Bibliographical data

Table of Contents

The Author

Abstract of the Book

Bibliographical data

History of Armenian Criticism in V-XV centuries

Hrant . S. Tamrazyan

Editor: N. A. Gonchar

Published in Yerevan Sate University, Yrevan- 1991

Number of pages: 476 including index

Translator (Chapters I-V) A. Amirbekyan

Translator (Chapters VI-XI) L. Khazaryan

Annotation: the monograph analyses the rich literary material, it reveals the origin and formulation of Armenian critical thinking. The work shows the consequence of the development of Armenian literary criticism starting from spontaneous expressions in the historiography of V century up to the definite concepts of the representatives of literature of Middle Ages (up to XV century).

Table of contents

Introduction: The theory of the literary criticism in Ancient Armenia 3

The stages of development 11

Chapter I: Socio-Literary bases of the origin of Armenian literature 17

Agatang: Refuting of pagan transitions and culture. Againstthe

"Lie" and "Waywardness" of the style. Interpretation of the nature of

creation. The Wonderful. Moral and social vocation of the literary work.

(28)Faust Buzand: The criticism of pagan morality, psychology and arts (37)

Chapter II: Movses of Khoren- the thinker and the esthete 47

Moses of Khoren and his period (48), Moses of Khoren and

political past of Armenians (51), Political ideal and utopia (55), The

Reasonable, the beautiful and the efficient in the life and in literature (59),

Moses of Khoren and the problems of criticism (64) Thoughts on the

origin of Armenian letters (64), The social role of sciences and literature

and the experience of Greek as an example (70)Merging and combination

of world experience and national traditions (the form and the content) (74)

Again on the beautiful, the socially efficient and the reasonable (77),

Folklore, the real and the rational (81), on the Persian narrations and the

political task (84) Critical evaluationand selection of Armenian narrations (86)

Chapter III Two outlooks on the world art and on "illegal demonic scenes" of 93

John Mandakuni

On the authorship and time of written literature (93), The power of

Psychological influence of arts. Theatre, society and the church (94).

Chapter IV Contradiction in political and literary views and the problems of literary style 1 04

Faust-Moses of Khoren. Khorenatsi as the editor and critic of Faust.

The dispute on the Arshakuni dynasty, political orientation of the church and

the Mamikonians (106). The "secrets" of Faust Buzand and Moses of Khoren.

Hidden layereds and contradictions of Faust (114).Faust as an individual, writer

and thinker. The peculiarities of his style. Ideological richness of literary

characters (120), The different and the contradictory in the style of Moses of

Khoren and Faust(134), Lazarus of Parpi and his predecessors. The similarities

in the views of Moses of Khoren and Lazarus of Parpi(144). The target and the

subject of the criticism of Lazarus of Parpi (151). The dispute of Lazarys of

Partpi and Eghishe (156). The literary principles of Lazarus of Parpi and new

qualities concerning the prose (160). Style intersections and style loans (169).

Chapter V: Armenian interpretation of Greek literary thinking and additions made to it. The

Traditions of Hellenism and issues of pre-Mesrop Armenian culture 175

"Book of Requirements". Toward the problems of Armenian linguistic

layered (185), The analysis of "Peliadas" of Euripides. Against the mythology (188),

Moral-educative value of ancient literature (Herodotus, Homers, Hesiodotus,

Evripides, Menandres) (195), The interpretation of the grammar by Dionysius

of Thrace. The characteristics of the literature and the criticism. The social

and practical efficiency of arts (199). Arts and Sciences. Mutual influence of

arts and sciences.Negation of simple imitation and mystery (207), Grammatical

interpretations and Armenian literary-critical experience. The issues of poetic art. (211)

Chapter VI: Armenian life style and literary thought in VI-IX centuries. 220

Chapter VII: Armenia in X century. Early Renaissance 234

Literary theory and criticism in X century (241)

Chapter VIII: Gregory of Narek. The mystery of Gregory of Narek’s poetry 261

Literary critical views (273). Gregory of Narek as a prominent poet

and theoretic of mourning trends in the literature (274). The individuality of

the author. Characters and mystery of the poetry (281), The power of the

influence of the poetry. The problems of the reader (288).

