Tweet
Hurriyet Daily News, turkey
Feb 14 2015
Forgotten life and work of Zabel Yessayan slowly coming to light
William Armstrong - [email protected]
The pioneering work of Zabel Yessayan, an Armenian author born in
Ottoman Istanbul in 1878, was almost entirely forgotten after her
death in the Soviet Union in the 1940s. Even in Armenia itself
Yessayan remains little known today, though new translations of her
work have recently been appearing in English.
Her memoir of growing up in late 19th century Istanbul, `The Gardens
of Silihdar' is reviewed here, and the Hürriyet Daily News spoke to
translator Jennifer Manoukian about Yessayan's mysterious life and
exceptional work.
Let's start by giving a broad idea about the background and context in
which she emerged, this broader ferment of changes in the Ottoman
Armenian community in the 19th century. What were the drivers of this
process?
It was a very exciting time for all nations in the Ottoman Empire. In
the Armenian community the change was driven mostly by reformers `
students who would become doctors, writers, lawyers - who went to
study in Europe at the beginning of the Tanzimat period, in the 1840s
and 1850s, and who returned to implement the trends they saw in
Europe. So we see a big push for improving the education system,
creating a periodical press, publishing books and reforming the
language. Before this period, there hadn't been much of a secular
literary culture. The literate class was dominated mostly by the
clergy, so there were few novels and newspapers being printed.
The reformers sought to transform society by making education and
writing much more accessible. With this, the themes in literature
expanded. The novel and the short story were adopted as literary
forms, which reinforced the new vernacular literary language,
different from the one used in the Church. It was a period of
tremendous change, and the growing pains could still be felt as
Yessayan was growing up in the 1880s and 1890s.
Yessayan herself was heavily involved in educational issues early on,
from what I gather.
Definitely. She benefitted from an excellent education, which has a
lot to do with her father who wasn't part of this reform movement but
who had adopted its ideals. He was committed to making sure his two
daughters got the best possible education and he tutored them
individually at home. He was the one who introduced them to the social
issues that would shape Zabel's consciousness'those that she would
address later on in her writing.
So she had an informal education with him, then she went to the local
Armenian school in Ã`sküdar, and eventually left for France, where she
was one of the first Armenian and Ottoman women to go to Europe to
study.
What was she doing in Paris? How old was she? How long does she spend there?
The memoir ends when she was 17. She was planning to write two more
volumes of it, but she was arrested shortly after it was published and
we don't have the later manuscripts, which may explain why it cuts off
so abruptly.
She left for Paris when she was 17, in 1895. In 1895, Armenian
intellectuals feared that they would no longer be able to write and
express themselves with as much freedom as they had before, because of
Sultan Abdülhamid's surveillance and censorship policies. Even though
she was so young, she was involved in these intellectual circles,
listening to these writers and activists, attending the same literary
salons.
Her father became concerned that his daughter would also fall victim
of Abdülhamid's policies, so he sent her to Paris to study at the
Sorbonne, where she would be protected from the political turmoil in
the Ottoman Empire and would also have a chance to hone her craft and
be exposed to new ideas. She already spoke French, so that wasn't a
problem. The family wasn't wealthy enough to send her all expenses
paid, so her father arranged for her to support herself by working as
an editorial assistant on a project to create a new French-Armenian
dictionary.
She arrived in Paris in 1895 and returned to Constantinople in 1902.
During that time a lot of things changed in her life. She was gaining
much more prominence in both French and Armenian circles. She got
married. She was publishing much more readily. What I really admire
about her is that she made an effort not only to write for the
Armenian community, but also to expose the French community to
Armenian literature. So from the very beginning she would translate
from Armenian into French, and she would write review pieces and other
articles that introduced the Armenian literary tradition to the French
public.
I wondered more broadly about her family's economic position, because
it's quite difficult to tell from the memoir.
It's tough to say because she doesn't really go into much detail. It's
an enigma. Her mother and her father's families both seem to have been
well-to-do. Her paternal grandfather was a judge, her maternal
great-grandfather was a civil servant, and other relatives had ties to
the palace. But her father was irresponsible with his money, which
caused his family to dip into periods of financial hardship. They had
some periods where there was a lot of tension relating to money. The
mother and the three aunts also worked, but it did not seem to
alleviate the burden. These financial issues would continue throughout
her life; she was never a wealthy woman.
