Maket 2011-2:Layout 1.qxd “The Knowledge of Literature”: or The Special Effects of Literary Discourse Angela Locatelli University of Bergamo “The knowledge of literature” is the central topic dealt with in the eponymousConference Series held at the University of Bergamo from 2001-2011.1 My primary concern in the ensuing volumes was to investigate the question of what sort of knowledge, if any, literature provides, both qua literature, but also in relation to other forms of knowledge (such as philosophy, the hard sciences, the social sciences, psycho- analysis, medicine, religion, history, the visual arts, etc.). Volumes VI and VII in the series specifically deal with literature and science, Vol. VIII with literature, myth and religion; Volume IX with literature and history; and volume X with the cognitive import of the visual and the verbal. As I developed my investigation into these matters, it became apparent that literature was able to produce special, and even unique, cognitive and aes- thetic effects among various disciplines providing knowledge. Life and Literature We often hear, in everyday conversation, in publishers and booksellers’ advertise- ments, and also among the reasons for literary awards, that novels, poetry, and plays tell us something important about “life”. What is usually meant by this philosophically loaded term is: “identity”, “desires”, “emotions”, “conflicts”, and a variety of “social contexts”, in short – “human experience”. But we also often hear, and this attitude is becoming more rampant in the age of TV talk shows and videogames, in the age that too often equates “culture” exclusively with “market”, that literature is just a pastime, a means of evasion, less exciting perhaps than the latest gadget, but still enjoyable on certain occasions, like a plane or train ride. Most readers will probably simultaneously hold both of these views, and arguably so in rela- tion to the kind of “literature” they read. Readers of “Anna Karenina” will go, first and foremost, for “human experience”, readers of “Harry Potter” for entertainment and eva- sion. The most common of “common readers” would thus already have identified two important, perhaps the major, “special effects” of literature: i.e. knowledge and enjoy- ment, and, of course, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But what kind of pleas- ure and what kind of knowledge are we talking about? How is that pleasure and that knowledge “of life” provided? A good start to answer this question is to show that literature’s knowledge is close to the living phenomena, as opposed to the aridity of an always-already dead abstraction. Many eminent critics in the past, from Sir Philip Sidney to Lukács, and many theorists today, from Martha Nussbaum to Jean-Jacques Lecercle, have held and still hold this opinion. I am in complete agreement with them and wish to highlight the fact that liter- ature provides a knowledge of the subject both in the act of knowing and of the subject as it is known. Armenian Folia AnglistikaLiterature 127 Ronald Shusterman explains the ways in which literature is related to “life” in his contribution to Vol. IV of the “The Knowledge of Literature” (Shusterman 2004:39-60). He deals with the phenomenology of (re)cognition and its relevance in general aesthet- ics, and he proposes a list of: “different types of links between the work of art and the real”. His list includes five forms of relation: 1. Correspondence to reality 2. Connection to reality 3. Connection to life 4. Relatedness to context 5. Aboutness with respect to context. In the case of correspondence to reality, the work of art expresses verifiable truth in some direct and explicit way. We come to connection to reality when the work doesn’t actually correspond to a fact, but is in some way linked to the external world. Factually speaking, there is no such city as Christminster, but this fictional city is realistic and in many ways connected to the actual city of Oxford. In the third type, connection to life, the term reality has been replaced by a term more suited for dealing with the psycholog- ical, ethical, and political elements that one usually has in mind when claiming that a cer- tain work of art