retain their own rite, of course do not recognise the prelate of Etchmiadzin, but have a patriarch of their own, who resides at Constantinople, and owns allegiance to Rome. There has lately been a schism among these so-called United Armenians, some refusing obedience to the Pope, while others cling to him. Small as the matter may appear to us at this distance, it excites great interest in the Roman Curia, for whose zeal or ambition nothing is too small or too great. And a desire to have the authority of the United patriarch who adheres to Rome supported by the Porte, against the other United patriarch who is disobedient, has been conjectured, not without probability, to be one chief motive which has induced. Pope Pius IX. to extend his moral support to Turkey in her struggle with Russia.1

The monastery of Etchmiadzin (here, as in Russia, it is at monasteries that episcopal seats are fixed; every Russian prelate lives in one) has been frequently destroyed or injured by the numerous invaders that have swept over the country, and as often restored.

1 The schism began in 1869, when the Pope issued the bull Reversuris, by which he asserted his right to choose one out of three candidates presented to him for every bishopric, or to reject all three if he pleased, and also to have all the accounts and dealings of the Armenian Church and Patriarch laid before him. As no such right had (so said my informants) been previously exercised by him, a large body of the United Armenians in Constantinople, including the richest and best educated, refused to submit to this bull, and deposed the patriarch Hassun, appointing another pledged to resist Rome. The Porte, under the influence of Germany (as is supposed), recognized this rival; and the Pope's object is believed to be to induce the Porte to withdraw that recognition, and enforce the claims of Hassun, who is faithful to him.

The present church is supposed to contain some bits of wall as old as the fourth century, the main body of it being ascribed to the seventh or eighth ; but I found it impossible to get any information on the spot which could be relied on, and the architectural style in these countries varies so little from one century to another that only a practised and skilful archæologist could undertake to pronounce on the date of a building from examining it. Like nearly all the older churches of Russia, as well as of the East, it is small-small, that is to say, compared with its fame or importance-perhaps a little larger than the Temple Church in London. It is cruciform, with exceedingly short transepts and a short apse-in fact, you might call it a square with four shallow recesses-the interior rather dark, with an air of heaviness which is scarcely redeemed by the frescos on the walls, drawn and coloured in the usual style of Persian arabesque, with birds, flowers, and various conventional ornaments. However, any cheerful decorations of this kind are welcome after the revolting pictures of hell and judgment that adorn the walls of so many Russian and Greek churches. There are two patriarchal thrones, one on each side of the apse, and a tabernacle over the central altar under the dome marks the spot on which the Saviour descended. Here a slab of marble covers the hole through which St. Gregory drove into the earth all the devils that in his day infested Armenia, and gave false oracles in the heathen temples. On this very spot there had stood a shrine and image of the goddess Anahit, just as the hill of Monte Casino was

crowned, when St. Benedict first went there, by a temple of Apollo. Between the apse and the body of the church is a sort of screen, somewhat similar to the ikonostas of Russian churches, but it is only a small part of the Armenian service that goes on behind this screen. On the whole, the interior is impressive, with a certain sombre dignity, and an air of hoar antiquity about everything: its pictures, some of them portraits of sainted patriarchs, and other decorations, have little artistic merit, but they are less offensive to the Protestant eye than the black Madonnas incrusted with precious stones which are the glory of Russian or other Orthodox places of worship. Externally the church has little that is distinctive about it. The tall central cupola rises into an octagonal spire, or rather conical tower, of the usual Armenian type, and is said to date from the seventh century, though I cannot believe it to be anything like so old. So, too, the four smaller open towers at the four extremities, the windows and doors, with their mouldings (the elegantly carved porch at the west end is especially handsome), are all in the regular style of Armenian building, and probably all modern, the towers of the seventeenth century, the porch of the eighteenth. A learned ecclesiological writer (Dr. Neale), however, insists that the ground plan of the church is rather Byzantine than Armenian, and his reasons, so far as I can judge of such a matter, seem to be sound. Of true Armenian architecture the finest and most characteristic specimens are to be found in the ruined city of Ani,

some thirty miles from here, towards Kars, and just within the Turkish border.

The other monastic buildings, only a small part of which consists of the dwellings of the brethren, are of no great architectural merit. What struck me as the oldest and most interesting are the two refectories, one of which, used in summer, a long, low vaulted room, with one narrow table running down the midst between stone benches, a throne under a canopy for the patriarch, and a sort of pulpit, whence reading goes on during meals, appears from its style to be not later than the twelfth century. However, there is a tradition assigning a much later origin to it. Old also is the library, to which we had come with great expectations, hearing of its treasures in the way of ancient manuscripts. Unfortunately there was no one on the spot who could tell us much about them, and I doubt if there is any one who knows much. The stock of printed books is quite small, not reaching 2000, and of 'course the great majority are in Armenian, most of the newer ones in Russian. There seems to be little ground for hoping that any Greek or Latin manuscripts, unless, possibly, of late ecclesiastical writers, remain to be discovered here; it is rather to Orientalists that researches into the libraries of the Armenian monasteries are to be recommended. treasury, or, as we should say, the sacristy, in which the holy relics that constitute the great glory of Etchmiadzin are kept, is a new building at the east end of the church. Unhappily we could not gain admittance, owing to a cause which might seem to

The

cast a painful light on the want of security, or at least of confidence, among even the respectable ecclesiastics of this country. There is but one key to the treasury, and that key is kept by the patriarch, who carries it with him wherever he goes. He was then in a cool mountain retreat some miles away on the slopes of Ala Göz, and we were therefore obliged to forego the hope of seeing the head of the holy spear wherewith the Roman soldier pierced the side of Christ. It is asserted to have been brought to Armenia by Thaddeus the Apostle, and has therefore a far more respectable pedigree, so to speak, than the rival "holy lance" which the Crusaders discovered at Antioch with such magnificent results, or than that which Sir John Maundeville tells us he saw at Constantinople in the possession of the Eastern Emperor, not to speak of other claimants. In this treasure-house there is also a fragment of Noah's Ark, obtained, according to the legend stated in an earlier chapter, by the monk St. Jacob; and, what is the most curious of all, a withered mummy hand inclosed in a casing of silver, which purports to be the very hand of St. Gregory the Illuminator. This hand is actually used to this day in the consecration of every patriarch, who being touched by it receives the grace, as it were, direct from the founder of the Armenian Church. It is an instance of the carrying out, on its physical side, of the doctrine (I will not say of apostolic succession, but) of the transmission through earthen vessels of spiritual gifts, and their communication by physical means, which one is startled to find