Maket 2011-2:Layout 1.qxd


Marginal in/for Literature: Topographical and Rhetorical

Aspects

Yordan Lyutskanov
Academy of Sciences of Bulgaria

Iam revisiting the theme of a summer school held in Sofia in June 2011. If I had theopportunity to change that title, I would simply rename it “Literature and marginali-
ty”. “The marginal in/for literature” has cut off one quite actual thematic focus: the mar-
ginality, or marginalisation of literature and literary studies. Some of the participants
demonstrated a spontaneous affinity towards this topic. 

Having interpreted the title formula, I shall attempt to enlarge on ontology of the mar-
ginal with regard to literature. I initiated this task long before the summer school was
open, in order to facilitate the structuring of a thematic programme for the school.1 When
possible, I shall support my considerations with examples from the papers delivered
there.2

І. Literature fluctuates in its semantic scope. Trying to systematise these fluctua-
tions, I propose to delimitate the following thematic domains:

1. Marginal in/for the literary institution;
2. Marginal in/for the literary text [as a verbal structure];
3. Marginal in/for the book3;
4. The marginal as represented/understood/promoted/annihilated/created by literature.4

The third domain was gravely underrepresented during the summer school.
Such an important aspect within the first one, especially from Sofia, as marginal

literatures 5 was thematised in one lecture only (Hristov 2011).6

ІІ. How are the juxtaposed notions (literature and the marginal) related? 
0. On the one hand, “Marginal for literature” implies that literature is an agent. A rele-

vant idea here is, therefore, the idea that literature creates our (actual, possible, social
etc.) life. In fact the formulation helps us to be open for both possibilities: of literature
being a real agent, and of being only an instrument. 

On the other hand, “Marginal in literature” presumes the interpretation of literature
as media or a mediator (a ‘window’, a ‘mirror’ – but hinting at a certain materiality and
at a consistency of its own). And here two ideas appear to be relevant: first, literature rep-
resents, reflects and so on; second, it represents or reflects itself. 

It is worth mentioning that our formulation lacks the idea of literature as an object. 
1. If we ignore the subtleties of linguistic expression, one of the first interpretative

reactions to the formulation would be: What is not important for literature? What
remains unnoticed, and what is perceived as unimportant and/or non-central when we
read it? And, probably: what remains unattended in the study of literature?

ІІІ. What does marginal mean?
1. The thought about the marginal gravely depends on the virtual (and culture-expe-

riential) image of the page with its margins; its conceptualisation depends on what might

Armenian Folia AnglistikaLiterature

137



be called the page metaphor.7 (In conceptualising and interpreting marginality, it is dif-
ficult to escape from the spatiality of its prototype, the page. Given the experience of the
Sofia school, escaping from page’s materiality is easier.)

Therefore I think that one more type or, rather, mode of marginality (besides the his-
torical, geographical, linguistic, sociological and aesthetic summarised by György M.
Vajda (1983)) regarding literature should be outlined. We could designate it as ‘-textual’8

or medial marginality.
The lack or the insufficiency of intention to classify as regards medially/ -textually/

literally marginal literature in Vajda’s work could be explained with its strong links with
the pre-“topographical turn” humanities. I would suggest that a post-turn work could
have speculated on its own spatially engendered conceptualising premises. As for my
own preoccupation with aspects of marginality embedded in and developing the page
metaphor, it could be linked with the current propulsion of topography-focused investi-
gations in the humanities, despite some puzzling particularities.9 What is more important,
however, is that the turn opens horizons for converging the quests and queries of
medievalists and non-medievalists: this being, at least in Bulgarian literary scholarship,
an under-recognised necessity and, memorising the experience of the school, a complete-
ly unutilised opportunity.10

The marginal could be regarded as a synonym of peripheral. We put now this possi-
bility aside. The “marginal” and the “peripheral” could be considered within a common
model.

The page-based model could be juxtaposed with a more abstract one, of the centre –
periphery differentiation, to produce a triple structure: centre - periphery - margin. One
of our invited scholars, Krasimir Stanchev (Stanchev 2011), justly insisted on differenti-
ating between the peripheral and the marginal. He offered the following distinction. The
peripheral, unlike the marginal, pertains to the main text, belongs to the same author (or
textual authority) and can become central. He distinguished between two kinds of
peripheral, which can be detected by two different approaches: typologising and evalua-
tive. According to the first approach, peripheral is the text which is so distant from a
model that it approximates the model of another text or non-text. According to the sec-
ond one, a text is peripheral when it follows the model strictly but remains of low qual-
ity or intensity. Our invited scholar distinguished between two kinds of marginality, too.
First, one can add a note simply because there has been blank space on the margin. And,
second, one can add a note to initiate a dialogue with the text. Having made these dis-
tinctions, Stanchev promoted his particular topic and thesis: “the literature of the
Bulgarian Catholics of the 17 th century was marginal for the East and peripheral for the
West, but it indicated the future model of Bulgarian development”. It occurred that in
some particular cases the marginal could become central: when a radical change of the
model is anticipated and/or takes place. From this perspective, the marginal turns to be
no more and no less than a degree of the peripheral, a latent periphery (just as the
periphery is a latent centre). It is not difficult to discern in Stanchev’s considerations the
template of Yuri Lotman’s semiotics of culture: one extrapolating the structure of a/the
text upon the extra-textual (ir)reality, and one gravely relying on exploitation of data

Armenian Folia Anglistika Literature

138



from the history of literature.11 Yet the experience of a medievalist dictated to modify
the template’s superstructure - to underline the difference between the marginal and the
peripheral.

The ternary (and quantitative rather than qualitative) model centre - periphery - mar-
ginalia could be substantially enriched, given the experience of two works presented at
the school – one on the variety of discourses, besides the dominating one, in the Soviet
Georgian literature (Ratiani 2011) 12, and the other on the wide gamma of degrees of
canonicity in late antique and medieval Christian literatures (but especially in late
medieval Bulgarian literature) (Miltenova 2011). The resultant elaborated version of the
page metaphor could be juxtaposed with Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of the field of (artis-
tic) production (Burdio 2004) in order to produce a more complex and efficient model;
and, besides, given the obvious (in)dependence of works of each field of production on
two centres of “heteronomy” – political power and market – and on the centre of the
“autonomy” of the corresponding field, to explain some particular cases of remarkable
success of works marginal in more than one dimension (a ‘biography’ of such a work was
developed in Grigorov 2011).

