truLtrbl Żu3uqhsnr.o3uLBECTHI4K APMEHOBEAEHAfl

JOURNAL OF ARMENIAN STUDIES

Żu3uqr'suquL uFgllgsu3hL ŻuL'}bU

INTERNATIONAL RI,\TEW OF ARMENIAN STTIDIES

ISSN 1829-4073

2olsN I (7)

ł suu (gr'snhrĘnFL' ŻfusufuT{2nhr€nbL

FnquLr}ulłnhrĘnr'L

Żu3n5 8b1uu,TluLnhfd3uL 100-r-} sul-bl-h3cŻul3ng gĘururqurlrnrp1url.r 100-pq urupttrgb huiluńur1\ul\uL hl2ut\uq!p.7Utpnlr1urtr U. U. _ I'bpLulur}rq uĘqplrury:1nlp Unu2|rL hu ur2}uuphu1lltqurrrrt1rrrqrl| Ęnr|\uru1urLr óu\uunlrl hul1\u-r\ruL \lurfrur|npru\rutr 2n\ululrhp[ druu]rtr.......... .................................26

Ur|urq1utr U. Q. _ Żu1ng gtąuruqrulrnrp1rutr pt urtr pnrppur\u-ltr rlrurfnr1nrr1(1918 1921 rórd-).'....'.........'.'..''.. ....''.........'...''....'........'.....''' 29

Żurpnp1nĄurtr Ż' U. _ cnr2}r| hur1nrp1urlr \nurnpurbLtpp (19i9 p. hnrlr}ru lr1920 p. r.uprn) ......................................50

Ęrrru3urlr U. {. _ Żuirf|quL 2up1bp}r b l-Itb t1tnl-r}r urpuugn1ntĘ hur1

\tpu4up{turnnr (1894 - 1923 pp.).... .................................81

Żurupurp3u.rtr U. U. _ Żru3ruurnurtr|r duprnupruqtnul\urlr durnurllqnrp1urlrn2lr2urgnrrfp ornup ll{urdn1lrtpl' \"ł,Jt's Qfi-)c( łł.) ...''.'''....''....''....'.'..'....93

9ururr{ur1urlr -ł. L' _b1hnlrplrhu1ng1tqnllr.'''..''.'''...''...'''..'''...'.'....''..''.''103

Żu1nr'}nFl]-t bl'}urtrq1h $. _.{tpuqrntr{rub Uur1uruptlł ..'..''....'..'....''..''...''...'''...'''...'''.'''. 140

blrq}rpurp1uL L. g. _ Żhrnul}untqu\ur1-r qtr1ntriLtp S|rqpurLu-rlhpLn|rrqur2r.nulrutrur\urtr huriu-r\urpqf ur pngnr ...................................................142

Fu|u2|rlrptr U. Ż. _ Żur1tpp U|rp|rpnr lr nntuurulnrutr1urtr Żtnrur{npUptrhpnul (19 pq 4rup 1920 u\urL pp.) ..................... 153

sl-UtunUnr'ognI.Ltru.r;pnrpr;urlr t. U. _.fłnrpp|rru1| Żurlrpuqtrnntp1urlr quru ntp1ntlro.....' 177

ŻusuqhsnFr€uLnuslrnhrĘnhLr'5I.!utg\}r u. _ Ęnrqtlr|rnr2 Upr2!b|2|r hhrrruqnuntp1nrLLhpp hu1ng 1hqL{| lrqpur\urtrntplrutr ruuqurphqmrf ........... ................................207

Lrusnh'}lrp|ĘuL {. 9. _ Żul1ng gt4ruuu1rulrntp1urtr 100 pł rnu-rpt$gbtr trr{}rpr|urbhfr2ulnur!frqurnrupruq.{unnfr\uhm...................................................,.......209

UĘtLn5urlr L.' Łr|phi1ub S. Żru1ng gt1uuqurtnrp1ntlrp 1r hu3\lu\urtlu$1nurp hpl-rnrlpp (4uruurlunumplnrhhhp huptt4fu;fr hru uprupuhm ) .215

nrąhgnr;g htłblrur\trtp|r hurtlulp''..... '...'' '....'...'''..'''.. 218

COAEPXAHIIE

1 OO-J'IETI,IE f EHOI]IIAA APMqHBceapułrrcrcarr Aercnapautlq K l00_.!eTHel:i roAoBuluHe reHoulua apMgH'.'.'.'.. l l

Me'rxorrqH A. A. _ Yrruxa,rrgttii Hcro,łnłx o6 apvnłct(llx [o6poBoJrtqecKuxorprAax rła KasKa3ctou $poure I]eproii MtrpoBoił BońHhr '.'.''..'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'..'''..'...'.'.' 1 8

AsarqH A. r. _ TeN4a feHolt]'l'qa apNt'H B rypeuxoń npecce (l918-l92l rr.).'.'.'.'.'.48

Apyrroulrr l. M._Pę:gq apuan L[JyuH (l9l9 f' łtoHb u l920 r. uapr) '..''...'''.66AracflH A. B. - Orpaxenae raMuroBcKnx norporltoB !t r-eHouIJAa B apM{Hcxor\ra:o6pa:urerunov ucxyccrBe ( 1894 1923 rr.) ..................................................... 82

Acparałr M' M' _ YguqroNexnę apxnTeKrypHofo Hac.ne1nr ApverłłHqy'(e3eNlHBlMt{ 3aBoesarelruł (Xl_XX se')'.'..'.'.'.'.'.''.'.''.'.''''.'.'...'''.''.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'99

Karsa'rqH B. "rI. _ f eHouł.[ l{ apM

'H cl.iłfi

'36]X '''''''..''..'''.'''...'''..''''...''.'''..'''.. 1ló

CooBuIEHIłqlarrr"re Ó. _ Hoeoo6perdnHstił Marac6ep'u...... .. ' -.... ..'-'..''....''-..'''..''...'' l4lErrrrr6aparr H' f. - Pa:eęArIsaręJ'IBHBte pacKonKH KpęnocTH l,|3 o6opotlure,rsuoiicncreusr Turpanarepra ....................... .......................-........149Bax.IUHgH A. I-. Apvłue s Cł6upr,r l{ Ba pocc'iłcl(oM AanBHeM BocToRe (I9-ńBeX - lq:0-ę rl-')

PEUEH3I{.SBair6ypann B. A' _ (I,IcTopu' TypeuKoił Pecny6nłK}r)) ..'.'......'..-...'.'.'..'.-...'...-...'l'77

Ił3 IłCToPIłI,I APMEHoBEAEHII{

'rlrrceqKni M. _ J4cc,reAoeaHHę 3ylęHlryua C,ryureou,ła o6 apuancxoii ,rlre-parype h r3brxe ......................................208

XPOHITKA

'I[eoprrrłtł B. I. _ fIaM'THa' .]I}rTypr[' B Baruxane, nocB'ućHHa' lo0-,reraeńroAooulłne fenouuAa apM'H '.'..'''.'.'.'.' ..'.'.'.'.'..'.'.'...'.'.'.'.'.'.209MKpr.rBH H., Enpelrnn T, - ApN{rHcKr,ri reHounA r.r Qenoiven apMrucxoi1uacnoptl (o,rexułłx s Yrruoepcarere l4clarr,uła) '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'''.'.'........'.'.'.'...'...'.'.2l5

Ęr<osoAcrgo A"'r' aBTopoB '.'''..''..'... .''..' ' '....' '...' ' '..''...' '220

CONTENTS

THE 1OOTH ANNIVERSARY OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDEPan-armenian declaration on the centennial of the Armenian genocide.......... l5Melkonyan A. A. _ An original source on the activitięs ofthe Annenian voluntarydetachments on the Caucasian front in WWI .........................28Avagyan A. G' - Tlre subject of Almenian Gęnocide in Turkish press in (l9l8-1921)....................... ..................................40

