Armenian Architectural Legacy in Henry F. B. Lynch’s Travel Writing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the topic is certainly interesting, my impression of the article is that it is much too descriptive. There are statements concerning the blending of "fact and art" (in other passages fact and fiction) in the descriptions of "sites, landscapes, monuments and scenes", but the quotes and images are not (thoroughly) analyzed; they are given and hardly commented on as if they were speaking for themselves. For an article on either travel writing or architecture/monuments, I'd expect an analysis of the language/image composition to make a point.

Moreover, in addition to the overall point of the article, its various part must be improved:

2. chapter on genre:

On the one hand, it is much too general - the point that travel writing combines fiction and fact is not new so that this passage should be reworked to provide a focused framework for the analysis of Lynch's travelogue. Additionally, some points are not clear to me: linguistic unit, aesthetic goal, functional principles as terms are not defined or discussed enough. What is the difference between an "ontological juxtaposition of fact and fiction" and a simple "juxtaposition"? The author introduces Borm's criticism of the term "genre" with regard to travel writing but continues to use "genre" to refer to Lynch's travelogue.

3. subchapter on Lynch:

The function of figure 2 (original entry on Lynch's biodata and an encoded version of the same is not clear. It is also not commented on; it needs a discussion so that its function for the analysis of Lynch's travelogue becomes obvious.

As indicated above, I think that the article lacks a coherent argument with points that are underlined by evidence (quotes/images) and analysis. As it stands now, it is merely a description.

To pursue a more focused argument, the writer needs to work out why Lynch's travelogue is particularly interesting with regard to the interrelation of "fiction" and "fact". Here, a discussion of what "fiction" refers to here would be necessary, e.g., descriptions that go beyond the "lyrical" or "poetic." Moreover, one interesting point that is mentioned in passing is that some descriptions are used to evocate certain feelings or images in the reader - this could also be pursued more coherently. The claim that Lynch's travelogue will contribute to preserving architecture and monuments needs to be substantiated - why is this the case? Is is still read? By wom? And why does this help to preserve architectural heritage? In connection to this, I think that Lynch's criticism of the unwillingness of the Russian government to help conserve significant buildings is important and should be more thoroughly discussed.

Format: figure 6 is not focused enough, it should have a better resolution to be included here; in some quotations, passages are in bold print - but it is not indicated whether that's part of the original or not; I am not sure what the rules for citations are here but some books are in quotations marks in the text, in the bibliography they are in italics.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Language: This needs to be improved. There are problems with punctuation (comma, use of dash/hyphen) and syntax, articles, some expression and word choice problems. Quite frequently two words are given without a blank space between; some repetitions should be eliminated.

See file

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for the constructive criticism and suggestions. Your input has been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our paper. The paper has been fully and extensively revised considering all your comments and remarks.

Authors

1. While the topic is certainly interesting, my impression of the article is that it is much too descriptive. There are statements concerning the blending of "fact and art" (in other passages fact and fiction) in the descriptions of "sites, landscapes, monuments and scenes", but the quotes and images are not (thoroughly) analyzed; they are given and hardly commented on as if they were speaking for themselves. For an article on either travel writing or architecture/monuments, I'd expect an analysis of the language/image composition to make a point.

The intention behind the current descriptive style was to foreground the empirical richness and aesthetic character of Henry F. B. Lynch’s travelogue, which has rarely been studied in the context of both its documentary and literary value. Given that Lynch’s writing represents one of the earliest and most comprehensive European engagements with Armenian architectural heritage, a substantial portion of the article was devoted to establishing a historical record of what he observed, especially in light of current concerns around the preservation and loss of many of the monuments he described. The descriptive passages were thus intended to serve a dual function: first, to present primary source material that reflects how architectural heritage was perceived through travel writing; and second, to implicitly invite readers to observe the interplay of fact (historical, geographic, architectural documentation) and art (emotive and visual composition) in Lynch’s account. We fully acknowledge that the interpretive potential of this material could be more fully developed, however, we have tried to align more clearly with scholarly expectations in travel writing, and support the article’s broader claim about the hybrid nature of the travelogue as both documentation and aesthetic expression (without going into linguistic details) which has been achieved.

2. Moreover, in addition to the overall point of the article, its various part must be improved.

Improvements, revisions and additions have been made.

3. 

3. On the one hand, it is much too general - the point that travel writing combines fiction and fact is not new so that this passage should be reworked to provide a focused framework for the analysis of Lynch's travelogue. Additionally, some points are not clear to me: linguistic unit, aesthetic goal, functional principles as terms are not defined or discussed enough. What is the difference between an "ontological juxtaposition of fact and fiction" and a simple "juxtaposition"? The author introduces Borm's criticism of the term "genre" with regard to travel writing but continues to use "genre" to refer to Lynch's travelogue.

You’re absolutely right that the observation that travel writing blends fact and fiction is not new. That idea does not serve here as a claim of originality. The paper’s goal is to show how it manifests in Lynch’s travelogue—in his language, his use of photographic documentation, and his affective portrayals of Armenian architecture. The mentioned terms were introduced to gesture toward a stylistic-functional reading of Lynch’s text, However, we now see that they require clearer definitions and contextualization which have been done allowing us to anchor the analysis in a clearer framework without abstract overreach. The comment on functional stylistics, semantic and metasemiotic levels of expression, functional potentials, juxtaposition, have been clarified both in the text and in the Notes. So, I have discussed them in my answer to the comment referring to paragraph 4 on page 2, starting from line 1, and in Note 4. The paragraph starts with Linguistically…. Thus, functional stylistics (a branch of linguistics that emerged in mid 1950s and combines literary criticism and stylistics) and functional theories of language propose that since language is fundamentally a tool, it is reasonable to assume that its structures are best analyzed and understood with reference to the functions they realize. The main functions realized by language and speech are the informative function and the expressive or impact function. For example, for scientific or academic discourse, mass media, official documents and some other functional varieties, the primary function is the informative function, for fiction (belle lettres) – it is the function of impact/aesthetic function. Travel writing, as well as autobiographies, diaries, essays, representing genres of public discourse, differ from both, as ontologically (originally, by descent) they juxtapose both functions – they both inform and impact. Accordingly, the linguistic units (words and syntagmas) they use belong to the semantic level of expression as they are used in their referential meaning and convey information. On the other hand, there are linguistic units that belong to the meta-semiotic level of expression (expressive means and stylistic devices) to impact the addressee or receiver, put in linguistically. Hence the combination of fact and fiction or fictitiousness and factitiousness in travel writing. See also page three, paragraph 1 of this paper. Hopefully, I succeeded in clarifying this point.

4. Ontological Juxtaposition vs. Simple Juxtaposition

Thank you for pointing out this conceptual vagueness. The phrase ontological juxtaposition of fact and fiction was meant to emphasize that the fact/fiction relationship is not simply a surface-level rhetorical device, but is fundamental to the travelogue’s mode of knowledge production, put in metaphorically, it is an “inborn” quality. We realize now that this distinction is underexplained and potentially confusing so it has been rephrased for clarity.

5. Use of "Genre" After Borm's Critique

Borm indeed challenges the strict use of genre for travel writing. Our intent was just to reflect his caution while still using genre in a functional sense, following other scholars who treat travel writing as a hybrid or fluid genre that combines both fact and fiction. We would like to add, that the paper does not aim to offer a new theory of fact/fiction blending in travel writing, but rather to trace how this duality functions in Henry Lynch’s specific narrative through linguistic elements and visual strategies.

6. The function of figure 2 (original entry on Lynch's biodata and an encoded version of the same is not clear. It is also not commented on; it needs a discussion so that its function for the analysis of Lynch's travelogue becomes obvious.

The inclusion of Figure 2 was intended to ground Lynch’s intellectual and professional profile as a traveler-writer, to support the biographical framing of Henry F. B. Lynch as a highly educated and culturally embedded British intellectual whose background (legal, commercial, and academic) helps contextualize the dual nature of his travel writing. We acknowledge that without commentary, its relevance to the analysis remains unclear. Thus, in revision, we have inserted a brief discussion that links it to the article’s core argument: that Lynch’s background, education, and affiliations are reflected in travelogue—merging scientific precision with literary expression.

