"An Open Letter to Michael Arlen" - Garegin Nzhdeh

Garegin Nzhdeh's article "An Open Letter to Michael Arlen," published in issue No. 6 (9), is devoted to a polemical examination of the creative and spiritual evolution of the British writer of Armenian origin Tigran Kuyumjian (Michael Arlen), as well as to Nzhdeh's direct accusatory response to his disparaging statements about the Armenian people.

Introduction and biographical context
The author traces the path of Tigran Kuyumjian — from his birth in Ruse, Bulgaria, through his move to England and the beginning of his literary career, to his transformation into the fashionable London writer-dandy Michael Arlen. Particular attention is given to the little-known early period of his work — six articles published in 1916–1917 in the Armenian journal "Ararat."

The evolution of the Armenian theme in his early work
The article analyzes the successive shifts in Kuyumjian's authorial stance toward national identity:
• in "An Appeal to Reason" he refutes the stereotype of "starving Armenians," emphasizing their historical capacity for self-defense and self-governance;
• in "The Young Armenian" he criticizes his compatriots' tendency to conceal their nationality;
• in "A Very Serious Armenian" he calls into question the saving role of Christianity for the Armenian destiny;
• in his later articles ("Art and War," "Sic Semper Tyrannis," "Kings and Queens") an ideological rupture occurs — from national reflection to a denial of the significance of nationality as such and a loss of interest in Armenian issues.

Key thesis: transformation and rupture
It is shown that the decisive turning point occurs precisely between the third and fourth articles in "Ararat": having grown disillusioned with the prospects of a literary career within Armenian circles, Kuyumjian renounces his national identity, adopts the pseudonym Michael Arlen, and later British citizenship, finally breaking with his former theme.

The polemical section: "An Open Letter"
The central place in the article is occupied by Nzhdeh's own letter, addressed to Arlen in response to his demeaning statements about Armenians, published in an American magazine. Nzhdeh builds his argument along several lines:
• he accuses Arlen of betraying national dignity for the sake of literary effect, calling his words dictated by a "wounded Self" rather than by genuine pain for the fate of his people;
• he recalls the historical greatness of Armenia in the era of Tigranes the Great, contrasting it with its present humiliated condition;
• he acknowledges a share of the blame borne by Armenians themselves for the political catastrophe caused by internal discord, but denies the denationalized writer any right to judge his own people;
• he points to the tragedy of the present-day condition of Armenians, torn apart by party strife and threatened by the spiritual denationalization of the diaspora.

Conclusion
The article's key conclusion is that Arlen's renunciation of his national identity and his contemptuous statements about the Armenian people do not constitute objective criticism but rather manifest an inner moral fall, whereas, in Nzhdeh's view, a genuine attitude toward one's Homeland must stem from a desire to exalt its image, not to demean it for the sake of a literary pose.