Re: Հայաբանութիւն - Armenology
And great posts Armenian!
-
Re: Հայաբանութիւն - Armenology
THE ARMENIAN NOBILITY: HISTORY, INSTITUTIONS, AND STRUCTURE
The origins of the Armenian nobility
The history of the Armenian nobility is as old as that of the Armenian people. Its roots trace back to the ancient tribal society, when the proto-Armenian tribes separated from the primordial Aryan community were selecting chieftain leaders for governing the community, protecting the tribal territory and leading military campaigns against the enemies. These chieftains and leaders were normally the best members of the clans and tribes, who became renowned for their power, wisdom, courage and glorious and heroic deeds. Thus, gradually the upper class of the Armenian society came into existence, namely that of the azats, also known as aznwakans or aznavurs. Translated from the contemporary Armenian the word azat literally means "the one who is free", a "freeman". However, most probably this term derives from an older word and perhaps roots back to the Aryan yazata meaning "the divine one", "offspring of gods", "the one who deserves to be worshiped".
Many - if not the majority - of the ancient Armenian noble clans were tracing their origins back to the gods of the old Armenian religion or to the heroes and patriarchs of the Armenian people. For example, noble houses of Vahevuni and Mehnuni believed to be offsprings of Vahagn and Mihr, ancient Armenian deities of fire and war, and heavenly light and justice respectively . House of Artzruni traced its origins to Sanasar, son of Mher from the Armenian epos Sasna Tzrer, i.e. to the same Armenian deity Mihr . An entire circle of Armenian princely houses believed to be direct descendants of Hayk Nahapet (Patriarch), whose epithet was dyutsazn, i.e. "divine", "offspring of gods". According to the Armenian aristocratic tradition, the princely houses of Khorkhoruni, Bznuni, Mandakuni, Manavazian, Angelea (Angegh tun), Varajnuni, Apahuni, Arran tun and some others - all are offsprings of Hayk or his descendants.
The historians mention various numbers of the Armenian noble houses during different periods of the Armenian history. Sometimes their number is mentioned to be ninety, yet some other times it reaches up to three hundred. Certainly, the number of the Armenian noble houses was changing in the course of time as the aristocratic class was dynamic itself.
In the historical context, the Armenian nobility as a special social phenomenon came into existence by the times of the state of Aratta and Kingdom of Van (Ararat, Urartu) . Noble houses of Rshtuni, Mokats, Artzruni etc. originated from tribal rulers or clans already during the Urartian period if not prior to it. Some others, such as the Mamikonians or Aravelians, were granted noble titles by special decrees of the Armenian kings for their services to the royal court or to Armenia. Although the vast majority of the Armenian nobility was of Armenian origin, the historical sources still mention quite significant foreign influxes into the aristocratic class. These assimilated foreign families were predominantly of Indo-European (Aryan) origin, such as Iranians, Alanians, Greeks and Romans. The Iranian aristocratic component was particularly numerous.
Many Armenian noble houses were either linked to the Iranian nobility through dynastic marriages or were Iranians (Persians, Parthians, Midians) by their origin. The latter included renowned houses of Arshakuni, Artashesian, Pahlavuni etc. Examples of non-Armenian but Aryan noble houses would include the families of Aravelians and Ropseans; the first were Alanians and the latter Romans by origin. The non-Aryan component was never significant among the Armenian nobility and normally appears at the later stage of Armenian history. For example, the Mamikonians originates from a Chinese refugee named Mamgun , who for his services was elevated to the ranks of nobleman by one of the Armenian kings.
Some Armenian Christian historians tend to derive certain Armenian noble houses from Mesopotamian or other roots. For example, in his History of Armenia Movses Khorenatsi traces the family origins of his sponsor prince Sahak Bagratuni to non-Armenian roots. However, the historical sources prove the existence of Bagratuni family in the most ancient period of the Armenian history and speak of them as aboriginal Armenians . The linguistic analysis also maintains that the name Bagarat most probably is of Indo-European origin and stems from bhaga (god) and arat (plentiful, rich), i.e. literally "divine plentitude" or "god's richness" . It is remarkable that prince Bagratuni himself rejected Khorenatsi's version of the origins of his family.
