The Aesthetic Orientation of David the Invincible

In the ancient Greek original of David’s Definitions of Philosophy, the definitions of art and science were terminologically inherited from ancient thinkers. In this respect, the word τέχνη  is the most capacious and polysemous. Its three main meanings are practical knowledge, art and craft. In the ancient Armenian version of the Definitions, this word was written as արուեստ (aruest) and արհեստ (arhest). In this case, the difference between these two terms is sooner stylistic than semantic. In the works of the Armenian grammarians and philosophers of the Hellenistic school, the terms have been polished and unified to so great an extent that they have almost no semantic indistinctness. However, concepts and objects are historically more mobile than their names, and therefore changes are historically inevitable in the initial bonds between the sign and the denotatum, as a result of which, for instance, we have a discrepancy between the specific and abstract as well as modern and historical meanings of words. The polysemy of the words արուեստ and արհեստ cannot disorientate us if we perceive their meaning in the context of ancient Armenian philosophical literature. However, as soon as we change our viewpoint and try to find, in the early medieval thinkers’ propositions, the definition of art as a specific form of expression or disinterested activity, we will inevitably come across terminological “indistinctness” and the apparent indefiniteness on concepts. While desiring to interpret ancient authors in the mode of our thinking or to “force” them to speak the language which we understand, it is hard for us to acquiesce to the idea that they did not envisage the problems which interest us. In the propositions of the outstanding thinkers of antiquity (including treatises on rhetoric and poetry), aesthetic concepts come to unified modifications and terms. The aesthetic sphere of human activity was cognized without specially singling out aesthetic terms and defining the concept of “aesthetics”. In the medieval thinkers’ propositions, the limits of aesthetics, just as those of the theory of art, remain more than indefinite, regardless of the stand we choose for understanding them. The concept of art as practical knowledge and, in the narrower sense, as artistic creative work was synthesized in David’s theory of knowledge.

In the works on the history of Armenian philosophical and aesthetic thought (V. Chaloyan, A. Adamyan, G. Gabrielyan, S. Arevshatyan), a study has been made of David’s theory of knowledge as well as the place which art holds in his classification of the forms of knowledge. Without referring to these researches, let us try in this case to revive the medieval meaning of the word արուեստ (aruest).

In the word  արուեստ,  արու(aru) is the root, while եստ (est) is the suffix. Such a construction make the word equivalent to the Latin word “virtus”¹, which means courage, a fast, a virtue, talent, superiority², and so forth. The explanation of the word արուեստ in the New Dictionary of the Ancient Armenian Language (which says certain skill, ability) corresponds to those meanings. The most ancient example of  the literary use of this word in Faustos Buzand’s work. He said: “…թմբկահարք և սրնգահարք, քնարահարք և փողահարք, իւրաքանչիւըն արուեստօք պէսպէս ձայնիւք բարբառեցան.”⁴. The matter in question in artistic skill. In that same passage, use is made of the word արուեստական (aruestakan), which was derived from արուեստ and which means a professional musician, a singer⁵ and, in a more general and modern sense, an artist. In this case, the word արուեստ is an attribute, while the word արուեստական, is a qualitative concept. The second form of the word արուեստ, which has been attested since ancient times, is արութիւն (arutivn), whose meaning is “power, courage as well as general or particular virtue”⁶, i.e., etymologically it also corresponds to the Latin word “virtus”.

In basing ourselves on this common linguistic aspect, let us recall the famous words of Movses Khorenatsi: “…բազում  գործք արութեան գտանին գործել և ի մերում աշխարհին” (“many feats of courage exist also in our country”). The matter in question is spiritual feats and moral values. The historian imparted this meaning also to the word արութիւն: “…ոչ ինչ գործ արութեան և քաջութեան եցոյց”⁷, which means “not having created values and exhibited courage”. Finally, the third, comparatively later form արուեստ is the word արհեստ (arhest)^8,  which was used as a synonym of the former in ancient in the new, modern Armenian language. From the standpoint of the question which interests us, important fact is that the word արուեստ in its ordinary sense contained the idea of artistic skill. This word is converted into a term in the grammatical and philosophical works of the Hellenistic school. The ancient Armenian translation of Grammar written by Dionysius the Thracian, being the basis of all the scientific terminology in medieval Armenia, says: “Art (արուեստ) is an empirically elaborated system (բաղկացութիւն) which is intended for performing something useful in life (առ ի պիտանացու ինչ իրս որ ի կենցաղումս ^).9 This formulation was in invariable postulate for the Armenian authors of the Hellenistic orientation, just as, incidentally, for the authors of the late Middle Ages. It was in harmony also with the synthetic thinking of the Middle Ages, according to which artistic creative work was not separated from the practical everyday and spiritual-cultural spheres of activity. In David’s Definitions, art is subordinated as a specific system (բաղկացութիւն) to the epistemological theme and is certainly differentiated not aesthetically: “Art (արուեստ τέχνη) is causally substantiated general knowledge (καθδλου νϋώσίς μετά λσγου), or art (արուեստ-τέχνη) is ability (possession) of conjugation with imagination (βαδιζουσα μετά φαντασιας), or art is definite ability and knowledge, and it also coordinates, i. e. , creates everything in a proper way (ըստ կարգի –τάξις, in a proper order-H.H.).¹⁰

