Lidov, Aleksej M.: The mural paintings of Akhtala (Moscow, 1991)

99

but a crying contrast to the refinement of Queen Tamar's court cuiture. At the same
time, it does not wholly belong to Greek art and indicates the artist's Armenian
background. This Oriental quality does not derive from particular techniques but an
extraordinary treatment of Byzantine forms.
The decorative and one-dimensional goes hand-in-hand with pronounced three-
dimensional forms, and both are treated as expressive means that ignores real human
anatomy. Such an approach is not found in the Ravdouchou and Christ Antiphonitos
murals: there the Greek authors preserved the natural sculptural quality of the figures,
which the Chief Master of Akhtala shrugged off. Within the Comnenian tradition, the
Cypriot and Athonian frescoes are closer to classical roots, while those in Akhtala,
despite all similarities, bring to mind the abstracted forms of the ancient East. They
do not closely follow nature, and their individual traces are scanty, while the symbolic
and decorative element stands out.
The Akhtala altar murals belong more to the realm of semiotics than of
beauty. Compared to stylistically related Greek murals, their images strike one with
the unnatural masks that take the place of faces. The artist wanted not so much to re-
create the ideal beauty of the human body as to portray an abstract idea. Not that he
deliberately used an original technique: in my view, the result arose subconsciously
from his Armenian background. This is borne out by the likeness of his murals to
Armenian illuminated manuscripts of the late 12th and early 13th centuries, and
above all the Byzantinized manuscripts of the "Edessa circle'll. The provide striking
reflection of what distinguishes him from Greek artists.
Analyses of his style confirm the conclusions we drew from the inscriptions on the
preliminary drawings. The Chief Master, an Armenian of Chalcedonian confession,
worked in a Byzantine centre where both Armenian and Greek were spoken. We can
venture more specific assumptions. He could not have been trained in
Constantinople: his not irreproachable techniques prove this. Stylistic analogies
suggest that he worked in the Eastern Mediterranean. His bilingualism hints at an
Armenian environment. Ample historical sources mention Armenian Chalcedonian
monks in Georgian and Greek monasteries in the Byzantine Empire, in Syria,
Bulgaria, and on Mount Athos.
Armenian Chalcedonians had their own monasteries as well. One of them, in
Philippople (now Plovdiv), was surrounded by the largest Armenian colony in
Byzantium. The higumenos of this monastery, John Atmanos, represented the
Emperor Manuel Conmenus at the 1170-1172 negotiations on church union with the
Catholicos of Armenia^. The Chief Master might have received his artistic education
in Philippople. He may also have come from Trebizond, which was closer to Akhtala

-1 See T.A. tzmaitova, "Armenian Manuscripts of the Edessa Circle" (Venice No. 141/102; Frier
Gaiiery No. 50, 3; Jerusaiem No. 1796; Venice No. 888/159) forthcoming; Der Nersessian, T'art
armenfe?;, pp. 90-91.
22 See R.M. Bartikian. "The Rote of John Atmanos, Higumenos of the Armenian Monastery in
Phitippopte, in the Armenian-Byzantine Church Negotiations at the Time of the Cathoticos Nerses
(1166-1173)", Ft-vm'A- o&y/:c/:eVve':nyA7: /:<rn/A (Transactions on Sociat Sciences of the Armenian
AcademyofSciences), 1984, No. 6, pp. 78-88.