7. To pursue a more focused argument, the writer needs to work out why Lynch's travelogue is particularly interesting with regard to the interrelation of "fiction" and "fact". Here, a discussion of what "fiction" refers to here would be necessary, e.g., descriptions that go beyond the "lyrical" or "poetic." Moreover, one interesting point that is mentioned in passing is that some descriptions are used to evocate certain feelings or images in the reader - this could also be pursued more coherently.

The reviewer is absolutely right to call for a more focused argument around the fact/fiction dynamic and we have tried our best to make it clear in the text, thus defining it not as simple scientific facts but also fiction (aesthetic, emotive, and symbolic representation). Visuals are part of  the latter to impact the reader even more. Respective additions have been made.

8. The claim that Lynch's travelogue will contribute to preserving architecture and monuments needs to be substantiated - why is this the case? Is is still read? By wom? And why does this help to preserve architectural heritage?

Thank you for this valuable comment. We agree that this point requirs further clarification and extension. In response, we have offered substantiation and addition  in the text: Henry Finnis Blosse Lynch’s Armenia: Travels and Studies remains an essential source for scholars of Armenian architecture and cultural heritage for several reasons, among them historical documentation in absence of originals, academic and archival relevance, role in raising awareness through travel writing:. preservation through cultural memory with explanations. Today, Lynch’s travelogue continues to serve as both an archival tool and a cultural medium that enhances scholarly knowledge and public awareness, which are foundational to any sustainable heritage preservation strategy.

9. Lynch's criticism of the unwillingness of the Russian government to help conserve significant buildings is important and should be more thoroughly discussed.

Thank you for this insightful observation—the reviewer is pointing to an opportunity to highlight one of the article's most meaningful socio-political themes. Here's a brief justified response to that comment with the suitable addition in the text. We agree that Lynch’s nuanced critique of Russian governmental inaction is a critical aspect of his travelogue and have expanded this discussion in the revised manuscript. Lynch’s commentary on architectural decay—especially at sites such as Geghard and Horomos—is more than an aesthetic lament; it constitutes a pointed political appeal. His statement (p. 392) that "the cooperation of the Russian Government should be secured... nor need we despair that it will be forthcoming" is deliberately double-edged. While diplomatically phrased, it subtly implies a lack of prior commitment or initiative from the Russian authorities. What makes this significant is that Lynch—writing as a British subject with imperialist ties—was not merely documenting ruin; he was making a public call for institutional responsibility. His appeal reflects his broader ideological position: skeptical of Russian rule over Armenian territories, yet hopeful for transnational cooperation in the name of cultural heritage. By including these criticism, Lynch positions himself not just as an observer, but as a moral advocate for Armenian cultural legacy. His rhetorical strategy—blending admiration, regret, and appeal—exemplifies how travel writing could function as a form of early heritage activism.

10. Figure 6 is not focused enough, it should have a better resolution to be included here.

         Figure 6 has been removed.

11. In some quotations, passages are in bold print - but it is not indicated whether that's part of the original or not; I am not sure what the rules for citations are here but some books are in quotations marks in the text, in the bibliography they are in italics.

The sentence “It combines many of the characteristics of Byzantine art and of the style which we term Gothic ” is originally bolded by the author. In the rest of the mentioned cases, all such technical errors have been corrected.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review for Journal: Arts (ISSN 2076-0752)

Manuscript: ID arts-3644272

Title: Architecture in Armenia from a Traveler’s Account: Henry Finnis Blosse Lynch

Rather than an art historical study of Armenian architectural monuments through European, particularly 19^th-century travelogues, this essay focuses on the genre of the travelogue and its architectural interpretations and contemporary uses. In the first sections of the narrative, the author problematizes the very genre of the travelogue, theorizing its divided nature between fact and fiction: factual data collecting underground and the creative process of telling the story that is free from purely data-driven narrative—a genre that is constituted of multiple genre, including through visual and emotive interpretations and expressions. The author dubs this a unique aspect of travel writing as “objective creativity.”

In the third section, the author focuses on British traveler Henry FinnisBlosse Lynch with commercial and familial ties to Baghdad and Shiraz’s Armenians, and his Travel to Armenia: 1893-1894.

A far more accurate and detailed language is needed to explain specific historical facts and phenomena. For example, the author speaks of Henry lynch going to Armenia in 1893 and 1898 for the first two times. What does Armenia mean here? Is it Ottoman Armenia, Russian Armenia, or a specific location? In either case, the language must be historically accurate and precise when referring to the Armenian Highlands. In general, throughout the entire narrative, a much tighter language needs to be used 2 explain historical facts, locations, and events. See below some examples of sentences needing clarification:

  

On page 5:

“architectural monuments including churches and monasteries” -- can the author name one or two? What does “very creatively” mean?

A short quotation is followed by a long quotation, which is not explained or theorized at all. Then it is followed by the appearance of this sentence: The journey starts with his admiration of Bosphorus, “always bright and gay and beautiful”, appearing “as the promised gate of paradise beyond the world of shades” (Lynch 1901, 2)” which only adds to the confusion because it's unclear how the Bosphorus has anything to do with it “Armenia”. This is precisely the problem of inaccurate and loose language, where, halfway through the article, the reader lacks a clear understanding of exactly where Henry Lynch traveled and documented. Bosphorus implies Constantinople, which has nothing to do with “Armenia,” however defined, unless the author can make a case—which is missing as of now—that Henry Lynch interpreted Bosphorus as a part of an Ottoman Armenian life and therefore justifiably included it in his travelogue. The author does not make it clear that this is part of the creative aspects of travel writing. By being precise and naming specific geographies in specific historical time, the author then can demonstrate that Henry Lynch was using the dual methods of creative and factual writing. As of now, the narrative simply mimics travel writing by conflating myth with fact through its own loose language. Lynch’s “Turkish Princes” or “Turkish rule” is never problematized – there was no such thing as Turkish Provinces or Turkish rule in the 1890s—these were Ottoman provinces and Ottoman rule. Henry Lynch’s own orientalism needs to be addressed.

“Armenian Gregorian churches” – again which ones?

 

On page 6-8:

Same problem of loose language: “Persian buildings and mosques” – no such thing as Persian buildings” – the author needs to specifically name the dynasty, the date, the style of these buildings and mosques. For example, Safavid or Qajar mosques, which we know there were several in Yerevan at the end of the 19^th century.

“KhorVirap, located not far from Erivan” – an addition to the significance of Khor Virap, the function, name, and dates need to be provided and explained, not to mention the location. By this account, everything in present-day Armenia is “located not far from Erivan.” By the same token, most of the monuments that are specifically mentioned have the same issue. None of them are provided dates or exact locations, nor even a precise understanding of their significance in Armenian history. Above all, the reader gets no clear understanding of why these monuments were important to Henry Lynch.

 

On page "Conclusion":

The essay ends with a paragraph that approaches European travel writing with a naive and uncritical eye. It is undoubtedly true that 19^th-century European travelers were collecting data, and some were advocating the dissemination of awareness and, therefore later preservation of historical monuments. An argument can be made that this was particularly important for Armenian monuments located in the Ottoman Empire and the Romanov Empire, which were imperial authorities that primarily neglected the task of conserving Armenian cultural heritage. However, European travel writings must also be seen as a discourse that was deeply political and imperial, with its own coercive agendas and destructive ideologies. The Great Powers—especially Britain and Germany—were fully aware of the Ottoman plans to carry out the Armenian Genocide, for instance. Painting them as the great saviors in the essay’s conclusion is ethically wrong. Furthermore, there needs to be a distinction made between these 19^th-century travel writings by Europeans and the 20^th-century efforts made by the Armenian state, the Armenian Soviet institutions of historical preservation, and the Armenian people's effort to preserve their own cultural heritage. A blanket and optimistically naive statement that ties one single travelogue to the entire politics of heritage conservation is neither scholarly nor historically accurate.

