Yeznig

Is this the same as 'anoush abour' that was however for us an easter treat only? Yeznig

After a long silence....Here an item from Groong by Eddie Arnavoudian on Javakhk. Worth a read: Not necessarily masterpieces or artistically outstanding. Yet none will disappoint the lover of literature or history. Reading them one will always find something of value... Armenian News Network / Groong February 2, 2010 By Eddie Arnavoudian I. THE PLIGHT OF ARMENIANS UNDER GEORGIAN RULE In historical times the Tchavakhk region now just beyond the north Armenian border was one of the nine districts of the northern Armenian province of Gugark. But, since 1918 and against the will of its overwhelming Armenian majority constituting 92% of the population, it has been annexed to Georgia. During the Soviet era and after, Tchavakhk's Armenian community has continued to experience national oppression at the hands of a Georgian elite determined to cleanse the Armenian community from its homeland. Though sometimes over-detailed and frequently lax in argument and supporting evidence, Ashot Melkonian's `Tchavakhk through the 19th and the First Quarter of the 20th century' (544pp, 2003, Yerevan, Armenia) constitutes a valuable introduction to yet another disputed region in the Caucuses. It has in addition a substantial appendix of important documentary evidence, but amazingly there is not a single map in the entire volume! Propounding a case for Tchavakhk's secession from Georgia or for its annexation to Armenia is not the author's primary concern. What he does rather is mount a firm defence of the Armenian population's national rights against a rising tide of Georgian chauvinism that buttresses its contemporary anti-Armenian campaign by a fabricated history that denies any ancient Armenian presence in Tchavakhk. Falsifying the historical record Georgian chauvinists are developing a counterfeit history in which a significant Armenian presence in Tchavakhk is wrongly dated to commence only in the 19th century and as if a result only of 19th century Tsarist engineered mass migrations at the expense of the native Georgian population. It is to Melkonian's credit that he does not attempt to assert an exclusive Armenian identity or Armenian political right to the region. The synopsis of Tchavakhk's pre-19th century history shows that it never had an exclusive national physiognomy, Georgian, Armenian or otherwise. As a political and social entity it had been endlessly fought over and passed back and forth among Armenian and Georgian monarchies and principalities, and later among Arab, Turkish, Persian and Tsarist claimants. In the constant violent contests Tchavakhk was repeatedly battered, beaten and reduced to waste, frequently with the entire region depopulated and repopulated and its demographic structure repeatedly and radically altered. Successive occupying powers, Arab, Ottoman, Persian and Tsarist all used mass population relocations as instruments of policy, repopulating Tchavakhk, and not only Tchavakhk, with a pliable community that would serve it, produce taxable wealth, act as a social base for their rule and supply fodder for their armies and administrations. During Arab, Persian and Ottoman domination inward non-Armenian migration and outward Armenian emigration contributed significantly to the decline of Tchavakhk's Armenian population. This decline was accelerated by campaigns of forced conversions to Islam and to equally pernicious forced conversion to the Georgian Orthodox Church. In this connection Melkonian's excavation of documentary evidence is particularly persuasive. For Armenians who suffered disproportionately under Ottoman and Persian rule and whose leadership was locked into alliance with the Tsarist Empire, mass migration to Tsarist controlled territory was frequently regarded as a path to salvation and freedom. So in the trail of Russian troops Armenians would readily abandon their older homelands in the hope of rebuilding their lives in new territories conquered by Tsarist armies. The Tsarist state readily encouraged Armenian emigration in view of the Armenian Church's willingness to act as a vanguard and ally of Russian invaders and recruit the local Armenian population to aid Tsarist military efforts. This led Turkish or Persian forces to treat all Armenians as a fifth column for Russian expansion to the frequent slaughter of the innocent population. It was as a result of one such mass Tsarist sponsored migration that followed the 1829-30 Ottoman-Russian war that the much diminished Armenian community in Tchavakhk was restored to a majority position that endures to this day. An estimated 20,000 Armenians abandoned Erzeroum, then part of historic Ottoman occupied Armenia, for the newly Tsarist occupied Tchavakhk. After much hardship the newly established communities flourished. Old dilapidated Church's were restored and new ones built along with new schools, libraries and social institutions. From its very beginning this process was opposed by an emerging Georgian nationalist movement. Nevertheless Tchavakhk's Armenians went on to play a significant role in their national movement with outstanding figures from the region including poet Vahan Derian, novelist and dramatist Terenik Demirjian, troubadour Ashough Djivani, the controversial Rouben Ter-Minassian and Hovanness Kajaznouni. In connection with the mass 1830 emigration that restored an Armenian majority in Tchavakhk it is worth remarking that it simultaneously and qualitatively undermined the demographic density of Armenian population in the heart of historical western Armenia. In this it constituted a decisive moment in a historical trend of depopulation of Ottoman occupied Armenia - by emigration and repression - and had deep negative consequences for the development of the Armenian national movement as a whole. Damaging demographically, the 1820-30 migrations removed from the core of historic Armenia a central social force of the national movement. A substantial portion of those who left Erzerum were craftsmen, traders, merchants, artisans and skilled workers. This stratum could have provided a crucial foundation both for Armenian economic development, and in an age of rising nationalism, the cadre for an indigenous and independent leadership. Melkonian's volume is most interesting in its coverage of the years between 1917 and 1923. These coincided with the victory of Georgian ultra-nationalists who rejected earlier Georgian-Azeri-Armenian agreements to settle post-war territorial border disputes according to demographic compositions or by popular referendum. Intent on territorial aggrandisement they displayed complete disregard for the interests of the local inhabitants, not just in Tchavakhk but in other areas populated by Armenians or Azeris. Deemed Georgian territory they insisted in addition that these were strategically necessary for Georgian state security and so refused to consider anything but their annexation. In collaboration with German imperialism and with Turkey they moved rapidly to enforce Georgian rule both by military and by other means. Armenians of course were no angels and when their elite had commanded primary economic positions in Georgia they had no hesitation in humiliating their Georgian opposition. Yet this elite prejudice and discrimination could not justify the indiscriminate Georgian elite's campaign against the entire Armenian community within its jurisdiction. In Armenian populated territories that remained in their control after the 1918 Georgian-Armenian war, Georgian leaders resorted to national repression, cultural