Art did not interest David the Invincible as self –sufficient activity or activity which was independent of practical aims. Therefore one should not look for aesthetic modifications in the direct sense of the word in the definitions. Prof. A.A. Adamyan quite correctly described David’s artistic and aesthetic views by saying “art as knowledge”. A.A. Adamyan showed that the grammarians and interpreters of the Hellenistic school as well as David the invincible introduced ancient rationalism into the medieval theory of art.¹¹ It should be noted that the problem of essence and the functions of art were also analyzed epistemologically in Aristotle’s Metaphysics. But the concepts in Metaphysics have a somewhat different semantic orientation: in Aristotle’s terminology it is difficult to find a basis for our notions.¹² In Aristotle’s works, for instance, the word τέχνη is so polysemous that it cannot be brought into conformity with the concept of art¹³.In Plato’s works, too, this word’s meaning is so broad and universal that it is almost impossible to translate it¹⁴.

It is difficult to say how David the Invincible imagined the sphere of artistic activity and whether he regarded artistic creative activity in general as a specific form of knowledge. This is difficult not only because he did not write any aesthetic treatises, but also because none of the authors belonging to that epoch and that literary environment had left us such words. Coupling the meaning of the term mainly with grammar, rhetoric and literature, the Armenian interpreters of Dionysios the Thracian had made it more specific and limited. This would have been a different question if David the Invincible preceded the skeptics and not vice versa. Denying ancient skepticism, David the Invincible was undoubtedly acquainted with the skeptics’ aesthetic views and with Sextus Empiricus’s proposition that “any real art science are perceived on the basis of the artistic and scientific functions revealed by them.¹⁵ Unlike the philosophers on the classical period, who, in their thinking, used categories of greater integrity and studied the world more than their self, the skeptics with their emotional and extremely fine self – contemplation had imparted a new quality to the differentiation of concepts. As a representative of both the new epoch and the monoconceptual world, David the Invincible is integral in the Attic sense and optimistic in the Christian sense. For him, philosophy as the “art of arts and the science of sciences” (Aristotle) is the way to comprehend absolute immaterial being, divine being. According to him, reality is knowable because, just as Plato’s “cosmos”, it is single and monoconceptual. Practical knowledge is only a stage on the way to comprehension and, at this stage, the difference between the artistic and inartistic expression of the process of creative work and its result is not and cannot be a subject of discussion. As Prof. V. Chaloyan had noted, David’s concept of արուեստ (τέχνη) coincides with Aristotle’s concept of φρόνησις (practical knowledge).¹⁶  It should be added that the Greek work φρόνημον semantically coincides with the ancient Armenian word արութիւն.

Investigation in the history of Armenian philosophical thought show that the system of the theory of knowledge elaborated by David the Invincible has the following hierarchy: sensation, imagination, and opinion, judgement and thought. Art is in the middle of this hierarchy: it is higher than then sensation but lower than theoretical knowledge and philosophy. If account is taken of the fact that the stages of knowledge established by David the Invincible are interconnected by unity and difference, the place held by art as a form of knowledge will become quite definite: It is in both the sphere of sense perception and the sphere of rational knowledge: art links sensation and experience with theoretical knowledge and philosophy. When this link is “է ընդհանուր գիտութիւն հանդերձ պատճառաւ՞ (καθόλου γνώσις μέτά λόγου), art and science are not differentiated. However, when this link is explained as the “ability (possession) of conjugation with imagination “ունակութիւն ճանապարհորդեալ հանդերձ երևակայութեամբ” (βαδιζουσα μετά φανταζσας), the features of their differentiation arerevealed.

What do ճանապարհորդել (going) and երևակայութիւն (imagination) mean? If the aspect of rational experience (μετά λόγου, causally substantiated) were not emphasized at the matter question was imaginary, unreal notions. In the Russian translation of the Definitions (translated by S. Arevshatyan), the word ճանապարհորդեալ (literally, to travel) was translated by the word conjugation, which, in the given context, indicates that art is the skill or ability to combine the practical with the theoretical. The dictionary meaning of this word is just as interesting. The word βάδισις used in the Greek original of the Definitions means course, process. In this respect, of account is taken also of the word երևակայութիւն (φαντασια, imagination), which means knowledge of an absent object, notion (which should not be confused with the word fantasy), we can explain one of the aspects which distinguishes art from science, i.e., a process which is in conformity with notion. Imagination, or notion, is at the lower steps of knowledge, i.e., it is lower than experience but higher than sensation. At the same time, is it a more dynamic aspect of knowledge, an indispensable property of the process of creation, i. e., an attribute of the process. By saying հանդերձ պատճառաւ (“causally substantiated”) and հանդերձ երևակայութեամբ (“conjugated with imagination”), David the Invincible found the point of contact, as it were, between a plan and its realization. However, we are interested in another aspect of the propositions. It is very enticing to see the awareness of intuition in creative work standing after the word երևալայութիւն (imagination). However, this is improbable because of the following postulate of David’s: “Art is also an empirically elaborated system (բաղկացութիւն) of well-mastered skills that is intended for realizing something useful in life.”¹⁷  If the word երևակայել (to imagine) means to mentally “see” the absent, i.e., an object which, in this case, in not sensually perceived, the word ճանապարհորդել (going) means to successively pass, is one’s imagination, the steps of creation and find a link between a plan and its realization, between a notion and an object. David the Invincible thus approached a very intricate law of the creative process (both artistic and scientific), i.e., the dialectics of the object and the subject. The words երևակայութիւն and ճանապարհորդել mean aesthetic modifications to us because, in  David’s terminology, they act as auxiliary concepts which explain relations between the rational and sensual forms of knowledge.

In David’s definition, imagination and process are dialectically unity is expressed by the word (τάξις, order): “art is definite ability and knowledge (cognition – H. H.); it also indicates, i.e., creates everything in a proper way (order-H.H.)”¹⁷. In the work of an anonymous medieval interpreter of the Definitions, the concepts of կարգ (order) and ճանապարհ (way) are almost identical (“ որպէս ընդ ճանապարհ գնալ կարգու կատարել”). In the interpretation, “going” is the contemplation of not only an image, but also the process and steps of its creation, just as when a house is being built (“նախ զհիմն և ապա զորմունս. Յես որոյ և զձեղունս”).¹⁸   But the concept of կարգ (or τάξις, order) reveals for greater depth in the context of ancient and Hellenistic propositions than in medieval ones. According to David the Invincible, կարգ -τάξις is the ultimate aim in which process and imagination, a plan and its realization are united.David the Invincible used the word կարգ τάξις in the sense of Plato’s τάξις and κόσμος. Plato used these terms in different senses: ontological, ethic and, partially, aesthetic senses.¹⁹ However, in the Definitions, the word կարգ τάξις is used as an epistemological tern, and only in the general context of David’s works and his literary environment does is acquire the significance of an aesthetic modification. If account is taken of the fact that David used the words τέχνη and արուեստ as attributes and not as qualitative concepts (“ ունակութիւն ոմն”), is can be maintained that art for ancient and Hellenistic thinkers as well as medieval thinkers was an attributive concept (which described the type of skill /ability/). This specific creates կարգ (order), which is the aim of art, the product of creative work, a consummate quality. The limits of our searches are fount here. The կարգ is a complete whole in both nature and art. In the most perfect form, the idea of  կարգ is given proportionally, harmoniously and expediently with respect to Plato’s cosmos.