The essay will benefit significantly from a critical review of the existing literature on Armenian architecture and the historiography of Armenian art. See L’art arménien /Armenian Art (1977 and 1978) by Sirarpi Der Nersessian, Les arts arméniens / Armenian Art (1987 and 1989) by Jean-Michel Thierry, Patrick Donabedian, and Nicole Thierry, The Art of Armenia (2018) by Christina Maranci; the twenty-three volumes in the Documents of Armenian Architecture series (1968), Edouard Utudjian’s Les monuments arméniens du IVe siècle au XVIIe siècle (1967–98), Armen Khatchatrian’s L’architecture arménienne du IVe au VIe siècle (1971, a dissertation edited and published by André Grabar and Der Nersessian), Patrick Donabédian’s L’âge d’or de l’architecture arménienne: VIIe siècle (2008), and Research on Armenian Architecture (RAA) publications. Several important sources on the history of Armenian architecture are missing, most prominently Christina Maranci's seminal book on Strzygowski’s relationship to Armenian architecture. The author might also want to consider Talinn Grigor’s Persian Revival for a parallel art historical perspective on Strzygowski’s relationship to Iranian architecture.

Overall:

I recommend publishing this article after it has undergone major revisions. The title is misleading as the article does not, in fact, address the architectural history of Armenia therefore, the title should be reconsidered. The essay itself needs a solid thesis argument and a complete revision of the language and historical narratives. Once these major revisions are completed, the narrative requires close copy-editing, particularly in terms of language and formatting. Image captions are incomplete and need to be formatted correctly. A complete and correctly formatted caption for each image, including source credit, is required.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I recommend publishing this article after it has undergone major revisions. Once these major revisions are completed, the narrative requires close copy-editing, particularly in terms of language and formatting. Image captions are incomplete and need to be formatted correctly. A complete and correctly formatted caption for each image, including source credit, is required.

Author Response

Language: This needs to be improved. There are problems with punctuation (comma, use of dash/hyphen) and syntax, articles, some expression and word choice problems. Quite frequently two words are given without a blank space between; some repetitions should be eliminated.

            Sorry for the inattention. The absence of blank space is not our fault. This happens when the paper is being sent from one computer to the other. All the mentioned errors have been corrected.

2. Rather than an art historical study of Armenian architectural monuments through European, particularly 19^th-century travelogues, this essay focuses on the genre of the travelogue and its architectural interpretations and contemporary uses. In the first sections of the narrative, the author problematizes the very genre of the travelogue, theorizing its divided nature between fact and fiction: factual data collecting underground and the creative process of telling the story that is free from purely data-driven narrative—a genre that is constituted of multiple genre, including through visual and emotive interpretations and expressions. The author dubs this a unique aspect of travel writing as “objective creativity.”

Thank you for this observation. I appreciate the recognition that the article aims to examine travel writing not simply as a documentary source for Armenian architecture, but as a complex genre that constructs architectural meaning through both empirical observation and imaginative narrative. The term objective creativity was intended to describe this hybrid mode—where the author presents factual data (measurements, locations, names) while also using expressive language and visual symbolism to evoke cultural meaning. We consider that the main contribution of the article lies in examining how Lynch’s travelogue constructs meaning at the intersection of empirical observation and creative narrative.

3. In the third section, the author focuses on British traveler Henry Finnis Blosse Lynch with commercial and familial ties to Baghdad and Shiraz’s Armenians, and his Travel to Armenia: 1893-1894. A far more accurate and detailed language is needed to explain specific historical facts and phenomena. For example, the author speaks of Henry lynch going to Armenia in 1893 and 1898 for the first two times. What does Armenia mean here? Is it Ottoman Armenia, Russian Armenia, or a specific location? In either case, the language must be historically accurate and precise when referring to the Armenian Highlands. In general, throughout the entire narrative, a much tighter language needs to be used 2 explain historical facts, locations, and events. See below some examples of sentences needing clarification:

 Thank you for this crucial observation. I fully agree that greater historical and geopolitical precision is needed. The term Armenia in the 19th-century context can be ambiguous and potentially misleading if not qualified, thus we have specified whether Lynch is referring to Russian Armenia (Eastern Armenia, under the Russian Empire), Ottoman Armenia (Western Armenia, under the Ottoman Empire), or the Armenian Highlands as a broader geographic and cultural region. A brief note referring to this has also been added.

4. “architectural monuments including churches and monasteries” -- can the author name one or two? What does “very creatively” mean?

Lynch documented architectural monuments such as the Marmashen Monastery, with its intricate stone carvings, and the Geghard Monastery, partly carved into the mountain rock, highlighting the technical and spiritual achievements of medieval Armenian builders. By “very creatively” we mean Lynch’s description of Armenia in evocative, figurative language. However, the latter has been rephrased and respective revisions have been made.

5. A short quotation is followed by a long quotation, which is not explained or theorized at all. Then it is followed by the appearance of this sentence: The journey starts with his admiration of Bosphorus, “always bright and gay and beautiful”, appearing “as the promised gate of paradise beyond the world of shades” (Lynch 1901, 2)” which only adds to the confusion because it's unclear how the Bosphorus has anything to do with it “Armenia”. This is precisely the problem of inaccurate and loose language, where, halfway through the article, the reader lacks a clear understanding of exactly where Henry Lynch traveled and documented. Bosphorus implies Constantinople, which has nothing to do with “Armenia,” however defined, unless the author can make a case—which is missing as of now—that Henry Lynch interpreted Bosphorus as a part of an Ottoman Armenian life and therefore justifiably included it in his travelogue. The author does not make it clear that this is part of the creative aspects of travel writing. By being precise and naming specific geographies in specific historical time, the author then can demonstrate that Henry Lynch was using the dual methods of creative and factual writing. As of now, the narrative simply mimics travel writing by conflating myth with fact through its own loose language. Lynch’s “Turkish Princes” or “Turkish rule” is never problematized – there was no such thing as Turkish Provinces or Turkish rule in the 1890s—these were Ottoman provinces and Ottoman rule. Henry Lynch’s own orientalism needs to be addressed.

Thank you for this detailed and important feedback. We fully agree that greater care must be taken in distinguishing between the factual chronology and geography of Lynch’s travels. The quoted passage on the Bosphorus was just intended to illustrate Lynch’s literary style at the outset of his journey. We acknowledge the need for more precise geopolitical language and have revised and rephrased accordingly. We appreciate the reviewer’s note on the abrupt presentation of long quotations without explanation. However, so much has already been stated re fact and fiction, that I would like the reader himself/herself to make certain assumptions about travelogue in general and the author’s style in particular. Turkish has been changed into Ottoman to reflect the political realities of the 1890s and distance our narrative voice from any anachronistic or orientalist terminology used by Lynch.

5.“Armenian Gregorian churches” – again which ones?

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree that specifying which churches Lynch was referring to will enhance the clarity and precision of the text. In the section where Lynch describes Alexandropol (now Gyumri), he refers to the “Armenian Gregorian churches” as “pretentious and commonplace both in design and in ornamentation,” contrasting them with the “lace-work chisellings” of medieval structures (Lynch 1901, 129). The churches in question include those built in the 19th century during Russian imperial administration, such as the Church of the Holy Saviour (Amenaprkich) and St. Astvatsatsin Church in Alexandropol. These were relatively new constructions in Lynch’s time and often reflected Russian-influenced ecclesiastical architecture, which may explain his critique of their design as lacking the distinctive medieval Armenian qualities he admired elsewhere (e.g., at Ani or Marmashen).

