# Saint Hripsime Church

Saint Hripsime Church (Armenian: Սուրբ Հռիփսիմե եկեղեցի, Surb Hṙip‘simē yekeghetsi) is a seventh century Armenian Apostolic church in the city of Vagharshapat (Etchmiadzin), Armenia. It was built in 618 by Catholicos Komitas over the tomb of Hripsime, a Roman virgin murdered by Tiridates III and a key figure in the Christianization of Armenia.
Standing largely intact since its erection, the church has been widely admired for its architecture and proportions. Considered a masterpiece of classical Armenian architecture, it has influenced many other Armenian churches. It was listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site along with other nearby churches, including Etchmiadzin Cathedral, Armenia's mother church, in 2000.

## Setting

The church is located on a small natural elevation on the eastern outskirts of the town of Vagharshapat (Etchmiadzin), adjacent to the main road connecting it to the capital Yerevan. Standing on an open plain, it was built outside the historic walls of ancient Vagharshapat, but now stands within an urban environment due to the expansion of the town. Several major historic churches are situated in its vicinity, namely the 17th century Shoghakat Church, the ruined 7th century Zvartnots Cathedral, mother cathedral of Etchmiadzin, and its contemporary Saint Gayane Church.
Excavations inside the church in 1958–59 uncovered black tuff fragments of an ornamented cornice beneath the supporting columns. These fragments were immediately recognized as belonging to a pre-Christian Hellenistic structure, possibly a temple, with stylistic similarities to the cornice of the Garni Temple. This discovery led scholars to believe that a pagan temple may have once stood on the site or nearby.

## Foundation

According to the traditional account recorded by Agathangelos, Hripsime, a Roman virgin, and her companions (including Gayane), fled to Armenia to escape persecution by the Roman emperor Diocletian. In Armenia, Hripsime was tortured and killed by king Tiridates III after she rejected his advances. Following Tiridates's conversion to Christianity in the early fourth century (dated 301 or 314 AD), he and Gregory the Illuminator built a martyrium at the site of her martyrdom as an act of remorse. It is considered one of the earliest Christian martyriums. It is believed to have been partially buried underground, with an aboveground canopy. It was destroyed by Sasanian king Shapur II and his Armenian Zoroastrian ally Meruzhan Artsruni c. 363, along with Etchmiadzin Cathedral and other Christian sites.
In 395, Catholicos Sahak (Isaac) built a new chapel-martyrium, which the later historian Sebeos described as "too low and dark". Archaeological excavations in 1976–78, led by Raffi Torosyan and Babken Arakelyan, uncovered the foundations of a small single-nave basilica around 10 m (33 ft) east of the current church, which is likely the remains of this late fourth century structure. Notably, Christian-style burials were also unearthed, which both scholars and the Armenian Church identified as Hripsime and her companions. A letter from The Book of Letters, dated 608, mentions a priest named Samuel of St. Hripsime, indicating that the chapel was an active church at the time.
The seventh century historian Sebeos recounts that Catholicos Komitas (r. 615–628) demolished the small martyrium and constructed the present church in the 28th year of the reign of the Sassanian king Khosrow II (r. 590–628), which has been calculated as the year 618. This dating is widely accepted. Two inscriptions attest to his role in its construction. A number of scholars maintain that Komitas, also a hymnographer, may have been the architect of the church. Murad Hasratyan suggested that his identification as "builder" in one of the inscriptions indicates that Komitas himself was the architect.