The question of the difference between science and art is very slightly considered only in the places of David’s definitions where he spoke about the difference between the two forms of knowledge, which he denoted by the terms արուեստ τέχνη and մակացութիւն έπιστήμη. According to David the Invincible, theoretical knowledge is true both in itself (“ըստ իւրում բանին”, “in essence”) and with respect to its subject (“ըստ ենթակային”, “according to the subject”),²⁰ and this means that any theoretical knowledge is higher than practical skill. Of course, the matter in question is science. However, when it is maintained that art, being true “in essence, can make an error with respect to the subject (“ըստ ենթակային”), the matter in question is no longer art as we understand it, but practical activity in general. This question is raised similarly in Aristotle’s Metaphysics: “Science (έπιστήμη) relates to being, while art (τέχνη), to formation (γένεσις).”²¹ There may be aesthetic aspects²² in this case and in the above-mentioned propositions and definitions of David’s, but the question is raised differently. The difference between art and nature, and not between art and science or art and craft was important to David the Invincible. “We say ‘conjugated with imagination’ owing to nature, since nature also is possession, as it possesses existence in things which embody in themselves, i.e., in a person, in a stone and other things, but it creates in the proper way (in the proper order-H.H.), and not by imaginiation^.”23 Consequently, nature is also a system (բաղկացութիւն), a result of a “certain skill” (“ունակութեան ուրումն”), and it also has a process and a result. Let us recall that Plato applied skill to the whole χόσμος. However, nature as a system is the objective will and not the result of imagination, David the Invincible wrote: “when the master of art (τεχνίτης) begins his work, he at first creates in himself an idea of a thing and only then does he realize it. However, nature never preliminarily creates in itself an idea of a thing.”²⁴  Nature  is its own object and is created on its own, while a “master” (արուեստաւոր τεχνίτης) imagines what should be created. Nature is order, a person is a manifestation of this order, while art as order is the result of human imagination. As for the difference between art and craft, i.e., the difference between artistic and inartistic orders, it is outside the framework of David’s theory of knowledge.

In David’s aesthetic orientation, the idea of order (կարգ  τάξις) was the most significant and viable one. What order means in the ancient theories of art is a special question. Another such question is what are the medieval interpretations and modifications of Plato’s theory of order. Only one thing can the stated for the present: in the Middle Ages, mostly the streamlining function was ascribed to art, because the principle of imitation or reproduction (mimeses) was practically and theoretically rejected. Medieval thinkers borrowed especially the idea of order from the ancient theories of art. For instance, Augustine and Boetsii , who were the early medieval adherents of the Plotinian wing of Neoplatonism, regarded art as an attribute of rational cognition. Although they rather closely approached the aesthetic them proper as compared with David the Invincible, they in principle remained the interpteters of Plato’s idea of order. No wonder after David the Invincible and the early medieval thinkers, the perception of art in  medieval Armenia did not transcend the framework of the concept of order evenwhen the term itself was not used. Ovanes Yerznkatsi (12^th century) wrote: “What is art if it is not the initial vision (notion-H.H.) and comprehension of all being by science (knowledge-H.H.) a proper way and in good time (առնել զամենայն ինչ ի ժամանակի իւրում և ըստ պատշաճի).”²⁵ He used the Armenian Grecophiles’ formulation and, in his epistemological theme, too, the aesthetic aspect is seen only because he related a painter’s and a musician’s skill to the sphere of art. Thus, the idea of order is something which can reveal and explain the meaning of medieval art and help us guide ourselves with respect to its history and theory.

NOTES

1. G.Acharyan, Etymological Root Dictionary of Armenian, Vol.1, Yerevan, 1971, p. 332 (in Armenian).
2. See Ancient Greek-Russian Dictionary, compiled by I.Kh. Dvoretskii, Moskow,1958,p.1084 (in Russian)
3. New Dictionary of Ancient Armenian, Vol.1, Venice, 1936, p.372 (in ancient Armenian).
4. Faustos Buzand, History of Armenia, Tiflis, 1912, pp. 347-348 (in ancient Armenian)
5. See M. Abegyan, Works, Yerevan, Vol. 2, 1967, p 193 (in Armenian)
6. New Dictionary of Ancient Armenian, Vol. 1, p. 374
7. Movses Khorenatsi, History of Armenia, Tiflis, 1913, pp. 12, 13 (in ancient Armenian). The word արութիւն is usually translated as courage, which in our opinion gives a one-sided idea of the given concept.
8. See G. Acharyan, Op. cit., Vol. 1 p. 332
9. N. Adonts, Dionysius the Thracian and Armenian Interpreters, Petrograd, 1915, p. 42 (texts in ancient Armenian).
10. David the Invincible, Definitions of philosophy. Critical text and Russian translation by S. Arevshatyan, Yerevan, 1960, p. 103. Davidis Prolegomena et in Porphyrii Isagogen Commentarium, Berolini, 1904, p. 43 (texts in ancient Greek).
11. A. Adamyan, “Questions of Aesthetics and the Theory of Art”, Iskusstvo, Moskow, 1978, pp,209-217 (in Russian).
12. See Aristotle, Works, Vol. 1, Mys1, Moskow, 1976, pp. 65-67 (in Russian).
13. See A. F. losev, History of Ancient Aesthetics. Aristotle and Late Classicism, Iskusstvo, Moskow, 1975, p. 361 (in Russian).
14. A. F. Losev, History of Ancient Aesthetics. High classicism, Iskusstvo, Moskow, 1974, p. 16 (in Russian).
15. Sextus Empiricus, Works, Vol. 2, Mysl, Moskow, 1976, p. 38 (in Russian).
16. V. Chaloyan, History of Armenian Philosophy, Yerevan, 1975, p. 144 (in Armenian).
17.  Definitions of Philosophy, pp. 102-103. Davidis prolegomena, p. 43.
18. Interpretation of the Book of Definitions, Mashdots Institute of Ancient Manuscripts , Matenadaran, manuscript No.32o1, p. 170a.
19. See A. F. Losev, History of Ancient Aesthetics. Sophists. Socrates. Plato. Iskusstvo, Moskow, 1969, pp. 374-379 (in Russian).
20. Definitions of Philosophy, pp. 104-105.
21. A. F. Losev, History of Ancient Aesthetics. Aristotle and Late Classicism, pp. 363-364. In this respect, an indirect aesthetic theme is envisaged.
22. This question has been considered fundamentally erroneously in my book Theatre in Medieval Armenia. Questions of History and Theory, Yerevan, pp. 305-307 (in Armenian).
23. Definitions of Philosophy, pp. 102-103.
24. Ibid.
25. Matenadaran, manuscript No. 2173, p. 278a.