prohibition, economic discrimination and even starvation in an attempt to cleanse contested regions of their Armenian inhabitants. When almost the entire Armenian population of 80,000 fled the Turkish invasion of Akhalkalak they were, despite being formally Georgian citizens, denied rights of transit or resettlement in other regions of state. They were later denied the right of return to their homes. The result was in the region of 30-35,000 dead. In the drama of the Tchavakhk's Armenian community the British, as they had done in Karabakh, Nakhichevan and elsewhere, again played their pernicious role. Exploiting a vacillating Armenian government they deployed deceptive diplomacy to impose arrangements that passed Armenian populated regions to Georgian control. They urged Armenians to relinquish rights not only to Tchavakhk, but to Karabakh (Artsakh) and Zangezur on the grounds that large portions of Western Armenia were to be offered them from the collapsing Ottoman Empire! Armenians were also prompted to political passivity with promises that international conferences would offer them justice! Melkonian does not explain the roots of Britain's pro-Georgian policy, but it was certainly driven in part by fear of a pro-Russian Armenia becoming a rampart for Russian ambition just at the moment that Bolshevism had been victorious. The British in addition had an eye on substantial Georgian economic resources and sought to counter significant German influence there. Georgia's anti-Armenian policy continued well into the Soviet era when they succeeded in grabbing more Armenian populated land and consolidating their grip on Tchavakhk despite the vocal protests of local Armenians. Nationally minded Armenian Communist Party leaders such as Alexander Miasnikian, who attempted a more democratic resolution, were no match to the influence that their Georgian opponents had in Moscow. Yet despite the fact that the Armenian population recovered its 1917 numbers only in 1989 and despite the mass Armenian emigration of the 1950s-70s the Soviet era Georgian nationalists failed to decompose Tchavakhk's Armenian majority. In the post-soviet period the rampantly nationalist Georgian elite has resumed its campaign, starving Tchavakhk of economic support and redesigning provincial borders to break up and isolate Armenian majorities in the hope of this time accomplishing their ambitions. Armenian resistance however remains stubborn and confronted with an unrelenting Georgian state this resistance could easily express itself in a desire for annexation to Armenia. II. THE CULTURAL BARBARISM OF THE YOUNG TURKS `The Loss to Armenian Culture Caused by the Destruction of Armenian Monasteries and Churches During 1894-1896 and 1915-1925' by Rev. Fr. Dajad Yardemian (107pp, Mekhitarist Publication, San Lazzaro, Venice, 1995) should be compulsory reading. It shows why and how cultural barbarism was integral to the Young Turk genocide attempt against the Armenian people. In relation to Armenian culture the Young Turks acted in accord with Nazi Goering's infamous remark that whenever he heard the word culture he reached for his gun. With shocking statistical data Yardemian catalogues the loss represented by the `2500 plundered, burnt down or destroyed monasteries, Churches, libraries, refuges, chapels and other holy places (p11)'. Armenian Churches and Monasteries were more than just spiritual centres and places of worship. They constituted social, cultural and educational hubs of Armenian life, in many ages being an organisational foundation and core. Religious establishments functioned as schools, universities and academies. They were centres of learning for historians, philosophers and poets. They were workshops for the production of hundreds of thousands of beautifully designed manuscripts and books. With their thousands of cultural objects church building were veritable museums as well as being architectural monuments. Church grounds were in addition social centres and gathering points for popular celebrations. Right into the 19th and 20th centuries this Church continued to play a vital role in the Armenian life. Grasping its central role in sustaining Armenian nationhood, Sultan Hamid II's regime in 1896 and the Young Turks thereafter identified it as primary targets. Their mobs `took their rage out most fiercely on Armenian monasteries, Churches, schools and libraries' writes Ormanian, that brilliant historian of the Armenian Church (p20). The story is repeated with greater savagery in 1915. Through the centuries the Armenian Church had been targeted repeatedly by foreign invaders but none compares to the scale, the speed and finality of the 1895-1925 vandalism. In 1898 French lieutenant R Hubert registered the existence of 218 Armenian monasteries and 1740 Churches in Ottoman territories. In 1904 an official census registered a higher figure, 228 and 1958 respectively. The figures for the period just before the 1895-1896 massacres would of course have been even higher. According to Henri Barbie during the 1895-96 massacres `568 Churches and monasteries' were `destroyed or turned into Mosques (p19).' 1915 delivered the final fatal blow. By 1919, 83 Archbishoprics, 1860 Churches and chapels, 229 monastic institutions, 26 secondary schools, 1439 elementary schools and 42 orphanages had been wholly or partially destroyed. The loss this represented - to Armenian life and to human culture - is staggering. Up to 200,000 manuscripts and books, ancient classical literary, philosophic, historical and religious texts protecting centuries of human thought were destroyed (p73). This loss, as Yardemian rightly says, `cannot be measured by any material criteria nor can it be replaced by other values.' The works of many historians and intellectuals whose names have reached us will as `a result of Young Turk vandalism now never be accessible to us and still how many other unknown authors and their works will as a result also `remain forever unknown' (p74). Symbolising the Ottoman and Young Turk vandalism was the fate of the 8th century Monastery of Narek, home to the greatest Armenian poet, 10th century Krikor of Narek, a man of the stature of Dante. In 1896 the monastery was destroyed and in 1915 the manuscript of the poet's `Lamentations' written many believed in his own hand was burnt. To the loss of invaluable manuscripts is to be added the loss of vast amounts of gold and silverware, bronze work, jewellery, woodwork, stone etchings, crosses, chalices, Church vestments and decorations, carpets, curtains, cushions and grave stones - all products of human creativity, labour, ingenuity and skill. Within what was Ottoman controlled historical Armenia, of the vast heritage there once was, today virtually nothing remains and what remains is also under threat of irreversible destruction, notwithstanding recent cosmetic and propaganda moves by the Turkish government. From 1925 onwards Churches that were not turned into Mosques, storage depots or dumping grounds, were demolished, used as military target practice and its stone plundered for local building work. To the crime against humanity represented by the one and a half million dead, is the crime of cultural barbarism. But the 1896-1925 attempts to annihilate Armenian culture and society failed, despite the vastness of irreplaceable loss. -- Eddie Arnavoudian holds degrees in history and politics from Manchester, England, and is Groong's commentator-in-residence on Armenian literature. His works on literary and political issues have also appeared in Harach in Paris, Nairi in Beirut and Open Letter in Los Angeles.

BTW I agree that if we do vote we should take account of the candidate's use for the country. In this case too, Kerry and Bush are both disasters.

I agree with Gamavor. Elections in this country are a waste of time. Kerry and Bush when and if they need votes will try to charm Armenians with a few vague and thoroughly ambiguous words. And that is it. Besides they will labor hard to undermine Armenia itself. My wonderful old mum tells me Armenians from Syria in the old days used to say: 'Greeks get drunk on ouzo, Turks on coffee and Armenians on words.' There seems to be truth in this.

I am afrain I am no expert. I know only the following. Until the 1930s it was assumed that Quchak was the author of all the hayrenns and that he was born somewhere near Van. This was a view held by Chobanian who however introduced some doubt in a later edition of his collected Hayerens. Manoug Abeghian, a renowned scholar argues against claiming that Hayerens were written prior and after the 16th century. Barouyr Sevag writes: The name Quchak I use only conditionally and a synonym for Hayerns accepting completely M Abeghian's view that attributing the Hayerens to Quchak was a mistake, and in these days, at least ignorant. All this is from Srbouhi Hairapetian's 'Historyof Ancient and Medieval Armenian Literature', printed in Lebanon but published by our own Western Prelacy - Armenian Apostolic Church of America.

The Armenian genocide has been abused and transformed into a fetish by our establishment who gain from this their social standing and material advantage too. This terrible fetishisation of the genocide has covered up the real human substance of much of Armenian literature, culture and life in general. It is no wonder in these circumstances that many can and do remain ignorant of the tremendously profound and broad human content of much post-Genocide Armenian literature, even if it has the Genocide as a background. Shahan Shahanour's 'Retreat Without Song' Vasken Shoushanian's 'Summer Nights' and his 'Old Letters of Springtime Love' Zareh Vorpouni's 'Experience' and 'He Became Man' Hagop Oshagan's 'The Remnants' All are full of human life, including eroticism, passion and lust. Let us admire the Quchak tradition. But let us not be blind to the human content of our great literature.

This is all very interesting stuff indeed. It is worth noting that given that Quchak stands for a trend rather than an individual, then such poetry was widespread. I have a voulme of all classical hayerens and its massive! You can buy it from Narek.com The charm of Quchak should not blind us to the wonderfully sensual poetry that one can read in the moderns - not just Varouzhan, but Vahan Tekeyan, Bedros Turian, Matteos Zarifian, Rouben Sevak and others. They all wrote nationalist poetry, some of it of great value, but they were human in every respect. Among the greatest Armenian sensualist poets is Charentz who is also one of the greatest political poets. One should not really ask of Armenian poets or writer that lived in the shadow of genocide not to write about it. Their whole being was fashioned by it. There is of course a problem in writing about the genoicde - transforming it into a lifeless icon, draining it of its real human significance and using it to pose and declaim. It is an unfortunate fact that Armenian writers carried away by false nationalism have failed by and large, with some exceptions, to produce real literature about the genoicde. Is it not odd that Franz Werfels '40 Days' remains the only substantial novel on the genocide. It shows the genocide as a human experience with ALL aspects of human life expressed.

BelltheCat seems ever ready for a confrontation but alas the ground chosen in this instance at least is rather to the cat's disadvantage. I have had the privilege of seeing the book Arnavoudian reviews. It has besides the main text an extensive apparatus of notes and lengthy appendices that testify to the process - one of serious, meticulous research among source materials hitherto neglected by historians. To claim that subject matter itself is often of minor importance betrays alas a personal view only. Dismiss me as a conservative easterner I do not care. But I myself would not dream of giving someone a PhD if the thesis was on some petty or trivial subject however serious the process by which the author arrives at his or her conclusions. Technical excellence is one thing. But when applied to unimportant subject matteris a total waste of effort and event talent and should not be rewarded. It is in my view a western malady to believe that a subject can be of minor importance. Many a PhD given in the west will be of use to no one, not even the author, will gather dust and rot. Aivazian's on the other hand has at least given some people a new insight into Armenian history.

As promised I copy and paste below the book that contains Aivazian's PhD thesis that was failed by a group of dishonest and politically motivated scoundrels. Anyone with the least familiarity with Armenian history cannot but recognise this as anything but a valuable contribution to the elucidation of Armenian national liberation. Here goes... Yeznig Why we should read... "The Armenian Church at the Crossroads of the 18th Century Armenian Liberation Movement" by Armen Aivazian (344pp, Yerevan, Armenia, 2003) Armenian News Network / Groong January 21, 2004 By Eddie Arnavoudian The Armenian National Liberation and the Armenian Church The Armenian Church has had a deservedly bad reputation having been, through the centuries, a rather poor guardian of the real interests of its flock. But as with the sections of the French Church during the French Revolution, or the 1960s Catholic Church in Latin America, sections of the Armenian Church also produced individuals and groups who made outstanding contributions to the Armenian people's history. Armen Aivazian's is a study of such a case, one that, albeit fraught with the risk of exonerating the Church as a whole, opens up new and exciting territory for those interested in Armenian history. Scrutinising often neglected primary sources, Aivazian argues that in the 18th century national movement a faction of the Armenian Church in Etchmiadzin, its historic centre, played an active, energetic and at certain points leading role that was however always consciously and extremely secretive. His account hinges on an exciting detective like investigation of a claim, that clerical laws dating back to the 12th century dictated that a successful candidate to head the all-Armenian Church required a unanimous vote involving all the important Eastern Armenian bishoprics. This 'rule' about the elections of Catholicos, Aivazian shows, was actually adopted sometime in the first 10 years of 1700 but was graced with a much earlier origin by its formulators in order to give it the weight and legitimacy of ancient and glorious tradition. It was adopted in particular to secure the election of a Catholicos from the eastern bishoprics. Being the more nationalist orientated section of the Armenian Church, they were intent on preventing the Patriarchate in Istanbul from imposing on Etchmiadzin someone who would be their stooge and by extension a lackey of the Ottoman power. This eastern struggle against Istanbul had another dimension too - resistance to the Catholic conversion carried out by the Mekhitarists and the Antonian monks among others, who were regarded as a threat to the independence of the Armenian Church and to the prospects of Armenian liberation. Aivaizian makes a convincing case to show that the almost endemic division and conflict between the Constantinople/Cilician wing of the Armenian Church and its religious centres in eastern Armenia were more than theological disputes about the future of the Church, its dogma and its relations to Catholicism and Rome. The Constantinople/Cilician Church leadership, subordinated to the Ottoman Empire, sought at the behest of the Ottoman power to secure its own reliable candidate to head the Church apparatus based at Etchmiadzin. It and Ottoman imperial authority distrusted the eastern Armenian parishes and prelacies regarding them as obstreperous and involved in supporting anti-Turkish Armenian military operations in aid of Russian expansionism. There is substance to the argument. The Patriarch in Constantinople was far removed from the realities, needs, conditions and influences of the native Armenian lands. Integrated within the heart of the Empire and enjoying a degree of privilege, it was not responsive or open to the strivings and pressure from the ranks of Armenian society. In contrast the eastern parishes in Datev, Etchmiadzin, Julfa and elsewhere were within native Armenia. Furthermore by virtue of their proximity to the Tsarist Empire, they were in a position to conceive of and try to develop alliances to be rid of Ottoman rule that they regarded as the greater enemy. The case for a more actively nationalist wing of the Church is strengthened by the fact that as the major, and in fact the only, enduring powerful national institution it was bound to be involved in diverse ways in the fortunes and lives of an Armenian nation and people buffeted between the imperial policies and domestic repressions of the Ottoman, Tsarist and Persian states. Whether as willing or unwilling agents for foreign rule, or as a force tempering or resisting such rule, or seeking to tactically adjust itself so as to secure the best advantage, the jurisdiction of the Armenian Church always involved more than the business of spiritual salvation. It was always an intensely political institution with a complex internal structure, a domestic and even something akin to a foreign policy through the medium of which it sought to balance and manoeuvre in relation to foreign powers and organise its administration and governance of its own fiefdom all with a view to protecting its own status and power vis-`-vis the state. It is in this context that political questions, among them those of national liberation and political freedom, were forced upon its agenda. It could not remain indifferent to the altering balance of forces between the three empires jousting for dominance in Armenian territories. It needed to calculate, evaluate and develop a strategy and orientation that suited its own interests best. Thus it was ineluctably drawn into the political conflicts and ambitions of the day, with different wings of the Church adopting different attitudes and strategies. With regard to the 18th century, Aivazian demonstrates the eastern Church leadership's relationship to and role in the 1720s Armenian insurrectionary movement. A particularly exciting moment in the volume is the account of Lazar Chahagetzi's role in the origin of modern Armenian nationalism. Catholicos in Etchmiadzin from 1737 to 1751 and representative of early Armenian nationalism, his reputation needs to be salvaged from decades of malign evaluations that followed his nationalist opposition to the Catholic Church. Remarking on Chahagetzi's referral back to the brilliant Krikor Datevatzi from the late 14th century, Aivazian argues that Datevatzi represented a certain type of medieval nationalism which Chahagetzi both inherited and developed. Datevatzi, for example, lists 10 particularities that define or distinguish some form of Armenian identity. Chahagetzi offers no less than 50, significantly adding the factors of language and land as foremost in his list. In developing his vision of the Armenian nation Chahagetzi also referred to classical Armenian Kings and royalty, generals and fighters - both secular and religious. Unearthing the contribution of Church to the 18th century liberation struggle, Aivazian makes a note of the movement's breadth and depth. There is evidence that beyond Artsakh/Karabagh and Siunik/Kapan, the movement's organisers also attempted to secure armed rebellion in parts of western, Ottoman occupied Armenia. Aivazian thus suggests the existence, albeit in inchoate form, of a broad pan-national movement, one in which the Church and its leadership, at least in Etchmiadzin, played an important supporting and sometimes leading role. This interesting and possibly very significant thesis deserves further consideration. A potential problem that lurks in Aivazian's book surfaces clearly in a concluding chapter. He argues that from the XV-XVIII centuries the Church, through its cultural, educational and ideological work, shouldered the task of preserving a semblance of Armenian nationhood. This argument has of course an element of truth - in so far as it refers not to the Church as a whole but to a segment of it, and in so far as it is qualified by reference to the fact that the Church was not representative of the Armenian people as a whole. One needs to note the almost feudal structure of the Church whose privileged estate rested upon the labour of the Armenian peasant and serf, to whose fortunes the Church was hardly responsive or sympathetic. Whilst noting any positive contribution, it is wise to recall the Church's widespread defence of obscurantist and backward custom and tradition that was compounded by corruption and general philistinism. Armen Aivazian is of course conscious of such corruption and indeed devotes some 25 pages to considering the corrupt Catholicos Nahapet Yedesatzi. Making any broader or generalised statement about the Church opens a hornet's nest of questions. Among them being a demand for an explanation of the 19th century revolt against the Church and its authority, both in the east and the west, by outstanding thinkers such as Mikael Nalpantian and Haroutyoun Sevajian and many others. Such reservations aside, Aivazian has done a fine job sifting through apparently trivial, purely theological or bureaucratic Church documents and letters to throw light on the different political trends within the Armenian Church, especially as they related to the struggle between the power centres of Bolis and Etchmiadzin. He has not only salvaged the reputation of some honourable Churchmen, but has made an important contribution to the history of the Armenian liberation movement. -- Eddie Arnavoudian holds degrees in history and politics from Manchester, England, and is Groong's commentator-in-residence on Armenian literature. His works on literary and political issues have also appeared in Harach in Paris, Nairi in Beirut and Open Letter in Los Angeles.