In the review I refer to Yessayan as a feminist, but apparently she
was quite reluctant to use this term. Why?
We can only speculate that she was reluctant to identify as a women
writer or as a feminist, because writing by Armenian women at the time
wasn't considered to be very serious; it was seen as more of a pastime
for bourgeois women, who mostly wrote poetry in the romantic style.
Yessayan used to say that they just wrote `frivolous' stories, which
meant anything that wasn't attacking social injustice. She never
worked within the confines of the social norms established for women,
she tried to shatter them and redefine them for herself. The other
women writing at the time never broke into the inner circle of
Armenian literature like she did.
Yes, she used the word `feminist' with a lot of disdain and seems to
have understood feminists as women beholden to a kind of movement,
rather than women fighting autonomously to achieve political and
social equality. Dissociating herself from the feminist movement and
the term `feminism' seems to be just another way for her to assert her
independence of thought.
But she got along very well with like-minded women. She worked on
planning what was called the Solidarity League of Ottoman Women,
drafting this idea with other Turkish women around 1908, right after
the constitution was declared. The idea was to try to create cohesion
between women of different ethnic communities, working specifically on
education. During this time she also had plans to create an Armenian
school for girls, as well as another project to train women teachers
to teach in Armenian schools in the provinces. But even though she was
working towards all these goals for the advancement of women, she
tried to distance herself from the term `feminist,' as many women
still do today.
The memoir gives a classic image of introverted confessional
communities with little crossover. To what extent was Yessayan
involved in cross-communal links as she developed as an intellectual?
That's a question that I've also asked myself. I'd be very intrigued
to know if she was reading Turkish literature. We don't even know if
she had a strong handle on the Turkish language. But in the early
years she wasn't dealing too much with any intellectual activity
beyond the Armenian and French communities. Later on she developed a
number of allies, but these were all people who she met in Paris. She
had ties to Prince Sabahaddin, who was one of Sultan Abdülhamid's
relatives but had fallen out of favor and fled in 1899. She also
worked with Ahmed Rıza. But apart from that we don't know too much
about any inter-communal collaboration.
In the memoir she expresses a strong distaste for what she saw as the
`romantic sentimentalism' that was the literary fashion of the time,
in favor of a kind of rationalism.
Jennifer Manoukian, the translator of
Yessayan's book.
>From the very beginning, she adopted the style and themes of the
realist movement that was gaining momentum in the 1890s. This could be
because romantic sentimentalism was the genre that women would most
often write in, so it was another way to emphasize her exceptionalism
as an author, while also showing that women were capable of rational
thought. She does make the movement her own, though, by introducing
complex female protagonists in her novels and laying bare their
thoughts, fears and concerns. This is the first, and practically the
last, time in Western Armenian literature that we see such
multidimensional female characters and plot lines that address the
particular experiences of women. In `The Gardens of Silihdar' she
doesn't portray women in the best light. She doesn't seem have much
respect even for the women in her family, partly because they appear
to be driven by their emotions rather than by the rational principles
she espoused.
There's a big difference in how she portrays her mother and father.
Her father comes across very positively while her mother is the
opposite. What was behind this?
She had a very turbulent relationship with her mother during her
childhood. Partly because her mother was battling a severe form of
depression and couldn't really take care of her children.
But her father was the kind of person she wanted to become. He was
well-read, well-travelled, and very literary minded. He was also very
mentorly and never treated her like a child, which is something she
talks about in the book. Even when she was 10 years old he would have
conversations with her about politics and social inequity. He didn't
try to sugarcoat anything for her and always treated her like an
adult, who was capable of understanding complex ideas.
We can see the effects of this in her writing. Even in her very early
writing she has a maturity to her ideas and expression. Her father was
the one who encouraged her to write. He was actually the one who
encouraged her to write about the issues that women faced in Armenian
society at that time. She commented that his open-mindedness was an
anomaly at the time. Her friends who were struggling with fathers that
wanted to push them into marriages were envious of her, because hers
encouraged her to develop her intellect and pursue a life that wasn't
the expected route for women at the time.
She seems to have had an extremely peripatetic decade after leaving
Istanbul. Can you talk a little about the circumstances of why she
left the city, where she went, and how her work changed?