                       Yerevan 1980      H. Hovhannissyan

A story narrated in Middle Ages, an old ceremonial legend, language evidence and some analytic essays that create a dramatic atmosphere, trace back to the pre-Christian age and reach the new era. By saying old, we mean conveying the old, bringing antiquity and narrating of antiquity.

Such is the subject of our study.

We neither have nor seek for ancient evidence: we proceed from medieval references of the phenomenon. We attempt to view antiquity in the medieval light, taking into consideration the survived written and oral pieces of folk legends.

Our purpose is to examine the historical-typological and thematic interconnections of ancient Armenian drama in a particular frame, searching for semasiological and internal relations between mythological, ritual modifications and folk dramatic games, viewed in comparatively later periods. We mean the type of the phenomenon, its description and those features that bring the Armenian folk drama close to the ancient theatrical system, and the folk-dancing (choral) drama. We do not intend to identify the ancient mystic drama with the medieval folk drama, but we are prone to think that these two different types have the same roots.

We are interested in the vein hidden in the Armenian dramatic folklore, its mythological source, its trends to religious outlook, its cult symbols ( that will be thoroughly examined) and the most important of all, with its ritual and game modifications.

The most apparent of the discussed facts is the folk drama. This is an expression of game folklore that has passed through Middle Ages, bears various social-historical influences, and is rough and simplistic by appearance. But it is much more than can be judged by its appearance. It includes such depths, such invisible layers, that in order to recognize the subject it is necessary to turn to indirect parallels, to remove far from facts and sometimes to put together signs seemingly incompatible in terms of time and environment.

But shall we take into account all the rites originating in pre-written language age, all the known forms of syncretic folklore, all those expressions of conventionality of ways that include elements of action, play and rituals? Usually this is how the ancient drama is examined. This examination method creates a mode of uncertainty and the boundaries of the subject remain indefinite. Yet, our purpose is specific.

By realizing the significance of cult signs and ancient beliefs, by turning over the pages of Lives of our Fathers, the Gospel and Agathang, by paying attention to some old sites and restaurated memorials, we attempt to reflect on a certain problem in a particular direction. The purpose is to consider the general pre-theme of the drama, to examine its expressions in the folkloric environment, and its religious and artistic modifications.

Considering the historical-typological and mainly historical-philological examination of Armenian and ancient folk drama, we look for its complete, typologically constructed expressions on one hand and its literary references, signs and reflections on the other. As for the ritual and game bases of drama, we mean the dramatic structure and not the dramatic sense (it is a wider sphere). We must not confuse the two sides of dramatics: one of them is dramatic as a general strain level of an emotional state, the other is the structure-formation of contexts. In the first case, the dramatic structure is an aesthetic feature meaning an internal tension and a possibility of movement and excitement. It may be typical to all literary genres and it can be expressed in all forms of artistic mentality. This is dramatics as an aesthetic expression, and a structure characterizing its genre. The position of the subject and its relations to the reality can be dramatic, when the subject is viewed and reproduced from the spectra of “action liberty of a subject”(Hegel) as a relationship between “I” and “You”.

We think that we may use a situation or a state, for example a dramatic state of speech and an epic (narrative) situation instead of the genre.

Dramatic sense is the state or the situation where the practical will of an individual is expressed or when it possesses a potential of expression; the situation is a present condition (not past as in epic genre) and the action is its aim.

If dramatics does not lead to drama as a category of expression, then it conveys the idea of an immediate possibility or a dramatic model. If the situation can be generally repeated, i.e. it has parallels in everyday life, in history and in literature, especially in folklore and in games, and emerges into different plot structures, it is called a dramatic model or modification. For instance, two goats meet on the narrow bridge of a small river: they face an unavoidable conflict and involuntary guiltiness. This is a fable modification of a drama, its most simple and precise model which has its folklore-game variation: the children’s game called “goats’ fight.”

If the mode of the logical expression is not the result of situations, it does not cause dramatic modifications. But mediated signs and indirect references exist in Armenian song-epic folklore. They are not various and cannot be so. Dramatic modifications are limited by their typology and seem diverse because they appear in different contexts.

Considering the logical and folk-dancing extracts of ancient Armenian drama we do not intend to make it a narration, but instead find special signs that characterize the typology of the drama.

Dramatic modifications are more obvious in the game folklore. The contention for priority and the struggle to become the master of the situation, where the special spiritual strain is expressed in the form of physical activities, brings to drama. Such games are the obvious expressions and reflections of national psychology, though their semantics are not visible.

The meaning of the game is mainly incomprehensible or forgotten both for the player and the viewer. But the game is neither an endless pastime nor a mere sports activity, no matter how it is perceived. If the perception and the essence are on the same level, there is a need for research.

Each emotional situation, either a usual-ceremonial game or an unusual-circus type, has a theatrical element and consists of signs. Behind each sign there is always an invisible meaning questing for explanation.

Of course, there is not a direct link between a game and a drama. They are not isomorphous, side by side, do not replace or follow each other although they have the same origins. The environment creates the metaphysics of the drama. Ancient Indian dramas are not dramatic, but not because of the fact that the ideas of decadence and victory have been expressed in one genius game. Official religious ideology has accepted the ideas of danger and death as inseparable from the ideas of salvation and resurrection, and this reconciliation was put in the base of Brahman poetics. Card reading is a result of an environment which is dramatic both in reality and in theatre. The provision of the Angel is quite acceptable in Europe: “the dramatic action requires the realization of three principles- that of the individual liberty, self-motivation and the sovereignty of the free will responsible for personal actions and their consequences.” Hegel means the classic tragedy and the social environment for its existence, i.e. Sophocles and the polis democracy of Athens. The example of classic Greece provided Hegel with an opportunity to create a harmonious state and define the ideal regulations. Yet, the course of the history and life seems capricious.

The ideal basis for the drama (if it ever existed) has disappeared, and drama has changed the sphere and the level of expression. Hegel’s theory of drama remains a stable indicator, a conventional apparatus revealing the structure and the logic of the phenomenon, that explains by far no conceptual phenomena.

What Hegel considers a condition for tragic action, occurs in drama and in game and play- folklore, but in what sphere of life, in what spiritual space and mode of expression?

This is the starting point of our critique.

This is where we want to widen the boundaries of drama and the comprehension of dramatics. Consequently, by saying old and folk drama, we mean the song-epic and game folklore, the discovery of the completed phenomena, the transformations of the phenomenon, its potential conditions and models.

Not all kinds of Armenian folk games may be called dramatic or are adjusted to dramatic models. But there are games dramatic by nature where the phenomenon we are looking for is evident, prompting drama by semasiology. Such is for example, the mace game, rough by appearance and symbolic conflict by content, where the right of position is contended for by obvious physical means but not for the objective of physical victory. Rope-dancing is dramatically much more moderate, theatrically impressive and profound, and is the eccentric-objective and symbolic reproduction of human attitude towards the reality, the visible idea of harmony and perhaps the semasiological base of circus.

If the fable of two goats is the simplest model of drama then rope-dancing can perhaps be considered to be the main determinant of the theatre. This is a folk miracle and morality; on one hand it is a manifestation of the ambiguity of human existence and on the other, a symbolic resolution of the relation between humans and the supernatural spirits of the air.

The study of Ancient and Medieval theatre convinces that folk-dancing is the most viable and perhaps the preliminary trait in folk dramatic art. Many features of the ancient drama have faded and disappeared but this one reaches the new era. The signs of folk-dancing as an ancient theatrical system exist in folk-game, in epic narratives, in various modifications of lifestyle and in ecclesiastical ritual.

All this is mentioned in the previous research of the author, but there is a need to reveal separately the spheres of folk-dancing and to revitalize their meaning in accordance with the universal typological features.

We do not want to be repeated (the reader may get this impression in some places), we simply attempt to develop the question.

We have considered folk-dancing drama as one of the types of early medieval theatre and have searched for its survivals in song-epic folklore.

Now we attempt to interpret the same phenomenon as the main type of ancient Armenian folk drama. We choose the theatrical universality as a historical-typological orientation. This is the axis of the research. Consequently, not all facts of theatrical and game folklore are connected with ancient drama. The question is, in what kind of game and rituals does the content-structural principle of folk-dancing drama exist as a main and decisive peculiarity?

Starting with the national interpretation of mystic drama, the known ancient themes (mythological modification), linguistic facts of folk-dancing drama, as well as the general bases of the religious outlook of the drama, we try to view the branch of game folklore in the new era by the light of antiquity, called oral literature, folk ritual ( G. Srvandztyants, S. haykuni, E. Tievkants, V. Ter-Minasyan, E. Lalayan, and others) and later a game (V. Bdoyan), folk theatrical play (A. Arshakuni), theatrical performance (Srbuhi Lisityan), and further on folk dramatic work and folklore theatre.

From the ritual and other types of games we separate a definite kind of game, that is_ judge-games and circle-type games constructed by the same logic, where the opsis of folk-dancing drama is obvious.

In this games we assume the existence of an individual and the environment, a conditional conflict, an agreed action (ritual) and elemental (game) performance, creativity, eccentric change of conditions and such representational modifications, where we perceive the object and the subject (action and actor), the limits of reality and conventionality, the spectator and the actor. Calling them folk-drama, we try to clarify the types and peculiarities of these games and differentiate the drama or the dramatic models from the other forms of game folklore and dramatic rites from non dramatic ones.

It eases the comprehension of theatre as well.

Theatricality, no matter how wide the concept is (and it is), it cannot be independent from the dramatic (the dramatic action). The perception of this unity as we have mentioned, is weak in modern Armenian theatre study, although the distinction and the connection of those two features exist in dramatic theories of the past century, particularly in the theoretical analysis of France Grilpartsen.

Defining the ancient and folk drama and recognizing the ancient dramatic theme in Armenian folklore, we try to reach the basis of the ancient Armenian theatre and, find its historical (although distant) ties with the folk drama of the new era. This is one of the main questions of this research.

The concept of folk drama was not included in our philological literature. Theoretically, drama has not been distinguished from the other types of game-folklore. Documentary material has been collected and published since the end of the last century ( by P. Proshyan, Raffi, G. Srvandztyans, E. Tievkans, V. Ter Vardanyan, H. Malkhasyan, E. Lalayants, etc.). The material is systemized (V. Bdoyan), and it is difficult to input new data into it today. (The national way of life does not have the previous ethnographic richness, it moves from rural to urban areas). However, there has been no theoretical examination and especially no typological distinction of folk drama. Every ritual phenomenon, such as the wedding for example, has been called a folk theatrical play so far. This is a disputable approach which dates from the last century. One of the reasons is the disregard to the practice of the dramatic and theatrical as well as the classic esthetical theories. It has brought to the confusion of the boundaries, concepts and objects which also exists in the Russian theatrical study of the past, in the works of P. Morozov, Yu. Veselevski, V. Vsevolodski-Gernross. New authors so far have inherited the views of the past century without a theoretical revision. We think it more extraordinary when a funeral is considered as drama or theatre.

Garegin Levonyan and following Georg Goyan consider the description of Gnel’s funeral and Parandzem’s wailing in Faust Buzand’s “Armenian History” as a tragedy of the Fourth century, in case when the mystic rite as a component of Navasard holiday existed among Armenians earlier, according to Khorenatsi, during the King Vagharsh I (117-140 B.C.).

As we will see in the book, the mysterious type of the theatre already existed during the Armenian Arshakuni dynasty and that no drama could have been created from the barbarian forms of pagan wailing (described by Faust). What a poverty of spiritual life should it have been especially in the period of the prosperity of the Armenian ministry!

Life, especially in ancient and medieval centuries, had a variety of ritual expressions, if was not completely ritual. No reasons to identify the lifestyles, no matter how theatrical they were, with oral elaborated and existing composition within the life. The rite sometimes has the expression of mechanical beliefs deprived of meaning, it creates an environment of social contact and stable ways for oral literature, particularly for drama, and does not become such by itself. The study of rituals is by  far not an unimportant task from the perspective of our issue, but let us not confuse the environment with the phenomenon existing in it. We had a chance to talk about it.

In the study of the Armenian ancient and folk drama, we proceed both from rituals and games considering them as factors deciding the structure of the drama or the different levels of dramatic expression. But here too, a distinction should be made. The dramatic sense is rather a result of an eventuality and an element, i.e. of the state of playing, than of an agreement- the ritual state. The rite is an agreed and stable phenomenon which implies theatrical sense. Therefore, the rite and the game are assumed to have the same relations as those existing between theatrical and dramatic senses.

Therefore, the rite and the game are assumed to have the same relations as those existing between theatrical and dramatic senses. Rituals are the regulation of the game, like theatricality for dramatic sense. Theatrical art is the internal dialectic tie between two of them. The perception of the contradicting unity of those first principles of rituals and games, are actually new and brought the theatrical artists of the beginning of the Twentieth century the idea that theatre was the solidarity of the temple and the playground, and the agreement between “the heathen priest and player.” In this work, we attempt to view those two principles separately and together according to sign links.

As an order and sequence of the inquiry, we accept the six parts of the drama defined by Aristotle: 1) fable or fabula, 2) customs or character, 3) speech, 4) idea, 5) vision or opsis and 6) play (music).

In fact these are not parts but synchronous- structural elements and layers, and the exclusion of any of them will result in a distortion of the subject. Aristotle imagines drama as literature without opsis which is “typical to a poem least of all”. The visible world, i.e. the theatre is independent. It is a formation existing beyond the speech. On one hand it is an assumed reality (according to Roman Ingonden’s interpretation), and on the other hand, it is the theatrical orchestral public realization of the literary material and its subjective determinant.

According to the six structural elements in the sequence defined by Aristotle, the base of the drama is first of all the theme, and the myth is the mythological modification (modus) in today’s terminology. According to Aristotle’s logic, the character (person, archetype) is subject to myth and plot regulation. According to Aristotle, accepting this principle, we must note that the character gets materialized when the myth is subjected to opsis and surpasses the boundaries of literature (poetry). So we arrive at the idea of ritual modification, which, in its turn, results in game modification.

The internal logic of the phenomenon, as we have noticed, has been viewed long time ago, and the bases for interpretation have already been given. Thus, it dictates us to classify the inquiries in the following sequence: a) mythological modification, b) ritual modification, c) game modification. Hence, in the first chapter we discuss the myth, the archetype (ethos) and the idea (dianoya) in the second, the ritual traces and metamorphoses in the third chapter and later, we examine the evidence of the game modifications, that is to say the folk drama with its models. We follow the sequence of historical facts, according to the opportunities provided by the material. This sequence is conditional, of course. The structural elements of drama are found in different time periods and places, far from one another and disconnected. And the purpose of our study is to review the existing connections.

Resume

The subject of our study is the ancient Armenian mysterial drama with its mythological and ritual bases and symbolic and thematic-plot typology.The Armenian version of the “Chained force” with the mysterial name of the principal personage, that is to say the ritual embodiment of Syderian year (solar-astral year), which is connected with the holiday of Navasard (pre-Christian Armenian Holiday, linking old and coming year, called Kaland) is chosen as a universal modification or model for drama. The Chained Force has three names in Armenian mythological legends: Shidar, Artavazd and Mher.  All  this  three are symbolic-mysterial names. The study reveals the unique nature of phenomenon which is typical for the region, universal traits and typological references to Ancient Eastern and Balkanian folkloric-mythological mentality, to cosmogenic notions and rituals.

The thematic model of Ancient Armenian drama and its ritual and game modifications-metamorphosis are examined in this work. The first modification was narrated in the pre-Christian mystery Navasard, officially adopted in the Second century BC and interrupted in 301AD by the adoption of Christianity. The second modification is the Christian cleric drama, the liturgy and its formal connections with ancient rituals of Near East and ancient Greek drama.

The third modification is the comic mystery created by the Armenian monks, the “Abeghatogh” with its parallels in folk-games, i.e. the so called “Judge games.” These three trends show the historical evolution of Ancient Armenian drama on one hand, and the universal base of the dramatic mentality on the other hand. Finally, the study leads to the question:  were the sources of Ancient drama and its symbolic opsys are. This question brings us to an undeclared conclusion that the roots of ancient drama can be found in Near East and Mesopotamia and that the Ancient Armenian drama is the prototype of Syderian mystery.