Chapter IX: Literature and theoretical critical thought in XI-XII centuries 296

The appearance of a new school in poetry and criticism (299), Gregory

Magistros (304), The evaluation of Armenian and world science and literature.

The renewal of the traditions of Moses of Khoren (309), Evaluation and criticism

of the poetry (312). John Imastaser. Scientist, critic and an enlightener (320).

The truth and the nature. Contrary trends in science and in arts (323). The poem

"A Wise Talk"… New view in the literature and in arts (329). The experience

of historiographic prose and literary-critical thinking (342), A. of Lastiverdi and

the school of Narek (342), Armenian chronicles and their theoretic-critical value

(347). The "Chronicle" by Mathew of Urkha: Literary-critical views (350).

Chapter X: The issues of poetry and Literature school of Cilicia (XII century) 354

Nerses Shnorhali. The problems of enrichment of forms and content and

new searches of the beautiful in the poetry (360), New argumentation of

democratization of the sciences and literature (369), Literary portrait from the

point of view of critical thinking (372)

Chapter XI: Culture, arts and critical thought in XIII-XIV centuries (new period of Renaissance) 381

Science and culture (386). Literature and criticism (390), Middle Armenia

language. The language and the content (400), John of Erznka. The life

of the writer and the scientist (404), Literary-critical views of John of

Erznka (407), The trend of theoretical thought. The literature and the

reader (407), The new and the old in thedefinitions of the criticism and

the literature (411), The power of psychological and esthetic influence of

arts (417). The efficiency of arts and sciences and the problem of human

perfectionism (422), Frik. The literary experience and the destiny of the

poet (426). Divine and individual origin of the poetry. Comprehension of

the power of creativity (431). Social and literary content of the criticism (434),

The principles of the efficiency and democratization of arts. The educative

role of the poetry. Friends and rivals (442). Constantine of Erznka. The songs

of the Renaissance. The land, the beauty and the poet (445), Interpretation with

allegories and the true meanings of the images (450), The enemies of thenew

poetry and the "Vision" of Constantine of Erznka about the divine gift(453),

The requirements of readers-brothers. New poetry and the poet in "struggle" (458).

Instead of the conclusion 462

Index 469

The Author

Tamrazyan Hrant Smbat, Armenian specialist of Literature and Literary Criticism, was born in 09.06.1926. Tamrazyan graduated from the Yerevan State University In 1948 got Ph.D. in Philology and in 1962. Starting from 1970 is the member of National Academy of Sciences of RA. H. Tamrazyan is the Head of the Department of Modern Armenian Literature and lecturer at Yerevan State University. H. Tamrazyan has numerous works, monographs and articles on Armenian writers and Armenian Literature. He was the author of the secondary school textbook of Armenian Literature for the IX grade students (1957).

Abstract of the Book

V-XV Centuries’ History of Armenian Criticism

Author: H. S. Tamrazyan

INTRODUCTION

The Theory of the Literary Criticism in Ancient Armenia

Literary criticism examines and evaluates artistic works and phenomena. "Criticism" (kritike) is a Greek word meaning "the art to discern and judge". Initially, the person who could teach and edify by vocation were considered to be critics by ancient Greeks. Later, critics became the people who had the ability to judge, discern, discuss, and evaluate. In Hellenic Epoch the term was already connected with the evaluation of literature. Dionysius of Thrace for instance refers to the immediate examination and evaluation of works of poetry as criticism in his work called the "Art of Grammar" (II-I BC) considers.

