User:Yerevantsi/sandbox/Ani


 * Ani Cathedral

Gothic
James Stevens Curl: It is unclear how certain Western-European buildings were influenced by (or influenced) some Armenian architecture, but certainly by the early C11 domed basilicas (such as at Ani (988-1000)) began to acquire bundle-like piers, vaulting systems, and architectural features reminiscent of Western Romanesque and Gothic forms.

Maranci


Texier made an equally important contribution to the interpretation of Armenian architecture-- he noted the resemblance between the building forms at the Cathedral of Ani (fig. 8) and Gothic churches of Western Europe. Texier also compared the arcaded facades of the Cathedral to Romanesque examples in Italy.31 [30 Charles Félix Marie Texier, Description de l'Arménie, de la Perse, de la Mésopotamie, publié sous les auspices des ministrés de l'intérieur et de l'instruction publique, Paris, 1842, 2 vols., which includes a portfolio of drawings, plans, maps, and ten plates.]

3 A contemporary of Texier, W. J. Hamilton, also undertook an extensive voyage through Turkey in the late 1830's and early 40's and recorded it in his Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus and Armenia, (London, 1842) a work which was subsequently translated into German (Reisen in Kleinasien, Pontus, und Armenien nebst antiquarischen und geologischen Forschungen, Leipzig, 1843) and gained wide interest. His works include a particularly interesting description of Ani-- Account ofthe ruins ofthe city ofAni in Armenia, London 1839. At the Cathedral of Ani, it is the pointed arches and clustered capitals which most occupy Hamiiton. Of the famous church of the Apostles, on the northeast side of Ani, he writes "The arches which bore the roof were round, but at the middle were pointed arches and here and there one found various other decorations, that one would usually call Gothic."(p. 191) In the final and most intriguing sentence of the passage, he writes "I cannot pull away from the idea that one could follow the origin of the rich Gothic and Saracenic styles if one studied the capitals and the numerous angles or niches between the arches, in which one may find a systematic sequence of complete simplicity in the overladen intricacy." Thus, Hamilton seems to imagine a common origin for the Gothic and Saracenic styles. That Gothic architecture was brought from the east was a theory already born in the seventeenth century, with Christopher Wren, but it continued to enjoy a considerable following. Note also that rather than viewing Armenian architecture as a composite of Byzantine and Saracenic styles, he entertains the idea that in Armenian architecture could be found the origins for both. Hamilton's view of Armenian architecture looks forward to the beginnings of a long-standing comparison between Armenian and Gothic architecture in the early twentieth century. In particular, it anticipates the work of Baltrušaitis, who also sought a structural system common to both traditions.

At Ani, the Cathedral's chief aesthetic merit is, again, the "extreme simplicity of the design".45 Lynch thus praises not the decoration or the proto-Gothic features of the Cathedral, but rather its use of simple, sparingly decorated forms.

To describe Strzygowski's theories as "oriental", and to state that he believed Armenia to be the source for western medieval architecture, generalizes to the point of untruth.1 As this section will show, Strzygowski's thesis was not monolithic

Strzygowski begins with the pointed arch. While scholars had long derived this feature from the East, none of them, Strzygowski tells us, knew that this feature appears throughout Armenia, as at the Cathedral of Ani (fig. 30).102

D. The Cathedral ofAni.. We make these objections, but Strzygowski might well agree with us. After all, he has not claimed an Armenian origin for Gothic architecture yet. Let us consider his discussion of the Cathedral of Ani. After chastising previous scholars120 who did not accept the foundation dates mentioned in its inscription (989 to 1001), Strzygowski proposes a series of questions in the event that the dates are correct.121 "Do we then permit the Cathedral of Ani to demonstrate the occurrence of Gothic architectural features in the Early Christian churches of Armenia? Is not the Gothic system of niche buttressing also formed in Armenia domed buildings…? Do not pointed arches, … ribbed vaults and bundled piers occur here, as in Gothic buildings?»122

Is Strzygowski claiming Armenian origins for Gothic architecture? Strzygowski is far from clear, but a close look at the passage may suggest otherwise. Strzygowski does indeed call Ani "Gothic", as he also calls the Hagia Sophia (and, one will recall, the Sultan Han). But nowhere does he claim that Gothic architecture is Armenian. What then, according to Strzygowski, was the contribution of Armenian architecture? From the above examples, we may conclude that its value lay in its similarities to the Gothic style, similarities generated by a common Northern force.

In Origin, Strzygowski further considers the shared features of Gothic and Armenian architecture, and concludes that "the impression is thus conveyed that the development in both countries was only rendered possible by the promptings which both received from the Northern spirit."123

As we have seen, migration is only part of Strzygowski's thesis. In addressing the early medieval forms of Northern Europe, Strzygowski is confronted with an important question. Given the similarity between forms in Armenia and the North, as in the blind arcades of Gurk and the Cathedral of Ani, to whom are we to grant the origin? Strzygowski's answer is clever-- to both. Armenia and its Northern European counterpart emerge from a common Northern root. This theory is further articulated in his essay on Gothic architecture. Here, no migration of forms needs to come from Armenia. Rather, the North of Europe enjoyed an indigenous artistic development. Armenia, as we have seen, offered a comparative branch of artistic development, but not a homeland, for Gothic forms.

sorted
In Ani, the capture of the city from the Armenians by the Seljuks in 1064 had been celebrated by the removal of the silver cross from the dome of the cathedral and its transfer to the mosque in Nakhchivan, where it was placed under the threshold, destined to be trodden upon by all those coming to pray.18 [18 Matthew of Edessa, 104] It was replaced by ‘that hated symbol’: a crescent.19[Vardan, 202.] Sixty years later Vardan Areweltsi’s chronicle celebrated the reversal of this procedure and the installation of a new cross after one of the brief expulsions of the Shaddadids by the Georgians that punctuated the city’s history in the twelfth century.

the cross from the cathedral of Ani had been sent to Nakhchivan to be trodden upon on the threshold of the city’s mosque by all those coming to pray.43

The Cathedral of Ani, dedicated in 1001, was the work of the renowned architect Trdat, who was also responsible for rebuilding the dome of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople after its collapse in the earthquake of 989.4 The cathedral was begun by Smbat II in 989 and completed by Queen Katramide, wife of Gagik Bagratuni (Figs. 19.7– 19.10). In its design, the cathedral harks back to the plan and the proportions of the seventh-century domed basilica at Mren, which may have served as its model, while elaborated inside and out with architectonic detailing (compare Figs. 12.2–12.4). The tall mass of the building rises above a stepped base, its walls and vaults constructed of carefully carved facing of the distinctive reddish stone characteristic of Ani. As at Mren, there is no narthex. Elegant decorative arcading lines the exterior, the façades punctuated by V-shaped recesses, which correspond to the structural divisions of the interior. Windows are tall and thin, with sculpted frames. The compound piers and arches of the interior are similarly thin and elegant, articulated with multiple setbacks, the linearity of the supports emphasizing the attenuated height. The dome, 7.5 meters in diameter (or 10.4 meters to the midpoint of the piers), rose above pendentives; the central bay is proportionally larger and more prominent than its counterpart at Mren. The structural clarity evident in the cathedral has long intrigued Western visitors: for example, the stepped profiles of the compound piers continue into the vaulting in a way that recalls the articulation of forms in European Romanesque architecture, seeming to clarify the structural system in a similar way. But this view is a bit misleading, as the architectonic detailing in Caucasian buildings of this period is primarily decorative and not always coordinated with the structure. In its “structural rationalism” the cathedral may be unique to the region. While elegant and rational in the major spaces, it is somewhat less so in the side aisles, and the arcading of the exterior bears no relationship to the structural system. From a Western perspective, we expect structural rationalism, but the inconsistencies indicate that within the Caucasus, structure and decoration were usually separate concerns. As a mason who traveled, Trdat may have observed the structural clarity of surviving Roman (as opposed to Romanesque) monuments.

John Mason Neale

276 https://books.google.am/books?id=B5RQAQAAMAAJ&pg=276 In Ani, once the capital of Armenia, is a church which forms a curious link between Byzantine and Armenian, but rather allies itself to the former: while the cathedral in the same place, also a connecting link, claims greater affinity with the latter.

300 https://books.google.am/books?id=B5RQAQAAMAAJ&pg=300 I now come to the cathedral of Ani. This, it will be seen, is Byzantine in its general arrangement; but it carries the niche, on three sides, to great perfection. The synthronus is curious; while the mouldings of the whole church are very elaborate.

Charles Texier https://archive.org/details/McGillLibrary-rbsc_description-armenie_elfDS485T491842ptie1-2-18757/page/n334/mode/1up?view=theater

photos: https://www.armenianimage.org/exhibition-part1-ohannes-kurkdjian/exhibition-ohannes-kurkdjian/?_page=4

inscriptions
inscription on the southern wall reads: In the year 450 of the Armenians [AD 1001], and 219 of the Romans [Greeks/Byzantines], in the time of the honored by God [and] spiritual lord Sarkis Catholicos of the Armenians and the glorious kingship of Kakig [I] of the Armenians and Shahan Shah [King of kings] of the Georgians, I Kadratine [sic] queen of the Armenians, daughter of Vasak, king of Syunik, took refuge in the mercy of God and by decree of my husband Kakig Shahan Shah, built this holy cathedral, which was founded by great Smpad, and we erected the house of God, a revived and living spiritual offspring, and a perpetual monument; and I embellished it with precious ornaments, gifts to Christ from me and my family, and sons Smpad, Abas and Ashot; you are commanded by me, Lord Sarkis servant of the church, after the death of this pious queen, to conduct at Vartavar, [and] Hisnak [Advent], forty-one [days of service for the dead] unceasingly until the coming of Christ; if anybody takes that inscription as unreal, let him be condemned by Christ to six 1433 months with Adam, in the year 1012 of God taking human form ... when believing in Christ of the Armenians this colophon was written by my own hand.

inscription on the wall of the door on the southern side: In the year 662 (1213) by the will of God I Dikran servant of Jesus Christ built with my lawful wealth these stairs of this glorious holy cathedral, which after many years were in ruins, and gave as presents to the holy cathedral from my treasury the store in Kagdnots two [books of] festivities and Saint Krikor one by one and two silver skih of the chief altar, and I placed the yoke on the attendants [of the church] to celebrate mass in my name every year until the coming of Christ.

It is understood from this inscription that a wealthy believer named Dikran, seeing in 1213 that the cathedral needed renovations, had repairs done and had this inscription written in order for his memory to be blessed by future generations.

On the western side inscription reads:

Armenian
Կենտրոնական նավը զգալի լայնացնելու, իսկ կողմնայինների լայնությունը նվազեցնելու միջոցով, նա կարողացել է հասնել վաղ միջնադարյան գմբեթավոր դահլիճներին (Պտղնի, Արուճ, Դդմաշեն) հատուկ ներքին տարածության միասնական ընկալման: Ապա մի շարք համահնչյուն միջոցների (փնջավոր մույթեր, պաքաձև կամարներ, որմնակամարներ) օգնությամբ տաճարին հաղորդել է շեշտված վերասլացություն, դինամիկ լարվածություն: Եկեղեցու ներսի տարածության կազմակերպման այս նոր սկզբունքը, որի շնորհիվ ծածկն ասես ճախրում է աղոթասրահի վրա, ինչ- պես բազմիցս նշված է հետազոտողների (0. Շուազի, Հ. Ստրժիգովսկի, Կ. Հովհաննիսյան) 2 կողմից, որդեգրվում ու լայն կիրառություն է գտնում 12-14-րդ դարերում Արևմտյան Եվրոպայի մի շարք երկրներում տարածում ստացած գոթական ճարտարապետության մեջ:

Stepanos Asoghik

1 Պատմիչների տեղեկություններն ու շինարարական արձանագրության բովանդակությունը տարբեր կերպ են մեկնաբանվում առանձին հետազոտողների կողմից: Հիմք է ընդունված Ասողիկի տեղեկությունը․․․