based on the survey by Herrmann Abich in 1844, and revised on the spot by H.F.B. Lynch in 1894
For the benefit of such of my readers whose leisure may be unequal to a perusal of this long description, I would single out for particular study the cathedral (Figs. [72] and [74]), the church of St. Gregory (Figs. [76], [77], and [78]), and the two polygonal chapels (Figs. [85] and [88]). These monuments are examples of the Armenian style at its very best, before it was brought under the direct influence of Mussulman art and adopted with slight variations Mussulman models. Except in the case of the church of St. Gregory, we have authentic evidence that they are works of the kingly period. The merits of the style are the diversity of its resources, the elegance of the ornament in low relief, the perfect execution of every part. It combines many of the characteristics of Byzantine art and of the style which we term Gothic, and which at that date was still unborn. The conical roofs of the domes are a distinctive feature, as also are the purely Oriental niches. Texier is of opinion that the former of these features was carried into Central Europe by the colonies of emigrants from the city on the Arpa Chai.[123]
In the portals of St. Gregory and of the church of the Apostles (Figs. [78] and [92]) we have elaborate examples of the later period when the influence of Mussulman art was supreme. And the pronaos of Khosha Vank, with its massive pillars and groined ceilings, with the finely sculptured panels in the dome, seems to blend some of the characteristics of the architecture of the kings with the plainer style which belongs to the mosque.
But a lesson of wider import, transcending the sphere of the history of architecture, may be derived from a visit to the capital of the Bagratid dynasty, and from the study of the living evidence of a vanished civilisation which is lavished upon the traveller within her walls. Her monuments throw a strong light upon the character of the Armenian people, and they bring into pronouncement important features of Armenian history. They leave no doubt that this people may be included in the small number of races who have shown themselves susceptible of the highest culture. They exhibit the Armenians as able and sympathetic intermediaries between the civilisation of the Byzantine Empire, with its legacies from that of Rome, and the nations of the East. They testify to the tragic suddenness with which the development of the race was arrested at a time when they had attained a measure of political freedom, and when their capacities, thus favoured, were commencing to bear fruit. The Armenian architects thenceforward subserve the taste of their Mussulman masters; and during the long centuries which have elapsed since the Seljuk conquest, the genius of their countrymen has been exploited by the semi-barbarous peoples of Asia, while their abilities and character have progressively declined and become debased.
For all these reasons a special duty devolves upon the traveller to address a pressing appeal both to the Armenians and to the Russian Government for the preservation of these monuments. I have already mentioned the abstraction of two important bas-reliefs, and the petty thefts which are taking place with increasing frequency. Of the buildings observed by my predecessors within comparatively recent years, the octagonal minaret has already succumbed. A like fate will presently overtake the chapel of the Redeemer, unless measures be promptly taken to maintain that edifice. The monastery of Horomos is falling into ruin. Rich Armenians spend vast sums upon the embellishment of Edgmiatsin; can none be found to conserve for the instruction of posterity the noblest examples of the genius of their race? The co-operation of the Russian Government should be secured in this laudable enterprise; nor need we despair that it will be forthcoming in such a cause. Much as that Government is inclined to discourage Armenian patriotism, it rarely omits to perform a service in the interests of culture when the appeal is general and the interests are clear.
[1] John Katholikos. He has been translated by Saint-Martin (Paris, 1841, a posthumous work). His History, which for a large part is a history of his own times, does not quite bring us down to the constitution of Ani into a royal residence. [↑]
[2] The vanity of the Byzantine court denied them the actual title of king; and the imperial author, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, translates the Persian distinction which they afterwards acquired, that of Shahanshah, by the term ἄρχων ἀρχόντων. [↑]
[3] For the Artsruni and the Bagratuni I will refer my reader to Saint-Martin (Mémoires sur l’Arménie, Paris, 1818, vol. i. pp. 418 seq.); for the Georgian Bagratuni to Brosset (Histoire de la Géorgie, Histoire ancienne, St. Petersburg, 1849, Addition IX.). [↑]
[4] Dulaurier (Recherches sur la Chronologie Arménienne, Paris, 1859, pp. 227 seq.). [↑]