Download PDF | Treasures from the Ark: 1700 Years of Armenian Christian Art, By Vreg Nersessian, Oxford University Press 2001.
244 Pages
Armenia was the first country to recognize Christianity as the official state religion in 301 Ap, twelve years before Constantine's decree granting tolerance to Christianity within the Roman Empire. Ever since, Armenia has claimed the privilege of being the first Christian nation, and the wealth of Christian art produced in Armenia since then is testimony to the Fundamental importance of the Christian faith to the Armenian people.
This extensive new survey of Armenian Christian art, published to accompany a major exhibition at The British Library, celebrates the Christian art tradition in Armenia during the last 1700 years. The extraordinary quality and range of Armenian art which is documented includes sculpture, metalwork, textiles, ceramics, wood carvings and illuminated manuscripts and has been drawn together from collections throughout the world — many of the examples have never before been seen outside Armenia.
In his authoritative text, Dr Vrej Nersessian, Curator at The British Library, charts the development of Christianity in Armenia. This fascinating history is essential to an understanding of the art and religious tradition of Armenia, a country in which the sense of the sacred extends well beyond the purely religious, infiltrating the entire fabric of Armenian affairs to create a fascinating culture.
This sumptuously illustrated book will be of immense value to anyone with an interest in Byzantine art and culture, the history of Christianity and the history of Armenia and the Middle Orient.
MESSAGE FROM HIS HOLINESS GAREGIN II
The exhibition on the Christian Art of Armenia at the British Library, on the occasion of the 1700th anniversary of the declaration of Christianity as the state religion of Armenia, is an expression of Christian unity among our peoples and serves to foster mutual recognition and love as well as Christian brotherhood among peoples.
The Armenian nation in the homeland and in the diaspora steps into the third millennium by celebrating this defining moment of its history. In 301 the Armenian people accepted Christianity as their state religion and on the eve of the battle of Vardanank in 451,Vardan Mamikonian tells his soldiers: ‘Let those who thought Christianity was a mere garment for us now realize that they can no more tear it off than tear off the colour of our skin’. The lifegiving light of the Gospel, which was brought to Armenia by the apostles, brightened the slopes of our sacred Mount Ararat when the father of our faith, and first Catholicos, Gregory the Illuminator, with King Trdat III raised the sign of the victorious cross together with the flag of the nation. The soul of the Armenian people was renewed with the values of hope, faith, truth in love, justice and freedom, and a rich and unique Christian Armenian culture was born and was nurtured through the centuries.
The language of culture needs no translation, because through pictures and sculptures, colour and music, an unmitigated dialogue between peoples is assured. The British Library has many years of experience which can ensure the fruitfulness of that dialogue. As Catholicos of All Armenians, we are immensely happy that through the generous sponsorship of the faithful children of our Church, the London Armenian benefactors Mr and Mrs Vatche and Tamar Manoukian, this exhibition of Armenian sacred art is being held at this renowned institution, where numerous civilizations and cultures meet. This exhibition, which is dedicated to the 1700th anniversary of the declaration of Christianity as the state religion of Armenia, is an invaluable gift to the Armenian Church and a worthy expression of respect towards Armenian culture and history.
We send our greetings and appreciation from the Holy See of Ejmiadsin to Revd Vrej Nerses Nersessian, curator of the exhibition, and his colleagues in The British Library for organizing this event, and seek the blessing of Our Lord for the success of the mission of the exhibition, so that the prayers which have sprung out of the Armenian soul and assumed material forms can be conveyed to the numerous visitors with messages of faith and life, and that the voices of all people unite in a plea to our Creator for world peace, prosperity and for a brighter future for all humankind.
Blessings, Garegin IH , Catholicos of All Armenians
MESSAGE FROM THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY
The 1700th anniversary of Armenian Christianity is a notable milestone in the history of the Christian Church. Beneath the cathedral in Holy Ejmiadsin, the mother church of Armenian Christians, lie the remains of a small stone church which may well date back to the earliest years of the church in Armenia when, according to tradition, St Gregory the Illuminator, following years of imprisonment and suffering, converted King Tiridates in 301. Ever since, Armenia has claimed the privilege of being the first Christian nation.
The heritage of Armenian Christianity is a noble one. The stone of the high Armenian plateau enabled churches to be built that have a striking and austere simplicity. Their characteristic pointed domes, like the pointed monastic cowls of the Armenian clergy, are a hallmark of the Armenian Church. But besides the architecture there are rich traditions of illuminated biblical] and liturgical manuscripts, of textiles, church vestments and music. This important exhibition provides an opportunity to experience something of this Armenian Christian heritage.
As one member of the family of Oriental Orthodox churches, together with the ancient churches of Syria, Egypt, Ethiopia and the Malabar coast in India, Armenian Christianity has maintained a distinctive understanding of Christ with an emphasis on the Christology of St Cyril of Alexandria. Separated for many centuries from the majority of Christians in the East and West who accepted the teaching of the Council of Chalcedon in 451, in recent years there has been a growing closeness between the Oriental Orthodox family and other Christians, and within that closeness between Armenians and Anglicans. I welcome the progress that has been made on the journey to Christian unity.
There has been much suffering in Armenian history, and martyrdom has been a note of the Armenian Church. The Church of England in the nineteenth and early twentieth century was particularly concerned with the suffering of the Armenian people, and it is said that almost the last words of Mr Gladstone, the great Victorian statesman and churchman, were ‘Those poor Armenians.’ In the last century one of the consequences of that suffering has been a growing Armenian diaspora, which has meant that some of the treasures of Armenian Christianity have been made known to and shared with Christians in many parts of the world.
This new century brings major challenges and opportunities to Armenian Christians. Because they will build on the rich heritage of 1700 years of practising the faith, often in situations of persecution and martyrdom, I have no doubt that the challenges will be met and the opportunities seized. All of us can learn from the long witness of the Armenian Church, and it is my prayer that this exhibition will enable us to do that, and find a source of renewal for our own faith, as well as kindling new interest in the Christian traditions of this oldest of Christian nations .
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The exhibition Treasures from the Ark, dedicated to the 1700th anniversary of Armenian Christianity (301 2001), has been accomplished with the enthusiastic collaboration of the directors, curators and conservators of a great number of museums, church treasuries and libraries. I thank all of them and their staff (see Lenders to the Exhibition on page 235). I wish to express my deep and heartfelt appreciation to His Holiness Garegin II, Catholicos of All Armenians and His Grace George Carey, Archbishop of Canterbury, for their blessings. I am also grateful to Mr and Mrs Vatche and Tamar Manoukian for their generous sponsorship of the exhibition through their Foundation, without which the project would never have been realised. I would also like to extend my thanks to Dr Armen Sarkissian, former Armenian Ambassador in London, and the staff of the Armenian Embassy for their assistance.
The effort put into this exhibition by colleagues in the British Library is greatly appreciated. Special thanks must be offered to Alan Sterenberg, Janet Benoy, Geraldine Kenny and all the staff in the Exhibitions Office for their exceptional industry and forbearance which made this exhibition possible. Helen Shenton and her staff in the conservation department, who laboured hard preparing the material, deserve special recognition. Colin Wight and his staff have been most helpful in arranging the film and lecture programmes for the public. I would also like to thank Edman, Karen and Arin Aivazyan, who with pride and enthusiasm explored the legacy of their heritage and ensured that the exhibition has a sensitive design.
I would also like to thank the staff of the Publishing Office at the British Library for their patience and professionalism. David Way, who with energy and skill co-ordinated the production of the catalogue, Kathleen
Houghton for obtaining the photographs and Lara Speicher who saw the book through production and kept it on schedule. Professor Robin Cormack read the draft of the entire manuscript and gave encouragement and support to the project, and I am most grateful to him in particular for the Introduction, which was far beyond the call of duty. I am especially grateful to Elizabeth Teague, who diligently edited the manuscript and offered acute and generous advice. The designer Andrew Shoolbred must be thanked and congratulated for the design of the catalogue.
Finally, but in many ways most importantly, Graham Shaw, Deputy Director, Oriental and India Office Collections, must be warmly thanked for his early and continued interest in and support of the project at every stage. I am also especially indebted to Catherine Pickett, who on several occasions faciliated my work on the computer,
The work was always on schedule thanks only to the assistance given to me by my wife Leyla Nersessian who helped with the laborious task of matching the photographs with the captions and with the inevitable cut and paste jobs that follow such endeavours. Her exemplary patience and support was a joy and a great help.
Finally to those that will view this exhibition and to them that will read this record of it remember in your thoughts Ter Nerses dpir and be not angry if you find errors, but make the corrections with a sweet disposition, insert what is missing and erase what is superfluous, and deliver me from accusations.
INTRODUCTION: ARMENIAN ART FROM A BYZANTINE PERSPECTIVE
The extraordinary quality and range of Armenian art which is documented in this exhibition prompts many questions for the art historian and particularly the Byzantine art historian. At the centre of the debate is how to incorporate this material into western and non-western art history. What was the role of Armenia in the establishment of Christian art? How effective an art was it for the Armenian Church? How inventive were Armenian architects and artists? How did Armenian art interact with and influence other artistic spheres?
Byzantine art has often been claimed as the first Christian art. Constantinople as the centre of production between 330 and 1453 has been frequently claimed as the definitive location of the establishment of the character of this art, and in particular of the icon, with its ambition to offer timeless representations of the truths of the Christian faith. Alternatively Byzantine art has been seen as an ‘oriental’ version of Christian art, and the mainstream has been located in the ‘western’ art of Europe. In this debate between ‘western art’ and ‘orientalism’, it has been pointed out that Armenian art is one of several branches of Christian art that are all too often left out of the discussion. It has suffered, according to one analysis, the fate of being Byzantium’s own area of ‘orientalism’.
The full understanding of the development of Christian art needs continued treatment and a fuller knowledge of several neglected areas of study. In recent years, new publications have enlarged our awareness of Nubian and Coptic art and also of Georgian art. In art history, however, the exemplary researches of Sirarpie Der Nersessian {born in 1896, her final work published in 1993 shortly after her death in Paris) have always meant that Armenian art, particularly its manuscript illumination, was the best known of the eastern, non-orthodox, churches. This exhibition brings together major materials from all over the Armenian world, and will allow a new appreciation of the character of this art over a long period of time. But those questions asked by the art historian who looks at this material ‘from the outside’ still remain for debate. How does Armenian art ‘fit’ into the history of art?
One immediate issue is how Armenian art is periodized in modern studies. Are the divisions based on political circumstances or on cultural and theological factors? It seems that the conventional division used by Byzantinists among others into three periods is a mixture of all of these. In the first period from around 300 to 750, the initial bracket is defined by the missionary activities of St Gregory the Illuminator who, after surviving fifteen years in a pit in which he was imprisoned by King Trdat IH during a major persecution of Christians, emerged to convert and baptize the king and his court. Christianity then became the state religion and Gregory was consecrated as the catholicos of the Armenian Church by the metropolitan of Caesarea. But the significant cultural advance was the invention of the Armenian alphabet at the beginning of the fifth century, followed by the translation of the whole Bible into Armenian (from the Greek Septuagint and the Syriac Peshitta} which was achieved by 433. The Holy Liturgy of St Basil and other texts rapidly followed in Armenian editions.
The fifth century was also marked in Armenia by persecution by the Persians, and by the reaction of the Armenian Church to the decisions of the various oecumenical church councils. These were reviewed in a council at Dvin in 506 at which allegiance to the decisions on the faith of the Second Council of Ephesus of 449 were unanimously preferred to the Council of Chalcedon of 451. This stand put Armenia firmly in the world of the eastern Monophysites, according to the Byzantine interpretation of their theology, and the church was henceforth regarded as heretical by the Byzantine community. Armenian theology is, however, not so crudely defined. The position is that the Armenian Church recognizes only the first three oecumenical councils and a characterization of its faith depends on understanding what was established and agreed in these deliberations.
What is striking for the art historian in this first period is the inventiveness of Armenian architects and the extraordinary interest in and development of centrally planned dome architecture (Armenian native building expertise is sometimes seen as the explanation for the employment of the architect Trdat in the restoration of the dome of St Sophia at Constantinople between 989 and 994/5). Many of these churches were on a small scale, which allowed for structural risk taking. It seems that this architectural interest in developing the central plan was matched in Georgia and Byzantium itself. It was not therefore Armenia’‘s separation from the orthodox community which stimulated architectural experiment, but the inventiveness shown in these churches owed much to geographical circumstances and available materials.
It does seem to be the case, however, that the interiors of Armenian churches, although not devoid of monumental paintings and mosaics, were not given such great significance as in Byzantium. This has led to suggestions that resistance to icons and iconoclast thinking was especially strong in Armenia, and in other monophysite communities, and is a consequence of their theological positions. This interpretation of a general resistance to art and icons is very much open to debate, but since the cultural context of writing about images in Armenia and the character and content of the relevant texts from the sixth century onwards is largely unknown to art historians, this must be one of the key areas for increased research in Armenian studies as a contribution to the wide and intense modern interest in iconoclasm and the power of images which it inherently communicates.
At the end of the ‘first’ period of Armenian art, it is clear that the Armenian church looked architecturally different from the Byzantine church and that its faith was different from that of the Byzantine community. This does not imply that it should be regarded as marginal and subordinate to Byzantium. There is evidence of the influence of Armenian architecture both in the capital city of Constantinople and in other parts of the Byzantine empire. Similarly in the rockcut churches of Cappadocia and their wall paintings, the interaction of Armenian and Byzantine traditions has often been accepted.
The second conventional periodization of Armenian art is from around 862 to 102I, and it is generally described by Byzantine art-historical commentators as a retrospective and conservative period of artistic activity. In the presence of such monuments as the tenth-century wall paintings of Tatev, the sculptured exterior of Aght‘amar and the rapid expansion of the royal capital of Ani, this must surely seem a superficial interpretation of the art of this period. It may be more helpful to ponder on the fact that Byzantine art and architecture likewise has been seen as a revival of the past — the so-called ‘Macedonian Renaissance’ of the tenth century. It seems better in the case of Byzantium to explain
12
the period in terms of a complex relationship between on the one hand religious and cultural expressions of continuity and the maintenance of past standards and beliefs, and on the other hand a definite period of experiment and advance in the nature of religious art and the decoration of the holy spaces of the church. Byzantine eleventh-century church art is in all its new effects very different from the early Christian period. It is arguable that the same interpretation of artistic production is valid for Armenia in this period.
The third periodization of Armenian art is put from around 1150 up to 1500, and follows on the disruption of Armenia by the Seljuk invasions. One major consequence of the new situation in Asia Minor and the Caucasus was the establishment of Armenian Cilicia {or Lesser Armenia) which operated as a new and lively Armenian kingdom from 1099 to 1375. The thirteenth-century art of this kingdom is some of the most inventive art of the Middle Ages.
Although many artistic media were practised in Armenia, and their character may have changed during these various historical periods, the most striking and best-known productions are the illuminated manuscripts. The analysis of their stylistic connections can help to clarify some of the questions about the nature and orientation of medieval Armenian art. It should also be noted that the inclusion in many manuscripts, whether or not illuminated, of long and informative colophons is an important feature of book production in Armenia. These texts help not simply in the dating and location of the production of the book, but illuminate the cultural values of their owners and producers.
Stylistic evidence supports the conclusion that one significant source of artistic influence in the early period was Syria. Of course this connection does not offer any simple explanation for the nature of early illumination in Armenia, for books in Syria showed several different patterns of production: some books show definite regional characteristics, while others, like the Rabbula Gospels of 586, are themselves strongly influenced by Byzantine art. But it is clear that the evidence of these early Armenian books needs to be coordinated with the Byzantine materials in order to build up a fuller picture of the production of the east Mediterranean region.
All studies of Armenian illumination in the period from the eleventh to the thirteenth centuries have emphasized the profound changes of style which can be seen over this period. Thanks to the evidence of the discursive colophons which, as already mentioned, are a special feature of Armenian society, the work of hundreds of individual named artists and scribes and their patrons can be identified over the course of Armenian manuscript production. Additional technical evidence of the pigments used by Armenian miniature painters and neighbouring artists has been collected through recent scientific analysis (recorded for example in T.F. Mathews and R.S. Wieck, Treasures in Heaven. Armenian Illuminated Manuscripts (New York, 1994}. It is in manuscript illumination and not in icons or monumental painting that Armenian art has been found conspicuously sophisticated.
The artist who is best known to art history is T’oros Roslin, who spent his active years at Hiomklay in Cilicia, with seven signed illuminated manuscripts dating between 1256 and 1268. His work is immensely daring in its iconography and stylistic experiments, and it is possible to attempt to isolate the sources of many of his ideas in earlier Armenian, Byzantine and western art. The personal style is however distinctively different from any of the sources. His non-Armenian name has led to speculation that one of his parents may have been from the west, but it is not clear that this would ‘explain’ his personal style. The broader question is why did Cilician art flourish so richly in the gencration of T’oros Roslin? Was this due to personal inventiveness, to the social structures and intellectual life of Lesser Armenia, to the cultural environment created by the Crusader kingdoms or, more specifically, to the conspicuous presence in Cilicia of Franciscan missions which were
ARMENIAN ART FROM A BYZANTINE PERSPECTIVE
persuasive in promoting Armenian interest in a union with the Church of Rome?
This introduction has looked at Armenian art from the point of view of the art-historian outsider, and specifically through Byzantine spectacles. But it must be clear that in many respects Armenian art can and should be treated as a cultural entity in its own right which steered its own course between the traditions of Persia, Byzantium, Syria and Islam. It was not, however, in any way an isolated phenomenon, and the question remains how Armenian art can be incorporated into a broader art-historical discourse. As a cultural production, it emerges that a feature of this art, particularly in manuscript production, was a desire to record the human and personal circumstances of its production. The medieval period of Armenian art therefore offers one of the few historical opportunities of approaching individuals and their expressed intentions in making a religious art. This opens up possibilities of a precise understanding of artistic ambitions which is offered in few, if any, other medieval cultures. Perhaps for this reason alone, Armenian art should be more systematically incorporated into world art-historical study.
Professor Robin Cormack, Courtauld Institute of Art, London
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق