INTRODUCTORY.
If a line were drawn north and south from Memel on the shores of the Baltic to Spalato on the Adriatic, it would divide Europe into nearly equal halves. All that part lying to the west of the line would be found to be inhabited by nations of Celtic or Teutonic races, and all those to the eastward of it by nations of Sclavonic origin, if—as we must do—we exclude from present consideration those fragments of the effete Turanian races which still linger to the westward, as well as the intrusive hordes of the same family which temporarily occupy some fair portions to the eastward of the line so drawn.
This line is not of course quite straight, for it follows the boundary between Germany on the one hand, and Russia and Poland on the other as far as Cracow, while it crosses Hungary by the line of the Raab and separates Dalmatia from Turkey. Though Sclavonic influences may be detected to the westward of the boundary, they are faint and underlie the Teutonic element; but to the eastward, the little province of Siebenburgen, in the north-east corner of Hungary, forms the only little oasis of Gothic art in the desert of Panslavic indifference to architectural expression. Originally it was a Roman, afterwards a German, colony, and maintained its Gothic style throughout the Middle Ages.[[213]]
From Spalato the line crosses the Adriatic to Fermo, and then following very closely the 43rd parallel of latitude, divides Italy into two nearly equal halves. Barbarian tribes settled to a certain extent to the northward of this boundary and influenced the style of architecture in some degree; while to the southward of it, their presence can with difficulty be detected, except in a few exceptional cases, and for a very limited time.
Architecturally all the styles of art practised during the Middle Ages to the westward and northward of this boundary may be correctly and graphically described as the Gothic style, using this term in a broad sense. All those to the eastward may with equal propriety be designated as the Byzantine style of art.
Anterior, however, to the former there existed a transitional style known as Romanesque, but which was virtually at first nothing more than debased Roman. It was, in fact, a modification of the classical Roman form which was introduced between the reigns of Constantine and Justinian, and was avowedly an attempt to adapt classical forms to Christian purposes. At first the materials of ancient buildings sufficed for its wants, and if after the 4th century the style did not lapse into absolute barbarism it was due to the influence which the Proto-Byzantine style began to exert and to the magnificent works erected by Greek artists at Parenzo and Grado in Dalmatia, at Ravenna, Milan, and even in Rome herself. To the eastward of the line of demarcation the transition was perfected under the reign of Justinian (A.D. 527 to 564), when it became properly entitled to the name of Byzantine. To the westward, in Italy and the south of France, this first phase of the Romanesque continued to be practised till the 6th or 7th centuries; but about that time occurs an hiatus in the architectural history of Western Europe, owing to the troubles which arose on the dissolution of the Roman Empire and the irruption of the Barbarian hordes. When the art again reappeared, it was strongly tinctured by Barbarian influences, and might with propriety be designated the Gothic style, the essential characteristic being that it is the architecture of a people differing from the Romans or Italians in blood, and, it need hardly be added, differing from them in a like ratio in their architectural conceptions.
The term “Gothic,” however, is so generally adopted throughout Europe to designate the style in which the intersecting vault with pointed arches is the main characteristic, that to depart from it, even when subdivided into round arched and pointed arched Gothic, would only lead to confusion. It would therefore seem better to retain the nomenclature usually employed in modern architectural works, and to class all the phases of the transitional style between the Roman and the Gothic periods under the broad title of Romanesque. This would include what we have termed Early Christian——Lombardi——Rhenish——those phases of the style which in Italy and France are influenced by Byzantine detail——the pure Romanesque or Romance of the south of France——the Norman style in Italy, Sicily, and the North of France, and——Saxon and Norman in our own country. The attempt to restrict the term Romanesque within the confines of the 6th and 7th centuries, which was formerly attempted, has proved to be illusory, as it has never been recognised by any student of architecture. At the same time it is not necessary to insist on the term when describing its various phases, and when they are better known under other terms. It is, however, of importance, when writing a general history of all styles, to keep strictly to some definite system, and not to adopt the nomenclature which has in some cases been given by persons writing monographs of the style of their own particular country. The Germans, for instance, are inclined to call the architecture of such cathedrals as Spires, Worms, etc., by the absurd name of Byzantine, though no features in them have ever been borrowed from the Eastern capital, nor do they resemble the buildings of that part of Europe.
The title Gothic, which was originally invented as a term of reproach, and which was applied to the imaginary work of the western Barbarians who at one time overthrew the western Empire and settled within its limits, has no architectural or ethnological value, it being impossible to point out any features, much less buildings, which the Goths introduced, and which are not to be more correctly attributed to Roman or Byzantine artists. If we except the tomb of Theodoric, all the works in Ravenna are scarcely to be distinguished from the basilicas of the Eastern Empire, and only embody such modifications as the material of the country and a certain influence of debased Roman architecture in Italy would naturally exert. The churches and thermæ which Theodoric is said to have restored in Rome have no characteristics which are not found in other buildings of the same class before his reign, and even in Spain and the south of France, which was occupied more or less continuously by the Visigoths for more than two centuries, there are no features which they could claim to have invented.
The term Gothic, therefore, is misplaced, but inasmuch as the Goths never invented any style, there is not likely, if this fact is recognised, to be any confusion in its adoption.
The chief difficulty which presents itself in any attempt to classify the work of the Romanesque and the Gothic styles is that of drawing a line of demarcation between the two. It is not sufficient to take the pointed arch, for in France a pointed arched barrel vault preceded the round arched vault; and in the East, as we know, the pointed arch made its appearance at a much earlier period: that characteristic, therefore, must not be too rigidly insisted upon.
Beyond this general classification, the use of local names, when available, will always be found most convenient. First, the country, or architectural province, in which an example is found should be ascertained, so that its locality may be marked, and if possible with the addition of a dynastic or regal name to point out its epoch. When the outline is sufficiently marked, it may be convenient, as the French do, to speak of the style of the 13th century[[214]] as applied to their own country. The terms they use always seem to be better than 1st, or 2nd, Middle Pointed, or even “Geometric,” “Decorated,” or “Perpendicular,” or such general names as neither tell the country nor the age, nor even accurately describe the style, though when they have become general it may seem pedantic to refuse to use them. The system of using local, combined, and dynastic names has been followed in describing all the styles hitherto enumerated in this volume, and will be followed in speaking of those which remain to be described; and as it is generally found to be so convenient, whenever it is possible it will be adhered to.
In order to carry out these principles, the division proposed for this part of the subject is—
1st. To begin the history of Christian Art by tracing up the successive developments of the earliest perfected style, the Byzantine, in the countries lying to the eastward of the boundary line already defined. Owing to the greater uniformity of race, the thread of the narrative is far more easily followed to the eastward than we shall find to the westward of the line. The Byzantine empire remained one and undivided during the Middle Ages; and from that we pass by an easy gradation to Russia, where the style continued to be practised till Peter the Great superseded it by introducing the styles of Western Europe.
2nd. To treat of the early Christian style as it prevailed in Italy, down to the age of Charlemagne, so long, in fact, as it remained a debased Roman style influenced only by its connection with the Eastern Empire. Continuing our description of the various phases of the style as practised in Italy and in Istria and Dalmatia (the two countries with which she was so intimately connected) down to the revival of classic architecture: subdividing it into those sections which are suggested by the predominant influence of Lombardic, Byzantine, or Gothic art, and keeping as far as possible to a chronological sequence.
3rd. To take up the Romanesque style in France, and to follow it through its various phases whilst it was being gradually absorbed in the predominant impetus given to its successor, the Gothic style, by the adoption of the pointed arch in intersecting vaulting during the 12th century, and then its subsequent development in succeeding centuries, till it perished under Francis I.
If this arrangement is not quite logical, it is certainly convenient, as it enables us to grasp the complete history of the style in the country where most of the more important features were invented and perfected. Having once mastered the history of Gothic art in the country of its birth, the sequence in which the other branches of the style are followed become comparatively unimportant. The difficulty of arranging them does not lie so much in the sequence as in the determination of what divisions shall be considered as separate architectural provinces. In a handbook, subdivision could hardly be carried too far; in a history, a wider view ought to be taken. On the whole, perhaps, the following will best meet the true exigencies of the case:—
4th. Belgium and Holland should be taken up after France as a separate province during the Middle Ages, while at the same time forming an intermediate link between that country and Germany.
5th. Though not without important ethnographical distinctions, it will be convenient to treat all the German-speaking countries from the Alps to the Baltic as one province. If Germany were taken up before France, such a mode of treatment would be inadmissible; but following the history of the art in that country, it may be done without either confusion or needless repetition.
6th. Scandinavia follows naturally as a subordinate, and, unfortunately, not very important, architectural subdivision.
7th. From this we pass by an easy gradation to the British Islands, which in themselves contain three tolerably well-defined varieties of style, popularly known as the Saxon, the Norman, or round-arched, and the Gothic, or pointed-arched style of Architecture.
8th. Spain might have been made to follow France, as most of its architectural peculiarities were borrowed from that country; but some too own a German origin, while on the whole the new lessons to be learned from a study of her art are so few, that it is comparatively unimportant in what sequence the country is taken, and therefore it has been found more convenient to place her last.
BOOK I.
BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
CHRONOLOGY.
| DATES. | |
| Constantine founds Constantinople | A.D. 324 |
| First Council of Nice | 325 |
| Julian the Apostate | 361 |
| Theodosius the Great | 379 |
| Theodosius II. | 408 |
| Marcian | 450 |
| Fall of Western Empire | 476 |
| Justinian I. | 527 |
| Justin II. | 565 |
| Heraclius | 610 |
| The Hejira | 622 |
The term Byzantine has of late years been so loosely and incorrectly used—especially by French writers on architecture—that it is now extremely difficult to restrict it to the only style to which it really belongs. Wherever a certain amount of coloured decoration is employed, or a peculiar form of carving found, the name Byzantine is applied to churches on the Rhine or in France; although no similar ornaments are found in the Eastern Empire, and though no connection can be traced between the builders of the Western churches and the architects of Byzantium, or the countries subject to her sway.
Strictly speaking, the term ought only to be applied to the style of architecture which arose in Byzantium and the East after Constantine transferred the government of the Roman Empire to that city. It is especially the style of the Greek Church as contradistinguished from that of the Roman Church, and ought never to be employed for anything beyond its limits. The only obstacle to confining it to this definition occurs between the ages of Constantine and Justinian. Up to the reign of the last-named monarch the separation between the two churches was not complete or clearly defined, and the architecture was of course likewise in a state of transition, sometimes inclining to one style, sometimes to the other. After Justinian’s time, the line may be clearly and sharply drawn, and it would therefore be extremely convenient if the term “Greek architecture” could be used for the style of the Greek Church from that time to the present day.
If that term be inadmissible, the term “Sclavonic” might be applied, though only in the sense in which the Gothic style could be designated as Teutonic. Both, however, imply ethnographic distinctions which it would not be easy to sustain. The term “Gothic” happily avoids these, and so would “Greek,” but for the danger of its being confounded with “Grecian,” which is the proper name for the classical style of the ancient Greeks. If the employment of either of these terms is deemed inadvisable, it will be necessary to divide the style into Old and New Byzantine—the first comprehending the three centuries of transition that elapsed from Constantine to the Persian war of Heraclius and the rise of the Mahomedan power, which entirely changed the face of the Eastern Empire,—the second, or Neo-Byzantine, including all those forms which were practised in the East from the reappearance of the style, in or after the 8th century, till it was superseded by the Renaissance.
Thus divided, the true or old Byzantine style might be regarded as the counterpart of the early Romanesque or debased Roman style, except that, owing to the rapid development in the East, the former culminated in the erection of Sta. Sophia (A.D. 532-558); the Eastern Empire thus forming a style of its own of singular beauty and perfection, which it left to its Sclavonic successors to use or abuse as their means or tastes dictated. The Western Empire, on the contrary, was in a state of decay ending in a débâcle, from which the Romanesque style only partially emerged during the reign of Charlemagne and his successors with a new revival in the 11th century.
Though the styles of the East and the West became afterwards so distinctly separate, we must not lose sight of the fact, that during the age of transition (324-622) no clear line of demarcation can be traced. Constantinople, Rome, and Ravenna were only principal cities of one empire, throughout the whole of which the people were striving simultaneously to convert a Pagan into a Christian style, and working from the same basis with the same materials.[[215]] Prior to the age of Constantine one style pervaded the whole empire. The buildings at Palmyra, Jerash, or Baalbec, are barely distinguishable from those of the capital, and the problem of how the Pagan style could be best converted to Christian uses was the same for all. The consequence is, that if we were at present writing a history which stopped with the beginning of the 7th century, the only philosophical mode of treating the question would be to consider the style as one and indivisible for that period; but as the separation was throughout steadily, though almost imperceptibly, making its way, and gradually became fixed and permanent, it will be found more convenient to assume the separation from the beginning. This method will no doubt lead to some repetition, but that is a small inconvenience compared with the amount of clearness obtained. At the same time, if any one were writing a history of Byzantine architecture only, it would be necessary to include Ravenna, and probably Venice and some other towns in Italy and Sicily, in the Eastern division. On the other hand, in a history devoted exclusively to the Romanesque styles, it would be impossible to omit the churches at Jerusalem, Bethlehem, or Thessalonica, and elsewhere in the East. Under these circumstances, it is necessary to draw an arbitrary line somewhere; and for this purpose the western limits of the Turkish Empire and of Russia will answer every practical purpose. Eastward of this line every country in which the Christian religion at any time prevailed may be considered as belonging to the Byzantine province.
During the first three centuries of the style (324-622) it will be convenient to consider the whole Christian East as one architectural province. When our knowledge is more complete, it may be possible to separate it into several, but at present we are only beginning to see the steps by which the style grew up, and are still very far from the knowledge requisite for such limitations, even if it should hereafter be discovered that a sufficient number exist. All the great churches with which Constantine and his immediate successors adorned their new capital have perished. Like the churches at Jerusalem and Bethlehem, they were probably constructed with wooden roofs and even wooden architraves, and thus soon became a prey to the flames in that most combustible of capitals. Christian architecture has been entirely swept off the face of the earth at Antioch, and very few and imperfect vestiges are found of the seven churches of Asia Minor. Still, the recent researches of De Vogüé in Northern Syria,[[216]] and of Texier in Thessalonica[[217]] show how much unexpected wealth still remains to be explored, and in a few years more this chapter of our history may assume a shape as much more complete than what is now written, as it excels what we were compelled to be content with when the Handbook was published, 1855.
Since therefore, under present circumstances, no ethnographic treatment of the subject seems feasible, the clearest mode of presenting it will probably be to adopt one purely technical.
For this purpose it will be found convenient, first, to separate the Neo-Byzantine style from the older division, which, in order not to multiply terms, may be styled the Byzantine par excellence; the first chapter extending from Constantine, 324, to the Hejira, 622; and the second from that time to the end of the Middle Ages.
In reference to the ecclesiastical architecture of the first division, it is proposed to treat—
First, of churches of the basilican or rectangular forms, subdividing them into those having wooden, and those having stone roofs.
Secondly, to describe circular churches in the same manner, subdividing them similarly into those with wooden roofs, and those with stone roofs or true domes.
This subdivision will not be necessary in speaking of the Neo-Byzantine churches, since they all have stone roofs and true domes.
With regard to civil or domestic architecture very little can at present be said, as so little is known regarding it, but we may hope that, a few years hence, materials will exist for an interesting chapter on even this branch of the subject.
CHAPTER II.
BASILICAS.
CONTENTS.
Churches at Bethlehem, Jerusalem, and Thessalonica—Rectangular Churches in Syria and Asia Minor, with wooden roofs and stone vaults.
Basilicas may be subdivided into two classes—that in which the nave is divided from the side-aisles by pillars, carrying either entablatures or arches, as the most purely Romanesque—and that which has piers supporting arches only, and is transitional between the first style and the more original forms which were elaborated out of it.
273. Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem. (From Bernardino Amico.) Scale 100 ft. to 1 inch.
Of the former class one of the most authentic and perfect is that erected at Bethlehem by Helena, the mother of Constantine, in front of the cave of the Nativity. The nave seems to be a nearly unaltered example of this age, with the advantage over the contemporary churches at Rome, that all its pillars and their capitals were made for the places they occupy, whereby the whole possesses a completeness and justness of proportion not found in the metropolis. Its dimensions, though sufficient for effect, are not large, being internally 103 ft. across, by 215 ft. east and west. The choir with its three apses does not seem to be part of the original arrangement, but to have been added by Justinian when he renovated—Eutychius says rebuilt—the church. My impression is that a detached circular building, external to the basilica, originally contained the entrance to the cave. The frescoes were added apparently in the 11th or 12th century.[[218]]
One of the principal points of interest connected with this church is, that it enables us to realise the description Eusebius gives us of the basilica which Constantine erected at Jerusalem in honour of the Resurrection. Like this church it was five-aisled, but had galleries; the apse also was on a larger scale than could well have been possible in the Bethlehem church, and adorned with twelve pillars, symbolical of the Apostles.
Of this building nothing now remains, and the only portion which could be claimed as part of Constantine’s work is the western wall of the Rotunda, which to a height of 15 to 20 ft. was cut out of the solid rock in order to isolate the Holy Sepulchre in the centre. The so-called tombs of Absalom and Zachariah in the valley of Jehoshaphat were detached in a similar way from the rock behind them.[[219]]