Articles
Permanent URI for this collection
Browse
Recent Submissions
Item The Contested Ground of a Transition Neodemocracy from the Perspective of Globalization(2007) Vladimir OsipovՀեղինակը կ'անդրադառնայ համայնավարութենէն նորժողովրդավարութեան անցնող երկիրներու անցումային հանգրուանի դիմագրաւած բազմապիսի մարտահրաւէրներուն: Ան կը ծանրանայ մանաւանդ՝ թէ ինչպէս կարելի է գոյատեւող, օրէնքի, արդիւնաւէտ եւ մրցունակ շուկայական տնտեսութեամբ եւ քաղաքացիական հասարակութեամբ երկիր պետութիւն մը կայացնել: Հեղինակը կ'անդրադառնայ նաեւ նման երկրի մը կայացման մէջ արտաքին ազդակներուն, մանաւանդ՝ համաշխարհայնացման ազդեցութեան: Ըստ իրեն հարցը աւելի կը բարդանայ ի տես համաշխարհայնացման շուրջ միատարր տեսակէտի եւ մօտեցումի բացակայութեան, որ հետեւանք է անոր ծայրայեղ քաղաքականացման եւ գաղափարախօսականացման: Հեղինակը այս ընդհանրական պատկերին կը ջանայ բաղդատել Հայաստանի իրականութիւնը, կ'անդրադառնայ համաշխարհայնացման խնդրով Հայաստանի դիմագրաւած մարտահրաւէրներուն, կը նշէ առօրէական մշակոյթի արձանագրած յաջողութիւնները՝ ազգային մշակոյթներու հաշւոյն: Հեղինակը սպառած կը նկատէ «անցումային շրջանի» տեսութիւնները առանց որ անոնք ակնկալուած արդիւնքները տուած ըլլան Հայաստանին: Ասոր պատճառը ան կը վերագրէ առանց քննադատական մօտեցումի նորազատական տեսութեան որդեգրումին: Ան կը մատնանշէ նաեւ, որ տնտեսական բարեփոխումներու ծրագիրը որդեգրուեցաւ հնազանդօրէն, այնպէս՝ ինչպէս ան հրամցուեցաւ Միջազգային Հիմնադրամին եւ Համաշխարհային Դրամատան կողմէ: Ասոնց հետեւանքով, անցեալի բազում գաղափարախօսական ըմբռնումներ ինչպէս եւ բազմաթիւ ընկերային, մշակութային եւ բարոյական արժէքներ թաղուեցան՝ առանց նորերու յառաջացման: Ի յայտ եկան քաղաքական մասնակցութեան սնամէջ, մակերեսային ժողովրդավարական հաստատութիւններ, իշխանութիւնը մտաւ փակ շրջանակի մէջ: Հեղինակը հիւանդագին կը գտնէ այն երեւոյթը, որ Հայաստանի մէջ տնտեսական բարեկարգումներու ո՛չ շուկայական ազատ տնտեսութիւն, ո՛չ համապատասխան քաղաքական մշակոյթ, ո՛չ ալ քաղաքացիական հասարակութիւն յառաջացուցին: Հուսկ, Հեղինակը կը բերէ 2003-2006 տարիներու հարցախոյզներու պատասխանները, որոնք կը հաւաստեն իր մտահոգութիւնները: Հեղինակը այն կարծիքը կը յայտնէ, որ Մայիս 2007ի խորհրդարանական եւ 2008ի նախագահական ընտրութիւնները պիտի յստակացնեն հայ քաղաքական խաւի նախասիրութիւնները դէպի կայուն ժողովրդավարութիւն կամ մենատիրութեան:Item Ցեղասպանութիւնների շարքեր․ պատմական յիշողութիւնը եւ ինքնութիւնը տարեթուերում ու տեղանուններում (ըստ ղարաբաղեան շարժման նիւթերի)(2007) Յարութիւն ՄարութեանThe author argues that the current mindset of the Armenians in most of Armenia was formed during the two and a half year period of the Karabagh Movement (1988-1990) Indeed, the Karabagh movement brought big changes to the Armenian mindset that had been formed during the seven decades of Soviet rule and to national Armenian identity. It has been established that the theme of the genocide of the Armenians, that is the early twentieth century Armenian genocide as well as new massacres and pogroms that took place in the late 20th century, persisted as the most important expression of Armenian historic and collective memory during the Karabagh movement years. However, the expression of the theme underwent changes including the fact that the symbol of the victim that called for justice and sympathy was replaced by the fighter. Indeed, a new perception developed according to which the attainment of national goals can be achieved only through struggle. After these general observations the author analyses and decodes the dates and places that were used on the placards during the Karabagh movement vigils, the symbolism they represented and the concepts they bore. Marutyan notes that both dates and names of places were used as keywords in order to fully express and convey the corresponding message and information. In this regard, the author states that the genocide theme was given first place after the Sumgait pogroms of February 1988, which were identified unequivocally with the 1915 massacres. Thus, 1988 was put next to 1915 and the name of Sumgait next to Deir Zor, alongside the names of the other non-Armenian concentration camps of Bukhenwalt and Auswich. If Deir Zor had become synonymous with the Armenian genocide perpetrated by the Turks, Sumgait became synonymous with the late 20th century pogroms committed by the