Given all the discussion about Armen Aivazian I copy below a review of one of his books on the security situation of Armenia today. Evidently Aivazian is a man of substance. He would not otherwise be hounded by mediocrities and attacked by those who do not have the interests of the Armenian nation at heart. If have also found a review again by Arnavoudian of Aivazian's PhD thesis which I shall post. Though I have not found Arnavoudian's response to Avdoyan that hagopn referred to. So here the review. I reckon I am a fan of Aivazian having read this review, even if I don't agree with everything in the review. Yeznig 'Essential Elements for Armenia's National Security Doctrine: Part I' by Armen Aivazian (228pp, Yerevan, 2003) Armenian News Network / Groong May 10, 2004 By Eddie Arnavoudian Armen Aivazian's 'Essential Elements for Armenia's National Security Doctrine' is a welcome and thoughtful contribution to an urgently needed discussion about the present and the future of the Armenian people, the post-Soviet Armenian state and the Armenian nation. Accounting for the political, military and economic realities of the post-Soviet world order, Aivazian argues the case for a powerful and independent socio-political and economic-military strategy that could secure the long-term survival and development of the Armenian state whose existence is threatened by hostile neighbours and by global political developments. I. THE ARGUMENT REHEARSED In the face of the unceasing and growing flow of evidence highlighting the steadily weakening foundations of the Armenian state, in the face of the modern Armenian elite selling off Armenia's national wealth without regard for the state and its future, Armen Aivazian's thesis is largely indisputable. Contemporary forms of globalisation, together with the current dominance of the US in international politics, pose a threat to the people of small nations, to their cultures and their civilisations. Overwhelmed by the US dollar, cowed by US military might and swamped by its mass produced tinsel culture, the independent and progressive development of the people of smaller nations is at risk as US power, and one should add European Union power too, debilitates their states and impoverishes their peoples' lives. Among them, the people of Armenia confront additional and difficult problems. The Armenian state borders the Turkish state, a preferred US agent in the region that does not accept the existence of the Armenian nation. Fearing that a ' strong Armenia could one day raise questions about (the Turkish state's) responsibility for the Genocide and demand (Turkish) territorial concessions' (p172), Turkey 'radically rejects the Armenian right to statehood' (p175), refuses to establish full diplomatic relations and harbours active long-term ambitions to invade and eliminate the country. The problems besetting the Armenian people are compounded by the failures of the post-Soviet elite. This elite has not set in place any of the essential elements of genuine state independence and shows no ambition to do so. It displays instead an 'absolute indifference' to the interests 'of its population (and) to the Armenian people as a whole.' (p23) The Armenian elite has destroyed the people's faith and their hope for a better future in Armenia and alienated them from the political process. The governing class's corruption, political and economic ineptitude and criminality, its refusal to provide state sponsorship for Armenian national culture and its failure to oppose the harmful and inane features of western influence has reduced the population to insufferable material and spiritual poverty. By such behaviour, the current rulers of Armenia have and continue to drive out of the land its best and most vigorous elements and meanwhile they squander the wealth and resources that remain. This veritable haemorrhage has severely weakened the foundations of the state, rendering it impotent to confront any major regional or international crises. So today 'Armenia and the Armenian people' are living through 'a systemic crisis embracing the political, economic, cultural, moral, ideological and socio-psychological spheres' (p5) and one can in effect speak of the 'de facto absence of a national state.' (p19) Together with a critique of a deeply rotten Armenian governing class, runs a rounded appreciation of the Armenian Diaspora. Recognising its value for Armenia, Aivazian does not regard the Diaspora as beyond reproach. Despite its benefits it acts as a magnet that empties Armenia of its youth; its organisations are frequently the playthings of foreign powers and its intellectual environment is not conducive to the development of Armenian culture. Most significantly it generates outlooks and attitudes that prioritise foreign interests over Armenian ones. Remarking on the huge expenditure of resources that would be better devoted to strengthening Armenia, Armen Aivazian makes some telling points about the Diaspora-led genocide recognition campaign. He does not oppose this campaign. But he does argue that it is being conducted according to the same principals of begging from, and reliance upon, western imperialist powers 'whose harmful results are evident' from past Armenian history. (p153-4) Aivazian rightly notes that western powers have no interest in the Armenian people, but use Armenian 'genocide recognition formulas' as one of their 'means to reign in Turkish ambitions to become a hegemonic regional power. (p178) So where these states have passed resolutions recognising the genocide these are vague and without practical consequence. Today the future for the people of Armenia appears bleak, even as the elite lives in idle luxury strutting around the world gorging itself at the tables of its masters. However all is not hopeless. The Armenian people have the resources to overcome subordination to the new global order and to create for themselves a decent life on an equal and secure footing. But, argues Aivazian, this can be brought about only through a radical transformation, one that involves a 'strengthening of security in Armenia and Karabagh', the 'establishment of the rule of law and social justice' and a political programme that guarantees the people 'the right to work and a decent living standard'. Simultaneously a democratic Armenian state must sponsor policies that encourage the 'development of an Armenian culture'. And as significant as any of the above it must set about the work of 'gradually eliminating' damaging 'strategic consequences' of the Genocide. (p46-47) Within this complex of measures the defence of Karabagh is of the highest order. Any retreat or defeat here threatens the very existence of Armenia. Shrunk in size from its historic boundaries Armenia is penned into a corner and has no hinterland or unassailable bastions to which it can retreat, regroup and recover in the event of hostile aggression. In coping with and overcoming the dangers confronting them Armenian citizens even as they rightly manoeuvre to exploit oppositions between Russian and US policy, cannot afford to rely on either of these powers. Armenians should put no faith in any big power proclamations about justice. Aivazian notes how such proclamations have led to no restitution for other people who have suffered genocide, among them the Native Americans. The only guarantees for the people of Armenia are the enactment of measures that will bring into being a strong and independent state that relies on its own resources and the power of its own people. Such a line of argument suggested by Armen Aivazian's work is powerful. There are however at least three areas of significant ambiguity that, if unresolved, could vitiate the project of national independence and development that he advocates. II. QUESTIONS DEMANDING ANSWERS No discussion of national security or national independence can be adequate without a full consideration of the character and nature of the nation in the modern global world order. This issue unfortunately receives little attention. Here Armen Aivazian could have, but does not draw on the legacy of Armenian political thought on the matter - in particular that of Mikael Nalpantian and Raffi. Yet both have particular purchase for the modern world order. Nalpantian and Raffi correctly defined the nation in terms of the needs and interests of the majority of people, the 'common people'. Nalpantian argued that 'by the term "nation" we must understand the common people and not those few families who have enriched themselves from the sweat and blood of the people.' After all he notes, almost as if he was writing from Yerevan in 2004, 'the rich are (well) protected behind their barricades of wealth.' In the name of globalisation, many dismiss such ideas, along with notions of national independence, as useless relics of the past. They conveniently ignore the fact that globalisation is essentially a euphemism disguising great power domination of smaller and poorer nations. Today through their control of global institutions such as the IMF, World Bank and WTO, a few great powers dictate the economic policies of smaller nations, subordinating them to the interests of their own trans-nationals. Nalpantian's notion of the common people, not the elite, constituting the nation's core and essence is even more appropriate in today's global political and social conditions than in his own day. Today elites of all nations are increasingly being 'denationalised' as their ideology, interests, status and movements are fashioned by forces outside their nation state and particularly by the overwhelming force of US capitalism. Elites from small nations draw privilege and status from their connection to and identification with the dominant global or regional powers. So they come to serve as agents for these powers rather than as representatives of their native state's population. In the Armenian context, even the most casual reading of press reports forcefully confirms the views of that great African thinker Frantz Fanon. In his classical 'The Wretched of the Earth' he noted how the elite of newly independent nations 'is not engaged in production, nor in invention nor in labour'. Its 'innermost vocation' he continues 'seems to be to keep in the running and to be part of the racket.' So during its rule of the new nation 'it will in practice set up its country as the brothel of Europe.' These are harsh words but true, in the Armenian context too. In contrast to the elite the majority population of these same small and newly independent nations confront in the global order not just growing barriers to their international movement but obstacles to their social, economic and cultural progress and threats to their independence and self-determination. For the common people of the Third World, of which Armenia is in fact now a part, the global order is an incarnation of injustice that by a variety of means drains their land of its material and human wealth. For the people preserving their national independence and creating a strong state can become part of their resistance to the injustice and inequity of the global order. For them the best elements of their national culture can also serve as a repository of national identity and independence and can help protect the people from absorption into the reactionary, oppressive and passive culture of a dominant power. Thus their culture can become a weapon for struggle against global injustice. Armen Aivazian's solidarity with the common people is not in question. Not only does he argue that the majority in Armenia is the decisive element of the nation he also proposes that it must be armed to provide for national security. But in this volume the majority, the 'common people', remain nevertheless only as one component of society. The nation and the