An actional model might help to overcome the typical one-sidedness imposed by the
page-based model. A marginal note is not only added; the process of dissolution within a
text may lead to an expulsion of certain fragments as marginal notes. Another paper
delivered at the school unintentionally showed (Kuzidova-Karadžinova 2011) that the
marginal is subject to the dialectic of inclusion and exclusion. The observation of the
process of translation and a sequence of translations or different versions of one and the
same work could support this notion. The marginal could be identified with the lost and
with the acquired via translation; with a by-product of translation. The translator’s notes
present one possible materialisation. Sometimes the translation of a text might serve only
as an excuse to articulate something on one’s own. In this drastic case the translation
itself turns to be the marginal.

The creation of a dynamic model of the marginal without abandoning the page
metaphor, or archetype, seems to us most apt on the basis of the so called “genetic criti-
cism”, if we are to resist within the field of literary criticism. Let us take the “marginal-
ist economy of textual genesis” launched by Daniel Ferrer, for example: its main subjects
are the marginal notes as textualised intervals between texts read by a writer and texts
that are (not) to be written by him.13

Now we closely approach the inter-agent or even inter-personal perspective on mar-
ginality.14 A paper was held on how a Canadian painter and writer pled for the cultural
heritage of some ingenious Indian people in the state of British Columbia and how she
employed their artistic traditions in her own art (Álamo Martín 2011). A question was
posed from a listener: patronising someone marginalises him, doesn’t it? Then Picasso’s
instrumentalising of African primitive art was recalled and another question was posed:
whether the ambiguity (of neither full identifying with someone nor detached instrumen-
talising of his or her achievements) was the most dangerous mode of behaviour.
“Dangerous” was meant in the sense of the moral vulnerability of attitude and of its mar-
ginalising effect on the counterpart.15 Our speculative attention was brought to the fol-

Armenian Folia AnglistikaLiterature

139



lowing identification of the marginal: with something which or someone who is neither
a mere means, nor a goal (neither it nor Thee).16

Marginality seems to be a kind of in-between-ness.
As I already said, materiality of the text-and-margin was much easier to ignore than

their spatiality. The reminiscence of textual margin involves recalling the material (paper,
parchment, ink and so on) and decoration of the page. For centuries (during the Middle
Ages) and for decades (during the lifetime of experimental modernism) literary works
have been transmitted in an intermedial ambience, and this multi-sensory milieu has been
either interiorised as synaesthesia and ekphrasis or expelled outside the sheet of paper.
This aspect of marginality in and for literature was attended in three papers only
(Cleminson 2011; Álamo 2011; Rakjovsky 2011); it is noteworthy that only one of them
was delivered by a medievalist scholar. (Moreover, in a paper, devoted to the acrostic
and to its ambiguous marginality – it occupies the edge of the field of vision but
expresses the essence, (Petrova 2011) – its visual and material aspects were completely
disregarded.)

Let us examine the intellectual archetype of the page once more. We are urged to think
in spatial and visual terms and metaphors and, what is more, in the terms of measured
space (that is, space subject to geometrisation and geographisation). But, at the same
time, we are invited to conceive and employ the space–time opposition. And in fact the
archetype of the page introduces not only visual but tactile metaphors. The marginal,
therefore, could be conceived as a ‘spatial frame near/beside/across/around a tempo-
ral flux’. But it could be recognised in the opposite side, too: the marginal could be
associated with the fluent, immeasurable or ephemeral within a regularised, meas-

ured, hierarchical and probably static world. Both ideas could be supported by the
appearance of an illustrated manuscript page. The marginal is sediment or moving sands. 

The sediment could attain shape. Architecture could be the marginal in and for litera-
ture. To my fancy, the following notion of the marginal would be suitable: marginality is
what is on the verge between the visible and the invisible, and what makes the core (the
non-marginal) look ‘natural’, coherent, and core by nature. In this sense literature is the
marginal for and in architecture.

Before abandoning the centre – periphery scale, let us try to maximise the differen-
tiation within it. For this purpose I shall employ an analogy. The classic, the mannerist,
the epigone and the plagiarist form a sequence which could have its projection on the
page: the archetype or referent of the work (in fact the centre), the beforehand text (the
periphery), the margin and… the outside of the sheet of paper.17

The page metaphor 18 suits the text-centric approach to literature. It leaves the reader
half-objectified, assigning him to the margin. Permission into the boundary zone appears
to be the only possible extent of recognising and accepting the Other into the Self.

2. If we try to ignore the centre – periphery opposition, the marginal would not be
identified with a degree of the peripheral and would appear as something different. It
would be, for example, the element which: а) introduces, b) leads away from, c) accom-
panies, d) sets the conditions/the rules of reading the non-“marginal”. An example for
(d): the strategy of narrating and representing in the 19th-century realism – one which suc-

Armenian Folia Anglistika Literature

140



ceeds in imposing the illusion that what it represents “corresponds” to “life”, to “reali-
ty”; that what is represented is ‘natural’, non-intended, unmade. Now, we may try to use
the following definition: The marginal occurs to be the factor or element which
manipulates us to perceive the ‘made’ as ‘natural’. “The factor… which” could be
personified: such agents of manipulation represent themselves the narrator and the
implicit author. They pertain to the domain of the “Marginal for/in the literary text”. The
analogous agent in the realm of the “Marginal in/for the book” is the commentator (scho-
liast). But let us put the personifications of the marginal aside. Let us remind the etymolo-
gy of the term ‘margin’. It is in-between but not in the middle. It could be associated with
the boundary where the opposites of a spectrum meet. 

This notion of the marginal dangerously approximates the domain of another notion,
of frame. 

3. It is quite probable that I confuse the ‘marginal’ with what is on the edge of visi-
bility and is more invisible than visible (and the marginal being more visible than invis-
ible). I suppose that introducing the concept of ‘effort’ here will help to identify the mar-
ginal more definitely. Things exist which escape attention, which are difficult to focus
even if we make effort; and other things exist, which escape attention but which we

succeed in focusing when certain efforts are made. The ‘marginal’ belongs to the

second group: it is the graspable un-grasped. Let us exemplify this notion of the mar-
ginal by placing it in the temporal perspective. First, some things are too new to be
noticed. Second, there are things which are too well known to be explicated: they pertain
to the so-called tacit knowledge (Michael Polanyi) which, in fact, makes communication
in general and reading in particular possible19 Third, we may underestimate an inert phe-
nomenon representing itself a potential connection with the past and the future; perceiv-
ing it/thinking of it as (of) useless “rubble”, we are blocking our perception for its open-
ness towards past and future and, of course, we are marginalising it.20

Being situated in the zone of the graspable but un-grasped, the marginal might
escape pressure and preserve its freedom, which is probably the main asset of marginal-
ity (as a paper on the marginality of Bulgarian academic discourse on Russian émigré
culture suggests: Petkova 2011). 