The ancient Armenian grammarians also understood the actual meaning of the term "criticism" correctly. The Armenian translator of "The Art of Grammar" by Dionysius translated the word "criticism" as "¹³ïáõÙÝ ù»ñ¹³Í³ó" which means judgement of verse, and discernment of artistic works. As a result, Armenian grammarians attempt to draw distinct boundaries of the term in their interpretations; "judgement" presupposed both "selection" and "analysis". Today, literary criticism preserves its primordial purpose to judge and evaluate artistic works, though its content was subjected to change over time. The boundaries of literary criticism were clarified, and the role and the vocation were defined in the course of centuries.

If in the beginning literary criticism appeared in aggregate with grammar and rhetoric making an undifferentiated entity, then later, after being separated, it acquired an independent subject of examination. The entire philology-history and the theory of literature and textology (textual criticism) and the criticism itself were included in the concept of criticism for centuries. In the new era, particularly in XVIII-XIX centuries, its boundaries, literary and social tasks were finally defined. Now the interpretation of the concept of "criticism" is somehow edited with subject specialization: the fields of the study of literature mainly deals with synchronic criticism and evaluation, i.e. interpretation and the analysis of artistic works and literary phenomena. But when did literary criticism arise and when it was formulated? Where was the beginning of the development of the literary-critical aesthetic thought? Different opinions existed on that issue in various epochs. Some of the specialists in the study of literature ascribe the origin of the literary critical thought to the time when separate judgements concerning the beauty of syllable and taste appear in written monuments.

*

* *

The Armenian literary-critical and aesthetic thought originated in the Fifth century. This historical fact is confirmed by eloquent and persuasive socio-literary evidence. It is true that at the beginning, literary criticism and aesthetics appeared together with other spheres of social thought interlaced with historiography, theology, rhetoric, and grammar often expressed spontaneously in the compositions of philosophical content. Giving its sprouts inside this spiritual-epistemological entity criticism and aesthetics closely interacted becoming expression of literary taste, style, trends of ideas and world outlook of the corresponding epoch, its tendencies and needs. It is confirmed by the fact that Armenians beginning with the Fifth century and later, during Seventh and Eighth centuries, dealt with the theory of criticism based on the Greek and their own experience, attempting to explain its essence and find its roots in Armenia. Even fragments of grammatical interpretations and partly amended compilations that have reached us convey a clear idea about a definite progress in that sphere. Gradually the purpose and objective of criticism appeared to be more distinct, the theory of the subject acquired scientific aspect; meantime the picture of the formation of artistic literature became reflected in it.

Firstly, it is certainly interesting to know what ancient Armenians understood about the concept of literary criticism and judgement. It has already been mentioned that in the translation and interpretation of the grammar of Dionysuis of Thrace the word "criticism" was translated as "judgement of verse". Later, probably in Eleventh and Twelfth centuries, Armenian scientists translated the word judgement as analysis and selection in the lexicon of "The Words of Grammar". That fact by itself makes evident that ancient Armenians thought over not only the meaning of the term, but its practical content as well: those supplementary meanings expanded the frames of scientific understanding.

The formula of Dionysius- "The sixth is the judgement of verse. It is the best of all that is included in grammar" is enlarged by Armenian interpreters and acquires independent signs and new meanings. The examples are abundant. David Grammarian, the same David Anhaght, (the identity is proven by word for word coincidences in the interpretations of the former and philosophical works of the latter) naturally emphasizes one of the most important sides of criticism and judgement. He considers the sixth part of grammar, i.e. "judgement of verses" to be "reasonable" and says that the epistemological part of grammar that assumes the analysis and selection and "the sixth part of the grammar is the reasonable part". He also clarifies that this important part is put at the end, as it generalizes and sums up the foregoing. What does David add to Dionysuis’ definition?