In 1915 she was one of the intellectuals targeted for arrest on April
24. That evening, the Ottoman authorities came to the house looking
for her, but she was visiting friends at the time. Her family got word
to her that she was being pursued, so she hid in a hospital in Ã`sküdar
for two months before fleeing over the Bulgarian border. But when
Bulgaria entered the First World War she had to flee again, and went
to the territory that would become the Independent Republic of Armenia
and then Soviet Armenia. She lived there for two years, collecting
many accounts and testimonies of Armenians who had fled the massacres
in the Ottoman Empire. That's what occupied her time from 1916 to 1918
- she was furiously interviewing people, documenting them and
translating them into French for publication in newspapers to raise
awareness about the plight of the Armenians.
In 1919 she settled in France, where we see a huge shift in her
politics. From 1922 on, she became an advocate of socialism and worked
hard to convince Armenians in the diaspora that there was no hope for
the Armenian nation outside of the Soviet Republic. Many of her
writings after 1922 were colored by her politics. A lot of them are
dismissed as propaganda pieces and not taken as seriously as the work
she had written earlier. She visited Armenia in 1926 and wrote what
she said was a travelogue, but was really just a way to lure diasporan
Armenians into moving to Soviet Armenia. She edited a French Armenian
newspaper with socialist leanings for a while and then eventually
moved to Armenia in 1933, settling there for good. That's where she
wrote `The Gardens of Silihdar,' which was a complete departure in
style and theme from her other writings post-1922.
After 1935 she was arrested on trumped up charges, imprisoned and sent
to a labor camp. The last we hear of her is in 1942 from a prison in
Baku.
It's so ironic and tragic that she said Armenians could only thrive in
Soviet Armenia, but then ended up a victim of Stalin's Great Purge.
What were the accusations against her?
The charges were subversion. It had happening to a handful of Ottoman
Armenian intellectuals who had settled in Soviet Armenia and who were
writing these kinds of memoirs and accounts. The authorities feared
they would incite the Armenian community to glorify a history that was
pre-Soviet. But it's all very secretive. Very little research has been
done into this period.
February/14/2015
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/forgotten-life-and-work-of-zabel-yessayan-slowly-coming-to-light-.aspx?pageID=238&nID=78335&NewsCatID=386
Feb 14 2015
Forgotten life and work of Zabel Yessayan slowly coming to light
William Armstrong - [email protected]
The pioneering work of Zabel Yessayan, an Armenian author born in
Ottoman Istanbul in 1878, was almost entirely forgotten after her
death in the Soviet Union in the 1940s. Even in Armenia itself
Yessayan remains little known today, though new translations of her
work have recently been appearing in English.
Her memoir of growing up in late 19th century Istanbul, `The Gardens
of Silihdar' is reviewed here, and the Hürriyet Daily News spoke to
translator Jennifer Manoukian about Yessayan's mysterious life and
exceptional work.
Let's start by giving a broad idea about the background and context in
which she emerged, this broader ferment of changes in the Ottoman
Armenian community in the 19th century. What were the drivers of this
process?
It was a very exciting time for all nations in the Ottoman Empire. In
the Armenian community the change was driven mostly by reformers `
students who would become doctors, writers, lawyers - who went to
study in Europe at the beginning of the Tanzimat period, in the 1840s
and 1850s, and who returned to implement the trends they saw in
Europe. So we see a big push for improving the education system,
creating a periodical press, publishing books and reforming the
language. Before this period, there hadn't been much of a secular
literary culture. The literate class was dominated mostly by the
clergy, so there were few novels and newspapers being printed.
The reformers sought to transform society by making education and
writing much more accessible. With this, the themes in literature
expanded. The novel and the short story were adopted as literary
forms, which reinforced the new vernacular literary language,
different from the one used in the Church. It was a period of
tremendous change, and the growing pains could still be felt as
Yessayan was growing up in the 1880s and 1890s.
Yessayan herself was heavily involved in educational issues early on,
from what I gather.
Definitely. She benefitted from an excellent education, which has a
lot to do with her father who wasn't part of this reform movement but
who had adopted its ideals. He was committed to making sure his two
daughters got the best possible education and he tutored them
individually at home. He was the one who introduced them to the social
issues that would shape Zabel's consciousness'those that she would
address later on in her writing.
So she had an informal education with him, then she went to the local
Armenian school in Ã`sküdar, and eventually left for France, where she
was one of the first Armenian and Ottoman women to go to Europe to
study.