7. Same problem of loose language: “Persian buildings and mosques” – no such thing as Persian buildings” – the author needs to specifically name the dynasty, the date, the style of these buildings and mosques. For example, Safavid or Qajar mosques, which we know there were several in Yerevan at the end of the 19^thcentury. “KhorVirap, located not far from Erivan” – an addition to the significance of Khor Virap, the function, name, and dates need to be provided and explained, not to mention the location. By this account, everything in present-day Armenia is “located not far from Erivan.” By the same token, most of the monuments that are specifically mentioned have the same issue. None of them are provided dates or exact locations, nor even a precise understanding of their significance in Armenian history. Above all, the reader gets no clear understanding of why these monuments were important to Henry Lynch.

We appreciate this detailed and constructive feedback, which highlights an important shortcoming in our earlier phrasing and contextualization. In response, we have revised the manuscript to improve specificity, historical accuracy, and cultural context in the following way: in the revised version, we now specify the Qajar-era mosques and administrative buildings, constructed during the 18th–19th centuries when Yerevan was under Persian Qajar rule. These include notable examples such as the Blue Mosque (Gök Jami), built in 1766, a prime example of Qajar architecture in the South Caucasus. We agree that the reference to Khor Virap as merely “not far from Erivan” lacks sufficient depth. In the revised text, we have expanded the passage to explain that Khor Virap Monastery is located near the modern Armenian-Turkish border, approximately 30 km south of Yerevan, in the Ararat Plain. It is historically significant as the legendary site of Saint Gregory the Illuminator’s 13-year imprisonment before converting King Tiridates III to Christianity in 301 AD—marking the establishment of Armenia as the first officially Christian state. We clarify that Lynch’s visit to Khor Virap reflected his awareness of its symbolic importance to Armenian religious identity. We have updated several sections of the article to include: dates of construction and historical periods, precise locations, architectural and cultural significance in Armenian history (e.g., Ani Cathedral as a 10th-century masterpiece of Bagratid Armenian architecture). Why these Monuments mattered to Lynch: We recognize that while Lynch’s admiration and concern for Armenian monuments is evident through his prose and photographs, the article needed to make clearer why these sites mattered to him. We have now emphasized how Lynch consistently viewed these monuments as embodiments of Armenian cultural identity and as evidence of a sophisticated architectural tradition distinct from neighboring empires. His concern for their neglect was both aesthetic and ideological—motivated by a desire to preserve Armenian cultural distinctiveness amid Russian and Ottoman dominance. These points are now explicitly drawn out in the revised sections.

7. On page "Conclusion"

The essay ends with a paragraph that approaches European travel writing with a naive and uncritical eye. It is undoubtedly true that 19^th-century European travelers were collecting data, and some were advocating the dissemination of awareness and, therefore later preservation of historical monuments. An argument can be made that this was particularly important for Armenian monuments located in the Ottoman Empire and the Romanov Empire, which were imperial authorities that primarily neglected the task of conserving Armenian cultural heritage. However, European travel writings must also be seen as a discourse that was deeply political and imperial, with its own coercive agendas and destructive ideologies. The Great Powers—especially Britain and Germany—were fully aware of the Ottoman plans to carry out the Armenian Genocide, for instance. Painting them as the great saviors in the essay’s conclusion is ethically wrong. Furthermore, there needs to be a distinction made between these 19^th-century travel writings by Europeans and the 20^th-century efforts made by the Armenian state, the Armenian Soviet institutions of historical preservation, and the Armenian people's effort to preserve their own cultural heritage. A blanket and optimistically naive statement that ties one single travelogue to the entire politics of heritage conservation is neither scholarly nor historically accurate.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this crucial and nuanced comment. We fully agree that the conclusion, in its current form, presents a somewhat uncritical and overly idealized view of 19th-century European travel writing and the role of travelers such as Lynch. We acknowledge the need to interrogate the imperial gaze and political motivations underlying much of this literature, including Lynch’s own writings, and to differentiate this from indigenous, state-led, and scholarly efforts within Armenian society and institutions. Hence, we have framed our conclusion to depict the mentioned points and we believe the revision now results in a more critically informed and historically responsible conclusion.

 

           

8. The essay will benefit significantly from a critical review of the existing literature on Armenian architecture and the historiography of Armenian art. See L’art arménien/Armenian Art(1977 and 1978) by Sirarpi Der Nersessian, Les arts arméniens / Armenian Art (1987 and 1989) by Jean-Michel Thierry, Patrick Donabedian, and Nicole Thierry, The Art of Armenia (2018) by Christina Maranci; the twenty-three volumes in the Documents of Armenian Architecture series (1968), Edouard Utudjian’s Les monuments arméniens du IVe siècle au XVIIe siècle (1967–98), Armen Khatchatrian’s L’architecture arménienne du IVe au VIe siècle (1971, a dissertation edited and published by André Grabar and Der Nersessian), Patrick Donabédian’s L’âge d’or de l’architecture arménienne: VIIe siècle (2008), and Research on Armenian Architecture (RAA) publications. Several important sources on the history of Armenian architecture are missing, most prominently Christina Maranci's seminal book on Strzygowski’s relationship to Armenian architecture. The author might also want to consider Talinn Grigor’s Persian Revival for a parallel art historical perspective on Strzygowski’s relationship to Iranian architecture.

Certainly. Based on the reviewer’s suggestion, we have added a brief, critical literature review that references two key works from the list you provided: Christina Maranci’s The Art of Armenia (2018) and Sirarpie Der Nersessian’s L’art arménien / Armenian Art (1977/1978). Below is the paragraph we have included in the text. A more comprehensive understanding of Armenian architectural historiography necessitates engagement with foundational and contemporary scholarship. Sirarpie Der Nersessian’s L’art arménien (1977/1978) stands as one of the earliest systematic studies to articulate Armenian architecture as an independent and coherent artistic tradition. Her work foregrounded the formal qualities, typologies, and religious symbolism of Armenian churches from the early Christian period through the medieval era, providing an essential framework that continues to inform current scholarship. More recently, Christina Maranci’s The Art of Armenia (2018) has critically expanded the field by placing Armenian art and architecture in dialogue with regional and imperial contexts, while also examining the historiographical legacy of scholars like Josef Strzygowski. Maranci challenges earlier Eurocentric or isolationist models by demonstrating how Armenian architecture both contributed to and was shaped by transregional cultural exchanges—particularly with Byzantium, Persia, and the Islamic world. Her analysis offers an essential corrective to earlier narratives, including those constructed by European travelers such as Lynch, whose work, while valuable, must be situated within broader discursive frameworks of orientalism and imperial archaeology. Together, these contributions emphasize the need to interpret travel accounts like Lynch’s not in isolation, but as part of a layered historiography that intersects with scholarly, political, and cultural histories of heritage representation.

 

9. Overall:

I recommend publishing this article after it has undergone major revisions. The title is misleading as the article does not, in fact, address the architectural history of Armenia therefore, the title should be reconsidered. The essay itself needs a solid thesis argument and a complete revision of the language and historical narratives. Once these major revisions are completed, the narrative requires close copy-editing, particularly in terms of language and formatting. Image captions are incomplete and need to be formatted correctly. A complete and correctly formatted caption for each image, including source credit, is required.

         The title has been rephrased and all the suggestion have been carefully considered.

1. In the References the stylesheet of the journal has been considered.

All photographs depicting Armenia under both Ottoman and Russian rule were taken by the author. In this paper they are sourced from the original edition of his book, which is freely available on Project Gutenberg. They are in the public domain and may be used or published without requesting permission.

And finally,

Dear Reviewer, thank you for the constructive criticism and suggestions. Your input has been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our paper. The paper has been fully and extensively revised considering all your comments and remarks.

Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This version has been substantially improved with regard to the analysis of some of the passages from Lynch's travelogue. I still find that this could be done more in-depth than it is now. For one, it becomes apparent that there needs to be some background on Armenian culture to make clear why Lynch's contribution is so significant. The photos are still not analyzed, which is also necessary in my view with regard to the proposed overall argument.

