youthful secret organization called “Tsiatsan” (Rainbow), which purposed to introduce the Armenian literature and history to the people contributing in that way to the rise of the national self-consciousness and freedom-loving ideas. They have also run the risk together during the Armenian-Tatar conflict in 1905-1906.

Despite the differences and common things in approaches of Zavaryan and Tumanyan, they are very timely even now. Their researches and publicistic articles, numerous ideas and the whole life that they lived are original and necessary lectures for every Armenian public figure at all times.

Summary

A. H.
The commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide in Soviet Armenia was closely related to the problem of overcoming administrative system’s resistance. The encaenia of the Genocide at the state level in Soviet Armenia became moral, psychological and political impetus for the actions made along those lines in the following years. The demonstration on April 24, 1965 and the nationwide commemoration of the 50th anniversary of Genocide made understand the USSR government that the Armenian people has already reached the level of self-consciousness and self-organization when it’s impossible to remain silent about that tragedy. In fact, for the first time under Soviet rule the Armenian people conducted a campaign of non-Soviet, noncommunist and political nature, but of national patriotic character. 1965 April protesters were mostly young people who were brought up in national spirit also during the commemorations of 1970-1980ss, in timely armed combat of Diaspora and then on the path of the restoration of independence of the Republic of Armenia and Karabakh movement.

Summary

Harutyun T. Marutyan
In the coares of soviet power not any attempt was made to overcome the complex of genocide’s victim, buy also the government’s actions had some intention to cultivate that consciousness. The situation change by the beginning of Karabakh movement in February, 1988, which was the first one in the series of national-democratic movements formed on the territory of ex-USSR. It had some peculiarities inclusive of the fact that after Sumgait Events the “sleeping” memory of the Genocide “woke up” immediately and gradually became the most significant and decisive factor. The attempt to overcome the crisis of the end ok 20^th century was combined with the struggle for the overcoming the crisis of the beginning of the 20^th century, one of the displays of which was that the symbol of the victim asking for justice and compassion conceded its place to the image of warrior, who had come to the realize that the national goals are to be carried into effect only by standing on the path of struggle.

The release of Ramil Safarov who murdered Gurgen Margaryan, and the fact that he was honored to become national hero of Azerbaijan did not contribute to revive the “victim complex” (though the ones who had taken those measures probably expected that it would do), nut only strengthened the change that had occurred twenty years ago in Armenian self-consciousness. It’s also remarkable that the activity channeled to the recognition and condemnation of the genocide has been recently supplemented by demands of recompense and consequently by actions directed to it, which represent the problems in a more systematic way. The latter is also considered to be one of the signs of overcoming the “victim complex”

On the occasion of the 25th anniversary of European Parliament’s decision on June 18, 1987

Summary

Armen Ts. Maruqyan
The official international organizations’ assessments of the crime have a great importance for the Armenian Genocide international recognition. The cases of the resolution “concerning the issue of the Armenian question” which have been adopted as a result of discussions in European council in 1980 are very significant in this regard. The adopted resolution concerning Armenian Genocide was the result of the unsystematic and desperate struggle of the Armenian diaspora’s different structures and certain individuals.

Under the circumstances of independent statehood, when Armenia is an international entity, full member of UNO and European Council, the previous discussions about the Armenian Genocide recognition and the adopted resolution should be used as precedent by the Armenian diplomacy to raise the question of the Armenian Genocide condemnation and its consequences’ overcoming in other international structures.

Samvel A. Poghosyan
After WWI abouth 150.000 Armenians returned to Cilicia. They ware defended by the Armenian Legion, which had been formed in 1916 to liberate the Cilicia. The Armenians aimed to unite Cilicia and Untied Armenia or to get autonomy under the patronage of France. But by Sevres Treaty the great part of Cilicia was given to Turkey and a small part of Cilicia to Syria. It was a tragedy for Armenians who had suvived from Genocde and returned to their homeland.

After the Treaty of Sevres failure it was planned to create Armenian National Home in Cilicia and Armenian Mesopotamia and to concenter the Armenan refugees there. But that idea didn’t find ant solution. France handed all Armenian lands to Turkey by Ankara Treaty. The long lasting and hot discussions of great Powers about the Armenian Question were failed. By the Conference of Lausanne the discussions of creating Armenian National Home in Cilicia were finally closed.

A Comparative Analysis of Print and Manuscript Samples

Summery

Vardan G. Devrikyan
Vardan Deverikyan’s article, “The Five Publications of Hakob Meghabart,” examines the first printed Armenian publications by Hakob Meghapart in Venice, 1512-13, according to the sequence of their printing.

