Another great art-historian, Charles Diehl, commenting on Strzygowski‘s conclusions notes during this period a detectable blossoming in Armenian architecture, from the 5th century Basilica, with its had covered roofs, and a nave or a triple-long nave, up to the 7th century; and in particular the different styles of square and centralized domes (Zentralbau and Zentralkuppel). What is more, with a mixture between the gentle arch-formed domed roofs, a number of new styles were created such as the triple-shell Basilica; a model with Greek crosses; and one with simple arch with a dome.
As Strzygowski points out, all these buildings were constructed during the period when the Armenian alphabet was invented and Armenia was simultaneously liberated from the superiority of the Greek and Syrian languages. Indeed, he continues, these artistic creations were a sign of a national consciousness, born in the liberation from Greek and Syrian domination.
Strzygowski writes 91 that it was from Armenia that the construction of domes came to Constantinople, Greece and the Balkan countries, from whence it continued to Italy and southern France, and on, via the valleys of the Rhone and the Rhine, to reach central Europe. Moreover, it was Armenia that, from the 5th and the 6th centuries, inspired the finest styles of historical Byzantine buildings. According to Strzygowski, it was in the Armenian architectural school that master builders created the church of St Sophia. Strzygowski claims that this unique piece of art with its beautiful domes (spoken by Procopius as being built with such precision and delicacy that it is does not rest on the ground, but rather is suspended from the sky) is a truly Armenian (rein armenisch) church.
In fact, Byzantine itself recognised the source of inspiration for this masterpiece. After the great earthquake in 989, which ruined the dome of St Sophia, the Byzantine government sent for the great Armenian architect Tirdat, creator of the great churches of Ani and Agine, to repair the dome.
Strzygowski also purports that artists such as Michelangelo and Bramante, and even Sait-Pierre and Vignole, were students of Armenian architecture. He writes: "When we see how the building of the domes, in the church of St Sophia (the centre of the Orthodox church) and St Peter's church (the centre of the Catholic Church), has reached the peak of perfection, we must remember that without the old Armenian pioneers of architecture, these two masterpieces would never have been created." 97
Charles Diehl, however, does not share the opinion of Strzygowski that, Armenia was the main force in Christian architecture which others followed. As perhaps can be expected from the writer of so many brilliant works about Byzantine, Diehl claims that in fact Constantinople was the setting, where the Christian art of the Orient was created, against the background of a medley of the Greek, Armenian, Persian and Syrian worlds.
At the same time Diehl acknowledges the essential part which Strzygowski has had in revealing the important role of Armenia in the creations of the Christian world of art, and asserts that the role of Armenia can be explained by its ongoing contacts with Persia, its early acceptance of Christianity, and its competent artists and architects. He states the following on this topic: "Everyone recognises Armenian architectures and artists, during every period as competent and having composed creations which are unique. Since they lived in a country full of stones, they could develop and spread the art of rising statues and measuring geometrical forms with special and masterly precision. And since they were eager travellers, journeying everywhere in the search of new knowledge, in return they spread their knowledge where ever they travelled to." 98
|