What was she doing in Paris? How old was she? How long does she spend there?
The memoir ends when she was 17. She was planning to write two more
volumes of it, but she was arrested shortly after it was published and
we don't have the later manuscripts, which may explain why it cuts off
so abruptly.
She left for Paris when she was 17, in 1895. In 1895, Armenian
intellectuals feared that they would no longer be able to write and
express themselves with as much freedom as they had before, because of
Sultan Abdülhamid's surveillance and censorship policies. Even though
she was so young, she was involved in these intellectual circles,
listening to these writers and activists, attending the same literary
salons.
Her father became concerned that his daughter would also fall victim
of Abdülhamid's policies, so he sent her to Paris to study at the
Sorbonne, where she would be protected from the political turmoil in
the Ottoman Empire and would also have a chance to hone her craft and
be exposed to new ideas. She already spoke French, so that wasn't a
problem. The family wasn't wealthy enough to send her all expenses
paid, so her father arranged for her to support herself by working as
an editorial assistant on a project to create a new French-Armenian
dictionary.
She arrived in Paris in 1895 and returned to Constantinople in 1902.
During that time a lot of things changed in her life. She was gaining
much more prominence in both French and Armenian circles. She got
married. She was publishing much more readily. What I really admire
about her is that she made an effort not only to write for the
Armenian community, but also to expose the French community to
Armenian literature. So from the very beginning she would translate
from Armenian into French, and she would write review pieces and other
articles that introduced the Armenian literary tradition to the French
public.
I wondered more broadly about her family's economic position, because
it's quite difficult to tell from the memoir.
It's tough to say because she doesn't really go into much detail. It's
an enigma. Her mother and her father's families both seem to have been
well-to-do. Her paternal grandfather was a judge, her maternal
great-grandfather was a civil servant, and other relatives had ties to
the palace. But her father was irresponsible with his money, which
caused his family to dip into periods of financial hardship. They had
some periods where there was a lot of tension relating to money. The
mother and the three aunts also worked, but it did not seem to
alleviate the burden. These financial issues would continue throughout
her life; she was never a wealthy woman.
In the review I refer to Yessayan as a feminist, but apparently she
was quite reluctant to use this term. Why?
We can only speculate that she was reluctant to identify as a women
writer or as a feminist, because writing by Armenian women at the time
wasn't considered to be very serious; it was seen as more of a pastime
for bourgeois women, who mostly wrote poetry in the romantic style.
Yessayan used to say that they just wrote `frivolous' stories, which
meant anything that wasn't attacking social injustice. She never
worked within the confines of the social norms established for women,
she tried to shatter them and redefine them for herself. The other
women writing at the time never broke into the inner circle of
Armenian literature like she did.
Yes, she used the word `feminist' with a lot of disdain and seems to
have understood feminists as women beholden to a kind of movement,
rather than women fighting autonomously to achieve political and
social equality. Dissociating herself from the feminist movement and
the term `feminism' seems to be just another way for her to assert her
independence of thought.
But she got along very well with like-minded women. She worked on
planning what was called the Solidarity League of Ottoman Women,
drafting this idea with other Turkish women around 1908, right after
the constitution was declared. The idea was to try to create cohesion
between women of different ethnic communities, working specifically on
education. During this time she also had plans to create an Armenian
school for girls, as well as another project to train women teachers
to teach in Armenian schools in the provinces. But even though she was
working towards all these goals for the advancement of women, she
tried to distance herself from the term `feminist,' as many women
still do today.
The memoir gives a classic image of introverted confessional
communities with little crossover. To what extent was Yessayan
involved in cross-communal links as she developed as an intellectual?
That's a question that I've also asked myself. I'd be very intrigued
to know if she was reading Turkish literature. We don't even know if
she had a strong handle on the Turkish language. But in the early
years she wasn't dealing too much with any intellectual activity
beyond the Armenian and French communities. Later on she developed a
number of allies, but these were all people who she met in Paris. She
had ties to Prince Sabahaddin, who was one of Sultan Abdülhamid's
relatives but had fallen out of favor and fled in 1899. She also
worked with Ahmed Rıza. But apart from that we don't know too much
about any inter-communal collaboration.