### Inscriptions of Komitas

The church contains two engraved inscriptions in the erkat‘agir uncial script recording the role of Catholicos Komitas in the construction of the church. The inscriptions contain no dates. The first conventionally has been dated to 618. Aleksandr Manucharyan suggested, based on its content, that the second was inscribed after the death of Komitas in 628. Greenwood proposed a dating between 616/617 and 628, respectively. Thus, they are the second earliest extant Armenian inscriptions, behind the late fifth century inscription of the now-destroyed Tekor Church (dated c. 478–490).
The first inscription, four lines long, is located in the central part of the exterior surface of the western wall, and measures 202 cm × 60 cm (80 in × 24 in). The porch and the bell tower, added on its western side in the 17th and 18th centuries, effectively conceal it. Though previously photographed, it is not easily visible, and a researcher noted as recently as 2018, that its exact location is not known. It records Komitas's personal responsibility for the construction. It reads:
| ԵՍ ԿՈՄԻՏԱՍ ԵԿԵՂԵՑԱՊԱՆ ՍՐ ԲՈՅ ՀՌԻ{Ւ}ՓՍԻՄԷԻ ԿՈՉԵՑԱՅ ՅԱ ԹՈՌ ՍՐԲՈՅՆ ԳՐԷԳՈՐԻ ՇԻՆԵՑԻ ԶՏԱՃԱՐ ՍՐԲՈՑ ՎԿԱՅԻՑՍ Ք[ՐԻՍՏՈՍ]Ի | "I Komitas sacristan of saint Hṙi{w}p‘simē was summoned to the throne of saint Grēgor. I built the temple of these holy martyrs of Christ" |
The second inscription, in three lines and measuring 150 cm × 35 cm (59 in × 14 in), is on the interior surface of the eastern apse, behind the altar. It was revealed under plaster during restoration works in 1898, when it was lightly damaged. It was likely originally placed on the northern apse and transferred to the eastern ape, an unusual location, when the former was dilapidated. It implores Christ to recognize Komitas's labors. It reads:
| Ք[ՐԻՍՏՈ]Ս Ա[ՍՏՈՒԱ]Ծ ՅԻՇԵԱ ԶԿՈՄԻՏԱՍ ՀԱՅՈՑ ԿԱԹՈՂԻԿՍ ՇԻՆ ԱՒՂ ՍՐԲՈՅ ՀՌԻՓՍԻՄԵԻ | "Christ God, remember Komitas kat‘ołikos of Armenia, the builder of saint Hṙip‘simē" ⠀ |

## Later history
### Dilapidation and restoration (13th–18th centuries)

Not much in known about the church's history in the medieval period, but inscriptions indicate that it was intermittently active. An inscription from 1296 records the release of the monastery from tithe and other taxes on cotton by local rulers. Another inscription, from 1302, on the lintel of the western entrance records the donation of 1,000 silver coins.
Arakel of Tabriz, a contemporary, recounted the state of the church in the early 17th century and provided details of its restoration (along with St. Gayane) by Catholicos Pilipos (r. 1633–1655). Following the deportation of Armenians to Iran by Shah Abbas in 1604–05, it was "without inhabitants and fences". Abandoned and defenseless, the church was also heavily dilapidated by that time. During periods of neglect, neatly cut facing stones were quarried from the church. Arakel recounts that it had no doors, no altar, the roof and walls had crumbled, and the foundations were shaken and dug up, while the interior was full of manure as livestock were driven into the church. The restoration of Hripsime under Catholicos Pilipos "took three years, from start to finish, for the work began in the [Armenian] year 1100 (1651) and was finished in the year 1102 (1653) with great expenditures and tremendous labor." This restoration encompassed the pediments, the roof of the dome, and saw the construction of a porch/portico or an open narthex (gavit) in front of the western entrance (upon which a bell tower was added in 1790).
Since its restoration in 1653, the church had a regular congregation. Subsequent Catholicoi, Eghiazar (r. 1681–1691) and Nahapet (r. 1691–1705), further contributed to its revitalization by adding buildings and sponsoring manuscript production. Six inscriptions, from the 1720s, engraved on its walls record the donations of salt, oil, incense, rice, candles, wine. In the 17th and 18th centuries, monks at St. Hripsime were provided bread and clothing from the monastery of Echmiadzin, but the monastery also possessed its own farmland and livestock.
Catholicos Simeon I of Yerevan (r. 1763–1780) raised a new cross on its dome in 1765, and fortified the monastery in 1776 with a cob perimeter-wall, along with corner towers and an arched entrance built out of stone on the northern side. In 1790 Catholicos Ghukas Karnetsi (r. 1780–1799) added a rotunda-shaped bell tower on the porch/narthex built by Pilipos in 1653.

### Further renovation (19th century–present)

In 1894–95, under Catholicos Mkrtich Khrimian (r. 1893–1907), a two-story residence for the monks was built inside the monastery walls, and the eastern and southern sections of the cob walls were replaced with stone walls. The church itself underwent considerable renovation in 1898.
In 1936, during the Soviet period, the church's foundations were reinforced and its roof, dome, the monastery walls and buildings were restored and the surrounding area underwent beautification.
Extensive restoration works and archaeological excavations were carried out at the church in the first years of the reign of Catholicos Vazgen I (r. 1955–1994), concurrently with works on Etchmiadzin Cathedral. The restoration works were overseen by Mikayel Mazmanyan, Varazdat Harutyunyan, Rafayel Israyelyan, Konstantine Hovhannisyan, Karo Ghafadaryan. Initially, the area was well-decorated with the church's immediate surrounding paved with tuff blocks and adorned with a decorated drinking fountain designed by Rafayel Israyelian.
Restoration works then moved to the interior in 1958, beginning with the removal of white plaster from its walls and liquidation of the limewater traces through sandblasting, which returned the interior walls to its original, dark grey-brown tuff color. Damaged stones were replaced. A new altar table and chandelier was designed by Israyelian, with the former containing an altarpiece of the Virgin Mary by Hovhannes Minasyan. The restoration, started in 1955, was officially completed by 1962. The removal of the plasterwork furthermore revealed a system of 8 large and 16 small squinches under the circular drum. Excavations in 1959 revealed the original floor around 40 cm (16 in) beneath the contemporary flooring surface, and, consequently, the floor was lowered.
The church underwent additional restoration in 1985. The bell tower was restored in 1986–87 by Artsrun Galikyan and Avetik Teknetchyan. Galikyan also designed new wooden doors for the church.

## Crypt and other burials

The tomb of St. Hripsime is located in an underground barrel vaulted chamber under the eastern apse. It is accessed through the chamber on the northeastern corner. The current gravestone, dating to 1986, depicts her holding a cross. Scholars like Eremian and Mnatsakanian have dated the crypt to the early fifth century. Mathews suggested that it "appears integral to the seventh century church". Maranci linked its architecture to the building practice found in both Constantinople and particularly in Palestine.
Catholicos Komitas was presumably buried inside the church. A stone slab before the altar is thought to be his tombstone. Catholicos Pilipos, who restored the church in 1653, was buried in the northern apse inside the church after refusal by the Iranian ruler of Erivan to permit his burial at Etchmiadzin. His marble tombstone was erected by Catholicos Yeprem I in the early 1800s.
During restoration works in 1958–59, two graves were found outside the western entrance, where, according to historical accounts, two Catholicoi had been buried: Astvatsatur (r. 1715–1725) and Karapet II (r. 1726–1729). Their tombstones had disappeared in the early 1800s, and new marble ones were erected during the 1950s restoration. To the east of the church, a cemetery has survived with around 50 tombstones, including 30 with inscriptions, dating from the 17th to the 19th centuries. The perimeter wall, built in the 1890s, divides it into two. One notable burial is vardapet Stepanos Lehatsi (d. 1689), a member of the Etchmiadzin brotherhood.

