Il regno armeno come ultimo bastione dell’Ellenismo
10.6092/issn.1973-9494/4180
SummaryThe article is devoted to H. Nerzetian’s tragedy in verse "Artavasdes and Cleopatra". The action takes place in the second half of the first century BC, when Armenia, together with Rome and Pathia, was one of the most powerfull empires in the ancient world. The timeline highlighted in the play covers about twenty years. However both the scenic action and the scenic time are only indicated by odd images. The only invention by the author is the encounter between Cleopatra and Artavasdes and remains on the sidelines of the play. Appearing in the foreground are the everlasting philosophical clashes: Duty and Self-love, Integrity and Perfidy, Man and Power, the Fatherland and the World. An extremely important idea it is that man is incapable of discerning either another man or the essential events that take place in the world around him. The characters solve problems that are relevant not only for them but also for the reader. The author often introduces elements of irony and absurdity, that are inherent to the many dialogs in “Artavasdes and Cleopatra”. Clashing intonations in the form of differing times display additional effects. RiassuntoL’articolo è dedicato alla tragedia in versi scritta da H. Nerzetian "Artavasdes e Cleopatra". L’azione si svolge nella seconda metà del primo secolo a.C., quando l’Armenia, insieme a Roma e Pathia, era uno dei più potenti imperi del mondo antico. La linea temporale sottolineate nell’opera prende circa vent’anni. Tuttavia, sia il tempo che l’azione scenic sono solo indicati da immagini antiche. L’unica invenzione dell’autore è l’incontro tra Cleopatra e  Artavasdes e resta ai margini dell’opera. Sullo sfondo si stagliano dilemmi filosofici senza tempo: l’obbligo e l’amor proprio, l’integrità e la perfidia, l’uomo e il potere, la patria e il mondo.  Un’idea estremamente importante è che un uomo è incapace di discernere un altro uomo o gli eventi essenziali che accadono nel mondo circostante. I personaggi risolvono problemi che sono importanti non solo per loro ma anche per il lettore. L’autore spesso utilizza l’ironia, l’assurdo, insiti nei molteplici dialoghi tra “Artavasdes e Cleopatra”. Gli scontri di toni nelle forme di tempi diversi mostrano poi effetti aggiuntivi. RésuméL’article est consacré à la tragédie en vers écrite par H. Nerzetian « Artavazde et Cléopâtre ». L’action se déroule pendant la deuxième moitié du premier siècle av. J.-C., lorsque l’Arménie, avec Rome etla Parthie, était l’un des empires les plus puissants du monde antique. La ligne temporelle soulignée dans l’œuvre comprend une vingtaine d’années. Cependant, le temps et l’action scénique sont à peine esquissés à l’aide d’images antiques. La seule invention de l’auteur est la rencontre entre Cléopâtre et Artavazde, et elle reste en marge de l’œuvre. C’est sur cette toile de fond que viennent se greffer des dilemmes philosophiques intemporels : l’obligation et l’amour-propre, l’intégrité et la perfidie, l’homme et le pouvoir, la patrie et le monde. L’idée extrêmement importante est qu’un homme est incapable de discerner un autre homme ou les événements essentiels qui se produisent dans le monde environnant. Les personnages résolvent des problèmes qui sont fondamentaux, non seulement pour eux, mais aussi pour le lecteur. L’auteur utilise souvent l’ironie, l’absurde, présents dans les multiples dialogues entre « Artavazde et Cléopâtre ». Les tons s’entrechoquent dans les diverses formes de temps, contribuant à ajouter certains effets. ZusammenfassungDer Artikel ist der von H. Nerzetian in Versen verfassten Tragödie „Artavasdes und Kleopatra“ gewidmet. Das Geschehen spielt sich in der zweiten Hälfte des ersten Jahrhunderts v.Chr. ab, als Armenien zusammen mit  Rom und Parthien eines der mächtigsten Reiche des Altertums bildete. Der im Werk hervorgehobene Zeitraum umfasst etwa zwanzig Jahre. Sowohl die Zeit als auch die szenische Aktion werden nur durch antike Bilder bestimmt. Die einzige Erfindung des Autors ist das Zusammentreffen zwischen Kleopatra und Artavasdes, das jedoch am Rande des Werkes bleibt. Im Hintergrund zeichnen sich zeitlose philosophische Dilemmata ab:  Pflicht und Eigenliebe, Rechtschaffenheit und Heimtücke, Mensch und Macht, Vaterland und Welt.  