Harutiunyan H' M. _ Massaclęs of Armenians in Shushi (June 19l9 and March1920)..................... ......... ........... ..... ..... . .. 6 8

Aghasyan A. G. - The hamidian pogloms and the genocide of Armenians as

reflectedinArmenianfineats(1894-1923)............................................................70Hasratyan M' M. _ on denrolition of thę architectural heritage of Armęnia byalien invaders (l lth to 20th cc)........................... ....................83Katvalyan V. L. - Genocide and Armenian 1anguage............... ......................... i 14

REPORTSDangles P. - "Mahasberd regained"....... ............................ I l8YengibaIf,an N. G. - Tęst excavations in the fońress of thę dęfensive systen] ofTigranakerl ........... 151

Bńhchinyau A' H. _The Annenians in Siberia and in tl]e Russian Far East (l9'l'cęntuly l920s) '.....'.'.'...'.'...'.. '...'..'.....l'l5

BOOKREVIEWSBayburdyan V. A. - (The history ofThe Republic of Turkeyt) ........................... 177

FROM THE HISTORY OF ARMENOLOGYLisiecki M. _ The research by Eugerriusz Słuszkiervicz on Armenian literature aDd|anguage................. ................................191

PUBLICATIONSDevrikyan v. G. _ Mass at tl]e vatican commęmorating l00tlr anniversary of theArmenian Genocide .. '.'.'.'.'.Ż09Mkrtchyan N., Yepremyan T. _ Almenian Genocide ąnd thę phenomenon ofArmenian diaspora .................................215

Guidelines for contributors ............219

Żu3uqr'snr'fd3uL'Tlusunho3nr.LF8vl3 vlCT oPvIkl APMEHoBEAEHłIflFROM THE HISTORY OFARMENOLOGY

MARCIN LISIECKImarlis(.@umk.pl

TIIE RESEARCH BY EUGENIUSZ SŁUSZKIEW|CZON ARMENIAN LITERATURE AND LANGUAGE

Tl']o value ofthe w€ll is not kno$'n until it docs dry

Armenirn prorerb

Edward Tr)'jarski' an exquisite Polish Turkologist and Armęnologist, wrote

that "tl]e choice of scięntific field of study is often a result of both p€rsonal

interests of the rvould-be scientist and a sęries of external circumstances

oftentimes indępendel']t ofthat would-be scientist'' (Tryjarski ]99l: v). lt męans

that without undęrstanding the context rvithin rvhjch researclr is conducted, it

cannot ever be conrplęte. That statę of affair's is particularly conspicuous in the casę

of Polish researchers of Armenian history and culture because their studięs were

entangled in the complex relations betweetr tbose two countrięs' Tl]e history oftęlations between Poland and Armenia dates back to as far as thę l4th centuryl and

concęIns not only cultural issues but also economic and political ones. The context

of the said ręlations węrę the migratiot] of Armenian people to eastern and western

European countt'ies including Poland. Before World War lI it was Lvov whicb was

the most frequently chosen destination of Arnrenian expatriates2. The significance

of Lvov anrong other cities around which the Arnrenian diaspora was col]cęntrated

rested on the fact that it was in thiS city whele thę Armenian diaspora consolidated

by establishing its cultural centefs. Tbe evidence for the abovę is the lrandsome

number of the relics of Armenian writing as well as developing and maintaining

the religious cult centers (ci Gałustian t983| 28)' It is wońh noting that the earliest

religious centte of Armenians in Poland Węre locatęd in Lvov itselI being

lThe opinions oan bc encounlered (lhough l1o documents co firm them) that Arn]ęnians appeared onPolish lands already in x1 cęntury (c| slLlszkiewicz ] Dołuchanian ]983] 58)'] only fiom Xvl ccnt!ry' lhe city associaled \łitll Annenian nrajority was Warsa\ł (ci stopka 2o l3al9;Stopka 2012br20)

1q1

MA RCTN I.TSIECKI

concęntlated alound the cathedral dating back to the l4'|'century]' Fuńhęrmorę. in

Lvov, from the lTth centurl onwards. there was an Armenian printing house

operative, the inrportance of rvhich for spreading the writings in Armenian cannot

be overstated (Dołuchanian l983: 59: Tszchanian 1994:61)Ą' A few-hundred-year

history of the Arnrenian minority in Poland resulted in a substantial amount ofworks pertaining to chrrrch liturgy. court cases, litęrature and evęn theatre (cfl

Dułachanin l983: 59)5. Wońh mentjoning is the irst Armenian-Latin dictionary by

Stepanos Roszl<a. l31r' c. Also meril some atiention the nremoirs by Sinreon Lęlraci

(U|r hnb l-thugb' 1584-ló39) lvlitten in a mixtule ofClassical Armenian with

Modern Arnrenian and Turkish (Sfuszkiervicz 1934b: 40). One nright speculate that

Armęnian culturę and Alrrrenian language and litelature in paticular welę not ofinterest to thosę Poles not bęing of Anne!]ian origin or to those not being in touch

with the diaspora. It rvas mainly due to the inabiliĘv to understand Anlenian and to

use the writings collected in the Armenian religious centers. It should be added that

with the passage of time the access to Armenian writings became problematic forArnrenians themselves' lt was explained by the fact tl]at the Annenian languagę

was getting less undet'standable for the menlbers of the diaspora (cf' Słuszkirvicz1915:. 219).Instead' thęy were using the Armenian alphabet to write down Polish,

Latin or Anlrelro-Kipchak words' The very alphabęt rvas used by nrany PolislrArmenians prior to the t 7th century (Grigorian 1983: 45; Pisowicz 20oo: l 35)ó. ontlre other hal]d' in XIx century tl]e studies pertaining to the history of Armęnianswere writtęn in Polish7' Yet, it djd not t]ave any bearing on thę increasing interest

for Armęnjan literatllre and cultLlre on the pan of those Poles who węrę not in

touch with the diaspola.

The breal<through in the studies of Armenian language and culture was

initiated by the enrergence of tlre fiISt acadęmie researchers intelęsted in Armenianlanguage' one of thę first Polish scientists tvas Jan Hanusz affiIiated with the

] The oldcst pań of L\ovian cathedla uas ibunded b}' crimean Armenians and il bears nruchresemblance to the church in odŻun and th€ one from Calfa datin3 back to vll century (Galustian1983: 28)a In thal printlng housc in I6]8' thc prayer book cene]'aI ]nle]'cessians (urlnPł hu]uw]1ału9 u^sprinted l1 was $rlten in Armeno-Kjpchak, being uscd rn the colloquial speech. and nol LiturgyGrabal (.i] Iszchanian 1991 61-6Ż)r Unfortunately. the nrajoril, of nronunlcnls of Armenjan writing was lost during lvars and due tosome deliberatc actions loo (cf Dołuchanian l983 58)''' A handsone nunlber ol' tcxts in Armeno-Kipchak $ritten wi1h the h€lp of Armenlan alphabel waspresened rn PolirrLl r\lu./krewicz l0?5 l7o. Gllgoll.rn lqEJ 471.' The mosl hmous arc rhc ,'!olks by sadok Barącz. such as Liyes o.f Fano\ls Arneniąns in Poland(Z)Ą1'o, sła1l)]|\ch o]'niC]]] ł I'alsce' 1856) i A skelch a.fAnnenian Hislo|y (R|s dzteJót an|ialiskich.1869).

79)

THE RESEARCH BY EUGEN]U9Z sŁ U'ZKIEW]CZ...

Univer'sity of Vietllra'' tl]e autllor of the two-volumę book o języku ornianpolskich (About the Langtuges of the Polish Armeniąns, l886 and l888J3' Anothel

researcher is Andlzej Gawroriski related to both Jagiellonian Univeristy and the

University of Lvov. He rvas not only the autl']or ofthę studięs dęvoted to Armenia,

but also and primarily so - the initiator ofthe studies on the Armenian language (cf.

Sfuszkiewicz 1969 175). The disciple of the pronlinent polyglot and the adherent

of his Armenia-related studies was Eugeniusz Słuszkiewicz, who was also

affiliated rvith Lvov arld tbe Lvovian Armenian diaspora. The scholarly legacy ofSłuszkięwicz is not too plentiful; yet, he rvas one ofthe first Po|ish researchers who

did not limit his intelest to languagę but shifted it to thę Armęnian culture

especiall1 to lilśr!(Lllc ils J lrall5ldtoI'

L Histor--y and thc Portrayal of the Armenian Language

There is lrothilrg exceptional about the fact that Anrręnian diaspora in Poland

was in need for understanding its orvn culture, which consisted of- to a limited

degree - typicall;' Armcnian constituents combined with Polish, Russian and

Turkish nrotifs. Tirose renrnints of cultural patterns were preserved nrainly in the

fact that the Alnlellinn alphabet and Classical Armenian węre still in use, the lattęr

mainly fot liturgical 1lur1loses' For thęse reasons alone, it was nlainly tlre Annenian

language as used b;' Polish Armenians. tlrat is Armęno-Kipchak language (Żuq-

ą{r2ulr1u\uL 1tr1nL) allcl not Classical Armenian (qpupurp) _ that aroused

interęst' Amon3 t|le original studies related to conrparative linguistics we have

already mentioIred Jan IllllLLsz and Andrzej Gawroński' The basis forthe interest in

that language rvas 19"-ccntury discussiorrs over its place among other lndio-

European langulgcs. \\,'hltt lvas conducive to thę research was also the discovery

that the languagc is alicl-ail a distinct languagę along with Iranian and Indo-

Aryan languagcs' (cl'' Cia\\'l'ol1sl(i l9l5: 452; Pisoq'icz 20l4: 29). Howevęr. the

corpus of works 1lrLlcluccd by tbe said ręsearchers are linited exclusively to the

debate over language ol'I'olislr Arnrenians with thę international discussion over its

history and the po]1lJya] o1'r\nlrenian language left unattended' It was only thę

studies by EugelliLlsz SILlszkiervicz lvhich transcęnded thę narrow' though

extremely irnportarl afJ interesting area of the language (or its dialects)

exploration as spokerr by tlr. '\rnrenian diaspora in Poland. Thus, we can subsume

3 Apart from Jan lllrll .l rlIs'' lL'l7v Kury]owicz \ł'as intcrested in Arnrenian' *'ithoxt Ieaving sonlepublished oueut th(i1rt| L. ll I'L ,'r iiz 1999: I89: Stopka 2013r 33).

193

MARCIN LISIECK]

our resęarch under the broader context' that is the inVestigation of Indo-European

languages. Namely, as opposed to his predecessors, hę was one of the first to pay

some attęntion to the history ofshaping of Armetrian languagę (first ofalI classicalArmenian). The most significant' and unfońunately the only one' text dedicatęd to

that issue is tlre one published in 1934 and bearing the title. Abolt the

Chąrącteristics of the Arneniąn Languą4e, its Kinship luith other Languages and

Stages of Developnen! (o charc!kte|:e jęąka otnliańskiego, jega pok,'ellieńsfu,ie -.

innemi jęrykani i fazach rclvojlt)o' one "un also encounter some lninor

con]mentalies in the tęxts dedicated to .Ąrlnellian literaturę these include the

wot'ks such ag Armenian Literąful'e (Literątlo-a ornliąńską. I930) and ,1 Sketch ofthe Histoly cf the Classica! A 11eniąn Litercture (S:kic d:iej6r literanłystaroormiańskiej ' l934)' on the basis of the pte-lval publications one may be

inclined to suppose that Słuszkiervicz was tl]e first one to describe Almenian

language in the entirę Polish acadenlic literature'

The depiction of shaping the Armenian language is loaded with grave

difficulties of explaining its origins and their various theories. It especially

concerns the impossibiliry of reconstructing that language as it was in tbe times

preceding the introduction of script by Mestrop Mashtots (Utupnrq Ur.uzr.nng,

359-440) in tlre 5'h c. AD' Neither thę remains of cuneiform script found in the

proximiry of Lake Van (which were edited in thę languag€ entirely distinct ft'om

Armenian), nor the inscriptions in Cilicia (in Armenian qlt1Jr\h*) engraved w

Hittite language make things easier (Sfuszkiwicz 1934: 23). The difficulty in

studying Arnrelrian also stem from the saying by Herodotus contailred in 7łeHistories as if apparently pro-Annenian language originated fronr Phrygian.

Namely: "the Armenians rvere equipped like Phrygians. being Phrygian colonists"(HęIodotus 1914: yl1l13'). According to Andrzej Pisowicz, the wotd ćtltowot, as

usęd by Herodottls, which wold was derived fron] thę noun az:olirla (colony)' does

not speci1] whęther he meant that proto-Arnrenian had some affinity $'ith Phrygian

or Armenians simply spoke that languagę (Pisowicz 20l4: 30)' In Słuszkiewicz'sopinion, it is impossible to verily those relations mainly because there are only a

9 The papcr \\,is published in '._l_he

Messenger ofSt. Gre8ory'' (-.Posłaniec św' Glzcgorza'') in l934' Itis a pit} that sluszkiewicz;s \Yolks app€ared on1)'\.ithin th€ nragazine published by Armenian parishin Lvov And because the pap€rs \Y€re supposed 1o consolidate ArmeniilD nlinorit}'' they has populal_science character Still' słuszkiewicz's articles wcre characteriuęd by reliabiIit} quite abovę the

standards adhered to in Annenian periodical194

THE RE'ŚEA RCH BY E.'IGENII]SZ 'sŁI]SZKIEWICZ...

few exce]'pts ęxtant and individual words of Plrrygian otigin (Słuszkiewicz l93'1:

23)'0.

On the other hand, there might have been two factors contributing to the

emerg€ncę ofthe Annęnian language' Filst ofall. it may be the langr.tages ofIndo-European newconrers wbo appeared in the neighborhood of Ararat. Lake Van and

the headwaters ofTigress and Euphrates betrvęen the l0'l'and the 6']'cc' BC ot'ontl']ę tufn of the 7'|' and the 6'|' cc' BC that might have influencęd Armęnian(Sfuszkiewicz 1934 Ż3). Second of aIl' that might bę tl]e remains of the language

as described by Movses Khorenatsi (l-In{utu tunphLugf, ca. 410-490), non-

Indo-European society of thę countnr' Uranu (fltprupunr) (Słuszkiewicz l934:

23)lL. It is a pity that Słuszkiervicz did not complenrent 11is asseltiol1s witlr

examples or at least the referęnces lre rł,as adducitlg to. It would othenvise have

extęnded our knowledge on the origins ofArmęnian.In tbe Polish literature concerning the studies of An]1enian. the incoherence

manifested ir using the equivalents for the version ofthe Ianguage which enrerged

in thę 5'h c. AD is highly visiblę' In the contemporary studięs thę tenn oldArmenian is used. and the Ianguage which is supposed to bave preceded it is Proto-

Armenian (cf' Pisowicz 2014: l7 and 49). on the other hand, Słuszkiewicz in lrispaper relatęd to thę history of that language uses the tęrm old Atmęnian to

distinguish it fiom the later Classical Armenian (Grabar)r:. And still in the otherpaper (incidentalIy, published in the same year), hę identifies the litelary language

as Old Armenianrs. The lack of a precise explanation of rvhat he nreant by the

wording "oId Anlręnian" inlplies nlany questions related to tl]e connectiollbetween Proto-Armenian and the later Grabar. It is difficult to verily whether he

identifies those two languages having assunred the murlry and barely justifiable

relatiol'] bętwęęn them' second of all, the quęstion remait']s whethęr

Proto-Arnrenian was a coherent languagę or it lvas subject to vęrnacular variation.

The distinct issue is the relations betwęęn Almenian and Indo_European

languages. Because, as emphasized by the Polish researcher, in Armenian the

]0 At the same tinlc he adds tha( ihere is a similarity behłeen th05e languages which can result frolnlLe conrnro an.ecln ol (ho.c l.ingua!e( {\lJ',,kiesr.,, .oJ4. 21 .r' V/.c\ic7 .'8J,2)' In thc papel cited llere' sluszkiuicŻ L]ses lhc cxpression l]aldi Pcop]€ (in PoliŚh a'łąldo1'l?)' tlremislakęn Dane 1br thc itlhabitants ofthartu (nLFluFl,'1nr)D According to Alfred Ma.lewicz, the ldentily of Classical Annenian iGrabar is anrbiguous becausctbę fbrmer is uscd to rel'er to thc oldest and earliesl stage of tb€ developmen! of A]menian l'allillg onth€ period ofestablishiog Armęnian alphabe1 alicr xI ocntury: whcrcas lhe 1atter means .,lhe languagcofwrlttcn rnonurrr<nts ofolJ_Alln(nlin ldneUdgę 'Vaie$(/ |'J8q ]/)" lt rclale. ro lhe tert IskerchaflheHt'rc]yaJolJ,a],Ą?nn]]lletdl e

195

MARCIN LIS]ECKI

ręmains of pfe-Indo-European assuming the form of purely Almenian words alefew and they amount to as little as five hundr'ed words (Słuszkiwicz l934a' 23),

one of thę key phenonrena corroborating the connection between P!'oto-Almenianand pra-Indo-European is consonant shift (or consonant mutation) involving the

shift offormer consonants b (F), d (ł), g (q) into p (q), t (Ln)' k (\) and p (q), t

(-)' k (Ę) into h (h) (through p' (ł'))' i (rł)' k' (p) (Słuszkiwicz 1934 24; cfPisowicz 2014: 48). This observation is not exemplified either. The author does notprovide the rvords illustrating the said shi1i, nor any references.

Wę cannot know for cenain whether Słuszkięwicz sinrply followed hispredecessors'I'ęsearch rvhen folming his obseFr'ations oI the "obseryations''

followed from his own analysesLr' \\'e can nrake a ręasouaLrle conjecture that the

state of analyses oveI thę origil']s of Proto-Armenian at the beginning of xxcentury did not allow for more precise observation of the problems ormethodological constraints. Based on the contemporary works, one can easilyrealize thę difficulties in answering the question ofwhen the consonant shift mighthave occurred and in which language. That language then generated ClassicalAnnenian. In Andrzej Pisowicz's opinion. the consonant shift may have occurredin the 9'h century BC because the language did not undergo any transfornlations as

far consonants go until the 5'r' centutl BCr5. It should be noted that the conclusiveęvaluation of this issuę lvould considerably extend our knowledge of the origins ofArmenian as węll as the orjgins ofthe Armenians'

Słuszkiervicz ples€nted interesting allegations in the paper Abofi ńeChąrącteristics oJ'the Arnentąn Ląng!ąge, saying that none of thę Indo-European

languages includę as many various borrowings (with respęct to the valięty oftheirIinguistic origins) as Annenian (Słuszkiewicz l934:24). Attnenian borrowed fronthe following languages: Persian, Syriac, Greek, Arabic, Neo-Persion, Turkish and

Frenchló. It is to bę undęrscored that dęspitę clęar ręfęrence to thę papęr byHeinrich Hiibschma:'n Arnenische Cranatik (1895), he made Iris own rernarksaddressing historical contexts in which the borrowings did occur or nright have

occurred. The influences of the said languages, despite minot exceptions, did notviolate tl'tę structurę of Armenian or its status as an Indo-European language

rr From the seconrlary lcxtŚ it night follow that he was based on lhE \rorks b'v Anloine Mcillct andHeinrich Hiibschmann|5 Andrzei Pisorvicz added tlrat thę emelgence ofth€ sbift may be associaled \\'ilh lhe efł'ect ofthesubslrate oi' Hayasa language, \\łich was €ither pre-lndo-European or Indo-Eulopean rcsembling 10

quite a degr€ę Hittitię languagę (PisowicŻ 20]4 50)'|6on the other hand' as a result ofthę said contacls Aln]enian \\ords nlay be found in such languagesas]syriac. Greek' Gothic' Turkish' Georgian and pedraps even Finnish (SłusŻkicwjcz l934: 25)

196

THE R E.9 EA RCH B y EUG ENILISZ,sŁLIsZ KI EWICZ

(Słuszkiewicz 1934:- 25). Refelaing to thę historical deve]opment of Armęnian and

pańicular stages of its evolutiort' Słuszkiwiecz quite extraordinarily provęd that

these borrowings occurred as a result ofcultural and political mingling. The first

borrowings (or at least the first proven borrowings) come from Persian. Accordingto Słuszkięwicz, they rvere to occut' during tl']e reign of the Parthian Empile (oI

Arsacid Enrpire), that is between III century BC and III century AD (Słuszkiewicz

1934. 24). It was to coincide rvith the influence of Middle Persian (Pahlevi

language). However, the influence of Pelsian is muclr older tlran Słuszkiewiczthought becausę thęy date back to tl']e 6']' cęntury AD, that is the timę of the leignof The Achaelnenid Empire in Armenia' It means that tl]e extil']ct old Pęlsianmight have had the influence on Proto-Arnlenian.

The examples provided by Słuszkieu,icz arę (among others) sucl'] words as:

deseft or uninhabitęd (ulhuu1wu, clnąpąt)r1, p\lpil (Lu2ru\Ępu, ashakerl1l8, arn'l

(Furqnr\, bazuk)rn and happiness (pul|um' bacht)':o. Also thę propef names are

includęd: thę goddess of love and feftility Anahit (Ulrurh|rrn)'?l' the city Ańashat

(Upurur2uln) and masculine nanres Ardashes i Bagrat (putqpurut the name

occurs also in the Georgian language b;6ó,>$). Tlrę second period of Persian

influęnce on Annenian fęll on the times of the reigrr of Sassanid Enrpire between

the 3'd century AD and the 7ll'century AD. However' thę borrowings in that period

Węrę fal less frequent' which was mainly due to the introduction of'Christianiqtinto Armenia and the divergence fl'om non_Christian influęlrces especiallyZoroastrainism (cf' Słuszkiewicz 1934: 24-25)' It was worth adding that

relinquishing thę contact with Iran strengtlrened tbe influence of Surian as a

cou|]tęrpoillt to Christianity operating within the Greęk tradition (cf' Słuszkiewicz

l930/199l: 5-6)' He quotes a few borrowings from Syr'iac: cel]tury (łurp' dal)':],

interpreter/transalor (prupqr{urh, thargman)2r and hair'Ża ( uq, maz)r5, as wellas a

few ptoper names, fbt instance.: Yeperen (ĘpLrI) (cf' Słuszkiervicz 1934' 24)'

L7 Derjved liorn thc Middle Persjan: ał a bad ol an-apd al ll1e l1egalive f'onn ot'thę \\,ol d: apdla/?inhabited (Hubschmann I897 97)ll Derjved from the Middle P€rsian:d'iagal'/ (Hubschnrann l897] l00)l'Derivęd tiom tbc Mirldle Pelsianl óa.-/ (lliibschnrann l897: 1 l4)Ż0 Dcrivcd 1iom the Midd|ę P€rsian óaJl ( H tj bschnlann l897] l l5l''Ż According to the Arenranian hislor;an Vahan M. Kurkjiar- thc rranre Anhit \yas borroNod fronrZarathustrianisnr (Kurkjian 2008 301).:Ż Dclltcd Ilom lIrc Syrla. dJl /' l Ht]bsuhman1 l8o7 J0/ l

' Denved lionr lllę syl lilc r.?lglło'.' (HUb5cIllllanll |8q7 j0Jl2r In Annerlian . thę rvord

''hair" (Lłr!Tlu) is dcrivcd fiom lhc Middlc Pcrsian lal.ił Dcrived fiom thc Syriacr mazzc (Khan 2008: 1030. l04l ). nre{{e (l-lubschmann 189?r I l0)

191

MARCINLISIECKI

One ofthe acts ofopposition against the influence ofSyriac was the inveDtion

of the alphabet for Armenian and of translating the liturgical and theological

writings from Greek into Armenian (Sfuszkiewicz 1995: 435). lt is to be

underscoręd that thę introduction of the script for the sake of spręading the

Armenian literatut€ securing the stronghold of Christianity in Armenia was a vitalęvęnt. Yet, we cannot forget that conlbined rvith the contacts with representa|ives

of other cultures and tlanslatjons of thęological writjngs, there was a flow ofconcepts originating in other languages which pervaded through to Armenian. Andthrough the languagęs bęing the representatives ofdistinct cultures' therę camę newwolds oftęntimes incongruous with thę patterns endorsed by Christianity' Thus'Armenian borrowed words from Hebrew, Latin, less substantially flom Arabic,Fręnch and Turkish (cf' Słuszkiewicz 1934a:24-25).

In the 12'h century there appears Middle Armenian (rlfr2fh hrultptL), also

referred to as Cilician Armenian (\|-rfr\1u.rL hurltphL). In that language, there

occumed thę second consonant shift, which results in the corne-back to the originalform]ó' Accotding to Słuszkięwicz' that was the most impońant dialect withinMiddle Arnrenian. derived from literary Classical Armenian and lrot from at'ry

distinct dialect (Sfuszkiewicz l934a: 25)' In Słuszkięwicz's opinion, rve can trotice

it comparing the wotds dęrivęd from Classical Alnrenian with the ones dęrived

from Middlę Almenian; for example. in \purqurp (kraPal') fiutalęs into qpulPrul(graóar). rnruulr (/a.!') into 4uulr (dosr) or u]ulr'nl]tF @alłer) into pur1qtp(óadger) (Słuszkiewicz 1934a:25)' Another curiosity distinguishing old Armenianfrom Middle Armenian is the substitution ofthe suffix, plural'(p) with a few other

suffixes: -er (tl), -ni (Lb), wi (rf) i -di (4fr), all derived fronr the Caucasian

languages (Słuszkiewicz l 93 1a 26).

Plentiful borrowings present in diffelent Variations of Armenian nrade it onę

of thę most heavily tlansformed language among the Indo-European ones(Słuszkiewicz 1934a: 2Ż). It is a pity that Słuszkirvicz did not strengthen hisasseftion by more thorough depiction of how the process of shaping of ModernArnrenian (upi1| Żur1hptlr or U2|uurphurprup) and iś nvo dialects Węstern

Armenian (urptr uuhurltptL) and Eastern Arnrenian (urphtlu:hurlhphh)proceeded]7' It may have resulted from the fact that Modęrn Annenian having

16 Namely b (F)' d (ł)' g (q) mulat€s into p(u]), t (Ln)' k (U alld p (uł)' l (u), k (\) inlo b (P)' d (ł)' g(q) (słuszkieNicŻ l 9.]4: 25)]7 ]ncidęntally' jt muŚt added 1hat the said gap is fillcd \\,ith lhc ariicles by slusuklc*icz dedicated !othe tcxts $,ritten in Armeno-Kipchak

198

THE RE9EARCH BY EUGENIUSZ sż. USZK]EWICZ' '.

emerged in the 15th century _ is not endowęd with any majol linguistic changęs in

compatison to some previous periods. It is wofth noting that as much as ModęrnArmęnian rvas not marked by any significant glanlmatical changes, it was stillinvolved in the process of shaping the ethnic and thęn the national identity ofArmenians. What gives evidence to that is the purposeful process of deleting tbe

\vords that seeped through to Armenian during the reign of Arabs and Turks,replacing those words with the one of purely Armenian origin derived from the

eally cIassical language (Słuszkiewicz nlanuscript).

2. The History of Armenian Literature and its Characteristics

ln the contemporary studies ofthe Arn'renian historJ/ and culture, the works by

Sfuszkiewicz are often shunned. It may result from tl're unjust evaluation of his

scientific cotpus or else from thę fact of associating his personage only with the

studies on Armeno-Kipchakrs. In Krzysztof Stopka's opinion, one of the

contemporary Annenologists. Słuszkiewicz focused on the relations betu'een

Polish Armenians' speech and Turkic languages (Stopka 2013t 33). The similaropinion' tlrougl't thę one with a lesser degree ofassęńivenęss, is shared by AndrzejPisowicz. In his opinion, Słuszkiewicz was mainly concęntratęd (almost

exclusively) on the issues of the Polish Armenians' language thereby neglecting

Armenian litęrature (Pisowicz 1999: l92). on the other hand' in Leszek

Piątkowski's opinion (a Polish historian)' Słuszkiervicz represented quite a typicalagenda of Polish research on the culture of Armenians, with the majority ofpublications penaining to the history of Armęnian diaspora on Polish land(Piątkowski l983: 7). The opinions uttered by Polisb researchers should be

complemented wjth the information relatir]g to the publications of EugęniuszSłuszkięwicz and that is becausę hę publishęd one paper in l939 on the issue ofArmeno-Kipchak fanguage, bearing the title Remarques utr la Lange tllrque des

Armćniens et sul'les empnnts turcs de l'atmćnien After thę war' he published afew papers related to thę documents drafted by the męmbers bęlongjng toArmenian diaspora in Poland. the documents having been written in Armeno-Kipchak' Apart from that. he wrotę a few papers related to tlle lristory of the

Armęnian literaturę and he was one of the first translators from Armenian- both

from Classical and Modern Armenian. It is wońh noting an1ong othel.s thę

'Żl ]t must be nrentioned lhat the \\orks lry s7łusZkie\ric7 u,ere maln1}' devoted to (hc cullure of Ind iaand ro linguistics.

199

MARCIN L]S]ECKI

translations of the excerpts from DeJinition of Philosophy (Uutbr.ftutrp |liruuuu.rulrpnrphruh) David Anhaght (1un[rp Uthurlp, approx.. 470- ca. 560) and

Armenian proverbs; and fuńl]ermorę. his translations of poems by Petros Duryan('Tltrnpnu 1nrplurh, 1852-18'72)'Że and a fairy tale by Avetis Alraronian (Urtrnfru

Uhurpnlrturb, l 880- 1 948)]!. Tbat is lvhy Edrvard Tryj arski is closęr to tlre trutl'] as

far as the gravitv of Szłuszkiewicz's works is concerned, when the foImer says that

the latter made a long-lasting contributior'r. familiarizing Polish readers witll that

challenging and elitist literature (Tryjarski l99l;vii).Histol1 ofthe Armęnian Iiterature begins with the emergence of sclipt in the

5'l' century AD. In that trivial statemęnt. thęre is very serious jssue related to the

characteristics of Iiterary works appearing in Armenia' It refers to the en]ęrgęl']cę ofClassical Armenian, thus comn]encing ''the golden age" of litelal1 ań. whęn t]']e

gramnalical canon of that language lvas established and the Christian literature

stańed being translated (cf. słuszkięwicz l934a 23', Słuszkiewicz ]995: 434)' The

significance of that issue involvęs tlre fact that together with tlre enlergence of the

script designęd for translatil]g Christia!'] texts, the social order and the paradignr ofdefining one's own culturę was sinrultaneously assumed' thus making it stiIl moredifTjcult to accęss the literary art of the period pleceding the introduction ofChristianity and Classical Annenian in Armęnia. That issue proves to bę quitę

challenging for thę ręsearchęl' of Armenian lristory because duling thę pagan era

Armenians possessęd poetry, Which Was preserved in tlre form of a few fragments

on the history ofGods and heroes, in the writing of Movses Khorenatsi and Grigor

Magistros (ap|qnp Uurq}rurnpnu' ca' 990-l058) (Słuszkjewicz 1995: 432;

Sfuszkięwicz ]934c: l08; Kurkjian 2008: 300)3|' ln Słuszkiewicz's opinion, poetry

in pre-Christian times opel'atęd ęxclusivęly within the oral tr'adition' The poetry

was performed by the predęcęssors of later asik or ashottg (U2nq), the folksingers (Słuszkiewicz l 934cI l08)'

History of the Amenian literature following the invęntion of writing by

Mashots has bęcome molę dęfinitę. Periodization of history of the Armenianliterature as introducęd by the Polislr lesearcher - is associated witb the rise ofscript. He indicated three successive periods relating to the variations of Armęnian.

Ż'q shlsŻkievicz tlansIated solne of Dul}an poems. slch as il,!\, dealh (],lI JLDĘP.l871) a|ń She lLt'l87l).ro Fairy Tales Csrie's tlill'' othe. .e.nan!s 01'pre_Chlistian era shouId be menlioned They assume thc fbrm of:chroniclęs.sanctuan books. sonre records and administrittive documents or kins s rescrDl \rrittcn in Grcek orMiddle Persian (Sluszkicwicz 1934c: 108).

200

THE RESLĄRCH BY EUGENIUSZ sź.USZKIEW]CZ'''

Speaking more precisely, Classical Armenian litęrature (v AD.'xII AD), MiddleArmenian literature (XIl AD. - XIX AD.) and Modern Armenian literature (from

XIX w.). However, the periodization implemented by Słusziewicz is not coherent

becauSę in the mentioned two tęxts he applied the mutualIy contradictory divisions.Namely, Classical Armenian was divided into two periods: "golden" from the fifth

c. AD to the 6th c. AD and "the period ofdecadence" _ fronl the 6lh c. AD to thę 9'h

c. AD' After thę latter, there comęs the timę of"the restauration ofcIassicism and

the beginning of folk rvritings" falling on XIII century. It męans that there is a gap

betweęn thę 9'h and thę l3'l'centuries arrd it is not explained in ally of his tęxts'

Leaving the question of precision asidę. it is wot1h stlessing that Słuszkiewicz inhis paper demonstrated (for thę frrst time in Polish literaturę on that subject) the

history of Armenian litęrature ranging from the ancient times up to the modern

times. Słuszkiewicz's work thus transcended quite popular tendencies among

Polish orientalists rvho focused mostly ol1the ancięnt or medieval tinlesr]'

The first period, referled to as ''the golden period", was characterized by - in

thę opinion ofthe Polish Annenologist. the fact that the then n]asterpieces were the

unsurpassable ideals for writers to come in the following centuries (cf.

Słuszkiewicz l995: 433). The uniqueness ofthe literatur'e which ęmęrged bętween

the sth and the 6'r' century involved mainly the introduction of Annenian script as

well as laying ground to Christian script and depańing from thę timęs preceding

the adoption of tlre new teligion. In the first case. it must be noted that the actions

taken by Mashtotz and his disciple Sabak the Parthian (Uurhru! nupptr, 354

439) involving striving for sepafating Armenia from the Syriac influences in favorof thę Gręęk ones (cf. Słuszkiewcz l995:435)' Sfuszkiervicz concludes that the

introductioll of the script and numerous tl'anslations into Am]ęniat] lęd to th€

process of being liberated from Syriac influencesrr. Apań from the translationspursued by Mashots and his co-operatols' Armenian writings were focused on thę

rr The eaIIlest tim€s węre described in nrore delail bv stuszkiewicz than 1aler oncsrr He addresses for instance lhe translalrons of such authors a\ Srrnt Athana\rus ui Alexandria(Mćpq Aoovńolog' ca. 328_373). cyril of Jerusalem {KópL}.}'oq A''i€pooo}.óll)v. ca 3l] ' 38ó)'Basil olcaęsarea ( AYLoq Baoi}'€(os ó MśYuq' ca. 330-379). Gre8ory ofNyssa (rpl]'ópLoq NóÓr|q.ca' 335-ca ]95)' Gregory of Nazianzus (fpryópLoś ó Ng-(lc.r(ryóq' ca. 329-ca 390). Johncl)rysostoft ('I(,lóń,16 ó xpuoóoTotloś' ca J49-407)' Dionysius Thrax (Alońolog ó opii. l70-90Bc), the biography of Alexander ihe Great b]_ Pseudokallistcnesa Pseudo-Callisthenes (Alęxanderromancć' 1II w')' The !anslation ofsyliac writings but transIatcd lioln Greek lbr instancc ELtscbius 01'

Caesarea (Enoeploq' ca. 2ó0_ca' 340)' T|1ę (:ht]rch H/s/o/:}, ('Ekl()'l]oll1otu.ll ioTopin. Ignalius ofAntioch ('in,dftoq AvTto/".idq' ca' 45 or 50 - 90 to ] ]7) his lellers on th€ odlęr lrand' syrian auLborsinclude here:] Dphren lhe syrian ('in >-i.<, rś'iŃ_ ca 306']73)' XIII w Chrcnicle ofMichael thęsyrian (l-"<.Ę .ó'i@' l l26-l l99)' For lbat see: (słuszkie\ł'icz l995: 435_43ó)'

247

MARCIN LIS]ECK]

history of Atmenia' polemics with non-Christian leligions' whereas thęy were

focused on philosophy to quite a lesser degree. Słuszkiewicz enumel'atęs thę most

exquisite rępręsęntatives of that period: Eznik of Kolb (bqlr}r\ 9nrpurg|r, approx.

38O-approx. 450) and his Against the Sects (bqb urrlurh4ng). Koryun (9np;nrh.

approx. 380 - approx. 450). Agathangelos (Uqurpurhqtrlnu, 4'r' or 5'r' c. AD).

Movses Khorenatsi, David the Anhaht and Ghazar Parpetsi (lurqurp @urpqtgfr,

ca. 442-YI, tl]e author of Histary af Amrenia (Żu1ng qrurnrinrp1ullr)' The

ęmergence of poetly melits some attęntion. the poetry which until VIT centuty was

written by anonymous authors (cf' Słuszkiervicz ] 934b: l 1 l). At tl']e same timę, a

closer attention is paid to literature than to theoloBical and histo|iosophical issues.

To a large extent, it resulted from the influence of Arabic culture in the ultimateperiod ofthe dominion by Persian Sassanid Eurpire. thereby extending the literary

corpus of Arnrenians with new nalration motifs' (Słuszkiewicz l 934c: l I l)' It is apity that the Polish researchęr did not continue rvith the tlrread of tl]e relations

betwęęn Arabjc culturę with ań works by AlInenians. Tt could have revealęd the

influence of Alabic tl'lought on historical, theological issues and mainly on the

devęlopmęnt of '\ll]lęnian scięnce _ matl]ematics and astronorrry in pal1icular' Thatproblen lnight be illter€sting bęcausę the rvorks of Armenian artists were

dominated by christianity and could not bę simultaneously influęnced by othercultural pattenls. Sluszkiervicz even emphasizes that tl'te culture was characterizedby plain intolerancc for non-Christian threads and that very culture ltlight have

contributed to shattering the mat€rial culturę monumęnts and to elasing tracęs leftby its own belicfs dating back to the times preceding the introduction ofchristianity (cf. Sluszkiervicz l934c; l08; Słuszkięwicz l995: 433).

The uniquencss of Armenian litęrature' thę statement of wl]ich emerges ft'om

Słuszkiwicz's rvorks' leaves us 'rvith the impression that rypically literary and

secular threads anrounted to thę decisjve minoriry as compared to thę corpus ofworks concentraL.d on expressing the affinity with Christiarrity and on the

portrayal of the past of Alrenians. That state of affairs was slightly changed withthe rise of the successivę literary period, that is Middle Armenian ]iteraturę. Theshift to the new lllllllnef of expressing reality and to discovering nęw methods ofexpressing it rvas closely linked with historical events. The most important ones

tlln]ed out to bę the conquest of Armęnia by Seljuq' the result of which was that

Armęnians were lbrced to seek for ręfuges to inhabit' Consequently, they settled

down in Cilicia, thus giving rise to Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia (Ił|r[r\|n1

THE RESEARCH BY EUGENIU'Z SŁUSZK]EW]CZ..'

Żur]ng fdurqrurnpnrp|rttr) lasting fronr ll98 to 1375. At that timę, Afmęnians

encounteled Western cultures. which lęd to breaking up wjth the tradition ofproducing art works in accordance with the partern shapes in the 5h century.

Furthermore. it led to usjng thę language now incomprehensible for tlre majority ofpeople (Słuszkiervicz 1995:443')' Horvevel. it does not męan that pęople ceased to

use Classical Arnlenian' rvhich was used by thę plonrinęnt individuals and the

writers ofthę Anrlęnian chutch. First ofall. Słuszkięwicz malks Nersęs thę 4th thę

Gracious (Unrpp LtpuLu '}' Ir1u1hg|r (cLnphuń)' ll02_ll73) as the main

representativę of thę end-stage of tlre period of classical literature (cf Słuszkiewiczl995: 4.l3). wllile r-Jesclibing the wolks by Nerses the 4'h Słuszkiewiczdemonstrates an illleresting affirnration pertaining to thę ręasons for Nerses 4'l'

smalI populality ill the west' lll Słuszkielł'icz's opirrion' tlre ploblenr involved tlre

stlęss on the phollenle of the last u'ord and the lecurrent ll]ythm of a poem; it

seems to us a tcdious monotony (słuszkjewicz l995; 'l43)r]. Słuszkiewicz'sopinion can be rcgarded as related not onl), to the rvorks by Nerses 4'l', but to the

entire Armęniall lit.laturę, which is little known and not so popular in the West'Horvever, the rcrson lor the uniqueness of Alntenian and tlre uniqueness of the

rhythm ofthe pocn1 is not the solę and thę most serious olrę. we should rathęr take

heed of the hesenronic clomination of Persian, Arabic and Turl<ish culture. whichall marginalizecl tlrc signilicance of Armenian cultural output.

The transition ll om Classical Armenian to Middle Armenian can be noticed in

the corpus of trvo rr ritcrs; nanrely: Kirakos of Gandzak (\fpur\nu 9urLdlu\tgb,

ca. 1200 1271) i Sempad the Constable (Urfpuru Uulu:purulhur or Urfpurln

Qmhlurnrupl, ll{)S - 1276). Whereas Kirakos partly resorted to Classical

Armenian. Senrpacl cleparted from the old language and the so-fat. rules ofsubordinating tllc llrinci|lIes ofsocial lifę to the Gospęl' ln tlris col)tęxt' in the case

of Sempad' bl.''l(inr: tt1l with the past is so significant that' considęring the

common lawj hc intuitively sensed the political significance of Arnrenia beingfreed fronl the ill11r l,:n ce o f' Byzantine Enlpire (cf' Słuszl<iewicz l 995: 446) '

Thę cultnirllrtirlll of tlre process of Armenian Iiteratllre entęrjng the newdomains of secLlllrr llft \\'ere tl]ę achievements by such anists as _ alnong othęrs -Kostandin ofErl rlÓr or Erznka'ci (gnuururhqfrh bpqLlurg]r, 1250 -ca. 1320)15,

ta Hotu"t"', aIllor r L c r.r(lers u derslrnding Classical Anncnran. Lhe poetry by Nerses IV waslauded to tbe exccl ,, L ,le!,cc (Shrszkie\yicz 1995 413).

" Koston,jin of 1:r? j \lls lo bc the last writcr 10 use ClaŚsical Armclriirn (c| S]uszkiewcŻ l995]446).

)01

MĄRCIN LI'IECKI

the poet writing lovę poetry and Nahapet K'uch'ak (Lurhurułhul €nrżulĘ' approx.

XVl-approx' l592), onę of thę first non-anonymous folk singers (ashttgh) (cf'

Słuszkiewicz l99l:35). Słuszkięwicz charactęrized his cotpus as ftee from any

artificiality and not overloadęd with erudition or expressing the 1onging and lovę in

a variery of shades. That poetry appeals to tlre hearts of listeners by dint of hęart-

warming inrages and surprising staIrzas (Słuszkiewicz 1995:' 441)' The folk ańist

living on the tum of Middle Almęnian literature thę Modem Annenian litęraturę

was ashugh Sayat-Nova (Uurlup-Ln{ru, approx. 1712-1795). lt is rvorth adding

that Słuszkiewicz dęvoted in l963 a Separate papęr to the pelsonage and the corpus

by Savat-Nova: sąyąt-Nova ąn outstanding Amenian Folk Poet (sająl-Nowd

znakomity poeta ludowy ormiańskifb '

The last stage of the developnrent of Arnrenian literature, described by the

Polish ręsearcher. was dedicated to t\!o issues' The first onę \\'as the activity of the

order of Męchitarists in Italy and Austlia' 'Ąddressing thę jssuę of tl']at order

involved mainly the fact that its members u,ere occupied rvith the preparation ofarchives containing the masterpieces of Armęnian literature and it also involved tl']e

studies of tlre said works. Viennese order of Mechitarists proved to be

excęptionally important. They, under the influęnce of German philological and

historical schools, criticized thę knowledge of the past oftheil own country and

tlrey attempted to fręe themselvęs oftlre visions derived from tl]e early historical

and literary writings (słuszkiewicz manuscript). on thę othęr hand, duę to the

archives preserued in that vel} order' Europe was allowęd to have an insight into

thę life of Armęnia and farniliarizę itself with thę richness of its literary corpus

(Słuszkiewicz l995: 448). The sęcond issuę is the overuięw ofthe contemporary

Arnlenian writers. Słuszkięwicz rightly focused mainly on the ęnunleratjon of a

few writers writing in Eastern Armęnian and having in their corpus reference to the

western literaturę, mainly German. Russian and British' Three wlitels deserve

attention: Khachatur Abovian (fuur2utnnrp Upnrlrutr, approx 15.10.1809-

approx l4.04.1 848) and his masterpiece Lllounds of Armenia (-łtpp Żru1ruuuurlr|r'

l84l) and Smbat Shahaziz (U prurn Curhurqfq, 1840 05.01. 1907). the author

]'' In that text w€ can lind a tęlling d€scription ol the corpus by saya!_Novn Na]nely: .'Hc lvaspraising love, nature and a human being *'ilh their r€alm of fec1ings He had an dkinterested atti1ude

to all lhe people' As a thinker hę was pondering ov€r (he man's calling' lre \'as portraying tlreindividual endowed wilh the rich menlality being characterized mainly by a high degree of nroraliU"and a beautiful soul' In his m€taphors. he was rcsorting only 1() \Ąłat ls beautiful and noblc"(Sluszkiewicz L99l: 40).

THE RE9EARCH BY EUGENIUSZ 9ŁU'ZKIEWICZ...

of Levon's Crieg (\bnLfr {r2up, 1865). The wliters, referring to the motifs typical

of westęrn lomanticism, took up in their works the thleads of hard and painful

history oftheir country aswell as the process ofshaping the national identity in

Armenia.

Conclusions

Apan from thę pęrsons and works listęd in the pręsent papęr as węll as the

books dedicated to the tragic history of Anlęnia. Armenian culture is relatively

little known in Poland. That difficulty results from both the uniqueness ofArmenian. mastering of which may be a pre-condition to lravę an insiglrt in the

originality of that culture and the appreciation of its hidden beaury. It also results

from thę fact that ęxquisite Armenian writers operated in other countries and in

otl]ęr languages, wlrich Poles do not considel related to Armenia' The telling

exanrple is the English-writing writer William saroyan, thę majolity of wolks ofwhom is translated into Polish.

The dernand for making Annenian culture more familiar seems to be vital and

neędęd indeęd' It is not only due to the fact that Armęnians amounted to one thirds

of the major minoritięs in Poland but also duę to thę fact that thęir cultufę is an

essential ingredjenl ofthę world culture' For these r€asons, recalling tlre figure and

wolks of Eugelliusz Słuszkiervicz seęn]s to be praisewońl'ty. He lvas' as we

remember, one oftlrę fir'st Polislr Armenologist who paid attęntion to thę history ofthę Armenian language and literatule' When compared with the Polish linguists, he

stood out duę to his studies goirrg beyond the research on Armeno-Kipchak

language used by the members of Armenian diaspora in Poland. It does not imply

that lre was not involved in the operations ofthe Lvovian diaspora. That is bęcausę

his first publications appeared in the Lvovian magazine "The Męssęnger of st.Gregory''. Allegedly for the ręason that the uniquęness ofthe magazine did not

a]lorv for atr exteIrded analyses ofthe issue orthę complementation of the papers

by bibIiographies, nęither did it alIow for completing the studies threads by

appropriate quotations from plimary soufces. Howęvęr' thęy amounted to thę

significant contributions into the foundations of Polish Armenology, which cannol

be dismissed or folgotten. It is wofih stręssil]g that the Armenian literature, apart

from the papers by Sfuszkiervicz, has not bęęn propelly editęd in Poland' What is

nofę. that lack is worsened by the paltry number of ttanslations fl'om Almenian,which familiarized thę PoIish readęr with the exceptional and valuab]e literatule'

205

MARCIN L]S]ECKI

BIBLIOGRAPHYDołuchanian Aleksander. 1983. Lileranł'a pięktla w osądąch ormiałiskich v Polsce' In:

Mirosława Zakrzewska-Dubaso\Ya (ed.)' Studia z dziejów kontaków polsko-onniańskich'

Lublin: Wydawnichvo UMCS.Gawroński Andrzej. 1915. Ję1k ornlian Polskich.Ill: Encyk!opedya Pokka' Ję:yk polski ijego l1istorya z u:uzględnienien illnych jęł'kół, na 2ieniach polskich' \ło|' 2'WaNZawa.

Lublin. Lódz: Gebethller i Wolf'f'Herodotus. 1914. The Llistories.y ol. 2. London: MacMillian and CO.

Hiibschmann Heinrich. 1897. Arnenisclrc Gra olik. I Theil. Alnenische Et),nologie.

Leipzig: Druck und Vorlag von Ilreitkopf & Hainel.

Iszchanian RaĘel' l,)94. Ksiqżka ormiańska v latach l 5 12- 1920' wrocla\\': ossolineum'

Khan Geoffrey. 200ll '-Ilp Neo-Aranuic Dialect of BdnNar' Lęiden Bliltl'

Kurkijan vahan }I. 2008. '] History af ,1r rcnia' LÓs Angeles: Indo EuIopean

Publishing.com.

Maj€wicz Alfr€sd l'. 1989 ' Ję-r.-ki śviata i ich klas.uj kolła n ie. W arszawa| PwN.Pisowicz Andrzej. )l)0o- or])}it!]]ie polscy: problen śrNiądomości nąrcdowej a ky,esliajęłła. lll: Maria Bobrolvl-licka' Ję4k a tożsa 1aść nąrodową Sląvica' Klakórr: Universitas'

Pisowicz Andrzcj. '<;:cśćsepi?ćdziesiqt ldt On1ian polskich. In: hltp:łrvrr,rr'.hr'olv.corl'pl'/

omriarie.hrml (15.1 i. I l).

Słuszkiervicz Eugi'r,iusz. (nlanuscript). ol,l11iąńska konqregacja MechiIdrystó\|. (BUMK.Rps. 1899lV-1).Sluszkiewicz Eugrrlir*z. 193.1lt' O c'luraktere języka ornliańskiego, jego pokrewieńsN,ie :innenijęłkoll1i i lL::iry'r ro'-ll'ojł' ,,Poslaniec św' GżcgoIza'' 3-4(82-83)'

sluszkiewicz Eugcnirrsz. 1934Il' Relacja ornianina polskiego Symeona o podró:y na

Wschód 6|' XI'lr' .,h,\]iLlricc ś\Y. CŹcgoŹa'' 5-6 (84-85)'

sluszkierł'icz Eugcnirlsz. 1L)31c' S:kic dziejóv lilerąI ]! sląro orniańskie1...Posłaniec ś\\''

Grzegorza" 1 l-12 (r(l-t l).

Sluszkiewicz Eugl'rlirl:l'. IL)l5' !)oslovie' InI Da\id l\{. l,ang' łIrmełlia kolebka cwilizacji'Transl' Tadęusz S./ ., . valsŻł\va: PIw.sluszkiewicz Eu- ','sz. |')'.)]' ;,idt-i\'all,a znąkot]]ily poeta ludolty ormiański. In.Eugeniusz Szuszliic\\'icz' Lilerdlura ormiańską. warczdwa: Polskic 'fo$arzysNvo

Ludoznawcze.

Słuszkielvicz Eugclritsz, 1')')5' S:kic tlo dziejói} literL1I1lt! slcllo om1ic\ńskiej' In: stanisła\rLam (ed-). wielka i..illllfa powsŻcchlla' Wschód _ litelaful} klasyczne. T' ]' warszawa:

Księgamia Tżaski. i. l.rii\l irelrlrlskicgo'

stopka Krzysztot' : ,]. J!:)^i Os\iia]le pis efil' AlagrąJąa kipczacko-or iań\ka i polsko-

orniańskd \| kult1l)':' ,;,l lr łej /'o1słl. Krrkórv: Księgamia Akadenlicka'Tryjarski Edrvłr )')\. ]'lglj)lius: sllls.kievic: nti'l1'iękł a/ 1enislą polski (l90]/98|. In: EugeniL ',Lls7kiL'\\'ic]/' Iileratura ofl1iańską. Warszawa: Polskie Towarzvstwo

Ludoznawcze.

UuI}2FL I-FUb5Iłr'marlis@umk.pl

Ęnr'sbLl''n Fc Ul-nbcl{bl.r'2h Żbsugnsnho3nhLcŻu3 c}ruquLnho3uL br'I.bgqh uuuhL

uuanonr'u

IĄu hn1r|ul|r h|dlru\ulr |utr1|pp Lntqtb|nr2 Upt2\hr|r2|r hur1 ri2ur

\nr1p}rLr Lrr{}rpr{Lrl\ Ltr2]r-rrurnuLplrtp| Lhp\Lu1urglrh1tr Ę: Lul hur1 qpur\urlrnr

plurh hr ltqrlf nr rrn rJfuruulr pnrplurip ftr2ultu Lutr pu-rpqrftuhnrplrurfp

qfuqqnł I"n: , ll1L 1l;l' r1|ltllll ur\ultltpN g tp: 'lrupqnrp1ulr hurdur1

hn4r{ru8p Fury', ' ' \ l. l.nr'nr riruuf: Unrugfrh riurup hrl}rprlurE L hrulng

thqrftr \urq urtl,, r,rirub Lr ultuur mplurtr ]uLlfrpLtp]rtr tr ru11 ltqmLtpf '

hnrhulpthfr, urunl,l;pbblr, ulLrp rrlN;phl-rf , pnrpphphtrlr tt urlfrf hhu \u.rrqh

plrb: bp\pnpq rltLrup Ltprunnul t lururu\ruh hr dur urtrur\urlfg hurl

qpu-rlr.utrntp1ul L,1rLrurJrlrp1rlrlrg, |rtr2qtu LtuŁr hru1ng drunurtrqntp1urtr

qurhqrutliurLrl , r :riLrb ti]Lrlrpuplurtr rlfupurhntplurh rquunlntplurtrtr nt

qnpbmLtmplu:,

207