4. We are somewhat confused when we try to define the marginal within a risomat-
ic world model. It could probably be identified with what falls outside (or beside) the
felicitous chain of territorialisations and de-territorialisations; the sedentary, in contrast
to nomadic; the orderly (reducible to a pattern of spatial symmetry), in contrast to chaot-
ic; the typical, in contrast to singular.

Sometimes the textual or media archetype of conceiving marginality – the topogra-
phy of a (manuscript) page – urges us to abandon the central – marginal correlation. Such
is the case, for example, with the topography of page in some manuscripts (both drafts
and fair copies) of Walter Benjamin (Giuriato 2004). “Marginality manifests itself in two
ways: first, in the topography of the manuscript to the degree that the margins are a space
where the interior is exposed; second, in the physical gesture of folding the manuscript,
making manifold writing possible in the literal (and manual) sense of the word. The ges-
ture of writing thus gains influence over the semantics of the written and in this case rep-

Armenian Folia AnglistikaLiterature

141



resents a marginal writing scene21 in which the text continually exposes itself” (ibid:
202–203). “The marginal note in Benjamin’s work develops neither a segregated acci-
dentality of the written that could entirely be integrated into the main text, nor a vertical
hierarchy of (self)commenting meaning, sanctioning the order of the text and the subor-
dination of the parergon. The folding of the manuscript is thus not simply a technical
preparation, nor are the marginal notes just a supplement to the text, or simply a correla-
tive, but the inner exposition of writing as a gesture that cannot be completed” (ibid:
206). Thus writing opens an infinite sequence of relative deterritorialisations (in the
sense of Deleuz and Guattari).

Can we attribute this kind of de-centred writing to modernist experimentalism and
modernist fusion of representative and private only? The already mentioned lecture of
Ralf Cleminson (2011), “Margin as Text”, offers a de-centralising epistemic perspective
(margin can serve not as a margin but as a field for separate text) and attends to ambigu-
ous cases: of commentary occupying not the margin but a parallel text column; of text
“still” in large letters but literally marginalised22. Of course, regarding them similar to the
case with Benjamin’s manuscripts would be a hasty judgement. I would suggest that we
have rather a system-supporting fluctuation in the representational amount assigned to
different hierarchical positions23 (and even not mutual replacement) than loss of hierar-
chy and infinite unfolding. Yet the electronic texts offer a set of links to hypertexts
instead of placeable paratext(s), it refers to different files “without visual status”; the
endnotes being the only trace from a visual structure anchoring the text (given the con-
tingency of the text – screen relation).24 It seems that “medial” marginality disappears.25

I am tempted to see a kind of intermediate stance in Benjamin’s unfolding manuscripts:
between the topography of a misbalanced hierarchy availed by some medieval manu-
scripts and the non-‘spatialisable’ flow of e-text. 

5. We may approach the problem bearing in mind our empirical experience as liter-
ary scholars. Which are the objects of interest in literary criticism that we may regard as
marginal? We can regard as marginal: a) notes and pictures on printed and handwritten
book margins; b) all kinds of paratexts (title, epigraph etc.); c) all kinds of un-marked
positions within a text (starting with what cannot be identified as the text beginning and
end); d) all kinds of unmarked positions within the literary field (works of average or low
quality, writers considered epigones or second-hand, works and writers that had no con-
spicuous relation to the great ones); e) all kinds of boundary positions (between genres,
between fiction and documentary, high and low26, poetry and graphomania, literature and
everyday wording27). It seems that there is a contradiction between (b) (paratexts) and (c)
(unmarked positions) – given the fact that paratexts are marked, i.e. they mark (point at)
their own position. The contradiction is false. Paratextual elements/units are outside the
text or on its border. It becomes clear that when the viewpoint or the distance changes
different things can be recognised as marginal. I have just mentioned that the paratextu-
al elements/units do mark their positions. Here we may assume that the ‘material’ which
is to be used in paratext has or acquires the characteristics of a ‘marker’. And there is,
correspondingly, such a ‘material’ which contributes to de-marking the position it is
introduced into, a ‘material’ which makes the position invisible or ignorable28. It should

Armenian Folia Anglistika Literature

142



be ‘material’ introduced with the intention of detracting attention; or material detracting
it devoid of intention. So we may define the marginal as what remains, after all posi-
tions “that matter” are outlined. It is obvious that it will constantly shrink. But the
implicit hierarchy we are building, while making it retreat, does constitute it.29

If we leave the page metaphor which conceptualises our thinking of the marginal it
would be easier to catch the marginal in terms of temporality. Thus, A. Alexieva
(Aleksieva 2011) spoke about the “teachers’ poetry” within the 19th century Bulgarian
literature. It experienced a short momentum in the mid-19th century, and then rapidly lost
popularity and was even stigmatized, since it was “helpless verse-making” and expressed
loyalty to the sultan. It became unacceptable for one more reason – it modelled local
chronotopes, and not the supra-local of the emerging modern nation. If we try to extract
another definition of the marginal from here, we would say that it coincides with the
short-lived which, in addition, does not affect the subsequent development. It might
be said that the teacher’s poetry exercised only a ‘negative’ effect, serving as an object
from which to detach. Returning to spatiality, we would say, next, that the ‘marginal’
within the live-space of a national community is the local (and the ethno-national would
have been the ‘marginal’ within a supra-national imperial order), the every-day and the
intermediate between the community under construction and the individual. Teachers’
poetry is marginal insofar it falls outside the mainstream, not being within it during the
preceding epoch as well: it is a phenomenon of the short-lived ‘in between’ period asso-
ciable with Enlightenment, period of enlightened local civil communities, after the mid-
dle ages and before the Romanticism of the national revolution. It is a kind of temporal
marginality, of in-between-ness, which does not recognise the particular profits of a mar-
ginal position: contrary to, quite characteristically, the avant-garde which had adopted
what Renato Poggioli called the conscience and strategy of agonism (“[…] this immola-
tion of the self to the art of the future must be understood not only as an anonymous and
collective sacrifice, but also as the self-immolation of the isolated creative personality”
(Poggioli 1968:67–68)). But we ought to differentiate between marginality as an unwant-
ed and even un-supposed destiny and as a self-affirmative and self-distinguishing choice,
on the one hand, and marginality as an inherent yet conscious mode of experiencing the
world and the self, on the other hand. I have in mind the so called ‘medieval man’. “Most
people today consider that man is at centre of an ethnocentric world system, both politi-
cally and aesthetically. In contrast, the people of the Middle Ages saw themselves at the
edge, the last ageing dregs of a falling-off of humanity, the dissipated end of a Golden
Age eagerly awaiting the Last Judgement.” (Camille 1992:53).30 One more dimension of
‘medieval man’ marginality: he is chronically trespassing against a borderline constitu-
tive for self- and world-order, the one between sin and virtue, or is gliding on its verge,
as Regina Koycheva’s paper on marginality in the chronotope of the Old Bulgarian com-
memorative hymnography reminded us (Kojčeva 2011).

The enumeration based on empirical experience could go on. Yet we anticipate the
following: any structural unit and any structural factor could appear as or be mar-
ginal – for a period of time, from a certain standpoint. It would be apt to speculate on
and conceptualise different modes of marginalisation and de-marginalisation.

Armenian Folia AnglistikaLiterature

143



6. It would be much easier to identify the marginal disregarding literature and then to
make account on how literature represents, instrumentalises, and creates it (it or its
image). The “feminine” would serve a good example. And everything that does not coin-
cide with any of the poles in a dy-, try- and whatever poled contradiction/constellation,
and which we do not tend to identify with its solution or synthesis. An example: Bulgaria
is neither East nor West (and it could hardly achieve or represent a kind of synthesis of
those), ergo Bulgaria is marginal. Marginal is the fact of non-belonging to any position
recognisable as a ‘pole’ in a constellation.

Thus understood, marginality could be a geopolitical, geocultural, geopoetical31 con-
dition. It is an aspect of marginality caught in the recently coined historiography and
culturology term “Balkanism”. In a wider sense, “Balkanism” is as old as the Roman
historiography and may be older: in his Annals Tacit wrote of Armenia and Armenians:
“This had been of old an unsettled country from the character of its people and from its
geographical position, bordering, as it does, to a great extent on our provinces and
stretching far away to Media. It lies between two most mighty empires, and is very often
at strife with them, hating Rome and jealous of Parthia.” (Tacitus 2 [56]); “Besides, the
Armenians in the fluctuations of their allegiance sought the armed protection of both
empires, though by their country’s position, by resemblance of manners, and by the ties
of intermarriage, they were more connected with the Parthians, to whose subjection, in
their ignorance of freedom, they rather inclined.” (Tacitus 13 [34]). Within the summer
school, marginality as civilisational and geopolitical in-between-ness was approached in
a paper inspecting manifestations of “Orientalism” and “Occidentalism” in the 19th cen-
tury Balkan cultures (Aretov 2011). The Balkan mentality seems to have been fluctuat-
ing between Orientalism and Occidentalism, between intimate adopting them and
detached employing them. I have mentioned above that a work (Petkova 2011) touched
upon the issue of the acceptability of marginality when it provides secure invisibility.
Marginality could have one more (and much more important) asset: it could combine
the experience of and the knowledge of worlds neighbouring and conflicting with each
other32 (A specific pride for one’s marginality sees Aretov in the “The Spring of the
White-Legged”, 1873, a work from Petko Slaveykov firmly set in the national literary
canon of Bulgaria. ‘Marginal’ is what falls in between the conflicting ‘protagonists’,
what could employ the self-constitutive strategies of them both. However, it seems
to be a local, guerrilla-like, employment, not a global one.33) Hence we are urged to
utter two radically different notions of marginality: it is a zone of multiple potentialities
(even more: one imbued with the generating principles of a multitude of systems) vs it is
a zone of relative instability generated by a centre in order to perform its own stability.34

An agent could collate the two opposite conditions if (s)he/it succeeds in acquiring
multiple levels of awareness, of understanding and acting on different epistemological
levels.

It was the intimate interdependence between Orientalism and Occidentalism, the
trace of marginality in both of them and the peculiar imbalance between them that
intrigued me most. They form a characteristic interactive chain of marginalisation, of
anxiety of marginalisation and of compensatory resistance against it. Defining mar-

Armenian Folia Anglistika Literature

144



ginalisation, that is, the first step, Aretov departs from the idea that it might come as a
self-marginalisation, as a result from adopting an outsider’s frame of reference and self-
conceiving through it; thereby he recalls the concept of ‘self-colonisation’35 but he could
have recalled the ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’ as well. The basic commonality between
‘Orientalism’ and ‘Occidentalism’ is the thrust to design the ‘Other’ as one’s own nega-
tive and most probably inferior double. Both strategies are fed by a kind of dualism
which is interrelated with a kind of reductionist universalism. If we assume the claim of
Buruma and Margalit (Buruma/Margalit 2006) that Occidentalist ideas have Western
provenance, we could claim that Occidentalism is doomed to be late, to be the belated
pretender for dominance. And if we attend to the civil-and-metropolitan rhetoric of
Orientalism and to the ruralist rhetoric of Occidentalism, we would associate the for-
mer with the ideology of a rising or already dominating former contact zone (or with
the ideology of the polis), and the latter with the ideology of a descending or still
dominated rural heartland (or with the ideology of the ethnos). One more asymmetry is
worth mentioning: while Orientalism produces hegemony, Occidentalism pleads for
destruction. I am inclined to think that both ‘orientalism’36 and ‘occidentalism’ produce
a variety of attitudes to dissolve the ‘Other’, or the others, or to displace them in differ-
ent positions: peripheral, marginal, frontier-line, transcendent. Being (dis)placed in a
given position, the animated fragment of ‘otherness’ is likely to experience some atti-
tudes more frequently than other attitudes (thus we can expect that the transcendent
would be hated or respected rather than neglected). The ‘marginal’ would be the strata
which is negligible but which, in a time of danger, is seen as the transcendent enemy in
miniature. One wonders whether the ‘marginal’ could be delegated the role of a media-
tor. Probably not; it is a role for what is positioned as a/the ‘frontier-line’, and the ‘mar-
ginal’ – by definition – skips, misses to take this position. If the ‘marginal’ is driven to
the role of mediator during this fluctuating attitude toward it, it just means that it has
changed its position, its strata, and has moved to the ‘frontier-line’. 

This conflict appears to be a cultural universal and is associable with a conflict
between two semiotic orders: the conventional or liquid signification and the non-con-
ventional or textbound signification. 

We may return to the monistic hypothesis of the world which means not looking
from the outside to the ‘pole’ or position with which we identify ourselves. We would
identify our position with the truth and the other position would be the absolute evil. We
would say that the latter has no right to exist, and we speak with it for the sake of tacti-
cal manoeuvre. The ‘marginal’ coincides with the other, with the evil. 

Let us now look at the group of noble men fighting against evil. In fact only some
voices here are of importance. And it wouldn’t matter whether voices of men whose opin-
ion is of no importance would be conformist or oppositional: they would be marginal.
The ‘marginal’ coincides with whom or what is disrespected. 

As the author of the paper on Orientalism and Occidentalism noted, conceiving one-
self marginal can indeed make one marginal. Another participant re-accessed the issue
on the example of 19th and 20th century Bulgarian culture (Hristov 2011). An involve-
ment in a global literary economy conceived as an exchange of gifts between agents that

Armenian Folia AnglistikaLiterature

145



are dominating and agents that are dominated could initiate a spiral of self-marginalisa-
tion. Synonymous to this involvement is subsuming to the feeling that you are obliged to
be grateful for being civilised. In such a case your return gift is doomed never to gain
recognition. (“[L]iterature is of value to the extent it gives valuable knowledge to the
enlightened nations, the masters of the world. […] One cannot claim that knowledge is
valuable if the foreigners do not value it. […] But if this is the case, then returning the
gift of literature […] produces a subject position […] proving not the value of the nation
that offers it but its inability to offer anything of value” (Hristov 2011:12). The civiliser
becomes a hegemon. Following Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, the lecturer defined
hegemony as “any knowledge which is so powerful that it makes knowing the opposite
indefensible”.37

7. Of course, literature can make its theme or even its fate all these kinds of marginali-
ty and much more concrete ones. But sometimes it succeeds in representing the very
vague idea of marginality. I mean modernist literature. A piece of it could reproduce
what one of the participants (Tenev 2011) called “a machine for production of marginal-
ity”, pointing at James Joyce’s novels “Ulysses” and “Finnegan’s Wake”. Examining the
ways in which the new characters are introduced into the modernist narrative, he realis-
es that the marginal ones cannot be associated with indeterminacy and the central ones –
with determinacy. (On the contrary, the classical narrative is determinate as regards the
central characters and indeterminate regarding the marginal.) What is more, the newly
introduced characters could become indistinguishable from the central ones and from
inanimate objects, thus subsisting chronic indeterminacy. The proper nouns, as guaran-
tees of determinate identity, have “unstuck” from their usual referents in order to accom-
pany the emerging “nebular” agents of subjectivity (neither central nor peripheral, nei-
ther animated nor inanimate). This mechanism of dissolving identities and criteria for
ranking agents prevents the emerging of centre and thus marginality appears to occupy
the central position.38

To summarise, in this paper I tried to demonstrate the heurism of the “page model” in
conceptualising the marginal, especially when moved aside from the close context of
medievalist textual scholarship. I also tried to show the interoperability between the
notion(s) of (the) marginal and such phenomena and/or ideas as attitude (of mind), inten-
tion, will, (self)evocation, S/self(ness), O/other(ness), (self)alienation, (self)indoctrination
and the like. In brief, I tried to outline what I had designated as topographical and rhetorical
aspects of marginality. 

I suppose that the diverse and sometimes contradicting notions of marginality, which
I made articulate or stumbled upon, could be cohered via an understanding of marginal-
ity which does not simply merge, but synthesises its topographical and rhetorical aspects.

The texts delivered at Sofia summer school stimulated a monologue I find productive.
Thus, whatever the deficiencies as regards direct approaching and unselfish interest in
the theme, it has fulfilled the main task of a scholarly forum.

Armenian Folia Anglistika Literature

146



Notes:

1. The programme is available on-line: http://www.ilit.bas.bg/bg/Summer_School_2010.php.
The volume of the proceedings with the final versions of the texts (which are not the
ones I refer to here) is already under preparation for print. In my paper I shall attend
to or mention not more than half of the contributions (a conference review being just
a side task for me).

2. Thus I shall be able to check the interoperability between my anticipations and the
actual event.

3. I mind the book as a material form of the literary text. Here printed and handwritten
books, scrolls and codices, and also epigraphs in the original sense might be considered.
And the digital book and the different digital literary forms as well.

4. This domain of inquiry is exemplified by works like (Hughes 2001) which explore
“how cultural centres require the peripheral, the outlawed, and the deviant in order to
define and bolster themselves” (from the publisher’s introductory note).

5. I borrowed the term from (Marginale 1983). The introductory paper of the volume
outlined the main aspects of marginality in literature – stressing especially on histor-
ical, geographical and linguistic – noting the relativity of each (Vajda 1983:5–9); it
seems that marginality of literature from sociological and aesthetical viewpoints
(ibid: 10–12) had been much more frequently under focus.

6. These four domains intersect. Nevertheless I think they are almost equally distant
from each other and that they cover the whole volume of literature’s variability.

7. I recall here George Lacoff’s idea of “conceptualising metaphor”.
8. The hyphen leaving room for a prefix (para-, hyper-, meta-) is not less important than

the root of the word.
9. I stumbled upon a recent work which thematises the turn (Geopoetiken 2010) after I

had written my present work and almost completed it; and I am still not acquainted
with such a groundbreaking work of the turn as J. Hillis Miller’s “Topographies”. I
could link my preoccupation mentioned above with the move towards convergence
of textual scholarship and literary criticism characteristic of the Anglo-American
academia since the 1980s (see the anthology of Anglo-American works in textual
scholarship (1980–2005) in Ecdotica 2009) – in fact a convergence theoretically
coherent with the “turn” – but I cannot derive it from there (personal anamnesis does
not support the suggestion).

10. An insightful and emblematic work synthesising theoretical, history of medieval lit-
erature and history of post-medieval literature perspectives (Georgiev 2004 [1990])
distinguished three genres of ‘medially’ marginal literature, or of marginalia, within
Bulgarian literature of the Ottoman period. In citing it the only work “frontally” and
plainly theoretically dealing with marginality at the forum devoted to marginality
(Milchakov 2011:4) remained alone. I regard the first fact as one among several
which witness for the fragmentation of the field of literary studies in Bulgaria (the
main but not the only gully being that between medievalists and non-medievalists);
and the second one as symptomatic for a characteristic malaise of scholarly forums:

Armenian Folia AnglistikaLiterature

147



participants adjusting the thematic horizon of a forum to their personal interests
and/or themes and not vice versa.

11. Remember Yuri Tynyanov’s idea of literature dynamism: periodical movement of
genres from the centre towards the periphery, together with underwater counter cur-
rents or weak side currents.

12. The 1970s situation (Ratiani 2011:10–11) seems particularly pointing.
13. Ferrer 2004. – The work contributes to a thematic (as all others are) issue of

“Variants”, the journal of the European Society for Textual Scholarship, devoted to
“reading notes” (marginal as well as such produced by “extraction” and laid down not
on margins). – Compare: “As Heather Jackson argues in her fascinating study on mar-
ginalia, notes in the margins are not only a ‘responsive’ type of writing that looks
back to the text onto which the notes are grafted, they also look forward to an origi-
nal expression of personality in many cases even to a new act of writing” (Van Mierlo
2004:147).

14. The page archetype supports this perspective: “marginalia assert the presence of a
personality whose annotations […] record ‘a transaction between minds’” (Wim Van
Mierlo cites H. Jackson in Van Mierlo 2004:147 (note 23)).

15. Compare with a similar concern in a recent book on marginality in French late 19th

and 20th c. literature: “[…] gesturing towards cultural difference in no way guarantees
dialectical engagement with it. Indeed, it is often an ambivalent move, entailing the
pursuit of private goals – sexual, political, aesthetic – and the collateral exclusion of
the Other” (Hughes 2001:8).

16. The discussion provoked by a paper devoted to a Canadian artist-and-writer’s paint-
ings made evident the faint interest in intermediality and the active one in intercultur-
al communication. One more time the social dimensions of marginality vis-à-vis lit-
erature overshadowed the poetological ones. See about possible intersections
between sociologically thoughtful and topographically aware literary study below.

17. But compare with the following type of three-level structure: biblical text – commen-
tary – biblical quotations within the commentary’s text (recalled by Margaret
Dimitrova during the discussion after Ralph Cleminson’s lecture). Which variant is
more apt: to regard the commentary as marginalia and the biblical quotations as
periphery or vice versa?

18. Note the problematic functionality of a very similar metaphor – I would call it folial
or leaf metaphor.

19. One of the papers thematised the tacit knowledge invested in the so called current
criticism and the heurism of discovering and articulating it for the history of litera-
ture: Mikkel 2011.

20. Thus, for example, a paper (Rakjovsky 2011) thematised the following issue: the
works of X and Y are considered to witness that a certain style, movement and aes-
thetic epoch has begun; but in fact it is only the usually neglected background of their
works, a background inhabited by works and authors doomed epigones, which makes
the phenomenon un-occasional, “dense” and therefore real. What is more, one of
these “epigones” (in fact a less talented or less adequately talented co-founder who

Armenian Folia Anglistika Literature

148



was unable to overcome the preparatory phase) developed a technique which was
sought after later, within the next style of the epoch.

21. “Rüdiger Campe has proposed the term “writing scene” for a type of writing that
comprises three heterogeneous aspects, namely language (semantics), technical
preparation (or instrumentality) and bodily gesture” (Giuriato 2004:199).

22. A rhetoric question from the public (Álamo Martín) was raised on whether this dis-
placement of text by the commentary is similar (or probably prefigures, I would add)
to the condition of modern literature, often overwhelmed by literary criticism.
Unfortunately, the asserted statement was not followed by further speculations on the
topic.

23. Roughly speaking, the higher in hierarchy could require less explicit attention; gen-
erally speaking, it is a possibility transposing the distrust in iconic representation
from the qualitative (compare iconicity – an-iconicity; cataphasis – apophasis; visual
beauty of the image – visual ugliness of the image) into the quantitative order.

24. I am postponing a careful examination of Cleminson’s contribution.
25. If I am to speculate on the relation between such a disappearance and the condition

of social etc. marginality (that is, of marginality outside the text), I would suppose its
veiling function: it veils the persistence of hierarchy, persistence in a sort of a-spatial-
ity (and therefore becoming both more elusive and more fundamental).

26. At least two papers dealt with a specifically ambiguous, between “high” and “low”,
stance: Modebadze 2011 on the drift of Soviet science fiction toward “high” litera-
ture and Aleksandrov 2011 on Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novels’ uneasy in-
between-ness (they are neither ‘enough’ “high” nor ‘enough’ popular).

27. A recent Bulgarian work on para-literature written by Evdokia Borisova, Plamen
Shulikov and Yani Milchakov (Borisova/Šulikov/Milčakov 2009) is worth to be men-
tioned here; it investigates theoretical and historical aspects of Bulgarian literature’s
intersections with its school, beau-monde and mass culture ambience (which pro-
duced albums, popular songs brochures, dime-novels series etc.).

28. The corresponding category would fit well in an aesthetics which opposes the aesthetics
of provocation.

29. We are used to think that, if a certain piece of artistic stuff is introduced on a marked
position, it gains in weight, in significance. But the reciprocal is valid too: a piece of
stuff could transform a position into a marked one. It is no coincidence that a position
habitually perceived as marked could promote a disappointing stuff which would
make the recipient’s interest shrink, within a tendency to perceive as unmarked.

30. Dilyana Radoslavova’s contribution (Radoslavova 2011) offered an even more inter-
esting perspective on temporal marginality (as well as on its intersections with topo-
graphical, of different scopes), for it discussed the borderland and ambiguous seven-
teenth century in Bulgarian literature and language history (usually considered the
last from the middle ages) and the dissemination and structure of its ambiguous genre
protagonist, the Damaskini.

31. On geopoetics see Geopoetiken 2010 and works referred at there: White 1987:
272–293; Sid 2008 etc. Merging of conceptualisations of geopoetics (moreover, of its

Armenian Folia AnglistikaLiterature

149



different versions (on them: Frank 2010:20–24)) with the conceptualisations of
Edward Said and like could be fruitful (compare Frank 2010:27–31) but for reasons
of clarity I am postponing it.

32. What Aretov failed to say explicitly (but what he certainly had in mind) is that a situa-
tion on the Bulgarian-made 19th century mental map emerges within which the
Bulgarians are the ‘centre’ – being localised between the brutal (Asian) evil (the Turk)
and the sophisticated European one (the Greek), “as in some variants of the sujet
about Stoyan vojvoda”.

33. But compare with the rise of Caliphate from the in-between of East Roman and
Sassanian Iran empires: (non)marginality, taken only as a term of topographic
description, has deficient explanatory force.