The institutions and structure of the Armenian nobility
The nobility always played an important role in the Armenian society. This inter alia is evidenced through the evolution of the term naharar. Initially, this term referred to the hereditary governors of the Armenian provinces and was used with the meaning of "ruler" and "governor". The same title could mean a particularly honorable service (nahararutyun, naharardom) at the Armenian royal court. Examples of such heritable services or naharardoms are aspetutyun (coronation, which traditionally belonged to the house of Bagratuni), sparapetutyun (commander-in-chief of the Armenian army, which traditionally belonged to the house of Mamikonean), hazarapetutyun (chancellery and taxation, which were inheritably managed by the houses of Gnuni and Amatuni), and malhazutyun (royal guard that was traditionally organized and headed to the house of Khorkhoruni). However, in the course of hereditary consolidation of gavars (provinces) or royal court services by noble houses, the term naharar has changed its original meaning and gradually transformed into an equivalent of "aristocrat", "nobleman". Accordingly, the aristocratic families started to be called naharar houses or naharardoms . Along with this analysis, there is another interpretation of term naharar, which is based on Armenian nah and arar, i.e. "the first created" or "the first borne".
The meaning of term naharar was evolving in parallel with consolidation of the noble houses' hereditary rights over counties of Great Armenia. For example, county of Great Albak was traditionally inherited by noble house of Artzruni, county of Taron by house of Slkuni, and house of Rshtuniq by house of Rshtuni etc. Even prior to this consolidation the traditional aristocratic emblems and coat-of-arms emerge. The latter often is deeply rooted in the ancient kinship and tribal beliefs and totems of the Armenian clans. Although the information on Armenian heraldry is quite limited, nevertheless it is well known that the most common symbols were those of eagle, lion, and mountain ram. For example, the coat-of-arms of the Artashesian dynasty consisted of two eagles with the symbol of sun in the middle. Eagle holding a sheep was also the house symbol of Bagratuni naharardom. The dynastic emblem of the Cilician Armenian royal house of Lusignan (Lusinian) reflected west European heraldic influence and consisted of red lions and crosses on the yellow and blue background of the shield.
The naharar families of ancient Armenia were listed in the so-called Gahnamaks and Zoranamaks, which were the official inventories or registrars that were positioning the families based on the criteria of honor, virtue and esteem. The difference between Gahnamak and Zoranamak were in the listing criteria that were determining the esteem почетности of the noble family. Zoranamak was based on the military strength of the houses, i.e. the number of possessed cavalry and infantry, responsibility in defending the northern, eastern, southern and western borders of Armenia, as well as the size of the troops that the noble houses were placing under the command of the king of Armenia in times of military campaigns. Unlike Zoranamak, Gahnamak was listing the noble houses based on the criteria of political and economic importance of the houses, size of their estates, their wealth, as well as their connections and influence over the royal courts.
Two other notions of the Armenian nobility relating to Gahnamak and Zoranamak are those of bardz and pativ. Bardz literally means "cushion". It was the seat that was occupied by the head of the noble house at the royal table, be it during the council or during the festivities. The word bardz derives from these cushions on which the lords of houses were seated on special occasions. Bardzes - literally cushioned seats at the royal table but more broadly the actual status at the royal court - were distributed on the basis of pativ, i.e. literally the honour and esteem of the noble houses. The latter, most probably wуку fixed in Gahnamaks and Zoranamaks. The Armenian nobility had an internal division. The social pyramid of the Armenian nobility was headed by the king, in Armenian arqa. The term arqa originates from the common Aryan root that has equivalents in the name for monarchs in other Indo-European languages: arxatos (Greek), raja (Indo-Aryan), regia or regnum (in Latin), roi (in French).
The sons of the king, i.e. princes, were called sepuh. The elder son, who was also the crown prince and was called avag sepuh, had a particular role. In the case of king's death it was avag sepuh who automatically would inherit the crown, unless there were other prior arrangements. The second layer in the social division of the Armenian nobility was occupied by bdeshkhs. Bdeshkh was a ruler of a big borderland province of historical Great Armenia. They were de facto viceroys and by their privileges were very close to the king. Bdeshkhs had their own armies, taxation and duties system, and could even produce their own coins. The third layer of the Armenian aristocracy after the king and the bdeshkhs was composed by ishkhans, i.e. princes. Ishkhan normally would have a hereditary estate known as hayreniq and residence caste - dastakert. Armenian princely houses (or clans) were headed by tanuter. By its meaning the word tun (house) is very close to tohm (clan). Accordingly, tanuter meant "houselord" or "lord of the clan".
Organizationally, the Armenian nobility was headed by Grand Duke - metz ishxan or ishxanac ishxan in Armenian, who in some historical chronicles is also called metzametz. He was the marshal of Armenian nobility and had special privileges and duties. For example, in case of king's death and if there were no inheriting sepuhs (crown princes), it was the grand duke who would temporarily take the responsibilities and perform the duties of the king until the issues of succession to the throne are resolved. In reality, however, the successions to the throne would be arranged in advance or would be resolved in the course of feuds and intestine strives. Thus, the social pyramid of the nobility of Great Armenia includes the following layers:
Arqa (king)
Bdeshkh (viceroy)
Ishkhanats ishkhan (grand duke)
Ishkhan (prince)
This division, however, reflects the specific tradition of Great Armenia in its early period in history. Naturally, in time the social structure of nobility was undergoing changes that would the specifics of Armenian territories, historical era, and the specifics social relations. For example, in medieval times the names and composition of the nobility of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia (Kilikia) underwent certain changes:
Great Armenia: Arqa, Bdeshkh, Ishkhanats Ishkhan (or Metz Ishkhan), Ishkhan
Cilician Armenia: Tagavor or Inqnakal, Bdeshkh, Paronats Paron (or Metz Paron), Paron
Cilician Armenia adopted many peculiarities of west European classification of the nobility, such as paron (deriving from "baron"), ter or sinyor (senior), berdater (castle lord) etc. . Besides, in Cilicia emerged Armenian knighthood which was also considered to be part of the nobility despite the fact that knights themselves - called dziawor и hetzelwor - did not always originate from parons. Some other features also suffered changes. For example, whereas the salutation for the noblemen in Great Armenia was tiar or ter, in Cilician Armenia a new form of salutation was added to these, namely paron. The latter became the most popular form of greeting and gradually changed its meaning to the equivalent of "mister" in modern Armenian.
In late medieval Armenia and in the new age a variety of nobility titles existed in different nahangs (provinces) of the country. For example, in Artsakh of the Khamsa period (i.e. period of "five principalities") the title of ishkhan (prince) was used in its local equivalent - that of melik . Below melik - or sometimes in parallel with it - was the title of yuzbashi (literally "lord of the hundred" warriors). With the annexation of eastern Armenia - i.e. Karabakh, Yerevan, Nakhichevan and Kars provinces - into the Russian Empire the titles, traditions and social institutions of the Russian nobility become dominant among the Armenian aristocrats.
[...]
Melik Vrej Atabekian - Member of the Union of the Armenian Noblemen
Source: http://nobility.artsakhworld.comLeave a comment:
-
Re: Հայաբանութիւն - Armenology
Armenian Influences upon Crusader Castles in the Holy Land 1097–1192
Osprey Publishing
An extract from ‘Design and Development’
In the 19th and early-20th centuries, historians of the Crusades believed that Crusader military architecture was most strongly influenced by that of the Byzantine Empire. Shortly before World War I, a student from Oxford University conducted field research in the Asiatic provinces of the Ottoman Empire: he then returned to write a thesis in which he argued that the designers of Crusader castles largely based their ideas upon what was currently being built in Western Europe. This student’s name was T.E. Lawrence, soon to be better known as Lawrence of Arabia. His thesis eventually influenced the next generation of historians of Crusader architecture, but neither they nor Lawrence seriously considered the influence of Islamic traditions of fortification. This idea developed more recently and today it is widely accepted that the military architecture of the Crusader States reflected a broad array of influences, in addition to the inventiveness of those who actually designed it.
The late Nikita Elisséeff, who worked for much of his life in Damascus, maintained that Byzantine forms of military architecture in northern Syria were soon added to the Western European design concepts of the early Crusaders. Within a few decades these newcomers were also learning from their Muslim neighbours, especially in making greater use of topographical features to strengthen a fortified site. More recently the Israeli scholar Ronnie Ellenblum highlighted the fact that Crusader castles were built to deal with specific military situations or threats, and that their designers drew upon what seemed most suitable in the circumstances.
In the early-12th century, each of the newly established Crusader states found itself in a different situation. The Principality of Antioch, for example, was adjacent to the Armenian states of Cilicia, which evolved into the Kingdom of Cilician or Lesser Armenia. Here fortifications ranged from tiny hilltop outposts to major garrison fortresses, while Armenian architects favoured half-round towers that protruded from a curtain-wall far enough to permit archers to enfilade the enemy. Such design ideas influenced castle building in the Principality of Antioch. Furthermore Antioch attracted few Western European settlers and hence relied to a greater extent on military elites of Armenian, Greek and Syrian origin who may also have influenced the design of local fortifications. The mountainous character of the Principality of Antioch and the County of Tripoli clearly encouraged experimental and daring design ideas, though the castles themselves ranged from very simple, almost rustic structures to huge hilltop fortresses. Meanwhile building techniques ranged from a typically Byzantine use of small masonry an bricks within one structure, to mixtures of Byzantine, Armenian, Western European and soon also Syrian-Islamic methods of both cutting and shaping stones – each of which had their own distinctive. Sometimes variations in ways of mixing cement and mortar also reflected different cultural influences.
Crusader castle building quickly grew more sophisticated. For example the building of concentric castles first took place in the late-1160s, and although the idea had been around for some time, concentric castles certainly appeared in the Crusader States before they did in Western Europe. On the other hand, most early structures remained relatively small while the vast sums of money and effort expended on larger and more elaborate fortifications were characteristic of the 13th rather than the 12th century.
One ‘supposed’ characteristic of Crusader castles was a lack of timber in their construction, with this being attributed to a lack of suitable timber in the areas where they were built. However, abundant excellent timber was available in neighbouring Cilician Armenia. Although the deforestation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem may have been well advanced by the time of the Crusades, suitable large baulks of timber were available in the mountains of Lebanon and on Mount Carmel. The situation was better in the County of Tripoli, the Principality of Antioch and the northern regions of the County of Edessa. Furthermore Western Europeans probably enjoyed a technological advantage over their Middle Eastern foes, not only in their tradition of timber architecture but in their logistical ability to transport large timbers over long distances...
Source: http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...d&view=extractLeave a comment:
-
Re: Հայաբանութիւն - Armenology
THE CODE OF HONOR OF THE ARMENIAN MILITARY (4-5th CENTURIES)
By Armen Aivazian
Summary
Armenian historiography contains a considerable amount of information about ancient and medieval Armenian military ideology. In the works of the 5th century historians Pavstos Buzand and Movses Khorenatzi, the commands and legacy of the Armenian sparapets (commanders-inchief) to their successors lay out in detail the obligations and responsibilities of Armenian warriors. This code of honor, in hierarchical order, requires selfless loyalty to:
1) Their fatherland, the Armenian "world," country and independent kingdom
2) Chivalric honor
3) The king as the most important state institution of Armenia; (4) the people of Armenia, all of its inhabitants, irrespective of their social status
5) The Christian faith, church and clergymen
6) Family
7) Their kinsmen
8) Their comrades-in-arms
These norms of conduct share similarities with later medieval West European chivalry of the 8th-14th centuries, as well as the system of values of the Japanese samurais codified during the 16-18th centuries. However, as this study shows, there are significant differences in the priority of obligations of the Armenian honor code, on the one hand, and the West European and Japanese codes on the other. The concept of fatherland developed in the Armenian people long before the adoption of Christianity in the 4th century and was expressed by various terms, such as "Hayotz ashkharh, Yerkir, Tagavorutiun" (the Armenian "world," country, kingdom). In addition to these terms, Movses Khorenatzi directly uses the terms "hayrenik" (fatherland) and "hayrenaser" (patriot); whereas, for example, a similar concept of fatherland as well as the term "fatherland" itself did not emerge in neighboring Byzantium until the 10th century.
The large number of Armenian troops (90-120 thousand men from at least the 4th c. BC to the 11th c. AD) and the dominant role of warriors in Armenian society of that period was conditioned by the pressing need for defense of the country from continual foreign invasions. The study demonstrates that in this historical context the Armenian military's honor code had a solid and lasting impact upon the national character and the worldview of the Armenian people.
Source: http://www.ararat-center.org/index.php?p=30&l=engLeave a comment:
-
Re: Հայաբանութիւն - Armenology
Mother Tongue and the Origins of Nationalism - A Comparative Analysis of the Armenian and European Primary Sources
By Armen Aivazian
In its systematic analysis and conceptualization of the multifaceted phenomenon of nationalism, Western social science has made many insightful, theoretical generalizations. However, this analysis, particularly of the origins of nationalism, has been based almost entirely on the European social-historical experience from the 16th to the 20th centuries. This focus has somewhat skewed the results and led to insufficiently inclusive conclusions. The majority of Western scholars of nationalism are of the opinion, for example, that the first nations appeared in Europe during the 16-19th centuries.1 In this regard, Walker Connor, a “leading student of the origins and dynamics of ethnonationalism,” drawing upon the scholarship of Sir Ernest Barker, another well-known figure in the field, makes the sweeping claim that “the self-consciousness of nations is a product of the nineteenth century,”2 which may be true of Europe, but not sufficiently inclusive of the experiences of non-European peoples with longer histories of national self-consciousness. Another expression of this school of thought is Liah Greenfeld’s insightful study (Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity. Harvard University Press, 1992), which also over-extrapolates the European experience, stating: The original modern idea of the nation emerged in sixteenth century England, which was the first nation in the world...
These views can be interpreted to be a reflection of the fact that the populations of European countries did indeed undergo a transformation of national consciousness in the 16-19th centuries. Thus, according to Western studies, “the vast majority of people living within France were not conscious of being French until long after the French Revolution [of 1789].”4 Likewise, “in mid-nineteenth century Italy... only 3% of Italians could speak the common language; most spoke highly distinct regional dialects, and most identified themselves as Sicilians, Romans, and the like. By the end of World War I, however, most Italian immigrants to North America identified themselves as Italians. The Italian nation had grown or developed within less than seventy-five years.”5 Against this background, the Armenian experience is striking. Ancient, medieval, and early modern primary sources evidence a strong Armenian identity and nationalism well before the earliest manifestations of European nationalism cited by these scholars of European history. Even taking into account the acknowledged unique features of Armenian national identity, Armenian national consciousness exhibits many of the key characteristics of early modern and modern European nationalisms. The intimate relationship between language and national consciousness has been established by various schools of historians, ethnologists, sociologists and social psychologists. In particular, it has been noted that a nation’s explicit pride in its national language coincides with the origin of nationhood itself. Mother tongues became the object of national pride for European nationalists only in the 16-19th centuries. This national pride was expressed in each case in like manner: the nation judged its language as far superior to all other languages. Armenian attitudes toward the Armenian language have not been thoroughly researched as a separate topic of history. Nevertheless, by all accounts, the Armenian language was perhaps chronologically the earliest and most crucial determinant in the formation of Armenian identity and ethnic consciousness. A distinct and coherent language community was a necessary prerequisite for the early branching of Armenian from the other Indo-European speakers. The use of Armenian as mother tongue determined who is Armenian. This study sets forth comparative historical evidence about the time and circumstances when a national language becomes an object of national affection and pride. It analyzes the Armenian sources of the 5-18th centuries and compares them with the English, French and Russian sources of the 15-18th centuries.
The Armenian Case
The Golden Age of Armenian Culture (5th century AD) Movses Khorenatzi, the Father of Armenian history who lived in the 5th century AD, was among the first to equate the territory of Armenia with the Armenian-speaking territory: “And on the eastern side [of Armenia], along the perimeter of Armenian language...”6 According to Khorenatzi, King Aram (who personifies either King Arame of 9th century BC or Aramani-Erimena of the 7th century BC) ordered the population of the newly incorporated westernmost region (later to be known as First Armenia) “to study the Armenian vocabulary and tongue.”7 This can be taken as evidence that early on the Armenian state realized the strategic importance of “linguistic policies” and their implementation. The 5th century Armenian author, Pavstos Buzand, defines Armenia as “the entire world of the Armenian language” and “the Torgomian country-world of the Armenian language”8 (Torgom is the legendary ancestor of the Armenians). However, an adequate understanding of these definitions demands a more precise explication of the content of these terms:
“The entire ‘world’ where the Armenian language was predominant” and “the Torgomian country-world where the Armenian language was predominant.”
The correctness of such a reading is supported by yet another passage from the History of Armenia by Pavstos Buzand, relating the national mourning which struck Armenia after the death of the revered 4th century Armenian Catholicos Nerses the Great:
"Within the confines of Armenian country, from one end to the other, all nobles and common people, without exception, all nobles and common people of Torgomian country, and the Armenian language at large, were lamenting him."
As clearly seen in this passage, Pavstos equated Armenians with those who spoke the Armenian language (it is noteworthy that there is no distinction on the basis of social classes). Further, he defined Armenia as an Armenian-speaking country, and again, like Movses Khorenatzi, determined the boundaries of Armenia by the territory dominated by the Armenian language. Pavstos Buzand deliberately used the Armenian language to connote an animate object, thus creating a semantical equation among the notions of country, people and language:
Armenia=the Armenians=the Armenian language. In fact, in this context Pavstos used “the Armenian language” as a synonim for “the Armenian nation”10. Centuries later the same equation can be found in a European analogue. At the beginning of the 19th century the German author Ernest Moritz Arndt gave a strikingly similar definition to Germany - Das ist des Deutschen Vaterland, literally - “this is the country [under the domination] of German language.”11 Among these fifth-century attempts to fix the place of the Armenian language in the sociopolitical development of Armenian society, perhaps the most articulate was that of Yeghishe, the author of the History of Vardan and the Armenian War. In his theological work, entitled “An Interpretation of the Book of Genesis,” Yeghishe describes the linguistic dispersion after the destruction of the Tower of Babel in which he includes the following comparison of the Armenian language to nine other languages:
"Hence, a gracefulness came forth from the split of one large language: The Greek is soft, the Latin is vigorous, the Hunnish is threatening, the Assyrian is sychophantic, the Persian is eloquent, the Alani (i. e., the old Ossetic) is ornate, the Gothic is mocking, the Egyptian sounds as if spoken from the dark and hidden place, the Hindu is chirping, [and] the Armenian is sweet and capable of embracing all these languages in itself. And as one color is brightened by another, one face by another, one age by another and one art by another, in the same way one language is made more beautiful by another."12
This passage shows, on the one hand, Yeghishe’s undisguised pride for his mother tongue, which he considers to be the best, and, on the other hand, a healthy respect for other languages or “linguistic cultures,” though Yeghishe’s almost bantering characterization of them serves further to emphasize his sense of the supremacy of the Armenian language. This calm and friendly posture toward alien cultures illustrates the confidence of 5th-century Armenians that their civilization and culture were sufficiently powerful to withstand the alien influences or absorb their useful elements. Such an outward-looking nationalism could be perhaps termed as an “internationalist” nationalism.
[...]
The English Case
According to recent research, the English began to express their affection and pride in their language in the 16th century. The majority of English intellectuals regarded English to be the finest language in the world. The best illustration is provided by Richard Carew, who in 1595-1596 wrote the Epistle on the Excellency of the English Tongue. Here is one excerpt from it: The Italyan is pleasante but without synewes, as to stillye fleeting water; the French delicate but ouer nice, as a woman scarce daring to open her lipps for feare of marring her countenaunce; the Spanish maiesticall, but fulesome, running too much on the O, and terrible like the deuill in a playe; the Dutch manlike, but withall very hoarse, as one ready at every worde to picke a quarell. Now wee in borrowing from them geue the strength of Consonantes to the Italyan, the full sounde of wordes to the French, the varietye of terminacions to the Spanish, and the mollifieinge of more vowells to the Dutch; and soe (like bees) gather the honey of their good properties and leave the dreggs to themselves. ...howe canne the languadge which consisteth of all these sounde other then most full of sweetnes?17
The French Case
Scholarship has also found a similar attitude toward the French language during 13-14th centuries; however, in this case, the pride was not for the language of all France, but for the language of Paris alone. In the 11th century France, the vernacular literature was written in Anglo-Norman, while in the 13th and 14th centuries, depending from which region was the author - Picardese, Champagnese, Burgundese. Each of these languages had its own dialects. Nevertheless, starting from the 12th century, French became the language of European elites and according to one source dating to 1148, anyone who did not know French was considered a barbarian18. The French of Paris was referred to in 13th century as “the most beautiful language in the world” (la plus delitable a ouir et a entendre). Here is one example: The sweet French tongue is the most beautiful, gracious and noble language in the world, the best accepted and loved. For God made it so sweet and lovable for his glory and praise, that it can be compared to the language spoken by the angels in heaven.19
The Russian Case
The teachers of the Russian language, especially in the former Soviet Union, have frequently cited as a didactic material the statement of Mikhail Lomonosov (1711-1765), Russian writer, scientist and innovator, often called the founder of Russian science, who wrote:...the Russian language is the greatest among all languages in Europe, not only because of the wideness of territory under its domination, but also because of its own abundance and sufficiency... Charles V, the Roman Emperor, was wont to say that one, ought to speak Spanish to one’s God, French to one’s friends, German to one’s enemies, Italian to the feminine sex. But, had he been well-versed in the Russian tongue, he would certainly have added that it is appropriate for converse with all of these. For he would have found in it the magnificence of Spanish, the vivacity of French, the firmness of German, the delicacy of Italian, and, moreover, the richness and powerful concise imagery of the Greek and Latin.20 This passage was written by Lomonosov in 1755. Paradoxically, the Russian language was only standardized phonetically, grammatically and stylistically in the first decades of the 19th century, thanks, in particular, to the writings by Alexander Pushkin. This coalescence of a standardized language was made possible by the efforts of the nationalistic intellectuals like Lomonosov as well as Russian state itself during the preceding century. It is interesting to note that Hans Rogger and Liah Greenfeld, two British authors familiar with both Lomonosov’s and Richard Carew’s observations about Russian and English languages remarked upon their similarity, stating that Lomonosov was unaware of Carew’s observations on the English language, written two centuries earlier. In a similar vein, it is fair to conclude that neither Carew, nor Lomonosov could have been familiar with similar thoughts expressed by the Armenian authors in the 5th, 13th, 14th and 18th centuries. Furthermore, the saying by Charles V was quoted in a popular Armenian manual published as early as 1699: Carlo Quinto, who ruled as Emperor since 1519, used to say to his vassals: “I would have wished that a knowledgeable person speaks French to his friends, German to his horse, Italyan to his wife, Spanish to the God, English to the birds.21
Conclusions
Why and how did it happen that Yeghishe, Carew and Lomonosov independently created resembling maxims about their mother tongues, notwithstanding the great differences in time, space, and perhaps more importantly, their respective political-cultural environments? One explanation is that these three authors were influenced by the similar historical-social circumstances and expressed this influence in strikingly similar terms and logic. Yeghishe, Carew and Lomonosov were prompted to speak on the excellence of their own languages, first and foremost, as part of the transformation of their national consciousness and the historical imperatives of their times, rather than by the inherent linguistic merits of mother tongues. In the Armenian case, Yeghishe was prompted to write by re-assertion of Armenian national consciousness, after the adoption of Christianity, creation of the national alphabet and the patriotic war against Persia of 450-451. In each case the same formula of comparison with other similar objects, that is, other languages, is the means to expression this national pride. This is precisely what was done by Yeghishe in 450-460s, Vardan Areveltzi, Mkhitar Ayrivanetzi, Hovhannes Yerznkatzi in the 13th century and Grigor Tatevatzi in 1397 in Armenia, by Richard Carew in 1595-1596 in England, and by Mikhail Lomonosov in 1755 in Russia.
[...]
Source: http://www.ararat-center.org/index.php?p=10&l=engLeave a comment:
-
Re: Հայաբանութիւն - Armenology
Beware of western academia regarding Armenian studies, including western historians of Armenian ancestry. Whether it's being done by design or ignorance, as in the case of the non-Armenians, or as a result of self-hate or ignorance, as in the case of the Armenian historians, the end result of their product is the same - the belittling and undermining of Armenia's cultural heritage.
Falsifiers of Armenian History Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6VrO2WBx4A
Falsifiers of Armenian History Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmuEY0xa-xQ
Falsifiers of Armenian History Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faicWRgxwaA
And here is a very interesting exchange between the Zionist director of Armenian studies at Harvard and a lone Armenian warrior with a camera. Just think, how could American-Armenians allow such filth become 'director' of Armenian studies at Harvard... I rather have no department of Armenian studies if this is our only choice. And it's a shame that this anti-Armenian Zionist speaks better Armenian than most of you "proud nationalists" here...
VARDANANK J Russell PART 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn6jseb5jHM
VARDANANK J Russell PART 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixGmJCTOF0Q
VARDANANK J Russell PART 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b81X7vP7tw
"I have to tell you a few things. First of all I'm Jewish. Secondly, I'm Safardic. Safardic. My mother's native language was Spanish. She's from Salonika. Եէնի Թուրք չէ. ոչ, Եէնի Թուրք չեմ... որպեսզի սխալ չմբրնես, you know, not all Safardic Jews are Young Turks. OK?"
James Russel (part 5 @ 4:25)Leave a comment:
-
Re: Հայաբանութիւն - Armenology
ՀԱՅԵՐ ՀԱՄԱՅՆ ԱՇԽԱՐՀԻ ՄԻԱՑԵՔ 2008 HAYER HAMAYN ASHXARHI MIATSEK 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haMh5GVPZiYLeave a comment:
-
Re: Հայաբանութիւն - Armenology
ՏԻԵԶԵՐԱԿԱՆ ՏԱՌԵՐ ՄԱՍ_1_ԻՆ TIEZERAKAN TARER PART_1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGwHu9tI2xA
ՏԻԵԶԵՐԱԿԱՆ ՏԱՌԵՐ ՄԱՍ_2_ՐԴ TIEZERAKAN TARER PART_2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtXuBXiM6DoLeave a comment:
-
Re: Հայաբանութիւն - Armenology
ԿԵՆԱՑ ԾԱՌ ՄԱՍ_1_ԻՆ KENATS TSAR PART_1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83Cx-QOcsy8
ԿԵՆԱՑ ԾԱՌ ՄԱՍ_2_ ՐԴ KENATS TSAR PART_2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HscgvjC_lKkLeave a comment:
Leave a comment: