M. Choisy in his most interesting book shows that the chief

consideration in the construction of the Byzantine vaults was to avoid

wooden centring. With this view we entirely agree, but in the system

explained in _L’Art de Bâtir_, the lines of construction would be

arrived at by an elaborate system, which required fixed axes to the

vaults and either a diagonal centre or a rod revolving in a vertical

plane over the diagonal. Then two rods, forming an angle with its apex

touching any given point in the diagonal curve and the ends resting on

the axis of the vault as a base, revolved as a trammel for that course

of the filling. This had to be repeated for a series of points.

By the method we have suggested nothing was required except a single

template to a fixed angle, the upper arm cut to the curve from the

crown of the arch to the crown of the vault; we may suppose this to

sweep round the generating arches like a trammel, but practically

testing the work with it at the crown, as it gradually grew forward,

was doubtless found sufficient (see Fig. 40). Thus the vault surfaces

gave the conditions of the problem and the intersections found

themselves.

We did not notice the curious “curve of inflection” of which M. Choisy

speaks; certainly it does not generally exist, although according to

_L’Art de Bâtir_ “S. Sophia is the most curious example which remains

of this singular conception, where the spirit of Greek logic did not

hesitate before anomalies of form” (p. 55). We believe this curve is

deduced only by the logic with which M. Choisy’s follows up his method

of geometrical projection, which certainly generates such an inflected

curve. We cannot say this without at the same time expressing our

great admiration for _L’Art de Bâtir_; its freshness of sight,

clearness, vitality, and logic are entirely delightful. Strzygowski and

Forchheimer[342] follow Choisy’s demonstration; and give an elaborate

and analytical explanation of the curve and its points of inflexion.

One of the cisterns they say showed the inflected line in the axial

sections of the vaults (p. 71).

Now the cistern vaults are roughly built and some of them may

have settled down; some indeed may have been designed so that

the axial section is horizontal for some distance from the walls

before the doming is commenced, especially in the long direction

of parallelogramic compartments. The essential points are two. Did

these vaults grow forward from the walls and the intersections find

themselves, or was the curve of intersection first designed? Are

horizontal sections through the intersection of two vault surfaces just

above the springing obtuse or acute? The vaults at S. Sophia have the

angles of intersection so obtuse that this first drew our attention to

the subject.

For a general view of the vaulted system of S. Sophia we would

especially refer to Choisy, whose remarks on the construction of these

vaults are most interesting. He clearly shows how the large flat bricks

made possible the construction of vaults without centring. The extrados

of the arches from which the vaults spring being splayed to a skew

back, the large surfaces of the thin light bricks allowed them to be

stuck up against this skew back, or any part already done, much as if

they were square sheets of cardboard (see left side of Fig. 40). Indeed

the bricks seem sometimes to have been placed quite vertically, but the

better plan seems to have been to incline the beds, the vaults were

thus built in _sections_ rather than in layers. To take the simplest

instance, a cylindrical vault, the arching would begin at one end

against the vertical wall, the rings of large thin bricks being placed

“on edge” in planes of say 60° right down the vault. In other words,

in a longitudinal section of such a vault the joints instead of being

horizontal might be vertical, or a mean between the two. This method

was known in ancient Egypt and at Khorsabad, and the immense vault at

Ctesiphon is built in this way. Although the mosaic covers most of the

vaults at S. Sophia, a vast number are exposed in the contemporary

cisterns, and Choisy seems to have found a cylindrical vault uncovered

in a chamber in one of the buttress masses (Plate ii.), he also shows

the construction of the aisle and narthex vaults (Plates ix. and xi.),

but he does not say if he had any authority for these. We agree with

him that the vaults of S. Sophia owe much of their exceptional beauty

to the fact that arches do not break up the curving expanse of the

vaulting to any appreciable degree; in the narthex the arches become

one with the vault, see Fig. 41.

[Illustration: FIG. 41.--Section of Narthex and Gallery over showing

Royal Doors. Scale twelve and a half feet to an inch (1/125).]

[Illustration: FIG. 42.--Dome Construction.]

_Domes._--In elaborating his theory of Byzantine dome construction

Choisy refers to a passage in Eton’s _Turkish Empire_[343] which

describes domes the latter saw built without any kind of centring.

The builders put a post in the middle about the height of the walls.

To this is fixed a pole reaching to the _inside_ surface of the dome,

which is _free to move in all directions_. Below is attached to the

post another pole, which reaches to the outside and describes the

outside curvature of the cupola. These give the thickness at the top

and bottom and at every intermediate point. “Where they build these

cupolas of bricks they use gypsum instead of lime, finishing one layer

all round before they begin another. Scaffolding is only required for

the workmen to close the opening at the top.” Our diagram A, Fig. 42,

represents this fascinating scheme of building: with such a rod any

point in the whole curvature is defined in a moment; it equally gauges

the horizontal courses and the rise of the dome. Choisy suggests a

second scheme which will be made clear by B. There is no reason, he

points out, why the beds of the bricks in a dome should radiate to the

centre of the curve: in the Byzantine domes the beds were flattened

so that they radiated more or less accurately to the springing of

the opposite side of the dome. The thrusts were thus minimised, and

the construction was facilitated. If rods forming a triangle revolve

about a vertical post as shown, the horizontal curvature is gauged

and the top rod will define the slope for the bed. These rods can

then be raised to another position as shown in the figure. We should

have supposed that little care would be taken with the slope of the

beds, as from the thin bricks used the construction practically became

homogeneous.

Choisy even thinks that the great dome of S. Sophia may have been built

in the air without centring. C, in Fig. 42, gives his representation of

the construction of the semidomes, which he thinks were built out some

way entirely without support. The outer arch was then built on a centre

and the filling completed “in space” (a straight joint between the arch

and the dome filling is shown in the figure in Salzenberg’s text). We

think it more likely that in all the larger domes auxiliary support was

required “to close the opening at the top,” when the space had been so

contracted that a light centring resting on the part already completed

was all that would be needed.

From the importance attached to wood ties or girdles built into the

small domes of Mount Athos, we may be certain that some system of

chaining was applied to the great dome of S. Sophia. Choisy gives an

example of the former, and also a dome constructed by interlocking

semicircular bricks, “two courses of which make a circlet absolutely

inextensible.” See B in Fig. 45. The dome of S. Vitale at Ravenna is

built of layers of earthenware pots or tapering tubes, the end of one

fitting into the next and rising in a continuous spiral course, round

and round from the bottom to the crown of the dome.

The question of dome construction without centring is of the greatest

interest, and much might doubtless be gathered of the traditional

methods still followed in modern Greece, Egypt, Persia, and S. Italy.

Our Fig. 43 represents modern domes in Persia, the upper diagram being

an ordinary type of exterior from a photograph of Koum. The dome

beneath, Fig. 44, is from a sketch made in a Persian caravanserai

by Mr. Wm. Simpson,[344] who describes it as built of burnt brick,

square below, round above. “As I was told that centring was never

used in Persia I presume this one was constructed without it.” This

beautiful form may be considered as four conical squinches penetrating

a hemisphere as at A, or as a gradual transition from square to round,

B. Ancient Persian domes of substantially the same form, in which a

hemisphere penetrates a pyramid, are shown by Dieulafoy.[345]

[Illustration: FIGS. 43 and 44.--Modern Domes built without Centring.]

_Chainage and Walling._--In the East the frequency of severe

earthquakes necessitated a manner of construction which should resist

disruption. The massive walls of stone of the Classic period are

cramped together with metal. The stone Byzantine church at Ezra has

a course of interlocking stones forming a chain around the octagon

beneath the dome (Fig. 45 a). At S. Sophia the continuous courses of

stone some feet above the floor, mentioned by Salzenberg, are almost

certainly converted into a chain by cramps; and the stone course at

the springing of the great arches probably has the same function.

In brickwork lateral cohesion was usually obtained by a system of

continuous wood ties, which is described by Choisy as built into the

wall at every five or six feet of height. According to the Greek

architect, M. Kouppas, ties of bond timbers were used in this way in

the construction of the cisterns, “laid not only along the outside

walls but also in parallel rows beneath the lines of pillars and

arches;” other rows of timber were built in either as ties or struts in

continuous lines at the springing of the vaults.

At S. Sophia there was doubtless a large use made of temporary ties of

this kind during the construction. In many places at the springing of

the gynaeceum vaults the ends of such provisional ties, which have been

sawn away, appear. Besides these there is a series of wood beams which

from the first were intended to be permanent, for they are richly carved

(C in Fig. 45); these are shown by double lines on the right-hand side

of Figs. 5 and 6, the single lines showing the iron ties. These carved

beams, as Choisy points out, are struts rather than ties. If we take one

of the columns standing in an angle in the aisles, an impost of marble

connects it with the wall to which it is nearest, and a carved wood beam

forms a strut to the other wall. The beam across the central bay of

secondary order (Fig. 5) forms a rigid strut to the two wider arches

(see Fig. 38, where, however, by oversight the beam has been omitted; it

is at the springing of narrow arch high above iron tie). Choisy asserts

that “the architect intended to preserve only the struts, all the ties

subject to extension were removed, but their suppression was disastrous,

and they had hastily to replace them by bars of iron which were fixed

with difficulty.” We do not know what reason Choisy had for supposing

the system of iron ties to be an afterthought, unless it is because in

some cases they appear directly above the ends of the removed wooden

ties. Now we believe they occur equally above the carved beams in the

openings from the gallery to the nave, and there is no sign of wood ties

having been removed from the ground-floor vaults, where the iron bars

fulfil such an important function. It is certain that the iron bars to

all the nave arches are original, for the marble casing shows no sign of

alteration, and they are evidently threaded continuously through the

imposts. The important iron ties across the aisles are shown in Fig. 45:

_d_ is the attachment to the column of great order, _e_ to impost of

secondary order behind it, _f_ is a king rod. Across the west gallery

the span is lessened by stone corbels beneath the ties _g_.

With a view of binding the vaults and walls together into a homogeneous

mass, the arched vaulting of the interior was carried through the

thickness of the walls: in some cases these arches were left open, to

be afterwards filled with a screen of windows. The walling of the sides

of the church is built independently of the great piers, as straight

joints on the exterior show, and Choisy remarks that the independence

of masonry unequally charged was a leading idea in Byzantine

construction; indeed it is obviously necessary where the quantity of

mortar is so great that the brick at times becomes secondary to the

joints.

[Illustration: FIG. 45.--Methods of Chainage.]

_Mortar and Cement._--The mortar used by the Byzantine builders

was called Keramotos, from the crushed pottery or tiles which was

used in its composition. In an article in the _Transactions_ of the

Philological Society of Constantinople M. Kouppas[346] enters fully

into the methods which have been traditionally followed in cistern

building, and describes this mortar as formed of powdered unslaked lime

(_asbestos_), crushed pottery, coarse sand, and tow or hair, fully a

third being lime, another third the crushed pottery, about a fifth the

coarse sand, and the rest or 10 per cent. of hair or tow. These were

then mixed together in water.

M. Kouppas also describes a hydraulic cement made of “coarse lime

(_titanos_) slaked by water into powder, sifted and laid in layers

with cotton shreds. This was thoroughly mixed, and then olive oil was

poured in, and the whole gradually brought to a homogeneous mass.”

Andreossy[347] describes a mixture (called _lukium_) made of a hundred

“ocques” of lime, freshly slaked in the form of powder, twenty-five

“ocques” of linseed oil of the best quality, and twenty drachms of

filaments of cotton. This was reduced to a dough, and then before using

fresh oil was added. Strzygowski[348] also speaks of a Turkish cement

“of six parts by weight linseed oil, eight parts slaked and powdered

lime, and one part of cotton.” He refers to a Roman mixture mentioned

by Pliny of “oil and quicklime.”

By far the best and earliest account of the methods used for obtaining

lime and making cement at Constantinople is contained in Dr. Covel’s

MS. in the British Museum (1670-7). The lime was burnt in a pit dug

in the ground, the stone, which was hard and black and like “Plymouth

stone,” being piled up in and above it like a beehive hut, an opening

being contrived in the side for inserting fuel, and a smaller pit

dug in the middle for the ashes; it was fired for three days. Then

he describes in detail how a cement was made which recalls what the

Anonymous says of the joints of the piers at S. Sophia being made of

unslaked lime (_asbestos_) and oil: “To make good lukium (a strong

cement as I may call it) they take the above said calx or burnt stone

and slake it with water, and so soon as it is moulded and turned into a

meal (even while it is warm) they work it with linseed oil and cotton

till it is well saturated and brought to the consistency of plaster,

and make present use of it, for it will not rest in its perfection

above one day or two at most, and if they use it immediately after it

is tempered it is certainly the best. In the works of their Bagnos so

soon as it is laid on [as a plastering, understood here] they let the

water come to it, which, by tempering the heat of the lime, hinders

it from cracking. Cotton is better to be mixed amongst it than hair,

it being more tenacious and apt to incorporate.” He again describes a

similar cement (“lukium, an excellent mortar”) used in some waterworks.

“It is made of unslaked lime and beaten brick most finely powdered and

sifted, cotton wool very thinly pulled and strewed on, and then all

slaked with linseed oil and mixed together: then they use it whilst it

is fresh made, otherwise it hardens immediately.”[349] Such a cement

must have had the hardening qualities of gesso; the oil cements or

mastics used in England some fifty years ago were closely allied in

their composition. Modern mortar has lost much by our neglecting the

tradition of using crushed brick.

Eastern builders spared neither labour nor time in preparing and

testing their materials. Tavernier tells us the waterproof terraces of

the Persian houses were formed of “a layer of lime beaten for eight

days, which became hard like marble.” The materials used in Byzantine

building were tested by long exposure, slaked lime was sealed up in

pits for one or two years; and stones, bricks, and tiles they had

found should not be used new, for, as Vitruvius says, “the only way

of ascertaining their goodness is to try them through a summer and

winter.”

CHAPTER XI

MARBLE MASONRY

§ 1. BUILDING PROCEDURE.

The method and sequence of the building operations as followed by

the Byzantines seem to have been very much as follows. After the

form of the building had been more or less decided, the first thing

necessary was to collect marble monolithic shafts. At S. Sophia the

eight verde-antique shafts match one another very closely; they are

all of one length, and vary from 7½ to 8 diameters in proportion. The

four pairs of porphyry shafts in the exedras differ much more; and,

as we have remarked, those in the western exedras seem to be made

up of separate drums. The proportions of these vary from less than

7 diameters on one side to 8½ on the other. The great monoliths are

the largest known, and of nearly normal classic proportion, so we can

readily see that it was necessary to have a certain knowledge where

such marbles might be quarried or otherwise obtained, before even the

foundations were prepared, for the columns decided the heights and

points of support of the building. These once assured, the body of

the structure was proceeded with as a brickwork shell without further

dependence on the masons, who were only required to prepare bases and

capitals, and then the cornices; everything else was completed as a

brick “carcase.”

At S. Sophia the main square piers are in fact stone, but this was only

for strength, not because they were to be seen finally, any more than

the rough brick.

The building completed in this form we must remember was made up of

vast masses of thin bricks, of which the mortar occupied probably a

half of the aggregate; this had to thoroughly settle down and dry

before the rest of the marble masonry was inserted, and the wall

casings applied. The marble work, however, was all the while being

prepared, and, the building once ready, the windows were inserted as

screens in the openings previously left; marble jambs and lintels for

the doors were placed in position also, with windows above them filling

out to the brick arches. The walls were then sheeted with their marble

covering, the vaults were overlaid with mosaic, and the pavement was

laid down. In this way, as the bricklayers had not to wait for the

masons, the carcase was completed in the shortest possible time; and

by reserving the application of the marble until the structure was dry

and solid, it was possible to bring together unyielding marble and

brickwork that must have settled down very considerably.

§ 2. MARBLE QUARRIES.

Much confusion exists as to the marbles of which the ancient writers

speak; this has been occasioned necessarily by wrong identifications

when but few ancient quarries had been recovered, and most

unnecessarily by a persistence in using antique names for modern

varieties, long after the true provenance has been discovered, when

the ancient marbles are not “in the market.” It is the Italian names

that have been corrupted in this way, and it would be a great advantage

if they were discarded in England, or better still, used only in

conjunction with the geographical names. In this case as the Italian

names are descriptive, and, as many varieties of marble are found in

the same or neighbouring quarries, we should get a safe nomenclature.

Synnadan would thus be qualified as Pavonazzetto or Fior de Persico,

and the banded varieties from Carystian, Proconnesian, or modern

quarries might without confusion be called cipollino.

In endeavouring to identify the marbles mentioned by the ancient

writer on S. Sophia, we have made use of Salzenberg’s notes to the

Poem of the Silentiary, and of the researches of Garofalo,[350]

Corsi,[351] and C. O. Müller;[352] and we have also been helped by the

practical knowledge of Mr. W. Brindley. The account of ancient marbles

easily accessible in Professor Middleton’s _Ancient Rome_, 1892, is

substantially an extract from Corsi.

_Porphyry._--The “porphyry powdered with bright stars” of the poet is

used for the columns of the exedras, and for some of the panels on

the walls. The Anonymous author states that these columns came from a

temple of the Sun, but the Silentiary says “they loaded the boats on

the bosom of the Nile,” and there seems no reason to doubt that the

columns came direct from the porphyry quarries at Mons Porphyrites in

Egypt. This porphyry mountain is at Djebel Dochan, twenty-five miles

north-east from Thebes. Lepsius[353] seems to prove that the quarries

were worked as long as the Nile canal remained open; and ships still

sailed on the canal till the appearance of Islam. Letronne[354] gives

details of the method of transit. The porphyry was brought from the

quarry to the Red Sea, and then by the Nile canal to the Lower Nile,

and hence into the Mediterranean.

On this evidence we would say that the porphyry used at Constantinople

in Justinian’s reign was quarried for the purpose, and not brought from

Roman buildings.

_Marmor Molossium._--“The marble that the land of Atrax yields,” is

called elsewhere in the poem “Thessalian,” and, from the province in

Thessaly where it was found, “Molossian.” Corsi and Garofalo both

wrongly describe Molossian as _Fior di Persico_. The marble really is

the brecciated serpentine and limestone, now called Verde Antico, the

_Lapis Atracius_ of the ancients, of which the eight great columns in

the nave and many others are formed. Here again it has been said that

these eight large columns were taken from a building at Ephesus, but

the Silentiary says, “Never were such columns hewn from sea-washed

Molossis,” and we can hardly doubt that they were quarried especially

for S. Sophia, together with the rest of the enormous quantity used in

the church. The quarries were near Atrax in Thessaly, and the marble is

best named as by French writers, Thessalian green.

_Lapis Lacedaemonius._--“The fresh green, like emerald, from Sparta,”

was probably the porphyry quarried in Mount Taygetus in Laconia. This

green porphyry, called by Corsi _serpentino_, is used in the opus

sectile of S. Sophia. As a green porphyry is obtainable in Egypt, the

former should be distinguished as Spartan.

_Proconnesium._--“The hills of Proconnesus,” according to Paulus,

“strewed the floor.” The same marble was also used for the columns

in the upper aisles, for the eight square columns below, and for the

capitals, door frames, window lattices and other structural parts;

also for the plating of the lower arcade and other parts of the

wall-surfaces, and as frames to the coloured marbles. It is a soft

white, or white with gray-banded streaks. The quarries of Marmora are

still worked. This marble was greatly prized in Classic times, and

Pliny mentions that it was used at the palace of Mausolus, where, it is

said, the method of plating brick walls with marble was first applied.

It closely resembles gray Carystian but they should not be confounded.

“The Bosporus stone with white streaks on black,” used for the floor,

was probably the ordinary limestone--black with white veins--used at

Constantinople.

_Marmor Carystium._--“The fresh green from Carystus,” is the marble now

known as cipollino; it was quarried at Carystus, at the foot of Mount

Ocha, in the island of Euboea. Its beautiful greenish white surface,

marked with broad wavy lines of green or purplish gray, was often

praised by the later classical writers. Its resemblance to the markings

of a sliced onion is the origin of its name. Modern cipollino need not

be confused with true _Carystian marble_, which the ancient material

should always be named.

_Marmor Phrygium._--“The marble hewn from the Phrygian land towards

the Mygdonian heights,” spoken of as “many-coloured,” has been

identified as the marble which came from Dokimion near Synnada in

Phrygia. The descriptions by Statius and Claudianus of the deep

red-veined marble of Synnada agree closely with the Phrygian and

Mygdonian stone as described by Paulus. It is a brecciated marble of

a rosy colour, slabs of which alternate with verde antique in the

panelling of the side aisles of S. Sophia.

The quarries at Dokimion were visited by Leake and Texier, and a

recent examination of them by M. Leonti[355] disclosed all shades of

“violet and white, yellow, and the more familiar brecciated white and

rose-red.” This beautiful material is best called Synnadan, as the

modern Italian name Pavonazzetto is also used for the streaked marble

quarried at Carrara.

_Marmor Hierapolitanum._--“The stone from the sacred city Hierapolis.”

This marble has been identified by Professor Ramsay.[356] It was found

at Thiounta about ten miles N.W. of Hierapolis in Asia Minor. It is

variegated like Synnadan, and was much used for sarcophagi; indeed

Professor Ramsay says, “On every occasion when its use is mentioned,

it was employed to make sarcophagi.” It was called by the name of the

great city which is not far distant, “and to which doubtless orders

from the outer world were sent. Similarly the marble found at Dokimion

was always called Synnadic marble from the time of Strabo, yet Dokimion

was thirty-two miles from Synnada.”

_Marmor Iassense._--The “Iassian, with slanting veins of blood-red

on livid white,” was used for the phiale. Corsi identifies this with

Porta Santa, but Porta Santa, Garofalo says, came from Chios, and this

conclusion we believe is now accepted. Garofalo thought Iassian to be

the same as the Carian marble mentioned by Porphyrogenitus in his _Life

of Basil the Macedonian_, and says it was quarried on the island quite

close to the coast of Caria. A “stone mingled with streaks of red” is

also mentioned by Paulus as brought from “the Lydian Creek.” Possibly

the port of Iassus is again intended. The ordinary Lapis Lydius was a

black touchstone. The “rosy cipollino,” in which wide bands of deep

red alternate with white, used in the panelling of the aisles does not

seem to be mentioned specifically by Paulus; unless this is the Iassian

marble to which his words would very well apply. A variety of rosy

cipollino, the splendidly figured red and white marble, is obtained in

Laconia.

_Marmor Numidicum._--“The stone, nurtured in the hills of the Moors,

crocus colour glittering like gold,” is the beautiful warm yellow

African marble from Semittu Colonia, about fifty miles from Tunis, so

highly prized by the Romans, and now called giallo antico. It is used

in S. Sophia in the sectile work.

_Marmor Celticum._--“The product of the Celtic crags, like milk poured

on a flesh of glittering black,” has been identified as the Bianco e

Nero Antico, quarried in the Pyrenees.[357] The black marble with white

streaks, which occurs in some of the panels in the nave, is probably

the one to which the poet refers.

_Onychites._--“The precious onyx” mentioned by the poet is the

alabastrites or onychites of the ancients. It is the oriental alabaster

(aragonite) used in the horizontal bands of the nave, and some of the

panels. It is a translucent, fibrous stalagmite formation, generally

of a clear honey-colour. Some of the varieties are strongly veined

with white, and others are much darker. Large ancient quarries of this

Egyptian alabaster have been discovered on the east bank of the Nile.

Paulus appears to make no mention of the dusky black with dull golden

veins used in the bema apse, which closely resembles the “Porto Venere”

quarried at Spezzia.

The marble blocks were roughly hewn into shape with picks while still

attached to the rock, and were then separated by the aid of metal

wedges. Many objects discovered show that they were sometimes completed

at the quarry, at other times the blocks were roughly brought to the

sizes and forms required. The quarries appear to have been officially

inspected. Texier found many architectural fragments and blocks at

Dokimion bearing the signs of the inspectors of the block. Professor

Ramsay writes: “The route from Dokimion to the coast is commercially

almost the most important in Asia Minor. The road along which the

enormous monolithic columns were transported passed through Synnada,

where the central office for managing the quarries was situated.”

[Illustration: FIG. 46.--Marble Slabs and Frieze in Narthex.]

Ephesus and Alexandria were most important centres for the working

and export of marble, of which such an enormous quantity was required

by the Byzantine builders. The method of slicing up the blocks into

veneer is described by an Eastern pilgrim, Nasiri Khusrau, in 1047. He

says: “In the city of Ramlah there is marble in plenty ... they cut the

marble here with a toothless saw which is worked with Mekkah sand.” This

sand he tells us came from Haifa near Acre (Pal. Pilgrims’ Text Soc.

Compare Pliny, _Hist. Nat._ xxxvi.)

§ 3. APPLICATION OF MARBLE.

At S. Sophia the application of the thin sheathing and incrustations

(the “crustae” of Pliny) of the “delectable variety” of marbles is

made in many ways. First there are the large sheets of the grayish

Proconnesian, opened out side by side “so that the veining of one

follows from the next.” Then the richer varieties are set in bands

and panels with narrow notched fillets between them, and still more

precious slabs are framed round with carved margins of white. Over the

doors entering the aisles at the west there are panels with especially

wide and rich borders of meanders growing from chalices. The large

panels are very often of two pieces with matched veining. Fig. 46 shows

one of a row of strongly veined panels from the narthex with the frieze

above. All the wall plating is arranged with delightful variety as to

size, and in the alternate placing of light against dark, so that there

is no rigidity or over-accurate “setting out.”

Besides this constant change of size, colour, and arrangement, there

is a great variety in the surface treatment. We have the shallow

channelling into continuous mouldings of the skirtings, some portion

of which has a stiff fret sunk in the surface in addition. Then there

are panels on either side of the great door, and on the faces of the

projections from the great piers in the aisles, coming just above

the eye, (Fig. 48) of plain russet-red or brown which bear severe

abstract patterns, made out by slight sinking into the surface. The

centre in some cases is overlaid with an oval or square of another

precious material such as red or green porphyry or the “onyx”; the

whole of the sunk portions may have been filled by inlays, or in some

the sinking alone may have formed the design. The upper part of the

bema is incrusted with slabs patterned in this way, and here the sunk

portions are entirely inlaid; several parts of this are represented by

Salzenberg. In this work “casements” are sunk into the rosso or other

deep coloured field, and green porphyry and other materials, set off by

yellowish-white lines and spaces are inlaid in geometrical panels, or

friezes of stiff foliage.

[Illustration: FIG. 47.--Portion of Marble Lining of Aisles. Scale

about 1/50.]

Our Fig. 47 shows the arrangement of the marble plating on the great

piers towards the middle compartment of the aisles; in this we have

shown one of the enriched panels now only sunk, as inlaid. Fig. 48

gives outlines of others of these panels. The marble used in the aisles

is as follows. First comes the moulded skirting of white Proconnesian,

then a 3′·3″ band of the streaked variety of the same marble. A band

of verde antique 2′·0″ wide follows, above which is a row of slabs

alternately verde antique and Synnadan. A second similar row of slabs

comes above a band of rosy cipollino. The frieze below the cornice is

of marble sectile work. The passages through the piers are lined with

slabs of streaked Proconnesian marble, nearly fourteen feet high.

The gynaeceum has two bands at the bottom and an upper band of rosy

cipollino; the wall space between is covered with a row of vertical

slabs of streaked Proconnesian, except the central space on north side

where the slabs are of rosy cipollino. In the spandrils of gynaeceum

arcade at the west are roundels of oriental alabaster.

[Illustration: FIG. 48.--Marble Panels with Sunk and Inlaid Panels.

Scale about 1/30.]

[Illustration: FIG. 49.--Inlaid Marble Slabs above Royal Door. Scale

about 1/50.]

Directly over the Royal Door is a very beautiful arrangement of

decorated slabs. First there is an immense upright piece of verde

antique in the middle, ten or twelve feet high, with two lateral

horizontal pieces making a great cross, in the quarters of which are

panels with sunk and inlaid designs. At the head of the cross is a

fifth panel which displays a still richer form of decoration. It

represents a vaulted recess or ciborium between the columns of which

hang curtains, looped back, and displaying a dark field. Here is the

matrix of a cross which was probably of silver; right and left of the

cross are other matrices, in which were set crowns or other objects,

not to be determined from below. The two upper lateral panels have

sunk geometrical designs. The lower pair are inlaid; their centres are

charged with circles, above and below which are pairs of dolphins.

These inlaid designs are made out in porphyry and green, which

are separated by white lines and spaces which shine out bright, and

are probably of mother of pearl like similar inlaid panels of this

date around the apse at Parenzo. These panels at Parenzo are so much

like those of S. Sophia that we do not doubt they were sent from

Constantinople. There are very similar panels in the baptistery at

Ravenna.

Finally we have the enriched surfaces of the two ranges of arcade

spandrils. The upper row being sectile work of coloured morsels put

together to form a pattern of scrolls and foliage, and the lower series

having the surface entirely sculptured with the exception of discs of

precious substance which are set in them.

This uttermost splendour is quiet and soft in its result. The surface

of course has not that mechanically even, repellently smooth, painfully

fitted appearance of modern work. The planes are waved under the hand

sawing, and the face is smooth but hardly polished. The colour in

consequence, gray and russet rising to full yellow, green and reds,

veined, waved, and flowered in all manner of gradations and lovely

combinations, _vibrates_ with a wonderful “bloom” which doubtless owes

much to age; but it is very probable that the marble was polished with

wax encaustic which was so generally used for finishing surfaces by

ancient workers. The wax deepens and mellows the colour and leaves

a dull pleasant polish. We suppose the method followed was that

recommended by Vitruvius for the encaustic polishing of coloured stucco

walls. “Lay on with a brush a coat of melted Punic wax tempered with

oil; then with a brazier of hot charcoal heat all the waxed surface,

forcing the wax to melt in an even way over the whole surface; finally

rub the wall with a wax candle and then polish it with a clean linen

cloth just in the way the nude marble statues are treated. This

practice is called γάνωσις by the Greeks.” Felix Fabri, who travelled

in Palestine at the end of the fifteenth century, describes the rows of

costly columns at Bethlehem, “and they are polished with oil so that a

man can see his face in them as in a mirror.”

In regard to the wall plating we wish especially to point out the

extremely easy way in which it is applied, without thought of disguise.

The slabs of great size are placed vertically, entirely the reverse of

solid construction; moreover the slabs of the finer panels are opened

out side by side so that the veinings appear in symmetrical patterns.

At the angles the lap shows in the most open way; while it is mitred

where restored. The best account of the actual methods of fixing the

marble slabs to walls by metal clamps which notch into the edges of

the sheet before the adjoining one is fixed, is given by Professor

Middleton, who figures an example of the second century from Rome which

might belong to S. Sophia.

§ 4. MARBLE MASONRY.

After more than a thousand years of working marble through one

complete development, Greek builders, by considering afresh the prime

necessities of material, and a rational system of craftsmanship, opened

the great quarry of ideas in constructive art which is exhaustless.

In a hundred years architecture became truly _organic_, features that

had become mere “vestiges” dropped away, and a new style was complete;

one, not perhaps so completely winning as some forms of Gothic, but the

supremely logical building art that has been.

If anywhere this vitalising had not been completed, it would have been

in the more decorative forms; but here we find no mere exercise in

applying architectural orders, everything is as real and fresh as in

the structure. Having the Corinthian and Ionic capitals before their

eyes and without forgetting or rejecting them, the Byzantine builders

invented and developed an entirely fresh group of capitals fitted in

the most perfect way for arched brick construction. As Mr. Freeman has

said (_Hist. Essays_, iii. p. 61) of the new architecture: “The problem

was to bring the arch and column into union--in other words to teach

the column to support the arch.” This was done by shaping the block

of marble which formed the capital so that a simple transition from

the square block to the circle of the column was formed. When they

were sculptured, and most of them are most elaborately sculptured,

the general form is not altered but the carving enriches the surface

only. The new “Impost capital” is found throughout the great cistern

generally known as that of Philoxenus which is usually referred to

the time of Constantine. In their study of the vaulted cisterns of

Constantinople Forchheimer and Strzygowski have contributed much

that is new to our knowledge of the architecture of the city and

show that the evidence is entirely against this theory, which was

propounded by Gyllius, whom more recent writers have been content to

copy. This cistern, known to the Turks as Bin Bir direk (thousand and

one columns), they identify with a great cistern which the _Paschal

Chronicle_ says was built by Justinian in 528. We believe with them

that the architecture of the cistern agrees entirely with what we might

expect as an outcome of the special circumstances in the time of the

great building era. “Bin Bir direk exhibits the highest development

of the art of cistern building, and it thus in its particular sphere

resembles S. Sophia; like it the boldness of its construction was

never again equalled by the Byzantines. It would be an explanation of

the bold achievement if it might be assumed that Anthemius proved his

capability in this subterranean work before he made his supreme effort

in S. Sophia. Technical features, however, make it seem probable that

the builder was an Alexandrine.”

[Illustration: FIG. 50.--Columns of Great Order.]

[Illustration: FIG. 51.--Capital now Outside Porch at S. Sophia.]

“It is of the widest significance for the history of Byzantine art that

here throughout the new ‘impost capital’ is employed in its plainest

constructive form. It seems not improbable that the daring builder of

the cistern was the first to make use of this form of capital which

completely broke with classical tradition and is in such perfect accord

with the exigencies of arch-architecture.” This is to go too far; for

if the cistern is rightly referred to 528 it is probable, as we shall

show, that the impost capital had at that time been for many years in

use.

At S. Sophia the four main varieties of the new capital are all found.

In the cistern the change of form is made by rounding away the angles

at the bottom without reference apparently to any geometrical idea;

but in other capitals which belong essentially to this type the method

seems to have been that explained in Fig. 53 which represents the form

of the caps of the lamp pillars on the front of the western gynaeceum.

They are most delicately carved with a network of ornament, but the

general form is undisturbed as we have explained. The plain capitals of

the west window and the isolated sculptured capital Salzenberg found in

the north aisle are also of this form, which we shall call the Impost

Capital type I. The profile can be made convex or inflected, we are

only speaking of the simplest method of changing the form from a circle

to a square.

[Illustration: FIG. 52.--Columns in Gallery.]

Two capitals now used as mounting blocks outside the east porch, which

we illustrate (Fig. 51), furnish us with a sculptured example of a

similar capital in two stages of development, one of them never having

been completed. We give here an outline of the blocked out capital, in

which the method of workmanship may be plainly seen. First, the block

was cut away below convexly to meet the circular shaft. In this state

it exactly resembles the capitals of the cistern. Secondly, on this

was marked a border all round the top; also centre lines running down

each of the faces, about the centre point of each of which a circle of

about seven inches diameter was drawn; and at the bottom the width for

the necking was marked off. Thirdly, the intermediate spaces were sunk

about two inches; the hollow of the abacus was formed; the necking,

and edge of the circular discs were rounded. This brings the capital

to the stage shown in the diagram, the point to be observed being that

the abacus, boss, and necking lie in one surface, first obtained, and

the rest in another face, sunk some two inches below the former. It

cannot be doubted that the style of these capitals is contemporary with

the work at S. Sophia, and the finished one bears a monogram which

appears to read ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΥ; it is, however, almost identical with that

of Theodora, which occurs on the capitals of the interior. MM. Curtis

and Aristarches,[358] who have written on these monograms, think it

belonged to a portico, restored in 409 by an eparch called Theodoros.

Work of this style was not done at that time, and these capitals

possibly belonged to some of the outer courts of the church mentioned

by Procopius. They resemble the great capitals so closely that they

might almost be preliminary studies. The strips which are left down two

sides of the capitals were customary in the capitals of a Byzantine

colonnade, especially where screens were inserted between.

[Illustration: FIG. 53.--Rudimentary Form of Capital. Type I.]

[Illustration: FIG. 54.--Rudimentary Form of Capital. Type II.]

[Illustration: FIG. 55.--Rudimentary Form of Capital.]

The two capitals in the loggia by the baptistery furnish a well-defined

variety of the impost capital. The square at the top is here wrought

into curves recalling the antique abacus. These are gathered together

into the circle of the necking in a beautiful convex form which may be

called the Melon type II., see Fig. 54.

We give in Fig. 50 an outline of the whole column of the great order in

the interior of the church, and in Fig. 56 a diagram of the blocking

out of the capital. The columns here and throughout the great church

being monoliths of fine material, the supporting area is very small

compared to the area of the arch imposts, which are of brick sheeted

with marble. It will be seen that the projection is just that required

by the impost, which springs directly from the outside edge.

[Illustration: FIG. 56.--Rudimentary Form of Capital. Type III.]

The great capitals of S. Sophia are remarkable examples of the

evolution of beautiful forms on the mason’s banker; the workman

_finding form_ in the stone block by the application of practical

methods. The lower half of the capital is circular like the shaft,

rising in a slightly swelling curve of a bowl; the upper part is square

like the impost. The basis of form is that of a bowl with a tile placed

above it, and is thus that of the Greek Doric. This type III. in which

the circle does not pass by transition into the square impost, but

changes abruptly, we may call the bowl and tile capital.

At S. Sophia the surface of the form obtained as shown in the figure is

wrought into crisp acanthus and palm foliage; and is in many places,

especially at the tips of the leafage and behind the monograms,

entirely undercut. The cutting being so sharp, and the shadows so deep,

while at the same time the general form with its broad gradation of

light and shade is so little modified by surface modelling, the effect

is almost that of inlaying black on white. The capitals of the columns

standing in the aisles, and those of the first floor ranged against

the central area, are similar to the great order, but simplified and

reduced.

The columns of the aisles on the first floor have block capitals, with

small volutes below; Fig. 57 will make the elementary form clear. This

type IV. is really a Byzantine Ionic. The dual columns of west gallery

have a capital in common, which is a variation of these, and the

capitals of atrium were also similar. One capital of the north gallery

is entirely different from all the rest, the block, not being carved

all over continuously, is broken up into several horizontal lines of

ornament.

For the capitals of the square pillars of ground floor, and others to

the windows, we must refer to Salzenberg; they are all of the simple

block form delicately sculptured.

Salzenberg also figures two capitals, now on the porphyry columns

at the east porch. These are comparatively small, and may possibly

have belonged to some position in the interior of the church, such

as Justinian’s first ambo. The form is that of a basket with four

doves perched on the rim, and crosses between. Doves associated with

crosses symbolized the Church. Now in St. Clemente at Rome there are

two capitals of this kind which belonged to the ciborium, set up as

the inscription shows while Hormisdas was pope (514-523), they are

figured by Cattaneo, Fig. 7, who says they obviously were sculptured by

Greek chisels. It is thus extremely possible that ours may have been

late additions to the pre-Justinian church, where they also may have

belonged to the ciborium. Rohault de Fleury believed that this form of

capital was intended to represent an offerings basket.

[Illustration: FIG. 57.--Rudimentary Form of Capital in Gynaeceum. Type

IV.]

To these Bird and Basket capitals, type V., may be added varieties

of the great class of derivatives from the Corinthian of which this

is in fact one. These were in general use before the block type of

capital was developed. We will here only mention two of these acanthus

capitals. Those in which the leaves are set upright on the stem of the

shaft we will call Byzantine Corinthian and type VI. Those in which the

leaves turn over and bend round the capital we will, with Mr. Ruskin,

call “Wind-blown acanthus,” and type VII.