is true to life. The fourth type of connection – relatedness – is simply the claim that the work is related in any number of ways to the socio-historical context in which it has been produced. Shusterman concludes that: “a work that is not only a trace of human situations, be they social or political or whatever, but which is also, in some sense, a treatment of these contexts would illustrate the concept of aboutness that I have put at the end of my list. These different types of relation may be combined in certain works; any work will require its own mixture of acts of recognition”. The third type of relationship, i.e. literature’s “connection to life” seems to me the most intriguing, and perhaps the one that most eloquently defines the range of literature’s powers and specificity, its diversity from the truths of scientific discourse. In fact, this is the realm of literature’s attention to the subject and to the other. In order to elaborate on this observation I need to recall Martha Nussbaum’s suggestion (Nussbaum 1995:16) that literature has a social usefulness because it can move us beyond the abstractions of ethics and social sciences, by making us “capable of entering imaginatively into the lives of distant others”. The empathetic imagining provided by literature is a road (not the only one, of course) towards an ethics of “impartial respect for human dignity”. If Nussbaum’s position seems too optimistic in a literate world which is still plagued by violence and discrimination, I would nonetheless suggest that literature is particular- ly valuable in corroborating an attitude of impartial respect for the other because it adopts a subjective but simultaneously also a shared point of view, and a plurality of points of view at the same time. I wish to underline that this is the case with literature from its ear- liest beginning, because drama and dialogue take their origin, at least in the Greco- Roman cultural tradition, in the rhetorical exercise of arguing in utramque partes, as opposed to the monolithic, and putatively objective point of view of the hard and human sciences. Armenian Folia Anglistika Literature 128 In volume I of “La conoscenza della letteratura”, I have argued that the imaginative, emotional and empathetic dimensions of literature make it socially valuable and cognitive- ly unique, and that the criticality of literature has both an ethical and an epistemological value (Locatelli 2001:7-12; 181-190). The intellectual apprehension of complex situations is the vis vitalis of literature (Locatelli 2004:173-188). A few salient points may illustrate the “special effects” of literature: it possesses a dynamic symbolic strength, which is both centripetal and cen- trifugal, i.e. literature moves towards itself (as meta-language, and as the site of intertex- tuality), and moves towards the representation and the construction of the external world. Insofar as literature partakes of both mimesis and imagination, it is a royal road to knowledge because it “holds the mirror up to nature”, but it is also a site of what Nelson Goodman calls “worldmaking” (Goodman 1992). In fact, I see fiction as a sort of thought experiment, the site of construction of alternative worlds, where the rules of everyday referentiality do not apply. A work of art, according to Derrida (1992:33-75) has: “in principle the power to say everything, to break free of the rules, to displace them, and thereby to institute, to invent and even to suspect the traditional difference between nature and institution”. Literature’s cognitive function is therefore also manifest in its critical function, par- ticularly when it works as a critique of the ideologies it represents, and may implicit- ly or explicitly challenge. After Foucault and Derrida, I would say that by suspending reference, literature suspends (or even abrogates) the law. Literature enables readers to achieve a specific awareness of the world that the social sciences do not provide, but one of its “special affects” is that it can create a synergy of knowledge with them. There are numerous occasions for these synergies, for example when: 1) Literature sheds light on variously important social mechanisms Let me briefly recall: • the rites of passage that are illustrated (and often questioned) in the bildungsro- man; • the containment strategy of comic misrule, which subverts established hierarchies (see Barber (1963) on Shakespearean Comedy and Bakhtin (1968) on the Carnival). I have called these strategies “litotic” because they (temporarily) deny established social values in order to (re)affirm them fully. • the illustrations of mimetic desire and victimization strategies (René Girard (1986, 1991, 1997) on scapegoating, and on Shakespeare and Dostoevsky). 