191

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY

doi:10.1017/npt.2015.36
Armenian literary studies in Turkey and
new prospects

Mehmet Fatih Uslu, PhD.

Department of Turkish Language and Literature
Istanbul ehir University

Despite the silence which dominated the whole century, in the past few
years, Turkish literary circles bore witness to a burgeoning interest in
the Armenian literature produced in the Ottoman Empire and modern
Turkey. A group of Turkish academics and some intellectuals outside of the
academia rediscovered the important role Armenian culture played in the
Ottoman Empire. They were fascinated by the vast literary heritage, which
was almost totally unknown to Turkish public. Armenian became a prefer-
able academic language for young scholars and at the same time, some
researchers began working on Turkish texts in the Armenian alphabet. In
this process, rst of all, the number of translations from Armenian increased
and the Turkish audience became acquainted with Ottoman Armenian
writers such as Hagop Baronyan, Krikor Zohrab, and Zabel Yesayan.
Secondly, contemporary writers and poets who wrote in Armenian or both
in Armenian and Turkish, such as Megerdich Margosyan, Zaven Biberyan,
and Zahrad became popular.1 Thirdly, various books and articles by
researchers and literary critics such as Marc Nichanian, Kevork Bardakjian,
and Boghos Levon Zekiyan were translated into Turkish as a parallel pro-
cess to the increasing number of literary works.2 And nally, works by
Turkish scholars, which also include research on Armeno-Turkish texts and
comparative studies between Armenian and Turkish literatures, accompanied

1 Aras publishing house has been the foremost actor in the eld since its rst day (1993). Its publication
policy has been two-fold since the beginning: On the one hand, it focuses on publishing books in
Armenian. On the other hand, Aras publishes books in Turkish and most of these are translations from
Armenian.
2 See: Marc Nichanian, Edebiyat ve Felaket, trans. A. Snmezay (stanbul: letiim Yaynlar, 2011); Kevork
Bardakjian, Modern Ermeni Edebiyat, trans. F. nal and M. Aktokmakyan (stanbul: Aras Yaynclk,
2013); Boos Levon Zekiyan, Bedros Turyann iirinde Kiisel Trajedi ve Kltrel Arkapln, trans.
Cem Bico, in Tanzimat ve Edebiyat: Osmanl stanbulunda Modern Edebi Kltr, ed. M. F. Uslu and
F. Altu (stanbul: Bankas Yaynlar, 2014), 455-480.

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Istanbul Sehir University, on 13 May 2017 at 08:49:09, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/npt.2015.36
 192 Mehmet Fatih Uslu
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY

the incremental number of resources translated from Armenian or other

languages, mainly English.3
The watershed in this Armenian Studies turn, without a doubt, was the
assassination of Hrant Dink in 2007. His heartrending death was a harsh and
unexpected blow for many people in Turkey and caused an intense emotional
reaction. Soon after, this emotional reaction was transformed into a multi-
faceted search to understand the countrys so-called Armenian question and
of course its Armenian past.4 This search brought about a new map of
positions especially in terms of the role of Armenian cultural institutions,
which drastically changed in the process. In this new cultural map, at least
some of those institutions came to have much more central roles in Turkish
intellectual scene; in other words, they shifted from their relatively peripheral
position to intellectual and cultural centers of the country. The most
important examples of this shift were Agos (Dinks newspaper) and Aras
Publishing House. This was a herald of increasing interest in Armenian
culture and literature, which was accompanied by other publishing houses
(like bgst and Belge) and cultural institutions with new products based on
Armenian culture.
In this new atmosphere, it is not surprising to detect new research trends
and formulate new questions which mark out a new era for Armenian literary
studies in Turkey. Indeed, under the dominating atmosphere of denial, literary
studies on the modernization of literature in the Ottoman Empire generally
overlooked the existence and inuence of Ottoman Armenian literature.
Furthermore, literary historiography deliberately refrained from mentioning
the Armenian pioneers of Turkish literature. It may be surprising to hear that
on the one hand, Vartan Pasha wrote the very rst novel in Turkish in
Armenian alphabet, namely Agapi Story in 1851; on the other hand, Armenian
priests in San Lazzaro authored the rst Turkish plays, again in Armenian
alphabet, in the last quarter of the 18th century.5 That is, Turkish literary

