Armenia and the Armenians: A List of References in the New York Public Library — Inside the Classic

A Bibliography Framed by a Historical Thesis

Gottheil’s prefatory note does more than introduce the list; it advances a specific historical narrative. He describes Armenians as 'a remarkable race' with 'an uncommon history,' emphasizing their Indo-European roots and migration 'towards the rising sun.' This directional claim—that Armenians reversed the typical westward movement—is a distinctive authorial choice, one that colors the entire bibliography. The note also highlights the Armenians' inability to 'hold out long as an independent kingdom,' attributing this to the proximity of empires. By foregrounding this geopolitical vulnerability, Gottheil implicitly justifies the bibliography’s focus on the 'Armenian Question' and massacres, which occupy separate sections. The reader is thus primed to see the listed works not as neutral records but as evidence of a people shaped by external pressures.

The Compiler’s Hand: Ida A. Pratt’s Organizational Choices

The table of contents reveals Pratt’s systematic approach: 26 subject headings, from 'Bibliography' and 'Periodicals' to 'Armenian Church' and 'Armenians in Other Countries.' Each heading is a deliberate category that shapes how the user encounters the material. Notably, 'Massacres' appears as a subheading under 'History,' not as a standalone section, which embeds violence within a broader historical framework. The inclusion of 'Works in Armenian Relating to Other Countries' and 'Translations from European Languages' indicates a multilingual scope. Pratt also lists 'Mechitharists'—a specific Catholic Armenian order—as a separate category, reflecting the library’s holdings and perhaps Gottheil’s academic interests. These choices are not neutral; they guide the researcher toward particular themes and sources.

Diction and Detail in the Language Section

The 'Language' subsection (pages 47–53) showcases the bibliography’s granularity. Entries range from 18th-century grammars like Johann Joachim Schröder’s Thesaurus linguae Armenicae (1711) to contemporary articles on 'the Armenian alphabet' by A. G. Seklemian. Gottheil’s own scholarly network appears: multiple entries cite his colleague Richard J. H. Gottheil’s works on Armenian script and phonetics. The inclusion of German-language articles (e.g., 'Ueber die Stellung des Armenischen im Kreise der indogermanischen Sprachen') and French translations (Patkanov’s 'Recherches') reflects the international academic discourse. A notable entry is 'A Pocket dictionary of the English, Armenian and Turkish languages' (Venice, 1843), which hints at the trilingual reality of Ottoman Armenia. These details, while dry, reveal the compiler’s effort to capture both historical and contemporary linguistic scholarship.

The Prefatory Note as a Rhetorical Device

Gottheil’s note employs a formal yet emotive register. Phrases like 'so much pity and commiseration' and 'a remarkable race' blend scholarly observation with moral weight. He uses the first-person plural ('we') to align himself with the reader: 'According to their traditions, they are also of Indo-European race.' This inclusive 'we' invites the reader into a shared inquiry. The note also makes a pointed geographical argument: Armenians settled 'in the upper reaches of the Euphrates' and 'around Mt. Ararat,' a location laden with biblical resonance. By ending with the failure to maintain independence, Gottheil sets up the bibliography as a record of a people’s endurance despite political fragmentation. The note thus functions as a lens through which the entire list should be read—not as a dry catalog, but as a testament to a culture that persisted against the odds.

This bibliography is best approached as a period document: a snapshot of early 20th-century Western scholarship on Armenia, filtered through the holdings of a single library. The prefatory note’s blend of pity and praise, the careful subject divisions, and the inclusion of works in multiple languages all reflect the authorial choices of Gottheil and Pratt. Readers interested in the historiography of Armenian studies will find here a map of what was considered knowable in 1919—and what was left out.

That rainy afternoon, I sat cross-legged with the 1919 bibliography, tracing the Armenian Question through dusty yellow cards. Its quiet devotion to remembered things stayed with me, and later I found myself reaching for Of the Decorative Illustration of Books Old and New 3rd ed. — Story, Setting & Ideas, another kind of catalogue, another way of keeping beauty alive, page by page. Neither book asked anything of me. They simply waited.