struggle were brought face to face. The Seljuks reinforced the failing
energies of Islam, but infused into the body to which they lent new
vigour an intractable strain of barbarism which it has retained to
the present day. On the high-road of their depredations they were now
confronted by a redoubtable adversary, the champion of Christianity
and of whatever culture the age possessed. But that religion, become
debased, had already sapped the foundations of culture; the winged
mind of the Greeks had been imprisoned by a rigorous dogmatism; and
their bodies were either crushed by the discipline of the monastery
or exhausted by the refinements of the life of sensual pleasure. The
greatness of their inheritance and the extent of the resources
which they administered had been equal to producing a Nikephorus,
a Zimiskes and a Basil; but this grain of Roman genius was allowed
to wither by the succeeding princes; and we feel the force of the
comparison which is drawn by the Armenian historian between the quiet
strength and benignant policy of Basil and the dissolute habits and
feeble half-measures of Monomachus. [316] The safety of the provinces
was made subordinate to the interests of the Greek hierarchy; the
Armenians were irritated by renewed attempts to bring them over to
Byzantine orthodoxy; and their resistance was punished by the removal
of the strongest characters from the native seats in the defence
of which they would have given their lives. The new territories
were handed over to Greek eunuchs, to whom was entrusted their
administration and defence. [317] In the year 1055 the inhabitants
were massacred outside the walls of Ani by an enemy which perhaps
consisted of a detachment of Seljuks in concert with the forces of
the emir of Karabagh. [318] The final blow was delivered nine years
later by the successor of Toghrul, the famous Alp Arslan. After a
successful campaign in the Georgian country he arrived before Ani
in the summer of 1064. The appearance of the city at that date is
described in eloquent terms, if with some exaggeration, by Matthew
of Edessa. Such was the number of the population assembled within
its ramparts that the Turks believed them to comprise the greater
part of the Armenian nation. Mass was celebrated in a thousand and
one churches. Precipitous cliffs protected the site for almost the
whole circuit, and it was embraced by the sinuous course of the Arpa
Chai. On one side only was there level or slightly shelving ground for
a distance about equal to the flight of an arrow. It was upon the walls
which defended this vulnerable side that the Seljuk sultan directed
his attack. After a siege of twenty-five days the Turks penetrated
into the city. Each man carried a knife in either hand and a third
between his teeth. The garrison had retired into the inner citadel,
and the defenceless inhabitants were mown down like grass. One of
the barbarians mounted upon the roof of the cathedral, and hurled to
the ground the great cross which rose from the dome. A little door
gave him access to the interior of the dome, whence he precipitated
a crystal lamp, perhaps of Indian origin, which had been presented
by King Sembat the Second. The capture of Ani prepared the way for
the investiture of Kars; but the king of Kars appeased the victor
by attiring himself in black robes, which he affected to be wearing
out of respect for the death of Toghrul. From these successes the
Seljuks were carried forward into the bosom of the Empire; and the
signal defeat near Melazkert of the Cæsar Romanus in 1071 finally
decided the long struggle in favour of the Mohammedan world. [319]
From these momentous issues, with which the fortunes of Ani were
so closely connected, it is an abrupt descent to the plane of her
subsequent history. I have already had occasion to mention the two
chief actors in this minor drama, the Bagratid dynasty of Georgia
and the Kurdish dynasty of Karabagh. [320] The Georgian Bagratids
weathered the storm of the Seljuk invasions; and they attained during
the course of the twelfth and the commencement of the thirteenth
century a wide dominion over the adjacent lands. A lesser station must
be assigned to the Mussulman family of the Beni-Cheddad, who in the
decline of the caliphate had established themselves in the valleys of
the Kur and the Araxes, and whose kinsmen probably wandered over the
mountains of Karabagh, which at the present day still harbour Kurdish
tribes. The particular clan to which they belonged is said to have
been named Rewadi; but they became possessed of the important town
of Gandzak in the valley of the Kur (the modern Elizabetpol), and of
Dvin, the ancient Armenian metropolis, in that of the Araxes. I have
twice spoken of their prince, a figure of some importance during the
reigns of John Sembat and Gagik the Second, at first the ally and
then the determined adversary of the Empire and the coadjutor of Alp
Arslan. Abulsevar--the Chawir of the Arabs, the Aplesphares of the
Greeks--is well known to the Byzantine annalists, and is styled by
them, no less than by the Armenian writers, the prince of Dvin. [321]
His son and successor, Fathlun, purchased Ani from the Seljuk sultan,
and gave it over to his brother Manuchar (A.D. 1072). This ruler
appears to have governed with moderation; and he was confirmed in
his dignity by the successor of Alp Arslan, the humane Malek Shah,
who extended the Seljuk empire to the Mediterranean. After the death
of Manuchar in A.D. 1110 [322] the inhabitants were much harassed by
their Mussulman and Georgian neighbours during the government of his
son and successor, another Abulsevar. They appealed for help to the
Bagratid king of Georgia, David the Second, and opened their gates to
that monarch (A.D. 1124). Abulsevar and his sons were carried off to
Tiflis, and the unhappy prince, with two of his children, perished
in an unhealthy prison. [323] This revolution restored the city to
a Christian administration, after a Mussulman occupation of sixty
years. The cathedral, which had served as a mosque, was restored to
Christian worship and consecrated anew with great pomp. But David
the Second died in the following year; and his son and successor
Dimitri was confronted with an investiture of Ani by Fathlun, the
eldest son of the deceased ruler, who had been absent at the time of
the Georgian conquest and who was thirsting to avenge his father. The
issue of a lengthy siege was a happy compromise, by which the Kurdish
emir assumed the government under a pledge to reserve the cathedral
to the exclusive use of his Armenian subjects (A.D. 1125-26). [324]
Fathlun was killed in battle in the year 1132, and was succeeded by
his brother Mahmud. [325] The Kurdish dynasty continued to drag on a
precarious existence as lords of Ani until towards the close of the
twelfth century; but they lost Gandzak to the Seljuks in 1088, and
Dvin to the Georgians in 1162. [326] The conqueror of Dvin, George the
Third, was twice the conqueror of Ani. His first expedition belongs
to the year 1161, when he made himself master of the place after a
single day's siege. [327] But his success exasperated his Mussulman
neighbours, and he was confronted in the same year by the emir of
Akhlat at the head of an army numbering 80,000 men. The pompous title
of this prince, that of Shah of Armenia, serves to accentuate his
signal defeat by the Georgian king. But the Mussulmans renewed their
attacks under the guidance or at the prompting of Ildigiz, the Atabeg
governor of Azerbaijan. About the year 1165 George was constrained
to restore Ani to them, and it again came into the possession of
the Beni-Cheddad. From these it passed for the third time into the
hands of the Georgians in 1173-74. [328] During the reign of Thamar
the luckless inhabitants were surprised and massacred by the emir of
Ardabil in eastern Azerbaijan. Even at that period, the commencement
of the thirteenth century, the city was still rich and populous. [329]
But the advent of the Tartars in A.D. 1239 was the occasion of a new
catastrophe, the place being sacked by the savage bands of Jenghiz
Khan. In 1319 Ani was visited by a severe earthquake, to which Armenian
writers ascribe her final abandonment. But there exists evidence to
show that this consummation was deferred to a later and uncertain date.