notion of nationalism appear as separate from the interests and needs of majority. Sometimes the concept of nation seems even to incorporate the corrupt elite that Aivazian exposes so effectively. Such a loosely defined conception runs the risk of being transformed into a historic abstraction open to abuse and exploitation by demagogues who do not have the interests of the people of Armenia, Armenian culture and Armenian civilisation at heart. Closely related to a conception of the modern nation is that of the role of the state in the national economy. No nation on earth, not even those most wedded to a 'free-market' ideology, can do without decisive state intervention in the economy. The case of the US state is telling. For all its 'free market' declarations, it unabashedly and unashamedly intervenes in economic affairs while criticising Third world countries that intervene less! An active and direct role for the state in the economy is all the more urgent for small nations such as Armenia with its fragile economic foundation and its corrupt, anti-democratic and unpatriotic elite. The democratic state of any nation that intends to look after the interests of its people, its welfare and its culture must have access to all the nation's wealth and the power to allocate and distribute national wealth and resources according to the needs of its people. The state must be permitted a central role not just in recouping for people and nation the billions of drams of stolen property but be given the power to take any economic measures, including the organisation of economic life, that are necessary for national security, social welfare and independent development. Such measures would of course bring the state into conflict with the contemporary organisers of the global order. But the alternative to resistance is continued and increasing enslavement to the dictates of the dominant global powers, an enslavement that promises only further injustice and more impoverishment. Armen Aivazian demands a decent quality of life as a matter of right, insisting that 'the concept of social justice' be 'at the foundation of the development of Armenia.' (p96) This is, he argues further, a central plank of a nation's national security. Yet he proposes no significant economic role for the state, without which there can be no social justice. Instead in opposition to 'jungle capitalism' and the extreme polarisation between a wealthy elite and an impoverished mass, a polarisation that is sapping the foundations of the nation, he advances a notion of 'egalitarianism' defined as 'the establishment of the rule of law and social morality' (p97) But who is to define the rule of law and how is it to be established and enforced? Today the elite controls state power and readily flouts all law and all rules that are inconvenient to it. How will its lawlessness to be curtailed, and its plunder of the national wealth and economy be stopped? Such questions cannot be considered without assigning a critical role for the democratic state in the national economy. III. GENOCIDE RECOGNITION AND ARMENIAN-TURKISH RELATIONS Dominating and determining all other concerns about national security, argues Aivazian, are the problems of Armenian-Turkish relations at the centre of which lies the still unresolved question of the Genocide of 1894-1922. A strong Armenian state must also deal with outstanding problems of Genocide that still impinge on the life of the people of Armenia. Against those who are inclined to consign the Genocide to the sphere of historical studies alone, Aivazian points to the systematic politicisation of the Genocide by the Turkish state for whom Turkish 'falsification of history (including genocide denial) has become an object of enthusiastic intervention.' In contrast to Armenian Government indifference, Turkey not only 'has an official state position' on the Genocide but has assigned to its National Security Council a sub-'Council for Struggle Against Groundless Charges of Genocide.' (p183) as part of its strategy to undermine the right of the Armenian people to self-determination. An Armenian state that represents the interest of the people is obliged therefore 'to preoccupy itself' with questions of Genocide and genocide recognition. Here Aivazian raises fundamental questions. But he does so without the necessary conceptual and political precision that would avoid getting mired in irreconcilable disputes. His consideration is at points also marked by an uncomfortable dualism that could muddy the basis of a credible and democratic policy on the question. It is worth remarking in advance however that his argument is not scarred by anti-Turkish racism or by any 'sea-to-sea' Armenian nationalism that reduces intelligent discussion to little more than bombastic bluster. Aivazian is a proponent of the restoration of 'mutual trust between Armenian and Turk'. He insists however that this can only come about 'through Turkey's recognition of the Armenian Genocide.' Flowing 'ineluctably from this' recognition will be the matters relating to the 'provision of compensation for its victims', compensation that includes 'certain territorial concessions'. These must however be 'subject to negotiation' (p173) between Armenian and Turkish people. Alongside such propositions that suggest a democratic and negotiated settlement is an approach amenable to an entirely different interpretation. Discussing the Diaspora, Armen Aivazian writes that at 'this historical moment the liberation of Western Armenia cannot be regarded as a realistic prospect. This however does not mean that Armenians, and in particular Diaspora Armenians, should once and for all renounce the idea of claiming their fatherland.' (p150) In the same breath arguing that the 'majority of Armenia' 'remain(s) brutally occupied' (p150) Armen Aivazian goes on to propose a vision of Armenians 'regrouping' not just within the borders of the modern Armenian state but 'in other portions of historical Armenia that' are 'to be liberated.' (p156). There is here a dangerous imprecision in definition and ambition. What territories are being discussed, how far are they to extend from the existing borders of the Armenian state? In the event of any land transfers how are the rights of non-Armenian citizens of an Armenian state to be protected? Here the utmost precision is necessary because such issues affect not just the illegitimate Turkish state but raises hugely sensitive issues relating to and possibly affecting the lives and futures of millions of ordinary men and women, Armenian, Turk, Kurd and others. A just and enduring 'restoration of mutual trust' that could generate the maximum of good will among Armenians and Turks certainly requires the recognition by the Turkish state of the Genocide carried out by the Ottoman-Empire and Young Turks. But such official recognition should in no way undermine the dignity of the ordinary Turkish people. In return Armenians should acknowledge that the ordinary Turkish and Kurdish population now living on lands that historically belonged to Armenians before 1915 and that were part of classical Armenia are not responsible for the Genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire and the Young Turks. Where historic responsibility is to be assigned, it must be to the state and the powers that be. Clearly genocide recognition by the Turkish state will provide a certain moral foundation to land and reparation claims by the Armenian state. But in the current absence of genuinely democratic governments in either Armenia or Turkey there is little possibility of genuine democratic negotiation between the Armenian and Turkish people. Prospects for resolving such contentious issues are therefore extremely limited. Nevertheless it is clear that in the event of genuine negotiations between genuine representatives of the Armenian and Turkish people certain principles must apply. Most crucially where land and border adjustments are to be made these must flow from direct and democratic agreement of the ordinary people living in the areas that may come under discussion. The forcible incorporation of any people into the national borders of another state, or their expulsion as a result of border changes, is both undemocratic and a recipe for continued national animosities. This must be avoided at all costs. Furthermore the democratic national, cultural and social rights of different peoples living within a single state need to be safeguarded with stern resolution. Here one however does need to note that demands for certain land concessions by a democratic Armenian state are by no means dependent or conditional upon the Turkish state's genocide recognition. The Turkish conquest of portions of historical Armenia and the cleansing of these territories of their Armenian population by means of genocide has pressed the current Armenian nation into geographic/territorial boundaries that cannot sustain genuine national independence, development, progress and stability. For the sake of both Armenian and Turkish people this historic injustice demands correction. Beyond land and border adjustments, descendents of Armenians from historical Armenia must be granted the right of return to any part of their homeland - whether this be in Turkey or Armenia. This right of return must also apply to all people throughout the region. In this regard Armenians should remember that there are many non-Armenians who could exercise their right of return to regions in modern Armenia. Any implementation of this right must not however be at the expense of one single person, whether Armenian, Turkish, Kurdish or any other people. As for the question of monetary or other kinds reparations, none can be just that increases the burden of taxation and poverty already borne by the Turkish and Kurdish people. Furthermore if reparations are to be spoken of, they are and must be joint ventures for the common good of all - not to be pocketed by individual institutions. The whole gamut of Armenian-Turkish relations are not exhausted or resolved on the point of Turkish Genocide recognition. There are issues of regional coexistence and security, of economic, social and cultural relations, the protection of the cultural heritage of different nations within single states that affect all the people of the region - Armenian, Kurdish, Turkish, Azerbaijani, Georgian and others. What form will economic, social and cultural relations between people take? How will conflicting claims for the same lands be resolved? How will centuries of animosities and deeply ingrained prejudices be removed to secure prosperity in the broader region? How will the corruption and criminality of the elites in these different nations be controlled so as to allow democratic forces to attend to such issues without them being abused and used to fire national hatreds and animosities? All these matters that touch critically on issues of national security will perhaps be considered in the planned second volume of this work. Despite unresolved questions, Armen Aivazian's 'Essential Elements for Armenia's National Security Doctrine' provides a foundation for an urgent discussion and for urgent immediate action. His case acquires extra weight for the absence of any cheap polemic or rhetoric. It is a call to arms animated by a refusal to accept as inevitable the steady devastation of Armenia and its people by super power ambitions, the reactionary influences of the new world order and the corruption of the new Armenian governing elite. -- Eddie Arnavoudian holds degrees in history and politics from Manchester, England, and is Groong's commentator-in-residence on Armenian literature. His works on literary and political issues have also appeared in Harach in Paris, Nairi in Beirut and Open Letter in Los Angeles.