Azerbaijani Turks. Marutyan analyzed fifteen placards that he called Genocide series placards. These depicted dates with generic messages intertwined with place names as further elaboration of the message transmitted. Marutyan notes that certain dates went beyond a particular massacre and symbolized a whole series of killings and massacres. In this regard, Marutyan highlights a number of dates and places with broader values, like Deir Zor, Bekhenvalt, Sumgait, Shushi, Baku, Khodjalu, Izmir, Hajun, Kunjular, Alexandropole, Cilicia, 1915,1895, 1909, 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1937, and 1988. Some of these dates and places were registered on the placards with numbers or figures or maps providing further elucidation to the reader. In certain cases a triad of date, place and number has been depicted. The author underlines the fact that in the post-Sumgait era, any danger that threatened the existence of any Armenian group, or any danger that the Armenians faced, was seen and perceived in the light of genocide. This meant a wider usage of the word genocide than was technically correct. For instance, certain environmental, social, or cultural conditions were dubbed as ecological genocide, biological and chemical genocide, cultural and spiritual genocide, etc.Item Remembering and Forgetting: Cinema of the Armenian Diaspora(2007) Tim KennedyՀեղինակը կը քննարկէ ինքնութեան եւ ցեղասպանութեան ժառանգումի հարցերուն հայոց պատասխանը՝ սենեմարուեստի միջոցով: Յօդուածին մէջ հեղինակը նախ կը ներկայացնէ ինքնութեան այն տագնապը, զոր կ'ապրին շատերը Սփիւռքի մէջ: Քենըտի այդ ելակէտով կը բացատրէ թէ ինչպէս կը յառաջանայ սփիւռքացած ազգի մը հասկացութիւնը: Հաւաստելով որ ցեղասպանութիւնն ու անոր առնչուած ճնշումն ու ժխտումը կը ձեւաւորեն Սփիւռքի սինեմային մեծ մասը, հեղինակը ընդհանուր մատնանշումներու ծիրին մէջ, կը հաստատէ որ սփիւռքահայ սինեման կը գործէ պետութեան սահմաններէն ներս, եւ ակնդիրներ կ'ունենայ ուր որ հայ կայ (այլ խօսքով՝ պետութեան սահմաններէն ներս եւ դուրս): Հեղինակը կ'ընէ շրջանաբաժանում-պատմութիւնը սփիւռքահայ սինեմային՝ հայ ինքնութեան արտայայտումի հայեցակարգի ելակէտով: Այսպէս, 1915-1965 յիսնամեակը ան կը նկատէ թաքուցում-ժխտումի հանգրուան, 1965-1983 շրջանը՝ զարթնումի, ազգայնականութեան վերածլումի հանգրուան, իսկ 1983ը յաջորդող շրջանը՝ վերարծարծումի հանգրուան: Յօդուածի երկրորդ բաժնով, հեղինակը մանրամասնօրէն կը վերլուծէ թէ ինչպէս ժամանակակից սփիւռքահայ ֆիլմաբեմադրիչները մօտեցած են ջարդին՝ հայոց վրայ ունեցած հոգեբանական ներգործութեան: Հեղինակը կը ներկայացնէ նաեւ այն բեմադրիչներուն պրպտումները՝ ազգային ինքնութեան եւ յիշողութեան մէջ: Ան կ'անդրադառնայ նաեւ սփիւռքահայ սինեմային վարած դերին՝ հայութեան գոյատեւման գործին մէջ եւ տարբերակում մը կը դնէ մէկ կողմէն փաստագրական ու նկարագրողական ֆիլմերու եւ միւս կողմէն՝ գեղարուեստական բնոյթի ֆիլմերուն միջեւ: Եւ, եթէ, ըստ հեղինակին, առաջինները մեծ մասամբ ազգայնական են եւ կը ձգտին փոխանցել միատարր հայկական ինքնութեան մը հասկացութիւնը, ուր չենք գտներ «Ո՞ւր է իմ տունս» հարցումին բաւարարող պատասխանը, ապա գեղարուեստական ֆիլմերը հարցականի տակ կ'առնեն անփոփոխ հայ ինքնութեան հասկացութիւնը մեկնելով «Ո՞վ եմ ես» հարցումէն: Այս առումով, Քենըտի կը ներկայացնէ բեմադրիչներ Եկոյեանի, Պասթաճեանի ու Թորոսեանի տարբեր պատասխան-մօտեցումները այդ հարցումին:Item Հրանտ Մաթէոսեանի «Ահնիձոր» ակնարկի գաղափարական ենթիմաստը(2007) Վաչագան ԳրիգորեանAmong the many essays of Hrand Matevosian, including "Ahnidzor", the latter is singled out because it signifies his entry into Armenian literature. With its daring questions and depth "Ahnidzor" may be considered the peak of the author's first stage of literary work. The essay is unique, and its generic features are second to none in the Soviet essays of the 1960s. Besides it had an important effect on the writer. Matevossian felt that it was important to take charge of pain, to write on the land laborer, and the village, where he believed the fate of the state was to be decided.Item Քաղաքը Կոստան Զարեանի օրագրերում(2007) Նարինէ Պետրոսեան"I like hearing the big heart of cities and the cracking of the roaring fire that runs in their veins. I like feeling their life rhythm and the depth of their breathing" claimed Zarian in one of his writings. Zarian was a great urbanist, which is why he paid special