I feel that I owe an apology to my reader for this long excursion into
Armenian history. But my endeavour has been to encompass a double
purpose, that of presenting in a sufficient narrative the capital
events in the annals of Ani, and that of sketching in from various
and scattered sources the larger history of the Armenian kingdom of
the Middle Ages. The attention of the traveller, no less than that of
the statesman and the man of culture, is frequently directed to that
neglected but fascinating subject, which indeed explains the present
condition of the Armenians and which conducts us to the threshold of
our own era. We cannot learn much from the long intervening spaces
of time during which Tartars and Turkomans, and Ottoman Turks and
Persians ruled in a country which was forgotten by the West. A deep
sleep settles on the land, given over to shepherds, from which it
scarcely awakes at the distant calling of the modern epoch. The
natural development of the Armenian people was suddenly arrested by
the Seljuk conquest, and the abler among them were forced to seek new
homes. Some stout spirits established themselves in the mountains of
Cilicia, where they founded a petty kingdom which endured for nearly
three hundred years (A.D. 1080-1375). The obstinacy of their race was
made manifest by the long resistance of this colony to the spiritual
guidance of the popes of Rome. The friends of the Crusaders, they were
at length overwhelmed by the Turks, who suppressed the dynasty. Their
descendants still maintain themselves about their adopted seats,
secure in their mountain fastnesses. But perhaps the most remarkable
outcome of this dispersal was the emigration of the inhabitants of Ani
to Poland, Moldavia and Galicia, to Astrakhan on the northern shore
of the Caspian, and thence to the Crimea. Many of these colonies have
endured to the present day. Some among them were permitted to retain
their own laws; and the jurisprudence of the Armenian kings figures
in the code of the colony of Lemberg, which was administered by the
Armenian notables with the express sanction of the Polish kings and
which has been preserved to the curiosity of our own age. [330]
My reader is now in possession of an outline of the history of
the deserted city before the walls of which he stands. He is also
familiar with the large surroundings which overpower this elegant
architecture--in the distance the pile of Alagöz and the dome of
Ararat; far and near the undulating upland plain, deeply cañoned by
the sinuous course of the Arpa Chai. But the site of Ani calls for
some particular description. [331] It has been built within the fork
described by the meeting of two ravines which have been eroded by
the action of water to a considerable depth below the level of the
plain. In the more westerly of these ravines flows a small stream
coming down from the Alaja Dagh (p. 330), which was known to the old
priest by its older name of Tsaghkotz, [332] but which some travellers
have called the Alaja Chai. The more easterly is occupied by the Arpa
Chai, the ancient Akhurean. Near the confluence, the two streams are
only separated by a narrow spit, and their waters hiss at the base of
crags composed of lava. But the greater portion of the site consists
of a spacious platform, flanked on two sides by the ravines. At a
distance of about a mile above the junction of the waters two small
side valleys descend into the principal depressions from within the
area which they enclose. The one is directed towards the west and
joins the trough of the Alaja; the other pursues a south-easterly
course to the chasm of the Arpa Chai. The heads of these two side
valleys are separated from one another by a considerable stretch of
unbroken ground. It is on that side only and along that space that
the site is weak. And it is there that the double line of walls have
been erected, fronted in ancient times by a moat (Fig. 70). [333]
The character of this double wall and the appearance of the towers
are exhibited in my illustration, which was taken from outside,
in front of the principal gateway. The long line of fortifications
is seen extending towards the east. Such walls are composed at
Ani of an inner core of solid conglomerate, faced on either side
with rectangular blocks of hewn stone. One admires the exquisite
art with which the masonry is disposed and the minute fitting
at the joints. We enter the enclosure between the two parapets,
and walk for a short distance in an easterly direction. Above us,
upon the face of the inner wall, is placed a fine bas-relief
of a lion (Fig. 71); and almost immediately we arrive at the
inner gateway, just west of the great tower. A somewhat effaced
inscription is seen above the arch. It has been copied, but the
interpretation and date are obscure. [334] We know that these walls
were originally built by King Sembat the Second (A.D. 977-989);
[335] but they must have been restored and towers added at later
dates. The earliest inscription which has been discovered was
found on a round tower not far from this entrance. It is in Cufic
character, and records that the tower was erected by Manuchar the
son of Chawir, or Abulsevar. We have already seen that Manuchar was
the first ruler in Ani of the Kurdish family of the Beni-Cheddad
(A.D. 1072). Other inscriptions belong to the latter half of the
twelfth century and the commencement of the thirteenth. They are
in Armenian and establish the fact that some of the towers were
constructed by private persons as memorials to themselves. [336]
Once within the archway through the inner wall, the interior of
the city is displayed in a long perspective to our gaze. But we
might have to mount upon one of the parapets, in order to survey
the irregularities of the large triangular space as far as the
citadel at its further and narrow end. This north-easterly or
broader portion of the site is covered with the débris of the
private dwellings, not one of which has remained erect. They
must have been packed together in a most uncomfortable manner,
and they were probably built for the greater part of inferior
material. [337] It is as though a Persian runner had swished them
away with his long cane to open the view to the noble monuments
which still stand. Behind us, as we proceed, the long barrier of
the fortifications opens out on either side. The inner walls of
many of the towers have fallen in, and their vaulted interiors
are laid bare. They suggest the appearance of a series of apses
as they soar up into the sky.