## Architecture

The church is "one of the most admired monuments of early medieval Armenia" and "one of the most refined examples of Armenian architecture". St. Hripsime belongs to the "inscribed tetraconch" type distinctive to Armenia and Georgia. It was built during first great period of Armenian architecture of the 7th century, when it was "leading the entire Christian East."
The church has been largely unaltered throughout history and described as "excellently preserved." Its interior is better preserved than its exterior. Notable modifications include changes to the original angles of the pitched roofs and tiled spherical roof on the dome, and the removal of the grand portals. However, its overall proportions have remained largely unchanged. The most significant additions have been the portico and the bell tower in 1653 and 1790, respectively.
It has not sustained any major damage from earthquakes. Its dimensions and configuration create a pyramidal shape with a low center of gravity, contributing to its stability. Its earthquake-resistant devices include the use of niches to reinforce walls, hollow crown of a dome to reduce weight, fan-shaped squinches to support a dome, buttresses to support and anchor a dome, ribs to reinforce a dome, corner towers as integral anti-seismic feature. A 2023 study found that the church has a vertical crack in the wall between the niche and the corner room, likely caused by middle-scale earthquakes. It does not appear to "immediately threaten the church's structural integrity."

### Description

Crafted with precise stone cutting, the structure is built of fine ashlar with mortarless joints. 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. The church measures 22.8 by 17.7 m (75 by 58 ft) and rises around 23 m (75 ft) (inside height under the dome). Although small in size, it has been described as monumental in structure, standing out distinctly against the plain. Cyril Mango said it posses "a massive monumentality", Maranci describes its exterior "blocky" and the interior "undulating". Sirarpie Der Nersessian found the interior spacious, well lit, "very sober and very graceful". Armen Khatchatrian wrote that it "stands in solemn majesty, its stern walls, silent, austere mass and harmonious proportions casting a spell over the scene."
Trachtenberg suggests that despite its small scale, St. Hripsime achieves "a compact and powerful style inside and out, exterior massing and internal volumes appearing as if carved from one massive masonry block." Some scholars suggest that its design predates elements of Romanesque architecture, such as hidden interior complexity within a simple exterior, thick walls, layered arches, and austere decoration.
It is built of dark gray tuff stone and stands on a heavy three-stepped stylobate. It is unique for the deep and tall triangular (wedge-shaped) niches on its four façades. According to Armen Khatchatrian, these niches (recesses) represented an architectural innovation, and as Patrick Donabédian highlighted, constitute "the first dated example of dihedral niches", that would later find a wide application and become characteristic for Armenian architecture. They serve both practical and aesthetic purposes: conserving building materials while relieving wall weight, and creating visual contrast with the polished wall surfaces that enhanced the overall relief and harmony of the structure.
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. Its small windows accentuate its mass and solidity.

### Ornamentation

The church features minimal ornamentation. On the exterior, decoration is primarily limited to sculpted moldings (i.e. carved arched friezes) over the windows, stylized with floral and geometric motifs. Inside, simple thirty-two medallions (i.e. rosettes) composed of concentric circles run along the drum of the dome. More notably, the cupola contains twelve elongated relief rays radiating from the center and narrowing towards the top center. Loosely grouped into four groups, they form a cross-like pattern. Despite a lack of direct resemblance this design has been linked to the mosaic cross originally depicted on the dome of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, as well as to sun motifs in Sasanian architecture, such as those on the dome of the Neyasar fire temple. The architect may have drawn inspiration from decorative elements in Iranian domes, reinterpreting them to align with Christian theology. Beneath the dome, fan-shaped decorations accentuate the three-quarter niches.

### Dome and squinches

The dome has an inside diameter of 9.4 m (31 ft), topped by a typical conical roof sitting on a low drum which is sixteen-faceted externally with twelve windows. The conical apex of the dome incorporates an interior hollow, keeping the church's center of gravity low and resist the upward, highly destructive Rayleigh wave movement of earthquake on a dome. The four corner sections contain small tower-like structures (turrets), placed at the cubical base. Thomas F. Mathews described it as "an unicum in Armenian architecture." They are hollow and provide access from the cornice walk-way to crawl space above the squinch vaults. Eremian and Marutyan suggested they are counter-weights to give stability to the drum. Garbis Armen argued that the turrets restrain lateral thrust generated by P- and S-waves, acting as anchors as well as buttresses.
Based on irregularities in measurement, some scholars believed that the cupola dates to a later period, usually the 10th or 11th centuries. However, mason's marks matching those in the body of the church were discovered during restoration in the 1950s that suggested dating to the seventh century. Additionally, decorative rays radiating from the center of the cupola and the band of concentric circles at the base also suggest a seventh century dating, as such are found in other contemporary churches of Talin and Mastara. The technique of stone processing, color, dimensions, row heights, also corresponded to the other parts of the church, leaving no suspicions about later modifications. Varazdat Harutyunyan suggested that the dome was restored only externally in the 1650s. Stepan Mnatsakanian proposed that the dome originally had a spherical-shaped roof with a tiled covering.
The dome is supported on a system of 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. The conical squinches at St. Hripsime are not known in earlier structures with precise dating. The squinches have been linked to Sasanian architecture, such as the chahartaq fire-temple of Neyasar. David Marshall Lang argued that the Armenian contribution was in transmitting the "crude and perishable mud brick prototypes" as seen in Iran into "perfectly chiselled, durable and scientifically assembled masonry, which would not crumble away, but would stand the test of time." Maranci argued that comparisons between the squinches at Hripsime and in Iran (Sarvistan and Firuzabad) provides only "a very crude resemblance, and certainly does not offer a direct source." She instead suggested that the churches of Cappadocia, namely Kizil Kilise, can provide stronger and more meaningful comparisons with structural and decorative similarities.

### Type and origins

The specific tetraconch ground plan of St. Hripsime is shared by a group of churches in Armenia and Georgia. The most important examples are St. Hripsime and Jvari in Mtskheta. The earliest dated example of the type is the church of Avan built in the 590s, serving as a model for Hripsime. While the question of precedence of Hripsime and Jvari has been frequently debated by Georgian and Armenian scholars, they are part of a complex process of mutual influence and interchange and a shared cultural heritage. Antony Eastmond describes their forms as "sophisticated plays on geometry and spatial volumes that sought to reconcile the circularity of a central dome within a rectilinear ground plan." Anatoly Yakobson described their type as the "fully mature and perfected" form of centrally domed style and "a major achievement of medieval architecture". Dickran Kouymjian called it the most uniquely Armenian or Caucasian church plan.
The origin of its design has been widely debated. Richard Krautheimer suggested that it should be seen as the product of a local architectural tradition. W. Eugene Kleinbauer argued that its represents "an independent phenomenon, typologically and stylistically, in the development of Early Christian architecture." Hovhannes Khalpakhchian suggested that it originated from the popular domestic dwelling, or glkhatun, found in Armenia and neighboring regions. Trachtenberg argued that its plan "ultimately depends" on "antique and Byzantine polygonal designs", although a "quite different effect is obtained." Its internal space is "cramped, fragmented, inert, and dominated by the dense stone mass from which it seemed hollowed." Annegret Plontke-Lüning proposed an origin from Late Antique structures in Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine and suggested a common root with Middle Byzantine cross-domed churches.