Moreover, although now the framework of the argument has been clarified, some terminological difficulties appear regarding the use of the term fiction, particularly regarding the genre of travel writing. As the author shows, travel writing is often a mix of fiction and fact; fiction, in this case however, does not necessarily refer to the usage of 'poetic' language, rather to the factuality of the events. Language - even if it is 'objective' and 'strictly' descriptive is always a re-representation, not the real thing. "Poetic" language, in turn, is not 'fictional' - it might be evocative of a subjective experience, which again is not fictional, merely subjective.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Has been much improved - some punctuation issues (usage of dash, comma) remain.

Author Response

1. Comment 1: Lines 8 and 18: Add the definite article before the word “travelogue”

            Response 1: “the” is added in the abstract before the word “travelogue”.

 

2. Comment 2: Line 37: Place the conjunction “and” before the dash

Response 2: “and” is placed before the dash.

 

3. Comment 3:Lines 41-43: Revise the sentence.

Response 3: Considering the remark of the reviewer, the sentence has been revised as follows: “The European representations of the Caucasus—serving as a basis for the formation of Western conceptualization of the region—"were constructed from an ethnocentric Western culture” (Mannot 2022, 60).

 

4. Comment 4:Line 62: Explain and strengthen the notion of how Lynch differs from other writers and strengthen the same point in the analysis as well.

Response 4: Two passages have been added considering the reviewer’s comment. The part added in the comment paragraph is the following: Unlike many of his contemporaries, however, Lynch combined a relatively detailed empirical approach with a sustained political interest in the region and offered a more systematic (still ideologically inflected) account of Armenian architectural and cultural heritage. His writing differs from the more romanticized tone of other travelogues by embedding his observations with a scholarly framework that tended to legitimize Western involvement in the narrative. And the following concise paragraph has been incorporated into Chapter 3 to further elaborate on how Lynch’s travel writing differs from those of his counterparts: While many 19^th-century European travel writers approached Armenia through the lens of romantic exoticism or biblical curiosity, Henry F. B. Lynch’s work is distinguished by its combination of descriptive precision, political engagement, and scholarly ambition. His two-volume Armenia: Travels and Studies (1901) reflects a level of empirical rigor uncommon among his peers, incorporating maps, architectural plans, and historical commentary alongside narrative accounts. Lynch’s efforts to document Armenian ecclesiastical architecture were shaped not only by aesthetic interest but also by a geopolitical awareness of the region’s strategic importance and contested histories. This distinguishes his writing from more impressionistic accounts, positioning it as both a product of and a contributor to emerging discourses of imperial knowledge production.

 

5. Comment 5: Line 62: Revise the word combination.

Response 5: “travel writing or travel literature of” has been revised to“the travel writing by”as suggested by the reviewer.

 

6. Comment 6: Line 76: Remove the dash and add a comma.

Response 6: The dash has been removed and a comma has been added.

 

7. Comment 7: Line 82: Delete the comma.

Response 7: Comma deleted.

 

8. Comment 8: Line 86: Delete the comma.

Response 8: Comma deleted.

 

9. Comment 9: Line 89: Remove “Meantime”.

Response 9: “Meantime” has been removed.

 

10. Comment 10: Line 90: Clarify the first-person narrator as a fictional element in the travelogue.

Response 10: To clarify the first-person narrator as a fictional element in the travelogue, this sentence has been added “The narrator’s personal voice—shaped by imaginative language, style, and perspective—becomes the central tool through which experiences are framed, felt, conveyed and communicated."

 

11. Comment 11: Line 96: Delete the comma.

Response 11: Comma deleted.

 

12. Comment 12: Line 102: Clarify the reference.

Response 12: Reference made clear:J. Borm(2004, 13).

 

13. Comment 13: Line 102:Add a comma.

Response 13: Comma added.

 

14. Comment 14: Line 105:Integrate the paragraph into the previous one.

Response 14: The paragraph is integrated into the previous one.

 

15. Comment 15: Line 113: Is this really just fictional, the writer trying to express his or her feelings at a particular travel site? After all one could argue that such feelings were “really felt” (and are not fictional in the sense that a character’s feelings in a novel are fictional).

Response 15: By this, the reviewer raises an interesting question: if a travel writer is sharing real feelings about a real place, is that actually fiction? That’s fair, and it’s exactly what makes travel writing so unique. My point isn’t that travel writing is made-up like a novel, but that it sits somewhere between fact and art. It draws from real experiences, but the way those experiences are shared is often personal, emotional, and creatively shaped.A travelogue isn’t just a list of facts or a history lesson. It’s also about how a place feels: how it smells, what memories it triggers, what emotions it stirs in the writer. Writers use metaphors, vivid descriptions, and sometimes even exaggeration to express these things. That doesn’t mean they’re inventing the experience, it just means they’re shaping it in a way that makes it meaningful or compelling for the reader.That’s very different from a novel, where everything: characters, events, settings, can be entirely fictional. In a travelogue, the writer’s feelings are real, but they’re presented in a way that often overlaps with storytelling techniques. That’s why I say travel writing uses both fact and fiction because it blends the informative with the expressive.As Kaasa puts it, travel writing has always blurred the line between documentary and imagination. The balance depends on the writer: background, language and style, and what they want to share. But at its core, travel writing is its own genre. It’s not a novel. It’s not a research paper. It’s something in between shaped by real journeys, but told in a way that invites emotion and interpretation like fiction.

 

16. Comment 16: Line 127: This is an interesting point that travel writing should follow certain conventions and this should be analyzed in the text with regard to Lynch.

Response 16: Considering that we have mentioned that “In addition to outlining the basics of travel writing, it is important to consider how the genre often blurs the line between fact and fiction. Travel narratives frequently rely on conventionalized structures and descriptive tropes that shape readers’ expectations and perceptions. These conventions—ranging from the use of evocative, often romanticized language to standardized narratives—influence how landscapes, architectural constructions, and cultural encounters are portrayed. The legacy of Romanticism, in particular, has had a lasting impact on the way travel writers depict the sublime or the picturesque, often prioritizing emotional resonance and aesthetic appeal over strict factual accuracy. This interplay between reality and representation highlights the inherently constructed nature of travel writing”—in Chapter 3 and throughout the text we often refer to the mentioned conventions.For example, Lynch’s journey to Constantinople (Ottoman Empire) is analyzed as follows: “… the Bosphorus—‘always bright and gay and beautiful’—which he imagines as a symbolic threshold: ‘the promised gate of paradise beyond the world of shades’” (Lynch 1901, 2). This literary framing marks the aesthetic threshold into what Lynch, writing from a Eurocentric position, imagined as the exotic East. This symbolic moment foregrounds the travelogue’s stylistic duality: geographical reporting infused with poetic metaphor. Trebizond receives“the first flush of morning”, its terraces are circling “seawards down the lower slopes of Mount Mithros to the point of the little cape”, and “rows of tall cypresses still hold the shadows of night”, but “the white faces of the houses soon dispel the darkness, and their glass windows reflect in a glow of dazzling splendor the lurid brilliance of the rising sun” (ibid, 10).Such poetic descriptions signal an aesthetic atmosphere typical of fiction, but the numerous geographical names and historical explanations disclose the documentary aspect of the genre of travel writing very quickly. These stylistic fluctuations are not incidental; they are essential to understanding the hybridity of the genre, where narrative voice often oscillates between the factual and the affective. By analyzing these textual nuances, we aim not only to trace how such conventions function rhetorically but also to show how they shape the ideological and cultural framing of the places described. Such intersections of generic boundaries—of fact and fiction, travel and art—characterize Lynch’s writing style throughout all the chapters of the book.” (See the comment on line 208 and 217, and the material elaborated there)

 

17. Comment 17: Line 132: Add a hyphen.

response 17: The hyphen is added.

 

18. Comment 18: Line 165: Despite this explanation I still do not see the use of this figure, the explanation is enough and the source reference would act as evidence.