_Distribution and Dates of Capitals._--We have referred before to our

belief that Constantinople was a marble working centre from which

sculptured marbles were dispersed to all parts of the Roman world.

Having the chief types of Byzantine capitals before us it will be

convenient to consider this more fully. We suppose that as white

marble had to be bought in any case, the custom grew up of obtaining

the capitals fully wrought. Importation was, of course, a general

antique practice in regard to figure sculpture, columns, and other

objects of marble. Proconnesian marble seems to have been the common

stone of Constantinople so that it is used for the columns and capitals

of the cisterns. We believe that careful examination of the capitals

at Ravenna, Parenzo, and other Byzantine centres will show that they

are in the main of this material. As to design the capitals lying

neglected about the city, together with those _in situ_ in the churches

and cisterns, furnish a perfect museum of the types with which others

dispersed through the whole area of the empire agree in the minutest

particulars of design and workmanship.

To take the types we have mentioned:

_Impost Capital, I._--This capital is found with the surface richly

sculptured at S. Sergius. Capitals identical in form and decoration

with the isolated capital of S. Sophia (Salz. Pl. xx., fig. 8) are

found at Parenzo and in Jerusalem. The splendid examples of this type

at S. Vitale, Ravenna, are well known; here the fretwork of sculpture

is almost entirely relieved from the ground. We found an example

absolutely similar at Constantinople. Mr. Ruskin’s “Lily Capital” which

belongs to this group is found at S. Mark’s, at S. Vitale, at Parenzo,

and at Alexandria. Another variety is covered all over with horizontal

bands of zigzag fillets; an example rests in the Tchenli-Kiosk Museum,

others are found at Athens, at Mistra, and a third now at S. Mark’s is

figured in the _Stones of Venice_. The capitals at S. Sophia, Salonica,

figured by Texier are probably the earliest of type I. to which an

approximate date can be given; it was certainly in general use at the

end of the fifth century.

_Melon Form, II._--These magnificent eight-lobed capitals form the

great order at S. Sergius, and are found at the church usually called

Agia Theotokos. Similar capitals belong to the upper order at S.

Vitale, and others are found at S. Mark’s. Some of the nave columns

of S. Demetrius at Salonica have fine capitals of this type which

although evidently derived from the last probably also originated in

the fifth century.

_Bowl Type, III._--These, the great capitals of S. Sophia, seem to have

been especially designed for the metropolitan church: the beautiful

palm foliage, however, with which they are sculptured is found again

at Parenzo and on a capital in the Ravenna museum said to have been

brought from Pomposa. The church at Parenzo was begun in 535.

_Byzantine Ionic, IV._--These occur in their perfected form of block

capital fully sculptured in S. Sergius and at the palace of Hormisdas

in Constantinople, also in the upper order at S. Sophia, Salonica.

Examples are also found at Venice.

In their earlier form of transition from the “Ionic with a plain

dosseret” an immense number are found in the subterranean structures of

Constantinople. An example has been found in Chalcis.[359]

_Bird and Basket, V._--S. Sophia furnishes two examples, but there is

no proof that they originally belonged to the building. Another example

is in Cairo. That at S. Clemente, Rome, is signed with the name of John

Mercurius; Piranesi figures a capital of this kind from the Palazzo

Mattei, bearing a monogram which is indecipherable in his plate.

Period, end of fifth century and beginning of sixth.

_Byzantine Corinthian Type, VI._--These are of great variety; we will

only mention one. In the portico of John Studius the acanthus leaves

are doubled, one leaf lying over and within another, so that a double

row of serrations is shown around the margins (see figure in Salz.).

Similar capitals are found in S. Demetrius, Salonica, and at S. Mark’s,

Venice. This particular form is probably nearly concurrent with the

last, possibly a little earlier.

_Wind-blown Acanthus, VII._, is represented at Constantinople by two

examples forming bases for the posts of a wooden porch to a house near

Gûl Jami, and another is found in the cistern usually called after

Arcadius or Pulcheria. Absolutely similar capitals are found in S.

Sophia, Salonica (circa 490) and one occurs at S. Demetrius. At Ravenna

fine examples are dated by bearing the monogram of Theodoric. Others

at S. Apollinare in Classe resemble the last so closely that we doubt

their having been made specially for the church built in 534-549. An

example was found in Chalcis with the Ionic capital just referred to

and De Vogüé figures one from Syria. Period, say 425 to 525.

The seven most typical Byzantine orders were thus being wrought

concurrently at the end of the fifth century, and it seems that the

three last did not long outlast this century. The others in their

central types probably did not continue in use much beyond the sixth

century. After this time somewhat coarse varieties of Byzantine

Corinthian, or Type I., were mostly used.

[Illustration: FIG. 58.--Bronze Annulets of Columns.]

The evidence of the original block in the fully sculptured finished

work which we find in the most characteristic examples of the Byzantine

capitals is of primary importance in all marble sculpture, and

differentiates the work of the chisel from being a mere stone model

of a clay model which is practically what most modern sculpture has

become. In many of these capitals the vertical strip shown in Fig. 55

left in the finished work furnishes a further suggestion of the block

from whence they were hewn.

_Shafts and Bases._--The usual theory that the Byzantines wrought but

few new marble shafts does not bear scrutiny. Byzantine shafts have

neckings of very slight projection, thus obviating the waste of labour

and material of Roman work.[360] The shafts of the baptistery loggia at

S. Sophia, figured by Salzenberg, furnish good examples; sometimes the

necking, as to the square marble pillars, is a simple broad fillet of

about a quarter of an inch projection. The hundred round shafts of S.

Sophia exhibit a remarkable and beautiful structural expedient by which

the necking is entirely suppressed, and bronze annulets surround the

shaft under the capital and above the base; which prevent the shafts

from sliding or splitting, and retain the lead beds from being forced

out by the weight (see Choisy, p. 15). Large monolithic shafts were the

more apt to split, as they had to be set up contrary to the direction

of the quarry strata.

[Illustration: FIG. 59.--Marble Pedestals and Skirting Slabs.]

Fig. 58 represents these bronze zones in association with the great

capitals and bases. The pedestals of the exedra columns A _a_, next

figure, are worked together with the bases in one stone. In these

profiles we again see how little the mouldings disturb the original

form.

[Illustration: FIG. 60.--Cornice Profiles.]

_Responds._--A very remarkable feature in the interior, is the way in

which the colour of the marble columns of the arcade is reflected as

it were on the responds, where the arches fall on the great square

piers. A strip of porphyry or verde antique, the width and height

of the free shafts, is inlaid into the marble casing of the piers

absolutely flush, the edge being only defined by a line of the notched

fillet. A flat sculptured slab at the top echoes the capital, and a

base slab of mouldings worked in a vertical plane ranges with the

bases of the columns. Salzenberg’s plate does not render this feature

properly, the “capital” is flat and has straight sides and instead of

the “base” he shows a portion of the wall skirting. Fig. 59 shows this

base in elevation (B), and section (C), ranging with the pedestals of

the exedra, Columns (A). The way in which the sculptured and inlaid

spandrils of the arcades stop against the plain veneering of the great

piers is also most noteworthy.

_Cornices and Skirtings._--We give here (Fig. 59, D and E) two

profiles of the skirtings where the principle of working out of thin

veneering-slabs is applied to moulded work. The parapet slabs of first

floor are worked in a very similar way; Salzenberg shows design of

front, and they bear flat lozenges between two crosses at the back. See

Fig. 61.

The cornices of the interior, which really formed walks for the

lamplighters, are made up of no regular combination of curves; they

project steeply forward, the general slanting plane being little

disturbed (A, Fig. 60); they are decorated with rows of acanthus, the

curved tips of which catch the light in bright points. The cornice of

aisle is given at B. We also give a profile of the door-head, which

shows how the mouldings conform to a plane of least labour (C). By the

jambs and heads being mitred together, the difficulty of working stop

ends was also obviated. The mouldings are not sharp and accurate, as is

suggested by Salzenberg’s engravings.

[Illustration: FIG. 61.--Closures between Pillars, Front of Gynaeceum.]

We may mention here that all the doors entering the church from the

narthex have raised marble thresholds, that of the Royal Door being a

magnificent piece of verde antique which rises some seven inches above

the level of the floor; the others are of white marble.

_Windows, &c._--The pierced lattices of the windows also furnish

examples of another beautiful method of marble slab construction. The

large windows are subdivided by marble posts, between which the pierced

lattices make a mere screen. Salzenberg, who found a store-room full of

broken fragments, gives a section of a bar. Windows over the western

entrances, and another at the foot of the south-west stair, which are

similarly pierced out of sheet marble, have a simple meander carved

on the bars (Fig. 62); this we suppose to be of the ninth or tenth

century. The lower part of the window openings going down to the floors

are filled with marble closures, some of which bear flat sculptured

devices, such as a fish in a lozenge, and on the outside a cross; above

this came a second tier of slabs pierced with square openings, which

were possibly covered by marble slabs as opening casements.

[Illustration: FIG. 62.--Marble Window Lattice.]

Some of these closures are translucent; one in the West Gallery

over narthex is the well-known “Shining Window” which is mentioned

by Grelot. These transparent slabs of “Phengites” were much used

in Byzantine architecture. The transparent marble slab windows of

S. Miniato are well known. At Ravenna there is a sculptured slab

altarfront, through which shone the light of candles placed behind.

[Illustration: FIG. 63.--Cipollino Slabs with Cross.]

Placed against the east side of the marble screen now in south

gynaeceum are slabs of cipollino, which bear large crosses standing

on circles; the relief being very slight and the edges softened these

show in the faintest way; each cross extends over two slabs, the joint

being down the middle. A similar slab with a cross is now placed in the

opening on south side of bema. These cross slabs some seven feet high

are beautiful examples of the proper use of marble. (Fig. 63.)

[Illustration: FIG. 64.--Forms on Carved Impost Moulding.]

_Carving._--Of the carved ornament we can only stay to remark on the

large use made of the drill in obtaining points and chains of sharp

shadow: and that in the design new motives and old--the acanthus and

the vine are found side by side, both equally alive. The acanthus

has been redrawn from the leaves which tracery the stones along the

shore; and even the archaic lotus, for centuries degraded into “egg and

tongue,” buds once again into leaf.

CHAPTER XII

BRONZE, MOSAICS, INSCRIPTIONS

§ 1. BRONZE WORK.

One of the most interesting facts in connection with the building is

the lavish use of bronze in construction and decoration. There is

every reason to suppose that the bronze casing of the Royal Doorway

entering the church from the narthex, was applied long subsequent to

the building of the church. We give in Fig. 65 a sketch of the bronze

cornice of this door, with its hooks for the door hangings; the left

hand shows the form towards the narthex, the right hand the interior.

The deep-splayed casing of the cornice resembling a sarcophagus may

have suggested the story quoted by Buzantios,[361] that the body of S.

Irene reposed above this doorway. By comparing it with the adjoining

marble doorways, it is apparent that the bronze must be laid over

similar marble forms, and that this deep-splayed casing simply covers

a marble cornice hacked back to one slanting face. Salzenberg gives

a detail of the panel at the centre, and the inscription has already

been quoted. Such inscriptions were general at the entering in of

ancient churches. For instance, a small church[362] in Palestine has

the legend, “This is the gate of the Lord, the righteous shall enter

in thereat,” and a similar inscription is on the lintel of the early

church at Corfu.[363] An isolated lintel at Constantinople has “Open

me the gates of righteousness, that I may enter and praise the Lord.”

Paulinus says that at the door of his church at Nola was written,

“Peace be to thee with peaceful heart and pure, who comest within the

secret place of Christ.”

[Illustration: FIG. 65.--Bronze Casing to Royal Doorway. Scale 1/60.]

In a paper on the inscriptions at S. Sophia, by C. G. Curtis and S.

Aristarchês in the _Transactions_ of the Philological Society[364] of

Constantinople the authors point out that S. Sophia was greatly injured

by earthquake on the 25th of October, 975, and restored six years

afterwards, and say that the form of the letters of the inscription

suggests that it was written at this time. Possibly an earthquake

gave a very sufficient reason for such a casing, by fracturing the

great marble lintel, but there appears to have been a whole series of

additions and alterations at this end of the church before this period,

and it might very well have been done at the same time as the mosaic

above it.

All the doors opening into or from the narthex, with one exception,

are cased in bronze on a wood foundation about five inches thick,

formed into panels. They are all hung in two leaves, and the back

edges against the frame are rounded continuing top and bottom as

pivots on which they revolve. The nine doors entering the church are

comparatively plain, each leaf being divided into three panels.

The central doors entering the narthex are two panels high, each of

which bore a large cross; these were applied separately, the upper one

under a round arch on pilasters, and the lower beneath a gable also

supported by pilasters. The lower cross is planted on a rock, from which

flow the four rivers, symbol of the Gospel preached to the ends of the

earth. Part of a verse in the mosaic of the apse at Nola as given by

Paulinus makes this symbolism clear.

“Christ the rock

Of all the church, the base of rock sustains

From which as living streams four fountains flow;

The four evangelists, whose words are gone

Through every land.”

The margins, framing the panel of this pair of doors, are decorated

with elliptical hollows and pairs of small rosettes alternately (see

Fig. 66).

[Illustration: FIG. 66.--Central Bronze Door entering Narthex. Scale

about three feet to an inch.]

The two doors right and left of this central door are less in size;

here each leaf is again divided into two panels. The top one has a

relief of a chalice from which rises the stem of a cross with crisp

acanthus foliage on either side. The lower panel has a large plain

cross. These reliefs are all applied to the panels, the crosses being

made up of four arms, which are separately inserted into a central

boss. The horizontal arms, and in many instances the whole crosses,

have been removed by the Mahommedans. The styles and rails of these

doors are inlaid with strap-like forms and gammidae in silver, and

engraved with a representation of a setting of gems (see Fig. 67).

These inlaid straps, with seal-like ends, exactly repeat the forms

found on door-hangings. See Fig. 13. At S. Sophia the forms have

certainly been taken from similar veils. The large simplicity of the

design of these beautiful bronze doors suggests that they may be of

Justinian’s time.

The doors still further from the centre, right and left, that is to

say the two end doors of the five entering the narthex, have each leaf

divided into three panels. The top and bottom panels are charged with

crosses; and the centre one, which is smallest, bears an annular boss;

the styles are studded with discs. The south door of narthex, and also

the end doors in the west wall of the nave are similar to these; the

others in this wall, including the great central door from the narthex,

have the big panel in the centre and two smaller ones with circular

boss top and bottom (see Fig. 68).

[Illustration: FIG. 67.--Bronze Door of Narthex. Scale about four feet

to an inch.]

The outer doors of the porch at the south end of narthex are still more

remarkable. The panel margins are made up of cast bronze decorated

with meanders, frets, and leaf mouldings, very delicately modelled

in high relief. These are evidently of antique workmanship, possibly

they may be as late as the fourth century, but they can hardly have

been wrought later. The ancient doors have been enlarged by adding

outer margins, consisting of later relief work, and flat metal studded

with little leaf ornaments which form the heads of pins. The panels

have been filled with plates of bronze, which bear an inscription

ingeniously made up of monograms, arranged on crosses in circles; these

are deeply engraved into the metal plates and filled with silver.

It is interesting to find here an example of the damascened work of

which some of the doors in Italy brought from Constantinople are such

remarkable specimens.[365] The letters are beautifully designed, and in

all cases the horizontal arm of the cross is above the centre of the

circle in which it occurs.

Good engravings of these doors are given by Salzenberg, who however

incorrectly transcribes and arranges the inscription on the panels. Of

this we here give a corrected version, Fig. 69. (The top line in the

figure is actually above the right-hand monograms.)

The inscription has been deciphered in the previously mentioned

_Transactions_ of the Greek Syllogos at Constantinople.

[ΘΕΟΦΙΛΟΥ ΚΑΙ] ΜΙΧΑΗΛ ΝΙΚΗΤΩΝ

ΚΥΡΙΕ ΒΟΗΘΕΙ ΘΕΟΦΙΛΩ ΔΕϹΠΟΤΗ

ΘΕΟΤΟΚΕ ΒΟΗΘΕΙ ΘΕΟΔΩΡΑ ΑΥΓΟΥϹΤΗ

ΧΡΙϹΤΕ ΒΟΗΘΕΙ ΜΙΧΑΗΛ ΔΕϹΠΟΤΗ

ΕΤΟΥϹ ΑΠΟ-ΚΤΙϹΕΩϹ ΚΟϹΜΟΥ SΤΜΘ ΙΝΔ.Δ

(of Theophilus and) Michael Conquerors

(1) Lord, help (2) Theophilos Emperor

(3) Mother of God, help (4) Theodora Augusta

(5) Christ, help (6) Michael Emperor

(7) Year from the creation (8) of the world 6349. Ind. 4

The sixth and eighth monograms show evidence of having been altered.

The silver has been removed from the earlier form, and the grooves

having been filled up with bronze fresh letters were inlaid: the

lines stopped out however show a different colour from the original

ground, and so the palimpsest can be read. The revision was made

“after the birth of Michael the first son of Theophilus in 839 and

his coronation in the year 840.[366] Before this time the monogram of

John the patriarch, which may still be traced, occupied the position

of Michael’s monogram: and instead of 6349 Indiction 4, the date was

6347 Indiction 2, thus giving the year beginning September 838, when

John the Sixth was Patriarch of Constantinople.”[367] The inscription

“Michael Conquerors” (which is formed by piercing a bronze plate,

not by damascening, as shown by Salzenberg) occupies the top of the

right-hand leaf of the door: that on the left corresponding to it

is lost. MM. Curtis and Aristarches have restored this as above. The

existing words, it is evident, must have been added after Michael’s

birth and with the alteration of the monograms probably form a memorial

of his coronation. _Murray’s Handbook_ 1893 suggests that the word

Nikêtôn refers to the restoration of images; but the revision of the

inscription was made during the lifetime of Theophilus, who was the

last of the iconoclastic emperors. According to Muralt[368] Theophilus

died Jan. 20 A.M. 6350 (842). Just before, feeling himself to be dying,

he made the empress swear not to re-establish images, and not to depose

the patriarch John. Three weeks however after the emperor’s death,

Methodius was named patriarch. “The victory of the image-worshippers

was celebrated by the installation of the long-banished pictures in S.

Sophia on the 19th of February 842, just thirty days after the death of

Theophilus.”[369] It is almost certain that the conjectural restoration

is correct for Theophilus and Michael are thus associated in a

mural inscription[370] and Niketes was a common title from

Constantine downwards. On the panels are certain pin-holes[371] placed

symmetrically between the monograms; these must have been for the

attachment of reliefs.

[Illustration: FIG. 68.--Bronze Doors in Narthex. Scale about four feet

to an inch.]

[Illustration: FIG. 69.--Inscription Damascened in Silver on Bronze

Door.]

* * * * *

The Anonymous author speaks of doors of “elektron” and of silver dipped

in gold, but we cannot rely on this any more than on his 365 doors of

ivory.

Electrum is incorrectly translated as amber in the last edition of

_Murray’s Guide_ (1893). Labarte pointed out that enamel forms the

right equivalent, and for this interpretation he has ample authority.

Theophilus, the Byzantine writer on the arts, continually uses the

word for glass enamels, either set as separate jewels, or fused as

translucent enamels to a metal base. A note in the English edition of

this writer explains that this use of the word was probably extended

from amber to cover other transparent bodies of similar appearance.

From the lavish way in which enamel was used about the tenth century

it is possible that some of the doors such as those in the iconostasis

might have been enamelled.

As to the “dipping” of silver or bronze with gold the Silentiary tells

us that Justinian “overlaid with gold” the bronze zones of the columns;

and the annulets of the porphyry columns at the east entrance still

show gilding. Buzantios[372] quotes from a MS. chemical treatise in

the Paris library which mentions “dipping bronze like the doors of S.

Sophia,” and Fossati says the head of the Royal Door was gilt.

Theophilus explains in detail how bronze or silver might be gilt by

fire-gilding, the process here called dipping. The copper in the bronze

had to be pure and free from lead. The gold was ground very fine and

cooked with mercury. This amalgam was then applied to the surface with

a copper bit, like that plumbers use in soldering, and polished with a

wire brush.

We have given sketches of the bronze collars which surround the

columns, at the junction of capital and shaft, and just above the

bases. The porphyry columns in the two western exedras have many

intermediate annulets at unequal heights; these in some cases were

doubtless intended to bind up longitudinal fractures in the shafts,

which show in many places; but in other instances they appear to cover

the junction of separate drums of porphyry. These are all shown in

Grelot’s interior view. The principal collars are certainly of the time

of Justinian; those under the capitals have square metal bosses or

boxes covering the point where they meet and are pinned together. These

“seals” of the great order bear the monograms of Justinian and Theodora.

The annulets at the base are made continuous at the joint, and have

the appearance of being brazed: those of the main order are now kept

brightly polished. One of the base annulets in the north gallery is

signed by a monogram as the work “of Stephen.”[373]

Besides the hooks, in the form of upturned fingers, for the hangings at

the bronze door, similar hooks occur in the marble lintels of the doors

in the narthex and the exonarthex.

§ 2. MOSAIC.

The mosaics of figures exposed at the time of Fossati’s repairs are

many of them figured by Salzenberg, although his harshly coloured

diagrams can but very inadequately represent the beauty of the

originals. We give here his descriptive text in a slightly condensed

form as a basis for our own remarks. Dethier[374] asserts that only a

part of the mosaics discovered were published by Salzenberg, and that

Fossati preserved others inedited in his portfolios.[375]

The mosaics are formed of glass of various colours cut into small

pieces and applied to the vaults with a cement. The gold mosaic was

made by laying leaf gold on the glass, which was then covered by a

thin film of glass to protect the surface. Silver mosaic was made in

the same way. The gold was used, in spite of its apparent abundance,

with great economy. For instance, in vertical spaces high up and only

visible from almost immediately beneath, the tesserae are arranged

in horizontal rows at a distance of two or three tesserae from each

other with their upper edges projecting. The projecting edge of the

lower row hides the bare space between it and the row above. There

is thus a saving of more than half the material, and great play of

light is obtained. The tympana of the aisles are covered in this way.

The coloured tesserae are set in the usual way, as the difficulties

involved by the other method in the curves of the ornament would

outweigh the saving of material.

Besides gold and silver, red, blue, and green are the principal

colours; though others are used in the heads of the figures. The

vaulting throughout was covered with a background of gold, on which are

conventional patterns that follow the forms of the construction. Some

of the spaces have representations of figures.

In the bands of ornament are gamma-crosses [_swastikas_], hearts,

leaves, and crosses, placed in circles, squares, and other figures.

There are no sharp arrises to the vaults, but patterned bands are

placed on the rounded edges.

The vault of the narthex has its wide transverse bands adorned with

gamma-crosses. In the domed portions between the transverse arches are

diagonal bands which culminate in a circle inclosing a cross.[376]

The vaults of the gynaeceum, perhaps because they were visible from

the nave, are more elaborate than those of the aisles below.[377]

Salzenberg’s Plate xxv. shows the western dome on the south side, on

which is represented the descent of the Holy Spirit: the arches have

the same ornament as those below.[378]

Details of the dome are given in Salzenberg’s Plate xxvi. The edges of

the ribs and window openings are covered with bands of ornament. The

faces of the ribs have alternate squares and crosses, which decrease in

size as they get higher. The central space has lost its figure subject,

but it is surrounded by a wide border.[379] The sides of the window

openings are lined with silver mosaic. The lower part of the dome is

not decorated, as the projecting cornice hides it from below.[380]

The edges of the exedra-conchs have bands similar to those on the great

arches, and the same pattern occurs again on the edges of the eastern

barrel vault, and the bema apse.[381] The rest of the decoration of the

surface of the apses has disappeared.

Over the centre door from the narthex to the nave is represented Christ

on a throne, holding a Gospel open at the words, “I am the Light of

the world: Peace be with you.” A monarch is prostrate before him, and

in medallions on either side are Mary the Intercessor, and Michael the

Protector.[382]

The nimbus of Christ has three rays, and His hand blesses in the Greek

manner, by which the fingers represent the initial and final letters of

Jesus Christus. The undergarment has broad gold stripes worked on it,

and the lights are given in silver; it seems to be of silk, the upper

garment appears to be of a white woollen stuff.

The great western arch has a medallion of the Virgin at the crown,

and full lengths of Peter and Paul at the sides, Peter on the south;

however, only a few remnants of these figures are now left. The border

which surrounds the medallion of the Virgin has colours of the rainbow,

the circle of her halo is red; the flesh colour is fair, and the eyes

are blue. The veil is blue, with a gold cross, and the cloak is also

blue. Under the veil is a kind of band round the head, like that which

the Spanish Jews of Constantinople wear; it is of a blue green colour

with dark stripes; the hair is not visible. Her nimbus has three silver

rays on a gold ground; her hands rest on the shoulders of the Child,

whose right hand blesses, while the left holds the book of the Gospel.

Peter’s face is dark, the nimbus is blue, the garment is bluish green,

and the gold rod, surmounted by a cross, has red and blue bands. He

thus has the same insignia as the St. Peter on the Ciborium Curtain,

and it is this which, in the mosaic, identifies the figure as Peter,

for there is no inscription. Porphyrogenitus, in his life of Basil,

mentions that when the western arch was restored the pictures of the

Virgin, and the Apostles Peter and Paul were placed there by that

emperor. The figure of Paul has an upper garment of green with silver

lights, and the undergarment is a greenish yellow. The whole figure is

about seventeen feet high, but the head is wanting.[383]

On the large semicircular walls beneath the northern and southern

dome-arches are a number of figures in mosaic. The seven arched

recesses were filled with representations of martyrs and bishops;

above, between the windows, were six smaller figures of prophets, and

a larger figure at each end. At the height of the upper row of windows

were probably the archangels, but of these only the feet remain.

The figures that now exist are the following. In the recesses on the

south side, the second from the east is Anthimos, Bishop of Nicomedia,

martyred in 311: in the third is Basil, Bishop of Caesarea, martyred in

379.[384]

The fourth recess from the east has Gregory Theologos, Patriarch of

Constantinople from 378 to 383. The next figure is Dionysius the

Areopagite; who was converted by St. Paul, and became, tradition says,

Bishop of Athens. In the sixth recess is Nicholas, Bishop of Myra, who

died in 330. This figure is partly destroyed. The seventh, is Gregory,

Bishop of Armenia, who died in 325.[385]

The figure of Isaiah, which is to the east of the row of windows,

had been covered up (when Salzenberg made his drawings), but it was

described by Fossati as having an undergarment of green with silver

lights, and over it a cloak of a white woollen stuff. The right hand

pointed towards the bema, and in the left was an open scroll with the

inscription, “Behold, a Virgin shall conceive and bear a son.” Under

the figure was a monogram.[386] Higher up again on the same wall was

the inscription:--

ΑΙΓ....ΤΗϹΑΘΑΝΑΤΟΥ ϹΟΦΙΑϹ

ΗΡΑ....ΤΟΥΚΕΑΚΗΡΑΤΩΝ....

The recesses of the north wall have no mosaics [see below, p. 287.]

At the height of the windows, the first figure beginning from the east

is Jeremiah.[387] The undergarment has stripes of blue and red, and

the upper represents a russet-coloured woollen stuff. The right hand

blesses, the left has an open roll [with the inscription shown in the

plate, “This is our God; no other shall be compared to Him.”].[388]

The figure between the first and second window is probably Jonas, as ΑϹ

still remains on the right side of the head, and there is only room for

three letters on the other side. The undergarment is a greenish blue

with silver lights, and has broad red stripes. The nimbus is blue.

Over the head of this figure is found the remnant of an inscription

ΝΤΙΔΟϹ. This may have belonged to one of the figures above, of which

a sandaled foot and edge of a garment alone remain. The foot does not

stand upon green earth, like the prophets below, and therefore probably

belonged to an angel. Only a part remains of the third prophet from the

east, which was inscribed Habakkuk.[389]

The mosaics on the soffite of the eastern arch were covered before

drawings were made. At the crown is a medallion with a white ground.

In this is a low throne of gold, with two green cushions upon it; over

them is thrown a blue cloth with a white hem, and upon that is placed

a golden book. Above is also a gold cross with three arms; the middle

one is the longest, and at its intersection with the upright member

is a circle. On the south face of this eastern arch is the figure of

John the Baptist, with long hair, and a brown shaggy garment; his right

hand blesses, and his left holds a cross with three arms. Opposite, on

the north side is the Virgin, with uplifted hands in the attitude of

prayer. She has a white undergarment, bound with a golden girdle, a red

upper garment, and a veil of a green-blue, with a gold hem. Under her

is John Palaeologus, who restored this part, and to whose time these

figures and designs certainly belong. The emperor wears a crown, with

strings of pearls on either side. He has a closely fitting undergarment

of gold, decorated with pearls and embroidery. A magnificent cloak

hangs down from the left shoulder, and round the neck and breast is

a kind of broad gorget richly embroidered. In his right hand is a

sceptre, and in his left a roll.

The archangel on the south side of the bema vault[390] has a globe in

the left hand, and a staff in the right. He is clad in white, with

imperial red shoes. The arch of the apse bears an inscription, which

ends with the letters ϹΕΙΕ ΠΑΛΙΝ.

On the conch of the apse is the Mother of God upon a throne, holding

the Child between her knees; her upper garment, which is blue, conceals

the whole figure, except that at the breast, under the arm, and above

the feet, the white and gold garment beneath is visible. The Child

has his right hand uplifted and his left against his breast. He wears

a white garment, with a gold girdle. His hair falls down freely, and

the nimbus has three streams of light. The throne is gold with red

ornaments, but is without a back, and the footstool is of green silk.

In the dome pendentives are Cherubim with six wings. Each head is four

feet two inches high. The upper feathers of the wings are a light

green, and the under feathers brown.[391] The great centre-piece of the

dome, which, according to Du Cange, represented Christ as Judge of the

World seated upon a rainbow, no longer exists.

Only one of the domes of the gynaeceum preserves its mosaic ornament

of figures. This[392] represents the descent of the Holy Spirit. Only

a part remains of the throne in the centre; on it is a green cushion,

and a blue cloth with gold patterns. Groups of spectators fill the

pendentives of the vault.

Above the doorway which leads from the western gynaeceum to the

chambers over the south porch, are remains of figures, which can no

longer be identified.[393] In the ceiling of the chamber over the

stairway is a design of green tendrils on a gold ground.[394]

The small dome in the chamber which opens out of the western buttress

of the south side on the first-floor level has four angels with

uplifted hands, supporting a medallion in the centre. This design is

similar to that in the side chapel at S. Prassede at Rome.

“The figure representations belong to the time of Justinian, though the

Silentiary, otherwise so accurate, does not describe them.”

* * * * *

_First Scheme._--A reading of Salzenberg’s notes on the figure mosaics

will show how little ground there was for his impression that these

belonged to the time of Justinian, which the last sentence expresses.

Several of these mosaics are dated as being parts of restorations. Thus

he shows that Basil I. placed figures on the arch of the great western

hemicycle, and that those of the great eastern arch are the work of

Palaeologus.

The subject has been much obscured by insecure assumptions and inexact

assertions. Labarte, who was one of the first to doubt that Justinian

was intended by the figure of the kneeling emperor before Christ over

the Royal Door, thought that the Silentiary described figure-mosaics

as covering the interior.[395] Gerspach in _La Mosaïque_ calls the

emperor ‘Justinian’ and appears to mistake the Pentecost cupola for

the great dome. In regard to the date of the lunette containing the

emperor, Labarte suggested that it was a work of the seventh century,

and that the emperor was Heraclius.[396] Woltmann and Woermann placed

it still later and write, “There is no kind of resemblance between

the beardless portrait of Justinian at Ravenna and this bearded,

gray-headed man. It is more likely to be Basil I. the restorer of the

western apse, and this opinion is supported by the miniatures of his

time.” The pilgrim Anthony seems to refer to it as Leo the Wise, but

the Russians ascribe so many works to this emperor without reason that

this is inconclusive. The forms of the letters in the inscriptions,

however, show that the mosaic is late. Bayet,[397] who has considered

the mosaics afresh, and thinks the silence of Paulus is conclusive as

to the absence of figure-mosaics when the poem was written, about 562,

himself seems to misread some parts of the poet’s description; thus he

thinks patterns in mosaic are intended in lines 607-612. The animals of

the atrium may possibly have been of glass mosaic: but we think it more

likely that inlaid marble like the dolphins of the interior (Fig. 49)

is intended. The baskets of fruit, branches with birds, and the golden

vine in the church, spoken of in lines 668, &c. seem to refer to the

carved and gilt surfaces of the spandrils of the arcade, not to the

mosaic, as Bayet supposes.

The figure scheme, so far as it can be traced, closely agrees with the

Byzantine Manual of Painting: and the subjects and treatments can be

associated with work in other churches of the ninth and tenth centuries

which have in several cases almost identical designs. Altogether it

may be doubted if a single figure belongs to a time anterior to the

iconoclastic period of the eighth century.

We believe the original scheme of decoration is best accounted for

without figures, and even if this were not so, we can hardly believe

that in the Patriarchal Church at the door of the Palace figures

would have lasted through the reigns of the iconoclastic emperors and

patriarchs, as they may well have done in remoter churches where the

clergy were on the other side. Leo issued his first decree against

images in 726. Its purport was not, as is often stated, that pictures

should be hung higher in the churches in order that people should not

adore them by kissing: “it commanded that they should be totally

abolished.”[398]

[Illustration: FIG. 70.--Mosaic of small Vault Compartment next the

Bema.]

It is well known that a figure of Christ over the entrance to the

palace was destroyed by Leo the Isaurian. Dr. Walsh, who was chaplain

to our embassy at the Porte about 1820, writes, “There stood till very

lately in Constantinople an inscription over the gate of the palace

called Chalces. Under a large cross sculptured over the entrance to the

palace were the following words:--

“‘The emperor cannot endure that Christ should be represented

(_graphes_) a mute and lifeless image graven on earthly materials. But

Leo and his young son Constantine have at their gates engraved the

thrice-blessed representation of the cross, the glory of believing

monarchs.’”[399]

In 768 Nicetas, the patriarch under Constantine, Leo’s son, is said to

have destroyed “the images of gold mosaic and wax encaustic” in all the

churches of Constantinople.[400] And in the life of Theophilus we read,

“throughout every church the figures of the saints were destroyed, and

the forms of beasts and birds were painted in their places.”[401]

It is quite certain from Procopius and the poem of the Silentiary that

the vaults of Justinian’s church were covered with mosaic. They both

describe the brilliance of the gold glittering surface, but do not

mention any figures. In such detailed descriptions this silence goes

far to show that there was originally no storied scheme of imagery,

like that which the Poet so fully traced out on the curtains and

iconostasis. It seems equally certain that where, describing the dome

on the strong arches, overhanging the interior like the firmament which

rests on air, he says, “at the highest point was depicted (_epigraphe_)

the cross, Protector of the City,” we are to understand that a great

cross in mosaic expanded its arms on the zenith of the dome, and that

the background was strewn with stars. Now this is a well-known scheme,

and it is found at an earlier date in the chapel of Galla Placidia at

Ravenna, and later it is mentioned by Porphyrogenitus in a description

of a domed apartment in the palace. The stars on the dome are more

than once referred to in the poem (page 36), and it is probable that

the surfaces between the ribs as well as the central circle had gold

stars set in azure, the ribs being of gold; nothing less would seem to

justify “the firmament of the roof its rounded expanse sprinkled with

the stars of heaven.”

It is evident that, however easily figures and pictures might be added

here and there at various dates, the church, being once incrusted with

mosaic, would at no subsequent time have had the enormous areas of

tesserae removed to be again renewed.

It follows that the ground, and any patterns evenly distributed in

every part of the vaults, are assuredly of the first work. First among

such designs is a jewelled cross thirteen feet high, which is blazoned

on both ground floor and gallery vaults, and which must have been

repeated some twelve times twelve. We give an outline of one of the

smallest vault compartments in the church, the irregular space to the

east directly south of the bema: here three of the crosses can still

be seen through Fossati’s colouring, their interlocking arms spreading

over the whole field. This form of cross, with lobed ends, is found set

in a circle of stars, in the mosaic apsoid of S. Apollinaris in Classe.

(Fig. 70.)

A similar argument applies to other forms which occur with equal

frequency. A square panel of ornament which alternates with the

crosses, certain diapers, the bands up the edges of the aisle vaults,

and the small circles each containing the six-armed cross or monogram

at the centre of these compartments, would all seem to be parts of the

original work, and these simple elements we believe formed the first

scheme of decoration. Texier figures a mosaic from Salonica made up of

crosses. The splendid simplicity of such a scheme seems entirely in

harmony with S. Sophia, for even figures would disturb the beauty of

the expanse which at each movement glitters like a web of golden mail

swayed by a breeze.

_Later Mosaics._--For the mosaics displaying figures we refer back to

Salzenberg’s description. Much further information might have been

gathered if he had given copies of the inscriptions which exist, in

however incomplete a state. His section (Plate x.) shows that a long

inscription surrounded the arch of the apse, but in his text he only

gives the last few letters ϹΕΙΕ ΠΑΛΙΝ; this possibly belonged to

the words ἀνεστήσειε πάλιν, “Set up again,” and the whole may have

contained the name of the emperor under whom this restoration was

effected. (See below, p. 287.)

On the great lunette of the wall of the south side also, where the

tiers of saints and prophets seem a part of a scheme representing

the Church triumphant, or a _Benedicite_, two monograms occur (see

Salzenberg’s Plate ix.); only the first, which reads ΚΥΡΙΕ, is figured

in the text; it is evidently a part of the well-known invocation,

‘Lord, help,’ which requires the name of an emperor or artist to

complete it.

An inscription between these monograms is partly given in the text; and

supposing it to be correctly rendered the whole probably read “Lord,

help” (_name_ who painted this wall) “of the Immortal Wisdom” (with the

figures) “of the saints”.

The entire later scheme of the mosaics must have corresponded closely

to that in the New Church in the palace built by Basil, which is

described by Porphyrogenitus. Here, at the centre of the dome, was the

human form of Christ embracing the whole world in His regard; below

were ranges of angels. In the apse was the figure of the Virgin with

arms uplifted in prayer, “a choir of apostles, martyrs, prophets and

patriarchs filled the other spaces of the whole church.” This in turn

resembles very closely the iconography at S. Luke’s.

[Illustration: FIG. 71.--Restoration of Throne at Crown of Pentecost

Dome.]

The following instances may be given of the agreement of the mosaics at

S. Sophia with the instructions of the Painter’s Manual. For example,

it directs that over the door of entrance from the narthex Christ be

represented throned, holding the Gospel open at the words, “I am the

Door: by me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved.” At each side the

Virgin and the Prodromos are to be represented. The figure to Christ’s

left at S. Sophia, called Michael by Salzenberg, Grelot tells us was

the Prodromos and he probably followed the traditional ascription,

although the type seems to agree better with an archangel.