attention to analyzing, appreciating and understanding the cities, and world urban centers he visited extensively. Having said that, the author, Narine Petrossian argues that it is almost impossible to identify any writing of Zarian that touches solely upon the issue of the city and the urban center. In this regard, Petrossian highlights specifically the diaries of Zarian, where she claims it is almost impossible to separate the various philosophical, civilizational, cultural. literary and other categories from each other. They are all intertwined and reflect the broad world perspective Zarian lad and used to look at things. On a thin backdrop of Osvald Schpengler's conceptualization of urban civilizations, the author draws a parallel with what Zarian had to write and think about a number of world urban centers and cities, like St. Petersburgh, New York, Venice, Rome. Naples, Athens, Izmir (Smyrna), Batumi, Nicosia, and Beirut, Constantinople and its streets, the cities of Holland (Volendam, Haarlem, Zaandam, Amsterdam); and the cities of Bulgaria, Romania, Austria, France, Belgium, And Armenia.Item 1912ի օսմանեան երեսփոխանական ընտրութիւնները եւ արեւմտահայութիւնը(2007) Եղիկ ՃէրէճեանThe author notes that Armenian parliamentary politics started before the proclamation of the Republic of Armenia in 1918. Rather, they started with the participation of the Armenians in the first Duma of Tsarist Russia in 1906 and continued in the next three Dumas until 1917. On the other hand, with the restoration of the 1876 Constitution in 1908 in the Ottoman Empire, a new venue of Armenian parliamentary politics was established. Between 1908 and 1914 three legislative elections were held in the Ottoman Empire. The author dwells on the elections of 1912 arguing that in 1908 the Armenian parties and groupings were new to such a phenomenon and were not prepared for the first Ottoman Legislative elections. On the other hand, during the 1914 elections, the Empire was under one-party rule and the elections had lost their democratic nature. Every Ottoman male above the age of 25 was eligible to vote. Of these, all above the age of 30 were eligible to be elected. The elections were held in two stages. In the first stage every 250 to 275 voters would elect a representative for the Electoral College, which, in turn, elected the members of the Ottoman Legislative Assembly. In real terms the Assembly three months. In fact, the Assembly was inaugurated while elections were still being held in certain constituencies The article sheds new light on various aspects of the pre-electoral period and the politics of different Armenian and other ethnic parties, particularly the Ittihad ve Terakke (Party of Union and Progress, PUP) and the Hurriyet ve Itilaf (Party of Liberty and Coalition, PLC) The author notes that due to gerrymandering, the Armenians did not constitute a majority in any of the Electoral Colleges. Thus, they had to negotiate for seats in the Assembly. On the other hand, there was a significant discrepancy between the figures given by the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople and those of the Ottoman authorities. In almost all cases the number of Armenians given by the Ottoman authorities was far lower than the number registered by the Patriarchate. Furthermore, PUP aimed at having a majority in the parliament and opted to undermine ethnic parties and ethnic representation. These factors all led to unending and inconclusive discussions and negotiations between the Armenian parties and the PUP regarding the number of seats to be allocated to the Armenians. The Armenians demanded 23 while the PUP agreed to allocate a maximum of 15 seats but guaranteed 13. On the Armenian scene, the Armenians were grouped around a number of parties and the Patriarchate. The latter was active through its Political Assembly. The Armenian parties and the Political Assembly extensively discussed the issue of alliance. Some of the parties had predispositions against the PUP. The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) had pre-electoral links with the PUP and aimed at capitalizing on these links to have most of the Armenian seats. Besides, there