Response 18: While the explanation in the main text provides a narrative summary of Lynch’s background, Figure 2 offers a visual, comparative representation of two distinct formats of biographical data: (1) the original printed Cambridge Alumni entry and (2) the encoded, digitally enhanced version. The inclusion of this figure serves several purposes: it demonstrates methodological transparencyillustrating the role of digital archives and linked data in recovering and contextualizing figures like Lynch; supports interpretive claims by revealing aspects of Lynch’s profile and supporting the interpretation that his hybrid identity and writing style stem from this multifaceted background; acts as evidenceenabling readers to directly see and assess the data that grounds the argument and enhance comprehension.The figure is not simply illustrative; it is integral to demonstrating the source's transformation, exposing underlying data structures, and reinforcing interpretive claims about Lynch’s positionality. Removing it would obscure a key layer of the article’s methodological argument.

 

19. Comment 19: Line 171: The article just established that both an objective, factual tone, as well as a more subjective “poetic” style are present in many travelogues; why is this now specific to Lynch?

Response 19: While it is true that many travelogues exhibit a blend of objective description and poetic narrative (fiction), Lynch's case is distinctive due to the particular convergence of his elite education, deep integration into British imperial and scholarly institutions which also shaped his language, creativity (poetic style) and perspective. These factors enable his travelogue mirror typical genre conventions, imaginative language (fiction) and broad intellectual and professional approaches. His writing thus exemplifies a consciousand strategic deployment of both ethnographic authority and aesthetic sensibility. This hybrid tone is not simply a genre feature but a reflection of Lynch’s creativelanguage and intellectual formation, making his case especially instructive.

 

20. Comment 20: Line 187: Paragraphing.

            Response 20: The paragraphs have been integrated.

 

21. Comment 21: Line 208: This is what I expect more in what follows – a close reading of specific passages. Maybe it could be further highlighted and discussed why the use of the image of paradise is so significant in light of the Orientalism the author of the article mentions.

Response 21: Thank you for this resourceful comment. We share your perspective on this point. Initially, we refrained from elaborating too much on this type of analysis, as we were concerned it might steer the discussion towards narrativelinguostylistics a lot more and away from our focus on architectural heritage. However, in light of this comment (and the following one as well), we now feel more confident including such analyses in our discussion. Thus, based on the comment, we have made the following addition to the paragraph (marked in red).Lynch begins his journey in Constantinople (Ottoman Empire), pausing to admire the Bosphorus—"always bright and gay and beautiful”—which he imagines as a symbolic threshold: “the promised gate of paradise beyond the world of shades” (Lynch 1901, 2). This literary framing marks the aesthetic threshold into what Lynch, writing from a Eurocentric position, imagined as the exotic East. In Orientalist literature, paradise often functions as a metaphor for an idealized and exoticized East—a place full of beauty, mystery, and spiritual depth. This image flattens the East into a kind of dreamland that exists for Western exploration and also domination. In Lynch’s time, Western travel writers frequently portrayed the Middle East and Asia in this way, echoing Biblical ideas of the East as Edenic. This “paradise” is seen as beautiful, but in need of Western discovery or improvement. The image of “paradise” is a rhetorical device that romanticizes the land and legitimizes Western intervention, whether intellectual or political. The close reading of such a key phrase as “The country and the people which form the theme of the ensuing pages are deserving, the one of enthusiasm and the other of the highest interest” demonstrates the duality in Orientalist narratives: the land is framed almost like a lost paradisedeserving emotional and material investment. The other key phrase (“It is very strange that such a fine country should have lain in shadow for so many centuries”)evokes both a sense of admiration and neglect—this “fine country” (again invoking a paradisiacal quality) has been hidden or forgotten, like Eden after the Fall. The metaphorical utterance “Much has been done to dispel the darkness during the progress of the expired century”carries strong Orientalist undertones: the West is bringing light (progress) to the darkness or enlightenment to the ignorant. The land is imagined as both “naturally beautiful” and “historically obscured”, a paradise waiting to be reclaimed by the West. Thus, Lynch’s use of the paradise trope positions him both as a traveler and a custodian of knowledge about a land that the West is supposed to rescue. This is Orientalism in action: a romanticization that masks power dynamics. The narrative at large foregrounds the travelogue’s stylistic duality: geographical reporting infused with poetic metaphor.

 

22. Comment 22: Line 217: Even more interesting. What kind of effect does this have here (and see my point above: such passages are quite normal in travelogue).

Response 22: Considering that the reviewer reminds us that such passages are “quite normal in travelogue,” meaning they are part of a broader tradition, we have focused on its effects, including the genre-defining role. Thus, we have revised and expanded the passage.Lynch’s description of Trebizond has a dual effect: it romanticizes the landscape in line with Orientalist aesthetics and positions the narrator as both witness and artist. This blend of descriptive language with documentary precision reflects conventions typical of the travelogue. The aesthetic mode makes an emotional effect, while the factual elements provide credibility. Together they produce a stylized and persuasive image of the East that is ideologically loaded. Trebizond receives “the first flush of morning”, its terraces are circling “seawards down the lower slopes of Mount Mithros to the point of the little cape”, and “rows of tall cypresses still hold the shadows of night”, but “the white faces of the houses soon dispel the darkness, and their glass windows reflect in a glow of dazzling splendor the lurid brilliance of the rising sun” (ibid, 10). This writing blurs the boundaries between factual documentation (place names, geography, historical references) and fictional techniques (imagery, atmosphere, metaphor), lending authority to the narrative through facts and names, while simultaneously attracting the reader with literary beauty. By combining the poetic with the empirical, Lynch positions himself as not just a traveler or observer, but also as an artist shaping the East into a narrative that pleases and instructs the Western reader. This has the effect of elevating the travelogue to literature, while still preserving its claim to truth, reinforcing the authority of the narrator and masking ideological assumptions beneath the beauty of the prose. The effect is also genre-defining as thepoetic descriptions signal an aesthetic atmosphere typical of fiction but the numerous geographical names and historical explanations disclose the documentary aspect of the genre of travel writing very quickly. Such intersections of generic boundaries of fact and fiction, travel and art, characterize Lynch’s writing style throughout all the chapters of the book.

 

23. Comment 23: Line 242: This paragraph is a footnote.

            Response 23: Agreed. See Footnote 9.

 

24. Comment 24: Line 248: Significance of the photo (Figure 3) beyond its documentary function.

            Response 24: Thanks for the remark. The following has been added:

More than merely documenting the architectural features of the Church of Marmashen, Lynch’s photograph serves to evoke a sense of awe and reverence for Armenia’s medieval past. Its careful composition, emphasizing the monument’s grandeur against a stark landscape, visually reinforces Lynch’s narrative portrayal of Armenian architecture as spiritually significant and culturally distinct. The image thus supports his broader argument: that these structures are not just relics, but vital symbols of Armenian identity, worthy of preservation.

25. Comment 25: Line 257: This would show his bias and could function as an example of the below- mentioned “lacks” or absences within the travelogue.

Response 25: The revised passage supports the article’s larger argument that Lynch’s travelogue is both a valuable documentary source and a product of imperial discourse — where absences (e.g., the lack of Armenian church photographs in Yerevan) are not mere oversights, but indicative of ideological framing. This paragraph, therefore, functions not just narratively but also critically, illuminating the constructed nature of travel writing’s representations.In light of the reviewer’s helpful comment, this paragraph now draws explicit attention to Lynch’s omission as a revealing example of selective representation, thus supporting the article’s broader discussion of absences and narrative bias within travel literature.

 

26. Comment 26: Line 264: This is too vague in my view and also “fictional” is not really the term to use here. What is so specific about the atmosphere – how does it go beyond just giving dates and facts (as a report might do) and what kind of effect might this have had on the readers (e.g., to see the necessity to conserve the architecture, to travel there…)?

Response 26: In response to the reviewer’s concern, the term ‘fictional’ in this context was intended not to suggest invented content but rather to indicate the use of literary and emotive techniques — particularly metaphor and symbolism — that contribute to a narrative ‘atmosphere. (See also the authors’ answer to the comments re Line 112 and Line 171). The ‘atmosphere’ in this paragraph arises from Lynch’s descriptive language, especially his depiction of Mount Ararat as ‘summoning spirits’ and the sunrise as ‘illuminating the valleys of Asia.’ These metaphors imbue the scene with a spiritual, almost mythic quality that elevates it beyond a factual account.While the paragraph includes concrete information (e.g., the lack of Armenian monuments in Yerevan, the ascent of Ararat), the prose is deliberately charged with emotion and reverence. This is evident in Lynch’s use of personification and sublime imagery, which shifts the passage from neutral reporting to evocative storytelling.Such language likely stirred a sense of wonder and reverence in readers, encouraging them to see Armenian sites as spiritually significant and culturally endangered. This emotional framing may have prompted greater awareness of the need for conservation or inspired readers to undertake similar journeys themselves. In that sense, the aesthetic and symbolic dimensions of the passage actively support the travelogue’s dual function: to inform and to inspire.The already revised paragraph aims to show how Lynch’s lyrical treatment of Erivan and Mount Ararat transforms empirical observation into affective narrative — fostering not only historical understanding but also emotional investment in Armenian cultural heritage.

 

27. Comment 27: Line 277: his?

           Response 27:  Agreed. “his” is added.

 

28. Comment 28: Line 284: I would use other forms of punctuation since the dashes interrupt the flow and make this a hard sentence to read.

Response 28: I have clarified the structure for easier reading: From there, Lynch traveled across the mountains to Garni, the heathen temple located 28 km east of Yerevan, “above the gorge with basalt columns” and on the platform where once stood the temple of King Tiridates — “a beautiful Greek shrine given to these solitudes.”

 

29. Comment 29: Line 311: Agreement with who?

            Response 29: Right. “We agree that..” is irrelevant and has been removed.

 

30. Comment 30: Line 327: Maybe a bit more could be said of how he viewed Armenian culture. What was it like?

Response 30: The mentioned part has been refined to include how lynch viewed Armenian culture.We recognize that Lynch’s admiration and concern for Armenian monuments is evident through his prose and photographs.He consistently viewed these monuments as embodiments of Armenian cultural identity and as evidence of a sophisticated architectural tradition distinct from neighboring empires. His view of Armenian culture extended beyond its architectural legacy; he regarded it as a deeply historical, spiritual, and intellectual tradition. He described Armenia as “deserving the highest interest,” lamenting that such a “fine country should have lain in shadow for so many centuries” (Lynch 1901, VIII). His prose reveals that he admiredthe Armenians’ resilience and their religious devotion. He often framed Armenian culture as a bridge between the East and the West, celebrating its unique synthesis of Christian, Byzantine, and Oriental elements. At the same time, his concern over neglect of heritage sites was motivated by a desire to preserve Armenian cultural distinctiveness amid Russian and Ottoman dominance.

 

31. Comment 31: Line 335: Why does he focus on the chapels/religion?

Response 31: Right, the required elaboration on chapels/religion has been integrated into the mentioned paragraph. Lynch, after a lengthy discussion of the historical, educational and religious value of Edgmiatsin (Echmiadzin) and some religious rites, refers to the architectural structure of the Cathedral: interior of the portal of the Cathedral, the vaulted ceiling, the well-lit chambers, the throne and the canopy of the Catholicos (the Archbishop), the park of the Cathedral, the monks’ residences, adjacent premises, the treasury and room of relics, etc. Then he focuses on the three Chapels of the Martyrs situated within short walks from the monastery: St. Gaiane, St. Ripsime and St. Shoghakath. Lynch’s focus on chapels and religious structures in general reflects his understanding of Armenian identity as fundamentally rooted in Christian heritage. Armenia’s distinction as the first officially Christian state (301 AD) deeply influenced Lynch’s interpretive lens; he saw ecclesiastical architecture not just as art or engineering, but as expressions of national memory and spiritual continuity. The chapels of St. Gaiane, St. Ripsime, and St. Shoghakat, associated with martyrdom and the establishment of Armenian Christianity, embodied what Lynch perceived as the moral and cultural essence of the Armenian people. His detailed attention to these sites thus aligns with his broader purpose: to present Armenia’s religious architecture as both sacred heritage and a testament to national endurance under foreign dominion.

 

32. Comment 32: Line 338: Paragraphing.

            Response 32: Agreed and corrected.

 

33. Comment 33: Line 352: Is the emphasis in the original?

           Response 33:  Sorry, it is not. Bolding removed.

 

34. Comment 34: Line 355: Is this correctly quoted? Article missing.

Response 34: I double checked the quote. The article is missing in the original (“Texier is of opinion”…).

 

35. Comment 35: Line 358: Analysis of the photo. The Gothic is mentioned. Why this it framed as Gothic and how is it important, etc.

Response 35: Quite right, the following addition has been madein reference to Figure 6:Figure 6, showing the walls and gateway of Ani, offers a striking visual support for Lynch’s claim that medieval Armenian architecture bears notable similarities to European Gothic design. The pointed arches, the strong vertical lines, and the meticulous stonework all echo hallmarks of the Gothic style, especially its balance of structural elegance and decorative richness. As Lynch himself observes, Armenian architecture “combines many of the characteristics of Byzantine art and of the style which we term Gothic, and which at that date was still unborn” (Lynch 1901, 391). By drawing a connection to the Gothic (a style long celebrated in European art history) Lynch elevates Armenian architecture, placing it within the realm of Western high culture. This comparison isn’t just aesthetic; it’s strategic. Lynch aims to reframe Armenia not only as an original culture, but alsoas a center of architectural innovation that may have even influenced European developments. The photograph reinforces this argument, inviting viewers to make their own visual comparisons between the Armenian and Gothic traditions.Other figures (4,5) have also been analyzedand inserted in respective places in the text.The photo (Figure 4) shows much more than just a mountain climb. When placed next to Lynch’s vivid descriptionwhere Mount Ararat “summons the spirits” and the rising sun “illumines the valleys of Asia”, the image becomes almost mythical. The mountain feels alive, ancient, even sacred.Lynch’s words turn the landscape into something emotionally powerful, and the photograph supports that by capturing the scale and quiet drama of the moment. Together, the image and the text draw the reader into a sense of awe not just for the mountain, but for what it symbolizes: Armenian endurance, history, and spiritual identity.The photo shows where he was. But the language tells us why it mattered. Thus H. Lynch has constructed a fictional atmosphere around Ararat as a real place. He evokes feelings due to the verbal and visual images created for the reader.The image below (Figure 5) is more peaceful. It shows a mountain in the distance, viewed from a rooftop in the city. It’s not dramatic like Ararat, but it’s still meaningful. It suggests that in Armenia, nature and daily life are closely connected, that even from someone’s home, the landscape is never far away.Lynch describes Yerevan as a “town of gardens,” and this photo supports that quiet beauty. There’s a calmness here, a kind of balance between the personal and the monumental.While Ararat stirs big emotions and grandeur, this photo creates a feeling of belonging, a feeling of being rooted in a place where the sacred and the ordinary live side by side.Both photographs of the mountains, along with Lynch’s expressive language, help build an emotional atmosphere. They don’t just inform; they move the reader. Ararat inspires wonder and reverence.Alagyaz, seen from Yerevan, offers a sense of peaceful connection to the land.By combining words and images in this way, Lynch turns his travelogue into more than a record of his trip. It becomes a kind of artistic tribute to Armenia’s landscape, history, and cultural meaning.