34. Diverse data could support the second one. The “lack of an alternative […] prevents
medieval joke-making from becoming subversive”, including the consciously subver-
sive text of marginal illustrations (Camille 1992:43). “Unlike Proust, Camus, and
Genet, Loti, Gauguin, and Montherlant are not canonical writers. Yet the works of
each of these authors, major and minor alike, express a cultural malaise in which the
insufficiency of Self regularly awakens a desire to explore as well as to police the
exotic horizon” (Hughes 200:7).

35. A concept revitalised, within the context of contemporary Bulgarian humanities, by
Alexander Kyossev in the 1990s.

36. Note the move from the status of a proper noun.
37. The conditions of falling into marginality, choosing marginality, and professing it

have been a matter of consideration in the paper of Amelia Licheva, devoted to
writers’ and literary scholars’ condition in post-communist Bulgaria (Ličeva 2011).
Here marginality is meant in its sociological sense. It is not difficult to associate the
three stances mentioned with certain positions within an autonomous field of pro-
duction ala Bourdieu. What I miss and what I fail to conceptualise here is a kind of
sociology-free (up to the possible degree) and psychology-free intention-bound, voli-
tion-relevant personalist theory of literary marginality.

38. Another paper (Thurston 2011) approached the same basic condition differently,
claiming that the poetics of modernism was in fact a poetics of a disaster; the trench,
the world of war-born existence in parenthesis and in-between became the norm. – A
study of medieval book illumination on the West (Camille 1992:18–26) reveals a
semiotic overturn which resembles the negative of modernist overturn: it is after the
12th century that the marginal images, which were amidst the body of the text before,
emerge.

References:

1. Aleksandrov, D. (2011) The Postmodern Dystopian Novels of Margaret Atwood. //
Paper, delivered at the “Marginal in/for Literature” summer school held in Sofia
6–10th of June 2011 (pp. 1–18).

Armenian Folia Anglistika Literature

150



2. Aleksieva, A. (2011) Poetičeski marginalia na Vŭzraždaneto: daskalskata poezija
[Poetical Marginalia of the National Revival Period: The Teachers’ Poetry] //
Paper…, (pp. 1–12).

3. Álamo, M.R. (2011) Emily Carr’s Writing and Painting: A Modernist Experiment of
Interdisciplinary in the Margins. // Lecture, delivered at the “Marginal in/for
Literature” summer school held in Sofia 6–10th of June 2011 (pp. 1–15).

4. Aretov, N. (2011) Strahŭt ot marginalnost i problemŭt za oksidentalizma v balkan-
skite kulturi [The Fear of Marginality and Occidentalism in the Balkan Cultures] //
Lecture…, [1]–[12].

5. Borisova, E.; Šulikov, P. and Milčakov, J. (2009)  Paraliteraturata. Tekstologija, sot-
siologija, mediatori [The Paraliterature. Textology, Sociology, Mediators]. Veliko
Tŭrnovo: Faber.

6. Burdio, P. (2004) Pravilata na izkustvoto: Genezis i struktura na literaturnoto pole. /
Tr. by S. Atanasov, M. Velinova, A. Želeva, A. Robova. Sofia: Maison des Sciences
de l’Homme et de la Société, 2004. [Translation of: Pierre Bourdieu, Les règles de
l’art: Genèse et structure du champ littéraire, Paris, Seuil, 1998, 1992]

7. Buruma, I. and Margalit, A. (2006) Oksidentalizmŭt: Kratka istorija na antizapad-
ničestvoto. / Tr. by G. Atanasov. Sofia: Kralitsa Mab.

8. Camille, M. (1992) Image on the Edge: The Margins of Medieval Art. Cambridge
(Mass.): Harvard UP. 

9. Cleminson, R. (2011) Margin as Text. // Lecture…, 46’30’’ [No print version avail-
able. Accessible via You Tube at http://www.ilit.bas.bg/bg/marginal litera-
ture_video.php]

10. Ecdotica (2009) Ecdotica. / Ed. by F.D. Corte et al.. Bologna – Madrid – Roma:
Carocci, Vol. 6.

11. Ferrer, D. (2004) Towards a Marginalist Economy of Textual Genesis. // Variants. /
Ed. by D. van Hulle & W. van Mierlo, Amsterdam – New York: Rodopi, Vol. 2/3:
Reading Notes (pp.7–18).

12. Frank, S. (2010) Geokulturologie – Geopoetik. Definitions- und Abgrenzungsvorschläge.
// Geopoetiken: Geographische Entwürfe in den mittel- und osteuropäischen
Literaturen, hg. v. M. Marszałek u. S. Sasse (pp.19–42). Berlin: Kadmos.

13. Geopoetiken (2010) Geopoetiken: Geographische Entwürfe in den mittel- und osteu-
ropäischen Literaturen, hg. v. M. Marszałek u. S. Sasse. Berlin: Kadmos.

14. Georgiev (2004 [1990]) Pisaha ne samo da se znae [They Wrote Not Only to Be
Remembered]. // LiterNet. / Ed. by G. Chobanov, Varna: Liternet, N 8 (57) (August
2004), http://liternet.bg/publish/ngeorgiev/statii/pisaha.htm

15. Giuriato, D. (2004) Folded Manuscripts: Walter Benjamin’s Marginal Writing. //
Variants 2/3 (pp.195–206).

16. Grigorov, G. (2011) “Šumi Marica” – ot oficializiraneto do marginaliziraneto í
[“Shumi Maritsa” – From Officialisation to Marginalisation]. // Paper..., [1]–[17].

17. Hristov, T. (2011) The Gift of Literature: Global and Local in the Economy of a
National Literature. // Lecture…, (pp.1–22).

18. Hughes, E.W. (2001) Writing Marginality in Modern French Literature: From Loti to

Armenian Folia AnglistikaLiterature

151



Genet. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
19. Kojčeva, R. (2011) Interpretacii na marginalnoto v starobŭlgarskata himnografija

[Interpretations of the Marginal in Old Bulgarian Hymnography]. // Paper..., [1]–[17].
20. Kuzidova-Karadzhinova, I. (2011) Slavjanskata versija na “Žitieto na sv. Ilarion

Veliki” ot Jeronim Blaženi [The Slavonic Version of Blessed Jerome’s Vita
Hilarionis]. // Paper…, (pp.1–17).

21. Ličeva, A. (2011) Perifernite zoni v literaturata: tekstove, ličnosti, konflikti [The
Peripheral Zones in Literature: Text, Personalia and Conflicts]. // Lecture...,
(pp.1–14).

22. Marginale (1983) “Marginale” Literaturen. “Marginal” Literatures. Littératures
“Marginales”. / Ed.by W. Bader, H.J. Lüsebrink, R. Sander. [A thematic issue of]
Komparatistische Hefte, Heft 7. Bayreuth: Universität Bayreuth.

23. Mikkel, M. (2011) Contemporary Literature in the Knowledge of the Readers: the
Example of the Estonian Literary Criticism of the Beginning of the 20th Century. //
Lecture…

24. Milčakov, J. (2011) Marginalnoto – opisatelna ili cennnostna kategorija? [The
Marginal – a Descriptive or an Axiological Category?]. // Lecture..., (pp.1–9).

25. Miltenova, A. (2011) Marginalnost, intertekstualnost, paratekstualnost v kŭsnoantič-
nata i srednovekovnata knižnina [Marginality, Intertextuality, Paratextuality in the
Late Antique and Medieval Literature]. // Lecture..., (pp.1–24).

26. Modebadze, I. (2011) Sovetskaja fantastika – “begstvo ot dejstvitel’nosti” ili...? [The
Soviet Science Fiction – “an Escape from Reality” or…?]. // Lecture…, 1–16.

27. Petkova, G. (2011) Marginalizatsijata – dostatŭčnijat ezik v govoreneto za ruskata
emigratsija v Bŭlgarija (1919–1940)? [Marginalisation – the Sufficient Discourse in
Speaking of Russian Émigré Community in Bulgaria (1919–1940)]. // Lecture...,
(pp.1–11).

28. Petrova, S. (2011) Akrostihŭt – izraz na sŭštnostta v periferijata [The Acrostic – an
Expression of the Essence in the Periphery]. // Paper…, 1–10.

29. Poggioli, R. (1968) The Theory of the Avant-garde. / Tr. by G. Fitzgerald, Cambridge
(Mass.) and London (Eng.): The Belknap Press of Harvard UP, s.a. [digital reprint of
the 1968 edition].

30. Radoslavova, D. (2011) Graničnijat sedemnadeseti vek. Bŭlgarskata pravoslavna
knižnina – fenomenŭt ot periferijata [The Marginal Seventeenth Century. Bulgarian
Orthodox Literature – a Phenomenon from the Periphery]. // Paper…, 26’44’’
(http://www.ilit.bas.bg/bg/marginal_literature_video.php).

31. Rakyovsky, T. (2011) Kanonizirani Figuri – Marginalni Avtori: Ivan Mirčev, Ivan
Grozev, D. Panteleev, Sirak Skitnik [Canonised Figures – Marginal Authors…]. //
Lecture…, (pp.1–23).

32. Ratiani, I. (2011) Sovetskij totalitarizm i formy literaturnogo diskursa [Soviet
Totalitarianism and the Forms of Literary Discourse]. // Lecture..., (pp.1–12).

33. Sid, I. (2008) Osnovnoj vopros geopoetiki [The Chief Question of Geopoetics] //
Krymskij klub: Pervaja konferencija po geopoetike (Moskva, 1996),
http://liter.net/geopoetics/penin.html. 

Armenian Folia Anglistika Literature

152



34. Stanchev, K. (2011) Literaturata na bŭlgarite-katolitsi: marginalna za Iztoka, per-
iferna za Zapada, no indicator za bŭdeštija model na bŭlgarskoto razvitie [The
Literature of Bulgarian Catholics: Marginal for/from the East, Peripheral for/from the
West, but Indicative of the Future Model of Bulgarian Development]. // Lecture…,
(pp.1–16).

35. Tacitus Annals. // The Works of Tacitus. / Tr. by A.J. Church and W.J. Brodribb [1864-
1877], http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/index.htm#section_000

36. Tenev, D. (2011) Neopredelenost i marginalnost pri vŭveždane na personaži vŭv fik-
tsionalni proizvedenija [Indeterminacy and Marginality in Introducing Characters in
Fiction] // Lecture…, (pp.1–18).

37. Thurston, L. (2011) David Jones: In Parenthesis, At the Margin. // Lecture…,
(pp.1–16).

38. Vajda, G.M. (1983) Einleitung: Marginale Literaturen. // Komparatistische Hefte:
“Marginale” Literaturen.../ Hg. J. Riesz, R. Taylor, T. Bleicher, Bayreuth: Universität
Bayreuth, Heft 7 (pp. 5–14).

39. Van Mierlo, W. (2004) Reading W. B. Yeats: The Marginalia of T. Sturge Moore. //
Variants 2/3 (2004) (pp.135–172).

40. White, K. (1987) Éléments de géopoétique. // Ibid: L’Esprit nomade. Paris: Grasset,
(pp. 272–293).

¶ñ³Ï³Ý »ñÏÇ Ù³ñ·ÇݳÉáõÃÛ³Ý ï»Õ³·ñ³Ï³Ý ¨ Ñé»ïáñ³Ï³Ý ѳۻó³Ï»ñå»ñÁ

êáõÛÝ Ñá¹í³ÍáõÙ ùÝݳñÏíáõÙ ¿ ·ñ³Ï³Ý »ñÏÇ ÇÙ³ëï³ÛÇÝ ë³ÑÙ³ÝÝ»ñÇ ËݹÇ-
ñÁ, ¨ íÇ׳ñÏíáõÙ ¿ ³ÛÝ Ñ³ñóÁ, û áñ »ñ¨áõÛÃÝ»ñÝ »Ý ѳٳñíáõÙ ë³ÑٳݳÛÇÝ,
³ÛëÇÝùÝ` ٳϻñ»ë³ÛÇÝ ·ñ³Ï³Ý »ñÏÇ Ñ³Ù³ñ: лÕÇݳÏÁ ÝßáõÙ ¿, áñ Ù³ñ·Çݳ-
ÉáõÃÛáõÝÁ í»ñ³μ» ñáõÙ ¿ íÇñïáõ³É å³ïÏ»ñÝ»ñÇÝ, áñáÝù ³é³ç³ÝáõÙ »Ý ·ñ³Ï³Ý
»ñÏÝ ÁÝûñó»ÉÇë, ÇÝãå»ë ݳ¨ ïå³·ñ³Ï³Ý ¿ çÇ å³ïÏ»ñÝ»ñÇÝ, áñáÝù ï³ñμ»ñ
ϳñ·Ç ÷áË³μ» ñ³Ï³Ý ÇÙ³ëïÝ»ñ »Ý ³é³ç³óÝáõÙ:

Armenian Folia AnglistikaLiterature

153