In the memoir she expresses a strong distaste for what she saw as the
`romantic sentimentalism' that was the literary fashion of the time,
in favor of a kind of rationalism.
Jennifer Manoukian, the translator of
Yessayan's book.
>From the very beginning, she adopted the style and themes of the
realist movement that was gaining momentum in the 1890s. This could be
because romantic sentimentalism was the genre that women would most
often write in, so it was another way to emphasize her exceptionalism
as an author, while also showing that women were capable of rational
thought. She does make the movement her own, though, by introducing
complex female protagonists in her novels and laying bare their
thoughts, fears and concerns. This is the first, and practically the
last, time in Western Armenian literature that we see such
multidimensional female characters and plot lines that address the
particular experiences of women. In `The Gardens of Silihdar' she
doesn't portray women in the best light. She doesn't seem have much
respect even for the women in her family, partly because they appear
to be driven by their emotions rather than by the rational principles
she espoused.
There's a big difference in how she portrays her mother and father.
Her father comes across very positively while her mother is the
opposite. What was behind this?
She had a very turbulent relationship with her mother during her
childhood. Partly because her mother was battling a severe form of
depression and couldn't really take care of her children.
But her father was the kind of person she wanted to become. He was
well-read, well-travelled, and very literary minded. He was also very
mentorly and never treated her like a child, which is something she
talks about in the book. Even when she was 10 years old he would have
conversations with her about politics and social inequity. He didn't
try to sugarcoat anything for her and always treated her like an
adult, who was capable of understanding complex ideas.
We can see the effects of this in her writing. Even in her very early
writing she has a maturity to her ideas and expression. Her father was
the one who encouraged her to write. He was actually the one who
encouraged her to write about the issues that women faced in Armenian
society at that time. She commented that his open-mindedness was an
anomaly at the time. Her friends who were struggling with fathers that
wanted to push them into marriages were envious of her, because hers
encouraged her to develop her intellect and pursue a life that wasn't
the expected route for women at the time.
She seems to have had an extremely peripatetic decade after leaving
Istanbul. Can you talk a little about the circumstances of why she
left the city, where she went, and how her work changed?
In 1915 she was one of the intellectuals targeted for arrest on April
24. That evening, the Ottoman authorities came to the house looking
for her, but she was visiting friends at the time. Her family got word
to her that she was being pursued, so she hid in a hospital in Ã`sküdar
for two months before fleeing over the Bulgarian border. But when
Bulgaria entered the First World War she had to flee again, and went
to the territory that would become the Independent Republic of Armenia
and then Soviet Armenia. She lived there for two years, collecting
many accounts and testimonies of Armenians who had fled the massacres
in the Ottoman Empire. That's what occupied her time from 1916 to 1918
- she was furiously interviewing people, documenting them and
translating them into French for publication in newspapers to raise
awareness about the plight of the Armenians.
In 1919 she settled in France, where we see a huge shift in her
politics. From 1922 on, she became an advocate of socialism and worked
hard to convince Armenians in the diaspora that there was no hope for
the Armenian nation outside of the Soviet Republic. Many of her
writings after 1922 were colored by her politics. A lot of them are
dismissed as propaganda pieces and not taken as seriously as the work
she had written earlier. She visited Armenia in 1926 and wrote what
she said was a travelogue, but was really just a way to lure diasporan
Armenians into moving to Soviet Armenia. She edited a French Armenian
newspaper with socialist leanings for a while and then eventually
moved to Armenia in 1933, settling there for good. That's where she
wrote `The Gardens of Silihdar,' which was a complete departure in
style and theme from her other writings post-1922.
After 1935 she was arrested on trumped up charges, imprisoned and sent
to a labor camp. The last we hear of her is in 1942 from a prison in
Baku.
It's so ironic and tragic that she said Armenians could only thrive in
Soviet Armenia, but then ended up a victim of Stalin's Great Purge.
What were the accusations against her?
The charges were subversion. It had happening to a handful of Ottoman
Armenian intellectuals who had settled in Soviet Armenia and who were
writing these kinds of memoirs and accounts. The authorities feared
they would incite the Armenian community to glorify a history that was
pre-Soviet. But it's all very secretive. Very little research has been
done into this period.
February/14/2015
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/forgotten-life-and-work-of-zabel-yessayan-slowly-coming-to-light-.aspx?pageID=238&nID=78335&NewsCatID=386