36. Comment 36: Line 363: Point not clear – invented narratives? Is this about intertextuality?

Response 36: Here’s a clarified version of the point that directly addresses the reviewer’s concern and rephrases the argument more precisely: Although we chose to change the word “fiction” to “description” as suggested by the reviewer, but it is worth clarifying the term “fiction” in this context. The thing is that the term "fiction" does not imply that Lynch invented events or fabricated narratives. Rather, it refers to the aesthetic and rhetorical dimensions of his writing—his use of poetic metaphors, emotional tone, and symbolic framing. Lynch did not invent or fictionalize historical facts, but he did employ literary techniques typically associated with fiction—such as romanticized imagery, personification, and a lyrical style—to shape readers’ perceptions. For example, his depiction of Mount Ararat as summoning spirits or veiling its frown is not an invented story, but a figurative rendering that adds emotional and symbolic depth. This is not about intertextuality in a formal sense, but rather about how travel writing often occupies a space between documentation and artistic expression, blending factual observation with interpretive, sometimes evocative narration.To clarify this point in the paper as well, we have added a sentence (marked in red) in the following paragraph: Lynch’s descriptions refernot to invented narratives, but to aestheticized language, symbolic framing, and emotional coloration that go beyond the objective cataloging of sites. Lynch did not invent or fictionalize historical facts, but he did employ literary techniques typically associated with fiction (such as romanticized imagery and creative style) to shape readers’ perceptions.  Lynch’s use of lyrical, evocative language—especially metaphors of paradise, grandeur, and decay—functions to shape the reader’s perception of Armenian architecture as spiritually and historically significant. His rhetoric does not merely embellish; it reframes ruins as cultural testimony, and architecture as narrative.

 

37. Comment 37: Line 363: I would also not speak of Lynch’s fiction, Lynch’s descriptions might be a better term here.

            Response 37: As already mentioned, the respective change is made.

 

38. Comment 38: Line 382: This needs to be introduced earlier. When is the narrative emotive and what does that mean?

Response 38: Absolutely agree with the reviewer. “Emotive narrative” would be stronger if the concept was introduced earlier in the article and more clearly explained. Thus, we will introduce this idea after the discussion of Lynch’s dual style (factual reporting blended with expressive language),especially where the paper analyzes his metaphoric descriptions of the Bosphorus and Trebizond. This is a good place to signal the emotional tone of his writing. This is the addition: Lynch’s travelogue blends empirical observation with an emotive narrative style—a form of expression that seeks not only to inform but to stir emotional responses in the reader. His metaphoric language, particularly in describing landscapes such as the Bosphorus or Mount Ararat, positions the Armenian setting as spiritually elevated and culturally significant. This emotional charge functions rhetorically, encouraging readers to see Armenian heritage not just as historical data but as a living cultural legacy worthy of preservation.

 

39: Comment 39: Line 382: The visuals are evocative of what?

Response 39: Excellent remark. The revised part will be as follows:  Raising awareness through travel writing: Travel writing serves not only to inform but also to inspire and activate awareness—this includes awareness about cultural heritage at risk. Lynch’s emotive narrative and evocative visuals, particularly his photographs of sacred sites (Khor Virap, Geghard, Ani), are evocative of spiritual reverence, cultural loss, and historical grandeur. These images do not merely document structures; they frame them as fragile remnants of a profound civilizational legacy, stirring both admiration and a sense of urgency regarding preservation. Together, the emotive narrative and evocative visuals engage readers both intellectually and emotionally, aligning with the dual function of travel writing: to educate and to advocate. His writing thus encourages not only scholarly engagement but also public appreciation—key elements in the broader discourse of heritage protection.

 

40: Comment 40: Line 382: As said above, I think that some photos need to be commented on just as the verbal description is analyzed.

response 40: Agreed. Done.

 

41: Comment 41: Line 393: Paragraphing.

            Response 41: Agreed. Done.

 

42: Comment: 42: Line 406: This needs to be specified – what kind of visceral response? And the point needs to be integrated into the analysis of the passage above.

Response 42: Quite right. If we are claiming Lynch’s images and prose evoke a "visceral response," we should clarify what kind of emotional reaction that entails, and tie it to specific examples already analyzed in the article.Here’s a revised version of the sentence:These images, often capturing the raw beauty of ruined monasteries or the solemn grandeur of isolated landscapes, evoke a visceral response in the form of awe, melancholy, and culturalempathy, prompting the viewer to feel the spiritual depth of Armenian heritage and the urgency of its preservation.And the following is integrated into the earlier analysis (in the part referring toGeghard Monastery):Lynch’s photographs of neglected monuments, paired with his expressive prose lamenting their abandonment, creates an emotional atmosphere of solemnity and reverence. This pairing of visual and verbal imagery is designed to elicit affective reactions in the viewer, particularly a mix of admiration for the monument’s spiritual gravity and concern for its vulnerable state.

 

43. Comment 43: Line 407: I agree but I think the article needs to explore this more in the analyses above – what kind of emotions is the text trying to evoke.

Response 43: This is a very helpful reviewer comment. The claim that Lynch’s writing engages readers emotionally,  is valid, but needs more explicit support in the preceding textual analysis. To clarify which emotions Lynch’s prose is designed to evoke, and where these effects appear in his travelogue, we have made the following revision in the mentioned line: This emotional engagement is one of the primary functions of travel writing: to immerse the audience not just intellectually but affectively, evoking admiration, wonder, reverence, and a quiet grief for what is vanishing.To strengthen the earlier analysis on the emotional effects of Lynch’s writing, we have also added the following line in his account of mount Ararat: Lynch’s poetic invocation of Ararat is deeply symbolic, stirring reverence and solemnity. The mountain becomes not just a geographic feature but a silent guardian of Armenian history.

 

44. Comment 44: Line 423: Paragraphing.

            Response 44: Agreed. Done.

 

45. Comment 45: Line 431: As said above if you mention this here, you need to explore and show it in the analysis.

Response 45: A valid comment. If we arementioning Lynch’s omissions and biases here, then those elements need to be demonstratedearlier in the article, not just mentioned in the conclusion. Thus, we will revise the mentioned sentence a bit: His travelogue should be appreciated for its contributions while also interrogated for its silences and selective emphasis. These are biases that reflect the imperial and orientalist ideologies of his time. This notion has alreadybeen reinforced in earlier analysis in the present version of the article (See the reviewer’s comment re Line 208).

 

 

46. Comment 46: Line 435: This is a very interesting point but it is only mentioned here – should this not also be further introduced and discussed above?

Response 46: Yes, the reviewer is absolutely right. We introduce a compelling ideare Lynch’s vision of a semi-autonomous Armenia and his nuanced stance toward Russian involvement but it does not appear only in the conclusion.The prior development includes this part already discussed in the article, to which only a small correction is made: Lynch’s nuanced critique of Russian governmental inaction is a critical aspect of his travelogue. His commentary on architectural decay, especially at sites such as Geghard and Horomos, is more than an aesthetic lament; it constitutes a pointed political appeal. His statement referring to the cooperation of the Russian Government is deliberately double-edged. While diplomatically phrased, it subtly implies a lack of prior commitment or initiative from the Russian authorities. What makes this significant is that Lynch, as a British subject with imperialist ties, was not merely documenting ruin; he was making a public call for institutional responsibility. His appeal reflects his broader ideological position: skeptical of Russian rule over Armenian territories, yet hopeful for transnational cooperation in the name of cultural heritage. His tone also reveals his ideological leanings toward Armenian cultural self-determination. By including this criticism, Lynch positions himself not just as an observer, but as a moral advocate for Armenian cultural legacy. His rhetorical strategy—blending admiration, regret, and appeal—exemplifies how travel writing could function as a form of early heritage activism.

 

47. Comment 47: Line 448: Font size.

            response 47: Corrected.

 

48. Comment 48: Line 471: Comma needed.

            Response 48: Comma added.

 

49. Comment 49: Line 483: Delete comma.

            Response 49: Comma deleted.

 

50. Comment 50: Line 486: Should the political structure of Armenia not also be discussed a bit more in light of what Lynch is also trying to do.

Response 50: While the political structure of Armenia is indeed an important dimension, Lynch appears to be deliberately cautious in engaging with this issue in the scope of this particular book. In keeping with that approach, we have considered this irrelevant within the framework of the present article. However, we have made a mention of Armenia of the period being part of both Russian and Turkish empires (as Eastern and Western Armenia).

 

51. Comment 51: Line 486: What you hint at with his “ideological” stance toward Russia?

Response 51: See the answer to the reviewer’s comment in Line 435.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf