User:Yerevantsi/sandbox/Hripsime

Saint Hripsime Church

Ripsime
Rhipsime
Hripsimeh

on restoration: Tumanyan, Yu. [in Armenian] (1988). Հուշարձաններին նոր կյանք [New life to monuments] (in Armenian). Yerevan: Hayastan. pp. 83–85.

Antony Eastmond. Art on the Edge

The Church of the Holy Cross, Jvari, Georgia

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00043079.2022.2109388

The distinctive architecture of Jvari was equally shared by a small group of similar churches built in both Georgia and Armenia in this period, reinforcing the idea of an entwined religious, social, and architectural world.

Jvari’s architecture can be read as encapsulating the bucolic vision of unity and harmony that Abraham describes. Its forms are shared by a number of other churches across the Caucasus. All these monuments are sophisticated plays on geometry and spatial volumes that sought to reconcile the circularity of a central dome within a rectilinear ground plan.

This complex design can be found in a number of other churches built in the seventh century across Georgia and Armenia. Seen as a group, they present a common practice of architectural adventurism in the Caucasus.40 Jvari’s most important counterpart is the Armenian church of St. Hripsime in Vagharshapat (now Echmiadzin), built over the site where Armenia’s first saint was martyred (Fig. 5).41 St. Hripsime is similar in almost every respect to Jvari in terms of the core of its design, particularly the ground plan (Fig. 8b). The two churches also share some of the same construction techniques, notably the way in which thin keystones complete the groin vaults in the corner rooms, embedding crosses into the very fabric of the building (Fig. 6). They both also have large relief crosses in their domes resembling rays of light bursting from the center.

Within those broad correspondences, however, there are significant differences in how the two churches were executed. St. Hripsime is a more austere building with unadorned dark gray tuff walls. Its apses do not extend beyond the rectilinear ground plan (which is emphasized by a heavy three-step stylobate) and the angle niches rise above the roof line to form a cluster of small cupolas around the central dome. The flatness of the four facades at St. Hripsime, only enlivened by the central triangular gables, disguises its internal volumes.

The overlap in these regnal dates with those linked with the building of St. Hripsime and another inscribed tetraconch at Avan in Armenia suggests that any straightforward relationship of original and copy is highly unlikely (Fig. 8d).48 All these churches are variants on a common theme, whose “original” form cannot singly be assigned to either Georgia or Armenia.

The shared architectural language at Jvari and St. Hripsime extends to their symbolic importance. Although the two churches sit very differently in their landscapes—Jvari stands dramatically on the edge of cliff; St. Hripsime rises, seemingly at random, from a largely empty plain—both were built to celebrate the foundation legends of Christianity in the Caucasus in the first decades of the fourth century.

Architecture

Ground plan and cross section per Toros Toramanian

Overview and description

The church has largely stood intact and unaltered throughout history. The most significant additions have been the portico and the bell tower in 1653 and 1790, respectively. Its external appearance has been described as "squat and compact" with a "near-pyramidal form." The church measures 22.8 by 17.7 metres (75 by 58 ft) and rises around 23 m (75 ft) (inside height under the dome). Its southern wall is 53 cm (21 in) longer than the northern (22.87 and 22.34 m). The dimensions and positions of windows, doors, apses, and niches vary throughout the church, which can be explained by successive building phases.

It is built of tuff stone and stands on a stepped stylobate. It is externally rectangular with a cruciform tetraconch plan with four corner chambers (sacristies). It has two entrances, located on the western and southern sides. It is unique for the deep double angular niches on its exterior walls on the north and south. Wilhelm Lübke wrote that the church is built on "a most complicated variation of the cruciform ground-plan."

The small windows emphasize the mass and solidity of the structure.

The interior is organized on a quatrefoil plan, with niches in the cardinal directions. In addition to these, there are niches on the diagonal corners, creating a fluid and dynamic interior space. The diagonal niches, having the form of three-quarter cylinders, may also have been intended to strengthen the abutment of the dome. They give access to four subsidiary chambers that flank the eastern and western niches. Though the building is biaxially symmetrical, the eastern apse is emphasized by the raised altar section that protrudes into the central space. Barrel vaults intervene between the axial niches and the central square. These vaults, which are wider along the main axis, accentuate the east-west direction. The whole composition is bound together to form a well-proportioned rectangle with large triangular recesses on the exterior that impart a rhythmic impression of the composition. The dome rests on a sixteen-sided windowed drum that has twelve windows at its base. Four of the windows are now obscured by small cylindrical towers that were added later as buttresses. The entrance porch on the west is also a later addition. The beauty of the St. Hripsime edifice derives from the simplicity and harmony of its different parts.

Ornaments

Brook noted that ornament is "limited to window-hoods and inscriptions around the porch. The tall broad interior is taut with power, and the crossing piers rise to a complexity of squinches."

Ինքնատիպ են նաև տաճարի պատուհանների կամարաձև պսակները՝ ոճավորված բուսական ու երկրաչափական զարդամոտիվներով, որոնք 7-րդ դարի ճարտարապետությանը բնորոշ նմուշներ են (նկ. 5ա-գ), ինչպես նաև ժամանակագրորեն վաղագույն վիմագրերը:

The arched crowns of the temple windows are also unique, adorned with stylized vegetal and geometric motifs characteristic of 7th-century architecture (Fig. 5a-c), as well as some of the earliest inscriptions.

Reception

Christina Maranci described it as "one of the most admired monuments of early medieval Armenia." The 10th century Catholicos Hovhannes Draskhanakerttsi described the 7th century church as a wonderful and splendid structure. In modern times, on the occasion of its restoration, Catholicos Vazgen I described it as a masterpiece of Armenian architecture and "the most magnificent of our ancient shrines." Its masterpiece status has been accepted widely.[MORE refs]

19th century European visitors similarly held it in high regard. Frédéric DuBois, who visited in 1833-34, found the "simplicity, massiveness, and grandeur" of the church to be the "key elements of the Armenian style." John Mason Neale (1850) suggested that it is "the norm of all Armenian ecclesiastical buildings." He continued, "Indeed, notwithstanding its great rudeness, no feature afterwards occurs that does not, in an incipient state, manifest itself here." H. F. B. Lynch, visiting in 1893, saw Hripsime as superior to Etchmiadzin Cathedral, "because it lacks the 'unsightly projections of apsidal arms'. It is the geometrically plain exterior of Hripsime, which is closer to a cube, that is favored."

direct quotes from Lynch

Harold Buxton suggested that it is the most "perfect specimen of the best age of Armenian architecture." Fridtjof Nansen called it beautiful, noting that the "proportions both of the interior and the exterior of this church give an impression of balance and harmony seldom equalled, and we may safely infer that such a mature form of construction was reached only after a long period of evolution."

Soviet art historians Izmailova and Ayvazyan described it as "small in size but monumental in structure", standing out distinctly against the plain. Ashot Arzumanyan, a Soviet Armenian writer, found beauty and simplicity merged in it. "Its proportions are perfect, its decoration is concise. Arches, niches, projections, a dome crowning the building - all create a sense of rhythm, harmony, and grandeur."

In more recent decades, Howard L. Parsons called it "robust and finely proportioned". Rouben Paul Adalian called it "exceptionally beautiful", admiring the "utter harmony and perfect balance of its proportions", and suggested that along with St. Gayane, it is as a model of the "austere beauty of early Armenian ecclesiastical architecture." Frank Ching, Mark Jarzombek and Vikramaditya Prakash called it "one of the most refined examples of Armenian architecture", and praised its "well-formed proportions and meticulous stonework".

Modern imitations and influence

Its architecture has been directly replicated or inspired several churches, especially in the Armenian diaspora. Notable examples include St. Hripsime Church in Yalta, Crimea (1917), St. Vartan Cathedral in Manhattan, New York (1968), and St. Sarkis Church in Carrollton, Texas (2022).

Zvartnots and Gagikashen were revived in the magnificent building of the opera, the church of Saint Hripsime—in the Government House

hy:Մայր Հայաստան հուշահամալիր

«եռահարկ եկեղեցի է և իր մանրամասներով հիշեցնում է Էջմիածնի Հռիփսիմե Տաճարը»

References

Notes

Citations

descriptive & excerpts

Fridtjof Nansen:

Outside, the ground-plan of the church measures 22.8 metres from east to west, not counting the porch which was added to the west door in 1653, and the belfry built above it in 1790. Inside, the hall between the apses at their greatest depth is 20.5 metres long and 16 metres wide. The inner square of the church, marked by the corners between the apses, is 9.9 metres long and 9.4 metres wide. In these corners are three-quarter cylinders, with a diameter of 2.4 metres, which are distinguished outside by four small round towers on the sides of the dome tower. The dome itself has an inside diameter of 9.4 metres. Outwardly it is sixteen-sided, with twelve windows. The inside height under the dome is about 23 metres, which corresponds pretty accurately to the exterior length of the building.
The walls of the church are entirely bare, without any decoration inside or outside, except some carved arched friezes over the windows and some simple ornamentation inside the dome.

---

This martyrion was probably built on two levels and it was rebuilt towards the end of the century, though only the burial room remains under the apse.

Patriarch P'ilippos ordered repair works in 1653: the restoration of the façades, the steps at the foot of the walls, the facing of the drum and the roofs, which were renewed, The remains of the porches were pulled down. A small canopied porch built in front of the west façade was built at this time, and probably also the four turrets built against the drum.

A lantern turret in the shape of a rotunda was added to the porch in 1880 [1790].

A surrounding wall was built in 1776 and the last restoration works were undertaken in 1894-98. A very late coating spoiling the interior was cleaned away in 1958.

dome

While some scholar believe the cupola, dates to a later period, usually the 10th or 11th centuries, mason's marks discovered during restoration in the 1950s

Eremian, again arguing from irregularities in measurement, attributes the cupola to the tenth century. But Mnacakanyan reported finding mason's marks in the cupola that match those found in the body of the church. Moreover parallels for the decoration of the dome tongues radiating from the center and the band of concentric circles at the base-can be found in seventh century churches at Talinn and Mastara.

Վարազդատ Հարությունյանը գրում է, թե բացի նրանից, որ ծեփի հեռացման [1955-1958] արդյունքում բացվեց տաճարի ներքին տեսքը, գմբեթի ներքին մակերևույթին ի հայտ եկան նաև բազմաթիվ վարպետանշաններ, որոնց համեմատումը տաճարի արտաքին նշանների հետ միանգամայն համոզում է, որ դրանք հիմնականում նախնական ու անեղծ են, այսինքն՝ գմբեթը չի նորոգվել»:

Eremian: Ուսումնասիրությունների տվյալներով, հիմնովին վերանորոգվել է գմբեթը (թերևս՝ X դ.)

Varazdat Harutyunyan. 1959 excavations

Այժմ անդրադառնանք գիտական այն հայտնագործություններին, որոնք անմիջական արդյունքը հանդիսացան սկզբնապես զուտ գեղագիտական նպատակներ հետապնդող ծեփի վերացման աշխատանքների: Դրանցից առաջինը վերաբերում է գմբեթին: Նրա ներքին սֆերիկ մակերևույթի վրայից ծեփը հեռացվելուց հետո, բացվեցին վարպետների բազմաթիվ նշաններ: Այս նշանների համեմատությունը տաճարի արտաքին ու ծեփից մաքրված ներքին պատերի քարերի վրա եղած նշանների հետ, միանգամայն համոզում է, որ դրանք հիմնականում նման են միմյանց: Այս վերին աստիճանի ուշագրավ հանգամանքը թույլ է տալիս եզրակացնել, որ գմբեթի ներքին սֆերայի շարվածքը նախնական է, անեղծ, այսինքն վերանորոգման չի ենթարկվել: Մյուս հետևությունը, ինչպես կարելի է կռահել Առաքել Դավրիժեցու վկայությունից, այն է, որ գմբեթը վերանորոգվել է միայն արտաքուստ, և այդ կապակցությամբ էլ առաջացել են 7-րդ դարի հայ ճարտարապետության անհարիր ձևերը:

Ծեփի մաքրման հետևանքով կատարված գիտական մի այլ կարևոր հայտնագործություն պետք է համարել գմբեթատակ 4 անկյուններում եղած 3/4 խորշերը պսակող հովհարաձև տրոմպների բացումը: Սրանց ձևերը աննախադեպ են և որպես գմբեթային փոխանցման կոնստրուկտիվ միջոց 7-րդ դարի եկեղեցիներում մինչ այդ չեն հանդիպել։

Type and origins

Maranci: Inscribed within a rectangular masonry block, four conches radiate from a central dome with large corner chambers accessed by circular passageways. The quadrangular structure rises into triangular gables, round corner towers, a faceted drum, and finally a conical roof. The exterior emphasizes planarity through its smooth polished surfaces, relieved by tall triangular niches on each façade and sculpted moldings on doors and windows. The blocky exterior gives way to an undulating interior, dominated by a dome resting on tall axial arches and squinches (arch-shaped supports in the corners of the square bay). Above, a molded cornice separates the elevation from the fenestrated drum, from which twelve bas-relief lappets radiate before terminating in sculpted medallions. The resulting harmony and complexity of spatial relations, and the refinement of surface details, make the church of Hrip'sime one of the most admired monuments of early medieval Armenia.

an example of the "inscribed tetraconch" type, distinctive to the South Caucasus. Maranci: domed, centrally planned church of Hrip'sime

The churches of Mtskheta and Ateni, in Georgia, also belong to this striking architectural type.

5. Hrip'simé Type The most developed central plan and the one considered most uniquely Armenian (or Caucasian, since early examples are also found in Georgia) is the radiating or Hrip'simé type [ 11, 12, 13, 14, 26], which takes its name from the most famous example, the church of St. Hrip'simé [ 13, 14] built in 618 at Etchmiadzin. The oldest dated monument with this form, however, is the church at Avan (591-609) [ 11] near Erevan, though some Italian scholars suggest that the church at Soradir [ 12] east of Lake Van may be an even earlier sixth century prototype. The basic plan of the Hrip'simé type is an interior tetraconch, that is interior apses joined to form a four leaf clover shape. At the intersection of these apses in each of the corners are deep circular niches (three-quarter cylinders), which, with the four apses themselves, create an octagonal base as a support for a high cylindrical drum. This in turn is crowned by the usual dome. Leading off the corner niches are four chambers, either circular in shape (Avan [ 11]) or more usually square (Hrip'simé [ 12, 13, 14] and Sisian). This very symmetrical plan allows a proportionally large interior space to be created, unhindered by columns or piers. Since, however, this complex inner space is enclosed in massive stone walls, the exterior of the building in Armenian architecture, often does not reflect the contour of the interior. The high drum supporting the dome is pierced by windows to admit light into the large central space; windows on other walls are relatively small. Each of the façades of Hrip'simé [ 13, 14] and Sisian are indented by pairs of deep triangular slits, which place in relief the otherwise hidden inner tetraconch. Only the exterior of Soradir [ 12] (and the tenth century church of Aght'amar [ 26], which copies the Soradir [ 12] plan minus the corner chambers) to some degree has an exterior that reflects the interior articulation.

Hovhannes Khalpakhchian wrote:

The central-dome system reached high perfection in the Avan Cathedral (589-608, or 609) and in the Church of Ripsime (618), outstanding monuments of medieval architecture. The Ripsime Church is designed with magnificent simplicity. It is characterized by conciseness and harmonic unity of volumetric forms, emphasizing the centrality of the dome structure. The facades are enriched with deep and high niches, serving a structural purpose while simultaneously highlighting the internal division of space (a sub-dome square with apses on the sides). This technique of deep niches later found wide application in Armenian architecture.

Simultaneously, however, there occurred another development-- the emergence of the domed-centrally planned church in the sixth-seventh centuries. For Xalpaxc'yan, the churches of Hrip'sime, Ojun, and Mastara marked the formation of a "well-developed" national architecture, which would exert an influence on that of later periods. Where did these structures come from? According to Xalpaxc'yan, they find their ancestors in the popular domestic dwelling, or glxatun, found in Armenia (and much of the Caucasus, Near East, and Central Asia)160.

Constructed of wood, these structures usually consist of a single, square chamber, topped with a very characteristic roof: a system of wooden frames continuously corbelled until only a small smoke-hole, or erdik, remains open at the top. Generally, the roof is supported by four piers (fig. 24). The perishable character of wood has meant that no pre- modern structures of this sort survive, however, the prevalence of the glxatun as a mode of habitation, particularly in rural areas, as well as other evidence, has suggested to many scholars its existence during the Middle Ages. For Xalpaxč'yan, proof of this hypothesis is found in the dome of Tekor. This structure, which Xalpaxč'yan considers among the oldest stone domes in Armenia, is sloped inwards on the sides, gradually narrowing to form a pyramidal, rather than cylindrical drum. Xalpaxčyan argues that this construction, which he refers to as corbelling, "is exactly the same as in the popular dwellings". Thus, he concludes, in Tekor we find a transitional monument, which signals the roots of the Armenian dome in the glxatun type. Xalpaxčyan finds further evidence in the cathedral of Ejmiacin. Agreeing with Alexander Sahinyan, he believes that the fifth-century phase of the cathedral differed little from its present state: a square chamber with axial apses divided by four central piers supporting a dome. Xalpaxc'yan considers the account of Sebeos, who tells us that the stone dome of the cathedral replaced the original wooden dome. The early occurrence of wooden dome, then, as well as the use of four supports, further allows Xalpaxcyan to liken this church type with the glxatun. 

Throughout his article, Xalpaxcyan stresses the indigenous qualities of Armenian architecture.161 Zvart'noc', Hrip'sime, the basilicas were products mainly of local influences, not cross-cultural relations. In the conclusion, he emphasizes on the pre- Christian sources for Armenian basilicas and the "domestic" sources for the domed, central plan as the key elements in the development of Armenian architecture.162

Varazdat Harutyunyan. The development of centrally-planned cross churches was also based on a single source (although not necessarily renovated). Although Harut'yunyan acknowledges the problematic chronology and building phases of the cathedral of Ejmiacin, he maintains that the present structure dates to the fifth century and thus was: "the first to introduce the cross-shaped type into Armenia",185 which was imitated later at Avan ( 591-602 ) and then at the church of Hrip'sime in 618. Construction of other churches followed and led further to Georgian examples, for which Harut'yunyan stresses their Armenian descent: "Centrally-planned, cruciform, domed church types were executed also in Georgia, as in the cases of the churches of Ateni and Djvari. The creator [of Ateni], was an Armenian architect by the name of Todosak. There is evidence also for his participation in the construction of the church of Djvari…»186

Maranci on Georgia

Lying just north of Armenia, and bordered on the west by the Black Sea, the architecture of Georgia offers the most striking similarities with that of Armenia. The small, centrally-planned structures of Georgian churches, their conical roofs, and sculptural decoration, all bear striking resemblance to those found in Armenia. Furthermore, there is no doubt that master builders and masons traveled back and forth. An inscription, for example, at the church of Ateni in Georgia identifies the builder as an Armenian. The closeness of the two traditions, both in ecclesiastical architecture and in almost all other architectural genres, encourages the formulation of a Transcaucasian, rather than strictly Armenian study. While certainly there are features distinct to each tradition, the abundance of commonalities discourages drawing an overly rigid line between them, as is common in much of the scholarship on the Transcaucasus. The problem thus remains of how to speak of "Armenian" and "Georgian" architecture, and how, when, and why to distinguish between them. I believe that there are instances when one should use the term "Transcaucasian" architecture. The use of particular types of plans, such as the inscribed tetraconch with corner chambers, is a Transcaucasian scheme, which emerged simultaneously in both Armenia and Georgia in the seventh century. However, there are instances when one may distinguish between the two traditions. At the church of Mcxeta, for example, the apses of the inscribed tetraconch project slightly from the walls (fig. 4); while at Hrip'sime in Armenia, those same apses are fully contained within the wall, and are marked externally only by flanking triangular niches, and this distinction remains relatively consistent in the early monuments of each region.17

Maranci on Iran and other sources

But Iran cannot completely explain the centrally-planned churches of Armenia. As noted in Chapter Three, for example, a comparison between the squinches at Hripsime and those at Sarvistan and Firuzabad does not provide anything other than a very crude resemblance, and certainly does not offer a direct source. Again, then, as with the Armenian-Syrian comparisons, it is also necessary to look elsewhere—to Georgia, and to Cilicia, Mesopotamia, and Cappadocia.

It would be a great mistake indeed to ignore the monuments of Cappadocia, which provide important comparanda, if not even more so, for the churches of Armenia. Unlike the Byzantine monuments in Constantinople and Greece, these churches have not enjoyed the close attention of scholars, and remain virtually unexamined in relation to thosein Armenia. Yet there is much in them that may help us to understand the domed, centrally- planned monuments of Armenia. Less than a century before the Armenian examples, we find small Cappadocian churches in which the central axes are raised in the shape of a cross. Consider the church of Tomarza (fig. 1). Its stone dome, small, cross shape, polygonal apse, and octagonal drum encourage a comparison with Armenian structures. Its masonry, like most churches in Cappadocia as well as in Cilicia, consists of a thin rubble core faced by large, well-joined stone blocks. Even more striking in comparison is the "Red Church" (Kizil Kilise) of Sivrihissar in the Haman Dag region of Cappadocia (fig. 2). This church, at first sight, could be taken for an Armenian monument. As with many Armenian churches, the layout features two axes which intersect at a central, square bay. Over the bay rises an octagonal drum topped by a stone dome. On the interior, the comparison becomes even more striking. The means of support used for the drum are squinches, very similar to those found in Armenia (fig. 3). The construction of squinches, employing large, wedged-shaped stone blocks, is also closer to the Armenian examples, but unlike those in Iran (e.g. at Sarvistan), where squinches were built of a system of horizontal brick courses. The sculpted bands framing windows also bring to mind the decoration of early Armenian churches. Finally, the size of Kizil Kilise is comparable to Armenian monuments, measuring roughly 24 by 24 meters. Hripsime, by comparison, measures 17 by 21 meters.

The church of St. Hripsime near Etchmiadzin [...] The germ of the arrangement, however, exists in the cathedral of Bozrah in the Haouran of a.d. 512. / Bosra in the Hauran

In his Byzantine Architecture, Mango presents a view similar to that in Die Baukunst. He likens the corner arches in the churches of Nea Moni and Dafni to those present in the Armenian church of Hrip‘sime.21

Similar churches and imitations

The church is not the earliest example of this architectural form, however, the form is widely known in architectural history as the "Hripsime-type" since the church is the best-known example of the form. It has also been variously named "Jvari-type" or "Jvari-Hripsime-type" for Jvari in Georgia. Despite this, these words can be refuted by the fact that at the end of the 6th century an Armenian church was built in Avan with the same style as Jvari and St. Hripsime Church.

Notable churches with similar plans include the Surb Hovhannes (Saint John) Church of Avan (6th century), Surb Gevorg (Saint George) Church of Garnahovit (6th century), Church of the Holy Cross at Soradir (6th century), Targmanchats monastery of Aygeshat (7th century), Holy Cross Cathedral of Aghtamar (10th century), and Surb Astvatsatsin (Holy Mother of God) Church at Varagavank (11th century). The architectural form is also found in neighboring Georgia, where examples include the Ateni Sioni Church (7th century), Jvari monastery (7th century), and Martvili Monastery (10th century).

Տարիներ հետո, 1967 թ. Հռոմի համալսարանի գիտական արշավախումբը պատմական Վասպուրականի շրջանում հայտնաբերեց Սորադիրի ս. Էջմիածին եկեղեցին, որի տրոմպները նույնն են, ինչ որ ս. Հռիփսիմեում բացվածները (տես Tommaso Breccla Fratadocchi, La Chlesa s. Ejmlacin a Soradir, Roma, 1971.

Mnatsakanian, Stepan (2010). Sarafian, Ara; Koker, Osman (eds.). Aghtamar: A Jewel of Midieval Armenian Architecture. Gomidas Institute. The Church of the Holy Cross of Ałt‘amar: Politics, Art, ... - Page 355, 2019

... church of the Holy Cross on the spectrum of the typological development from the church of Hrip'simē to that of Ałt'amar

Eastmond, Antony (2023). "Art on the Edge: The Church of the Holy Cross, Jvari, Georgia". The Art Bulletin. 105 (1): 64–92.

The church at Dzhvari is a tetraconch, that is to say, it has four apses radiating from a central dome. In Georgia this is not an academic matter: the tetraconch is a hot issue. It is a highly sophisticated form and appears quite suddenly in both Georgia and Armenia at about the same time (late sixth to early seventh century). It used to be assumed that it was an Armenian invention, but any self-respecting Georgian bristles at the suggestion that his magnificent architectural tradition is merely derivative, so if you find yourself engaged in a discussion on the origins of the tetraconch (and it is quite likely that you will), tread very carefully.

The celebrated Church of Jvari (the Cross), overlooking Mtskheta (the capital of Georgia from the fourth century B.C. to the fifth century A.D., and an important religious center), which was built between 586 and 604, is a genuine example of a classical domed- cross structure.The remarkably high level of artistry and the pivotal role of this monu- ment in the evolution of Georgian medieval architecture underscore its importance.The design and form of the Church of Jvari reflect the experimentation with architectural styles that appears to have begun during the fifth century, when Georgian architecture apparently underwent several stages of artistic and structural transformation.
The Church of Jvari has four conches with four rooms, one at each corner of the building. Four exedrae, placed on the diago- nal, connect the four rooms to the central naos. The interior spaces are clearly articu- lated on the exterior of the building.The dome of the church rests on four squinches that are positioned over the exedrae and form the transition from square to circle. Squinches are a characteristic feature of Georgian Early Christian architecture; in Byzantine architecture of this period only pendentives were used.
The Church of Jvari is the earliest of a group of seventh-century Georgian examples of the same architectural type; the others are in Ateni, Dzveli-Shuamta, and Martvili. Beyond the Georgian border, in Armenia, architecturally similar churches were con- structed in the late sixth and early seventh century. However, in spite of analogies in plan, the Armenian Church at Avan, the Church of Saint Hrip'sime at Ejmiacin, and the Church at Adiaman clearly differ from Georgian monuments in several aspects.7 [[[Giorgi Chubinashvili|Georgii N. Chubinashvili]], Pamiatniki tipa Dzhvari (Tbilisi: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk Gruzinskoi SSR, 1948)., pp. 104-14 .]

---

• Yakobson, A. L. (1970). "Взаимоотношения и взаимосвязи армянского и грузинского средневекового зодчества [Relationships and connections between Armenian and Georgian medieval architecture]" (PDF). Sovetskaya arkheologiya (in Russian) (4): 41–53.

В современной армянской историко-архитектурной науке эта тенден- ция, можно сказать, целиком изжита: вопрос о художественной неравно- ценности армянского и грузинского зодчества или о «преимуществах» своей армянской архитектуры здесь давно снят 3. [3 В этом смысле очень показательна мысль, высказанная А. Б. Еремян в отно- шении храмов типа Рипсиме: «Для истории грузинской и армянской архитектуры никакого решающего значения не может иметь факт возникновения этого типа впер- вые в той или иной стране… В цепи развития армянских и грузинских храмов она (форма храмов тила Рипсиме) является лишь одним из звеньев». А. Б. Еремян. Храм Рипсиме. Ереван, 1955, стр. 20.]

К сожалению, в современной грузинской искусствоведческой литерату- ре сказывается, и порой довольно сильно, другая тенденция: во главе ар- хитектурного развития Закавказья поставить Грузию. Так, Г. Н. Чубина- швили, хоть и признает «общие тенденции» армянского и грузинского зод- чества, считает, что в противоположность грузинским армянские строите- ли (имеются в виду создатели зданий типа знаменитого храма Джвари близ Мцхеты начала VII в.) «не усвоили самой сути художественного решения», а потому их произведения с грузинскими «ни в какое сравне- ние идти не могут» 4. В своих работах 5 Г. Н. Чубинашвили неоднократно отмечает художественную неполноценность средневековой армянской ар- хитектуры.

Подкупольное пространство все более расширялось, композиционное значение купола увеличивалось. И уже в том же VI в. выработана была свойственная только Закавказью величавая композиция объединенного внутреннего пространства, с примыкающими к нему четырьмя широкими экседрами, промежуточными трехчетвертными нишами и зажатыми в углах приделами. Архитектурные компоненты слились здесь в единый и цельный массив, в котором четкому, нарастающему к центру ритму внут- ренних объемов полностью соответствует ясно выраженная градация устремленных кверху масс здания. Это было большим достижением сред- невекового зодчества, олицетворенного в храмах Джвари в Грузии и Рипсиме в Армении.

Полной зрелости и совершенства центральнокупольная архитектура до- стигла в Армении и Грузии к концу VI - началу VII в. в храмах типа Джвари (Грузия) и Рипсиме (Армения), в которых внутренние объемы с их сложным и богатым ритмом получили четкое и гармоничное выражение в наружных массах, строго расчлененных в соответствии с внутренней ком- позицией. Здания эти отличают и прекрасно выработанные пропорции. Данная композиция в сложившемся виде известна по целой серии па- мятников Армении и Грузии: таковы храм в Аване (конец VI в.), храм Рипсиме (618 г.), храмы в Арамусе, Торгманчац-ванке, в Сисиане (ко- нец VII в.) - в Армении 25. 25; Джвари (начало VII в.) 26, Атенский Сион (VII в.), храм в монастыре Дзвели Шуамта (конец VI - начало VII в.), храм в Мартвили, восстановленный в Х в., - в Грузии 27. Общность данной группы зданий выступает предельно ясно и отчетливо. Конечно, и здесь наблюдаются некоторые различия, особенно в одном из более ранних па- мятников - в Аване 28. Но имеющиеся различия не в состоянии заслонить единства всех-этих зданий, знаменующих одно большое архитектурное яв- ление. Единство это не оставляет сомнения в том, что формирование ком- позиции Джвари - Рипсиме - дело столь же грузинских, сколь и армян- 29 ских зодчих, творивших рука об руку2*. 29. Тот факт, что одно из названных зданий - Атенский Сион - построено на почве Грузии зодчим-армянином, лишь подтверждает эту очевидную мысль.
[29=29 Некоторые историки грузинской архитектуры признают в Армении лишь- «известные параллели» композиции Джвари (В. Беридзе. Ук. соч., стр. 564); в его более ранней общей работе (его же. Архитектура Грузни. М., 1948) храм Рипсиме в связи с Джвари вовсе не упоминается. Определеннее взгляд Г. Н. Чуби- нашвили. Он считает, что композиция Джвари создана была именно зодчими Джва- ри, т. е. в Грузии, откуда затем была заимствована Арменией: приоритет Грузии для целой полосы развития армянского зодчества, по мнению Г. Н. Чубинашвили, «ныне- уже можно считать твердо установленным» (Г. Н. Чубинашвили. Памятники типа Джвари, стр. 112). Заимствование это Г. Н. Чубинашвили считает весьма не- умелым. «В художественнсм отношении,- пишет он,- и в смысле художественного акта эти строения (храмы Джвари и Рипсиме.- А. Я.) несоизмеримы» (там же, стр. 112; Г. Н. Чубинашвили. Разыскания об армянской архитектуре, стр. 37). О необъективности и тенденциозности такого взгляда см.: А. Л. Якобсон. Рец.: Г. Н. Чубинашвили. Разыскания…, стр. 262 сл.; А. Б. Еремян. К вопросу о датировке…, стр. 55-60; Б. Н. Аракелян, В. М. Арутюнян, С. Х. Мнацака- н ян. Ук. соч., стр. 56-58.]

В сущности, нет ни одной принципиально важной черты в трактовке архитектурного фасада, которая бы отличала раннесредневековую архи- тектуру Армении и Грузии. Можно констатировать и общность самих де- коративных мотивов, например мотив вьющейся виноградной лозы на бровках храма Рипсиме и Джвари или орнаменты Цроми и армянских зда- ний VII в. 35 Мы вправе заключить, что в раинее средневековье зодчество Армении и Грузии (как и Албании) развивалось не только в одном направлении, но и в одном русле. В сущности, эти архитектуры создавались в одинаковой мере и армянами, и грузинами.

---

П. М. Мурадян. Армянская надпись храма Джвари, Вестник общественных наук АН Арм.ССР, 1968, 2, стр. 77-79. https://arar.sci.am/dlibra/publication/37523/edition/33696/content

---

imitations

Axtamar: Commissioned by Gagik Ardsruni, King of Vaspurakan (908–943), it was built by the architect Manuel in the years 915–921. Along with Trdat, the architect of the Cathedral of Ani, Manuel ranks among the geniuses of Armenian architecture, men who created a distinctive national style. Aghtamar was designed in the cruciform plan, consisting of a central square with semicircular vaulted apsidal niches on all four sides and smaller cylindrical niches at the four corners. A large dome with a polygonal drum covers the entire central square, giving it the appearance of a highly compact and solid edifice. In this regard, it echoes the design of the Church of St. Hripsime at Vagharshapat.

Kars church: The contrast is easily observed in the difference between the solidity of the extant cathedral of Kars, the Church of the Holy Apostles (928–953), an earlier Bagratuni era construction, with its determined attachment of mass to ground, and the sense of lightness displayed by Trdat’s designs. The architect of Kars modeled his design upon the work of the Master of Hripsime to assure structural stability by relying on thickness, density, and compactness to drive the thrust of the weight of its large dome almost directly down into the ground.

---

https://rustaveli.org.ge/res/docs/067cd6f7539612d9b0fed3c7523fa5d17bf098e5.pdf MEDIEVAL GEORGIAN CHURCHES: A Concise Overview of Architecture

The plan applied in Jvari Church was known in Armenia as well (St Hripsime at Echmiadzin, Aramus, Targmanchats Vank, Garnahovit, etc). The apses of Armenian churches, unlike the above-discussed Georgian ones, do not project from the general outline of the building, with the result that the entire plan is inscribed within a plain rectangle. The question of precedence hotly discussed by Georgian and Armenian scholars for decades is actually meaningless, as the process of mutual influence and interchange was too complex to be explained by the “export” and “import” of ready plans and architectural forms.

---

Antony Eastmond. Art on the Edge: The Church of the Holy Cross, Jvari, Georgia https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00043079.2022.2109388 https://pdfupload.io/docs/6cd7f263

Eremian

enc

Տաճարը պատկանում է միջնադարյան Հայաստանի եկեղեցական կառույցների առավել կատարելագործված տիպին (ձեվավորվել է VI դ.):

Տաճարը ներքուստ խաչաձև է, որն ստեղծվել է գմբեթածածկ ծավալին կցված չորս խորաններով ու շրջանի 3/4 հատվածքի անկյունային խորշերով: Ներքին տարածությունը ամբողջական է, ընդարձակ, ամփոփ ու սլացիկ: Արտաքինից պարփակված է ուղղանկյուն ծավալի մեջ. անկյուններում ստացվել են չորս սենյակներ, որոնք աղոթարանի հետ կապվում են անկյունային խորշերով:

Տաճարը կառուցվածքով քարի տարածական միաձույլ համակարգ է, աշխատում է ողջ պարագծով, ունի մեծ սեյսմակայունություն: Խորանների գմբեթարդների և նրանց տանիքների միջև թողնված են սնամեջ տարածություններ, որոնք նպաստել են եկեղեցու գերազանց ակուստիկային և ծառայել որպես գաղտնարաններ:

Տաճարի կառուցվածքային համակարգը՝ չորս խորանների, խորշերի ու նրանց վրա հանգչող գմբեթի կորագիծ մակերեսներով, նրա գեղարվեստական կերպարի ստեղծման հիմնական միջոցն է: Աղոթարանը ստացել է խիստ արտահայտիչ տարածական լուծում. ութ զանգվածեղ որմնամույթերի ուղղաձիգ ընդգծումները նրան տալիս են վերասլացություն:

Տաճարը իր տիպի կառույցներից առանձնանում է լայնանիստ (10,1 մ) ոչ բարձր թմբուկով, գմբեթային քառանկյան անկյուններում թմբուկին կցված աշտարակիկներով, ցածի ուղղանիստ ծավալից մինչև գմբեթի վեղարը ծավալների ներդաշնակ անցում- ներով, որով ստեղծվել է հուշարձանի առավել արտահայտիչ ուրվագիծը: Ճակատներն ակոսող սեղանաձև խորշերը ստեղծել են ուղղաձիգ ուժեղ ընդգծումներ, ճակատների հարթությունը դարձրել ծա- վալային, թեթևացրել հուշարձանի զանգվածեղությունը:

Տաճարին բնորոշ է ծավալների ամփոփ ու ներդաշնակ համակցությունը:

Գեղարվեստական կերպարը վեհ է, հանդիսավոր, խոհական ու ոգեշունչ:

Բացառիկ է տ-ի նշանակությունը հայ ճարտ-յան համար: Այն դարերով մշակված գեղարվեստական մտքի բյուրեղացումն է ճարտ. ձևի մեջ: «Հռիփսիմեատիպ» կառույցներ են՝ Արամուսի Ծիրանավոր Ս. Նշան (VI դ.), Ավանի Ս. Հովհաննես (VI դ. ). Գառնհովիտի Ս. Գևորգ (VI դ.), Այգեշատի Թարգմանչաց վանքի (VII դ.), Սիսավանի Ս. Հովհաննես (VII դ.), Աթենիի Սիոն (VII դ.), Արծվաբերի Ս. Աստվածածին (VII դ.), Արծվանիստի Ս. Աստվածածին (X դ.), Վարագավանքի Ս. Աստվածածին (X դ.) եկեղեցիները, վրաց. հուշարձաններից՝ Ջվարին (VII դ.), Շուամտան (VII դ.), Մարտվիլին . (X դ.): Այդ տիպի կառույցների շարքին են դասվում նաև Զորադիրի (Սորադիր) Ս. Էջմիածինը (VI դ.) և Աղթամարի Ս. Խաչը (X դ.):

Գրկ.՝

Մարության Տ. Ավանի տաճարը և համանման հուշարձաններ, Ե., 1976: 
Якобсон А. л. Очерки истории зодчества Армении V-XVII вв., М.-л., 1950; 
Еремян А. Б. Храм Рипсиме, E., 1955; 
Еремян А. Б., вопросу о датировке кафедральной церкви в Аване, «ԼՀԳ», 1969, 3.[1]

Kouymjian

Dickran Kouymjian

The most developed central plan and the one considered most uniquely Armenian (or Caucasian since examples are also found to the north in Georgia) is the type of St. Hripsime (618), the oldest dated example of which is Avan (591-609), though T. Fratadocchi suggests that the church at Soradir east of Lake Van, may be an earlier sixth century prototype.
The basic element is an interior tetra- conch; cut into the corners formed by the adjoined apses are deep circular niches (three-quarter cylin- ders), which, with the apses themselves, create an octagonal base supporting a high cylindrical drum crowned with a dome. Leading off from the corner niches are four circular (Avan) or rectangular (Hripsime and Sisian) chambers, the whole of the interior space however is enclosed in a massive stone cube so that the exterior (as is so often the case in Armenian buildings) in no way reflects the interior. The high drum supporting the dome is pierced by windows to admit light into the church and is topped by a typical conical roof. The facades of Hripsime and Sisian are pierced by pairs of deep triangular slits which place in relief the hidden inner apses. Only the exterior of Soradir (and the tenth century church of Aghtamar, which has almost the same plan) to some degree reflects the interior.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120910171417/http://armenianstudies.csufresno.edu/iaa_architecture/hripsime.htm

Type: Tetraconch with angular niches. Inner octagon with cylindrical niches in corners; radiating type.

The church is considered most uniquely Armenian in style.

The dome is somewhat elliptical with 12 decorative inner ribs. Deep triangular niches on the outside wall of the building. St. Hrip`sime has many earthquake resisting devices.

An account by the 7th century Armenian historian Sebeos and two inscriptions, one on the west facade and the other on the east apse, state that it was erected by the Catholicos Komitas (615-628). It was constructed at the site where the Christian maiden Hrip'sime was martyred by the pagan Armenian King Trdat in the 4th century. According to the 5th century Armenian historian Agathangelos, events surrounding her Martyrdom led to the conversion of Armenian the Christianity. The site was revealed to St. Gregory the Illuminator, as reported in Agathangelos, in a vision in which the son of God descended from the heavens, struck the ground with a golden hammer to level it, and caused a column of cloud and cross of light to appear where the memorial to Hrip'sime was to be built.

The present church is built over the 4th century Mausoleum (395) of the martyr Saint Hirpsime. The Mausoleum was built by the Catholicos Sahak Bartew and the church may have replaced the tower-shaped structure represented in a relief on the south face of the Odzun Stele (Ozdun, A-0018, 7th century).

St. Hrip`sime has survived many earthquakes thanks to the quake-resistant devices. It was built using a square plan instead of a rectangular one, and it has a semi-basement construction. The niches were used in the walls to increase their resistance to collapse. The supports to the dome are more equidistant and hold more equal shares of the weight. This makes the squinches less liable to crack during an earthquake. The dome is reinforced with 12 ribs, which allows the material to be thinner and lighter.

Incorporating an interior hollow relieves the weight at the conical apex of the dome. This helps to keep the center of gravity low and helps to resist the destructive upward Rayleigh-wave movement of an earthquake on a dome. The four square towers and the four little turrets, at the corners of the dome, restrain lateral thrust that is created by P- and S- waves. The turrets act as anchors as well as buttresses.

Essentially unchanged over the centuries, St. Hrip'sime was renovated in 1651-1653 by Catholicos P'ilippos. According to the 17th century Armenian historian Arak'el of Tabriz, repairs were made on the entire roof, the top of the dome, the facing of the walls and their bases. A cross was placed on the top of the roof, and a small portico was attached to the church on the west side. The western and southern gates to the church precincts were closed. On the interior, the Bema, the floor, the four Apses were repaired and the wall covered with plaster. In 1790, a bell tower was built on the west side.

Controversy among scholars concerning the cupola has centered on whether it is the original 7th century construction (Hakobyan, unpublished reports; Mnac'akanian 1964; Marut'yan, 1976), or whether it was rebuilt in the 10th-11th century (Tokarski) since a 16-sided drum is unusual in Armenian architecture of the church indicating that the present dome is the original one.

The east apse was originally constructed with one window and, soon after, given two supplementary windows. According to Eremian (1971), The change was due to Chalcedonian tendencies among the leaders of the Armenian church. During the 1959-1962 renovations, Hakobyan also found the remains of a pagan structure under the church.

Hrip'sime is a highly complex type of central-plan church which has been considered specifically Armenian (Krautheimer, 19965). It is quatrefoil with an octagonal central bay surmounted by a dome. Four narrow ¾ cylindrical niches separate four vaulted apses on the main axes and concave squinches above make the transition from the central octagon to the oval gallery with drum on which the cupola rests.

The drum is 16-sided on the exterior. At its base, there are 12 windows. The cupola above has 12 panels framed with concentric circles. The spacious, well-lighted cupola enhances the impression of an interior in which the apses and niches work together both structurally and visually to create a unified whole. On the exterior, deep triangular niches mark the division between apses and the corner chambers and emphasize a vertical impression of the church.

The plan of the church is similar to those of other 7th century Armenian churches, notably Avan (A-0027), Sisavan (A-0127), T' argmanch'ac' (A-0292), and Garnahovit (A- 0330). The plan is also found in southern Armenia in the church of St. Astuacacin at Ardsuaber (A- 2283), the church of St. Xac' at Soradir (A-2269, probably 7th century), and later at Aght'amar (A-2009, between 915 and 921). The plan is also known in Georgia.

Donabédian

Thierry, Jean-Michel; Donabédian, Patrick (1989) [1987]. Armenian Art. Translated by Celestine Dars. New York: Harry N. Abrams. ISBN 0-8109-0625-2.

---

Patrick Donabédian

Internally, the church has four apses, four niches and four rectangular corner rooms, the niches fitting in the thick masonry between apses and rooms. Trapezoidal and nearly circular, these niches are the first dated example of this feature characteristic of Armenian architecture. In contrast with the angular austerity of the exterior outline, the rounded volumes of the interior are disposed around the large central space surmounted by the cupola. It gives an impression of lightness, though resting on a drum which is still low, but whose twelve windows pierced in its sixteen facets let in floods of light. From the top of the diagonal niches and the imposts of the arches of the apses, squinches on two fan-shaped stones and a row of eight small squinches lead to the base of the drum, which is a near circle regularised by a cornice. The drum has the particularity of being in recess of its base, which creates room for a balcony, as is the case in the cathedral. The corner rooms have groined vaults (resting on corner squinches in the east rooms). The interior carvings are limited to the cupola, which has protruding radiuses - a common feature in the 7 century, There are four loose groups of radiuses narrowing towards the top center, They form a cross and do not seem to play a structural role , Thirty-two medallions are disposed below, in a row. The exterior of the church dates mostly from the 17th century, but the windows have retained their original arches with early 7th century patterns of straight moldings, and rows of dentils, of spheres, of lacunas or of arches. There are no foliage motifs except scrolls on the central west window. There are two decorative rounded plaques on the west façade. A. Eremyan supposes that the central part of the east façade was altered soon after the church was built in order to open three windows in the altar-apse following Heraclius' victory in 630 and the adhesion to Chalcedonism in 632). The uninterrupted band above these windows and the horizontal girdle used to conceal the abnormal protruding of the altar-apse would be part of these alterations.

---

There are a relatively high number of underground martyrions have been preserved in Armenia, and are often quite precisely dated. There are several types: a) simple rooms with a barrel-vault (St. Gayane and St. Hripsime at Ejmiacin (c.400)

Besides these buildings of arguable dates, prestigious four-apsed churches with four niches were erected at the same period in Armenia and in Georgia about 600, but it is impossible to say in which of the two countries the first ones were built. They can be studied according to the shape of the perimeter (polygonal, rectangular or with the insertion of niches), and the number of annex rooms (four, two, or none). Polygonal perimeters reflecting interior structures are characteristic of the Georgian four-apsed churches with four niches, of which there are five: the Jvari church at Mcxeta, founded by King Stepanos I between 590 and 605, the large church at Suamt/a, the cathedral of Martvili, the church at Camhus and the church of St. Sion at At'eni. The latter is a special case because inscriptions mention that Armenian architects and sculptors were very involved in this building: it is a duplicate of Jvari, with annex rooms similarly and clumsily placed, separated from the north and south apses by a wide space.

In Armenia, the perimeter of most four-apsed churches with four niches has two dihedral niches in each façade, discreetely marking the position of the apses. The earliest shape, however, was probably a plain perimeter, like the cathedral of St. John at Awan, founded about 600 by the Chalcedonian antipatriarch Yohan of Bagaran. The building has original, round corner rooms which were probably covered with cupolas, a feature that leads some authors (T. Marut'yan) to suppose that the church had an outline with five cupolas, as had many later Byzantine churches. The cathedral at Awan is even more remarkable for the structure of its portal and its sculpted decoration. The church at Aramus has a similarly straight perimeter; Soviet authors date it from the 7% century, although chroniclers testified that it was built by the Patriarch Dawit‘ I (728741).

The other Armenian four-apsed churches with four niches of this period have niches carved in their perimeter. The most famous and most accessible example is the church of St. Hripsime at Ejmiacin, founded by the Patriarch Komitas in 618. Unfortunately, it has suffered from several major restorations, especially in the mid-17"" century, which have altered its appearance to a certain extent.

[...other similar churches....] Արծվաբեր վանք [2]

https://archive.org/details/thierry-1989-armenian-art/page/76/mode/1up?view=theater&q=hripsime

DECORATIVE THEMES: Dentils, pyramidal dentils, Pearls, lacunars, concentric circles

https://archive.org/details/thierry-1989-armenian-art/page/491/mode/1up?view=theater&q=hripsime

Inward wiangular niches, for example, first appear in St. Hripsimé of Ejmiacin in 618,

Maranci & Strzygowski

illustration by -- Frédèric Dubois de Montpéreux, Voyage Autour du Caucase ches les Tcherkesses et les Abkhases, en Colchide, en Géorgie, en Arménie, et en Crimée; avec un atlas géographique pittoresque, archéologique, géologique, etc, Paris and Neuchatel, 1839-43, architectural and archeological atlas, pl. V.) http://apsnyteka.org/649-frederic_dubois_de_montpereux_voyage_autour_du_caucase.html https://archive.org/details/voyageautourduc02montgoog/ https://archive.org/details/voyageautourduc06montgoog/

Few true forms of this type exist. Among the earlier monuments, however, the closest example is the seventh-century church of Hrip'sime (figs. 18, 19). At Hrip'sime, diagonal niches give access to square corner chambers, and the whole is enclosed in a massive rectangular form.

Why did the Armenian forms acquire niches? Strzygowski's answer is two-fold. In the case of the Mastara type, Strzygowski believed that niches arose from the need to accommodate a Christian congregation. Because the Iranian domed square had functioned either as a dwelling or as part of a complex, it was not required to be large. However, adapting this form to the needs of a church demanded the addition of niches "so that the entire community could find a place."20 The niches at Hrip'sime arose from another source, however. Because Hrip'sime was a martyrial shrine, Strzygowski believed that it replicated earlier funerary structures in Armenia. While his explanations for Mastara and Hrip'sime are very different, note that in both cases, he discusses the emergence of niches as a native development, not as the product of external influence.

Let us now review the problems with this theory, beginning first with chronology. As shown in figures one and two, Strzygowski's development begins with the simple lateral niched form which is followed by the addition of corner niches. The dates of actual monuments, however, do not corroborate this development. While the earliest churches of the first type, represented by Mastara and Art'ik, cannot be dated more specifically than the seventh century, the earliest churches of the second, Avan and Hrip'sime, are dated 611 and 618, respectively. There is thus no reason to assume that the simpler form precedes the more complex.

Strzygowski's discussion of the niches at Hrip'sime, which involves funerary architecture, requires more discussion and will be returned to below. For now, it is sufficient to state that while Strzygowski asserts that Hripsime resembles funerary structures of a previous centuries in Armenia, such structures have yet to be discovered.

Strzygowski, furthermore, was not altogether wrong in formulating an independent development for Armenian architecture. Let us take the example of niches. While we have observed that Armenian niches find precedents all over the Christian East, they also have distinctive qualities. The layout of Hrip'sime type, in which tiny diagonal niches lead from the central bay to the corner chambers, does not find close parallels elsewhere in Early Christian building (except in Georgia)"1.

Josef Strzygowski

https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/strzygowski1918ga

https://archive.org/details/diebaukunstderar01strz https://archive.org/details/diebaukunstderar02strz

Hripsime https://archive.org/details/diebaukunstderar02strz/page/563/mode/1up?view=theater

Kazaryan

Monuments built in the epoch of Catholicos Komitas demonstrate an important step of the evolution of the under cupola transitional construction. In Hripsime they introduced conical squinches not known in earlier edifices with precise dating. Large squinches in the corner niches are supported by fan squinches – a unique and decorative form. On the corners of the large squinches there are smaller ones, and a polyhedron formed by them is crowned with a circular cornice. There is an obvious genetic link to the Constantinople structure but the squinches reflect an influence from Sasanian construction. We can mention the fire-temple of Neysar as one which has survived.

Another unusual form, originating in the time of Komitas, is a large cross-like picture on the surfaces of Armenian domes. We can see them in the preserved 7th-century churches of T’alin, Garnahovit, but the first example probably was on the dome of the Hripsime Church. On the one hand, it could be related to the mosaic cross, originally represented on the dome of the Hagia Sophia of Constantinople. On the other hand, the cross of Hripsime Church, shaped like sun beams, which, as well as the depiction of a twelve-rayed form reminiscent of the sun, has some analogy in Sasanian architecture, i.e. on the dome of the aforementioned fire temple of Neysar 16

However, since there is no direct similarity between the figures of Neysar and Hripsime, either in the scheme, or in the form of sunbeams, or in the content, it can be assumed that the creator of the Armenian church, most likely familiar with Iranian domes, adopted the idea of creating such decorations and tried to embody it in a new way within the framework of conformity with Christian theology17.

Mnacakanian & Marutyan

Marutyan, Tiran [in Armenian] (1976). "Էջմիածնի Ս. Հռիփսիմե տաճարը". Ավանի տաճարը և համանման հուշարձանները [Avan Cathedral and Similar Monuments] (PDF). Yerevan: Hayastan. pp. 77–92.

1978 / Очерки по истории архитектуры древней и средневековой Армении ГЛАВА IV. Архитектура второй половины VI-конца VII вв. / C. X. Мнацаканян / 86 108 https://web.archive.org/web/20240313105904/https://arar.sci.am/dlibra/publication/342426/edition/314583/content

Тодос

Harutyunyan 1992

Harutyunyan, Varazdat (1992). Հայկական ճարտարապետության պատմություն [History of Armenian Architecture] (PDF) (in Armenian). Yerevan: Luys. ISBN 5-545-00215-4. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 January 2022.

Հոիփսիմեի տաճար 79, 99, 100, 102, 107, 122, 131, 133, 135-136, 139-146 , 199, 217, 817, 378, 387

Armenian sources

• Manoukian, Agopik (2013). "Un témoignage sur une restauration de l'époque post-stalinienne: l'église Sainte-Hripsimé à Etchmiadzine (Arménie) [A testimony on a restoration from the post-Stalin era: the Saint Hripsime Church in Etchmiadzin (Armenia)]". In Ter Minassian, Taline [in French] (ed.). Patrimoine & Architecture dans les États post-soviétiques [Heritage & Architecture in Post-Soviet states]. Presses Universitaires de Rennes. pp. 45–60. ISBN 9782753526426.

Melik-Bakhshyan, Stepan [in Armenian] (2009). Հայոց պաշտամունքային վայրեր [Armenian places of worship] (PDF) (in Armenian). Yerevan State University Publishing. pp. XXX. ISBN 978-5-8084-1068-8.

hy:Ալեքսանդրա Երեմյան 1955. А. Еремян, Храм Рипсимэ [The Church of Hrip'simē]

https://arar.sci.am/dlibra/publication/261980/edition/239943 Հռիփսիմեի տաճարը 1953

https://web.archive.org/web/20200604074934/http://echmiadzin.asj-oa.am/5391/ Աբգարյան, Գևորգ (1968) «Շինումն տաճարին Հռիփսիմեայ». Էջմիածին

Mathews

Thomas F. Mathews

In the development of Armenian architecture the most significant feature of St Hripsime is its cupola which places a windowed drum on a circular cornice. The cornice is not a true circle but is flattened somewhat on four sides

More striking, because more unusual, is the placement of turrets on the corners of the cubical base at St Hripsime. This is an unicum in Armenian architecture. Eremian wanted to interpret them as counter-weights to give stability to the drum9; however they are hollow and they provide access from the cornice walk-way to crawl space above the squinch vaults. Both in form and function they are parallel to the turrets that surmount the western half-dome of Hagia Sophia, which are also part of the access system for maintenance of the roofs10. This, of course, is a standard feature of the great vaulted structures of Roman architecture; the massive walls of Roman baths commonly conceal narrow access stairs to the roofs, which finished in turrets above, such as those still visible above the facade of the mausoleum of Sta Costanza, Rome. It is not clear that a building of the modest scale of St Hripsime needed so elaborate an access system, but it does offer an interesting link to Roman and Constantinopolitan building practice.

The design of St Hripsime incorporates four nearly identical chambers in the corners of the cross plan. Each measures about four meters square and each is provided with an absidiole against the east wall. The two western chambers had entrances from the outside which were later walled up; the north-eastern chamber gives access to the crypt. Eremian, following a lead by T'oromanian, proposed that the western chambers were a narthex area for catechumens while the eastern chambers were for the use of the clergy13. The northeast chamber, she proposes, was the residence of the titular priest and the place for consignment of offerings; the southeast was the residence of the priest's assistants. After 630, when the catholicos Ezr built a zamatun at the nearby church of St Gayane, the two eastern chambers lost their residential function and became simply sacristies.

---

A.B. Eremian, Sur certaines modifications subies par les monuments arméniennes au vii siècle, REArm, N.S. 8 (1971), 251-266 ; eadem, Lachiesa di S. Hripsimē, tr. N. Cruciani (Milan 1972). The Italian edition omits some of the figures of the original Russian edition of Erevan, 1955. 2. J. Strzygowski, Die Baukunst der Armenier und Europa (Vienna 1918), I, 92-94; see T. T'oromanian, Nyut'er Hayka- kan Cartarapetut yan Patmut'yan ( = Studies in the History of Armenian Architecture) (Erevan 1942, 1948), I, 291-294 ; II, 74-76.

Lang

• Lang, David Marshall (1970). Armenia: Cradle of Civilization. London: Allen & Unwin. pp. 214–215.

In the sixth and seventh centuries, the Armenians and their Georgian neighbours became preoccupied with the problem of the church with a central dome or tower superimposed upon the vaulted roof. Some scholars have credited the Armenians with the invention of the architectural devices known respectively as the squinch and the pendentive. The squinch makes it possible to raise a circular dome above the square central space of a roofed edifice, the strain being taken by the outer walls. With pendentives, the dome rests on four corner pillars or buttresses. However, it must be recalled that the Babylonians were already employing elliptical vaulting around 1500 Bc. The Parthians were adept at chamber-roofing which consisted of a peculiar 'squinch-vault', a direct forerunner of later Sasanian domes on squinches that were used in fire temples and other important buildings. The palace of Ardashir Papakan, founder of the Sasanian dynasty, built at Firuzabad around AD 225, already contains examples of squinch vaulting in rough cobble stones and mortar. Where the Armenians excelled was in transmitting the crude and perishable mud brick prototypes into perfectly chiselled, durable and scientifically assembled masonry, which would not crumble away, but would stand the test of time.

The earliest and basic type of domed church built in Armenia is the so-called 'apse-buttressed' or 'niche-buttressed' square. Cruciform within, this type has four principal axial buttresses, and often four lesser ones in the corners. A semi- circular niche opens out in the middle of each of the four sides, the eastern niche behind the altar serving as an apse. The dome, resting on squinches, covers the entire central space. This popular design of church is found almost simultaneously in Armenia at Avan (c. 600) and at St Hripsimé in Echmiadzin built by the Cath- olicos Komitas in 618, and in Georgia, at the Jvari monastery on a high hill above Mtskheta (c. 605). A little later, need for a larger inner space dictated the intro- duction of four free-standing piers to support the central dome. Barrel vaults were introduced to intervene between the base of the dome, and the sW30rring: buttresses. A good example of this development is the Cathedral at Bagaran, built between 624 and 631; the ground-plan of this monument resembles a Greek cross inscribed in a square.

The basic structure of Aghtamar lacks originality, and belongs to the epoch of the St Hripsimé church in Echmiadzin, dating from a period three centuries earlier. It has the traditional plan of a square central chamber roofed with a dome, and flanked by the usual four apse-like exedrae. The sculptures, which are the chief glory of the building, hold a central position in the art history of the Middle East; they are of special importance for the understanding of Christian and Islamic art of the period.1 = 1 See the analysis by Dr A. D. H. Bivar, in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, London, XXX, pt. 2, 1967, pp. 409-I0.

sorted

Armen Garbis: Built by order of Catholicos Komitas, this church marked an assertive return to truly Armenian forms and away from forced Byzantine influences, as evidenced in the exterior of the church at Avan. A number of quake-proofing innovations were introduced and some of the features of its dome (cupola, ribs, narrow windows and short buttresses to stabilize the dome against lateral thrust) were transferred by architect Trdat to St. Sophia of Constantinople, when he rebuilt its enormous dome after the earthquake of 986. This dome is still standing. The measured drawings by Toramanian have revealed a large number of subtle divergences from the apparently symmetrical layout of the church. This element proves that graceful buildings do not have to be accurately built and certainly not symmetrically designed. A number of proportions on this building will be found to approximate the "Golden Mean" and the majority are asymmetrical.

---

James Stevens Curl: In both Armenia and Georgia, from the end of C6 the domed centralized plan, much influenced by architecture in Syria, began to reach heights of elaboration. In both Armenia and Georgia, a domed interior surrounded by four apses roofed with hemi-domes (the 'tetraconch' arrangement), the whole enclosed in a rectangle, was common. It is best represented by St Ripsime at Echmiadzin, Armenia (618-30), and the Holy Cross, Džvari, Georgia (before 605). However, Transcaucasia (Armenia and Georgia) developed a characteristic type of church architecture that had a surprisingly long life, usually based on the tetraconch plan with a high polygonal central drum pierced with windows. An example is Holy Cross, Aght'amar, Armenia (915-21), which also has the exterior enriched with figures and stylized ornament carved in low relief.

---

George Zarnecki: Even more complex is the church of St. Hrip'sime at Vagharshapat in Armenia, built in 618; it has four apses, one on each side of a square, and four narrow, tall corner niches. Four rectangular chambers are placed between the apses in such a way that, externally, the church appears to be a large cube surmounted by a dome. Tall triangular niches placed on either side of each apse provide the only external articulation. The design of this church remained popular for several centuries; a variant of the type is the church of the Holy Cross at Aghtamar on Lake Van (fig. 152), built by King Gagik Artsruni between 915 and 921, which is renowned for its extensive wall paintings and external sculpture.

---

Slobodan_Ćurčić: Only in seventh-century Armenia and Georgia can we document the proliferation of lateral chapels. By and large, these are carefully integrated with the architecture of larger churches to which they relate, following earlier established practice.8 = 8. The most impressive and the best-known example is the church of St. Hripsime at Vagharshapat, dated 618. The plan of the church is a tetraconch, somewhat elongated along the east-west axis. Four square chapels occupy corner positions between the projecting apses of the tetraconch in such a manner as to give the building as a whole a rectilinear outline. The concept is carried through in the three-dimensional articulation of the church which reveals a total integration of chapels into the basic building form.

The church of St. George of Mangana has recently been discussed in the light of possible Armenian influence in the Byzantine capital.34 [34. Cyril Mango, "A Note on Panagia Kamariotissa and Some Imperial Foundations of the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries at Constantinople" Dumbarton Oaks Papers, xxvii (1973), 130-132; https://www.jstor.org/stable/1291336 also Mango, Byzantine Architecture, p. 231.] The extent of this impact on the evolution of Byzantine architecture is far from adequately answered. In the context of this discussion, it seems appropriate to emphasize the basic planning similarity of Middle Byzantine churches featuring the compact arrangement of four corner chapels with an established Armenian tradition relying on the same basic design premises. The church of St. Hripsime at Vagharshapat illustrates the point. Ćurc̆ić, Slobodan (1977). "Architectural Significance of Subsidiary Chapels in Middle Byzantine Churches". Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians. 36 (2): 94–110. doi:10.2307/989106. ISSN 0037-9808.

---

Cyril Mango https://archive.org/details/byzantinearchite0000mang/page/98/mode/2up?view=theater&q=armenia

p. 98

toward the end of the sixth century to the domed church, which attained a surprising degree of elaboration in the first great period of Armenian architecture, roughly between the years 610 and 670. These dates are significant: Armenian architecture developed at the very time when Christian Syrian architecture came to a halt; at a time, moreover, when the Byzantine Empire was entering its Dark Age. It may be said without exaggeration that in the seventh century Armenian architecture was leading the entire Christian East. It proved a short period of supremacy: the occupation of that country by the Arabs put an end to this remarkable development, and it was only two centuries later that Armenian builders were able to resume their work on a monumental scale.

The following architectural types appear in Armenia more or less simultaneously. First, the domed tetraconch, usually encased in a rectangle.18 This type is common to both Armenia and Georgia, being represented in the former country by the churches of A van near Erevan (before 609), Aramus, Sisian, St. Ripsime at Echmiadzin ( 618-30 ), and others; in the latter by the Holy Cross (Dzvari) near Mtzkheta (before 605), Ateni, and others. The adaptation of a quatrefoil to a rectangle created an awkward problem of internal planning, namely, how to inte- grate the four outer corners. It was solved by inserting between the larger

p. 99 apses of the tetraconch four smaller exedrae of horseshoe shape, and these smaller exedrae, placed on the diagonals, led to corner rooms, circular at Avan, rectangular in other churches. If the interior suffers from fragmentation, the exterior, on the other hand, acquires a massive monumentality; the four façades are practically identical, but each is deeply indented by a pair of wedge-shaped niches, creating areas of deep shadow. The dome, which is always masonry, is supported on a system of squinches: four large squinches over the diagonally placed exedrae, and eight smaller squinches placed a little higher so as to form the transition from an octagon to the circular base of the drum.

---

Estimating the Structural Characteristics of Historic Armenian Church Buildings and Examining Their Strengthening Applications

we discuss the on-site vibration measured and the vibration characteristics identified using a detailed three-dimensional structural analysis of the church of St. Hripsime. [1] The St. Hripsime church has large cracks inside and deterioration caused by water leaking from the inside due to the partial peeling of the south side wall surface

---

Robert G. Ousterhout: Armenia. An impressive early example of the architectural revival in the Caucasus is the Church of the Holy Cross at Aght'amar, built 915-21. the church remains impressive despite twentieth-century vandalism and a heavy-handed, twenty-first-century restoration. Its design follows long-established models, with an interior spatial disposition quite similar to that of St. Hiip'simë at Vagarshapat: a domed tetraconch with corner niches, creating an octagonal support system for the dome. The east and west conches are extended by extra bays, while the sanctuary is flanked by narrow chapels. Unlike St. Hiipsime, which had corner compartments bringing the plan out to square, the spatial volumes of Aght’amar are expressed on the exterior, with niches and conches given faceted surfaces.

unsorted

Ara Bekaryan painting [3] [4]

---

36-38 Stepan Mnatsakanian. Էջմիածնի ճարտարապետական հուշարձանները. Հռիփսիմե https://tert.nla.am/archive/NLA%20AMSAGIR/SovetakanHayastan1945/1969(3).pdf
38-39 Բացվում են Հռիփսիմեի վանքի գաղտնիքները https://tert.nla.am/archive/NLA%20AMSAGIR/SovetakanHayastan1945/1977(4).pdf

---

Khrushkova, Lyudmila (January 2012). "Early Christian architecture of the Caucasus: problems of typology". Antiquité Tardive. 20: 343–357. doi:10.1484/J.AT.1.103111. ISSN 2295-9718.

Khrushkova, Liudmila G. (January 2015). "Notes on a new publication on the religious architecture of Caucasus in the 7th century". Antiquité Tardive. 23: 407–416. doi:10.1484/J.AT.5.109392. ISSN 2295-9718.

---

The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity Aghtamar Ruined fortified palace on Lake Van in eastern Turkey, from 1113 seat of the senior Catholicos of ARMENIA. The quatrefoil Holy Cross church (915-21) has fine bas-reliefs on all facades, including one of the donor King Gagik I holding a model of the church. Saul appears wearing a turban and a king is depicted in a Persian crosslegged posture. Among the surviving frescoes is an Old Testament narrative cycle. Architecturally, Aghtamar recalls the seventh-century church of St Hrip'sime at Vagharshapat, and its sculptures anticipate reliefs on the eleventh-century Dmitri cathedral at VLADIMIR.

Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies - Volumes 14-16 - Page 201 2005 · ‎ ... Armenian Church it would be unwise to expect anything that would depart from the teachings of that Church in regard to ... Unlike St. Hrip'simē and so many other masterpieces of Armenian architecture , no single architect designed it .

The Caucasian Archaeology of the Holy Land: Armenian, ... - Page 251 Yana Tchekhanovets · 2018 ... architecture has already been discussed. This tendency, according to Kazaryan, can be followed in the construction projects of the Catholicos Komitas Akhtsetsi (613–628), the builder of St. Hripsime church (618) and the renewed Etchmiadzin https://books.google.am/books?id=SmdjDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA230&dq=dvin+608+armenian+georgian+church&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZ_oGam7iDAxXp1AIHHUjgCtcQ6AF6BAgJEAI#v=onepage&q=dvin%20608%20armenian%20georgian%20church&f=false A type which is completely unknown outside the Caucasian region is the tetraconch with corner niches. Two masterpieces of Caucasian architecture belong to this type: the church of St. Hripsime in Vagharshapat, Armenia, built in 618 and the Jvari (Holy Cross) church in Mtskheta, Georgia, built in the 640s. A variant of this type - a tetraconch with ambulatorium - is represented by the Zvartnotz (Vigilant Forces) church in Vagharshapat, Armenia, built in 643-650 .

Armenian Architecture, 4th to 17th Century - Page 28 Edouard Utudjian · 1968 ·

A short visit to the Church of Saint Hripsime would be enough to give an exellent lesson in Stereotomy to our Architecture students

Armenian Church Architecture: From Dormancy to Revival - Page 132 John Halajian · 2006 · ... proportion , structure , func- tionality , etc. , we would find that Zvartnots excels by its near perfect sym- metry , and Hripsime gets the prize for its proportions . In my preceding designs I have defined proportion with a measurable

historical

Fridtjof Nansen:

The effect of this construction is to produce a well-balanced inner hall soaring upwards to the lofty dome in the middle; and this Armeno-Georgian type of church, with its simple massive walls and piers without columns, gives a compact mass effect which seems characteristic of the country.

The inner hall of St. Hripsime's church is just like that of the church on the cliff at Mtskhetha (p. 77), to which, indeed, it bears a striking general resemblance, having a ground-plan with exactly the same dimensions, except that the four square rooms at the four corners of the church are here made as much larger as is necessary to give a completely rectangular form to the exterior. The two churches seem also to date from nearly the same time (the seventh century), though possibly the Georgian church is some years older. The roofs without gables and the dome tower are noticeably of a more simple and primitive kind in the latter building.

But the whole of the inner hall, with the four apses and the four high cylindrical corner-niches between them, all terminating in supporting arches and semi-domes under the central dome tower, presents an upward soaring appearance which is extremely impressive. The light shines down chiefly from the windows of the dome tower, for the narrow windows in the outer walls of the three apses give but little light. In the west apse, where the main entrance is, there is no window. Hripsime's tomb is in a vault underneath the east apse.

---

H. F. B. Lynch

plan 
pic

Of these the largest and certainly the most interesting is that which commemorates the brave deeds of the beautiful virgin from Rome..

In designing the church of the Holy Ripsime the architect has been faithful to the essential features of that of Edgmiatsin-the quadruple apse and the central dome. But the problem before him was how to eliminate the unsightly projections of the apsidal arms, and how to rear the whole fabric by successive stages to the crown of the dome. His solution of the problem, if somewhat rudimentary and fantastic, is certainly successful from the point of view of looks.

My reader will of course eliminate the portal and belfry in appreciating this piece of architecture. They were added, the portal in 1653 by the Katholikos Philippos, and the belfry in 1790. He will observe that the outer walls compose a rectangular figure ; and a moment's reflection will show him that such a figure could only be presented by a stupendous thickening of the wall on either side of each apse. This difficulty has been in part surmounted by the introduction of niches, two for each apsidal recess. These external niches are nearly six feet deep on the north and south sides, a little shallower on the west and east. The treatment of this feature is quite inchoate; but we shall see it in perfection at Ani. At the same time it is evident that provision had to be made for a side chapel on either side of the apse on the east.

These have been supplied according to a design which I have not seen elsewhere, although it appears to be repeated in the church of Sion in the valley of the Tana, a tributary of the Kur, erected at the end of the tenth century.2[=2 See Dubois de Montpéreux, op. cit. vol. iii. p. 213, and Neale's Holy Eastern Church, vol. i. p. 296. The former of these writers informs us that our church of St. Ripsime a servi de type à une foule d'autres églises," and the latter has improved upon this statement by asserting that it is the norm of all Armenian ecclesiastical buildings " (Dubois, vol. iii. p. 380, and Neale, vol. i. p. 293). Leaving Georgia out of account, both these statements are incorrect.]

Between the four apsidal recesses of the interior are inserted the narrow openings of four circular and much smaller cavities, communicating by doors which are almost imperceptible with rectangular chambers or chapels. Of these chambers the two on the east provide the requirements of the church, while those on the west were probably added for uniformity.1[1 Unless we accept Neale's hypothesis that they served as a narthex. But the narthex is not a feature of the churches of Great Armenia.] The effect of the eight recesses, crowned by a dome of unusual diameter for the size of the structure,2'[2 According to Brosset (Voyage Arch., rapp. 3, p. 82) the diameter of the dome is not less than about 35 feet. The height is given by Neale, op. cit. p. 296, as 104.5, feet to the top of the cross.] is extremely pleasing to the eye ; and St. Ripsime is the most impressive ecclesiastical edifice which I have yet presented to my reader. The drum of the dome has sixteen sides ; besides the windows which it contains, light is admitted through bold apertures in each of the apsidal recesses. Standing beneath the dome, one admires the great height of the building. The interior measurements are a length of 74 feet 1 inch and a breadth of 58 feet 4 inches. The question of the date of Ripsime is again not free from difficulty. We know that the Katholikos Komitas rebuilt the church in a.d. 618;3 [3 Sebeos, History of Heraklius (in Armenian), part iii. ch. xxv.] nor, so far as I have been able to ascertain, do we possess records of any subsequent change in the plan. Students of architecture may be inclined to assign it to a later period. The tomb of the martyr is placed in a grotto beneath the apse on the east.4[4 For the theft and recovery of these relics see Smith and Dwight (Missionary Researches, London, 1834, p. 280), and Brosset (Voyage Arch., rapp. 3, p. 83).] Just west of the portal there is a low building, serving as a residence for monks, and, adjoining it, an enclosure for cows. Church and cloister are surrounded by a high mud wall, with round towers at the angles.

---

John Mason Neale

his question I imagine that some great mind solved by the production of S. Hripsime. He gained all that he required, and stamped the impress of his genius on the architecture of his nation. He worked by no model, but left an everlasting type to his people.

It is impossible to look at the ground-plan of this building without owning that it shews a great degree of æsthetical refinement ; that it was the result of deliberate invention, not the nisus of rude impulse; that it assumed as necessary the prothesis and diaconicon, and adapted the rest of the building to them ; and therefore, on all these accounts, we cannot assign to it a date by any means so early as that to which Armenian vanity carries it, the time of S. Gregory; but may attribute it, with great probability, according to another tradition, to the sixth century.

Nor is the disuse of the eastern and western chapels hard to be explained. The penitential system having, in Armenia as elsewhere, fallen into obsoleteness, the nartheces, of course, remained unemployed. The intercourse between Rome and Armenia, which has every where left such deep traces in the latter, suggested their employment as chapels. And that step once taken, to use the prothesis and diaconicon-never so important as in the Byzantine rite-in a similar way, was the natural consequence

of this type: Sion at Kartli, in valley of Atene; cathedral of Martvili

---

Toros Toramanian

https://hy.m.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=%D5%8A%D5%A1%D5%BF%D5%AF%D5%A5%D6%80%3AArmenian_architecture%2C_Toros_Toramanian.djvu&page=90
Թորամանյան, Թ. (1948) Հռիփսիմե. Էջմիածին