Although dogmatic literature is meant here, the importance lies in the fact that David underlines the significance of the ideological problems of criticism. It is to reveal the "idle talk" of heretics with the help of true analysis and to refute alien admixtures because heretics strive to pass off their delusions as the truth under the cloak of orthodoxy. Of course, David doesn’t ignore other objectives of criticism, but he considers the ideological struggle for the sake of the faith and the truth his priority and puts his role of the defendant of good ideas and knowledge in the first place. Unfortunately, many fragments of the interpretations of Moses Philosopher (Fifth century) and Unanun (Ananymous Grammarian of the Fifth century) referring to criticism and arts are lost. Probably, according to the tradition Stephan of Syuni (Eight century) and John of Yerznka (Twelfth century) used their ideas and definitions too. It may also be thought that in criticism was defined in the literary aspect their interpretations. This tendency had clearly appeared in other fragments as well. The question is about the characteristics of literary kinds and genders, and about explanations illustrated by artistic examples. Meantime, interesting ideas on the vocation of literary criticism were generally covered. For instance, Moses, philosopher and grammarian (Fifth century) spared place for judgement and selection in the general definition of grammar presenting his purpose figuratively saying: "It has six parts. A part of the whole and the kind from the gender: like contemplation is only a part of flesh and that part does not convey the idea of whole and kind does not convey the idea of the gender; each of the six parts is disclosure, narration, linguistic parts among which ancient narratives and imitation, and comparison, etymologizing and truthful judgement of selection are the companions of speech. It would be impossible to know the depths of abyss, and the ideas exactly and investigate them accurately without the aforesaid (160)". It is a discussion on the part and the whole. The characteristics of the judgement of selection makes us think that Moses should have analyzed also the problems of criticism and art in details in other parts of his work but this have not survived.

Corresponding fragments of the works of next grammarians attest to an evident improvement in the theory of criticism as additions and new interpretations are presented there. For instance, Stephan of Syuni’s (grammarian of Eight century) noteworthy interpretation of theory of literature and criticism was based on of the works of his predecessors. It is an evidence of an original approach of ancient Armenian thinkers to the subject. According to him "the metrics of verse" is created in accordance with the "judgement of verse", "...because it dictates the canon of the verb". It is fairly named criticism because in order to formulate the speech, it gets conditioned and mixed with the parts of grammar and poetry, and it collects words, characters, syllable, ideas and (punctuation) marks from grammar and poetry and turns them into verbs and into the other six parts (of speech) like the bees collecting pollen and aroma of various flowers do; it creates the honey of reason and presents it to the audience, it softens its rudeness, selecting words and syllables like fine sieve " (190-191). It means that criticism "judgement of verse" or judgement of selection directs the creation of poetic speech as well as participates in the formation and completion of the verse. The same author naturally thinks that poetry "is superior to grammar" like "soul is superior to the body". Stephan of Syuni makes a significant step forward, experiencing probably the influence of Unanun and Moses, by revealing the exclusive role of judgement in the process of the creation of artistic works. According to him the size of the verse, its syllables and other necessary components are chosen in accordance with the requirements of criticism.

All the achievements of the past centuries and the generalization of literary experience and critical thought can be found in John of Yerznka’s works who, as he confesses himself, summed up the experience of his predecessors and made additions to the works of grammarians of the Fifth century. Unfortunately, a few pieces of his works have reached us. John of Yerznka refers to David and Stephan from time to time and frequently mentions the phrase "from their works" without naming them. He agrees with David’s formulation emphasizing the importance of judgement for the struggle with apostasy and with Stephan’s approach to the essential role of criticism in the creation of poetry. Meantime, he expresses his thoughts in that respect that are also important and have similarities with the concepts of the thinkers of the Fifth century. Particularly, he defines the role of criticism in disclosing the truth and lie like David, but does so more clearly. Criticism is to draw distinct lines between the truth and lie through judgement: "There are some people among poets able to show the true and false by studying what is called the criticism of poets" (the criticism of verses became the criticism of poets in John of Yerznka’s works 191).

As we see, the term was first used by Moses who combined the word selection with judgement. He interpretes judgement as selection and analysis in the lexicon of "The Word of Grammar" compiled in Eleventh and Twelfth centuries. This is how it becomes clear that judgement included the meanings of analysis, selection (classification) and evaluation in antiquity. Evidence is found in John of Yerznka’s works who explains the aesthetic and critical meanings of the words selection and considers, like his predecessors, judgement as "the most powerful part of grammar". John of Yerznka suggests his own interpretation of the term: "...and now as the work of judgement has been shown we shall bring an illustration of the art of judgement, the way the verse is selected by its material and kind revealing the alien and the familiar". Consequently, the word selection used by the translator of the Fifth century with its main sense also included the meaning of the analysis of literary pieces and their evaluation depending on the material and kind, i.e. by the form-syllables, modes, ideas, and thoughts. Similar approach expands the frames of the terms as the artistic factor acts equally with that of the ideological. So John of Yerznka continues the traditions of David on one hand and those of Stephan on the other hand.

At last John of Yerznka, based on the traditions of the past and his own experience, conclusively characterizes the essence and qualities of the words judgement, selection and analysis. Here his principles get substantially linked with the concepts fully developed in the grammatical interpretations, textbooks of rhetoric and historiographic works of the Fifth century.

It may be said that he generalized the understanding of criticism which was formulated in the theory and embodied in practice during from the Fifth thru Thirteenth centuries. Yerznka enumerated the elements that the poems consisted of and the elements should have ben taken into consideration in making judgements and analyzing, using Theon’s "On Rhetoric Education" because that part was not complete in the "Girk Pitoyits" ( a collection of rhetoric exercises with illustrations), ascribed to M. of Khoren John. According to him, "First, the time of writing should be considered, second the place, third the person, fourth the purpose of the composition, fifth the means and sixth the cause". Enumerating these important conditions John of Yerznka rose several requirements that a critic should follow in defining the authentic value of literary works. It should be noted that he constantly underlines the importance of the analysis of the artistic value of the work. He though that it was necessary to mention both the merits and the shortcomings of the work. "The history should be viewed similarly: what is acceptable, unacceptable and despicable have equal rights in trustworthy narration. This is vividly expressed in the fragment on the true problems of criticism. As neither the formulations of Dionysius of Thrace nor those of Armenian grammarians satisfed John of Yerznka, he turned to the help of rhetoric. Perhaps this is what all those people interested in literature and criticism did in ancient times. For instance, in order to reveal the problems that criticism faced was John of Yerznka cited excerpts from "Girk Pitoyits" where the definition of "refutation" is given: "and refutation should be realized in accordance with the following:

1. Uncertainty, 2. Improbability, 3. Impossibility, 4. Inconvenience 5. Impropriety, and 6. Inefficiency." John of Yerznka noted, however, that the definition was unilateral and narrow. Yet David and Stephan thought that judgement was not only to refute, blame and point out the lies but to reveal and disclose the truth. And John of Yerznka included both refutation and affirmation in his definition. Editing the corresponding fragments of the "Girk Pitoyits" he added to it and put the explanation and evaluation of the merits of a work in the first place. John of Yerznka’s interpretations of the "six parts" of criticism have not lost their significance even today. "And those six parts are as follows:

1. Known or unknown, 2. Probable or improbable, 3. Possible or impossible, 4. Convenient or inconvenient, 5. Proper or improper, and 6. Efficient or inefficient. So, true and false writings are defined point by point and we found it necessary to cover and prove"(50a). It is noteworthy that the author does not consider the question to be settled, i.e. he does not think that these six conditions are sufficient for the definition of truthfulness or falseness of the piece. He even thinks that it is unnecessary to develop his idea because he thinks it to be rather clear.