2) Literature illustrates different psychic and cognitive states Literature is the locus where disparate cognitive states are displayed “from the inside”, not in the abstract and generalising mode of clinical diagnosis. Dreams, visions, and even the unconscious, which Freud himself admitted to have found in Sophocles, find in literature a non-reductional expression. I agree that videogames may stimulate cognitive faculties, and that cybertexts do so through the dynamic strategy of interactive simulation, but they seem to address a nar- Armenian Folia AnglistikaLiterature 129 row sector of human intelligence and a limited cognitive potential, if compared to litera- ture’s wider appeal (Schlaeger and Stedman 2008). 3) Literature represents the various silences of the repressed, the unsaid, the socially forbidden Freud has magisterially taught us that the witz bypasses censorship (Freud 1960). Literature also indicates the silence of the ineffable (the Romantic symbol being, of course, its highest expression). 4) Literature promotes the recognition of different identities (including one’s own) Literature gives us access to alterity by representing the voice of the other in a num- ber of different ways. As Jean-Jacques Lecercle (2003:18-19) reminds us: “I do not read a literary text to find my own image, but to have access to the image of other(s)”. Lecercle further explains : “Literature it is that allows me to break away from myself and offers me the luxury of access to another consciousness, to the consciousness of the other. ‘Confessions’, as we all know, is an important subgenre of literature, and through the techniques of point of view or stream of consciousness typical of the modernist novel, literature makes the reader a happy peeping Tom. […] this is made possible because of the collective medium of language, because intersubjectivity is always-also interlocu- tion”. I will add that if we emphasize the representative quality of texts – we can often see the literary text as the expression of a group identity (usually a social, ethnic, religious, sexual minority). This aspect includes the problem of both the construction of such an identity, and of its recognition and acceptance by others. Literature aptly responds to these challenges because it can stage the individuality of a voice or voices in the text, and the collectivity which implies (and highlights) the rep- resentative nature of the text. We should always be aware of the fact that literary texts are both representative and unique. They participate in both a subjective knowledge and a shared knowledge. I believe that literature is an encounter with alterity, with distant oth- ers, but also that it is an encounter with one’s own consciousness and social identity. In this sense, I agree with Derek Attridge (2004:86) when he writes that: “I can be surprised by the closeness of a work to me, the way it seems to echo what I had assumed to be my private thought.[…] We may feel that a work we are reading speaks directly to our deep- est selves, yet when we look back we have to acknowledge that we had no awareness of those aspects of our subjectivity before the reading that offered itself as an affirmation of them.” The Cognitive Complexity of Literary Form The specific knowledge and pleasure of literature depend on form. They are fully dis- played in “poetic thought”, a kind of conceptual activity which cannot simply be reduced to or “translated into” linear, plain, univocal statements. Poetic thought, as I see it, is a way of thinking that implies a “unified sensibility”, and the layered complexity of logi- cal, emotional and even sensuous apprehensions. Armenian Folia Anglistika Literature 130 I am convinced that the figurality of literature sustains a conceptual complexity that neither the plain statement nor any videogame can convey. Metaphor, metalepsis, litotes, amphibology, paradox, and what the Russian Formalists have called “device”, allow literary discourse to say more than one thing at once, and even to say contradicto- ry things at once. This is where literature is farthest removed from the univocal dimen- sion of scientific discourse or the predetermined options of videogames software. Let me paraphrase two sentences from Virginia Woolf’s “To the Lighthouse” and “Orlando” and suggest that in literature (and in poetry par excellence) “nothing is simply one thing” and “everything, in fact, is something else” (Locatelli 2004:141-152). This is a feature that only literature displays among the human sciences (with the exception of contemporary philosophy, which has, of course, largely moved in this direction in the 20th century. Literature directs us to an image of “truth” which cannot be attained through purely logical, causal, probabilistic, or pragmatic criteria. I therefore see literature as a process of simultaneous veiling and unveiling (the Italian term s/velare, meaning a “revelation” through unveiling, is indeed adequate to indicate what literature “does”), and I see theo- ry as the gesture that captures such process, essentially through questioning and critical- ity (Locatelli 2005:1-12). The literary has a different import and purpose from scientific discourse, which aims at universal and univocal meaning, and also aims at information and usefulness. Literature is “useless” in a Kantian sense, and certainly “of little use” in a pragmatic sense: teaching how to sail a boat is not the major aim of Coleridge’s “Rime of the Ancient Mariner”, nor is Mrs. Dalloway’s walk in the streets of London a compa- rable substitute for a Tourist Guide to the city. When they interrogate their own epistemic status, the human sciences are increasing- ly recognizing that literature is a source of knowledge. The ever deepening interest in nar- rativity, strategies of emplotment, metaphorical thinking on the part of social psycholo- gists (Bruner 2001:25-37), cognitive scientists (Fauconnier and Turner 2002; Toolan & Weber 2005), neuroscientists (Gomez Mont and Vega Osorno 2011:49-64), etc., is there to prove it. The very acquisition of cultural systems through which we make sense of the world is promoted by storytelling and poetry, and by a “narrative understanding” even before logical reasoning. It follows that literature and theory certainly have the expertise in, and the understanding of “narrative and fictional mechanisms” which seem now required in areas as distant as medicine (Engelhardt 2004:153-172), psychotherapy (Barbetta 2002: 159-180), photography (Agazzi 2004:51-73), advertising, religion, and law. It follows that both literature and literary theory can offer their critical competence in our experiences of acquiring, deciphering, and interpreting cultures, texts, ideologies, i.e. in interpreting what we call “life”. I do not need to remind you that epistemology indicates that interpretation and knowledge are intrinsically related. Most importantly, I hope to have shown that literature offers a form of knowledge which is highly specific. It does not claim and does not aim at exactitude, precision, impartiality, objectivity, and pragmatic verification. These are, however, the criteria of scientific “truth” that are most prized in our culture today. Incidentally, let me say that it clearly was not so in the Middle Ages or the Renaissance, when religious metaphysics Armenian Folia AnglistikaLiterature 131 was deemed both the criterion and domain of absolute truth. Which shows that knowledge is time and culture specific. After Nietzsche, Freud, and Bakhtin literature seems to me to put us in a relationship with “truth”, provided this happens figuratively, obliquely, paradoxically, and also through the insuppressible polyphony of voices that characterizes its discourse. I would not hesitate, of course, call these the “special effects” of “literary style”. They depend on Literature’s unique relationship to language. I reject the idea of “style” as mere ornament, but see it as an inescapable and specific epistemic category, not only for literature, but for any discipline, field, or theory. In this sense knowledge is style-specific. Style is not embellishment but it is a “cognitive position”, and this is clearly visible in each disci- pline’s defense of its own protocols. This takes me to my next and final section. Literature’s Special Relationship to Language Literature’s special relationship to language makes it a unique form of knowledge. We can certainly find social, historical, moral “truths” and “facts” in literature, but this is true also for the disciplines of history, sociology, psychology, anthropology and ethics. We can find in these disciplines emancipative and reparative cultural strategies that are morally valuable. However, as Gilles Deleuze and Jean-Jacques Lecercle have shown, only literature provides knowledge of “life” through knowledge of language. I will add that Literature puts back into the culture a memory of the language, a trace of its historical stratifications, cultural modifications, and that literature registers and transmits not just events or memories, but the “flavour” (what I call “expressiveness”) of the language in which the (recorded) events were lived. Only literature among the human sciences gives us a kind of language that is communicative, expressive, and inventive, at the same time. These three features of its language are crucial in the knowledge that litera- ture provides. Any global language necessarily tends to be effective, i.e. merely communicative, but this happens at the expense of expressiveness and inventiveness. Internet or ESP English are certainly not the English of poets and novelists, but an impoverished, albeit function- al version of it. Any professional language amounts to a curtailing of the full potential of language, which, on the contrary literature can preserve, keep in view, and circulate in the culture. Literature takes language to its limit, and the philosophy of Deleuze (1986, 1998, 2008) has indeed called attention to this aspect, particularly in his concept of “minority literature”(elaborated with Felix Guattari), in his works on Spinoza, as well as in his unique “readings” of literary texts, from Proust to Melville, from Kafka to Beckett. The anthropological consequences of the political and practical choices a culture makes regarding language are indeed extremely relevant, and so are its choices regard- ing literature. The jargon ridden vocabulary we increasingly use in everyday language, i.e. the jargon of the professions, with its soaring number of neologisms and formulaic turns of phrase, is fostering nothing less than unprecedented subjectivities, it is changing who we are. Pier Paolo Pasolini prophetically perceived and forcefully deplored this state of affairs in the Italian culture of the Sixties and Seventies; his remarks have become more poignant with the explosion of capitalist communication industry, and the advent Armenian Folia Anglistika Literature 132 of formulaic reports, memos and demos in the workplace and beyond, in cell phone tex- ting, cybertexts, hypertext, and internet menus, all of which disregard the infinite variety of expression afforded by natural language and literary language. A great writer, on the contrary, absorbs, passes on and contributes to the language s/he finds. But I wish to emphasise that “linguistic innovation” is at the same time “philosophical innovation” because, as Antonio Gramsci (1971) who is better known as a Marxist, but was also a trained linguist, reminds us, any language is always “a conception of the world”. I have proposed that literature’s linguistic inventiveness depends on the use of the full potential of language, let me add that its inventiveness lies not just in creating new plots (Shakespeare borrowed nearly all of them). The complex language of literature is what provides as many different conceptions of the world as there are writers and even literary works. We can certainly see literature as a rich jewel box of plots and characters that can be transferred to film, or artistic performances, but we cannot reduce literature to a storehouse of plots: we would miss the specificity of its special effects qua literature. Let me remind you that even the apparently merely communicative language of Hemingway is precisely his unmistakable style, and even such seemingly “plain style” widely differs from the inexpressive and homogeneous language of professional jargons. However, even these jargons would become expressive in literary discourse (instrumen- tal as they are in connoting a character’s social status and historical contingency). E-nov- els can provide knowledge, they “hold the mirror up to nature”, being written in the lan- guage in which we live the postmodern condition. When they are written by someone sensitive to language use, they become literature in the full sense of the term (and not merely in the sense in which the instructions of my photo-camera is ‘literature’). To conclude, let me say that literature’s fictional status and its focus on the particu- lar have long been despised, or at best, misrecognized as irrelevant, but I believe that lit- erature has a significant cognitive value and a social role to play also in our postmodern age because its “special effects” cannot be replaced by the extant hypertexts or even cybertexts. Moreover, in epistemic terms, literature’s claims seem indeed too modest, vis à vis the immodest claims of positivistic science or analytic and systematic philosophy, because literature does not display its complex cognitive wonders at first sight. The way to literary Wonderland is a slow movement, the patient acquisition of a specific expert- ise, leading to the wonders of endless (re)cognitions. Like slow food, as opposed to fast food, literature is delightful and healthy. Note: 1. See: Locatelli, Angela (Ed.), 2001-201... I wish to warmly thank Professor Seda Gasparyan from Yerevan State University for her valuable contribution to this series. See: Gasparyan, Seda On Objectivity in Understanding Verbal Art (2006) in Angela Locatelli (Ed.), La Conoscenza della letteratura/The Knowledge of Literature, Vol.V, Bergamo, Sestante Edizioni, Bergamo University Press (pp.67-72). Armenian Folia AnglistikaLiterature 133 References: 1. Agazzi, E. (2004) Spazi privilegiati d’incontro tra immagine e parola. Il rapporto tra letteratura e fotografia in alcuni esperimenti della narrativa contemporanea. // La Conoscenza della letteratura. The Knowledge of Litrerature, Vol. III. / Ed. by A. Locatelli. Sestante Edizioni, Bergamo: Bergamo University Press. 2. Attridge, D. (2004) The Singularity of Literature. London and New York: Routledge. 3. Bakhtin, M. (1968) Rabelais and His World. / Tr. by H. Iswolsky. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press. 4. Barber, C.L. (1963) Shakespeare’s Festive Comedy: A Study of Dramatic Form and its Relation to Social Custom. Cleveland and New York, Meridian Books: The World Publishing Company. 5. Barbetta, P. (2002) Memoria implicita e autobiografia in psicoterapia. // La Conoscenza della letteratura. The Knowledge of Literature, Vol. I. / Ed. by A. Locatelli. Sestante Edizioni, Bergamo: Bergamo University Press. 6. Bruner, J. (2001) Self-making and World-making. // Narrative and Identity. Studies in Autobiography, Self and Culture. / Ed. by J. Brockmeier and D. Carbaugh. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 7. Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1986) Kafka. / Tr. by D. Polan. Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota Press. 8. Deleuze, G. (1990) The Logic of Sense. / Tr. by M. Lester and C. Stivale. New York: Columbia U.P. 9. Deleuze, G. (1990) Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza. / Tr. by M. Joughin. New York: Zone Books. 10. Deleuze, G. (2008) Proust and Signs. / Tr. by R. Howard. London: Continuum. 11. Derrida, J. (1992) This Strange Institution Called Literature. (Interview). // Acts of Literature. / Ed. by D. Attrigidge. London and New York: Routledge. 12. Engelhardt, D.V. (2004) Disease between Phenomenology and Symbolism. // La Conoscenza della letteratura. The Knowledge of Litrerature, Vol. III. / Ed. by A. Locatelli. Sestante Edizioni, Bergamo: Bergamo University Press. 13. Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. (2002) The Way We Think, Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexity. New York: Basic Books. 14. Freud, S. (1960) Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious. / Tr. and Ed. by J. Strachey. New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company. 15. Girard, R. (1986) The Scapegoat. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 16. Girard, R. (1991) A Theatre of Envy: William Shakespeare. New York: Oxford University Press. 17. Girard, R. (1997) Resurrection from the Underground: Feodor Dostoevsky. New York: Crossroad Publishing Company. 18. Gomez, F.M. and Osorno, J.V. (2011) Neuroliterature: Imaging and Imagining the Brain in the NeuroHumanities. // La Conoscenza della letteratura. The Knowledge of Litrerature, Vol. X. / Ed. by A. Locatelli. Sestante Edizioni, Bergamo: Bergamo University Press. Armenian Folia Anglistika Literature 134 19. Goodman, N. (1992) Ways of Worldmaking. Indianapolis: Hackett. 20. Gramsci, A. (1971) Selections from Prison Notebooks. / Ed. and Tr. by Q. Hoare and G.N. Smith. London: Lawrence & Wishart. 21. Lecercle, J.J. (2003) Kafka, Minority, Marxism, or: Literature Reading Philosophy. // La Conoscenza della letteratura. The Knowledge of Literature, Vol. II. / Ed. by A. Locatelli. Sestante Edizioni, Bergamo: Bergamo University Press. 22. Lecercle, J.J. (2009) In Praise of Realism. // La Conoscenza della letteratura. / The Knowledge of Litrerature, Vol.VIII. / Ed. by A. Locatelli. Sestante Edizioni, Bergamo: Bergamo University Press. 23. Locatelli, A. (Ed.) (2001-2011) La Conoscenza della letteratura/The Knowledge of Litrerature, Vol. I-X. Sestante Edizioni, Bergamo: Bergamo University Press. 24. Locatelli, A. (2002) Note sul sapere letterario. // La Conoscenza della letteratura. The Knowledge of Literature, Vol. I. / Ed. by A. Locatelli. Sestante Edizioni, Bergamo: Bergamo University Press. 25. Locatelli, A. (2002) Pensiero Poetico: forma, immaginazione ed empatia. // La Conoscenza della letteratura. The Knowledge of Litrerature, Vol. I. / Ed. by A. Locatelli. Sestante Edizioni, Bergamo: Bergamo University Press. 26. Locatelli, A. (2004) Literariness, Consensus, or “Something Else”. // Tropismes, N.12. Whither Theory ? / Où va la théorie? Paris: Université Paris X Nanterre, Centre de Recherches Anglo-Americaines. 27. Locatelli, A. (2004) For Nothing was Simply one Thing: Observations on the Knowledge of Literature. // La Conoscenza della letteratura. The Knowledge of Litrerature, Vol. III. / Ed. by A. Locatelli. Sestante Edizioni, Bergamo: Bergamo University Press. 28. Locatelli, A. (2005) Literature as Endless Hypersign of Revelation and Concealement. // Saukoanaritikaru Eibungaku Ronso, Psychoanalytical Study of English and Literature, N 25. Tokyo. 29. Nussbaum, M.C. (1995) Poetic Justice. The Literary Imagination and Public Life. Boston: Beacon Press. 30. Schlaeger, J. and Stedman, G. (2008) The Literary Mind. Tubingen: Gunter Narr, Verlag. 31. Shusterman, R. (2003) Acts of Recognition: Identification, Knowledge and Mutuality in Art. // La Conoscenza della letteratura. The Knowledge of Litrerature, Vol. IV. / Ed. by A. Locatelli. Sestante Edizioni, Bergamo: Bergamo University Press. 32. Shusterman, R. (2004) Cognition and the Iconotext: Art, Philosophy, and the Dream of Fusion. // La Conoscenza della letteratura. The Knowledge of Litrerature, Vol. III. / Ed. by A. Locatelli. Sestante Edizioni, Bergamo: Bergamo University Press. 33. Toolan, M. & Weber, J.J. (Eds.) (August 2005) The Cognitive Turn: Papers in Cognitive Literary Studies. // The European Journal of English Studies, Vol. 9-2. Armenian Folia AnglistikaLiterature 135 ¶ñ³Ï³ÝáõÃÛ³Ý ÇÙ³ó³Ï³ÝáõÃÛáõÝÁ ϳ٠·ñ³Ï³Ý ¹ÇëÏáõñëÇ Ñ³ïáõÏ ³½¹»óáõÃÛáõÝÁ ¶ñ³Ï³ÝáõÃÛáõÝÝ áõÝÇ ÇÙ³ó³Ï³Ý Ù»Í ³ñÅ»ù ¨ ëáóÇ³É³Ï³Ý Ý߳ݳÏáõÃÛáõÝ, áñáÝù ³ÛÝáõ³Ù»Ý³ÛÝÇí, ÙÇÝ㨠³ÛÅÙ ÑÇÙݳϳÝáõÙ ã»Ý ϳñ¨áñí»É: ²ÛëåÇëÇ ³Ý- ï»ëÙ³Ý å³ï׳éÝ ³ÛÝ ¿, áñ ·ñ³Ï³ÝáõÃÛáõÝÁ Ñ»ßïáõÃÛ³Ùμ áõ Ùdzݷ³ ÙÇó Ç óáõÛó ãÇ ¹ÝáõÙ Çñ μ³ñ¹ ÇÙ³ó³Ï³Ý Ññ³ß³ÉÇùÝ»ñÁ, ¹ñ³Ýù Ñݳñ³íáñ ¿ ÁÝÏ³É»É ÙdzÛÝ ÇÙ³ëï³íáñÙ³Ý ¨ í»ñ³ÇÙ³ëï³íáñÙ³Ý »ñϳñ ¨ ³Ýí»ñç Ãí³óáÕ ×³ ݳ- å³ñÑÝ ³ÝóÝ»Éáõó Ñ»ïá: ¶ñ³Ï³ÝáõÃÛáõÝÁ áã ÙdzÛÝ »ñ¨³Ï³Û³Ï³Ý ·» Õ³·Çï³- Ï³Ý å³ïÏ»ñÝ»ñ ¿ Ý»ñϳ۳óÝáõÙ, ³Ûɨ ·Çï³Ïó³Ï³ÝáõÃÛ³Ý ¨ ëáóÇ³É³Ï³Ý ÇÝùÝáõÃÛ³Ý μ³½ Ù³ÃÇí áõ μ³½ Ù³½³Ý ¹ñë¨áñáõÙÝ»ñ: Armenian Folia Anglistika Literature 136