3 Here, I would like to especially underline the pioneering contribution of Laurent Mignon who worked
at Bilkent University until 2011. Mignons own work and his students writings created a growing
interest in Ottoman Literature(s) in Turkish academic circles and brought about a challenging
criticism to the Republican historiography regarding the literature of Turkey and of the Ottoman
Empire. Mignon published extensively on literatures and literary cultures of non-Muslims in the
Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey and helped to understand how nationalist history created an
atmosphere of negligence for the local cultures of Anatolia and Istanbul. See: Laurent Mignon,
A Pilgrims Progress: Armenian and Kurdish Literatures in Turkish and the Rewriting of Literary
History, Patterns of Prejudice vol. 48 (2014): 182-200.
4 For an extensive account of Hrant Dinks life and inuence on Turkish intellectuals, see: Tuba andar,
Hrant, (stanbul: Everest Yaynlar, 2010).
5 Yervant Baret Manok, Dou ile Bat Arasnda San Lazzaro Sahnesi: lk Trke Tiyatro Oyunlar, trans. M. F.
Uslu (stanbul: bgst Yaynlar, 2013).

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Istanbul Sehir University, on 13 May 2017 at 08:49:09, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/npt.2015.36
 193

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY

historians and critics developed and experienced a double-denial: They not
only preferred to forget Armenian literature, but also, at least temporarily, put
the Turkish literature produced by Armenians in the waste bin of history. In
recent years, the attitude of the students in the eld has gradually started to
change. Let me explain the main pillars of this change.
First of all, the increasing number of translations and publications, mostly
by Aras publishing house, has attracted critical interest. For instance, Turkish
literary critics have been paying increasing attention to Megerdich Margosyans
works and a good number of scholarly articles are now produced on his work.
Some of these studies have an interesting anthropological perspective where
they read his works as a way of understanding authentic Armenian-peasant life
in Anatolia. With the help of this approach, not only Margosyan but also
Armenian rural literature, including Hagop Mntzuri and Hamasdegh, have
attracted some attention.6 Another remarkable point regarding the literary
criticism of Margosyan has been the scholarly tendency to analyze his works
side by side with Kurdish writers, especially with Mehmed Uzun, in a com-
parative perspective. Here, the main point has been to understand the common
literary expressions of two victimized communities, which had a long experi-
ence of living together.7 Another noticeable fact is the bold emphasis on the
Deleuzian term minor literature used to explain the literatures of minorities
written in major languages.8
In addition to Margosyan, Zabel Yesayan and Hagop Baronian9 also drew
the interest of literary circles to a certain extent. In this process, Zabel Yesayan
became a legendary person and many appraised and exalted her as the symbol
of a free, courageous, and talented Ottoman-Armenian writer. Yet, despite her
fame in the past few years, Zabel Yesayans works have scarcely been translated
into Turkish. First, Belge Publishing House translated Gardens of Silihdar.
Unfortunately, this was a translation from English, not Armenian, and the
source was Ara Baliozians translation and edition published in 1982 with the
title Gardens of Silihdar and Other Writings. For a second book, the audience
had to wait until 2013. In this year Yesayans legendary book Among the Ruins

6 Berivan Can Emmez, Mgrdi Margosyann Syle Margos Nerelisen? Adl Eserinde Diyarbakr ve
teki mgesi, Batman niversitesi Yaam Bilimleri Dergisi. Vol. 1 (2012): 145-157.
7 Nket Esen, Mgrdi Margosyan and Mehmed Uzun: Remembering Cultural Pluralism in Diyarbakr,
New Perspectives on Turkey 36 (Spring 2007); Onur Gnay. Yitik Bir Zamann Peinde: Gvur
Mahallesi. Kitap-lk (April 2008).
8 Alparslan Nas, Between National and Minor Literature in Turkey: Modes of Resistance in the Works of
Mehmed Uzun and Mgrdi Margosyan, (M.A. thesis, Sabanc University, 2011).
9 In last years, Baronian has been translated and published by different publishing houses: Hagop
Baronyan, ark Diisi, trans. Boos algcolu (stanbul: Aras Yaynclk, 2010); Baronyan Oyunlar,
trans. M. F. Uslu and A. Snmez (stanbul: bgst Yaynlar, 2013); stanbul Mahallelerinde Bir Gezinti,
trans. H. T. Babek, (stanbul: Can Yaynlar, 2014).

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Istanbul Sehir University, on 13 May 2017 at 08:49:09, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/npt.2015.36
 194 Mehmet Fatih Uslu
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY

came out, published by Aras Publishing House. The book has not been read
extensively as expected, but Yesayans fame has continued to grow.10
One of main subelds of Armenian literary studies in the academia and
maybe the most popular one- is Armeno-Turkish literature. Especially nowadays,
many young academics work on Armeno-Turkish texts, particularly on novels and
plays. Famous Turcologist Andreas Tietze edited Vartan Pashas Akabi Hikayesi
(Story of Agapi) at a relatively early date, in 1991.11 Yet, his edition was neglected
for a long time. This publication was in fact a very important challenge to Turkish
literary history, because the novel was written in 1851, twenty-two years before the
so-called rst novel in Turkish Taauk- Talat ve Fitnat by emseddin Sami.
Turkish literary circles waited almost twenty years to discuss the Turkish literature
in the Armenian alphabet produced by Armenians.12
One other growing subeld has been that of comparative literary studies.
The Ottoman Empire in the 19th century was a unique hub. Istanbul was an
unrivaled center to see the comparative modernizations of different literatures
such as Greek, Arabic, Ladino, Persian, Armenian, and Turkish. A side-by-
side and comparative analysis of these literatures creates many different
opportunities to understand the complex map of negotiations and conicts
among the Empires agents, particularly in the last century of the Empire.13
In this cosmopolitan atmosphere, modern Armenian and Turkish literatures,
which were born and developed in the capital city of the Empire, played the
main roles. It seems an impressive opportunity to read these two literatures
comparatively. Let me briey explain the base of this opportunity.
Coming from different classical traditions, the two literatures had experi-
enced more or less the same levels of modernization and in the 1890s both
attained similar literary understandings. However, despite all parallelisms and

10 See Hazal Halavuts M.A. thesis, which partly analyzes this gap between Yesayans fame and the
unavailability of her literary corpus in Turkish: Towards a Literature of Absence. Literary Encounters with
Zabel Yesayan and Halide Edib (M.A. thesis, Istanbul Bilgi University, 2012).
11 Vartan Paa, Akabi Hikayesi, Ed. Andreas Tietze (stanbul: Eren Yaynclk, 1991).
12 For some earlier works on Armeno-Turkish literature, see: A. Turgut Kut, Ermeni Hari Trke Telif ve
Tercme Konular: I-Victor Hugonun Magdurin Hikyesinin Ksaltlm Nshas, in Besinci Milletler
Aras Trkoloji Kongresi: Tebligler II Trk Edebiyat. Volume I (Istanbul: Edebiyat Fakltesi 1985), 195
214. Gonca Gkalp, Osmanl Dnemi Trk Romannn Balangcnda Be Eser, Hacettepe niversitesi
Edebiyat Fakltesi Dergisi, October 1999, 185202. In last ten years, new theses and disserations on the
issue also came out. For instance, see: Erkan Erinci, teki Metinler, teki Kadnlar: Ermeni Hari
Trke Romanlar ve Kadn mgesi (M.A. thesis, Bilkent University, 2007). Murat Cankaras work on
Armeno-Turkish novels has been the most comprehensive work in this eld. See: mparatorluk ve
Roman: Ermeni Hari Trke Romanlar Osmanl Trk Edebiyat Tarihi Yazmnda Konumlandrmak
(Ph.D. diss., Bilkent University 2011).
13 For a recent compilation of articles on the modernization adventures of different Ottoman
communities, see: Mehmet Fatih Uslu and Fatih Altu, eds. Tanzimat ve Edebiyat: Osmanl
stanbulunda Modern Edebi Kltr (stanbul: Bankas Yaynlar, 2014).

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Istanbul Sehir University, on 13 May 2017 at 08:49:09, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/npt.2015.36
 195

convergences between the two literatures in the 19th century, it is not easy to

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY

notice a real and deep interaction and mutual inuence.14 Of course, the
relationship between the two groups was asymmetrical and hierarchical,
because the majority of Armenian writers could read Turkish texts,
whereas Turkish writers could not read Armenian ones. Only after the 1908
Revolution, intellectuals had the chance to destabilize this tragic hierarchy.
Especially the new and short era began in 1908 seems to have great potential for
comparative literary analysis of both literatures.
The period between 1908 and 1915 was an era of literary boom and liberty for
both Armenian and Turkish literatures in the Empire. Although this short interval
was full of chaos, it produced unique opportunities for literary interaction. This
was a period of mutual recognition which came after a long modernization process
in literature. In 1912, Sarkis Srents, an Ottoman Armenian teacher and journalist,
translated some short stories of prominent contemporary Armenian writers into
Turkish and published them one by one in the famous journal Servet-i Fnun. One
year later, he compiled all those stories in a book named Ermeni Edebiyat
Numuneleri (Examples from Armenian Literature). The book was an historical
watershed. Although two years earlier, Diran Kelekyan had translated Krikor
Zohrabs short story collection Hayat, Olduu Gibi, Ermeni Edebiyat Numuneleri
provided a large anthology and was the very rst work to introduce modern
Armenian literature to the Turkish reading Muslim public.15
Another unique event in this new atmosphere was the publication in 1912
of Yervant Odians voluminous novel named Abdlhamid and Sherlock Holmes,
simultaneously in both in Armenian and Turkish.16 This was a detective novel
which included harsh criticism of Abdulhamit II and praise for the new era of
freedom. On another level, this novel could be read as an invitation for a new
public sphere in which all Ottoman citizens, not subjects, would live together
while preserving their ethnic, lingual, and religious identities. As we all know,
this historical moment and surprising feeling of mutual recognition had a tragic
and quick end. It was only three years before 1915, and the pleasure and
amazement stemming from the recognition of the literature of fellow Ottoman
Armenians had only two years to go.
To sum up, Armenian literary studies in Turkey has many new prospects
and questions to build upon this new base of research in the past few years.

14 For a comparative work focusing on dramatic literature and its political implications in the 19th
century, see: Mehmet Fatih Uslu, atma ve Mzakere: Osmanlda Trke ve Ermenice Dramatik
Edebiyat, (stanbul: letiim, 2014).
15 Sarkis Srents, Ermeni Edebiyat Numuneleri, (stanbul: Aras Yaynclk, 2013).
16 A. Makarian, Y. Odyani Padmakan Vepere, in Yerkeri Joghovadzou. Volume II, (Yervant Odian,
Yerevan, 1961): xv. For a recent Turkish version see: Yervant Odyan, Abdulhamid ve Sherlock Holmes.
Ed. S. ahin et al. (stanbul: Everest Yaynlar, 2014).

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Istanbul Sehir University, on 13 May 2017 at 08:49:09, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/npt.2015.36
 196 Mehmet Fatih Uslu

First of all, 19th century Istanbul seems a very fascinating case for comparative
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY

literature or world literature studies. In this context, comparative studies on

Armenian and Turkish literatures of the Empire will be very signicant in
paving the way for new inquiries on the culture of the late Ottoman Empire
and its political implications. It is also a promising opportunity to save the
literary history from the domination of national literatures. Second, one of the
prospects should be the criticism on post-genocide literature. Especially under
the inuence of Marc Nichanian17 and Krikor Beledian, Turkish literary cir-
cles now seem much more interested in concepts such as mourning, cata-
strophe, and testimony. Translations of the writers of the Catastrophe, such as
Hagop Oshagan, Zabel Yesayan, and Nigoghos Saraan will help many in
understanding the catastrophic experience of Ottoman Armenians as well as its
literary manifestations. Third, gender based criticism probably needs more
attention.18 Because it implies the possibility of a new way of interpreting
the crisis of the Ottoman Empirea feminist way that underscores womens
differing perceptions and imaginations, which were aloof from the nationalism
of the era.
Last but not the least, it is necessary to underline how difcult it is for
researchers in Turkey to reach sources in Armenian. In Istanbul or other cities,
there exist no libraries which include sufcient Armenian titles. It is evident
that a research library of Armenian resources is an urgent need. In Armenia, on
the other hand, one can access all types of sources. The National Library of
Armenia and other libraries contain voluminious and invaluable collections,
and are highly accessible. Apart from Armenia, the archives and libraries of the
Mkhitarist Congration in Venice and Vienna, AGBU Nubarian Library in
Paris, and American university libraries such as those of the UCLA, University
of Michigan, and Harvard University also contain very valuable collections.

17 Marc Nichanian taught in Turkey for some time and had visible inuence on Turkish intelectual
circles. A good number of his articles have recently been translated and published in Turkish. See:
Marc Nichanian, Edebiyat ve Felaket, trans. A. Snmezay, (stanbul: letiim Yaynlar, 2011).
18 Melissa Bilal and Lerna Ekmekiolus edited volume A Cry of Justice: Five Feminist Writers from the
Ottoman Empire to Turkey was the earliest work in this eld and evoked the curiosity of intellectuals
who study Ottoman-Turkish women and their struggles. M. Bilal and L. Ekmekiolu, ed., Bir Adalet
Feryad: Osmanldan Trkiyeye Be Ermeni Feminist Yazar, (stanbul: Aras Yaynclk, 2006).

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Istanbul Sehir University, on 13 May 2017 at 08:49:09, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/npt.2015.36