Eine äußerst wichtige Idee ist die, dass der Mensch nicht fähig ist, einen anderen Menschen oder die wesentlichen Ereignisse zu unterscheiden, die in seiner Umwelt geschehen.  Die Gestalten lösen Probleme, die nicht nur für sie selbst, sondern auch für den Leser wichtig sind. Der Autor greift in den zahlreichen Dialogen zwischen Artavasdes und Kleopatra häufig auf die Ironie, das Absurde zurück. Die Auseinandersetzungen in den Formen unterschiedlicher Zeiten zeigen zusätzliche Effekte auf. ResumenEl artículo ha sido dedicado a la tragedia en verso escrita por H. Nerzetian "Artavasdes y Cleopatra". La acción se desarrolla en la segunda mitad del siglo I a.C., cuando Armenia, junto con Roma y Parthia, era uno de los imperios más poderosos del mundo antiguo. La línea temporal señalada en la obra abarca alrededor de veinte años. A pesar de ello, tanto el tiempo como la acción escénica se indican solamente con imágenes antiguas. El único invento del autor es el encuentro entre Cleopatra y Artavasdes y se queda al margen de la obra. Como telón de fondo se aprecian dilemas filosóficos eternos: la obligación y el amor propio, la integridad y la perfidia, el hombre y el poder, la patria y el mundo. Una idea extremadamente importante es el hecho de que un hombre es incapaz de discernir a otro hombre o los eventos esenciales que suceden en el mundo que lo rodea. Los personajes solucionan problemas importantes no tan solo para ellos, sino también para el lector. El autor utiliza a menudo la ironía y el absurdo, ínsitos en los numerosos diálogos entre "Artavasdes y Cleopatra". Los enfrentamientos de tonos bajo la forma de distintos tiempos muestran efectos adicionales. РезюмеСтатья посвящается трегедии в стихах «Артавазд и Клеопатра», написанной О. Нерзетяном. Действие происходит во второй половине первого века до н.э., в то время когда Армения на ряду с Римом и Парфией являлась одной из самых мощных империй античного мира. События, развивающиеся в трагедии, охватывают период около двадцати лет. Несмотря на это, как время, так и действие на сцене определяются только античными образами. Единственным вымыслом автора является встреча Клеопатры и Артавазда, которая остается на втором плане произведения. На фоне трагедии выделяются вечные философские дилеммы: долг и чувство собственного достоинства, честность и коварство, человек и власть, Родина и мир. Очень важной является идея, что человек не в состоянии распознать другого человека или основные события, происходящие в окружающем его мире. Персонажи решают проблемы важные не только для них, но и для читателя также. Автор часто использует иронию, абсурд в многочисленных диалогах. Столкновение тонов различных временных форм придает добавочные эффекты. 摘要该文章介绍H. Nerzetian作家写的 "Artavasdes e Cleopatra (阿尔塔瓦兹德和克娄巴特拉)"由诗组成的悲剧.该悲剧讲述了一件发生在公元前一世纪下半叶的事情，当时亚美尼亚和罗马、帕提亚一起是古老世界强大帝国之一。悲剧强调的时间段是大约二十年。时间和舞台的情节不过只是通过古老的形象而传达。作家的唯一创作是克娄巴特拉和阿尔塔瓦兹德的相遇，但是却停留在悲剧情节的边缘。在这种背景下凸显出永恒的哲学困境:责任与自爱，正直与背信弃义，人与权力，国家与世界。一个极为重要的想法是人无法了解其他人或周围世界发生的基本事情。悲剧人物解决的问题不仅对他们而且对读者也很重要。作者经常通过"阿尔塔瓦兹德和克娄巴特拉"的对话体现讽刺，荒诞。不同时态下的色调争斗表现了附加效果。 
application/pdf
1973-9494
4180
en
Georgi Koubatian
Conservation Science in Cultural Heritage
irony
The kingdom of Armenia as the last bastion of Hellenism
Text.Serial.Journal
https://conservation-science.unibo.it/
13
Articles
2013-12-30
2014-02-07
2013-12-30
2015-11-02
147-149
CSCH
Georgi Koubatian
2013/12/30
10.6092/issn.1973-9494/4180
147
1973-9494
irony
en
149
GAIUS CORNELIUS TACITUS, Histories, II
The kingdom of Armenia as the last bastion of Hellenism
https://conservation-science.unibo.it/article/download/4180/3622
13
T    HE KINGDOM OF ARMENIA AS THE LAST BASTION OF
     HELLENISM



