Philosophical-Anthropological Interpretation of Romantic Love In The Works of Srbuhi Tyusab and Sipil

Authors

  • Naira Hambardzumyan Institute of Literature after Manuk Abeghian, NAS RA
  • Siranush Parsadanyan Institute of Literature after Manuk AAbeghian, NAS RA

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46991/BYSU:B/2023.14.1.023

Keywords:

Srbuhi Tyusab, Sipil, romantic love, Western Armenian female authors, philosophical-anthropological interpretation, subject, subjectivity

Abstract

The aim of the study is to show the literary texts of the Era of Romanticism, as opportunities for the formation of a philosophical-anthropological interpretation of romantic love and a cultural phenomenon, using the example of the novels “Mayta”, “Siranush”, and “Araksia or the Teacher” by Srbuhi Tyusab and “A Girl's Heart” by Sipil, Western Armenian female authors who lived and created in the second half of the 19th century, as well as to emphasize the deep connection of romantic love and romantic discourse with the needs and possibilities of an individual’s self-realization. The problem of the study is to emphasize all the changes conditioned by expressions of romantic love, which are materialized and realized in the novels of Western Armenian female authors and are present in the multidimensionality of the semantic domains of the categories of subject and subjectivity, through the philosophical-anthropological discourse. The relevance of the study is conditioned by the discovery of the romantic novel of the second half of the 19th century in a new way in the domain of modern challenges, which is opposed to the traditional analysis model in the historical and cultural context. We have studied the romantic texts (novels) of Western Armenian female authors, Srbuhi Tyusab and Sipil, in the context of philosophical-anthropological depiction and women's emancipation from the perspectives of socio-cultural and worldview transformations, as well as symbolism.

Author Biographies

Naira Hambardzumyan, Institute of Literature after Manuk Abeghian, NAS RA

PhD in Philology, Associate Professor, Senior Researcher at the Department of Literature of the Armenian Diaspora

Siranush Parsadanyan, Institute of Literature after Manuk AAbeghian, NAS RA

PhD Student, Junior Research Fellow

References

Beauvoir, Semone De (1956) The Second Sex: Translated and Edeted by H.M. Parshley. Jonatan Cape: Thirty Bedford Square London. London. 701.

Gasset, Jose Ortega Y (2012) On love: aspects of a single theme, Publisher: Martino Fine Books. 204.

Giddens, Anthony (1992) The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 212.

Шлегель, Ф (1980) Речь о мифологии. Литературные манифесты западноевропейских романтиков. М.: Изд-во Моск. ун-та. 639.

Jung, C G (1957) Anima and Animus, N.Y.: Spring Magazine; Binswanger H (1963) Positive Aspects of the Animus. N.Y.: Spring Magazine; Hillman J (1973) Anima. N.Y.: Spring Magazine.

Rowland, Susan (2022) Teaching Jung: Edited by Kelly Bulkeley and Clodagh Weldon: Chapter 2: Anima, Gender, Feminism, Oxford Academic: 169-182.

Սիպիլ (1891) Աղջկան մը սիրտը, Կ. Պոլիս, տպ. Ճիվէլէկեան, 251:

Stendal (1920) On Love, Translated from the French with an Introduction and Notes by Philip Sidney Woolf and Cecil N. Sidney Woolf, M. A., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. New York. Brentano’s: First Published 1915, Reprinted Printed in Great Britain at The May flower Press, Plymouth: William Brendon & Son, 336.

Solomon, R (2005) Subjectivity, in Honderich: United Kingdom: Ted. Oxford Companion to Philosophy: Oxford University Press: 900.

Տյուսաբ, Ս (1883) Մայտա, Կ. Պոլիս, տպ. Զարդարեան, 249:

Տյուսաբ, Ս (1885) Սիրանոյշ, Կ. Պոլիս, տպ. Նշան Կ Պէրպէրեան, 408:

Published

2023-04-14

How to Cite

Hambardzumyan, N., & Parsadanyan, S. (2023). Philosophical-Anthropological Interpretation of Romantic Love In The Works of Srbuhi Tyusab and Sipil. Bulletin of Yerevan University B: Philology, 14(1 (40), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.46991/BYSU:B/2023.14.1.023

Issue

Section

Literary Criticism