DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.27365#0106
94
A4VATERy AAT) RL'PRLX&VTLD TRLA'D.S*
A closer look at the milieu in which each individuai style emerged arouses interest
in the painters' ethnic background. There are two contrasting viewpoints, with some
experts ascribing the Akhtaia murais to Georgians aione, and others to
Armenians^. This controversy extends to aii Chaicedonian monuments in
Armenia. Comparative studies of the archaeological, palaeographic and iconographic
evidence about Akhtaia offer us sufficient material to draw conclusions about this
topical issue, provided they are supplemented by stylistic analyses.
1. The Chief Master
The murals in the altar apse, symbolically the most significant part of the church,
probably all belong to the brush of the Chief Master. No stylistic analysis is necessary
to identify his ethnic background. The paint has peeled off some of the depictions of
the holy bishops to reveal preliminary reddish-brown contours on the priming^. Two
pictures are carelessly inscribed in the same reddish-brown. One inscription, in Greek
& MONM accompanies the picture of Dionysios the Areopagite^, and the other, in Arme-
nian letters 6,<!%(epse), refers to Eusebios of Caesarea. A blue background with
remnants of the final Greek lettering is extant in the upper part of the
fresco. Characteristically, the phonetic variant of the Armenian inscription implies the
vernacular pronunciation^. Clearly, the inscriptions on the priming marked the
prospective arrangement of the holy bishops on the murals. Naturally, the artist used
the languages he knew best, Greek and Armenian, one of which was his mother
tongue. Knowing his confession, we can arrive at an unambiguous conclusion: the
Chief Master was an Armenian Chaicedonian, and may have spent a long time in a
Greek-language environment. It would be logical for Ivane Mkhargrdzeli to choose a
compatriot and brother in faith to lead this inspired and pious work.
The mere fact that the artist was an Armenian Chaicedonian does not throw light
on the artistic milieu in which his style emerged. It would be natural to assume that
^ AH Georgian scholars adhere to the former viewpoint. Abroad, it is actively defended by
N. Thierry. AH Armenian scholars support the latter view, formulated in L.A. Durnovo's
works. J. Lafontaine-Dosogne maintians that the main Akhtaia church "was, doubtless, painted by
Greek masters" (Lafontaine-Dosogne, "Recherches", p. 15).
3 The drawings are not very careful. Clearly, the artist treated them as mere preliminary
sketches. He outlined the proportions of the figures with two lines, a horizontal and a vertical, at the
eyebrow and shoulder levels, and sketched the basic features of the iconographic type, the hair style
and the shape of the beard. To all appearances, they were made on wet plaster, while the paints were
applied on dry. This technique makes it clear why images arranged one near the other are in different
degrees of preservation, some in an excellent condition, others almost entirely lost.
^ The last letter is a Greek sigma turned upside down, a way of writing widely met in epigraphic
monuments. In this case, the artist abbreviates the name Dionysios.
3 I am grateful to P.M. Muradian and K.N. Yuzbashian for this observation. The inscription was
made simultaneously with the preliminary sketch, in the same reddish-brown. Characteristically, the
first and the last tetters can be interpreted as the Armenian letter b,. This uncertain graphic form is
observed in some Armenian manuscripts of the 13th century.
A4VATERy AAT) RL'PRLX&VTLD TRLA'D.S*
A closer look at the milieu in which each individuai style emerged arouses interest
in the painters' ethnic background. There are two contrasting viewpoints, with some
experts ascribing the Akhtaia murais to Georgians aione, and others to
Armenians^. This controversy extends to aii Chaicedonian monuments in
Armenia. Comparative studies of the archaeological, palaeographic and iconographic
evidence about Akhtaia offer us sufficient material to draw conclusions about this
topical issue, provided they are supplemented by stylistic analyses.
1. The Chief Master
The murals in the altar apse, symbolically the most significant part of the church,
probably all belong to the brush of the Chief Master. No stylistic analysis is necessary
to identify his ethnic background. The paint has peeled off some of the depictions of
the holy bishops to reveal preliminary reddish-brown contours on the priming^. Two
pictures are carelessly inscribed in the same reddish-brown. One inscription, in Greek
& MONM accompanies the picture of Dionysios the Areopagite^, and the other, in Arme-
nian letters 6,<!%(epse), refers to Eusebios of Caesarea. A blue background with
remnants of the final Greek lettering is extant in the upper part of the
fresco. Characteristically, the phonetic variant of the Armenian inscription implies the
vernacular pronunciation^. Clearly, the inscriptions on the priming marked the
prospective arrangement of the holy bishops on the murals. Naturally, the artist used
the languages he knew best, Greek and Armenian, one of which was his mother
tongue. Knowing his confession, we can arrive at an unambiguous conclusion: the
Chief Master was an Armenian Chaicedonian, and may have spent a long time in a
Greek-language environment. It would be logical for Ivane Mkhargrdzeli to choose a
compatriot and brother in faith to lead this inspired and pious work.
The mere fact that the artist was an Armenian Chaicedonian does not throw light
on the artistic milieu in which his style emerged. It would be natural to assume that
^ AH Georgian scholars adhere to the former viewpoint. Abroad, it is actively defended by
N. Thierry. AH Armenian scholars support the latter view, formulated in L.A. Durnovo's
works. J. Lafontaine-Dosogne maintians that the main Akhtaia church "was, doubtless, painted by
Greek masters" (Lafontaine-Dosogne, "Recherches", p. 15).
3 The drawings are not very careful. Clearly, the artist treated them as mere preliminary
sketches. He outlined the proportions of the figures with two lines, a horizontal and a vertical, at the
eyebrow and shoulder levels, and sketched the basic features of the iconographic type, the hair style
and the shape of the beard. To all appearances, they were made on wet plaster, while the paints were
applied on dry. This technique makes it clear why images arranged one near the other are in different
degrees of preservation, some in an excellent condition, others almost entirely lost.
^ The last letter is a Greek sigma turned upside down, a way of writing widely met in epigraphic
monuments. In this case, the artist abbreviates the name Dionysios.
3 I am grateful to P.M. Muradian and K.N. Yuzbashian for this observation. The inscription was
made simultaneously with the preliminary sketch, in the same reddish-brown. Characteristically, the
first and the last tetters can be interpreted as the Armenian letter b,. This uncertain graphic form is
observed in some Armenian manuscripts of the 13th century.