Whatever the quantity there is some fine Armenian literature out there. For the most modern I cannot vouch. But certainly among the 20th century writers dealing with 'everyday life' as opposed to genocide or patriotism there are the following: Gourgen Mahari - witty, humorous, critical Vartkes Bedrossian - cutting vision on everyday life in Soviet Armenia Hamo Sahian - poet of everday life and the world about us Barouyr Sevak - untouchable in his poetry Stepan Zorian - slightly older generation - a fictional historian of his times. Garen Simonian - science fiction Vakhtan Ananian - novelist and also children's writer Khachig Tashdentz - translator of Shakespeare I could list plenty more... Yeznig

If possible please could we refrain from using terms such as 'our pathetic little culture' when referring to Armenian culture. Even if it is not deployed with any pejorative intent it gives succour to many who happily dismiss Armenian culture just because it is appreciated only by a small segment of humanity. It is of course humanity's loss that much of Armenian culture still remains accessible only to those who read Armenian. But this certainly does not make it pathetic. An appreciation of international culture is of course a necessary condition those interested in culture. Armenian culture has an honourable place within this international culture. Indeed I am happy to wager that Armenian culture contains all the ingredients necessary to enirch the modern individual's life - intellectually and emotionally. For evidence I could cite dozens of names but just a few - Barouyr Sevak, Taniel Varouzhan, Hagop Oshagan, Narek, Pavsdoz Puzant. No one could read their works and not feel in them the throb of human life in its immeasurable depths.