Directing our steps towards the cathedral, the largest of the
buildings, we pass the scattered fragments of an octagonal
tower (No. 11 on the plan), which must have succumbed at a
comparatively recent date. It has been seen while still perfect by
my predecessors, who have described it as a minaret. It may have
also served as a watch-tower. One huge block of masonry which has
held together still displays the large proportions and the form
of the structure. The remains of a spiral staircase engage the
eye, and one is impressed with the excellence of the masonry. Two
inscriptions have been found upon this pile. One in Persian bears
the date Heg. 595 or A.D. 1198-99, and is to the effect that
one Kei-Sultan of the Beni-Cheddad family "forbids the sale of
sheep and camels in front of this mosque of Abu-l-Mamran." The
other is in Armenian and without date or personal sanction,
being a mere exhortation to obey the order. One must suppose,
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the minaret
belonged to a mosque which has disappeared. [338]
The cathedral will surprise the traveller, even if he have come
from Edgmiatsin. Although of small proportions, if judged by a
European standard, it is nevertheless a stately building. [339]
It bears the imprint of that undefinable quality, beauty, and can
scarcely fail to arouse a thrill of delight in the spectator. It
is seen to great advantage, adjacent edifices having disappeared
(Fig. 72). The extreme simplicity of the design--an oblong figure
of four almost unbroken walls--at once appeals to the eye. The
skill with which these plain spaces have been treated is the
feature which is admired in the next place. The apse is only
indicated by two niches which recess back from the face of the
wall on the east (Figs. 72 and 73). Two similar niches are seen
on the south, and, I think, also on the north side; but their
purpose is ornamental and to secure uniformity of design. The
remainder of the space is diversified by the lightest of false
arcades, which rises almost to the roof, embraces the niches and
extends to all four walls. My illustration (Fig. 72) displays
the southern and eastern fronts; that on the north resembles
its counterpart, but is less ornate. The façade is practically
the same as the eastern front, but without the niches and with
a low doorway. Similar doorways are conspicuous on the northern
and southern sides. One remarks the tall and slender pillars of
the false arcades, the cushion form of the capitals with their
richly chiselled faces, the low spring of the rounded arches which
curve inwards at the base, but scarcely suggest, so slight is the
curve, the horse-shoe shape. The row of these arched mouldings is
pleasantly broken at the doorway, which is surmounted by a narrow
window with a rectangular frame of chiselled stone. And the bold
arched moulding of pointed form, which envelops door and window,
takes the eye above the tops of the neighbouring arches and leads
it upwards to the loftier roof of the transept.
The architecture of the roof is less single of
feature. Multiplicity of outlines and contrast of shapes are the
characteristics which are here displayed. At one level you have
the aisles, at another the nave and transept, at yet another
the supreme crown of the dome. Here it is a group of gables;
there the large circle of the drum of the dome; there again the
cone formed by the roof of the dome. This uppermost member of the
series has unhappily fallen in; but enough remains of the drum
to enable the eye to complete the picture, and to reconstruct
the delicate mouldings of a false arcade. We have in fact a roof
scene essentially Byzantine in character, but which is quite free
of that suggestion of a series of box-like elevations which is
engendered by the appearance of some specimens of the style. On
the contrary, we receive the impression of a stately simplicity
underlying the diversity of outline and form.
The interior is quite remarkable from the standpoint of the history
of architecture; it is also calculated to deserve the admiration
of the lover of art. It has many of the characteristics of the
Gothic style, of which it establishes the Oriental origin. [340]
The dome is supported by four massive piers of coupled pillars with
plain capitals. Four similar piers are placed at either extremity
of the building, a pair at the entrance and one on each side of
the apse. A feature of the edifice is the extreme narrowness
of the aisles and the corresponding constriction of the side
chapels at their eastern extremity. The relative proportions of
the apse and of these minor apses may be discovered by a glance
at the illustration of the eastern front, where the extent of
the latter is indicated by the two arches with little windows,
one on either side of the niches. The Gothic appearance of
the interior is still further accentuated by the bold pointed
arches which spring from the piers. Our curiosity is aroused by
these characteristics; but our emotions awake as we contemplate
the magnificent apse (Fig. 74). [341] That element of grandeur
which we miss in Armenian churches is here made manifest in a
high degree. It is imparted by the apse to the whole interior;
and the apse becomes, by a happy inspiration of the architect,
indeed the head and soul of the church.
Vestiges of paintings upon the ceilings have been observed by my
predecessors; but I do not know that the building suffers from
their destruction. The plaster has fallen, and the perfection
of the masonry is exposed. The roofs as well as the walls are
composed of stone, and, as usual in Armenian churches, no wood or
metal has been used. Even at the present day the Armenian masons
are possessed of exceptional skill; and their natural gifts have
been here directed by the conceptions of genius. Although the
interior is almost free of ornament, the art of the sculptor has
been employed upon the enrichment of the outside niches, of the
doorways and windows, and of the mouldings of the false arcade. In
no case do we discover any trace of barbarism; the designs are
sober and full of grace, the execution is beyond praise. [342]
The impression which we take away from our survey of these various
features is that we have been introduced to a monument of the
highest artistic merit, denoting a standard of culture which was
far in advance of the contemporary standards in the West.
Several inscriptions in Armenian are visible upon the walls
and have been copied and translated. [343] The earliest in date
is found upon the south wall and is of some length. It records
that in the year 1010 (Arm. era 459), during the reign of Gagik,
king of the kings of Armenia and Georgia, the cathedral, which
had been founded by King Sembat, was completed by Katranideh,
queen of Armenia and daughter of the king of Siunik, at the
bidding of her husband, King Gagik. The queen adds that she had
also embellished the church with precious ornaments, an offering
to Christ on behalf of herself and of her sons Sembat, Abas,
and Ashot. [344] Two inscriptions belonging to the period of the
occupation of Ani by the Byzantines figure upon the façade. Both
appear to be without dates, but both refer to known personages. The
one mentions the Empress Zoe (1042), and is a memorial to her
general, Aron-Magistros, who was entrusted with the government
of the city. [345] The other is an edict of Bagrat-Magistros,
governor-general of the eastern provinces, abolishing by order
of Constantine Dukas (A.D. 1059-67) certain taxes which pressed
upon the inhabitants. Other inscriptions detail offerings on the
part of private individuals; and the date of one, if it has been
copied correctly, is as late as 1486. [346]
An edifice of much smaller scale than the cathedral, [347] but
closely resembling it in plan and style, is the church which is
dedicated to St. Gregory the Illuminator, and which occupies
a secluded site at the eastern extremity of the town upon the
side of the cliff which breaks away to the bed of the Arpa by a
series of black crags (No. 4). It is indeed a romantic spot. The
side valley already mentioned joins the valley of the Arpa at
this point, and is flanked by walls which descend to the river
with bold bastions. The stream hisses in a gloomy ravine of grey
and lichened rock. Subterraneous passages lead inwards into the
town. In presenting my photograph of the building I must ask my
reader to imagine for a moment that the ruinous porch has been
removed (Fig. 76). He will then seize the characteristics with
which he is already familiar: the oblong figure of unbroken walls;
the elegant false arcades; the roof scene of nave, and transept
and aisles, surmounted by a polygonal dome with a conical roof. The
niches in the exterior of this church are perhaps less pronounced
than in the case of the cathedral; but they are discovered upon
all four walls. The stone is uniform of hue. Tall double shafts
support the arches of the false arcade which extends round the
building. The face of these arches has been richly sculptured with
the most elegant traceries, while the spaces above the capitals,
between the arms of the arches, display the forms of birds
and flowers in moderate relief (Fig. 77, from north side). The
architect has wisely discarded the use of the pointed arch in any
part of this gem-like structure. But the slender pillars suggest
the Gothic. The Byzantine feature of a narthex is wanting both
to this building and to the cathedral. The porch has been added
at a later date and is purely Saracenic in character. It displays
several traceries and designs of high merit, among which I would
call attention to the zigzag moulding which is so common in Norman
architecture (Fig. 78).
Entering the building we are at once impressed by its almost
perfect preservation; the plaster adheres to the walls and
ceilings, and the frescos with which they were adorned are still
intelligible. Yet here we have a monument erected nearly 800
years ago, and which has not yet been touched by a restorer's
hand. The disposition of the interior resembles that of the
cathedral; the dome rests on four piers, the apse is flanked by
side chapels, which are of diminutive size. The frescos, which
are also found upon the façade, represent Biblical subjects. They
must have appreciably faded since they were seen and described
by my predecessors. [348] The legends which accompany them are
all in Georgian or in Greek characters. This fact has led to
the supposition that the church was designed for the Greek form
of worship. But we know that it was built by an Armenian, as the
church of an Armenian convent dedicated to an Armenian saint. One
can scarcely fail to remark the dim lighting of the interior, a
characteristic or defect which also belongs to the cathedral. Both
might easily have been flooded with light from the dome.
The commemorative inscriptions are found upon the exterior and
are in Armenian character. Within each of the three most easterly
arches upon the south wall there is an inscription of twenty-five
lines. It would appear that the lines are carried across, and
that they constitute a single text. We are informed that in
the year 1215 (Arm. era 664), during the government of Zakarea,
chief of the mandatories, and of his son Shahanshah, one Tigran,
of the family of Honentz, built a monastery upon this site in the
hope that his good work would bring long life to his House and
to the son of Zakarea. At the time when he bought it the place
was covered with rocks and brushwood; but there was a building
upon it known as Our Lady of the chapel. Tigran surrounded it
with a wall, constructed dwellings for the monks, erected this
church of St. Gregory, and enriched the church with ornaments
and precious vessels. He also bestowed a permanent endowment
upon the monastery. [349] The edifice is therefore a work of
the period of Georgian occupation. An inscription upon the east
wall belongs to a later epoch, the date being given as 759 of
the Armenian era, or A.D. 1310. [350] But the city was still
governed by a member of the family of Zakarea. It records that
one Matheh, chief secretary of the ruler Shahanshah, restored
some conduits which brought water to the monastery, but which
had been destroyed during certain foreign or civil troubles. It
supplies us with the names of two other personages--Khvandzeh,
the wife of this Shahanshah, and Zakarea, their son.
In the immediate neighbourhood of this church, but upon a
higher level, we observe two ruins which are of interest. The
one consists of the remains of a massive wall and a chamber which
stand in an isolated position (No. 22). They are of the character
which is usually known as Cyclopean. The other ruin is that of
a small and almost subterraneous bath. Recent excavations have
disclosed subsidiary chambers and passages; but the bath itself,
which is divided into four small vaulted chambers, could scarcely
have accommodated more than four bathers at a time (No. 13). [351]
Not far from St. Gregory, as you follow down the stream of the
Arpa, are met remains of a walled enclosure of the usual finished
masonry and in fair preservation. The walls descend the cliff-side
to a projecting mass of rock which rises from the bed of the
river with almost vertical sides. On the edge of this promontory,
overlooking the stream, is placed a little chapel which, although
ruinous, still retains many of the elements of its former beauty
(No. 9, Fig. 79). It is distinguished from the walls about it by
the pink stone of which it is built. The form of the roof is a
pleasant variation from the prevailing type, as is also the plan of
the interior. Six semicircular recesses are crowned by the circle
of the dome. Contiguous to this elegant monument is a chamber or
chapel of different form. At the upper end of the enclosure are
seen the ruins of the long vaulted staircase which was taken across
the enclosure and through the wall on the west, in order to debouch
upon the ravine on the western side of the promontory, and so to
lead down to the water's edge. About 300 yards still further down
the current you observe the piers of a bridge of which the single
arch has fallen in. It was on the cliff-side above this bridge that
the remains of a gateway were seen by my predecessors, bearing an
inscription of the year 1320. It commemorates the allocation of
a tax on cattle to the monastery of St. Gregory by one Sargis,
chief of the Custom-House. The gift is made for the repose of
the soul of the master of Sargis, Shahanshah, and for the long
life of Zakarea and the other sons of Shahanshah. Fragments of
inscriptions found within the neighbouring enclosure yield the
dates of 705 and 759 Arm. era (A.D. 1256 and 1310). [352] I am
inclined to think it possible that the enclosure and chapel may
have formed part of the same monastery of St. Gregory of which
I have already described the church.