By examining all of his books individually, the article illustrates how the first Armenian printer carried on the Armenian manuscript tradition from the previous era and with which guiding principles, prior to printing. Meghapart’s publications are examined thematically and contextually. The article highlights Meghapart’s publications, which were conditioned by the following motives:

a. To disseminate a number of manuscript collections notable in contemporary Armenian environment through printing that had begun in Europe, which related to different religious and ritual issues, natural phenomenon and through an annual calendar, make forecasts for any particular day of the year.
b. Through the printing of books containing necessary information, communicate different agricultural activities and accurately determine church celebrations, also including information about daily life.

Hagop Meghapart’s works printed in Venice were first and foremost for Armenians dispersed throughout the world, Armenian merchants of the day and different travelers. With this objective, necessary information, including forecasting and superstitions, were communicated prior to travel; church celebrations were concisely noted and presented, so that those Armenians, far away from the homeland could celebrate those days accordingly.

One of the main objectives for Meghapart was to create ties for those Armenians living abroad with the Motherland, which is clearly illustrated particularly in his last publication, “Songbook.” Similar collections in the 16-17th centuries had wide usage in the Armenian Diaspora, thereby Hakob printed “Songbook” where all the cherished songs of the day are compiled; among those songs found in his book, those pertaining to wanderers form the greatest portion.

On the Occasion of the 500th Anniversary of Armenian Printing

Summary

Sasun M. Haroutyunyan
One of the most important developments in human history has been the invention of the printing press. It gave birth to revolutionary changes in world civilization. Many nations urgently wanted to make use of this invention in order to develop their science and culture.

The modern art of printing was also acquired by the Armenian nation. The first Armenian publishing house was founded in 1771 by the All-Armenian Catholicos, Simeon A. Yerevantsi. The funding for the construction was provided by Grigor Chakikyan a benefactor from the Indian-Armenian Diaspora.

After the foundation of the printing house the problem of paper arose. At first it was imported to Armenia from European countries, which proved to be very expensive. In order to limit the expenses, Simeon A Yerevantsi seized the opportunity to start paper production in Armenia. By 1776, the construction of a paper factory in Echmiadzin was completed.

Thus, the foundations of both the first printing house and paper factory in Armenia are closely affiliated with Simeon A. Yerevantsi.

Summary

Murad M. Hasratyan
One of the works of medieval Armenia’s greatest architects, Trdat was the restoration of the destroyed dome of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople following an earthquake in 980. Armenian historian Stepanos Taronetsi, including also a Byzamtium chronologer notes that he restored the basilica’s dome in the year 992.

While restoring Hagia Sophia’s dome, Trdat did not rebuild it according to the original but rather applied innovative architectural and construction solutions for that complicated process. In contrast to Armenian churches, he built the dome arch much lower, which alleviated its weight and rebuilt the west side of the dome with 20 dome ribs. He built 40 windows which also made it lighter and gave it the illusion of being suspended from the sky. These unique and bold solutions were justified as the dome is still standing today.

Summary

Gegham M. Badalyan

Up until the second half of the 19th century, and in separate cases even up until the end of the same century, there existed about two dozen semi-independent Armenian authorities, autonomous provinces or communities on the territory of Western Armenia. The strongest among them were the authorities in Sassun and Zeitun, whose semi-independent status was established on behalf of the Ottoman power through special edicts. The Melikdoms of Shatakh, Moks, Baghlu, the Mirakyan’s of Dersim, and the authorities of Isyan and Savur also enjoyed wide autonomy, while acknowledging the supremacy of their powerful neighboring Muslim country. As a rule, these authorities were governing formations of Armenian or foreign dynasties, who were endowed with the rights of “junior ally.” At the next level were a number of smaller units, whose territory was limited by one or a few settlements – the Melikdoms of the Tarkhanyans, Zirakyans, Liz, and Yonjalu in Van, the Melikdoms of Khnus and Manazkert in Erzerum including also separate communities strewn throughout the territories of Southwestern Armenia, Pontos and Gamirk.

Summary

Davit V. Petrosyan

The mythical period, one of the core ingredients of the mythical aesthetic structure, has received prominent expression in the three essays by Mushegh Galshoyan: “Crow Stone,” “The Torch of the Illuminator,” and “Where Are You Going, Old Man?”

With this objective in mind, the article examines one of the core understandings, which is specific to the mythical period and which is described as a transmission from timeliness to untimeliness. Thereby, a number of distinctive features of the inner world, which was specific to the spiritual time period, of Mushegh Galshoyan’s heroes are revealed.

There are a number of interesting parallels in the essays between mythical time and space, thanks to which different periods of time are revealed on the same plane and uncover new areas of mythical untimeliness.

The period, cyclical repetitions of time have also found their unique personification in myths. In this context, M. Galshoyan’s thinking goes back to the creative origin and finds parallels with the mythical period typical with the telling of the Bible.

The writer’s literary search in these essays clearly laid the foundation for the birth of his collection, “The Clouds of Mount Marouta.”