There is in fact a very good translation from Grabar into English by T Samuelian. It runs both the Grabar text and the English. It is in my view a fine if imperfect translation. BTW Mr Arnavoudian whose column on Groong I read did a review of a book on Narek that is worth reading. I attach it below. Clearly he is not up to date as he doesn't know about the Samuelian book. Why we should read... 'Krikor of Narek' by Vatche Nalpantian Khorhrtayin Grogh, 304pp, Yerevan, Armenia, 1990 Armenian News Network / Groong July 5, 2001 By Eddie Arnavoudian The 10th century poet and thinker Krikor of Narek (Narekatzi) once enjoyed a pre-eminent position in Armenian cultural and intellectual life. His work influenced the language, substance and contours of the nation's literature for at least some 8 centuries. Before he became the unread icon of modern days, Narekatzi and his monumental 'Book of Lamentations' (Narek) were regarded with enormous reverence by the common people too. Invested with miraculous powers the poet and his book were held in awe, considered as balm for human woes and tribulations, as guardians of the poor, the homeless, the sick and the suffering. Today, in a tragic waste of cultural inheritance, Narekatzi is referred to hardly at all and read even less. Vatche Nalpantian's excellent introduction to Narekatzi contributes to recovering his work for the modern man and woman. Despite some stretches of weak, unsubstantiated and questionable argument, Nalpantian successfully draws Narekatzi's dream of human grandeur out of its religious shell. Full of well chosen quotation, it opens up a world rich in reflection on the drama of human existence. This small volume fulsomely substantiates Nalpantian's claim that in Narekatzi we have no less than a giant of international literature who speaks directly to the troubled soul of the individual in the modern age. This book is additionally a superb example of how to read that superior portion of religious/theological literature which, despite its religious forms and conceptions, touches on essential human concerns. Preludes to the 'Book of Lamentations' Time has left us only 20 odd samples of Narekatzi's shorter poems. Yet these already contain some of the features of his vision as they appear later, in perfected form, in the 'Book of Lamentations'. In them, suggests Nalpantian, religious form becomes a vessel for a secular appreciation of the natural world and human life. Against the grain of Christian thought and tradition, nature and the human body are not regarded simply or exclusively as sources of sin, corruption and evil. They are also treated as objects having their own unique, inherent beauty, worthy of their own praise and glory. Cited as evidence is a poem in which the Virgin Mary appears as a woman of flesh and blood, possessing a human beauty far removed from prevalent lifeless Christian images. Nalpantian endorses Levon Shant's view that Narekatzi's vivid, lush and sensual descriptions of nature, of human beings and of human labour that appear in the shorter poems often serve no religious purpose at all. In many of the poems there is only the most formal obeisance to religious concerns, sometimes expressed only in a title or tucked away in end lines. In effect human beings and nature are presented as ends in themselves. The shorter poems also hint at the function of the natural world in Narekatzi's later poetry. Nature makes superfluous any resort to metaphysical mysticism. Nature can supply the images and the metaphors with which Narekatzi renders comprehensible the deepest and most passionate of human experiences and emotions. With Narekatzi the elements of the natural world prove adequate to the task of portraying the finest, profoundest and most spiritual of human experiences. In this connection Nalpantian, along with others, argues that Narekatzi draws on those traditions of pagan Armenian culture that in folklore survived the Christian destruction. The Book of Lamentations The scope of the 'Book of Lamentations' is vast, stretching over a thousand lines and consisting of 95 elegies or prayers, headed 'Words Unto God From the Depths of My Heart'. Some claim it lacks genuine inner unity. False, retorts Nalpantian. Narekatzi conceived of his epic as a unity and it should be our business to grasp this unity. Indeed only in doing so will we appreciate its true grandeur, its humanistic logic and its modernity. The virtue of Nalpantian's commentary is that he unveils the human core of Narekatzi's vision, without any distortion or evasion of the powerful Christian, mystical, ascetic features of the book. But he does show how sometimes through them, sometimes beyond and sometimes in opposition to them Narekatzi grapples with the spiritual and material troubles and turmoil of human life here on earth. Often referred to as a prayer book, Narek is, notwithstanding its religious form, a stunning poetic encyclopaedia of the symptoms that together constitute humanity's existential condition. The book's central object is the rational, thinking, feeling and suffering human being. 'I am everyone' says Narekatzi, and 'what is in everyone, is in me also.' So each elegy portrays aspects of human experience - emotional, physical, spiritual - which are dissected, reconstructed and laid bare in their essential, universal and enduring manifestations. In Narek we see men and women alienated from their own potential, suffering insecurity, gripped by fear, hesitation, trepidation and loss of confidence in life, enduring bitter spiritual and bodily pain. 'If a hand is raised I bend;/ If I see a small scarecrow I shake;/ If I hear a light noise, I start;/If I be summoned for questioning I grow silent;/If I justly be examined, I become numb..' Worse still, 'foreshadowing the destructive peril of my death' many of the 'most miserable and pitiful doubts/ have accumulated above one another/in the deep, sensitive substance of my heart' which is 'pierced with incurable pain'. In each elegy Narekatzi, as spokesman for all human beings, strives for release from the pain of life. Not however in the afterlife, but in the here and now. Unlike the traditional Christian worshiper he is not frozen in passive, powerless, beseeching genuflection before an Omnipotent God. The human being in Narek has independent consciousness and ambition and does not plead, but seeks to recruit the Almighty as an ally to render life endurable and fulfilled. Narekatzi is no beggar or supplicant but one who protests, argues and negotiates. At different points he even takes it upon himself to 'explain' and to 'teach' God that the best way to express His greatness is through 'audacious philantrophy'. Indeed God is 'worthy of the greatest praise' when He 'privileges the love of humanity'. Narekatzi simultaneously humanizes god, making him more accessible and familiar, less remote. In many a passage god is 'invited' to 'enter the worshipers home' there to 'discuss' and 'honour' human concerns and needs. The Book of Lamentations can be read as a record of humanity's negotiations and debates with the deity aimed at cancelling out the traumas of human life and raising the human being to God's grand