One of the most conspicuous buildings is the mosque with the
polygonal minaret (No. 10, Fig. 80). It rises from the cliff on
the right bank of the Arpa and overlooks the ruinous bridge. An
Arabic inscription, done in brick and inlaid in the masonry
of the minaret not far from the summit of that lofty column,
displays to the city in colossal characters the name of Allah. The
mosque is the work of the first Mussulman prince of Ani, Manuchar,
the son of Abulsevar. This fact appears to be established by a
Cufic inscription which may be perceived in my illustration upon
the north-west wall, the wall adjoining the minaret. [353] Just
above it is seen a long Persian inscription which must be over
two hundred years later in date. It is in fact an edict of the
Mongol king of Persia, Abu-Said, one of the successors of Jenghiz
Khan. Abu-Said is styled Bahadur, or the brave. The edict is
therefore posterior to the year 718 of the Hegira (A.D. 1318-19),
when that sultan acquired this personal title. The contents of
this text are to the effect that the inhabitants of the city and
neighbouring provinces had been suffering from illegal exactions
on the part of their rulers. They had been emigrating and selling
their goods and houses. The obnoxious imposts are specified and
their abolition decreed. [354] Of the trilingual inscription which
was found by Khanikoff I saw no traces; it was a mere fragment
at the time of his visit. It mentions the name of Zakarea, to
which is attached the title of Atabeg; and it may belong to the
year 1237 and to the reign of Zakarea III. [355]
The architecture of the mosque resembles nothing that has yet
been mentioned. Five massive and isolated pillars, of which
originally there were six, [356] are seen rising from the floor
of the chamber and supporting the vaultings of the roof. The
circumference of these pillars is 9 feet 2 inches. The dimensions
of the chamber itself are insignificant, being only 47 feet
by 41 feet. Beneath it and below the level of the ground on
the north-west, but overlooking the river upon the south-east,
are four square apartments with narrow windows. My illustration,
which was taken from the south, does not embrace this feature;
nor does it quite reproduce the peculiar effect of the masonry,
in which pink and black stones have been variously employed.
During the summer preceding our visit excavations had been made
in Ani by the Russian archæologist Mr. N. Marr. [357] Not the
least interesting result of his labours, as they were manifest
upon the site, is the discovery of a line of walls with bastions,
crossing the neck or narrowest portion of the platform from the
ravine of the Arpa to that of the Tsaghkotz. The one extremity
of this fortification starts from the former of these valleys
in the immediate neighbourhood of the mosque. South-west of this
neck, with its transverse rampart, the platform again opens out;
and at the same time it attains its greatest elevation, gathering
together and composing a hill with a flat top. The summit and sides
of this hill display the substructures of walls and buildings;
and at least two edifices in a fair state of preservation rise
against the background of sky. One can scarcely doubt that this
strong position was the site of the old fortress of Ani before
it became a city and the residence of the king. It is flanked by
the two ravines with the two rivers, which presently unite. It is
only accessible from the level ground on the north-east. But on
that side, as we have seen, it has the form of a narrow isthmus,
easily defensible by a line of walls. This fortress must have
composed the nucleus of the more recent city--that inner fortress
of which we read. Upon the summit of the hill, some four hundred
feet above the rivers, was built the citadel. And there is ground
for supposing that the citadel was also the palace, as in the
case of Trebizond and perhaps also of Melazkert.
Unfortunately nothing remains of the actual walls of the
palace; and the buildings which I have mentioned are two small
churches. One stands upon the north side of the fortified eminence,
and the other upon the south. The former is not noteworthy, except
for the fact that its northern wall rises from lower levels and
composes part of the wall of the citadel. But the edifice on the
south is of considerable interest. It consists of two vaulted
chambers placed side by side, and having the inner wall in common
(No. 28, Fig. 81, taken from the north). The more southerly is
the largest; and the round arches which support the roof rest upon
four pilasters of curious design. I photographed one of the best
preserved among them, which is adorned with the figures of two
birds in low relief (Fig. 82). They are represented in the act
of pouncing upon animals. The pilasters are composed of blocks
of black stone; while for the capitals and the upper portion of
the building only pink stone has been used. The façade and the
apse have fallen away. The dimensions are small: a length of
30 feet 9 inches and a breadth of 17 feet 4 inches. One of my
predecessors discovered in the contiguous building a bas-relief
upon which was portrayed two figures on horseback, one of which is
St. George with the dragon at his feet. But this piece, as well
as another, in which a mounted and aureoled archer is displayed,
surrounded by the forms of birds and wild animals, is no longer
to be seen. I showed the reproductions in Brosset's Atlas to the
aged priest; he recognised the latter of these sculptures and
informed us that it had been stolen. Quite probably both are now
lost in some museum. [358] Elements derived from Assyrian art may
be recognised in these bas-reliefs as well as the ornament of the
pilaster. But in the absence of inscriptions one is thrown back
upon internal evidence in assigning a date to the south chapel.
Such is the site of the ancient fortress of Ani, which must have
enjoyed a fine view over the city. I observed that this view
comprises the south and west sides of the cathedral, while the
north side is turned towards the town. The fact that the south
wall of that edifice has been more profusely decorated than its
counterpart which faces north confirms the supposition that the
palace was situated within the citadel, and that it was for the
royal windows that the decorative resources of the architect were
principally displayed.
If we descend the hill of the citadel in a southerly direction,
as it falls away to the crags which separate the two ravines about
the confluence of the rivers, we cross the remains of an inner
wall and pass the ruin of a little chapel, of which the four piers
as well as the cupola still stand. I photographed the charming
detail of the doorway on the south, overlooking the Arpa Chai
(No. 29, Fig. 83). [359] What a contrast between these classical
mouldings and the somewhat barbarous architecture of the chapel
in the citadel, between the sobriety of the designs in these
bands of sculptured stone and the wild spirit of the ornament on
those pilasters! Ani is indeed a museum of architectural styles--a
characteristic in keeping with her geographical position and with
the inquisitive and impressionable culture of her inhabitants. Just
west of this building is seen a piece of masonry which is in
the last stage of decay (No. 30, Fig. 84). It may represent the
apse of another chapel. From here the view ranges over the crags
below the citadel, of which the most southerly is crowned by the
walls of a third chapel. The Arpa is seen emerging from the deep
ravine on the left of the ruin; it is joined by its affluent in
the neighbourhood of the rock with the chapel. [360]
Just below the standpoint of this picture are situated the
remains of the outer wall which encircled the peninsula. At
the extremity of the figure stands a tower, which is concealed
by the lie of the ground. But portions of the wall are visible
in the illustration; and it appears to have extended along the
valley of the Alaja in a northerly direction, and to have been
joined to the outer fortifications of the city on the side of
the plain. Where I examined the masonry of this wall I found it
faced on both sides, and 3 feet 4 inches in thickness. Issuing
from the citadel or inner fortress, we examined the substructures
of a curious building which had been recently brought to light
by Mr. Marr. But the length of this notice warns me that I must
confine it to a description of the monuments which are still erect.
Let us therefore retrace our steps in the direction of the town,
keeping as close as we may to the ravine of the Alaja, the ancient
Tsaghkotzadzor or Vale of Flowers. On the summit of the cliff, in
full view of the city, rises a circular building with a drum-shaped
dome and a conical roof. Of this edifice, the chapel of St. Gregory
(No. 5), I am able to present three photographs, one of the east
side (Fig. 85), another of the entrance on the west (Fig. 86),
and a third of the interior (Fig. 87). It is a charming little
monument, which, like the cathedral, blends elements of Byzantine
and Gothic art. But the niche is here again a prominent feature,
a feature dear to the architecture of the East. The body of the
edifice is polygonal rather than circular, having no less than
twelve sides. Of these six are recessed, the niches facing the town
being framed by ornamental arches with classical cornices. The six
niches correspond with the same number of cavities in the design of
the interior. Although the inside diameter is not more than about
30 feet, including these cavities, [361] yet the impression as you
enter the chapel is one of space and height. Especially remarkable
is the great depth of the dome. Traces of paintings may be observed
upon the walls. Two small vaulted chambers have been built into the
wall on the east side, and are now in a ruinous condition. They
are seen in the illustration on either side of the window. They
may have served the purpose of sepulchral chambers, of which
there are also vestiges outside the building upon the north side.
We learn from the inscriptions that the chapel was dedicated
to St. Gregory; and it is a work of the period of the Armenian
kings. It seems to have been used as a place of burial by the
Pahlavuni or Pahlavid family, which furnished some of the most
illustrious names in Armenian history. The great noble who led the
faction which was opposed to the cession of Ani to the Byzantines
was a Pahlavid, Vahram. He met his death in battle against the
Beni-Cheddad of Dvin in A.D. 1047. Embodying as he did the policy
of resistance à outrance both to Mussulmans and Greeks, he has
been the idol of Armenian patriotism. The name of this hero figures
in the inscription over the door, which, although without a date,
is probably assignable to him. He bestows the revenue of certain
shops upon the church of St. Gregory to defray the cost of masses
for the soul of his son Apughamir. In the same place have been
found inscriptions of the mother of Vahram, the lady Shushan,
making over certain revenues to the same church and recording
the number of the masses obtained in return. She is styled the
wife of the prince Grigor. But a date is happily forthcoming to
elucidate the identity of these personages. It is furnished by a
long inscription of no less than fourteen lines upon the north
wall. Record is made that in the year of the Armenian era 489
(A.D. 1040) Aplgharib, prince of Armenia, erected a sepulchre
in this place [362] for his father Grigor, of whom he describes
himself as the youngest son, for his brother Hamzeh, and for his
maternal uncle Seda. Masses are to be said for his mother Shushan,
for his father Grigor, for his maternal uncle Seda, and for his
brother Hamzeh. I cannot help thinking that the sepulchre referred
to is represented by the remains which I observed upon the north
side of this building. And the vaulted chambers in the east wall
may be the tombs of Grigor and his wife Shushan, an inscription
over the highly decorated window on that side being a prayer to
Christ for mercy upon Grigor. [363]
A question of great interest with reference to this building is
whether it may be regarded as the same church which is mentioned by
the historians as a work of King Gagik I. We are informed by Samuel
of Ani that in the year 447 (A.D. 998) a church of St. Gregory was
completed by this monarch in the Tsaghkotzadzor. The same event
is recorded in the pages of Kirakos, who gives the same date,
and describes the situation as overlooking the Valley of the
Tsaghkotz. [364] Asoghik tells us that it was built on the model
of a large church at Vagharshapat, dedicated to the same saint,
which had fallen into ruin. He adds that the edifice of King Gagik
was built on a high platform on the side of the Tsaghkotz, and
in possession of an admirable view. He speaks of three doorways
and of the marvellous dome, reproducing the appearance of the
sky. [365] I did not observe more than one door to this edifice,
and perhaps the church which is referred to by these authorities
was some larger building in the immediate neighbourhood which
has disappeared.
The chapel of St. Gregory invites comparison with another monument
of the same order in the opposite quarter of the town (No. 6,
Fig. 88). [366] My illustration was taken from the north. The
design is less elaborate and the dimensions are rather larger,
the dome especially having a much greater span. But the effect
produced by the interior lacks the magic of the companion
building, while the symmetry is marred by the recess for the
altar on the east side. This building will not endure for many
years longer, unless steps be taken to save it from falling
in. The lower portions are in a state of advanced decay. The
ornament on the exterior closely resembles that employed upon
the cathedral. Inscriptions bristle upon the panels of the false
arcades. One records that in the year 483 (A.D. 1034) the prince
Aplgharib, having journeyed to Constantinople by order of Sembat
Shahanshah, obtained with great difficulty and at considerable
expense a piece of the Holy Cross. Upon his return he built this
church, and directed that nightly services should be held within
it until the coming of Christ. The name of Surb-Phrkich, or church
of the Redeemer, is given in this and the following inscription,
and may be applied either to this chapel or to some neighbouring
church with which it was in connection. A second inscription
belongs to the Armenian year 490 (A.D. 1041), and mentions the
contemporary reign of Sembat, son of Gagik Shahanshah. [367] The
chapel of the Redeemer is therefore the work of the same Pahlavid,
Aplgharib, who built the sepulchres to the chapel of St. Gregory,
and it belongs to the period of the kings. [368]
Continuing our walk along the cliff above the valley of the
Alaja, we pass a lofty mound, surmounted by the ruin of a wall
(No. 31). The old priest was of opinion that it denotes the site
of the priestly synod house, where endowments were received and
other business of the Church transacted. A little further, and
west of this mound we stay to examine a small chapel which has
been hollowed out of a solid mass of rock. But our attention is
distracted from this fantastic object by the walls and yawning
apartments of the castle (No. 12, Fig. 89). It is situated in
the extreme north-western angle of the town, where the ravine of
the Alaja is joined by the side-ravine already mentioned in the
description of the site. My photograph displays the southern side
of this extensive edifice and the junction of the valleys. The
entrance is on the east and faces the town (Fig. 90). You admire
the exquisite masonry of the walls and the elaborate decoration
of the doorway. That doorway is one of the most conspicuous
objects in Ani; and inasmuch as this building has been sought
to be identified with the royal palace, it has been despoiled
of many of its mosaics by patriotic Armenians, who strip them
off and carry them away as souvenirs. My reader will observe
the recurrence of the form of a Greek cross in the ornament on
the face of the gate. This ornament consists of inlays or, as
one might say, mosaics composed of a light red and of a black
stone. The effect is original and pleasant to the eye. In the
absence of any inscriptions--we searched in vain for any trace
of writing both on the outside of the edifice and within its
walls--I am inclined to consider that this so-called palace was
nothing more than a magazine and barrack, in close connection
with the outer defences of the city on the vulnerable side, the
side of the plain. The only ornament in the interior was found
over a doorway, and consisted of a chain moulding and inlays of
red and black stone. On the other hand, the uses of the place
appear to be denoted by the vaulted passages and by the spacious
underground chambers. Two of these chambers, smaller in size,
have evidently served as dungeons. [369]
Two edifices of considerable interest remain to be mentioned. Both
are situated in quarters of the town which must have been densely
built over, and both are in an advanced state of decay. The more
westerly is perhaps the most curious of all the monuments of Ani,
and I do not pretend to have quite unravelled the complexities
of its compound plan (No. 2). The eye is engrossed by the ruin
of a spacious portal, longest from west to east. The western
and southern walls have fallen away; but the east front and the
whole of the vaulting of the most easterly portion have been
spared by the ravages of time. Entering this portal from the west
(Fig. 91), we are able to reconstruct in fancy the features of the
design. There appear to have been three distinct domes to the roof,
supported by arches resting on pillars. Of the three divisions
which were thus introduced into the interior, the largest was that
in the centre. That on the east alone remains; and we may gauge
the dimensions of the whole figure when we consider that this
division measures within the pillars a square of 19 feet. The
architecture is pure Arab or Saracenic, recalling that of the
mosque. It is certainly later than the period of the kings. As
in the mosque, the effect is heightened by the mixture of black
with reddish blocks of stone. A large stone, sculptured with a
cross, is inlaid in the south-east wall, and may be the same as
the one which has been described by my predecessors as containing
the figure of a double-headed eagle. [370] The walls are covered
with inscriptions. The outer face of this portal or east front
is extremely elaborate (Fig. 92). The doorway on that side forms
the centre of a Saracenic façade in which honeycomb vaultings,
false niches, and a mosaic of black and pink stones have all been
made to play a part. Four inscriptions in Armenian are observed
upon this front.
This portal must have served as an entrance to two or more
chapels. Of these one alone remains. It is entered by a doorway
with rich mouldings in the north wall of the most easterly
division. The interior is of grey stone, and it is disposed
in four semicircles. [371] But the dimensions are small as
compared to those of the portal, and the portal is much longer
than the chapel. The ruinous masonry upon the west of the latter
building indicates the site of a second and contiguous chamber
or chapel. That of a third is denoted by similar evidence upon
the east wall. This structure projected beyond the east front of
the portal, to which it was placed at right angles. Traces of it
may be seen in my illustration. It bears an Armenian inscription.
The inscriptions, which unhappily I had not leisure to identify,
have been already published and translated. [372] The earliest in
date appears to have been found upon the doorway of the chapel,
and identifies it as a work of the period of the kings. It records
that in the year 480 (A.D. 1031) Apughamir, son of Vahram, prince
of princes, bestowed an endowment upon this church of the Apostles
for the health and long life of his brother Grigor. My reader
is already familiar with these names of members of the Pahlavid
family. The inscriptions upon the portal are of much later dates,
ranging over the period of Georgian occupation when the city was
governed by the Mkhargrdzels. Some are in the name of the Mongol
overlord. Most are of the nature of public proclamations; and
from the one latest in date we learn that in A.D. 1348 members
of this Georgian family were still personages at Ani, and that
the city had not yet been abandoned by her inhabitants.
The second of the monuments is also the last which I need mention;
it is situated between the cathedral and the chapel of the
Redeemer (No. 3). It is of small dimensions and, as usual, of
great elegance; but the roof and the whole of the upper portion
have unhappily fallen away. In fact, the only portions which
are still erect are the north wall, the apse, and part of the
south wall. A vaulted chamber extends around the edifice. Two
bas-reliefs are seen in two of the panels of the arcade upon the
north wall. The one on the left evidently represents the subject
of the Annunciation; while that on the right probably portrays
the figures of two saints. I could not discover any trace of an
inscription. But the old priest bases his opinion that the ruin
is that of a church dedicated to St. Stephen upon an inscription
which has disappeared. [373]
My illustration of the castle (Fig. 89) will have revealed
a characteristic of the ancient city which is of historical
interest. The ravine of the Alaja, as well as both the side
valleys, which open respectively to this ravine and to that of
the Arpa, present the appearance of having been riddled into
quite a network of cavities; such is the number of the troglodyte
dwellings which they contain. Legend peoples this underground city
with the souls of those citizens of Ani who, sooner than emigrate
into distant lands, preferred to die in her defence. A stir and
hum, as of a teeming and busy populace, may be heard by night
above the rustling of the Arpa Chai. [374] The tuff composing
the cliffs must at all times have invited such burrowings; and
we know that, when Ani was surprised during the reign of Thamar
by the emir of Ardabil, the inhabitants, who were still numerous,
took refuge in these caves. [375]
Our conception of the city of the kings would be wanting in an
essential feature were we to pass over the neighbouring convent
of Khosha Vank (Fig. 93). It was there, we can scarcely doubt,
that the monarch was often wont to deliberate; and it was under
the shadow of those walls that his bones were laid to rest by
the side of his ancestors. The triumphal archway through which
he would pass on his way from the capital may still be seen
on the summit of the cliff on the right bank of the Arpa Chai
(Fig. 94). The cloister is situated, as we have seen, upon the
opposite or left bank, [376] and is bordered on two sides by a
loop of the river. The bridge has disappeared. A small village has
grouped itself between the monastery and the bed of the stream,
where repose beneath the gloom of lofty cliffs of lava the two
chapels and the tomb of King Ashot.