   Georgi Koubatian•
   translator, poet, literary critic



   Keywords: tragedy in verse, relevance, irony

   1. Preface

   Being brought to your attention is “Artavasdes and Cleopatra”, a tragedy written
by Hovhannes Nerzetian, a contemporary writer. It is based on historically authentic
events and characters. The author has managed to present a human tragedy in a man-
ner which is timeless. We encounter the universality of the human race interpreted in
a particular way.
   Nerzetian’s work deeply penetrates the theme of human existence.
   The soul and personality, however meritorious of victory, are eventually subject to a
judgment directed at re-evaluating human values.
   The words spoken by Artavasdes, king of Armenia, express ideas and philosophi-
cal speculations about life which are inherent not only to the period in which he lived,
with 20 centuries separating us from that time, but also to relationships between the
individual and society, between empires and conquered or defeated states, between




                                                                                                    CONSERVATION SCIENCE IN CULTURAL HERITAGE
rulers and subjects.
   This work by H. Nerzetian is a literary creation that meets the most rigorous standards.

   2. “Man’s substance has not changed from Homer to Hovhannes”1

   A tragedy in verse is a rare phenomenon in literature these days. Most authors
who have accomplished it are no more. Since then, there have been many stormy
events on the theatrical stage and many stars have shone there. However, not many
have been able to recite a short poetic line as opposed to an awkward soliloquy. The
reasons are quite obvious.
   Hovannes Nerzetian, nevertheless, has disregarded these reasons. In his play, Ner-
zetian furthermore, expects the reader to be familiar with the story, otherwise he will
encounter passages which are not easily interpreted.
   When writing a tragedy about Artavasdes and Cleopatra, Nerzetian had in mind
their Shakespearian counterparts, Antony and Cleopatra. He did so, quite openly by
borrowing several personae; the companions-in-arms of the Roman triumvir and at-
tendants of the Egyptian Queen retain their original names.
   The events described in the Armenian story precede those of Shakespeare. The
characters of the Roman and the Egyptian depicted by Shakespeare are very similar

• Corresponding author: g.kubatian@gmail.com

                                                                                              147
                                                                           to the characters by Nerzetian: Antony is impulsive and unpredictable, Cleopatra is
                                                                           deeper, more farseeing, but also more passionate.
                                                                              Let us briefly review the chronological outline followed by the author. In the middle
                                                                           of the 1st century B.C. the strongest states in Europe, North Africa and Anterior Asia,
                                                                           were Rome, Armenia and Parthia, which were continually engaged in conflicts or alli-
                                                                           ances with one another [1]. Rome would join Armenia against Parthia, Parthia would
                                                                           align with Armenia against Rome, Rome and Parthia against Armenia.

                                                                               The Triumvirate of Caesar, Pompey and Crassus was formed in Rome, while Artav-
                                                                           asdes II (55 – 34), son of Tigran II the Great (95 – 55), saton the Armenian throne. Ar-
                                                                           tavasdes II was an educated man who, according to Plutarch [2], composed tragedies
                                                                           and wrote speeches and historic treatises in Greek.
                                                                               In 53 B.C. Crassus’s troops were bitterly defeated by the Parthians who had just
                                                                           renewed their alliance with the Armenians, Crassus having been killed during the bat-
                                                                           tle. The initial confrontation between the two triumvirs was won by Caesar who was
                                                                           then murdered by a group of conspirators led by Brutus. Internecine wars and civil
                                                                           unrest led to the Second Triumvirate in Rome created by Caesar’s supporters Antony
                                                                           and Lepidus, as well as Octavian, grand-nephew of the murdered dictator. Meanwhile,
                                                                           the Parthian-Armenian army, expanding its sphere of influence, reached Syria and
                                                                           Palestine. To strengthen the connection with Octavian, Antony married his sister Oc-
                                                                           tavia, but abandoned her in favor of Cleopatra, Caesar’s unofficial widow. Prior to the
                                                                           inevitable union with Octavian, Antony secured the support of Artavasdes and attacked
                                                                           Parthia, but was defeated. Laying the blame for this failure on his former ally, the Ro-
G. Koubatian - The kingdom of Armenia as the last bastion of hellenism