level. This debate and negotiation eventually appears essentially as man/woman struggling with him/herself to overcome his/her own limits and weaknesses and realise the potential that rests concealed or suppressed within the human being. The perfectability of the human Feuerbach, a 19th century philosopher, claimed that through religion an alienated and powerless humanity projects its own potential perfection on to an ideal, omnipotent deity of its own invention. Amazingly, eight centuries earlier Narekatzi appears to be a step ahead in suggesting that humanity has the ability to reappropriate and realise this potential. According to Nalpantian, this - the human capacity for transformation, to make a transition from an imperfect to a perfect state, - is one of the dominant themes of Narek. For Narektazi, a Christian person is inevitably tainted by a thousand and one sins, is flawed and prone to evil. This is the very nature of being human. Yet just as saints have the capacity to overcome, so does a man or a woman generally. Narekatzi is relentless in cataloguing every human weakness and failure. Yet he simultaneously reveals human consciousness of their opposites. In counterposing human misery, weakness, failure and sin to the glory, power, virtue and justice that God retains for himself, Narekatzi defines a terrain for a contest with God in which the human being presses all the time to acquire those perfect qualities of a God. In Narek, the common Christian assertion that man has been created in the image of god acquires an entirely radical dimension. Man/woman becomes more than mere image or form, becomes also content and essence where God's omnipotence, wisdom, justice and perfection cease to be beyond human reach. The human being is marked by unique qualities. God has 'adorned me with reason;/ Made me radiant with breathing;/ Enriched my mind;/ Increased my wisdom;/Fortified mine intellect;/ ..selected me out of animate beings; /mingled into me an intelligible soul;' and 'Bedecked me with a princely existence' The immense scope and capability of human reason, intellect and wisdom unfolds through floods of remarkable metaphor, adjective and synonym sometimes culminating in suggestions of the possible deification of the human. So Narekatzi writes, 'even though to say so strikes me with terror' that 'We also are able to become god;/ With virtues and abilities fine' Thus does he dissolve the traditional Christian breach between God and man into a single, whole, human experience. The aim is man - body and soul Completing the picture of the human being's emotional and psychological experience, Narek contains startling images of social reality and the ills of the time. This, Nalpantian argues, is indication, if any is needed, of the poet's concern for the well being of the living, earthly human being, in his or her bodily and spiritual unity. Knitting together diverse passages from the 'Book of Lamentations' Nalpantian shows Narekatzi denouncing the terrible conditions people had to endure - the usury, plunder, war, plague, devastation and banditry among them. It is as if the entire social and political structure has become a corruption, inflicting itself on the population: 'If I see a soldier, I await death;/If it be a messenger, severity;/If it be a clerk, a bond of ruination;/If it be a legal man, malediction:/ If it be a religious man, reprimand'. So the poet, becoming a spokesman for humanity, urges God 'to bless those suffering more than I;/ To release the incarcerated;/ To emancipate the condemned;/ To do goodness to the cursed;/To bring joy to the humiliated;/ To be balm to the heartbroken.' Narekatzi's temporal concerns are evident not just in the social content of the poetry but in its philosophic and artistic technique as well. It would be inconceivable, Nalpantian asserts, for a thinker preoccupied by mystical concerns to exhaustively, passionately and so vividly describe the human body. Yet this is exactly what Narekatzi does often in some inspiring poetry. And he does not do so in the traditional Christian manner, to underline God's genius. In affirming the marvel of the human body he lays the ground for appeals to God to cure people of bodily ills, to restore them to their own inherent splendour. Underlining this concern for life on earth is a rejection of traditional Christian notions of death as relief and redemption from an unworthy bodily existence. With awesome poetic force Narekatzi shows that death is no blissful transition to a better, everlasting world. It is 'annihilation', it is 'the transition to nothingness', it is 'loss' and 'emptiness'. Death is like 'a lantern extinguished', a 'dried up stream', 'an uprooted tree', 'a burnt bit of dead wood', a 'pitiful sight', a 'miserable form', a 'tragic thing'. It is no accident therefore that pleas to stay the hand of death, to cure the body, to give it strength to resist and live appear throughout the poem. Pressing home his point Nalpantian argues that when Narekatzi does pay homage to the Christian concept of death the passages lack poetic fire and passion. Equally significant is the fact that in the 'Book of Lamentations' one only rarely comes across significant references or expressions of desire for the afterlife. Those passages that do express such a desire also lack poetic power. Many scholars, Christians among them, even claim these passages may be additions by other pens. Krikor of Narek wrote the 'Book of Lamentations' as a 'monument of hope'. In a series of wonderfully uplifting passages we see at the core of a truly monumental work a profound love of humanity and a passionate desire to see all obstacles to human happiness - psychological, emotional and material - removed. Reading these passages we can see why the book had such an amazing hold over the population. With a mesmerising poetry unrivalled in Armenian literature, it inspired in men and women the hope of a fulfilled life, and it sustained this hope during long centuries of darkness and oppression. Vatche Nalpantian's 'Krikor of Narek' is a marvellous introduction to a body of work that belongs not to Christians, but to humanity as a whole. Despite the aspersions cast upon it, Narek is not a sermon in humility and resignation in the face of oppression and misery, even though it does not, and could not, preach revolt as some have idly desired. Despite its complexity and age the 'Book of Lamentations' can still speak vibrantly to an era where hope has diminished and where gloom and darkness need vanquishing. Note: There is no adequate English language translation of Narek. Extracts are rough and ready, remote approximations, with the help of Misha Kudian and Gevork Emin ------------------------------------------------------------------- Eddie Arnavoudian holds degrees in history and politics from Manchester, England, and is Groong's commentator-in-residence on Armenian literature. His works on literary and political issues have also appeared in Harach in Paris, Nairi in Beirut and Open Letter in Los Angeles.

Thanks for this. Sevak is one of the twentieth century's outstanding poets. In any language I am sure....

You need to study some history here my friend...