The monastic buildings occupy a considerable area upon the high
ground within the bend of the river. They are surrounded by a
lofty wall. Entering from the west, we cross a court to an opposite
doorway which opens into a vast and gloomy chamber (Fig. 95). On
the further or eastern side of this chamber we perceive the door
of the church. The architecture of this outer hall or pronaos
is quite remarkable. In some respects it resembles that of the
mosque at Ani. The ceilings are vaulted, and there are no less
than four rows of pillars. The space is divided into the form
of a nave and two aisles. The circumference of the pillars is
9 1/2 feet. The central vaulting of the nave is surmounted by a
dome, different in shape from any of the domes which have been
described. Viewed from the outside, it becomes merged in a tall
belfry, which is seen on the left of my illustration (Fig. 96),
taken from the south-west. To the interior it displays a drum of
eight panels; and the only light which it transmits comes from
above. The panels are of stone and covered with sculpture in low
relief. Here it is an architectural figure, there a beautiful
vine pattern which is the subject of the ornament. One space
displays the form of the Virgin Mary, set in a rich frame. The two
extremities of the frame are supported by the shapes of animals,
a bull and a lion. On the back of the lion is seated an eagle,
and a child on that of the bull. Two angels keep watch, one on
either side of the Mother of Christ. The gloom of the building
is due to the design of this dome, as well as to the smallness
of the round windows, resembling the port-holes of a ship, of
which there are three in the north and two in the south wall.
The interior of this edifice is covered with inscriptions in
Armenian, which none of my party were able to read. Perhaps they
include some of those which were brought by Abich from this
cloister and which have been translated by Brosset. [377] One
of these inscriptions records a donation in the Armenian year
650 (A.D. 1201) under the government of Zakarea. Another is to
the effect that the monastery was restored in 1102 (A.D. 1652)
by one Daniel, a monk from Tigranocerta. We are told that the
buildings had previously fallen into ruin, and had become polluted
by accumulations of dust and filth. The cloister is styled Horomosi
Vank, and is described as having been constructed by the kings. I
will not venture to express an opinion upon the age of the pronaos;
but I would suggest that the belfry is perhaps of later date. The
sculptures in the dome appear to belong to a hoary antiquity. The
edifice may have served as a model for a rock chamber which is
described by a modern traveller as belonging to the cloister of
Surb Geghard. [378]
You enter the church through the door in the east wall of
the pronaos, passing a slab engraved with a pastoral staff,
which marks the place of burial of some spiritual dignitary. A
spacious dome rests upon four piers, and there is a single apse
with the usual daïs. The walls are covered with a coating of
whitewash. The interior measures roughly 53 feet by 33 feet,
the former dimension including the apse. The attendant priest
showed us an old but undated manuscript, which proved to be an
illustrated New Testament. It would appear from an inscription
that the church was dedicated to St. Gregory, [379] and it may
perhaps be ascribed to the period of the kings.
The monastic buildings are placed upon the south of the church
and pronaos, and are approached from the southern side of the
entrance court. They are just outside the area embraced by my
illustration of the south walls of the edifices just named. Two
large apartments, communicating with one another, serve as
antechambers to a great hall with pillars and vaulted ceilings,
which is entered from the second of the two chambers, and in plan
extends along the most easterly of its walls. The whole suite are
impressive examples of the art of the mason and stone-sculptor,
effect being gained by the regularity and perfect fitting of
the blocks, while the stone takes an admirable surface. Friezes
with stalactite patterns are employed in one room as a cornice
for the ceiling. In the second and smaller room there is a
square aperture in the centre of the roof with a stalactite
ornament. The same feature belongs to the hall of the synod
(Fig. 97), and is clearly seen in my photograph. At the further
end of the two rows of pillars may be discerned a niche with a
daïs, the recess being richly sculptured. It was there that was
placed the throne. But I think these buildings are all later than
the time of the kings, although they may have been used by the
Georgian princes who governed Ani. We learn from an inscription,
which was probably copied in the larger of the antechambers, that
at least one of these apartments was constructed in A.D. 1229 to
serve as a receptacle for the holy relics. [380]
On the north side of the church buildings there is nothing but
a narrow and vacant space separating them from the wall of the
cloister. But at the east end of this part of the enclosure, and in
line with the east front of the church, are situated the roofless
remains of a little chapel, crowning a ruinous substructure which
is overgrown by rank weeds, and of which the sculptured stones
litter the ground. The pendant of this building on the south side
of the church is seen in my illustration (Fig. 96). It is much
better preserved than the companion edifice, and the chamber in
the lower storey is still intact. This chamber is oblong in shape,
with a vaulted ceiling and an altar with sculptured stones. The
chapel is of triple design, with three apses, the whole surmounted
by a dome. It is possible that both these buildings, which so
closely correspond, were designed to receive the remains of some
high personages.
But the actual tomb of one of the kings has been spared by a happy
chance, and may be found quite close to the second and larger of
the chapels which repose in the bed of the Arpa Chai (Fig. 94). It
is placed near the south-eastern angle of the building. With what
a thrill of delight did we discover this eloquent relic--a rounded
slab resting on two stone steps! In spite of the lichen and the
wear of the stone, the words "Ashot Thagavor" (Ashot, the king)
were distinctly legible. The chapels are placed in a line from west
to east, and were originally three in number. Of these the most
westerly is falling into ruin, a state which has already overtaken
that on the east. The central member of the group is at once the
largest and the best preserved. It contains an inscription over
the south door to the effect that it was built in 460 (A.D. 1011)
by one George, son of the patriarch Martiros. But I have not
been able to identify this patriarch; and it is possible there
may be some error in the translation made by my dragoman, who,
although well educated, was not a scholar in old Armenian. The
king whose name appears on the tomb is probably Ashot the Third.
The inscriptions establish the fact that the monastery was
known by the name of Horomosi Vank, which probably signifies
the convent of the Greek. [381] History supplements and explains
this information. We learn from Asoghik that it was founded in
the tenth century under the reign of Abas by Armenian priests
who had emigrated from Greek territory. It was burnt by the
Mussulmans in A.D. 982. [382] An inscription of King John Sembat,
dated 487 (A.D. 1038), appears to have been found within its
walls; and it has been inferred that the cloister was restored
by that prince. [383] We know that he was buried by the side of
his predecessors who ruled at Ani; and we have an inscription
of John Sembat by which he bestows the revenue of a village in
support of the royal cemetery at this monastery of Horomos. [384]
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. [385]
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.