While the author of the "Girk Pitoyits" characterizes refutation as a sum of negative signs (uncertainty, improbability, impossibility, inconvenience, impropriety, and inefficiency), John of Yerznka adds positive antonyms to them (known, probable, possible, convenient, proper and efficient). According to him it is the duty of criticism to examine works taking into consideration these six positive and negative signs, i.e. he connects refutation to praise and he sees the objective of criticism in revealing both the positive and the negative. It was a serious achievement on the way of formation of critical thought.

It is noteworthy that in the following centuries all the Armenian thinkers base their woks on the principles and positions elaborated in the Fifth century. Moreover, they were not satisfied with the translation of Dionysuis’ grammar and bravely intruded into the other spheres taking use of instructions on rhetoric and philosophical treatises. It should be noted that the books on rhetoric paid special attention to the problems of judgement and selection (i.e. criticism). The most important definition of literary criticism is given exactly in the "Girk Pitoyits" and is also stated by John of Yerznka: "The power of every art should be judged according to the refuted and the affirmed in it". But while in that fragment everything is clear about "refutation", "affirmation" requires explanation. What is the reason for the comparison of the two seemingly antipode concepts that the Armenian grammarian takes from the "Girk Pitoyits"? Here Theon’s "On Rhetoric Education" is particularly helpful and its influence on the theoretical parts of the "Girk Pitoyits" is noticeable. Theon turns to the concepts of "refutation" and "affirmation" for several times and explains the meaning and the aim of the latter. He speaks of affirmation in the introduction and in the chapters "On Legends" and "On History"; it is not difficult to infer the true meaning of the concept from here. "Affirmation", in this case, means the establishment of positive features in accordance with the six conditions the refutation follows as well. Meanwhile, Theon thinks that "affirmation" interprets the work in general "by revealing", "developing" and "clarifying and interlacing different histories..." It means that while analyzing the works, events and characters in accordance with the six conditions, the rhetorician and the teacher develop the material, compare it to others, make additions to it and enrich it in their own ways thus making it clear and vivid for teaching. In other words, the critic gets out from the narrow frames of contemplation, he evaluates, composes, creates, affirms and enriches the educational material. Here is an example of such an affirmative, and enriching approach to the analysis of the material: "Teaching history is not the same as teaching a legend, it is narrated, conjugated, combined, reduced and enlarged. Besides, we change the order of chapters while telling them, but there are also people who keep the same order but present it in a great number and variety of forms. But in all cases both the (negation) and the affirmation (should be present)". It is noteworthy that Armenian grammarian and critic picks up exactly this definition and form of application from the textbook on rhetoric and fills and makes multilateral the meaning and the role of judgement.

Finally, there was something new in the works of John of Yerznka-he paid due attention to the question that was essential for the theory of criticism. It was already mentioned that since the Fifth century Armenian grammarians, teachers of rhetoric and writers have been expressing their opinions about literary criticism in this or that way, i.e. they affirmed its existence. But they dwelt upon the personality of the critic himself less intermediately in their remarks. It is to be supposed that for a long time all the people versed in books were engaged with criticism: those people were grammarians, teachers of rhetoric, historians and philosophers, i.e. all those who had the ability to reason in the conceptions of Greeks. The role of a critic was identified with the role of a grammarian just like the fact that grammar was equated with literature in general. Stephan of Syuni writes in his commentary: "It refers to the literature, because the grammarian (here critic) desired to show us its size so that we find out the importance and the general power of what was told"(CXXXI). David mentioned about that vocation of the critic for several times before him. He writes that it consists of six parts in the chapter "On Grammar" and "if a grammarian does not know any of them, he can not be considered a perfect expert (critic)". Characterizing the "judgement of verse" he notes again in that same chapter: "But the sixth part-judgement of verses, in spite of being the most important part of grammar is put at the end according to the habit of a reasonable critic to put more parts in the beginning like they do in reading, in order to awake the interest of the audience and later combine them"(CXXXVIII).

As we see David considers critics, poets and creators to be those people who are versed in all the six parts of grammar and what is more important in judgement.