Again, “Inside the Sanctuary at the centre of the vaults draw the

Virgin seated on a throne holding Christ as a little child.”[402] This

exactly describes the apsoid mosaic at S. Sophia. The cupola of the

gynaeceum, representing the descent of the Holy Spirit, is also in

close agreement with the directions given in the Manual:--“The Holy

Spirit is seen in the form of a dove, twelve tongues of fire go out

from it and rest on the apostles.” This subject is treated at S. Luke’s

in a manner almost identical to that at S. Sophia, and it is also found

in a dome at S. Mark’s.

Diehl in his examination of the mosaics at S. Luke’s has pointed out

that the central circle of the Pentecost cupola at S. Sophia as shown

by Salzenberg in Plate xxxi. is quite insufficient to have contained

the figure of Christ as shown in the restoration given on Plate xxvi.,

and that consequently the Holy Spirit as a Dove really occupied this

position as at S. Luke’s. In Fig. 71 we give an amended restoration

of this centre; it will be seen from Salzenberg’s text that he had no

evidence for a figure. The two angels above the sanctuary are described

by Salzenberg as bearing lances or banner poles; these were doubtless

surmounted by Flabella bearing the words

ΑΓΙΟϹ

ΑΓΙΟϹ

ΑΓΙΟϹ

as at S. Luke’s and Nicaea.[403] There is a very similar angel holding

a flabellum of this kind in the tenth century Menologium; and the words

Holy, Holy, Holy, are directed to be put on flabella in the manual.

Again the Manual says, “At the summit of these vaults (opening from the

dome) draw the holy Veil to the east and opposite to it the holy Cup.”

Now in Grelot’s view of the interior, made when many of the mosaics

were still visible, he shows a large square mosaic at the crown of the

bema vault directly over the altar, which he says was “the picture of

Christ’s face upon a napkin called Veronica.”

The representation of the throne at the centre of the soffite of the

eastern arch (see p. 277) is one of the most beautiful symbolisms of

Byzantine art. At Nicaea the same design occurs in a similar position

on the triumphal arch, and it is inscribed ΕΤΟΙΜΑϹΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΘΡΟΝΟΥ. This

“Preparation of the throne” referred to the second coming of Christ.

Our figure represents a throne of this kind which we offer as an

illustration of that at S. Sophia; it is based on a throne inscribed Η

ΕΤΗΜΑϹΙΑ which appears on the cover of a Byzantine Gospel book at S.

Mark’s.[404] The small dome of the little chapel on the first floor,

Salzenberg says, resembles a dome at S. Prassede. The latter is a work

of the ninth century.[405]

[Illustration: FIG. 72.--Restoration Throne at Crown of Great E. Arch.]

Salzenberg’s description seems to account for all the figured mosaics

mentioned by Grelot (1680) except the “Veronica over the sanctuary.”

When Grelot made his drawing there was no figure at the crown of the

dome but only the bands rising to the central wreath. Clavijo however

writes, “The vault of the square is covered with very rich mosaic work,

and in the middle of the vault high over the great altar the image

of God the Father very large is wrought in mosaics of many colours;

but it is so high up that it only looks the size of a man or a little

larger though really it is so big that it measures three palmos between

the eyes.” This must be the Pantocrator of the Manual--“draw near the

summit of the cupola a circle of different colours like a rainbow seen

on clouds in rainy weather. In the centre represent Christ with the

Gospel and this inscription, Jesus Christ, the Almighty.”

Since the above has been in type we have found a pamphlet published

by the brothers Fossati in 1890,[406] describing a collection of

drawings of S. Sophia, shown by them at Milan. From this we gather the

following additional particulars of the mosaic subjects.--Over the door

of the south porch “was a remarkable mosaic representing the Virgin

and Child, to whom Justinian presents the Church and Constantine the

City.”--A representation of Christ, the Virgin, and S. John, forming

the Trimorphion (Pantocrator, Pantochrante, Pantepopte.)--Two groups

of the Fathers of the Church, thirteen altogether: Ignatius Oneos,

Methodius, Ignatius Theophorus, Gregory Thaumaturgus, John Chrysostom,

Cyril, and Athanasius. [These must occupy the seven recesses on

the north window-wall, as the six others agree with those given by

Salzenberg on the south side].--The Pantocrator on a throne [? supposed

centre of Pentecost dome].--John Palaeologus [? with the Virgin on

north side of great east arch, p. 278].--John Comnenus and Irene with

the Virgin between them.--Constantine XI. and Zoe with Christ between

them.--Alexius Comnenus X. or XI.--Alexander, the brother of Leo [some

of these also were doubtless on the great east and west arches].--Three

Virgins.--S. John with six apostles surrounded by cherubim [? in higher

part of one of the window-walls, p. 277].--Prophets [? of window-wall,

p. 276].--A circle with colossal Pantocrator [? the destroyed centre of

the great dome].--Different emblems with Greek and Latin descriptions.

Besides these, a drawing of Cherubim “saved from the Atrium Portico”

is mentioned; and the inscription on the arch in front of the apse is

given as follows, and may be compared with Salzenberg’s Plate x.:--

ΗΙΑΝΙΡϹΕΙΑΡ ΗΡΑΝΘΕΟΗΑΡΙΗΑΡ ΘΕϹΙϹΗΝΑΝΕΑΙϹΕΙΕ

ΠΑΡΙΝ.

The earliest description of the mosaics entering into any particulars

is that of Dr. Covel’s MS. 1670-7 in the British Museum. “In those

cupolas [of gynaeceum] are imagery of Saints and the story of the

Bible which the Turks have in many places quite defaced and plastered

them all over; in other places only scratched out or disfigured their

faces as the cherubims in the corners under the great dome.” He then

enters into details of the pentecost dome which was the only figured

vault entire; and then describes mosaics in the western gallery not

otherwise mentioned. “In the sides of the second window [from the

south], is Christ coming up from Jordan and the Descent of the Holy

Ghost with these words, Matt. iii., 17:--ΟΥΤΟϹΕϹΤΙΝ, &c., on one side

and over against it, Christ between Moses and Elias with these words,

Matt. xvii., 5:--ΟΥΤΟϹ, &c.” The window jambs of the western gallery

are now plastered, it is probable that a series of mosaics of the life

of Christ covered them. Up to 1840 every visitor seems to have been

offered tesserae, which for better assurance were broken out before

his eyes. The Italian MS. of 1611 also in the British Museum (Harl.

3408), after saying that the walls of the church were lined with marble

adds, “the porch as well, except that this is all worked in mosaic with

growing leaves of great beauty down to the pavement of the porch.”[407]

[Illustration: FIG. 73.--Mosaic Tesserae, actual size.]

Signor Boni has noticed that some of the gold tesserae at Parenzo

are inserted at an angle of 30° to the plane of the wall, so as to

be normal to the line of vision, just as Salzenberg describes at S.

Sophia; the same thing occurs at the Dome of the Rock. This, besides

saving the material, aided in flashing the light, a property of the

gold tesserae which was much valued, as several inscriptions from the

mosaics show.[408] In S. Maria in Domnica, the apse--“_Nunc rutilat

jugiter variis decorata metallis_,” again in S. Maria in Trastevere the

vault “_divini rutilat fulgore decoris_,” and at S. Paulo fuori le

Mura the mosaic--“_fulget fulgente decore_.”

We have examined a handful of gold tesserae from S. Sophia through

the kindness of Mr. James Powell. The cubes average a quarter of an

inch in size, the glass is yellowish, slightly amethyst or dark green.

The surface layer equals stout paper in thickness. At the back of the

tesserae a dusty red appears, which under a glass proves to be of

powdered tile. This roughens and adheres to the surface of the glass,

which was evidently sanded with the powder while in a molten state, and

of course before it was broken into morsels. The first purpose of this

without doubt was to increase the hold of the cubes to the cementing

material, but the reddening--almost like a coat of vermilion paint--may

probably have assisted the gold to show out better than if the tesserae

had been fixed without it into the perfectly white stucco which forms

the bed. The cementing material was an inch or more in thickness,

formed of lime with broken reed for binding, and a considerable amount

of crushed white marble, in the part next the mosaic at least.

§ 3. GLASS, PLASTER AND PAINTING.

The Romans probably largely used coloured glass for windows. The

lattices were sometimes bronze or thin slabs of marble pierced

into a pattern.[409] Sidonius († 484), describing the basilica of

Tours, clearly mentions the patterned windows of green and sapphire

glass.[410] It has been suggested that some of the windows at S.

Sophia were filled with glass of brilliant colour. Theophilus, in his

preface to the section of his work dealing with coloured glass, says,

“I have approached the atrium of Holy Sophia, and beheld the chancel

filled with every variety of divers colours.” He proceeds to describe

windows of painted glass in which the pieces are united by leads: but

assuredly, if coloured windows did exist in the apse of S. Sophia, the

glass was inserted in pierced marble, like the plaster lattices of

the Orientals. Beautiful windows of brilliant-hued glass exist in the

mosques and turbehs. The Arab lattices show us what beautiful mosaics

of jewels may be formed in this way; the singular charm of them is the

spreading and blending of the colours, by reflection from the sides

of the thick dividing bars; lumps of crystal seem to have been used

occasionally in place of glass. Most beautiful ‘braided’ Byzantine

lattices of marble are to be found at S. Mark’s which would be well

characterised as θύραι δεδικτυομέναι which according to Lenoir was the

name of these windows. If coloured glass was used in S. Sophia, we

think it can only have been in small windows of this kind in the apse

and conchs. Labarte thought, from the descriptions of Procopius and

Paulus, that the windows were of white glass which allowed the rays of

the sun to shine through unaltered. It is hardly possible to conceive

of the great windows being of anything else than white glass.

A fragment of “ancient crystalline” glass from S. Sophia was exhibited

at the Society of Antiquaries in 1876. It is described as only

“one sixteenth of an inch thick, and nearly colourless except for

iridescence.”

Grelot remarked that the plain glazing was “of round panes set

in plaster,” but this must refer to the gradual filling round of

the panes by repairs, as may at present be seen in the baptistery

windows; although circular panes in a plaster setting were much

used in Byzantine work, the glass being spun in separate discs of

slightly varying sizes was inserted in marble or plaster slabs in

different combinations. Windows of this kind remained in the apse of

the Theotokos church twenty years ago. Dr. Covel is precise as to S.

Sophia in 1676; he says the windows were “cut out of entire stone into

quarries exactly square,” 10 by 12 or 14 inches. “In the first window

of the west gallery (coming in on the south side), are several pieces

of white transparent stone which I take to be Indian alabaster.”

* * * * *

Modelled stucco work was much used by late Greek, Roman, and Byzantine

builders. Paulinus tells us that at Nola “a cornice of gypsum”

separated the mosaic and marble of the apse. A large number of

examples from the fourth to the sixth century are found in Rome,

Parenzo, and Ravenna. “About the middle of the fifth century Galla

Placidia built the church of S. Croce in Ravenna ‘of very precious

stones, and with stucco (gypsea) modelled with the tool’ (Agnellus.

_Lib. Pontif._ i. 283). Decorative stuccoes in the apse of S. Ambrose

at Milan were destroyed thirty years ago, as they were supposed to be

‘Baroque.’ Dartein analysed the material and found that it contained

85 per cent. of plaster (gesso), a little lime, sand and brick-dust or

pozzolana.” “The rich decoration of the Chapel of S. Maria at Cividale

(eighth to tenth century), and the Arab-Norman modelled stuccoes of

Sicily show that the traditions of this kind of ornament were not lost

at a later time.”[411] In the churches of Greece this material is

largely used, and its application in Arab work was due to Byzantine

example. At S. Sophia an ornamental plaster frieze runs along both

sides of the south porch: this is a scroll throwing out acanthus leaves

and fruits like poppy seed-vessels. The background is coloured blue.

[Illustration: FIG. 74.--Plaster Friezes of Gynaeceum.]

The flat frieze-like cornice of the first floor ornamented with two

patterns of leafage appears to us to be of stucco; we figure these

here, but we have not been able to verify the material. If of stucco,

as we suppose, it is cast or stamped in small square panels as shown:

certainly some of the Byzantine plaster-work, as for instance that

forming the cornice of the apse at S. Apollinare in Classe, was cast in

short sections and then applied.

The blue background of the plastered frieze just mentioned may remind

us of the decoration of the beam above the columns of the ambo with

gold ivy leaves on a background coloured ultramarine as described by

the poet. (The spade-like leaves which occur in several places in the

mosaic must be ivy.) This decoration of gold and “sapphire” seems

to have been general in Byzantine work. The sculptured beam of the

iconostasis at St. Luke’s has the blue background nearly intact, and

here and there the gold is visible (Diehl, p. 26).

Traces of the blue ground may also be noticed in the sculptures of Mone

tes Choras at Constantinople. The notched fillet, which separates the

marble panels in S. Sophia, is used so extensively at Venice that Mr.

Ruskin called it the Venetian dentil; the complete intention of this

fillet, he writes, is now only to be seen in pictures, “for like most

of the rest of the mouldings of Venetian buildings it was always either

gilded or painted--often both, gold being laid on the faces of the

dentils and the recesses coloured alternately red and blue.”[412] It is

clear from Paulus that at S. Sophia the sculptured capitals were all

gilt (Part II., lines 129 and 244), as apparently were also the carved

surfaces filling the spandrils of the lower arcade (line 236). The red

colouring which Salzenberg notices was probably the preparation for the

gold. It is thus almost certain that the notched fillets and carved

frames of white marble surrounding the marble wall panels were gilt, as

the Anonymous says, and coloured, thus reflecting as it were from the

wall surfaces the brighter hues of the mosaic vaults.

§ 4. MONOGRAMS AND INSCRIPTIONS.

The poet Paulus speaks of the iconostasis as bearing the names of the

emperor and empress, combined in a monogram--“one letter that means

many words.”

Such ciphers or monograms had been in use for some centuries, and at

the end of the fifth century they were used as signatures in discs left

in the capitals. They appear at Ravenna in the time of Theodoric; and,

in Constantinople, S. Sophia, S. Sergius, and S. Irene display similar

ciphers of Justinian. At S. Sophia almost every capital is charged with

two monograms which are carved on the bosses on opposite sides of the

capitals. The background is entirely hollowed away, and the monograms

show sharp and clear in the nest-like cup which is held by the serrated

edges of the acanthus leafage. There are four or five main varieties of

which Salzenberg somewhat inaccurately figures two without offering any

explanation. The first type appears on two or three of the coins of

Justinian, of which we have figured an example at large on the

title-page, and in these instances they have been deciphered by Sabatier

as the monogram of that emperor. A ceramic inscription given in the

_Revue Archéologique_ for 1876, repeats the same form. We had made out

that the second variety was probably the word _Basileos_, when, at

Constantinople, we were referred to the paper by Canon Curtis and M.

Aristarches.[413] In this article the monograms are classified according

to their main types and the whole series is figured. Although the

figures are small, this is a thoroughly good piece of work, in the

result obtaining many pairs reading Justinian, Basileos, other pairs

with Theodora Augusta, and one with a date.

[Illustration: FIG. 75.--Monograms on Capitals of Nave.]

The capitals of the sixteen great columns of the nave, the capitals of

the lower side aisles--with the exception of those on the eight square

columns,--and the thirty-six columns on the floor above, which screen

the side gynaecea from the nave, bear monograms. We were fortunately

able to examine and draw all of them, but give in Fig. 75 only those

on the back and front of the sixteen great columns of the nave. They

occur in the order in which they are placed on the illustration from

the first column on the left (north) side on entering at the west, to

the corresponding one on the south side.[414] Many of those monograms,

especially those of the galleries, bear evidence of having been

restored. We may recollect that the capitals were said to have been

restored by Romanus (p. 123). It is possible that Fossati tampered

with them; the Italian MS. of 1611 in the British Museum states that

“the Turks have destroyed some figures which were anciently carved

(_intagliarsi_) on the capitals.”

There are fifty-six examples on the capitals which Curtis and

Aristarches give as being monograms of Justinian; in all these the

letter Ν forms the main lines, to which additions are made, so that the

letters ΙΟΥϹΤΙΝΙΑΝΟΥ can be traced out. Some of these have crosses in

addition.

The next monogram is that read ΒΑϹΙΛΕΩϹ. It occurs in all on fifty-five

columns, the examples of it in our illustration are B.1, E.2, H.1, P.1,

C.2, P.1, G.2, J.2, L.2, N.2, Q.2, the remnant of K.1, shows that this

was similar. This monogram is found also on the capitals of S. Sergius

and Bacchus, and on three beautiful Basket Capitals at S. Mark’s.[415]

Several of the fifty-six, classed together as Justinian, furnish

varieties from the clearest typical form. In some a letter appears

which may be read either as Ε or Β, also an Ω and a sign of

contraction: see M.1 and O.1; possibly this is a combination of

Justinian and Basileos or only a variant spelling: this form occurs in

the church of S. Sergius as well as at S. Sophia.

On twelve capitals is carved the monogram ΘΕΟΔΩΡΑϹ. This is either

designed on the cross form as B.2 F.1, another in the side aisles, and

three in the gynaeceum above, or else as in E.2 it approximates to

Basileos. Two of this latter type also occur in S. Sergius, which shows

how early Justinian associated his wife with him in his architectural

labours.

Finally from S. Sophia, and from there only, we have twelve examples of

ΑΥΓΟΥϹΤΑϹ. Typical ones are shown in G.1, and A.1-A.2; possibly some of

these, as A.1, may have been read Augustus, if any care was taken in

their distribution. The letters on the last capital Q.1 have been read

by Curtis and Aristarches as ϜΜΒΒ. They take Ϝ to be a capital form of

the obsolete letter which is used for 6 or 6,000, Μ is as usual 40, and

Β is 2. Hence they get 6042 for the year of the world. The lower Β is

then explained as the year of an Indiction, reading it as ΙΒ, or 12.

One Indiction period of fifteen years would have ended in 522 A.D.,

and the twelfth year from that would be 534 A.D. equalling 6042 A.M.

Therefore this gives a date, two years after the church was begun, when

they suggest that this capital was put in its place. This ingenious

explanation requires too much adjustment for it to be conclusive, and

the Ϝ form is at least unusual. This monogram looks very white, as if

it had been made up in plaster; if we were assured as to how much is

ancient we might perhaps, if it proved different from the others, find

here the inserted monogram of a later emperor who made repairs.

Salzenberg gives some monogram signatures from the closures under the

great west window, which are carefully carved and entirely different

from rough masons’ marks, although some of the forms occur amongst

those. We were unable to examine them, and taking Salzenberg’s

representation, we can only suggest that they may be the signatures of

master-workers; one appears to be Phocas.

M. Choisy[416] has investigated the masons’ marks of S. Sophia; besides

the ordinary signs, he makes out a system of numbering in the pavement

slabs of the galleries.

Strzygowski[417] pursues the subject of Byzantine marks in general,

much further. He points out the same signs on the columns of S.

Vitale, of Pomposa, and of Parenzo, and in the cistern Bin-Bir-direk

at Constantinople. From this we gather that not only “the columns of

Ravenna, but also the similar architectural features of Constantinople,

Salonica, Parenzo, in fact along the whole coast of the Mediterranean”

were taken from the quarries of Proconnesus, and in the lettering

on the different members we can recognise the working signs of the

quarrymen or masons belonging to the guild, which sprang into existence

there at the founding of New Rome, and which even as early as the end

of the fourth century was exporting to the islands of the Ægean.

A few other inscriptions on the marble may be briefly noticed. On the

inner border of the marble parapet of the north gallery is scratched,

“Place of the most noble Patrician Lady Theodora,” ending with an

abbreviation that may mean S. Sophia,[418] and again on a panel of the

parapet of the north gallery at the west end is seen, “Timothy, keeper

of the vessels.” Coteler in his _Monumenta Ecclesiae Graecae_ finds

mention of one Timothy, who was skeuophylax of the Great Church at the

time of the Monothelite heresies about 622.[419]

On a column in the southern gynaeceum occurs the word Teodorus, but the

fact that it is spelt with the Latin T and D proves it to have been

written during the Western supremacy, 1204-1261.

In the south gallery is a slab forming a part of the paving; “marks in

the face of which seem to suggest that a railing inclosed the space

within which a sarcophagus used to stand, supported by pillars.” This

is inscribed with the name of the blind Doge who led the Venetians

against Constantinople in 1204, and died the following year, “HENRICUS

DANDOLO.”

NOTE

The following additional inscription from the mosaics is given in

Clarke’s _Travels_ (1812). It was taken, he says, in one place, “from

the ceiling of the dome,” but in another place he seems to associate it

with the eastward semidomes:--

ΟϹΚΑΙΧΡΥϹΟΥ

ΠΕΝΤΗΚΟΝΤΑ

ΤΑΛΑΝΤΑΘΕΟΚ

..Ν...ΟΙϹΝΕ

.ΕΚΕΙ.....

INDEX

A

Abdul Mesjid, restoration by, 148

Acacius, S., church of, 129

Acanthus, 46, 166, 167, 254, 257, 261, 263

Acropolis, 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, 12, 17

Additions to church, 154, 155

Adoration of Cross, 98

Agathias (6th c.), 30, 33, 159, 204, 212, 214

Agatho the Deacon, 182

Agora of Milion, 179, 181

Aisles, 27, 43, 44, 151;

lamps in, 51;

marble, 171, 243;

mosaics, 247;

vaulting, 160, 220, 221

Aix, 116, 192

Akoimetoi lamps, 118

Alexandria, 6, 249;

capital of S. Mark’s at, 255

Alexius, S., 181

„ Comnenus (1081), 100, 105, 181

Altar, 16, 29, 48, 68, 69, 100;

cross placed on, 92;

cloth, 71.

See also Holy Table

Ambo, 18, 29, 53, 57, 94, 98, 124, 130, 139, 140;

candelabra round, 111, 118;

singers in, 79, 104;

coronations in, 61, 63

Amiens, Knight of;

see Robert de Clari

Amurath III., 127

Anastasia, S., church of, 21

Anastasius, 116, 117, 119

Ancyra, church at, 203

Andreossy, 232

Andronicus, S., 129

„ Palaeologus, 124, 152

Anemodulion, 178

Anna Comnena (12th c.), 183, 186

Anna, Empress, 124

Annulets round shafts, 259, 273

Anonymous Author (12th c. ?), 24, 26, 28, 30, 36, 43, 204, 248, 270

Anthemius, 24, 26, 28, 30, 36, 43, 204, 248, 270

Anthony of Novgorod;

see Novgorod

Antioch, 6, 17, 44, 181, 203

_Antux_, 37, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 57

Apollinaris, S., 258, 283

Apostles, church of, 14, 15, 18, 74, 85, 205

Apse, 19, 22, 24, 29, 32, 37, 67, 69, 132, 150, 216

_Apsides_, 25, 28, 30, 41, 43, 133, 180, 182

Apsoid, 22, 25, 209, 210

Arcadius (395), 16, 180;

baths of, 11;

cistern, 257

Arch, 210, 213;

western restored, 123;

forms, 220

Architraves, marble, 138;

bronze, 264

Arculf (7th c.), 92, 95, 98

Ark of Noah, 109, 138, 147

Arrises of vaults, 244

Arsenius, 86, 109, 124

Asbestos, 27, 132, 136, 231

Athos, Mt., 98, 115, 118, 119, 189, 227

Atrax, marble, 45, 236

Atrium, 18, 44, 122, 148, 152, 182, 185, 191, 215;

capitals of, 166

Attaliotas (11th c.), 67

Augusteum, 4, 9, 10, 12, 20, 141, 146, 173, 178, 180, 184, 186;

steps of, 65, 95

_Aule_, 44, 45, 188

B

Baalbec, 201

Baldwin, I., 124;

II., 100

Banduri, 7, 10, 175, 190

Baptism of Christ, 44, 106, 183;

of Emperors, 110, 183

Baptistery, 18, 19, 20, 81, 106, 132, 152, 155, 183, 209, 217

Barley in concrete, 132

Base of dome, 210, 214

Bases, 165, 258, 260

Basil, S., 131, 143, 276;

I. Emperor (867), 111, 123, 175, 182, 279;

church built by, 68, 70, 90, 143, 189

Basil II. (976), 89;

see under Menologium

Beams with lamps, 50, 111

Beautiful Gate, 67, 95, 182

Belfry, 122, 194, 215

Bells, 106, 150, 194

Bema, 18, 37, 62, 63, 65, 67, 78, 94;

view of, 69;

restored, 124;

walls of, 171, 242;

see also Thusiasterion

Benjamin of Tudela, 83, 113, 178

Bertrandon de la Brocquière, 92, 110, 125, 193

Bethlehem, church of, 83, 182, 240;

built by Justinian, 17

Bin Bir Direk, cistern, 248

Bishop’s throne, 68, 79

Blachernae palace, 11, 123

Blessing the water, 110, 192

Bondelmontius, 125, 175, 177, 179, 186, 193

Bosporus, stone of, 46, 56, 79, 237

Bosra, 90, 204

Boucoleon palace, 99

Bricks, 155, 161, 199, 224, 226, 234;

size of, 155;

inscriptions on, 136, 156, 207

Bronze, 172, 180, 189, 264, 272;

hooks, 86, 109, 264, 273;

panels, 168, 170, 265;

rings, 56, 60, 164, 259;

horses at Venice, 193

Bruin Code (1700), 196

Bury, 7, 12, 200

Buttress, 150, 157, 210, 216, 219, 226

Buzantios, 7, 183, 264

Byeljayev, 8, 177

C

Camerarum rotator, 206, 207

Candelabra, 60, 74, 80, 103, 119

Candles on ciborium, 48, 72

Cantacuzenus (1341), 62, 65, 124

Canterbury, 19

Cantharus, 84, 189

Capitals, 37, 43, 46, 55, 137, 164, 188, 218;

distribution of, 255;

types, 250, 254

Carpets, 81, 90, 102, 183

Carystus, marble of, 45, 237

Cassiodorus, 206

Catechumena, 65, 90, 94, 135

Cedrenus (11th c.), 13, 14, 16, 99, 157, 180, 210