Chapter XVIII: Ani, and the Armenian Kingdom of the Middle Ages (2)

The tribes composing the wave of the great Turkish invasion appear upon the stage of Armenian history as early as the commencement of the eleventh century. [299] The aspect and dress of these savages were as unfamiliar to the Armenians as their mode of conducting war. The Christian warriors, armed with the sword, encountered swarms of archers whose long hair floated behind them like that of women. [300] The signal defeat of his son David by these nomads about the year 1018 caused the reigning king of the Van country to lose heart. The news was brought to him while he was residing in the delicious town of Vostan, upon the wooded spurs of the Kurdish mountains overlooking the lake of Van. His despondency was confirmed by the recollection of a prophecy in which St. Nerses, the fifth successor of St. Gregory, had foretold the advent of great calamities at the hands of a barbarous people a thousand years after the divine mission of Christ. Senekerim despatched his son to the court of Constantinople, where he was received with the greatest kindness by the Emperor Basil II. The Cæsar accepted the gift of his extensive and populous realm, and gave in exchange a secure retreat within the borders of the Empire, the city and territory of Sivas (A.D. 1021). An imperial governor was sent to take over the ceded dominions, in which were included no less than 72 fortresses, 4000 villages, and 8 towns. [301] Some display of force was necessary in order to fasten upon the southern province the rule of the Byzantine monarchs; and it is probable that the measures taken to assert their authority still further enfeebled the rampart they had come to defend. The progress of the shepherds may be traced through the pages of the Armenian historians during the ensuing years. In A.D. 1021 they advanced from Azerbaijan upon the town of Nakhichevan under the conduct of their prince, the famous Toghrul Bey. This incursion was directed up the valley of the Araxes into the country about Ararat. It was resisted by a force of Georgians, who retired without coming to an engagement, and, a little later, by a small detachment of the Armenian army under Vasak, the commander-in-chief. But no concerted action was taken against the invaders, the Armenians contenting themselves with deeds of personal prowess, and the Turkomans swarming over the settled country, plundering, destroying, and putting the inhabitants to the sword. [302] In the year 1042 they were encountered by the king of Armenia, Gagik, the successor of John Sembat and Ashot. At the head of his troops he inflicted upon them a signal defeat on the banks of the Zanga, the river of Erivan. The Turks retired into the Van country, which they devastated anew. [303] Three years later they appeared again in the same province; but this time they were fugitives from Mesopotamia, where they had been repulsed by the emir of Mosul. Their prayer for a safe passage home into Persia was refused by the imperial governor residing at Arjish, on the lake of Van. But the forces at his disposal were routed by the tribesmen, who took him prisoner and put him to death. [304] The Turks returned in greater numbers during the following years, laying waste the southern province, flooding northwards into Pasin and into the valley of the Chorokh. To this period belong the sack of Arzen (near Erzerum) in 1049, and the pillage of Kars and massacre of its inhabitants in 1050. Neither the imperial generals nor their Georgian and Armenian dependents were successful in making headway against the storm. [305] The year 1054 was made memorable in the native annals by the siege of Melazkert. Toghrul had arrived at the head of an immense army in the districts bordering the lake of Van on the side of Azerbaijan. The town of Berkri was taken by assault, that of Arjish purchased immunity; and the conqueror led his host across the level country at the foot of Sipan to the walls of the fortress on the Murad. Melazkert was at that time in the possession of the Empire, and was stoutly defended by its governor. After a close investiture, during which the garrison displayed great resource and bravery, the Seljuk king was constrained to retire. But he had already despatched detachments of his army in all directions; the Turks penetrated as far north as the slopes of Caucasus and the Pontic forests, and as far south as the mountains bordering the southern shore of Lake Van. [306] The area of their raids was still further extended during the subsequent decade. The territory of Mush was overrun in 1058; and the lonely cloister of Surb Karapet, which overlooks that extensive plain, witnessed the prowess of the Armenian chiefs, who directed their gaze towards it before falling upon their savage foes. [307] These bands had perhaps returned from the sack of Malatia beyond and on the west of the Euphrates. [308] In the following year the advancing tide reached the city of Sivas, that peaceful haven in the interior of Asia Minor which had been allotted to King Senekerim, and which was now in possession of his sons. These princes fled for their life, and the Turks were for a moment arrested by the spectacle of the multitude of white domes, belonging to the churches, which they mistook for the tents of their enemy. But both the city and the plain of Sivas were given over to pillage and massacre; streets and countryside were deluged with blood. [309] North, south, and west spread the relentless inundation; at one time the current sets towards the territory of Karin (Erzerum), at another it eddies around the mountains in the south between Diarbekr and Palu. [310]

Armenian patriots of the present day brand the memory of King Senekerim, the Artsrunian, and insult his tomb in the cloister of Varag, overlooking Van. No more lenient judgment is meted out to the Bagratid king of Ani, who, as early as the year 1022, willed away his dominions to the same Cæsar who had supplanted the sovereign of the southern province. But these events are but the outward signs of a general retreat of the Armenians before the advance of Turks and Kurds, battering in the gates of the caliphate and pressing forward into the settled countries. [311] A fairer view might impute it to these Christian kinglets that they failed to stand their ground upon the bulwarks of Eastern Christendom, drawing support from their powerful neighbours of the same faith, who were welded together in a single and magnificent empire. But that empire, so justly respected by the Mussulmans as the realm of the Romans, was an object of particular aversion to the Armenians as the home or the prey of the hated and unorthodox Greeks. On every page of Armenian history is written large the mutual suspicion which envenomed the relations of the two races. Where co-operation might have seemed impossible we may perhaps excuse the abdication of the weaker party, and even justify the usurpation of the stronger. And the judicial historian, who may sift the facts with greater care than the inquisitive traveller, will perhaps conclude that the blame must be laid on wider shoulders--upon the Pan-Greek policy of the Byzantine Cæsars and their masterful hierarchy, and upon the perversity of two cultured and Christian peoples, who, rather than compose or postpone their quarrels, threw this culture and this religion into the maw of savages.

At the time when the Bagratid kingdom of Armenia was suffering from a fresh division of the regal authority under John Sembat and Ashot, the neighbouring Empire was administered by a worthy successor of Nikephorus and of Zimiskes. The Emperor Basil the Second stands out in the Byzantine annals as a monarch who did not disgrace the title of the Roman Cæsars. His personal intervention in the affairs of Armenia dates from the reign of Gagik the First, and was occasioned by the death of the prince of the Akhaltsykh country, David, who had during his lifetime been a fast ally of the emperor, and who had named him heir to his principality. Basil hurried to Armenia to take over his new possessions; he was greeted by the kings of Kars and of Van; but King Gagik excited his displeasure and provoked his resentment by somewhat pointedly remaining away. The Cæsar appears to have made a peregrination of the Armenian country, visiting Shirak, and perhaps occupying some of the fortresses in the south, such as Akhlat, Melazkert, and Arjish. [312] Years later he was again summoned to the scene of his former successes; but on this occasion it was his duty to combat the folly of two Christian princes who had taken up arms against that Empire which alone could save them from their doom. King George the First of Georgia, in concert with King John Sembat of Ani, had been raiding in the imperial dominions. Basil established his camp in the plain of Erzerum, and summoned the Georgian monarch to submit. Upon the failure of his embassies he made his way by the plain of Pasin to the territory of Kars. The armies came together in the neighbourhood of Lake Chaldir; and if the issue of a furious engagement may have seemed uncertain, the result was established by the retirement of the Georgians into their strong places, and by the devastation of their country by the imperial forces, which included contingents of barbarous peoples such as Russians and Bulgarians. The emperor spent the winter in the neighbourhood of Trebizond, where he received an envoy from the king of Ani, no less a person than the patriarch, accompanied by twelve bishops, seventy monks, two scholars, and three hundred knights. The presence no less than the gifts of this distinguished embassy might have appeased the just wrath of the most Christian emperor; but his expectations were perhaps exceeded by the production of a testament in which John Sembat named him the heir to his dominions. This voluntary cession (A.D. 1022) secured the immunity of the kingdom of Ani; and Basil was free to exact his terms from the Georgian. Measures were taken to ensure the future safety of the domains of Akhaltsykh, and the imperial army was paraded upon the extremities of the Armenian country, carrying fear into the hearts of the inhabitants of Azerbaijan. Basil returned to his distant capital, having smoothed the way for the extension of the Empire across the natural bridge of the Asiatic highlands. The masters of Akhaltsykh in the north and of Van in the south could afford to wait for the death of a feeble and childless king. [313]

But the Emperor Basil died in the year 1025, and was followed upon the throne by no less than six sovereigns within the space of seventeen years. His bold policy was committed to feeble hands and incapable brains; and perhaps the testament of King John was forgotten by the Emperor Romanus when he bestowed his niece in marriage upon its author. [314] The bridegroom did not profit by this opportunity of producing an heir who might have rivalled the claims of the heir of Basil. Upon the death of John, which occurred some years after this event, the reigning emperor, Michael, took steps to enforce those claims. One of the most powerful of the Armenian nobles, by name Sargis, supported the cession of the kingdom in accordance with the imperial demand. His proposal was resisted by his compeers, and the imperial forces were despatched into Shirak. Arrived under the walls of Ani, they were surprised by a sally of the garrison, who were led by the chiefs of the faction opposed to Sargis, under the supreme command of the intrepid Vahram (A.D. 1041). The Greek army was routed after incurring heavy losses, and the river of Ani was reddened by the blood of the Greeks. Gagik, the son of King Ashot, who was then a mere youth, was raised to his uncle's throne; and the hateful Sargis was taken prisoner by the successful party, but restored to liberty by the clemency of the young king. The imperial anger continued to harass an inexperienced prince who was regarded by the Byzantine court as an usurper; but the death of Michael in the same year suspended the delivery of a decisive blow. His nephew, another Michael, ruled or tyrannised for a few months; the disorders of his reign were followed by those consequent upon his expulsion; and a short period was perhaps necessary for his successor, Constantine Monomachus, to establish himself upon the throne. The revenge which he inherited against the kingdom of Ani was stimulated by the intrigues of Sargis, who suggested that the youthful Gagik should be enticed to Constantinople, in order to smooth the way for the surrender of the city. The promises of the emperor, and the oaths of the nobles that they would conserve his capital during his absence, were successful in drawing the monarch away; but a considerable display of force was rendered necessary before the garrison could be induced to surrender Ani. After a first reverse, measures were taken by the absent emperor to secure the triumph of his arms. A Kurdish emir, who was powerful in Karabagh and the valley of the Araxes, was induced to join his forces to those of the Empire; and matters had become hopeless when the city was delivered over to the emissary of the Cæsar by the notables in concert with the patriarch (A.D. 1045). King Gagik was allotted a territory in Cappadocia and a palace at Constantinople. A Greek governor was despatched to take over Ani and the new possessions, which placed the crown upon the extension of the Roman Empire along the valley of the Araxes and round the shores of Lake Van. [315]

In this manner and by these several stages the protagonists in a world 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]