                                                                           mans moved upon Armenia, captured Artavasdes, paraded him in golden shackles in
                                                                           Alexandria, but failed to make him kneel before Cleopatra.
                                                                               The timeline highlighted in the play covers approximately twenty years. Neither the
                                                                           scenic action nor the scenic time develop in a way that is smooth or consecutive, they
                                                                           are only indicated by odd images, which are however closely strung together with a
                                                                           taut thread. In actual fact, each small knot in this thread – Suren carrying Crassus’s
                                                                           head, Fraat’s intrigues, the death of Prince Pakor, the triumphant march in Alexandria –
                                                                           all these key episodes are based on historical data. The only invention by the author is
                                                                           the encounter between Cleopatra and Artavasdes, her love for him, their correspond-
                                                                           ence, etc. Why was this choice made?
                                                                               According to historians [3-4], Artavasdes was executed three years after his refusal
                                                                           to kneel before the Queen of Egypt. Why not at once? For what reason did Cleopatra
                                                                           keep the King behind bars dispatching him only in view of her own death? These un-
                                                                           answered questions provide ample opportunity for the imagination. It is an opportunity
                                                                           that Nerzetian has certainly not wasted.
                                                                               Artavasdes’ execution is, incidentally, outside the story. The viewer will know noth-
                                                                           ing of it. A necessary condition for a tragedy must be the death of the principal char-
                                                                           acters. Nerzetian, however, closes the curtain while all the personae are alive. The
                                                                           situation is nonetheless tragic, since the playwright does not emphasize the physical
                                                                           existence of the characters, but rather their spiritual well-being. At the end, the main
                                                                           characters lose everything that has given meaning to their lives. Cleopatra values love
                                                                           above all, but there is no hope for her love. For Artavasdes, the highest value is free-
                                                                           dom, but he is a prisoner in chains.
                                                                               The unfulfilled romance between the Armenian King and the Queen of Egypt is on
                                                                           the sidelines of the play.


                                                                     148
    Evident in the foreground, are the everlasting philosophical dilemmas: Duty and
Self-love, Integrity and Perfidy, Man and Power, the Fatherland and the World. My
initial note was that no one writes dramas in verse these days. They are more or less
obsolete. But curiously enough, the outmoded form does not prevent the author from
conveying a modern vision.
    The feeling that remains is that the old-time characters resolve problems that are
quite up-to-date. The current values of those issues are obviously tinged with the shad-
ows of today. The scenes with common people represent a theater of the absurd in
the purest sense of the word. The scenes carry a double meaning. Not only do they
reduce the level of reasoning, they bring it down to grassroots by turning them inside
out at the same time. Not that the propensity toward the absurd is displayed by clowns,
beggars and the mob; the absurdist virus oftentimes adheres to real personalities. The
irony inherent in the many dialogues in “Artavasdes and Cleopatra” is generated by
what is happening today. The clash of intonations in the form of differing times display
additional effects.
    An interesting idea has emerged as the focal point in the play, one that is extremely
important. Dissolving like salt and having never been formulated, it may be lost for-
ever. Meanwhile, having manifested itself in the opening scene, this idea is alive in
many meaningful dialogues, its presence often being quite marginal. It surfaces in the
concluding soliloquy by Artavasdes. The idea is that of BLINDSMANSHIP, that is, a
man’s inability to discern either another man or the essential events that take place
in the world around him; we wander in darkness committing one error after another.
On the face of it, having expressed this malady at the very start, the playwright seems
to abandon it. But it is not so. And the clowns, too, with their comical jesting, and the
lunatics mimicking the powerful, illustrate the idea in different ways. In some places the
author shows his idea as a transparent metaphor, as with a chain of people symbol-
izing humanity and leading the way, is a blind man…




                                                                                                   CONSERVATION SCIENCE IN CULTURAL HERITAGE
    In conclusion, with all the fiery images presented throughout the play, its characters
are not masked people wearing old clothes. The images produced by Nerzetian are
living characters rather than death masks.

      Notes
1
      Nerzetian Hovhannes – “SAMVEL” – act one, page 5

      References

[1]     STRABO, The Geography, XI, pp. 13,14
[2]     PLUTARCH, Parallel Lives, cap. XIX , XXII, XXXIII, XXXVII, XXXVIII, L
[3]     FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS, The Jewish War or Judean War, I
[4]     GAIUS CORNELIUS TACITUS, Histories, II

      Biographical notes

   Georgi Koubatian, graduated from the State University of Nizhny Novgorod (Rus-
sia), is the author of several books of poetry, literary criticism and publicist articles.
Moreover, he is the Russian translator of many works of Armenian writers, including
Hovhannes Nerzetian’s play “Artavazd and Cleopatra”.



                                                                                             149