### Reception

The tenth century Catholicos Hovhannes Draskhanakerttsi described the church as a wonderful and splendid structure. The 20th century Catholicos Vazgen I described it "the most magnificent of our ancient shrines." Widely considered a masterpiece, its proportions have been broadly admired. W. Eugene Kleinbauer placed the "exciting composition" of St. Hripsime on par with the Basilica of San Vitale in Ravenna.
19th century European visitors similarly held it in high regard. Frédéric DuBois found its "simplicity, massiveness, and grandeur" to be the "key elements of the Armenian style." H. F. B. Lynch, visiting in 1893, saw Hripsime as superior to Etchmiadzin Cathedral because of its geometrically plain exterior. Harold Buxton found it to be "[the most] perfect specimen of the best age of Armenian architecture." Fridtjof Nansen wrote that the proportions of its interior and exterior "give an impression of balance and harmony seldom equaled."
Hovhannes Khalpakhchian wrote that it is "designed with magnificent simplicity" and is "characterized by conciseness and harmonic unity of volumetric forms." Soviet art historians Stepanian and Chakmakchian described it as a "profoundly innovative" work of architecture, where the qualities of plastic thinking are vividly expressed. Its form embodies exceptional power and monumental simplicity, with the aim of pure, absolute expression remaining clear and uncompromised. Edouard Utudjian suggested that the "perfect finish of the construction is only matched by the excellent taste." Garbis Armen wrote that the church "displays noble proportions and a rhythm of lines, shades, and volumes, a monolithic and constructivist 'grown-from-the-earth' appearance."

### Influence

Its design has been directly replicated in or inspired several churches. In the tenth and eleventh centuries, the Cathedral of Aghtamar, the main churches at Varagavank and Gndevank were based on its ground plan. Scholars suggest that St. Hripsime exemplifies architectural features—specifically, complex internal spatial divisions within a simple outer structure—that later became characteristic of medieval Byzantine architecture, namely domed churches. Its possible influence has been discussed in relation to specific churches, including St. George of Mangana and Panagia Kamariotissa in Chalke (both in Constantinople), as well as Nea Moni in Chios, and Daphni near Athens.
It has served as an inspiration, to varying degrees, for the design of several Armenian diaspora churches since the 20th century, including St. Hripsime Church in Yalta, Crimea (1917), St. Vartan Cathedral in Manhattan, New York (1968), St. Gregory the Illuminator Church, Tehran, Iran (1983), St. Sarkis Church in Krasnoyarsk, Russia (2003), St. Sarkis Church in Carrollton, Texas (2022).
Certain elements of its design affected major public buildings in Yerevan, erected during Soviet-period.

## Protection and heritage designation

The church and the surrounding area covers an area of 6.2 hectares (15 acres) and is property of the Armenian Apostolic Church (Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin). Recognized as a national monument in 1983 by the Soviet Armenian government, this designation was reaffirmed by the government of Armenia in 2002. Joint councils consisting of the Ministry of Culture and the Armenian Apostolic Church are responsible for regulating its conservation, rehabilitation, and usage. In 2000 the UNESCO added St. Hripsime, Etchmiadzin Cathedral, St. Gayane, Shoghakat and the ruined Zvartnots Cathedral to the list of World Heritage Sites.
It is one of Armenia's most visited monuments and a popular wedding venue.

## Artistic depictions

* The church has been depicted by Armenian and foreign artists, including in an engraving by Guillaume-Joseph Grelot (1686), on a map Eremia Chelebi (1691), a watercolor by Mikhail Matveevich Ivanov (1783), paintings by Grigory Gagarin (1847), Vardges Sureniants (1897), Panos Terlemezian (1903), Yeghishe Tadevosyan (1913), Martiros Saryan (1945), Ara Bekaryan (1960s, 1978).
* The modern floor mosaic created by the Israeli mosaicist Hava Yoffe inside the Chapel of Saint Helena at Jerusalem's Church of the Holy Sepulchre depicts the church along with other major Armenian sites. Small-scale models of the church are displayed at the American Museum of Natural History in New York (image) and at Armenia's National Architecture Museum (image). A relief of the church is sculpted on the headquarters of the Eastern Diocese of the Armenian Church of America next to the St. Vartan Cathedral in Manhattan, New York.
* It has appeared on postage stamps of Vatican City (1973), the Soviet Union (1988) and Armenia (2000, 2009, 2018). It was depicted on the 200 Armenian dram banknotes (in circulation from 1993 to 2004).