was a disagreement on the allocation of seats to the parties and the Patriarchate. However, the basic issue was the formation of alliances. The parties disagreed on which party to ally with. Eventually all but the Social Democrat Hunchag Party (SDHP) allied with the PUP. Only 8 Armenians were elected to the Legislature. After several complaints and interventions two other Armenians were elected, which brought the total number of the Armenians to 10. Of these 5 were members of the ARF, 4 were members of the PUP and one was independent. The SDHP, which had allied with the opposition PLC, lost. All in all, out of the 275-member Assembly only 6 constituted the opposition. The 1912 Ottoman Legislature, however, could not survive the pressure of foreign politics. The loss of Tripolitania (Libya) to Italy was a major campaign issue which, unlike its vague impact in the pre-electoral period, was one of the main causes of the fall of the 1912 legislature. The article is an important contribution towards developing a theory of the politics of Armenian participation in legislative elections and Armenian inter-party relations.Item Ունիթորականութեան ընթացքը ԺԴ.-ԺԵ. դդ. հասարակական-քաղաքական գործընթացների համատեքստում(2007) Վլադիմիր ԻւանովThe author maintains that the loss of statehood or its weakening is always accompanied by socio-political, economic and other shocks, which in turn make the spiritual sphere vulnerable, and directly lead to complicated issues of the security of the spiritual space of the nation. In this article Ivanov depicts the sociopolitical conditions prevailing in the Armenia proper and Cilicia during the late period of the crusaders. The area witnessed the Mongol invasions and the eventual establishment of the Mongol Ilkhanate, the fall of the Zaccharids in Armenia proper and the attacks of the Egyptian sultanate on Cilicia. Against the backdrop of this political turmoil, Ivanov narrates the attempts made by the Papal See at converting the Armenians to Catholicism and bringing the Armenian Apostolic church under the leadership of Rome. The author highlights the diverse factors and actors that supported the unification attempts. However, most of the clerics of Armenia proper opposed the attempt. Likewise, most of the ordinary Armenian inhabitants of Cilicia opposed it. Their actions destabilized the kingdom of Cilicia and forced king Oshin and Catholicos Constantine in the council of Sis in 1361 to call off the process of unification.Item Սամուէլ Անեցու Ժամանակագրութեան հայրապետ վարդապետի ընդօրինակութիւնը(2007) Կարէն ՄաթեւոսեանIn classical Armenian historiography the twelfth century Armenian historiographer Samuel Anetsi, the vicar of the mother Church of Ani, was famous for his Chronogy, which covers Armenian history until 1163. Karen Matevossian notes that in 1893, father Arshak Ter-Mikelian published the comprehensive text of this Chronology after making extensive additions to it, based on the 14 manuscript-copies and variants of the Chronology that were in his hands. However, the author contests that Ter-Mikelian did not pay adequate attention to the oldest manuscript copy, which belonged to Hayrapet Vardapet, probably copied in the 13th century. Matevossian wonders whether Ter-Mikelian chose not to make use of that copy because the information it contained was more concise and different from the other manuscripts. Matevossian focuses on the content of the said version and, after various textual comparisons with the one published by Ter-Mikelian, concludes that the version of Hayrapet Vardapet has important historical data that should not be overlooked.Item Գրիգոր Մագիստրոսը՝ շարականագիր եւ տաղասաց(2007) Աննա ԱրեւշատեանGrigor Magistros (980-1058) was one of the renowned cultural figures of the Bagratid era of Armenia. He was a leading figure of the new trend of thought in the Armenian cultural milieu. Manuscript references confirm that he had a commendable knowledge of the religious music that was taught in the monastic schools as well as the popular music that was being developed by minstrels. It is a significant fact the church canonized several of his sharakans. Indeed Magistros, a lay person, had his name included by the church in the canonical as well as the non-canonical list of sharakans, a further proof of his stature as a music figure of the 11th century. Strangely, however, no serious attempts have been made by scholars to research and enlist the sharakans and taghs Magistros has written. In her article Arevshatian endeavors to address this issue. She comes out with a list of five sharakans and two taghs, all authored by Grigor Magistros.Item 1909ի Կիլիկիացի հայկական կոտորածները ֆրանսիական պատմագրութեան գնահատմամբ(2007) Վարուժան ՊօղոսեանThe article sheds light on the approach and assessment of French historiographers on the Armenian massacres of 1909 committed in Cilicia. The author notes that these massacres were organized and perpetrated by both the Young Turks and the ancient regime and constitute an important link in the process of the Armenian Genocide (1894 – 1922). In fact, the French authors characterize the killings of 1894-96 and 1909 as an introduction to the Armenian Genocide of 1915. Poghosian underlines the fact that after a short period in the 1910s, the Armenian massacres of 1909 were rarely brought to light and discussed by French historiographers until the early 1990s. In line with highlighting some 14 books, document compilations, and articles the author puts under the limelight two books, that of Petros Aznovour, who in 1911, under the nickname of Georges Brézol, published Les Turcs ont passé la… in Paris, and that of the French journalist A. Adossidès, who published his book Armenines et Jeunes-Turcs. Les massacres de Cilicie, in Paris in 1910. Poghosian assess and interprets the documents published in the first book, which is a compilation of documents, numerous reports, letters, protests and other notes of various sources. The book reflects the diverse points of view and Turkish officials, Armenian clerics and foreign missionaries. Poghosian notes as well that the Armenian massacres of 1909 were hinted at in various studies related to the history of the Ottoman Empire. These books assessed the Armenian massacres of 1909 in the framework of state policy towards the national minorities. The author stresses that all these French authors affirm and attest these massacres. However, they vary in assessing the damage, the casualties, and particularly in pinpointing both the organizers and perpetrators. Ultimately they differ in putting the responsibility on the old regime of Abdul Hamid or the new regime of the Young Turks.Item Item Item Ara Krikorian, Dictionnaire de la Cause Arménienne (Paris: Edipol Editions, 2002), 268 pp.(2006) Vartan MatiossianItem Նիւթեր Կոստան Զարեանի Նաւը Լերան վրայ վէպի երեւանեան հրատարակութեան մասին(2006) Վարդան ՄատթէոսեանKostan (also Gostan, Constant) Zarian (1885-1969), one of the main names in Armenian literature of the twentieth century, published his novel The Ship On The Mountain, often regarded as his magnum opus, in 1942 in Boston. The novel portrayed the years of the first Republic of Armenia (1918-1920) in a way relatively sympathetic to the short-lived independent state. In 1963, after Zarian’s definitive return to Soviet Armenia, a second edition of the novel was issued in Yerevan in a heavily bowdlerized form. This second edition triggered violent polemics among the intelligentsia in the Diaspora, polemics, which, indeed, reverberated in Armenia, as they dealt with matters of intellectual freedom and criticism of Soviet literary policies. It remains an enigma to this day to what extent the second edition was the result of Zarian’s free will and how Soviet censorship had an impact on the book. The author discusses these issues with an extensive use of contemporary sources and publishes for the first time a cache of documents related to the second edition and discovered in the personal files of the poet Vahan Grigorian (1905- 1989), who at the time was the chief of the department of Literature in the Armenian State Publishing House (Haypethrat). Although these papers do not solve the question by themselves, they are helpful for understanding and documenting the changes undergone by the text, as well as for throwing some light on the role of different dramatis personae in this issue.