John of Yerznka attempted to single out criticism as a part of an independent branch of grammar, i.e. in philology, to define its role and destination. As the judgement of poetic creations is criticism, the criticism should interpret not only the elements of the literary forms of works but the thoughts and the ideas and the critic needs to have the capacities and skills of a judge: "... this means that it is necessary to be the judge-grammarian of the writings of poets and narrators". So the most important part of grammar-"judgement on poetic creations" - should judge the writers and poets ("It is the best of all included in art, "... the important part of grammar"-David; "the most powerful of all arts"-Stephan). Furthermore, John of Yerznka clarified his idea: "And like in the presence of prosecutors the judges investigate and determine what is lie and what is the true, what is right and what is wrong, so the skillful grammarian should judge, discern and define in a masterful manner (lie and the truth, right and wrong) that the writings of poets and narrators comprise of"(50a). This means that a skillful expert on grammar or literature has been given the title of a judge; his job is to evaluate artistic literature, and literary works. This means that they are linked to literature by their profession, because the grammar is the skillful knowledge of all that is applied mainly by poets and writers, and because the grammar extracts its material from literature.

This is the brief picture of the development of theoretical opinions that gives idea about the movement of Armenian literary-critical thought in realizing the criticism of its own subject and its destination.

In that aspect it becomes necessary to trace and research the early experience of the Armenian literary-critical thought and reveal its social and literary significance, i.e. to give the scientific characteristics of theoretical and critical self-consciousness of Armenian literature.

Armenian Criticism (V-XV centuries)

(Summary)

Hrant Tamrazyan is the Head Chair of the Department of Armenian Literature of the Yerevan State University, Academician of the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia and laureate of various literary and state prizes. Hrant Tamrazyan views separate facts and phenomena of Armenian literary criticism in one chain for the first time in the monograph entitled "The History of Armenian Criticism in V-XV centuries", clarifies the cause-effect links existing between them and presents the process of foundation and development of literary thought.

The work considers separate expressions of literary criticism and the creation of formulated systems in the wide picture of literary-cultural life, reveals the regularities, makes valuable conclusions and presents a new documentary material to the scientific literature. All these was an almost unnoticed wealth enclosed in Armenian culture in historiography, philosophical, rhetoric and grammar interpretations and poetry and was not perceived as a separate value and independent field.

The monograph is the history of the development of the Armenian theoretical thought in a wide sense as the key literary problems are examined in connection with the Armenian social thought, national requirements and aesthetic principles.

The examination of the material through parallels is one of the most important merits of the book. The national premises of the spiritual and cultural prosperity are circumstantially considered as well as special attention is paid to foreign contributions, world literary, scientific and philosophical thought to the Greek experience, which had a stimulating influence on the Armenian literature and criticism, particularly in the Fifth century. Armenian critical thought originated in intersection of pagan and Christian world outlook, based on the Armenian, Greek and Byzantine, and later on Latin sciences and remained quite original. Such an approach enables us to evaluate the Armenian critical thought through global scientific criteria of corresponding periods of time.

The works of prominent writers of the Armenian culture such as Agatang, Busand, Moses of Khoren, G. of Parpi, G. of Narek, H. Imastaser, K. of Yerznka and others are carefully examined in the work. These were the thinkers that had theoretically paved the way for the development of the Armenian literature.

The process of the development of the theory of Armenian criticism from the expression "judgement of verse" and the principle of "refutation" used in the Armenian interpretations of the "Art of Grammar" by Dionysius of Thrace to synthetic and richer theory, and from separate critical elements revealed in historiography to the complete aesthetic system shown in H. Imastaser’s poem are revealed in the work.

The work "The History of Armenian Criticism of V-XV centuries" generalizes the experience of long years, and has many instructive elements for other people too, as it is the result of the scientific systemization and characterization of national life and cultural peculiarities.